Poll

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

Yes
60 (15.4%)
No
149 (38.3%)
both metaphorically and literally
180 (46.3%)

Total Members Voted: 389

Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 938431 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5985 on: September 19, 2015, 08:25:05 PM »
Evolutionary story-tellers (ESTs) want us to believe that organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts have evolved through the process of endosymbiosis. Basically their logic is such: one upon a time there was a big bacterium B and small bacterium S. B was always swallowing S and devouring it up until certain time when all of a sudden B and S (predator and prey) decided to cohabit and live in piece. That this is a fact (exactly, for ESTs this is an undeniable fact without doubt) they bring 2 lines of "evidence". First, S has 2 membranes, inner and outer. Inner membrane is similar to bacterial membrane and outer membrane is similar to eukaryotic membrane. Second, S possesses circular DNA which is found in bacteria. This bedtime story is all gaps and no science. Reasons are multiple:

1) Both B and S before they became BS (:)) were independently living organisms. This means that both possessed all the functions (including production of energy rich molecules or some type of energy producing source, maintenance of homeostasis, replication, response to environmental stimuli and so on) necessary for life. None of them were deficient of anything that would prevent their survival. Thus, there was no need at all to start endosymbiotic relationship. There's no rational explanation from ESTs why this should have happened.

2) On one hand B was prokaryotic organism meaning that it had no nucleus, had circular DNA and had a cell wall (which would become outer cell wall for S) similar to prokaryotic cell wall. This means that A) outer cell wall for S should be more like a bacterial cell wall and not like a eukaryotic cell wall; B) B's genome should be composed of circular DNA and not a eukaryotic like DNA encased in nuclear membrane as is the case for prokaryotes. We know that prokaryotes have nuclear membrane with totally different chromosomes within the membrane since by the time BS was formed B was prokaryote. Simply put there was no nuclear membrane in B. Please notice that I'm using same logic as is used by ESTs. So, if any EST counteracts this argument by introducing more nighttime stories saying S's outer membrane in BS stage evolved later and became prokaryote-like and somehow B while being in early BS stage later gained nucleus miraculously and changed their genome from circular to more complex one, they will counteract their arguments too. Plus, they will introduce huge gaps which has no scientific logic and no shred of evidence to support their nighttime stories.

3) Since most of the proteins necessary for mitochondrial or chloroplastic functions are coded in nuclear DNA then after forming nucleated form of BS either large amount of genetic material of S was somehow transferred to BS's nucleus or S just lost large amount of genetic material and the same genes were manufactured the novo in nucleated BS's nucleus. Which nighttime story they chose that's up to them. Main question though is: Can ESTs deal with so much unsurmountable problems? They can't but I'm sure they will still call their stories undoubtable scientific theory based on facts.

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 33,723
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5986 on: September 19, 2015, 08:34:45 PM »
Science really can't ask any  ....

Science can't ask ANYTHING, just as moss, the number 5, the letters "http," abortions, and love can't ask anything. PEOPLE who are scientists, on the other hand, can. Try starting from there and rethinking what claims you've posted on the thread...

Offline Sinful Hypocrite

  • Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,226
  • The Lord helps those who help others
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5987 on: September 21, 2015, 07:25:53 PM »
Scientists working towards common goals can answer questions in the name of science though.
The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

Offline fritzchery

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Evangelical Christian of Florida
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5988 on: January 28, 2016, 03:31:08 PM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place? How is it that the whole universe, nature, and everything is perfectly set in place? This verse says it all. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. http://biblereasons.com/is-god-real/

Online TheTrisagion

  • Delusional Overlord
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,038
  • And the cat is back again.
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5989 on: January 28, 2016, 03:50:15 PM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place? How is it that the whole universe, nature, and everything is perfectly set in place? This verse says it all. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. http://biblereasons.com/is-god-real/
Why would you believe that God wasn't directing the big bang as He does with all events, natural or supernatural?
The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,700
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5990 on: January 28, 2016, 09:39:27 PM »
Science really can't ask any  ....

