old earth v. new earth creationism

[Ravenonthecross]

Old Earth or New Earth Creationism? which one does Orthodoxy approve of or which one is more prevalent. I myself am an Old-Earth Creationist, I would like the thoughts of others on this subject.

[Kristos]

It seems to me like I am neither. I don't think the Genesis was meant to scientifically describe the age of the earth. When people get wrapped around the axle about the age of the earth as related to Genesis, they tend to miss the real message.

Some old earth theories can be out right denied - like Gap theory. Orthodoxy teaches creation ex-nihilo. 2 Macc. 7:28

Which old earth theory are you subscribing to?

Do you categorize theistic evolution as a separate category?

[rdhosken]

To me it seems we're missing the point of the Scriptures if we view it as a geology textbook. It's not that, nor is it a handbook on car repair. The Bible contains medicine for our souls.

[Mikeb85]

Old Earth or New Earth Creationism? which one does Orthodoxy approve of or which one is more prevalent. I myself am an Old-Earth Creationist, I would like the thoughts of others on this subject.

I guess I'd probably fall into the Old-Earth Creationist category. I believe the earth was created, I don't believe in any sort of evolution, however I believe it's folly to try and come up with any sort of 'date' for the creation of the world, or to try figure out how it was done. For me, it's enough to know that it was created.

[Ravenonthecross]

I know it's not a scientific text-book; but it is the Word of our Lord and its veracity is beyond doubt; then in some manner whether those 6-days of creation are literally 6 24hour days or 6 "epochs" over which God gradually made everything. (Evolution is bunk; And need not be included here.)

P.s. I subscribe to Old-Earth Creationism whereby the 6 days of Creation are Epochs where God made all gradually: hence, the seemingly ancient perception of Creation.

[Kristos]

Before God wrote the Law, He wrote creation. The composition of scripture follows only because of the composition of the world and specifically, Man. Without a creature endowed with the ability to understand history, there would be no reason for it. So God's word is not only in scripture but also in all of creation. His creation cannot lie just like His scripture does not lie. Our perception and observation of creation may be slanted or incorrect at times, but itself is always true.

[Ravenonthecross]

Jawohl

[Greg the byzantine]

I believe in Old Earth Creation out of nothing. I am also an evolutionist and I know I will be treated harshly by other Christians for it, but I don't mind since evolution does not take God out of the picture since I believe he is the one who is causing it to happen.

*****Just as a disclaimer this is just a personal opinion. As far as I know there is no official position of the church.

[Epiphanius]

My SF always insisted that it didn't matter how old the earth was or how God created it, only that God did create it. The rest is a mystery and has fairly little impact on our day to day spiritual concerns.

[juliagreece]

My SF always insisted that it didn't matter how old the earth was or how God created it, only that God did create it. The rest is a mystery and has fairly little impact on our day to day spiritual concerns.
:amen:

[Kristos]

Excellent book on creation:

http://conciliarpress.com/creation-and-the-patriarchal-histories.html

I'm only half way through it, but so far it's very good.

[rusmeister]

I believe in Old Earth Creation out of nothing. I am also an evolutionist and I know I will be treated harshly by other Christians for it, but I don't mind since evolution does not take God out of the picture since I believe he is the one who is causing it to happen.

*****Just as a disclaimer this is just a personal opinion. As far as I know there is no official position of the church.
Let me be the first to be harsh to Greg...
Bad Greg! Bad Greg!
(Lashes with wet noodles)
:P

[Kristos]

Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of nature. Humans routinely use this fact to enhance desirable attributes of domestic animals - cow with less fat, sheep with more wool, dog with more bark. What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was evolution in nature. Where he went wrong was extrapolating his observations into a theory that all life could have originated from a single cell organism and evolved into what we have today. This theory falls apart quickly especially when considering organisms with irreducible complexity.

