The Creation, Dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve

[nutroll]

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.

I would say that I fall into the theistic evolution camp. I studied enough biology and science in general during my high school and college years (granted I was only a biology major for one year) to see a lot of evidence in God's creation that is hard to explain away. Personally I think that creationism is just as much a blunder as theistic evolution can be. They both have a tendency to try too hard to make sense of every little thing. But I don't foresee science giving up on studying the world around us. I think both are attempts to take this endeavor and align it with Christian faith. One might err on the side of the faith and one on the side of science, but both tend to make compromises.

I suppose I prefer my approach. And to be fair, I don't mind your approach of telling people what the Fathers have written. I have taken issue with attacks on uniformitarianism, but only because I think it requires speculation in the absence of evidence from either the Fathers or from science. We can't know whether any particular thing has changed or remained the same. It is speculation to assume either way. I enjoy watching scientists learn new things, revise and repudiate older concepts, and discover a tiny portion of the universe that God created. I don't put stock in any of it being absolute truth, but it's interesting. How any of it ties in with what has been revealed in our Faith, I shall have to wait and see. I remain interested but agnostic on the subject.

 

[jckstraw72]

well, obviously you should agree with everything i ever say, but overall, that sounds reasonable

 

[ArmyMatt]

Lazarus could see the rich man.

well we don't know what Lazarus could see, since the parable does not give any description of what he is doing. we know that he was in Abraham's bosom, and that he is comforted, and that's it. and while the fact that their is dialogue between Abraham and the rich man, nowhere does it indicate that Abraham is weeping or even mourning the fact that the rich man ended up there, despite the fact that he called him, "son." he is, in fact, rather blunt with what the rich man asks.

somehow God is going to wipe every tear from our eyes, and there will be no sadness at all in Paradise, so somehow we are not going to care that the sinners are in hell (which I agree would be awful), or be so filled with God's love that He is all we focus on. somehow we will not mourn those in hell.

I have taken issue with attacks on uniformitarianism, but only because I think it requires speculation in the absence of evidence from either the Fathers or from science. We can't know whether any particular thing has changed or remained the same.

I don't think folks are attacking uniformitarianism, I think just that Creationists like myself don't see it as set in stone as others, especially when one takes into the traditionally viewed ramifications of both the Fall and the Flood. neither can be either proven or disproven (macroevolution vs no macroevolution). that was the only point I was trying to make.

 

[MKJ]

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.

You know, as soon as he says that evolution is just a theory, just like the law of gravity, I really can't take his opinion on the subject seriously. For one thing, gravity is not really a law. For another thing, YEC worldviews don't just repudiate evolution, they ultimately have to repudiate a lot of modern physics, and put things like our understanding of gravity on questionable ground as well.

 

[ArmyMatt]

For another thing, YEC worldviews don't just repudiate evolution, they ultimately have to repudiate a lot of modern physics, and put things like our understanding of gravity on questionable ground as well.

yes, modern physics in a fallen world trying to use fallen standards for an unfallen universe. I have no problem with modern science post Fall. but before the Fall, much of our science would have been very different, to include our concepts of stuff like gravity.

 

[MKJ]

I don't think folks are attacking uniformitarianism, I think just that Creationists like myself don't see it as set in stone as others, especially when one takes into the traditionally viewed ramifications of both the Fall and the Flood. neither can be either proven or disproven (macroevolution vs no macroevolution). that was the only point I was trying to make.

Of course no one can prove uniformity - it's a basic assumption. But it is also required to have science and rational thought.

FWIW, I don't think the Flood stuff in itself makes any difference at all. There is really no reason that stuff would not be accessible to scientific inquiry - it would leave evidence, including evidence of longer life-spans before the Flood, and most of the other things spoken about in this thread.

The real question I think is do we believe in the basic underpinnings of scientific inquiry, and the goal of science? So do we believe that the world is a rational place governed by laws, and that humans can investigate and know those laws, and even use them for technological endeavors? Do we think it is right for humans to investigate and observe creation in a rational way, and try to discern the laws that move it?

If that is a possible and good thing, then how are we to understand the results of our inquiries? We know that scientific knowledge is always imperfect, and a work in progress. We know that it is always a matter of looking from the shoulders of giants. But if it is possible for the methods of scientific inquiry to give us truth about the material world, that won't contradict "spiritual" truth. But it would seem foolish to expect that we would always easily understand how they fit together. If science tells us that evolution is a very strong theory, should that worry us on religious grounds? Either it is mistaken, or we are misunderstanding the religious aspect. But resorting to pseudo-science or attacking the scientific endeavor because it gives us a result we are not comfortable with seems to be an over-reaction.

