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

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Riddikulus said:
GammaRay said:
I hope that Dan-Romania is kidding! :-[
Probably (s)he doesn't know that Genesis accepts evolution (I'll be back with some verse).

(Boy, I wish I could find some non-Orthodox young-Earth-creationists in Greece. ;D)
GammaRay,

Glad to hear this phenomenon hasn't hit your shores. This young-earth-creationist *militancy* comes from America. (Sorry guys! :angel:)
there's an issue of the Orthodox Word devoted to this whole issue which gives details about Shestodnev (6 Days) -- a Russian organization that holds conferences every year on the Church's literal viewpoint on Genesis. Speakers include scientists of all kinds from all over the world and theologians. and St. Theophilus of Antioch was the first to give a dating for the earth based on a literal reading of Genesis, followed by many others. They weren't Americans.

if you can read Russian here's a website on Shestodnev http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/
I certainly can read Russian. There are no biologists who participate in these discussions, and the only "scientist" who seems to be on their board is a "Candidate of Mineralogical Sciences" who has no credentials in the theory of biological evolution whatsoever.
well i don't know how updated that site is -- I can't read Russian and I'm pretty sure the English part has been exactly the same for several years now, but Fr. Damascene mentions many scientists who took part in the conference last year. I can get the issue later and post their names and branch of science if you want.
And this Fr. Damascene is sure they are really scientists, experts?
i guess they could be completely lying to him ...

the article says that Shestodnev was founded in 2000 with the blessing of His Holiness Alexei II, and has featured talks from speakers from all over the world including doctors and professors of biology (biochemistry, molecular and population genetics, zoology), physics, mathematics, geology, and astronomy who are currently working in secular/scientific institutions, and each year the conference is presided over by hierarchs of the Russian Church.


but anyways my point wasn't how qualified or unqualified the speakers are, but that it is dishonest to caricature creationism as an American fundamentalist phenomenon.   
Yes, 2000 would sound about right. Seems to be about the time that this American Fundamentalist phenomenom was noticed as gathering momentum in other English-speaking countries, too. The article regarding concerns in Britain is dated 2002.

I sorry you don't like the facts, jckstraw72, but I'm not in the habit of being dishonest and don't appreciate your accusation that I have been. However, I suppose, in mitigation, if you have been witnessing this war over creationism and evolution within American Christendom all your life, you are to be excused for believing that other countries have always mimicked this trend. Whatever you believe, such is not the case. 

Certainly, in my younger days as Anglican, I had never heard of any conflict on this issue; nor had I any knowledge of any such denial of science with any of my Catholic friends and acquaintances. Only when I came into contact with fundamentalist circles, did I encounter this hositility to evolution. All such fundamentalist groups were to be fueled in their fervour by American Fundamentalist literature which started flowing into NZ in the 90s. Up to that point, I can think of very little of such literature, if any, being circulated in New Zealand on this topic. Interestingly, Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, is an Australian school teacher who made a name for himself on the fundamentalist circuits after moving to America in 1987. Around that time, Answers in Genesis was still known as "Creation Science" and was producing a bi-monthly (if I remember correctly) magazine. I actually attended some *lectures* of Ham's in the early 90s. His books were received with great elation that at last there was information on creationism available. I know people who consider his works, and those of other creationists next in authority to the Bible; and unless one believes as they do one is not considered to be a Christian. This "line in the sand" drawn by creationists was not a trend in any other Christian group in NZ or Britain before that. That this attitude has infiltrated Orthodoxy is abhorrent. 

 

philalethe00

Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece-Hellas
Website
philalethe00.wordpress.com
Dan-Romania said:
you know what is the most common result i found upon evolution ? missing fossiles :-} ; everybody who says evolution is a fact is a liar;The theory of Evolution is bogus ; Sure it is an interesting and captivating story and opinion , but nothing more.I`m tottaly in for biology , but evolution crosses the line of reality , and bounderies , if a forced theory a deceivement lie.
My friend, it's sad, that the "scientific community" is so stuck upon what Charles Darwin(who btw wrote that all the great minds of the world thought that there was a Creator and a Governor of the Universe....) taught more than one century ago. There can be evolution beyond dogmatic darwinism or neodarwinist synthesis (synthesis with genetics, that is). I mean there can certainly can be an evolutionary creation theory or, more specifically, a Patristic evolutionary creation theory. And it was striking a lot reading that people such as (atheist) evolutionary biologist St. J. Gould thought that macroevolution was/has always been a result of a "saltum", a large "jump" that is .  :) He said, basically, that all the species -this is punctuated equilibria theory, I think-  somehow ...appeared through an immense, let's say, a huge evolutionary saltum. And this could not be any closer to Patristic evolutionary creation, of course...  :)

Anyways, it's important to know that a lot of Orthodox theologists and professors, such as Fr. N. Loudovikos at the Orthodox Institute of Cambridge, for instance, support their concept of Patristic evolution or evolutionary creation via certain views of , mostly, two Fathers of the Church: and that is St. Basil's the Great's "Hexaemeron" and his younger brother's St. Gregory of Nyssa's work on the same issue(that ensued and followed St. Basil's intepretation). There are actually two most important excerpts that I don't know if I can find in english right now, so that we could have a look.....
:-[
Oh, and about the Deluge, there are a lot of mythological traditions that say that there was indeed a Flood. Plato, greek mythology and assyrian mythology, for instance...  Interesting, to say the least... ;)  :)
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Riddikulus said:
GammaRay said:
I hope that Dan-Romania is kidding! :-[
Probably (s)he doesn't know that Genesis accepts evolution (I'll be back with some verse).

