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

[jckstraw72]

Fair enough. So dinosaurs and humans and mammoths, etc..all lived together?

i believe so. the Fathers also teach that the creation was created for man's pleasure as his kingdom, so any animals that lived and went extinct before man would serve no purpose, they'd be pointless.

 

[jckstraw72]

If we are to have a literal belief of Genesis...I can't seem to wrap my mind around picturing a T-Rex and velociraptors in the Garden of Eden.

well they werent carnivorous or deadly before the Fall. St. Theophilus of Antioch and Elder Paisios (off the top of my head) are clear that animals were not venomous or dangerous to man before the Fall.

also, its hard to picture such a thing, because most of the time we see pictures of dinosaurs they are in almost barren wasteland landscapes with volcanoes going off and maybe a few trees or something. so when we think dinosaurs thats what we automatically think.

 

[jckstraw72]

By saying that one believes in microevolution, they are acknowledging that evolution happens, and that the primary mechanisms by which this happens is natural selection (or perhaps artificial selection, in the case of selective breeding). This is what Darwin showed. Macroevolution is a logical extension of this. There has been no evidence to show that there is some sort of barrier or limit to microevolution which would prevents species from transitioning to another. This is a recent idea which has been invented due to an idealogical opposition to the theory, which has no scientific support. Further, I have shown numerous instances where such a species transition has indeed occured. The examples I have presented occur in organisms where their life cycle is very short (e.g. bacteria) so that the effects can be observed in our lifetime. In animals, the life cycles are much longer, and the evolutionary process takes much longer to observe (thousands/millions of years). Nevertheless, this prcoess has been clearly shown to have occurred throughout the animal kingdom based on fossil and genetic evidence, among others.

there's also no evidence to show that the possibility for change is endless. we see nothing of the sort in the world around us. we see birds become ... birds. we see bacteria become ... bacteria. we dont see an amorphous blob giving rise to shrubbery and a herring and Arthurian knights.

 

[jckstraw72]

I think Augustine said it best.

well but evolutionists point to this quote and assume that St. Augustine would take their side on this issue. I think he would see evolution for what it is - a philosophy rather than science. plus, Augustine interprets Genesis literally and he does so quite forcefully in some places. For instance, he says that the Scriptures teach us that the earth was about 6000 yrs old in his time and that those who disagree and say its much older are worthy of mockery rather than being debated with. i disagree that such ppl should be mocked, but the point is that he is quite dogmatic in his stance. he also affirms that no kind of death existed before the sin of man, so how could he possibly accept a theory that posits billions of years worth of death before man sinned? everything St. Augustine actually says about Genesis is incompatible with evolution, and thus I think the quote you provided applies much more accurately against evolutionists.

 

[Photini]

well they werent carnivorous or deadly before the Fall. St. Theophilus of Antioch and Elder Paisios (off the top of my head) are clear that animals were not venomous or dangerous to man before the Fall.

also, its hard to picture such a thing, because most of the time we see pictures of dinosaurs they are in almost barren wasteland landscapes with volcanoes going off and maybe a few trees or something. so when we think dinosaurs thats what we automatically think.

I see. So why would they have sharp teeth and claws and be built in such a perfect way for eating other dinosaurs?

 

[ProScribe]

being within the confines of the Church that bears the Truth allows us to be confident about doctrine.

Yea, me and my mom are going to travel to Benbrook to go to Mass at St. Peter's Western Rite orthodox church tommorow morning.

 

[jckstraw72]

I see. So why would they have sharp teeth and claws and be built in such a perfect way for eating other dinosaurs?

well we can only examine their bodies as they were after the Fall. we dont know that they were that way before the Fall. our human bodies changed, so its quite possible that animal bodies changed. and if they did have sharp teeth and claws before the Fall then its because God foreknew the Fall and thus equipped them for it, just as He equipped us for the Fall. Some Fathers say that God created us male and female because He knew that we would fall and would need a way to continue the race.

St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

 

[Photini]

well we can only examine their bodies as they were after the Fall. we dont know that they were that way before the Fall. our human bodies changed, so its quite possible that animal bodies changed. and if they did have sharp teeth and claws before the Fall then its because God foreknew the Fall and thus equipped them for it, just as He equipped us for the Fall. Some Fathers say that God created us male and female because He knew that we would fall and would need a way to continue the race.

St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Good points.

 

[MKJ]

i believe so. the Fathers also teach that the creation was created for man's pleasure as his kingdom, so any animals that lived and went extinct before man would serve no purpose, they'd be pointless.

Well, digging up fossils makes and learning about crazy giant extinct lizards seems to make a lot of people happy.

