• 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.

Can you believe in YEC and still be a scientist?

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,538
5,299
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟492,488.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The trouble with this, Isaac, is that the fathers do agree; they do have a consensus, already. You are here suggesting that they might somehow change their consensus over 1000 years, reverse their ruling, so to speak. If the fathers actually change a clear consensus that I would submit that it is not Tradition and not Orthodox. We have to take what we do have, not what we speculatively don't have, as our guide to truth.

What can we say if anyone may dismiss the existing consensus at will? Again, you have a Protestant-type "Orthodoxy" of the individual, the supreme arbiter of all things. We need the dead people to correct our living arrogancies.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
42,351
21,031
Earth
✟1,666,855.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I shouldn't have tried to delete the duplicate post.
The trouble with what you are saying here Isaac, is that there is a pretty clear consensus among the fathers about this. What you are here suggesting is that they might change, that is reverse, their consensus over time.

What can we say if you individual can choose to reject that consensus at will? That isn't Tradition, it isn't Orthodox. It is the protestant ascendancy of individualism. We need the dead people to correct our living arrogance.

and going with this is that the Fathers since Darwin (St Nektarios of Aegina, St Luke of Crimea, St Theophan the Recluse, etc) have all rejected it as well.
 
Upvote 0

Isaac32

Newbie
May 5, 2015
180
82
✟24,067.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I suppose one of the potential problems I see is that more contemporary fathers may not be rejecting evolution because they researched it and thought about it, but are instead rejecting it for the same reasons many here do - for the sake of aligning with what has traditionally been believed. If, hypothetically, evolution is true and it is compatible with the Orthodox faith, it might still be the case that the barrier of tradition will be insurmountable.

Additionally, there are and have been many great individuals in the Orthodox Church who see no issue with evolution, who have done so much for the faith and the faithful (I'm thinking of people like Met. Kallistos, Met. Hierotheos, Fr. Thomas Hopko of blessed memory, Fr. Stephen Freeman), individuals who might be canonized but may not be because hierarchs fear rocking the boat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gzt
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,538
5,299
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟492,488.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
A problem ONLY arises when there is conflict, Isaac. What do you do when what the world teaches you contradicts something Tradition teaches? If you are really faced with mutually exclusive understandings: ie, God cannot be both good AND evil, the earth could not have come about both by impersonal uncreated forces AND by the Word of God, etc etc, then you really have to decide who to believe. You cannot synthesize, you cannot serve two masters.

What you (guys in general) do here in defending evolution is to decide, in opposition to the consensus of the fathers, that things they insist happened as described in common understandings must not be understood that way. (You can call it "literal", as most sensible people would, but if you have made "literal" a "category" that doesn't really express reality, then obviously we can't call it that. A good word has been ruined by hyper-intellectualism for the purposes of communication.)
You choose, in that event, the authority of modern science OVER the fathers. Hoping that "future fathers" will change the consensus to match your synthesis is dealing, not with what is, but with wishful thinking. If they WERE to actually change the consensus, it would mean that the Church has been wrong for all of its history up to now on something really important.

And yes, it is earth-shattering, in a sense, to have to come to doubt modern educators and education, to suspect that despite THEIR consensus, they could really be wrong about really important things. It crumbles a lot of assumptions we have been used to relying on, to accept that modern education does not educate, and that its product is not only not worth what we thought it was, but that it even has negative value, is a liability and not an asset. The thought is so shocking that most, especially those with most invested in such education, will recoil from it and deny it.

But if there's anything in Tradition about the wisdom of this world, it's that we shouldn't trust it. Use it, sure, but trust it - no.
 
Upvote 0

Isaac32

Newbie
May 5, 2015
180
82
✟24,067.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The dichotomy between good and evil is not necessarily akin to the dichotomy between evolution and Orthodox theology. The former are, by definition, in opposition, whereas the latter are only in conflict when certain, optional definitions and views are held. If the death spoken of in Genesis must refer to physical entropy, if that death did not occur until the Fall, and if the fall necessarily had to occur in both the same material and temporal dimensions in which we now exist, then you are absolutely correct; there can be no compatibility between modern theories of biological evolution and Orthodox Christianity. I remain unconvinced that an Orthodox Christian is required to believe these things, though.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Correct me if I am wrong, Jesse, but it seems as though the only thing that would sway you on this topic would be the Fathers, right? If this is the case, then there seems to be no reason to engage. There is an impasse of sorts. One-thousand years from now, there might be among the fathers some who accept theistic evolution to which people like Kristos will be able to appeal, but we won't be here to see it.

