Creation and evolutionary theory, II

[RichardWorthington]

(This is a very long post. Perhaps have a cup of tea and cake to hand while reading. If you want to print it out then click on ‘Thread Tools’ above and show the printable version.)

Knowing of the exchange of evidences and theories in the whole ‘Evolution versus Creationism/Intelligent Design’ debate, I just felt that there must be a higher approach to the whole issue. The saints who calmly interacted with wild and dangerous animals must have had quite a different view of the world from that of both sides: challenging Genesis did not even enter their minds, but probably neither did trying fervently to prove Genesis by various appeals to logic: they lived in the true reality.

I remembered reading some time ago in the texts for Theophany (the Baptism of Christ and the Blessing of the Waters) something about creation being cleansed. I have just now finished reading it, and here are some quotations:



Today the nature of the waters is sanctified (page 348)

Today the Sun that never sets has risen and the world is filled with splendour by the light of the Lord (page 354)

Today the whole creation shines with light from on high (page 355)

Today the creation is enlightened. Today all nature is glad, things of heaven and things upon earth (page 362)

(from "The Festal Menaion", tr. Mother Mary and Archim. Kallistos Ware)


and from the texts for Holy Saturday:



The universe was altered at your passion, O Word; knowing that you hold all in unity, all created things suffered with you.

Secretly in Egypt the lambs of old were slain, but you were sacrificed beneath the open sky, for the cleansing of the universe.

(http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/prayers/triodion/hwk_sat, the first stasis)


Now surprisingly enough, I do not see the creation shining, and I guess that those who were alive during the crucifixion did not notice any change either. Does the creation shine in a parasitic worm eating into a child’s eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#Religion_and_creationism)? I doubt it. Was there any unpleasantness to be seen in Paradise and the world around it? Surely not, which would include no possible animal suffering or death either.

However, on the other hand, part of me instinctively feels that the descriptions of the above texts are indeed real, and I guess far more real than what we see around us. Consider the Eucharist: it appears like bread and wine and tastes like bread and wine, but it is the very Body and Blood of Christ - of the same Christ who "gently heals the disease of the world" ("Festal Menaion" for Theophany, page 373). So like the Eucharist, I would say that what the universe really is is not seen with the eyes.

Therefore, I would also guess that the creation in six days of Genesis relates primarily not to the universe we see, but to the ‘universe’ where this light of creation would be seen: "the Paradise in which Adam was placed is still in existence, but is not visible to our normal sense organs" ("Genesis, Creation, and Early Man", Fr Seraphim Rose, page 414), about which St Paul writes "how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Cor. 12:4).

However, "the creation was subjected to futility", and, "the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption" (Rom 8:20-21). As such, the creation in six days simultaneously both does and does not describe the universe we see around us, as it is corrupted. Therefore to try to find the answer to "Life, the Universe, and Everything" from our existing world is futile, being merely futility from futility.

As such, I guess it is of paramount importance for all those who accept the words of St Paul that the creation is corrupted and subject to futility to stop trying to prove the incorruptible from the corrupted and the irrefutable from the futile. Similarly, it is of paramount importance for those who study and who speak on behalf of science to totally distance their profession from their own personally held ideologies, whether they be that the trace of an ‘Intelligent Designer’ exists or that various ideas of how things work and came to be imply no need of a creator. If both ‘sides’ did this then neither side would lose face, and both could claim a victory.

For example, let us say that a purchased item has a tag attached to it, but that the tag has been badly damaged and marked. On the one hand there are the friends of the Manufacturer who state that the tag originally read "Made in China" but that the tag was subsequently damaged. On the other hand, there are those who do not trust the friends and on studying the tag in depth claim that there exists only arbitrary markings. For the friends of the Purchaser to claim that a certain marking is the starting stroke of the letter ‘M’ is pointless for the doubters: the doubters would look at it and say that it might be the starting stroke, or it could be another false marking, just like the one next to it.

Similarly, it is pointless for the doubters to try to prove to the friends that what appears to be the starting stroke of the letter ‘M’ is merely a random mark. The friends will forever suspect that the doubters really work for the Manufacturer’s competitor. Therefore no one’s claim convinces the other side. Surely it would be far better for the friends to prove their trustworthiness and closeness to the Manufacturer, and for the doubters to show beyond question that they are not motivated by animosity towards the concept of a Manufacturer?

What I am trying to say is this: Scripture says rightly that "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead" (Rom 1:20). Because of the beauty in the universe it is reasonable to say that a God of beauty exists. The existence of horrible things does not negate this as we claim that it is because of our sinfulness that the world is imperfect. (Does the existence of horrible things mean that Louis Armstrong should not have sung "What a Wonderful World"?)

However, to try to prove completely by rational thought or by looking at the world around us that there is a God is probably as effective as others similarly trying to prove that there is no god. Books have been written to prove God’s existence, and surprisingly enough books have been written proving that no god exists. St John of Damascus (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.i.iii.html) comes out with the best proof of all: it is by "the power of miracles and the word of grace" that God’s existence is shown. As St Paul writes:


For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8:19-21)


I would like to propose that the true reality of the origins of life is actually described by Genesis. However, as the creation is corrupted it is pointless to try to prove this other than by a brief introductory comment regarding beauty coming from a beautiful God. Let the scientists enjoy studying the creation, asking unbiased questions and coming up unopposed with whatever theories seem best to fit the facts as they see them: as we hold that the creation is subject to futility we will claim that any argument against the Truth is merely based upon the futile part (which may indeed be the far greater part!).

That is not to say that their suggestions are wrong or did not happen: the universe may well be demonstrated to be billions of years old rather than a few thousand, creatures (including our physical human bodies but not humanity as such) may well have originated by evolution and ‘natural selection’. Let us not open ourselves to ridicule by denying what is obvious or clearly the best explanation given no preconceived ideas. And similarly, let the scientists openly distance themselves from all forms of atheism and ‘anti-religion’. (Have bad things been done in the name of religion? Then tell me about the Gulags!)

I will leave the scientists to clean up their own side; I am not a scientist and so can only speak for Christian side. Evolution is (so it is claimed, and I will not challenge this claim at all) based on what the evidence shows, but what is seen and described is not the true reality of God’s creation. So how can we Christians show that the true reality is described by Genesis and the invisible light of the creation which comes from the Baptism and Resurrection of Christ? Consider the following quotations together:



"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God." (Romans 8:19)

and from The Holy Offering in the Liturgy (http://www.sourozh.org/web/The_Divine_Liturgy%2C_Page_2#offering)

Thou "didst not cease to do all things until thou hadst brought us up to heaven, and hadst granted us thy kingdom which is to come"

"Remembering, therefore, this saving commandment and all those things that have come to pass for us: … the Second and glorious Coming"


When the verses in Romans 8:19-21 are commented upon, it is always in reference to the Second Coming of Christ on the Last Day. While this is true, yet we who are Orthodox must remember that in deification we attain to the "kingdom which is to come" and the "Second and Glorious Coming". Perhaps the whole issue would be solved if only we could see the Christian faith, life, and dogmas from the viewpoint of the sacramental light of deification.

It is time for the Orthodox faith to shine. Let deification once and for all be divorced from slavery to the scholastic and sentimental approaches of the West. Christ taught "as one having authority", so who will listen to the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" if She refuses to stand with authority by what She knows and experiences in the Vision of the uncreated divine Light? (Matt 7:29; 1 Tim 3:15) The whole debate should not be about Genesis/Intelligent Design versus the Theory/Fact of Evolution, but about the sacraments of the uncreated Light of deification (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4616) versus the whole inhabited world:



"… And by The baptism to draw up with Thee, O blessed Lord, bright sons from the streams of Jordan"

("Festal Menaion" for Theophany, page 371)


Well, that’s my idea anyway. Sorry to write so long, but I wanted to make myself clear (although perhaps greater clarity would be achieved by a shorter post!). For interest, the Creation and evolutionary theory thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4551) has grown by 3 pages since I started to write only a few days ago!

Richard

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


That is not to say that their suggestions are wrong or did not happen: the universe may well be demonstrated to be billions of years old rather than a few thousand, creatures (including our physical human bodies but not humanity as such) may well have originated by evolution and ‘natural selection’. Let us not open ourselves to ridicule by denying what is obvious or clearly the best explanation given no preconceived ideas. Richard Sorry, but Father Seraphim Rose dissagrees with you.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema...kalomiros.aspx

This copied and pasted link has not worked for me but the identical looking link in my post near the end of the thread: "Creation and evolutioary theory" did work. I copied this one from there. James

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Regarding the above post #2.

Try this duplicate link to Fr Seraphim's letter.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

James

[M. Partyka]

Keep in mind that Fr. Seraphim Rose died in 1982. At that time, it may well have been true that "there is not one piece of evidence for evolution that cannot equally be explained by a theory of 'special creation.'" Today, 25 years later, does this statement hold up?

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Reply to James

FAKE SKULL SAMPLES OF PREHISTORIC MEN

For over three decades the Piltdown skull was accepted by the scientific community as an authentic artifact. But as more skeletons of early man were found, it became clear that the Piltdown Man was radically unlike anything else in the fossil record. Therefore in 1953 a team of researchers at the British Museum (Kenneth Oakley, Wilfred Le Gros Clark, and Joseph Weiner) subjected the skull and jawbone to a rigorous series of tests. What they found was shocking. The skull was a fake. The Piltdown Man Pub in Piltdown, England, using a fluorine-based test to date the skull, the researchers determined that the upper skull was approximately 50,000 years old. The jawbone, however, was only a few decades old. A second test, using nitrogen analysis, confirmed the first test. They also found that the jaw had been artificially stained with potassium dichromate to make it appear older. The British Museum researchers argued that someone must have taken the jawbone and teeth of a modern ape, probably an orangutan, and stained them in order to make them look ancient. These artifacts, the jaw and skull fragments, must then have been planted at the Piltdown site.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/apeimage.htm

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Lifescience/PhysicalAnthropology/EvolutionFact/ApeMen/ApeMen.htm

http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/so-called-apemen-25440/

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_13c.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3202_hoax.html

From John

[Father David Moser]

Sorry, but Father Seraphim Rose dissagrees with you.


Fr Seraphim was a very intelligent man and a man who, from his baptism on, lived a pious and Godly life. Fr Seraphim, however, was not a scientific authority - he relied very heavily on the protestant creationist writings for his scientific information. While I consider him an authority on the spiritual life, I do not think that he could be considered an authority on creation/evolution science.

Fr David Moser

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

I read now more than half of Fr Seraphim's long letter on evolution's place in Orthodox teachings.

Fr Seraphim was taken under the wing of Archbishop John of Shanghai and San Fransisco who, was later canonized to sainthood. AB John spotted a humble young man in church a number of times and then he called him to come forward.

AB John was clairvoyant and could recognise something special in the young Fr Seraphim when he was a beginner in his Orthodox church attendence. He commenced an informal theology course and each semester or year, he accepted new enrolees. But when Seraphim Rose graduated, AB John closed down the classes.

People understood that to mean that the Archbishop only routinely interupted his busy schedule as a bishop for the sake of bringing Orthodox theological education to this one solitary student. There were others enrolled, but classes discontinued when Seraphim completed the course.

Fr Seraphim's journey to Orthodoxy took him from his rejection of the protestant faith his family belonged to, through the other worldliness of Buddhism and the achievement of a University degree in ancient Chinese for the sake of interpreting ancient Buddhist text, through finally to his discovery of Orthodoxy. He was home where he belonged.

People have made criticisms of Fr Seraphim Rose. For example, he is criticized for his book, "Soul After death" because of his description of "heaveny toll houses". Interestingly, Fr Panteliemon, the founder of Holy Trinity Monastery and Orthodox Seminary in Jordanville NY also decribed the "heavenly toll houses" in his book, "Eternal Mysteries Beyond the Grave" but I have yet to hear or read a criticism of him for that work which is similarly themed. I consider both men of excellent service to God and His Holy Body, the Church.

Fr Seraphim was not simply intelligent, a genius, and theologically adept. He was very spiritually gifted. People who were close to him witnessed saintly signs in his presence. It was a future saint (Archbishop John) who took him under his wing and educated him in Orthodox theology.

If one takes the lengthy time during great lent to read the letter of Fr Seraphim on the topic of Evolution, one will see that he does not turn to Protestant sources but to Orthodox Church fathers. And that he does this more frequently than any other contemporary Orthodox writer I have come across.

He defeats scientific theory with Orthodox theology. His spiritual vision is so much more acute than many others, myself included, that it is obvious the Holy Spirit is firmly on his side.

See a sample of his letter below:


The Nature of Man


And now I come to the final and most important question which is raised for Orthodox theology by the modern theory of evolution: the nature of man, and in particular the nature of the first-created man Adam. I say that this is the "most important question" raised by evolution because the doctrine of man, anthropology, touches most closely upon theology, and here perhaps, it becomes most possible to identify theologically the error of evolutionism. It is well known that Orthodoxy teaches quite differently from Roman Catholicism regarding man's nature and Divine grace, and now I shall attempt to show that the theological view of man's nature which is implied in the theory of evolution, and which you have explicitly set forth in your letter, is not the Orthodox view of man, but is much closer to the Roman Catholic view; and this is only a confirmation of the fact the theory of evolution, far from being taught by any Orthodox Father, is simply a product of the Western apostate mentality and even, despite the fact that it originally was a "reaction" against Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, has deep roots in the Papist scholastic tradition.

The view of human nature and the creation of Adam which you set forth in your letter is very much influenced by your opinion that Adam, in his body, was an "evolved beast." This opinion you have obtained, not from the holy Fathers (for you cannot find one Father who believed this, and I have already shown you that the Fathers indeed believe quite "literally" that Adam was created from the dust and not from any other creature), but from modern science. Let us then look, first of all, at the Orthodox patristic view of the nature and value of secular, scientific knowledge, particularly in relation to revealed, theological knowledge.

This patristic view is very well set forth by the great hesychast Father, St. Gregory Palamas, who was forced to defend Orthodox theology and spiritual experience precisely against a Western rationalist, Barlaam, who wished to reduce the spiritual experience and knowledge of hesychasm to something attainable by science and philosophy. In answering him, St. Gregory set forth general principles which are well applicable in our own day when scientists and philosophers think they can understand the mysteries of creation and man's nature better than Orthodox theology.

He writes:
The beginning of wisdom is to be sufficiently wise to distinguish and prefer to the wisdom which is low, terrestrial and vain, that which is truly useful, heavenly and spiritual, that which comes from God and conducts toward Him and which renders conformable to God those who acquire it. (Defense of the Holy Hesychasts, Triad I, 2.) He teaches that the latter wisdom alone is good in itself, while the former is both good and evil:

The practice of the graces of different languages, the power of rhetoric, historical knowledge, the discovery of the mysteries of nature, the various methods of logic... all these things are at the same time good and evil, not only because they are manifested according to the idea of those who use them and easily take the form which is given them by the point of view of those who possess them, but also because the study of them is a good thing only to the degree that it develops in the eye of the soul a penetrating view. But it is bad for one who gives himself over to this study in order to remain in it until old age. (ibid, Triad I, 6.)With truth and sadness, James

[Yuri Zharikov]

Fr Seraphim was a very intelligent man and a man who, from his baptism on, lived a pious and Godly life. Fr Seraphim, however, was not a scientific authority - he relied very heavily on the protestant creationist writings for his scientific information. While I consider him an authority on the spiritual life, I do not think that he could be considered an authority on creation/evolution science.

Fr David Moser

Fr. David,
With due respect and love, I would like to note that in the evolution and creation and this current thread we are all the time being inconsistent in what we call science. A definition of science/scientific method was made available, but we still ignore it when it comes to the question of evolution. If a scientists says something it does not necessarily make the statement scientifically valid. Scientists can be and often are extremely biased and dogmatically entrenched and they view facts, observations, patterns, etc through a particular prism. In most cases this prism is the prism of evolutionism. The motto of evolutionism is: "if something exists, it must have evolved". Evolutionism is indeed a great explanatory framework, there is no doubt but this but it is nothing more than that and this framework (sorry I am repeating myself) is an strict alternative to the Patristic framework of creation, the motto of which is: if something exists in heaven or on earth it has been created. I think all the facts presented on this thread fall into three categories. A few appear consistent with the evolutionary framework, many are explained equally well by either framework, majority are explained immeasurably better by the Patristic framework. It has been my hope that we would get to systematically examining these facts, but our discussion went all over the place only glossing over this, imho, critical issue.
I do not think one has to be a scientist to do that, although some understanding of the strengths and limitations of the scientific method helps. From my reading of Fr. Seraphim's works, I can say that he'd made himself well familiar with the scientific method even without having a formal degree in science. Nothing that has been published on evolution in scientific journals and books after 1982 makes a significant difference to what he argued and believed (earlier I quoted a 2004 paper stating that evolutionary mechanisms are still "under investigation", i.e. unknown).
With love in the Lord,
Yura

[Yuri Zharikov]

James and John M. have been making a very valid point and a point that I think is spiritually significant. To establish the evolutionary paradigm as a globally accepted wold-view lies and deceipt were widely emplyed. Now, the father of lies is who? Is there then a connection between the way the paradigm was injected into the mind of the society and that the "world" so readily and wholeheartedly embrased it, or I am being delusional (R. Dawkins' way)?

2 The. 2:10-11: they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

[RichardWorthington]

Thank you for your posts. However, I would like this thread to focus on evolution/rationalistic science versus the church's experience of the sacraments (I mentioned the sacrament of Blessing of the waters as it was clearly related to the creation now). Is there really any point of another 400 posts debating evidences versus evidences, concepts of science versus concepts of science?

I started this thread to try to move away from such stuff. Yes, I too feel that evolution was started as a way to 'do away with God'. But if the creation is corrupted it is surely better to point to a higher source of knowledge! What is the point of basing any deductions on a corrupted source? If some say that the evidence as they understand it points to us being no better than animals, then let us refute it by living an angelic life! (Or if this is beyond us then at least pointing in this direction.) I will not challenge rationalistic science on its own grounds.

Interestingly enough, both 'science' and 'gnosticism' come from the words for 'knowledge' in Latin and Greek respectively. Therefore let us leave aside the wranglings of the mind and the absurd pullings of the heart: God "has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:6). Take your pick of which knowledge you want to listen to! (Hmmm ... 'glory' from the 'face of Christ' - Deifying Transfiguration anyone?)

Concerning Fr Seraphim Rose: May God grant rest to his soul, and at his prayers may God help us! It is quite clear that various parts of Orthodoxy stress one recent person over another, e.g. Fr Seraphim Rose vs Fr Alexander Schmemann. (I gather Fr Seraphim's disciples met Fr Alexander and they had a reconciliation.) I emailed my post to a friend who, picking up on my quotation from Fr Seraphim's book, referred me to what Metropolitan Anthony had to say about Seraphim Rose (Encounter, p.62): 'I am not pleased when my parishioners read him with relish...'

However, please do not debate various views of Fr Seraphim Rose here, nor various evidences taken from this corrupted world. Please direct us to another thread.

How does or can the liturgy and sacraments ("for the life of the world"?) help lift us out of this mess?

Richard

[Father David Moser]

I do not think one has to be a scientist to do that, although some understanding of the strengths and limitations of the scientific method helps. From my reading of Fr. Seraphim's works, I can say that he'd made himself well familiar with the scientific method even without having a formal degree in science

I agree that Fr Seraphim did his homework and was familiar with the subject matter (which he drew, btw, from a source just as biased as most evolutionist sources). That however, was not my point. I was responding to the statement that implied one poster must, of course, be in error because Fr Seraphim Rose didn't agree with him... Fr Seraphim's book (which he did not write, btw, the material was drawn only from his notes and published articles) gives a good starting point - but is at best a secondary or even tertiary source of scientific information. As I said in the other evolution/creation thread - please don't be lazy in your discussions. In this case, use Fr Seraphim's book to go to his original sources and argue from there, not from whether or not Fr Seraphim Rose agrees with you.

Fr David Moser

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


I agree that Fr Seraphim did his homework and was familiar with the subject matter (which he drew, btw, from a source just as biased as most evolutionist sources). That however, was not my point. I was responding to the statement that implied one poster must, of course, be in error because Fr Seraphim Rose didn't agree with him... Fr Seraphim's book (which he did not write, btw, the material was drawn only from his notes and published articles) gives a good starting point - but is at best a secondary or even tertiary source of scientific information. As I said in the other evolution/creation thread - please don't be lazy in your discussions. In this case, use Fr Seraphim's book to go to his original sources and argue from there, not from whether or not Fr Seraphim Rose agrees with you.

Fr David Moser
With all due respect Fr.

I read the letter from the link in the post you responded to. It is not from his book. I skim-read parts of that book, including the intro and he actually wrote the notes for the book and then regretfully passed away before he could compile it.

Other loyal friends lovingly gathered together the notes that he had written for the book and with fear of leaving something important out of the book, they put just about everything in it, making it, according to them, probably bigger than Fr Seraphim would have done himself.

So you see, Fr Seraphim did write the book. It was not stuck together from stray notes and found around his workplace, but compiled from notes intended for the book.

But that is beside the point. People need to research their subject before making negative statements about others. The link is not to the book you say
he drew, btw, from a source just as biased as most evolutionist sources which you do not name, is probably, "Genesis, Creation and Early Man", but to his letter of reply to someone ( a member of clergy again) who holds evolution in high esteem.

Fr Seraphim's sources for that letter in the link you criticise, are the Holy fathers of Orthodoxy. In you anger and confussion you imply that they are,
at best a secondary or even tertiary source of scientific information.As you said twice, "please don't be lazy in your discussions".

There is far to much negativity coming from critics of those who defend the Word of God. Evolution is not a worthy opponent for God's theology. Read the letter in the link, then vent your anger where you will. but if you turn it against Father Seraphim, you must remember the many works he did for God, his defender.

Father Seraphim has the Holy fathers as his sources and he understands them better than most others. I know many converts to Orthodoxy who say that if it were not for Father Seraphim Rose, they would not have found the Orthodox Church.

God gave man anger to use against demons and passions, wherever they may be lurking. When they are within, we must direct it upon our own passions, not against other people who admire a reposed man of God and the Holy Scriptures, and the words of the Holy fathers. You should not be publicly discussing with criticism, other people in the forum.

Loyal servant of God, Rostislav Koolikov

[Father David Moser]

It is not from his book. I skim-read parts of that book, including the intro and he actually wrote the notes for the book and then regretfully passed away before he could compile it.

I do not deny that Fr Seraphim meant to write the book - but someone else (no matter how loyal or loving) creating it from his notes and him actually writing it are two very different things.


In you anger and confussion you imply that they are, As you said twice, "please don't be lazy in your discussions".

First, thank you for telling me what I feel - I'm sure you know better than I what is in my heart. Secondly, I admit that in this I am "lazy in my comment" having a knee jerk reaction to people who pull Fr Seraphim out like a trump card and slap it down saying "there, see you are wrong" (or I am right as the case may be) as though he were infallible.


then vent your anger where you will. but if you turn it against Father Seraphim, you must remember the many works he did for God, his defender.


God gave man anger to use against demons and passions, wherever they may be lurking. When they are within, we must direct it upon our own passions, not against other people who admire a reposed man of God and the Holy Scriptures, and the words of the Holy fathers. You should not be publicly discussing with criticism, other people in the forum.

Thank you for deigning to instruct me.

I presume you knew Fr Seraphim better than I did, so I guess I'll bow to your infinitely greater knowledge of the man. A man, btw, whom I greatly respect and even love and who - during his lifetime - had a great impact on my spiritual development. But he has been gone now many years the the memory of who he was is becoming increasingly clouded in legend and myth (perpetrated by some of those same "loyal" and "loving" friends) We are rapidly losing the Fr Seraphim who was and have been acquiring a Fr Seraphim who never existed.

This subject, btw is very much "off focus" for this thread and so I ask that all replies concerning Fr Seraphim and his writings be directed here to this new thread dedicated to that topic (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4906) and let this thread return to the much more important topic of "Evolution and the baptism of Christ" which I have found to be fascinating btw)

Fr David Moser

[M. Partyka]

Fr Seraphim was not simply intelligent, a genius, and theologically adept. He was very spiritually gifted. People who were close to him witnessed saintly signs in his presence. It was a future saint (Archbishop John) who took him under his wing and educated him in Orthodox theology....His spiritual vision is so much more acute than many others, myself included, that it is obvious the Holy Spirit is firmly on his side.So...just how badly is it going to affect you should Fr. Seraphim be proved wrong about the science of evolution...or do you believe it's simply impossible for Fr. Seraphim to have been wrong about anything? I wouldn't be surprised if you did beleive this, given how Fr. Seraphim himself commits a genetic fallacy when he writes:


I...agree with you, as I have already said, that man, on the side of his body, is bound together with and is an organic part of the whole of the visible creation, and this helps make it understandable how the whole creation fell together with him into death and corruption. But you think that this is a proof of evolution, a proof that man's body evolved from some other creature! Surely if this is the case, the God-inspired Fathers would have known about it, and we would not have had to wait for the atheist philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries to discover this and tell us about it!!and perhaps he puts the Fathers on too high a pedestal when he says:


Different Orthodox Fathers who are of equal authority answer differently on this question, not because they teach differently about man and thus "contradict" each other, but because they approach the question from different sides....It may even be that one and the same Father views the question now from one and now from the other side, as does St. Gregory of Nyssa when he says in one place (Answer to Eunomius, Second Book): "That which reasons, and is mortal, and is capable of thought and knowledge, is called 'man"'; but in another place he says: "Man 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." (On Virginity, ch. XII) Does this great Father "contradict" himself? Of course he does not."Of course he does not"? Why not? Is it impossible for the Fathers to contradict one another, or even themselves? Are they not human beings?

Consider the following contradiction found in the Fathers concerning a matter of plain fact, not theology:


...possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master....And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master?...For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise....Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemæus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle? But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?”...He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” --from St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 2:22:4-6

...I do not place my hopes in one who died for me in appearance, but in reality. For that which is false is quite abhorrent to the truth....Mary then did truly conceive a body which had God inhabiting it. And God the Word was truly born of the Virgin, having clothed Himself with a body of like passions with our own. He who forms all men in the womb, was Himself really in the womb, and made for Himself a body of the seed of the Virgin, but without any intercourse of man. He was carried in the womb, even as we are, for the usual period of time; and was really born, as we also are; and was in reality nourished with milk, and partook of common meat and drink, even as we do. And when He had lived among men for thirty years, He was baptized by John, really and not in appearance; and when He had preached the Gospel three years, and done signs and wonders, He who was Himself the Judge was judged by the Jews, falsely so called, and by Pilate the governor; was scourged, was smitten on the cheek, was spit upon; He wore a crown of thorns and a purple robe; He was condemned: He was crucified in reality, and not in appearance, not in imagination, not in deceit. He really died, and was buried, and rose from the dead.... --from St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians (longer version) 10Is it really accurate to say, then, that the Fathers never contradict each other (or themselves) concerning doctrine, given that we can see at least this one contradiction concerning a matter of plain fact?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think as sometimes happens in internet communication there has been some misunderstanding of what Fr David was saying.

I really do not think there was anger or anything else negative in what he said.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Yuri Zharikov]

Neat-picking "contradictions" among Fathers will only cloud the issue and make everybody angry, let us not use this approach; everything every Father has thought or said over the centuries on dogmatic issues and the issue of man and creation has been "filtered" through the collective, Spirit-guided mind of the Church. What remained is THE CONSENSUS PATRUM. Let us dance from that.

[Yuri Zharikov]

To expand on my previous post I would like to start with a quote from St. Gregory the Theologian: we are not striving for victory, we seek the return of our brethren separation with whom saddens our hearts. He clearly spoke about heretics, but still, any bitter argument is divisive and saddening while unanimity and agreement are joyful. We have seen few agreements and lots of disagreements on, it seems, fundamental and crystal clear issues. All or most of us on this thread start every day with the words of the creed: I believe in One God the Father, Maker of All things visible and invisible. Yet there seems to be a wide array of opinions on what the "Maker" means and what exactly it is that was made. I personally think it is disconcerting for at least two reasons (1) we depart from what was held by our Fathers to whom we always appeal for help and intercession and whom we magnify and (2) in departing from the Fathers we may fall into "bad" theology (discussed on a parallel thread) which has obvious repercussions for the soul. I personally much appreciated and enjoyed the few attempts to bring out the Fathers and their views on the question of creation. Somehow though we got side-tracked and bogged down in secondary issues. I think it would be great if we could get back on the Patristic tracks and see if in fact we can conform our opinion to the opinion of the Fathers on the matters discussed on this and the thee or four related threads.
Fr. David made a great point when he called on us to examine the primary sources and not to be lazy in doing this. I think it would also be great if we remained focused.

Just literally two days ago I received the English version of a talk delivered at an Orthodox education conference in Moscow (The International nativity readings) by Hieromonk Damascene Christensen (the Russian version is available here http://www.shestodnev.ru/). I feel comfortable to post the entire talk for three reasons. The work addresses just about every issue that we have discussed on the creation related threads from the Patristic point of view. The work gives full citations and complete references to the original sources, so everything can be checked. Fr. Damascene worked on the talk for about a year and I had the honour to research and translate some of the Russian sources he used. So I am not being lazy in the sense of simply piggy-backing on somebody else's effort.

I think we could only conform our opinion with the Fathers most of our disagreement and confusion would disappear like smoke in the face of fire. If we cannot do thisand personal opinions should remain pre-eminent I woulder what is the purpose of all this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Patristic Understanding of the Cosmos before the Fall
By Hieromonk Damascene
In this talk I will attempt to provide an overview, drawn from the Holy Scriptures and Patristic writings, of the Orthodox teaching on the cosmos before the fall of man. After presenting this teaching, I will speak on how it relates to Orthodox soteriology and eschatology, that is, to the redemption of man and the cosmos and to their state beyond the General Resurrection. Finally, I will offer some reflections on how the Patristic teaching on the prelapsarian cosmos can influence our understanding and experience of our natural environment in its current condition.
According to the Orthodox Patristic cosmology, the entire visible universe was made for the sake of man, and man was made for union with God through love. Man was created “in Divine Grace,” as St. Gregory of Nyssa affirms. St. John Damascene states that, in Paradise, Adam “had the indwelling God as a dwelling place and wore Him as a glorious garment. He was wrapped about with His Grace.” Man was meant to participate in God’s life through the Divine Energies, to be fully and perfectly penetrated by Grace, and thus to attain to union with God—theosis (deification). St. John Damascene teaches that Adam was not deified at his creation, but was created for deification: he was “to complete the mystery by being deified through reversion to God—this, however, not by being transformed into the Divine Essence, but by participation in the Divine illumination.”
Based on both the Old and New Testaments, the consensus of the Holy Fathers holds that man and the rest of the visible creation were physically incorrupt (ἄφθαρτος, without decay) before the fall. St. Symeon the New Theologian writes:
Adam was created with a body that was incorrupt, even though material and not yet spiritual, and he was placed by the Creator God as an immortal king over an incorrupt world, not only over Paradise, but also over the whole creation which was under the heavens.… This whole creation in the beginning was incorrupt and was created by God in the manner of Paradise.
Here St. Symeon is echoing the Wisdom of Solomon, in which it is declared: “God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. God created all things that they might have their being; and the generations of the world were for preservation, and there is no poison of destruction in them” (Wis. 1:13–14).
We will return shortly to the subject of the original incorruption of the whole cosmos. For now, let us look specifically at the original state of man, who St. Symeon says was created as “lord and king of the whole visible creation,” and who, in the words of St. John Chrysostom, is “for God more precious than all creation.”
Again in the Wisdom of Solomon it is said: “God made man incorruptible, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless, through the envy of the devil death came into the world” (Wis. 2:23–24). As the Holy Fathers universally taught, and as the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils affirmed, Adam was created potentially immortal, that is, if he had not sinned he could have lived forever in an incorrupt body, partaking of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden.
Originally, the bodies of Adam and Eve did not have, in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, the “coarser flesh, mortal and contradictory” that our bodies now have. According to St. Gregory of Sinai, they were without “moisture and coarseness”; in the words of St. Maximus, they did not have “the temperament which makes the flesh thicker, mortal, and tough.”
From the writings of many Holy Fathers—for example, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus, St. Symeon, and St. Gregory of Sinai—we know that, before the fall, Adam and Eve had no sexual relations or even sexual passions; they were free from bodily needs, including shelter, clothing, and sleep; there was no emission of seed; their was no conception, parturition, or suckling; they did not void bodily waste; their eyes did not produce tears; they knew no afflictions, disease, labors or sorrows; they were not subject to old age; they were not subject to cold and heat, or to the elements; they could not be physically hurt. Thus, writes St. John Chrysostom,
Before the fall men lived in Paradise like angels; they were not inflamed with lust, were not kindled by other passions either, were not burdened with bodily needs; but being created entirely incorruptible and immortal, they did not even need the covering of clothing.
From the writings of St. Maximus and St. Gregory of Sinai, we learn that the first-created man possessed God-given wisdom; his mind was not impressed by imagination; his memory was not diversified but one-pointed, being recollected in God. By drawing ever closer to God in love, by seeking spiritual pleasure in God rather than physical pleasure through the senses, he was to become ever more holy and spiritual, ever more in the likeness of God, ever more transformed by the Grace of God.
St. Symeon the New Theologian writes that, if the first people had fulfilled their original designation,
in time they would have ascended to the most perfect glory and, having been changed, would have drawn near to God, and the soul of each would have become as it were light—shining by reason of the illuminations which would have been poured out upon it from the Godhead! And this sensual and crudely material body would have become as it were immaterial and spiritual, above every organ of sense.
We have already quoted briefly from St. Symeon’s description of the cosmos that man originally inhabited. St. Symeon is quite explicit that the entire visible creation, and not only Paradise, was in a state of incorruption before the fall of man. He writes:
God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestors at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible. No! … The whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible. It was this world, as we said, which was given to Adam and to his descendants for their enjoyment. Does this seem strange to you? It should not.
Describing the incorrupt state of the original creation, St. Symeon wrote that it did not “give corruptible fruits, and produce thorns and thistles” (cf. Gen. 3:18). Elsewhere he affirmed that God gave man in Paradise “various fruits which never spoiled and never ceased, but were always fresh and sweet and furnished for the first-created ones great satisfaction and pleasantness. For it was fitting to furnish also an incorruptible enjoyment for these bodies of the first-created ones, which were incorrupt.” In other words, it was appropriate for incorrupt first-created man to be given both an environment and a food that corresponded to his condition.
St. Gregory of Sinai gives us further details about the state of the creation (in particular, Paradise) before Adam’s transgression:
Eden is a place in which there was planted by God every kind of fragrant plant. It is neither completely incorruptible, nor entirely corruptible. Placed between corruption and incorruption, it is always both abundant in fruits and blossoming with flowers, both mature and immature. The mature trees and fruits are converted into fragrant earth which does not give off any odor of corruption, as do the trees of this world. This is from the abundance of the grace of sanctification which is constantly poured forth there.
In Genesis, chapter 1, we learn that at the beginning of the creation God indicated that animals were to eat plants rather than each other. Following from this, the Holy Fathers affirmed that there was no carnivory in the prelapsarian world. In setting forth this teaching, St. Basil the Great states explicitly that animals did not die before the fall:
Nothing died of these things given meaning or brought into existence by God, so that vultures might eat it. Nature was not divided, for it was in its prime; nor did hunters kill, for that was not yet the custom of human beings; nor did wild beasts claw their prey, for they were not carnivores. And it is customary for vultures to feed on corpses, but since there were not yet corpses, nor yet their stench, so there was not yet such food for vultures. But all followed the diet of swans and all grazed the meadows.
We have now set forth the lineaments of the Patristic teaching on man and the cosmos before the fall. This is the creation as it was when God finished making it and called it “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Fr. Seraphim Rose, who extensively researched the Patristic teaching on this subject, stated that the condition of creation before the fall “is very mysterious to us who live entirely in corruption,” that we do not know “precisely what it was,” and that “it is enough for us to know that Paradise, and the state of the whole creation before the fall of Adam, was quite different from what we know now.” The nature of the first-created world, he said, cannot be investigated without the aid of Divine revelation, for a different “law of nature” (in the words of St. Symeon the New Theologian) existed before the fall, and it is very likely that even the nature of matter was different.
But, however we may regard the first-created world—whether we call it “incorrupt” (as do many Fathers) or “placed between corruption and incorruption” (in the phrase of St. Gregory of Sinai)—we can say for certain that the “very good” prelapsarian world as revealed in the Holy Scriptures and in the consensus patrum is not the same as the world we find in the fossil record, which is a record of suffering, violence, and bloodshed; of animals devouring each other; of disease (including cancer, tuberculosis and gout); of the deaths of all kinds of living things including man; and, finally, of the decay (corruption) of both plants and animals.
Since he possessed both soul and body, man was the link between the originally incorrupt material world and the noetic world of the angels. As he became more spiritual and divinized by drawing closer to God, he was to make all of creation more spiritual and divinized as well. According to St. Maximus the Confessor, man was to unite, “through love, created nature with Uncreated Nature,” drawing everything to deification.
Such was man’s lofty original calling. But as we all know and experience every day, the first man fell from this state and brought himself and all of creation into a state of corruption and death.
With the entrance of sin through the free decision of Adam and Eve, human nature became corrupted. “Sin … nailed itself to the very depths of our nature,” St. Maximus says. As a result, all of Adam and Eve’s descendants inherited, not the guilt of their sin, but rather an inclination or tendency to sin.
Because of the corruption of his nature, man lost the Grace in which he had been created. He became separated from God. Grace was now foreign to his nature, and so it did not dwell within him as it had before. St. John Damascene writes:
And so, man succumbed to the assault of the demon, the author of evil; he failed to keep the Creator’s commandment and was stripped of Grace and deprived of that familiarity which he had enjoyed with God.
In the book of Genesis, God told Adam: “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen. 2:17). In fact, Adam did not physically die on the day he ate from the tree. According to Patristic teaching, however, God’s words were true: Adam did die on the day he ate the fruit. He experienced spiritual death, which is the separation of the soul from God; and this spiritual death, in turn, made him subject to physical death, which is the separation of the soul from the body. Of this St. Gregory Palamas writes:
It was indeed Adam’s soul that died by becoming through his transgression separated from God; for bodily he continued to live after that time, even for 930 years. The death, however, that befell the soul because of the transgression not only crippled the soul and made man accursed; it also rendered the body itself subject to fatigue, suffering, and corruptibility, and finally handed it over to death.
With his fall into spiritual corruption, man’s body became more grossly material. As such, he became subject not only to pain and death, but also to the bodily needs we know today, and to physical corruption or decay after death. St. John Chrysostom goes so far as to say that God “refashioned” (μετεσκεύασεν) man’s body at the fall to accord with his new condition. In the words of St. John Damascene:
[Man] was clothed with the roughness of this wretched life—for that is what the fig leaves signify—and put on death, that is to say, the mortality and the grossness of the flesh—for this is what the garment of skins signifies; he was excluded from Paradise by the just judgment of God; and was condemned to death and made subject to corruption.
St. Maximus writes of how man’s nature (or, strictly speaking, the mode of his nature) was changed from incorruptibility to corruptibility at the fall:
In Adam, with his own act of freely choosing evil, the common glory of human nature, incorruption, was robbed—since God judged that it was not right for humanity, having abused free choice, to have an immortal nature.… The deviance of free choice introduced passibility, corruptibility, and mortality in Adam’s nature.… Hence the mutation of human nature over to passibility, corruption, and death is the condemnation of Adam’s deliberate sin.
Man’s spiritual corruption also made his soul unable to partake of eternal union with God after death. Adam had been barred from Paradise during his earthly life, and he remained barred from both Paradise and heaven after death.
Furthermore, at the fall the entire visible creation fell into corruption along with man: death and decay were introduced into the creation. Thus, not only did man fail to fulfill his original designation of raising the creation to God, but he lowered it from incorruption to a state of corruption. In Romans 8:20–21, the Holy Apostle Paul says that the creation entered into “futility” and “the bondage of corruption.” St. John Chrysostom, in his commentary on these verses, explains that the words “for the creation was subject to futility” mean that “it became corruptible,” and that this occurred because man “received a body mortal and subject to sufferings.” Addressing mankind, he says, “The creation became corruptible when your body became corruptible.” Likewise, St. Symeon the New Theologian teaches: “God did not curse Paradise … but He cursed only the whole rest of the earth, which was also incorrupt.”
St. John Chrysostom explains that this was a fitting consequence of man’s sin, since the visible creation had been made for the sake of man. Commenting on Romans, chapter 8, he writes:
[St. Paul] expands on the subjection (of creatures to corruption) and shows why it has occurred, i.e., because of ourselves. And so, shall we say that in enduring this for someone else, all of creation suffers injustice? Not at all! The reason for its existence is me. If it exists for my sake, then what injustice is there in its suffering corruption for my correction?… By this it suffered no injustice; and this is exactly because through you it will again become incorruptible.
Let us recall St. Symeon’s teaching, quoted above, that it was fitting that the creation supply incorrupt man with incorruptible food in the beginning. Elsewhere St. Symeon affirms that, after the fall, it was fitting that creation be made corruptible along with man, so that it could furnish man, for whose sake it had been made, with corruptible food.
Thus, through the Holy Scriptures and their interpretation by the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church confesses that death and corruption exist not because God made them in the beginning, but because man brought them into the world through his sin. In Romans 5:12 the Holy Apostle Paul writes that “By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin.” Expounding on this teaching, St. John Damascene writes:
The creation of all things is due to God, but corruption came in afterwards due to our wickedness and as a punishment and a help. “For God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things” (Wis. 1:13). But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam’s transgression, in like manner as all other punishments.
St. Maximus the Confessor writes:
Through sin, this cosmos became a place of death and corruption.
And again:
Through man, [sin] impels all created things toward death. All this was contrived by the devil, that spawn of sin and father of iniquity who through pride expelled himself from divine glory, and through envy of us and of God expelled Adam from Paradise, in order to destroy the works of God and dissolve what had been brought into existence.
We are all the inheritors of the death and corruption that entered into man’s nature at the fall. St. Gregory Palamas says that, through Adam’s one spiritual death, both spiritual and physical death were passed on to all men. The same saint, however, affirms that it is by means of death—Christ’s death—that the power of death is destroyed. As spiritual and physical death entered the world through Adam’s one spiritual death, so both kinds of death are overcome through Christ’s one physical death and His subsequent Resurrection. The Apostle Paul writes: “He [Christ] is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).
Death is the consequence of sin. When Christ died on the Cross, He took upon Himself this consequence. However, since He was wholly without sin He was undeserving of death, and since He was Divine He was unable to be held in the bonds of death and hell. Thus, the spiritual and physical death that had entered the world through the primordial transgression were abolished through Christ’s death and Resurrection, and all mankind was given the possibility of being delivered from them.
Because the first Adam brought himself and the entire visible creation into corruption, the Second Adam—Jesus Christ—came to restore what was lost: He came to restore man to the communion with God and to the incorruption in which he lived before the fall, and to restore the entire cosmos to a state of incorruption. But Christ did incomparably more than that. As we shall see, He made possible the full and final deification of man (both in body and in soul), and, together with man, the deification of the entire visible creation.
In the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul writes of the future age of the renewed, incorrupt creation which will come into being after the General Resurrection: “I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God [i.e., those redeemed by Christ]. For the creation was made subject to futility, not willingly, but because of Him [God] Who subjected it [to futility] in hope [i.e., in hope of the General Resurrection]. Because the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only the creation, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:18–23).
St. Symeon the New Theologian further describes the state of man and the cosmos beyond the General Resurrection:
Just as the created world was first brought into existence as incorrupt, and then later, man, so again it is creation which must first be transformed from corruption into incorruption, changed, and then, together with it and at the same time, the corrupted bodies of men will be renewed, such that, himself become at once spiritual and immortal, man may have an incorrupt, and spiritual, and everlasting country in which to make his home….
Just as our bodies, although they dissolve for a time, do not pass away forever, but will be renewed again at the Resurrection, so, too, will heaven and earth and all that is within them—that is, all of creation—be made anew and liberated from the bondage of corruption. The elements themselves will share with us in that incandescence from above, and in the same way that we shall be tried by fire, so, according to the Apostle, shall all creation be renewed through fire.…
The whole world will become more perfect than any word can describe. Having become spiritual and divine, it will become united with the noetic world; it will become a certain noetic Paradise, a heavenly Jerusalem, the inalienable inheritance of the sons of God.
When St. Symeon says that the cosmos will become “spiritual and divine,” he is referring to nothing less than its deification. It will be remembered that, according to St. Maximus, man’s original designation was not only to become deified himself but also to bring the whole created universe into a state of deification. Further expounding St. Maximus’ teaching, Vladimir Lossky writes: “Since this task which was given to man was not fulfilled by Adam, it is in the work of Christ, the Second Adam, that we can see what it was meant to be.”
Here we see how the Orthodox teaching on the incorruption of the first-created world has direct bearing on Orthodox soteriology and eschatology. The Scriptural/Patristic doctrine that death entered the world as a consequence of man’s sin forms a foundation for the doctrine that Christ took upon Himself that consequence—that is, by dying on the Cross—in order to “put away sin,” to “bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:26, 28), to redeem mankind from all the consequences of sin. The teaching of prelapsarian incorruption forms a basis for the doctrine that Christ came in order to give back to man what Adam had lost at the fall, physically as well as spiritually, and that, through Christ’s death and Resurrection, there will be a restoration, perfection, and spiritualization of the incorrupt first-created world. Finally, this teaching provides a foundation for understanding the words of the Apostle Paul in the way that the Holy Fathers understood them: “For since by man came death, by man came also the Resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.… The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (I Cor. 15:21–22, 26).
As the Orthodox teaching on the original incorruption of the cosmos has a direct connection to eschatology and soteriology, so also does it have relevance to our view of the natural environment. One conclusion that one might draw from this teaching is that there is no need to care for or respect the environment now, in its present state of corruption, since the natural environment will inevitably be restored to incorruption after the General Resurrection anyway. Such a cynical conclusion, however, is not the conclusion that the Orthodox Church has drawn from her own divinely inspired teaching. In fact, the mind of the Church, expressed most clearly in the lives and writings of her saints, is quite the opposite. As we have said, the Church confesses faith not only in the redemption of the human soul, but also in the redemption of the body. Furthermore, we confess that the entire visible creation will be redeemed along with the human body. God’s creation was made not for destruction, but, as the Wisdom of Solomon (1:14) says, “for preservation”; and in the eschaton it will be preserved forever in a state of deification. Therefore, because we believe that death and corruption was not part of God’s original, “very good” creation, and because we believe that it is in His Economy to restore it to that state and to deify it, we believe that we are to respect and care for the creation.
A clear testimony of this can be seen in the Church’s attitude to the human body after death. The fact that the body is subject to corruption after death and that it will one day be restored to incorruption does not mean that we should have no care for the body of a dead person. On the contrary, because the Church believes in the redemption of the body, she teaches us to respect the body by burying it in the earth, where it is to await the General Resurrection. The Church has traditionally forbidden cremation because this reflects a certain scorn of the body and a lack of faith in the Resurrection. Of course, even if a body of a person is burned to ashes, God can and will resurrect that body at the last day, but still we are called to honor the body by burying it.
Our veneration of the relics of the saints is a further testimony to our respect for the body and our belief in its ultimate redemption. God strengthens our faith in the redemption of the body by granting, in some cases, a certain relative incorruption to the bodies of the saints.
Amidst the visible creation, God’s saints have attained to the highest degree of participation in God through His Grace, and thus the Church rightly accords special veneration to them and to their relics. But according to Orthodox theology, all created things participate in God in varying degrees, and thus all are worthy of some degree of honor. Again, the testimony of this is seen most clearly in the lives of the saints, who showed compassion, respect and honor to God’s creatures, and who lived in harmony with them as did Adam and Eve before the fall. In a Life of a saint of our own times, Elder Paisios of Mount Athos, we read the following:
When we walk along a path, we stretch out our hands right and left and pick a leaf from this tree, a flower from that; we break a sapling from carelessness or bad habit. But when the Elder saw a broken tree he made a little splint for it and bound it up. One can see many such splints in the area where he lived.
This brings us to the final point that I would like to bring up in this contemplation of how the Orthodox teaching on the original incorruption of the cosmos can influence our attitude toward the environment today. When we view our surroundings from the Orthodox perspective of the Scriptures and Holy Fathers, we will recognize the fact that suffering, illness, death, and decay, together with all the other manifestations of the brokenness of creation—that these were not part of God’s original “very good” creation. They are present because man brought them into the world through his sin. And we ourselves, although we do not bear the guilt of the fall of our first ancestors, still participate in the sins of the family of Adam. This in itself should give us pause, and make us have compassion for God’s creation in its brokenness. In the above story about Elder Paisios, we see a man who had such a heightened degree of this compassion that he went around putting splints on broken trees.
The co-founder of our monastery, the above-mentioned Fr. Seraphim Rose, had a practice of walking around the monastery grounds early in the morning before services, blessing and even kissing the trees. When asked why he was doing this, he would only smile and continue walking. We had always interpreted this as a manifestation of Fr. Seraphim’s honor and love for God’s creation, as he contemplated it not only in its present broken state but also in its original incorrupt state and in its final, incorrupt and deified state. Recently, however, our monastery was visited by Metropolitan Joseph of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, who in a talk about Fr. Seraphim offered a further insight. Affirming that Fr. Seraphim was indeed contemplating the future transfiguration of the trees along with the rest of the creation, he added that, in blessing and kissing the trees, he was “as if begging forgiveness that because of our sins they also suffer.”
This is a profound thought, arising from a well-developed Patristic consciousness. As we enter more deeply into the mind of the Holy Fathers—which is the mind of the Church, which is the mind of Christ—our perspective on the world will be informed by such an awareness.
In the words of St. Barsanuphius of Optina Monastery, we see only “fragments” of the original, incorrupt cosmos, a cosmos that was “broken” because of man’s sin. Once, when standing before a window at night, St. Barsanuphius pointed to the moon and said to his disciple (the future Elder Nikon):
Look—what a picture! This is left to us as a consolation. It’s no wonder that the Prophet David said, “Thou has gladdened me, O Lord, by Thy works” (Ps. 91:3). “Thou has gladdened me,” he says, although this is only a hint of that wondrous beauty, incomprehensible to human thought, which was originally created. We don’t know what kind of moon there was then, what kind of sun, what kind of light.… All of this changed after the fall.
As St. Barsanuphius affirmed, in beholding the “fragments” that remain of God’s original handiwork, we can still find delight and consolation. At the same time, in contemplating what was in the beginning and what will be in the future age, we can understand God’s plan for His creation, His Economy. With this understanding can come a deeper sense of honor and respect for our natural environment, a deeper repentance for our participation in the sins of humanity, and a more vibrant hope in the renewed creation that, through our Savior Jesus Christ, will one day come into being.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

