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

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Rafa999 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.
It doesn't though.  Evolution being true does not negate Adam not being a "mortal" created in the image of God without sin.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sleeper said:
Rafa999 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.

Canon of 7th Ecumenical council of Orthodox and RCC disagrees. With "evolution" not science of course.
It doesn't though.  Evolution being true does not negate Adam not being a "mortal" created in the image of God without sin.
so then youre prepared to scientifically demonstrate that there were immortal people at one point? or that immortality is possible?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
jckstraw72 said:
it absolutely is contrary...
If it were there's no way I would've converted to Orthodoxy.  I follow the truth where it leads.  Fortunately, scientific discovery is harmonious with Orthodoxy.

have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father
This true and, again, not contrary to common ancestry and natural selection.  It's only contrary if you force it to be so.

and that Eve is literally from his rib;
Right, no WAY that's figurative...

that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man;
So, Autumn and Winter are results of the Fall then?  Here I was giving God praise for the beauties of the seasons.  I'll be sure to save that solely for Spring & Summer.

that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old
We know this, beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever, to be completely and utterly false.

that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
I agree with this last part, that it is not compatible with evolution.  And for some reason, we missed this in my catechism...
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
jckstraw72 said:
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.
So you and the Fathers both agree that if our common sense forbids us from taking something literally, then it must be interpreted...
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.
So you and the Fathers both agree that if our common sense forbids us from taking something literally, then it must be interpreted...
I agree that the Fathers are the key for interpretation, i in no way think it should be left up to the "common sense" of a sinner like me.

and either way, common sense tells me that Paradise is not to be interpreted according to scientific observations of the 19th-21st centuries, but rather by those who have visited Paradise and attained Paradise in their souls. common sense also tells me that if there is a greater authority than the Church then I have no business being Orthodox.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound? Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see and how would it even get eyes?

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Achronos said:
Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
ei*Pi = -1 seems much too complicated to be true.

But it is. 

Science is like that.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Achronos said:
I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound?
Increased awareness of the environment leading to increased biological fitness, I imagine.

Achronos said:
Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see
Because animals that can see a predator charging at them at full speed, intent on eating them, tend to live longer to reproduce than those who cannot.

Achronos said:
and how would it even get eyes? Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
Like so: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v8/n12/full/nrn2283.html


Lamb said:
Some of the most fundamental events in the evolution of the vertebrate eye occurred in the relatively short time of a few tens of millions of years, around the time of the Cambrian explosion more than 500 Mya and possibly coincident with two duplications of the entire genome.

First, it seems likely that a basal chordate possessed simple paired photoreceptive organs that were broadly similar to the unpaired organs of extant Amphioxus and C. intestinalis (it seems very likely that during evolution C. intestinalis has lost one member of what was once a pair). by approximately 530 Mya these paired organs had expanded laterally, and each had developed into a two-layered ‘retina’, with ciliary photoreceptors contacting projection neurons (which might have arisen from rhabdomeric photoreceptor cells). The resultant organ would have been quite similar to the ‘eye’ of extant hagfish, with a circadian and/or shadow-detecting function and a lack of optical components for imaging. The advantage it conferred to the animal was the ability to gather much more light (possibly at great depth), through a large increase in the number of photoreceptors, through lateral positioning outside the skull and through de-pigmentation of the overlying skin.

Subsequently, in evolutionary steps that closely paralleled the developmental steps that occur in extant metamorphosing lampreys, this rudimentary eye acquired a lens, an increase in retinal processing power (through the insertion of retinal bipolar cells), projection of the ganglion cell axons to thalamic regions, and extraocular muscles. This eye, which was equivalent to the eye of adult extant lampreys, possessed almost all of the crucial features that characterize the modern vertebrate eye, and was present at least 500 Mya. Along with this transformation of the hagfish-like lateral organs from a non-imaging function to an imaging function, another region of the diencephalon expanded to take over circadian function and evolved into the pineal organ.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
1
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
 

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:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
I would agree if the saying went like, "ONLY science makes this world worth defending." Science is but one dimension of the human life. It has its limitations. For example, science principally, by definition, excludes anything supernatural. Also, science is not teleological, it does not ask questions like "who are we? from where did we come? where are we going?" etc. There are other dimensions of human life where such questions are approppriate - philosophy, theology... I never denied their right to exist, and I respect those people who dedicated their whole life to these non-scientific dimensions. But science, similarly, has its own place and character, and there is no reason to disrespect or dismiss it.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Heorhij said:
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
<let font=sarcasm>
Oh sure.  But all you've done is create four new gaps that cannot be explained!
<let font=normal>
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Achronos said:
I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound? Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see and how would it even get eyes?