[Protoevangel]

In antiquity, in a general sense, the Antiochian school tended to treat the text of Genesis as six literal days for creation, and only about six-thousand years of total world history. You can see this strongly in such writings as the Hexameron by St Basil the Great and some of St John Chrysostom's homilies. The Alexandrian school, however, had a much stronger attachment to allegorical and spiritual interpretation, and had less concern for the literal. Some of the venerable writers believed literally in the one-thousand years is a day model. Some didn't speculate as to how long creation took.

We have Saints who took the creation account literally, and we have Saints who did not take the creation account literally. To say either one is "the Orthodox position" would be a mistake. It is equally wrong to ostracize or disrespect those who differ in opinion. We can discuss the relative strengths and weakness of each position while loving each other.

If one believes in interspecies/intergenus/interfamily/interorder etc... evolution, that is fine and good. But in the past, some have tried to force the reconciliation of this opinion, with the writings of the Saints. This is a mistake, which does violence to the Saints, and to their writings.

We can have differing opinions, as long as we keep our focus on Christ and love of neighbor. We should be honest enough to admit when our opinion differs from that of the Saints. We should also be honest enough to admit when our opinion differs from the opinion of the established scientific community. And that is where I personally stand. I agree with the Scriptural interpretation of Saint Basil, St John Chrysostom, and the Antiochian school, and I disagree with the general consensus of the scientific community. This is because I believe Holy Scripture speaks plainly about Creation, (while encompassing many allegories and spiritual truths), and the scientific community, imo, is assuming conclusions based on incomplete data.

[rusmeister]

What Protoevangel said.

Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of nature. Humans routinely use this fact to enhance desirable attributes of domestic animals - cow with less fat, sheep with more wool, dog with more bark. What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was evolution in nature. Where he went wrong was extrapolating his observations into a theory that all life could have originated from a single cell organism and evolved into what we have today. This theory falls apart quickly especially when considering organisms with irreducible complexity.

A temporary adaptation is by no means 'evolution' in the sense of permanent change.

Also, I would object to calling a scientific theory "observable fact".

That said, my objections to the idea of evolution (especially human evolution) are philosophical, not scientific,so I won't argue them on scientific grounds.

[Kristos]

http://soundbiteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/scarecrow.gif

[Protoevangel]

http://soundbiteblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/scarecrow.gif
If I only had a brain, huh Kristos?

So, is this your definition of being the image of Christ? Disrespecting those brothers who respectfully disagree with your position?

Not quite what I intended when I said, "We have Saints who took the creation account literally, and we have Saints who did not take the creation account literally. To say either one is "the Orthodox position" would be a mistake. It is equally wrong to ostracize or disrespect those who differ in opinion. We can discuss the relative strengths and weakness of each position while loving each other."

I had hoped your response would show a little more maturity.

[Kristos]

If I only had a brain, huh Kristos?

So, is this your definition of being the image of Christ? Disrespecting those brothers who respectfully disagree with your position?

Not quite what I intended when I said, "We have Saints who took the creation account literally, and we have Saints who did not take the creation account literally. To say either one is "the Orthodox position" would be a mistake. It is equally wrong to ostracize or disrespect those who differ in opinion. We can discuss the relative strengths and weakness of each position while loving each other."

I had hoped your response would show a little more maturity.

What are you talking about?

[Protoevangel]

What are you talking about?
Well, you posted a picture of the Scarecrow ("If I only had a brain") with no commentary, and no context, except for your post stating that "Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of nature", followed by two posts who openly admit to stand against the general consensus of the scientific community.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be angered by your post... In fact, I would almost expect to have posts like that in a subject such as this. It was just a little disappointing.

On the other hand, I certainly could well be wrong about your intent in posting the picture, I HOPE I WAS WRONG, but for the life of me, I can see no other purpose for that post. If I was wrong, I would be very interested in knowing the actual intent of your post.

[Kreikkalainen]

Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of nature. Humans routinely use this fact to enhance desirable attributes of domestic animals - cow with less fat, sheep with more wool, dog with more bark. What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was evolution in nature. Where he went wrong was extrapolating his observations into a theory that all life could have originated from a single cell organism and evolved into what we have today. This theory falls apart quickly especially when considering organisms with irreducible complexity.

