Evolution as a viable component in the creation of life [Archive]

Yuri Zharikov

18-04-2008, 08:21 AM

I had a very interesting conversation with our Archaeological resource manager this morning, which prompted some thoughts, perhaps relevant to this thread or any other thread in the general creation/evolution realm. Here is the short story I heard this morning. A colleague of our manager, himself an archaeologist at a University in British Columbia, decided to publish a paper on a particular biological phenomenon (spring emergence of spade-footed toads, if you care). The manuscript was rejected a few times and so he finally submitted it to one of the lower ranking journals in North America, The Canadian Field Naturalist. The manuscript came back again rejected and with a scathing remark from the editor: I have never seen a manuscript with so much rampant speculation and unjustified conjecture! The author, the archaeologist showed this to our manager and could only say: But this is how we do things! He did not expect that in field biology, evidence standards are slightly more stringent than in archaeology and unchecked use of imagination is not exactly encouraged.

This story immediately brought recollection of a recent book by a renowned anthropologist Ann Gibbons (Gibbons A. 2006. The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors. Doubleday, New York. NY.) where she says that nowhere has imagination had a bigger role than in devising the human ancestral tree, where just about every new fossil shatters preconceived notions on human “evolution” [quotes are mine] and data vacuum is thus often filled with speculations.

It is common sense that imagination and speculations fill gaps in historical sciences where unique events are dealt with, validation is impossible, quality of the data decays exponentially with time and conformity runs supreme or else everybody wants to be the discoverer of the “missing link” (which incidentally is a speculation itself). Basically, what often happens in anthropology/archaeology is this: subsequent students strive for “originality and creativity” and thus try to undermine views and ideas of their predecessors. Even when an agreement is reached, it is based on personal authority (school of thought) and consensus as opposed to any objective factual evidence.

Vanity is a major driving force in science in general and in historical sciences in particular. Fr. Seraphim (Rose) wrote about this very brilliantly in Not of this world and anybody who has been in the scientific publication business even for a short time can attest to that. However, work done for the sake of vanity amounts to nothing (Isa. 41:29). In other words when a mind is guided by a passion, can it see and comprehend the truth? Somebody will say perhaps that there is no connection... Perhaps there is no connection when claims can be validated and verified, but when they cannot be as is the case with evolutionary “sciences”?

Most people will remember a story from the Desert Fathers when a brother saw a fellow monastic fornicating. Indignant, he came up and kicked him only to realise that what he saw where two stacks of hay in the wind. What do we have here: His mind was guided by the passion of hatred for his brother. Based on this passion he assumed that his brother was a fornicator and then the devil furnished evidence for him. If by God’s mercy he did not chance to validate his observation, or say if the action took place across a river or a gorge, he would have killed his soul and perhaps even the soul of the brother by accepting a demonic lie. If on top of this he was a person of power and influence he could probably damage souls of many men and women by telling them a lie and making them believe it. One could argue that an individual error cannot carry far, before it is corrected by others (aka science always corrects itself).

Is this not how heresies are born? A person of power, authority and great talent, but infected with the passion of pride and vanity, rises against the Church and ultimately leads into perdition and separation from God whole countries. Why do they all believe him?

These are the few things that come to mind when I hear the words “science has proven this or that” with respect to the events of the distant, distant past. As an observation, during the creation/evolution discussion same people who would not accept Genesis literally also said that they would not accept incorrect scientific “knowledge” either. Yet, no one made it clear how correctness or incorrectness of what is taught in schools and lectured in universities will be determined and everybody shied away from defining/discussion the limits of scientific knowledge. I am not saying this to start arguing again but more as a food for thought, a question to answer to one's own self.

Morals are based on and determined by theology, themselves, of course, not being theology... By theology I mean here belief in any god, including the evolution-god, no-god, etc. Literal acceptance of the Genesis, has been suggested on this forum, to have nothing to do with morals... Does it have anything to do with theology? If the great Fathers, Teachers and Hierarchs did not say that it does, I would probably feel free to say “I don’t know” but they say that it does... what am I to do?

If literal acceptance of the Genesis in and of itself has little to do with morals, what then about theology? How we view the connection between our theology and morals depends a lot on our personal and cultural experience... In the Soviet Union Darwinism was the state religion and children in schools were indoctrinated to believe that ontogenesis recapitulates phylogenesis and nonsense like that. What did this theology do to their morals? Somebody may say nothing. They fought and died for their country, worked like salves, helped whom they could, cared for their parents, as a rule, and so forth. All seems well. Yet you will be hard pressed to find a woman in Russia or Ukraine or the Baltics from 40 and older who would not have committed at least one abortion. My personal sample size is small, but of the three women I spoke with about this, all three had killed their own unborn children. How does this square with apparently good morality?

Their theology dictated them that what they had in their womb was a piece of tissue or a “fish” or something like that. They took it literally. To his day 4 mln unborn children are killed in Russia every year as the state continues to indoctrinate its citizens about their “literal” origins while suggesting to the Church that the “non-literal” origin should be one’s private business. The other example that comes to mind... about 10 yrs ago an Orthodox bishop who accepted theistic evolution as his world-view, at a youth conference, responded to a question about the attitude of the Church towards abortions as follows: I am not to tell a woman what she should do with her body. Was he an immoral person – most emphatically no, but is there something wrong here – yes. His theology was false, he took it literally and in doing so he at least confounded a few people. Only Lord knows if something worse happened following and/or due to that comment.

All the people I know in real life believe in something about their origins literally and this something usually has a clear-cut dichotomy. When I hear somebody say “I do not believe Genesis literally” I never know what this means... I cannot say anything about my origin, nothing... I believe that I evolved as taught by evolutionary anthropology... I believe that I evolved by God’s guiding the evolution... It is a negative statement and it is impossible to understand what it actually means.
Could somebody, who does not believe in Genesis literally clearly articulate as to what it is that he/she literally believes about the origins, so are to make the statement a positive one.

Yuri Zharikov

29-04-2008, 09:47 PM

I recently received this email from one of the Platina Fathers:
I'm writing to let you know about a new movie that's just come out in theaters: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Here are some reviews of the movie:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759

Surprise - monks watch movies (with a blessing)! I have not seen the film so cannot form an opinion on it, but am very curious if anybody has. The review (link above) suggests that the documentary covers many issues that we have discussed on the evolution/creation related threads as seen/understood by professional scientists accepting either the Biblical or the evolutionary world-view as well as those taking the in-between position. Again based on the review I think the documentary provides a good background on the demarkation line between science and pseudoscience.

XRISTOS VOSKRESE to everybody.

John M.

22-05-2008, 07:32 AM

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.

If evolution is claimed to take millions or billions of years to make one species evolve into another, why hasn't it evolved species with very long lifespans for survival? Why don't dogs live to be 100 years old?

John

Father David Moser

22-05-2008, 05:03 PM

If evolution is claimed to take millions or billions of years to make one species evolve into another, why hasn't it evolved species with very long lifespans for survival? Why don't dogs live to be 100 years old?

John

Very simply, long lifespans are counter-productive for an evolutionary process. Short life spans with many generations are best.

What if, otoh, we have got it all wrong? What if the role of evolution is not the origin of species but the deterioration of species? from the scriptural account, man had, at one time an extremely long life span (compared to the present), however, that long life span has been reduced to a fraction of what it was. Could it be that natural selection is at work to eliminate long life? Could we be devolving rather than evolving? This is not meant as a criticism of the evolutionary process, but rather an attempt to explore an alternative role for evolution in the creation of life.

Fr David Moser

Misha

22-05-2008, 05:31 PM

A Greek theologian wrote recently that it's a major mistake to try to find in Sacred Scriptures scientific interpretations of what's happening in the nature.
He used these quotes
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"Cor 1,22-23

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain"Tit 3,9

I think he's right.

Demetrios

22-05-2008, 06:09 PM

Very simply, long lifespans are counter-productive for an evolutionary process. Short life spans with many generations are best.

What if, otoh, we have got it all wrong? What if the role of evolution is not the origin of species but the deterioration of species? from the scriptural account, man had, at one time an extremely long life span (compared to the present), however, that long life span has been reduced to a fraction of what it was. Could it be that natural selection is at work to eliminate long life? Could we be devolving rather than evolving? This is not meant as a criticism of the evolutionary process, but rather an attempt to explore an alternative role for evolution in the creation of life.

Fr David Moser

I completely agree.

His Eminence Metropolitan John Zizioulas writes

Thus, Man’s fall had, as its outcome, Man’s loss; Nature overall lost the meaning of truth, the meaning of true life, and was deceived into an impression that the thing called “life” is actually life, when in fact it is death. Thus, death enters the scene as synonymous to life. Note here, that this could well be the most tragic consequence of the Fall, i.e., that death enters the scene as a synonym of life. What do I mean with this? Well, we are under the naïve impression that “death” is a point located at the end of Man’s “life”. We say that someone died “at the age of 90”, as though death suddenly made its appearance during his 90th year. In reality however, this man began to die from the moment he was born. Biology sees death as a process that begins simultaneously with birth. Moreso modern Biology and the latest theories on ageing, link ageing to reproduction. At least in beings with organs – especially mammals – the ageing cycle begins from the moment that the organism reaches the point of reproductive maturity. And this is characteristic, precisely because it is linked to the mystery, the phenomenon of life. The phenomenon of life bears inside it the phenomenon of death. The deception, the clouding of the truth here, is that we are under the impression that we are actually living (and when I say impression, I mean the existential, the experiential kind; an impression that we are all influenced by).

