Creation and evolutionary theory, I [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Yuri Zharikov

30-01-2008, 02:13 AM

That's not true at all. The concrete evidence exists. .

OK, that's good let us discuss this concrete evidence. No straw evidence please :-0

I would guess that there are quite a few areas of science that deal in indirect testing, verification, and/or falsification. <...>The theories of intelligent design and special creation assume intelligent intervention in otherwise immutable natural processes, and it's on this account that they are considered "less scientific" or "pseudoscientific" by the majority of the scientific community.

First, evolution is accepted not because it is scientific, but because the only alternative is creation, i.e. God. In the words of one of the fathers of the "Synthetic Theory" E. Mayr the idea of evolution is accepted by the default of all opposing theories.
Second, can you give an example of indirect testing? I'll explain, when scientists speak of testing, they imply direct experiment. Causality can only be established via experementation. Any indirect study can only produce correlation. By definition, correlation cannot be used to infer causality - this is the most fundamental premise of the phylosophy of science.

For argument sake, let us look at these two statments:

today’s carnivorous whales evolved from plant eaters (modern biology textbook)
the tropic of cancer is inhabitated by crayfish (me)

How can you indirectly (!) test, verify or falsify either of these statements?

And "of course" the underlying assumption about constancy of physical, let alone biological processes is clearly false, right? Even the rate of nuclear decay is not constant.

In general all of the key arguments that would prove evolution valid are based on postulating events that are inherently not observable/verifiable. Such unique, once-in-history events include but are not limited to the very emergence of life (i.e., the formation of the first prokaryotes), emergence of eukaryotes, development of canonical and non-canonical genetic codes, appearance of photosynthesis and mitochondria, origin of vascular plants, beginning of sexual reproduction, appearance of Hox-genes (see below), Cambrian Explosion of phyla, radiation of all major classes and even orders of the animal kingdom. Because of their uniqueness, all these events, their mechanisms and conditions under which they took place by default fall outside of the realm of science. You will like this. In 2005 (I think) there was an attempt to introduce a mere mentioning of the "intelligent design" in a public school in PA. There was a court hearing. The judge justified his verdict of not allowing the ID into school in the following words: Science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific explanation.[1]Ironically the judge and plaintiffs remained completely blind to the fact that the same definition also puts evolutionism in general and Darwinism in particular outside of the field of scientific explanation. (That's one reason why it's not good to believe in evolution - it blids you, :-0)

[1] Gallagher J. 2006. Galileo in reverse. Liberty: Magazine of religious freedom. May/June issue: 14-15, 28-29.

On the contrary, there are many DNA sequences in, for example, the human genome that do not appear to have any real function. While it is true that a handful of "pseudogenes" have been discovered to carry out important biological processes, this doesn't necessarily mean that all "pseudogenes" have a function.

Take a look at your computer. The hard-drive "encodes" all the information, there is also a handful of wires, transistors, etc with important functions, but the frame and the box onto which all this stuff is fixed is.... what, without any real function?
A bit of biology here. Most eukaryotic genomes (cells with a nucleus) consist primarily of DNA that contains no functional genes (up to 97% in humans) - that is genes encoding proteins. So it was suggested that this DNA is but evolutionary junk - randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability due to genetic damage or partially duplicated genes that were non-functional. It should not exist if DNA was in fact designed by an intelligent agent. Recently a body of research has emerged that clearly demonstrates that non-coding DNA plays numerous critical functions in genomes including chromosome packaging and regulation of gene expression during development [1]. Its functions in many ways are analogous to the functions of cover, binding, pages and bookmarks in a book or internal frame and external case in a computer. The “junk” DNA may also be the key to encoding biological complexity [2]. Upon closer examination this argument is a reenactment of the long-dead contention of existence of vestigial organs (there is none, in fact). It simply presupposed that since we do not know the function(s) of non-coding DNA, then it has no useful functions.

[1] See http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/junkdna.html for details and references.
[2] Taft, R.J. and Mattick, J.S. 2003. Increasing biological complexity is positively correlated with the relative genome-wide expansion of non-coding DNA sequences. Genome Biology, 5:1

There are, however, other theories about evolution's "driving forces" which propose alternatives to the Neo-Darwinist model, but I couldn't tell you what they are or how reasonable they sound. I have a recent (2005) book on "evo-devo" theory, but I haven't read it yet. I've also heard mention of "morphogenetic fields" which communicate learned behaviors to organisms within the same species, but heaven only knows how much validity there is to this notion.

The book is about genes known as the Hox-genes. Hox-genes are a particular group of genes found in all multicellular organisms that are responsible for patterning the body axis at the early stage of embryonic development. The Hox-genes do not directly control the nature or shape of structures, but regulate the expression of a complex hierarchy of other genes that do so. By providing the identity of particular body regions, Hox-genes determine where and other segments will grow in a developing foetus or larva. Although mutations in these genes are often invoked as a possible source of evolutionary novelty, in real terms mutations in Hox-genes are very harmful - in vertebrates point mutations in Hox-genes lead to spontaneous abortions of embryos while in arthropods (for example fruit flies) re-arrangements in these genes produce monstrous growth abnormalities.
Suggestions have been made that major evolutionary events such as the Cambrian Explosion are achieved via large scale genomic rearrangements such as duplication of whole genomes or particular genes, especially those regulating development (i.e. the Hox-genes). Well, these suggestions are untenable. First, they do not address the cornerstone issue of how the genes that have been duplicated emerged in the first place. For example, describing the “evolution” of Hox-genes Carroll [1] simply wrote that their origin was a unique phenomenon (see the first point above!). Second, genome duplication requires pre-existence of sophisticated biochemical pathways, which also have to appear somehow. Third, the pattern of gene (genome) duplication does not match the pattern of morphological radiation. Authors of a recent article on this issue wrote[2]:
Many have argued that genome duplication is a dominant factor in the evolution of complexity and diversity. However, a clear correlation between a genome duplication event and increased complexity and diversity is not apparent… A causal link between any specific genome duplication event and increased species diversity remains elusive.

[1] Carroll R.L. 2000. Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15: 27-32.
[2] Crow K.D., Wagner G.P. 2006. What is the role of genome duplication in the evolution of complexity and diversity? Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23: 887-892.

So again, I see no independent evidence in favour of evolution and thus no need at all to raise your question 2.
In the Lord,
Yura

M. Partyka

30-01-2008, 02:54 AM

OK, that's good let us discuss this concrete evidence. No straw evidence please
Given that discussing the scientific evidence for and against evolution isn't a matter of doctrine or theology, perhaps you'd like to open us up a new thread in a more appropriate area?

First, evolution is accepted not because it is scientific, but because the only alternative is creation, i.e. God.Perhaps, but surely you must see the bind it would put the scientific community in to start positing divine intervention. The moment you say, "God did it by his omnipotent power," scientific inquiry ends right then and there. Certainly there are things which have happened through supernatural rather than natural forces, but it behooves science to at least look for natural explanations before giving up inquiry altogether. Once the search for natural causes runs it course, honest scientists can then admit their ignorance and leave it to the individual to posit the existence of either a supernatural cause (in the case of a believer) or an undetected natural cause (in the case of a skeptic).

Here is the words of one of the fathers of the "Synthetic Theory": LetUnfortunately, it looks like this part of your post failed to come through. Care to re-post?

Yuri Zharikov

30-01-2008, 03:21 AM

Unfortunately, it looks like this part of your post failed to come through. Care to re-post?

sorry i was editing, see complete post,

Yura

Yuri Zharikov

30-01-2008, 03:32 AM

[quote=Yuri Zharikov;57824]OK, that's good let us discuss this concrete evidence. No straw evidence please[quote]Given that discussing the scientific evidence for and against evolution isn't a matter of doctrine or theology, perhaps you'd like to open us up a new thread in a more appropriate area?

Perhaps, but surely you must see the bind it would put the scientific community in to start positing divine intervention. The moment you say, "God did it by his omnipotent power," scientific inquiry ends right then and there. Certainly there are things which have happened through supernatural rather than natural forces, but it behooves science to at least look for natural explanations before giving up inquiry altogether. Once the search for natural causes runs it course, honest scientists can then admit their ignorance and leave it to the individual to posit the existence of either a supernatural cause (in the case of a believer) or an undetected natural cause (in the case of a skeptic).

Unfortunately, it looks like this part of your post failed to come through. Care to re-post?

if you know how to move all this into a new thread, please go ahead, that would be great.

Thank you,
Yura

M. Partyka

30-01-2008, 04:58 AM

if you know how to move all this into a new thread, please go ahead, that would be great.Hmm...Looks like the "Everything Else" category I was eyeing is also under "Doctrine & Theology", so never mind -- I guess the discussion fits fine here.

M. Partyka

30-01-2008, 05:48 AM

...can you give an example of indirect testing? I'll explain, when scientists speak of testing, they imply direct experiment. Causality can only be established via experementation. Any indirect study can only produce correlation. By definition, correlation cannot be used to infer causality - this is the most fundamental premise of the phylosophy of science.I think I understand what you're saying here. Basically, the fact that A and B are both present in a sample does not necessarily mean that A causes B or B causes A.

How can you indirectly (!) test, verify or falsify either of these statements?1) Today's carnivorous whales evolved from plant eaters. -- The first question that comes to my mind is, "Where are carnivorous whales found in the fossil record compared to where their plant-eating ancestors are found?" If plant eaters don't appear until after the carnivorous whales are found, then we might conclude that this falsifies the hypothesis. I would consider this an "indirect" test in that it depends upon the observation of data pertaining to past events rather than to present experiments.

2) The tropic of cancer is inhabited by crayfish. -- This statement isn't as open to "indirect" testing, but it is at least verifiable. Find a crayfish in the right spot (assuming it hasn't been deliberately planted), and you've proven the theory.

And "of course" the underlying assumption about constancy of physical, let alone biological processes is clearly false, right? Even the rate of nuclear decay is not constant.I don't see how this is "clearly false". The rate of nuclear decay is not itself constant, but the rate of change of decay is constant, is it not?

In general all of the key arguments that would prove evolution valid are based on postulating events that are inherently not observable/verifiable. Such unique, once-in-history events include but are not limited to the very emergence of life (i.e., the formation of the first prokaryotes), emergence of eukaryotes, development of canonical and non-canonical genetic codes, appearance of photosynthesis and mitochondria, origin of vascular plants, beginning of sexual reproduction, appearance of Hox-genes (see below), Cambrian Explosion of phyla, radiation of all major classes and even orders of the animal kingdom. Because of their uniqueness, all these events, their mechanisms and conditions under which they took place by default fall outside of the realm of science.I think there's a hole in your logic somewhere. Consider for a moment the progression you have just described: prokaryotes, eukaryotes, genetic codes, photosynthesis, mitochondria, plants, sexual reproduction, Hox-genes, vertebrates, and the development of vertebrates from the simpler to the more complex. Now consider we've got a fossil record to work with. Doesn't there exist at least some potential for falsification from the fossil record as regards the sequence of biological development and diversification you've just described?

Take a look at your computer. The hard-drive "encodes" all the information, there is also a handful of wires, transistors, etc with important functions, but the frame and the box onto which all this stuff is fixed is.... what, without any real function? A bit of biology here. Most eukaryotic genomes (cells with a nucleus) consist primarily of DNA that contains no functional genes (up to 97% in humans) - that is genes encoding proteins. So it was suggested that this DNA is but evolutionary junk - randomly-produced sequences that had lost their coding ability due to genetic damage or partially duplicated genes that were non-functional. It should not exist if DNA was in fact designed by an intelligent agent. Recently a body of research has emerged that clearly demonstrates that non-coding DNA plays numerous critical functions in genomes including chromosome packaging and regulation of gene expression during development [1]. Its functions in many ways are analogous to the functions of cover, binding, pages and bookmarks in a book or internal frame and external case in a computer. The “junk” DNA may also be the key to encoding biological complexity [2].You're not saying anything different from what I said before: Some pseudogenes that were previously thought to have no function have since demonstrated function. That's not the same thing as saying that all pseudogenes have function, but it certainly does open up that possibility.

Upon closer examination this argument is a reenactment of the long-dead contention of existence of vestigial organs (there is none, in fact).I don't think it's necessarily true that "vestigial" and "functional" are mutually exclusive, though. Who's to say that a vestigial organ cannot be biologically appropriated and modified through natural selection to serve other functions?

Hox-genes are a particular group of genes found in all multicellular organisms that are responsible for patterning the body axis at the early stage of embryonic development. The Hox-genes do not directly control the nature or shape of structures, but regulate the expression of a complex hierarchy of other genes that do so. By providing the identity of particular body regions, Hox-genes determine where and other segments will grow in a developing foetus or larva. Although mutations in these genes are often invoked as a possible source of evolutionary novelty, in real terms mutations in Hox-genes are very harmful - in vertebrates point mutations in Hox-genes lead to spontaneous abortions of embryos while in arthropods (for example fruit flies) re-arrangements in these genes produce monstrous growth abnormalities.I think I've heard of these genes before -- something about switching around a single Hox-gene's causing a fruit fly to grow legs from its eye sockets, or something like that. What I think the discovery of these genes has done, however, is lend a helping hand to Neo-Darwinists who can now demonstrate how tiny changes in the genetic code can cause major variations in biological forms.

Suggestions have been made that major evolutionary events such as the Cambrian Explosion are achieved via large scale genomic rearrangements such as duplication of whole genomes or particular genes, especially those regulating development (i.e. the Hox-genes). Well, these suggestions are untenable. First, they do not address the cornerstone issue of how the genes that have been duplicated emerged in the first place. For example, describing the “evolution” of Hox-genes Carroll [1] simply wrote that their origin was a unique phenomenon (see the first point above!). Second, genome duplication requires pre-existence of sophisticated biochemical pathways, which also have to appear somehow. Third, the pattern of gene (genome) duplication does not match the pattern of morphological radiation. Authors of a recent article on this issue wrote[2]: Many have argued that genome duplication is a dominant factor in the evolution of complexity and diversity. However, a clear correlation between a genome duplication event and increased complexity and diversity is not apparent… A causal link between any specific genome duplication event and increased species diversity remains elusive.I agree this you that none of this is conclusive, but it does make for a start, wouldn't you think? For example, if I give you a sequence of events N1 to N100, and I can show you that the events developed in that order, but I can't show you how N24 led to N25, and N60 and N80 are missing altogether, do the "gaps" in my knowledge of how things happened invalidate the whole sequence?

So again, I see no independent evidence in favour of evolution and thus no need at all to raise your question 2.Honestly, I don't think we've spent nearly enough time on question 1, so I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet.

Paul Cowan

30-01-2008, 05:53 AM

[quote=M. Partyka;57831][quote=Yuri Zharikov;57824]OK, that's good let us discuss this concrete evidence. No straw evidence please

if you know how to move all this into a new thread, please go ahead, that would be great.

Thank you,
Yura

Or perhaps move it to a PM?

Yuri Zharikov

30-01-2008, 06:36 AM

I think I understand what you're saying here. Basically, the fact that A and B are both present in a sample does not necessarily mean that A causes B or B causes A.

1) Today's carnivorous whales evolved from plant eaters. -- The first question that comes to my mind is, "Where are carnivorous whales found in the fossil record compared to where their plant-eating ancestors are found?" If plant eaters don't appear until after the carnivorous whales are found, then we might conclude that this falsifies the hypothesis. I would consider this an "indirect" test in that it depends upon the observation of data pertaining to past events rather than to present experiments.

There is no test here either direct or indirect. You simply assume that evolution created the order and the use the order as a test of evolution. Circular logic - I am right because I think I am right. Suppose I dig up a kettle from under a PC in a garbage dump. Is this an indirect test of evolution of PC from a kettle? It is a simple correlation. You read evolution into it. Also geostratigraphic column in an abstraction any way. It is a model of what things would have looked like if evolution existed. You cannot actually find it in the ground. Lastly that what's below is older than what's above is also an assumption. Most fossil deposits are catastrophic in origin, not gradual (otherwise they wold not be there) so the order of things in themselves means nothing.

2) The tropic of cancer is inhabited by crayfish. -- This statement isn't as open to "indirect" testing, but it is at least verifiable. Find a crayfish in the right spot (assuming it hasn't been deliberately planted), and you've proven the theory.

The question was meant to be absurd. There is not such place as constellation of Cancer

I don't see how this is "clearly false". The rate of nuclear decay is not itself constant, but the rate of change of decay is constant, is it not?

Actually it is not. The rate of decay changes with chemical environment (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/decay_rate.asp).

I think there's a hole in your logic somewhere. Consider for a moment the progression you have just described: prokaryotes, eukaryotes, genetic codes, photosynthesis, mitochondria, plants, sexual reproduction, Hox-genes, vertebrates, and the development of vertebrates from the simpler to the more complex. Now consider we've got a fossil record to work with. Doesn't there exist at least some potential for falsification from the fossil record as regards the sequence of biological development and diversification you've just described?

I am missing what the hole is. What I have described is not a sequence. It is assumed to be a sequence assuming there is evolution. Otherwise it is just a diversity of levels of organization all of which exist today.
Fossil record only tells you that some things that existed earlier do or do not exist today. This is all. Everything else you read into this initial observation depending on what you believe in.
To say something about "biological development" you need to identify a mechanism by which this development happens. As a thought exercise, take a hummingbird or giant salamander and "evolve" it in 1000 steps each of which would be an improvement on the original into something else along with the rest of the ecosystem into which these critters fit perfectly well.
:-)

In the Lord,
Yura

None of the other things you mention provide any evidence for evolution (or at least I do not see it). Non-coding DNA that maintains the structure and placement of coding DNA, flies with legs on their heads, organs that are developed to a different degree in different organisms but always with a useful function... how does evolution follow from any of that?

M. Partyka

30-01-2008, 07:20 AM

The first question that comes to my mind is, "Where are carnivorous whales found in the fossil record compared to where their plant-eating ancestors are found?" If plant eaters don't appear until after the carnivorous whales are found, then we might conclude that this falsifies the hypothesis. I would consider this an "indirect" test in that it depends upon the observation of data pertaining to past events rather than to present experiments.There is no test here either direct or indirect. You simply assume that evolution created the order and the use the order as a test of evolution.On the contrary, the test should be clear. If the order doesn't match what we expect from the theory, then the theory is false. It does not logically follow that if the order does match, the theory is true. Remember, you asked whether the statement could be tested, verified, or falsified -- not necessarily all three.

Also geostratigraphic column in an abstraction any way. It is a model of what things would have looked like if evolution existed. You cannot actually find it in the ground.This is a false statement. The full geologic column has been unearthed in several locations in both North America and Asia.

Lastly that what's below is older than what's above is also an assumption. Most fossil deposits are catastrophic in origin, not gradual (otherwise they wold not be there) so the order of things in themselves means nothing.Fossilization can take place not only under catastrophic conditions but also over long periods of time. Moreover, catastrophic conditions are insufficient to explain the way fossils of different size and shape are distributed throughout the geologic column.

2) The tropic of cancer is inhabited by crayfish. -- This statement isn't as open to "indirect" testing, but it is at least verifiable. Find a crayfish in the right spot (assuming it hasn't been deliberately planted), and you've proven the theory.The question was meant to be absurd. There is not such place as constellation of Cancer.Actually, the Tropic of Cancer is a line of latitude in the southern hemisphere running parallel to the equator. (There is also a constellation of Cancer, also known as The Crab, but I assumed you were referring to the line of latitude.)

I don't see how this is "clearly false". The rate of nuclear decay is not itself constant, but the rate of change of decay is constant, is it not?Actually it is not. I do not have the source handy but if you excite isotopes with radiation the rate of decay changes.Well, granted, if you expose an isotope to outside radiation, you're not going to record a normal rate of decay for that isotope. I'm thinking that the rate of decay of an isolated isotope, however, changes at a constant rate. I could be wrong on that, though.

Consider for a moment the progression you have just described: prokaryotes, eukaryotes, genetic codes, photosynthesis, mitochondria, plants, sexual reproduction, Hox-genes, vertebrates, and the development of vertebrates from the simpler to the more complex. Now consider we've got a fossil record to work with. Doesn't there exist at least some potential for falsification from the fossil record as regards the sequence of biological development and diversification you've just described?What I have described is not a sequence. It is assumed to be a sequence assuming there is evolution. Otherwise it is just a diversity of levels of organization all of which exist today. Fossil record only tells you that some things that existed earlier do or do not exist today. This is all. Everything else you read into this initial observation depending on what you believe in.I think you and I are arguing two different issues under the same heading of "evolution". One issue is evolution, and the other is the age of the earth, correct? We should probably split off these issues into separate threads, or at least tackle them one at a time.

To say something about "biological development" you need to identify a mechanism by which this development happens.I agree, and I've seen a few different things offered, some of which I've already mentioned. I don't know whether any of them rises to the challenge of explaining how organisms could evolve. I still hope to do more research on the topic.

None of the other things you mention provide any evidence for evolution (or at least I do not see it). Non-coding DNA that maintains the structure and placement of coding DNA, flies with legs on their heads, organs that are developed to a different degree in different organisms but always with a useful function... how does evolution follow from any of that?It doesn't automatically follow, but it does lend credibility to the idea that small changes in an organism's DNA are sufficient to cause major morphological changes in an organism (which can then be passed to its offspring).

Yuri Zharikov

31-01-2008, 04:34 AM

On the contrary, the test should be clear. If the order doesn't match what we expect from the theory, then the theory is false. It does not logically follow that if the order does match, the theory is true. Remember, you asked whether the statement could be tested, verified, or falsified -- not necessarily all three.

This is a false statement. The full geologic column has been unearthed in several locations in both North America and Asia.

Fossilization can take place not only under catastrophic conditions but also over long periods of time. Moreover, catastrophic conditions are insufficient to explain the way fossils of different size and shape are distributed throughout the geologic column.

Actually, the Tropic of Cancer is a line of latitude in the southern hemisphere running parallel to the equator. (There is also a constellation of Cancer, also known as The Crab, but I assumed you were referring to the line of latitude.)

Well, granted, if you expose an isotope to outside radiation, you're not going to record a normal rate of decay for that isotope. I'm thinking that the rate of decay of an isolated isotope, however, changes at a constant rate. I could be wrong on that, though.

I think you and I are arguing two different issues under the same heading of "evolution". One issue is evolution, and the other is the age of the earth, correct? We should probably split off these issues into separate threads, or at least tackle them one at a time.

I agree, and I've seen a few different things offered, some of which I've already mentioned. I don't know whether any of them rises to the challenge of explaining how organisms could evolve. I still hope to do more research on the topic.

It doesn't automatically follow, but it does lend credibility to the idea that small changes in an organism's DNA are sufficient to cause major morphological changes in an organism (which can then be passed to its offspring).

We seem to be spinning our wheels here. I'll try to explain what circular logic means using a quote from Thomas Kuhn:
The similarity of forms is explained by evolution, and evolution in turn is proven through the grades of similarities. That here one has fallen victim to circular reasoning is hardly noticed; what one wants to prove, namely that similarity is based on evolution, is simply assumed, and then the different degrees in the gradation of the (typical) similarities, are used as evidence for the truth of the idea of evolution.
This applies equally to all other so-called evidence for evolution including fossils, which are explained by evolution and used to prove evolution at the same time. (You may wish to read his (T. Kuhn) book The structure of scientific revolutions - a classic on philosophy of science).
So I'll again repeat that patterns of biological similarity or fossils are only initial observations they do not tell us anything about their origin in themselves (they need to be interpreted). To demonstrate that these patterns came about by means of evolution you need to show the mechanism - answer the question 'how'. That is you need to present something you can directly observe and experiment with as many times as needed (this is what is mean by testability and verifiability). Otherwise you are dealing with correlations and unverifiable assumptions and we can argue about such "evidence" till the cows come home (this would also apply to the age of earth and the question of whether or not crabs live in the constellation of the Crab). The mechanism (of evolution) should be capable of increasing genetic complexity in a biologically meaningful way, i.e. to increase fitness or odds of survival. If it does not, there is no support for evolution. This is what is meant by falsifiability - you make two alternative statements one of which, if borne out by facts, falsifies your hypothesis or theory, meaning that it is invalid. The other - only means that the theory stand for the time being. What I have just laid out are the most fundamental principles of scientific enquiry. If we cannot agree on them, there is no point in continuing this conversation.

So to be as explicit as possible, by "concrete" evidence, I have been asking for, I mean evidence on mechanism of evolution available for independent scrutiny.

In the Lord,
Yura

P.S. Could you please give me the original source on the full geologic column that has been unearthed in several locations in both North America and Asia.

M. Partyka

31-01-2008, 04:07 PM

I understand the circular logic argument. Basically, the sequence of fossils in the geological column is used to establish the progressive stages of evoluntionary development, and then this "established" sequence of stages of evolutionary development is used to define the age of geological samples in places where the column is not wholly present. A supports B supports A supports B, etc., etc.

The only problem I have with this argument is that there is a sequence of fossils in the geological column, and it doesn't fall into the same order predicted by catastrophists, particularly those who claim that the great flood of Noah is responsible for the fossils found throughout the entire geologic column.

P.S. Could you please give me the original source on the full geologic column that has been unearthed in several locations in both North America and Asia.One article can be found at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm. There is a list of sources at the end of the article, so I don't know that you would consider the article an "original" source -- go look up the sources yourself if you feel so inclined -- but the author is a former Young Earth Creationist (YEC) who wrote several papers for YEC journals before his job as a geologist in the oil industry confronted him with geological and fossil data on a daily basis which convinced him that YEC wasn't a scientifically tenable position to hold.

M. Partyka

31-01-2008, 05:07 PM

God took dust from the earth and formed man out of it....He then took a rib out of Adam and made Eve from his flesh and bones....What is so difficult about that?
Interpret?? Whatever do you mean by that? It's not in Greek, it's in English! It needs no interpretation, it is as it says:

1) God fashioned Man out of the dust of the earth.
2) He made Woman from Man's rib.Would you agree, then, that the logical consequences of evolutionary theory are worthy of discussion given that they throw significant monkeywrenches -- no pun intended -- into your declaration that "it is as it says"?

Yuri Zharikov

31-01-2008, 05:18 PM

I understand the circular logic argument. Basically, the sequence of fossils in the geological column is used to establish the progressive stages of evoluntionary development, and then this "established" sequence of stages of evolutionary development is used to define the age of geological samples in places where the column is not wholly present. A supports B supports A supports B, etc., etc.

The only problem I have with this argument is that there is a sequence of fossils in the geological column, and it doesn't fall into the same order predicted by catastrophists, particularly those who claim that the great flood of Noah is responsible for the fossils found throughout the entire geologic column.

One article can be found at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm. There is a list of sources at the end of the article, so I don't know that you would consider the article an "original" source -- go look up the sources yourself if you feel so inclined -- but the author is a former Young Earth Creationist (YEC) who wrote several papers for YEC journals before his job as a geologist in the oil industry confronted him with geological and fossil data on a daily basis which convinced him that YEC wasn't a scientifically tenable position to hold.

I'll look into this and get back to you with my comments. From what you have said can we say that we are in agreement that fossils in themselves provide no undeniable evidence for evolution?

Yura

M. Partyka

31-01-2008, 05:25 PM

I'll look into this and get back to you with my comments. From what you have said can we say that we are in agreement that fossils in themselves provide no undeniable evidence for evolution?I agree. The mere fact that fossils exist does not in and of itself constitute a validation or invalidation of evolutionary theory.

Mary

31-01-2008, 05:31 PM

Would you agree, then, that the logical consequences of evolutionary theory are worthy of discussion given that they throw significant monkeywrenches -- no pun intended -- into your declaration that "it is as it says"?

You'll need to explain yourself.

What "logical consequences" do you speak of?
What "significant monkeywrenches" are you tossing around?

I see none.

M. Partyka

31-01-2008, 05:44 PM

You'll need to explain yourself. What "logical consequences" do you speak of? What "significant monkeywrenches" are you tossing around? I see none.Let me first give a basic rundown of evolutionary theory as I understand it:

Starting immediately from the time that life began on earth in some rudimentary, self-replicating form, random mutations in the DNA of this primitive lifeform's offspring have struggled for survival, mainly against the harsh conditions of the environment, but also against one another for limited resources. As mutated versions of the lifeform found niches in the planetary ecology to fill, these lifeforms diversified into forms so genetically different that they became different species of plants and animals, most of which could not interbreed. For example, from a single progenitor race of animal came both dogs and cats -- they are two branches of the same evolutionary tree that extends all the way from the original proto-lifeform(s) at the time to all the different species of life that exist today. In other words, dogs and cats descended from the same kind of animal, with the dog branch becoming more doggy over time and the cat branch becoming more catty over time until the branches became separate species. In the exact same way, humanity and apes descended from a common ancestor, with the humans becoming more human over time and the apes becoming more apelike over time.

Given all this, do you see any significant monkeywrenches being thrown into the Genesis account of life's origins by this evolutionary view of life's origins, especially human origins?

Mary

31-01-2008, 08:17 PM

Given all this, do you see any significant monkeywrenches being thrown into the Genesis account of life's origins by this evolutionary view of life's origins, especially human origins?

Thanks for refreshing my memory. No, I see no monkey wrenches anywhere. It is clearly recorded in Genesis 1 that God created each species according to their own kind:

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Gen 1:21

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

Gen 1:24-25
Cats have always been cats, and Dogs have always been dogs. Same with people and apes... always different, and distinct. However, just like all different races came from just Adam and Eve, so now we have a world full of colorful people, so, the original cat and dog carried the gene pool to make all the different types of cats and dogs you find now.

Mary.

M. Partyka

31-01-2008, 08:45 PM

It is clearly recorded in Genesis 1 that God created each species according to their own kind: Cats have always been cats, and Dogs have always been dogs. Same with people and apes... always different, and distinct. However, just like all different races came from just Adam and Eve, so now we have a world full of colorful people, so, the original cat and dog carried the gene pool to make all the different types of cats and dogs you find now.You might want to take another look at my cats & dogs example again, because I don't think you've comprehended what evolutionary theory is actually saying.

Evolutionary theory says:

1) In the beginning, there was only one or perhaps a handful of simple, self-replicating organisms.
2) Through mutations and natural selection over eons of time, that (or those) original organism(s) become more complex and diversified and branched out to become the various species that fill the earth today (e.g., cats, dogs, apes, humans, etc.).

So evolutionary theory doesn't say, "Cats have always been cats, and dogs have always been dogs." Evolutionary theory says, "Long ago there was a single four-footed species, and in time, two groups of these animals got split up and evolved separately so that one group evolved into dogs and the other group evolved into cats."

And it says exactly the same thing about apes and humans. Long ago, there was a primate, and this original batch of primates (which themselves evolved from lower life forms) split into separate groups that evolved differently and became gorillas, chimps, oragutans, humans, etc., etc.

Mary

31-01-2008, 09:43 PM

You might want to take another look at my cats & dogs example again, because I don't think you've comprehended what evolutionary theory is actually saying.

Evolutionary theory says:....

So evolutionary theory doesn't say....
Evolutionary theory says....

I don't need to understand the theory.

It makes no difference to me what evolution says or doesn't say. Who came up with the theory? A human being. Was he/they there in the beginning? No. But God was there.

I wasn't there either. So I need someone else to tell me where we all came from. My choices are: I either believe what God says, or I believe what a bunch of clever humans are speculating about. I dont' know about you, but I don't think humans know everything. Even those who know a hundred times more than I do (which isn't hard) - don't know anything compared to what God knows.

So, I've made my choice. I've chosen to trust what God says. If we needed to know every nitty gritty detail about how He created life, I'm sure He would've made it known to us. But, it seems to me, He's more interested in establishing a relationship with us. Knowing if cats and dogs came from one blob of living mass, isn't going to, in any way, enhance my relationship with Him. For that matter, it doesn't do anything to build up any kind of relationship.

Of course, it complicates matters if you don't believe in God. Then, all you're left with is a debate between mere humans and you're forced to choose the one who is better at wielding words.

Do you believe everything came from the same blob? If so, in what way has that drawn you closer to God? Do you love Him more because you have the same ancestry as an ape?

Father David Moser

31-01-2008, 09:53 PM

And it says exactly the same thing about apes and humans. Long ago, there was a primate, and this original batch of primates (which themselves evolved from lower life forms) split into separate groups that evolved differently and became gorillas, chimps, oragutans, humans, etc., etc.

That may be what evolution says - but that is not what the scripture says, nor is it what the Holy Fathers teach. St Basil the Great says that all the variety of animals arose in their full diversity from the earth in an instant, thus a cat has always been a cat and a dog has always been a dog - according to St Basil.

The Genesis account of creation consistently makes man a "special creation" separate and independent from that of the animals. This is obvious in the basic languages other than English (Hebrew, Greek, Slavonic, etc) by the word choice. Both St John of Damascus and St Basil the Great make qualitative distinctions between the nature of animals and the nature of men.

Of all the Orthodox "apologies" for evolution, I have yet to read anything that draws substantial support for the theory of evolution from patristic sources. If you have any such sources, I would be interested in reading them.

Fr David Moser

M. Partyka

31-01-2008, 10:20 PM

I don't need to understand the theory. It makes no difference to me what evolution says or doesn't say.Well, I wanted to make sure you understood the theory, because for a moment there you were saying that there was no conflict between the Genesis account and the evolutionary account, and I couldn't tell whether that was because (1) you didn't understand the evolutionary account or (2) you understood it just fine and immediately assumed it wasn't true because it conflicted with Genesis.

Who came up with the theory? A human being. Was he/they there in the beginning? No. But God was there. I wasn't there either. So I need someone else to tell me where we all came from. My choices are: I either believe what God says, or I believe what a bunch of clever humans are speculating about. I dont' know about you, but I don't think humans know everything. Even those who know a hundred times more than I do (which isn't hard) - don't know anything compared to what God knows.I agree that humans do not know anything compared to what God knows. However, humans do have the power to make observations concerning the fossil record and geological record, and they also have the power to draw conclusions and form theories from the evidence in front of them. Humans can also read the Genesis account of creation and, given the information there, deduce certain things that should be true about the fossil record and geological record. Humans can then compare what the record should say with what the record does say, and see if they match. If they do match? Great! No conflict. If they don't match? Not so great, because there's something wrong somewhere in the initial assumptions.

So, I've made my choice. I've chosen to trust what God says.And there are many, many Christians out there who have made the same choice, and I'm by no means criticizing you for it. What I would like you to recognize, however, is that you are making the choice on religious grounds, not on scientific grounds. The reason I say this is because, given that there exists a clear conflict between the Genesis account of creation and the evolutionary account of creation, you have assumed that the error must be concealed somewhere on the scientific side of the equation. A purely scientific view of the matter would allow for the possibility of error on either or both sides.

Do you believe everything came from the same blob? If so, in what way has that drawn you closer to God? Do you love Him more because you have the same ancestry as an ape?I don't know what I believe as yet. I haven't studied evolutionary theory enough to come to a conclusion about it. What I do think is that truth isn't dependent upon the feelings and behavior it generates in the people who have come to know it. The truth is what happened. If knowing the truth makes us feel closer to God and love God more, fantastic, but if knowing the truth were to have the opposite effect on us, that wouldn't make the truth any less true.

My friend the Orthodox priest once told me, "If you're searching for truth, you will find God." I would at least like to believe that.

M. Partyka

31-01-2008, 10:47 PM

That may be what evolution says - but that is not what the scripture says, nor is it what the Holy Fathers teach. St Basil the Great says that all the variety of animals arose in their full diversity from the earth in an instant, thus a cat has always been a cat and a dog has always been a dog - according to St Basil. The Genesis account of creation consistently makes man a "special creation" separate and independent from that of the animals. This is obvious in the basic languages other than English (Hebrew, Greek, Slavonic, etc) by the word choice. Both St John of Damascus and St Basil the Great make qualitative distinctions between the nature of animals and the nature of men.You see, then, why I consider the issue of creation and evolution to be a topic of substance deserving consideration well beyond the "I don't know and I don't care" answers I tend to get from those whose advice I seek.

Of all the Orthodox "apologies" for evolution, I have yet to read anything that draws substantial support for the theory of evolution from patristic sources. If you have any such sources, I would be interested in reading them.I've read some online articles on orthodoxwiki.com, but none of them have been very convincing to me, either.

Father David Moser

31-01-2008, 10:53 PM

I've read some online articles on orthodoxwiki.com, but none of them have been very convincing to me, either.

Perhaps then, you should read the Fathers. As you might have noticed, on this topic, I tend to be partial to St Basil the Great and St John of Damascus. Both of these fathers are available online in the ccel library. Also in the Monachos library are two of the homilies in the Hexameron of St Basil the Great (the Hexameron is St Basil's commentary on the creation) as well as "The Exact Exposition ..." by St John of Damascus. These are certainly not the only writings, they are just the two fathers with whom I am most familiar.

Fr David Moser

Hannah Gais

01-02-2008, 12:08 AM

I don't need to understand the theory.

It makes no difference to me what evolution says or doesn't say. Who came up with the theory? A human being. Was he/they there in the beginning? No. But God was there.

I wasn't there either. So I need someone else to tell me where we all came from. My choices are: I either believe what God says, or I believe what a bunch of clever humans are speculating about. I dont' know about you, but I don't think humans know everything. Even those who know a hundred times more than I do (which isn't hard) - don't know anything compared to what God knows.

So, I've made my choice. I've chosen to trust what God says. If we needed to know every nitty gritty detail about how He created life, I'm sure He would've made it known to us. But, it seems to me, He's more interested in establishing a relationship with us. Knowing if cats and dogs came from one blob of living mass, isn't going to, in any way, enhance my relationship with Him. For that matter, it doesn't do anything to build up any kind of relationship.

Of course, it complicates matters if you don't believe in God. Then, all you're left with is a debate between mere humans and you're forced to choose the one who is better at wielding words.

Do you believe everything came from the same blob? If so, in what way has that drawn you closer to God? Do you love Him more because you have the same ancestry as an ape?

Yes, Darwin et. al. were not there. But because of the nature of scientific study, we can, in fact, build fairly conclusive assesments of what happened in the past. None of these shall ever have the power to take God out of the picture (evolution cannot do as much, nor can any other scientific theory; it's philosophically impossible). To be honest, I'm sick of scientists whole make that claim. I believe it was Wittgenstein who said there is a line that divides metaphyiscal and scientifici speculation; hence, any scientific theory that tries to breach that barrier would, in fact, become metaphysical in essence. Dawkins et. al. are, in other words, very very illiterate metaphysicians. Evolution can never say anything whatsoever about God.

As for instantaneous creation, I'm interested as to hear what people have to say about Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium? At this point, that's practically the closest we have to such type of creative work, and, at least geologically speaking, these are VERY short periods of time. If we assume that the days are not literally 24-hours long -- which I know many of the Fathers (albeit not all) do -- then, and correct me if I'm ignorant -- then I don't see anything tremendously wrong with it.

Ken Miller had an interesting table that tried to match up the progression of species as we know it to the days in Genesis.

No one here is denying that we're a special creaton either. God breathed life into us, and, although evolutionary theory may not have it on the same day per se, we did come from dust/the ground. Whether or not this is theologically stable is, well, up to the rest of you to decide...

Father David Moser

01-02-2008, 12:16 AM

No one here is denying that we're a special creaton either. God breathed life into us, and, although evolutionary theory may not have it on the same day per se, we did come from dust/the ground. Whether or not this is theologically stable is, well, up to the rest of you to decide...

Although St John of Damascus (I believe it was - I'll have to double check) is quite explicit that the body did not pre-exist the soul just as the soul did not pre-exist the body but that both were created together. Thus the theory of the "evolution" of the body which was later infused with a soul is not born out by the patristic witness.

Please remember that the basis of our discussion should be the Orthodox faith as expressed in its patristic, liturgical and monastic witness. I would like to see at least an attempt to bring the patristic witness of the church to bear on all the scientific "evidence" that is being presented. I am in no way suggesting that science is in error or that it is somehow evil - I am much more interested to see how scientific observation is interpreted in the light of the witness of the fathers of the Church.

Fr David Moser

Hannah Gais

01-02-2008, 12:24 AM

Although St John of Damascus (I believe it was - I'll have to double check) is quite explicit that the body did not pre-exist the soul just as the soul did not pre-exist the body but that both were created together. Thus the theory of the "evolution" of the body which was later infused with a soul is not born out by the patristic witness.

