Evolution and you?

[The Unorthodox Orthodox]

By contrast in legal code the Bible says "for in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" Ex 20:11.

That is not the way to say "evolution did it" in any text book of science - I have ever read.

It could be intepreted symbolically. The numbers had a very important meaning back then.

In any way, there are mainly two positions concerning evolution that the Eastern Orthodox Chrich takes.
You can read about them hear.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Personally, both seem very interesting and I cannot decide which one I agree with the most.

 

[Macarius]

Darwin, Provine, Dawkins, Meyers et all agree that blind-faith evolution is flatly incompatible with Christianity.

Turns out - they know a thing or two about the religion of evolutionism that "believes" that an amoeba will one day turn into a horse given enough time and chance on "mount improbable" as Dawkins calls it.

By contrast in legal code the Bible says "for in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" Ex 20:11.

That is not the way to say "evolution did it" in any text book of science - I have ever read.

No wonder the rise of the religion of evolutionism in Europe results in the decline of Christianity in that same area.

in Christ,

Bob

When did God rest most fully and truly on the Sabbath? (e.g. which Sabbath is the truest Sabbath?). When did God stop making man (e.g. when was the first TRUE man, living a full and TRUE human life, created)?

When did God say "It is fulfilled!" or "It is finished!"?

When was it said, in Scriptures (in fulfillment of Genesis 1), "Behold: The Man!"?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I guess I'm left asking the question, what about all the archaeological finds we have discovered like the famous Lucy skelton, an ancient Australapithecine hominid that is estimated to be over 3 million years old? Donald Johansen's find was enormous. We have found australopithecines, homo erecus, homo habilis, neanderthals, etc. What are we to make of these hominids? Just flukes? Anthrolopologists and archaeologists analyzed their teeth, bone structures, what was found in their immediate vicinity within a few feet, and they've drawn some logical conclusions. I guess I'm wondering if we all have given the research, findings, conclusions, and actual reading its due diligence, or just cast it off as absurd because it might not jive with the Bible, approaching the OT as a history and science text? What are we to make of these skeletal finds? What do we make of mammoth discoveries like Oduvai Gorge, the Leakey finds, Johansen's discoveries, etc?

 

[Dorothea]

There are many different perspectives on those subjects you bring up, gurney. I remember talking about this and the dinos in a thread several months ago. There are diverse opinions for sure.

 

[Blackknight]

Opinions on evolution vs. creationism vary between church members but personally I don't have any issue reconciling my faith with science.

If you really start to study the origin of the universe science still cannot explain where matter came from or what caused the Big Bang in the first place. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed that means that all of the matter in the universe had to have been condensed into an area with infinite density and infinite gravity before it exploded. I find that hard to believe.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I guess I'm left asking the question, what about all the archaeological finds we have discovered like the famous Lucy skelton, an ancient Australapithecine hominid that is estimated to be over 3 million years old? Donald Johansen's find was enormous. We have found australopithecines, homo erecus, homo habilis, neanderthals, etc. What are we to make of these hominids? Just flukes? Anthrolopologists and archaeologists analyzed their teeth, bone structures, what was found in their immediate vicinity within a few feet, and they've drawn some logical conclusions. I guess I'm wondering if we all have given the research, findings, conclusions, and actual reading its due diligence, or just cast it off as absurd because it might not jive with the Bible, approaching the OT as a history and science text? What are we to make of these skeletal finds? What do we make of mammoth discoveries like Oduvai Gorge, the Leakey finds, Johansen's discoveries, etc?

not flukes, just a bunch of extinct primates. just because the dating tests say that they are millions of years old, does not mean that they are. it could be that something like the Fall and the Flood dramatically changed the universe, in which case the dating techniques that say they are 3 million years old, might not be accurate that far back.

I see it kinda like this. if there is a star that is 300 million light years away, the natural way of looking it it is that the star that we see is that star 300 million years ago. however, God could have made that star fully visible from earth from the beginning, in which case the star is actually far younger than it would seem if God created it 10,000 years ago or whatever. what you know is how fast light travels and how far away the star is. what you assume is how long the star has been shining its light,

 

[Protoevangel]

Opinions on evolution vs. creationism vary between church members but personally I don't have any issue reconciling my faith with science.

