EO & evolution

[rusmeister]

The idea of forcing evolution onto Genesis is really the crux of the confusion, one I would tend to characterize as a pleonastic fallacy. It's a confusion of fundamental categories, of science and of scripture and no matter how close we get the two, no matter how many incremental step they take toward each other, they can never be the same.

But I, for one, don't see it as Genesis at all, but as the very idea of the Fall. If there was an unFallen world, how was there evolution and natural selection? If God made things good, how is it that they weren't "good enough"?

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.

 

[jckstraw72]

The idea of forcing evolution onto Genesis is really the crux of the confusion, one I would tend to characterize as a pleonastic fallacy. It's a confusion of fundamental categories, of science and of scripture and no matter how close we get the two, no matter how many incremental step they take toward each other, they can never be the same.

i disagree. our theology does not concern only the spiritual world, but is all about redeeming the cosmos! we have a theological cosmology and anthropology -- there is necessarily going to be overlap. do these cosmologies and anthropologies harmonize? this needs to be dissected, not dismissed.

 

[jckstraw72]

"But you could point me to one of your earlier posts where I could find the answer."

You can do that yourself

i'm not going to waste my time looking for something that i know isn't there. if you're going to take the time to post in these discussions, then i think it would be appreciated by all, if you would take the time to demonstrate your declarations.

 

[GregConstantine]

"That's exactly what I say about the idea of human evolution..."

irrelevant. You do not know what gzt has or has not done, spoken or not spoken to, read or not read. For you to express your disagreement with what he or I or anyone else says by saying or even implying that they have not looked into the issue enough, is quite frankly judgmental.

Now if you know gzt personally, in person, not online, then you'll have a leg to stand on. Your statement about evolution not being seen by anyone is ridiculous, as that will throw a whole lot of detective work out the window as rubbish since many crimes have no witnesses, yet detectives have to figure out who committed the crime based on evidence.

 

[Kristos]

Why must we be "AFRAID" of evolutionary theory? Are YOU afraid of Arianism? No, you think it false. Why don't you grant us the same courtesy?

I think there IS incompatibility between bad science and our Faith - and I DO think modern science to be quite bad, despite what it does achieve, and I think the badness to be founded in the general absence of philosophy in our time, which affects far more than only scientists, but affects them, too.

I think there ARE genuine observed changes on which much of modern evolutiuonary thought is built. But I think that the first principles of modern scientific rationalism, which guide MOST (I do not say "ALL") of modern scientific thought, to be drastically wrong - the kind of wrongness that can get away with it for a long time, because the errors are confounded with truths. But all of that is *just* my opinion. What ISN'T my opinion is that I KNOW that I am NOT "afraid" of things I think untrue, that it is not on the basis of unreasonable emotions that I think what I think.

If I thought that the whole world had bought into Arianism, I most certainly would be afraid of it, so don't really get the analogy. I don't believe in fairies, but I don't feel the need to defend my position every time a new Tinkerbell movie is released. You say you're not afraid - fine, but I wonder then what is the cause of your ardent condemnation?

I partially agree with your next point, but I think that "bad" christianity is as much the problem as "bad" science. Of course the "badness" of modern science to me lies primarily in its adoption of its assumptions as metaphysical truth. That's not a condemnation of the assumptions themselves, because they were necessary for the scientific method to function and flourish, but rather loss of, as you put it, the philosophy behind the assumptions and eventually the loss of the assumptions as assumptions.

I don't see a need to extrapolate into the speculative realm of the "pre-fallen" world. Even theologically. Yes, all science can do is tell us about the fallen world, that should be obvious. Evolution is a rather compelling explanation for an observable physical process that happens in time. As you point out, it does not and can not take into account any other input or "causes", and thus may be completely wrong in terms of the infinite, but that doesn't make it wrong and it doesn't make it necessarily incompatible with Christianity or Scripture.

 

[Kristos]

i disagree. our theology does not concern only the spiritual world, but is all about redeeming the cosmos! we have a theological cosmology and anthropology -- there is necessarily going to be overlap. do these cosmologies and anthropologies harmonize? this needs to be dissected, not dismissed.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The Christian God is both transcendent and immanent, that goes without saying.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

dead on. The Scriptures tell us that all of creation was affected by the Fall. Everything on this Earth is not totally as it was meant to be. Evolution-minded people see everything as natural and in flux, mutations, constant change, and we must embrace that natural state. I'm convinced that we see so much immorality justified by an evolution mentality. Take the huge fad of "swinging" that is so popular. Tons of people of all ages now are swingers. There are massive networks of them online and in "real" life who get together and have mass guilt-free sex sprees. What is the usual justification for this stuff? Well, it goes something like this--"look, man, human beings are not meant to be monogamous. Early men were not sexually wired to be with just one woman, and they had several partners and children with many women in tribes. It's natural. It's only this prudish and shamanistic religious right that puts guilt trips on us that we should go against our nature. I love my wife, but I like sex with many different women. I can divorce sex from love easily. In fact, it strengthens my marriage!" that comes from the back-to-nature evolution-thinker who keeps that "we're just modern animals" mindset.