Please remember that the basis of our discussion should be the Orthodox faith as expressed in its patristic, liturgical and monastic witness. I would like to see at least an attempt to bring the patristic witness of the church to bear on all the scientific "evidence" that is being presented. I am in no way suggesting that science is in error or that it is somehow evil - I am much more interested to see how scientific observation is interpreted in the light of the witness of the fathers of the Church.

Fr David Moser

Sorry, Father. I thought I might get in trouble for using too many Western sources and/or lacking patristic evidence.

Working on St. Basil's Hexameron right now, so I suppose I'll comment back later in a while...

M. Partyka

01-02-2008, 12:39 AM

Ken Miller had an interesting table that tried to match up the progression of species as we know it to the days in Genesis.I'd be interested in seeing this, if you've got a link. The most obvious discrepancy I've seen between the staging of the creation of life depicted in Genesis and the fossil record's chronological depiction of life is that in Genesis, the order is "fish and birds, then land creatures", whereas the fossil record, if I'm not mistaken, shows "fish, then land creatures (though perhaps not all of them), then birds".

M. Partyka

01-02-2008, 12:44 AM

I am much more interested to see how scientific observation is interpreted in the light of the witness of the fathers of the Church.It seems to me that the early fathers of the Church would be at a significant disadvantage in bringing their witness to bear on geological and fossil evidence which had yet to be unearthed for a thousand years. Are there any "modern" fathers of the Church who knew about the theories concerning the antiquity of the earth or evolutionary theory when they wrote, or who dealt with pagan religions which subscribed to religious ideas similar to these theories?

Owen Jones

01-02-2008, 01:28 AM

The problem with this discussion is that it represents two kinds of fundamentalisms. On the one hand, using the Fathers in a fundamentalistic way, in that, since they did not have the opportunity to critique evolutionary theory as they were able to critique other false doctrines, their silence on the subject requires us to be silent as well. (had they had access to Aristotle, they may have made some attempt to refute his writings on evolutionary processes -- although he was not "metaphysically illiterate" on the subject as was Darwin).

On the other hand, Darwinian theory is a type of fundamentalism. It does not allow any criticism or counter theories. The only scientific evidence that exists that might possibly support evolutionary theory is carbon dating that points to a much older earth than one derives from deducing a straight time line from Scripture. The rest of it is bunk. It is certainly not a theory of origins. For every originating point in Darwinism, there is a previous originating point, infinitely. So it cannot be a theory of origins, although it claims to be.

Let's be clear about what Genesis is saying. It is saying that God is Good, and His Creation is Good. This fact alone distinguishes the ancient Hebrews from all other religions, which paint the gods or deities as being callous, arbitrary, and a mixture of good and evil, which then must be propitiated by human sacrifices and incantations in order to ward off evil curses. Genesis is the basis of a religion that is not superstitious, and that was a dramatically new development.

Now, since we all experience our world as something less than good, we must account for how that corruption entered the world. We have two alternatives. Either God messed up, or we are at fault. This may seem like a truism, but it is actually the basis of a consistent moral order and divinely instituted moral teachings, and is also unique to the Hebrews, although one might argue that Confusius and Plato arrived at somewhat similar conclusions (later). It's interesting that Justin Martyr is familiar with Plato's writings on generation and argued that Plato received his doctrine from having talked to Moses. In fact, Plato's dialogue on creation is the most often quoted text by the Fathers, other than Scripture of course.

Unfortunately, the debate over literal/historical events tends to obscure the theological truth of Genesis. Darwininism is not true, not only because its own data refutes the theory, but mostly because it does not accurately reflect reality as we know it and experience it. We do not behave as beings that are driven by instincts evolved due to selective advantage. We are much more complex than that.

Yuri Zharikov

01-02-2008, 03:54 AM

The problem with this discussion is that it represents two kinds of fundamentalisms.

On the other hand, Darwinian theory is a type of fundamentalism. It does not allow any criticism or counter theories. The only scientific evidence that exists that might possibly support evolutionary theory is carbon dating that points to a much older earth than one derives from deducing a straight time line from Scripture.

While I was at work this thread suddenly became alive!

Seraphim, a tiny correction to your post - carbon dating is not used for dating earth, but only organic material as its "range" is about 10,000 years. Kalium-Argon and other isotope dating methods are used for "older" material but somebody may ask what is the age of a rock anyway or what was it before it came to be. Ratio of isotopes in a piece of rock is not it's age. I would say the dating methods are as much a "bunk" as anything else and it is not within our reach to know the age of the earth; we may only believe that it is this is that long.

Mary/M. Partyka - do not worry, neo-darwinism/darwinism is not a theory because nothing of what it postulates exists. There is no facts it explain. Such facts would be... well, of course, evolution say from a fish from a frog or at least a mutation that has increased genetic complexity in a meaningful way. Just to say that something "evolved" does not work if no mechanism is available. And the mechanisms that account for the transformation and diversification of species are still very much under investigation [1], which is a scientific euphemism for "I don't have a clue". And without a mechanism for species emergence any evolutionary reconstructions really are just-so stories in important ways because we can always find a plausible adaptive explanation for any observation we make today [2].

[1] Kutschera U., Niklas K.J. 2004. The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis. Naturwissenschaften, 91: 255-276.
[2] Weiss K. 2002. How the eye got its brain. Evolutionary Anthropology, 11: 215-219.
(KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE PEOPLE WHOLE-HEARTEDLY BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION OTHERWISE THEY COULD NOT PUBLISH IN SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS!)

Fr. David, re Fathers - I really like this quote from St. Gregory Palamas, which I think fits the question of evolution spot on:

Is it not true that the truth of external science is doubtful and mixed with falsehood, due to which it sooner or later becomes rebuffed, which must be admitted by its followers, whereas the other truth, the truth of the Divine Scriptures (Lk. 21, 15) can be opposed by nobody for it proclaims the most evident truth not mixed with any falsehood?... One way or another, only two kinds of truth exist: one is the aim of the God-inspired teaching; the other, which is not mandatory and not salvific is sought and never found by the external philosophy.

Also, those of us who are Orthodox Christians please keep in mind this famous and very telling quote from one of the most ardent advocates of evolutionary idea alive, R. Dawkins: Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

Darwinism is all about godlessness.

In the Lord,
Yura

Nina

01-02-2008, 04:00 AM

Darwinism is all about godlessness.

In the Lord,
Yura

If you do not believe the above statement, check out what was taught in communist systems to children in schools, and how Darwinism was the main method to mold them into atheism. That will be more than a sufficient proof.

Yuri Zharikov

01-02-2008, 04:07 AM

If you do not believe the above statement, check out what was taught in communist systems to children in schools, and how Darwinism was the main method to mold them into atheism. That will be more than a sufficient proof.

I read in memoirs of Met. Benjamin (Fedchenkov) that before the revolution in Russia the Origin of species of Darwin was a banned book. So this book was distributed underground by revolutionary agitators along with works of Marx & co. He (Met. Benjamin) read it when studying in a seminary!
(I wonder if Stalin did too)

Yura

Father David Moser

01-02-2008, 04:54 AM

The problem with this discussion is that it represents two kinds of fundamentalisms. On the one hand, using the Fathers in a fundamentalistic way, in that, since they did not have the opportunity to critique evolutionary theory as they were able to critique other false doctrines, their silence on the subject requires us to be silent as well.

Scientific observations result in a body of facts which must be "assembled" or given order to paint a particular picture. What is it that gives this order? The order is provided by a philosophy or belief system that sets the expectations and form and skeleton which is then populated by the various facts. Evolution is not science - evolution is a philosophy which arranges the facts of science in a particular manner according to certain a-priori assumptions. This distinction is too often neglected or lost in the discussions of evolution and theological belief. The "science" that we call evolution is nothing more than a philosophy of naturalism which arranges the facts in a certain order. Because evolution is a naturalistic philosophy, it can rightly be set in opposition to theology (which we might describe as a spiritual philosophy). The facts - the scientific observations - however remain outside the process. It only remains to be seen how those facts are arranged and interpreted according to a particular philosophical/theological structure.

When we lose the distinction between the philosophy of evolution and the facts which populate the structure of that philosophy, then what happens is that we try to disprove the philosophy by disproving the facts. Not going to work. Let us take the facts and the patristic theology of the origins of the earth and develop something new. Evolutionists don't want to admit this possibility because they thrive on the absence of competition and the believers fall into the trap of playing the game. How do the scientific observations fit into the framework of the fathers, that's my question - no "fundamentalism" about it.

Fr David Moser

Yuri Zharikov

01-02-2008, 05:42 AM

How do the scientific observations fit into the framework of the fathers, that's my question - no "fundamentalism" about it.

Fr David Moser

Hexameron of St. Basil would probably be one of the examples of this... I'll try to write more on this tomorrow.
Yura

Yuri Zharikov

01-02-2008, 08:02 AM

Scientific observations result in a body of facts which must be "assembled" or given order to paint a particular picture. What is it that gives this order? The order is provided by a philosophy or belief system that sets the expectations and form and skeleton which is then populated by the various facts. Evolution is not science - evolution is a philosophy which arranges the facts of science in a particular manner according to certain a-priori assumptions. This distinction is too often neglected or lost in the discussions of evolution and theological belief. The "science" that we call evolution is nothing more than a philosophy of naturalism which arranges the facts in a certain order. Because evolution is a naturalistic philosophy, it can rightly be set in opposition to theology (which we might describe as a spiritual philosophy). The facts - the scientific observations - however remain outside the process. It only remains to be seen how those facts are arranged and interpreted according to a particular philosophical/theological structure.

When we lose the distinction between the philosophy of evolution and the facts which populate the structure of that philosophy, then what happens is that we try to disprove the philosophy by disproving the facts. Not going to work. Let us take the facts and the patristic theology of the origins of the earth and develop something new. Evolutionists don't want to admit this possibility because they thrive on the absence of competition and the believers fall into the trap of playing the game. How do the scientific observations fit into the framework of the fathers, that's my question - no "fundamentalism" about it.

Fr David Moser

When I read St. Basil's Hexameron it struck me that St. Basil (in his 5th discourse on plants) describes the principles of sexual and asexual reproduction, transport of nutrients, ontogenesis, reproductive isolation, biological defense from pests and herbivores, pathology, bio-mechanics and artificial selection (!) in the same general terms we do today excluding of course methodological nuances inaccessible to him. Today all these things are interpreted in terms of evolution (plants evolved this and that, etc). For St. Basil there was no problem in seeing the plant and animal life as created in accordance with the word of God (the commentary is on the 1 chapter of the Book of Genesis) already complete, whole, beautiful and harmonious.

So he says <...> in the whole creation every creature fulfils its particular function <...> and in creatures there is nothing haphazard or chaotic, quite the opposite - every thing bears on itself signs of Creative Wisdom and every thing demonstrates in and of itself that it has been provided with all that necessary for its well-being (9th discourse) .

Overall, I could see six general principles outlined in the Hexameron that a Christian could use to interpret patterns and phenomena we see in living nature (I give St. Basil's own words in italics, rest is paraphrase).

(1) Let us approach natural science armed with faith and, [I]having believed Moses, that God greated heaven and earth, let us give praise to the most superb Artist, Who created this world in wisdom and beauty, so that from the brilliance of that which is visible we could understand Him Who exceeds all in beauty; from the greatness of these physical and limited bodies let us learn something about the Limitless One, Who is above all greatness and Whose magnificence of power exceeds any imagination (1st discourse).

(2) Let the most important thing for us be not acquisition of knowledge as such, but that the conclusions we make do not run counter the Holy Writ or the teaching of the Church. Then, even if we do not fathom the essence of things, but nonetheless, helped by the Spirit, we will not deviate from the intent of the Scriptures, then we ourselves will not be considered as worthless and aided by the grace perhaps will do something for the good of the Church (2nd discourse).

(3) Let the thought that as God created the world so does He provides for it, never leave your conscience. Then, whether we agree that the earth hangs by itself or if we say that it rests on the waters - in either case it will be necessary to concede that the totality of things is held together by the power of Creator. Therefore to ourselves and to those who ask us: what supports the huge and relentless weight of the earth? - we will answer: in His hands are all the ends of the earth (Ps. 94:4). (1st discourse).

(4) Let us not forget that wise-men spent a lot of time arguing about nature and none of their teachings remained solid and unaltered because subsequent teachings always undermined those that preceded them. Indeed eyes of those who exercise in vain wisdom are like those of an owl! The vision of the owl is keen at night but it becomes darkened at the sunrise; so it is with them: their understanding of vain abstractions is quite sophisticated, but it is darkened when it comes to comprehension of the true light (8th discourse).

(5) Let us use examples provided by nature for our own edification, thinking that if irrational creatures are clever and skillful in caring for their survival, and if even a fish knows what to chose and what to avoid, how we, who are endowed with reason, taught by the law, encouraged by the promises of good things to come, made wise by the Spirit, will be able to justify ourselves if we manage our lives worse than fishes? For they can look a little bit ahead, while we having abandoned the hope for the future, destroy our lives in bestial lusts (7th discourse).

(6) Finally let us learn that even in the living nature for a Christian soul that is fighting a good fight (2 Tim 4:7), pure from carnal lusts, not darkened by worldly cares, industrious, inquisitive, trying to study everything from which knowledge about God, worthy of God, can be gained, the great mystery of His Resurrection becomes revealed (1st/8th discourses).

In the Lord,
Yura

Owen Jones

01-02-2008, 03:38 PM

I agree with everything that Fr. Moser has said above, but I think that for most Orthodox Christians, if you were to say that theology is spiritual philosophy, many of them would quake. Our position viz "science" and "evolution" becomes fundamentalism when we avoid looking at these questions from the standpoint of "spiritual philosophy" vs. "naturalistic philosophy" and rely simply on literal/historical method as the only way of discernment. At the same time, not to quibble too much, but if we pose the problem in terms of a difference between or dispute between naturalistic philosophy and spiritual philosophy, that simply sets up a relativistic dichotomy. It's basically saying that we all start from a priori assumptions, and I have a right to my a priori assumptions, just as you have a right to your a priori assumptions, but that's not how theology works, so to speak, and it's not the way science is supposed to work. Classically understand, theology is the queen of the sciences. So there really cannot be a contradiction between "natural science" and theological science. Nor a radical distinction between the two.

There is no a priori really in Christian theology. There is a question or a series of questions, to which theology is not so much the answer is it is the way of asking or addressing the questions. Such as, what is man that Thou are mindful of Him?

Christian theology, Orthodox theology, is true, not because God or the Fathers said its true, but because it is the closest to explaining and describing things as they really are, scientifically. Darwinism is false, to the extent it fails to do that. It address one very narrow aspect of life, and attempts to explain everything based on that one very narrow aspect, which is the essence of fundamentalism. So if you ask an evolutionist about love, he will respond to that question in the same way a graduate of Bob Jones University will respond to the question. Programmatically and in one sentence. The evolutionist will quote or summarize Darwin (or Desmond Morris) and say that love is actually a pre-programmed biological response to external stimuli as the result of millions of years of evolutionary selection. The graduate of Bob Jones university will quote John 3:16. Neither of them know anything at all about the subject.

I don't know if Richard Dawkins is married or if he has ever had a girl friend, but I would love to ask him a question about love. Have you ever told a woman you loved her? Obviously you were lying right? Because there is no such thing, just a pre-programmed response to certain external stimuli that developed over millions of years as a way of promoting the survival of the fittest. If your girl friend or wife told you she loves you, was that your response? Hey, I know you think that you love me, but what you are really doing is making a pre-programmed biological response to external stimuli in order to promote the survival of the fittest. In which case, I would not want to pay his emergency room bills.

Mary

01-02-2008, 03:49 PM

(4) Let us not forget that wise-men spent a lot of time arguing about nature and none of their teachings remained solid and unaltered because subsequent teachings always undermined those that preceded them. Indeed eyes of those who exercise in vain wisdom are like those of an owl! The vision of the owl is keen at night but it becomes darkened at the sunrise; so it is with them: their understanding of vain abstractions is quite sophisticated, but it is darkened when it comes to comprehension of the true light (8th discourse).

In the Lord,
Yura

Thank you SO MUCH!!! That is so beautiful!!! #4 is my favorite. It describes the world of modern science so perfectly!!

In Christ,
Mary.

Father David Moser

01-02-2008, 04:02 PM

I agree with everything that Fr. Moser has said above, but I think that for most Orthodox Christians, if you were to say that theology is spiritual philosophy, many of them would quake. ... Classically understand, theology is the queen of the sciences. So there really cannot be a contradiction between "natural science" and theological science. Nor a radical distinction between the two.

I think I was less than clear in my use of the term "naturalistic philosophy" What I meant to convey was the fact that the underlying principle of evolution is that of naturalism - that the universe exists and maintains itself independent of an outside agent (i.e. God) and that the "laws of nature" are principles that are somehow transcendent making all that happens in some way an inevitable result of natural circumstance (no God needed thank you). So when I said "naturalistic philosophy" I was not talking about "natural science" so much as I was trying to reference the philosophy of naturalism as the underlying principle of evolution.

Fr David Moser

M. Partyka

01-02-2008, 04:10 PM

...Darwinian theory is a type of fundamentalism. It does not allow any criticism or counter theories. The only scientific evidence that exists that might possibly support evolutionary theory is carbon dating that points to a much older earth than one derives from deducing a straight time line from Scripture. The rest of it is bunk.I don't think evolutionary theory can be written off quite so quickly. True, the antiquity of the earth doesn't in and of itself prove the validity of evolutionary theory, but it does give scientists the chronal backdrop against which they can hypothesize evolutionary activity. That the earth is ancient -- much more ancient than scripture appears to indicate -- is not in question. (Or is it?) What's in question is whether the mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism, namely natural selection and point mutations, are sufficient to drive the evolutionary process, and whether the geological and fossil records give evidence of an evolutionary process at work.

It is certainly not a theory of origins. For every originating point in Darwinism, there is a previous originating point, infinitely. So it cannot be a theory of origins, although it claims to be.This, too, is true. Evolution supposes that life evolved from certain fortunate combinations of non-living molecules, but there is no proof backing up this claim, nor will there be unless and until a self-replicating organism is created in a lab somewhere. This does not, however, rule out the possibility that evolution proceeded naturally from a "starting point" of divine intervention, so I would advise our not jumping to the conclusion that evolution's lack of a testable "origin of life" hypothesis necessarily renders all of evolutionary theory invalid and unworthy of serious consideration.

Now, since we all experience our world as something less than good, we must account for how that corruption entered the world. We have two alternatives. Either God messed up, or we are at fault.I don't think the "either-or" you have proposed is necessarily valid. We might not like the imperfections we experience on a daily basis, but that doesn't necessarily mean those imperfections aren't part of God's plan. Certain theistic evolutionists believe that man was created mortal but with the potential to participate in immortality through the original communion with God that man had in Eden. Outside of Eden, things grew and died in the same cycle of life and death we see today, and only after the fall did God banish man from the garden into the environment the rest of the world was already experiencing. So from this perspective one could argue for a perfectly-designed creation on one hand without sacrificing our moral culpability for having to participate in the negative aspects of that creation.

Darwininism is not true...mostly because it does not accurately reflect reality as we know it and experience it. We do not behave as beings that are driven by instincts evolved due to selective advantage. We are much more complex than that.Yes, we are more complex than all other animals, but this doesn't constitute a counterargument to evolution. Our complexity does not eliminate from our psyches and our biology the basic underlying instincts and desires of our animal natures. For all our spirituality, the human animal is an animal, and it is biologically hardwired with some of the same driving instincts that animals have. The desires for food, sex, safety, etc. -- these are all traits we share with the animal kingdom. We can rise above these basic desires -- something animals only occasionally do -- but they are still present within us.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

01-02-2008, 04:39 PM

Fr David wrote:

So when I said "naturalistic philosophy" I was not talking about "natural science" so much as I was trying to reference the philosophy of naturalism as the underlying principle of evolution.

Isn't this exactly the area that we should be looking at? I think so.

For the Fathers nature is that irreducible anchor of each being & thing. nature defines what each thing is. It adapts (that's part of its intrinsic nature) but does not evolve.

It is this last fact which truly separates the Patristic vision of reality from the naturalistic. For the naturalistic sees reality and thus nature as intrinsically relative- thus primitive glob to fish to reptile to mammal to man. This is its most fundamental principle. That anything given certain circumstances can become anything else.

The inner contradiction of this relative understanding of nature however is that it doesn't support a progressive or evolutionary understanding of being. In other words Darwin and his supporters rely not only on a naturalistic and relative understanding of reality. Probably for unrecognized cultural reasons they try to combine a naturalistic view of reality with a moral view according to the 19th c- that everything inherently progresses.

It its own time I think, Darwinism was more a reflection of the moral outlook of the 19th century. Like similar ideas about the history of peoples, nations and culture all things were seen as being on the flow of history taking them to higher and higher expressions of themselves.

The problem with all of these views however is that once detached from the Patristic vision of nature; of nature being anchored in that Divine reality which gives all things their own reality; there actually is no way to avoid having nature fall into the absolute abyss of relativity, of a nihilism which denies all reality and nature in the first place.

I don't think the Fathers dealt directly with the subject of evolution. But they certainly did discuss being and nature. And their overall view of nature was that detached in any way from the Divine reality which gives it being- that nature falls into the abyss of nothingness.

In other words left to itself evolution would lead not to higher life forms but rather to the destruction of nature. So evolution needs to show how it could be that, according not to the evidence but according to its own premises, evolution can lead to life.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father David Moser

01-02-2008, 04:39 PM

Certain theistic evolutionists believe that man was created mortal but with the potential to participate in immortality through the original communion with God that man had in Eden. Outside of Eden, things grew and died in the same cycle of life and death we see today, and only after the fall did God banish man from the garden into the environment the rest of the world was already experiencing. So from this perspective one could argue for a perfectly-designed creation on one hand without sacrificing our moral culpability for having to participate in the negative aspects of that creation.

Well at least you've take a step closer to patristic discussion by referring to "theistic evolution" And your premise sounds interesting, now can you support it from the writings of the Fathers and/or the services of the Church?

Yes, we are more complex than all other animals, but this doesn't constitute a counterargument to evolution. Our complexity does not eliminate from our psyches and our biology the basic underlying instincts and desires of our animal natures. For all our spirituality, the human animal is an animal, and it is biologically hardwired with some of the same driving instincts that animals have. The desires for food, sex, safety, etc. -- these are all traits we share with the animal kingdom. We can rise above these basic desires -- something animals only occasionally do -- but they are still present within us.

Again, this is not consistent with the teaching of the Church concerning the nature of man - it is not even consistent with the first chapter of Genesis. Man is not an animal - there is a qualitative difference which requires a special creative act of God. According to the writings of the fathers, animals do not have a "spiritual" nature (although they do have a type of natural, mortal soul). The "spirituality" that you dismiss is the key difference between man and animal - it is qualitative difference in th way we were separately created. Again, this is clear in the aforementioned (by myself and Owen/Seraphim) Hexameron of St Basil and in the Exact Exposition of St John of Damascus (which you seem to have neglected to read). If you are going to argue your point, at least have the intellectual honesty to consider all the sources. Scientific observation has little or no accurate information concerning the nature of man, since it treats the human being as simply a "complex animal" and thus is blinded in its research by its own prejudice. (although honest scientific investigators will acknowledge this blind spot and even will venture into "spiritual" realm if they are willing to endure the prejudice of their peers) If you want this information, you must go to the Church which has preserved the revelation of the Creator concerning the true nature of man. Having this knowledge, you will then be able to intelligently discuss the place of man in the universe rather than show your ignorance by insisting that human beings are just "complex animals".

Fr David Moser

M. Partyka

01-02-2008, 05:01 PM

...if we pose the problem in terms of a difference between or dispute between naturalistic philosophy and spiritual philosophy, that simply sets up a relativistic dichotomy. It's basically saying that we all start from a priori assumptions, and I have a right to my a priori assumptions, just as you have a right to your a priori assumptions, but that's not how theology works, so to speak, and it's not the way science is supposed to work. Classically understand, theology is the queen of the sciences. So there really cannot be a contradiction between "natural science" and theological science. Nor a radical distinction between the two. There is no a priori really in Christian theology.Is it really true that Christianity contains no a priori statements?

That God exists cannot be proven from a scientific point of view, can it? And if not, then isn't the existence of God axiomatic for believers?

What about the virgin birth of Christ? How is the virgin birth not axiomatic, given that we cannot scientifically prove it happened?

I'm not saying it's wrong for Christianity to have axioms or a priori statements. On the contrary, I think it's very important to identify just what those assumptions are, which makes denying that they exist in Christianity quite counterproductive.

M. Partyka

01-02-2008, 05:25 PM

Well at least you've take a step closer to patristic discussion by referring to "theistic evolution" And your premise sounds interesting, now can you support it from the writings of the Fathers and/or the services of the Church?Not immediately, but that wasn't my intent. I only wanted to demonstrate that there are ways around the "either/or" dichotomy that was proposed.

...this is not consistent with the teaching of the Church concerning the nature of man - it is not even consistent with the first chapter of Genesis. Man is not an animal - there is a qualitative difference which requires a special creative act of God.With all due respect, I totally disagree. That human beings are land animals is indicated twice in Genesis -- first, in that human beings are created on the same day as the land animals, making human beings the land animal par excellence and the only one stamped with God's image; and second, in God's giving Adam a choice of helpmate from the rest of the animals before creating Eve.

According to the writings of the fathers, animals do not have a "spiritual" nature (although they do have a type of natural, mortal soul). The "spirituality" that you dismiss is the key difference between man and animal - it is qualitative difference in th way we were separately created....you...show your ignorance by insisting that human beings are just "complex animals".Maybe it's because I used the term "animal nature" to refer to that portion of existence we share with the animal kingdom (e.g., having flesh, instincts, etc.), but you have severely misunderstood me. I never denied the existence of a spiritual portion of man's being that separates him qualitatively from the animal kingdom. I only stated that the existence of this qualitative separation should not be so construed as to deny the inherent commonalities between man and animals which obviously do exist.

Father David Moser

01-02-2008, 05:54 PM

With all due respect, I totally disagree. That human beings are land animals is indicated twice in Genesis -- first, in that human beings are created on the same day as the land animals, making human beings the land animal par excellence and the only one stamped with God's image;

And here again you show your lack of learning. In the original languages (Hebrew & Greek) as well as Slavonic, there are two different words for "create". The one used when God created man is "to cause to come into existence from nothing". If man were simply an animal, then the other word for "create" in Genesis, "to shape that which already exists into a new form", would have been used. But the first word - that of a unique creation is used only three times in the creation narrative and each time it signifies something new that did not exist before. So we can see clearly, even from the Genesis narrative of creation that man is considered a qualitatively different creation from that of the animals.

Now if you had taken the trouble to search out the patristic commentary on the fall (which plays very closely into this discussion) you would know that when the Genesis account tells us that God clothed Adam and Eve with "garments of skin" it doesn't mean little loincloths made out of fur but rather it means that man was "clothed" with an animal like nature. This points out that although man appears to be animal-like, that this is not his true created nature, which the fathers tell us was closer to that of the angels than that of the animals (although as a spiritual/physical creation man is unique in that he spans both orders).

Before you try to tell the Orthodox Church what it believes about the nature of man, it would behoove you to learn first what the Church believes about the nature of man and why we believe it.

Maybe it's because I used the term "animal nature" to refer to that portion of existence we share with the animal kingdom (e.g., having flesh, instincts, etc.), but you have severely misunderstood me. I never denied the existence of a spiritual portion of man's being that separates him qualitatively from the animal kingdom. I only stated that the existence of this qualitative separation should not be so construed as to deny the inherent commonalities between man and animals which obviously do exist.

However these commonalities are not inherent in the created nature of man, but rather were overlayed in the fall. (You really need to read the writings of the fathers if you want to discuss this topic) My quarrel is not with your assertion that there are commonalities between man and animals (which as you correctly state "obviously do exist") but rather with your extrapolation that this commonality necessitates an evolutionary link between man and the animals. There is another reason for that commonality that has nothing to do with evolution (the fall) that you do not seem to consider at all.

Fr David Moser

Owen Jones

01-02-2008, 11:44 PM

Fr. Raphael has hit the nail on the head, IMHO, regarding Darwinism as a moral system, not a scientific system based on natural science. I understand that Fr. David was using the term naturalistic philosophy in terms of an ideological system, not a scientific system, but using the term philosophy is probably too generous. someone noted that Darwin was metaphysically illiterate, as are all his epigones.

So back to Fr. Raphael's point, the neat tidy Victorian moral system that spawned Darwinism is contradicted by Orthodox doctrine. The fundamental flaw is the progressivist bias to history, laid out by Hegel. Marx invented a system in which all progress stems from class warfare. Darwin invented a system in which all progress stems from biological warfare.

But there is no such thing as progress in history. History will come to an end some day and the end will be exactly like the beginning -- nothing. Creatio ex nihilo ends in whatever the Latin is for into nothing. This is fundamental Christian doctrine, but it is also philosophically sound as well, and scientifically sound as well. The idea of an infinite universe has been pretty well disputed by cosmologists.

My only point is that the contradiction is not an apodictic one, but an experiential and observational one. People just to not live, think and behave the way Darwinists say they are supposed to. Besides, what is the selective biological advantage to believing in a Creator God who is Good? This would seem to be a major disadvantage to survival of the fittest.

Our theology has arrived at its truths, not because they are showered down on us from above in the form of eternal verities. They arise from great examplars who have illuminations and who are involved in spiritual struggle, along with the internal struggles in the Church to devise doctrines that protect these hard won illuminations. It is difficult to grasp, I know. We want the comfort of spiritual truths handed down to us throughout the ages. But each generation must relearn them experientially or they have no power. The Ten Commandments were written in stone tablets, but we forget all of the struggles that Moses had to undergo in order to receive them.

M. Partyka

02-02-2008, 03:35 AM

In the original languages (Hebrew & Greek) as well as Slavonic, there are two different words for "create". The one used when God created man is "to cause to come into existence from nothing". If man were simply an animal, then the other word for "create" in Genesis, "to shape that which already exists into a new form", would have been used.I don't believe that logically follows. Genesis 1 obviously separates man from the common animal by informing us that man, unlike the other animals, was made in God's image. Regardless of the biological traits which man shares with the rest of the animal kingdom, man alone has that spiritual stamp of the likeness of God. In this way, man is indeed a qualitatively new creation which did not previously exist.

Please note also that I am not jumping to the conclusion that because man and animals have some biological elements in common, this necessarily means evolution has taken place to develop the human body. God could have created the human body "as is" with the commonalities between man and animal being an intentional part of His creative design.

So we can see clearly, even from the Genesis narrative of creation that man is considered a qualitatively different creation from that of the animals.As I hope I've shown above, I agree with this statement 100%.

Now if you had taken the trouble to search out the patristic commentary on the fall...you would know that when the Genesis account tells us that God clothed Adam and Eve with "garments of skin" it doesn't mean little loincloths made out of fur but rather it means that man was "clothed" with an animal like nature. This points out that although man appears to be animal-like, that this is not his true created nature, which the fathers tell us was closer to that of the angels than that of the animals (although as a spiritual/physical creation man is unique in that he spans both orders)....these commonalities are not inherent in the created nature of man, but rather were overlayed in the fall....My quarrel is not with your assertion that there are commonalities between man and animals (which as you correctly state "obviously do exist") but rather with your extrapolation that this commonality necessitates an evolutionary link between man and the animals. There is another reason for that commonality that has nothing to do with evolution (the fall) that you do not seem to consider at all.First, I have not made the extrapolation you are attributing to me. Yes, this extrapolation is something which has been suggested by modern theistic evolutionists, but when I presented this view as a way out of the "either-or" dichotomy that was offered up before, I never meant to imply that I had adopted this view as my own.

Second, the reason I haven't considered the view you have proposed (i.e., citing the fall as responsible for the commonalities between man and animals) is simply because it's something that I have not yet encountered in my readings in the fathers. From which fathers are you drawing support for this "fall into animalism" (for lack of a better title) view? It may simply be that I haven't gotten to these fathers yet in my studies.

M. Partyka

02-02-2008, 03:48 AM

My only point is that the contradiction is not an apodictic one, but an experiential and observational one. People just do not live, think and behave the way Darwinists say they are supposed to. Besides, what is the selective biological advantage to believing in a Creator God who is Good? This would seem to be a major disadvantage to survival of the fittest.On the level of individual survival, I would have to agree, but on the level of group survival, I believe an evolutionist would say that the rules change a bit.

For example, there are species of bees with hooked stingers. Stinging an attacker is suicide for such bees because the hook's staying in the flesh of the attacker means part of the bee's own abdomen is ripped away. On an individual level, then, this presumed evolutionary development is ridiculous because it has the propensity to kill the individual. However, the hook mechanism also maximizes delivery of venom into an attacker's system, and that promotes the survival of the hive. So, at the group level, the hook mechanism makes sense in that it preserves the hive, even though it kills the poor kamikaze bee.

Religion, then, is (I assume -- I'm really not as well-read on evolutionary theory as I'd like to be) commonly portrayed in evolutionist literature as a group survival mechanism in which the participation of the individual in the rituals and morals of the group promotes the overall welfare of the society, and this in turn increases the overall survival potential of the individuals in the group (though some sacrifices by individuals for the group's sake are likely required from time to time -- that's the cost of having one's average chances of survival improved by belonging to the group).

Owen Jones

02-02-2008, 04:35 PM

But this is not DARWIN's theory. This would be a radical revision of Darwin's theory. And the problem on the molecular level is insurmountable. What minor, gradual changes (mutations) that are supposed to take place take place in individuals. So the survival mechanism has to be applied to individuals.

The problem with Darwinism lies within itself, not with any extrinsic authority. Critiquing Darwinism does not tell us how we should then live. But the critique of Darwinism can be done by any sentient creature, Christian or not. It is simply not scientific.

This is the case with any ideology, of which Darwinism is simply one example. Once the critique of the ideology has been accomplished, what do we do then? Philip Rieff wrote the definitive critique of Freud, in The Mind of the Moralist. But he doesn't know what to do next.

That's the role of the Church, to make faith compelling to everyone who has become disillusioned with ideological propaganda. By showing, both in our lives, but also intellectually, the problem with living according to some mental fixation, and the joy that comes from giving one's life to God. Which means that the Church has an obligation to confront the great ideological movements and not just condemn or critique them, but show how Christianity is not simply some matter of alternative personal taste, or some alternative ideology. It is the antithesis of ideology. It constitutes spiritual, emotional, bodily health, as opposed to the sickness of ideology. A sickness unto death.

So just marshalling facts against ideologies doesn't work. The opponents of Marxism, for example, are typically economists who point to free markets as being much more efficient in providing wealth AND equality. But that does not address the motivation for people being attracted to Marxism, which is spiritual alienation.

So why is Darwinism such an attractive dogma for "modern man?" Modern man wants to be on the right side of history, on the right side of progress. So whatever intellectual system supports this sense, which gives a feeling of power over the world, he is going to gravitate toward. It is a ridiculous contradiction of course, because all of the ideological systems are deterministic in nature, deny any vestige of human free will, and tell us that we are just the slaves of impersonal historical forces. The inevitable force of Progress has become the god we have attached ourselves to. This of course is a vicious cycle, because then we are confronted with the abject lack of progress taking place on our terms. Therefore, there must be some massive, secret conspiracy underway to stand in the way of progress. So therefore, the progressive must support totalitarian measures to defeat the forces of reaction that are holding up progress, including anyone who dares to question the ideological presumptions of progressives.

Yuri Zharikov

02-02-2008, 06:25 PM

Fr. Raphael has hit the nail on the head, IMHO, regarding Darwinism as a moral system, not a scientific system based on natural science. I understand that Fr. David was using the term naturalistic philosophy in terms of an ideological system, not a scientific system, but using the term philosophy is probably too generous. someone noted that Darwin was metaphysically illiterate, as are all his epigones. .

It is interesting that one of the main criticisms levelled against R. Dawkins in general and his recent book the delision of god in particular is that he lacks knowledge in both religion and philosophy.

So back to Fr. Raphael's point, the neat tidy Victorian moral system that spawned Darwinism is contradicted by Orthodox doctrine. The fundamental flaw is the progressivist bias to history, laid out by Hegel. Marx invented a system in which all progress stems from class warfare. Darwin invented a system in which all progress stems from biological warfare.

And Darwin borrowed the idea (of survival of the fittest) from Malthus. Thomas Malthus's essay on populations provoked Darwin's ideas of natural selection of the fittest and evolution of new species. Donald Worster (1994) suggested that Darwin's reading of Malthus's essay may have been the single most important event in the history of Anglo-American ecological thought and led to constructing a science to meet one's own emotional
and psychological needs. So indeed, just like Fr. Raphael suggested Darwin simply applied the societal/paradigm of his day to biology/origins of species. But of course, species do not come about this way...

In the Lord,
Yura

Yuri Zharikov

02-02-2008, 06:40 PM

That's the role of the Church, to make faith compelling to everyone who has become disillusioned with ideological propaganda. By showing, both in our lives, but also intellectually, the problem with living according to some mental fixation, and the joy that comes from giving one's life to God. Which means that the Church has an obligation to confront the great ideological movements and not just condemn or critique them, but show how Christianity is not simply some matter of alternative personal taste, or some alternative ideology. It is the antithesis of ideology. It constitutes spiritual, emotional, bodily health, as opposed to the sickness of ideology. A sickness unto death.

So why is Darwinism such an attractive dogma for "modern man?" Modern man wants to be on the right side of history, on the right side of progress. So whatever intellectual system supports this sense, which gives a feeling of power over the world, he is going to gravitate toward. It is a ridiculous contradiction of course, because all of the ideological systems are deterministic in nature, deny any vestige of human free will, and tell us that we are just the slaves of impersonal historical forces. The inevitable force of Progress has become the god we have attached ourselves to. This of course is a vicious cycle, because then we are confronted with the abject lack of progress taking place on our terms. Therefore, there must be some massive, secret conspiracy underway to stand in the way of progress. So therefore, the progressive must support totalitarian measures to defeat the forces of reaction that are holding up progress, including anyone who dares to question the ideological presumptions of progressives.

Amen.

Yura
P.S. I feel this post pretty much concludes this discussion and answers Q2 of the post that initated this thread (can a Christian believe in evolution)

Yuri Zharikov

03-02-2008, 12:05 AM

M. Partyka

03-02-2008, 04:51 PM

I would definitely look into St. Gregory's Of Nyssa On the Nature of Man. Here is a quote to support what Fr. David said:

If, due to sin, no change and fall from the angelic rank ever happened to us, then we likewise would require no need in marriage for propagation. But what is the mode of propagation in the angelic nature – this is beyond any human word or thought; still doubtless it does exist. It could also operate in people made little lower than the angels (Ps. 8:6) multiplying the human race unto the fulfilment of the measure laid down by the Creator.[1,2]

[1] On the Nature of Man, Ch. 17.St. Gregory also says, however:

...Holy Scripture conveys to us a great and lofty doctrine; and the doctrine is this. While two natures—the Divine and incorporeal nature, and the irrational life of brutes—are separated from each other as extremes, human nature is the mean between them: for in the compound nature of man we may behold a part of each of the natures I have mentioned,—of the Divine, the rational and intelligent element, which does not admit the distinction of male and female; of the irrational, our bodily form and structure, divided into male and female....we learn also that his community and kindred with the irrational is for man a provision for reproduction.[1]

...He Who brought all things into being and fashioned Man as a whole by His own will to the Divine image, did not wait to see the number of souls made up to its proper fulness by the gradual additions of those coming after; but while looking upon the nature of man in its entirety and fulness by the exercise of His foreknowledge, and bestowing upon it a lot exalted and equal to the angels, since He saw beforehand by His all-seeing power the failure of their will to keep a direct course to what is good, and its consequent declension from the angelic life, in order that the multitude of human souls might not be cut short by its fall from that mode by which the angels were increased and multiplied,—for this reason, I say, He formed for our nature that contrivance for increase which befits those who had fallen into sin, implanting in mankind, instead of the angelic majesty of nature, that animal and irrational mode by which they now succeed one another....For he truly was made like the beasts, who received in his nature the present mode of transient generation, on account of his inclination to material things.[2, emphasis mine]

For I think that from this beginning all our passions issue as from a spring, and pour their flood over man’s life; and an evidence of my words is the kinship of passions which appears alike in ourselves and in the brutes; for it is not allowable to ascribe the first beginnings of our constitutional liability to passion to that human nature which was fashioned in the Divine likeness; but as brute life first entered into the world, and man, for the reason already mentioned, took something of their nature (I mean the mode of generation), he accordingly took at the same time a share of the other attributes contemplated in that nature; for the likeness of man to God is not found in anger, nor is pleasure a mark of the superior nature; cowardice also, and boldness, and the desire of gain, and the dislike of loss, and all the like, are far removed from that stamp which indicates Divinity.

