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

Credo.InDeum

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Points
0
EkhristosAnesti said:
I am not arguing for any particular approach to Scripture, and believe the whole literal vs. allegorical question to be reductionist in the first place. My point is that the Fathers were concerned with discerning the skopos of the Scriptures in formulating their cosmological views (since they were on a quest to acquire first-hand information about creation from the Creator Himself), and that in so doing they did not show any inclination to align their Scriptural interpretations to any presuppositions outside the context of the Faith of the Church. The patristic approach to discerning the skopos of the Scriptures was not based on some standard and abstract hermeneutical methodology that demanded either a literal or allegorical approach. The skopos defined the methodology, not the other way around,
The fathers had an interest in revelation present in creation as well as revelation in scripture and Church Tradition so their outlook was broad enough to encompass the ideas that arose from direct observation of the creation and contemplation of the order of creation. Biological evolutionary theory is part of the human enterprise of understanding what is revealed in creation for this reason I can see no legitimate reason to presume that the fathers of the past would take a contrary view to the fathers of today regarding biological evolutionary theory. The fathers of today take a positive view of biological evolutionary theory because that theory is a useful tool in understanding God's creation, there's no compelling reason for the fathers of the Church today to reject biological evolution and consequently they do not reject it.
 

Credo.InDeum

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pravoslavbob said:
With the possible exception of one or two Fathers, I just don't see what you mean.  If the Fathers knew about evolution I believe that they wouldn't have insisited on putting it on the same "playing field" as science, and then challenged it to a football match.  That's the mistake that the Western Church made with Galileo.  Ever since that time, the West has tried to justify its faith in scientific terms, since the earth does indeed revolve around the sun, and not vice-versa.  People have done silly things like analyse consecrated hosts under microscopes to "prove" that they are not really bread (and thus science keeps on "winning"; pure rationalism becomes a faith to some and anything that is not "rational" must by definition be "irrational"). Nowadays, some Jesuits who should know better say that "of course life changes and develops only by chance, evolution has proved that, but we can still see 'God in the gaps' for things that can't be explained by evolution."  Total apostate garbage!  Even though exciting things are happening today in terms of some physicists realising that the spritual has much more to do with how the universe works than they ever really imagined, there is a lot of truth in what ytterbiumanalyst states when he says that science and theology are really very separate things.  You don't think that the Fathers would have seen this and pursued their line of reasoning and not have been disturbed by findings concering evolution?  Perhaps you do acknowledge this, and I am missing something?
Catholic teaching does not imply that the physical or biological sciences can find the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist. Quite the contrary, the Catholic teaching is that the substance is changed but that the accidents remain. The terminology used to write about this change is Aristotelian and the terminology is only there as one way of offering an explanation to enquiring minds. It should not be taken as a definition of the faith.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
Points
0
God bless !

Evolution is not a "fact" it is only a theory - even when some here want to make it a proven fact - that's not true.

Many ( I think more and more )scientist do not believe in the evolution theory and there are many good books about the "myths of Darwin".

I also know that the Evolution theory was baned from school in romania and serbia, in russia are also many scientists against evolution.

The evolution theory is a contradiction to the teaching of the church and her Tradition, and the Holy Fathers weren't against science but they did not accept anything contrary to Holy Scripture or the Tradition of the Church. ( they were not afraid of being contrary to the science of their time !)

St. Basil the great:

We are proposing to examine the structure of the world and to contemplate the whole universe, not from the wisdom of the world, but from what God taught His servants when he spoke to him in person and without riddles. (there are many others)

"Whoever says Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that, whether he sinned or not, he would have died a bodily death, that is he would have departed from the body, not as a punishment for sin but by necessity of his nature: let him be anathema" (Council of Carthage, 418).

Instead of looking from an orthodox point of view on the whole evolution question, people here are looking from a secular "scientific" point of view on Genesis.

Our "teachers" are the Holy Fathers of old and of course also the modern, and not some atheists, occultists and pseudo scientists.

When you accept the theory of evolution ( or every part of ) you can not accept the teaching of the church and the Holy Fathers ( even when you interprete Genesis allegorical).

