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
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.
All that may impress people who read your comments at a cursory glance and are intimidated by the scientific sounding tone. But nothing in what you say has anything to do whatsoever with validating the theroy of Darwinian evolution. Whereas Gic may witness the execution "according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection," another scientist may witness this esame execution according to "the beautiful mechanisms intrinsically woven into the fabric of nature by an ominoptent God." The reality of evolution within individual species and the occurrence of natural selection to a certain degree do not in any way translate into proof of Darwinian evolution.

Selam
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Nebelpfade said:
I'm sure you know my answer.  :p  There was always death, and there is no such thing as fully human
Yes there is, and it is represented by our Lord Jesus Christ. Would it be correct to assume you're not a Christian?
 

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:
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.
Now the personal insults, huh? Well, I won't reciprocate.

I too do not wish to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face. I have critiqued evolution enough on this thread already, without adequate answers to my many challenging questions. But I will continue to point out the disingenuous attacks of people like you who relentlessly accuse all of us who do not believe in evolution of using Scripture as a scientific textbook. That is a dishonest tactic.

But you are right, I won't change your mind because it is not open to change. But I remain open to the scientific evidence.

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.


Selam
 

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:
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?
I thought it WAS the point. Scripture and other parts of the Holy Tradition of the Church exist in order to explain to us, Who Jesus Christ is - not to educate us about mechanisms of diversification of life on our planet.
 

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
Iconodule said:
Yes there is, and it is represented by our Lord Jesus Christ. Would it be correct to assume you're not a Christian?
Depends on who you ask.  If being Christian means having ignore or sacrifice scientific fact, I cannot understand why someone would want to be one in the first place.  Betraying the inquisitive nature of humanity seems like a greater 'sin'.

Nothing can be "fully" anything, when the very definition is in a state of flux.  Were our common ancestors "fully human"?  Are we (Homo sapiens sapiens) "fully human"?  Will the Homo novus be "fully human"?  
 

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:
All that may impress people who read your comments at a cursory glance and are intimidated by the scientific sounding tone. But nothing in what you say has anything to do whatsoever with validating the theroy of Darwinian evolution. Whereas Gic may witness the execution "according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection," another scientist may witness this esame execution according to "the beautiful mechanisms intrinsically woven into the fabric of nature by an ominoptent God." The reality of evolution within individual species and the occurrence of natural selection to a certain degree do not in any way translate into proof of Darwinian evolution.

Selam
It wasn't meant to be a formal proof of evolution.  It was meant to comment on how he is far from a fundamentalist, since he is merely pushing for a truth that he has been surrounded by (though, we all are) and worked extensively within its theoretical framework.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Nebelpfade said:
Iconodule said:
Yes there is, and it is represented by our Lord Jesus Christ. Would it be correct to assume you're not a Christian?
Depends on who you ask.  If being Christian means having ignore or sacrifice scientific fact, I cannot understand why someone would want to be one in the first place.  Betraying the inquisitive nature of humanity seems like a greater 'sin'.
Don't dodge the question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, fully divine and fully human?

Nothing can be "fully" anything, when the very definition is in a state of flux.  Were our common ancestors "fully human"?
Yes, Adam and Eve were fully human.

Are we (Homo sapiens sapiens) "fully human"?  Will the Homo novus be "fully human"?  
Despite transhumanist fantasies, there will be no homo novus. The Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of humanity, and he is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
 

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:
Nothing can be "fully" anything, when the very definition is in a state of flux.  
Again you prove that Orthodoxy and Evolution are incompatible. For the Athanasian Creed affrims that "Our Lord Jesus Christ is fully God, fully man." So you see, belief in evolution does affect our theology, as Father Seraphim Rose correctly pointed out.


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
Iconodule said:
Nebelpfade said:
Iconodule said:
Yes there is, and it is represented by our Lord Jesus Christ. Would it be correct to assume you're not a Christian?
Depends on who you ask.  If being Christian means having ignore or sacrifice scientific fact, I cannot understand why someone would want to be one in the first place.  Betraying the inquisitive nature of humanity seems like a greater 'sin'.
Don't dodge the question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, fully divine and fully human?

Nothing can be "fully" anything, when the very definition is in a state of flux.  Were our common ancestors "fully human"?
Yes, Adam and Eve were fully human.

