old earth v. new earth creationism

[Virgil the Roman]

Old Earth or New Earth Creationism? which one does Orthodoxy approve of or which one is more prevalent. I myself am an Old-Earth Creationist, I would like the thoughts of others on this subject.

 

[Kristos]

It seems to me like I am neither. I don't think the Genesis was meant to scientifically describe the age of the earth. When people get wrapped around the axle about the age of the earth as related to Genesis, they tend to miss the real message.

Some old earth theories can be out right denied - like Gap theory. Orthodoxy teaches creation ex-nihilo. 2 Macc. 7:28

Which old earth theory are you subscribing to?

Do you categorize theistic evolution as a separate category?

 

[rdhosken]

To me it seems we're missing the point of the Scriptures if we view it as a geology textbook. It's not that, nor is it a handbook on car repair. The Bible contains medicine for our souls.

 

[Mikeb85]

Old Earth or New Earth Creationism? which one does Orthodoxy approve of or which one is more prevalent. I myself am an Old-Earth Creationist, I would like the thoughts of others on this subject.

I guess I'd probably fall into the Old-Earth Creationist category. I believe the earth was created, I don't believe in any sort of evolution, however I believe it's folly to try and come up with any sort of 'date' for the creation of the world, or to try figure out how it was done. For me, it's enough to know that it was created.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I know it's not a scientific text-book; but it is the Word of our Lord and its veracity is beyond doubt; then in some manner whether those 6-days of creation are literally 6 24hour days or 6 "epochs" over which God gradually made everything. (Evolution is bunk; And need not be included here.)

P.s. I subscribe to Old-Earth Creationism whereby the 6 days of Creation are Epochs where God made all gradually: hence, the seemingly ancient perception of Creation.

 

[Kristos]

Before God wrote the Law, He wrote creation. The composition of scripture follows only because of the composition of the world and specifically, Man. Without a creature endowed with the ability to understand history, there would be no reason for it. So God's word is not only in scripture but also in all of creation. His creation cannot lie just like His scripture does not lie. Our perception and observation of creation may be slanted or incorrect at times, but itself is always true.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Jawohl

 

[Greg the byzantine]

I believe in Old Earth Creation out of nothing. I am also an evolutionist and I know I will be treated harshly by other Christians for it, but I don't mind since evolution does not take God out of the picture since I believe he is the one who is causing it to happen.

*****Just as a disclaimer this is just a personal opinion. As far as I know there is no official position of the church.

 

[Epiphanius]

My SF always insisted that it didn't matter how old the earth was or how God created it, only that God did create it. The rest is a mystery and has fairly little impact on our day to day spiritual concerns.

 

[ikonographics]

My SF always insisted that it didn't matter how old the earth was or how God created it, only that God did create it. The rest is a mystery and has fairly little impact on our day to day spiritual concerns.

 

[Kristos]

Excellent book on creation:

http://conciliarpress.com/creation-and-the-patriarchal-histories.html

I'm only half way through it, but so far it's very good.

 

[rusmeister]

I believe in Old Earth Creation out of nothing. I am also an evolutionist and I know I will be treated harshly by other Christians for it, but I don't mind since evolution does not take God out of the picture since I believe he is the one who is causing it to happen.

*****Just as a disclaimer this is just a personal opinion. As far as I know there is no official position of the church.

Let me be the first to be harsh to Greg...
Bad Greg! Bad Greg!
(Lashes with wet noodles)

 

[Kristos]

Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of nature. Humans routinely use this fact to enhance desirable attributes of domestic animals - cow with less fat, sheep with more wool, dog with more bark. What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was evolution in nature. Where he went wrong was extrapolating his observations into a theory that all life could have originated from a single cell organism and evolved into what we have today. This theory falls apart quickly especially when considering organisms with irreducible complexity.

 

[Protoevangel]

In antiquity, in a general sense, the Antiochian school tended to treat the text of Genesis as six literal days for creation, and only about six-thousand years of total world history. You can see this strongly in such writings as the Hexameron by St Basil the Great and some of St John Chrysostom's homilies. The Alexandrian school, however, had a much stronger attachment to allegorical and spiritual interpretation, and had less concern for the literal. Some of the venerable writers believed literally in the one-thousand years is a day model. Some didn't speculate as to how long creation took.

We have Saints who took the creation account literally, and we have Saints who did not take the creation account literally. To say either one is "the Orthodox position" would be a mistake. It is equally wrong to ostracize or disrespect those who differ in opinion. We can discuss the relative strengths and weakness of each position while loving each other.

