The Creation, Dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve

[MKJ]

but i will ask again: how do we know when the "opinions" end and something is actually the teaching of the Church (especially if we're not supposed to look to those in authority over us to teach us ....)?

I would say that you need to look for consensus, in a large, rather than a narrow sense. But also the weight of the issue would be important.

So, just as a silly example, it might be that priests have always worn silly hats, and all the Fathers reccomend weighing silly hats (keeps the head warm and diminishes pride.). There you have consensus. But the issue is not weighty enough to be a teaching of the Church in a stronger sense. If some good reason for not wearing such hats came along, it would be something to consider.

In the case of animal death - lets assume we have consensus of opinion by the Fathers on the issue - is this something they have actually recieved as a teaching fromm the apostles who had it from Christ, or is it what they all think makes sense? Because if it is the former, than it is a very sure thing. If it is the latter, it isn't quite the same.

The time before the Fall is pretty obscure. Access to that information, barring a private revelation, is through Christ, or Scripture. There are a lot of basic questions - for example, what does death mean for an animal which doesn't have an individual soul? If there is one living dog, and another dog dies, can we say there is death? Or to put it another way, is immortality posessed by the species rather than the individual? Or another question might be in relation to plants.

If the Fathers are giving their opinions about what makes sense, rather than passing on something that they know, even if they all agree, it is possible that there is simply not enough information to say anything definitive. It is usually a big mistake to say something is true for sure when really, it is just probably true - it can lead to some pretty serious problems.

 

[MKJ]

That's a horrific statement.

Have you ever read The Great Divorce? It talks about this issue in a very sensible way, besides being a very enjoyable book.

 

[Photini]

If death did exist in the beginning, what would be the point of Christ? The point was to return us to what we were (and in a better state) before. If we were already in a fallen world when we came into being, what was the point?

I did find this quote on orthodoxinfo about Genesis by St. Ephraim the Syrian.

I can't remember where I read it... maybe in one of Metropolitan Heirotheos Vlachos' books...

But I do recall reading that we needed Christ even in our unfallen state. The Incarnation was just as important as the Resurrection. Christ united heavenly and earthly things. This was still necessary even if the Fall didn't happen. Christ's death and Resurrection became necessary because of the Fall, to overcome the chains of death, but the uniting of heavenly and earthly things was always the plan, so the Incarnation would have taken place either way.

 

[MKJ]

What I mean is that if evolution or theistic evolution is true, the world would have been created fallen from the beginning. (Theistic) Evolution takes millions of years of death, disease, suffering, and adaptation for a species to evolve (mutate) into another. Also, when would the ape that evolved into humans gain the very essence of God as part of his soul? All animals have the energies of God, that is why their souls are mortal, but when would the first human be granted an immortal soul? Would God have just chosen a random ape and grant him free will, rationality, and an immortal soul?

Also, sex would have existed at this point as well. St. John Chrysostom says that marriage (and sex) only came into existence when death did. Since death is already in existence, sex would as well.

However according to our theology, none of this came into existence until AFTER the Fall. That is until after humans were already made and had an immortal soul. Thus, (theistic) evolution which bases its whole argument on death and suffering before man came into being is completely contradictory to our theology.

If death did exist in the beginning, what would be the point of Christ? The point was to return us to what we were (and in a better state) before. If we were already in a fallen world when we came into being, what was the point?

I did find this quote on orthodoxinfo about Genesis by St. Ephraim the Syrian.

It isn't necessary to think that if evolution is true, those things would have existed before the Fall. At least, not in the usual way. We wouldn't say that people who lived before Christ were left out of what happened as a result of the Incarnation and Resurrection; those things impact all of creation from the beginning, even though they occur at a particular point in time. Creation is also a place where time and eternity, or God's way of being, intersect. Cause and effect don't necessarily have to move through time in a forward, linear way. From a theological standpoint, there isn't any theoretical reason that the Fall occurring at a particular point in time would not affect all history, including that which came before the Fall itself.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My point is it makes you no less Orthodox if you do not agree with the point of view which you and many others espouse.

actually I just reviewed this entire thread, and no one said anything about being more or less Orthodox for either side. both sides have given evidence for their beliefs about creation, and individuals have just admitted that their particular view is how they see the subject.

In the case of animal death - lets assume we have consensus of opinion by the Fathers on the issue - is this something they have actually recieved as a teaching fromm the apostles who had it from Christ, or is it what they all think makes sense? Because if it is the former, than it is a very sure thing. If it is the latter, it isn't quite the same.

this is a valid point, but I think I would say that the Fathers who received it were illumined like those who gave it to them, because they all drew near to the Holy Spirit who leads us into all Truth, not just some of the Truth or even most of it. but all of it. so I think it becomes clear that when saint after saint, holy elder after holy elder affirms something, that it is probably true.

