Theistic Evolution ~ is it compatible with orthodox teaching & doctrine? .

[Photini]

So essenially we have to choose between what our senses are clearly telling us (and I'm talking about pre-human animals; this is clearly shown by our senses and is not some philosophical theory) and Orthodoxy?

This dosn't make sense to me. Why can't I believe what my senses are clearly telling me and in Orthodoxy? Why would the physical evidence be incompatible with the spiritual truth?

See, this is where I am as well. I fully believe what the Church teaches, but at the same time my sensabilities absolutely reject the possibility of humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

 

[Michael G]

See, this is where I am as well. I fully believe what the Church teaches, but at the same time my sensabilities absolutely reject the possibility of humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

Just think. The leg on a T-Rex is one awesome drumstick!!!

 

[Nick T]

it shouldnt be. but when the interpretations of the evidence are in conflict, why is it your inclination to question the teachings of the Fathers rather than science?

Ok, I'll give an example: The age of the Earth. Unless scientific dating methods are corrupt then it cannot be doubted that the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Nearly every field of science, not just evolution, attests to this. However many of the Fathers held that it was no older than 6000. In fact the Orthodox Church calendar for 1000 years held that the world began 5,509 years before Christ's incarnation. All this was based on commentry of Genesis and other books of the bible.
Now it seems pretty clear to me that the Fathers were wrong on this matter. Does this mean I doubt their holiness? No. Does this mean I doubt their teachings? No. It simply means I do not look at 4th Century saints for scientific knowledge.

Again I cannot understand why nearly all aspects of science (for the dating of the earth is included in many of them) should be opposed with God's own Church. This cannot be explained away as "secular interpetation"; either the earth is far older than was believed or our senses are decieving us.

 

[Nick T]

See, this is where I am as well. I fully believe what the Church teaches, but at the same time my sensabilities absolutely reject the possibility of humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

Exactly.

 

[Photini]

Just think. The leg on a T-Rex is one awesome drumstick!!!

Haha! Can you imagine how big your bbq pit would have to be? And the amount of sauce you would need?

 

[ProScribe]

It must be a matter of Scientifica as some orthodox theologians consider what is Theologumena and Philosophumena.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

"In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[98] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life."

Nicolaus Copernicus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sound familiar? In summary, Galileo was condemned as a heretic by the Roman Church for his support of the heliocentric theory (that the earth revolves around the sun), because it was deemed contrary to scripture. If we can learn anything from the past, it is that the Church should stay away from matters of science. Thankfully, the Orthodox Church has a pretty good track record with this.

I suggest you all read some of the articles at the bottom of this link. They approach the issue fairly from both sides.

Evolution - OrthodoxWiki

 

[Protoevangel]

As jckstraw mentioned, "...the Fathers comment on the creation account, telling us that the days were literal days...", and this is indeed true of many of the Fathers, while others actually took the days as allegorical. However, even the most extreme of the allegorical interpreters such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria still believed that the world was less than 10,000 years old.

Even the modern Saints and Holy Elders, such as St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Cleopa, Elder Paisios, and others seem to support a young Earth. I have yet to see a Saint or Elder, either ancient or modern, support the kind of time frame that theories of evolution* require (aka "Old Earth".) A young Earth (6,000-15,000 years, more or less) seems to be the clear consensus of the Saints and Holy Elders, both ancient and modern.

I, for one, am not ready to claim that the Holy Saints throughout the ages taught from their own vanity. They taught from Holy Scripture, not from their own imaginations, and not from "science"... In fact, they often taught the "Young Earth" view in clear opposition to the "sciences" of their own times. No quote is more clear than Saint Basil the Great when he said, "One day, doubtless, their terrible condemnation will be the greater for all this worldly wisdom, since, seeing so clearly into vain sciences, they have wilfully shut their eyes to the knowledge of the truth."

Science is a methodology that is used by people in an attempt to answer questions through empirical observation and naturalistic reasoning. The scientific method has been developed based on a few major premises: One: We can only know what we can observe. Two: People's powers of observation are imperfect (experiments must be repeatable). And three: The laws of nature are consistent throughout space and time, therefore conclusions drawn from experiment and/or observations can be used to explain past phenomena.

Creation, however, according to Orthodoxy, can in no way meet those criteria. One, Creation canot be observed, this is axiomatic. and two, according to Orthodoxy, Creation was a direct act of God, and miraculous. This means that the laws of nature were quite probably not even in effect at the time of creation. We cannot measure, observe, and experiment on the creation of the universe, or the creation of man. We can only dig up pieces of the puzzle and assume things based on preconceived notions.

