Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[minasoliman]

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!

Done.

Biochemists are not biologists. (See, e.g. Michael Behe)

From what I understand, Allister McGrath is pro-evolution.  I never knew he was a biochemist.  I thought he was an Anglican pastor.

And I wouldn't shut down biochemistry as a field to ignore.  They are just as highly qualified to talk about evolution as biologists.  Dr. Behe is an anomaly who doesn't even deny the theory of common descent anyway.

To be specific, he has a Ph.D. in biophysics, but as far as I can tell, he has never worked in that capacity. (although I have a history degree, I do not call myself a historian)

I disagree that biochemists are equally qualified to discuss evolution as biologists because their field of study is the chemical reactions within organisms. They can talk about the role that formaldehyde plays in human metabolism, for example, but not very much about the evolution of feathers, for example. And of course, not all biologists are equally qualified. I would give more credence to an evolutionary biologist than a cellular biologist if I had a question about evolution. I experience this issue in my life as well - when people hear I am a lawyer, they do not hesitate to ask me questions about child support or automobile accidents when I have no idea about any of that stuff. I do business law.

But, I digress. I am still waiting for a theology text by biologists.

The very science of genetics is rooted in biochemistry.  Genetics is a necessary component of understanding evolution.  To say that biochemists are not qualified is mind-boggling to me.

[jckstraw72]

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

[Sauron]

the new, expanded edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, including articles on updated science by 2 Orthodox scientists and a section on modern Saints and Elders on Evolution, among other goodies is now available at www.stherman.com, in case anyone is interested.

Maybe some biologists could publish a book on Christian theology!

Done.

Biochemists are not biologists. (See, e.g. Michael Behe)

It's a branch of biology -- unless you reject the branch theory of biology.

Please refer to my post above regarding specialization within biology.

Of course, even if we except him as a biologist, (to my knowledge, he has never worked as a biochemist), my point was not that there is no such book. While I have never read the book you link, I imagine he does not appeal to his scientific expertise as giving him theological insight. My point is that there is a dearth of such books. Real experts are generally very aware of the limitations of their own knowledge of expertise. To whit:

Number of books written by biologists about theology: miniscule to nil
Number of books written by Christians with no expertise stating opinions that fly in the face of scientific consensus: thousands

So much for humility!

[Sauron]

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?

[jckstraw72]

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?

perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

[Opus118]

First, I want to commend you for Reply #3636, it had the attribute of being thoughtful, helpful and appropriate.

I thought I should respond to this quote as a biochemist:

I disagree that biochemists are equally qualified to discuss evolution as biologists because their field of study is the chemical reactions within organisms. They can talk about the role that formaldehyde plays in human metabolism, for example, but not very much about the evolution of feathers, for example. And of course, not all biologists are equally qualified. I would give more credence to an evolutionary biologist than a cellular biologist if I had a question about evolution. I experience this issue in my life as well - when people hear I am a lawyer, they do not hesitate to ask me questions about child support or automobile accidents when I have no idea about any of that stuff. I do business law.

But, I digress. I am still waiting for a theology text by biologists.

You are correct, in that there is a large swath of biochemists that deal with metabolism who discover and analyze therapeutic inhibitors of enzyme functions that relate to an assortment of metabolic diseases. You would probably also be correct that a large fraction of these people would not be that knowledgeable about evolution.
That being said, there is also a large swath of biochemists that are more knowledgeable about evolution than evolutionary biologists. Most biochemists are not in a biochemistry department, they are spread out in other departments, some of which one would think has little to do with biochemistry (especially at medical schools and NIH). For example I am in the molecular biology division of a biology department, molecular biology used to be the realm of biophysicists, but got taken over by molecular geneticists (biochemists). Quitting here so as to not belabor the point since I can see where you are coming from.

[Sauron]

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?

perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

I did not make an assumption. I made a conditional statement: "If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science."

Well, does he?

I also asked a simple question: "Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?"

Care to answer it?

