The Creation vs. Evolution Debate is Fundamentally Flawed

[Punchy]

Creation is a theological concept, and is, therefore, beyond the realm of science. It cannot be refuted through mechanistic philosophies which seek to reduce the complexity, order, precision, and purpose of the natural world to natural causes. Conversely, neither can Creation be proved by carnal man, whose mind is so tainted by the stain of sin as to make such a venture impossible. It is the sickness of the Western mindset, in its attempt to rationalize all existence, that produced both scientific materialism and creation science.

Relying on one's own reason, rather than the traditional teaching of the Church, has created every heresy known to man. Just as Arianism and Gnosticism were rejected by the Church as pernicious inventions, as were the secular accounts of how the natural world came to be. Through faith we know that Jesus is the Logos made flesh, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Likewise, through faith, not by unaided reason, we realize that all things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Rather than engaging in an endless debate, man is called to accept that which the Church has already decided through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with the simplicity of the heart, and move on.

Peace.

 

[shernren]

Creation is a theological concept, and is, therefore, beyond the realm of science.

Creation is a theological concept that no TE disagrees with. Creationism is a set of scientific beliefs either false or simply undefined, which ought to be tested and rejected by scientific means.

 

[Jadis40]

Creation is a theological concept that no TE disagrees with. Creationism is a set of scientific beliefs either false or simply undefined, which ought to be tested and rejected by scientific means.

Especially YEC, when there is so much overwhelming evidence not only from the sciences of astronomy and geology, but from archeology, linguistics, and history that the story of humanity dates back well before 4000 BC.

 

[Punchy]

To better understand what the Church has traditionally taught, since long before Charles Darwin and Henry Morris were even born, I would recommend this article:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

Sadly, the most overlooked evidence is often the most important - what the church fathers actually taught on Creation and Genesis. Given that they were closer in proximity and time to the original authors, they would better understand how the Scriptures are to be interpretted than a 19th century naturalist or a 20th century Evangelical Protestant. In humility and love, in fear and trembling, let us hold fast to Scripture and Church Tradition.

Peace.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

To better understand what the Church has traditionally taught, since long before Charles Darwin and Henry Morris were even born, I would recommend this article:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

Sadly, the most overlooked evidence is often the most important - what the church fathers actually taught on Creation and Genesis. Given that they were closer in proximity and time to the original authors, they would better understand how the Scriptures are to be interpretted than a 19th century naturalist or a 20th century Evangelical Protestant. In humility and love, in fear and trembling, let us hold fast to Scripture and Church Tradition.

Peace.

So you support the return of slavery since it is an institution steeped in the laws and traditions of the church? How about Geocentric solar system models?

If you don't want these traditions brought back, why not? What difference is the old stand on slavery different than an old stand on creationism?

 

[Punchy]

I don't know of a church father who endorsed slavery, and there doesn't seem to have ever been a patristic consensus in favor of geocentrism. One should consider, for example, such an important Church doctrine as the Trinity. It cannot be empirically demonstrated that God is one in three persons, but we believe Trinitarianism since it's best supported by the plainest meaning of Scripture. The church fathers didn't have a doublestandard between Genesis and every other book of the Bible, especially since the rest of Scripture refers to Genesis as actual history, and neither should we.

Peace.

 

[Gus2009]

Most early church fathers were not good biologist. I see no reason, as a christian, to agree with what they thought on how species develop. Much in the same way that I, as an engineering student, do not consult the works of Augustine over my mechanics of materials book when i want to know the moment of inertia for a W36x300 steel beam(id wager he is silent on the issue). Pehaps it is interesting to know what they thought, perhaps not. Even less likely is the prospect that what they thought has any actual value in deciding what has truth value in modern science.

I do agree with you that the creation/evolution debate is flawed. However the creation vs atheism/nihlism/"no god is needed to create the universe" debate isnt(at least not by youre definition of flawed, as i understand it), and is a philosophical debate that will probably be going on as long as there are humans.

The evolution/YEC debate isnt really flawed by youre defintion either. It could be re-named the modern science vs self-delusion debate though if you like.

