Poll

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

Yes
66 (16.1%)
No
157 (38.4%)
both metaphorically and literally
186 (45.5%)

Total Members Voted: 409

Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 1307081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5850 on: September 02, 2015, 11:28:23 PM »
Doctor,

I am really confused as to where you get all this from my small post I just sent you.  You are simply misrepresenting my views.  I appreciate it if you organize your thoughts and try to deduce from where in my posts do you get these ideas about me.

God bless.
God bless you too

You have made statements about God's plans and about mystery of creation didn't you? That God allowed life to develop certain ways is it not a statement about God's creation? How do you know how life came into being? Do you have reveled knowledge of it?

Maybe i misunderstood you. It's quite possible. But then you explain to me how such statement are not statements of theology.
You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution takes no position on how life began, it just explains how life gradually became more diverse and complex. Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life.
God bless!

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5851 on: September 02, 2015, 11:48:37 PM »
Doctor,

I am really confused as to where you get all this from my small post I just sent you.  You are simply misrepresenting my views.  I appreciate it if you organize your thoughts and try to deduce from where in my posts do you get these ideas about me.

God bless.
God bless you too

You have made statements about God's plans and about mystery of creation didn't you? That God allowed life to develop certain ways is it not a statement about God's creation? How do you know how life came into being? Do you have reveled knowledge of it?

Maybe i misunderstood you. It's quite possible. But then you explain to me how such statement are not statements of theology.

Well, I believe that God is consistent, and He created the world with consistency.  When I studied the world, I am convinced of the proof that evolution brings.  That is all.  I cannot in good conscience contradict this.  Therefore, I do have my strong faith in God, and that He created all things and is involved in all things.  The way He creates is not a necessary dogma, and so when I study His creation, I study it with a sense of awe in the beauty of God's ways.  I do not see evolution as a problem as you do.

One person who I think does a good job explaining the theological ideas behind creation is the late Fr. Thomas Hopko of blessed memory.  I think you will his podcasts on Darwin very edifying.

Now, your other issue is does God "reveal" to me knowledge of which no one else knows.  Well, no, not really.  The "knowledge of God" to me means to pray, to have communion with Him, to feel His presence, to grow in virtues and spirituality.  This to me is "true knowledge".  The ideas about creation I do not think comes from "revealed knowledge".  For instance, it is has not been revealed to me that B12 deficiency causes neurological problems.  We "know" this from scientific tests.  God provided for me a brain to study this, and not to be surprised at the results, but to glorify God in all that I study and find out.  I thank God everyday for everything new I learn in science to better help my patients.  This is the way I approach the understanding of science and my spirituality.
Mina
First of all i want to appoligize if i may seem rude. I mean no offence to you or anybody else. I don't put myself before you or anybody else. But what i say about theorising God's nature (including His Creation) is devel's theology is not my teaching. It's the teaching of our Saints, our church. Catholic church (for that matter any other church) may say whatever it want to say about evolution. Orthodox church clearly has expressed what i've said. You can have our own ideas about God but that is going to remain your own idea which is harmful (this is true of my ideas about God, or anybody's idea about God). Orthodox church has defended its teaching from all types of heresies because heresy leads people to darkness. When God's Saint tells me some teaching is heresy than i take it as such. Saints have clearly epxressed that neo-Darwinism is heresy, very wrong teaching that is used to separate man from God. I may not be able to prove it since i don't have any revelation of it but i have my Saints telling me that. As far as evolution's scientific merit goes i know from the study of logic, science in general and biology in particular that it is utter nonsense.

Quote
One person who I think does a good job explaining the theological ideas behind creation is the late Fr. Thomas Hopko of blessed memory.  I think you will his podcasts on Darwin very edifying.
Can you briefly tell me what does he say about Darwinism?

Quote
Now, your other issue is does God "reveal" to me knowledge of which no one else knows.  Well, no, not really.  The "knowledge of God" to me means to pray, to have communion with Him, to feel His presence, to grow in virtues and spirituality.  This to me is "true knowledge".  The ideas about creation I do not think comes from "revealed knowledge".  For instance, it is has not been revealed to me that B12 deficiency causes neurological problems.  We "know" this from scientific tests.  God provided for me a brain to study this, and not to be surprised at the results, but to glorify God in all that I study and find out.  I thank God everyday for everything new I learn in science to better help my patients.  This is the way I approach the understanding of science and my spirituality.
I have elaborated for some extent on this above. Let me ask you something. You remember how Christ says whoever misleads little children he/she will be punished. If Saints teach that evolution is anti-Christian do you not think spreading this theory and claiming it is true (as Catholic church does for example) is to mislead young generation?

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5852 on: September 02, 2015, 11:58:54 PM »
Is it not also written God is not a God of confusion?  Therefore, if there is anything misleading, it is nature itself that mislead me to be convinced of the theory of evolution.  I am not one to mislead, but I am one who sincerely tries to make sense of what I learned and my Orthodox Christian faith.

I disagree with you when you say that evolution is "used to separate man from God".  If this is true, either I would become an atheist, or I reject evolution.  Those who believe evolution separates man from God logically will fall in one end of the spectrum or the other.  But I have not seen anything from evolution that separates man from God.  I think this is a misguided interpretation of science.

