EO & evolution

[gzt]

Sure, right, I certainly don't have any knowledge of the philosophy and history of science and follow the cheapest sort of positivism and scientism.

But, more seriously, I wouldn't make the simple rookie mistake of asserting that science is about "truth".

 

[buzuxi02]

Most of these scientific issues is another trap laid by the atheist elitists. They specifically target religious institutions because people hold to the sacredness of their creation stories, and they rage in attempts to stop them. So they specifically try to provoke a reaction.

They do this often in every generation. Over a century ago medical professionals were telling women they they need a hysterectomy because of libido. In the late 1960's most influential scientists told us there would be mass famine within 15 years in everyplace due to overpopulation. Instead we have an obesity epidemic. When i was growing up the biggest scientific doomsday issue the all knowing scientists were parroting was the ozone layer depleting and scorching all of us. Well I guess the ozone healed itself because i havent heard anything about a hole over the arctic in about 15 years now.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And I maintain that discourtesy is unhealthy and un-Christian. We can disagree. I'm cool with that. If you're pro-evolution, knock yourself out, but no need to be rude to me. I wasn't rude with you. Again, if we're both Orthodox, or even if we weren't, we can be civil. The attitude sounds like the product of our nasty, irreverent, proudly rude society, and I think you're better than that, and I think I deserve better than that. If we are Christian brothers, let's act like it.

And incidentally, I'm 6'5" 255 lbs. I still think you'd think twice!

I maintain that I would be just as discourteous in person - but we would hopefully each have a beer (or at least a coffee). I know what ACNA is - I have friends in ECUSA, ACNA, AMIA, and various other acronyms usually involving an A. I would be just as discourteous because your remark about the Episcopalians is bull - the sort of triumphalist canard that I don't think Orthodox should indulge in. Yes, you're Orthodox now, so leave that behind.

 

[rusmeister]

Sure, right, I certainly don't have any knowledge of the philosophy and history of science and follow the cheapest sort of positivism and scientism.

But, more seriously, I wouldn't make the simple rookie mistake of asserting that science is about "truth".

I think you're taking my spirit wrongly. I'm not trying to imply that you don't know anything or don't think. 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.

I do say that the same scientists (broadly speaking) whose teachings you have accepted, DO, on the whole, insist on dogmatism in their conclusions, which ARE cosmic and absolutely do not take the Fall into account, and while you personally may not, most scientists who interpret the data this way interpret it back to the origins of the universe, which they see wrongly, applying the conditions of a Fallen world and Fallen science to a time and world (universe) which we believe to have been un-Fallen. They DO make it about truth, even if you don't, and it is entirely fair to ask where and on what grounds your view is distinguishable from the mass of now-unbelieving scientists and how they address our philosophical and theological concerns.

 

[gzt]

The strength of the scientific evidence means that we are not able to accept the sort of literal reading of Scripture that suggests the world is on the order of 7000 years old. Fortunately, Orthodox hermeneutics never required this sort of reading. The main point of the Genesis narrative to the nomadic desert people who wrote it was that the LORD was the creator of the universe, not these other gods, and that the LORD was the lord of everything and every nation. The LORD is the God of gods, a universal God of love and justice. There were all sorts of other creation narratives around and this one changes them in those ways - the others had other gods, the gods were not universal gods but the god of one nation, those sorts of things. If you were God and revealing yourself to a goatherd in Mesopotamia in 1000AD, how would you convey that you are the one God, there is only one God, and you created the entire universe, and how would that goatherd transmit that story? I think it would be quite hard to get somebody to realize that the universe is billions of years old, the earth is billions of years old, humans evolved from other primates, but somehow God was involved and God cares about and loves you? The billions of years part is kind of beside the point, isn't it? The important thing is that there is one God, a God of all creation, who created the entire universe and cares about humanity. Ta da, and that's what the Bible says.

