Poll

What would best describe your beliefs about how the universe and man came to be?

Young Earth Creationism (e.g., earth is less than 10,000 years old)
17 (13.1%)
Other Creationism (e.g., the "days" in Genesis could each signify very long periods)
22 (16.9%)
Theistic Intelligent Design (e.g., we were created by a God, and I *know* which God)
18 (13.8%)
Deistic Intelligent Design (e.g., the universe was created by God, though I'm not sure which version of God most accurately describes Him)
2 (1.5%)
Vanilla Intelligent Design (e.g., there was some type of designer, though I don't know if it was a supernatural entity)
1 (0.8%)
Neo-Darwinian Gradualistic Evolution
11 (8.5%)
Other Evolutionary Theories
0 (0%)
None of These
2 (1.5%)
A Mixture of These
10 (7.7%)
Theistic Evolution
36 (27.7%)
Not Sure
11 (8.5%)

Total Members Voted: 129

Author Topic: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!  (Read 41367 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #135 on: April 15, 2006, 12:48:20 AM »
Come on, Peter.  In all fairness, you can't sit on the fence here.  Either you think Fr.  Seraphim's scholarship is shoddy or good.  If you truly believe that it is not thorough at all, then you would have to place it on the "shoddy" side of the ledger.

I guess I'm trying to cover for what I perceive to be the deficiencies in Fr. Seraphim's scholarship.  I respect him as a great proponent of the Russian dogmatic tradition; I just don't respect very highly the scholarship of this dogmatic tradition that he represents.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #136 on: April 15, 2006, 01:05:06 AM »
Anyway, I believe that the Holy Fathers were not infallible in scientific matters, but definately in spiritual authority I submit.

Creation itself is not a scientific concept but a spiritual one whose truth lies above and beyond the realm of science. That is why I'd rather trust patristic tradition the best I can than Western thought.

Since both of you find nothing wrong with theistic evolution for others, but only for yourselves, then there is no point in debating this.

Theistic evolution is the addition of theism to a scientific theory whose evidence isn't compelling enough on its own. It's not evil nor something that I'd have antagonism toward but it doesn't strike me as either good science or good theology.

Thus, in science classes, what teachers are obliged to teach is nothing more than what we observe with our five senses.

Which is exactly why evidences for evolution which aren't really evidences at all should not be presented. Oscillations in finch beak size and the shades of peppered moths do not substantiate the greater theory of evolution, that living things are capable of such grandscale transitions as fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to bird, etc. While I would not favor the teaching of "Intelligent Design" or any other form of creationism in the classroom, I wouldn't mind allowing the disclaimer that certain schools have added to biology textbooks.

Therefore, personally, believing in Young Earth and Animal deaths after Adam's fall would also to me living a lie, and out of the question.  That just takes me two steps closer to evolution.

Have you ever considered what some would term "old earth creationism" or "day-age theory"?
I also wish you a blessed Pascha. I still recommend that you check out Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. There are good parts, there are bad parts, but at least it will give you something to think about.

www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1587430533?v=glance

Peace.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 01:06:55 AM by Matthew777 »
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #137 on: April 15, 2006, 02:28:59 AM »
I guess I'm trying to cover for what I perceive to be the deficiencies in Fr. Seraphim's scholarship.  I respect him as a great proponent of the Russian dogmatic tradition; I just don't respect very highly the scholarship of this dogmatic tradition that he represents.
What specifically do you have a problem with?
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #138 on: April 15, 2006, 02:30:44 AM »
If there was a time when the universe did not exist, then scientists make the universe itself God.  If you push atheists' stubborn minds to the edge, I think it makes sense that the universe could not have existed on its own, and that to call it eternal would be pushing it, while they have no way to prove it.  It's easier for one to be agnostic than to be an atheist.

Anyway, I believe that the Holy Fathers were not infallible in scientific matters, but definately in spiritual authority I submit.
And they said that God created man. Evolution says otherwise.
Since both of you find nothing wrong with theistic evolution for others, but only for yourselves, then there is no point in debating this.
I thought you'd already given up debating this. But no per se evolution as you believe it, it is fine. However I note again what you believe and what is the theory of evolution are different.
However, I have to make a comment on your comments on "materialism."  As I explained before, and perhaps the National Academy of Sciences would agree, neither theist nor atheist can make comments on God when teaching science (except if it was a philosophy class).  If I was to teach physics, I would not force my students to tell them, "God who made gravity, which pushes us down," I would simply say "there is a force called gravity that pushes us down" (at the same time, an atheist has no right to say "gravity pushes us down, not God.")
Already gone over this too with regard how they don't care if you believe in God, so long as you don't in fields they've already attributed to materialism. And no Church Father makes comments about gravity; as far as I'm aware. They do about creation. Evolution (as it is understood by others than yourself) denies Gods creation.
Thus, in science classes, what teachers are obliged to teach is nothing more than what we observe with our five senses.
Science is not just about what we can see with our five senses we also speculate; for instance there's a field in science called exobiology.
Thus, if one thinks science is "materialistic" in that sense, then yes, because the world around us and what we study is materialistic.
There are some sciences that delve in non-materialistic ways, such as Pure Maths.
Personally, however, in my own personal contemplation, I would sit and be amazed at the diversities of laws God gave to create this world.  However, if one assumes science is so materialistic that it tries to exclude God at all costs, then one becomes ignorant to only stereotype science to a bunch of atheists who like to add philosophy or ideology to science.  It's like stereotyping a whole white nation as "white trash" because of a few vociferous people.

One of the things I disagree completely with the Holy Fathers is that death entered into Earth to all creation after man's fall.
Ah, pride.
But we have fossil evidence of a whole age of animals who died 56 million years ago.  Already, science itself, CLEAR scientific observation, an observation that is as clear as the nose of your face, disproved many of the Fathers' scientific beliefs (unless you have proof that exponential decay tests are faulty).  And like you said, we cannot live a lie.  Thus, if something the Fathers said in science is wrong, and if we believe that science does indeed change, then the Fathers' science is no more infallible than present science, and thus I live what is truthful than a lie.
Ah, here I finally understand. You believe the compelling evidence from science as opposed to the compelling evidence from the Church Fathers. You belive a form of understanding that is continually in flux, over the never-changing truth of the Church.

If my own Father of Confession was St. Basil, and I found him irrefutable proof that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, I would have no problem disagreeing with St. Basil's geocentric beliefs.
If all the Fathers taught it and the church had always understood it to be so, I'd believe the Fathers.
Therefore, personally, believing in Young Earth and Animal deaths after Adam's fall would also to me living a lie, and out of the question.  That just takes me two steps closer to evolution.
To me, such a stance is to have chosen man over God, in the same way Thomas doubted.

Some thoughts on epistemology of science...
Gender bias can be the cause of error, or of not immediately recognising truths. 1

 

What is chosen as science, is based on engendered notions...

“Presently, curriculum designers around the world may differ in their views about topics to include in the science curriculum. However, they almost all would include the nature of science in science curriculum (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; Hazen & Trefil, 1991; Lederman, 1992; and Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990).”2

 

Feminist science claims to be more pluralistic, and more aware of gendered a priori notions 3. Such gender bias is part of the very language used by scientists, it is inescapable. “Narrative conventions form part of scientific description. These are forms of words that are typical of a particular thought process. Haraway (1989) uses the tools of literary theory to demonstrate how hypotheses in primatology and evolutionary theory depend on narrative conventions (for example, casting the transition from ape to hominid as a heroic drama) and tropes (for example, casting primates as mirrors of human nature).”4 This means that in the male-dominated western idea of evolution, male-dominated forms of description are used (conventions) to convey evolutionary theory. What you may believe to be valueless; science, is in fact riddled with values.

 

Back to Darwin. Many of his ilk believed that women were naturally meek, mild and home-orientated. They attributed 'essentialist' ideas to women, and to evolution the cause of women being as they 'are'. And of course, they found the science to prove these gendered biased notions.

