What is the Church's position on Creation/Evolution

[ArmyMatt]

But Evolution is a much more complex issue than even some of the greatest heresies which have affected the Church, because there is definitely some truth in Evolution regardless of how YEC you are; would you deny the fact that wolves and domesticated dogs are related, or that mice and rats are related - that these creatures changed based on adaptations to their environment or even domestication?
Is it heretical to believe that organisms adapt to their environment and physiologically change to some degree over time?


We aren't debating whether or not icons are idolatrous, or whether or not Christ had Two Wills or not - we are debating how we ought to interpret Genesis and the Creation of the World - something which can be so different on people's worldviews - a literal spectrum of worldviews - that defining what exactly "Evolution" is and what makes it heretical can be problematic, because if you define it, someone can come up with a slightly different idea and call it "Evolution."

we're not talking about adaptation in our fallen condition. the heresy that the saints harp on is the idea that death existed from the beginning, or that man had ancestry which was not human. we are not talking about domesticating animals or adaptations for survival in our fallen context.

 

[ArmyMatt]

1. That's not quite the argument.

2. St Theophan was before modern scriptural scholarship and at the very beginning of this phase of scientific inquiry - I wouldn't judge somebody harshly based on the balance of evidence at the time.

so, St Paisios of Mt Athos if St Theophan is too early for you. or St Nikolai of Ziccha if you want to argue St Paisios wasn't educated enough.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

so, St Paisios of Mt Athos if St Theophan is too early for you. or St Nikolai of Ziccha if you want to argue St Paisios wasn't educated enough.

It also quite condescending that we argue against the saints based on "education" to prove a secular darwainistic theory of evolution.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It also quite condescending that we argue against the saints based on "education" to prove a secular darwainistic theory of evolution.

indeed, because St Paisios is certainly modern enough.

 

[Orthodoxjay1]

indeed, because St Paisios is certainly modern enough.

Ill also take the side of Elder Ephraim, who God willing will become a saint on our church.

 

[gzt]

Not calling anybody uneducated, I'm saying we get new knowledge over time - and even some moderns aren't incorporating all of it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

right, and with the new knowledge, evolution has still been rejected by the saints, irregardless of education level.

and there is nothing new when the Church has always said death was not at the beginning.

 

[gzt]

The handful of recent saints while there are still bishops, priests, monks, nuns, theologians, scientists in the church, etc who disagree and the Church has not said anything really definitive about it.

 

[SingularityOne]

The handful of recent saints while there are still bishops, priests, monks, nuns, theologians, scientists in the church, etc who disagree and the Church has not said anything really definitive about it.

"Bishops, priests, monks, nuns, theologians, scientists in the church, etc." are not saints though... time will tell since a saint cannot be canonized until after death. Even then... (as I have said before) the saints are in a consensus against evolution. Are there any saints, recent or not, that are for evolution?

 

[ArmyMatt]

The handful of recent saints while there are still bishops, priests, monks, nuns, theologians, scientists in the church, etc who disagree and the Church has not said anything really definitive about it.

replace evolution with Origenism, and you have the same thing for a few centuries.

just because an Ecumenical Council hasn't formally condemned something, that doesn't mean it's permissible. Arianism was just as much a heresy for St Ignatius of Antioch as it was for St Athanasius.

and just because people disagree with the saints, and remain in good standing, that also doesn't mean it's permissible. Arianism was still supported after Nicaea, with a lot of folks twisting the Creed to have an Arian understanding, and it was only at Constantinople where it was soundly defeated.

and to say only a handful of saints means the issue isn't done is a weak argument. there was only a handful of supporters of St Athanasius against Arius, and only a handful of supporters of St Maximos against the monothelites.

 

[gzt]

Well, time will tell. There have been a lot of fads.

 

[ArmyMatt]

no argument there.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I miss the idea of erring on the side of caution....it is a relevant and wise thought in many contexts. Take abortion....you hear some people arguing that a fetus has no soul....just a lump of flesh. And they claim St. Augustine thought so. But what do the saints and Fathers say? And what IF the baby has a soul? Better to err on the side of caution, right?

Evolution...all the great names in Orthodoxy shoot it down. Father Seraphim Rose was fiercely opposed to it. Am I wiser than Father Seraphim!? What IF he’s right and I’m wrong?

Then that voice in our heads should say—-“secular humanists, atheists, Nazis, communists, doubters who reject God all believe in evolution. Could my beliefs be in bad company?”

Death did not precede the Fall. Evolution assumes it does. Poppycock!

Could I be wrong about evolution? Am I open to being WRONG???

To be holy and grow in Christ, preconceived notions and delusions of grandeur must be grappled with. 7-8 years ago I was firmly convinced evolution was the true gospel and maybe Genesis was allegorical....that was my preconceived folly. I was brought low and humbled. I was wrong.

 

[rusmeister]

Not calling anybody uneducated, I'm saying we get new knowledge over time - and even some moderns aren't incorporating all of it.

