The Heresy of Darwin

[SpyridonOCA]

This is the last thread that I want to start for Great Lent. I believe that our understanding of Genesis is the bedrock for our understanding of the faith. Our Lord stated that unless you believe Moses, you will not believe in Him. I want you to please consider the implications of compromising your faith to appease secular science.

One must understand that natural science and Orthodox theology follow two radically different epistemologies. Theology seeks to understand that which has been revealed in the Scripture. Natural science seeks to find natural explanations for what we observe in the natural world.

Science and Religion: Non-Overlapping Magisteria
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

As the holy fathers have taught us, we should appreciate science when it benefits mankind, but whenever science reaches conclusions which contradict what the Church has already revealed, we are not to follow it.

Genesis and Early Man

The Orthodox Patristic Understanding http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx



Since the scientific method is limited to what we are able to observe in the present, Darwin's theory is not even good science. It is speculation of prehistory, contradicting what Christ has already revealed to us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

Here are some important questions every Orthodox Christian should ask:

If we are the descendants of pre-human forms, did H. erectus and H. Neandertal have souls?

Is the soul something which evolved over time?

Is there anything inherent to the purported fossil ancestors themselves which would suggest that they were not fully ape or fully human?

[SIZE=-1]Reflections on Human Origins[/SIZE]
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf

If we are evolved apes, is it an ape that died on the cross?

Why do we believe that Christ died to save us from death if death entered the world before the sin of Adam?

If Christ's death was to save our souls and our bodies, when did our bodies become corrupt under an evolutionary perspective?

An Interview with Father Damascene on Evolution
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/060222155510

Why do you believe natural science's explanations of prehistory, when prehistory is beyond the realm of science? Please do not accuse me of being an ignorant man for understanding that science cannot reach beyond science to discredit Orthodox Tradition.

May God have mercy upon us.

 

[Tomk80]

Of your theology disagrees with the natural world, your theology is wrong.

edited to add:

Why do you believe natural science's explanations of prehistory, when prehistory is beyond the realm of science? Please do not accuse me of being an ignorant man for understanding that science cannot reach beyond science to discredit Orthodox Tradition.

I will not accuse you of being an ignorant man for 'understanding' that science cannot reach beyond science to discredit Orthodox Tradition, whatever that sentence is supposed to mean. I will accuse you an extremely ignorant man for the sentence that came directly before that and that I could actually parse. Prehistory is not beyond the realm of science. It can be subjected to observation and theory-building through the things that prehistory has left behind. If you do not understand that, you are indeed ignorant of science.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Since the conclusions of natural science are tentative, and since prehistory is inherently subjective, please allow me to believe that which the Church has already revealed.

 

[flatworm]

Since the scientific method is limited to what we are able to observe in the present, Darwin's theory is not even good science. It is speculation of prehistory, contradicting what Christ has already revealed to us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

Utter bollocks. Science is very capable of examining prehistory. In fact, it is by far the tool of choice for examining prehistory. Faith in a religious text is totally unavailing to study prehistory, since religious texts by definition do not pre-date the invention of writing.

Science, on the other hand, can interpret the signs left by prehistory on the natural world. This inference is no less valid than the forensic science we use to solve crimes.

Is there anything inherent to the purported fossil ancestors themselves which would suggest that they were not fully ape or fully human?

Well, from a certain point of view, humans are a subset of apes, and therefore all humans are fully ape. If you mean "ape" to mean non-human apes, then the fossils show a wide range of intermediate stages in terms of such things as cranial capacity, tool use, and social group size.

If we are evolved apes, is it an ape that died on the cross?

Yes.

Why do we believe that Christ died to save us from death if death entered the world before the sin of Adam?

If Christ's death was to save our souls and our bodies, when did our bodies become corrupt under an evolutionary perspective?

Many Christians believe there was a moment of ensoulment when God granted souls to early human beings, and the biblical Fall of genesis refers to mankind's sinful nature and not some specific event.

