Is it Orthodox to believe in God directed evolution?

[Akathist]

My undergradutate degree was in religion and anthroplogy, so I have been taught evolutioninsm of humans in great (and tedious) detail in my physical anthropology classes.

As a Protestant (in the denominations and churches I attended) I didn't mention my belief in God directed evolution because I didn't want a debate. I just believed this and let it go.

But I was following a link someone put to the "Orthodox Church" by Bs. Kollistos Ware, and found on that site other on line texts about Orthodoxy.

Here is a link about Evolution and Orthodoxy:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0809/_P12.HTM

I don't know if this author is credible or not. Has anyone else explored this issue?

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

This is another one of those things that is not carved out in stone. You don't have to believe in theistic evolution to be Orthodox. I have, however, come across articles about it before from credible Orthodox people. I don't have the exact link on hand, but Bishop Mileant has written some good things in support of evolution (but not Darwinistic evolution). www.fatheralexander.org (http://www.fatheralexander.org) There are a couple links that talk about creation, so you might have to look around a little.

[Rilian]

I see no reason to suppose that a process of change or development wasn't part of God's design. The site GDE mentioned is a good one, and this article in particular Orthodoxy and Creationism (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm) probably covers what you're talking about.

I don't know if you've ever read it, but Touchstone Magazine (http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/navigation_docs/darwinsLastStand.html) just had a whole issue devoted to intelligent design which had a number of interesting articles.

[Dust and Ashes]

Thank you for these links. I have always had trouble reconciling Creation and Evolution because it is typically included by theistic evolutionists that man evolved from a lower form and the soul is an "emergent property of the brain" and that some higher animals probably have rudimentary souls, etc. I can't accept this because if it is not true that "by one man, sin entered the world." then how did sin and death enter the world? In fact, I always leaned toward a personal belief that God caused the earth to "bring forth" life then created man as His masterpiece by His own Hand. This helps a lot.

[Akathist]

I can't accept this because if it is not true that "by one man, sin entered the world." then how did sin and death enter the world? In fact, I always leaned toward a personal belief that God caused the earth to "bring forth" life then created man as His masterpiece by His own Hand. This helps a lot.
I struggled with that many times. I wonder if "death" refers to the death of mankind, not animals, and that "Adam" was the first homosapien that resemples us. Before that the species was not human.

Again, this is my own musings. I didn't read the links above yet but I can't read them tonight. I just can't concentrate well. (Can't think why I would be upset about anything!)

[Orthodox Andrew]

Check out this thread.

http://christianforums.com/t729149

[Patristic]

I definitely don't think as some fundamentalists do that if you don't interpret Genesis literally then your committment to Christ is suddenly suspect. Thus, I don't believe Christianity and evolution are incompatible, it's just that I have a hard time reconciling the two personally. I too struggle with the whole relationship between Christ and Adam and how that fits into an evolutionary paradigm.

[Matthias]

You can be Orthodox and believe in old earth creation, evolution, new earth creation, and many other things. The sky is the limit.

[Mary of Bethany]

Not exactly. It isn't Orthodox to believe in any form of evolution or creation which leaves out God.

[Matthew777]

Why an Orthodox Christian Cannot be an Evolutionist
http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html

Genesis and Early Man

The Orthodox Patristic Understanding

An article entitled The Eternal Will was printed in The Christian Activist Volume 11, Fall/Winter 1997. It was a lecture given by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros on evolution vs. creationism and his interpretation of the traditional teachings by the Fathers of the Orthodox Church about Genesis. This is a response to Dr. Kalomiros by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It has been excerpted for length by Frank Schaeffer.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Matthew777]

I hope these sources will help. Fr. Rose is a reliable authority on the fathers of the church, and he uses quotes from the fathers to show their interpretation of Genesis.

We musn't have a "literal" or "allegorical" understanding of Genesis. What matters is the patristic understanding.

Fr. Deacon Andrey Kuraev should be suspect in his interpretation of the creation vs. evolution contraversy, especially since he makes no reference to what the fathers actually taught on the six days of Creation.

[Maximus]

I don't really worry about this issue very much. It's not something that concerns me.

However, I do not believe in evolution. It just doesn't make sense to me, and all of the so-called "evidence" I have seen is based on interpreting data according to a set of preconceived ideas.

I also recall the treacherous Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin, an ardent evolutionist. His melding of Latin Christianity with Hinduism and evolutionism has done untold harm to the Roman Church.

[Marjorie]

One thing that someone said on another board that I thought was ingenious was the fact that time itself as we know it is a product of the fallen world that we live in. So to quibble about what happened "before" the Fall is bound to be a problem, although of course the idea of death in ANY part of Creation "before" Adam is troubling. But time worked differently then, in a way we can't understand, so it's best not even to worry about it and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Philip]

I don't really worry about this issue very much. It's not something that concerns me.

Agreed. I have enough fear and trembling to do already to worry about whether or not I actually am a monkey.

[Maximus]

Agreed. I have enough fear and trembling to do already to worry about whether or not I actually am a monkey.

Lol! ^_^

[countrymouse33ad]

Agreed. I have enough fear and trembling to do already to worry about whether or not I actually am a monkey.

