Fr Tom Hopko and Darwin

[rusmeister]

Frankly, I love Fr Tom. I wish his voice was still a living voice. He goes off-base in a couple of places, in my opinion, but by and large, is a solid Orthodox voice. (I was disappointed in his final podcast, on remarriage in the Church, but that’s a topic that could go into the divorce thread I started a couple of months ago, if I get around to it.)

Some years ago, I listened to his podcast series on Darwin and Christianity. I started on episode 11, about death, and was immediately hooked. I listened through the last episode, #17, and started again from the beginning and listened all the way through. My object here is to periodically post responses as I listen again on points where I don’t simply agree (although there are plenty of things on which I do).

I just started again, with another ten years in the Church under my belt, with episode one.He says a lot of true things, and if it sounds like I disagree heavily with him, as someone who has come to firmly disbelieve in the narrative of human evolution (something distinct from observed changes) as compatible with the Faith (whereas he is more open and accepting of that narrative), it is on these few points, and not everything. He is right about the violence of Christians of the past, for example. It was never Christian to burn anyone at the stake. In fact, he emphasizes that the violence is physical, and not merely a metaphor for “strongly attack”. But then he turns around and attacks Fr Seraphim Rose for “violently” attacking that narrative, and saying that his followers (and by implication, Fr Seraphim himself) are guilty of using their intellect for everything but being humble before God. It was a bit shocking, and somewhat self-contradictory, that Fr Tom himself admits the issue is terribly complex, and even encourages people to watch Ben Stein’s “Expelled” (a great documentary which Stein undermines by putting in sensational footage of Nazis periodically into the film. I felt peeved, on two points - one was the use of the word “violence”, which he had just strongly condemned as a physical evil act, and then using it to characterize Fr Seraphim’s strong disagreement with the narrative of human evolution, and the second was on the dismissal of the admittedly complex opposition to the narrative. Fr Tom’s podcast struck me as somewhat self-contradictory, though I understand that he was trying to be open-minded and fair.

WHAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNINTERESTING:
A person posting his own opinions without considering either what I or Fr Tom have to say. Quoting Fr Seraphim in context on the topic is fair game, though.

 

[ArseniusTheSilent]

It might benefit the discussion if you provided a link to the source material for people to listen to. Just a thought.

 

[Chesterton]

I searched and was unable to find this podcast, so I'll just make a little off-topic comment. I disagree that Stein's film was undermined by including footage of Nazis. I think any discussion of the theory of evolution is incomplete if Nazis are not brought up. And Soviets too. They also wanted to evolve a New Man, and would kill millions in the endeavor.

 

[All4Christ]

It might benefit the discussion if you provided a link to the source material for people to listen to. Just a thought.

I’m familiar with the podcast series (It is 17 podcasts long). It starts with this podcast on January 23, 2010.

You can find it directly on AFR Speaking the Truth in Love series.

Darwin and Christianity | Ancient Faith Ministries

Fr. Thomas Hopko explores a fascinating topic that is bound to make you think. Evolution, creation, naturalism, science, the Bible, and much more will be touched on. Listen to each one in order.

www.ancientfaith.com

*EDIT: I removed the Apple links so it isn’t directing non-iOS users to Apple Podcasts. The one linked now is universal.

 

[Chesterton]

I’m familiar with the podcast series (It is 17 podcasts long). It starts with this podcast on January 23, 2010 (‎Speaking the Truth in Love: Darwin and Christianity - Part 1 on Apple Podcasts).

It continues with this podcast (I won’t post all 14, but you can find them easily): Speaking the Truth in Love: Reflections on the Life and Work of Charles Darwin on Apple Podcasts

You can also find it directly on AFR Speaking the Truth in Love series.

I guess I can't listen. When I click "play" on my non-Apple desktop PC I get redirected to an advertisement for Apple products.

 

[All4Christ]

I guess I can't listen. When I click "play" on my non-Apple desktop PC I get redirected to an advertisement for Apple products.

Can you listen with the last link? It isn’t Apple for that one. I added it afterwards.