If we distrust the ability of the scientific method to give us truth, then I wonder how we feel confident to use its products? If science is so messed up that it can't really understand radio-carbon dating, as some creationists like to suggest, why do we feel that we are safe using other technologies based on radiation products, for example?

 

[MKJ]

yes, modern physics in a fallen world trying to use fallen standards for an unfallen universe. I have no problem with modern science post Fall. but before the Fall, much of our science would have been very different, to include our concepts of stuff like gravity.

How so? I don't see any scientists talking about the pre-fallen world.

 

[ArmyMatt]

How so? I don't see any scientists talking about the pre-fallen world.

well, if the Fall only happened a few mellenia ago and it was the radical change that we Young Earthers believe in, then any commentary they make before that time is them applying fallen standards to a pre fallen world.

so if the fall happened in the year 5500 BC (we shall say for the sake of argument), and they date something to 5537 BC, then they are using a dating system based on our fallen world (like radioactive decay) for something that happened during a time when there was no decay at all, so their dating technique falls apart if that belief about the Fall is true, because nothing decayed at all during those 37 years.

If we distrust the ability of the scientific method to give us truth, then I wonder how we feel confident to use its products? If science is so messed up that it can't really understand radio-carbon dating, as some creationists like to suggest, why do we feel that we are safe using other technologies based on radiation products, for example?

we trust what we know and observe. I have no problem about science being used to test things today, so I have no problem with radiation tech or radioactive dating as applied in our fallen state. I have a problem when we get to our origins with science, because that has not been observed or tested at all.

as an example, say you have a star that is 500 million light years from earth. so the scientist would say that what he sees is 500 million years old. but that is only if the cosmos is at least that old. it is possible for God to have created that star visible from Earth from the moment it was created, say 7500 years ago. what you know and can test is the distance to the star and the speed of light. what you presume is the age. neither can be proven or disproven in a science lab.

 

[jckstraw72]

yah, no one is questioning science that is observable and testable today. obviously all the products i use are testable today - i use them, and they work - it passed the test. but taking observations of today's world and making up conjectures about the past based on them is a totally different subject. there's simply no way of testing those conjectures. you either take them on faith or you don't. but no one is questioning science or the scientific method in this thread. in my opinion, that is a common straw man that evolutionists build up. i have a problem when science morphs into philosophy as it does with evolution, but not with science that deals with the here and now and can thus be tested and shown to be reliable. so for instance, i have no problem using medicine that was created through biological research. i can use the medicine and find out that, yes, it makes me better. but to take that same biological research and make up a theory about 5 million years ago based on that is quite shaky.

another thing ive thought about -- i cant figure out what purpose the theory of evolution actually serves. it seems to me its either a trivial pursuit, or its nothing more than an attempt to overthrow the traditional understanding of history and origins. i mean, all the wonderful things that scientists do and develop today would still be completely possible without stories about me having a common ancestor with an ape. even those oh so crazy scientists who dont believe in evolution are capable of making progress and breakthroughs. so again, i cant figure out what purpose it serves other than to occupy our minds, or to tear down tradition.

 

[nutroll]

another thing ive thought about -- i cant figure out what purpose the theory of evolution actually serves. it seems to me its either a trivial pursuit, or its nothing more than an attempt to overthrow the traditional understanding of history and origins. i mean, all the wonderful things that scientists do and develop today would still be completely possible without stories about me having a common ancestor with an ape. even those oh so crazy scientists who dont believe in evolution are capable of making progress and breakthroughs. so again, i cant figure out what purpose it serves other than to occupy our minds, or to tear down tradition.

While trying to discern whether we have a common ancestor in the lower primates may not be of immediate concern, the theory of evolution does impact our lives. Nearly all the food we eat is a product of directed evolution, whether it be the domesticated cow that we make burgers out of, or the corn on the cob that looks and tastes nothing like the corn of a thousand years ago. Granted people were using selective breeding to accomplish these things before we ever put a name to the theory being used, we do use this information. And we are learning more and more as time goes on about how this mechanism works.