These attributes, then, human nature took to itself from the side of the brutes; for those qualities with which brute life was armed for self-preservation, when transferred to human life, became passions; for the carnivorous animals are preserved by their anger, and those which breed largely by their love of pleasure; cowardice preserves the weak, fear that which is easily taken by more powerful animals, and greediness those of great bulk; and to miss anything that tends to pleasure is for the brutes a matter of pain. All these and the like affections entered man’s composition by reason of the animal mode of generation.

...so man seems to me to bear a double likeness to opposite things—being moulded in the Divine element of his mind to the Divine beauty, but bearing, in the passionate impulses that arise in him, a likeness to the brute nature; while often even his reason is rendered brutish, and obscures the better element by the worse through its inclination and disposition towards what is irrational....

Thus our love of pleasure took its beginning from our being made like to the irrational creation....Thus the rising of anger in us is indeed akin to the impulse of the brutes....Thus the greediness of swine introduces covetousness, and the high spirit of the horse becomes the origin of pride; and all the particular forms that proceed from the want of reason in brute nature become vice by the evil use of the mind.[3]

[1] On the Nature of Man, Ch. 16.
[2] On the Nature of Man, Ch. 17.
[3] On the Nature of Man, Ch. 18.

I have underlined a portion of the quotes to draw attention to St. Gregory's belief that while the implantation of the animal nature in man was indeed a consequence of the fall, that implantation took place before the fall, in the original creation of man, as a result of God's foreknowledge of the fall. In other words, man was created from the beginning as a composite of divine, rational elements and animalistic, irrational elements. We therefore cannot argue from St. Gregory that our kinship with the animals is something we did not possess prior to the fall, which is what I believe Fr. David was arguing.

Yuri Zharikov

04-02-2008, 03:33 AM

St. Gregory also says, however:

In other words, man was created from the beginning as a composite of divine, rational elements and animalistic, irrational elements. We therefore cannot argue from St. Gregory that our kinship with the animals is something we did not possess prior to the fall, which is what I believe Fr. David was arguing.

There is no "howevers" in St. Gregory's writing and likewise Fr. David, when he responded to your statement:

MP wrote: I only stated that the existence of this qualitative separation should not be so construed as to deny the inherent commonalities between man and animals which obviously do exist.

by

Fr. David wrote: However these commonalities are not inherent in the created nature of man, but rather were overlayed in the fall.

simply restated the teaching of the Church on the nature of man being in the image and likeness of God. This teaching using the words of St. Gregory is that the greatness of man is that:
it is not in the likeness of the created world, but that it exists in the image of the essence of the Creator. (ch. 16).
Man inherently, naturally is made not in the likeness of any other creatures, as you are trying to assert, but in the image of the essence of the Holy Trinity. The Trinity is indivisible, likewise man consisting of a body, soul and spirit (nous) is indivisible - this is our threesome nature. That now, in the fallen state passions, sexual mode of propagation, in short sin, make us behave like animals is not inherent - it is, as St. Gregory teaches (for it is not allowable to ascribe the first beginnings of our constitutional liability to passion to that human nature which was fashioned in the Divine likeness) and Fr. David said in his post, a result of corruption of the nature at the fall. In the Kingdom of Heaven we again will be like angels, in fact better because our bodies will be with us in their glorified exalted state - we'll still be threesome.
To try to cleave human nature into parts and relate one of them ontogenically to animals is a folly, because man was created not from animals but in his own right, as one whole.
It is also important to keep in mind that St. Gregory in this work is referring to both man at creation and man in his fallen state and to separate the two which you have not done.

MP: <...> man was created from the beginning as a composite of divine, rational elements and animalistic, irrational elements.
St. Gregory: <...> He formed for our nature that contrivance for increase which

befits those who had fallen into sin, implanting in mankind, instead of the angelic majesty of nature, that animal and irrational mode by which they now succeed one another. <...> For [after the fall] he truly was made like the beasts, who received in his nature the present mode of transient generation, on account of his inclination to material things.

Elements you call animalistic and irrational became such only after and as a consequence of the fall - their current state is not inherent and is unnatural.

In the Lord,
Yura

M. Partyka

04-02-2008, 06:57 PM

After reading your response, I decided to do a more thorough review of St. Gregory's "On the Making of Man" and found the following in chapter 8:4-7 giving his understanding of the composition of man's being:

...the power of life and soul may be considered in three divisions. For one is only a power of growth and nutrition supplying what is suitable for the support of the bodies that are nourished, which is called the vegetative soul, and is to be seen in plants; for we may perceive in growing plants a certain vital power destitute of sense; and there is another form of life besides this, which, while it includes the form above mentioned, is also possessed in addition of the power of management according to sense; and this is to be found in the nature of the irrational animals: for they are not only the subjects of nourishment and growth, but also have the activity of sense and perception. But perfect bodily life is seen in the rational (I mean the human) nature, which both is nourished and endowed with sense, and also partakes of reason and is ordered by mind.

We might make a division of our subject in some such way as this. Of things existing, part are intellectual, part corporeal....Of the corporeal, part is entirely devoid of life, and part shares in vital energy. Of a living body, again, part has sense conjoined with life, and part is without sense: lastly, that which has sense is again divided into rational and irrational. For this reason the lawgiver says that after inanimate matter (as a sort of foundation for the form of animate things), this vegetative life was made, and had earlier existence in the growth of plants: then he proceeds to introduce the genesis of those creatures which are regulated by sense: and since, following the same order, of those things which have obtained life in the flesh, those which have sense can exist by themselves even apart from the intellectual nature, while the rational principle could not be embodied save as blended with the sensitive -- for this reason man was made last after the animals, as nature advanced in an orderly course to perfection. For this rational animal, man, is blended of every form of soul; he is nourished by the vegetative kind of soul, and to the faculty of growth was added that of sense, which stands midway, if we regard its peculiar nature, between the intellectual and the more material essence being as much coarser than the one as it is more refined than the other: then takes place a certain alliance and commixture of the intellectual essence with the subtle and enlightened element of the sensitive nature: so that man consists of these three: as we are taught the like thing by the apostle in what he says to the Ephesians, praying for them that the complete grace of their “body and soul and spirit” may be preserved at the coming of the Lord; using, the word “body” for the nutritive part, and denoting the sensitive by the word “soul,” and the intellectual by “spirit.”
...
If, therefore, Scripture tells us that man was made last, after every animate thing, the lawgiver is doing nothing else than declaring to us the doctrine of the soul, considering that what is perfect comes last, according to a certain necessary sequence in the order of things: for in the rational are included the others also, while in the sensitive there also surely exists the vegetative form, and that again is conceived only in connection with what is material: thus we may suppose that nature makes an ascent as it were by steps -- I mean the various properties of life -- from the lower to the perfect form.Now, contrast this with Fr. David's prior argument:

Now if you had taken the trouble to search out the patristic commentary on the fall...you would know that when the Genesis account tells us that God clothed Adam and Eve with "garments of skin," it doesn't mean little loincloths made out of fur but rather it means that man was "clothed" with an animal like nature. This points out that although man appears to be animal-like, this is not his true created nature, which the fathers tell us was closer to that of the angels than that of the animals (although as a spiritual/physical creation man is unique in that he spans both orders)....these commonalities are not inherent in the created nature of man, but rather were overlayed in the fall.Given the obvious differences between their opinions, can we at least agree that St. Gregory and Fr. David are not of one mind concerning the commonalities between man and animal?

Demetrios

05-02-2008, 02:10 AM

Not all fathers agreed with each other on every subject. All you have to do is read more than One father to see as much. It's the consensus of the whole church that matters.
There is a Metropolitan John Zizioulas who has written in detail on this matter. http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/E2.htm
I can't for the life of me imagine how you can remain a Western Christian and believe in evolution.
Let me warn you that by believing in this theory changes what salvation is. If you look deeper Hell will have a new meaning.

Yuri Zharikov

05-02-2008, 06:29 AM

After reading your response, I decided to do a more thorough review of St. Gregory's "On the Making of Man" <...>

I am surprised you have not done this from the very beginning, in which case why argue when you do not have the complete picture. We usually read Fathers, after praying to the Lord by their prayers and writings, to edify our souls and enlighten our minds about things Godly, not to use their writings as crutches in our disputes.

Regarding your question, I'll answer it tomorrow.
Happy reading.

In the Lord,
Yura

M. Partyka

05-02-2008, 08:16 AM

Not all fathers agreed with each other on every subject. All you have to do is read more than One father to see as much. It's the consensus of the whole church that matters.Understood. My intention was not to represent St. Gregory's teaching as the teaching of the whole Church. Rather, I was responding to Yuri's claim that St. Gregory's teaching could form a basis for Fr. David's argument. (It should be noted that Fr. David never himself claimed St. Gregory as a source. For my own edification, I would still like to know who Fr. David's sources are, but that is something only Fr. David can tell us.)

There is a Metropolitan John Zizioulas who has written in detail on this matter. http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/E2.htm (http://www.oodegr.com/english/dogmatiki1/E2.htmI'll) .[/quote]I'll check it out. Thanks for the link.

I can't for the life of me imagine how you can remain a Western Christian and believe in evolution.I never said I believed in evolution. My original intent was only to present the topic of evolution to the forum in an attempt to see how the Orthodox mind (as represented on this forum) responds to the concept and its implications. So far that reaction has been pretty negative. I believe that my attempt to remain neutral and objective on the topic in the face of such negativity often colors me as a proponent of the evolutionist view, but this is an inferrence only, not my stated position.

M. Partyka

05-02-2008, 08:32 AM

Let me warn you that by believing in this theory changes what salvation is. If you look deeper Hell will have a new meaning.Could you please elaborate on this? I read the article you recommended, but I couldn't derive these particular implications from that article.

Demetrios

05-02-2008, 03:39 PM

Could you please elaborate on this? I read the article you recommended, but I couldn't derive these particular implications from that article.

I don't know what others hear will say. But the theory of evolution can fit very nicely into our theology. Many people in Greece believe it and still remain Orthodox.

Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology And Methodology
The Very Rev. Prof. Dr. Dr. George Metallinos
Professor

A. Problem or pseudo-problem?

The antithesis and consequent collision between faith and science is a problem for western (Franco-Latin) thought and is a pseudo-problem for the Orthodox patristic tradition. This is based upon the historical data of these two regions.

The (supposed) dilemma of faith versus science appears in Western Europe in the 17th century with the simultaneous development of the positive sciences. About this same time we have the appearance of the first Orthodox positions on this issue. It is an important fact that these developments in the West are happening without the presence of Orthodoxy. In these recent centuries there has been a spiritual estrangement and differentiation between the [rational] West and the Orthodox East. This fact is outlined by the de-orthodoxiation and de-ecclesiastication of the western European world and the philosophication and legalization of faith and its eventual forming as a religion in the same area. Thus religion is the refutation of Orthodoxy and, according to Fr. John Romanides, the sickess of the human being. Therefore, Orthodoxy remained historically as a non-participant in the making of the present western European civilization, which is also a different size than the civilization of the Orthodox East.

The turning points in western Europeans course of alteration include: scholasticism (13th century), nominalism (14th century), humanism/renaissance (15th century), Reformation (16th century) and the Enlightenment (17th century). It is a series of revolutions and, at that same time, breaches in the structure of western European civilization, that was created by the dialectic of these two movements.

Scholasticism is supported on the adoption of the Platonic realia. Our world is conceived of as an image of the transcendent universalia (realism, archetype). The instrument of knowledge is the mind-intellect. Knowledge (including knowing God) is accomplished through the penetration of logic in the essence of beings. It is the foundation of metaphysic theology, which presupposes the Analogia Entis, the consequitive ontological relation between God and the world, the analogy between the created and uncreated. Nominalism accepts that the universalia are simple names and not beings as in realism. It is a struggle between Platonism and Aristotelian thought in European thought. However, nominalism turned out to be the DNA, in a way, of European civilization, whose essential elements are dualism philosophically and individualism (eudomenism) socially. Prosperity will become the basic quest of the western man, theologically based on the scholastic theology of the middle ages. Nominalism (that is dualism) is the foundation of scientific development of the western world, that is the development of the positive sciences.

The Orthodox East had had another spiritual evolution, under the guidance of its spiritual leaders the saints � and of those who followed them, the true believers--who remained loyal to the prophetic-apostolic-patristic tradition; this tradition stands at the opposite end of scholasticism and all the historic spiritual developments in the European word. In the East, hesychasm or prayer of the heart is dominant (and is the backbone of patristic tradition) it is expressed with the ascetically experienced participation in the Truth as communion with the Uncreated. The faith in the possibility of the joining of God and the world (the Uncreated and the created) within history is preserved in the Orthodox East. This, however, means the rejection of every form of dualism. Science, to the degree it developed in Byzantium/Romania, developed within this framework.

The scientific revolution in Western Europe of the 17th Century, contributed to the separation of the fields of faith and knowledge. It resulted in the following axiomatic principle: New (positive) philosophy only accepts truths which are verified through rational thought. It is the absolute authority of Western thinking. The truths of this new philosophy are the existence of God, soul, virtue, immortality, and judgment. Their acceptance, of course, can only take place in a theistic enlightenment, since we also find atheism as a structural element of modern thought. The ecclesiastical doctrines that are rejected by rationality are the Triune nature of God, the Incarnation, glorification, salvation, etc. This natural and logical religion, from the Orthodox viewpoint, not only differs from atheism but is much worse. Atheism is less dangerous than its distortion!

B. Orthodox Gnosiology

It has been said that in the East the antithesis between faith and science is a pseudo-problem, Why? Because gnosiology in the East is defined by the object to be known which is twofold: the Uncreated and the created. Only the Holy Trinity is Uncreated. The universe (or universes) in which our existence is realized, is created. Faith is knowledge of the Uncreated, and science is knowledge of the created. Therefore, they are two different types of knowledge, each having its own method and tools of inquiry.

The believer, moving within the territory of supernatural, or knowledge of the Uncreated, is not called to learn something metaphysically or to accept something logically, but to experience God by being in communion with Him. This is accomplished by introducing him to a way of life or method which leads to divine knowledge.

It has been correctly stated that if Christianity were to appear for the first time in our era, it would have taken the form of a therapeutic institution, a hospital to reinstate and restore the function of man as a psychosomatic being. That is why Saint John Chrysostom calls the Church a spiritual hospital. Supernatural-theological knowledge is understood in Orthodoxy as pathos (experience of life), as participation and communion with the transcendent and not an unreachable personal truth of the Uncreated and certainly not a mere exercise in learning. Thus, the Christian faith is not the abstract contemplative adoption of metaphysical truths, it is rather, the experience of beholding True Being: the experience of the Supersubstantial (Superessential) Trinity.

This clearly expresses that in Orthodoxy, authority is found in experience. The experience of participating in the Uncreated, of seeing the Uncreated (as expressed by the terms and "theosis" and "glorification"), and is not based on texts or in the Scriptures. The tradition of the Church is not preserved within texts but in people. Texts help, but they are not the bearers of the Holy Tradition. Tradition is preserved by the Saints. Human beings are the bearers of the Gospel. The placing of texts above the actual experience of the Uncreated (an indication of the religionizing of faith) leads to their ideologization and in fact to their idolization. This in turn leads to the absolute authority of the text (fundamentalism) and all the well understood consequences.

The presupposition of the function of knowing the Uncreated, for Orthodoxy, is the rejection of every analogy (either Entis or Fide) in this relationship of the created and the Uncreated. St. John of Damascus summarizes this previously extant patristic tradition in the following manner: It is impossible to find, in creation, an icon that would reveal the way of existence of the Holy Trinity. Because, how could it be possible for the created, which is complex and changeable and describable, which has shape and is perishable, to clearly reveal Superessential Divine Essence, which is free of all these categories? (P.G. 94,821/21).

Therefore, it now becomes apparent why school education and philosophy more specifically, according to the patristic tradition, are not presuppositions for knowledge of God (theognosia). Alongside the great academic St. Basil the Great (+379) we also give honor to St. Anthony (+350), who by wordly standards was not wise. Yet they are both teachers of the faith. Both witness to knowledge of God, St. Anthony as someone uneducated and St. Basil as someone who was more highly educated than Aristotle. St. Augustine (+430) differs (something that the West would find very painful, if they knew about it) from patristic tradition at this point when he ignores scriptural and patristic gnosiology and is in essence a Neo-platonist! With his axiom credo ut intelligam (I believe in order to understand) he introduced the principle that man is lead to a logical conception of Revelation through faith. This gives priority to the intellect (the mind), which is considered by this form of knowledge to be the instrument or tool of knowing both the natural as well as the supernatural. God is considered as a knowable object that can be conceived of by the human intellect (mind) just as any natural object can be conceived of. After St. Augustine the next step in this evolution (with the intervention of the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas+1274) will be made by Decartes (+1650) with his axiom cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am) in which the intellect (mind) is declared as the main basis of existence.

C. The two types of knowledge

It is the Orthodox Tradition that puts and end to this theoretical collision within the field of gnosiology. It does so by differentiating the two types of knowledge and of wisdom:

1.

divine or that which "from above" and
2.

secular (thyrathen) or lower.

The first knowledge is supernatural and the second is natural. This corresponds to the clear distinction between the Uncreated and the created, between God and creation. These two types of learning require two methods of learning. The method of divine wisdom-knowledge is the communion of man with the Uncreated through the heart. It is accomplished through the presence of the Uncreated energy of God in man's heart. The method of secular wisdom-knowledge is science, it is accomplished by exercising the intellectual/ logical power of man. Orthodoxy establishes a clear hierarchy in the two types of knowledge and their methods.

The method of supernatural gnosiology, in the Orthodox Tradition, is called hesychasm and is identified with watchfulness and purification (nepsis and katharsis) of the heart. Hesychasm is identified with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, patristically speaking, is inconceivable outside its hesychastic practice. Hesychasm in its essence, is the ascetic-curative practice of cleansing the heart of passions to rekindle the noetic faculty within the heart. It must be noted at this point, that the method of hesychasm as a curative practice is also scientific and practical. Therefore, theology, under proper conditions, belongs to the practical sciences. Theology's academic classification among the theoretical sciences or arts began in the 12th century in the west and is due to the shift of theology into metaphysics. Therefore, those in the East who condemn our own theology, demonstrate their Westernization, since they, essentially, condemn and reject a disfigured caricature of what they regard as theology. But what is the noetic function? In the Holy Scriptures there is, already, the distinction between the spirit of man (his nous) and the intellect (the logos or mind). The spirit of man in patristics is called nous to distinguish it from the Holy Spirit. The spirit, the nous, is the eye of the soul (see Matt. 6:226).

The noetic faculty is called the function of the nous within the heart and is the spiritual function of the heart, its parallel function is the heart as the organ that pumps the blood throughout our bodies. This noetic faculty is a mnemonic system that exists with the brain cells. These two are known and are detectab1e from human science, which science cannot, however, conceive of the nous. When man attains illumination by the Holy Spirit and becomes the temple of God, self-love changes to unconditional love and it then becomes possible to buiId real social relations supported upon this unconditional reciprocity (a willingness to sacrifice for our fellow man) rather than a self- interested claim of individual rights according to the spirit of western European society.

Thus some important consequences are understood: First, that Christianity in its authenticity is the transcendence of religion and a conception of the Church as merely an institution of rules and duties. Furthermore, Orthodoxy cannot be conceived as an adoption of some principles or truths, imposed upon from above. This is the non-Orthodox version of doctrines (absolute principles, imposed truths). Conceptions and meanings in Orthodoxy are examined through their empirical verification. The dialectical-intellectual style of thinking about theology, as well as dogmatizing, are alien to authentic Orthodox Tradition.

The scientist and professor of the knowledge of the Uncreated, in the Orthodox Tradition, is the Geron/Starets (the Elder or Spiritual Father), the guide or "teacher of the desert". The recording of both types of know1edge presupposes empirica1 knowledge of the phenomenon.

The same holds true in the field of science, where only the specialist understands the research of other scientists of the same field. The adoption of conclusions or findings of a scientific branch by non-specialists (i.e. those who are unable to experimentally examine the research of the specialists) is based on the trust of the specialists credibility. Otherwise, there would be no scientific progress.

The same holds true for the science of faith. The empirical knowledge of the Saints, Prophets, Apostles, Fathers and Mothers of all ages is adopted and founded upon the same trust. The patristic tradition and the Church's Councils function on this provable experience. There is no Ecumenical Council without the presence of the glorified/deified (theoumenoi), those who see the divine (this is the problem of the councils of today!) Orthodox doctrine results from this relationship.

Therefore, Orthodox faith is as dogmatic as science is. Those who speak of bias in the filed of faith, must not forget the words of Marc Bloch, that all scientific research is biased from the beginning, otherwise research could not have been possible. The same holds true of faith. Orthodoxy, makes a distinction between the two types of knowledge (and wisdom), and their methods and tools, thus, avoiding any confusion between them as well as any conflict. The road remains open to confusion and conflict only where the conditions and essence of Christianity are lost. However, in the Orthodox environment, some illogical analogies exist. Such as the possibility of having someone who excels in science, yet with regard to divine knowledge is a child spiritually; and vice-versa, someone who is great in divine knowledge and completely illiterate in human wisdom as the aforementioned St. Anthony the Great. Nothing, however, precludes the possibility of possessing both types of wisdom/knowledge, as is the case of the Great Fathers and Mothers of the Church. This is exactly what the Church hymns for the 3rd century mathematician Saint Catherine the Wise as possessing both types of knowledge: The martyr having received God's wisdom since childhood, learned all secular wisdom well...

D. God-Man dialectic

Thus the Orthodox believer experiences in the correlation of the two knowledge-wisdoms a God-man dialectic. And to use the Christological terminology, every knowledge must stay put and move within its limits. The problem of the limits of each kind of knowledge is put thus: The surpassing of those limits leads to the confusion of their functions and finally to their conflict. According to the above, the Holy Fathers defended the correct use of science and education. Saint Gregory the Theologian states: "Education should not be dishonored." The same Father in his second theological Oration also sets the limits of both kinds of wisdom. Saint Gregory says that the ancient sage (Plato in Timaeus) said: "It is difficult to know God and impossible to express Him [verbally]." However the same Greek yet Christian St. Gregory understands that it is impossible to express (describe) God with words, moreover it is absolutely impossible to understand Him! That is, Plato has already pointed out the limits of human reason and it is important to add that there is no rationalism in the ancient Greek philosophy. Saint Gregory also demonstrates the impossibility of surpassing those limits and the conception of the Uncreated by means of the knowledge of the created.

The distinction and simultaneous hierarchy of the two kinds of knowledge have been pointed out by Saint Basil the Great when he states that faith must prevail in words concerning God and the proofs made by reason. That faith originates from the action and energy of the Holy Spirit. Faith for St. Basil is the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the heart. (P.G. 30,104B-105B). He also gives a classic example of the Orthodox use of scientific knowledge in his Hexameron (P.G. 29, 3-208). He repudiates the cosmological theories of the philosophers on the eternity and self-existence of the world and proceeds to the synthesis of biblical and scientific facts, through which he surpasses science. Furthermore, by rejecting materialistic and heretical teachings, he gets to the theological (but not metaphysical) interpretation of the nature of creation. The central message of this work is, that the logical support of dogma is impossible based only on science. Dogma belongs to another sphere. It is above reason and science, yet within the limits of another knowledge. The use of dogma with wordly knowledge leads to the transformation of science into metaphysics. Whereas the use of reason in the domain of faith proves its weakness and relativity. Therefore, there is no belief that is not searched in Orthodox gnosiology, but each field is searched with its own criteria: Science with its presuppositions and Divine Knowledge with its presuppositions.

The most tragic expression of the alienated Christian body is the ecclesiastica1 attitude in the West towards Galileo. The case could be characterized as surpassing the limits of jurisdiction. But it is much more serious, it is the confusion of the limits of knowledge and their conflict. It is a fact that this loss of the wisdom from above in the West and the way of achieving it have caused the intellect (mind) to be used as a tool of not only human wisdom, but of Divine Wisdom too. The use of the intellect in the field of science leads unavoidably to the rejection of the supernatural as incomprehensible, and its use in the field of faith can lead to the rejection of science when it is considered to be in conflict with faith. This same way of thinking and the same loss of criteria is also betrayed by the rejection of the Copernican system in the East (1774-1821). Science, in turn, takes its revenge for the condemnation of Galilee by the Roman Church, in the person of Darwin, with his theory of evolution.

E. Transplantation of the Western Problem to the Orthodox East

The European Enlightenment consisted of a struggle between physical empiricism and the metaphysics of Aristotle. The Enlighteners are philosophers and rationalists as well. The Greek Enlighteners, with Adamantios Korais as their patriarch, were metaphysical in their theology and it was they who transported the conflict between empiricists and metaphysicists to Greece. However, the Orthodox monks of Mount Athos, the Kollyvades and other Hesychast Fathers remained empiricists in their theological method. The introduction of metaphysics in our popular and academic theology is due, principally, to Korais. For this reason Korais became the authority for our academic theologians, as well as for the popular moral movements. This means that the purification of the heart has ceased to be considered as a presupposition of theology and its place has been taken by scholastic education. the same problem appeared in Russia at the time of Peter the Great (17-18th century). Thus the Fathers are considered to be philosophers (principally Neo-platonists like St. Augustine) and social workers. This has become the prototype of the pietists in Greece. Furthermore, Hesychasm is rejected as obscurantism. The so-called progressive ideas of Korais comprise from the fact that he was a supporter of the Calvinistic and not the Roman Catholic use of metaphysics, and his theological works are intense in this Calvinistic pietism (moralism).

However, for the Fathers,Orthodoxy is anti-metaphysical, as it continually searches empirical certainty, by means of the hesychastic method. This is why the hesychasm of the Kollyvades is empirical and scientific. Ratio according to Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite is empirical. This is illustrated by the Hesychasts of the 18th century in the way in which they accept the scientific progress of the West. The Kollyvades acknowledged scientific viewpoints like, for example, Saint Nicodemos the Hagiorite did in his work, Symbouletikon, where he accepts the latest theories of his time on the functioning of the heart. Saint Athansios Parios does not fight science itself, but its use by the Westernized Enlighteners of the Greek nation. They regarded science as God's work and as an offering for the improvement of life. But the use of science in a metaphysical struggle against faith, as was practised in the West, and as was transferred to the East, is opposed quite rightly by the traditional theologians of the 18th and 19th century. The mistakes lies on the side of the Greek Enlighteners who, without having any relationship with the patristic viewpoint of knowledge, although they themselves were priests and monks, transferred the European conflict of metaphysicists and empiricists to Greece, talking about irrational religion. Whereas, the Fathers of Orthodoxy, discriminating between the two kinds of knowledge making a distinction at the same time between the rational from the super-rational.

The problem of conflict between faith and science, apart from the confusion of knowledge, has caused the idoloziation of the two kinds of knowledge. Thus, a weak and morbid apologetic has resulted in Christianity (e.g. a Greek professor of Apologetics many years ago produced a mathematical proof of the existence of God !). In Orthodoxy, however, this dualism is not self-evident. Nothing excludes the co-existence of faith and science when faith is not imaginary metaphysics and science does not falsify its positive character with the use of metaphysics. The mutual understanding of science and faith is helped by current scientific language.

The principle of indetermination (that there is no causality) is a kind of apophatism in science. The return to the Fathers therefore, helps to overcome the conflict. The acceptance of the limits of the two kinds of knowledge (Uncreated and created) and the use of the suitable organ or tool for each one, is the element of Orthodoxy and of the Fathers which places earthly wisdom under higher or divine knowledge.

In contrast, the confusion of the two types of knowledge in Western thought promotes their mutual misinterpretations and continues and fosters their conflict. A Church which persists in metaphysical theology, will always be obliged to beg Galileo's pardon. But a Science that also ignores its limits, will deteriorate into metaphysics and will either deal with the existence of God (which is not its responsibility) or reject God completely.

Owen Jones

05-02-2008, 04:37 PM

A couple of minor quibbles with the above: Plato had nominal, virtually negligible influence on the development of scholasticism.

I am not convinced yet that analogia entis is the source of the problem in Latin theology. Yes, it does tend toward a certain degree of intellectualization, but I don't see it as totally inconsistent with Patristic lines of reasoning. That we are created in His Image and Likeness seems to me to be an example of analogia entis. But I am open to being proven wrong on that point.

The problem in this thread seems to be a certain lack of focus and clarity on what we mean by evolutionary theory. By evolutionary theory most people mean Darwinism or some variation of that theory.

Remember, that the title of Darwin's book was, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

The problem here is two-fold. First, it is not a scientific theory of origins. For every beginning point there is a preceding beginning point, an infinite regression as Aristotle called it. There is no beginning point. There is no originating point. It may be a theory of development, but it is not a scientific theory of origins, which is a point Christians should focus on. Philosophically, this represents an immanentization of the Beginning. The beginning is immanentized in that it is always a material cause, not a transcendent cause, and because it is a material cause, you have to infinitely regress to some prior material cause. Which means there is no origin of anything. I.E. it's irrational.

Consequently, you also have in the title an immanentized Beyond. There is no Beyond, only life. Only biological life. The entire theory or system serves life, and nothing beyond life. Or, more precisely, the Struggle for Life. Nothing else exists. Nothing else matters. This is philosophically and scientifically false because we know that this is not how people live. People do not just focus on the struggle for life. People struggle for meaning. Everyone does. The evolutionist does. He is always propagandizing in favor of evolutionary theory, because it is an ideological system that gives his life meaning.

As a sidebar, the title is foundationally racist, of course, which is probably why it never appears in print anymore.

It is much more accurate to say that Darwin's theory is a theory, not of origins, because it not only is agnostic on the subject of origins, but it really does not speak to the issue of origins at all. It simply avoids the issue entirely. It is also accurate to say that Christianity, including Genesis, and St. Basil's commentaries cited about, do constitute not only a theory of origins, but also a theory of development. It is consistent with Aristotle's differentiation of the human as participating in all levels of Being in the hierarchy of Being, form the apeiron, through the inorganic, organic, vegetative, animalic, passionate, rational, and noetic (divine) levels of being. Hence, the human is unique in that sense. Aristotle addressed the questions regarding origins as well as development, and understood philosophically that you could not have an infinite regression of causality, and still maintain rationality. You have to have some starting point (not just in time), and that that starting point was transcendent. But that does not mean that there is no development. But this critical distinction between a theory of origins and a theory of development is usually eclipsed by the dogmatic arguments made for and against.

What Darwinism does is what all ideologies do, it immanentizes being, and simply avoids talking about the transcendent pole of Being. It does so by trickery. It cites in the title that the theory is a theory of origins, but in the text there is nothing about origins. And the title presumes that there is no end point, just the struggle for life, which is an immantization of life. Whereas everyone experiences life as transcendent. So what Darwin is implying is that matter and time are infinite.

But we all go through our daily lives as if it had transcendent meaning and purpose, i.e. with the implicit recognition that there is something beyond matter and time. Most of us simply avoid the implications of that and insist dogmatically that life is pointless, and yet we strive every day as if it has meaning and purpose. And the only way it can possibly have meaning and purpose is if there is a transcendent ground to that meaning and purpose.

So one does not have to be a dogmatic Christian to see and understand the flaws in Darwinism, which are scientific and philosophical flaws. Neither should one feel defensive about Christian theology on the subject of origins and development from a scientific, philosophical standpoint. Because there is not, and cannot be, a purely scientific theory of origins. One has to resort to a symbolic form of understanding when speaking of this subject.

Darwinism is a typical cosmogonic myth, and it is gnostic in that when you eliminate God and the Transcendent from cosmogonic myth, you still must have a myth, only it is immanentized. This immanentization is at the core of modern gnostic movements. Ancient gnosticism tended in the opposite direction, virtually denying material existence, saying that all matter is illusion, or that material existence is, by its nature, something evil.

Christian theology is more scientifically accurate if you will, because it is the one theological perspective that holds matter and spirit in balance. The problem with virtually all of the Christological controversies is centered around this problem. How do we hold the God/man, matter/spirit tension in balance without veering off radically in one direction or the other.

Nina

05-02-2008, 05:47 PM

My original intent was only to present the topic of evolution to the forum in an attempt to see how the Orthodox mind (as represented on this forum) responds to the concept and its implications. So far that reaction has been pretty negative.

The Orthodox mind is not negative, since we pray about the souls of others (even enemies) and maybe there are those who pray about Darwin's soul too, since for many he has been a stumbling block. I know I should start praying about him, since Darwin (or at least his theories as deduced by others) confused me as well, until I was about 8-9 years old. I started reading fluently by age three and got all the wrong books in my hands.

M. Partyka

05-02-2008, 06:00 PM

The Orthodox mind is not negative, since we pray about the souls of others (even enemies)....
I meant negative toward the theory of evolution, not toward a person.

Darwin (or at least his theories as deduced by others) confused me as well, until I was about 8-9 years old. I started reading fluently by age three and got all the wrong books in my hands.Could you please elaborate on this? What books did you read concerning evolution, and what was it that occurred around age 8-9 that brought you clarity (and what was the nature of that clarity)?

Nina

05-02-2008, 06:25 PM

I meant negative toward the theory of evolution, not toward a person.

Yes, but since the person is very important in Christianity, since a soul is very important maybe we have to give credit to Christians who pray about the soul. What matters at the end Fathers say, is the soul.

Could you please elaborate on this? What books did you read concerning evolution, and what was it that occurred around age 8-9 that brought you clarity (and what was the nature of that clarity)?

I was blessed with a wise grandfather that turned me away from a sure road to perdition. In the name of Darwin's theory there are many hidden tricks of the evil one.

M. Partyka

05-02-2008, 07:04 PM

I was blessed with a wise grandfather that turned me away from a sure road to perdition. In the name of Darwin's theory there are many hidden tricks of the evil one.Again, would you be willing to elaborate on this? I'm not looking to be critical. I'm just interested in hearing what your personal experience has been.

Nina

05-02-2008, 07:32 PM

Again, would you be willing to elaborate on this? I'm not looking to be critical. I'm just interested in hearing what your personal experience has been.

The only thing that keeps me from discussing it publicly is that I will have to reveal facts about my grandfather, and I prefer his anonymity for here. Also he was guiding an eight year old, therefore the method may not be appealing to you (since I assume you may be older), or it may... I do not know. I just know that even today, years after that turning point, I bless his soul and thank God. I hope this suffices for you.

About the wrong books, I called them that, since I was too young to read such material. When I read similar material today I have a more complete preparation to be able to think critically.

My post was also sincere. Just saying that we Christians care about and pray for souls. Sorry for intruding, please continue since you are receiving very good guidance here. My thoughts struggled with my grandfather's thoughts also. And this is very profitable up to a certain extent.

M. Partyka

05-02-2008, 09:13 PM

I quite enjoyed the article by Prof. Metallinos. I think this article is the best I've read yet on explaining the Orthodox way of "doing theology".

...in Orthodoxy, authority is found in experience. The experience of participating in the Uncreated...is not based on texts or in the Scriptures. The tradition of the Church is not preserved within texts but in people. Texts help, but they are not the bearers of the Holy Tradition. Tradition is preserved by the Saints. Human beings are the bearers of the Gospel. The placing of texts above the actual experience of the Uncreated (an indication of the religionizing of faith) leads to their ideologization and in fact to their idolization. This in turn leads to the absolute authority of the text (fundamentalism) and all the well understood consequences.Question: Is the author saying that when the present-day experience of the Church contradicts the Scriptures, it is the present-day experience of the Church that wins the argument? (In Protestant circles, the opposite is held to be true -- all our present-day spiritual experiences must be subjected to the judgment of Scripture, with Scripture being the final arbiter on the nature of the experience.)

I cannot help but think about certain passages in the Law of Moses concerning prophets:

Deut 18:22 -- When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Deut 13:1-5 -- If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.The first passage is empirical -- if what the prophet says is going to happen doesn't happen, then the prophet is not from God, and that's that. But what if what the prophet has predicted does happen? In that case, everything empirical about the situation has been validated. However, this empirical validation isn't final. There is still another validation to be done at the level of content. Is the prophet trying to bring the people closer to God or pull them away from God?

Note that in this latter case, there is nothing empirical in the validation of the prophet's message. There cannot be, because to verify the prophet's message empirically would be to do what the prophet says and see whether one's relationship with God improves or deteriorates. Obviously, God doesn't want His people to follow this tack.

So, what is there that can be used to validate the message of the prophet whose predictions came true, other than a record of prior experience...and what more authoritative record of prior experience is there than the Scriptures?

...Orthodox Tradition...[differentiates] two types of knowledge and of wisdom: (1) divine or that which is "from above" and (2) secular (thyrathen) or lower. The first knowledge is supernatural and the second is natural. This corresponds to the clear distinction between the Uncreated and the created, between God and creation. These two types of learning require two methods of learning. The method of divine wisdom-knowledge is the communion of man with the Uncreated through the heart. It is accomplished through the presence of the Uncreated energy of God in man's heart. The method of secular wisdom-knowledge is science, it is accomplished by exercising the intellectual/ logical power of man. Orthodoxy establishes a clear hierarchy in the two types of knowledge and their methods.It seems to me that the author is saying here that Scripture, being knowledge from above, is only qualified to make statements about (1) the Uncreated and (2) the creation insofaras it pertains to its relationship with the Uncreated. Scripture is not, for example, qualified to make statements concerning fossil evidence because fossils belong to the category of secular knowledge, not divine wisdom. Likewise, science is not qualified to make statements about the nature of the Trinity because that knowledge belongs to the category of divine wisdom.

However, I cannot help but remember Jesus' words to Nicodemus:

John 3:11-12 -- The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?...Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
The scientist and professor of the knowledge of the Uncreated, in the Orthodox Tradition, is the Geron/Starets (the Elder or Spiritual Father), the guide or "teacher of the desert". The recording of both types of knowledge presupposes empirical knowledge of the phenomenon. The same holds true in the field of science, where only the specialist understands the research of other scientists of the same field. The adoption of conclusions or findings of a scientific branch by non-specialists (i.e. those who are unable to experimentally examine the research of the specialists) is based on the trust of the specialists credibility. Otherwise, there would be no scientific progress. The same holds true for the science of faith. The empirical knowledge of the Saints, Prophets, Apostles, Fathers and Mothers of all ages is adopted and founded upon the same trust. The patristic tradition and the Church's Councils function on this provable experience.The above passage illuminates an important aspect of the debate concerning creation and evolutionary theory: credibility.

[St. Basil] repudiates the cosmological theories of the philosophers on the eternity and self-existence of the world and proceeds to the synthesis of biblical and scientific facts, through which he surpasses science. Furthermore, by rejecting materialistic and heretical teachings, he gets to the theological (but not metaphysical) interpretation of the nature of creation. The central message of this work is, that the logical support of dogma is impossible based only on science. Dogma belongs to another sphere. It is above reason and science, yet within the limits of another knowledge. The use of dogma with worldly knowledge leads to the transformation of science into metaphysics. Whereas the use of reason in the domain of faith proves its weakness and relativity. Therefore, there is no belief that is not searched in Orthodox gnosiology, but each field is searched with its own criteria: Science with its presuppositions and Divine Knowledge with its presuppositions.Couple of questions:

1) How does one "synthesize biblical and scientific facts" if biblical facts belong to one "sphere" and scientific facts belong to another "sphere"?

2) What happens if "biblical facts" contradict "scientific facts"? Do we accept both as true within their respective "spheres" but acknowledge them as false outside of those "spheres"?

3) Is it true that the Scriptures and the Fathers are neutral regarding knowledge of the creation in and of itself (which, according to the author, belongs in the "sphere" belonging to science, not dogma)?