The law of Nature we know now is the law of Nature that God gave when Adam fell; that is when God said: "Cursed be the earth for thy sake". We simply cannot project present day laws of nature back into the past and come up with an understanding of creation. Creation is something different: it is the beginning of all this and not the way it is now !

Some books:

Biological Evolutionism by Constantine Cavarnos ( includes a critique of the great St. Nectarios of Pentapolis)

Darwin on Trial by Philipp E Johnson, this book was called the book that makes Evolution "furious".

Scientific Creationism by Henry M Morris

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton ( molecular biologist) he also calls into question the myths of radiometric dating.

Evolution; A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton

Not by chance ! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Dr. Lee Spencer  an israeli biophysicist.
......and many others...I know some from the University of Paris.....


In CHRIST
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Christodoulos said:
God bless !

Evolution is not a "fact" it is only a theory - even when some here want to make it a proven fact - that's not true.
Do you understand the Scientific Method and the use of the term "Theory"?  It has to do with testing hypotheses, and when new data/information is found, applying that to them.  If the new data does not agree then the hypothesis is reworked to fit new data.  Real data/facts are not rejected because they do not fit. 

Are you in any of the fields of Biology or Paleontology or Geology?

I also know that the Evolution theory was baned from school in romania and serbia, in russia are also many scientists against evolution.
Well, one question is "WHY was this theory banned"?  Was it due to political or ideological reasons rather then testable scientific ones?  Such as the rise of the "Lysenkoism" version of Lamarckianism in the 1930's since Stalin did not like the idea of Genetics and executed many serious biologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
http://skepdic.com/lysenko.html

Darwin on Trial by Philipp E Johnson, this book was called the book that makes Evolution "furious".
???  what is the source for this "quote" please?

Scientific Creationism by Henry M Morris
Have *you* read any Henry Morris?  I have and find his theories dubious.


Ebor
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
Credo.InDeum said:
Catholic teaching does not imply that the physical or biological sciences can find the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist. Quite the contrary, the Catholic teaching is that the substance is changed but that the accidents remain. The terminology used to write about this change is Aristotelian and the terminology is only there as one way of offering an explanation to enquiring minds. It should not be taken as a definition of the faith.
I know this, but it's kind of irrelevant when it comes to the point that I am trying to make.
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
Christodoulos said:
Evolution is not a "fact" it is only a theory - even when some here want to make it a proven fact - that's not true.
(Sigh...)  Come back and post again after you have shown that you have actually read and understood posts made by ytterbiumanlayst, myself, and others that illustrate how "theory" in scientific parlance does not mean the same thing as understood in other disciplines and common speech.  Or maybe you shouldn't, because you're flogging a horse that has been dead for some time and it is getting very tiresome.   ::)
 

Credo.InDeum

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation, and general relativity.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Christodoulos said:
Many ( I think more and more )scientist do not believe in the evolution theory and there are many good books about the "myths of Darwin".
I'm sure many don't, but the idea that this number is increasing I think is only your wishful thinking.  Since theory is a scientific attempt to interpret the factual data observed, I'm sure many scientists will disagree with any theory.  That, however, doesn't change the fact that evolution is generally recognized by the scientific community as the most acceptable explanation, based on the facts we can observe now, of how life as we know it developed.

The evolution theory is a contradiction to the teaching of the church and her Tradition, and the Holy Fathers weren't against science but they did not accept anything contrary to Holy Scripture or the Tradition of the Church. ( they were not afraid of being contrary to the science of their time !)
That, however, is not the issue today.  The question many here ask is, "How would the Fathers respond to the science of today, since this is, in so many ways, different from the science of their day?"

St. Basil the great:

We are proposing to examine the structure of the world and to contemplate the whole universe, not from the wisdom of the world, but from what God taught His servants when he spoke to him in person and without riddles.
Very well and good, but what have you to say of this quote from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans?  "Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made."  (Romans 1:20)  Cannot the scientific study of creation be another means to knowing the nature of God?

(there are many others)
Merely saying this with the intent of making your argument sound strong doesn't convince us of anything.

