EO & evolution

[rusmeister]

Ok...so basically there is no official position, & opinions differ, is that correct? Sorry, there are just a lot of back & forth posts.

Correct, G+P. There probably will be no official position for another century or two.

In the 4th century, Arianism was disputed as a way to understand the Christian worldview. Because it really DID impact theology, there were ultimately Councils where the Church finally took a position and declared the Arian view out of line with the consensus of received Holy Tradition, wrong, heresy, and anathema.

I think that this issue will, along with others, eventually lead to first local, and perhaps finally a pan-Orthodox Council to settle how we should view the matter. Such things happen in the Orthodox world at the speed of a moving glacier, though.

 

[Protoevangel]

there is no "official" position in the sense that no Ecumenical Council has ever made a formal proclamation. Some people think this is the only way the Church can officially speak. But, we have a consistent theology on Genesis for 2,000 years and today we have a consistent voice against evolution coming from the Saints. God speaks through His Saints, not only a Council. this idea is like the Orthodox version of Sola Scriptura --- it's Sola Synodia!

Mark 4:9

 

[inconsequential]

Random questions on the issue:

If the Fathers were so wrong wrt origins, how can we trust anything they wrote or said?


Do the Creationists here believe that the evidence (fossils, etc) of creation is being misinterpreted by science because the scientific community assumes materialism to be true?

Was Adam "Adam" before the monolith (God?) told him to kill and eat animals?

 

[jckstraw72]

Random questions on the issue:

If the Fathers were so wrong wrt origins, how can we trust anything they wrote or said?

good question. the theology of Genesis touches on everything.

Do the Creationists here believe that the evidence (fossils, etc) of creation is being misinterpreted by science because the scientific community assumes materialism to be true?

the problem is in not really accepting the Fall. if you do the same science for the times both before and after the Fall, then you're saying the Fall changed nothing. heck, even the period between the Fall and the flood could probably be Patristically argued to be different enough ... uniformitarianism assumes away events that we know to be true, historical events.

Was Adam "Adam" before the monolith (God?) told him to kill and eat animals?

he was more Adam!

 

[inconsequential]

Any speculation on how fossils with such apparent age got there? Is it mistakes with dating?

Any writings about alterations to time/space between the Fall and the flood that might account for the fossil record? Basically using science MINUS the assumption of uniformitarianism.

 

[jckstraw72]

Any speculation on how fossils with such apparent age got there? Is it mistakes with dating?

exactly -- it is apparent age. But God is not the deceiver - we willingly deceive ourselves by ignoring the teachings of the Church. The Fathers are abundantly clear that science and philosophy cannot go back beyond the Fall. Fr. John Romanides even says that science and philosophy confuse the Fall with being the beginning of the world, because that is as far back as they can go. By ignoring this, and assuming that our 100 years or so of dating observations are necessarily normative for a supposed 13 billion years, we fool ourselves.

 

[gzt]

http://jbburnett.com/resources/theokritoff_rose-svtq.pdf

An article reviewing Fr Seraphim's book.

 

[jckstraw72]

that same review with my comments on it scattered throughout Genesis, Creation, and Early Man | Old Believing's Blog

and here's what I had to say on the Theokritoff's article in my Seminary thesis on this topic, with my advisor Dr. Christohper Veniamin:

" Interestingly, in a critical review of the first edition of Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, which acknowledges several strong points in Fr. Seraphim’s work but ultimately lends its weight towards theistic evolution, George and Elizabeth Theokritoff[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] write that “The Fathers assume that Genesis has a basis in historical fact,”and therefore “Fr. Seraphim is commendably honest in recognizing that if one believes, as he does, that we must read Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, one is committed then to a thorough-going young earth creationism,” which gives credence to the historical level of the Genesis text. Of this they state: “Fr Seraphim’s approach is fundamentally honest and his arguments usually precise and coherent.”[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] However, throughout the review the Theokritoffs attempt to demonstrate supposed contradictions in the Fathers’ interpretation of Genesis, which contradicts their admission that Fr. Seraphim is correct in discerning a consistent view in the Fathers. As we have seen, Fr. Seraphim was deeply convinced that the Holy Fathers are our proper guide to understanding God and His creation, and it is this approach with which the Theokritoffs do not fully agree. Quoting Fr. Seraphim, they write: “he seems to have supreme confidence in the precision of ‘that knowledge of the first and last things which God has revealed to His chosen people, the Orthodox Christians’ (376). It is not always easy to share this confidence.”[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] Whereas Fr. Seraphim believed that a careful reading of the Fathers in prayerful pursuit of the mind of the Fathers is our trustworthy guide for our troubled times, the Theokritoffs ask: “Are the Fathers giving us the last word – or contributing to an understanding which we must then bring to bear on problems quite foreign to them?” but as Fr. Seraphim demonstrates throughout his commentary, the theological issues that arise from theistic evolution have already been dealt with in depth by the Fathers.