M. Partyka

05-02-2008, 09:31 PM

The problem in this thread seems to be a certain lack of focus and clarity on what we mean by evolutionary theory....it is not a scientific theory of origins....It may be a theory of development, but it is not a scientific theory of origins, which is a point Christians should focus on....It is much more accurate to say that Darwin's theory is a theory, not of origins, because it not only is agnostic on the subject of origins, but it really does not speak to the issue of origins at all. It simply avoids the issue entirely. It is also accurate to say that Christianity, including Genesis, and St. Basil's commentaries cited about, do constitute not only a theory of origins, but also a theory of development.I agree that neo-Darwinism does not speak to the subject of life's origins. The principles of natural selection and mutation which constitute the dual foundation of neo-Darwinism assume that there is something around to mutate and select from.

However, because neo-Darwinism is a theory of development, it does speak to some degree to the issue of origins in that what has been developed up through the present cannot exist in precisely the same form or forms as it exists today. In other words, it makes no sense to speak of development unless you are willing to say that "this" developed into "that", and therefore "this" precedes "that". Therefore, although neo-Darwinism does not provide an definitive answer for the origin of life, it does at least make assertions about the chronology of life's development -- in a nutshell, it does tend to say what was not present at the beginning of life. Thus, it is easy to see how neo-Darwinism can come into conflict with a religious theory of origins, even though the theory itself is not directly concerned with origins.

Owen Jones

05-02-2008, 10:53 PM

Darwinism, neo or not, is not just a theory of development. It is a theory of origins. Ask any evolutionist and he will insist that it is a theory of origins. the problem is that they do not go through the process of asking themselves the question of the origin of the previous thing. And so the complex always evolves from something simpler, and the organic from the inorganic, etc. etc. to infinity. That's irrational.

If Darwinists only claimed that it was a theory of development, and not a theory of origins, we would not have quite the same argument. At that point, we would focus strictly on the scientific evidence for the argument in favor of natural selection, and they would simply admit agnosticism on the question of how or why stuff exists in the first place, and in looking at just the evidence to support the theory of natural selection, we would discover that there is pretty much zilch. But the point is that Darwinists/evolutionists do not base their faith on the scientific evidence. They base their faith on Darwinism because it purports to defend a purely naturalistic universe, a universe with matter only, and it gives them great pride to be able to defend what they argue is a proven scientific theory that we do not need a God to explain existence. They are wedded to it precisely because it is a theory of origins that replaces a philosophical/theological theory of origins, and not because it is a scientifically based theory of development. Hence, every piece of fossil "evidence" is wrenched into the theory to prove it. One reads constantly the drivel produced by journalists that purport to prove and support evolution, never questioning the huge hiatus on the issue of origins, never questioning whether or not two things that are alike in some respect can possibly provide proof of a common ancestor. It is a theory one is not allowed to question. Just like Marxism. Marx said very explicitly that Marxism is a scientific account of history and any questions are forbidden.

It's not by accident that Marx wanted to dedicate the Communist Manifesto to Darwin, because it provided the missing ingredient for him that proved his theory of historical struggle leading to progressive stages.

Implicit in Darwinism is the idea that a progressive evolution is ongoing, leading to a perfection of the species someday. This leads to all kinds of hideous conclusions such as racial purity theories and methods that are an attempt by humans to assist the process of evolution -- i.e. killing retarded children, or the unborn, or certain races that are deemed unfit -- because of the fact that we no longer live in a pure state of nature, we are somehow thwarting the true evolutionary process by aiding and abetting the propagation of non-viable gene pools. All of this is pure drivel scientifically.

By the way, one can go through The Origin of Species and realize that it is entirely dependent on the theories of Thomas Malthus, all which have been completely refuted by what has happened historically since then:

Darwin's theory is based on key observations and inferences drawn from them:[4]
1. Species have great fertility. They have more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
2. Populations remain roughly the same size, with small changes.
3. Food resources are limited, but are relatively stable over time.
4. An implicit struggle for survival ensues.
5. In sexually reproducing species, generally no two individuals are identical.
6. Some of these variations directly impact the ability of an individual to survive in a given environment.
7. Much of this variation is inheritable.
8. Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce, while individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce.
9. The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations.
10. This slowly effected process results in populations that adapt to the environment over time, and ultimately, after interminable generations, these variations accumulate to form new varieties, and ultimately, new species.

We know now of course that population grows and declines with great variability. We know that food supply has grown exponentially with modern methods. We know that infant mortality is practically a non-issue among advanced societies, due to better nutrition and cleanliness. We know, essentially, that the natural environment has little impact on survival and ability to produce. These facts throw a monkey wrench into the whole theory. We also know that the science of genetics has advanced exponentially since Darwin's time, and it is infinitely more complex than anything he had imagined. Darwin was operating on the theory that genetics functioned in a very Newtonian and predictable manner. This is just not so. There are far more variables than he could ever have imagined.

But I have never encountered any evolutionist who will ever address these problems. They always fall back on ad hominim arguments. Because you simply are not permitted to question their system.

M. Partyka

05-02-2008, 11:42 PM

And so the complex always evolves from something simpler, and the organic from the inorganic, etc. etc. to infinity. That's irrational.Keep in mind that just because something is irrational, that doesn't mean it isn't true. The doctrine of the Trinity isn't something that rationality produced. How is it rational to say that one indivisible, eternal being equals three distinct persons? We accept the doctrine of the Trinity not because it is rational but because it is the only acceptable way to maintain what the Scriptures and Tradition state axiomatically: God is One, yet He is also Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If Darwinists only claimed that it was a theory of development, and not a theory of origins, we would not have quite the same argument. At that point, we would focus strictly on the scientific evidence for the argument in favor of natural selection, and they would simply admit agnosticism on the question of how or why stuff exists in the first place, and in looking at just the evidence to support the theory of natural selection, we would discover that there is pretty much zilch.On the contrary, even diehard creationists accept that natural selection is well-supported by the evidence:

Natural selection is an observable process that falls into the category of operational science. We have observed mosquitoes, birds, and many microorganisms undergoing change in relatively short periods of time. New species have been observed to arise. Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on most of the ideas associated with natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads to molecules-to-man evolution.The preceding quote is from Answers In Genesis' website, home to a number of diehard young-earth, six-day creationists. If even they are willing to accept that the evidence supports the existence of natural selection as a process, how can Orthodoxy deny it?

Implicit in Darwinism is the idea that a progressive evolution is ongoing, leading to a perfection of the species someday.Yes, but only insofaras this perfection is relevant to survival under present conditions. Let's say for a moment that man were to evolve to a perfect survival state in today's day and age, and then tomorrow a meteor hits the earth and changes the climate radically. At that point, man as he is today would no longer be perfect so far as natural selection was concerned.

...we no longer live in a pure state of nature, we are somehow thwarting the true evolutionary process by aiding and abetting the propagation of non-viable gene pools. All of this is pure drivel scientifically.My nearsightedness says otherwise. I can't see clearly for more than a few inches in front of my face without glasses. I shudder to think what my life would have been like a few thousand years ago, but I'd be willing to hazard a guess that it would have been pretty short compared to the lives of people with naturally good vision. Thus, we have thwarted natural selection, in a sense, by using technology to even the odds for people with disabilities and also by mating without giving primary regard to survival attributes. This is not to say we should stop doing either of these things, only an acknowledgement that natural selection as pertains to surviving in nature no longer exists in those portions of the earth which have been technologically modified to better suit human life.

We also know that the science of genetics has advanced exponentially since Darwin's time, and it is infinitely more complex than anything he had imagined. Darwin was operating on the theory that genetics functioned in a very Newtonian and predictable manner. This is just not so. There are far more variables than he could ever have imagined.Consider, though, that Dr. Francis S. Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian, recently published his book The Language of God, in which he defends his belief in theistic evolution. Now, as an evangelical Christian, he's someone who, from a religious point of view, wouldn't want evolution to be true, as it causes difficulties in interpreting Scripture. However, from a scientific point of view, he feels that the genetic evidence in favor of evolution (and/or lack of genetic evidence against it) is too strong for him to reject it on strictly religious grounds. For this reason he has adopted the compromise position of theistic evolution, and he wrote his book with the hope of easing other evangelicals' minds concerning the apparent conflict between biblical creation and evolutionary theory.

Now, none of this constitutes positive proof that evolution is true, but if there were sufficient reason from the field of genetics to reject evolution, or even just human evolution, wouldn't Dr. Collins have said so, being an evangelical Christian so closely and actively involved in the field?

Owen Jones

06-02-2008, 12:13 AM

OK, give me one piece of evidence in support of Darwinian theory, please.

Also, In response to the above post, the idea that the Doctrine of the Trinity is irrational is based on a false dichotomy between faith/belief and reason/rationality. One can only state this having a lack of knowledge of the Patristic record. Orthodoxy is very consistent in that its theological understanding cannot also be irrational, in conflict with reason or science. If one were to pay attention during the liturgy, one would note that we understand the eucharist to be a rational sacrifice, just to cite one example.

The fact that some Christians believe in Darwinism is simply a testament to their lack of foundational literacy in theology, science, and philosophy. It is not a scientific proof of anything. It is typical of the argumentation of evolutionists however to consistently change the ground of the argument. If they are met with an objection, they say things like: explain why there are so many Christians who believe in evolution! As if that is even germane to a scientific discussion.

Orthodoxy does not reject any and all doctrines of development. It simply does not attempt to treat the obvious differences in the "races" scientifically in the narrow sense. It treats them mytho-poetically, or simbollically if you will.

In any case, racial differentiation is not evolution. It has absolutely nothing to do with evolution through natural selection either in the Darwinian, or "neo"-Darwinian sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with origination of a new species. Yet Darwinism is firmly grounded in racial theory to prove itself.

And let's not confuse scientific truth with majoritarian consensus. Scientific truth rarely is accompanied by majoritarian consensus, and if that becomes the criterion of science, then there is no longer any such thing as science. Given that fact, I believe the majority of Americans do not believe in evolution as the explanation of human origins. Does that prove that Darwinism is wrong?

M. Partyka

06-02-2008, 01:08 AM

OK, give me one piece of evidence in support of Darwinian theory, please.I'm not presently equipped to do that. I have a 2005 book on evolutionary developmental ("evo-devo") science that I hope to read soon. Maybe then I'll have some good answers for you, or maybe not. Until then, I'm being speculative.

Also, In response to the above post, the idea that the Doctrine of the Trinity is irrational is based on a false dichotomy between faith/belief and reason/rationality....Orthodoxy is very consistent in that its theological understanding cannot also be irrational, in conflict with reason or science. If one were to pay attention during the liturgy, one would note that we understand the eucharist to be a rational sacrifice, just to cite one example.Are we using the same definition of "rational" and "irrational" here? I have a mathematics background, and in math there are "rational numbers" and "irrational numbers". They differ in that the value of rational numbers can be expressed exactly (i.e., in the form "a/b", where b <> 0), whereas the value of irrational numbers can never be expressed exactly, only represented symbolically (e.g., pi, the square root of 2, e, etc.). Neither kind of number is considered "superior" to the other.

According to these definitions, then, I consider the doctrine of the Trinity to be irrational in that it's not something we can truly wrap our minds around. We can express it as a doctrinal formula, or we can attempt to explain it through the use of analogies, but we can never really nail down its exact meaning. Concepts like eternity and omnipotence seem to me to belong in the realm of irrationality, too, simply because there's no way that anybody in his/her right mind can think about them long and hard enough to really "get it" concerning them.

As for the Eucharist, I recall a conversation with an Orthodox priest in which he said, "How does the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? Transubstantially? Consubstantially? Symbolically? We don't know. We don't try to know. It is what it is." This, to me, is an example of irrationality: "We don't know how it is. It just is." This way of looking at things isn't necessarily wrong, but I would hesitate to call it rational according to the definition of rational I've been using.

The fact that some Christians believe in Darwinism is simply a testament to their lack of foundational literacy in theology, science, and philosophy.Let's go back to my example of Dr. Collins. Given that he's the head of the Human Genome Project, I seriously doubt he lacks foundational literacy in science. Theology and philosophy -- sure, he may lack literacy in these, but science? I don't think it's reasonable to assert that. So, what has his experience with and exposure to human genetics told him about evolution? Maybe nothing, in a "positive proof" sense. However, his experience with and exposure to human genetics has not led him to reject evolution even though he has religious motive to do so. He might not have seen enough in his scientific career to prove that evolution is a reality, but he definitely hasn't seen enough to merit evolution's falsification, either.

So what can you say in response to this? On what grounds will you attempt to undermine his judgment? If you were to prove that Dr. Collins were unlearned in the basics of theology or philosophy, you would not even be fighting on the right battlefield. It is not his theology or his philosophy that is at issue. Rather, it is his science which is in question, and that question must be debated with arguments that fall under the umbrella of science, not theology or philosophy.

Now, granted, Dr. Collins' data could be wrong, or perhaps he is incorrectly interpreting the data available to him, so I'm not at all saying that Dr. Collins' adherence to theistic evolution should be construed as a proof of the theory's validity. What I am suggesting is that Dr. Collins is in the unenviable position of having to assert as true what he would rather not, and as a result of this, along with his obvious experience in the field of human genetics, we ought to assign him a little more credibility than the uneducated rabble who "lack...foundational literacy in theology, science, and philosophy."

Owen Jones

06-02-2008, 02:32 AM

The data that a micro-biologist focuses on is quantifiable, observable lab data. It is not dependent on a theory of evolution to acquire that data. In fact, the data acquired in the human genome project is not dependent in any way on Darwinian theory. What we know about genetics exists quite apart from Darwin, and yet many lab scientists mistakenly conflate the two.

I'm afraid the data available to prove Darwinian evolution is speculative at best, and in some cases falsified outright.

But let's take a look at the famous textbook example of the moths in Britain, which, over time, took on a different coloration given the effect of industrial pollutants on the background. First, there is some evidence that the evidence was falsified. But quite apart from that, the moths did not turn into a new species! Human beings differentiate. Dark skinned people live in tropical climates. They do not evolve into a different species! There is a huge difference between development and change, and evolution into a different species. I am not aware of any evidence of something evolving from one species to another species. If you can find it, I would love to see it.

Yuri Zharikov

06-02-2008, 04:13 AM

Given the obvious differences between their opinions, can we at least agree that St. Gregory and Fr. David are not of one mind concerning the commonalities between man and animal?

Let us first take a look at the origin of this discussion and the point you have been consistently arguing - I do appreciate that the point may not be your belief/opinion, but nonetheless, your stance has been to find justification or evidence for the idea of evolution.

We started with two questions: evidence for evolution in its classical Darwinian understanding, which is the understanding taught in schools and universities world-wide and given this evidence, should a Christian believe in evolution.
We considered or tried to consider objective, scientific evidence (i.e. evidence on the mechanism) in favour of evolution and found none that would not be circular, i.e. a product of a preconceived notion. I have challenged you two times (I think) to produce evidence in favour of evolution and we still have seen none. My arguments were mainly from the point of view of a field biologist who does not so much read books about nature as deals with it on a daily basis. As Seraphim described in relation to people, I see purpose in animal behaviour, exquisitely ordered and complex (and often irreducible) organization at all levels of life (gene, tissue, organ, organism, population, ecosystem) and at the same time paradoxically (!) creeping global degradation.

Living nature, although it is built to maintain itself, is losing its integrity and turning into dust (as the Psalmist says). It groans with us and because of us (as the Apostle says). All this makes no sense in terms of evolution (it is random and pointless) but makes perfect sense in terms of perfect creation, the fall, ultimate end of history with the destruction of the world and the Second Coming and establishment of a new heaven and earth.

Others (Frs. Raphael and David and Seraphim) looked at philosophical and historical and psychological underpinnings of the idea of evolution and concluded that it is nothing but naturalistic philosophy required by a society trying to live without God. It seemed to me the discussion was over since the first question was answered - biological evolution does not exist: there is no mechanism and the question itself is not amenable to scientific investigation because “Science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific explanation”.

You glossed over these points and again brought up similarity (note that to infer evolution from similarity is a classic circular argument), more specifically similarity between man and animals (instincts, etc). The response to that was appropriate that what we have now (and we can only speak about similarities we have now, right, for we do not know what animals did before the fall other than their being herbivorous) is the result of the fall and St. Gregory and all the Fathers and the Scripture attest to that. Terms “inherent” or “kinship” you used to describe similarity between man and animals do not apply to the nature of man, if we understand the first created nature, because (I do not want to quote again from St, Gregory) the nature of man is in the image and likeness of God, not animals, not the world. There is an analogy, not homology or kinship, for we are children of God not a product of evolution. The teaching of St. Gregory on the nature of man is in harmony with the rest of the Fathers. In describing vegetative and sensitive and rational souls or elements of man (I feel that knowing Greek would help in understanding nuances lost in translation), he makes for a clear and compelling connection between the fullness of the first created human nature and the subsequent developments that occurred with the humanity due to the transgression of the forefathers. Man is a microcosm containing all of creation and this is why with the fall of man all of creation fell as well. St. Gregory focuses his attention repeatedly on uniqueness of man and his separation from everything else created. He attests to angelic properties of the yet innocent Adam (and those who will inherit the everlasting life). However, a certain amount of struggle in fulfilling the first commandment was required to achieve a fully blessed state – physical and sensual needed to be subjected to spiritual. The opposite happened, like animals, we subjected spiritual (relationship with God) to sensual and physical and it is this point when we became like animals, not at the point of creation.

Likening us to animals has nothing to do with that man and animals share physical bodies' just like men and angels share intelligent faculty (any implications for evolution here?), but that created human nature, while encompassing all other creation, being the soul of the world, microcosm, is in the image of God, not the world; the image of the world and bestial traits only come in and play out with and due to the fall, which in itself again was a wilful subjection of the higher (spirit) to the lower body guided by physical senses (Eve).

This is what made us like animals, not the creation. And this and the accompaning corruptibility and corruption (of body, soul and mind) is what we have been saved from by the Lord. For an Orthodox Christian mind commonality with animals is and always will be the sign of the fall. So there is no disagreement here between Fr. David and St. Gregory for he consistently separates created and fallen nature and what Fr. David said (I appreciate that I am a nobody and Fr. David does not need my defending his statement) is correct.

In the Lord,
Yura

Father David Moser

06-02-2008, 06:09 AM

Second, the reason I haven't considered the view you have proposed (i.e., citing the fall as responsible for the commonalities between man and animals) is simply because it's something that I have not yet encountered in my readings in the fathers. From which fathers are you drawing support for this "fall into animalism" (for lack of a better title) view? It may simply be that I haven't gotten to these fathers yet in my studies.

I apologize for being away from this conversation for so long. I needed to refresh my own memory on this matter. The best patristic discussion of this that I have read in English is a book called Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas. Nellas develops this concept quite thoroughly in his discussion of the meaning of the "garments of skin" with which Adam was clothed after the fall. I cannot really reproduce his argument here, however, I would encourage you to read it for yourself. (The book is out of print and sometimes hard to find - but well worth the effort). He quotes a multitude of Fathers - including St Gregory of Nyssa from whom you have read some material. Nellas however does not limit himself to a single work by St Gregory but has a very wide ranging array of works from which he quotes. He also relies quite heavily on the works of St Maximos the Confessor - particularly the Ambigua. Another of the Fathers that he uses heavily is St Gregory the Theologian (Nanzianzen). In the book, he includes excerpts from St Gregory's (Nyssa) "On Viriginity" and St Gregory the Theologian's "On Easter" as well as the aforementioned "Ambigua" of St Maximos.

Fr David Moser

M. Partyka

06-02-2008, 06:05 PM

...the data acquired in the human genome project is not dependent in any way on Darwinian theory.This is true, but I would think the data has the potential to either support or falsify neo-Darwinism through the comparison of mutations locations in human DNA and the DNA of other animals.

But let's take a look at the famous textbook example of the moths in Britain, which, over time, took on a different coloration given the effect of industrial pollutants on the background....the moths did not turn into a new species! Human beings differentiate. Dark skinned people live in tropical climates. They do not evolve into a different species! There is a huge difference between development and change, and evolution into a different species.Absolutely right. The examples show natural selection at work, and obviously color change comes through small mutations, but this is indeed a far cry from saying small mutations can accumulate to some sort of threshold that causes species differentiation. In my opinion, this has been neo-Darwinism's weakest area so far: the claim that small mutations have the potential to change one species into another, even given long enough periods of time. I think this is one reason that neo-Darwinism is gradually giving way to "evo-devo" theory, which I haven't studied as yet.

M. Partyka

06-02-2008, 07:08 PM

...I do appreciate that the point may not be your belief/opinion, but nonetheless, your stance has been to find justification or evidence for the idea of evolution.If I were looking for justification or evidence for evolution, I certainly wouldn't look for it here. Whether evolution is an acceptable scientific theory is primarily a question for scientists, not theologians.

What I'm looking for, rather, is whether the theory of evolution can be rendered compatible with the mind of the Church. I've read articles from Orthodox theologians on both sides of the debate, but reading articles is hardly the same as having an interactive discussion about evolution. Hence, I asked the initial question, "Was animal death possible and/or did any animal death occur before the fall?" and what I discovered was that the mind of the Church, as represented by the priests and laity on this forum, is divided pretty much 50/50.

And actually, that initial question really doesn't have anything to do with evolution at all, does it? Whether animals died before the fall or not has no bearing on how those animals originally came to be. So, I was rather disappointed that the conversation turned away from the question at hand toward a discussion of evolution, because (1) I'm still not sure about my own position on evolution and (2) I haven't done nearly enough research to consider myself knowledgeable concerning evolution, and I'm certainly not qualified to defend it on scientific grounds. Now I seem to be stuck in a debate where I'm the sole proponent of evolutionary theory arguing with a number of anti-evolutionists, and I would like to think that I'm not quite so masochistic as to heap that kind of struggle upon myself.

It seemed to me the discussion was over since the first question was answered - biological evolution does not exist: there is no mechanism and the question itself is not amenable to scientific investigation because “Science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific explanation”.And I disagreed with the limitations you put upon scientific investigation because there exist areas of science that clearly deal with attempting to reconstruct and determine the causes of past events: archaeology, paleontology, forensics, etc.

You glossed over these points and again brought up similarity...between man and animals (instincts, etc). The response to that was appropriate that what we have now (and we can only speak about similarities we have now, right, for we do not know what animals did before the fall other than their being herbivorous) is the result of the fall and St. Gregory and all the Fathers and the Scripture attest to that.That St. Gregory attests to the notion that the animal portion of our natures is a result of the fall is simply false. I demonstrated this by quoting from the same document you yourself cited and showing how St. Gregory viewed man as a "rational animal" -- his words, not mine -- who in himself God had included the living principles of plants, animals, and the divine. Given St. Gregory's obvious disagreement, your claim that all the Fathers support Fr. David's view is similarly false.

That the Scriptures attest to the notion is so far a matter of opinion. Fr. David holds up the choice of one Hebrew word over another as showing that man's creation is wholly unique and shares nothing with the animal kingdom -- never mind the fact that both land animals and man are created on the same day, or that man was created from existing earth just as the animals were (although God directly involved Himself in man's creation). Fr. David also argued that God's clothing Adam and Eve with "garments of skin" is an indication that man's animal nature was implanted in him by God after the fall -- one has to wonder, then, whether Adam and Eve's attempt to clothe themselves with fig leaves indicates an attempt on their part to take on the nature of plants -- but gave no patristic sources at the time to support this view. He has since returned and given references, but I have yet to research those references, so the jury is still out so far as I'm concerned.

[St. Gregory] attests to angelic properties of the yet innocent Adam (and those who will inherit the everlasting life). However, a certain amount of struggle in fulfilling the first commandment was required to achieve a fully blessed state – physical and sensual needed to be subjected to spiritual. The opposite happened, like animals, we subjected spiritual (relationship with God) to sensual and physical and it is this point when we became like animals, not at the point of creation.You're only proving my point. To say that man had to keep subdued the physical and sensual is to say that man was in possession of the physical and sensual from the beginning (i.e., when man was still "very good"). That man allowed his spirituality to become subject to his physical and sensual aspects is something I also find very reasonable. What I did not find reasonable is Fr. David's assertion that God, not man, was the cause of this now-natural subjection of the spiritual to the sensual. God created man with the perfect balance of physical, sensual, and spiritual, and it was man, not God, who threw this balance out of whack.

For an Orthodox Christian mind commonality with animals is and always will be the sign of the fall.To me, this is ridiculous. I have hair; a cat have hair. When I am afraid, the hairs on my neck stand up; when a cat is afraid, its fur stands up. I have a tongue; a dog has a tongue. I salivate when I smell food; a dog salivates when it smells food. My fight-or-flight reactions are the same as most animals'. Pheromones affect me just as they affect animals. There's nothing fallen about any of this, for it is how we were created to be. What was not created was our natural subjection of our spiritual facet to these inherent animal traits -- that was something we did to ourselves, not something God did to us.

(You know, looking back, I'm hoping we haven't simply been saying the same thing in different ways.)

M. Partyka

06-02-2008, 08:56 PM

The best patristic discussion of this that I have read in English is a book called Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas. Nellas develops this concept quite thoroughly in his discussion of the meaning of the "garments of skin" with which Adam was clothed after the fall. I cannot really reproduce his argument here, however, I would encourage you to read it for yourself. (The book is out of print and sometimes hard to find - but well worth the effort).Unfortuantely, you're right -- the book is both out of print and hard to find. I've tried searching Amazon and AbeBooks.com with no luck. If anybody could tell me another good place to find out of print books, I'd appreciate it.

In the book, he includes excerpts from St Gregory's (Nyssa) "On Viriginity" and St Gregory the Theologian's "On Easter" as well as the aforementioned "Ambigua" of St Maximos.I'll look those up. If any other works later come to mind, either from the above-mentioned Fathers or from others, please let me know. Thanks!

M. Partyka

06-02-2008, 09:05 PM

Does anybody know where I can find a copy of St. Maximos' Ambigua? Does it perhaps go by another name in English?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-02-2008, 11:18 PM

Does anybody know where I can find a copy of St. Maximos' Ambigua? Does it perhaps go by another name in English?

Ambiguum 7, 8 & 42 can be found in On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ. St Maximus the Confessor. SVS Press.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M. Partyka

07-02-2008, 01:15 AM

From St. Gregory of Nyssa's On Virginity, Chapter 12:

This reasoning and intelligent creature, man, at once the work and the likeness of the Divine and Imperishable Mind...did not in the course of his first production have united to the very essence of his nature the liability to passion and to death....Passion was introduced afterwards, subsequent to man’s first organization; and it was in this way. Being the image and the likeness...of the Power which rules all things, man kept also in the matter of a Free-Will this likeness to Him whose Will is over all. He was enslaved to no outward necessity whatever; his feeling towards that which pleased him depended only on his own private judgment; he was free to choose whatever he liked; and so he was a free agent...when he drew upon himself that disaster which now overwhelms humanity....Question: When St. Gregory speaks of "passion", is he speaking of the desire of pleasurable things itself (which is what I would think we naturally shared with the animals from them moment of our creation), or is he speaking, as I tend to think, of our inability to control our desire for pleasurable things (which I would agree has resulted from the fall)?

The reason I ask is that in Chapter 2 of On the Nature of Man he says:

...the rich and munificent Entertainer of our nature, when He had decked the habitation with beauties of every kind, and prepared this great and varied banquet, then introduced man, assigning to him as his task not the acquiring of what was not there, but the enjoyment of the things which were there; and for this reason He gives him as foundations the instincts of a twofold organization, blending the Divine with the earthy, that by means of both he may be naturally and properly disposed to each enjoyment, enjoying God by means of his more divine nature, and the good things of earth by the sense that is akin to them.From this it is clear that St. Gregory views our capacity to enjoy pleasurable things as a gift of God which we possessed from the beginning. Therefore, the sensory awareness and responsiveness which we share with the animals is part of our original makeup, not a result of the fall.

In Chapter 8 he further says:

...the power of management according to sense...is to be found in the nature of the irrational animals: for they are not only the subjects of nourishment and growth, but also have the activity of sense and perception. But perfect bodily life is seen in the rational (I mean the human) nature, which both is nourished and endowed with sense, and also partakes of reason and is ordered by mind.It is important to note here that St. Gregory refers to the sensory awareness of animals as a means of management. Plants do nothing but grow; their principle of vegetative life is unchecked. The inclusion of sensory awareness and responsiveness in the nature of animals is a means by which animals can manage growth. Sensory awareness and responsiveness is therefore a mechanism of order that God has created in the animals, not a trait we should consider "fallen". Rather, what sets mankind apart from the animals is that, in addition to both growth and sensory awareness, man has been given by God another ruling power: the power of rationality. This rationality is another order-establishing principle put in place by God which gives man the ability to regulate not only his growth but also his senses.

So, if man's sensuality is a gift of God just as much as his rationality is a gift of God, what exactly is it that occurred in the fall? In my opinion, based on the writings of St. Gregory, that when man fell, he essentially unleashed his sensuality such that it was no longer naturally under the control of his rationality. Whereas prior to the fall, man's reason fully governed his senses, after the fall man's senses had the capability of overpowering his reason. The passions, then, according to St. Gregory, are not the pleasures of the senses themselves, which before the fall were naturally governed by man's rationality, but the pleasures of the senses acting in their capacity to overwhelm man's rationality.

And who is ultimately responsible for man's plight? Getting back to On Virginity, St. Gregory continues:

As those who have slipped and fallen heavily into mud, and have all their features so besmeared with it, that their nearest friends do not recognize them, so this creature has fallen into the mire of sin and lost the blessing of being an image of the imperishable Deity; he has clothed himself instead with a perishable and foul resemblance to something else; and this Reason counsels him to put away again by washing it off in the cleansing water of this calling. The earthly envelopment once removed, the soul’s beauty will again appear.Man, not God, is responsible for his plight. God created man with vitality, sensuality, and rationality -- the sensuality to govern the vitality, and the rationality to govern the sensuality. Man, through the fall, corrupted this order, and now sensuality wars with rationality for control of man's vitality. We cannot lay this disorder at the feet of God as though it were something He did to us. This disorder is therefore not that "garment of skins" God gave to Adam and Eve after the fall, according to St. Gregory.

M. Partyka

08-02-2008, 10:48 PM

With regard to St. Gregory the Theologian's Second Oration on Easter, I believe the relevant passage upon which Panayiotis Nellas must be relying occurs in Section 8:

But when through the devil’s malice and the woman’s caprice, to which she succumbed as the more tender, and which she brought to bear upon the man, as she was the more apt to persuade—...he forgot the commandment which had been given him, and yielded to the baleful fruit; and for his sin was banished at once from the tree of life, and from paradise, and from God; and put on the coats of skins, that is, perhaps, the coarser flesh, both mortal and contradictory.Even this passage, though, doesn't support the notion that God made us similar to the animals only after the fall, for three reasons.

First, the actor in the passage is man, not God:

...he forgot the commandment...[he] yielded to the baleful fruit, and [he] for his sin was banished...and [he] put on the coats of skins, that is, perhaps, the coarser flesh, both mortal and contradictory.Second, St. Gregory is being speculative here about the nature of the "coats of skins," as he himself indicates by the use of the word "perhaps":

...he forgot the commandment...and put on the coats of skins, that is, perhaps, the coarser flesh, both mortal and contradictory.St. Gregory ventured into alleghorical speculation a couple of times before during his explanation of creation and the fall:

This being He placed in paradise—whatever that paradise may have been (having honoured him with the gift of free will, in order that good might belong to him as the result of his choice, no less than to Him Who had implanted the seeds of it)—to till the immortal plants, by which is perhaps meant the Divine conceptions, both the simpler and the more perfect....the Tree [of Knowledge] was, according to my theory, Contemplation, which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter upon; but which is not good for those who are still somewhat simple and greedy; just as neither is solid food good for those who are yet tender and have need of milk.These are clearly alleghorical speculations, not pronouncements of doctrine.

Third, St. Gregory tells us in Sections 7 and 28, respectively, that man was created not only to enjoy spiritual fulfillment but sensual fulfillment as well:

Mind then and sense, thus distinguished from each other, had remained within their own Boundaries.... Not yet was there any mingling of both, nor any mixture of these opposites.... Now the Creator-Word, determining to exhibit this, and to produce a single living being out of both (the invisible and the visible creation, I mean) fashions Man; and taking a body from already existing matter, and placing in it a Breath taken from Himself (which the Word knew to be an intelligent soul, and the image of God), as a sort of second world, great in littleness, He placed him on the earth, a new Angel, a mingled worshipper, fully initiated into the visible creation, but only partially into the intellectual; king of all upon earth, but subject to the King above; earthly and heavenly; temporal and yet immortal; visible and yet intellectual; halfway between greatness and lowliness; in one person combining spirit and flesh....
We were created that we might be made happy. We were made happy when we were created. We were entrusted with Paradise that we might enjoy life.According to St. Gregory the Theologian, then, man is "fully initiated into the visible creation," just as the animals were fully initiated into the visible creation (as they belonged wholly to the realm of the senses, given that "mind" and "sense" were mixed for the first time in the creation of man). This establishes that the commonalities between man and animal were present from the beginning of man's existence, and did not enter man's nature only after the fall.

Ambiguum 7, 8 & 42 can be found in On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ. St Maximus the Confessor. SVS Press.Is there anywhere online that I might be able to find the complete works of St. Maximus the Confessor, or at least the full Ambigua? Or, if not, can anyone refer me to a good book (or set of books) I could purchase?

Owen Jones

09-02-2008, 03:11 PM

OK, excellent points. Too often Christians are incapable of discerning the differences between theology that is Church dogma, and theology that is speculative. In fact, for many Orthodox Christians, the whole idea of speculative doctrine is anathema, as if speculation of any type leads to uncertainty, and is therefore bad. Theology must be certain!

But there is nothing less certain than evolutionary dogma. And I think one can aver to the Fathers in a critique of Darwinianism, because of the irrationality of Darwinism. It boils down to the question, not so much of what God is, but what man is. Darwinism is a form of intellectual reductionism, that claims to have an answer to the question of origins, and claims to have an answer to the questions of motivation and orientation. The Fathers have a much more comprehensive understanding of the "nature" of man. It is much richer, more open to nuance, more complete, but also allows for the mysterious element. Darwinism and naturalism in general removes any and all mystery from the components of man's nature.

The point therefore is that the tone and the method of theology is as important, if not more important than the "content," so to speak. So the question is not only, what is evolutionary theory, but what is theology. The fact that some of its greatest contributions are in the speculative arena, is not a weakness but a strength. Whereas school children and people who are illiterate in philosophical and theological speculation are led to believe that Darwinism is all about facts. Darwinism is really no different than the kind of theology espoused at Bob Jones University.

M. Partyka

22-02-2008, 01:32 AM

I'm currently reading selected works of St. Ambrose of Milan, and he had something to say that sounded relevant to the discussion:

And, indeed, death was no part of man’s nature, but became natural; for God did not institute death at first, but gave it as a remedy. Let us then take heed that it do not seem to be the opposite. For if death is a good, why is it written that “God made not death, but by the malice of men death entered into the world”? For of a truth death was no necessary part of the divine operation, since for those who were placed in paradise a continual succession of all good things streamed forth; but because of transgression the life of man, condemned to lengthened labour, began to be wretched with intolerable groaning; so that it was fitting that an end should be set to the evils, and that death should restore what life had lost. For immortality, unless grace breathed upon it, would be rather a burden than an advantage. (2nd Book on the Death of His Brother Satyrus, Paragraph 47)

M. Partyka

22-02-2008, 08:17 AM

And if somebody wanted a totally out-of-context quote from St. Ambrose in seeming support of evolution:

What else did the rod changed into a serpent signify, than that at the will of God living things can be produced from those that are without life? (2nd Book on the Death of His Brother Satyrus, Paragraph 74)

Owen Jones

22-02-2008, 03:47 PM

This only confirms the point made all along. There is nothing in Orthodox Christianity that disputes this. After all, we are told that Adam, in Genesis 2, was formed from the dust of the ground. I do not take this to be a literal/scientific statement, but I find no conflict here between creation"ism" and some form of scientific/naturalistic explanation. What is at issue is not the question of development, or even biological development, but Darwinian evolution, which purports to explain man in terms of strict naturalism/materialism. It claims to be a theory of origins whereas in fact it is not and can never be.

The predicate is that natural processes explain everything. In doing so, it commits the irrational fallacy of an infinite regression.

Furthermore, the predicate is, without even addressing the question of how or why anything should exist at all, that purely naturalistic processes explain how rocks and minerals and water become organic compounds, which, over a very long time, evolve into more complex organic structures, that evolve further because of fierce competition for scarce resources, because of favorable mutations that lend themselves to survivability. There is not only not a shred of evidence for any of this, it is intellectually phony because of the problem of complexity, and it is philosophically phony, because of the reasons mentioned above.

There is nothing in Orthodox Christianity that imposes on God some absolute as to how He can or cannot create. What we do know from the fossil record is that man as we know him today, biologically, suddenly appeared about 50,000 years ago, and that there is still no "missing link." Not only is there no evidence of a slow, long, gradual evolution from animals to man, but all of the fossil evidence refutes this. It is simply a modernist, progressivist ideology.

Yuri Zharikov

23-02-2008, 05:11 AM

What we do know from the fossil record is that man as we know him today, biologically, suddenly appeared about 50,000 years ago, and that there is still no "missing link."

We in fact do not "know" and cannot possibly "know" that man appeared 500,000 "years" ago. To know that somebody would have had to be around and write it down for us to read today. We only know that some rocks in which ancient human remains have been found have particular isotope ratios. The ratios are assumed to mean 500,000 "years" given a range of untestable assumptions (alredy discussed or alluded to on the Noah's flood thread). The assumptions are only there because "evolution" needs billions and millions of years; it is a requirement of the "theory" not a proof. By the way, molecular clock methods (mtDNA) as opposed to rock dating methods suggest that humans are 6-7000 years "old" (you might have heard about the "mitochondrial" Eve). Also over the past few years there have been numerous discoveries of dinosaur bones with intact blood cells and still flexible tissue in them (google Mary H. Schweitzer research group). Now these bones come from sediments "known" to be 65 mln "years" old... from which I conclude that there is something wrong with the rock dating method or with my head.

Yura

Yuri Zharikov

23-02-2008, 05:25 AM

And if somebody wanted a totally out-of-context quote from St. Ambrose in seeming support of evolution:

yea, right and the Gospel of John 8:11 "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee" seems to support adultery

Nina

23-02-2008, 05:44 AM

yea, right and the Gospel of John 8:11 "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee" seems to support adultery

:) Great posts Yura and others.

I thought that Kornelius' post from another thread fits here also:

I previously said that animals and creation in general, when created by God in the beginning, were not the same as they are now. Since sin entered the world through us, the rest of the creation suffered corruption and decay. Therefore, when you say that homosexuality happens in some cases in the animal kingdom, you must realize that this is not natural, but the tragic outcome of sin that permeated and influenced not just us humans but the entire creation. In order to understand the theology of this change because of sin, one has to engage, as you quite well put it, in an investigation of Genesis. Therefore, please hang in there with me! You too moderator! There is a point in here to be made that is relevant to this thread.

The true knowledge of the chapters of Genesis is possible only though Revelation. Not through history, biology or cosmology. Why is that? For the very reason that the set of laws used to create the Universe during the Hexaemeron, which continued to operate until the fall of Man, were entirely different from the set of physical laws that govern the universe today. Therefore conventional science is impotent to investigate accurately the origins of creation using "keys" that are irrelevant. The new key (cosmology, biology) does not fit the keyhole (Hexaemeron) anymore.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that scientific ideologies that oppose creationism - different from our conventional wisdom - are not based on scientific facts at all, but rather on philosophic speculations. Neither creation nor evolution can be conclusively proved, although evolutionists do so regardless of proof. The philosophical roots of evolutionism are to be found in the natural not Divine philosophy of Bacon and Descartes, and the philosophy of progress during the Enlightenment. I will elaborate more on the philosophy of progress later on.

Another thing that we are never told is the ongoing resistance against evolutionism within scientific circles, from rather very prominent scientists. One of them, Pierre P. Grasse, one of the world's greatest living biologists and ex-president of the French Academy of Sciences, in his L'Evolution du Vivant condemns evolution by exposing its pseudo-scientific claims.

He writes: "Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case." (p.202 of the English translation)

In other words there is an inner circle of pseudo-scientists that is hoodwinking (pun intended) not only non-scientists but even the generations of scientists. Don't forget, whoever sits in the board of trustees controls the curriculum, and whoever controls the curriculum controls the information and consequently the perception of reality.

