• A blessed Nativity / Theophany season to all! For users new and old: the forum rules were streamlined when we transitioned to the new software. Please ensure that you are familiar with them. Continued use of the forum means that you (a) know the rules, and (b) pledge that you'll abide by them. For more information, check out the OrthodoxChristianity.Net Rules section. (There are only 2 threads there - Rules, and Administrative Structure.)

Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 75 17.0%
  • No

    Votes: 164 37.3%
  • both metaphorically and literally

    Votes: 201 45.7%

  • Total voters
    440
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
Rufus said:
Have you read Sirach 38, ativan?
I just read it after you asked me. And what is the point, if I may?

If evolution is a theory of pragmatic significance, why can't we use it for practical purposes.
Because its only pragmatic significance is devilish nothing else. All it does it blasphemes and creates ground for those who finally seek to free themselves from God.

There's no question of real pragmatic significance that cannot be asked without knowledge of Darwinism. And statements like Darwinism helping us understand certain phenomena is fallacy.
???

1. disease research

2. agriculture

3. population tracking

4. genealogy

5. animal husbandry

6. predictive/preventative medicine

7. research in animal models

8. bioengineering
 

ativan

Elder
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
It says to go to the doctor.
And which doctor: a doctor like Saint Panteleimon or a doctor sitting in the office taking 15 minutes only to deal with one problem, then find out which charge applies and treating patients only with current so called evidence based medicine drugs (e.g. doctors like me)?

1. disease research

2. agriculture

3. population tracking

4. genealogy

5. animal husbandry

6. predictive/preventative medicine

7. research in animal models

8. bioengineering
1. No
2. No
3. No
.
.
.
8. No

None of them need anything from Darwinisms and all the questions can be posed and appropriate research done without ever referring to it.

jckstraw72
Ativan, i agree that your use of the word "wrong" is, well, wrong. Just by using a computer and the internet you're obviously using science. i think the point you're trying to convey is still pretty clear in context of all your posts, but you should find a better word than "wrong."
Maybe you are right. But since the context of what I said has defined what "wrong" means, it shouldn't be problem. Any case I'm not attached to that word and I can change it to anything. Let's call it unclear, relativistic, with no real foundation but nevertheless practical result giving and pragmatic in secular sense.

I think I've already indicated what I meant in science. The definition of the word (at least approximate) is also important. What we see as a result of scientific endeavor (like internet and so on) is not what I call wrong. Same things can be probably achieved by God oriented science; When man, a scientists glorifies God's work and everything he achieves he knows its from God; Asks and prays to Him to show the wonders of His Creation; He can do more in this case, much more. So by itself the result is possibly neutral. It is when science is done in egocentric and human-centric manner that I call science is wrong. I'll tell you something more that I believe: there are probably Saints too working in science.
 
Joined
Jan 18, 2010
Messages
319
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ativan said:
1. disease research

2. agriculture

3. population tracking

4. genealogy

5. animal husbandry

6. predictive/preventative medicine

7. research in animal models

8. bioengineering
1. No
1. Sorry, but yes, diseases aren't static.

ativan said:
2. Yes, crops have evolved with the development of agriculture.

ativan said:
3. Yes. This really isn't open to debate. We track populations through genetics, proof.

ativan said:
???

ativan said:
It happens.

ativan said:
None of them need anything from Darwinisms and all the questions can be posed and appropriate research done without ever referring to it.
We can address issues such as the evolution of corn over the past thousand years without the concept that genetic mutations lead to different phenotypes?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Massachusetts
ativan said:
Rufus said:
It says to go to the doctor.
And which doctor: a doctor like Saint Panteleimon or a doctor sitting in the office taking 15 minutes only to deal with one problem, then find out which charge applies and treating patients only with current so called evidence based medicine drugs (e.g. doctors like me)?
Since Saint Panteleimons are few and far between, and since the text makes no qualifications, and since Saint Panteleimon and a pagan doctor would probably come up with the same diagnosis, it probably doesn't mean that you should restrict your medical attention to praying Christian doctors.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Dear Friends,

I am concerned about the various species under the homo genus. According to an extinction theory, man outlasted this primitive race, but what would be the Orthodox understanding of this sort of relative relationship to certain ancestors in the genus?

Sorry if this has been repeated, but am curious.
 

trevor72694

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
2,456
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Age
26
Location
Colorado, USA
I was watching a video on youtube and this guy was talking about how evolution doesn't have truth, those who believe it are misguided. This was a teenage convert and a reader talking, but it made me wonder...

What's the Orthodox Christian stance on evolution?
 

Benjamin the Red

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Georgia, United States
Many that I have met are evolutionists. I am an evoluntist.

That said, some are not. This is usually converts bringing over their Young-Earth Creationist perspective, or very old school folks (monks, a lot of times) who still use the Byzantine calendar, which counts years "from the creation of the world."
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Some do, some don't, and some mean different things when they say "evolution."