Science can't ask ANYTHING, just as moss, the number 5, the letters "http," abortions, and love can't ask anything. PEOPLE who are scientists, on the other hand, can. Try starting from there and rethinking what claims you've posted on the thread...

Exactly. And I think this really gets to the heart of the matter. The greatest scientists are those with unlimited curiosity. They constantly ask questions until empirical proof answers those questions beyond any shadow of a doubt. And I think what troubles most of us who simply remain agnostic about evolution is that evolutionists have jettisoned their questions and curiosity about the matter. They no longer ask. They prejudicially assume something that has not been empirically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's one thing to say they "believe," they are "confident," their studies "lead them to embrace the theory," etc. I wouldn't mind that. Just keep questioning, keep asking, keep an open mind and be rigidly demanding about empirical import. But when they shut down their curiosity and militantly disallow any competing evidentiary arguments, then they cease to be scientists and become mere propagandists. But I know we've been over all this before. Just wanted to say that I agree that scientists should ask questions, and not just questions that serve their own presuppositions.

Selam 
"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,745
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5991 on: January 29, 2016, 12:01:36 AM »
I would love to see any valid alternative and if there are ways to test them.  But knowing the science myself, as I have explained to many people, my conscience does not allow me to contradict the massive evidence that supports evolution.  Yes, we should question it, but it has gotten to a point where valid alternatives are very limited, if at all.

So I respectfully disagree with you in that regard.  It is sad many evolutionists have to resort to ways similar to propogandizing.  But the science is undeniable in my experience.  It is just as undeniable as the clinical brain damage that has been an effect from many football players.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,179
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5992 on: January 29, 2016, 01:16:55 AM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place?
What is the demonstration for this?
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 33,723
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5993 on: February 21, 2016, 12:09:00 PM »
Hyperactive magnetic field may have led to one of Earth’s major extinctions

...There are many factors that may explain why the Cambrian explosion occurred, but the researchers’ “escape from light” idea adds a novel possibility to the debate, says David Harper, a paleontologist at Durham University in the United Kingdom who was not involved in the study. “The authors have opened up yet another exciting and imaginative area of research within which to frame and test new hypotheses for the origin and early evolution of animal-based communities.”...

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,836
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5994 on: February 22, 2016, 01:06:11 AM »
Science really can't ask any  ....

Science can't ask ANYTHING, just as moss, the number 5, the letters "http," abortions, and love can't ask anything. PEOPLE who are scientists, on the other hand, can. Try starting from there and rethinking what claims you've posted on the thread...

Exactly. And I think this really gets to the heart of the matter. The greatest scientists are those with unlimited curiosity. They constantly ask questions until empirical proof answers those questions beyond any shadow of a doubt. And I think what troubles most of us who simply remain agnostic about evolution is that evolutionists have jettisoned their questions and curiosity about the matter. They no longer ask. They prejudicially assume something that has not been empirically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's one thing to say they "believe," they are "confident," their studies "lead them to embrace the theory," etc. I wouldn't mind that. Just keep questioning, keep asking, keep an open mind and be rigidly demanding about empirical import. But when they shut down their curiosity and militantly disallow any competing evidentiary arguments, then they cease to be scientists and become mere propagandists. But I know we've been over all this before. Just wanted to say that I agree that scientists should ask questions, and not just questions that serve their own presuppositions.

Selam

Hi Gebre,

There are more important things to be curious about and that are more worthwhile investigating than evolution (I am not sure what remains to be investigated).

What is important in life lies outside of the laboratory. It is independent of careers. We are not inhuman.



Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,132
  • Excelsior
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5995 on: February 22, 2016, 04:12:46 AM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place? How is it that the whole universe, nature, and everything is perfectly set in place? This verse says it all. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. http://biblereasons.com/is-god-real/

From that website: "Most professing Christians are going to hell!! Your life depends on it, find out now! Are you truly saved?"

Hmmmm.  ::)
In a time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,312
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5996 on: February 22, 2016, 04:16:43 AM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place?
What is the demonstration for this?