Nonetheless, there are innumerous scientists who not only oppose this pseudo-science, but some of them even embrace the patristic view of creation. Most recently, molecular biologist Jonathan Wells has defended the teachings of the Holy Fathers on creation (see his article "Abusing Theology," in Origins & Design, vol. 19, no. 1, 1998), or British creation scientist Malcom Bowden (see his 1998 book True Science Agrees with the Bible).

Christ condemned the fig tree because of its fruits or rather lack thereof, which brings us to the question: what are the fruits of evolutionism? In his book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times, twentieth century French metaphysician Rene Guenon explained how the elimination of traditional spiritual principles has led to a drastic degeneration of humanity. Reducing everything to an exclusively quantitative level, has corrupted man's conception of true knowledge and confined his vision to what is temporal and material.

This materialistic isolation gives birth to narcissistic and hedonistic values, of which I spoke briefly previously. Ultimately, however, the scope of evolutionism is much larger and darker then we think.

Hieromonk Damascene of St. Herman of Alaska Monastery writes:

"It was the chialistic [the belief in the inevitability of progress and in the perfectibility of this fallen world]/evolutionary thought-pattern that had produced such politico-religious movements as international socialism (globalism) and ecumenism. All such movements share the same chialistic goal: a coming 'new order' in which all previous standards, seen as relative to a particular stage in a process, will be entirely changed. Just as all distinctions between organisms are blurred in the idea of biological evolution - as the organisms change into one another over millions of years - so too all distinction between nations and religions are blurred in the chialistic 'new world order.'"

These words are related to the philosophy of progress we mentioned earlier, being one of the tenets of Darwinism. The term progress is nothing else but the overly speculated holy grail. The definition of the holy grail is not to be found in the smoke screen book of Dan Brown. Grail implies a gradual change or progress. The individuals behind this operate by means of Hegelian dialectics and the Ordo ab Chaos principle (Order out of Chaos) that is, destruction of the old order (Christianity) and the establishment of the new order (instead of Christianity). Darwinism was part of the process too and was proposed long before Charles Darwin by his grandfather Erasmus. It is the same type of individuals in this century, who posses the same "beehive" mindset, that stand behind the pseudo-science of the homosexual gene, nymphomania and kleptomania gene and so forth.

It is crucial to know the philosophical origins of evolutionism. It enslaves us to the material and temporal, and without the spiritual in the equation we can never achieve our full potential, our full personhood. We become like the animals you described in your post. I hope it is somehow clearer now for you to understand why these animals, their tendencies and creation in general are not the same as they were created by God.

God saw His creation and it was good!

M. Partyka

23-02-2008, 05:58 AM

We in fact do not "know" and cannot possibly "know" that man appeared 500,000 "years" ago.The number given was 50,000 years, not 500,000 years. 50,000 years ago is the point at which evolutionists suppose spoken language to have evolved, and it's the point at which "progressive creationists" (e.g., Hugh Ross) believe that Adam and Eve were created.

M. Partyka

23-02-2008, 06:14 AM

...the set of laws used to create the Universe during the Hexaemeron, which continued to operate until the fall of Man, were entirely different from the set of physical laws that govern the universe today.Nevertheless, if we accept that all fossils originated after the fall, we can expect to be able to piece together the post-fall progression of plant and animal development and see if that corresponds to the biblical model, can't we?

Yuri Zharikov

23-02-2008, 07:22 AM

:) Great posts Yura and others.

I thought that Kornelius' post from another thread fits here also:
Nina, this is a great post, thanks for cross-posting; we have had a couple of such posts already; everything seems to be crystal clear and I can't believe we are still arguing about "evolution"

Yura

Yuri Zharikov

23-02-2008, 07:40 AM

The number given was 50,000 years, not 500,000 years. .

a typo, sorry, and... how this affects my argument?

50,000 years ago is the point at which evolutionists suppose spoken language to have evolved, and it's the point at which "progressive creationists" (e.g., Hugh Ross) believe that Adam and Eve were created.

what you are really saying is that probably wall-paintings or some other artifacts or pieces of wood near which they were found have been dated to be 50,000 "years" old using carbon isotope ratio. they did not find a language lying around with a date stamp, did they?

as far as actual humans (not rocks, humans), you can date them as being anywhere from 7000 to 3000,000 "years" old depending on which parts of DNA you assume to be the "right" molecular clock. fyi refs below

Cann, R.L., Stoneking, M. & Wilson, A.C. 1987. Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature, 325: 31-36.
Ingman, M., Kaessmann, H., Pääbo, S. & Gyllensten, U. 2000. Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans. Nature, 408: 708-713.
Finlayson, C. 2005. Biogeography and evolution of the genus Homo. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20: 457-463.
Loewe, L. & Scherer, S. 1997. Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12: 422-423.

Yuri Zharikov

23-02-2008, 08:13 AM

Nevertheless, if we accept that all fossils originated after the fall, we can expect to be able to piece together the post-fall progression of plant and animal development and see if that corresponds to the biblical model, can't we?

can you find a black cat in a dark room when it is not there?
after the fall, creation has been in the state of creeping DEGRADATION, so if you what to it is very easy to piece together the progression of degradation (hints: mass extinctions, mutation loads, ecosystem collapses), which occurs on all levels of biological organisation (and human morality too) and is directly observable, open to direct experimentation, measurement and hypothesis testing and one does not need to come up with esoteric assumptions.

can you, just for sport, for a second let go of "development" and "evolution", simply look at the world around you... and ask yourself: which way it seems to be going?

and if you are not sure, here is a nice report about "development" that expects us in the near future www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf (http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf)

Yura

Owen Jones

23-02-2008, 03:19 PM

I know of no evidence that language evolved. Languages are all equally complex, and they appear to have appeared suddenly, not evolved. Hebrew has been described as a "poor" language in that it has few words, and uses very concrete forms of expression. But it is still just as grammatically complex as other languages that have a much, much larger vocabulary. There is development and change in language, but no evidence of evolution of language from the simple to the complex, which is analogous it seems to me to the biological issue. And in fact we can see that languages devolve over time to a kind of lower common denominator. I would say that language is something inherently divine and sacred, given by God for man to be able to express what is in his soul.

Kornelius

23-02-2008, 03:49 PM

Nevertheless, if we accept that all fossils originated after the fall, we can expect to be able to piece together the post-fall progression of plant and animal development and see if that corresponds to the biblical model, can't we?

The fossil hypothesis within Darwinism is one of the biggest intellectual scams. It will become very clear to all of you when I quote a few paragraphs from Darwin on Trial writen by Phillip E. Johnson.

"Fossil stasis. The fossil record is pervasively characterized by a pattern of sudden appearance followed by stasis. New types of organisms appear suddenly and fully formed, and they remain basically unchanged thereafter. This pattern can be used to support the proposition that creation occurred not just at the beginning but throughout earth's history (assuming the dating of the rocks is accurate), but it consistently refuses to support the key Darwinian claim that one kind of creature changes step-by-step into something completely different. This pattern of evidence cannot be attributed to any incompletness in the fossil record, because the pattern is most obvious and undeniable in just those areas (especially marine invertebrates) where the record is most complete.

The very anti-Darwinian state of the fossil record was known to insiders all along as the 'trade secret of paleontology,' but it first came to the attention of the general public in the 1980s, due to the publicity given to the theory of evolution by 'punctuated equilibria.' This theory attempted to reconcile Darwinism with the pattern of sudden appearance and stasis by supposing that significant evolution occurs in small groups, which go away from the (unchanging) main population, accumulate mutations, and then reappear as a new species without leaving a trace of the transformation in the fossil record. By this means the absence of evidence for evolution became transformed into evidence for invisible evolution. In the memorable (1995) words of Niles Eldredge, one of the founders of the punctuated equilibria theory, 'Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologists looking to learn something about evolution.'

As Eldredge's remark implies, this spectacular pattern of fossil disconfirmation persists even after more than a century of determined efforts by Darwinist paleontologists to find evidence that will support their cherished theory. Any doubtful fossil that could conceivably be interpreted as an intermediate form in a Darwinian transition has been cited as proof that Darwinism is true, and yet even after these heroic efforts the bulk of the fossil record is as thoroughly inconsistent with Darwinian expectations as it was when Darwin proposed the theory in 1859"

M. Partyka

25-02-2008, 06:21 PM

Yuri,

500,000 years vs. 50,000 years is important in that the results of C-14 dating have only been verified back to around 50,000 years (more like 45,000). By "verified" I mean compared against other natural records of time such as tree ring data, ice core sampling, and varve counting. From all these methods, we know that the earth is at least 50,000 years old.

Owen Jones

26-02-2008, 01:28 AM

If the earth is relatively younger than what is normally posited by the Darwinists, even if it is still several million years old, Darwinism totally collapses in the popular mindset.

M. Partyka

26-02-2008, 02:36 AM

If the earth is relatively younger than what is normally posited by the Darwinists, even if it is still several million years old, Darwinism totally collapses in the popular mindset.Absolutely right. Still, 50,000 years blows the usual 10,000 year maximum posited by most young-earth creationists right out of the water. One could very well then ask, if the earth is actually tens of thousands of years older than the Bible appears to say, why can't the earth be hundreds of millions of years older than the Bible appears to say?

Owen Jones

26-02-2008, 03:14 AM

That's an entirely different question. The answer, on the face of it, is that there is no reason why not. But in fact the preponderance of Christian leaders throughout history have abided by a literal rendering of the time line, and I see no reason why not to honor that. But let's do this. Let's say that organic compounds have only existed for 90,000 years or less, and human beings as we know them today (let's forget the species issue -- there is a real question as to what a species is or if it has any scientific validity) have only been around for less than 50,000 years. That hardly refutes Genesis 1 and 2 (remember there are two creation stories).

M. Partyka

26-02-2008, 05:15 AM

...the preponderance of Christian leaders throughout history have abided by a literal rendering of the time line, and I see no reason why not to honor that.Not to be argumentative -- the compromise you've offered is fair enough for now -- but I would think the reason would be obvious: It's not true, and if it isn't true, how can it possibly be deserving of honor? I can understand affording it, say, the "honor" that we give to the "plum pudding" model that scientists once used to represent the inner workings of the atom: it was good for its day, but we have improved our knowledge since then, and today it would be improper to teach the "plum pudding" model as anything other than a rough grasp at understanding atomic structure.

Yet...although I can find nothing amiss with this attitude when it comes to science, I somehow doubt I'm the only one who experiences significant trepidation when applying the same attitude toward the teachings of Scripture. The seven days of creation -- was this another rough grasp at the truth? A story that contains fundamental religious truths that are universal and eternal, but which misses the mark as concerns the actual story of how things came to be? Adam and Eve...the fall...the flood.... How much is concrete, rock solid, unassailable truth, and how much is that "rough grasp" that mankind finds itself compelled to make, even in the face of overwhelming ignorance?

What would it have been like to live back in the days when no one knew that the sun was just a star seen much closer up? When the world, so far as anyone knew, was flat, and the sky was a solid dome that men could touch if they could just build a tower high enough? When a rainbow was something mystical and inexplicable, the only clue to its origin being its appearance after a heavy rain? To go back in time, to live as one of the ancients, we would have to give up so much knowledge, so much progress. Could we do it? Without losing our minds, could we really live in such a world? I dare say the ancients must have been made of much sturdier stock than I, both physically and mentally.

What happens to humanity should the future wind up resembling the past? I think everyone takes it for granted nowadays that fossil fuels will always be around in enough supply to keep us all fat, dumb, and happy -- at least those of us in the U.S. and other "first world" countries -- and if not, well, we'll think of something. Nuclear fusion, quantum engines, men in bars lighting blue flames -- we'll find some way to get the energy we need to keep building our towers onward and upward....

But what if that's not the future looming on the horizon. What if what we're seeing glimmers of now is that long, slow slide back into the days of horsed carriages, outdoor plumbling, and household chores once again segregated primarily by gender? It's not too far off. If the oil runs out, it'll be upon us like lightning, and we'll stand in our front yards wishing we hadn't laid so much bloody pavement around our homes because, gosh darn it, a little fertile soil would be so useful right about now.

What will it be like, knowing that humanity, having risen so far as to actually leave earth on occasional jaunts, has fallen back into the "good ol' days" -- or rather, the merely old days that nobody back then thought were all that good? What will it be like to know the oil's all gone, there's no getting it back, and humanity, for good or ill, is trapped on this little ball of mud hanging in space that we call home? What will we teach our children about electric motors and atoms and cloning and wireless networks once we realize that none of those things mean anything anymore -- that they're just the trivia of a bygone age when iron birds carried people in the sky, and the most important, burning question that filled the average person's mind was, "Deal...or No Deal?"

Ah, well...that's enough of my monologuing for tonight. Sleep well, all.

Antonios

26-02-2008, 05:54 AM

Sleep well, all.

How can I, you just scared me half to death! :)

Victor Mihailoff

26-02-2008, 06:38 AM

So should Orhtodox Christians believe in evolution?

I communicated with Bishop Alexander by email a few times and we disagreed with each other. In one email he told me that carnivores had to exist before the fall of Adam and Eve or else the Garden of Eden would be full of carcasses. I told him that death did not exist until after the fall. He replied, “Then what did the animals eat, grass???” I prayed to Blessed Xenia of Petersburg to find for me the right answer in Holy Scripture (the O.T.) and then opened the Bible to the very beginning. On the second page of my Bible I found what to quote in answer to his question. It is in Genesis 1:30. Bishop Alexander was upset by this quote and sent me a reply stating that if I persisted in my beliefs I was in danger of becoming a fool. I only wish I was a fool for Christ’s sake but I do not have the humility to bear such a difficult cross in life.

Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote notes for a book which was compiled and published posthumously. It is called: “Genesis, Creation and Early Man”, published in Platina California by St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood in 2,000 AD. In it he states that evolution theory will be replaced.

Phillip E. Johnson, a Christian who is on the front lines of the creation/evolution debate, agrees with the prognosis that Fr. Seraphim made over two decades ago (quoted from a book published in 2,000). “It is what all my friends and I have been discussing.” He says. “Scientific materialism is waning, but unhealthy forms of religion will largely take its place.” For Orthodox Christians, this is all the more reason to cling firmly to the common teaching of the Holy Fathers, whom Fr. Seraphim called a “sure guide to true Christianity.” … “When Marxism falls, its counterpart, Darwinism, is bound to follow suit. Yet, as Fr. Seraphim taught, these two were never meant to be ends in themselves. In the course of apostasy masterminded by the enemy of our salvation, they are but vehicles by which to destroy faith in God of traditional Christianity and thus people prepare the way for what Fr. Seraphim called “the religion of the future.” The anti-tradition and anti-Christianity of Marxist communism and Darwinian Evolutionism only serve as a preparation for something far worse: a counter-tradition and counterfeit Christianity that, “if it were possible, shall deceive even the very elect” (Matt. 24:24). [Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), Genesis, Creation and early Man].

The above quote was taken from “An Orthodox Survival Guide for the 21st Century”, which contains a chapter on “Evolution and Geological Dating”. God can create with a word. Why would he need a process of billions of years to create man? Charles Darwin did not mean for his paper, “The Origin of Species” (did I get that title right?) to be widely published. It was a paper for other academics to read an discuss. There were already in the world then, people who were looking for ways to oppose the Word of God through coming up with contradictions to Holy Scripture. When Darwin’s paper was seen by them, they pounced on it and quickly had it published as headline news all over the world. Darwin spent the rest of his life trying to prove his hypothesis that others were calling a theory even though it did not fit the definition of a scientific theory. Darwin came to the conclusion that evolution could not be proved because it is false. He tried to publish his findings that opposed evolution ‘theory’ but no one would do so. He regretted that on his death bed. Darwin himself did not believe in evolution.

Owen Jones

26-02-2008, 03:14 PM

Christianity utilizes scientific method, only with a different set of criteria, and a different method than the lab sciences. Both are empirical, but again, with a different set of assumptions and methods. When I have partaken of the eucharist, I can assure you that I have never tasted flesh and blood. My mouth tastes bread and wine. So from the criteria of the physical sciences, that relies on the data acquired by the material senses only, the eucharist is a lie.

But Orthodox Christianity is predicated on the experience of transformation of the mind and of sense perception so that the spiritual realm becomes clarified. It results in seeing things that were there all along that we had missed, but are not things. Theology does not refer to objects. Hence, the criteria of truth are different in theology than they are in the lab sciences which observes the motion of objects under carefully measured conditions. This does not result in a lesser truth but just the opposite, because human beings constitute an "eschatalogical index" to quote a recent philosopher. That is to say, human existence is inherently purposeful, and the only way to have purpose in the here and now is for there to be an eschatalogical purpose, even if most of us go about our business on a daily basis without thinking about the eschatological predicate underlying all of our purposeful actions. So, in summary, it's not about facts. Facts have no meaning. I get up in the morning and I do stuff. I can catalogue them. I can keep a daily journal. I can jot down all the stuff I do. But in and of itself, these facts are meaningless, unless and until I begin to attach meaning to them, and the only way to do that is to begin to refer to the Beginning and the Beyond of my daily "facts." And so I delve into my memory, and my memory is not just about random facts, but about the meaning that I apply to them. And I begin to contemplate where this is all headed. In short, I am doing theology.

Theology is not about a set of facts organized on a time line culminating in the present. This truth causes many a naive Christian to grind his teeth, because he thinks that if our theological principles cannot be grounded in all historical events in our past by being firmly established factually on a given timeline, that somehow theological truth is therefore sundered. This attitude is the unfortunate, devastating impact of Newtonian physics applied to theology, nothing more. With that said, the idea that Christians ought to reconcile their faith with a Darwinist construction of origins is sad, to say the least, because Darwinism, as we know it, is essentially an anti-theological way of looking at things, and not a scientific theory of origins at all, for the many reasons cited already in this thread.

I became Orthodox to save my soul, but underlying that was the recognition that only in Orthodoxy do we have a proper understanding of the relationships between historical events and their mystical significance. Otherwise, you have an overwhelming burden of unrelated historical facts that go nowhere. So a bunch of Hebrews crossed some body of water 2500 years ago. So what? So there was a global flood sometime in the distant past. So what? Genesis 1 and 2 are theological insights into the nature of a good God who is not the capricious and whimsical and arbitrary, and sometimes evil gods that dwelt in nature, and a symbolic rendering of the nature of a mankind that otherwise inexplicably continues to get himself into all kinds of problems and troubles. It addresses the question, who or what is the cause of man's present troubles? Is God responsible or are we? Does a malicious god, unconcerned about my welfare, cause me to sin, or am I responsible for my sin? Among other issues addressed.

M. Partyka

26-02-2008, 11:41 PM

The above quote was taken from “An Orthodox Survival Guide for the 21st Century”, which contains a chapter on “Evolution and Geological Dating”. God can create with a word. Why would he need a process of billions of years to create man?Obviously, He doesn't. But the more important question is, "Why does the universe give evidence of having been around for billions of years?"

Charles Darwin did not mean for his paper, “The Origin of Species”...to be widely published. It was a paper for other academics to read and discuss....Darwin spent the rest of his life trying to prove his hypothesis that others were calling a theory even though it did not fit the definition of a scientific theory. Darwin came to the conclusion that evolution could not be proved because it is false. He tried to publish his findings that opposed evolution ‘theory’ but no one would do so. He regretted that on his death bed. Darwin himself did not believe in evolution.This story is completely false, I'm afraid. The first edition of Darwin's work was released to the general public with Darwin's consent (and sold out immediately), and Darwin was a proponent of his theory all his life. The "deathbed confession" story has been acknowledged as a hoax by major creationist institutions.

Owen Jones

27-02-2008, 12:36 AM

Victor Mihailoff

27-02-2008, 05:47 AM

So where are we? Is the above post arguing that the Genesis account is scientifically false? If so, are there implications to that for Christians? If so, what are they? Is the above post arguing in favor of Darwinian evolution, by utilizing the age of the cosmos as proof? Could we be a little less vague?

The universe does not give evidence that it has been around for billions of years. All the dating methods for fossils and geological formations give false and inaccurate results (see Chapter 4, Evolution and Geological Dating, in "An Orhtodox Survival Guide for the 21st Century". There are only 1,000 copies in existance and may never be reprinted). Evolutionists grab at threads and then make their hypotesis fit the implied "evidence". There is much literature available on this subject that is written by scientists who believe in the biblical account of creation. One such scientist invented scientific equipment for testing the species of animal or man that a bone fragment came from. Even a tiny splinter of bone could be identified as coming from a whale, a mouse, a lizard, a frog, an ape or a man. The scientist challenged others to supply fragments the origin of which the supplier knew and the scientist had to discover using his technique. He proved without doubt to be 100% correct. Then he went on to test skulls of primitive man held in museums. Java Man, Cromagnon Man, Neanderthal Man etc. all proved to be combinations of human and ape components. The usual story was that a human skull was cemented to an ape's jaw bone for display. Some were diliberate hoaxes and the perpetrators came forward admitting their hoax. Others were honest mistakes. A paleontologist or an archeologist discovered two sites of bones. He found the skull of a man in one site and a few meters away he found the jaw bone of an ape. He assumed that they belonged to the same creature. They did not quite fit but pieces were missing and through the use of cement or other adhesive, the perceived missing pieces were manufactured. The envolutionists made no reply to this discovery and kept quiet about "prehistoric man" for a few years. I learned this during a "Russian Orthodox Youths Conference" lecture given by a deacon named Fr. Nikita Grigoriev, who came third in his degree course for the whole of Canada. The lecture was given in Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville NY in 1988 or 1989. Fr. Nikita later became a priest and lecturer in HTM Orthodox seminary.

Yuri Zharikov

27-02-2008, 07:36 AM

So where are we? Is the above post arguing that the Genesis account is scientifically false? If so, are there implications to that for Christians? If so, what are they? Is the above post arguing in favor of Darwinian evolution, by utilizing the age of the cosmos as proof? Could we be a little less vague?

These questions are purely speculative and groundless. There is no implications because all the long-winded compilations about how old the earth is are not based on knowledge but on belief and untestable assumptions. How old did Adam look when he was just created? It would be fair to say 30-33 yrs old (by analogy with the Lord). But was he actually 33 yrs old - no, for he was created an instant ago. How old did the earth look on the sixth day? You measure K/Ar or Rb/Sr you may get billions of "yrs". Who was to tell God how to combine minerals, molecules, atoms and isotopes in living (animal) and non-living creatures and who is to demand an answer of Him?

If M. Partyka insists that he "knows" the earth to be 50,000 yrs old because it is "verified" through C-14 dating (although without explaining how); my comment will be that I "know" that at the time of creation the earth looked 50,000 - 7,516 (current year since creation) = 42,484 yrs old. How is my precision?
But wait a second... these 50,000 yrs are based on an assumption that C-14 concentration has not changed between now and the time of backcast projections. Is the assumtion true? Was there any C-14 in the atmosphere at creation? I "know" there was none in fact and then the content increased exponentially after the fall. This is because trees buried in the flood, that grew maybe even before the fall in C-14-less atmosphere, look considerably older than they really are, i.e. they have much lower C-14 content than they would have had if the ambient C-14 concentration then was as it is today.

I also feel that if we start speculating too much about things obviously hidden from us by the Divine Providence we will only be wasting our time and detracting our attention from one thing needful.

Yura

M.C. Steenberg

27-02-2008, 10:45 AM

Dear friends,

It looks as if it's about time to give a gentle nudge towards keeping on topic. While much of the earlier discussion in this thread has been extremely good, some of the recent posts in this thread have started to move the discussion towards engagement solely with the validity of various scientific theories in their own right. It seems pertinent to re-state Fr David's words from back in post #34 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=58048&postcount=34):

Please remember that the basis of our discussion should be the Orthodox faith as expressed in its patristic, liturgical and monastic witness. I would like to see at least an attempt to bring the patristic witness of the church to bear on all the scientific "evidence" that is being presented. I am in no way suggesting that science is in error or that it is somehow evil - I am much more interested to see how scientific observation is interpreted in the light of the witness of the fathers of the Church.Many thanks to all.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Victor Mihailoff

27-02-2008, 10:59 AM

M.C. Steenberg

27-02-2008, 11:05 AM

Mr Mihailoff wrote:

I absolutely agree. The enemy of mankind rejoices when we engage in controversy about the physical world because we are being distracted from the spiritual world and our own salvation.

I don't think I agree with this, Victor (to be concerned with only the spiritual world is essentially Gnostic; being concerned with the physical cosmos is part of the life in Christ). :-) But our focus on keeping things in a patristic orientation - which is what I was referring to, rather than the topic itself - is important.

With thanks to all,
Dcn Matthew

Victor Mihailoff

27-02-2008, 12:42 PM

Obviously, He doesn't. But the more important question is, "Why does the universe give evidence of having been around for billions of years?"[/size]

This story is completely false, I'm afraid. The first edition of Darwin's work was released to the general public with Darwin's consent (and sold out immediately), and Darwin was a proponent of his theory all his life. The "deathbed confession" story has been acknowledged as a hoax by major creationist institutions.

That acknowledgement is based on completely false criticisms and these criticisms were thoroughly examined in the light of evidence which proved that there were those in creationist institutions who feared offending the Darwin family. The woman who gave evidence regarding darwin's deathbed statement was a Christian with no ulterior motives who had an impeccable reputation not diserving to be called a liar. For those who want to delve further into this topic go to http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm

Down with evolution "theory" and long live the Holy Bible's true account.

Owen Jones

27-02-2008, 03:14 PM

So let's look at the underlying principle. The Fathers were not dummies. Many were highly educated in the Platonic Academy, which required knowledge of mathematics, geometry, astronomy. The idea of materialism was not new to them. Even the idea of evolution had been around since the ancient Greeks, since Aristotle addressed the issue. While the Fathers do not speak explicitly to the question of evolution, as far as I know, they understood the point of the Genesis account being primarily theological.

As far as Darwinism is concerned, the critique from the very beginning has been primarily on scientific grounds. i.e., the fossil evidence disputes the theory. More recently, the idea of gradualism has been ridiculed by mathematicians. The idea of survival of the fittest has been called into question because it relies on the rejected theories of Thomas Malthus. The Christian critique has been largely waged on the basis of the Genesis account being a literal/historical account, and not on theological, philosophical or scientific grounds per se. Hence the term "creationist" which exhibits a certain ideological component and is used effectively as a perjorative by the defenders of Darwinism.

So where are we? I am having trouble here relying on the Fathers, not for my own theological understanding, but as a tool in critiquing Darwinism in such a way that is compelling and convincing to Orthodox people who are sucked into Darwinism, as well as non-Orthodox and non-Christians. Perhaps someone can help me out here. I have read the posted quotes from Orthodox theologians, and I am not yet seeing an effective critique of Darwinism, unless one is already predisposed to critique it. I can just see myself addressing a high school biology class, stating that Darwinism is false because the Church Fathers say so...I don't think that would get very far.

Father David Moser

27-02-2008, 05:05 PM

So where are we? I am having trouble here relying on the Fathers, not for my own theological understanding, but as a tool in critiquing Darwinism in such a way that is compelling and convincing to Orthodox people who are sucked into Darwinism, as well as non-Orthodox and non-Christians.

I think I agree with Owen here (or at least I agree with what I think Owen is saying). As Orthodox Christians we do not need to be Biblical literalists insisting on the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Nor should we embrace Darwinist evolutionary theory - especially in the Naturalistic, atheistic, form which has come to be the norm in today's world. In fact, even the Intelligent Design compromise is terribly compelling. The point here is that just defending against Darwinism is pretty useless unless we have some idea of what we are defending. I would like to see more of a conversation about what the patristic ideas of the origins are - how important is it to "know", what is the relation between scripture and science? how "heavy handed" is the Creator in the events and development of the creation? We talk about the inacceptibilty of Evolutionary theory, and yet we can't truly defend literal Genesis Creationism and ID is an attempt to merge the two into one. All this basically excludes the patristic commentary and works only within the philosophical bounds of naturalistic science. What is a patristic approach to origins and prehistory? I would like to see a more "positive" (or perhaps we could say a more "offensive") approach rather than the prevailing "negative" (defensive) approach.

Fr David Moser

M. Partyka

27-02-2008, 07:47 PM

The universe does not give evidence that it has been around for billions of years.It might be possible to say this looking only as fossil and geological evidence. It's when you bring astronomy into the mix that the evidence of billions of years of universal existence arrives. One of the greatest unsolved problems faced by young-earth creationists today is the question of "Starlight and Time", to quote the title of Dr. Russell Humphries' creationist book on the subject.

Essentially, the stars are light-years away. A light-year is the distance that light crosses in a year. The nearest star to earth, excepting the sun, is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 light-years away. That means it takes 4.2 years for the light of the Proxima Centauri to reach earth.

From a literal six-day creationist standpoint, this means that the light from the nearest extrasolar star to earth didn't arrive until 4.2 years after Adam was created. Prior to that, the night sky was utterly dark except for the light of the moon. Not until four years after creation did those little points of light begin to shine in the sky.

Granted, four years is no big deal and doesn't upset the Genesis chronology at all. Even some of the furthest individual stars we can see are within a thousand light-years of earth. Perhaps these stars only showed up after the flood. So, stars aren't really a problem.

Galaxies, however, present a problem for literal six-day creationists. The nearest major galaxy to earth is the Andromeda galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.2 million light years away. That means that if the universe really were created only 7000-10000 years ago, the light from the Andromeda galaxy shouldn't reach us for another 2.2 million years. Yet, it does, and this gives evidence that the universe has been around for at least 2.2 million years. The farthest visible galaxy is estimated to be 13 billion light-years from earth, and that's where one finds evidence that the universe has been around for billions of years.

One such scientist invented scientific equipment for testing the species of animal or man that a bone fragment came from. Even a tiny splinter of bone could be identified as coming from a whale, a mouse, a lizard, a frog, an ape or a man. The scientist challenged others to supply fragments the origin of which the supplier knew and the scientist had to discover using his technique. He proved without doubt to be 100% correct. Then he went on to test skulls of primitive man held in museums. Java Man, Cromagnon Man, Neanderthal Man etc. all proved to be combinations of human and ape components....I learned this during a "Russian Orthodox Youths Conference" lecture given by a deacon named Fr. Nikita Grigoriev, who came third in his degree course for the whole of Canada. The lecture was given in Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville NY in 1988 or 1989. Fr. Nikita later became a priest and lecturer in HTM Orthodox seminary.Did Fr. Nikita give a source for his information, or the name of the scientist? I'm trying to find any articles of his online, but the only one I've seen is his "Beacon of Light" article, which is on ecumenism. I did find a place where for $14 I can purchase a CD of a lecture he did on evolution for a 1993 conference, but otherwise I don't see much online.

M. Partyka

27-02-2008, 08:09 PM

If M. Partyka insists that he "knows" the earth to be 50,000 yrs old because it is "verified" through C-14 dating (although without explaining how)Sorry, but it's getting hard to keep track of where I posted what. Here's what I wrote earlier in another thread:

it's important to note that scientists have validated the accuracy of C-14 dating back to 50,000 years. (See the research paper at http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/02Fa...production.pdf.) That means the earth is at least 40,000 years older than most young earth creationists (such as Dr. Baumgardner himself) would allow. (Actually, the paper suggests that the earth is at least 100,000 years old based on annual varve deposits in Japan's Lake Suigetsu.)

It's also noteworthy that there is no catastrophic break recorded in any of the calibrative methods used to corroborate C-14 dating (e.g., varves, tree rings, ice cores) occurring within the "few thousand years ago" that Dr. Baumgardner allows for the date of the global flood. Judging from the evidence, either we must conclude that Dr. Baumgardner is incorrect and the flood occurred earlier than 50,000-100,000 years ago, or we must accept (and hopefully prove) Dr. Baumgardner's assertion that all of the geological evidence we're looking at actually was laid down during the global flood -- i.e., we're wrongly interpreting the evidence.

But the latter possibility, that 100,000 varves were laid down in Lake Suigetsu is not just improbable -- it's impossible because of the way those varves are formed: once every year, algae bloom and then decay into a white layer at the bottom of the lake, which is then covered by darker sediment over the course of the following year, and the cycle repeats itself year after year. You can posit whatever flood dynamics you want, but you can't make the algae bloom more than once a year, which means that each of the 100,000 white layers in Lake Suigetsu represents approximately a one-year span of time. In short, a record of 100,000 layers of yearly algae bloom requires roughly 100,000 years to produce. If we have the record -- and we do -- then there must have been sufficient time for the earth to have naturally produced it.

Victor Mihailoff

28-02-2008, 12:10 AM

It might be possible to say this looking only as fossil and geological evidence. It's when you bring astronomy into the mix that the evidence of billions of years of universal existence arrives. One of the greatest unsolved problems faced by young-earth creationists today is the question of "Starlight and Time", to quote the title of Dr. Russell Humphries' creationist book on the subject.

From a literal six-day creationist standpoint, this means that the light from the nearest extrasolar star to earth didn't arrive until 4.2 years after Adam was created. Prior to that, the night sky was utterly dark except for the light of the moon. Not until four years after creation did those little points of light begin to shine in the sky.

I must point out to you M. Partyka, that "from a literal creationist standpoint" the stars shined from the fourth day of creation onwards. see Genesis 1:16-19. "...he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God sawe that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." Now if one reads further a little, one can see that Adam was created on the sixth day, making the stars shining on the earth two days before Adam's creation.

Regarding the universe, please note: The heavenly bodies were all created for the benefit of God's crowning glory of creation, mankind. All other creation is linked to mankind and follows man's pathways. When the first couple fell, death and procreation came into existance. Since it came to act upon Adam and Eve it also came to act upon all other living things. Remember: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:26) So, Adam and Eve were created not as babies, but as youths. Fr. Seraphim rose in his postumous book, "Genesis, Creation and Early Man" sites references for his assertion that Adam and Eve were created to be equivalent to people about 16 to 18 years old upon creation. Note also that the animals that approached Adam for naming before Eve was created could not have been baby animals because babies mostly depend on an adult mother for sustenance. Also, if plants were only seeds, then where would the bees get their pollen from and if bees were only eggs, how would plants polinate to continue their existance? Also if the universe was created in some form of infancy to agree with the scientists' books regarding the age of the universe then was it a large ball to support their big bang theory or a gaseous cloud? And if that is the case, how was their star light in Adam's lifetime at all when there could not even be a sun or an earth? So 4.2 years is way off. Sorry cannot continue. Someone is waiting to take me to hospital to see my cardiologist. God bless!

Victor Mihailoff

28-02-2008, 02:43 AM

It might be possible to say this looking only as fossil and geological evidence. It's when you bring astronomy into the mix that the evidence of billions of years of universal existence arrives. One of the greatest unsolved problems faced by young-earth creationists today is the question of "Starlight and Time", to quote the title of Dr. Russell Humphries' creationist book on the subject.

Essentially, the stars are light-years away. A light-year is the distance that light crosses in a year. The nearest star to earth, excepting the sun, is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 light-years away. That means it takes 4.2 years for the light of the Proxima Centauri to reach earth.

From a literal six-day creationist standpoint, this means that the light from the nearest extrasolar star to earth didn't arrive until 4.2 years after Adam was created. Prior to that, the night sky was utterly dark except for the light of the moon. Not until four years after creation did those little points of light begin to shine in the sky.

Granted, four years is no big deal and doesn't upset the Genesis chronology at all. Even some of the furthest individual stars we can see are within a thousand light-years of earth. Perhaps these stars only showed up after the flood. So, stars aren't really a problem.

Galaxies, however, present a problem for literal six-day creationists. The nearest major galaxy to earth is the Andromeda galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.2 million light years away. That means that if the universe really were created only 7000-10000 years ago, the light from the Andromeda galaxy shouldn't reach us for another 2.2 million years. Yet, it does, and this gives evidence that the universe has been around for at least 2.2 million years. The farthest visible galaxy is estimated to be 13 billion light-years from earth, and that's where one finds evidence that the universe has been around for billions of years.

Did Fr. Nikita give a source for his information, or the name of the scientist? I'm trying to find any articles of his online, but the only one I've seen is his "Beacon of Light" article, which is on ecumenism. I did find a place where for $14 I can purchase a CD of a lecture he did on evolution for a 1993 conference, but otherwise I don't see much online.

Sorry but there is no way in the world that I would be able to remember the name of one scientist out of many that were named in Father Nikita's lecture in 88 or 89. Maybe there's nothing on line because the first PC was invented around 1988, wasn't it? Fr Nikita also showed us many films with Christians who were scientists, discussing evolution, Noah's Arc, genetic wealth of early species and the like. One scientist even demonstrated calculations which showed that the arc could physically maintain all of the original pairs and groups of seven of each species neccessary to repopulate the earth. Remember, Noah's family consisted of only eight people; that's earth's full population of 8 and now its 6 billion! Animals that were used for sacrifices to God were loaded aboard in groups of seven and those not used in sacrifices were loaded-two by two.

I would give that CD a try, maybe he kept using that info about the scientific testing in subsequent lectures on evolution because it was very profound stuff to hear. All so called prehistoric human skulls were mixtures of human and ape head bones.

Yuri Zharikov

28-02-2008, 06:06 AM

Sorry, but it's getting hard to keep track of where I posted what. Here's what I wrote earlier in another thread:
OK, thanks, that's great - I should have looked it up myself.

So we have a lake bottom core with so many thousand layers. In today's temperate climate of Japan the layers are known (have been observed) to be formed due to seasonal growth and death of algae, one layer per year. If we assume that this has always been the case and the climate, the algae and their behaviour have always been constant we can count the layers and through that estimate the age of (what?) the deepest sediment layer in the lake.

Is the assumption reasonable? For somebody who have not heard of the fall and the flood it might be. For somebody who have, it is not a reasonable assumption. We can only say that we are dealing with some sort of rhythmicity in layer deposition and perhaps top 7,000 - 7,500 layers indeed represent calendar years.

I'll get back to this, but to change the topic slightly. If you read climate change reports produced by the UN and different think-tanks you will discover a very curious thing. Climate experts will dare predicting climate change scenarios with any degree of certainly only 30 (not even 100) yrs into the future. Why? Why, with a process that is conceptually understood, directly measurable and testable, and researched across the globe such a puny projection horizon. Because for things that actually matter, nobody in his mind will venture making projecting far beyond the actually, directly measured range of conditions. Why is this? Because environmental conditions change in a non-linear, interactive, synergistic manner and once you start predicting too far beyond the directly measured range, your "predictions" become guesswork. If I submit a paper to a journal trying to model ecosystem behaviour far beyond conditions I have observed, the manuscript will not even get to be peer-reviewed, it will be returned to me by the editor.

Back to our lake varves... we know that climate and everything changed in a most dramatic way after the fall and then again after the flood. Why do I say "know". After the fall death entered into the world and whatever was the original pattern of things, it became to be overlayed with dead and decaying matter. The climate was still benign though.

After the deluge, rainbow was first seen after the rain stopped, the climate changed - it became seasonal. Also much more significantly something big, really big hit fitness of humans (and with them obviously all other living creatures). Before Noah, people lived consistently to the tune of 900 - 1000 yrs. However, if you plot the longevity of Noah's descendants against the Biblical timescale of some 5,000 yrs after the flood; you will get a nearly perfect in statistical terms exponential decay of fitness (Sanford, JC. 2005. Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome. Elim Publishing, Lima, NY, 209 pp.)

The ages in the Bible are thus not "mythical". They represent a record of a theoretically valid and highly significant decelerating decay in fitness. Such a decay could occur due to mutation load for example (Crow, JF. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate. Is it a health risk. Proc Natl. Acad. Sciences 94: 8380).

If conditions changed so dramatically that human lifespan dropped from 1000 to 100 yrs in a matter for few generations, our back projections based on uniformist assumptions are worthless. For all it is worth I can say that the algae population in that lake before the flood was so vibrant that then it went through its currently annual cycle in a lunar cycle. The mechanism of the cycle could be not seasonal weather change as it is now but for example depletion of a critical nutrient (e.g. Ph or N) in the water column. Thus we have dozens of thousands of layers.

Yura

If you do not like this untestable hypothesis I can come up with a different untestable one and so on. We`ll find out the truth only on the judgment day though, so I am not too worried about not knowing now what I am going to learn for sure anyway.

