Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[Heorhij]

Does the Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Russian, etc.) accept the doctrine of evolution in any form? Do any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches accept this doctrine? Just wanted to know.

There is no such thing as "the doctrine of evolution." There exists a phenomenon of biological evolution, which is defined as a change of the genetic makeup of populations over time. There also exists the theory of biological evolution, which states that the diversity of life forms on our planet exits because of the ongoing biological evolution. That's all. I teach biological disciplines at a university, so I would know.

[Asteriktos]

That's all. I teach biological disciplines at a university, so I would know.

Corrupter of the youth and follower of strange Gods! Away with you!

[Papist]

I'm very worried that Rome accepts evolution as a possible explanation for Genesis 1 (and many if unfortunately not most priests are buying that Genesis 1 can be allegorized as evolution and it's all a "myth"). If you don't believe in Moses can you believe in Christ ? No of course not (John 5:45-47). I heard the Eastern Orthodox were starting to accept this evolution business and it's worrying me.

We do NOT believe that Moses was a myth.

[Rafa999]

My theory: Orthodox acceptance of evolution heresy (I see here, don't know if it's true overall for the OC) is an unfortunate side-effect of communist takeover and over-secularism for some 80 years which indoctrinated people into this. Time to undo this mess,  reprimand all Bishops who don't believe Moses is telling the truth in Genesis 1 and that it's all a myth. There's still time to counter this heresy.

[Heorhij]

My theory: Orthodox acceptance of evolution heresy (I see here, don't know if it's true overall for the OC) is an unfortunate side-effect of communist takeover and over-secularism for some 80 years which indoctrinated people into this. Time to undo this mess,  reprimand all Bishops who don't believe Moses is telling the truth in Genesis 1 and that it's all a myth. There's still time to counter this heresy.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the most prominent experts in the field of biological evolution, was Russian and Orthodox.

One more time: evolution (=change of the genetic makeup of populations over time) is an objectively existing phenomenon, like gravity or electromagnetism. There is no point in disregarding it.

The theory of biological evolution (the theory that states that the diversity in life forms that we observe today has its origins in the process of biological evolution) is just a good, sound, valid, well-supported scientific theory, like the theory of atomic-molecular structure of matter or the relativity theory in physics. One cannot "counter" it as "heresy" just like one cannot "counter" as "heresy" the two other theories I mentioned. To ask bishops to combat the theory of biological evolution is exactly the same as to ask them to combat the theory that atoms combine into  molecules when they form polar or non-polar covalent bonds between each other. One can certainly ignore science, but it will not disappear because some people choose to ignore it.

[tuesdayschild]

Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the most prominent experts in the field of biological evolution, was Russian and Orthodox.

Wikipedia says Dobzhansky was Ukrainian.

[Rafa999]

Ask Mar Ephrem if he believed in Evolution. Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right? Don't you know Satan loves to mock (ie: like when protestants have symbolic sacraments, or when JWs say that the Archangel Michael, which could not rebuke Satan, is God )?

[android]

Ask Mar Ephrem if he believed in Evolution. Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right? Don't you know Satan loves to mock (ie: like when protestants have symbolic sacraments, or when JWs say that the Archangel Michael, which could not rebuke Satan, is God )?

with all due respect, you don't know what you are talking about as it relates to evolutionary biology or orthodoxy. surely you don't think i or any other orthodox christians here believe God created our souls in the image of an ape??

perhaps instead of ignorant overreaction you could educate yourself rather than throwing around hysterical claims of heresy and reading into science all sort of communist/sinister plots. what did these poor strawmen do to you to deserve such treatment?

read, pray, learn, pray, read some more, think, pray some more and in a couple of years you will feel differently. in the meantime, take a breath.

[Asteriktos]

Ask Mar Ephrem if he believed in Evolution. Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right? Don't you know Satan loves to mock (ie: like when protestants have symbolic sacraments, or when JWs say that the Archangel Michael, which could not rebuke Satan, is God )?

What does the former admin Mor Ephrem have to do with anything? Btw, the Bible says God made our bodies out of mud, and several Church Fathers say that our entire person--not just soul and spirit, but body as well--were made in the image of God, or rather, the image of the image of God (ie. Jesus). After being called a mud man, being modeled after an ape isn't exactly shocking.

[Andrew21091]

Ask Mar Ephrem if he believed in Evolution. Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right? Don't you know Satan loves to mock (ie: like when protestants have symbolic sacraments, or when JWs say that the Archangel Michael, which could not rebuke Satan, is God )?