I love the saints. See below what some said on topics of creation:


....see what St. Ephraim says in his commentary on Genesis
No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names. (Commentary on Genesis, ch. I)
Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the first day continued for 12 hours each. (Ibid.)
Again:
When in the twinkling of an eye (Adam's) rib was taken out and likewise in an instant the flesh took its place, and the bare rib took on the complete form and all the beauty of a woman, then God led her and presented her to Adam. (Ibid.)

It is quite clear that St. Ephraim reads the book of Genesis "as it is written"; when he hears "the rib of Adam" he understands "the rib of Adam," and does not understand this as an allegorical way of saying something else altogether. Likewise he quite explicitly understands the Six Days of Creation to be just six days, each with 24 hours, which he divides into an "evening and "morning" of 12 hours each.

You write: "Since God created time, to create something 'instantly' would be an act contrary to His own decision and will.... When we speak about the creation of stars, plants, animals and man we do not speak about miracles-we do not speak about the extraordinary interventions of God in creation but about the 'natural' course of creation." I wonder if you are not substituting here some "modern wisdom" for the teaching of the holy Fathers? What is the beginning of all things but a miracle? I have already showed you that St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. John Damascene (and indeed all the Fathers) teach that the first man Adam appeared in a way different from the natural generation of all other men; likewise the first creatures, according to the sacred text of Genesis, appeared in a way different from all their descendants: they appeared not by natural generation but by the word of God. The modern theory of evolution denies this, because the theory of evolution was invented by unbelievers who wished to deny God's action in creation and explain the creation by "natural" means alone. Do you not see what philosophy is behind the theory of evolution?

What do the holy Fathers say about this? I have already quoted St. Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Genesis describes how all God's creative acts are done in an instant, even though the whole "Days" of creation last for 24 hours each. Let us now see what St. Basil the Great says about God's creative acts in the Six Days. In speaking of the Third Day of Creation, St. Basil says:

At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up... Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants...all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth. (Hexaemeron, V, 6)
Again, he says:
"Let the earth bring forth." This brief command was immediately mighty nature and an elaborate system which brought to perfection more swiftly than our thought the countless properties of plants. (Hexaemeron, V, 10)

Again, on the Fifth Day:
The command came. Immediately rivers were productive and marshy lakes were fruitful of species proper and natural to each. (Hexaemeron, VH, 1)
Likewise, St. John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Genesis, teaches:
Today God goes over to the waters and shows us that from them, by His word and command, there proceeded animate creatures. What mind, tell me, can understand this miracle? What tongue will be able worthily to glorify the Creator? He said only: Let the earth bring forth-and immediately He aroused it to bear fruit.... As of the earth He said only: Let it bring forth-and there appeared a great variety of flowers, grasses, and seeds, and everything occurred by His word alone; so also here He said: Let the waters bring forth... and suddenly there appeared so many kinds of creeping things, such a variety of birds, that it is impossible even to enumerate them with words. (Homilies on Genesis, VII, 3)

And again St. Chrysostom writes:
God took a single rib, it is said: but how from this single rib did He form a whole creature? Tell me, how did the taking of the rib occur? How did Adam not feel this taking? You can say nothing about this; this is known only by Him Who created.... God did not produce a new creation, but taking from an already existing creation a certain small part, from this part He made a whole creature. What power the Highest Artist God has, to produce from this small part (a rib) the composition of so many members, make so many organs of sense, and form a whole, perfect, and complete being. (Homilies on Genesis, XV, 2- 3)Sorry, Richard if my comment about Fr. Seraphim not agreeing with you had caused you any grief. I was just hoping that like me, you have a great deal of respect for Fr Seraphim's words. I cannot apologise to anyone else because my statement was only addressed to you.

With contrition, James

[RichardWorthington]

Dear Yuri - and please do permit me to call you Yuri - ,

That was a most beautiful post. I totally loved it.
My soul is singing to the Lord after reading it all. It is so beautiful.

However, I can not help but feel that while describing such original beauty we do not then try to align our thoughts and feelings to such beauty. I fear that such a beautiful list of quotations from our God-bearing Fathers will be used to terrify people: "The Fathers say it, I believe it, that settles it!"

We may ask ourselves, "How can people refuse to listen to such a clear testimony?" and then conclude that such people are not "proper" Orthodox and have an inferior knowledge. Remember, if we can Bible-bash and Father-fight others, then so too can God with us! I think Jesus' original parable about "taking the cedars of Lebanon out of our own eyes before taking the planks of wood out of others' eyes" might have been toned down somewhat ...



we can say for certain that the “very good” prelapsarian world as revealed in the Holy Scriptures and in the consensus patrum is not the same as the world we find in the fossil record, which is a record of suffering, violence, and bloodshed; of animals devouring each other; of disease (including cancer, tuberculosis and gout); of the deaths of all kinds of living things including man; and, finally, of the decay (corruption) of both plants and animals


And so many people, seeing all this evidence, find it difficult to reconcile it with the scriptural teaching. And yet trying to re-interpret the evidence around us seems to lack any true authoritative voice: the Creation and evolutionary theory thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4551) grew to about 400 posts before being closed due to getting nowhere; and now this thread is taking the brunt of the frustrations it seems ...

The assaults on the Truth over the past 150 years have been terrible, but may I suggest that the Rationalists and Atheists are merely basing themselves on our own lazy theology: the Churches themselves - including the Orthodox Church - are to blame for this mess.

St Seraphim of Sarov once said that teaching others is like throwing down large stones from the top of a tower, while putting them into practice is like carrying those stones ourselves to the top of the tower. Let our lives and e-mouths show beauty.

I am a hypocrite: I also tried to fudge Paradise with evolution. The account in Genesis was totally based on the symbolism of the old Temple (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=52700#post52700), and so was not to be taken literally. I did not want death before Adam sinned, and so thought up some 'recycling' of animals like the trees mentioned in Paradise (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=52950#post52950)in your post: there was no decay in them even though they shed leaves turning into soil. (Taking the evidence of an asteroid impact I thought of the idea - in the same post - that the angels could play with the world: not my best idea, but it was fun writing it!).

And dear James,


Sorry, Richard if my comment about Fr. Seraphim not agreeing with you had caused you any grief. I was just hoping that like me, you have a great deal of respect for Fr Seraphim's words.

Thank you for this. You did not upset me, it is just that I could see the previous thread continuing with the same pointlessness as before! :)

I do venerate Fr Seraphim Rose; I deliberately quoted from him to show my respect. The fact that there is such chaos on this issue means that surely a new approach is needed. (I was also surprised to be told by my friend about Metropolitan Anthony Bloom's view of Fr Seraphim Rose, surprised but as I think about the whole traditionalist versus modernists debate it should not be unexpected!)

I do have some more thoughts to share, but I think later would be better.

Love in Christ,

Richard

[Yuri Zharikov]

Dear Richard,
Many thanks for this. I am completely against "Bible-bashing" and 'Father-fighting" in a sense of imposing a personal opinion on somebody. I am for however Bible and Father loving because what they say is both simple and beautiful. Everything of God is immensely beautiful, you just can't make it into something else without destroying the beauty. I think we cannot have both: be the Church of Our Fathers and not believe like them on issues of fundamental significance. The was a time when I tried to believe in God and evolution at the same time and I was trying to explain this to a simple but very pious believer. His response was: There is no God in all this. I felt speechless and powerless because he told me the truth of God and His Church and I was trying to reconcile the irreconcilable using my ugly, passion-infested brain.

With love in the Lord,
Yuri

[M. Partyka]

1) ...however we may regard the first-created world—whether we call it “incorrupt” (as do many Fathers) or “placed between corruption and incorruption” (in the phrase of St. Gregory of Sinai)—we can say for certain that the “very good” prelapsarian world as revealed in the Holy Scriptures and in the consensus patrum is not the same as the world we find in the fossil record, which is a record of suffering, violence, and bloodshed; of animals devouring each other; of disease (including cancer, tuberculosis and gout); of the deaths of all kinds of living things including man; and, finally, of the decay (corruption) of both plants and animals....Thus, through the Holy Scriptures and their interpretation by the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church confesses that death and corruption exist not because God made them in the beginning, but because man brought them into the world through his sin.

2) ...the Orthodox teaching on the incorruption of the first-created world has direct bearing on Orthodox soteriology and eschatology. The Scriptural/Patristic doctrine that death entered the world as a consequence of man’s sin forms a foundation for the doctrine that Christ took upon Himself that consequence—that is, by dying on the Cross—in order to “put away sin,” to “bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:26, 28), to redeem mankind from all the consequences of sin. The teaching of prelapsarian incorruption forms a basis for the doctrine that Christ came in order to give back to man what Adam had lost at the fall, physically as well as spiritually, and that, through Christ’s death and Resurrection, there will be a restoration, perfection, and spiritualization of the incorrupt first-created world. Finally, this teaching provides a foundation for understanding the words of the Apostle Paul in the way that the Holy Fathers understood them: “For since by man came death, by man came also the Resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.… The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (I Cor. 15:21–22, 26).Given the articles by Fr. Seraphim Rose and Hieromonk Damascene that have been presented in this thread, is there anyone who disagrees with any part or portion of the above conclusions (taken entirely from the sermon by Hieromonk Damascene)? (Notice that I did not say, "anyone besides me". I am not giving my opinion as yet, for I do not want to bias anyone's answer, nor do I wish to offer an opinion before hearing what everyone else has to say.) In other words, to your knowledge -- I would particularly love the priests' input on this -- is this the Orthodox faith?

[Demetrios]

Given the articles by Fr. Seraphim Rose and Hieromonk Damascene that have been presented in this thread, is there anyone who disagrees with any part or portion of the above conclusions (taken entirely from the sermon by Hieromonk Damascene)? (Notice that I did not say, "anyone besides me". I am not giving my opinion as yet, for I do not want to bias anyone's answer, nor do I wish to offer an opinion before hearing what everyone else has to say.) In other words, to your knowledge -- I would particularly love the priests' input on this -- is this the Orthodox faith?
If we choose.“placed between corruption and incorruption” We can accept evolution.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Given the articles by Fr. Seraphim Rose and Hieromonk Damascene that have been presented in this thread, is there anyone who disagrees with any part or portion of the above conclusions (taken entirely from the sermon by Hieromonk Damascene)? (Notice that I did not say, "anyone besides me". I am not giving my opinion as yet, for I do not want to bias anyone's answer, nor do I wish to offer an opinion before hearing what everyone else has to say.) In other words, to your knowledge -- I would particularly love the priests' input on this -- is this the Orthodox faith?

I have only had time to look through half of the talk. So far it looks good.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Yuri Zharikov]

I would particularly love the priests' input on this -- is this the Orthodox faith?

for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me. (Gal. 4:15)

Very Reverend Fathers, I sense a lot of eyes intently looking up to you.

[Yuri Zharikov]

If we choose.“placed between corruption and incorruption” We can accept evolution.

“placed between corruption and incorruption” means to be in a position to choose blessedness and incorruption as the mode of being or cursedness and corruption as the mode of being. Corruption, which we chose, means degradation, decay, extinction, death, mutation, turning into dust - devoluion. Evolution means progressive positive development. The meaning of you statement is thus unclear.

[Demetrios]

“placed between corruption and incorruption” means to be in a position to choose blessedness and incorruption as the mode of being or cursedness and corruption as the mode of being. Corruption, which we chose, means degradation, decay, extinction, death, mutation, turning into dust - devoluion. Evolution means progressive positive development. The meaning of you statement is thus unclear.

What if hell is non-existence rather than a forced eternal existence in the traditional sense of the word. Adam would than be in each of us.

[Yuri Zharikov]

What if hell is non-existence rather than a forced eternal existence in the traditional sense of the word. Adam would than be in each of us.

this question has been discussed elsewhere in detail, you can do a search and see the answer to the "what if" question; to answer it here would lead us away from the topic of discussion, which is confusing to say the least, so I would rather stay focussed on the Fathers and creation, not on "what ifs".

[Demetrios]

this question has been discussed elsewhere in detail, you can do a search and see the answer to the "what if" question; to answer it here would lead us away from the topic of discussion, which is confusing to say the least, so I would rather stay focussed on the Fathers and creation, not on "what ifs".
There are modern church fathers that teach this.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Given the articles by Fr. Seraphim Rose and Hieromonk Damascene that have been presented in this thread, is there anyone who disagrees with any part or portion of the above conclusions (taken entirely from the sermon by Hieromonk Damascene)? (Notice that I did not say, "anyone besides me". I am not giving my opinion as yet, for I do not want to bias anyone's answer, nor do I wish to offer an opinion before hearing what everyone else has to say.) In other words, to your knowledge -- I would particularly love the priests' input on this -- is this the Orthodox faith?

I have now finished reading this. I thought it was well done and very Patristic.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M. Partyka]

I have now finished reading this. I thought it was well done and very Patristic.I naturally assumed that this was a "yes" answer to my question, but then I read this in another thread:


...we were encouraged to provide Patristic testimony on creation. This was done. As a result, a very pointed question was asked: does the testimony represent the Orthodox faith? The discussion just fell silent and no answer was given. (Fr. Raphael, I am very sorry, but to say that Patristic evidence is "very Patristic" did not help).Yuri is right. The answer given was, "It's very Patristic," but the question I asked was, "Is this the faith of the Church?" Perhaps I should have phrased the question differently so as to encourage individual responses that don't sound like blanket pronouncements. For example, I could instead ask, "Is this what you believe?" and in the case of priests I could modify this slightly and ask, "Is this what you believe and teach?"

Another difficulty might be that the quotes I took from Hieromonk Damascene's paper are somewhat broad and contain some things that one might understandably wish to classify a matter of opinion rather than a matter of faith. Therefore, allow me to pare down the text to something more manageable:


1) ...through the Holy Scriptures and their interpretation by the Holy Fathers, the Orthodox Church confesses that death and corruption exist not because God made them in the beginning, but because man brought them into the world through his sin.

2) Christ came in order to give back to man what Adam had lost at the fall, physically as well as spiritually, and...through Christ’s death and Resurrection, there will be a restoration, perfection, and spiritualization of the incorrupt first-created world.(Note: It has been asked whether choosing to view the original creation as “placed between corruption and incorruption” opens the door to considering the validity of evolution, but I would suggest we table that option for the moment and answer the question such that "death and corruption" means death and corruption as we presently know them.)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

M. Partyka wrote:



Yuri is right. The answer given was, "It's very Patristic," but the question I asked was, "Is this the faith of the Church?" Perhaps I should have phrased the question differently so as to encourage individual responses that don't sound like blanket pronouncements. For example, I could instead ask, "Is this what you believe?" and in the case of priests I could modify this slightly and ask, "Is this what you believe and teach?"

Yuri & I know each other so I took it that what he said was with tongue planted firmly in cheek. After all, how can something be Patristic and not express the Faith of the Church? This, at least to my way of thinking would be a contradiction in terms.

The other thing I wished to express through what I wrote is that the Patristic vision does not have the exclusive kind of meaning to it that we often give to statements such as, "teaching of the Church." I also was purposely trying to avoid that- especially in a discussion like this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Yuri Zharikov]

The question then arises, actually two. What is the definition of the "teaching of the Church" and what is the teaching of the Church on creation?
If consensus patrum does not exactly work is it reasonable to appeal to the texts of services and pronouncements of council? Encyclicals of Patriarchs, especially Saints of the Church? Perhaps if a later Saint, like Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, summarised what all the saints before him said on a particular issue, would it then be "the teaching of the Church"?
I an afraid that if we do not make a clear definition what it is we are talking about, 400 more posts may be made and all in vain.
With love in the Lord to everybody,
Yuri

[M. Partyka]

...how can something be Patristic and not express the Faith of the Church? This, at least to my way of thinking would be a contradiction in terms.Perhaps I'm interpreting the term "Patristic" too loosely, then. "Patristic", to me, means "finding its origin in the writings of the Fathers," and there are several things located here and there in the writings of the Fathers that don't jibe with the "consensus patrum" (as I've heard it called at least once). For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in volume 2 of Against Heresies that Christ died around the age of fifty, not thirty-three. I'd call that "Patristic", but I wouldn't call it correct.

Now, if by "Patristic" it is meant, "whatever is contained in the 'consensus patrum'," then we certainly have a definition which is narrow enough to exclude the occasional anomalies like the example above, but unfortunately we also have a definition that makes it almost impossible to rule anything "in" or "out" of the faith save for what either clearly agrees with or clearly contradicts the Creeds of the Church. And if all we are strictly bound to believe are the Creeds of the Church, then an overwhelming majority of Orthodox tradition has suddenly become "up for grabs".

(I wonder if anyone has gone through the trouble of collecting the necessary information to say, "Here are all the pronouncements of the Church Councils down through history, to which all Orthodox are obligated to consent," and form a "primer" of sorts out of this information for distribution to the faithful.)


The other thing I wished to express through what I wrote is that the Patristic vision does not have the exclusive kind of meaning to it that we often give to statements such as, "teaching of the Church." I also was purposely trying to avoid that- especially in a discussion like this.This is why I have turned the question into something more personal and less declaratory concerning the faith as a whole -- i.e., "Is this what you believe and/or teach?"

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

I would like to post a series of works which rely heavily on patristics, and which explain differences between the sciences and theology.
Orthodox Theology and Science© The Rev. Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and St. Vlassios Hierotheos

There are clear and distinct boundaries between Theology and Science. Theology, as the Greek origin of the word suggests, is concerned with God - what God is and how one can attain communion with Him - whereas Science is concerned with the created world and is interested mainly in the use of the world.
In examining this simple sentence we realize that both Theology and Science move on different levels and, consequently, there can be no conflict between them or between theologians and scientists. A conflict developed and reached historic proportions in the West, when Metaphysics was identified with Theology. It is well known that the content of Metaphysics is one thing and the content of revealed Theology quite another. For example, according to Metaphysics there is an ungenerated world of ideas from which this world is derived either by a fall or an emanation. Therefore, when the West identified Metaphysics with Theology and indeed, when the advance of natural Science resulted in the shaking off of the foundations of Metaphysics, then the Theology which had been identified with Metaphysics was also questioned. Thus, an Athonite monk once jokingly referred to the conflict between Faith and Science as the «puns and riddles» of the West.
In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, we see that the content of Theology is one thing and that of Science another. Theology talks about God, about the Creator of the world being God, about the fall and sickness of the human personality and about its cure so that man can attain communion with God. Science concerns itself with what can be known scientifically, those things that can be examined by the senses and it tries to make man's life bearable within his fallen state.
Unfortunately, however, we often notice that a great deal of confusion prevails between these two bounds and spheres. The problem is created when Science is made sacrosanct and mythological and when Theology is secularized.
Science is made sacrosanct when various scientists use scientific data and some discoveries to demolish teaching about God or even to be identified with God, something that constitutes hubris in the ancient sense of the word. Moreover, it is also made sacrosanct when they try to find a system, which will solve all man's problems even his existential ones. Typical of such a case is the statement made recently by a geneticist who proposed the cloning of human beings: "We are going to become one with God. We are going to have almost as much knowledge and almost as much power as God ... Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in becoming one with God - very simple philosophy." [ 1 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#1)
Theology is secularized when it rejects its essence, which is to lead man to purification, illumination and deification (theosis), when it loses its eschatological orientation, and when it is historicized and made part of society. Moreover, Theology is secularized when it is completely overwhelmed by anxiety and insecurity in the face of scientific argument or still yet when it uses the methodology of Science to talk about God. In such cases it creates problems in research. Indeed, if Theology does not have clear orthodox criteria and sure presuppositions then it has lost its mission. [ 2 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#2)
All that follows will show the confusion that is created, as well as the different bounds and frameworks in which both Theology and Science act respectively.

1. THE TWO KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE TWO KINDS OF TRUTH ACCORDING TO ST. GREGORY PALAMAS.</B>
The dialogue that took place between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam, was also an occasion, among other things, for the boundaries of Orthodox Theology and of Science to be cleared up.
Barlaam, a representative of Medieval Scholastic Theology, professed that the truth, be it human or divine, is one and singular. He accepted that the deifying words and the wisdom that is contained in them look to the same purpose as those of philosophy, which comes from worldly lessons, and aims at finding the truth. Thus, he argued that the truth is one, since this truth was given to the Apostles, whereas we uncover it through study. Philosophy lessons (where there is much talk about the creation of the world and the redemption of man) also participate in the lifting up of man to the level of "the immaterial archetypes of the sacred symbols permanently." [ 3 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#3)
St. Gregory Palamas, using many quotes from Holy Scripture and the Fathers, introduces the truth of two kinds of wisdom and of knowledge. Throughout his work we see this essential difference between divine and human knowledge underlined, something which demonstrates that the truth is not singular. Characteristically St. Gregory Palamas notes "Whence it is shown that truth is of a double kind: one is the result of God-inspired teaching, whereas the other is neither necessary nor does it save, it seeks out secular wisdom, but achieves much less."[ 4 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#4) That means that one kind of truth, which is the vision of God, is the work and result of God-inspired teaching, whereas the other kind of wisdom, which is worldly wisdom, is neither necessary nor does it save, but neither is it fully accomplished. Saint Gregory Palamas asks «What care does deifying wisdom have for all the truth in the stars» [ 5 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#5) i.e. truth and knowledge about the stars does not interest and does not benefit deifying wisdom, that is the living experience of revelatory truth.
Certainly, St. Gregory Palamas does not reject worldly wisdom which looks to the knowledge of beings but argues that this human knowledge neither constitutes nor aids in any way the attainment of divine knowledge which is the result of purification of the heart and illumination of man's nous. With clarity of thought and revelatory wisdom St. Gregory Palamas would write: «However the introduction of secular philosophy for the knowledge of beings is not entirely false, under some circumstances it could be true, but this is not the knowledge of beings and the wisdom that God gave to prophets and apostles. This is the Holy Spirit. That the Egyptians and the Chaldeans and the Hellenes are partakers of the Holy Spirit we have never heard up until today.»[ 6 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#6) That is to say, the use of worldly philosophy to attain to the knowledge of beings is not totally amiss. Indeed, with certain preconditions it would also be true, but this is not the wisdom and knowledge given by God to the Apostles and Prophets directly.
This difference between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam, in reality is the difference between the Scholastic Theology of the West and the Orthodox Theology of the East. Amongst the many distinguishing points we can say that Western Scholastic Theology, which was expressed by Barlaam, used a single method both for created things and for the uncreated God. This means that they tried to comprehend God with the same method that they used to investigate creation and natural phenomena, i.e. through reason. Illumination by Divine Grace simply assists human reason to comprehend concepts and objects. Whereas, taking the opposite view, Orthodox Theology, as expressed by all the Holy Fathers, including St. Gregory Palamas uses a double methodology for God and creation. That is to say it uses reason to investigate creation, the nature of beings, to examine natural phenomena, while with the nous, which is purified and illuminated it attains knowledge of God. Thus, the method of the Fathers used for the knowledge of God was experience.
We can define this difference and codify it as St. Gregory Palamas did with the phrases «dialectic» and «demonstrative syllogisms.» This Saint developed the view that the dialectic method of Barlaam (and the Scholastics) refers to the search for possibilities and in general to all that concerns created reality. By contrast the demonstrative method of the hesychast Fathers, which bears a relationship to things and to experience, refers to man's journey towards deification (theosis).[ 7 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#7)
All this shows that education according to the world - and this includes Science - acts at one level, whereas knowledge of God, i.e. the aim and end of Theology, acts at another. A Science which tries to comprehend God with its own methodology (reason), and a Theology which leaves behind the hesychastic method, using reason for all matters including God, are equally bankrupt. This is especially the case with Theology, when it acts within the bounds of reasoning, i.e. dialectical elaboration. Part: 2 to follow.

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Part 2 in the series on the difference between the sciences and theology is replicated below.

2. THE THEOLOGIAN AND THE SCIENTIST IN RELATION TO GOD AND THE WORLD.</B>
So that we can give fuller expression to this differentiation between Theology and Science, i.e. that they act on different levels and within different bounds, let us personalize the matter, that is to say, let us look at the difference between the theologian and the scientist. I consider all that Fr. John Romanides has said on the matter to be significant and to the point. He sets down four theological statements.
First. There is an inextricable difference between God and creatures, since there is no similarity between uncreated and created nature. He writes that the Holy Fathers, who spoke from their experience, taught that «between God and created things there is no likeness at all, even though created things were made by God and depend upon God. This means that the truth about God and the truth about the nature of the universe are not identified with one another, even though one of them is dependent on the other.» It is for this precise reason that Theology cannot be identified with Science.
Second. Both the theologian and the scientist have different kind of knowledge. «The beholder of God knows God, whereas the philosopher or the scientist investigates created things.» This means that the philosopher and the scientist, in that they investigate the world through scientific method and philosophical imagination, cannot have the same knowledge about God that the beholders of God, the Prophets, Apostles and Saints do. The theologian, however, may have knowledge about scientific matter and become a scientist through scientific knowledge but not through the vision of God. Likewise, the scientist can also attain knowledge of God, not through his Science, but through the orthodox method of knowledge of God (theognosia) which is purification, illumination and deification (theosis).
Third. The purpose and work of the theologian and those of the scientist are different. «The beholder of God knows how he will prepare people for the vision of God. The scientist knows how to teach his scientific method to his students.» The theologian may also know the way to investigate natural phenomena, but within the knowledge of Science, as the Fathers of the Church did, just as a scientist can become a beholder of God, not through his Science, but through the vision of God.
Fourth. The theologian is God-inspired regarding God, not however regarding natural phenomena. «The beholder of God is God-inspired and speaks steadfastly about God and leads straight towards God, but he is not infallible in matters concerning the applied and other Sciences, regarding which he can only know as much as his contemporary scientists.» If someone is not a beholder of God but a «theologian» in the academic sense of the word, then he «can maintain scientific nonsense, but only of philosophers, in as much as he departs from the strict theological method of the beholders of God.» Likewise, the scientist is also a specialist and is knowledgeable of natural phenomena. When, however, he departs from his strict scientific method and confuses his findings about the nature of the world with his views about God, then he says «irresponsible things.»[ 8 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#8)
I think the boundaries are clear and all that has been set down has spelt out the topic of the work and mission of both the scientist and the theologian respectively. Both are authentic when they work within their bounds, but when they depart from them and enter each other's sphere without the necessary presuppositions and rules that presuppose each framework and each area, then they become ridiculous.
In general, the theologian may become a scientist, but through Science, and the scientist may become a theologian, but through Theology. The theologian cannot play the scientist through his Theology, nor can the scientist play the theologian through his Science.
The great Fathers of the Church were theologians through the experience of revelation and they even became scientists through conscientious study and learning of human Science. That is why they are whole.

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Part 3 on the difference between the sciences and theology - St Basil the Great.

3. THE POSITION OF ST. BASIL THE GREAT REGARDING THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE
After all that has been said, I think that it would be good to refer at some length to St. Basil the Great's stance towards the Science of his time. This stance and how he faced the aspects of scientific data of his time in a theological manner can be clearly seen in his work «Homilies on the Six Days of Creation» known as the Hexameron. Indeed, in this book we can ascertain what that era's scientific views about the world and all that exists in it were, as well as how this knowledge can be utilized by a theologian. St. Basil managed to collect all of the contemporary knowledge of Science back then on the subject of cosmology into a few speeches.
a) Firstly, we should point out that St. Basil had studied all the branches of Science of his time. From testimonies by St. Gregory the Theologian and from reports by Socrates and Sozomenos we know that he attained the best possible knowledge of Science of the time.
After receiving his general education first from his father, and then in Caesarea of Cappadocia, he went on to study under the significant pagan philosopher Libanios, most probably in Constantinople. Yet it was Athens that would be the principal city to initiate him into Science and philosophy. We are informed that four schools of philosophy operated in Athens during the fourth century, as well as many centers of rhetoric and some of medicine. There were many schools, and each school was directed by one teacher, who gathered around him a certain number of students, which did not exceed a couple of dozen or so, some of them stayed by their teachers for a longer period a associates or assistants.
In Athens, St. Basil received lessons from the teachers Himerios and Proairesios. In total he pursued all the Sciences of that era, such as rhetoric, which was considered to be the queen of Sciences, literature, history, philosophy in its four branches (namely ethics, theoretics, logic and dialectic), astronomy, geometry, arithmetic and medicine. Indeed, he knew each and every one of the Sciences so well that someone could spend his whole life studying just one of them and still not know it as well as he knew them all. All this knowledge of his clearly shows up in the commentary he makes on the Hexameron. He stayed in Athens for four or five years. [ 9 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#9)
b) In the Hexameron St. Basil continually refers to the views of the philosophers and the scientists on different cosmological subjects. Naturally, he never mentions their names but they become known through the views presented. For example in analyzing the phrase «In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,» he refers to the views of Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras, Empedocles, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Leucippus, Democritus and Aristotle. [ 10 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#10)
Amongst other things he writes «The wise men of the Greeks have taken much trouble to explain nature, and not one of their reasons has remained firm and unshaken, each one being overturned by its successor. It is not our job to refute them; they are adequately able to overthrow one another by themselves.» [ 11 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#11) Others accepted that a thinking cause presides for the generation of all things (Anaxagoras of Clazomenae). Again others held that the foundations of the world are material elements (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Heraclitus). Yet again others believed that all of visible nature was made up of «atoms, and indivisible bodies, molecules and ducts,» and that the relationship between them contribute towards birth and corruption, but also in the sustenance of the world (Leucippus, Democritus and so on). [ 12 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#12)
It is significant that St. Basil refers to the views of the philosophers about the creation and sustenance of the world, but that he assesses them creatively both as a theologian and as a scientist. Sometimes he accepts them, sometimes he comments on them in a theological manner and sometimes he gives his own different interpretation. Thus, the work of St. Basil does not consist of a simple juxtaposition of scientists' views, but is a creative contribution. This, of course, is a consequence of the fact that St. Basil the Great knew the different opinions of his time very well, since he had spent long years in study, but also since he had had revelatory experience.
I would like to mention two characteristic examples:
The first example is on the matter of allegory, the method by which some, like Philo the Jew, interpreted the Pentateuch. St. Basil writes: «I know the laws of allegory, though not so much from my own research, but rather from the works of others.» He means Philo and others who, as he goes on to explain, did not accept the usual meaning of the text, but said that water is not water, but some other nature, and that the plant and the fish is interpreted according to their own theory and concepts. They did the same thing regarding reptiles and wild beasts. However, St. Basil does not pursue them in such fantasies. He writes: «When I hear grass, I think of grass; and the plant, the fish, the wild beast and the domesticated animal. I accept all of them just as they are spoken.» Also, based on revealed truth he argues that, «although many have maintained much about the earth, whether it is a sphere or a cylinder, or if it resembles a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it is in the form of a cradle and is hollow in the middle,» [ 13 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#13) despite this, «it will not lead me to call our own creation account of the world more dishonorable, since the servant of God Moses never spoke about shapes.» [ 14 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#14)
The second example comes from the interpretation of the verse «Let the earth bring forth each living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind.» [ 15 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#15) Some people of St. Basil's era maintained that during the rainy season the earth produces grasshoppers, countless flying insects, as well as mice and frogs. St. Basil was prepared to accept this theory, that all these come from the earth, but he gives a theological interpretation, supporting the view, (which we will see below) that all this is the result of the energy of God, which exists in creation and not the natural attributes of creation. He writes, «This command has continued and earth does not cease to serve the Creator.» [ 16 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#16) Thus, it is this uncreated energy of God, which exists in creation that continually creates and produces animals and insects. Here we clearly see the creative and theological approach to the beliefs of that time.
But St. Basil does not only interpret the scientific views of his time according to theological presuppositions. He does something else which is equally important. He interprets the phrases of Holy Scripture, i.e. the experience of Revelation, via the views of Science. In analyzing the phrase «God made the firmament,» he makes broad observations, trying to give the correct interpretation. Having mentioned various verses from Scripture, at the end he says that by the expression «firmament,» with which God «divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament,» means a firm material, which is capable of retaining fluid and liquid water. He also makes further comments that we are unable to present here. [ 17 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#17)
c) We must, however, look at the theological approach to the Creation of the world. St. Basil is not a theoretical secular scientist, but a great theologian. Thus, he is not satisfied with a presentation of the views of Science, but often, as seen in his works, he speaks theologically. He sets down the necessary theological presuppositions. Christian cosmology, something that differentiates Christian cosmology from any other kind of cosmology.
The first theological principle is that there is a difference between the Creator and creation, between the uncreated God and created nature. When interpreting the phrase «In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth» he makes some excellent observations.
Creation has a precise origin; i.e. it was created at a precise time and, indeed, was the result of a creative principle, God. He speaks about a «principle of good order of visible things.» [ 18 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#18) Besides the world was «not created spontaneously» [ 19 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#19) Thus he talks of a precise origin «so that some will not think that it is without a beginning.» [ 20 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#20) The view that Creation has an exact origin leads us to the conclusion that visible things do have a cause. «Do not imagine, O man! that the visible is without a beginning.» [ 21 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#21) Moreover, this infers that creation has a precise end. «If there is a beginning in time, do not doubt of the end.»[ 22 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#22)
The view that the world has an origin leads us to seek out what the origin of the world is. The creative origin of the world is God Who is without beginning. «If then the world has a beginning, and if it has been created, ask who gave it this beginning, and who was the Creator.» [ 23 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#23) Indeed, God the Creator of the World is «fortunate nature, abundant goodness, the beloved of all endowed with reason, the most desirable beauty, the origin of beings, the source of life, the noetic light, unapproachable wisdom...» [ 24 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#24) However, for man to know God he must purify his flesh from passions. [ 25 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#25)
Hence, we see here that St. Basil makes the clear distinction between uncreated and created, between that which is without beginning and that which has a beginning, between God and the world. This is very important, so that there will be no confusion between the Creator and the creation.
The second theological principle is that the world was created from nothing, i.e. not from material that did exist. That God created the world from nothing, means that he did not create it from preexisting ideas, nor from pre-existing material. This position shakes all pagan cosmological principles; that is to say, it shakes the foundations of classical Metaphysics.
St. Basil says that all skills and arts are subsequent to matter, and were introduced into life for our needs. God, however, before making the visible things «having formed in His mind (nous) and determining to bring non-beings into genesis, in the same way He conceived of the world as it ought to be.» With this aim he created matter, fire, water and air and united these dissimilar things in an indissoluble bond of fellowship in one communion and harmony. [ 26 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#26) He adheres to this point in his other talks. «Everything was brought from non-being into being at the command of God.» [ 27 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#27)
The third theological principle is that God manages the world with his uncreated energies. In other words, God did not just lay down a few natural laws and then abandon the world to its fate, but he manages it personally. This is important because it shows that the energies of God exist throughout creation, but, of course, creation can not partake of the essence of God.
The way in which God-beholding Moses presents the creation of the world, and the way in which St. Basil the Great interprets it, show the creative intervention of God through His energies. In interpreting the verse «And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,» [ 28 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#28) he says that God with His Word warmed and quickened the nature of the water, just like a bird hatches its eggs. Interpreting the Psalm «I bear up the pillars of it» (Ps. 75:3/74:4 Sept.) he says that this means the cohesive power of the earth, i.e. the power that holds the earth and, of course, that means that all is held «by the power of the Creator.» [ 29 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#29)
Not only was everything created by the uncreated energy of God but also everything is administered by the power of God. God's voice then, saying «Let the earth bring forth grass» shows that this command became a law of nature «that left to the earth the power to generate and be fruitful from then on.»[ 30 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#30) St. Basil gives such great importance to the teaching that the energy of God exists throughout creation, so that he believes that the commandment of God fills everything and even reaches to the smallest details, since even «a fish does not refute God's Law.»[ 31 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#31)
Interpreting the expression «Let the earth bring forth each living soul (Septuagint) after its kind» he objects to the Manichaeans who believed that the soul existed throughout the earth and taught that this living soul was the divine word which constituted the nature of things made. [ 32 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#32)
The fourth theological principle set forth by St. Basil is that studying the world, creation, is not self-serving. Since, however, the world was created by God and is sustained by his uncreated energy, it is necessary for man to lift up his mind from the visible to the invisible, from creation to the Creator. In one of his homilies he says that God gave us intelligence so that «from the smallest objects of creation we may learn the great wisdom of the artisan.» [ 33 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#33) Illumination from God is sought, so that from what we see we may apprehend the invisible, and from the greatness of the beauty of creation we may attain a suitable perception of the Creator. [ 34 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#34) Thus, through creation we can gain a sense of God's grandeur. If creation is idolized, i.e. if our mind goes no further than the admiration of created things, then that constitutes making creation into God, it means idolatry.
The fifth theological principle. When St. Basil the Great studies the various phenomena that occur in nature, even the behavior of various kinds of animals, birds and insects, he leads his thoughts to spiritual teachings which aim at benefiting man spiritually. For example, looking at the cases of the hedgehog and the ant, who take the trouble to do different tasks which will be of benefit during difficult times, he says that this teaches man to provide for the future. «So that we also should not attach ourselves to this present life, but give all our attention to the age that is to come.» Therefore, living within time, we prepare for the eternal reward. With this teaching it becomes apparent that the saints do not confine their life within history, but they also extend it to eschatology or, to be precise, we should say that they let eschatology regulate history.
In general, we should note that St. Basil interprets the creation of the world mainly on the basis of the revelatory teaching of Moses and of his own tradition of interpretation, which is a fruit of his own experience. However, he also uses examples from pagan philosophers, and indeed sometimes he accepts these examples as they were formulated, sometimes giving them a different (wider) interpretation and sometimes rejecting them. This does not happen arbitrarily but on the basis of the theological principles, which we outlined above and which refer to the ontology of nature, i.e., to the One who is nature's creator, and to how he has created and sustained the world. He uses his basic theological principles on these matters without fail. In addition, he accepts everything that is related to scientific matters, provided that it does not disturb these principles. As we saw above, he is prepared to accept certain opinions of that time, according to which the earth produces frogs and cicadas. However, he gives them a theological interpretation in saying that they are not produced by the earth acting spontaneously on its own, but by the energy of God which is in earth, since the creation. This tactic of St. Basil indicates the way which should be followed today in relation to contemporary scientific matters.Part 4 to follow.

