Article - One Orthodox Person's Opinion on Evolution

[everbecoming2007]

I have followed the discussion here on the theory of evolution with interest. In one article I read the hypothesis is made that immortality and vegetarianism applied only to the animals in garden of Eden, an enclosed haven outside of which creation remained hostile and dangerous. There were some statements in the article I found scientifically questionable, though I would need to review them again, and I am really only concerned with the theology. An assertion was made, possibly with a quote, claiming that St. Augustine taught that animals were created mortal.

Should anyone be interested in reading the full article I am interested in hearing perspectives concerning the compatibility of the ideas contained therein with Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy and CreationismRE: Article on Orthodoxy and Creationism.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I dunno, I am reading St John of Damascus' Exact Exposition and he is pretty clear that the whole of Creation was created perfect. plus the Wisdom of Solomon states pretty clearly that God did not create death.

that being said, I don't think evolutionists are heretics

 

[Boris89]

everbecoming2007,

the author of what you found (deacon Kuraev) has been heavily criticised for these writings on the matter and his private view is way different than the Church's. Unfortunately I can't give the materials in English language...

Let's just say that evolution is not under any means compatible with the Church Fathers. Check Fr. Seraphim Rose's book "Genesis, Creation and the early man" - it will tell you everything you need to know.

 

[gzt]

On the other hand, Fr Seraphim is simply flat-out wrong about the age of the earth, so his views should also be discounted.

 

[gzt]

I appreciate the effort to find an article suggesting an Orthodox approach to evolution, but it's been put out here before and doesn't add anything new.

 

[Knee V]

On the other hand, Fr Seraphim is simply flat-out wrong about the age of the earth, so his views should also be discounted.

The age of the earth that you propose assumes that there has always been death and corruption in the world. Thus, your views should also be discounted.

 

[Knee V]

The mechanisms that drive evolution are only present in a world where there is death and decay. Evolution - as a means of explaining origins - requires a world that contradicts the Apostolic and Patristic understanding of the nature of and relationship between sin and death. The God-bearing saints testify to a prelapsarian world that was perfect and in which there was no death or decay. There could have been no evolution up to that point. Evolution is only possible as a postlapsarian phenomenon, where, as a result of sin, death and decay reign throughout creation. We witness evolution all around us now, and that is because its driving forces now exist in creation as a result of our sin.

Evolution - as a means of explaining origins - is simply incompatible with the witness of the Prophets, Apostles, and Saints. While it may be a present phenomenon, it cannot explain origins.

 

[Cappadocious]

I dunno, I am reading St John of Damascus' Exact Exposition and he is pretty clear that the whole of Creation was created perfect.

How can a perfected thing fall?

 

[everbecoming2007]

So does death not apply to fruit and plants in the fallen world? How is that reconciled given that those items were given for food?

 

[truefiction1]

So does death not apply to fruit and plants in the fallen world? How is that reconciled given that those items were given for food?

Death and decay have always been the natural order for things in the plant kingdom.

 

[everbecoming2007]

Death and decay have always been the natural order for things in the plant kingdom.

But not the animal kingdom? I am confused as it was said here that God did not create death? Yet plants died?

Also for those animals that are carnivorous and have teeth and digestive systems proper for meat such as sharks or lions, is it presumed that their bodies changed with the fall, but they were prior to the fall fit for a vegetarian diet?

I am trying to understand this from an Orthodox point of view, but it is confusing. But it is also confusing to reconcile the theory of evolution with the traditional Christian understanding of the cosmos prior to the fall.

 

[ArmyMatt]

How can a perfected thing fall?

good question, I personally don't know because I only know what it is like to be fallen. ask St John, because that is what he says.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So does death not apply to fruit and plants in the fallen world? How is that reconciled given that those items were given for food?

actually St John answers that one as well, the fruit that was consumed was not the plant matter, but partaking of God and not any of the physical plants that were created.

 

[Knee V]

But not the animal kingdom? I am confused as it was said here that God did not create death? Yet plants died?

Also for those animals that are carnivorous and have teeth and digestive systems proper for meat such as sharks or lions, is it presumed that their bodies changed with the fall, but they were prior to the fall fit for a vegetarian diet?

I am trying to understand this from an Orthodox point of view, but it is confusing. But it is also confusing to reconcile the theory of evolution with the traditional Christian understanding of the cosmos prior to the fall.

What we know is sin and death, and God's revelation to us is given within the context of our sin and death. Paradise was free of these things, and thus they are outside of our experience and our ability to fully understand. We don't know how creation "worked" in Paradise. We don't know what it is like to live an existence that is free of sin and decay. We don't know what it is like to live in a world where nature and God commune together and where we are part of that.

