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

[inconsequential]

And you really expect me to believe that? Again, mental gymnastics.

No, Michael, I don't. Whether you or anyone else accepts one position over another is of no concern to me, I was merely stating one point of view that I had heard articulated in a way that made sense to me. I find this particular issue interesting and like to talk to others about what they believe and why. I have no interest in convincing anyone one way or the other on an issue that I myself give very little thought to. We agree that Adam and Eve and their progeny were literal people, past that I don't care what anyone believes. It has no bearing on MY salvation, at least not at this point. I'm still working on gluttony, lust and wrath.

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything, just trying to clarify some things I've seen come up in the discussion and ask questions to help clarify other things for my own edification and knowledge. Thank you for answering the question you did.

Edited to add:
I care what others believe to the extent that it makes for interesting conversation, just not so much that I think it's worth arguing over. If that even makes sense. lol

 

[MKJ]

One way I heard it put was that in those early days, the human gene pool was still near perfect and so close relatives could procreate without passing on the genetic errors that began to appear as humanity degenerated from perfection because of sin. The same was true to some degree following the flood but the numbers of errors began to grow and so close relatives had much greater chance of having the same errors which made birth defects. God knew this since He had created man to begin with so He instituted laws against incest to reduce the rates of birth defects in His people. I'm sure a Dr. could read Leviticus and see how many of those laws made the Hebrews grow and remain a strong, healthy people.

I don't remember who wrote it but I'm sure I butchered it horribly.

If that were true, the passage of time wouldn't have solved the genetic problem though. There still wouldn't have been people to marry who were not close relatives. We would all be pretty much marrying our close relatives now, and we would be like some animal species that are almost genetically identical due to a bottleneck. There would be no genetic sense to incent taboos even today (of course genetic defects may not be the issue really.)

If one wants to say that the first humans bred incestuously, there would have to be some other explanation for the genetic side of things. This one, which I have heard before too, doesn't make sense.

 

[Michael G]

Come on Michael, your answer uses the exact logic used by Seventh-Day Adventists who claim we're still bound by the Sabbath-day law. Maybe that's why Pork, Catfish, Shrimp and Lobster (etc.) are still forbidden for us to eat, right?

Let's see, we have our Father among the Saints St. Nikodemos, the great reviver of hesychasm, the canonist, the hagiologist, the liturgist and Elder Paisios, one of the God bearing elders of the modern times, offering wisdom, inspired by the Holy Spirit. What exactly is the problem again?

The problem is the arguments which both posters have put forth require so much mental gymnastics to try to follow <edit>.
Why is there no one who is willing to say "we do not know and we are willing to leave it at a mystery."? Seriously, I can more easily follow Aquinas than I can some of the reasoning on this thread. That should tell you alot because I personally think Aquinas is full of it.

 

[inconsequential]

If there were no incest and yet Adam and Eve were literal people and the only two parents of humanity then their children would have had to have procreated with protohuman "animals." That makes me a little uncomfortable but I suppose it could have happened with a little genetic gymnastics.

 

[jckstraw72]

The problem is the arguments which both posters have put forth require so much mental gymnastics to try to follow that I instantly said BS! the second I read both posts. Why is there no one who is willing to say "we do not know and we are willing to leave it at a mystery."? Seriously, I can more easily follow Aquinas than I can some of the reasoning on this thread. That should tell you alot because I personally think Aquinas is full of it.

i dont know what the gymnastics are -- they committed what we call incest, but there was no injunction against it at that point. and even if they did do something bad - well, tis a fallen world, with fallen people, is it not?

 

[Protoevangel]

Seriously, I can more easily follow Aquinas than I can some of the reasoning on this thread. That should tell you alot because I personally think Aquinas is full of it.

Aquinas before Nicodemus? If the shoe fits, Michael.

All kidding aside, I don't understand the insulting attitude that you are directing against our Holy Saints and Elders. They are the ones who are boldly declaring what you are scoffing at. The rest of us are simply quoting them and offering possible (not definite) explanations to answer some genuine questions and some ridicule... The kind of ridicule that I might expect from a protestant steeped in modernism and neology, but not from an Orthodox brother. I understand that these concepts are contrary to everything our modern society pumps into us from day one. I understand these things are hard to accept. But please Michael, temper your scorn against the teachings of our Holy and God-bearing Fathers.

 

[Protoevangel]

If that were true, the passage of time wouldn't have solved the genetic problem though. There still wouldn't have been people to marry who were not close relatives. We would all be pretty much marrying our close relatives now, and we would be like some animal species that are almost genetically identical due to a bottleneck. There would be no genetic sense to incent taboos even today (of course genetic defects may not be the issue really.)

If one wants to say that the first humans bred incestuously, there would have to be some other explanation for the genetic side of things. This one, which I have heard before too, doesn't make sense.

It actually makes plenty of sense, especially if you've ever been exposed to animal breeding. The rate of genetic flaws increases with continued isolation of small populations.

By the sixth generation after Adam and Eve, the children are already at 5th cousins, and this continues to grow with each succeeding generation. Prior to the tower of Babel, the people with a certain genetic trait tend to breed with people with similar genetic traits, decreasing genetic diversity.

 

[jckstraw72]

Why is there no one who is willing to say "we do not know and we are willing to leave it at a mystery."? .

when the Saints give an answer i dont feel i need to feign ignorance.

