How do we explain Neanderthals?

gzt · Oct 22, 2016

The "right answer" is that there is disagreement in the Orthodox tradition, with some people believing evolution is compatible with Orthodox thought and some people thinking that it isn't.

jckstraw72 · Oct 22, 2016

that's only a description of the current situation. that's not an answer to anything. And it should say there's disagreement among modern Orthodox - not in Tradition. That's simply not true.

~Anastasia~ · Oct 22, 2016

gzt said:
You can look on the orthowiki which has been referred to several times. Jckstraw, by the way, is a prolific contributor to the page.

I suspect if some Synod had addressed the question, it might end up as something along the lines of the conclusion of the ROCOR synod's statement on tollhouses, quoted below for context:

Of course, who knows? I eagerly await the bishops of my own church to speak on this issue. I will in fact be seeing my bishop this weekend and I may ask for his thoughts if I get the chance, but I don't intend to waste his time to settle an internet argument.

Toll houses and what has been revealed to us (vs. speculation) - and Creation and what has been revealed to us (vs. speculation) - hardly seems like a fair comparison.

It also doesn't seem particularly useful to invoke a synodal statement about one and apply it to the other as if this means anything, just because one imagines it might be so.

Sorry to take that stance, but I really believe this is unfair to put forth as being meaningful.

ArmyMatt · Oct 22, 2016

gzt said:
That isn't the right answer.

The councils, canons, Scripture, saint's lives, and Patristics quoted in this thread say otherwise

gzt · Oct 22, 2016

A short summary of my discussion with the bishop: Genesis is about theology and not cosmology, consider for example a comparison between Babylonian mythology (like Enuma Elish) and the Genesis account (note: see my earlier posts in the thread, particularly the videos about scholarly interpretation of Genesis), he made reference to patristic interpretations opening up avenues for theological rather than cosmological interpretation, and the point of the narrative is certainly not to say the world is 7500 years old. He had a few other things to say, and of course the remarks were not detailed nor was I taking notes.

Hope that helps. Have a nice day. I can only go with the interpretation of my bishop, as ArmyMatt has rightly pointed out that this is what I am supposed to do.

ArmyMatt · Oct 22, 2016

Well, that was not all I said, but, yes, it never hurts going to the bishop.

Of course, your conclusion at least that you wrote does not actually deal with the issue of this thread.

gzt · Oct 22, 2016

Well, as you know, I only read my own comments.

The issue being... Neanderthals? Well, the point of this discussion was that our reading of Genesis need not conflict with the evolutionary account, at least in its broad terms.

prodromos · Oct 22, 2016

gzt said:
A short summary of my discussion with the bishop: Genesis is about theology and not cosmology, consider for example a comparison between Babylonian mythology (like Enuma Elish) and the Genesis account (note: see my earlier posts in the thread, particularly the videos about scholarly interpretation of Genesis), he made reference to patristic interpretations opening up avenues for theological rather than cosmological interpretation, and the point of the narrative is certainly not to say the world is 7500 years old. He had a few other things to say, and of course the remarks were not detailed nor was I taking notes.

Hope that helps. Have a nice day. I can only go with the interpretation of my bishop, as ArmyMatt has rightly pointed out that this is what I am supposed to do.

What did your bishop have to say about you teaching evolution?

gzt · Oct 22, 2016

I teach nothing, who's teaching? I don't teach theology, I teach statistics. But this was his response to asking about evolution, young earth creation, etc, and his response was essentially the sort of stuff I was talking about in the first couple pages of the thread. I suppose if I were teaching, this implies that he would not be opposed to saying the sorts of things he said.

EDIT: I do not desire to put words in his mouth.

gzt · Oct 22, 2016

I don't mean to play this as a trump card, but rather to demonstrate that I'm teachable, willing to submit to authority, and do not desire to usurp the Orthodox tradition, but am merely presenting it as delivered to me by the authorities I know. And, frankly, I trust the Orthodox tradition as relayed to me by, say, my bishop far more than by some random anonymous people on the internet.

jckstraw72 · Oct 23, 2016

the Genesis account is actually quite anti-mythological when compared to Babylonian mythologies, as taught by Archbishop Michael (Dahulich) in his seminary course dedicated to the Pentateuch.

As Orthodox we have such a rich treasure trove of Patristic interpretation, that it's simply embarrassing when we simply roll over and accept whatever biblical criticism of the liberal Protestants is telling us.

gzt · Oct 23, 2016

Well, yes, that's the point, the Enuma Elish is filled with mythology while the Genesis account demythologizes, it's a polemic against it. In Babylonian mythology, the stars are little gods, in the Hebrew Bible, they're just lights made by God. Perhaps I didn't relay the thoughts precisely, I'm typing quickly. And please don't presume based on my short summary that my bishop did not refer to patristic thought here. Your comment does not characterize his interpretation at all.

jckstraw72 · Oct 23, 2016

My priest here in Moscow, Fr. Artemy Vladimirov, who is one of the most beloved priests in the city and known internationally, spoke one time about an experience he had in Church as a teenager when he went into church on Holy Saturday night, but he wasn’t very churchy at this point and didn’t know what was going on. Someone asked him if he wanted to serve in the altar and so they gave him an altar boy’s vestment to wear. This is what Fr. Artemy said about it:

Shaking like a leaf, I put on the garment, and it was quite suitable for me, covering even my feet, and I was put in line by an altar boy, and these clothes were so similar to that of angels sitting on the tomb of our Lord Jesus Christ who the disciples of the Lord thought were young men. I felt like an angelic being, and all my thoughts and feelings were there. It was something unbelievable. It seemed to me that I was flying.

