EO & evolution

[gzt]

See: articles on the compatibilist side of the orthodoxwiki article on Evolution. There are even a couple books by generally well-regarded people.

There is an interpretive step between what you say and what Divine Revelation is, so please acknowledge it when you discuss.

There is a slight barrier here to my being able to do so: at the outset of this conversation, I said I don't have time to debate. And I don't. Further, jckstraw has spent a couple years with this problem confirming to himself his views. On the other hand, I am a simple scientist who doesn't even work in a field related to evolution who occasionally reads some theology. This means any patristics-slinging match will be decidedly one-sided, as I have neither the time, training, or inclination to participate in that fashion. HTH. HAND.

 

[ArmyMatt]

See: articles on the compatibilist side of the orthodoxwiki article on Evolution. There are even a couple books by generally well-regarded people.

I have no doubt that there are. I personally don't care what the well regarded people say if there is not "Saint" before their name. it is the saint who draws close and is illumined by God, therefore I made my choice on who to follow.

There is an interpretive step between what you say and what Divine Revelation is, so please acknowledge it when you discuss.

meaning what the Fathers say. I said that St Theophan the recluse, who is a post Darwin saint, denies it. what he writes falls in line with some of the stuff that jckstraw posts from guys like Moses, the commentaries of the Three Heirarchs, etc. if there really was another side to this, you would post some Patristic counters, instead of merely saying that I should not say what Divine Revelation says. Divine Revelation says that Christ is God. that is not my opinion, that is not what the Fathers say about Him, and I am not gonna say that it is my opinion that Christ is God just to make folks feel better.

There is a slight barrier here to my being able to do so: at the outset of this conversation, I said I don't have time to debate. And I don't.

that's fine

Further, jckstraw has spent a couple years with this problem confirming to himself his views. On the other hand, I am a simple scientist who doesn't even work in a field related to evolution who occasionally reads some theology. This means any patristics-slinging match will be decidedly one-sided, as I have neither the time, training, or inclination to participate in that fashion. HTH. HAND.

so, you don't work in a field that is related to evolution, and also do not have the inclination to actually look, but you wanna debate someone who spent a good deal of time studying Patristics? that really makes no sense at all.

 

[gzt]

They are quoting people with saint before their name, however. You are listening to jckstraw, who also seems to lack that label.

Divine revelation certainly says Jesus is God. It is quite well spelled out in everything an Orthodox Christian must assent to.

Repeat: I have no desire to debate.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They are quoting people with saint before their name, however. You are listening to jckstraw, who also seems to lack that label.

no, I have also named and quoted saints, as has gurney. I just pointed him out since he does it en masse.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. I have no desire to debate.

my reading comprehension works fine. you spent the previous 36ish pages on this thread debating guys like me, jckstraw, and gurney.

Divine revelation certainly says Jesus is God. It is quite well spelled out in everything an Orthodox Christian must assent to.

pretty sure it also says no death until the sin of Adam. the usual debate (at least on here) is whether death was man only or the cosmos as a whole.

 

[gzt]

I only had one discursive post - which nobody responded to - though it was also short, unsourced, and only a statement of a position. That is not how a debate is conducted. The rest of the time in my posts has been spent saying really very little other than, "No, you don't need to be a 6-day young earth creationist. No, you're overstating it." Again, this is not how a debate is conducted.

As for your certainty, yes, I got your survey response.

Anyway, I am sure some people may be Fr Tom Hopko's lengthy and untranscribed series informative. I listened to it a long time ago and most are not available as transcriptions, unfortunately. It's 17 lectures of about 50 minutes each. #11 is perhaps most relevant, but it isn't transcribed and I can't listen right now.

http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/series/darwin_and_christianity

EDIT: you're welcome to look at my posting history to verify that I'm only superficially engaging in this nonsense: http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=6590542

 

[ArmyMatt]

I only had one discursive post - which nobody responded to - though it was also short, unsourced, and only a statement of a position. That is not how a debate is conducted. The rest of the time in my posts has been spent saying really very little other than, "No, you don't need to be a 6-day young earth creationist. No, you're overstating it." Again, this is not how a debate is conducted.

well, your posts have been more than that. and none of us actually said that you need to be a 6-day young earther. rus, who took the position of against evolution, does not believe in a young earth. I dunno how many times I have to say that there are Orthodox out there that believe in evolution, who trounce me in their spiritual life. but if you are going to say that evolution is compatible with the Fathers, show me where. I will gladly retract my statements if this can be shown.

As for your certainty, yes, I got your survey response.

oh I am certain, personally, because I have looked at the evidence, talked to people who believe in evolution, and I reject it.

Anyway, I am sure some people may be Fr Tom Hopko's lengthy and untranscribed series informative. I listened to it a long time ago and most are not available as transcriptions, unfortunately. It's 17 lectures of about 50 minutes each. #11 is perhaps most relevant, but it isn't transcribed and I can't listen right now.

I recall when he did that, and I do remember he brought up some interesting points.

 

[Dorothea]

Just my observations reading over the whole of the conversations in this thread is that some folks are taking things said personally as if others who disagree with them are attacking them personally. What I've seen is those people who don't believe in death before the Fall don't believe it because they have read many of the CF's/Saints that are against death before the Fall. It has nothing to do with judging a person's heart or saying those who do believe in that or something else regarding the Fall and how old the earth.

I've seen a few posts by Greg saying we don't know him and being judgmental. Again this feels like the conversations in GT to a certain extent of misunderstanding theology versus personal faith. Greg, nobody said they know you and whether we personally know you or not has nothing to do with the convo. What is the focus is what people are saying they believe about evolution and different aspects of it and that some people choose the writings and opinions of the Saints over other writings and people's opinions. That's it.

