Is evolution theory compatible with Genesis.

[truefiction1]

Evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.

Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable. Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform. Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.

In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete. Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science. Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.



Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As an Orthodox Christian, this post regarding evolution is the one that makes the most sense to me, filling me with the greatest awe of God's understanding, which is beyond measure, while also enabling me to understand how we must regard scripture and how contemporary Church fathers must use the knowledge that can be gained from such and understanding to ensure, by grace, the current and future health of the Church in spite of the adverse effects of the scientific enlightenment.

 

[truefiction1]

As an Orthodox Christian, this post regarding evolution is the one that makes the most sense to me, filling me with the greatest awe of God's understanding, which is beyond measure, while also enabling me to understand how we must regard scripture, as well as certain historical notions of the ancient Church fathers, and how contemporary Church fathers must use the knowledge that can be gained from such and understanding to ensure, by grace, the current and future health of the Church in spite of the adverse effects of the scientific enlightenment.

... What does this mean exactly? It means that unless we accept the mythological nature of much of what is written in the Old testament (and mythology often contains more truth than many of our usual perceptions of what we think is reality) then we fail to experience the real truth, understanding, and saving power that it can give us. There is much more information in these stories than most of us realize, and this mostly because we are reluctant to let go of our literal approach due to a weakness of our own faith.

 

[jckstraw72]

interpreting Genesis literally is not a denial of the deeper meanings of the words. They are not mutually exclusive - the Fathers universally accept the historicity of Genesis, but it doesn't mean their faith was weak or that they missed the spiritual intention of the text. It's the evolutionist that cannot accept all the layers of the text. Evolution necessitates that you reject the literal historical meaning of the text, and the Fathers tell us that it is dangerous to do this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think as well, if evolution were true, then why is it that most modern holy elders and saints reject it? one would think that there would be a good number of illumined fathers and mothers out there that would come out in favor of it, and you just don't see that.

 

[BornOfWaterAndSpirit]

No, it is not compatible. It is Biblical fact that Earth was created about 5500 BC in six literal days, and there is no indication whatsoever that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be interpreted symbolically. When Bible is symbolic, it is quite obvious, as seen in Book of Revelation. Genesis creation account has been universally accepted by the Church in the past. If you can't trust God for the past, then why do you trust in Him for the future?

 

[jckstraw72]

No, it is not compatible. It is Biblical fact that Earth was created about 5500 BC in six literal days, and there is no indication whatsoever that the first eleven chapters of Genesis should be interpreted symbolically. When Bible is symbolic, it is quite obvious, as seen in Book of Revelation. Genesis creation account has been universally accepted by the Church in the past. If you can't trust God for the past, then why do you trust in Him for the future?

i would only say that we shouldn't deny the symbolic value of Genesis 1-11, but that this doesn't in any way conflict w/ the literal value as well.

 

[truefiction1]

interpreting Genesis literally is not a denial of the deeper meanings of the words. They are not mutually exclusive - the Fathers universally accept the historicity of Genesis, but it doesn't mean their faith was weak or that they missed the spiritual intention of the text. It's the evolutionist that cannot accept all the layers of the text. Evolution necessitates that you reject the literal historical meaning of the text, and the Fathers tell us that it is dangerous to do this.

As you've said, interpreting Genesis both literally and symbolically, and rejecting the idea of it being mythological, does not do anything to hinder faith. For faith is not a rational phenomena. It is an irrational one. Faith is not arrived at through mental analysis and contemplation. Faith is a real, living, mystical union with God that is made possible for us in the life of the Church, which is life in Christ through the illuminating and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what the Fathers believed and taught about the origin of species, even though it may have been historically and scientifically inaccurate (and I am contending that it was) and what I and other scientists believe by favouring a historical mythological understanding of the text, has little to do with our belief that Jesus Christ is in fact the Son of God, nor our affirmation of the Orthodox life and Creed.