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
What about vestigial organs?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
jckstraw72 said:
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
Sleeper said:
jckstraw72 said:
ok, so you go with option A then ... you believe there was death in Paradise

No, I believe there was death and then there was the possibility of immortality for the creatures upon whom God breathed His Spirit.  There was death for other natural creatures, yes of course.

I really don't see what other conclusion there is than the fanciful 6-day instantaneous special-creation approach of a literal Genesis reading.  There is nothing to back that up empirically.  It has nothing to do with "secular science" versus Church teaching, but has everything to do with what we observe about the universe around us.
the other conclusion is that the Church is right - there really was a Paradise in which nothing died, and since there are no remains from this period, it is totally beyond science - there is nothing for science to study from the period of Paradise.

and im not convinced that what we observe about the universe around us in the 20th and 21st centuries is really the key to 7500 yrs ago in Paradise and then just after the Fall. what reason do i have to believe that today can tell me about Paradise?
The Church doesn't have a position on it, and even if it did, it would without a doubt be compatible with the findings of genuine scientific discovery.  Truth is truth.
youre right, truth is truth. thus, evolution must not be true.

the Church does indeed have a harmonious teaching about Genesis - the Scriptures, Patristics, hymns, canons, and icons of the Church all tell the same story
And that story is in no way contrary to what science has discovered about the nature of the universe and life as we know it.
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
What about God walking in the garden?
ok, you got me - anthropomorphisms of God are obviously not literal, and the Fathers point this out. they say that passages such as this should be understood in a manner that is befitting of God.
So you and the Fathers both agree that if our common sense forbids us from taking something literally, then it must be interpreted...
I agree that the Fathers are the key for interpretation, i in no way think it should be left up to the "common sense" of a sinner like me.

and either way, common sense tells me that Paradise is not to be interpreted according to scientific observations of the 19th-21st centuries, but rather by those who have visited Paradise and attained Paradise in their souls. common sense also tells me that if there is a greater authority than the Church then I have no business being Orthodox.
So is Paradise a physical garden or something attained by the soul?
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Evolution does not mean God didn't have a purpose which came about.  To ask how an eye could arise is answered, albeit quite well by science already, by saying, "Because God wanted it to."  It's not either evolution or God, as comfortable as that familiar dichotomy is for many people.

God created a world to which He granted the freedom to make itself.  This is necessary if it's actually going to be real and not just a simulation that God plays out as Grand Puppetmaster.  He wanted real creatures who could freely choose to love Him.

"I would like to suggest, respectfully, that when God came to create the world, the Creator faced a dilemma.  God is faithful, and the natural gift of the faithful God will be reliability in the operation of creation.  However, reliability by itself could harden into mere rigidity, leading to a clockwork world in which nothing really new ever happened.  God is also loving, and the natural gift of the loving God will be an independence granted to creation.  Independence on its own, however, could degenerate into mere license, leading to a world of disorderly chaos.

I believe that the God who is both loving and faithful has given to creation the twin gifts of independence and reliability.  These find their reflection in the fruitful interplay of chance and necessity in evolving cosmic history.  Such an account gives a much more positive understanding of the role of chance.  Monod and Dawkins like to apply to chance the adjective “blind,” suggestive of purposelessness and meaninglessness, but we do not need to be beguiled by their tendentious choice of words.  The shuffling operations of happenstance are a way of exploring and bringing to light the deep anthropic fruitfulness with which the physical world has been endowed.  Chance is “the search radar of God, sweeping through all possible targets of its probing.”

We must find a balance to the unacceptable views of God as divine puppeteer, pulling every string and making creatures dance to the divine tune alone and God as divine spectator who just set it all going and left the universe to get on with it.  An evolutionary world is to be understood theologically as a world allowed by the Creator to make itself to a large degree.  Yet this self-making takes place in a setting of finely tuned potentiality.  Creation is not the starting off of something that is produced ready-made; rather, it is a continuous process.

Because continuous creation allows room for creaturly freedom within this process, the consequences will be lots of things that have come about “by chance” in the course of history.  I do not believe that it was laid down from the foundation of the world that humankind should have five fingers - it just worked out that way - but I by no means believe it is pure accident that beings capable of self-conciousness and of worship have emerged in the course of cosmic history.  In other words, there is a general overal purpose being fulfilled in what is going on, but the details of what actually occurs are left to the contingencies of history (this happening rather than that).  The picture is of a world endowed with fruitfulness, guided by its Creator, but allowed an ability to realize this fruitfulness in its own particular ways.  Chance is a sign of freedom, not blind purposelessness."

