How do we explain Neanderthals?

[stavros388]

but did he comment on it scientifically or religiously?

Exactly. Did he comment based on the mythical context of biblical history, or based on what we know about human origins through scientific discovery?

 

[jckstraw72]

you commented that he was not experienced in scientific matters. if he did not make scientific comments, what difference does that make?

 

[jckstraw72]

Exactly. Did he comment based on the mythical context of biblical history, or based on what we know about human origins through scientific discovery?

i notice you've discounted beforehand the working of grace. either myth or science -- no other options spring to mind?

 

[stavros388]

you commented that he was not experienced in scientific matters. if he did not make scientific comments, what difference does that make?

Sorry, I don't follow.

 

[stavros388]

i notice you've discounted beforehand the working of grace. either myth or science -- no other options spring to mind?

When and where did I discount the working of grace? We were talking about neanderthals and biological evolution, both of which fall into the domain of science.

 

[JackRT]

It poses a challenge, to be sure! But perhaps we need to separate what is spiritually beneficial in the writings of the father's from what is clearly erroneous, or attempt to reinterpret what is there as myth, metaphor, or metaphysical insight instead of placing some of the fathers in a head to head battle against all (or nearly all) of the world's anthropologists, archeologists, paleontologists, zoologist, geneticists, and so on, when it comes to that which contradicts what we now know about the world.

*bolding in quote above is mine

From talkorigins:

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

 

[JackRT]

As much as I adore St. Paisios, he didn't spend much time at dig sites or in science classes, so I prefer to acknowledge him as a sure guide to rooting the passions out of the human heart but not for piecing ancient bones or human history together.

Well said.

 

[jckstraw72]

Sorry, I don't follow.

you said: "As much as I adore St. Paisios, he didn't spend much time at dig sites or in science classes" ... but since he wasn't claiming to be a scientist or to make scientific statements, what difference does his lack of experience with science make?

to be more specific, he emphatically stated that the notion that the Theotokos, and therefore Christ, descended from lower lifeforms is blasphemous. can we contend that some time at a dig with Teilhard de Chardin would have given him a better working definition of blasphemy?

 

[jckstraw72]

When and where did I discount the working of grace? We were talking about neanderthals and biological evolution, both of which fall into the domain of science.

well you we were speaking specifically about what St. Paisios had to say about it, and you laid it out as either commenting based on mythical Biblical history or science. perhaps St. Paisios commented on Scripture neither from mythical history nor from science.

 

[stavros388]

you said: "As much as I adore St. Paisios, he didn't spend much time at dig sites or in science classes" ... but since he wasn't claiming to be a scientist or to make scientific statements, what difference does his lack of experience with science make?

to be more specific, he emphatically stated that the notion that the Theotokos, and therefore Christ, descended from lower lifeforms is blasphemous. can we contend that some time at a dig with Teilhard de Chardin would have given him a better working definition of blasphemy?

If what he emphatically states as fact contradicts what we know about the world, I cannot accept it 'as fact'. No human, saint or otherwise, need be deemed infallible about all things at all times.

 

[JackRT]

Our beliefs, whatever they may be, should conform to reality. If they do not, then at some level they are doing us harm.

 

[jckstraw72]

If what he emphatically states as fact contradicts what we know about the world, I cannot accept it 'as fact'. No human, saint or otherwise, need be deemed infallible about all things at all times.

are you contending that St. Pasios is not qualified to discern what is and isn't blasphemy?

 

[jckstraw72]

Our beliefs, whatever they may be, should conform to reality. If they do not, then at some level they are doing us harm.

of course. the question is - who is properly interpreting reality? science can study the external appearances and workings, while saints study the inner principles of all things, rooted in the mind of God from before all eternity.

 

[gzt]

are you contending that St. Pasios is not qualified to discern what is and isn't blasphemy?

He can be mistaken. He is in this case.

