How do most Eastern Orthodox view the Origins debate?

[Jackson Cooper]

There are really two side: those that believe Genesis and Job are giving an account of natural history, and those that do not. Those that believe they give accounts of natural history may have differing interpretations (Literal six-day creation, Day-age creation, Gap Theory, etc.)

Personally, I believe in evolution and do not think Genesis is giving an account of natural history.
I don't want to debate this, I am merely curious as to what most Eastern Orthodox believe. Do Greeks and Russians tend to differ here? I suspect the USSR caused many to resent evolution since they taught militant atheism alongside it in schools. I used to be a Young Earth Creationist.

 

[Barney2.0]

I know personally the Earth was not made by itself it was made by a higher power or mindset for sure and we Christians know this higher power as our father in heaven. How was the Earth created exactly now that's a mystery no one knows. I personally believe the biblical story but if I were to go into details I have not the slightest idea how God did it in six days but I know he did it and that's what matters doesn't it. Over time we humans will discover more and more about God and the universe but for now we are still in the dark about how God really made the universe.

 

[All4Christ]

Whether God's creation was accomplished through a literal account or through evolution is not something that will make or break my faith. My concern theologically for me personally accepting evolution, however, is due to my understanding of ancestral sin.

Our understanding of ancestral sin includes the teaching that death and corruption comes from the Fall. "From one man's sin, death entered the world (paraphrased)". We also are taught that corruption, disease, decay, etc. all come from that "original" sin. This begs the question - how can one reconcile the "survival of the fittest" concept (i.e. natural selection) with the concept of death and corruption being the result of that ancestral sin?

From what I understand, Orthodox proponents of evolution make the point that the Ancestral Sin caused the death of humanity and corruption of humanity. My reservation theologically is the death and corruption in the world outside of humanity prior to the Fall. Yes, God came to save humanity and to give humanity eternal life - not other animals, but the ideal state is paradise. After the final judgement, we are taught that the world will be remade to Paradise - the pre-fallen state. Why, then, would God make the Earth evolve through death, sickness and suffering - albeit not originally with humans?

I can see how theistic evolution can be synthesized with our core beliefs on Ancestral Sin - but from my limited perspective, it doesn't fully (or easily) synthesize with all the teachings about Ancestral Sin. If you believe God designed the natural state of the Earth to be like the various ages included in Evolutionary creation - then perhaps it isn't so much an issue. I don't, however, believe God initially wanted the violence, sickness, etc. - not just with humanity, but with the world as a whole.

 

[gzt]

If you want "most" the only way to get that is to do a survey. I did one a while back when it came up here and put it in a couple places - I think some people even posted it on some traditionalist forum, so we have broad representation of Orthodox viewpoints, at least from the Anglosphere. Unfortunately, I didn't know in advance that the google surveys display wouldn't show the full text of questions in the results.

Here's the survey so you can see the questions: Orthodoxy and Evolution

Here are the results we got: Orthodoxy and Evolution (sorry the text for all the questions doesn't come up)

Basically, it seems a great proportion of respondents believe the broad evolutionary narrative rather than a young earth narrative. The curious thing is the complete lack of uncertainty expressed by anybody about their answers - but this is a well-known phenomenon.

 

[Platina]

Do Greeks and Russians tend to differ here?

No, they don't tend to differ, because both nations have their beloved saints that have breathed the same Spirit and both taught them against evolution.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No, they don't tend to differ, because both nations have their beloved saints that have breathed the same Spirit and both taught them against evolution.

yep

 

[gzt]

No, they don't tend to differ, because both nations have their beloved saints that have breathed the same Spirit and both taught them against evolution.

and contemporary thinkers who don't. :shrug:.

 

[Platina]

and contemporary thinkers who don't. :shrug:.

contemporary thinkers say a lot of things

 

[gzt]

Yep. Lots of things being said.

 

[PittBullMom]

Wasn't someone arrested way back when because he believed the earth was round?

That's what I think of when these topics come up. Anyway...

Christianity believes in one God, creator of heaven and Earth. I don't know how it was created. Im not sure if Genesis is to be taken literally. So...what if God created a kind of evolution? I can't stomach the thought of coming from monkeys, but nature has changed over time.

Truth is we weren't there. But to believe in God is to believe in creation.

 

[prodromos]

and contemporary thinkers who don't. :shrug:.

They don't seem to breath the same spirit as our Fathers, do they.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They don't seem to breath the same spirit as our Fathers, do they.

and there are also some contemporary thinkers who do as well.

 

[Platina]

And, of course, we have not a few contemporary saints who were also highly-learned, great thinkers

 

[All4Christ]

Since we are in the St Justin Martyr’s forum....

How do those of you who believe in evolution synthesize our beliefs on the Fall being the cause of corruption, death and suffering? Do you believe this is only referring to corruption, death and suffering of humanity (as opposed to the natural selection before humanity - being wrought with death and suffering)? Do you still believe in a literal Adam and Eve in Paradise (after their evolution) - Or do you believe something different?

Not asking for debate, but I am curious.

 

[gzt]

I think it's a very good question and also still an open one. Some people on here go into it a little: Evolution - OrthodoxWiki It's probably the case that the view is a little overstated. You might look at Romanides, whose work on ancestral sin is highly regarded. He surely had a decent understanding of the Fall and certainly believed in a literal Adam and Eve, but he was also (to simplify a little) an evolutionist.

 

[gzt]

They don't seem to breath the same spirit as our Fathers, do they.

That's a weighty accusation at my own bishop.

 

[Platina]

Fr. John Romanides is an interesting case, because in The Ancestral Sin, he specifically says that science and philosophy have no ability to go back before the Fall - they hit the Fall and assume that's the beginning of the world, because they can go no further back. And yet, elsewhere he obviously accepts what evolutionary scientists teach about the world before the Fall.

 

[gzt]

Anyway, here is one priest's answer to All4Christ's question: Creation and Evolution - Glory to God for All Things

 

[All4Christ]

Anyway, here is one priest's answer to All4Christ's question: Creation and Evolution - Glory to God for All Things

OK...I read it, though it doesn't seem sufficient from my understanding. The whole "God created death at the beginning by foreknowledge of the fall - since the world isn't bound by time" seems like a way to just ignore the problem. There was a physical timeline alongside the spiritual timeline. God's foreknowledge is not subject to that timeline, and He can do what He desires, yes. While God is not bound by time, He did have an ideal state for humanity and the world (which we are taught will be renewed after the Final Judgment), and it makes no sense that He would backfit death and corruption to the beginning as part of His creation process because He knew man would sin. "Death entered the world through the sin of one man (paraphrased)". Whether we sin voluntarily or are free from personal sin, we still are subject to that ancestral sin. It seems like Fr Stephen is ignoring that.

Also, quoting a few Church Fathers also doesn't show the continuity of the Church Fathers as a whole.

I like a lot of what Fr Stephen writes. This particular writing, however, doesn't seem to be a sufficient answer from my perspective. I still haven't seen a writing that fully answers this problem, though Fr Stephen's writing at least addresses it. For what it's worth - I don't necessarily consider it to be necessary for Genesis to be an absolutely accurate historical account. My main concern is the Fall and pre-Fall mortality and corruption.

I will read the Ancestral Sin something though.

ETA: We also consider Adam to be Righteous Adam and to be a saint (who was resurrected in the Paschal icon). If he wasn't a historical person...are we calling mythical people saints?

 

[prodromos]

That's a weighty accusation at my own bishop.

If you say so. I've never met your bishop, so I wouldn't know.