[mabsoota]

hi, mina soliman (reply 3617)
i agree with that article in all except the added square brackets [and other homo sapiens].
i really didn't find enough evidence of other humans (not descended from adam) to question the idea that adam was a literal first human made in the image of God.
anyway, i am moving house soon so will not have time to debate this more (sorry sauron), but thanks for the link.
apart from the square brackets above, that guy is generally in agreement with father athanasius.
may God bless u all.

[minasoliman]

hi, mina soliman (reply 3617)
i agree with that article in all except the added square brackets [and other homo sapiens].
i really didn't find enough evidence of other humans (not descended from adam) to question the idea that adam was a literal first human made in the image of God.
anyway, i am moving house soon so will not have time to debate this more (sorry sauron), but thanks for the link.
apart from the square brackets above, that guy is generally in agreement with father athanasius.
may God bless u all.

Maybe Fr. Athanasius changed over the years.  I don't know.  Long time ago, when I listened to Fr. Athanasius' lectures he was anti-evolution, even if he makes himself out to be pro-science (I do commend him however for acknowledging that it would be madness to be think that the earth is young in age).  The article I gave you is pro-evolution.  That's the difference between Fr. Athanasius and Dr. Reda Fayek.

[jckstraw72]

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?

perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

I did not make an assumption. I made a conditional statement: "If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science."

Well, does he?

I also asked a simple question: "Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?"

Care to answer it?

he does not deny the observations that are made. i dont know anyone that does. he takes issue with the interpretation of the observations. no matter what you say, common descent was observed by no one - its an extrapolation. you may think its a correct extrapolation but its certainly not an observation. i dont know what a bailiwick is. to describe the physical universe is mainly the job of scientists, but to describe the act of Creation and to describe Paradise - well that is clearly the job of a theologian. to interpret Genesis is clearly the job of a theologian and this is mainly what the book is about.

[Sauron]

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?

perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

I did not make an assumption. I made a conditional statement: "If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science."

Well, does he?

I also asked a simple question: "Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?"

Care to answer it?

he does not deny the observations that are made. i dont know anyone that does. he takes issue with the interpretation of the observations. no matter what you say, common descent was observed by no one - its an extrapolation. you may think its a correct extrapolation but its certainly not an observation. i dont know what a bailiwick is. to describe the physical universe is mainly the job of scientists, but to describe the act of Creation and to describe Paradise - well that is clearly the job of a theologian. to interpret Genesis is clearly the job of a theologian and this is mainly what the book is about.

Creationists make a big deal about "direct observation". Let me ask you this: if you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you decline to call the police just because no one observed it? Of course, speciation has been directly observed, a great many times. That you deny this is the case betrays your lack of familiarity with the relevant science.

Please use a dictionary to learn what "bailiwick" means.

I agree that is the job of theologians to interpret scripture, but if that interpretation conflicts with physical reality, that interpretation is wrong.

[jckstraw72]

Genesis, Creation, and Early Man is not a book about biology by a theologian as you're obviously suggesting. Its a theology book by a monastic-theologian. It also contains articles on science by scientists. Nowhere in the book are any of the observations of modern science denied by either Fr. Seraphim or the scientist authors who wrote appendices.

Guess what? Evolution is the framework of all biology so yes, any writing about evolution is a writing about biology. If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science.

Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?

perhaps you should just read the book before making assumptions

I did not make an assumption. I made a conditional statement: "If he denies evolution, he denies the observations of modern science."

Well, does he?

I also asked a simple question: "Is description of the physical universe the bailiwick of scientists or theologians?"

Care to answer it?

he does not deny the observations that are made. i dont know anyone that does. he takes issue with the interpretation of the observations. no matter what you say, common descent was observed by no one - its an extrapolation. you may think its a correct extrapolation but its certainly not an observation. i dont know what a bailiwick is. to describe the physical universe is mainly the job of scientists, but to describe the act of Creation and to describe Paradise - well that is clearly the job of a theologian. to interpret Genesis is clearly the job of a theologian and this is mainly what the book is about.

