Creationism vs Theistic Evolution

[MoNiCa4316]

Hi, this is not a debate..I was just wondering..Does anyone know what the Church says on evolution? :confused:

I'm a creationist and I don't believe an evolution, even if it's theistic. As an Orthodox Christian would I have to change my view?

Thanks :)

monica

[ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs]

The official position is that there is no official position.

[rusmeister]

What he said.

Personally, I don't believe in evolution of human beings (or even animal life) - it's nonsense. But it IS something you believe in or not - it's not 'a fact', but a scientific theory at best (albeit one having a great deal of evidence that seems to support it) - one that could be replaced in 25 years by another theory.

One really important distinction needs to be made between evolutionary theory, which has scientific support, and evolutionism - the myth that evolution = improvement and that humans are constantly improving (and therefore will be perfect someday without God or any particular effort, thank you very much). C.S. Lewis wrote a marvelous essay smashing the idea "The Funeral of a Great Myth". Most people aren't thinking of scientific theory when they use the word 'evolution'. They usually mean it to mean 'improvement'.

It's not a doctrinal or salvific issue with the Church.

[MoNiCa4316]

Thanks for the replies :) I'm glad. Rusmeister, I see what you mean by 'evolutionism'!! I read the essay by CS Lewis too :thumbsup:

God bless

monica

[Matrona]

As long as it's "theistic" (God did it), there is no official view. I'm a theistic evolutionist. Some people feel that creationism is the only patristic view, and others disagree.

[SeraphimSarov]

My official position is that God is responsible for all of it, and how He did it is neither my business nor my concern. All I know is that taking Genesis literally word-for-word is too problematic to be a sound position to hold.

[jckstraw72]

the Church has never declared a position in a Council, but then again, Councils tend to address things when theyre disputed, so the absence of a dogmatic pronouncement is telling.

to see what the Patristic witness is concerning Genesis you should check out Fr. Seraphim Rose's Genesis, Creation, and Early Man. theres a webpage that has several chapters posted but its not working right now. the link is http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html. also you can check out what the Orthodox Study Bible has to say about it -- http://orthodoxstudybible.com/samples/genesis/P1/

remember, the absence of a dogmatic pronouncement does not necessarily mean the Church does not have a certain viewpoint.

[Protoevangel]

True, there is no declared "official" position, but the Fathers of the Church really don't leave much room in their interpretations of Genesis to allow for evolution. Some Orthodox would say that is because they were ignorant. I tend to disagree with that reasoning.

There was a book written, using Father Seraphim Rose's notes:

Genesis, Creation and Early Man (http://www.sainthermanpress.com/catalog/chapter_one/genesis_book.htm)
The Orthodox Christian Vision
by Fr. Seraphim Rose

Currently the book is out of print, but the next edition of should be coming out this Summer. It is a thoroughly Patristic book on Genesis.

There is also a letter published online that Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros about evolution vs. creationism as taught by the Fathers of the Orthodox Church.

Genesis and Early Man (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx)
The Orthodox Patristic Understanding

It was included in the last edition of the book, and is an excellent introduction to the book.

[Matrona]

All I know is that taking Genesis literally word-for-word is too problematic to be a sound position to hold.

I know several educated Orthodox people who take a variety of positions between creationism and evolution, and a funny thing they all seem to have in common is that Genesis must not be taken literally. :thumbsup:

[jckstraw72]

All I know is that taking Genesis literally word-for-word is too problematic to be a sound position to hold.

whys that?

sure, things like God's hands are not literal -- theyre an anthropomorophism, but beyond that, why should we not take Genesis literally? The Fathers even accepted the talking serpent literally.

[Protoevangel]

Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil certainly took Genesis literally. But of course, they were just ignorant fundamentalists. ;)

[flod logic]

Not to go too off-topic here but I thought this could be interesting...
I'd probably take a sola scriptura protestant's opinion of the early church's views with a grain of salt, but my dad subscribes to a (generally protestant-focused) magazine on creationism and I was kind of surprised to see they had an article recently on the early church fathers.


What did the early church believe about creation? In its first 16 centuries the church held to a young earth. Earth was several thousand years old, was created quickly in six 24-hour days, and was later submerged under a worldwide flood.

A Young Earth According To…
The Church Fathers
The Church Fathers (AD 100-600) were theologians after the apostles. Based on Scripture, they opposed naturalistic theories of origins. Some, including Clement of Alexandria (c. 152-217), Origen (c. 185-254), and Augustine (c. 354-430), interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically. To them, the six days were a symbolic presentation of God’s creation in one instant.

Progressive creationists, such as Hugh Ross in the book The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation, claim Augustine as a precedent for interpreting the Bible’s reference to “six days” as a symbol for eons of creative activity (known as the framework hypothesis). But it is unfair for progressive creationists to make their case using Augustine. Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old.

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306-373) and Basil of Caesarea (329-379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330-397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

Medieval Theologians
Medieval (AD 600-1517) theologians, until later years, followed Augustine. They viewed creation as instantaneous, and the six days as a literary framework. An example is Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109).

Bede (c. 673-735) moderated Augustine’s view. He believed creation had occurred instantaneously but was formed over six 24-hour days. Others, such as Andrew of St. Victor (c. 1110-1175), rejected Augustine’s view and interpreted Genesis 1 literally.

The medieval church continued to believe that creation was sudden, not gradual, and occurred fewer than 6,000 years in the past. As interpreters began returning to a literal reading of Scripture, they began restoring the literal view of the days of creation.

Reformation Leaders
The Reformation leaders (AD 1517-1700) believed the Bible is the final authority (sola scriptura). The Reformers rejected allegorization and returned toward a literal, grammatical-historical interpretation. Martin Luther (1483-1564) and John Calvin (1509-1564) argued that the earth was created in six 24-hour days, fewer than 6,000 years in the past.

Luther said, “We know from Moses that the world was not in existence before 6,000 years ago.” He also rejected Augustine’s view and said that “Evening and morning became one day” meant that Moses was “speaking of the natural day, which consists of twenty-four hours.”

Calvin believed that God’s creation was completed not in a moment but in six days. He concluded, based on Genesis 1:5, that God Himself took six days to accommodate His works to the capacity of men. Creation occurred little more than five thousand years in the past, not innumerable ages.

The Westminster Confession (1647) clearly affirmed that God created the world and all things in it “in the space of six days” (chapter 4, paragraph 1). “In the space of six days” was based on Calvin’s Genesis 1:5 comment. In Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (the Westminster Annotations, 1645), the Westminster authors specified concerning Genesis 1:5 that in the latter part of the verse, the word day is the natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours. This Presbyterian Confession, with its traditional view of creation, was also adopted by British and American Congregational and Baptist denominations.

A Global Flood According To…
The Church Fathers
The Fathers believed that the Flood submerged the entire earth. For example, Justin Martyr (c. 100/110-159/165) and Augustine said that the Flood rose 15 cubits above the highest mountains. Theophilus of Antioch (c. 115-168, 181) argued, against Greek local flood theories, that the water overtopped every high hill by at least 15 cubits.

Medieval and Reformation Leaders
The belief that the Flood was worldwide continued in the medieval era. Its chief theologian, Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-c.1274), said that “the waters of the deluge” rose “15 cubits higher than the mountain summits.” And in the Reformation, Calvin said, “And the flood was forty days, etc. Moses copiously insists upon this fact, in order to show that the whole world was immersed in the water.”
After the Enlightenment, the Flood and geology were linked in the age of the earth debate. But very early, Tertullian (c. 150-225) said that the global Flood explained why in his day marine conches and tritons’ horns (both shell creatures) were found high in the mountains.

Conclusion
The traditional young-earth Christian concept of creation stands against progressive creationists, who argue that the earth was created in stages over eons of time. The Greek and Latin Fathers and the Reformers stood on biblical authority against old-earth theorists of their times. Eastern Orthodoxy based its views on the Greek Fathers and so also held to traditional biblical young-earth creationism.

Not until the Enlightenment did professing Christians begin to re-interpret Genesis to fit with alleged scientific proofs of an old earth. But Genesis meant what it meant when it was written, and its meaning was discerned by Jesus and the apostles – and the church that they founded. So we must return to a plain and straightforward understanding of the Genesis account and believe God created quickly, several thousand years ago, in six 24-hour days.

[SeraphimSarov]

sure, things like God's hands are not literal -- theyre an anthropomorophism, but beyond that, why should we not take Genesis literally?

That is exactly one of the things I'm talking about. At some point, you realize some of the details were not meant to be taken literally. I just don't happen to know where that point is and don't care to speculate about it. The Fathers are far more qualified to talk about it than I am.

[Mikeb85]

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/towardso.htm

A good article I found on the subject.

[MoNiCa4316]

thanks for the replies...hmm...I tend to take Genesis literally :sorry: but with a deeper spiritual meaning beneath it all. I'm YEC..

the stuff that makes no sense; I'm just leaving it to God. He knows. :)

[NewToLife]

This is a difficult question, it seems to be true that the Church has in fact always accepted a range of views on this subject and it's also true that many fathers do seem to have taken a creationist stance, though often some qualifications really need to be made to allow for the fact that these same writers often embraced rather than rejected scientific knowledge as compatible with Christian belief.

I think looking back to the fathers and believing that we need to take a creationist stance because they appear to have done so takes things a little to far, we can be perfectly Orthodox in terms of every essential of the faith and yet reject creationism in favour of theistic evolution. Further, how do we reject the natural sciences when they typically refused to do so.

For an interesting discussion on Orthodox views on creation I link to an article by Father Gregory Hallam;

http://www.orthodox.clara.net/creationism.htm

My personal view is that St Augustine comes closer to a good interpretation of Genesis in his Literal Meaning of Genesis than any other ancient Church writer, he isnt so much allegorical as careful to limit his views to speculations rather than outright conclusions. His points about not allowing an over literal approach to become a stumbling block to unbelievers I think we should be very conscious of at a time when Creationism is giving some outside the Church reason and means to paint the Church as anti-scientific ( a view which many fathers would reject outright ).

I would never brand any father ignorant, that said they undoubtedly did share in the relative scientific ignorance of their day. I doubt many fathers would actually dispute such a statement.