If you really start to study the origin of the universe science still cannot explain where matter came from or what caused the Big Bang in the first place. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed that means that all of the matter in the universe had to have been condensed into an area with infinite density and infinite gravity before it exploded. I find that hard to believe.

Would it be fair for a Theist who somehow agrees with the "science" of a naturalistic Big Bang to suggest that you had problems "reconciling your faith with science" because of what you wrote in your second paragraph?

Neither is it fair to suggest that Orthodox who disagree with Evolution have problems reconciling their faith with science.

Now, I know that's not explicitly what you said, but that kind of looks like the implication.

 

[Protoevangel]

not flukes, just a bunch of extinct primates. just because the dating tests say that they are millions of years old, does not mean that they are. it could be that something like the Fall and the Flood dramatically changed the universe, in which case the dating techniques that say they are 3 million years old, might not be accurate that far back.

I see it kinda like this. if there is a star that is 300 million light years away, the natural way of looking it it is that the star that we see is that star 300 million years ago. however, God could have made that star fully visible from earth from the beginning, in which case the star is actually far younger than it would seem if God created it 10,000 years ago or whatever. what you know is how fast light travels and how far away the star is. what you assume is how long the star has been shining its light,

Exactly.

According to a plain reading of Genesis, the light was here before the sun or the stars existed. Just because the star is millions of "light years" away has no bearing on that fact.

 

[Knee V]

C.S. Lewis gives a little perspective on the relationship between what we observe about the universe and what the conclusions that we can draw about it:

"In our world," said Eustace, "a star is a huge ball of flaming gas."
"Even in your world, my son, that is not what a star is but only what it is made of."

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So animals evolved, humans never did...and we assume or know this how??? And how do we know the Fall changed anything about animals? And how do we know they are extinct primates, not a stage of evolution toward man? And if these primates were extinct, why do we not find more of them? Why do we find evidence of a lifeform far more advanced than simple primates today?

DNA sequencing from a 38,000-year-old bone fragment of a Neanderthal femur found in Crotia in 1980 showed Neanderthals and modern humans share about 99.5% of their DNA. Many Neanderthal excavation sites had simple tools, necklaces, hearths, and other very human objects that are hardly the trappings of extinct monkeys.

Often times we read of these excavations unearthing flint tools, articulated corpses all posed in the same manner, evidence of campfires being lit and re-lit, spear tips and sharpened bones, evidence of flaking rock cores to make flakes similar to diamond-cutter techniques, animal skins for clothes, etc. They seem like very sophisticated extinct apes.

Rus continually criticizes radiocarbon dating hypothesizing the rates changing, but as MKJ pointed out, there are other means of dating fossils and other ancient items like Thermoluminescence, Electron paramagnetic resonance, and Mitochondrial DNA and genome mapping are fascinating ways of looking into the past also.

I guess at this point I'm not willing to ignore these things and use Genesis, which was written many, many centuries (theoretically) after Adam and Eve, by Moses and his contemporaries. I have a tough time trusting Israelite scribes over science in matters of science. I just don't use the Bible as a science text and don't think it's prudent personally.

I was surprised, when I became Orthodox, how many people in Orthodoxy are anti-evolution. I heard, before chrismation, that Orthodox were far more vaied lot, far more open to science, etc. So far, in "real life" and on here, I see very few folks who are willing to accept any type of evolution or science in man's creation. Quite the opposite. When I was Catholic, one thing I found comforting was the catechism's willingness to keep an open mind to evolution and to allow the faithful to respect scientific discoveries/theories as long as Original Sin was not discounted or rejected.

not flukes, just a bunch of extinct primates. just because the dating tests say that they are millions of years old, does not mean that they are. it could be that something like the Fall and the Flood dramatically changed the universe, in which case the dating techniques that say they are 3 million years old, might not be accurate that far back.

I see it kinda like this. if there is a star that is 300 million light years away, the natural way of looking it it is that the star that we see is that star 300 million years ago. however, God could have made that star fully visible from earth from the beginning, in which case the star is actually far younger than it would seem if God created it 10,000 years ago or whatever. what you know is how fast light travels and how far away the star is. what you assume is how long the star has been shining its light,

 

[Zeek]

Evolution, ye, or nay?