If one believes in interspecies/intergenus/interfamily/interorder etc... evolution, that is fine and good. But in the past, some have tried to force the reconciliation of this opinion, with the writings of the Saints. This is a mistake, which does violence to the Saints, and to their writings.

We can have differing opinions, as long as we keep our focus on Christ and love of neighbor. We should be honest enough to admit when our opinion differs from that of the Saints. We should also be honest enough to admit when our opinion differs from the opinion of the established scientific community. And that is where I personally stand. I agree with the Scriptural interpretation of Saint Basil, St John Chrysostom, and the Antiochian school, and I disagree with the general consensus of the scientific community. This is because I believe Holy Scripture speaks plainly about Creation, (while encompassing many allegories and spiritual truths), and the scientific community, imo, is assuming conclusions based on incomplete data.

 

[rusmeister]

What Protoevangel said.

Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of nature. Humans routinely use this fact to enhance desirable attributes of domestic animals - cow with less fat, sheep with more wool, dog with more bark. What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was evolution in nature. Where he went wrong was extrapolating his observations into a theory that all life could have originated from a single cell organism and evolved into what we have today. This theory falls apart quickly especially when considering organisms with irreducible complexity.

A temporary adaptation is by no means 'evolution' in the sense of permanent change.

Also, I would object to calling a scientific theory "observable fact".

That said, my objections to the idea of evolution (especially human evolution) are philosophical, not scientific,so I won't argue them on scientific grounds.

 

[Kristos]

 

[Protoevangel]

If I only had a brain, huh Kristos?

So, is this your definition of being the image of Christ? Disrespecting those brothers who respectfully disagree with your position?

Not quite what I intended when I said, "We have Saints who took the creation account literally, and we have Saints who did not take the creation account literally. To say either one is "the Orthodox position" would be a mistake. It is equally wrong to ostracize or disrespect those who differ in opinion. We can discuss the relative strengths and weakness of each position while loving each other."

I had hoped your response would show a little more maturity.

 

[Kristos]

If I only had a brain, huh Kristos?

So, is this your definition of being the image of Christ? Disrespecting those brothers who respectfully disagree with your position?

Not quite what I intended when I said, "We have Saints who took the creation account literally, and we have Saints who did not take the creation account literally. To say either one is "the Orthodox position" would be a mistake. It is equally wrong to ostracize or disrespect those who differ in opinion. We can discuss the relative strengths and weakness of each position while loving each other."

I had hoped your response would show a little more maturity.

What are you talking about?

 

[Protoevangel]

What are you talking about?

Well, you posted a picture of the Scarecrow ("If I only had a brain") with no commentary, and no context, except for your post stating that "Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of nature", followed by two posts who openly admit to stand against the general consensus of the scientific community.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be angered by your post... In fact, I would almost expect to have posts like that in a subject such as this. It was just a little disappointing.

On the other hand, I certainly could well be wrong about your intent in posting the picture, I HOPE I WAS WRONG, but for the life of me, I can see no other purpose for that post. If I was wrong, I would be very interested in knowing the actual intent of your post.

 

[Kreikkalainen]

Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact of nature. Humans routinely use this fact to enhance desirable attributes of domestic animals - cow with less fat, sheep with more wool, dog with more bark. What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was evolution in nature. Where he went wrong was extrapolating his observations into a theory that all life could have originated from a single cell organism and evolved into what we have today. This theory falls apart quickly especially when considering organisms with irreducible complexity.

On logical grounds, I have to disagree with the bolded part. Natural selection as defined by the theory of evolution is not at all observable, because by definition it takes a few thousands of years at best to move from one species to another very closely related one, let alone to a totally new species. What is observable is the current state, which theories try to explain. As for humans using natural selection - the fact that humans use it, makes it not natural. The idea is that humans fast-track what nature would take thousands of years to do, in order to produce more useful species. Putting aside the fact that in many people's view this whole business is in fact abuse rather than use of the environment, still the idea that nature would do the same given time is not proven, or actually not provable at all.

Having said that, scientifically speaking evolution is the prevailing theory out there despite its holes, and that's something that I would hesitate to discredit light-heartedly. One needs to keep an open mind on scientific theories though - once upon a time, science thought that light is composed of particles. Then it thought it's composed of waves. More recently, quantum theory came & said it's pretty much a bit of both.

The point is, scientific theories change & some day they will not matter at all anyway. The historical event of the Resurrection of Christ, on which our Faith & our Life are based, will not change though but will triumph - as a matter of fact it's already triumphant.