Orthodox position on evolution?

[Tinker Grey]

If we accept heliocentrism, have we forsaken the church fathers?

 

[jckstraw72]

If we accept heliocentrism, have we forsaken the church fathers?

this has nothing to do with any doctrine, or exegesis of Scripture as far as I know.

 

[Vance]

this has nothing to do with any doctrine, or exegesis of Scripture as far as I know.

Don't tell that to those geocentrists out there who think you are a compromising Christian too weak in faith to just accept God's Word the way it is written.

 

[jckstraw72]

Don't tell that to those geocentrists out there who think you are a compromising Christian too weak in faith to just accept God's Word the way it is written.

good thing i dont know any of 'em i guess.

 

[Vance]

good thing i dont know any of 'em i guess.

Very true. What is important about them is that they points they make about creationists who accept heliocentrism are exactly the same ones that those creationists make about theistic evolutionists. And the points that those creationists make back to the geocentrists are the same that TE's make to BOTH the creationists who accept heliocentrism and those who reject it.

The lesson of geocentrism, having been learned by all but a few who cling to their very literal reading of Scripture, seems to be too quickly forgotten by the modern-day creationists.

 

[jckstraw72]

The lesson of geocentrism, having been learned by all but a few who cling to their very literal reading of Scripture, seems to be too quickly forgotten by the modern-day creationists.

from waht I've read of the Fathers concerning Genesis, they emphatically state that God inspired Moses to write what literally happened regarding creation and the fall and so on. ive seen no such insistence regarding heliocentrism.

 

[Vance]

from waht I've read of the Fathers concerning Genesis, they emphatically state that God inspired Moses to write what literally happened regarding creation and the fall and so on. ive seen no such insistence regarding heliocentrism.

But the literal text is the literal text. The literal text says six days, and the literal text says that God created the earth first, then the sun and moon to provide light to the earth. The literal text says that there is a firm canopy (a firmament) that acts like a dome (basically, Genesis describes it all like a snow-globe), with water above the firmament to match the water we have here on the surface, and the ONLY reason we don't believe that now is because we have scientific knowledge that contradicts such a literal reading. (and the geocentrists have numerous other Scripture which requires a geocentric solar system, although you and I would agree they are just being "over-literal").

As we learn more and more about how God's creation actually works, we naturally and almost subconsciously begin, as a Christian body, to re-interpret all kinds of texts differently. Sometimes, though, as with geocentrism and then with the age of the earth, and now with evolution, there is some cognitive dissonance and angst from some before we just go ahead and re-adjust our approach to the texts.

 

[jckstraw72]

we dont believe in teh waters above anymore bc of the flood. the waters was released and what not.

and Fr. Seraphim addresses the notion that Genesis supposedly describes it as a snow-globe. Ill have to remember to look it up.

 

[Vance]

we dont believe in teh waters above anymore bc of the flood. the waters was released and what not.

and Fr. Seraphim addresses the notion that Genesis supposedly describes it as a snow-globe. Ill have to remember to look it up.

Right, but now we know that it was NEVER like a snow-globe, and that there was never a "firmament" or waters above such a firmament, any more than we think that, at one point, the earth was unmoving and the sun and stars revolved around it.

We must keep in mind that the early Fathers (like everyone else at the time) were all geocentrists (and thus entirely wrong in their science), and so had no problem with the Scripture seeming to describe a geocentric universe. It is only when the evidence starts coming in that conflicts with how we have traditionally been reading the text that we need to address the issues afresh.

Remember that when Galileo first began promoting Copernicus' theory as reality, the Church as a whole, Catholic, Protestant and, I would assume, Orthodox as well, all rose up and said that it was ridiculous because Scripture described a geocentric universe. They were all wrong, and it was our view of what Scripture said that had to change, since the evidence from God's Creation itself eventually became too overwhelming.

But a question I asked earlier seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle here:

I guess this would be my question, regarding all of those Orthodox clergy who DO accept evolution: do you think that they have forsaken the early Fathers, and just don't care what they say, or do you think that they simply interpret those early Fathers differently than you?

 

[jckstraw72]

We must keep in mind that the early Fathers (like everyone else at the time) were all geocentrists

this came up in a thread in TAW, someone pointed out that not all Fathers believed it and some just didnt care.

Also, the bigger issue here is things like when did physical death come into the world ... that has nothing to do with science, but rather intrepretation of Genesis. also, saying that the body pre-exists the soul is dualism.