We shield our eyes from the truth of death; We are speaking here of biological, existential categories. When we go to the psychological categories, things are even more evident. We don’t even want to think of death, or, we are unable to, psychologically. But the psychological aspect is not the most important aspect; the biological, the existential one is. These are fermentations that already exist inside the organism. The fermentations of deterioration exist, but we cannot see them. Biological existence is structured in such a manner, that it cannot see the truth; and even if it does see it, it will see it only psychologically – it cannot see it ontologically. It is not possible; this is the way that things are: out of our control.

We have therefore entered into a circle that is a fake life, which is why the Gospel speaks of the “real life”. Why was this distinction necessary here? We say “real life”. What is “real life”? We seem to have de-spiritualized the term. These modern perceptions are not Biblical. When one speaks of the “real life”, he is not implying another life – the kind that we call “spiritual”. He is implying a life that does not die; a life that is not subject to this deception of the so-called life that leads to death. Consequently, real life is the life that is not proven false, because it is not defeated by death. Real life springs from the Resurrection of Christ, from Christ Himself, precisely because that is where biological death was actually transcended. This is not a matter of ignoring biological death in favor of another life. No. The everyday expression of “other life” which we use is the extension of this life – it is the real side of this life. Thus, death (i.e., this deceptive life that carries death inside it), is the outcome of the Fall and it is a bad, unacceptable thing. The Christian view can never regard death as something good.

The transcending of death, therefore, is –par excellence- the Gospel, which the Church offers us. With His Resurrection (which signifies the transcendence of biological death), Christ provides us with the conviction, the hope, that it is possible for this admixture of the real life with the false that we are subject to can be cleared, so that the element of death may be removed, leaving only the element of life. This is the real and eternal life, because a “real” life is also an eternal life. As for the word “eternal” in the New Testament, it has no other inference, except that it is an extension of this life. It is only in Platonism that the term “eternal” is juxtaposed to the term “current”, i.e., an entirely different level of thought. We do not find this kind of level in the Biblical perception. In the biblical perception, we have straight lines. Time, and consequently History, the corpus and the course of matter- of the material world - is a blessed part of Creation. In Platonism however, this is a negative point of reference, since one must escape from Time in order to be released and move on to another level; i.e., to fly beyond Time. Unfortunately, many Christians interpret things in this Platonic manner, when they say: “Did he die? Consider him blessed. He has departed from this fake world. He has slipped away from Time. He has gone to eternity, where Time doesn’t exist. These ideas are not Christian. The expectation therefore of the Resurrection is precisely an expectation of the transcendence of death and the catharsis of existence, so that the false and the deceptive element is taken out of the way.

Rick James York

24-05-2008, 10:56 AM

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.

Very simply, long lifespans are counter-productive for an evolutionary process. Short life spans with many generations are best.

What if, otoh, we have got it all wrong? What if the role of evolution is not the origin of species but the deterioration of species? from the scriptural account, man had, at one time an extremely long life span (compared to the present), however, that long life span has been reduced to a fraction of what it was. Could it be that natural selection is at work to eliminate long life? Could we be devolving rather than evolving? This is not meant as a criticism of the evolutionary process, but rather an attempt to explore an alternative role for evolution in the creation of life.

Fr David MoserBased on this idea and this alone, that would make the common house fly higher than man in evolution. Then again. That's only the opinion of a primitive life form named James.
In +, James

Rick James York

24-05-2008, 11:15 AM

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.

A Greek theologian wrote recently that it's a major mistake to try to find in Sacred Scriptures scientific interpretations of what's happening in the nature.
He used these quotes
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;"Cor 1,22-23

"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain"Tit 3,9

I think he's right.Yes and to a very small number perhaps (2 Tim. 3:7) also applies, making our efforts in vain.

Pandelis

16-10-2009, 12:40 PM

It was very interesting reading all these posts on evolution and creation, in fact it was a bit of a headache, but beneficial. This is my first time posting, so I'll see how it goes. Excuse my ignorance before I add my two cents worth.

I think that if any scientific theory, whichever one we may consider, undermines someones faith, then it is possible that that person had no faith in the first place. Science and scientific theories give (mostly mathematical) descriptions of nature, but we must never choose to 'believe' in a theory because it may vaguely resemble something in Scripture (ala creationism)or, from the other perspective, reject a scientific theory because it is against our religious beliefs, which are fueled by our pride anyway. Scripture, Orthodoxy, these are about meaning, what it means to have a personal relationship with God and with eachother. And when we use science to 'extract' meaning from the Bible, we are bound to end up nowhere. In fact, it may be interesting to add that if God had revealed all of science through the Bible, we would still not be able to understand it.

I, myself, view evolution as a beautiful theory. Most scientists possess a certain reverence for nature, they see it as something beautiful, and in their own way are searching for the truth. This may be more than one can say about may apathetic Christians.

With prayers,
Pandelis

Owen Jones

18-10-2009, 04:22 PM

Ironically, this is also how Darwin justified the theory in the first place -- it was a beautiful theory.

Ryan

18-10-2009, 08:25 PM

One of the earliest materialist philosophers, Epicurus, began with the premise that we shouldn't fear God or death. It was from there that he began to elaborate various hypotheses for natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, lightning, etc.) that were devoid of any supernatural element. He didn't pretend that his theories were empirically proven, but simply sought to offer explanations which were compatible with his general philosophical stance that the universe was self-existing and that the gods did not intervene in the lives of mortals. I think it is a major propaganda triumph for materialism that, nowadays, most of us assume that modern science has no philosophical basis and that it is simply "the way things are."

J. K. Amra

21-10-2009, 02:11 AM

I'm not sure if I'm contributing to the discussion with any of this, but a few might be interested in checking out a video series that I made on evolution, essentially debunking it, though not including all of the fallacies based on a time frame allowed by YouTube, I highlight the basics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwSa2yYeDok

Long story short...evolution is not scientific, only micro-evolution has been observed, therefore only micro evolution can be considered scientific, macro, cosmic, planetary, chemical, and organic "evolutions" are made up fairy tales.

Speros

30-12-2010, 05:19 PM

The real truth about evolution is that it ultimately doesn't matter whether we share a common ancestor with chimps, provided it is God who made it possible.

By the way: remember the contemporary theories of Darwin and others concerning the descent of man from monkeys. Without engaging in any theories, Christ explicitly declares that in man, in addition to an animal world, there is also a spiritual world. And what of it? What difference does it make where man is descended from..., God still breathed the breath of life into him. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/09/063.shtml

If God is within all things at all times, then the course of evolutionary history followed his ultimate plan. God evolved man so that he could become man.

The word "miracle" originally meant an "object of wonder." A wondrous event can point to God's presence without it being supernatural. Consider all the seemingly random chemical processes involved in the development of a flower. Is that not a miracle? I read this observation in a book by a contemporary Eastern Orthodox scientist.

The debate ultimately isn't about creation vs. evolution but between religion and materialism. Some scientists, like Stephen J. Gould, have considered science and religion as not mutually exclusive:

Nonoverlapping Magisteria
by Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

I don't "believe" in evolution in the sense that one believes in the Bible or the deity of Christ. I simply accept it as a legitimate scientific theory that may have been God's method of creation.

Paul Cowan

31-12-2010, 07:04 AM

David Lanier

31-12-2010, 07:32 AM

Speros and Paul:

This subject has been touched on in another thread here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1506-How-old-is-the-earth/page3). I tend to agree with Speros insomuch as the debate isn't about Creation vs. evolution. There are flaws in evolution theory however, the points of which are escaping me at the moment.

Fr. Thomas Hopko has an excellent lecture series on Darwin and Christianity (http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/darwin_and_christianity). It's a 17 part series, so it will take a while to listen to all of them, but well worth it IMO.

Theophrastus

31-12-2010, 05:48 PM

Are you serious? Good God man! We were made in the image of God. Not an ape. If you need a proof to debunk the evolution "theory", get one of these scientists to tell you the mathematical probability of the evolution of the human eyeball and then compare that to how long they say the Solar system, or better yet, the universe has been around. If they are anywhere near the same and I'll spot you 1 Billion years, I'll wash your shorts for a year.

Paul the best looking ape ancestor you have ever seen

I think one could, as a Christian, believe that the human body evolved from an ancestral ape or ape-like species. I don't think the "image of God" referred to in Genesis is physical. Rather, the higher, noetic qualities of humanity are the "image", and non-humans lack these qualities. Our noetic qualities are the image of God, since apes lack these noetic aspects.

Speros

31-12-2010, 10:16 PM

I think one could, as a Christian, believe that the human body evolved from an ancestral ape or ape-like species. I don't think the "image of God" referred to in Genesis is physical. Rather, the higher, noetic qualities of humanity are the "image", and non-humans lack these qualities. Our noetic qualities are the image of God, since apes lack these noetic aspects.

That's the exact point of this quote:

By the way: remember the contemporary theories of Darwin and others concerning the descent of man from monkeys. Without engaging in any theories, Christ explicitly declares that in man, in addition to an animal world, there is also a spiritual world. And what of it? What difference does it make where man is descended from..., God still breathed the breath of life into him. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
http://www.utoronto.ca/tsq/DS/09/063.shtml

Herman Blaydoe

01-01-2011, 12:19 AM

Paul Cowan

01-01-2011, 07:20 AM

800 years? If I get over 80, someone shoot me. The more man tries to play god the shorter all our lives are going to be simply because they will declare survival of the fittest and kill off all those of us who don't measure up. (oh wait, as of Jan 1, 2011 they are). Anyone see the movie where people had a crystal inbedded in their hand and when they reached the age of 30 they were all conditioned to go to the death chamber in expectation of rebirth only no one was rebirthed and one dude was supposed to find a way out of the underground city? Its all a crock to take our tax dollars and blow them all on keeping calories away from fungus with the idea people will live 800 years +. Just shoot me right now.

