"Adaptations" and other "givens"

[truefiction1]

I'm totally ok with this post except for the "moved to compassion" part which seems to look down on the traditionalists as dumb bunnies still living in a dim backwardness that you seem to pity, TF. It's as if we're so misinformed that you just want to say "awwwww" and that's a little off-putting. Disagree with the facts, and if you think we're wrong on something, correct our poor comprehension, but do it in a way that doesn't make us sound like boobs!

Can you at least understand what Rus was saying and why evolution has negative theological implications?

This could only be done with great difficulty, because the reconciliation of evolution (because of the negative theological implications that we are all well aware of) with Orthodox Christian spiritual Life can only be arrived at by a substantial re-engineering of a Christian's mental map of reality. The new map must be re-constructed using information from the scientific community, especially from the branch of the social sciences of psychotherapy and cultural anthropology. Worse yet, it requires us to give less weight to certain things in Scripture and certain teachings of the holy fathers of the Church. In short, we must be willing and brave enough to admit past error, and stand boldly in the face of the idea that perfect infallibility of any institution, including the Church in the way it expresses some of its core teachings, is a fallacy.

Does this sound like something that I will succeed in convincing any of you of? To me, it seems far more likely that I'll be thought of more as a modernizing mouthpiece of Anti-Christ, a friend of heretics and atheist fools. Alas, has not Rus already insinuated that the first question I posed strongly reflected one of those "lies that are so close to the truth"? Hence my feelings of compassion, probably (I theorize) because there really isn't much I can do to convince anyone of anything, so I shake my head in sadness and move on. There will be no burning of heretics here today at the stake of "orthodoxy". You, or me.

And let me also add that the feelings of compassion that I'd experienced toward you I now understand to be a "transference" of feelings that I have for a fellow parishioner of mine, also one who adheres to a fundamentally creationist viewpoint and who, (until he met me) never even suspected that an alternative Orthodox view existed. This friend of mine has suffered a great deal of personal tragedy with regard to not one, but two of his children. The way I see it, he needs the hope that only an unshakeable faith in God can give. So I hold my peace, as community leaders often must do for the sake of the flock. I'm sorry if you found this "transference" of my feelings for this person and the others whom I care about to be inappropriate or insulting. I didn't mean it to be as such.

 

[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?

yes, forgive me for not being clear earlier.

Jckstraw,

You say that the Scriptures and the Fathers teach that an instance of a nature can produce an instance of a different nature, except when it comes to cases of biological propagation.

I'd like to talk about the Scriptures, first; what did you have in mind when you said that the Scriptures teach this?

 

[Cappadocious]

Those individuals who carry genetic mistakes that SHOULD select them for removal from the gene pool are cared for and treated, allowing those bad genes to propagate through the species. Eugenics SHOULD be aggressively pursued if man is to continue evolving.

Inconsequential,

Consider the following "Eugenics" argument:

"1. In American society, the lives of severely mentally disabled people are preserved. 2. But the severely mentally disabled would have a lesser chance of survival than non-mentally disabled people if they lived in the Congo jungle. 3. Therefore, American society is stopping man from evolving."

Now, let's re-word that argument a bit: "1. In our environment, the lives of severely mentally disabled people are preserved. 2. But the severely mentally disabled would have a lesser chance of survival than non-mentally disabled people in a different environment. 3. So, our environment is stopping man from evolving."

But the theory of evolution states that organisms which thrive in a given environment are more likely to survive and reproduce in that environment. If an environment (in this case, American society) allows the severely mentally disabled to thrive, then it is in no way "countering" evolution.

Eugenics, then, is not the application of the theory of evolution to the level of human society; rather, Eugenics is a claim of human exceptionalism; that humans are able to stand outside of the evolutionary process, and dictate what is "de-volved" or "more evolved" or "lower/higher". But the theory of evolution denies that these things exist. The theory of evolution says that humans, or human society, are never exempt from the evolutionary process.

Humans can stand outside of the evolutionary process only if humans can stand outside of the natural order. But if materialism is true, then humans cannot stand outside of the natural order, because there is just the natural order.

So to be a Eugenicist, you must: (1) Deny materialism, and (2) Deny the theory of evolution.

 

[jckstraw72]

I was referring to the verses in Genesis that speak of plants and animals reproducing after their kind.

 

[Cappadocious]

I was referring to the verses in Genesis that speak of plants and animals reproducing after their kind.