 

[Vance]

Well, there is no doubt that they were all geocentrists, since there is no one who was NOT a geocentrist until Copernicus. That was just the way the world was viewed.

As for dualism, it is fairly standard exegesis to discuss Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed" into Adam, as being when God infused the soul into him (or Mankind, if you view it that way). If that is the case, then we have Adam being created first, then a soul being infused. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church explicitly (that the soul was specially created by God, but that the body might well have been created via evolution). What is the Orthodox exegesis of Genesis 2:7?

But, again, you seem to be ignoring my question above about the Orthodox clergy who accept evolution as the means by which God created.

 

[jckstraw72]

I guess this would be my question, regarding all of those Orthodox clergy who DO accept evolution: do you think that they have forsaken the early Fathers, and just don't care what they say, or do you think that they simply interpret those early Fathers differently than you?

i dont know how you're missing it, but this is at least the third time im answering this. the last time i even said "you already asked me this, but the answer is ... " I think they simply wave off the Fathers with "oh they didnt know today's science." thats what ive read at least. they trade in God-bearing Fathers for Darwin.

and the Fathers teach that the body and soul were created instantaneously -- the creation act of each day was instantaneous.

 

[Vance]

i dont know how you're missing it, but this is at least the third time im answering this. the last time i even said "you already asked me this, but the answer is ... " I think they simply wave off the Fathers with "oh they didnt know today's science." thats what ive read at least. they trade in God-bearing Fathers for Darwin.

and the Fathers teach that the body and soul were created instantaneously -- the creation act of each day was instantaneous.

OK, I didn't see that earlier response. So, you think that the Orthodox clergy who accept evolution are simply dismissing the early father's statements in this regard. But don't you think they must also, by definition, also be interpreting Scripture differently on this point as well?

 

[jckstraw72]

well sure they're interpreting Scripture differently -- but that's quite the no-no in Orthodoxy, although it seems to have gained some acceptance regarding Genesis, because modern science seems to demand it to be so.

 

[Vance]

well sure they're interpreting Scripture differently -- but that's quite the no-no in Orthodoxy, although it seems to have gained some acceptance regarding Genesis, because modern science seems to demand it to be so.

Or, possibly, a responsible and Godly approach to Scripture demands it to be so. Without such a willingness to reconsider fallible human interpretations of Scripture, we are putting our human interpretation at a level equal to infallibility, and I don't think we should do that even for the most revered early Father.

 

[jckstraw72]

certainly no single Father is infallible, but when the Fathers come together in harmony it is the mind of the Church.

 

[Vance]

certainly no single Father is infallible, but when the Fathers come together in harmony it is the mind of the Church.

But that is just it, there is no harmony, since there are Church Fathers who insist things different than others, such as Augustine, who didn't believe that God created in six literal days. Further, a group of fallible humans is still fallible. Just adding more of them does not make them less fallible.

 

[jckstraw72]

there is great harmony concerning Genesis -- it is concensus that the earth would be less than 10,000 yrs old today, it is concensus that the creation act of each day is instantaneous, and it is concensus that physical death came only after sin -- these all rule out evolution.

 

[Vance]

Well, if you think that such a consensus exists, and that such a consensus among the Church Fathers is conclusive on what we should believe about what Scripture says today, then you are bound.

I find it ironic, though, that many, if not all, of those Church Fathers, were they alive today and had access to the information about God's Creation that we have today, would read the Scriptures very differently. We know Augustine would not believe in the literal reading, since he didn't even believe it then!

The problem with your position is that it actually undermines the truth and validity of Scripture. There is simply no way that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, for example. So, to insist that Scripture must be read that way is to, ultimately, discredit Scripture.

 

[jckstraw72]

I find it ironic, though, that many, if not all, of those Church Fathers, were they alive today and had access to the information about God's Creation that we have today, would read the Scriptures very differently. We know Augustine would not believe in the literal reading, since he didn't even believe it then!

well I believe the Fathers were God-inspired to lead the Church. that doesnt change with the whims of science. and the only thing Augustine didnt see as literal was the 6 days, which he saw as one moment. to take that and assume that he would also therefore accept the 6 days equaling millions of years is quite a stretch.

The problem with your position is that it actually undermines the truth and validity of Scripture. There is simply no way that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, for example. So, to insist that Scripture must be read that way is to, ultimately, discredit Scripture.

on the contrary, it is possible that the earth is that young.