Speros

01-01-2011, 01:52 PM

Actually, looking at culture in general, I find it rather easy to believe that humanity is devolving rather than evolving. Is there really any evidence beyond conceit to make us believe that we are really that much "better" than our forebears? I certainly do not accept that we are "evolving" towards some sort of "higher" lifeform, and that all we have to do is avoid wiping ourselves out and science will solve all our problems and give us "eternal life (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/who-wants-to-live-for-ever-a-scientific-breakthrough-could-mean-humans-live-for-hundreds-of-years-772418.html)".

I put not my trust in scientists, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation…

Evolution doesn't assume that we inevitably become more culturally advanced over time. Instead of advancing, we could be headed toward extinction, just as thousands of species have become extinct over the centuries. Furthermore, in the course of evolutionary history, it's only a small minority of members in a given population who acquire the changes that allow for a new species to arise. The majority of the human race could be devolving with a small minority evolving.

The first chapters of Genesis and the Book of Revelation are highly symbolic and when we base an entire theology on a literal interpretation of these texts, it becomes very confusing.

Clement of Alexandria

"And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son" (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).

"The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days" (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).

"And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’" (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).

"And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" (ibid., 6:60).

Augustine

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation" (ibid., 2:9). [/B]

"Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them" (ibid., 4:27).

"[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar" (ibid., 5:2).

"For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!" (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).

"We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it" (ibid., 11:7).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Creation_and_Genesis.asp

Speros

01-01-2011, 01:55 PM

800 years? If I get over 80, someone shoot me. The more man tries to play god the shorter all our lives are going to be simply because they will declare survival of the fittest and kill off all those of us who don't measure up. (oh wait, as of Jan 1, 2011 they are).

While some have used evolution to justify euthanasia, the theory itself takes no position on it. It's not as if all species sharing a common ancestor was discovered for the purpose of exterminating "undesirables" in the human population.

Herman Blaydoe

01-01-2011, 03:10 PM

The first chapters of Genesis and the Book of Revelation are highly symbolic and when we base an entire theology on a literal interpretation of these texts, it becomes very confusing.

Wow, you come up with some rather interesting interpolations. How do you come to the conclusion that our theology is entirely based on a literal interpretation of Genesis? The true meaning of Genesis (and the rest of the Old Testament for that matter) is seen (in our eyes) through the lens of the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. As proven by the quotes you yourself have provided, we do not "base an entire theology on a literal interpretation of these texts". No wonder you are confused.

Herman the symbolic Pooh

Father David Moser

01-01-2011, 07:58 PM

While some have used evolution to justify euthanasia, the theory itself takes no position on it. It's not as if all species sharing a common ancestor was discovered for the purpose of exterminating "undesirables" in the human population.

Although off the topic of Orthodoxy - evolutionary process does not apply to those who are past the age of reproduction and so for the most part "euthanasia" or any other form of exterminating undesirables past that age is completely irrelevant. Even those who are of reproductive age do not impact the evolutionary process if they do not reproduce and are therefore irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is all about successful mating and reproduction, not about extermination and death.

Fr DAvid

Speros

02-01-2011, 07:39 AM

How could there be literal 24-hour days before the creation of the sun?

Why does Genesis 2:4 say "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" if Genesis 1 intends us to believe the earth was created in six literal days? Was it six days or one day, "the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens"?

If the first chapters of Genesis were meant to be interpreted literally, why do they contradict each other? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 disagree as to the order of what was created when.

The important point is that regardless of how the universe was made, Genesis tells us why it was made and by whom so that we may glorify him.

N. T. Wright refers to Genesis as a myth, not in the sense of a falsehood but as a truth spoken through poetic language.

N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BP1PpDyDCw

Evan

02-01-2011, 02:59 PM

Without accusing anybody who has taken part in this discussion of doing so, I would submit that one should not formulate a definite opinion about the degree to which evolution is compatible with the Church's witness concerning creation without actually reading at least the concluding chapter of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection. Otherwise, we're just talking in abstractions. No rational person could take a stand against science as such or declare that science is necessarily opposed to our faith. But neither should we uncritically accept the conclusions of individuals who, in the name of objectivity and rational inquiry, reject what has been revealed to us by the living God of Israel.

Creation out of nothing is manifestly something that can be known only by revelation. We can't know how things came to be out of non-being by empirical investigation. The progressive development of life, however, strikes me as a different question. But we cannot simply accept what Darwin or anyone else has to say about that development without closely investigating what is being said and why it is being said. It seems plain to me (I haven't come across an argument to the contrary made by anyone on either side of the debate) that Darwin was operating on the basis of metaphysical presuppositions that are not those of apostolic Christianity. How and to what extent that affects the conclusions he and those who have followed him arrived at is something that requires coming to terms with his actual conclusions and how he reached them.

In Christ,
Evan

Kusanagi

02-01-2011, 07:17 PM

I finally managed to find an article by renowned scientist Nicolae Paulescu on evolution theories of his time:

physics and chemistry were unable to generate life from non-living substances, ‘we have to admit here the intervention of certain Powers …'

This was written in 1902 in Romania when Darwinism was being accepted he did write a book on why biologically speaking evolution is impossible. Maybe someone from Romania would be kind enough to translate it?

http://creation.com/denied-the-prize

Herman Blaydoe

03-01-2011, 06:54 PM

I have to agree with Paulescu. Evolution may present an intriging range of possibilities on the DEVELOPMENT of creation, but it in no-wise comes close to explaining or contributing to an understanding of the act of creation/existance itself, beyond the supposition of a rogue electrical spark in a primordial soup SOMEHOW initiating some sort of (undefined) process that created ribonucleic acids that somehow became strands of DNA that somehow became LIVING single cell life-forms that somehow....you get the picture. If you ignore the "somehows", it almost looks logical. As I have said elsewhere, logic has its limits. Again, it presents some interesting answers, but I suspect we have not yet asked the right questions.

Herman the questioning Pooh

Speros

05-01-2011, 05:36 AM

Speros

05-01-2011, 12:09 PM

St. Augustine, centuries before Darwin, wrote favorably of evolution:

In the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine explained that at the creation God implanted "rational seeds" (rationes seminales), which would develop over time into the products of creation. In other words, the potential for all natural things was created in the beginning, but not all things have existed since the beginning. Rather, many natural things developed over time in a historical unfolding of the natural order.

Augustine’s idea of implanted rational seeds imparted a developmental aspect to nature. In the 19th century, the Christian reception of Darwin's theory of evolution of species by means of natural selection was greatly facilitated by Augustinian views of rational seeds (see the works by Messenger and McKeough, cited below).
http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/06-Roman/source/augustine.html

Michael Stickles

05-01-2011, 02:33 PM

Theodosius Dobzhansky, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was a devout Christian.

Theodosius Dobzhansky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky)

Teilhard de Chardin, the anthropologist who discovered Peking Man, was a devout Christian.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Chardin)

Having said this, can we please move beyond the creationist and atheist claim that evolution and theism are incompatible?

Evolution and theism are certainly completely compatible. Evolution and Christianity are also compatible, though not as completely. But evolution as an explanation of the origin of man and Orthodox Christianity - no. The compatibility decreases rapidly the more specific you get.

Michael Stickles

05-01-2011, 02:43 PM

St. Augustine, centuries before Darwin, wrote favorably of evolution:

I find it impossible to believe that St. Augustine would look favorably on evolution as it is understood today. Here is a quote from the article you linked, where St. Augustine speaks about contingency of being (emphasis added):

"believe and if possible understand that God is working even now, so that if His action should be withdrawn from his creatures, they would perish.... God moves his whole creation by a hidden power and all creatures are subject to this movement: the angels carry out his commands, the stars move in their courses, the winds blow now this way now that, deep pools seethe beneath tumbling waterfalls and mists form above them, meadows come to life as the seeds put forth grasses, animals are born and live their lives according to their proper instincts, the evil are permitted to try the just. It is thus that God unfolds the generations which he laid up in creation when he first founded it; and they would not be sent forth to run their course if he who made creatures ceased to exercise his provident rule over them."

It seems to me that if Augustine were to accept some notion of "evolution", his definition of it would be essentially what I have emphasized in bold - God's unfolding of the generations which He had already laid up in creation. Certainly he would reject any idea of it being an impersonal process.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-01-2011, 05:44 PM

St. Augustine, centuries before Darwin, wrote favorably of evolution:

Mike is correct Speros, that St Augustine did not know of evolution as a scientific theory. This theory would scarcely have been possible in his time since philosophical and theological thinking had come to such a firm understanding of the basic integrity of nature (ie each nature develops according to its own intrinsic characteristics but one nature cannot become another; so a dog is born, grows, develops, etc. but in so doing it doesn't become a cat since its own nature is defined by its characteristics of being a dog).

This was given even more firm grounding in the basic fact put forth by Christian theology from its earliest days, that God has created everything from nothing; ie from Himself but yet distinct in nature from Himself. Each nature is distinct and maintains its basic integrity in reflection of the Divine creation. In other words the integrity of each created nature is a reflection of the Divine unchangeability (basic stability of characteristics) but also of the character of the Divine relationship with creation. As St Maximus would explain each nature is fulfilled in the image of its Maker. This fulfillment does reflect a movement of what is created but in terms of its actual nature, of its created purpose (eg like a man is born, grows up and can find his life in Christ), not in terms of something 'open ended' so that a man according to his environment would at some point become some other creature!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Theophrastus

06-01-2011, 05:47 AM

But evolution as an explanation of the origin of man and Orthodox Christianity - no. The compatibility decreases rapidly the more specific you get.I would say that evolutionary explanations of the human body are compatible with Orthodoxy.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

06-01-2011, 01:54 PM

Speros

06-01-2011, 06:12 PM

Evolution and theism are certainly completely compatible. Evolution and Christianity are also compatible, though not as completely. But evolution as an explanation of the origin of man and Orthodox Christianity - no. The compatibility decreases rapidly the more specific you get.