M. Partyka

28-02-2008, 07:43 AM

So we have a lake bottom core with so many thousand layers. In today's temperate climate of Japan the layers are known (have been observed) to be formed due to seasonal growth and death of algae, one layer per year. If we assume that this has always been the case and the climate, the algae and their behaviour have always been constant we can count the layers and through that estimate the age of (what?) the deepest sediment layer in the lake.

Is the assumption reasonable? For somebody who have not heard of the fall and the flood it might be. For somebody who have, it is not a reasonable assumption. We can only say that we are dealing with some sort of rhythmicity in layer deposition and perhaps top 7,000 - 7,500 layers indeed represent calendar years....

After the deluge, rainbow was first seen after the rain stopped, the climate changed - it became seasonal....For all it is worth I can say that the algae population in that lake before the flood was so vibrant that then it went through its currently annual cycle in a lunar cycle. The mechanism of the cycle could be not seasonal weather change as it is now but for example depletion of a critical nutrient (e.g. Ph or N) in the water column. Thus we have dozens of thousands of layers.You're neglecting to take into account the 45,000 years' worth of consistency among four entirely different classes of data: C-14 decay, tree rings, ice cores, and varves. So, if you want to argue that varves were laid down 12 times a year before the flood, you also have to argue that prior to the flood trees grew 12 times more rapidly, ice froze and melted 12 times more rapidly, and carbon-14 decayed 12 times more rapidly. But why stop there? It would be just as reasonable to suggest that the earth revolved around the sun 12 times more rapidly, so the reason Methuselah lived to be 989 is that he was counting 12 years for every one real year that passed, making his age by today's standards of time...a mere 82 years old! Seems reasonable, I suppose...until one realizes this also means that Methuselah was born to a five-year-old Enoch! But, hey, who says the antediluvians weren't fertile as bunnies right out of the womb, huh? It all happened before the flood, so we can say whatever we want!

If you do not like this untestable hypothesis I can come up with a different untestable one and so on. We`ll find out the truth only on the judgment day though, so I am not too worried about not knowing now what I am going to learn for sure anyway.If all you're interested in is throwing up untestable hypotheses to shield yourself from having to deal with the facts, it honestly doesn't surprise me that truth isn't a big concern of yours.

Nevertheless, if it makes you more comfortable, I'll be happy to phrase the question as a hypothetical:

If it turned out we lived in a world that was billions of years old and shows signs that human life had evolved rather than been directly created as-is, how would the Fathers have dealt with this knowledge, or how might the writings of the Fathers be brought to bear upon this knowledge?

Yuri Zharikov

28-02-2008, 08:14 AM

You're neglecting to take into account the 45,000 years' worth of consistency among four entirely different classes of data: C-14 decay, tree rings, ice cores, and varves.

I did not know trees grew to be 45,000 yr old. If that's the case, I rest my case.

If you are looking at correlations among different things none of which has actually been calibrated against true time across the full time span as they do for example in forensic science, you are looking at just that - correlations. No inference about causality can be made. Also the correlations do not seem to go past ca. 10K BP, not 45K; so there is no consistency you are asserting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMS 14C Dating of Varved Sediments from Lake Suigetsu, Central Japan and Atmospheric 14C Change During the Late Pleistocene

Hiroyuki Kitagawa, Hitoshi Fukuzawa, Toshio Nakamura, Makoto Okamura, Keiji Takemura, Akira Hayashida and Yoshinori Yasuda

We made accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) 14C measurements on terrestrial macrofossils from the Late Pleistocene/Holocene of the annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu (central Japan). The AMS 14C dates of terrestrial macrofossils showed agreement between varve counting years and calibrated ages (tree rings and U/Th on coral) in the interval of 10.5 and ca. 11.5 ka cal BP. Beyond 11.5 ka cal BP, the age difference between 14C and varve counting years gradually diminish, contradicting published data on corals dated by U/Th and 14C.
[Radiocarbon Volume 37, Number 2, 1995]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for, my untestable hypothesis is that C-14 did no exist in early atmosphere and then C-14 built up together with varves and all the other layers as the history of the fall unfolded, thus no surprise they are correlated to some extent. We do not know the time span over which this happened or mechanisms involved, that's all I can say. You are free to believe in zillions of yrs if that makes you sleep well; I'll believe in 7,516 years.

Good night,
Yura

P.S. How can it possibly turn out that human life evolved? Dude, like, I mean, how?!

Owen Jones

28-02-2008, 02:47 PM

I'm getting a little frustrated.

1.If the earth is a trillion years old, this is not an argument in support of Darwinism!

2. Darwinism purports to be a theory of origins, but it is not and cannot be, because evolution theory cannot explain why anything exists at all in the first place.

3. A literal interpretation of Jesus's geneology is used as a straw man by pro-Darwinians. Please stop this argument. A straw man argument is invalid.

Can we all agree on the above?

Victor Mihailoff

28-02-2008, 11:50 PM

Mr Mihailoff wrote:

I don't think I agree with this, Victor (to be concerned with only the spiritual world is essentially Gnostic; being concerned with the physical cosmos is part of the life in Christ). :-) But our focus on keeping things in a patristic orientation - which is what I was referring to, rather than the topic itself - is important.

With thanks to all,
Dcn Matthew

I cannot agree with your disagreement, Dcn Matthew. A Gnostic is one who among other things, hates God's physical creation. I do not, but instead give thanks to the Lord for His providence as do all practicing Christians.

My only motivation was to agree with you and Fr David's words, while also adding a few of my own to show that I was not simply agreeing without conviction but actually genuinely agreeing.

May Christ always be our true guide! Victor

M. Partyka

29-02-2008, 01:56 AM

When the first couple fell, death and procreation came into existance.Whoa, there. Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply before the fall, not afterwards. Let's not go down the Mormon route by claiming that the fall was something Adam and Eve needed to do to fulfill God's commandment!

M. Partyka

29-02-2008, 01:58 AM

I would give that CD a try, maybe he kept using that info about the scientific testing in subsequent lectures on evolution because it was very profound stuff to hear.I'll do that, then. Thanks for the reference!

Yuri Zharikov

29-02-2008, 02:04 AM

you also have to argue that prior to the flood trees grew 12 times more rapidly <...>

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Mat 22:29

In the midst of the street of it, <...> was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month. Rev. 22:2

M. Partyka

29-02-2008, 02:56 AM

Also the correlations do not seem to go past ca. 10K BP, not 45K; so there is no consistency you are asserting....[Radiocarbon Volume 37, Number 2, 1995]The paper from which I quoted, which asserted that calibrations matched all the way back to 45,000 years, was published in 1998. Apparently in three years they'd managed to work out some of the calibrative kinks. :)

Yuri Zharikov

29-02-2008, 04:02 AM

The paper from which I quoted, which asserted that calibrations matched all the way back to 45,000 years, was published in 1998. Apparently in three years they'd managed to work out some of the calibrative kinks. :)

i am afraid they would need 30,000 yrs to work out the kinks, plus another flood ;)

Yuri Zharikov

29-02-2008, 04:03 AM

Whoa, there. Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply before the fall, not afterwards. Let's not go down the Mormon route by claiming that the fall was something Adam and Eve needed to do to fulfill God's commandment!

Here is how St. Gregory in On the nature of man explains this

XVII. What we must answer to those who raise the question—“If procreation is after sin, how would souls have come into being if the first of mankind had remained sinless?”

1. It is better for us however, perhaps, rather to inquire, before investigating this point, the solution of the question put forward by our adversaries; for they say that before the sin there is no
account of birth, or of travail, or of the desire that tends to procreation, but when they were banished from Paradise after their sin, and the woman was condemned by the sentence of travail, Adam thus
entered with his consort upon the intercourse of married life, and then took place the beginning of procreation. If, then, marriage did not exist in Paradise, nor travail, nor birth, they say that it follows
as a necessary conclusion that human souls would not have existed in plurality had not the grace
of immortality fallen away to mortality, and marriage preserved our race by means of descendants, introducing the offspring of the departing to take their place, so that in a certain way the sin that

entered into the world was profitable for the life of man: for the human race would have remained

in the pair of the first-formed, had not the fear of death impelled their nature to provide succession.

2. Now here again the true answer, whatever it may be, can be clear to those only who, like
Paul, have been instructed in the mysteries of Paradise; but our answer is as follows. When the
Sadducees once argued against the doctrine of the resurrection, and brought forward, to establish
their own opinion, that woman of many marriages, who had been wife to seven brethren, and thereupon inquired whose wife she will be after the resurrection, our Lord answered their argument
so as not only to instruct the Sadducees, but also to reveal to all that come after them the mystery
of the resurrection-life: “for in the resurrection,” He says, “they neither marry, nor are given in
marriage; neither can they die any more, for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of
God, being the children of the resurrection.” Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than
the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a certain return to the
first life, bringing back again to Paradise him who was cast out from it. If then the life of those
restored is closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life before the transgression was
a kind of angelic life, and hence also our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to
the angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, the armies of the angels
are in countless myriads; for so Daniel declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not
come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels,
neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase
in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men, who were “made a little lower than the angels,” to increase mankind to the measure determined by its Maker.

Yura

M. Partyka

29-02-2008, 04:07 AM

Here is how St. Gregory in On the nature of man explains thisYeah, I know, but I place that in the category of "pious speculation." I don't see any reason why procreation as we know it today, minus the pain in childbirth, couldn't have existed in an unfallen world.

M. Partyka

29-02-2008, 04:09 AM

Plus, it seems to me that God ordained marriage before the fall, as it's in Genesis 2 that marriage is linked to the creation of man as male and female. It seems to me that marriage was something that was always in the plan, and it's present disorderliness is the result of the fall.

Yuri Zharikov

29-02-2008, 08:11 AM

Owen Jones

29-02-2008, 02:08 PM

The essence of sophistry is to constantly change the ground of the argument. Darwinists always do that. And I have never encountered a Darwinist who actually would debate the merits of Darwinism, or debate the actual arguments against Darwinism. The response is simply to dismiss them as "pious speculation." I ran across a web site recently that dismissed philosophical objections out of hand. "We're scientists!" That kind of statement is always used to prevent any rational argument.

Demetrios

29-02-2008, 03:47 PM

It might be possible to say this looking only as fossil and geological evidence. It's when you bring astronomy into the mix that the evidence of billions of years of universal existence arrives. One of the greatest unsolved problems faced by young-earth creationists today is the question of "Starlight and Time", to quote the title of Dr. Russell Humphries' creationist book on the subject.

Essentially, the stars are light-years away. A light-year is the distance that light crosses in a year. The nearest star to earth, excepting the sun, is Proxima Centauri, which is 4.2 light-years away. That means it takes 4.2 years for the light of the Proxima Centauri to reach earth.

From a literal six-day creationist standpoint, this means that the light from the nearest extrasolar star to earth didn't arrive until 4.2 years after Adam was created. Prior to that, the night sky was utterly dark except for the light of the moon. Not until four years after creation did those little points of light begin to shine in the sky.

Granted, four years is no big deal and doesn't upset the Genesis chronology at all. Even some of the furthest individual stars we can see are within a thousand light-years of earth. Perhaps these stars only showed up after the flood. So, stars aren't really a problem.

Galaxies, however, present a problem for literal six-day creationists. The nearest major galaxy to earth is the Andromeda galaxy. The Andromeda Galaxy is 2.2 million light years away. That means that if the universe really were created only 7000-10000 years ago, the light from the Andromeda galaxy shouldn't reach us for another 2.2 million years. Yet, it does, and this gives evidence that the universe has been around for at least 2.2 million years. The farthest visible galaxy is estimated to be 13 billion light-years from earth, and that's where one finds evidence that the universe has been around for billions of years.

Did Fr. Nikita give a source for his information, or the name of the scientist? I'm trying to find any articles of his online, but the only one I've seen is his "Beacon of Light" article, which is on ecumenism. I did find a place where for $14 I can purchase a CD of a lecture he did on evolution for a 1993 conference, but otherwise I don't see much online.

How can we measure something that doesn't exist? This might be news to you but time is non-existent.

No one keeps track of time better than Ferenc Krausz. In his lab at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, he has clocked the shortest time intervals ever observed. Krausz uses ultraviolet laser pulses to track the absurdly brief quantum leaps of electrons within atoms. The events he probes last for about 100 attoseconds, or 100 quintillionths of a second. For a little perspective, 100 attoseconds is to one second as a second is to 300 million years.

But even Krausz works far from the frontier of time. There is a temporal realm called the Planck scale, where even attoseconds drag by like eons. It marks the edge of known physics, a region where distances and intervals are so short that the very concepts of time and space start to break down. Planck time—the smallest unit of time that has any physical meaning—is 10-43 second, less than a trillionth of a trillionth of an attosecond. Beyond that? Tempus incognito. At least for now.

Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics,” says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. “The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.”

M. Partyka

29-02-2008, 05:26 PM

For those who want to delve further into this topic go to http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/deathbed.htm I read the article. Here are a couple of good points from it:

What, then, can we say about Darwin? Let us be clear: He never publicly recanted from his theory of evolution or professed a new Christian faith.
...it would be as well to repeat the comments I made at the end of an earlier examination: "However, even if it were eventually to be proven that Darwin did return to the Christian faith in his last years, let me hastily add (lest my creationist colleagues raise their "hurrahs" too soon) that this would have little effect upon the convinced evolutionist. He will most likely simply dismiss it as a weakness of Darwin in his old age. Furthermore, it will make absolutely no difference to his "scientific" outlook....And why should it? Darwin's recantation of evolution would most logically be attributed to fear of judgment, which isn't a scientific basis for rejecting the theory of evolution.

My own father, when he learned he had lung cancer, took to reading the Bible for comfort. Yet he never darkened the door of a church in the preceding 20 years except to attend the occasional marriage or baptism, nor did he ever attempt to lead me to faith or be a spiritual leader in the home. The fear of death will open up people to lots of things they may have resisted or ignored before, but this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of their prior convictions.

Owen Jones

01-03-2008, 03:26 PM

"The fear of death will open up people to lots of things they may have resisted or ignored before, but this has no bearing on the truth or falsity of their prior convictions."

Really?

Victor Mihailoff

05-03-2008, 01:22 PM

[quote=Yuri Zharikov;57866]There is no test here either direct or indirect. You simply assume that evolution created the order and the use the order as a test of evolution. Circular logic - I am right because I think I am right.

"Evolutionists who study strata containing fossils often find that they are upside down, in the wrong order, or too close together according to evolutionary ideas. they call these 'disconformities,' 'paraconformities' or 'pseudo-conformities.' They have to make allowances for the fact that everything is in the wrong order. If you ask them how they know what is the right order, they will admit that the only reason they know the right order is that they know evolution is true. You see there is something funny about it. They are supposed to prove the theory, and they have to start with the theory. therefore it's not as factual as it's presented." [Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), Genesis, Creation and Early Man] - From page 48 of 'An Orthodox Survival Guide for the 21st Century'.

Suppose I dig up a kettle from under a PC in a garbage dump. Is this an indirect test of evolution of PC from a kettle? It is a simple correlation. You read evolution into it. Also geostratigraphic column in an abstraction any way. It is a model of what things would have looked like if evolution existed. You cannot actually find it in the ground. Lastly that what's below is older than what's above is also an assumption. Most fossil deposits are catastrophic in origin, not gradual (otherwise they wold not be there) so the order of things in themselves means nothing.

True from an evolutionistic standpoint but from the Biblical standpoint, the order of fossils in the strata of geological deposits is the order in which they were buried from the Great Flood.

"There is no evidence of evolution between basic types found in the fossil formations. That is, there are no gradual gradations from fish fossils to amphibian or reptile fossils, in which one could gradually see skeletons of fish developing legs longer and longer until they became reptilian. Nor are there fossils of reptiles gradually developing wings and becoming birds. There are only distinct types, with no transitional links between them. Therefore palaeontology, the study of fossil formations, turns out to be strong evidence against evolution."

"This global Great Flood churned-up materials and as the floodwaters receded, laid then down again in layers (geologic strata) of sediments which trapped fossils and preserved them from oxidation, decay and predators to make them actually become a part of the earth's crust much like concreters use rubble as aggregate to mix with cement for making concrete. It is interesting to note that the fossils found in layers as described in the above paragraph occur in the same order of ascent as they are physically located in life. That is: crustaceans like crabs live on the bottom of the ocean; then higher up we find fish; then land animals of various types. That's precisely the order in which they were buried as the Great Flood deposited its sediment. Imagine that you have dug a very deep and tapering hole, wide and conically shaped in the ground, placed model crabs on the bottom, then model fish higher up the tapered sides of the hole. Next, you wil fill the hole with water and place model frogs at the water's edge. After that, you place model lizards and snakes uphill from the frogs that they can feed on. Still further up from there, you place forest dwelling mammals. Now, take a large container of wet sand and pour it over the entire menagerie of model animals. As the wet sand flows downwards towards the bottom it takes models from the edges and transports them towards the centre/center. The mammals would then be moved to a position in the sand over the lizards and snakes which would be repositioned on top of the frogs. The frogs would sit over the fish which would remain above the crabs. Now what you have are layers of sand with animal models that were once far from the centre/center trapped right above animals that were closer to the centre/center until finally you have them all above the models that remained at the bottom. That's an indication of what happened during the Great Flood and there is nothing in it that supports evolution 'theory'." [An Orthodox Survival guide for the 21st Century]

In Christ. Victor

M. Partyka

05-03-2008, 06:45 PM

"There is no evidence of evolution between basic types found in the fossil formations. That is, there are no gradual gradations from fish fossils to amphibian or reptile fossils, in which one could gradually see skeletons of fish developing legs longer and longer until they became reptilian. Nor are there fossils of reptiles gradually developing wings and becoming birds. There are only distinct types, with no transitional links between them. Therefore palaeontology, the study of fossil formations, turns out to be strong evidence against evolution."One of the problems with the "no transitional forms" assertion is that upon discovering a transitional form, scientists are more likely to classify it as a variation of an existing category rather than put it in a new classification and declare it a transitional form.

Suppose, for example, we were to find a reptile-to-bird transitional form. What is the likelihood that the transitional form is going to look like it's half-reptile, half-bird? What if we found a fossil that was about 90% reptile and 10% bird? How would you classify it? Sure, this would be a transitional form, but who is likely to call it such? The probability is much higher that one would say, "Well, it's 90% reptile, so let's just classify it as a reptile and move on to the next fossil."

Another problem is that while Darwin strictly adhered to the principle, "Nature makes no leaps" (i.e., all changes must be gradual) in developing his theory of evolution, this is probably true only at the genetic level, and it has been discovered that very small changes at the genetic level can have startling effects at the level of the organism itself. The mutation of a single gene, or even a change in the way that gene is "expressed", can have significant repercussions on an organism's development and final form. For example, having six functional fingers on each hand rather than five -- yes, it does happen -- looks like a significant aberration from the outside, but it's only a slight tweak at the genetic level.

Owen Jones

05-03-2008, 06:58 PM

Asserting that a fossil is a transitional form doesn't prove anything. I'm a transitional form, by the Darwinist theory, and it cannot be proved that I am not a transitional form. Based on the theory and the way it is set up, it cannot be disproved. Which I thought was the essence of science. For a scientific theory to be valid, you have to have a way of disproving it. Right? But I assert that I am a transitional form, and there is no way to set up any kind of test to disprove that.

I'm still waiting for some fossil evidence that actually proves the theory, rather than just an assertion that something is a transitional form. Under that rubric, EVERYTHING is a transitional form. I have no problem with that, really, because it is basic Christian doctrine that every existing material thing is in a state of flux. But flux is not the same as Darwinian evolution. Change and development -- yes. Darwinian evolution -- no.

M. Partyka

05-03-2008, 08:41 PM

Asserting that a fossil is a transitional form doesn't prove anything....EVERYTHING is a transitional form.Then the creationist assertion, "There are no transitional forms," is equally devoid of value.

Owen Jones

05-03-2008, 10:40 PM

I'm not arguing in favor of a purely literalistic interpretation of the timeline in Scripture in any event. But Holy Scripture does allow for change in creatures. In fact, the entirety of Scripture is based on this. The question keeps getting back to Darwinian evolution and its validity. Not the validity of change and development.

It strikes me that Darwinism is simply Arianism as applied to biology.

Theofan

05-03-2008, 11:12 PM

Of course there were many holes in Darwin's original theory, but even this is not enough to denounce it. Personally, I don't understand what the big deal is, I think a person can believe in evolution and be a good orthodox. Evolution does not deny the presence of a divine power, since that is not its purpose.

What I find problematic is the idea of fusing the two concepts together (like the example that was presented in the previous pages where God took an ape and made him Adam). Christian dogma is beyond human reasoning and therefore infallible, therefore I don't think it should be influenced by scientific theories, which are the product of human reasoning (therefore fallible).

M. Partyka

05-03-2008, 11:44 PM

Personally, I don't understand what the big deal is, I think a person can believe in evolution and be a good orthodox. Evolution does not deny the presence of a divine power, since that is not its purpose.Okay, ask yourself this question: Was the death of animals possible before the fall of Adam? If you say, "No," then you've just denied evolution because evolution requires natural selection, and natural selection requires death. If you say, "Yes," then you next have to ask yourself, "Was death possible for humans before the fall?" If you say, "No," then using the same logic you've just denied human evolution. If you say, "Yes," then how is death the penalty of the fall? There may be an answer to this, but what?

Christian dogma is beyond human reasoning and therefore infallible, therefore I don't think it should be influenced by scientific theories, which are the product of human reasoning (therefore fallible).Being beyond human reasoning doesn't make anything infallible -- unfalsifiable, maybe, but not infallible.

Theofan

06-03-2008, 12:35 AM

Partyka,
I think someone else said it before me that the Bible is not a biology handbook. Its purpose is not to show how how the universe and animal species were created, but that their creation came from God.

Evolution does not renounce God, since that is beyond its scope. It only gives you a theory of how organisms have evolved by adapting to their environment.

Also, I didn't mean to say that our dogma is infallible simply because it is beyond our comprehension, but because it was revealed to us. It was not a product of our logic or reasoning, therefore we cannot use evolution or any other scientific theory to ''fullfill' or explain it.

Owen Jones

06-03-2008, 03:30 AM

theofan:

Darwinism purports to be a theory of origins based on naturalism. Therefore, it implicitly denies God, while not dealing with its own inability or refusal to even address the question of why anything should exist at all in the first place, or how. They do not deal with the problem of infinite regression which naturalism leads us to. Christians who say they have no problem with evolution are simply looking at the issues superficially, which is OK for most of us, but it is really up to the Church as a whole to point out the implications of false dogmas. Ideas have consequences, and if a society is organized around the principle of evolution, then there are consequences to that. And if young people are told that Darwinism is absolute dogma, then it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence from there to begin to ask, well, why do I need God? I am simply a random product of chance.

M. Partyka

06-03-2008, 03:48 AM

Christians who say they have no problem with evolution are simply looking at the issues superficially....I tend to agree. I myself was dismissive toward the whole creation/evolution debate for a good long while because (1) I knew it would take some effort to understand all the issues involved, and (2) it wasn't an issue with which I was regularly confronted. It took a couple of events to change that. First, I found myself on a discussion forum where the issue was being debated. Second, I learned that Dr. Francis S. Collins, who heads up the Human Genome Project, was himself an evangelical Christian who was at the time publishing a book attempting to reconcile Christianity with evolution. After those events, I concluded that (1) the creation/evolution controversy was no longer an issue I could avoid studying and (2) if an evangelical Christian whose specialty is human genetics finds evolution the most plausible explanation for the evidence he sees on a day-to-day basis, there must be some weight to the theory. (Unfortunately, his book was little more than a primer on theistic evolution.) I took it upon myself after that to read Darwin's Origin of Species along with other resources on both the creation side and the evolution side of the debate, eventually expanding my inquiries to also encompass age-of-the-earth and age-of-the-universe questions. I don't feel totally comfortable with any position right now (except that the earth is definitely 50,000 years old or, more likely, much older), but I think I've at least learned a lot from my studies.

...it is really up to the Church as a whole to point out the implications of false dogmas.Do you think we will ever know in our lifetimes whether the Church "as a whole" has made up its mind on the creation/evolution debate?

Owen Jones

06-03-2008, 04:14 AM

Regarding Mr. P's comments about death, perhaps it is not quite so simple. Everyone experiences the reality of death as something unnatural and as something that ought not to be. It is astonishing in our secular culture the extent to which immortality becomes a major investment, as our discussion on medical care in a different thread highlights. We are spending trillions of dollars to stave off death, and biologists, and neuroscientists and geneticists are working feverishly to understand why people get old and die. Why, so that we can live forever!

Our intellectual giants who claim that all life is a purely natural process and death has no meaning are not only in the extreme minority, but they don't actually live that way. They all live as if life had some purpose beyond just natural processes.

So logical deduction is not really the issue here. The issue is what is life, as it is actually experienced, in between a beginning that we did not cause, and a death that is experienced as unnatural, beyond which is, well the Beyond. There is no factual answer to that question. In fact, there is no answer to that question at all, apart from faith.

And so the experience of existence in between is the essence of life and of consciousness. Biblically, the story of Genesis 1 & 2 is not only a story of beginnings, it is a story of what it is like to be in-between that beginning that we did not cause, and that death which is experienced as unnatural, beyond which there is a Beyond. If there were no Beyond pulling at us, drawing us, the story of the Beginning would never be. Why even bother, if there is no Beyond? So it is not just a Creation story per se, but a way of expressing this in-between existence. Otherwise, the Bible could just stop at Genesis 2 and that would be the end of it. QED.

If we simply look at it as an historical/literal event in time, we lose the whole point. It may or may not have been a literal point in time, but it has no meaning just as that. It is not and cannot be simply a factual account of what happened, but rather a theological account, with the rest of Scripture, the rest of history, and our individual lives intimately a part of it, living it. It's true only because it is theologically true, not because it is historically/literally true, whether that is the case or not. So to simply argue from a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2 to the issue of Darwinism is simply the death knell of theological/spiritual experience, no matter which side you come down on.

Victor Mihailoff

06-03-2008, 04:45 AM

[quote=Owen Jones;60879]Regarding Mr. P's comments about death, perhaps it is not quite so simple. Everyone experiences the reality of death as something unnatural and as something that ought not to be. It is astonishing in our secular culture the extent to which immortality becomes a major investment, as our discussion on medical care in a different thread highlights. We are spending trillions of dollars to stave off death, and biologists, and neuroscientists and geneticists are working feverishly to understand why people get old and die. Why, so that we can live forever!

Someone who attended a Russian language lecture by a priest told me that one of the signs that the end is near will be that it will seem as if man has almost conquered death. I only read English language Orthodox books and have not ever come across anything like this. Has someone else read something about this in Russian or more possibly Greek?

In Christ, Victor

Yuri Zharikov

06-03-2008, 06:38 AM

It's true only because it is theologically true, not because it is historically/literally true, whether that is the case or not.

You said that it does not matter whether Genesis is literally true several times before and every time I felt confounded. Perhaps I simply do not understand what you mean. Do you mean that it literally does not matter that God created heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible; or that He created in the order in which He did; or that He created in six days; or that he created man out of dust? Or which part of the narrative does not matter?
In fact let me pose the question differently. Can something be true theologically (dogmatically) without being true literally? Example?
Also do you think that Fathers who commented extensively on Genesis (Sts. Basil, Ephraim, John, Gregory, Ambrose) would agree with the statement that historical literality of the Genesis does not matter?

Yura

Antonios

06-03-2008, 07:23 AM

Victor Mihailoff

06-03-2008, 10:28 AM

You said that it does not matter whether Genesis is literally true several times before and every time I felt confounded. Perhaps I simply do not understand what you mean. Do you mean that it literally does not matter that God created heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible; or that He created in the order in which He did; or that He created in six days; or that he created man out of dust? Or which part of the narrative does not matter?
In fact let me pose the question differently. Can something be true theologically (dogmatically) without being true literally? Example?
Also do you think that Fathers who commented extensively on Genesis (Sts. Basil, Ephraim, John, Gregory, Ambrose) would agree with the statement that historical literality of the Genesis does not matter?

Yura

I'm only guessing here, but perhaps he is thinking about the fact that the Bible has different modes of interpretation for different passages. Some are literally interpreted, such as Jesus' baptism in the River Jordan. Some parts are symbolic, like when the dove was seen to descend and alight on Jesus, it symbolised the Spirit of God but literally appeared as a dove.

Other parts and passages are interpreted metaphorically and spiritually, especially in the Book of Revelation and some prophetic O.T. books. In Revelation for example, a fiery red dragon's tale drew a third part of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. (Rev. 12:3) We know that's not to be interpreted literally. We also know that biblically heaven has two meanings. The one that contains the stars is the sky and the other is the place (or state) of eternal celebration for the angels and resurrected souls there. The dragon is a metaphore for Lucifer. That passage is symbolic of the angelic fall.

So, maybe he is saying that the Book of Genesis is not to be literally interpreted according to his speculation. If it is say, symbolic instead, then there may be a way to fit some of the ideas mentioned into Genesis like say, that God created many man like animals and then selected one to breathe His Spirit into.

I personally do not agree with that idea, and I do interpret it literally. I think the idea of many living creatures available for God to choose one to make into Adam is relatively new and incorrect. That's the sort of thing that Bishop Alexander Mileant put forward. Most clergy seemed to disagree with it.

Many people want to somehow combine science with theology by altering theology instead of science. I saw a beautiful Christian science fiction movie, would you believe? It's on DVD and it's called, "Time Changer". The main character is a professor of the Bible in 1890 who travels via a time machine to 2001.

In 1890, he is lecturing a seminary class and the issue of science and the Bible comes up. He says words to the effect, "Science is fine and as long as it does not dissagree with the Bible or theology, it can be accepted. But if there is conflict between science and the Bible, then science is wrong, and the scientific hypothesies and theories need to be studied again more closely. Only when science agrees with the Bible can it be right." I personally agree with that and I've always liked science, but I love the Word.

In Christ, Victor

Herman Blaydoe

06-03-2008, 01:59 PM

In fact let me pose the question differently. Can something be true theologically (dogmatically) without being true literally? Example?
Also do you think that Fathers who commented extensively on Genesis (Sts. Basil, Ephraim, John, Gregory, Ambrose) would agree with the statement that historical literality of the Genesis does not matter?

Yura

Why does it have to matter? Our Lord is fond of parables. Did the vineyard and wicked servants actually exist? If not, does it not still communicate theological truth? Was there actually a Publican and Pharisee in the Temple? Do we have to believe that Lazarus and the rich man were real people? Was there really and literally a prodigal son? Can these words direct from the Word be theologically true without being literally true?

Thoughts from a bear of very little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Owen Jones

06-03-2008, 02:37 PM

Yuri Zharikov

06-03-2008, 05:21 PM

Other parts and passages are interpreted metaphorically and spiritually, especially in the Book of Revelation and some prophetic O.T. books.

That's right... but interpreted by whom? Us as we wish or we follow a tradition (the Tradition?)

Yuri Zharikov

06-03-2008, 05:28 PM

Herman Blaydoe

06-03-2008, 05:38 PM

There are three main genres in the Bible: historical narrative, parable and prophecy.

According to who, exactly? Oh and can we get an authoritative definition of "historical narrative"?

[qoute]Examples you gave are explicit parables. You cannot say that if a parable is not historically true therefore a narrative is not true. [/quote]

And I am making no such argument. I was simply countering the argument that if Genesis is not literal truth, it cannot communicate spiritual truth, or that it has to be literally true to be of any value. Pish posh.

Otherwise I could say that just because Alice in the Wonderland is a fictional character, it does not matter whether WW I did really happen.

I will not engage your strawman. It has no bearing on what I was saying.

To make a valid argument you would need to compare two narratives. E.g. does it really matter whether there was Ap. Peter or whether Ap. Paul was converted on his way to Damascus or whether Jerico fell or something like that. You see if start doing this you will very quickly find yourself on a very slippery ground.

Absolutely. That is why we look to the Church to provide the firm foundation. It is not about "facts" it is about relationships.

Herman the Pooh

Theofan

06-03-2008, 07:57 PM

Yuri Zharikov

06-03-2008, 10:14 PM

My sense is that the predominance of Patristic thought is that Genesis 1 & 2 are to be taken as historical fact as written. However, they all understand that the real message is in the mystical symbolism and are not satisfied with simply restating the historical facticity, because they all understand that historical facts, in and of themselves, have no meaning or consequence. The same is true for all Biblical "events."

I think you have just answered the question of Herman who needs a "firm foundation" to understand Genesis, namely that "predominance" of Fathers (I would actually argue that ALL of them) understood Gen 1-2 as literal truth. Every event in the OT is typical or symbolic of events in the NT - this is true and this is how Fathers weave them into theology and hymnography. But to say that something has both historical and symbolic/mystical meaning is not the same as to say that historical meaning does not matter.
>because they all understand that historical facts, in and of themselves, have no meaning or consequence.
Again this is where you completely lose me. First, who they. Example. Second, which historical fact in Genesis has no consequence? Is our existance, or our current fallen state, of in fact incarnation of the Word are not consequences of events described in Gen 1-2?

Does your "does not matter" apply to just Gen 1-2 or Exodus, Numbers, Kingdoms, etc as well?

Also when we look at the type-antitype relationshop. If we assume that antitypes (Incarnation, Baptism, Crucifiction) are historically true (or it does not matter if they are historically true?) how can their types be not true?

Yuri Zharikov

06-03-2008, 10:24 PM

>According to who, exactly? Oh and can we get an authoritative definition of "historical narrative"?

Herman, please read any biblical studies 101 text and you will find exact definitions of narrative, prophecy and parable as it pertains to the Scripture. If I find an e-text, I'll make sure to send you a copy. By narrative is meant an eyewitness or transmitted account of events that transpired in the past. Essentially all of the Pentateuch is a historical narrative; Likewise the Acts is completely a narrative, while the Gospels contain element of narrative, prophecy and parable. The Book of Revelations and many prophetic books are prophecies.

[qoute]Examples you gave are explicit parables. You cannot say that if a parable is not historically true therefore a narrative is not true. [/quote]

>And I am making no such argument. I was simply countering the argument that if Genesis is not literal truth, it cannot communicate spiritual truth, or that it has to be literally true to be of any value. Pish posh.

Indeed, what is the literal value of you and me existing and having this conversation.

>Absolutely. That is why we look to the Church to provide the firm foundation.

That's a great point. I would start with carefully reading the Hexamaeron.

M. Partyka

06-03-2008, 10:33 PM

M. Partyka

06-03-2008, 11:09 PM

Why does it have to matter? Our Lord is fond of parables. Did the vineyard and wicked servants actually exist? If not, does it not still communicate theological truth? Was there actually a Publican and Pharisee in the Temple? Do we have to believe that Lazarus and the rich man were real people? Was there really and literally a prodigal son? Can these words direct from the Word be theologically true without being literally true?The difference, I would think, is one of intent. The Lord Jesus told his parables as parables. The people were not expected to consider them as having literally occurred. Aesop's fables are much the same -- the stories are not meant as historical account but are intended to communicate moral truths.

If we knew that Genesis 1-11 was written with the same intent and, moreover, was consistently understood to have been told with that intent, that would be one thing. However, there are many references to Genesis 1-11 in other books of the Bible that seem to treat the stories like literal history. For example, the six-day workweek was based on the six-day creation. The Lord Jesus referred to the time of Noah when speaking of those who were taken and those who were left. St. Paul refers to Adam and Eve when forbidding women from the priesthood and makes more than one reference to humanity's descent from Adam. St. Peter refers to the eight persons saved in the flood. St. Jude refers heavily to the Book of Enoch regarding the "sons of God" who fornicated with women, and the Book of Enoch clearly identifies the "sons of God" with fallen angels. The Fathers likewise make many, many references to Genesis 1-11 which assert their literal historicity. Even St. Augustine, who interpreted the seven days of creation alleghorically, maintained that the world was, according to the Scriptures, less than six thousand years old.

If Orthodoxy is based upon the tenet that we must cling to what was believed "always and everywhere" by the Church, what happens to us if we stop believing these things which may never have been dogmatically and officially proclaimed in a synod, but were obviously believed always and everywhere by the faithful?

Yuri Zharikov

06-03-2008, 11:20 PM

Christians who say they have no problem with evolution are simply looking at the issues superficially, which is OK for most of us, but it is really up to the Church as a whole to point out the implications of false dogmas. Ideas have consequences, and if a society is organized around the principle of evolution, then there are consequences to that. And if young people are told that Darwinism is absolute dogma, then it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence from there to begin to ask, well, why do I need God? I am simply a random product of chance.

I thought what you said above was great.

Would I be too far off it I were to say the following:

Christians who say they have no problem with believing that Genesis is not literally true are simply looking at the issue superficially, which is OK for most of us, but it is really up to the Church as a whole to point out the implications of false dogmas. Ideas have consequences, and if a society is organized around the principle of rejecting things ineffable because they seem unbelievable to us, then there are consequences to that. And if young people are told that Genesis has no literal truth behind it, then it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence from there to begin to ask, well, why do I need to believe that Incarnation and Resurrection actually happened or does it fact matter whether they did or not? I can simply pick at random what I like and what agrees with my views and views of the world and believe in that.

M. Partyka

06-03-2008, 11:22 PM

...historical facts, in and of themselves, have no meaning or consequence. The same is true for all Biblical "events."Historical facts, in and of themselves, do possess one meaning which is, in fact, common to all known and accepted historical events: They happened. If a biblical "historical" event doesn't carry even this much weight, how much can it truly carry at all?

Scientology bases much of its "theology" on historical events that never happened. If we give up the historical basis of the truths of Genesis 1-11, does that put us in the same boat as Scientologists?

Regarding Arianism, in its most concise form, there is no eternal logos.This is correct. The logos is "divine" (whatever that means in Arian terms) but created.

Jesus was born a man and became God, i.e. he became perfect, by progressing through the struggle for knowledge and virtue.This is not correct. In Arianism, the "divine" logos becomes the man Jesus Christ through the Incarnation. Jesus is therefore "divine" and human from the beginning of his human existence; he does not have to struggle to become "divine".

M. Partyka

06-03-2008, 11:28 PM

That is why we look to the Church to provide the firm foundation. It is not about "facts" it is about relationships.This is starting to sound eerily like The Cardigans:

Reason will not pledge a solution
I will end up lost in confusion
I don't care if you really care
as long as you don't go
So I cry, I pray and I beg
Love me love me
say that you love me
fool me fool me
go on and fool me
love me love me
pretend that you love me
leave me leave me
just say that you need me
I can't care about anything but you

(The Cardigans, "Lovefool")

Victor Mihailoff

07-03-2008, 02:35 AM

[quote=Yuri Zharikov;60928]That's right... but interpreted by whom? Us as we wish or we follow a tradition (the Tradition?)

We follow the interpretations of the Holy Fathers and also other parts of the Bible. It is one of the most useful ways to interpret the Bible, and many other Christian denominations use it almost exclusively when not aware of the Orthodox Holy fathers.

But the Holy fathers are still needed to prevent missinterpretation. My personal way of interpreting biblical passages is really based on much reading of the Holy fathers' written interpretations, but I've read so many that I don't readily quote exact words of theirs nor even name which ones gave which words of interpretation. Read enough and you own the information yourself.

In Christ Victor

Owen Jones

07-03-2008, 04:50 PM

M. Partyka

07-03-2008, 05:45 PM

The reference to scientology only reinforces our Church's method of Biblical exegesis and the point I wish to make. Facts have no meaning. Whether you can establish something beyond doubt or not, you still have to attribute meaning to it. And if one wishes to critique scientology from a Christian perspective, you are not going to make any headway by simply saying, it didn't happen that way! You critique on the grounds of its absurd theology, created by people who are alienated, who do not have any knowledge and experience of the Risen Lord, and yet desperately seek salvation from alien beings they have concocted.Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.

Mormons believe that there was a lost tribe of Israel that came to America during the time of Isaiah and set up an Israelite nation in the midst of America. They also believe that Jesus Christ himself came to visit this lost tribe of Israel in America shortly after his resurrection (i.e., about 2000 years ago).

Are you saying that if it were definitively proven through archaeology, etc., that there was no such Israelite civilization in America at that time or at any time, this would have no bearing on the credibility of other Mormon beliefs -- beliefs which find their source in the same people and same texts that say there were Israelites in America 2000 years ago?