Outer space is pretty chaotic, at least in the sense that it isn't lined up all systematically like some sort of hyper-Ptolemaic model.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,707
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5997 on: February 22, 2016, 04:24:32 AM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place? How is it that the whole universe, nature, and everything is perfectly set in place? This verse says it all. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. http://biblereasons.com/is-god-real/

The Big Bang was not an explosion like a stick of dynamite, it was a rapid expansion of molecules from an infinitesimal starting point. In fact, in a sense we are still in the Big Bang and always will be since the universe is still expanding.
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,360
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5998 on: February 22, 2016, 04:36:06 AM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place?
Not if the Big Bang was nature's response to God's command "Let there be light!"

Do you happen to know why so many Christians rejoice in the Big Bang Theory? Because, despite the atheists' attempts to dismiss the role of God in the event, the Big Bang vindicates our traditional belief that God created the universe and everything in it ex nihilo (from nothing), that the universe itself has a beginning.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 04:49:06 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,312
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5999 on: February 22, 2016, 04:36:14 AM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place? How is it that the whole universe, nature, and everything is perfectly set in place? This verse says it all. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. http://biblereasons.com/is-god-real/

From that website: "Most professing Christians are going to hell!! Your life depends on it, find out now! Are you truly saved?"

Hmmmm.  ::)

Double hmm....

Oh and by the way, the author of these blog posts is named Fritz Chery.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,360
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6000 on: February 22, 2016, 04:40:15 AM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place? How is it that the whole universe, nature, and everything is perfectly set in place? This verse says it all. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. http://biblereasons.com/is-god-real/

The Big Bang was not an explosion like a stick of dynamite, it was a rapid expansion of molecules from an infinitesimal starting point.
Who says the Big Bang has to be an explosion from a singularity? BTW, I doubt that it was molecules that expanded from the initial Bang, for it took protons and neutrons some time to cool down before they could attract electrons and coalesce into molecules, iirc.

In fact, in a sense we are still in the Big Bang and always will be since the universe is still expanding.
In a sense, I think you're right.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,707
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6001 on: February 22, 2016, 05:35:42 AM »
If a big bang happened wouldn’t everything be in chaos and out of place? How is it that the whole universe, nature, and everything is perfectly set in place? This verse says it all. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. http://biblereasons.com/is-god-real/

The Big Bang was not an explosion like a stick of dynamite, it was a rapid expansion of molecules from an infinitesimal starting point.
Who says the Big Bang has to be an explosion from a singularity? BTW, I doubt that it was molecules that expanded from the initial Bang, for it took protons and neutrons some time to cool down before they could attract electrons and coalesce into molecules, iirc.

You're right, my terminology was sloppy. I should have said "particles."

The idea that it began with a singularity is the usual form it takes in physics. In fact, Georges Lemaitre, the originator of the theory actually believed in the eternality of matter. I suppose one could believe that the Big Bang was ex nihilo without really affronting the science, though.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 05:37:10 AM by Volnutt »
Is that what they teach you at the temple volnutt-stein?

Actually, it's Volnutt-berg.

Rome doesn't care. Rome is actually very cool guy.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,700
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6002 on: February 23, 2016, 02:22:26 AM »
Science really can't ask any  ....

Science can't ask ANYTHING, just as moss, the number 5, the letters "http," abortions, and love can't ask anything. PEOPLE who are scientists, on the other hand, can. Try starting from there and rethinking what claims you've posted on the thread...

Exactly. And I think this really gets to the heart of the matter. The greatest scientists are those with unlimited curiosity. They constantly ask questions until empirical proof answers those questions beyond any shadow of a doubt. And I think what troubles most of us who simply remain agnostic about evolution is that evolutionists have jettisoned their questions and curiosity about the matter. They no longer ask. They prejudicially assume something that has not been empirically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It's one thing to say they "believe," they are "confident," their studies "lead them to embrace the theory," etc. I wouldn't mind that. Just keep questioning, keep asking, keep an open mind and be rigidly demanding about empirical import. But when they shut down their curiosity and militantly disallow any competing evidentiary arguments, then they cease to be scientists and become mere propagandists. But I know we've been over all this before. Just wanted to say that I agree that scientists should ask questions, and not just questions that serve their own presuppositions.