There are many people in the Orthodox Church that have not seen anything wrong with evolution, including Fr. Thomas Hopko, of blessed memory.  He mentioned how Darwin grew up in a Protestant Christian world where the belief was that Christ came to appease the wrath of the Father.  Nevertheless, he was very sincere in his scientific study and did not see in them something "anti-religious".  This was never his intention.  Theologically, Fr. Thomas Hopko concluded that our theology and the science of evolution has the potential not to contradict.  Here is the link to the podcasts:

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/darwin_and_christianity

We have 2000 years of Church fathers and saints.  We have only about 200 or more years of modern science.  I do not think it is correct to make a sweeping judgment on all the Church fathers and saints as "against evolution", when this was a concept not well known until very recently.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 12:00:58 AM by minasoliman »
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.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5853 on: September 02, 2015, 11:59:37 PM »
Doctor,

I am really confused as to where you get all this from my small post I just sent you.  You are simply misrepresenting my views.  I appreciate it if you organize your thoughts and try to deduce from where in my posts do you get these ideas about me.

God bless.
God bless you too

You have made statements about God's plans and about mystery of creation didn't you? That God allowed life to develop certain ways is it not a statement about God's creation? How do you know how life came into being? Do you have reveled knowledge of it?

Maybe i misunderstood you. It's quite possible. But then you explain to me how such statement are not statements of theology.
You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution takes no position on how life began, it just explains how life gradually became more diverse and complex. Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life.
If you read my posts you will see i have no confusion of it. That's one thing. Second, neo-Darwinism absolutely requires abiogenesis as its bases. It's very simple: If abiogenesis is impossible and a cell could come into being by miracle only and no other materialistic process can acomplish that then neo-Darwinism is dead. How? If at least one cell was created by miracle then every single cell (that gives beginning to new life) could be created by miracle. Then whole neo-Darwinism is redundant nonsense. Thus whether they want it or not every single Darwinist is stuck with reality of abiogenesis. Thus, every single Darwinist is required to prove it on top of proving how life diversified. Simple.

So, i know really well distinction between the two and i know really well that Darwinism necesserily requires reality of abiogenesis.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5854 on: September 03, 2015, 12:02:09 AM »
Doctor,

I am really confused as to where you get all this from my small post I just sent you.  You are simply misrepresenting my views.  I appreciate it if you organize your thoughts and try to deduce from where in my posts do you get these ideas about me.

God bless.
God bless you too

You have made statements about God's plans and about mystery of creation didn't you? That God allowed life to develop certain ways is it not a statement about God's creation? How do you know how life came into being? Do you have reveled knowledge of it?

Maybe i misunderstood you. It's quite possible. But then you explain to me how such statement are not statements of theology.
You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution takes no position on how life began, it just explains how life gradually became more diverse and complex. Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life.
If you read my posts you will see i have no confusion of it. That's one thing. Second, neo-Darwinism absolutely requires abiogenesis as its bases. It's very simple: If abiogenesis is impossible and a cell could come into being by miracle only and no other materialistic process can acomplish that then neo-Darwinism is dead. How? If at least one cell was created by miracle then every single cell (that gives beginning to new life) could be created by miracle. Then whole neo-Darwinism is redundant nonsense. Thus whether they want it or not every single Darwinist is stuck with reality of abiogenesis. Thus, every single Darwinist is required to prove it on top of proving how life diversified. Simple.

So, i know really well distinction between the two and i know really well that Darwinism necesserily requires reality of abiogenesis.

I respectfully disagree.  Evolution begins with the assumption of the cell's existence.  It makes no mention of how the cell existed.
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.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,244
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5855 on: September 03, 2015, 12:09:50 AM »
Huh?

 :o
Since I'm posting from phone, I have to keep this short.

ativan just has a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics such as theories, facts, science, truth, etc. I'll sort this all when I get the time.

He certainly is worth responding to and if I can help clear up the confusions he has, I hope that will allow him to see his views are rooted in folly.

I'm not trying to evangelize but I can't help to notice how ativan is using a particular style, it suggests there is something more problematic than the theory of evolution that's he real issue here. I just haven't determined what that is yet.

I suggest that you start by going to the bottom of page 66 of this thread topic to around page 70. I posted seriously during this episode. There is another episode starting around page 96 to around page 106. This will get you up to speed.
Thank you Opus, this is a lot to review and parse.

Opus I hope you can understand that I would like to start from "scratch" with Ativan. It's been nearly 4 years since those posts, and people's opinions can change over time. He may still fervently hold to them, but I'm not willing to discount him yet.

I was hoping  you would. I just wanted to bring prior discussions to your attention.
"Mi tío es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!" - old Chilean saying

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5856 on: September 03, 2015, 12:13:43 AM »
Is it not also written God is not a God of confusion?  Therefore, if there is anything misleading, it is nature itself that mislead me to be convinced of the theory of evolution.  I am not one to mislead, but I am one who sincerely tries to make sense of what I learned and my Orthodox Christian faith.

I disagree with you when you say that evolution is "used to separate man from God".  If this is true, either I would become an atheist, or I reject evolution.  Those who believe evolution separates man from God logically will fall in one end of the spectrum or the other.  But I have not seen anything from evolution that separates man from God. 

There are many people in the Orthodox Church that have not seen anything wrong with evolution, including Fr. Thomas Hopko, of blessed memory.  He mentioned how Darwin grew up in a Protestant Christian world where the belief was that Christ came to appease the wrath of the Father.  Nevertheless, he was very sincere in his scientific study and did not see in them something "anti-religious".  This was never his intention.  Theologically, Fr. Thomas Hopko concluded that our theology and the science of evolution has the potential not to contradict.

We have 2000 years of Church fathers and saints.  We have only about 200 or more years of modern science.  I do not think it is correct to make a sweeping judgment on all the Church fathers and saints as "against evolution", when this was a concept not well known until very recently.
You may disagree with me but i only follow Saints teachings on that.

If Fr. Thomas Hopko sees nothing wrong with evolution he is not Orthodox. I can tell any such priest that their teaching is neither scientific nor Christian.

