EO & evolution

[graceandpeace]

I was just curious: does the EOC have a position on evolution? If so, what is it?

 

[gzt]

Not really, but, institutionally, it's generally friendly to the idea in much the same way as the Catholic Church except for some reactionary corners of the Church that like, eg, Young Earth Creationism.

 

[jckstraw72]

it depends on who you ask -- the modern Saints and elders all speak with one united voice against evolution, while the more academic theologians sometimes accept it.

 

[gzt]

One united voice, eh?

 

[jckstraw72]

yah, every Saint or elder who has spoken about evolution has spoken against it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I go through this "should I or shouldn't I?" teach evolution quandary almost every year when pondering the beginning of a new sixth grade school year. Last year, despite very rapidly changing my views to the oppose angle, I taught it anyway. I did so because the kids will encounter the stuff anyway in seventh grade and through high school, and I used it to point out some of the flaws in the reasoning behind it plus the implications of it spiritually when we studied the Creation/Genesis during our Old Testament/Ancient Israel unit a couple months later.

The problems with evolution are manifold, and I don't think the teaching is very compatible at all with not only the Fathers, but just the overall salvation narrative we all know in Christ. Adam and Eve are our first parents, made in the image of God. Evolution denotes a change in mankind, and Christ's humanity would somehow be insufficient if man is still evolving. In addition, we must fully resemble our First Parents, not be a mutation that is eventually going to diverge from them.

There is also the mindset that comes from evolution---we are nothing but animals essentially. We have urges, drives, instincts, and are constantly changing toward...well, who knows? With the evolution mindset, the 'lovely' notions of social Darwinism make great sense, eugenics become very logical, Ayn Rand-style selfish objectivism makes good sense, and might makes right in the end. Morality is blurry. Sex becomes something "natural" and the current state of sexual carnal desires and unchecked passions are 'natural' and healthy and should be explored, whereas with Creation, we weren't meant to be having orgies, "exploring" our "sexuality," or having sodomic relations (yes, a not to you, Rus! ) with the same sex. Heck, our current sexual state isn't even, according to the Fathers, the ideal at all.

Evolution and the Fall don't fit well together.

the science is also shaky. the methodologies of determining ages of things and the really subjective "reconstructions" of these early men is controversial. The scientific community cannot agree on much of anything with evolution except for the common desire to see Creation scoffed-at and ridiculed and disavowed.

Evolution also presupposes a lot of naiveté it seems. Somehow in this Gene Roddenberryesque way we're all evolving into this race that will somehow, someday attain world peace and total hand-in-hand harmony singing "Turn, Turn, Turn" together, when in reality, the world is more violent, dishonest, corrupt, and evil than its ever been.

Original Sin cannot take place without our first parents, and ideas of evolution that say our first parents were the eventual evolution of some primate-like hominids is not satisfactory really. One wonders why God would waste time making homo habilis, homo erectus, Neanderthals, australopithecines, and all sorts of missing links and weird hominids only to let them get wiped out and eventually have one ascend to greatness.

I don't have the answers really. Heck, I often wonder why on Earth God made dinosaurs? What was the point?

But I'm fairly certain, not 100%, but getting there, that evolution doesn't fit with Christianity. And I don't think we should look at the Catholic church, a schismatic body, for affirmation of evolution being acceptable for we Orthodox Christians to adopt as good and laudable.

So, right now I'll probably just teach it in my classroom, go through the theories from the history book, then teach my kids the usual critical thinking allowing them to choose, but to look not only at the evidence as well as the moral and theological dimensions as the year progresses. If I don't teach it or cover it, someone else will after me, and they'll have no tools to combat it or question it or even doubt it in the least.

 

[ArmyMatt]

if you read the saints and our modern holy elders, they typically reject evolution, especially evolution for human beings.

but if you personally agree with evolution, you would still be accepted into the Church.

 

[gzt]

Well, I stick with mockery because I don't really have time for discursive engagement. Orthodoxy doesn't require you not to think, despite what some elders might say. YMMV. It's just really hard to ignore all of modern science. All of it.

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, I stick with mockery because I don't really have time for discursive engagement. Orthodoxy doesn't require you not to think, despite what some elders might say. YMMV. It's just really hard to ignore all of modern science. All of it.

think so deeply that you think just like the rest of the herd!

