Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

[minasoliman]

Change 1,267.

 . It's very analogous to the concept of a dialect continuum in Linguistics. Just like there's no clear line when one language ends and another begins; there's no real clear line where one species begins and another ends.

Come on!!! We all know all languages were born in Babel :-P...that's when the Latin, English, French, Spanish, Portoguese, and Italians originated from!!!

[Jetavan]

Change 1,267.

 . It's very analogous to the concept of a dialect continuum in Linguistics. Just like there's no clear line when one language ends and another begins; there's no real clear line where one species begins and another ends.

Come on!!! We all know all languages were born in Babel :-P...that's when the Latin, English, French, Spanish, Portoguese, and Italians originated from!!!

The next language I plan to learn is Latin American.

[Kerdy]

Change 1,267.

 . It's very analogous to the concept of a dialect continuum in Linguistics. Just like there's no clear line when one language ends and another begins; there's no real clear line where one species begins and another ends.

But if you told me ancient Celts spoke modern Japanese, then later told me (after being shown the error) they actually spoke Spanish, I'm still going to have my doubts.  Excuses are neat and all, just don't expect me to believe them.

[Android_Rewster]

Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.

 That's certainly a respectable belief, although I would like to note that macro-evolution is basically micro-evolution but over a longer period of time.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but macro-evolution means that the changes are so profound that a new species arises from a different one.  Time has nothing to do with it.  Microevolution just makes the same species adaptable to the changing conditions or a new environment without changing the species itself.  So if you take the Human Journey where people moved from Africa to all corners of the world, you will see that there are differences in feature according to where the humans eventually settled.  But at the end of it all of them are still the same species.

If you were to look at Microevolution say a couple thousand years after a species begins, and then look at the original specimen more like 2 or 3 million years later, there likely would have been so many micro changes and adaptations that you probably wouldn't recognize the species the way it was anymore.

 But like someone else pointed out, there's no real definite line between when you leave on species and join another.

[simplygermain]

Regardless, it seems logical that microevolution is a true thing, but as for macroevolution ill leave that to science which is always postulating yet as more data comes in it changes. Leave science to science and souls to the church.

 That's certainly a respectable belief, although I would like to note that macro-evolution is basically micro-evolution but over a longer period of time.

prove it.

[Jetavan]

"[U.S.] House Resolution 41: Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2013, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity.

Introduced: Jan 22, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor: Representative Rush Holt [Democrat-New Jersey 12]
Status: Referred to Committee
....
PROGNOSIS
0% chance of getting past committee.
0% chance of being agreed to."

[minasoliman]

"[U.S.] House Resolution 41: Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2013, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity.

Introduced: Jan 22, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor: Representative Rush Holt [Democrat-New Jersey 12]
Status: Referred to Committee
....
PROGNOSIS
0% chance of getting past committee.
0% chance of being agreed to."

Terrible idea!

Why single out Darwin as a celebration to science?  Very provocative and uncalled for.

(I find it hilarious...my very own Congressman from my district is the one who put this through...

...actually scratch that...I'm district 4...woops...I used to live in district 12)

[Jetavan]

"[U.S.] House Resolution 41: Expressing support for designation of February 12, 2013, as Darwin Day and recognizing the importance of science in the betterment of humanity.

Introduced: Jan 22, 2013 (113th Congress, 2013–2015)
Sponsor: Representative Rush Holt [Democrat-New Jersey 12]
Status: Referred to Committee
....
PROGNOSIS
0% chance of getting past committee.
0% chance of being agreed to."

Terrible idea!

Why single out Darwin as a celebration to science?  Very provocative and uncalled for.

(I find it hilarious...my very own Congressman from my district is the one who put this through)

It's more a congressional recognition/celebration of Darwin's birthday (12 February), which is already celebrated as "Darwin Day" across the U.S. and in many churches on the preceding or succeeding Sunday.

[psalm110]

How did Adam and Eve communicate with God ?. Did they literally see him as we see each other ? Was he able to be touched ? Did they see the whole Holy Trinity when God walked with them in the Garden or was it it the Pre-incarnate Christ the Word of God walking and communicate with them as per we do??.

any idea?

Thanks

[Android_Rewster]

How did Adam and Eve communicate with God ?. Did they literally see him as we see each other ? Was he able to be touched ? Did they see the whole Holy Trinity when God walked with them in the Garden or was it it the Pre-incarnate Christ the Word of God walking and communicate with them as per we do??.

any idea?

