Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[Mor Ephrem]

Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago?

Faith

Faith in what?

In exactly what made Peter say "Thou art Christ, the son of the living God". The proof comes with faith. Faith is the reward. I don't need a church father to tell me about whether God created the world in 6 days or not for that.

Let me put it simple. If you must believe in a literal 6 day creation in order for your faith in Christ not to collapse, then you had no real faith in Christ to start with.

This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science". 

[Ainnir]

Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic. 

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.

[beebert]

Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago?

Faith

Faith in what?

In exactly what made Peter say "Thou art Christ, the son of the living God". The proof comes with faith. Faith is the reward. I don't need a church father to tell me about whether God created the world in 6 days or not for that.

Let me put it simple. If you must believe in a literal 6 day creation in order for your faith in Christ not to collapse, then you had no real faith in Christ to start with.

This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science".

You believe in the 6 day creation and a young earth? If so, you really must suspend all your rational faculties. If I did that I would go even more insane. Now. I hold what I said before. If you must believe in a young earth and a 6 day creation in order to have faith in Christ, you have no faith in him. Why trust anything we observe? Why trust that the earth moves around the sun? Now the bible seems to believe otherwise. Why believe that there are other planets? Why believe anything I see? If you believe in a 6 day creation, then you might as well dismiss all science. Do you believe fossils and skeletons of dinosaurs were put on the earth by Satan in other to deceive christians too?

[beebert]

Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic. 

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.

That sort of dogmatic thinking is exactly what I despise yes. I consider it one of the greatest crimes possible.

[Mor Ephrem]

Again, what would you accept as proof that X happened two thousand years ago?

Faith

Faith in what?

In exactly what made Peter say "Thou art Christ, the son of the living God". The proof comes with faith. Faith is the reward. I don't need a church father to tell me about whether God created the world in 6 days or not for that.

Let me put it simple. If you must believe in a literal 6 day creation in order for your faith in Christ not to collapse, then you had no real faith in Christ to start with.

This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science".

You believe in the 6 day creation and a young earth? If so, you really must suspend all your rational faculties.

But...

Faith

Or perhaps you were not serious to begin with.

If I did that I would go even more insane. Now. I hold what I said before. If you must believe in a young earth and a 6 day creation in order to have faith in Christ, you have no faith in him.

Who said I "believe in a young earth and a 6 day creation in order to have faith in Christ"?  You are reading that into other people because you have a bizarre concept of "faith" and "science" and "knowledge" and "ignorance". 

[beebert]

What do you believe, then? How old do you believe the earth is? Was the earth created in 6 literal days?

Faith begins where the limits of reasons are found. It isn't "rational". It's a belief and trust in the strength of the absurd. I mean that which contradicts reason. Now. The literal 6 day creation isn't necessary for that. God never says "In order to have true faith and be saved, you must believe that I literally created the world in 6 days". No. I say that the letter kills but the spirit gives life.

[Mor Ephrem]

What do you believe, then?

https://oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith

How old do you believe the earth is?

I don't know and I don't really care. 

Was the earth created in 6 literal days?

What's a literal day?

Faith begins where the limits of reasons are found. It isn't "rational". It's a belief and trust in the strength of the absurd. I mean that which contradicts reason.

Speaking of absurd, this is it.

Now. The literal 6 day creation isn't necessary for that. God never says "In order to have true faith and be saved, you must believe that I literally created the world in 6 days". No. I say that the letter kills but the spirit gives life.

If you don't want to believe in something, don't believe in it.  But if other people do believe in it, they are not totally ignorant because they don't think like you.  That's all. 

[beebert]

What do you believe, then?

https://oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/symbol-of-faith

How old do you believe the earth is?

I don't know and I don't really care. 

Was the earth created in 6 literal days?

What's a literal day?

Faith begins where the limits of reasons are found. It isn't "rational". It's a belief and trust in the strength of the absurd. I mean that which contradicts reason.

Speaking of absurd, this is it.

Now. The literal 6 day creation isn't necessary for that. God never says "In order to have true faith and be saved, you must believe that I literally created the world in 6 days". No. I say that the letter kills but the spirit gives life.

If you don't want to believe in something, don't believe in it.  But if other people do believe in it, they are not totally ignorant because they don't think like you.  That's all.

Now, you said you don't care how old the earth is. Bravo! THat is EXACTLY what I said before. I don't remember if it was in this thread. But a christian should never preach that the earth is 6000 years old if he doesn't know it. It simply doesn't matter for the faith. And that was my whole point. Now I don't like Tertullian, but wasn't he the one who said the he believed because it is absurd? It IS absurd to believe that God, the maker of this infinite universe, was incarnated by being born by a virgin, died on a cross and raised from the dead again. Now. That is absurd. That is absurd for what? For our reason. That is why one can not simply "believe". God's grace, a miracle, is required. To say otherwise is stupid. Is it regular that a man can raise other men from the dead, heal the sick and the blind etc? No. In order to have faith in the miracles and everything in the bible, you must in some way go against your natural reason. What is so strange about that? That it appears absurd doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Ainnir]

This:

Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic. 

Was in response to this:

This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science".

Guess I should quote more.   

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.

That sort of dogmatic thinking is exactly what I despise yes. I consider it one of the greatest crimes possible.

