Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 74 16.9%
  • No

    Votes: 164 37.4%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 200 45.7%

  • Total voters
    438

byhisgrace

OC.Net Guru
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 23, 2014
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
USA
TheTrisagion said:
byhisgrace said:
TheTrisagion said:
Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?
I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.
How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?
Fair enough. I suppose Christianity does not stand or fall on the inerrancy of Scripture, as its main intention is to show mankind the path to salvation, not to make a documentary on antiquity. I believe that there are other good reasons to believe in the physical Resurrection of Christ, independent of the inerrancy of the Gospels.

If the claims presented in Fr. John Whiteford's blog are accurate, though, it could call into question the reliability of the Fathers. I'm no expert in Patristics, though, so I digress. 
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
TheTrisagion said:
byhisgrace said:
TheTrisagion said:
Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?
I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.
How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?
If the way you have to defend evolution is by repeating this kind of malicious old sophistry against the Holy Evangelists, then perhaps Byhisgrace is altogether in the right.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,263
Reaction score
108
Points
63
Age
41
Jetavan said:
Did life begin on land rather than in the sea?
A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life


"What she (Djokic) showed was that the oldest fossil evidence for life was in fresh water," said Deamer, a lanky 78-year-old who explored the region with Djokic, Damer, and Van Kranendonk in 2015. "It's a logical continuation to life beginning in a freshwater environment."

The model for life beginning on land rather than in the sea could not only reshape our idea about the origin of life and where else it might be, but even change the way we view ourselves.
....
According to Deamer and his colleagues, this discovery and their hot-springs-origins model also have implications for the search for life on other planets. If life began on land, then Mars, which was found to have a 3.65-billion-year-old hot spring deposits similar to those found in the Pilbara region of Australia, might be a good place to look.
So Star Trek was closer to the truth after all? All kidding aside though, it's a thing of wonder, this kind of stuff.  (For anyone having trouble accessing the article, remove the " at the end of the link)
 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,827
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Porter ODoran said:
TheTrisagion said:
byhisgrace said:
TheTrisagion said:
Where does the Church make the claim that Scripture is inerrant, and what does inerrant mean to you?
I define "inerrancy" as being historically accurate, so far as the intentions of the original authors are concerned. For example, if Genesis 1-3 was intended to be literal to the author(s) who wrote it, then its inerrancy is subject to historical scrutiny. If it is not intended to be literal, then evolution does not necessarily contradict the inerrancy of Genesis.
How are we to know the intentions of the authors? The purpose of Scripture is so that we might know God Would it not be easier to say that inerrancy means it will not lead someone into error in that regard? There are tons of places in Scripture that aren't 100% accurate historically. Matthew says Judas died by hanging himself and the priests bought a field with the money. Acts says he purchased the field and then died by falling and his middle burst open. Do discrepancies like this affect our ability to use Scripture for the purpose with which it is intended?
If the way you have to defend evolution is by repeating this kind of malicious old sophistry against the Holy Evangelists, then perhaps Byhisgrace is altogether in the right.
I'm not defending "evolution". I'm merely pointing out the fact that we don't need to write off the Bible just because we encounter what appear to be discrepancies of an account.
 

RobS

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Maybe I'm too naive, but there are much more important and complex issues evolution raises theologically than the tired "evolution is historical, blah blah". Nobody really knows the how life emerged the way it did, but evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes. It's possible another scientific theory could supplant evolution and be even more predictive, but I'm not holding my breath. So scientists do methodological naturalism to figure out the how of God's creation in order to produce useful predictions that matter to us, whether to develop better medicines, sturdier bridges, and send men out to space. None of this requires divine revelation, but as soon as the scientist tries to become a metaphysician, they are in error. The move from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism is fraught with so many problems, but I can see why scientists would be tempted because of how powerful scientific predictions are.

However that said, there is nothing evolution explains that is meaningful to my life spiritually or how that relates to my union with God. Do I think evolution creates theological problems such as the nature of death in creation and the Fall? Sure but I think I can neatly resolve that issue. Genesis, and the entire Bible itself, is the true God revealing to man who He is, who we are, and what our relationship to God is, the necessity for a Redeemer and so on. Yes there are a lot more nuances and intricacies than this superficial high level view but a fixation on the historicity on the Biblical narratives are missing the deeper spiritual truths that are more important to the Christian.

I care more about deepening my love for God, trusting His ways, doing His will not mine. The Bible is the authoritative text that helps me in my journey with God.

I'm glad that science is doing something completely different than what we as Christians should be doing. There is no overlap between the two domains, its a category error. Except perhaps using the developments of science for the good to our neighbors. Caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, giving shelter to the homeless, helping the poor, etc. Science can be hugely beneficial in helping us do the work of God, so I don't necessarily want to downplay its importance. However it's also important we are careful in that we don't harm others or use science as a vehicle for human vanities.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
nothing said:
evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.
I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing. If it could then it would be very simple to supply a pathway (or pathways) of genomic changes of type A to lead to a genome of type B. No such thing can be done. Evolutionists prediction formula is "what is is".
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
I agree that it is a mighty head game. However, it's been so entangled with the biological sciences for so long that it's hard at this stage to say it's has had no value -- it has participated in value of many kinds and much importance. Further, as the foundational presumption of biology's philosophy-of-science (a presumption you and I could agree was a begged question, yet it is foundational all the same), it participates in much of the scaffolding of biology. Taxonomy, which has undeniable foundational value. Comparative research. Predictive models of genetics. And much more. Mankind has willed into reality the axiom that generations ago was a belligerent propaganda: evolution is indivisible from the life sciences. I think we can hardly fathom what dint of analysis it would take to re-divide them and what a massive body of work it would take to re-found the life sciences on a philosophy-of-science of due praise, altho I'm glad I'm not the only one left who can at least imagine it.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
ativan said:
nothing said:
evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.
I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing.
If evolution is true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms--now extinct--that are very similar structurally to living organisms
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
Jetavan said:
ativan said:
nothing said:
evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.
I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing.
If evolution is true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms--now extinct--that are very similar structurally to living organisms
If God's attributes of order and abundance in creation are true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms now, as it happens, extinct -- for created species fall away as does everything created, in time, in a fallen world -- that are -- very intelligently and interestingly indeed -- similar to living.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
ativan said:
nothing said:
evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.
I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing.
If evolution is true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms--now extinct--that are very similar structurally to living organisms
That is exactly the formula "what is is".