 

Further errors may present themselves with the advent of 'big science'; “ the organization of large numbers of scientists bringing different bodies of expertise to a common research project.”5

Hardwig in 1985 published research on the 'big science' project. He suggests that because a project becomes so large, no one scientist is an expert on all matters of the project; therefore there is a reliance upon the expertise of others in the project. “This leads Hardwig to ask two questions, one about the evidential status of testimony, and one about the nature of the knowing subject in these cases. With respect to the latter, Hardwig says that either the group as a whole, but no single member, knows or it is possible to know vicariously. Neither of these is palatable to him. Talking about the group or the community knowing smacks of superorganisms and transcendent entities and Hardwig shrinks from that solution. Vicarious knowledge, knowing without oneself possessing the evidence for the truth of what one knows, requires, according to Hardwig, too much of a departure from our ordinary concepts of knowledge.” 6

A knowledge of these concepts is essential before blind faith is placed in evolutionary theory. One needs to know the men* behind the theory and an understanding as to what drives them. Many scientists themselves are unaware of their own a priori biases when dealing with evidences, because science itself is supposed to be about objectivity, and proofs, not on faith. The inquiry of scientists is said to be 'value-laden' that is, full of the values that the scientists bring with them to any experiment. Much of evolutionary theory is couched in the values of materialism.**

There is also a need to undermine traditional Christian values. One of the ways of doing this is to ridicule Christianity, to undermine its position as a source of authority. Usually, without consciously realising this, the mind of evolutionary scientists switches to stock-standard forms of attack...

“In other words, it is the same old Scopes Trial stereotypes, which are considered great fun and an endless source of amusement amongst the “intelligent folks,” but which accomplish little towards the end of advancing intelligent, fruitful discussion on the vexed scientific/philosophical issue of origins. The Galileo incident is used in exactly the same sense. What Scopes is to fundamentalist Protestantism, Galileo is to Catholicism (in the eyes of those who love to cite -- and distort for their own ends -- these incidents).” 7

Without insight into their own thought processes, evolutionary scientists react with these automatic arguments.

 

Evolutionary theory has come to replace religion for many, as it can be applied to all manner of social behaviours; politics, marriage/sex attraction, economics etc.

 

Evolutionary science goes unchecked, and uncriticised as it is accepted by a plethora of well-meaning people who simply (want to?) believe that the science as presented is rational, objective, and valueless.

 

* I said men, because still most western scientists are men

** Materialism is a philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.

A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns. 8

 

References

1 “In all of these cases, gender bias is represented as a cause of error, or at least delay in recognizing the truth.”

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/

 2 http://www.balfakih.net/epistemology.htm

3 . “Most advocates of feminist science argue, in this vein, that scientific inquiries informed by feminist values are based on legitimate, generative limiting biases. They argue not that feminist sciences should exclude other ways of doing science, but that feminist sciences should be included as among the legitimate choices available to investigators.”

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/

 4 Ibid

5 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/

6 Ibid

7 http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ355.HTM

8 http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=materialism



Thus in summary the truths of science are skewered by the actors own biases. You choose to ignore these by putting your faith in the truth of science. If you'd have been born in a Marxist country you'd have been taught a Marxist slant on science. In the west you're taught a male-dominated, capitalistic orientated science.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #139 on: April 15, 2006, 07:41:09 PM »
I don't want to be someone who follows tradition merely for tradition's sake but I can't help but point out that Darwinian evolution is a thoroughly Western idea. If any of the fathers had taught anything resembling the theory, please show me.

Peace.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #140 on: April 16, 2006, 04:04:48 AM »
I don't want to be someone who follows tradition merely for tradition's sake but I can't help but point out that Darwinian evolution is a thoroughly Western idea. If any of the fathers had taught anything resembling the theory, please show me.

Peace.
If we're talking about traditions as meaning dogma, then I will follow it for its own sake. But in general I agree with you
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #141 on: April 24, 2006, 12:45:07 PM »
Christ is risen!

Forgive me for carrying this debate on longer, but just to answer a few remarks.

Quote
And they said that God created man. Evolution says otherwise.

No it doesn't say otherwise.  Prove it.

Quote
I thought you'd already given up debating this. But no per se evolution as you believe it, it is fine. However I note again what you believe and what is the theory of evolution are different.

Prove it again.  My study and an atheist's study in evolution is no way different.  The difference is what we add to it.

Quote
Already gone over this too with regard how they don't care if you believe in God, so long as you don't in fields they've already attributed to materialism.

And I refuted it what you already "gone over."  Show me where evolutionists say that it is scientifically proven God doesn't exist.

Quote
And no Church Father makes comments about gravity; as far as I'm aware. They do about creation. Evolution (as it is understood by others than yourself) denies Gods creation.

I was giving an example in which you like to dismiss as something the Holy Fathers did not talk about.  Like I've told you before St. Basil believed in a geocentric view.  Does that mean he was right?

If you want to debate something on a scientific basis, you use scientific research and interpret it.  The Bible and the Holy Fathers help us in spirituality, not science.

Quote
Science is not just about what we can see with our five senses we also speculate; for instance there's a field in science called exobiology.

This is only speculation, a hypothesis that they have yet to push to make it into a theory.  Thus, this is not an area that's scientific truth.  And yes, exobiology does come from our five senses.  It stems from the fact that one can manipulate or clone genomes to make living things.

Quote
There are some sciences that delve in non-materialistic ways, such as Pure Maths.

Math has its own special "materialism" if you will.  Both atheists and theists use it at their pleasure for trying to disbelieve or believe in God.  Not to mention, math is quite inseparable from the material world when one wants to use it on data or how to describe the world around us in a mathematical way, and in no way helps or not help God's existence, like evolution.

Quote
Ah, pride.

Tell me.  So you believe that physical death did not exist before man's existence, let alone his fall?  I think Matthew would agree with me on this one, that physical death did exist, not on account of pride, but on account of clear irrefutable evidence.

And do you think it's prideful to disagree with St. Basil's geocentric view?

You accuse me of being rude to you, but I find this response not only unintellectual, but also quite rude on your behalf.

Quote
Ah, here I finally understand. You believe the compelling evidence from science as opposed to the compelling evidence from the Church Fathers. You belive a form of understanding that is continually in flux, over the never-changing truth of the Church.

As I've explained, science is never opposed to the truth of the Church.  The Church contains within her spiritual truth, which never changes.  Science, our observations of the world, contains physical truth, when one is dealing with scientific facts.  It is a scientific fact that animals died millions of years ago, let alone that it is a scientific fact that the earth existed millions of years ago.

Quote
If all the Fathers taught it and the church had always understood it to be so, I'd believe the Fathers.

Well, you go right ahead.  Meanwhile, I will agree with some fathers that wrote disagreements towards one another.

Quote
To me, such a stance is to have chosen man over God, in the same way Thomas doubted.

I can't help but notice however that Christ used physical proof to help St. Thomas' disbelief, unless you're telling me what Christ did was wrong.

At the same time, it's not uncommon for fathers to disagree even with saints:

Quote
St. Basil the Great speaks thus of Holy Martyr Dionysius of Alexandria (commemorated on Oct. 5, old calendar): "I am not delighted by all that is written by this man; and there are some things that I do not approve of in the least. For, perhaps, it was he… who first spread the seeds … of anomeic impiety. I think that the reason for this is not misdirection of the soul, but the burning desire to oppose Savelius."

from http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm#_Toc67449479

Finally, a word from the late Bishop Alexander Mileant on interpreting scientific data:

Quote
Religious people treat the findings of fossilized remains of man’s "intermediate links" in different ways. Here are some opinions:

  • Scholars have misinterpreted the fossilized remains that have been found: there were no humanlike animals: there were just different ape species that have nothing in common with man.
  • The remains found of humanlike beings are not really that old: some of them belong to different primate species, and some might be ancient people, but they are people who suffered from various physical defects and therefore look like intermediate links between man and ape.
  • In prehistoric times there might have been humanlike beings, but they all died without leaving offspring. The body of Adam, from whom we are all descended, was created directly by God.
  • God used the creative powers of nature to gradually perfect the human body. Ancient humanlike beings were highly developed animals that did not yet have the human soul. Adam was the creature that received a soul from the Creator and became the man from whom we are all descended.

Which of the above-mentioned speculations is most feasible?

We categorically deny the banal materialistic point of view that man in the aggregate of his characteristics "came from monkeys," since the soul, which is the highest aspect of the human being, could not have grown out of any kind of evolutionary processes. The next chapter is devoted to this theme.

