"Adaptations" and other "givens"

[rusmeister]

That is the question I think we need to focus on. The ECFs are important, but they can be wrong. We need to go directly to the stories and see if there is room in Orthodoxy for biological evolution. Genesis tells us God brought man from the dust of the earth, God instructed man to live a certain way, and man disobeyed. These, to me, seem to be the most crucial parts of the story. Whether or not there was an actual snake, or whether God really walked in the garden, or whether there were six 24-hour days are all secondary in comparison. Literal or allegorical, the key message remains the same: by disobeying God we suffer death.

The ECFs CAN be individually wrong. We believe they are NOT wrong when they all hold a consensus on something; when everybody who speaks on an issue says the same things.

Nevertheless, we HAVE gone directly to the stories and do NOT find room for "evolution", for the reasons we have cited that you reject, as far as I can tell, without consideration.

It's not that we insist everything MUST be literal. We're OK with allegories; I can conceive of six ages instead of six 24-hr days. What we DO insist on is that death entered the world by sin, via already created human beings. Do you offer evolution that requires no death? That does not fit into any scientific theory I have ever heard of. And when is this evolution supposed to have stopped? Or are we still evolving? If we are, then into what?

It is the insistence that modern science CANNOT be wrong but that Holy Tradition and a consensus on special creation by the Church CAN be that turns me off. It really IS more faith in science than in our Tradition.

Our Tradition ought to be able to stand with the temporal sciences or without them. If it cannot stand without them, then it is a poor faith. We ought to be acknowledging the practical limits of our human sciences AT LEAST as much as those of Holy Tradition.

 

[truthseeker32]

Nevertheless, we HAVE gone directly to the stories and do NOT find room for "evolution", for the reasons we have cited that you reject, as far as I can tell, without consideration.

It isn't that I haven't considered the arguments presented; rather it is that I have encountered them before and I know how the debates play out. I know how much time and effort may potentially be exhausted on my part, and as it is time and effort that will likely bear no fruit (if the past is any indicator) I have simply done a cost-benefit analysis and chosen not to take the time. I am sure that this seems like a cop out to you, and if you wish to interpret it as such then so be it.

What we DO insist on is that death entered the world by sin, via already created human beings. Do you offer evolution that requires no death? That does not fit into any scientific theory I have ever heard of.

What does genesis mean by death? How do we know it is speaking of physical, biological death? How do we know that it wasn't just things within the garden that were immune to death?

It is the insistence that modern science CANNOT be wrong but that Holy Tradition and a consensus on special creation by the Church CAN be that turns me off. It really IS more faith in science than in our Tradition.

I never said science cannot be wrong, but rather that in this case I have taken time to understand sediment layers, fossil records, genetic mutation, and other phenomena that would lead one to conclude that the earth is quite old and biological evolution has occurred. I have also taken the time to study the presuppositions scientists make along with why it is they make the conclusions they do about the age of the earth. The sum of all of this is that I am much more convinced by their arguments than what I have seen here, which I see as narrow and erroneous interpretations and suppositions about evolutionary theory and the creation story in Genesis. All that being said, I stay up to date on good criticisms of evolutionary theories (this, for instance, is a good read: http://www.amazon.com/What-Darwin-Wrong-Jerry-Fodor/dp/031268066X) and I have my own criticisms to make of contemporary, materialistic, atheistic perspectives of evolution; however in the end I remain convinced of the general position that biological evolution has occurred and the earth is likely billions, not thousands, of years old.

 

[RKO]

bats developed echo-location to deal with blindness,

Bats aren't blind.
Source: I'm the Batman. Don't tell anybody. I try to keep it a secret.