By the way: remember the contemporary theories of Darwin and others concerning the descent of man from monkeys. Without engaging in any theories, Christ explicitly declares that in man, in addition to an animal world, there is also a spiritual world. And what of it? What difference does it make where man is descended from..., God still breathed the breath of life into him. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Speros

06-01-2011, 06:13 PM

Certainly he would reject any idea of it being an impersonal process.

As would I and most Christian scientists who accept evolution.

Michael Stickles

06-01-2011, 06:54 PM

Without engaging in any theories, Christ explicitly declares that in man, in addition to an animal world, there is also a spiritual world.

OK, I'll bite - Where, exactly, does Christ explicitly declare that there is an "animal world" in man?

Michael Stickles

06-01-2011, 06:59 PM

I would say that evolutionary explanations of the human body are compatible with Orthodoxy.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. If it refers to the development of the human species from an earlier species which is a common ancestor to both us and the apes, then I'd have to disagree. See Fr. Raphael's discussion of divinely created nature.

Evan

06-01-2011, 07:38 PM

Theophrastus

06-01-2011, 08:47 PM

I think that there is a confusion being made here between the concept of 'development' which is a concept used heavily by the Fathers; and evolution, the modern scientific theory.

The first concept of the Fathers always is based on the understanding that divinely created nature develops according to the parameters of its own nature. One nature doesn't become another. The whole point of the second theory however precisely is that one nature becomes another. Even the way it sees nature is radically different (this is an extremely important point in order to see the difference between the two) for the first sees each distinct nature as being a divinely integrated unit. The second though begins from the starting point that distinct things are in ever flowing flux so that each nature is only a pause on the way towards something else.

So -to reconcile these two ways of seeing creation you are first going to need to start with the contradiction between the two. Personally- and I could be wrong here- I'm not sure of the point of holding to a theory which one has to reverse as to its own self defined meaning. Why not just start with something else instead?

In Christ- Fr Raphael
Evolutionary theory doesn't speak in terms of "nature" (as in "human nature" or "animal nature"), whereas Patristic theory does, so one can't claim that evolutionary theory and Patristic theory are necessarily incompatible. Evolutionary theory speaks about individual organisms, which contain genetic information. The organism's genetic information, in general, doesn't change all that much. The greater change occurs when two organisms mate and give birth to new individuals with new genetic information.

"Nature", in Patristic theory, points to something unchanging. In modern Western science, there is no such recognition of anything un-changing in that fashion, because such a thing would not be scientifically measurable.

Michael Stickles

06-01-2011, 09:40 PM

Evolutionary theory doesn't speak in terms of "nature" (as in "human nature" or "animal nature"), whereas Patristic theory does, so one can't claim that evolutionary theory and Patristic theory are necessarily incompatible.

I'm afraid that's a bit of a non sequitur. Just because evolutionary theory does not speak in terms of "nature" (in the Patristic sense), that does not mean that its claims do not conflict with such a view.

Among other things, current evolutionary theory proposes that apes and men evolved from a common ancestor (call it a proto-hominid, or P-H for short). Patristically, it would be unacceptable to say that the nature of man is the same as the nature of apes. Therefore, evolutionary theory is necessarily in contradiction with the Fathers, for if the nature of P-Hs is the nature of man, that nature changed ("became another" in Fr Raphael's terms) in the line leading to apes; if it is the nature of apes, it changed in the line leading to men; if something else, it changed in both lines.

The only way I see to possibly avoid that, would be to claim that at some point in the evolution from P-H to men, the nature of ape or P-H was replaced with the nature of man. But that doesn't sound like it would pass Patristic muster either (I haven't got a specific reference at the ready). If you've got an alternative theory that would (or even might), by all means bring it forth.

Theophrastus

06-01-2011, 09:55 PM

The only way I see to possibly avoid that, would be to claim that at some point in the evolution from P-H to men, the nature of ape or P-H was replaced with the nature of man.Most Christians who accept some form of evolution would take that exact position: the "nature" of the ancestral primate, was replaced with the "nature" of humanity, at some point in the evolutionary process. In biblical terms, this point would correspond to when God placed His image and likeness into the first human being. Since the Patristic sources did not have any knowledge of evolutionary theory, then one would not expect them to directly address this possibility, but I don't see where such a possibility is necessarily contrary to the Patristic sources.

Anna Stickles

07-01-2011, 12:28 AM

The Fathers rejected the theory of the transmigration of souls, ie the theory that the souls of fallen men could come back into animal bodies. To support the theory of evolution is to say that human souls were at one time dwelling in animal bodies. (Either this or we must say that at some point a human being, soul and body, was born from and raised by an animal and while Genesis may not be literal, I see absolutely no evidence anywhere in the Bible or Christian writings of any kind that say man was born from animals. What I see is that God made man and raised him and took care of him as his parent. )

Also, as far as I know, (and maybe those who know better can comment) it is taught that human souls are not considered to be created individually by God in the same way that Adam was. Rather, a child is begotten, soul and body together as the offspring of their parents' souls and bodies -- not just the body is the offspring of those parents. Otherwise God would have to breathe his breath into each new body that was formed. But rather we are told that we were all (as human persons, not just as bodies) contained within the first man and spawned from him. So if souls beget like souls, and we postulated that a human body was at some point in history born from an ape, one would then have the ridiculous problem of the soul of an ape existing in a human body. One can see then how important the integrity of each nature within itself is. God made each kind of soul compatible with and intimately connected to each type of body.

from City of God bk 12 ch 25

For whereas there is one form which is given from without to every bodily substance,- such as the form which is constructed by potters and smiths, and that class of artists who paint and fashion forms like the body of animals,- but another and internal form which is not itself constructed, but, as the efficient cause, produces not only the natural bodily forms, but even the life itself of the living creatures, and which proceeds from the secret and hidden choice of an intelligent and living nature,- let that first-mentioned form be attributed to every artificer, but this latter to one only, God,

. Whatever bodily or seminal causes, then, may be used for the production of things, either by the cooperation of angels, men, or the lower animals, or by sexual generation; and whatever power the desires and mental emotions of the mother have to produce in the tender and plastic fotus corresponding lineaments and colors; yet the natures themselves, which are thus variously affected, are the production of none but the most high God.

Augustine's point here, which is repeated elsewhere in the Patristic witness, is that it is this 'internal form' or 'inner essence' of things that makes them what they are, and it is this inner essence that produces both the bodily form and the type of life of any given creature, not the genetic material. Rather, the genetic material itself is a product of and takes its form from the inner essence.

As far as I understand it, this is what is meant when we speak of what makes each nature unique- this inner power/energy (undetectable by scientific instruments) giving form and unity to that nature. Considering the second part of the quote, I would say that variations in the genetic material would be considered a secondary cause that merely allows variation in the basic forms already determined, just as do other material and environmental factors.

The major contention between modern scientific theory and the Christian witness is what the efficient causes are. Modern evolutionary theory recognizes no efficient causes except the material ones. They don't believe in any other power. The Patristic writers not only teach God as the efficient cause of natures, but also recognize that this nature itself is a power that is, as Fr Raphael says above, cohesive and unifying.

It's a matter in both cases of working form observable phenomena. The scientists working from observation of the material world. The Christian spiritual teachers working from their observations of the spiritual world and it's interactions with the material. These spiritual observations then have become part of the Patristic tradition of how the world works. The Philokalia, St Maximos the Confessor, St Gregory of Palmas and many of the other writers in the Christian ascetic tradition mention these things.

Jesse Dominick

07-01-2011, 12:59 AM

ive seen people argue that claiming contention between Patristic Orthodoxy and evolutionary theory is a false dichotomy between the material and spiritual worlds - that evolution is simply material claims, and thus we obviously can't expect it to have a spiritual dimension, and thus there is no contradiction. however, the problem is that science does not recognize this limit and therefore claim ignorance, but it instead seeks to fully explain the world through material means. this is where the contention comes in.

Herman Blaydoe

07-01-2011, 01:26 AM

A viable component in the CREATION of life? Hmmmm.

Evolution does NOT explain, justify, permit, or even fathom the act of CREATION. At best it is a theory about what happened AFTER Creation, but comes nowhere close to being a "component" OF creation, or tell us the WHY of Creation. Of course it is probably redundant to state in this community that the very word "creation" implies an active "Creator", there can be no creation without a purposeful Creator. Blind chance simply cannot "create", no matter how many zeros you use after the 1.

Whether or not evolution is a "viable" process for non-human life, I leave to better minds than mine. But I would submit that evolution is simply unnecessary for humanity. I have no problem with God creating Man "from the dust". Why is this any more fantastic than the Frankensteinian scenario of lightening striking a primordial soup, providing the 'spark of life'? Sorry that is far too great a leap of faith for this particular Pooh.

Herman the non-leaping Pooh

Speros

07-01-2011, 01:28 AM

OK, I'll bite - Where, exactly, does Christ explicitly declare that there is an "animal world" in man?

Jesus says we have a spiritual nature in addition to our physical nature.

Speros

07-01-2011, 01:31 AM

For the record, Darwin definitely believed that the evolution of particular species was an impersonal process, initiated by a Creator but then left on its own recognizance, and explicitly rejected the notion that species were immutable. There's no "need" for God to breathe the breath of life into Man in that model-- just something to "start" the process by which man emerges from pre-existing life forms that were at some point NOT man, not rational being at all. It might as well be an alien species that seeded here. In fact, that's precisely the conclusion that certain prominent evolutionary biologists have come to.