On logical grounds, I have to disagree with the bolded part. Natural selection as defined by the theory of evolution is not at all observable, because by definition it takes a few thousands of years at best to move from one species to another very closely related one, let alone to a totally new species. What is observable is the current state, which theories try to explain. As for humans using natural selection - the fact that humans use it, makes it not natural. The idea is that humans fast-track what nature would take thousands of years to do, in order to produce more useful species. Putting aside the fact that in many people's view this whole business is in fact abuse rather than use of the environment, still the idea that nature would do the same given time is not proven, or actually not provable at all.

Having said that, scientifically speaking evolution is the prevailing theory out there despite its holes, and that's something that I would hesitate to discredit light-heartedly. One needs to keep an open mind on scientific theories though - once upon a time, science thought that light is composed of particles. Then it thought it's composed of waves. More recently, quantum theory came & said it's pretty much a bit of both.

The point is, scientific theories change & some day they will not matter at all anyway. The historical event of the Resurrection of Christ, on which our Faith & our Life are based, will not change though but will triumph - as a matter of fact it's already triumphant.

[Greg the byzantine]

On logical grounds, I have to disagree with the bolded part. Natural selection as defined by the theory of evolution is not at all observable, because by definition it takes a few thousands of years at best to move from one species to another very closely related one, let alone to a totally new species. What is observable is the current state, which theories try to explain. As for humans using natural selection - the fact that humans use it, makes it not natural. The idea is that humans fast-track what nature would take thousands of years to do, in order to produce more useful species. Putting aside the fact that in many people's view this whole business is in fact abuse rather than use of the environment, still the idea that nature would do the same given time is not proven, or actually not provable at all.
I have to disagree. We can actually observe the results of Natural Selection in living populations of insects, especially those with a short lifespan and large number of offspring. The same can be observed in viruses (although not considered "living") and bacteria. Epidemiologists are constantly studying the evolution of bacteria and viruses in order to create flu-vaccines etc.

Having said that, scientifically speaking evolution is the prevailing theory out there despite its holes, and that's something that I would hesitate to discredit light-heartedly. One needs to keep an open mind on scientific theories though - once upon a time, science thought that light is composed of particles. Then it thought it's composed of waves. More recently, quantum theory came & said it's pretty much a bit of both.Yes, even scientists agree that nothing is fact which is why experiments are actually designed to discredit a hypothesis. Historically some theories that were widely held have been discredited, but that doesn't mean all should be held suspect because of it.

The point is, scientific theories change & some day they will not matter at all anyway. The historical event of the Resurrection of Christ, on which our Faith & our Life are based, will not change though but will triumph - as a matter of fact it's already triumphant.:thumbsup: This we can agree upon :amen:

[Kreikkalainen]

Well, Greg, actually I think all scientific theories must be held suspect, otherwise research ceases and science becomes faith - that last bit is exactly the dangerous part in this whole business, which as christians we should avoid.

Anyway, it's late here :):wave:.

[rusmeister]

Well, Greg, actually I think all scientific theories must be held suspect, otherwise research ceases and science becomes faith - that last bit is exactly the dangerous part in this whole business, which as christians we should avoid.

Anyway, it's late here :):wave:.
Let me publicly rep and second this post!

[jckstraw72]

i just dont understnad why we cant accept the common Patristic teaching on Genesis which is by and large literal. The Church adopted a calendar in the Byzantine period that says that this year is the year 7516 from the creation of the world. Russians thought the world was going ot end in 1492 (i think) because it was the 7000th year of creation. Modern Saints just as St. Barsanuphious of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, Fr. Seraphim, Elder Cleopa, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim all come down on the Patristic side. I would just like to find one holy person who accepts an old earth or especially evolution. The Fathers teach that the earth was created as a kingdom for man, so if the earth is millions of years old then there is millions of years of a meaningless creation before man hits the scene. Also, according to a canon from the Council of Orange (i forget which one) which was later ratified by Quinisext and the 7th Ecumenical Council we are to be anathema if we believe that Adam and Eve would have died bodily even without sin, which is a necessary belief if you accept evolution.