Why do you believe natural science's explanations of prehistory, when prehistory is beyond the realm of science?

As we've already seen, that is a false claim. Science is the tool of choice for investigating the prehistoric. Texts are by definition useless.

 

[Tomk80]

Since the conclusions of natural science are tentative, and since prehistory is inherently subjective, please allow me to believe that which the Church has already revealed.

That the conclusions are tentative, doesn't mean that we cannot put a level of certainty in those conclusions. Regarding the age of the earth and a number of prehistoric events, the evidence is strong enough to assign it a high level of certainty.

Which leads us to the second point, namely that prehistory is not subjective. Prehistory has objectively happened and left objective evidence. For a number of events the evidence is very good, so we can assign a high level of certainty to it so it becomes nearly certain, while others remain very uncertain due to lack of sufficient evidence. But certainty of the conclusion does not make something objective or subjective. Rather the nature of it. Subejctive is a term reserved for things like feelings and taste, that are different to all of us. The evidence for prehistory is not like that.

Lastly, I will be happy to let you have your beliefs, no matter how insane they seem to me. But you are here on a discussion forum. This means your posts will be discussed. To post something on a discussion forum and then not want to discuss it, is another form of insanity (or perhaps here intellectual self-mutulation would be a better description).

 

[Loudmouth]

Since the conclusions of natural science are tentative, and since prehistory is inherently subjective, please allow me to believe that which the Church has already revealed.

Bad things happen when dogmatism is preferred over tentativity.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

As we've already seen, that is a false claim. Science is the tool of choice for investigating the prehistoric. Texts are by definition useless.

As you should already know, since no humans were present to witness the events themselves, all we can do is piece together the remnants of what occurred, using our presuppositions to interpret them. Your presuppositions in understanding prehistory aren't any more or less valid than my own.

Worldview shapes one's conclusions about creation, Kurt Wise writes
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=15405

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Bad things happen when dogmatism is preferred over tentativity.

That is totally true concerning things that we are able to observe. That which occurred about 10,000 years ago (from a creation perspective), or that which occurred 10 billion years ago (from a natural science perspective) is beyond human observation.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...Our Lord stated that unless you believe Moses, you will not believe in Him. ...snip....

First question.
Where is this stated (Chapter & Verse) ?

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Lastly, I will be happy to let you have your beliefs, no matter how insane they seem to me. But you are here on a discussion forum. This means your posts will be discussed. To post something on a discussion forum and then not want to discuss it, is another form of insanity (or perhaps here intellectual self-mutulation would be a better description).

Whether you evaluate the remnants of prehistory from a Biblical perspective or whether you evaluate it from a naturalistic perspective is a matter of God's revelation to the human heart. You are not any better or worse of a person or thinker for thinking differently from me.
May God have mercy upon us.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is totally true concerning things that we are able to observe.

We can observe life's history in the fossil record and in the DNA of living species.

That which occurred about 10,000 years ago (from a creation perspective), or that which occurred 10 billion years ago (from a natural science perspective) is beyond human observation.

The creationist perpsecitive is wrong. When you look at the star lit night sky you are directly observing the past. When you look at a fossil you are directly observing the past. When you look at DNA you are looking at a family record that spans millions of years.

 

[Naraoia]

That is totally true concerning things that we are able to observe. That which occurred about 10,000 years ago (from a creation perspective), or that which occurred 10 billion years ago (from a natural science perspective) is beyond human observation.

If I see a series of footprints on a sandy beach, can I conclude that someone has walked there, or do I have to observe the someone in the process of leaving the footprints?

 

[PeterMaclellan]

This is the last thread that I want to start for Great Lent. I believe that our understanding of Genesis is the bedrock for our understanding of the faith. Our Lord stated that unless you believe Moses, you will not believe in Him.

And it's not possible at all that you can believe something without taking it literally? If I do not believe that the parables Jesus taught literally happened, does that make them devoid of their moral lessons? Perhaps the writer of genesis did not know the exact processes by which God created the universe (how could he have?) and instead created a nice story that is meant to show that: God is omnipotent, God is loving, We seperated ourselves from God on our own accord etc... that wasn't necessary literally true? Just because something isn't literally true doesn't mean it's also false. Truth can be found in metaphor as well.

I want you to please consider the implications of compromising your faith to appease secular science.

There is no such thing as "secular" science. Science is Science regardless of the beliefs of those doing it. Science is not a thing that is right or wrong, science is a process, a set of logical rules through which one can deduce things about the natural world.

One must understand that natural science and Orthodox theology follow two radically different epistemologies. Theology seeks to understand that which has been revealed in the Scripture. Natural science seeks to find natural explanations for what we observe in the natural world.

You hit the nail on the head. Orthodox Theology makes the unprovable assumption that what is written in scripture is true, and goes from there, Science makes no assumption, and instead uses observable reality to build up our knowledge base. You can believe Orthodox Theology all you want, that doesn't change reality.

Science and Religion: Non-Overlapping Magisteria
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

As the holy fathers have taught us, we should appreciate science when it benefits mankind, but whenever science reaches conclusions which contradict what the Church has already revealed, we are not to follow it.

Your holy fathers have deluded you for their own benefit and to line their pockets with money they have bilked from you. It's really that simple. You have been taught to believe what you are told, likely from a very young age and have developed an emotional dependency on that belief to the point that YOU ARE WILLING TO IGNORE REALITY in order to maintain it. You have been brainwashed.

Genesis and Early Man

The Orthodox Patristic Understanding http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx



Since the scientific method is limited to what we are able to observe in the present, Darwin's theory is not even good science. It is speculation of prehistory, contradicting what Christ has already revealed to us.

What you assume Christ has already revealed to you. Lets get one thing straight, you don't know that anything in the bible is true. You believe it is on faith, but you don't know. You couldn't possibly KNOW anything about the origins of the bible for the same reason we'll probably never KNOW the origins of the universe. However, what science allows us to do is to create theories to explain how something MIGHT have happened or how something is LIKELY to have happened. We do this by looking at the evidence, formulating hypotheses about how this evidence came to be, and then using those hypotheses to make predictions about future behavior and discoveries. If the predictions come true, we have a theory like evolution which is still tentative but simply supported by the evidence we have.

Orthodox Theology allows for none of that, it demands that you believe unprovable or supportable claims and inevitably devolves into people bickering about which SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION of the scripture really means and everyone being convinced that their way is the only right ways. It's delusional to the point of insanity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

Here are some important questions every Orthodox Christian should ask:

If we are the descendants of pre-human forms, did H. erectus and H. Neandertal have souls?

If humanity in it's current for does have a soul, why does it matter what our precursors had? H. erectus and Neandertal man are not H. Sapien. Why would it be so damaging to your faith to believe that God is capable of using or directing the natural forces he supposedly created to his own will, then imbued his creation with a soul?

Is the soul something which evolved over time?

In my experience with this debate, the soul is something endowed to man by God, evolution does not way in on the subject of a soul, so I don't see how the theory of evolution would contradict this belief.

Is there anything inherent to the purported fossil ancestors themselves which would suggest that they were not fully ape or fully human?

Yes, H. erectus is a perfect example of a transitional fossil between our ape like anscestors and anatomically modern humans.

[SIZE=-1]

Reflections on Human Origins[/SIZE]
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.06.Human_Origins.pdf

If we are evolved apes, is it an ape that died on the cross?

If a man named Jesus was crucified 2000 years ago then he would have definately been a Homo Sapien, homo sapiens have been around for tens of thousands of years.

Why do we believe that Christ died to save us from death if death entered the world before the sin of Adam?

I was always under the impression that Christ died to save you from a spiritual death rather then a physical death. If Christ died to save you from literal death, why do ALL Christians still die? If you believe Christ died to save you from literal biological death, then you are clearly wrong because guess what, EVERYONE STILL DIES.

[quote[If Christ's death was to save our souls and our bodies, when did our bodies become corrupt under an evolutionary perspective? [/quote]

Again, what makes you think Christ's death was to save your bodies?

An Interview with Father Damascene on Evolution
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/060222155510

Why do you believe natural science's explanations of prehistory, when prehistory is beyond the realm of science? Please do not accuse me of being an ignorant man for understanding that science cannot reach beyond science to discredit Orthodox Tradition.

Prehistory isn't beyond the realm of science any more then what happened in a crime scene is beyond the realm of forensic science to deduce. We can't know for certain whats happened, but we can make theories that produce explanations, then test them against reality to see if they hold up, and modify them to fit the new evidence when they fail. Orthodox Theology is wrong, and is going to stay wrong forever, because there is no room for improvement.

May God have mercy upon us.[/quote]


May you free yourself from your delusional crutch and realize that you can accept reality for what it is without giving up on the faith you cherish so much, it will merely require a bit of growth on your part.

 

[Loudmouth]

As you should already know, since no humans were present to witness the events themselves, all we can do is piece together the remnants of what occurred, using our presuppositions to interpret them. Your presuppositions in understanding prehistory aren't any more or less valid than my own.

What are our presuppositions, compared to well supported and well evidence assumptions.

Worldview shapes one's conclusions about creation, Kurt Wise writes
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=15405

Read my signature.

 

[flatworm]

Since the conclusions of natural science are tentative,

Whereas the conclusions of religion are wholly invented...

and since prehistory is inherently subjective,

How is it subjective? Are the fossils there or are they not? Do the genes match up or do they not? Do the radiometric dates agree or do they not?

please allow me to believe that which the Church has already revealed.

Claimed, not revealed.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

First question.
Where is this stated (Chapter & Verse) ?

"For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me." - John 5:46

"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day." - Exodus 20:11

Do you believe that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, before He became incarnate? If so, do you believe that which Moses has written about Him?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've always found it strangely amusing when christians use the Atheist Gambit.

 

[flatworm]

As you should already know, since no humans were present to witness the events themselves, all we can do is piece together the remnants of what occurred, using our presuppositions to interpret them. Your presuppositions in understanding prehistory aren't any more or less valid than my own.

Actually, they are, since you too agree with my presuppostions. That is because my presuppositions are exactly the same as those that allow me to swing my feet over the side of the bed in the morning, confident that a solid surface under my feet will prevent my falling. They are the same suppositions you put into effect when you open your front door, unafraid that today it might open onto the inhospitable surface of Mars. The presupposition is simply that our senses reveal something about objective reality.

The only difference is that you choose to ignore your own tacit assumptions whenever it suits you to defend your beliefs. This is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

We can observe life's history in the fossil record and in the DNA of living species.



The creationist perpsecitive is wrong. When you look at the star lit night sky you are directly observing the past. When you look at a fossil you are directly observing the past. When you look at DNA you are looking at a family record that spans millions of years.

My friend, I don't need to debate with you. I have great respect for science, except when its conclusions contradict that which Christ has already revealed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM

May God have mercy upon us.

 

[Washington]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-HiHNhKuJM


Good grief, its Sarfati hisself. The Australian ego speaks.

I want you to please consider the implications of compromising your faith to appease secular science.

Believe me, secular science is not looking to be appeased by anyone's compromised faith.

Since the scientific method is limited to what we are able to observe in the present, Darwin's theory is not even good science. It is speculation of prehistory, contradicting what Christ has already revealed to us.

I suggest you inform yourself about the methods of science It isn't all bound up in the "scientific method." Obviously you're in no position to judge what is and is not good science, although your hubris is amusing. And just what is it that contradicts what Christ has "revealed"?

Here are some important questions every Orthodox Christian should ask:
If we are the descendants of pre-human forms, did H. erectus and H. Neandertal have souls?

And why would this be an important question to the Orthodox Christian?


Ya know, I think I'll stop right here. Reading on I see this is a lost cause.