What does the former admin Mor Ephrem have to do with anything? Btw, the Bible says God made our bodies out of mud, and several Church Fathers say that our entire person--not just soul and spirit, but body as well--were made in the image of God, or rather, the image of the image of God (ie. Jesus). After being called a mud man, being modeled after an ape isn't exactly shocking.

When he said Mar Ephrem, he is referring to St. Ephrem the Syrian. Mar is what Saints are called in Syriac/Aramaic.

[Ortho_cat]

Ack! Cheval mort!

[Jetavan]

Ack! Cheval mort!

Not exactly the same species of horse. This live one has an Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodox connection.

[Heorhij]

Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the most prominent experts in the field of biological evolution, was Russian and Orthodox.

Wikipedia says Dobzhansky was Ukrainian.

Right! Sorry, my bad. I should have known.

[Heorhij]

Ask Mar Ephrem if he believed in Evolution. Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right? Don't you know Satan loves to mock (ie: like when protestants have symbolic sacraments, or when JWs say that the Archangel Michael, which could not rebuke Satan, is God )?

No one "believes" in evolution. Do you "believe" in gravity or electricity? I guess you simply know that gravity exists and electricity exists. Evolution is a similar phenomenon. If you, as a population geneticist, find out that the frequency of allele "a" in a population X in 1977 was 0.17%, and in 2009 it became 0.45%, then you are pretty much convinced that evolution (=a change in the genetic makeup of populations) is a reality. And these observations are reported daily.

[Heorhij]

Ack! Cheval mort!

Love it. 

[Heorhij]

That's all. I teach biological disciplines at a university, so I would know.

Corrupter of the youth and follower of strange Gods! Away with you!

In my defense, Your Honor, I do not teach evolutionary biology - my scope is human A&P, microbiology, immunology and pathophysiology. But I do understand what evolution is and what the theory of biological evolution states.

[android]

Ask Mar Ephrem if he believed in Evolution. Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right? Don't you know Satan loves to mock (ie: like when protestants have symbolic sacraments, or when JWs say that the Archangel Michael, which could not rebuke Satan, is God )?

No one "believes" in evolution. Do you "believe" in gravity or electricity? I guess you simply know that gravity exists and electricity exists. Evolution is a similar phenomenon. If you, as a population geneticist, find out that the frequency of allele "a" in a population X in 1977 was 0.17%, and in 2009 it became 0.45%, then you are pretty much convinced that evolution (=a change in the genetic makeup of populations) is a reality. And these observations are reported daily.

Just to head it off at the pass, what are your thoughts on speciation and what Creationists sometimes call macro/micro-evolution.

To clarify, I find your example to be chalked up by most Creationists as being evidence that there may be variations and adaptations that occur, but that speciation and macroevolution are a whole 'nother ballgame (it's really just a matter of time/scale, but still, while we have your attention.... 

[rakovsky]

The OT predicts the Messiah's resurrection. It is hard to find a sentence in the Old Testament that explicitly and completely independently predicts that the Messiah would resurrect.

I think even the NT says that the OT uses images to predict it.

The OT is God's word, but it is an image of the NT. The NT is the fulfillment of the Old. The OT is images and prophecies and law and some explicit real events.

David says that his body wouldn't decay or be left to the grave. (Psalm 16), but St Peter pointed out that it did go to the grave.

For what reason did St Peter say that David's body didn't decay? To show that holy scripture was wrong? No. To show that the OT was an image of the New. David's body decayed, but in fulfillment of the OT images, Christ's did not.

Likewise, the story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

By the way, some skeptics and nonChristians have a big problem with Christianity for this reason. They demand a literal reading of the OT and don't realize the image-in-ary approach of the prophecies.

That is why it's in miraculous terms that Jesus "opened their understanding" about the scriptures for the apostles on the Road to Emmaus. Because the explicit-only approach leads to confusion.

[Iconodule]

Likewise, the story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

Without disagreeing, I would point out that the Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities... therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

[android]

Likewise, the story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

Without disagreeing, I would point out that the Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities... therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

Do you have some cites/references for this? I read a lot in the Fathers (e.g. St. Symeon) that suggest they thought Eden, Adam and Eve, etc. were literally real, although I'd like to find some more support for your POV.

[Jetavan]

Likewise, the story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

Without disagreeing, I would point out that the Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities... therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

Do you have some cites/references for this? I read a lot in the Fathers (e.g. St. Symeon) that suggest they thought Eden, Adam and Eve, etc. were literally real, although I'd like to find some more support for your POV.

