I feel like the only Christian who believes in evolution.

[DaveDavids]

You aren't

This whole debate is solely based on exegesis of the accounts in the Bible

People want to take a literalist approach to scripture, or pick and choose which things they want to be literal and which things they don't, that's plain sloppy and biased exegesis

They would have a very difficult time with literature from pre-Biblical era with that methodology

I think what it comes down to, is a lot of people don't grasp they could be wrong about their Bible interpretations and the Bible can still be true, and still be God's word

 

[All4Christ]

...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Looks like I'm the only EO on this forum who does.

you're not

 

[archer75]

Looks like I'm the only EO on this forum who does.

I'm certainly okay with it. I just feel like a fool trying to argue "for" it with science that I don't get.

 

[archer75]

I’m referring to the teachings of the church, as well as Scriptures teaching that sin caused death. Nowhere does it specify “human” death. Either way, I don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura. The teaching of ancestral sin in Orthodoxy is certainly based off the Bible, but is clarified by the church fathers and theological teachings of the church.

The answer to your question, however, is that there are many who believe in evolution who are Orthodox. Check it Ancient Faith Radio, particularly Fr Thomas Hopko and Fr Stephen Freeman.

I'm no expert, but since some Orthodox often act as if nonhuman animals are just so much nonsense, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that physical "death" doesn't matter in their case - that is, it's seen as just another trivial event and not "death-death" like when those who were made in the image of God ended up dying.

 

[All4Christ]

I'm no expert, but since some Orthodox often act as if nonhuman animals are just so much nonsense, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that physical "death" doesn't matter in their case - that is, it's seen as just another trivial event and not "death-death" like when those who were made in the image of God ended up dying.

Right. That’s what I’ve read, but it doesn’t completely work for me That said, some versions of evolution would make more sense to me than others. The version where macroevolution occurred, yet humans were still created by God directly (not evolving from another species) makes more sense to me than other versions of evolution, since we are made in God’s image.

Even so, God cares for sparrow, came to save the cosmos, not just humanity, and designed paradise to have peace even among animals (lion and lamb, etc)...

 

[archer75]

Right. That’s what I’ve read, but it doesn’t jive for me That said, some versions of evolution would make more sense to me than others. The version where macroevolution occurred, yet humans were still created by God directly (not evolving from another species) makes more sense to me, since we are made in God’s image. (That’s why I feel ok leaning towards Old Earth creation instead of YEC, though I am not dogmatic on that.)

One difficulty for me is just why we humans can't be made in God's image through an act of creation the "footprints" of which are what we would call - having studied them - "human evolution.

 

[All4Christ]

One difficulty for me is just why we humans can't be made in God's image through an act of creation the "footprints" of which are what we would call - having studied them - "human evolution.

I can understand that perspective, and there are many who believe that. I still believe that we are taught that the impact of sin is death and corruption of the world, not just humanity’s death-death. Sickness and sorrow is also a result - not just our death preventing us from having eternal life.

EDIT: FTR, I don’t hold to YEC; I lean towards OEC. I have a hard time reconciling YEC. When it comes down to it, I know that God created the world, death, sorrow and suffering came from sin, and that Jesus came to save the cosmos and give eternal life. Exact details don’t matter so much.

 

[archer75]

I can understand that perspective, and there are many who believe that. I still believe that we are taught that the impact of sin is death and corruption of the world, not just humanity’s death-death. Sickness and sorrow is also a result - not just our death preventing us from having eternal life.

EDIT: FTR, I don’t hold to YEC; I lean towards OEC. I have a hard time reconciling YEC. When it comes down to it, I know that God created the world, death, sorrow and suffering came from sin, and that Jesus came to save the cosmos and give eternal life. Exact details don’t matter so much.

Can I ask then what you make of fossils of no-longer-extant animals, like trilobites? If you include them in your thought, which of course no one has to do.

I'm genuinely wondering. This is not any kind of gotcha question.

 

[archer75]

Does anyone adhere to the view that, as Christ "saved" the pre-Incarnation righteous, so did original sin (known by God before eternity, of course) "corrupt" life even from the temporal beginning?

 

[All4Christ]

Can I ask then what you make of fossils of no-longer-extant animals, like trilobites? If you include them in your thought, which of course no one has to do.

I'm genuinely wondering. This is not any kind of gotcha question.

