OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 03:19:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 332240 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,082


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2007, 05:08:10 PM »

Clement is not a saint. That was what I was taught at SVS.

That's news to me.  I had no idea.  We Orthodox seem to disagree even on pre-schism figures as saints, let alone post-schism.  Is he simply just not commemorated in a calendar, or he's simply being denied sainthood like how some try to do with Augustine?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 05:09:00 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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.
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2007, 05:11:20 PM »

Clement is not a saint. That was what I was taught at SVS.

On what basis? Clement was only denied his sainthood by Pope Clement VIII in the 16th century. Do we Orthodox accept his action?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2007, 05:14:38 PM »

On what basis? Clement was only denied his sainthood by Pope Clement VIII in the 16th century. Do we Orthodox accept his action?

I have no idea, it's been years since I was in that class.  It is my recollection that he was never entered into the Synaxarion. If he is, what day is his feast? Is there a service for him? Any churches named after him? I don't recall any of that.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,082


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2007, 05:18:22 PM »

I have no idea, it's been years since I was in that class.  It is my recollection that he was never entered into the Synaxarion. If he is, what day is his feast? Is there a service for him? Any churches named after him? I don't recall any of that.

We don't have Clement in the Coptic Synexarium, but there's a general consensus of calling him an honored Church father and saint.
Logged

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.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2007, 05:22:15 PM »

What part of that long article did you want us to look at? I don't feel like reading the whole thing right now.
III, b, 3
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,651


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #50 on: August 28, 2007, 05:36:12 PM »

No righteous person of the 19 th or 20 th century accepted Darwinism. That is a fact that should tell us something. The fact that you cannot even come up with one even new calendarist or Sergianist illustrates my point. 
Actually, I didn't attempt to present a contrary saint to you not because I can't but because I just didn't see that doing so was germane to the counterpoint I tried to make.  My point, once again, is this: You cannot assert that no holy man of the 19th and 20th Centuries ever accepted Darwinism when you make acceptance of Darwinism the very reason for refusing to recognize someone as holy.  You essentially stack the deck precisely to support your pov, not to mention that this is also the very epitome of circular logic.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2007, 11:47:30 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
falafel333
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


« Reply #51 on: August 28, 2007, 09:09:18 PM »

Falafell...Origien is an anathemised heretic. Do you also believe in the pre-existence of souls, the theory behind his refusal to believe what the Church teaches on this subject was based on? Clement of Alexandria also is not an Orthodox saint, not a Holy Father.

As regards the other quoates they can hardly be considered to be AGANIST the literal interputation. I have stated that other interputations- moral, mystical, symbolical are indeed possible but they do not negate the historical Truth of the God-seer Moses's narrative. They can hardly be said to be aganist what the Church teaches with the expection of Origien, who I repeat was a HERETIC.

Theophan.


All of these authors obviously offer a different theory to the literal six-day creation one. You also need to separate the age of Biblical human history which patristic authors give from the Genesis account from the age of the earth which many do not presume to know.

You need to be very careful here would you call these blasphemous as well. Quickly jumping to such judgments with the limited knowledge that we do have can have quite deleterious effects.

Furthermore, why is such a piont so important to you, whether what is mentioned is to be taken literally or allegorically? Would it contradict the doctrines of the church? Can you be so sure that God didn't decide to create in a certain way? What if He did create through evolution, what then?

I think the theology and doctrinal standpoint is much more important than a literal or allegorical sense to the passage. Where these exegetical methods are in conflict with Orthodox theology and dogma is where perhaps a problem may exist.

I have seen too much time wasted on debates and arguments over this issue, all of which is pure scepticism, when it could have been spent on much more fruitful things.

Last time I checked I can't ever remember seeing a literal six-day creation theory of the world being a mandatory dogma of the church.

That being said we should be content to accept that there are a diversity of opinions and that there are much more fruitful things that we should occupy our time, energy and effort with.
Logged
GOCTheophan
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


« Reply #52 on: August 29, 2007, 07:43:42 AM »

Actually, I didn't attempt to present a contrary saint to you not because I can't but because I just didn't see that doing so was germane to the counterpoint I tried to make.  My point, once again, is this: You cannot assert that no holy man of the 19th and 20th Centuries ever accepted Darwinism when you make acceptance of Darwinism the very reason for refusing to recognize someone as holy.  You essentially stack the deck precisely to support your pov, not to mention that this is also the very epitome of circular logic.

Okay. Can you name a commonly recognised Saint of the 19 th century or even righteous one who accepted Darwinism?