[resoto]

My personal view is that St Augustine comes closer to a good interpretation of Genesis in his Literal Meaning of Genesis than any other ancient Church writer, he isnt so much allegorical as careful to limit his views to speculations rather than outright conclusions. His points about not allowing an over literal approach to become a stumbling block to unbelievers I think we should be very conscious of at a time when Creationism is giving some outside the Church reason and means to paint the Church as anti-scientific ( a view which many fathers would reject outright ).


I was reading a book by a German theistic evolutionist scientist and a American Catholic Priest.
While the book sees things from a RCC position, they lean heavely on the Fathers and RCC medieval theology
to leat clear something. The Fathers were YEC because they have no scientific reason to doubt it at the time. But they did not see Genesis as a literal story the way fundamentalist protestants did. For example the ECFs were aware that a literal description of the world as descrived in Genesis was in conflict with the Tolomaic model of the Greeks. They accepted the Genesis description as symbolic. So was the problem of incest if you thake the Adam and Eve, Chaim and Abel and Noa Stories in a literal way. (BTW neither the JEWs, I'm also studing Genesis from a Jewish perspective). The protestant view of Genesis was a huge step backwards.
The insistance of a literal reading of many protestants comes becasue the Sola Scriptura doctrine could be seriously weakened by accepting some parts of the Bible should interpreted by experts.
Apostolic Churches like the RCC and the EOC or the Anglicans do not have that problem and that is why they let the believers go for a literal or symbolic reading of Genesis. As did the Fathers.

[NewToLife]

The Fathers were YEC because they have no scientific reason to doubt it at the time.

I wish I could have said it this clearly.

[fuerein]

Personally I'm willing to accept creationism as a possibility of what ACTUALLY happened. However, at the same time I also accept that scientifically speaking evolution is the best explination that takes into account all aspects of our current understanding of natural science.

For all I know God did the whole 6 day creation thing but did it in such a way as to make evolution be the natural results of scientific exploration into origins. Why would He do that? I have no clue. And honestly someone presented that in a theology class I was in during college and the theology professor went of on a tangent about how that doesn't work, Occam's Razor makes that highly improbable, etc.

[jckstraw72]

the Fathers were YEC bc they are enlightened by God ... for what other Scripture do we denegrate the Patristic witness in this manner? Perhaps they only believed Jonah was in the belly of the fish bc they didnt realize thats so ridiculous like we do ... or perhaps they think someone can rise from the dead bc they didnt have the hard scientific evidence that says that cant happen ....

and the point about the Fathers not rejecting science is moot in my opinion, bc its assuming that evolution is in fact true -- sure science and faith mix -- but evolution aint proper sicence. Science must conform to Tradition, not Tradition to science.

[Protoevangel]

The Fathers were YEC because they have no scientific reason to doubt it at the time.

One day, doubtless, their terrible condemnation will be the greater for all this worldly wisdom, since, seeing so clearly into vain sciences, they have wilfully shut their eyes to the knowledge of the truth.

Yea, I see your point.

[NewToLife]

the Fathers were YEC bc they are enlightened by God ... for what other Scripture do we denegrate the Patristic witness in this manner?

That's fine but the same fathers usually saw the natural sciences as the handmaidens of theology, a position you are in essence rejecting.

Gregory the Theologian for instance has this to say;

every one who has an intellect recognises scholarship as a primary blessing for us. And not only this noble scholarship of our own, which… has as its subject only salvation and the beauty of what is contemplated by the mind, but also the external scholarship which many Christians abhor out of ignorance as unreliable, dangerous and diverting from God

So is he not also enlightened by God when he says this?

What of Clement of Alexandria when he says this;

Scripture gives the common name of wisdom to all the earthly sciences and arts generally, everything that the human mind can achieve… for every art and every knowledge comes from God.

Was Clement not enlightened?

[NewToLife]

and the point about the Fathers not rejecting science is moot in my opinion, bc its assuming that evolution is in fact true -- sure science and faith mix -- but evolution aint proper sicence. Science must conform to Tradition, not Tradition to science.


Nonsense, evolution might be called a theory but it's not generally in any real doubt. Tradition does not teach science, a fact the fathers knew quite well.

[jckstraw72]

i dont reject science. i reject evolution. its based upon the presupposition of uniformitarianism which is incompatible with Tradition's witness of the Fall and the Flood. just bc the Fathers see the use of science doesnt mean they would have accepted every theory that came out -- as Proto's post shows quite well.

[NewToLife]

i dont reject science. i reject evolution.

That is simply a contradiction.

EDIT: and even if it were not a contradiction a literal reading of Genesis would require you reject physics given that physical observation demonstrates the falsity of a young creation, geology as geological evidence shows an old earth, archeology as evidence demonstrates humans existed earlier than a supposed young earth creation, history which again shows civilsation in for instance Sumeria too early for a literal Genesis. Unfortunately, at this point the problems for YEC are only just beginning with the evidence for evolution.

[jckstraw72]

its not a contradiction at all. evolution quite simply isnt science bc its based upon an unproveable presupposition -- that makes it a philosophy, and one at odds with Christianity at that.

in these discussions evolution somehow always gets equated with the entirety of science ... rejecting one theory is not tantamount to rejecting science.

[Mary of Bethany]

My priest was a physics major. I would like to get his opinion on this.

Mary

[jckstraw72]

EDIT: and even if it were not a contradiction a literal reading of Genesis would require you reject physics given that physical observation demonstrates the falsity of a young creation, geology as geological evidence shows an old earth, archeology as evidence demonstrates humans existed earlier than a supposed young earth creation, history which again shows civilsation in for instance Sumeria too early for a literal Genesis. Unfortunately, at this point the problems for YEC are only just beginning with the evidence for evolution.

this is only true if you accept uniformitarianism. Tradition provides ample reason to reject this philosophy.

[NewToLife]

this is only true if you accept uniformitarianism. Tradition provides ample reason to reject this philosophy.


That just ignores the problems and is hardly a solution anyway. How for instance will you rescue a global flood that happened after the fall when science gives us no real option but to recognise that no global flood occurred?

[jckstraw72]

honestly im not too concerned with searching out the science that proves the worldwide flood, but there certainly are creation science groups out there that address it. i accept the Tradition that has been handed down, knowing that true science agrees with it and i really dont care all that much what that science is -- but i do care that a false science is being propped as truth in place of the Patristic Tradition.

and how is dismissing uniformitarianism ignoring the problem? uniformitarianism IS the problem.

[ArmyMatt]

the problem with theistic evolution that I have heard is the problem of death. if there was no Fall, we have no need to be redeemed. why also is death, which if you believe in evolution was in the beginning and created by God and therefore good, called an enemy of God?

now I know that some might say that spiritual death is the bad end, physical death is a part of the created order. well if that's the case, why will we all be born again bodily never to die again?

it seems to me that it's the intellectuals that are all about attempting some weird marriage of modern science that can't even figure out if Pluto is a planet or not, and the faith of the Fathers. those that have drawn close to God are just sticking to the Fathers. now, personally, it seems wiser to follow those that have drawn close to God , seeing as how God was the only One who was there to see what happened.

[NewToLife]

honestly im not too concerned with searching out the science that proves the worldwide flood, but there certainly are creation science groups out there that address it. i accept the Tradition that has been handed down, knowing that true science agrees with it and i really dont care all that much what that science is -- but i do care that a false science is being propped as truth in place of the Patristic Tradition.

and how is dismissing uniformitarianism ignoring the problem? uniformitarianism IS the problem.


I've no doubt that there are 'creation scientists' who address the flood ( though most creationists seem happy to simply take an ostrich approach on the matter ), my problem is that creation scientists are often dishonest and rarely scientists.

I have a further problem with creationism in that American creationists, and lets be honest modern creationism is entirely American ( and protestant for that matter ) in origin, are creating a huge stumbling block to belief.

As far as dismissing uniformitarianism goes, what you do here is in essence reject science itself, it goes far wider than a simple clash with evolution even if you are in denial of the fact. All this is bad enough but your rejection of uniformatarianism also has internal contradictions in that you ask us to accept that everything pre-fall ( or pre catastrophe ) was different when you wish to dismiss the scientific evidence but then insist on interpreting day as 24 hours as though everything were the same. In reality if you reject uniformatarianism then you are forced to admit that days could mean almost anything, as indeed could anything else as you have removed any way of knowing what the physical laws were at that time. In such a scenario a 400 billion year old earth as measured by current time is equally plausible as a 7 day earth given that 24 hour days are the result only of the physical laws you are forced to remove from the equation. All in all in order to interpret a text literally you require the physical universe be essentially similar to the current situation, if it was essentially different you simply have no way of understanding what a specific text means in its literal sense which leaves you and me both trying to make sense of a text that cannot be read literally.

Simplistically Genesis 1 and 2 are directly contradictory, there is no choice to interpret entirely literally and no real way to base a choice of what to take literally from the text alone. I'd argue thereis little reason to force a conflict between science and faith by arbitrarily defining what can be taken literally in direct contradiction with the physical evidence we have. Better to accept Genesis as a non-literal account and allow a reconciliation between faith and the physical evidence.

[prodromos]

There are many problems with evolution but because it has taken on something of a religious status, ie it is assumed by many people to be "fact", anything that is contrary to this belief is simply filed away in the too hard basket.

John

[NewToLife]

There are many problems with evolution but because it has taken on something of a religious status, ie it is assumed by many people to be "fact", anything that is contrary to this belief is simply filed away in the too hard basket.

John

I accept your point, yet YEC creationism is refuted by the sciences irrespective of evolution ( simple observational physics for instance utterly demolishes the idea of a young universe ). My guess is that YECers are also filing things away in a too hard basket and further that many are in simple denial over the sheer dishonesty of some 'creation scientists'.

I will give an example; there are some out there who will tell you that contrary to what many evolutionists claim fossilisation is a rapid process and then provide a number of examples to prove their case. The examples will in fact be real and not fabricated. Yet it's still an utterly dishonest claim. The dishonesty is found in the fact that firstly science does not deny that these types of fossils can form rapidly and secondly in the fact that the creation scientists will conveniently neglect to mention that there is more than one type of fossilization and that the fossilisation that is actually claimed as a slow process ( premineralisation ) is the one type that they have exactly zero examples of rapid fossilisation for and no good explanation of either. Someone without sufficient understanding can certainly be taken in by such misleading arguements and assume the scientific evidence is far weaker than it actually is.