What you're doing, though, is exactly what the Evangelical YECers do--making it a binary decision instead of allowing space for difference where it's probably really ok (within limits).  You're demanding that people believe the earth isn't 6000 years old before you take them seriously.  Same method, opposite direction.  And I'm sure you're not alone, but if you're going to rant against a particular tactic (which I agree is maddening; I wanted to shake those guys silly for a while there)...don't employ it yourself.  And I'm sure I'll turn and catch myself needing my own advice, but there it is anyway. 

[beebert]

This:

Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic. 

Was in response to this:

This is an interesting "faith", in which one can accept the resurrection without proof because "faith" but cannot at the same time believe in a "literal 6 day creation" because "science".

Guess I should quote more.   

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.

That sort of dogmatic thinking is exactly what I despise yes. I consider it one of the greatest crimes possible.

What you're doing, though, is exactly what the Evangelical YECers do--making it a binary decision instead of allowing space for difference where it's probably really ok (within limits).  You're demanding that people believe the earth isn't 6000 years old before you take them seriously.  Same method, opposite direction.  And I'm sure you're not alone, but if you're going to rant against a particular tactic (which I agree is maddening; I wanted to shake those guys silly for a while there)...don't employ it yourself.  And I'm sure I'll turn and catch myself needing my own advice, but there it is anyway. 

I am not demanding that people stop believing the earth is 6000 years old. I demand that people stop preaching it and threat others who don't believe it with eternal hell. But I see what you are saying, and you make a good point.

[Porter ODoran]

Faith is taking God at his word, entering a trusting relationship with him.

It's other things as well. But it's certainly not some rhetorical game where we get away with calling his communications irrational and absurd. Whom do you think you're appealing to with such a proposal? The skeptically-minded young men you might hope find it clever aren't going to stick around long. Now I know you're just parroting men of ill repute to whom you've developed some kind of attraction. But as you make the cause your own here, I'm going to treat its implications as yours too. What are you expecting to accomplish?

[beebert]

Faith is taking God at his word, entering a trusting relationship with him.

It's other things as well. But it's certainly not some rhetorical game where we get away with calling his communications irrational and absurd. Whom do you think you're appealing to with such a proposal? The skeptically-minded young men you might hope find it clever aren't going to stick around long. Now I know you're just parroting men of ill repute to whom you've developed some kind of attraction. But as you make the cause your own here, I'm going to treat its implications as yours too. What are you expecting to accomplish?

yes faith is taking God at his word and entering a trusting relationship with him. I get it. You don't like me. So maybe you shouldn't answer me?

[Jetavan]

Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic. 

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.

It should be noted that Ken Ham doesn't believe that one must be a YEC in order to be saved. He does believe that rejecting a YEC perspective leads to a minimization of the importance of scripture, and a subsequent weakening of a vibrant Christian culture in general, but he also says that as long as one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior (regardless of what one believes about geology or cosmology) then one will/can be saved. Misunderstanding what Ken teaches can easily slide into a subtle anti-Hamitism, and I can't let that stand.

[mcarmichael]

..

[Ainnir]

Truth.  Not that I'm an expert in consistent logic. 

But beebert, I wonder if you are reacting against the Ken Ham and Kent Hovind crowd?  I do completely understand such an aversion, as I hit that wall during my time in evangelicalism.  But consider that perhaps crowd A and crowd B having X in common does not mean they have all other things in common, such as the evangelical demand that one accepts YEC before "allowing" that one to be saved (or indeed, even able to understand "the rest of the Bible").  I could be wrong, but I don't think such a demand is a major feature in Orthodoxy.

It should be noted that Ken Ham doesn't believe that one must be a YEC in order to be saved. He does believe that rejecting a YEC perspective leads to a minimization of the importance of scripture, and a subsequent weakening of a vibrant Christian culture in general, but he also says that as long as one accepts Christ as Lord and Savior (regardless of what one believes about geology or cosmology) then one will/can be saved. Misunderstanding what Ken teaches can easily slide into a subtle anti-Hamitism, and I can't let that stand.

I like how you don't defend Mr. Hovind.    I'm not at all equating them, by the way.  Ken Ham is a classy guy.
But: https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
Section 1 is easily conflated with YEC doctrine and this is precisely what fans tend to do (rather rabidly).  The YEC doctrine, as well as a pretty hardcore version of Sola Scriptura, is outlined in the following sections.  And if their Creation Evangelism approach includes this doctrine in its presentation (which is a logical assumption), it's easy to see how the message that "you have to believe this to believe the gospel" comes across.

Now, I will allow that he is not responsible for people who rant from the pulpit or keyboard and then refer people to his site.  And this is what happens over and over ad nauseum.  I am anti-YEC as a doctrine the way it's presented here (and by overly eager AiG fans), but I don't hate Ken Ham.  However he really has become the figurehead of this movement (or whatever one wants to call it), so when one wants to encompass all that encountering that movement as a skeptic (or even a fence-sitter) entails, the shorthand is going to be his name, and maybe a handful of others--fair or not. 

[Mor Ephrem]

Now, you said you don't care how old the earth is. Bravo! THat is EXACTLY what I said before.

No, you definitely care about the age of the earth and how it's older than six thousand years. 

I don't remember if it was in this thread. But a christian should never preach that the earth is 6000 years old if he doesn't know it.

And there's another example of "caring" about the age of the earth.  Presumably, a Christian could be allowed in Beebertianity to preach that the earth is seven billion years old. 

It simply doesn't matter for the faith. And that was my whole point.

Your whole point is that it does matter for the faith if it's not the answer you approve.   

Now I don't like Tertullian, but wasn't he the one who said the he believed because it is absurd? It IS absurd to believe that God, the maker of this infinite universe, was incarnated by being born by a virgin, died on a cross and raised from the dead again. Now. That is absurd. That is absurd for what? For our reason.

I don't trust your reading of Tertullian or anyone else, so you're going to have to prove your point about absurdity. 

That is why one can not simply "believe". God's grace, a miracle, is required. To say otherwise is stupid.

You're right.  But I never said that God's grace wasn't required.  My contention is that "faith" is reasonable. 

Is it regular that a man can raise other men from the dead, heal the sick and the blind etc? No. In order to have faith in the miracles and everything in the bible, you must in some way go against your natural reason. What is so strange about that? That it appears absurd doesn't mean it isn't true.

Why do I have to go against my natural reason?  My ancestors were baptised by the Apostle Thomas.  They believed his testimony about Christ to be sufficient for them to do something as counter-cultural and radical as converting.  They didn't think they were doing something "non-reasonable", something contradicting their natural reason.  They had to feel it was reasonable enough to justify taking the risk.  I believe their testimony because it has remained consistent for two thousand years.  That's reasonable.  It's not against natural reason.  It's not absurd.  It's just not CCTV footage of downtown Eden.   

[beebert]

Now, you said you don't care how old the earth is. Bravo! THat is EXACTLY what I said before.

No, you definitely care about the age of the earth and how it's older than six thousand years. 

I don't remember if it was in this thread. But a christian should never preach that the earth is 6000 years old if he doesn't know it.

And there's another example of "caring" about the age of the earth.  Presumably, a Christian could be allowed in Beebertianity to preach that the earth is seven billion years old. 

It simply doesn't matter for the faith. And that was my whole point.

Your whole point is that it does matter for the faith if it's not the answer you approve.   

Now I don't like Tertullian, but wasn't he the one who said the he believed because it is absurd? It IS absurd to believe that God, the maker of this infinite universe, was incarnated by being born by a virgin, died on a cross and raised from the dead again. Now. That is absurd. That is absurd for what? For our reason.

I don't trust your reading of Tertullian or anyone else, so you're going to have to prove your point about absurdity. 

That is why one can not simply "believe". God's grace, a miracle, is required. To say otherwise is stupid.

You're right.  But I never said that God's grace wasn't required.  My contention is that "faith" is reasonable. 

Is it regular that a man can raise other men from the dead, heal the sick and the blind etc? No. In order to have faith in the miracles and everything in the bible, you must in some way go against your natural reason. What is so strange about that? That it appears absurd doesn't mean it isn't true.

Why do I have to go against my natural reason?  My ancestors were baptised by the Apostle Thomas.  They believed his testimony about Christ to be sufficient for them to do something as counter-cultural and radical as converting.  They didn't think they were doing something "non-reasonable", something contradicting their natural reason.  They had to feel it was reasonable enough to justify taking the risk.  I believe their testimony because it has remained consistent for two thousand years.  That's reasonable.  It's not against natural reason.  It's not absurd.  It's just not CCTV footage of downtown Eden.   

Regarding your comments on that I would have People preach the age of the earth : No. It is not important to me. I am not a Dawkins. Even though though sometimes understands Why he is irritated by people who are to spiritually and intellectually analphabetic to understand that the earth doesnt stand on a turtle. But: If we go on that road I would rather do it like Wittgenstein and say there is a great chance that there in fact is a dinosaur under my bed. I dont care what People Believe. I would never do as the catholic Church did and burn heretics. Nor would I do like many Southern Baptists and preach hatred towards homosexuals. What I despise is 1. Oppression.  2. Herd mentality. 3. Intellectual dishonesty. Those three are what I consider the roots of all evil. And most people belong to at least one of those three. I have a tendency towards intellectual dishonesty for example, which I despise. "The Earth is 6000 years" is not an answer to anything btw. I allow you to Believe it, But it is very very probable that it is a lie and a great one. And pure imagination. Otherwise, I too Believe that there are dinosaurs under my bed. Now... Don Quijote wasn't so unique in his delusions efter all. Perhaps he saw giants instead of windmills because he was right.

Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd." It is a paraphrase of a statement in Tertullian's work De Carne Christi, "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est", which can be translated: "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd".The context is a defence of the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)
"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

That is one of few good things Tertullian ever said that I know of.

Now to say how much I believe the common man and often also the prieats and preaches have distorted true christianity : 1. Priests and preachers have often been oppressors and preached an oppressive God. Jesus Said he came to free the oppressed and he condemned the oppressors. And suddenly many christians turned Christ himself into an oppressor! That is really blasphemy if anything. 2. The herd. Christ said he would gather his flock. His flock is supposed to be people who are couragous enough to follow his painful path. The herd made it Into something comfortable, and helped the preachers to oppress those outside the true Faith because they, in their group mentality, couldnt or wouldnt see things clear and instead joined the oppressors. 3. All of this is intellectualy dishonest.

[Porter ODoran]

What I despise is 1. OppressionOther people.  2. Herd mentalityOther people. 3. Intellectual dishonestyOther people. Those three are what I consider the roots of all evil. And most people belong to at least one of those three.

[beebert]

What I despise is 1. OppressionOther people.  2. Herd mentalityOther people. 3. Intellectual dishonestyOther people. Those three are what I consider the roots of all evil. And most people belong to at least one of those three.

I know you despise other people, I dont though. Except for a few.

