EO & evolution

[Kristos]

perhaps i misunderstood you. when you said: "It's a confusion of fundamental categories, of science and of scripture and no matter how close we get the two, no matter how many incremental step they take toward each other, they can never be the same" i thought you were speaking of the idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" -- this is what i was disagreeing with.

Is the earth the center of the universe? Theologically it could be argued as such and many people took this very literally. When scientific observation showed that this could not be true, would it be right for the Church to reject the hypothesis that the earth is not the center of the universe based purely on the theological understanding? And it didn't, despite the revisionist history of many "anti-church" apologists. Why then did the Pope reject Galileo's scientific hypothesis? Quite simply his rejection was based on observation - that Galileo's system of circular orbits could not accurately predict the movement of the planets. It had nothing to do with anything theological. When Kepler came along, he got it right, and the Church did not reject his system, that like Galileo's had the Sun vice the earth at the center. There was no intrinsic problem for the Church in this change to our understanding of the physical world.

While evolution is much more complicated the basis is the same. The Church really has no standing based on any physical observation to reject the scientific hypothesis. The rejections are not based on observation, yes? So what is the rejection based on? And there is your pleonastic fallacy.

 

[gzt]

So what did animals eat, and how did they do so without killing any plants?

As for St Theophan, he is full of theological insights that are far beyond me. He is wrong about how something that definitely happened in the past - the earth is billions of years old and trilobytes have been dead for hundreds of millions, for instance - is somehow incompatible with Orthodox Christian theology. Perhaps if he were alive on the planet today he would have some theological insight correcting his previous opinion which has either proved to be wrong or at least need some mild revision and reapplication - perhaps the underlying idea motivating it is correct, but, simply put, things died millions of years ago.

 

[jckstraw72]

So what did animals eat, and how did they do so without killing any plants?

As for St Theophan, he is full of theological insights that are far beyond me. He is wrong about how something that definitely happened in the past - the earth is billions of years old and trilobytes have been dead for hundreds of millions, for instance - is somehow incompatible with Orthodox Christian theology. Perhaps if he were alive on the planet today he would have some theological insight correcting his previous opinion which has either proved to be wrong or at least need some mild revision and reapplication - perhaps the underlying idea motivating it is correct, but, simply put, things died millions of years ago.

so what is the cause of sin then in your belief?

 

[gzt]

The Fall, of course.

 

[jckstraw72]

The Fall, of course.

ahh i just noticed my mistake .... i meant what is the cause of death?

 

[gzt]

Answer my question first about eating plants.

 

[gzt]

Well, I stick with mockery because I don't really have time for discursive engagement.

Take it as a victory if you will.

 

[GregConstantine]

plants die too. and if you eat them (uproot or eat them so quickly they don't get a chance to regrow) they'll die.

So yeah that question about plants needs to be answered.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I will correct you because you are wrong. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that sexual immorality can be justified using evolution as a go-to explanation and only encourages human beings to think more and more that they are merely sophisticated animals who cannot control themselves. Show me where I'm wrong? You've never heard anyone claim that we're just all animals of a higher order on an evolutionary chain and that monogamy is unnatural and unfair to expect in a human being? Jeez, Kristos, if I had a buck for every time I've heard that lame argument, I'd be retired and not needing a pension!

Evolution is wrong because it is bad theologically. I think we've all laid that out clearly in here. But JUSTIFICATION for sexual immorality is a byproduct.

So, correct me where I went wrong, but the logic of this post seems to be:

Evolution as an idea leads to sexual immorality,
Sexual immorality is bad, therefore:
Evolution must be wrong.

The invocation by jckstraw of the "saints and elders" is less than compelling given this same argument was used in the contraception thread and I found it to be less than substantial - significantly less. Now I'm not patristic scholar, nor have I ever claimed to be, but in my reading of the ECF I have found primarily clarity in the philosophical distinctions that would prevent confusion between faith and science. In other words, I don't think many ECFs would have much to say about the scientific validity of any given hypothesis, like whether or not the earth revolves sun...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I appreciate it, but again I was merely saying that your STATEMENT sounded like an Episcopalian argument that I find seriously wanting and of concern. It could just as easily been Lutheran, Catholic, Muslim, or any other group. I'm not obsessed with Anglicans as you suggest. In fact, if you hadn't done the unnecessary admonishment regarding them, you wouldn't have heard about them again for this entire thread, but instead we've mentioned them ad nauseum.

I was Catholic for almost 30 years of my life, Anglican for only about six years, off and on. I don't have a 'jag' on for them, but, man, I am allowed to reference my experiences with them for good and for bad and I am allowed to bring up theological points from their communion. It won't kill you or me. I've criticized papal claims, too, but you haven't gotten on a soap box about that telling me I'm obsessed with loathing Catholics? I have far more of a beef with their liturgy than the Anglicans, but frankly neither is my obsession. You will find, from time to time, me referencing my past. It's permitted and not mean-spirited, just that, my experience. Your argument is one I had heard back in the day with the Anglicans, and it raised a red flag. I don't care who said it, the Pope or Benny Hinn, I was focused on the argument and made a reference.

Anyway, moving on. Hopefully we can depart the Anglican discourse. We've given them one heck of a lot of press today and last night! Let's get back to that terribly divisive, bad feelings-making, bitter, nasty, always pointless debate between pro-evolution and pro-Creation Orthodox Christians over evolution! Yipeeee! :o:o:o

Anyway, if you want real thought on this issue, there are several works here of people who hold my view under the "compatibilist" section: Evolution - OrthodoxWiki I like Bouteneff and Fr Reardon's viewpoints as well, though they are not listed under that heading. I have neither the time nor the inclination to delve deeply into these issues, they are a fever swamp.