Thanks

I don't think the Bible particularly specifies on it, but I like to think that they could hear and feel his spirit.

[Peacemaker]

There is no absolute proof of evolution.

Three main points of conjecture:

1: evolution has never been witnessed.

2: Science is constantly trying to prove the theory of evolution with the theory that life self generated is a pool of amino acids and proteins by complete chance....so far all experiments to attempt to manufacture a self replicating DNA based Molecule have come to no result. there is some evidence supporting RNA based molecules though. Also if successful this would pose an interesting paradox about creation..being Science created a self replicating molecule...it did not create itself as theory of evolution works.

3: Fossil record is incomplete, yes sure we share similar bone structures to other animals etc.. but there is no defined developmental line of slight mutation per generation to warrant it being evidence for the time being, but it is getting stronger.


Now I am not even saying Evolution is incorrect. I'm being very open minded.

In fact, I think if you were to ask Richard Dawkins (the prince of evolution) he would say similar and he has:

Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."

Circumstantial for the moment.

Remember I am answering the question at hand....."Absolute Proof?"

There is no absolute proof.

And evolution does not conflict with the bible. I don;t care if God made the world in 1 day or 6. The point is that if he put trees here, her also included rings in the trees. And if he put people here, he also included a NATURAL reverse path back to the beginning of time. This is so we can make sense of the world, and so people can choose faith.

We are here, and there will always be this debate. It is God's way of ensuring that people choose Him through faith and not by proof or lack there of. The last thing that any Christian should want is proof of God or the destruction of evolution because proof of God would destroy faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place.

[Achronos]

There is no absolute proof of evolution.

And there is no absolute proof of God either.

What's your point?

[Peacemaker]

There is no absolute proof of evolution.

And there is no absolute proof of God either.

What's your point?

I wrote my point, proof of God would destroy faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place. There is no need for proof, only faith. Stop trying to analyze everything, "take eat, this is My body."

[Kerdy]

How did Adam and Eve communicate with God ?. Did they literally see him as we see each other ? Was he able to be touched ? Did they see the whole Holy Trinity when God walked with them in the Garden or was it it the Pre-incarnate Christ the Word of God walking and communicate with them as per we do??.

any idea?

Thanks

I think they vocally communicated.  As far as visually, I am not certain, but I imagine God presented himself in some way as He did in the OT. 

[Kerdy]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

[Kerdy]

There is no absolute proof of evolution.

And there is no absolute proof of God either.

What's your point?

I wrote my point, proof of God would destroy faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place. There is no need for proof, only faith. Stop trying to analyze everything, "take eat, this is My body."

Agreed, with one tiny exception.  I think God will provide the individual with enough "proof" to provide faith.

[stavros_388]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

Ummm, yeah, right... Just the same!

[Achronos]

I wrote my point, proof of God would destroy faith and the entire purpose of being here in the first place.

ROFL

[minasoliman]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.

[Jetavan]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

Or, more accurately:

"Biological evolution by means of natural selection explains more about the diversity of life than any other scientific explanation we know about."

[Kerdy]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.

You don't have to agree with my observation, but you shouldn’t say there aren’t similarities between how the two are represented.

[Kerdy]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

Ummm, yeah, right... Just the same!

I looked again to ensure I didn’t say this and wouldn’t you know it, I didn’t.  What I did say was they are "a lot alike” in how they present themselves, and they are.

[minasoliman]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.

You don't have to agree with my observation, but you shouldn’t say there aren’t similarities between how the two are represented.

But isn't it obvious that despite my personal observations of your line of work, that doesn't change the truth of what you do, which you know I misrepresented?

I think you should consider the same courtesy with evolution.  Evolution is proven by scientific testing and observation of many things in nature around us, the micro and macro scopic.  It's like proving the truth of the Bible, by proving the testing of our faith, living the practical examples of the godliness present in the Bible. For by the workd's observance of our actions, they should know the truth of our faith.

Likewise in observing population rates of change, anatomical studies, fossil records, genetics, etc., evolution becomes all the more evidently true.

So the idea that you use evolution to prove evolution is not what I have studied and experienced.

[Jetavan]

Interview: Michael Ruse on Evolution, Creationism, and Religion
....
DA: It seems that you are in an odd position. You state that you are a non-believer who nevertheless argues that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible. Because of this you have made enemies of atheists and creationists alike. Could you explain why you think that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible, and where the tensions might lie?

