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

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
jckstraw72 said:
but if we're really going to devolve into this nonsense, how about just get back to me when the Church drops its literal interpretation of Genesis, which you're sure it will. we can talk then.
I didn't know the church preached a literal interpretation of genesis...that's new to me.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
but if we're really going to devolve into this nonsense, how about just get back to me when the Church drops its literal interpretation of Genesis, which you're sure it will. we can talk then.
I didn't know the church preached a literal interpretation of genesis...that's new to me.
dude, come on. thats what this entire thread has been about. i and others have provided countless examples of the Chuch's understanding of Genesis through Scriptures, Patristics, canons, calendars, etc etc.

even Theokritoff, an evolutionist, in his critique of Fr. Seraphim's book, acknowledged that Fr. Seraphim is reading the Fathers correctly, and that if we were to follow the Fathers we would have to interpret Genesis literally. he says:

Fr Seraphim is commendably honest in recognizing that if one believes, as he does, that we 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.
he also acknowledges that Fr. Seraphim does not rely on proof-texting to come to this conclusion, although so many are wont to charge Creationists of doing that. he says:

The selection from patristic commentaries on the creation and fall stories contains much valuable material; Fr Seraphim is right to stress the importance of appreciating the broad picture of what the Fathers are trying to say, rather than taking excerpts out of context.

if anyone has read the Mountain of Silence, the author also acknowledges in that work that the Church has traditionally interpreted Genesis literally. i thought i had the reference for that, but i can't find it.

and even since Darwin, our Saints and holy elders have continued to intepret Genesis literally: St. John of Kronstadt, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. Nikolai Velimorovich, Fr. George Calciu, Elder Cleopa, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi (it was divinely revealed to him that Genesis is literal history), etc. etc. All these men who we recognize as holy, as bearers of the Tradition who beheld Christ in glory, all bear witness to the Church's literal understanding of Genesis. For the Fathers, allegory is not mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation, and allegory is never used to develop dogma anyways.

you might disagree with the Saints on this matter, but there's no denying that the Saints have uniformly taught this. Even evolutionists have admitted that the Church teaches this (Theokritoff, Minasoliman as well), they have just found ways to disagree.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
jckstraw72 said:
and even since Darwin, our Saints and holy elders have continued to intepret Genesis literally: St. John of Kronstadt, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. Nikolai Velimorovich, Fr. George Calciu, Elder Cleopa, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi (it was divinely revealed to him that Genesis is literal history), etc. etc. All these men who we recognize as holy, as bearers of the Tradition who beheld Christ in glory, all bear witness to the Church's literal understanding of Genesis. For the Fathers, allegory is not mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation, and allegory is never used to develop dogma anyways.
So, would you say that it is impossible for future Saints and holy elders to move away from a necessarily literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2, towards an interpretation that includes an evolutionary perspective?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Well, I know you didn't.  That's why I'm asking you the question.  Does it affect my salvation or doesn't it?
i dont think so.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and even since Darwin, our Saints and holy elders have continued to intepret Genesis literally: St. John of Kronstadt, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. Nikolai Velimorovich, Fr. George Calciu, Elder Cleopa, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi (it was divinely revealed to him that Genesis is literal history), etc. etc. All these men who we recognize as holy, as bearers of the Tradition who beheld Christ in glory, all bear witness to the Church's literal understanding of Genesis. For the Fathers, allegory is not mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation, and allegory is never used to develop dogma anyways.
So, would you say that it is impossible for future Saints and holy elders to move away from a necessarily literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2, towards an interpretation that includes an evolutionary perspective?
i think so, because to include an evolutionary perspective would be to completely change our understanding of death. the Fall had cosmic ramifications, not just for man, and death is the last enemy to be overthrown. that is why Christ's death and resurrection are the very heart of our faith. if we were to change this to say that death is actually good and has been there from the very beginning, by the will of God, we would change everything. in that light, Christ's defeat of death would become a defeat of His own will! i think that God has already well-equipped the Church to deal with modern academia where necessary.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
I think Met. KALLISTOS Ware addresses this topic quite well here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826#

topic starts at the 1:29.30 mark, evolution is addressed specifically at 1:33.30
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
I think Met. KALLISTOS Ware addresses this topic quite well here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826#

topic starts at the 1:29.30 mark, evolution is addressed specifically at 1:33.30
i have great respect for Met. KALLISTOS, but i dont understand why he is more authoritative than so many Saints, other than that he agrees with the position you already hold ...

a couple points:

