Theistic Evolution ~ is it compatible with orthodox teaching & doctrine? .

[ArmyMatt]

Saints are not scientists, and neither are infallible. That is all...

as individuals? no they are not. however, the Church has always derived her dogma through the consensus from the beginning. that is how the Holy Spirit works. and that consensus from the beginning points to a young earth, that was a paradise, and then fell. the saints after Darwin who are eductated very well still reject evolution.

 

[jckstraw72]

and once again, the age of the earth is really not the important issue here. the main issue is DEATH which obviously has scientific and, more importantly, theological importance. in my experience, TE's almost always sidestep this issue and continue to refer to the age of the earth, but the most important issue is DEATH! who's to blame for it?

 

[Macarius]

and once again, the age of the earth is really not the important issue here. the main issue is DEATH which obviously has scientific and, more importantly, theological importance. in my experience, TE's almost always sidestep this issue and continue to refer to the age of the earth, but the most important issue is DEATH! who's to blame for it?

And also how we understand what death means. Animal death and plant death seem different from human death (that is, given that humans have a rational soul and the imago-dei, their death is significantly different from animal or plant death). Plant death, obviously, was ok in the garden since humans were commanded to eat of the trees. Unless they ONLY ate like today's Jainists, that means they were involved in KILLING something very much alive.

What differentiates animal from plant death? Does a fish have a rational soul? Of course not.

I think the "rub," so to speak, is whether there was human death before the fall. I've understood this two ways: St. Athanasius (as you've heard me say before) pointed out that human death (as an animal) was a natural thing (for animals) prevented by our unity to God. Second, the first humans in a TE sense wouldn't be the first primates to have a homosapien's DNA. Rather, they would be the first two into whom God breathed a rational soul and a "nous." These would be the first two for whom death of the animal sort was wholly un-natural (that is, no longer an intended part of their nature).

And again - what is death? Separation from God. Can an animal die that second death? No - an animal has no spirit. It's theologically a non issue on the same level that a star going super-nova is a non issue even though it "kills" the star or the idea of humans eating plants (which is death) in the garden is a non issue.

Why? Those are not the true sort of death, the real evil. Those deaths are just the passage of time in a world full of change. I know of no saint who says the garden wasn't subject to change or that humans didn't kill anything when eating in the garden (plants are alive too).

Endings of the merely physical sort had to have occured prior to the fall in EITHER scheme. The question is "What is REAL death?" The evil sort - the kind condemned - the kind Christ came to conquer. That's the sort of death we are theologically concerned with. That death is ENTIRELY the result of the fall even in a TE understanding.

My two cents...
Macarius

 

[jckstraw72]

And also how we understand what death means. Animal death and plant death seem different from human death (that is, given that humans have a rational soul and the imago-dei, their death is significantly different from animal or plant death). Plant death, obviously, was ok in the garden since humans were commanded to eat of the trees. Unless they ONLY ate like today's Jainists, that means they were involved in KILLING something very much alive.

What differentiates animal from plant death? Does a fish have a rational soul? Of course not.

I think the "rub," so to speak, is whether there was human death before the fall. I've understood this two ways: St. Athanasius (as you've heard me say before) pointed out that human death (as an animal) was a natural thing (for animals) prevented by our unity to God. Second, the first humans in a TE sense wouldn't be the first primates to have a homosapien's DNA. Rather, they would be the first two into whom God breathed a rational soul and a "nous." These would be the first two for whom death of the animal sort was wholly un-natural (that is, no longer an intended part of their nature).

And again - what is death? Separation from God. Can an animal die that second death? No - an animal has no spirit. It's theologically a non issue on the same level that a star going super-nova is a non issue even though it "kills" the star or the idea of humans eating plants (which is death) in the garden is a non issue.

Why? Those are not the true sort of death, the real evil. Those deaths are just the passage of time in a world full of change. I know of no saint who says the garden wasn't subject to change or that humans didn't kill anything when eating in the garden (plants are alive too).

