Shadow

Cybernetic polytheism is hard to do right, because you have to have a strong sense of cybernetics first. You need to understand and explore the center and the edges of a large scale optimization dynamic, explore the empirical details it entails, and generally get a scientific understanding of it... then, for lulz, you might name it and personify it.

"Evolution" is a good example. This process is instantiated in biology. It operates over heritable patterns of deoxyribonucleic acid whose transcription into protein by living cells constructs new cells and agglomerations of cells in the shape of bacteria and macroscale organisms... each with basically the same DNA as before, but with minor variations. There is math here: punnett squares, fixation, etc.

Now we could just leave it at that. The science is good enough.

But not everyone has time for the biology, or has the patience to learn the math. Also, the existence of biological structures has been attributed by non-biologists to gods with narrative character that doesn't really map that well to the biological principles.

Thus there is a strong temptation to perform a narrative correction and offer "better theology" to translate the science into something with more cogent emotional resonances.

Like... species were not created by a benevolent watch maker who loves us. That's crazy.

Actually, if biological nature (or biological nature's author) has any moral character, that character is at least half evil. This entity thinks nothing of parasitism or infanticide, except to promote them if these processes produce more copies of DNA and censor them of they produce fewer copies of DNA.

It tries countless redundant experiments (the same mutation over and over again) that leads to both misery and death, but even calling these experiments is generous... there is almost no intentional pursuit of knowledge (although HSP genes are pretty cool, and sort of related), no institutional review boards to ensure the experiments are ethical, no grant proposals arguing in favor of the experiments in terms of the value of the knowledge they might produce.

Evolution, construed as a god, is a god we should fear and probably a god we should fight.

We can probably do better than it does, and if we don't do better it will have its terrible way with us. Those who worship this god without major elements of caution and hostility are scary cultists... they are sort selling their great great grand children into slavery to something that won't reward them, and can't possibly feel gratitude. A narrative from old school horror or science fiction, that matches the right general tone, is Azathoth.

But you can't just make up the name Azathoth and say that it is a god and coin a bunch of other weird names, and make up some symbolic tools for dealing with them, and mix it together willy-nilly, and not mention biology or evolution at all.

You have to start with the science and end with the science.

This post seems incomplete as it stands. There seems to be some text missing and I did not understand what it was trying to identify.

I actually like the idea of building a "rationalist pantheon" to give us handy, agenty names for important but difficult concepts. This requires more clearly specifying what the concept being named is: can you clarify a bit? Love Wizard of Earthsea, but don't get what you're pointing at here.