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

Protoevangel

Smash the Patriarchy!
Feb 6, 2004
11,662
1,248
Eugene, OR
✟33,297.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Additionally, if we reject uniformity, we would also lose all philosophical thought. We could not, for example, say 4+4=8, because we have no reason to think that there is any constancy to things like numerical relations or the law of non-contradiction.
This seems to be the key to your misunderstanding/strawman post.

No one is suggesting that uniformity does not exist. What we are saying is that it the very act of creation is not necessarily uniform with the rest of history. When we assume it is, that starting point skews everything else we assume when looking back in time.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,549
20,062
41
Earth
✟1,463,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't think there's anything mysterious about Genesis but the idea of a literal six day creation just goes against everything that we observe in nature and the universe. And I'm not saying that science is the ultimate authority, science didn't create the universe but it can explain a lot about how things work.

absolutely, and we have no problem with that. the problem lies in the assumption that the Fall was not a supernatural change that affected the whole universe. the problem lies in thinking that the way that the universe works today is the same as how it worked back when God first created it. it's the assumption of a uniformity of the laws of nature, when the Fall and the Flood seem to show otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
i think this does a good job of explaining what im trying to say:

Science and Assumptions

Scientists use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:

  1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
  2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
  3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
The Hourglass Illustration

Radioisotope dating can be better understood using an illustration with an hourglass. If we walk into a room and observe an hourglass with sand at the top and sand at the bottom, we could calculate how long the hourglass has been running. By estimating how fast the sand is falling and measuring the amount of sand at the bottom, we could calculate how much time has elapsed since the hourglass was turned over. All our calculations could be correct (observational science), but the result could be wrong. This is because we failed to take into account some critical assumptions.

  1. Was there any sand at the bottom when the hourglass was first turned over (initial conditions)?
  2. Has any sand been added or taken out of the hourglass? (Unlike the open-system nature of a rock, this is not possible for a sealed hourglass.)
  3. Has the sand always been falling at a constant rate?
Since we did not observe the initial conditions when the hourglass time started, we must make assumptions. All three of these assumptions can affect our time calculations. If scientists fail to consider each of these three critical assumptions, then radioisotope dating can give incorrect ages.

from Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old? - Answers in Genesis

regarding the 3 assumptions - unless we build a time machine and go back and find a super old rock at the moment of its creation, we will never know if these assumptions are true. its just impossible to know. however, we can know the truth of all 3 statements when dealing with a newly-formed rock because we're actually here to observe it and test it from its creation. this doesnt involve guesswork, its just straight-up observation and testing


I am not sure what to say about this, because I don't really think it shows a lot of understanding about radiometric dating. There was a very good link on the topic posted earlier in this discussion that addresses all of these questions.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
This seems to be the key to your misunderstanding/strawman post.

No one is suggesting that uniformity does not exist. What we are saying is that it the very act of creation is not necessarily uniform with the rest of history. When we assume it is, that starting point skews everything else we assume when looking back in time.

I don't think so (obviously!) Because it isn't just that we can see that science works back to a certain point (at or fairly close to creation) and then everything is suddenly off-kilter.

Science suggests through geology, through biology, through physics, that history goes back much further than that, and that we seem to be able to tell things about those times in the past. For example, we can look through a telescope and see stars as they existed 100,000 years ago. If our scientific methods say something so completely wrong, in many different areas of study, how can we trust that they are correct about other things?

If our study of the universe is so messed up, at what point can we begin to trust the results that we see? Or if we look at the geological record, how far beck can we go before we see that it is too close to the creation, and must somehow be working according to different rules?

I think it is true that a literalist reading of Genesis is going to leave us with a young Earth, and I can't think of a single branch of science that allows for that - they all posit an older Earth. Why would they suggest us this totally incorrect information rather than what actually happened if they are indeed reliable? And at what point did uniformity kick in?
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think so (obviously!) Because it isn't just that we can see that science works back to a certain point (at or fairly close to creation) and then everything is suddenly off-kilter.

Science suggests through geology, through biology, through physics, that history goes back much further than that, and that we seem to be able to tell things about those times in the past. For example, we can look through a telescope and see stars as they existed 100,000 years ago. If our scientific methods say something so completely wrong, in many different areas of study, how can we trust that they are correct about other things?

just because a star is 100,000 light years away doesn't mean its actually that old. God could have very well created that star with its light reaching earth from creation, just like Adam and Eve were created as adults (although going by age they were infants) and trees and other plants were created fully grown, etc. but this doesnt mean God is deceptive, because He has told us through His Church that He did it this way.

science is trustworthy in many areas. for instance, if science says that putting this piece of glass in front of my eyes will improve my vision, well, i can test that out and see that yes, these glasses do improve my vision, so i know that the science was correct. when science deals with the modern world it can be tested and verified. its when it tries to reach into the distant past that it becomes completely unverifiable. what possible way is there of verifying the half life of potassium 1 billion years ago, unless we can travel back in time? how could it be anything other than a guess?

