Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?

  • Yes

    Votes: 74 16.9%
  • No

    Votes: 164 37.4%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 200 45.7%

  • Total voters
    438

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Jonathan Gress said:
@ Mina:

Thanks for the info about beneficial mutations. Let's talk about that more when Opus gets back.

Regarding patristics, yes I recall you relied a lot on your particular interpretation of St Athanasius to support your theory that evolutionism is compatible with the Fathers. My main problem with that is that you can definitely show St Athanasius himself believed in literal special creation, like the following (quoted in Fr Seraphim Rose's book Genesis, Creation and Early Man, chapter 1):

Though Adam only was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved succession of the whole race.
So, your reading of evolutionism, and in particular of death before the Fall, into Athanasius is not in fact explicitly made by the saint, but you have attempted to fit his words into your beliefs. Given the consensus among other great Fathers like St Basil and St Chrysostom that the original Creation was entirely incorruptible, this leads me to interpret St Athanasius in the light of them, rather than in the "light" of evolutionary philosophy. The corruptible nature that Man fell into after expulsion from Paradise is still then a consequence of the Fall, as is the fall of all creation into corruption, and St Athanasius' words do not undermine that.
If I seem to interpret St. Athanasius "in the light of evolutionary philosophy" (I don't even know that that means), then I apologize for having you mistake my intentions.

The huge fuss over St. Athanasius I believe was whether the death of animals existed before Adam's creation or not.  I never debated to show St. Athanasius as an "evolutionist."  In fact, I never debated any church father as an evolutionist.  In addition, I have quoted parts of St. Athanasius where he makes scientific mistakes to make a point on Church fathers and the understanding of science of their times, if we can properly even call it "science."

Neither have I denied the special creation that is in man.  I may disagree at how this may have come about, but I agree with St. Athanasius that only man was made in the image and likeness of God, and that only man was made immortal by grace unlike all other creation in that world.

I would like to know where the quote St. Seraphim used comes from in its full context.  Biblically speaking, animals also were formed from the earth as well, so that one sentence doesn't really make any sense.  If I'm not mistaken, I believe some Church fathers believed that all animals were formed from the earth.  Only man was "breathed" into.
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I located Fr Seraphim's quotation here (Against the Arians, 2.19.48):

For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race made after God’s Image come to be, namely men; for though Adam only was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race.
Of relevance are these other quotations from St Athanasius:

Against the Arians, 1.12.51

For since the first man Adam altered, and through sin death came into the world, therefore it became the second Adam to be unalterable; that, should the Serpent again assault, even the Serpent’s deceit might be baffled, and, the Lord being unalterable and unchangeable, the Serpent might become powerless in his assault against all.
Defense of the Nicene Definition, 3.9

These irreligious men then having so little mind amid their madness, let us see whether this particular sophism be not even more irrational than the others. Adam was created alone by God alone through the Word; yet no one would say that Adam had any prerogative over other men, or was different from those who came after him, granting that he alone was made and fashioned by God alone, and we all spring from Adam, and consist according to succession of the race, so long as he was fashioned from the earth as others, and at first not being, afterwards came to be.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Okay, thank you.  That makes more sense now.  In these quotations, it is shown that St. Athanasius believes that the only man that was created from the earth was Adam.

The phrase "death came into the world" needs to be taken into context with what he says in "On the Incarnation," namely the escaping of the natural law of death in paradise vs. dying outside of paradise in the natural law of death, and in this quote:

The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape.
Which is the central and most important point.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Okay, thank you.  That makes more sense now.  In these quotations, it is shown that St. Athanasius believes that the only man that was created from the earth was Adam.

The phrase "death came into the world" needs to be taken into context with what he says in "On the Incarnation," namely the escaping of the natural law of death in paradise vs. dying outside of paradise in the natural law of death, and in this quote:

The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape.
Which is the central and most important point.
how does that quote indicate that there was death before man sinned?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Okay, thank you.  That makes more sense now.  In these quotations, it is shown that St. Athanasius believes that the only man that was created from the earth was Adam.