Youre line of reasoning is typical and is taken by alot of the philosophy types. Gods' ways are beyond the scope of humans, so humans, using even their best philosophies(in our 21st century case, science) will still come to flawed conclusions, evolution. Whats fishy here is that there are cases in the sciences, where science came to the right conclusions and it is demonstrably true. Science predicts how to split the atom, the atom is split. Science says, heres how you build a bridge that wont fall down, the bridge doesnt fall down. As a christian, we believe that God is omnipresent. So He was there, as that bridge didnt fall down, in ways far beyond the scope of the human mind that we will never understand. However, we understood, at the least, why the bridge didnt fall down. As far as we can tell, it didnt. Our science, that limited piece of tainted knowledge, derived from the sickness of the western mindset, predicted and predicted right. But for some reason, this same philosophy, science, cant work in the past. When science comes to conclusions that seem at odds with certain interpretations of scripture. It must be because our science isnt working, there is something wrong with it. Thats somewhat arbitrary, extremely convenient and a little fishy.

 

[picnic]

The debate is certainly flawed as the wrong things are being debated and we don't all fit nicely into the TE and YEC categories. Afterall evolution isn't the only thing to point to an old earth. Geological and astronomical observations do.

It's more a debate about interpretation of both the Bible and the world. I personally would rather this forum be split old earth vs. young earth as at least everyone would fit in one or the other - or just be undecided.

 

[busterdog]

Creation is a theological concept, and is, therefore, beyond the realm of science. It cannot be refuted through mechanistic philosophies which seek to reduce the complexity, order, precision, and purpose of the natural world to natural causes. Conversely, neither can Creation be proved by carnal man, whose mind is so tainted by the stain of sin as to make such a venture impossible. It is the sickness of the Western mindset, in its attempt to rationalize all existence, that produced both scientific materialism and creation science.

Relying on one's own reason, rather than the traditional teaching of the Church, has created every heresy known to man. Just as Arianism and Gnosticism were rejected by the Church as pernicious inventions, as were the secular accounts of how the natural world came to be. Through faith we know that Jesus is the Logos made flesh, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Likewise, through faith, not by unaided reason, we realize that all things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Rather than engaging in an endless debate, man is called to accept that which the Church has already decided through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with the simplicity of the heart, and move on.

Peace.

What you say makes a lot of senese. I am not sure to what extent these ideas should temper rather than end debate. But the point about what we are capable of in our own strength is a good one.

Are you suggesting that this also follows from the nature of "the knowledge of good and evil?"

 

[gluadys]

Afterall evolution isn't the only thing to point to an old earth. Geological and astronomical observations do.

True, geology had decisively falsified the idea that the earth is young decades before science began debating evolution.

It's more a debate about interpretation of both the Bible and the world. I personally would rather this forum be split old earth vs. young earth as at least everyone would fit in one or the other - or just be undecided.

It would be helpful to distinguish between age of the earth debates and debates on evolution. But the latter do need a place too as not all who hold to an old earth are in agreement about evolution.

However, your main point, that it is really a debate about the interpretation of both the Bible and the world, is absolutely correct. And that is why, sooner or later, every debate comes down to the question of literalism vs. myth in the Bible.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I don't know of a church father who endorsed slavery, and there doesn't seem to have ever been a patristic consensus in favor of geocentrism. One should consider, for example, such an important Church doctrine as the Trinity. It cannot be empirically demonstrated that God is one in three persons, but we believe Trinitarianism since it's best supported by the plainest meaning of Scripture. The church fathers didn't have a doublestandard between Genesis and every other book of the Bible, especially since the rest of Scripture refers to Genesis as actual history, and neither should we.

Peace.

Aah, I see, you wish to keep traditions you like and ignore, even deny that ones you don't like even existed.

And they say I pick and chose what parts of the Bible I like.

You deny half of it even exists.

 

[busterdog]

Aah, I see, you wish to keep traditions you like and ignore, even deny that ones you don't like even existed.

And they say I pick and chose what parts of the Bible I like.

You deny half of it even exists.

Just on gut instinct about how these things go, I will bet you a pint that if one were to really dig, Punchy would be right on the Chruch fathers. Perhaps if you define what period of time you are speaking of. Let us begin by excluding everything after Constantine. This supposed lack of sophistication in most of the ancients (Hebraic or otherwise) usually does not bear serious scrutiny.

