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

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
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,219
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Age
41
Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  :angel:
 

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
Asteriktos said:
Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  :angel:
And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
 

Get_Behind_Me_Satan

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Virginia
Marc1152 said:
Nebelpfade said:
Depends on what your definition of "just as likely" is. :p  
Oh okay...  There is no firm evidence that advanced life exists on other planets. It turns out that many disparate details all have to be present for life to arise. Even more variables need to be in place for that life to be at least as intelligent as us... The odds are far shorter than scientists had  assumed in the past.
On the other hand, evidence of  the existence of other dimensions of existence has steadily increased.

The Christian understanding is that there are other realms of existence. We believe that life exists there.    
I know this is off topic, but your picture of conan deserves it, look at him:

http://hellwhenidie.ytmnd.com/

He is so awful. To think, I was 13 when I first saw this.

Its satans #1 song, he's telling everyone else to join the fire.

Its so ridiculous its not even funny, maybe when I was 13 it was.

I used to love watching his lunacy. He is very funny, but this is just wrong.
 

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
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
How do you know the Earth is round, and not flat??
 

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
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
How do you know the Earth is round, and not flat??
It is a scientific fact.

1.  During lunar eclipses, the projected shadow of the earth on the moon is
always round.  If the earth were flat, then this projection will not always
be circular (it could degenerate to a line!).  But this is never observed,
regardless of the time of the lunar eclipse.  Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote
about this.  The third point, below, is also credited to Aristotle.

2. Eratosthanes (276-195(?) BCE) did a famous experiment on measuring the
angle of the sun at noon in Alexandria, Egypt, and in Syrene.  Finding the
difference in the angles and knowing the distance between the two points,
the circumference can be calculated.  He calculated the circumference in
stadia, which we do not know the conversion to our present day measure.

3. If you travel north or south a signigicant distance, you will see a
different set of stars at night.  This will not happen on a flat surface.





Selam
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  :angel:
And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam
Allow me:

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church." 
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Conclusion: he's either an idiot, or purposely deluding people, or both.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
These Orthodox Christians don't agree with Fr Seraphim Rose, may his memory be eternal. In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?" they say yes.


Here's a list of articles and books by those Orthodox Christians who have accepted and written or spoken on the theory of evolution. I've added the urls where I was able, for the rest you will have to go to http://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution.

Woloschak, Gayle, Beauty and Unity in Creation: The evolution of life. (Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1996) — Primer on the relationship between evolutionary biology and Orthodoxy by a scientist. ISBN 1880971275  

Boojamra, Dr. John, "The Orthodox Idea of Creation" The Word, June 1999, pp.31-34 An overview of Orthodox cosmology, intended for teachers and youth leaders as a background for discussion of various educational segments related to creation. Concise and useful for a general understanding of Orthodox cosmology.

Breck, Archpriest John V. "Ex Nihilo" Life in Christ, February 2008 #1. http://www.oca.org/CHRIST-life-article.asp?SID=6&ID=148&MONTH=February&YEAR=2008

Fritts, Kevin Basil, "On the Dogma of Creation" The author is a contributor to this OrthodoxWiki article. http://blog.kevinbasil.com/on-the-dogma-of-creation/

Hallam, Fr. Gregory, "Orthodoxy and Creationism" http://antiochabouna.blogspot.com/2006/02/orthodoxy-and-creationism.html

Kalomiros, Dr. Alexandre, "The Six Dawns" http://www.zephyr.gr/stjohn/sixdawn1.htm

Kuraev, Fr. Deacon Andrey, "Can an Orthodox Become an Evolutionist?" http://www.hvmla.org/library/evolution.html

Kuraev, Fr. Deacon Andrey, "Orthodoxy and Creationism" http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/ort_creation.htm

Maletis, John P., "Let There Be Light: An Orthodox Christian Theory of Human Evolution for the 21st Century". Theandros Vol. 5 No. 3. http://www.theandros.com/protozoe.html

Metallinos, V. Rev. Prof. Dr. George, "Faith and Science in Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology" Very briefly mentions evolution, but overall states the traditional Orthodox position of separation between divine and earthly knowledge.

Mileant, Bishop Alexander of Buenos Aires and South America (ROCOR). The Origins of the World and Mankind: An Attempt to Reconcile the Biblical Account with Scientific Discoveries. Transl. by Karyn and Michael Grigoriev. Ed. by Natalia Semyanko. Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission, La Canada, California, 2004. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/metallinos_faith_and_science.htm

Nicozisin, Fr. George, "Creationism versus Evolution" http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/nicozisin_creationism.htm

Smith, Allyne, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., Edward Hughes, and J. Henry, "Orthodoxy", in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition (2000): 268-273.

Theokritoff, George, with Elizabeth Theokritoff, "Genesis and Creation: Towards a debate" (PDF) — Review of Seraphim Rose, Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision, in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Volume 46, Number 2 (2002). George Theokritoff is a paleontologist and Elizabeth is a theological scholar, author and editor of The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology (ISBN 0521683388).

Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos, "Orthodoxy and Evolution", video: answer to a question asked in a forum at Seattle Pacific University.

edit: Really should add Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian, to the list.  ;)

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.  (Theodosius Dobzhansky)


 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
It is a scientific fact.

1.  During lunar eclipses, the projected shadow of the earth on the moon is
always round.  If the earth were flat, then this projection will not always
be circular (it could degenerate to a line!).  But this is never observed,
regardless of the time of the lunar eclipse.  Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote
about this.  The third point, below, is also credited to Aristotle.
Scientific fact?? Not according to the Flat Earth Society. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

2. Eratosthanes (276-195(?) BCE) did a famous experiment on measuring the
angle of the sun at noon in Alexandria, Egypt, and in Syrene.  Finding the
difference in the angles and knowing the distance between the two points,
the circumference can be calculated.  He calculated the circumference in
stadia, which we do not know the conversion to our present day measure.
The friends over at the Flat Earth Society have also answered this one:  "It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the Round Earth in his shadow experiment. Eratosthenes had simply assumed that the earth was a sphere in his experiment, based on the work of Aristotle. He was actually measuring the diameter of the Flat Earth (distance across), which is a figure identical to the circumference of the Round Earth (distance around)."

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter

3. If you travel north or south a signigicant distance, you will see a
different set of stars at night.  This will not happen on a flat surface.
The Flat Earth Society rescues us again: "Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars."

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Shifting+Constellations
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  :angel:
And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam
Allow me:

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church."  
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Conclusion: he's either an idiot, or purposely deluding people, or both.
I don't see Fr Seraphim as an idiot, but as someone who hadn't been able to shake himself free of fundamentalist thinking; on this subject in particular.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,219
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Age
41
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  :angel:
And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam
Actually, I have changed pretty much my entire world view multiple times over the past 10 years. I also used to lean in favor of creationism--something I have stated before on these evolution threads on OC.net. If there is one thing I am generally not, it's dogmatic or fundamentalist. If anything, I am exactly the opposite. My user name does mean unstable, after all. ;) Now, I find the charge of being a fundamentalist especially humorous, given the dogmatic tone of most creationist arguments (or leastwise the philosophy behind them), and that includes some of the quotes by Fr. Seraphim Rose that you provided (e.g., Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today...).

As for responding to the quotes of Fr. Seraphim, what can I say? If I disagree, you will say I am blinded by "fundamentalist religious zeal". That is not to say that I consider all the quotes to be without substance. For example, there is this one:

"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."

I agree with this, but not as it was originally intended. If evolution is true, things are not so black and white as... um... well who insists on thinking about things in black and white terms? The word for that type of person begins with an F... I think you mentioned it in your post... ;)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Heorhij said:
Christianus said:
Nebelpfade said:
Proof that those who lack an elementary understanding of science should not write about it, especially when they foolishly attempt to do so with any sort of authority on the matter.
Christians are not ignorant of Science. It's like a stereotype to say that all Christians are ignorant of science, and like to burn all heretics, and call crusades on Muslims, burn witches etc.
Isaac Newton was a Christian, and many others.
But SOME Christians were total ignoramuses in science - Fr. Seraphim Rose, may his memory be eternal, most definitely was...  :-[
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
And yet you use the same tactics in your approach (following after Fr. Seraphim's approach) to the Fathers that the "fundamentalist evangelicals" you like to lambaste use in their approach to the Scriptures.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text.
And yet you appear to recommend that the Fathers be used as an exhaustive scientific authority.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
Does the Holy Spirit speak only through the Fathers?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
The validity of a scientific theory often lies more in whether it has not yet been disproven than in whether it has yet been proven.  So I put before you this challenge, Gebre.  Prove evolutionary theory false from the basis of science and science alone.  I'd be willing to bet you can't.
 

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
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."


"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."


"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church."  


"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."


"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."


"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."


"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."



-Father Seraphim Rose-



Selam
Nonsense. All of it.  :p
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
And no one is arguing that they were. To say they weren't is both anachronistic and besides the point. The Scriptures are much higher than that. They supersede and transcend all the benighted gropings of modern science. Modern man, in a fallen world, with corrupted senses, and in a materialistic culture, has "discovered" that man evolved through natural selection. Soon, no doubt, he will also "discover" that the cosmos is cyclical and self-contained and there is no need for a divine role to explain creation at all. The Scriptures and the Fathers say otherwise.

It is incredibly naive to think that modern scientists, many of them atheists like Dawkins, are able to give an objective account of the universe. "But they use the scientific method!" "They are peer-reviewed!" The modern scientific methodology assumes that the material universe can be studied and understood without any reference to the spiritual world (irrespective of whether this latter world exists or not). Again, the Church teaches otherwise.

PeterTheAleut said:
The validity of a scientific theory often lies more in whether it has not yet been disproven than in whether it has yet been proven.  So I put before you this challenge, Gebre.  Prove evolutionary theory false from the basis of science and science alone.  I'd be willing to bet you can't.
I have no doubt that the scientists arguing for evolution are being perfectly scrupulous in their adherence to the basic scientific methodologies they were trained in. The problem is, those methodologies are materialist to begin with and therefore necessarily produce a distorted vision of creation. The people here arguing for Darwinism operate under the assumption that modern science = undoubted truth, to the extent that they allow it to supersede the teaching of the Fathers. To be fair, we were all indoctrinated with this worldview in school; now that we are conscious, committed Christians, though, it's time to reflect on this more deeply. Why do you think that this secular society, anti-Christian is so many respects, is finally the one able to give us an accurate and objective understanding of the universe? Why do you align yourselves with Epicurus and not with the Fathers?



 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
PeterTheAleut said:
Does the Holy Spirit speak only through the Fathers?
I dare you to lay out your thinking behind this question.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit spoke through Darwin? Are materialistic natural philosophers more inspired than the Fathers? You accuse Gebre of using the Bible as a scientific textbook; are you using Origin of the Species as scripture?
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Iconodule said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Does the Holy Spirit speak only through the Fathers?
I dare you to lay out your thinking behind this question.
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit spoke through Darwin? Are materialistic natural philosophers more inspired than the Fathers? You accuse Gebre of using the Bible as a scientific textbook; are you using Origin of the Species as scripture?
Who said anything about Darwin??
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Iconodule said:
It is incredibly naive to think that modern scientists, many of them atheists like Dawkins, are able to give an objective account of the universe. "But they use the scientific method!" "They are peer-reviewed!" The modern scientific methodology assumes that the material universe can be studied and understood without any reference to the spiritual world (irrespective of whether this latter world exists or not). Again, the Church teaches otherwise.
Yet many prominent Orthodox Christians--indeed many priests and even some bishops--are scientists. They don't rely on some false dualism between science and religion. On the contrary, they realize both science and faith express the beauty of the other.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Ukiemeister said:
Iconodule said:
It is incredibly naive to think that modern scientists, many of them atheists like Dawkins, are able to give an objective account of the universe. "But they use the scientific method!" "They are peer-reviewed!" The modern scientific methodology assumes that the material universe can be studied and understood without any reference to the spiritual world (irrespective of whether this latter world exists or not). Again, the Church teaches otherwise.
Yet many prominent Orthodox Christians--indeed many priests and even some bishops--are scientists. They don't rely on some false dualism between science and religion. On the contrary, they realize both science and faith express the beauty of the other.
Sure. The question is, which science? I am not positing a dualism between "science" and "religion." There is a legitimate space for natural philosophy in the Church, for examining the visible creation and figuring out how it works. But this science is informed by divine revelation and operates on certain philosophical and theological premises which are ignored, nay, denied in the modern mainstream scientific worldview.