The phrase "death came into the world" needs to be taken into context with what he says in "On the Incarnation," namely the escaping of the natural law of death in paradise vs. dying outside of paradise in the natural law of death, and in this quote:

The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape.
Which is the central and most important point.
how does that quote indicate that there was death before man sinned?
Not necessarily that, but it I wanted to show how "death entered into the world" meant using that quote.  I also mentioned "the escaping of the natural law of death in paradise vs. dying outside of paradise in the natural law of death" which were quoted earlier in this thread.

 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Okay, thank you.  That makes more sense now.  In these quotations, it is shown that St. Athanasius believes that the only man that was created from the earth was Adam.

The phrase "death came into the world" needs to be taken into context with what he says in "On the Incarnation," namely the escaping of the natural law of death in paradise vs. dying outside of paradise in the natural law of death, and in this quote:

The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape.
Which is the central and most important point.
how does that quote indicate that there was death before man sinned?
Job 38 indicates that the prey-predator relationship is part of God's plan for animals:

39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
  and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
  or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
  when its young cry out to God
  and wander about for lack of food?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jetavan said:
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
Okay, thank you.  That makes more sense now.  In these quotations, it is shown that St. Athanasius believes that the only man that was created from the earth was Adam.

The phrase "death came into the world" needs to be taken into context with what he says in "On the Incarnation," namely the escaping of the natural law of death in paradise vs. dying outside of paradise in the natural law of death, and in this quote:

The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape.
Which is the central and most important point.
how does that quote indicate that there was death before man sinned?
Job 38 indicates that the prey-predator relationship is part of God's plan for animals:

39 “Do you hunt the prey for the lioness
   and satisfy the hunger of the lions
40 when they crouch in their dens
   or lie in wait in a thicket?
41 Who provides food for the raven
   when its young cry out to God
   and wander about for lack of food?
i dont see how this passage comments on whether or not God intended it to be this way ...
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Location
Wichita, KS
I'm officially fasting from this thread for lent...and possibly for the foreseeable future as well ;)
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Matthew777 said:
Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.

Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
I don't believe in literal account of Genesis. I also believe that Bible has many many hidden treasures which can't be reached by intellectual endeavor, creation mystery included here.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,301
Reaction score
131
Points
63
Age
41
ativan said:
Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.
I think my head just exploded.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Ortho_cat said:
I'm officially fasting from this thread for lent...and possibly for the foreseeable future as well ;)
:)  An inspiration to me.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Asteriktos said:
ativan said:
Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.
I think my head just exploded.
My hair is on fire.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
Matthew777 said:
Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.
just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,301
Reaction score
131
Points
63
Age
41
:D Come on now, you have to admit that the whole theory/hypothesis thing got a chuckle out of you. Fess up!
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jckstraw72 said:
ativan said:
Matthew777 said:
Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.
just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.
Thanks :) I knew I'll get responses like those. Besides I said their (Darwinist's) arguments are ad hominem. I do understand non-Orthodox people believing in Darwin's bible but I am always confused when somebody claims to be an orthodox and at the same time believes in this nonsense from Orthodox point of view (as well as scientific point of view).

As for me, I'll tell you this: I have debated many Darwinists (including professional) biologists on this issue. My statements always starts like what I did above. You get ridiculed and when you start debating them it turns out that majority of them have no slightest ideas in biological sciences. All of them finally quit to debate: non-professionals after couple responses and biologists after a little bit more. When I said above, I did not say it without having no idea in biology. Actually my profession is based on biology and I have pretty good basis in biological sciences (including molecular biology, immunology, genetics, physiology, pharmacology etc). I have read many articles on this issue (ID vs Evolution debate) and several important books as well as watched debates. I can stand by my words. I wonder the mockers how much they know in biology?

