I feel like the only Christian who believes in evolution.

[~Anastasia~]

Why not? You make a pot and a vase, and whatever else they have similarities because you made them. You write music and even across many genres it would still have similarities. That is why I an more than confident that God created everything because everything has similarities, if evolution were even remotely true and the Scriptures and the Fathers were a lie nothing would be similar but everything would be different

Taken to extreme that could very well be a good point of what I just said.

If everything were different, people could still use that data to argue for evolution (many divergences, many "experiments" with life by nature, many successful outcomes). Or they could argue for creation.


But I agree. If it's all made by God and perfectly elegant in its creation, why would all things not be similarly elegantly designed?

 

[Jackson Cooper]

I have to agree with why not? It's an intricate and amazingly developed system that guides development, metabolism, growth, reproduction. If it works, why not use it on various species?

The thing is, many of the philosophical proofs (and I think that's what you're really leaning on here) can use the same empiric data to argue either for or against evolution, depending upon the presuppositions one begins with and how one builds the argument.

I don't wish to insult you by pointing out that the argument can't stand. If you really wish to examine whether this is true, try to honestly take the opposite opinion in your mind and try to prove it. If you can do this well enough and with intellectual honesty, you will see that such arguments can neither prove nor disprove either approach.

Chromosome 2 looks like the aftereffects of humans having been related to chimpanzees. I could understand anatomical similarities for design purposes, but not genetic ones. DNA tests can tell you who you're related to.
If God wanted to make it look like common descent didn't happen, why leave so many genetic similarities?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Chromosome 2 looks like the aftereffects of humans having been related to chimpanzees. I could understand anatomical similarities for design purposes, but not genetic ones. DNA tests can tell you who you're related to.
If God wanted to make it look like common descent didn't happen, why leave so many genetic similarities?

If you're talking about what I think you are talking about (the fusing of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome in humans, thus explaining the differing total numbers between humans and some apes - but incidentally not explaining the chromosome numbers found in some other apes) ...

The prediction was that evidence of fusion would be found. And primary evidence of that was found some years back. However, the problem is that now that the actual genes are being mapped, the expected number of redundancies in such a case are nowhere to be found. To which proponents of evolution claim there must have been degradation (when they address it at all, which from a quick google survey is almost never, if you're reading info from online).

It's not quite reasonable to assume that degree of genetic degradation within the time frame suggested (even though it represents hundreds of thousands of years) without serious repercussions.

It is human nature to build ideas on the evidence that supports one's ideas, whatever they might be, and set aside evidence that doesn't align well - or come up with alternate explanations for them (like gradual evolution shifting to punctuated equilibrium). I don't blame anyone for doing that. It's how our brains tend to work, and it usually serves us well enough. And might protect us psychologically in cases where we are factually wrong.

But your question was - if God wanted to make it look like common descent didn't happen, why leave so many genetic similarities?

Well, who said He wants to make it look like common descent didn't happen?

What would be His purpose?

I don't know, but I do know that God chooses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. That He reveals Himself to babes. That pride and putting faith in our own abilities and intellect is associated with descent into our own foolishness. I can just as easily imagine that He offers us a choice to believe Him or to trust in the imaginations that result from our intellectual and technological advances.

And before you think I'm moralizing on that count, I'm not, because I bought into all of it fully and expected to better demonstrate the process. It wasn't until that exercise in putting aside suppositions and building from the ground up (or trying to) that I discovered the lack of true foundation and proofs. So I was just as wise in my own eyes, and prideful to boot. God simply had mercy on me that I didn't deserve.

 

[ArmyMatt]

just as a possibility, but there could be genetic similarities because everything was created by the same God.

 

[gzt]

I've just got to jump in here and note that several of the great lights of Orthodox theology in the 20th century were working on the interface of science and theology, not utterly dismissing it like the young earth sorts - Florensky, Florovsky, Staniloae, Romanides, and others.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

just as a possibility, but there could be genetic similarities because everything was created by the same God.

If you're talking about what I think you are talking about (the fusing of two ape chromosomes into a single chromosome in humans, thus explaining the differing total numbers between humans and some apes - but incidentally not explaining the chromosome numbers found in some other apes) ...

The prediction was that evidence of fusion would be found. And primary evidence of that was found some years back. However, the problem is that now that the actual genes are being mapped, the expected number of redundancies in such a case are nowhere to be found. To which proponents of evolution claim there must have been degradation (when they address it at all, which from a quick google survey is almost never, if you're reading info from online).

It's not quite reasonable to assume that degree of genetic degradation within the time frame suggested (even though it represents hundreds of thousands of years) without serious repercussions.