[Rostislav]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rostislav' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Part 4 and final in the series on the differences between the sciences and theology.

4. A CONTEMPORARY EXAMPLE FROM THE FIELD OF GENETICS.
The way in which Orthodox Theology should operate, how it should judge Science and how it should interpose its own voice, can be seen from the examination of the case of cloning. I would like to continue with a brief account, to show how a scientist and a theologian operate in this case.

It is well known that when we talk about cloning, in reality we refer to the transplantation of genetic material (DNA) from a cell to an ovary that has already had its own genetic material removed. This new material is then implanted into a third organism. It is a new discovery of scientific research that began with irrational animal and is intended to continue with rational animals endowed with souls, that is, to be introduced to human beings. It is a discovery that has terrorized many theologians, but it has also made scientists arrogant, filled with hubris, in the original Greek sense of the word.

The reaction to this new method of producing live organisms, especially of human beings, is varied. A theologian may moralize and an "atheist" may theologize. I am of the opinion that we theologians are given this opportunity to avoid moralizing and to face such cases theologically as the Holy Fathers of the Church did.

For example, I can mention that I read texts by «theologians» who in facing the challenge of contemporary Science on the matter of genetics and especially cloning, restrict the discussion solely to the subject of normative rules that must be put to scientists when they approach such a serious matter. There is no doubt, of course, that theologians must also do that; they must make scientists aware of their responsibilities. But that can be also done by scientists who today do not necessarily come from the «domain» of the Church, yet talk of «ethical-normative» rules, which must be placed within research, so that we do not end up with the birth of monstrosities and indeed with fascist and racist mentalities.

Moreover, while there are theologians and clerics who moralize, there are also intellectuals and thinkers who theologize. One such example is the famous Italian philosopher Umberto Eco, and it appears in an article of his in the Italian periodical L' Espresso with the title: «A crazy scientist has decided to clone me.» I will cite certain opinions of this great contemporary philosopher, since they are expressive, and show how one can theologize and philosophize on this matter.

Eco writes: «A human being is not just its genes, but something much greater. Upbringing, education, social and cultural environment all play a tremendous role.» Referring to the hypothesis that some crazy scientist has decided to create his likeness he writes: «It would have my hair, my eyes, the same tendencies toward sickness, but Umberto the second will have grown up on a farm in the Mid-West. I, on the other hand, grew up in a middle-class family, in a provincial Italian city in the thirties and forties. I had a Catholic upbringing in fascist Italy, and saw television for the first time when I was twenty years old. What will Umberto the second be like me at my age? Certainly something different from me.» Having emphasized that cloning signifies a turn in Science and ethics, he points out that the human race must oppose «the diligent attempts of scientific fantasy, which is ruled by a naive materialistic determinism, according to which man's fate is determined exclusively by his genetic inheritance ... As if upbringing, the environment, the misfortunes of probability, the caresses and the slaps from parents bore no relation at all.» [ 35 ] (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#35)

In such opinions one sees an attempt to escape from the moral and deontological canons of behavior, which certain theologians have shut themselves into, in their attempt to say something about Science's new achievement.

In continuing, I would like to present seven theological positions on the subject of the prospect of human cloning.

1. Man, according to Orthodox teaching, is a psychosomatic being and, of course, he is formed according to the image and likeness of God. He is clearly distinct from animals, because he has a soul according to essence and according to energy. This means that the human being can in no way whatsoever be considered as a «laboratory rat» nor as a breathing factory of living organs ready for transplantation for the sake, indeed, of commercial gain. In such cases the pinnacle of creation, the recapitulation of the intelligent (noetic) and sensitive world, is turned into a living accessory, a manifestation of the theory that the human being is a «tool with a soul!»

2. Man is a creature, and, thus, is defined as created, whereas God is uncreated. There is a tremendous difference between created and uncreated. It means that God creates out of non-being out of non-existent material, while man can create something out of existing material that has already been created by God. Thus, even if there are scientists who would proceed to clone humans, with frightening results, they cannot be identified with God, for the precise reason that they will be working with already existent genetic material, and they would not create something out of non-being.

3. According to the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the Church, God's life-creating energy can be found within the whole of creation, and, we could even add, in cells and in DNA too. A wealth of information regarding this truth can be found in both St. Basil the Great's Homilies on the Hexameron, as well as in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Therefore, whatever happens within creation, even when man interferes in an arrogant manner, it happens with the approval or the concession of the will of God.

4. In the Orthodox Church we talk about man as a person. This means that he has uniqueness, freedom and love. The term person refers to man being according to God's likeness and image, and of course, is extended to the whole being. With cloning it is possible to form externally similar people, who will have the same kinds of reaction on certain points, something we can see in sibling twins. Yet we are unable to abolish the person - the hypostatic other-ness of a particular human being - with his own special mode of love and freedom. Each human being has a distinctive hypostatic mark, a variety of degrees of love, even up to self-sacrifice, as well as the ability to express itself in freedom positively or negatively.

5. Genetic Science, and of course, human cloning cannot free man from the mortality with which he is born. Science may cure certain hereditary diseases and can extend life, but it cannot help man overcome death. Man's basic problem, however, is not the extension of biological life, nor is it the delaying of death, but it is overcoming death. That is the work of Orthodox Theology.

6. These contemporary challenges give us the opportunity to determine exactly what life is and exactly what death is. It is a fact that man is greatly troubled by this existential question. However many similarities may exist, bodily, psychologically and so on, however many transplants take place, man will still feel the unconquerable need to answer these questions. Scientists cannot give exact answers. And even if they try to do so, even then their answers will be incomplete. Man asks, «Why was I born? Why did they give birth to me without asking?» This problem will become even greater when he gets informed that he was created by cloning and without the loving care of a mother and father. In addition man is concerned with the question of what is the point of his existence, why does he exist. The greatest question is found within the framework of death. Many young people ask, «Why should death exist? Why do my loved ones die? Where do they go after death? Why should we come into life and then after a short while disappear, if there is no life after death? And if life does exist after death, then why should I die and where do I go to?» Orthodox Theology answers these questions whereas Science cannot give any answers.

7. Even if a human being were to be cloned, it will still he created, and would be endowed with a precise origin, corruptibility and freedom, which will not necessarily function positively as happens with uncreated nature, but will also function negatively, and it will have a biological end. It could of course, as something created, also have an end to its very existence, but that does not happen because God wants it to be immortal by grace. Within the Church however, we talk about another form of «cloning» which Science cannot give to man. With the incarnation of Christ, that which was created was united with that which was uncreated. Thus, each human being has been given the possibility of acquiring experience of the union by Grace of the created nature with the uncreated energy of God in Christ Jesus. The Saints acquired this experience, thus becoming uncreated and immortal by Grace. The Uncreated and Immortal was «transplanted» into them, and they gained experience of immortal life even from this biological life. The problem, then, is not bodily or genetic transplantation, but the «transplantation» of God within our hypostasis/person. It is such experience that gives meaning to man's life. Therefore, contemporary Science, and indeed genetics, gives us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the eternal questions which have concerned the human spirit, from ancient Greek philosophy until today; questions which were answered by the incarnation of Christ. We must look at anthropological problems through Theology, Divine Economy, Soteriology and Eschatology. It is an opportunity for us to guide man's search for the deeper and higher things of life.

The subject of the Orthodox Theology's encounter with Science is large enough and cannot be answered within the time limits of a lecture. Here we simply presented some problems. The fact remains that we must definitely set the boundaries between Science and Orthodox Theology. The scientists should not approach theological and existential questions using scientific methodology, because they will bring tremendous disappointment to man who is searching for something different. Neither should theologians approach scientific reality, leaving behind the higher things of spiritual life. It is impossible for the theological and existential message to be secularized and brought into society. Science answers the question of what the world we see is. Theology answers the question of who the Creator of the world is. Science researches the subject of the behavior and function of created things.

Theology sees the energy of God that --------(missing word page 146) the world. Science tries to heal the sicknesses that make man suffer. Theology helps man transcend his creatureliness and mortality. Science answers the question of how beings and created things were made and created. Theology answers the question of what is the aim and end of creation. Anyway, in the Orthodox Church we look for «new heavens and a new earth» (II Peter 3:13). Let Science occupy itself with the aged earth and the aged heaven. We, as theologians and clerics, look for that «blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ» (Titus 2:13).

http://www.parembasis.gr/im/z_gif.gif

NOTES
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r1) [ 1 ] BBC News - Wednesday January 7th, 1998 -reported in Greek in the «Eleutherotypia» Newspaper January 8th, 1998.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r2) [ 2 ] See the Greek Magazine Diabasi (=Passage), Nov.-Dec. 1997, pp. 5-7.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r3) [ 3 ] Translated from the original Greek text published in Gregory Palamas: Works Vol. 2, in the series Ellenes Pateres tes Ekklesias, Thessaloniki 1987, p. 268.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r4) [ 4 ] ibid. p. 270.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r5) [ 5 ] ibid. p. 272.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r6) [ 6 ] ibid.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r7) [ 7 ] See Nikos Matsoukas: «The double methodology of Gregory Palamas,» in Greek, in the volume Papers of the Theological Conference in honor and memory of our Father among the Saints Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, published by the Sacred Metropolis of Thessaloniki 1986, pp. 75 onwards. [ in Greek]
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r8) [ 8 ] John Romanides: Romiosyni, Published by Poumaras, Thessaloniki 1975, pp. [ in Greek ]
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r9) [ 9 ] See Panagiotis Christou, O Megas Basileios, Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki 1978, pp. 22-23.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r10) [ 10 ] Translated from the original Greek text of Basil the Great, Homilies on the Hexameron, published in the series Ellenes Pateres tes Ekklesias, Vol. 4, p. 28, footnote 1.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r11) [ 11 ] Ibid.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r12) [ 12 ] Ibid.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r13) [ 13 ] Ibid. pp. 338-340.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r14) [ 14 ] Ibid. p. 240.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r15) [ 15 ] Ibid.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r16) [ 16 ] Ibid. p. 344.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r17) [ 17 ] Ibid. pp. 112 ff.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r18) [ 18 ] Ibid. p. 24.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r19) [ 19 ] Ibid.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r20) [ 20 ] Ibid. p. 30.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r21) [ 21 ] Ibid. p. 32.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r22) [ 22 ] Ibid. p. 34.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r23) [ 23 ] Ibid. p. 30.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r24) [ 24 ] Ibid. p. 32.
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r25) [ 25 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r26) [ 26 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r27) [ 27 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r28) [ 28 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r29) [ 29 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r30) [ 30 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r31) [ 31 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r32) [ 32 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r33) [ 33 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r34) [ 34 ] S o o n
Return (http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm#r35) [ 35 ] S o o n

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

St Gregory of Sinai speaks on created things and Holy Scripture:

If your speech is full of wisdom and you meditate on understanding in your heart (cf. Ps. 49:3), you will disclose in created things the presence of the divine Logos, the substantive Wisdom of God the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 1:24); for in created things you will perceive the outward expression of the archetypes that characterize them, and thus through your active living intelligence you will speak wisdom that derives from the divine Wisdom. And because your heart will he illuminated by the power of the transfiguring understanding on which you meditate in your spirit, you will be able through this understanding to instruct and illuminate those who listen with faith.

Today’s great enemy of truth, drawing men to perdition, is delusion. As a result of this delusion, tenebrous ignorance rules the souls of all those sunk in lethargy and alienates them from God. Such people are as if unaware that there exists a God who gives us rebirth and illumination, or they assume that we can believe in Him and know Him only in a theoretical way and not through our actions, or else they imagine that He has revealed Himself only to the people of former times and not to us also; and they pretend that the scriptural texts about God are applicable only to the original authors, or to others, hut not to themselves. Thus they blaspheme the teaching about God, since they repudiate true knowledge inspired by devotion to God, and read the Scriptures only in a literal, not to say Judaic, manner; denying the possibility that man even in this life can be resurrected through the resurrection of his soul, they choose to remain in the grave of ignorance. Delusion consists of three passions: lack of faith, guile and sloth. These generate and support each other: lack of faith sharpens the wits of guile, and guile goes hand in hand with sloth, which expresses itself outwardly in laziness. Or conversely, sloth may beget guile — did not the Lord say, ‘You cunning and lazy servant’ (Mat. 25:26)? — and guile mothers lack of faith. For if you are full of guile you lack faith, and if you lack faith you stand in no awe of God. From such lack of Faith comes sloth, which begets contempt; and when you are full of Contempt you scorn all goodness and practise every kind of wickedness.

Complete dogmatic orthodoxy consists in a true doctrine about God and an unerring spiritual knowledge of created things. If you are orthodox in this way you should glorify God thus: Glory to Thee, Christ our God, glory to Thee, because for our sake Thou, the divine Logos who transcends all things, becamest man. Great is the mystery of Thine incarnation, Saviour: glory to Thee.

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

The following is an excellent paper on the topic below. It was written in Russian and translated into English.


Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist


S.V. Bufeev
Translation from Russian by Dr. Eugene Selensky, evgeny@dcs.gla.ac.uk. Citations from the Bible are translated using the King James Version; all the rest citations (except the Lenten troparion of the sixths hour, for which the original has been found in English) are translated from Russian. Therefore the translations may considerably differ from the known sources in English.



Flee from delirious ideas of philosophers who are not ashamed to say that their soul and a dog's soul are alike and that they were fish.
St Basil the Great


What is the Orthodox attitude towards natural science? This question does not have at the moment a rigorous and unambiguous answer. The point is not so much in a detailed explanation of its various aspects as in the possibility of a coherent Orthodox view of the key issues of natural science. Is it really possible to reconcile Orthodox dogmas and scientific knowledge? E.g., Can one combine the Biblical story of creation and the Christian understanding of its purpose with the contemporary cosmogonic theory of the "big bang" and the eventual evolutionary development of the universe, or with the concept of the origin of life based on destruction (mutations) and death (natural selection)?

Is Orthodox education at all compatible with such a materialistic perspective? Some Christian apologetic publications are aimed at finding a positive answer. However attractive such an answer is, it is still deceptive, since it conveys the idea that it is possible to come to the Divine Truth without believing in Christ, with the help of the scientific reasoning of the human mind alone. But whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23).

Without God neither science nor any other concept of human thought leads to the Truth, that no flesh should glory in the presence of God. (1 Cor 1:29). The Saviour Himself has said: "I receive not testimony from man" (Jn 5:34); "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (Jn 18:37); "He that is not with me is against me" (Mat. 12:30).

St Theophanus the Recluse wrote: "The positive teaching of the Church reveals whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- - reject. One can do it without further deliberations" [1]. "Science goes forward quickly, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path and into deception. Do not follow them" [2].

"Believers have the right to measure the material concepts with spiritual ones, when materialists get into the realm of the spiritual without the slightest of scruples... We have wisdom by our side, while they have foolishness. Material things can be neither the cause nor the effect. They are just the means and field of activity by which spiritual powers act through the spiritual cause of all things, the Creator." [1].

To come to a true understanding of God's creation one should not project, conforming to this materialistic age (Rom 12:2), the Revealed Truth onto scientific achievements, since in the light of Divine Revelation, the Truth itself is given to us in its entirety and simplicity to the extent that God wills. On the contrary, one should view science from the divine, spiritual viewpoint according to St Basil the Great, "exploring the world and studying the universe not based on worldly wisdom, but in the way God teaches His servant, speaking to him openly and not in hidden meanings. (Num 12:8)" [3].

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

WHY AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CANNOT BE AN EVOLUTIONIST

The cornerstone of the Orthodox attitude to science is the concept of Creation - the origin of the universe, life and man. From the Christian perspective, the laws governing the world today and before the fall are different in principle, as everything created by God in the beginning was perfect and immortal. St Ignatius writes: "Today the earth is quite different in our eyes. We do not know it in its saintly virginal state; we know it in its corrupt and condemned state, we know it already bound to be burnt; it was designed for eternity" [4].

The reconciliation of today's cosmogonic hypotheses with Moses' story of the Six Days of creation, is a great temptation for contemporary scientists newly converted into Orthodoxy. The origin of the ‘logical rambling’ of all these hypotheses is in their attempt to describe the appearance and development of the world with the aid of the laws of a pre-existing universe. Creation is in principle a religious concept, but not a scientific one. On the contrary, the religiousness of this scientific concept is in its atheistic nature (in the faith of no-God).

In 1885 N. Y. Danilevsky wrote that "the theory of evolution is not so much a biological doctrine as it is a philosophical one; a dome on the building of mechanical materialism, by which it is only possible to explain its fantastic success without being related to real scientific achievements" [5]. Here is the reason why the theory of evolution, despite its scientific infertility, has remained hitherto an almost unrivalled concept: it satisfies the necessity of having a materialistic explanation of all things, "scientifically" proving natural origin of all forms of life, man included. By doing so, the theory of evolution is getting too far beyond the limits of science - into the realm of faith – and for the sake of science it demands the denial of God, bearing all the responsibility for such mindlessness: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (Ps 13:1, Ps 53:1, Rev 16:9).

One can in many ways disprove scientifically the inconsistency of the theory of evolution - either Darwinian or its contemporary synthetic counterpart or any modification of those including ones having theistic forms. However, any scientific argument is conditional. The theory of evolution is not a scientific theory in the strict sense. It is a world perspective, a perception, a religious (namely, pagan) concept of the origin of the world that penetrates all of today's science, placing as its foundation, the concept that the world has in itself a mechanism for its own development. Self-perfection having been active for billions of years.

The Christian understanding of the world states however that from the moment Adam fell, the world has been bound to be driven by involution - degeneration, whereas all the creative force comes from the Lord, not from within the world. If one wants to speak of evolution, let them speak of the voluntary spiritual development on a personal basis in terms of acquiring the fullness of the image of God rather than the biological evolution of the Homo sapiens species. In this sense, the evolution of man is subdued not by the natural laws but by the supernatural law of salvation.

An evolutionary perspective of the world's history that interprets it as a process of perpetual striving for perfection of all forms of life driving the "arrow" of development from simplest organisms towards man is incompatible with the Orthodox understanding expressed by the Holy Fathers of the Church. The starting point of the Christian view is that man was placed on top, with God-given dignity but succumbing to the temptation of the independent evolutionary development, he fell trying to acquire an even higher position and caused all creation to fall from grace along with him. The attitude towards evolutionism is not an abstract philosophical or a special scientific question. It is a spiritual issue, an issue concerning faith and eternal salvation - it deals with the origin, existence and consequently the end of the world. This issue forms the mindset of an individual, his attitude towards life, and his moral values.

The principal point of disagreement of evolutionism and Christianity is the question of the origin of living organisms. Apostle Paul admonished us not to deliver teachings different from his, nor did he let us listen to the endless fables at variance with God's lessons of faith (1Tim. 1:3, 4). All the scientific, religious and philosophical existential teachings stemming from outside The Old Testament and Christian Revelation describe endless births and multilateral transformations of things based on the thesis that nothing can appear from nothing else.

The world is understood either in terms of only transformations of material substance coming up with more complex forms from simpler ones or of emanation (proceeding from) the Deity or, finally, of identification of the world with the Deity. The difference is only in the fact that in the first case physical evolution is meant; in the second, the appearance of new forms is defined by the spiritual state of the object undergoing a series of reincarnations. However, in both cases, at the foundation lies the evolutionist (heathen) idea of the appearance of new entities from the old ones.

Evolutionists, like all other pagans, are trying to state that cosmos originates from primitive chaos. About gods "performing" such a transformation of chaos into cosmos St Gregory Palamas said: "A god that does not create from nothingness, a god that did not exist before matter… is not a god. I'll tell you something adding to the words of the Prophet: The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens (Jer 10:11) as well as those theologians who invented them" [6]. L. A. Òykhomirov notes: "The concept of creation could only come from the Revelation of the One Who stands beyond the laws of matter and Who Himself created it.

For the human mind, which never observed such a thing and which only knows birth, evolution and transformation of existing things, the idea of coming into being from nothing is absurd. It could not have occurred to anyone and is at variance with our knowledge and comprehension." [7]. In its essence, Christian Revelation is counter-evolutionary. This does not rule out the possibility of natural development of species, within certain limits (within biological types). This only means that new entities (in their own kind) have an entirely different mechanism for coming into being - by the act of creation from nothing – this is inconceivable to our mind because of its supernatural and divine origin. This mechanism sets characteristics, definitive and unchangeable properties transferred genetically from ancestors to descendents. The teaching about the Divine act of creation of everything from nothing is an integral part of the whole Christian doctrine. St Athanasius teaches that "each created thing in its kind, in its entity, remains as it was created" [3].

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

WHY AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CANNOT BE AN EVOLUTIONIST

The idea that this life on earth is a preparation for life eternal, which first appeared in the Old Testament Revelation and then was delivered in its fullness by the Saviour, distinguishes in principle the Christian world perspective from all the rest of religious views and teachings that are always carrying elements of evolution. Nonetheless, in all times (both pre-Christian and Christian) there have been attempts to synthesize Revelation with a human understanding of the world as a wholesome Gnostic or syncretic doctrine.

Conforming to contemporary science, the theory of evolution of biological species has evolved itself from the simple Darwinism to more complex theories still preserving the key idea of development from lower forms towards higher forms of organization. And here again we see "mediocre theologians", heirs of Gnosticism and supporters of theistic, "Christian" (quotes mine, E.S.) or teleological evolutionism who dare speak of natural appearance and development of life in religious terms. - It is better for them not to know the way of truth than knowing it, to come away from the holy commandment given to them. For it has happened to them according to the parable: a dog coming back to its vomit and a washed pig to the dirt (2 Pet 1:20,21). As Fr Seraphim (Rose) says, "any attempt to combine evolutionism with Christianity bears witness of not only a low theological background of an individual but also of an almost complete loss of common sense." [8].

It should be stressed once more that, according to any evolutionary concept be it with or without Christian terminology and religious semblance, the origin and driving force of the world is seen not in God but in the world itself, in its own natural mechanisms. In the foundation of the evolutionary perspective lies the so-called principle of uniformity, which says that the laws of nature remain as they were perpetually.

The idea of Christian evolutionism is based on speculatively stretching the concept of spiritual evolution of an individual towards the perfect embodiment of the image of God (that is, the inconceivable phenomenon of salvation of the faithful or, in other words, the evolution of the image of God into His likeness) onto the natural development of creation. While arguing so, Christian evolutionists leave out of the account, all the legacy of the Fathers of the Church who left for us means to profound contemplation on the Book of Genesis. They ignore that the spiritual evolution is concerned with spiritual matters such as humility and repentance in falling short to fulfill God's commandments and, therefore, it is obviously irrelevant to speak in terms of "Christian mechanisms of evolution" relative to flora and fauna.

Christian evolutionism assumes a special, understandable only to the evolutionists themselves, explanation of the Holy Scriptures, which contradicts the Fathers of the Church. In the holy words of the Book of Genesis, according to these scientists, there are hidden mysteries of our being. The clue can only be granted to the chosen intellectuals enriched with the knowledge of contemporary natural science. A certain time ago Adam viewed the forbidden fruit as a symbol, which, once possessed, would give him control over his own existence. Today Christian evolutionists consider Adam a symbol… Such explanations of the Scriptures are the fruit of scientific intellectualism, the fruit of the mind affected by sin. Centuries ago, Gnostics were misled by the same idea.

Generally speaking, Christian evolutionism is a contemporary form of gnosticism and therefore cannot help being pagan. On the other hand, as is said above, the essence of heathenism is in the evolution of both visible and invisible nature. The illusion of evolutionism becomes possible when the spiritual guidance has been lost, when scientific hypotheses are accepted as absolute and treated as idols. Such a perverted thinking is stubborn and is not obedient to the Truth (Rom 1:28, Rom 2:8).

Really, evolution is not even a scientific truth (a fact, a law or an inference): its existence cannot be scientifically proved or disproved since it cannot be observed. Hence, according to the precise definition by Apostle Paul, evolution is a subject of faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1). In the non-Christian evolutionism, which denies the Revealed Truth, there is no danger for Christians: them that are without God judgeth (1Cor 5:13). However, when it comes under false pretences of Christianity, it becomes extremely dangerous and therefore it must be called a heresy.

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

WHY AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CANNOT BE AN EVOLUTIONIST

The reason why the theory of evolution has been considerably changed (as to acquiring religious including "Orthodox" forms) is related to today's shift from the exhausted rationalistic paradigm toward fuller idealistic concepts of the world that do not deny the existence of God absolutely. However, even a minor misinterpretation of a dogma leads to heresy and, consequently, to falling apart from the Truth. It is clear therefore why "saving" half-scientific mythology by "adding" it to the religious dogmas for the sake of "harmony between science and faith" (at the price of compromise on the part of faith) leads away from the true Christian teaching to the darkness of occultism and theosophy. An example of the above "convergence" of the theory of evolution and theology might be a new concept suggesting that apart from struggle for life, that is, enmity (which, by the way, a certain time ago justified the class struggle in the social world), a driving force for evolution can also be assistance. Philosophically, this is a form of dualism (no better than the materialism due to Darwin), since it states the independence of the two issues, the destructive and constructive. In the history of the Church this Gnostic concept expressed itself in the Manichean heresy.

While gaining momentum after separating from magic and having fully acquired materialistic grounds, natural science in attempts to understand the laws of life trespassed on the border between purely material and spiritual matters. However all kinds of spirituality which are not from the Holy Spirit are hopeless ugliness, a travesty of the Truth or a spiritual miscarriage. Therefore the process of transformation of secularized science into an occult para-science that we are observing nowadays is quite logical. The theory of evolution, which borrowed from the Bible the idea of a gradual accomplishment of the world, serves an excellent example of anti-Christian spirituality in science. Today the words of St Theophanus the Recluse of Vysha sound ever more to the point: "In our days the Russians start deviating from faith: some of them are completely losing it falling into disbelief, others are leaving for Protestantism, yet others are surreptitiously concocting their own beliefs where they think to combine spiritism and geological nonsense with Divine Revelation. Evil is growing: false belief and disbelief are raising their heads, while faith and Orthodoxy are weakening.

Will we stop? Will we finally have the same as the French, for example, or others … The West has grown depraved. It depraved itself: instead of the Gospel they started learning from the heathens and imitate them - and ended up in depravity. We are going to have the same: we started learning from the West that had left Christ and we have acquired the spirit of the West. In the end, like the West we will deny the true Christianity. However, there is nothing here that inevitably influences our free choice: if we want, we can chase away the western darkness; if we don't, we'll disappear in it" [9].

Let us now show in more detail why the evolutionary perspective is incompatible with the Orthodox doctrine. Among the numerous properties of God it has become traditional in patristic literature to group the following ones (the so-called cataphatic [10] properties, i.e. those properties that state positive qualities of God) together. As will be shown below, these qualities are denied by evolutionists.

Omnipotence. Evolutionism, being unable to prove that evolution takes place within observable time intervals, for the sake of plausibility of its arguments asserts that the timescale of the world's history amounts to millions of years. This diminishes God's omnipotence and capability of creating the world in six days only by His Word (Gen. 1:1-31, Ps 32:9, Ps 148:5, Ps 113:11, Ps 118:90, Luk 1:37). It should be noted here that Christian evolutionists, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God (Mat 22:29), having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart (Eph 4:17-18), mistakenly lay in the foundation of their reasoning about the length of the six days of creation the verse in the Bible saying that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Pet 3:8). This saying by the Holy Apostle Peter should be interpreted as something pertaining to the Lord. As St John The Chrysostom argues, it should be treated as a metaphor aimed at clarifying that God is beyond time, that is, eternal.

Evolutionists view the days of creation as "intervals of indefinite length", referring to the ambiguity of the Jewish word "yohm". This understanding is wrong. The Holy Fathers of the Eastern Church pointed that these days were equal in length to our usual days, that is, they lasted 24 hours each. E.g., St Ephrem the Syrian writes: "Although both light and clouds have been created instantaneously, the day-half and the night-half of the first day lasted twelve hours each" [40].

The Lord Himself witnessed the literary sense of the days of creation as the days of the week: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy… For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it (Ex 20:8,11)". The Orthodox Liturgical tradition also interprets the days of creation to be equal to usual days [10]. In particular, in the Church services creation and redemption are juxtaposed. E.g., the fall took place on Friday afternoon (Gen 3:9), at the same time on Friday the Saviour was crucified on the Cross: "O Thou Who on the sixth day and hour hast nailed to the Cross the sin that Adam dared to commit in Paradise: tear up the record of our trespasses, O Christ our God, and save us" (Lenten Troparion of the Sixth Hour).

It is important to note that all the Holy Fathers, who gave explanations to the Book of Genesis, unanimously stressed that the creative acts of the Lord were instantaneous. St Basil the Great says: "Let the earth bring forth… (Gen 1:11). At this short command in a moment there appeared a great nature and the artistic word, bringing forth limitless multitudes of plants more quickly than we reason" [3]. St Ambrose of Milan says: "He (Moses) did not anticipate a late and slow creation from combinations of atoms" but "wanted to express the unthinkable rate of the action" (see [11]).

St Athanasius the Great testifies: "All kinds of animals were created at once all together at the same command" [12]. St John of Kronshtadt states: "He says and His word instantly becomes multiple images and versatility of forms" [13]. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) writes: " the "God" of "Christian evolution" is a god who is "not strong enough to accomplish all the work"; the reason itself why the teaching of evolution has been developed is to explain the universe based either on the idea that there is no God or that He is not able to create the world in six days by His word alone.

Those who believe in the God worshiped by Orthodox Christians would never imagine evolution" [8]. King David asked: "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" (Ps 2:1) Why does then the weak mind of evolutionists-heathens rage being unable to accept by faith a very simple divine truth: And God said, Let there be… And there was!?

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

WHY AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CANNOT BE AN EVOLUTIONIST

Evolutionism does not admit that God created the world because of His goodness and in this world there was no corruption and death in the beginning: God did not create death (Pr 1:13), God created man incorrupt (Pr 2:23), death came into the world because of the envy of the devil (Pr 2:24), as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Rom 5:12). Everything that God made was very good (Gen 1:31) and this was so not according to our judgement but God's! The world created in six days was perfect. It was perfect not, of course, in the sense that this ruled out any further perfection. The utmost perfection will only be after the end of this age in the everlasting eighth day. But, undoubtedly, it was so because it did not have anything against or not pleasing God such as a shortcoming, vice or sin. Therefore in the newly created world there were no diseases, suffering, aging, corruption or death.

The opposite concept will inevitably lead to an absolute misinterpretation of the idea of God. Death came as a result of breaking the harmony in the relationship between God and man: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen 2:17). Death appeared only after the fall of man who was supposed to reign over all creation. So the creature itself came under the bondage of corruption… The whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (Rom 8:21-22). Having disobeyed God, man learned sin for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20). And sin brought forth death. As a matter of fact, death is a consequence, a result and the wages of sin (Rom 6:23); and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (Jam 1:15).

The sin committed by the first people, by concrete historical personalities who gave in to the tempter, was exactly that they tried to acquire knowledge independently of God to become perfect or "evolve" and be like gods, knowing good and evil (Gen 3:5). Man willfully separated himself from God, the Giver of life, breaking His life-creating commandment. In doing so he doomed himself and the rest of creation to die since the separation from God causes corruption according to the Prophet: but the way of the ungodly shall perish (Ps 1:6); they that are far from thee shall perish (Ps 73:27). On the contrary, according to evolutionists, death or "natural selection" is considered not a consequence of sin or a discord and lawlessness brought into the world from outside but a sort of "tribute to nature" or a necessary condition for new biological species to appear. This view implies that it pragmatically explains the purpose of the existence of creatures instead of accepting that they are self-sufficient and valuable as such.

Each living thing is then but a stage in the progressive development towards more advanced forms and is inevitably devoured and sacrificed by this inexorable development. In other words, it is not considered a creature with the purpose to exalt and glorify the goodness, power and wisdom of God: Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps: Fire, and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word: Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl (Ps 148:7, Ps 148:9-10).

The idea of the existence of death before the fall is especially blasphemous with respect to man himself as a person created by God according to His image and likeness and therefore immortal. The theory of evolution is a sacrilege therefore since it assumes the existence of ape (or even more primitive) ancestors of Adam putting a question about their redemption on the Cross and moreover limitlessly lengthening the genealogy of the Son of Man Himself (which in fact has 77 generations from Adam (Lk 3:23-38).

Alternatively this theory does not accept Adam as a historical person not only "disproving" his being saint but disproving the fact of his life and thus "killing" him. This reveals that it originates from the devil who was a murderer from the beginning (Jn 8:44). Rule 123 of the Council of Carthage states: "Whoever says that Adam, the first man created, was created mortal so that whether he had or had not sinned would have died anyway, that is, would have left his body not as in punishment for sin but due to the necessity of nature: let him be cursed (anathema)" [30]. It is important to realize that believing in the existence of death before Adam's fall destroys the grounds for the Christian understanding of the world. "Can one believe in Christ and doubt in the fall of the first people?" - asks St Hieromartyr Seraphim (Chichagov) and clarifies - "If the story of the fall was a legend, an imaginary beginning of the following events of the observable history of the world, there would be no necessity in redemption of humanity by the Son of God and the unity of the people and God would never be broken" [31].

The point here is not in the subtlety of explanation of the Bible but in the incompatibility of the Orthodox theology and evolution, of the faith in the necessity of our redemption by the incarnate Son of God Jesus Christ and the faith in the absence of reasons making such redemption necessary: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14-15); what communion has a wolf with a lamb? And a sinful with a righteous (Sir 13:21).

Wisdom. Evolutionism disregards the divine origin of life as it tries to explain it scientifically, with the earthly wisdom based on the distorted and fragmental rational knowledge. But God is not worshipped with men's hands (Acts 17: 25); the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God (1 Cor 3:19). For it is only God in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3) his understanding is infinite (Ps 146:5), and there is no searching of his understanding (Is 40:28). For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counselor? (Rom 11:34). No one is able to conceive His works (Sir 18:2).

Omniscience. The theory of evolution rejects God's all-knowing since it sees Him making laboratory experiments according to a manly limited scheme: learning slavishly by trial and error and from simpler things to more complex. But God, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty (Rev 1:8), knows everything of every creature not even born yet and did know before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) because He is beyond time: Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world (Acts 15:18); And in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them (Ps 139:16); but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him (Heb 4:13).

There is a good example of this [14]. An evolutionist must invent a contemporary airplane. He takes a steam train, removes an engine attaches wings to the engine and here it is, Mozhaysky's aircraft! The next step is to come up with an internal combustion engine and get the Wright Brothers’ plane. Then even in this model he has to do yet another degenerative mutation removing the second pair of wings to obtain a monoplane. Finally, the engine must mutate to become a jet engine. Well, it is roughly what the evolution of human ideas in aircraft building looked like. But is there a plane maker who, knowing beforehand the way the desired plane looks, will start making it from a steam train and Mozhaysky's plane?

Can anyone imagine that our Creator is such a ‘plane maker’, He Who is eternal and Who knows what is hidden, who knows everything before it comes into being?

Truth. Evolutionism tries to disprove that God is truthful and faithful, compelling one either to reject the Scriptures or to believe that the creation of the world and the life of man described by the prophet Moses in the book of Genesis, did not take place in history but is an allegorical story requiring additional analysis based on principles entirely hostile to Christianity. But we know that God is faithful and there is no lie in Him: "all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he (Dt 32:4), the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth (Ps 33:4); But the Lord is the true God (Jer 10:10, Jn 8:27), it is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18).

The Holy Fathers did not accept any allegorical understanding of the Bible including the Hexaemeron, on the contrary they emphasized the necessity to understand it "as it is written". St Basil the Great in his explanations of the Hexaemeron says: "When I hear about the grass, I think of the grass; as well as plants, fish, animals and cattle - all is understood according to its name. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ (Rom 1:16)" [3]. St John The Chrysostom: "Not to believe what is told in the Divine Scriptures but to invent something different is extremely dangerous for the one who dares to do it" [15].

Holiness. When we say that God is Holy, we emphasize that His nature is different from this world and therefore incomprehensible. Evolutionism, on the contrary, either rejects the supernatural and miraculous or does not make the distinction. But the Lord our God is Holy (Ps 99:9). It is the very meaning of our life to strive for holiness. Man, being God's image, is not only an earthly being but a heavenly being as well: he is given the spirit which sets him apart from the animal world. With the spirit man perceives God and acquires holiness.