Selam

Hi Gebre,

There are more important things to be curious about and that are more worthwhile investigating than evolution (I am not sure what remains to be investigated).

What is important in life lies outside of the laboratory. It is independent of careers. We are not inhuman.

Well I certainly agree with that. I was speaking merely about scientific inquiry, not the primary inquiry of Orthodox Christians.

Selam
"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,889
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6003 on: February 24, 2016, 08:54:59 AM »
I frankly dont care if it was a big bang or not, but Ive always had a question that Ive not received an answer to.

If before the big bang, everything was a singularity of infinite mass and gravity, how could it expand? What is so strong that it can counter something infinite?

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Online TheTrisagion

  • Delusional Overlord
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,038
  • And the cat is back again.
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6004 on: February 24, 2016, 10:27:40 AM »
I frankly dont care if it was a big bang or not, but Ive always had a question that Ive not received an answer to.

If before the big bang, everything was a singularity of infinite mass and gravity, how could it expand? What is so strong that it can counter something infinite?

PP
Well, the obvious Christian answer would be God, but most scientists would say that whatever was before the Big Bang to cause it is outside the scope of our observation and therefore cannot be conjectured upon.
The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,745
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6005 on: February 24, 2016, 12:38:30 PM »
I frankly dont care if it was a big bang or not, but Ive always had a question that Ive not received an answer to.

If before the big bang, everything was a singularity of infinite mass and gravity, how could it expand? What is so strong that it can counter something infinite?

PP
Well, the obvious Christian answer would be God, but most scientists would say that whatever was before the Big Bang to cause it is outside the scope of our observation and therefore cannot be conjectured upon.
May I correct a small thing?  The question asked needs to be clarified.  Is it theological or scientific? If theological, the answer is ALWAYS God.  How can we theologically explain building a house or watching over a city? God. How do we scientifically explain it? That's a different answer, and we can say "I don't know".

Otherwise, if the question is just asked as a general question, we could fall into the God of the gaps fallacy.  The "obvious" Christian answer to ANYTHING in life, even things you can explain scientifically, is God.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Online TheTrisagion

  • Delusional Overlord
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,038
  • And the cat is back again.
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6006 on: February 24, 2016, 12:43:11 PM »
I frankly dont care if it was a big bang or not, but Ive always had a question that Ive not received an answer to.

If before the big bang, everything was a singularity of infinite mass and gravity, how could it expand? What is so strong that it can counter something infinite?

PP
Well, the obvious Christian answer would be God, but most scientists would say that whatever was before the Big Bang to cause it is outside the scope of our observation and therefore cannot be conjectured upon.
May I correct a small thing?  The question asked needs to be clarified.  Is it theological or scientific? If theological, the answer is ALWAYS God.  How can we theologically explain building a house or watching over a city? God. How do we scientifically explain it? That's a different answer, and we can say "I don't know".

Otherwise, if the question is just asked as a general question, we could fall into the God of the gaps fallacy.  The "obvious" Christian answer to ANYTHING in life, even things you can explain scientifically, is God.
Well stated, mina.  :)
The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,889
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6007 on: February 24, 2016, 12:58:43 PM »
Quote
Well, the obvious Christian answer would be God
This is my personal belief.

Quote
Well stated, mina.

Indeed :)

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline WPM

  • Revolutionary Writer
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,611
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6008 on: February 24, 2016, 01:31:47 PM »
I don't think "Creationism" is Christianity but you still have Science and Evolution.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,889
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • Holy Trinity Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Western Rite Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: AOCNA - Diocese of Charleston and beyond
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6009 on: February 24, 2016, 01:34:50 PM »
I don't think "Creationism" is Christianity but you still have Science and Evolution.
In my personal view, evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. However, I've been called un-Christian for thinking that.