I would probably reject those from the 20 th century you would bring up for other reasons, such as their allowing themselves to be pawns of Soviet power or even praising Joseph Stalin, showing gross disobediance to the canons, being heretical on other issues, etc. 

Theophan.
Logged
falafel333
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


« Reply #53 on: August 29, 2007, 08:01:51 AM »

Okay. Can you name a commonly recognised Saint of the 19 th century or even righteous one who accepted Darwinism?

I would probably reject those from the 20 th century you would bring up for other reasons, such as their allowing themselves to be pawns of Soviet power or even praising Joseph Stalin, showing gross disobediance to the canons, being heretical on other issues, etc. 

Theophan.

This challenge is nonsensical in itself since Darwinism was not proposed till the late 19th century, and even then it was in a largely nonOrthodox country. And was really only then popularised in the 20th century.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 29, 2007, 08:09:31 AM »

Okay. Can you name a commonly recognised Saint of the 19 th century or even righteous one who accepted Darwinism?


Theophan.

Dear Theophan,

There is no Darwinism, just like there is "Maxwellianism" or "Einsteinianism" or "Pasteurism." Darwin never intended to be the founder of any philosophical teaching, and those who think that there is one are simply misguided.

All Darwin did was explain the "mechanical," mechanistic side of the problem of diversification of life. To this sole end, he proposed a well-founded scientific theory of biological evolution (TBE). So far, TBE is not disproved, so, according to the conventional rules of the scientific method, it stands as valid. (Under "disproved" I, of course, mean purely scientific data, such as an observation that genes do not exist or do not mutate, or that frequencies of alleles and genotypes in populations remain constant regardless of the number of generations, etc. - not religious or other metaphysical objections.)

I believe we can simply choose to learn basic tenets of TBE, just like we can choose to learn basic tenets of other valid, sound scientific theories like the theory of electromagnetism, or the relativity theory, or the germ theory of disease. If we choose not to (which is tragic, IMHO), then we should not engage in debates about these theories, just like we should not engage in debates about the exact appearance of some animal that we never saw.

The dichotomy "choose Christ or choose Darwin (Maxwell, Tesla, Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, Koch, ..., ..., ...)" is, IMHO, very false and, actually, cruel, unkind. I believe it is one of those false dichotomies that the evil one tries to sell us, to distract us from God and from what is really important in life.

George
Logged

Love never fails.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 29, 2007, 08:25:17 AM »

The dichotomy "choose Christ or choose Darwin (Maxwell, Tesla, Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, Koch, ..., ..., ...)" is, IMHO, very false and, actually, cruel, unkind. I believe it is one of those false dichotomies that the evil one tries to sell us, to distract us from God and from what is really important in life.
Hear hear!
You know, the only place I find Orthodox Christians discussing "Darwinism" is in internet forums. I have never once come across an Orthodox Christian book on the subject (perhaps there is one I don't know about). .I never hear it in our trapeza discussions after Liturgy or Q&A time with the Hegumen. Anything I have read or heard on the subject other than in online forums has come from either Evangelical Protestantism or Seventh Day Adventists.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #56 on: August 29, 2007, 09:26:24 AM »

Dear Anastasius,

Quote
I have read St Basil's Hexameron and he seems to suggest we should leave science to the scientists, no?


It seems to me that St Basil's take on Genesis, at least on his own terms, was inspired by his understanding of the authoritative teaching of Scripture rather than science. In chapter six of his Hexameron he states:

Quote
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 servant when He spoke to him in person and without riddles.

I think there is a sense in which those who argue evolution are going to have to concede that many Fathers were plain wrong, not in their application of the science of their day as many claim, but simply in their understanding of the intention of the Scriptures, which those Fathers regarded as the sole authority upon which to base their ideas of creation.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 09:27:00 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #57 on: August 29, 2007, 09:31:28 AM »

Quote
I have never once come across an Orthodox Christian book on the subject (perhaps there is one I don't know about). .I never hear it in our trapeza discussions after Liturgy or Q&A time with the Hegumen

Genesis, Creation and Early Man by Fr. Seraphim Rose.  

I'm fairly sure Cavarnos has a book out on the topic.  I remember seeing many little tract type publications at Athonite monasteries and other places in Greece.  Oddly enough I've even run across a Polish translation of Fr. Seraphim Rose's book.  
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #58 on: August 29, 2007, 10:17:02 AM »

You know, the only place I find Orthodox Christians discussing "Darwinism" is in internet forums. I have never once come across an Orthodox Christian book on the subject (perhaps there is one I don't know about). .I never hear it in our trapeza discussions after Liturgy or Q&A time with the Hegumen. Anything I have read or heard on the subject other than in online forums has come from either Evangelical Protestantism or Seventh Day Adventists.