Are we (Homo sapiens sapiens) "fully human"?  Will the Homo novus be "fully human"?  
Despite transhumanist fantasies, there will be no homo novus. The Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of humanity, and he is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Amen! Correct on all points Iconodule.

Selam
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
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?
I thought it WAS the point. Scripture and other parts of the Holy Tradition of the Church exist in order to explain to us, Who Jesus Christ is - not to educate us about mechanisms of diversification of life on our planet.
Part of understanding Who Jesus Christ is, is understanding sacred history, the reasons for Creation, and the manner in which the world was created. You can learn this by reading the Scriptures and such works as St. Basil's Hexaemeron. Biology textbooks don't even begin to touch on this- all they will tell you is how man, with his corrupted mind, has tried to piece together the way life works without the benefit of divine revelation.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Now the personal insults, huh? Well, I won't reciprocate.
Time will tell.

I too do not wish to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face. I have critiqued evolution enough on this thread already, without adequate answers to my many challenging questions.
In other words, no one has given you the answers you want to hear.

But I will continue to point out the disingenuous attacks of people like you who relentlessly accuse all of us who do not believe in evolution of using Scripture as a scientific textbook. That is a dishonest tactic.
Hmm. Who are the people like me?

But you are right, I won't change your mind because it is not open to change. But I remain open to the scientific evidence.
As I thought. So much for not using personal attacks.

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Same tired rhetoric. Same either/or fallacy. No new ideas at all.

You keep using that word, yet your behaviour shows you have no interest in peace at all.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
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
:laugh:  :laugh:  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel! It's a shame that it hasn't done the same for you and others like you who live in fear that accepting the truth of a scientific theory will bring the sky down upon your heads. There is no incompatibility between science and religion, except for the one people like you create.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
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.
What lack of fossil evidence?

 

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:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
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?
I thought it WAS the point. Scripture and other parts of the Holy Tradition of the Church exist in order to explain to us, Who Jesus Christ is - not to educate us about mechanisms of diversification of life on our planet.
Part of understanding Who Jesus Christ is, is understanding sacred history, the reasons for Creation, and the manner in which the world was created. You can learn this by reading the Scriptures and such works as St. Basil's Hexaemeron. Biology textbooks don't even begin to touch on this- all they will tell you is how man, with his corrupted mind, has tried to piece together the way life works without the benefit of divine revelation.
But I don't dispute that. Nonetheless, Hexaemeron does not contain the exact scientific data. Biology textbooks do. So, when I am interested in the questions like "why," "what for," for what purpose," I read St. Basil - but when I am interested in the question "how," and in a very narrow mechanistic sense, - I read Darwin or Ernst Mayr.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.

Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying 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
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.

Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

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
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Now the personal insults, huh? Well, I won't reciprocate.
Time will tell.

I too do not wish to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face. I have critiqued evolution enough on this thread already, without adequate answers to my many challenging questions.
In other words, no one has given you the answers you want to hear.

But I will continue to point out the disingenuous attacks of people like you who relentlessly accuse all of us who do not believe in evolution of using Scripture as a scientific textbook. That is a dishonest tactic.
Hmm. Who are the people like me?

But you are right, I won't change your mind because it is not open to change. But I remain open to the scientific evidence.
As I thought. So much for not using personal attacks.

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Same tired rhetoric. Same either/or fallacy. No new ideas at all.

You keep using that word, yet your behaviour shows you have no interest in peace at all.
So you think that peace means agreeing with you?


Selam
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
 

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:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
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
:laugh:  :laugh:  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel! It's a shame that it hasn't done the same for you and others like you who live in fear that accepting the truth of a scientific theory will bring the sky down upon your heads. There is no incompatibility between science and religion, except for the one people like you create.
Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject evolution as affirming an incompatibility between science and religion? This tactic won't work with me, and I will point out the dishonesty of it whenever it happens. Who is the fundamentalist here: you who place complete faith in a theory which is unproven, or I who remain open to the evidence?

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
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Riddikulus said:
:laugh:  :laugh:  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel!
Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had extreme materialist, atheistic, and secular leanings (Marxism). Thank God that his Church has set me free from that.
 

