P
Punchy
Guest
In the Orthodox Church, there is not yet a dogmatic pronouncement on the truth or falsehood of universal common descent, Darwinian evolution, etc. However, I find this particular piece quite interesting, given that it's part of a catechism approved by a cross section of bishops from the respective jurisdictions in the United States. Though it's not definitive, there may be some important things to learn.
Christ is among us.
Peace.
American society as a whole, and certainly the authors of science textbooks, simply assume evolution to be a scientifically established fact. Those who do not accept the assumption are labeled as "fundamentalists", "obscurantists" and "intellectual cave men." It is not surprising therefore, that many religious thinkers, including a few Orthodox Christians, have accepted the evolutionary worldview and have tried to reconcile it with the biblical doctrine of creation.
Before we proceed any further, let us define exactly what is meant by evolution. I am not referring to the natural process whereby the characteristics of species are changed and adapted to the environments (micro evolution). I am, rather, referring to the theory according to which all life on earth evolved in a completely random process from the chance self-creation of living cells from a "pre-biotic soup" of elements at the dawn of the earth's history (macro evolution).
Evolution is a materialistic philosophy which seeks to explain the world solely in terms of itself, without any reference to a Creator. It should be obvious, therefore, that evolution is incompatible with the Orthodox Christian worldview. Indeed, in the words of fr. Seraphim Rose, "It is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea" (Not of this world, p.512).
But how can the Orthodox Church disagree with scientific fact? Is this not the same as believing that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the solar system? Furthermore, could not God have used evolution to bring about the creation of man?
Theistic evolution, or the belief that God created and directs the evolutionary process, would be a plausible philosophy if there were any real, scientific proof of evolution. However, there is none. To be sure, there is ample proof of species changing and adapting to their environments, but no proof whatsoever that one classification of animal evolved into another classification.
Although literally hundreds of thousands of fossils have been discovered in the last 135 years, the same gaps in the fossil record remain today that so troubled Charles Darwin when he wrote "The Origin of Species". The novel evolutionary theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium, put forth by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is nothing more than an admission that the gaps in the fossil record are real and will not be filled in. In other words, there are no missing links.
Furthermore, the development of molecular biology has shown that living cells are far more complex than Darwin or anyone in the nineteenth century had imagined. The simplest living cell is a far more complicated machine than any human invention. In order to successfully duplicate itself, it must contain exactly the right acids and enzymes, each in its proper place, performing its assigned function, processing literally millions of pieces of information. Statistically, the chances of such a cell coming into being as a result of the random conglomeration of acids are astronomically remote. No molecular biologist has been able to come up with a plausible explanation for the emergence of necessary cell components such as DNA, much less for the emergence of living cells themselves.
If evolution has never actually been proven, why is it universally accepted as an established fact? The answer is quite simple. Modern science assumes that the world is explainable solely in terms of itself. Scientists may not be able to explain how random amino acids accidentally formed cells or how amphibians evolved into mammals, but they have no other choice but to accept the "truth" of evolution as long as they assume that the world explains itself. In other words, evolution must be true, because modern, scientific method needs it to be true.
It should be noted that this line of reasoning is not only circular, it is inherently religious. The a priori assumption that the world is explainable solely in terms of itself is itself not based upon empirical investigation. In 1993, noted evolutionist and philosopher of science Michael Ruse admitted as much before a scientific convocation called to debunk creationism. This admission came ten years after he had testified in an Arkansas court that evolution was not based on any preconceived philosophical notions.
The acceptance of evolution as fact has grave ramifications for human society. If man is nothing more than an evolved animal, then there is no rational basis for asserting the inherent dignity of man.
"Social Darwinism" was an attempt initiated by Darwin's own cousin to apply the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest to human society. Although it is common for evolutionists to disavow any relation with Social Darwinism, Darwin's own writings make it clear that he was sympathetic to the idea. Indeed, Social Darwinism is a perfectly logical extension of the theory of evolution.
The "science" of eugenics was born out of this movement. Eugenics was an attempt to create better humans through scientific methods of population control and selective breeding. Widely practiced in the United Kingdom and the United States in the early part of the 20th century, eugenics became the "scientific" basis for Hitler's attempt to create a Master Race.
Hitler's initial attempts at population control (the forced sterilization of the mentally retarded) and selective breeding (laws regulating mixed marriages) were based on existing laws in force in Britain and the U.S. These programs ultimately led to extermination camps for pure-blooded Germans.
Fifty years after the end of World War II, little has changed except for the sophistication of the methods. Abortion as population control, genetic engineering, and designer sperm banks are all the result of a materialistic worldview, which assumes that man is nothing more than an evolved animal. Why then, should man not try to "improve" himself by altering his genetic makeup? Why, indeed, should one assume that all men are equal?
The Orthodox doctrine of creation is wholly incompatible with such an approach. It is an unalterable dogma of the Orthodox Church that each and every human being, from the moment of conception, is a unique and unrepeatable person created in the image of God. Furthermore, because man is created in the image of the Holy Trinity, human nature itself is one and indivisible. Each human being possesses and sums up in himself the entirety of the human race. Therefore, all men are equal, regardless of their race, mental capacities, or situation in life.
The theory of evolution is not simply a matter for scientists. It has a direct effect on how we view the world and man's place in it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all Orthodox Christians to clearly understand the issues involved.
The Faith, Clark Carlton, p.73, Regina Orthodox Press, 1997
http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Underst...ef=sr_1_4/002-7713878-1700822?ie=UTF8&s=books
Christ is among us.
Peace.
Again with the strawmen...