As far as I know, creationism as we know it today is a product of the United States. In orthodoxy things seem to trace back to Seraphim Rose, who showed a characteristic American interest in this and in "new age" religion.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 29, 2007, 01:38:30 PM »

As far as I know, creationism as we know it today is a product of the United States. In orthodoxy things seem to trace back to Seraphim Rose, who showed a characteristic American interest in this and in "new age" religion.

Well, on a Russian Orthodox forum "Sirota" ("An Orphan") (http://www.cirota.ru) somebody mentioned a while ago that a book written by some present-day Russian Orthodox Church cleric is being circulated among the faithful. In this book this Fr. argues that the six days of Genesis are actual 6 times 24 hours, that the Earth is 7,000 years old, that real Adam and real Eve indeed existed alone (with no other humans around), etc. etc. etc.

Also, a number of the Russian Orthodox clerics wrote letters to the Ministry of Education of Russia, where they claimed that the biology curriculum in Russian schools must be changed, because it does not include the Genesis creation story.

Having said that, I actually do not disagree that this idiotic "creationism" is a Western, Evangelical Protestant influence.
Logged

Love never fails.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,651


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #60 on: August 29, 2007, 05:49:40 PM »

Okay. Can you name a commonly recognised Saint of the 19 th century or even righteous one who accepted Darwinism?

I would probably reject those from the 20 th century you would bring up for other reasons, such as their allowing themselves to be pawns of Soviet power or even praising Joseph Stalin, showing gross disobediance to the canons, being heretical on other issues, etc. 

Theophan.
I'm sorry (speaking as a mere poster), I can't allow you to set the rules for the debate like that.  You can't ask for a commonly recognized saint from one century yet reject commonly recognized saints from the next merely because they don't meet your standards of saintliness.  You're trying to set up the game board in your favor so that you can't possibly lose this argument.  You need to be consistent.  If you want me to name a commonly recognized saint from the 19th century, then you must accept every commonly recognized saint of the 20th, even those who don't meet your personal standards.

Should I likewise mention that you're also setting yourself up to be the lone arbiter of truth?  I'm sorry, but the Church isn't named the Church of GOCTheophan, nor are you the vicar of Christ; she is the Church of Jesus Christ, Who needs no vicar.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #61 on: August 29, 2007, 06:39:45 PM »

As far as I know, creationism as we know it today is a product of the United States.
Brought to you by the same country which gave us religious fundamentalism.

In orthodoxy things seem to trace back to Seraphim Rose, who showed a characteristic American interest in this and in "new age" religion.
I wonder why. Perhaps, the Church in the US being much more of a missionary Church with many more converts (some parishes being composed mostly of adult converts- something which doesn't happen here) may be a major contributing factor as to why this debate is so prevalent there?  Or perhaps, existing in a land where this debate is so brought to the fore by Christian Fundamentalism, a response is needed. As I said, the only time I ever discuss this issue with Orthodox Christians is on internet forums.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 06:40:07 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #62 on: August 29, 2007, 10:17:05 PM »

Last time I checked I can't ever remember seeing a literal six-day creation theory of the world being a mandatory dogma of the church.

That being said we should be content to accept that there are a diversity of opinions and that there are much more fruitful things that we should occupy our time, energy and effort with.

Yeah, although I tend to be a literalist, I agree with this sentiment. I don't think this needs to be a divisive issue.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #63 on: August 29, 2007, 10:48:11 PM »

Yeah, although I tend to be a literalist, I agree with this sentiment. I don't think this needs to be a divisive issue.

One is, of course, in our society free to hold whatever view they desire, no matter how absurd. However, if one is to advocate a completely and utterly absurd idea such as a ptolemaic universe, or a euclidean flat earth, or creationism they should expect a degree of public ridicule and rebuke. These things are not simply alternate or competing theories, they are plain wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. We have simply advanced enough to know and understand enough of the truths of gravity, relativity, and evolution to know that these outdated models are simply incorrect. Science is not a matter of theology, religion, opnion, or rhetoric, it is a matter of fact...and until you can present and scientifically support an alternate theory to a degree surpassing current theories, there is simply no room for disagreement.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,651


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #64 on: August 30, 2007, 12:32:11 AM »