I think Iconodule's position is consistent with the Fathers believing that Eden, Adam, Eve, etc., were literally real. Just because creation is an image of heavenly reality, doesn't mean that it isn't real.

Plus, 2000 years ago, there was no alternative to the Genesis account, for Christians and Jews. Genesis made perfect sense, given the knowledge of the earth and the cosmos that was prevalent back the.

[Rafa999]

One of the top rules for interpretation of scripture : Take the LITERAL meaning first then the allegorical!

If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
-John 3:12

How can you obtain any knowledge of scriptures if you ignore the plain earthly sense ? This is reflected in the most ancient exegetical methods of the Church passed on by the Hebrews who also used them. Now Genesis 1 says God created the Heavens and the Earth and all the creeping things, fowls,etc. and Man who he breathed his life into. They were not self-created, and God created our Souls (our Souls are not evolved apes, apes cannot breathe the breath of life into humans) and Cosmic evolution goes blatantly against Genesis 1 (by saying the universe is self-generated, supposing this to be true which I am not sure). Just to start... Look at the secularist apologetics floating about all due to evolution.



"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.

 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

-John 5:45-47

Now the first implicit mention of Christ is in Genesis 1 (The Woman shall crush the head of the serpent, via the Messiah of course) so if you don't believe in the literal account of Genesis 1...can you proclaim yourself a follower of the Christ?

[Heorhij]

Ask Mar Ephrem if he believed in Evolution. Surely your joking when you say that God created our souls in the image of an ape right? Don't you know Satan loves to mock (ie: like when protestants have symbolic sacraments, or when JWs say that the Archangel Michael, which could not rebuke Satan, is God )?

No one "believes" in evolution. Do you "believe" in gravity or electricity? I guess you simply know that gravity exists and electricity exists. Evolution is a similar phenomenon. If you, as a population geneticist, find out that the frequency of allele "a" in a population X in 1977 was 0.17%, and in 2009 it became 0.45%, then you are pretty much convinced that evolution (=a change in the genetic makeup of populations) is a reality. And these observations are reported daily.

Just to head it off at the pass, what are your thoughts on speciation and what Creationists sometimes call macro/micro-evolution.

To clarify, I find your example to be chalked up by most Creationists as being evidence that there may be variations and adaptations that occur, but that speciation and macroevolution are a whole 'nother ballgame (it's really just a matter of time/scale, but still, while we have your attention.... 

It's a good question. I think the best way to approach it is to admit that the terms "species," "genera," etc. are subjective terms, inventions of the human mind. They are used for the sake of convenience. In reality, what exists is a big number of discrete populations. Some of them interbreed (if they reproduce sexually), other do not. There are birds that, as ornithologists admit, look absolutely alike, and yet they form populations that do not interbreed. On the other hand, wolves and domestic dogs look different and yet interbreed.

Overall, the mechanisms that account for evolution are the same, whether they apply to a population that changes, or to two or more populations that are diverging and forming new species. So, perhaps it is fair to say that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are, again, our convention, the terms that we apply for the sake of didactics rather than because they reflect different phenomena.

[Heorhij]

if you don't believe in the literal account of Genesis 1...can you proclaim yourself a follower of the Christ?

But does it matter what I proclaim myself? To me, a much more important thing is that my priest considers me a follower of Christ even though I do not believe in the literal account of Genesis 1. Some very high-positioned and autoritative Orthodox bishops are like me in this regard, for example Metropolitan +KALLISTOS of Dioclea. Search this forum and you will find quotes.

[android]

One of the top rules for interpretation of scripture : Take the LITERAL meaning first then the allegorical!

If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
-John 3:12

How can you obtain any knowledge of scriptures if you ignore the plain earthly sense ? This is reflected in the most ancient exegetical methods of the Church passed on by the Hebrews who also used them. Now Genesis 1 says God created the Heavens and the Earth and all the creeping things, fowls,etc. and Man who he breathed his life into. They were not self-created, and God created our Souls (our Souls are not evolved apes, apes cannot breathe the breath of life into humans) and Cosmic evolution goes blatantly against Genesis 1 (by saying the universe is self-generated, supposing this to be true which I am not sure). Just to start... Look at the secularist apologetics floating about all due to evolution.



"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.

 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

-John 5:45-47

Now the first implicit mention of Christ is in Genesis 1 (The Woman shall crush the head of the serpent, via the Messiah of course) so if you don't believe in the literal account of Genesis 1...can you proclaim yourself a follower of the Christ?