It is pity that this evil is thought in the schools without critical approach to it. This already shows that it is an ideology. Since it is an ideology and on top of that it is Godless and atheistic ideology, then what purpose it serves? Children are brainwashed. They are not allowed to even think about the problems of the "theory". They have to accept it without questioning. One time a school boy, an atheist (funny isn't it? 16 y/o and already atheist), was arguing with me. From very first statement it was clear he did not know anything really in biology, Darwinism and its problems. When I pointed to theory's problems, wanting him just to start thinking and do not fall victim of this nonsense, he responded me (I'm repeating it almost word for word): "I am not a scientist and I know nothing about Darwinism but I'm sure there's an answer to the question you posed." And Darwinian biologists promote this type of thinking in kids (as well as adults).

God bless still everybody including mockers :)
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Asteriktos said:
:D Come on now, you have to admit that the whole theory/hypothesis thing got a chuckle out of you. Fess up!
Exactly which part of it was funny? And why it was funny?
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
75
Location
South Carolina
All I know is that this is one heck of a thread; great ideas and arguments, all expressed so well. It will take me a second and third reading, and lots of pondering, to understand it all. In the meantime, I am looking forward to more discussion with Ativan.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The only reason to check into this thread is to watch the evolution of the tags. They are full lulz.
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
ativan said:
jckstraw72 said:
ativan said:
Matthew777 said:
Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.
just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.
Thanks :) I knew I'll get responses like those. Besides I said their (Darwinist's) arguments are ad hominem. I do understand non-Orthodox people believing in Darwin's bible but I am always confused when somebody claims to be an orthodox and at the same time believes in this nonsense from Orthodox point of view (as well as scientific point of view).

As for me, I'll tell you this: I have debated many Darwinists (including professional) biologists on this issue. My statements always starts like what I did above. You get ridiculed and when you start debating them it turns out that majority of them have no slightest ideas in biological sciences. All of them finally quit to debate: non-professionals after couple responses and biologists after a little bit more. When I said above, I did not say it without having no idea in biology. Actually my profession is based on biology and I have pretty good basis in biological sciences (including molecular biology, immunology, genetics, physiology, pharmacology etc). I have read many articles on this issue (ID vs Evolution debate) and several important books as well as watched debates. I can stand by my words. I wonder the mockers how much they know in biology?

It is pity that this evil is thought in the schools without critical approach to it. This already shows that it is an ideology. Since it is an ideology and on top of that it is Godless and atheistic ideology, then what purpose it serves? Children are brainwashed. They are not allowed to even think about the problems of the "theory". They have to accept it without questioning. One time a school boy, an atheist (funny isn't it? 16 y/o and already atheist), was arguing with me. From very first statement it was clear he did not know anything really in biology, Darwinism and its problems. When I pointed to theory's problems, wanting him just to start thinking and do not fall victim of this nonsense, he responded me (I'm repeating it almost word for word): "I am not a scientist and I know nothing about Darwinism but I'm sure there's an answer to the question you posed." And Darwinian biologists promote this type of thinking in kids (as well as adults).

God bless still everybody including mockers :)
What would the problems with the theory be?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
jckstraw72 said:
ativan said:
Matthew777 said:
Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.
just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.
...yet he does not believe in a literal account of Genesis.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
jckstraw72 said:
ativan said:
Matthew777 said:
Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?
100 % non-compatible. Neo-Darwinism is anti-Orthodox theory for one. Second, Darwinism isn't even a theory. It might be called hypothesis only and moreover bad scientific hypothesis (based only on arguments of ad hominem attacks and "if we don't know how it happened it doesn't mean it did not or could not happen" type of statements when it comes to explaining genetic mechanisms of Darwinian theory) and evil spiritual hypothesis. I also doubt creationists "theories". Though creationist admit that they base most of their statement on faith as opposed to Darwinists who want to sell their nonsense as theory.
just wanted to stand up for you and say i agree with you here. to be mocked is the general way it goes around here.
...yet he does not believe in a literal account of Genesis.
yah i know. thats why i didnt quote that part, i wasnt supporting that part.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
What would the problems with the theory be?
1) It is never compatible with Orthodox teachings. Orthodox teaching says God created and supports everything visible and invisible. Everything that happens happens for reason and saying that something is random (genetic mutations) has only one purpose: taking God out of the story. Otherwise we have to specify that randomness/chance is not at all randomness in a sense that random events just happen, but they are God's acts which we just can't comprehend. Evolution theory will not allow this presicely because its one and only purpose is to show possibility of life coming into being and then developing without the need of the Almighty God. This per se is not any weakness for the theory from the scientific point of view. But it clearly shows that it's not compatible with Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition.