One is, of course, in our society free to hold whatever view they desire, no matter how absurd. However, if one is to advocate a completely and utterly absurd idea such as a ptolemaic universe, or a euclidean flat earth, or creationism they should expect a degree of public ridicule and rebuke. These things are not simply alternate or competing theories, they are plain wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. We have simply advanced enough to know and understand enough of the truths of gravity, relativity, and evolution to know that these outdated models are simply incorrect. Science is not a matter of theology, religion, opnion, or rhetoric, it is a matter of fact...and until you can present and scientifically support an alternate theory to a degree surpassing current theories, there is simply no room for disagreement.
There's science, and then there's scientolatry.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: August 30, 2007, 12:52:18 AM »

There's science, and then there's scientolatry.

There's religion, and then there's fundamentalism.

As science is true, true religion will not conflict with the same.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #66 on: August 30, 2007, 04:43:57 AM »

There's religion, and then there's fundamentalism.

As science is true, true religion will not conflict with the same.

GIC I think kuhn and popper would have a couple of things to say about your assertion that science is true (sorry to sound stupid I have a philosophy essay to do tomorrow on the authority of science on truth and have been excessively reading those two authors)
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #67 on: August 30, 2007, 01:25:24 PM »

It's easy to trace out the development of this in the USA, because (ironically) the issue keeps impinging upon the public square, so the media keep it in public view. The American academic world has always had an inferiority complex, an attitude frequently resented in other social strata; at the same time, the lack of ecclesiastical establishment has inevitably led to extremely scattershot reactions. So when the heavily anti-clerical European academics jumped on the "Darwinism shows that religion is a crock", the mainline churches mostly ignored that and stuck with an attitude of a certain grudging accomodation; but in the midwest, which by that time had managed to set up its own academic and church establishments, the baptist-polity groups were free to (over-)react. This area was already smarting from New England elite condescension, so the whole thing has evolved into a class war which persists to this day.

From a greater historical perspective there is a parallel between this and the various late medieval heresy-revolts (such as the Dolcinians and the Apostolic Brethren). You see a lot of the same kind of paranoid semi-underground apocalyptic thinking, and the same realization of social division in philosophical processes. It's facilitated in the US, however, because the place is too large and too disrespectful of assumed authority to prevent the creation of these counter establishment sects like the SDAs and JWs; indeed, they develop into (or capture, in the case of the SBC) establishments of their own. I get the impression that a lot of foreign intellectual types have trouble conceiving of a country in which the Southern Baptists are many times larger than the Episcopalians and that both wield considerable public influence. (But then, I don't think anybody can conceive of Texas. Grin ) I get the impression that the current Russian situation is a lot like that late medieval situation: a lot of distress and a lot of corruption, and a sense of a fallen place in the world. So it isn't surprising that there is a similar grasp at eschatological visions for a solution to their sorrows, especially since they cannot do anything about the real problems.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #68 on: August 30, 2007, 01:44:25 PM »

Keble, thank you so much for a truly enlightening post. Really interesting and insightful! --G.
Logged

Love never fails.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #69 on: August 30, 2007, 03:13:18 PM »

GIC I think kuhn and popper would have a couple of things to say about your assertion that science is true (sorry to sound stupid I have a philosophy essay to do tomorrow on the authority of science on truth and have been excessively reading those two authors)
You are correct in that science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #70 on: August 30, 2007, 03:26:59 PM »

You are correct in that science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant.

Yes, I agree. Besides, AFAIK Kuhn showed that science moves from a paradigm to a paradigm, in "leaps," paradigm shifts, rather than in "increments" of knowledge. Yet, a hypothesis, or a theory, or even a paradigm can always be disproved. That's why quite a number of hypotheses and theories/paradigms are no longer regarded as valid, sound, working. We do not teach them in schools, and we do not give them any credibility; they are just "archived" and are interesting only as steps in the history of science. Such are theory of phlogistone in chemistry, or theory of ether in physics, or the so-called "instructionist" theory in immunology. The latter, BTW, was proposed by one of the finest minds in immunology, Karl Landsteiner, the man who discovered blood types, explained the significance of the rhesus factor for the hemolytic disease of newborns, etc. Nonetheless, his theory was objectively, scientifically DISproved. Nothing of the kind has ever happened to Darwin's TBE, so it stands.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2007, 03:28:01 PM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #71 on: August 30, 2007, 06:09:13 PM »

You are correct in that science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant.