I hear you. :)

Something I read in one of Fr. Alexander Schmemann's articles, somewhere, made sense. The gist of it was that, among the creatures God made on the earth, only we humans were made for immortality. After all, only we were made in the image of God, to be in His likeness.

[NewToLife]

I'm not so sure that the 'how' of creation is anywhere near as important as the 'why' of creation. What ought to be our primary concern is not the mechanism of creation but the reason for it. It is in understanding and then living according to our God given purpose that we can be better Christians.

[Xpycoctomos]

I don't really worry about this issue very much. It's not something that concerns me.


My sentiments exactly. I actually tend to lean towards evolution (the whole nine yards) but I'm no scientist and have done no extensive research into the issue, admittedly. But I don't feel bad about it because it is just something that doesn't impact my faith in anyway. I feel sorry for fundamentalists who are taught that evolution is evil and (even worse) that they MUST beleive in a literal 7 day creation and that the world is only 6000 some years old. These latter ideas just seem the most implausible ever. Please understand. It doesn't bother me AT ALL that someone believes this (there were Church Fathers who believed very strongly in a 7-day creation, so I'm told) but when they are told they MUST believe this, I worry that one day they will go to college, take a simple geogrpahy course (which allows you to see how painfully slow and beautiful the processes of forming mountains, land etc... takes) and from that, doubt their faith. Because I dont see evolution and the faith as conflicting, I was just able to find all of this science as awesome and interesting rather than scary.

I also second thorny grace's thoughts, especially on the idea that Adam is more an icon of the first man (however God defined their advent into existence) than the literal first man who literally bit from literal fruit. Who knows. It could all be a historical account or perhaps it is something deeper than that.

There was an excellent NPR Science Friday many years back on Evolution. They had two practicing Catholic scientists on, one of who felt that something it was not plausible that we came from primates than evolution of man and the other who believed the other way. They briefly talked (over my head a bit lol) about their reasonings. But what I found most interesting is that they were both VERY respectful of eachother and the one who was against evolution was not for relgious reasons. Both scientists agreed emphatically that there is no reason why the theory of evolution should create a religious dilemma. The one against evolution held reasons more akin to what Maximus said... there are just too many holes according to him. if i can find the RealPlayer link to the discussion, Ill post it. Pretty good.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

I'm not so sure that the 'how' of creation is anywhere near as important as the 'why' of creation. What ought to be our primary concern is not the mechanism of creation but the reason for it. It is in understanding and then living according to our God given purpose that we can be better Christians.

excellently put!

[Maximus]

Like I said, this is not an issue that concerns me much, and - as I also already said - I don't buy evolution because it doesn't make sense to me.

I was wondering about something just now, however.

For those of you who do believe in evolution:

Has Man stopped evolving?

Or will we continue to evolve?

Will that make our Lord Jesus a more primitive sort of man than subsequent generations will be?

[Xpycoctomos]

I have no idea. interesting questions.

[Maximus]

Like I said, this is not an issue that concerns me much, and - as I also already said - I don't buy evolution because it doesn't make sense to me.

I was wondering about something just now, however.

For those of you who do believe in evolution:

Has Man stopped evolving?

Or will we continue to evolve?

Will that make our Lord Jesus a more primitive sort of man than subsequent generations will be?

Excuse me for quoting myself, but I kind of feel that this is an important question for theology, Christology, and anthropology.

Evolution posits that Man evolved from lower organisms to higher, even passing through successive, different human species.

If that is true, why wouldn't that process continue so that, eventually, the kind of men on earth would not be the same kind that our Lord Jesus was?

Since evolution seems to teach an ascent to ever higher forms (which is in part why it doesn't make sense to me), wouldn't the "new men" be in an evolutionary sense "superior" to our Lord Jesus?

Doesn't this make evolution really rather blasphemous and heretical?

[countrymouse33ad]

Since evolution seems to teach an ascent to ever higher forms



The latest I've read on evolutionary theory indicates that it now teaches (or some of its proponents, at least) that creatures generally evolve to fill environmental niches rather than always evolving to "higher forms." That kind of thinking - higher forms - seems to be becoming outdated. Personally, I'm currently undecided about the intelligent design debate, but if evolution is a God-directed mechanism, then it would not be necessary to think that humans will become "better" over the course of time.

[Xpycoctomos]

Since evolution seems to teach an ascent to ever higher forms (which is in part why it doesn't make sense to me), wouldn't the "new men" be in an evolutionary sense "superior" to our Lord Jesus?

Perhaps, but I don't knwo that that matters. There have been many men and women who have, Im sure been superior to Jesus in many ways: strength, heartbeat, blood pressure, eye sight, better vocal chords etc. I know that evolution is talking about more than just mere genetic differences but I think what makes us human is our physicalness and our sould. Even intellect is a conditional part of this, for a serverly cognitively disables person (who has the conscious of a two year old a 35 years old) is still just as human as you and I. So, if one takes on the idea of evolution of man, the question of who we are (man) and what our species is (homosapien) may be two different questions. One pertains to the presence of a soul while the other pertains to earathly scientific ways of catagorizing us that has little to do with spirituality. I know anthropology looks at rituals and such, but even elephants have hightly structured rituals like mourning the death of another elephant. CS Lewis thought this might be evidence of a soul... but I don't know. I don't know that a soul is proven by emotions and ritual, rather that it is just a reality that effects us on a higher level. I'm just spewing out some thoughts. I know there are a lot of holes in what Im saying. I just never want to back myself into a philosophical corner that leads me to believe that this or that (scientifically) MUST be false because of what MY on conclusions are based on theology (a whole different aspect of thought than science).