Endings of the merely physical sort had to have occured prior to the fall in EITHER scheme. The question is "What is REAL death?" The evil sort - the kind condemned - the kind Christ came to conquer. That's the sort of death we are theologically concerned with. That death is ENTIRELY the result of the fall even in a TE understanding.

My two cents...
Macarius

of course animal and plant death are different than human death, but that doesnt mean they aren't an important issue. the Fathers are clear that the entire creation was created incorrupt, including plants and animals. the Wisdom of Solomon also states that God does not desire the death of any thing living, not just humans. creation was given to man as his kingdom, and thus as man was incorrupt so was his kingdom, and when man became corrupt so did his kingdom. Christ did not come to restore only mankind - our fall, and Christ's restoration are understood to have a cosmic nature. St. Paul tells us that creation was subjected to vanity by man's sin and it awaits its redemption at the revealing of the Saints - so creation is clearly not in its intended state. this is also seen when we are told of the coming new heaven and new earth in which the lion lays down with the lamb. if animals are meant to suffer and die and be at animosity with one another then it makes no sense for there to be a coming age when that is done away with. God IS life, He desires no death, and He takes on human death to transfigure it and recall all of creation.

also, we cannot assume that man's eating of plants involved the death of the plant. that is what we know from our fallen world, we can't assume Paradise worked the same way. thats how huge the fall was - everything about the pre-fallen world blows our minds!

 

[jckstraw72]

also, i really just cant understand the desire to harmonize our faith with the theory of evolution. people say our faith isnt in contradiction to science, but I don't think any of us actually believes that. the Red Sea parted for the Jews and drowned the Egyptians, Jonah survived in the belly of a whale, Elijah and Elisha breathed life back into dead children, Elisha's bones brought a man back to life, Christ healed blindness with mud, His robe healed an issue of blood, He raised Lazarus from the dead after 4 days, He rose from the dead after 3 days! Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchiefs healed people, etc etc etc --- NONE of this makes any sense scientifically and yet we all believe it! we recognize that divine revelation is in fact above science!

 

[MKJ]

also, i really just cant understand the desire to harmonize our faith with the theory of evolution. people say our faith isnt in contradiction to science, but I don't think any of us actually believes that. the Red Sea parted for the Jews and drowned the Egyptians, Jonah survived in the belly of a whale, Elijah and Elisha breathed life back into dead children, Elisha's bones brought a man back to life, Christ healed blindness with mud, His robe healed an issue of blood, He raised Lazarus from the dead after 4 days, He rose from the dead after 3 days! Peter's shadow and Paul's handkerchiefs healed people, etc etc etc --- NONE of this makes any sense scientifically and yet we all believe it! we recognize that divine revelation is in fact above science!

Miracles aren't exactly contrary to science I don't think. In one sense it is true that they could never be accounted for by science. But if we think of science in the broader sense of being about the laws of nature, than miracles don't run contrary to that so much as they go above it - they are uber-scientific or super-scientific. That's why we say they are super-natural rather than un-natural.

But thinking of it this way assumes that science actually has some kind of validity. Otherwise we would simply regard every act as a miracle and not try to understand any of it, and if anyone ever managed to buiild an airplane none of us would get on it.

 

[jckstraw72]

Miracles aren't exactly contrary to science I don't think. In one sense it is true that they could never be accounted for by science. But if we think of science in the broader sense of being about the laws of nature, than miracles don't run contrary to that so much as they go above it - they are uber-scientific or super-scientific. That's why we say they are super-natural rather than un-natural.

But thinking of it this way assumes that science actually has some kind of validity. Otherwise we would simply regard every act as a miracle and not try to understand any of it, and if anyone ever managed to buiild an airplane none of us would get on it.

ok, i can accept your terminology of super-scientific - just not sure why Creation and Paradise can't fall into this category.

and of course science has validity! i wouldnt be wearing glasses and using a computer if it didnt!

 

[MKJ]

ok, i can accept your terminology of super-scientific - just not sure why Creation and Paradise can't fall into this category.

and of course science has validity! i wouldnt be wearing glasses and using a computer if it didnt!

I do think creation and Paradice fall into that. God creating everything out of nothing is pretty amazing, whether he does it instantaneously, over six days, or over millions of years.

I also think there is a lot we don't understand about it - the creation account, just looking at the text itself, seems to tell us very little. There are strange things going on in that story - the world seems entirely different, even space and time seem somehow different. Some parts strike me as pretty clearly pointing to something other than what is actually being said - the rib bone, God making us out of dust.

Some of the same reasons I am a Christian are the reasons I think science is generally reliable. I think the evidence is very good for evolution, many theories in geology and atrophysics. Evolution is in many ways a foundational theory, and the basis for a lot of other theories that work well. And I can't see rejecting, say, the chemistry of dating fossils while I accept the same chemistry for other things (just as an example).

And I guess, if I reject science, what does that say about those same principles that are pretty foundational to my religious belief? Are they just wrong?

So to me, the creation account is mysterious enough that it doesn't preclude evolution. The pre-evolution theory Fathers allow for an allegorical reading, and I don't look to them for an opinion on evolution. Theologians from after that - so far, I think it is too soon to say much, really. To say things that are definitive I mean.

Anyway, baby's up so I have to go.

 

[Photini]

And also how we understand what death means. Animal death and plant death seem different from human death (that is, given that humans have a rational soul and the imago-dei, their death is significantly different from animal or plant death). Plant death, obviously, was ok in the garden since humans were commanded to eat of the trees. Unless they ONLY ate like today's Jainists, that means they were involved in KILLING something very much alive.

What differentiates animal from plant death? Does a fish have a rational soul? Of course not.

I think the "rub," so to speak, is whether there was human death before the fall. I've understood this two ways: St. Athanasius (as you've heard me say before) pointed out that human death (as an animal) was a natural thing (for animals) prevented by our unity to God. Second, the first humans in a TE sense wouldn't be the first primates to have a homosapien's DNA. Rather, they would be the first two into whom God breathed a rational soul and a "nous." These would be the first two for whom death of the animal sort was wholly un-natural (that is, no longer an intended part of their nature).

And again - what is death? Separation from God. Can an animal die that second death? No - an animal has no spirit. It's theologically a non issue on the same level that a star going super-nova is a non issue even though it "kills" the star or the idea of humans eating plants (which is death) in the garden is a non issue.

Why? Those are not the true sort of death, the real evil. Those deaths are just the passage of time in a world full of change. I know of no saint who says the garden wasn't subject to change or that humans didn't kill anything when eating in the garden (plants are alive too).

Endings of the merely physical sort had to have occured prior to the fall in EITHER scheme. The question is "What is REAL death?" The evil sort - the kind condemned - the kind Christ came to conquer. That's the sort of death we are theologically concerned with. That death is ENTIRELY the result of the fall even in a TE understanding.

My two cents...
Macarius

Thanks Macarius!! A very good post, and I think, very good points.

 

[Photini]

So to me, the creation account is mysterious enough that it doesn't preclude evolution. The pre-evolution theory Fathers allow for an allegorical reading, and I don't look to them for an opinion on evolution. Theologians from after that - so far, I think it is too soon to say much, really. To say things that are definitive I mean.

Anyway, baby's up so I have to go.

You put my thoughts into words for me.

 

[Photini]

here's a pretty good compilation dealing with animal death before the fall, see post 50

Animal death before the fall?

Thanks. I've actually been reading through the threads over there, and am finding some good information. It is good to see some of the differences of opinion.

 

[Photini]

Christ did not come to restore only mankind - our fall, and Christ's restoration are understood to have a cosmic nature. St. Paul tells us that creation was subjected to vanity by man's sin and it awaits its redemption at the revealing of the Saints - so creation is clearly not in its intended state.

I've seen quotes from the Father's saying this, but I've also read that animals do not have eternal souls. If animals were created to be temporal from the beginning, what part do they play in eternity? If animals don't have immortal souls, then why weren't they dying (some sort of death...) in Eden?

 

[jckstraw72]

I've seen quotes from the Father's saying this, but I've also read that animals do not have eternal souls. If animals were created to be temporal from the beginning, what part do they play in eternity? If animals don't have immortal souls, then why weren't they dying (some sort of death...) in Eden?

well animals dont have souls in the sense of being able to commune with God, but they have a spirit in the sense of a life-force, and i've never seen anything that would suggest that their life-force is naturally (pre-fallen nature) mortal.

 

[MKJ]

well animals dont have souls in the sense of being able to commune with God, but they have a spirit in the sense of a life-force, and i've never seen anything that would suggest that their life-force is naturally (pre-fallen nature) mortal.

I'm not sure about this in either direction. I've often wondered how this would work in Paradise or in the New Creation, and I can think of reasons to say yes or no. I think though it is the same answer whether we are speaking about animal death, plant death, and any kind of decay. I also tend to think that it may relate to whether things can change in those places. I haven't read anything that really addresses the question in anything like a satisfying way.

 

[jckstraw72]

I do think creation and Paradice fall into that. God creating everything out of nothing is pretty amazing, whether he does it instantaneously, over six days, or over millions of years.

I also think there is a lot we don't understand about it - the creation account, just looking at the text itself, seems to tell us very little. There are strange things going on in that story - the world seems entirely different, even space and time seem somehow different. Some parts strike me as pretty clearly pointing to something other than what is actually being said - the rib bone, God making us out of dust.

i agree - there is some strange stuff going on there and its hard for us to get any kind of handle on it - i think thats exactly why we need to look to the Church Fathers to understand. many Fathers even tell us that we cannot come to understand this with secular knowledge - only through the Church. As for the dust and rib, the Fathers interpret this literally. It is only man that God personally makes - the rest is spoken into creation. This shows man's absolute uniqueness and superiority within creation, and Eve is literally taken from Adam to teach us the equality of man and woman.

Some of the same reasons I am a Christian are the reasons I think science is generally reliable. I think the evidence is very good for evolution, many theories in geology and atrophysics. Evolution is in many ways a foundational theory, and the basis for a lot of other theories that work well. And I can't see rejecting, say, the chemistry of dating fossils while I accept the same chemistry for other things (just as an example).

well scientists could understand biology and chemistry better for today's world, ie. finding better medicines and such, without ever trying to piece together the past based on their observations of the present. such speculative work has no bearing on making observations of today's world.

And I guess, if I reject science, what does that say about those same principles that are pretty foundational to my religious belief? Are they just wrong?

not sure what you're getting at here -- what principles are you speaking of?

So to me, the creation account is mysterious enough that it doesn't preclude evolution. The pre-evolution theory Fathers allow for an allegorical reading, and I don't look to them for an opinion on evolution. Theologians from after that - so far, I think it is too soon to say much, really. To say things that are definitive I mean.

Anyway, baby's up so I have to go.

you're correct, the Fathers certainly allowed for an allegorical interpretation, but they nowhere allow for a denial of the literal interpretation from what I have read. allegorical and literal are not mutually exclusive. and many Saints and holy elders since Darwin have been quite forcefully anti-evolution: St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, Fr. George Calciu, St. John of Kronstadt, Fr. Seraphim, etc.

 

[Macarius]

I've seen quotes from the Father's saying this, but I've also read that animals do not have eternal souls. If animals were created to be temporal from the beginning, what part do they play in eternity? If animals don't have immortal souls, then why weren't they dying (some sort of death...) in Eden?

I've understood the salvation of the material world around us (which would include animals) to be contingent on the restoration of humanity to its role as priest. Because we are able to bridge the spiritual and physical, we, through Christ (the high priest who is the ultimate bridge of spiritual and physical), submit creation to God. This is the original purpose of creation, which was impossible for it once we fell, and to which it is restored (most notably, in this lifetime, in the Eucharist).

It doesn't include a restoration of animal immortality. I'm not convinced that animal immortality was a reality prior to the fall.

And I'm sorry, but eating something implies digesting it implies killing it. Plant death happened prior to the fall.

Or at the least, you can't say I'm betraying the faith of the Church to believe that plant or animal death occured prior to the fall. I would expect that carnivors were still carnivors, and that herbavores were still herbavores.

Unless you think that God just did a "whammy" on all the fossil evidence (which indicates animals WAY before humans consuming OTHER animals) in order to "trick" us into thinking that animals died before the fall...

This is one of the arguments in favor of creationism that bothers me a bit. To get around the evidence acrued by science we have to propose that God somehow "tricked" us.

This isn't even controversial science. We're talking about animals with incredibly SHARP teeth who have the bones of other animals where their stomachs (concievably) would have been.

I just don't see how we can propose that animal death didn't occur before humans fell.

Nor do I think that we NEED to. I think human death (spiritual death) is the issue. The salvation of creation through Christ has, to me, more to do with our role as priest than a literal immortality of animals and plants.

Incidently, I'm not proposing that evolution is 100% correct. In the short term, natural selection is simple logic and testable in a lab. That's easy enough to 'prove.' But on a macro level I'm only concerned that TE is considered compatible with our understanding. That is to say, there is room in the Church for TE and for Old Earth Creationism and for Young Earth Creationism.

To me, the critical issues of Genesis one are this: God created. God created intentionally (unlike the Babylonian gods), and God created GOOD (unlike the Bablyonian gods).

I don't see TE compromising any of those.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[jckstraw72]

I've understood the salvation of the material world around us (which would include animals) to be contingent on the restoration of humanity to its role as priest. Because we are able to bridge the spiritual and physical, we, through Christ (the high priest who is the ultimate bridge of spiritual and physical), submit creation to God. This is the original purpose of creation, which was impossible for it once we fell, and to which it is restored (most notably, in this lifetime, in the Eucharist).

It doesn't include a restoration of animal immortality. I'm not convinced that animal immortality was a reality prior to the fall.

And I'm sorry, but eating something implies digesting it implies killing it. Plant death happened prior to the fall.

Or at the least, you can't say I'm betraying the faith of the Church to believe that plant or animal death occured prior to the fall. I would expect that carnivors were still carnivors, and that herbavores were still herbavores.

Unless you think that God just did a "whammy" on all the fossil evidence (which indicates animals WAY before humans consuming OTHER animals) in order to "trick" us into thinking that animals died before the fall...

This is one of the arguments in favor of creationism that bothers me a bit. To get around the evidence acrued by science we have to propose that God somehow "tricked" us.

This isn't even controversial science. We're talking about animals with incredibly SHARP teeth who have the bones of other animals where their stomachs (concievably) would have been.

I just don't see how we can propose that animal death didn't occur before humans fell.

Nor do I think that we NEED to. I think human death (spiritual death) is the issue. The salvation of creation through Christ has, to me, more to do with our role as priest than a literal immortality of animals and plants.

Incidently, I'm not proposing that evolution is 100% correct. In the short term, natural selection is simple logic and testable in a lab. That's easy enough to 'prove.' But on a macro level I'm only concerned that TE is considered compatible with our understanding. That is to say, there is room in the Church for TE and for Old Earth Creationism and for Young Earth Creationism.

To me, the critical issues of Genesis one are this: God created. God created intentionally (unlike the Babylonian gods), and God created GOOD (unlike the Bablyonian gods).

I don't see TE compromising any of those.

In Christ,
Macarius

God didnt trick us because He gave us the Scriptures and the Church to reveal the truth about Paradise. Evolutionists trick themselves by ignoring the revealed truth and assuming the present is the key to the past. Any fossil you find is obviously from a time when death reigned, so that tells you that carnivorous animals were carnivorous -- when they died. it doesnt tell you anything about the pre-fallen world.

the Fathers are clear that all of creation was created incorrupt. we cant assume that the rules of the fallen world reigned in the pre-fallen world, we simply can't. our world is characterized by death, the pre-fallen world is characterized by life - death is not the key to life. only life (God) can open our eyes to the world in which life reigned.

here is a compilation of Patristic quotes about the original state of the creation, just read a few, or all of them if you want.

the entire creation was created incorrupt « Old Believing’s Blog

 

[MKJ]

i agree - there is some strange stuff going on there and its hard for us to get any kind of handle on it - i think thats exactly why we need to look to the Church Fathers to understand. many Fathers even tell us that we cannot come to understand this with secular knowledge - only through the Church. As for the dust and rib, the Fathers interpret this literally. It is only man that God personally makes - the rest is spoken into creation. This shows man's absolute uniqueness and superiority within creation, and Eve is literally taken from Adam to teach us the equality of man and woman.

I suppose that while I think the Father's can tell us a lot about the spiritual meaning of this, I'm not sure that anyone really has access to the information needed to "explain" it, including those who first told the story or wrote it down. I actually don't know that your explanations of the dust and rib (which are about what I think in any case) are literal explanation. They strike me as spiritual, primarily.

well scientists could understand biology and chemistry better for today's world, ie. finding better medicines and such, without ever trying to piece together the past based on their observations of the present. such speculative work has no bearing on making observations of today's world.

THings like carbon dating of fossils are based on physics and chemistry. Saying we have these things wildly incorrect is saying that our understanding of chemistry and physics are flawed at a basic level - such a basic level that it would mean that all the rest of the things we do in those sciences are compromised. If you reject radioactive dating, why would you accept the use of radioactive substances for treating disease? Wouldn't you worry that they had made some sort of huge miscalculation and you'd just end up dead of radiation poinsoning? The only other possibility I can see is, as Marcarius says, for some reason things were set up to be tricky. If God did that, then I suppose we could expect that he would be successful.

not sure what you're getting at here -- what principles are you speaking of?

At the most basic, I suppose the law of non-contradiction and the possibility of real human knowledge.

you're correct, the Fathers certainly allowed for an allegorical interpretation, but they nowhere allow for a denial of the literal interpretation from what I have read. allegorical and literal are not mutually exclusive. and many Saints and holy elders since Darwin have been quite forcefully anti-evolution: St. Nektarios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, Fr. George Calciu, St. John of Kronstadt, Fr. Seraphim, etc.

I think a number of them say that creation happened in an instant, rather than in six days, which is a rejection of a literal interpretation. Augustine does for sure, and I think a few others were actually quoted in this thread. If I recall, some pre-Christian Jewish commentators said the same thing.

 

[jckstraw72]

Vladimir Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, pg. 104-105

[FONT=&quot]Having no philosophical references, the Church always freely makes use of philosophy and the sciences for apologetic purposes, but she never has any cause to defend these relative and changing truths as she defends the unchangeable truth of her doctrines. This is why ancient or more modern cosmological theories cannot affect in any way the more fundamental truth which is revealed to the Church: “the truth of Holy Scripture is far deeper than the limits of our understanding,” as Philaret of Moscow says [Sermons and Discourses, Moscow, 1877]. In the face of the vision of the universe which the human race has gained since the period of the renaissance, in which the earth is represented as an atom lost in infinite space amid innumerable other worlds, there is no need for theology to change anything whatever in the narrative of Genesis . . [/FONT]

 

[ArmyMatt]

And I'm sorry, but eating something implies digesting it implies killing it. Plant death happened prior to the fall.

not necessarily, if Adam and Eve had glorified bodies that would not have nutritional needs from food, then the plants that were eaten would not have been turned to nutrients and waste. so it did not necessarily involve their death.

Nor do I think that we NEED to. I think human death (spiritual death) is the issue. The salvation of creation through Christ has, to me, more to do with our role as priest than a literal immortality of animals and plants.

my problem here is that why is the Earth, the physical Earth, refashioned into a paradise when Christ returns. is that not also part of the restoration? that it is culminated when Christ returns. why is there a physical Resurrection? why do we say that when man fell, Creation fell with him? if the created world aside from man was created to die, then it should always die because that's what God created it to do? why does He perfect something that He initially created to die?

Unless you think that God just did a "whammy" on all the fossil evidence (which indicates animals WAY before humans consuming OTHER animals) in order to "trick" us into thinking that animals died before the fall...

or humans could be looking at the fossil evidence wrong.

these are just some reasons that I personally believe that all of Creation was incorrupt in the beginning, and that death did not occur anywhere before the Fall.