EO & evolution

[rusmeister]

"In short, either you have done literally EVERYTHING yourself (not possible), or you have faith in others. Ergo, you are offering us faith in other human beings (alone) INSTEAD of human beings who admittedly sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit (and whom we believe the Holy Spirit actually guided)."

That could be said about you too Rus.

Quote so. I DO say that I have faith in other human beings. They happen to be ones that admittedly sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit (ie, the fathers and saints).

Again, this is coming across as judgmental and its indicating a very thorough lack of understanding and appreciation of the scientific research process.

If "judgemental" means "to judge ideas", then I am guilty as charged. If it means"to judge Greg as a person" I absolutely deny that. I say nothing about you or your standing before God.

You simply don't know us, what we've been through, what short guidence we've taken, etc. because you are interacting with us via a computer screen and typing pixels. Sorry, but I cannot and will not accept what you said in your last comment as having any validity.

Agreed. I DONT know you as people, and I don't claim to. I speak to ideas, not to people.
However, that you do not accept that scientific views also require faith is irrelevant, because it is true. To merely trust the validity of your reason is an act of faith. There is no knowledge you have that is not founded on faith in something or other.

You are coming across as if you are saying that you're the one that's got it all together spiritually because you have the proper understanding of Orthodoxy. If anyone opens their minds to the possibility that some aspects of evolution might be true then they are not as Orthodox as you are.

Snce I see the proper understanding of Orthodoxy as submitting whatever I think true to the judgement of the Church, and that wherever there is conflict, I am wrong and the Church is right, I suppose that is true if you disagree. In that case, I do think I properly understand Orthodoxy. But "spiritually all together"? Come on, I am as messed up as everyone else.
I HAVE opened my mind to the idea that evolution could be true. For twenty adult years I accepted it. I do not say that someone is "less Orthodox" for accepting it. I think we are all at different stages of understanding different things. But I do think you hold the authority of modern science on an equal level as the authority of the teachings of the Church, and that's what I say is wrong and un-Orthodox. Everything said here confirms to me that the heresy to the modern mind is challenging, not the Church fathers (who in general most of you - whether that includes Greg or not - feel free to challenge), but the conclusions of modern science.

Interesting that some here reject macro evolution but admitted they accept microevolution. That's inconsistent because both macro and micro evolution requires the death of the organism.

i have no problem with limited evolution that has been actually observed in real time, and not by mere calculation and assumption. The problem is with an absolute faith in a science that produces conclusions that contradict Church dogma, in particular the Fall of man and that death entered the world by sin, and not by God's Creative Act. Some of you may deny the contradiction, but I see it with my naked eyes, so I know it exists. In the face of that contradiction, you apparently choose the consensus of modern scientists rather than that of e Church fathers, and so whether you realize and admit it or not, you deny the dogma of death entering the world by sin and make nonsense of the teaching of the Fall.

If I err, I'd rather err with the Church fathers than against them. Modern science isn't worth it. Today's theories become tomorrow's myths of the past. It's all passing knowledge. Unlike what the Church has to teach us.

 

[rusmeister]

You reach this conclusion solely because I said people should consider the veracity of ideologies that may or may not conflict with their own?

What Matt said. And, upon finding them wrong, you should stop considering them, entertaining them as possible truth when they are found to be false.

"The object of opening the mind, as opening the mouth, is to close it on something solid." GKC

 

[ArmyMatt]

That could be said about you too Rus.

of course it could. those that are not in favor of evolution admit that what we believe is not testable, nor can it be either proven or disproven.

Again, this is coming across as judgmental and its indicating a very thorough lack of understanding and appreciation of the scientific research process.

not really. of all the many classes that I sat through throughout my schooling. I never once actually carbon dated a fossil, went in a submarine in search of deep sea gigantism, or looked at something that can show the X-rays given off by a black hole. I was told to trust the conclusions that were given by other men and women. for the most part, I do.

You simply don't know us, what we've been through, what short guidence we've taken, etc. because you are interacting with us via a computer screen and typing pixels. Sorry, but I cannot and will not accept what you said in your last comment as having any validity.

I think you know when rus said you, he meant the collective "you" and was not singling out any individual.

You are coming across as if you are saying that you're the one that's got it all together spiritually because you have the proper understanding of Orthodoxy. If anyone opens their minds to the possibility that some aspects of evolution might be true then they are not as Orthodox as you are.

actually not what he is saying. what he is saying is he has yet to see anyone convince him of evolution's compatibility with what he has read in the Fathers. rus has not questioned the Orthodoxy or piety or what-have-you of anyone on here.