Now in general Darwin's bad hypothesis are problematic for the following reasons:
1) Fossil records simply does not support any evidence for such a hypothesis;

2) Other than most general mantra of darwinism, that new species are formed by random genetic mutations which then if favorable can be selected and transferred to next generation, there is no explanation of specific mechanisms (which are important for the theory) involved that transforms genome of species A into genome of species B. Here Darwinists make so lame claims that it is not even laughable. I will point later by using specific examples what I mean by this;

3) As a more specific case of #2 there's no explanation how so called irreducibly complex systems are evolved. One can even devise General arguments that it is impossible to get such systems other then through special forms of "evolution", which allows for big jumps, generally knows as saltations, systemic mutations or hopeful monsters. These latter are miraculous acts. This is why Darwinism does not allow such theories and this is why Darwinists mocked at Richard Goldshmidt, very famous geneticists, who first formulated the theory of such systemic mutations. And he is not alone.

4) Darwinists try to dispose with the impossibility of abiogenesis and say that theory of evolution does not try to explain the origin of life. Well, yes, but here's what is the problem with this type of thinking: if it is proved that abiogenesis is impossible (and it can be proved so), then you don't have much options left that explains life's origin. It could be Creation by the Almighty God which is mystery (which should be the only way we, Orthodox christians, should be looking at it)  of life's origin through ID by some intelligent beings. In both of these cases (second of which is actually even theoretically possible to show in experiments) evolution is completely redundant. Since a cell can be devised, created or whatever, then such a designer is more likely to design any type of cells including somatic cells and gametes.

There are other problems but these are enough to undermine the whole "theory" of evolution.

...yet he does not believe in a literal account of Genesis.
But this is trivial and unimportant thing. I don't think it matters much whether you take literal account of Genesis or not. As long as we know God is the sole creator and sustainer of this world, as long as we know we are sinful and we should repent and follow Orthodox way it makes no difference whether we take General account of Genesis or not. At least this seems to be case for me. Besides I have no problem of accepting the possibility of Genesis's literal account - after all God is omniscient and omnipotent. On the other hand Darwinism is a different bird. Its purpose is to destroy faith.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I forgot to mention one important thing. Evolutionary theory wants to say that everything started from single celled organisms and got more and more complex over time going upward on evolutionary tree. But this is inconsistent with other premises of the theory. The theory does not require at all that development of the species went from simple to complex. All it requires is that genetic mutations that happened in a given species be favorable in a certain environment and this way it can be selected. This mutation does not have to make original species more complex. It just has to be stable and produce new species with survival benefit(s). As long as it is stable and gives survival benefit to the new species it could be making the genome of a new species less complex. Consequently it is not expected at all that evolution of species be moving from simple to complex. it could be moving from complex to simple. The latter means that in any geological strata one should have species that appear anew and are more simple then species that appeared much longer time ago. We should see the evidence of involution along the evolution.
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
On the other hand Darwinism is a different bird. Its purpose is to destroy faith.
And where have you seen this purpose elaborated?
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - leading geneticist Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." -- Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: News of the Month in Perspective, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p.19
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - leading geneticist Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, pp. 28, 31
Dr. Lewontin seems to be a pompous materialistic jackass who boldly claims that even if science does no help to the world, he would still follow it, like he would follow a religion.

