• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

An Eastern Orthodox perspective on evolution

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.

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.
 

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟43,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
From the first paragraph that quote just got me upset:
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.
Scientists do not assume that evolution is a scientifically established fact. Scientists are, as a rule, an incredibly independent-thinking and argumentative bunch. Thus, when nearly all scientists come to an agreement that something is an established scientific fact, you can trust that it is. But what's more, scientists publish their findings, so you can actually go back and check to see if they're right. This does require a lot of work, and a lot of learning, to figure out just what the evidential content of their arguments are. But it can, in principle, be done by anybody who wants to set their nose the grindstone and figure it out.

American society and the authors of scientific text books, if they are not scientists themselves, are right to pay attention to what scientists say about their particular field. And in science, there is absolutely no debate whatsoever as to whether or not evolution is valid: that debate was settled a long time ago. Yet, in investigating the details of evolution more thoroughly, scientists are continually uncovering stronger and stronger evidence that evolution occurred.

Edit: Ick, and it looks like they're also not getting what the definition of evolution even is. Lovely stuff.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟43,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Quite right. But the difference is that scientists are encouraged to think independently. If they ever failed to think independently, science would stop working. Therefore, when studying science at a university, students are not just shown the current state of theories, but are given a history lesson as to how those theories came about, what arguments were presented, and why a particular solution was finally accepted. Students at a good university are not asked, at any point along the way, to believe blindly the conclusions of their forebears. They are even peppered with examples where scientists in the past have been deceived by their own assumptions.

In essence, science is nothing at all like many creationists seem to want to paint it. If it were, science wouldn't work, and we wouldn't have cars, computers, space shuttles, nuclear bombs, antibiotics, etc. Science is continually revising itself, and nothing is taboo but bad logic.

Now, as for your accusation of fallacy, you me or anybody else can go back and look at the history of the debate surrounding evolution, look at how it was approached, what evidence was presented, and judge for ourselves whether their conclusion is valid. Or, conversely we can look at more modern evidence, evidence which provides much stronger support of evolution, and examine that instead. A good place to start would be the 29+ evidences for macroevolution essay I linked in the other thread, an essay which has links to the original research where the methods can be examined for yourself.

The best place to start, in my opinion, would be the endogenous retrovirus section, particularly the Lebedev et. al. (2000) paper (the abstract provides the essential information for the particular experimental setup they used in how the paper demonstrates conclusively that humans and other apes are cousins).
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
Now, as for your accusation of fallacy, you me or anybody else can go back and look at the history of the debate surrounding evolution, look at how it was approached, what evidence was presented, and judge for ourselves whether their conclusion is valid. Or, conversely we can look at more modern evidence, evidence which provides much stronger support of evolution, and examine that instead. A good place to start would be the 29+ evidences for macroevolution essay I linked in the other thread, an essay which has links to the original research where the methods can be examined for yourself.

The best place to start, in my opinion, would be the endogenous retrovirus section, particularly the Lebedev et. al. (2000) paper (the abstract provides the essential information for the particular experimental setup they used in how the paper demonstrates conclusively that humans and other apes are cousins).

I don't mean to be rude, but you are presenting these things as if I've never seen them before. Furthermore, please be aware that I have studied anthropology and biology at a college level. Of course, that does not make me an expert, though I am aware of the evidences usually presented in favor of Darwinian evolution.

Ultimately, since you have not done the research yourself, and neither have I, we are relying on hearsay, on someone else's work. And if we are just relying on authority, please allow me to trust the Tradition of the Church.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

TheInstant

Hooraytheist
Oct 24, 2005
970
20
43
✟23,738.00
Faith
Atheist
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.

Nah, this is just your standard PRATT list.

article said:
American society as a whole, and certainly the authors of science textbooks, simply assume evolution to be a scientifically established fact.

Actually, a large part of American society does not accept evolution. I believe it's the majority, in fact. Of course, this has no bearing on whether or not evolution is correct.

And I would like to see some evidence that the authors of science textbook "simply assume" evolution to be 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.

Of course, some people (Christians included) simply examine the evidence before accepting evolution. No assumptions necessary.

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 not a "completely random" process and I believe the term he is looking for is "common descent", not macroevolution.

Evolution is a materialistic philosophy

No, it is not.

which seeks to explain the world solely in terms of itself, without any reference to a Creator.

Just like all of the rest of science.

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).

Is Orthodox Christianity incompatible with all of science, then?

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?

These sound like reasonable questions to me.

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.

That is because science doesn't deal in proof. There is, however, a large amount of evidence for evolution.

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.

Speciation has been observed: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

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".

What gaps are these?

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.

If the author wants examples of transitional fossils, there are plenty:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

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.

Except that no one claims that cells (and especially not modern cells) came into being as a result of "the random conglomeration of acids". The author is doing nothing but beating his own strawman.