How and why would it predict so? Aren't you not hiding many other assumptions into your statement? Give me one specific extinct organism and one structurally similar living one and give me an explanation of that prediction.

Besides, we have multitude of structurally similar living organisms today: did existing organism A with a similar structure of another existing organism B formed by A transforming into B by evolution?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
AlioshaKaramazov said:
I just read this article. I'm not sure I agree with it entirely, but I found it very interesting nonetheless:

http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/1.2017/Alexander.Khramov.pdf

My main objections/criticisms are the following:

1) Even though the author denies the similarities of the argument to gnosticism, I think it still reeks of gnosticism.
2) It doesn't answer the question of when exactly the fallen Adam and Eve entered fallen history, and how do they relate to the genealogies of the OT.
3) I don't think what he calls "theistic evolutionism" necessarily has to put the blame of evolution, the futility of creation and the suffering of animals on God. One of my favorite theories regarding this, based on the scholastic tradition of Thomas Aquinas regarding angels (who at the same time took it from some Church Fathers such as Pseudo-Dionysius and I believe John Scotus Eriugena), is that due to the great power they were given at the beginning over the physical creation, it's not entirely unreasonable to believe that evolution was a result of the fall of angels from Heaven, who from the very beginning tried to distort and corrupt God's creation (leading up to evolution). It still has some problems, such as how to interpret the entrance of sin into the world "through one man" and the cosmic effects of original sin. But I think it's the only theistic-evolutionist position that doesn't make God look like an evil or incompetent Demiurge.
Just finished reading this...really difficult to muscle this into my brain, and I feel like I have to reread this a couple of times...buuuuttt...

I honestly don't see a point anymore in trying to harmonize evolution with theology.  Theology teaches God is Creator of all things seen and unseen.  Humanity lives in sin if it doesn't seek unity and life-giving relationship with the Father through Christ.  Evolution seeks to explain the the diversity of biological organisms through a consistency of scientific laws.  I tend to see that the assumption of consistency and nature following laws as proof of the intelligible nature of creation that points to the intelligent Logos, but that's it.  It doesn't seek to explain divine purpose.

At the same time, rather than separating the two into "pre-Fall paradisaical" and "post-Fall laws of science", why can't the laws of science be the icon of the Logos?  I find that the weakness in the article continues to create a split dichotomy, where one side has nothing to do with the other.  No!  One depends on the other.  The laws of science, including evolution, still result from the fully active divine in every aspect of our creation.  He doesn't just snap His fingers and doesn't get involved.  I also accept the laws of embryology.  That doesn't mean God didn't create me but a mere sperm/egg fusion.

Sooooo, as someone as accepts evolution at face value, I don't see why there should be a "problem".  It's not like theology depended on the falsity or truth of evolution.  Theology depends on how the world can be related to our understanding of our place and purpose in Christ.  Regardless of what mechanism the formation of the cosmos can be explained, that formation alone only becomes an academic curiosity and technological advancement, but doesn't go far enough to explain TRUE life in Christ.

Neither should we be throwing stones at scientists because of how they "stick" with evolution.  As someone who works in science, I fully sympathize with that position, and I feel most people who are anti-evolution don't really take the time to fully understand the science, but seek ONLY to disprove by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Such a life is not real life, but a life filled with fear, a fear non-existent.  With Christ, there's nothing to be afraid of.  Just let the chips fall where they may.  Evolution never changed Orthodox theology.  It's presuppositions that change.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
ativan said:
Jetavan said:
ativan said:
nothing said:
evolution, broadly speaking, is a powerful explanatory theory that provides useful predictions for scientific purposes.
I would not even say this. This is overstatement on the part of evolutionary biologists. In reality it can predict nothing.
If evolution is true, then one would predict that one could find fossils of organisms--now extinct--that are very similar structurally to living organisms
That is exactly the formula "what is is".

How and why would it predict so? Aren't you not hiding many other assumptions into your statement? Give me one specific extinct organism and one structurally similar living one and give me an explanation of that prediction.
Homo sapiens and the extinct Homo neanderthalensis are quite similar genetically. Why assume that each species was independently created?

Some interbreeding occurred between the two species, and it seems that modern humans with Neanderthal DNA might experience rates of certain mental disorders different from modern humans without Neanderthal DNA.

Researchers at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) have produced the first direct evidence that parts of our brains implicated in mental disorders may be shaped by a "residual echo" from our ancient past. The more a person's genome carries genetic vestiges of Neanderthals, the more certain parts of his or her brain and skull resemble those of humans' evolutionary cousins that went extinct 40,000 years ago, says NIMH's Karen Berman, M.D. NIMH is part of the National Institutes of Health.

In particular, the parts of our brains that enable us to use tools and visualize and locate objects owe some of their lineage to Neanderthal-derived gene variants that are part of our genomes and affect the shape of those structures -- to the extent that an individual harbors the ancient variants. But this may involve trade-offs with our social brain. The evidence from MRI scans suggests that such Neanderthal-derived genetic variation may affect the way our brains work today -- and may hold clues to understanding deficits seen in schizophrenia and autism-related disorders, say the researchers.
 

Porter ODoran

Toumarches
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
12,135
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Eugene, OR
"Race" is banned but "species" is hot. O evolution-fans, may your subtle-only-to-yourselves misanthropy never change.
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
24
Location
Spain
minasoliman said:
Just finished reading this...really difficult to muscle this into my brain, and I feel like I have to reread this a couple of times...buuuuttt...