Good questions. I will surely never come to any conclusion on evolution and certainly not on how that effects soteriology and christology. Fun stuff to think about though!

John

[Xpycoctomos]

The latest I've read on evolutionary theory indicates that it now teaches (or some of its proponents, at least) that creatures generally evolve to fill environmental niches rather than always evolving to "higher forms." That kind of thinking - higher forms - seems to be becoming outdated.

Interesting. Thanks for that CM

[Theophorus]

I think that the two site that Mathew777 posted make excellent points. The ramifications of adopting an evolotuionary model is not "dangerous" because we see the 6 day creation as allegory, but in that one might fall into the "rational" trap of the west, especailly considering what is meant by being created in the image of God.


Like I said, this is not an issue that concerns me much, and - as I also already said - I don't buy evolution because it doesn't make sense to me.

I was wondering about something just now, however.

For those of you who do believe in evolution:

Has Man stopped evolving?

Or will we continue to evolve?

Will that make our Lord Jesus a more primitive sort of man than subsequent generations will be?

In Hostage to the devil by Malachi Martin, which is an account of 6 different modern exorcisms, there was an account of two priests (Catholic) who were afflicted. The cause of their possesion was a view of Christ as being the apex of evolution. That all of creation had set in motion events that lead to the "super man" manifested in Christ at that time in history and evolution. (The evolution was spiritual and physical)
The error was that God/Christ became a product of creation instead iof the other way around. My account is an oversimplification but conveys the gist of it.

[ExOrienteLux]

I don't really worry about this issue very much. It's not something that concerns me.

This man speaketh sooth. I agree with Philip - I've got more important things to worry about than whether or not I'm a smart monkey.

"This life was given to you for repentence. Do not waste it on other things." - St. Issac the Syrian

[Matthew777]

All I really have to say is that it is the church fathers' word over Darwin's.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Xpycoctomos]

I don't think all Church fathers have agreed on creationism. Also, the idea of evolution had never been presented like it is today because the science jsut wasn't there so there waas nothing for the Church to react against or agree wiht if anyone is looking to show that evolution (as we understand this term today) was accepted by Church Father's. I'm not saying you don't have a point. I'm just not going to say that those who affirm evolution (because their scientific minds tell them that it must have been this way) are somehow necessarily against all Church Fathers and "what the Church teaches".

[Matthew777]

If Genesis were not true, God would have revealed this to the fathers. If they are authorative in their interpretation of Scripture, then Genesis is included also.

Evolution is not new to Darwin. It was an idea even during the early days of the faith, and the fathers spoke against it and defended Genesis.

When scientists contrive theories that contradict the teachings of the church, we have the right to disagree.

Please read Why an Orthodox Christian Cannot be an Evolutionist. The doctrine of Darwinism is against patristic theology.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[countrymouse33ad]

I don't think we're debating whether Genesis is true or not, just discussing how it is to be understood.

[Maximus]

Perhaps, but I don't knwo that that matters. There have been many men and women who have, Im sure been superior to Jesus in many ways: strength, heartbeat, blood pressure, eye sight, better vocal chords etc. I know that evolution is talking about more than just mere genetic differences but I think what makes us human is our physicalness and our sould. Even intellect is a conditional part of this, for a serverly cognitively disables person (who has the conscious of a two year old a 35 years old) is still just as human as you and I. So, if one takes on the idea of evolution of man, the question of who we are (man) and what our species is (homosapien) may be two different questions. One pertains to the presence of a soul while the other pertains to earathly scientific ways of catagorizing us that has little to do with spirituality. I know anthropology looks at rituals and such, but even elephants have hightly structured rituals like mourning the death of another elephant. CS Lewis thought this might be evidence of a soul... but I don't know. I don't know that a soul is proven by emotions and ritual, rather that it is just a reality that effects us on a higher level. I'm just spewing out some thoughts. I know there are a lot of holes in what Im saying. I just never want to back myself into a philosophical corner that leads me to believe that this or that (scientifically) MUST be false because of what MY on conclusions are based on theology (a whole different aspect of thought than science).

Good questions. I will surely never come to any conclusion on evolution and certainly not on how that effects soteriology and christology. Fun stuff to think about though!

John

I appreciate your post. I thought about that, as well.

All of those men and women who might surpass the human nature of our Lord Jesus in specific areas like strength, or athleticism, etc., are, nevertheless, members of the same species.

Scientific evolution seems to me to be less a matter of science and more a matter of philosophy, a philosophy of the infinite perfectibility of humanity.

I'm not a scientist and I have too much else on my plate right now to study evolution in depth.

Just the same, there is something about it that just seems to me to be inimicable to Christianity.

It just kind of smells bad, if you know what I mean.

[Matthew777]

I don't think we're debating whether Genesis is true or not, just discussing how it is to be understood.