 

[All4Christ]

Darwin and Christianity | Ancient Faith Ministries

Fr. Thomas Hopko explores a fascinating topic that is bound to make you think. Evolution, creation, naturalism, science, the Bible, and much more will be touched on. Listen to each one in order.

www.ancientfaith.com

@Chesterton

 

[rusmeister]

I guess I can't listen. When I click "play" on my non-Apple desktop PC I get redirected to an advertisement for Apple products.

Darwin and Christianity - Part 1 - Speaking the Truth in Love | Ancient Faith Ministries

What is the relationship between the concepts of natural selection and Christian theology? Fr. Tom begins a series of reflections on Charles Darwin and what he has learned in his research may surprise you! - An episode of the Speaking the Truth in Love podcast on Ancient Faith Radio

www.ancientfaith.com

 

[rusmeister]

On the comment on intellectually humbling oneself before God, I came across this. The irony is heavy.

The first thing mother Cornelia talks about is his intellectual humility.

I really thought that that comment of Father Tom’s was very presumptuous and uncharacteristic of him.

 

[Chesterton]

Can you listen with the last link? It isn’t Apple for that one. I added it afterwards.

Yes, that works. Thank you!

 

[rusmeister]

It really IS an enjoyable and interesting series, and I do recommend it. It just rankles that there are objections to some of Fr Tom’s ideas that he doesn’t deal with and doesn’t show sufficient awareness of.

My own opinion is that the modern tendency in the Church to put scientific knowledge and claims on an equal level with those of the Church fathers is more of that neo-gnosticism, however unconsciously so. My own opinion is that Fr Seraphim really did humbly submit his intellect and got an answer that outrages the modern world and modern scientists, so a charge of lack of humility seems VERY unfair. I understand Fr Tom’s position, too. It does seem so reasonable to accept the claims of modern science, and it IS Orthodox to synthesize genuine and true knowledge of this world with the understandings of the Church.

 

[Chesterton]

In fact, he emphasizes that the violence is physical, and not merely a metaphor for “strongly attack”. But then he turns around and attacks Fr Seraphim Rose for “violently” attacking that narrative,...

It's actually a little bit worse than you describe. He doesn't just describe Fr. Seraphim as violently attacking the narrative. His exact words are the Father and his followers "were violent opponents to evolution", as if he's saying they were violent men. But my best guess is that he is just speaking loosely, as we all do sometimes. Someone says they're "starving" when they're actually just hungry. Someone refers to something from the 1950's as "ancient" history. I agree that it was a mistake to say that, but there was no ill intent. Plus this was 2010, back before the stupid slogan "silence is violence" and "microaggressions". If he were recording this today, he'd likely have been more cognizant of that word choice.

...and saying that his followers (and by implication, Fr Seraphim himself) are guilty of using their intellect for everything but being humble before God.

I'm trying to be charitable, but I really can't defend that remark. It was unfair. But for the record, like you, I love Fr. Hopko. Over the years I've found much in his online talks that was helpful to me.

 

[Chesterton]

It really IS an enjoyable and interesting series, and I do recommend it. It just rankles that there are objections to some of Fr Tom’s ideas that he doesn’t deal with and doesn’t show sufficient awareness of.

My own opinion is that the modern tendency in the Church to put scientific knowledge and claims on an equal level with those of the Church fathers is more of that neo-gnosticism, however unconsciously so. My own opinion is that Fr Seraphim really did humbly submit his intellect and got an answer that outrages the modern world and modern scientists, so a charge of lack of humility seems VERY unfair. I understand Fr Tom’s position, too. It does seem so reasonable to accept the claims of modern science, and it IS Orthodox to synthesize genuine and true knowledge of this world with the understandings of the Church.

Yes, and the key words are "genuine and true knowledge". The idea of evolution is not that. When Darwin observed those inter-species changes in the finches, he observed something that every uneducated slave and peasant farmer and rancher had already known for thousands of years. His leap to the idea of macro-evolution is simply an idea, and a highly fantastical one at that; it's not science. The fossil evidence is weak, it cannot be observed, and it cannot be experimented on, unless you have a few hundred million years to spare.

 

[rusmeister]

I searched and was unable to find this podcast, so I'll just make a little off-topic comment. I disagree that Stein's film was undermined by including footage of Nazis. I think any discussion of the theory of evolution is incomplete if Nazis are not brought up. And Soviets too. They also wanted to evolve a New Man, and would kill millions in the endeavor.

