How do we explain Neanderthals?

[Cappadocious]

Please, be blunt.
You are saying that you know better than the fathers. That is absolutely clear. Your faith in modern science exceeds your faith in the Tradition of the Church. It is scientism. It is consistent, and it is at least clarifying that you do not deny it. It is worse when people pretend that they do not deny it.

It's really hard to maintain a charitable spirit if we are trivializing those Orthodox we really disagree with.

 

[stavros388]

You go on telling yourself that, brother stavros. The overwhelming numbers of atheists in the scientific community simply dwarf the tiny minority of the faithful. And the faithful in science usually are creationists who are lampooned and chided.

Darwin approached science as a theist, came out the other end as an atheist. End of story. It was said in here that he was a Christian. I proved that false. Simple math.

The last part of your post is of most concern---But many theists also maintain a position of theistic evolution or go about being Christians without giving a whole lot of thought to how Christianity and evolution can coexist

Christianity and science SHOULD co-exist! When we are told by the Fathers, the Church, by the Holy Spirit that there is a Creation and Man made in God's image without death, then the Fall creates death only to be then contradicted in the 19th century onward that we came from a primeval soup and ascended onto land into a simian form dying and being born, dying and being born already in our very matrix having death, no first parents, death abounding, we SHOULD BE giving a "whole lot of thought" to it!

I am not saying it's good to not give it some thought! Many Christians just aren't bothered by evolution because they've never been biblical literalists. I have given it a very great deal of thought over the years! I would suggest that if this field of study (biological evolution) is something of passionate interest to you, you should examine - I mean really and honestly examine - the evidence rather than merely dismissing it out of hand. Isn't this what you would do if you really wanted to understand medicine, physics, geology, or astronomy? I can suggest some great books.

However, if you're not interested in learning more about it, I suggest not anathematizing every Christian who has been convinced by the evidence for it. You'd be shutting the door on many devout Christians, methinks. Orthodox and otherwise.

 

[YCGP]

Look at it this way:

There are two books set on the table. One explains Orthodox faith, the other explains the scientific explanation of history.

Suspend your belief if you have to. The goal is to read both and make a decision afterward about which one you believe in.

Something tells me that there is nothing that can be shown to us that would make me change my belief to a scientific explanation.

History happens on a timeline. But I urge you to ask, "On WHAT line, though?" So what if the history that scientists promote really happened? It took place on which timeline?

 

[truefiction1]

I would respectfully disagree with the assessment that humankind couldn't understand such things as genetic traits being passed on - ESPECIALLY in the mind of someone who holds to the popular anthropological theories.

Mankind had domesticated animals by that time. Breeding could be controlled, especially in the kinds of flocks and herds that require only a single male to many females, leaving the rest to be culled. Mankind would have figured out very quickly that traits are passed to the offspring and could be selected for. They would have been able to purposely produce changes in animal lines over a few generations. To explain such happening over a great period of time, larger changes, shouldn't have been beyond the ability of mankind with a written language and established culture to fathom.

I'm sure your correct in believing that humans were surely intelligent enough to understand and that some of them may have known enough about selective breeding to consider speculative theories about evolution. I'm also pretty sure, however, that religious minds would not have accepted these sorts of explanations for things in any canon of sacred writings. Beliefs are a matter of life and death for people. Ideas that are seen to oppose or invalidate long standing traditional beliefs are not welcome even in many religious belief systems in our own time. Much less would they have been in a time when many clung to their heartfelt beliefs to the point of surely killing those who threatened such beliefs.

So, I will rephrase my earlier statement for greater accuracy: Although mankind was likely highly intelligent enough to grasp the concepts if presented with them and offered a sufficient body of supporting evidence, the social psychology of the cultures at large would not have stood for such concepts, especially if they were perceived as a threat to life and culture sustaining dogmas.

That is why the Pentateuch looks and feels as if written by Moses, rather than Charles Darwin. This, of course, as with all things, is by God's design.

 

[gzt]

Well, but here's the deal: as Orthodox Christians, we get to believe both, there's not a choice. Well, some theological explanations don't work, but a wholly Orthodox and traditional viewpoint can fit with the scientific.

 

[Kristos]

I am reading a book called "Sapiens" and it tells the story of humankind. So far most of it has been about neanderthals and the other species of humans who existed at the same time. Eventually, all but one species went extinct and homo sapiens (us) made it to the top of the food chain.

These species, such as neanderthals and homo erectus, existed two million years ago.

What is the Orthodox explanation of this?

Back to the OP - according to Orthodox Tradition, Neanderthals...<complete the sentence>

There really isn't any Orthodox Tradition concerning Neanderthals. Someone floated the idea of the Nephilim earlier, but I think that is a stretch, and is more of a proof text attempt at reconciliation. Science has asserted a relationship between "modern" humans and what they define as our cousins and/or ancestors. Maybe, maybe not - but either way there is no theological reason to protest the idea that thing A, through a process of "natural selection" became thing B. Put a pin in that.