Wouldn't the correct understanding be the patristic understanding?
I am currently reading St. Basil's commentary on the Haxaemeron.
It's the Church's word over Darwin's.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[countrymouse33ad]

I believe that the patristic understanding would indeed be the correct understanding, but I'm not yet sure what the patristic understanding is. If you will forgive me, I'm not willing to take what I read on an internet forum, no matter how much I like the other members, as the final word, and I haven't read enough of the Fathers yet to form an opinion.

Peace to you, also.

[Matthew777]

Don't take my word for it, read Father Seraphim Rose:

Genesis and Early Man
The Orthodox Patristic Understanding
An article entitled The Eternal Will was printed in The Christian Activist Volume 11, Fall/Winter 1997. It was a lecture given by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros on evolution vs. creationism and his interpretation of the traditional teachings by the Fathers of the Orthodox Church about Genesis. This is a response to Dr. Kalomiros by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It has been excerpted for length by Frank Schaeffer.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

Fr. Rose is one of the modern fathers of the Church and he's written an 800 page book on the Orthodox understanding of Genesis and Creation. He makes great use of quotes of what the fathers actually taught in this essay.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[countrymouse33ad]

With due respect to Fr. Seraphim Rose, he is only one, and recent at that. His scholarship may be impeccable, but I don't know that for certain. Since my priest does not dictate a particular view, it is incumbent upon me to do some work if I should want to form an opinion about how to interpret those passages. Then it will also be incumbent upon me to remember that it is only my opinion. :)

[Matthew777]

Have you read it yet? The fathers of the church were rather clear; especially St. Basil. ;)

I also reccomend that you read Why an Orthodox Christian Cannot be an Evolutionist.

This isn't just about attacking the heresy of Darwinism. The teachings of the fathers happens to be more truthful and fulfilling.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Matthew777]

As for the book version:

GENESIS,
CREATION
and EARLY MAN

The Orthodox Christian Vision

by Fr. Seraphim Rose

Amidst the creation/evolution debate that is now raging, with evidence being offered for both sides, few have made use of what Fr. Seraphim Rose called “the missing evidence”: the teaching of the ancient Orthodox Holy Fathers on the events of creation, the first-created world, the natures of created things, and the original nature of man.

Now for the first time in the English language, this teaching has been gathered and set forth in a thorough, detailed, and above all honest manner. Perhaps more than anyone else in our times, Fr. Seraphim Rose searched, studied, prayed, and suffered to understand how the ancients noetically apprehended the creation in the light of the God-inspired book of Genesis. Having acquired their mind, he has presented to the modern world the harmonious patristic vision of the cosmos.

“… I would urge us to be not too certain of our accustomed ways of looking at Genesis, and to open ourselves to the wisdom of the God-bearing men of the past who have devoted so much intellectual effort to understanding the text of Genesis as it was meant to be understood. These Holy Fathers are our key to understanding Genesis.”

—Fr. Seraphim Rose

“Fr. Seraphim Rose was a profound scholar of the teachings of Orthodox Christianity, and also a keen analyst of the modern condition. His penetrating writings and lectures on the patristic understanding of creation, brought together here for the first time, provide a viewpoint about as far from twentieth-century evolutionary naturalism as can be imagined.”

—Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial

Includes an enlightening introduction by Phillip E. Johnson, well-known critic of evolutionary theory and founder of the “Intelligent Design” movement.
http://www.sainthermanpress.com/catalog/chapter_one/genesis_book.htm

[NewToLife]

I believe that the patristic understanding would indeed be the correct understanding, but I'm not yet sure what the patristic understanding is. If you will forgive me, I'm not willing to take what I read on an internet forum, no matter how much I like the other members, as the final word, and I haven't read enough of the Fathers yet to form an opinion.


From what I have seen the Fathers tend heavily towards a literal understanding, some lean towards an instant of creation in each day but I haven't read any that suggest that creation took longer than the literal 6 days recorded in Genesis.

For my part I believe that the Genesis account does indeed allow for a directed evolution of most species but it seems to fall over when one comes to man. If we hold that man was evolved then I personally cannot see how it is possible to also hold to the Tradition of the Church, the conflict to my eyes is quite severe in this case.

That said perhaps most of creation was evolved but man was created directly by God, the biblical text would appear to allow for this special case with much of creation being 'brought forth' but man being formed directly.

[Dust and Ashes]

That said perhaps most of creation was evolved but man was created directly by God, the biblical text would appear to allow for this special case with much of creation being 'brought forth' but man being formed directly.

That is the view that I have come to lean towards, though this has become virtually a non-issue for me since my conversion. It seems that with the level of sin and corruption in my heart and life, the method God used to create the world has been relegated to a bowl in the refrigerator as even the back burners on the stove are in use by issues of holiness, sin and repentance. ;) Sorry, I'm full of analogies this morning so you get at least one. :P

I'm not trying to marginalize this issue, as it is important but it literally had to take a far back seat to other things in my life and since it doesn't affect my salvation, I can't worry about it right now. Which is funny considering how seriously I used to take it. I mean, I was actually working on getting Kent Hovind to come to my town and speak.

