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

[Photini]

Here is a rather lengthy article written about the accuracy of radiometric dating that I found helpful. It was written by a Christian with a PhD in Physics and a minor in Geology. He addresses some common arguments against radiometric dating in it.

And here is an article responding to Fr Seraphim (Rose)'s book. I personally have not read that book, so I can't really say whether his criticisms of Fr Seraphim's opinions are valid, but he does raise some interesting questions. I am not sure if anyone has written a response to this critique or not.

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).

Macarius, it seems like I am on the same page as you. I would be interested to see something that explains to me the theological problem with animal death and why I should be concerned about millions of years of animal death before humans showed up on the scene, because at this point I am convinced it is fact. I am obviously not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but I think you hit upon a good point when you asked "What is the real death?"

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would be interested to see something that explains to me the theological problem with animal death

I think our problem is that if physical death happened before the Fall, even for animals, then God is the author of some kind of death, because death had to occur somehow, so it was either created by God, or all death was introduced when man fell.

 

[MKJ]

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]

I am not sure if you are posting this as supporting the possibility of evolution, or disallowing it? I'm reading it as allowing for it, but I don't know the larger context.

 

[jckstraw72]

I am not sure if you are posting this as supporting the possibility of evolution, or disallowing it? I'm reading it as allowing for it, but I don't know the larger context.

i was posting it because he says that the Church has no necessity to support the current scientific trends. we have our doctrine and we stick to it.

 

[MKJ]

I think our problem is that if physical death happened before the Fall, even for animals, then God is the author of some kind of death, because death had to occur somehow, so it was either created by God, or all death was introduced when man fell.

What is animal death though? If the soul of an animal is totally tied up in its body, and the animal dies, then the body decays and the soul sort of dissipates into it's constituent parts. But those parts, the molecules and atoms, are still real and can even go on to be combined into a new creature. So what has really been lost?

It's different with a human soul, with is truly individual, and is meant to be immortal. If it dies, something is lost, because that person will never exist again, and further, it is truly unnatural.

Also, with regard to the other post - do we know that there will be no plant and animal death after Christ's return?

I also still can't see plants being alive after being eaten - even if they are not digested. Also, what would be the point? I think a more likely possibility would be that we would not eat, or even better, we would only eat things like fruit which do not harm the plant. (Though, would we say the fruit dies, since it was alive, and after it is away from the tree it rots? Maybe there will be no rotting fruit in paradise?)

But this is a bit academic for me, since I tend to the Fall happened in a timeless Garden, and history began after that.

 

[jckstraw72]

Here is a rather lengthy article written about the accuracy of radiometric dating that I found helpful. It was written by a Christian with a PhD in Physics and a minor in Geology. He addresses some common arguments against radiometric dating in it.

And here is an article responding to Fr Seraphim (Rose)'s book. I personally have not read that book, so I can't really say whether his criticisms of Fr Seraphim's opinions are valid, but he does raise some interesting questions. I am not sure if anyone has written a response to this critique or not.



Macarius, it seems like I am on the same page as you. I would be interested to see something that explains to me the theological problem with animal death and why I should be concerned about millions of years of animal death before humans showed up on the scene, because at this point I am convinced it is fact. I am obviously not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but I think you hit upon a good point when you asked "What is the real death?"

you are in luck! someone has indeed posted a critique of Theokritoff''s review: Genesis, Creation, and Early Man « Old Believing’s Blog

i think the theological problem with animal death is tied up in what is man and his role in creation. the Fathers teach that man is the pinnacle and king of creation, and that the rest of creation exists as his kingdom - and thus its fate is tied to man's fate. God gave incorrupt man an incorrupt kingdom. why would God surround sinless man with death and suffering?! in the restored heaven and earth every tear will be wiped away, and the Fathers tell us that the end is a restoration of the beginning - in the beginning, before sin, man knew only joy as He communed with God. in this pre-fallen world, the death of the animals that man is called to care for would be antithetical. animals exist for man, and so their existence for millions or billions of years before man would be wholly pointless. so basically, saying that animals died long before man ever hit the scene really denies man's unique role as the king and steward of all creation.

and do you cry when a pet dies? if animal death is part of God's good plan should you really be sad about it?

 

[Photini]

I think our problem is that if physical death happened before the Fall, even for animals, then God is the author of some kind of death, because death had to occur somehow, so it was either created by God, or all death was introduced when man fell.

The only way I see around it though, is that God should have created all things immortal (which he obviously did not, since everything dies). I also don't see why it would be a problem, since an animal killing another animal for food isn't sinful...not that an animal can sin anyway. Humans though...kill in excess and for sport. And the earth suffers for it.

 

[jckstraw72]

well the fact that things die now doesnt prove that God didnt intend them for immortality -- thats the result of the fall

 

[Photini]

you are in luck! someone has indeed posted a critique of Theokritoff''s review: Genesis, Creation, and Early Man « Old Believing’s Blog


and do you cry when a pet dies? if animal death is part of God's good plan should you really be sad about it?

Thanks for the link. And your comment about pets made me remember St Siluoan the Athonite, who said it's unnatural for people to have animals as friends and hug on them in the first place.

And someone said earlier that plenty of people get enjoyment from studying dinosaur bones and other fossils, even make it their profession in life. Even kids love dinosaurs. Hardly pointless if you ask me.

 

[Photini]

you are in luck! someone has indeed posted a critique of Theokritoff''s review: Genesis, Creation, and Early Man « Old Believing’s Blog

Ok, I read through it, but I really wish this person had just taken the time to write up a formal response instead of posting it in the style of a forum quote-and-respond type thing. He has good points.

 

[MKJ]

Here is a rather lengthy article written about the accuracy of radiometric dating that I found helpful. It was written by a Christian with a PhD in Physics and a minor in Geology. He addresses some common arguments against radiometric dating in it.

And here is an article responding to Fr Seraphim (Rose)'s book. I personally have not read that book, so I can't really say whether his criticisms of Fr Seraphim's opinions are valid, but he does raise some interesting questions. I am not sure if anyone has written a response to this critique or not.

That was an interesting article. I found this particularly interesting:

"Some Christians, who recognize the weight of scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution, have pointed to the understanding in some of the Fathers of instantaneous creation of everything in potential in the beginning. This idea is found in St Ephrem (112-13), St Basil, St
Ambrose, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Augustine, and in St Bede. What follows the creation of these potentialities is not so much the addition of new things but rather a kind of separation by the creative Word of God of creatures from already created matter. It is a calling forth into being of
the potentialities that are already present."

I was also interested to see that it speaks somewhat to the question of what the Fathers said about animals and whether it was intended for them to die. It doesn't seem to be a monolithic opinion, unless he is misrepresenting Gregory and Athanasius.

 

[jckstraw72]

That was an interesting article. I found this particularly interesting:

"Some Christians, who recognize the weight of scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution, have pointed to the understanding in some of the Fathers of instantaneous creation of everything in potential in the beginning. This idea is found in St Ephrem (112-13), St Basil, St
Ambrose, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Augustine, and in St Bede. What follows the creation of these potentialities is not so much the addition of new things but rather a kind of separation by the creative Word of God of creatures from already created matter. It is a calling forth into being of
the potentialities that are already present."

I was also interested to see that it speaks somewhat to the question of what the Fathers said about animals and whether it was intended for them to die. It doesn't seem to be a monolithic opinion, unless he is misrepresenting Gregory and Athanasius.

the thing i dont understand about Theokritoff is that at the beginning of his reveiw he tells us that Fr. Seraphim is correct in his reading of the Fathers, and then he goes on to try to show why Fr. Seraphim is wrong ....

 

[MKJ]

the thing i dont understand about Theokritoff is that at the beginning of his reveiw he tells us that Fr. Seraphim is correct in his reading of the Fathers, and then he goes on to try to show why Fr. Seraphim is wrong ....

I think he may mean a few things. One is that while he may be correct in understanding what they intend to say, he is wrong in what he thinks the significance of that is to how Orthodoxy is to be understood. So St X might make a certain statement, and Father Seraphim might understand what St X meant. But that does not necessarily tell us how much authority we should give to that statement, or how we reconcile it to other statements by other Fathers, or whether we need to consider their assumptions about science to be important when applying what they say to questions of modern science.

So I think he is arguing partly with how the Fathers are to be understood as part of Tradition. What exactly does Tradition mean?

He also has a big problem with the material presented about science, which isn't really about the Fathers at all.
It may be he is also trying to be polite.

 

[Blackknight]

God gave us brains and to ignore the vast volumes of scientific knowledge we have is simply irresponsible. I love God but I also love science. Life as we know it would not exist without it.

 

[jckstraw72]

That was an interesting article. I found this particularly interesting:

"Some Christians, who recognize the weight of scientific evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution, have pointed to the understanding in some of the Fathers of instantaneous creation of everything in potential in the beginning. This idea is found in St Ephrem (112-13), St Basil, St
Ambrose, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Augustine, and in St Bede. What follows the creation of these potentialities is not so much the addition of new things but rather a kind of separation by the creative Word of God of creatures from already created matter. It is a calling forth into being of
the potentialities that are already present."

i think Theokritoff is wrong here. St. Basil says (Hexameron 8:1):

When He said: "Let it bring forth," (the earth) did not produce what was stored up in it, but He Who gave the command also bestowed upon it the power to bring forth. Neither did the earth, when it heard, "Let it bring forth vegetation and the fruit trees," produce plants which it had hidden in it; nor did it send up to the surface the palm or the oak or the cypress which had been hidden somewhere down below in its womb. On the contrary, it is the Divine Word that is the origin of all things made. "Let the earth bring forth"; not, let it put forth what it has, but, let it acquire what it doest not have, since God is enduing it with the power of active force.

I was also interested to see that it speaks somewhat to the question of what the Fathers said about animals and whether it was intended for them to die. It doesn't seem to be a monolithic opinion, unless he is misrepresenting Gregory and Athanasius.

im not sure about Gregory, but this is from St. Athanasius's On the Incarnation, Chapter 4, which is what Theokritoff was referring to:

Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as king. Romans 5:14 For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time. 5. For if, out of a former normal state of non-existence, they were called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Word, it followed naturally that when men were bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they derive their being from God who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being; in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and corruption. 6. For man is by nature mortal, inasmuch as he is made out of what is not; but by reason of his likeness to Him that is (and if he still preserved this likeness by keeping Him in his knowledge) he would stay his natural corruption, and remain incorrupt; as Wisdom Wisdom 6:18 says: The taking heed to His laws is the assurance of immortality; but being incorrupt, he would live henceforth as God, to which I suppose the divine Scripture refers, when it says: I have said you are gods, and you are all sons of the most Highest; but you die like men, and fall as one of the princes.

although he may speak of human nature in a different way, in the end, he affirms with all the other Fathers that God intended man for incorruption and immortality.

 

[jckstraw72]

God gave us brains and to ignore the vast volumes of scientific knowledge we have is simply irresponsible. I love God but I also love science. Life as we know it would not exist without it.

no one's asking you to ignore science, but perhaps to think more critically about it. believing that a certain theory is incorrect is not tantamount to ignoring science. St. Theophan the Recluse says: [FONT=&quot]"The positive teaching of the Church serves to know whether a concept is from the Truth. This is a litmus test for all teachings. Whatever agrees with it, you should accept it, whatever does not- - reject. One can do it without further deliberations" [1]. "Science goes forward fast, let it do so. But if they infer something inconsistent with the Divine Revelation, they are definitely off the right path in life, do not follow them" [2]. "Believers have the right to measure the material things with spiritual ones, when materialists get into the realm of the spiritual without a slightest scruple... We have wisdom as our partner, while theirs is foolishness. Material things can be neither the power nor the purpose. They are just the means and the field of activity of spiritual powers by the action of the spiritual beginning of all things (Creator)" [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]-- from St Feofan Zatvornik, Nastavleniya v duhovnoi zhisni. - Pskov-Pechery Monastery of Holy Dormition: Mosc. Patriarchate Publ., 1994. And [/FONT]2. St Feofan Zatvornik, Sozertsanie I razmyshlenie. - Moscow, Pravilo very, 1998.
[FONT=&quot]http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and St. John of Kronstadt says in his My Life in Christ: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]but i dont think we can accuse either of these Fathers of ignoring science.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and anyways, evolution is a philosophy that is based on science. the observations of today's world are science. the stories about the distant past that are based on today's observations are philosophical - they have left the realm of observation - they are interpretations of the past based on today - the assumption of uniformitarianism. its not properly science, its a philosophy.
[/FONT]

 

[jckstraw72]

I think he may mean a few things. One is that while he may be correct in understanding what they intend to say, he is wrong in what he thinks the significance of that is to how Orthodoxy is to be understood. So St X might make a certain statement, and Father Seraphim might understand what St X meant. But that does not necessarily tell us how much authority we should give to that statement, or how we reconcile it to other statements by other Fathers, or whether we need to consider their assumptions about science to be important when applying what they say to questions of modern science.

So I think he is arguing partly with how the Fathers are to be understood as part of Tradition. What exactly does Tradition mean?

He also has a big problem with the material presented about science, which isn't really about the Fathers at all.
It may be he is also trying to be polite.

that would be my big problem with Orthodox evolution. it seems to always come down to 1 of 2 possibilities:

1. deny that the Fathers have a consistent teaching about Genesis
2. claim that modern science/philosophy is a better tool for understanding the Scripture of Genesis than the divine illumination that the Fathers experienced (Theokritoff falls into this category, although of course he wouldnt state it the way I did ...)

 

[Photini]

[FONT=&quot]and anyways, evolution is a philosophy that is based on science. the observations of today's world are science. the stories about the distant past that are based on today's observations are philosophical - they have left the realm of observation - they are interpretations of the past based on today - the assumption of uniformitarianism. its not properly science, its a philosophy. [/FONT]

It is doubtful that after studying the two sides that I will be convinced that evolution is philosophy. It is also doubtful that I can be convinced that radiometric dating is inaccurate, in light of the article written by the physicist I linked above (as well as other sources) that outline the scrutiny that those methods endure. This "creation science" that Fr Seraphim supported is pseudo-science.

I am now interested to see an Orthodox theologian deal with fact of an Old Earth and millions of years of animal death. Should anyone stumble across such a thing, I would like to see it. Surely there is something.

 

[MKJ]

that would be my big problem with Orthodox evolution. it seems to always come down to 1 of 2 possibilities:

1. deny that the Fathers have a consistent teaching about Genesis
2. claim that modern science/philosophy is a better tool for understanding the Scripture of Genesis than the divine illumination that the Fathers experienced (Theokritoff falls into this category, although of course he wouldnt state it the way I did ...)

I think I have to disagree here somewhat. How we are to understand the teachings of the Fathers, and how we are to understand other types of information, is an inescapable question. Even if we simply say "the Fathers are to be believed ion all cases which touch on theology" one is making a declaration about how Tradition is to be understood - it isn't a neutral position. And I'm not even sure that Theokritoff is really disagreeing with that. A lot of his discussion is about what qualifies as theology, whether the Fathers are always in agreement, and what it means if they are not, and whether the Fathers are themselves making theological statements based on their scientific understanding.

So even if we say "the Fathers are always correct about theology" there are number of difficulties about how we are meant to understand that.

i think Theokritoff is wrong here. St. Basil says (Hexameron 8:1):

When He said: "Let it bring forth," (the earth) did not produce what was stored up in it, but He Who gave the command also bestowed upon it the power to bring forth. Neither did the earth, when it heard, "Let it bring forth vegetation and the fruit trees," produce plants which it had hidden in it; nor did it send up to the surface the palm or the oak or the cypress which had been hidden somewhere down below in its womb. On the contrary, it is the Divine Word that is the origin of all things made. "Let the earth bring forth"; not, let it put forth what it has, but, let it acquire what it doest not have, since God is enduing it with the power of active force.

I'm would have to read more, but it seems to me that here he is affirming that the Earth, or matter, did not have some sort of pre-existent nature or reality of it's own, apart from God. That there was not some substrate that God was working with. God is seen here to be giving the creation the nature he is intending it to have, which could, I would think, include latent potentialities. I am thinking here especially of the kind of misinterpretation I think he is likely to be trying to prevent.

In any case, if we say that it couldn't, I think one would have to deny micro-evolution, and even the kinds of things we can see in a lab. But I am not sure that I am understanding him correctly.

im not sure about Gregory, but this is from St. Athanasius's On the Incarnation, Chapter 4, which is what Theokritoff was referring to:

Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as king. Romans 5:14 For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time. 5. For if, out of a former normal state of non-existence, they were called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Word, it followed naturally that when men were bereft of the knowledge of God and were turned back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they derive their being from God who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being; in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and corruption. 6. For man is by nature mortal, inasmuch as he is made out of what is not; but by reason of his likeness to Him that is (and if he still preserved this likeness by keeping Him in his knowledge) he would stay his natural corruption, and remain incorrupt; as Wisdom Wisdom 6:18 says: The taking heed to His laws is the assurance of immortality; but being incorrupt, he would live henceforth as God, to which I suppose the divine Scripture refers, when it says: I have said you are gods, and you are all sons of the most Highest; but you die like men, and fall as one of the princes.

although he may speak of human nature in a different way, in the end, he affirms with all the other Fathers that God intended man for incorruption and immortality.

I'm not sure how this relates to what I quoted though, since it seems to refer only to human death?

 

[jckstraw72]

I think I have to disagree here somewhat. How we are to understand the teachings of the Fathers, and how we are to understand other types of information, is an inescapable question. Even if we simply say "the Fathers are to be believed ion all cases which touch on theology" one is making a declaration about how Tradition is to be understood - it isn't a neutral position. And I'm not even sure that Theokritoff is really disagreeing with that. A lot of his discussion is about what qualifies as theology, whether the Fathers are always in agreement, and what it means if they are not, and whether the Fathers are themselves making theological statements based on their scientific understanding.

So even if we say "the Fathers are always correct about theology" there are number of difficulties about how we are meant to understand that.




I'm would have to read more, but it seems to me that here he is affirming that the Earth, or matter, did not have some sort of pre-existent nature or reality of it's own, apart from God. That there was not some substrate that God was working with. God is seen here to be giving the creation the nature he is intending it to have, which could, I would think, include latent potentialities. I am thinking here especially of the kind of misinterpretation I think he is likely to be trying to prevent.

In any case, if we say that it couldn't, I think one would have to deny micro-evolution, and even the kinds of things we can see in a lab. But I am not sure that I am understanding him correctly.



I'm not sure how this relates to what I quoted though, since it seems to refer only to human death?

well i looked up what Theokritoff was quoting from St. Athanasius, and it was this passage if im not mistaken - it has nothing to do with animals.