The main reason why the theory of evolution is not consistent with the Orthodox thinking is, according to St Theophanus the Recluse, the former reduces the spirit-soul-and-body human constitution to the animal nature with just two parts, body and soul. He writes: "If we accept that the center of man's nature is spirit, the theory of Darwin comes crushing down by itself. In fact, when considering the origin of man, to say that it is solely the origin of his body is not sufficient. On the contrary, his origins as a spiritual entity in an animal body and soul should be emphasized" [16].

A person who does not have a spiritual life and denies the manifestation of spirit in himself, actually loses it and becomes like an animal. It should be noted that the antichrist, the man of lawlessness, will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped (2 Th 2,4), will win people's favour, as is said in the Apocalypse, in the image of a beast: The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him? (Rev. 13:3-4). The theory of evolution that likens man to a beast has already won people's favour and become a scientific version of the pagan cult of totem, the animal beginning.

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

WHY AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CANNOT BE AN EVOLUTIONIST




The main issue of anthropology is the reference frame in which to describe man. We can name a few layers of the hierarchical perception of the phenomenon of man. From the mechanical point of view, man is a system of joints and links. At the physicochemical level, a nonlinear open system able to organize and develop itself. Biologically, we are a living organism with a preprogrammed set of instincts. At the spiritual level, we are God's image. Therefore spiritual laws are important for us not to be a machine, a protein mass or an animal. The principle of action of these laws is different from the physical ones: the spiritual laws do not act by themselves but are given to be observed. Therefore they may be violated by the free will of man. God does not want to force these laws on us but He wants the will of His creation to freely come in accordance with His will. If this happens, His creature, man, becomes like God. On the other hand, every sin is contrary to God's will and leads to the destruction of man and the whole world and the separation from the Creator.



Therefore in natural sciences man should be viewed not from a fallen and seriously affected by sin personality's perspective, but bearing in mind those features and properties that distinguish us from the rest of creation and liken us to God - the ability to speak, think and love as well as our freedom, creativity, immortality, power and other qualities. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps 139:14)! All the personal properties acquire their true worth only in relation to God, in relation to our striving towards God's likeness. That is why when we view the nature of man we must overcome the ontological propensity to sin in our being. By contrast, viewing the man from within his fallen nature leads to ever more aberration. It is sufficient to remember the recent advances in gene engineering, the appearance of new bio-technologies such as fetal therapy, conception in vitro, cloning, xenotransplantology (transplantology across species) and the like.




Apart from the concept of man's nature, another very important issue is our own attitude towards nature, which has also been immensely "darwinised" in the present time. The notion of ecology itself is anti-Christian, because it misconstrues the core of the problem: the reason of the contemporary ecological crisis is seen by ecologists in the unwise industrial activities. That is, they exchange the true reason of the crisis for its manifestation, its consequence. The actual reason of all natural catastrophes, illnesses, sufferings and death is, however, our sin before God: Against thee, thee only, have I sinned (Ps 49:4). Man as such is not an obstacle to the existence of nature. Sin lead to the spreading of evil from man to the animal world and all creation: For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom 8:20-21).




St John The Chrysostom explains: "What does it mean: was made subject to vanity? - It was made corruptible. What for and why? - It is your fault, man. Because you got a deadly body subject to sufferings, the Earth has also been cursed" [17]. The Earth itself has been changed. "According to the Revelation, the Earth is irritated by the lawlessness which is done on it, - writes Deacon Daniel Sysoyev, - This happens not because our planet is a god or a personality (as occultists say), but because on the third day of creation divine not-made ideas were put in it which give the Earth fertility and control its being. They come from the inconceivable entity of God. This is why every crime and sin is inevitably reflected on our planet." [18].




Therefore the salvation, preservation and healing of nature is only possible after the healing of the master of this world, man, who being unworthy has lost his ability and power to govern it. The world was created for us, not the other way around. Every creature exists, according to the Holy Fathers, to serve man. And since the Lord sent the flood onto the ancient and depraved world, is it not clear that attempts to improve the ecological situation on Earth using only the rational scientific approach without thinking of the rebirth of man in Christ are futile? If he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly (2 Pet 2:4-6). The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut 29:29). This phrase shows that it is only the fulfillment of the law, a revealed thing that belongs to us, whereas the salvation of this world, a secret thing, is up to the Lord.




To create an earthly paradise is impossible. We cannot avoid the end of the world and no one is able to save it: the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men (2 Pet 3:7).




The transfiguration of man and the world


is only possible by acquiring God's grace and overcoming our fallen nature: The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished (2 Pet 2:9); the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish (Ps 1:6).



References (all in Russian)



1. St Feofan Zatvornik, Nastavleniya v duhovnoi zhisni. - Pskov-Pechery Monastery of Holy Dormition: Mosc. Patriarchate Publ., 1994.



2. St Feofan Zatvornik, Sozertsanie I razmyshlenie. - Moscow, Pravilo very, 1998.



3. St Vasily Vyeliky. Byesedy na Knigu Bytiya, Tvorenia. - Ìoscow, Palomnik, 1993. - vol.1.


5. N.Ya.Danilevsky, Darwinism, A critical study. - St Petersburgh., 1885.



6. St Grigiry Palama. V zaschitu svyaschenno-bezmolvstvuyuschikh. - Moscow, Kanon, 1995.



7. L.A.Tikhomirov, Religiozno-philosophskie osnovy istorii. - Moscow, "Moskva" Magazin, 1998.



8. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), Poslanie k A.Kalomirosu, Russki Pastyr. ¹22-23, 1995.



9. Rossia pered vtorym proshestviem, S.Fomin (Ed.), Sviyato-Troitskaya Sergiyeva Lavra, 1993.



10. Archimandrite Alipy (Kastalsky-Borozdin), Apchimandrite Isaiah (Belov), Dogmaticheskoe bogoslovie, Sviyato-Troitskaya Sergiyeva Lavra, 1995.



11. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), Pravoslavnoye svyatootecheskoye ponimanie Knigi Bytia, Moscow, Rossiyskoye Otdelenie Valaamskogo Obschestva Ameriki, 1998.



12. St Aphanasy Vyeliky, Tvorenya, Sergiyev Posad, 1994.



13. St Ioann Kronshtandtsky, Moya zhisn vo Hriste, Moscow, Blagovest, 1998, vol.1-2.



14. Priest Timophey, Dvye kosmogonii, Evolutsionnaya teoria v svete svyatootecheskogo uchenia i argumentov creatsionnoy nauki, Moscow, Palomnik, 1999.



15. St Ioann Zlatoust, Byesedy na Knigu Bytiya , Tvorenia, Moscow, Zlatoust, 1994, vol. 4., book 1.



16. St Feofan Zatvornik, Mudrye soviety, Moscow, Pravilo vyery, 1998.



17. Deacon Daniil Sysoyev, Lyetopis nachala, Sretensky Monastery.




18. St Ioann Zlatoust, Byesedy na poslanie k rimlyanam, Tvorenia, Moscow, Zlatoust, 1994, vol.9, book 2.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Perhaps I'm interpreting the term "Patristic" too loosely, then. "Patristic", to me, means "finding its origin in the writings of the Fathers," and there are several things located here and there in the writings of the Fathers that don't jibe with the "consensus patrum" (as I've heard it called at least once). For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in volume 2 of Against Heresies that Christ died around the age of fifty, not thirty-three. I'd call that "Patristic", but I wouldn't call it correct.

Now, if by "Patristic" it is meant, "whatever is contained in the 'consensus patrum'," then we certainly have a definition which is narrow enough to exclude the occasional anomalies like the example above, but unfortunately we also have a definition that makes it almost impossible to rule anything "in" or "out" of the faith save for what either clearly agrees with or clearly contradicts the Creeds of the Church. And if all we are strictly bound to believe are the Creeds of the Church, then an overwhelming majority of Orthodox tradition has suddenly become "up for grabs".

(I wonder if anyone has gone through the trouble of collecting the necessary information to say, "Here are all the pronouncements of the Church Councils down through history, to which all Orthodox are obligated to consent," and form a "primer" of sorts out of this information for distribution to the faithful.)

This is why I have turned the question into something more personal and less declaratory concerning the faith as a whole -- i.e., "Is this what you believe and/or teach?"

This is a very important discussion in its own light.

But in terms of this thread the question I was responding to was what do the priests here think of the talk by Fr Damascene.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M. Partyka]

Theology, as the Greek origin of the word suggests, is concerned with God - what God is and how one can attain communion with Him - whereas Science is concerned with the created world and is interested mainly in the use of the world....In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, we see that the content of Theology is one thing and that of Science another.Isn't this an outright false statement? Granted, science is not equipped to comment on anything but the created world, but theology does indeed make statements about the created world, and this can bring it squarely into conflict with science.

[M. Partyka]

The theologian is God-inspired regarding God, not however regarding natural phenomena. «The beholder of God is God-inspired and speaks steadfastly about God and leads straight towards God, but he is not infallible in matters concerning the applied and other Sciences, regarding which he can only know as much as his contemporary scientists.»...Likewise, the scientist is also a specialist and is knowledgeable of natural phenomena. When, however, he departs from his strict scientific method and confuses his findings about the nature of the world with his views about God, then he says «irresponsible things.»...Both are authentic when they work within their bounds, but when they depart from them and enter each other's sphere without the necessary presuppositions and rules that presuppose each framework and each area, then they become ridiculous.This is a very challenging statement, as it utterly divides science and theology into one concrete and one abstract class of knowledge. One can authenticate science -- that's part of what makes it science. One cannot, however, authenticate theology, save by comparing the present theological proclamations against past proclamations, which in turn cannot be themselves authenticated unless even earlier, non-verifiable statements are brought to bear. If this is the paradigm under which theology must work, how can anyone "know" anything belonging to the realm of theology?

And, again, is it really true to say that science has no overlaps with theology? A theologian says, "God created the world and everything in it in seven days." The scientist says, "The world and everything in it has taken billions of years to mature into its present condition." Is the theologian only "right" to the extent that his words lead us to God? Is the theologian only "wrong" concerning the world and everything in it? If this is so, then the world God created in seven days cannot be the world we live in, or else perhaps seven days to God doesn't mean our 24-hour days. But in any case, one must wonder, "Why not keep what one knows is right and discard what one knows is wrong?" That's what any sane person would do, I think -- cull what is wrong from the theologian's statement and say instead, "God created the world and everything in it over billions of years." There. That's right all around, and now we don't have to talk theology out of both sides of our mouths.


The great Fathers of the Church were theologians through the experience of revelation and they even became scientists through conscientious study and learning of human Science. That is why they are whole.They are whole, perhaps, but what good ought that to do them? The science they learned was wrong, and therefore they themselves were wrong. "Wholeness" does not, in my mind, balance the equation any more than does the "wholeness" of a scientist-atheist.

[Father David Moser]

And, again, is it really true to say that science has no overlaps with theology? A theologian says, "God created the world and everything in it in seven days." The scientist says, "The world and everything in it has taken billions of years to mature into its present condition." ... perhaps seven days to God doesn't mean our 24-hour days. ... say instead, "God created the world and everything in it over billions of years."

The word "day" in scripture has been used in a multitude of ways. Sometimes it refers to a 24 hour period (or at least the period from sunset to sunset - if you accept Velikovsky's argument that used to be a 20 hour period). At other times "day" is used to describe an definite span of time of indeterminate length; for example there is the constant reference to "the day of the Lord" which we often consider to the "8th day" or the day of the Resurrection which began at the Resurrection and continues even to the present until the second coming of the Lord. This "day" is actually an indication of the "overlap" between the Kingdom of God and this world and so expresses a much more metaphysical concept than the simply physical idea of the span of time it takes the earth to revolve on its axis.

The concept of a "day" has always been a sticking point for me when it comes to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Until the 4th day there is no sun and moon, no stars no division between the light and the dark - so how was the "day" measured in that time? At this juncture I am only asking questions "off the cuff" as they say - but be assured after writing this I will be looking into the writings of both St Basil and St John Damascus to see if there is any comment on the topic.

Any other suggestions for reading on this topic of the "day" and especially the "day of the Lord" would be gladly accepted.

Fr David Moser

[Yuri Zharikov]

The word "day" in scripture has been used in a multitude of ways. Sometimes it refers to a 24 hour period

In the context of Genesis "day"/"yom" refers to a 24 hour period. We have already had an affirmation of this from St. Ephraim the Syrian. Here is St. Basil:

“’And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first?’ He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night.., since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day.” (Hexameron 2, 8).
"Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night...If it therefore says ‘one day,' it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night" (Hexameron 2, 8).

The Father is quite clear that it is not sun/moon that define what a day is, it is God Who defines what a day is and then appoints the celestial bodies to fulfil the work of counting the time, as the Psalmist, or rather the Holy Spirit says in a different place of the Holy Scripture.

St. Basil also had no difficulty with there been plants before the sun (I'll post the text tonight unless somebody does it before me). The main idea here is that light, warmth and overall sustenance that plants need are not from the sun. They are from God. The reason for this order of creation (plans before celestial bodies) is to avoid ambiguity about Who or what gives life to and sustains all things. Sun is just a creature doing what it has been made for, light is a separate creature doing what it's been made for. Light btw was created before the sun.

[M. Partyka]

The concept of a "day" has always been a sticking point for me when it comes to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Until the 4th day there is no sun and moon, no stars no division between the light and the dark - so how was the "day" measured in that time?From what I've read in non-Orthodox Christian sources, the reason that the creation of the light of day precedes the creation of the sun is that from an observational point of view, daylight arrives about an hour before sunrise and lasts about an hour after sunset. Therefore, from an observational perspective, the sun cannot be the sole cause of daylight because daylight doesn't start with sunrise or end with sunset. The sun can be said to "rule over" the day, but it can't itself be the cause of the day.

But the day/age controversy only worsens if you consider not only the amounts of time recorded in Genesis 1 but also the sequence of events recorded there. The events of Genesis 1 are arranged in this order:

1) Heaven and Earth, day and night.
2) The firmament, which divides the waters above the earth (e.g., rain, snow, hail) from the waters below the earth (e.g., the primeval ocean).
3) Dry land, plants.
4) Sun, moon, stars.
5) Birds, fish.
6) Bugs, land animals, humans.

None of this appears in the "correct" sequence according to modern science. The "correct" sequence would look more like this:

1) Stars, sun.
2) Earth, day, night.
3) Dry land, water.
4) Aquatic life (including plants), fish.
5) Land plants, bugs, land animals.
6) Birds, humans.

[M. Partyka]

The main idea here is that light, warmth and overall sustenance that plants need are not from the sun. They are from God. The reason for this order of creation (plans before celestial bodies) is to avoid ambiguity about Who or what gives life to and sustains all things. Sun is just a creature doing what it has been made for, light is a separete creature doing what it's been made for. Light btw was created before the sun.Exactly. The sun, moon, and stars' coming into being on the fourth day had a twofold purpose. First, it showed that the sun, moon, and stars were creatures made by God and therefore undeserving of worship. (Indeed, the reason that the sun and the moon are referred to as the "greater light" and the "lesser light" is because the only words available for "sun" and "moon" also meant "sun-god" and "moon-god", respectively.) Second, it showed that, just as you have said, God is the ultimate provider and sustainer of life, not the sun, moon, or any other creature.

[Yuri Zharikov]

St. Basil also had no difficulty with there been plants before the sun (I'll post the text tonight unless somebody does it before me). The main idea here is that light, warmth and overall sustenance that plants need are not from the sun. They are from God. The reason for this order of creation (plans before celestial bodies) is to avoid ambiguity about Who or what gives life to and sustains all things. Sun is just a creature doing what it has been made for, light is a separate creature doing what it's been made for. Light btw was created before the sun.

St. Basil: the adornment of the earth is older than the sun that those who have been misled may cease worshipping the sun [I would add nature in general] as the origin of life (Hexameron 5:1).

St. Ambrose: before the light of the sun shall appear let the green herb be born, let its light be prior to that of the sun. let the earth germinate before it receives th fostering care of the sun, lest there be an occasion for human errors to grow. let everyone be informed that the sun is not the author of vegetation... The sun is younger than the green shoot, younger than the green plant. (Hexameron 3:6).

[John M.]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'John M.' is identical to members 'Rick James York' and 'Rostislav'. The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.



St. Ambrose: before the light of the sun shall appear let the green herb be born, let its light be prior to that of the sun. let the earth germinate before it receives th fostering care of the sun, lest there be an occasion for human errors to grow. let everyone be informed that the sun is not the author of vegetation... The sun is younger than the green shoot, younger than the green plant. (Hexameron 3:6). This is beautiful!

[Yuri Zharikov]

It is beautiful that the Fathers were so fully immersed into the Word of God, so fully dedicated to It, so utterly in love with It. They knew all the things we know and way more, if we use St. Basil as an example. Yet it never occurred to them to examine the word of God and the magnificence of His creation through the broken microscope of worldly wisdom. They always elevated themselves over it, being true eagles soaring on the wings of divine wisdom. And from that height they could so easily perceive all the foolishness of human philosophies trying to fathom the creation of God with matchsticks, as it were, like ants crawling over a little twig, pulling it two and fro and thinking they are building a tower to heaven or a lever to lift the earth.

The more I read them the more I become convinced that their mind operated radically different from ours, even when we are or call ourselves Orthodox, i.e. their spiritual children.

They saw the whole, and thus could fit all the little things to where they properly belong. We behave like somebody trying to drive a car or sail a ship with a microscope attached firmly to his eyes, getting tripped all the time over his own shoelaces and imagining them to be something grandiose.

Reductionism was definitely not the way of the Fathers and it seems such an overwhelming part of our approach to things. Induction was definitely not the way they learned while it is the prevalent way we compose our "theories". How then can we compare an Icon, a Holy Icon, whole and Holy with a jig-saw puzzle often composed of unrelated, incomplete and broken or damaged pieces?

[M. Partyka]

It is beautiful that the Fathers were so fully immersed into the Word of God, so fully dedicated to It, so utterly in love with It. They knew all the things we know and way more....On the contrary: they knew less. They knew nothing of varves, ice cores, dinosaur fossils, the geologic column, the speed of light, etc., etc. -- all the things that make the literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-11 difficult to believe, they didn't know. So it doesn't surprise me in the least how in love with Scripture the Fathers were. They had no idea that there was anything waiting under the earth to contradict it.

For the first several years of my Christian life, I kept entirely away from the creation/evolution debate. I just assumed that "it all worked out somehow", and that there were objective, rational people on both sides of the debate who honestly disagreed about the evidence. That assumption, among other things, allowed me to immerse myself in Scripture for a time. Then, in the last few years, the creation/evolution debate wormed its way into the forefront of my mind, and I felt is was time to sit down and take a look at it myself to see on which side of the debate I belonged. Now there usually isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish I lived in an earlier era, like that in which the Fathers lived, when we didn't know so much about the past, the earth, the stars, and the whole cosmos. Unfortunately, that option isn't open to me. Like Adam and Eve, my eyes have been opened, and things don't look the same anymore.

Bottom line? Ignorance is bliss. Thus, the Fathers' bliss over the Scriptures doesn't surprise me. Indeed, I envy them. Their eyes were open wide, honest, blameless -- they simply couldn't see what we would one day discover to our dismay. They couldn't even conceive that such things existed. They could fully immerse themselves in Scripture because there were no rocks or bones in the museums to jar them out of their state of immersion. People with their eyes wide open today? We don't have it so good.

[Demetrios]

On the contrary: they knew less. They knew nothing of varves, ice cores, dinosaur fossils, the geologic column, the speed of light, etc., etc. -- all the things that make the literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-11 difficult to believe, they didn't know. So it doesn't surprise me in the least how in love with Scripture the Fathers were. They had no idea that there was anything waiting under the earth to contradict it.

For the first several years of my Christian life, I kept entirely away from the creation/evolution debate. I just assumed that "it all worked out somehow", and that there were objective, rational people on both sides of the debate who honestly disagreed about the evidence. That assumption, among other things, allowed me to immerse myself in Scripture for a time. Then, in the last few years, the creation/evolution debate wormed its way into the forefront of my mind, and I felt is was time to sit down and take a look at it myself to see on which side of the debate I belonged. Now there usually isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish I lived in an earlier era, like that in which the Fathers lived, when we didn't know so much about the past, the earth, the stars, and the whole cosmos. Unfortunately, that option isn't open to me. Like Adam and Eve, my eyes have been opened, and things don't look the same anymore.

Bottom line? Ignorance is bliss. Thus, the Fathers' bliss over the Scriptures doesn't surprise me. Indeed, I envy them. Their eyes were open wide, honest, blameless -- they simply couldn't see what we would one day discover to our dismay. They couldn't even conceive that such things existed. They could fully immerse themselves in Scripture because there were no rocks or bones in the museums to jar them out of their state of immersion. People with their eyes wide open today? We don't have it so good.

I think the concept has occupied the thought of many through out the ages. It's only new to those who learn of the concept. This is a cut and paste.

Ancient Greek philosophers were perhaps the first to clearly formulate a materialistic evolutionary concept of origins. It must be emphasized that these Greek philosophers were neither scientists nor experimentalists; rather they speculated on the origin of the universe in a way consistent with their religious and philosophical beliefs. Although many of the earliest Greek philosophers considered their gods to be creators, this began to change with the influence of Thales of Miletus. Thales (who lived at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC) founded the Milesian school of natural philosophy. One of the primary assumptions of this school of thought was that the origin of everything in nature could be explained in terms of its own material composition. Thus, they sought to explain the origin of everything by a process of self-assembly from some underlying material element. Thales believed that water was that basic element from which all things evolved.

Anaximenes (560-502 BC), a disciple of Thales' Milesian school, believed that air was the basic element from which everything evolved. He insisted that virtually everything in the universe (including the gods) was merely rarefied or condensed air! He believed that when air rarefied, it became fire -- which formed the sun and heavenly bodies -- and that when it condensed, it became cold and formed wind, water, and earth.

Heraclitus of Ephesus (535-475 BC) preferred fire as the basic element from which everything in the universe evolved. Like modern day evolutionists, Heraclitus was preoccupied with the idea of limitless change. He attempted to eliminate any necessity for a Creator by postulating a constantly changing world with neither beginning nor end. Since anything man declares to be eternal becomes his god, nature itself became the god of materialism.

Empedocles (484-424 BC) attempted to cover all bases by proposing that everything in the universe evolved from four basic elements – water, air, fire and earth. He believed that all parts of living organisms were formed independently and were brought together in random combinations. Those combinations which were not well suited to live, perished, while the better suited combinations survived. This ludicrous speculation is strikingly similar to Darwinian "survival of the fittest," yet Empedocles predated Darwin by over 2,000 years!

Epicurus (341-270 BC) would have been very comfortable with "modern" evolutionary cosmologists. He believed that everything in the universe evolved by chance combinations of randomly moving elementary particles called atoms! Epicurus was the father of an influential philosophical system known as Epicureanism, which taught that the universe was eternal and that nothing could influence it from without. The seeds of today's crass materialism were sown in the Epicurean assumptions that the whole of existence is made of atomic particles or is a void -- and sensation is the sole source of all knowledge.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Anaximenes (560-502 BC), a disciple of Thales' Milesian school, believed that air was the basic element from which everything evolved. He insisted that virtually everything in the universe (including the gods) was merely rarefied or condensed air! He believed that when air rarefied, it became fire -- which formed the sun and heavenly bodies -- and that when it condensed, it became cold and formed wind, water, and earth.

This is certainly an interesting observation, because in a sense, it is startlingly correct! Generally speaking in modern thought, all matter exists in one of four states: Solid (earth), liquid (water), gas (air) and plasma (fire). Remove thermal energy from a gas and it becomes a liquid. Remove some more and it becomes a solid. Heat a gas enough and it transitions to a plasma. But these states of matter are not what make up matter. Water does not become earth, but rock can become lava, water can become ice and if cooled enough and put under enough pressure, can behave similarly to steel. They were all correct in part, but incorrect because none of them represent the whole. God created a bigger universe than we can analyze or define and this is shown in the quantom theory which states that nothing can be really "known" because the act of measurement or analysis "changes" the object under investigation. Science is all about setting or determining boundaries, theology is about getting beyond those boundaries. Obviously there are going to be areas of overlap and apparent contradition. Indeed quantum mechanics and chaos theory show us that there is a place for the apophatic approach. God is bigger than some of us want Him to be. We want to put Him in a box, but He will not be contained. Dealing with that can be difficult for some people. Interesting tho' that at the microcosmic and macrocosmic levels, God and science meet, and science still does not know quite what to make of it.....

Herman

[Owen Jones]

I would quibble as to Heraclitus being a materialist. It is in Heraclitus that we find first mention of the theological virtues. Yes, the world is in a state of flux, but divinity is not. The theological virtues become the ordering forces of the soul that orient us toward that which is unchanging.

I think the exposition as a whole is helpful in pointing out that Darwin is nothing new. This feeling of, gee, my mind has been opened by modern science and I can't believe in the Fathers without a willing suspension of disbelief, is, unfortunately, a representation of spiritual alienation than a real, profound awareness.

I am still puzzled about what it is that people find in Darwinism to be compelling, given all of the evidence we have of it being flawed science. The only question that remains up in the air, it seems to me, is whether God created man 6,000 years ago by our current calendar, or sometime earlier. That particular issue seems hardly to lend credence to Darwinism, or to open up some Pandora's box of skepticism.

Perhaps we need to recapture the whole notion and experience of suddenness, and its permanence. Perhaps the problem is that modern day conversion is not sudden enough -- we have made it an evolutionary process. Nothing dramatic about it (unless you are a Pentacostal/Evangelical who confuses a come to Jesus moment with true conversion).

[RichardWorthington]

Dear Mr Partyka.

The Orthodox heart sings that

St. Ambrose: … The sun is younger than the green shoot, younger than the green plant. (Hexameron 3:6).
yet the Orthodox mind also observes that

theology does indeed make statements about the created world, and this can bring it squarely into conflict with science.
and

the world God created in seven days cannot be the world we live in, or else perhaps seven days to God doesn't mean our 24-hour days.

The best solution to the above is to consider the following misquotation about St Paul:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -- who definitely was in the physical body and so we can apply physical science to it -- such a one was caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man -- who definitely was in the physical body and so we can apply physical science to it -- how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2 Corinthians 12:2-4, New Monachian Version)

This variant reading in the New Monachian Version points to where both Evolutionists and Creationists are going somewhat astray. It is true that St Paul went to Paradise - that same Paradise out of which our first parents were expelled - but he actually wrote about his experience: "whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows". Now we know that science can only deal with the world as we see it ("in the body"), but Orthodox theologians should seek to speak about the spiritual world ("out of the body", although the body will be resurrected on the Last Day). However, when Orthodox theologians start to argue over the evidence regarding how old the universe is or how we humans are related to apes, should they really be using physical evidence? As it is written:


For Creationists try to show physical evidence of miracles, and Evolutionists seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Creationists a stumbling block and to the Evolutionists foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:22-24, New Revised Monachian Version)

What is the "stumbling block" the Creationists trip over regarding the pre-fallen world and Paradise? Listen to Blessed Seraphim of Platina (a.k.a. Fr Seraphim Rose), where he correctly states,


"the law of nature as we now know is different from the law of nature before Adam’s transgression … natural science, bound up entirely with its observation of the present state of creation, cannot investigate it" ("Genesis, Creation, and Early Man", page 415)

Of course the world we know today is related to the un-fallen world, but to try to look in-depth is to come against the futility to which the creation is subjected (Romans 8:20). How is it then that he actually tries to verify his writings of that un-fallen world from the current laws of nature and scientific observations?



Regarding the firmament, Genesis 1:6: "St Basil believes that the function of the ‘firmament’ was to preserve a mild temperature over the whole earth. Now, it so happens that we know of a certain ‘greenhouse’ effect on the earth in prehistoric times: tropical plants and animals have been found in the ice of the far north, indicating that the northern regions were indeed once temperate" (page 117; indeed on the next page he speculates that the firmament would help keep harmful radiation at bay! But in the pre-fallen world there was no radiation that could be remotely compared to what we know today.)

Regarding the sun - Genesis 1:14 - and that it is far larger than the earth: "One could, of course, conceive of a sun much smaller than the one we know and much closer to the earth, while preserving its apparent size as seen from the earth. But such a sun would expend its energy many times more rapidly than our present sun does. Evidently, God made the sun the size and the distance from the earth it needs to have if it is to give to earth the amount of light and heat it requires to support life to the end of this age (page 127-8; yet the ancients taught otherwise about the sun, that its "light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they are both equal", The Book of Enoch 72:37).

Years ago I was walking around thinking that the tropical plants and animals under the ice were a proof of the six-day creation. However, just recently it has begun to dawn on me that to be either a Creationist or an Evolutionist is to be mistaken; both are correct, but only in their respective spheres and not outside. Now hopefully I think I am actually becoming Orthodox.


Then, in the last few years, the creation/evolution debate wormed its way into the forefront of my mind, and I felt is was time to sit down and take a look at it myself to see on which side of the debate I belonged. Now there usually isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish I lived in an earlier era, like that in which the Fathers lived, when we didn't know so much about the past, the earth, the stars, and the whole cosmos. Unfortunately, that option isn't open to me. Like Adam and Eve, my eyes have been opened, and things don't look the same anymore.

O Mr Partyka, I salute you! O catechumen wiser than the baptised, pray for me! O servant of God, teach me an ignorant fool!

The Creationists I have listened to so far are all described by the scripture which says, "I sleep, but my heart is awake" (Song of Songs 5:2): their heart is awake when they correctly describe the beautiful state of the pre-fallen world, but they are asleep when it comes to relating this to others. You however, are described by the scripture which says, "I laid me down and slept; I awoke; for the Lord sustained me" (Psalm 3:5): you are awake with the knowledge that God does not want us to ignore our reasoning mind in "submission" to others, and yet you also are yearning for your heart to wake up:


Awake, you who sleep,
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light. (Ephesians 5:14)

If any Creationist challenges the evidence either for an ‘old earth’ or for evolution, that maybe such evidence is not accurate or is distorted, then reply as follows:


What part of "corrupted" do you not understand? St Paul says that "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Romans 8:20-21). Why do you seek to teach me about the incorruptible from the corrupted and about the irrefutable from the futile? So what if the corrupted implies a certain statement: being based on corruption it could be either true or false!

If St Paul "was caught up into Paradise" - "whether in the body or out of the body" he did not know - then why do you seek to find evidence about this same Paradise from this fallen world without being caught up into heaven yourself? (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)

You who believe that the bread and wine in the Eucharist become the very Body and Blood of Christ, will you try to prove this by science? Will you try to prove the ‘change’ by searching for evidence of some "homoeopathic Blood"? It is clear to science that what is in the chalice remains bread and wine, no matter how much you examine it. However, the Orthodox who renounce the rationalism of the West say that "the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar" (Judges 13:19-20; see this post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=54920#post54920)). So too with the creation!

And then to enlighten them regarding their error, recall to them the Rubin vase (Image taken from http://lookmind.com/illusions.php?cat=4&id=177):


97

Creationist: This image is clearly that of two faces
Evolutionist: No, it is a vase
Creationist: But the BIBLE says in Exodus chapter thirty-three, verse eleven, that "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."
Evolutionist: I suppose there could be faces there, but are you telling me that this evidence of yours relates to God?
Creationist: Absolutely, "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"
Evolutionist: So no possibility of a vase being there?
Creationist: No, but in John chapter three verse eighteen it says that "he who does not believe is condemned already"
Evolutionist: So if the way you look at the image is taken as evidence for two faces, then why cannot the way I look at it be taken as evidence for a vase?
Creationist: We know that you are fudging up the evidence!

(and so on ad infinitum. Note that while parodying the image of a fanatical Bible-basher - and I do not apply this to anyone here - it should be noted that I have found certain atheists to be just as shallow.)

Let me tell you what you already know: the God who appeared to Moses appeared in glory, and the skin of Moses’ face shone (Exodus 34:30). How then can the above image of the faces be compared with the reality of meeting God face to face? In like manner, how can the present creation be "worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed" to the creation via us (Romans 8:18)? Who cares about the universe being billions of years old, or about our physical body being derived from the apes? The world is fallen. But how then can we talk about creation in six days? Mr Partyka, you answered this yourself:


the world God created in seven days cannot be the world we live in

- exactly the same deduction I came to (see this post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=62891#post62891)). Do we not talk about the spiritual world as being "not of this world"? Paradise still exists - St Paul went there "whether in the body or out of the body I do not know" (2 Corinthians 12:3). As such, it can only be considered to be "not of this world". The scientific term for such a thing, where different laws operate, is another universe. How this fallen universe of corruption came from the original single universe which was "neither completely incorruptible, nor entirely corruptible" I suppose we shall never know (quotation from St Gregory the Sinate speaking of Paradise; "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man", page 166).

Perhaps it could be worth mentioning that time also probably fell; surely Paradise would have remained forever young even while the days passed. Maybe this is what is indicated in the words of Christ, "the hour is coming, and now is" (John 5:25). Also, scientists have just recently discovered that time is not always the same in our universe: "time told by a clock in our galaxy and the time told by one floating in a void could differ by as much as 38 per cent" ("New Scientist", 07 March 2008, article "Dark energy may just be a cosmic illusion" (http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726461.600-dark-energy-may-just-be-a-cosmic-illusion.html)); by the way, it is older in the voids.

Therefore, let not science be mocked for trying to explain how the world works now or previously, for they are not studying the work of an ‘intelligent designer’ at all. This universe is based on the work of the Beautiful Designer, but because "through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin" (Romans 5:12), it is under the tyranny of the "ruler of this world" (John 12:31), i.e. the devil. Blame him for the suffering in this world, but first let us acknowledge our foolishness in handing him the keys in the first place!

Similarly, let not true Orthodox theology be mocked: the Father is not like a fairy! But with soberness and purity of heart let us show that there is more to being human than being a slave of the evolutionary treadmill. Indeed, why are we trying to save endangered species when this would hinder our own "survival of the fittest"? Did God become incarnate as a monkey as well? From where does our immortal soul 'evolve'? Materialism is not "Creationism versus Evolution" or "Theology versus Science", but the denial of the Vision of the Spirit of life (see the thread "The sacraments: 'the earnest expectation of the creation' and the divine light" (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4616)).

I originally started this thread as "Evolution and the baptism of Christ", wanting to explore how the sacramental life of the Church may help. It was then taken over to be "Creation and evolutionary theory, II". However, I think one quotation from the Sunday of Forgiveness may help restore the balance:


I boldly put my trust in the abundance of Your mercies, Christ my Saviour, and in the Blood that flowed from Your divine side; for through Your Blood, loving Lord, You have sanctified the nature of mortal man, and have opened to those who worship You the gates of Paradise that were closed of old to Adam.

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/prayers/triodion/prel_sun

Neither by looking for evidence in this fallen world nor by logic do we attain to Paradise, but only by the life-giving Blood of Christ. As it is written, "Drink from this, all of you; this is my Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins".

"O slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25), but of you, Mr Partyka, Christ says, "I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!" (Matthew 8:10).


Now there usually isn't a day that goes by that I don't wish I lived in an earlier era, like that in which the Fathers lived

Pray for me, O catechumen of the Most High! May your wish come true: may you indeed one day return from Eternity!

Richard
PS. Until someone can actually prove that picture of Rubin's vase is either that of two faces or that of a vase, please let us not hear about the evidence for evolution being flawed, and neither that the Fathers of the Orthodox Church do not know of the life of Paradise, which is the life of the Age to Come!

[Yuri Zharikov]

Dear Richard, the only difficulty I have with your posts, the last one and the one at the begining of the thread, is that you seem to argue that the original creation is both unknowable to the fallen ratio and that yet the fallen ratio can make valid speculations about the origins. Could you please elaborate, or show what it is I am getting wrong.

The Orthodox mind also observed that the natural knowledge derived by the fallen ratio should be validated by the Higher Revealed Knowledge.

[Matthew Namee]

I haven't been participating in this discussion, but I just wanted to say that I think I agree with Richard's last post; that is, having reviewed both the pro- and anti-evolution arguments as best I could, I have come to the conclusion to not come to a conclusion. The work of scientists is remarkable and, aside from a minuscule but loud percentage, quite sincere. The Scriptures are God-inspired and the Fathers are the foundation of our understanding of them. I am content to say, "I do not know" in this case, because I do not see how "knowing" will save or damn me one bit.

[Owen Jones]

The problem is that we are neither saved alone, nor damned alone. We should never be exclusively concerned with our personal salvation. And so the ideologies of the modern world need to be first understood by the faithful, and challenged by the faithful, first in our own minds, so that we are neither double minded nor agnostic on these issues, but also so that we can make a rational defense of what we believe and not come across as dunces. Most of the world operates today on the basis of an evolutionary bias, which is probably the leading stumbling block to a consideration of God. This is particularly true with young people, and when and if they do convert, it is to a kind of fundamentalism that then resorts to the inevitable conclusion that science is irrelevant. Agnosticism is on these issues is merely a form of laziness and pacivity, marked by a complacency. Gee, I have my salvation, to heck with yours.

[Yuri Zharikov]

The other side to the "I don't know" is that one leaves himself defenceless when confronted with the "facts" coming from somebody like Richard Dawkins. If you say I do not know to him, he will laugh you to scorn and call you, as he does, delusional and irrational. For somebody of the spiritual statue of Apostle Paul, this is probably fine. For Blessed Paisius of Mt. Athos the scorn would and probably did bring joy, yet he thought of his "weaker" brethren and rose to defence of the true doctrine.

We are committing a mistake when we appoint ourselves as final judges and independent arbiters of scientific evidence and theological evidence when the two come into conflict. And the only place where they do this is the very foundation of Christianity: Who we are, Where we came from, How we got to where we are now and Where we are going. Can we just "solve" these problems for ourselves, without looking back at the Faith once delivered unto Saints? Can we be so sure that not being able to tell "the right hand from the left" we can unfallibly resolve these issue, in which the enemy of our salvation is so keenly interested (500 posts is the best evidence of that). The materialistic, i.e. sceintific answers to these questions will always be irreconcilable with the answers that come from our Faith. This is because materialistic answers presuppose the absence of God, the absence of purpose and the absence of Providence.

Richard is correct when he says that there is and should not be any conflict between "I believe" and "I believe" and "I know" and "I know". We believe differently - fine, let us mind our business. But when materialism is pedalling its "I believe" as "I know" on the matters of or pertaining directly to Faith, complacency is not a choice. I think complacency in this case is what the Apostles did after the Crucifiction when they hid inside "for the fear of the Jews".

With love to everybody, Yuri

[M. Partyka]

Here's the problem I have with the whole "two worlds" theory. First, it's pretty clear to me that neither Scripture nor the Fathers consider themselves to be talking about a different world in Genesis 1. Second, even if it were true that natural history only applies to the fallen world (i.e., Genesis 3 and forward), that doesn't solve anything because (1) we still have a geological and fossil record showing millions, not thousand, of years, and (2) there's no evidence of a global flood in that record, either (which is a whole other subject that's been done to death already). And even if one were to go so far as to say that natural history only applies to the post-Flood world, there are still those millions of years in the geological and fossil record to deal with. So there's no easy out, in my opinion, in claiming that some of Genesis applies to the spiritual world while some applies to the material world.


The Orthodox mind also observed that the natural knowledge derived by the fallen ratio should be validated by the Higher Revealed Knowledge.And what if the Higher Revealed Knowledge turns out to be inconsistent with the natural knowledge that's sitting right in front of us? I'm not talking about the conclusions one might draw from that knowledge, mind you -- I'm just talking about the knowledge itself. You can't compress millions of years of fossils into a few thousand years even if "Higher Revealed Knowledge says so."

Why does any of this matter? I think Jesus himself put it best:

John 3:12 -- If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Not exactly the same context, of course -- the "earthly thing" He'd said just then was, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth," which is perfectly true. But what if He'd said, "The earth moves not, and the sun and moon, which are of the same size, travel around it"? Thankfully, He didn't say that, or else we'd be having one serious case of "Uh, oh" right now. But isn't that exactly what the creation/evolution debate is -- the big "Uh, oh" of our times?

[Yuri Zharikov]

THE DIALOGUE OF A SCEPTICAL HEART
O lord God of my salvation, I have cried day and night before Thee: Let my prayer come before Thee: incline Thine ear unto my cry;.

Pour out your complaint before Me; show before Me thy trouble.

They came round about me daily like water; they compassed me about together. They continually say unto me, Where is thy God? Why has not the LORD awaked as one out of sleep, and slept for billions of years?

Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

But they say they have measured and know everything...

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my way

They say their measures are precise and sure...

Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity. Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually. Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness.

They say they can look back into the past...

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

Yes, they say they have searched the land and sea for evidence...

ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.

They say that the sea has revealed its secrets onto them...

My way is in the sea, and My path in the great waters, and My footsteps are not known. The secret of the LORD is with them that fear Him; and He will shew them His covenant.

They say they have comprehended the origins of Your creation...

God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. O LORD, how great are thy works! and Thy thoughts are very deep. A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?

And they insist that nothing changes in this world... that since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn My glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Don’t ye know that for of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to Whom be glory for ever. Amen. Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness. O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth. Sing unto the LORD, bless His name; shew forth His salvation from day to day. Declare his glory among the heathen, his wonders among all people. For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

[RichardWorthington]

First of all I am very new to this whole idea of the Orthodox reality of such 'Paradisaical' Beauty! When I was an Evangelical, I believed in a literal six-day creation, but I think it was more of "I must believe everything the Bible says, so therefore I must believe this"; certainly the opposite viewpoint that God created suffering does indeed sound horrible, but the sheer beauty described in some of the posts here did not penetrate through to me.