You are, do a degree, correct. But I would argue that Mathematics (and Mathematics alone) is truth, and those few scientific areas that are firmly steeped in Mathematics to expound on truth. Off the top of my head the only two fields that I can think of where this is done are Mathematical Physics and Theoretical Computer Science. Beyond that, science expounds on facts; the distinction, however, is not because of some flaw in science but due to the limited abilities of those engaged in science...being only million year since we came down from the trees and all, this is certainly understandable. However, if we wish to expand a discussion of 'truth' beyond the realm of Theoretical Mathematics, and be able to speak of it in a meaningful way, as more than a mere linguistic construct, we must (as I recently said in another thread) base our discussion on fact, that is to say we must base it on science. Science is a minimum standard by which we must measure our understanding of the Universe; sure, it may not be perfect and it may not be complete, but the methods of science are the methods of discovering truth so if one wishes to dispute the truth of a theory or hypothesis they must dispute it in a manner consonant with science, they must present an alternate theory or hypothesis that explains everything current models do (and, generally speaking, explain even more observations) and this new theory or hypothesis must be supported by the scientific method and by scientific obervations. This is the problem with the so-called 'intelligent design' movement (to tie this discussion back into the OP), they have attempted to attack current scientific theories and they have even created their own theory. But until the proponents can offer direct scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, surpassing the current level of scientific evidence for evolution, what they are arguing is not science, is not fact, is not truth: it's merely misguided ideology.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,651


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #72 on: August 30, 2007, 09:42:35 PM »

You are, do a degree, correct. But I would argue that Mathematics (and Mathematics alone) is truth, and those few scientific areas that are firmly steeped in Mathematics to expound on truth. Off the top of my head the only two fields that I can think of where this is done are Mathematical Physics and Theoretical Computer Science. Beyond that, science expounds on facts; the distinction, however, is not because of some flaw in science but due to the limited abilities of those engaged in science...being only million year since we came down from the trees and all, this is certainly understandable. However, if we wish to expand a discussion of 'truth' beyond the realm of Theoretical Mathematics, and be able to speak of it in a meaningful way, as more than a mere linguistic construct, we must (as I recently said in another thread) base our discussion on fact, that is to say we must base it on science. Science is a minimum standard by which we must measure our understanding of the Universe; sure, it may not be perfect and it may not be complete, but the methods of science are the methods of discovering truth so if one wishes to dispute the truth of a theory or hypothesis they must dispute it in a manner consonant with science, they must present an alternate theory or hypothesis that explains everything current models do (and, generally speaking, explain even more observations) and this new theory or hypothesis must be supported by the scientific method and by scientific obervations. This is the problem with the so-called 'intelligent design' movement (to tie this discussion back into the OP), they have attempted to attack current scientific theories and they have even created their own theory. But until the proponents can offer direct scientific evidence for an intelligent designer, surpassing the current level of scientific evidence for evolution, what they are arguing is not science, is not fact, is not truth: it's merely misguided ideology.
Mathematics and science are both abstractions developed by the mind of man and his attempts to explain creation.  The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #73 on: August 30, 2007, 10:15:12 PM »

Mathematics and science are both abstractions developed by the mind of man and his attempts to explain creation.  The creation they seek to explain lies outside of man, for it is the creative handiwork of God.  So how can you exalt mathematics and science to the level of truth when they fundamentally do not exist outside of our own minds?

Mathematics does not merely exist within our minds, Mathematics transcends us, transcends the universe, transcends existence itself...we merely uncover the truth of Mathematics with our minds. If a certain set of axioms are assumed theorems must flow from those axioms, if another set is assumed a different set of theorems must come forth. And from this, the closest thing man can ever know as absolute statements of the form 'If...then...' are uncovered, these statements are true and meaningful, as they are not, by necessity, a tautology. No man, no universe, no deity is necessary to make these things true, and no man or deity has the power to make them false...in its most absolute and purest form, this is truth.

Science, on the other hand, is truth insofar as it borrows from the field of Mathematics.

To quote the Mathematician Edward Everett: 'In the pure mathematics we contemplate absolute truths which existed in the divine mind before the morning stars sang together, and which will continue to exist there when the last of their radiant host shall have fallen from heaven.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #74 on: August 31, 2007, 05:07:26 PM »

No man, no universe, no deity is necessary to make these things true, and no man or deity has the power to make them false...in its most absolute and purest form, this is truth.
Here's a mathematical axiom: If no one can disprove a scientific theory, then it is not a scientific theory. Science is only capable of containing truth if it is also capable of containing falsehood. For example, the existence of the Loch Ness monster cannot be scientifically verified because it is not possible to prove that she does not exist, only that she was not in this place at this time. However, it is possible to prove that gravity exists, because it is also possible to prove by the same experiments that it has no effect on us whatsoever.

