An interview series on evolution and Orthdoxy.

[Isaac32]

I want to do an interview series with notable individuals in contemporary Orthodoxy and get their take on some of the things we have been discussing and debating here. I will interview both proponents and opponents of theistic evolution and ask them some predetermined questions I have selected and formulated from the debates here. At this point, I have Fr. Evan Armitas, Fr. Josiah Trenham, Fr. John Whiteford, Fr. John Behr, Fr. Stephen Freeman, and Fr. Gregory Hallam in mind. Any other suggestions?

If they see Orthodoxy and evolution as compatible, I will ask them questions related to how they support this belief in light of the consensus of the church fathers and canon 109 of African Code (thanks, Jesse).

If they see the two as incompatible, I will ask them their bases for rejecting evolution apart from the Fathers, citing the strongest evidences for the reality of evolution.

Any other questions you think would be worth asking?

 

[ArmyMatt]

hmmm, I dunno anyone to add, but that would be a sweet interview to hear. maybe record it and put it on AFR. good idea Isaac

 

[gzt]

I had a survey a while back about evolution, but the questions may not be the best.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19dtf7DFb9AQRxvFoUwCViMu7f5kH_OH-JS0Z8RxM_PQ/viewanalytics

You can see how many people are deluded by Satan.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You already selected several individuals I would have thought of. I'm not sure if he's looking to get involved in something like this, and I know he's not a priest, but I'm thinking he would give some very thoughtful and thorough answers if you did include him - I'm thinking of Steve Robinson?

 

[gzt]

Peter Bouteneff would be good. After all, he wrote a book.

 

[Kristos]

Could you not ask the same questions regarding quantum mechanics or string theory? Black holes, worm holes, space-time, etc etc... I would be more interested in what they have to say about dating methods based on Genesis...I think you would be more likely to get concrete answers there.

 

[jckstraw72]

I think you should definitely add Fr. Damascene at Platina. I would wager that he has spent more time researching this issue than anyone else and could probably give you the most detailed and thought out answers.

i think either way you could ask them if and why they think science and philosophy can even tell us about the creation of the world and the time before the Fall, and what this says about the historicity and extent of the Fall.

 

[jckstraw72]

also, if you haven't already, check out this article on St. Maximus and evolution http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/81599.htm. it could help you generate some more questions.

 

[jckstraw72]

also Fr. Hans Jacobse has some interesting things to say on this topic

 

[gzt]

If you look at the orthowiki article, there are a handful of people on there to contact who have thought about the issue as well. I wouldn't miss the opportunity to talk to Fr Patrick Reardon, for instance.

 

[Kristos]

If you look at the orthowiki article, there are a handful of people on there to contact who have thought about the issue as well. I wouldn't miss the opportunity to talk to Fr Patrick Reardon, for instance.

If you want to know what Fr Patrick thinks - just read his commentary on Genesis - it's pretty clear - I've actually recommended it before:

I finally got back to this thread this morning and it seems like it has moved way past the point of my planned reply, so I'm just going to make a short statement and then list some useful references on the subject.

My argument is not that one scientific theory is superior to another. I am claiming that using scripture - Genesis in this case, as empirical evidence is wrong. When I say "modern literal", I mean in this sense - measuring something that was never meant to be measured...asserting an empirical truth into something that is not empirical. Literal or empirical scientific history generally starts with a line (or perhaps a ray), which starts are some point and extends into the future infinitely. Historical events can then be placed on this line (or ray) in chronological order in accordance with the assumption that we are talking about material causes that exist in time and in a sequential manner. So, can we apply a modern scientific assumption to God aka theology, and specifically to the first account of creation in Genesis? I think the answer is no - because first, contextually, the writers and even the commentator (ECFs), had no concept of our modern scientific method and therefore it would be projecting something onto the text and commentary that was never there. Second, it distorts the orthodox view of God as being wholly transcendent (not just above time, but before time and beyond time in ways that we cannot comprehend). The simple question of when "human beings" were ensouled reveals this confusion - as if it was an event that happened at a point in the past and then the material order took over to propagate it. This is the big problem with the assumptions of modern literalism when applied to scripture.

An example from the NT - Jesus Himself says that a mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. This was not a statement of empirical fact that could be used to argue with a botanist who has observed seeds that are smaller. It would be a complete misuse of the text.

The same applies to reading the Fathers, who did at times use contemporary scientific knowledge to makes points, but never intended their writing to be scientific in nature.

So anyway - it seems to me that the consuses of orthodox theologians and patristic scholars agree with what I am saying here.

"The Orthodox Way" by Kallistos Ware covers the topic of creation:
The Orthodox Way: Kallistos Ware: 9780913836583: Amazon.com: Books

"Orthodox Theology: An Introduction" by Vladimir Lossky has a whole chapter dedicated to the topic and is quite good.
Orthodox Theology: An Introduction: Vladimir Lossky: 9780913836439: Amazon.com: Books

"Creation and the Patriarchal Histories" by Patrick Reardon covers the whole book a Genesis and obviously starts at the beginning.
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Patr...1078572&sr=1-3&keywords=reardon+patrick+henry

"Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View" by Georges Florovsky has very good chapter on the topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Church-...TF8&qid=1421078667&sr=1-10&keywords=florovsky

"Byzantine Theology" by John Meyendorff another good book with an entire chapter on the subject, although he never addresses the modern literalism directly it gives a good overview of God's role.
Amazon.com: Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (9780823209675): John Meyendorff: Books

"The Experience of God" by David Bentley Hart, time makes some important points on the subject in this book.
http://www.amazon.com/Experience-Go...keywords=david+bentley+hart+experience+of+god

Podcast by Fr Thomas Hopko - as former dean of St Vladimir's seminary, Fr Hopko knows his stuff and always gives a balanced presentation - sometime his own opinion too, but mainly the Orthodox view.
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcast...istianity_-_part_7_the_genesis_account_part_1

That is just a smattering of books I pulled at random from my bookshelf. They are all fairly harmonious in their message, so I don't think one needs to read all of them to understand. Not surprisingly, none of them give any credence to anything that resembles YEC - a few of them actually have some very critical words for such "theology".