That’s why I lean towards OEC despite he questions I raised earlier - and why I have a hard time reconciling YEC. I have problems with reconciling some of our theology with evolution, though some versions of evolution through intelligent design make sense (such as the version CS Lewis presented in the Problem of Pain), with the exception of the theological problems I see with Orthodox beliefs on ancestral sin and teachings of the church fathers.

Honest truth - I haven’t figured it all out, but I certainly don’t discount species becoming extinct. OEC accounts for that pretty well. Days being 24 hour days isn’t really important to me, and honestly doesn’t make sense. It could be that way though - just doesn’t make sense with human reasoning. OEC is the compromise I end up following.

 

[~Anastasia~]

FWIW ... and I'm no expert here, but I lean toward OEC also. I have to think there are things we don't precisely know in the overall order of things.

What IS important to me, theologically, is that we didn't happen by accidental shifts of animal DNA, that we were created by God in His image and likeness, that we had literal first parents, who were in a particular state with regards to communion with God, and through ancestral sin they fell from that state, and as a result of our position as priests over the created order, the rest fell and will be redeemed one day in the same way - through Christ Jesus having been incarnate as a man (i.e. Priest over creation).

A lot can actually be pieced into that.

 

[archer75]

But...why can't apparent accidental changes in DNA "not really" be accidental, although we have to allow they LOOK that way without revelation?

 

[~Anastasia~]

But...why can't apparent accidental changes in DNA "not really" be accidental, although we have to allow they LOOK that way without revelation?

Was that question for me?

If it was, then I think the real answer of what is - is case by case. The world is fallen, so it would not surprise me that accidental DNA shifts happen and lead to degredations (think of the many diseases caused by them?). On the other hand, God can certainly direct and/or use things.

But are you asking about the creation of man? Why can't God have used evolution as presented as the way He created man?

Two reasons - for me. First, evolution as presented has problems. Why should it trump what has been revealed?

However, some aspects of it may be true. But even then ... we must reconcile the faith that says man was created in God's image ... and fell. Without a fall we have no basis for reconciliation of man or the cosmos? That must be incorporated somehow, no matter what we believe ... or else we allow an imperfect model of human construction to negate the narrative given us by divine revelation.

 

[archer75]

Was that question for me?

If it was, then I think the real answer of what is - is case by case. The world is fallen, so it would not surprise me that accidental DNA shifts happen and lead to degredations (think of the many diseases caused by them?). On the other hand, God can certainly direct and/or use things.

But are you asking about the creation of man? Why can't God have used evolution as presented as the way He created man?

Two reasons - for me. First, evolution as presented has problems. Why should it trump what has been revealed?

However, some aspects of it may be true. But even then ... we must reconcile the faith that says man was created in God's image ... and fell. Without a fall we have no basis for reconciliation of man or the cosmos? That must be incorporated somehow, no matter what we believe ... or else we allow an imperfect model of human construction to negate the narrative given us by divine revelation.

It wasn't directed specially to you, but thank you for the reply!

1 - Even if it "has problems" - can't it generally be true? And why must accepting it as science be allowing it to "trump" or negate revelation? Perhaps it is a different perspective on the same matter about which we have revealed truth?

In other words - why can't biological evolution of human-like animals be true, and then on top of that we understand that one (two, indirectly) are made by extra-special order - in the image of God? They then fall, and their descendants then spread out from their point of origin, replacing (biologically) human-like folks throughout the world.

Or - perhaps - the other populations (like Cain's wife) could (biologically) reproduce with "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve" and do so until all living humans are incorporated into the race of Adam and so are made in the image of God?

Does this work for anyone?

 

[~Anastasia~]

It wasn't directed specially to you, but thank you for the reply!

1 - Even if it "has problems" - can't it generally be true? And why must accepting it as science be allowing it to "trump" or negate revelation? Perhaps it is a different perspective on the same matter about which we have revealed truth?

In other words - why can't biological evolution of human-like animals be true, and then on top of that we understand that one (two, indirectly) are made by extra-special order - in the image of God? They then fall, and their descendants then spread out from their point of origin, replacing (biologically) human-like folks throughout the world.

Or - perhaps - the other populations (like Cain's wife) could (biologically) reproduce with "sons of Adam and daughters of Eve" and do so until all living humans are incorporated into the race of Adam and so are made in the image of God?