Creationists make a big deal about "direct observation". Let me ask you this: if you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you decline to call the police just because no one observed it? Of course, speciation has been directly observed, a great many times. That you deny this is the case betrays your lack of familiarity with the relevant science.

Please use a dictionary to learn what "bailiwick" means.

I agree that is the job of theologians to interpret scripture, but if that interpretation conflicts with physical reality, that interpretation is wrong.

thats different - i actually observed my house before and after the ransacking, so i know something happened. the world was not observed before the billions of years of evolution. what is observed is remains of the past (not the past itself)- but they must be interpreted. a more accurate parallel would be for me to walk into a random house and see that on Monday its clean but by Friday it has become messy. Since I have observed the house get steadily messier, then I can extrapolate that the condition of the house on Monday is actually messier than it was on the previous Monday, and that Monday was messier than its previous Monday, etc etc. Since I've seen the house get messier then obviously as i go back in time it would get cleaner and cleaner and cleaner, etc. thats a proper parallel for the theory of common descent.

you lend first credence to presuppositional extrapolations of physical observations when it comes to interpreting Scripture and understanding Paradise and the pre-fallen world. Creationism lends first credence to those who have seen God. there's no common ground to start from.

and i didnt deny speciation. you seem like a smart chap, im sure you can figure out my actual position.

[Sauron]

Creationists make a big deal about "direct observation". Let me ask you this: if you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you decline to call the police just because no one observed it? Of course, speciation has been directly observed, a great many times. That you deny this is the case betrays your lack of familiarity with the relevant science.

Please use a dictionary to learn what "bailiwick" means.

I agree that is the job of theologians to interpret scripture, but if that interpretation conflicts with physical reality, that interpretation is wrong.

thats different - i actually observed my house before and after the ransacking, so i know something happened. the world was not observed before the billions of years of evolution. what is observed is remains of the past (not the past itself)- but they must be interpreted. a more accurate parallel would be for me to walk into a random house and see that on Monday its clean but by Friday it has become messy. Since I have observed the house get steadily messier, then I can extrapolate that the condition of the house on Monday is actually messier than it was on the previous Monday, and that Monday was messier than its previous Monday, etc etc. Since I've seen the house get messier then obviously as i go back in time it would get cleaner and cleaner and cleaner, etc. thats a proper parallel for the theory of common descent.

So what if you saw your house before it was ransacked? You did not see how it actually got to that condition. Until you understand this, you will continue to rant about "no one saw common descent!" ineffectively.

you lend first credence to presuppositional extrapolations of physical observations when it comes to interpreting Scripture and understanding Paradise and the pre-fallen world. Creationism lends first credence to those who have seen God. there's no common ground to start from.

and i didnt deny speciation. you seem like a smart chap, im sure you can figure out my actual position.

I really don't know your position. If you don't deny speciation, I don't see how you deny common descent. Speciation is how common descent happens.

[jckstraw72]

Creationists make a big deal about "direct observation". Let me ask you this: if you were to come home and find your house ransacked, would you decline to call the police just because no one observed it? Of course, speciation has been directly observed, a great many times. That you deny this is the case betrays your lack of familiarity with the relevant science.

Please use a dictionary to learn what "bailiwick" means.

I agree that is the job of theologians to interpret scripture, but if that interpretation conflicts with physical reality, that interpretation is wrong.

thats different - i actually observed my house before and after the ransacking, so i know something happened. the world was not observed before the billions of years of evolution. what is observed is remains of the past (not the past itself)- but they must be interpreted. a more accurate parallel would be for me to walk into a random house and see that on Monday its clean but by Friday it has become messy. Since I have observed the house get steadily messier, then I can extrapolate that the condition of the house on Monday is actually messier than it was on the previous Monday, and that Monday was messier than its previous Monday, etc etc. Since I've seen the house get messier then obviously as i go back in time it would get cleaner and cleaner and cleaner, etc. thats a proper parallel for the theory of common descent.