Three worries:

1. I'm not seeing anything there that says kinds cannot be instantiated that were not previously instantiated. What we read is descriptive, not proscriptive.

2. We're assuming that the semitic use of "after its kind" is equivalent in meaning to Aristotle's ποιόν. In fact, upon taking a look at the Septuagint, we find that the translators used "κατα γενος", which has a much more varied and ambiguous meaning. Let us recall that "γενος" is the word used for a race of people (as in the Israelites, the Egyptians, etc.

3. We'll hold off on that for now.

 

[jckstraw72]

Three worries:

1. I'm not seeing anything there that says kinds cannot be instantiated that were not previously instantiated. What we read is descriptive, not proscriptive.

2. We're assuming that the semitic use of "after its kind" is equivalent in meaning to Aristotle's ποιόν. In fact, upon taking a look at the Septuagint, we find that the translators used "κατα γενος", which has a much more varied and ambiguous meaning.

3. I contend that a singular "moment of exchange" does not actually occur where a new kind of species is instantiated. But let's attend to the former two first.

what do the Fathers say about these verses?

 

[Cappadocious]

what do the Fathers say about these verses?

jckstraw72,

By saying "do the Fathers say", instead of "did the Father say", you are acknowledging that they are a plurality. So tell me, first, what one of the Fathers had to say.

 

[jckstraw72]

are you asking me what one of the Fathers say because you are as of yet unaware of what they say? that would be necessary information to have before objecting to an interpretation of the verses, I would think. but here is one example, from the pre-eminent work on Genesis:

There is nothing truer than this, that each plant either has seed or there exists in it some generative power. And this accounts for the expression "of its own kind." For the shoot of the reed is not productive of an olive tree, but from the reed comes another reed; and from seeds spring plants related to the seeds sown. Thus, what was put forth by the earth in its first generation has been preserved until the present time, since the kinds persisted through constant reproduction. --- St. Basil the Great, Hexameron 5.2

The nature of existing objects, set in motion by one command, passes through creation without change, by generation and destruction, preserving the succession of the kinds through resemblance, until it reaches the very end. It begets a horse as the successor of a horse, a lion of a lion, and an eagle of an eagle; and it continues to preserve each of the animals by uninterrupted successions until the consummation of the universe. --- 9.2

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thank you, TF, for your kind explanation. I appreciate it very much.

Like I said, I was pro-evolution most of my life up until not too long ago. What you do say is true, however---we must either accept the words of the Fathers and Scripture or we must jettison many of them in favor of the moderns. I'm not a fan of the latter.

This could only be done with great difficulty, because the reconciliation of evolution (because of the negative theological implications that we are all well aware of) with Orthodox Christian spiritual Life can only be arrived at by a substantial re-engineering of a Christian's mental map of reality. The new map must be re-constructed using information from the scientific community, especially from the branch of the social sciences of psychotherapy and cultural anthropology. Worse yet, it requires us to give less weight to certain things in Scripture and certain teachings of the holy fathers of the Church. In short, we must be willing and brave enough to admit past error, and stand boldly in the face of the idea that perfect infallibility of any institution, including the Church in the way it expresses some of its core teachings, is a fallacy.

Does this sound like something that I will succeed in convincing any of you of? To me, it seems far more likely that I'll be thought of more as a modernizing mouthpiece of Anti-Christ, a friend of heretics and atheist fools. Alas, has not Rus already insinuated that the first question I posed strongly reflected one of those "lies that are so close to the truth"? Hence my feelings of compassion, probably (I theorize) because there really isn't much I can do to convince anyone of anything, so I shake my head in sadness and move on. There will be no burning of heretics here today at the stake of "orthodoxy". You, or me.

And let me also add that the feelings of compassion that I'd experienced toward you I now understand to be a "transference" of feelings that I have for a fellow parishioner of mine, also one who adheres to a fundamentally creationist viewpoint and who, (until he met me) never even suspected that an alternative Orthodox view existed. This friend of mine has suffered a great deal of personal tragedy with regard to not one, but two of his children. The way I see it, he needs the hope that only an unshakeable faith in God can give. So I hold my peace, as community leaders often must do for the sake of the flock. I'm sorry if you found this "transference" of my feelings for this person and the others whom I care about to be inappropriate or insulting. I didn't mean it to be as such.

 

[truthseeker32]

Thank you, TF, for your kind explanation. I appreciate it very much.

