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

[Michael G]

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.

It is really starting to scare me that I find myself agreeing with you.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

Here's another good point in the article I quoted in the previous post:​

Fundamental to his entire case is the premise that evolution, and any other
scientific theory antithetical to young earth creationism, constitutes philosophy rather than
science: we will return to this later. Closely allied to this premise is the assertion that evolution is
&#8220;Clearly&#8221; of the same order as views about the cosmos current in St Basil&#8217;s time that were
rejected by that Father (285).
The latter premise does much to explain why Fr Seraphim, for all his emphasis on taking the
Fathers in context and on their own terms, does not always avoid enlisting them in modern battles-in effect, interpreting them in terms of our own context.​

And Theokritoff goes from there to giving an example of how Seraphim Rose quoted Gregory of Nyssa out of context, on the premise that he was talking about evolution. ​

 

[Photini]

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.

Thanks for your review of Fr Seraphim's book. I think you give rise to some very good points, especially this statement:

If you are as obsessed with lack of evidence as GCAEM is then your view of things will certainly be influenced and likely swayed.

 

[Macarius]

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.

I must second and agree with you in this. When I say that TE is compatible with Orthodoxy, I in no way wish to exclude young earth or old earth creationism from Orthodoxy. To me, creation is a profound mystery and there is room in Orthodoxy for a multiplicity of views. I like what you said earlier about the circle of life among plants and animals belonging more to the changing matter of the universe rather than to death-proper (a full and literal ending of a thing as separated from God, like the spiritual death of a human).

At the same time, I hear what others are saying about the universe being profoundly different post-fall and making the assumption of consistency somewhat moot.

I am mostly, still, concerned with the basic and underlying truth of Genesis 1. God created intentionally. God created good. There is one God, in whose image we are made and to whose likeness we are called. We screwed it up.

To me, those are the non-negotiables of the early chapters of Genesis.

 

[Photini]

I am mostly, still, concerned with the basic and underlying truth of Genesis 1. God created intentionally. God created good. There is one God, in whose image we are made and to whose likeness we are called. We screwed it up.

To me, those are the non-negotiables of the early chapters of Genesis.

I agree 100%. There is a profound revelation in Genesis of the relationship between God and His creation.

 

[Michael G]

I also agree with your statement, Macarius!

 

[jckstraw72]

just to clarify on Fr. Seraphim's book - he does indeed speak favorably of "Creation Science" but this is in no way the main focus of the book, nor is it in any way the basis for his rejection of evolution. The majority and main point of the book is to see how the Fathers interpret Genesis, and it is on this basis that he rejects evolution. Since he believes that the Fathers are correct he then also points to science that supports the traditional interpretation of Genesis.

 

[inconsequential]

Were Adam and Eve literal people or merely allegorical representations of mankind?

Were Noah and his family literal people?

Was there a literal world-wide flood that destroyed all (air-breathing) life or was it just local?

I ask because when I used to frequent the origins forum here I've read posts by Christians who claimed that all major Bible figures prior to Moses were allegorical and didn't literally exist.

 

[jckstraw72]

Were Adam and Eve literal people or merely allegorical representations of mankind?

Were Noah and his family literal people?

Was there a literal world-wide flood that destroyed all (air-breathing) life or was it just local?

I ask because when I used to frequent the origins forum here I've read posts by Christians who claimed that all major Bible figures prior to Moses were allegorical and didn't literally exist.

all literal

 

[Protoevangel]

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.

You know, Photini, this may very well be the most balanced and healthy view one could have on the issue.

In no way to I intend to suggest that one ignores or rejects science. I myself do not, I am facinated by the sciences. But I do think it is unhealthy to reject the consensus of the Saints & Elders who have spoken on the subject, for secular "knowledge" or philosophy.

Allowing the tension to exist, without taking a dogmatic position either way, may well be the best position. It is one I can very much respect.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

I must second and agree with you in this. When I say that TE is compatible with Orthodoxy, I in no way wish to exclude young earth or old earth creationism from Orthodoxy. To me, creation is a profound mystery and there is room in Orthodoxy for a multiplicity of views.

That's roughly what I think too, and I don't mean that as a statement of doctrine; I don't subscribe to what you said literally, but I sense that it corresponds to my attitude. The view that there's room for different ways of approaching the question is however rejected entirely by Seraphim Rose and Hieromonk Damascene in Genesis, Creation and Early Man. They seem to say that a few views held by a majority of Church Fathers comprise the truth and that apart from that we should abstain from approaching the question at all.

Furthermore, as I already said, Rose/Damascene also have it that it's necessarily a question of salvation to reject the creation of man as in some stage or part a result of an evolutionary process. (Their claims involve also non-human life, but let's take that some other time if at all.) I couldn't tell you why exactly, because it's not clear to me exactly why they thought that.