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
Evolution does not have to be 'atheistic'.  Evolution only describes a known mechanism within nature.  A theist can look at it and say "Look, God implemented the universal constants of physics that govern our Universe (cosmology), which allowed for the formation of simple life (abiogenesis) and for it to evolve into the life we see now through evolution by natural selection.  His base constants were such a great foundation that we have the beauty of the natural world we have now.  He wasn't incompetent and did not create a broken system which he constantly has to fiddle with and violate his own laws to get the end result He had hoped for."  Evolution can be accepted by theists and atheists alike since it is solely a mechanism, it is neutral when it comes to faith in a deity.  Remember, one can be a theist without being a Christian.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject evolution as affirming an incompatibility between science and religion? This tactic won't work with me, and I will point out the dishonesty of it whenever it happens. Who is the fundamentalist here: you who place complete faith in a theory which is unproven, or I who remain open to the evidence?
I have yet to see a valid counter-example.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
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
:laugh:  :laugh:  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel! It's a shame that it hasn't done the same for you and others like you who live in fear that accepting the truth of a scientific theory will bring the sky down upon your heads. There is no incompatibility between science and religion, except for the one people like you create.
Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject evolution as affirming an incompatibility between science and religion? This tactic won't work with me, and I will point out the dishonesty of it whenever it happens. Who is the fundamentalist here: you who place complete faith in a theory which is unproven, or I who remain open to the evidence?

Selam
Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject that evolution affirms any incompatibility between science and religion; that we are naive, evolutionary fundamentalists and now this latest doozy - that we are placing complete faith in the theory Evolution.  :laugh:
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Iconodule said:
Riddikulus said:
:laugh:  :laugh:  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel!
Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had extreme materialist, atheistic, and secular leanings (Marxism). Thank God that his Church has set me free from that.
Indeed.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".
 

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:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
::)
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?
 

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:
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
For the purposes of this discussion, you need to ignore the OP and follow the thread title, instead.  This thread is now a conglomerate of many pre-existing threads all discussing the same theme of creationism vs. evolutionary theory.  Every thread that got merged into this has its own OP, and every thread that will get merged into this thread in the future will have its own OP.  It is therefore useless to expect anyone to stay on topic if that means speaking solely to the first post of this thread.  The topic is now the ongoing debate of creationism vs. evolutionary theory, and any post that addresses either side of the subject is welcome.
 

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
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?
The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


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:
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
For the purposes of this discussion, you need to ignore the OP and follow the thread title, instead.  This thread is now a conglomerate of many pre-existing threads all discussing the same theme of creationism vs. evolutionary theory.  Every thread that got merged into this has its own OP, and every thread that will get merged into this thread in the future will have its own OP.  It is therefore useless to expect anyone to stay on topic if that means speaking solely to the first post of this thread.  The topic is now the ongoing debate of creationism vs. evolutionary theory, and any post that addresses either side of the subject is welcome.
It seems a bit contradictory to say that either side of the subject is welcome, but that I need to ignore the OP. My main concern is to specifically address the OP, and to give reasons why I bvelieve that Orthodoxy and evolution are incompatible.


Selam
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?
The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam
So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?
 

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
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?
The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam
So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?

What are your spiritual reasons for rejecting the existence of God?

Selam
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?
The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam
So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?
IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
So I took my granddaughter shopping last evening. When we arrived back to the car there’s a pamphlet under one of the windscreen wipers.

It boldly claims…

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS STATES: ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED OR DESTROYED
Therefore the Universe didn’t create itself.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Says that everything goes from randomness to complexity.

THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Says the opposite is the case.

CARBON 14 DATING UNRELIABLE!!
A living snail was tested and the reading showed that it has been dead for 3000years!

MOON-WALKERS DON’T SINK INTO HUNDREDS OF FEET OF MOON DUST!
Surprisingling, they found about ½ inch on the moon, showing that we have a very young moon of about 6000 years old!

APE-MEN FRAUDS!!
Pithecanthropus erectus was found to be a gibbon. Pitdown man (built up on a jaw bone of a modern ape and a human skull) and Peking man similarly were found to be frauds. Nebraska man was based on a single tooth imagined to belong to a human skull. It was later proven to belong to a pig.

FOSSIL RECORD EMBARRASSES SCIENCE! THERE IS NONE!
Darwin said that the fossil record would bear him out, yet more than 100 years after his death no one can find any “half fossils”. Where are the alligators with wings or the ducks with feet.

THE LAWS OF HEREDITY weren’t discovered at the time the theory of evolution was proposed in the mid1800s. These laws show that characteristics are passed from parents to offspring according to precise mathematical ratios unlike the random processes of evolution.