Michael Ruse: I see nothing in Darwinism that should upset the Christian, although I fully admit that the Christian is going to have to work hard on some issues. Obviously you cannot be a Darwinian and believe in a totally literal interpretation of Genesis. However, at least since the time of St. Augustine around 400 A.D. it has been the Christian position that one can and indeed must interpret the Bible metaphorically at times. So I don’t think that literal readings are necessarily part of traditional Christianity, even though they are certainly part of American evangelical Christianity.

Of course, there are certain issues which come up from Darwinism which seem to give great worries for the Christian....

[FlickFlack]

Evolution is a progressive scientific thesis in the discovery of how biological mechanisms function.

I think the only incompatibility between the current Traditional Christian theory and the Evolutionist one is the argument of death. Traditional Christianity asserts that death has not always existed in nature(at least at humans) but it was brought in through the first Sin. Evolution says that death always existed. Otherwise I believe it can be fully reconciled.

[Android_Rewster]

Evolution is a progressive scientific thesis in the discovery of how biological mechanisms function.

I think the only incompatibility between the current Traditional Christian theory and the Evolutionist one is the argument of death. Traditional Christianity asserts that death has not always existed in nature(at least at humans) but it was brought in through the first Sin. Evolution says that death always existed. Otherwise I believe it can be fully reconciled.

I think the explanation for that would be the Orthodox definition of death. We actually consider death to be separation from God, and the earthly death used in the process of natural selection is what we call "sleep". That's why Adam and Eve didn't die(earthly) when they ate the apple, they died(spiritually).

[orthonorm]

I just realized evolution is a lot like Sola Scriptura. 

“The bible is true because the bible says it is true.”

“Evolution is true because evolution says it is true.” 

You proved to me I know nothing about detective work by the way I was describing it.  Many of us see the same misrepresentation here with evolution.

I have a real zinger here, but I think I must wait to use it in the private forum.

[FlickFlack]

Evolution is a progressive scientific thesis in the discovery of how biological mechanisms function.

I think the only incompatibility between the current Traditional Christian theory and the Evolutionist one is the argument of death. Traditional Christianity asserts that death has not always existed in nature(at least at humans) but it was brought in through the first Sin. Evolution says that death always existed. Otherwise I believe it can be fully reconciled.

I think the explanation for that would be the Orthodox definition of death. We actually consider death to be separation from God, and the earthly death used in the process of natural selection is what we call "sleep". That's why Adam and Eve didn't die(earthly) when they ate the apple, they died(spiritually).

Yes, but don't the canons say that Adam and Eve were not created mortals?

[Android_Rewster]

Evolution is a progressive scientific thesis in the discovery of how biological mechanisms function.

I think the only incompatibility between the current Traditional Christian theory and the Evolutionist one is the argument of death. Traditional Christianity asserts that death has not always existed in nature(at least at humans) but it was brought in through the first Sin. Evolution says that death always existed. Otherwise I believe it can be fully reconciled.

I think the explanation for that would be the Orthodox definition of death. We actually consider death to be separation from God, and the earthly death used in the process of natural selection is what we call "sleep". That's why Adam and Eve didn't die(earthly) when they ate the apple, they died(spiritually).

Yes, but don't the canons say that Adam and Eve were not created mortals?

I wouldn't know -- I haven't studied a lot of the canons due to having a busy schedule. Could you give a citation?

 Anyways, somebody earlier said they thought that God chose two separate humans to become Adam and Eve, and he breathed into them. I cannot offer a proper explanation, and I'm sorry for that. I simply know that the Bible tells the truth and(as far as I know) the facts say that we evolved, so there must be something metaphorical that would allow two completely true counts to exist without contradicting.

[Shanghaiski]

Interview: Michael Ruse on Evolution, Creationism, and Religion
....
DA: It seems that you are in an odd position. You state that you are a non-believer who nevertheless argues that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible. Because of this you have made enemies of atheists and creationists alike. Could you explain why you think that Darwinism and Christianity are compatible, and where the tensions might lie?

Michael Ruse: I see nothing in Darwinism that should upset the Christian, although I fully admit that the Christian is going to have to work hard on some issues. Obviously you cannot be a Darwinian and believe in a totally literal interpretation of Genesis. However, at least since the time of St. Augustine around 400 A.D. it has been the Christian position that one can and indeed must interpret the Bible metaphorically at times. So I don’t think that literal readings are necessarily part of traditional Christianity, even though they are certainly part of American evangelical Christianity.