For the Orthodox Christian, we live in a fallen state. We were made in God's image and meant for divinity and the theosis journey, not stuck in the crude state we're in battling lusts, jealousy, anger, being unforgiving, same-sex attraction, being murderous, racist, etc. etc. We weren't made to live like animals. We were made to live in the highest form of dignity in God's Light. Monogamy IS the highest ideal, and we were NOT meant to have multiple partners and perverse desires. We can thank our first parents for those struggles.

So in one vision lust is natural and part of our nature, since we're just sophisticated animals, the other one is a Godly and higher ideal in which we aspire upward, not backward to our pathetic roots.

And for Christ to PERFECTLY take on the Incarnation to join in us with our humanity, then He could not take on the flesh of a form in flux. That would be imperfect and inconsistent with the patristic thinking on the union of the Hypostatic Union.

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 crowd this "how can you Creationists ignore the mountains of evolutionary evidence!?!" but not once have I heard even a shred of this copious evidence? Odd.

i disagree. our theology does not concern only the spiritual world, but is all about redeeming the cosmos! we have a theological cosmology and anthropology -- there is necessarily going to be overlap. do these cosmologies and anthropologies harmonize? this needs to be dissected, not dismissed.

 

[Kristos]

But I, for one, don't see it as Genesis at all, but as the very idea of the Fall. If there was an unFallen world, how was there evolution and natural selection? If God made things good, how is it that they weren't "good enough"?

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.

Does not everything we know about the fall come from genesis? I don't understand your disagreement on this point. If this world was another world, then it would be another world and the science of that world would show it be that world - what it is. If you think I have made a strawman of something please point it out specifically, otherwise the claim is rather banal.

 

[GregConstantine]

"i'm not going to waste my time looking for something that i know isn't there. if you're going to take the time to post in these discussions, then i think it would be appreciated by all, if you would take the time to demonstrate your declarations."

I'm not going to waste my time looking for something that I know is there. If you're going to take the time to post in these discussions, then I think it would be appreciated by all, if you would take the time to demonstrate that what others are posting is actually being read, and an attempt is being made to understand what's being said, rather then dismissing and then tell others they are not looking into the issue sufficiently, and lumping everyone that disagrees into a certain category, as you and Rus, et al have.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Romans 8: 20-21: For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

if creation will be delivered from bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God, then creation also must have fallen of else it is NOT the liberty of the children of God, but some other kind of liberty. the verse does not say that creation will be delivered into a glorious liberty LIKE the children of God, but the liberty that we have creation will have. the only way that makes sense is if creation fell first with us.

 

[ArmyMatt]

oh yeah, and my St Theophan the Recluse daily reader also has him tearing into evolution a lot. and that is one of the reasons I am against evolution. Darwin has been around for more than a century, and we have had many very educated saints and holy elders and eldresses come around, and I have yet to read one that supports evolution. one would think that there would be at least a moderate group of them out there.

 

[Kristos]

dead on. The Scriptures tell us that all of creation was affected by the Fall. Everything on this Earth is not totally as it was meant to be. Evolution-minded people see everything as natural and in flux, mutations, constant change, and we must embrace that natural state. I'm convinced that we see so much immorality justified by an evolution mentality. Take the huge fad of "swinging" that is so popular. Tons of people of all ages now are swingers. There are massive networks of them online and in "real" life who get together and have mass guilt-free sex sprees. What is the usual justification for this stuff? Well, it goes something like this--"look, man, human beings are not meant to be monogamous. Early men were not sexually wired to be with just one woman, and they had several partners and children with many women in tribes. It's natural. It's only this prudish and shamanistic religious right that puts guilt trips on us that we should go against our nature. I love my wife, but I like sex with many different women. I can divorce sex from love easily. In fact, it strengthens my marriage!" that comes from the back-to-nature evolution-thinker who keeps that "we're just modern animals" mindset.

For the Orthodox Christian, we live in a fallen state. We were made in God's image and meant for divinity and the theosis journey, not stuck in the crude state we're in battling lusts, jealousy, anger, being unforgiving, same-sex attraction, being murderous, racist, etc. etc. We weren't made to live like animals. We were made to live in the highest form of dignity in God's Light. Monogamy IS the highest ideal, and we were NOT meant to have multiple partners and perverse desires. We can thank our first parents for those struggles.