I think i should stop further discussion of religious value of darwinism. You have your view on it and I have mine. I am not claiming my view is right. All i do is to stick with Saint's teachings.

Quote
I respectfully disagree.  Evolution begins with the assumption of the cell's existence.  It makes no mention of how the cell existed.
I agree with you and i'm not saying otherwise either. I'm just saying that it absolutely requires trueness of abiogenesis. If first cell did not come into existence by natural processes and was created by intelligence then why would you want to assume something else that has no bases? There's no need of it.

Added appropriate clergy title.
--Mina
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 12:28:29 AM by minasoliman »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5857 on: September 03, 2015, 12:27:41 AM »
I placed a link on the podcasts from Fr. Thomas Hopko if you wish to listen to them.  He was Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary, and I believe he was a professor of systematic theology, and has a very strong background of the Scriptures.  I wouldn't simply dismiss him outright.  There might be some other things one can disagree with him on, perhaps, but he is still a big authority in the Orthodox Church.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/darwin_and_christianity

God bless.

PS  Mod hat on:  He is a priest, so we have to address to him as "Fr.", for his appropriate title.   Mod hat off
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.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,244
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5858 on: September 03, 2015, 12:34:29 AM »
Doctor,

I am really confused as to where you get all this from my small post I just sent you.  You are simply misrepresenting my views.  I appreciate it if you organize your thoughts and try to deduce from where in my posts do you get these ideas about me.

God bless.
God bless you too

You have made statements about God's plans and about mystery of creation didn't you? That God allowed life to develop certain ways is it not a statement about God's creation? How do you know how life came into being? Do you have reveled knowledge of it?

Maybe i misunderstood you. It's quite possible. But then you explain to me how such statement are not statements of theology.
You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution takes no position on how life began, it just explains how life gradually became more diverse and complex. Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life.
If you read my posts you will see i have no confusion of it. That's one thing. Second, neo-Darwinism absolutely requires abiogenesis as its bases. It's very simple: If abiogenesis is impossible and a cell could come into being by miracle only and no other materialistic process can acomplish that then neo-Darwinism is dead. How? If at least one cell was created by miracle then every single cell (that gives beginning to new life) could be created by miracle. Then whole neo-Darwinism is redundant nonsense. Thus whether they want it or not every single Darwinist is stuck with reality of abiogenesis. Thus, every single Darwinist is required to prove it on top of proving how life diversified. Simple.

So, i know really well distinction between the two and i know really well that Darwinism necesserily requires reality of abiogenesis.

I respectfully disagree.  Evolution begins with the assumption of the cell's existence.  It makes no mention of how the cell existed.

If I started a poll about abiogenesis, would that hinder the incorporation of that thread into  this one, since polls cannot be combined?
"Mi tío es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!" - old Chilean saying

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5859 on: September 03, 2015, 12:41:35 AM »
I'm not sure...I think combining threads might even get rid of both polls.  The only way I see you can keep the poll is keeping a separate thread.
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.

Offline Opus118

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,244
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5860 on: September 03, 2015, 01:01:37 AM »
I'm not sure...I think combining threads might even get rid of both polls.  The only way I see you can keep the poll is keeping a separate thread.

When new threads gets started on this topic, they almost always get fused into this one. I want to avoid this so that abiogenesis issues can get redirected to an abiogenesis thread. It is more interesting than evolution and I am curious as to how people rationalize it.
"Mi tío es enfermo, pero la carretera es verde!" - old Chilean saying

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5861 on: September 03, 2015, 01:04:38 AM »
I agree.  Abiogenesis is a completely different subject.  You have my word, I will try to keep it separate from this thread, and I will try to keep it on topic.
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.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5862 on: September 03, 2015, 01:36:37 AM »
See this is the problem, Ativan, you confuse scientists that embrace philosophical naturalism that pretends to be science when it's really not.

And there are people like yourself that hold to intelligent design, which is speculative philosophy, and call it science.

So you are both two sides of the same coin.

If science does anything else other than methodological naturalism, then it isn't science. Science just starts and doesn't ask why. Real philosophy, on the other hand, doesn't just start, it asks where do we even begin? What method should we use? Etc etc.

Philosophy and science have nothing in common.

Science make no truth claim whatsoever and has no ontology.

I am almost certain you will agree with this, if you don't then we can go no further than the basics here.
I don't want to agree or disagree with you. Just define for us what is science, what is theory, what is truth and what is fact. Then we can go further. After we define those terms then tell me what is theory of neo-Darwinian evolution for a evolutionary biologist. I want to know what is means to say neo-Darwinian theory is true.

Quote
Because science is ONLY limited to natural causes, it does not seek any other explanations outside of that.
What happens when it is totally (i mean totally) impossible to explain phenomena through natural causes? Are we not allowed to look beyond natural causes just because you made restricted definition of sciense?

Quote
Quote
I know exactly what "random" means. You make so much claims for Neo-Darwinism i hope you can support it. Firstly, random mutations should be randomly distributed in genome. It is known fact that mutations in genome are not randomly distributed. There are locations in the genome which allow high rates of mutations and there are locations which are very conserved. How can random mutations lead to such a distribution of mutations in genome? Even more, genes coding for immunoglobulins have regions that allow several magnitudes of order of mutation rates than can be seen even in mutational hostspots. These mutations happen in exact spots such that to create a gene which will code for a protein which exactly matches with an antigen towards which it is directed. At the same time constant regions of immunoglobulin genes have mechanisms to not allow mutations in these locations. How can you call this randomness (or something lacking direction) when it directly contradicts your theory?
Sure none of them are random in a mathematical sense, but random in the sense there is no end or purpose. What I think you are doing is confusing random mutations and a random system when its not.