Does this work for anyone?

That's kind of what I was hinting about with getting some things wrong, or not knowing everything. There have been attempts to reconcile the faith with evolution. As long as they allow the matters of faith to be true - such as God having taken Adam from the "dust" of created biological order perhaps ... perhaps ... but then you still have the minor difficulty of whether God saw animals devouring each other, "survival of the fittest", and mass extinction as "good" -- as well as the implications for the restored creation. It's not an easy exercise. There have been interesting attempts though, and probably others I've not heard of.

But like I said, if it turns out I and others have some things wrong, it's not going to shake my faith because I know that what we DO know is true, even if we were to make wrong assumptions about some details.

I do think it's important to ask why we feel the need to do this.

But sure, there can be some other factors we aren't knowing everything about. To be honest, by accepting OEC I am doing something like that, since it is not explicit in Scripture. But of course I might be wrong on that.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

Interesting how that meme group was mostly YEC, while over here it's OEC.

 

[archer75]

That's kind of what I was hinting about with getting some things wrong, or not knowing everything. There have been attempts to reconcile the faith with evolution. As long as they allow the matters of faith to be true - such as God having taken Adam from the "dust" of created biological order perhaps ... perhaps ... but then you still have the minor difficulty of whether God saw animals devouring each other, "survival of the fittest", and mass extinction as "good" -- as well as the implications for the restored creation. It's not an easy exercise. There have been interesting attempts though, and probably others I've not heard of.

But like I said, if it turns out I and others have some things wrong, it's not going to shake my faith because I know that what we DO know is true, even if we were to make wrong assumptions about some details.

I do think it's important to ask why we feel the need to do this.

But sure, there can be some other factors we aren't knowing everything about. To be honest, by accepting OEC I am doing something like that, since it is not explicit in Scripture. But of course I might be wrong on that.

If I understand right, there's no requirement to believe in survival of the fittest as a literal 'thing' in evolutionary talk. It's "as if" - in many cases - there were survival of the "fittest" (or it's circular - where those who survive as "fit" - to survive!) and this is the mechanism by which traits are spread to offspring (once you stop being alive, human or cat, you don't have more children).

I confess I may not be up on the OC's take on animals eating each other. I want to reply more, but I feel like I'm missing something. Is it a dogma that until the fall, the animals all ate grass? That would seem to be against the nature of many of them...what's the story here? Can you share something?

 

[~Anastasia~]

If I understand right, there's no requirement to believe in survival of the fittest as a literal 'thing' in evolutionary talk. It's "as if" - in many cases - there were survival of the "fittest" (or it's circular - where those who survive as "fit" - to survive!) and this is the mechanism by which traits are spread to offspring (once you stop being alive, human or cat, you don't have more children).

I confess I may not be up on the OC's take on animals eating each other. I want to reply more, but I feel like I'm missing something. Is it a dogma that until the fall, the animals all ate grass? That would seem to be against the nature of many of them...what's the story here? Can you share something?

I would say mostly to look at the revealed nature of the restored creation - lions, wolves, and leopards won't eat cattle and lambs. Snakes won't be poison.

It makes a certain sense that the restored creation would parallel in ways the original "good"/"very good" creation, though it will surpass it in some ways - at least in that sin will already have been dealt with.

Someone else could share more on the details of what the Church might say about this, and various Saints.

 

[rusmeister]

I can understand that perspective, and there are many who believe that. I still believe that we are taught that the impact of sin is death and corruption of the world, not just humanity’s death-death. Sickness and sorrow is also a result - not just our death preventing us from having eternal life.

EDIT: FTR, I don’t hold to YEC; I lean towards OEC. I have a hard time reconciling YEC. When it comes down to it, I know that God created the world, death, sorrow and suffering came from sin, and that Jesus came to save the cosmos and give eternal life. Exact details don’t matter so much.

I don't see OEC itself as a theological threat to our thinking. Everybody knows God can do anything at any speed. I DO see macro-evolution, evolution as a cosmic, AND unobserved, theory, above all, the idea of human evolution , as a denial of our theological understandings. But I'm not married to YEC, anyway. I just see a strong need to give evolution as an unobserved phenomenon a hard kick. Really hard. It's the effective denial of established doctrine smuggled into the thinking of people inside the Church in the name of secular science.