 

[jckstraw72]

He can be mistaken. He is in this case.

how is it that he came to not understand what honors God and what offends God? was he not sufficiently close to God?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

St. Paisios isn't the only incompatibalist Orthodox saint with regard to evolution. St. Theophan the Recluse and others condemn it in quite clear terms.

You won't find an Orthodox saint teaching against gravity or denying the existence of molecules or elements. You won't find them denying photosynthesis or plate tectonics. What you will find is plenty of them denying evolution, which is an unobservable theory.

The problems with evolution are manifold. I think we need to keep in mind the secular implications and pagan conclusions linked to the theory. The ideas of evolution come from atheists, and atheists have an agenda. They always do. And lets not forget those implications. If man is just a glorified animal, then why have monogamy? Animals impregnate multiple females, so why isn't the same ok for us? We men feel the instinct and temptation to stray, so maybe that's a good thing we animal humans should do? Why resist? In nature some animals have homosexual relations, so why not with us? Hitler used evolution to justify the strong wiping out the weak---the law of the jungle. Might makes right. Eugenics came out of the wake of evolution. Why not try to get rid of certain ethnic groups and "undesirables?" Why not make a super being like Hitler wanted? A "Kahn" or a "Kwisatz Hadderach" kind of thing?

There is no morality in evolution. It is simple survival, adaptability, and it is humanism at its core. Where is prayer in evolution? Where is grace? Where is the Fall? Where is a God that created humanity to live and not die? Where is justice and goodness? Did primates have to just club each other to death for millions of years until they developed into homo sapiens to finally learn love and mercy? In evolution humans are just more highly-developed animals, soulless and selfish. It also points to a God that can't just create, but must rather waste millenia with simple animals ascending steadily and slowly.

I can't fathom how an Orthodox Christian can marry the atheist-driven, soulless, selfish, un-Patristic, un-Biblical, modernist, humanist, sketchy philosophy of Evolution with Holy Orthodoxy. It's just not doable in my humble opinion.

 

[Cappadocious]

Well, Capp...You think it matters that we affirm modern science and deny that it could ever contradict Holy Tradition

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

 

[stavros388]

The way I see it, there are really only three ways to approach this challenging situation. The first is to be naturally in a position of ignorance. I hate to be so blunt but many church fathers and even saints were, and perhaps even now to a lesser degree, are ignorant of what science and the plentifully available evidence have to show us about human origins. To them there never was a challenge as they were raised in and their views fostered by a Christian culture that simply had no insight into evolution and therefore suffered no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. This is a 'luxury' many modern Christians do not have anymore.

The second way to deal with these things is through a kind of wilfull ignorance, often involving a dismissal of scientific discovery in this domain of knowledge altogether. This way is untenable or undesirable for many modern Christians. This is perhaps the most dangerous position to take regarding one's faith because, well, one can't deny or hide from the facts forever.

The third way, I would suggest, is one that takes into account the best (and worst) of both science and religion, holds tentatively to both to make room for future discovery, and pursues a Christian life that is experiential, practical, and ultimately and hopefully transformative. The inner subjective world IS different than the outer world best examined through science and natural history. NOMA as outlined by biologist Stephen J. Gould offers a kind of solution here. But if one's entire faith is based on the second way, that of denial or wilful ignorance employed in order to protect an ancient worldview, I fear that if something gives, they may be prone to outright atheism when their faith collapses under the weight of scientific evidence.

Many Christians, Orthodox and otherwise, hold to the third way (or something akin to it) and manage (in my case, this has admittedly been with some difficulty) to acknowledge the findings of science while still trying to discover and manifest in one's life those things that are perhaps most essential to being a Christian.

This is my view, for what it's worth. I see that other thoughtful people have their own ways of doing and seeing things.

 

[stavros388]

St. Paisios isn't the only incompatibalist Orthodox saint with regard to evolution. St. Theophan the Recluse and others condemn it in quite clear terms.

You won't find an Orthodox saint teaching against gravity or denying the existence of molecules or elements. You won't find them denying photosynthesis or plate tectonics. What you will find is plenty of them denying evolution, which is an unobservable theory.

