"Adaptations" and other "givens"

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why haven't the pro-evolution folks brought up wisdom teeth yet?

 

[jckstraw72]

regarding people with deformities ... if evolution is indeed the will of God, then why do we impede it with our altruism towards those who have received negative mutations?

 

[truefiction1]

my question for all these interpretations you have is - what makes them Orthodox? the Fathers certainly regarded Adam and Eve as literally the first people, and several of them commented that Cain married his sister. so, I guess i don't understand what makes your ideas Orthodox, rather than personal theology?

The fathers regarded Adam and Eve as literally the first people simply because that was the widespread mental assumption that everyone operated from in their times. But just as Christ's kingdom is not a kingdom of this world, otherwise his followers would fight to keep Him from being delivered up, the knowledge of the saints is also not the knowledge of this world, but a particularly spiritual knowledge, otherwise physical evidence discovered in this world would fight for them.

I too believe the stories in the Bible to be true. I believe that the stories and the symbols contained therein point to a Truth greater than any truths that can be contained within our world of ideas. This greatest of Truths, this pearl of great price, is what makes me Orthodox, not any blind cohesion to former mental modes of perceiving the physical world, which have long since been discredited scientifically, historically, and in every other way possible. This does not dishonor the fathers. No, they are to be highly esteemed. But is does set healthy limits on their teaching authority, as we are supposed to do: "Call no man father" and "you have only one teacher, the Christ".

This is not to say that we should disregard all their beliefs, only that we must be willing to deny their beliefs regarding the things of this world whenever such ideas clash with ongoing discovery of "this-worldly" truths. We live as men created in the image and likeness of God; freely questioning every thing and everyone and putting their teachings to the test. It's unacceptable that we would behave as birds who bury their heads in sand so as not to see terrifying realities from which they may truly grow in understanding. Orthodoxy is not supposed to mean "rigidity of thought", its most important meaning is "right worship", and right worship transcends the realm of human thought and knowledge, entering into a dimension that defies all explanation. If you are one whose worship brings you into this place, into the presence of God, then you are Orthodox, regardless of how much you know about the things of our earthly realm, and even if you hold to mistaken notions.

 

[inconsequential]

regarding people with deformities ... if evolution is indeed the will of God, then why do we impede it with our altruism towards those who have received negative mutations?

That was addressed in post 103.

 

[rusmeister]

The fathers regarded Adam and Eve as literally the first people simply because that was the widespread mental assumption that everyone operated from in their times. But just as Christ's kingdom is not a kingdom of this world, otherwise his followers would fight to keep Him from being delivered up, the knowledge of the saints is also not the knowledge of this world, but a particularly spiritual knowledge, otherwise physical evidence discovered in this world would fight for them.

I don't think your last comment necessarily true. We're back to "physical evidence" and its interpretation and we don't even agree on background assumptions on what evidence is and whether our assumptions color how we read any evidence.

I too believe the stories in the Bible to be true. I believe that the stories and the symbols contained therein point to a Truth greater than any truths that can be contained within our world of ideas. This greatest of Truths, this pearl of great price, is what makes me Orthodox, not any blind cohesion to former mental modes of perceiving the physical world, which have long since been discredited scientifically, historically, and in every other way possible. This does not dishonor the fathers. No, they are to be highly esteemed. But is does set healthy limits on their teaching authority, as we are supposed to do: "Call no man father" and "you have only one teacher, the Christ".

This seems totally at variance with all teaching on the "call no man "father" quote I have read in Orthodox sources. If we have only one teacher, the Christ, why then do you submit to scientists to be your teachers?

This is not to say that we should disregard all their beliefs, only that we must be willing to deny their beliefs regarding the things of this world whenever such ideas clash with ongoing discovery of "this-worldly" truths.

This is where we part ways, and you part from Orthodoxy altogether. No, we must NOT deny the consensus of the Fathers. Giving priortyi to popular scientific opinions is mere scientism.

We live as men created in the image and likeness of God; freely questioning every thing and everyone and putting their teachings to the test.

Yes, we do. And the Church offers answers.