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline nothing

  • 1 Timothy 2:9
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,936
  • Americanism, Not Globalism, Will Be Our Credo
  • Faith: True Christian™
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6010 on: February 24, 2016, 09:30:18 PM »
Epistemologically the universe is hard to understand or explainable, even more so when we discuss its origins which we will never be able to understand it. In fact if we give a little thought to it we realize that the very idea is itself incoherent.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2016, 09:31:20 PM by nothing »
“Their throat is an open grave;
    they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”

Romans 3:13



"I'm very highly educated. I know words, I have the best words...but there's no better word than stupid. Right?" - Donald Trump

FOR THE FOOLISHNESS OF GOD IS WISER THAN MEN, AND THE WEAKNESS OF GOD IS STRONGER THAN MEN!

He catches the wise in their craftiness!

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,700
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6011 on: February 24, 2016, 10:46:02 PM »
I would love to see any valid alternative and if there are ways to test them.  But knowing the science myself, as I have explained to many people, my conscience does not allow me to contradict the massive evidence that supports evolution.  Yes, we should question it, but it has gotten to a point where valid alternatives are very limited, if at all.

So I respectfully disagree with you in that regard.  It is sad many evolutionists have to resort to ways similar to propogandizing.  But the science is undeniable in my experience.  It is just as undeniable as the clinical brain damage that has been an effect from many football players.

Of course it's pretty subjective - philosophically speaking - as to what constitutes "valid" alternatives. Which goes to my point about science remaining militantly inquisitive until a theory has been empirically proven beyond any question of doubt. And of course, there are many biological scientists who also "know the science themselves" and come to a different conclusion than you do. So again, with respect, your comments often disclose a subjectivity that many people on either side of the evolution debate often fall prey to. Which is why I try to sift through the subjectivity and deal strictly with empirical scientific import (or lack thereof) on its own merits. And when you say that "my conscience does not allow me," that again discloses a subjective presupposition to which you appear to be bound. Scientific inquiry is not about faith or conscience or belief. It about empirical data, constant questioning of that data, and rigid testing to prove or disprove theories based on that data. If your conscience won't allow you to remain open to the possibility of evidence and data that might discredit evolutionism, then that means that you are elevating your subjective belief above scientific discovery and scientific facts. And when you say that "the science is undeniable in my experience," you once again are erroneously conflating objective scientific realities with your own subjective experience. As I said, to believe in evolution and to give reasons why you believe in evolution is fine. But when evolutionists demand that their own subjective interpretations be unquestioningly accepted by everyone else, then they are no longer scientists, they are propagandists.

Perhaps you should try to be more careful with your language, eliminating the subjective phrases and sticking to the factual and empirical evidence that you believe substantiates evolutionary theory. Just a suggestion.


Selam
"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,745
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6012 on: February 24, 2016, 11:10:10 PM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,700
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6013 on: February 25, 2016, 12:04:30 AM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.

The medical analogy is an important one. A lot of harm has been done to people by medicinal practices that were rooted in mere theory rather than empirical fact. Well intentioned doctors who fully believed that a certain treatment would cure their patients wound up killing their patients.

As for "evolutionism," I merely use that term just as others refer to "creationism."

Selam
"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,745
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6014 on: February 25, 2016, 12:48:04 AM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.

The medical analogy is an important one. A lot of harm has been done to people by medicinal practices that were rooted in mere theory rather than empirical fact. Well intentioned doctors who fully believed that a certain treatment would cure their patients wound up killing their patients.

As for "evolutionism," I merely use that term just as others refer to "creationism."

Selam

Perhaps, but I tend to see the term as a philosophy, not necessarily a science.  I do uphold "creationism" if understood in a philosophical way without mingling it with emperical science.  Creationism necessitates belief in God, and I believe wholeheartedly God is not something to be empirically tested.  If He was, He wouldn't be God.  That's my whole concern.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,700
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6015 on: February 25, 2016, 03:06:18 AM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.

The medical analogy is an important one. A lot of harm has been done to people by medicinal practices that were rooted in mere theory rather than empirical fact. Well intentioned doctors who fully believed that a certain treatment would cure their patients wound up killing their patients.

As for "evolutionism," I merely use that term just as others refer to "creationism."

Selam

Perhaps, but I tend to see the term as a philosophy, not necessarily a science.  I do uphold "creationism" if understood in a philosophical way without mingling it with emperical science.  Creationism necessitates belief in God, and I believe wholeheartedly God is not something to be empirically tested.  If He was, He wouldn't be God.  That's my whole concern.