1. he simply stated that he sees no reason why evolution should be a problem for Orthodoxy, but, at least in this video, he made no attempt to demonstrate how they are harmonious. he shows no signs of having considered the various theological questions that arise from evolution. he simply stated, as so many do, that he can accept evolution.
2. he made the same tired statement that there's no reason that his faith should fear science, although no one makes this claim anyways. its a strawman.
3. he actually contradicted himself. he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
jckstraw72 said:
3. he actually contradicted himself. he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is!
Incorrect. In the Darwinian perspective, yes, Homo sapiens is not radically different from the other living hominids (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans). But the Darwinian perspective is not the only evolutionary perspective. For instance, there is theistic evolution, as well as evolutionary creationism. And then you have the Latin Catholic teaching, which accepts the possibility of the evolution of the human body, but maintains that God directly, supernaturally creates each human soul.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and even since Darwin, our Saints and holy elders have continued to intepret Genesis literally: St. John of Kronstadt, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. Nikolai Velimorovich, Fr. George Calciu, Elder Cleopa, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi (it was divinely revealed to him that Genesis is literal history), etc. etc. All these men who we recognize as holy, as bearers of the Tradition who beheld Christ in glory, all bear witness to the Church's literal understanding of Genesis. For the Fathers, allegory is not mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation, and allegory is never used to develop dogma anyways.
So, would you say that it is impossible for future Saints and holy elders to move away from a necessarily literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2, towards an interpretation that includes an evolutionary perspective?
i think so, because to include an evolutionary perspective would be to completely change our understanding of death. the Fall had cosmic ramifications, not just for man, and death is the last enemy to be overthrown. that is why Christ's death and resurrection are the very heart of our faith. if we were to change this to say that death is actually good and has been there from the very beginning, by the will of God, we would change everything. in that light, Christ's defeat of death would become a defeat of His own will! i think that God has already well-equipped the Church to deal with modern academia where necessary.
Do you think God originally planned (before the Fall) for organisms to reproduce?
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
jckstraw72 said:
he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
That's because evolution only seeks to answer the natural explanation of the emergence of man.  Yes, we are simply a superior ape, naturally speaking. But that changed when God breathed His life into man.  It does not leave science behind, it means that science is philosophically neutral and we don't draw philosophical conclusions from it, which is what many, wrongly, do.

You're creating a false dichotomy here.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and even since Darwin, our Saints and holy elders have continued to intepret Genesis literally: St. John of Kronstadt, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. Nikolai Velimorovich, Fr. George Calciu, Elder Cleopa, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi (it was divinely revealed to him that Genesis is literal history), etc. etc. All these men who we recognize as holy, as bearers of the Tradition who beheld Christ in glory, all bear witness to the Church's literal understanding of Genesis. For the Fathers, allegory is not mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation, and allegory is never used to develop dogma anyways.
So, would you say that it is impossible for future Saints and holy elders to move away from a necessarily literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2, towards an interpretation that includes an evolutionary perspective?
i think so, because to include an evolutionary perspective would be to completely change our understanding of death. the Fall had cosmic ramifications, not just for man, and death is the last enemy to be overthrown. that is why Christ's death and resurrection are the very heart of our faith. if we were to change this to say that death is actually good and has been there from the very beginning, by the will of God, we would change everything. in that light, Christ's defeat of death would become a defeat of His own will! i think that God has already well-equipped the Church to deal with modern academia where necessary.
Do you think God originally planned (before the Fall) for organisms to reproduce?
well i know at least man was commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but the Fathers teach that it would have happened virginally, somehow. i dont know about anything else.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
That's because evolution only seeks to answer the natural explanation of the emergence of man.  Yes, we are simply a superior ape, naturally speaking. But that changed when God breathed His life into man.  It does not leave science behind, it means that science is philosophically neutral and we don't draw philosophical conclusions from it, which is what many, wrongly, do.