But my outlook had been so impacted by school where they used to tell us that people have a common origin with apes, and we believed it. This was the Soviet style of thinking. This lie, this ugly, ugly outlook that was pressed into our hearts was still present in our section of the world, and I remember standing there and looking at myself and feeling bliss in my heart, and at that very moment I realized that we have nothing in common with apes. It was not a philosophical process in my brain, but it was a revelation to the heart.

Oh, how ugly this lie is. Now I know, I feel and understand and believe that we have nothing in common with animals. Certainly we are created by the hands of our Lord, because the human being is so close to angels, which I realized as I began to understand the words of the procession: “Thy Resurrection O Christ our Savior, the angels in Heaven sing, enable us on earth, to glorify Thee in purity of heart.” When I began to understand the meaning of the words all the remnants of this ape philosophy disappeared and thus I began to think, feel, see, and perceive the world as an Orthodox Christian.

My main point is that it was not a logical process of finding the Christian philosophy, but it was certainly a catharsis. I was delivered from this lie, but not just from thinking logically about evolution and creation, but it was the heart’s perception of revelation which was the fruit of my participating in the Paschal services.

Note that for those authorities among us who reject evolution, it always stems from a point of experiencing God.

jckstraw72 · Oct 23, 2016

gzt said:
Well, yes, that's the point, the Enuma Elish is filled with mythology while the Genesis account demythologizes, it's a polemic against it. In Babylonian mythology, the stars are little gods, in the Hebrew Bible, they're just lights made by God. Perhaps I didn't relay the thoughts precisely, I'm typing quickly. And please don't presume based on my short summary that my bishop did not refer to patristic thought here. Your comment does not characterize his interpretation at all.

sorry, i didn't have specifically your bishop in mind there.

ArmyMatt · Oct 23, 2016

gzt said:
Well, as you know, I only read my own comments.

The issue being... Neanderthals? Well, the point of this discussion was that our reading of Genesis need not conflict with the evolutionary account, at least in its broad terms.

Yeah, I read you there, but this discussion turned into the age old issue of how death fits into the equation.

gzt · Oct 23, 2016

These are interesting stories indeed, but I don't see how I am obligated to accept their conclusions. Could it be that they were taught evolution with a surrounding false atheistic and propagandized anthropology rather than being taught purely the science? Keep in mind these were communist times. I'm reminded of Fr Seraphim Rose's vehement rejection of St Francis of Assisi which seems to have little relation to the actual historical figure. It turns out he based it on St Ignatius's polemic against him, which required some historical context: there was in Russian noble circles in the late 19th century a very popular life of St Francis written earlier in the century circling around that was utter schlock, no redeeming qualities at all to it, utter nonsense, so St Ignatius, exercising his rightful pastoral duty, read the book and denounced it quite properly. However this had little to do with the actual man.

gzt · Oct 23, 2016

ArmyMatt said:
Yeah, I read you there, but this discussion turned into the age old issue of how death fits into the equation.

I'd rather take the truth with some open issues than a conveniently packaged falsehood.

EDIT: which isn't even conveniently packaged, since it leaves open some huge issues relating to our ability to observe the outside world.

gzt · Oct 23, 2016

But I tihnk we've gone over this before. I don't think any of us have anything to add to this discussion.

jckstraw72 · Oct 23, 2016

gzt said:
These are interesting stories indeed, but I don't see how I am obligated to accept their conclusions. Could it be that they were taught evolution with a surrounding false atheistic and propagandized anthropology rather than being taught purely the science? Keep in mind these were communist times.

in short: those who rejected evolution in the Soviet Union, including those who were willing to be tortured for rejecting it, were simply too dim to understand that it was being bound up with atheism, and had they been taught "purely the science" they surely would have accepted it.

of course, that doesn't fit the evidence at all. we don't see them rejecting evolution because its atheistic, but rather because of the problems it causes when you try to combine it with Orthodoxy.

Fr. Artemy did not reject evolution because it was atheistic, but precisely because of how it belittles man.

you're claiming, it seems, that if he were simply better learned in science he wouldn't have said what he did.

but what he said was not based on research or a lack thereof. It was what was given to him to know when standing in Church.

Those who stand against evolution always come back to that -- what God reveals and shows. evolutionists never come back to that. and yet they want to foist their theology onto Scripture.

jckstraw72 · Oct 23, 2016

gzt said:
EDIT: which isn't even conveniently packaged, since it leaves open some huge issues relating to our ability to observe the outside world.

but it doesn't. the issue here is not what we can observe, but rather that which no one has ever observed.

no one rejects that which has been genuinely observed and that which has been observed in no way contradicts the Orthodox teaching on Genesis.

the issue here is the stories that scientists concoct, the boundless extrapolations they make into the past. we see minor changes going, sure. where we differ is that evolutionists therefore assume that such changes were necessarily happening in the past, compounding upon one another in the same "direction" endlessly.

everything that exists has its principle existing in the mind of God from before all eternity, its definition, its boundary. these logoi are unchanging because they are the energies of God. evolution works by assuming there are no such boundaries, or that they are so maleable and fluid so as to not really be boundaries, that nature is fluid, and everything can come from a common ancestor. this has never been seen, and stands in direct contrast to Orthodox theology. this idea is not modern either, but was already rejected by the ancient Fathers.

How do we explain Neanderthals?

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

† Handmaid of God †

Regular Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Regular Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Senior Veteran

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Regular Member

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.07 billion years

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency