Many ( I think more and more )scientist do not believe in the evolution theory and there are many good books about the "myths of Darwin".
I'm sure many don't, but the idea that this number is increasing I think is only your wishful thinking. Since theory is a scientific attempt to interpret the factual data observed, I'm sure many scientists will disagree with any theory. That, however, doesn't change the fact that evolution is generally recognized by the scientific community as the most acceptable explanation, based on the facts we can observe now, of how life as we know it developed.
The evolution theory is a contradiction to the teaching of the church and her Tradition, and the Holy Fathers weren't against science but they did not accept anything contrary to Holy Scripture or the Tradition of the Church. ( they were not afraid of being contrary to the science of their time !)
That, however, is not the issue today. The question many here ask is, "How would the Fathers respond to the science of today
, since this is, in so many ways, different from the science of their day?"
St. Basil the great:
We are proposing to examine the structure of the world and to contemplate the whole universe, not from the wisdom of the world, but from what God taught His servants when he spoke to him in person and without riddles.
Very well and good, but what have you to say of this quote from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans
? "Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
" (Romans 1:20) Cannot the scientific study of creation be another means to knowing the nature of God?
(there are many others)
Merely saying this with the intent of making your argument sound strong doesn't convince us of anything.
"Whoever says Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that, whether he sinned or not, he would have died a bodily death, that is he would have departed from the body, not as a punishment for sin but by necessity of his nature: let him be anathema" (Council of Carthage, 418).
Evolutionary theory properly understood, in that it cannot touch upon the supernatural works of a supernatural God, doesn't prohibit God from creating an immortal being via the process of evolution.
Instead of looking from an orthodox point of view on the whole evolution question, people here are looking from a secular "scientific" point of view on Genesis.
I guess science, like anything truly sacred, can be made secular, but, to my understanding, the pioneers of the modern scientific method were largely Christians who sought to know God better through a study of nature and its workings. Therefore, you cannot call science a secular pursuit in and of itself.
Our "teachers" are the Holy Fathers of old and of course also the modern, and not some atheists, occultists and pseudo scientists.
Not all scientists are atheists, occultists, or quacks. Would you level such a charge against our own poster and resident professor of biology, Heorhij
When you accept the theory of evolution ( or every part of ) you can not accept the teaching of the church and the Holy Fathers ( even when you interprete Genesis allegorical).
Biological Evolutionism by Constantine Cavarnos ( includes a critique of the great St. Nectarios of Pentapolis)
Darwin on Trial by Philipp E Johnson, this book was called the book that makes Evolution "furious".
Scientific Creationism by Henry M Morris
Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton ( molecular biologist) he also calls into question the myths of radiometric dating.
Evolution; A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
Not by chance ! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Dr. Lee Spencer an israeli biophysicist.
......and many others...I know some from the University of Paris.....
The fact that many scientists don't accept evolutionary theory, again, does not invalidate the theory altogether. The disagreement just goes to prove that evolution is indeed a theory and not established fact. (Heck, we have scientists who disagree with Einstein's theories of relativity, but that doesn't cast his theories into disrepute.) Like you, even though I accept evolution as a plausible theory, I recognize evolution as merely a theory, and I bristle when I hear it proclaimed as proven, irrefutable fact. There are certain aspects of the theory of evolution that I find hard to accept personally, and even for religious reasons, but I certainly don't see creationism or intelligent design theory as valid substitutes--creationism was born out of Protestant Fundamentalist fear-mongering, and intelligent design is really a quasi-religious philosophy that cannot be verified or falsified by the scientific method.