Interesting that some here reject macro evolution but admitted they accept microevolution. That's inconsistent because both macro and micro evolution requires the death of the organism.

yes, but we are not talking about organisms in their fallen state. microevolution is testable and you can see it in nature. what you don't see is macroevolution, which does not work if one believes that the Fall had cosmic consequences. there is nothing about microevolution that conflicts with believing the universe is 7500ish years old.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. Theophan to the rescue!

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nastavleniya [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]v[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] duhovnoi [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]zhisni.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]-[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Pskov-Pechery [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Monastery[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] of[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Holy[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Dormition:[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Mosc. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Patriarchate [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Publ.,[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] 1994[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif], [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- - reject. One can do it without further deliberations.[/FONT]

this ^^ is the exact opposite of what some are espousing in this thread.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nastavleniya[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] v[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] duhovnoi[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] zhisni.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]-[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Pskov-Pechery[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Monastery [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]of[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Holy[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Dormition:[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Mosc. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Patriarchate[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Publ., [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1994[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif],[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Believers have the right to measure the material things with spiritual ones, when materialists get into the realm of the spiritual without a slightest scruple... We have wisdom as our partner, while theirs is foolishness. Material things can be neither the power nor the purpose. They are just the means and the field of activity of spiritual powers by the action of the spiritual beginning of all things (Creator)" [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Sozertsanie[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] I [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]razmyshlenie. [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Moscow,[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] Pravilo[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]very,[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] 1998, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in life, do not follow them.[/FONT]

given that he has an "St." in front of his name, i think we can safely say he knew Who/what to follow ...

 

[gzt]

I don't think it's charitable to say that about your interlocutors. Those who teach evolution are doing so with the desire to conform to the positive teaching of the Church and without the desire to contradict Divine Revelation.

 

[jckstraw72]

I don't think it's charitable to say that about your interlocutors. Those who teach evolution are doing so with the desire to conform to the positive teaching of the Church and without the desire to contradict Divine Revelation.

i meant that some are saying if the Church's teaching and secular teaching disagree, then maybe we need to rethink the Church's teaching. this has been explicitly expressed by at least one poster.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, it seems possible to me, too. t

Time travel would be a benefit on the matter

 

[~Anastasia~]

Time travel would be a benefit on the matter

There ya go, lol.

Wait, isn't there something about if we can send a spaceship far enough away fast enough, it can actually see back in time? Or was that some episode of a tv show?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

There ya go, lol.

Wait, isn't there something about if we can send a spaceship far enough away fast enough, it can actually see back in time? Or was that some episode of a tv show?

Not certain of the show you're referring to - but it sounds interesting.

Time travel has been considered to be possible, on a serious note, by many within science. Unfortunately, as we've yet to accomplish it, we're still stuck here in the present unable to actually see what happened in the beginning of time

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think it would be more interesting to consider evolutionary theories themselves apart from what the church teaches. Maybe we can actually find some philosophical or methodological issues with said theories.

Which specific evolutionary theories did you have in mind?

Also, do you think that it's possible to study evolutionary theories and still see them as a miracle of God when witnessing evolution in action (macro-evolution)? For me, seeing what occurred throughout the account of Exodus 4-9 with the miracles God did of transformation from one thing to the next (i.e. making a staff turn into a snake, turning dust into gnats to plague Egypt, etc.), it was never an issue to study Evolutionary theories of species changing in large jumps. To me, it was about God at work doing what seems impossible - and if I could handle it within the Holy Tradition of Scripture itself, it didn't seem like something to reject the moment someone speaks of it in a methodological sense. Whereas they are describing something in a methodological and scientific sense, others are seeing connection in regards to seeing them attempt to explain God. Whereas they see random mutations that happen spontaneously, others see God jump starting things in the same way He already sustains all aspects of Creation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't think it's charitable to say that about your interlocutors. Those who teach evolution are doing so with the desire to conform to the positive teaching of the Church and without the desire to contradict Divine Revelation.

but Divine revelation says that there was no death anywhere before Adam's sin. so the idea that man evolved from some common ancestor into man, and then man sinned and fell, contradicts contradicts Divine revelation. after the Fall is a different story.

 

[gzt]

Preface your remarks with "I say..." or "my interpretation of...".

 

[jckstraw72]

Preface your remarks with "I say..." or "my interpretation of...".

that's disingenuous ... the interpretation we are putting forth has been solidly backed by Fathers both ancient and modern. you can disagree with the interpretation, but it's in no way "our" interpretation.

 

[Protoevangel]

EDIT: What jckstraw72 said...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Preface your remarks with "I say..." or "my interpretation of...".

I would if it were merely my opinion. the only thing that is my opinion, is that it is my opinion that it is wise to follow what they say, and that they are the subject matter experts. but what they actually said is pretty clear.