[Prawnik]

I have a question: does anyone here know whether there is a reference in the Church Fathers to the sun revolving around the earth? I know that Luther condemned Copernicus (a Catholic priest) for his heliocentric theory, and the Renaissance-era Catholic Church condemned Galileo for the same, because the theory seemingly contradicted the Biblical narrative where Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in the heavens.

Presumably the Church Fathers also believed that the sun revolves around the earth, as taught by Ptolemy, because that was a standard part of a classical education in those days, but does anyone have a text which can confirm or deny this?

[Matthew777]

Well, back to the evolution issue. I understand that there is a range within the church concerning creation vs. evolution but perhaps I would classify myself as an Orthodox "fundamentalist". If Genesis were incorrect, I am faithful that God would have revealed this to the fathers. Evolution was not new to Darwin, and the fathers confronted it even in their day.
It would be better to believe that truth which God has already given to us than to conform to the theory of naturalistic metaphysicians.
I, for one, was an evolutionist until I concerned myself with what the fathers actually taught.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Rilian]

I’m not aware of anything that says belief in a literal six days creation or a specific dating of the age of the earth based on biblical chronologies are articles of faith within Orthodoxy. I know many Fathers held these beliefs, and some did not. I’m not sure if there was any overriding consensus view within the church one way or the other at any time. I know of nothing the councils proclaimed in this regard other than one must believe in creation ex nihilo.

I do that some aspects of this have been problematic, especially using the chronologies and day-age theories to calculate the return of Christ. That was a problem then, and is now. My priest says the greatest trap that contemporary conservative Protestantism has fallen in to is literal interpretation of events at both ends of the Bible, i.e. Genesis and Revelation.

Evolution itself is I think a different story. I assume what people mean when they use this term is modern synthesis type evolution or neo-Darwinism (i.e. the combination of Darwinian natural selection and Mendelian genetics). I think over time and even now we will see significant cracks appear in it, and not because of religious belief but because there are major scientific criticisms of it. It won’t go without a fight however, as it has entrenched itself as a dogma as deeply held as any produced by revealed religion.

[Prawnik]

Well, back to the evolution issue. I understand that there is a range within the church concerning creation vs. evolution but perhaps I would classify myself as an Orthodox "fundamentalist". If Genesis were incorrect, I am faithful that God would have revealed this to the fathers. Evolution was not new to Darwin, and the fathers confronted it even in their day.
It would be better to believe that truth which God has already given to us than to conform to the theory of naturalistic metaphysicians.
I, for one, was an evolutionist until I concerned myself with what the fathers actually taught.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

With all due respect, I think that answering the question "did the Church Fathers teach/believe in a helicentric or a Copernican cosmos?" is relevant to the issue of whether or not the Church Fathers' opinions on what we call the natural sciences are to be taken as authoritative.

As Rilian points out, there are a lot of holes in the theory of evolution as currently taught, however many people treat it is a matter of faith. But I do not think many people now seriously question the idea that the earth revolves around the sun.

[Matthew777]

I’m not aware of anything that says belief in a literal six days creation or a specific dating of the age of the earth based on biblical chronologies are articles of faith within Orthodoxy. I know many Fathers held these beliefs, and some did not. I’m not sure if there was any overriding consensus view within the church one way or the other at any time. I know of nothing the councils proclaimed in this regard other than one must believe in creation ex nihilo.


Genesis and Early Man

The Orthodox Patristic Understanding

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

Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist
www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html (http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html)

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Prawnik]

That is fine, but those are opinions, learned opinions, opinions of persons whose faith far exceeds than mine perhaps, but still opinions. They are not mandatory for Orthodox Christians; even the Church Fathers are not infallible. Some Orthodox writers have accepted evolution, some have not.

I am not aware of any Church canon which declares belief in a literal six-day creation to be mandatory for all Orthodox Christians. Perhaps such a canon exists. If it does, I stand corrected.

[Matthew777]

The testimony of the fathers is not mere opinion; their consensus is the truest interpretation of Scripture.

As for geocentrism, consider relativity:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-253.htm


May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[countrymouse33ad]

Just to make this interesting...

Prawnik, I read your question about heliocentricity - a good question - and got out my copy of Bercott's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Hendrickson Publishers, 1998)

I don't know whether I'll find anything directly answering that question, but here are some interesting findings.

Article: Days of Creation, p.189

In the day that they did eat, in the same day did they die, and became death's debtors. For it was one day of the creation. It is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that day they also died... From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that same day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Irenaeus 1.551 (ANF)

No man can give a sufficient explanation of this six days' work, nor can he describe all of its parts. He could not do this even if he had ten thousand tongues. Theophilus ANF 2.99.

Victorinus and Methodius affirm that God made the world in six days, but since the quotes are lifted from their contexts, it is not evident what they mean by "days."

From the article, "Evolution" pp. 264-267

Origen - Celsus harbors a secret desire to discredit the Mosaic account of the Creation. It teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but, in fact, is very much under that.

Here's evidence that materialistic evolutionary theory did not originate with Darwin:

Dionysius of Alexandria: Who can bear to hear it said that this mighty habitation, which is composed of heaven and earth and is called the "cosmos,"... was established in all its order and beauty by those atoms that hold their course - devoid of order and beauty? Or, that this same state of disorder has grown into this true cosmos of order?

And their are several other entries that address the question of materialistic evolution.