I think I agree with that. Although I'm always wary of the fact/value dichotomy that is used to bully theists into thinking their worldview is irrelevant to science. God, after all, is the Author of science. And as I think about it, belief in God and belief in evolution are similar in that while there may be very logical reasons to believe in both, neither can be verified or denied via the scientific method.

Selam
"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,360
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6016 on: February 25, 2016, 03:53:02 AM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.

The medical analogy is an important one. A lot of harm has been done to people by medicinal practices that were rooted in mere theory rather than empirical fact.
Here's an example of the weakness in your interpretation of scientific language. In science, theory isn't merely what you appear to think it means. Theory is a conclusion drawn from empirical fact that offers what we understand to be the best explanation of empirical fact, is supported by empirical fact, and has not yet been falsified by empirical fact. You seem to confuse theory with hypothesis, which is more of the essence of guesses either educated or wild ****.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,360
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6017 on: February 25, 2016, 03:56:12 AM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.

The medical analogy is an important one. A lot of harm has been done to people by medicinal practices that were rooted in mere theory rather than empirical fact. Well intentioned doctors who fully believed that a certain treatment would cure their patients wound up killing their patients.

As for "evolutionism," I merely use that term just as others refer to "creationism."

Selam

Perhaps, but I tend to see the term as a philosophy, not necessarily a science.  I do uphold "creationism" if understood in a philosophical way without mingling it with emperical science.  Creationism necessitates belief in God, and I believe wholeheartedly God is not something to be empirically tested.  If He was, He wouldn't be God.  That's my whole concern.

I think I agree with that. Although I'm always wary of the fact/value dichotomy that is used to bully theists into thinking their worldview is irrelevant to science. God, after all, is the Author of science. And as I think about it, belief in God and belief in evolution are similar in that while there may be very logical reasons to believe in both, neither can be verified or denied via the scientific method.
How do you define "the scientific method" such that it cannot be employed to verify or deny evolution?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Gebre Menfes Kidus

  • "SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,700
  • Trolling Babylon 24/7, without apology!
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref=profile&id=1456515775
  • Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6018 on: February 25, 2016, 05:25:26 AM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.

The medical analogy is an important one. A lot of harm has been done to people by medicinal practices that were rooted in mere theory rather than empirical fact. Well intentioned doctors who fully believed that a certain treatment would cure their patients wound up killing their patients.

As for "evolutionism," I merely use that term just as others refer to "creationism."

Selam

Perhaps, but I tend to see the term as a philosophy, not necessarily a science.  I do uphold "creationism" if understood in a philosophical way without mingling it with emperical science.  Creationism necessitates belief in God, and I believe wholeheartedly God is not something to be empirically tested.  If He was, He wouldn't be God.  That's my whole concern.

I think I agree with that. Although I'm always wary of the fact/value dichotomy that is used to bully theists into thinking their worldview is irrelevant to science. God, after all, is the Author of science. And as I think about it, belief in God and belief in evolution are similar in that while there may be very logical reasons to believe in both, neither can be verified or denied via the scientific method.
How do you define "the scientific method" such that it cannot be employed to verify or deny evolution?

You can observe cause and effect. You can empirically verify the chemical makeup and the age (to a certain degree) of natural elements. You can observe micro-evolutionary changes within species. But there is no way to empirically test, verify, or deny the theory of common ancestry.


Selam
"God is a consuming fire. And His fire is love."
+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,745
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6019 on: February 25, 2016, 01:42:26 PM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.

The medical analogy is an important one. A lot of harm has been done to people by medicinal practices that were rooted in mere theory rather than empirical fact. Well intentioned doctors who fully believed that a certain treatment would cure their patients wound up killing their patients.

As for "evolutionism," I merely use that term just as others refer to "creationism."

Selam

Perhaps, but I tend to see the term as a philosophy, not necessarily a science.  I do uphold "creationism" if understood in a philosophical way without mingling it with emperical science.  Creationism necessitates belief in God, and I believe wholeheartedly God is not something to be empirically tested.  If He was, He wouldn't be God.  That's my whole concern.