 

[gzt]

roflcopter

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The same could be said about moral issues like homosexuality. Most of the moderns would tell you that it's pretty hard to ignore the "evidence" that homosexuality is just the way people are wired and that it's an awesome, beautiful gift to be 'gay.' At what point as Orthodox Christians do we diverge from the brain trust of scientists who are speculating in areas that don't have hard evidence because it's fairly impossible to do so? And taking into account the fact that these folks are atheists nine out of ten times, it should at least give you pause.

What you said about "thinking" makes me a bit nervous in that I for years I heard that exact same expression used by none other than THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. Their big selling point was that they weren't a 'dumb bunch of mindless drones' like those Catholics! They didn't "check their brains at the doors" of their churches! That was their big motto, the "thinking man's church" kind of thing. What that really was tantamount to in the end was the idea that "thinking" was a euphemism for ignoring the Fathers and great saints and councils and Scriptures and replacing it with the "new wisdom" of the moderns. While I'm sure that's not exactly what you mean, gzt, you can see why one must appreciate the need to trust and have faith in the Fathers and the Church sometimes over scientists with atheist agendas. If you find "evidence" that they're selling you, check it twice like Santa and even then check it thirty times more because it's fully of secular self-fulfilling prophecies.

I'm a teacher, as you know. In my profession all you hear is "the research says this" and "the research says that..." We always get a smirk on our face because the "research" in education 99% of the time can point EITHER WAY! Back in my college days, a few professors, liberal as they were, would even admit that you can find research to say pretty much anything you want. Same with evolution. These guys change theories regularly and can't even get the narrative straight.

I kind of echo what jckstraw is saying, tread cautiously lest we join the herds. It's a dangerous time we live in, and secular folks have more of an agenda than ever....

Well, I stick with mockery because I don't really have time for discursive engagement. Orthodoxy doesn't require you not to think, despite what some elders might say. YMMV. It's just really hard to ignore all of modern science. All of it.

 

[gzt]

1. re: homosexuality. Not really, very different - one is transparently trying to get an 'ought' from an 'is'. The other is simple a matter of "is". Or, I suppose, "was". Anyway, I mean, being wired to enjoy it didn't excuse all manner of heterosexual behavior, why would it excuse homosexual behavior?

2. I'm a scientist. I suppose I have an agenda. Namely, not ignoring the entirety of everything I know about the physical universe. Oddly, this doesn't require me to ignore the Law and the Prophets. This is another difference between this and the homosexual issue.

3. Types of evidence in the social sciences are very different in both quality and quantity from evidence in the physical sciences. Specifically, I'm a statistician, so I get to play with and evaluate all kinds of evidence in various fields, and, gee golly wow, the difference between education and evolutionary biology, yeah, that's a humdinger. Let's just say that in one of those fields, the evidence is very, very, very one-sided in favor of a certain set of theories.

 

[gzt]

Also, the Episcopalian bashing is really kind of tiresome.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

First of all, this is no way for two Orthodox brothers to talk to each other, gz, don't you agree? Would you tell me "get over it" at coffee hour? Would you say that to my face?

BTW, I wasn't an Episcopalian. I was a member of ACNA, a conservative Anglican group.

And how am I "bashing." Would you like me to point out the hundreds of places online where the Episcopal folks say exactly what I quoted on my post? How is repeating what someone says "bashing?"

I don't think you're speaking with either charity or the voice of an Orthodox Christian when you spew out "get over it," gz, but it does sound like everyone else in this irreverent, rude culture. You and I are called to have a more mature and friendly discourse, especially since we're on the same team, right?

Also, the Episcopalian bashing is really kind of tiresome. I get it, you're not Episcopalian anymore. Get over it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Give some examples of your research. We'd love to hear.

Specifically, I'm a statistician, so I get to play with and evaluate all kinds of evidence in various fields, and, gee golly wow, the difference between education and evolutionary biology, yeah, that's a humdinger. Let's just say that in one of those fields, the evidence is very, very, very one-sided in favor of a certain set of theories.

 

[gzt]

Yes, I would tell you that to your face. It would probably sound better in conversation than on a message board. I would also say, "ACNA? That explains the attitude even more."