The first opinion, namely that there are no intermediate links, is increasingly difficult to defend because it forces one to deny the achievements of several branches of science — geology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, genetics, embryology… which confirm and supplement one another. Besides which, there is no united "plot" among scholars to undermine religion or the Bible’s authority. There are many sincerely religious people among them who acknowledge God our Creator. As they compete with each other to refine facts and develop various theories, scholars gradually eliminate fallacious interpretations and inaccuracies and are always prepared to expose any attempts to forge or manipulate the facts. That is the wonderful thing about science — it is self-correcting.

It is difficult to doubt that the fossilized remains really are ancient, because there are many independent methods of establishing the age of geological eras that generally check and qualify each other. It has been established that the branch of creatures that began to display the anatomical features of later man (for example, the ability to walk on two feet, a change in the form of the skull and teeth) began about five million years ago. Over time, the descendents of these creatures began to obtain more obvious features of modern man. With the large quantity of fossilized remains that have been found, the likelihood that they were all crippled or deformed is extremely low.

The speculation that all humanlike creatures became extinct without leaving descendents presents another predicament: if everything was made by our Creator, then why did He make anthropoids if they were all going to die out later anyway? Or was the Lord experimenting with different variations on man, trying to determine which one would be best?

The view that God set the creative powers of nature forth to form man does not, in our view, decrease His Wisdom or His Creative omnipotence. For the laws of nature had to work together with our Creator to accomplish an ultimate goal: the creation of man.

"Do you really accept the evolutionists’ side, which asserts that man is descended from the ape?" the reader may ask.

No! Man did not come from the ape; his body was made from the dust of the ground, and he got his soul from God, as the Bible teaches.

But the formation of his body should not necessarily be understood as an instantaneous act. If God wanted to use His laws to perfect man’s body, then it was His holy will to do so. It might be that a more ancient ancestor existed from which both modern primates and anthropoids descended. Both are from "the earth," but our Maker showed special care in the formation of man’s body, which is why the Psalmist is right when he says, "Thy hands have made me and fashioned me" (Ps. 119:73).

We can understand the feeling of disappointment that a believer might feel upon learning that he is "a relative of the ape." It would naturally be more pleasant if the Lord had created us independently of the lower creatures. But who dares tell the Creator what He should do? "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? (Is. 45:9).

 We ought to see the Creator’s great wisdom in His gradual creation of man’s body with nature’s participation: He put us on Earth not as foreigners, creatures alien to it, like extraterrestrials, but marvelously adapted us to the sharply-changing conditions of the surrounding environment. Our instincts, immunity, senses and physical qualities harmonize ideally with a world filled with dangers and surprises. Like the children of wealthy parents, we inherited everything that nature had perfected for millions of years. What’s more, since we have something in common with the lower creatures, we are able to better understand and pity our "subjects," contributing to their good. Here there is also cause for humility: "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," the Lord reminded Adam when the latter wanted to compare himself to God in presumptuous impertinence (Gen. 3:19).

  • Note: In light of the interpretation offered here that Adam was made in the distant past, when humanlike beings like the Neanderthals still existed, Cain’s fear for his life is understandable. As we know from the book of Genesis, when Cain killed his younger brother Abel, the Lord ordered him to leave the company of his parents and roam the earth. In fear of being killed, Cain tells God, "My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from Thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me" (Gen. 4:13-14). Here it is clear that, after he became a murderer, he feared suffering the same fate as his brother. But one wonders who could have killed Cain if there were no other people who lived close by besides his immediate siblings. It is natural to assume that Cain knew from his father’s stories about the existence of other "people" — strong and skilled hunters like the Neanderthals.
[/size]

The speculation mentioned here that man’s body was formed gradually by the Creator together with the powers of nature, we do not call a proven fact, but rather propose as a valid possibility that, in our opinion, harmonizes the story of the Bible with modern scientific discoveries better than any other. It goes without saying that the reader is allowed to interpret Biblical and scientific data in his own way — on the condition that his opinion does not contradict the dogmas of our faith, specifically:

  • That God, not blind chance, created man,
  • That man has a godly and immortal soul, which he received from the Creator,
  • That all modern people come from one ancestor — the Biblical Adam, and inherited not only a soul from him, but his original sin, also.

If one adheres to these truths, then the details about how the world and life on it evolved, or whether man’s body was formed instantly or gradually, are of secondary importance and do not undermine faith in any way.

Professor V. V. Bolotov wrote about the permissibility of private opinion on issues not defined by the Church’s dogma: "No one has the power to forbid me to hold to a teologumen expressed by at least one of the Church’s fathers as my private theological view, as long as it is not proven that a competent church trial has already pronounced the view sinful. But on the other hand, no one has the power to demand of me that I, as my private theological view, follow a teologumen expressed by several fathers of the Church, if that teologumen does not soon captivate me with its sublime theological beauty, and does not conquer me with its argumentation’s majestic strength, which must be accessible to my comprehension."

 Reconciling scientific data with religious conviction is far from an abstract exercise — particularly for parents who are believers. In these times, youths sooner or later become acquainted with various evolutionary theories and they begin to question how to reconcile these theories with what they have been taught in classes about the Law of God.

Here it is counterproductive for parents to simply dismiss the discoveries of modern science and assert without confirmation that they were all made up. Both non-religious evolutionists and creationist extremists want to thrust their conceptions on the growing generation, passing them off as facts — the former, by saying that everything originated in and of itself, and the Bible is a collection of myths; and the latter by insisting on a literal interpretation of every word of the Bible and teaching that everything was created instantly in its final form. Youths will feel like they are caught in a cross-fire that forces them to choose between the Bible and science.

Meanwhile, both extremes — evolutionism and creationism — rely not so much upon objective data (of science or the Bible) as upon their own specific suppositions. The evolutionist worldview suffers from a lack of spirituality, shortsightedness and haughty pretensions that in the end, science can explain everything exhaustively. It sometimes repels people with its anti-religious fanaticism. Creationism is notable for its narrow literalism. Not having any positive data in science, it limits itself mainly to a criticism of Darwinism. In spite of astronomy, geology, paleontology, atomic physics and other sciences, creationism insists that the earth is young and disputes obvious facts. However, as everyone knows, facts are "stubborn things."

As for detriment to faith, it is hard to say which of these extreme worldviews is more harmful: the first in that it eliminates our Creator, or the second, in that it creates an artificial conflict between Divine revelation and science.

Fortunately, there is in fact no fundamental conflict between religion and objective scientific data, and there is no need to choose between science and religion, because the two spheres of knowledge complement one another and discuss different sides of the same coin. God is the First Cause and author of all that exists — regardless of how He achieved His goals.

The beginning and the development of life on earth contain many mysteries that, we are convinced, science will never be able to solve exhaustively. And that is because only the final results of complex processes are revealed to us; no traces have been left in nature of precisely which "buttons were pushed" by our Maker or when He did so. In essence, our powers of cognition are not much better than those of "insects on an interplanetary ship."

God has honored me with being the witness of true miracles. Many times in my life I felt the Hand of God, which has led me, delivered me from hardship and given me more than I could dream of. As I look back, I see that all of my life has been woven of insignificant accidents that later turned out to have great consequences for me. But how do I "prove" to others that the merciful Lord has helped me during my life, and it was not coincidence?

We must say in conclusion that in principle no scientific hypothesis, including the theory of evolution in its different variations, threatens faith in God our Creator. Indeed, any theory, in order to be scientific, must remain within the bounds of cognizable and accessible experience. Everything that goes beyond the strict limits of physics falls into the realm of assumptions, metaphysics, and philosophy… But religion is mainly about the other, invisible world — about what is not subject to physical analysis, but is perceived through Divine revelation. The sphere of faith is accessible only to the soul that is able to communicate directly with God.

Therefore, one need not fear pure science. One must simply learn to discern facts from hypotheses. History knows many cases when representatives of both religion and science made mistakes. And the source of these problems has always been not facts, but their interpretation. Whenever a conflict arises between faith and knowledge, it is safest to take a wait-and-see position, believing that, in time, everything will fall into place and the truth will triumph.

Dear Matthew,

Quote
If any of the fathers had taught anything resembling the theory, please show me.