Lactantius: Some unbelievers say that the first men spent a nomadic life among th woods and plains. Men were not united by any mutual bond of speech and justice. They had leaves and grass for their beds, and they used caves and grottos for their dwellings. Furthermore, they were prey to the beasts and stronger animals. ... O minds unworthy of men, which produced these foolish trifles! ...


Now, as to the argument that we must rely on the Fathers. In the article "Cosmetics," the ante-Nicene Fathers speak as one voice in condemning the habit of wearing makeup and fine jewelry. I'm not kidding, here is what they say:

Clement of Alexandria - What should be said about the love of gems, exquisite working of gold, ... of artificial hair and wreathed curls? Furthermore, what should be said about staining the eyes, plucking out the hairs, painting with rouge and white lead, dyeing of the hair, and the wicked arts that are employed in such deceptions?

Tertullian - For those women sin against God when they rub their skin with ointments, stain their cheeks with rouge, and make their eyes prominent with antimony.

Hyppolytus - "Now Suzannah was a very delicate woman." This does not mean that she had flashy adornments on herself or eyes painted with various colors - as Jezebel had. Rather, it means she had the adornment of faith, chastity, and sanctity.

Novatian - She is not a modest woman who strives to stir up the fancy of another - even though her physical chastity is preserved. Away with those who do not really adorn their beauty, but prostitute it instead.

Commodianus - Moreover, with evil purpose you pout on false cosmetics. ... But these things are not necessary for the modest woman.

Cyprian - All these things the sinning and apostate angels put forth by their arts, when, lowered to the contagions of earth, they forsook their heavenly vigor. They also taught women to paint the eyes with blackness drawn around them in a circle and to stain the cheeks with a deceitful red.

There is not one varying opinion recorded on this matter, or on the matter of:

Article: "Veil" pp. 666 (oh, dear!) - 667

Clement of Alexandria - It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men.

For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.

"Because of the angels." By the "angels" he means righteous and virtuous men. Let her be veiled, then, so that she may not lead them to stumble into fornication. For the real angels in heaven see her, even though she is veiled.

Tertullian - That matter must now be dealt with that is inconsistently observed throughout the churches. [Whether or not virgins should be veiled] ... Are virgins incapable of of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? ... Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men? Will you be more modest in the village than in the church?

Point is that the Church does not consistently hold us to either one of these practices today, even though the earliest Fathers adress the former, and the Scriptures themselves, as well as these two Fathers, address the latter. Yes, I know that Tertullian taught some false things, but Bercott stated that he was careful to leave them out or note them where he felt they must be included for historicity's sake.

The Church also does not seem to prescribe or dictate one particular view of creation, other than that we must affirm that it is God who has created it all. My priest is very, very well-educated in the Orthodox Faith, in Holy Tradition, and the fact that he does not seem to see a definite consensus among the Fathers on the matter of interpreting Genesis, then I shall remain skeptical until I have had the opportunity to examine it for myself. Frankly, I have so much to do simply to battle my sinfulness, that this is just not on my front burner.

What Holy Tradition requires us to believe about interpreting these things is, imho, simply beyond the scope of what we can acheive in a forum discussion.


*******

Regarding the objection that speciation would contradict the Genesis claim that living things reproduce "after their own kind" - Speciation is the product of many steps of variational changes over multiple generations. Evolutionary theory does not nor has it ever claimed that cats give birth to chickens, or any such thing. Speciation does not violate reproduction after kind, and it has been observed in laboratory settings. Just some fyi in case you're arguing with materialists, so you don't come off looking silly.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

That is the view that I have come to lean towards, though this has become virtually a non-issue for me since my conversion. It seems that with the level of sin and corruption in my heart and life, the method God used to create the world has been relegated to a bowl in the refrigerator as even the back burners on the stove are in use by issues of holiness, sin and repentance. ;) Sorry, I'm full of analogies this morning so you get at least one. :P
.
Very wise, Brad. :) I can feel the presence of St. Seraphim in your words.:bow:

[Matthew777]

One's view of origins influences one's faith and world outlook.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Rilian]

Genesis and Early Man

The Orthodox Patristic Understanding

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

Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist
www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html (http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html)

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

I'm not sure why you quoted this in reply to me, as I'm in no way advocating a position (Darwinism, neo-Darwinism) that I don't personally adhere to. I've read the Fr. Rose piece before, and like the other things I've read by him I agree with some of what he says and disagree with other points.

I would recommend if you're really interested in this subject looking at Touchstone's (http://www.touchstonemag.com/) archives as they've featured several articles critical of modern Darwinian science and philosophy. Phillip E. Johnson, who wrote the introduction to Fr. Rose's book, is a regular contributor there.

[Matthew777]

I'm not sure why you quoted this in reply to me...

I would like you to share it. Did you enjoy reading it?

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Xpycoctomos]

I don't think we're debating whether Genesis is true or not, just discussing how it is to be understood.

thank you. If we follow the thought that "Genesis isn't true if you don't take it literally word for word" then I suppose we would have to condemn Church fathers that said that "day" was only symbolic of a time period. Of course not. Whether it's literal or not has not real implications on my faith or relationship with God. What it is saying at a deeper level does indeed have an effect on my spiritual life. I will concern myself with the later rather than assuming the OT Fathers were writing a classroom science book.