But only One was present at all of it. Only He has the whole picture. He is the One who we read of in Exodus, "the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend." And in the book of Numbers, He says about Moses, "I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings". What God told Moses about the beginning of the world was real and plain. So-called "scientists" on the other hand, are working in the dark, and try to make the random pieces they pick up here and there look as if it is the whole picture.

On the other hand, the real science behind evolution* is facinating. I quite enjoyed On the Origin of Species, and the various other lectures I've heard and books and articles I've read. Without the Saints and Holy Scriptures, I could easily be convinced that the theory of evolution* is fact. But as it is, I simply think that the science is missing some key evidence to draw a truly comprehensive conclusion.

As Saint Peter tells us, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:19-21). So when I look at the words of Genesis 1-3, I will listen to the holy men of God, instead of taking the work of scientists who intentionally rule out any miraculous explanation. But at the same time, I do not reject any field of science, even if I do question some conclusions that have been made, especially when those conclusions so clearly undermine what these holy men of God have taught from the beginning.

But to touch on Michael the Iconographer's very valid concern... I do have to mention that if I believe the truth about Creation and ostracize those who are in error and declare them heretics, mine is, by far, the greater sin. We can discuss our positions, and the reasons we hold these positions, while still loving each other. We don't have to understand everything perfectly to be Orthodox Christians. If we did, there would be no room for me in the Church. While the above is what I truly beileve is the correct way to understand the current topic, I am in no way suggesting that those who disagree with me are anathema or outside of the Church in any way... I just think they have a misguided focus that will be corrected, either in time or in Eternity.



* Please note that I am not speaking of what is often called microevolution, for this is an observed, tested, and factual phenomenon. I am not even speaking of macroevolution, as several forms of speciation have been observed and recorded. "Kinds", as God created the animals, and "species" as defined in biology are not necessarily the same things. So I suppose I must admit that my problem is not properly with evolution itself, but with the idea of common descent, or any explanation of all life on earth that requires us to reject Scripture, as our God-Bearing Fathers, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, have explained it to us. Putting all of this under the title "evolution" may be poor form, but it is what I believe most anti-evolutionists, Orthodox ones anyway, really mean when they argue against evolution.

 

[Andrew21091]

See, this is where I am as well. I fully believe what the Church teaches, but at the same time my sensabilities absolutely reject the possibility of humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

I agree with you completely. I don't understand why you either have to believe in the Church or science. We shouldn't have to choose between one or the other. If there is evidence that shows that dinosaurs lived millions of years before humans, then how can we possibly say rubbish? Is there any evidence that show Sumerians with their pet Tyrannosaurus? When I read information concerning astronomy which presents a universe that is billions of years old, my inclination in receiving this information isn't to reject the church. On the contrary, when I saw the Hubble ultra deep field image that shows roughly 10,000 galaxies looking back about 13 billion years, I can only marvel and the only words that can come out of my mouth is "Glory to God." It really shows the complexity of the universe and how great it is and then one has to think that it couldn't have possibly created itself so it only enforces my faith in God. We need to depart from the era of science vs. religion since they don't have to be against one another.

How can I reject what my senses tell me? If I have to reject them then I should just be a Gnostic.

 

[ArmyMatt]

man did this thread explode while I was away.

I just personally don't see how the countless men and women, who have drawn close to the only Person that was there to witness Creation, pre and post Darwin, are all wrong. when holy elder or eldress, and saint after saint seem to indicate that the earth is young and macro evolution did not happen, then that is a red flag for me as far as my believing that the earth is 65 million years old. it would be one thing if after Darwin comes around and gives his theories, that holy elders (some of whom were very well educated in the world) would have at least said it is possible, and yet time after time they say otherwise.

I also find it silly to think that the consensus of the great Fathers and Saints of the Church are correct in their dogma throughout the centuries, but then all of a sudden they are wrong as far as our origins, and we must bow before science. it's like they can tackle every heresey and problem thrown at them by adhering to what has been revealed, but now, all of a sudden, modern science (which cannot decide whether or not a shark is warm blooded, cold blooded, or luke warm blooded) trumps the Genesis account.

 

[Michael G]

Haha! Can you imagine how big your bbq pit would have to be? And the amount of sauce you would need?

You are making me salivate from the thought. Mrs. G is trembling in fear of me actually thinking of building a bbq pit of that size!!!