 

[Dorothea]

I personally found interesting info from a variety of views in here and has really got me to thinking and expanding my mind to things I hadn't seen before.

 

[GregConstantine]

Please see quotes below:
“For my part, I already KNOW the part about you believing in God. I take that for granted, as I think you a sincere member of the Orthodox Church.”

Why say this? What relevance does this have to the topic?

I think you are not ENGAGING these ideas; I don't see them come up here. And they ARE serious foundations on which to question the assumptions of modern science."

Here is a direct quote explicitly saying that he thinks we are not engaging in these ideas. How does he know that?
“That's why I feel that what I think is not engaged at all; only straw men of what I DON'T think. Maybe everyone feels the same way; in that case, we all ought to nmake a concerted effort to engage what the others really DO think.”

Another direct accusation that we are not engaging with the topic.

“And what I do find interesting in all these threads is the imbalance of things. Guys like jckstraw or Rus could easily pull a gaggle of references to the Fathers and Church leadership pointing to the Creation-only narrative that contradicts evolution, and yet I keep hearing from the pro-evolution…”

Being accused of being “pro” evolution.

“I think we need put CHURCH FIRST, science second.

Why say this? What is the relevance? Why say this unless you think some are not doing that?

“If you are a serious scientist and you're this passionately in favor of evolution and the mountain of evidence is this epic, shoot, I would think just five bullets Power Point style with key points would suffice, no?”

“Final question--how old are you?”

Again, relevance? Why ask for his age?

“What is your vision, evolutionists”

Again being accused of something we are not

There are more

 

[gzt]

Further, we are accused of, in reference to an uncontroversial assertion about believing what the Church teaches:

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

and, in a later comment by another author, of contradicting divine revelation.

Those two assertions go quite beyond mere disagreement - it's asserting that we are not only wrong, but that our opinions are outside the bounds of the Church and perhaps obviously or uncontroversially so, with perhaps a positive burden of proof on our part required to assert the contrary.

 

[jckstraw72]

Further, we are accused of, in reference to an uncontroversial assertion about believing what the Church teaches:



and, in a later comment by another author, of contradicting divine revelation.

Those two assertions go quite beyond mere disagreement - it's asserting that we are not only wrong, but that our opinions are outside the bounds of the Church and perhaps obviously or uncontroversially so, with perhaps a positive burden of proof on our part required to assert the contrary.

i was referring to truefiction. See his posts 151 and 163.

 

[jckstraw72]

Those two assertions go quite beyond mere disagreement - it's asserting that we are not only wrong, but that our opinions are outside the bounds of the Church

well of course that's what i think -- why else would i be disagreeing with you?

 

[ArmyMatt]

and, in a later comment by another author, of contradicting divine revelation.

well, like I said before. if you have anything that shows otherwise, I am all eyes.

 

[gzt]

There's a difference between "wrong" and "outside the bounds of the Church". If you have two opposing propositions, A and not-A, and only one of them can be true and one must be true, one is right and one is wrong. Let's suppose A is, in fact, the truth. There are quite a lot of circumstances where not-A, though false, is not outside the bounds of the Church.

This isn't the Arian controversy where the two propositions are "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God" and those who believe the latter are wrong and are outside the Church if they have been adequately catechized and persist in their denial.

 

[gzt]

well, like I said before. if you have anything that shows otherwise, I am all eyes.

See compatibilist articles on orthodoxwiki article. Including the two books, one by Bouteneff and one by Fr Pat Reardon.

 

[jckstraw72]

See compatibilist articles on orthodoxwiki article. Including the two books, one by Bouteneff and one by Fr Pat Reardon.

Dr. Peter Bouteneff doesn't make any attempt at harmonizing Genesis and evolution in his book. He simply goes over the Scriptural and Patristic evidence, and in the end concludes in a few sentences that he doesn't need to accept the literal level that the Fathers taught (and which he demonstrated them teaching). He doesn't provide any kind of harmonized narrative - that wasn't his purpose.

 

[gzt]

It's been a while since I read and don't have it handy, but here's a more even-handed summary of his conclusion and relevance to the consideration: https://musingsonscience.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/these-are-the-generations/

 

[Protoevangel]

See compatibilist articles on orthodoxwiki article. Including the two books, one by Bouteneff and one by Fr Pat Reardon.

I've read all the articles. I found none of them to be convincing. I wanted them to convenience me... Coming from atheism, through liberal Lutheranism... I was desperate to see how the Early Church Fathers writings could be compatible with what I had always believed.

As for the books... Sorry, but I'm not going to pay someone to tell me the something that is so utterly unconvincing in discussions and articles. Not one argument in any article or discussion honestly and fully addresses the Father's Theology of Genesis 1-3. In fact, one of the very few honest articles I've read from the evolutionist camp is http://jonathanscorner/evolution

 

[gzt]

Yes, that is a very good article. EDIT: It clearly makes a distinction I was gesturing at - the difference between somebody's interpretation of the significance of some unanimous consensus of the Fathers and Divine Revelation.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Yes, that is a very good article. EDIT: It clearly makes a distinction I was gesturing at - the difference between somebody's interpretation of the significance of some unanimous consensus of the Fathers and Divine Revelation."

indeed, and since we are linking articles from Jonathan's Corner, check out what he has to say about Fr Seraphim:

What Makes Me Uneasy About Fr. Seraphim (Rose) and His Followers