- John Polkinghorne
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
jckstraw72 said:
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
So God did not create sexual organs? Or He did not intend for us to use them? Why is castration forbidden by the first canon of Nicaea?
 

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
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.
Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.
Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.
no. its the rejection of evolution. evolution is not the entirety of science. if i get sick, i take medicine. my eyes stink so i wear glasses. if i need to get somewhere i get in my car -- these are all products of science. i dont know anyone who actually rejects science.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
So God did not create sexual organs? Or He did not intend for us to use them? Why is castration forbidden by the first canon of Nicaea?
God created us male and female because he knew that we would fall and would need a way to procreate. there are several threads on that issue you can take a look at.
 

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
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.
Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.
no. its the rejection of evolution. evolution is not the entirety of science. if i get sick, i take medicine. my eyes stink so i wear glasses. if i need to get somewhere i get in my car -- these are all products of science. i dont know anyone who actually rejects science.
Evolution is a scientific theory, so it is a part of science. What you mention is not science, that's products derived from applications of certain developments of science into practical life. But science includes many things that cannot be applied to everyday life, too. Take, for example, a debate between two immunologists (immunology is a science I know "from inside," because my graduate training and my postdoctoral projects were in the field of immunology). One of them tries to prove that in pre-B lymphocytes the V kappa locus rearranges first, followed by the V lambda locus, and the other objects, saying that the rearrangements of V segments in both loci begin simultaneously. No matter who of these two wins, you and I will not benefit - at least immediately. Science is, to a very large extent, like this debate.:)
 

Cyprian1975

Newbie
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Chattanooga
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.
Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.
Funny, I was unaware that rejecting a theory ( guess or conjecture;a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural) is the same as rejecting the entire field of study.  Am I "abandoning science" because I refuse to believe rotting meat spontaneously generates flies?  No!  Evolution, as it is being debated has yet to be proven satisfactorily, meaning it is still theory, not dogmatic fact.  Saying "man descended from apes hasn't actually been proven, all the nice fables about Lucy and linebacker-proportioned "cave men" aside.

Besides, we can argue this till the apes learn to type, with no real result except flared tempers, ill-will and statements designed to ensure at least one party, sender, recipient or both, will need repentance.  In one view, an old-universe, chain of constantly changing lifeforms by chance became men.  In another view, a universe Designed, with Intelligence, Pattern and Purpose.  The only thing such polemical discussion do is reveal to all and sundry which side the speaker is on.

Please forgive if I have offended.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
jckstraw72 said:
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
it absolutely is contrary ... have you read the Fathers on Genesis? they teach that Adam was literally created from dust and that he has no mortal as his father, and that Eve is literally from his rib; that Adam and Eve die because of sin, not natural necessity; that animals and plants also did not die, because their fate was/is wholly connected to that of man; that the earth is c. 7500 yrs old; that Adam and Eve did not hunger, did not need sleep, did not feel pain, did not excrete waste, etc; they also teach that Adam and Eve were to procreate virginally - sexual reproduction is a product of the Fall --- none of this is compatible with evolution.
So God did not create sexual organs? Or He did not intend for us to use them? Why is castration forbidden by the first canon of Nicaea?
God created us male and female because he knew that we would fall and would need a way to procreate. there are several threads on that issue you can take a look at.
Which raises the question, why is self-castration a sin?

Can you explain to me why "virginal" repruduction is superior to physical reproduction, especially considering the sanctity of marriage?
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Cyprian1975 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.
Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.
Funny, I was unaware that rejecting a theory ( guess or conjecture;a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural) is the same as rejecting the entire field of study.  Am I "abandoning science" because I refuse to believe rotting meat spontaneously generates flies?  No!  Evolution, as it is being debated has yet to be proven satisfactorily, meaning it is still theory, not dogmatic fact.  Saying "man descended from apes hasn't actually been proven, all the nice fables about Lucy and linebacker-proportioned "cave men" aside.

Besides, we can argue this till the apes learn to type, with no real result except flared tempers, ill-will and statements designed to ensure at least one party, sender, recipient or both, will need repentance.  In one view, an old-universe, chain of constantly changing lifeforms by chance became men.  In another view, a universe Designed, with Intelligence, Pattern and Purpose.  The only thing such polemical discussion do is reveal to all and sundry which side the speaker is on.

Please forgive if I have offended.
You have stated it well.

Selam
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Rufus said:
Achronos said:
I have a question regarding evolution. Why would any creature evolve with ears to hear sound? Why would a creature ever evolve eyes to see and how would it even get eyes?