We really should be clear on this: Darwin explicitly rejected the model of divinely created nature that Father Raphael has set forth. What that implies about the value of his work as a whole is not entirely clear to me at this point, but I think it behooves us to acknowledge that essential point of distinction.

In Christ,
Evan

Are you being fair to Darwin?

With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us... On the other, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance... The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part10.html

According to Darwin, God may have foreseen the dawn of man, allowing evolution to unfold according to his plan.

Michael Stickles

07-01-2011, 04:04 AM

Actually, Evan is being entirely fair to Darwin. Take the individual points he made.

"Darwin definitely believed that the evolution of particular species was an impersonal process, initiated by a Creator but then left on its own recognizance," - sounds a lot like "I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance...".

"and explicitly rejected the notion that species were immutable." - well, that's kinda obvious.

"There's no "need" for God to breathe the breath of life into Man in that model-- just something to "start" the process by which man emerges from pre-existing life forms that were at some point NOT man, not rational being at all." - compare to "I can see no reason why a man, or other animals, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence."

"It might as well be an alien species that seeded here. In fact, that's precisely the conclusion that certain prominent evolutionary biologists have come to." - this is not speaking to what Darwin himself believed, merely something not excluded by his theory.

"We really should be clear on this: Darwin explicitly rejected the model of divinely created nature that Father Raphael has set forth." - here is the only place you could quibble, since if Darwin wasn't familiar with that model, it might be more correct to say that he implicitly rejected it. But reject it he did, as that model expressly rules out transitions from one kind to another:

...philosophical and theological thinking had come to such a firm understanding of the basic integrity of nature (ie each nature develops according to its own intrinsic characteristics but one nature cannot become another; so a dog is born, grows, develops, etc. but in so doing it doesn't become a cat since its own nature is defined by its characteristics of being a dog).

... Each nature is distinct and maintains its basic integrity in reflection of the Divine creation. In other words the integrity of each created nature is a reflection of the Divine unchangeability (basic stability of characteristics) but also of the character of the Divine relationship with creation.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-01-2011, 03:23 PM

Jesus says we have a spiritual nature in addition to our physical nature.

Speros, could you please provide a quote from scripture? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you've said here. It's just that it would be better to understand Christ's words from the scriptural context.

Thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Evan

07-01-2011, 04:06 PM

"We really should be clear on this: Darwin explicitly rejected the model of divinely created nature that Father Raphael has set forth." - here is the only place you could quibble, since if Darwin wasn't familiar with that model, it might be more correct to say that he implicitly rejected it. But reject it he did, as that model expressly rules out transitions from one kind to another:

Michael,

Thanks for keeping me in bounds here-- my language was less than precise. I haven't any evidence that Darwin was familiar with the model put forth as such-- but insofar as he did not think species immutable, I think it's not unfair to say that he reached conclusions incompatible with that model.

That doesn't mean that we should disregard everything that he had to say-- but we do need to come to terms with what he did in fact say.

In Christ,
Evan

Owen Jones

07-01-2011, 06:15 PM

It's helpful to actually read what Darwin said, including in one's research his numerous post-scripts in which he explains his thinking and some of his influences. Some very definitive points should be made. The theory of evolution is not and cannot be a scientific theory of origins of anything. First of all, because there cannot ever be a scientific theory of origins. We cannot know how or why anything exists from scientific observation. Darwin borrowed the theory from Herbert Spencer. Most intellectual historians get this just backwards, blaming Spencer (i.e. social Darwinism) for a misuse of Darwin. Spencer was making a case for 19th Century British liberal economics. Darwinism is, among other things, a political stance, based on the belief in an inexorable progression in history from the primitive and barbaric to the advanced and civilized, from the superstitious to the rational, etc. This case can only made if the universe is infinite in time and space, a logical absurdity.

Darwin said that current day geology refuted his theory, but that geology was in its infancy and future discovery would no doubt confirm the theory. Has it really?

Darwin's argument is aesthetic. He says that God could not possibly have created nature in its present diversity. He could only have breathed life into existing evolved beings. He likes his aesthetic vision better, says it is "ennobling." In the same context he says that his theory will lead to a revolution in the science of human psychology, which prediction as turned out to be true, only with very negative effects. All modern psychology focuses on motivated, grounded in primordial instincts that come into conflict with civilized norms of behavior, this causing inner conflict, resulting in various neurotic obsessions, etc. Nothing in modern psychology addresses the question of orientation.

While Hitler and the SS never explicitly cited Darwin as a proto-Nazi to my knowledge, a number of Nazi "intellectuals" did. It is quite clear what the social ramifications are of Darwinism, when one assumes that all life can be reduced to the slogan of survival of the fittest.

One could go on in detail about the scientific, political/social, philosophical and theological deficiencies of Darwinism. But one other point. It's nothing new really. Plato addresses "Darwinism" in the Symposium (which is also a very entertaining read). And Aristotle dispenses with evolution as a theory of origins quite magnificently in a few short sentences -- having to do with the insurmountable problem of infinite regression.

Evan

07-01-2011, 08:21 PM

In the interest of fairness to Darwin, he did express discomfort at the notion of man taking evolution "into his own hands," as it were:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

From "The Descent of Man," Volume I (emphasis added)

In Christ,
Evan

Antonios

08-01-2011, 09:10 AM

I believe St. Basil makes some interesting observations in his book Hexameron suggesting the begetting off all of physical creation from a common, primordial Seed.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-01-2011, 03:16 PM

Darwin's comments were interesting. Although I've heard from hundreds of evolutionists I've never actually read anything from Darwin himself.

What is obvious first off is that he is a fairly typical intellectual, scientific thinker of the time he lived in. From what he writes he has a moral bent to him, as Speros points out, that is humane and which reflects the moral concerns of his time & society. But this is set, also typically, in a secular context. In other words his thinking, even if it seems unfair to point it out, is not Church inspired. And if it had been Church inspired probably no one would have heard of Darwin a hundred years later! So it is the fact that his thinking very much reflects the secular moral and intellectual concerns of his time, and takes its logic a step further, which accounts for his continuing influence & fame. As all admit: he is the father of evolutionary thinking.

For any of its moral bent though which could perhaps be reconciled to Christianity in some way, the quote above also shows the typical contradiction evident in most all modern secular thinkers. That is: Darwin by sentiment or intuition clings to an understanding of man's behaviour which involves a moral element of sympathy. From what he writes, this sympathy is rooted in the social life of man. However he then situates man (and this is what his fame after all rests on) within the larger context of natural laws which are completely impersonal. Why or how then man should have any sympathy for his fellow man is left unexplained since obviously Darwin's most famous point concerns how impersonal natural laws as he sees these have affected man. Perhaps then (likely this was so if he reflected in any way the behaviour sought for by most Victorians) Darwin personally sought to be kind & considerate & sympathetic. Perhaps towards those in his company he was a gentle man. But still for all that his ideas, as Owen points out, do have a lethal side to them that future generations, far less inhibited by moral qualms, would point out and which would directly affect the lives of many. Darwin probably would have shuddered in horror at the consequences, but future social engineers of the 20thc would take the implications of a whole set of ideas based on impersonal natural law, and create a brave new world where only the fit would be permitted to survive.

Now maybe Darwin's insights about the process of natural law are correct. Maybe we're just presently in too humane an age (post WWII) so that at present the focus on Darwin is restricted to what is strictly scientific and is kept away from ideas of social engineering (although these ideas seem very much at work in the area of psychology nowadays). But for all that there still seems no good reason to assume that in the future some brave soul will not again take up the social implications of Darwin 's evolution; that he will have the 'revelation' that all that holds man back from ultimate projects of social engineering is 'out moded values from the past' (throughout the radical Bolshevik period these were called 'bourgeois values' to imply that humanitarian values were implicitly anti-progressive & decadent).

Not only then should we as Orthodox consider the scientific aspect of Darwin and evolution, and seek to respond scientifically to it. There is also an ongoing challenge for the Orthodox or anyone Christian or moral, to develop a theological response to the amoral aspect of evolution.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

08-01-2011, 03:34 PM

The great irony is that secular progressives who ridicule anyone who is critical of Darwinian evolution as being stupid fundamentalists, also criticize the idea of competition leading to widespread social improvement. They also consider racism to be the worst sin, whereas Darwinism is inherently racist. The original full title? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Species in the Struggle for Life. Can you imagine anyone writing such a thing today and getting away with it? No publisher would touch it. I predict there will be a sea change in ideas one day when Darwin becomes persona non grata by his current disciples, much like the infatuation with Jung disappeared when his true biographical details came out.

There are several intellectual fixations that dominate "modern" thinking that are inherently in conflict with Christian faith, and until these get swept away, Christianity will suffer from a lack of intellectual cred in the minds of most people. And the primary fixation is the idea of progress in history, which has many manifestations, including Darwinism. If people could just have a flash point in their heads that life is not about the world getting better and better, it would create one of those paradigm shifts that trendy intellectuals love to talk about. The fact that there is no progress in history, only progress made by the soul toward its ultimate destination shall we say, and it is quite easy to demonstrate this simply and logically, but it doesn't phase people at all because a fixation is very hard to dislodge, when your whole life and concept of self is built around it.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-01-2011, 03:54 PM

Owen Jones wrote:
The great irony is that secular progressives who ridicule anyone who is critical of Darwinian evolution as being stupid fundamentalists, also criticize the idea of competition leading to widespread social improvement. They also consider racism to be the worst sin, whereas Darwinism is inherently racist. The original full title? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Species in the Struggle for Life. Can you imagine anyone writing such a thing today and getting away with it? No publisher would touch it. I predict there will be a sea change in ideas one day when Darwin becomes persona non grata by his current disciples, much like the infatuation with Jung disappeared when his true biographical details came out.