That's like asking if the Fathers taught that the islets of Langerhans secrete insulin to help regulate blood sugar, then I'll believe you.

However, I consider that when something is formed from the dust or from the earth, it seems to me to have an evolutionary ring to it.  Does it mean it was a direct formation from dust to man?  To me it doesn't.

And if one can find the Fathers say that physical death did not come into the world until Adam's fall, and that we find ourselves in disagreement with them, it is quite naive to ask if the Fathers taught evolution to affirm whether or not evolution is true.

God bless.

Xrictoc anecti!

Mina
« Last Edit: April 24, 2006, 12:48:55 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #142 on: April 24, 2006, 01:38:52 PM »
What specifically do you have a problem with?

Let me answer this question by referring you back to the post earlier in this thread where I state my analysis of the scholarship of the Russian dogmatic tradition.

Click HERE.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #143 on: April 25, 2006, 12:30:21 AM »
Does it mean it was a direct formation from dust to man?  To me it doesn't.

Then you've neglected the teachings of patristic tradition. That does not, however, make you a bad person. I'd rather trust the church fathers on this matter than 19th century Western naturalism.  

Peace.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #144 on: April 25, 2006, 12:38:33 AM »
Then you've neglected the teachings of patristic tradition. That does not, however, make you a bad person. I'd rather trust the church fathers on this matter than 19th century Western naturalism.  

Peace.

But wouldn't your rejection of pre-fall death also mean "rejection of patristic tradition"?
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #145 on: April 25, 2006, 04:45:20 AM »
Christ is risen!

Forgive me for carrying this debate on longer, but just to answer a few remarks.

No it doesn't say otherwise.  Prove it.
Evolution says man was created through wholly materialistic means. I thought you'd know that.
Prove it again.  My study and an atheist's study in evolution is no way different.  The difference is what we add to it.
I agree. That's the whole point you've missed. Evolution accounts for everything about man through wholly materialistic means. If you want to accept God is somewhere there in the process, that's fine and entirely up to you, excepting you've got to reduce God's role to one somewhere undefined, because the whole process of man's rising is already attributed by evolution through entirely explainable means (and by this I mean through scientific, materialistic, naturalistic, and entirely non-supernatural means).

That's the very heart of this matter which you've hit upon, without (so it seems) realising the very implications of what you've said. That is why technically evolutionists will 'allow' you to believe in God - just not in any process that they've already established (for themselves) that happened in wholly non-supernatural ways.

Let me try a different angle... where do you think God was involved in man's 'evolution'?
« Last Edit: April 25, 2006, 04:48:52 AM by montalban »
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #146 on: April 25, 2006, 04:47:32 AM »
Let me answer this question by referring you back to the post earlier in this thread where I state my analysis of the scholarship of the Russian dogmatic tradition.

Click HERE.
I think calling your opinion an analysis is too rich. All you did back then was offer your opinion Fr. Seraphim was wrong, based as it was on your opinion that he's wrong.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #147 on: April 25, 2006, 07:12:09 AM »
Actually I'd like any one here who believes in evolution and God to cite any scientific work that allows for God, and where God acts in the chain of evolutionary events.

If some might think that this is a false test because no such paper would ever exist, then you've proved the point that evolution does not really allow for God - sure you can believe God is there 'somewhere' but not in any sense that is 'real' as far as science is concerned because we already have scientific explanations of the whole process of evolution.

Evolution therefore denies God any real presence.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2006, 07:14:09 AM by montalban »
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #148 on: April 25, 2006, 07:51:41 AM »
I'll try also another way of putting this...
Imagine for a moment, if you would that you drive a car. The textbooks tell you that the car runs my known causes. These can be tested scientifically. Science tells you that the car is made of particular stuff. It goes at a particular speed. It has a certain stopping power, etc. All these aspects science can know and are explained by materialistic causes.

But one day you are driving along and you feel God's presence; your car mysteriously breaks down just as a truck flies past you, missing you and thus your life is spared. The issue of you believing that God took some actions in the way you drove is up to you, but it will never enter into the textbooks on car mechanics because it lies outside the realm of car mechanics. The science behind the car excludes God from all aspects of your car, it excludes it to a point where it will say "You can believe what you want about God, but we know why the car works, etc.). In fact science will attempt to explain why the car broke down, even if it seems inexplicable to you; having been something it's never done, and of course when it did happen, it just happens to be highly advantageous.

If you continue to believe that God saved your life, that is a matter for your own faith. Science however has excluded God from the process.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #149 on: April 25, 2006, 10:28:45 AM »
Dear Montalban,

Xrictoc anecti!

Quote
Let me try a different angle... where do you think God was involved in man's 'evolution'?

Well, tell me a science that you enjoyed learning.  Physics, chemistry, embryology?  If we take physics for example, we see the laws of physics, such as gravitation, torque, hydraulics, etc. all have some sort of force.  That is as much as science can go.  Or the wavelike properties of light, and how light acts in certain mediums, or the speed of light or the speed of sound in certain mediums.  These are all established laws and facts.  And that is all science can go.

I agree with you that this alone is materialistic, and that is where science should end.  If one believes solely in science, like the atheists, then there is an empty void, a vanity in science itself.  To believe solely in science is a philosophy, not a science.  Philosophy, which you can call the "science of the intellect" forces man's intellect to think deeply concerning things.  Atheists refuse to think deeply, therefore they are no different from animals in their vanity.  But one can ask the question, where did the laws of gravitation, torque, hydraulics, etc. come from?  Why does light have wavelike properties or why does light and sound behave differently and have different speeds in different mediums?  Why is light that fast in a vacuum?  Or how was protons, nuetrons, and electrons made for atoms?  Where did the Big Bang come from?

These questions scientists have no answer.  The best answer they can come up with is that "it just is."  And even if they can some up with an answer, one begs the question of where that answer comes from or why that answer is, and scientists, based solely on science will say "it just is."

But let's take a philosophical route.  Now, I'm saying it's okay for science textbooks to base themselves solely on materialism.  You may have issues with that, but I don't.  But suppose you want to add God into the picture, such as the car breakdown accident you referred.  Then that's where philosophy textbooks come in, where one can argue whether or not God is involved, where one can argue ethics and morality, where one can argue religion and theologies, and even intertwining science with religion.

Yes, you will not find any scientific work that says "God made it that way," but rather "it is just that way," and that's okay.  That's science's job, not to cross the line to make any philosophical or theological statements.  Like I said before science is neither atheistic or theistic, and that includes evolution.  You can prove that science is materialistic, but you cannot prove that scienctists disprove God scientifically, simply because that is philosophy's job, not science.

So, why do I feel fine in believing in evolution and God?  Just as one attributes the creation of the laws of the universe to God, and not something "just is," so is evolution.  The laws of evolution did not come  by chance or haphazardly like that, but it came because God created the world that way. Even in Genesis, it says "let the earth bring forth."  "He commanded and they were created." (Psalm 148:5)  That's how I connect the two.  I repeat, connected the two (theism and evolution, or any science for that matter) is NOT SCIENTIFIC, but philosophical.

God bless you.

Mina
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #150 on: April 25, 2006, 10:31:54 AM »
One thing that I must add is that we must thank God in all things, praising God in everything we do even as simply as Psalm 127 (or 126 LXX) says:

"Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it."

Something as simply as building the house can be credited to the builders which is materialistic, and that's analagous to science, but here, the Psalm teaches us all credit is due to God, and that's theology/philosophy.

That's how I feel about evolution as well.  Without God, it is vanity.  If you read my signature, it says "vain existence can never exist."

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: April 25, 2006, 10:33:52 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #151 on: April 26, 2006, 12:19:10 AM »
But wouldn't your rejection of pre-fall death also mean "rejection of patristic tradition"?

As I've previously stated, plants and animals were dying for millions of years before the appearance of man. It is human death that began with the fall. Now, if you could name a church father who claims that Adam was descended from a previous creature, rather than created from the dust of the ground, please do so.

Peace.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,260
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #152 on: April 26, 2006, 01:24:25 AM »
I don't know about that Matthew, but quite a few Fathers did believe that all of creation was suffering because of Adam's sin, until the coming of Christ, but now is in the process of (or at least capable of) being transfigured. If animal activity was not caused by the fall of man, but was the original intention of God in his divine plan (and foreknowledge), then one must ask how animals who kill their kids or mates could be considered "good". I mean, why would God make animals like that on purpose? especially if we are supposed to use nature as evidence that God exists, as Paul clearly said in Romans 1 and 2?