If evolution has never actually been proven, why is it universally accepted as an established fact?

Because it is supported by overwhelming evidence?

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,

:sigh: Again with the strawmen...

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.

What the heck is the "modern" scientific method? This sounds suspiciously like the "scientists are atheists, and the only alternative to evolution is special creation" argument.

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 natural world is all that science attempts to explain through the scientific method. This is not the same as claiming that the natural world is all that exists (which would indeed be a philosophical notion). But if someone has a reliable method for testing the supernatural, I would like to hear it.

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.

And where does the TOE state that humans are "nothing more" than an evolved animal? Even if it did, how does that affect the dignity of humans?

"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.

No. It only seems like a logical extension of the TOE to people who don't have a good grasp of the TOE.

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.

Does it come as a surprise to anyone that Hitler would twist and distort the TOE in order to justify his genocide? After all, he did the same with Christianity...

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?

Even if this were true (and I do not agree that it is) of a materialistic worldview, evolution does not equal materialism.

Furthermore, even if the TOE was responsible for Hitler, abortion, racism, and Britney Spears' success as a pop artist, that would not make it false.

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.

Evolution does not conflict with any of this.

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.

This part just made me laugh. After doing nothing but presenting false information on the theory of evolution, the author concludes by urging Christians to "understand the issues involved". He needs to follow his own advice before attempting to write articles on subjects he knows nothing about.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
Like I've said before, this is in no way definitive. But from a philosophy student's perspective, I believe it raises some interesting points.

Carlton, Clark. The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity, An Orthodox Catechism (Faith Catechism Series). Endorsed by Archbp. DMITRI (OCA), Bp. ISAIAH (GOA), Bp. BASIL (AOA), and Archim. Peter (ROCOR).
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodox_Catechisms_in_English

If the author is completely wrong, so are the bishops who edited his work.

Of course, speciation has been observed, the author would agree to that point. But that is speciation within types, not across genera. There's a real difference.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟43,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Ultimately, since you have not done the research yourself, and neither have I, we are relying on hearsay, on someone else's work.
So? Unless you believe these people to be liars, you can read about their methods and results, and you will come to the same conclusion I did: the fact that humans share a common ancestry with all life on Earth is undeniable.

And if we are just relying on authority, please allow me to trust the Tradition of the Church.
Why? Why would you trust in an authority that has been demonstrated to be false many times over the past couple millenia?

And besides, I am not suggesting that you do trust an authority. I suggest you look examine the research that has already been performed.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
So? Unless you believe these people to be liars, you can read about their methods and results, and you will come to the same conclusion I did: the fact that humans share a common ancestry with all life on Earth is undeniable.

I will not assume a priori that they are liars, but I will be aware of the limitations of human knowledge and how easily presuppositions effect our thinking.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
This stance is very common in the US but not in Greece, I blame Protestant influence.

Or do you really blame the church fathers and Apostolic Tradition? I don't think mentioning Protestantism is even necessary. Carlton's is one of several views within Orthodoxy at the moment, but perhaps the most consistent with Scripture and Tradition. Look at the writings on evolution that have come out of Russia since Darwin first published the Origin.
 
Upvote 0

Chalnoth

Senior Contributor
Aug 14, 2006
11,361
384
Italy
✟43,653.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I will not assume a priori that they are liars, but I will be aware of the limitations of human knowledge and how easily presuppositions effect our thinking.
Of course. All good scientists are aware of these issues. How will you know if presuppositions have anything to do with it unless you actually read the research? Why would you automatically assume that these scientists are mistaken without even examining their work?
 
Upvote 0
S

Silent Bob

Guest
Or do you really blame the church fathers and Apostolic Tradition?

No I don't. I do hate however the misrepresentation of science in the wide public extending to the Church itself. The quoted piece in the OP briliantly demonstrates the lack of understanding by equating evolution to atheism and branding macro-evolution "a completely random process." It is not the Fathers who are incorrect it is the idiots who taught them science.

I don't think mentioning Protestantism is even necessary.

But I believe that it is key. Over here (Greece) that the protestant idea of creationism doesn't exist believers have no problems accepting science and God at the same time. In school we are taught Christian theology from grade one and from grade one we heard that Genesis is a simple story which God used to explain to uneducated people the fact that He created the Earth.

Look at the writings on evolution that have come out of Russia since Darwin first published the Origin.

I find the Russian Church a bit too fundamentalist for my tastes. I like more open minded sources and since the Greek Church has all types of voices I go with the more moderate ones.

If the official Church sides with science there will be turmoil even schisms if they side with creationism they can be proven horribly wrong. I think that is the reason why the official Church has not taken a stance in this matter. Maybe it is not an important matter maybe it is a matter of diplomacy given the history of bad reactions to insignificant issues (namely the calendar) the smartest thing to do is accept and reject at the same time and give no conclusive answer. After all I do not know of a single biologist who holds a key position in the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Sleeker

DON'T PANIC
Jun 21, 2006
1,490
49
36
Illinois
✟31,905.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
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."
I've never heard the terms "obscurantists" or "intellectual cave men."