You're creating a false dichotomy here.
that works if you say that God's breathing of His life into man had absolutely no biological effects on man's life in any way. but if it did,that would enter into the realm of science, and science would have no way of accounting for that. it would not fit into the naturalistic scheme of evolution. for instance, i think most would still hold that God's breath granted man at least the ability for immortality (had he not sinned). can evolution account for even the possibility of physical immortality?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
and even since Darwin, our Saints and holy elders have continued to intepret Genesis literally: St. John of Kronstadt, St. Barsanuphius of Optina, St. Nektarios, St. Justin Popovich, St. Nikolai Velimorovich, Fr. George Calciu, Elder Cleopa, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim, Elder Paisios, Fr. Philotheos Zervakos, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi (it was divinely revealed to him that Genesis is literal history), etc. etc. All these men who we recognize as holy, as bearers of the Tradition who beheld Christ in glory, all bear witness to the Church's literal understanding of Genesis. For the Fathers, allegory is not mutually exclusive with a literal interpretation, and allegory is never used to develop dogma anyways.
So, would you say that it is impossible for future Saints and holy elders to move away from a necessarily literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2, towards an interpretation that includes an evolutionary perspective?
i think so, because to include an evolutionary perspective would be to completely change our understanding of death. the Fall had cosmic ramifications, not just for man, and death is the last enemy to be overthrown. that is why Christ's death and resurrection are the very heart of our faith. if we were to change this to say that death is actually good and has been there from the very beginning, by the will of God, we would change everything. in that light, Christ's defeat of death would become a defeat of His own will! i think that God has already well-equipped the Church to deal with modern academia where necessary.
Is the understanding of death really the only problem you have with evolution?  Because frankly, before evolution came out, death before the coming of man was already a given, and this was no biological statement alone, but also geological, chemical, etc. all confirming one another.

Now, since the the angels issue really doesn't affect my salvation, I would like to ask then the important question here that matters.  Besides death, what else about evolution affects our salvation in your opinion?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
That's because evolution only seeks to answer the natural explanation of the emergence of man.  Yes, we are simply a superior ape, naturally speaking. But that changed when God breathed His life into man.  It does not leave science behind, it means that science is philosophically neutral and we don't draw philosophical conclusions from it, which is what many, wrongly, do.

You're creating a false dichotomy here.
that works if you say that God's breathing of His life into man had absolutely no biological effects on man's life in any way. but if it did,that would enter into the realm of science, and science would have no way of accounting for that. it would not fit into the naturalistic scheme of evolution. for instance, i think most would still hold that God's breath granted man at least the ability for immortality (had he not sinned). can evolution account for even the possibility of physical immortality?
Remember what some of the Church fathers said?  We have a sensible nature and an intellectual nature.  So, in the mind of the Church fathers, intellect, at least in a spiritual sense, cannot be sensed.  Therefore, science will be unable to test it.  Another methodology is needed to understand our spirit.  And we know this is prayer and spiritual exercises, as well as giving alms.
 

Ebenezer

Jr. Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Granted I'm new to Christianity but I don't see how the theory of evolution or the Big Bang theory or any scientific theory would conflict with Christianity or Christian Orthodoxy or Christian dogma. Said theories merely explain how the creation works, not Whom started the whole thing or why or any of those sorts of things and I think this whole religion vs. science thing is a false dichotomy, science doesn't address the philosophical/theological questions that are answered by religion in particular Christianity. Perhaps we shouldn't read the scriptures literally but rather metaphorically but even if so it doesn't negate the truth of it.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
jckstraw72 said:
Ortho_cat said:
I think Met. KALLISTOS Ware addresses this topic quite well here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826#

topic starts at the 1:29.30 mark, evolution is addressed specifically at 1:33.30
i have great respect for Met. KALLISTOS, but i dont understand why he is more authoritative than so many Saints, other than that he agrees with the position you already hold ...

a couple points:

1. he simply stated that he sees no reason why evolution should be a problem for Orthodoxy, but, at least in this video, he made no attempt to demonstrate how they are harmonious. he shows no signs of having considered the various theological questions that arise from evolution. he simply stated, as so many do, that he can accept evolution.
2. he made the same tired statement that there's no reason that his faith should fear science, although no one makes this claim anyways. its a strawman.
3. he actually contradicted himself. he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
Do you honestly think that Met. Kallistos has not seriously considered the implication of evolution to his faith or has not thoroughly reviewed what the fathers have to say about the matter of creation? I think he is more than capable of discerning between what Orthodox Tradition, and what tradition is.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
That's because evolution only seeks to answer the natural explanation of the emergence of man.  Yes, we are simply a superior ape, naturally speaking. But that changed when God breathed His life into man.  It does not leave science behind, it means that science is philosophically neutral and we don't draw philosophical conclusions from it, which is what many, wrongly, do.