 

[GregConstantine]

@Armymatt, that is not his point, his point is that some of you are being uncharitable in this conversation towards those who do not see the need to have an either or approach to the topic of evolution, and who are saying that it can be utilized in the scientific research process if necessary by implying that they don't know their Orthodox faith and have not done as much study and prayer as much as you guys do. Sorry, but I disagree with your statements in defense of Rus, et al. I've shown what some of you guys have written to others who are not participating in this discussion and they agree with me.

So I also agree with gzt.

I understand the desire to be faithful to the Church and her teachings. But it is not tantamount to a betrayal of the faith if one does not see a contradiction between what the Church teaches and what evolution says.

Some of us are fully aware of the ideologies and philosphies behind Darwinian evolution and have too been subjected to the propaganda in our schools and universities. And guess what, we reject them too! and Just because again we do not necessarily see that there has to be a dichotomy or a contradition, that does not mean we accept those ideologies or that we are passively allowing ourselves to be at the mercy of those ideologies, etc and are just blindly accepting whatever falls into our laps.

 

[ArmyMatt]

@Armymatt, that is not his point, his point is that some of you are being uncharitable in this conversation towards those who do not see the need to have an either or approach to the topic of evolution, and who are saying that it can be utilized in the scientific research process if necessary by implying that they don't know their Orthodox faith and have not done as much study and prayer as much as you guys do. Sorry, but I disagree with your statements in defense of Rus, et al. I've shown what some of you guys have written to others who are not participating in this discussion and they agree with me.

I actually never said I know Orthodoxy more than anyone. neither has anyone else on here. in fact, the only thing I said remotely close was that since jckstraw did his thesis for his MDiv on this and got honors in patristics, that he knows prolly more than most. he also defends his belief with Patristic quotes more than the rest of us. but as for me saying that I know more than anyone, I never said that.

So I also agree with gzt.

I would, except that I am not giving an opinion. Calvin Coolidge said he believed in small government. my opinion would be if I would agree with what he said as the best form of government, NOT what he actually said.

I understand the desire to be faithful to the Church and her teachings. But it is not tantamount to a betrayal of the faith if one does not see a contradiction between what the Church teaches and what evolution says.

never said it was a betrayal of the faith, only said I don't see it in the Fathers and I therefore do not agree.

Some of us are fully aware of the ideologies and philosphies behind Darwinian evolution and have too been subjected to the propaganda in our schools and universities. And guess what, we reject them too! and Just because again we do not necessarily see that there has to be a dichotomy or a contradition, that does not mean we accept those ideologies or that we are passively allowing ourselves to be at the mercy of those ideologies, etc and are just blindly accepting whatever falls into our laps.

um, sure.....? you don't accept the philosophy behind evolution (especially our post modern propaganda), but you see no contradiction with the outcome of those philosophies. do you say the same for human sexuality? or abortion?

 

[gzt]

Disingenuous? Bull. ArmyMatt said "Divine Revelation says...", not "the interpretations of various saints and other holy elders say...". I don't dispute that a lot of the Fathers of the Church have certainly said things implying a 6-day creation. You could even say that is solid backing.

Please, don't define yourself as correct and the others as ignoring God. That is disingenuous. Or, at least, rude.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Greg, Matt is pretty much the last guy that would imply such a thing much less charge anyone in here with being not truly Orthodox or not Orthodox enough because they are pro-evolution. I've heard him say, along with Rus and Jckstraw, on several occasions, that a person who believes in evolution is no less Orthodox than anyone else and that it IS permissible to believe in it.

But what I keep hearing in these threads not just right now, but every year when they crop up, is a lot of vague speculation and no real hard philosophy of "this is what I think happened...." wherein the person who is in favor of evolution actually lays out their entire theory of how things took place. I find it frustrating. Nobody discusses "ensoulment" or really addresses death. We got off on tangents about plants dying and I found that line a bit weak to say the least. Fact is, the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have been crystal clear about one thing---Death didn't exist in humanity by default. It was wholly absent from the human condition 100%. It didn't exist until the Fall when our First Parents introduced it, unfortunately, into the world. All of nature was in harmony and things were utterly different, as God intended.

Believing that the seas spat out small organisms that steadily sprouted adaptations, legs, turned to primitive hominids, then steadily became bipedal, and eventually human homo sapiens is a historical narrative that includes death, and a whole lot of it. It shows us an ascent from something crude, inadequate, then eventually, well, what? When did hominids truly become "human?" Were the homo habilis hominids truly human? Did they have souls? Were they just worthless shells with no souls yet, or animals? What about homo erectus? Theoretically he was the first hominid to get out of Africa and discover fire and hunt in groups, etc. Did he possess a soul? Was he human? How about Neanderthals? What on Earth were those guys? They had human traits like burying their dead and wore simple jewelry, hunted and stayed together, according to all the theories. Did they have souls?