I'm going to once again recommend that everyone read the work of Philip Sherrard on the modern scientific cosmology and its fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-human character- the books Human Image, World Image and The Rape of Man and Nature (also released as Eclipse of Man and Nature).
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Iconodule said:
Sure. The question is, which science? I am not positing a dualism between "science" and "religion." There is a legitimate space for natural philosophy in the Church, for examining the visible creation and figuring out how it works. But this science is informed by divine revelation and operates on certain philosophical and theological premises which are ignored, nay, denied in the modern mainstream scientific worldview.
You seem to be painting all science the same. Who cares what the mainstream worldview is?? The point is that Orthodox scientists are able to reconcile evolution with belief in God.

I'm going to once again recommend that everyone read the work of Philip Sherrard on the modern scientific cosmology and its fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-human character- the books Human Image, World Image and The Rape of Man and Nature (also released as Eclipse of Man and Nature).
If it is anti-Christian, why would we want to read it??
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Iconodule said:
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit spoke through Darwin?
I do believe He was. He is the Spirit of Truth. Science is one kind of truth (supernatural revelation is another). Darwin was a great scientist, very insightful and honest. So, most definitely, yes, the Spirit of Truth was speaking through him.

Iconodule said:
Are materialistic natural philosophers more inspired than the Fathers?
I don't know about that, but Darwin was not a philosopher, he was a biologist and became famous for advancing a scientific theory that explains biological phenomena. So far, nothing better has been done by any biologist, I think. Philosophy "around" the natural selection theory of biological evolution has nothing to do with biology and Darwin.

Iconodule said:
You accuse Gebre of using the Bible as a scientific textbook; are you using Origin of the Species as scripture?
Personally, I do not even use it as a textbook. Its main ideas, "translated" from Darwin's Victorian language into the language of modern biology, - that's what should be used to teach people biology. The late Fr. Rose, may his memory be eternal, could use some of it before writing his nonsense about evolution being "opposite" to Orthodoxy.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Ukiemeister said:
Iconodule said:
Sure. The question is, which science? I am not positing a dualism between "science" and "religion." There is a legitimate space for natural philosophy in the Church, for examining the visible creation and figuring out how it works. But this science is informed by divine revelation and operates on certain philosophical and theological premises which are ignored, nay, denied in the modern mainstream scientific worldview.
You seem to be painting all science the same.

Eh? If you actually read what I'm saying, you'll see that I'm not painting all science the same. Again, there is a legitimate space for science in the Church, a science founded on the proper philosophical and theological premises.

Who cares what the mainstream worldview is??
I guess you missed the people here fawning over Richard Dawkins' book.

The point is that Orthodox scientists are able to reconcile evolution with belief in God.
The Church teaches that the visible world was created in six days, out of nothing. "Literal"? "Metaphoric"? It doesn't really matter- the point is, this is the ultimate truth of the matter. If someone looks at the world we have today- a corrupted, fallen world- and concludes something different, he may or may not be giving an honest report of what he sees, but his conclusion is neither equal nor complementary to the revealed understanding. We do not take modern materialist science "literally" while reading Genesis "metaphorically"- we are talking about entirely different levels of truth here.