It is human nature to build ideas on the evidence that supports one's ideas, whatever they might be, and set aside evidence that doesn't align well - or come up with alternate explanations for them (like gradual evolution shifting to punctuated equilibrium). I don't blame anyone for doing that. It's how our brains tend to work, and it usually serves us well enough. And might protect us psychologically in cases where we are factually wrong.

But your question was - if God wanted to make it look like common descent didn't happen, why leave so many genetic similarities?

Well, who said He wants to make it look like common descent didn't happen?

What would be His purpose?

I don't know, but I do know that God chooses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. That He reveals Himself to babes. That pride and putting faith in our own abilities and intellect is associated with descent into our own foolishness. I can just as easily imagine that He offers us a choice to believe Him or to trust in the imaginations that result from our intellectual and technological advances.

And before you think I'm moralizing on that count, I'm not, because I bought into all of it fully and expected to better demonstrate the process. It wasn't until that exercise in putting aside suppositions and building from the ground up (or trying to) that I discovered the lack of true foundation and proofs. So I was just as wise in my own eyes, and prideful to boot. God simply had mercy on me that I didn't deserve.

Many Orthodox think a literal 6 day creation is vital. Since you are OEC you disagree. Did any prominent Orthodox from the early centuries not believe in a literal six day creation or Adam and Eve?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Many Orthodox think a literal 6 day creation is vital. Since you are OEC you disagree. Did any prominent Orthodox from the early centuries not believe in a literal six day creation or Adam and Eve?

well, I am a young earth creationist. while there are many of the early Fathers who emphasized the allegorical Adam, I have yet to read any who rejected the literal Adam.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Many Orthodox think a literal 6 day creation is vital. Since you are OEC you disagree. Did any prominent Orthodox from the early centuries not believe in a literal six day creation or Adam and Eve?

I am no expert, but I can't cite any. I'm glad Fr. Matt answered in the meantime.

And it might be more fair to say that I lean toward OEC and see nothing in Scripture or dogma that absolutely necessitates YEC. But if YEC turned out to be true (I'm guessing we will find out in the end) then I can just as easily accept that, though if it is a strictly literal 6-day creation of all matter, that would surprise me.


But what I have found when reading on my own (not anything cited as supporting evolution or creation) - the Fathers speak a great deal and in great depth on many nuances regarding creation. But what they concern themselves with isn't the same things we often concern ourselves with.

I wonder sometimes if this debate has not been greatly sharpened by current scientific theory and fundamentalist Protestants. The idea of species arising from one another (i.e. evolution) was not new with Darwin. The ancients had different forms of it. And it was mentioned here and there in the texts by the Fathers that I've seen. (Spoken against it that I've seen.) But they don't go on for pages about it as we tend to do. Rather they talk about how man relates to God, how man relates to animals, man's role in the created order, how God is understood in Trinity and many other things - in very great detail.

So ... I may be wrong, but that's part of why I'm more reticent to focus too much on this debate. I fear maybe we've been affected too much by heterodox ways of thinking.

God created. We need that. And we need to understand truth in the story of Adam and Eve and the fall, and in the Resurrection. It's hard to assert that truth if you have no literal form of Adam whatsoever. So I think we need that too.

The rest ... I don't know. The Fathers didn't seem to entangle themselves much in that particular debate, but yet focused very minutely on other points we can learn from the Genesis accounts. So maybe we can learn from them what are the important lessons for us as well. Or maybe it just wasn't so widely asserted.

But what I do find is that there is so much depth and richness that the Fathers do pull out of Genesis. And it's edifying. And when I start reading them, that's where my attention goes. And it's so much more important that the details we can't know of exactly how God created. And we have the SURE guide of the Saints, rather than our own imaginations steeped in current scientific theory and heterodox teachings.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

I am no expert, but I can't cite any. I'm glad Fr. Matt answered in the meantime.

And it might be more fair to say that I lean toward OEC and see nothing in Scripture or dogma that absolutely necessitates YEC. But if YEC turned out to be true (I'm guessing we will find out in the end) then I can just as easily accept that, though if it is a strictly literal 6-day creation of all matter, that would surprise me.


But what I have found when reading on my own (not anything cited as supporting evolution or creation) - the Fathers speak a great deal and in great depth on many nuances regarding creation. But what they concern themselves with isn't the same things we often concern ourselves with.