[Matthew777]

I will concern myself with the later rather than assuming the OT Fathers were writing a classroom science book.

St Theophanus the Recluse wrote: "The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- - reject. One can do it without further deliberations". "Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in life, do not follow them". "Believers have the right to measure the material things with spiritual ones, when materialists get into the realm of the spiritual without a slightest scruple... We have wisdom as our partner, while theirs is foolishness. Material things can be neither the power nor the purpose. They are just the means and the field of activity of spiritual powers by the action of the spiritual beginning of all things (Creator)"

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Xpycoctomos]

St Theophanus the Recluse wrote: "The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- - reject. One can do it without further deliberations". "Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in life, do not follow them". "Believers have the right to measure the material things with spiritual ones, when materialists get into the realm of the spiritual without a slightest scruple... We have wisdom as our partner, while theirs is foolishness. Material things can be neither the power nor the purpose. They are just the means and the field of activity of spiritual powers by the action of the spiritual beginning of all things (Creator)"

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Exactly

[Matthew777]

When scientists speculate something which contradicts the teachings of the Church, we have the right to disagree and stand firm to tradition.

[Xpycoctomos]

True, I just don't think there is A definitive dogmatic teaching of the Church on this. I have no problem with any quotes youve posted. The last especially didn't go against anything I've said. I'm not even sure that it necessarily applies to this discussion. "Divine Revelation" is a term I would use losely. Just because a Church Father said it doesn't make it Divine revelation. Also, the divine revelation may not be the literal facts but the meaning below and beyond the words (ie... wasn't about literal 6 dyas or a type of fruit that was evil but rather our relationship with God destroyed by our own pride and the fact that our sin is not just personal but it effects the entire human race and generations to come to some degree).

I don't feel I am any less Orthodox for not taking my Bible into Science Class. I'll leave the number of galazies and stars in the universe to the scientists with big telescopes and university degrees. Similarily I will leave the state of my soul and relationship with God to Holy people with big hearts for God and who produce fruit of the Spirit.

I'm mostly concerned with what you do with the latter (which I sure you do well). Whether you agree with me or not... it really doesn't matter to me.

John

I'm done with this thread. It's not frustrating me... nor are you or anyone else. But it is simply not important to me (just interesting) and I'm afraid I will start just arguing to argue (I'm good at that).

[Matthew777]

When men speculate on science that contradicts divine truth, then they've halted the practice of true science.

And if you are interested in what the church fathers had to say on the nature of the Garden of Eden, read Genesis and Early Man. I know I've plugged it enough. ;)

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Dust and Ashes]

One's view of origins influences one's faith and world outlook.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Of course it does. I vehemently hold to the view that God created the universe from nothing and that He is personally responsible for the creation and arrangement of every atom in everything that exists. I just don't worry about the details anymore as, at this point, there is no way to know those details for certain.

[Dust and Ashes]

I'm afraid I will start just arguing to argue (I'm good at that).

No, you're not. :P

[Matthew777]

I just don't worry about the details anymore as, at this point, there is no way to know those details for certain.

But we know by faith in what God has revealed to us.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Dust and Ashes]

But we know by faith in what God has revealed to us.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

*shrugs*

If you feel it is important to debate the issue then I wish you well with it. I have much more pressing concerns, myself regarding my salvation. But if it makes you feel any better, I strongly sympathize with the YEC position and held that position myself until recently. I was all over AiG and Kent Hovind's seminars. Then I converted to Orthodoxy and realized that if I spent as much time and effort on eliminating sin from my life as I spent arguing and debating creation/evolution, I'd be halfway to Sainthood. :D

But to clarify my current position, I'm not an evolutionist and I can't really say I'm a YEC either. I believe Adam and Eve were real people, otherwise why the need for a Saviour? I guess I'm somewhere between OEC and TE but could swing YEC with no problem. It's really not an issue for me and understanding the exact details has no bearing on my salvation, no matter what anyone else thinks or says.

[Marjorie]

ForgivenSinner where are you hiding your rep button??? :P

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Matthew777]

*shrugs*

If you feel it is important to debate the issue then I wish you well with it..

I wouldn't like to argue. The holy fathers can speak for themselves.
I do find it important to have the patristic understanding on this, though I am not fond of the "young earth" vs. "old earth" distinction.
We have no idea of what time was like for Adam and Eve before the fall.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Rilian]

I wouldn't like to argue. The holy fathers can speak for themselves.

What the fathers say though, just like sacred scripture, is distilled and made manifest through the mind of the church. Not as individual verses, quotes or snippets. To my knowledge, as other people have said, the church has not spoken about a literal six days among other topics. That is what people are trying to say, and as you continually rebut this you are giving the appearance that you are trying to argue this point.

[Matthew777]

Shouldn't this be rather basic though? If the Bible says something, and the church fathers agree, then we should agree also.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Shouldn't this be rather basic though? If the Bible says something, and the church fathers agree, then we should agree also.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

No one is disagreeing with what the Bible says. The Genesis account of creation is very lacking in detail, and we have no idea what one day was (to God, a day is like 1000 yrs, and 1000 yrs like a day). And ALL of the Fathers DO NOT agree on various subjects, evolution being one of them. Nothing is considered infallible unless it has been defined in an Ecumenical Council. No Council has ever come together to adopt a formal position on evolution.

