EO & evolution

[Kristos]

I take it "No" is the answer to my question?

If so, then could you admit that TF is in fact saying that he doesn't need to admit that science has no power or authority over the teachings of the Church, neither does he have to accept that the consensus of all those who went before as being what constitutes our Holy Tradition?

Without conceding anything about evolution, can you admit that TF's position is definitely un-Orthodox? (saying nothing about his standing before God, only that he HAS said these things here)

This is a much much bigger issue than evolution. I'm done with evolution for now until we get a consensus that admits we can say some views are not Orthodox. If we don't have that, then this forum is just Protestantism in disguise.

That question is a bit confusing to me. So I will answer in my own way. I haven't agreed with much TF has said, so if I gave the impression that I was "one his side" that is my bad. As for consensus - I think there is some confusion on a few of these issues relating to natural science. For example St Basil in "On the Six Days" does not dismiss the science of the day as incompatible with Genesis, but rather seems to think that the two (science & theology) can coexist and positively interact when they acknowledge their own epistemological limitations and each other's competencies. This is the breakdown I see with most modern attempts to "scientize" Genesis, be it Young Earth, Old Earth, Gap or whatever. It's a basic confusion, more of a confounding really, of science and theology. Just the same, I don't see any theological reason to accept or reject the scientific theory of evolution. There are most definitely moral issues surrounding it that are properly address by theology, but this has no bearing on the validity of the theory itself (as was suggested by one poster). Most assuredly, I can say that I was created by God, no? And can't I also affirm that I was conceived by my parents without contradicting the former? The mechanism of conception on a cellular level is interesting and it would seem a bit dense to reject theories concerning physical conception based on a theological truth that we are created by God. How exactly does it work then? I have no idea. Is there a pinpoint transition in time where God completes his part and nature takes over? Seems unlikely. The transcendent God of Christianity has never been the tinkering god of the Deists, operating within nature itself or the demiurge of the gnostics and pagans blundering through the cosmos. Yes God is immanent, in that everything exists in and through Him, but at the same time always transcendent. This is the consensus I see concerning Holy Tradition, and the consensus that I feel is at odds with theologies like Young Earth Creationism.

 

[rusmeister]

That question is a bit confusing to me. So I will answer in my own way. I haven't agreed with much TF has said, so if I gave the impression that I was "one his side" that is my bad. As for consensus - I think there is some confusion on a few of these issues relating to natural science. For example St Basil in "On the Six Days" does not dismiss the science of the day as incompatible with Genesis, but rather seems to think that the two (science & theology) can coexist and positively interact when they acknowledge their own epistemological limitations and each other's competencies. This is the breakdown I see with most modern attempts to "scientize" Genesis, be it Young Earth, Old Earth, Gap or whatever. It's a basic confusion, more of a confounding really, of science and theology. Just the same, I don't see any theological reason to accept or reject the scientific theory of evolution. There are most definitely moral issues surrounding it that are properly address by theology, but this has no bearing on the validity of the theory itself (as was suggested by one poster). Most assuredly, I can say that I was created by God, no? And can't I also affirm that I was conceived by my parents without contradicting the former? The mechanism of conception on a cellular level is interesting and it would seem a bit dense to reject theories concerning physical conception based on a theological truth that we are created by God. How exactly does it work then? I have no idea. Is there a pinpoint transition in time where God completes his part and nature takes over? Seems unlikely. The transcendent God of Christianity has never been the tinkering god of the Deists, operating within nature itself or the demiurge of the gnostics and pagans blundering through the cosmos. Yes God is immanent, in that everything exists in and through Him, but at the same time always transcendent. This is the consensus I see concerning Holy Tradition, and the consensus that I feel is at odds with theologies like Young Earth Creationism.

Thanks! I think this reasonable. But it doesn't answer my question.

I've started another thread where I want to get a sense of whether we have any knd ofagreement on what Holy Tradition is - and therefore whether we have any actual unity, or whether we only give lip service to the idea that we are in communion.

I'm dropping evolution as a topic, not because I don't have any responses or thoughts, but because I think that it is a much less important topic than the issue of authority and Tradition.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

On the view of Orthodoxy concerning "evolution" I suggest the somewhat long winded series on Darwin by Fr Thomas Hopko. I think it's about 15 hours long if you listen to them all, but he covers all sides of the issue.

This is the series I was able to find at Ancient Faith Radio - entitled Darwin and Christianity

Was that the series you were speaking of by Fr. Thomas Hopko? It was a very excellent series and Hopko does a very good job breaking down the information bit by bit.

 

[Kristos]

This is the series I was able to find at Ancient Faith Radio - entitled Darwin and Christianity

Was that the series you were speaking of by Fr. Thomas Hopko?

Yes, that's it.

 

[rusmeister]

Yes, that's it.

It is quite good, and I do recommend it. I started with number 11, about death, and was hooked. Listened to the end (number 17, I think) and went back and listened to everything from the beginning.
I don't agree with Hopko on everything, but overall, it's really worthwhile.