(Boy, I wish I could find some non-Orthodox young-Earth-creationists in Greece. ;D)
GammaRay,

Glad to hear this phenomenon hasn't hit your shores. This young-earth-creationist *militancy* comes from America. (Sorry guys! :angel:)
there's an issue of the Orthodox Word devoted to this whole issue which gives details about Shestodnev (6 Days) -- a Russian organization that holds conferences every year on the Church's literal viewpoint on Genesis. Speakers include scientists of all kinds from all over the world and theologians. and St. Theophilus of Antioch was the first to give a dating for the earth based on a literal reading of Genesis, followed by many others. They weren't Americans.

if you can read Russian here's a website on Shestodnev http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/
I certainly can read Russian. There are no biologists who participate in these discussions, and the only "scientist" who seems to be on their board is a "Candidate of Mineralogical Sciences" who has no credentials in the theory of biological evolution whatsoever.
well i don't know how updated that site is -- I can't read Russian and I'm pretty sure the English part has been exactly the same for several years now, but Fr. Damascene mentions many scientists who took part in the conference last year. I can get the issue later and post their names and branch of science if you want.
And this Fr. Damascene is sure they are really scientists, experts?
i guess they could be completely lying to him ...

the article says that Shestodnev was founded in 2000 with the blessing of His Holiness Alexei II, and has featured talks from speakers from all over the world including doctors and professors of biology (biochemistry, molecular and population genetics, zoology), physics, mathematics, geology, and astronomy who are currently working in secular/scientific institutions, and each year the conference is presided over by hierarchs of the Russian Church.


but anyways my point wasn't how qualified or unqualified the speakers are, but that it is dishonest to caricature creationism as an American fundamentalist phenomenon.   
Yes, 2000 would sound about right. Seems to be about the time that this American Fundamentalist phenomenom was noticed as gathering momentum in other English-speaking countries, too. The article regarding concerns in Britain is dated 2002.

I sorry you don't like the facts, jckstraw72, but I'm not in the habit of being dishonest and don't appreciate your accusation that I have been. However, I suppose, in mitigation, if you have been witnessing this war over creationism and evolution within American Christendom all your life, you are to be excused for believing that other countries have always mimicked this trend. Whatever you believe, such is not the case. 

Certainly, in my younger days as Anglican, I had never heard of any conflict on this issue; nor had I any knowledge of any such denial of science with any of my Catholic friends and acquaintances. Only when I came into contact with fundamentalist circles, did I encounter this hositility to evolution. All such fundamentalist groups were to be fueled in their fervour by American Fundamentalist literature which started flowing into NZ in the 90s. Up to that point, I can think of very little of such literature, if any, being circulated in New Zealand on this topic. Interestingly, Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, is an Australian school teacher who made a name for himself on the fundamentalist circuits after moving to America in 1987. Around that time, Answers in Genesis was still known as "Creation Science" and was producing a bi-monthly (if I remember correctly) magazine. I actually attended some *lectures* of Ham's in the early 90s. His books were received with great elation that at last there was information on creationism available. I know people who consider his works, and those of other creationists next in authority to the Bible; and unless one believes as they do one is not considered to be a Christian. This "line in the sand" drawn by creationists was not a trend in any other Christian group in NZ or Britain before that. That this attitude has infiltrated Orthodoxy is abhorrent. 
St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina --- which one of them was American?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina --- which one of them was American?
Did any of them really care to take sides in the creationism/evolution debate, or is this merely a concern you have projected onto them?
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Heorhij said:
jckstraw72 said:
Riddikulus said:
GammaRay said:
I hope that Dan-Romania is kidding! :-[
Probably (s)he doesn't know that Genesis accepts evolution (I'll be back with some verse).

(Boy, I wish I could find some non-Orthodox young-Earth-creationists in Greece. ;D)
GammaRay,

Glad to hear this phenomenon hasn't hit your shores. This young-earth-creationist *militancy* comes from America. (Sorry guys! :angel:)
there's an issue of the Orthodox Word devoted to this whole issue which gives details about Shestodnev (6 Days) -- a Russian organization that holds conferences every year on the Church's literal viewpoint on Genesis. Speakers include scientists of all kinds from all over the world and theologians. and St. Theophilus of Antioch was the first to give a dating for the earth based on a literal reading of Genesis, followed by many others. They weren't Americans.

if you can read Russian here's a website on Shestodnev http://creatio.orthodoxy.ru/
I certainly can read Russian. There are no biologists who participate in these discussions, and the only "scientist" who seems to be on their board is a "Candidate of Mineralogical Sciences" who has no credentials in the theory of biological evolution whatsoever.
well i don't know how updated that site is -- I can't read Russian and I'm pretty sure the English part has been exactly the same for several years now, but Fr. Damascene mentions many scientists who took part in the conference last year. I can get the issue later and post their names and branch of science if you want.
And this Fr. Damascene is sure they are really scientists, experts?
i guess they could be completely lying to him ...

the article says that Shestodnev was founded in 2000 with the blessing of His Holiness Alexei II, and has featured talks from speakers from all over the world including doctors and professors of biology (biochemistry, molecular and population genetics, zoology), physics, mathematics, geology, and astronomy who are currently working in secular/scientific institutions, and each year the conference is presided over by hierarchs of the Russian Church.


but anyways my point wasn't how qualified or unqualified the speakers are, but that it is dishonest to caricature creationism as an American fundamentalist phenomenon.   
Yes, 2000 would sound about right. Seems to be about the time that this American Fundamentalist phenomenom was noticed as gathering momentum in other English-speaking countries, too. The article regarding concerns in Britain is dated 2002.

I sorry you don't like the facts, jckstraw72, but I'm not in the habit of being dishonest and don't appreciate your accusation that I have been. However, I suppose, in mitigation, if you have been witnessing this war over creationism and evolution within American Christendom all your life, you are to be excused for believing that other countries have always mimicked this trend. Whatever you believe, such is not the case. 