When I found Fr Seraphim Rose's writing on Genesis I naturally adopted them, but the inner beauty was hidden from me. (Thinking that certain physical evidence - as I wrote above somewhere - supported the concept of Paradise probably kept me from looking deeper.) I can't quite remember now, but I started to try to keep the loftier aims (i.e. God did not create death), while listening to evolutionary ideas.

As such, the beauty described by yourselves is very new to me: two weeks ago and I would not have even guessed it existed! How blessed you are to have had this within you for many years! And what is its true beauty in my eyes? It provokes the love of virtue and purity of heart. I feel as though I am just starting to become Orthodox for the first time!


Dear Richard, the only difficulty I have with your posts, the last one and the one at the begining of the thread, is that you seem to argue that the original creation is both unknowable to the fallen ratio and that yet the fallen ratio can make valid speculations about the origins. Could you please elaborate, or show what it is I am getting wrong.


Dear Yuri,

As I said - I am new to all this; like a child with a new toy, eager to explore! Having thought about what you write, consider the trees as we see them now. We know that there are trees in Paradise - this is something we can speculate from this fallen worlds about Paradise.

However, in what state do the trees in Paradise exist? Let us examine the trees here in their different environments, look at their cell structures under a microscope, examine how the seeds are spread by either wind or animals, examine how the seeds germinate. In doing all this and more, could we ever attain to anything approaching the true reality:


Eden is a place in which there was planted by God every kind of fragrant plant. It is neither completely incorruptible, nor entirely corruptible. Placed between corruption and incorruption, it is always both abundant in fruits and blossoming with flowers, both mature and immature. The mature trees and fruits are converted into fragrant earth which does not give off any odor of corruption, as do the trees of this world.


Trying to look too closely merely hides the simple fact: we of ourselves cannot discover what life in Paradise was like. We can make some educated guesses (trees probably existed), but they will be limited. This is all I am thinking about.

Richard
PS I have only just realised that there are other post on this page after the first one! I do not know how I missed them! Food for thought - and some of my own problems have also been aired!

[Matthew Namee]

Agnosticism is on these issues is merely a form of laziness and pacivity, marked by a complacency. Gee, I have my salvation, to heck with yours.
I don't agree with this. At least in my own case, I have been neither lazy nor passive nor complacent. I have read the writings of the Fathers and I have studied, as best my non-scientific mind can, the scientific evidence. My conclusion is that I do not know the answer. I don't think this makes me any less able to refute the Richard Dawkinses of the world. Frankly, there are a lot of pro-evolution scientists who can't stand Dawkins and his ilk, and refute him on his own terms. But isn't it possible to honestly and sincerely look at both sides of an issue and just say, "I don't know"? Do I have to take a position?

[Owen Jones]

A number of different issues are being conflated. Creation is being conflated with a literal six day + 6,000 year timeline, and as if the two of absolute necessity must go together. And evolution is being conflated with the scientific theory that the earth is billions of years old.

This is leading to some confusion. A billion + year-old earth is not an argument, let alone evidence, in favor of Darwinism, nor is it, per se, a refutation of the creation, especially the creation of mankind, as represented in Genesis.

Let's take a look at another example. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Virgin Birth is a symbol. It is not unique to Christianity. It is a constant in more than one culture. It is a way of representing the revelatory experience of a God-man. Similarly, the idea of a God-man is not unique to Christianity. Nor is the symbol of a dying and rising savior. So when faithful Christians discover that these beliefs are not unique to Christianity, are they to retreat into a kind of religious fundamentalism (i.e. Phariseeism), or are they to give up on their faith entirely? Or are they willing to seek the deeper meaning of these symbols? I could include the Eucharist in the list, and go on and on.

I became Orthodox because only in Orthodoxy is the true meaning of symbols understood. They are not human constructs. But they do have cultural contexts, because God reveals Himself in a culture and language that we can understand.

Otherwise, these "events" would just be a kind of historical oddity, like UFO sightings.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I don't agree with this. At least in my own case, I have been neither lazy nor passive nor complacent. I have read the writings of the Fathers and I have studied, as best my non-scientific mind can, the scientific evidence. My conclusion is that I do not know the answer. I don't think this makes me any less able to refute the Richard Dawkinses of the world. Frankly, there are a lot of pro-evolution scientists who can't stand Dawkins and his ilk, and refute him on his own terms. But isn't it possible to honestly and sincerely look at both sides of an issue and just say, "I don't know"? Do I have to take a position?

In that "...and I believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis.." is not part of the Creed, I have to suspect that there is some room for differing opinions here. My priest and my bishop don't seem to think a firm position either way here is an obstacle to my salvation, so I can't seem to get too worked up over the issue.

Herman the passive Pooh

[Owen Jones]

I don't think it is a matter of having to take a position. I think it is simply a matter of not retreating into agnosticism on the question of scientific claims that imply that God is irrelevant, or the various ideas behind the cultural nihilism and narcissism of our times. Particularly if you are thinking about having children. Ideas have consequences, and if most people in our faith are double-minded, and when confronted with popular ideas end up temporizing on essential matters of faith, the whole body of the faithful suffers.

And while I'm at it, our contemporary crop of hierarchs hardly impress me with a capacity to understand these cultural/philosophical problems.

Look, I came out of the Episcopal Church, and if you don't want Orthodoxy to end up like the Episcopal Church, you have a duty to understand the intellectual environment. An uneducated peasant does not have such a duty.

[Yuri Zharikov]

In other words... and was thinking about this the whole way cycling home yesterday... when my child returns from school and tells me that science has proven that infants evolved a smile so as not to be killed, because in the apes smiling behaviour in young animals mitigates agression towards them from the adults... what I am going to say... my bishop says we do not need to take a position on this. When she then comes the next day and says homosexual relations are common in dogs and monkeys and many other animals and since we share common ancestry with them and are a part of the same nature, we should tolerate these behavious... but... no, no no, daddy, our bishop says that only fundamentalists take the Bible literally... and then she comes a few days later and says that in many species of monkeys promiscuity is an adaptive behaviour that ensures correct mate choice... what position will I take then... and when having gotten pregnant she decides "not to complicate her life" what recourse will I have to protect the "blob of evolving tissue" in her womb?

Our theology always comes home and hits us over the head sooner or later.
With love in the Lord to everybody, Yuri

[Matthew Namee]

I agree with Owen's statement that we "have a duty to understand the intellectual environment."

Owen and Yuri, perhaps you have misunderstood what I mean by "I don't know." It doesn't mean "I don't care" or "I give up." I am "agnostic" on this issue in the literal sense -- I do not know how to resolve this debate. This doesn't mean that I am open to any and all possible conclusions of evolutionary thought. It doesn't mean a slippery-slope descent into the kinds of conclusions Yuri suggests (smiling as an evolved means of staving off adult aggression, homosexuality as acceptable because some animals exhibit those behaviors, abortion as something other than murder). It doesn't mean I can't respond to my son if he asks me about evolution or the claims of modern science. More than anything, saying "I don't know" is not a sign of weakness or vulnerability to the vicissitudes of modern Western culture. Just because I don't know the answer to this question does not mean I am lazy, impotent, or stupid.

[Herman Blaydoe]

In other words... and was thinking about this the whole way cycling home yesterday... when my child returns from school and tells me that science has proven that infants evolved a smile so as not to be killed, because in the apes smiling behaviour in young animals mitigates agression towards them from the adults... what I am going to say... my bishop says we do not need to take a position on this.

I would say what I actually said to my son: "that's an interesting theory, but science doesn't quite know everything. There are several different ideas on this subject...


When she then comes the next day and says homosexual relations are common in dogs and monkeys and many other animals and since we share common ancestry with them and are a part of the same nature, we should tolerate these behavious... but... no, no no, daddy, our bishop says that only fundamentalists take the Bible literally...

I don't know your bishop, but that is not what my bishop says, so I can't address this directly. I would think it important to say that we are NOT monkeys, and the Church teaches us something different. She will have to make her own decision at some point as to whether or not to trust my words and the teachings of the Church. If she chooses to ignore them she would still be my daughter and regardless of my poor words, I hope my example provides at least an adequate witness.


and then she comes a few days later and says that in many species of monkeys promiscuity is an adaptive behaviour that ensures correct mate choice... what position will I take then... and when having gotten pregnant she decides "not to complicate her life" what recourse will I have to protect the "blob of evolving tissue" in her womb?

Easy to answer. The Church says that abortion is murder. If she asks why, I think an answer that does not even touch on the literalness of Genesis can be formulated. In fact, I don't recall ever really going into depth on the subject with my daughter but I know for a fact that she rejects abortion as a "viable" option. And I am proud of her for that for reasons I don't need to go into here.


Our theology always comes home and hits us over the head sooner or later.
With love in the Lord to everybody, Yuri

It doesn't have to hit us over the head, even if it does knock us off our high horse from time to time. We seem to enjoy hitting each other over the head however. It can cause brain damage if it happens too often, or so I've heard.

Or so I've heard.

Herman the Pooh

[Owen Jones]

The purpose of engaging in a debate with the so-called modern world is not to resolve the debate. That's in God's hands. The purpose is to serve as a witness and to offer people hope, both within and without the Church, that there is an alternative to nihilism, and that Christians need not make compromises. The same reason that Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote much on the subject, starting with a very good philosophical treatise called nihilism. In nihilism he hardly resorts to a restatement of Christian dogma to make his case. He makes his case firmly on philosophical grounds, starting with the real definition of truth. The purpose or the role of the Christian is not to win or resolve debates. In a sense, we will always lose that battle. We are destined to be losers in the worldly sense of the term.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Easy to answer. The Church says

Brother Herman,
Thank you for this... these words are like oil on a wound; Glory be to God, common sense prevails, there is still a beacon in the darkness, the right way, the eternal compass to get home, to tell the right from the wrong.

thank you everybody for stimulating discussion, effort and patience with my passionate and thus sinful responses

[Father David Moser]

Our theology always comes home and hits us over the head sooner or later.


It seems though that what you are asking about isn't really theology, but morality. Morality is indeed informed by theology, but the two are not identical. I don't have to believe in the "literalness" of the Genesis account of creation to speak about right and wrong and God's law. And there is plenty of basis for moral behavior outside of the literal Genesis account. I can tell my child that science (and thus in some cases the teacher) is wrong (I like Herman's comment that science doesn't know everything) in its conclusions about the origins of life without having to adopt a strict 6 24hour day creation of the universe.

We have a responsibility as parents to teach our children morality (and not to leave it to the school) and we have a responsibility to teach them how to honestly approach the scripture and other teachings of the Church to see how these fit into their lives. This responsibility is not tied to the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Fr David Moser

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Have a look at this #13 http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/misc/subscribed.gif Could man's creative power have collectively created science?

[Owen Jones]

This is the clearest analysis I have seen:


The Origin of Species—Part I:
Linneaus, Infinite Series
and Finitization

The transition from the transcendent to the immanent view can be traced in each aspect of the life problem. . . . We now turn to the transformation of the theory that is to explain the species characteristics of a life-form and their constancy through the generations.

The pure typical case of a transcendent explanation is Linnaeus' theory, according to which God created at the beginning of the world the various animal species and endowed the individuals of each species with the ability to bring forth their own kind; in fact, the species was the quintessence of the individuals who have descended from each other through procreation; in theory the species was coined by God's creative hand. When fixity of the species was understood in this way, there was hardly any reason to look for the inner causes of the individual's character; the reference to God as the transcendent creator of the world in its thusness was sufficient.

Of all the theoreticians of biology of his day, Linnaeus was most deeply immersed in the Christian worldview. Linnaeus believed that the world actually had a definite beginning; there was a day and an hour when the world, in the organization of its existence, emerged from the chaos through God's creating hand. When this belief died, the teaching of the species and its duration became questionable, leading to those transformations in the theory with which we must now concern ourselves.

When the world was no longer believed to be the creation of a higher being, the act of creation was no longer the real starting point in time of the world and its many species. The "world" was no longer a finite event that was on some level actually delimited in time by a transcendent being. And while the similarity of individuals had been understood as caused by a similar pressure of the divine hand, the theory of the fixity of the species was now also shaken. The succession of generations no longer had a finite beginning in the creation or an origin of its specific laws; instead, the succession could be traced from any individual back into infinity without this regression coming up against a point of origin for the law of the species.

The result was a peculiar, undecided state. The concept of creation was replaced by the idea of infinity. Preformist theory, which envisioned the germs of all individuals contained in the first progenitors of each species—for example, the human ones in the body of Eve—had to change, and replace this real definite beginning with the series of infinite encapsulations.

Now if the image of the created finite succession of generations is supplanted by the idea of an infinite succession without any real beginning, the idea that the law of this succession was created transcendentally at the beginning of the succession of generations becomes meaningless, and speculation forces us moreover to the formulation of that law in such a way that the law of the species can be directly discerned in each individual of the species.

A shift of the cause of the fixity of the species to infinitely distant specimens became pointless because according to the law of the infinite succession it must be assumed that each individual was descended from a predecessor. This led to the speculative leap to the lawfulness of the species as a real cause [ Realgrund ] that is at work in all individuals of a species, thus necessarily also in the one currently under observation, without having to be traced back to preceding ones.

This finitization of the law of the species in turn invalidates the idea of infinity that, for one speculative moment, served as the explanatory cause of the species—that is, for the moment when the act of creation had ceased to be the starting point of the succession of generations and it was still believed, in accord with the rationalistic encapsulation theory, that the regression to the preceding individual could explain the one descended from it. This open, undecided moment came to an end with the abolition of the idea of infinity and with the adaptation of the concept of law to the finite style of the new concept of the organism. . . .
CW VOL 3,
Chapter 11
Infinite Series and Finitization,
pp 115-117.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOEGELIN MAIN PAGE

NEXT QUOTATION

[Yuri Zharikov]

This is the clearest analysis I have seen:


The Origin of Species—Part I:
Linneaus, Infinite Series
and Finitization

The transition from the transcendent to the immanent view can be traced in each aspect of the life problem. . . . We now turn to the transformation of the theory that is to explain the species characteristics of a life-form and their constancy through the generations.

The pure typical case of a transcendent explanation is Linnaeus' theory, according to which God created at the beginning of the world the various animal species and endowed the individuals of each species with the ability to bring forth their own kind; in fact, the species was the quintessence of the individuals who have descended from each other through procreation; in theory the species was coined by God's creative hand. When fixity of the species was understood in this way, there was hardly any reason to look for the inner causes of the individual's character; the reference to God as the transcendent creator of the world in its thusness was sufficient.

Of all the theoreticians of biology of his day, Linnaeus was most deeply immersed in the Christian worldview. Linnaeus believed that the world actually had a definite beginning; there was a day and an hour when the world, in the organization of its existence, emerged from the chaos through God's creating hand. When this belief died, the teaching of the species and its duration became questionable, leading to those transformations in the theory with which we must now concern ourselves.

When the world was no longer believed to be the creation of a higher being, the act of creation was no longer the real starting point in time of the world and its many species. The "world" was no longer a finite event that was on some level actually delimited in time by a transcendent being. And while the similarity of individuals had been understood as caused by a similar pressure of the divine hand, the theory of the fixity of the species was now also shaken. The succession of generations no longer had a finite beginning in the creation or an origin of its specific laws; instead, the succession could be traced from any individual back into infinity without this regression coming up against a point of origin for the law of the species.

The result was a peculiar, undecided state. The concept of creation was replaced by the idea of infinity. Preformist theory, which envisioned the germs of all individuals contained in the first progenitors of each species—for example, the human ones in the body of Eve—had to change, and replace this real definite beginning with the series of infinite encapsulations.

Now if the image of the created finite succession of generations is supplanted by the idea of an infinite succession without any real beginning, the idea that the law of this succession was created transcendentally at the beginning of the succession of generations becomes meaningless, and speculation forces us moreover to the formulation of that law in such a way that the law of the species can be directly discerned in each individual of the species.

A shift of the cause of the fixity of the species to infinitely distant specimens became pointless because according to the law of the infinite succession it must be assumed that each individual was descended from a predecessor. This led to the speculative leap to the lawfulness of the species as a real cause [ Realgrund ] that is at work in all individuals of a species, thus necessarily also in the one currently under observation, without having to be traced back to preceding ones.

This finitization of the law of the species in turn invalidates the idea of infinity that, for one speculative moment, served as the explanatory cause of the species—that is, for the moment when the act of creation had ceased to be the starting point of the succession of generations and it was still believed, in accord with the rationalistic encapsulation theory, that the regression to the preceding individual could explain the one descended from it. This open, undecided moment came to an end with the abolition of the idea of infinity and with the adaptation of the concept of law to the finite style of the new concept of the organism. . . .
CW VOL 3,
Chapter 11
Infinite Series and Finitization,
pp 115-117.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOEGELIN MAIN PAGE

NEXT QUOTATION

brilliant, is the book available electronically?

[M. Partyka]

This is the clearest analysis I have seen:Great. I'm not sure I understood any of it. :(

[Yuri Zharikov]

This is the clearest analysis I have seen:




This is good too (http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_table_of_contents.html)


On Biological Phenomenalism and Charles Darwin


[. . . The] success of the theory of evolution in the nineteenth century [ is a source of bewilderment to the historian of ideas]. The evolution of the forms of life, as we observed [earlier in the text], was treated thoroughly in the biological theory of the eighteenth century. The creational theory of the species was abandoned; the idea of a chronological succession of living forms from primitive to the most complicated was conceived. The increase of phenomenal knowledge concerning their unfolding was acknowledged, but the insight was also gained that the idea of an evolution of living forms did not bring us one step nearer to an understanding of the mystery of the substance that was evolving through the chain of forms.
The chain of evolutionary forms as a whole was just as much of an ultimate datum in ontology as previously had been the single species. No speculative prolongation of the chain into inorganic matter and no raising of the question of whether organic forms originated in inorganic matter could change the problem either. Such speculation simply meant pushing the mystery of the potentiality that unfolded morphologically in time a step further back without understanding it any better. . . . By the time of Kant the problem of evolution was reduced to its phenomenal proportions.
And now, in the nineteenth century, as if nothing had happened, a new phenomenal theory of evolution, operating with the conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, natural selections, etc., had a popular success and became a mass creed for the semieducated. A theory that, assuming that it was empirically tenable, could at best furnish an insight into the mechanics of evolution without touching its substance was accepted as a revelation concerning the nature of life and as compelling a reorientation of our views concerning the nature of man and his position in the cosmos.
. . . . A theory that in itself might contribute to our knowledge of the phenomenal unfolding of a substance is perverted into a philosophy of substance; the causal relationship of phenomena (always assuming the correctness of the theory) is understood as an explanation on the level of the substance of life.
The principal causes of this transformation of phenomenal relations into a phenomenal reality are well known. Darwin was a great empirical biologist who marshaled convincingly the materials in support of his theory; the massiveness of empirical data opened a view into a new realm of ordered knowledge. At the same time, neither Darwin nor his followers were the best of theorists, so that the issue between phenomenal and substantial knowledge could remain relatively obscure. We are faced with the problem of the nineteenth century that with the increasing specialization of the sciences, scholars who are impeccable as masters of their field become unable to see the theoretical problems of their special science in proper relation to the problems of ontology and metaphysics.
Moreover, the will to create a phenomenal reality out of the propositions of a science of phenomena was an independent factor on the occasion of the magnificent unfolding of biology, just as it was on the occasion of the unfolding of astronomy and physics in the seventeenth century.
The evolutionary movement has a distinct anti-Christian, secularistic flavor through the assumption that the interpretation of man as the final link in the chain of evolution has a bearing on the understanding of man as a spiritual existence; the will to understand man as having his position in a world-immanent order revealed by a science of phenomena, instead of in a transcendental order revealed by the cognitio fidei, is the dynamic factor in the transformation.
The biological conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, etc., were absorbed into the interpretation of society and politics. Within the order of competitive society the idea of natural selection could fortify the belief that the successful man is the better man, that success is fated in the order of nature, and that the order created by success is a right order because it is willed by nature—irrespective of the moral and spiritual issues involved. . . . [T]he substance of man and society is overlaid with a coat of biological phenomena that smothers the spiritual and moral awareness and tends to replace the spiritual order of society with an order of biological survival . . . .

CW Vol 25 (HPI-VII) (http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_bibliographic_key.html#HPI-VII)
Chapter 1 Phenomenalism
§ 1e. Biological Phenomenalism, pp184-187.

(http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_bibliographic_key.html#HPI-VII)






TABLE OF CONTENTS (http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_table_of_contents.html)


VOEGELIN MAIN PAGE (http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin.html#contents)


NEXT QUOTATION (http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/economic_phenomenalism.html)

[Yuri Zharikov]

Sorry, I could not help but to add this one from the same source.

------------
A further trait connected with the transfer of pathos is the rise of aggressive dilettantism in philosophical matters. Again, this is not a question of simple ignorance or dilettantism that may occur at any time. The new and dangerous element is the readiness of the dilettante to impose his ignorance as a standard on others. Clarke's " I do not understand" in answer to Leibniz's exposition of the problems of time and space is the ominous symptom of the new attitude. He really does not understand – and that settles the argument in his favor. What the scientistic dilettante cannot understand must not be proposed in discussions of a problem.... What Newton had to say in his definitions of space affected the formation of political ideas immeasurably. The social success of Newton's theory of absolute space is the first great instance of successful dilettantic theories, advanced either by scientists themselves or (after the transfer of the pathos of science on a relevant scale) by the great spiritual eunuchs of the nineteenth century. Without the prestige effect of scientism, such major intellectual scandals as the social success of Positivism, or Darwinian evolutionism, or Marxism would be unthinkable.

CW Vol 24 (HPI-VI),
REVOLUTION AND THE NEW SCIENCE,
Chapter 4, The English Quest for the Concrete,
§ 3. Absolute Space and Relativity, pp 211-213.

(http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_bibliographic_key.html#HPI-VI)

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


This is good too (http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/eric_voegelin_table_of_contents.html)


On Biological Phenomenalism and Charles Darwin

. . . . A theory that in itself might contribute to our knowledge of the phenomenal unfolding of a substance is perverted into a philosophy of substance; the causal relationship of phenomena (always assuming the correctness of the theory) is understood as an explanation on the level of the substance of life.

The principal causes of this transformation of phenomenal relations into a phenomenal reality are well known. Darwin was a great empirical biologist who marshaled convincingly the materials in support of his theory; the massiveness of empirical data opened a view into a new realm of ordered knowledge. At the same time, neither Darwin nor his followers were the best of theorists, so that the issue between phenomenal and substantial knowledge could remain relatively obscure. We are faced with the problem of the nineteenth century that with the increasing specialization of the sciences, scholars who are impeccable as masters of their field become unable to see the theoretical problems of their special science in proper relation to the problems of ontology and metaphysics.

Moreover, the will to create a phenomenal reality out of the propositions of a science of phenomena was an independent factor on the occasion of the magnificent unfolding of biology, just as it was on the occasion of the unfolding of astronomy and physics in the seventeenth century.

The evolutionary movement has a distinct anti-Christian, secularistic flavor through the assumption that the interpretation of man as the final link in the chain of evolution has a bearing on the understanding of man as a spiritual existence; the will to understand man as having his position in a world-immanent order revealed by a science of phenomena, instead of in a transcendental order revealed by the cognitio fidei, is the dynamic factor in the transformation.

The biological conceptions of the struggle for life, the survival of the fittest, etc., were absorbed into the interpretation of society and politics. Within the order of competitive society the idea of natural selection could fortify the belief that the successful man is the better man, that success is fated in the order of nature, and that the order created by success is a right order because it is willed by nature—irrespective of the moral and spiritual issues involved. . . . [T]he substance of man and society is overlaid with a coat of biological phenomena that smothers the spiritual and moral awareness and tends to replace the spiritual order of society with an order of biological survival . . . . This is quite in line with what I stated in post #13 of the "Could man's creative power have collectively created science?" thread.

In +, James

[M. Partyka]

Part of the concern over evolutionary theory seems to be its counter-Christian influence on societal development. And I'm inclined to believe that running one's life according to evolutionary principles is counter-Christian. After all, the standard of fitness according to natural selection is, "Did you survive long enough to have kids -- lots and lots of them?" Compare that with the Christian elevation of virginity as a noble way of life: "Not only did you not have kids -- you didn't have them on purpose!"

By these standards, Catholic families have the best chance at winning the evolutionary struggle. Catholic priests, on the other hand, are much more prone to dying out as a species. ;)

[M. Partyka]

By these standards, Catholic families have the best chance at winning the evolutionary struggle.Oops. I stand corrected. Mormon polygamist patriarchs are #1.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/05/polygamist.families/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think we are straying a bit. This is not the "castigate other faiths" forum. Let's get back to patristic teachings on creation and evolutionary theory.

Herman

[M. Partyka]

Oh, for heaven's sake...lighten up a little, will ya? Besides, even if the reasoning behind having so many kids is grounded more in faith than in survival, the fact is that the outcome of these faith's practices is that their followers come out ahead of the curve with regard to natural selection. A guy with 36 kids would be considered very successful in a society run according to evolutionary theory.

As for Catholic priests, let's look at them vs. the Protestant side of things. A Catholic priest is ordained presumably because he has a firm grasp of the faith, is able to teach the faith to others, and perhaps most importantly, is able to provide in his own life an example of how others should live their lives. Now, given all that, take into account the fact that most Catholic priests have zero children. Again, the person who is supposed to be the most constant Christ-like example to the congregation is not allowed to breed. Without getting into an argument about "nature vs. nurture" and free will and all that, how much sense does this really make?

Now flip over to the Protestant side of things. Who are some of the most successful and/or well-known Protestant pastors/evangelists today?

1) Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham).
2) Joel Osteen (son of John Osteen).
3) Robert A. Schuller (son of Robert H. Schuller).

Some other mentionables:

4) Andy Stanley (son of Charles Stanley)
5) Logan Sekulow (son of Christian lawyer/activist Jay Sekulow)
6) Melissa Scott (widow of Gene Scott)

What is the "draw" of these heirs-apparent, if not the fact that they were related to persons already considered trustworthy by the present generation?

Now think about your priests. If, say, 30 years from now, your priest's son became a priest himself, wouldn't the son's parentage be an automatic "plus" in his corner? Not a guarantee, of course -- Adam had Cain as well as Abel, Isaac had Esau as well as Jacob, etc., etc. -- but it would at least be a positive influence, right? At the very least, you might surmise that the son could very well possess whatever genetic advantages were present in the father which facilitated his priestly service (e.g., a calm demeanor, charisma, voice, a sharp memory, etc.).

[Deanna Leonti]

Anthropology Class taught
"the Evolutionary Theory"
are changes in the genetic make-up of a population over generations.

through;

natural selection, sexual selection, mutation, genetic drift and gene flow differential reproductive success are mechanism of modern theory of evolution.

[Deanna Leonti]

M. Partyka

Now flip over to the Protestant side of things. Who are some of the most successful and/or well-known Protestant pastors/evangelists today?


1) Franklin Graham (son of Billy Graham).
2) Joel Osteen (son of John Osteen).
3) Robert A. Schuller (son of Robert H. Schuller).

Some other mentionables:

4) Andy Stanley (son of Charles Stanley)
5) Logan Sekulow (son of Christian lawyer/activist Jay Sekulow)
6) Melissa Scott (widow of Gene Scott)

What is the "draw" of these heirs-apparent, if not the fact that they were related to persons already considered trustworthy by the present generation?

Now think about your priests. If, say, 30 years from now, your priest's son became a priest himself, wouldn't the son's parentage be an automatic "plus" in his corner? Not a guarantee, of course -- Adam had Cain as well as Abel, Isaac had Esau as well as Jacob, etc., etc. -- but it would at least be a positive influence, right? At the very least, you might surmise that the son could very well possess whatever genetic advantages were present in the father which facilitated his priestly service (e.g., a calm demeanor, charisma, voice, a sharp memory, etc.).


Does anyone have an idea what ever happened to the children of the Apostles?, or past & present clergy's offspring?


http://childrenofpriests.org/web/

[RichardWorthington]

Does anyone have an idea what ever happened to the children of the Apostles?, or past & present clergy's offspring?


This is actually an interesting question. We all know that they were married, and St Peter's mother-in-law has been famously used to go against clerical celibacy. But, doing a quick web search, and thinking of all the saints lives, and apocryphal gospels and stories, their children seem never to have been mentioned! (Unless we consider the rather amusing story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the whole I'm-annoyed-with-the-western-churches phenomenon!)

Richard

[Owen Jones]

The above series of posts highlights one troubling whole in evolutionary theory. We don't really know what "selective advantage" means. Is there a selective advantage to being moral? Spiritual? Spending your life in prayer and meditation? Writing a sonnet? A Platonic dialogue. A Divine Mystagogy? What possible genetic advantage is there to these? Useless byproducts, like an appendix?

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Does anyone have an idea what ever happened to the children of the Apostles?, or past & present clergy's offspring?Tradition has it that the wedding where Jesus miraculously transformed water into wine was Peter's, and that right after it, Peter left his wife to follow Christ, thus remaining celibate.

He only went through the wedding because he made a commitment before he met the Lord. He was simply honoring it and his fiance.

I don't know of any other Apostle being married, certainly not John and no wives are mentioned for the others. So I believe that none of them sired children at all.

I know what happened only to the offspring of clergy that I am personally acquainted with.

In +, James

[M. Partyka]

Tradition has it that the wedding where Jesus miraculously transformed water into wine was Peter's, and that right after it, Peter left his wife to follow Christ, thus remaining celibate. He only went through the wedding because he made a commitment before he met the Lord. He was simply honoring it and his fiance. I don't know of any other Apostle being married, certainly not John and no wives are mentioned for the others.Never heard of that tradition before. St. Paul speaks of the apostles' spouses in 1 Cor 9:5 -- "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" The early Fathers I've read seemed okay with the idea of the apostles' having been married, albeit chastely and with an eye to procreation only (which is the general attitude of the Fathers concerning married relations). None of the Fathers mention any children of the apostles, though, and I haven't seen any reference to an apostle's wife other than Peter's.

[M. Partyka]

The above series of posts highlights one troubling whole in evolutionary theory. We don't really know what "selective advantage" means. Is there a selective advantage to being moral? Spiritual? Spending your life in prayer and meditation? Writing a sonnet? A Platonic dialogue. A Divine Mystagogy? What possible genetic advantage is there to these? Useless byproducts, like an appendix?Not to sound like a college student, but in terms of natural selection, any one of these traits is only as advantageous to you as it helps you score with the opposite sex (or at least survive until such time as you can so score) and have lots of babies. Remember, on the natural selection scale, zero kids equals zero points. Ultimately, this is why thinking of society in evolutionary terms leads nowhere. Under natural selection, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II both score a zero, while the inner-city drug dealer with 12 kids by six different women is a high-scorer. No civilized society grades on that kind of scale, nor should it. "Whoever dies with the most kids wins" is adequate if survival is the only goal worth fighting for, but I don't think human society has sunk to that level just yet.

[Deanna Leonti]

Selective Advantage
A genetic advantage of one organism over its competitors that causes it to be favored in survival and reproduction rates over time.

Natural Selection
Natural selection is the natural process in which the fittest in a group of offspring survive to pass on their heritable traits to subsequent generations while those less fit die off leaving no offspring and thereby terminating the traits characterizing the less fit organism. Darwin theorized that this process could account for changes in the characteristic traits of species over time and eventually produce wholly new species and different types of organisms.

Mutation
An alteration of the genetic material of a cell that may be caused either by spontaneous changes or by external forces (such as radiation). Mutations that occur in the gametes (sex cells) of an organism are heritable. Mutations are thought to be the primary mechanism of variation upon which natural selection operates.

Sexual
Sexual selection is a from of natural selection that results from differential mating success in male due to competition, in females due choice.

Genetic Drift
Genetic drift is the random change in gene frequencies due to sampling variations that occur in a finite, small population.

Gene Flow
Gene flow is the movement of Genes from one population to another, or from one part of a population to another as a result of interbreeding.

Adaption
Both a process & result of a beneficial adjustment of organisms to their environment

2 distinct modes of how to view the world that Anthropologists use to frame their inquiries:
Standard Sociological Model based on concepts from the Enlightenment and Genesis and the Indigenous Tribal Model.

Darwin's great idea was to develope the mechanism of "Natural Selection" that gave an
answer to the "how" of evolution in biological organisms.

"Evolution Theory "is also based upon evidence, changing species by selection of genes that are not goal directed.

Anthropology 101 notes
&
www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Selective_Advantage

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


Never heard of that tradition before. St. Paul speaks of the apostles' spouses in 1 Cor 9:5 -- "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" The early Fathers I've read seemed okay with the idea of the apostles' having been married, albeit chastely and with an eye to procreation only (which is the general attitude of the Fathers concerning married relations). None of the Fathers mention any children of the apostles, though, and I haven't seen any reference to an apostle's wife other than Peter's.God speaks to most of us Orthodox Christians via two means. They are Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. This is stated in Orthodox Catachism books.

Holy Tradition is 'word of mouth' as passed down through the ages from Christ to/through the Apostles, through generations of Bishops and priests right up to the present day. Peter's wedding is from that Orthodox source.

So, for example, Archbishop Averky wrote and had published a paper that described the items that Christ wrote in the dust when he saved the woman being condemned for adultry.

One Holywood movie showed it to be a simple image of a fish and then had the next scene show Jesus feeding thousands from a couple fish and loaves.

But Holy Tradition gives actual words, and when you know them you understand why the three accusers became 'petrified' with fear, leaving off from their finger-pointing and walking away.

About the quote from 1 Cor. 9:5. It seems to have a different meaning to the original KJV which reads:
"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Ce'phas?" (1 Cor. 9:5 KJV). In the above quote, it can be seen that there is no indication of apostles being married.

The original KJV has priority when seeking accurate interpretations of the Bible, and then it falls below the Greek to English translations in its accuracy because the Protestant "re-writers" of the Bible into modern language took some liberties with passages that seemed inplausable to them, having not the Holy fathers as guides in their efforts.

CHRIST IS RISEN! James

[Owen Jones]

If that is what the Orthodox catechism states, then it is most surely wrong, because what it is saying is that God is history! Something in the past.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

"Holy Tradition is 'word of mouth' as passed down through the ages from Christ to/through the Apostles, through generations of Bishops and priests right up to the present day." This is basic Orthodox church- (I won't say Sunday because classes are generally held on saturdays)-school teaching.

How can you say "it is most surely wrong"? The statement does not say that God is history. You would then call the Holy Bible merely a written history by that same rational'.

Christ's teachings are passed down to us by word of mouth (as well as via Holy Scripture). No one said anything about diminishing God to history (other than you of course).

I think we are straying too far off topic for this thread. I'll make no more comments about Holy Tradition in it.

Christ is Risen! James

[Yuri Zharikov]

Post 95 (a set of textbook definitions from population genetics), presumably written in response to Owen's question about what is selective advantage, requires some comments.

First, it is not traits but individuals that are selected and in individuals "traits" - expressions of genetic information modulated by the environment - are packaged, which makes selection for a trait often an abstract notion and an exception rather than a rule.

Second, in real life mortality in 99.9% of cases is stochastic (random), i.e. it is not related to physical fitness of an individual provided in fact one could define what fitness is without getting into tautology, survival=fitness=survival, etc.

Third, if an individual fails to reproduce, its genetic trait or traits do not disappear, but rather frequency of a particular gene in a population is reduced.

Fourth, there is no consistent evidence that sexual selection (a kind of natural selection) actually selects for genetically heritable traits for the same reason as given in the first point - it is an individual that is selected for by the opposite sex, not a trait. Individuals generally select for individuals of the opposite sex that appear to be better producers. To have a potentially high fecundity is not a trait but a combination of many genetic traits and a favourable nurturing environment, so it cannot be inherited in a direct way.

Fifth, selection (to be selective, ha, ha) can act only on highly deleterious mutations and when they are phenotypically expressed. 99.9% of mutations are in the range from mildly deleterious to near neutral and they come in packages, and so they are not expressed in an apparent way and cannot be selected against. For this reason all populations gradually accumulate mutation load, which sooner or later leads to a genetic meltdown (those dealing with endangered species in tiny populations are particularly keenly aware of this).

Sixth, (follows from fifth) selection cannot keep up with natural degradation of genetic information that occurs due to mutations.

Seventh, mutations, genetic drift and any segregation of populations into smaller groups (e.g. artificial selection) has only one result - loss of genetic information and degradation of the overall gene pool. It is the context in which "adaptation" should be understood. If a population is exposed to an extreme selector (e.g. a series of harsh winters) that completely eliminates an mono-genetic trait through loss of the fraction of the population possessing the trait and the trait in fact is lost, this only means that the species/population has been genetically impoverished, not improved.

Eighth (and final point). If one thinks of population genetic processes (in post 95) in the same terms as for example improvement/adaptation of computer software, legislation or kitchen appliances (i.e. addition, improvement and sophistication of functions and elements), he’s got it exactly backwards. Population genetics processes lead only to expression (and eventual loss) of that which already exists (is God-given). They produce zero new stuff.

[M. Partyka]

Holy Tradition is 'word of mouth' as passed down through the ages from Christ to/through the Apostles, through generations of Bishops and priests right up to the present day. Peter's wedding is from that Orthodox source.Need I remind you of how St. Irenaeus, barely two generations removed from St. John, claimed it was a verified and reputable tradition of the Church that Christ lived to be fifty years old?


About the quote from 1 Cor. 9:5. It seems to have a different meaning to the original KJV which reads: In the above quote, it can be seen that there is no indication of apostles being married.Let's look at that again:


"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Ce'phas?" (1 Cor. 9:5 KJV).Paul asks, "Don't I have the right to be married?" and then he gives examples of married persons of high rank in the Church: "other apostles,...the brethren of the Lord, and Ce'phas". Essentially, he's saying, "I could be married just as they are, but I choose not to be."

[David Stark]

Kent Hovind has pulverized every evolutionist he has debated. Watch him debate them on youtube.

Also, read "Intelligent Design," by Dembski.

[M. Partyka]

...in real life mortality in 99.9% of cases is stochastic (random), i.e. it is not related to physical fitness of an individual provided in fact one could define what fitness is without getting into tautology, survival=fitness=survival, etc.If we're talking about "real life" in the wild, I have to disagree. If a pack of gazelles is being chased by a hungry lion, then it's generally the slower gazelles that are going to get eaten, whereas the faster gazelles will escape and live to breed more fast gazelles. True, a fast gazelle could trip on a rock and wind up as dinner instead of a slow gazelle, but it's just as likely that a slow gazelle would trip as it is that a fast gazelle would trip, so it all evens out. Thus, over long periods of time, the slower gazelles would continue to end up as dinner more often than not, and the faster gazelles would keep on living and breeding, thus resulting in a gradual rise in average herd speed.


...there is no consistent evidence that sexual selection (a kind of natural selection) actually selects for genetically heritable traits for the same reason as given in the first point - it is an individual that is selected for by the opposite sex, not a trait. Individuals generally select for individuals of the opposite sex that appear to be better producers.Uh, huh...like female birds ask to see their male counterparts' tax returns?

It's a fact that some birds are more likely to mate and produce offspring based on heritable physical traits, including traits that we humans can't even see without the aid of technology. For example, some birds can see into the ultraviolet spectrum, and they tend to select mates whose plumage is particularly bright in that portion of the spectrum.


To have a potentially high fecundity is not a trait but a combination of many genetic traits and a favourable nurturing environment, so it cannot be inherited in a direct way.Not sure what you mean here. Any combination of genetic traits existing in an individual can be directly inherited by its offspring.


selection...can act only on highly deleterious mutations and when they are phenotypically expressed. 99.9% of mutations are in the range from mildly deleterious to near neutral and they come in packages, and so they are not expressed in an apparent way and cannot be selected against. For this reason all populations gradually accumulate mutation load, which sooner or later leads to a genetic meltdown (those dealing with endangered species in tiny populations are particularly keenly aware of this)....selection cannot keep up with natural degradation of genetic information that occurs due to mutations....mutations, genetic drift and any segregation of populations into smaller groups (e.g. artificial selection) has only one result - loss of genetic information and degradation of the overall gene pool. It is the context in which "adaptation" should be understood. If a population is exposed to an extreme selector (e.g. a series of harsh winters) that completely eliminates an mono-genetic trait through loss of the fraction of the population possessing the trait and the trait in fact is lost, this only means that the species/population has been genetically impoverished, not improved....Population genetics processes lead only to expression (and eventual loss) of that which already exists (is God-given). They produce zero new stuff.This is an often-repeated argument, but it's nevertheless wrong on several points.

1) Any mutation that is even slightly deleterious to an organism in some tangible way is open to selection. Even a mutation in an organism that renders it only 0.0001% less effective at surviving and breeding as the next organism is open to selection. Likewise, a mutation that renders an organism only 0.0001% more effective at surviving and breeding is legitimate material for selection to act upon.

2) Mutations do not necessarily come in "packages" (whatever that means). Point-mutations occurring in non-coding, regulatory regions of DNA can have significant impact on an organism's overall development (from embryo to full-fledged organism). Very small changes in regulatory DNA can impact an organism's body plan in significant ways.

3) Selection can and does "keep up" with genetic mutations by selecting against those individuals whose mutations are deleterious to the point of being destructive. In other words, the "bad mutants" die, while the more biologically "mainstream" organisms survive and flourish.

4) There is a mechanism for increasing genetic information within a species: gene duplication and specialization. Sometimes a portion of DNA is copied more times than is necessary. Usually the copy is inert, but that just means it's open to being changed through mutations. Accumulated mutations can result in these copies' becoming functional genes that are then open to being selected against. In other cases, the copy is active alongside the original, and random mutations cause either the original or the copy (or both) to specialize -- i.e., take over distinct tasks.