But however it "worked", it worked, until sin destroyed that order of things.

 

[truefiction1]

How can a perfected thing fall?

I assume that he meant that things were potentially perfect, but we messed things up.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I assume that he meant that things were potentially perfect, but we messed things up.

yes, the perfect state of any creature, is to always be perfected in God. since that was the state that all are created in, that is the perfect state. and then the Fall messes stuff up as true pointed out.

 

[Cappadocious]

yes, the perfect state of any creature, is to always be perfected in God. since that was the state that all are created in, that is the perfect state. and then the Fall messes stuff up as true pointed out.

Does St. John say that everything was created with a perfection proper to it in God, or that everything was created perfect as such?

 

[jckstraw72]

So does death not apply to fruit and plants in the fallen world? How is that reconciled given that those items were given for food?

St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 1.1:

Notice that it is nowhere written, “God created paradise,” or that he said “let it be and it was,” but instead that He “planted” it, and “made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” [Gen. 2:8-9], bearing every kind and variety of fruit, fruit which is never spoiled or lacking but always fresh and ripe, full of sweetness, and providing our ancestors with indescribable pleasure and enjoyment. For their immortal bodies had to be supplied with incorruptible food.

hard to understand? sure. does that make it wrong? nah.

 

[jckstraw72]

I have followed the discussion here on the theory of evolution with interest. In one article I read the hypothesis is made that immortality and vegetarianism applied only to the animals in garden of Eden, an enclosed haven outside of which creation remained hostile and dangerous. There were some statements in the article I found scientifically questionable, though I would need to review them again, and I am really only concerned with the theology. An assertion was made, possibly with a quote, claiming that St. Augustine taught that animals were created mortal.

Should anyone be interested in reading the full article I am interested in hearing perspectives concerning the compatibility of the ideas contained therein with Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy and CreationismRE: Article on Orthodoxy and Creationism.

just to be clear, several Fathers actually say that animals lived outside the Garden.

and Kuraev bases his opinion on the etymology of the Hebrew word for Garden. But here is what St. Ephraim the Syrian, who was fluent in Hebrew, and, you know, holy, has to say about it:

Commentary on Genesis 2.7.2:

But with what did Adam till the garden since he had no tools for tilling? How could he have tilled it since he was not capable of tilling it himself? What did he have to till since there were no thorns or briars there? Moreover, how could he have guarded it as he could not possibly encompass it? And from what did he guard it since there were no thieves to enter it? Indeed, the fence that was erected after the transgression of the commandment bears witness that as long as Adam kept the commandment, no guard was required.

and it's laughable that he calls Creationism a western Protestant phenomenon, considering that Russia is perhaps the most fervently anti-evolution Orthodox country, and has been since day one. St. Theophan the Recluse is super fervent against it.

Evolutionists love to say that the Church has never condemned it, but St. Theophan says that is only because it's not a new idea and was slapped around like a little girl by the Church long ago:

Sozertsaniye i razmyshleniye (Contemplations and Reflections) (1998) p. 146

These days many nihilists of both sexes, naturalists, Darwinists, Spiritists, and Westernizers in general have multiplied among us. All right, you’re thinking – would the Church have been silent, would it not have proferred its voice, would it not have condemned or anathematized them if there had been something new in their teaching? To be sure – a council would have done so without doubt, and all of them, with their teachings, would have been given over to anathema. To the current Rite of Orthodoxy only the following item would have been added: ‘To Büchner, Feuerbach, Darwin, Renan, Kardec, and all their followers – anathema! But there is no need, either for a special council or for any kind of addition. All of their false teachings were anathematized long ago.

 

[jckstraw72]

But not the animal kingdom? I am confused as it was said here that God did not create death? Yet plants died?

Also for those animals that are carnivorous and have teeth and digestive systems proper for meat such as sharks or lions, is it presumed that their bodies changed with the fall, but they were prior to the fall fit for a vegetarian diet?

I am trying to understand this from an Orthodox point of view, but it is confusing. But it is also confusing to reconcile the theory of evolution with the traditional Christian understanding of the cosmos prior to the fall.

St. Basil the Great, On the Origin of Man, 2:6-7,

‘Let the Church neglect nothing; everything is a law. God did not say: “I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds.” It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise.

‘What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this?

‘To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation and herbs (are given) … We see, however, many wild animals which do not eat fruits. What fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

‘Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of natures, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods; “eat all that in the same was as edible plants” (Gen. 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them.

‘Since then the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was all in its freshness: hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores … But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow …
‘Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with regard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.’