Certainly, in my younger days as Anglican, I had never heard of any conflict on this issue; nor had I any knowledge of any such denial of science with any of my Catholic friends and acquaintances. Only when I came into contact with fundamentalist circles, did I encounter this hositility to evolution. All such fundamentalist groups were to be fueled in their fervour by American Fundamentalist literature which started flowing into NZ in the 90s. Up to that point, I can think of very little of such literature, if any, being circulated in New Zealand on this topic. Interestingly, Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, is an Australian school teacher who made a name for himself on the fundamentalist circuits after moving to America in 1987. Around that time, Answers in Genesis was still known as "Creation Science" and was producing a bi-monthly (if I remember correctly) magazine. I actually attended some *lectures* of Ham's in the early 90s. His books were received with great elation that at last there was information on creationism available. I know people who consider his works, and those of other creationists next in authority to the Bible; and unless one believes as they do one is not considered to be a Christian. This "line in the sand" drawn by creationists was not a trend in any other Christian group in NZ or Britain before that. That this attitude has infiltrated Orthodoxy is abhorrent. 
St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina --- which one of them was American?
Again you seem to be missing the point, but then this thread seems to be the place for that. Did any of those you mention above write copious amounts regarding "Creation Science" as an alternative *theory* to combat evolution and were any of them militant Creationists bent on getting their alternative *theory* into as many countries as they could? Did any of them do the *lecture* circuit, and did any of them deny the Christianity of those who disagreed with them? Please read what I said about this American Fundamentalist phenenom again and try this time not to let misplaced nationalistic pride get in the way. I repeat: but where there might have been pockets of fundamentalists in other countries who adhered to a young earth creationism, most Christians accepted the Theory of Evolution as valid science without it impacting upon their faith. However, American fundamentalists seem to have been the ones who have made it their business to make this an issue of testing one's Christianity and in so doing have fabricated a fallacious dichotomy between science and faith. In recent decades, this has had a growing impact in other countries.



 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina --- which one of them was American?
Did any of them really care to take sides in the creationism/evolution debate, or is this merely a concern you have projected onto them?
well despite your refusal to believe that Orthodox Saints could actually interpret Genesis literally, they did. I have already posted quotes from most of them listed in which they specifically spoke/wrote against evolution. Elder Paisios said the notion that Christ is descendent of non-human life forms is blasphemy, St. Justin Popovich said evolution is new age, St. John of Kronstadt said that every person in the Bible is literally real and that we must look to Tradition for hte answers to our origin, not to the soulless strata of the earth, and i forget what St. Barsanuphius and St. Nektarios had to say specifically but Im pretty sure ive already quoted them somewhere in this thread.


ok heres the quotes that i already posted in this thread:

St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which life is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's

St. Nektarios: "The two volumes of the work Philosphie zoologique are in their entirety intended to uphold the degrading evolutionary theory regarding man. The first volume seeks to prove that the human organism evolved from that of an ape, as a result of chance circumstances. And the second volume seeks to prove that the distinctive excellences of the human mind are nothing but an extension of a power which the animals have, differing only in degree. Having weak and badly set foundations . . . Lamarck claims to prove that in earlier times nature produced through marvelous evolution one species from another, earlier one. He seeks to establish a gradual chain having successive (not contemporaneous) links and thus to produce finally the human species through a metamorphosis that is the reverse of the truth, and not less marvelous than the transformations one reads about in myths!" -- quoted in Constantine Cavarnos' Biological Evolutionism.

This article http://orthodoxnorth.net/evolution_new_fundamentalism_pt_1.htm tells us that St. Justin Popovich identified Darnwin's ideas with new age religion

Elder Paisios: "...And if one thinks that from a human being, the Most Holy Theotokos, Christ was born! Then what we are saying is that a monkey was an ancestor of Christ? What blasphemy!!" --Elder Paisios of Mount Athos --- from the forthcoming updated Genesis, Creation, and Early Man

St. John of Kronstadt:  "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God." --- My Life in Christ
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina --- which one of them was American?
Did any of them really care to take sides in the creationism/evolution debate, or is this merely a concern you have projected onto them?
well despite your refusal to believe that Orthodox Saints could actually interpret Genesis literally, they did.
Projecting onto me something I never said is not necessary.  You only weaken your argument when you misrepresent your opponent's position like that.  I never stated any disbelief that Orthodox saints could interpret Genesis literally.  All I stated was that I'm not sure we can be so dogmatic as to restrict our interpretation of Genesis solely to the literalist approach that many of the Fathers did use.  If you're going to represent my point of view, make sure you represent it truthfully and accurately.

jckstraw72 said:
I have already posted quotes from most of them listed in which they specifically spoke/wrote against evolution. Elder Paisios said the notion that Christ is descendent of non-human life forms is blasphemy, St. Justin Popovich said evolution is new age, St. John of Kronstadt said that every person in the Bible is literally real and that we must look to Tradition for hte answers to our origin, not to the soulless strata of the earth, and i forget what St. Barsanuphius and St. Nektarios had to say specifically but Im pretty sure ive already quoted them somewhere in this thread.


ok heres the quotes that i already posted in this thread:

St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which life is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's

St. Nektarios: "The two volumes of the work Philosphie zoologique are in their entirety intended to uphold the degrading evolutionary theory regarding man. The first volume seeks to prove that the human organism evolved from that of an ape, as a result of chance circumstances. And the second volume seeks to prove that the distinctive excellences of the human mind are nothing but an extension of a power which the animals have, differing only in degree. Having weak and badly set foundations . . . Lamarck claims to prove that in earlier times nature produced through marvelous evolution one species from another, earlier one. He seeks to establish a gradual chain having successive (not contemporaneous) links and thus to produce finally the human species through a metamorphosis that is the reverse of the truth, and not less marvelous than the transformations one reads about in myths!" -- quoted in Constantine Cavarnos' Biological Evolutionism.