I honestly don't see a point anymore in trying to harmonize evolution with theology.  Theology teaches God is Creator of all things seen and unseen.  Humanity lives in sin if it doesn't seek unity and life-giving relationship with the Father through Christ.  Evolution seeks to explain the the diversity of biological organisms through a consistency of scientific laws.  I tend to see that the assumption of consistency and nature following laws as proof of the intelligible nature of creation that points to the intelligent Logos, but that's it.  It doesn't seek to explain divine purpose.

At the same time, rather than separating the two into "pre-Fall paradisaical" and "post-Fall laws of science", why can't the laws of science be the icon of the Logos?  I find that the weakness in the article continues to create a split dichotomy, where one side has nothing to do with the other.  No!  One depends on the other.  The laws of science, including evolution, still result from the fully active divine in every aspect of our creation.  He doesn't just snap His fingers and doesn't get involved.  I also accept the laws of embryology.  That doesn't mean God didn't create me but a mere sperm/egg fusion.

Sooooo, as someone as accepts evolution at face value, I don't see why there should be a "problem".  It's not like theology depended on the falsity or truth of evolution.  Theology depends on how the world can be related to our understanding of our place and purpose in Christ.  Regardless of what mechanism the formation of the cosmos can be explained, that formation alone only becomes an academic curiosity and technological advancement, but doesn't go far enough to explain TRUE life in Christ.

Neither should we be throwing stones at scientists because of how they "stick" with evolution.  As someone who works in science, I fully sympathize with that position, and I feel most people who are anti-evolution don't really take the time to fully understand the science, but seek ONLY to disprove by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Such a life is not real life, but a life filled with fear, a fear non-existent.  With Christ, there's nothing to be afraid of.  Just let the chips fall where they may.  Evolution never changed Orthodox theology.  It's presuppositions that change.
Thanks for your response, Mina. Here's my problem with the theistic evolutionary position (which I've tried to defend before). I just don't see how God could have created an Earth filled with violence and death from the beginning. Sure, as I posted on this thread before,  Fathers and theologians of the Latin tradition such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas seem to be less radical when it comes to differentiating the pre-Fall and post-Fall Creation (as opposed to the Eastern Fathers who emphasize the relationship between Man as a microcosm and the rest of Creation), and they give room to the possibility of animal death existing in some form. But still, it's a very minoritary position. And there's still no way around the fact that none of the Fathers (that we know of) believed the Earth to be older than 6.000-7.500 years approximately. Can one dismiss this consensus as being the mere product of their scientific ignorance? Is it just a scientific mistake, or a theological one? If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Just because the fathers believed in a young earth does not mean this was part of dogma or necessary for salvation.  There were no other options.  The scientific method as we know it came about in the 18th century.  The only difference in ages maybe is those fathers who believed in a 5000 BC origin vs 8 or 9000 BC origin depending on how you define "day" in the Genesis 1.

But as I said, I don't advocate theistic evolution over some other theory.  I think we need to start outgrowing the need to harmonize literal Scritpure with science.  So whether it's theistic evolution, or Francis Collin's "bioLogos" or this theologian's article on post Fall Big Bang, all of this is rather a waste of time in comparison to the importance of the incarnation, passion, and salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ in conjunction with most if not all of the genealogy which lead to Christ, and the salvific and allegorical lessons we learn from that theological genealogy.

Science is the manner in which Christ has revealed His engineering of the world, and our discoveries of science should be for His glory, and this includes, in my experience, evolution.

You know, the earliest fathers believed our death was a mercy for the sins Adam committed.  That means that Christ created the manner in which we live so much so that death becomes a consequence of Adam's sinful actions.  Could Christ have created the world in a different manner, so much so that if Adam did not sin, we wouldn't die?  I believe so.  But He did not.  So if the fathers learned to thank God for death WITHIN THAT CONTEXT of not living in sin (and now within the context of the life-giving death of Christ), then why shouldn't I thank God for evolution, IF INDEED IT'S TRUE? 

We need to acquire some humility rather than make presuppositions that "God couldn't have created the world that way."  Who are you to say what God could or could not do?  If the divine consistency allows for the consistency of the scientific method to be studied so much so as to show evolution to be true, glory be to God.  But if evolution is found to be not true, glory be to God nevertheless.

Glory be to God in all things, for all things, and because of all things.  For all things, even the consequences of our actions, lead us back to Christ His Son, for our salvation. 
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
AlioshaKaramazov said:
minasoliman said:
Just finished reading this...really difficult to muscle this into my brain, and I feel like I have to reread this a couple of times...buuuuttt...

I honestly don't see a point anymore in trying to harmonize evolution with theology.  Theology teaches God is Creator of all things seen and unseen.  Humanity lives in sin if it doesn't seek unity and life-giving relationship with the Father through Christ.  Evolution seeks to explain the the diversity of biological organisms through a consistency of scientific laws.  I tend to see that the assumption of consistency and nature following laws as proof of the intelligible nature of creation that points to the intelligent Logos, but that's it.  It doesn't seek to explain divine purpose.

At the same time, rather than separating the two into "pre-Fall paradisaical" and "post-Fall laws of science", why can't the laws of science be the icon of the Logos?  I find that the weakness in the article continues to create a split dichotomy, where one side has nothing to do with the other.  No!  One depends on the other.  The laws of science, including evolution, still result from the fully active divine in every aspect of our creation.  He doesn't just snap His fingers and doesn't get involved.  I also accept the laws of embryology.  That doesn't mean God didn't create me but a mere sperm/egg fusion.

Sooooo, as someone as accepts evolution at face value, I don't see why there should be a "problem".  It's not like theology depended on the falsity or truth of evolution.  Theology depends on how the world can be related to our understanding of our place and purpose in Christ.  Regardless of what mechanism the formation of the cosmos can be explained, that formation alone only becomes an academic curiosity and technological advancement, but doesn't go far enough to explain TRUE life in Christ.

