Are you honestly inquiring or trying to convince us that we are wrong? I'm confused... I want a return to the in six days God created heaven and earth and all that in them is.
Evolution which is a new influence in the church
St. Basil the great believed the creation to be truly ancient. He's not the only one, but he's probably the most "famous". Many early Rabbis also believed the Genesis story to be allegorical poetry, written to prove a point...that being that God created everything. Not "how he did it" but simply that he and he alone created out of nothing. That's the true historical context of the creation story.
I just want a return to pre-evolution creationism.
What if what you personally want and desire is simply not true?
I sympathize with your position. I understand that scientific knowledge of the universe can at first be a scary thing. And it in fact can seem to "contradict" the Bible. But that is only because what we modern Christians believe to be a "literal" intepretation, in truth, really is not. Even us literalists (I used to be one) are not taking Genesis literally.
Let me explain. You say you want a certain POV on Genesis to be true. But why is YOUR "literal" interpetation of Genesis correct, while for example an athiests "literal" interpretation of Genesis wrong? Some Atheists, who are not well schooled in Carl Sagan's "Bologny detection kit" argue Genesis is an absurd story because, well look, God is doing ungodly things like walking in a garden and has no clue where Adam and Eve are. The problem is, they are assuming that the way THEY read Genesis is in fact how it was read 2000 years ago, or how the writers envisioned it. They assume whoever wrote Genesis took it to be scientifically true. (which is odd because the author(s) of Genesis obviously lived in a pre scientific age, so I doubt science was on their mind)
Many Christians in fact interprete Genesis exactly how an atheist unschooled in religious history would read it. But I would argue that it is this ultra literal reading of Genesis which is MODERN, not the other way around.
I guess I'm taking the JD Crossan POV, that people 1000's of years ago wrote this stuff as allegory, knew it was allegory, and we're the ones who are too stupid to see that and we assume it's meant to be literal, when in fact, our assumption is what is wrong to begin with.
Further more, there are many "literal" interpretations of the creation story. Just go ask 10 Orthodox Jewish Rabbis what the literal story means, you'll likely get at least several different answers. The same goes with Christians.
You want a "literal" creation story...you're going to have to explain then how a bodiless, incorporeal, omniscient God is "walking" around in a Garden on two legs and has no idea where Adam and Eve are. Obviously both cannot be true.
You want Genesis to be "literal" you're going to have to explain who the talking snake is, and why did God send down a talking snake in a perfect unfallen world to begin with? (Genesis never says the snake is Satan because no such concept of a Satan even existed when Genesis was written, so if you assume the snake is Satan, you're not taking Genesis literally but allegorically)
You want Genesis to be literal, you're going to have to explain why Adam and Eve are created twice, not just once. How can we have days before
the earth begins revolving around the sun? Or maybe you don't believe we do? I don't know. The point is, if you're going to take Genesis absolutely literally, you're doing (ironically) what the Catholic Church once did when it came to scientific knowledge. Granted you won't be burning people at the stake for spreading "heresies" like the earth is round, or we go around the sun and take a year to do it...however no one on earth can take Genesis 100% literally and remain grounded in reality. That may sound harsh, but it's simply true.
Even people who take Genesis pretty much literally, leave room for some
allegorical reading, like God "walking" in the Garden. Because it flies in the face of monotheistic theology to believe God has arms, legs and doesn't know where Adam is hiding.
There were always people who saw these things as allegory, not only in the very early Church, but in 2nd Temple Judaism as well. A non literal reading of Genesis did not begin after Darwin discovered natural selection, it has it's origins in the very first Christian communities, as well as early Judaism. Moses Maimonides a 12th century Jewish philosopher I believe also said Genesis was allegory. So did Origen, and a number of other Christian writers. I think St. Augustine even though I think he believed it to be literal, once wrote that if Christian insisted on reading it literally, and it was ever proven the earth was much older than 6000 years the pagans would rightly laugh at us Christians. Well, substitute pagans for atheists, and his description was pretty much right on.
and that's why I'm asking if the orthodox church believe in it. I"ve heard that they don't force you to believe either side.
Whether Catholic or Orthodox, you are free to take Genesis literally, allegorically, or somewhere in the fuzzy middle ground, which is where pretty much every thinking person actually resides. (I've never met ANYONE who believes God literally walked around in the Garden, and couldn't find Adam and Eve because He didn't know where they were)
So if you're going to make an allegorical interpretation on some parts of Genesis, why not just go all the way like many Church fathers did? Granted one is not required to, and I know people who are Orthodox and reject evolution, but they also don't demand I adhere to their wishes and desires on the issue.
I know science can be a scary thing, especially in a scientifically illiterate society such as ours in America, however I don't think there is anything to fear from it once you get past the caricatures like self proclaimed experts saying "science disproves the bible"...no, it does not. It disproves an ultra literalistic intepretation of the bible, however I personally maintain that that ultra literal view was NOT the original view, but crept into Christian theology during the dark ages, and especially in post Enlightenment Protestantism. But that's my opinion. And that's what's great about Orthodoxy, is we can have theologically diverse opinions on many subjects that are not dogmatic.