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

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
Jetavan said:
Heorhij said:
Dan-Romania said:
Darwin was a sick person , who encouraged eugenism.
Actually Charles R. Darwin was a very healthy person, although he did have something like a mild obsessive-compulsive disorder. :)

In his prime years, he was a devout Anglican and a deacon in his church. While traveling on HMS The Beagle, where he was the "Naturalist," he also volunteered to have "spiritual conversations" with the crew. He most certainly knew Scriptures very well, and in his life he was pious and humble. He always stressed that his evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged removing of God or "robbing" God of His glory.

I think it is very sad when people, not having any grounds whatsoever, insult the memory of great workers like Darwin, of those who labored hard all of their short human life to enrich us with new insights on the way this God's world works. Darwin's name is most definitely in the same glorious file to which belong the names of Aristotle, Mohammed Musa ibn Khorasmi (the inventor of algebra), Roger Bacon, St. Duns Scotus (who was actually the first to outline the concept of separation between theology and natural science), Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Mikhail Lomonosov, Antoin-Laurent LaVoisier, John Dalton, Dmitriy Ivanovich Mendeleev, Nikolay Lobachevskiy, James Clark Maxwell, Nicola Tesla, Max Plank, Albert Einstein, and other "movers and shakers" in the exciting field of natural sciences...
This is an Orthodox site. You must include Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky in any list of scientific notables. 8)
I stand corrected.  :-[
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Heorhij said:
Dan-Romania said:
Darwin was a sick person , who encouraged eugenism.
Actually Charles R. Darwin was a very healthy person, although he did have something like a mild obsessive-compulsive disorder. :)

In his prime years, he was a devout Anglican and a deacon in his church. While traveling on HMS The Beagle, where he was the "Naturalist," he also volunteered to have "spiritual conversations" with the crew. He most certainly knew Scriptures very well, and in his life he was pious and humble. He always stressed that his evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged removing of God or "robbing" God of His glory.

I think it is very sad when people, not having any grounds whatsoever, insult the memory of great workers like Darwin, of those who labored hard all of their short human life to enrich us with new insights on the way this God's world works. Darwin's name is most definitely in the same glorious file to which belong the names of Aristotle, Mohammed Musa ibn Khorasmi (the inventor of algebra), Roger Bacon, St. Duns Scotus (who was actually the first to outline the concept of separation between theology and natural science), Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Mikhail Lomonosov, Antoin-Laurent LaVoisier, John Dalton, Dmitriy Ivanovich Mendeleev, Nikolay Lobachevskiy, James Clark Maxwell, Nicola Tesla, Max Plank, Albert Einstein, and other "movers and shakers" in the exciting field of natural sciences...
I think that a problem here, Heorhij, is that sometimes people do not go to the primary source materials on Science, that is what the researchers themselves wrote or said.  They hear or read something derogatory about someone like Darwin (often in my opinion by someone who does not, in fact, understand what the scientist wrote) and accept that as the "truth". 


 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
Dan-Romania said:
Darwin was a sick person , who encouraged eugenism.
Dan, could you please explain how you mean that Charles Darwin was "sick" and what you have read of him, please?  Not everything written about a famous person is true.
 

Ebor

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
6,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
64
Location
Maryland
jckstraw72 said:
as for quotes against evolution ... St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which lief is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's
That is not what "survival of the fittest" means.  It is not a matter of 'strong' beating down the 'weak', or of brutality.  It is the idea that a species that 'fits' that is can survive best in a particular situation. The classic case of the different beaks on the Galapagos Islands' finches is an example. Differently shaped beaks were the "fittest" for different food sources.  (Heorhij, please correct me if I have this wrong or am explaining it badly.) 

This article http://orthodoxnorth.net/evolution_new_fundamentalism_pt_1.htm tells us that St. Justin Popovich identified Darnwin's ideas with new age religion
I have looked at this page, but that quote is not 'evidence' from an EO saint.  What exactly did he write or say?  That would be the primary source for information on this idea.  How can a person consider whether St. Justin really understood what Darwin wrote without the real quote?

St. John of Kronstadt:  "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God." --- My Life in Christ
That's not what any geologists or paleontologists that I've ever read have said.  The study of rocks and fossils isn't to "understand the mind of God" but to find out what is there, to learn more and sometimes the reason is because it's really really neat to find out something new or to learn new information about the universe.  I do not mean any disrespect to St. John, but he doesn't not seem to understand how science is supposed to work.



 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Alveus Lacuna said:
So I guess the central question is, does Orthodoxy require us to believe that humanity was once perfect?
No. The Fathers say that Adam and Eve were created with the potential to be perfect.
 