Neither should we be throwing stones at scientists because of how they "stick" with evolution.  As someone who works in science, I fully sympathize with that position, and I feel most people who are anti-evolution don't really take the time to fully understand the science, but seek ONLY to disprove by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Such a life is not real life, but a life filled with fear, a fear non-existent.  With Christ, there's nothing to be afraid of.  Just let the chips fall where they may.  Evolution never changed Orthodox theology.  It's presuppositions that change.
Thanks for your response, Mina. Here's my problem with the theistic evolutionary position (which I've tried to defend before). I just don't see how God could have created an Earth filled with violence and death from the beginning. Sure, as I posted on this thread before,  Fathers and theologians of the Latin tradition such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas seem to be less radical when it comes to differentiating the pre-Fall and post-Fall Creation (as opposed to the Eastern Fathers who emphasize the relationship between Man as a microcosm and the rest of Creation), and they give room to the possibility of animal death existing in some form. But still, it's a very minoritary position. And there's still no way around the fact that none of the Fathers (that we know of) believed the Earth to be older than 6.000-7.500 years approximately. Can one dismiss this consensus as being the mere product of their scientific ignorance? Is it just a scientific mistake, or a theological one? If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong?
Good points, especially the point about God essentially being the author of death if theistic evolution is true. I've raised this question many times and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Another philosophy that theistic evolutionists promote is the radical dichotomy of faith and science, which I thoroughly reject. God is the author of science, and thus to divorce science from faith does violence to both. And this has nothing to do with promoting a literal interpretation of Genesis or promoting the Bible as a scientific textbook. But the Bible, as it is correctly interpreted by the Church, is our essential source of theology. And if we reject the basic theological tenet that death entered the world through sin, and instead attribute death to God, then I think we have committed heresy. And the theistic evolutionists have no clear answer for this. In order to try to reconcile the problem they resort to all manner of hermeneutical and theological gymnastics that seem to defy the clarity of the Gospel.

The other philosophical problem with evolution (which I have also repeatedly pointed out and received no sufficient answer) is who and what determines who and what is fully human? If we are still evolving, then who and what is the authority on determining the definition of "fully human"? Even the theistic evolutionist cannot answer this question apart from mere conjecture. Within an evolutionary framework there simply is no objective basis for defining and determining what is "fully human." And while the atheistic evolutionist may not have a problem with this (e.g. euthanasia, abortion, genocide, slavery, etc. may pose no moral qualms for them), it most certainly poses problems for the theistic evolutionist. And I have yet to hear a solid, objective, scientific answer to this question from the theistic evolutionists.


Selam
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
Porter ODoran said:
Ainnir said:
beebert said:
people who are to spiritually and intellectually analphabetic to understand that the earth doesnt stand on a turtle.
Of course it doesn't!  The elephants stand on the turtle.  ;)
Well, the irony in this snarky little legend (which seems to be credited to whichever evolution-apologist the teller fancies at the moment) is that in fact it's the materialist explanations of the universe that are forced to rely on "turtles all the way down." What makes the apple fall? Gravity. What's gravity? The attraction of masses. What makes them attractive? Gravity, the warping of space-time. What makes space-time warp? Gravity, perhaps a particle or wave. What makes the particle or wave behave as it does? Gravity. This goes on ad infinitum. Or: What began the universe? A big bang. What caused the big bang? A big compression. What caused the big compression? Reaction to a universal entropy. What instantiated entropy? A big bang. Or even: How did thus and thus happen when it would be contrary to known physical laws? There may be other universes than ours. But what would this tell us about its probability? The universes may be infinite. But how can providing infinite environments make the thing certain (e.g., a quarter won't fall into the sky no matter how often dropped, ceteris parabus)? There are also infinite realities in the infinite universes -- it is realities all the way down. While for the non-materialist all questions end rather quickly in the First Cause.
Good post I must say. Though I would claim and argue that both the materialist view you mentioned here and the First Cause-view are probably not good enough explanations of things . There is a risk in the First Cause way of thinking that can lead to the superficial and pathetic question "Then who made God?", a question that makes a person with any sense of depth sigh.
 

beebert

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
1,622
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Stockholm
AlioshaKaramazov said:
minasoliman said:
Just finished reading this...really difficult to muscle this into my brain, and I feel like I have to reread this a couple of times...buuuuttt...

I honestly don't see a point anymore in trying to harmonize evolution with theology.  Theology teaches God is Creator of all things seen and unseen.  Humanity lives in sin if it doesn't seek unity and life-giving relationship with the Father through Christ.  Evolution seeks to explain the the diversity of biological organisms through a consistency of scientific laws.  I tend to see that the assumption of consistency and nature following laws as proof of the intelligible nature of creation that points to the intelligent Logos, but that's it.  It doesn't seek to explain divine purpose.

At the same time, rather than separating the two into "pre-Fall paradisaical" and "post-Fall laws of science", why can't the laws of science be the icon of the Logos?  I find that the weakness in the article continues to create a split dichotomy, where one side has nothing to do with the other.  No!  One depends on the other.  The laws of science, including evolution, still result from the fully active divine in every aspect of our creation.  He doesn't just snap His fingers and doesn't get involved.  I also accept the laws of embryology.  That doesn't mean God didn't create me but a mere sperm/egg fusion.

Sooooo, as someone as accepts evolution at face value, I don't see why there should be a "problem".  It's not like theology depended on the falsity or truth of evolution.  Theology depends on how the world can be related to our understanding of our place and purpose in Christ.  Regardless of what mechanism the formation of the cosmos can be explained, that formation alone only becomes an academic curiosity and technological advancement, but doesn't go far enough to explain TRUE life in Christ.