And yeah we know the processes that cause mutations. They have already been tested and confirmed. We also have already measured the rate of mutation and know the consequences.

This all fits perfectly into the theory of evolution.

So we have a very useful explanation for how mutations work, and unless you can present evidence to the contrary this is by all means case closed.
I'm not confusing anything. You simply did not answer question. To explain you even more here's an issue. First of all "random" has its own mathematical definition and random events have its own distribution. You can't just make your own definition of it and switch the meaning of the term as you like. "Purposelessness" and "randomness" is not same. So, call it purposeless if you want to but not random since no random distribution is seen of these mutations.

But surely, mutations are not purposeless either. Let's bring some examples. Bacteria have mechanisms of introducing genetic mutations within themselves when it is needed. One bacteria can transfer genetic material to another one in order to confer resistance against certain antibiotics. They do this when needed (for example after bacteria's exposure to an antibiotic) Bacteria might not realize what it is doing but if you call this purposeless process (namely transferring genetic material from one bacteria to another when there's need for it) then we have totally different understanding of purpose and purposefulness. In this case there's no need to further discuss this particular point. Or when an organism is exposed to an antigen certain point mutations are introduced into regions of DNA (coding for immunoglobulins) in order to produce best fitted immunoglobulins against that antigen. What is more amazing is these regions undergo point mutations the rate of which is 6th order of magnitude higher than the rate of mutations anywhere else. This is particularly important to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. Moreover, these regions have mechanisms to avoid DNA repair since these somatic hypermutations are so important in generating immunoglobulins with right chemical configuration. Do you understand what this means? It means cells "know" where to introduce point mutations and how to "isolate" such processes (if needed) from DNA proof-reading mechanism. Again, if you think that this is purposeless mechanism then again we have no common ground. But if you think there clearly seems to be purpose in these, then you are stuck with question i've asked above: how purposeless processes produce systems which have clear purpose? I think It's simple and clear question and i expect simple and clear answer instead of diverting this point to another ambiguous definition.

Quote
Quote
Furthermore, we don't see objects in the nature that look-like man-made and is not man-made. Anytime we see refrigerators, radios, tvs, computers, cars and so on we know they were designed and created and did not arise out of random processes. We have not seen anything like it and we will not ever say these machines can be brought into existence by random and undirected events. Then why will you say cellular machines (and the whole life for that matter) which are much more complex can arise out of undirected and random event? Why will you not stay consistent (which you have made a principle in other cases) and in one case of intelligent peace of machinery you will claim its intelligent design and another case deny it? After all materials we use are composed of exactly same atoms and molecules that life is composed of. Then what is so special with life that undirected and random processes lead to ordered structures while no such thing happens with regards to human designed machines?
This is incoherent. I haven't said any of the above, and once again you are equivocating with the word "random".

We know where radios, TVS, computers, etc come from - factories. So they are designed. We know where animals come from - they were evolved from earlier life forms, so there is no design.

We aren't looking for design elements and then determine if something was designed. Like I said above, we look to origins.
This is standard fallacious argument to defend Darwinism and is not science. Let's suppose that you decided to investigate the question of origin of diversity of life. Let's suppose you take neither ID's stance no Darwinism's stance. You just want to approach this objectively. And question goes: is diversity of life due to intelligent design (that life forms were designed by some type of intelligence) or due to neo-Darwinian process? You as a scientist have to answer this question. Beforehand you know nothing but there's possibility any of these two theories being right. What type of data would make you think that life is intelligently designed?

Mina
Quote
I placed a link on the podcasts from Fr. Thomas Hopko if you wish to listen to them.  He was Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary, and I believe he was a professor of systematic theology, and has a very strong background of the Scriptures.  I wouldn't simply dismiss him outright.  There might be some other things one can disagree with him on, perhaps, but he is still a big authority in the Orthodox Church.
I will dismiss him outright just because he is called professor of theology. He is not theologian and he can't be theologian. Theologian can only be Saint who has reveled knowledge of God. That is the teaching of Orthodox Christianity. I know of no other teaching. But i'll still listen to him since you were kind enough to labor and find some links.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,768
  • Excelsior
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5863 on: September 03, 2015, 01:39:41 AM »
I don't think Darwin even tried to determine where "the first cell" came from. Bit ridiculous to try to prove his claims didn't work, based on something he didn't even say.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5864 on: September 03, 2015, 01:42:56 AM »
I placed a link on the podcasts from Fr. Thomas Hopko if you wish to listen to them.  He was Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary, and I believe he was a professor of systematic theology, and has a very strong background of the Scriptures.  I wouldn't simply dismiss him outright.  There might be some other things one can disagree with him on, perhaps, but he is still a big authority in the Orthodox Church.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/darwin_and_christianity

God bless.

PS  Mod hat on:  He is a priest, so we have to address to him as "Fr.", for his appropriate title.   Mod hat off
I followed the link but there's no audio there.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5865 on: September 03, 2015, 01:43:57 AM »
I don't think Darwin even tried to determine where "the first cell" came from. Bit ridiculous to try to prove his claims didn't work, based on something he didn't even say.
Can Darwinism be true if abiogenesis is impossible?

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5866 on: September 03, 2015, 02:04:51 AM »
Nothing
Let's put philosophical questions about science aside and get to Darwinism per se.

1) How and what does Darwinism predict? Give me particular examples if you could, please.

2) How did sub-cellular structures evolved (like mitochondria, nucleus, Golgi complex, endoplasmic reticulum, pili, flagelum  and so on)? You can choose any one structure and tell us how it evolved.