In his approach Fr. Seraphim is in accord with St. Silouan, one of the greatest Saints of the 20th century. Fr. Sophrony attests that he taught that the Scriptures, being written by the Holy Spirit, “cannot be understood through scientific research which can only provide surface aspects and details, never the substance.”[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] Dr. John Mark Reynolds,associate professor of philosophy at Biola University and an Orthodox Christian, concurs with the Theokritoffs’ initial statement: “The Fathers from the first century forward overwhelmingly took a young-earth, global-flood view,” but in harmony with Fr. Seraphim’s approach he states: “Simply discarding the views of the Fathers is not an option for any thoughtful Christian.”[FONT=&quot][5][/FONT] The Theokritoffs do not in any way advocate the discarding of the Fathers, but they certainly approach them as less reliable sources than does Fr. Seraphim.

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] George is a paleontologist and Elizabeth studied Modern Greek and wrote a thesis on hymnography at Oxford, and is author and editor of The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology.
[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] “Genesis and Creation: Towards a Debate,” pp. 366, 367.
[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] Ibid.,p. 372.
[FONT=&quot][4][/FONT] St. Silouan the Athonite,p. 90.
[FONT=&quot][5][/FONT] Moreland and Reynolds, ed., Three Views on Creation and Evolution, p. 97.

Some, like the Theokritoffs, admit that their evolutionary view is inconsistent with the Fathers, while others insist that the Fathers did not believe in the historicity of Genesis and that therefore their views can be harmonized with evolution."


-----------------

and:

"as [Fr. Seraphim] also notes, the first and foremost purpose of Genesis is to inform and foster the spiritual life,[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] which largely sets him apart from Fundamentalist Young-Earth Creationists, and so he gives a broad presentation of Patristic commentaries, not only touching upon those issues directly involved in the Creation/evolution question. Here, the Theokritoffs misrepresent Fr. Seraphim’s work by claiming that “in Fr. Seraphim’s commentary, the literal interpretation becomes the main point.”[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] True, much of his commentary is focused on the literal interpretation, because that is the key difference between Creationist and evolutionist interpretations of Genesis, but he is clear that Genesis is about the spiritual life. They even earlier note that Fr. Damascene, as editor of Fr. Seraphim’s Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, writes that Fr. Seraphim became bored in presenting Patristic commentaries solely as they relate to evolution,[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] but as Fr. Seraphim’s life bears witness, he never became bored with the spiritual struggle that Genesis helps to guide Orthodox Christians through.

[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] Ibid.,pp. 107-8.
[FONT=&quot][2][/FONT] “Genesis And Creation: Towards A Debate,” p. 366.
[FONT=&quot][3][/FONT] Ibid.,p. 366.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If the Fathers were so wrong wrt origins, how can we trust anything they wrote or said?

we couldn't. if the Fathers were wrong about our Fall, we certainly cannot trust their interpretation of our redemption.

Do the Creationists here believe that the evidence (fossils, etc) of creation is being misinterpreted by science because the scientific community assumes materialism to be true?

the problem is not in materialism as much as uniformitarianism. the assumption (which cannot be proved or disproved) that the laws of nature are the same now as they were before the Fall. if the Fall (and to a lesser extent, the Flood) radically changed the universe, then the way that life was before the Fall of man would be radically different. no science can ever prove or disprove that. the "overwhelming" evidence is just because folks have their preconceived beliefs, and they find what fits that model. anything that runs contrary is discarded.

Was Adam "Adam" before the monolith (God?) told him to kill and eat animals?

yeppers

Any speculation on how fossils with such apparent age got there? Is it mistakes with dating?

I think the only mistake is the assumption that the rate of decay is constant, when life in the Garden was one of absolutely no decay. as an example, say there is some star that is 7 million light years away. most folks would say that the light that you see is the light 7 million years ago. however, it is possible that God could have created that star visible from earth from the beginning. if He did, that star light could be much younger than 7 million years. what we know is the speed of light and the distance that star is. what we don't know is how long that star has been shining.