[Yuri Zharikov]

If we're talking about "real life" in the wild, I have to disagree. If a pack of gazelles is being chased by a hungry lion, then it's generally the slower gazelles that are going to get eaten, whereas the faster gazelles will escape and live to breed more fast gazelles.

I find it mildly amisung that the response starts with "real life" but then an imaginary example is given. Try again to give a "real life" example. What you what to show is that predation is selective with respect to fitness, i.e. individuals that are killed are inferior to those that survive and that this is a prevailing pattern not an exception (or as it is in your case an assumption), as for example in this article (Animal Behaviour 65: 463-470: During years of high predation, we found moderate selection favouring bold ewes, and age-specific selection on docility. Old ewes appeared more vulnerable to predation than young ewes. In contrast, no evidence of selection on temperament traits was observed during 2 years of low predation). You also need to demonstrate heritability of the fitness trait (temperament in this case). So far your argument has no substance.


It's a fact that some birds are more likely to mate and produce offspring based on heritable physical traits, including traits that we humans can't even see without the aid of technology. For example, some birds can see into the ultraviolet spectrum, and they tend to select mates whose plumage is particularly bright in that portion of the spectrum.

If you read my comment carefuly, you will see that I used words "no consistent", which means that there examples consistent with the idea of sexual selection for strongly heritable traits and inconsistent as in this study (Am. Naturalist 155:301-310: Analysis of a large data set from the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis confirmed a previous finding that traits closely associated with fitness tend to have lower heritability). You may also keep in consideration that studies that do not report positive results do not get published - a recognised and much lamented phenomenon.


Not sure what you mean here. Any combination of genetic traits existing in an individual can be directly inherited by its offspring.

What I mean here is a linkage of genes. When passed from one generation to the other genes are not inherited fully independetly. If they control expression of different traits, these traits cannot be selected for independently.


This is an often-repeated argument, but it's nevertheless wrong on several points.

1) Any mutation that is even slightly deleterious to an organism in some tangible way is open to selection. Even a mutation in an organism that renders it only 0.0001% less effective at surviving and breeding as the next organism is open to selection. Likewise, a mutation that renders an organism only 0.0001% more effective at surviving and breeding is legitimate material for selection to act upon.

Same as what's been said above... these are speculations detached from reality.


2) Mutations do not necessarily come in "packages" (whatever that means). Point-mutations occurring in non-coding, regulatory regions of DNA can have significant impact on an organism's overall development (from embryo to full-fledged organism). Very small changes in regulatory DNA can impact an organism's body plan in significant ways.

Do not understand what your point is. Mutations in regulatory regions result in severe handicaps which is what I said, but these are rare events (in other words how many individuals with severe deformities do you see around?). Your basic point mutations are near-neutral.


3) Selection can and does "keep up" with genetic mutations

Sorry this is nonesense or else you do not understand what I trying to say. I am not talking here about strongly deleterious mutations. If a mutation is not expressed it cannot be selecated against. If its effect is very weak it cannot be selected against because environmental effects in themselves will be exerting a much greater influence on a population. Such mutations will accumulate.

Lynch & Gabriel. 1990. Evolution 44:1725-1737: The accumulation of deleterious mutations is expected to cause gradual reduction in population size. Consequently in small populations a random genetic drift will progressively overpower selection making it easier to fix future mutations. This synergistic interaction which we refer to as mutational melt-down, ultimately leads to population extinction.




4) There is a mechanism for increasing genetic information within a species: gene duplication and specialization. Sometimes a portion of DNA is copied more times than is necessary. Usually the copy is inert, but that just means it's open to being changed through mutations. Accumulated mutations can result in these copies' becoming functional genes that are then open to being selected against. In other cases, the copy is active alongside the original, and random mutations cause either the original or the copy (or both) to specialize -- i.e., take over distinct tasks.

That's a great story, as usual. Could we have an empirical example?

[Yuri Zharikov]

4) There is a mechanism for increasing genetic information within a species: gene duplication and specialization. Sometimes a portion of DNA is copied more times than is necessary. Usually the copy is inert, but that just means it's open to being changed through mutations. Accumulated mutations can result in these copies' becoming functional genes that are then open to being selected against. In other cases, the copy is active alongside the original, and random mutations cause either the original or the copy (or both) to specialize -- i.e., take over distinct tasks.

As a further comment and to keep us focused I would like to say that while populatoin genetics is an exciting topic and how selective pressures do and do not operate in real populations is an actively studied subject with thousands of publications available, it does not really belong to this thread and if keenly desired should be discussed via PMs. Population genetics deals with expression, re-distribution and preservation or loss of that which is available. This thread is about emergence of novelty, something that did no exist before. So again let us focus on what is the core subject of the discussion and not waste each others time looking up peripheral info.

If I understand the quote above correctly the following natural mechanism of origination of novelty is proposed.
You have two production lines printing the War and Peace or say Make your own kayak manual. One line is checked for typing errors, paper and ink quality, binding strength, etc and the other for some reason is not. Typing errors are random changes of letters in some words and tiny, miniscule faults with ink, binding, paper quality, etc. The process goes on for some time and vuala, 15,000 prints later the second copy turns into Alice in the Wonderland or Make your own toaster manual.

Sounds like a great concept and a captivating fiction story, but show us the evidence.

[M. Partyka]

I find it mildly amisung that the response starts with "real life" but then an imaginary example is given.What, gazelles aren't chased by lions in real life?


What you what to show is that predation is selective with respect to fitness, i.e. individuals that are killed are inferior to those that survive and that this is a prevailing pattern not an exception (or as it is in your case an assumption), as for example in this article (Animal Behaviour 65: 463-470: During years of high predation, we found moderate selection favouring bold ewes, and age-specific selection on docility. Old ewes appeared more vulnerable to predation than young ewes. In contrast, no evidence of selection on temperament traits was observed during 2 years of low predation). You also need to demonstrate heritability of the fitness trait (temperament in this case). So far your argument has no substance.What is it about this article you quoted that you think runs contrary to the concept of natural selection? Under greater selection pressure (in this case, predation), temperament became a selective factor. As for the heritability of temperament, I've seen that in myself as well as in my friends and their kids.


there examples consistent with the idea of sexual selection for strongly heritable traits and inconsistent as in this study (Am. Naturalist 155:301-310: Analysis of a large data set from the collared flycatcher Ficedula albicollis confirmed a previous finding that traits closely associated with fitness tend to have lower heritability).This doesn't disprove anything, though. "Lower heritability" means the chance of a positive sexually-selective trait's being passed down to one's offspring is less than the chance of that offspring's inheriting a corresponding negative trait. It doesn't change how the trait is viewed by members of the opposite sex.

For example, let's say blue eyes are considered by many to be more attractive than brown eyes. Because blue eyes require a combination of two recessive genes to manifest, it's considerably harder to inherit blue eyes than brown eyes. That lower heritability doesn't have any bearing, however, on the attractiveness of blue eyes to members of the opposite sex.


What I mean here is a linkage of genes. When passed from one generation to the other genes are not inherited fully independetly. If they control expression of different traits, these traits cannot be selected for independently.Actually, yes, they can. Let's say that a gene codes for the formation of fingers, toes, and ear cartilage. It's true that change to this particular gene itself will likely cause all three of its functions, so (to use an outlandish example) a mutation that changes finger development into pincer development would also probably result in webbed feet and Vulcan ears. However, there are mutations that can occur outside the gene itself that can affect how the gene expresses itself in any individual development function that gene carries out. So a mutation in one area of regulatory DNA existing outside the gene being regulated could cause the gene to form six fingers instead of five yet have no impact on the gene's function in forming toes and ear cartilage.


Mutations in regulatory regions result in severe handicaps which is what I said, but these are rare events (in other words how many individuals with severe deformities do you see around?).Mutations in regulatory regions do not universally result in severe handicaps any more than mutations in coding regions universally result in severe handicaps.


Your basic point mutations are near-neutral."Near-neutral" is just another expression for "mildly significant", which in fact means "able to be selected against".


If a mutation is not expressed it cannot be selecated against.This is true.


If its effect is very weak it cannot be selected against because environmental effects in themselves will be exerting a much greater influence on a population. Such mutations will accumulate.This is false, as it is the environmental effects themselves that generate the selective pressures that may or may not be relevant to the comparatively weak effect.

In other words, if your being six feet tall is more immediately conducive to survival than my being five feet tall, then yes, the fact that I have blue eyes and you have brown eyes doesn't matter so much as it would if all height-selective conditions for us were equal. But they still matter in the case of my five-foot-tall neighbor with brown eyes, as my blue eyes give me a better chance with the ladies than him.


Lynch & Gabriel. 1990. Evolution 44:1725-1737: The accumulation of deleterious mutations is expected to cause gradual reduction in population size. Consequently in small populations a random genetic drift will progressively overpower selection making it easier to fix future mutations. This synergistic interaction which we refer to as mutational melt-down, ultimately leads to population extinction.I made a brief attempt to do the math on this, but it's beyond my capabilities. I understand the concept, but I question whether the trend is universally negative. Genetic drift is random by definition, but natural selection is not. In a limited population -- one that is below some critical threshold of members -- I can see how this negative trend might occur, but above that threshold I see no reason why natural selection would necessarily be outpaced by genetic drift.


If I understand the quote above correctly the following natural mechanism of origination of novelty is proposed. You have two production lines printing the War and Peace or say Make your own kayak manual. One line is checked for typing errors, paper and ink quality, binding strength, etc and the other for some reason is not. Typing errors are random changes of letters in some words and tiny, miniscule faults with ink, binding, paper quality, etc. The process goes on for some time and vuala, 15,000 prints later the second copy turns into Alice in the Wonderland or Make your own toaster manual.Sounds like a great concept and a captivating fiction story, but show us the evidence.[/quote]Here's the best and easiest example I know: bicolor vision and tricolor vision in primates.

Certain structures within primate eyes use pigment cells to interpret colors and transmit signals to the brain, thereby enabling primates to distinguish between colors. There are three such pigments, which for simplicity's sake we'll call red, green, and blue.

All primates have red and blue pigments, so all primates have at least a baseline ability to distinguish between certain red-based colors and certain blue-based colors. This is bicolor vision, and it's kind of like being "one step up" on black-and-white vision.

Some primates, however, have tricolor vision. This is because they have an additional green pigment that enables them to distinguish among a wider range of colors. Where did this green pigment come from? The answer is gene duplication and specialization.

The red and blue pigment genes are located in different places in primate DNA, but the green pigment gene in primates with tricolor vision is located right next to the red pigment gene, and the similarities between them indicate that the green gene was originally a copy of the red gene that got "fine-tuned" over time via mutations so that it began to pick up green light rather than red light.

(Sorry about the lack of citations for all of this, but my books are at home. They are the same two books by Sean Carroll I've previously referenced: Endless Forms Most Beautiful and The Making of the Fittest. I've recently received another by a different author called Relics of Eden which is supposed to show evidence of evolution in human DNA, but I haven't read it yet.)


As a further comment and to keep us focused I would like to say that while populatoin genetics is an exciting topic and how selective pressures do and do not operate in real populations is an actively studied subject with thousands of publications available, it does not really belong to this thread and if keenly desired should be discussed via PMs.I respectfully disagree. The main purpose of this thread is to show how the Fathers' writings can be brought to bear on the debate over creation and evolution, and the main argument I've heard so far is, "The Fathers say it didn't happen." If the facts say otherwise, this needs to be known so that we can determine whether we need to reevaulate the Fathers' remarks on the creation of the world accordingly.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Some primates, however, have tricolor vision. This is because they have an additional green pigment that enables them to distinguish among a wider range of colors. Where did this green pigment come from? The answer is gene duplication and specialization.



really, are you saying that if you duplicate a gene in a bicolor primate, you will get tricolor vision in its progeny?

[RichardWorthington]

Hello again from this side of the ‘pond’!

I am not quite following the discussion about mutations, traits, and so on. However, I have been thinking quite a bit about evolution, old earth and universe, and creation (along my own daft way of thinking, of course!), and here is the fruit of my thoughts (whether that fruit is like a sour lemon or a sweet orange I will let you decide!):


Here's the problem I have with the whole "two worlds" theory. First, it's pretty clear to me that neither Scripture nor the Fathers consider themselves to be talking about a different world in Genesis 1.

Well, the Fathers do at least make it clear that the initial world was very different from what it is now. I am merely making the hypothesis that the difference may be linked to the fact that another dimension or universe (the "spiritual world") is now separated from this world (the "physical world").

However, I think the existence of another dimension can be seen to be something so a part of this life that it is assumed without being stated. I think it is true to say that in all the world, in all peoples, and in all religions, ‘up’ is associated with either a ‘higher being’ or the spiritual world. In our own tradition, the angels come to take to souls of the departed, and they take them upwards. Here, ‘up’ is not along a specific direction but is ‘away from the earth’, for even on the other side of this spherical world the angels take souls ‘up’ away from the earth. If I may be analytical for a moment, this would require another dimension.

For example, consider if we all lived on the surface of a circle on a flat piece of paper, and that we could only exist and see within this 2-dimensional world. ‘Up’ for us would be away from the centre of the circle, and ‘down’ would be towards the centre. (And I suppose that there would be some idiots claiming that their world was actually flat, just a 1-dimensional line, as that is all they could feel locally!) However, if the angels of God moved within our current 3D space, then up for them would be away from the piece of paper, they moving up in the same direction. ‘Up’ would then be redefined as ‘away from the paper’ for those so enlightened to know about the 3rd dimension. Similarly for us now: we live in a 3D universe, but the angels live in another dimension which we call the ‘spiritual’ world. Hence when they take souls away they are actually taking them in the same overall direction, even though for us ‘away from the earth’ might actually be in opposite directions.

This actually helps to refute the stupid idea that the Bible insists that the world is flat:


the essential flatness of the earth's surface is required by verses like Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." If the earth were flat, a sufficiently tall tree would be visible to "the earth's farthest bounds," but this is impossible on a spherical earth. Likewise, in describing the temptation of Jesus by Satan, Matthew 4:8 says, "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat. The same is true of Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..."
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

When every eye shall see Christ on the Last Day, no one was thinking that those farther away would see Him smaller than those nearer to Him! It is referring to this other dimension (or universe, as a separate universe can be probably considered as another dimension). (I did also ‘prove’ that the earth is flat here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=52700/lpost52700), but I am referring to the floor of the temple, being a symbol of the creation.)

As an aside - thus making this post even longer! - having another dimension does put certain Biblical events on a more ‘rational’ footing. Philip was teleported by the Spirit (Acts 8:39-40). All that needed to happen is that the Spirit moved Philip into this higher dimension, moved him along, and then moved him back into our world. To us he had moved instantaneously from one place to another, but in fact he might have just moved in another dimension. (Consider drawing a line across a piece of paper. To move a pencil from one side to the other it is necessary to move around the line; alternatively you could just lift the pencil up and move it down on the other side. To those living on the paper the pencil would have been teleported.)

Additionally, I have been thinking for sometime if the quantum world is somehow linked to the spiritual world (here as another dimension). This would make telepathy quite rationally acceptable: what if two quantum particles were to become somehow entangled, one particle being in one brain, and the other in another person’s brain. Some form of telepathic communication is then plausible, and the existence of another dimension would remove any ‘spookiness’ from the "spooky action at a distance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement/lBackground)" of Einstein.

Similarly, it could be that aliens from outer space have contacted us: they could have contacted us via telepathy. This would, however, take the lead in such discussions away from those Rationalists who want to control knowledge of such things, and hand it to those who are pure in heart to hear such things. (The 'aliens' being angels, or demons if you're unlucky, and 'outer space' being this other dimension.)

Additionally, Rationalists and Atheists have asked where our immortal souls come from. It could be that in all the animal world (which does include us), our sperm and eggs are somehow unique at a quantum level. When the two come into contact (via natural or artificial methods, probably including taking the centre of an egg and inserting it into another egg, which I think has been done(?) - certainly for animals) a soul would be generated in this other dimension (or perhaps part way, I do not know).

Well, I am not a scientist, but if these things are so then it would mean that we Christian believers are light years ahead of Rationalism.

I’ll write more about how another dimension can affect our view of evolution and creation soon.

Richard
PS. Some posts have appeared since I started writing, and I checked before I started who was on-line! oh well, sorry to interrupt!

[M. Partyka]

really, are you saying that if you duplicate a gene in a bicolor primate, you will get tricolor vision in its progeny?I'm saying that this is what has actually happened -- the "red" gene was duplicated in a particular primate, and down through the generations of that primate's offspring the copy mutated and specialized through natural selection to become the "green" gene.

[M. Partyka]

...the Fathers do at least make it clear that the initial world was very different from what it is now. I am merely making the hypothesis that the difference may be linked to the fact that another dimension or universe (the "spiritual world") is now separated from this world (the "physical world").The problem, however, is that the fossil record, which must necessarily be the record of the "physical world", isn't consistent with a literalist reading of Genesis, either.


However, I think the existence of another dimension can be seen to be something so a part of this life that it is assumed without being stated. I think it is true to say that in all the world, in all peoples, and in all religions, ‘up’ is associated with either a ‘higher being’ or the spiritual world. In our own tradition, the angels come to take to souls of the departed, and they take them upwards. Here, ‘up’ is not along a specific direction but is ‘away from the earth’, for even on the other side of this spherical world the angels take souls ‘up’ away from the earth. If I may be analytical for a moment, this would require another dimension.

For example, consider if we all lived on the surface of a circle on a flat piece of paper, and that we could only exist and see within this 2-dimensional world. ‘Up’ for us would be away from the centre of the circle, and ‘down’ would be towards the centre. (And I suppose that there would be some idiots claiming that their world was actually flat, just a 1-dimensional line, as that is all they could feel locally!) However, if the angels of God moved within our current 3D space, then up for them would be away from the piece of paper, they moving up in the same direction. ‘Up’ would then be redefined as ‘away from the paper’ for those so enlightened to know about the 3rd dimension. Similarly for us now: we live in a 3D universe, but the angels live in another dimension which we call the ‘spiritual’ world. Hence when they take souls away they are actually taking them in the same overall direction, even though for us ‘away from the earth’ might actually be in opposite directions.If you're thinking that this was what was in the mind of the ancients who wrote the Old Testament, I think you're giving them waaaaaay too much credit.

To them, "up" meant up, and "down" meant down. Why else would Moses consider people falling into a crevasse the equivalent of "going down to Hades alive"? It's because people believed Hades was a literal place under the earth where souls were kept. This belief persisted even into New Testament times.


Similarly, it could be that aliens from outer space have contacted us: they could have contacted us via telepathy....(The 'aliens' being angels, or demons if you're unlucky, and 'outer space' being this other dimension.)I did read one book in which it was suggested that "visitations" that formerly manifested as encounters with angels and demons are now manifesting as alien encounters because people's minds are now more predisposed to think in terms of aliens than of spiritual beings. Note that this does not mean that the visitations are being perceived differently today -- rather, the proposition is that they are actually manifesting differently today.

[RichardWorthington]

To them, "up" meant up, and "down" meant down. Why else would Moses consider people falling into a crevasse the equivalent of "going down to Hades alive"? It's because people believed Hades was a literal place under the earth where souls were kept. This belief persisted even into New Testament times.

However, consider the following:


I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a one was caught up to the third heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2

If he did not know if he was in the body or not, then he also knew that this was not a place which could be reached by going up enough, even though up is the only way to describe it. I have been taught that the vision of “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezekiel 1:28) naturally teaches those who see it.

Richard

[M. Partyka]

If he did not know if he was in the body or not, then he also knew that this was not a place which could be reached by going up enough, even though up is the only way to describe it.That really doesn't follow. You're saying, "If he didn't know in what condition he was (i.e., in body or only in spirit), he must have at least known where he wasn't (i.e., "up"). Note that he says "caught up to the third heaven". Note also in the book of Acts how Jesus bodily ascends into heaven. Heaven, to both St. Paul and St. Luke, was most definitely up.

[RichardWorthington]

That really doesn't follow. You're saying, "If he didn't know in what condition he was (i.e., in body or only in spirit), he must have at least known where he wasn't (i.e., "up"). Note that he says "caught up to the third heaven". Note also in the book of Acts how Jesus bodily ascends into heaven. Heaven, to both St. Paul and St. Luke, was most definitely up.

All I know is this: St Seraphim of Sarov claimed to have had the same Vision as the ancient prophets. The Fathers of the Church (St John of Damascus knew the earth was a sphere) also had this same Vision. 'Up' is the best way to describe the Vision, but for us to assume that they took it to imply that by going up and up physically that one could reach Paradise is incorrect thinking on our part.

Just because they did not know the geography of the world, or of the motions of the planets (including a spherical earth) in space, does not mean that they did not know what they had experienced. After Jacob had his vision of the ladder reaching to heaven, he was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven!" (Gen 28:17).

His fear was not because of a fear of height, but because he had been totally changed - while yet not changing - by the Vision of the Divine light.

This is all as I have been taught.

Richard
PS Mr Partyka, I like your posts - you keep me on my toes! :)

[Yuri Zharikov]

I'm saying that this is what has actually happened -- the "red" gene was duplicated in a particular primate, and down through the generations of that primate's offspring the copy mutated and specialized through natural selection to become the "green" gene.

this is interesting, I have never read about somebody observing that a duplication of genes produced a new gene and consequently a phenotypic trait in a mammal? you mean somebody obseved it ? And how did all the other systems that support the trait, say brain region responsible for processing tricolour vision, emerge at the same time? Also that red gene you think duplicated itself to become green... what got duplicated for it to emerge from... noncolour vision? Or was it just always there? Thanks, looking forward to you response.

P.S. Also who are the primates with bi and tricolour vision, just curious?

[Owen Jones]

It strikes me that Creation is not just a one time event, which perhaps is one of the obstacles to clear discussion on the issue. From the standpoint of Hebrew theology, it may just be a linguistic problem, because my understanding is that there is no such thing as a verb in Hebrew expressing completed action. But what do the Fathers really mean when they speak of energia? Is this not an ongoing creative action that causes things to exist, and more?

[Yuri Zharikov]

It strikes me that Creation is not just a one time event, which perhaps is one of the obstacles to clear discussion on the issue. From the standpoint of Hebrew theology, it may just be a linguistic problem, because my understanding is that there is no such thing as a verb in Hebrew expressing completed action. But what do the Fathers really mean when they speak of energia? Is this not an ongoing creative action that causes things to exist, and more?
If you appeal to the Fathers you need to explicitly quote them. Divine energy sustains things... what is "and more"? A full patristic quote would help to make it clear what you imply.

[Yuri Zharikov]

I'm saying that this is what has actually happened -- the "red" gene was duplicated in a particular primate, and down through the generations of that primate's offspring the copy mutated and specialized through natural selection to become the "green" gene.

I have reread you short reponse to the colour-vision question and the way your response is worded ("down through generations") implies that there are two lineages one with bi- and one with tricolour vision in the same population or perhaps in two allopatric populations of the same species. Is this what you are trying to say? Or are they sympatric? I am getting confused.

[Owen Jones]

Well, I gather from Yannaris that God's energies are precisely not actions -- which is the RC concept -- but God Himself. Beyond that, I find the issue of energies/essence totally confusing, with highly technical language employed that I frankly do not understand. Hence, my question.

[Yuri Zharikov]

I'm saying that this is what has actually happened -- the "red" gene was duplicated in a particular primate, and down through the generations of that primate's offspring the copy mutated and specialized through natural selection to become the "green" gene.

In the absence of an answer I begin to wonder if once again we have a classic case of circular reasoning. The one must assume evolution is true to claim that duplication events (some) generations ago led to the primate with tricolour vision (read humans), but then claim that these duplication events are what actually happened. Similar genes cannot be evidence for duplication if you must assume that duplication is already true to interpret the existence of similar genes!
I have another question but will wait if there is any response.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Well, I gather from Yannaris that God's energies are precisely not actions -- which is the RC concept -- but God Himself. Beyond that, I find the issue of energies/essence totally confusing, with highly technical language employed that I frankly do not understand. Hence, my question.

I am sorry, I do not know who Yannaris is but from memory the issue is best explained by St. Gregory Palamas in the Triads (there are at least two long threads on this). Earlier on this thread there were long quotations from St. Gregory elucidating his view on creation or rather human ability to fathom creation. I am not sure else we can add, which at any rate would require additional research... perhaps I am just misreading your posts.

Quotation:
ST GREGORY:

TOPICS OF NATURAL AND THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE

As in this way we achieve knowledge of things pertaining to the moon, so in a similar way we can achieve knowledge of things pertaining to the sun the solar eclipses and their nodes — as well as of the parallaxes, intervals and varied configurations involving the planets, and in short of all phenomena concerning the heavens. The same holds true with regard to the laws of nature, and every method and art, and in brief with regard to all knowledge acquired from the perception of particulars. Such knowledge we gather from the senses and the imagination by means of the intellect. Yet no such knowledge can ever be called spiritual, for it is natural, things of the Spirit being beyond its scope.
Where can we learn anything certain and true about God, about the world as a whole, and about ourselves? Is it not from the teaching of the Holy Spirit? For this teaching has taught us that God is the only Being that truly is — the only eternal and immutable Being — who neither receives being from non—being nor returns to non-being; who is Tri-hypostatic and Almighty, and who through His Logos brought forth all things from non-being in six days or, rather, as Moses states, He created them instantaneously. For we have heard him say, ‘First of all God created heaven and earth’. And He did not create them totally empty or without any intermediary bodies at all. For the earth was mixed with water, and each was pregnant with air and with the various species of animals and plants, while the heavens were pregnant with various lights and fires; and so with the heavens and the earth all things received their existence. Thus first of all God created the heavens and the earth as a kind of all-embracing material substance with the potentiality of giving birth to all things. In this way He rightly rebuts those who wrongly think that matter pre-existed on its own as an autonomous entity.

After this initial creation, He who brings forth all things from non-being proceeds as it were to embellish and adorn the world. In six days He allotted its own proper and appropriate rank to each of His creatures that together constitute His world. He differentiates each by command alone, as though bringing forth from hidden treasuries the things stored within, giving them form, and disposing and composing them harmoniously, with perfection and aptness, one to the other, each to all and all to each.

[M. Partyka]

With regard to all the questions about bicolor and tricolor vision, I think it's best if I just quote directly from The Making of the Fittest, chapter 4:


Pg. 92: All apes and Old World (African and Asian) monkeys have trichromatic vision, which allows them to see across the visible spectrum from blue to green to red. Most other mammals are dichromats -- they can see blue and yellow hues but cannot perceive or distinguish red from green.

Pg. 95: Color vision begins when light of a particular wavelength strikes the visual pigments in our retina. These visual pigments are made up of a protein, called an opsin, and a small molecule called a chromophore....The light sensitivity of a visual pigment is determined by the exact sequence of the opsin protein and how the chromaphore interacts with it. This interaction results in fine spectral tuning so that each visual pigment is tuned to a particular wavelength of light. Humans have three different visual pigments....The three human pigments are tuned to 417 nm (SWS, blue), 530 nm (MWS, green), and 560 nm (LWS, red)...and together provide our color vision.

Pg. 97: Each of the opsins is encoded by a separate gene. The three opsin genes of humans (SWS, MWS, and LWS) are also present in chimpanzees and other apes. However, most other mammals have just two opsins and genes, while birds and fish have four or more....The evolutionary history of our opsin genes is an example of gene duplication, which is one important way in which information is increased in DNA. In this process, an existing gene is duplicated, and then the "new" gene and "old" gene go their separate ways, evolving into distinct genes with separate functions.

Pgs. 103-106: Rats, mice, squirrels, goats, and other mammals have one MWS/LWS opsin whose maximal absorbance is at wavelengths from about 510-550 nm. This opsin is encoded by a single gene. In contrast, humans have two opsins (one for MWS, one for LWS) encoded by two genes on our X-chromosome that lie together as a head-to-tail tandem pair. These opsins are very similar (98 percent) to each other at the level of their DNA code. Their position as next-door neighbors and their great similarity are telltale signs that they arose by the duplication of a single MWS/LWS gene in a primate ancestor. Gene duplications are a common form of change in DNA -- many of our genes are members of multicopy families that have expanded in the course of evolution. The expansion of gene number increases the information that selection can act upon, and a common pattern of duplicated genes is for their functions to become different. This is exactly the case with our two X-chromosome opsins.

Our pair of opsins and those of other trichromatic primates are most stimulated by light with wavelengths of about 530 (green) and 560 (red) nm....Advances in understanding the functional properties of opsins have revealed that it is very easy to shift the absorption spectrum of individual opsins by changing particular amino acids. The maintenance of the 530 and 560 nm absorption maxima throughout the trichromatic primates suggests that there is selection pressure to maintain this precise spectral separation.

There are just fifteen amino acid differences between the green and red pigments. Biologists have been able to pinpoint which of these differences are responsible for the different functions of each pigment by making precise replacements of one amino acid with another and measuring the effects of these replacements on the spectral properties of each opsin.

Three sites...appear to account for most of the 30 nm differencein the absorption peaks of our green and red pigments....Together, the evidence from the duplication and function of our opsin genes indicates that an ancestral MWS/LWS pigment gene was duplicated and that the two duplicate genes diverged from each other, one being tuned to 530 nm, the other to 560 nm, primarily by changes that occurred at these three sites.

The red/green visual pigment duplication must have followed the split between Old World and New World primates. This is thought to have occurred about 30 to 40 million years ago, shortly after the geologic split between the African and South American continents. The evolutionary changes at those three amino acid sites following the duplication appears to have imparted a substantial advantage on the species that bore them. Only trichromatic primates now inhabit Africa and Asia. If there were other primates around at the time of the origin of trichromatic vision and they did not possess these visual pigments (which seems likely), they have no living descendants today.

Of course, we were not around 30 to 40 million years ago, so one could say this is merely an informed deduction. But there is other evidence supporting the current importance of color vision in primates. One clue is the frequency of color blindness in the wild. Color blindness is common in humans -- up to 8 percent of Caucasian males are color-blind due to abnormalities in their X-linked red/green opsin genes. However, in the wild, color blindness is very rare. A study of 3153 macaque monkeys revealed only 3 color-blind individuals (less than 0.1 percent). Given the high frequency of color blindness in humans (where color vision is certainly under less intense selection now, if at all) and the low frequency of color blindness in the wild macaque, this suggests that selection is maintaining color vision in these monkeys and other trichromatic species.

The second source of evidence for the ecological importance of trichromatic vision in primates comes from field observation of food selection by trichromatic and dichromatic primates. [Scientists] have undertaken detailed studies of the food preferences and consumption patterns of colobus monkeys and chimpanzees in Uganda, lemurs in Madagascar, and spider monkeys in Costa Rice. They found a consistent preference among trichromatic animals for leaves that were redder, an indicator of high protein levels and low toughness. Most of the primates studied also incorporate fruit into their diet, and there are different preferences among the animals in fruit color as well. However, [some] argue that full color vision is most significant in leaf consumption, particularly when fruit sources are out of season or scarce. Tuning to red and green, therefore, seems to have its advantages.

Pgs. 114-115: The evolution of color vision...[is but one] of a very large number of examples of how genetic information is expanded and fine-tuned as species adapt to ecological niches. The duplication of genes and their fine-tuning by selection are pervasive in nature. Most of our genes belong to families that have expanded in the course of evolution. The accidental duplication of genes, or groups of genes, occurs quite frequently. In fact, there is considerable variation among individual humans in the number of copies of a variety of genes.

Because duplicate genes are initially redundant, only a fraction of duplicate genes will be preserved and undergo the sorts of functional changes I have described in opsins....The retention and fine-tuning of genes is a species-specific process and depends on chance, selection, and time. Differences in the fate of genes contribute to the differences in gene number between species and, more important, physiological and other differences among species. We have seen that shifts in animal lifestyles, such as...specializing on a leaf diet, are accompanied by telltale changes in the genes involved in these shifts.Now you have the same information I've been working with, so hopefully we're now on the same page.


...I have never read about somebody observing that a duplication of genes produced a new gene and consequently a phenotypic trait in a mammal? you mean somebody obseved it?I've seen several episodes of "CSI" in which a bullet is proven to have left a particular gun by matching the rifling patterns on the bullet with those on a bullet fired from the same gun. I've never heard of a defense attorney who, given this evidence, argued, "But nobody observed the particular bullet that killed the victim leaving that particular gun, correct? I rest my case."


And how did all the other systems that support the trait, say brain region responsible for processing tricolour vision, emerge at the same time?No idea. Perhaps the region of the brain that processes dichromatic vision doesn't need an "upgrade" to process trichromatic vision.


Also that red gene you think duplicated itself to become green... what got duplicated for it to emerge from... noncolour vision? Or was it just always there?No idea, but you don't need to know where the red gene originally came from to recognize that the green gene originated as a duplicate of the red gene.

Hopefully this answers all the questions that were asked since my last post. If not, fire away.

[Owen Jones]

Aren't you all talking about intraspecies change? Does anyone question that "species" go through changes? That's really not what Darwinism is all about. It's about one species changing into another species.

[Owen Jones]

Kent Hovind appears to be a quack who is doing federal time for tax evasion. BTW, it's pretty hard to do time for tax evasion. You have to be extremely blatant about it.

[M. Partyka]

Aren't you all talking about intraspecies change? Does anyone question that "species" go through changes?While the red/green example does deal mainly with intraspecies change, there are some interspecies applications, but they don't become apparent without another piece of information from the book that I accidentally passed over:


Pgs. 102-103: All of the Old World (African and Asian) apes and monkeys have trichromatic color vision and three...opsin genes, while the New World monkeys, as well as rodents and other mammals, generally have dichromatic vision and two opsin genes....we can deduce that full color vision arose in an ancestor of the Old World primates, after the separation of the Old World and New World lineages. Furthermore, because the Old World primates possess a third cone pigment, this opsin gene must have arisen after this split as well. This tells us that human color vision dates from a deep, Old World ancestor and was not invented independently during the recent course of hominid evolution.

The existence of two...opsins in other mammals -- squirrels, cats, dogs, etc. -- suggests that the presence of two...opsins and dichromatic vision was the condition in a common ancestor of mammals....nonprimate mammals are impoverished with respect to color vision and opsin genes.So, here's the scenario. South America and Africa used to fit together as one large continent. This large continent had monkeys. When the continents split, South America was left with its own monkeys, and Africa was left with its own monkeys. 40 million years go by, and down through the ages, the African monkeys develop trichromatic vision, and the South American monkeys don't.

But let's not forget the nonprimate mammals in all of this. The former joined continent also had a population of nonprimate mammals that got split into two distinct populations when South America split from Africa. These nonprimate mammals started out with dichromatic vision, and both the Old World and New World populations have retained dichromatic vision even to this day.

Now, if trichromatic vision was an easy thing for mammals to evolve rather than a once-in-40-million-years occurrence, we'd expect to see some mammals with trichromatic vision in today's South America, but we don't. That speaks to the rarity of the mutation (and the preservation of that mutation) capable of producing trichromatic vision. And if trichromatic vision is only developed under incredibly rare circumstances, this raises three very good questions:

Question 1: Why do all Old World primates have it?

Remember, by "Old World primates" we are talking about all sorts of apes and monkeys -- gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, baboons, macaques, mandrills, gibbons, etc. However many species of "Old World primates" there are, all of them have trichromatic vision. Moreover, it is the same mutation in each of these species that is responsible for their trichromatic vision.

If we accept that all these species of Old World apes and monkeys share a common primate ancestor, we can easily explain why they all have the same mutation which enables trichromatic vision. If we reject the principle of common ancestry among primates, the only other option is to suggest that an incredibly rare gene duplication followed by a precise pattern of mutation occurred independently at least seven times -- and I have a feeling that there are many more species of Old World primates than just the seven I listed.

"Well," one might say, "maybe this particular gene duplication followed by this particular pattern of events isn't quite so rare after all. Maybe it's quite common." But wait:

Question 2: Why do all Old World nonprimates not have it?

Remember, nonprimate mammals also have the original two-opsin-gene setup that primates had. If the evolutionary development experienced by primates was so common as to modify all primates to have trichromatic vision, wouldn't it have been common enough to also act upon all the nonprimate mammals, which have the same genetic "starting materials"?

The common descent of primates from a single primate ancestor is therefore the only explanation that fits the data. Multiple independent evolutions of trichromatic vision just doesn't fit because one would expect all Old World mammals, not just the Old World primates, to have developed trichromatic vision were it really that easy to pull off.

Now, for simplicity's sake, let's take all mammals with trichromatic vision (namely, Old World primates) and label them the "trichromatic group". New World primates and all other mammals we'll bunch under the highly technical heading "everybody else". So there's the trichromatic group, all of whose members inherited trichromatic vision from a common primate ancestor, and then there's everybody else, all of whom lie outside that line of common descent.

Question 3: Why are we in the trichromatic group?

I think that would be the interspecies application you're looking for.

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Has anyone heard of the Varroa mite? It is a parasite that gets into bee hives and sucks the blood out of adult honey bees.

At present there is only one continent that still has not been invaded by the Varroa mite, Australia. USA is so badly effected that it is importing huge crates made of wood and flyscreen filled with bees from Australia to ensure that we will still be able to put food on our plates. The crates are big enough to hold two large cars each. Billions and billions of honey bees are imported into our country to save our food crops.

One in every three bites of food we eat in USA depends on honey bee polination for survival.

One scientist guess-stimated that if all the honey bees in the world died, mankind would starve to death in five years! Think about it. Not only do many food crops depend on honey bees for propagation but cattle, sheep and pigs depend on food crops for survival, so indirectly, the mites could also cause human starvation by starving our meat supplies.

Too bad evolution can't hypothetically come to the rescue in five years.

But seriously. How did bees evolve by chance to help man survive if evolution changes one species into another for the sake of it's own survival, be however slow it must be for the theory to be persuasive?

I remember once watching an educational film that had a statement concerning spiders. It said that if all the spiders in the world were to die today, within one week or month or year (I can't remember which because I was a child then) the world would be five miles deep in flies! We'd all be dead.

So again, it would seem that spiders evolved not only for their own survival but also for the survival of mankind and the rest of the plant and animal kingdoms. Apparently spiders eat many times their own weight in insects, including flies, every day.

Now if we accept God's creation of everything other than man for the sake of man, then the need for honey bees and spiders to assist man's survival makes sense.

But, if we accept evolution theory for the origin of species, and that means accepting that over vast lengths of time, individual species changed from one to another for the sake of its progeny's survival, and that change occuring through many changes that went through a process of trial and error until the right change accidentally happened which was then reproduced in offspring because it was the change that happened to be successful for survival, then we have a huge problem of explaining why the resultant species was and is essential for mankind's survival.

To fight against creation with the theory of evolution is not enough. We need another Darwin to come up with another theory of the whole plant and animal kingdoms' evolution for the sake of man's survival. Another theory that does not depend entirely on God's providence for man.

We need to prove that there is some kind of random change in life forms which have some reason for sustaining mankind abscent of all intelligence, as does evolution theory. Some repeatable accidents and mutations which do not take billions of years like evolution but can actually occur instantly, because before billions of years could pass, mankind would become extinct from starvation and or suffication under miles of flies' bodies, dead and alive.

We need all that if we are not going to accept God's Word. And as Kent Hovind (or whatever his name is spelled like) is known to have said, "It takes more faith to believe in evolution than in takes to believe in God's creation of all life."

Someone mentioned Hovind's imprisonment on tax crimes. The enemies of Christ tried to get Him in trouble with the government of His time and country through tricking him on the rights or wrongs of paying tax. You know, the coin with Caesar's image and superscription; "Give unto God what is God's and give unto Caesar what is Caesar's"

There are multitudes of people breaching serious tax laws who are not imprisoned but only fined. It makes ense to fine them instead of imprison them because then the government has a chance of recovering the funds.

Christ told His disciples that some of them would be imprisoned and some even put to death.

St. John the Baptist was imprisoned as was St Peter and St Paul. Hovind did what they did; he preached the gospel of Christ. Many people wrote that Hovind persuaded them to start reading the Bible, attending church and praying daily.

We must not side with the world that hated our Master and Lord when it shows hate to one of His servants. We must prepare ourselves for persecution or join Antichrist in persecuting Christ's servants.

We can only serve one master.

In +, James

[Owen Jones]

The larger conclusion to be drawn from Mr. York's post is the great sham of evolution which is that it claims natural causality is sufficient to explain human existence, whereas in fact it is a quasi-religious, or substitute religious system that is just as anthropocentric as Genesis 1, that is dependent on the belief that nature has some built in bias toward the perfection of human nature. In another words, it is eschatalogical. So instead of letting God be God, it says that nature performs all of the functions heretofore assigned to God. It is a typical gnostic ideology that takes Christian eschatology and immanentizes it, so that human perfection is strictly an innerworldly process.

It is a great leap of faith to say that because there are differences within species, that these are caused by naturalistic processes, an even greater leap --- not a logical deduction -- that species evolve into other species, by simply noting the differences and similarities among species. It is much like Marxism, which is also naturalistic, and deduces that all natural development is based on class conflict. Is there such a thing as class conflict? Sure. Does that explain everything we need to know about history? OF course not. Buty as with Darwinism, with Marxism, everything that does not fit in the theory is dismissed as unscientific. Any questioning is rejected with ad hominem attacks as unscientific.

btw, Hovind is correct in his statement referenced by Mr. York. But that does not mean he isn't a quack. Tax protesters, and people who erect all kinds of arguments to the effect that they do not owe taxes, or all kinds of shell games to keep from paying any taxes, routinely go to jail. It is like the Marxist who claims moral superiority because he has been arrested in some protest march. This is one of the problems plaguing the evolution skeptics. It attracts a lot of fundamentalist kooks. There are a minimal number of people who have done their homework and have a serious intellectual approach -- such as Eric Voegelin. In fact, Voegelin is in a class all by himself.