[rusmeister]

Well, Jack, I am inclined to accept young earth creation and to reject evolution as the truth, but I think it is right and reasonable that the Church has not taken Patristic sayings and declared a dogma from them. It would unnecessarily drive away people who do hold current scientific theories in a high place on an issue that is not salvific.

[jckstraw72]

thank you for the support Rus, but i dont see how we can say its not salvific at all. i know at least St. John Chrysostom said God gave us such exact details of creation for our salvation. The ECFs spilled a ridiculous amount of ink on this subject if it is really not salvific

[rusmeister]

Those who accept theistic evolution acknowledge the truth of God's salvation and the Genesis account - they merely dispute its interpretation. As such, they would agree with St John. They just don't agree that we are to understand all of the text literally. Unfortunately, the Church does not have one teaching on this question. It would (to me) be nice if it did. However, it doesn't do affect the account of the Fall or man's sinfulness or subsequent need for salvation.

That's why my objections to evolution are philosophical, not scientific. Science can discover oodles of stuff, and it can be evidence for this, that, or the other thing. But all of their (material) facts, evidence and theories do not, however hard they try, add up to Truth. The existence of God Himself is not an established scientific fact, nor is it an experimental hypothesis. There is nothing in all of our science that expressly proves God. But He does exist. Thus, scientific claims and discoveries resolve nothing. When they come up against the first cause of the natural universe, they reach the end of their scientific limitations. They must adopt one view or another, on faith, or say "I don't know" and have to put up with those who do claim to know, either those who accept Creation by God vs those who accept the more mystical doctrines of Creation from nothing or eternal existence of the universe.

What I find as completely inconsistent with faith is the idea of human evolution, and this I resist strongly. I do not see any compatibility between it and our Faith - it would presuppose that man "reached" a point of accountability on his own. Yes, God can do things slowly as well as quickly. Yes, our current science tells us (based on the assumptions of experiment, things like carbon dating, etc) that things are millions of years old (they even talk of billions). Could be true, but the weakness of the first assumptions of all experiments make all of our scientific knowledge dependent on "if..., then...". If the "if" is wrong, it all falls apart, however carefully crafted and followed. There cannot be dogmatic certainty of something we have not seen for ourselves. We can accept assumptions for operating purposes, but dogmatic acceptance of "fact" as truth is where the scientist goes wrong. The true scientist knows that his knowledge is conditional.

[Josiah14]

I don't consider that the time used to create the Universe is really of much practical importance for most people. The original Hebrew leaves the first few chapters of Genesis which describe creation to be interpreted in a number of ways, regarding time lapse. I wont go into the details.

I am generally not an advocate of Old Earth Creationism because it seems to me that it can abstract the sacredness and roles of the days of the week. I will use the Sabbath day as an example. If the days were ages, then it would seem that the 7th day was made sacred by God while not being sacred jointly because of how it directly tied in to the creation of the world. In this view, the Sacredness of the Sabbath is quite naturally inherited according to the actions (or lack thereof) performed on that day. If God actually did rest on the 7th day, it helps in my mind to treat it as sacred, rather than believe that the 7th day represents an Age in which God rested and is only Sacred because God decided make that day represent His Age of rest.

Similarly, Christ really did rest in the Tomb on the 7th day after completing His work on Earth (the pinnacle of which was His crucifixion) to restore man. Here, He laid (rested) literally on the Sabbath day from His work, having died and been placed in the Tomb on Friday, and to rise again on Sunday. Christ did not rest in the Tomb for an age. The fact that Christ really did rest in the Tomb for an actual Sabbath sanctifies the day by the act itself. I tend to believe that God sanctified the Sabbath Day in Creation in much the same way.