 

[GregConstantine]

to the OP, to answer your question without all of this unnecessary snipy tit for tat back and forth, no, the Church does not have an official dogmatic statement on evolution. It does have dogmatic statements that are against the philosophy of Humanism, Epecurianism, Empiricism, all fruits of the quote, unquote, "Enlightenment" (I call it the "Endarkenment"), the melieu in which Darwinian evolution was formed. Those philosphies are decidedly against Orthodoxy and all she believes and stands for.

There can be a distinction between the anti-Christian philosophies in which Darwinian evolution unfortunately operates in, and using a scientific theory and methodology in research. Some though, refuse to make or accept that there can be a distinction, therefore, drawing lines in the sand when no lines need to be drawn, or drawing them in the wrong places.

 

[jckstraw72]

to the OP, to answer your question without all of this unnecessary snipy tit for tat back and forth, no, the Church does not have an official dogmatic statement on evolution. It does have dogmatic statements that are against the philosophy of Humanism, Epecurianism, Empiricism, all fruits of the quote, unquote, "Enlightenment" (I call it the "Endarkenment"), the melieu in which Darwinian evolution was formed. Those philosphies are decidedly against Orthodoxy and all she believes and stands for.

There can be a distinction between the anti-Christian philosophies in which Darwinian evolution unfortunately operates in, and using a scientific theory and methodology in research. Some though, refuse to make or accept that there can be a distinction, therefore, drawing lines in the sand when no lines need to be drawn, or drawing them in the wrong places.

as both Rus and I have asked you many many times now - please explain this distinction to us, and how it is a legitimate distinction.

 

[GregConstantine]

"I think you're taking my spirit wrongly. I'm not trying to imply that you don't know anything or don't think. 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."

How from reading a online forum could you possible know this about gzt, Rusmeister? I think you've made a similar accusation towards me on another tread about evolution, which made me stop making it worth my while to continue that conversation.

 

[GregConstantine]

"as both Rus and I have asked you many many times now - please explain this distinction to us, and how it is a legitimate distinction."

As I've done many times, explained the distinction, but you guys refused to see it. I've explained it to other Orthodox people before in the same way I've explained it to you guys and they understood exactly what I was saying. Not going to do it again and again and again.

 

[jckstraw72]

you just keep telling us there is a distinction. I have never seen you respond to my question any way other than what you just did, and then return several pages later and bemoan that we haven't listened to you. But you could point me to one of your earlier posts where I could find the answer.

 

[Kristos]

Why are some people so afraid of evolution? Is it really so threatening to your faith? If you think it is, then I would question if you really understand. It is unfortunate that some modern Orthodox writers took up this issue as touchpoint battle with scientism/atheism - the Bernards of our age. One particularly comes to mind as being especially "anti-evolution". The result of these polemics is almost always reinforcing the division and perceived incompatibility of faith and science. This is a great tragedy in my mind because it encourages the adoption of a metaphysical materialism - which is of course an oxymoron, but nevertheless. The theory of evolution is no threat to Orthodoxy and if it is more or less an accurate theory, my faith would not have to change one iota just the same as if dark matter was successfully detected.

 

[jckstraw72]

graceandpeace - the essential problem is the question of death. The Scriptures teach us explicitly in the Wisdom of Solomon and in the letters of St. Paul that God is not the author of death, but rather that death entered into the cosmos through the sin of man. This is the clear and undebatable teaching of the Church - you will find no Church Father who says otherwise. But, if evolution is true, then death necessarily pre-existed man and his sin, as part of God's evolutionary process. Thus, God becomes the author of death, in direct contradiction to the entire Orthodox Tradition ... and then He comes and defeats death through His Cross and Resurrection. So not only does God intentionally inflict us with suffering and death as part of His primary will for creation, but He also cannot maintain a constant attitude towards death.