I wonder sometimes if this debate has not been greatly sharpened by current scientific theory and fundamentalist Protestants. The idea of species arising from one another (i.e. evolution) was not new with Darwin. The ancients had different forms of it. And it was mentioned here and there in the texts by the Fathers that I've seen. (Spoken against it that I've seen.) But they don't go on for pages about it as we tend to do. Rather they talk about how man relates to God, how man relates to animals, man's role in the created order, how God is understood in Trinity and many other things - in very great detail.

So ... I may be wrong, but that's part of why I'm more reticent to focus too much on this debate. I fear maybe we've been affected too much by heterodox ways of thinking.

God created. We need that. And we need to understand truth in the story of Adam and Eve and the fall, and in the Resurrection. It's hard to assert that truth if you have no literal form of Adam whatsoever. So I think we need that too.

The rest ... I don't know. The Fathers didn't seem to entangle themselves much in that particular debate, but yet focused very minutely on other points we can learn from the Genesis accounts. So maybe we can learn from them what are the important lessons for us as well. Or maybe it just wasn't so widely asserted.

But what I do find is that there is so much depth and richness that the Fathers do pull out of Genesis. And it's edifying. And when I start reading them, that's where my attention goes. And it's so much more important that the details we can't know of exactly how God created. And we have the SURE guide of the Saints, rather than our own imaginations steeped in current scientific theory and heterodox teachings.

Who was Origen, and did he believe the creation account was allegory?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Who was Origen, and did he believe the creation account was allegory?

I'm not sure offhand what Origen believed as far as creation. But he unfortunately embraced some heretical teaching so he's not a good one to read indiscriminately.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

I'm not sure offhand what Origen believed as far as creation. But he unfortunately embraced some heretical teaching so he's not a good one to read indiscriminately.

What about those transitional human fossils? Are they people or apes? I'm just curious what the OEC and YEC would say about them. Here's a long list.
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

 

[ArmyMatt]

What about those transitional human fossils? Are they people or apes? I'm just curious what the OEC and YEC would say about them. Here's a long list.
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

animals. what makes something human is not simply biology.

 

[~Anastasia~]

What about those transitional human fossils? Are they people or apes? I'm just curious what the OEC and YEC would say about them. Here's a long list.
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

Even according to the link you sent, they are mostly not regarded as "human ancestors". They are simply human-like apes that went extinct.

I have not paid attention in recent years but normally there were not claims for true transitional forms (in any species - thus the suggested solution of punctuated equilibrium).

But however and whenever a person believes God created - if you have a literal Adam, that is the first human. God breathed into him a spirit. Man is unique in that sense.

 

[fat wee robin]

What about those transitional human fossils? Are they people or apes? I'm just curious what the OEC and YEC would say about them. Here's a long list.
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

Do you believe that God created humanity by evolution ,or could there be some other explanation for what we think we see ? I certainly do not believe in YEC ,as there is overwhelming evidence on many levels for an older earth ,and some kind of humanity although unlikely as old as evolutionists would like in order to fulfill their 'theory .

Evolution is not how God created humanity .There is another explanation

 

[dzheremi]

Who was Origen, and did he believe the creation account was allegory?

Origen was a very influential and important early Christian theologian from Alexandria who served as the dean of the catechetical school there from 203 to 231, and was condemned for some heterodox teachings (and supposedly for mutilating himself) by a synod called by HH Pope Demetrius in 232. He died in Lebanon in 253, and was subsequently condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

I have no idea what he taught on the creation. He's not considered a church father in the the Coptic Orthodox Church, so we usually encounter him in an at best ambivalent setting (since we recognize that he was very important, and moreover intimately connected to the catechetical school at Alexandria that we claim as part of our tradition, but also very wrong on certain points that we cannot accept). Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty's book on him mentions some specifics that he erred on (e.g., apokatastisis, subordinationism, etc.), but not a specific teaching on creation, to the best of my memory. (I could be forgetting/missing that; it's been a few years since I really had a good look at it, and it's about 900 pages, so there's a lot of information to digest.)

 

[gzt]

You may find this interesting, I have not had a chance to really think about this article yet.

Is Christian Theology Possible Without the Fall?

 

[rusmeister]

You may find this interesting, I have not had a chance to really think about this article yet.

Is Christian Theology Possible Without the Fall?

Heresy IS interesting, no doubt about that. But Christians are not supposed to flirt with it, but reject it when they see it. Certainly if one is claiming to be Orthodox. A person who is their own authority and rejects the consensus of the fathers can do what he likes of course. But he won’t be Orthodox.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Heresy IS interesting, no doubt about that. But Christians are not supposed to flirt with it, but reject it when they see it. Certainly if one is claiming to be Orthodox. A person who is their own authority and rejects the consensus of the fathers can do what he likes of course. But he won’t be Orthodox.