It isnt limited to fossilisation either, you will find misleading arguements about the geological layering of strata, accepted science is dressed up as a shocking refutation of geological evidence when in reality it is both easily explained and can even be confirmed by simple observation. Also we see denials of transitional fossils despite the fact that they in fact do exist and can be produced as evidence.

I dont entirely understand why as Orthodox we would want to follow western christendom and fight a battle they already lost over 100 years ago. Further I do not understand why we would align ourselves with those who are less than honest in their arguements. Ultimately, if we are associated with foolishness and even lies how will people believe us when we speak the truth?

[jckstraw72]

In reality if you reject uniformatarianism then you are forced to admit that days could mean almost anything,no, bc the Fathers tell us otherwise.

if it was essentially different you simply have no way of understanding what a specific text means in its literal sense which leaves you and me both trying to make sense of a text that cannot be read literally.this is what the Fathers are for.

Better to accept Genesis as a non-literal account and allow a reconciliation between faith and the physical evidence.better not to accept "science" that flies in teh face of Tradition.

I have a further problem with creationism in that American creationists, and lets be honest modern creationism is entirely American ( and protestant for that matter ) in origini didnt realize the Fathers were American Protestants.

Simplistically Genesis 1 and 2 are directly contradictory

how so?


what other parts of Scripture are we willing to re-interpret 2000 yrs down the line bc some new fancy scientific theory has come along? maybe Spong is right and Christ's resurrection is only spiritual, bc, come on, how could that really happen bodily?

[resoto]

I have a further problem with creationism in that American creationists, and lets be honest modern creationism is entirely American ( and protestant for that matter ) in origin, are creating a huge stumbling block to belief.

Sad but true, and that is one incredible long term damage American Protestant fundamentalists are done to Christianity credibility as a whole. A far worse danger that evolution theory itself. The other damage is their obsession with Revelations.
I'm convinced the not liberal reading of Genesis as done by liberal protestants and Catholics now throwing in Jewish, the Fathers and comparative religion makes the message of Genesis clearer that any literal reading.
Same with Revelations, reading that book as a allegory of the Divine Liturgy as does Scott Hann in the Lamb's Supper makes more sense that any Tim LaHaye book.

[resoto]

now I know that some might say that spiritual death is the bad end, physical death is a part of the created order. well if that's the case, why will we all be born again bodily never to die again?

Note, for the early Jews there was not difference between the physical and the spiritual. Paradise was a physical place on earth, the garden of Eden has a real place in earth in Genesis.
Jews believed that the souls of person were his in blood.
(Chaim and Abel, "his blood claims to me", Leviticus, "you shall not eath blood").
But by Jesus times it was clear that we have inmortal souls (the Book of Wisdom sadly missing in Protestant Bibles), that the Paradise was a spiritual place (Jesus talking to the thieve in the Cross, Jesus sharing his blood and flesh in wine and bread). And the concept of Spiritual death was clear.

[jckstraw72]

I'm convinced the not liberal reading of Genesis as done by liberal protestants and Catholics now throwing in Jewish, the Fathers and comparative religion makes the message of Genesis clearer that any literal reading.

you cant really make the meaning of Genesis more clear -- the Holy Spirit has guided the Church since day one -- the Church knows what Genesis means in all its layers -- literal and the deeper spiritual meanings.

I believe it was St. John of Damascus who said allegorical understandings of Genesis are heretical.

[Protoevangel]

you cant really make the meaning of Genesis more clear -- the Holy Spirit has guided the Church since day one -- the Church knows what Genesis means in all its layers -- literal and the deeper spiritual meanings.

I believe it was St. John of Damascus who said allegorical understandings of Genesis are heretical.
St. Basil the Great says of these people, "(Some) have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written."


St. Ephraim the Syrian says, "No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else."


But of course, since "scientists" say it's impossible, then we must believe the scientists, instead of our Spirit-filled Holy Fathers! Otherwise, we might be labled "Protestant" and "Fundamentalist", or worse, "fools".

[NewToLife]

you cant really make the meaning of Genesis more clear -- the Holy Spirit has guided the Church since day one -- the Church knows what Genesis means in all its layers -- literal and the deeper spiritual meanings.

I believe it was St. John of Damascus who said allegorical understandings of Genesis are heretical.

One has to ask, if the Church has declared no position on this matter and plainly it has not done so. What makes you wiser than the Church or gives you the authority to speak for her?

[NewToLife]

no, bc the Fathers tell us otherwise.


If they do then they testify against your position and testify in favour of a universe with constant laws. 24 hour days are not that length arbitrarily.

this is what the Fathers are for.

Only God is omniscient, the Fathers were enlightened not omniscient. You can say the Church is infallible of course but the Church has pointedly not taken a position on this issue and shows no sign of doping so.

better not to accept "science" that flies in teh face of Tradition.


Yet your rejection of science also flies in the face of Tradition and you happily reject it anyway.

i didnt realize the Fathers were American Protestants.


No one said that they were. The people trying to drag Christianity into a YEC stance usually are though.
how so?


If you cant answer that question then I have to question what you are doing arguing over Genesis. Read with literalistic simplicity Genesis 1 and 2 present differing orders of creation. You can easily resolve the problem but not with a strict literal approach.

what other parts of Scripture are we willing to re-interpret 2000 yrs down the line bc some new fancy scientific theory has come along? maybe Spong is right and Christ's resurrection is only spiritual, bc, come on, how could that really happen bodily?


False dichotomy, there are choices between scientism and fundamentalist literalism.

[jckstraw72]

No one said that they were. The people trying to drag Christianity into a YEC stance usually are though.would you lump St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose, and Elder Paisios into this group? -- they all directly wrote against evolution.

Yet your rejection of science also flies in the face of Tradition and you happily reject it anyway.rejecting ONE theory is not the same as rejecting science. i accept plenty of sciences that can be demonstrated in the present -- such as medicines and even the technology that is making this computer work. evolution, on the other hand, makes guesses about what happened in the past based on what they see happening today.

[jckstraw72]

One has to ask, if the Church has declared no position on this matter and plainly it has not done so. What makes you wiser than the Church or gives you the authority to speak for her?this is a horrible argument. there are many many things the Church has not dogmatically pronounced. Before 325 the Church hadnt dogmatically pronounced Jesus to be God -- does that mean before 325 the matter was up for grabs? As far as I know baptism is the only sacrament Ecumenically proclaimed (in the Creed) -- does that mean the meaning of the others is up for grabs. The Church has not needed to dogmatically pronounce anything on Genesis in the past because it wasnt contested. The Church's calendar says this year is the year 7516 from the creation of the world -- I'm fairly certain there isnt room for evolution in there. And the entire Church using a calendar seems to me to indicate its mind on this matter.

[NewToLife]

this is a horrible argument. there are many many things the Church has not dogmatically pronounced. Before 325 the Church hadnt dogmatically pronounced Jesus to be God -- does that mean before 325 the matter was up for grabs? As far as I know baptism is the only sacrament Ecumenically proclaimed (in the Creed) -- does that mean the meaning of the others is up for grabs. The Church has not needed to dogmatically pronounce anything on Genesis in the past because it wasnt contested. The Church's calendar says this year is the year 7516 from the creation of the world -- I'm fairly certain there isnt room for evolution in there. And the entire Church using a calendar seems to me to indicate its mind on this matter.


Yet when asked Bishops and Priests seem unaware of the Church taking any firm position and many will reject your position entirely.

[jckstraw72]

Yet when asked Bishops and Priests seem unaware of the Church taking any firm position and many will reject your position entirely. yet many modern-day Saints say otherwise .... only God is omniscient. :)

[NewToLife]

would you lump St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose, and Elder Paisios into this group -- they all directly wrote against evolution.


Even saints have personal opinion and Seraphim Rose in pasrticular was wrong on more than this anyway as can be clearly seen reading his other works.

[jckstraw72]

Even saints have personal opinion and Seraphim Rose in pasrticular was wrong on more than this anyway as can be clearly seen reading his other works.So Dr. Secular is correct on a matter of Scriptural interpretation as opposed to numerous Saints?

And yet I know many bishops and priests who would say Fr. Seraphim was fully within Orthodox Tradition on all his "disputed" works. Furthermore, Fr. Seraphim did little more than quote the Fathers -- so to dismiss his book is to basically dismiss the mind of the Fathers on Genesis. This raises the question -- where was the Holy Spirit regarding Genesis until Charles Darwin came along?

[jckstraw72]

Note, for the early Jews there was not difference between the physical and the spiritual. Paradise was a physical place on earth, the garden of Eden has a real place in earth in Genesis.
Jews believed that the souls of person were his in blood.
(Chaim and Abel, "his blood claims to me", Leviticus, "you shall not eath blood").
But by Jesus times it was clear that we have inmortal souls (the Book of Wisdom sadly missing in Protestant Bibles), that the Paradise was a spiritual place (Jesus talking to the thieve in the Cross, Jesus sharing his blood and flesh in wine and bread). And the concept of Spiritual death was clear.

the Fathers tell us that the Garden was both physical and spiritual.

[ArmyMatt]

I don't think anyone is saying that they know more than the Church, seeing as how those that are taking the stance for Creation are using the Fathers and recent saints to back their beliefs. these holy men and women are those that have drawn close to the God that did it all point toward Creation as far as I have seen.

you still have not addressed the problem of death, how can God create death, proclaim it to be good, and then destroy it on the Cross and call it an enemy of man.

[NewToLife]

And yet I know many bishops and priests who would say Fr. Seraphim was fully within Orthodox Tradition on all his "disputed" works. Furthermore, Fr. Seraphim did little more than quote the Fathers -- so to dismiss his book is to basically dismiss the mind of the Fathers on Genesis. This raises the question -- where was the Holy Spirit regarding Genesis until Charles Darwin came along?