 

[Andrew21091]

Honestly, even if you leave evolution out of it, it is known that the world is quite older than 7000 or so years. What about the dinosaurs? Their fossils are much older than humanity. Evidence shows that the T-Rex was long gone by the time man shows up. Evidence also shows that the universe itself is billions of years old. Does this information at all damage my faith? No, it does not. If God has allowed this physical evidence to be found, how can I deny it? Maybe I'm just not Orthodox enough but for me, science does not contradict my faith in God or the Church.

 

[Antony in Tx]

See, this is where I am as well. I fully believe what the Church teaches, but at the same time my sensabilities absolutely reject the possibility of humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

Pray tell, then, where did the Flintstones get Dino???

 

[jckstraw72]

Ok, I'll give an example: The age of the Earth. Unless scientific dating methods are corrupt then it cannot be doubted that the Earth is more than 6000 years old. Nearly every field of science, not just evolution, attests to this. However many of the Fathers held that it was no older than 6000. In fact the Orthodox Church calendar for 1000 years held that the world began 5,509 years before Christ's incarnation. All this was based on commentry of Genesis and other books of the bible.
Now it seems pretty clear to me that the Fathers were wrong on this matter. Does this mean I doubt their holiness? No. Does this mean I doubt their teachings? No. It simply means I do not look at 4th Century saints for scientific knowledge.

Again I cannot understand why nearly all aspects of science (for the dating of the earth is included in many of them) should be opposed with God's own Church. This cannot be explained away as "secular interpetation"; either the earth is far older than was believed or our senses are decieving us.

i look at it differently than you i guess. i dont see the age of the earth as a scientific question, since the past was not actually observed and documented by scientists it really comes down to interpretative guesswork (educated guesswork though it may be). but since the book of Genesis and the rest of the OT do give a timetable, its up to the Church to tell us how to understand that timetable, because Scripture belongs to the Church, not science. if the Church had no tradition about how to understand the dates given in the OT then sure, we could easily say the earth is older, but the Church has had plenty to say about the age of the earth, particularly with the Byzantine Creation Era calendar as you mentioned.

and i think the dating methods are indeed flawed - they include many assumptions that i see no reason to accept. i havent looked over this whole site, but it has a section on the assumptions that are inherently part of radiometric dating: Age of the Earth: assumptions and weaknesses of radiometric dating

 

[jckstraw72]

As jckstraw mentioned, "...the Fathers comment on the creation account, telling us that the days were literal days...", and this is indeed true of many of the Fathers, while others actually took the days as allegorical. However, even the most extreme of the allegorical interpreters such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria still believed that the world was less than 10,000 years old.

Even the modern Saints and Holy Elders, such as St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Fr. George Calciu, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Cleopa, Elder Paisios, and others seem to support a young Earth. I have yet to see a Saint or Elder, either ancient or modern, support the kind of time frame that theories of evolution* require (aka "Old Earth".) A young Earth (6,000-15,000 years, more or less) seems to be the clear consensus of the Saints and Holy Elders, both ancient and modern.

I, for one, am not ready to claim that the Holy Saints throughout the ages taught from their own vanity. They taught from Holy Scripture, not from their own imaginations, and not from "science"... In fact, they often taught the "Young Earth" view in clear opposition to the "sciences" of their own times. No quote is more clear than Saint Basil the Great when he said, "One day, doubtless, their terrible condemnation will be the greater for all this worldly wisdom, since, seeing so clearly into vain sciences, they have wilfully shut their eyes to the knowledge of the truth."

Science is a methodology that is used by people in an attempt to answer questions through empirical observation and naturalistic reasoning. The scientific method has been developed based on a few major premises: One: We can only know what we can observe. Two: People's powers of observation are imperfect (experiments must be repeatable). And three: The laws of nature are consistent throughout space and time, therefore conclusions drawn from experiment and/or observations can be used to explain past phenomena.

Creation, however, according to Orthodoxy, can in no way meet those criteria. One, Creation canot be observed, this is axiomatic. and two, according to Orthodoxy, Creation was a direct act of God, and miraculous. This means that the laws of nature were quite probably not even in effect at the time of creation. We cannot measure, observe, and experiment on the creation of the universe, or the creation of man. We can only dig up pieces of the puzzle and assume things based on preconceived notions.

But only One was present at all of it. Only He has the whole picture. He is the One who we read of in Exodus, "the LORD spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend." And in the book of Numbers, He says about Moses, "I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings". What God told Moses about the beginning of the world was real and plain. So-called "scientists" on the other hand, are working in the dark, and try to make the random pieces they pick up here and there look as if it is the whole picture.