Any writings about alterations to time/space between the Fall and the flood that might account for the fossil record? Basically using science MINUS the assumption of uniformitarianism.

not sure, but that would be interesting to know if there were.

 

[Kristos]

Maybe they didn't coexist, but I don't believe the 60 million years bit. On what authority do you believe that? Which fathers taught that? Which Council declared that?
My point is not that they should, but that you dogmatically believe something that you assume we should NOT question and that you cannot imagine questioning.

If you want to achieve agreement on anything, you have to first find out what you DO agree on. I don't think that even the Fathers you misinterpret said anything like that.
It appears that you believe the consensus of modern scientists to be of equal to or greater authority than that of the Church.

Why do you think I should believe in your 60 million years?

Why wouldn't I believe it? Should I question that the earth orbits the Sun and not vice versa? Perhaps I should, but I would quickly learn that the empirical evidence is quite sound. There might be some quips about the exact formulas that should be used to calculate the orbit, but there is no rational model for the Sun rotating around the earth, even if there were Church Fathers who stated such. I find not great problem in this because theology was never meant to be natural science. Geology is very interesting to me, although I don't have any formal credentials in the field, I'm not completely ignorant. I have observed at places like the grand canyon and the badlands, the layers of rock which exist and layers where fossils are found. I understand the sedimentary process and it's time frame. I realize that there is a degree of uncertainty in this, so I'm willing to apply a very large margin. For YEC to be a plausible theory, geologist would have to be more than just inaccurate in their dating, they would have to be completely wrong in a similar fashion as astronomers would be wrong if the Sun really did rotate around the earth. I don't say this because I somehow honor geology over theology. What does theology really have to say about geology? It is true that geologists operating within their scientific paradigm would be unlikely to have the complete picture. They can't obviously answer the question of where the rock came from in the first place (whence does it derive its existence). They would have trouble with a formal or final cause for such rock as well. So I wouldn't assert that geology can tell me everything I need to about rock formations, but it can tell me a great deal about how they formed and even when they formed, but ultimately not why they exist in the first place. Most geologist are probably okay with that, after all it's not a burning question in most peoples minds "why are there rocks?" or perhaps more poignantly, "why is this particular rock here? What is its purpose?". The commonplaceness of rocks has displaced the wonder. Would not someone walking in the woods, who came upon a giant crystal orb, suspended in the air, question its cause? Who put it here and why? But this wonder is lost on rocks, and it perhaps it is no great loss, but the wonder of the created world in general is a great loss. I see this wonder as a driving force behind science and discovery, which ultimately SHOULD lead to the philosophical question above, however they often don't - and while I believe the root of the cause is modernism, the crux of the cause is modern Christians who won't let science be science, who refuse to acknowledge even the most basic observations (be it that the earth orbits the sun or that dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years). I believe this builds an unnecessary wall - which in all fairness was put there by the scientific method itself, but now has been fortified by modern Christians - between discovery and wonder. My view is far from a dogmatic commitment to materialism - the opposite is actually the case - the application of the scientific method to theology and especially to Genesis - is at its root an implicit buy-in to the dogmatic materialism that is prevalent in modern science.

 

[rusmeister]

Any speculation on how fossils with such apparent age got there? Is it mistakes with dating?

Any writings about alterations to time/space between the Fall and the flood that might account for the fossil record? Basically using science MINUS the assumption of uniformitarianism.

What Matt said. I'd add that all of our knowledge - or rather, what we think to be knowledge - around dating is based on assumptions and calculations, not observation. No one has lived long enough, or can go back in a time machine to see if those calculations are correct. Everybody is ASSUMING that the calculations tell us the truth about the age of things. ANY variable not accounted for, especially one that changed all of the rules - which the Fall would be - and everything winds up being wrong. WAY wrong.

I don't claim to be a "Young Earth Creationist" - I don't know how old the earth is. But I don't believe at all in man having existed for millions of years, or even hundreds of thousands. Maybe tens of thousands, but I'd bet not too many tens.

In any event, I don't believe theories that effectively contradict our Faith that are based on such questionable assumptions. I just don't think it's that important, and it's even wrong, to insist that modern science must be dogmatically correct as the teachings of the Church are. They'll come up with a new theory anyway, in a hundred years or so, and current ideas will be shelved, just like all previous ones have been. And the Church will still be right.

 

[jckstraw72]

we could be generous in saying dating observations have been going on for 150 years, and this is supposed to be normative for 13.4 billions years or so?

