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

inconsequential said:

Excellent point, Michael, about the presence of Adam and Eve in icons. This reflects my thinking exactly. I still wonder how Orthodox TE's believe they came into existance. If man evolved from lower forms, there has to be a point where one non-human gave birth to Adam or God took a non-human and made them into Adam. Or God literally formed Adam from dirt. Was Eve also an "elevated" hominid or did God literally take a rib from Adam and make her from that?

Click to expand...

They came into existence as Genesis says they did: God made Adam from clay and Even from his rib. This very fact proves neither the TE or the rigorist approach. That there are icons of Seth, Abel, etc also does not prove either approach. What the icons do say is these characters are real people who did live actual lives.

MKJ said:

If animals, by nature, are not subject to death, then by definition that seems to fit the definition of immortality. But we don't say that. So what I am wondering is what it means to say something isn't immortal by nature if in fact it was intended to be immortal.

Click to expand...

i think we DO say that ... the entire creation was created immortal.

Michael the Iconographer said:

They came into existence as Genesis says they did: God made Adam from clay and Even from his rib. This very fact proves neither the TE or the rigorist approach. That there are icons of Seth, Abel, etc also does not prove either approach. What the icons do say is these characters are real people who did live actual lives.

Click to expand...

well evolution doesnt happen in individuals, it happens in species, so the idea of there being literally only 2 people is scientifically absurd. and if you say that God chose 2 hominids and gave them a soul which made them immortal humans - well thats equally absurd for science. evolution has no room for immortality - everything is part of an inevitable chain of death. some Orthodox ppl thus outright deny that even man was created immortal, because they have to say that to be consistent with evolution

jckstraw72 said:

and if you say that God chose 2 hominids and gave them a soul which made them immortal humans - well thats equally absurd for science.

Click to expand...

That's not scientifically absurd; it's simply outside the purview of science.

Chesterton said:

That's not scientifically absurd; it's simply outside the purview of science.

Click to expand...

well, i mean, if you were to ask an evolutionary scientist if the evolutionary process has room for immortality, what do you think he'd say? i know many evolutionist friends that would think the notion is too absurd to even respond to.

MKJ said:

I don't think you quite see what I am asking. I also don't think it is fair to accuse me of making stuff up when I am just wondering how ideas fit together.

If animals, by nature, are not subject to death, then by definition that seems to fit the definition of immortality. But we don't say that. So what I am wondering is what it means to say something isn't immortal by nature if in fact it was intended to be immortal.

That sounds like a crazy sentence construction, so I am not sure it is more clear.

Click to expand...

There was no accusation in my reply to you. You asked why we don't say it's so, and it's because we don't just make things up... It hasn't been passed down as part of Holy Tradition, so we don't make that statement.

What you suggest makes a certain sense using human logic, but it has not been passed down. Like I said, we don't make things up. We accept what has been passed down to us. Basically, that's what this whole thread has been about.

EDIT: Unless of course, it HAS been passed down as such, as Jack Straw is suggesting... I'll have to look more into this before I agree or disagree with him.

ill repost for your viewing pleasure: Animal death before the fall? see post 50

MKJ said:

I don't think you quite see what I am asking. I also don't think it is fair to accuse me of making stuff up when I am just wondering how ideas fit together.

Click to expand...

I think you're making a relevant point and I will get back to it in response to Protoevangel in this post. Anyway, even if it's not an answer to your question, a priest said to me when I asked some questions about the human soul that animals have a soul of sorts too, different in nature from the human soul, and that everything in all of creation is imbued with some kind of soul, furthermore that this fact is somehow related to the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit and the fact that everything that exists does so thanks to God.

jckstraw72 said:

well, i mean, if you were to ask an evolutionary scientist if the evolutionary process has room for immortality, what do you think he'd say? i know many evolutionist friends that would think the notion is too absurd to even respond to.

Click to expand...

It's not quite on the gist of your question, but I have heard people saying from a genetic point of view that death is not programmed in the genetic code; that rather than that it is a consequence of decomposition of the matter from which the genetic code is made.

Protoevangel said:

There was no accusation in my reply to you. You asked why we don't say it's so, and it's because we don't just make things up... It hasn't been passed down as part of Holy Tradition, so we don't make that statement.