Owen Jones

07-03-2008, 06:22 PM

What I am saying is that the Mormons would not accept your fact proving. They would simply continue about their business. Any critique of Mormonism has to be measured against the true path that needs no new historical event to take place. Mormonism, Islam, these religions are based on the view that Christianity is incomplete.

The same problem occurs when we impute a naturalistic cause to everything. The development of medicine from Aristotle, through Galen, and medieval Europeans, is based on the belief in four humors that are regulated by spiritual substances that enter the body through the breath. This is validated by the passage in Genesis that says that God gave life to man by breathing into him. When it was proven that there are no organs in the body that function the way that Aristotle and Galen surmised, the result was that scientific atheism became dominant.

Theophrastus

07-03-2008, 06:26 PM

Are you saying that if it were definitively proven through archaeology....

Is anything "definitely proven" in archaeology? (Or, more specifically, could the presence of an Israelitic culture existing in some geographical region in America, c. 400 BCE be definitely disproven?)

Robert Hegwood

07-03-2008, 06:49 PM

This is one of those areas that Orthodoxy has freed me to own my own ignorance. A various times in my life depending on the arguments and evidences that have been presented with them I have been evolutionist, young earth creationist, old earth creationist, etc. Much of the posturing on these points in the evangelical circles to which I once belonged were driven by Biblicism. It was not that anyone particularly cared how young or old anything was but rather some felt that if the Genesis account were not received in its most literal sense as utterly historical then the Bible as the Word of God fell in to question, and if the Bible had any factual error in it then it was untrustworthy and if it was untrustworthy the so was the whole Christian faith...how could we know what was true and what wasn't? And if we couldn't be sure the earth began apx 6000 years ago we couldn't be sure Jesus was really born or who He said He was or that our sins were forgiven or even that there was a God at all. The Bible was the foundation of everything and its integrity had to be defended vigorously even on the tinest of points lest the whole facade of our faith crumble into dust.

Old earth creationism solved some problems of interpretation vis a vis the apparent geological age vs young earther claims. It still dealt with Scripture as an inviolable text but showed how the Genesis account could be read honestly so that it did not demand a less than 10,000 year time scale, which effectively demands that physical creation lies about its age making God the author of confusion. It was a proponent of the day/age approach to creation. This left plenty of room for dinosaurs, mass extinctions, and plenty of micro-evolution, but when it touched upon man and the meaning of so many hominds of near human or maybe even early humans in the fossil record they stumbled and coughed and set apart Adam in the mix about 7000 years ago.

Then one day someone pointed out to me something I had missed all these years in Genesis, namely that it nowhere says God directly created life on earth, rather it says He spoke to the land and to the sea and told them to bring forth life of particular kinds. This strongly suggests to me that God created a world that is by its nature life making. It in this regard reflects Him as His handiwork. And this means evolution of any sort is no long an issue...and the Bible's integrity remains intact (for those that need it to remain intact in every respect). We are still left with the question of man as being a separate creation completely distinct from every other type of life on earth or as being a part of the chain of life and though set apart and above by God's action he is not other than. This is to say as man in his corporality by virtue of the way God ordered the development of life he is part of that same chain, genetically related to all other life here at some level (earthworms 40% Chimps 98%) but he was made more by the Spirit of God Who made made man in the image of God. We have Adam from whom we are taught God took Eve and from these to after the fall spring forth all humankind today. And for what it is worth it is genetically demonstrable that all human life is traceable back to a single male and a single female who lived approximately 100,000 years ago. The record cannot tell us exactly how proximate in time these two were or if they knew each other. I think it safe to say from our perspective that they did.

All that said, the above is just what makes sense to me based on the evidence of the physical creation, on reading Scripture and of Saints, Fathers and teachers in and out of the Church. But if my journey has taught me anything it is this, there is a lot that I don't know. I am not an expert in anything and it is entirely possible that between the limits of the knowledge and discourse available to me, and my own misreadings I could be mistaken any number of points large and small. So while the above makes sense to me, if a better case could ever be made for young earth creationism that really explained creation as we see it, or for Adam being an utterly separate creation in the earth whose genetic relationships to other creatures is only apparent and not real, or indeed that the cross species linkages/relationships we identify via genetics is actually a misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of what genetics are and how they work that does not necessitate some ancient prior common ancestors then I'm open to that too.

Early Fathers believed in the science of the day that said everything was made of 4 elements (fire, water, air, earth)...and at least one did a miracle that made its point based on the assumptions of this supposed science (fire shooting out the top of a brick and water streaming below). The miracle was real the science was erroneous, but the point that needed to be made was made. Also, we know that when we compare some portions of Scripture with another historical gaps in the record are revealed. This is not a falsification of history but a condensation. Christ the son of David, the Son of Abraham, the Son of Adam, the Son of God leaves out a lot of intervening generations. So with this in mind I can accept the catalogues of OT prediluvial figures as being real historical people who followed in succession from one another. It may be they are literally the son of the person listed before, or it may be they are a generational descendant....I've no way of knowing just how compacted such histories are. But that doesn't really matter, I don't think.

What matters most with regard to the Genesis account is that God is the Creator who made man in His image and this man, whatever the exacting details of how he came to be, is our first father and he and our first mother did so long ago has profoundly affected everything since and given all of us their children a lot to struggle against in order that the image of God in us might be restored and His likeness be established in us.

As an Orthodox Christian I don't have to be an expert in theology, anthropology, archeology, forensic debate, geology, or cross stitching...I am free to say I don't don't everything and that even if I could prove absolutely one point of view concerning creation over another I am no better off for possessing such knowledge, indeed I might be worse. Orthodoxy brings me into a communion a set of relationships with God and His people and indeed with all His creation. This communion neither rises or falls is enlarged or diminished because of the wealth or poverty of my brain power. I have not been called to understand all mysteries (so far as I know) rather I have been called to know God and in Him and through Him know my fellow man, and with my fellow members in the Body of Christ to be the priests of the universe, to pass though this world in joy, in wonder, in awe, with compassion and grace and offer all of it back to God as a hymn of praise...lest the stones cry out...however old they are.

Owen Jones

07-03-2008, 07:00 PM

I like the points made above, but especially that the Bible is not a falsification of history but a condensation.

There seems to be undue attention on how are we to defend Christianity against its critics. The classic, exemplary case is Origen's CONTRA CELSUS, and I am not aware that he ever resorts to a defense of historical facticity as the ground of his argument. When he is defending using facts, he is talking about what the facts are that Christians really believe and really do, rather than the caricature of them by Celsus.

M. Partyka

07-03-2008, 08:04 PM

Is anything "definitely proven" in archaeology? (Or, more specifically, could the presence of an Israelitic culture existing in some geographical region in America, c. 400 BCE be definitely disproven?)Well, it is hard to prove a negative, but an utter lack of positive evidence should tell us something. 2000 years ago isn't a long time from an archaeological standpoint, so the evidence, if it were to exist, should have been readily available by now. At the very least there should be some sort of known controversy over it (much like the creation/evolution controversy), but as things stand, the only organization that supports the "Israelites were in America" position is FARMS, which is a product of the Mormon Church. No other organization agrees with them. (Even the Mormons themselves aren't fighting school boards trying to get their position into history classes, which I find interesting.)

M. Partyka

07-03-2008, 08:38 PM

Old earth creationism solved some problems of interpretation...but when it touched upon man and the meaning of so many hominds of near human or maybe even early humans in the fossil record they stumbled and coughed and set apart Adam in the mix about 7000 years ago.The "Reasons to Believe" organization led by Hugh Ross places Adam at 50,000 years ago.

And for what it is worth it is genetically demonstrable that all human life is traceable back to a single male and a single female who lived approximately 100,000 years ago. The record cannot tell us exactly how proximate in time these two were or if they knew each other. I think it safe to say from our perspective that they did.According to wikipedia (which is a convenient but not necessarily trustworthy resource), "Mitochondrial Eve" lived about 140,000 years ago, and "Y-Chromosome Adam" (more properly "Noah") lived about 60,000 years ago.

Yuri Zharikov

07-03-2008, 09:13 PM

This is one of those areas that Orthodoxy has freed me to own my own ignorance. <...>.
This is a great post, Robert, and I agree with most things you say. The point I have been trying to make is this. We, humans, cannot and will never be able to show in any definite sense what actually happened in Gen 1-2. Neither science nor phylosophy can get at that - both the world and our brains have been broken, we as we are, are blind to ultimate truths. We have only one account of the events that transpired then - the Book of Genesis - and we either believe it or we don't. What traspired then has direct consequences for us now, for it tells us where we came from and directs us to where we want to be.

There is not a culture or a society that would not have a story of it's origins/creation. The stories are different, and they cannot all be true. Whether we take or do not take them literally bears on how we view ourselves and the world around us. A Salish Indian from the west coast of NA 300 yrs ago would literally believe that his band originated from an orca and he would have a story about that and the band would revere orcas, etc. Today his descendants believe that they descended from a monkey some millions yrs ago. The orca story is still culturally important but it becomes a mere decoration of the wall. It is no longer believed to be literally true and no longer figures in daily choices and actions. Both stories, though, are false. They are not false because you could not find human bones on top of orca bones in coastal sediments, or because you could not measure some degree of similarity (note, you can only measure similarity) between people and monkey. They are false because they have been constructed by a fallen human brain, not observed directly, nor revealed.

When evolution is presented as the story of origins I reject it for all the reasons already brought up 100 times on this thread, but the main reason is that in my soul I cannot reconcile what I consider serving God and mammon at the same time. The story of evolution is loved and embrased by the world. The story of creation is hated and scoffed at by it. Fathers love the story of creation and scoff at pagan ideas of origins. The story of evolution has no eyewitness, the story of creation does.

Yura

Owen Jones

07-03-2008, 10:39 PM

The story of creation is not really about what happened then. It's about now. It's about us. Everybody has a theory about why human beings are screwed up, and what that all means, and where we are headed. But the ancients did not engage in theories. People did not think in abstractions. They engaged with God and the cosmos through concrete, "compact" stories. And let's not forget that it is God's revelation to man. And that always involves some indirection, subtle interplay. We don't live in a fishbowl.

Owen Jones

08-03-2008, 06:40 PM

M. Partyka

10-03-2008, 12:20 AM

It would be interesting to see how a Darwinist would respond to the fact that their evolution seems to have produced a surfeit of intellectual capacity, and a surfeit of mental/motor coordination. What evolutionary advantage was there 300,000 years ago to be able to build a pilot a spaceship to the moon, or fly an F-18, or even drive a car for that matter? When all I really need to do is figure out how to produce more food for myself and family, and/or club somebody else and still his. And what is the competitive advantage that produces such worthless drivel as a Platonic dialogue or a New Testament Epistle?There's no amount of evolution that could produce the ability to build or fly a spaceship. It's language that did make such a thing possible, however, and there is a great survival advantage to having language. Being able to understand and communicate with written language is yet another survival advantage. Once a community is able to read and write, the fast and free flow of ideas will lead to technological breakthroughs that may or may not give more survival advantages to the community. Some ideas will lead nowhere, just as some mutations lead nowhere, but it's always better from a survival perspective, I would think, to have an awareness of the full range of what one can do just in case there comes to pass a survival situation that may require outside-the-box solutions.

Owen Jones

10-03-2008, 12:56 PM

But there is no evidence that language is a product of evolution either.

Victor Mihailoff

10-03-2008, 02:58 PM

We, humans, cannot and will never be able to show in any definite sense what actually happened in Gen 1-2. Neither science nor phylosophy can get at that - both the world and our brains have been broken, we as we are, are blind to ultimate truths. We have only one account of the events that transpired then - the Book of Genesis - and we either believe it or we don't. What traspired then has direct consequences for us now, for it tells us where we came from and directs us to where we want to be.

This sums it up beautifully! Every evolution "theory" or "hypothesis" is aimed at taking people away from faith in God's Word. That is all that is needed to lead people to hell. But, as quoted above,
We have only one account of the events that transpired then - the Book of Genesis - and we either believe it or we don't.

In Christ, Victor

M. Partyka

10-03-2008, 05:58 PM

But there is no evidence that language is a product of evolution either.Not language itself, perhaps, but the ability to produce language, maybe. Mutations affecting the larynx, airway, tongue, and certain parts of the brain involving muscle control and pattern recognition can all play a part in whether an organism can recognize and/or reproduce speech.

M. Partyka

10-03-2008, 06:03 PM

Every evolution "theory" or "hypothesis" is aimed at taking people away from faith in God's Word.I don't think this is fair. Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian. He has no interest whatsoever in "debunking" the Bible, yet he believes in evolution because he thinks it best explains the genetic evidence that he's confronted with in his occupation everyday (or so I assume -- I'll ask him). He wrote his book The Language of God because he was concerned that Christians would jettison their faith on accepting evolution -- something he himself has not felt compelled to do.

Victor Mihailoff

11-03-2008, 04:05 AM

This sums it up beautifully! Every evolution "theory" or "hypothesis" is aimed at taking people away from faith in God's Word.

I don't think this is fair. Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian. He has no interest whatsoever in "debunking" the Bible, yet he believes in evolution because he thinks it best explains the genetic evidence that he's confronted with in his occupation everyday (or so I assume -- I'll ask him). He wrote his book The Language of God because he was concerned that Christians would jettison their faith on accepting evolution -- something he himself has not felt compelled to do.

Dr. Francis S. Collins is not the one taking aim. It is the enemy of mankind working through him as he worked through the serpent in the Garden.

That does not make the good Doctor evil. The enemy also works through you and me, as much he does through many others. But the fact that Dr. Collins does not jettison evolution "theory" means that his works serve to gain Christian acceptance of evolution "theory", and as Yuri put forward in the post to which I was replying, only the Book of Genesis bears true record of the beginning of species (not Darwin's "Origin of Species").

If you have Christians accepting a watered down version of evolution, you have them watering down the truth of the Biblical account. People start talking about God not breathing life into a man created by God from dust as is stated in Genesis, but breathing man-making qualities into a monkey or ape which existed before the time stated in Genesis.

Next, people will theorise that the monkey-man was not created by God because Genesis does not say so, but only that God breathed on him, because Genesis does say that, while he already existed (which Genesis does not say). Step by step, fragment by fragment, drop by drop, God's Word will no longer be believed by followers of evolution "theory".

Evolution theory brings doubt to the minds of some Christians. Doubt in God's Word weakens and can eventually destroy faith. Without faith, there is no salvation. Who then ultimately aims for that outcome? The serpent master, that's who.

A Serbian Orthodox convert (yes he was baptised as a youth, not a babe, because his father was a member of a fraternity that Orthodoxy opposes and as such never had his three children baptised) friend of mine in USA has a favourite saying,
"The devil will hide a drop of deception in an ocean of truth just to get us to swallow a lie."

Please don't ask for written sources of that statement. I heard it, not read it.

In Christ, Victor

M. Partyka

12-03-2008, 06:05 PM

...the fact that Dr. Collins does not jettison evolution "theory" means that his works serve to gain Christian acceptance of evolution "theory"....You're putting the cart before the horse here. The question is not, "What happens because of Dr. Collins' not jettisoning evolution 'theory'?" but "Knowing what the Bible plainly says in Genesis, why doesn't Dr. Collins jettison evolution 'theory'?" It's obviously not because he wants people to disbelieve the Bible, or else he wouldn't have written and published a book about reconciling faith with science. My question is, "What has he seen during the course of his work that, in his mind, won't permit him to jettison evolution 'theory'?"

Owen Jones

13-03-2008, 12:33 AM

Deism precedes Darwinism by a century, and Deism really provides the necessity for Darwinism. The fact that some Christian scientists or a whole bunch of people are able in their own minds to reconcile Darwinism with Christianity is not the point. It simply points out that they are philosophically incompetent, and haven't closely examined the problems with Darwinism because they are wedded to it.

Alex Michael Rusanen

16-03-2008, 05:39 PM

I havn't followed the discussion in detail but i wanted to share my oppinion. I have studied both evolutionary biology and genetics and I am strictly an evolutionist. The next semester i'm striving for a bachelors degree in theology.

I really don't see any problems with accepting the theory of evolution. - probably my "alexandrian" way of reading scripture contributes to this view. Our Holy Scriptures are not scientific texts, nor are they precise historical documents, but they are divinely inspired scriptures that contain theological Knowledge. - That is the purpose of Scripture.

The genesis story is fabulous and deep in it's wisdom, that we can all agree on. The theological teaching of the genesis-myth is that through our transgressions we have come short of the Fullness of God. We all know this because we can experience that lack of Mercy. We are dominated by lust, we curse and murder our brethren etc. But we know as Orthodox Christians that in Christ, the Savior of mankind, we can transcend our fallen human nature. - Someone may doubt that such an accomplishment is possible, but we KNOW the saints of our Church, those who have won the crown of glory by whashing themselves in the salvific blood of Christ. That is our evidence.

Thus it really doesn't matter to me if Adam and Eve existed as persons, the point that the genesis-myth is trying to mediate is Theological in nature, and thus the myth fullfills it's purpose.
In the same way I can't know if ALL the stories of the desert fathers did take place litterarly, but they do indeed transmit their theological truths.

I also believe that the reason people oppose evolutionary biology is mainly because of a protestant way of understanding scripture and ofcourse tremenous ignorance of contemporary Science. - Which is indeed a Gift of God.

God is the Divine First Cause, the Source of all things, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has called all things into being and calls all things back into Himself. God has called forth Man through the evolutionary process, a conscious creature, gifted with an immortal soul which grants us knowledge of God as transcendent and immanent. And through Man, God will become all in all.

Anathema? xD

Alex Michael Rusanen

16-03-2008, 07:11 PM

We must also remember that scientific knowledge isn't salvific nor is it noetically dangerous if it is viewed through a correct Theological and philosopical aspect. I can't say that young earth creationists will be judged by Christ because of their scientific ignorance, or that the millions of christians who thought that earth was flat, rejected the truth of atoms, believed in a geocentric model of the universe are damned for their un-scientific claims; that would be ridiculous. - It is as ridiculous to believe that evolutionary theory would somehow effect the salvation of those who accept it. We don't have the same problem with quantum-mechanics or the stringtheory for some reason.

Different Aspects.

When i meditate on water for example, from a theological perspective, I see an element that brings forth life, the primeordial element in which the Spirit of God dwelled in the perfect cosmos, and in which, in the fallen creation, the Spirit comes to recide when blessed by the Church. From a scientific perspective i only see combinations of atoms. - This knowledge does in no way reduce the theological perspective because these two forms of knowledge resides on different spheres.

Spheres of knowledge

Theological Knowledge - Philosophical Knowledge - Scientific Knowlede

Victor Mihailoff

17-03-2008, 03:48 AM

Dear Alex:

This reply is rather lengthy but it contains much of what believers in God's Word want to say to the evolutionists' postulations.

I am strictly an evolutionist.

Evolutionists disbelieve the actuality of Genesis which is a book written by God through His servants.

Our Holy Scriptures are not scientific texts, nor are they precise historical documents,

But they ARE precise historical documents in the Book of Genesis and some others and they are alegorical, symbolic, and spiritual in others. eg. the Book of Revelation.

Do you know that archaeologists in the past attempted to disprove the Bible's accuracy and truth by locating places where biblical events took place and digging down for evidence? They found proof that the Bible was accurate. They found for example the location where Samson toppled the collumns that caused the death of the Philistines. The toppled collumns were there in the exact location where they were supposed to be.

The genesis story is fabulous and deep in it's wisdom, that we can all agree on.

This statement calls God's testament in Genesis a "fabulous story" that we can all agree on. We don't all agree on that. (Definition of 'fabulous': resembling a fable esp. in exageration; being beyond belief ...) This proposes that God's Word in the Book of Genesis is untrue.

The theological teaching of the genesis-myth is that through our transgressions we have come short of the Fullness of God. We all know this because we can experience that lack of Mercy.

This calls the Book of Genesis, "the genesis-myth". Definition of 'myth': a person or thing having only an imaginary existance ...

This speaks as though for all Orthodox people when it says, "We all know this because we can experience that lack of Mercy." The only indication used to identify what mercy is mentioned or Who's mercy is mentioned, is by capitalizing the word "Mercy". This post speaks much of theology. Do you know that when theological books attribute something to God, that particular 'something' is quite often capitalised? God's Word, God's Truth, God's Mercy are examples of this indicator in use.

Since no other indicator is used to say "that lack of Mercy" it can only be understood that what's being said is, "We all know this because we can experience that lack of God's Mercy." God IS Merciful.

- Someone may doubt that such an accomplishment is possible, but we KNOW the saints of our Church, those who have won the crown of glory by whashing themselves in the salvific blood of Christ. That is our evidence.

Instead of presenting evidence this states an act of faith as "our evidence", naming no other, thereby implying that we have no evidence.

Thus it really doesn't matter to me if Adam and Eve existed as persons, the point that the genesis-myth is trying to mediate is Theological in nature, and thus the myth fullfills it's purpose.

I can see by the choice of words throughout that this is indicating the writer's degree of faith in the Genesis Testament. Why do you suppose the two major divisions of the Bible are called New and Old Testaments instead of New and Old "mythologies"?

If this says that Adam, and Eve may not really have existed as persons, and I assume by the wording that this is showing a belief they may have existed as some other creatures, like apes for example, then one must also not believe that Jesus Christ descended into hades and brought our first ancestors out of it because only people can be brought out of hades. Apes do not go to hades.

This post is then challenging the Holiness of Orthodox icons and the saints who painted (wrote) the ones depicting this event. For if they were painting (writing) a ficticious event and yet presenting it as true, that would be a lie. If the saints did not know this to be a lie, they could not be vessels abundantly endowed with the Holy Spirit. If they knowingly presented a lie to Christ's Holy Body, the Church, they could not be saints. But the statement is the 'myth'.

It is stated that "the point the genesis-myth (imaginary genesis story) is trying to mediate is Theological in nature, and thus the myth (imaginary story) fulfills its purpose.

In other words, this is spreading amongst other Orthodox Christians the idea that the Genesis record is untrue but because the nature of it is Theological, that is, relating to God, in nature, the imaginary story fulfills its purpose.

If the point that this imaginary story mediates is related to God in nature, then this statement hints in its roundabout way that God is imaginary and the story fulfills the purpose of presenting God as imaginary.

Can you realise how dangerous such a belief is for you and anyone else who accepts it into their heart?

Can anyone else see why the enemy of mankind has promoted evolution conjecture in people's minds and words for so long and so tenaciously?

In the same way I can't know if ALL the stories of the desert fathers did take place litterarly, but they do indeed transmit their theological truths.

So now it says: I can't know that all the stories of the desert fathers (desert saints) are true, but they do indeed transmit their imaginary nature relating to God which we call theological truths. Remember: it was said earlier that the nature of the genesis-myth is theological; so when it says 'theological truth' it's referring to the myth, which means it's imaginary.

But why did this post say earlier,
we KNOW the saints of our Church, ... That is our evidence., but now says that it can't know if ALL the stories of the desert fathers (saints) did take place literally (actually)? Is it evidence or is it myth?

I also believe that the reason people oppose evolutionary biology is mainly because of a protestant way of understanding scripture and ofcourse tremenous ignorance of contemporary Science. - Which is indeed a Gift of God.

Most Orthodox people read Orthodox books in preference to Protestant books, don't they? The Orthodox people who oppose evolution conjecture would mostly consider the Book of Genesis as one of God's gifts. They do not oppose evolution conjecture because it is a gift of God (that is firstly assuming that the conjecture is science); they oppose it because it opposes the Word of God that is in God's gift, the Book of Genesis.

"Most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.
A sample:

Physics - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin

Chemistry - Hoyle, Dalton, Ramsay

Biology - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz

Geology - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier

Astronomy - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder

Mathematics - Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

Even today, many scientists reject particles-to-people evolution (ie. everything made itself).

A number of highly qualified living creationist scientists can be found on the Answers in Genesis website. So an oft-repeated charge that no real scientist rejects evolution is completely without foundation.

Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists, are:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

2. Humanism believes that Man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

This is exactly what evolution teaches. Many humanist leaders are quite open about using the public schools to proselytize their faith.
Look at: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=2260089516700&lang=en-AU&Form-CVRE

I'm sorry I could not test this link right now because if I do I'll lose the reply I just typed.

God has called forth Man through the evolutionary process
Then that would mean that God's Word in Genesis is lacking in its account. But that would mean that God is not as perfect as Darwin.

And through Man, God will become all in all.
Ah, now I know where this is leading; to humanism.

I Christ the Creator, Victor

Victor Mihailoff

17-03-2008, 04:22 AM

I havn't followed the discussion in detail but i wanted to share my oppinion. I have studied both evolutionary biology and genetics and I am strictly an evolutionist.
Anathema? xD

The link I typed into my last post replying to the above post was valid in 2005 but not now. The new link for exactly the same information word-for-word is:

http://www.creationists.org/atheists.html

In Christ, Victor

Owen Jones

17-03-2008, 04:29 AM

I have been struggling with a possible response to the request to relate this topic to the Fathers, because, first and foremost, it is not addressed specifically by the Fathers, so far as I am aware. Not that evolutionary theory had not been around, because Aristotle addresses it, or at least some version of it, and comments on it directly, in his critique of the irrationality of an infinite regression.

Also, Darwinian theory must first and foremost stand or fall on the basis of its own scientific claims, and if there are serious problems with its scientific claims, that is primary where the critique should lie. And I believe there are serious and numerous problems with it as a scientific theory. I am using the term science here in its narrow sense. However, philosophy and theology are scientific disciplines, and unless and until we restore theology to its proper place as a rigorous scientific discipline, no headway will be made, and the Church will always be in a position of defense, falling back on pious platitudinous statements that are not taken seriously by men of science. (hence the tendency of most Christians of our day to accept Darwinism because it is supposedly scientific).

However, there are both philosophical and theological problems as well, but the theological problems, if we are to refer to the Fathers, require some sense of what the Fathers are saying about Logos. This argument will have little or no sway among non-Orthodox Christians however, as long as the scientific and philosophical problems are still largely unaddressed in both the scientific community and in public opinion at large. But let me try to take a brief stab at it. It seems to me that a key to the "mind of the Fathers" is the idea that the Logos makes its imprint on the mind of man. That is to say, the mind of man is essentially Logos-centered in its being and makeup and function. What the Fathers mean by mind has little to do with what we mean today, which conventionally refers to brain function. Mind means something else, and a discussion of what they meant by mind, some key references to what they mean by mind, would be helpful to further the discussion. But back to the Logos. Mind is created to be and is essentially Logos centered. That is, there is no such thing as mind, for the Fathers, apart from Logos, which implants its true image in mind. It is the arche of mind, if you will. The problem for mind is that its attention is diverted from the Eternal Logos to that which is either a) material or b) that which is demonically introduced in the form of false or fallen images that excite the passions. So, much is written regarding the ascetic virtues of attentiveness, watchfulness, stillness, alongside the active virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, self-restraint, almsgiving, etc., all of this not in the legalistic sense of currying God's favor so that He will reward us with Heaven, although certainly this is an aspect of obedience, but so that the mind can function as it is supposed to function, as Logos-centered.

The Darwinian mind is, of course, something quite different. It is the product of natural selection. It is a mechanism, a machine, that is "designed" by the evolutionary process to bring selective advantage to bear, so that a certain type of competitive cleverness prevails, whether it is for stronger, healthier, attractive mates that will produce a healthier race, or produce a kind of cleverness in the acquisition of food and other stuff that effectively crowds out the weaker minds who are not able to compete, so that they will be filtered out of the gene pool and not reproduce. Many post-Darwinians further advance this theory to explain all kinds of things, such as the origins and nature of violence. And then the theory goes that because the evolutionary pressures on modern man are different, he has a surfeit of violent tendencies that are the result of the selective advantage of violence of weaker members of the race in the competition for food and sex partners, and now what we must do somehow is evolve, a la Star Trek, beyond the need for war and violence, because our evolutionary past is now killing modern man and having the opposite effect that evolution "intended." That is to say, the tough, strong minded, strong-willed, and clever are getting killed off in wars, and the weak are breeding like flies, thus polluting the gene pool, and requiring some kind of man-made eugenics program.

Mind, in a nutshell, for the Darwinian, is the result of instincts bred into the race over millions of years, or hundreds of millions of years, and conflict of every stripe is the result of instincts in collision.

Freud puts his own spin on this, describing the birth of civilization as the repression of these instincts in collision. But one of the results is the neurosis of modern man, whose sex drives and violent tendencies are, of necessity, repressed through various taboos erected for the benefit of civilized society. The goal of psychoanalysis is to bring these repressed images if you will from the level of the subconscious, which causes neuroses, to the full light of consciousness, while at the same time, accommodating the patient to the needs of civilized society -- that is to say, the goal is to be "well-adjusted," or "normal."

There are all kinds of variants of these theories floating around.

It seems to me, that in order to respond to this effectively therefore, through reference to the Fathers, one has to resurrect the entirety of our teaching, especially I think with reference to the demonic and the reality of demonic forces impinging on the imagery of the mind which is the activiting force, if you will, in decision making. It has to be seen as a more rational explanation, a more encompassing explanation, and, most importantly, a working explanation, i.e., not just a theoretical system, but something that actually works and produces real, miraculous results in practice. The Church cannot simply argue that the Fathers are right. It has to return to the actual practice of the Patristic view of how mind functions in relation to the will, passions, senses, and there must be a demonstration of how our "sickness unto death" is dramatically, vividly, and visibly healed.

Ancient catechism really seems to me to be at the core. Ancient catechism was not really about information. Certainly not just information. It was designed first and foremost to cast out demons, and to rehabilitate the mind, so to speak, so that it can begin to recognize the presence of the Logos, and form a pre-emptive barrier against future demonic assaults. The result is illumination, that stage of spiritual progress in the life of the Christian pilgrim that permits the proper function of his sense perception so that the images imposed on the mind are Logos-centered, and not centered on material things, or demonically inspired images, both of which excite the passions.

How in practice do we recover the ancient catechism, I think is the real question. This is something that happens quite haphazardly, quite episodically, in today's church and even in monasteries. I think it begins with the revelation of thoughts, bringing them all out into the open for the community, or at least those in the community who can be trusted with this. In this practice, one begins to free oneself from demonic influence, because lies become exposed to the light of day, and it is through lies that the demons make their home in our minds. We are thereby exorcising our minds by exposing all of our thoughts to the light of truth and openness to the truth. And this all must be done in the context of prayer, fasting and the other virtues, otherwise, it just becomes another gnostic fantasy.

The problem I see today is that virtually all Christians, even Orthodox, and sometimes especially Orthodox, are double-minded. We have an Orthodox mind competing with a demonically trapped mind, influenced as we are by so many worldly images and demonic images, and we, many of us, are fearful as a result. And fear is the direct cause of all of our aberrant, sinful, compulsive behavior, and lack of joy when it comes to receiving the Gospel message, because it is perceived to be too hard and a burden. We lack the power to think and do the right think, to be transformed thereby, because of the images that dominate our minds, and it becomes a struggle between two minds and two wills at war, because, frankly, we've just never been properly trained.

The analogy is to an athlete who has native ability and talent but who has very bad coaching and therefore receives a serious injury at an early age that cuts short his athletic career. So he dabbles in athletics, but remains somewhat despondent throughout his life that his talent could never be exercised to its fullest.

Tim Grass

17-03-2008, 10:30 AM

I'm shocked by Victor's reply. I'm sorry to be direct..... but this is filled with false restatements of other people's views.... a lack of theological knowledge about categories of writing..... his own personal take on what's historical and what isn't..... and a whole lot of simply odd theology. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be "moderatorish" or do what the moderators do, but this kind of uneducated ramble, even if it is clothed in some statements that come from the Church, seems really counter productive. There are some places where a "Look, I'm just right and that's it and everyone else is godless and I'm not going to listen" approach might be good..... and I'll admit the Church has many strong ways to criticize Darwinism..... but just spouting off as Gospel what you think the absolute position is, and pretty much showing you don't have the will to listen to anyone's words but your own, doesn't seem a good or holy way to discuss these things.

--tim

Tim Grass

17-03-2008, 08:56 PM

Alex Michael Rusanen

17-03-2008, 10:15 PM

Evolutionists disbelieve the actuality of Genesis which is a book written by God through His servants.

I don't disbelieve the actuality of Genesis because the purpose of genesis is to transmit theological knowledge.

You should also remember, dear brother in Christ, that there are several different schools of theology among even the creationists; there are even two creation stories in Genesis. As far as I am concerned the form of creationism that is coming from America is a result of evangelical theology.

Do you know that archaeologists in the past attempted to disprove the Bible's accuracy and truth by locating places where biblical events took place and digging down for evidence? They found proof that the Bible was accurate. They found for example the location where Samson toppled the collumns that caused the death of the Philistines. The toppled collumns were there in the exact location where they were supposed to be.

What a statement! :D Please share you sources!

5 years ago there was one evangelical archeologist working in the Holy Land who claimed to have discovered noahs ark and even the Ark of the Covenant, it was later confirmed that he wasn't really mentally stabil.

This statement calls God's testament in Genesis a "fabulous story" that we can all agree on. We don't all agree on that. (Definition of 'fabulous': resembling a fable esp. in exageration; being beyond belief ...) This proposes that God's Word in the Book of Genesis is untrue.

Im sorry, 'fabulous' wasn't the word that ment to use. Maybe the word "remarkable" would have been a better choice.

Instead of presenting evidence this states an act of faith as "our evidence", naming no other, thereby implying that we have no evidence.

Our personal and collective experiences in the Body of Christ are the only evidence we got.

Even though we could somehow prove the existence of God through rational 'natural theology' we must understand that this god could be any creator-god. It could be the Good of Plato, the Transcendant Unity, the Being in itself or even Ra of the egyptians.

If this says that Adam, and Eve may not really have existed as persons, and I assume by the wording that this is showing a belief they may have existed as some other creatures, like apes for example, then one must also not believe that Jesus Christ descended into hades and brought our first ancestors out of it because only people can be brought out of hades. Apes do not go to hades.

All I said was that I don't know if they did really exist, I can't prove that they did, nor can you. All I know is that the theological knowledge that the story transmits is genuine.

Even if you accept evolutionary theory you can choose to believe that the fully developed human beings were awakened into the knowledge of God and thus became full of his mercy, were granted immortality and set apart in a garden etc.

Our first ancestors, if we follow your way of reasoning, were animals without immortal souls that only human beings have. The moment when God gave man the soul he became a "living man". - these souls entered hades.

This post is then challenging the Holiness of Orthodox icons and the saints who painted (wrote) the ones depicting this event. For if they were painting (writing) a ficticious event and yet presenting it as true, that would be a lie. If the saints did not know this to be a lie, they could not be vessels abundantly endowed with the Holy Spirit. If they knowingly presented a lie to Christ's Holy Body, the Church, they could not be saints. But the statement is the 'myth'.

No story in the bible (or the ones of the desert fathers) are lies! They fill the purpose for which they exist, the purpose of transmitting theological knowledge.

If you look at our iconography you'll notice that adam and eve are very often used as allegorical depictions of mankind. For example in the icon of resurrection.

It is stated that "the point the genesis-myth (imaginary genesis story) is trying to mediate is Theological in nature, and thus the myth (imaginary story) fulfills its purpose.

In other words, this is spreading amongst other Orthodox Christians the idea that the Genesis record is untrue but because the nature of it is Theological, that is, relating to God, in nature, the imaginary story fulfills its purpose.

If the point that this imaginary story mediates is related to God in nature, then this statement hints in its roundabout way that God is imaginary and the story fulfills the purpose of presenting God as imaginary.

Either I am too stupid to understand your way of reasoning or these statements don't follow any kind of reason.

My view on the genesis-story doesn't in any way blurr my vision of the existence of God.

Can you realise how dangerous such a belief is for you and anyone else who accepts it into their heart?

Can anyone else see why the enemy of mankind has promoted evolution conjecture in people's minds and words for so long and so tenaciously?

And what is the danger? Christ will not come to judge people because they rejected the atoms (St. Gregory of Nazianzos), believed in a flat earth (St. John Chrysostome) or people who believed that all of Creation was formed by the four elements (almost all of the early church fathers and we even mention this theory at the feast of theophany) etc.

Atleast Basil the Great understood that such scientific theories are not theologically relevant; Christ will not judge us by our science.

Your claim that evolutionary theory jeopardizes someones salvation is alot more dangerous to the soul than any scietific theory.

So now it says: I can't know that all the stories of the desert fathers (desert saints) are true, but they do indeed transmit their imaginary nature relating to God which we call theological truths. Remember: it was said earlier that the nature of the genesis-myth is theological; so when it says 'theological truth' it's referring to the myth, which means it's imaginary.

No it doesn't :D

"Most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. The list of creationist scientists is impressive.

So? I am a creationist too in the sense that I believe that God has created all things. By the way the majority of people on this list were either heretics like Newton (arianism) or schismatics like Faraday. The fact that they were all excellent scienetists doesn't make them Orthodox.

A number of highly qualified living creationist scientists can be found on the Answers in Genesis website. So an oft-repeated charge that no real scientist rejects evolution is completely without foundation.
.

I don't really care if some people believe in american-evangelical creationism because it isn't a lie that jeopardizes their salvation. But I have a roblem with people who think that evolutionary theory somehow jeopardizes Orthodox theology.

Many people do not realize that the teaching of evolution propagates an anti-biblical religion. .

Science isn't anti-biblical nor is it pro-biblical, it is neutral even on the philosophical and theological spheres.

The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), signed by many prominent evolutionists.

Who cares what secular humanists believe? The point is that they view evolutionary theory from an atheistic perspective and other view it from a theistic perspective. Evolutionary biology is in itself neutral.

Then that would mean that God's Word in Genesis is lacking in its account. But that would mean that God is not as perfect as Darwin..

What? The word isn't lacking because it fills its theological purpose. Uhm, why wouldn't God be as perfect as Darwin?

Ah, now I know where this is leading; to humanism.

??? my post was a direct reference to Holy Scripture: And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)

In Christ, Alex

Owen Jones

17-03-2008, 11:35 PM

I don't think the Church can remain agnostic on a theory that posits the claim of material causation, or that man's nature is the result of random collisions of atoms, and it has to encourage its flock to think carefully on these questions, and it has to teach its flock intelligently. Otherwise, pretty much every key feature of Orthodox teachings is really laid waste. Last night we heard a very good sermon by a Greek Orthodox priest at vespers that decried luke warm Christianity that rejects any belief in Satan or demons. I struck me that it was actually COURAGEOUS, because of the cultural climate, even in an Orthodox Church, to say these things!

Owen Jones

18-03-2008, 02:56 AM

Victor Mihailoff

18-03-2008, 03:56 AM

Here, here. Agreed. Amen!

Yuri Zharikov

18-03-2008, 04:25 AM

Sorry if my earlier post was too energetic. I think it's important not let let Orthodoxy's position be held hostage by an irrational fear of science, which usually comes from not understanding either very well...... The Fathers have always seemed to me to talk in a wonderful variety of ways about what Genesis means....... this idea that it must be read in one way, absolutely and without question as a history book.... this I don't see in the Fathers. This is the problem that comes from basing theology off a reaction to something. Because people don't like Darwinian evolution, there's a need to make the Bible say something absolutely polar in reaction. So the people who shout the loudest about how evolution is evil and wrong, end up holding the Church hostage to it the most, by using the antithesis of it to define what the Church teaches. This I just don't see in the Fathers. Lots of them wouldn't agree with Darwin, obviously..... but they also wouldn't respond to him in such a short-sighted manner.

Here's an interesting study (http://www.sp.upcomillas.es/sites/corporativo/Biblioteca%20de%20documentos21/3rd%20Session%20-%20Life/Papers/I.%20Vikulov%20-%20Evolution-Creation%20Discussion%20in%20Russian%20Orthodox%20 Church.doc) by a Russian about the topic in Russia today.......

--tim

(If anyone cares, I don't buy Darwin's ideas myself.)

I am likewise shocked about the clear lack of understanding (or lack of desire to clearly define) what science is and what the limits of scientific inquiry are. Words "science" and "scientific" are thrown around regardless of whether they actually describe what is being referred to, as if that in itself settles everything and defeats all the arguments of opponents. This only undermines credibility of proponents of theistic evolution.