Please give brief reason for or against and how you belief it effects our faith, especially concerning the image of God in us?

Nay.
Five I's

I don't believe man evolved from any hominid, I believe it happened just as the Bible says, even though there is scant information and only just enough in Genesis to provoke a scientific mind.

I find most die-hard evolutionists are Atheistic, and their theories are their Gospels and they have found that science can be used/manipulated as an effective vehicle to promote their disbelief.

I think theistic evolution is a humanistic compromise...and appeals to reason and intellect over truth and faith.

I find it ironic that in Genesis when we see the fall of man described through the subtle deception of the Serpent/Satan....anything that denies the account or fobs it off as myth, parable or quaint fairy-tale...is actually using the same subtle argument..'Has G-d said...?'

I don't think I have ever heard a thorough exergesis of Genesis that I am entirely happy with...many have attempted to express or read into it their own speculations..even creation Scientists...but just like the book of Revelation I personally find it utterly awesome and a prelude to worshipping the Author and Finisher of our faith.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You're welcome to believe this stuff, but just don't compare those of us who believe in theistic evolution with a model of the Garden where our first parents believed Satan's lies. I am not cool with that. It's insulting.

Nay.
Five I's

I don't believe man evolved from any hominid, I believe it happened just as the Bible says, even though there is scant information and only just enough in Genesis to provoke a scientific mind.

I find most die-hard evolutionists are Atheistic, and their theories are their Gospels and they have found that science can be used/manipulated as an effective vehicle to promote their disbelief.

I think theistic evolution is a humanistic compromise...and appeals to reason and intellect over truth and faith.

I find it ironic that in Genesis when we see the fall of man described through the subtle deception of the Serpent/Satan....anything that denies the account or fobs it off as myth, parable or quaint fairy-tale...is actually using the same subtle argument..'Has G-d said...?'

I don't think I have ever heard a thorough exergesis of Genesis that I am entirely happy with...many have attempted to express or read into it their own speculations..even creation Scientists...but just like the book of Revelation I personally find it utterly awesome and a prelude to worshipping the Author and Finisher of our faith.

 

[Crawdad]

Yay.

Its hard to ignore thousands of peer reviewed scientific study and DNA.

 

[Knee V]

Yay.

Its hard to ignore thousands of peer reviewed scientific study and DNA.

Welcome aboard!

 

[Knee V]

It's a difficult topic. I considered myself TE for a long time, even after I became Orthodox. Looking at the physical evidence alone, I still find the theory rather compelling. However, it brought me to a place where I was on the verge of telling myself that I was an atheist, and my life was full of a great deal of despair. I know that that doesn't happen to everyone, but it happens to many people, and it happened to me. I know how neatly all the pieces fit together. I know it all makes a great deal of sense. But even if I can't pinpoint exactly why or how any other theory can make better sense of all the observable data, I believe very strongly that there is "more than meets the eye" with respect to this issue. I don't have a counter theory to explain the exact physical phenomena that occurred to bring the world to its present condition, nor am I seeking one at this time. But if I know nothing else, I know that Death was not part of this creation, and it is the enemy from which all of creation is being redeemed. However all the pieces fit together beyond that, it's still on the shelf for me.

 

[Blackknight]

Would it be fair for a Theist who somehow agrees with the "science" of a naturalistic Big Bang to suggest that you had problems "reconciling your faith with science" because of what you wrote in your second paragraph?

Neither is it fair to suggest that Orthodox who disagree with Evolution have problems reconciling their faith with science.

Now, I know that's not explicitly what you said, but that kind of looks like the implication.