On the other hand, the real science behind evolution* is facinating. I quite enjoyed On the Origin of Species, and the various other lectures I've heard and books and articles I've read. Without the Saints and Holy Scriptures, I could easily be convinced that the theory of evolution* is fact. But as it is, I simply think that the science is missing some key evidence to draw a truly comprehensive conclusion.

As Saint Peter tells us, "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:19-21). So when I look at the words of Genesis 1-3, I will listen to the holy men of God, instead of taking the work of scientists who intentionally rule out any miraculous explanation. But at the same time, I do not reject any field of science, even if I do question some conclusions that have been made, especially when those conclusions so clearly undermine what these holy men of God have taught from the beginning.

But to touch on Michael the Iconographer's very valid concern... I do have to mention that if I believe the truth about Creation and ostracize those who are in error and declare them heretics, mine is, by far, the greater sin. We can discuss our positions, and the reasons we hold these positions, while still loving each other. We don't have to understand everything perfectly to be Orthodox Christians. If we did, there would be no room for me in the Church. While the above is what I truly beileve is the correct way to understand the current topic, I am in no way suggesting that those who disagree with me are anathema or outside of the Church in any way... I just think they have a misguided focus that will be corrected, either in time or in Eternity.



* Please note that I am not speaking of what is often called microevolution, for this is an observed, tested, and factual phenomenon. I am not even speaking of macroevolution, as several forms of speciation have been observed and recorded. "Kinds", as God created the animals, and "species" as defined in biology are not necessarily the same things. So I suppose I must admit that my problem is not properly with evolution itself, but with the idea of common descent, or any explanation of all life on earth that requires us to reject Scripture, as our God-Bearing Fathers, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, have explained it to us. Putting all of this under the title "evolution" may be poor form, but it is what I believe most anti-evolutionists, Orthodox ones anyway, really mean when they argue against evolution.

mmmmm this is a yummy post! thank you!

id only disagree with you one one small point: i think St. Clement of Alexandria actually interpreted the days literally:

Stromata Book 4.25
Whence He commands them not to touch dead bodies, or approach the dead; not that the body was polluted, but that sin and disobedience were incarnate, and embodied, and dead, and therefore abominable. It was only, then, when a father and mother, a son and daughter died, that the priest was allowed to enter, because these were related only by flesh and seed, to whom the priest was indebted for the immediate cause of his entrance into life. And they purify themselves seven days, the period in which Creation was consummated. For on the seventh day the rest is celebrated; and on the eighth he brings a propitiation, as is written in Ezekiel, according to which propitiation the promise is to be received.


5.6

Now the high priest's robe is the symbol of the world of sense. The seven planets are represented by the five stones and the two carbuncles, for Saturn and the Moon. The former is southern, and moist, and earthy, and heavy; the latter aerial, whence she is called by some Artemis, as if Aerotomos (cutting the air); and the air is cloudy. And cooperating as they did in the production of things here below, those that by Divine Providence are set over the planets are rightly represented as placed on the breast and shoulders; and by them was the work of creation, the first week. And the breast is the seat of the heart and soul.

 

[jckstraw72]

Honestly, even if you leave evolution out of it, it is known that the world is quite older than 7000 or so years. What about the dinosaurs? Their fossils are much older than humanity. Evidence shows that the T-Rex was long gone by the time man shows up. Evidence also shows that the universe itself is billions of years old. Does this information at all damage my faith? No, it does not. If God has allowed this physical evidence to be found, how can I deny it? Maybe I'm just not Orthodox enough but for me, science does not contradict my faith in God or the Church.

i really think we need to make a distinction between evidence, and the interpretation of the evidence. the evidence is a bone. the bone tells you that something died, but that bone does not come with a date. the date is figured out through scientific dating methods, and those dating methods are filled with assumptions that are intended to show late dates for the items being dated - for instance with Carbon dating you must assume the initial ratio of C14 to C12 and you must assume that C14 decays into C12 at a constant rate over all of history. if you assume the right initial ratio you will inevitably get a really old dating for the item being dated!

the evidence tells you something died. everything after that requires an interpretive framework. a non-evolutionary scientist could tell you why that same bone proves a young earth, based on his interpretive framework.

 

[Michael G]

Jckstraw, Clement of Alexandria is a saint?

 

[jckstraw72]

ive heard it both ways ... im just used to referring to him as Saint

 

[Photini]

Pray tell, then, where did the Flintstones get Dino???

Haha! Poor thing..."Dino" means "terrifying".

 

[Ortho_Cat]

the evidence tells you something died. everything after that requires an interpretive framework. a non-evolutionary scientist could tell you why that same bone proves a young earth, based on his interpretive framework.

This is where the process of peer-review comes in.