"Adaptations" and other "givens"

[Cappadocious]

"Orthodox hostility to it is immeasurably depressing"

not sure if you are implying there's a general Orthodoxy hostility (if not please correct me, thanks)

I think there is hostility from a very tiny minority, mostly Westerners, and mostly converts, who are creating an issue where there isn't any.

Greg,

I tend to agree with you. And what I meant was that where there is Orthodox hostility to it, it is immeasurably depressing.

 

[chapdaddy]

....

I know we've all hashed out evolution in here, but this "adaptation" angle is particularly fascinating to me. It's such a given now. I often wonder why adaptation and evolution are never questioned and are seen as such no-brainers. Did anyone ever consider a turtle might've been created by God with the shell on?

Sorry to vent. I just love teaching science and yet this language is strewn throughout the book and every video we use.

While we have never directly observed something as drastic as an organism developing a shell, haven't we observed other adaptations?

for example:
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that the turtle developed a shell is fascinating to me and points to a creator that actively participates in his creation. We are created beings that are meant to 'evolve' into something more, aren't we?

 

[jckstraw72]

While we have never directly observed something as drastic as an organism developing a shell, haven't we observed other adaptations?

for example:
Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that the turtle developed a shell is fascinating to me and points to a creator that actively participates in his creation. We are created beings that are meant to 'evolve' into something more, aren't we?

but theosis is not Darwinian evolution. We also fell from something more - something which materialistic uniformitarianism cannot account for.

 

[truthseeker32]

I commend those who ask questions and don't just accept everything uncritically, but certain forms of adaptation have been observed and are as factual as the sun being at the center of the solar system.

That being said, it is important to form our parameters and define our terms. To say that because we have observed adaptation in some cases necessarily means that it can be applied universally is indeed fallacious, but good scientists will acknowledge that this is not what they are doing. They are doing what the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn explained. Scientists adopt the paradigm that best explains relevant observations. When a new paradigm is developed that better explains observations, the old paradigm is replaced.

If I were a detective and I observed a corpse with a knife in its back and thus assumed that this was the cause of death, my assumption would not be a logical claim that there is no other possible way in which events took place, but only that, given the evidence I have observed, it seems the most likely outcome. Likewise, in positing evolution and adaptation as the best explanations of life as we now know it, scientists are not necessarily claiming there is no other feasible possibility that explains life(although some might fallaciously make such a claim) but rather that there is no better explanation. The mistake scientists make is when prejudice leads them to unfairly rule out other possibilities.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Beat me to it! Nicely-stated, jck

but theosis is not Darwinian evolution. We also fell from something more - something which materialistic uniformitarianism cannot account for.

 

[GregConstantine]

"but theosis is not Darwinian evolution."

I re-read the entire tread and no one is making such claims. There was a statement about how we are to be evolving, but remember the word "to evolve" can mean to change, adjust. You could say for example "my position on the (fill in the blank) are always evolving."

 

[jckstraw72]

but Darwinian evolution is what was being discussed ... theosis does not apply. Theosis is a person undergoing a chance of tropos - it does not give way to a new nature in a person or a population.

 

[jckstraw72]

If the logoi are Uncreated and "contained" in the Mind of God, the Logos of God, I see no reason that we would have to read evolution as requiring the generation of new logoi. We have seen the emergence of "new" things like the airplane that instantiate what it is to be an airplane, for example. It could simply be that the Logos contains all logoi that are ever instantiated, as he created a world in which they would all end up being instantiated.

yes, certainly there is not the generation of new logoi, but i was thinking more about one logoi giving way to another in a successive chain, which is what evolution would seem to necessitate (although each successive logoi would already "pre-exist" in God). I would like to see someone do a study of St. Dionysius, St. Maximus, etc and see if this is compatible with their theology of the logoi. Here is the passage I was thinking of from St. Maximus:

Ambigua 42, p. 89-90, 92
Generally speaking, all innovation is manifested in relation to the mode of the thing innovated, not its natural principle. The principle, if it undergoes innovation corrupts nature, as the nature in that case does not maintain inviolate the principle according to which it exists … For in general, there has never been, nor is there now, nor will there ever be any nature in created beings, subsisting according to its own principle, that is anything other than what it is at present; and it is not now or will it ever be in the future what it was not in the past. The principles of these natures have enjoyed perfection in God simultaneous with their very existence, and their creation and substantiation are thoroughly incapable of admitting any addition to, or subtraction from, what the nature is in itself. But I think that this will suffice as a digression from our discourse and a present inquiry directed toward these [opponents of ours], to keep us from being easily dragged off into absurd opinions by those who try to turn the faith into a piece of skillful rhetoric based on clever arguments.