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #153 on: April 26, 2006, 01:31:32 AM »
If animal activity was not caused by the fall of man, but was the original intention of God in his divine plan (and foreknowledge), then one must ask how animals who kill their kids or mates could be considered "good".

No Death Before the Fall - A Young Earth Heresy
by Rich Deem

Most Young earth creationists claim that there was no death before the fall of mankind in the garden of Eden. The doctrine is primarily tied to two passages - Genesis 1:29-30 in the Old Testament and Romans 5:12 in the New Testament. Out of context, without the consideration of the remainder of the Bible, the verses seem to support the doctrine. Genesis 1:29-301 says that God created plants with seed and fruit and gave it to the animals for food. Romans 5:122 says that sin entered the world through Adam and death through sin...
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html

Peace.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,260
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #154 on: April 26, 2006, 01:37:26 AM »
Nevermind, I'm tired
« Last Edit: April 26, 2006, 01:42:08 AM by Asteriktos »

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #155 on: April 26, 2006, 07:53:13 AM »
Well, tell me a science that you enjoyed learning.  Physics, chemistry, embryology?
I take it you're after what I've read/studied on the subject, asking in an oblique fashion, that is.
I did some Pre-History at university. It wasn't 'science'. Our text book was Poirier, F E, “In Search of Ourselves: An Introduction to Physical Anthropology”. I still continue to read the odd work on the matter, most recently Wolpoff, M & Caspari, R, (1997) "Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction" and
Stringer, C., & McKie, R., (1996) "African Exodus: The Origins of Modern Humanity", (Henry Holt Books; New York). As well as a number of anti-materialist evolutionary books, including

"Refuting Evolution: A Handbook for Students, Parents, and Teachers Countering the Latest Arguments for Evolution" by Jonathan Sarfati, Ken Ham

"Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision" by Fr. Seraphim Rose

"Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing" William A. Dembski (Editor)

"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe

"Evolution : A Theory In Crisis" by Michael Denton

"Nature's Destiny : How the Laws of Biology reveal Purpose in the Universe" by Michael Denton

"Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute)" Michael J. Behe (Editor)

"Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton

"The Design Revolution: Answering The Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design" by William A. Dembski

"The Privileged Planet : How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery" by Guillermo Gonzalez

"Darwin on Trial" by Johnson, P. E.

"Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds" by Johnson, P. E.

"Wedge of Truth" by Johnson, P. E.

Whether you think that this qualifies me to speak on 'science' and/or 'evolution' is up to you.

If we take physics for example, we see the laws of physics, such as gravitation, torque, hydraulics, etc. all have some sort of force.  That is as much as science can go.  Or the wavelike properties of light, and how light acts in certain mediums, or the speed of light or the speed of sound in certain mediums.  These are all established laws and facts.  And that is all science can go.
Indeed.
I agree with you that this alone is materialistic, and that is where science should end.  If one believes solely in science, like the atheists, then there is an empty void, a vanity in science itself.
If you mean 'scientism' then yes I agree. No where do I disagree that there must be more to the world than what science can account for.
To believe solely in science is a philosophy, not a science.  Philosophy, which you can call the "science of the intellect" forces man's intellect to think deeply concerning things.  Atheists refuse to think deeply, therefore they are no different from animals in their vanity.  But one can ask the question, where did the laws of gravitation, torque, hydraulics, etc. come from?  Why does light have wavelike properties or why does light and sound behave differently and have different speeds in different mediums?  Why is light that fast in a vacuum?  Or how was protons, neutrons, and electrons made for atoms?  Where did the Big Bang come from?

These questions scientists have no answer.  The best answer they can come up with is that "it just is."  And even if they can some up with an answer, one begs the question of where that answer comes from or why that answer is, and scientists, based solely on science will say "it just is."
So far I agree. Even though you've not answered my question directly.
But let's take a philosophical route.  Now, I'm saying it's okay for science textbooks to base themselves solely on materialism.  You may have issues with that, but I don't.  But suppose you want to add God into the picture, such as the car breakdown accident you referred.  Then that's where philosophy textbooks come in, where one can argue whether or not God is involved, where one can argue ethics and morality, where one can argue religion and theologies, and even intertwining science with religion.
I agree, but again (and forgive me if I now sound patronising), that is again the point by which I argue and which your don't seem to realise. The beliefs you have are IN ADDITION TO SCIENCE. They are perfectly valid from my own point of view, but not by how science is used. The atheists would argue that your beliefs are not part of science, and they are correct. They exclude your beliefs from science. And to a degree they are still correct, which is the point I make when I say that science excludes God. If you have any beliefs in God they are above and beyond that of science. Your beliefs in evolution are based in science, with the add-on of another set of beliefs outside of science. Some scientists (such as atheist apologists at Talkorigins.org) may 'grant' you the right to believe in what you want to believe above and beyond the realm of materialistic science, but the moment your beliefs intrude into science they would shout you down. And then we're back to dealing with evolution - it is a process they believe to be wholly materialistic. It is taught that way. To argue that it isn't is to be arguing about how you feel science should be taught, not how it is. The National Academy of Sciences don't want God being discussed in the science class.

I do believe that this is where you don't see the distinctions I'm making. I agree with your beliefs in God. I believe in God. I believe that God created man, however and I recognise that this is not an easy fit within the framework of evolution as it is preached by scientists. Your beliefs in science and God I applaud but you can't say that they are not exclusive of each other when science is taught without reference to God. Science has explained why man evolved. Where you fit God into this picture, you've yet to show me to prove that they are not exclusive of each other.

Evolution has no need for God. If you believe in God, that is, again I must say, a fine thing to do. But evolution (as it is taught) doesn't involved God. I'm also not arguing that the two can't be reconciled, but the forms of evolution that involve God (such as ID-theory) are shouted down by the majority as non-science for the very reason that it is a theory that involves God (and other arguments as well).

Indeed He is Risen!
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #156 on: April 26, 2006, 11:28:33 AM »
Dear Matthew,

Did not Fr. Seraphim Rose make the case that there were Holy Fathers that indeed believed in "no death before fall"?  And you call it a heresy?  Isn't that going a bit too far?  I don't call what you believe in heresy, because it only deals with science.  You have to give the possibility that even St. Paul may have believed in the same thing simply because there were a lot of Church fathers who did afterwards.

You avoided the question at hand, and instead went on to pick and choose what the Holy Fathers say that you agree with and what you don't agree with, such as no animal death before the Fall, and you go far to call that heresy.

Meanwhile, I can say, that although I cannot find Fathers that say we've descended from other animals, I can find fathers that say we have two natures, an animalistic nature and an angelic nature.  To me, it is sufficient to find this type of confession, along with the fact that both us and animals that share the same nature and the same dust (there were fathers that did not believe animals descended from one another, let alone humans descending from an animal), is enough for me to show that there is a glimpse of scientific belief that confirms this (not to mention, St. Augustine's belief in that we should not contradict scientific beliefs, but conform it to the Bible).

What I do believe is that we as humans received an added nature, a different grace than all other animals, although after the fall, we joined the animals in corruption and disease.  And although we may not have been created directly from dust, we sure are of dust.

Again, I tell you, animal death before the fall and an old earth is just two steps closer to evolution (not to mention early fossil evidence of homo sapiens date much more than 10,000 years ago).  You're simply pushing it to the edge to appease somewhat your personal conscience in what you learned in science with the Holy Fathers' scientific beliefs.

God bless.

Mina
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #157 on: April 26, 2006, 11:55:53 AM »
Dear Montalban,

Quote
Whether you think that this qualifies me to speak on 'science' and/or 'evolution' is up to you.

Most of these books, if not all, seem to be anti-evolution books.  This is not impressive to me.  This is only your choice of books so that you can further your own position.  Just by reading the titles, you are not showing qualification of what you know about evolution, but qualification of refuting evolution.

I know you are offended by the question that I keep on asking you, but believe me, I mean no offense.  Is there a science that you enjoyed learning, dating back to high school?  By answering this, maybe, just maybe, we can move the discussion to a good direction, rather than go in circles.