one could always attempt to show me that my reliance on the Fathers in this matter is misguided/incorrect.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
The dichotomy between good and evil is not necessarily akin to the dichotomy between evolution and Orthodox theology. The former are, by definition, in opposition, whereas the latter are only in conflict when certain, optional definitions and views are held. If the death spoken of in Genesis must refer to physical entropy, if that death did not occur until the Fall, and if the fall necessarily had to occur in both the same material and temporal dimensions in which we now exist, then you are absolutely correct; there can be no compatibility between modern theories of biological evolution and Orthodox Christianity. I remain unconvinced that an Orthodox Christian is required to believe these things, though.

well, at least in the case of humans, it has been taught by an Ecumenical Council:

Canon 109 of African Code
, (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at Trullo and Nicea II

That Adam was not created by God subject to death.

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.

Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.


St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Interpretation of same canon:

The present Canon overthrows the heresy of Pelagius, and of his disciple Celestius. For these men (as divine Augustine bears witness in his discourse concerning original sin, chapters 5 and 6), be it noted, were condemned because they believed and held that original sin is not begotten together with the human being, and that it is a mistake, not of his nature, but of his will, and consequently from this they concluded that even Adam died this physical death, not on account of his sin, which was done as a matter of choice, but owing to a necessity inherent in his nature, which was built to be mortal from the very beginning, and was bound to die whether Adam, sinned or did not sin by choice. Hence the present Council, in overthrowing this heretical view, anathematizes those persons who make this assertion For, if Adam actually were mortal by necessity of his nature, then: First’ God, who built it to be so, would have to be also the creator and cause of death. But God did not create death, according to Scripture. Secondly, that flesh which Adam had before the transgression ought not to have been any different from our own, but, on the contrary, would have had to be, like ours, gross and mortal and antitypal; seeing that we too who have been born after that transgression are in accordance with the same necessity of nature mortal, and at all events are destined to die. (Book of Wisdom, 1:13). But St. Gregory the Theologian (in his sermon on the birth of Christ) insists that this gross and antitypal flesh which we ha\e now is such as Adam had only after the transgression, and not before it. And thirdly, if death came from nature, how is it that St. Paul says that "through sin death entered the world" (Rom. 5:12); and Solomon says that "it was by the devil’s envy that death entered the world" (Wisdom 2:24)? So, according to this Canon, God created man not mortal by natural necessity, but by nature immortal. And since it is characteristic of whatever is good not to force anyone to be good, therefore and on this account He created man free and independent with respect to his soul, in order that he might be induced to be good as a matter of choice and remain good, not by the exercise of force and violence, but by virtue of self-mastery and voluntarily; and by thus remaining good, that he might thenceforth maintain also the natural immortality of the body. But inasmuch he himself of his own accord was moved to evil by willful choice and preference, he no longer had the power, or ability, to keep the body in its natural immortality in which it was built; hence there ensued the death of this body. And, to speak more clearly with the great Gregory of Thessalonica, since the superior and higher part of man, the soul, became separated through sin and transgression from the real life, which is the grace of God, and fell into the real death, which is wickedness; therefore and on this account the lower and inferior part, or, more expressly speaking, the body, became separated from the life according to nature, and fell into the death contrary to nature. And just as the soul, being by nature, subject to God, failed to subject itself to Him, so and in like manner the body, subject by nature to the soul, evaded subjection to it with the disorders of its senses, pf its passions, and lastly with its decomposition into the elements of which it was composed, which dissolution is death. In agreement with the present Canon the following seven Canons of the present Council overthrow the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius: these are cc. CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, and CXXVII

-----

I maintain that the entire creation was created in such a state, as demonstrated by the Patristic consensus, although as far as i am aware, there is no statement coming from a Council on this, although, of course, we don't believe only what comes from Councils. however, that Adam was created in a state of immortality is already enough to be incompatible with evolution, as there is obviously no scientific basis for endowing immoratlity upon man.

and notice the strength of the canon --- to believe otherwise is anathema. now, of course it's not up to me to apply this canon and I'm not advocating for anyone's anathematization, but rather simply pointing out that this is no small matter.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
I suppose one of the potential problems I see is that more contemporary fathers may not be rejecting evolution because they researched it and thought about it, but are instead rejecting it for the same reasons many here do - for the sake of aligning with what has traditionally been believed. If, hypothetically, evolution is true and it is compatible with the Orthodox faith, it might still be the case that the barrier of tradition will be insurmountable.