 

[gluadys]

Perhaps if you define what period of time you are speaking of. Let us begin by excluding everything after Constantine. This supposed lack of sophistication in most of the ancients (Hebraic or otherwise) usually does not bear serious scrutiny.

It is quite silly to equate ancient world-views with lack of sophistication or to suppose that if they were sophisticated they would hold 21st century world-views.

The Church fathers, and Hebrew teachers long before them, were capable of very sophisticated reasoning--which they expressed in terms of the world-views they took for granted.

 

[lucaspa]

To better understand what the Church has traditionally taught, since long before Charles Darwin and Henry Morris were even born, I would recommend this article:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

Sadly, the most overlooked evidence is often the most important - what the church fathers actually taught on Creation and Genesis. Given that they were closer in proximity and time to the original authors, they would better understand how the Scriptures are to be interpretted than a 19th century naturalist or a 20th century Evangelical Protestant. In humility and love, in fear and trembling, let us hold fast to Scripture and Church Tradition.

Peace.

The Church Fathers also taught a flat earth and an immovable earth. They were wrong about that and we don't teach that anymore. Why do you want to insist that they were right about creationism? (BTW, the website is simply a variant on the Argument from Authority. Instead of "literal Bible" as authority, you are now using the church fathers.)

There is no way to get around it: God's Creation tells us evolution is correct and creationism is wrong. I'd rather listen to God than the church fathers. Wouldn't you?

 

[lucaspa]

Creation is a theological concept that no TE disagrees with. Creationism is a set of scientific beliefs either false or simply undefined, which ought to be tested and rejected by scientific means.

Creationism is a catch-all phrase for several scientific theories. All of them have been shown to be false by the same means that we test all scientific theories.

 

[Punchy]

The Church Fathers also taught a flat earth and an immovable earth. They were wrong about that and we don't teach that anymore.

The Early Church & The Flat Earth
The vast majority of the church fathers accepted without question the commonly accepted belief that the world was spherical in shape which had been maintained by the Greeks since the fourth century BC.(43) Basil of Caesarea wrote that the shape of the earth was of no great importance compared with other things that the Scriptures are clear about.(44) Even if such matters were of no importance to him, he seems to have accepted the generally held view that the universe consisted of a series of concentric circles, which the spherical earth lying at the centre.(45)


Only Lactantius explicitly rejected sphericity, although there is some indirect evidence from later writers that Theodore of Mopseustia (c. 350 - 430) and Diodore of Tarsus (d. 394) may also have done so.(46) The surviving works of Lactantius have played an important part in the development of what J.B. Russell calls “the flat error” - the false idea that the early and mediaeval church taught that the earth is flat.(47) The reason for this was because he linked the a rejection of belief in antipodes (the existence of a country on the other side of the world) with the shape of the earth.(48) The question of the existence of the antipodes(49) had posed a problem for all Christian theologians. Russell, who has researched the “flat error” in some detail, explains:

[SIZE=-1]Christian doctrine affirmed that all humans must be of one origin, descended from Adam and Eve and redeemable by Christ, “the Second Adam.” The Bible was silent as to whether antipodeans existed, but natural philosophy had demonstrated that if they did, they could have no connection with the known part of the globe, either because the sea was too wide to sail across or because the equatorial zones were too hot to sail through. There could be no genetic connection between the antipodeans and us. Therefore any alleged antipodeans could not be descended from Adam and therefore could not exist.(50)[/SIZE]​

Clement of Rome alluded to the antipodes when he wrote: “The ocean - impassable by men - and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master.”(51) He clearly believed that even though it was impossible to reach the antipodes from where he lived the people shared a common Lord.(52) Lactantius, however, ridiculed the idea of people living on the other side of the earth and (perhaps reacting against his pagan background) went on to reject the idea that the earth could be spherical. In a famous passage in Divine Institutes he asks:

[SIZE=-1]...is there any who are so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? that the crops and trees grow downwards? that the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth?(53)[/SIZE]​

On the existence of the antipodes Augustine was also sceptical, but his doubts did not lead him to the extreme of dismissing the idea of a spherical earth. Indeed, he specifically referred to it as a globe,(54) but found no evidence in Scripture for a race of men living on the other side of the world. The journey to that region, even if there is land there, would prove to be too great.(55) Russell demonstrates convincingly that although much has been made of Lactantius’ statements, he was virtually ignored by later writers and suspected of heresy in regards to his Christology. It was only his “excellent Latin style” that caused interest in his to be revived during the Renaissance.(56)
http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter7.htm

Why do you want to insist that they were right about creationism?