So when  Christ said the temple would be destroyed and he would rebuild it again in 3 days, and everyone thought he meant the Jewish temple, they were right?

Oh, right, he meant he would be destroyed and put to death but would resurrect in 3 days.

And he used parables and metaphors and imagery and symbolism.

And it was people who took some of the OT prophecies LITERALLY that failed to acknowledge Christ as a messiah because he didn't build an earthly kingdom, etc.

Those who take things LITERALLY don't have a very good track record of seeing God.

[Marc1152]

I'm very worried that Rome accepts evolution as a possible explanation for Genesis 1 (and many if unfortunately not most priests are buying that Genesis 1 can be allegorized as evolution and it's all a "myth"). If you don't believe in Moses can you believe in Christ ? No of course not (John 5:45-47). I heard the Eastern Orthodox were starting to accept this evolution business and it's worrying me.

And it turns out the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around !!!  Doh

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUtl26ZW6so

[jckstraw72]

One of the top rules for interpretation of scripture : Take the LITERAL meaning first then the allegorical!

If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
-John 3:12

How can you obtain any knowledge of scriptures if you ignore the plain earthly sense ? This is reflected in the most ancient exegetical methods of the Church passed on by the Hebrews who also used them. Now Genesis 1 says God created the Heavens and the Earth and all the creeping things, fowls,etc. and Man who he breathed his life into. They were not self-created, and God created our Souls (our Souls are not evolved apes, apes cannot breathe the breath of life into humans) and Cosmic evolution goes blatantly against Genesis 1 (by saying the universe is self-generated, supposing this to be true which I am not sure). Just to start... Look at the secularist apologetics floating about all due to evolution.



"Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope.

 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

-John 5:45-47

Now the first implicit mention of Christ is in Genesis 1 (The Woman shall crush the head of the serpent, via the Messiah of course) so if you don't believe in the literal account of Genesis 1...can you proclaim yourself a follower of the Christ?

So when  Christ said the temple would be destroyed and he would rebuild it again in 3 days, and everyone thought he meant the Jewish temple, they were right?

Oh, right, he meant he would be destroyed and put to death but would resurrect in 3 days.

And he used parables and metaphors and imagery and symbolism.

And it was people who took some of the OT prophecies LITERALLY that failed to acknowledge Christ as a messiah because he didn't build an earthly kingdom, etc.

Those who take things LITERALLY don't have a very good track record of seeing God.

just because some parts arent literal doesnt mean nothing is literal. the ECFs consistenly interpret Genesis literally. are you sure they dont have a good track record of seeing God?

[Sleeper]

“There need not be any conflict with religion and science…I don’t care very much for the theory of Intelligent Design…for myself as an Orthodox Christian I have no difficulty in accepting the evolutionary picture of the universe presented by modern science.  And I think we shouldn’t say evolution is merely a theory or speculation, the evidence is very powerful.  I don’t have a problem there for my faith as an Orthodox Christian…but we do wish to affirm that human beings have a unique status in the universe because they are made in the image and likeness of God.”

- Kallistos Ware

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

“There need not be any conflict with religion and science…I don’t care very much for the theory of Intelligent Design…for myself as an Orthodox Christian I have no difficulty in accepting the evolutionary picture of the universe presented by modern science.  And I think we shouldn’t say evolution is merely a theory or speculation, the evidence is very powerful.  I don’t have a problem there for my faith as an Orthodox Christian…but we do wish to affirm that human beings have a unique status in the universe because they are made in the image and likeness of God.”

- Kallistos Ware

Kallistos Ware is a wonderful theologian, but a poor scientist. Nothing he says regarding evolution is anything more than pure opinion. I am afraid that on this issue, he is capitulating to the desire to be viewed as intellectually relevant in the eyes of worldly minds. Father Seraphim Rose has written much more in depth on the issue of evolution, and provided many theological, scientific, and philosophical arguments to refute it- something Bishop Ware has not done.


Selam

[Heorhij]

“There need not be any conflict with religion and science…I don’t care very much for the theory of Intelligent Design…for myself as an Orthodox Christian I have no difficulty in accepting the evolutionary picture of the universe presented by modern science.  And I think we shouldn’t say evolution is merely a theory or speculation, the evidence is very powerful.  I don’t have a problem there for my faith as an Orthodox Christian…but we do wish to affirm that human beings have a unique status in the universe because they are made in the image and likeness of God.”