Like I said, I was pro-evolution most of my life up until not too long ago. What you do say is true, however---we must either accept the words of the Fathers and Scripture or we must jettison many of them in favor of the moderns. I'm not a fan of the latter.

In the big scheme of things, I don't think we would have to throw out all that much though. I would wager that the majority of what the fathers have said would remain true and unscathed. We might just have to reassess how their statements are to be understood in light of certain factors which Fathers would have been unaware.

Perhaps it would be good to continue this conversation in charity. I have no issue reconciling biological evolution with my Orthodox faith, but I would like to better understand why it is others see a conflict.

I would also like to say I admire those of you whose faith in Orthodoxy trumps your faith in science. This is wonderful. As the son of a scientist and someone who has studied evolution, I am so convinced of biological evolution that I would abandon my Orthodox faith before I abandoned my belief that evolution is true. I honestly hope I one day have faith as strong as what I have seen here.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think this is a serious concern, brother. And I think this is what Rus, jckstraw, myself, and others are talking about. Anything that trumps or robs you of the richest blessing of this earthly life--Holy Orthodoxy, is not worth it!

We CAN be charitable while discussing this. You're free to argue your position. you will not be accosted or lambasted, but people WILL disagree with your positions. It's ok, though, to argue why evolution is legit while being Orthodox. We will listen. I know I will. But I'm seriously concerned at where all this is coming from....where your faith is taking a back seat....

Go ahead and make your case....

I would abandon my Orthodox faith before I abandoned my belief that evolution is true. I honestly hope I one day have faith as strong as what I have seen here.

 

[rusmeister]

I'll add my name to what Truefiction1 has said so eloquently, if he doesn't mind. I have come to see these debates as futile because we are often so set in our ways that we might as well be speaking different languages. I will continue to believe I am right and that the other side just doesn't get it, and those of you who reject biological evolution will do the same. I would rather us dedicate our time to living and promoting the faith than bicker over things that will contribute little or nothing to our salvation.

Edit: It would be cool if we had a member on here who was a evolutionary scientist so he could guide the conversation and correct any misconceptions encountered along the way.

Thanks, TS,
I'm trying to point out that sense that most of us have - that there is something the other side doesn't get, and that we ourselves understand what the other side is saying about the differences.

I would not mind an evoutionary scientist commenting on misunderstandings on the science at all. But I would object in the strongest terms if he did not show that he was starting from a very clear understanding of the philosophical and theological problems that we have pointed out, and above all the necessity of acknowledging that the natural sciences are and must be governed by the right philosophy and theology. If they are not, then they will simply deceive us all, especially themselves quite effectively.

 

[rusmeister]

Honestly, I didn't comment on any of you guy's posts because I don't really have time to address all of your points adequately at present.

Also, I was very moved by compassion toward you all because of the many things that you currently aren't seemingly able to comprehend. I don't wish to cause any you any undue grief any more than I would wish it upon one of my own children, and so if I were to proceed with this discussion at all, I would proceed only with the greatest of care and sensitivity.

I do believe in evolution, and I've managed, by the grace of God, to reconcile this with the Orthodox Christian spiritual Tradition that I'd become so well acquainted with as a young ascetic and mystic in the monastery of St. John the Theologian. But I've learned that it's wrong to be destructively dogmatic about any of my beliefs, which always must remain somewhat flexible in order to accommodate new experience and information. Beliefs don't make for peace. Peace exists apart from them, in the holiness of silence, forgiveness, and the Love of God.

I guess I don't need to feel personally validated by the agreement of others with my belief-sets. For this reason I've no need to comment further, but am certainly capable and willing if anyone wishes for me to answer questions regarding my view points.

The main thing I'd say here is that I for one feel exactly the same about what you currently aren't seeming able to comprehend, and would echo your sentiment in regards to your own position.

If the new experience is (for example) spiritual delusion, we would condemn it. If the new information is actually false, we should not want to accommodate or reconcile it at all.

But rather than try to get you riled up, I'd point to what I said to TS, above.

 

[rusmeister]

I must disagree, TS. I am not set in my ways at all. Just a year and a half ago or so, I was sold on evolution. Ask anyone in here. It caused quite the debate and stir and I felt pretty hurt by the reaction. If you had told me a year ago that I would be leaning away from evolution much less pretty much totally opposed to it, I'd say you're crazy. I know my mind isn't that closed, or I wouldn't have changed my feelings on it. And I think Orthodox tend to be very thoughtful people not easily brainwashed. But I do think evolution has a lot of bad theological implications and that the real Orthodox consensus overall is opposed to evolution camp.