I think I agree with that. Although I'm always wary of the fact/value dichotomy that is used to bully theists into thinking their worldview is irrelevant to science. God, after all, is the Author of science. And as I think about it, belief in God and belief in evolution are similar in that while there may be very logical reasons to believe in both, neither can be verified or denied via the scientific method.
How do you define "the scientific method" such that it cannot be employed to verify or deny evolution?

You can observe cause and effect. You can empirically verify the chemical makeup and the age (to a certain degree) of natural elements. You can observe micro-evolutionary changes within species. But there is no way to empirically test, verify, or deny the theory of common ancestry.


Selam

I respectfully disagree. It's already been done more ways than one, with genetics as the final nail on the coffin.  And equating God with evolution is precisely the trap I alluded to earlier that you fall into.  One can be empirically studied but the other cannot. 
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Online TheTrisagion

  • Delusional Overlord
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,038
  • And the cat is back again.
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #6020 on: February 25, 2016, 02:11:44 PM »
Not necessarily.  There's no weakness in language.  It's rather your interpretation of the language itself.  If you ever meet an oncologist, given the latest evidence, his conscience does not allow an alternative medical treatment.  Does that mean by his own subjective experience, he "feels" this is the best way forward?  If medicine is mere feeling, then his patients would be in trouble.  But if his conscience is connected to the logic of evidence-based medicine, than any other oncologist who feels different is not a competent oncologist.  Even though they may know the science themselves, they put their patients at jeopardy for not being up do date with the latest evidence that supports a treatment.

Subjective phrases are subjective to something.  If it is subjective to the evidence, then there is no other way of interpreting this than to call the one who disagrees incompetent and at best out of date, and has no sense of care for the science.  It is not a propaganda to refute the heresies of Arius if he goes about theology the wrong way.  In the same manner, physicians have a protocol, and anyone who deviates from the protocol without good scientific backing deserves the license to be removed.  That's not propaganda.  So, why treat science differently and call that "propaganda"?

The issue you have Gebre is not science, it's philosophy.  You cannot seem to separate evolution from evolutionism, and you fall in the same trap as the atheist does.  Let's not make a big deal out of what language I choose to use to not allow any other interpretation.  There's no back door to science.  If people stay true to science, and scientifically is able to refute evolution and offer a valid alternative, then they gain my respect.  So far, I only see a philosophy or pseudo-science presented to me, and that, in good conscience, a true scientist must reject.

The medical analogy is an important one. A lot of harm has been done to people by medicinal practices that were rooted in mere theory rather than empirical fact. Well intentioned doctors who fully believed that a certain treatment would cure their patients wound up killing their patients.

As for "evolutionism," I merely use that term just as others refer to "creationism."

Selam

Perhaps, but I tend to see the term as a philosophy, not necessarily a science.  I do uphold "creationism" if understood in a philosophical way without mingling it with emperical science.  Creationism necessitates belief in God, and I believe wholeheartedly God is not something to be empirically tested.  If He was, He wouldn't be God.  That's my whole concern.

I think I agree with that. Although I'm always wary of the fact/value dichotomy that is used to bully theists into thinking their worldview is irrelevant to science. God, after all, is the Author of science. And as I think about it, belief in God and belief in evolution are similar in that while there may be very logical reasons to believe in both, neither can be verified or denied via the scientific method.
How do you define "the scientific method" such that it cannot be employed to verify or deny evolution?

You can observe cause and effect. You can empirically verify the chemical makeup and the age (to a certain degree) of natural elements. You can observe micro-evolutionary changes within species. But there is no way to empirically test, verify, or deny the theory of common ancestry.


Selam
DNA mapping seems to be a fairly good means of identifying such things.
The term planet earth is an innovation which has arisen in recent centuries with the error of heliocentrism.

If one wants to confess a pure doctrine of Orthodoxy, they should be careful not to refer to the earth as a planet, unlike the current Pope as well as Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Bartholomew, who regularly speak in error when they refer to our planet earth.