What some people here are doing is taking the modern evolutionary paradigm- posited by dualists, materialists, and atheists- , putting it alongside the Christian cosmology, and revising the latter in favor of the former.

Here, for me, is the very heart of the problem: As Orthodox Christians, we believe the universe to exist because of the constant, active role of the Creator. We believe that truths about the invisible things can be discerned through the visible creation. We believe that divine energies permeate the world we see around us, and that everything has its origin and its purpose in God. Considering this, does it make sense to try to understand the visible creation, simply by examining what we perceive with our senses, without any reference whatsoever to divine revelation or the teleology of creation? Does it make sense to treat the material world as self-contained, with every visible phenomenon explainable by means of other visible phenomena? How can this produce anything other than a distorted understanding of the world?

I'm going to once again recommend that everyone read the work of Philip Sherrard on the modern scientific cosmology and its fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-human character- the books Human Image, World Image and The Rape of Man and Nature (also released as Eclipse of Man and Nature).
If it is anti-Christian, why would we want to read it??
I'm sorry, I was unclear. It's not his work that's anti-Christian, but the worldview he critiques. Philip Sherrard, of course, was an Orthodox Christian and one of the three main translators of the Philokalia into English.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Are you saying that the Holy Spirit spoke through Darwin?
I do believe He was. He is the Spirit of Truth. Science is one kind of truth (supernatural revelation is another). Darwin was a great scientist, very insightful and honest. So, most definitely, yes, the Spirit of Truth was speaking through him.
Wow.

Darwin was not a philosopher, he was a biologist and became famous for advancing a scientific theory that explains biological phenomena. So far, nothing better has been done by any biologist, I think. Philosophy "around" the natural selection theory of biological evolution has nothing to do with biology and Darwin.
"Natural philosophy" is simply a more classical way of describing natural science. There is no science without philosophy. It's impossible to learn anything about the world without making some metaphysical/ epistemological assumptions. Darwin operated from dualist/ materialist premises. I have no doubt that he very honestly proceeded from these premises, but they were false premises to begin with.

Personally, I do not even use it as a textbook. Its main ideas, "translated" from Darwin's Victorian language into the language of modern biology, - that's what should be used to teach people biology. The late Fr. Rose, may his memory be eternal, could use some of it before writing his nonsense about evolution being "opposite" to Orthodoxy.
So do you consider modern biology textbooks to be equal to scripture then?
 

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
Riddikulus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  :angel:
And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam
Allow me:

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church."  
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Conclusion: he's either an idiot, or purposely deluding people, or both.
I don't see Fr Seraphim as an idiot, but as someone who hadn't been able to shake himself free of fundamentalist thinking; on this subject in particular.
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.


Selam
 

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
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
It is a scientific fact.

1.  During lunar eclipses, the projected shadow of the earth on the moon is
always round.  If the earth were flat, then this projection will not always
be circular (it could degenerate to a line!).  But this is never observed,
regardless of the time of the lunar eclipse.  Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote
about this.  The third point, below, is also credited to Aristotle.
Scientific fact?? Not according to the Flat Earth Society. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse

2. Eratosthanes (276-195(?) BCE) did a famous experiment on measuring the
angle of the sun at noon in Alexandria, Egypt, and in Syrene.  Finding the
difference in the angles and knowing the distance between the two points,
the circumference can be calculated.  He calculated the circumference in
stadia, which we do not know the conversion to our present day measure.
The friends over at the Flat Earth Society have also answered this one:  "It's a common misconception that Eratosthenes was measuring the circumference of the Round Earth in his shadow experiment. Eratosthenes had simply assumed that the earth was a sphere in his experiment, based on the work of Aristotle. He was actually measuring the diameter of the Flat Earth (distance across), which is a figure identical to the circumference of the Round Earth (distance around)."