I owe a great deal of this argument to my colleague, a science teacher at the high school where I teach.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #75 on: August 31, 2007, 06:16:19 PM »

Here's a mathematical axiom: If no one can disprove a scientific theory, then it is not a scientific theory.

Close, but not quite, if it is not theoretically falsifiable then it is not a scientific theory. There are many scientific theories that while quite likely impossible to disprove (e.g. gravity, quantum mechanics, evolution) because they are correct, they are, on a theoretical level, falsifiable. Of course, Mathematics is exempt from this this, but is not truly a science, it is not based on observation or experiment, but on theoretical propositions.

Quote
Science is only capable of containing truth if it is also capable of containing falsehood. For example, the existence of the Loch Ness monster cannot be scientifically verified because it is not possible to prove that she does not exist, only that she was not in this place at this time. However, it is possible to prove that gravity exists, because it is also possible to prove by the same experiments that it has no effect on us whatsoever.

I owe a great deal of this argument to my colleague, a science teacher at the high school where I teach.

This is true speaking of the scientific method in general, but it does not imply that a particular scientific theory contains any falsehood.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
prodromas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #76 on: August 31, 2007, 08:04:04 PM »

Mathematics does not merely exist within our minds, Mathematics transcends us, transcends the universe, transcends existence itself...we merely uncover the truth of Mathematics with our minds. If a certain set of axioms are assumed theorems must flow from those axioms, if another set is assumed a different set of theorems must come forth. And from this, the closest thing man can ever know as absolute statements of the form 'If...then...' are uncovered, these statements are true and meaningful, as they are not, by necessity, a tautology. No man, no universe, no deity is necessary to make these things true, and no man or deity has the power to make them false...in its most absolute and purest form, this is truth.

Science, on the other hand, is truth insofar as it borrows from the field of Mathematics.

To quote the Mathematician Edward Everett: 'In the pure mathematics we contemplate absolute truths which existed in the divine mind before the morning stars sang together, and which will continue to exist there when the last of their radiant host shall have fallen from heaven.'

GIC is undoubtedly right about mathematics being truth and outside of our minds. an example of this is Blaise Pascal (famous for Pascal's wager) who was very sick as a child and was bed ridden for a large percentage of his youth and in the time he "found" a lot of the geometric truths without being told our taught the methods to reach them but he could not reach something like gravity or evolution purely through reason without evidence.
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #77 on: August 31, 2007, 09:44:43 PM »

This is true speaking of the scientific method in general, but it does not imply that a particular scientific theory contains any falsehood.
I believe that I said it must be capable of containing falsehood--which is quite different from actually containing falsehood.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #78 on: August 31, 2007, 09:53:12 PM »

Dear Anastasius,
 

It seems to me that St Basil's take on Genesis, at least on his own terms, was inspired by his understanding of the authoritative teaching of Scripture rather than science. In chapter six of his Hexameron he states:

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 servant when He spoke to him in person and without riddles.

I think there is a sense in which those who argue evolution are going to have to concede that many Fathers were plain wrong, not in their application of the science of their day as many claim, but simply in their understanding of the intention of the Scriptures, which those Fathers regarded as the sole authority upon which to base their ideas of creation.

I would love to hear a response from anyone who seriously supports evolution on the one hand, and yet has a high regard for the Fathers on the other hand (which excludes GiC in that case  Wink)

This is not a challenge, I am just genuinely interested in hearing how such persons would interpret the patristic testimony. FWIW, I personally do not have any position on the matter of creationism vs. evolution since it is a subject I have very superficially investigated.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2007, 09:54:32 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ComingHome
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Yes
Posts: 302


« Reply #79 on: August 31, 2007, 10:52:23 PM »

Coming from a fundamentalist Protestant background, I have a kneejerk reaction to any talk about evolution.  But I am interested in understanding.  How does one reconcile God as Creator (according to the Creed) with evolution?  How could there be other people who were not created as Genesis says Adam and Eve were?  If A & E are not literally the first humans, who or what are they and who or what do they signify?  Are there any resources which would be helpful to consult in relation to these things?

I am sorry for my abyssmal ignorance on this subject but until recently I thought I had all the answers and didn't seriously consider any other questions.
   