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don't think you would. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't say such a thing to you. Perhaps that "young fool" thing, well, there's something to it. I'm disappointed that you would speak to someone in such a rude way. Hardly Orthodox way to interact. And I'm not sure what you're getting at with ACNA either? I obviously left Anglicanism for a reason, and you obviously don't like ACNA, gz, so I'm not sure what your point is? If I point out something about Episcopalians you don't like, you get in a tizzy, and if I mention the more conservative ACNA, you imply somehow they're a bunch of hooligans or jerks with agendas. I'm Orthodox NOW, and that's what matters. My reference to the Episcopal Church was directed at how YOU are speaking on here. It sounds much like something Katharine Jefforts-Schiori would say, not an Orthodox poster.

If you're truly humble enough to call yourself a "young fool," then you're open enough to admit you might be dealing with me in a discourteous way. And if you truly are a scientist, your passions and petty anger shouldn't get into the conversation. You should be rational and courteous.

Yes, I would tell you that to your face. It would probably sound better in conversation than on a message board. I would also say, "ACNA? That explains the attitude even more."

 

[gzt]

As for my research, it is not immediately applicable, but as a statistician one gets to play around in others' sandboxes, as it were, and talk to colleagues in various fields - like social sciences and biostatistics. In God we trust, all others must bring data. And the data in this case are, just, well, one-sided, no offense to the "unanimous" decree of these various modern "elders and saints".

 

[gzt]

I maintain that I would be just as discourteous in person - but we would hopefully each have a beer (or at least a coffee). I know what ACNA is - I have friends in ECUSA, ACNA, AMIA, and various other acronyms usually involving an A. I would be just as discourteous because your remark about the Episcopalians is bull - the sort of triumphalist canard that I don't think Orthodox should indulge in. Yes, you're Orthodox now, so leave that behind.

 

[rusmeister]

To the OP: we have had dozens of threads on evolution. They're findable.

As for my research, it is not immediately applicable, but as a statistician one gets to play around in others' sandboxes, as it were, and talk to colleagues in various fields - like social sciences and biostatistics. In God we trust, all others must bring data. And the data in this case are, just, well, one-sided, no offense to the "unanimous" decree of these various modern "elders and saints".

Hey, GZ,
I certainly wouldn't mock you. I think I totally understand where you're coming from, and on what basis you think what you do.

I can't speak for others on this, but I am not at all sure you understand on what basis I think what I do. (Though I think Jack, Gurney and I are all mostly on the same page). And it is decidedly NOT because I have blind faith in the fathers, any more than your faith in Orthodoxy is blind.

We all see things. You see what science says today and speak of a need for data.
I see what philosophers say today and speak of a need for philosophy. So until you show that you grasp the idea of philosophy that governs all scientific thought, including what you think now, whether you know it or not, I don't think we could have a fruitful discussion, because I think the most important thing is being missed or ignored.

That includes, for instance, the idea of interpretation of data, and that all of your knowledge is based on a great many interpretations that have a particular philosophical foundation, assumptions of what is true that are themselves not questioned, that have been treated as (mostly unconciously, I would say) dogma.

It also deals only with data and interpretations of observed processes and changes that we would have to admit are after the Fall, that are a result of sin and death entering the world. But this same science, that you yourself support and assert teaches us truth (and I think the natural sciences have a lot to tell us about the Fallen world), also makes cosmic conclusions and interpretations that extend beyond a Fall that probably a majority now in our time do not believe in to the beginnings of the universe, that contradict the very idea of the Fall and upon which most views of evolution are founded - not merely as a theory based on observed changes insofar as we (in little more than a hundred years) have been able to observe them, but as a cosmic theory explaining the origins of man and the universe.

There are certainly contradictions here that can be questioned - but aren't, as far as I have seen. I see instead a carte blanche of faith given to science - even and especially by scientists, who ought to know better than any of us the limitations of science and what it CANNOT do. I say that it is at least as right to question the claims of modern science as it is to question the theological assertions of the Church fathers. I do not say the fathers were professional scientists, but that they had hold of truths that are greater and more important than those of any natural science. If there IS a genuine contradiction between a consensus of the fathers and modern science, I say that it should logically be so much the worse for modern science, not for the Church.

But until we tackle, not the details and mass of scientific data and the interpretations and conclusions of modern scientists, but the philosophical assumptions and worldviews of those doing the interpreting, we're never going to get anywhere. Useless arguing.