My point is that a purely atheist view of the universe just doesn't make sense to me. Any way, I made a promise to myself to never discuss this topic since it only leads to arguments.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

A reasonable position, knee-v,

But I'm in a situation where things are a little different. Why? Because I have to TEACH this in sixth grade. If I found it morally repugnant or evil, I could skip it and nobody'd be the wiser. But I've been pulling and tugging with myself about this topic for years now. I'm just at a point where I can't trust that St. Basil the Great or St. John Chrysostom had any clue about this stuff. These pious, wonderful, men lived two millenia ago practically and they had zippity for scientific knowledge or technology. All the discoveries, evidence I find compelling, etc. leads me to keep teaching it...but with one enormous caveat. THEORY is the proper word that I pound into the kids' heads. I never, I repeat NEVER tell the kids this is "truth" or cement. I tell them exactly what the textbook initially says (theory) and then fails to repeat later....We talk about the pitfalls and alternatives. I present it the best I can. If someone can talk me into evolution being pure bull, I'd drop it.

It's a difficult topic. I considered myself TE for a long time, even after I became Orthodox. Looking at the physical evidence alone, I still find the theory rather compelling. However, it brought me to a place where I was on the verge of telling myself that I was an atheist, and my life was full of a great deal of despair. I know that that doesn't happen to everyone, but it happens to many people, and it happened to me. I know how neatly all the pieces fit together. I know it all makes a great deal of sense. But even if I can't pinpoint exactly why or how any other theory can make better sense of all the observable data, I believe very strongly that there is "more than meets the eye" with respect to this issue. I don't have a counter theory to explain the exact physical phenomena that occurred to bring the world to its present condition, nor am I seeking one at this time. But if I know nothing else, I know that Death was not part of this creation, and it is the enemy from which all of creation is being redeemed. However all the pieces fit together beyond that, it's still on the shelf for me.

 

[Protoevangel]

I'm not answering for ArmyMatt... I want to hear his own answers. I'm sure his approach to your questions will be different from mine, and will be more thoughtful and more usefu for you anyway... But I'm a little board tonight, so here goes my own poke at it.

So animals evolved, humans never did...and we assume or know this how???

Personally, I would say that humans have evolved to some extent. I do not, however, believe that humans began as something other than humans... Even if our current understanding of human is more limited than what is truly human.

And how do we know the Fall changed anything about animals?

All of creation was cursed by the fall.

And how do we know they are extinct primates, not a stage of evolution toward man?

Simply because we believe the Holy Fathers interpretations (guided by the Holy Spirit) of the Holy Scriptures (God Breathed) more than we believe fallen man's subjective interpretation of the incomplete data that has thus far been collected.

And if these primates were extinct, why do we not find more of them?

Why are you so sure that where and how the majority of them died off was conducive to their preservation... Or that their populations were ever that great to begin with?

Why do we find evidence of a lifeform far more advanced than simple primates today?

Why wouldn't we? This is exciting stuff!

DNA sequencing from a 38,000-year-old bone fragment of a Neanderthal femur found in Crotia in 1980 showed Neanderthals and modern humans share about 99.5% of their DNA. Many Neanderthal excavation sites had simple tools, necklaces, hearths, and other very human objects that are hardly the trappings of extinct monkeys.

Yes, awesome stuff! Nothing challenging to Patristic Creationism (I'm using that term to differentiate from Protestant Creationism or Creation Science) though. We also share 98.7% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and we even share 35% with green algae. God's handiwork is amazing!

Often times we read of these excavations unearthing flint tools, articulated corpses all posed in the same manner, evidence of campfires being lit and re-lit, spear tips and sharpened bones, evidence of flaking rock cores to make flakes similar to diamond-cutter techniques, animal skins for clothes, etc. They seem like very sophisticated extinct apes.

Praise God!

Rus continually criticizes radiocarbon dating hypothesizing the rates changing, but as MKJ pointed out, there are other means of dating fossils and other ancient items like Thermoluminescence, Electron paramagnetic resonance, and Mitochondrial DNA and genome mapping are fascinating ways of looking into the past also.

Yes, and they all require an assumption of old age to age things as old. Our assumptions (and no one is without assumptions) affect how we will interpret data.

How do thousands of Protestant and heretical sects all take the same data and get so many divergent ideas from it? Because their presuppositions are different. Each and every one of them has a water tight open and shut proof of their ideas. There is an analogy here. Yes, the modernist/scientist view is consistent with the data. I simply question that it is the only consistent interpretation of that data.