"Whoever says Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that, whether he sinned or not, he would have died a bodily death, that is he would have departed from the body, not as a punishment for sin but by necessity of his nature: let him be anathema" (Council of Carthage, 418).
Evolutionary theory properly understood, in that it cannot touch upon the supernatural works of a supernatural God, doesn't prohibit God from creating an immortal being via the process of evolution.

Instead of looking from an orthodox point of view on the whole evolution question, people here are looking from a secular "scientific" point of view on Genesis.
I guess science, like anything truly sacred, can be made secular, but, to my understanding, the pioneers of the modern scientific method were largely Christians who sought to know God better through a study of nature and its workings.  Therefore, you cannot call science a secular pursuit in and of itself.

Our "teachers" are the Holy Fathers of old and of course also the modern, and not some atheists, occultists and pseudo scientists.
Not all scientists are atheists, occultists, or quacks.  Would you level such a charge against our own poster and resident professor of biology, Heorhij?

When you accept the theory of evolution ( or every part of ) you can not accept the teaching of the church and the Holy Fathers ( even when you interprete Genesis allegorical).
Says you?

Some books:

Biological Evolutionism by Constantine Cavarnos ( includes a critique of the great St. Nectarios of Pentapolis)

Darwin on Trial by Philipp E Johnson, this book was called the book that makes Evolution "furious".

Scientific Creationism by Henry M Morris

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton ( molecular biologist) he also calls into question the myths of radiometric dating.

Evolution; A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton

Not by chance ! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Dr. Lee Spencer  an israeli biophysicist.
......and many others...I know some from the University of Paris.....
The fact that many scientists don't accept evolutionary theory, again, does not invalidate the theory altogether.  The disagreement just goes to prove that evolution is indeed a theory and not established fact.  (Heck, we have scientists who disagree with Einstein's theories of relativity, but that doesn't cast his theories into disrepute.)  Like you, even though I accept evolution as a plausible theory, I recognize evolution as merely a theory, and I bristle when I hear it proclaimed as proven, irrefutable fact.  There are certain aspects of the theory of evolution that I find hard to accept personally, and even for religious reasons, but I certainly don't see creationism or intelligent design theory as valid substitutes--creationism was born out of Protestant Fundamentalist fear-mongering, and intelligent design is really a quasi-religious philosophy that cannot be verified or falsified by the scientific method.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pravoslavbob said:
(Sigh...)  Come back and post again after you have shown that you have actually read and understood posts made by ytterbiumanlayst, myself, and others that illustrate how "theory" in scientific parlance does not mean the same thing as understood in other disciplines and common speech.  Or maybe you shouldn't, because you're flogging a horse that has been dead for some time and it is getting very tiresome.   ::)
God bless !

We should not confuse "pure science" with different philosophical theories ( I have written above-you should read again my posts !)  written to explain the facts discovered by science. Facts are one thing
(pure science) and explanations of facts is another ( call it philosphy - when you like this term more).
But I think you do not have a problem with the "term" theory, you have a problem with the fact that evolution philosophy is not a "proven fact". And I think, since you are an orthodox christian and this is an orthodox forum, you should - think and speak and approach such questions as an orthodox christian-that's the most important thing !

The english books above are perhaps not the most actual, there are many others in other languages !

In CHRIST

 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
The fact that many scientists don't accept evolutionary theory, again, does not invalidate the theory altogether.
Have you read the books on Christodoulos' little list?  The only one actually written by a scientists is in fact written by a physicist.  His main argument is that the probability of evolution creating what we have todays is so low that evolution can't be true.  The rest use mostly strawman arguments (i.e the piltdown man was a fraud, therefore all paleontology could be a fraud).

I've read the Johnson and Spetner work cover to cover and skimmed some of the other ones.  The fact that Christodoulos couldn't even spell Dr. Spetner's name correctly leads me to believe this is just another one of his copy and paste jobs and hasn't even read the works he cited.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Christodoulos said:
God bless !
Are you a priest or bishop that you have the authority to pronounce such a blessing?

