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

[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.

And what would be the problem with God being the author of animal death?

In Psalm 104 we praise God just after acknowledging that He provides predators with food and takes their breath so they turn into dust. Why would we look at this "cycle of life" and praise God for it if it is evil and if it is our fault that it happens this way?

19 He made the moon to mark the seasons,
and the sun knows when to go down.
20 You bring darkness, it becomes night,
and all the beasts of the forest prowl.
21 The lions roar for their prey
and seek their food from God.
22 The sun rises, and they steal away;
they return and lie down in their dens.
23 Then people go out to their work,
to their labor until evening.
24 How many are your works, LORD!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number—
living things both large and small.
26 There the ships go to and fro,
and Leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.

27 All creatures look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things
29 When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
30 When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.
31 May the glory of the LORD endure forever;
may the LORD rejoice in his works—
32 he who looks at the earth, and it trembles,
who touches the mountains, and they smoke.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is animal death though?

that doesn't matter as much as if this is true then God did create, and in some way use some kind of death. which means that death is NOT all bad.

It's different with a human soul, with is truly individual, and is meant to be immortal.

yeah, but then how does a dying creation reflect the glory of the God who is Life? I could see how if man reflects God's glory if your point is true, but all of Creation? and why would an Immortal God create a mortal universe to be ruled by an Immortal King?

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

I am fairly certain that all Creation gets refashioned into a paradise, which would include animals and plants, even those that are extinct. because God loves all of His Creation. yeah man is the focus and the pinnacle, but what God creates He loves, and He created animals and plants.

I also still can't see plants being alive after being eaten - even if they are not digested.

that's because you are thinking that our bodies worked the same way back then that they do now. we have no way of knowing how it was different, but if both the plants and humans back then are really in a more angelic state, then it would be different.

Also, what would be the point?

I have heard that it was for man's communion with God back then

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

I think this is the start of history, it just worked different back then. before history would have been before God created. we have to stop applying our fallen laws of the universe to our unfallen beginning.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And what would be the problem with God being the author of animal death?

because God loves His creation. it seems to me that the vast majority of Fathers state that all Death, is foreign and alien to creation and only entered in when man sinned. plus that Psalm is looking at life in our fallen state.

 

[Photini]

because God loves His creation. it seems to me that the vast majority of Fathers state that all Death, is foreign and alien to creation and only entered in when man sinned. plus that Psalm is looking at life in our fallen state.

Why would we praise God for something that is evil?

 

[Photini]

yeah, but then how does a dying creation reflect the glory of the God who is Life?.

David thought it did, and wrote a Psalm about it. And it's not dying...predators eat and die and nourish the plants and the zebras eat the grass. (...yes, a cheesy Lion King way of putting it, but doesn't make it any less true)...and also a genius way of preventing over-population. Which if animals weren't able to die, it would definitely be a problem.

 

[Blackknight]

The assumption of uniformity is part of what makes science possible. The world would be pretty crazy if gravity changed all the time or the speed of light changed, etc.

 

[jckstraw72]

The assumption of uniformity is part of what makes science possible. The world would be pretty crazy if gravity changed all the time or the speed of light changed, etc.

i agree, without uniformity science would be amazingly hard. im not convinced that that makes it true though, especially considering our Tradition of a fall from Paradise and a global flood.

 

[MKJ]

i agree, without uniformity science would be amazingly hard. im not convinced that that makes it true though, especially considering our Tradition of a fall from Paradise and a global flood.

The thing is that uniformity isn't just a scientific principle, it is a principle of reason. Which means that if we discard it, wouldn't just be gravity, but rationality itself that was impossible, and human knowledge. Heck, even the fundamental nature of things could change; we would be in the position of Hereclitus, where there was no stability in Being itself. One day the Church might say one thing, the next day it would say something else, the next day it wouldn't exist, and the next would be composed of pontificating kangaroos in funny hats.

That is a mad way to live, and the few who have embraced it became mad if they weren't already.

 

[MKJ]

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.

You may be right, I will have to look again.

Editt: Yes, ok, I see what I was getting at now. Sometimes iI think I am losing my ability to think clearly. Athanasius is saying (among other things) that when man falls, he returns to his natural state of dying. The implication is that in some sense, death is natural to him: not in so far as he was created with an immortal soul, but in that he is an animal. This seems to suggest that Athanasius thinks that death is natural for animals even before the Fall.

 

[Michael G]

The things that are being said in this thread in the name of Orthodoxy simply amaze me. If the priest who chrismated me took the position some of you take toward things I highly doubt I would be Orthodox right now.

 

[Michael G]

David thought it did, and wrote a Psalm about it. And it's not dying...predators eat and die and nourish the plants and the zebras eat the grass. (...yes, a cheesy Lion King way of putting it, but doesn't make it any less true)...and also a genius way of preventing over-population. Which if animals weren't able to die, it would definitely be a problem.

Don't you know, the Fathers know better than scripture does. (I doubt you need to ask me if I believe that!!!)

 

[Photini]

Don't you know, the Fathers know better than scripture does. (I doubt you need to ask me if I believe that!!!)

One of the best and simultaneously most frustrating things about Orthodoxy is that it doesn't dictate what I am supposed to believe about every miniscule thing.

I've pretty much worked through this wrestling match I waged on myself with regards to an old earth. I'm not even very concerned about evolution. I don't tend to accept it 100%, but do think it is partially plausible. It's something I'll continue to research during the tiny amount of free time that I have.

I do appreciate the patience that jkstraw and Matt and MKJ have shown me while I work through all this.

 

[jckstraw72]

God bless you in your continued labors!

 

[Protoevangel]

One of the best and simultaneously most frustrating things about Orthodoxy is that it doesn't dictate what I am supposed to believe about every miniscule thing.

I've pretty much worked through this wrestling match I waged on myself with regards to an old earth. I'm not even very concerned about evolution. I don't tend to accept it 100%, but do think it is partially plausible. It's something I'll continue to research during the tiny amount of free time that I have.

I do appreciate the patience that jkstraw and Matt and MKJ have shown me while I work through all this.

I very much appreciate the openness you have shown. What Jack Straw and the others are proposing is a huge change of perspective, and challenging.

If you are truly interested in continuing your research, at your own pace of course, I can offer a few resources that have helped me to form my own point of view.

The best "overview" I have found, is unfortunately out of print. You may be able to find a used copy, or find a friend who would be willing to loan you theirs: Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision, by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose.
The Forward and first three chapters can be found online: online.

Additionally, there is a double issue of the magazine The Orthodox Word, dedicated to "The Orthodox Interpretation of the Creation of the World". It is an excellent resource.

Genesis and Early Man The Orthodox Patristic Understanding is a letter Fr Seraphim wrote to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros on evolution vs. creationism. It is included in Genesis Creation and Early Man, but is worth reading online if you can't find the book.

St. Basil the Great's Hexaemeron is absolutely an essential read.

John Chrysostom's Homilies on Genesis is great.

Saint Ephraim the Syrian's Commentary on Genesis is amazing.

Saint Ambrose of Milan's Hexaemeron is phenomenal.

With great gratitude let us accept what is related (by Moses), not stepping out of our own limitations, and not testing what is above us as the enemies of the truth did when, wishing to comprehend everything with their minds, they did not realize that human nature cannot comprehend the creation of God.

 

[Michael G]

One of the best and simultaneously most frustrating things about Orthodoxy is that it doesn't dictate what I am supposed to believe about every miniscule thing.
I've pretty much worked through this wrestling match I waged on myself with regards to an old earth. I'm not even very concerned about evolution. I don't tend to accept it 100%, but do think it is partially plausible. It's something I'll continue to research during the tiny amount of free time that I have.

I do appreciate the patience that jkstraw and Matt and MKJ have shown me while I work through all this.

I know a priest or two that seriously needs reminded of this very fact.

 

[jckstraw72]

I know a priest or two that seriously needs reminded of this very fact.

the problem is that there seems to be variance of opinion on what is considered "miniscule"

 

[Michael G]

the problem is that there seems to be variance of opinion on what is considered "miniscule"

Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism. Rome defines EVERYTHING. There is no room for faith because Rome via Thomas Aquinas has told you exactly how everything works. Orthodoxy is not that way. Very little is actually defined to that degree. It does not need to be because it takes the place of faith when it is defined to such an extent.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

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 have read the book, Genesis, Creation and Early Man (from now on abbreviated as GCAEM) by Seraphim Rose and Hieromonk Damascene. The guy who wrote that article seems to be moderate in his criticism and it appears to be a good article, from browsing the first few pages. I already have an opinion on the book. I will quote a portion from the article:

Fr Seraphim is commendably honest in recognizing that if one believes, as he does, that w e
must read Genesis exactly as the Fathers did, one is then committed to a thorough-going young​

earth creationism, however much contrary evidence there may appear to be.

This is a problem. A lot of the arguments found in GCAEM rely indirectly on lack of evidence for some brand of evolutionistic philosophy, and it's more convincing in pointing to that lack of evidence than it is in how to interpret Genesis and God's creation, in my opinion. What GCAEM says on how to interpret Scripture is not much at all, and there are other views represented by other priests of the Orthodox Church. GCAEM's view that the Fathers are not in need of interpretation is also highly questionable, as is pointed out in the article. I am not sure but I would suspect that now living authorities within the Orthodox Church do not agree so much about that. GCAEM makes a distinction between matters of faith and other matters that is also not so convincing at least in my opinion, and I'm not sure that even by that distinction I would be bound by the conclusions that are drawn in GCAEM, namely a form of Young Earth Creationism (from now on abbreviated as YEC), which is not to be confounded with the official view of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church has not as far as I know fixed an opinion in her doctrine, and I much doubt that she will.​

Back on the quoted portion of the article, I would say that there is an even greater problem with what GCAEM says. If it should be that some intermediate forms of fossils (or some other evidence against young creationism the lack of which GCAEM glories so much in) does actually surface, then the whole thesis is in danger. If GCAEM hadn't made such a huge deal out of proof in the first place, it wouldn't be a problem, but now it is, also because it's commited to a type of YEC which it says that the Fathers are commited to. Concerning the Fathers, I cannot say, but it should be clear that there are Orthodox priests who do not agree that the Fathers are commited to YEC, and - again if I'm not mistaken - that the Church has in fact not made any doctrinal statement on evolution or YEC. ​