I agree with what you say here. I only think that the sensationalist way the clips were presented is inconsistent with a good, professional documentary. It preaches to the choir, and turns off those not yet convinced. But it would have been fine to connect what the universities are doing with what the Naziss actully did, and to show footage to that effect.

 

[rusmeister]

Having finished re-listening to episode 1:
At the end he quotes an akathist and the Metropolitan who he believes wrote it. While I certainly agree that it is possible for anyone to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is presumptuous in the extreme to assume that Darwin, or modern scientists, are in fact so inspired. Fr Tom was enamored of that akathist, whereas, given the context, it alarms me.

There is an underlying assumption of the ultimate infallibility of modern science (whatever “minor” errors may be made along the way), that it has assuredly led to truth that we can trust, as we trust the authority of the Church.

I could imagine such an assumption leading an Orthodox Christian, for example, to assume a precise age of the Earth completely unsupported by Tradition, and yet held as firmly, and on the same level of importance. Or perhaps the dogmatic certainty of the existence of a particular species of sub-human. Or whatever.

GK Chesterton identified the trick a century ago, in his book, “The Everlasting Man”, where the believer confuses science that IS experimental and observable, such as the development of technology, in GK’s book, an airplane, with scientific effort that is not, such as development of species over thousands, let alone millions of years. Because we can be reasonably certain of the former, precisely because we can observe it, the person assumes an equal certainty about the latter.

 

[Ioustinos]

Frankly, I love Fr Tom. I wish his voice was still a living voice. He goes off-base in a couple of places, in my opinion, but by and large, is a solid Orthodox voice. (I was disappointed in his final podcast, on remarriage in the Church, but that’s a topic that could go into the divorce thread I started a couple of months ago, if I get around to it.)

Sorry I'm not adding to this discussion, but I did just want to second what you have to say about Father Tom. I loved listening to him and still do. Like you, there were things he said that I disagreed with, but you knew that he was being honest in his expression and thought. He wasn't trying to be provocative rather he was expressing himself as best he could from his experience and life in Christ.

I used to listen to his podcast series at work during the time I was contemplating Orthodoxy. I don't know if I would be Orthodox today if I didn't have him.

 

[Chesterton]

I agree with what you say here. I only think that the sensationalist way the clips were presented is inconsistent with a good, professional documentary. It preaches to the choir, and turns off those not yet convinced. But it would have been fine to connect what the universities are doing with what the Naziss actully did, and to show footage to that effect.

You're probably right about that. I saw the film when it first came out a long time ago. I don't remember specifics of the Nazi footage.

 

[Chesterton]

There is an underlying assumption of the ultimate infallibility of modern science (whatever “minor” errors may be made along the way), that it has assuredly led to truth that we can trust, as we trust the authority of the Church.

I recall a news article years ago where scientists were calling for mass civil disobedience. They wore white laboratory coats (their "vestments"?) to this outdoor event. It seemed like they were saying "We are Scientists. You must obey us because this is Science speaking!"

 

[Justin-H.S.]

Plus this was 2010, back before the stupid slogan "silence is violence" and "microaggressions". If he were recording this today, he'd likely have been more cognizant of that word choice.


I'm trying to be charitable, but I really can't defend that remark. It was unfair. But for the record, like you, I love Fr. Hopko. Over the years I've found much in his online talks that was helpful to me.

This was around the time New Atheism was really gaining traction and a reactionary movement against Westboro Baptists and Creation vs. Evolution in public schools, so this could be seen as treading that fine line of "don't lump us in with those crazy Protestants," but that's just speculation on my part. Nothing against Fr. Tom.

 

[nutroll]

Frankly, I love Fr Tom. I wish his voice was still a living voice. He goes off-base in a couple of places, in my opinion, but by and large, is a solid Orthodox voice. (I was disappointed in his final podcast, on remarriage in the Church, but that’s a topic that could go into the divorce thread I started a couple of months ago, if I get around to it.)