 

[jckstraw72]

sure, i get that- using our observations to effect our present and future lives. i just dont see the point of using our observations to conjecture about the past, beyond the fact that its just interesting to some.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Nearly all the food we eat is a product of directed evolution, whether it be the domesticated cow that we make burgers out of, or the corn on the cob that looks and tastes nothing like the corn of a thousand years ago.

and we have no problem with that, microevolution. it can be seen and tested and one cannot deny that it exists. however, the cows still remain cows, and the corn is still corn. until the breeding turns the cow into something other than a cow, macroevolution is still just as up in the air as a literal Genesis account.

so microevolution is fine and I am glad that we can work with it and use our God given knowledge, but macro is the problem for a Young earther.

 

[MKJ]

and we have no problem with that, microevolution. it can be seen and tested and one cannot deny that it exists. however, the cows still remain cows, and the corn is still corn. until the breeding turns the cow into something other than a cow, macroevolution is still just as up in the air as a literal Genesis account.

so microevolution is fine and I am glad that we can work with it and use our God given knowledge, but macro is the problem for a Young earther.

Actually, cows were very likely not cows when we first started eating them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually, cows were very likely not cows when we first started eating them.

and that is certainly possible, but until we see any macroevolutionary change in an animal, there is no way of knowing for sure what we ate in the beginning. if there is no proof that cows were something else then changed into cows, then it is still up in the air.

 

[jckstraw72]

id still like to know what practical purpose it serves to try to show that cows weren't always cows ....

 

[MKJ]

id still like to know what practical purpose it serves to try to show that cows weren't always cows ....

It's a type of love. The created world is one way God reveals himself, it is his work, an expression of his love. Why wouldn't we be moved to understand it?

The ancestor of modern cattle was probably the aurochs.

 

[jckstraw72]

It's a type of love. The created world is one way God reveals himself, it is his work, an expression of his love. Why wouldn't we be moved to understand it?

forgive me, but, i find this really hard to believe. perhaps this is your motivation and the motivation of some others, but i just really have a hard time believing that this is really the driving force behind evolutionary research, especially considering how many evolutionists are actually atheists. quite frankly i think these 2 statements are much more indicative or what evolution is about:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - leading evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31

and

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." -- Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: News of the Month in Perspective, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p.19

and i think this motivation is easy enough to discern when we look at the fruits of evolution. it is undeniable that evolution does in fact push people away from faith, and i can think of at least 2 ways it does this:
1. it contradicts the traditional Christian teaching while giving a comprehensive "scientific" answer that explains the universe without God. i certainly know people who have given up their faith because of this. i also knew a vocal group of atheists at Penn State who outright said that their worldview is formed by evolution and this is why they can't accept Christianity. they were able to see the chasm that exists between the two worldviews.
2. when certain Christians stick to the traditional teaching, those who can't see beyond evolution are reluctant to accept faith. this is then blamed on the Creationists, although from our point of view its their dedication to evolution that keeps them from the Church. this relates back to the atheists at Penn State. it wasn't our belief in Creationism that kept them from the faith - they didnt expect us to change for them - but it was the evolutionary glasses through which they saw everything.

furthermore, in addition to the quotes i provided, people like Dawkins and Hitchens are obviously not motivated by love. of course Orthodox evolutionists can't agree with them on everything, but yet we still follow them and people like them in their science, even though we know they are not motivated by anything even remotely resembling love.

aaaaalso, i find it hard to believe that the motivation is love when you see how Creationists and ID people are often so maligned and scorned by evolutionists. they are often denied publishing and jobs or are fired from their jobs when they speak about Creationism or ID. heck, school districts are taken to court to ban them from even mentioning that there are alternative theories to evolution (this happened in Dover, PA and my high school track coach was involved- believe me, he has no love for God and Christians). if it was just about discovering God's creation out of gratitude and love they wouldnt be so fiercely against any other theory. they clearly want evolution to absolutely dominate our educational system, and they want God out of it. so again, forgive me, but the fruits of evolution are too ugly for me to believe that its about love.