It's all fine and good to quote the Fathers, and with respect to Orthodox Christians, they should be better educated and not feel in any way intimidated by the evolutionist arguments, but we need something on the order of "Contra Celsus" in this debate, which is capable of arguing on their terms, and not simply resorting to statements such as: the Church says so and so and so it must be true!

[M. Partyka]

How did bees evolve by chance to help man survive if evolution changes one species into another for the sake of it's own survival, be however slow it must be for the theory to be persuasive?...it would seem that spiders evolved not only for their own survival but also for the survival of mankind and the rest of the plant and animal kingdoms....Now if we accept God's creation of everything other than man for the sake of man, then the need for honey bees and spiders to assist man's survival makes sense. But, if we accept evolution theory for the origin of species...then we have a huge problem of explaining why the resultant species was and is essential for mankind's survival.Bees didn't evolve to help man survive, nor did spiders evolve to help man survive. They evolved in ways that helped themselves to survive, and the rest of the animal kingdom evolved to take advantage of how bees and spiders had evolved. Likewise, the bees and spiders evolved and adapted to these new evolutions in other areas of the animal kingdom. It's a synergistic effect -- change in response to change, followed by more change.

[M. Partyka]

The larger conclusion to be drawn from Mr. York's post is the great sham of evolution which is that it claims natural causality is sufficient to explain human existence, whereas in fact it is a quasi-religious, or substitute religious system that is just as anthropocentric as Genesis 1, that is dependent on the belief that nature has some built in bias toward the perfection of human nature. In another words, it is eschatalogical....It is a typical gnostic ideology that takes Christian eschatology and immanentizes it, so that human perfection is strictly an innerworldly process.You're extending evolution farther than it can logically be taken to go, and also in some directions that are completely off the mark. First off, there's no sense trying to use or rely upon evolution as an instrument for perfecting humanity, because the definition of "perfect" changes with the circumstances. Second, human beings aren't so much interested in improving the human species as they are in improving their own personal selves or their own personal circumstances. Barring a phenomenal improvement in the effectiveness of gene therapy, one cannot evolve oneself. One can only decide whether or not to have children, and how many, based on how "fit" he/she perceives his/her own personal genome to be. Human nature alone will prevent many "unfit" people (however one chooses to define "unfit") from sterilizing themselves for the sake of the improvement of the human species or the human condition -- that's just not how our minds work.

I think the only thing that humanity can "evolve" at this point is human society, not human biology. Perhaps we can use the principles of evolution to determine what kind of human society works best for everybody -- not that society will ever be perfect, but maybe it can be "perfect enough" under the present circumstances and "perfectly adaptable" to new circumstances as they arise.


It is a great leap of faith to say that because there are differences within species, that these are caused by naturalistic processes, an even greater leap --- not a logical deduction -- that species evolve into other species, by simply noting the differences and similarities among species.Really? Let's go back to the red/green example again.

Possibility 1: Forty million years ago, all mammals on the supercontinent of "South Amerafrica" had dichromatic vision. "South Amerafrica" then split into South America and Africa, each with its own collection of primate and nonprimate mammals. A common ancestor of primates in Africa developed a gene duplication that, down through the generations, mutated to enable trichromatic vision. Trichromatic vision proved to be so useful that it spread to 100% of the population of primates in Africa. As the primate lineage in Africa branched out into different species, each species carried trichromatic vision with it, so all present-day species of Old World primates have trichromatic vision. (Nonprimates in the Old World have all continued in the Old World with dichromatic vision, as have all mammals in the New World, primates and nonprimates alike.)

Possibility 2: You tell me. (Please do try to make sure your explanation fits all the facts.)

[Owen Jones]

First of all, Christianity is based on the perfectability of mankind, through God. "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

All of our theology is centered around this commandment.

Darwin is very explicit on this point, that his theory will lead to the perfection of mankind -- because we now understand perfectly how mind evolved, a revolution in psychology will come about that will be able to perfect our nature. Read his words.

The whole idea of societal evolution is a modern, ideological pretext. It has no basis in either historical fact, or in Christian theology. But the idea of perfection has been hijacked from Christian theology and applied to society. If societies are evolving toward perfection, one would have a lot of explaining to do for the 20th century, easily the most barbaric in human history. If anything, societies devolve. And certainly we have seen a spiritual devolution of mankind over the past 500 years.

I have no facts to disprove the theory of evolution because none are necessary. I always thought it was rationally, logically unacceptable to demand that a negative be proven. All I have to show is that Darwinism is not a scientific explanation of anything. There are many possible explanations for variation in living things. Darwinism just happens to be the chic thing to believe.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Possibility 1: Forty million years ago, all mammals on the supercontinent of "South Amerafrica" had dichromatic vision. "

I was away for the weekend and some major breakthrough in knowledge seems to have happened... I thought the world was previously claimed to be 45,000 years old based on varves and such, where did 40 mln yrs come from?
Just trying to stay abreast with latest developments.

Possibility 2 (tring to fit additional facts). According to Mike Lee (Lee M.S.Y. 2002. Molecular phylogenies become functional. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14: 177-178. ) based on cytochrome c classification "Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers." Since it is known that whales evolved from hippos (Gatesy J., Hayashi C., Cronin M.A., Arctander P. 1996. Evidence from milk casein genes that cetaceans are close relatives of hippopotamid artiodactyls. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 13: 954-963) monkeys must have also evolved from hippos and hippos, we know, have bicolour vision and live in Africa. Thus gene duplication must have happened in an intermediary form between a hippo and a monkey, which remains to be found. In the meantime tarsiers evolved independently in Asia and NW monkeys in the NW and without any gene duplication they had to retain bicolour vision. People in turn have tricolour vision and since we know that people emerged from Africa (the mitochondrial Eve theory), everything falls into place. Hippos produce dead ends of cats and whales but also a progressive evolutionary lineage of OW monkeys, which after duplication of eye pigment genes become better tricolour-vision monkeys and after duplication of something else become people.

Any other attempts to fit ALL THE FACTS?

[M. Partyka]

Darwin is very explicit on this point, that his theory will lead to the perfection of mankind -- because we now understand perfectly how mind evolved, a revolution in psychology will come about that will be able to perfect our nature. Read his words.I don't particularly care what social extrapolations Darwin may have made of his scientific theories because whatever social extrapolations might arise from the theories have zero bearing on whether the theories themselves are true.


I have no facts to disprove the theory of evolution because none are necessary. I always thought it was rationally, logically unacceptable to demand that a negative be proven.I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to either disprove the positive or at the very least provide some alternative theory that fits the data equally well or better than evolutionary theory.


All I have to show is that Darwinism is not a scientific explanation of anything.Which it appears you can't do, as I've just shown how Darwinism explains the presence of trichromatic vision in Old World primates.


There are many possible explanations for variation in living things. Darwinism just happens to be the chic thing to believe.It also happens to be the best available theory that explains the observational facts -- including all the evidence stored at the genetic level.

[M. Partyka]

I was away for the weekend and some major breakthrough in knowledge seems to have happened... I thought the world was previously claimed to be 45,000 years old based on varves and such, where did 40 mln yrs come from?
Just trying to stay abreast with latest developments.Oh, dear heaven. What I said earlier is that according to four different natural and overlapping chronologies, we can accurately date materials back to 45,000 years ago with a high level of accuracy.

(And what's the difference whether you keep up with the latest developments if you're just going to ignore whatever contradicts your dogmatic model?)


Possibility 2 (tring to fit additional facts). According to Mike Lee (Lee M.S.Y. 2002. Molecular phylogenies become functional. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14: 177-178. ) based on cytochrome c classification "Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers."You've jumped the tracks a bit. Cytochrome C classification deals with mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA (which is where one finds the X-chromosome on which the red and green genes are located). Mitochodrial DNA mutates ten times as fast as nuclear DNA, which means that the evolution of mitochondrial DNA and the evolution of nuclear DNA will not run parallel under normal circumstances. Moreover, the selection pressures on mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA are totally different, which means that they are likely to evolve in different "directions" from each other. This is why the practice of comparing mitochondrial DNA is normally reserved for reconstructing phylogenies within a single species or a group of species whose close genetic proximity has already been established via other methods (e.g., by comparing nuclear DNA).

[Herman Blaydoe]

Trichromatic vision proved to be so useful that it spread to 100% of the population of primates in Africa.

I think this is the sort of thing that makes discussion a little difficult. This makes it sound like mutation is viral in nature. A mutation does not "spread", it simply means that eventually those members of a given population without it die out because those members with it have such an incredible "natural" advantage in a given environment. This is my problem with evolution as a whole. How does a specific mutation "spread"? In that "favorable" mutations happen very seldom (in fact, there is very little evidence that they actually happen at all), the mere fact that one particular individual has a mutational advantage AND is able to mate more often AND that individuals progeny also have AND pass on that particular mutation to their progeny AND all the others die off. That is a LOT of ands.

[Owen Jones]

"Great. I'm not sure I understood any of it. :("

This is fair enough as far as it goes, but Mr. Partyka cannot have the luxury of that being a stopping point. He wishes us to understand his arguments in favor of evolution, then more than once has referred us back to his prior argument. Well, this shoe should also fit for him. He should make an effort to understand the philosophic problems with Evolution that have been put forth by a serious thinker, and not end the debate by saying, I don't understand. That's a serious case of dilletantism which tends to undermine his own arguments.

We are all used to being told since high school that Darwinism is established science, that it is as close to a fact as any scientific theory can be, and then, lo and behold, it turns out there are serious thinkers who have questioned both its evidentiary basis, as well as pointed out serious philosophical problems from the very beginning, but then we are told to shut up about it, because these people are "creationists," bumbling fundamentalists, dangerous religious zealouts, or just stupid people who don't understand science.

When you do point out serious philosophical problems, such as the problem of infinite regression, they do what all ideologues do, they change the subject. As when Richard Dawkins said, when faced with this problem, that he was quite sure God didn't create, it was probably aliens from outer space!!!!! And Darwinism is still credible??? The leading world advocate of Darwinism today says that we were spawned by aliens from outer space?????

Darwinism is so clearly a typical 19th century progressivist ideology, that we all ought to instantly recognize how problematic it is as science, as well as politics and social policy. The fact that Mr. Partyka doesn't care about that is symptomatic of ideological thought. It is equivalent to saying, I don't care that the Nazis killed 6 million jews and another 6 million innocents who objected to their system, or that Stalin killed 20 million or more of his own citizens, I only care about the parts that are scientific about these two systems. The rest of it I don't care about!

The fact that Darwin explicitly depends on Spencer for the theory of natural selection, who gives credit to Spencer in "on the Origins of..." seems to be rather significant, since it PROVES in fact that the so-called science of Darwinism is driven by a social theory developed by Herbert Spencer, and not the other way around, but Mr. Partyka doesn't CARE about that. He does not care that the motivation behind the theory is to prove Spencer true by shoring up the theory of natural selection as a social theory with a biological theory.

Darwinism is inherently totalitarian in its impulse and motivation and orientation that it is absolutely appalling that, given a century of experience with totalitarianism and its effects, there are so few people who can see that.

Like all forms of totalitarianism, it will eventually come crashing down.

[Owen Jones]

It is a sad irony that we have to rely on political scientists to make the Christian case. But here is a good summary statement:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/federici.htm

[Owen Jones]

The fundamental problem is that Darwinism claims to explain things that it does not and cannot explain, in particular -- Mind or nous. The Fathers have an empirical understanding of mind that is scientific. They know experiential what happens noetically when you engage the noetic faculties in certain activities, because they have experienced it. They can talk about it. They can use terms to speak of what happens that other people can understand and replicate in their own experience -- which is certainly one of the bases of scientific criteria.

Darwinism is the triumph of an abstract theory over experience. It is inherently totalitarian because it leads to the rule of experts and expertise over common sense experience.

[Yuri Zharikov]

[qoute] You've jumped the tracks a bit. Cytochrome C classification deals with mitochondrial DNA, not nuclear DNA (which is where one finds the X-chromosome on which the red and green genes are located). Mitochodrial DNA mutates ten times as fast as nuclear DNA, which means that the evolution of mitochondrial DNA and the evolution of nuclear DNA will not run parallel under normal circumstances. Moreover, the selection pressures on mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA are totally different, which means that they are likely to evolve in different "directions" from each other. This is why the practice of comparing mitochondrial DNA is normally reserved for reconstructing phylogenies within a single species or a group of species whose close genetic proximity has already been established via other methods (e.g., by comparing nuclear DNA). [quote]

I was trying to imagine how mtDNA can evolve independently of nDNA, if these are individuals (not DNA) that are subject to selection, and my hard-drive failed (same goes for duplicated genes - if they are linked and one is "selected" how mutations in the other can be not whiped out at the same time).
As noted by Owen the Oparin "theory" of panspermia is still given in biology textbooks as something, if not highly plausible, then at least something worth consideration. So re tricolour vision the third possibility then is that aliens operated on a large population of monkeys, which can resolve Herman's problem with too many 'ands'. If you bother to calculate probability of all these 'ands' adding up, you will find that neither 45,000 nor 40 mln nor 4 bln years is enough for anything. Going back to the bullet analogy or parable as some may call it, if a bullet represents a part of creation, a particular pattern, a believer will ascribe that pattern to the Creator of all and the damage on the bullet he will ascribe to the fall. An unbeliever will have a different explanation (aliens, gene duplication - also an infinite regression since you always have to have something in order to duplicate it, hopeful moster/punc eq. theory - to deal with the "ands"). Two beliefs - one is certainly free to pick the one which best fits his self.
The bottom line is that several hundred posts later grave problems with the idea of evolution from a Christian perspective have been articulated in at least six areas: biblical, patristic, dogmatic (soteriological), philosophical, biological, and historical/sociological. If one chooses to discount the Scripture as "allegorical", Fathers and other "ancients" as backward, philosophy as too complicated, rest as inconsequential, well what else is there one can present as a way of argument? A short while ago Patr. Alexi addressing a couple of thousand clerics, educators and scientists in Russia said (verbatim) that those who believe themselves to have evolved from a monkey are free to do so. It seems we can all follow this advice.

[M. Partyka]

I think this is the sort of thing that makes discussion a little difficult. This makes it sound like mutation is viral in nature. A mutation does not "spread", it simply means that eventually those members of a given population without it die out because those members with it have such an incredible "natural" advantage in a given environment.You are correct.


This is my problem with evolution as a whole. How does a specific mutation "spread"?You just said how -- "those members of a given population without it die out because those members with it have such an incredible 'natural' advantage in a given environment." The only word I would have left out is "incredible" -- even small advantages can make a difference.


In that "favorable" mutations happen very seldom (in fact, there is very little evidence that they actually happen at all)....This is true with regard to mutations occurring in the protein-coding regions of DNA, but not with regard to mutations occuring in the regulatory regions of DNA. Small tweaks to regulatory DNA can have significant effects on how the protein-coding DNA behaves during embryonic development.


...the mere fact that one particular individual has a mutational advantage AND is able to mate more often AND that individuals progeny also have AND pass on that particular mutation to their progeny AND all the others die off. That is a LOT of ands.Yes, but these "ands" are not independent of one another. If a particular individual has a mutational advantage, then under normal circumstances that individual will mate more often and have more progeny than individuals without the advantage. These offspring are naturally more likely than others to possess the advantage, making them more likely to outperform the children of other lineages. This makes it more likely that the children of other lineages will die off in greater numbers than the children of the lineage with the advantage. It's a cumulative effect.

[M. Partyka]

He should make an effort to understand the philosophic problems with Evolution that have been put forth by a serious thinker, and not end the debate by saying, I don't understand.I wasn't trying to end the debate. I was hoping somebody would "dumb down" the argument for me.

And, like I said before, I don't really care about philosophical problems with evolution because all the philosophy in the world cannot erase the wealth of actual physical evidence we now have in our possession that evolution can and, in fact, did take place.


The fact that Mr. Partyka doesn't care about that is symptomatic of ideological thought. It is equivalent to saying, I don't care that the Nazis killed 6 million jews and another 6 million innocents who objected to their system, or that Stalin killed 20 million or more of his own citizens, I only care about the parts that are scientific about these two systems. The rest of it I don't care about!On the contrary, my apathy toward philosophical arguments is due to a lack of ideological thought on my part -- I only care whether something is true, not whether its being true would or even did have dire ramifications for society. Any true thing can be used in immoral ways. Satan himself quoted Scripture when tempting Christ, but that doesn't make Scripture a devilish device in and of itself. What matters is the truth, not what people do with it.


He does not care that the motivation behind the theory is to prove Spencer true by shoring up the theory of natural selection as a social theory with a biological theory.Who cares about Darwin's motivation? Did Alfred Russell Wallace, who independently came to the same conclusions as Darwin, share that motivation? And even if he did, so what? The question isn't one of motivation; it's one of evidence, and what theory best supports the evidence.


The fundamental problem is that Darwinism claims to explain things that it does not and cannot explain, in particular -- Mind or nous.Then in this case, Darwinism overreaches itself. That doesn't make what it has to say about the physical universe invalid.


Darwinism is the triumph of an abstract theory over experience. It is inherently totalitarian because it leads to the rule of experts and expertise over common sense experience.That's rather ironic because in that sentence one could just as easily put "Creationism" in place of "Darwinism" and "observational evidence" in place of "common sense experience". Creationism essentially tells us to disbelieve what we can see (i.e., experience) for ourselves in the geological record, the fossil record, and the genetic record -- how is that any different from what you're claiming about Darwinism? How is the "rule of experts and expertise" any different from the "rule of Fathers and Tradition"?

[Owen Jones]

These are all implicitly anti-Christian arguments being employed of course.

Darwinism is not based on evidence. It is a series of assumptions, into which the evidence is wedged. When those assumptions come crumbling down, the evidence used to support those assumptions become irrelevant.

[Owen Jones]

Ok, Mr. Partyka says philosophical arguments are irrelevant. He doesn't care about the motivation, or intellectual antecedents of Darwinism, because it's firmly grounded in geological evidence. So he wants us to accept his evidence, prima facie, but he does not want to take a look at the philosophical arguments. I say the so-called evidence is irrelevant because they are used to support a theory that is fundamentally bogus on the face of it. So we are at an empasse with regard to rational discussion.

Regarding the geological evidence. I don't dispute that fossils exist. I dispute what Darwinists say they mean. I don't dispute that there is variation in nature. I dispute what the Darwinists say as to how that variation came about, what those variations mean. I say they mean one thing, the Darwinists say they mean another.

The problem lies in the implications of Darwinist theory, that mind is a product of biological development, QED. Nothing more. We need have no other explanation for it. Sure, we can have some God who started everything in motion, but then Isaac Newton takes over. As we used to say in seminary concerning a bogus theory of something: bullgeshicte.

[Owen Jones]

Here is the fundamental problem with Darwinism:

"a study of reality could qualify as scientific only if it used the methods of the natural sciences, that problems couched in other terms were illusionary problems, that in particular metaphysical questions which do not admit of answers by the methods of the sciences of phenomena should not be asked, that realms of being which are not accessible to exploration by the model methods were irrelevant, and, in the extreme, that such realms of being did not exist."

-- Eric Voegelin

[Yuri Zharikov]

The question isn't one of motivation; it's one of evidence, and what theory best supports the evidence.


I do not cease to be amazed by this most fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between theory and evidence that keeps popping up in some posts on this thread. I'll try to dumb it down, as requested. Going back to one of the first posts on the 1st evolution thread... theory does not support evidence, conjecture does not support evidence, it has to be supported by evidence independent from the initial observation that lead to the theory/conjecture. Something cannot be both the initial observation and supportive evidence. Similarity among living things is used as both the initial observation and supportive evidence for evolution by those who believe in evolution; this is circular logic, sorry, let us move on.

[M. Partyka]

These are all implicitly anti-Christian arguments being employed of course.Meaning what, exactly?


Darwinism is not based on evidence. It is a series of assumptions, into which the evidence is wedged. When those assumptions come crumbling down, the evidence used to support those assumptions become irrelevant.From a purely scientific standpoint, this is nonsense. Darwin started with the evidence he collected on his travels around the world. He then constructed a hypothesis which fit the evidence and wrote The Origin of Species to explain his hypothesis and its explanatory power (and also its potential problems). It then remained for experiments to be done which would collect more evidence to either prove or disprove the theory. That's how science works. Denying the hypothesis on the basis of ideology or philosophy (e.g., Lysenkoism) is not science.

[Yuri Zharikov]

It then remained for experiments to be done which would collect more evidence to either prove or disprove the theory.

Another significant lapse of judgement or understanding... none of the things evolutionism postulates are open to experiment.

[M. Partyka]

Ok, Mr. Partyka says philosophical arguments are irrelevant. He doesn't care about the motivation, or intellectual antecedents of Darwinism, because it's firmly grounded in geological evidence. So he wants us to accept his evidence, prima facie, but he does not want to take a look at the philosophical arguments. I say the so-called evidence is irrelevant because they are used to support a theory that is fundamentally bogus on the face of it. So we are at an empasse with regard to rational discussion.You've basically just said, "It's obvious that evolution is wrong. Never mind the evidence." That is the point at which rational discussion was tossed aside in favor of dogmatism.


Regarding the geological evidence. I don't dispute that fossils exist. I dispute what Darwinists say they mean. I don't dispute that there is variation in nature. I dispute what the Darwinists say as to how that variation came about, what those variations mean. I say they mean one thing, the Darwinists say they mean another.You haven't said what you believe they mean. You've only denied what evolutionists say they mean. Denial in and of itself does not constitute a rational argument.


The problem lies in the implications of Darwinist theory, that mind is a product of biological development, QED.Forget about the implications. What does the evidence say happened?

[M. Partyka]

...theory does not support evidence, conjecture does not support evidence, it has to be supported by evidence independent from the initial observation that lead to the theory/conjecture.(Sigh)...I misspoke. I should have said, "whatever theory best explains the evidence."


Something cannot be both the initial observation and supportive evidence. Similarity among living things is used as both the initial observation and supportive evidence for evolution by those who believe in evolution; this is circular logic, sorry, let us move on.The problem with your logic is that you are lumping both the initial observations (e.g., morphological similarities) and the supportive evidence (e.g., genetic similarities) under the same heading of "similarities" when they truly do belong in separate categories.

Going back to the bullet analogy, let's say that we found a .45 Magnum at the crime scene, and we dug a .45 bullet with blood on it out of a nearby wall. The gun and the bloodstained bullet are the initial observations. Recognizing "similarity" in this case means we recognize (1) a .45 Magnum will fire a .45 bullet and (2) a bullet that passes through a victim can get blood on it. We therefore hypothesize that the gun fired the bullet, and the bullet killed the victim.

Now we experiment to see if our hypothesis is correct. The blood is DNA-tested against the victim's blood, and it matches. (New similarity #1.) Then another bullet is fired from the .45 Magnum, and the rifling pattern on this bullet matches the pattern on the bullet found at the crime scene. (New similarity #2.)

So, we started off with two initial similarities that led us to a hypothesis, and we then experimented to find two new supportive similarities to prove the hypothesis true. Both sets of evidence are similarities, but the first set is initial and subject to disproof, while the second set is supportive and conclusive.

Let's use a better example, though. Let's say we've got the Olsen Twins in a lab, and we're asking ourselves, "Are they identical twins or fraternal twins?" We know that (1) they were conceived at the same time, (2) they were born at the same time, and (3) they sure do look alike. These are initial similarities which lead us to hypothesize that they are identical twins. So, it's time to experiment. We take DNA samples from each Olsen Twin and compare them. They match! Thus, we now have a supportive similiarity which proves the Olsen Twins are indeed identical, not fraternal.

But wait! We can say even more about them now -- we can say that they were both conceived as a single embryo that then divided into two separate embryos (because that's how identical twins are formed). In other words, our supportive evidence not only establishes the fact that the Olsen Twins are identical, it also establishes how they came to be that way. Likewise, going back to our bullet example, the supporting evidence allows us to conclusively say not only that the bullet matches the gun and the victim but also how these matches came to be (i.e., that the bullet was fired from the gun and passed through the victim to end up lodged in the wall).

In short, similarities are not simply self-evident statements of fact. Rather, they have the power to describe past processes -- and that's why the argument, "Nobody can observe evolution, therefore it's not science," just doesn't hold water. We can't see evolution directly, but we can see the effects of its having happened in the past.

[Yuri Zharikov]

In short, similarities are not simply self-evident statements of fact. Rather, they have the power to describe past processes -- and that's why the argument, "Nobody can observe evolution, therefore it's not science," just doesn't hold water. We can't see evolution directly, but we can see the effects of its having happened in the past.

That is exactly the point being made again and again - you assume evolution, and then you use it as an explanatory framework, that's all.

You did not understand my point with similarity. Similarity is always a pattern. You need a process that creates similarity. You hypothesise the process to be evolution. Simply looking at different similarities still amounts to the initial observation. There is no process. In fact hundreds of thousands of experiments have been and are being carried out to get at the process and its mechanisms, like subjecting lineages of fruitflies, mice, plants, bacteria and other fast breeding things and... "mechanisms of evolution are still very much under investigation" = evolution remains a belief taken for granted.

The bullet parables do not work because any forensic model would have been validated through thousands of direct (!!!) experiments. How many direct experiments validated the bi- and tricolour vision stories?

[M. Partyka]

Similarity is always a pattern. You need a process that creates similarity. You hypothesise the process to be evolution. Simply looking at different similarities still amounts to the initial observation. There is no process.Okay, let's take it from the beginning, then. We see morphological similarities between humans and chimpanzees, and we wonder, "Did humans and chimps evolve from a common ancestor?" So, the morphological similarities are the initial observations. Now we have to look for supporting evidence, so we perform experiments that compare certain pieces of genetic code in chimps and humans, looking for similarities at the genetic level -- but not just any similarities. We are looking particularly for similarities that can be reasonably explained only by common ancestry.

Go back to the bullets example. Looking unaided at the two bullets, they look pretty much the same. They are both .45 bullets, so they both could have been fired from the same gun, but it's just as likely that they weren't. This initial similarity is therefore inconclusive. But when we put the bullets under the microscope and see the same rifling patterns on each, we know that the bullets were indeed fired from the same gun -- it's the only explanation that fits.

What I'm saying, and if I were around my books right now I'd try to find a good, concise example of this, is that there are examples in human DNA much like the bullet example -- the only explanation why humans and chimps would have the same DNA sequences in certain places is if they had a common ancestor, for the odds of the exact same changes happening in the exact same locations (and we're talking hundreds of instances here) in two completely unrelated species is practically infinity to 1.

[Yuri Zharikov]

looking for similarities at the genetic level -- but not just any similarities. We are looking particularly for similarities that can be reasonably explained only by common ancestry.

Could you please elaborate on this, are you talking about analogy vs homology or what. An example will clear this.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Could you please elaborate on this, are you talking about analogy vs homology or what. An example will clear this.

I'll re-phrase my question to perhaps make it easier to explain what you mean. How do you or people whose books you trust define apriori which similarities between distinct species can be "reasonably explained only by common ancestry" and which are not. Hopefully this will help us get out of the another circular reasoning bout.

[M. Partyka]

How do you or people whose books you trust define apriori which similarities between distinct species can be "reasonably explained only by common ancestry" and which are not.The following is from chapter 2 of Douglas J. Fairbanks' book Relics of Eden:


...Barbara McClintock...noticed in the 1940s that...small DNA segments were moving from one place to another in the genome [of corn]. We now call these mobile pieces of DNA transposible elements....Sometimes they are called "jumping genes"....The human genome contains almost three million of them, constituting almost half of our DNA!

There are two types of transposable elements: transposons and retroelements....transposons [are] DNA elements that excise themselves and move to other places in the genome, much like the "cut-and-paste" function of a computer. Transposons make up about 2.8 percent of the human genome....All evidence suggests that human transposons are now completely inactive....they have all mutated so much that they have lost their ability to move....

By contrast, retroelements make up a whopping 42.8 percent of the human genome. Unline transposons, retroelements do not excise themselves during transposition. Instead, a retroelement transposes by making [a]...copy of itself, and the...copy then inserts itself at a new position. Retroelements use a "copy-and-paste" process instead of the "cut-and-paste" process of transposons.

...every time a retroelement transposes, it increases its number by one; the original copy remains in its position, and a new copy of it is inserted elsewhere. This explains why we have so many retroelements in our genome. For ages they have been increasing in number as they transpose, generation after generation, gradually expanding the size of our genome. Fortunately, of the 2.7 million retroelements currently in our genome, nearly all of them are now inactive, mutated to the point that they can no longer make copies of themselves....a few retroelements are still actively transposing....The most common retroelement in the human genome is a relatively small one called Alu....About 10 percent of the human genome consists of more than one million Alu elements. Alu is also one of the few types of retroelements still actively transposing in the genome.

Even more than transposons, retroelements offer intriguing glimpses into our evolutionary past. They can insert themselves anywhere in our DNA and tend to remain stuck in place. The chance of two retroelements independently inserting themselves into exactly the same position in the genome in two different individuals is exceptionally small. It follows that if two individuals have a retroelement at exactly the same location, they must have inherited that retroelement from a common ancestor.

What do we find when we compare the positions of retroelements in humans and other primates? Are there transposable elements in the same places?...Through the course of many studies an unmistakable pattern emerged. In case after case, transposable elements in human DNA were present at exactly the same positions in chimpanzee DNA, and to a lesser degree in other apes and monkeys....

...a study of the DNA surrounding a set of genes that encode hemoglobin....in 1985...compared human and chimpanzee DNA from this region and found several Alu elements. As it turns out, all of the Alu elements are in exactly the same places, and same orientations, in both species.

[Another] example highlights CMT1A, a duplicated segment of DNA with Alu elements on both ends. Humans and chimpanzees have two copies of the CMT1A segment at exactly the same places in their genomes....The two copies of CMT1A in humans and chimpanzees are similar but not identical. In particular, an Alu element on the end of one of the copies is truncated (mission part of its DNA) in both humans and chimpanzees when compared with its corresponding Alu element in the other copy....The presence of the duplicated segment in humans and chimpanzees...suggests that the duplication happened in the common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees....I want to pause here to take a closer look at this last example concerning CMT1A. Humans have two copies of CMT1A; so do chimps. One of the copies of human CMT1A is screwed up because part of one of its flanking Alu sequences is truncated; the corresponding copy of CMT1A in chimps is screwed up in exactly the same way.

Take a sheet of paper and, without preparing the paper in any way, rip off the lower left corner. Take a second sheet of paper and do the same. What are the odds that you will rip off identical scraps of paper from the corners? Astronomical, I'd wager...yet that's what a creationist would have us believe happened in the case of CMT1A and its identically damaged copies in chimps and humans: not only did the CMT1A gene leap into the exact same spot in the chimp genome as in the human genome, but it lost the exact same amount of flanking DNA both times. That would be like tearing the corners off two sheets of paper, comparing the tear patterns of each corner under a microscope, and finding them identical. (Good luck trying that -- I won't hold my breath.)

So, to answer your initial question, I'd say that when you look at the genomes of two species, and you see in each genome not only the same functional genetic material but also the same useless junk, that's a sure sign that the two species had a common ancestor.

[Herman Blaydoe]

So, to answer your initial question, I'd say that when you look at the genomes of two species, and you see in each genome not only the same functional genetic material but also the same useless junk, that's a sure sign that the two species had a common ancestor.

Or a common Creator.

Sorry, but I had to throw that in. I'll shut up now.

[M. Partyka]

Or a common Creator.I actually did think about this possibility, but here's the deal. All other primates besides chimps and humans have only one copy of CMT1A -- the unbroken one -- and it sits in the same place as the good copy of CMT1A in humans and chimps. Since there's zero sense in creating a broken copy of CMT1A in chimps and humans, it's reasonable to assume under a creationist model that all primates were created with one copy of CMT1A -- the good copy that's common to all primates. So how did humans and chimps get their damaged extra copies? Under the creationist model, both humans and chimps had to retrotranspose identically flawed copies into the exact same location in both genomes, and the chances of that happening are simply too great. The common ancestry model explains things much more reasonably: All primates share a common ancestor which had one good CMT1A element, which is why all primate species have one good CMT1A element in the exact same place on their genomes. After the common ancestor of humans and chimps split off from the rest of the primates, the ancestor got a bad copy CMT1A inserted into his/her DNA, which is why both humans and chimps have one bad CMT1A element in the exact same place on their genomes.

[Paul Cowan]

Are we ready for part III yet? I sure will be glad when part II is over. Then again trilogies never could stand up to the original. Not that the original thread on this topic proved for interesting reading.
Now I will go away and shut up.

Paul

[M. Partyka]

Are we ready for part III yet? I sure will be glad when part II is over. Then again trilogies never could stand up to the original.I can just see it now...

"Get the Creation and Evolutionary Theory Trilogy Collector's Edition at Best Buy! Contains the whole series:

Episode I -- The Philosophical Menace
Episode II -- Attack of the Chromosomes
Episode III -- Revenge of the Myth

Order while supplies last!"

[Yuri Zharikov]

The following is from chapter 2 of Douglas J. Fairbanks' book Relics of Eden:

I want to pause here to take a closer look at this last example concerning CMT1A. Humans have two copies of CMT1A; so do chimps. One of the copies of human CMT1A is screwed up because part of one of its flanking Alu sequences is truncated; the corresponding copy of CMT1A in chimps is screwed up in exactly the same way.

Take a sheet of paper and, without preparing the paper in any way, rip off the lower left corner. Take a second sheet of paper and do the same. What are the odds that you will rip off identical scraps of paper from the corners? Astronomical, I'd wager...yet that's what a creationist would have us believe happened in the case of CMT1A and its identically damaged copies in chimps and humans: not only did the CMT1A gene leap into the exact same spot in the chimp genome as in the human genome, but it lost the exact same amount of flanking DNA both times. That would be like tearing the corners off two sheets of paper, comparing the tear patterns of each corner under a microscope, and finding them identical. (Good luck trying that -- I won't hold my breath.)

So, to answer your initial question, I'd say that when you look at the genomes of two species, and you see in each genome not only the same functional genetic material but also the same useless junk, that's a sure sign that the two species had a common ancestor.

The first part of the post talks about interspersed (transposable) nuclear elements and similarity among people and chimpanzee. As far as I know, also known as SINES and LINES (short and long interspersed nuclear elements) these elements are used in phylogenetic studies, whereby degree of genetic similarity is assumed to represent the degree of evolutionary relatedness. Why the elements are in the same and similar places in humans and chimps, thus “mapping” them as closely related (i.e. very similar) on phylogenetic trees? Why would not they be? Do these elements play a function - they do. If we and chimps are created physically, physiologically and anatomically similar, well why is it surprising that genetically we are similar as well. I do not exclude the possibility that I have misunderstood the point, but so far I see only phenotypic similarity as an expression of genotypic similarity.

The last paragraph - identically corrupted gene (not junk) in both humans and chimps. Sure, apparently there is a difficulty in explaining the pattern as a result of an exactly coincidental mutation in both humans and chimps. The Charcot Marie Tooth disease (CMT) which is caused by this mutation is a group of inherited disorders of the nerves in the peripheral nervous system (nerves throughout the body that communicate motor and sensory information to and from the spinal cord) causing weakness and loss of sensation in the limbs. The 1A form is caused by a gene duplication (compare to your ideas about gene duplication expressed above) or a point mutation in a copy of the gene, almost as you describe (medical website below). The condition is clearly debilitating although today people live with it alright and importantly dominantly inherited - i.e. if one of parents has it the chance of children getting and developing the disorder is 50%. By your own standard, just a few posts above, such a mutation has to be under a very strong selective pressure. Yet it is the most common type of an inherited neurological condition in people, which suggests that it could only remain in a large population and in a society where individuals care for one another as opposed to a small wild herd of monkeys or (semi/almost?)-humans where fitness degrading conditions would be quickly purged.
To my mind it takes much less stretch of an imagination to assume that this condition simultaneously arose in humans and chimps after the fall, than from an evolutionist point of view to accept that natural selection did not operate on this deleterious trait for 5 million years while humans were evolving (whatever this means) from chimps.

Also at any rate this whole argument is about degeneration, not about evolution. So again what is the relevance to the thread?

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/charcot_marie_tooth_disease.jsp

to the onlookers - pray we do not go into creation and evolution III

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.

Are we chasing our tails in a circle yet again?

Before Pascha (Easter for our non-Orthodox friends) several posts in this thread showed that a number of Holy fathers explained creation was instantaneous and the six days of creation were litterally six 24 hour long days.

Now since this is an Orthodox Christian forum with freedom for other Christian's input and since patrisitcs is a key requirement of themes; the onus now lies with the evolutionists to demonstrate how the Holy fathers support evolution theory and do so with the provision that it occurred, not over billions of years but over literally six - 24 - hour - long days.

The ball is in their court and they are throwing candy wrappers over the net at us while keeping the ball under their bench.

Please prove either 1) that a few holy fathers support billions of years for evolution as we found those who support 6 literal days of creation or 2) that evolution took place over six days literally.

If you say that is ridiculous because evolution could only occur over billions of years, then evolution never occurred at all because we already patristically proved that it occurred in 6 literal days.

Give up. You already lost. Admit defeat and read the Bible.

[M. Partyka]

The first part of the post talks about interspersed (transposable) nuclear elements and similarity among people and chimpanzee. As far as I know, also known as SINES and LINES (short and long interspersed nuclear elements) these elements are used in phylogenetic studies, whereby degree of genetic similarity is assumed to represent the degree of evolutionary relatedness. Why the elements are in the same and similar places in humans and chimps, thus “mapping” them as closely related (i.e. very similar) on phylogenetic trees? Why would not they be?SINES and LINES are called transposable for a reason: They move (or, in the case of retroelements, their copies do). Focusing on retroelements, if a genome contains a million retroelements (like Alu) which are still active (i.e., copying themselves into other locations on the genome), you should not find damaged copies in the same places in the genomes of species thought to be unrelated. In the case of CMT1A, however, we find just that -- a damaged copy of CMT1A exists in a particular place in the chimp genome, and a copy of CMT1A damaged in the exact same way is located in the exact same position in the human genome.


The Charcot Marie Tooth disease (CMT) which is caused by this mutation is a group of inherited disorders of the nerves in the peripheral nervous system (nerves throughout the body that communicate motor and sensory information to and from the spinal cord) causing weakness and loss of sensation in the limbs.Actually, CMT disease is not caused by either copy of CMT1A in human beings. Rather, CMT is caused when the two CMT1A elements copy both themselves and the DNA between them to another place on the genome. Having two instances of the DNA between the two CMT1A elements is what causes the disease. Apparently this copying of the whole kit and kaboodle is something that has occurred many times in the human genome -- that's what the author of Relics of Eden writes, anyway -- which is why natural selection hasn't weeded it out. (Now, of course, we have the means to assist the survival of persons with CMT disease, so natural selection is unable to function against it.)


Also at any rate this whole argument is about degeneration, not about evolution.Evolution is about change over time: positive or negative. Demonstrating that the exact same degneration has taken place in two species thought to be unrelated is just as significant as demonstrating that the exact same improvement (e.g., trichromatic vision) has taken place in them.

[M. Partyka]

Before Pascha (Easter for our non-Orthodox friends) several posts in this thread showed that a number of Holy fathers explained creation was instantaneous and the six days of creation were litterally six 24 hour long days....the onus now lies with the evolutionists to demonstrate how the Holy fathers support evolution theory and do so with the provision that it occurred, not over billions of years but over literally six - 24 - hour - long days....Please prove either 1) that a few holy fathers support billions of years for evolution as we found those who support 6 literal days of creation or 2) that evolution took place over six days literally. If you say that is ridiculous because evolution could only occur over billions of years, then evolution never occurred at all because we already patristically proved that it occurred in 6 literal days.See? See? I told you all that this would happen! Everybody kept saying, "Why do you keep bringing up old earth arguments? This thread is about evolution!" And what did I say? "You have to establish an old earth first, or else, no matter how many evidences for evolution you provide, somebody is going to dismiss them all by saying, 'Well, the universe is only 6,000 years old, so evolution couldn't have happened -- so there!'" And look what argument just popped up! (Dang, I feel pretty vindicated now.)

And, by the way...the only thing that was proven was that most of the Holy Fathers believed that creation occurred in six 24-hour days. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way.

[Owen Jones]

"Evolution is about change over time: positive or negative."


This is quite incorrect. Darwinism explicitly states that evolution is a progressive evolution that saves and builds upon positive traits and negative traits are weeded out through natural selection and the competition for mates and scarce resources, etc. It is also progressive since it can move from the simple to the complex. It is much more than about just change, as such.

Just for the record, I don't believe Genesis 1 is a literal/historical account of creation, but a theological one, expressed as a cosmological myth in compact form. Darwinism, likewise, is a cosmogonic myth. The problem is that it claims to explain the origin of human existence, when it does not, and cannot possibly do so, because of the problem of infinite regression, and the problem of mind, and a number of other philosophical problems, which most hard scientists do not understand or care about.

The fundamental problem is that man is not what the Darwinists claim man is, and we can observe that. His existence, as well as his behavior, do not conform to the predicted Darwinist precepts. If we want to know what man is, we turn to a Platonic Dialogue, or a Gospel, or a sonnet. But with Darwinism, all of these are meaningless and useless evolutionary artifacts, like the appendix.

The arguments favoring Darwinists are intrinsically aesthetic in nature. They provide the believer with a harmonious world view. Darwinism also explains the problem of human evil in terms of instinctual struggle for survival, territoriality, sexual competition, etc. There are predictable consequences to these ideas which we have seen play out. So one has to be consistent. One cannot on the one hand, say that one favors the Christian Gospel understand of man and his true purpose and function, and on the other hand support a world view that says that, well, God may well have set all of this in motion at some point (Linneaus' argument) but man's nature today is the result of random collision that saves advantaged genes which are tougher and stronger. Christianity is the opposite of "tougher and stronger." It says that the strong live in a state of delusion, and it is the weak, the simple, the meek, who are actually the most successful.