This article http://orthodoxnorth.net/evolution_new_fundamentalism_pt_1.htm tells us that St. Justin Popovich identified Darnwin's ideas with new age religion

Elder Paisios: "...And if one thinks that from a human being, the Most Holy Theotokos, Christ was born! Then what we are saying is that a monkey was an ancestor of Christ? What blasphemy!!" --Elder Paisios of Mount Athos --- from the forthcoming updated Genesis, Creation, and Early Man

St. John of Kronstadt:  "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God." --- My Life in Christ
So what if many of our saints spoke against evolution?  Were they infallible?

I know I'm hammering on a question I've asked many times before, but I'm not yet satisfied with any of the answers you've given.  Besides, you've been beating this dead horse pretty hard; I don't see why I shouldn't join you. :p
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina --- which one of them was American?
Did any of them really care to take sides in the creationism/evolution debate, or is this merely a concern you have projected onto them?
well despite your refusal to believe that Orthodox Saints could actually interpret Genesis literally, they did.
Projecting onto me something I never said is not necessary.  You only weaken your argument when you misrepresent your opponent's position like that.  I never stated any disbelief that Orthodox saints could interpret Genesis literally.  All I stated was that I'm not sure we can be so dogmatic as to restrict our interpretation of Genesis solely to the literalist approach that many of the Fathers did use.  If you're going to represent my point of view, make sure you represent it truthfully and accurately.

jckstraw72 said:
I have already posted quotes from most of them listed in which they specifically spoke/wrote against evolution. Elder Paisios said the notion that Christ is descendent of non-human life forms is blasphemy, St. Justin Popovich said evolution is new age, St. John of Kronstadt said that every person in the Bible is literally real and that we must look to Tradition for hte answers to our origin, not to the soulless strata of the earth, and i forget what St. Barsanuphius and St. Nektarios had to say specifically but Im pretty sure ive already quoted them somewhere in this thread.


ok heres the quotes that i already posted in this thread:

St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which life is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's

St. Nektarios: "The two volumes of the work Philosphie zoologique are in their entirety intended to uphold the degrading evolutionary theory regarding man. The first volume seeks to prove that the human organism evolved from that of an ape, as a result of chance circumstances. And the second volume seeks to prove that the distinctive excellences of the human mind are nothing but an extension of a power which the animals have, differing only in degree. Having weak and badly set foundations . . . Lamarck claims to prove that in earlier times nature produced through marvelous evolution one species from another, earlier one. He seeks to establish a gradual chain having successive (not contemporaneous) links and thus to produce finally the human species through a metamorphosis that is the reverse of the truth, and not less marvelous than the transformations one reads about in myths!" -- quoted in Constantine Cavarnos' Biological Evolutionism.

This article http://orthodoxnorth.net/evolution_new_fundamentalism_pt_1.htm tells us that St. Justin Popovich identified Darnwin's ideas with new age religion

Elder Paisios: "...And if one thinks that from a human being, the Most Holy Theotokos, Christ was born! Then what we are saying is that a monkey was an ancestor of Christ? What blasphemy!!" --Elder Paisios of Mount Athos --- from the forthcoming updated Genesis, Creation, and Early Man

St. John of Kronstadt:  "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God." --- My Life in Christ
So what if many of our saints spoke against evolution?  Were they infallible?

I know I'm hammering on a question I've asked many times before, but I'm not yet satisfied with any of the answers you've given.  Besides, you've been beating this dead horse pretty hard; I don't see why I shouldn't join you. :p
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
The Hebrew word bara, which we translate as "to create," is used in Genesis I. To determine what this word meant to the ancient Hebrews, Walton examines how it is used in other scriptural contexts. He found that it is used 55 times. Repeatedly, the context in which it is used is that of bringing about new function, or order, to something that pre-existed. It is never unambiguously used in the context of creating some new entity....

The ancient Israelites, Walton says, would have understood Genesis I to be literally true. But it was not the story of the beginning of the cosmos or the beginning of life. It was the story of how all of this came to be ordered by God, functioning in God's kingdom. It was their divinely inspired answer to the question that everyone around them was asking. Although in our materially focused culture we want to know how and when the stuff of the universe originated, this was of no interest to the ancient people; it is likely they never even thought to ask it.

Although many people in today's society insist we take Genesis I literally, Walton says that in the true, literal reading, the story is not about cosmological or biological origins at all. The Bible, he says, is actually silent about this. He tells us that true respect for the authority of Scripture means that we don't demand that it answer questions it was not addressing.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jckstraw72 said:
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
I don't care if they were saints. If they don't know jack squat about science, then I don't want to hear their opinion on science--and that's all it is.
 

philalethe00

Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece-Hellas
Website
philalethe00.wordpress.com
Elder Paisios
I think I have read everything that Elder Paisios had said about this issue and in public.  :)
Moreover, it is said that, he was then within a state of "holy wrath".
Nevertheless, it is important to notice that elder Paisios spoke against darwinism of a sort, not biological evolution in general. (Evolution is a very-very old concept, that dates back to Aristotle!!!! And some of its supporters were intimately Christian, as Lamarck, if I remember correctly.) And certainly not against evolutionary creation. He said, for example, that God did not use some kind of ape as a first material for building Adam, as he did not need any substitutes(apparently)... :)

The fact that "species", let's say, evolve is not sth incompatible with their creation by God. Is this complicated?  ??? :) Of course, darwinism has other philosophical implications as well, such as social darwinism of "unfettered" capitalism or even Nazism. But this is another subject...  ;) :)
 