3) How did multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cells?

4) How did different systems evolved (like immune system, nervous system, musculoskeletal system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal system and so on)? Again, you can choose any one of these systems and show us how it was evolved.

5) Is there anything in life at all so that Darwinism has coherent explanation of how that thing evolved? If there's anything like it, please, give us examples and explain how it evolved. Just name one thing that you thing evolution of which we can say happened so and so.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,546
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5867 on: September 03, 2015, 04:05:32 AM »
Mina and Nothing: Don't get drawn into a Gish Gallop.
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Online WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,445
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5868 on: September 03, 2015, 06:20:35 AM »
Nothing
Let's put philosophical questions about science aside and get to Darwinism per se.

1) How and what does Darwinism predict? Give me particular examples if you could, please.

2) How did sub-cellular structures evolved (like mitochondria, nucleus, Golgi complex, endoplasmic reticulum, pili, flagelum  and so on)? You can choose any one structure and tell us how it evolved.

3) How did multi-cellular organisms evolved from single cells?

4) How did different systems evolved (like immune system, nervous system, musculoskeletal system, cardiovascular system, gastrointestinal system and so on)? Again, you can choose any one of these systems and show us how it was evolved.

5) Is there anything in life at all so that Darwinism has coherent explanation of how that thing evolved? If there's anything like it, please, give us examples and explain how it evolved. Just name one thing that you thing evolution of which we can say happened so and so.

Adaptations over the span of time.
Learn meditation.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5869 on: September 03, 2015, 08:47:32 AM »
I don't think Darwin even tried to determine where "the first cell" came from. Bit ridiculous to try to prove his claims didn't work, based on something he didn't even say.
Can Darwinism be true if abiogenesis is impossible?
Yes. The theory of evolution can be thought of as the theory of gravity. Gravitational theory stands alone, it does not require the Big Bang, although it is commonly accepted that gravity originated out of that singularity. Someone can still believe that gravity exists even if they do not believe in the Big Bang. Likewise, someone can still believe that evolution is an accurate theory even if they believe that abiogenesis is flawed.
God bless!

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5870 on: September 03, 2015, 10:26:45 AM »
I placed a link on the podcasts from Fr. Thomas Hopko if you wish to listen to them.  He was Dean Emeritus of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary, and I believe he was a professor of systematic theology, and has a very strong background of the Scriptures.  I wouldn't simply dismiss him outright.  There might be some other things one can disagree with him on, perhaps, but he is still a big authority in the Orthodox Church.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/darwin_and_christianity

God bless.

PS  Mod hat on:  He is a priest, so we have to address to him as "Fr.", for his appropriate title.   Mod hat off
I followed the link but there's no audio there.

So the first page has 10 lectures.  You can click on each link, and you will find the audio.  Some of the lectures, people seem to have ready provided the text for the audio if you prefer reading them as well.  There is a second page with 7 lectures.

Let me know if you're still having trouble.

God bless.
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.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,953
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5871 on: September 03, 2015, 12:18:26 PM »
And you are also not using the word "random" in how its understood in biology. It basically means that the causes of mutations are itself natural and lack directional properties. So there was nobody planning or guiding any of this. There is no teleology to account for it.
A point: Empirical science, despite the post-Galilean restriction to efficient causation in most respects, has not eliminated teleological explanations entirely within its own method; nor can it. What we call the Laws of Nature, including whatever forces under-gird gravity and electromagnetism, include teleological explanations.
Isn't that the point? Science can't eliminate teleological explanations any more than it can eliminate supernatural ones. So why should science bother with it? It's in the realm of speculative philosophy, which is fine for philosophy, but simply doesn't (for whatever reason) lead to useful predictions about the regularities we care about.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,768
  • Excelsior
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5872 on: September 03, 2015, 12:47:03 PM »
I don't think Darwin even tried to determine where "the first cell" came from. Bit ridiculous to try to prove his claims didn't work, based on something he didn't even say.
Can Darwinism be true if abiogenesis is impossible?

Do let's try and stick to reality.

 ::)

A dodge is not an answer.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,546
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5873 on: September 03, 2015, 12:50:06 PM »
My point wasn't just that empirical science can't eliminate teleological explanations. Rather that within empirical science, within the scope of that science, there are teleological explanations. In other words, empirical science does bother with it. Understanding these teleological forces does lead to better predictions viz. The laws of nature, forces.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 12:52:36 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5874 on: September 03, 2015, 01:24:47 PM »
My point wasn't just that empirical science can't eliminate teleological explanations. Rather that within empirical science, within the scope of that science, there are teleological explanations. In other words, empirical science does bother with it. Understanding these teleological forces does lead to better predictions viz. The laws of nature, forces.

I would even argue that the scientific method assumes a teleology of a consistent design of the cosmos based on mathematics.
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.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,953
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5875 on: September 03, 2015, 04:02:28 PM »
My point wasn't just that empirical science can't eliminate teleological explanations. Rather that within empirical science, within the scope of that science, there are teleological explanations. In other words, empirical science does bother with it. Understanding these teleological forces does lead to better predictions viz. The laws of nature, forces.
Perhaps we disagree about teleology. I can't think of any explanation based on methodological naturalism that includes any teleology. There doesn't seem to be anything teleological about the universe, except humans and their intents.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5876 on: September 03, 2015, 04:28:22 PM »
I don't think Darwin even tried to determine where "the first cell" came from. Bit ridiculous to try to prove his claims didn't work, based on something he didn't even say.
Can Darwinism be true if abiogenesis is impossible?
Yes. The theory of evolution can be thought of as the theory of gravity. Gravitational theory stands alone, it does not require the Big Bang, although it is commonly accepted that gravity originated out of that singularity. Someone can still believe that gravity exists even if they do not believe in the Big Bang. Likewise, someone can still believe that evolution is an accurate theory even if they believe that abiogenesis is flawed.
You answered different question. I did not ask whether Darwinism can be true if theory of abiogenesis is flawed. I will repeat question: Can Darwinism be true if abiogenesis is impossible? Where abiogenesis being impossible means that it is impossible for a cell to come into existence by natural factors alone without intelligent creation of it.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,953
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5877 on: September 03, 2015, 04:34:18 PM »
Theories can't be true ativan...