Neither should we be throwing stones at scientists because of how they "stick" with evolution.  As someone who works in science, I fully sympathize with that position, and I feel most people who are anti-evolution don't really take the time to fully understand the science, but seek ONLY to disprove by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Such a life is not real life, but a life filled with fear, a fear non-existent.  With Christ, there's nothing to be afraid of.  Just let the chips fall where they may.  Evolution never changed Orthodox theology.  It's presuppositions that change.
Thanks for your response, Mina. Here's my problem with the theistic evolutionary position (which I've tried to defend before). I just don't see how God could have created an Earth filled with violence and death from the beginning. Sure, as I posted on this thread before,  Fathers and theologians of the Latin tradition such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas seem to be less radical when it comes to differentiating the pre-Fall and post-Fall Creation (as opposed to the Eastern Fathers who emphasize the relationship between Man as a microcosm and the rest of Creation), and they give room to the possibility of animal death existing in some form. But still, it's a very minoritary position. And there's still no way around the fact that none of the Fathers (that we know of) believed the Earth to be older than 6.000-7.500 years approximately. Can one dismiss this consensus as being the mere product of their scientific ignorance? Is it just a scientific mistake, or a theological one? If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong?
Augustine believed the Earth to be older. And he probably had the finest intelligence of the fathers. They got it wrong because of cultural circumstances, probably biased opinions, no interest and knowledge in science(which must not be a bad thing, idolizing science can destroy man's appreciation for myths and poetic expressions of reality) and the fact that they were human beings prone to make "mistakes".

Heaven and hell for example are within us, and all the gods are within us. This is the great realization of the Upanishads of India . All the gods, all the heavens, all the world, are within us in a sense, which doesnt make it less true. They are magnified dreams, and dreams are manifestations in image form of the energies of the body in conflict with each other. That is what myth is. Myth is a manifestation in symbolic images, in metaphorical images, of the energies of the organs of the body in conflict with each other. Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,975
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
AlioshaKaramazov said:
minasoliman said:
Just finished reading this...really difficult to muscle this into my brain, and I feel like I have to reread this a couple of times...buuuuttt...

I honestly don't see a point anymore in trying to harmonize evolution with theology.  Theology teaches God is Creator of all things seen and unseen.  Humanity lives in sin if it doesn't seek unity and life-giving relationship with the Father through Christ.  Evolution seeks to explain the the diversity of biological organisms through a consistency of scientific laws.  I tend to see that the assumption of consistency and nature following laws as proof of the intelligible nature of creation that points to the intelligent Logos, but that's it.  It doesn't seek to explain divine purpose.

At the same time, rather than separating the two into "pre-Fall paradisaical" and "post-Fall laws of science", why can't the laws of science be the icon of the Logos?  I find that the weakness in the article continues to create a split dichotomy, where one side has nothing to do with the other.  No!  One depends on the other.  The laws of science, including evolution, still result from the fully active divine in every aspect of our creation.  He doesn't just snap His fingers and doesn't get involved.  I also accept the laws of embryology.  That doesn't mean God didn't create me but a mere sperm/egg fusion.

Sooooo, as someone as accepts evolution at face value, I don't see why there should be a "problem".  It's not like theology depended on the falsity or truth of evolution.  Theology depends on how the world can be related to our understanding of our place and purpose in Christ.  Regardless of what mechanism the formation of the cosmos can be explained, that formation alone only becomes an academic curiosity and technological advancement, but doesn't go far enough to explain TRUE life in Christ.

Neither should we be throwing stones at scientists because of how they "stick" with evolution.  As someone who works in science, I fully sympathize with that position, and I feel most people who are anti-evolution don't really take the time to fully understand the science, but seek ONLY to disprove by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Such a life is not real life, but a life filled with fear, a fear non-existent.  With Christ, there's nothing to be afraid of.  Just let the chips fall where they may.  Evolution never changed Orthodox theology.  It's presuppositions that change.
Thanks for your response, Mina. Here's my problem with the theistic evolutionary position (which I've tried to defend before). I just don't see how God could have created an Earth filled with violence and death from the beginning. Sure, as I posted on this thread before,  Fathers and theologians of the Latin tradition such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas seem to be less radical when it comes to differentiating the pre-Fall and post-Fall Creation (as opposed to the Eastern Fathers who emphasize the relationship between Man as a microcosm and the rest of Creation), and they give room to the possibility of animal death existing in some form. But still, it's a very minoritary position. And there's still no way around the fact that none of the Fathers (that we know of) believed the Earth to be older than 6.000-7.500 years approximately. Can one dismiss this consensus as being the mere product of their scientific ignorance? Is it just a scientific mistake, or a theological one? If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong?
Good points, especially the point about God essentially being the author of death if theistic evolution is true. I've raised this question many times and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Another philosophy that theistic evolutionists promote is the radical dichotomy of faith and science, which I thoroughly reject. God is the author of science, and thus to divorce science from faith does violence to both. And this has nothing to do with promoting a literal interpretation of Genesis or promoting the Bible as a scientific textbook. But the Bible, as it is correctly interpreted by the Church, is our essential source of theology. And if we reject the basic theological tenet that death entered the world through sin, and instead attribute death to God, then I think we have committed heresy. And the theistic evolutionists have no clear answer for this. In order to try to reconcile the problem they resort to all manner of hermeneutical and theological gymnastics that seem to defy the clarity of the Gospel.

The other philosophical problem with evolution (which I have also repeatedly pointed out and received no sufficient answer) is who and what determines who and what is fully human? If we are still evolving, then who and what is the authority on determining the definition of "fully human"? Even the theistic evolutionist cannot answer this question apart from mere conjecture. Within an evolutionary framework there simply is no objective basis for defining and determining what is "fully human." And while the atheistic evolutionist may not have a problem with this (e.g. euthanasia, abortion, genocide, slavery, etc. may pose no moral qualms for them), it most certainly poses problems for the theistic evolutionist. And I have yet to hear a solid, objective, scientific answer to this question from the theistic evolutionists.