 

[Photini]

Well, digging up fossils makes and learning about crazy giant extinct lizards seems to make a lot of people happy.

True. And they make for good movies too.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

As I understand it, scientists usually consider a differentiation of species to be when the two separated groups can no longer cross-breed and have fertile offspring? If so, I can't think of any logical reason that micro-evolution couldn't lead to species differentiation, if the right genetic changes occurred. Am I misunderstanding?

This is the conventional definition, yes, and you are understanding correctly.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Thanks ortho_cat. Do you happen to have a link where I can read more about it?

Here you can read about micro and macro evolution:

Microevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ortho_Cat]

there's also no evidence to show that the possibility for change is endless. we see nothing of the sort in the world around us. we see birds become ... birds. we see bacteria become ... bacteria. we dont see an amorphous blob giving rise to shrubbery and a herring and Arthurian knights.

You are thinking in terms of a human lifetime. As I mentioned before, large-scale evolutionary changes in animals that have relatatively slow life-cycles compared to say, a bacteria, takes much longer than a human lifetime to observe. However, such changes have been confirmed via fossil and genetic evidence.

As I mentioned previously, the evidence for evolution by common descent is overwhelming if one is willing to investigate it with an open mind. There is a plethora of resources available online for those who are interested.

 

[MKJ]

You are thinking in terms of a human lifetime. As I mentioned before, large-scale evolutionary changes in animals that have relatatively slow life-cycles compared to say, a bacteria, takes much longer than a human lifetime to observe. However, such changes have been confirmed via fossil and genetic evidence.

As I mentioned previously, the evidence for evolution by common descent is overwhelming if one is willing to investigate it with an open mind. There is a plethora of resources available online for those who are interested.

Here is a tangentially related item I find interesting and also funny.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Here is a tangentially related item I find interesting and also funny.

I can totally see it.

 

[inconsequential]

So did God "work" the process every step of the way, essentially removing chance and making it a guided process or did He put the right "english" on it at the Big Bang to make it turn out the way He wanted? Or did He let it happen purely by chance the way Dawkins and others claim? (Not that I think Dawkins' crowd claims God was involved but that the process was purely by chance.)

Having played and enjoyed Spore, I could see the evolutionary process being very involved and deliberate while appearing to be by chance.

 

[Etsi]

Do you feel then that it is our bodies that were meant when it said that we are made in God's image? I don't, at all, even if I were to understand the story literally I wouldn't think that.

I believe it means that we were created as an entirely different species from the very beginning. We did not come from any other kind of animal. We were never once souless animals and then suddenly animals with a soul. I believe that is, in part, what is meant.

 

[MKJ]

So did God "work" the process every step of the way, essentially removing chance and making it a guided process or did He put the right "english" on it at the Big Bang to make it turn out the way He wanted? Or did He let it happen purely by chance the way Dawkins and others claim? (Not that I think Dawkins' crowd claims God was involved but that the process was purely by chance.)

Having played and enjoyed Spore, I could see the evolutionary process being very involved and deliberate while appearing to be by chance.

I think you could approach this several ways, though they may come to the same place.

On the one hand, since only humans have free-will, if God set the initial conditions, things would have unfolded as he wished them to.

Another way to say this is each thing, down to the smallest atom, obeys its own nature, which is the law which God wrote on it. So, at each moment, God is indeed involved most intimately in every part of the creation. THe only creatures who can turn away from that law are humans and angels.

Another way to put it might be that while chance exists fro our point of view - it is in fact written into the very fabric of the created universe - it does not exist from God's point of view. God plays with loaded dice, as the expression goes.

Another way to look at it would be that God looks on each aspect of the process at the same time, and so even once human free-will is factored in, God can set the conditions to have things turn out the way he intends.

I think these are all aspects of the same truth.

 

[MKJ]

I believe it means that we were created as an entirely different species from the very beginning. We did not come from any other kind of animal. We were never once souless animals and then suddenly animals with a soul. I believe that is, in part, what is meant.

Why do you think that? An animal without a soul wouldn't be us - it would just be an animal. Before there were creatures with immortal souls, there simply wasn't an us.

 

[Nick T]

What does "not compatible" with Orthodoxy mean?

Does it mean that believing in TE would be comparible to believing in a religous doctrine that is incompatible with Orthodoxy? Is believing in Theistic Evolution like believing in Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide?

No matter which way you twist it the fact is that all evidence points towards some species (such as dinosaurs) living before humanity. If this is incompatible with Orthodoxy does that mean we must choose between the clear facts and God? I don't see how that makes sense theologically.

I have no problems with orthodox creationists (IMO evolution isn't a church matter anyway) I just get concerned when it is implied to be the only option "compatible" with Orthodoxy.