 

[GregConstantine]

I would seem that some are arguing from a popular idea of what evolution is and what science is and how it works, rather than what a scientific theory really is and how it works. It is a work in progress, scientists may find evidence tomorrow that will throw the theory of evolution out the window. A good scientist will accept that and continue to learn and investigate and experiment. A good scientist will not treat evolution or any other scientific theory as a dogma, which I think some here are doing.
And I will make this point again, there is the theory and the philosophy, and it is possible to reject the philosophy and work with the theory if you have to (meaning, if you are a scientist by trade). If not, then evolution really shouldn't concern you, unless you are a farmer or raise animals and you are breeding them for certain purposes.
I think its important to discuss why we are even having this discussion in the 1st place. IMO, that is because the West has rejected the True Faith and has rejected the Church. It has replaced it with secularism and humanism, of which the philosophy of Darwinism comes from. But the real question is, what are we Orthodox doing for the West? Basically, nothing, except to get caught up in insanely ridiculous infights over ethnicities and in this case, a created unneccessary problem to a non existent issue. As long as we continue this, no one will take us seriously or consider us as a serious option for themselves.

 

[jckstraw72]

What does genesis mean by death? How do we know it is speaking of physical, biological death? How do we know that it wasn't just things within the garden that were immune to death?

we know these things because the Fathers address them in abundance. And, if we are supposed to die physically, then Christ's physical Resurrection is meaningless.

Here are two quotes from St. Symeon the New Theologian which are both clear and representative of the Patristic consensus:

God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestors at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible. No! Instead, He did much more. Before Paradise He made the whole earth, the one which we inhabit, and everything in it. Nor that alone, but He also in five days brought the heavens and all they contain into being. On the sixth day He made Adam and established him as lord and king of all the visible creation. Neither Eve nor Paradise were yet created, but the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible. It was this world, as we said, which was given to Adam and to his descendants for their enjoyment. Does this seem strange to you? It should not. Pay attention to our argument, and it will show you clearly how this is so from the holy Scripture. It is written there: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void.” Next, the remaining creative works of God are given in exact detail, and then, after “there was evening and morning the fifth day,” Scripture adds: “Then God said, “Let us make man after our image, in our likeness . . . male and female He created them [1:26-27]. Male and female, it says, not as though Eve had already come into being, but instead as she was still in Adam’s side, co-existing with him.

...

Notice that it is nowhere written, “God created paradise,” or that he said “let it be and it was,” but instead that He “planted” it, and “made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food” [Gen. 2:8-9], bearing every kind and variety of fruit, fruit which is never spoiled or lacking but always fresh and ripe, full of sweetness, and providing our ancestors with indescribable pleasure and enjoyment. For their immortal bodies had to be supplied with incorruptible food.

both from the Ethical Discourses 1.1

 

[jckstraw72]

And I will make this point again, there is the theory and the philosophy, and it is possible to reject the philosophy and work with the theory if you have to (meaning, if you are a scientist by trade). If not, then evolution really shouldn't concern you, unless you are a farmer or raise animals and you are breeding them for certain purposes.

Greg, again, it would be helpful if you explained yourself. You drop this line on us every 5 pages or so, but you never go into any detail. Your idea has been challenged by Rus, but we have yet to see you explain or defend it.

What is the theory of evolution, in your understanding? What is the philosophy of evolution in your understanding? What is the difference between the two? Can you explain to us how we can accept the theory without its foundational philosophy? Can you explain the theory of evolution and its usefulness to us without making use of the philosophy?

 

[rusmeister]

And I will make this point again, there is the theory and the philosophy, and it is possible to reject the philosophy and work with the theory if you have to (meaning, if you are a scientist by trade).

No, it is not possible. It is never possible to exclude one's operational philosophy from one's understandings. You can't exclude your worldview from your view, your cosmic view from your view of any of the details of the cosmos.

There is no such thing as a philosophical vacuum or "neutral" philosophy.

 

[rusmeister]

It isn't that I haven't considered the arguments presented; rather it is that I have encountered them before and I know how the debates play out. I know how much time and effort may potentially be exhausted on my part, and as it is time and effort that will likely bear no fruit (if the past is any indicator) I have simply done a cost-benefit analysis and chosen not to take the time. I am sure that this seems like a cop out to you, and if you wish to interpret it as such then so be it.