What you suggest makes a certain sense using human logic, but it has not been passed down. Like I said, we don't make things up. We accept what has been passed down to us. Basically, that's what this whole thread has been about.

EDIT: Unless of course, it HAS been passed down as such, as Jack Straw is suggesting... I'll have to look more into this before I agree or disagree with him.

Click to expand...

Do you think that the theologians of the Orthodox tradition were served everything on a plate, that everything that was revealed to them was spelled out literally, word by word, to them? I don't claim to know, but I wasn't aware even that the Scripture was thought of that way.

jckstraw72 said:

well evolution doesnt happen in individuals, it happens in species, so the idea of there being literally only 2 people is scientifically absurd. and if you say that God chose 2 hominids and gave them a soul which made them immortal humans - well thats equally absurd for science. evolution has no room for immortality - everything is part of an inevitable chain of death. some Orthodox ppl thus outright deny that even man was created immortal, because they have to say that to be consistent with evolution

Click to expand...

Explain how Adam and Eve's children reproduced without committing incest without saying anything absurd.

JESUS<3sYOU said:

Do you think that the theologians of the Orthodox tradition were served everything on a plate, that everything that was revealed to them was spelled out literally, word by word, to them? I don't claim to know, but I wasn't aware even that the Scripture was thought of that way.

Click to expand...

The Orthodox believer reads the Holy Scriptures guided by the Fathers, being informed by their insights and attitudes. While every single conclusion is not held to dogmatically... when there is consensus, this holds much weight. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement on every detail, but is more organic, as we see in the four Gospel accounts of Christ.

To tie that into the current discussion, most of the Holy Fathers who wrote on the subject, wrote that Genesis teaches that the world was less than 6,000 years old. The rest who approached this question agreed that the world was less than 10,000 years old. This kind of agreement should mean something to the Orthodox Christian... Even if the Orthodox Christian can't buy fully into all of this intellectually, perhaps they will be moved to treasure and ponder these things in their hearts as the Theotokos did with the things that she did not fully understand (cf Luke 2:19, Luke 2:51). That's why I so respect Photini's (and Michael and Macarius, etc) position on the subject.

Michael the Iconographer said:

Explain how Adam and Eve's children reproduced without committing incest without saying anything absurd.

Click to expand...

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Interpretation of Canon 87 of St. Basil

But if anyone objects, or counterargues, that God made it a law to increase and multiply, and laid it down in express terms to the protoplasts, and that Adam’s children married one another in spite of the fact that they were brothers and sisters of the same parents, I deride and laugh to scorn the man who says these things and is unable to discern that in those days it was necessary to do this, because there were no other human beings of any other race, whereas nowadays there are many different races, so that this argument does not hold water.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Elder Paisios, With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man[/FONT][FONT=&quot], pg. 295[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Someone else asked me, 'Adam had two sons, Abel and Cain; how did Cain's wife get there?' But if one should read a little further in the Old Testament it says clearly that after Seth, Adam had other sons and daughters. Cain had left his home and wandered in the mountains after his brother's murder and did not know that the wife he took was actually his sister. God provided that men should descend from one tribe to prevent malice and crime. This way they would reason, 'We all come from the same father and mother, Adam and Eve;' and perhaps this thought would put the break on human malice. But that's not what happened. Our world is full of malice!"[/FONT]

jckstraw72 said:

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Interpretation of Canon 87 of St. Basil

But if anyone objects, or counterargues, that God made it a law to increase and multiply, and laid it down in express terms to the protoplasts, and that Adam&#8217;s children married one another in spite of the fact that they were brothers and sisters of the same parents, I deride and laugh to scorn the man who says these things and is unable to discern that in those days it was necessary to do this, because there were no other human beings of any other race, whereas nowadays there are many different races, so that this argument does not hold water.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Elder Paisios, With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man[/FONT][FONT=&quot], pg. 295[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Someone else asked me, 'Adam had two sons, Abel and Cain; how did Cain's wife get there?' But if one should read a little further in the Old Testament it says clearly that after Seth, Adam had other sons and daughters. Cain had left his home and wandered in the mountains after his brother's murder and did not know that the wife he took was actually his sister. God provided that men should descend from one tribe to prevent malice and crime. This way they would reason, 'We all come from the same father and mother, Adam and Eve;' and perhaps this thought would put the break on human malice. But that's not what happened. Our world is full of malice!"[/FONT]

Click to expand...