This is a good point. And I had my views on capital punishment reversed a few years ago, thanks to Steve "The Builder" Robinson, something I had thought impossible to change. I don't think I'm so set in my ways that I can't be convinced of something that corrects a more simplistic view I previously held.

And yeah, nobody is "more Orthodox" in any sense of any personal superiority for being right (or even wrong!) on this issue.

 

[GregConstantine]

"I'm just noting that the defenses of evolution by Orthodox people here have stopped suddenly and completely, without so much as eithter a "Gee, that's right." or a "I disagree, but I guess more cannot be said." That's why I said what I said above - so that disagreement does not leave one side feeling the other side is just stupid (and with the hope we should all have, that all ultimately be on the same side)."

I stopped commenting because it became apparent many were not really reading what I was saying, but rather reading what they wanted to read in what I was saying. So it became a waste of time to try to say anything else.

One telling comment that shows this is the comment above, especially where it says ""I'm just noting that the defenses of evolution by Orthodox people"

I still believe an unnecessary strawman has been established by some against evolution. I've tried to explain that evolution is not something to "believe" in, it is not a doctrine but a tool scientist use. If someone wants to take a tool and create a philosophy out of it, and apply that to their lives, then that a choice they are making and it has nothing to do with the tool itself. It would seem that the theory and the philosophy has become conflated, and or, some may think that the theory causes people to have a certain philosophy, almost as if they cannot help it.

I've also tried to explain that both anti and pro evolutionists are both coming from a materialistic, literalistic POV and are two sides of the same coin, but that apparently has fallen on deaf ears.

I do not appreciate being labeled as a defender or a believer in evolution. All this labeling of others based on a few comments on a discussion board is not good. One cannot make such labels based on words on a screen.

That is why I've stopped commenting on this tread.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I've tried to explain that evolution is not something to "believe" in, it is not a doctrine but a tool scientist use. If someone wants to take a tool and create a philosophy out of it, and apply that to their lives, then that a choice they are making and it has nothing to do with the tool itself. It would seem that the theory and the philosophy has become conflated, and or, some may think that the theory causes people to have a certain philosophy, almost as if they cannot help it.

right, but the issue is the latter. no one who espouses evolution (aside from you maybe), actually uses it merely as a scientiffic tool. they use it to explain our origins that they mesh with the Genesis account. what is being talked about on this thread is that philosophic belief.

 

[truthseeker32]

I think this is a serious concern, brother. And I think this is what Rus, jckstraw, myself, and others are talking about. Anything that trumps or robs you of the richest blessing of this earthly life--Holy Orthodoxy, is not worth it!

I'm not all that concerned. At this point I have faith in both Orthodoxy and a belief in biological evolution. Similarly, I have faith in Orthodoxy and belief that the moon landing really happened, but I must admit that if push came to shove I am more sure of the moon landing, and I am probably not alone in having a stronger faith in the moon landing than in Orthodoxy.

 

[jckstraw72]

"I'm just noting that the defenses of evolution by Orthodox people here have stopped suddenly and completely, without so much as eithter a "Gee, that's right." or a "I disagree, but I guess more cannot be said." That's why I said what I said above - so that disagreement does not leave one side feeling the other side is just stupid (and with the hope we should all have, that all ultimately be on the same side)."

I stopped commenting because it became apparent many were not really reading what I was saying, but rather reading what they wanted to read in what I was saying. So it became a waste of time to try to say anything else.

One telling comment that shows this is the comment above, especially where it says ""I'm just noting that the defenses of evolution by Orthodox people"

I still believe an unnecessary strawman has been established by some against evolution. I've tried to explain that evolution is not something to "believe" in, it is not a doctrine but a tool scientist use. If someone wants to take a tool and create a philosophy out of it, and apply that to their lives, then that a choice they are making and it has nothing to do with the tool itself. It would seem that the theory and the philosophy has become conflated, and or, some may think that the theory causes people to have a certain philosophy, almost as if they cannot help it.

I've also tried to explain that both anti and pro evolutionists are both coming from a materialistic, literalistic POV and are two sides of the same coin, but that apparently has fallen on deaf ears.