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #80 on: September 01, 2007, 09:05:43 AM »

Coming from a fundamentalist Protestant background, I have a kneejerk reaction to any talk about evolution.  But I am interested in understanding.  How does one reconcile God as Creator (according to the Creed) with evolution?  How could there be other people who were not created as Genesis says Adam and Eve were?  If A & E are not literally the first humans, who or what are they and who or what do they signify?  Are there any resources which would be helpful to consult in relation to these things?

I am sorry for my abyssmal ignorance on this subject but until recently I thought I had all the answers and didn't seriously consider any other questions.
   

Dear ComingHome,

I do not have a slightest problem reconciling the Creator and evolution. I just don't think in antropomorphic (man-shaped) terms. When I read that God "made" the heavens and the earth, I am trying to avoid imagining an old man with a gray beard who is "making" something with the help of his two hands. Same thing, when I read that God "made" Adam from clay, I am trying to avoid imagining that same old gramps taking literal red-colored mud in his hands and sculpturing a doll.

Who are Adam and Eve? As I have already written to this forum, to me they are just humankind. Adam is every man, and every man (except Christ) is Adam. Gustave Flaubert, when he was annoyed to death by journalists who desperately wanted to know, just who was m-me Bovary (who was her"prototype"), said, "M-be Bovary, c'est moi!" ("M-me Bovary, that's myself!") I have the same attitude to Adam and Eve. "Adam et Eve, ils sont moi!" Smiley

Sorry if this is too wild. I come from a totally secular humanist background, and I never received any religious education/indoctrination whatsoever. I hope my thought has not offended you, please forgive me if it has.

George
Logged

Love never fails.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,082


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #81 on: September 01, 2007, 04:08:06 PM »

I would love to hear a response from anyone who seriously supports evolution on the one hand, and yet has a high regard for the Fathers on the other hand (which excludes GiC in that case  Wink)

This is not a challenge, I am just genuinely interested in hearing how such persons would interpret the patristic testimony. FWIW, I personally do not have any position on the matter of creationism vs. evolution since it is a subject I have very superficially investigated.

Not only did the fathers regard the science of their days, but they didn't even have the technology we possess today to observe the things around us.  I think St. Basil and some other Church fathers believed that the world was flat, or had some strange idea about the earth in its relationship with the Sun.  Ever since the telescope, seeing the truth seems to be much more authoritative than listening to the "scientific ideas" of Church fathers.

I like the quote from St. Augustine how when new scientific discoveries are made, new interpretations of Genesis must be allowed.  St. Basil, although he believed in a flat earth, did not think the idea was important for theology.  I think we can reconcile the fathers in this manner, by understanding that they did not have available what we have today.  Thus, we have to be more sympathetic towards the Fathers and towards today's scientific discoveries.  The more we take the Fathers' and the Bible's words literally, the more we ridicule ourselves and the Faith.

From my favorite father, St. Athanasius, here is a good example:

Quote
For the Sun is carried round along with, and is contained in, the whole heaven, and can never go beyond his own orbit, while the moon and other stars testify to the assistance given them by the Sun...the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the centre of the universe.

Here, we see a typical geocentric view, in which the Sun is orbiting around the earth, as well as the moons and the stars.  Now, if I had no telescope, and all I did was just look straight in the sky for day and night the whole year, it would definitely look like the sun, moon, and stars were orbiting the Earth, and seeing the seas around us, it would seem that this earth stands not in some vacuumed space, but on the firmament of waters.  Now that we have telescopes, NASA, and satellites, we can see that the sun is just one among the stars, that it is the Earth that orbits the sun, and that the waters are part of the globe of the earth, and that the stars do not revolve around us, and that indeed we are sitting on vacuumed space with the centripetal force of the sun pulling us around.  St. Athanasius was not lying; he just didn't have the technology available to understand what we understand today. 

I would extend the same thinking to the science of evolution.

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 04:17:38 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #82 on: September 01, 2007, 04:15:07 PM »

Dear Mina,

You missed my entire point, which was that the claim that the Fathers were simply using the "science of their day" seems unfounded. There is no indication, for example, that St Basil was attempting to integrate the science of his day with the Scriptural testimony. St Basil based his views of creation strictly on the authority of the Scriptures. He believed what he believed concerning creation simply because he believed that the Scriptures taught it. If he erred, therefore, he erred not with respect to his application of the science of his day, but with regard to his Scriptural exegesis.

If there is some other passage from any of St Basil's works to qualify the one I brought forth, I would be most interested in reading it.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 04:16:06 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,082


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #83 on: September 01, 2007, 04:18:39 PM »

Dear EA,

Sorry I modified my post after you posted.  Is my example of St. Athanasius sufficient?  I think the passage of St. Athanasius seems to indicate they were using the science of their day, observing what we see without the technology we have today.