 

[truefiction1]

Here, this might help:

"Evolution

From OrthodoxWiki

Evolution is the popular name for a set of scientific theories which aim to explain the apparent similarity of different species and the appearance of complex species later in the fossil record. In short, evolution means that all life on earth shares a common ancestry which can traced back to a single species. Orthodox Christians have divergent views on how to react to this development in science.
In general Orthodox responses can be grouped into two large categories, which we might label Compatibilism and Incompatibilism.
Compatibilists hold that science and theology are compatible and view them as complementary revelations of God. As God is the source of both his specific revelation of himself in the Christian faith and the source of the general revelation of himself in nature, the findings of science and theology cannot really contradict; the contradictions must be merely apparent and a resolution possible which is faithful to the truth of God's revelation.
Incompatibilists hold that science can be incompatible with faith. They usually argue either that science is philosophically based on a kind of naturalism or that God's specific revelation is infallible and therefore trumps the findings of human reason in the case of any conflict between them. This is often based on a suspicion of human reason to arrive at reliable conclusions in the first place.
The development of modern science dates to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, so no ecumenical council has ever addressed how to integrate it with divine revelation in a coherent and consistent worldview. As a result, there is not a dogmatic treatment examining how to resolve conflicts, whether apparent or real, when scientific findings appear to contradict divine revelation. Many early fathers were happy to use the primitive science of their day to divine purposes, perhaps suggesting to modern Christians a compatibilist resolution to the question. Other fathers, however, clearly see conflicts and contradictions which they resolve in favor of their understanding of Christian revelation."

I seem to fall into the category of a compatibilist.

 

[BornOfWaterAndSpirit]

As you've said, interpreting Genesis both literally and symbolically, and rejecting the idea of it being mythological, does not do anything to hinder faith. For faith is not a rational phenomena. It is an irrational one. Faith is not arrived at through mental analysis and contemplation. Faith is a real, living, mystical union with God that is made possible for us in the life of the Church, which is life in Christ through the illuminating and sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what the Fathers believed and taught about the origin of species, even though it may have been historically and scientifically inaccurate (and I am contending that it was) and what I and other scientists believe by favouring a historical mythological understanding of the text, has little to do with our belief that Jesus Christ is in fact the Son of God, nor our affirmation of the Orthodox life and Creed.

Why do you trust atheistic anti-Christs rather than the Word of God and the Church fathers? You realize science is fully compatible with the Bible, and the Genesis account is much more scientific than evolution hypothesis.

 

[BornOfWaterAndSpirit]

i would only say that we shouldn't deny the symbolic value of Genesis 1-11, but that this doesn't in any way conflict w/ the literal value as well.

You are correct. I meant interpreting it allegorically.

 

[truefiction1]

Why do you trust atheistic anti-Christs rather than the Word of God and the Church fathers? You realize science is fully compatible with the Bible, and the Genesis account is much more scientific than evolution hypothesis. If you have any doubt about scientific accuracy of Book of Genesis, please visit answersingenesis.org

Why do I trust atheistic anti-Christs rather than the Word of God and the Church fathers? I do not.

Why do you mistakenly suspect me of this? I completely trust neither atheistic scientists, nor any single Church father, nor even an overwhelming barrage of testimony of our fathers, who may be considered "authoritative". I trust Christ, The Word of God incarnate and personified, who in his great mercy and wisdom has instructed us to "call no man father". On the other hand, He never directly commanded us to interpret the Old testament literally. Frankly, Divine Revelation is evolutionary just as is our scientific knowledge. Revelation of God grew along with the religious understanding of mankind, and is perfected in Christ -- not in the Old Testament book of Genesis.

I call my dad father, I call my priest father, etc. but we must never endow any man or even a collection of men with a level of authority or infallibility that is not proper to him/them. The Church has always mysteriously managed, under the protection of the Holy Spirit made available to us through the faith of certain individuals, to escape falling into this trap, and this prevented us from falling into the error of the Papists.