Can somebody defending the idea of theistic evolution, PLEASE, provide a definition of "science" and "scientific", e.g. as taught in Universities world-wide, to provide a reference point for us to dance from. Otherwise irrelevant/misleading comments are being made (e.g. Christ will not come to judge people because they rejected the atoms ) and this discussion becomes plainly an exercise in futility.

I am also shocked that people who quite correctly state that the Genesis is not a biological text book, at the same time seem to express no objections against every General Biology 101 textbook's pretending to be a 'genesis' of sorts? What's neutral about that?

Finally I am shock that an Orthodox Christian, who thinks that it is a valid opinion to "not know" whether Adam and Even were real persons, has never attended a service or never listened to it. In the Oktoikh alone, Adam and Eve are referred to as real persons 80 times (somebody took the pain to count).

Hieromonk Nikolai

18-03-2008, 08:59 AM

I should preface my remarks with the point that, as with Bishop Alexander, the following is my opinion, not my teaching.

One ought not to confuse the work of God in creating the whole universe from the Big Bang (or whatever) onwards and proceeding to direct it through the evolution of life on earth *- *with His separate creation of the image of God within the evolved mankind.

According to the narrative of Genesis, God created the cosmos and all that is in it; how and why He chose to do it we most likely will never understand (although if He did it simply for His own enjoyment, that would suffice).

In Genesis God then made man, both male and female on the sixth “day”, taking Adam and breathing into him the spirit of life - making him in the image and likeness of God, giving him an immortal soul and then a mate.

There is an implication that humans existed before Adam, but that only with Adam did they become fully human.

This does not at all contradict the scientific discoveries dating the world as being some billions of years old. Nor does it contradict the idea of some form of evolution of species including homo sapiens etc.

What concerns us is the creation of man in the image of God. *What went before is of great scientific interest and helps us to understand the whole stupendous work of God’s seven phases of Creation - but it in no way explains modern humans who, precisely because God created them in His own image, are now separated completely from their pre-Adamian forebears.

The “Most Recent Common Ancestor” theories have various methods of arriving at that point, however, taking into account the most isolated populations (Australian aborigines and Pacific Islanders), the MRCA would be somewhere in the period 140,000 - 100,000 years ago. *If we therefore posit the Adamian creation as being in that period, it allows us to follow Christian teaching that all humans on earth today have the image of God within them.

The term “days” is used in Genesis to denote the distinct phases of God’s creation work because it was written as a general narrative, not a scientific treatise. *The Old Testament is fairly careless with its usage of time designations, indifferently mixing days and years and greater periods of time. So there is no reason for failing to accept the scientific dating of the earth and the whole universe. Indeed some scientific theses now suggest that the development of the universe had "at least" five distinct periods.

While many scientists are indeed athiests, I nevertheless, see science as part of the revelation of the work of God. Man is being privileged to search out God and His works. Agreed, man will persist in misunderstanding and perversly misinterpreting that work - but when was it otherwise?

There is no conflict between the general idea of evolution and the revelation of the fact of Creation - when one understands both of them correctly. I would however suggest that we by no means understand evolution fully.

Hieromonk Nikolai

Victor Mihailoff

18-03-2008, 11:38 AM

I am also shocked that people who quite correctly state that the Genesis is not a biological text book, at the same time seem to express no objections against every General Biology 101 textbook's pretending to be a 'genesis' of sorts? What's neutral about that?

This is very significant. Indeed, the people who have presented evolution as an alternative to the Genesis record initially, now have a new generation who want us to accept an amendment to Genesis based on corrections to it and perceived gaps in Genesis needing evolution theory to fill them in.

Here's what is attributed in the Philokahlia, The Complete Text, Vol. One, to St Antony the Great:

God, being eternally good and bounteous, gave man power over good and evil. He made him the gift of spiritual knowledge, so that, through contemplating the world and what is in it, he might come to know Him who created all things for man’s sake. But the impious are free to choose not to know. They are free to disbelieve, to make mistakes and to conceive ideas which are contrary to the truth. Such is the degree to which man has power over good and evil.

In Christ, Victor

Owen Jones

18-03-2008, 01:35 PM

With respect, Fr. Nikolai, there is not much merit, either scientifically or philosophically, in Darwinism, quite apart from the Biblical narrative. I don't question the motives of Christians who try to fuse the two, but at the very least, there is a certain ignorance at foot, especially with regards to the implications. A false premise leads to all kinds of false conclusions, and one false conclusion is that when I sin, it is obviously the result of instincts in collision. These instincts, or so the argument goes, are the imbedded genetic imprint of biochemical memory if you will, that stretch back to a pre-civilized time in which certain genetic traits become dominant as survival mechanisms, but in modern times these very same survival mechanisms become problematic. Therefore, if I really care about sin, it is not sufficient to pray and repent and practice the virtues. I must seek out some biochemical solution, since my problem is, at root, biochemical. For example, if I am depressed, it is because of the repression of my instinct to kill or seek revenge for harm done to me, because these are my natural, instinctual survival mechanisms. But civilized society has taboos against this sort of thing, so I psychologically repress these urges, and this results in neuroses. The answer is to take Zoloft. As St. Augustine says, we would be better off sinning boldly. The next time someone has wronged you, just go ahead and kill him! You are just acting on your instinctual urges.

Botolph

18-03-2008, 02:20 PM

I see no sign in Fr Nikolai's post that he is a Darwinian. He makes the very reasonable and Orthodox point that at some time in evolution/creation (and we need not know the fine details of the latter), God breathed the Spirit of Life into man and made man into the image of God (human). Whether we are descended from Adam, as I believe, or from an "Adam generation" is moot. There is, however, evidence that we can trace our genetic heritage to a single being. However, whether the story of the Fall refers to individuals or a generation poses an unsolvable question.
How we are here matters less than why we are here, and that surely is the relevance of the early chapters of Genesis. The details of "evolution" are of scientific interest but otherwise less relevant than Jurassic Park.
Darwinism explains evolution as random and subject to survival of the fittest, although by implication suggests that we are the designated final and highest point of evolution - a total contradiction in terms.
If "evolution" explains the origin of man, it cannot be Darwinian evolution. Why cannot we accept that we are here as a result of the will of God and get on with his business, instead of trying to read His mind regarding our origin?

Alex Michael Rusanen

18-03-2008, 02:53 PM

I realize that I only left an implication in my last post, so let me draw it out. Darwinism is not just a theory of natural selection. It is a theory that claims to explain why people are what they are, and why they behave the way they behave, that is fundamentally at odds with the Christian view. The logical next step is a) eugenics b) pharmacology and c) gene therapy, in order to get humans to stop being so sinful and depraved.

So what? We know that the Orthodox therapia is the only way to salvation and deification, however medical science brings forth many valuable methods for treatment of imperfections. Even our Fathers accepted their contemporary medical sciences as gifts from God.

Evolutionary theory can't and doesn't claim to answer the question 'why' but 'how'. If a scientist endeavours to answer "why-questions" or questions of ultimate purpose on the basis of his science he is no longer residing on he sphere of science but scietism.

Victor Mihailoff

18-03-2008, 03:15 PM

there is not much merit, either scientifically or philosophically, in Darwinism, quite apart from the Biblical narrative.

True. The Church fathers often describe 'the Jesus prayer - prayer of the heart' as "The art of arts; the science of sciences". The same description is used again by the fathers to describe monasticism. Both are means by which we can contemplate and worship God.

The Holy Spirit of God wrote the Holy Bible. No Christian person denies that. It is, among other things, a book of science, and not only that but it is the book of the science of sciences. If people would study it and "search the scriptures" as Christ tells us to do in the Gospels, they would learn of this science of sciences called Christian worship and contemplation of God.

Darwinism is a distraction that hinders the mind from acquiring a more perfect knowledge of God. Why would God need evolution and hundreds of thousands of years to create man? Compared to God man is insignificant. We can realise that, if we take our gaze off Darwin and redirect it onto our Creator. We as Christians need to learn from God's book not Darwin's paper. Evolution 'theory' is not spiritual.

If evolution helped God slowly create Adam, why didn't God put that into the Bible? God never lies,nor by abscence of information implies a lie. So why didn't He tell us about it? There is only one answer.

Why can't God create in the blink of an eye, in a moment in time? He only has to utter His Word, and what He says after, "Let there be" is created by His limitless power. God does not need time which He created only for our benefit so that we would acquire a sense of urgency with our salvation. Why a sense of urgency? It is because our first ancestors caused death to end our mortal lives. Before our mortal lives end, we must learn to cling to our heavenly Father, our Creator.

Time did not exist until God Created the days and the nights. That is documented in the Book of Genesis. A book of true facts. He created the light and divided the light from the darkness before the sun, moon and stars were created. God does not have human limitations. He can create night and day without sun and moon.

He created man, not in hundreds of thousands of years, because days already existed before man did, there is no need to use man-made science and guess how long it took God to create man. He did not even need six days like some evolutionists say that creationists believe. But God created man ON the sixth day; in a single day! Read chapter One of Genesis.

And why not in a single day? He created heaven and earth and apart from the visible world there are vast numbers of angels. He created them en masse, not as two parents like Adam and Eve who gave birth to the human race. No. He created the whole vast number of them together, they do not procreate. They don't give birth to baby angels.

Now contemplate this. If God had to create the first man and woman through a process called evolution from a simple life form through increasing degrees of complexity over hundreds of thousands of years (and the theory used to be millions) then how long would He have had to take to create those powerful spirits called angels all en masse in their millions or billions?

The same is true about thoughts of self-esteem and other ideas. It is not possible for an intellect choked by such ideas to appear before God and receive the crown of righteousness, It is through being dragged down by such thoughts that the wretched intellect, like the man in the Gospels, declines the invitation to the supper of the knowledge of God (cf. Luke 14 :18); and the man who was bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness (cf. Matt. 22 : 13) was clothed in a garment woven of these thoughts, and so was judged by the Lord, who had invited him, not to be worthy of the wedding feast. For the true wedding garment is the dispassion of the deiform soul which has renounced worldly desires.

In the texts On Prayer it is explained why dwelling on ideas of sensory objects destroys true knowledge of God. (ibid. Evagrios The Solitary)

In Christ, Victor

Alex Michael Rusanen

18-03-2008, 03:20 PM

Can somebody defending the idea of theistic evolution, PLEASE, provide a definition of "science" and "scientific", e.g. as taught in Universities world-wide, to provide a reference point for us to dance from. Otherwise irrelevant/misleading comments are being made (e.g. Christ will not come to judge people because they rejected the atoms ) and this discussion becomes plainly an exercise in futility.

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Wikipedia isn't the best possible source but that will be enough for now.

I am also shocked that people who quite correctly state that the Genesis is not a biological text book, at the same time seem to express no objections against every General Biology 101 textbook's pretending to be a 'genesis' of sorts? What's neutral about that?

I havn't read the General Biology 101 textbook, it isn't that popular in Sweden i guess. :D

Finally I am shock that an Orthodox Christian, who thinks that it is a valid opinion to "not know" whether Adam and Even were real persons, has never attended a service or never listened to it. In the Oktoikh alone, Adam and Eve are referred to as real persons 80 times (somebody took the pain to count).

I think the important point is the theology in Genesis. In what form or formlessness adam and eve appeared i do not know; Was Adam one man who got divided into two, male and female; Was the protoplastos (the first man) like a child, whose purpose was to grow to the likeness of God, or was he created perfect (In greek philosophy perfection indicates a state that can not improve)? - I think these speculations are of secondary importance. The theological point, the idea that man indeed is fallen is the important aspect of Genesis.

Misha

18-03-2008, 03:22 PM

elder Paisios of Mt Athos said:

"poor animals do not have Paradise; the good thing for them is that they don’t have hell either. "

while we talk about darwinism and evolution ,we should ,as orthodox christians, take a breath and think about reverse evolution.

¨And man being in honour, understands not:
he is compared to the senseless cattle, and is like to them.¨Psalm 49,13.

or as says Great Barsanuphius and st.John the Short:
"we should put ourselves under the whole creation".

Alex Michael Rusanen

18-03-2008, 03:25 PM

There is no conflict between the general idea of evolution and the revelation of the fact of Creation - when one understands both of them correctly. I would however suggest that we by no means understand evolution fully.

Hieromonk Nikolai

I agree 100 % with Hieromonk Nikolai.

Alex Michael Rusanen

18-03-2008, 03:29 PM

Owen Jones

18-03-2008, 03:43 PM

"So what? We know that the Orthodox therapia is the only way to salvation and deification, however medical science brings forth many valuable methods for treatment of imperfections. Even our Fathers accepted their contemporary medical sciences as gifts from God.

Evolutionary theory can't and doesn't claim to answer the question 'why' but 'how'. If a scientist endeavours to answer "why-questions" or questions of ultimate purpose on the basis of his science he is no longer residing on he sphere of science but scietism."

There are a number of problems with this approach. First of all, by denying the relevance of why questions, Darwinists become anti-scientific. Science is not limited to one method. Method is not and cannot be the sole criteria of science.

Second, it is a great leap to say that, in critiquing Darwinism, we are somehow critiquing science in general, or medical science in general. The whole problem with Darwinism is that it is not scientific. It is a classic cosmogonic myth. It purports to explain origins. It is in the title of Darwin's major treatise on the subject. It is the premise behind virtually every modern biologist, that natural selection is an explanation of origins, when in fact it is not and cannot be. Those scientists, or Christians, who try to fuse Darwinism with belief in a creator God are doing justice to neither. Since Darwinism does not need a creator God to explain why things exist. Find me a Darwinist who does believe in a Creator God, and it will be someone who just has a personal belief based on nothing but his personal belief, someone who has pasted belief onto Darwinism. Find me a Christian who says that Darwinism is not a problem for Christians, and it will be someone who is unacquainted with the lack of empirical evidence, the lack of scientific and philosophical reasoning, and a lack of understanding of the role of modern ideologies in the development of scientific thought, who is unaware of the critiques of evolutionary theory going back as far as Aristotle, including Emmanuel Kant, and the contemporaries of Darwin who knew then that the fossil record does not support his theory.

I keep hearing the term "evolution" being used interchangeably with Darwinism. This is a problem. Because every evolutionist in our contemporary scientific world is a Darwinist of some type or other. It is really Darwinism that is the point at issue. If we simply use the term "evolution" in a very generic sense to mean development and change, OK, then we can have a rational discussion on the subject. But to conflate the terms change and development with Darwinian evolution is a real problem leading to enormous confusion. When you are using the term "evolution," what do you mean? Do you mean it in the Darwinian sense? If so, can we please discuss what Darwinism is first? No one so far who has been defending evolution has actually ever said what Darwinism is. What is it in Darwinism that they say is OK for us to agree with? Then perhaps we can begin to have a rational, point by point discussion of the matter. Otherwise, it's fruitless.

I'm not asking for much. I'm not asking for people to explain to me how simple amino acids evolved into human beings. Just give me some evidence for one species evolving into another species. And please define what you mean by species. All of this defense of Darwinism as scientific strikes me as grossly unscientific in the method. More like a bunch of unspoken assumptions.

Alex Michael Rusanen

18-03-2008, 03:50 PM

I don't think the Church can remain agnostic on a theory that posits the claim of material causation, or that man's nature is the result of random collisions of atoms, and it has to encourage its flock to think carefully on these questions, and it has to teach its flock intelligently.

I think randomness and chance are very interesting topics on the spheres of theology and philosophy. From a scientific view we could say that the whole of human history is based on random historical events that are formed by mistakes, natural causes, chance etc. But from a theological perspective we do recognize that these random historical events led to the fullfillment of the Law in Christ, the spreading of Christianity around the globe, and yet today God calls all human beings into oneness with him. I would be a blasphemer if i said that God could not perceive through all possible outcomes, randomness and chance.

Owen Jones

18-03-2008, 04:06 PM

The above quote by Mr. Rusanen reflects the modernist, naturalist critique of classical Christian theology. It says that all of the significant events in our tradition are natural events, which, later, have a theological interpretation imposed on them. But the causality is natural. So, for example, when Moses needed to get his people across the Red Sea, there happened to be just the right confluence of winds and tides at the time to permit his people to cross, and the tides and winds changed just in time to drown the Egyptian army. All of these events perfectly explanable by predictable, natural forces. Later, as the theology of the Hebrew people developed, they mythologized the event to make it take on miraculous significance. The purpose of doing so is not just to worship God, but to make a power claim, that the Israelite God is more powerful than the gods of its neighbors. So naturalism is a fundamental critique of religious/theological language as essentially, fundamentally ideological in nature. Orthodox Christianity is not an ideology. Naturalism is. A philosophical naturalism simply is irrational. Nature cannot explain nature.

Owen Jones

18-03-2008, 04:09 PM

Darwinism's claims are entirely based on the need to explain the inequality of the races. This is fundamental to Darwinism, and it is in the title of the original book, but has been expunged since then for purposes of political correctness. For a good explanation of the race idea, and the scientific and philosophical problems and issues at stake, see Eric Voegelin's "Race and State," published in 1933 in Nazi Germany. Voegelin, btw, was standing in the train station in Vienna, waiting for a train to take him to Switzerland, at the very same time that the Gestapo was knocking on the door of his apartment.

Here is the full text:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=y5nhoISw64YC&dq=race+and+state+by+eric+voegelin&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=cs_nWR0H9Y&sig=Na4q4ub6lxjDjTrYISLG9dAdGT4#PPA12,M1

Owen Jones

18-03-2008, 05:58 PM

I apologize, but there are significant breaks in the text, if you go to the link I provided. And one of the breaks in the text is in the middle of Voegelin's critique of Darwinism per se. But the whole book is a critique of scientific naturalism as an explanation for mind or soul, without any reference to Christian dogma. Unfortunately, my experience is that Darwinists do not want to read any serious critiques of Darwinism, and if they are confronted by any critique, they quickly change the subject, or attack you for either being a fundamentalist, or being unscientific.

As a high school student, I soaked up everything my biology teachers told me uncritically, about Darwinism, evolution, and the guy who was all the rage at the time, Robert Ardrey. It was presented as a complete explanation of who and what we are. The teacher, Mr. Balboni, was honest enough to permit the valedictorian of the class to make a presentation to the class about Biblical creation, but unfortunately it was pretty much just a literalistic interpretation of it, and at that point in my life, I was a very proud atheist, so I hardly listened anyway.

The question is, what is your starting point? You have to start with the question, "what is man?" This is an eternal question. There is no naturalistic answer to that question. But unless and until you frame the issue properly, by attending to the question or problem of soul or mind, and what is distinctive about it, then you are lost in a morass of confusion. But the Darwinist says otherwise. The Darwinist says that mind is simply a mechanism that advances the evolutionary process toward some future perfection. If you are Darwinist who happens to be religious, what you have to do is come up with some kind of mechanistic definition of "ensoulment" to solve the problem. So man evolved out of some primordial slime, and at some correct moment, God added the soul. ??????? There are serious problems to this solution, which Voegelin analyzes. But it requires some knowledge of the history of philosophical ideas to grasp the nature of the problem. And it takes some effort, something which Darwinists just seem to be lazy about.

M. Partyka

18-03-2008, 09:44 PM

I wanted to attach a PDF file I was sent by Dr. Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, containing an article about paleontologist Stephen Godfrey, a former Young Earth Creationist whose study of fossils compelled him to become an Old Earth Evolutionist. Unfortunately, the file is bigger than forum standards permit, so I'll just quote the most salient portions.

From Science magazine, Feb. 22, 2008, "Crossing the Divide":

...Stephen Godfrey is...a paleontologist and curator at the modest Calvert Marine Museum....It was the study of fossils that, 25 years ago, set Godfrey on an anguished path. Raised in a fundamentalist Christian family in Quebec, Canada, embracing a 6000-year-old Earth where Noah’s flood laid down every fossil, Godfrey began probing the underpinnings of creationism in graduate school. The inconsistencies he found led step by step, over many years, to a staunch acceptance of evolution. With this shift came rejection from his religious community, estrangement from his parents, and, perhaps most difficult of all, a crisis of faith that endures....

Now 48, Godfrey came of age after young-Earth creationism took hold in North America in the early 1960s. Its leaders argued that during the previous 150 years, Bible-believing Christians had gone too far in accommodating science in their interpretation of scripture and pushed for a literal reading of the Bible....Fossils, for example, are the remains of plants and animals left out of Noah’s ark. The description of Adam and Eve in Genesis suggests that humans had never been subject to evolution. Using calculations drawn from genealogy, young-Earth creationists consider the planet to be 6000 to 10,000 years old. (Geologists say it is about 4.5 billion years old.)

Godfrey entered college convinced that scientists were engaged in a vast conspiracy to promote evolution....But then, his classes...raised niggling questions that biblical literalism could not easily answer....Godfrey was at a crossroads and determined to find out for himself whether the claims of biologists and paleontologists were true. He enrolled in graduate school in paleontology at McGill University....Then Godfrey’s world came crashing down.

His first summer in graduate school, he was invited to join a field expedition in rural Kansas, where University of Toronto paleontologist Robert Reisz and some students were digging for pelycosaurs, 300-million-year-old animals that display some features of mammals that evolved later....By day, quarrying through thin layers of rock, “we started to come across footprints of terrestrial animals,” says Godfrey. “You can’t imagine a global flood and animals finding ground to make footprints on. That, more than anything, any other experience in my life, really shook me to the core.” Godfrey agonized about where these footprints might have come from. Some creationists argue for floating mats of vegetation during the flood, but Godfrey found that unconvincing....

Godfrey held out from embracing evolution, however, until after moving in 1989 to Drumheller, Alberta, dubbed the “dinosaur capital of the world” because of its diversity of fossils. Godfrey often drove southeast to Dinosaur Provincial Park, passing through a landscape of sediments laid atop one another: deposits from freshwater and terrestrial environments in one, marine organisms and mollusks in another, and a third that mimicked the first, a mix of fossils from fresh water and land. “These animals were living here in this same place, but they couldn’t have all been there at the same time,” he says, a fact that was irreconcilable with flood geology. It was then that “the rest of the young-Earth creationist ideas kind of exploded.”...

Trying to articulate where his religious beliefs stand now, Godfrey’s eyes fill with tears. “It’s been so long, a lifelong struggle, to sort out,” he says. He has flirted with atheism but found it too depressing. Several years ago, he stopped attending church for a year before returning. He believes in God today, he says, but tomorrow may be different....Like many creationists-turned-evolutionists, Godfrey is conflicted about how, and how forcefully, to press his case. In 2005, he and his brother-in-law Smith published Paradigms on Pilgrimage, a book describing their own transition and making the case for evolution....He thought his book would change minds among creationists but isn’t sure it has....he longs for biblical literalists to be more receptive to evolution....

M. Partyka

18-03-2008, 09:58 PM

For a similar story, go here:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/transform.htm

M. Partyka

18-03-2008, 10:27 PM

Why would God need evolution and hundreds of thousands of years to create man?...Why can't God create in the blink of an eye, in a moment in time? He only has to utter His Word, and what He says after, "Let there be" is created by His limitless power. God does not need time....The real issue here is neither a question of "why" nor a matter of "need". The real issue is whether God actually did take this long to create man. What does the geological and fossil evidence say?

If evolution helped God slowly create Adam, why didn't God put that into the Bible? God never lies, nor by abscence of information implies a lie. So why didn't He tell us about it?That's a good question.

There is only one answer.Which is...?

He created the light and divided the light from the darkness before the sun, moon and stars were created. God does not have human limitations. He can create night and day without sun and moon.I never realized this myself before I read it somewhere, but the ancients may not necessarily connected the sun with the generation of daylight, as daylight actually appears an hour or two before sunrise. Thus, it would have been logical for the ancients to perceive daylight as something independent of the sun.

Now contemplate this. If God had to create the first man and woman through a process called evolution from a simple life form through increasing degrees of complexity over hundreds of thousands of years (and the theory used to be millions) then how long would He have had to take to create those powerful spirits called angels all en masse in their millions or billions?Interesting question, but it misses the point. Nobody's questioning whether God had to have hundreds of thousands -- millions, actually -- of years to create mankind. The question is, "Does the evidence show that this is indeed what took place, and if so, what do we do with that?"

By the way, according to most big bang scholars, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. I think that would give God plenty of time to evolve a legion of angels, don't you? ;)

Alex Michael Rusanen

18-03-2008, 10:50 PM

By the way, according to most big bang scholars, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. I think that would give God plenty of time to evolve a legion of angels, don't you? ;)

Angels are bodiless and immaterial, they do not evolve. :D

Alex Michael Rusanen

18-03-2008, 11:31 PM

True. The Church fathers often describe 'the Jesus prayer - prayer of the heart' as "The art of arts; the science of sciences". The same description is used again by the fathers to describe monasticism. Both are means by which we can contemplate and worship God.

The prayer of the heart is the science of sciences because it deals with spiritual, noetic realms of man.

The Holy Spirit of God wrote the Holy Bible. No Christian person denies that. It is, among other things, a book of science, and not only that but it is the book of the science of sciences. If people would study it and "search the scriptures" as Christ tells us to do in the Gospels, they would learn of this science of sciences called Christian worship and contemplation of God.

Exactly, the Holy Spirit is conserned with our relationship to God, our noetic wellbeing, and thus it is a book on the science of sciences. When we study the scriptures the theological truths are revealed and we are aquinted with the Spirit of Truth.

It is NOT a book on natural science because that art has nothing to do with theology and or relationship with God. He did grant us philosophy and natural science as gifts to be exercised, but they are not important noeticly.

Darwinism is a distraction that hinders the mind from acquiring a more perfect knowledge of God..

The only thing that hinders a more perfect knowledge of God is exactly that kind of reasoning.

Why speak of "darwinism" all the time? I am speaking of the scietific theory of evolution, not darwinism as in a philosophicly atheistic and materialistic structure of metaphysics.

Why would God need evolution and hundreds of thousands of years to create man? Compared to God man is insignificant. .

Why did it take that long time for God to reveal himself to mankind after the flood? Why did God allow his people to be tortured in Egypt for so long? Why took it so long for Christ to become incarnate and save us? Why havn't God returned already in 2000 years?

Why not that long time? I think your question is irrelevant. Why would God have created us in an instance?

We can realise that, if we take our gaze off Darwin and redirect it onto our Creator. We as Christians need to learn from God's book not Darwin's paper. Evolution 'theory' is not spiritual.

I don't gaze at Darwin, I gaze at his theory of evolution in which the wisdom and glory of God is revealed. At last God has given us knowledge of how he possibly created the variations of species and how He, in His ineffable wisdom, created our bodies but now there are people who don't accept this gift with gratitude.

If evolution helped God slowly create Adam, why didn't God put that into the Bible? God never lies,nor by abscence of information implies a lie. So why didn't He tell us about it? There is only one answer.

Because it was irrelevant for us. He didn't tell the jews the health-reasons for not drinking animal-blood. God is only caring of our salvation it is irrelevant if we know the secrets of nature. - However in His great goodness and loving-kindness He has granted us natural science, so that we may admire his creation and to understand it to some extent.

Why can't God create in the blink of an eye, in a moment in time? He only has to utter His Word, and what He says after, "Let there be" is created by His limitless power.

Well, why didn't God do that in the creation-story. Why did he take mud and blew his breath in it, why didn't he just utter the Word to create man?

Time did not exist until God Created the days and the nights. That is documented in the Book of Genesis. A book of true facts. He created the light and divided the light from the darkness before the sun, moon and stars were created. God does not have human limitations. He can create night and day without sun and moon.

Actually genesis doesn't say that time began at the first day. the hebrew expression used is "Yom Achad", that is to say 'day one' not the first day.

Now contemplate this. If God had to create the first man and woman through a process called evolution from a simple life form through increasing degrees of complexity over hundreds of thousands of years (and the theory used to be millions) then how long would He have had to take to create those powerful spirits called angels all en masse in their millions or billions?

No time at all. Angels are bodiless, immaterial and spiritual beings, they are not contained in space, they are not formed of matter. Some church fathers even say they transcend time itself. That's why our immaterial and eternal souls havn't evolved, but our bodies have, consisting of matter.

In Christ, Alex

Hieromonk Nikolai

19-03-2008, 02:02 AM

Thank you Alex Rusanen for answering all the objections - while I was away from my computer - better than I could have.

There is very considerable difference between "Darwinism" and the scientific evolutionary theories. I am not referring to discredited "Darwinism" and as far as I know, no respectable modern scientist does. Darwinism is (admittedly simplistically) based upon the idea of a common lifeform ancestor of all living creatures and evolution proceeding "from the bottom up". Scientific evolution takes account of the Cambrian explosion and admits the likelihood of lifeforms having arisen at different locations at different times and leading to the basic kingdoms/phyla/classes.

Persistently using the word "Darwinism" is a crude way of attempting to discredit those Christians who accept the theological revelation of Genesis and the revelations of genuine scientific enquiry and who wonder at the fact that cosmology seems not to be at odds with Genesis, and that scientific evolutionary research (it is not a completed theory) seems not to be at odds with an intelligent reading of Genesis.

However, as far as I am concerned, it is one of those areas where our differences of opinion are not such as to endanger our salvation. Believe in instant creation or believe in a form of evolutionary Creation, I don't see how either can affect your salvation.

God is outside of time - therefore the "time" taken to create the universe would have no meaning or relevance. He has perfect knowledge - all the genuine "laws of physics"(as distinct from the tentative theories) are in fact laws of God since He is the Creator of it all. With such perfect knowledge He could take uncreated light and from it create all the matter in the universe (which by the way is the view of many physicists - that matter came from light). So billions of years are in fact but the blinking of an eye to God. From the matter, (and the evidence so far seems to indicate that He employed a "big bang") He would know perfectly well that at least one planet capable of supporting life would be created and exactly how that life would itself develop.

Why do the fundamentalists insist on limiting God to squatting on the earth and playing with handfuls of mud? He is the Arche, the First Cause, with Him all things are possible. Allow Him the grandeur of creation, look at the Hubble pictures reaching back millions of years into the creation and gasp at the stupendousness of it all. Look at pictures taken through a scanning electron microscope at the micro-workings of your own body and gasp at the wonder of it all, and give thanks to God that He has allowed us the revelation of such knowledge.

Yuri Zharikov

19-03-2008, 02:12 AM

I should preface my remarks with the point that, as with Bishop Alexander, the following is my opinion, not my teaching.

There is an implication that humans existed before Adam, but that only with Adam did they become fully human.

Hieromonk Nikolai

Fr. Nikolai,
With due respect to your rank, I would like, also expressing my opinion, to suggest that the statement above is either logical nonesense (humans not fully human) or heresy (humans existed before Adam) or both.
Yura

Yuri Zharikov

19-03-2008, 02:25 AM

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

This is a common definition and wikipedia is spot on, we can skip Gen Bio 101 now!

Now, as a mind exercise to get us all on the same page of understanding and appreciation of these nuances, regarding the ultimate origins or genesis of things, could you please give an example of a phenomenon or phenomena if you wish that you can observe, then formulate your hypothesis, and then test your hypothesis through experimentation.
Under this definition if you cannot test your hypothesis through experimentation, it (the hypothesis) is not worth an empty eggshell. This sets a clear limit of scientific inquery with which any scientist would agree. Also keep in mind that your assumptions should be explicitly stated and in themselves be testable. Also keep in mind that refutation of a single hypothesis means that your overall theoretical framework has to be rejected - it stands only as long as experimental evidence does not contradict it.

Demetrios

19-03-2008, 03:54 AM

I think Yuri Zharikov is correct. One can not prove or disprove evolution. We are at a stalemate. Sounds familiar? Belief in God requires the same effort as belief in evolution. One day it may be proven to be true. No one can claim it yet. We also can't disprove it.
Even if it was proven to be true in the future. I believe that Orthodoxy will survive. Salvation is from death and death is the out come of evolution.

Owen Jones

19-03-2008, 04:11 AM

Mr. Partyka's quote posted above is more a sad commentary about the plight of the American Protestant fundamentalist than it is a brief for Darwinism.

As for being at an impasse, we are only at an impasse if people are too lazy.

If Darwinism cannot be proved or disproved, if it is just a belief, then it does not measure up to its own claim to be scientific.

As for a definition of science, modern scientific method is not the first or last word. One cannot reduce science to method.

Please, will someone give me one simple tenet of Darwinism, and then defend it?

Antonios

19-03-2008, 05:31 AM

"The earth is flat!"

"No it isn't, the earth is round!"

"Actually, you are both wrong. The earth is an oblate spheroid!"

"Close, but you're all in fact mistaken. The earth is actually a geoid!"

Owen Jones

19-03-2008, 05:45 AM

Could Mr. Partyka or someone who is either pro-or con or agnostic, give me one of he basic tenets of Darwinism and then defend it. Maybe just as an exercise?

Owen Jones

19-03-2008, 06:10 AM

Has anyone here actually read, "On the Origin of Species..."?

If one reads it, especially the conclusion, one finds a particularly interesting thing: it is essentially an aesthetic argument. He argues that his theory has more grandeur than the belief that each species was specially created.

Owen Jones

19-03-2008, 06:14 AM

And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.

Owen Jones

19-03-2008, 06:17 AM

I dare say that the 20th Century is the best refutation of Darwin's belief in historical progress toward a perfect state of existence.

Victor Mihailoff

19-03-2008, 06:48 AM

The real issue here is neither a question of "why" nor a matter of "need". The real issue is whether God actually did take this long to create man. What does the geological and fossil evidence say? There is no evidence. All geological dating methods are grossly flawed and proven to be absolutely unreliable. To save time acquiring books that refute the geologic dating methods, a Google search can be employed. Try for example: "Geologic dating methods proven wrong" as a search topic. I haven't tried it but I'll bet it works quite well.

By the way, according to most big bang scholars, the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. I think that would give God plenty of time to evolve a legion of angels, don't you? ;)According to big bang scholars, yes. But BIG BANG scholars do not believe that God created the universe, a big bang did.

But read the first words of the Holy Bible:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earthIt does not say, "In the beginning God created an immense cloud in the vacuum of space. Then He caused the cloud to contract and become denser until it was one huge solid mass which generated immeasurable enegy that brought about a cataclysmic explosion that after 14 billion years settled down into an immeasurable number of celestial bodies..."

The heaven and the earth were created before time was. How could 14 billion years pass by when time did not yet exist? Please read the Genesis record carefully my friend.

The beginning of creation was the creation of heaven and earth. The creation of terrestrial (and universal) time was after the creation of light. Light was created after the heaven and the earth. It's plain fact.

The prayer of the heart is the science of sciences because it deals with spiritual, noetic realms of man. I say that to call something the science of sciences means it is the highest, the best of all sciences. To call it that because it deals with the spiritual noetic realms of man doesn't make sense. It would then be called intellectual, contemplative prayer, not the science of sciences.

It is NOT a book on natural science because that art has nothing to do with theology and or relationship with God.It is supernatural and supra-natural science. Much higher than natural science and as such should not be brought into question by directing unproven theories against it.

The only thing that hinders a more perfect knowledge of God is exactly that kind of reasoning. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Attempting to disprove the Word of God by concentrating on questioning His Words from the very first page of His Holy Bible hinders a more perfect knowledge of God, not only in the presenter of the question, but also in many of those who are presented the question.

Why speak of "darwinism" all the time? I am speaking of the scietific theory of evolution, not darwinism as in a philosophicly atheistic and materialistic structure of metaphysics.Though metaphysics can often be concerned with the study of ultimate causes and the underlying nature of things it cannot have a materialistc structure.

That word is the adjectival form of the word "materialism", which means:
1a: a theory that matter is the only reality and that everything can be explained as either being or coming from matter b: a doctrine that the only or the highest values lie in material well-being and material progress c: a Marxist doctrine that.... Woah! Hold your horses!

Now we are getting into what Father Seraphim Rose said about Darwinian Evolutionism

When Marxism falls, its counterpart, Darwinism, is bound to follow suit. Yet, as Fr. Seraphim taught, these two were never meant to be ends in themselves. In the course of apostasy masterminded by the enemy of our salvation, they are but vehicles by which to destroy faith in the God of traditional Christianity and thus people prepare the way for what Fr. Seraphim called “the religion of the future.” The anti-tradition and anti-Christianity of Marxist communism and Darwinian Evolutionism only serve as a preparation for something far worse: a counter-tradition and counterfeit Christianity that, “if it were possible, shall deceive the very elect” (Matt. 24:24). [ Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), Genesis, Creation and Early Man](copied from, "An Orthodox survival guide for the 21st Century")

Why did it take that long time for God to reveal himself to mankind after the flood?You must read Genesis carefully my friend. God was revealed to His only loyal servant in the whole world, Noah, before, during and after the Great Flood. Outside of Noah and his family, the rest of the earth's relatively small human population then did not listen to God, nor to Noah who warned them, much like the state of man in the world today with its vastly greater population.

Why did God allow his people to be tortured in Egypt for so long? Why took it so long for Christ to become incarnate and save us? Why havn't God returned already in 2000 years?The lack of urgency is not God's but ours. In Egypt, God saved the Israelites from the Egyptian army, fed them with mana from heaven. When they thirsted, He brought forth water from a stone.

God tortured none of His people in Egypt. God was always showing them the easy way but they chose to make things difficult for themselves. Remember Christ the Lord God taught that His yoke is easy, His burden light. The Israelites chose not God's easy yoke but a passionate yoke of their own choosing.

Christ did not incarnate sooner because no woman was yet born who was so pure and God-loving as the Ever Virgin Mary. He waited so long specifically for her to be born and prepared for the Motherhood of God the Son.

Christ has not yet returned because the scritptures are not yet completely fulfilled. God created time for our sakes. We need time to prepare for His Second Coming. It is our shortcoming, not God's.

Why not that long time? I think your question is irrelevant. Why would God have created us in an instance? But it IS relevant. God created the universe before time, so that should be enough to put to rest speculations of a 14 billion year old universe. God is omnipotent and limitless. Even time is His creation and under His authority and power.

Look at it this way. As a human being you can create an image in your mind in an instant. Your brain is bound by some natural, physical laws created by God, and yet you can create an image in that brain instantly.

Think of all physical creation as comprising of three dimensional images that God created in two categories:

1) mankind; God's crowning glory and creation in His own image which, man acquired when God breathed on him, not air, but the breath of life that made man into a living soul.

2) the rest of physical and heaveny creation; all created for the benefit of mankind.

We and the entire universe are as easy for omnipotent God to create, as a mere thought and image in our minds is for us to create. All creation fits in God's mind so to speak.

In the Bible Christ told His disciples,
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20) We are in God like an image is in our mind. But we are more than an imagined or remembered image. We have self-awareness and creative powers of our own. We are created in GOD's IMAGE. God loves us.

This physical body of ours. This body that we strive so hard to understand through evolution theory, was transformed into its physical state through an error of our ancestors, Adam and Eve. It is not what we should study so much and be so concerned about. That distracts us from the real purpose of our lives on earth.

We must place our attention on acquiring a likeness to Christ, Who gave His human life for us on the cross to present us with a prototype of the way we should use our time and our lives here on earth.

The reward is too great to squander away on detailed disputations about how our bodies could come to be what they are through some physical events that diminish trust in God's Word and diminish God's omnipotance, as if His power is limited by time which, is something He created for us.

At last God has given us knowledge of how he possibly created the variations of species and how He, in His ineffable wisdom, created our bodies but now there are people who don't accept this gift with gratitude.By what means did God give us this knowledge? Was it through Holy scripture, Holy tradition or through patristics?

Which saint introduced evolution to us? If it is none of the above, what convinces you that God gave us Evolution 'theory'? Why is it so imperfect as to be called a theory, while it does not even fulfill the definition of scientific theory?

No my friend, the reason why people feel so strongly about evolution's ideas, is because they were introduced to them intellectually at an adolescent age, while the mind was making and breaking connections within itself to develope into its stable permanent state. Those ideas became fused into the structure of their fundamental learning, which was later built upon and depended upon for further learning. It was reinforced in universty for those who persued higher education.

The result is that the majority of proponents for evolution 'theory' are amongst the most intelligent and most educated individuals on the planet! To add fuel to the fire, many of their debating opponents are not so highly educated as they are, so the illusory impression derived is that evolutionists are being opposed by people who believe in myths and fairy tales. I used to hold science in such high regard that I considered it my religion and intellectually, Christianity was to me superstition. But something (or someone) within kept telling me I was wrong.

What a powerful and intricate web of deception the devil did weave to bring man to his knees before the idol of changing names called evolution 'theory', science or Darwinism!

In Christ, Victor