If our study of the universe is so messed up, at what point can we begin to trust the results that we see? Or if we look at the geological record, how far beck can we go before we see that it is too close to the creation, and must somehow be working according to different rules?

i dont know how far back you can go, but i dont think my position needs to have an answer for this. i know that the earth has in fact undergone 2 major major changes, and that uniformitarianism is just an assumption, so its quite logical for me to not trust a theory that is based on uniformitarianism.

I think it is true that a literalist reading of Genesis is going to leave us with a young Earth, and I can't think of a single branch of science that allows for that - they all posit an older Earth. Why would they suggest us this totally incorrect information rather than what actually happened if they are indeed reliable? And at what point did uniformity kick in?

well, of course, many dating tests give wildly varying dates anyways, and there are plenty of scientists (and not just Creationists) who doubt evolution, and there are scientists who believe they can demonstrate scientifically that the earth is actually young - but they tend to get shoved to the side so no one will give them a fair chance.

and again, science can be trusted as reliable when it deals in something that can be verified. anything dealing with millions and billions of years ago cannot be verified, and anyways, i dont understand what the point is of doing all this work in trying piece together the history of the world, other than being a trivial pursuit. i dont see what purpose it serves other than to contest the traditional Christian teaching. scientists could do perfectly well in understanding today's world through all their observations and testings without having to tell tales about the past.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
I am not sure what to say about this, because I don't really think it shows a lot of understanding about radiometric dating. There was a very good link on the topic posted earlier in this discussion that addresses all of these questions.


from that article: Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.

so that means for radioactive dating, they are assuming that
[FONT=&quot].00000001304[/FONT]% of the earth's life is normative for the 4.6 billion years that it has been around, and for uranium-238 they are assuming that [FONT=&quot].00000002174[/FONT]% is normative. i dont know how thats not just arrogance and insanity.
 
Upvote 0

Blackknight

Servant of God
Jan 21, 2009
2,324
223
Jackson, MI
Visit site
✟10,999.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Science has always had the problem of assumption which David Hume talks about in one of his books but we simply have to accept that some things are constant. The speed of light, universal gravitation, etc. History also does not support the idea of a young earth, human civilization has existed for a lot longer than 6k years.
 
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
from that article: Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.

so that means for radioactive dating, they are assuming that
[FONT=&quot].00000001304[/FONT]% of the earth's life is normative for the 4.6 billion years that it has been around, and for uranium-238 they are assuming that [FONT=&quot].00000002174[/FONT]% is normative. i dont know how thats not just arrogance and insanity.

I'm a bit surprised that is all you got from it.

In any case, I don't feel this discussion is very good for me any more - it's only serving to make me think that I actually have no interest in Orthodoxy at all.

God Bless,

MKJ
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
I'm a bit surprised that is all you got from it.

In any case, I don't feel this discussion is very good for me any more - it's only serving to make me think that I actually have no interest in Orthodoxy at all.

God Bless,

MKJ

thats not all i got from it, but thats something i had thought about before anyways. take care and God bless!
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,549
20,062
41
Earth
✟1,463,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Science has always had the problem of assumption which David Hume talks about in one of his books but we simply have to accept that some things are constant. The speed of light, universal gravitation, etc.

well, you don't have to accept those as facts. you do accept them because that is how you view the world. as jckstraw stated, the belief that those things have always been constant is just an assumption. there is no proof that shows it. there could be evidence, even a ton of evidence, but it is still just an assumption that you make.

History also does not support the idea of a young earth, human civilization has existed for a lot longer than 6k years.

history only supports that if that's how you chose to see it. I know a ton of history peeps, including one of my professors at Penn State, who see a young earth (the guy is a very devout Orthodox Jew).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Blackknight

Servant of God
Jan 21, 2009
2,324
223
Jackson, MI
Visit site
✟10,999.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
history only supports that if that's how you chose to see it. I know a ton of history peeps, including one of my professors at Penn State, who see a young earth (the guy is a very devout Orthodox Jew).

I'd be interested in learning how he sees that. I actually do like to see things from both sides. I've watched a few of Kent Hovind's videos, etc. Yeah, I'm aware that he's a tax fraud and isn't Orthodox.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,549
20,062
41
Earth
✟1,463,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'd be interested in learning how he sees that.

yeah, he is just a devout and pious Orthodox Jew. very traditional one, so that is the lens that he looks through when he sees ancient stuff. I mean if Mormons can see Mormonism in the very same Scripture that I look at, then it depends on the lens you have before you look at the evidence. if you are a TE, then that's gonna be how you see history.
 