Is it proper, therefore, to cite the beliefs of certain Church fathers to force a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis upon the Church? Will we scientists spend our lives pursuing scientific knowledge only for the purpose of trying to negate mainstream science in order to justify a literal interpretation of Genesis? What for?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Progressive revelation only went up until Pentecost, because Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all Truth. and if there are glaring inconsistencies between evolution (if it actually happened) and the Genesis account, you think somebody would have said something, particularly if the Genesis account were untrue or if folks were reading it wrong.

and please note, these are my thoughts as to why I do not think evolution is compatible with Orthodoxy. it is not an attempt to call out your faith or anything. just me two cents.

 

[truefiction1]

Progressive revelation only went up until Pentecost, because Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all Truth. and if there are glaring inconsistencies between evolution (if it actually happened) and the Genesis account, you think somebody would have said something, particularly if the Genesis account were untrue or if folks were reading it wrong.

You are absolutely correct that progressive revelaion only went up until Pentecost, and that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all Truth.

But this statement relates only to Divine Revelation, which is the revelation of His eternal plan for us, not to the evolution of man's understanding of the things God has created, brought about through the many scientific disciplines which are also a gift from God.

Is not medical care and medicine a gift from God? Do we refuse medicine when we are sick? Most of our modern medical treatments and cures are derived from the development of knowledge within the biological sciences, which are, in fact, based upon the Theory of Evolution. The efficacy of the medicine bears out the truth of the evolution. it is undisputable.

If the fathers had known this, they would not have said the things that they said. They were all intelligent men, and were capable of humility. If we were to confront these honorable dignitaries with provable scientific fact. They would likely say "Oops, we made a mistake. Please forgive us, and understand that no man will ever be perfected in his knowledge of all the Almighty God has created in his infinite and inexhaustible wisdom".

 

[jckstraw72]

the problem with your hypothesis is that the Fathers explicitly state that they were NOT interpreting Genesis from the wisdom of the world but rather from revelation, and they spoke quite dogmatically when interpreting Genesis. St. Ephraim the Syrian, for instance, says it is IMPERMISSIBLE to interpret the 6 days as anything other than 6 24-hr days. He was not floating an opinion out there. So to bring the wisdom of the world to them would not cause them to recant, it would only cause them to see how far the wisdom of the world is fallen (which of course they already knew - thats why their interpretations were not based on it).

what you say about medicine is not true. Medicines are developed by testing how certain things effect certain people in the here and now. the notion that we are related to apes has literally nothing to do with developing medicine. a scientist does not need to profess common descent in order to develop medicine. if what you say were true then no medicines would have been developed before Darwin came along. wild extrapolations about the supposed distant past are quite irrelevant to developing medicines and technologies in the present and future.

 

[truefiction1]

what you say about medicine is not true. Medicines are developed by testing how certain things effect certain people in the here and now. the notion that we are related to apes has literally nothing to do with developing medicine. a scientist does not need to profess common descent in order to develop medicine. if what you say were true then no medicines would have been developed before Darwin came along. wild extrapolations about the supposed distant past are quite irrelevant to developing medicines and technologies in the present and future.

Forgive me, my brother. What I said about medicine is based upon our knowledge of how the Theory of Evolution was combined with Mendellion Genetics in such a way as to enable us to gain tremendous insight into the structure and function of living cells -- the basic unit of all physical life on earth -- and how effective the application of these insights in the diagnosis and treatment of sickness and disease has been, and how important they continue to be.

As for Evolution being nothing but a "notion that we are related to apes", it is in actuallity much more than that. It is a scientific system based upon genetic research and empirically provable facts. If St. Ephraim chose to deny completely the credibility of the rational minds of men to understand creation, there are plenty of other fathers who by there very own words and actions, did not choose to agree. Is St. Ephraim Infallible? Is your interpretation of your reading of him infallible? Are St. Ephraim and other Saints who echo his thoughts on this matter our Supreme Pontiffs?

St. Ephraim was never fully affronted with Evolution or the evidence of it. He was a mystic. He experienced the Heavenly Kingdom, his spirit literally and really passing from death to eternal life, and was not so concerned as we are with medicine. If he had been, then he would likely been a physician of the body. But such was not St. Ephraims calling. He was more a physician of the soul. It is, however, the calling of others.