It's unacceptable that we would behave as birds who bury their heads in sand so as not to see terrifying realities from which they may truly grow in understanding.

No one suggests we should behave as birds.

Orthodoxy is not supposed to mean "rigidity of thought", its most important meaning is "right worship", and right worship transcends the realm of human thought and knowledge, entering into a dimension that defies all explanation.

No argument. Why then do you insist that the Church kowtow to modern scientists?

If you are one whose worship brings you into this place, into the presence of God, then you are Orthodox, regardless of how much you know about the things of our earthly realm, and even if you hold to mistaken notions.

I think God may cover our inadequacies and include us in communion regardless of our goofy thoughts. Yes, that is true. But we mustn't take it for granted, either.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

QFT

I don't think your last comment necessarily true. We're back to "physical evidence" and its interpretation and we don't even agree on background assumptions on what evidence is and whether our assumptions color how we read any evidence.



This seems totally at variance with all teaching on the "call no man "father" quote I have read in Orthodox sources. If we have only one teacher, the Christ, why then do you submit to scientists to be your teachers?


This is where we part ways, and you part from Orthodoxy altogether. No, we must NOT deny the consensus of the Fathers. Giving priortyi to popular scientific opinions is mere scientism.


Yes, we do. And the Church offers answers.



No one suggests we should behave as birds.


No argument. Why then do you insist that the Church kowtow to modern scientists?


I think God may cover our inadequacies and include us in communion regardless of our goofy thoughts. Yes, that is true. But we mustn't take it for granted, either.

 

[jckstraw72]

That was addressed in post 103.

meh

 

[ArmyMatt]

"you have only one teacher, the Christ".

well if Christ is the one teacher, I don't see how evolution can work not only because He gave the Genesis account to Moses, but He referred to the Flood as literal. and the Flood does kinda fly in the face of evolutionary accounts for land animals.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Why haven't the pro-evolution folks brought up wisdom teeth yet?

I just joined the thread.

What's this about wisdom teeth? They don't fit in the jaws of most people any more. They harm more than they do good. In most cases, there isn't even room for them. They are vestigial. Kind of like the appendix, or how whales have a vestigial pelvis that serves no actual function since they don't have legs, but it hangs out in their body anyway.

But for people who take Genesis literally, or even mostly literally, evolution is a very problematic concept. It claims that death, suffering, and killing (for food) were around before humans. It claims that the world flourished and nearly perished multiple times before humans came on the scene.

As for the question about keeping severe mutations in the gene pool: well, what do you expect humans to do? Kill and/or eat their offspring just like animals do? We aren't beasts and we aren't permitted to commit murder.

The concept of evolution being the gradual reveal of God's plan for the world doesn't mean that we have to actively kill humans who are deformed. Come on. You know better than that.

 

[jckstraw72]

hey! a new poster! thanks for joining in.

I didn't say we should kill or eat them. but to go out of our ways to help seems to be unproductive for evolution. and if the claim is that evolution is God's will then it seems to be going against God's will. the very idea that all people, no matter how deformed or disadvantaged are still the image of God, are still the crown of creation, are still the mediator of creation, etc and that all deserve to live and all are called to theosis seems quite incompatible with evolution, where those poor weaklings should die off, leaving us to not have to bother with their weaknesses anymore.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Gwen,

it's been a while! Hey, you're not addressing me with this here, are you? Because I never implied this stuff?

I just joined the thread.
But for people who take Genesis literally, or even mostly literally, evolution is a very problematic concept. It claims that death, suffering, and killing (for food) were around before humans. It claims that the world flourished and nearly perished multiple times before humans came on the scene.

As for the question about keeping severe mutations in the gene pool: well, what do you expect humans to do? Kill and/or eat their offspring just like animals do? We aren't beasts and we aren't permitted to commit murder.

The concept of evolution being the gradual reveal of God's plan for the world doesn't mean that we have to actively kill humans who are deformed. Come on. You know better than that.

 

[truefiction1]

well if Christ is the one teacher, I don't see how evolution can work not only because He gave the Genesis account to Moses, but He referred to the Flood as literal. and the Flood does kinda fly in the face of evolutionary accounts for land animals.

okay.