There are other theories of evolution besides Darwin's, btw.

[Matthew777]

There are other theories of evolution besides Darwin's, btw.

I am quite aware of that.
I just thought we should be closest to the fathers as possible in all our beliefs.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[Maximus]

Ever thought about the complexity of the human eye?

How did that come about, in concert with so many of the other incredible human physiological complexities?

Ever seen any real, conclusive evidence that one species has ever become an entirely new and different species?

I am just musing, folks. I really could care less about evolution.

I used to believe in it.

Now I don't.

[Dust and Ashes]

Ever thought about the complexity of the human eye?


I read Darwin on Trial and he has an excerpt from Michael Behe's book describing how the eye works and there is no way something like that evolved undirected from a "photo-sensitive organ." The complexity of just that one system is staggering.

I sometimes wonder if, when Stephen Jay Gould passed, God didn't introduce Himself as the Equilibrium Punctuator. :D

[Marjorie]

While I am not saying they are true, as I don't strictly go either way, there *are* answers to the "human eye" thing from an evolutionary standpoint, whether or not they are good answers: http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Dust and Ashes]

While I am not saying they are true, as I don't strictly go either way, there *are* answers to the "human eye" thing from an evolutionary standpoint, whether or not they are good answers: http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Squids and mollusks live under water. Water provides significant protection from UV (and other) radiation from the sun. If a squid were capable of living outside water it would be blind within days or even hours. Its eye is designed well for its environment as our eyes are designed well for our environment. The location of our retinas and the placement of blood vessels in the fronts of our eyes provides protection to the sensitive parts. We have built in shades, as it were. ;)

Also, that article is clearly atheistic and so has to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt as does anything from a scientist who opposes intelligent design. I've heard all the arguments about the integrity of scientists but an atheistic scientist is going to discount the possibility of a creator out of hand and search for a way to interpret the data accordingly.

But, like you, I can go either way on the evolution/creation "issue" so it's not a big deal. I don't get caught up in the creation/theistic evolution debate but I will point out that evolution need not be atheistic. At least until they start getting ugly, then I'll pick up my pearls and walk away.

[Matthew777]

It is Orthodox to believe what is Orthodox.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

[countrymouse33ad]

Ever thought about the complexity of the human eye?

How did that come about, in concert with so many of the other incredible human physiological complexities?

Ever seen any real, conclusive evidence that one species has ever become an entirely new and different species?

I am just musing, folks. I really could care less about evolution.

I used to believe in it.

Now I don't.

It really depends upon how you differentiate between species, and scientists don't all agree about that. Still, gradual variations across generations have (and it has been observed) produced differences in offspring that are sufficient to prevent the two kinds of offspring from being able to reproduce with one another. That has been observed in fruit flies, and inability to reproduce is one of the ways scientists identify different species. They are still fruit flies. Also, single-celled algae have, as the result of accidentally being moved to a different environment, produced (after several generations of variations) multi-celled offspring, and that is considered to be enough difference to call it a new species of algae. Speciation is a very gradual process that happens in response to environmental changes. One species does not suddenly reproduce another in just one generation. Of course, the question does occur to me, how do they classify the intermediate offspring?
I have owned and spawned some types of aquarium fish that would be a good argument for the occurenc of speciation. It's not that we have directly observed it in their case, but that the genetic relationship is clearly there. Among the small livebearing fish there are some closely related species - guppies, mollies, swordtails and platys - that are easy to keep and breed readily. They share features that indicate how closely related they are, but only the swordtails and platys can still interbreed and produce young that are fertile, although any male among that group of types may attempt to mate with any female. You may also know about mules - the offspring of a horse and a donkey, and mules are normally sterile, although not always. The fact that horses and donkeys can mate to produce young indicates how closely related they are, but the sterility of their offspring indicates how different.

I don't buy into materialistic evolution, of course. (You can't do that and be Christian.) I maybe buy into intelligent design, but I'm not sure how much of it. I'm just not scientist enough to figure all that out, but it is interesting.


Shouldn't this be rather basic though? If the Bible says something, and the church fathers agree, then we should agree also.



If. The Church Fathers, according to the best information I have so far, do not seem to agree regarding what is meant by "day" in Genesis 1, and there is a real difference between "historical" and "literal" (of the letter). God told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Would you say that's a 24-hour day? Have you also noticed that most of the early Fathers (ante-Nicene) expected Christ to return within a few years or decades to destroy their persecutor, Rome?

It is really fairly arrogant to assume that, if someone disagrees with what you think is patristic or a correct interpretation, that person does not believe the Biblical witness.

[Matthew777]

The Church Fathers, according to the best information I have so far, do not seem to agree regarding what is meant by "day" in Genesis 1, and there is a real difference between "historical" and "literal" (of the letter). God told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Would you say that's a 24-hour day? Have you also noticed that most of the early Fathers (ante-Nicene) expected Christ to return within a few years or decades to destroy their persecutor, Rome?


The best information available in the internet that I have seen:
Genesis and Early Man

The Orthodox Patristic Understanding

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