TWO STARVING SHIPWRECKED SAILORS were washed up on an island. After trudging  in the hot sun for several hours, one saw a car half-hidden in the jungle. Excitedly, he yelled “Eureka! Someone lives on the island.” To which the other replied; “Nah! Don’t be stupid, the car just evolved by itself!”

Recommended web sits: www.av1611.org
And: www.drdino.com

Now apart from the obvious nonsense in this pamphlet, I was surprised to see that this supposed means of introducing Christ to the lost only had a brief mention of the Saviour on the back page with a couple of bible verses and some confused gobbledygook about *truth*. Included was an additional page claiming that there being no errors in the King James bible and instructions on how to avoid going to hell by praying the Salvation prayer they supplied. All in all, the message of the Gospel, seemingly nothing more than an addendum, was obscured by two obsessions; evolution and the rightness of the King James. And obviously, the pamphlet distributors had never visited Answers in Genesis where they would have received advice not to use arguments (I use the term euphemistically) that aren't honest, intellectually sound, logical, and the result of scientific research.

Now I agree that not much can be done to "spread the word" in a pamphlet like this; so if one is going to the trouble and expense of doing this sort of thing why not simply spread the word about Christ, (and I commend anyone for doing that) instead of obsessing over personal hobby horses?
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,220
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Age
41
TWO STARVING SHIPWRECKED SAILORS were washed up on an island. After trudging  in the hot sun for several hours, one saw a car half-hidden in the jungle. Excitedly, he yelled “Eureka! Someone lives on the island.” To which the other replied; “Nah! Don’t be stupid, the car just evolved by itself!”
And creationists like this* wonder why some people disdain them (and to be fair, I feel the same way about people who say things like "every religion was just created to control people"... this isn't a religious vs. non-religious thing, it's a get-the-facts-right thing). Ok, disdain is too strong a word, maybe more like they are frustrating.


*Note that I am not talking about every creationist
 

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:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
Uhh, whose outraged? ??? I'm simply asking you to stop levying unfounded accusations, such as saying that I use "manipulaitive rhetoric" and that I think "faith and science are incompatible." Argue your position, make your case, but don't personally attack me with such dishonest statements.

Selam
You really don't see the bolded above as part of your manipulative routine? Typical Emperor's New Clothes rhetoric. Agree with me and you are all intelligent, spiritual human beings; disagree with me and you are naive and misguided individuals, placing complete faith in Evolution. Disingenuous retorts because you can't get people to agree with you, Gebre. And we have all argued our case, Gebre - go back over the thread. I don't intend to repeat things until I'm blue in the face to someone who opposes argument with the internet equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "I wish I was in the land of cotton!".

So evolutionists are allowed to call us naive, ignorant, opposed to science, etc; but if I logically point out the naivete of theisitc evolution or the naivete of thinking that Orthodoxy and atheistic evolution are compatible, then I am being manipulative. Sorry, I don't play that game and I won't be intimidated.

But you have succeded in diverting the issue, so congratulations. In the absence of answers, derail the discussion and make it personal. Well I fell into that trap, so shame on me. But unless you want to philosophically address the quotes I posted by Father Rose, then I won't waste any more time responding here. So go ahead and take another jab at me if it makes you feel better, but I'm bowing out of this puerile nonsense.

Selam
You are the one derailing the issue, you're trying to turn a scientific question into a philosophical one, which it is not. The only 'philosophical assumption' you have to make is that what we observe is real. Personally I would argue that reducing such an obvious truth to a philosophical question is absurd to the point of insanity, for to follow this philosophy through, rationally, would mean that you would refuse to get out of bed because you'd be just as likely to fall through the floor as to stand on it...and the very fact that you respond to posts on this forum implies you don't actually doubt the principles of science, you act on your observations.

So, with the obvious stated, if you'd like to ask actual scientific questions, please feel free to...but since you obviously accept the validity of observation, we will not grant you the luxury of asking hypothetical questions that ignore the validity of the same. Ultimately, science is little more than the formalization of observation, to say that it is opposed to religion or whatever is no different than saying that someone standing before you is actually standing before you is opposed to religion or whatever.