The age of the earth and/or universe always seems to be a sticking point in debates on evolution. I suggest we treat it as a completely separate issue. There are really only 2 choice - the earth very young (7500 year or so) or the earth is very, very old. The idea that the earth is young is based solely on the first creation narrative, coupled with the genealogies in scripture. There is zero observed physical evidence that would support this theory. The idea that the earth is very, very old is based on a multitude of physical evidence from every discipline of science, but does this contradict scripture and/or Tradition? Absolutely not. Knowing what we know now, I think it's actually an abuse of scripture to argue otherwise. The Young Earth counting methodology that use scripture to arrive at a number is answering a question that had never been asked. In other words, Genesis never intended to offer a scientific data point when it said, so-and-so begat so-and-so in their 150th year.

But what about the fall? Well, that actually is not part of the 6 day narrative. The 6 day narrative has multiple purposes and subjects, but the fall is not one of them. The story of the fall, or perhaps more appropriately, Man's relationship to God, Woman & creation, we must look to the 2nd creation narrative in Genesis - which give NO time data, and even mixes things up significantly from the 1st narrative. What if we used this narrative to date the earth? Wouldn't that be silly since it's obviously not the point? In any case, this is where we find the story of the fall. So WHEN did the fall happen? Difficult to say - in terms of "timelines" it seems to contradict even the 6 day narrative, yet some seem to hang their hat on this inflection point in history as the reason an "old" earth doesn't hold up to Tradition.

So back to evolution - I find no reason to doubt that earth is very, very old, so the time element is there. At a minimum, we must admit that it's plausible. But is it true? I don't know. I have my doubts honestly. There are many questions that still need to be answered. Maybe those answers will support evolution, maybe they will lead somewhere new - either way, I don't see how denying the theory outright, based on bad theology, is helpful.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm sure your correct in believing that humans were surely intelligent enough to understand and that some of them may have known enough about selective breeding to consider speculative theories about evolution. I'm also pretty sure, however, that religious minds would not have accepted these sorts of explanations for things in any canon of sacred writings. Beliefs are a matter of life and death for people. Ideas that are seen to oppose or invalidate long standing traditional beliefs are not welcome even in many religious belief systems in our own time. Much less would they have been in a time when many clung to their heartfelt beliefs to the point of surely killing those who threatened such beliefs.

So, I will rephrase my earlier statement for greater accuracy: Although mankind was likely highly intelligent enough to grasp the concepts if presented with them and offered a sufficient body of supporting evidence, the social psychology of the cultures at large would not have stood for such concepts, especially if they were perceived as a threat to life and culture sustaining dogmas.

That is why the Pentateuch looks and feels as if written by Moses, rather than Charles Darwin. This, of course, as with all things, is by God's design.

Perhaps it's better to drop this as a side issue, and I have no desire whatsoever to give you a hard time. But I don't believe the logic is there in this statement either, especially if Moses wrote Genesis. It really is a side issue though.

 

[seekingsolace]

-

 

[truefiction1]

and again, if that were the case, the post-19th century saints would be more open to the idea of evolution. and they are not.



while true, our theological origins point out that God did not create death and that (according to St John Chrysostom) vegetation was created after the sun to show that life comes from God and not from the sun.

The most recent saints who reject evolution most assuredly had their own motives for doing so. I don't begrudge them a bit. I also agree that God did not create death, and that sin is what is responsible for it. It is my ability to accept what Orthodoxy calls "mystery" and to determine what things belong to the realm of "mystery" that enables my mind to overcome what a strongly rational mind can only see as contradictions.

 

[seekingsolace]

The most recent saints who reject evolution most assuredly had their own motives for doing so. I don't begrudge them a bit.

Is that a fair assessment? Surely the motives would be the same as the saints of the past.

 

[Church2u2]

Hi.Here's my dilemma. Okay..so other planets exist. Mars, Jupiter etc. .we know us humans can't survive in Saturn's atmosphere but yet these planets exist and God the supreme creator made them.I don't know if they serve a purpose or what..but I look at Neanderthals in the same way. They existed but exist no longer yet we have proof of their existence the same as we can see Mars or Venus through a telescope. They're something that God created because that's what He does. Creates.As to their purpose..shrugs..although I do believe that Neanderthal DNA exists in us homosapians.It all seems like a mystery to me.

 

[truefiction1]

Is that a fair assessment? Surely the motives would be the same as the saints of the past.

How is it not a fair assessment? Whatever their reasons, whether saints of old or of this post modern age, they felt they had good reasons, and the rejection of the theory of evolution does not impact Orthodox Theology or praxis.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The most recent saints who reject evolution most assuredly had their own motives for doing so. I don't begrudge them a bit. I also agree that God did not create death, and that sin is what is responsible for it. It is my ability to accept what Orthodoxy calls "mystery" and to determine what things belong to the realm of "mystery" that enables my mind to overcome what a strongly rational mind can only see as contradictions.

yes, their motives are that it is not what the Church has ever taught. if sin is what made death, humans have either been around for millions of years or death has only been around for as long as man, since man is the only animal that can rebel against God.