 

[rusmeister]

To TrueFiction:
I would like to make clear that I do NOT say that the Church fathers are scientists, that they can tell us the details of how the world was made. But I AM saying that if scientists, whose minds are darkened by sin in this world, can be wrong in their interpretations and conclusions, and being consistently wrong (via experimentation, observation, and conclusions) does not make them more right. If what they say adds up to the negation and denial of what the Fathers agree upon - which are not merely truths of the physical world, because there IS no mere "physical world"; Creation is a seamless whole, and we and the world are Fallen in body (matter) and spirit - so much the worse for the scientists, not the Fathers. No man can serve two masters, you cannot hold a consensus of fallible scientists -Fallen men - on an equal level with a consensus of (individually) fallible Church Fathers, for the latter constitute a divine Institution guided by the Holy Spirit and the former do not. When there is clear contradiction, you must choose who to believe. I'll go with the divine Institution.

I can leave plenty of room for agnosticism on the details - the Earth might be 20,000 years old, or 200,000, it's all the same to me. But when you say that death entered the world by evolution, and not by sin, I say, "See ya!"

The only faint attempt at consistency - by suggesting that "what was becoming man" evolved until God breathed the spirit of life and it mystically became man/Adam, is STILL self-contradictory because it then proceeds to deny the general principle of evolution, that all things are in a continual state of becoming something else, that there ARE no particular, permanent things, that there is no such thing as "man", that there was something else before we became we, and that we are in fact becoming something else.

If the principles of evolutionary theory are really true, if we are only in a changing state of flux, then there is no "man", apes are future "men" and all of the ideas we have about things being definite things that can be spoken of consistently from one age to another are nonsense, and our Faith is in vain. Christ could not be the perfect Man unless there is an absolute and final understanding if what man is. Theosis is true evolution, and it is achieved in the opposite manner from the self-serving Fallen view that evolutionary theory holds, it is achieved not by competing and killing, the strongest surviving, but by self-sacrifice, accepting our defeat and martyrdom. So let us speak of Theosis, rather than evolution regarding the truth of what we must become.

 

[truefiction1]

To TrueFiction:

But when you say that death entered the world by evolution, and not by sin, I say, "See ya!"

Rus, I never said that death entered the world by evolution, and not by sin. You are saying that. What I've implied is that mankind has been unfit for immortality since his beginning, because only God is good enough to be worthy of and capable of immortality. We, in contrast, must learn to be as God is in order to be worthy of immortality. This is the meaning of the saying of the fathers, "God became man so that man might become God." The incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost are to be understood to be the means by which this end is to be accomplished. Without these events, it would not be possible for men to become God because of the way in which we live: that is, by a uniquely human psychological process that we call "transference". This is to say, that we become who and what we are, as persons, from the outside in, through socialization with others of our own species, beginning with our primary caregivers as children. If God had not become one of us, then this vital transference, between God and man, the only means by which we could ever really become as God is, would not have happened, and we could not hope to realize our destiny. Man before the incarnation of God could not know God well enough to be worthy of immortality, so he was always a mortal being, because he couldn't help but be disobedient to God, because he didn't truly know Him.

If you don't believe me that Adam and Eve didn't really know God, then please read the fall narrative more carefully. If you're willing to see it, you will realize that what Eve did prior to disobeying the command was to project an evil image onto the person of God. This was what we call "negative transference". Eve had sin within herself already, otherwise she would not have understood the pride, vainglory, and love of power that she had injected into God's personality, thereby giving herself an excuse to disobey Him, because she decided that he was a liar, at the serpent's suggestion. Well, it takes one to know one, right? Eve was a liar and so was Adam (and they are us -- they symbolize our humanity). They didn't know God. They thought that He was a liar too. If they were living in such a high state of spiritual union with Him as is sometimes thought, would they have deemed Him a trickster in their hearts and minds? Of course not! Surely you must be able to recognize these things in the narrative. Adam and Eve weren't capable of immortality because they couldn't know God well enough. And this is because they were merely human. We are becoming God, (yes, via Theosis) but in a way that none of us fully understands shall this come to pass. And biological evolution is an acceptable belief. We don't need to be afraid of it. The Christ was always going to come to us in our own form so that we can truly be the friends of God, because we will see Him as He is, because we will be as He is. Thus, it doesn't even matter how it all started.