So in one vision lust is natural and part of our nature, since we're just sophisticated animals, the other one is a Godly and higher ideal in which we aspire upward, not backward to our pathetic roots.

And for Christ to PERFECTLY take on the Incarnation to join in us with our humanity, then He could not take on the flesh of a form in flux. That would be imperfect and inconsistent with the patristic thinking on the union of the Hypostatic Union.

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 crowd this "how can you Creationists ignore the mountains of evolutionary evidence!?!" but not once have I heard even a shred of this copious evidence? Odd.

So, correct me where I went wrong, but the logic of this post seems to be:

Evolution as an idea leads to sexual immorality,
Sexual immorality is bad, therefore:
Evolution must be wrong.

The invocation by jckstraw of the "saints and elders" is less than compelling given this same argument was used in the contraception thread and I found it to be less than substantial - significantly less. Now I'm not patristic scholar, nor have I ever claimed to be, but in my reading of the ECF I have found primarily clarity in the philosophical distinctions that would prevent confusion between faith and science. In other words, I don't think many ECFs would have much to say about the scientific validity of any given hypothesis, like whether or not the earth revolves sun...

 

[Kristos]

Romans 8: 20-21: For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

if creation will be delivered from bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God, then creation also must have fallen of else it is NOT the liberty of the children of God, but some other kind of liberty. the verse does not say that creation will be delivered into a glorious liberty LIKE the children of God, but the liberty that we have creation will have. the only way that makes sense is if creation fell first with us.

I'm not following - what's the tie in to evolution and modern science?

 

[jckstraw72]

So, correct me where I went wrong, but the logic of this post seems to be:

Evolution as an idea leads to sexual immorality,
Sexual immorality is bad, therefore:
Evolution must be wrong.

The invocation by jckstraw of the "saints and elders" is less than compelling given this same argument was used in the contraception thread and I found it to be less than substantial - significantly less. Now I'm not patristic scholar, nor have I ever claimed to be, but in my reading of the ECF I have found primarily clarity in the philosophical distinctions that would prevent confusion between faith and science. In other words, I don't think many ECFs would have much to say about the scientific validity of any given hypothesis, like whether or not the earth revolves sun...

Kristos, we aren't looking to the Saints and elders for scientific answers, but rather theological answers - these are questions of Scriptural interpretation.

I have compiled sources of modern Saints, elders, and theologians that I have found here: Saints, Holy Elders, and Theologians who have lived since Darwin | Old Believing's Blog

many are speaking directly against evolution, while some are just examples of modern Saints and elders continuing to interpret Genesis literally, without direct reference to evolution.

 

[jckstraw72]

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. The Christian God is both transcendent and immanent, that goes without saying.

perhaps i misunderstood you. when you said: "It's a confusion of fundamental categories, of science and of scripture and no matter how close we get the two, no matter how many incremental step they take toward each other, they can never be the same" i thought you were speaking of the idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" -- this is what i was disagreeing with.

 

[jckstraw72]

oh yeah, and my St Theophan the Recluse daily reader also has him tearing into evolution a lot. and that is one of the reasons I am against evolution. Darwin has been around for more than a century, and we have had many very educated saints and holy elders and eldresses come around, and I have yet to read one that supports evolution. one would think that there would be at least a moderate group of them out there.

in my opinion, St. Theophan speaks the strongest against evolution.

 

[gzt]

And he's wrong to do so.

 

[gzt]

Anyway, if you want real thought on this issue, there are several works here of people who hold my view under the "compatibilist" section: Evolution - OrthodoxWiki I like Bouteneff and Fr Reardon's viewpoints as well, though they are not listed under that heading. I have neither the time nor the inclination to delve deeply into these issues, they are a fever swamp.

As for death, did nothing die before the Fall, or did no animals die, or did no humans die?

And, gurney, I do apologize for being somewhat brusque earlier. however, I would still ask you to please leave the Episcopalians out of this, as we are all Orthodox here and I'm not particularly interested in hearing about them as an eeeeevil foil. It's a bad habit to retain after conversion.

 

[jckstraw72]

As for death, did nothing die before the Fall, or did no animals die, or did no humans die?

nothing. for example: Wisdom of Solomon 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.14 For he created all things, that they might have their being: and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of death upon the earth:

notice he is not speaking only of humans here.

 

[jckstraw72]

And he's wrong to do so.

perhaps this great Saint has theological insight that you do not ... are you really not willing to at least acknowledge that possibility?