[Porter ODoran]

Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd." It is a paraphrase of a statement in Tertullian's work De Carne Christi, "prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est", which can be translated: "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd".The context is a defence of the tenets of orthodox Christianity against docetism:

Crucifixus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
— (De Carne Christi V, 4)
"The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible."

That is one of few good things Tertullian ever said that I know of.

What you've extracted is the pivot in a very sophisticated interplay between Tertullian's and Marcion's rhetoric. Why don't we look at the context a little -- beginning right after your quote (altho what goes before it is just as material):

"But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true -- if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again? I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die; human without doubt, as born of a human being. It will therefore be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and the Son of man."

"All this," which your extraction is in reference to, can only "be true" because Jesus Christ had in fact a very commonsensical, a very physical reality.

"Else why is Christ man and the Son of man, if he has nothing of man and nothing from man? Unless it be either that man is anything else than flesh, or man's flesh comes from any other source than man, or Mary is anything else than a human being, or Marcion's man is as Marcion's god."

It's Marcion's "logic," which "proves" that a god cannot be a man, which is actually turning out to be absurd here.

"Otherwise Christ could not be described as being man, without flesh, nor the Son of man, without any human parent; just as He is not God, without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God, without having God for His father. Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God -- in one respect born, in the other unborn; in one respect fleshly, in the other spiritual; in one sense weak, in the other exceeding strong; in on sense dying, in the other living. This property of the two states -- the divine and the human -- is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike, with the same belief both in respect of the Spirit, and of the flesh."

Tertullian is not bashful about laying out in an orderly way the reasonable implications of Christ's nature.

"The powers of the Spirit proved Him to be God, His sufferings attested the flesh of man. If His powers were not without the Spirit, in like manner were not His sufferings without the flesh. If His flesh with its sufferings was fictitious, for the same reason was the Spirit false with all its powers. Wherefore halve Christ with a lie? He was wholly the truth."

More reasoning, without any embarrassment about it. Powerful assertions of logic and knowledge here.

"Believe me, He chose rather to be born than in any part to pretend -- and that indeed to His own detriment -- that He was bearing about a flesh hardened without bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, clothed without the tunic of skin, hungry without appetite, eating without teeth, speaking without a tongue, so that His word was a phantom to the ears through an imaginary voice. A phantom, too, it was of course after the resurrection, when, showing His hands and His feet for the disciples to examine, He said, 'Behold and see that it is I myself, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have': without doubt, hands, and feet, and bones are not what a spirit possesses, but only the flesh."

Now he is going so far as systematically to refute the logic of Marcion's claims, even, if you'll indulge me, proving them to be "absurd." But note how he is going about the refutation: with appeal to real, physical events; with a straightforward account as provided by real human witnesses. (Yet note that even here he indulges some rhetorical flights, viz., irony.)

"How do you interpret this statement, Marcion, you who tell us that Jesus comes only from the most excellent God, who is both simple and good?"

"Simple and good" -- or, as Christ puts it, God's truth is sensible to children and can be found retold by babes. To believe an account by creditable witnesses is not "absurd," that a man of flesh should die is not "absurd," that God should rise even is not "absurd," except as a man so sophisticated as Marcion makes it so. In truth, it is all a simple matter to believe.

"See how He rather cheats, and deceives, and juggles the eyes of all, and the senses of all, as well as their access to and contact with Him! You ought rather to have brought Christ down, not from heaven, but from some troop of mountebanks, not as God besides man, but simply as a man, a magician; not as the High Priest of our salvation, but as the conjurer in a show; not as the raiser of the dead, but as the misleader of the living -- except that, if He were a magician, He must have had a nativity!"

I include this last part simply to show how sophisticated a rhetorical treatment Tertullian's writing can comprise. Here he paints an ironic picture of the absurd effect of Marcion's claims -- that if God were not really come in the flesh, as the Evangelists describe it for us, then he would be a trickster of mankind, a much more elaborate proposition than the simple truth Marcion finds too illogical to believe.

[Ainnir]

people who are to spiritually and intellectually analphabetic to understand that the earth doesnt stand on a turtle.

Of course it doesn't!  The elephants stand on the turtle. 

[Porter ODoran]

people who are to spiritually and intellectually analphabetic to understand that the earth doesnt stand on a turtle.

Of course it doesn't!  The elephants stand on the turtle. 

Well, the irony in this snarky little legend (which seems to be credited to whichever evolution-apologist the teller fancies at the moment) is that in fact it's the materialist explanations of the universe that are forced to rely on "turtles all the way down." What makes the apple fall? Gravity. What's gravity? The attraction of masses. What makes them attractive? Gravity, the warping of space-time. What makes space-time warp? Gravity, perhaps a particle or wave. What makes the particle or wave behave as it does? Gravity. This goes on ad infinitum. Or: What began the universe? A big bang. What caused the big bang? A big compression. What caused the big compression? Reaction to a universal entropy. What instantiated entropy? A big bang. Or even: How did thus and thus happen when it would be contrary to known physical laws? There may be other universes than ours. But what would this tell us about its probability? The universes may be infinite. But how can providing infinite environments make the thing certain (e.g., a quarter won't fall into the sky no matter how often dropped, ceteris parabus)? There are also infinite realities in the infinite universes -- it is realities all the way down. While for the non-materialist all questions end rather quickly in the First Cause.

[Jetavan]

Speaking of Orthodoxy and evolution....

