What is the Church's position on Creation/Evolution

[ArmyMatt]

I don't about that. Then substitute the age of death, I don't care.

death is foreign to creation, which has to do with our understanding of why God created in the first place, especially human beings.

and yes, I believe in a Young Earth.

 

[prodromos]

and yes, I believe in a Young Earth.

As do I

 

[rusmeister]

I suppose I could say the same thing about heliocentrism. I think that was point being made. Of course there was one poster in the forum that did seem to believe in geocentrism of sorts. Since we can't really know anything outside the Church, then why not?

This is why I think you don’t really understand me. Indeed, it is the best test, to express what you think the other’s position is. If you want to show that you do indeed understand your opponent, there is nothing better than stating his position in such a way that he can only say, “Yes, that is what I believe”. Of course, frm there we can go on to state the effect or ultimate meaning of his position, but most often, we skip that oh-so-helpful step. And the result is that we express only a parody of his position, what he really believes. Yes, we may be right and our opponent may not see that his position does ultimately add up to (what it adds up to), but at least as often, it is we who do not understand our opponent.

And here your sentence, “Since we can’t know anything outside of the Church...” reveals that you think that is what our position is. It may be for someone here, though I don’t know who. It is certainly not mine, nor Platina’s position, and I’d bet dollars to doughnuts it’s not Fr Matt’s position. We don’t think that. Our position does not even logically lead to that. We think that in ONE field of knowledge, that of a past that no human ever observed or recorded, that the science, such as it is, can really go wrong, and HAS gone wrong. We think that we CAN know history, that Julius Caesar really existed, that medical science CAN learn amazing things about the human body (though it can go wrong where it forgets that humans have souls subject to sin), that physics can show us amazing things producing enormous jets that can actually fly, that electronics can produce the technology we are communicating on right now because things outside the Church CAN be known.

You, on the other hand, cannot conceive that science really can go wrong, that many thousands of scientists could agree on a claim and still be in error, that our educations in the world could have taught us to think wrongly, and see things wrongly, in principle. To you that is inconceivable. Your education is infallible.

 

[Platina]

Unless he has changed his mind - ArmyMatt is a YECer.

I didn't say he wasn't. But just because YEC is the common label doesn't mean that Creationists of the Orthodox variety are first concerned about the age of the earth.

Even if the earth is young and the days are literal, we still have to ask what happened during those days. Was there death?

Even if the earth is old and the days are symbolic, we still have to ask what happened during those days. Was there death?

 

[rusmeister]

I didn't say he wasn't. But just because YEC is the common label doesn't mean that Creationists of the Orthodox variety are first concerned about the age of the earth.

Even if the earth is young and the days are literal, we still have to ask what happened during those days. Was there death?

Even if the earth is old and the days are symbolic, we still have to ask what happened during those days. Was there death?

What he said. Was there death?

 

[SingularityOne]

St. Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory the Theologian do a great job explaining creation, as I have posted in this forum before. Not only that, but they voice the mind of the Church as we know it. So why should I look to a fallible scientist for this specific knowledge when empirical studies are at odds just as much as we are on this topic? - haha. Essentially, it comes down to the question of "Who do I trust in a circumstance where I know that no one was there to observe the events of creation?"

And, yes, I'm a YEC. I would also say that science is beneficial and useful for knowledge and innovation. However, I would say that to trust science as without error, since bias cannot be completely eradicated from empirical studies (even though that is the goal), could lead to delusion. Many studies have multiple scientists that disagree on the conclusion of the studies and where to take the science next. I used to think that science was straight fact until I realized it's almost nearly impossible to get rid of bias. Again, not saying that science isn't to be trusted at all, but that one needs descernment and a good foundation in research methods to check the studies they are citing to make sure they are run without any confounds and have proper controls. I would be surprised to see any scientist that could eliminate all confounds and set up proper controls for something they couldn't even observe, lol.

 

[gzt]

We can pretty confidently say things were dying for hundreds of years before the appearance of modern man.

 

[ArmyMatt]

which cuts at our understanding of anthropology.

 

[All4Christ]

And 18 pages in, no opinions are changed...and I dare say will not be changed...

 

[prodromos]

We can pretty confidently say things were dying for hundreds of years before the appearance of modern man.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Since this thread seems at an impasse, I, Gurney, as President Pro Temp of the TAW Senate, cast the deciding vote—-evolution is boloney, incompatible with the Fathers, Saints, Church, Bible, and Orthodoxy. Done!!

Now that was so simple...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

 

[gzt]

which cuts at our understanding of anthropology.

Not necessarily. Perhaps some understandings of it, but not necessarily the Orthodox one.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not necessarily. Perhaps some understandings of it, but not necessarily the Orthodox one.

yeah it does, especially looking at St Maximos the confessor, St John of Damascus, etc.

 

[rusmeister]

Not necessarily. Perhaps some understandings of it, but not necessarily the Orthodox one.

Absolutely the Orthodox one. Unless by "Orthodox", you mean a view in which death did not enter the world as a consequence of the sin of a fully-formed man, but was always present. Which ain't Orthodox.

 

[Platina]

There's no Father that teaches that man would have died apart from sin. In fact, such a notion is explicitly anathematized by the Ecumenical Councils. So yah, it cuts against Orthodox anthropology.

 

[gzt]

Good and pious Orthodox Christians obedient to the Tradition such as myself and, I presume, you can certainly disagree about this. I direct you to the Orthodox wiki for several articles discussing differing viewpoints. Hope that helps.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Good and pious Orthodox Christians obedient to the Tradition such as myself and, I presume, you can certainly disagree about this. I direct you to the Orthodox wiki for several articles discussing differing viewpoints. Hope that helps.

except that Orthodoxwiki article is incomplete, not taking into account what many saints ancient and modern say, which either directly or indirectly show the incompatibility of evolution with Orthodox theology.

more of the commentaries for both sides on that page are modern academics or authors.

if my count is correct, 33 modern authors to 3 saints. that's not exactly an article being faithful to tradition.

 

[gzt]

That's certainly your interpretation of it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

nothing in there about St Maximos's anthropology, nothing from St John of Damascus, etc. and 94% of the authors being from the 20th Century (with some schismatics thrown in).

not exactly a faithful witness of tradition (or good scholarship) when you jump from the 300's to the 1900's.