I guess you have not read Genesis, Creation and Early Man then? I have it here and Father Seraphim does not restrict himself to the fathers as you suggest. In fact i'd guess you havent read much of his work at all! How can you make the claim you do if you have read 'Orthodoxy and the Religion of the future' for instance? Father Seraphim was at his best when he quoted the fathers but he certainly did not in fact stop there.

On the broader question of whether creationism is the position of the Church I refer to the Q&A on the OCA website which describes their understanding in the following words;

Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All.


No problem with theistic evolution then....

[NewToLife]

I don't think anyone is saying that they know more than the Church, seeing as how those that are taking the stance for Creation are using the Fathers and recent saints to back their beliefs. these holy men and women are those that have drawn close to the God that did it all point toward Creation as far as I have seen.


I have no problem with YEC creationism as a personal theological opinion. I have a problem with anyone trying to make it the sole opinion when the Church does not make it a matter of dogma. Also I have a problem with anyone misrepresenting the scientific evidence for evolution. Orthodoxy has no tradition of misrepresentation and no father would condone such actions.

you still have not addressed the problem of death, how can God create death, proclaim it to be good, and then destroy it on the Cross and call it an enemy of man.


Do you consider the death of an animal to be the same as the death of a man? If not ( and to do so is surely heretical given Man's unique place in creation ) what is the difficulty?

[Protoevangel]

What I see is the people on one side of this discussion trusting the Holy and God-bearing Fathers interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and the people on the other side discounting the Fathers (because apparently, they didn't have enough worldly wisdom) and reinterpreting the Scriptures for themselves, so that they will fit within the framework of their own worldly "wisdom".

It has been such since the beginning.

[NewToLife]

What I see is the people on one side of this discussion trusting the Holy and God-bearing Fathers interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, and the people on the other side discounting the Fathers and reinterpreting the Scriptures for themselves, so that they will fit within the framework of their own worldly "wisdom".

It has been such since the beginning.


That is a very clear misrepresentation of the position taken by those who disagree with you.

As you note.

It has been such since the beginning.

[jckstraw72]

I guess you have not read Genesis, Creation and Early Man then? I have it here and Father Seraphim does not restrict himself to the fathers as you suggest. In fact i'd guess you havent read much of his work at all! How can you make the claim you do if you have read 'Orthodoxy and the Religion of the future' for instance? Father Seraphim was at his best when he quoted the fathers but he certainly did not in fact stop there.

yeah i have his book. Sure he comments on the Patristics, but everything he says is grounded in the Patristic witness. Yeah there's the science section but I'm not even that interested in that. The crux of his argument is Patristic.

and why are you taking the Q and A on oca.org as the definitive statement, but not the witness of countless Fathers and modern Saints?

[NewToLife]

yeah i have his book. Sure he comments on the Patristics, but everything he says is grounded in the Patristic witness. Yeah there's the science section but I'm not even that interested in that. The crux of his argument is Patristic.

and why are you taking the Q and A on oca.org as the definitive statement, but not the witness of countless Fathers and modern Saints?

I'm not taking it as a definitive statement, you are the one here claiming a definitive position for the Church.

I have a simple question, do you believe 6 literal days to be without question the position of the Church? If you do do you believe those of us who dont hold to that view heretical?

[jckstraw72]

Do you consider the death of an animal to be the same as the death of a man? If not ( and to do so is surely heretical given Man's unique place in creation ) what is the difficulty?

the Fathers tell us that all of creation was perfect from the beginning.

Fr. Schmemann states in The Eucharist (pg. 61) "For the entire world was created as an 'altar of God,' as a temple, as a symbol of the kingdom. According to its conception, its all sacred, and not 'profane,' for its essence lies in the divine 'very good' of Genesis. The sin of man consists in the fact that he has darkened the 'very good' in his very being and as such has torn the world away from God, made it an 'end in itself,' and therefore a fall from death."
--- no death before man's sin, right in the Patristic Tradition.

and even if you want to somehow discount Fr. Seraphim, there's still the issue of St. Barsanuphius, St. Nektarios, St. Justin, Elder Paisios (and thats just the ones I know of) and also Elder Joseph the Hesychast and Elder Ephraim (who I forgot to mention before). where are the Saints that are ok with evolution?

[Protoevangel]

... discounting the Fathers (because apparently, they didn't have enough worldly wisdom)
That is a very clear misrepresentation of the position taken by those who disagree with you.
Really, let's see about that...

I would never brand any father ignorant, that said they undoubtedly did share in the relative scientific ignorance of their day.
...
That's fine but the same fathers usually saw the natural sciences as the handmaidens of theology, a position you are in essence rejecting.
Hmm, I wonder what the Fathers would say about that. Let's ask one.

One day, doubtless, their terrible condemnation will be the greater for all this worldly wisdom, since, seeing so clearly into vain sciences, they have wilfully shut their eyes to the knowledge of the truth.
Yea, that's kinda what I thought.

Yes, the Fathers embraced true science, but not this purely anti-scriptural, worldly wisdom you are promoting. The fathers left no room for evolution, not based on scientific ignorance, but based on Spirit-inspired Scriptural understanding. Denying this is to discount and misrepresent the Fathers.

[jckstraw72]

I have a simple question, do you believe 6 literal days to be without question the position of the Church? If you do do you believe those of us who dont hold to that view heretical?

the Church's calendar says it is 7516 from the creation of the world. that indicates that the Church understands the days to be days, or else the year would be much higher.

i think theistic evolution is certainly heretical, with one of the main issues being that of death, as armymatt has pointed out. i prefer to say "misguided" due to the Church not standing with one united voice on this issue as it did in the past.

[Protoevangel]

That is a very clear misrepresentation of the position taken by those who disagree with you.

As you note.

It has been such since the beginning.
Then show me clearly how evolution is compatible with the very clear Scriptural interpretation of Genesis, of such fathers as St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great, St Ephrem the Syrian, etc.

[NewToLife]

the Church's calendar says it is 7516 from the creation of the world. that indicates that the Church understands the days to be days, or else the year would be much higher.

i think theistic evolution is certainly heretical, with one of the main issues being that of death, as armymatt has pointed out. i prefer to say "misguided" due to the Church not standing with one united voice on this issue as it did in the past.

Many saints reject literal 24 hour days, belief in instantaneous creation is not uncommon for instance as is the view that the days cannot necessarily be taken as literal 24 hour periods. How do you deal with the fact that the people believing such are Orthodox saints nevertheless? I wont start listing but will note for instance that St Augustine amongst others held to instantaneous creation.

If rejection of a literal interpretation is not heretical what speciically do you believe heretical about theistic evolution ( I have no interest in strawman arguements here so please ensure you actually know what theistic evolutionists actually believe before replying).

[NewToLife]

Then show me clearly how evolution is compatible with the very clear Scriptural interpretation of Genesis, of such fathers as St John Chrysostom, St Basil the Great, St Ephrem the Syrian, etc.

There are Orthodox out there who make a very convincing case, maybe you should familiarise yourself with their arguement before judging? We bothknow you havent done so so far.

[NewToLife]

yeah i have his book. Sure he comments on the Patristics, but everything he says is grounded in the Patristic witness. Yeah there's the science section but I'm not even that interested in that. The crux of his argument is Patristic.

and why are you taking the Q and A on oca.org as the definitive statement, but not the witness of countless Fathers and modern Saints?

On Father Seraphim, if you know he goes further than quoting the fathers why did you try to misrepresent the facts? I could care less that you may not be interested beyond the patristics as that is not what you claimed, you claimed he basically just quoted them which is in fact untrue.

[Protoevangel]

There are Orthodox out there who make a very convincing case, maybe you should familiarise yourself with their arguement before judging? We bothknow you havent done so so far.
Just as I expected. Can't make your own case.

[NewToLife]

Just as I expected. Can't make your own case.

Is that your arguement? On that basis you are willing to sit in judgement? I wonder what the fathers say about a rush to judgement without actually checking all the facts?

[Protoevangel]

There are Orthodox out there who make a very convincing case, maybe you should familiarise yourself with their arguement before judging? We bothknow you havent done so so far.

Is that your arguement? On that basis you are willing to sit in judgement? I wonder what the fathers say about a rush to judgement without actually checking all the facts?
Who's sitting in judgement? How would you know what I have or have not read? And by the way, you are wrong. Rejecting a modernist argument is not the same as not having encountered it.

But unless you can make a case, your argument is full of hot air.

[Matrona]

Just as I expected. Can't make your own case.

All NTL is expecting you to do is some research, so that you can make sure your opinion is completely informed, because your lack of knowledge of the Orthodox justification for theistic evolution shows that you do need to do research on the subject rather than assuming your interpretation of the Fathers is correct.

He has exhibited the patience of a saint in response to your attempts to taunt him, and I think you owe him an apology.

[Protoevangel]

All NTL is expecting you to do is some research, so that you can make sure your opinion is completely informed, because your lack of knowledge of the Orthodox justification for theistic evolution shows that you do need to do research on the subject rather than assuming your interpretation of the Fathers is correct.

He has exhibited the patience of a saint in response to your attempts to taunt him, and I think you owe him an apology.
You are making the same false assumption he is.

I'm just trying to get something other than sidestepping the Fathers out of him.

[NewToLife]

Removed by poster.

[kamikat]

closed while under staff review

[Akathist]

I want to apologize to the members of TAW. It is not our normal policy to leave a thread closed for so long. Staff have been busy with other matters and we neglected to reopen this thread in a timely manner.

Some posts have been removed in this thread for staff review and staff are still discussing those posts.

Please keep to the topic of the thread and do not comment on if your posts were were reported, or address a person instead of the topic.

[jckstraw72]

yeeehaw!

[Nichole]

What was the purpose of re-opening this thread anyway? I think we were all fine with it closed! ^_^

[Akathist]

You do not have to participate, but the thread is on topic to TAW and does not break any rules.

[Khaleas]

You do not have to participate, but the thread is on topic to TAW and does not break any rules.
*SLAM* :eek:

That whole sleeping dogs thing...

[jckstraw72]

hey im cool with it being reopened, peeps just got to keep their cool this time.

and happy belated 7516th yr since the creation of the world everyone!