Of course, there are certain issues which come up from Darwinism which seem to give great worries for the Christian....

I don't know. Why not believe in both? The world is full of contradictions.

[Pericles]

Why would Christians want to believe the Jewish Creation myth of the Tanakh? You might as well believe in the account in Hesiod! The creation account for Christians is found in the Gospel of John.

[minasoliman]

Why would Christians want to believe the Jewish Creation myth of the Tanakh? You might as well believe in the account in Hesiod! The creation account for Christians is found in the Gospel of John.

I think the ridicule made here is uncalled for.  We do not pin up the Gospel of John against Genesis, but fulfills it.

[Pericles]

We do not pin up the Gospel of John against Genesis, but fulfills it.

Genesis is mythology, the Gospel is truth.

[minasoliman]

We do not pin up the Gospel of John against Genesis, but fulfills it.

Genesis is mythology, the Gospel is truth.

Genesis is truth, the Gospel is fulfillment.

[Pericles]

Genesis is truth, the Gospel is fulfillment.

Genesis is not fact.

[minasoliman]

Genesis is truth, the Gospel is fulfillment.

Genesis is not fact.

It doesn't have to be 100% fact, but it's 100% truth.

[Severian]

Genesis is truth, the Gospel is fulfillment.

Genesis is not fact.

It doesn't have to be 100% fact, but it's 100% truth.

Indeed, in that it is 100% revelation.

[minasoliman]

I hope Pericles you understand that the books of the Old Testament must be held in high regard and great reverence.  Even if some passages are hard to be taken literally, I don't dismiss it as "Jewish Mythology" as if it lacks truth.  There is a great deal of respect and reverence one should still have for these writings.  Don't fall into the Marcion trap that we would pin the New Testament against the Old.

The NT is light that shines on the OT and reveals from within it the hidden Truth of Christ that was obscured before.  NT is the hand that ripped open the veil of the OT, that we may behold its true and deep glory.  Therefore, the tone by which one talks about the OT must be no different than how one handles the cup that holds the blood of Christ and the paten that holds the Body.  Just because the Eucharist is more important does not lessen the importance of what holds the elements of the Eucharist.  OT is sacred enough that you should be able to talk about it without insulting it as if it's the same as any other myth.  God was revealed through the Tanakh, and so we should honor the Tanakh and not dismiss it.

[Pericles]

I hope Pericles you understand that the books of the Old Testament must be held in high regard and great reverence.  Even if some passages are hard to be taken literally, I don't dismiss it as "Jewish Mythology" as if it lacks truth.  There is a great deal of respect and reverence one should still have for these writings.  Don't fall into the Marcion trap that we would pin the New Testament against the Old.

The NT is light that shines on the OT and reveals from within it the hidden Truth of Christ that was obscured before.  NT is the hand that ripped open the veil of the OT, that we may behold its true and deep glory.  Therefore, the tone by which one talks about the OT must be no different than how one handles the cup that holds the blood of Christ and the paten that holds the Body.  Just because the Eucharist is more important does not lessen the importance of what holds the elements of the Eucharist.  OT is sacred enough that you should be able to talk about it without insulting it as if it's the same as any other myth.  God was revealed through the Tanakh, and so we should honor the Tanakh and not dismiss it.

Well said! I do appreciate that and my calling Genesis mythology is meant in an academic sense and is not rhetorical. I understand mythology in its positive sense as a genra of sacred literature.

[PeterTheAleut]

I hope Pericles you understand that the books of the Old Testament must be held in high regard and great reverence.  Even if some passages are hard to be taken literally, I don't dismiss it as "Jewish Mythology" as if it lacks truth.  There is a great deal of respect and reverence one should still have for these writings.  Don't fall into the Marcion trap that we would pin the New Testament against the Old.

The NT is light that shines on the OT and reveals from within it the hidden Truth of Christ that was obscured before.  NT is the hand that ripped open the veil of the OT, that we may behold its true and deep glory.  Therefore, the tone by which one talks about the OT must be no different than how one handles the cup that holds the blood of Christ and the paten that holds the Body.  Just because the Eucharist is more important does not lessen the importance of what holds the elements of the Eucharist.  OT is sacred enough that you should be able to talk about it without insulting it as if it's the same as any other myth.  God was revealed through the Tanakh, and so we should honor the Tanakh and not dismiss it.