So what if you saw your house before it was ransacked? You did not see how it actually got to that condition. Until you understand this, you will continue to rant about "no one saw common descent!" ineffectively.

you lend first credence to presuppositional extrapolations of physical observations when it comes to interpreting Scripture and understanding Paradise and the pre-fallen world. Creationism lends first credence to those who have seen God. there's no common ground to start from.

and i didnt deny speciation. you seem like a smart chap, im sure you can figure out my actual position.

I really don't know your position. If you don't deny speciation, I don't see how you deny common descent. Speciation is how common descent happens.

well anyways, i just wanted to let people know about the book in case anyone would be interested. we're not going to agree.

[celticfan1888]

The truth about evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_NdQ6QjLI&feature=relmfu

[Anastasia1]

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?

[PeterTheAleut]

Have you taken a look yet at this thread?  Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[Achronos]

Might want to let the Ethopians weigh in on this.

[Anastasia1]

Thank you.

[minasoliman]

The truth about evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_NdQ6QjLI&feature=relmfu

LOL...I completely passed over this post...

...But I must say, Egyptians are the first humans.  In fact, Alexander the Great acknowledged this by making Alexandria, Egypt the best place in the world!  Come on now...Greek people really had to go to Alexandria for education to become qualified to be called "homo sapiens"

Pythagoreas?  True, he was Greek, but he lived in Alexandria.  Your welcome, Greece 

[Riddikulus]

I expected him to have knocked himself out with his Kombolói by the end of the *lecture*! 

[Sauron]

The truth about evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_NdQ6QjLI&feature=relmfu

LOL...I completely passed over this post...

...But I must say, Egyptians are the first humans.  In fact, Alexander the Great acknowledged this by making Alexandria, Egypt the best place in the world!  Come on now...Greek people really had to go to Alexandria for education to become qualified to be called "homo sapiens"

Pythagoreas?  True, he was Greek, but he lived in Alexandria.  Your welcome, Greece 

Black Athena was discredited some time ago. I remember a student trying to raise it during one of my graduate school history courses, and the professor shot her down pretty easily.

While classics was not my area of study, do you have some citations for the claim that Pythagoras lived in Alexandria? He established his school in Italy.

[minasoliman]

The truth about evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN_NdQ6QjLI&feature=relmfu

LOL...I completely passed over this post...

...But I must say, Egyptians are the first humans.  In fact, Alexander the Great acknowledged this by making Alexandria, Egypt the best place in the world!  Come on now...Greek people really had to go to Alexandria for education to become qualified to be called "homo sapiens"

Pythagoreas?  True, he was Greek, but he lived in Alexandria.  Your welcome, Greece 

Black Athena was discredited some time ago. I remember a student trying to raise it during one of my graduate school history courses, and the professor shot her down pretty easily.

While classics was not my area of study, do you have some citations for the claim that Pythagoras lived in Alexandria? He established his school in Italy.

Dude, I'm joking around.  Please don't dwell on a joke.  Second of all, I'm not talking about "Black Athena" theories.  In fact, I find a problem with "Black Egypt" theories as well.

[Agabus]

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?

Not an issue?

[orthonorm]

Have you taken a look yet at this thread?  Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Staring. Abyss. And all that.

Unless you want to end up in Arkham, I advise not clicking that link, unless . . . no really just don't click it.

[Volnutt]

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?

I stump for the latter because I don't think it's Christian to completely reject modern science.

At the same time I'm quite afraid I've committed myself to a slippery slope which will end in denying the Resurrection, not that cognitive dissonance isn't my live-in girlfriend these days in other areas anyway...

[orthonorm]

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?

I stump for the latter because I don't think it's Christian to completely reject modern science.

At the same time I'm quite afraid I've committed myself to a slippery slope which will end in denying the Resurrection, not that cognitive dissonance isn't my live-in girlfriend these days in other areas anyway...

Just as long as you are living as brother and sister as not understood by the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky (there's an oxymoron for you), you should be fine.