The whole problem, gz, is that you are talking about WORLDLY knowledge, about the world, about things that pass. And even that “knowledge” is constantly changing. First there’s no Pluto, then Pluto is a planet, then it isn’t, then it is again. There’s the Piltdown Man - until it is proven a hoax. Newtonian physics is king - until Einstein comes along. Then other scientists toss Einsteinians into confusion by coming up with “quantum theory” (that theories are not facts is frequently lost in the shuffle). And on and on. That’s not at all what Christian Truth is about. Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ, and He has been revealed completely and fully. There’s nothing “new” for the Church to discover. There is nothing that you or I can teach the Church. The Church has already been taught, though its members frequently ignore or do not apply the teachings. The idea that “new knowledge” can reveal truth to the Church is absolutely false. We, as individuals, need to learn things that have been known for millennia, but the Church does not need our teaching. At all. Worldly knowledge ought to ALWAYS be mistrusted, even if in the practice of our lives, we have to accept what we think to be the best of it. And we should never, ever, let that worldly knowledge contradict what the saints and fathers have all agreed on. They agree that Adam was a real man, not a mere allegory. We have icons, and we don’t venerate or pray to mere allegories, though a real man’s story might also serve as an allegory.
Worldly knowledge is not wicked in and of itself, but to take my own special field of knowledge, my knowledge of foreign languages and cultures, and special knowledge of English (the kind that can only be learned through extensive teaching of one’s own language to those who don’t know it at all) ought to hold a secondary place of importance, and should only buttress, and never contradict, the established consensus of the fathers. If I think something does, it must be I who am wrong, not the fathers in that consensus. That’s how it really becomes faith, a determination that, as an individual, I must sometimes be wrong, and that there is an Institution that is really both smarter and wiser than me, and it is not an earthly one, even an Academy of Sciences. And even godly modern men, from Lossky and Meyendorff, to Schmemann, Hopko, Behr, etc, can go wrong on something. And if they contradict that consensus, then they surely do. We must trust something greater than our own intellects, something that we find has THE Truth, that we neither made nor discovered, but which was revealed to us.

 

[prodromos]

That's what I was thinking. New knowledge often at some point becomes old knowledge.
Revealed knowledge, on the other hand, does not change.

 

[Platina]

That's what I was thinking. New knowledge often at some point becomes old knowledge.
Revealed knowledge, on the other hand, does not change.

And the Church's understanding of Genesis has not changed since day 1, glory to God!

 

[ArmyMatt]

The whole problem, gz, is that you are talking about WORLDLY knowledge, about the world, about things that pass. And even that “knowledge” is constantly changing. First there’s no Pluto, then Pluto is a planet, then it isn’t, then it is again. There’s the Piltdown Man - until it is proven a hoax. Newtonian physics is king - until Einstein comes along. Then other scientists toss Einsteinians into confusion by coming up with “quantum theory” (that theories are not facts is frequently lost in the shuffle). And on and on. That’s not at all what Christian Truth is about. Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ, and He has been revealed completely and fully. There’s nothing “new” for the Church to discover. There is nothing that you or I can teach the Church. The Church has already been taught, though its members frequently ignore or do not apply the teachings. The idea that “new knowledge” can reveal truth to the Church is absolutely false. We, as individuals, need to learn things that have been known for millennia, but the Church does not need our teaching. At all. Worldly knowledge ought to ALWAYS be mistrusted, even if in the practice of our lives, we have to accept what we think to be the best of it. And we should never, ever, let that worldly knowledge contradict what the saints and fathers have all agreed on. They agree that Adam was a real man, not a mere allegory. We have icons, and we don’t venerate or pray to mere allegories, though a real man’s story might also serve as an allegory.
Worldly knowledge is not wicked in and of itself, but to take my own special field of knowledge, my knowledge of foreign languages and cultures, and special knowledge of English (the kind that can only be learned through extensive teaching of one’s own language to those who don’t know it at all) ought to hold a secondary place of importance, and should only buttress, and never contradict, the established consensus of the fathers. If I think something does, it must be I who am wrong, not the fathers in that consensus. That’s how it really becomes faith, a determination that, as an individual, I must sometimes be wrong, and that there is an Institution that is really both smarter and wiser than me, and it is not an earthly one, even an Academy of Sciences. And even godly modern men, from Lossky and Meyendorff, to Schmemann, Hopko, Behr, etc, can go wrong on something. And if they contradict that consensus, then they surely do. We must trust something greater than our own intellects, something that we find has THE Truth, that we neither made nor discovered, but which was revealed to us.

Fr Victor Gorodenchuk pointed out in his talk, that Lord Kelvin once said that at his time (the 19th century), that science discovered everything to be discovered and everyone believed him...until Einstein came along.

 

[gzt]

And the Church's understanding of Genesis has not changed since day 1, glory to God!

That's quite a statement.

 

[Platina]

It's a pretty basic statement. Tradition is unchanging.

 

[gzt]

Citation needed.