Is it Orthodox to believe in God directed evolution?

[Xpycoctomos]

I have no idea. interesting questions.

 

[Maximus]

Like I said, this is not an issue that concerns me much, and - as I also already said - I don't buy evolution because it doesn't make sense to me.

I was wondering about something just now, however.

For those of you who do believe in evolution:

Has Man stopped evolving?

Or will we continue to evolve?

Will that make our Lord Jesus a more primitive sort of man than subsequent generations will be?

Excuse me for quoting myself, but I kind of feel that this is an important question for theology, Christology, and anthropology.

Evolution posits that Man evolved from lower organisms to higher, even passing through successive, different human species.

If that is true, why wouldn't that process continue so that, eventually, the kind of men on earth would not be the same kind that our Lord Jesus was?

Since evolution seems to teach an ascent to ever higher forms (which is in part why it doesn't make sense to me), wouldn't the "new men" be in an evolutionary sense "superior" to our Lord Jesus?

Doesn't this make evolution really rather blasphemous and heretical?

 

[countrymouse33ad]

Since evolution seems to teach an ascent to ever higher forms

The latest I've read on evolutionary theory indicates that it now teaches (or some of its proponents, at least) that creatures generally evolve to fill environmental niches rather than always evolving to "higher forms." That kind of thinking - higher forms - seems to be becoming outdated. Personally, I'm currently undecided about the intelligent design debate, but if evolution is a God-directed mechanism, then it would not be necessary to think that humans will become "better" over the course of time.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Since evolution seems to teach an ascent to ever higher forms (which is in part why it doesn't make sense to me), wouldn't the "new men" be in an evolutionary sense "superior" to our Lord Jesus?

Perhaps, but I don't knwo that that matters. There have been many men and women who have, Im sure been superior to Jesus in many ways: strength, heartbeat, blood pressure, eye sight, better vocal chords etc. I know that evolution is talking about more than just mere genetic differences but I think what makes us human is our physicalness and our sould. Even intellect is a conditional part of this, for a serverly cognitively disables person (who has the conscious of a two year old a 35 years old) is still just as human as you and I. So, if one takes on the idea of evolution of man, the question of who we are (man) and what our species is (homosapien) may be two different questions. One pertains to the presence of a soul while the other pertains to earathly scientific ways of catagorizing us that has little to do with spirituality. I know anthropology looks at rituals and such, but even elephants have hightly structured rituals like mourning the death of another elephant. CS Lewis thought this might be evidence of a soul... but I don't know. I don't know that a soul is proven by emotions and ritual, rather that it is just a reality that effects us on a higher level. I'm just spewing out some thoughts. I know there are a lot of holes in what Im saying. I just never want to back myself into a philosophical corner that leads me to believe that this or that (scientifically) MUST be false because of what MY on conclusions are based on theology (a whole different aspect of thought than science).

Good questions. I will surely never come to any conclusion on evolution and certainly not on how that effects soteriology and christology. Fun stuff to think about though!

John

 

[Xpycoctomos]

The latest I've read on evolutionary theory indicates that it now teaches (or some of its proponents, at least) that creatures generally evolve to fill environmental niches rather than always evolving to "higher forms." That kind of thinking - higher forms - seems to be becoming outdated.

Interesting. Thanks for that CM

 

[Theophorus]

I think that the two site that Mathew777 posted make excellent points. The ramifications of adopting an evolotuionary model is not "dangerous" because we see the 6 day creation as allegory, but in that one might fall into the "rational" trap of the west, especailly considering what is meant by being created in the image of God.

Like I said, this is not an issue that concerns me much, and - as I also already said - I don't buy evolution because it doesn't make sense to me.

I was wondering about something just now, however.

For those of you who do believe in evolution:

Has Man stopped evolving?

Or will we continue to evolve?

Will that make our Lord Jesus a more primitive sort of man than subsequent generations will be?

In Hostage to the devil by Malachi Martin, which is an account of 6 different modern exorcisms, there was an account of two priests (Catholic) who were afflicted. The cause of their possesion was a view of Christ as being the apex of evolution. That all of creation had set in motion events that lead to the "super man" manifested in Christ at that time in history and evolution. (The evolution was spiritual and physical)
The error was that God/Christ became a product of creation instead iof the other way around. My account is an oversimplification but conveys the gist of it.