I must say this part of the conclusion sets off all kinds of alarm bells ...


"this does require re-formulating aspects of Christian notions of human existence, the origins of death and evil, original sin, the motive for the Incarnation and baptismal theology. With a creative recalibration to eliminate the fall as a deus ex machina solution to difficult theological questions, Christian theology can recover ... "

 

[ubicaritas]

The truth about evolutionary theory I think is that it's an evolving science (pardon the pun). That's not a plug for religious traditionalism necessarily but it does mean the science does not necessarily fit with strict atheist polemics.

You may find this interesting, I have not had a chance to really think about this article yet.

Is Christian Theology Possible Without the Fall?

It's pretty much the direction most mainline Protestants have gone. That may not be a plug for it from an Orthodox perspective necessarily but it does show the Christian religion can be meanigful even without having to historicize the fall.

I also think based on my own interaction with fundamentalists on the topic, that they don't really interpret Genesis literally, either. The story has things like snakes that eat dirt and so forth, which could be interpreted as obvious misunderstandings of how snakes smell. Fundamentalists will object on this point and say I'm understanding it "literally" and that was my "ahah!" moment.

Of course Christians have spiritualized the story, as they have always done. Well, some modern people spiritualize Genesis even further and understand it in mystical or psychological terms to explain evil and alienation. Its just understanding the story from a different level. The story still has power even if we don't take it literally. In a world that can embrace Jung and realize that stories have a reality beyond their strict facticity, it's not that hard to internalize this understanding of Genesis.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The truth about evolutionary theory I think is that it's an evolving science (pardon the pun). That's not a plug for religious traditionalism necessarily but it does mean the science does not necessarily fit with strict atheist polemics.



It's pretty much the direction most mainline Protestants have gone. That may not be a plug for it from an Orthodox perspective necessarily but it does show the Christian religion can be meanigful even without having to historicize the fall.

I also think based on my own interaction with fundamentalists on the topic, that they don't really interpret Genesis literally, either. The story has things like snakes that eat dirt and so forth, which could be interpreted as obvious misunderstandings of how snakes smell. Fundamentalists will object on this point and say I'm understanding it "literally" and that was my "ahah!" moment.

Of course Christians have spiritualized the story, as they have always done. Well, some modern people spiritualize Genesis even further and understand it in mystical or psychological terms to explain evil and alienation. Its just understanding the story from a different level. The story still has power even if we don't take it literally. In a world that can embrace Jung and realize that stories have a reality beyond their strict facticity, it's not that hard to internalize this understanding of Genesis.

The Genesis account Eden to Noah agrees qualitatively with archaeology.

Eden represents a mythic memory of the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic (Natufian culture), when the land provided plenty for its few inhabitants. Eden locates to the now-submerged Persian Gulf basin, which fully flooded after 6500 BC (according to science), hence "expelling Adam & Eve" (pre-farming inhabitants) from the area.

Cain & Enoch associate with the first cities, to wit the first sedentary farming communities of the Neolithic (Ubaid culture). The very first cities may now be submerged, but the oldest attested cities in Iraq date to 5500 BC.

Tubal-Cain introducing metals reflects the onset of Chalcolithic (Copper & Stone age) and Bronze ages from 4500-3500 BC (Uruk culture).

The violence & bloodshed lamented by Lamech echoes the archaeologically attested onset of organized warfare & massive city defensive walls.

The Flood of Noah about 3000 BC coincides with the Jemdet Nasr period, in which some sites show evidence of a significant flood destruction layer. This could be attributed to the shifting Monsoon weather patterns, long known to climatologists, which about that time began desertifying northern Africa. The Flood story sounds like a normal Indian Monsoon season, of endless months of regular rain, precipitating widespread flooding... albeit translated westward to the Persian Gulf region.

Climatic upheaval at this time is also indicated by the migration of proto-Indo-European "Aryan" peoples into Europe as the Beaker culture. A summer monsoon blows landward, i.e. northward, which could have pushed Noah's boat northward towards the mountains of northern Iraq.

The quantitative difference in chronology between the Bible (Eden ended 5500 BC) and archaeology (6500 BC) is almost exactly equal to the difference between calibrated & uncalibrated radiocarbon years BP.

The Bible preserves a deep & accurate memory of the transition from hunting & gathering to farming at the end of the Mesolithic / beginning of the Neolithic, on into historical times. The Bible records all of the major cultural transitions, in the same sequence & almost at the same times, as archaeology attests.

The Noah Myth