- Kallistos Ware

Kallistos Ware is a wonderful theologian, but a poor scientist. Nothing he says regarding evolution is anything more than pure opinion.

As another poor scientist, I disagree. Well-substantiated scientific theories are something entirely different from speculation. Metr. +KALLISTOS just misuses the terminology. As a poor scientist, I would re-phrase what he said this way: "we should not say that the theory of biological evolution is a fantasy on par with fairy tales about goblins, trolls, and unicorns. It is a well-supported scientific theory, like the electromagnetic theory of Maxwell or the theory of relativity in physics, or like Dalton-Lavoisier atomic-molecular theory of the structure of matter in chemistry."

I am afraid that on this issue, he is capitulating to the desire to be viewed as intellectually relevant in the eyes of worldly minds. Father Seraphim Rose has written much more in depth on the issue of evolution, and provided many theological, scientific, and philosophical arguments to refute it- something Bishop Ware has not done.

I never had patience to read all of Fr. Rose's meanderings about evolution, simply because they are based on entirely wrong premises. Theological and philosophical arguments either in favor or against a theory in natural sciences are like arguments of a mechanical engineer either in favor or against what is expressed in Apollinaire's poem about the Mirabeau bridge in Paris (http://www.toutelapoesie.com/poemes/apollinaire/le_pont_mirabeau.htm)


Selam
[/quote]

[Sleeper]

From what I've read of both authors, Ware is far more sane than Rose.  And to be honest Gebre, I find it hard to believe you know what Ware has studied and what he hasn't.  Just because something hasn't been formally published doesn't mean research hasn't been done.  But that's all beside the point.  I only quoted it to show that evolution, despite whether or not it's "true," is not in any way incompatible with Orthodoxy.

Simple studies of the size of the universe, light, elements, DNA and a plethora of other things give a vast amount of support to the idea that life as we know it has been a slow progression over very long amounts of time, in stark contrast to the 6-day creation blitz we find in Genesis.  The simple fact of the matter is that the author of Genesis wasn't trying to give an account of how the world came about.

[chrevbel]

Father Seraphim Rose has written much more in depth on the issue of evolution, and provided many theological, scientific, and philosophical arguments to refute it- something Bishop Ware has not done.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone's attempts to refute a scientific theory using theological or philosophical arguments.  Why should such an approach hold any credence whatsoever?

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm gravity through theology?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?  Why is no one trying to verify the value of Pi through prayer?

[jckstraw72]

Father Seraphim Rose has written much more in depth on the issue of evolution, and provided many theological, scientific, and philosophical arguments to refute it- something Bishop Ware has not done.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone's attempts to refute a scientific theory using theological or philosophical arguments.  Why should such an approach hold any credence whatsoever?

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm gravity through theology?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?  Why is no one trying to verify the value of Pi through prayer?

i am extremely skeptical of anyone trying to refute the harmonious teaching of the Fathers about Paradise based on scientific observations of the 19th-21st centuries ...

[Sleeper]

Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.

[Marc1152]

Father Seraphim Rose has written much more in depth on the issue of evolution, and provided many theological, scientific, and philosophical arguments to refute it- something Bishop Ware has not done.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone's attempts to refute a scientific theory using theological or philosophical arguments.  Why should such an approach hold any credence whatsoever?

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm gravity through theology?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?  Why is no one trying to verify the value of Pi through prayer?

i am extremely skeptical of anyone trying to refute the harmonious teaching of the Fathers about Paradise based on scientific observations of the 19th-21st centuries ...

Okay..Do you believe Dinosaurs and Humans existed on Earth at the same time in history?

[jckstraw72]

Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.

im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?

[Jetavan]

Father Seraphim Rose has written much more in depth on the issue of evolution, and provided many theological, scientific, and philosophical arguments to refute it- something Bishop Ware has not done.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone's attempts to refute a scientific theory using theological or philosophical arguments.  Why should such an approach hold any credence whatsoever?

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm gravity through theology?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?  Why is no one trying to verify the value of Pi through prayer?

i am extremely skeptical of anyone trying to refute the harmonious teaching of the Fathers about Paradise based on scientific observations of the 19th-21st centuries ...

Okay..Do you believe Dinosaurs and Humans existed on Earth at the same time in history?

Yes, I believe that with all of my heart. I've seen a dinosaur in real life.

[Heorhij]

Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.

im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?

That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment. This observation serves as one of the principal postulates of the modern scientific theory of biological evolution...