Genetic evidence from the South Caucasus region shows surprising long-term stability

The South Caucasus -- home to the countries of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan -- geographically links Europe and the Near East. The area has served for millennia as a major crossroads for human migration, with strong archaeological evidence for big cultural shifts over time. And yet, surprisingly, ancient mitochondrial DNA evidence reported in Current Biology on June 29 finds no evidence of any upheaval over the last 8,000 years.
....
"We analyzed many ancient and modern mitochondrial genomes in parts of the South Caucasus and found genetic continuity for at least 8,000 years," said Ashot Margaryan and Morten E. Allentoft from Centre for GeoGenetics at the Natural History Museum of Denmark. "In other words, we could not detect any changes to the female gene pool over this very long time frame. This is highly interesting because this region has experienced multiple cultural shifts over the same time period, but these changes do not appear to have had a genetic impact -- at least not on the female population."
....
Margaryan says the findings suggest either that cultural shifts occurred primarily through the exchange of ideas or that it was primarily men who moved into new territories, bringing new cultural ideas along with them.

[byhisgrace]

The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important. The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe? In this case... We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.

Actually, upon giving this a second thought, I'm not sure if I agree. My reasons are:

The fathers weren't historians.

No, but they were theologians. The historicity of Genesis may be a historical claim, but the inerrancy of Scripture is a theological/doctrinal claim. Unfortunately, it is hard to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, without resorting to ad-hoc hypotheses on how two seemingly contradictory accounts can be harmonized. So, if the Fathers were unanimously wrong about this one doctrinal issue, then on what basis can I trust them on other doctrinal issues?

And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history.

Yes, the commandments of Christ and the salvation of mankind are the most important parts of the Scriptures, but it doesn't change the fact that some parts of the Scriptures were intended to be historical accounts. The book of Luke, for example, intended to teach that the Resurrection is physical.

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.

I can concede to this to an extent. Faith is an unavoidable part of Christianity for multiple reasons. However, there is only so much skepticism I can suspend before I have to ask myself: "Then how is Christianity any more tenable than Islam or Buddhism?"

[beebert]

The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important. The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe? In this case... We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.

Actually, upon giving this a second thought, I'm not sure if I agree. My reasons are:

The fathers weren't historians.

No, but they were theologians. The historicity of Genesis may be a historical claim, but the inerrancy of Scripture is a theological/doctrinal claim. Unfortunately, it is hard to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, without resorting to ad-hoc hypotheses on how two seemingly contradictory accounts can be harmonized. So, if the Fathers were unanimously wrong about this one doctrinal issue, then on what basis can I trust them on other doctrinal issues?

And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history.

Yes, the commandments of Christ and the salvation of mankind are the most important parts of the Scriptures, but it doesn't change the fact that some parts of the Scriptures were intended to be historical accounts. The book of Luke, for example, intended to teach that the Resurrection is physical.

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.

I can concede to this to an extent. Faith is an unavoidable part of Christianity for multiple reasons. However, there is only so much skepticism I can suspend before I have to ask myself: "Then how is Christianity any more tenable than Islam or Buddhism?"

Christianity is tenable because of the faith in Christ and his literal incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. In the old testament there are many symbols that point to this.
Half the people in the world think that the metaphors and myths of their religious traditions...are literal facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept myths and metaphors as literal facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies. I believe both are wrong. A myth is something that reveals a spiritual truth. All these problems between atheists and fundamentalist religious people lies in the fact that none of them understands myths and metaphors I believe. When a christian says that, in the dogmas of religion, reason is totally incompetent and blind, and its use to be reprehended, it is in reality attesting the fact that these dogmas are allegorical in their nature, and are not to be judged by the standard which reason, taking all things sensu proprio, can alone apply. it would be better to admit their allegorical nature at once. I believe the difficulty is to teach the multitude that something can be both true and untrue at the same time.

[Jetavan]

Did life begin on land rather than in the sea?
A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life

"What she (Djokic) showed was that the oldest fossil evidence for life was in fresh water," said Deamer, a lanky 78-year-old who explored the region with Djokic, Damer, and Van Kranendonk in 2015. "It's a logical continuation to life beginning in a freshwater environment."

The model for life beginning on land rather than in the sea could not only reshape our idea about the origin of life and where else it might be, but even change the way we view ourselves.
....
According to Deamer and his colleagues, this discovery and their hot-springs-origins model also have implications for the search for life on other planets. If life began on land, then Mars, which was found to have a 3.65-billion-year-old hot spring deposits similar to those found in the Pilbara region of Australia, might be a good place to look.

[Porter ODoran]

Did life begin on land rather than in the sea?
A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life

"What she (Djokic) showed was that the oldest fossil evidence for life was in fresh water," said Deamer, a lanky 78-year-old who explored the region with Djokic, Damer, and Van Kranendonk in 2015. "It's a logical continuation to life beginning in a freshwater environment."

The model for life beginning on land rather than in the sea could not only reshape our idea about the origin of life and where else it might be, but even change the way we view ourselves.
....
According to Deamer and his colleagues, this discovery and their hot-springs-origins model also have implications for the search for life on other planets. If life began on land, then Mars, which was found to have a 3.65-billion-year-old hot spring deposits similar to those found in the Pilbara region of Australia, might be a good place to look.

Every darn day. At some point, some of these theorists have to get tired of banging their heads against a brick wall and step back to see there's something wrong with the whole picture.