I do agree with accepting mystery, but if the Fathers are clear on something, it is not for us to debate.

 

[gzt]

Hmm, I think there are real questions about what you mean when you say they are clear on something - and it's hardly uncontroversial to call their remarks uniformly and unquestionably clear.

 

[rusmeister]

I do not know what St. Pasios is qualified to discern. Blasphemy is a most nebulous term and depends very much on one's preconceptions.

Hi, Jack,
In Orthodoxy, the understanding of what blasphemy is NOT nebulous. It is based on clear understanding of what is holy and what is profane. It does indeed become nebulous when doctrine fades or becomes unknown, and that has happened throughout the West, even in Western Christianity. But where this understanding has been maintained, there is nothing nebulous about insults to the divinity of God or the divine origin of man or to divine worship.

"Blasphemy is an artistic effect, because blasphemy depends upon a philosophical conviction. Blasphemy depends upon belief and is fading with it. If any one doubts this, let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor."
GKC, "Heretics"

 

[rusmeister]

Hmm, it seems we've gotten to that part of the conversation where people start coming out and calling people heretics. We managed to go for so long without that happening.

It's a case of whether the shoe fits, gz. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Is there such a thing as a heretic? Is there an Orthodox Christian that will seriously deny the existence of heresy, or claim the impossibility of its existence or of its being a threat to unity within the Church?

Heresy is a reality, it actually exists, and it arises whenever people try to introduce novel teaching not previously held that does affect prior teaching. Some members here have already clearly expressed that they think modern scientific knowledge confers superior doctrinal understanding to that which the fathers and saints held, and that they therefore have the right to express teaching that actually differs with that held for two millennia in the Orthodox Church. This belief, often expressed as "ongoing revelation" or in whatever words, tacitly denies that Christ Himself is the ultimate revelation and that the Church contains, and has always contained, the fullness of the Truth. It is heresy. Scientism, the belief in equal or superior authority of the pronouncements of natural scientists on the truth of human nature, to that of the Church, that scientific knowledge confers the power to correct Church teaching, is heresy.

 

[rusmeister]

There are quite a lot of theologians, bishops, and priests who work from the understanding that the earth is old, life is old, etc. Some of them might be intelligent design folks rather than evolution folks, I don't know, but it's not negligible. There are a lot of them.

But gz, the problem is not that we can't imagine an old earth. It's that you really do construct and try to hold together two incompatible histories - that man evolved slowly over time in a world full of death, AND that he existed in a state without death and in that state, sinned and Fell and introduced death into the world.

Who knows? When somebody is acknowledged as a saint, it doesn't mean we think they were right about everything. This would of course be a logical impossibility, because the saints of the Church say a lot of things and there is quite a lot of disagreement.

Nor do we suggest that saints are infallible. But we do insist that there is a definite consensus on the concept of evolution; that such voices as you can cite are pretty much only of the twentieth century, and they contradict pretty much all prior voices. They are not part of the consensus, but dissenters.

 

[rusmeister]

That is easy because every single Christian in this world is a heretic to some other Christian in this world. Seems to be a tradition.

Jack, please remember that you are in a congregational forum. You're welcome, and even to comment - carefully - but the truth of Orthodoxy is assumed here, not the beliefs of your confession which contradict Orthodoxy

 

[rusmeister]

I'm far more concerned with what we might call the fact of evolution - what we see in the fossil record (and more) in terms of chronology and descent and change - than with the theory tying it all together. I think it's a problem to dismiss the latter, but I don't care about getting into a fight with the ID people, they're at least attempting to deal with the record and accept the fact of evolution.

This is why I doubt your science. A scientist that really conducts valid science understands that evidence is not fact, and neither is a theory. A scientist sees a fossil, or a prosecutor sees a white glove in OJ Simpson's driveway, and understands that it is not itself a fact of something else, be it evolution or a murder, but is evidence that may seem to point to a possible fact. But you do dogmatically hold the evidence, and the theory as themselves facts, and even say so.

The scientist also understands that evidence may be circumstantial, that his theory could have a flaw based on unknown variables or other unknown facts, and so not constitute actual fact.

 

[rusmeister]

Well, in the Orthodox Church we have a specific set of criteria. But, yeah, I think it's a major problem when people leave rational discourse and start calling other Orthodox Christians in the thread Manicheans and what-have-you.

This is another common habit I find in modern thought, the inability to distinguish between people and their ideas, to hear any condemnation of wrong as condemnation of the wrongdoer, to really not see that people are NOT their ideas and have the power to change them. I have said certain ideas are heresy, Gurney has said certain ideas are Manichaeism, and we are right - but you immediately fit the shoe and then object. The whole question is of whether the shoe fits. Does it? Do you, or does anyone here, hold ideas that contradict the consensus of the Church? I am sure that at this time you honestly believe you do not.