Selam
I may get back to this Gebre, I am leaving for a camping trip soon. I also have questions that have not been answered satisfactorily here. In particular Stasis-World and what is considered alive or not alive.

Fully human is not a genetic term, as far as I know. As long as we evolve together we are always one.  Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and  Homo sapiens sapiens are human. Homo denisovans may also be reclassified as Homo sapiens denisovans.


 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Opus118 said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
AlioshaKaramazov said:
minasoliman said:
Just finished reading this...really difficult to muscle this into my brain, and I feel like I have to reread this a couple of times...buuuuttt...

I honestly don't see a point anymore in trying to harmonize evolution with theology.  Theology teaches God is Creator of all things seen and unseen.  Humanity lives in sin if it doesn't seek unity and life-giving relationship with the Father through Christ.  Evolution seeks to explain the the diversity of biological organisms through a consistency of scientific laws.  I tend to see that the assumption of consistency and nature following laws as proof of the intelligible nature of creation that points to the intelligent Logos, but that's it.  It doesn't seek to explain divine purpose.

At the same time, rather than separating the two into "pre-Fall paradisaical" and "post-Fall laws of science", why can't the laws of science be the icon of the Logos?  I find that the weakness in the article continues to create a split dichotomy, where one side has nothing to do with the other.  No!  One depends on the other.  The laws of science, including evolution, still result from the fully active divine in every aspect of our creation.  He doesn't just snap His fingers and doesn't get involved.  I also accept the laws of embryology.  That doesn't mean God didn't create me but a mere sperm/egg fusion.

Sooooo, as someone as accepts evolution at face value, I don't see why there should be a "problem".  It's not like theology depended on the falsity or truth of evolution.  Theology depends on how the world can be related to our understanding of our place and purpose in Christ.  Regardless of what mechanism the formation of the cosmos can be explained, that formation alone only becomes an academic curiosity and technological advancement, but doesn't go far enough to explain TRUE life in Christ.

Neither should we be throwing stones at scientists because of how they "stick" with evolution.  As someone who works in science, I fully sympathize with that position, and I feel most people who are anti-evolution don't really take the time to fully understand the science, but seek ONLY to disprove by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.  Such a life is not real life, but a life filled with fear, a fear non-existent.  With Christ, there's nothing to be afraid of.  Just let the chips fall where they may.  Evolution never changed Orthodox theology.  It's presuppositions that change.
Thanks for your response, Mina. Here's my problem with the theistic evolutionary position (which I've tried to defend before). I just don't see how God could have created an Earth filled with violence and death from the beginning. Sure, as I posted on this thread before,  Fathers and theologians of the Latin tradition such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas seem to be less radical when it comes to differentiating the pre-Fall and post-Fall Creation (as opposed to the Eastern Fathers who emphasize the relationship between Man as a microcosm and the rest of Creation), and they give room to the possibility of animal death existing in some form. But still, it's a very minoritary position. And there's still no way around the fact that none of the Fathers (that we know of) believed the Earth to be older than 6.000-7.500 years approximately. Can one dismiss this consensus as being the mere product of their scientific ignorance? Is it just a scientific mistake, or a theological one? If they got that wrong, what else did they get wrong?
Good points, especially the point about God essentially being the author of death if theistic evolution is true. I've raised this question many times and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Another philosophy that theistic evolutionists promote is the radical dichotomy of faith and science, which I thoroughly reject. God is the author of science, and thus to divorce science from faith does violence to both. And this has nothing to do with promoting a literal interpretation of Genesis or promoting the Bible as a scientific textbook. But the Bible, as it is correctly interpreted by the Church, is our essential source of theology. And if we reject the basic theological tenet that death entered the world through sin, and instead attribute death to God, then I think we have committed heresy. And the theistic evolutionists have no clear answer for this. In order to try to reconcile the problem they resort to all manner of hermeneutical and theological gymnastics that seem to defy the clarity of the Gospel.

The other philosophical problem with evolution (which I have also repeatedly pointed out and received no sufficient answer) is who and what determines who and what is fully human? If we are still evolving, then who and what is the authority on determining the definition of "fully human"? Even the theistic evolutionist cannot answer this question apart from mere conjecture. Within an evolutionary framework there simply is no objective basis for defining and determining what is "fully human." And while the atheistic evolutionist may not have a problem with this (e.g. euthanasia, abortion, genocide, slavery, etc. may pose no moral qualms for them), it most certainly poses problems for the theistic evolutionist. And I have yet to hear a solid, objective, scientific answer to this question from the theistic evolutionists.


Selam
I may get back to this Gebre, I am leaving for a camping trip soon. I also have questions that have not been answered satisfactorily here. In particular Stasis-World and what is considered alive or not alive.

Fully human is not a genetic term, as far as I know. As long as we evolve together we are always one.  Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and  Homo sapiens sapiens are human. Homo denisovans may also be reclassified as Homo sapiens denisovans.
You and I may philosophically and theologically agree on this point, but what about those who don't agree with us? What about those who argue that Jews and Africans and unborn children are not "fully human"? What about those who argue that human life doesn't begin until a "fetus" is completely out of the womb? What about those who argue for "ensoulment," such as Muslims who believe that the soul doesn't enter the body until the third trimester (I may not be completely accurate on this point, so I'm open to correction from my Muslim friends)?

It's a wonderful idea to state that we are all "evolving together." But there are many evolutionists who are not interested in such ideals. For them human life is merely a materialistic accident of an accidental cosmos, and thus there is no inherent human sanctity. And they quietly scoff at the theistic evolutionists, who are merely useful idiots in their eyes.

Selam
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,975
Reaction score
6
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
You and I may philosophically and theologically agree on this point, but what about those who don't agree with us? What about those who argue that Jews and Africans and unborn children are not "fully human"? What about those who argue that human life doesn't begin until a "fetus" is completely out of the womb? What about those who argue for "ensoulment," such as Muslims who believe that the soul doesn't enter the body until the third trimester (I may not be completely accurate on this point, so I'm open to correction from my Muslim friends)?

It's a wonderful idea to state that we are all "evolving together." But there are many evolutionists who are not interested in such ideals. For them human life is merely a materialistic accident of an accidental cosmos, and thus there is no inherent human sanctity. And they quietly scoff at the theistic evolutionists, who are merely useful idiots in their eyes.

Selam
In regard to the first paragraph, if we put our money where are mouth is, we would (not could) reduce the abortion rate for generations to come. If this nation as a whole was willing to pay to stop this (via taxation)  I could come up with some programs now, you might have better ideas.

My concern is how can one be made in the image of God, if people are born that are incapable of feeling love, charity, compassion. How can that be? It is the only sane thing in this insane world.

In regard to the second paragraph. Scientists are no different than anyone else. they have knee-jerk responses without carefully considering the issue.

I do not remember your thoughts in regard to the 10-20% (and it could be higher) spontaneous miscarriage rate. I think that needs to always be included in any discussion of this sort.

 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Scientists, theologians ponder if latest biological findings are more compatible with religion

Now, exciting progress in biology in recent decades may be building up a third new phase in the scientific explanation of life, according to thinkers gathered at a University of Oxford conference last week (July 19-22).
....
Genes once thought to be fairly mechanical in influencing human development — leading to the “my genes made me do it” kind of thinking — have been found to be part of complex systems that can act in response to a person’s environment.

Since scientists succeeded in sequencing the genome in the late 1990s, they have found that epigenetic markers that regulate patterns of gene expression can reflect outside influences on a body.

Even simpler living objects such as plants contain a complex internal genetic system that governs their growth according to information they receive from outside.

To theologians who see a “new biology” emerging, this knowledge points to a more holistic system than scientists have traditionally seen, one more open to some divine inspiration for life.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Mystery of how first animals appeared on Earth solved

" "The Earth was frozen over for 50 million years. [The Earth at this time is called "Snowball Earth".] Huge glaciers ground entire mountain ranges to powder that released nutrients, and when the snow melted during an extreme global heating event rivers washed torrents of nutrients into the ocean."

Dr Brocks said the extremely high levels of nutrients in the ocean, and cooling of global temperatures to more hospitable levels, created the perfect conditions for the rapid spread of algae. It was the transition from oceans being dominated by bacteria to a world inhabited by more complex life, he said.

"These large and nutritious organisms at the base of the food web provided the burst of energy required for the evolution of complex ecosystems, where increasingly large and complex animals, including humans, could thrive on Earth," Dr Brocks said.
....
"We immediately knew that we had made a ground-breaking discovery that snowball Earth was directly involved in the evolution of large and complex life." "
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Genes responsible for diversity of human skin colors identified
....
"If you were to shave a chimp, it has light pigmentation," Tishkoff said, "so it makes sense that skin color in the ancestors of modern humans could have been relatively light. It is likely that when we lost the hair covering our bodies and moved from forests to the open savannah, we needed darker skin. Mutations influencing both light and dark skin have continued to evolve in humans, even within the past few thousand years."

Tishkoff noted that the work underscores the diversity of African populations and the lack of support for biological notions of race.

"Many of the genes and new genetic variants we identified to be associated with skin color may never have been found outside of Africa, because they are not as highly variable," Tishkoff said. "There is so much diversity in Africa that's not often appreciated. There's no such thing as an African race. We show that skin color is extremely variable on the African continent and that it is still evolving. Further, in most cases the genetic variants associated with light skin arose in Africa."
 

Jackson02

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
United States
What does one think of this?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/685994/JURASSIC-MARS-Conclusive-proof-dinosaurs-once-roamed-the-Red-Planet
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
23,262
Reaction score
53
Points
48
Age
47
Website
archiveofourown.org
A tabloid promoting something that's from a "paranormal hunters'" website.

Utter garbage.

You seem to believe everything you read.

Get some education. Read real science.
 

Jackson02

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 5, 2017
Messages
1,014
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
United States
What is the Orthodox opinion on the evolution of morality?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Well, I think there is a progression of moral teaching yes.  We went from “eye for an eye” to “give the other cheek.”  We went from “love those who love you and bless those who bless you” to “love your enemies and bless those who curse you.”  We undermined slavery and then made it eventually immoral.  A misunderstanding is that moral rules “change”.  We don’t get rid of old moral rules to replace it with new ones, but there is a progression to higher and higher standards by each generation (not lax standards as the secular world is doing).  That’s true evolution of morality in Christ.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
minasoliman said:
Well, I think there is a progression of moral teaching yes.  We went from “eye for an eye” to “give the other cheek.”  We went from “love those who love you and bless those who bless you” to “love your enemies and bless those who curse you.”  We undermined slavery and then made it eventually immoral.  A misunderstanding is that moral rules “change”.  We don’t get rid of old moral rules to replace it with new ones, but there is a progression to higher and higher standards by each generation (not lax standards as the secular world is doing).  That’s true evolution of morality in Christ.
Well said. And yet "survival of the fittest" negates all of that. The theory of evolution dictates that we are still evolving. So who's to say that the Orthodox Christian morality we believe to be true today will still be true 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000 years from now? Yes, as Orthodox Christians we profess the Teachings and Traditions of the Church to be timelessly true. And yet evolutionary theory contradicts any notion of timeless and eternal moral truth. Within evolution, whatever is best for survival and adaptation is the only morality that matters. So once again, those who hold to a concept of "theistic evolution" are naïve and ignorant about the implications of their own theory. But we've been over this all before.  ;)