Did humanity, or these hominids, possess the divine spark? Why did God feel the need to create ton of wannabe humans that just couldn't quite cut it? It's almost like God was a tinkering mad professor who just couldn't get it right. Australopithecines were like the Mark 1 model. Total mess. Eventually we have homo habilis. Pretty pathetic. Mark 2 wasn't so hot. Then Mark 3 with Erectus...Neanderthals, those guys were like a side project for God, then finally homo sapiens, the Mark 4, that was the one. And we know there were many homo sapiens supposedly on Earth, so which ones did God give souls to? Did he just let hundreds or thousands of them wander around like grunts, only giving souls to Adam and Eve...or?

And what about all that death of one after another of these hominids? One hominid being replaced eventually and living side by side often times with, the other then dying out and the superior version winning the day. Sounds random. Sounds death-laden. Sounds like a waste of time, too.

I don't want to speak for Rus, heaven forbid, because he has argued these points so very well lately, but I think Rus is just trying to point out that there is an order in things. The Church comes first. Anything in the secular world should have to fit in with the Church's theology, not the reverse. We shouldn't be looking at science and then trying to reconcile the Church to it, but rather realize that we KNOW the Truth is Holy Orthodoxy. The Fathers weren't just a wise bunch of Yodas with good parables and morals of life but were a total mess shooting in the dark about human existence. They were inspired and touched, illumined, guided by the Holy Spirit. And this has gone on for 2,000 years unabated. The scientific community, mostly dominated by atheists with an agenda, could care less about the theological implications of what they claim, often huge stretches with insufficient evidence. The secular should be tested against Church teaching, not the inverse.

So to review my concerns---ensoulment. When and how? Death happening before the First Parents when we are told death was created. How?

Also, if we are a being in flux, continually adapting, changing, and growing into a new life form (I feel like I'm reading a Gene Roddenberry script saying this mind you), then wasn't Christ's Incarnation somehow inadequate? He was appearing as human at a certain juncture, but will humans 100,000 years from now be the same given evolution's approach? Will Christ be part of the "old" humanity? Or how about 500,000 years from now? It'd be like becoming a larva to try to be a butterfly. The butterfly is a fully realized version, the larva is a step, a rung, on the way toward something changing. Would Christ be a larva, so to speak, with this evolution model of things?

Another question I have is, why would God see fit to allow the Genesis narrative to be "out there" for so long in Scripture? Couldn't God have given the revelation of a primitive evolutionary narrative to the ancients? They weren't morons. They didn't have our scientific knowledge, but a simple story of a steady change and metamorphosis of sorts, could've been given. Genesis is God-breathed revelation. We are also told in Genesis of the long life spans of many. How did that fit in? did humanity die off right and left, then somehow have no death, then have death again, then live a long time, then go back to shorter lifespans?

You can appreciate, hopefully, why Rus, jckstraw, Matt, myself, and others have serious concerns about evolution.

Like Rus, I once totally bought into evolution. We have to keep an open heart to the Church and that we might be wrong. I think that is all that these posters are trying to say...not that anyone is a fool or not quite Orthodox.

@Armymatt, that is not his point, his point is that some of you are being uncharitable in this conversation towards those who do not see the need to have an either or approach to the topic of evolution, and who are saying that it can be utilized in the scientific research process if necessary by implying that they don't know their Orthodox faith and have not done as much study and prayer as much as you guys do. Sorry, but I disagree with your statements in defense of Rus, et al. I've shown what some of you guys have written to others who are not participating in this discussion and they agree with me.

So I also agree with gzt.

I understand the desire to be faithful to the Church and her teachings. But it is not tantamount to a betrayal of the faith if one does not see a contradiction between what the Church teaches and what evolution says.

Some of us are fully aware of the ideologies and philosphies behind Darwinian evolution and have too been subjected to the propaganda in our schools and universities. And guess what, we reject them too! and Just because again we do not necessarily see that there has to be a dichotomy or a contradition, that does not mean we accept those ideologies or that we are passively allowing ourselves to be at the mercy of those ideologies, etc and are just blindly accepting whatever falls into our laps.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Disingenuous? Bull. ArmyMatt said "Divine Revelation says...", not "the interpretations of various saints and other holy elders say...". I don't dispute that a lot of the Fathers of the Church have certainly said things implying a 6-day creation. You could even say that is solid backing.

well, if you have any Church Father to counter that comes close to the number that jckstraw has posted, I'd love to see them.

Please, don't define yourself as correct and the others as ignoring God. That is disingenuous. Or, at least, rude.

I am not saying I am correct. I am saying that the Fathers are (in my opinion), so I follow what they say (which is not opinion). like I said earlier as well, if you can post some stuff that contradicts the amount that jckstraw posted, I would love to read it.