 

[choirfiend]

why?

Because God created us in community and we are relational Persons, so to indicate that any thought or remembrance of those we have loved would be wiped out because of God's love contraindicates our relational stance with the community of all humanity.

I know this is not of the final judgment, but we have the example of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man could see Lazarus, remembered his brothers, and Lazarus could see the rich man.

If you truly love another person, and you ended up in heaven and they did not, you cannot forget about them--we don't do it on earth, and I dont believe we will do it in heaven. St. Ksenia is an example of this on earth, and I believe that it will be more so in heaven.

 

[Greg the byzantine]

I fall in line with Bishop Kallistos Ware:

Bishop Kallistos Ware - Orthodoxy and Evolution - Ministry Videos - GodTube

It's a great video, and good food for thought.

 

[Michael G]

Only if you are referring to Charlie the unicorn but I can assure you that I will never be convinced that the rainbows were not the result of all the candy he ate upon entering the Candy Mountain (tm) Cave.

Rainbows are what you get when you have God, who is obviously very artistically inclined, swiping his paint brush against the sky. He can not help but create something that is very beautiful in a subtle way.

 

[inconsequential]

I find the discussion fascinating while, at the same time not feeling bothered by not having a definitive position on it. If I can enjoy creating cool creatures in Spore, I'm sure God could enjoy creating us in a similar way. But I don't have a problem with OEC or YEC either.

However He did it, Adam disobeyed and we fell. I might find the creation issue worth fighting over once I've quelled gluttony, wrath and lust.

 

[musicluvr83]

actually I just reviewed this entire thread, and no one said anything about being more or less Orthodox for either side. both sides have given evidence for their beliefs about creation, and individuals have just admitted that their particular view is how they see the subject.

... I think it becomes clear that when saint after saint, holy elder after holy elder affirms something, that it is probably true.

A few excerpts from Archpriest John Matusiak (OCA Q&A's).....

The Church does not promote evolution. HOW God created heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible is a mystery to us; the precise "method" has not been revealed to us. What HAS been revealed to us is that God is "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." Even if we knew the precise method, it would in no way change the essential truth that has been revealed to us, that is professed by us in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and that is what the Holy Fathers spoke about -- not in condemning a God-less evolutionary, Darwinian process of which they had no knowledge, living as they did centuries before this "theory" was introduced as "theory," but in doing what the Holy Fathers and Christians of all times are challenged to do: to discern the truth that has been revealed to mankind and to embrace it.

One of the problems herein is that one can speculate to no end with regard to evolution, inasmuch as it is merely a theory -- actually, a number of related yet somewhat different theories -- and, in the end, all one ends up with is speculation and theory. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a scientific law -- as is the law of gravity. As such, there is no "empirical conclusion" that may be drawn.

Simply stated, if you could put an ape in a closet for a million years, and then open the closet, all you'd have is a dead ape. And even if it had been kept alive for a million years, it certainly would not have "evolved" a rational soul, nor would it have "evolved" into anything other than what it was all along -- an ape.

So, again, what is crucial is that God is "maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible," that He endowed humans with His very image and likeness, that He gave humans a "reason-endowed soul," and so on. This is the ultimate Truth we are called to embrace. These things do not easily fit into a purely scientific model, much less theory, and these truth may very well be the proverbial "missing link" that alludes science and continues to keep evolution in the theory mode.

 

[nutroll]

Simply stated, if you could put an ape in a closet for a million years, and then open the closet, all you'd have is a dead ape. And even if it had been kept alive for a million years, it certainly would not have "evolved" a rational soul, nor would it have "evolved" into anything other than what it was all along -- an ape.

This right here is why I dislike the creationist movement so much. It makes Christians look stupid. And I don't mean stupid because we believe in God, or stupid because we believe that He is the source of our being. I don't even mean stupid because we believe that the world was created in six days. I mean stupid because it shows we have no grasp of what is even being discussed. No one thinks that an ape will evolve all by its lonesome. At the very least you would need two apes in that closet. Evolution is primarily about reproduction. This kind of statement reinforces the notion that Christians don't understand scientific concepts at all. It also subtly reinforces the notion that Christians think sex is so taboo that they wouldn't understand that either.