Bear in mind, the Darwinist doesn't really care about any transcendent Beyond. His definition of success is a purely immanent one. Success in getting and producing. Whether it's capitalist style or soviet style. That's what man is and that's what man does, and it is the essence of success, because we are genetically programmed to do so. To paste God onto Darwinism is to live a double-minded existence.

I would like to ask Mr. Partyka, should I resist my Darwinist tendencies to get, to control, to dominate my world and others, or should I go with them?

[M. Partyka]

This is quite incorrect. Darwinism explicitly states that evolution is a progressive evolution that saves and builds upon positive traits and negative traits are weeded out through natural selection and the competition for mates and scarce resources, etc. It is also progressive since it can move from the simple to the complex. It is much more than about just change, as such.Traits can be lost as well as gained through evolution. Moles, who evolved in an environment of darkness, have incredibly poor eyesight -- some species of mole have only vestigial eyes without optic nerves. So, evolution can be negative as well as positive, causing a species to lose traits it no longer needs as well as lead it to adopt traits that help its chances of survival.


Bear in mind, the Darwinist doesn't really care about any transcendent Beyond. His definition of success is a purely immanent one. Success in getting and producing. Whether it's capitalist style or soviet style. That's what man is and that's what man does, and it is the essence of success, because we are genetically programmed to do so. To paste God onto Darwinism is to live a double-minded existence.You know, I considered for a while how a person ought to live if he/she were to run his/her life by Darwinistic principles. As the grounds of Darwinist "success" are survival and reproduction, I figured that to live a truly Darwinist life, one must have as many kids as possible and abundantly provide for oneself and one's progeny so that one's genes can be passed on for generations to come. I then asked myself, "Is that how I want to live my life?" and my answer was, "No." So, belief in evolutionary theory does not necessarily force one to totally rearrange his/her life around the drive to survive and reproduce. To insist that this mindset and lifestyle is the necessary result of a belief in evolution is both foolish and wrong.


I would like to ask Mr. Partyka, should I resist my Darwinist tendencies to get, to control, to dominate my world and others, or should I go with them?Why are you asking me? I'm not the Lord. Follow Him!

[Owen Jones]

In the matter of genetic similarities between humans and other primates, my understanding is that as a human male, my genes are more like that of a chimp than they are like that of my wife. Does that mean I evolved from the Chimp and my wife evolved from -- Martians -- as, btw, Dawkins believes?

[Owen Jones]

BTW, what is your religious belief?

[Rick James York]

MODERATOR'S NOTICE: The following message has been posted by an account engaged in on-line identity fraud. The member 'Rick James York' is identical to members 'Rostislav' and 'John M.' The current post, made before discovery of this fact, is being retained in order to preserve the flow of threads; but readers should be aware of this case of multiple identity.


And, by the way...the only thing that was proven was that most of the Holy Fathers believed that creation occurred in six 24-hour days. That doesn't mean it actually happened that way.Christ is Risen!

If you follow through and eventually become an Orthodox Christian, you will learn about the Holy Spirit.

The Holy fathers are called Holy simply because they abundantly contain the Holy Spirit to such a degree that God speaks to the members of His Holy Church through them.

If the Holy fathers say that creation occurred in six-24-hour days, it did! I know that in an earlier post you pointed out that St Ireneus was mistaken in something he believed concerning the age of Jesus Christ, but he is not the Holy fathers. He is one saint who held his view alone.

To oppose "most of the Holy Fathers" as you did above, is to oppose the Holy Spirit, ie God.

Just ask the Orthodox priest you are consulting for your transition from catechumen to member of the Orthodox Church regarding the faith that the Orthodox Christians have in the teachings of "most of the Holy Fathers".

I believe that having faith in the Holy fathers is difficult for someone trained in the Baptist Church as you stated in post#347 in the "Creation verses evolutioary theory I" thread because, at least from my understanding of what Baptists told me, they do not believe in doctrine that is not included in the Bible.

So for example, they do not recognise the use of the sign of the cross or the wearing of a cross because the Bible does not instruct us to do so.

They have Holy Scripture but not Holy Tradition.

They do not have the blessed texts from the Holy fathers to instruct and guide them.

If you want to assist yourself in your conversion, you would not go astray by starting to read the Holy fathers and the lives of saints together with daily readings from the New Testament and put away your evolution books for a while until you become strong in your future Orthodox faith.

I assume that you became an Orthodox catechumen because you believe that our Church is the right one for you. I assume that, like other catechumens, you are seeking knowledge of Orthodox doctrine by humbly asking for advice from existing Orthodox Christians and from Orthodox priests.

By now, you may have acquired a rather lengthy list of Orthodox reading material. Reading the books on that list will help you gain more faith in God and less reliance on the worldly wisdom of fallen man.

If you want to ask questions to a long-term Orthodox Christian who has scientific expertise on living creatures, there is one available in this thread. His name is Yuri. He is a Doctor of his chosen field in science and manages/monitors the ecology of a national park. Yuri, please correct me if I am wrong.

In +, James

[Deanna Leonti]

In the matter of genetic similarities between humans and other primates, my understanding is that as a human male, my genes are more like that of a chimp than they are like that of my wife. Does that mean I evolved from the Chimp and my wife evolved from -- Martians -- as, btw,
believes?



I think what Darwin meant is that your physical characteristics adapt to your environment.
ex. the so called first human male found, his physical characteristics then are different from most of the human male's characteristics today due to changes in genetic make-up through future generations. The genetic make-up changes do to adapting to one's environment.
(individuals having characteristics best suited to a particular environment survive & reproduce w/greater frequency than do those w/o characteristics).
ex. people with a Norweigan descent may have more of a fair skin and light eyes.
Mediterranean's may have more of a darker skin tone, and darker eyes.
and *offspring are always different from parents (gene pool)

*different species are reproductively isolated from one another.
species is a population or group having "common" attributes & ability to interbreed & produce live offspring
evolutio (latin) for unrolling or rolling forth.

but, you still can believe what you want to.

Deanna

[Yuri Zharikov]

Br. James, thank you for this, and please forgive me, but I certainly do not feel that I deserve any such honour as either a Christian or a biologist.

[Owen Jones]

btw, the fact that human males have more DNA in common with chimps than with human females was all over TV a few months ago. I can't find anything yet from our friend Mr. Google.

Regarding such comparisons, they are useless. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Yes, if you look at them, measure them, etc., they have many, many points of comparison. But viva le difrence!

Seriously, we don't understand genetics. We know very, very little about how they function. There are some suggestions that genetic function is frequently triggered by environmental factors, which means that there is dual feedback. That is to say, genes are designed in such a way is to respond in certain ways to environmental factors -- such as culture? -- such as spiritual forces? What is the role of divine energy in genetic function?

Which lead us back to a definition of the human. That's where we have to start. A human is more than just the sum of its parts. It is far, far more complex than that. Man is, by nature, a spiritually driven being. We have the evidence of this. Spirit is not like a world-view. Spirit is like radio waves -- omnipresent and part of human functionality.

[RichardWorthington]

Dear Evolutionists and Creationists,

I think another cup of tea and cake would come in handy for this long post …


Where can we learn anything certain and true about God, about the world as a whole, and about ourselves? Is it not from the teaching of the Holy Spirit? … (God) through His Logos brought forth all things from non-being in six days or, rather, as Moses states, He created them instantaneously. For we have heard him say, ‘First of all God created heaven and earth’.

We can read Moses and the other scriptures, but not to aim higher than merely believing what they say is the error extreme Evangelicism can lead to: a rational faith that seeks to justify itself by argumentation. (Atheism and ‘deductive Theism’ are fundamentally the same …)

For example, let us consider those who deny the resurrection of our Lord on the third day. They can come out with all sorts of reasons for their denial (e.g. it is impossible, there is no reason for it). However, for us then to reply that the Turin Shroud indicates that Jesus survived the crucifixion and so was able to recover is to miss the point entirely, even though on some level we can claim to be following scripture (this is an argument I heard an Ahmadiyya Muslim use). Both those who claim that our Lord is still dead and those who think that a mere resuscitation is the same as resurrection are fundamentally the same: both deny in actual fact the resurrection of our Saviour, He it is who has destroyed death by His own death.

The Creationists are correct to point out the hollowness of Evolution and the fundamental atheism that seems to be attached to it, but the Evolutionists are correct to point out the false reasoning and false use of evidence that the Creationists use (if I may make an assumption and side with the Evolutionists on this). However neither side point to the creation by the creative power of God.

We can ‘read’ nature, or read scripture, but neither are the same as the Spirit of life. I, too, now generally believe in the Genesis account of the creation and the global flood, but not as taught here by the Creationists; I also accept the valid refutations of the Evolutionists and their various ideas as being accurately based on the evidence, but my views are not dented. Those who live by nature die by nature; those who live by the letter die by the letter - but we have the Sprit of life!

Let me give you an example:


Also from within (the cloud) came the likeness of four living creatures. … As for the likeness of their faces, each had the face of a man; each of the four had the face of a lion on the right side, each of the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and each of the four had the face of an eagle.
…
The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the colour of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads. … And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. … Like the appearance of a rainbow in a cloud on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brightness all around it. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.

Ezek 1:5-10,22-28 (blueletterbible.org NKJV)

In this vision we read of ‘living creatures’ with the faces of a man, lion, ox, and eagle, and of a firmament, and of a rainbow. These are all features of the Genesis narrative: "every living creature that is with you(man): the birds(eagle), the cattle(ox), and every beast(lion) of the earth" (9:10), the firmament (1:6), and the rainbow (9:13).

Do you believe that there was, or still is, a physical firmament? Then tell me first about the Vision of the Glory: how can the firmament of Ezekiel’s vision be discovered by listening to the Creationists’ physical arguments? It cannot!
Do you believe that the Genesis creation story is foolish? Then tell me about the Vision of the Glory, about becoming like the angels of heaven, that is, seeing the existence of a higher dimension (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=63951#post63951).

Do you believe that the animals did not evolve but are substantially as created by God? Then tell me about the Vision of the Glory, for we "in a mystery represent the cherubim (http://www.sourozh.org/web/The_Divine_Liturgy%2C_Page_2#ch)", the living creatures that Ezekiel saw. Why is it that I am not pointed to such knowledge by the refutations of evolution that the Creationists present?
Do you believe that we and the animals evolved by random chance mutations and natural selection of the fittest? Then tell me about the Vision of the Glory, wherein man actually attains to the likeness of our God and shines like the sun in the kingdom of the Father: in the age to come so too in the age that was, where there will be "the calf and the young lion and the fatling together" and yet "no lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast go up on it" (Isaiah 11:6; 35:9) - the lion that is not a lion!

Do you believe in a global flood? Then tell me about the Vision of the Glory, and the vision that David saw: the Lord sat "enthroned upon the Flood" and yet "in His temple everyone says, ‘Glory!’" (Psalm 29:10,9). How do various reworkings of the evolutionary evidence help anyone attain such knowledge?
Do you refute the idea of a global Flood by what appears to be clear unequivocal evidence to the contrary? Then tell me about the Vision of the Glory, about how it raises us up to "the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation" (Hebrews 9:11).

The Genesis narrative is primarily a description of the Vision of Glory, not profane history. (Just like the Book of Revelation …)

However, as there have been calls for certain posts to be "dumbed down" - and I too am like this, most of the posts here go in one eye and out of the other - I will produce a parable.



There was an ice-cream van driven by a kindly Father, and it was driving around the houses playing a merry tune. The children heard it and eagerly wanted to go outside and eat some ice-cream and lollies.

However, there were people there who were ‘a-ice-cream van-ists’, who did not believe in the possibility of the van’s existence. They warned the children that it would be a waste of time to go and look for the van because the noise was just a neighbour’s burglar alarm going off, and that they might as well stay inside and eat ice-cubes instead.

There also were people who did believe in the van’s existence and who correctly identified the merry tune, but because they were unable to see the van they too cautioned the children to stay inside and eat the ice-cubes.

Furthermore, there were those who went to the ice-cream van and brought back the picture of the ice-creams and lollies. They then cut out the individual pictures and gave them to the children to eat. They claimed that the evidence and hypotheses of the ‘a-ice-cream van-ists’ were refuted by their new evidence and that this was the way the picture-scripture should be interpreted.

However, some children tasted the cardboard pictures and then decided that ice-cubes are better (and some also started to deny the existence of the van). Others were taught by those who presented the cardboard cut-outs to clap their hands, and jump up and down ‘dancing’ before the Lord, and to try to speak in tongues. Having become so emotionally wound up they were able to believe in anything, and started to eat the cardboard cut-outs.

But finally, there were some children who thought that the adults were a being a bit silly, and went outside following the merry tune. They found the ice-cream van and ate, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, and some thirtyfold.

Which is better, the scripture which Moses wrote, or his Vision? For he and those with him "saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity" (Exodus 24:10). This appearance of sapphire "like the very heavens in its clarity" is surely the same as Ezekiel’s "awesome crystal", being the same as Revelation’s "Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal" (Rev 4:6). In actual fact, are these not just a description of the "waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7-8)? The Evangelicals adhere to the letter, but let us ascend on the wings of the Sun of Righteousness!

And how can we do this? We are told that Moses and those with him "saw God, and they ate and drank" (Exodus 24:11). Yet now we not only eat with Him, but we also eat Him in the Holy Liturgy. Therefore I am perfectly happy for the Evolutionists to talk about an old earth and natural selection, but for the higher knowledge I am not an Evolutionist. I am happy for the Creationists to quote from scripture, but for the higher knowledge we must leave the letter behind. Thus I am neither an Evolutionist nor a Creationist, but a Liturgist:



The ice-cream of Christ, take ye;
of the ice-lolly of immortality, taste ye!

(almost from The Divine Liturgy (http://www.sourozh.org/web/The_Divine_Liturgy%2C_Page_2#distcomm) )

Evolutionists - renounce the ice-cubes of logic! Creationists - leave the pictures of your imagination behind! And who knows? Perhaps if we approach the Eucharist with a pure heart we would know, neither a change like transubstantiation (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=54920#post54920) nor a mere remembrance, but as Starets Feofil of Kiev knew:


I see a strange dew descending on the Holy Gifts and shining angels soaring above the altar-table, saying 'Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth; heaven and earth are full of Thy glory!' Then my whole being is enraptured unspeakably and I am unable to tear myself away from the sweet vision.
http://www.reu.org/public/saints/feofil.txt

Ice-cream anyone?

Richard
(‘PS’ to follow.)

[RichardWorthington]

PS Mr Partyka, well did you write:

The problem, however, is that the fossil record, which must necessarily be the record of the "physical world", isn't consistent with a literalist reading of Genesis, either.

I am not bothered by the actual text of Genesis and everything it states, I do adhere to its main points while still being happy with evolution. Does this help you? From Creationists to Evolutionists, all have to put "But we do not understand everything" in somewhere; I just put it in between this world and the ‘higher dimension’ that is not-of-this-world.

However, as a tentative guess, perhaps this will help:


by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. … Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
2 Peter 3:5-7,13

1) "the earth standing out of water and in the water": as we see that our earth or ground does not stand in the water, it could be that the waters of the Flood were from the joint ‘higher dimension/universe’ (‘spiritual world’) united with this physical world and universe. (The Garden of Eden was still visible before the Flood, indicating this union.)

2) "the heavens and the earth which are now preserved": maybe the phrase "which are now preserved" indicates that this universe - heavens and earth - was different from the united multiverses (spiritual universe and physical universe) which were ‘the universe’ before the Flood.

3) So therefore it could be that our universe, being ripped from the higher universe of the spirits in the Flood, collapsed and started again. If scientists want to talk about a ‘big bang’ then let them without any hindrance. Note what I am saying, the Flood affected the whole universe we see around us today.

4) Time - hmmm … bit of a problem! However, it could be that since the two united multiverses split that both time and space in one became different from time and space in the other (even in this universe scientists have discovered that time is variable from place to place, being bent by gravity). As such Noah and those with him, still being of the united spiritual-physical multiverse in the ‘ark’, would experience time according to the higher dimension, but the fallen world experienced time in a different way.

5) Animals such as dinosaurs lived before humans appeared (according to evolutionary science; to challenge this would be irrelevant in my eyes): not quite as impossible for this hypothesis as first appears! With this universe starting again, it would be a corruption of what was before, but some good from before would still exist: hence life appears, and there is beauty here (and life may exist on other planets as well). However there is also ugliness and suffering and death, but God is not responsible for these, the world having been subjected to futility because of our stupidity in handing it over to the forces of evil and destruction.

As such, the initial conditions for life as it was before the Fall were still implanted in the universe. As such, as it evolved, it produced something similar to, but not identical to, the earth as it was. As the initial settings were still preserved, albeit distorted, life proceeded to be produced, trying to follow the initial settings. Let this be described by evolution if required. So eventually, evolution, because of the initial settings, proceeded to produce animals which were similar to - but not identical to - those which were in Paradise. Finally a form of humanity (apes, homo thingy, and so on) evolved. Please note, this is not the work of God, nor of an Intelligent Designer: there is no tinkering with in-between steps in evolution. The initial settings are there, but corrupted. (So dinosaurs could well have evolved as described, even though they did not exist before the Fall, as the settings are corrupted somewhat.) Let the scientists come up with whatever hypothesis they want regarding this fallen universe, and let them also be listened to so that we may learn what is around us.

6) Noah with his family and the animals coming out of the ark: they would come down from the higher dimension into what is now this fallen world, hence the olive tree of Genesis 8:11 would not have had to survive a year under water! Perhaps this coincided with the "Great Leap Forward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#.22Modern_man.22_debate_and_the_Gr eat_Leap_Forward)" of 40-50 thousand years ago, when "human culture apparently started to change at much greater speed" (everything else - including all the dinosaurs and the big asteroid destructions - would have happened while the whole universe was under the Flood’s ‘hyper-waters’). In other words, the earth had failed (and would fail) to produce a true replica of humanity. When Noah and company came to this earth, being united to this world, the initial settings of evolution would start to work within their physical bodies: hence we look similar to apes and homo thingy, but are not them. Our physical human frame could well have evolved from them (I will happily follow what the evolutionist say on this, not being a scientist), but humanity as such does not come from them. (If I were to talk about aliens, perhaps I would be listened to!)

The animals? Perhaps some humans fell from virtue quicker than others (see next point). As such the state of these animals could well have been higher than some of the humans, as the virtue of some would probably have helped preserve something of the higher dimension. Perhaps this is how animal worship appeared, and why some scientists believe that nature worship is older than monotheism (note: monotheism is a heresy, God cannot be limited by our understanding of numbers; God is one, but His unity is beyond our comprehension). However, as all fell away from the heights of virtue, these animals either became extinct or merged with their similar counterparts which evolution following the initial settings had produced. Would such a thing produce some transitional forms of these?

7) If we do want to adhere to a literal genealogy from Noah to Abraham - and I would adhere to the Septuagint rather than Hebrew as according to the latter Noah was still alive when Abraham was born (http://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius5.html)! - then this might be a possibility: the demons wanted "to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five hundred years" (1 Enoch 10:10; this book was specifically written about the Flood). Perhaps this chosen line and those surrounding it, because of their virtue, still lived partially in the higher dimension and so counted time according to that universe, while other humans lived as we do now. As they fell from virtue, their life-spans decreased as the other universe grew fainter. Well, this would imply that by our timeline they lived many thousands of years; interestingly the church Fathers knew of the ancient Babylonian creation and Flood myths (http://www.attalus.org/translate/eusebius4.html) with their extremely long life-spans. How the Tower and city of Babel fits in I do not know.


Well, now both Evolutionists and Creationists think I am a bit of a loony! Oh well - I’ll go back to eating ice-cream then!

PPS If we are accused that believing in God is like believing in fairies, then consider this: Some scientists have put forward the idea of "Quantum Suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide)", in other words to see if other worlds exist then if you sit in-front of a gun and it kills you then you will be able to know if you exist or not in other worlds (roughly speaking). Of course, you would only be able to prove to yourself if other worlds exist, as everyone else will just see a dead corpse. Of course there will be worlds in which you do not die because the gun failed. So considering that the same logic applies to us having an immortal soul, I will reply as follows: Which is it better and more reasonable to say, "I might not exist", or "I have an immortal soul"?!

Additionally, I do not think we should be perturbed by certain atheistic arguments. I do not have the time to read over 400 pages of "The God Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion)", but if I may be allowed to fall back on the 'inerrant and infallible' Wikipedia then I notice the following. Professor Dawkins writes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit#Dawkins.27_statement_of _the_argument) that, "Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology" (I borrowed the terminology of a multiverse from science and applied it to my thoughts, as ‘spiritual’ can mean merely symbolic or emotional, which I wanted to rule out). And regarding such a multiverse theory elsewhere we read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation) that, "In layman's terms, this means that there are an infinite number of universes and that everything that could possibly happen in our universe (but doesn't) does happen in another".

At the moment I think it is right to say that there could be no communication between the various multiverses. However, all we have to do is to wait until science does in fact find such a way to communicate between such multiverses. In the other multiverses will exist all the other outcomes of the possibilities presented to us. In other words, in some multiverses everyone will be atheists, in others everyone will be theists. Which would outnumber which we would not know at present. However, this also means that are some multiverses in which Professor Dawkins is a theist. In which case, we wait until science can communicate with these other multiverses and then read his own refutation of his current ideas!

Regarding morality I will say this: both morality and immorality are dangerous to humanity. We should be seeking purity of heart in order to see God; this is the Vision of the uncreated Glory I was writing about. This Vision - and this Vision alone - is the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Christian Faith. Everything else, including the scriptures and traditions and councils, fall away into nothingness in comparison (this particularly implies that throwing around various views of the Fathers for others to submit to is not very healthy - there are other writings of the Fathers which would terrify us as we are still children in the Faith!). However for a healthy society some form of morality is needed, and so that a soul is not broken by law codes, some concession to forms of immorality are also required.

[M. Partyka]

In the matter of genetic similarities between humans and other primates, my understanding is that as a human male, my genes are more like that of a chimp than they are like that of my wife. Does that mean I evolved from the Chimp and my wife evolved from -- Martians -- as, btw, Dawkins believes?No, it means that you have a Y-chromosome, and your wife has an X-chromosome, whereas you and the male chimp both have Y-chromosomes. (Likewise, your wife is genetically more similar to a female chimp than to her husband.)

Just FYI, here's an article that disputes the premise:

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=38

[M. Partyka]

BTW, what is your religious belief?Technically, I'm an Orthodox catechumen. Still Christian, though these days I'm not sure what kind.

[Jorgo Ristevski]

To be honest I don't follow this thread much but what do you think about this?

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802496.htm

[Yuri Zharikov]

I started writing this before reading the last 3 or 4 posts on the thread, so please forgive me for any overlap.

Perhaps one of my greatest disappointments on this thread has been an observation that global, systemic issues have often been buried under arguing about isolated and really peripheral questions and thus the forest could not be seen for the trees and discussion simply jumped here and there and everywhere without any progress towards resolving questions initially raised. For this reason I promised myself more than once to quit participating in the thread, but then looking at and, frankly, admiring the efforts of others to take a comprehensive, systematic, Christian approach to the creation/evolution question I always succumbed to the desire (or passion) to contribute. So, please bear with me one more time.

Darwin made and dawkins’ of this world continue to make two claims: (1) all living beings descend from one or a few original ancestors, and (2) the mechanism driving the changes among species (selection of favourable mutations) is the blind and unguided.

The controversial claim, of course, is the second one, namely the idea that a blind purely material mechanism, without any intelligence involved, is responsible for all of the genetic information necessary for life (DNA) and hence for all of life’s diversity. Claim 1 is true only insofar as claim 2 is true. How can you prove this claim (2) directly, i.e. experimentally? Elicit a mutation (whichever you wish - Hox-genes, duplication, point mutation) in an extant organism and... vuala... a functionally meaningful increase in genetic and consequently physical complexity is achieved. Such examples are lacking (“superbugs” and such do not count as they lose genetic complexity – Genetic Entropy by Dr. J.C. Sanford is an excellent source on this). So when one says that evolution can go either way, he is facing a conundrum. In real terms (i.e. experimentally and via direct observation) we can see only degradation or reversible variation within set limits. Species do not adapt to environmental change. They can adapt to the environment to the extent of genetic plasticity they have been endowed with. Then they perish simply wiping out the information they had (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction). Period. The question remains: where the information that is being degraded/eroded or that is being shuffled around to adapt to changing conditions comes from? If evolution can go either way, why we only see degradation and why we never see but only assume (!) positive evolution (sorry for the tautology, but degrading evolution is obviously an oxymoron). Again, by positive evolution is meant increasing functional complexity, which had to happen to progress from a (?) to a human with a 3 bln-nucleotide genome. If it does not happen now, to assume that it happed “5 mln years ago when humans split from chimpanzees” is a plain expression of faith.

As more information about genomes becomes available their staggering complexity unfolds and we are probably only beginning to understand the extent of complexity. Genes code for proteins, genes regulate genes, genes respond to the environmental cues and regulate phenotypic expression of traits accordingly. Non-coding DNA (previously thought to be evolutionary junk) also plays numerous critical functions in genomes including chromosome packaging and regulation of gene expression during development. Genes even copy, change, rearrange themselves within species – this is why species are so plastic while remaining what they are; this is why you can “break” them down into breeds, varieties, reproductively isolated population bringing out that which was hidden or masked. Information coded in the genome comes in at least three layers – proteins, tissues and organs & body plans – all coordinated and most intricately fine-tuned among themselves and with the environment. The more is learned about genomes the more it is realised that they function as in essence complex, self-regulating, manuals with multiple levels of protection and error proofing, written in languages with all the attributes of a language – letters, words, sentences, syntax, context. Whatever there is in a genome plays a role, sometimes yet unknown role.

If you make random changes in a complete text - manual at any level of organisation – word, sentence, page, etc - you can only degrade the message to a lesser or greater degree, you can never improve it because you always begin with a complete, optimal information package designed for a target audience, for a purpose. This is illustrated by a simple analogy with a completed fully functional computer program, to which you cannot add information by randomly replacing letters or words in the code. You can only add a block of code, perhaps using some or many of already existing elements, in a way that maintains integration and coordination with what already exists. This would be obviously a non-random process. Random additions would only make the manual confusing and cause the program to crash – which happens with living organisms when their genetic code experiences mutations (observable now, not assumed in the past). Computer simulations demonstrate that a simple genome cannot be made more complex via random mutation of nucleotides. A German chemist and computer scientist R. Truman (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Truman_ComplexFeatures1_070104.pdf) ran computer simulations to test the possibility that random mutations can explain emergence of novel information in a simple genome. He remarked that: Several factors would limit the possibility for random mutations in very small biological genomes to produce novel, complex functions... Extrapolating to biologically reasonable settings suggests neo-Darwinian theory is incapable of explaining more than rather inconsequential changes in cellular processes.

That is what is observed in drug-resistant bacteria, etc - inconsequential changes in cellular processes.

The message written in the language of nucleotide sequences is so precise that it not only provides for a perfect co-functioning of all systems in the organism but it allows for a harmonious coexistence of multitudes of different organisms in biomes, ecosystems and ultimately in the world at large. One can start with harmony and gradually degrade it to chaos by means of random changes (2nd law of thermodynamics), but how can you start with a chaos and randomly transform it into harmony? Chaos + Chaos = ? Is the hand of the One Who created everything in supreme wisdom not abundantly clear here? Is His pattern, the pattern of a loving Father, not abundantly manifested?

I wonder if IT or programmers or linguists in the audience could comment on this quote from the former director of the German Federal Physics and Technology Institute, Prof. Werner Gitt (Gitt W. 1997. In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany): A coding system always entails a nonmaterial intellectual process. A physical matter cannot produce an information code. All experiences show that every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind. There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

To me this resounds strongly with what St. Basil said in the Hexameron (2nd discourse): Thus, if matter is not created, firstly, as having all the very same qualities, it is equal in honour to God. But what can be more impious? Something without properties or form, utmost void, abhorrence that has not been shaped in any way (using the very own expressions of these teachers) is given the same honour as the all-wise, omnipotent and supremely beautiful Creator and Maker of all... <....> if matter is so spacious that it can contain all that is known to God, than through this, they somehow equate the essence of matter with the ineffable Divine power, that is as long as the matter is sufficient to measure all of Divine wisdom.

To me St. Basil says: think about it, if you have only 10^80 particles in the universe and you need to sift through 10^250 combinations to arrive at just one most simple protein, how can you believe in random accumulation of information contained in the existing world. How can you believe that any creative movement forward arise naturally?

If information cannot originate by itself, life and the code of life cannot originate by themselves. There is neither evidence nor a principle describing how genetic information can appear randomly and then accumulate in “small steps”. In the absence of such direct evidence, patterns of similarity in nature are explored by the believers in Chance, such as described in the last few posts, under the assumption that similarity = relatedness. Patterns of similarity are every many indeed: genetic, histological, anatomical, morphological, behavioural, etc. Sometimes they match (or tweaked to match) preconceived notions of common origin, sometimes they do not. For example:

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. (Crow K.D (http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=E25f7mHempadLk2fK@8&Func=OneClickSearch&field=AU&val=Crow+KD&curr_doc=3/1&Form=FullRecordPage&doc=3/1)., Wagner G.P (http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=E25f7mHempadLk2fK@8&Func=OneClickSearch&field=AU&val=Wagner+GP&curr_doc=3/1&Form=FullRecordPage&doc=3/1). 2006. What is the role of genome duplication in the evolution of complexity and diversity? Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23: 887-892). What is a reasonable conclusion here? That He Who made all things, fashioned and built them as He thought fit and that similarity may indeed be evidence for a common origin but it does nothing to show that the common origin stems from a material cause rather than an intelligent cause, from the Divine Artist. In other words we can always tell the Creator by the pattern and purpose of His creations. Yes, the creation is damaged, no longer perfect and why all know why. This is the forest.

Now, some trees, like the CMT1A example. First it is not clear what the picture actually is because different sources describe the condition differently and I am not sure any of us have the immediate expertise to tell which description is correct.

The website I quoted: In most people who have CMT, the mutation that causes the condition is a duplication (doubling) of the PMP22 gene. Instead of having two copies of the PMP22 gene (one on each chromosome) there are three copies. A small percentage of people with CMT1A do not have a duplication of the PMP22 gene, but rather have a point mutation in the gene.
Explanation given on the thread (post 158): CMT is caused when the two CMT1A elements copy both themselves and the DNA between them to another place on the genome. Having two instances of the DNA between the two CMT1A elements is what causes the disease.

Let us assume it is really the same thing. Let us concede there is an anomaly in similarity patterns between human and chimp DNA that we cannot explain: In the case of CMT1A, however, we find just that -- a damaged copy of CMT1A exists in a particular place in the chimp genome, and a copy of CMT1A damaged in the exact same way is located in the exact same position in the human genome.

Should an anomaly, odd exception or most likely a lack of understanding of what this means, a single odd tree, be taken for the forest. We are told to judge single trees by their fruit. What sort of fruit this tree brings - a sweeping conclusion or a belief that: Traits can be lost as well as gained through evolution. Moles, who evolved in an environment of darkness, have incredibly poor eyesight -- some species of mole have only vestigial eyes without optic nerves. So, evolution can be negative as well as positive, causing a species to lose traits it no longer needs as well as lead it to adopt traits that help its chances of survival.

Unbeknownst to the author, this belief is in fact almost a cut-and-paste from the Origin of the species (Chapter 5) and should be given in quotes. Why do I say that this is a belief? Because (1) de novo traits are not gained by evolution and (2) this picture as presented implies gradualism – something that was believed by Darwin but has never been observed. In the fossil record, following the so-called Cambrian Explosion essentially no new body plans (phyla) appeared during the subsequent period of time that Darwinists estimate at 500 million “years”. Considering that emergence of a phylum would represent a major evolutionary event, absence of any preceding transitional links between such individual events is inconsistent with gradual Darwinian evolution. With respect to the abrupt appearance of unique body plans during the Cambrian Explosion, it has been noted that:
The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms,… to many if not all phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within phyla (Gordon M.S. 1999. The concept of monophyly: a speculative essay. Biology and Philosophy, 14: 331-348). Furthermore:

Microevolution provides no satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary burst of novelty during the late Neoproterozoic-Cambrian radiation…, nor the rapid production of novel plant architectures… during the Devonian… followed by the origination of most major insect groups (Carroll R.L. 2000. Towards a new evolutionary synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15: 27-32. Erwin D.H. 2000. Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution and Development, 2: 74-84). So major groupings of similarity – kingdoms and phyla – appear abruptly.

At finer taxonomic levels the picture is not different. No unambiguous transitional forms are known for any of the classes of vertebrates. Archaeopteryx, for example, still touted in textbooks as an important proof of evolution, has been long considered as an odd intermediate mosaic. Also a remarkably diverse avifauna has been found in geological layers classified as “lower Cretaceous”, i.e. about the same time as Archaeopteryx (upper Jurassic) (Kim J.Y (http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=C2g7oEMd7PA8hCCLiDO&Func=OneClickSearch&field=AU&val=Kim+JY&curr_doc=9/18&Form=FullRecordPage&doc=9/18)., Kim S.H (http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=C2g7oEMd7PA8hCCLiDO&Func=OneClickSearch&field=AU&val=Kim+SH&curr_doc=9/18&Form=FullRecordPage&doc=9/18)., Kim K.S (http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=C2g7oEMd7PA8hCCLiDO&Func=OneClickSearch&field=AU&val=Kim+KS&curr_doc=9/18&Form=FullRecordPage&doc=9/18)., Lockley M (http://apps.isiknowledge.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/WoS/CIW.cgi?SID=C2g7oEMd7PA8hCCLiDO&Func=OneClickSearch&field=AU&val=Lockley+M&curr_doc=9/18&Form=FullRecordPage&doc=9/18). 2006. The oldest record of webbed bird and pterosaur tracks from South Korea (Cretaceous Haman Formation, Changseon and Sinsu Islands): More evidence of high avian diversity in East Asia. Cretaceous Research, 27:56-69.) There would have been no time for them to “evolve” had Archaeopteryx been indeed a transitional form from reptiles to birds. Among the amphibians there is a lack of fossils that represent plausible ancestors of the current three orders (San Mauro D., Vences M., Alcobendas M., Zardoya R., Meyer A. 2005. Initial diversification of living amphibians predated the breakup of Pangaea. American Naturalist, 165: 590-599). A similar picture is in the class of reptiles, where the order of turtles represents: a classic evolutionary problem: the appearance of a major structural adaptation [turtle shell]. The place of turtles amongst the other amniote groups is a classic [unresolved] question in systematics, due to the "instantaneous" appearance of this evolutionary novelty (Gilbert S.F., Loredo G.A., Brukman A., Burke A.B. 2001. Morphogenesis of the turtle shell: the development of a novel structure in tetrapod evolution. Evolution and Development, 3: 47-58.).

Among the 32 orders of the class of mammals, none can be connected by undisputed transitional forms to a hypothetical common ancestor. That is, the earliest fossils of each order appear abruptly in the fossil record. Gradual evolution of such morphologically unique and structurally complex orders as chiropterans (bats) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins) would require a tremendous number of “steps” from a common ancestral form. Yet they appear in the fossil record abruptly.

Are there exceptions to this pattern? Most certainly, and chiefly because things are explained post factum and with a preconceived notion in mind. With such an approach one:

can always find a plausible adaptive explanation for any observation we make today, evolutionary reconstructions really are just-so stories in important ways. Trying to understand when we’ve got the true one is one of the most serious challenges in evolutionary biology (Weiss, K. 2002. Evolutionary Anthropology 215).

Do these exceptions invalidate the rule – no, because why would the scientific community remain for so long in the travails of birth of the punctuated equilibrium “theory” if the exceptions were satisfactory?

So one consumes an odd fruit like the CMT1A anomaly and his mind becomes completely receptive to the whole evolutionary myth? Is this really seeking for truth?

I have no doubt that an attempt can or will be made to debunk what I wrote paragraph by paragraph. But folks, let us be creative. How about a synthesis instead of debunking? I mean a synthesis that would explain how information arises out of chaos, becomes life, accumulates to produce the punctuated pattern of fossils and the diversity of life we have today. How this information is preserved given mutation rates, extinctions, etc? That is a synthesis that would rely not on assumptions or imagination but rather that on we see, touch, smell, measure, weigh and so forth. That would be hugely stimulating and productive and I am sure would move us towards the truth and unity we all seek.

Xristos Voskrese!

[Owen Jones]

Actually, I'm not interested in truth and unity. I'm interested in winning!!!!!

[Yuri Zharikov]

Actually, I'm not interested in truth and unity. I'm interested in winning!!!!!
No!!!!!!!! This must be kind of sad irony?!

[M. Partyka]

Darwin made and dawkins’ of this world continue to make two claims: (1) all living beings descend from one or a few original ancestors, and (2) the mechanism driving the changes among species (selection of favourable mutations) is the blind and unguided. The controversial claim, of course, is the second one, namely the idea that a blind purely material mechanism, without any intelligence involved, is responsible for all of the genetic information necessary for life (DNA) and hence for all of life’s diversity.I think the question ought to be raised, "How does one tell a purely material mechanism from a God-guided mechanism?"

For example, let's say you have 26 Scrabble tiles, one for each letter of the alphabet, in a nontransparent bag that has been well-shaken. Next, you have a blindfolded chimpanzee assistant pick letters from the bag one by one. After all the letters have been removed from the bag, you are stunned to realize that your blindfolded chimp assistant has pulled out the letters in alphabetical order!!! What are the odds of that happening by accident???

Well, as it turns out, the odds of the chimp's picking the letters in alphabetical order are exactly the same as the odds of the chimp's picking the letters out in any other order -- no matter what the order is, the chances for that particular permutation of letters are 1 in (total # of permutations). So, the fact that the letters came out of the bag in an order that is recognizable to you doesn't change the fact that they were randomly selected.

Or were they? Perhaps God nudged the tiles around in the bag so that the chimp would pick them in alphabetical order. Certainly it's within God's power to do such a thing. Maybe God is sending you a message. Or maybe not. That's the problem -- an event that one person looks upon as utterly random may look to another person like the hand of God at work, and vice versa. How one views the event often depends on the interpretive context and on the viewer's personal beliefs.

I think what bugs creationists most about the evolutionary model -- aside from the obvious problems it raises with the Genesis account -- is the fact that in the evolutionary model, you can't see the hand of God at work. That is, you can't point back to a particular time and say, "AHA! Here is where God did such and such!" All you see are natural processes at work, and compared to the Genesis narrative, natural processes are rather boring and don't seem in any way miraculous or "worthy" of what we've come to expect from an omnipotent God. But the fact is that natural processes are just as much the handiwork of God as supernatural processes are, and the seemingly random mutations and selections that led over a vast period of time to the formation of the species we see today are just as much the handiwork of God as any miraculous "Let there be...and it was" events would be.

So, for an evolutionist to say, "It was all random, all natural, no God," shouldn't rankle us the way it usually does, because while they can look at the evolutionary picture and see no God in any of it, we can look at the same picture and see God in all of it. We can say, "It was all planned, all divine, all God."


Whatever there is in a genome plays a role, sometimes yet unknown role.I don't think there's a single geneticist today who would agree with you here. Granted, some of the DNA previously thought to be "junk" is now known to have a function in embryonic development -- this is the sort of thing the relatively new science of "Evo Devo" is now exploring, and already the findings of Evo Devo are helping to shed light upon previously mysterious evolutionary processes -- but to say that all of the genome is functional is overreaching. Some junk DNA is simply junk.


If you make random changes in a complete text - manual at any level of organisation – word, sentence, page, etc - you can only degrade the message to a lesser or greater degree, you can never improve it because you always begin with a complete, optimal information package designed for a target audience, for a purpose.Ah, but DNA isn't quite as picky as we are. The language of DNA is flexible, permitting many "words" that look different to have the same meaning. If we were really to construct an accurate analogy of DNA to English, our language skills would need to be loosened up a bit.

For example, let's say we have the word "HOT", and what we really care about is not what the word means but how it sounds. "HOT" obviously sounds like "hot", but so does "HOTT" -- the extra "T" is a letter duplication that doesn't change the sound of the word. Whether you say "HOT" or "HOTT", our ears hear the same sound that generated the same meaning. And, because the extra "T" is unnecessary, it's open to mutation, whereas the initial "HOT" combination is guarded by natural selection.

The language of DNA is even looser than this. It has only four letters -- A, C, G, and T -- but different combinations of these letters can code for the same amino acid triplets, making the letters much more interchangeable than the letters of our English alphabet. (If our English alphabet were anything like DNA, words like "cat", "dog", and "elf" could easily be synonyms!) So, the different permutations of DNA are much more "open to interpretation" than the English language permits the letters of the alphabet to be or the rules of a compiler allow a block of programming code to be.


Computer simulations demonstrate that a simple genome cannot be made more complex via random mutation of nucleotides. A German chemist and computer scientist R. Truman (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Truman_ComplexFeatures1_070104.pdf) ran computer simulations to test the possibility that random mutations can explain emergence of novel information in a simple genome. He remarked that: Several factors would limit the possibility for random mutations in very small biological genomes to produce novel, complex functions... Extrapolating to biologically reasonable settings suggests neo-Darwinian theory is incapable of explaining more than rather inconsequential changes in cellular processes.Interestingly, here's an article in which a similar simulation was run and demonstrated just the opposite:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/nonlin.htm


Let us concede there is an anomaly in similarity patterns between human and chimp DNA that we cannot explain: In the case of CMT1A, however, we find just that -- a damaged copy of CMT1A exists in a particular place in the chimp genome, and a copy of CMT1A damaged in the exact same way is located in the exact same position in the human genome. Should an anomaly, odd exception or most likely a lack of