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter

3. If you travel north or south a signigicant distance, you will see a
different set of stars at night.  This will not happen on a flat surface.
The Flat Earth Society rescues us again: "Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars."

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Shifting+Constellations
You prove the very point that Father Seraphim Rose makes. There is a difference between scientific fact and scientific philosophy.

Selam
 

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
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
And what about Blessed Augustine??

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9)
I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
The validity of a scientific theory often lies more in whether it has not yet been disproven than in whether it has yet been proven.  So I put before you this challenge, Gebre.  Prove evolutionary theory false from the basis of science and science alone.  I'd be willing to bet you can't.
To the objective mind, the lack of any fossil evidence that demonstrates intermediary species runs contrary to evolutionary theory.

But I have been over this all before, and will not get sucked into another scientific debate. The OP specifically asked whether or not evolution is compatible with Orthodoxy. Since this is a philosophical question, then let's stick to the philsophical issues. And the quotes I posted by Father Rose did exactly that, and the evolutionists have yet to address his philosophical points.

For example, at what specific point did man fall and become subject to death? At what point did man become fully human, and thereby the "image of God?"


Selam
 

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
Ukiemeister said:
Iconodule said:
It is incredibly naive to think that modern scientists, many of them atheists like Dawkins, are able to give an objective account of the universe. "But they use the scientific method!" "They are peer-reviewed!" The modern scientific methodology assumes that the material universe can be studied and understood without any reference to the spiritual world (irrespective of whether this latter world exists or not). Again, the Church teaches otherwise.
Yet many prominent Orthodox Christians--indeed many priests and even some bishops--are scientists. They don't rely on some false dualism between science and religion. On the contrary, they realize both science and faith express the beauty of the other.
Yes. And you need to realize that there are many who don't believe in evolution but nevertheless realize that science and faith are harmonious and express the beauty of each other.

Selam
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.

Selam
Fundamentalist evolutionary thinking?  I personally know that GiC has worked with evolutionary algorithms, which are built upon and execute according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection.  It provides an amazing insight into the abstract and theoretical aspects that shape nature, but at a more simplistic level.  In evolutionary computing, through the fields of artificial development and the optimisation of fitness functions, we are nearing a point where perfect biological simulations could take place.  When you are surrounded by this, it isn't fundamentalist thinking.  It is striving for, refining and truly understanding every aspect of one of the laws of Nature in ways we could never do before the advent of computing.  

We have a greater understanding of evolution than we even do of gravity (just look at the rivaling theoretical camps within quantum gravity), yet evolution is the one that is attacked.
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
To the objective mind, the lack of any fossil evidence that demonstrates intermediary species runs contrary to evolutionary theory.
Do you know how rare fossilisation is?  The fact we have any is absolutely mind-boggling, and the fossils we do have support evolution via the seperation of species.

For example, at what specific point did man fall and become subject to death? At what point did man become fully human, and thereby the "image of God?"
I'm sure you know my answer.  :p  There was always death, and there is no such thing as fully human, even within the last 10 000 years we have seen evolution within humanity thanks to the study of the human genome.  Who knows what "humanity" will evolve towards and how many branches there will be.  We are the common ancestors to whole new advanced future species; now that is a breathtaking throught.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Nebelpfade said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.

Selam
Fundamentalist evolutionary thinking?  I personally know that GiC has worked with evolutionary algorithms, which are built upon and execute according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection.  It provides an amazing insight into the abstract and theoretical aspects that shape nature, but at a more simplistic level.  In evolutionary computing, through the fields of artificial development and the optimisation of fitness functions, we are nearing a point where perfect biological simulations could take place.  When you are surrounded by this, it isn't fundamentalist thinking.  It is striving for, refining and truly understanding every aspect of one of the laws of Nature in ways we could never do before the advent of computing.  