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
Ebor said:
jckstraw72 said:
as for quotes against evolution ... St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which lief is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's
That is not what "survival of the fittest" means.  It is not a matter of 'strong' beating down the 'weak', or of brutality.  It is the idea that a species that 'fits' that is can survive best in a particular situation. The classic case of the different beaks on the Galapagos Islands' finches is an example. Differently shaped beaks were the "fittest" for different food sources.  (Heorhij, please correct me if I have this wrong or am explaining it badly.) 
No, you explained it very well... The principal idea of Darwin is that there exixts a variation in traits in any biological population. Carriers of certain variants of certain traits are always better fit to a particular environment (and in certain cases those who seem "weaker" in fact happen to fit better). Because of this better fit, these individuals have a better reproductive success (i.e. they simply live longer and have more progeny). So, within any population, there is always a trend for a growth of another population, slightly different from the original one. Given enough time and a certain kind of isolation (geographical, or other), the two populations - the original one and the new one - begin to breed only within themselves, and so a new species forms. That's pretty much all there is to Darwin's theory, and it is supported by a colossal, overwhelming evidence, especially by population genetics studies.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Heorhij said:
Ebor said:
jckstraw72 said:
as for quotes against evolution ... St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which lief is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's
That is not what "survival of the fittest" means.  It is not a matter of 'strong' beating down the 'weak', or of brutality.  It is the idea that a species that 'fits' that is can survive best in a particular situation. The classic case of the different beaks on the Galapagos Islands' finches is an example. Differently shaped beaks were the "fittest" for different food sources.  (Heorhij, please correct me if I have this wrong or am explaining it badly.) 
No, you explained it very well... The principal idea of Darwin is that there exixts a variation in traits in any biological population. Carriers of certain variants of certain traits are always better fit to a particular environment (and in certain cases those who seem "weaker" in fact happen to fit better). Because of this better fit, these individuals have a better reproductive success (i.e. they simply live longer and have more progeny). So, within any population, there is always a trend for a growth of another population, slightly different from the original one. Given enough time and a certain kind of isolation (geographical, or other), the two populations - the original one and the new one - begin to breed only within themselves, and so a new species forms. That's pretty much all there is to Darwin's theory, and it is supported by a colossal, overwhelming evidence, especially by population genetics studies.
Actually, the theory of human evolution has severe problems with population genetics studies.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Ebor said:
jckstraw72 said:
as for quotes against evolution ... St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which lief is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's
That is not what "survival of the fittest" means.  It is not a matter of 'strong' beating down the 'weak', or of brutality.  It is the idea that a species that 'fits' that is can survive best in a particular situation. The classic case of the different beaks on the Galapagos Islands' finches is an example. Differently shaped beaks were the "fittest" for different food sources.  (Heorhij, please correct me if I have this wrong or am explaining it badly.) 

This article http://orthodoxnorth.net/evolution_new_fundamentalism_pt_1.htm tells us that St. Justin Popovich identified Darnwin's ideas with new age religion
I have looked at this page, but that quote is not 'evidence' from an EO saint.  What exactly did he write or say?  That would be the primary source for information on this idea.  How can a person consider whether St. Justin really understood what Darwin wrote without the real quote?

St. John of Kronstadt:  "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God." --- My Life in Christ
That's not what any geologists or paleontologists that I've ever read have said.  The study of rocks and fossils isn't to "understand the mind of God" but to find out what is there, to learn more and sometimes the reason is because it's really really neat to find out something new or to learn new information about the universe.  I do not mean any disrespect to St. John, but he doesn't not seem to understand how science is supposed to work.
Scientists seem fond of the idea that there work is observation without an observer, not matter how much history shows such is not the case.  Hence the idea that theology must bend to their theories (an old problem: in the ancient times the problem was science's insistence on the eternity of the universe). St. John was spot on.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
ialmisry said:
Actually, the theory of human evolution has severe problems with population genetics studies.
When a population lives inside an air-conditioned house, eating food from all over the world and taking medicines that cure otherwise fatal illnesses, that population is no longer subject to the factors that govern the law of natural selection.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
ytterbiumanalyst said:
ialmisry said:
Actually, the theory of human evolution has severe problems with population genetics studies.
When a population lives inside an air-conditioned house, eating food from all over the world and taking medicines that cure otherwise fatal illnesses, that population is no longer subject to the factors that govern the law of natural selection.
There's still some natural selection happening, though. Some people might find that air-conditioning does havoc on their sinuses; other people might find the easy access to high-calorie foods more detrimental to their health; and the over-use of antibiotics can lead to disease-resistant microbes.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ebor said:
Dan-Romania said:
Darwin was a sick person , who encouraged eugenism.
Dan, could you please explain how you mean that Charles Darwin was "sick" and what you have read of him, please?  Not everything written about a famous person is true.
from unofficial sources I know he was a big supporter of eugenism , everyone who thinks in eugenism must be a little "sick". Not to mention his evolutionist theories , only heard of them by rumours , but regarding the fact and the name "evolution" i think it is sick. If he really taught that human being are evolved ape , than he is sick.If he trough his evolutional ideas , says that all the species evolved , from something , i think he has issues.We know how Moses teaches us trough genetics , God created all animals and all species , and the crown of the creation was human being. For whom God took counsellar before creating it , and He said : "Let us make man after Our own image" . Not from an ape.What I dislike this being related with Genetics the bible and Creation , the very name of this topic.This should be called more the scientist view on the diversity of life , or something like that. I can`t understand how christians can be darwinists . If darwin really said what i heard he said about evolution.And much more orthodox christians.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If he really taught birds evolved from reptiles , fish from other i dunno what , for example. Why do we let science tell us fish are birds or things like this ?
 

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
Dan-Romania said:
If he really taught birds evolved from reptiles , fish from other i dunno what , for example. Why do we let science tell us fish are birds or things like this ?
Science does not tell you that fish are birds. Again, all science tells you is that life evolves. Several powerful natural sources such as mutation, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, and other, produce new forms of life. These things are real.
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I think that Darwin does say that , then . Give me examples of the evolved , mutation species .
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
all i wanted was an example , not the all teaching . name a specie of animal a name , is it that hard?
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dan-Romania said:
all i wanted was an example , not the all teaching . name a specie of animal a name , is it that hard?
Dan, I'm confused.  You constantly rail against evolution yet you're not aware of a single example of what scientists believe evolution produced.  That seems odd to me.  How can you be so certain that evolution is false if you truly haven't even a cursory familiarity with the topic?
 

Dan-Romania

High Elder
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
938
Reaction score
0
Points
0
yes , thank you . see i am a reasonable person . while i believe in the theory of the mixes between species giving birth to another specie to be true, i tottally reject the idea that reptiles are evolved fish or something like that.
 
Top