Selam
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
minasoliman said:
Well, I think there is a progression of moral teaching yes.  We went from “eye for an eye” to “give the other cheek.”  We went from “love those who love you and bless those who bless you” to “love your enemies and bless those who curse you.”  We undermined slavery and then made it eventually immoral.  A misunderstanding is that moral rules “change”.  We don’t get rid of old moral rules to replace it with new ones, but there is a progression to higher and higher standards by each generation (not lax standards as the secular world is doing).  That’s true evolution of morality in Christ.
Well said. And yet "survival of the fittest" negates all of that. The theory of evolution dictates that we are still evolving. So who's to say that the Orthodox Christian morality we believe to be true today will still be true 100, 1,000, or 1,000,000 years from now? Yes, as Orthodox Christians we profess the Teachings and Traditions of the Church to be timelessly true. And yet evolutionary theory contradicts any notion of timeless and eternal moral truth. Within evolution, whatever is best for survival and adaptation is the only morality that matters. So once again, those who hold to a concept of "theistic evolution" are naïve and ignorant about the implications of their own theory. But we've been over this all before.  ;)

Selam
Not necessarily.  Evolution teaches survival of the fittest, not survival of the immoral.  It’s unfortunate people misuse evolution and think the latter, but I trust the “fittest” are the human race who put on Christ.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,486
Reaction score
5
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
I think it's safe to say that Darwinian natural selection does not have much impact on most human populations today. However one defines "fit" or "unfit" all kinds of people are reproducing and therefore "successful" from the evolutionary perspective.
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
8,604
Reaction score
50
Points
48
Age
23
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Iconodule said:
I think it's safe to say that Darwinian natural selection does not have much impact on most human populations today. However one defines "fit" or "unfit" all kinds of people are reproducing and therefore "successful" from the evolutionary perspective.
Many human populations are reproducing themselves to extintion as the fertility rate barely exceeds (or even falls below) two children per women. Darwin also presented the possibility of degeneration, in which a population devolves as an easy environment doesn't weep out weakening mutations, which in turn makes the individuals less prone to certain other environments. Snakes, for instance, according to evolutionism, once had limbs, but finding food was so easy and their body was so muscular that they just degenerated, and now snakes cannot move on smooth surfaces and most don't climb trees or run. I believe a similar thing can happen to societies, metaforically.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Iconodule said:
I think it's safe to say that Darwinian natural selection does not have much impact on most human populations today. However one defines "fit" or "unfit" all kinds of people are reproducing and therefore "successful" from the evolutionary perspective.
You’re correct, but I was thinking more in eschatological terms.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
But the Bible, as it is correctly interpreted by the Church, is our essential source of theology. And if we reject the basic theological tenet that death entered the world through sin, and instead attribute death to God, then I think we have committed heresy.
If the Bible is theological, then perhaps its terms (like "death") must be understood theologically or even psycho-spiritually, rather than (simply) genetically or biologically?

From an ecological perspective, a physical death is certainly positive for life as a whole:

A recent New York Times article featured an area's transformation when lightning killed 300 reindeer in Norway. The carcasses drew carnivores, birds, maggots and microbes. Jen Pechal, MSU forensic entomologist and microbial ecologist, who was quoted in the article, called the Norwegian site a hyperlocal "decomposition island," which created massive diversity in a short span of time.

One change in the area resulted in greater plant diversity. Birds feasting on the carrion dropped feces filled with crowberry seeds. The reindeer remains created the perfect soil for crowberry seedlings -- an important food source for many animals in the region -- to flourish.
 

Tzimis

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
4,860
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Location
wilderness
Jetavan said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
But the Bible, as it is correctly interpreted by the Church, is our essential source of theology. And if we reject the basic theological tenet that death entered the world through sin, and instead attribute death to God, then I think we have committed heresy.
If the Bible is theological, then perhaps its terms (like "death") must be understood theologically or even psycho-spiritually, rather than (simply) genetically or biologically?

From an ecological perspective, a physical death is certainly positive for life as a whole:

A recent New York Times article featured an area's transformation when lightning killed 300 reindeer in Norway. The carcasses drew carnivores, birds, maggots and microbes. Jen Pechal, MSU forensic entomologist and microbial ecologist, who was quoted in the article, called the Norwegian site a hyperlocal "decomposition island," which created massive diversity in a short span of time.

One change in the area resulted in greater plant diversity. Birds feasting on the carrion dropped feces filled with crowberry seeds. The reindeer remains created the perfect soil for crowberry seedlings -- an important food source for many animals in the region -- to flourish.
It depends on who you want dead I supose.
 

Jude1:3

Elder
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
495
Reaction score
24
Points
18
Location
USA
Someone has probably already mentioned this but I figured I would post about this book by: Fr. Seraphim Rose called "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man"

https://www.sainthermanmonastery.com/Genesis-Creation-and-Early-Man-p/gen.htm

http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/chapter1.html





 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Jetavan said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
But the Bible, as it is correctly interpreted by the Church, is our essential source of theology. And if we reject the basic theological tenet that death entered the world through sin, and instead attribute death to God, then I think we have committed heresy.
If the Bible is theological, then perhaps its terms (like "death") must be understood theologically or even psycho-spiritually, rather than (simply) genetically or biologically?

From an ecological perspective, a physical death is certainly positive for life as a whole:

A recent New York Times article featured an area's transformation when lightning killed 300 reindeer in Norway. The carcasses drew carnivores, birds, maggots and microbes. Jen Pechal, MSU forensic entomologist and microbial ecologist, who was quoted in the article, called the Norwegian site a hyperlocal "decomposition island," which created massive diversity in a short span of time.

One change in the area resulted in greater plant diversity. Birds feasting on the carrion dropped feces filled with crowberry seeds. The reindeer remains created the perfect soil for crowberry seedlings -- an important food source for many animals in the region -- to flourish.
I think even a cursory reading of the Church fathers will demonstrate that "death" in the anthropological and theological sense always refers to either the spiritual or the physical death of a human being, quite often inseparably so. For Orthodox Christians to completely spiritualize death or equate physical human death with the biological "death" of plants and such seems to be a huge theological stretch that has no patristic foundation.

Selam
 
Top