Again you misunderstand the basics.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,953
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5878 on: September 03, 2015, 05:24:37 PM »
Ativan, now that I am at a computer, I am not sure what you would like me to address first nor am I sure what the most fruitful approach would be to have an engaging conversation. You decided to inundate me with a torrent of rapid fire questions, so I'm not sure if you are really up to the task of an honest debate.

You have all the earmarks of a sophist, Nick already pointed out one, the others the straw men, false dichotomies, misconstruing my statements, etc.

So Opus might be right, you really aren't at all interested in finding the flaws in your cherished intelligent design or understanding what science is and does or even fundamentally seeking the truth. No, what I think you are more interested in are dredging up these worn out, already refuted misguided attacks in order to support your preconceived (and more importantly immovable) position.

The only progress that is to be made, if we can even call it that, is to debunk all intelligent design claims. That's rather easy to do. My $100 is still on the table to be claimed.

Even with all that said, your questions, as I hinted at the very beginning, are rooted in a misunderstanding of the application of science and its purpose. That you take issue with the fact science only looks for explanations in the material world, is very perplexing. Science has no other concern but that, somehow you confuse science's limitation with it being unable to inquire into something more than the natural. Well that's precisely the point. Just because you find abiogenesis to be utterly disappointing, doesn't mean we should abandon methodological naturalism altogether. And besides, I already told you philosophical naturalism is a train wreck, so if you want to make an incisive critique on it I completely support your endeavor, which is half of what you seem to take issue with. Just stop confusing that with science.

The only other thing I wanted to say was it is very possible that life had a multitude of initial forms, however if they did not have the ability to self replicate then those forms just died out. But the one that was able to reproduce, that's the one which resulted in the evolution of organic forms. So we should expect that there is only one living organism with the attribute of reproduction that was the orgin of it all. That's the purest way for organic life to have evolved and proceeded in the world we have today. There is no designer required.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 05:24:55 PM by nothing »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5879 on: September 03, 2015, 05:48:33 PM »
So the first page has 10 lectures.  You can click on each link, and you will find the audio.  Some of the lectures, people seem to have ready provided the text for the audio if you prefer reading them as well.  There is a second page with 7 lectures.

Let me know if you're still having trouble.

God bless.
I read the first part and i'm not going to read anything else. This person has heretic view of Orthodoxy and has no understanding of science itself. In his defense i must say that he does admit that this is only his view.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5880 on: September 03, 2015, 05:56:30 PM »
My dear friend, you did not give him a chance.  Since he is all audio, I recommend you download his lectures, and every time you go to work in your car, just listen.  I know you have a strong faith, so you shouldn't be worried about his views affecting you.  He is however a highly venerated figure in the EO church, respected by so many people.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 05:56:51 PM by minasoliman »
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.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5881 on: September 03, 2015, 06:39:36 PM »
Ativan, now that I am at a computer, I am not sure what you would like me to address first nor am I sure what the most fruitful approach would be to have an engaging conversation. You decided to inundate me with a torrent of rapid fire questions, so I'm not sure if you are really up to the task of an honest debate.
First of all i gave you an option to choose any one of these issues and discuss it one by one. I have clearly indicated that. As expected, instead of choosing one and start discussion on that particular topic you accuse me of Gish Gallop as NicholasMyra mira does. He has proved that he's got poor understanding of science.

Let's chose one of the topics and discuss it as much as possible and then move to the next one. I've put down all these topics so that once we finish one topic (and see how you fail to give any scientific argument for that particular topic) i can go back, identify and move to the next topic. That's all. What is wrong with this?

Quote
You have all the earmarks of a sophist, Nick already pointed out one, the others the straw men, false dichotomies, misconstruing my statements, etc.
Please, point to my particular fallacious reasoning. Where did you see straw man, false dichotomies or so on? I may be misunderstanding your statements at times but when i do i stop and ask you definitions of terms and i try to understand your view clearly so that we can move along.

Quote
So Opus might be right, you really aren't at all interested in finding the flaws in your cherished intelligent design or understanding what science is and does or even fundamentally seeking the truth. No, what I think you are more interested in are dredging up these worn out, already refuted misguided attacks in order to support your preconceived (and more importantly immovable) position.
Ok, do you want to start discussion on intelligent design first? That's fine with me. I have no problem. And if you want to start discussion of intelligent design do you want any particular question discussed?

Quote
Even with all that said, your questions, as I hinted at the very beginning, are rooted in a misunderstanding of the application of science and its purpose. That you take issue with the fact science only looks for explanations in the material world, is very perplexing. Science has no other concern but that, somehow you confuse science's limitation with it being unable to inquire into something more than the natural. Well that's precisely the point. Just because you find abiogenesis to be utterly disappointing, doesn't mean we should abandon methodological naturalism altogether. And besides, I already told you philosophical naturalism is a train wreck, so if you want to make an incisive critique on it I completely support your endeavor, which is half of what you seem to take issue with. Just stop confusing that with science.
Again, let's discuss Neo-Darwinian theory itself, can you do that?