What does genesis mean by death? How do we know it is speaking of physical, biological death? How do we know that it wasn't just things within the garden that were immune to death?

I never said science cannot be wrong, but rather that in this case I have taken time to understand sediment layers, fossil records, genetic mutation, and other phenomena that would lead one to conclude that the earth is quite old and biological evolution has occurred. I have also taken the time to study the presuppositions scientists make along with why it is they make the conclusions they do about the age of the earth. The sum of all of this is that I am much more convinced by their arguments than what I have seen here, which I see as narrow and erroneous interpretations and suppositions about evolutionary theory and the creation story in Genesis. All that being said, I stay up to date on good criticisms of evolutionary theories (this, for instance, is a good read: What Darwin Got Wrong: Jerry Fodor, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini: 9780312680664: Amazon.com: Books) and I have my own criticisms to make of contemporary, materialistic, atheistic perspectives of evolution; however in the end I remain convinced of the general position that biological evolution has occurred and the earth is likely billions, not thousands, of years old.

I see age of the earth and human evolution to be two different kettles of fish. I have said that I can imagine an old earth. I cannot imagine an unFallen one where forms of "what was becoming man" died in the so-called evolution of man.

 

[jckstraw72]

Our Tradition ought to be able to stand with the temporal sciences or without them. If it cannot stand without them, then it is a poor faith. We ought to be acknowledging the practical limits of our human sciences AT LEAST as much as those of Holy Tradition.

Having no philosophical references, the Church always freely makes use of philosophy and the sciences for apologetic purposes, but she never has any cause to defend these relative and changing truths as she defends the unchangeable truth of her doctrines. This is why ancient or more modern cosmological theories cannot affect in any way the more fundamental truth which is revealed to the Church: “the truth of Holy Scripture is far deeper than the limits of our understanding,” as Philaret of Moscow says [Sermons and Discourses, Moscow, 1877]. In the face of the vision of the universe which the human race has gained since the period of the renaissance, in which the earth is represented as an atom lost in infinite space amid innumerable other worlds, there is no need for theology to change anything whatever in the narrative of Genesis . . .

- Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church pp. 104-105

 

[GregConstantine]

Evolution and Darwinism/Humanism are not the same things. How many here have been trained and have done scientific research? I don't mean an occasional high school/college project, I mean have been trained in the scientific method and research techniques and principles?

 

[GregConstantine]

check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

this is about the distinction between Darwinism and evolution written by a secular newspaper

 

[GregConstantine]

"No, it is not possible. It is never possible to exclude one's operational philosophy from one's understandings. You can't exclude your worldview from your view, your cosmic view from your view of any of the details of the cosmos.

There is no such thing as a philosophical vacuum or "neutral" philosophy."

I agree 100% with this, but, we are not talking about a philosophy, we are talking about a scientific theory which is used as a tool in scientific research. You have IMO conflated the philosophy of Darwinism with the theory of evolution. This is why I asked who here has done actual scientific research and experimentation, because if one has, then it will be telling who has the same understanding that I do, and I think others on this board who also have done scientific research and experimentation also understand what I am saying.

 

[jckstraw72]

but we're not talking about the intricacies of the science - but rather about the intersection of science and philosophy. why would that require a scientific degree? i don't have the expectation that anyone else attend Seminary before attempting to get into the theology here.

 

[jckstraw72]

check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

this is about the distinction between Darwinism and evolution written by a secular newspaper

that article is not at all about distinguishing the philosophy and science of evolution. it's simply about the scientific developments since Darwin.

 

[GregConstantine]

The article is pointing out that they are not the same thing.

"but we're not talking about the intricacies of the science - but rather about the intersection of science and philosophy. why would that require a scientific degree? i don't have the expectation that anyone else attend Seminary before attempting to get into the theology here"

Because from what you and others have posted, it is seemly clear to me that you are conflating the two, otherwise, you would be saying "Darwinism this" or "Darwinism that", rather than "evolution this", or evolution that".