And that is why most people simply can't take you seriously, if someone was standing before you and you said they weren't there or vice versa people would think you insane, how are your claims any different?
The question of the OP is primarily a philosophical and theological one. The theory of evolution belongs to the realm of scientific philosophy, not scientific fact, as Father Seraphim Rose rightly pointed out. I am glad to discuss and debate the merits or lack thereof of the philosophy of evolution, which I have done repeatedly on this thread. But I will not allow personal attacks to be levied against me under the guise of debate without calling out those who do so.


Selam
So you're trying to bring up moot issues, to distract from legitimate discussion? As I already pointed out, you obviously believe in the validity of observation as witnessed by what  you've said and done on this forum and, I presume, by how you live your life (or do you, typically, not believe what your eyes are telling you when you see a red stoplight?). So, by virtue of that fact alone you accept, de facto, the 'scientific philosophy'...for the only way to reject it would be to reject the validity of your observations (Which, I guess, would also technically make you an iconoclast...hmmm...).

So, why not stop dancing around non-existent issues and face the ones at hand. What are your scientific reasons for rejection the theory of evolution?
IOW, Gebre, the question of the scientific validity of evolutionary theory is of central importance to your discussion of the OP.  If evolutionary theory is a true and valid explanation of how we came to be (the natural mechanics of how God carried out his work of creating man), then what does it matter whether this theory is compatible with Orthodox faith?  We need to adjust our beliefs to accommodate our scientific observations, or else make the Gospel of Jesus Christ look truly like the Gospel of idiots.  But if you can prove evolutionary theory false using evidence from scientific observation, you might have a case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodox Christianity.  You can't separate evolutionary theory from its foundation in scientific observation and posit it as something opposed to Orthodox faith, at least not without the consequence of looking needlessly like a fool.
You have indeed hit upon the crux of the matter. And I have addressed some of the reasons why evolutionary theory is not a fact, and why it is a highly dubious theory. But essentially, I disagree with your assertion that unless we can prove evolutionary false from scientific observation, then we have no case for arguing that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Orthodoxy. Let me provide an analogy: What if I said that Orthodoxy is compatible with the belief that evil does not exist? I imagine that you would reject such an assertion (I would hope so anyway.) But I could argue that unless the existence of evil can be scientifically proven, then as Orthodox Christians we look like fools to believe in something that has not been verified by scientific evidence.

You see, what the evolutionsists try to do is assert a radical dichotomy between facts and values. But I do not acept their premises or their presuppositions, and I will not allow them to dictate the terms of the debate. For if we affirm their worldveiw as the only valid frame of reference, then we essentially declare our Faith to be litle more than blind superstition. The Orthodox Christian worldview is predicated on the belief in God Who created the universe; thus to abandon this worldview in our scientific questioning does violence both to science and to our Faith.

As for the theistic evolution position, I have discussed the naivete and untenable nature of this position earlier on this thread. And I do not say "naive" in a pejoritive sense, only as a matter of fact. (The theoretical possiblity of theistic evolution is certainly valid, but its reality is nullified in the light of hard science and philsophical principles.)

Too many Orthodox Christians are afraid of appearing "unenlightened" or "foolish" if they do not jump on the evolution bandwagon. They have been intimidated by those who try to monopolize the issue by saying that we have no right to comment on evolution unless we are scientists ourselves. So they capitulate to the bullying and try to preserve their Orthodoxy by adopting the false compromise of "theistic evolution." Too many Christians are either too ignorant or too afraid to affirm their own spiritual worldview as the most valid point of reference for all things from morality to science. So when Gic or others try to force their own naturalistic presuppositions upon me, I will not bow down to it. No one can ever really understand the creation if they do not first know the Creator. The onus is not upon us to disprove evolution; true science is already doing that each and every day.

Not to mention, my Church teaches that the earth is only about 7 or 8 thousand years old, so that pretty much precludes the possibility of evolution at the outset. So I have a choice: do I ignore the teachings of my Faith in order to fit in with the crowd and safeguard myself from ridicule, or do I accept the teachings of my Faith and stand firm in the face of worldly opposition?

As blessed Augustine said, "I believe, therefore I know."

All that is to say that I believe we have to recognize that there are two diametrically opposed worldviews at play in the evolution debate. And as Orthodox Christians we cannot allow those with naturalistic presuppositions to declare that their starting point is the only valid and objective foundation from which to discern these vital matters.  


Selam
 
Top