Pravoslavbob

Protokentarchos
Staff member
Moderator
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,653
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Canada
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
I don't care if they were saints. If they don't know jack squat about science, then I don't want to hear their opinion on science--and that's all it is.
Bingo.
 

philalethe00

Member
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece-Hellas
Website
philalethe00.wordpress.com
Pravoslavbob said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
I don't care if they were saints. If they don't know jack squat about science, then I don't want to hear their opinion on science--and that's all it is.
Bingo.
This is a difficult issue. And we have to discern pure science from theoretical or humanistic or social(sociology, psychology/psychiatry, economics, political science etc.) science or some scientific theories with certain philosophical(e.g "materialism of physical sciences", malthusian economic theory) basis. And it is an oppurtunity to note, that Fr. J. Romanides always taught, that Orthodox theology is positive science, falls, thus, to the first category. 

Moreover, it is important to know that saint Basil the Great in his interpretation of the Hexaemeron refers to, let's say, research as a means of undestanding the universe that God built, besides revelation through the Scriptures etc. :)

 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
Okay, so some saints with no connection to the American Protestant scene spoke against evolution. :-\ You've never yet satisfactorily answered my question of whether these saints were infallible.  So what do you have to say about that?  Why should their teaching be dogmatically binding upon all Orthodox Christians such that one--in the words of an author you cited earlier on this thread--cannot be an Orthodox Christian and believe in evolution?

Additionally, their mere opposition to evolutionary theory is not yet the pseudo-science of Creationism that American Protestants have advanced to rival evolutionary theory.  I just put that forth to help us all come to a common understanding of what Creationism is and what it is not.
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Jetavan said:
The Hebrew word bara, which we translate as "to create," is used in Genesis I. To determine what this word meant to the ancient Hebrews, Walton examines how it is used in other scriptural contexts. He found that it is used 55 times. Repeatedly, the context in which it is used is that of bringing about new function, or order, to something that pre-existed. It is never unambiguously used in the context of creating some new entity....

The ancient Israelites, Walton says, would have understood Genesis I to be literally true. But it was not the story of the beginning of the cosmos or the beginning of life. It was the story of how all of this came to be ordered by God, functioning in God's kingdom. It was their divinely inspired answer to the question that everyone around them was asking. Although in our materially focused culture we want to know how and when the stuff of the universe originated, this was of no interest to the ancient people; it is likely they never even thought to ask it.

Although many people in today's society insist we take Genesis I literally, Walton says that in the true, literal reading, the story is not about cosmological or biological origins at all. The Bible, he says, is actually silent about this. He tells us that true respect for the authority of Scripture means that we don't demand that it answer questions it was not addressing.
Correct.

"The creative moments of the direct interference of God into led by Him, and subordinated to those set by Him laws, process, are mentioned in the Bible (in Hebrew) with the Hebrew word “bara,” which is very well translated in Russian with the word “to create,” in opposition to the Hebrew word “asa,” which in Russian means “to design, bring forth.”
In the Biblical narration about the creation of the world the word “bara” is used only thrice, in the meaning “to create from nothing” (as a poet creates his poem not from a pencil and a piece of paper, but from himself):

• In the beginning, when God created the immaterial and material world,
• with the creation of living creatures — the animal world and
• With the creation of the man.

In all the other cases the word “asa,” “to bring forth,” is used. God brought forth, but not created the outward seen sky, brought forth, but not created the heavenly bodies. Having created the living creatures in water, God created, but did not bring forth the beasts of the earth.
In this one should see the indication of the Bible of the process of evolution, the provenance of the beasts of the earth from the water creatures. And, finally, he created, but not brought forth the man in His image, after His likeness. But still concerning this part we should understand that it is our spirit that is created in His image and similarity. What is said about the body is: “The LORD God formed (but not “brought forth”) man of the dust of the ground,” i.e. from the terrestrial elements."

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/talks/origin.shtml
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina --- which one of them was American?
Did any of them really care to take sides in the creationism/evolution debate, or is this merely a concern you have projected onto them?
well despite your refusal to believe that Orthodox Saints could actually interpret Genesis literally, they did.
Projecting onto me something I never said is not necessary.  You only weaken your argument when you misrepresent your opponent's position like that.  I never stated any disbelief that Orthodox saints could interpret Genesis literally.  All I stated was that I'm not sure we can be so dogmatic as to restrict our interpretation of Genesis solely to the literalist approach that many of the Fathers did use.  If you're going to represent my point of view, make sure you represent it truthfully and accurately.

jckstraw72 said:
I have already posted quotes from most of them listed in which they specifically spoke/wrote against evolution. Elder Paisios said the notion that Christ is descendent of non-human life forms is blasphemy, St. Justin Popovich said evolution is new age, St. John of Kronstadt said that every person in the Bible is literally real and that we must look to Tradition for hte answers to our origin, not to the soulless strata of the earth, and i forget what St. Barsanuphius and St. Nektarios had to say specifically but Im pretty sure ive already quoted them somewhere in this thread.


ok heres the quotes that i already posted in this thread:

St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which life is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's

St. Nektarios: "The two volumes of the work Philosphie zoologique are in their entirety intended to uphold the degrading evolutionary theory regarding man. The first volume seeks to prove that the human organism evolved from that of an ape, as a result of chance circumstances. And the second volume seeks to prove that the distinctive excellences of the human mind are nothing but an extension of a power which the animals have, differing only in degree. Having weak and badly set foundations . . . Lamarck claims to prove that in earlier times nature produced through marvelous evolution one species from another, earlier one. He seeks to establish a gradual chain having successive (not contemporaneous) links and thus to produce finally the human species through a metamorphosis that is the reverse of the truth, and not less marvelous than the transformations one reads about in myths!" -- quoted in Constantine Cavarnos' Biological Evolutionism.

This article http://orthodoxnorth.net/evolution_new_fundamentalism_pt_1.htm tells us that St. Justin Popovich identified Darnwin's ideas with new age religion

Elder Paisios: "...And if one thinks that from a human being, the Most Holy Theotokos, Christ was born! Then what we are saying is that a monkey was an ancestor of Christ? What blasphemy!!" --Elder Paisios of Mount Athos --- from the forthcoming updated Genesis, Creation, and Early Man

St. John of Kronstadt:  "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God." --- My Life in Christ
So what if many of our saints spoke against evolution?  Were they infallible?

I know I'm hammering on a question I've asked many times before, but I'm not yet satisfied with any of the answers you've given.  Besides, you've been beating this dead horse pretty hard; I don't see why I shouldn't join you. :p
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
Ok - Let me flog this horse again. First of all, to make the Church Fathers followers of modern Creationism is anachronistic. I realise that I'm wasting my time posting the following, but here goes with a brief explanation of the modern American, anti-science, Creationist movement:

As organic evolution became a generally accepted scientific principle and an element in school curricula in the early years of the twentieth century, American Christianity was experiencing the rise of fundamentalism. These two cultural developments collided dramatically in the 1920s as fundamentalist-led movements in twenty states sought to outlaw the teaching of evolution in public schools. Although their challenges to evolutionary theory were rooted in its incompatibility with a literal interpretation of the Bible, Christian critics also made opportunistic use of criticisms raised about the scientific merits of Darwin's theory. The conflict between supporters of evolutionary theory and the theory's fundamentalist opponents reached a high point in 1925, when a Tennessee high school teacher, John Thomas Scopes, confessed to violating that state's new law forbidding the teaching of evolution. The courtroom clash between defense attorney Clarence Darrow and Williams Jennings Bryan ended badly for the creationist movement, despite their guilty verdict, as Bryan—elderly and poorly prepared—failed to present a coherent challenge to the evolutionists.

The creationist movement, as it was now known, received less publicity during the four decades following the Scopes Trial. Nevertheless, a strong constituency opposed to evolution remained among American Christians, especially conservative fundamentalists and evangelicals. For the first time, a significant number of individuals with advanced scientific training became active in the movement. This gave the creationists a more effective voice in criticizing evolutionary theory for its scientific flaws as they organized groups such as the Creation Research Society (founded in 1963). Increasingly, the debate between creationists and evolutionists used the language, credentials, and style of science.

The goal of scientific creationism, as the movement came to be known in the 1970s, differed from that of earlier creationist movements. Rather than trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution, scientific creationists argued for equal curriculum time. By working to demonstrate that evolution and creationism were two competing, legitimate scientific theories, they portrayed the exclusion of creationism from textbooks and classrooms as an act of prejudice rather than a defensible exclusion of religion from scientific education. This tactic brought significant victories. More than twenty state legislatures considered balanced treatment laws, and several passed them. While most of these legal victories were quickly reversed, the debate's impact on textbooks, teachers, and local school boards was subtle and long-lived. Particularly in the South and Midwest, where fundamentalist Christianity had the greatest influence, the argument for a balanced science curriculum swayed classroom content away from the rigorous teaching of evolutionary theory. The universal condemnation of scientific creationism by accepted scientific authorities was labeled intolerance By the creationists.

By the end of the twentieth century, the American-based creationist movement had inspired similar movements in a number of other countries. While evolutionary theory retained the full confidence of practicing scientists, the wider public remained more skeptical, with sizable fractions of the population around the country professing not to accept evolution. Clearly, the persistence of the creationist movement helped this belief survive well beyond the community of fundamentalist Christians.

Bibliography

Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: Norton, 1983.

Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

———. Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Ruse, Michael, ed. But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1996.

http://www.answers.com/creationism


The point that I was making is that however many "Creationists" there might have been on other countries in earlier times, the militant, anti-science movement that we are witnessing in the States and now elsewhere is one that is American; is fundamentalist; and in the main Protestant; except for the odd character like Fr Seraphim Rose; whose use of "Creation Science" literature shows him to fall into the category that ytterbiumanalyst mentions. He knew - as did earlier church Fathers - next to nothing about science and fell prey to the Creationist movement as is evidenced by his use of their literature. As such, any opinions he or any of the other fathers you mention might have had on evolution are of little or no value in the discussion as to whether or not Genesis is a scientific explanation of creation and should, therefore, be adherred to as literal. It's not - and it's not surprising that it has come to be catergorised as theological allegory rather than science. To do otherwise, insists that Christians adher to an ancient and erroneous understanding of God's Creation; as once was the case with geocentrism. In the light of modern scientific evidence and interpreting methods, a literal understanding of Genesis is either impossible or God is deceitful for planting false evidence that contradicts revelation.

Quoting from Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth R. Miller.

I do not dispute that fact that many people find what they believe to be divine revelation preferable to scientific knowledge. Our modern-day creationists are certainly not the first people in history to make that choice, although ironically they may be the first to invoke the name of science itself, as in "scientific creationism" even as they reject science. This lack of honestly is most revealing.

What saddens me is the view of the Creator that their intellectual contortions force them to hold. In order to defend God against the challenge they see from evolution, they have had to make Him into a schemer, a trickster and a charlatan. Their version of God is one who intentionally plants misleading clues beneath our feet and in the heavens themselves. Their version of God is one who has filled the universe with so much bogus evidence that the tools of science can give us nothing more than a phony version of reality. In other words, their God has negated science by rigging the universe with fiction and deception. To embrace that God, we must reject science and worship deception itself.