I am sorry, I do not buy that. Incest was ok then, but is not now? No. God's law is unbending. I am with Photini in that I REALLY do not like doing mental gymnastics.

One way I heard it put was that in those early days, the human gene pool was still near perfect and so close relatives could procreate without passing on the genetic errors that began to appear as humanity degenerated from perfection because of sin. The same was true to some degree following the flood but the numbers of errors began to grow and so close relatives had much greater chance of having the same errors which made birth defects. God knew this since He had created man to begin with so He instituted laws against incest to reduce the rates of birth defects in His people. I'm sure a Dr. could read Leviticus and see how many of those laws made the Hebrews grow and remain a strong, healthy people.

I don't remember who wrote it but I'm sure I butchered it horribly.

JESUS<3sYOU said:

Do you think that the theologians of the Orthodox tradition were served everything on a plate, that everything that was revealed to them was spelled out literally, word by word, to them? I don't claim to know, but I wasn't aware even that the Scripture was thought of that way.

Click to expand...

well lets see what the Fathers themselves have to say about the clarity of the creation accounts:

St. Ambrose, [FONT=&quot]Hexameron 1.6[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Wherefore, he tore himself away from pleasure and, shunning all the excitement of the royal palace, retired to a secluded spot in Ethiopia. There, removed from all other cares, he gave himself wholly to divine contemplation, in order that he might behold the glory of God face to face. This is in accord with the testimony of Scripture, that &#8216;there arose no greater prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.&#8217; He spoke to God the highest, not in a vision nor in dreams, but mouth to mouth. Plainly and clearly, not by figures or riddles, there was bestowed on him the gift of the divine presence. [/FONT]

Ibid. 1.7
[FONT=&quot]For, if [Moses] had already accepted from God what he should say concerning the liberation of the people, how much more should you accept what He should say concerning heaven? Therefore, &#8216;not in the persuasive words of wisdom,&#8217; not in philosophical fallacies, &#8216;but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power,&#8217; he has ventured to say as if he were a witness of the divine work: &#8216;In the beginning God created heaven and earth.&#8217; He did not look forward to a late and leisurely creation of the world out of a concourse of atoms . . . He did not hold, as the philosophers teach, that a stronger conjunction of atoms furnished the cause of their continuing duration. He pointed out that those who give such tiny and unsubstantial first principles to heaven and earth were just weaving a web like a spider&#8217;s . . . No wonder that they know not their Ruler who know not their God, by whom all things are ruled and governed. Let us follow him who knew both the Author and the Ruler, and let us not be led astray by vain opinions.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]St. Basil, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Hexameron, 1.1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]If the weakness of our intelligence does not allow us to penetrate the depth of the thoughts of the writer, yet we will be involuntarily drawn to give faith to his words by the force of his authority. Now it is Moses who composed this history . . . who disdained the pomp of royalty, and, to share the humble conditions of his compatriots, preferred to be persecuted with the people of God . . . Moses, finally, who, at the age of eighty, saw God, as far as it is possible for man to see Him . . . according to the testimony of God Himself, &#8216;If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make Myself known to him in a vision, and I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; . . . he is faithful in all My house, I speak with him face to face, even plainly and not in dark sayings&#8217; (Num. 12:6-8)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]St. John Chrysostom, Commentary on Genesis 7:3
[/FONT]The blessed Moses, instructed by the Spirit of God, teaches us with such detail ... so that we might clearly know both the order and the way of the creation of each thing. If God had not been concerned for our salvation and had not guided the tongue of the Prophet, it would have been sufficient to say that God created the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and living creatures, without indicating either the order of the days or what was created earlier and what later.... But he distinguishes so clearly both the order of creation and the number of days, and instructs us about everything with great condescension, in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heed the false teachings of those who speak of everything according to their own reasonings, but might comprehend the unutterable power of our Creator.