Well said! I do appreciate that and my calling Genesis mythology is meant in an academic sense and is not rhetorical. I understand mythology in its positive sense as a genra of sacred literature.

A lot of high falutin jargon that means little to the non-academic types that frequent this forum. Can you rephrase the above in terms the unlearned can understand?

[minasoliman]

I hope Pericles you understand that the books of the Old Testament must be held in high regard and great reverence.  Even if some passages are hard to be taken literally, I don't dismiss it as "Jewish Mythology" as if it lacks truth.  There is a great deal of respect and reverence one should still have for these writings.  Don't fall into the Marcion trap that we would pin the New Testament against the Old.

The NT is light that shines on the OT and reveals from within it the hidden Truth of Christ that was obscured before.  NT is the hand that ripped open the veil of the OT, that we may behold its true and deep glory.  Therefore, the tone by which one talks about the OT must be no different than how one handles the cup that holds the blood of Christ and the paten that holds the Body.  Just because the Eucharist is more important does not lessen the importance of what holds the elements of the Eucharist.  OT is sacred enough that you should be able to talk about it without insulting it as if it's the same as any other myth.  God was revealed through the Tanakh, and so we should honor the Tanakh and not dismiss it.

Well said! I do appreciate that and my calling Genesis mythology is meant in an academic sense and is not rhetorical. I understand mythology in its positive sense as a genra of sacred literature.

The thing is Pericles you compared it earlier to the myths of Hesiod.  It's not so much your use of academia, but here in the forums, there is an Orthodox veneration of these books and stories, which understandably does not exist in academia.  Nevertheless, you need to be careful how you word things.  A paten to an outsider can be just a regular gold plate, but to us as Orthodox we don't just say, "we should just use any plate."  It was consecrated for a purpose and therefore given a certain amount of respect.

If you're going to talk about the OT in this forum, you need to be careful how you talk about it.

[Pericles]

I hope Pericles you understand that the books of the Old Testament must be held in high regard and great reverence.  Even if some passages are hard to be taken literally, I don't dismiss it as "Jewish Mythology" as if it lacks truth.  There is a great deal of respect and reverence one should still have for these writings.  Don't fall into the Marcion trap that we would pin the New Testament against the Old.

The NT is light that shines on the OT and reveals from within it the hidden Truth of Christ that was obscured before.  NT is the hand that ripped open the veil of the OT, that we may behold its true and deep glory.  Therefore, the tone by which one talks about the OT must be no different than how one handles the cup that holds the blood of Christ and the paten that holds the Body.  Just because the Eucharist is more important does not lessen the importance of what holds the elements of the Eucharist.  OT is sacred enough that you should be able to talk about it without insulting it as if it's the same as any other myth.  God was revealed through the Tanakh, and so we should honor the Tanakh and not dismiss it.

Well said! I do appreciate that and my calling Genesis mythology is meant in an academic sense and is not rhetorical. I understand mythology in its positive sense as a genra of sacred literature.

The thing is Pericles you compared it earlier to the myths of Hesiod.  It's not so much your use of academia, but here in the forums, there is an Orthodox veneration of these books and stories, which understandably does not exist in academia.  Nevertheless, you need to be careful how you word things.  A paten to an outsider can be just a regular gold plate, but to us as Orthodox we don't just say, "we should just use any plate."  It was consecrated for a purpose and therefore given a certain amount of respect.

If you're going to talk about the OT in this forum, you need to be careful how you talk about it.

Fair enough the point is to surprise not to offend. My reference to Hesiod was for effect and I have great respect for the literary and religious culture of Hellenism, of which Christianity is a part. However while I respect Genesis as a Judaeo-Christian creation narrative, I personally wouldn't advise a literal reading of any more that I would suggest a literal reading of Hesiod. The literary genre that both authors composed in is the same and differs in that Hesiods Theogony is poetry whilst Genesis is prose.

[Kerdy]

We do not pin up the Gospel of John against Genesis, but fulfills it.

Genesis is mythology, the Gospel is truth.

That's nice.  Who wants a cashew?

[Kerdy]

Genesis is truth, the Gospel is fulfillment.

Genesis is not fact.

Superior "academic" arrogance always attracts followers.  Usually people who don't think on their own, but followers nonetheless.

[Pericles]

Genesis is truth, the Gospel is fulfillment.

Genesis is not fact.

Superior "academic" arrogance always attracts followers.  Usually people who don't think on their own, but followers nonetheless.

Well give it up then!

[Tags:]

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