We should not confuse "pure science" with different philosophical theories ( I have written above-you should read again my posts !)  written to explain the facts discovered by science. Facts are one thing
(pure science) and explanations of facts is another ( call it philosphy - when you like this term more).
Maybe you should just follow Pravoslavbob's advice and exit this discussion to return only when you can show that you actually understand what we mean by "science".  Right now you're just redefining science to make it fit your religious philosophy, and you end up talking right past us.

But I think you do not have a problem with the "term" theory, you have a problem with the fact that evolution philosophy is not a "proven fact".
Where can you show that Pravoslavbob has actually exalted evolution as a "proven fact"?  If you can't show us this, then you're merely projecting onto Pravoslavbob what you want to think he believes.

And I think, since you are an orthodox christian and this is an orthodox forum, you should - think and speak and approach such questions as an orthodox christian-that's the most important thing !
But he is trying to approach this question as an Orthodox Christian.  Just because he isn't approaching this in a way that satisfies your limited definition of Orthodoxy doesn't make his approach un-Orthodox.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Νεκτάριος said:
Have you read the books on Christodoulos' little list?  The only one actually written by a scientists is in fact written by a physicist.  His main argument is that the probability of evolution creating what we have todays is so low that evolution can't be true.  The rest use mostly strawman arguments (i.e the piltdown man was a fraud, therefore all paleontology could be a fraud).

I've read the Johnson and Spetner work cover to cover and skimmed some of the other ones.  The fact that Christodoulos couldn't even spell Dr. Spetner's name correctly leads me to believe this is just another one of his copy and paste jobs and hasn't even read the works he cited.
Well, if that's the case, then my commentary on his book list doesn't even apply specifically to the list. ;)  I still stand by the general wisdom I stated.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Νεκτάριος said:
Have you read the books on Christodoulos' little list?  The only one actually written by a scientists is in fact written by a physicist.  His main argument is that the probability of evolution creating what we have todays is so low that evolution can't be true.  The rest use mostly strawman arguments (i.e the piltdown man was a fraud, therefore all paleontology could be a fraud).

I've read the Johnson and Spetner work cover to cover and skimmed some of the other ones.  The fact that Christodoulos couldn't even spell Dr. Spetner's name correctly leads me to believe this is just another one of his copy and paste jobs and hasn't even read the works he cited.
God bless !

Everyone should read the books for himself and everyone can make his own conclusions.

On my little list (in truth little) are only some English books - perhaps not the best or most actual -but they deal with some questions about Evolution and when their arguments are in vain everyone will see it.

And it is funny that you accused me so often to be superficial, isn't it superficial to be concentrated on acclamation marks and spelling mistakes ? A high level of argumentation-really- do you never make mistakes in orthography or spelling ?

In CHRIST
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
Points
0
God bless !

PeterTheAleut said:
Are you a priest or bishop that you have the authority to pronounce such a blessing?
Should we not ask always for God's blessing ? Do you not know that everytime we start anything we should pray - Lord bless, God bless, God help ?

Maybe you should just follow Pravoslavbob's advice and exit this discussion to return only when you can show that you actually understand what we mean by "science".  Right now you're just redefining science to make it fit your religious philosophy, and you end up talking right past us.
What you mean by "science"- so you have a special definition of science ?

But he is trying to approach this question as an Orthodox Christian.  Just because he isn't approaching this in a way that satisfies your limited definition of Orthodoxy doesn't make his approach un-Orthodox.
Oh you returned to your "old style" of posting - I see. Perhaps your definition of orthodoxy is limited ?

In CHRIST


EDIT:  Post edited only to separate my first quote from your reply.  - PeterTheAleut
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
ChristianLove said:
My first thought about a source is whether the science presented lines up with our fathers, but maybe I'm wrong and we should accept others as higher authority in understanding our universe even if their findings come across as empirically flawed?

I do not know the political views of these scientists. Good to know about Poland's political concerns, but I do know that if we stop listening to a scientist because he is an evangelical or a politician even with strong antiIsrael arguments, then we would have major problems with all our sources, since we would have to logically discount all agnostics and atheists as sources as well, since they obviously do not promote a healthy Orthodox world view. Seems to me that none of these scientists are holy saints but the holy saints that I have read thus far all agree with Intelligent Design and the creationists' viewpoints.