[TheTrisagion]

The fathers weren't historians. And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history. Isn't the important thing to understand how you die and resurrect with Christ in spirit, rather than to try to prove whether or not Adam really physically ate an apple 6000 years ago? It is spiritual realities that are important. The resurrection was a historical and spiritual event yes. But can you prove that it was physical? Do you need to know that it was physical in order to believe? In this case... We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.

Actually, upon giving this a second thought, I'm not sure if I agree. My reasons are:

The fathers weren't historians.

No, but they were theologians. The historicity of Genesis may be a historical claim, but the inerrancy of Scripture is a theological/doctrinal claim. Unfortunately, it is hard to defend the inerrancy of Scripture, without resorting to ad-hoc hypotheses on how two seemingly contradictory accounts can be harmonized. So, if the Fathers were unanimously wrong about this one doctrinal issue, then on what basis can I trust them on other doctrinal issues?

And God isn't trying to teach us knowledge about history.

Yes, the commandments of Christ and the salvation of mankind are the most important parts of the Scriptures, but it doesn't change the fact that some parts of the Scriptures were intended to be historical accounts. The book of Luke, for example, intended to teach that the Resurrection is physical.

We are somewhat commanded to suspend our rational critical thinking and make a leap of faith.

I can concede to this to an extent. Faith is an unavoidable part of Christianity for multiple reasons. However, there is only so much skepticism I can suspend before I have to ask myself: "Then how is Christianity any more tenable than Islam or Buddhism?"

Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?

[byhisgrace]

Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?

I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis. 

[TheTrisagion]

Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?

I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.

How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?

[byhisgrace]

Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?

I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.

How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?

Fair enough. I suppose Christianity does not stand or fall on the inerrancy of Scripture, as its main intention is to show mankind the path to salvation, not to make a documentary on antiquity. I believe that there are other good reasons to believe in the physical Resurrection of Christ, independent of the inerrancy of the Gospels.

If the claims presented in Fr. John Whiteford's blog are accurate, though, it could call into question the reliability of the Fathers. I'm no expert in Patristics, though, so I digress. 

[Porter ODoran]

Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?

I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.

How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?

If the way you have to defend evolution is by repeating this kind of malicious old sophistry against the Holy Evangelists, then perhaps Byhisgrace is altogether in the right.

[Asteriktos]

Did life begin on land rather than in the sea?
A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life

"What she (Djokic) showed was that the oldest fossil evidence for life was in fresh water," said Deamer, a lanky 78-year-old who explored the region with Djokic, Damer, and Van Kranendonk in 2015. "It's a logical continuation to life beginning in a freshwater environment."

The model for life beginning on land rather than in the sea could not only reshape our idea about the origin of life and where else it might be, but even change the way we view ourselves.
....
According to Deamer and his colleagues, this discovery and their hot-springs-origins model also have implications for the search for life on other planets. If life began on land, then Mars, which was found to have a 3.65-billion-year-old hot spring deposits similar to those found in the Pilbara region of Australia, might be a good place to look.

So Star Trek was closer to the truth after all? All kidding aside though, it's a thing of wonder, this kind of stuff.   (For anyone having trouble accessing the article, remove the " at the end of the link)

[TheTrisagion]

Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?

I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.

How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?

If the way you have to defend evolution is by repeating this kind of malicious old sophistry against the Holy Evangelists, then perhaps Byhisgrace is altogether in the right.

I'm not defending "evolution". I'm merely pointing out the fact that we don't need to write off the Bible just because we encounter what appear to be discrepancies of an account.

[RobS]

Maybe I'm too naive, but there are much more important and complex issues evolution raises theologically than the tired "evolution is historical, blah blah". Nobody really knows the how life emerged the way it did, but evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes. It's possible another scientific theory could supplant evolution and be even more predictive, but I'm not holding my breath. So scientists do methodological naturalism to figure out the how of God's creation in order to produce useful predictions that matter to us, whether to develop better medicines, sturdier bridges, and send men out to space. None of this requires divine revelation, but as soon as the scientist tries to become a metaphysician, they are in error. The move from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism is fraught with so many problems, but I can see why scientists would be tempted because of how powerful scientific predictions are.

However that said, there is nothing evolution explains that is meaningful to my life spiritually or how that relates to my union with God. Do I think evolution creates theological problems such as the nature of death in creation and the Fall? Sure but I think I can neatly resolve that issue. Genesis, and the entire Bible itself, is the true God revealing to man who He is, who we are, and what our relationship to God is, the necessity for a Redeemer and so on. Yes there are a lot more nuances and intricacies than this superficial high level view but a fixation on the historicity on the Biblical narratives are missing the deeper spiritual truths that are more important to the Christian.

I care more about deepening my love for God, trusting His ways, doing His will not mine. The Bible is the authoritative text that helps me in my journey with God.

I'm glad that science is doing something completely different than what we as Christians should be doing. There is no overlap between the two domains, its a category error. Except perhaps using the developments of science for the good to our neighbors. Caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, giving shelter to the homeless, helping the poor, etc. Science can be hugely beneficial in helping us do the work of God, so I don't necessarily want to downplay its importance. However it's also important we are careful in that we don't harm others or use science as a vehicle for human vanities.

[ativan]

evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.

I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing. If it could then it would be very simple to supply a pathway (or pathways) of genomic changes of type A to lead to a genome of type B. No such thing can be done. Evolutionists prediction formula is "what is is".