This is why I think that presently, in reaction to the social experiments of the 20th c (Bolshevisim, Nazism, and its results of WWII) we are in a 'humane' version of the evolutionary view of society. In other words the focus right now is on how we're evolving to become a more progressive, open, tolerant, and humane society.

But any sense of humanity is contradictory to the fundamental point of evolution, since its central 'insight' is that all things are controlled by impersonal natural laws. We will be extremely protected indeed if one day some charismatic earth shaker doesn't again recognize the full implications of the ideas of social evolution (ie that they don't give a hoot about people's 'humane sentiments') and launch us all once again into some brave new world.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Evan

08-01-2011, 06:49 PM

Darwin's comments were interesting. Although I've heard from hundreds of evolutionists I've never actually read anything from Darwin himself.

What is obvious first off is that he is a fairly typical intellectual, scientific thinker of the time he lived in. From what he writes he has a moral bent to him, as Speros points out, that is humane and which reflects the moral concerns of his time & society. But this is set, also typically, in a secular context. In other words his thinking, even if it seems unfair to point it out, is not Church inspired. And if it had been Church inspired probably no one would have heard of Darwin a hundred years later! So it is the fact that his thinking very much reflects the secular moral and intellectual concerns of his time, and takes its logic a step further, which accounts for his continuing influence & fame. As all admit: he is the father of evolutionary thinking.

For any of its moral bent though which could perhaps be reconciled to Christianity in some way, the quote above also shows the typical contradiction evident in most all modern secular thinkers. That is: Darwin by sentiment or intuition clings to an understanding of man's behaviour which involves a moral element of sympathy. From what he writes, this sympathy is rooted in the social life of man. However he then situates man (and this is what his fame after all rests on) within the larger context of natural laws which are completely impersonal. Why or how then man should have any sympathy for his fellow man is left unexplained since obviously Darwin's most famous point concerns how impersonal natural laws as he sees these have affected man. Perhaps then (likely this was so if he reflected in any way the behaviour sought for by most Victorians) Darwin personally sought to be kind & considerate & sympathetic. Perhaps towards those in his company he was a gentle man. But still for all that his ideas, as Owen points out, do have a lethal side to them that future generations, far less inhibited by moral qualms, would point out and which would directly affect the lives of many. Darwin probably would have shuddered in horror at the consequences, but future social engineers of the 20thc would take the implications of a whole set of ideas based on impersonal natural law, and create a brave new world where only the fit would be permitted to survive.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father, bless:

I can't help but think of Nietzsche in this context. Having read many of his works as a college student, I came ultimately to the conclusion that Nietzsche would have personally abhorred the Nazis and regarded them as barbaric, nationalist thugs, unworthy of the title of "ubermenschen" that they claimed for themselves in various propaganda materials. That's not to say, however, that Nietzsche's arguments don't lend themselves to the purposes that the Nazis sought to carry out.

Darwin's sympathy for his fellow men to me bespeaks nothing more or less than that he was made in the image and likeness of God and that he had not so deliberately hardened his heart that he couldn't discern some very basic precepts of the natural law which even those who have never heard the Gospel (and it seems fairly clear that Darwin was ignorant of the faith "once and forever delivered to the saints") should be able to respond to. As you say, however, and as we've seen, and continue to see, not all are so responsive.

In Christ,
Evan

Speros

08-01-2011, 07:20 PM

Speros, could you please provide a quote from scripture? I'm not necessarily arguing against what you've said here. It's just that it would be better to understand Christ's words from the scriptural context.

Thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

The idea that we can have eternal life assumes that something within us lives on when the physical body passes away. Jesus, in arguing against the Sadducees, said that God is the God of the living.

Speros

08-01-2011, 07:21 PM

I am not a "secular progressive." I don't see how a discussion on evolution can be fruitful when buzz words like that are used. There are many traditional Christians who accept evolution as God's method of creation.

Herman Blaydoe

08-01-2011, 07:29 PM

The idea that we can have eternal life assumes that something within us lives on when the physical body passes away. Jesus, in arguing against the Sadducees, said that God is the God of the living.

I agree with Father that it would be helpful to discuss the specific Scriptures you think you are paraphrasing. Context counts.

Herman

Herman Blaydoe

08-01-2011, 07:39 PM

There are many traditional Christians who accept evolution as God's method of creation.

A lot of people accept a lot of things. That does not make it correct, and it is not really germane to Orthodox theology. It remains an interesting theory but it certainly contributes little to the discussion of Creation. Evolution "creates" nothing. It is not a theory of "creation" but of "change". We Orthodox are leery of "change" and often feel it is over-rated.

Herman the constant Pooh

Fr Raphael Vereshack

09-01-2011, 03:03 PM

The idea that we can have eternal life assumes that something within us lives on when the physical body passes away. Jesus, in arguing against the Sadducees, said that God is the God of the living.

Speros- the context of Jesus' comments to the Sadducees (Mk 12:18-27) is about the resurrection and of what this means in terms of human relationship, not just eternal life in general or that we continue to survive in some manner. After all, the condemned will also survive in some manner, but this doesn't mean they will have the relationship with others which Christ speaks of in the present passage from Scripture.

In any case- could you explain the relationship between your comments quoted here and the topic of the discussion in this thread? Thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

13-01-2011, 05:40 PM

Thanks, Herman for nailing it on the head.

Christina M.

13-01-2011, 06:48 PM

I don't know if this deserves it's own thread, but here's the question:
Can anybody provide quotes or sayings from modern saints (or just "holy people", if they are not yet canonized) which give their viewpoints on modern evolutionary theory?

I know there are a couple of quotes by Elder Paisios on the subject, but I don't remember them. I'd be surprised if the more popular Orthodox charismatics, say Elder Porphyrios for example, never said anything about it.

Isn't it very relevant to the topic to hear what contemporary saints, those who have reached illumination and theosis, have to say about it?

Jesse Dominick

14-01-2011, 04:55 AM

Christina M.

14-01-2011, 05:51 AM

see the second part of this post: http://oldbelieving.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/orthodoxy-and-creationism/

Wow!! Excellent link! Thanks a lot. It's going to take me a long time to read through all of those.
And that seems like a great blog, too. I'm glad you showed it to me.

Kosta

14-01-2011, 07:20 AM

Jesse Dominick

14-01-2011, 08:45 AM

Wow!! Excellent link! Thanks a lot. It's going to take me a long time to read through all of those.
And that seems like a great blog, too. I'm glad you showed it to me.

no problem, glad to help.

Jesse Dominick

14-01-2011, 08:47 AM

Kosta

14-01-2011, 09:56 AM

i dont think the creation of male and female could be seen as in any way part of evolution. according to the Fathers the creative acts of God were instantaneous, and that Adam was literally created from dust, and Eve literally from the rib of Adam. Its all miraculous, not part of a natural progression.

That is the standard way we think of the creation story.

But the implications are that God originally created a male human without a companion. Both the hebrew and original greek word for rib can be translated and more accurately so as "side" (pleuro). Was this Adam who was created from the dust a virile male or actually an upright being with a rational soul? Why is both Adam and Eve refered to as "Adam" in Gen 5.2? Did God form the male and female simultaneously from the original prototype? Genesis does imply this. If so are hermaphrodites and siamese twins an obscure glimpse of our past when God put a trance on Adam and 'performed surgery'.

Demetrios

14-01-2011, 03:33 PM

If we concentrate on the person of Adam rather than the impersonal nature of Adam. An Orthodox theology can certainly fall into place while retaining a literal creation. The problem is that most people philosophically can't see it because of the way we are accustomed to understanding our human nature.

Christina M.

14-01-2011, 03:34 PM

What kind of evolution/development does the scriptural and patristic witness allow for? Theres ofcourse spiritual evolution derived from theosis. Scripture also speaks of a physical degeneration as when the sons of God married and procreated with the daughters of men.

God created anthropos in his own image and likeness. The entymology of the greek anthropos simply means upright creature, likewise the hebrew term Adam does not denote gender as seen in Genesis 5.2. Thus God took the original erect creature He created, who alone can look upwards toward the heavens to contemplate his God. God took him and performed some surgery taking from his side woman. Or as scripture says, God made man in his image and likeness; male and female created He them. The emphasis is that gender was created simultaneously. Is this evidence for evolution in scripture? How about modern anomalies where people are born with both genitals (who ironically tend to be asexual without sexual urge)? Are these dormant genes a throwback to some other epoch of mans exiatence?

Along the same thinking, someone could question the presence of "vestigial" organs in humans, the presense of a tailbone which is very similar to that of the animals with tails, the extremely close genetic code between homo sapiens and chimpanzees, etc.

Personally, I see no benefit in such lines of thought, and I have thought about these things for years. If God wanted to tell us that He created the world in an evolutionary process, and that it is beneficial to be aware of this evolutionary process, then He would have enlightened the saints to inform us. We have so many saints who spoke face-to-face with the Lord, with the Panagia, and with the rest of the saints. Don't you think they would've been informed if they were understanding creation incorrectly?

A good example is Elder Joseph the Hesychast: Once when he was in theoria, he saw the Theotokos holding the Christ in her arms as a Child, and she told him the answer to a mystery that he had been inquiring about for a long time. (Elder Joseph didn't reveal the particular mystery to his reader, but that's beside the point). Couldn't he also have been informed in the same manner about evolutionary creationism?

Christina M.

14-01-2011, 04:54 PM

I just wanted to add one more thing in response to Kosta:
I don't think we can use any type of genetic defects to argue towards any particular point in Orthodox theology. Furthermore, I believe that someone can get off track by thinking too much on these things. How about siamese twins which share the same heart, yet have two separate brains? How about siamese twinse which share the same brain, but have two different hearts? How about siamese twins which have two hearts and two brains, yet share the same body? Also, there's a genetic defect which causes a human to be born with a tail. There's another one which enables the human to be able to use all of the muscles in his ears voluntarily, so that he can rotate them individually to point them where he wants, just like animals can do. (My point of these last two is that just because the defects can make a human appear more like an animal, I don't believe it is proof that we descended from animals). The list can go on and on. I don't see any benefit in trying to explain any of these particular situations, and I believe that they are in the same category of "genetic defects" as the hermaphrodites that you brought up above.