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 04:19:33 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #84 on: September 01, 2007, 04:28:45 PM »

Dear Mina,

Sorry, but I still do not feel that you have addressed my point.

The quote from St Athanasius does not tell us anything about the inspiration behind his views on the matter it concerns.

The quote I gave you from St Basil makes it very clear that the only and sufficient inspiration for his views on creation are the Scriptures--in fact he explicitly rejects the "wisdom of the world" as a basis for developing a viewpoint on creation; he considers the testimony of God to Moses to be sufficient for him.

If we can maybe just focus on St Basil for the moment, it may make things easier.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Symeon
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 582


Radovan Karadzic - Serbian Hero


« Reply #85 on: September 01, 2007, 04:29:50 PM »

Only a few fringe figures (such as Cosmas Indicopleustes) believed the earth was flat in antiquity, which did not include the Church Fathers. See here. Geocentrism, however, is another question.

Anyway, in re: ComingHome's question, here are a few articles from an Orthodox perspective showing how evolution can be integrated with a (mostly) literal understanding of Genesis here, here, and here. So I regard the issue as largely moot and don't really trouble myself much with it.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 04:32:07 PM by Symeon » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,082


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #86 on: September 01, 2007, 04:44:06 PM »

Dear EA,

Another issue that we can understand from St. Basil is the characteristics of science and philosophy.  In the ancient past, science and philosophy was the same thing.  There was no distinction between the two.  Today, there is a huge distinction.  Science has to be as observable and factual as defining the color of red, not as contemplative as it was in the past.  If I would guess as to why St. Basil said that he would reject the "wisdom of the world," it is probably rejecting anything contemplative about what we observe, since the Bible is sufficient enough for proper contemplation.  Today, this is not the case.  We don't contemplate on the world around us and call that science.  At best a hypothesis, at worst a fantasy, but not science.  Science is not the "wisdom of the world," but the facts of observation.

That's how I might interpret St. Basil.

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2007, 04:46:51 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,082


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #87 on: September 01, 2007, 04:45:53 PM »

Only a few fringe figures (such as Cosmas Indicopleustes) believed the earth was flat in antiquity, which did not include the Church Fathers. See here. Geocentrism, however, is another question.

Anyway, in re: ComingHome's question, here are a few articles from an Orthodox perspective showing how evolution can be integrated with a (mostly) literal understanding of Genesis here, here, and here. So I regard the issue as largely moot and don't really trouble myself much with it.

It was the late +Alexander that opened me open to the idea of putting together evolution and the Orthodox faith, and I thank him for that.

God bless.
Logged

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.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #88 on: September 01, 2007, 09:34:55 PM »

Only a few fringe figures (such as Cosmas Indicopleustes) believed the earth was flat in antiquity, which did not include the Church Fathers. See here. Geocentrism, however, is another question.

Anyway, in re: ComingHome's question, here are a few articles from an Orthodox perspective showing how evolution can be integrated with a (mostly) literal understanding of Genesis here, here, and here. So I regard the issue as largely moot and don't really trouble myself much with it.

Thank you for these links, Symeon, but I have to say that to me, the whole "argument" actually ends when the so-called "evolutionists" are even mentioned. They are, apparently, people who subscribe to a certain philosophy. But the theory of biological evolution is, principally, NOT a philosophy. So, the whole discussion becomes nonsensical, oxymoronic, a "hot ice" or a "frozen fire," etc. I can't imagine how one can deduce God from one's observations obtained by using a telescope. In the exact same way, I cannot imagine how one can REJECT God based on one's observations obtained by using a telescope. To me, the whole business of arguing whether there is God or there is no God based on one's observations that genes exist and mutate, and that mutations that confer a more adaptable phenotype get selected, and that this selection may or may not lead to speciation, - is the same as the business of arguing that there is a God or that there is no God based on what I see in my telescope...
Logged

Love never fails.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #89 on: September 02, 2007, 12:00:15 AM »

Thank you for these links, Symeon, but I have to say that to me, the whole "argument" actually ends when the so-called "evolutionists" are even mentioned. They are, apparently, people who subscribe to a certain philosophy. But the theory of biological evolution is, principally, NOT a philosophy.
Excellent point! It'd be interesting if these people also labelled scientists as "periodic tablists" or "gravitationalists." The whole idea that science is essentially philosophy is indeed absurd.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.153 seconds with 75 queries.