On a scientific basis, the claims of the creationists are especially easy to refute. Most scientists, quite rightly, have ignored the religious claims of the creationists, but those claims are worth noting if only to emphasize the insidious danger they present to both science and religion. One can, of course, imagine a Creator who could have produced all the illusions that the creationists claim to find in nature. In order to do so, we must simultaneously conclude that science can tell us nothing about nature, and the the Creator to whom many of us pray is inherently deceitful. Such so-called creation science, thoroughly analyzed, corrupts both science and religion, and it deserves a place in the intellectual wastebasket.


Bravo, Professor Miller. I definitely couldn't have said it better myself.

 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
I don't care if they were saints. If they don't know jack squat about science, then I don't want to hear their opinion on science--and that's all it is.
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Riddikulus said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
jckstraw72 said:
St. Nektarios, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Paisios, St. Barsanuphius of Optina --- which one of them was American?
Did any of them really care to take sides in the creationism/evolution debate, or is this merely a concern you have projected onto them?
well despite your refusal to believe that Orthodox Saints could actually interpret Genesis literally, they did.
Projecting onto me something I never said is not necessary.  You only weaken your argument when you misrepresent your opponent's position like that.  I never stated any disbelief that Orthodox saints could interpret Genesis literally.  All I stated was that I'm not sure we can be so dogmatic as to restrict our interpretation of Genesis solely to the literalist approach that many of the Fathers did use.  If you're going to represent my point of view, make sure you represent it truthfully and accurately.

jckstraw72 said:
I have already posted quotes from most of them listed in which they specifically spoke/wrote against evolution. Elder Paisios said the notion that Christ is descendent of non-human life forms is blasphemy, St. Justin Popovich said evolution is new age, St. John of Kronstadt said that every person in the Bible is literally real and that we must look to Tradition for hte answers to our origin, not to the soulless strata of the earth, and i forget what St. Barsanuphius and St. Nektarios had to say specifically but Im pretty sure ive already quoted them somewhere in this thread.


ok heres the quotes that i already posted in this thread:

St. Barsanuphius of Optina: "The English philosopher Darwin created an entire system according to which life is a struggle for existence, a struggle of the strong against the weak, where those that are conquered are doomed to destruction . . . This is already the beginning of a bestial philosophy, and those who come to believe in it wouldn't think twice about killing a man, assaulting a woman, or robbing their closest friend -- and they would do all this calmly, with a full recognition of their right to commit these crimes." From Elder Barsanuphius of Optina, published by St. Herman's

St. Nektarios: "The two volumes of the work Philosphie zoologique are in their entirety intended to uphold the degrading evolutionary theory regarding man. The first volume seeks to prove that the human organism evolved from that of an ape, as a result of chance circumstances. And the second volume seeks to prove that the distinctive excellences of the human mind are nothing but an extension of a power which the animals have, differing only in degree. Having weak and badly set foundations . . . Lamarck claims to prove that in earlier times nature produced through marvelous evolution one species from another, earlier one. He seeks to establish a gradual chain having successive (not contemporaneous) links and thus to produce finally the human species through a metamorphosis that is the reverse of the truth, and not less marvelous than the transformations one reads about in myths!" -- quoted in Constantine Cavarnos' Biological Evolutionism.

This article http://orthodoxnorth.net/evolution_new_fundamentalism_pt_1.htm tells us that St. Justin Popovich identified Darnwin's ideas with new age religion

Elder Paisios: "...And if one thinks that from a human being, the Most Holy Theotokos, Christ was born! Then what we are saying is that a monkey was an ancestor of Christ? What blasphemy!!" --Elder Paisios of Mount Athos --- from the forthcoming updated Genesis, Creation, and Early Man

St. John of Kronstadt:  "The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him?" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God." --- My Life in Christ
So what if many of our saints spoke against evolution?  Were they infallible?

I know I'm hammering on a question I've asked many times before, but I'm not yet satisfied with any of the answers you've given.  Besides, you've been beating this dead horse pretty hard; I don't see why I shouldn't join you. :p
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
Ok - Let me flog this horse again. First of all, to make the Church Fathers followers of modern Creationism is anachronistic. I realise that I'm wasting my time posting the following, but here goes with a brief explanation of the modern American, anti-science, Creationist movement:

As organic evolution became a generally accepted scientific principle and an element in school curricula in the early years of the twentieth century, American Christianity was experiencing the rise of fundamentalism. These two cultural developments collided dramatically in the 1920s as fundamentalist-led movements in twenty states sought to outlaw the teaching of evolution in public schools. Although their challenges to evolutionary theory were rooted in its incompatibility with a literal interpretation of the Bible, Christian critics also made opportunistic use of criticisms raised about the scientific merits of Darwin's theory. The conflict between supporters of evolutionary theory and the theory's fundamentalist opponents reached a high point in 1925, when a Tennessee high school teacher, John Thomas Scopes, confessed to violating that state's new law forbidding the teaching of evolution. The courtroom clash between defense attorney Clarence Darrow and Williams Jennings Bryan ended badly for the creationist movement, despite their guilty verdict, as Bryan—elderly and poorly prepared—failed to present a coherent challenge to the evolutionists.

The creationist movement, as it was now known, received less publicity during the four decades following the Scopes Trial. Nevertheless, a strong constituency opposed to evolution remained among American Christians, especially conservative fundamentalists and evangelicals. For the first time, a significant number of individuals with advanced scientific training became active in the movement. This gave the creationists a more effective voice in criticizing evolutionary theory for its scientific flaws as they organized groups such as the Creation Research Society (founded in 1963). Increasingly, the debate between creationists and evolutionists used the language, credentials, and style of science.