And no, I don't want to get into a debate on that. I'm not interested in pushing my view on you, and I'm not interested in you, or MKJ, or whoever trying to push your views down my throat either. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, but giving my view of the challenges you threw out. My only point here is to show that all of these stones you've thrown are no challenge to the Patrisctic Creationist.

I guess at this point I'm not willing to ignore these things

No one is asking you to. Note that no one is trying to prove you wrong.

and use Genesis, which was written many, many centuries (theoretically) after Adam and Eve, by Moses and his contemporaries. I have a tough time trusting Israelite scribes over science in matters of science. I just don't use the Bible as a science text and don't think it's prudent personally.

No one is using Geneis as a science text. This is where you start to get insulting.

What we are saying is that if there is a piece that science is missing... If the data is not 100%... Things could be very different from what the scientific community is extrapolating. One possible thing that could be being missed is the fall. All of creation was changed at this event. Science can not measure what it simply has no notion of.

I was surprised, when I became Orthodox, how many people in Orthodoxy are anti-evolution. I heard, before chrismation, that Orthodox were far more vaied lot, far more open to science, etc. So far, in "real life" and on here, I see very few folks who are willing to accept any type of evolution or science in man's creation. Quite the opposite. When I was Catholic, one thing I found comforting was the catechism's willingness to keep an open mind to evolution and to allow the faithful to respect scientific discoveries/theories as long as Original Sin was not discounted or rejected.

A lot of Orthodox do accept Evolution, and they are no less Orthodox for that.

Some of us however, don't see people or human inventions (such as the scientific method) in general as infallible. The scientific method is tried and true and has done much for man. It should not however, in our estimation, change how we have traditionally interpreted the Holy Scriptures.

I'm just at a point where I can't trust that St. Basil the Great or St. John Chrysostom had any clue about this stuff. These pious, wonderful, men lived two millenia ago practically and they had zippity for scientific knowledge or technology.

I can respect that. I think it kind of misses the point, but I'm not here to start a debate.


Hopefully, that helps.

 

[BobRyan]

Darwin, Provine, Dawkins, Meyers et all agree that blind-faith evolution is flatly incompatible with Christianity.

Turns out - they know a thing or two about the religion of evolutionism that "believes" that an amoeba will one day turn into a horse given enough time and chance on "mount improbable" as Dawkins calls it.

By contrast in legal code the Bible says "for in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" Ex 20:11.

That is not the way to say "evolution did it" in any text book of science - I have ever read.

No wonder the rise of the religion of evolutionism in Europe results in the decline of Christianity in that same area.

When did God rest most fully and truly on the Sabbath? (e.g. which Sabbath is the truest Sabbath?). When did God stop making man (e.g. when was the first TRUE man, living a full and TRUE human life, created)?

When did God say "It is fulfilled!" or "It is finished!"?

When was it said, in Scriptures (in fulfillment of Genesis 1), "Behold: The Man!"?

In Genesis 2:1-3 it is the seventh day that is the day of rest.

In Exodus 16 God says "tomorrow is THE Sabbath".

In Exodus 20:8-11 the legal code itself spells this out.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Darwin, Provine, Dawkins, Meyers et all agree that blind-faith evolution is flatly incompatible with Christianity.

Turns out - they know a thing or two about the religion of evolutionism that "believes" that an amoeba will one day turn into a horse given enough time and chance on "mount improbable" as Dawkins calls it.

By contrast in legal code the Bible says "for in SIX DAYS the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the seventh day therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" Ex 20:11.

That is not the way to say "evolution did it" in any text book of science - I have ever read.

No wonder the rise of the religion of evolutionism in Europe results in the decline of Christianity in that same area.

It could be intepreted symbolically. The numbers had a very important meaning back then.

In exegesis - context is everything.

Prior to the Exodus 20:11 statement about SIX days and the 7th day we have Exodus 16 "Tomorrow is the Sabbath" - six days manna fell each week but not on the 7th. The were tested weeks in advance on this literal cycle.

Reading into the text "symbolic numbers" and not real ones - does not work.j

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the Lord MADE..." is locked in stone Ex 20:8-11.

in Christ,

Bob