You're creating a false dichotomy here.
that works if you say that God's breathing of His life into man had absolutely no biological effects on man's life in any way. but if it did,that would enter into the realm of science, and science would have no way of accounting for that. it would not fit into the naturalistic scheme of evolution. for instance, i think most would still hold that God's breath granted man at least the ability for immortality (had he not sinned). can evolution account for even the possibility of physical immortality?
Again, immortality was granted to man by communion with God via the 'tree of life'. Once this connection was severed, the hopes for immortality was lost. Science has nothing to say about this matter.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ortho_cat said:
I think Met. KALLISTOS Ware addresses this topic quite well here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826#

topic starts at the 1:29.30 mark, evolution is addressed specifically at 1:33.30
i have great respect for Met. KALLISTOS, but i dont understand why he is more authoritative than so many Saints, other than that he agrees with the position you already hold ...

a couple points:

1. he simply stated that he sees no reason why evolution should be a problem for Orthodoxy, but, at least in this video, he made no attempt to demonstrate how they are harmonious. he shows no signs of having considered the various theological questions that arise from evolution. he simply stated, as so many do, that he can accept evolution.
2. he made the same tired statement that there's no reason that his faith should fear science, although no one makes this claim anyways. its a strawman.
3. he actually contradicted himself. he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
Do you honestly think that Met. Kallistos has not seriously considered the implication of evolution to his faith or has not thoroughly reviewed what the fathers have to say about the matter of creation? I think he is more than capable of discerning between what Orthodox Tradition, and what tradition is.
im simply saying his answer in that video shows no signs of it. it was just a very brief, shallow answer i thought. not very satisfying at all.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
jckstraw72 said:
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
Ortho_cat said:
I think Met. KALLISTOS Ware addresses this topic quite well here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1088949815257678826#

topic starts at the 1:29.30 mark, evolution is addressed specifically at 1:33.30
i have great respect for Met. KALLISTOS, but i dont understand why he is more authoritative than so many Saints, other than that he agrees with the position you already hold ...

a couple points:

1. he simply stated that he sees no reason why evolution should be a problem for Orthodoxy, but, at least in this video, he made no attempt to demonstrate how they are harmonious. he shows no signs of having considered the various theological questions that arise from evolution. he simply stated, as so many do, that he can accept evolution.
2. he made the same tired statement that there's no reason that his faith should fear science, although no one makes this claim anyways. its a strawman.
3. he actually contradicted himself. he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
Do you honestly think that Met. Kallistos has not seriously considered the implication of evolution to his faith or has not thoroughly reviewed what the fathers have to say about the matter of creation? I think he is more than capable of discerning between what Orthodox Tradition, and what tradition is.
im simply saying his answer in that video shows no signs of it. it was just a very brief, shallow answer i thought. not very satisfying at all.
Agree to disagree. I think that in the time alloted he gave a very succint and well rounded answer, perhaps if he had more time to expound he would provide you with the details you are searching for.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
he said he accepts the evolutionary picture but cannot believe that man is simply a superior ape, but in the evolutionary picture that is exactly what man is! to make man more than that is to leave science behind. he just accepts more of the science than the Creationists do, but both camps at some point must leave the science behind and acknowledge that Revelation has something to say that is contrary to the theory of evolution.
That's because evolution only seeks to answer the natural explanation of the emergence of man.  Yes, we are simply a superior ape, naturally speaking. But that changed when God breathed His life into man.  It does not leave science behind, it means that science is philosophically neutral and we don't draw philosophical conclusions from it, which is what many, wrongly, do.

You're creating a false dichotomy here.
that works if you say that God's breathing of His life into man had absolutely no biological effects on man's life in any way. but if it did,that would enter into the realm of science, and science would have no way of accounting for that. it would not fit into the naturalistic scheme of evolution. for instance, i think most would still hold that God's breath granted man at least the ability for immortality (had he not sinned). can evolution account for even the possibility of physical immortality?
Again, immortality was granted to man by communion with God via the 'tree of life'. Once this connection was severed, the hopes for immortality was lost. Science has nothing to say about this matter.
and thats the problem -- we confess a biological reality (man being created in a state of immortality) that science is incapable of ascertaining and commenting on, and thus it ends up putting forth the exact opposite. "scientifically" speaking, man dies of natural necessity, because that's just the course of things in evolution, but the 7th Ecumenical Council anathematizes the belief that man dies of natural necessity, and those who confess it.

not to mention that in the scheme of evolution, man is necessarily the descendant of another living being, and is related to all living things, whereas in Orthoodxy, man is uniquely created by God from the dust, without any ancestry. Only man is created by the hands of God, rather than a simple verbal command. Man is not simply another link in the chain, not even biologically speaking. this is two ways in which naturalistic science contradicts our faith.
 
Top