we see here that he is speaking of natures, not persons, and that they enjoy perfection in their logoi in God and will never be other than what they are. i see this as incompatible with logoi acting basically as stepping stones for other logoi to be realized. if evolution is true, natures would change substantially enough that the old nature fades away and a new nature (many new natures) emerges.

As I said before, I have only seen one article take up this issue. That is Fr. Vincent Rossi's "Clash of Paradigms: The Doctrine of Evolution in the Light of the Cosmological Vision of St. Maximos the Confessor" in Epiphany 13.4 (Summer Annual 1993): 37-50. He argues that variations within kinds are possible because of the possibility of varying modes of existence, but that kinds would never give way to new kinds because of their logoi.

At the least this issue would need to be addressed by someone in the evolutionist camp, rather than just insisting there is no reason for incompatibility (I'm not saying that you are doing that, Cappadocius, but it certainly happens often).

 

[ArmyMatt]

The idea that the turtle developed a shell is fascinating to me and points to a creator that actively participates in his creation. We are created beings that are meant to 'evolve' into something more, aren't we?

sure, but not by death and mutation. God doesn't exterminate species (through disease or catastrophe or whatever) so that better adapted ones can thrive. our "evolution" is all of creation's growth in Him, to more life and greater glory for everything He creates.

 

[jckstraw72]

as Hieromonk Damascene writes:

From the writings of many Holy Fathers -Sts. Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, John Damascene, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, and Gregory of Sinai-we know that, before the fall, Adam and Eve were free from the bodily needs of shelter and clothing, and even of sleep; they had no sexual relations nor even sexual passions; there was no emission of seed; their eyes did not produce tears; they partook of incorruptible fruits, but did not void bodily waste; they had no afflictions, infirmities, illness, disease, physical defects, or maimings of the body; they knew no difficulties, sorrows, labors, sweat, hunger, or thirst; they did not experience physical pain; they were no subject to cold an heat, or to the elements.

this is what humanity looks like kata physin - according to nature. find me a scientist who agrees with this and can demonstrate how such a life evolved from something else, and we'll have a good starting point.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hieromonk Damscene is a wonderful man. It is always an honor to be at church when he presides over our liturgy and/or visits us. He went to St. Peter's for a long time and is a friend of our parish. I've talked with him on a few occasions. He is a very unassuming, humble, holy man. And what you cite here is golden...

as Hieromonk Damascene writes:




this is what humanity looks like kata physin - according to nature. find me a scientist who agrees with this and can demonstrate how such a life evolved from something else, and we'll have a good starting point.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It's unfortunate that we cannot discuss something so simple without the whole "it's so frustrating that Orthodox don't buy into evolution!" debate ensuing each time.

My original statement is that I find it fascinating that adaptations are "givens." Just because some organisms have been observed to adapt doesn't mean that everything is a constant adaptation. My frustration is that teachers, textbooks, scientists, guides at zoos and science camps, etc. all use this language so willy-nilly! My wife, children, and I went to San Francisco recently during Christmas vacation. We went to the big aquarium there and the lady toward the end of the tour was calling practically everything on these sea lions adaptations. And at the week-long outdoor science camp we go to in April the trail guides call EVERYTHING an adaptation. The beak, the talons, the good vision, every last biological facet of a hawk MUST be an adaptation.

I think from this thread I am all the more surprised how many Orthodox brethren are so quick to pounce on these thin-as-a-stick theories and throw traditional Orthodox off the bus? If there is positively ZERO evidence that eagles used to NOT have talons and that turtles use to walk around without shells and that there were ladybugs that weren't red but developed the red color to tell insects they taste bad, why is a person unreasonable in raising an eyebrow and at the very,very least bare minimum can't we at least ask teachers, textbooks, and scientists to start qualifying these "givens" with "it is possible that...." or "some might theorize that...." or other nods to theoretical thinking rather than the semantics of concrete fact?