[Theophorus]

the problem with theistic evolution that I have heard is the problem of death. if there was no Fall, we have no need to be redeemed. why also is death, which if you believe in evolution was in the beginning and created by God and therefore good, called an enemy of God?


No death, no evolution. Natural selection before the fall?

For all of the theistic evolutionists, when did death enter the world? How is natural selection or even worse, "mutations", reconciled with the pre-fall creation?

[NewToLife]

No death, no evolution. Natural selection before the fall?

For all of the theistic evolutionists, when did death enter the world? How is natural selection or even worse, "mutations", reconciled with the pre-fall creation?

I could answer your question but given the lack of civility on the YEC side and the plain dodging of any awkward questions they are asked about their own views, I'm not inclined to make the effort. So I'll play the YECer game and just bounce questions at you instead;

Firstly, I have to ask if any YECer will answer my previous questions? I doubt they will given the previous evidence in the thread.

Then I have to ask the YEC creationists if it's really possible to reconcile an Orthodox understanding of God with a God who has apparently laced creation with an overwhelming body of evidence which will inevitably mislead anyone looking at it using the reason God has given us? Personally I do not believe in a trickster God as the gnostic heretics do.

Given non-literalist readings are in fact somewhat attested by the fathers and those who hold them have become saints I wonder what the fetish for strict literalism is? Clearly even if there is a patristic consensus God has not agreed with it, how else do we explain that for instance St Basil declares an allegorical reading impermissable yet God has made St Augustine a saint anyway despite his open allegorical reading? Perhaps St basil is not the final judge? Indeed perhaps he himself would never make such a claim?

Further, given the YEC creation science movements proclivity for misrepresentation of the scientific evidence I would wonder if we should not judge the YEC tree by it's fruits. Does the Truth requuire lies to defend itself? It seems to me that it does not.

[NewToLife]

Who's sitting in judgement? How would you know what I have or have not read? And by the way, you are wrong. Rejecting a modernist argument is not the same as not having encountered it.


I can tell what you have not read by the fact that you are apparently ignorant of what it says. For instance here is a reasonable Orthodox defence of theistic evolution written by a deacon in the Russian Church;

http://constans_wright.tripod.com/evolution.html

But unless you can make a case, your argument is full of hot air.

Clearly that doesnt follow and anyone with an understanding of reason will realise as much. But then its a clumsy edit to try and keep as much of the original flame as possible so given it's passionate origin it's hardly surprising it's a nonsense.

[ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs]

I could answer your question but given the lack of civility on the YEC side and the plain dodging of any awkward questions they are asked about their own views, I'm not inclined to make the effort.

This is the very reason I stopped posting in the origins forum here. There was nastiness on both sides, to be sure, but the YECs there went beyond reason and finally had the origins forum segregated so TEs couldn't post in their forum at all. Not even fellowship posts. This may have changed since but I doubt it.

I almost lost my faith over this issue. I was a YEC and as a Protestant my faith hinged on the the Bible so when they very reasonably and civilly began to take apart my YEC beliefs, my faith started coming apart with it. Then, they preserved my faith by showing me that a literal reading of Genesis 1 isn't required for one to be a Christian. When I discovered that it wasn't an issue in Orthodoxy, that made a big difference because I didn't want to fight that fight again.

All that said, I'm not going to get into a debate on the issue because I've seen enough of Orthodox Christians duking it out over various issues that have no bearing on our salvation.

I am a theistic evolutionist because I can't refute the evidence that supports evolution but I do have strong sympathies for creationism. But I'm too worried about dying in my sins to let this issue weigh too heavily on my mind.

[nutroll]

I'll give my two cents, but I'm not really looking for debate, so I'll try to be as civil as I can. On the issue of evolution, it is impossible to say from even a scientific standpoint that it is the absolute truth. Science (as opposed to scientism) is a system for arriving at the truth rather than declaring revealed truth. Several years from now, there may well be a better explanation of many of these issues that will be arrived at through the scientific method. No scientific theory is set in stone, and when new evidence based on new experimentation requires that the theory be revisited, it is revisited. That does not mean, however that there is no truth in evolutionary theory. There is much evidence to demonstrate that many of the theorized mechanisms are very much at work in our world. So the "It's just a theory" argument is pretty pointless because in scientific terms, a theory (though not absolute) is based on a great deal of observation and testing, and is the best explanation that fits all the available evidence.

On the subject of creationism, I find it to be just as much a lie as scientism. This is not to say that I think the Scriptures are a lie. I am not even saying here that they are an allegory. What I am saying is that these groups that are trying to prove Genesis true are liars. They make false statements, accusations, and they play fast and loose with the evidence. And I think this is much more harmful than the theory of evolution could ever be. The reason is that anyone who looks at them critically will see they are liars, and likely believe that Christianity is a lie as well. Just as an example, Kirk Cameron and his little buddy on TV are all about proving the existence of God, and proving the truth of Genesis. So they say that a banana is evidence that there must be an intelligent designer. The reasoning is that when a person holds a banana in their hand it fits perfectly, and the ridges on the banana keep it from slipping out of their hand. But what they failed to mention is that a banana is the way it is as the result of selective breeding (a form of evolution). So now instead of having defended Christianity, they've made us look uninformed and stupid, and even given credence to evolution. Now I know that they are amateurs in the field, but this kind of stuff goes on all the time. I've watched hour after hour of creationist arguments, read books on creationism, and time after time I've seen their arguments crumble in the face of even common sense criticism.

With this in mind, I've got two minds on the subject. I believe that there is evolution, because it is obvious that there is. However, I understand that the truth in evolution is arrived at through reason and based on new evidence it may very well change as more evidence is collected. But I don't look to evolution for questions about the human condition. I don't look to evolution for the why of creation, but for a piece of the how. On the other hand, Genesis is revealed truth. I don't need what is in the theory of evolution, but I do need what is in Genesis. I don't always know how to read Genesis in light of science, but I do know that it is true. If Genesis is true in a literal way, I trust that men using their reason will eventually find real evidence to arrive at the details written there. I don't think Creationism will ever prove Genesis, all they will succeed in doing is driving people away from the truth. I don't need science to support my belief, and I don't need belief to influence science. As far as I'm concerned, I will believe Genesis, and understand science.

[Theophorus]

I could answer your question but given the lack of civility on the YEC side and the plain dodging of any awkward questions they are asked about their own views, I'm not inclined to make the effort. So I'll play the YECer game and just bounce questions at you instead;

1st of all, I am not on the YEC side, nor do I subscribe to the creationist side. Your comment about civility being directed towards me is ironic. If you are not inclined to "make the effort" then don't blame it on me, but you may continue to play the martyr if you wish.


Firstly, I have to ask if any YECer will answer my previous questions? I doubt they will given the previous evidence in the thread.
I am interested in what patristics have to say concerning the matter, not YECs.


Given non-literalist readings are in fact somewhat attested by the fathers and those who hold them have become saints I wonder what the fetish for strict literalism is? Clearly even if there is a patristic consensus God has not agreed with it, how else do we explain that for instance St Basil declares an allegorical reading impermissable yet God has made St Augustine a saint anyway despite his open allegorical reading? Perhaps St basil is not the final judge? Indeed perhaps he himself would never make such a claim?

The fathers do take allegorical meanings from the OT and Genesis. For example, Adam is told to tend the garden, but I believe it is St. John Chrysostom who asks why? Are there weeds and corruption in Paradise? And places the meaning with being watchful, prayer and communion with God.

I think my question reflects a basic foundation of Orthodox theology; ie, the "restoration of fallen Adam", and all of its implications.


Further, given the YEC creation science movements proclivity for misrepresentation of the scientific evidence I would wonder if we should not judge the YEC tree by it's fruits. Does the Truth requuire lies to defend itself? It seems to me that it does not.

Sorry, not a YEC here. I am interested only in what must be true concerning creation as revealed by the Church. I am content to be apophatic concerning the rest.

[NewToLife]

1st of all, I am not on the YEC side, nor do I subscribe to the creationist side. Your comment about civility being directed towards me is ironic. If you are not inclined to "make the effort" then don't blame it on me, but you may continue to play the martyr if you wish.


My apology, it seemed natural to assume you a YEC given your question is one you probably need to address yourself if you are not. I apologise for assuming you were YEC.

[Theophorus]

My apology, it seemed natural to assume you a YEC given your question is one you probably need to address yourself if you are not. I apologise for assuming you were YEC.

All is well.

[Protoevangel]

I could answer your question but given the lack of civility on the YEC side and the plain dodging of any awkward questions they are asked about their own views, I'm not inclined to make the effort. So I'll play the YECer game and just bounce questions at you instead;
You play the same game, but point you finger in judgment at those who look to the Holy, God-Inspired Fathers interpretation of Holy Scripture above mankind’s interpretation of the created world to answer the purely Theological question of Creation. If you want to know how a watch is made, is it enough just to look at the watch itself? Will that give you all of the answers? Or should you go to the source, to the manufacturer?


Firstly, I have to ask if any YECer will answer my previous questions? I doubt they will given the previous evidence in the thread.
I went over the thread again (starting around Post #40), and haven't found any questions that haven't been addressed in some way (admittedly, I was skimming it kind of quickly, so I may have missed something). Which previous questions would you like answered?


Then I have to ask the YEC creationists if it's really possible to reconcile an Orthodox understanding of God with a God who has apparently laced creation with an overwhelming body of evidence which will inevitably mislead anyone looking at it using the reason God has given us?
You are assuming that Science has all of the evidence necessary, and has it all of the evidence interpreted correctly. That is not an assumption that we share.


Personally I do not believe in a trickster God as the gnostic heretics do.
And you accuse us of flames, lack of civility, and misrepresentation. Look to those four fingers pointing back to yourself when you point that one in judgment.