I'm not saying anything about the actual creation of man. I don't feel commited to think that the actual act of creation, before the fall, occured as a process of evolution at all. Some people find this strange, but I seriously don't. Why? I don't believe in evolution, but neither do I reject science. Empirical science to me is -not- a set of statements about how things are in themselves. Science is defined by arguments and reasons and do not have a doctrine at its core, so I see no reason either to reject or to believe in say evolution or string theory or any other such theory. Empirical science does obviously not rely on absolute truths, but on observations that always involve uncertainties. So I don't see why Rose/Damascene said that it's a matter of salvation to deny evolution. That's also a point where I think that they brought up a lot of strawmen, or mock opinions, ridiculous and bizarre pieces of secularistic 'theology' and a mock evolutionism which does indeed have some hold in contemporary debate, neospirituality and in the world at large. But noone said that as a Christian one must pick and choose only from a limited set of opinions which are obviously not in line with Christianity or else settle for one literalistic interpretation of -most- of the Fathers.

 

[Macarius]

That's roughly what I think too, and I don't mean that as a statement of doctrine; I don't subscribe to what you said literally, but I sense that it corresponds to my attitude. The view that there's room for different ways of approaching the question is however rejected entirely by Seraphim Rose and Hieromonk Damascene in Genesis, Creation and Early Man. They seem to say that a few views held by a majority of Church Fathers comprise the truth and that apart from that we should abstain from approaching the question at all.

Such fundamentalism has, in the past, been cause for schism. In most cases, the Church has gone the direction against fundamentalism, not towards it. Mystery, and all that jazz.

Furthermore, as I already said, Rose/Damascene also have it that it's necessarily a question of salvation to reject the creation of man as in some stage or part a result of an evolutionary process. (Their claims involve also non-human life, but let's take that some other time if at all.) I couldn't tell you why exactly, because it's not clear to me exactly why they thought that.

Evolution has a connotation of anti-theism. I don't think that's necessary.

Secondarily, one could say it is because evolution involves death. That's certainly a more sound argument, given that God is life. But as I've stated before I do not find that to be a barrier. It does give me pause, however, and I'll readily admit that.

I'm not saying anything about the actual creation of man. I don't feel commited to think that the actual act of creation, before the fall, occured as a process of evolution at all. Some people find this strange, but I seriously don't. Why? I don't believe in evolution, but neither do I reject science. Empirical science to me is -not- a set of statements about how things are in themselves. Science is defined by arguments and reasons and do not have a doctrine at its core, so I see no reason either to reject or to believe in say evolution or string theory or any other such theory.

Most scientists would agree with you. Scientific theories are probabalistic, not deductive, in scope. They declare things more or less likely, not absolutely true or false.

I'll put it this way - I in no way fear science. I know what it says, and I know what the Scriptures say and what the Fathers (to what extent I've read them). To me, any pursuit of the Truth is ultimately the pursuit of Christ; if someone wants to believe TE then let them. The critical doctrines are maintained by that view.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[MKJ]

I've been pondering the question of animal death.

We always describe humans as having "immortal souls". When humans become subject to death, as I understand it, they are in a peculiar situation. (I am speaking here in a pre-Christian context.) On the one hand, their bodies fall apart, and without them they are no longer human. Their souls are separate from God. But, unlike animal souls, human souls do not dissipate along with the body - they go down to hell, where I guess they are in a kind of suspended animation - not alive but somehow not quite there either.

Animal souls are different. They are totally tied to the flesh, and when the flesh no longer functions, the soul also dies.

Now, this is obviously the post-fall situation. What I am wondering is, if animals are not meant to die, why would we not say that they and their souls are also immortal by nature?

 

[MKJ]

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.

If you don't mind, which bits do you find gymnastical?

 

[Protoevangel]

Now, this is obviously the post-fall situation. What I am wondering is, if animals are not meant to die, why would we not say that they and their souls are also immortal by nature?

Because we don't make things up "just because we can"?

 

[inconsequential]

What do Orthodox TEs believe regarding Adam and Eve? Were they literal people or allegorical?

If literal, how did they come to be people? Did God "sculpt" them from literal dirt and make them come to life or did he take a pre-existing "hominid" and imbue it with a soul or did He use some other method?

 

[Michael G]

What do Orthodox TEs believe regarding Adam and Eve? Were they literal people or allegorical?

If literal, how did they come to be people? Did God "sculpt" them from literal dirt and make them come to life or did he take a pre-existing "hominid" and imbue it with a soul or did He use some other method?

if they were not literal people, then why are there icons of them with halos, separate from the Harrowing of Hades icon?

 

[jckstraw72]

if they were not literal people, then why are there icons of them with halos, separate from the Harrowing of Hades icon?

touche!

Welcome to Facebook

 

[MKJ]

Because we don't make things up "just because we can"?

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.

 

[inconsequential]

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?