 

[Isaac32]

Here is what I have so far. Suggestions, criticisms, etc. are very welcome:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview series. Please feel free to be as brief or descriptive as you feel necessary.

Two of the most controversial issues in contemporary Orthodoxy are modern theories of biological evolution and the age of the universe, and whether such views are compatible with Eastern Orthodox Christian doctrines. With so many different opinions coming from Orthodox hierarchs, elders and other notable Orthodox voices, it can be difficult for Orthodox Christians to figure out what exactly they should believe about biological evolution, or if what they believe about modern scientific theories matters at all.


How important do you think questions of biological origins and the age of the universe are for Orthodox Christians? Do you think it is important for Orthodox Christians to align with one or the other sides in this debate, or is there room for both proponents and opponents of modern scientific theories?

(If you believe that Orthodox Christian doctrine and biological evolution are compatible, please answer question (A). If you believe Orthodox Christian doctrine is not compatible with biological evolution, please answer question (B)):

(A) Orthodox Christians who see biological evolution and Orthodox Christian doctrine as irreconcilable appeal to the Early Church Fathers who spoke about Genesis, and they highlight that none of these fathers saw Adam and Eve as allegorical figures, and that many of these fathers saw the six days of creation as literal, 24 hour days. They claim that these were not merely speculative opinions, but visions these Fathers received on account of their holiness. Additionally, many modern elders and saints who have spoken about evolution have adamantly rejected it, stating that it undermines the Christian narrative. How do you reconcile your belief that Orthodox doctrine is compatible with biological evolution in light of what the fathers, both ancient and modern, have said on the matter? Is it necessary for Orthodox Christians to believe in literal Adam and Eve figures? Do you believe it is necessary for an Orthodox Christians to align their beliefs with the consensus of the Church Fathers?

(B) The primary reason that many Orthodox Christians accept biological evolution and modern scientific claims about the age of the universe, and thus seek to reconcile them with Orthodox Christian doctrine, is that these theories appear to best explain the observable world and universe. For instance, we have body parts that are no longer useful, but would have been useful to our primitive ancestors. The mapping of the human genome indicates a common origin of all animal species, and has shown striking similarities between human beings and other mammals. Finally, geological and fossil studies indicate that the world is approximately 4 billion years old, which is much older than the age proposed by those who believe the world is closer to 10 thousand years old. How do you reconcile your views of creation with scientific evidences that suggest an old earth and an evolutionary process?

 

[gzt]

I think A and B, though very good questions that get to one of the major points of both sides, might be a little too on point and necessitate too specific of an answer to be as interesting as it could be. I mean, there are several issues to get into on the first one and several on the second, and generally it will be tiresome to address them all at once in a written response.

 

[gzt]

By the way, if anybody who has not filled out my survey in the past wants to do so, the link to take it is here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/19dtf7DFb9AQRxvFoUwCViMu7f5kH_OH-JS0Z8RxM_PQ/viewform

This also lets you see exactly what I wrote on the questions.

 

[jckstraw72]

on quuestion A I wouldn't state it that the Fathers didn't see Adam and Eve as allegorical, but rather that they didn't see their allegorical value as invalidating their literal, historical existence.

 

[Isaac32]

Thanks for the input, guys.

GZT: TThe reason I made the questions more on point is becasue, having had a lot of these conversations, I know how off-topic and unproductive answers can sometimes be if things aren't tailored, but I will definitely think about what you said.

Jesse: Good advice. I will throw that in there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I may be way off, but I actually see the questions as too open-ended and not specific enough. But maybe I misinterpret your purposes. If they are only meant to initiate a dialogue, more general is probably better, though it allows either side to evade certain issues and focus on what they want instead.

My main question for those who don't subscribe to the idea of Genesis being at least somewhat historically accurate, in terms of reconciling with Orthodoxy, is to ask how they explain death entering the world - if it was always the case that things died, why do we expect a restored creation to involve an end to death? Was creation ever "very good" as God proclaimed it - even if the development of species was death-driven? Those kinds of questions, and explaining how they can be reconciled with our theology, are foremost in my mind.

I can't speak as well to the other side, but your question seems to presuppose the accuracy of current scientific theory, as well as presuppose an incompatibility with ancient earth/universe. I don't know the opinions of the people you plan to ask, and I won't address the commitment to current scientific theories, but I for one don't see the absolute necessity of a young earth in the narrative.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would see if you could add Bp Michael of NY to the list. he knows the Scriptures like the back of his hand.

 

[Isaac32]

Well, out of the dozen or so people I contacted, only two have responded with interest, Fr. Gregory Hallam and Fr. Hans Jacobse. Still waiting for their replies.

 

[GregConstantine]

Certain individuals will ignore very good points made here because what it boils down to is that a certain person said something, and because that certain person is well liked, that person's words is taken as the final statement on the issue and nothing anyone else says, or their experience or knowledge is going to matter.