 

[MKJ]

forgive me, but, i find this really hard to believe. perhaps this is your motivation and the motivation of some others, but i just really have a hard time believing that this is really the driving force behind evolutionary research, especially considering how many evolutionists are actually atheists. quite frankly i think these 2 statements are much more indicative or what evolution is about:

and

and i think this motivation is easy enough to discern when we look at the fruits of evolution. it is undeniable that evolution does in fact push people away from faith, and i can think of at least 2 ways it does this:
1. it contradicts the traditional Christian teaching while giving a comprehensive "scientific" answer that explains the universe without God. i certainly know people who have given up their faith because of this. i also knew a vocal group of atheists at Penn State who outright said that their worldview is formed by evolution and this is why they can't accept Christianity. they were able to see the chasm that exists between the two worldviews.
2. when certain Christians stick to the traditional teaching, those who can't see beyond evolution are reluctant to accept faith. this is then blamed on the Creationists, although from our point of view its their dedication to evolution that keeps them from the Church. this relates back to the atheists at Penn State. it wasn't our belief in Creationism that kept them from the faith - they didnt expect us to change for them - but it was the evolutionary glasses through which they saw everything.

furthermore, in addition to the quotes i provided, people like Dawkins and Hitchens are obviously not motivated by love. of course Orthodox evolutionists can't agree with them on everything, but yet we still follow them and people like them in their science, even though we know they are not motivated by anything even remotely resembling love.

Also, i find it hard to believe that the motivation is love when you see how Creationists and ID people are often so maligned and scorned by evolutionists. they are often denied publishing and jobs or are fired from their jobs when they speak about Creationism or ID. heck, school districts are taken to court to ban them from even mentioning that there are alternative theories to evolution (this happened in Dover, PA and my high school track coach was involved- believe me, he has no love for God and Christians). if it was just about discovering God's creation out of gratitude and love they wouldn't be so fiercely against any other theory. they clearly want evolution to absolutely dominate our educational system, and they want God out of it. so again, forgive me, but the fruits of evolution are too ugly for me to believe that its about love.

I was speaking of science, not specifically evolution. The desire to know and understand the world.

Love is not always manifested directly as love of God, but that does not make it ungodly. Even when an atheist drives by a hayfield in the sun and smells the sweet hay smell and id joyful, that is, though he is unaware, a love that can lead him to God. Because the creation leads us to the creator. That is part of the way we are made. That love is what leads our reason to undertake to understand the origin of all things.

That is what the project of science is about - what is the universe, how does it work, what is it's origin, how did it come to be the way it is, and how will it be in the future?

Even an atheist scientist who thinks these questions will destroy the idea of God is undertaking the task through the love of truth implanted in him by the creator. (And of course people's motives may be tainted by personal considerations - this is true for almost any human endeavor. There are people concerned to "prove" Christianity for reasons that have as much to do with their own comfort or wishful thinking as noble reasons. Most of us have mixed motives and it can be hard to spot them at times.)

I am not sure why you think those studying evolution are out to destroy religion. Do you really think they would pursue something that they "really" think is false as a life-time's work just to disprove religious claims? Surely such a personality disorder must be very rare.

Whether scientific theories incline people towards or away from Christianity is really irrelavant. Isn't the point whether or not they are true? I think the contention is that when Christians claim that one cannot be a "real" Christian and think that science has a largely accurate understanding of the universe, they are overstating their claim, just as if another said that one could not hold to modern fundamentalist views on creation and be a "real" Christian. If an outsider to Christianity says "can I believe in evolution and be a Christian" the correct answer is "yes, but not all do."

The claim that science is materialistic is simply false. Science is destroyed by materialism just like other forms of thought. The fact that some people do not understand this is unfortunate, but it is likely caused as much by foolish Christians who keep saying it is true as by the rather deplorable teaching of science in our educational institutions.

You may also be surprised to discover that many people come to faith through science, that is, through contemplation of God's creation, which leads them to God. There are many books out by such people, especially in response to some of the recent atheist manifestos. I know quite a few Christian science-types - one that comes immediately to my mind is a new member of our parish, who is a retired physicist, and who became religious quite late in like. He has remarked several times how surprised he was to discover that the most basic truths he knows as a scientist about the nature of the universe so perfectly fit with the theological ideas he is learning. Even for myself, reading about science had a direct impact on my religious conversion.

I don't want to presume to much not knowing you in person, but it seems like you are just not terribly interested in the natural world, and so it is difficult for you to see why it interests other people, and why they see God in it or through it. That is largely I suspect a temperament thing, but if you are going to be suspicious of that in others, maybe it is something you need to cultivate a bit, so at least you can appreciate that kind of wonder and search for truth in other people. It's one of the ways God gave us to know him, and just like other spiritual paths, we don't abandon it as soon as we perceive some difficulty, we make sure we are perusing it in a correct way, and accept that the difficulties are due to our limitations.

Edit - reading this last bit it looks like rather condescending advice, and I don't mean it that way at all. It just seems to me that it might be something that you would ultimately find useful or even possibly enjoy.