Additionally, there are and have been many great individuals in the Orthodox Church who see no issue with evolution, who have done so much for the faith and the faithful (I'm thinking of people like Met. Kallistos, Met. Hierotheos, Fr. Thomas Hopko of blessed memory, Fr. Stephen Freeman), individuals who might be canonized but may not be because hierarchs fear rocking the boat.
have you considered that our modern saints and elders are rejecting evolution based on spiritual experience? I have heard, for instance, from two independent sources who visited Vatopaidi that Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi had beheld a vision of the creation of the world and he saw it precisely as Moses had written it. i can't prove this to you, but it would be no surprise, as St. Isaac and others wrote that saints are granted visions of the creation of the world.

Elder Joseph the Hesychast rebuked a theologian who had written in favor of evolution, not because he simply wanted to be traditional, but because he spelled a spiritual stench about the man, and in confession it came out that it was because of his support of evolution. would an enlightened elder rebuke someone willy nilly or on a whim or personal opinion? of course we could try to say the elder was deluded but ....

this story is in the Athonite Gerontikon and in "My Elder Joseph the Hesychast" by Elder Ephraim.

Fr. Seraphim became personally close to St. Basil the Great, whose Hexameron is the Church standard and serves as the foudnation for so many other hexamerons, as he researched his work on creation/evolution.
 
Upvote 0

gzt

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years
Jul 14, 2004
10,659
1,947
Abolish ICE
Visit site
✟151,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
A problem ONLY arises when there is conflict, Isaac. What do you do when what the world teaches you contradicts something Tradition teaches? If you are really faced with mutually exclusive understandings: ie, God cannot be both good AND evil, the earth could not have come about both by impersonal uncreated forces AND by the Word of God, etc etc, then you really have to decide who to believe. You cannot synthesize, you cannot serve two masters.

...

But if there's anything in Tradition about the wisdom of this world, it's that we shouldn't trust it. Use it, sure, but trust it - no.
I cut out a lot of etc etc type things, but I would just say that this is a very strong and pejorative reading of what those who think the earth is very old and that the Church does not mandate a "young earth" view are saying. Could you tone it down?
 
Upvote 0

gzt

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years
Jul 14, 2004
10,659
1,947
Abolish ICE
Visit site
✟151,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
have you considered that our modern saints and elders are rejecting evolution based on spiritual experience? I have heard, for instance, from two independent sources who visited Vatopaidi that Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi had beheld a vision of the creation of the world and he saw it precisely as Moses had written it. i can't prove this to you, but it would be no surprise, as St. Isaac and others wrote that saints are granted visions of the creation of the world.
Yes, but these visions must be interpreted - are they really intended to say this is what you would have seen if you were physically present on the day of creation, or is it saying something else? And then of course you have the question of what authority these visions have in determining the doctrine of the Church. All we have here is another fact: Elder Joseph had a vision that appeared to be X, Y, and Z on this date. Add that to a pile of other facts, then propose a model fitting all the facts, including the physical observations (which you still absolutely do not account for, while evolutionists within the Church at least have some reasonable attempt of accounting for the church's set of facts). HTH. HAND.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Isaac32
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,538
5,299
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟492,488.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I have to note here that the only person who has offered substantial testimony from various fathers - and not just one or two isolated quotes - is Jackstraw. The witness of the fathers and consensus is clear. The Councils are clear. For you guys to deny it has been declared anathema - do you understand what that means???