Quote
The atheists would argue that your beliefs are not part of science, and they are correct.

Not only atheists, but theists.  Atheists believe solely in science which leads them to be atheists.

Quote
The National Academy of Sciences don't want God being discussed in the science class.

Are you saying this is wrong?  At the same time, the National Academny of Sciences don't want "anti-God" to be discussed either.

Quote
Science has explained why man evolved. Where you fit God into this picture, you've yet to show me to prove that they are not exclusive of each other.

Science has NOT explained why man evolved, but only HOW.  The "why" is where science has no answer.  The "why" is where philosophy classes debate.  I've showed you countless times, my friend.

Quote
Evolution has no need for God.

You can't prove that, neither can you disprove that scientifically.  In fact, it is ILLEGAL for science to claim that.  This is where philosophy classes come in.

Quote
I'm also not arguing that the two can't be reconciled, but the forms of evolution that involve God (such as ID-theory) are shouted down by the majority as non-science for the very reason that it is a theory that involves God (and other arguments as well).

Of course it's non-science.  It's philosophical to believe in ID-theory, but not scientific.  At the same time, atheists are equally shot down for trying to teach anti-God in science classes, because this also is non-science, but again, philosophical.

God bless.  Christ is risen!

Mina
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #158 on: April 26, 2006, 02:00:09 PM »
A quick comment on the standards of science, if you're proposing an hypothesis that it is impossible to prove or disprove (e.g. God exists, God guided evolution, God created the world to look evolved, which he can do because he's omnipotent...or the opposite, that God does not exist, God was not involved in evolution, etc.) then it's NOT science and has no place in a science classroom, a philosophy classroom yes, but not a science class room. Science works with that which can be demonstrated using scientific methodology not with philosophical notions of truth. A useful distinction may be one from one of my favourite Indiana Jones lines, 'Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.' Science looks for observable and verifiable fact, notions of absolute truth are irrelevant to the subject.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #159 on: April 26, 2006, 04:45:53 PM »
A quick comment on the standards of science, if you're proposing an hypothesis that it is impossible to prove or disprove (e.g. God exists, God guided evolution, God created the world to look evolved, which he can do because he's omnipotent...or the opposite, that God does not exist, God was not involved in evolution, etc.) then it's NOT science and has no place in a science classroom, a philosophy classroom yes, but not a science class room. Science works with that which can be demonstrated using scientific methodology not with philosophical notions of truth. A useful distinction may be one from one of my favourite Indiana Jones lines, 'Archaeology is the search for fact... not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.' Science looks for observable and verifiable fact, notions of absolute truth are irrelevant to the subject.

THANK YOU!

Xrictoc anecti!
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Matthew777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Seek and ye shall find
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #160 on: April 27, 2006, 08:17:07 PM »
Rather than continuing with this discussion, I again recommend that everyone please read Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil by biophysicist Cornelius Hunter.

Peace.
He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #161 on: April 28, 2006, 05:25:33 AM »
Dear Montalban,

Most of these books, if not all, seem to be anti-evolution books.  This is not impressive to me.
Why do people state something I've already admitted? I said as much when I gave a large list of anti-evolutionary books stating that they weren't pro-evolution to boot. Suddenly you've 'uncovered' a reason for my irrational dislike of science; cleverly announcing the discovery of this, a clue which I've already stated! Kepow!
This is only your choice of books so that you can further your own position.  Just by reading the titles, you are not showing qualification of what you know about evolution, but qualification of refuting evolution.
Then you have ceased in offering honest debate, whether intentionally or not. I have stated my position is not pro-materialistic in its take on evolution. I cite a majority of books that I have read to this effect. I have also stated that I still continue to read evolutionary books and cited them. In fact I've quoted one in arguments on this thread. You've responded by 'revealing' what I've already said (re: types of and numbers of books on each subject) and then re-interpreted this to fit a strange set of parameters which is that I would agree with evolution if only I read more books  on evolution. I read books on evolution long before I read books on creationism. Whether you realise it or not you've simply attempting to rob me of having any rational reason for believing in what I believe. So, after discerning this 'fact' (which I've already stated) you seek to uncover more facts to determine why I don't simply adopt your view - you want to examine motive. And here it goes...
I know you are offended by the question that I keep on asking you, but believe me, I mean no offense.  Is there a science that you enjoyed learning, dating back to high school?  By answering this, maybe, just maybe, we can move the discussion to a good direction, rather than go in circles.
It is irrelevant. You are determined to find ulterior motives for me not taking up the mantle of evolution as you have. You just can't see why someone wouldn't. For you, they simply must have some other reason; perhaps I was bitten by a rabid scientist as a child :-) and have been afraid to go back into the lab ever since.
Not only atheists, but theists.  Atheists believe solely in science which leads them to be atheists.
Are you saying this is wrong?  At the same time, the National Academy of Sciences don't want "anti-God" to be discussed either.
Science has NOT explained why man evolved, but only HOW.  The "why" is where science has no answer.  The "why" is where philosophy classes debate.  I've showed you countless times, my friend.
Science has said why. Why is because it happened naturalistically, a freakish collection of circumstances that have allowed a primordial soup to coalesce, be struck by an energy source and gone on from there. You' not stated where God fits into the process AT ALL, my friend.
You can't prove that, neither can you disprove that scientifically.  In fact, it is ILLEGAL for science to claim that.  This is where philosophy classes come in.
I've also noted a half-dozen times already that science allows you to believe in God that is outside the realm of science. I'm not sure if you're reading all that I have written - perhaps not because you can't simply believe that I can hold a reasonable position that is different from yours - whereas I applaud you for still believing in God - I simply want to know where God fits into the evolution of man. You suppose God gave us 'purpose'. How? Did God create man in his image by conferring a soul upon the most advanced ape-like creature?
Of course it's non-science.  It's philosophical to believe in ID-theory, but not scientific.
You're attachment to materialistic philosophy would incline you to believe that.
 At the same time, atheists are equally shot down for trying to teach anti-God in science classes, because this also is non-science, but again, philosophical.
God bless.  Christ is risen!

Mina

So in summary you can't believe that I have a rational reason for rejecting materialistic evolution. It is perhaps because I just never liked science, or that I just happen to read all the wrong books. Let's avoid answering my questions about fitting God into the picture, and let's entirely drop arguing from Church Fathers altogether. It's much easier to just pigeon-hole someone as a crack-pot and then you don't need to hold up a reasoned argument any more.

I'd stick with the rabid hatred of science idea, myself.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #162 on: April 28, 2006, 10:04:19 AM »
Dear Montalban,

You are truly ignorant and stubborn.  I have no ulterior motives to ask you of your favorite science, and I only wanted to further the discussion, not to show how much "ignorant" you are.  Your ignorance is not proven by the lack of scientific knowledge (which you probably have anyway, considering that you hesitate to answer the question), but by the lack of understanding both in the biological field and in science in general.  One of the proofs of your ignorance is that you believe no animal died before Adam's fall.  I even showed you that Matthew himself disagrees with this.  He seems to understand more about science than you, and is not debating based on the elementary issues that we are debating.

One thing you will never be convinced of is that science never explained the "why."  You proceed to give the "why" that atheists do.  I tell you that science is not allowed to give "why."  You tell me it does, and I continue to tell you it doesn't.  If you will not understand that, then all this book reading you have done is of no avail.

God bless you and forgive me for my offences.

Mina
« Last Edit: April 28, 2006, 10:05:37 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #163 on: April 28, 2006, 01:30:30 PM »
Science has said why. Why is because it happened naturalistically, a freakish collection of circumstances that have allowed a primordial soup to coalesce, be struck by an energy source and gone on from there.

This is not an explanation of WHY we supposedly evolved, this is an explanation of HOW.  What you've presented is nothing but a naked chain of cause-and-effect events, which is the essence of HOW things happen.  WHY has more to do with the end result that this chain of events is supposed to achieve.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #164 on: April 28, 2006, 01:47:26 PM »
One thing you will never be convinced of is that science never explained the "why."  You proceed to give the "why" that atheists do.  I tell you that science is not allowed to give "why."  You tell me it does, and I continue to tell you it doesn't.  If you will not understand that, then all this book reading you have done is of no avail.