[Achronos]

The OT predicts the Messiah's resurrection. It is hard to find a sentence in the Old Testament that explicitly and completely independently predicts that the Messiah would resurrect.

I think even the NT says that the OT uses images to predict it.

The OT is God's word, but it is an image of the NT. The NT is the fulfillment of the Old. The OT is images and prophecies and law and some explicit real events.

David says that his body wouldn't decay or be left to the grave. (Psalm 16), but St Peter pointed out that it did go to the grave.

For what reason did St Peter say that David's body didn't decay? To show that holy scripture was wrong? No. To show that the OT was an image of the New. David's body decayed, but in fulfillment of the OT images, Christ's did not.

Likewise, the story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

By the way, some skeptics and nonChristians have a big problem with Christianity for this reason. They demand a literal reading of the OT and don't realize the image-in-ary approach of the prophecies.

That is why it's in miraculous terms that Jesus "opened their understanding" about the scriptures for the apostles on the Road to Emmaus. Because the explicit-only approach leads to confusion.

The problem with that apology is that this symbolism still advocates a morality of killing one's mistakes, a justice which asserts that the flaw is the responsibility of the flawed, and this results in the profoundly anti-human stance of Christianity. Whether it actually happened or not is irrelevant.

[Jetavan]

Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.

im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?

That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment.

There's more: all living beings have descended from a common ancestor.

[Heorhij]

Are we supposed to place our trust in the Fathers when it comes to scientific understanding?  I didn't realize that was a tenet of Orthodoxy.

im saying we should trust the Fathers to tell us about the works of God and Scripture - the Scriptures tell us about Paradise, so why would I ask Chucky Darwin about it when it belongs to the Church?

That's quite reasonable, I would not ask Darwin about Paradise, but did Darwin ever have a slaightest intention to tell someone about Paradise? I thought Darwin just made a brilliant observation that animal and plant populations evolve because the natural selection favors those genetically determined individuals in these populations who have a reproductive success under the ever-changing conditions of the environment.

There's more: all living beings have descended from a common ancestor.

That's one of the deductions made from the theory of biological evolution, yes.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Father Seraphim Rose has written much more in depth on the issue of evolution, and provided many theological, scientific, and philosophical arguments to refute it- something Bishop Ware has not done.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone's attempts to refute a scientific theory using theological or philosophical arguments.  Why should such an approach hold any credence whatsoever?

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm gravity through theology?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?  Why is no one trying to verify the value of Pi through prayer?

Evolutionary theory is a scientific philosophy, not an empirically verifiable science. Most people who believe in evolution do not understand this distinction. I recommend Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science."


Selam

[Jetavan]

Father Seraphim Rose has written much more in depth on the issue of evolution, and provided many theological, scientific, and philosophical arguments to refute it- something Bishop Ware has not done.

I am extremely skeptical of anyone's attempts to refute a scientific theory using theological or philosophical arguments.  Why should such an approach hold any credence whatsoever?

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm gravity through theology?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?  Why is no one trying to verify the value of Pi through prayer?

Evolutionary theory is a scientific philosophy, not an empirically verifiable science. Most people who believe in evolution do not understand this distinction. I recommend Karl Hempel's book "The Philosophy of Natural Science."

Selam

Let's pick a specific example of evolutionary process, say, the evolution of amphibians from fish. It's true that we can't verify this by repeating the process, or by observing it happening. But we can think of ways that we could falsify the idea that amphibians evolved from fish. If we find amphibians in the fossil record prior to the appearance of the first fish, then that would falsify that idea. But, all fossil amphibians appear after fossil fish.

Science works via falsification, not only via verification.

[chrevbel]

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?

Evolutionary theory is a scientific philosophy, not an empirically verifiable science. Most people who believe in evolution do not understand this distinction.

You've avoided the second part of my post.

Have you actually empirically verified the chemical principles that define and describe how sulfur behaves?  You've seen the electrons?  You've observed the protons and neutrons?

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

And if this is a valid discipline, then why are its efforts seemingly restricted to evolution?  Why is no one trying to refute or affirm the reactivity of sulfur using philosophy?

Evolutionary theory is a scientific philosophy, not an empirically verifiable science. Most people who believe in evolution do not understand this distinction.

You've avoided the second part of my post.

Have you actually empirically verified the chemical principles that define and describe how sulfur behaves?  You've seen the electrons?  You've observed the protons and neutrons?

Have you emprically verified that the moon is not made of cheese? Have you emprically falsified that the universe was created by an ominoptent ant?



Selam

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy