Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 73 16.8%
  • No

    Votes: 163 37.6%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 198 45.6%

  • Total voters
    434

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Rafa999 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.
It doesn't though.  Evolution being true does not negate Adam not being a "mortal" created in the image of God without sin.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Rafa999 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.
It doesn't though.  Evolution being true does not negate Adam not being a "mortal" created in the image of God without sin.
so then youre prepared to scientifically demonstrate that there were immortal people at one point? or that immortality is possible?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
jckstraw72 said:
it absolutely is contrary...
If it were there's no way I would've converted to Orthodoxy.  I follow the truth where it leads.  Fortunately, scientific discovery is harmonious with Orthodoxy.

have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father
This true and, again, not contrary to common ancestry and natural selection.  It's only contrary if you force it to be so.

and that Eve is literally from his rib;
Right, no WAY that's figurative...

that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man;
So, Autumn and Winter are results of the Fall then?  Here I was giving God praise for the beauties of the seasons.  I'll be sure to save that solely for Spring & Summer.

that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old
We know this, beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever, to be completely and utterly false.

that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
I agree with this last part, that it is not compatible with evolution.  And for some reason, we missed this in my catechism...
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
jckstraw72 said:
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.
So you and the Fathers both agree that if our common sense forbids us from taking something literally, then it must be interpreted...
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.
So you and the Fathers both agree that if our common sense forbids us from taking something literally, then it must be interpreted...
I agree that the Fathers are the key for interpretation, i in no way think it should be left up to the "common sense" of a sinner like me.

and either way, common sense tells me that Paradise is not to be interpreted according to scientific observations of the 19th-21st centuries, but rather by those who have visited Paradise and attained Paradise in their souls. common sense also tells me that if there is a greater authority than the Church then I have no business being Orthodox.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound? Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see and how would it even get eyes?

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Achronos said:
Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
ei*Pi = -1 seems much too complicated to be true.

But it is. 

Science is like that.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Achronos said:
I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound?
Increased awareness of the environment leading to increased biological fitness, I imagine.

Achronos said:
Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see
Because animals that can see a predator charging at them at full speed, intent on eating them, tend to live longer to reproduce than those who cannot.

Achronos said:
and how would it even get eyes? Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
Like so: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/full/nrn2283.html


Lamb said:
Some of the most fundamental events in the evolution of the vertebrate eye occurred in the relatively short time of a few tens of millions of years, around the time of the Cambrian explosion more than 500 Mya and possibly coincident with two duplications of the entire genome.

First, it seems likely that a basal chordate possessed simple paired photoreceptive organs that were broadly similar to the unpaired organs of extant Amphioxus and C. intestinalis (it seems very likely that during evolution C. intestinalis has lost one member of what was once a pair). by approximately 530 Mya these paired organs had expanded laterally, and each had developed into a two-layered ‘retina’, with ciliary photoreceptors contacting projection neurons (which might have arisen from rhabdomeric photoreceptor cells). The resultant organ would have been quite similar to the ‘eye’ of extant hagfish, with a circadian and/or shadow-detecting function and a lack of optical components for imaging. The advantage it conferred to the animal was the ability to gather much more light (possibly at great depth), through a large increase in the number of photoreceptors, through lateral positioning outside the skull and through de-pigmentation of the overlying skin.

Subsequently, in evolutionary steps that closely paralleled the developmental steps that occur in extant metamorphosing lampreys, this rudimentary eye acquired a lens, an increase in retinal processing power (through the insertion of retinal bipolar cells), projection of the ganglion cell axons to thalamic regions, and extraocular muscles. This eye, which was equivalent to the eye of adult extant lampreys, possessed almost all of the crucial features that characterize the modern vertebrate eye, and was present at least 500 Mya. Along with this transformation of the hagfish-like lateral organs from a non-imaging function to an imaging function, another region of the diencephalon expanded to take over circadian function and evolved into the pineal organ.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
I would agree if the saying went like, "ONLY science makes this world worth defending." Science is but one dimension of the human life. It has its limitations. For example, science principally, by definition, excludes anything supernatural. Also, science is not teleological, it does not ask questions like "who are we? from where did we come? where are we going?" etc. There are other dimensions of human life where such questions are approppriate - philosophy, theology... I never denied their right to exist, and I respect those people who dedicated their whole life to these non-scientific dimensions. But science, similarly, has its own place and character, and there is no reason to disrespect or dismiss it.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
 
Top