Let me provide some examples without hopefully sounding judgemental:

Charles Darwin- Charles Darwin, left his faith in Christ and the Holy Scriptures as taught by his school in favor of an atheistic antichristian mindset and began exploring nature with the eyes of one author's geological understanding. Finally he gave us "Origin of Species" based on very limited data. While many of his writings have been empirically disproven through logical presentations by numerous evolutionary and intelligent design scientists, some have kept his later in life antichristian premise and promoted new materialistic world viewpoints under his name and call it "neodarwinism" probably to simply tag unto a momentous movement among some who deny the faith or for other marketing or nonmarketing reasons.

Stephen Jay Gould, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins- Atheists I talk with regularly tout these modern leaders of the metaphysical sciences on every occasion possible. They are so vehemently trying to tell all their listeners and readers that the reason for all the pains, troubles and suffering of the world, is Christianity and infact all people of all faiths. They foolishly assume as the communists, that if you wipe out religion from the world, you will stop all wars and usher an era of peace based on their brand of "science". Was it not this same brand of atheism that murdered millions of our fellow brothers, sisters, moms and Dads in the former soviet union? Was not this same evolutionary thought process which led Adolph Hitler to consider the Arian race supreme above all other races and use his war machines to try to implement Darwin's "survival of the fittest" under Nazism? For a wonderful video of the debate between the atheist promoter against Christianity and a Roman Catholic defender of Christians' benefit to mankind, feel free to look up http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=201727-1 . I found Hitchens to have been so soundly defeated based on facts of history that atheists actually have written supportive statement for D'Souza, saying that they need to "update" their knowledge with his presentations in order to find stronger counterarguments. D'Souza uses their systems to show the logical fallacies in their arguments, but that might get too far off topic.

louis Pasteur- He was a creationist who found us some of the most wonderful medical ways of healing the body.

Dr. Henry Morris- whose scientific views seem to be clearly inline with our Orthodox Church fathers, but who also spends some time denying honorable belief in Holy Tradition because of his modern evangelical misunderstandings in regards to our Faith in Christ. Strange for one from an Orthodox worldview, to see him promote many of the same Holy Traditional belief in the Holy Trinity and venerable Scriptures, while denying the work of the men and the Church that the Holy Spirit inspired to bring him the One Faith.

Maybe we should trust our Church Fathers and simply believe that the Holy Trinity who created all of us, and who was the only eyewitness of Creation, has led our saints and inspired them to understand and reveal truth about creation and rightly lead our scientists to first spend worship time in a monastery and be observed for their heart of Love for God and their sincere humble trust in Christ our God, before exposing them to the history of creation science and the modern macroevolutionary turns to them?

Or should we discount all church fathers who almost unanimously agree with the teachings of intelligent design, because they did not have access to some of the latest leaps from microevolutionary theories into macroevolution and simply say they were ignorant of God's Creation and they should not be trusted as source of areas where "modern science" now claims a higher ground than them.

I do not want to wrongly come across as one who has all the answers, because obviously there are wonderful mysteries in Creation. I honestly know that empirical science cannot prove either creation or evolution, but simply present the data in favor of both, and we can decide for ourselves, whether our Orthodox fathers were true in their presentations on Genesis and the history of man or not.

Hopefully, we can humbly love one another even as we think through our questions of trust in the Holy Spirit's work through the fathers of our faith, while focusing more on loving as they have loved and proclaiming pure Love above all our knowledge (1 Cor 13).
Dear ChristianLove,

I completely, adamantly, passionately disagree with this whole approach that you demonstrate. Just like you cannot judge about the validity/invalidity of the theory of the internal combustion engine based on Acts 17:28 and the exegesis of this verse made by all the Holy Fathers on the world, and just like you cannot judge about the validity/invalidity of the notion that our thoughts are generated in the brain rather than in the atria and ventricles of the heart based on Mark 7:21 and the exegesis of this verse made by all the Holy Fathers on the world, by the same token you simply cannot judge about the validity/invalidity of the theory of biological evolution based on verses from Scripture and their exegesis. It is just wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The absence of the so-called missing links can be very easily explained (and actually IS explained in all contemporary biology textbooks) by the intricacies of fossil formation. The missing of the "links" in no way contradicts the theory of biological evolution because we now know about homeotic mutations (again, all contemporary biology textbooks explain this explicitly and in much, much detail).