 

[jckstraw72]

Why are some people so afraid of evolution? Is it really so threatening to your faith? If you think it is, then I would question if you really understand. It is unfortunate that some modern Orthodox writers took up this issue as touchpoint battle with scientism/atheism - the Bernards of our age. One particularly comes to mind as being especially "anti-evolution". The result of these polemics is almost always reinforcing the division and perceived incompatibility of faith and science. This is a great tragedy in my mind because it encourages the adoption of a metaphysical materialism - which is of course an oxymoron, but nevertheless. The theory of evolution is no threat to Orthodoxy and if it is more or less an accurate theory, my faith would not have to change one iota just the same as if dark matter was successfully detected.

Kristos, some people, including our Saints and modern elders have taken more time to actually think through the theological implications of forcing evolution onto Genesis. It's one thing to declare that there's no problem with evolution, and it's another thing to actually think through its many implications, and then demonstrate that there is no problem with it. This task, as yet, remains.

oh, and not believing in something has nothing to do with being afraid of it

 

[rusmeister]

<< Staff Edit >>

Hey, GZ,
I don't think any discussion between us is worth it if we can't achieve a basic level of civility. If "tiresome" means "it makes me think hard", then I would have to reconsider. But my (possibly wrong) reading of this is that it means "I am bored because I think I know everything you are going to say already" - which I would think incorrect, but in any event, it puts a serious kink in any discussion or even debate.

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. I meant something more along the lines of where the Fall fits into the evolutionary view and when and how death entered into the world. I think that either you will will defend traditional Christian ideas and come into conflict with evolutionary science, or that you will wind up effectively - if unconsciously - denying the doctrine of the Fall. I don't see how an unFallen world fits into the views of an evolutionary scientist. I think at some point you HAVE to accept things unsupported by the modern natural sciences in order to accept Orthodox Christianity.

I'm almost fifty, GZ. I've been around quite a few blocks, including very intellectual ones. I don't think that curt dismissal of these objections is especially intellectual. I want to leap from assumptions about what you think to understanding what you DO think. Don't take that as a curt dismissal of your ideas! I propose seriously considering them. But I can't if you want them to remain (only) assumed.

 

[rusmeister]

"I think you're taking my spirit wrongly. I'm not trying to imply that you don't know anything or don't think. 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."

How from reading a online forum could you possible know this about gzt, Rusmeister? I think you've made a similar accusation towards me on another tread about evolution, which made me stop making it worth my while to continue that conversation.

Well if you see my comment as an accusation, then obviously we are starting off on a hostile foot, which makes mutual understanding (a thing quite different from agreement) improbable.

How do I *know* that there has not been engagement of these ideas? Quite simple. Maybe there HAS been. But I haven't SEEN it. If I missed something vital somewhere, I apologize. But I see us as brothers in Christ, and so think it totally worthwhile to try to overcome misunderstandings even in disagreement.

 

[GregConstantine]

if you haven't seen it, then you don't know.

 

[Kristos]

Kristos, some people, including our Saints and modern elders have taken more time to actually think through the theological implications of forcing evolution onto Genesis. It's one thing to declare that there's no problem with evolution, and it's another thing to actually think through its many implications, and then demonstrate that there is no problem with it. This task, as yet, remains.

oh, and not believing in something has nothing to do with being afraid of it

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.

 

[rusmeister]

Why are some people so afraid of evolution? Is it really so threatening to your faith? If you think it is, then I would question if you really understand. It is unfortunate that some modern Orthodox writers took up this issue as touchpoint battle with scientism/atheism - the Bernards of our age. One particularly comes to mind as being especially "anti-evolution". The result of these polemics is almost always reinforcing the division and perceived incompatibility of faith and science. This is a great tragedy in my mind because it encourages the adoption of a metaphysical materialism - which is of course an oxymoron, but nevertheless. The theory of evolution is no threat to Orthodoxy and if it is more or less an accurate theory, my faith would not have to change one iota just the same as if dark matter was successfully detected.

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.

 

[rusmeister]

if you haven't seen it, then you don't know.

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

 

[GregConstantine]

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

You can do that yourself