As for death, did nothing die before the Fall, or did no animals die, or did no humans die?

And, gurney, I do apologize for being somewhat brusque earlier. however, I would still ask you to please leave the Episcopalians out of this, as we are all Orthodox here and I'm not particularly interested in hearing about them as an eeeeevil foil. It's a bad habit to retain after conversion.

 

[Dorothea]

I thought animals and man were eating plants in the Garden. Doesn't it say that in Genesis? What about the trees bearing fruit? Like the fruit Adam and Eve ate that they weren't supposed to?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not following - what's the tie in to evolution and modern science?

because it is hard for there to be evolution if Creation is groaning for the liberty that we will have. well, the liberty that we will have is the liberty that we lost, so if Creation is groaning for that liberty, then there is a liberty which they lost, which cannot be true if evolution were true. because what enslaves us is death, sin, corruption, etc.

 

[Dorothea]

Jckstraw, ArmyMatt, gurney, Rus, do you believe some animals have evolved?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Answer my question first about eating plants.

you assume that they derived their life from eating the plants. their life was from God. the plants (and it was the seeds and fruit that were eaten, not the plants themselves, so the plants did not die). were not broken down in the body because both the bodies of humans and animals, and the plants themselves were not crude as they are now.

so while they did eat, it was not digestion as we know now.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Jckstraw, ArmyMatt, gurney, Rus, do you believe some animals have evolved?

yes, just not macroevolution and only post Fall. so animals adapt to their environment, which we can see and test. what I reject is an amphibian to a reptile, or a dinosaur to a bird.

 

[Dorothea]

yes, just not macroevolution and only post Fall. so animals adapt to their environment, which we can see and test. what I reject is an amphibian to a reptile, or a dinosaur to a bird.

Ah, ok. Yes, I agree with that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And he's wrong to do so.

I think he knows God better than I do, is far more illumined than me, so I would trust him. and it is not just him. I have yet to hear any Orthodox saint or holy elder post Darwin who endorses evolution.

As for death, did nothing die before the Fall, or did no animals die, or did no humans die?

Wisdom of Solomon says no death. God in Genesis also calls everything He created good, so then animal death should be good, and only human death should be tragic. anyone who has owned a pet would know that is not true.

I would also point out that man is the microcosm of the macrocosm, so we have everything in the cosmos in us (everything material and noetic). so if man was created to live and not die, are we really the microcosm if everything else material was created to die?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

what this dude said....

yes, just not macroevolution and only post Fall. so animals adapt to their environment, which we can see and test. what I reject is an amphibian to a reptile, or a dinosaur to a bird.

 

[rusmeister]

If I thought that the whole world had bought into Arianism, I most certainly would be afraid of it, so don't really get the analogy. I don't believe in fairies, but I don't feel the need to defend my position every time a new Tinkerbell movie is released. You say you're not afraid - fine, but I wonder then what is the cause of your ardent condemnation?

I think my reasons are similar to the reason for your ardent defense. We both think something true, and that that something has serious implications for how we see the world as both Orthodox Christians and rational beings. Accusing each other of fear is merely a rhetorical device that lets one dismiss the other's view without considering it, and this is done in regards to our Faith and world view (most notably regarding sexuality) all the time now. It is not worthy of us to stoop to such tactics. We may be afraid of having to change our mind, but we ought to be more afraid of holding the wrong mind.

I don't see a need to extrapolate into the speculative realm of the "pre-fallen" world. Even theologically. Yes, all science can do is tell us about the fallen world, that should be obvious. Evolution is a rather compelling explanation for an observable physical process that happens in time. As you point out, it does not and can not take into account any other input or "causes", and thus may be completely wrong in terms of the infinite, but that doesn't make it wrong and it doesn't make it necessarily incompatible with Christianity or Scripture.

I see a huge need. How on earth did the Fall happen in your view? When, in regards to an evolving man, did he Fall? Did sin enter the world, and death by sin BEFORE this event or after it? If God said everything was good, why wasn't it "good enough"? Why did it need to "evolve"? I don't see how a Christian who believes in evolution can satisfactorily answer these questions.

I can see evolution as a limited thing; as changes in some beings that we DO observe as a result of the Fall; I can see no compatibility with a broader cosmic theory that a) was produced little more than a century ago, and b) is used as Gurney described, a way for man to assure himself that he is rational in thinking himself a mere animal and to justify his acting like one and c) that we cannot possibly observe except by assumption, inference, supposition, and extension. IF
This, then that, yes. But what if NOT "this" to begin with?

If this discussion will only go in circles where I see only my view, you see only yours, and we cannot even suppositionally imagine the others, then the discussion must be abandoned as fruitless and harmful. But I think we can be better than that, so I ask you to lay out your view. I think I CAN (at least) imagine the idea that it is true and deal with that.

 

[rusmeister]

Jckstraw, ArmyMatt, gurney, Rus, do you believe some animals have evolved?

Of course, I accept, on faith, not having seen, if people say they have actually observed change of living beings and cite examples - though not of the modern efforts to reconstruct fabulous tales of a million details of the life of early man via bone-reading - as long as you define "evolve" as "observed change over time".

But if you mean "eternally change from we-know-not-what into we-know-not-what", then no.