 

[rusmeister]

Rus, I never said that death entered the world by evolution, and not by sin. You are saying that. What I've implied is that mankind has been unfit for immortality since his beginning, because only God is good enough to be worthy of and capable of immortality. We, in contrast, must learn to be as God is in order to be worthy of immortality. This is the meaning of the saying of the fathers, "God became man so that man might become God." The incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost are to be understood to be the means by which this end is to be accomplished. Without these events, it would not be possible for men to become God because of the way in which we live: that is, by a uniquely human psychological process that we call "transference". This is to say, that we become who and what we are, as persons, from the outside in, through socialization with others of our own species, beginning with our primary caregivers as children. If God had not become one of us, then this vital transference, between God and man, the only means by which we could ever really become as God is, would not have happened, and we could not hope to realize our destiny. Man before the incarnation of God could not know God well enough to be worthy of immortality, so he was always a mortal being, because he couldn't help but be disobedient to God, because he didn't truly know Him.

If you don't believe me that Adam and Eve didn't really know God, then please read the fall narrative more carefully. If you're willing to see it, you will realize that what Eve did prior to disobeying the command was to project an evil image onto the person of God. This was what we call "negative transference". Eve had sin within herself already, otherwise she would not have understood the pride, vainglory, and love of power that she had injected into God's personality, thereby giving herself an excuse to disobey Him, because she decided that he was a liar, at the serpent's suggestion. Well, it takes one to know one, right? Eve was a liar and so was Adam (and they are us -- they symbolize our humanity). They didn't know God. They thought that He was a liar too. If they were living in such a high state of spiritual union with Him as is sometimes thought, would they have deemed Him a trickster in their hearts and minds? Of course not! Surely you must be able to recognize these things in the narrative. Adam and Eve weren't capable of immortality because they couldn't know God well enough. And this is because they were merely human. We are becoming God, (yes, via Theosis) but in a way that none of us fully understands shall this come to pass. And biological evolution is an acceptable belief. We don't need to be afraid of it. The Christ was always going to come to us in our own form so that we can truly be the friends of God, because we will see Him as He is, because we will be as He is. Thus, it doesn't even matter how it all started.

Hi, TF,
I understand what you are saying, which is that only God is inherently immortal (and I would not say merely "capable" of, expressing ability that one might or might not choose to exercise. Nobody thinks that man was ever capable of supplying himself with immortality. We all agree that the life was not in him of itself. But some of us DO think that man was capable, in the sense that it was a real possibility, that he had the choice, like the angels (that remained angels) of NOT disobeying, and of growing into what God intended, which was never death.

I never hear any talk of "transference" in Orthodoxy. I hear talk of "theosis". You are the only person I have ever heard use this word in an Orthodox context (I grant that there are no doubt others, but the Church Tradition is not exactly flowing with that expression). But you use it to talk about mere development into maturity, which certainly happened in the world before Christ for all, Jews and Gentiles, then to talk about God making possible our restoration, which you seem to think was NEVER possible and not even a restoration, but a new possibility that had never existed, but we think was initially possible, ruined by the ancestral sin and that the first Adam's fault was righted by the second Adam. The implication seems to be that the Fall doesn't matter; that Christ would have to have Incarnated no matter WHAT Adam and Eve chose.

I said nothing about the extent to which Adam and Eve knew God in the Garden. [bless and do not curse]I can only presume that it could only have been as very young children know their parents, which you could say is "not very well" in terms of "knowing" about the parents, their lives and desires.

When you say "Eve had sin within herself already, I object to the use of the word "already". There was a point before and right up to the event itself, where she had not come to or made a choice to disobey God. We would say that there was no sin in her up to that point, so clearly we have some kind of malfunction of disagreement. The sin was in choosing to disobey God, and it was not, until she chose. If you disagree with that, then you don't know what I recognize as Orthodox teaching.