Eyes seem much too complicated to be evolved from.
What about vestigial organs?
merely a test of our faith.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Cyprian1975 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
Azurestone said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Silly me, I thought it had something to do with love of man.
Could you please explain? I did not get your drift - what exactly had something to do with love of man?
You quoted someone saying, "But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." Whoever said that has his priorities seriously twisted up.
If you don't believe in God, your work/life is the only thing living for.
Perhaps; and for those of us who do believe in God, the main thing we live for is to keep trying to become like Him - kind, loving, virtuous, holy. But does it mean that we absolutely must abandon science if we believe in God, or (worse) spread wrong information about what science is, what science theories are about? I don't think so...
no one is asking you to abandon science. that is a straw man, and has been addressed multiple times already in this thread.
Well, saying that humans could not have evolved from apes because Fathers did not teach evolution is, actually, abandoning science.
Funny, I was unaware that rejecting a theory ( guess or conjecture;a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural) is the same as rejecting the entire field of study.  Am I "abandoning science" because I refuse to believe rotting meat spontaneously generates flies?  No!  Evolution, as it is being debated has yet to be proven satisfactorily, meaning it is still theory, not dogmatic fact.  Saying "man descended from apes hasn't actually been proven, all the nice fables about Lucy and linebacker-proportioned "cave men" aside.

Besides, we can argue this till the apes learn to type, with no real result except flared tempers, ill-will and statements designed to ensure at least one party, sender, recipient or both, will need repentance.  In one view, an old-universe, chain of constantly changing lifeforms by chance became men.  In another view, a universe Designed, with Intelligence, Pattern and Purpose.  The only thing such polemical discussion do is reveal to all and sundry which side the speaker is on.

Please forgive if I have offended.
There is nothing in science that is dogmatic. It is always subject to change. Yes it's a theory, much like the Theory of Gravity, and the Heliocentric Theory. Do you question those as well?
 

Sleeper

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
U.S.
Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Cyprian1975 said:
Evolution, as it is being debated has yet to be proven satisfactorily, meaning it is still theory, not dogmatic fact.
Biological evolution, defined as a change of the genetic makeup of biological populations over time, is a fact. It can be observed and even measured.

Cyprian1975 said:
Saying "man descended from apes hasn't actually been proven, all the nice fables about Lucy and linebacker-proportioned "cave men" aside.
Actually, scientific hypotheses do not have to be "proven." They remain working hypotheses as long as they are supported by evidence and not disproved.

Cyprian1975 said:
Besides, we can argue this till the apes learn to type, with no real result except flared tempers, ill-will and statements designed to ensure at least one party, sender, recipient or both, will need repentance.  In one view, an old-universe, chain of constantly changing lifeforms by chance became men.  In another view, a universe Designed, with Intelligence, Pattern and Purpose.  The only thing such polemical discussion do is reveal to all and sundry which side the speaker is on.
Both statements are philosophical rather than scientific. Moreover, the first statement is not correct from the point of view of science because biological evolution is NOT a number of chaotic, random, stochastic, chance events. Genetic mutations, indeed, are essentially random, but mutations alone do not equate to evolution.

Cyprian1975 said:
Please forgive if I have offended.
Not at all.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
Sleeper said:
Well, we know how DNA is created and transmitted, so isn't it established fact that we share a common ancestor with primates, considering our DNA is over a 98% match, having the same sequences, skips, jumps and loops that have been copied from one generation to another?  I really don't think that aspect of it is debatable any longer, but if anyone has some counter-data I'd be willing to look into it.
This, as well as other genetic oddities such as endogenous retrovirus (ERV) remnants that show a history of virus infection which are in the exact same location in the humans as well as other higher primates. Common descent between humans other higher primates can be shown conclusively by DNA evidence alone.
 

Fabio Leite

Protokentarchos
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
4,790
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Brazil
Website
vidaortodoxa.blogspot.com.br
Some gaps in genetic evolutionary theory:

One of the greatest arguments for the lack of observation of the birth of new species from old ones is that evolution takes millions of years. Yet, every second you have "one million years" being completed. In fact, you can count as many millions as you want having as maximum, the first emergence of life in the planet. *Therefore*, there should be not many, but at least an observable number of complex new species being born, if not before our eyes, at least in the track record of human history.

Yet, every observable mutation is still negative instead of positive. Even considering all humanity, in all its history, with all the labs and scienties that observe complex species, there is no record of a complex species being born out of an old one.

For all the evidence *for* evolution - and there is a lot, I find this absence of the phenomenum itself most disturbing.

 
Top