Given non-literalist readings are in fact somewhat attested by the fathers and those who hold them have become saints I wonder what the fetish for strict literalism is? Clearly even if there is a patristic consensus God has not agreed with it, how else do we explain that for instance St Basil declares an allegorical reading impermissable yet God has made St Augustine a saint anyway despite his open allegorical reading? Perhaps St basil is not the final judge? Indeed perhaps he himself would never make such a claim?
"They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed."
- Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 12:10


True, some of the Fathers look to, "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8), and claim that the six days are actually six thousand years. This still doesn’t allow room for the process of evolution. I have seen no patristic evidence to suggest anything longer than the thousand year = day model. And do be careful, St Basil does not claim that there is no allegory in Genesis. He is speaking against those who would deny the literal in favor of the allegorical.


Further, given the YEC creation science movements proclivity for misrepresentation of the scientific evidence I would wonder if we should not judge the YEC tree by it's fruits. Does the Truth requuire lies to defend itself? It seems to me that it does not.
Well, perhaps this discussion is not so much about the "YEC creation science movements", but about what the Fathers have to say on the subject. It is a straw man to tear down a weak argument and assume it is a victory against your opponent.

[NewToLife]

You play the same game, but point you finger in judgment at those who look to the Holy, God-Inspired Fathers interpretation of Holy Scripture above mankind’s interpretation of the created world to answer Theological question of Creation. If you want to know how a watch is made, is it enough just to look at the watch itself? Will that give you all of the answers? Or should you go to the source, to the manufacturer?


You can conclude quite a bit be examination of the watch actually. It's called reverse engineering. As for the manufacturer, if he wanted to give assembly instructions they'd be useful. I see no physics or biology text in Genesis though.

True, some of the Fathers look to, "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Peter 3:8), and claim that the six days are actually six thousand years. This still doesn’t allow room for the process of evolution.

Sure it does and even if it didnt its rather damaging for the idea that a literal reading is a dogmatic requirement as some here are trying to claim. I am not afterall trying to make theistic evolution the only acceptrable view here, merely defending the right to hold a personal opinion without some extremist crying heretic as though the Church had actually taken a firm position.

I have seen no patristic evidence to suggest anything longer than the thousand year = day model. And do be careful, St Basil does not claim that there is no allegory in Genesis. He is speaking against those who would deny the literal in favor of the allegorical.


More clumsy hyperliteralism is hardly going to convince anyone who can actually think this issue through. Or are you literrally trying to claim that God is somehow limited to either 1 day or 1000 years?

Well, perhaps this discussion is not so much about the "YEC creation science movements", but about what the Fathers have to say on the subject. It is a straw man to tear down a weak argument and assume it is a victory against your opponent.


Then God creates a world and fills it with misleading evidence? I note that although the point has been made already you still refuse to address it. The fundamental problem is that the evidence clearly indicates an old Earth, even if we abandon evolution this is still the case anyway. Of course it's unreasonable to abandon evolution as its a very plausible explanation of the factual evidence that we have to explain and does not contradict Genesis unless an unreasonable literalism is adherred to in spite of the obvious problems in that approach.

[Protoevangel]

You can conclude quite a bit be examination of the watch actually. It's called reverse engineering. As for the manufacturer, if he wanted to give assembly instructions they'd be useful. I see no physics or biology text in Genesis though.
The Creation of the world is not limited to physics or biology, but transcends them and any science man can conceive of. If it were limited to physics or biology, then perhaps science could speak authoritatively on the subject.


Sure it does and even if it didnt its rather damaging for the idea that a literal reading is a dogmatic requirement as some here are trying to claim. I am not afterall trying to make theistic evolution the only acceptrable view here, merely defending the right to hold a personal opinion without some extremist crying heretic as though the Church had actually taken a firm position.
More misrepresentation on your part. I have not called anyone a heretic.


More clumsy hyperliteralism is hardly going to convince anyone who can actually think this issue through. Or are you literrally trying to claim that God is somehow limited to either 1 day or 1000 years?
And more misrepresentation on your part isn't helping your case either. Because the Holy Fathers interpret the Scriptures to mean something, does not mean that God "is somehow limited" to what He chose to do, and to tell us about what He did.


Then God creates a world and fills it with misleading evidence? I note that although the point has been made already you still refuse to address it.
You are still misrepresenting, and apparently intentionally. This has indeed been addressed.

[NewToLife]

The Creation of the world is not limited to physics or biology, but transcends them and any science man can conceive of. If it were limited to physics or biology, then perhaps science could speak authoritatively on the subject.


Indeed, not limited. But I'm not the one claiming it has to be Science or the Bible.

More misrepresentation on your part. I have not called anyone a heretic.


Even if you wanted to we both know you'd get reported. You certainly have tried to portray me as disrespecting the fathers and such though.

And more misrepresentation on your part isn't helping your case either. Because the Holy Fathers interpret the Scriptures to mean something, does not mean that God "is somehow limited" to what He chose to do, and to tell us about what He did.


Honestly this crude attitude of treating the fathers the way that protestants treat scripture itself is really your problem. If God isnt limited to either a day or 1000 years then we both know your case falls apart.

You are still misrepresenting, and apparently intentionally. This has indeed been addressed.


Where? The closest you have come is to simply try and pretend this isnt a problem.

[fuerein]

Here we go again :sigh: . I don't know why I keep clicking on this topic :help: .

[Protoevangel]

Indeed, not limited. But I'm not the one claiming it has to be Science or the Bible.
I'm not either.

Even if you wanted to we both know you'd get reported. You certainly have tried to portray me as disrespecting the fathers and such though.
I believe your position on the subject is ignorant and/or disrespectful of the Fathers. I believe the position is heterodox (other-teaching). It is a subject I think needs to be addressed at a higher level, but not one worth schism or excommunication over; it is not a heresy.

Honestly this crude attitude of treating the fathers the way that protestants treat scripture itself is really your problem. If God isnt limited to either a day or 1000 years then we both know your case falls apart as God is not bound into the literal 24 hour days you seem to imagine he is chained to.
This is even more misrepresentation on your part. Doing something in a certian manner, and being bound to do something in that manner are two entirely different things. Because God communicated to Balaam through an ass, do you now claim that God was bound to speak through an ass? Come on NTL, get real! ^_^

Where?
I addressed it earlier today.

[Protoevangel]

Here we go again :sigh: . I don't know why I keep clicking on this topic :help: .
Yep. No one is forcing you to. :) Just like no one forced NTL to jump back in here this morning with insults and misrepresentations.


NTL, I'm ok with a cease fire, if you are.

[NewToLife]

Yep. No one is forcing you to. :) Just like no one forced NTL to jump back in here this morning with insults and misrepresentations.


NTL, I'm ok with a cease fire, if you are.

Sure, I always was but i see no reason not to defend my position from attack. In the spirit of your offer I will not address your penultimate post on this thread, I'll even fail to retaliate to the disingenuous jibes in the post I am now replying to.

[Protoevangel]

Sure, I always was but i see no reason not to defend my position from attack. In the spirit of your offer I will not address your penultimate post on this thread, I'll even fail to retaliate to the disingenuous jibes in the post I am now replying to.
As you wish.

[Philothei]

I just want to pop in and say hello to both of you and just suggest that what is important for our salvation is either... Like you said Proto it is not "heretical" so what are you guys arguing for?? Theologians are split on the issue... some do believe in Theistic evolution some do not.... and the Fathers cannot apply since they lived in an era that science was not developed as it is today..... IMO it pretty useless to state one or the other.... I call it Patristic view since the Fathers in my opinion fall ....somewhere in between ... if they lived today .... then we could have heard their opinions loud and clear... and hopefully (if we attend to or spiritual lives ....well) we will come to know it all when we depart from this life....

God bless,
Peace,
Philothei

[Protoevangel]

I just want to pop in and say hello to both of you and just suggest that what is important for our salvation is either... Like you said Proto it is not "heretical" so what are you guys arguing for?? Theologians are split on the issue... some do believe in Theistic evolution some do not.... and the Fathers cannot apply since they lived in an era that science was not developed as it is today..... IMO it pretty useless to state one or the other.... I call it Patristic view since the Fathers in my opinion fall ....somewhere in between ... if they lived today .... then we could have heard their opinions loud and clear... and hopefully (if we attend to or spiritual lives ....well) we will come to know it all when we depart from this life....

God bless,
Peace,
Philothei
Hi Philothei, :wave:

I would disagree with you here where you say that "... the Fathers cannot apply since they lived in an era that science was not developed as it is today." The Fathers apply in every age, regardless of the prevailing "science" of the age, because they spoke of etetnal truth. They based their view of Creation on Holy Scripture, and not on the "science" of the age. This is not to spark the debate again, I'm just clarifying my point based on your statement.

But the end of your post, I agree with wholeheartedly, "... hopefully (if we attend to or spiritual lives ....well) we will come to know it all when we depart from this life...." :hug:

[GryphonSaint]

The problem with evolution is it's a horribly flawed scientific theory, it's not even good science but people cling to it because they don't want to face the alternative. Allow me to expound on it's flaws.

1. Intermediate Species. The theory of evolution states that over time one creature will turn into another. If that were true then it would be true to this day and there would be intermediate species EVERYWHERE, why practically everything would be an intermediate species but that's not what's seen in either nature or the fossil record. We have clear cut categories for all the animal kingdom. Sure there are some wacky ones like a lungfish or a platypus but they're species unto themselves and mate with their own species and make up an extreme minority of the animal kingdom and hardly represent an entire worldview.

2. Change over time. Lets say it takes 1,000,000 years to go from species A to species B. Lets say a generation is 1 year. That means that each generation is 1 millionth of a percent more evolved than the previous generation. Now that change would be so totally insignificant to natural selection that there's no reason they'd have any advantage in survival over a different creature that didn't evolve that 1 millionth of a percent. But lets say it's faster ok then....

3. Allels. Ok where does that genetic information come from? If a fish grew lungs, where exactly did the genetic information for "lungs" come from? It's nowhere present in a fish's genetic code. Random Mutation? That either produces cancer or changes an already present allel into something else, you can't mutate functionaly new genetic information, certainly nothing as complex as an organ. And if it did mutate there's no reason to assume the rest of the creatures body would mutate appropriately to support the new organ, it would probably die pretty quickly. But for a second lets assume it could well then...