Are you "afraid" of the idea of a young earth? I would think not. I think you think the idea wrong, and that it should be spoken against. Well, neither are we "afraid" of the idea of evolution. We think it a godless doctrine that has inserted itself firmly into the minds of many in the Church, that it has been mixed in with genuine and true observations of the natural world much in the same way that pork funding is slipped into a larger budget and passed as a whole. We think the people who believe it are sincere, and sincerely wrong [bless and do not curse](as you believe us to be), and that you do not see the implications of the belief as an essential denial of the Fall. Well, we do, and there is no fear, except the fear of many being led astray, in opposing the idea.

FTR, I don't even really believe in psychology. I think there are true understandings of he human soul, and an Orthodox psychologist is most truly in touch with those truths, but that it is in the main pseudo-science based on observations and theories whose foundations are[bless and do not curse]
largely not founded in the truth, but in the secular desire to create "truths" that prop up man as his own god. So referring to popular ideas in psychology is REALLY not going to work with me. I think we need to be freed from many falsehoods that have been imposed on us in the name of modern science.

 

[jckstraw72]

TF, my question still is - what makes your interpretations Orthodox?

 

[GregConstantine]

@Truefiction, great explanation

@jckstraw72, the same question can be asked of you, and you cannot simply quote the fathers ad nauseaum, other with ideas very unOrthodox also quote the fathers.

On another note, I do not like the labeling of "pro-evolution", I'm certainly not pro evolution, I doubt it others are "pro" evolution too. That label sounds like it has a lot of connotations to it that frankly I think is judgmental and simply not true.

I still think that some of you are conflating the theories of the mechanisms of how organisms change (evolution) and adapt with the huministic philosophy of Darwinism, creating a false strawman.

 

[GregConstantine]

"FTR, I don't even really believe in psychology. I think there are true understandings of he human soul, and an Orthodox psychologist is most truly in touch with those truths, but that it is in the main pseudo-science based on observations and theories whose foundations are[bless and do not curse]
largely not founded in the truth"

Once again, this statement reveals a very popular, one sided, and skewed idea of what psychology is. Psychology is the scientific study of human behavior. What you are describing is a very particular aspect of psychology that involves therapy based on Freudian ideas of human development, which most modern psychologist reject as not having basis in solid scientific inquiry and research. Before anyone dismisses what I said as foolishness, I have a BA in psychology and have developed and enacted behavior modification therapies for children with Autism.

This why I asked the question about who here has done actual scientific research and experimentation, and interestingly enough, no one answered it and or it was dismissed.

 

[jckstraw72]

@Truefiction, great explanation

@jckstraw72, the same question can be asked of you, and you cannot simply quote the fathers ad nauseaum, other with ideas very unOrthodox also quote the fathers.

On another note, I do not like the labeling of "pro-evolution", I'm certainly not pro evolution, I doubt it others are "pro" evolution too. That label sounds like it has a lot of connotations to it that frankly I think is judgmental and simply not true.

I still think that some of you are conflating the theories of the mechanisms of how organisms change (evolution) and adapt with the huministic philosophy of Darwinism, creating a false strawman.

Truefiction has openly admitted that he believes that the Fathers misunderstood the spiritual state of Adam and Eve in the Garden, and therefore he's not even pretending to take a Patristic approach, at least on that matter. So what makes it Orthodox? I mean, at least he's being honest about what it takes to believe in evolution, unlike so many others, but what makes it Orthodox?

Greg, you are free to actually demonstrate that the modern Saints and elders (from whom I learned about Genesis) have misunderstood the Fathers, or you can continue to drop in every 10 pages and take pot shots with no attempt to prove anything you're saying . Can you demonstrate that anything I have said about the interpretation of Genesis is not found in the Fathers? If you follow this thread you will see that there is a real attempt to deal with the issues, on both sides. While I disagree with TrueFiction, he is at least addressing the issues and the Scriptures and Patristics involved. If you want to make a meaningful contribution to this discussion then you need to do the same.

 

[GregConstantine]

I'm not talking about an intepretation of genesis I'm talking about the conflation of humanism with evolution and how you guys cannot seem to keep the two separate.