The goal of scientific creationism, as the movement came to be known in the 1970s, differed from that of earlier creationist movements. Rather than trying to outlaw the teaching of evolution, scientific creationists argued for equal curriculum time. By working to demonstrate that evolution and creationism were two competing, legitimate scientific theories, they portrayed the exclusion of creationism from textbooks and classrooms as an act of prejudice rather than a defensible exclusion of religion from scientific education. This tactic brought significant victories. More than twenty state legislatures considered balanced treatment laws, and several passed them. While most of these legal victories were quickly reversed, the debate's impact on textbooks, teachers, and local school boards was subtle and long-lived. Particularly in the South and Midwest, where fundamentalist Christianity had the greatest influence, the argument for a balanced science curriculum swayed classroom content away from the rigorous teaching of evolutionary theory. The universal condemnation of scientific creationism by accepted scientific authorities was labeled intolerance By the creationists.

By the end of the twentieth century, the American-based creationist movement had inspired similar movements in a number of other countries. While evolutionary theory retained the full confidence of practicing scientists, the wider public remained more skeptical, with sizable fractions of the population around the country professing not to accept evolution. Clearly, the persistence of the creationist movement helped this belief survive well beyond the community of fundamentalist Christians.

Bibliography

Godfrey, Laurie R., ed. Scientists Confront Creationism. New York: Norton, 1983.

Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

———. Darwinism Comes to America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Ruse, Michael, ed. But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1996.

http://www.answers.com/creationism


The point that I was making is that however many "Creationists" there might have been on other countries in earlier times, the militant, anti-science movement that we are witnessing in the States and now elsewhere is one that is American; is fundamentalist; and in the main Protestant; except for the odd character like Fr Seraphim Rose; whose use of "Creation Science" literature shows him to fall into the category that ytterbiumanalyst mentions. He knew - as did earlier church Fathers - next to nothing about science and fell prey to the Creationist movement as is evidenced by his use of their literature. As such, any opinions he or any of the other fathers you mention might have had on evolution are of little or no value in the discussion as to whether or not Genesis is a scientific explanation of creation and should, therefore, be adherred to as literal. It's not - and it's not surprising that it has come to be catergorised as theological allegory rather than science. To do otherwise, insists that Christians adher to an ancient and erroneous understanding of God's Creation; as once was the case with geocentrism. In the light of modern scientific evidence and interpreting methods, a literal understanding of Genesis is either impossible or God is deceitful for planting false evidence that contradicts revelation.

Quoting from Finding Darwin's God, by Kenneth R. Miller.

I do not dispute that fact that many people find what they believe to be divine revelation preferable to scientific knowledge. Our modern-day creationists are certainly not the first people in history to make that choice, although ironically they may be the first to invoke the name of science itself, as in "scientific creationism" even as they reject science. This lack of honestly is most revealing.

What saddens me is the view of the Creator that their intellectual contortions force them to hold. In order to defend God against the challenge they see from evolution, they have had to make Him into a schemer, a trickster and a charlatan. Their version of God is one who intentionally plants misleading clues beneath our feet and in the heavens themselves. Their version of God is one who has filled the universe with so much bogus evidence that the tools of science can give us nothing more than a phony version of reality. In other words, their God has negated science by rigging the universe with fiction and deception. To embrace that God, we must reject science and worship deception itself.

On a scientific basis, the claims of the creationists are especially easy to refute. Most scientists, quite rightly, have ignored the religious claims of the creationists, but those claims are worth noting if only to emphasize the insidious danger they present to both science and religion. One can, of course, imagine a Creator who could have produced all the illusions that the creationists claim to find in nature. In order to do so, we must simultaneously conclude that science can tell us nothing about nature, and the the Creator to whom many of us pray is inherently deceitful. Such so-called creation science, thoroughly analyzed, corrupts both science and religion, and it deserves a place in the intellectual wastebasket.


Bravo, Professor Miller. I definitely couldn't have said it better myself.
it really doesnt matter if they fit into the mold you call Creationist, they were against evolution and they read Genesis by and large literally. If thats not what you call Creationism then fine, but thems the facts
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
jckstraw72 said:
the point is that Creationism is not an American nor a Protestant phenomenon. Orthodox Saints have been against Evolution since it came out.
I don't care if they were saints. If they don't know jack squat about science, then I don't want to hear their opinion on science--and that's all it is.
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
But you are misusing their opinions about Genesis. By insisting that we need to take Genesis as literally as many of them did, you are making them the arbitrators of what scientific model we can accept. You wish to negate the advances mankind has made in modern science; specifically the area of biology, while you overlook the unanimous ignorance of the Fathers in the area of cosmology. The Fathers, and later saints, can not be used to speak against the discoveries and advances of science, for they are disqualified by a dearth of knowledge. They are completely unaware of the discoveries and advances we have made; especially in the area of genetics. You are making this an issue of literal interpretation, because you deny an accepted scientific model, and therefore it is your desire to anchor us in the ignorance of our ancestors, simply because they are Fathers or saints.

As ytterbiumanalyst so colourfully states; they don't know jack squat about science. If they ever believed that Scripture was a scientific revelation of natural processes, we know better now. If they were wrong about that, just as they were wrong in arguing the case for geocentricism from Scripture, it really doesn't shake my faith, at all. I accept that they were ignorant of science; their views on Theological issues are another matter.

it really doesnt matter if they fit into the mold you call Creationist, they were against evolution and they read Genesis by and large literally. If thats not what you call Creationism then fine, but thems the facts
???

 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
jckstraw72 said:
and you therefore dont care what they have to say about Genesis either, do you?
Oh, I want to hear what they have to say about Genesis, as I consider the Saints reputable authorities on matters of faith. But unless they have another qualification in an additional area, I consider faith their only area of expertise.
 
Top