Orthodox position on evolution?

[Vance]

Is that statement about the age of the earth based on your review of the evidence, or based on your reading of Scripture and tradition only?

If it is based on the evidence, then we could discuss that evidence in another thread. If it is based on tradition and Scripture alone, then I would ask whether there is ever a case where our fallible human understanding of Scripture and tradition should be adjusted based on a better understanding of God's Creation.

 

[jckstraw72]

there is never a case where Holy Tradition should be changed.

the dating for evolution depends on the assumption of uniformitarianism -- bc Holy Tradition tells us of the Fall and the Flood which dramatically changed the world, i have no reason to accept this assumption, and thus no reason to accept the dating that stems from it.

 

[gluadys]

bc Holy Tradition tells us of the Fall and the Flood which dramatically changed the world, i have no reason to accept this assumption, and thus no reason to accept the dating that stems from it.

I have never seen a good foundation for the idea that the fall and the flood dramatically changed the world. That does not appear to be clear from scripture.

Can you give examples from Holy Tradition which support this view?

I would be particularly interested in the effect of the fall and the flood on the speed of light.

 

[jckstraw72]

well I dont have my Fr. Seraphim book with me right now, but for one, the world went from incorruptible Paradise to this fallen world. Prett big change there. I have seen one Father, I think it was St. John Chrysostom, said that during the Flood the earth returned to the early state when it was without form and void, or something like that .... I cant give any specifics right now. And regardign the speed of light, or just how the world changed I dont know, but for me that is enough to not just blindly accept uniformitarianism.

 

[Vance]

Here is something that always puzzled me about the "earth was a paradise" view. Is it not true that the Garden of Eden was the paradise, not the earth as a whole? If the entire earth was the "paradise", then why create the Garden specifically? And, we see what the earth was like outside the Garden when they were kicked out, pretty much the way it is now.

What we see is that God created Adam (reading entirely literally here) outside the Garden, then placed him into the Garden. How long was he outside the Garden before he was placed into it?

And who were all these people that obviously populated this world outside the Garden when they came out? The whole "Cain married his sister" just doesn't fly since the text, read very plainly, would indicate that there were others out there for him to fear after he kills Abel, and people to populate his "city". Given all of these other people, how should we read the text that Eve was the "mother" of all? Can this still be read literally?

The point is that there is a LOT more going on than we are given in the text, even if you want to read it literally. Not to mention the fact that the folks living at the time the text was written would not have read them as strictly literal, as some began to do much later, after Herodotus and others made historical writing about the past more usual.

 

[gluadys]

well I dont have my Fr. Seraphim book with me right now, but for one, the world went from incorruptible Paradise to this fallen world. Prett big change there.

A moral change yes. And death enters human life.

But does that change E=mc2? Does it change the process of photosynthesis? Does it change the taste of salt?

I have seen one Father, I think it was St. John Chrysostom, said that during the Flood the earth returned to the early state when it was without form and void, or something like that .... I cant give any specifics right now.

I am patient. You can take time to research. I would ask how even the ark could survive the flood if this was the case. Also how could Noah have a productive vineyard so soon after the flood.

All my questions above still apply as well.

And the speed of light question.

It is one thing to assert the alleged error of uniformitarianism (a concept that creationists routinely misinterpret in the first place). It is another to show that you are not simply engaging in wishful thinking.

And regardign the speed of light, or just how the world changed I dont know, but for me that is enough to not just blindly accept uniformitarianism.

But are you not blindly accepting the opposite position?

 

[jckstraw72]

Here is something that always puzzled me about the "earth was a paradise" view. Is it not true that the Garden of Eden was the paradise, not the earth as a whole? If the entire earth was the "paradise", then why create the Garden specifically? And, we see what the earth was like outside the Garden when they were kicked out, pretty much the way it is now.

the Fathers teach that the entire earth was perfect, I dont know why there was a Garden within that.

But are you not blindly accepting the opposite position?

I accept what our Holy Fathers have taught -- something that every single Christian does to some degree. It was these men who canonized the Bible so we all follow them at least in that -- but as in Orthodoxy I follow the entire Tradition, which is evidenced in the writings of the Fathers.

An atheist would say we blindly accept the idea of God, but we know thats not true. Similarly, it might appear as those I blindly accept poor theology and poor science, but I know there is more to it than that.

 

[gluadys]

I accept what our Holy Fathers have taught -- something that every single Christian does to some degree. It was these men who canonized the Bible so we all follow them at least in that -- but as in Orthodoxy I follow the entire Tradition, which is evidenced in the writings of the Fathers.

No problem. The question is if they actually taught what you are claiming they taught. Let's not forget that just as scripture needs to be interpreted, so do the writings of the fathers. Are you really sure you can justify an anti-uniformitarian stance on the basis of the Patristic Tradition?

 

[Assyrian]

Here is something that always puzzled me about the "earth was a paradise" view. Is it not true that the Garden of Eden was the paradise, not the earth as a whole? If the entire earth was the "paradise", then why create the Garden specifically? And, we see what the earth was like outside the Garden when they were kicked out, pretty much the way it is now.

Yeah, we get the word paradise from the word used by the Septuagint to translate garden in Genesis. It is almost a tautology to say paradise was the Garden of Eden.