I think we can have the conversation that we have been having, but when we discuss what science teaches, we ought to know what it is that we are accepting or rejecting. Otherwise we look unnecessarily ignorant. And the reality is that I think most Orthodox Christians who accept theistic evolution do so not as a belief system. I have faith in God and believe in God, I accept science as a method of trying to make sense of the workings of the universe. Revelation does not change, whereas science, by definition does. I accept not only the current conclusions, but the later revisions, the misunderstandings, the false assumptions. I recognize that science is a work in progress, and that while some things might be true, other things might be less than true or flat out wrong. And so while I believe that science is making an attempt to find the truth, I believe that Orthodoxy has the truth and put my faith in that. I will not saved by evolution, but by my Creator, regardless of whether He used evolution as part of creating the universe.

 

[Photini]

This right here is why I dislike the creationist movement so much. It makes Christians look stupid. And I don't mean stupid because we believe in God, or stupid because we believe that He is the source of our being. I don't even mean stupid because we believe that the world was created in six days. I mean stupid because it shows we have no grasp of what is even being discussed. No one thinks that an ape will evolve all by its lonesome. At the very least you would need two apes in that closet. Evolution is primarily about reproduction. This kind of statement reinforces the notion that Christians don't understand scientific concepts at all. It also subtly reinforces the notion that Christians think sex is so taboo that they wouldn't understand that either.

I think we can have the conversation that we have been having, but when we discuss what science teaches, we ought to know what it is that we are accepting or rejecting. Otherwise we look unnecessarily ignorant. And the reality is that I think most Orthodox Christians who accept theistic evolution do so not as a belief system. I have faith in God and believe in God, I accept science as a method of trying to make sense of the workings of the universe. Revelation does not change, whereas science, by definition does. I accept not only the current conclusions, but the later revisions, the misunderstandings, the false assumptions. I recognize that science is a work in progress, and that while some things might be true, other things might be less than true or flat out wrong. And so while I believe that science is making an attempt to find the truth, I believe that Orthodoxy has the truth and put my faith in that. I will not saved by evolution, but by my Creator, regardless of whether He used evolution as part of creating the universe.

Agree 100%.

 

[jckstraw72]

i agree that a lot of us probably dont understand the ins and outs of evolution, although some Creationists are quite well educated in the manner. but at least for my part thats why i try to stick the Scriptural and Patristic aspects of the question, which i think should be the more important questions for Orthodox Christians anyways.

but conversely, in my opinion, theistic evolution is often a display of ignorance as well. obviously our Church did not have evolution in mind when putting forth its understanding of creation, anthropology, the fall, soteriology, etc, so i think to just assume that evolution can fit in with our theology is, well, silly. im not saying no one on here has thought through the many implications, but many i have talked to just adopt evolution as their understanding of the origins of the world as we know it and never even give consideration to the endless volumes of Patristic commentary on Genesis. it makes me wonder why the Church's teaching wouldn't be the first thing they resort to when trying to interpret Genesis.

 

[jckstraw72]

In the case of animal death - lets assume we have consensus of opinion by the Fathers on the issue - is this something they have actually recieved as a teaching fromm the apostles who had it from Christ, or is it what they all think makes sense? Because if it is the former, than it is a very sure thing. If it is the latter, it isn't quite the same.

The time before the Fall is pretty obscure. Access to that information, barring a private revelation, is through Christ, or Scripture. There are a lot of basic questions - for example, what does death mean for an animal which doesn't have an individual soul? If there is one living dog, and another dog dies, can we say there is death? Or to put it another way, is immortality posessed by the species rather than the individual? Or another question might be in relation to plants.

If the Fathers are giving their opinions about what makes sense, rather than passing on something that they know, even if they all agree, it is possible that there is simply not enough information to say anything definitive. It is usually a big mistake to say something is true for sure when really, it is just probably true - it can lead to some pretty serious problems.

well we believe that Moses wasn't just told about the Garden, but that he was actually given a vision of the Garden. and its a general principle of Orthodox hermeneutics that since the Scriptures were written under inspiration they therefore require inspiration to interpret. so i dont think the Fathers were just giving their opinions on these matters, but rather that they were writing according to what they knew of God through their direct experience of Him, and even visions of and visitations to Paradise. Off the top of my head I know that St. Gregory of Sinai actually had a vision of Paradise, and its from that that he is writing.

As ArmyMatt said, the fact that so many Fathers have written on these issues and remarkably agree tells me that its not just an opinion. it also tells me that its important, otherwise - why would so many of them take the time to write about it?

i mean, ive heard ppl say that all we need to know from Genesis is that God created, and man screwed it up, so we need Christ, but this reduction is clearly not Patristic. From my reading experience I would guess that besides the Gospels, the creation story is the single most commented on and discussed passage in the Bible. If you pick up any random Orthodox theology or spirituality book it will very probably address the Garden and the Fall at some point. its central. Scripture itself is constantly hearkening back to Adam and Eve, and the Wisdom of Solomon 1 and Romans 8 specifically address this question of death, and 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that the last enemy to be defeated is death.

and obviously the Fathers address the question of human death more than that of animal death because our theological vision is anthropocentric, but enough of them speak on animal death that the mind of the Church can be seen.

also, if we just confine the question to "did animals die?" we can easily say that it doesnt really matter that much, but when we realize that the question is actually "did God create and therefore desire death?" it becomes much more important. now it tells us about the character of God. and it also relates to interpretation of the Scriptures i referenced.

 

[musicluvr83]

This right here is why I dislike the creationist movement so much. It makes Christians look stupid. And I don't mean stupid because we believe in God, or stupid because we believe that He is the source of our being. I don't even mean stupid because we believe that the world was created in six days. I mean stupid because it shows we have no grasp of what is even being discussed. No one thinks that an ape will evolve all by its lonesome. At the very least you would need two apes in that closet. Evolution is primarily about reproduction. This kind of statement reinforces the notion that Christians don't understand scientific concepts at all. It also subtly reinforces the notion that Christians think sex is so taboo that they wouldn't understand that either.

I think we can have the conversation that we have been having, but when we discuss what science teaches, we ought to know what it is that we are accepting or rejecting. Otherwise we look unnecessarily ignorant. And the reality is that I think most Orthodox Christians who accept theistic evolution do so not as a belief system. I have faith in God and believe in God, I accept science as a method of trying to make sense of the workings of the universe. Revelation does not change, whereas science, by definition does. I accept not only the current conclusions, but the later revisions, the misunderstandings, the false assumptions. I recognize that science is a work in progress, and that while some things might be true, other things might be less than true or flat out wrong. And so while I believe that science is making an attempt to find the truth, I believe that Orthodoxy has the truth and put my faith in that. I will not saved by evolution, but by my Creator, regardless of whether He used evolution as part of creating the universe.

You missed the joke. Evidently you do not know Archpriest John Matusiak or know how he speaks/writes. He is known for being blunt and once he has made his point clear (as shown in the other very sound paragraphs I posted on why the Church does not believe/follow evolution), he inserts a bit of humor in his own dry/blunt way to ensure his point has been made while keeping things light. That is all that paragraph was.

 

[nutroll]

i agree that a lot of us probably dont understand the ins and outs of evolution, although some Creationists are quite well educated in the manner. but at least for my part thats why i try to stick the Scriptural and Patristic aspects of the question, which i think should be the more important questions for Orthodox Christians anyways.

but conversely, in my opinion, theistic evolution is often a display of ignorance as well. obviously our Church did not have evolution in mind when putting forth its understanding of creation, anthropology, the fall, soteriology, etc, so i think to just assume that evolution can fit in with our theology is, well, silly. im not saying no one on here has thought through the many implications, but many i have talked to just adopt evolution as their understanding of the origins of the world as we know it and never even give consideration to the endless volumes of Patristic commentary on Genesis. it makes me wonder why the Church's teaching wouldn't be the first thing they resort to when trying to interpret Genesis.

Believe it or not, I agree that we shouldn't automatically assume that evolution can fit into our theology, but I think it's another thing entirely to conclude that. What I would say, though, is that I would rather be stupid in your eyes and have you not accept theistic evolution than to have my stupid statements keep someone from even taking an honest look at Christianity. Now I don't think that statements from the Fathers are stupid, but there are so many dumb, dumb, dumb statements that get made by creationists that make it look as though Christians don't have brains. The Fathers of the Church were intelligent, eloquent writers, and for people to not read them because of some idiotic statement made by the likes of Kirk Cameron, Or Kent Hovind would be a real shame.

My basic way of looking at Genesis is to believe that it is literally true. However, I don't believe that this has to be the case. I believe that most of current evolutionary theory could be true without harming my belief. It would mean that I don't fully understand Creation or God's ways, but we all know that's true anyway (it might even be true of some of you too... )In the end it doesn't really matter to me all that much. I trust God, but I also know that His ways are not my ways. In the same way that I don't think we need the overblown explanation of Transubstantiation, we don't need to know exactly how creation works in order to be united to Christ.