I do not appreciate being labeled as a defender or a believer in evolution. All this labeling of others based on a few comments on a discussion board is not good. One cannot make such labels based on words on a screen.

That is why I've stopped commenting on this tread.

its not that we're ignoring what you have said. it's that we don't agree and so we move on. and perhaps I missed it, but I don't see that you have tried to explain these things to us. I've seen you talk about the difference between the science of evolution and the philosophy, but I don't recall you ever saying what this difference is and attempting to demonstrate that it's a valid demarcation. And I don't remember you ever explaining how Creationists and evolutionists are two sides of the same coin. I, for one, have simply felt like there's not much to respond to in your posts, other than to say I disagree.

 

[jckstraw72]

I also think it would be fine if an evolutionary biologist were to comment, but I think that to say we could really use one or that we wish there was one here is to confuse the issue. this is not a scientific issue in any way. this is and always will be an issue of theology, and, as Rus points out, philosophy. No scientist disagrees on the observations - they disagree on how to extrapolate from those observations - because this is dependent on your already-established worldview. Elder Paisios, for one example, said evolution is blasphemy - he didn't say it's incorrect science. we all agree that speciation has been observed, and so its useless in this discussion to even bring up examples -- but what observed speciation means for the unobservable/unobserved past is where the differences come in.

 

[jckstraw72]

This could only be done with great difficulty, because the reconciliation of evolution (because of the negative theological implications that we are all well aware of) with Orthodox Christian spiritual Life can only be arrived at by a substantial re-engineering of a Christian's mental map of reality. The new map must be re-constructed using information from the scientific community, especially from the branch of the social sciences of psychotherapy and cultural anthropology. Worse yet, it requires us to give less weight to certain things in Scripture and certain teachings of the holy fathers of the Church. In short, we must be willing and brave enough to admit past error, and stand boldly in the face of the idea that perfect infallibility of any institution, including the Church in the way it expresses some of its core teachings, is a fallacy.

TF, while of course you know I wholeheartedly disagree with you, I do appreciate your honesty here, but I think it also demonstrates the point well. If evolution and Orthodoxy were truly compatible you wouldn't need to change either of them to make them fit together. The fact that you harmonized them by tinkering with them only goes to prove the "Creationist" (for lack of a better term) point that they don't really fit together. The same is seen in the writings of notable Orthodox theistic evolutionists, such as Dr. Kalomiros and Dn. Kuraev -- they tinker with the theology or the science or both in order to get them to work together.

I think two quotes that I have already given in this thread demonstrate a true harmonization. Everyone agrees that changes, variations, mutations, etc happen - but we disagree about whether or not we should assume that mutations and variations can be compounded without limit. Dr. Yuri Zharikov, an Orthodox biologist and zoologist argues that there is a natural limit to variations:

... both Darwin and his followers have failed to understand and/or admit the critical difference -- in fact, the unbridgeable gap -- between variation within species and transformation from one life-form to another. The former is a manifestation of existing genetic variability in a species or population, and it is governed by the objective laws of molecular and population genetics. The latter requires the introduction of completely new genetic information, new blocks of genetic material, leading to increased complexity. The latter does not follow from the former.

The so-called allopatric and sympatric modes of speciation, whereby geographically or ecologically isolated populations with time become incapable of interbreeding and thus are designated as separate species, do not lead to increased complexity. In fact, they decrease genetic diversity, due to fragmentation of the gene pool present in the original population. Galapagos finches, studied by Darwin, are an example of allopatric speciation but not of an evolutionary event that involves the emergence of novel structures or functions. The same can be said about numerous other direct observations of speciation, such as those in plants and marine invertebrates. Such observations are irrelevant when it comes to inferring origins of life-forms differing in degree of complexity
...
It is true that populations of species are not immutable: they indeed can and sometimes do change with time, adapting to environmental alterations. People have known about this plasticity of plants and animals for millennia and have utilized it in the process of artificial selection. Any such change, however, happens only to a limited degree, and this change involves a loss (not gain!) of genetic complexity. Genomes are not free to evolve (that is, degrade) endlessly. There are impregnable genetic constraints on the extent of changes that can occur in the genome and can be expressed phenotypically before the organism breaks down.

and here St. Maximus states the same thing theologically:

Ambigua 42:
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.

here, both the theology and the science can be accepted as is - no revising required - it's just a real, true harmony.