Some years ago, I listened to his podcast series on Darwin and Christianity. I started on episode 11, about death, and was immediately hooked. I listened through the last episode, #17, and started again from the beginning and listened all the way through. My object here is to periodically post responses as I listen again on points where I don’t simply agree (although there are plenty of things on which I do).

I just started again, with another ten years in the Church under my belt, with episode one.He says a lot of true things, and if it sounds like I disagree heavily with him, as someone who has come to firmly disbelieve in the narrative of human evolution (something distinct from observed changes) as compatible with the Faith (whereas he is more open and accepting of that narrative), it is on these few points, and not everything. He is right about the violence of Christians of the past, for example. It was never Christian to burn anyone at the stake. In fact, he emphasizes that the violence is physical, and not merely a metaphor for “strongly attack”. But then he turns around and attacks Fr Seraphim Rose for “violently” attacking that narrative, and saying that his followers (and by implication, Fr Seraphim himself) are guilty of using their intellect for everything but being humble before God. It was a bit shocking, and somewhat self-contradictory, that Fr Tom himself admits the issue is terribly complex, and even encourages people to watch Ben Stein’s “Expelled” (a great documentary which Stein undermines by putting in sensational footage of Nazis periodically into the film. I felt peeved, on two points - one was the use of the word “violence”, which he had just strongly condemned as a physical evil act, and then using it to characterize Fr Seraphim’s strong disagreement with the narrative of human evolution, and the second was on the dismissal of the admittedly complex opposition to the narrative. Fr Tom’s podcast struck me as somewhat self-contradictory, though I understand that he was trying to be open-minded and fair.

WHAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNINTERESTING:
A person posting his own opinions without considering either what I or Fr Tom have to say. Quoting Fr Seraphim in context on the topic is fair game, though.

I finally got through all of the podcasts in the series. I find Father Tom difficult to listen to (largely because of his stream of consciousness musings...) but for the most part agreed with much of what he said. I think when it comes to Father Seraphim Rose, one should understand that Father Tom and Father Seraphim were on different sides of the divide between ROCOR and the OCA, and would have had differing approaches to certain issues. I don't know how much personal interaction between them, but I suppose he might know more about Father Seraphim based on things we are not privy to. But I would also caution that Father Tom is not always careful with his words. When you hear him give you words in Latin, Greek, Russian, and Hebrew, he is trying to be very precise. When you hear him use the word "violently" or even "species" I would not presume that he meant to draw comparisons based on word choice.

I think that despite calling people to understand Physical Science, he does not have a great command of the subject matter. I also think that he sometimes is a product of his academic understanding and is a little too willing to embrace some of concepts that were pervasive in biblical criticism at the time.

However, I think he does point people in the right direction. We should understand the Scriptures and the Fathers in the Spirit in which they were written, not according to a literalistic understanding, and we should also understand the Physical Sciences as they are expressed so that if we take exception to the tenets of science we are doing so with an understanding of what is really being taught.

One example of this is something I see expressed even in this thread. We often think that science is limited to experiments that we can conduct over and over again. When a forensic expert studies a crime scene, he can deduce things from blood spatter. This is not because he puts a fresh body in the same spot and does the same thing to the new body to see if it spatters in the same way. Rather the reproducible part of research takes place in a different time at a different place. They learn about the subject and then apply it. So by studying geological forces and events, by studying fossilization, and other various disciplines, and by performing repeatable experiments in these areas, they can make hypotheses about what they will find with future fossil finds. When these things conform to what they expect, it is taken as evidence that the hypothesis was right. It still follows the scientific method, it still involves experiments that are reproducible and falsifiable, even though it is not the same as what we might think science is.

Perhaps the thing that I appreciated most about the podcast is that Father Tom leaves the impression that we can absolutely trust the Tradition of the Church to give us the truth while accepting the idea that scientific inquiry is a good (albeit imperfect) way to try to make sense of the universe around us. I also appreciate that he calls us to have the dialog but with the teaching of the Church presented instead of various false religious teachings.

If anyone is interested, there is a wonderful set of talks by Bishop Irenei on Patristic Nectar entitled "ORIGINS: Creationism, Evolution, and an Orthodox Theology of Creation." It was free when I listened to it before, but it costs $15 now.