150/13.4 billion = 0.0000000111940299 --> does it really sound scientific to assume this incredibly small amount of time can tell us about all time?

 

[rusmeister]

Why wouldn't I believe it? Should I question that the earth orbits the Sun and not vice versa? Perhaps I should, but I would quickly learn that the empirical evidence is quite sound. There might be some quips about the exact formulas that should be used to calculate the orbit, but there is no rational model for the Sun rotating around the earth, even if there were Church Fathers who stated such. I find not great problem in this because theology was never meant to be natural science. Geology is very interesting to me, although I don't have any formal credentials in the field, I'm not completely ignorant. I have observed at places like the grand canyon and the badlands, the layers of rock which exist and layers where fossils are found. I understand the sedimentary process and it's time frame. I realize that there is a degree of uncertainty in this, so I'm willing to apply a very large margin. For YEC to be a plausible theory, geologist would have to be more than just inaccurate in their dating, they would have to be completely wrong in a similar fashion as astronomers would be wrong if the Sun really did rotate around the earth. I don't say this because I somehow honor geology over theology. What does theology really have to say about geology? It is true that geologists operating within their scientific paradigm would be unlikely to have the complete picture. They can't obviously answer the question of where the rock came from in the first place (whence does it derive its existence). They would have trouble with a formal or final cause for such rock as well. So I wouldn't assert that geology can tell me everything I need to about rock formations, but it can tell me a great deal about how they formed and even when they formed, but ultimately not why they exist in the first place. Most geologist are probably okay with that, after all it's not a burning question in most peoples minds "why are there rocks?" or perhaps more poignantly, "why is this particular rock here? What is its purpose?". The commonplaceness of rocks has displaced the wonder. Would not someone walking in the woods, who came upon a giant crystal orb, suspended in the air, question its cause? Who put it here and why? But this wonder is lost on rocks, and it perhaps it is no great loss, but the wonder of the created world in general is a great loss. I see this wonder as a driving force behind science and discovery, which ultimately SHOULD lead to the philosophical question above, however they often don't - and while I believe the root of the cause is modernism, the crux of the cause is modern Christians who won't let science be science, who refuse to acknowledge even the most basic observations (be it that the earth orbits the sun or that dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years). I believe this builds an unnecessary wall - which in all fairness was put there by the scientific method itself, but now has been fortified by modern Christians - between discovery and wonder. My view is far from a dogmatic commitment to materialism - the opposite is actually the case - the application of the scientific method to theology and especially to Genesis - is at its root an implicit buy-in to the dogmatic materialism that is prevalent in modern science.

We can actually observe what orbits around what. Maybe some day we will be able to go back in time and observe the distant past (though I doubt it). Of course the empirical evidence is sound, provided you accept the assumptions. And it is true that in the range of years we DO have recorded data for, the calculations certainly seem to hold for what we have been able to observe over time. But for anything we can't by definition observe, we have to assume things in order to construct ANY picture of the past. I think the natural sciences are too relatively unimportant in our lives, however grateful I may be for technology, to place bets on universal theories when historically, scientists are ALWAYS revising and correcting theories, often flatly contradicting prior ones, and I'm not going to bet on theories that DO affect theology, though you deny it on the basis of such assumptions.

I think your idea contradicts the Fall, and that you are trying to balance two mutually exclusive ideas in your head, and that modern scientists would blast you as soon as you tried to fit the Fall - a thing which had PHYSICAL effects - into an evolutionary view. That's why we've been asking for a narrative that corrects us, that shows us that the theory of evolution is totally compatible with the Fall and death, and a time when death was not, and we haven't gotten such a narrative from you, fueling our view that the ideas are indeed incompatible.

 

[Kristos]

Gotta agree on that one .....it'd be reading past what the Church Father say in order to come to the conclusion that they advocated YEC in the same way that YEC do today on all points. They believed in Instaneous Creation - but that had a very specific nuance. In many respects, one can go both ways when it comes to the issue of evolution and seeing what the Early Church has advocated on it....as they advocated for both symbolic and literal interpretations and allowed for progression of time impacting things (As noted before here and here and #277 when the issue came up ).

Yes, but also on-going and eternal - both transcendent in nature and immanent to the created. This is illustrated in what we call conception today. We can acknowledge that the physical process is accomplished by the fertilization of the ovum by the spermatozoon without denying what the Fathers said about us each being a unique creation of God.

 

[Dorothea]

Is it possible the dinosaurs lived outside the Garden while Adam and Eve were in it, and that maybe the Fall destroyed them or maybe that's when they became carnivores and then they died in the Flood later?