In my opinion, many of these defects (but of course not all) can be linked to improper diets of the parents, or pollution in the food, the water, or the air that the parents are putting into their bodies. So since they are not the "norm", I don't believe they are useful in terms of drawing conclusions about the creation of man.

In Christ,
Christina

Michael Stickles

14-01-2011, 06:19 PM

Along the same thinking, someone could question the presence of "vestigial" organs in humans, the presense of a tailbone which is very similar to that of the animals with tails, the extremely close genetic code between homo sapiens and chimpanzees, etc.

Personally, I see no benefit in such lines of thought, and I have thought about these things for years.

I also don't see benefit in them, but for me that's because they assume that our current medical/scientific understanding of such things is, in fact, correct. However, such knowledge is subject to change. For example, a few years ago it was proposed that the appendix, long considered to be a "vestigial" organ (Darwin mentioned it explicitly as such), is actually a storehouse for beneficial bacteria which allows them to be replaced in the gut if a serious sickness were to wipe out the "first team". Essentialy, it houses the digestive system's backup squad.

It would not surprise me at all if every organ and structure in humans currently considered "vestigial" is eventually discovered to have a useful function, either currently or, as with the appendix, in earlier times (improved sanitation and health care have made the appendix all but obsolete, at least in "first-world" countries).

Guillermo M.L.

15-01-2011, 05:37 AM

Evolution theory and the controversy it generates are subjects to which I dedicated my thoughts more than once, and I would like to humbly provide my two cents here...

Many of the negative reactions the evolutionary theory generates -especially the extremely negative Kansas-style ones- remind me of the negative reactions the heliocentric theory generated during the times of Copernicus and Galileo.

At that time, the kernel of the discussion was not only about the Earth being or not in the center of the universe, but the philosophical and theological consequences an heliocentric universe could have. The people at that time asked themselves how could God allow an heliocentric solar configuration to happen. They thought that to place the Earth outside of the center was demeaning to the nature of man and its dignity, so instead of analyzing the truth value of the heliocentric proposition, they often rejected it altogether because "universe couldn't be created that way". This kind of rejection on philosophical and theological grounds reminds me of the rejection the concept of evolution receives from Creationists. The war cry "I do not descend from an ape!" highly echoes the former cry "I do not live in a rock revolving around the sun!"

The concept of man evolving from "inferior" beings may seem -to many- demeaning to human nature, just at the concept of the Earth orbiting the Sun -and not the other way round- seemed demeaning 400 years ago. But I think such an appreciation is subjective and highly drawing from personal criteria of aesthetics. The heliocentric theory could not be scientifically proven at the times of Galileo, just as the evolutionary theory has not been proven yet. A demonstration could only be produced centuries later and still, mankind could get over heliocentrism without losing self-respect or falling into widespread atheism. I think the Evolutionary theory should get a fair trial and analysis, and given the opportunity to be perfected and ridden of its Victorian prejudices, instead of being analysed from the lens of a priori questions like "Would I like that theory to be true? Could I live with that?"

I don't know if that theory is true or not. Maybe it will be proven false, and a better explanation will be found someday. I personally think that all those fossils -of species that don't exist today- are there because of some reason. I don't expect the Scriptures or the Saints to talk about Biology 101 concepts like evolution or extinction, just as I don't expect them to talk about economics or quantum mechanics. Church Tradition has other priorities, it is focused on other areas of knowledge and wisdom.

Still, if evolution someday happens to satisfy the trials from the scientific method, I will not be shattered by that conclusion. It will not make me cease from believing in God, nor feel less in the eyes of Him, nor question His mysterious ways. I will not fall into the same error many scientists fall, which is to assume that the truth of the evolutionary proposition implies a Godless Creation and a Godless universe. To me, it will only explain a mechanism present in Creation, but it will not say anything about its Creator nor its finality.

Christina M.

15-01-2011, 05:50 AM

I don't know enough to reply intelligently to the above, but I would note that both copernicus and Galileo were in western Roman Catholic world, which makes it pretty irrelevant from an Orthodox perspective, in my humble opinion. If I remember correctly, Romanides said that the EO had no problem whatsoever with the heliocentric viewpoint, and that it didn't change nor affect EO theology one bit.

But I'll leave the better replies to those much smarter than me :)

Christina M.

15-01-2011, 06:00 AM

Here, I found it. I really like this passage:

Following Augustine, the Franks identified revelation with the Bible and believed that Christ gave to the Church the Holy Spirit as a guide to its correct understanding. This would be similar to claiming that the books about biology were revealed by microbes and cells without the biologists having seen them with the microscope, and that these same microbes and cells inspire future teachers to correctly understand these books without the use of the microscope!

Historians have noted the naivite of the Frankish religious mind which was shocked by the first claims for the primacy of observation over rational analysis. Even Galileo’s telescopes could not shake this confidence. However, several centuries before Galileo, the Franks had been shocked by the East Roman (Orthodox) claim, hurled by Saint Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), of the primacy of experience and observation over "reason" in theology.

Instruments, Observation, Concepts, and Language

The universe has turned out to be a much greater mystery to man than anyone was ever able to imagine. Indications are strong that it will yet prove to be an even greater mystery than man today can yet imagine. In the light of this, one thinks humorously of the (Latin) bishops who could not grasp the reality, let alone the magnitude, of what they saw through Galileo’s telescope. But the magnitude of Frankish naivite becomes even greater when one realizes that these same church leaders who could not understand the meaning of a simple observation were claiming knowledge of God’s essence and nature.

The Latin tradition could not understand the significance of an instrument by which the prophets, apostles, and saints had reached glorification.

Paul Cowan

15-01-2011, 06:17 AM

Still, if evolution someday happens to satisfy the trials from the scientific method, I will not be shattered by that conclusion. It will not make me cease from believing in God, nor feel less in the eyes of Him, nor question His mysterious ways. I will not fall into the same error many scientists fall, which is to assume that the truth of the evolutionary proposition implies a Godless Creation and a Godless universe. To me, it will only explain a mechanism present in Creation, but it will not say anything about its Creator nor its finality.

This Theory is alot like global warming. It was fabricated on falsehoods and supported by misinformation from people with a specific agenda. But hey, if it helps you sleep at night, let's wait to see what the really smart scientists tell us in 300-500 years.

Guillermo M.L.

15-01-2011, 05:09 PM

Here, I found it. I really like this passage:

Thanks for your response, Christina. It is interesting what Romanides says, it is a point I have never read before about EO. The irony is that my observations don't fit with what Romanides says. To give a quick example of what I'm talking about, for this subject in the forum, everybody is looking for Biblical and Patristical sources, and using reason, while observation is being left out in the debate.

I think it would be interesting to have more examples and sources commenting on EO attitude towards observation and experimentation. If EO has always been so open to scientific methodology, it is strange that the scientific breakthroughs took place in the West and not in the East.

Christina M.

15-01-2011, 06:51 PM

Thanks for your response, Christina. It is interesting what Romanides says, it is a point I have never read before about EO. The irony is that my observations don't fit with what Romanides says. To give a quick example of what I'm talking about, for this subject in the forum, everybody is looking for Biblical and Patristical sources, and using reason, while observation is being left out in the debate.

I think it would be interesting to have more examples and sources commenting on EO attitude towards observation and experimentation. If EO has always been so open to scientific methodology, it is strange that the scientific breakthroughs took place in the West and not in the East.

Note to someone smarter than me: Correct me if I'm wrong.

The EO don't care about worldly knowledge nor "scientific breakthroughs". Our greatest saints lived without any of these "scientific breakthroughs", which were obviously not necessary for their sanctification (on the contrary, many times they are very detrimental, but that's another topic).

The scientific methodology referred to by the EO is strictly limited to the spiritual life, because everything else is rubbish. Whereas the Pope would claim (he said this a few years ago, didn't he?) that the Rennaisance was a Christian victory, the EO could care less about the Rennaisance. Our scientific method is this: How can I purify my soul, so that I can be close to God? Nothing else really matters.

Disclaimer: I will not be insulted if someone corrects me. I'm just a learner.

Christina M.

15-01-2011, 07:11 PM

Another note to Guillermo: The reason why we frequently refer to Biblical and Patristic sources is because the authors of the Bible and the Fathers of the Church have already reached theosis, in other words they have already used the therapeutic method of the Church to become healthy. As Romanides would say, they have the necessary tool (theosis, or vision of God), to interpret the Bible and the teachings of the Church for us. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God". That is why we quote the Holy Fathers so much. At the same time, we also are trying continuously to become "observers" as well, with the hope that maybe one day we also will reach illumination and theosis. Isn't that the goal of this life? "If we don't see God in this life, we will not see Him in the next." Not that it is easy... I feel like I haven't even started on the path!

Kosta

16-01-2011, 06:59 AM

In the case of evolution, it doesnt bother me one way or the other. The question is what kind of development or evolution does the patristic witness allow for?
If we have an appendix and tonsils which are meaningless, why did God give them? If they were neccesary in the past, how does that fit in with evolution? Will they be neccesary for the distant future?
Why can we witness degeneration, where the body withers away thru disease and drugs and poor treatment, but not the opposite?

