What about evolution?

[Nietzscheiswrong]

What is the orthodox belief of it?

1) YECism (creationism full stop evolution is heretic etc)
2) Possible
3) Scientific fact

In a nutshell what is the orthodox view of science and scientific discovery?
Genesis taken literally?

I.e. faith and reason or just faith like in protestantism?

 

[Knee V]

As Genesis is neither a science nor a history text book, you will find some difference of opinion. However, there is no room for differing opinions for things like God created the universe from nothing, that man is made in God's image, etc.

 

[Kristos]

I don't see why faith and science are pitted against each other - as if only one can be "right". The evolution of species as a scientific hypothesis seems to be fairly well reviewed, reproduced and accepted. Species evolve in this fallen world.

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

Thx.

^^

I lean towards orthodoxy in many ways. Its theology seems to make more sense especially with "original sin" and the fact that it insists on the Resurrection more than the Passion. I.e. life and not death.

 

[Nietzscheiswrong]

I don't see why faith and science are pitted against each other - as if only one can be "right". The evolution of species as a scientific hypothesis seems to be fairly well reviewed, reproduced and accepted. Species evolve in this fallen world.

neither do I!

 

[Knee V]

Species evolve in this fallen world.

That, I believe, is entirely consistent with Orthodoxy and, IMHO, entirely true. The issue, then, is if species evolved before the world was fallen. I am of the belief that we cannot look at the post-fallen world conditions to determine the pre-fallen world conditions, as corruption and decay were introduced after sin entered.

 

[gzt]

I'm more toward option (3) scientific fact which is not in conflict with Orthodoxy. Some others will disagree. There are certainly some YEC or "Possible" people here and in Orthodoxy at large, but nobody credible will call me a heretic for saying that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old, life is about ~3.5 billion years old, etc etc etc. But one must differentiate between the fact of evolution and the interpretation of evolution sometimes done by scientism. ie, it's not scientific to say, "Evolution! Therefore God didn't create the Earth, God doesn't love us, God didn't become man." It just doesn't follow and it isn't scientific, science has, quite literally, nothing whatever to say on the subject of interpretation.

 

[ProScribe]

I think ToE evolutionary theory is a proposed alternative for the non-religious.

 

[ArmyMatt]

personally I have no issues with microevolution post Fall, but prior to that I trust the Fathers interpretation of Genesis more than modern scientists as far as our origins go. but I do also admit, that there are many evolutionists out there that are far more devout than I am.

 

[truefiction1]

I don't see why faith and science are pitted against each other - as if only one can be "right". The evolution of species as a scientific hypothesis seems to be fairly well reviewed, reproduced and accepted. Species evolve in this fallen world.

Faith and science are often perceived as being pitted against each other, primarily because scientific discovery sometimes forces us to acknowledge that many of our earlier, strongly held views regarding the history of mankind and the causes of his problems were highly inaccurate. This realization, for many, can easily derail whatever weak faith they might have had, casting them headlong into atheism. Such individuals will then cite science as the proof that God doesn't exist.

 

[jckstraw72]

i think Fr. John Romanides hits the nail on the head;

• The Ancestral Sin, p. 41-42
  When philosophical systems try to explain the phenomena of things and the presence of evil in them on the basis of what is known about nature, it is absolutely natural for them to confuse the idea of the creation of matter with its fall. If we begin with philosophical and scientific observations of the material world, it is logically impossible to arrive at a distinction between the creation of the world and its fall. Quite simply, this is because the reality before our eyes presents nature as it is now, after the fall … Philosophy is unable to bridge [its] dualism between matter and reality because it is impossible for natural man to distinguish between the wholly positive creation of the world and the fall of the world. Man cannot know this division except by revelation.
  
  
  
  
• p. 48 The dualism of matter and reality is largely based on the idea that death is both a natural and phenomenal fact since matter and the material world in general are without permanent reality, something that belongs to a different dimension. In contrast to the philosophical method, through the divine revelation given to the Prophets, the special people of God learned to distinguish clearly between the world’s creation and the world’s fall, as well as between the present age, which is under the sway of the devil and death, and the future age of the resurrection and the incorruptibility of matter.