 

[jckstraw72]

Is it possible the dinosaurs lived outside the Garden while Adam and Eve were in it, and that maybe the Fall destroyed them or maybe that's when they became carnivores and then they died in the Flood later?

Dorothea -- the animals did live outside the Garden ... i'm trying to find some quotes for you to substantiate this. i have 'em in my thesis somewhere ...

certainly they did not become carnivores until the Fall, but i don't think we could say the Fall destroyed them. at the Fall, Creation fell to a mode "against" nature, but things were not destroyed. it's possible that the dinosaurs on the ark were not able to adapt to the post-flood world and died out ... who knows? there's many possibilities and we don't have any way of knowing apart from divine revelation.

 

[Dorothea]

Could the dinosaurs have been created when the other animals were before man and some of them expired before Adam and Eve or is it not possible because death hadn't entered the world at the time? Adam and Eve's sin brought about death, right? There wasn't any death before that? Or was there no death of humans because it was just them? Sorry, just lots of questions popping up in my mind.

ETA: Just remembered there was something posted earlier in the thread from the Scriptures that said nothing died?

 

[Dorothea]

Dorothea -- the animals did live outside the Garden ... i'm trying to find some quotes for you to substantiate this. i have 'em in my thesis somewhere ...

certainly they did not become carnivores until the Fall, but i don't think we could say the Fall destroyed them. at the Fall, Creation fell to a mode "against" nature, but things were not destroyed. it's possible that the dinosaurs on the ark were not able to adapt to the post-flood world and died out ... who knows? there's many possibilities and we don't have any way of knowing apart from divine revelation.

Oh, ok, thanks for answering. There were different types of dinos, so I'm guessing if we believe they were on the ark, there must have been all the different types in twos? But some were carnivores and not too friendly. Of course, that was the same for the other carnivores then - lions, tigers, bears, etc.

 

[jckstraw72]

Oh, ok, thanks for answering. There were different types of dinos, so I'm guessing if we believe they were on the ark, there must have been all the different types in twos? But some were carnivores and not too friendly. Of course, that was the same for the other carnivores then - lions, tigers, bears, etc.

the dinosaurs did not go extinct before Adam and Eve sinned, and there was no time for them to have done so anyways!

there wasn't necessarily two of every type of dinosaur on the ark - it could simply have been 2 dinosaurs - we aren't given that much detail.

the Fathers teach that Noah and his family lived peacefully on the ark with such dangerous animals because of Noah's holiness. He was a prepopodbnyy - that type of Saint like St. Seraphim - he was according to the image of Adam, and animals were peaceful in his presence. we see this with people like Elder Paisios as well.

 

[Kristos]

We can actually observe what orbits around what. Maybe some day we will be able to go back in time and observe the distant past (though I doubt it). Of course the empirical evidence is sound, provided you accept the assumptions. And it is true that in the range of years we DO have recorded data for, the calculations certainly seem to hold for what we have been able to observe over time. But for anything we can't by definition observe, we have to assume things in order to construct ANY picture of the past. I think the natural sciences are too relatively unimportant in our lives, however grateful I may be for technology, to place bets on universal theories when historically, scientists are ALWAYS revising and correcting theories, often flatly contradicting prior ones, and I'm not going to bet on theories that DO affect theology, though you deny it on the basis of such assumptions.

I think your idea contradicts the Fall, and that you are trying to balance two mutually exclusive ideas in your head, and that modern scientists would blast you as soon as you tried to fit the Fall - a thing which had PHYSICAL effects - into an evolutionary view. That's why we've been asking for a narrative that corrects us, that shows us that the theory of evolution is totally compatible with the Fall and death, and a time when death was not, and we haven't gotten such a narrative from you, fueling our view that the ideas are indeed incompatible.

Like I said, we can, and I have actually observed the layers of rock or sedimentary formations. It is as observable as the moon orbiting the earth. Fossils of certain animals exist in layers of sediment where there are NO human fossils, and these layers were formed some finite time before the layers with human fossils above them. How much time? I suppose it doesn't really matter to the discussion at hand, but it is a large number. I can go out and look at the fossil of an animal that died before any human was on earth. Yes, I am assuming that God is not involved in some sort of divine trickery, that He would not create fossils just for the purpose of deceiving us into thinking that they existed a very long time ago. Just the same I assume that He does not bend the light of the Sun and Stars for the purpose of tricking us into thinking that the earth orbits the Sun.