 

[ExOrienteLux]

I don't really worry about this issue very much. It's not something that concerns me.

This man speaketh sooth. I agree with Philip - I've got more important things to worry about than whether or not I'm a smart monkey.

"This life was given to you for repentence. Do not waste it on other things." - St. Issac the Syrian

 

[Matthew777]

All I really have to say is that it is the church fathers' word over Darwin's.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I don't think all Church fathers have agreed on creationism. Also, the idea of evolution had never been presented like it is today because the science jsut wasn't there so there waas nothing for the Church to react against or agree wiht if anyone is looking to show that evolution (as we understand this term today) was accepted by Church Father's. I'm not saying you don't have a point. I'm just not going to say that those who affirm evolution (because their scientific minds tell them that it must have been this way) are somehow necessarily against all Church Fathers and "what the Church teaches".

 

[Matthew777]

If Genesis were not true, God would have revealed this to the fathers. If they are authorative in their interpretation of Scripture, then Genesis is included also.

Evolution is not new to Darwin. It was an idea even during the early days of the faith, and the fathers spoke against it and defended Genesis.

When scientists contrive theories that contradict the teachings of the church, we have the right to disagree.

Please read Why an Orthodox Christian Cannot be an Evolutionist. The doctrine of Darwinism is against patristic theology.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[countrymouse33ad]

I don't think we're debating whether Genesis is true or not, just discussing how it is to be understood.

 

[Maximus]

Perhaps, but I don't knwo that that matters. There have been many men and women who have, Im sure been superior to Jesus in many ways: strength, heartbeat, blood pressure, eye sight, better vocal chords etc. I know that evolution is talking about more than just mere genetic differences but I think what makes us human is our physicalness and our sould. Even intellect is a conditional part of this, for a serverly cognitively disables person (who has the conscious of a two year old a 35 years old) is still just as human as you and I. So, if one takes on the idea of evolution of man, the question of who we are (man) and what our species is (homosapien) may be two different questions. One pertains to the presence of a soul while the other pertains to earathly scientific ways of catagorizing us that has little to do with spirituality. I know anthropology looks at rituals and such, but even elephants have hightly structured rituals like mourning the death of another elephant. CS Lewis thought this might be evidence of a soul... but I don't know. I don't know that a soul is proven by emotions and ritual, rather that it is just a reality that effects us on a higher level. I'm just spewing out some thoughts. I know there are a lot of holes in what Im saying. I just never want to back myself into a philosophical corner that leads me to believe that this or that (scientifically) MUST be false because of what MY on conclusions are based on theology (a whole different aspect of thought than science).

Good questions. I will surely never come to any conclusion on evolution and certainly not on how that effects soteriology and christology. Fun stuff to think about though!

John

I appreciate your post. I thought about that, as well.

All of those men and women who might surpass the human nature of our Lord Jesus in specific areas like strength, or athleticism, etc., are, nevertheless, members of the same species.

Scientific evolution seems to me to be less a matter of science and more a matter of philosophy, a philosophy of the infinite perfectibility of humanity.

I'm not a scientist and I have too much else on my plate right now to study evolution in depth.

Just the same, there is something about it that just seems to me to be inimicable to Christianity.

It just kind of smells bad, if you know what I mean.

 

[Matthew777]

I don't think we're debating whether Genesis is true or not, just discussing how it is to be understood.

Wouldn't the correct understanding be the patristic understanding?
I am currently reading St. Basil's commentary on the Haxaemeron.
It's the Church's word over Darwin's.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[countrymouse33ad]

I believe that the patristic understanding would indeed be the correct understanding, but I'm not yet sure what the patristic understanding is. If you will forgive me, I'm not willing to take what I read on an internet forum, no matter how much I like the other members, as the final word, and I haven't read enough of the Fathers yet to form an opinion.

Peace to you, also.

