Can you believe in YEC and still be a scientist?

[gzt]

I've pointed at a couple books and have said my piece in the past.

I'm not going to answer silly questions.

 

[Isaac32]

Jesse,

A good friend of mine was a spiritual son of Met. Hierotheos. My friend is the one who told me Met. Hierotheos's view of evolution.

 

[jckstraw72]

would you mind sharing his view?

 

[Isaac32]

would you mind sharing his view?

His view is that he sees no inherent conflict between Orthodox Christianity and biological evolution.

 

[~Anastasia~]

His view is that he sees no inherent conflict between Orthodox Christianity and biological evolution.

With all due respect, that would need to be elaborated upon. One could actually draw several conflicting possible conclusions from just that brief statement.

 

[rusmeister]

Saying my question is silly means you don't think at all about what I say. I don't call your ideas silly. I take them seriously and think about them.

It is extraordinarily difficult for me to obtain books that anyone recommends. They have to be paid for, shipped and delivered, and that is not easy to accomplish.

I got "Everyday Saints" for my birthday, but only because a friend flew here from the States and personally gave it to me.

In short, if it isn't free online, I'm not likely to be able to read it.

 

[gzt]

A question like this is not one that I will dignify with a response on a forum for Orthodox Christians: "Is your faith in science as complete and deep as your faith in the Church?" There is only one answer for a good Orthodox Christian to give.

It is unfortunate that you're generally unable to access books. That hinders appreciation of this perspective.

 

[rusmeister]

A question like this is not one that I will dignify with a response on a forum for Orthodox Christians: "Is your faith in science as complete and deep as your faith in the Church?" There is only one answer for a good Orthodox Christian to give.

It is unfortunate that you're generally unable to access books. That hinders appreciation of this perspective.

The answer to the question I get from you is "Yes".

 

[gzt]

I really think we've exhausted the usefulness of this discussion and going further would only promote a spirit of division. We've all stated our views and we are all Orthodox Christians in good standing.

 

[Kristos]

To me, at any rate, the answer is astoundingly simple. I don't read Genesis to calculate the age of the Earth.
I don't take what it doesn't say. I take what it DOES say. Then I ask how this has been understood throughout history, what the fathers and Tradition have to say about it. Finally, I look at everything else in our Faith and see how it fits. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin..." Tradition is crystal clear on this. There is no "alternative interpretation". There was no death before sin, and there was after sin. Anything which suggests otherwise is poppycock and a lie, however sophisticated in appearance.

All of that supports special creation of man as an initially sinless being already having will and consciousness and knowing nothing of sin or death, and nothing supports the evolutionary view of man in a world full of death prior to the Fall. The Genesis account even goes out of its way to affirm that "the evening and the morning were the first day", etc, making it even harder to try to suggest allegorical or other literary devices for the meaning of day. The author bloody defines the word "day" right in the text, evidently, in the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "...for just such an emergency." It makes it really, really hard for me to get behind the allegorizers. Maybe there's something I don't know to account for time gaps. But there's nothing in Scripture to make claims for them.

You didn't really answer the question...

Why would you take the days of creation in the first Genesis account as literal, but not the rest of the timeposts in Genesis that lead to the 6000 whatever year date?

And BTW - I disagree on the consensus of the Father as presented here by the YECers - it's more or less a proof text that doesn't reflect what I see. It is my conviction that the Fathers did not endorse the "scientification" of Genesis, even if they did on occasion make statements that could be taken that way.

 

[Kristos]

oh look. an evolutionist chose to mock rather than engage. this is me surprised :O

An evolutionist? Hardly...I've stated that many, many times. My main issue is with what I consider a "modern" reading of Genesis that leads people to add, and count and create time lines in way that was never intended.

I'm just a simple person with eyes and ears. I can walk down the street to where a new road was cut and see the layers of rock. I can find fossils in certain layers of that rock and not in others. These are fossils of marine organism, yet there isn't a ocean within 2000 miles. I can plainly see with my eyes the layers of sedimentary rock on top of this layer. This is not something that just happened yesterday.