[Porter ODoran]

I agree that it is a mighty head game. However, it's been so entangled with the biological sciences for so long that it's hard at this stage to say it's has had no value -- it has participated in value of many kinds and much importance. Further, as the foundational presumption of biology's philosophy-of-science (a presumption you and I could agree was a begged question, yet it is foundational all the same), it participates in much of the scaffolding of biology. Taxonomy, which has undeniable foundational value. Comparative research. Predictive models of genetics. And much more. Mankind has willed into reality the axiom that generations ago was a belligerent propaganda: evolution is indivisible from the life sciences. I think we can hardly fathom what dint of analysis it would take to re-divide them and what a massive body of work it would take to re-found the life sciences on a philosophy-of-science of due praise, altho I'm glad I'm not the only one left who can at least imagine it.

[Jetavan]

evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.

I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing.

If evolution is true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms--now extinct--that are very similar structurally to living organisms

[Porter ODoran]

evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.

I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing.

If evolution is true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms--now extinct--that are very similar structurally to living organisms

If God's attributes of order and abundance in creation are true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms now, as it happens, extinct -- for created species fall away as does everything created, in time, in a fallen world -- that are -- very intelligently and interestingly indeed -- similar to living.

[ativan]

evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.

I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing.

If evolution is true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms--now extinct--that are very similar structurally to living organisms

That is exactly the formula "what is is".

How and why would it predict so? Aren't you not hiding many other assumptions into your statement? Give me one specific extinct organism and one structurally similar living one and give me an explanation of that prediction.

Besides, we have multitude of structurally similar living organisms today: did existing organism A with a similar structure of another existing organism B formed by A transforming into B by evolution?

[minasoliman]

I just read this article. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but I found it very interesting nonetheless:

http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/1.2017/Alexander.Khramov.pdf

My main objections/criticisms are the following:

1) Even though the author denies the similarities of the argument to gnosticism, I think it still reeks of gnosticism.
2) It doesn't answer the question of when exactly the fallen Adam and Eve entered fallen history, and how do they relate to the genealogies of the OT.
3) I don't think what he calls "theistic evolutionism" necessarily has to put the blame of evolution, the futility of creation and the suffering of animals on God. One of my favorite theories regarding this, based on the scholastic tradition of Thomas Aquinas regarding angels (who at the same time took it from some Church Fathers such as Pseudo-Dionysius and I believe John Scotus Eriugena), is that due to the great power they were given at the beginning over the physical creation, it's not entirely unreasonable to believe that evolution was a result of the fall of angels from Heaven, who from the very beginning tried to distort and corrupt God's creation (leading up to evolution). It still has some problems, such as how to interpret the entrance of sin into the world "through one man" and the cosmic effects of original sin. But I think it's the only theistic-evolutionist position that doesn't make God look like an evil or incompetent Demiurge.

Just finished reading this...really difficult to muscle this into my brain, and I feel like I have to reread this a couple of times...buuuuttt...

I honestly don't see a point anymore in trying to harmonize evolution with theology.  Theology teaches God is Creator of all things seen and unseen.  Humanity lives in sin if it doesn't seek unity and life-giving relationship with the Father through Christ.  Evolution seeks to explain the the diversity of biological organisms through a consistency of scientific laws.  I tend to see that the assumption of consistency and nature following laws as proof of the intelligible nature of creation that points to the intelligent Logos, but that's it.  It doesn't seek to explain divine purpose.

At the same time, rather than separating the two into "pre-Fall paradisaical" and "post-Fall laws of science", why can't the laws of science be the icon of the Logos?  I find that the weakness in the article continues to create a split dichotomy, where one side has nothing to do with the other.  No!  One depends on the other.  The laws of science, including evolution, still result from the fully active divine in every aspect of our creation.  He doesn't just snap His fingers and doesn't get involved.  I also accept the laws of embryology.  That doesn't mean God didn't create me but a mere sperm/egg fusion.

Sooooo, as someone as accepts evolution at face value, I don't see why there should be a "problem".  It's not like theology depended on the falsity or truth of evolution.  Theology depends on how the world can be related to our understanding of our place and purpose in Christ.  Regardless of what mechanism the formation of the cosmos can be explained, that formation alone only becomes an academic curiosity and technological advancement, but doesn't go far enough to explain TRUE life in Christ.

Neither should we be throwing stones at scientists because of how they "stick" with evolution.  As someone who works in science, I fully sympathize with that position, and I feel most people who are anti-evolution don't really take the time to fully understand the science, but seek ONLY to disprove by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Such a life is not real life, but a life filled with fear, a fear non-existent.  With Christ, there's nothing to be afraid of.  Just let the chips fall where they may.  Evolution never changed Orthodox theology.  It's presuppositions that change.

[Jetavan]

evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.

I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing.

If evolution is true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms--now extinct--that are very similar structurally to living organisms

That is exactly the formula "what is is".

How and why would it predict so? Aren't you not hiding many other assumptions into your statement? Give me one specific extinct organism and one structurally similar living one and give me an explanation of that prediction.

Homo sapiens and the extinct Homo neanderthalensis are quite similar genetically. Why assume that each species was independently created?

Some interbreeding occurred between the two species, and it seems that modern humans with Neanderthal DNA might experience rates of certain mental disorders different from modern humans without Neanderthal DNA.

Researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) have produced the first direct evidence that parts of our brains implicated in mental disorders may be shaped by a "residual echo" from our ancient past. The more a person's genome carries genetic vestiges of Neanderthals, the more certain parts of his or her brain and skull resemble those of humans' evolutionary cousins that went extinct 40,000 years ago, says NIMH's Karen Berman, M.D. NIMH is part of the National Institutes of Health.

In particular, the parts of our brains that enable us to use tools and visualize and locate objects owe some of their lineage to Neanderthal-derived gene variants that are part of our genomes and affect the shape of those structures -- to the extent that an individual harbors the ancient variants. But this may involve trade-offs with our social brain. The evidence from MRI scans suggests that such Neanderthal-derived genetic variation may affect the way our brains work today -- and may hold clues to understanding deficits seen in schizophrenia and autism-related disorders, say the researchers.

[Porter ODoran]

"Race" is banned but "species" is hot. O evolution-fans, may your subtle-only-to-yourselves misanthropy never change.

[AlioshaKaramazov]

Just finished reading this...really difficult to muscle this into my brain, and I feel like I have to reread this a couple of times...buuuuttt...

I honestly don't see a point anymore in trying to harmonize evolution with theology.  Theology teaches God is Creator of all things seen and unseen.  Humanity lives in sin if it doesn't seek unity and life-giving relationship with the Father through Christ.  Evolution seeks to explain the the diversity of biological organisms through a consistency of scientific laws.  I tend to see that the assumption of consistency and nature following laws as proof of the intelligible nature of creation that points to the intelligent Logos, but that's it.  It doesn't seek to explain divine purpose.

At the same time, rather than separating the two into "pre-Fall paradisaical" and "post-Fall laws of science", why can't the laws of science be the icon of the Logos?  I find that the weakness in the article continues to create a split dichotomy, where one side has nothing to do with the other.  No!  One depends on the other.  The laws of science, including evolution, still result from the fully active divine in every aspect of our creation.  He doesn't just snap His fingers and doesn't get involved.  I also accept the laws of embryology.  That doesn't mean God didn't create me but a mere sperm/egg fusion.

Sooooo, as someone as accepts evolution at face value, I don't see why there should be a "problem".  It's not like theology depended on the falsity or truth of evolution.  Theology depends on how the world can be related to our understanding of our place and purpose in Christ.  Regardless of what mechanism the formation of the cosmos can be explained, that formation alone only becomes an academic curiosity and technological advancement, but doesn't go far enough to explain TRUE life in Christ.

Neither should we be throwing stones at scientists because of how they "stick" with evolution.  As someone who works in science, I fully sympathize with that position, and I feel most people who are anti-evolution don't really take the time to fully understand the science, but seek ONLY to disprove by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Such a life is not real life, but a life filled with fear, a fear non-existent.  With Christ, there's nothing to be afraid of.  Just let the chips fall where they may.  Evolution never changed Orthodox theology.  It's presuppositions that change.

Thanks for your response, Mina. Here's my problem with the theistic evolutionary position (which I've tried to defend before). I just don't see how God could have created an Earth filled with violence and death from the beginning. Sure, as I posted on this thread before,  Fathers and theologians of the Latin tradition such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas seem to be less radical when it comes to differentiating the pre-Fall and post-Fall Creation (as opposed to the Eastern Fathers who emphasize the relationship between Man as a microcosm and the rest of Creation), and they give room to the possibility of animal death existing in some form. But still, it's a very minoritary position. And there's still no way around the fact that none of the Fathers (that we know of) believed the Earth to be older than 6.000-7.500 years approximately. Can one dismiss this consensus as being the mere product of their scientific ignorance? Is it just a scientific mistake, or a theological one? If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong?

[minasoliman]

Just because the fathers believed in a young earth does not mean this was part of dogma or necessary for salvation.  There were no other options.  The scientific method as we know it came about in the 18th century.  The only difference in ages maybe is those fathers who believed in a 5000 BC origin vs 8 or 9000 BC origin depending on how you define "day" in the Genesis 1.

But as I said, I don't advocate theistic evolution over some other theory.  I think we need to start outgrowing the need to harmonize literal Scritpure with science.  So whether it's theistic evolution, or Francis Collin's "bioLogos" or this theologian's article on post Fall Big Bang, all of this is rather a waste of time in comparison to the importance of the incarnation, passion, and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ in conjunction with most if not all of the genealogy which lead to Christ, and the salvific and allegorical lessons we learn from that theological genealogy.

Science is the manner in which Christ has revealed His engineering of the world, and our discoveries of science should be for His glory, and this includes, in my experience, evolution.

You know, the earliest fathers believed our death was a mercy for the sins Adam committed.  That means that Christ created the manner in which we live so much so that death becomes a consequence of Adam's sinful actions.  Could Christ have created the world in a different manner, so much so that if Adam did not sin, we wouldn't die?  I believe so.  But He did not.  So if the fathers learned to thank God for death WITHIN THAT CONTEXT of not living in sin (and now within the context of the life-giving death of Christ), then why shouldn't I thank God for evolution, IF INDEED IT'S TRUE? 

We need to acquire some humility rather than make presuppositions that "God couldn't have created the world that way."  Who are you to say what God could or could not do?  If the divine consistency allows for the consistency of the scientific method to be studied so much so as to show evolution to be true, glory be to God.  But if evolution is found to be not true, glory be to God nevertheless.

Glory be to God in all things, for all things, and because of all things.  For all things, even the consequences of our actions, lead us back to Christ His Son, for our salvation.