- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,428
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Incorrect, seeing that others have already been noted that they were talking specifically about science - be it as scientists or as theologians seeing where science is interpreted based on theological views.
It is obfustification trying to skip past where others can pit science against theology or make their own stance in theology be what all science is to be seen as. Moreover, it is a general false argument whenever people assume it's "classical evolutionist misunderstanding" in noting how what's seen in science is interconnected WITH theology - and the science seen for what it is doesn't change whether or not one believes in Scripture. Even creationists against evolution have noted it before.
As said best in Todd's Blog: The truth about evolution
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.
I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective.
It was noted earlier where Geocentrism was a view advocated (based on what SCIENCE was saying as best as others understood) and it happened to agree directly with the theology of the Church. And to be clear, it WAS a theological matter in multiple ways when seeing how many of the Church Fathers fought for it on the basis that challenging God's order/design of the world was the same as challenging God. Thus, accuracy was very important. However, in their zeal, much of the Church advocated for views theologically that were not true and this was challenged later on. Saying it didn't deal with theology would be Disingenuous since there were MANY in the Church who fought passionately on the matter in defense of what they felt the Lord would condone.
“[God] hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever. …The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north:
the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits.” (Psalm 103:5 - Ecclesiastes 1:5-6)
This doctrine of Geocentrism, was taught by the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers and hence is part of the Catholic Church’s ordinary magisterium. And the denial of this doctrine was seen as a primary and most powerful weapon used by the enemies of the Church to discredit the Bible and the Church, seen as the sole owner and interpreter of the Bible. For if the condemned error of Heliocentrism were true, it was assumed that every literal account in the Bible could be interpreted as only allegorical or symbolic. In their minds, Heliocentrism allowed for the possibility that Moses did not really part the Rea Sea, that Jonah was not really in the belly of a whale, that Adam was not really created from the slime/dust of the earth, that Jesus did not really rise from the dead, etc. It is with these things in mind that others finding agreement with those in science who disagreed with Geocentrism often found themselves called as not supporting "the consensus of the Church" and needing to submit to the Fathers. That changed, of course.
Geocentrism deals with theology in the same way evolution does - The theology was always connected to the sciences - as ALL things are spiritual and a matter of theology. Dualism would try to say that discussing the way the world operates (including how biological organisms and their environment exist) is not a theological matter. But it was for the Early Church. And in our days, evolution is the current topic on the table ...
Many of the Fathers, in interpreting Genesis literally, were clearly NOT accepting the science of their day - and yet there were others who DID accept the science of their day, as well as having things in common with what the pagans and philosophers (as well as scientists doing alchemy) around them were believing. And the same issue is present today with evolution - people doing the same dynamics again with saying those disagreeing with certain views of many Fathers automatically do not support the Church....and accusing them of not starting with theology first.
Others here in the thread who have not dismissed every thing pertaining to evolution have NOT done so because they are committed more so to the science rather than evolution. And it is false dilemma to think one side is for Science while the other is for theology. The reality is that ALL sides are focused on the theology - and seeing if the science either goes against scripture or if our views of scripture are not truly what scripture is saying. There are plenty who didn't even realize what evolution teaches when it comes to the concept of things such as forms of death - and their beginning stance was NOT the science. Rather, it was the theology. They saw within the scripture where certain forms of death and mortality were already present based on the text alone as well as on what many of the Saints have said. Then they moved from there (theology) to consider the science - realizing that what was said already in science with aspects of evolutionary theory was actually in line with what the scriptures noted. Of course, those beginning in theology from differing stances (and differing saints) had a view disagreeing with science IN WHAT it shows. And thus, they assume anyone agreeing with the science must somehow be starting solely from science.
There are others who go solely from science and that is a problem since many things in science are very much counter to what's seen in the scriptures - such as naturalism and taking away the aspect of miracles, for example. However, agreeing with aspects of what science shows is not the same as saying that science is the primary foundation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