I cut out a lot of etc etc type things, but I would just say that this is a very strong and pejorative reading of what those who think the earth is very old and that the Church does not mandate a "young earth" view are saying. Could you tone it down?
Uh, no, I can't.
Do you deny Canon 109 that Jack posted above? That's not pejorative. That's an ancient, and never-retracted statement of the Church.
It sure seems like you already have denied it.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,538
5,299
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟492,488.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I should add that I don't give a hoot about evolution at this point. The issue, to my mind, is whether members of the Church can dismiss agreed-upon historical consensus of the Church at will, whether they can decide for themselves what they will and will not accept as Holy Tradition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

gzt

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years
Jul 14, 2004
10,659
1,947
Abolish ICE
Visit site
✟151,653.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
What are you asserting that I am denying?

"Historical consensus of the Church at will": I'm denying that the consensus says what Jckstraw says it does, or at least that the binding aspect of it does.
 
Upvote 0

Isaac32

Newbie
May 5, 2015
180
82
✟24,067.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
well, at least in the case of humans, it has been taught by an Ecumenical Council:

Canon 109 of African Code
, (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at Trullo and Nicea II

That Adam was not created by God subject to death.

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.

Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.


St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Interpretation of same canon:

The present Canon overthrows the heresy of Pelagius, and of his disciple Celestius. For these men (as divine Augustine bears witness in his discourse concerning original sin, chapters 5 and 6), be it noted, were condemned because they believed and held that original sin is not begotten together with the human being, and that it is a mistake, not of his nature, but of his will, and consequently from this they concluded that even Adam died this physical death, not on account of his sin, which was done as a matter of choice, but owing to a necessity inherent in his nature, which was built to be mortal from the very beginning, and was bound to die whether Adam, sinned or did not sin by choice. Hence the present Council, in overthrowing this heretical view, anathematizes those persons who make this assertion For, if Adam actually were mortal by necessity of his nature, then: First’ God, who built it to be so, would have to be also the creator and cause of death. But God did not create death, according to Scripture. Secondly, that flesh which Adam had before the transgression ought not to have been any different from our own, but, on the contrary, would have had to be, like ours, gross and mortal and antitypal; seeing that we too who have been born after that transgression are in accordance with the same necessity of nature mortal, and at all events are destined to die. (Book of Wisdom, 1:13). But St. Gregory the Theologian (in his sermon on the birth of Christ) insists that this gross and antitypal flesh which we ha\e now is such as Adam had only after the transgression, and not before it. And thirdly, if death came from nature, how is it that St. Paul says that "through sin death entered the world" (Rom. 5:12); and Solomon says that "it was by the devil’s envy that death entered the world" (Wisdom 2:24)? So, according to this Canon, God created man not mortal by natural necessity, but by nature immortal. And since it is characteristic of whatever is good not to force anyone to be good, therefore and on this account He created man free and independent with respect to his soul, in order that he might be induced to be good as a matter of choice and remain good, not by the exercise of force and violence, but by virtue of self-mastery and voluntarily; and by thus remaining good, that he might thenceforth maintain also the natural immortality of the body. But inasmuch he himself of his own accord was moved to evil by willful choice and preference, he no longer had the power, or ability, to keep the body in its natural immortality in which it was built; hence there ensued the death of this body. And, to speak more clearly with the great Gregory of Thessalonica, since the superior and higher part of man, the soul, became separated through sin and transgression from the real life, which is the grace of God, and fell into the real death, which is wickedness; therefore and on this account the lower and inferior part, or, more expressly speaking, the body, became separated from the life according to nature, and fell into the death contrary to nature. And just as the soul, being by nature, subject to God, failed to subject itself to Him, so and in like manner the body, subject by nature to the soul, evaded subjection to it with the disorders of its senses, pf its passions, and lastly with its decomposition into the elements of which it was composed, which dissolution is death. In agreement with the present Canon the following seven Canons of the present Council overthrow the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius: these are cc. CXXI, CXXII, CXXIII, CXXIV, CXXV, CXXVI, and CXXVII

-----

I maintain that the entire creation was created in such a state, as demonstrated by the Patristic consensus, although as far as i am aware, there is no statement coming from a Council on this, although, of course, we don't believe only what comes from Councils. however, that Adam was created in a state of immortality is already enough to be incompatible with evolution, as there is obviously no scientific basis for endowing immoratlity upon man.