And again I ask, and perhaps I'm a primitive for asking, why is it to outside the bounds of sanity to just opine that God made the turtle WITH a shell and the eagle WITH talons, and the ladybug RED all to begin with? Why is that so disturbing to believe? Is it just possible that God created things right to begin with and that only some things have changed over time? Must a theory (and I emphasize THEORY) be taken to extreme overarching, blanket applications when teaching folks?

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

Please don't conflate scientific theory with "merely a theory"; these aren't hair-brained ideas coming out of someone's rear end -- they're demonstrable by repeated experimentation. When people go the "merely a theory" route, as someone scientifically trained (three years of biology, genetics and organic chemistry), that's about the point when dialogue ends for me because they're typically a lost cause because they misunderstand on a fundamental level.

On the non-scientific end, I find more beauty in the idea of guided evolution than I do in the idea of de facto creation.

 

[Cappadocious]

we see here that he is speaking of natures, not persons, and that they enjoy perfection in their logoi in God and will never be other than what they are. i see this as incompatible with logoi acting basically as stepping stones for other logoi to be realized. if evolution is true, natures would change substantially enough that the old nature fades away and a new nature (many new natures) emerges.

If an organism population X evolves into organism population Y, then organism population X is not "being" organism population Y. The nature instantiated by organism population X ceases at its bound and the nature instantiated by organism population Y begins.

Referring back to my body > wormfood example: At some point, human nature ceases to be instantiated, and "wormfood", the myriad natures of bacteria and decomposed matter, are instead instantiated. There is no contradiction of classical thought here.

For in evolution, speaking more properly now, An organism's nature is not evolving or changing. Rather, the population which instantiated that nature is evolving. And when a population acquires predicates such that it is no longer of a given kind, then it is a different kind instantiating a different nature. So we see an (ex)change *of* natures, not a change *in* natures themselves.

 

[jckstraw72]

but the change of nature happens through compounded changes in nature. a new nature does not suddenly emerge out of nowhere - it supposedly happens by a previous nature fading out and the new nature fading in. at some point parents of nature X are supposedly giving birth to children of nature Y - which would necessitate that X is not bound by its X-ness.

 

[Cappadocious]

If there is positively ZERO evidence that eagles used to NOT have talons and that turtles use to walk around without shells and that there were ladybugs that weren't red but developed the red color to tell insects they taste bad

That wouldn't be the theory of evolution, though. No scientist thinks that there was, for example, an eagle species without talons that, in successive generations, adapted talons.

 

[Cappadocious]

at some point parents of nature X are supposedly giving birth to children of nature Y - which would necessitate that X is not bound by its X-ness.

I don't see how this "necessitates that X is not bound by its X-ness". Can a carpenter only whittle things that have human nature or carpenter nature?

If you deny that something with a nature X can become or generate something with a nature Y, then you get some weird sort of ontological monism that is totally incompatible with Christianity.

 

[jckstraw72]

I don't see how this "necessitates that X is not bound by its X-ness". Can a carpenter only whittle things that have human nature or carpenter nature?

If you deny that something with a nature X can become or generate something with a nature Y, then you get some weird sort of ontological monism that is totally incompatible with Christianity.

the carpenter can only have a human child ... skillful creations are not what we're discussing. the Scriptures and the Fathers teach that each kind reproduces after its own kind.

 

[Cappadocious]

the carpenter can only have a human child ... skillful creations are not what we're discussing. the Scriptures and the Fathers teach that each kind reproduces after its own kind.

Let me see if I'm following here: Your objection is to that moment of "exchange", where something of nature X produces something of nature Y via biological propagation, specifically;

But you don't have a problem with something of nature X producing something of nature Y through other forms of generation, like when God (Divine nature) fashioned creation as a whole (created nature), or with non-biological generation, like when a mason creates a brick.

Is that correct?

 

[jckstraw72]

Let me see if I'm following here: Your objection is to that moment of "exchange", where something of nature X produces something of nature Y via biological propagation, specifically;

But you don't have a problem with something of nature X producing something of nature Y through other forms of generation, like when God (Divine nature) fashioned creation as a whole (created nature), or with non-biological generation, like when a mason creates a brick.

Is that correct?

yes, forgive me for not being clear earlier.