If you want to discuss philosophical questions on scientific theories, i'm ok with it too. But first give us definitions of those concepts mentioned above and then choose one particular question at a time. You are blaming me of Gish Gallop while yourself are jumping from question to question, avoiding real problematic issues and not addressing Neo-Darwinian theory at all.

minasoliman
God bless you mina. I can't. It will be waste of my time. I'm not afraid that he could change my faith at all. From first lecture it is clear what is his position. That person can't formulate scientific argument that favors Darwinism. He can't. So, for what should I listen to him? That accepting neo-Darwinian view is ok as an orhodox christian? That's heresy. I know it for sure from Saints not from some person who has his ideas on Evolution.

I did find one interesting thinг about metropolitan Tryphon. He was actually Georgian in origin, from a noble Georgian family. I searched the web and found nothing that will show him as a simpathizer of darwinism. I searched it in English, Georgian and Russian. And the quote fr Hopko brings has no relation to metropolitan's support of darwinism. This is just fr Hopko's wishful thinking to find some holy man in Orthodoxy that supported darwinism. Here's actually that letter which was found in metropolitan notebook in Russian:
Quote
ИЗ ЗАПИСНОЙ КНИЖКИ МИТРОПОЛИТА ТРИФОНА (ТУРКЕСТАНОВА)
   Христианство есть религия, которая учит о воплощении Божества как о факте реальном, имевшем для жизни мира и в частности человека последствия огромной важности. Актом Боговоплощения снято проклятие, прощен первородный грех, оправдан человек. Обнаружена любовь, сокровеннейшая сторона Божества, доселе себя не проявлявшая с такою силою по отношению к человеку. Сообщено совершеннейшее познание о Боге как о любвеобильном Небесном Отце, раскрыта тайна жизни Самого Божества и троичность Лиц. И эта тайна покоится на любви как на принципе внутренней жизни Божества: Отец любит Сына. Люди в первый раз увидели Бога во плоти, слушали Его Божественное учение, видели совершеннейшую жизнь в Лице Богочеловека Иисуса Христа и убедились, что Он есть для них «путь, истина и жизнь».
   Христос для человека есть путь, который ведет к вечной жизни. Предоставленные самим себе, люди искали себе идеалов низшего порядка: внешних успехов, богатства, славы, удовольствий, власти, знания. Никогда и нигде Христос не говорил людям об этих перспективах. Это второстепенное дело, и по мере их достижения перед человеком встает грозный вопрос: а что будет после этого? Путь Христа есть тот самый путь, который пройден Им на земле: путь самоотвержения, любви, мило-
   сердия, прощения, путь, создающий в душе человека Царство Божие, царство мира и радости, довольства, спокойствия совести, сердечной чистоты.
   Христос есть Истина. Я пришел свидетельствовать об истине, сказал Христос Пилату, когда этот скептик не знал, что такое истина. Необходимо знать, о какой же истине говорил Христос, когда назвал Себя истиной? Истина есть точное отношение между двумя предметами. Мы называем истиной слово, когда оно совершенно и точно передает факты, научную формулу, когда она верно передает закон, управляющий тем или другим явлением, арифметическое решение задачи, правильно сделанной.
   Одним словом, всякая истина подразумевает отношение. Следовательно, истиной и в религии необходимо считать нормальное, гармоническое и совершенное отношение между человеком и Богом. Христианство убеждает нас, что Христос в Своем Лице осуществил это отношение и нас научил тому же. Он же дал людям религию как теорию отношений между человеком и Богом, но Он сделал больше. И в личности, учении, делах, страданиях мы видим человека, достигшего Бога, и Бога, проникающего человека. И во Христе находим живую реальную истину указанных отношений.
   Христос есть жизнь. Ходячее слово, которое мы часто повторяем, «жизнь», оказывается далеко не простым явлением. Когда в последнее время дарвинизм выдвинул на первую очередь вопрос о жизни и хотел определить ее сущность в точной формулировке, подчинив ее определенным законам, оказалось, что жизнь даже в биологическом смысле есть одна из самых непроницаемых тайн. Все ученые остановились перед этой задачей, как перед запертой массивной дверью. Объяснить органический процесс случайным движением атомов или электронов, сказать, что живые клетки тела обладают сознанием, — еще не значит решить вопрос о том, что такое жизнь. Всенаучные гипотезы могут иметь значение лишь в качестве более или менее удовлетворительного описания жизненного процесса, причина которого, очевидно, лежит вне, где-то за пределами самой жизни. Ветхозаветная иудейская религия указала, что причина космической жизни земной, растительной, животной, человеческой лежит в Боге, то есть в Существе самобытном, причина Которого находится в Нем Самом. Как истинный образ Божий, как Бог воплотившийся, Иисус Христос и в этом биологическом смысле имеет полное основание сказать о Себе: «Я — жизнь».
   Но Христос назвал Себя жизнью в более тесном смысле. Он был и остается жизнью для человека и человечества. Дело в том, что жизнь человечества приняла уродливые формы. Даже органическая жизнь в человеческом теле протекает ненормально. Своими излишествами человек губит свое здоровье, сокращая жизнь, подвергая себя смерти гораздо раньше того момента, когда она должна была бы наступить в естественном порядке. Но что касается духовной жизни, она со времени грехопадения пошла вопреки Божественному замыслу и воле Бога. Сын Божий Иисус Христос открыл человеку жизнь, согласную воле Божией, жизнь новую, разумную, осмысленную, ведущую к определенной цели. История Церкви полна описаний множества таких явлений, когда с принятием христианства люди морально и духовно перерождались, становились как бы другими существами.
Text in red is what fr Hopko has quoted. Metropolitan was neither sympathizer no is he discussing Darwinisms merits at all.