 

[nutroll]

You missed the joke. Evidently you do not know Archpriest John Matusiak. He is known for being blunt and once he has made his point clear (as shown in the other paragraphs I posted on why the Church does not believe/follow evolution), he inserts a bit of humor in his own dry/blunt way to ensure his point has been made while keeping things light. That is all that paragraph was.

I didn't miss any joke. I am familiar with Fr. John. I just don't think his attempts at humor and levity help our cause. Someone going to the OCA Q&A page might very well conclude that Orthodoxy is just as ignorant as any other Christian group. He also does things that are not jokes, like saying that evolution is "just a theory" which even Answers in Genesis recommends not doing because it shows ignorance of the Scientific Method. While I think he is sincere in his desire to help, I don't think he is helping in this instance.

 

[musicluvr83]

I didn't miss any joke. I am familiar with Fr. John. I just don't think his attempts at humor and levity help our cause. Someone going to the OCA Q&A page might very well conclude that Orthodoxy is just as ignorant as any other Christian group. He also does things that are not jokes, like saying that evolution is "just a theory" which even Answers in Genesis recommends not doing because it shows ignorance of the Scientific Method. While I think he is sincere in his desire to help, I don't think he is helping in this instance.

'Answers in Genesis' is not Orthodox. And I highly doubt anyone going to the OCA website...let alone getting emails from Fr John...would get the wrong impression. He actually shut the person up who was debating him with all that he said - dry humor included. So, I prefer to stick with the Bible, Holy Fathers, Saints, and current pastors of our Orthodox Faith when it comes to God's Creation...not generic Christian stuff like 'Answers in Genesis'. And I'm not saying what 'Answers in Genesis' says is wrong, I'm just saying we have plenty of way better places to look for information, and obtain facts, within our own Faith.

Additionally, sometimes a little humor to 'lighten the mood' is a good thing. Not to mention aren't we Orthodox Christians 'always' looked upon as being ignorant since we never 'get with the times' in general? So what's new? Elder Paisios was quite ignorant and unlearned in the world's point of view but we all know that was/is far from being the case when you look beyond his lack of schooling & see how God was constantly working through him.

 

[nutroll]

You obviously don't know me. I have no objections to humor. I crack jokes even when it isn't entirely appropriate to do so. I have objections to bad attempts at humor.

I know that Answers in Genesis is not Orthodox but if even they can figure out that saying "evolution is just at theory" opens you up to ridicule among anyone that knows how the scientific method works, I think the Orthodox Church should be able to figure that out as well.

And while I think it is a blessing to appear foolish to the world for the sake of our faith, it is better not to appear foolish to the world for the sake of our inability to understand what others are saying and opening our big fat mouths anyway. I'm thinking less about "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God" and more about "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

'Answers in Genesis' is not Orthodox. And I highly doubt anyone going to the OCA website...let alone getting emails from Fr John...would get the wrong impression. He actually shut the person up who was debating him with all that he said - dry humor included. So, I prefer to stick with the Bible, Holy Fathers, Saints, and current pastors of our Orthodox Faith when it comes to God's Creation...not generic Christian stuff like 'Answers in Genesis'. And I'm not saying what 'Answers in Genesis' says is wrong, I'm just saying we have plenty of way better places to look for information, and obtain facts, within our own Faith.

Additionally, sometimes a little humor to 'lighten the mood' is a good thing. Not to mention aren't we Orthodox Christians 'always' looked upon as being ignorant since we never 'get with the times' in general? So what's new? Elder Paisios was quite ignorant and unlearned in the world's point of view but we all know that was/is far from being the case when you look beyond his lack of schooling & see how God was constantly working through him.

 

[jckstraw72]

Believe it or not, I agree that we shouldn't automatically assume that evolution can fit into our theology, but I think it's another thing entirely to conclude that. What I would say, though, is that I would rather be stupid in your eyes and have you not accept theistic evolution than to have my stupid statements keep someone from even taking an honest look at Christianity. Now I don't think that statements from the Fathers are stupid, but there are so many dumb, dumb, dumb statements that get made by creationists that make it look as though Christians don't have brains. The Fathers of the Church were intelligent, eloquent writers, and for people to not read them because of some idiotic statement made by the likes of Kirk Cameron, Or Kent Hovind would be a real shame.

i agree will all of this.

we don't need to know exactly how creation works in order to be united to Christ.

i agree with this too. the Fathers were pretty insistent that we aren't going to understand it all, and especially not by human efforts. thats another reason (among the many!) that i think theistic evolution is such a blunder - its trying too hard to understand the acts of God by merely human endeavors. it removes mystery and the humility of admitting that we just dont (and wont) know it all.