Upvote 0

Chesterton

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding
Site Supporter
May 24, 2008
23,809
20,223
Flatland
✟865,752.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I mean if Mormons can see Mormonism in the very same Scripture that I look at, then it depends on the lens you have before you look at the evidence.

I'm sure you intended that pun about Joe Smith looking through lenses. :D
 
Upvote 0

inconsequential

goat who dreamed he was a sheep
Mar 28, 2010
1,311
109
✟9,552.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Please forgive the OT post but I didn't feel it warranted its own thread but that it might be of interest to those who have taken an interest in this thread.

I just watched a fascinating Nova documentary on Netflix. It was Dogs Decoded and showed how dogs have evolved from wolves through their relationship with humans.

They showed quite a bit about an experiment begun by the Soviets in the 50s to tame silver foxes in Siberia. Only the most tame from each litter were allowed to reproduce and within 3 generations, aggressive behavior began to dissappear. One odd thing was that today, after around 50 generations of this, the foxes are beginning to look more like dogs.

It was very interesting so if you are a dog lover or just interested in such things, I highly recommend it.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,549
20,062
41
Earth
✟1,463,791.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm sure you intended that pun about Joe Smith looking through lenses.
biggrin.gif

haha, didn't even see that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
here's more on Genesis and other creation myths:

1:10 And God saw that it was good.

If the entire world gives testimony to God, God, in turn, gives testimony to the world. He acknowledges it as His work and declares it good! He does not disown it. All the dignity of creation is affirmed. Having dispelled all the falsities of idolatry which created man overestimated in making them equal to the Creator, the Sacred Author defends Creation against those who would deface it. The world is good and holy as the work of a good and holy God. It commands our respect. Placed in existence by the free will of God, it has value and lastingness, and is a participation in the being of God.

When we spoke earlier about the Enuma Elish, we noted that the notion of conflict was inherent in the pagan view of the cosmos. Implicit in the notion of a multiplicity of gods is a plurality of wills which, by human analogy, is bound, in turn, to cause strife. The strife of the gods, personified forces of nature, is an outstandingly characteristic feature of pagan, polytheistic cosmogonies. That is why polytheistic accounts of creation always begin with the predominance of the powers of nature, and invariably describe in detail a titanic struggle between two opposing forces. They inevitably regard the achievement of world order as the outgrowth of an overwhelming exhibition of power on the part of one god who, through violence, manages to impose his will upon all others. This theme of the cosmic battle is the underlying motif of the Enuma Elish.

The Book of Genesis has no direct reference to the notion of creation in terms of struggle. Indeed, the very idea is utterly alien to the whole atmosphere of the creation narrative. Yet the Sacred Author was not unaware of the place of the combat myth in pagan cosmogony, for he emphatically tells us that God created the “great sea monsters” (1:21), that these mythological beings, which elsewhere in Scripture are counted among those who rebelled against God, e.g., Is. 27:1, 51:9, were not at all pre-existent rivals of the one Supreme Creator, but His own creatures.

Despite the familiarity of the Hebrew account with some of the motifs of the cosmogonic myths of the ancient Near East, all notions of a connection between creation and cosmic battles was banished from Genesis with extreme care. The idea of strife and tension between God and nature is unthinkable, and to emphasize the point, the words “and it was so” are repeated after each divine command.

Furthermore, it is highly significant that the biblical fragments of a cosmogonic combat myth have survived solely as picturesque metaphors exclusively in the language of poetry, something which strongly indicates a minimal impact upon the religious consciousness of Israel. Never once are these creatures accorded divine attributes, nor is there anywhere a suggestion that their struggle against God in any way challenged God’s sovereign rule in the universe.

The real qualitative difference between the pagan cosmogonic combat myth and the Israelite fragments is shown by the use to which the fragments are put in biblical literature. They, almost always, appear as a literary device expressing the evil deeds and punishment of the human wickedness in terms of the mythical conflict of God with the rebellious forces of primeval chaos. The plunderers and despoilers of Israel are compared to the noisy seas and the turbulent, mighty, chaotic waters which flee at the divine rebuke.

[quotes Is. 17:12-14]

The sinful ones of the earth, the objects of divine wrath, are designated by the names of the mythological monsters, while the defeat of the creature (YAM) in ancient times is cited as evidence of God’s overwhelming power in dealing with the wicked.

[quotes Is. 27:1]

Similarly, God’s decisive overthrow of His mythical primeval enemies is invoked as an assurance of His mighty power for the redemption of Israel through a similar victory over the present historical enemies of the nation.