Um. Montalban actually made a perfectly legitimate and interesting point: That science, by the very nature of its methodology, makes certain unproven and presumptive "truth" claims that, in the end, at least imply answers to "why" questions.

Science pursues naturalistic explanations, but on what basis does it know that naturalistic explanations are legitimate? How does it justify its foundational principle? This is an interesting question, especially since society (and scientists) sometimes give so much weight to scientific knowledge without realizing its limitations -- both in terms of presupposition, evidentiary content and form of argument. To fully justify such naturalistic presuppositions, one must resort to questions of epistemology, yet, scientists consistently claim that such inquiry is automatically out-of-bounds, irrelevant or invalid since it is not "scientific," but philosophical. By bifurcating knowledge in such a way and defining away basic questions, scientific arguments often suffer from different kinds of petitio princippii.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2006, 04:13:18 PM by pensateomnia »
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #165 on: April 28, 2006, 09:07:17 PM »
Dear Montalban,

You are truly ignorant and stubborn.
You have no reason to say the first other than I continue to disagree with you. The later, I am indeed, I uphold the teachings of the church no matter how much fleeing materialistic doctrine you wish to throw around. As I noted you're thoroughly convinced of your own position and that any opposition to this must be based on some irrational reason. You show no introspection in this regards, continually revealing things that I've already commented upon beforehand.
I have no ulterior motives to ask you of your favorite science, and I only wanted to further the discussion, not to show how much "ignorant" you are.
That's simply not borne out by your change in direction to discussing things. You've done nothing now for some days to actually address any of the evidences from Church Fathers - for that is not your intent. I already foresaw this in my previous posting. You've thrown out evidence for personal motivations. You've given up on the Church Father's teachings and pegged your beliefs on the 'rational' of science being superior and when science says something, well it just must be true. Anyone who disagrees is either stubborn, or they just haven't understood, or haven't read enough science.
Your ignorance is not proven by the lack of scientific knowledge (which you probably have anyway, considering that you hesitate to answer the question), but by the lack of understanding both in the biological field and in science in general.
Now you refute me based on an opinion that it is so. You were going to make this assumption regardless of my response because for you, if I only just understood science as you would then I must, if I were a reasonable being come to the same conclusion you have. I have mentioned this thought process earlier too, but your lack of introspection in this regards is disappointing.
One of the proofs of your ignorance is that you believe no animal died before Adam's fall.
I don't believe I made any such comment about animals dying before the fall at all.*
I even showed you that Matthew himself disagrees with this.  He seems to understand more about science than you, and is not debating based on the elementary issues that we are debating.
I don't recall making the argument you say that I am making. You are also now trying another tactic; one based on peer-pressure; that 'everyone disagrees with me' on some matter. Again you have thrown away evidentiary argument in favour of emotive ones.
One thing you will never be convinced of is that science never explained the "why."  You proceed to give the "why" that atheists do.
No, I stated the 'why' as scientists do.
I tell you that science is not allowed to give "why."
Who forbids this? Another just-so statement.
You tell me it does, and I continue to tell you it doesn't.  If you will not understand that, then all this book reading you have done is of no avail.
Another thing I've pointed out is your inability to comprehend that someone could have a REASONABLE notion that disagrees with yours.
God bless you and forgive me for my offences.

Mina
Incredibly ironic considering what you just said. More lack of introspection - if one just parrots off the same words "Please forgive me" but is insulting it shows a lack of understanding.

In summary you've thrown off the yoke of evidentiary discussion - without recourse to what the Church Fathers believe. That was too hard, you prefer to be insulting based on the idea that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant of science, etc.

You try emotive arguments; appealing to join the 'many' on this thread. And I'm sure you genuinely believe that if only I had read the books you had, and understood them, as you have, I'd have come to the same conclusions that you have. Thus you're probably not even aware that you're arguing insultingly the way you do.

You repeat a 'just-so' regarding the 'why?' question of existence, and still avoid answering my questions as to where God fits into this - I asked how does He confer a soul upon an evolving creature (and addendum to my previous question- did He pick one species of evolving ape-like being, or many?) But you won't answer this directly, preferring to fall back on the condescending and emotive arguments you now give.

Despite your lack of introspection and insults, I would still like to continue to discuss this with you. But you not answering my questions because you've taken a moral high-ground approach that I am ignorant and stubborn, so they'd be no point is rather disappointing - but it sure beats answering my questions or coming up with something more than a just-so rebuttal.

I would like you to stop dealing with motives - so I don't need to analyise your 'style' in response. If you want to deal with the facts, please do so. I note you still haven't addressed any of the points from post #105, in fact your first response was "What do you do for a living?" (post #113).



* The only time I recall responding to animal deaths is after you said
Therefore, personally, believing in Young Earth and Animal deaths after Adam's fall would also to me living a lie, and out of the question.  That just takes me two steps closer to evolution.
Which is to do with deaths of animals 'after Adam's fall', perhaps you intended on saying 'before'.
But here I think you assume that the earth is very old, and that Adam came about much later, and as we have 'evidence' that fossils date millions of years this must have happened before Adam came about therefore animals died before the fall - your assumption here being that the earth is old. I have made no comment (I don't believe I have) on the age of the earth.

The next closest I can see in respects to this issue was in post #126 where I quoted Church Fathers with regards a literal Adam. Your retort to this was a 'just-so' that I simply musn't have read your site properly (I should have (in retrospect) have spotted the development of your argument then and there).
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #166 on: April 28, 2006, 09:11:17 PM »
This is not an explanation of WHY we supposedly evolved, this is an explanation of HOW.  What you've presented is nothing but a naked chain of cause-and-effect events, which is the essence of HOW things happen.  WHY has more to do with the end result that this chain of events is supposed to achieve.
No, the 'Why?' is the same as the 'How?' in materialism, because there is nothing more than material. Why you fall in love is because of chemicals in your brain firing certain receptors upon certain stimuli

"How?" is exactly the same. They are the same BECAUSE of the nature of materialism. Why do you think materialism involves non-material process is beyond me. But then you might have some references to scientific studies that deal with this.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,515
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #167 on: April 29, 2006, 12:29:57 PM »
Montalban,

Please don't say that someone has ceased in "honest debate": that is implicitly calling them a liar.

Minasoliman,

Please do not call people ignorant.  Just make your point without recourse to adjectives to describe someone.

Thanks

Anastasios
« Last Edit: April 29, 2006, 12:30:12 PM by Anastasios »
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
You're right
« Reply #168 on: April 29, 2006, 07:55:10 PM »
My apologies for such a suggestion
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #169 on: April 29, 2006, 07:56:26 PM »
Naturalism is not an inherent part of science. Science often endeavours to discern intelligence, such as in cryptography, the search for intelligence in outer-space (SETI), in coronial examinations (to determine if someone died 'naturally' or not). Some concepts of maths are near philosophical.

And as to materialism, some aspects of medicine deal with non-material things, such as in behavioural science.

Only those enslaved by modernist notions that there are no absolute truths reject the Church. They accept the materialism of science and hold science's relative truths to be greater than those of the Church
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #170 on: April 30, 2006, 01:57:25 PM »
Quote
And as to materialism, some aspects of medicine deal with non-material things, such as in behavioural science.

Which doesn't have anything to do with disproving philosophical materialism, as behavioral abnormalities can can be explained by very material things: genetics, chemical imbalences, brain damage etc.

Quote
Only those enslaved by modernist notions that there are no absolute truths reject the Church.

There are plenty of people that reject (at least passively so) Orthodoxy (what I assume you mean by "the Church") yet still hold a belief in absolute truth - Catholics, Muslims etc.

Quote
They accept the materialism of science and hold science's relative truths to be greater than those of the Church

What would be an example of holding a relative truth of science to be greater than a truth of the Church?  I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "science's relative truths".

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #171 on: April 30, 2006, 08:56:05 PM »
No, the 'Why?' is the same as the 'How?' in materialism, because there is nothing more than material. Why you fall in love is because of chemicals in your brain firing certain receptors upon certain stimuli

"How?" is exactly the same. They are the same BECAUSE of the nature of materialism. Why do you think materialism involves non-material process is beyond me. But then you might have some references to scientific studies that deal with this.