//:=)

[Iconodule]

What do we think about young earth/old earth creationism and evolutionary creationism?

I stump for the latter because I don't think it's Christian to completely reject modern science.

At the same time I'm quite afraid I've committed myself to a slippery slope which will end in denying the Resurrection, not that cognitive dissonance isn't my live-in girlfriend these days in other areas anyway...

Folks who are really vexed about this question might benefit from reading Philip Sherrard's Human Image: World Image and also St. Nikolai of Zicha's The Universe as Symbols and Signs.

[primuspilus]

In our Parish we're reading Creation and the Patriarchial Histories and it really goes in depth concerning these topics.

http://conciliarpress.com/products/Creation_and_the_Patriarchal_Histories-496-0.html

If you're interested. Its fantastic.

PP

[orthonorm]

What would be interesting is if those of us who reject "young earth", aka the reasonable folks, could have a thread without the barbs of pseudo-scientists and fundamentalists intervening about the REAL problems of belief in "evolution" pose for Christian thought.

[primuspilus]

What would be interesting is if those of us who reject "young earth", aka the reasonable folks, could have a thread without the barbs of pseudo-scientists and fundamentalists intervening about the REAL problems of belief in "evolution" pose for Christian thought.

+1


PP

[jckstraw72]

what would be even better would be a thread where "old-earthers" didnt feel the need to judge and mock "young-earthers," especially considering that our Saints from ancient to present times are "young-earthers!"

[primuspilus]

what would be even better would be a thread where "old-earthers" didnt feel the need to judge and mock "young-earthers," especially considering that our Saints from ancient to present times are "young-earthers!"

Last I looked, belief in young-earth creationism was not needed for salvation.

PP

[Riddikulus]

What would be interesting is if those of us who reject "young earth", aka the reasonable folks, could have a thread without the barbs of pseudo-scientists and fundamentalists intervening about the REAL problems of belief in "evolution" pose for Christian thought.

Impossible!  

[PeterTheAleut]

what would be even better would be a thread where "old-earthers" didnt feel the need to judge and mock "young-earthers," especially considering that our Saints from ancient to present times are "young-earthers!"

Are our saints infallible?

[jckstraw72]

even if the entire mass of our Saints was wrong, would they therefore deserve mocking -- such as being called unreasonable?

[orthonorm]

even if the entire mass of our Saints was wrong, would they therefore deserve mocking -- such as being called unreasonable?

Time / Place.

They live in theirs. You live in yours.

Did the Fathers teach the cosmology of OT? (Get back to me.) Do you?

Stop LARPing and live now and where ever you are.

I ain't looking for any big technological achievements to be coming outta Mt. Athos anytime soon.

Should we let all the "elders" write our science down for us?

Nonsense.

And I never called anyone unreasonable. I said some people were reasonable. You would think an Orthodox would understand something about the logic of privatives.

But to make it clear. I AM calling you somewhat unreasonable. In this case, displaying a relative lack of reason. Next time at least get your opponent's words correct.

[jckstraw72]

even if the entire mass of our Saints was wrong, would they therefore deserve mocking -- such as being called unreasonable?

Time / Place.

They live in theirs. You live in yours.

Did the Fathers teach the cosmology of OT? (Get back to me.) Do you?

Stop LARPing and live now and where ever you are.

I ain't looking for any big technological achievements to be coming outta Mt. Athos anytime soon.

Should we let all the "elders" write our science down for us?

Nonsense.

And I never called anyone unreasonable. I said some people were reasonable. You would think an Orthodox would understand something about the logic of privatives.

But to make it clear. I AM calling you somewhat unreasonable. In this case, displaying a relative lack of reason. Next time at least get your opponent's words correct.

by calling old-earthers the reasonable people you obviously imply that the young-earthers are unreasonable. so i said it'd be nice to see a thread where the old-earthers didnt devolve into mocking and judging. to make the point stronger i pointed out that you are thereby referring to our Saints (including many Saints who have lived since Darwin) as unreasonable. I like it to be clear just exactly who it is that the old-earthers are aiming their attacks at.

i just find it interesting that old-earthers/evolutionists seem to have a very hard time being civil.