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).
Macroevolution is microevolution given time to work. Evolution is not random. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the creation of living cells. That's abiogenesis.

Evolution is a materialistic philosophy
It is a fact and used in the theory of evolution. It's not materialistic; it's not philosophy.

which seeks to explain the world solely in terms of itself, without any reference to a Creator.
Science cannot deal with the supernatural.

It should be obvious, therefore, that evolution is incompatible with the Orthodox Christian worldview.
As much as gravity is.

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?
Question 1: It shouldn't.
Question 2: Yes.
Question 3: Yes.

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.
So it is a plausible philosophy.

However, there is none.
Wrong.

To be sure, there is ample proof of species changing and adapting to their environments,
Which supports evolution.

but no proof whatsoever that one classification of animal evolved into another classification.
Which is what evolution predicts. Thanks for helping support the theory of evolution.

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 gaps have gotten smaller, but whenever we find a new fossil, that just means creationists get another two gaps to point at. It's like trying to prove that you can count to eight, and to support this, trying to list all of the numbers between 1 and 8. A creationist would say, "Ah, but there's a gap between 1 and 8." An evolutionist would then find the number 4. The creationist would then say, "Ah, but now there's a gap between 1 and 4 and between 4 and 8." The evolutionist would then say 2.5 The creationist would say, "Ah, but now there is a gap between 1 and 2.5, between 2.5 and 4, and between 4 and 8." The evolutionist would go probably to quite a few decimal places before he just got fed up with the idiocy.

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.
That's not what Punctuated Equilibrium is. It really is the theory that there are short bursts of evolution followed by long stable periods of little evolution. It has nothing to do with gaps in the fossil records, nor with the "missing links," of which many have been found.

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.
It's a good thing it isn't random. Also, we've found amino acids on meteorites, which are "astronomically remote." (I had to do it.)

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.
It's called abiogenesis. Read up on it.

If evolution has never actually been proven, why is it universally accepted as an established fact?
Evolution has been observed. It's a fact. However, you can't prove the theory of evolution.

The answer is quite simple. Modern science assumes that the world is explainable solely in terms of itself.
No reason not to assume that.

Scientists may not be able to explain how random amino acids accidentally formed cells or how amphibians evolved into mammals,
And if we can?

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.
Non-sequitur.

It should be noted that this line of reasoning is not only circular, it is inherently religious.
It's not circular. It's not religious.

The a priori assumption that the world is explainable solely in terms of itself is itself not based upon empirical investigation.
There is no reason to believe it's not. Therefore, by Occam's Razor, there's no reason to believe anything else.

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.
Who cares about Michael Ruse?

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.
Non-sequitur.

"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.
Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, came up with eugenics, which was also wrongly used to support Social Darwinism.

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.
If even true, it has no relevance to the theory of evolution.

Indeed, Social Darwinism is a perfectly logical extension of the theory of evolution.
Your logic fails you.

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.
Eugenics was manipulated by the movement; it wasn't born out of it.

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.
Godwin's Law. You lose.

Why then, should man not try to "improve" himself by altering his genetic makeup?
What's wrong with that? (Anyways, that has nothing to do with anything preceding this sentence.)

Why, indeed, should one assume that all men are equal?
They're not. However, all men should have equal chances at life.

The Orthodox doctrine of creation is wholly incompatible with such an approach.
But not with the theory of evolution.

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.
Because we're created in the image of three people, human nature is one and indivisible? That makes no sense.

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.
Wrong. What "equality for all" actually means is that people should be legally given equal chances to do what they want to do in life.
 
Upvote 0

TeddyKGB

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude
Jul 18, 2005
6,495
455
48
Deep underground
✟9,013.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Of course, speciation has been observed, the author would agree to that point. But that is speciation within types, not across genera. There's a real difference.
This is nearly incomprehensible due to your abuse of terminology. Speciation is the formation of new species. "Type" refers to the form of the specimen which attaches to a taxonomic name. "Genus" and other higher taxa don't have divergence criteria like species do.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
There is only 1 kind of speciation. So much for your "college level" education.

Evolution across the species barrier does not provide strong support for Darwin's general theory of evolution, that all species share a common ancestor. One would need to take the small change we observe in the present and extrapolate it into the future.
 
Upvote 0
P

Punchy

Guest
Maybe it is not an important matter maybe it is a matter of diplomacy given the history of bad reactions to insignificant issues (namely the calendar) the smartest thing to do is accept and reject at the same time and give no conclusive answer.

I believe you are right on this part. That doesn't mean, however, that those who side with Apostolic Tradition on this matter do not have good justifications for what they believe.
 
Upvote 0