Well, I guess according to your assessment of materialism, it is accurate to say that materialists have explained WHY life began.  I was speaking more from my non-materialist pov, which makes a distinction between HOW and WHY.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #172 on: April 30, 2006, 10:52:00 PM »
Well, I guess according to your assessment of materialism, it is accurate to say that materialists have explained WHY life began.  I was speaking more from my non-materialist pov, which makes a distinction between HOW and WHY.
And this is the stance minasoliman also takes, I appreciate that you can and do believe in God in ADDITION to evolutionary science. However as far as evoultion is concerned - as it is taught - the 'why' is answsered by the 'how' because there is no 'why' beyond the material. This is the point I was trying to make. As far as evolution is concerned, there is no place for God - God has been excluded from all that there is that it has already explained in evolutionary terms.

I would like to know if people believe that God conferred a soul upon some ape-like creature and made him man.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #173 on: April 30, 2006, 11:08:00 PM »
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8688.msg118193#msg118193 date=1146419845]
Which doesn't have anything to do with disproving philosophical materialism, as behavioral abnormalities can can be explained by very material things: genetics, chemical imbalances, brain damage etc. [/quote]
And non-material social causes such as peer pressure affecting self-esteem. I am not here to disprove materialism. I am here to suggest that some aspects of scientific study already deal with non-material issues. It is true that often one might apply a material to solve the issue; and the over-prescription of drugs by doctors is being recognised.

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8688.msg118193#msg118193 date=1146419845]
There are plenty of people that reject (at least passively so) Orthodoxy (what I assume you mean by "the Church") yet still hold a belief in absolute truth - Catholics, Muslims etc. [/quote]
For me THE CHURCH is synonymous with The Orthodox Church. I don’t understand the rest of the point you were making.
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8688.msg118193#msg118193 date=1146419845]
What would be an example of holding a relative truth of science to be greater than a truth of the Church?  I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "science's relative truths".
[/quote]

Firstly an absolute truth is something that is true, for all time. An example is when God said of Himself “I am”. He always is.
Science has truths for a while. They are relative (based often) to the best understanding of observable facts/reasonable and educated estimates etc. They are true until disproved. Some are held true based on preconceived ideas and bias.

The idea that the earth was the centre of the solar system was once ‘the truth’.

Your question “What would be an example of holding a relative truth of science to be greater than a truth of the Church?” is one I don’t understand. Whom is doing what with what?


I include the following purely out of amusing some…
“I imagine this story being told to  me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos  Airescafe.
His voice dry and infinitely ironic,  the ageing, nearly blind literary master observes that “the Ulysses,” mistakenly  attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from “the  Quixote”.
I raise my eyebrows.
Borges pauses to sip discreetly at  the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to  the saucer.
“The details of the remarkable  series off events in question may be found at the  Universityof Leiden,” he says. “They were conveyed to  me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo.”
Borges wipes his thin lips  with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast  pocket.
“As you know”, he continues, “the  original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French  Cistercians in the autumn of 1576.”
I hold up my hand to signify to our  waiter that no further services is needed.
“Curiously enough, for none of the  brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos  Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the  responsibility for copying he Quixote, the printing press having then gained no  currency in the wilderness of what is now the department of Auvergne. Unable to  speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers  copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course,  compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of  authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by  means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis  Samorza's remarkable  epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means; and  then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into  French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme; their copying continuous and  indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred  but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to  members of the Bourbon house, and rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan  Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's  Madame Bovary; and then as a result of a particularly significant series of  errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Illych  and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly  emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the  brothers, their numbers reduced by an infections disease of mysterious origin,  finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected  for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915,  just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose  significance remains to be determined.”
I sit there, amazed at what Borges  has recounted. “Is it your understanding, then,” I ask, “that every novel in the  West was created in this way?”
“Of course,” replies Borges imperturbably.  Then he adds: “Although every novel is derived directly from another novel,  there is really only one novel, the Quixote.”
David Berlinski; “The Deniable  Darwin” in Dembski, W. A. (ed) “Uncommon  Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing”, pp281-282
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #174 on: April 30, 2006, 11:56:16 PM »
Quote
The idea that the earth was the centre of the solar system was once ‘the truth’.

And still is.  And mind you, not just the center of the solar system.  

Here's the cross-sectional view of the known universe.

http://mcp1.anu.edu.au/~TDFgg/Public/Pics/2dFGRS_top_view.gif

Guess who's in the middle.


Offline GiC

  • Site Supporter
  • Merarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,487
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #175 on: May 01, 2006, 01:49:34 AM »
And still is.  And mind you, not just the center of the solar system. ÂÂ

Here's the cross-sectional view of the known universe.

http://mcp1.anu.edu.au/~TDFgg/Public/Pics/2dFGRS_top_view.gif

Guess who's in the middle.

Of course Earth is the centre of the universe and solar system, then again the sun is too, as it mars, as is the next galaxy over, etc., etc....It's called the Theory of Relativity, there is no 'absolute centre,' every point is just as central as every other.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #176 on: May 01, 2006, 04:50:54 AM »
Of course Earth is the centre of the universe and solar system, then again the sun is too, as it mars, as is the next galaxy over, etc., etc....It's called the Theory of Relativity, there is no 'absolute centre,' every point is just as central as every other.
Cool! My mum used to tell me that I was the centre.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2006, 06:07:27 AM by montalban »
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
Adam
« Reply #177 on: May 01, 2006, 06:11:29 AM »
"The sin committed by our progenitors in paradise, with all its consequences, passed and passes from them to all their posterity. What the first people became after the Fall, such also till now are their descendants in the world. "Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3, KJV). Estrangement from God, the loss of grace, the distortion of God's image, the perversion and weakening of the bodily organism, which ends with death - here is Adam's sad legacy, received by each of us at our very appearance in the world. "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream," teaches the Orthodox catechism, "so from an ancestor infected with sin, and hence mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected with sin, and hence mortal." http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9609a.htm

"And behold, as you see, the sentence of God remains forever as an eternal chastisement...For this reason the Almighty Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, came so as to humble Himself in place of Adam." (St. Symeon the New Theologian "The First-Created Man", p44).

Who then is "Adam" for (theistic) evolutionists? Did God look at the various ape-like beings and decide that one had evolved long enough for it to have a soul? (assuming that animals have no soul, or a different soul, to humans).

The role of Adam is essential to Christianity; for Jesus to have come to restore us there first must have been a 'fall'.
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline montalban

  • Now in colour
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,823
So, when did Ape become Adam?
« Reply #178 on: May 01, 2006, 06:20:19 AM »
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men (Romans 5:12 )." By refusing communion with God, Adam cut himself off from the Source of Life. Having separated himself from God, Adam, in a sense, starved his nature from the gifts of God. Because man was given dominion over all creation, St. Paul insists that all of creation has fallen as well.(Original Sin, p 2 as quoted on http://www.akins.org/matthew/paul.html#tthFtNtACH)

"Undoubtedly, one of the most important causes of heresy is the failure to understand the exact nature of the human situation described by the Old and New Testaments, to which the historical events of the birth, teachings, death, resurrection and second coming of Christ are the only remedy. The failure to understand this automatically implies a perverted understanding of what it is that Christ did and continues to do for us, and what our subsequent relation is to Christ and neighbor within the realm of salvation. The importance of a correct definition of original sin and its consequences can never be exaggerated. Any attempt to minimize its importance or alter its significance automatically entails either a weakening or even a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, sacraments and human destiny." http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.htm. Thus, it is meaningless, or worse still utterly wrong to downplay the relationships established in Genesis. It is the beginning of the story of Man, and the story of Man's sin. Without it, why would Jesus come to us?

So, when did Ape become Adam?
Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.

Offline JoeS

  • (aka StMarkEofE)
  • Site Supporter
  • OC.net guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,122
  • Global Warming Enthusiast.
Re: Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
« Reply #179 on: May 01, 2006, 07:02:50 AM »
IF MAN EVOLVED FROM THE APES, WHY ARE THERE STILL APES?

JoeS

Mitigated Evolution:  If, that is IF Man came from the apes, it is at this transition point that God made Himself known and bestowed an immortal soul capable of receiving grace.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2006, 07:06:41 AM by JoeS »