and notice the strength of the canon --- to believe otherwise is anathema. now, of course it's not up to me to apply this canon and I'm not advocating for anyone's anathematization, but rather simply pointing out that this is no small matter.
Do you have these in their original language, and can you show me wherein ecumenical councils these were ratified?
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, but these visions must be interpreted - are they really intended to say this is what you would have seen if you were physically present on the day of creation, or is it saying something else? And then of course you have the question of what authority these visions have in determining the doctrine of the Church. All we have here is another fact: Elder Joseph had a vision that appeared to be X, Y, and Z on this date. Add that to a pile of other facts, then propose a model fitting all the facts, including the physical observations (which you still absolutely do not account for, while evolutionists within the Church at least have some reasonable attempt of accounting for the church's set of facts). HTH. HAND.

well, the modern saints and elders having such visions are taking them this way. they are rejecting evolution.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Do you have these in their original language, and can you show me wherein ecumenical councils these were ratified?
original language, no, but the explanation of St. Nikodemos, who obvioulsy knew Greek, makes clear the point. but check out Canon 2 of Quinisext/Trullo/Sixth Council, and Canon 1 of the 7th. Canon 1 of the 7th confirms all the canons of the 6 Ecumenical Councils, so that includes the 6th's confirmation of Carthage, and then it also goes on to also mention the regional councils. St.Nicodemos includes this Council in the Rudder. Actually he argues that the 4th and 5th Councils confirm Carthage as well. He writes:

So after the many examinations and tractaisms which it held, it also promulgated one hundred and forty-one Canons relating to the good order and constitution of the Church; they are those which follow, sealed and confirmed definitely and by name in c. II of the holy Sixth Ecumenical Council, but generally and indefinitely by c. I of the 4th, and by c. I of the 7th. Its c. LXXXIX is cited verbatim by the holy Fifth Ecumenical Council; and by virtue of this confirmation they have acquired a force which is in a way ecumenical.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,145
41
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟79,442.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Additionally, there are and have been many great individuals in the Orthodox Church who see no issue with evolution, who have done so much for the faith and the faithful (I'm thinking of people like Met. Kallistos, Met. Hierotheos, Fr. Thomas Hopko of blessed memory, Fr. Stephen Freeman), individuals who might be canonized but may not be because hierarchs fear rocking the boat.

sorry, just noticed this --- where have you seen that Met. Hierotheos sees no issue with, or is in favor of evolution? that would surprise me very very much.

the only place i've seen yet where he mentions evolution is:

The Twelve Feasts of the Lord 7.17, pp. 171-172

The Fathers, speaking of the Transfiguration of Christ and the partaking of divine glory, speak of the personal ascent on the mount of the vision of God. It is the constant cry of the Church: "Make Thine everlasting light shine forth also upon us sinners." And in a related prayer in the first hour we feel the need to ask Christ: "O Christ, the true Light, which illumineth and sanctifieth every man who cometh in the world! Let the light of Thy countenance be shown upon us, that in it we may behold the light ineffable." Continual ascent and evolution are needed.

In the Church we speak of man's evolution, not from ape to man, but from man to God. And this "ecclesiastical theory" of evolution which the Church has, gives an understanding of life and satisfies all of man's inner and existential anxieties.

St. Maximus the Confessor teaches that Christ is not shown to all in the same way, but to beginners he is shown in the form of a servant, while to those who are ascending the mountain of the vision of God He is shown "in the form of God."

----
and whereas evolutionists often claim the Fathers were just limited by the science of their day, Met. Hierotheos has quite a higher estimation of St. Basil:

The Person in the Orthodox Tradition, p. 46:

Fourthly, Basil the Great does not entirely accept the science of his time, but he judges it by theological criteria, as can be seen in his homilies about the six days of creation.

--> theology is the judge of science ... St. Theophan the Recluse, knowledgeable of evolution, quite forcefully taught the same
 
  • Like
Reactions: rusmeister
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,538
5,299
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟492,488.00
Country
Montenegro
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
What are you asserting that I am denying?

"Historical consensus of the Church at will": I'm denying that the consensus says what Jckstraw says it does, or at least that the binding aspect of it does.
Well, Jack is offering the evidence that it does; you are completely failing to offer the evidence that it does not. And the evidence that it does is building up to a preponderance in this thread alone, set against your denial.

Is your faith in science as complete and deep as your faith in the Church?
 
Upvote 0