Evolution is not our enemy. Science is not the enemy of Faith, except when science replaces Faith. Neither is Faith the enemy of Science, unless it abolishes science as useless. Either of these two scenarios is impermissable. We know that this world and all of its wisdom is passing away. But in the meanwhile, we must try to take care of our sick and suffering, using whatever knowledge can help us in this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You are absolutely correct that progressive revelaion only went up until Pentecost, and that the Holy Spirit would lead the Apostles into all Truth.

But this statement relates only to Divine Revelation, which is the revelation of His eternal plan for us, not to the evolution of man's understanding of the things God has created, brought about through the many scientific disciplines which are also a gift from God.

Is not medical care and medicine a gift from God? Do we refuse medicine when we are sick? Most of our modern medical treatments and cures are derived from the development of knowledge within the biological sciences, which are, in fact, based upon the Theory of Evolution. The efficacy of the medicine bears out the truth of the evolution. it is undisputable.

If the fathers had known this, they would not have said the things that they said. They were all intelligent men, and were capable of humility. If we were to confront these honorable dignitaries with provable scientific fact. They would likely say "Oops, we made a mistake. Please forgive us, and understand that no man will ever be perfected in his knowledge of all the Almighty God has created in his infinite and inexhaustible wisdom".

right, but it's a Divine Revelation that has worked through human history. so when you have one saying that the sun was created after plantlife, and all life on earth had to restart after a global Flood, both of which in the record are dated at only a few thousand years ago, and then you have a theory that takes place over millions of years, those two are not compatable.

and I would also point out that while evolution on a micro level is proven and has led to scientiffic breakthroughs, what we reject are the macro changes of like a dinosaur to a bird.

and, if it is just true science, why do almost all of the post Darwin, educated and non educated saints, reject evolution?

 

[truefiction1]

right, but it's a Divine Revelation that has worked through human history. so when you have one saying that the sun was created after plantlife, and all life on earth had to restart after a global Flood, both of which in the record are dated at only a few thousand years ago, and then you have a theory that takes place over millions of years, those two are not compatable.

and I would also point out that while evolution on a micro level is proven and has led to scientiffic breakthroughs, what we reject are the macro changes of like a dinosaur to a bird.

and, if it is just true science, why do almost all of the post Darwin, educated and non educated saints, reject evolution?

Thank you, brother, for expressing these very good points. And I honestly don't know the answer to your last question. I'll have to study, meditate and pray upon this for some time, and hope for this to be resolved in an excellent way by our fathers of today, sometime in the near future, as this issue, I believe, is highly problematic for many of us.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thank you, brother, for expressing these very good points. And I honestly don't know the answer to your last question. I'll have to study, meditate and pray upon this for some time, and hope for this to be resolved in an excellent way by our fathers of today, sometime in the near future, as this issue, I believe, is highly problematic for many of us.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

well, I personally don't think it's a problem because no one has been deemed a heretic either way. I know many folks, far more pious than me, that believe in evolution. personally, from what I have read however, the evidence written and experienced by our modern holy fathers (Sts John Maximovitch and Nektarios of Aegina to name two) who were extremely well educated, reject it along with the simple, humble folks like Elder Joseph the hesychast.

just some food for thought.

glory forever!

 

[127.0.0.1]

I think this is a fairly good explanation on the Orthodox view of Creation.

What's the Problem? - YouTube

I mean, look, believe what you will. But we have the skeletons of Neanderthals, which, btw, were a homo sup-species. We're not their direct descendants. Another sub-species of man was called... Homo heidelbergensis; funny name... for a weird lookin' dude.

Then there's natural selection. It's hard to deny this principal exists because it's happening right now in our time; that's how Darwin was able to observe it. Darwin said it was, survival of the most able to adapt, not of the, 'strongest', as is often attributed to him. Otherwise, if the latter were true, dinosaurs would still be around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePCvFPXrNjQ

 

[jckstraw72]

Abp. Lazar Puhalo would be one of the most dangerous people in the Church today if anyone cared enough to listen to his ravings - on many subjects.