We have a greater understanding of evolution than we even do of gravity (just look at the rivaling theoretical camps within quantum gravity), yet evolution is the one that is attacked.
Yeah, that gravity stuff is bogus. The Bible says that people can fly: "And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood" (I Samuel [I Kingdoms] 14:32 KJV).
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
So do you consider modern biology textbooks to be equal to scripture then?
As far as biology is concerned - no; I very, very, very much prefer them to Scripture.  8)
And I would prefer to use a cookbook for soup recipes. But that's really not the point, is it?
 

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
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Nebelpfade said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.

Selam
Fundamentalist evolutionary thinking?  I personally know that GiC has worked with evolutionary algorithms, which are built upon and execute according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection.  It provides an amazing insight into the abstract and theoretical aspects that shape nature, but at a more simplistic level.  In evolutionary computing, through the fields of artificial development and the optimisation of fitness functions, we are nearing a point where perfect biological simulations could take place.  When you are surrounded by this, it isn't fundamentalist thinking.  It is striving for, refining and truly understanding every aspect of one of the laws of Nature in ways we could never do before the advent of computing.  

We have a greater understanding of evolution than we even do of gravity (just look at the rivaling theoretical camps within quantum gravity), yet evolution is the one that is attacked.
Yeah, that gravity stuff is bogus. The Bible says that people can fly: "And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood" (I Samuel [I Kingdoms] 14:32 KJV).
And this has what to do with my comments above?

Your response is a typical tactic of those who can't defend their own propaganda. They ridicule the opposing point of view with sarcasm rather than defend their own position in a reasonable manner. Saul Alinsky would be proud.


Selam
 

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
Nebelpfade said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
To the objective mind, the lack of any fossil evidence that demonstrates intermediary species runs contrary to evolutionary theory.
Do you know how rare fossilisation is?  The fact we have any is absolutely mind-boggling, and the fossils we do have support evolution via the seperation of species.

For example, at what specific point did man fall and become subject to death? At what point did man become fully human, and thereby the "image of God?"
I'm sure you know my answer.  :p  There was always death, and there is no such thing as fully human, even within the last 10 000 years we have seen evolution within humanity thanks to the study of the human genome.  Who knows what "humanity" will evolve towards and how many branches there will be.  We are the common ancestors to whole new advanced future species; now that is a breathtaking throught.
Well please explain in the light of evolution why people once lived to be hundreds of years old and today they only live roughly 70 years on average. Doesn't seem to be evolutionary progress to me.

Selam
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Nebelpfade said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.

Selam
Fundamentalist evolutionary thinking?  I personally know that GiC has worked with evolutionary algorithms, which are built upon and execute according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection.  It provides an amazing insight into the abstract and theoretical aspects that shape nature, but at a more simplistic level.  In evolutionary computing, through the fields of artificial development and the optimisation of fitness functions, we are nearing a point where perfect biological simulations could take place.  When you are surrounded by this, it isn't fundamentalist thinking.  It is striving for, refining and truly understanding every aspect of one of the laws of Nature in ways we could never do before the advent of computing.  

We have a greater understanding of evolution than we even do of gravity (just look at the rivaling theoretical camps within quantum gravity), yet evolution is the one that is attacked.
Yeah, that gravity stuff is bogus. The Bible says that people can fly: "And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood" (I Samuel [I Kingdoms] 14:32 KJV).
And this has what to do with my comments above?
Again you reveal your vanity. My response was to Nebelpfade, not to you. I only included your post to give context to Nebelpfade's.

Your response is a typical tactic of those who can't defend their own propaganda. They ridicule the opposing point of view with sarcasm rather than defend their own position in a reasonable manner. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
I have already defended the theory of evolution on this very thread, which I believe to be sound science. Go back and read the thread, and you'll see my reasonable explanation. I have no interest in repeating myself until I'm blue in the face, because it won't do any good. But I will say this: Using Scripture as a basis for scientific theory is ridiculous, and therefore I ridicule it.
 
Top