4. Why? Why would a fish grow lungs. A fish is at home in the sea. It lives perfectly well there. Same with any animal in it's home habitat. What possible reason could it have for wanting to change it's place in life, and if it's random, why would it make it into something outside it's environment? Evolution assumes much. What is the motivating force behind evolution? To suggest that there's something which is inspiring it to "progress" would accknowledge a higher power. But why would say a dinosaur want to be a bird? Did it one day decide it just wanted to fly? I doubt any animal is even capable of such thoughts let alone possess some power neccessary to carry it out.

5. Flight and Birds. I have studied Aerodynamics in depth and quite frankly it's literally impossible to evolve flight. Lift is dependent on 1. Velocity 2. Air Density 3. Shape or Profile of the surface (wing) 4. Angle of Attack and 5. Surface Area. Lets say you've managed to evolve say 20% of a wing, your not going to fly. How about even 50% of a wing? Not a chance. Unless you have enough lift to equal your weight you're not getting off the ground. Since it has to evolve over generations and not in real time the only real thing you could change to get more lift (other than angle of attack wich can only do so much before you stall) would be velocity, but even at 1/2 a wing let alone especially 15% or 25% of a wing not even plunging off a cliff would give you enough speed to fly let alone having to overcome the real solid instict to not fall over a cliff. Now how long does it take to evolve something? Millions of years? Why on earth would you keep evolving flight characteristics when each succeeding generation is no closer to leaving the ground than the previous one? Let alone design. How would a protobird know what was neccessary to evolve in order to fly when even given random mutations those changes would no more produce a flying creature than the previous one? Aerodynamics are very specialized, you have to make just the right wing for your flight envelope, there is no possibly way you could randomly develop crude flight from having no previous flight characteristics (you don't see any flying people do you? they've been "evolving" just as long but people don't fly just the birds and bats and bugs). You have to design the whole plane and wing based around how you want it to fly not just throw on a pair of wings and expect it to go. Eagles fly differently than a swallow because of their weight. Not to mention structure. Flying things are very light. Birds have hollow bones. Now for a ground creature having hollow bones would make it very weak and would not be a good change so why would you evolve hollow bones if you were going to live on the ground when it would hurt your chances at survival so then how would it "know" that it was neccessary for flight or even that it was going to fly if each generation that got closer to flight was less successful on the ground and had a higher chance of being eaten.

These are just a few of the problems with evolution. I reccommend "Godless" by Ann Coulter as a good book that lists even more. Needless to say these few alone are enough to make evolution "hard science" let alone a fact. It's not a sound theory and shouldn't really be treated as one.

[NewToLife]

The problem with evolution is it's a horribly flawed scientific theory, it's not even good science but people cling to it because they don't want to face the alternative. Allow me to expound on it's flaws.

1. Intermediate Species. The theory of evolution states that over time one creature will turn into another. If that were true then it would be true to this day and there would be intermediate species EVERYWHERE, why practically everything would be an intermediate species but that's not what's seen in either nature or the fossil record. We have clear cut categories for all the animal kingdom. Sure there are some wacky ones like a lungfish or a platypus but they're species unto themselves and mate with their own species and make up an extreme minority of the animal kingdom and hardly represent an entire worldview.

2. Change over time. Lets say it takes 1,000,000 years to go from species A to species B. Lets say a generation is 1 year. That means that each generation is 1 millionth of a percent more evolved than the previous generation. Now that change would be so totally insignificant to natural selection that there's no reason they'd have any advantage in survival over a different creature that didn't evolve that 1 millionth of a percent. But lets say it's faster ok then....

3. Allels. Ok where does that genetic information come from? If a fish grew lungs, where exactly did the genetic information for "lungs" come from? It's nowhere present in a fish's genetic code. Random Mutation? That either produces cancer or changes an already present allel into something else, you can't mutate functionaly new genetic information, certainly nothing as complex as an organ. And if it did mutate there's no reason to assume the rest of the creatures body would mutate appropriately to support the new organ, it would probably die pretty quickly. But for a second lets assume it could well then...

4. Why? Why would a fish grow lungs. A fish is at home in the sea. It lives perfectly well there. Same with any animal in it's home habitat. What possible reason could it have for wanting to change it's place in life, and if it's random, why would it make it into something outside it's environment? Evolution assumes much. What is the motivating force behind evolution? To suggest that there's something which is inspiring it to "progress" would accknowledge a higher power. But why would say a dinosaur want to be a bird? Did it one day decide it just wanted to fly? I doubt any animal is even capable of such thoughts let alone possess some power neccessary to carry it out.

5. Flight and Birds. I have studied Aerodynamics in depth and quite frankly it's literally impossible to evolve flight. Lift is dependent on 1. Velocity 2. Air Density 3. Shape or Profile of the surface (wing) 4. Angle of Attack and 5. Surface Area. Lets say you've managed to evolve say 20% of a wing, your not going to fly. How about even 50% of a wing? Not a chance. Unless you have enough lift to equal your weight you're not getting off the ground. Since it has to evolve over generations and not in real time the only real thing you could change to get more lift (other than angle of attack wich can only do so much before you stall) would be velocity, but even at 1/2 a wing let alone especially 15% or 25% of a wing not even plunging off a cliff would give you enough speed to fly let alone having to overcome the real solid instict to not fall over a cliff. Now how long does it take to evolve something? Millions of years? Why on earth would you keep evolving flight characteristics when each succeeding generation is no closer to leaving the ground than the previous one? Let alone design. How would a protobird know what was neccessary to evolve in order to fly when even given random mutations those changes would no more produce a flying creature than the previous one? Aerodynamics are very specialized, you have to make just the right wing for your flight envelope, there is no possibly way you could randomly develop crude flight from having no previous flight characteristics (you don't see any flying people do you? they've been "evolving" just as long but people don't fly just the birds and bats and bugs). You have to design the whole plane and wing based around how you want it to fly not just throw on a pair of wings and expect it to go. Eagles fly differently than a swallow because of their weight. Not to mention structure. Flying things are very light. Birds have hollow bones. Now for a ground creature having hollow bones would make it very weak and would not be a good change so why would you evolve hollow bones if you were going to live on the ground when it would hurt your chances at survival so then how would it "know" that it was neccessary for flight or even that it was going to fly if each generation that got closer to flight was less successful on the ground and had a higher chance of being eaten.

These are just a few of the problems with evolution. I reccommend "Godless" by Ann Coulter as a good book that lists even more. Needless to say these few alone are enough to make evolution "hard science" let alone a fact. It's not a sound theory and shouldn't really be treated as one.

Maybe you missed the point, the atheistic evolution you are describing here isnt an option within Orthodoxy ( no one here denies the action of God as creator ).

That said, If you seriously want to debate evolution vs creationism I'd suggest that it might be appropriate to do so in the forum set aside for that purpose, you should be prepared for a nasty shock though as they will literally demolish weak sauce like this quite easily.

This thread was not a general evolution vs creation thread rather it relates specifically to Orthodox views on Creation.

[MsDahl]

All NTL is expecting you to do is some research, so that you can make sure your opinion is completely informed, because your lack of knowledge of the Orthodox justification for theistic evolution shows that you do need to do research on the subject rather than assuming your interpretation of the Fathers is correct.

He has exhibited the patience of a saint in response to your attempts to taunt him, and I think you owe him an apology.

I wanted to rep you but you have it turned off. I just read this thread in its entirety and I couldn't agree more with your comment. Most posters in NTL's position would have gotten nasty long ago when faced with the taunting he has received.


I did have 2 questions:

1- What does YEC stand for?
2- This is slightly off topic, where do concepts like the dinosaurs fit into a literal interpretation with no belief in evolution? How is the fact that there are actual dinosaur bones on display in museums explained?

Theistic evolution is the stance that man was always man and did not evolve from an ape, right?

[jckstraw72]

yet God has made St Augustine a saint anyway despite his open allegorical reading?

1. we all know St. Augustine has theological errors already ...
2. im reading the City of God right now ... he says he doesnt know what the 6 days means, but other than that the things he says are completely incompatible with evolution -- he is pretty much a creationist. if i recall correctly he says he thinks the 6 days are an allegory for just one day but isnt dogmatic about it. ive actually been taking notes on it, i can post some of the stuff he says tomorrow if need be.

[Protoevangel]

1- What does YEC stand for?
Young Earth Creation (that the earth, and all life, was created between six and 10 - 15 or so thousand years ago).

2- This is slightly off topic, where do concepts like the dinosaurs fit into a literal interpretation with no belief in evolution? How is the fact that there are actual dinosaur bones on display in museums explained?
That man and dinosaur co-existed for a time.

Theistic evolution is the stance that man was always man and did not evolve from an ape, right?
Not necessarily. Theistic evolution is the belief that God guided evolution, and that man was (may have been) at one time a lower creature (perhaps parallel to an ape, and even lower...), but received the breath of God at a point in his evolutionary climb.

[jckstraw72]

i dont understand why we rethink the Fathers bc of atheistic science ONLY on Genesis .... what other Scriptures and Patristics do we treat in this manner?

[ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs]

2- This is slightly off topic, where do concepts like the dinosaurs fit into a literal interpretation with no belief in evolution? How is the fact that there are actual dinosaur bones on display in museums explained?

One of the more intriguing theories I've heard is that the earth's climate was very different after the flood (less oxygen and lower atmospheric pressure) and dinosaurs were no longer able to survive. This is also used to explain why the lifespans of humans declined so dramatically and quickly after the flood.

I even read of a creation scientist who replicated what he believed to be the conditions of an antediluvian earth and his cherry tomato plants grew several meters tall and produced cherry tomatoes the size of softballs.

But this comes from Kent Hovind's lectures so I won't vouch for its accuracy.

[jckstraw72]

One of the more intriguing theories I've heard is that the earth's climate was very different after the flood (less oxygen and lower atmospheric pressure) and dinosaurs were no longer able to survive. This is also used to explain why the lifespans of humans declined so dramatically and quickly after the flood.

I even read of a creation scientist who replicated what he believed to be the conditions of an antediluvian earth and his cherry tomato plants grew several meters tall and produced cherry tomatoes the size of softballs.

But this comes from Kent Hovind's lectures so I won't vouch for its accuracy.

if i recall correctly Fr. Seraphim suggests something like that.