St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Genesis, Homily 20:3
Don&#8217;t be surprised at this, dearly beloved: [Scripture] has so far given no list of women anywhere in a precise manner; instead, Sacred Scripture while avoiding superfluous detail mentions the males in turn, though not even all of them, telling us about them in rather summary fashion when it says that so-and-so had sons and daughters and then he died. So it is likely in this case too that Eve gave birth to a daughter after Cain and Abel, and Cain took her for a wife. You see, since it was in the beginning and the human race had to increase from then on, it was permissible to marry their own sisters.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Protoevangel & Jack Straw: I don't see anything in your posts that adressed what I said, but that's not too important anw.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

I just read the first part of this and will read the second part as soon as I can:

THE SIX DAWNS PART I

 

[Protoevangel]

Protoevangel & Jack Straw: I don't see anything in your posts that adressed what I said, but that's not too important anw.

I fully addressed your question to me.

 

[Michael G]

i dont know what the gymnastics are -- they committed what we call incest, but there was no injunction against it at that point. and even if they did do something bad - well, tis a fallen world, with fallen people, is it not?

Get real. I had a dog, Tikhon. His mother was his fathers aunt. Tikhon was the most loveable dog I have ever met and yet he was not all there. There was something clearly wrong with him and that is understandable from such a close (and purely accidental) breeding. It does not matter if there was a moral law at that time for incest, there is a genetic law which states if 2 people (or animals) who are that closely related reproduce there are going to be genetic abnormalities.

 

[Michael G]

Aquinas before Nicodemus? If the shoe fits, Michael.

All kidding aside, I don't understand the insulting attitude that you are directing against our Holy Saints and Elders. They are the ones who are boldly declaring what you are scoffing at. The rest of us are simply quoting them and offering possible (not definite) explanations to answer some genuine questions and some ridicule... The kind of ridicule that I might expect from a protestant steeped in modernism and neology, but not from an Orthodox brother. I understand that these concepts are contrary to everything our modern society pumps into us from day one. I understand these things are hard to accept. But please Michael, temper your scorn against the teachings of our Holy and God-bearing Fathers.

The fathers are not infallible. You are showing a small handful, not every single one of them speaking in union. What you guys are proposing they say makes absolutely no sense logically and even less sense scientifically. What should be left to mystery you guys are attempting to define in such a way that it really makes Aquinas (the king of defining things ad nauseum) look like an amateur.

Leave the matter to mystery, or at the very least, do not mock me for wanting to leave the matter to mystery. I will worry about understanding things that are far more important to the health of my soul.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, aside from modern science, is there any Patrisic evidence to support that there were other humans at that time?

 

[jckstraw72]

Protoevangel & Jack Straw: I don't see anything in your posts that adressed what I said, but that's not too important anw.

sorry, maybe i missed it -- which part are you talking about

 

[jckstraw72]

Get real. I had a dog, Tikhon. His mother was his fathers aunt. Tikhon was the most loveable dog I have ever met and yet he was not all there. There was something clearly wrong with him and that is understandable from such a close (and purely accidental) breeding. It does not matter if there was a moral law at that time for incest, there is a genetic law which states if 2 people (or animals) who are that closely related reproduce there are going to be genetic abnormalities.

did your dog Tikhon live 7500 yrs ago right outside Paradise?

 

[MKJ]

It actually makes plenty of sense, especially if you've ever been exposed to animal breeding. The rate of genetic flaws increases with continued isolation of small populations.

By the sixth generation after Adam and Eve, the children are already at 5th cousins, and this continues to grow with each succeeding generation. Prior to the tower of Babel, the people with a certain genetic trait tend to breed with people with similar genetic traits, decreasing genetic diversity.

No, I'm sorry, It doesn't. Although they would be fifth cousinss, they would be gebetically much more closely related than a pair of fifth cousins that did not come from a series of closely related parents.

Most people these days overestimate the number of people needed for a stable breeding population - it used to be common to marry first cousins, and populations were smaller, with the occasional outsider popping in. But generally when you have only a few pairs of mating adults, the genetic diversity gets less and less rather than greater. Where would the new genes come from to create the diversity? Cheetahs are a good modern example of this.

I also don't really like the argument of - was it Cain? - having unknowingly met his younger sister wandering in the mountians and marrying her. If there were no other humans other than his parents and siblings, wouldn't it have been pretty obvious that she had to be related? And wouldn't they likely have mentioned something about their family? "Haven't seen you hanging around the mountains before - are you new around here?"

I tend to agree with Michael on this one - maintaining a YEC model is going to demand a lot of simply leaving the details up to God, past the period of the actual creation itself. I personally find that approach more appealing than most of the "creation science" which just gets my back up. I suppose the difficulty is if you take the approach of leaving it up to God, how do you decide when it is appropriate to start talking about history in terms of science rather than the miraculous?

 

[Michael G]

did your dog Tikhon live 7500 yrs ago right outside Paradise?

Get real. You actually pretend to know that the rules of genetics did not apply in the newly created world, however old the world is. This thread is simply getting ridiculous. You are not the first from St. Tikhon's that has espoused such views. It really makes me wonder what they teach there.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

I fully addressed your question to me.

I don't think that you even touched upon it. I asked you if you think that Scripture and other things in Tradition were served word by word on a plate. That's how Muslims think of the Quran, if I'm not mistaken, whereas - again if I'm not mistaken - in Christianity God does wonderous works with His creation out of love. I thought that Tradition was a response to God's love, a response that involves human thinking, and not just something that was passed on in an unintelligible manner. Now if it is not unintelligible but intelligible, at least partly, and if God wants us to understand it, appreciate it and live as if at one with it, how could one object against human individuals using their God-given gifts to try to understand Tradition? It seems to me even that it is something highly recommendable.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

I'm writing a paper this week on whether evolutionary theory is incompatible with a christian doctrine of creation. I'll share my thoughts when I've finished, if anyone's interested in hearing them.