Further, It would seem a little strange to me for God to sanctify the 7th day to make it represent an Age of many years, yet insist on declaring that God rested and then there was day and night, the 7th day. Using the terminology of night and day jointly with each 'Age' of Creation just seems strange if each day of Creation wasn't meant to be taken as a real day.

However, I can understand the counter argument since now we celebrate Sunday as the 8th day in which we participate in "the Age to come".

I am also wary of Old Earth Creationism because it leaves open speculation about Evolutionary Theory. Evolution does not seem to agree well with the way God creates in the Genesis story. First, the engine that drives evolution is Natural Selection, which requires death. We, as Orthodox Christians, believe that death entered the world through sin. For this reason, the 'scientific' (I think its more pholosophical) "theory" (more of a hypothesis) of Evolution is in direct opposition of Christian Doctrine. If you want to believe that God created all animals through some kind of evolutionary-like method that didnt involve death, I guess thats ok, though it still seems to be at odds with the description of how God created everything else in Genesis. In Genesis, Creation is presented as God speaks, and it is. Period. I haven't devoted much thought to what an evoltionary-like view of creation could lead to in theology if it is adopted by an individual so that it permeates their whole worldview and affects the way they live life. I suspect that it could lead a person to some scary conclusions about the way that God interacts with His Creation, though.

It is important to note that a view of Evolution without death is not supported scientifically and is not the Evolutionary Theory that is promoted in the secular 'scholarly' world. Thus, such a twist on the theory of Evolution is more of a philosophical stance, and even it stands at odds to some degree with what the so-called scholars of the world teach. In this way, adopting Evolutionary theology that would seem to agree with the Church Tradition will put you at odds with the majority of the Patristic Fathers (including John Chrysostom) as well as the secular 'scientists' who have been developing and researching the 'theory'. I don't really see the point in taking such a view.

I would ardently exhort all to hold and defend the view that man is not descended from monkeys or primates, though, considering the other animals (lacking a noetic element) are not of Trinitarian likeness. Believing that man has evolved out of the animistic creation can lead to a lot of terrifying and harmful theological heresies.

It is important always to recognize that science can only explain the world as it is today. The fall of man caused a catastrophic event that, according to Orthodox Teaching, affected all creation in a big way. We know that before the introduction of sin to the material creation, there was no physical death. What else might have changed, and to what degree, we can merely speculate at. Certainly, if God is orderly, anything disorderly or chaotic about the Universe was introduced by sin. Since Holy Orthodox Tradition shows us that there was a major change in creation caused by man's fall, Science simply cannot make statements that project past the fall of man and remain truly Science. That realm is left up to philosophy and theology. For this reason, we must be sure to hold the writings of the Patristic Fathers and our Holy Tradition and our Church's ancient teachings in the first and highest regard when considering such questions relating to the Creation of the world and all that is in it.

However, because it seems many people can make sense of the world in a relatively Orthodox manner while holding either viewpoint on creation, Young Earth or Old Earth, I place little importance on the actual time taken in Creation and more importance on the descriptions of the methods used to bring the world and all that is in it into being. I just recognize that Old Earth Creationism can open wider the door to certain beliefs that, if taken to their logical conclusions, can be salvifically harmful.

If anything I have said here is unOrthodox, correct what I have incorrectly written here in this thread for all to see. I recognize that I have not cited any specific Scripture or Church Fathers, and so willingly open my statements to the scrutiny of more educated individuals of Eastern Orthodox background. I am simply giving my opinions based upon the impressions I have received through attempting to live my life according to what I have received from the Orthodox Church.

I am sorry I had to spend so much time on Evolution when it would seem to many to be a topic that is secondary to the question of Old Earth or Young Earth Creation. I felt it necessary to discuss Evolution in detail to illustrate fully at least one dangerous viewpoint that can take hold through the adoption of the belief of Old Earth Creationism. I also recognize Evolution, alongside modern dating methods, to be among the cheif reasons people feel it necessary to adopt Old Earth Creationism today. For this reason also, I spent a lot of time on Evolution.

Pray for me, an unworthy sinner,
Josiah