 

[Matthew777]

Don't take my word for it, read Father Seraphim Rose:

Genesis and Early Man
The Orthodox Patristic Understanding
An article entitled The Eternal Will was printed in The Christian Activist Volume 11, Fall/Winter 1997. It was a lecture given by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros on evolution vs. creationism and his interpretation of the traditional teachings by the Fathers of the Orthodox Church about Genesis. This is a response to Dr. Kalomiros by Fr. Seraphim Rose. It has been excerpted for length by Frank Schaeffer.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

Fr. Rose is one of the modern fathers of the Church and he's written an 800 page book on the Orthodox understanding of Genesis and Creation. He makes great use of quotes of what the fathers actually taught in this essay.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[countrymouse33ad]

With due respect to Fr. Seraphim Rose, he is only one, and recent at that. His scholarship may be impeccable, but I don't know that for certain. Since my priest does not dictate a particular view, it is incumbent upon me to do some work if I should want to form an opinion about how to interpret those passages. Then it will also be incumbent upon me to remember that it is only my opinion.

 

[Matthew777]

Have you read it yet? The fathers of the church were rather clear; especially St. Basil.

I also reccomend that you read Why an Orthodox Christian Cannot be an Evolutionist.

This isn't just about attacking the heresy of Darwinism. The teachings of the fathers happens to be more truthful and fulfilling.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Matthew777]

As for the book version:

GENESIS,
CREATION
and EARLY MAN

The Orthodox Christian Vision

by Fr. Seraphim Rose

Amidst the creation/evolution debate that is now raging, with evidence being offered for both sides, few have made use of what Fr. Seraphim Rose called “the missing evidence”: the teaching of the ancient Orthodox Holy Fathers on the events of creation, the first-created world, the natures of created things, and the original nature of man.

Now for the first time in the English language, this teaching has been gathered and set forth in a thorough, detailed, and above all honest manner. Perhaps more than anyone else in our times, Fr. Seraphim Rose searched, studied, prayed, and suffered to understand how the ancients noetically apprehended the creation in the light of the God-inspired book of Genesis. Having acquired their mind, he has presented to the modern world the harmonious patristic vision of the cosmos.

“… I would urge us to be not too certain of our accustomed ways of looking at Genesis, and to open ourselves to the wisdom of the God-bearing men of the past who have devoted so much intellectual effort to understanding the text of Genesis as it was meant to be understood. These Holy Fathers are our key to understanding Genesis.”

—Fr. Seraphim Rose

“Fr. Seraphim Rose was a profound scholar of the teachings of Orthodox Christianity, and also a keen analyst of the modern condition. His penetrating writings and lectures on the patristic understanding of creation, brought together here for the first time, provide a viewpoint about as far from twentieth-century evolutionary naturalism as can be imagined.”

—Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial

Includes an enlightening introduction by Phillip E. Johnson, well-known critic of evolutionary theory and founder of the “Intelligent Design” movement.
http://www.sainthermanpress.com/catalog/chapter_one/genesis_book.htm

 

[NewToLife]

I believe that the patristic understanding would indeed be the correct understanding, but I'm not yet sure what the patristic understanding is. If you will forgive me, I'm not willing to take what I read on an internet forum, no matter how much I like the other members, as the final word, and I haven't read enough of the Fathers yet to form an opinion.

From what I have seen the Fathers tend heavily towards a literal understanding, some lean towards an instant of creation in each day but I haven't read any that suggest that creation took longer than the literal 6 days recorded in Genesis.

For my part I believe that the Genesis account does indeed allow for a directed evolution of most species but it seems to fall over when one comes to man. If we hold that man was evolved then I personally cannot see how it is possible to also hold to the Tradition of the Church, the conflict to my eyes is quite severe in this case.

That said perhaps most of creation was evolved but man was created directly by God, the biblical text would appear to allow for this special case with much of creation being 'brought forth' but man being formed directly.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

That said perhaps most of creation was evolved but man was created directly by God, the biblical text would appear to allow for this special case with much of creation being 'brought forth' but man being formed directly.

That is the view that I have come to lean towards, though this has become virtually a non-issue for me since my conversion. It seems that with the level of sin and corruption in my heart and life, the method God used to create the world has been relegated to a bowl in the refrigerator as even the back burners on the stove are in use by issues of holiness, sin and repentance. Sorry, I'm full of analogies this morning so you get at least one.

I'm not trying to marginalize this issue, as it is important but it literally had to take a far back seat to other things in my life and since it doesn't affect my salvation, I can't worry about it right now. Which is funny considering how seriously I used to take it. I mean, I was actually working on getting Kent Hovind to come to my town and speak.