From the point that you are commited to a specific, extra-doctrinal theory, such as e.g. a certain type of YEC, however, there is a big problem. As I implied before, if evidence against it should surface, what will become of it? What will then become of "matters of faith", following the reasoning of GCAEM? If you are as obsessed with lack of evidence as GCAEM is then your view of things will certainly be influenced and likely swayed. ​

Now, what I think is this: The main problem is that there is a roundabout way of thinking at work here. The obsession with pointing out lack of evidence of evolution or some evolutionary philosophy has nothing to do with doctrinal questions or "matters of faith". And neither does the opinion of GCAEM determine doctrine, obviously. What GCAEM has done is to paint a mock portrait of Evolutionism, pointed to lack of evidence, and concluded that YEC is (most likely) true. How great for people who already believed in YEC! But are we convinced? I am not. YEC may be just as dangerous as GCAEM says that Evolutionism is, since YEC now somehow relies on lack of evidence for Evolution, and since there is no guarantee even that the world view of YEC is compatible with Church doctrine or reality. ​

Now you may say that I painted a mock portrait of GCAEM, because what GCAEM says is not that lack of evidence settles the issue, but that the Church Fathers did. True enough. However you'd also have to conclude that most of GCAEM is not just slightly off topic but entirely irrelevant to the problem of creation, and that it should have concentrated on making a convincing case from the Fathers and nothing else instead. In fact, I'm not even sure that GCAEM settles conclusively for YEC even if it leans most heavily towards it. GCAEM does take a stance against certain ideas of a few priests who are presented as examples of what you should not belive in. But I think it's quite possible to not believe in them without being commited to or heavily leaning towards YEC. Maybe the question is much more complicated than what GCAEM has it. The portions about various opinions of 'theologians' outside the Church are interesting from the point of view of history of ideas, but they are also completely irrelevant, just as lack of evidence of some mock evolutionism is. It may be that the Fathers were all agreed, or that just very few Fathers disagreed, as GCAEM says, but what I didn't see was GCAEM proving that. Also, should the greater number of Fathers for something count as absolute proof, when others are against? That's surely a way of making theology and doctrine that I wasn't aware of. For laymen who are not supposed to have their own opinions it's probably safer not to take books like GCAEM as the inerrant truth, and even reading the Fathers comes with similar risks, because if you believe that the Church has the truth then it's better to just listen to your priest and your spiritual father.​

As soon as you commit yourself to a certain story as if it was the truth when the truth is that you don't know, you're in danger of being wrong. If you're so commited to it that you will say that salvation is at stake, which is in fact what GCAEM says about its interpretation of creation, then the danger is at once much much greater. ​

​

​

 

[Photini]

I very much appreciate the openness you have shown. What Jack Straw and the others are proposing is a huge change of perspective, and challenging.

If you are truly interested in continuing your research, at your own pace of course, I can offer a few resources that have helped me to form my own point of view.

The best "overview" I have found, is unfortunately out of print. You may be able to find a used copy, or find a friend who would be willing to loan you theirs: Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision, by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose.
The Forward and first three chapters can be found online: online.

Additionally, there is a double issue of the magazine The Orthodox Word, dedicated to "The Orthodox Interpretation of the Creation of the World". It is an excellent resource.

Genesis and Early Man The Orthodox Patristic Understanding is a letter Fr Seraphim wrote to Dr. Alexander Kalomiros on evolution vs. creationism. It is included in Genesis Creation and Early Man, but is worth reading online if you can't find the book.

St. Basil the Great's Hexaemeron is absolutely an essential read.

John Chrysostom's Homilies on Genesis is great.

Saint Ephraim the Syrian's Commentary on Genesis is amazing.

Saint Ambrose of Milan's Hexaemeron is phenomenal.

Thanks for the links; especially the ones for the Church Fathers...(St Basil in particular I was interested in finding a link to)! At the advice of two well-respected monks, I have avoided Fr Seraphim (Rose)'s works....save for the one: "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future". By reading some critiques of his book, it would seem that he supports fundamentalist Creationism, which I would automatically distance myself from, since I tend to agree with modern scientists that "Creationist science" is pseudoscience. I certainly hope that I am wrong in my assumption that he supports it though.

It is extremely unlikely at this point that I would come to accept a young Earth. Any view that requires me to do mental gymnastics due to the amount of evidence stacked against it, is not likely one that I will accept.

Consequently, it is those same "mental gymnastics" that is likely to keep me from embracing evolution in its entirety, because while I should not have to bend and twist to explain away the physical facts in light of theology, I should also not have to bend and twist theology in light of physical facts.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

By reading some critiques of his book, it would seem that he supports fundamentalist Creationism,

Sort of yeah, although not quite. He leaned heavily towards it but I don't know of any place where he literally supported it. He gloried in the lack of evidence in favour of a special type of evolutionistic philosophy that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with science (or faith for that matter) in the first place.