Whatever "creationists" achieved in medicine, is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.

I think people can simply choose to learn biology, or not to. If they choose the first option, they won't participate in "discussions" about the validity of TBE, just like they won't participate in "discussions" about, say, whether or not our flesh is made of the same atoms as the flesh of animals, based on 1 Corinthians 15:39. If they choose the second option, they should trust those who have chosen the first, because otherwise it's plain obscurantism and mockery of both natural sciences and Christian faith.

Sorry for sounding offending, I'm just terribly sensitized by these "issues" as a university biology teacher in the heart of the provincial American Protestantland. :)  
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Christodoulos said:
Everyone should read the books for himself and everyone can make his own conclusions.
Something with which I don't disagree.  I don't believe in the restriction of information.  But, accuracy is important, and the books that you presented are not indicative of any sort of debate among biologists regarding evolutionary biology. 

And it is funny that you accused me so often to be superficial, isn't it superficial to be concentrated on acclamation marks and spelling mistakes ? A high level of argumentation-really- do you never make mistakes in orthography or spelling ?
It has already been mentioned by one of our moderators that if you have some personal grievance against a post that breaks forum rules that you should use the report post function and if you wish to have some personal spat to take it to the forum's PM system.

In CHRIST
Sure about that?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Christodoulos said:
What you mean by "science"- so you have a special definition of science?
No, I try to follow the definition of science generally accepted by scientists.  If anything, you seem to have your own special definition of science.

Oh you returned to your "old style" of posting - I see.
Returned to my "old style" of posting (as if there's anything wrong with it)?  Heavens no!  I never left it. ;D

Perhaps your definition of orthodoxy is limited ?
I know it is. ;)  How about yours?
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Just a couple more things, quickly...

ChristianLove said:
Atheists say that they trust evolution as fact while knowing that we have no "observable empirical scientific evidence" for randomly created mutations which lead to increase in information. 
I don't know about "atheists," but there is no notion of any "increase in information" in the theory of biological evolution. Randomly acquired mutations are the raw material for natural selection and genetic drift. The combined action of mutations, selection, drift and gene flow leads to changes of the genetic makeup of populations (or biological evolution). That's ALL THERE IS to the theory of biological evolution. Speciation is one possible outcome of evolution, as is extinction of the existing species. Taxonomy (i.e. our subjective human classification of "species," "genera," "phyla," etc.) keeps changing continuously because of the processes of continuous speciation and extinction. The talk about "increase in information" is some kind of a woodoo. :)

ChristianLove said:
These former believers have come to understand if there was no "first Adam and Eve", there cannot be a 'second Adam who delivered us from our sins (Romans 5), nor a second Eve, The Theotokos (Justin Martyr). They understand if sin did not enter the world through the first "Adam", then death did not come as the result of his "sinful choices" and man did not need a Savior to deliver us from the devil's grip of death.
But why, why? What does the first have to do with the second? I don't imagine that there were literally the first two humans and no other humans, because that would be totally incompatible with the theory of biological evolution. So, do I HAVE to leap from that into the conclusion that Christ did not literally exist or was not literally God incarnate? I don't see any real logic, sorry, just a circular quasi-"logic" and forcing of the language of theology into the language of natural sciences.

 
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
Points
0
God bless !

Something with which I don't disagree.  I don't believe in the restriction of information.  But, accuracy is important, and the books that you presented are not indicative of any sort of debate among biologists regarding evolutionary biology


Perhaps you know better ones in english - please tell me, I will try to get and read them !

It has already been mentioned by one of our moderators that if you have some per sonal grievance against a post that breaks forum rules that you should use the report post function and if you wish to have some personal spat to take it to the forum's PM system.
I don't know if it breaks the forum rules, but it is funny to call others superficial when you are only concentrated on acclamation marks and some spelling mistakes and base your argumentation on these mistakes. Why didn't you tell me via PM that I made a mistake ? Or was it only to discredite my post ?


In CHRIST
 
Top