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,768
  • Excelsior
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5882 on: September 03, 2015, 07:25:53 PM »
A long post in Russian when most people on this site can't read Russian - very unhelpful of you.
My only weakness is, well, never mind

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,546
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5883 on: September 03, 2015, 07:40:42 PM »
There doesn't seem to be anything teleological about the universe, except humans and their intents.
The laws of nature don't seem teleological to you?
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,546
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5884 on: September 03, 2015, 07:42:12 PM »
I read the first part and i'm not going to read anything else. This person has heretic view of Orthodoxy and has no understanding of science itself.
You should be careful what you say, Russophile.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 07:43:05 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5885 on: September 03, 2015, 07:50:00 PM »
A long post in Russian when most people on this site can't read Russian - very unhelpful of you.
Sorry. Metropolitan talks about life in Christ. And the text in red is an insert in this letter which fr Hopko has also translated in his talk which you can find if you follow mina's links (first lecture). This text is not at any rate supporting darwinism. Besides i can't find anything else by metropolitan Tryphon on the issue of darwinism.

NicholasMyra
You mean i should be politically correct?

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5886 on: September 03, 2015, 07:59:28 PM »
There doesn't seem to be anything teleological about the universe, except humans and their intents.
Interesting indeed. What makes you think that humans have purpose? Why would you ever claim that we have purpose?

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,953
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5887 on: September 03, 2015, 08:16:58 PM »
There doesn't seem to be anything teleological about the universe, except humans and their intents.
The laws of nature don't seem teleological to you?
Of course not. They have no goal, no intent, no purpose, no necessity. What laws do you consider teleological?
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,546
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5888 on: September 03, 2015, 08:26:04 PM »
What laws do you consider teleological?
Let's take a higher-order example. Diffusion.
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,546
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5889 on: September 03, 2015, 08:27:37 PM »
NicholasMyra
You mean i should be politically correct?
I mean that mice should be wary when cursing lions. Fr. Hopko is out of your league.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 08:27:59 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5890 on: September 03, 2015, 08:28:53 PM »
Ativan, I understand.  If you ever get the time in the future and you have nothing else to do, listen to his other lectures.  He goes through the ancient Christian tradition of interpreting the Bible, and he also goes through some Orthodox dogma.  But I understand you, like me, have a very busy life with our patients.  If you like to see the way other EO Christians who do not find conflict with evolution think, I think the link I sent you is the best example.

God bless you.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 08:32:24 PM by minasoliman »
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.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5891 on: September 03, 2015, 08:31:46 PM »
There doesn't seem to be anything teleological about the universe, except humans and their intents.
The laws of nature don't seem teleological to you?
Of course not. They have no goal, no intent, no purpose, no necessity. What laws do you consider teleological?

I tend to disagree with this.  While I may use the same scientific method, I believe the method seems clearly teleological to me.  I particularly consider Dr. David Bentley Hart's ideas that we are always seeing and studying the universe from a level that transcends our own nature, and from this see that we go from simplicity to complexity in growth.  Where is the goal of this growth?
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.

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,546
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5892 on: September 03, 2015, 08:36:23 PM »
There doesn't seem to be anything teleological about the universe, except humans and their intents.
The laws of nature don't seem teleological to you?
Of course not. They have no goal, no intent, no purpose, no necessity. What laws do you consider teleological?

I tend to disagree with this.  While I may use the same scientific method, I believe the method seems clearly teleological to me.  I particularly consider Dr. David Bentley Hart's ideas that we are always seeing and studying the universe from a level that transcends our own nature, and from this see that we go from simplicity to complexity in growth.  Where is the goal of this growth?
That sort of teleology would be understood through philosophy of science, metaphysics, aesthetics, though. What I'm referring to is teleology that is necessarily considered by the methods of empirical science, under names like Laws of Nature, Laws of Physics, the Four Forces, etc.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2015, 08:37:05 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Pope Francis
Thank God he said I was a politician because Aristotle defined the human person as 'Animal politicus.' So at least I am a human person.

Vote for a Ministry section on OC.net

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5893 on: September 03, 2015, 09:04:46 PM »
NicholasMyra
You mean i should be politically correct?
I mean that mice should be wary when cursing lions. Fr. Hopko is out of your league.
Yes, i might be out of the league of fr Hopko. In turn Fr Hopko was out of the league of Saint Nektarios and Saint Paisios i'm sure.

Saint Nektaros on Darwinistic Evolution and human soul
Quote
Proponents of the theory that man evolved from apes are ignorant of man and his sublime destiny ...

Elder Paisios on Darwinistic and Theistic evolution

I have simple task: decide which league is orthodox league.

minasoliman
Thanks mina.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy
« Reply #5894 on: September 03, 2015, 09:26:29 PM »
There doesn't seem to be anything teleological about the universe, except humans and their intents.
The laws of nature don't seem teleological to you?
Of course not. They have no goal, no intent, no purpose, no necessity. What laws do you consider teleological?

I tend to disagree with this.  While I may use the same scientific method, I believe the method seems clearly teleological to me.  I particularly consider Dr. David Bentley Hart's ideas that we are always seeing and studying the universe from a level that transcends our own nature, and from this see that we go from simplicity to complexity in growth.  Where is the goal of this growth?
That sort of teleology would be understood through philosophy of science, metaphysics, aesthetics, though. What I'm referring to is teleology that is necessarily considered by the methods of empirical science, under names like Laws of Nature, Laws of Physics, the Four Forces, etc.

I was wondering if you can go through a bit more detail.
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.