[Timon]

I almost posted a thread about this the other day.  I recently sent a question to "Orthodox Answers" and they just answered me back yesterday.  It seems that the reason, obviously, that many saints were "young earthers" is because they didnt have the science we have today.  it just wasnt a topic that concerned them. and although it is a fascinating topic, i would argue that it still shouldnt concern us that much today. it still doesnt change the death and resurrection of Christ.

if you care to read the Priests full response to me, here it is! http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1132/

[primuspilus]

I simply believe that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

HOW He did it is up to him.
If He chose to use evolution, fine.
If he chose to use the verbatim account of Genesis and cover up His tracks, ok by me.


Do I believe it was 6,000 years ago? No. I have something in my closet older than that.
Random genetic evolution? No.
We're all just one big accident? Heck no.
He did it on purpose (whatever medium he used)? Yep.

PP

[PeterTheAleut]

even if the entire mass of our Saints was wrong, would they therefore deserve mocking -- such as being called unreasonable?

Time / Place.

They live in theirs. You live in yours.

Did the Fathers teach the cosmology of OT? (Get back to me.) Do you?

Stop LARPing and live now and where ever you are.

I ain't looking for any big technological achievements to be coming outta Mt. Athos anytime soon.

Should we let all the "elders" write our science down for us?

Nonsense.

And I never called anyone unreasonable. I said some people were reasonable. You would think an Orthodox would understand something about the logic of privatives.

But to make it clear. I AM calling you somewhat unreasonable. In this case, displaying a relative lack of reason. Next time at least get your opponent's words correct.

by calling old-earthers the reasonable people you obviously imply that the young-earthers are unreasonable. so i said it'd be nice to see a thread where the old-earthers didnt devolve into mocking and judging. to make the point stronger i pointed out that you are thereby referring to our Saints (including many Saints who have lived since Darwin) as unreasonable. I like it to be clear just exactly who it is that the old-earthers are aiming their attacks at.

i just find it interesting that old-earthers/evolutionists seem to have a very hard time being civil.

It's not just the "old-earthers/evolutionists" who seem to have a hard time being civil on this forum.

[Volnutt]

I almost posted a thread about this the other day.  I recently sent a question to "Orthodox Answers" and they just answered me back yesterday.  It seems that the reason, obviously, that many saints were "young earthers" is because they didnt have the science we have today.  it just wasnt a topic that concerned them. and although it is a fascinating topic, i would argue that it still shouldnt concern us that much today. it still doesnt change the death and resurrection of Christ.

if you care to read the Priests full response to me, here it is! http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1132/

I like Fr. Laurent's answer.

[Volnutt]

I simply believe that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

HOW He did it is up to him.
If He chose to use evolution, fine.
If he chose to use the verbatim account of Genesis and cover up His tracks, ok by me.


Do I believe it was 6,000 years ago? No. I have something in my closet older than that.
Random genetic evolution? No.
We're all just one big accident? Heck no.
He did it on purpose (whatever medium he used)? Yep.

PP

Indeed, with God there is actually no such thing as a random event.

[primuspilus]

I simply believe that In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

HOW He did it is up to him.
If He chose to use evolution, fine.
If he chose to use the verbatim account of Genesis and cover up His tracks, ok by me.


Do I believe it was 6,000 years ago? No. I have something in my closet older than that.
Random genetic evolution? No.
We're all just one big accident? Heck no.
He did it on purpose (whatever medium he used)? Yep.

PP

Indeed, with God there is actually no such thing as a random event.

However, a small part of me wishes that when we get to see God and ask Him, he'll just look at us and say, "Young Earth evolution? Heh, no my children.... epic gigantic mice.....thats how I did it......


PP

[NicholasMyra]

Saints reference the Four Humors of the body. All true Orthodox must believe in Humorism.

[Tags:]

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