[quotes Is. 51:9-11, Hab. 3:8-15, Ps. 74:12-19]

The gross polytheism of the combat myth, in all its implications for religion and society, was excluded from the Bible. The motif itself underwent radical transformation and in Israelite hands, a backward-looking myth of the dim past became a symbolic affirmation of the future triumph of divine righteousness in human affairs. Evil in the world is no longer apprehended metaphysically, but belongs on the moral plane. The events of pre-history become, in the Bible, the pattern for history. The Lord of creation Who utterly controls nature is by virtue of that fact an unfailing source of confidence that His word is eternal and His incursions into history effective; so that His absolute power over the forces of chaos carries with it the assurance of the historical triumph of righteousness over evil.
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
1:27 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

It is important to point out that the creation of man in Genesis account is an exception the rule of creation by divine command, and solely in the case of man is the material from which he is made explicitly mentioned. This implies emphasis upon the unique position for man among created things and a special relationship to God, and is reinforced in many and varied subtle ways. It seems as if we have for the final creative act the usual act of God’s will reinforced by an act of divine effort. Man, alone, has the breath of life blown into his nostrils by God Himself, and only by virtue of this direct animation did man become a living being, drawing directly from God and the source of his life. Nothing else in the creative process is preceded by a divine declaration of intention and purpose, Let us make man... (Gen. 1:26). So much does the Sacred Author wish to signify the special status given man in the cosmos, that the verb BARA is used three times in the course of a single verse. Man, in fact, is the high point of creation and the entire story has a human-centered orientation. (We note also, that in similar degree, both man and woman share in God’s Image and Likeness. There is no discrimination!)

The situation contrasts strongly with the story of creation of man in the Enuma Elish. There, he is almost incidental, fashioned as a king of afterthought, as a servant of the gods to provide them with nourishment and generally to satisfy their physical needs. The Sacred Author seems to be emphasizing the antithesis of this, for part of the very first communication of God to man is an expression of divine concern for man’s physical needs and well-being: Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seeds in its fruit; you shall have them for food... (Gen. 1:29f).



We recollect that man is created in the image of God, for this idea is closely connected with what follows: God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28). Man is endowed with power over the animal and vegetable worlds and is conferred with the right and duty to use the resources of nature for his own benefits.


Thus, the Bible’s concept of the divine image in man constitutes another revolutionary break with the contemporary world. The pagan bond between man and nature has been severed once and for all. No longer is man a creature of blind forces, helplessly at the mercy of the rhythms and cycles of nature, but rather is a being possessed of dignity, purpose, freedom and tremendous power.


The pre-eminence of man over beast, however, is not the same as total independence. In the 1st Chapter of Genesis when we are told that God created man in His image, nothing is stated of the matter used in the act of creation. In the narrative to follow in Chapter 2, however, it is related that God formed man from dust taken from the earth (Gen. 2:6). The word translated here as dust is used quite often in Biblical Hebrew as a synonym for clay, and in various parts of the Old Testament we are confronted with the motif of man being shaped out of clay. In the Enuma Elish man is created from the blood of the rebellious Kingu. In the Epic of Gilgamesh the goddess Aruru washed her hands, nipped off clay and fashioned it into the man Enkidu. An old Babylonian myth, paralleled in an Assyrian version, explicitly describes the creation of the first men from clay. And the motif is also found in a third millennium, B.C., Sumerian composition. There are also Egyptian paintings which depict the god Khnum sitting upon his throne before a potter’s wheel busily fashioning men.



The very verb used in the second narrative of the creation of man by God – YASAR – is the same from which the Hebrew word for “potter” is drawn. This figure is a well-known Biblical symbol evoking the notion of God’s absolute mastery over man, so that through the ingenious use of a common mythological motif, the Sacred Author has effectively succeeded, not just in combating mythological notions, but has also conveyed both a sense of man’s glory and freedom and the feeling of his complete dependence upon God. Human sovereignty over the world can never be absolute, for there is also God’s moral order over him.


After every creative act, God pronounces His verdict: It is TOV (good)! And later: TOV MEOD (very good)! The creation, as such, corresponds completely to God’s creative design for it.



Evil has no place in the world created by God and does not correspond to God’s design. Evil is not an essence – it is not something. Evil corresponds to the choice the creation itself makes. Evil is not existence or being, but is only a condition of being, a state of existence. And, it is an unnatural condition of being.


And so, in Biblical teaching on the World and Man, Creation and Providence, (1) God Himself has not created evil, sin or death. (2) God’s representative, man, bears in himself God’s Image and Likeness, and has a vocation to continue the creation. (3) Man is called to cooperation and not opposition to God.
 
Upvote 0