Interestingly, I went to see the DaVinci Codex Leicester last weekend and among other things, he was very concerned about how shells of marine organism could be found at the top of mountains. Apparently the leading narrative at the time was that this was caused by Noah's flood, which DaVinci found preposterous - mainly because shells don't float.

I agree that there are many things that are not understood very well by science, but it is interesting that with each new discovery, the age of earth keeps getting older not younger. I have actually believed for some time that the earth is likely much older than even science thinks it is. Science has trouble with eternity - they think a billion years is long time, but if God created the world, then we should have no trouble with that - even a trillion.

 

[rusmeister]

Sorry, Kristos.
When an Orthodox Christian reports my post as "flaming", and my words are edited, I don't play anymore. I don't see unity of heart and mind here anymore. Sure, as long as we don't disagree we can get along, but we are in real trouble if we are appealing to non-Orthodox authority to resolve/suppress our differences. I'm not especially inclined to be here now.
Maybe that'll change at some point, but right now I don't feel too hopeful. In any event, I will not comment further under such circumstances.
God bless!

 

[Kristos]

Sorry, Kristos.
When an Orthodox Christian reports my post as "flaming", and my words are edited, I don't play anymore. I don't see unity of heart and mind here anymore. Sure, as long as we don't disagree we can get along, but we are in real trouble if we are appealing to non-Orthodox authority to resolve/suppress our differences. I'm not especially inclined to be here now.
Maybe that'll change at some point, but right now I don't feel too hopeful. In any event, I will not comment further under such circumstances.
God bless!

I didn't report anyone and I didn't edit anyone's words - so I'm not sure why you are addressing this to me as if I'm a culprit.

Anyway - it seems to me that much of the impasse boils down to hermeneutics - it is my contention that "scientization" of sacred scripture and the ECFs is an erroneous hermeneutic that leads directly to a host of modern errors, including YEC; (or if I was being more cynical, it's the other way around - an irrational belief in YEC leads to a scientific eisegesis of Genesis.) There is a circular logic to the whole thing that makes it difficult to discuss with those devoted to it.

The pinpointing of dates and timelines does an extreme dis-service to the text which should truly transcend our explanations because God created in the beginning - and no matter what science comes up with - God still has the upper hand because He was there first - in the beginning - before that, before time, before particles and energy, before oscillating vacuums, before everything because IN THE BEGINNING God created... Shall we reduce that to something comprehensible so that we can claim the earth is 6543 years + 6 days old? I find that, well, a bit unorthodox.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Do you really think anyone starts with a young earth and from there supports it by interpreting Genesis in a particular way? I actually very much doubt this. People don't seem to think much about beginnings outside of science or Scripture. I don't know how the idea would be in their minds without some theory of origins putting it there.

 

[jckstraw72]

I didn't report anyone and I didn't edit anyone's words - so I'm not sure why you are addressing this to me as if I'm a culprit.

Anyway - it seems to me that much of the impasse boils down to hermeneutics - it is my contention that "scientization" of sacred scripture and the ECFs is an erroneous hermeneutic that leads directly to a host of modern errors, including YEC; (or if I was being more cynical, it's the other way around - an irrational belief in YEC leads to a scientific eisegesis of Genesis.) There is a circular logic to the whole thing that makes it difficult to discuss with those devoted to it.

The pinpointing of dates and timelines does an extreme dis-service to the text which should truly transcend our explanations because God created in the beginning - and no matter what science comes up with - God still has the upper hand because He was there first - in the beginning - before that, before time, before particles and energy, before oscillating vacuums, before everything because IN THE BEGINNING God created... Shall we reduce that to something comprehensible so that we can claim the earth is 6543 years + 6 days old? I find that, well, a bit unorthodox.

St. Theophilus of Antioch, 2nd century Apostolic Father, To Autolycus 3.28

And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days.

... is St. Theophilus doing a disservice to the text? if so, why do you realize that and he didn't?