For me there are 4 creation stories about man in Genesis, and only one that matters.
1. God created man in his image and likeness (Gen 1.26)
2. God created anthropos from the dust and breathed into him a life giving soul (Gen 2.7-8)
3. God made the anthropos into male and female (Gen 1.27, 5.2)
4. God blessed them and told them to multiply and be fruitful (Gen 1.28, 2.24)

It is the first one that matters and its the last method that we know since procreation is a post-paradise phenomenon.

Guillermo M.L.

16-01-2011, 09:27 AM

Christina, please forgive me if I seemed harsh to your post or if I seemed like attacking your opinions.

You are right that Theosis is much more important than any "scientific breakthroughs" to us, mortal humans. I think it is not necessary at all, to attain glorification, that anyone be required to believe in non-spiritual "knowledge" like biological sciences. I think that in this we can both agree.

My post was mostly generated because an opinion on Romanides about clerics looking through a telescope stroke me as a bit odd, because I think the spiritual focus is somehow lost in it. Sometimes I feel Romanides looks at every significant Western historical fact to postulate that the EO takes exactly the opposite stance, while this may not be necessarily EO Church doctrine, but just a whim of his to show an opposite stance... the title "Franks" spouts prejudice to me, but that is my partial, unfinished opinion... I still have to research Romanides fully, but until now, he seems to me harsh in his statements.

What is intriguing to me, and I would like to have developed in this forum, is how belief or non-belief in evolution can affect progress in Theosis.

Thanks everyone for your input.

Owen Jones

16-01-2011, 10:15 PM

It does not require one to be Orthodox to recognize that most of man's accomplishments in the areas of science, medicine and industry don't amount to much (although it should help to be Orthodox, but most Orthodox in the world today have basically bought into the idea of modern progress). For every step in advance there seems to be two steps backward in the things that matter most in life. Such as peace of mind. The most important things to know have now been around for a long time. Bear in mind, of course, that Christ brought in something entirely new for the people at the time. Making it fresh and new and as powerful today is the challenge to any believer. But we tend to make it stale. And so therefore there is an enormous attraction to innovative things because they promise a kind of new power and energy and capacity toward great accomplishments -- mostly because of the staleness of Christians who do not seem to offer much in the way of an alternative.

Paul Cowan

17-01-2011, 02:30 AM

It is the first one that matters and its the last method that we know since procreation is a post-paradise phenomenon.

Who was it that Cain was afraid when God confronted him with the murder of Abel?

Christina M.

17-01-2011, 02:46 AM

In the case of evolution, it doesnt bother me one way or the other. The question is what kind of development or evolution does the patristic witness allow for?
If we have an appendix and tonsils which are meaningless, why did God give them? If they were neccesary in the past, how does that fit in with evolution? Will they be neccesary for the distant future?
Why can we witness degeneration, where the body withers away thru disease and drugs and poor treatment, but not the opposite?

A humble note on the "tonsils" thing: Although in the recent past they were considered vestigial and of no use to humans, the views have changed, and scientists now generally accept that the tonsils are a useful part of the immune system, which is just not currently understood. That's also why tonsilectomies aren't done without discretion anymore.

--Guillermo: You didn't seem harsh to me, and I hope I didn't seem harsh to you. It is difficult to display emotions over the internet. I'm always happy though when I'm on this forum, because I love this place, so you can just assume that I'm smiling! :)

Jesse Dominick

17-01-2011, 03:46 PM

Who was it that Cain was afraid when God confronted him with the murder of Abel?

"Those who would find him were the sons of Seth who were compelled to seek revenge for the blood of Abel, their uncle. They cut themselves off from Cain and did not intermarry with him because of his reproach and because of their fear of him, but they did not dare to kill him because of his sign." - St. Ephraim the Syria, Commentary on Genesis 3.10

Paul Cowan

18-01-2011, 01:28 AM

Genesis 4:10 And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground. 11 So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth.”
13 And Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear! 14 Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”
15 And the LORD said to him, “Therefore,[b] whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.
The Family of Cain

16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech.
19 Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.
23 Then Lamech said to his wives:
“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

A New Son

25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” 26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh.[c] Then men began to call on the name of the LORD.

I defer to the holy saint of course. Am I reading the timeline wrong here? Was Cain not banished before Seth was born? If so, whose daughter did he marry? Or was there a HUGE timeline between the time Cain killed Abel and God confronted him with the murder? If the latter, it had to be many many decades for enough people to be born to Seth's children to offer a wives for Cain to marry. Or did Cain marry his son's daughters? Regardless, the years involved seem to far outweigh the story line.

I don't know I understand how this timeline can be so long.

Paul

S. Rey

18-01-2011, 01:58 AM

I think it would be interesting to have more examples and sources commenting on EO attitude towards observation and experimentation. If EO has always been so open to scientific methodology, it is strange that the scientific breakthroughs took place in the West and not in the East.

It is not so much which of the eastern or western church was more open to scientific methodology as to their respective attitude toward secular learning. The Church fathers--especially the Greeks, but also the Latin-speaking fathers of the early church--engaged creatively with secular learning and managed to create the theological pearl from which we still benefit today. St. Basil, the two Gregories, St Athanasius, St. Maximus Confessor, or again St. Dionysus Areopagite are the names that stand out among all others. They hymned the Triune God with the ancient tool of philosophy and poetry, creating perhaps the last golden age of Antiquity and the first golden age of Church history. It is a creativity like this that we should rediscover, not affraid of engaging with secular learning, whether it be science, modern philosophy, but baptizing them and using their knowledge to hymn anew the Triune God of all.

Kosta

18-01-2011, 11:39 AM

Cain probably married one of his sisters (Gen5.4). Scripture only concentrates on the male lineage so there were sisiters around. Seth's male children are the ones refered to as the sons of God (Gen 6.1-4) who married the daughters of men(cains lineage). One interpretation of why seth's son fell for the daughters of Cain's lineage is they lacked modesty and dressed provacatively, seths lineage were easily seduced by them.

Paul Cowan

19-01-2011, 04:44 AM

ok, so as the timeline goes, it speaks of additional male heads of households who had "other sons and daughters". This language is not used for Adam and Eve. It only refers to the 3 boys. There is still a multigenerational curve here in order for so many offspring to be produced.

Paul

Theophrastus

19-01-2011, 11:26 PM

Perhaps Adam and Eve represent the first couple, whereas Cain, Abel, and Seth represent figures who lived thousands of years after Adam and Eve.

Jesse Dominick

20-01-2011, 04:56 AM

Perhaps Adam and Eve represent the first couple, whereas Cain, Abel, and Seth represent figures who lived thousands of years after Adam and Eve.

if we're going to interpret Genesis Patristically then this isnt an option - they accepted the genealogies given in the Bible as is.

Kosta

20-01-2011, 07:02 AM

On this topic on who Cain married were basically speculating. Besides Cain, Abel and Seth scripture says Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. So its assumed the first humans married their kin. If you want to venture outside the patristic witness and standard interpretation, then the conclusion is God created other couples simultaneously alongside Adam and Eve. And that scripture records only the history of that lineage which survived the flood. This way we still preserve the fact that we are all descended from Adam and Eve via the sole survivors of Noah and his sons.

S. Rey

21-01-2011, 11:16 PM

An article which should give some food for thought:

http://www.theandros.com/protozoe.html

Bryan J. Maloney

30-03-2011, 08:46 PM

I'm going to chime in on this because I'm a biologist.

What is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter? Scripture states that it is 3 (1 Kings 7:23). We know that it is approximately 3. Now, does that mean Scripture is wrong or that Scripture was written with the wisdom to know that approximations are acceptable when it comes to rather trivial matters like natural science? After all, does Scripture return over and over to the tiny details of the act of creation or does it return over and over to many details of how we ought to relate to each other and how we ought to personally relate to God? What does this mean regarding evolution? It means that it certainly could be the method by which God engineered life, but that it ultimately is not a matter of much importance.

Jesse Dominick

31-03-2011, 03:19 PM

whether or not God is the author of death is prolly a pretty important point.

Paul Nurmi

03-04-2011, 09:17 AM

The steps in the creation process in Genesis 1 are progressive. There is a move from a chaotic mass; increasing order; then simple life beginning in the water; then progressively more intelligent life; and finally, humanity on the final "day" of creation. It seems similar to the way an unborn child evolves (so to speak) over 9 months, beginning as a tiny embryo swimming in birth fluid; and gradually becoming more and more developed. And psalm 139 speaks of God knitting us together in our mother's wombs. So I could conceive of evolution in a similar sense speaking of the entire universe, and life on earth. God knit each form of life together, beginning with the simplest. I hope that does not sound too vague.

In Christ, Paul Nurmi

Sean M.

04-04-2011, 07:01 PM

Father David Moser

04-04-2011, 07:19 PM

I'm going to open up a can of worms here and say that there are theories that Adam was a pre-existing hominid who God infused with a soul, and that the people Cain was afraid of might possibly have been neanderthals.

I have heard this theory espoused even by Orthodox clergy, however, I have difficulty accepting this in that this would imply that the human body preceded the human soul. This particular belief does not appear to be consistent with the patristic assertion that the soul and body are created at the same moment. I can only see this interpreted as meaning that man is a "special creation". Also the fathers indicate that man changed bodily in some significant manner with the fall (this is the patristic interpretation of being clothed with the skins of animals). Whereas before man was bodily more akin to the angels after the fall he become more akin to the animals. If we can then trust the patristic teaching about the nature of man and the nature of the fall, it becomes difficult to say that a hominid animal was infused with a human soul. I find this "can of worms" much harder to believe and with many more complex contradictions to resolve than the simple belief that God created man in a unique and special act of creation.

I will admit the possibility that in being clothed with the skins of animals, man was given the form of a pre-existing hominid (neanderthal?) but superior in nature to that pre-existing hominid animal, thereby answering many questions or conflicts about the fossil/archeological record.

Fr David Moser