While one certainly does not need a theology degree to discuss it, and our faith tells us that a true theologian is one who prays, not one that has necessarily attended seminary, we would say that those who practice the art of prayer are more qualifed to speak of theology. We say the same about the sciences. Based on what you and others have posted, I can tell that may not be much experience in the practice of doing actual scientific research and experimentation. If one has, then they would not be saying the things you guys have been saying.

What you guys have been saying about Darwinism, not evolution, has been spot on IMO and I agree 100%.

 

[jckstraw72]

that article you posted said that "Darwinism" is not a good term because there has been much scientific progress since Darwin. It doesn't address the idea of Darwinism as a philosophy. I still have no clue what the distinction is supposed to be.

 

[jckstraw72]

While one certainly does not need a theology degree to discuss it, and our faith tells us that a true theologian is one who prays, not one that has necessarily attended seminary, we would say that those who practice the art of prayer are more qualifed to speak of theology. We say the same about the sciences. Based on what you and others have posted, I can tell that may not be much experience in the practice of doing actual scientific research and experimentation. If one has, then they would not be saying the things you guys have been saying.
.

but this is not about science. this is about theology and philosophy. and the men who pray reject evolution.

 

[GregConstantine]

not Darwinism per se, but more so Naturalism and Humanism.

"but this is not about science. this is about theology and philosophy. and the men who pray reject evolution."

Keep repeating yourself Jesse, it really shows you are listening/reading and are considering what others have to say.

 

[jckstraw72]

ok, so please explain to us how to distinguish the philosophy and the science, and how the science can stand without the philosophy. you say its possible, Rus says its not.

i am listening/reading. a lot of what is being said simply is not relevant. this is a Christian board, not a science board. the pertinent question for a bunch of Christians gathering together is how this effects theology. for that we turn to the men who pray. no one is arguing over specific cases of speciation, or fluctuations in allele frequency, or mutations in bacteria, etc. this is about God and His acts, man and his free will, the influence of Satan, the mission of the Incarnate Christ, etc. science cannot speak of an incorrupt Paradise because it leaves no remains for scientists to examine. It is only once corruption sets in that science can begin to poke around. the only way for science or philosophy to go back to that time is to first assume there was no incorrupt Paradise. Fr. John Romanides states this quite well:

The Ancestral Sin, p. 41-42
When philosophical systems try to explain the phenomena of things and the presence of evil in them on the basis of what is known about nature, it is absolutely natural for them to confuse the idea of the creation of mater with its fall. If we begin with philosophical and scientific observations of the material world, it is logically impossible to arrive at a distinction between the creation of the world and its fall. Quite simply, this is because the reality before our eyes presents nature as it is now, after the fall … Philosophy is unable to bridge [its] dualism between matter and reality because it is impossible for natural man to distinguish between the wholly positive creation of the world and the fall of the world. Man cannot know this division except by revelation.
p. 48
The dualism of matter and reality is largely based on the idea that death is both a natural and phenomenal fact since matter and the material world in general are without permanent reality, something that belongs to a different dimension. In contrast to the philosophical method, through the divine revelation given to the Prophets, the special people of God learned to distinguish clearly between the world’s creation and the world’s fall, as well as between the present age, which is under the sway of the devil and death, and the future age of the resurrection and the incorruptibility of matter.

 

[GregConstantine]

"no one is arguing over specific cases of speciation, or fluctuations in allele frequency, or mutations in bacteria, etc."

Then it'll be better to use another word other than evolution because evolution is about the specific cases of speciation, fluctuations in allele, mutations, etc.

One separates the philosophy (in this case, one separates it from rejecting it) by having knowledge of and the experience of primarily living the life of the Church, prayer and fasting and participating in the holy mysteries of the Church, cultivating the the mind of Christ.
Then one can distinguish and separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak. However, I still stand on my position that many are conflating the theory with the philosophy, calling the philosophy of Humanism and Naturalism "evolution", causing confusion and misunderstanding in communications.