The problems with evolution are manifold. I think we need to keep in mind the secular implications and pagan conclusions linked to the theory. The ideas of evolution come from atheists, and atheists have an agenda. They always do. And lets not forget those implications. If man is just a glorified animal, then why have monogamy? Animals impregnate multiple females, so why isn't the same ok for us? We men feel the instinct and temptation to stray, so maybe that's a good thing we animal humans should do? Why resist? In nature some animals have homosexual relations, so why not with us? Hitler used evolution to justify the strong wiping out the weak---the law of the jungle. Might makes right. Eugenics came out of the wake of evolution. Why not try to get rid of certain ethnic groups and "undesirables?" Why not make a super being like Hitler wanted? A "Kahn" or a "Kwisatz Hadderach" kind of thing?

There is no morality in evolution. It is simple survival, adaptability, and it is humanism at its core. Where is prayer in evolution? Where is grace? Where is the Fall? Where is a God that created humanity to live and not die? Where is justice and goodness? Did primates have to just club each other to death for millions of years until they developed into homo sapiens to finally learn love and mercy? In evolution humans are just more highly-developed animals, soulless and selfish. It also points to a God that can't just create, but must rather waste millenia with simple animals ascending steadily and slowly.

I can't fathom how an Orthodox Christian can marry the atheist-driven, soulless, selfish, un-Patristic, un-Biblical, modernist, humanist, sketchy philosophy of Evolution with Holy Orthodoxy. It's just not doable in my humble opinion.

The idea that evolution comes from atheists is patently false. Why, Charles Darwin himself was a Christian!

Believing that evolution happens does not immediately imply that we should apply the law of the jungle to our societies. Even biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins admits this would be a terrible idea.

 

[stavros388]

St. Paisios isn't the only incompatibalist Orthodox saint with regard to evolution. St. Theophan the Recluse and others condemn it in quite clear terms.

You won't find an Orthodox saint teaching against gravity or denying the existence of molecules or elements. You won't find them denying photosynthesis or plate tectonics. What you will find is plenty of them denying evolution, which is an unobservable theory.

The problems with evolution are manifold. I think we need to keep in mind the secular implications and pagan conclusions linked to the theory. The ideas of evolution come from atheists, and atheists have an agenda. They always do. And lets not forget those implications. If man is just a glorified animal, then why have monogamy? Animals impregnate multiple females, so why isn't the same ok for us? We men feel the instinct and temptation to stray, so maybe that's a good thing we animal humans should do? Why resist? In nature some animals have homosexual relations, so why not with us? Hitler used evolution to justify the strong wiping out the weak---the law of the jungle. Might makes right. Eugenics came out of the wake of evolution. Why not try to get rid of certain ethnic groups and "undesirables?" Why not make a super being like Hitler wanted? A "Kahn" or a "Kwisatz Hadderach" kind of thing?

There is no morality in evolution. It is simple survival, adaptability, and it is humanism at its core. Where is prayer in evolution? Where is grace? Where is the Fall? Where is a God that created humanity to live and not die? Where is justice and goodness? Did primates have to just club each other to death for millions of years until they developed into homo sapiens to finally learn love and mercy? In evolution humans are just more highly-developed animals, soulless and selfish. It also points to a God that can't just create, but must rather waste millenia with simple animals ascending steadily and slowly.

I can't fathom how an Orthodox Christian can marry the atheist-driven, soulless, selfish, un-Patristic, un-Biblical, modernist, humanist, sketchy philosophy of Evolution with Holy Orthodoxy. It's just not doable in my humble opinion.

Also as to your question 'why have monogomy'? Human cultures throughout history have not always practiced monogomy. Many cultures still do not. In many cases it made more sense for survival of the species to conform to... other arrangements.

Also, evolution does not not automatically imply that humans are selfish or soulless. It merely demonstrates how life has diversified over time. It says nothing of souls whatsoever.