[FONT=&quot]St. John of[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Kronstadt, 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]

St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter VII
They are called prophets. These alone both saw and announced the truth to men, neither reverencing nor fearing any man, not influenced by a desire for glory, but speaking those things alone which they saw and which they heard, being filled with the Holy Spirit. Their writings are still extant, and he who has read them is very much helped in his knowledge of the beginning and end of things, and of those matters which the philosopher ought to know, provided he has believed them. For they did not use demonstration in their treatises, seeing that they were witnesses to the truth above all demonstration, and worthy of belief; and those events which have happened, and those which are happening, compel you to assent to the utterances made by them, although, indeed, they were entitled to credit on account of the miracles which they performed, since they both glorified the Creator, the God and Father of all things, and proclaimed His Son, the Christ [sent] by Him

[FONT=&quot]St. Symeon the New Theologian[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Ethical Discourses 1.1[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]God did not, as some people think, just give Paradise to our ancestors at the beginning, nor did He make only Paradise incorruptible. No! Instead, He did much more. Before Paradise He made the whole earth, the one which we inhabit, and everything in it. Nor that alone, but He also in five days brought the heavens and all they contain into being. On the sixth day He made Adam and established him as lord and king of all the visible creation. Neither Eve nor Paradise were yet created, but the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible. It was this world, as we said, which was given to Adam and to his descendants for their enjoyment. Does this seem strange to you? It should not. Pay attention to our argument, and it will show you clearly how this is so from the holy Scripture. It is written there: &#8220;In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void.&#8221; Next, the remaining creative works of God are given in exact detail, and then, after &#8220;there was evening and morning the fifth day, &#8220; Scripture adds: &#8220;Then God said, &#8220;Let us make man after our image, in our likeness . . . male and female He created them [1:26-27]. Male and female, it says, not as though Eve had already come into being, but instead as she was still in Adam&#8217;s side, co-existing with him.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]St. Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus [/FONT]II.XVIII
But as to what relates to the creation of man, his own creation cannot be explained by man, though it is a succinct account of it which holy Scripture gives.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
and here's what St. Gregory the Theologian has to say about St. Basil's Hexameron work:
[FONT=&quot]Oration 43, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Chapter 67[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I will only say this of him. Whenever I handle his Hexaemeron, and take its words on my lips, I am brought into the presence of the Creator, and understand the words of creation, and admire the Creator more than before, using my teacher as my only means of sight.[/FONT]

Michael the Iconographer said:

I am sorry, I do not buy that. Incest was ok then, but is not now? No. God's law is unbending. I am with Photini in that I REALLY do not like doing mental gymnastics.

Click to expand...

where do you see an injunction against incest at that time in history?

ProScribe said:

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

Click to expand...

Why is this thread so long? No.

inconsequential said:

One way I heard it put was that in those early days, the human gene pool was still near perfect and so close relatives could procreate without passing on the genetic errors that began to appear as humanity degenerated from perfection because of sin. The same was true to some degree following the flood but the numbers of errors began to grow and so close relatives had much greater chance of having the same errors which made birth defects. God knew this since He had created man to begin with so He instituted laws against incest to reduce the rates of birth defects in His people. I'm sure a Dr. could read Leviticus and see how many of those laws made the Hebrews grow and remain a strong, healthy people.

I don't remember who wrote it but I'm sure I butchered it horribly.

Click to expand...

And you really expect me to believe that? Again, mental gymnastics.

jckstraw72 said:

where do you see an injunction against incest at that time in history?

Click to expand...

You did not just say that. Ok, so it was wrong for Cain to murder Abel long before the Law was given but it was ok for the children of Adam and Eve to reproduce incestuously for the sake of populating the earth? Um, no.

animals had been dying ever since man sinned, and yet they could not be eaten until after the flood when God specifically said it was ok. likewise, incest became outlawed once God outlawed it. Peter the Jew could not eat unclean foods and hang out with Gentiles but Peter the Christian could do both. sometimes stuff changes.

and what do you think Noah's children did?

Michael the Iconographer said:

You did not just say that. Ok, so it was wrong for Cain to murder Abel long before the Law was given but it was ok for the children of Adam and Eve to reproduce incestuously for the sake of populating the earth? Um, no.

Click to expand...

Come on Michael, your answer uses the exact logic used by Seventh-Day Adventists who claim we're still bound by the Sabbath-day law. Maybe that's why Pork, Catfish, Shrimp and Lobster (etc.) are still forbidden for us to eat, right?

Let's see, we have our Father among the Saints St. Nikodemos, the great reviver of hesychasm, the canonist, the hagiologist, the liturgist and Elder Paisios, one of the God bearing elders of the modern times, offering wisdom, inspired by the Holy Spirit. What exactly is the problem again?