Of course, Dr. Lewontin doesn't seem to say science had no affect on human progress, but merely wants to push a few buttons.  Dr. Collins answers it pretty well in my opinion in his answer to Coyne's same argument:

http://biologos.org/blog/god-or-matter/
Coyne's objections are really just the traditional objections to belief in God repackaged as scientific objections. Traditional theism -- which is the foundation for a majority of people's worldviews, including scientists -- is a richer and more complex version of reality than materialism. As a theist with a deep respect for science, I believe in all the same remarkable laws and particles that undergird the worldviews of scientists. But I also believe this reality is rooted in the creative and sustaining activity of God. God can act in the world and provide a larger understanding of the way things are.
 

jckstraw72

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
0
Points
0
i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.
I agree he's not.  But if Lewonton's quote becomes a well-professed creed among atheists, well, this could show a weakness in their arguments, that in fact, they are no longer atheists, but worship the the gods of nature around them without care to intellectual or charitable advancement.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
I have to add this as well.  Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, an astronomer and Christian, tells us how studying science can be a form of worship:

Wiseman doesn’t leave us with the problems, though: she commends four specific ways in which science can magnify our worship and equip the Church in practical ways. First, from a perspective of faith, studying the details and mechanisms of nature can reveal the character of God more clearly. We can see God’s faithfulness, for instance, in considering the regularity of natural processes and the fine tuning of our universe. Second, science informs how we can be better stewards of our world and one another. Not only does scientific comprehension shape the way we live, work, and serve, but it guides our decisions about how new technologies should be used. Third, understanding the natural world gives us a profoundly expanded view of Jesus Christ as Lord, when we consider that he is Lord of all space and time—over billions of galaxies and billions of years. He is quite a King indeed! Finally, science can instruct us about what it means to be human and how we are to relate to all other living things. Research has revealed many fascinating similarities between humans and other species, and rather than threatening our uniqueness or status before God, these discoveries tell us how much God loves and cares for everything he has made. That God has entrusted us to do the same should fill us with a deep and humble sense of responsibility.
http://biologos.org/blog/jennifer-wiseman-on-science-as-an-instrument-of-worship/

 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,301
Reaction score
131
Points
63
Age
41
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.
I agree he's not.  But if Lewonton's quote becomes a well-professed creed among atheists, well, this could show a weakness in their arguments, that in fact, they are no longer atheists, but worship the the gods of nature around them without care to intellectual or charitable advancement.
Nothing wrong with an atheist being a religious naturalist :)
 

Jetavan

Taxiarches
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
7,007
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.esoteric.msu.edu
jckstraw72 said:
i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.
All these quotes are well and good, but Ativan specifically argued about "Darwinism" and that Darwinism's purpose is "to destroy faith." Lewontin, no matter how good a scientist he may be, is not "Darwinism".
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Asteriktos said:
minasoliman said:
jckstraw72 said:
i agree that Lewontin appears to be a bit of a jackass, but nevertheless, it demonstrates what Ativan was getting at, and i really dont think Lewontin is alone on this.
I agree he's not.  But if Lewonton's quote becomes a well-professed creed among atheists, well, this could show a weakness in their arguments, that in fact, they are no longer atheists, but worship the the gods of nature around them without care to intellectual or charitable advancement.
Nothing wrong with an atheist being a religious naturalist :)
But I have a feeling that Richard Dawkins is in dire disagreement with that passage (at least vocally).  It doesn't sound like something a careful, well-thought out atheist would say.  It sounds like someone who admits that faith is the underlying reason of his atheism.
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel said:
ativan said:
On the other hand Darwinism is a different bird. Its purpose is to destroy faith.
And where have you seen this purpose elaborated?
In many facts:

1) Darwinism is thought to kids without questioning its big problems. Darwinian hypothesis is totally false and non-scientific, though it's thought along such subjects as physics and chemistry and even multiple large books are printed to cure this incurable hypothesis;

2) Darwinists have tried to fudge data and put false information in biology books and elsewhere deliberately (famous Haeckel's embryo drawings, Piltdown Man);

3) No alternative ideas, including creationism (where I mean just one thing: everything, living world included, has been created by Almighty and not young earth creationism specifically), are allowed;

4) If biology teacher teaches children alternative ideas, then this is taken to courts and Darwinists win;

These are enough for me to be sure about Darwinists agenda.