It can be observed that the earth revolves around the sun. We cannot, however, go back and observe what happened billions of years before humankind was even born. In such an uncertain area as prehistory, this is where Genesis becomes important. As St. John Chrysostom wrote, Moses was the prophet of the beginning, just as St. John prophecized the end.

There is no way to get around it: God's Creation tells us evolution is correct and creationism is wrong. I'd rather listen to God than the church fathers.

I'd rather listen to the church fathers, in their interpretation of the Creation, than modern man's, especially not that of a 19th century naturalist. Given the subjective nature of prehistory, we'll never arrive at proof as to what exactly occurred, but I'd still rely on Church Tradition over the world's wisdom, just as I would on every other Christian doctrine. In doing this, however, we must remember to love and respect those whose point of view is different from our own.

Accepting the plainest meaning of Scripture doesn't make you a "creationist" any more than believing that Christ is risen from the dead makes you a "resurrectionist."

Peace.

 

[shernren]

Actually, I agree that the Church Fathers as a majority didn't teach a flat earth. They did teach an immovable earth, both as a consequence of Scripture and Aristotle. Even around the time of Copernicus and Galileo, most non-Aristotelian models used an immobile earth central to the universe, namely fluid heaven theories as well as the Tychonic models, so that it's unfair to say that people were reading an immobile earth into the text due to Aristotle alone.

And Punchy: how do you actually know that Earth orbits the sun, instead of the other way around? I never actually knew how it's proved before I studied the geocentrics. Do you?

 

[Punchy]

And Punchy: how do you actually know that Earth orbits the sun, instead of the other way around? I never actually knew how it's proved before I studied the geocentrics. Do you?

I could be wrong, but I'd assume it's been observed from outer space.

On the issue of geocentrism, one must remember that it was, in Galileo's time, the prevailing theory in science. Ptolemaists, not wanting to lose their stature in universities, urged the Roman Catholic Church to reject the heliocentric model. If the scientific community could be wrong about the earth revolving around the sun, it could be wrong about evolution also.

Due to the provisional nature of science, Scripture should be preferred whenever possible. Biblical truths aren’t found with scientific argumentation, but through narrative. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the Creation is understand through Genesis, not man's scientific reasoning. Science is important, especially for our quality of life, yet it's limitations should not be ignored.


Peace.

 

[Assyrian]

I could be wrong, but I'd assume it's been observed from outer space.

Isn't it a good thing the church accepted what science told them about heliocentrism before we sent rockets into outer space?

On the issue of geocentrism, one must remember that it was, in Galileo's time, the prevailing theory in science. Ptolemaists, not wanting to lose their stature in universities, urged the Roman Catholic Church to reject the heliocentric model.

No they rejected Galileo because his arguments did not hold water. He tried to use tides to prove the earth rotated. Galileo was right, but he needed to convince others with good science before his ideas were accepted.

If the scientific community could be wrong about the earth revolving around the sun, it could be wrong about evolution also.

And if the church could be wrong about the earth standing still it could be wrong about a six day creation too.

Due to the provisional nature of science, Scripture should be preferred whenever possible. Biblical truths aren’t found with scientific argumentation, but through narrative. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the Creation is understand through Genesis, not man's scientific reasoning. Science is important, especially for our quality of life, yet it's limitations should not be ignored.

Due to the metaphorical nature of the way scripture often teaches us about God, science should be preferred when it come to factual data. It was science that found out the earth rotated, not scripture scholars.

 

[shernren]

I could be wrong, but I'd assume it's been observed from outer space.

That's only in the last 50 years. Why did anybody believe that the earth goes around the sun before then? After all, if you told me that the earth goes around the sun I could tell you anything on this list:

- "You only come to heliocentric conclusions because you have heliocentric presuppositions."
- "Heliocentrism is just one interpretation of the data. Geocentrism is another. Both are equally valid."
- "Have you seen God set the foundations of the earth? No? Then stop doubting the Bible!"
- "If it goes against the Bible it must be wrong, fullstop."

On the issue of geocentrism, one must remember that it was, in Galileo's time, the prevailing theory in science. Ptolemaists, not wanting to lose their stature in universities, urged the Roman Catholic Church to reject the heliocentric model. If the scientific community could be wrong about the earth revolving around the sun, it could be wrong about evolution also.

Uhh, no. Granted, I am specifically reading up on the Galileo issue right now, so I don't expect this to be common knowledge to anyone else, but there is a thread I'm running in the TE-only forums entitled Thoughts on Galileo. But as a direct answer to your impression of the affair:

The affair remained quite Catholic throughout (and it is important to consider the repercussions of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation), and among the Catholics at that time the scientific elite were the Jesuits. And yet the inquisition against Galileo (in 1616, at least) remained thoroughly religious in nature: it began with clerics' complaints and potshots in sermons, developed into a convening of theologians who declared that a stationary central sun was formally heretical and that a mobile non-centered earth was at least erroneous in faith (both technical terms in their theology), and culminated in a personal meeting with Galileo and Cardinal Bellarmine. Now, Bellarmine's cosmology was hardly Aristotelian or Ptolemaic. Ptolemaic cosmology locates the planets and stars on fixed spheres in the incorruptible heavens. Bellarmine's cosmology located planets and stars in a fluid heaven, propelled not by spheres but by their own motive power "like birds in the sky, or fish in the sea" - and his cosmology was blasted for being non-Aristotelian and quite arbitrary by Ptolemaists. And yet they both were geocentric through and through. Where did they get that commonality from? Not from science of the day - from Scripture, or at least their reading of it.

The only Jesuit directly involved in the Galileo trial was one Melchior Inchofer, a German born in Sicily. His work on geocentrism, the Tractratus syllepticus, is a 93-page refutation of Copernicanism on specifically biblical grounds. All the biblical texts are dug up, cooked well done, and served with a base sauce of "if it's in the Bible God put it there for a reason" and a side serving of "the Lateran Council forbids the conclusions of philosophers to stray from true faith". Not a hint of scientific reasoning.

Were the Jesuits willing to abandon Ptolemaic cosmology? Certainly. Clavius, a leading Jesuit astronomer, had already taken important steps such as acknowledging that the heavens could change and therefore were not incorruptible, after observing novae with apparently no parallax, as well as completely replicating Galileo's visual observations with the telescopes of himself and his team of Jesuit students. He even wrote - in his final edition of a textbook, no less, not an obscure treatise - that the Ptolemaic theory needed serious renovation to "save the phenomena". After his death there were some Jesuits who were considered or suspected to be closet Copernicans - not because they didn't want to lose face, but because it had been declared formal heresy to believe such a thing.

So was it an error in the scientific community? Hardly. The only error the scientific community was in was an error foisted upon it by the church. Had the inquisitions never occurred, the Jesuits might well have fumbled their way towards Copernicanism easily enough. (A famous set of observations showing Jupiter's satellites changing their positions around Jupiter as the days pass was not made by Galileo himself, but by Jesuit astronomers at the Collegio Romano.) As it was, you couldn't believe that the earth went around the sun without being called a heretic, and the Jesuits had a strict order and tradition of obedience to superiors as well. The considerations that exiled Copernicanism were theological ones, not scientific ones.

Due to the provisional nature of science, Scripture should be preferred whenever possible. Biblical truths aren’t found with scientific argumentation, but through narrative. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the Creation is understand through Genesis, not man's scientific reasoning. Science is important, especially for our quality of life, yet it's limitations should not be ignored.

Yes, science's limitations should not be ignored. But they should never be overestimated either. We may not be able to find out a lot about the Potter from the pot, but we can find out plenty about the pot itself.