[jckstraw72]

and as for saying why did God create in 6 days but leave evidence that says otherwise .... well He didnt ... it only looks that way if you accept the anti-Tradition assumptions of uniformitarianism. if you accept the Patristic witness theres no confusion.

[MsDahl]

Young Earth Creation (that the earth, and all life, was created between six and 10 - 15 or so thousand years ago).
Ah, ok. Thanks

That man and dinosaur co-existed for a time.

Then how can it be explained that man continued to exist but the dinosaurs did not? Something along the lines with TPFKA stated? Also, man and dinosaur co-existing....this can be believed to have occured in this 6k - 15k lifespan of earth?


Not necessarily. Theistic evolution is the belief that God guided evolution, and that man was (may have been) at one time a lower creature (perhaps parallel to an ape, and even lower...), but received the breath of God at a point in his evolutionary climb.


Wouldn't this be in direct contradiction to the Bible? Doesn't it clearly state that when God made man, he was made superior to the animals of the earth complete with an ability to think thoughts of reason? Also, is there no theistic evolutionist p.o.v. that believes man was always man and never at the level of an ape?


One of the more intriguing theories I've heard is that the earth's climate was very different after the flood (less oxygen and lower atmospheric pressure) and dinosaurs were no longer able to survive. This is also used to explain why the lifespans of humans declined so dramatically and quickly after the flood.

I even read of a creation scientist who replicated what he believed to be the conditions of an antediluvian earth and his cherry tomato plants grew several meters tall and produced cherry tomatoes the size of softballs.

But this comes from Kent Hovind's lectures so I won't vouch for its accuracy.

That is one interesting explanation! My son is currently in a dinosaur phase and we are reading everything and anything about dinosaurs, have plenty of 'osauruses' to play with and now it's causing me to really start understanding what I believe about evolution in light of being an Orthodox Christian.

[Protoevangel]

Ah, ok. Thanks

Then how can it be explained that man continued to exist but the dinosaurs did not? Something along the lines with TPFKA stated?
That is one explanation. Most explanations I have heard do tend to center around the flood.

Also, man and dinosaur co-existing....this can be believed to have occured in this 6k - 15k lifespan of earth?
Correct.

Not necessarily. Theistic evolution is the belief that God guided evolution, and that man was (may have been) at one time a lower creature (perhaps parallel to an ape, and even lower...), but received the breath of God at a point in his evolutionary climb.
Wouldn't this be in direct contradiction to the Bible? Doesn't it clearly state that when God made man, he was made superior to the animals of the earth complete with an ability to think thoughts of reason?
Exactly. But when that gets brought up, we get called names like protestant, fundamentalist and obscurantist.

Also, is there no theistic evolutionist p.o.v. that believes man was always man and never at the level of an ape?
Well, yea, the theistic evolutionist position is pretty fluid, and changes with the person who is arguing it at the time. A person can claim that, but it is not necessarily what theistic evolution teaches.

[Matrona]

Wouldn't this be in direct contradiction to the Bible? Doesn't it clearly state that when God made man, he was made superior to the animals of the earth complete with an ability to think thoughts of reason? Also, is there no theistic evolutionist p.o.v. that believes man was always man and never at the level of an ape?

There are theistic evolutionists who believe humans arose separately (so evolution applies to non-human organic life only) so as to be made in the image of God, and some who believe that the Genesis account can be interpreted as saying God fashioned man in His image from lower life forms.

[NewToLife]

i dont understand why we rethink the Fathers bc of atheistic science ONLY on Genesis .... what other Scriptures and Patristics do we treat in this manner?


For my part I do not understand why you treat the Fathers in the way that you do, very clearly the Fathers are less central to Tradition than scripture itself yet here we are with you basically appealing to the Fathers as some infallible authority in the manner that some protestants appeal to scripture ( to for instance, deny the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos ).

The fact of the matter is that the writings of the Fathers are lower than the canonical books, they are not in fact infallible and can even, on occasion, be outright wrong. To look to the fathers to comment on evolution is odd, most of these men wrote more than a millenium before the issue arose, we may as well look to them for comments on the automobile or manned flight ( this is particularly true when you are using sermons rather than theological treatises ). The Fathers were often great saints, nevertheless they were also men who lived in a time and place quite different from our own, their primary value ( aside of that inherent in all men ) is not that they are inspired in anyway but rather that they witness to what the Church has held as indisputable Truth through the ages, serve as example and encouragement through the way in which they lived and pray before God on the faithful's behalf.

The Church remains vital, a living organism, it is not some relic frozen in a previous time and it is the Church as a unified living body that interprets both the scriptures and the Fathers. As noted previously the Church simply has not spoken on this issue and does not look likely to do so anytime soon.

Tradition confirms that the Church has always allowed freedom outside of core dogmatic beliefs, this is a practice that has given and continues to give the Church great resiliance, it would be utterly outside of Tradition and alien to the Church to start extending dogma into areas it has not previously inhabited. Further it would be a great danger to do so, look at Rome for your example of what can happen when you start defining things left, right and centre. Indeed look at Orthodoxy's historically calm reaction to Darwin and those who have developed his work, now look at the mess the west got into over the same issue.

I think Fr. Georges Florovsky says it well;

Tradition is not a principle striving to restore the past, using the past as a criterion for the present. Such a conception of tradition is rejected by history itself and by the consciousness of the Orthodox Church... Tradition is the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only the memory of words. Tradition is a charismatic, not a historical event

[jckstraw72]

of course Scripture is above the Fathers, but where do you look for the proper understanding of Scriptures? If you dont look to the mind of the Fathers you end up with Protesant individualism. And I dont look to the Fathers to comment on evolution, but rather on Scripture. But then again, there are multiple modern Saints who DO comment on evolution -- not in the positive of course.

[jckstraw72]

As noted previously the Church simply has not spoken on this issue and does not look likely to do so anytime soon.

thats really not true. The Church has said a whole lot about Genesis. The Church has said hardly anything in the manner you want it to ... as I said before, I can think of baptism being the only sacrament that is mentioned in Ecumenical creeds or statements. Does that mean the other sacraments are open to interpretation? I left Protestantism to get away from such silliness.

[NewToLife]

Wouldn't this be in direct contradiction to the Bible? Doesn't it clearly state that when God made man, he was made superior to the animals of the earth complete with an ability to think thoughts of reason?

This probably needs a response so I will note that the contradiction is not necessary. If we look to St Basil's brother ( and student ) St Gregory of Nyssa we actually find within the patristic witness early evidence of a belief in a major father that man's body is simply formed but the soul is created directly by God. We find a similar idea also in later saints such as St Theophan the Recluse.

To quote St Theophan;

This body — what was it? Some clay figurine of the grey-hen or a live body? It was a live body, an animal that looked like a man with the animal soul and then The Lord breathed in it His breath...

If I can locate St Gregory's comment I will link to it.

EDIT: Located St Gregory's comment in 'On the making of man';

God created inner man and shaped outer man; the flesh is shaped, but the soul is created

also came across St Seraphim of Sarov saying;

The Lord created from the earth not just Adam’s flesh, but his soul as well, and his human spirit: but until the moment that God breathed the breath of life into him, Adam was like the other animals

[jckstraw72]

St. Theophan's quote hardly allows for evolution. The only difference is that he has not understood the formation of the body and the inbreathing of the soul to be simultaneous as did the earlier Fathers.

[NewToLife]

thats really not true. The Church has said a whole lot about Genesis. The Church has said hardly anything in the manner you want it to ... as I said before, I can think of baptism being the only sacrament that is mentioned in Ecumenical creeds or statements. Does that mean the other sacraments are open to interpretation? I left Protestantism to get away from such silliness.


The Church has not dogmatized this view, you need to get past that idea. As for the sacraments they are recorded historically as the Churches universal practice and supported by canon so they are hardly a fitting comparison. There is variation within the Patristic witness in terms of interpretation of Genesis and there is neither dogma nor canon to support you continued assertion that the Church has adopted a hard position on the interpretation. You accuse heresy on the flimsiest of grounds.

of course Scripture is above the Fathers, but where do you look for the proper understanding of Scriptures? If you dont look to the mind of the Fathers you end up with Protesant individualism. And I dont look to the Fathers to comment on evolution, but rather on Scripture. But then again, there are multiple modern Saints who DO comment on evolution -- not in the positive of course.


You should be careful not to oversate your case here in terms of what saints do or do not say, saints are entitled to personal opinions and may even be wrong on occasion.

As for interpretation you look to the Church, you do not engage in the same error that protestants commit removed once to patristic texts.

Orthodoxy is primarily empirical in nature and in large part rejects metaphysics as a basis for faith, this idea is testified to in the defense and practice of hesychasm which is empirical in nature. I imagine we both realise hesychasm is central to the Church's practice. It is hard to see how we can attempt to reject an evidential approach to nature in favour of vague metaphysical ideas and remain inline with Tradition. If we do not treat evidence reasonably we do violence to the empiracal approach defended by St Gregory Palamas amongst others and presumably should accept our error and adopt western metaphysical ideas?

Orthodoxy has a long history of accepting that the study of nature is a means of revelation. This is testified to in many Fathers and in the attitudes of the Church through history. It has no dogma dictating that Genesis should only be interpreted in a way that contradicts that history.

[NewToLife]

St. Theophan's quote hardly allows for evolution. The only difference is that he has not understood the formation of the body and the inbreathing of the soul to be simultaneous as did the earlier Fathers.


We obviously read it quite differently then, I think it is a relevent to the point I was addressing which addressed Man as special creation in that it does not hold to that the human body is created directly and indeed describes the body in animal terms. What separates Man from the animals is his soul, created directly by God, not his body formed as an animal.

[NewToLife]

This will be my final post in this thread and is in essense an appeal for sanity in our use of the fathers;

There are those here who hold that we should not accept that the fathers were men of their day, often learned men, always holy men but nevertheless limited by the knowledge of their age. To those posters I ask what they do with other patristic accounts where the father is simply wrong because of the limit of knowledge available to him?

For instance what do we do with this;

Near Arabia there is a bird called the Phoenix. It is born alone only and lives for 500 years. As it approaches its death, it… makes itself a nest into which,