If you asking me to produce some type of manifesto Darwinist have written that explicitly states their aim and purpose, then I, of course, can't present it :)
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear Ativan,

Is there a list you can elucidate similar to what you have here that shows what you find wrong with creationism?
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Dear Ativan,

Is there a list you can elucidate similar to what you have here that shows what you find wrong with creationism?
I want to make two points here: if your question pertains to a list that shows creationism as an ideology fighting against Darwinism, I guess, we could simply agree on this point without a list. Secondly, if you are asking me to give you a list showing creationism's "non-scientificness", its problems as a scientific theory, again I never said or will say that Creationism (simply meaning God creating the life) is a science. Anybody who wants to show us its scientific validity based on logic and particular type of interpretation of data, is wrong. It should be accepted as a matter of faith. Though there's always certain type of logic to accept this faith as there's certain type of logic to accept Darwinian faith.

And in the end creationism (here meaning that new life forms can be designed intelligently) does have some experimental support. The irony is this: On one hand we have never seen a new life form spring up from non-life or one life form evolved into another - we simply do not have any experiment/observation supporting this claim. On the other hand humans have gone so far as to manipulating genes and embryos and creating organisms with new properties as well as trying to experiment with new non-carbon based life forms, the creation of which will be direct evidence of possibility that life can be intelligently designed from scratch. Still though many believe in Darwinism and do not believe in ID. Where's logic in here? If a man can create or change life, can't Almighty do the same thing, if one believes in All-Powerful and Omniscient God? And if one believes in such God then why he/she needs anything else than the Idea God created everything and supports everything from instant to instant?

P.S. I'm going to critique one particular example of the non-sense which Darwinists put out as a proof of Darwin's theory. This false argument was actually linked by you. It's on the very first page of this thread. Here's this argument in support of Darwinism. Before I point to very crude fallacies made in this argument could you list please, if you don't mind, the points that made you like Ken Miller's talk and that made you accept this argument as one of the supporting evidence for Darwinism?
 

chrevbel

High Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
These are enough for me to be sure about Darwinists agenda.
Has this global conspiracy extended its reach into other areas of knowledge?  If I were in charge of this attack on faith, I would pursue it on multiple fronts.  Are there physicists, for example, who have proffered an explanation for some natural phenomenon that is known to be false, and which is aimed at destroying faith?

Is there any principle of mathematics which you know to be untrue, but on which mathematicians continue to insist in order to undermine faith?

Are there any formulas used in engineering which are known to be false, but which engineers continue to promote?

How about any non-evolutionary ideas within biology?  I remember learning about the Krebs Cycle, about cellular mitosis, and about the way pistils and stamens allow sexual reproduction in plants, for example.  Should I consider any of these ideas suspect, running counter to the truth?

 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Wow, are we cynical?

In case you are not, then read:
Has this global conspiracy extended its reach into other areas of knowledge?
Yes

If I were in charge of this attack on faith, I would pursue it on multiple fronts.
Good for you!

Are there physicists, for example, who have proffered an explanation for some natural phenomenon that is known to be false, and which is aimed at destroying faith?
yes, but question is outside of the topic.

Is there any principle of mathematics which you know to be untrue, but on which mathematicians continue to insist in order to undermine faith?
Wrong question. In math principles aren't true or false. As long as system is consistent it's OK (and one can even construct some inconstancy tolerant logical systems)

Are there any formulas used in engineering which are known to be false, but which engineers continue to promote?
Probably not, though have no clue about engineering. Also, question is outside the scope of the topic.

How about any non-evolutionary ideas within biology?  I remember learning about the Krebs Cycle, about cellular mitosis, and about the way pistils and stamens allow sexual reproduction in plants, for example.  Should I consider any of these ideas suspect, running counter to the truth?
No, you can safely accept this ideas. They don't run against faith.

Hopefully I quenched your curiosity :)
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
chrevbel
If I may I have several questions. I'm curious what your attitude, as of an Orthodox Christian, is towards this:

1) Do Satan and Antichrist exist?

2) If they do, then do they work here, on this very earth, and now to tempt humans?

3) If they do, what would that work be in General? Or how Satan would work to lure men's souls?
 
Top