What I've seen with most Orthodox and non-Orthodox is that there are two "camps," basically. One wants to change or re-interpret the Bible and Fathers based on science. One wants to change or re-interpret science based on the Bible and the Fathers. I prefer not to mix the two. I'm perfectly all right accepting young earth creationism on faith AND have no trouble learning about scientific discoveries. Maybe I'm weird, but I think mixing them together into a single narrative cheapens both. A real scientist and a real theologian would both agree that the world is full of complex mysteries that may never be discovered, and it would be presumptuous of us to claim to know all the answers and how things fit together.
 

nstanosheck

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,837
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
47
Location
Dallas, TX, United States of America
Website
nstanosheck.blogspot.com
Benjamin the Red said:
Many that I have met are evolutionists. I am an evoluntist.

That said, some are not. This is usually converts bringing over their Young-Earth Creationist perspective, or very old school folks (monks, a lot of times) who still use the Byzantine calendar, which counts years "from the creation of the world."
It is actually those that have read the Church Fathers and see that the Church has always taught that Genesis was literal.
 

Ioannis Climacus

High Elder
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
861
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Unfortunately, yes. Many Orthodox Christians do profess belief in the theory of evolution. It is widespread amongst those of us who think of ourselves as "progressive" and "intellectual" (though they are at odds with the monks and glorified saints). I would recommend reading Fr. Seraphim of Platina's book Genesis, Creation and Early Man.
 

Benjamin the Red

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Georgia, United States
It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...

 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Benjamin the Red said:
It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...

Are you just as irritated by those who view evolution as a support for their atheism?
 

Benjamin the Red

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Georgia, United States
Shanghaiski said:
Benjamin the Red said:
It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...

Are you just as irritated by those who view evolution as a support for their atheism?
Yes.
 

Luke

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
7,199
Reaction score
63
Points
48
I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.
 

Shanghaiski

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
7,990
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Benjamin the Red said:
Shanghaiski said:
Benjamin the Red said:
It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...

Are you just as irritated by those who view evolution as a support for their atheism?
Yes.
Okay. We might be able to share the same sandbox, from time to time.

I am not an absolutist on this topic--to the point where I believe there is a conspiracy amongst scientists, I just prefer to keep hands-off the traditional interpretation of the Church. I don't think it's my place to try and explain the Genesis narrative in a way which tries to fit in evolution. Evolution, and even physics, tells little about God, and Genesis itself tells little about the underlying forces operating at the creation of the universe. I don't think it would be fare to characterize Orthodox creationists as being in any way in league with  the Protestant version of creationism. There are major differences, I believe. I do not believe in "creation science" either. I think it's intellectually weak. However, I believe I have a decent understanding of the limits of science, the diversity of opinions amongst reputable scientists, and the mysteries which have yet to be explained. I believe it is quite possible that scientific calculations point to an earth billions of years old and an evolution from simple to more complex species. I don't feel compelled, however, to say or speculate how man is descended from an ape-like ancestor or an amoeba. The theological adoption of that narrative warps our theology, and the scientific adoption of a strict Genesis narrative warps science (Genesis is, after all, a "prophetic" vision of the past, a revelation to Moses, which makes it kin to the other prophetic books and Apocalypse, and a bit different from, say the Gospels, although the Gospels are just written accounts of the actual revelation of God in the flesh.). The creation was miraculous. Just as the resurrection and the virgin birth and many other things. Glory to God for it all. I don't see the need to dogmatize on detail.
 

Benjamin the Red

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Georgia, United States
Gamliel said:
I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.
I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results. We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory. If evolution is wrong, fine. If evolution is right, fine. Ultimately, it should not effect our religion, because you are right. It is God's determination. He is sovereign.

What gets me is people who argue so strongly against it, when science does have some compelling information. We can neither state evolution is perfect fact, nor can we dismiss it as something hair-brained. The word "yom" in Hebrew does not always mean a literal 24-hour day, and the first few chapters of Genesis are beautiful poetry that overturns the upside-down perspective on Creation given by other creation narratives that are both earlier than and contemporary with it. Even so, the ancients did not conceive of time quite that way. No one really did, until the invention of mechanical time pieces!
 

Benjamin the Red

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Georgia, United States
Shanghaiski said:
Benjamin the Red said:
Shanghaiski said:
Benjamin the Red said:
It's unfortunate that many Orthodox Christians believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis is required to be fully Orthodox. It's interesting that many people have no issue with mystery and contridiction until we get to this issue, then many insist on YEC.

I'm always dumbfounded how these people hold to a scientific understanding of Genesis, when Orthodoxy holds that Scripture is not a book of science or even history. Scripture is spiritual, and is about the revelation of Truth in Christ. History and science are secondary, and Scripture contradicts itself on this issue. There is nothing wrong with accepting evolution and reading Genesis as written, and even intrepreting it as is within the context of the Church and what it means for our salvation. The close-mindedness on this issue is quite astonishing.

I usually don't contribute to opening the can of worms, but this issue really, really irritates me. I feel like YECs contribute to the small God of Protestantism, which I encountered everywhere while Protestant, which ran me into Orthodoxy. Our Scriptures and our God are much, much bigger than this debate. Those who choose to address it in that way, I believe, do so quite incorrectly. And so, here I go...

Are you just as irritated by those who view evolution as a support for their atheism?
Yes.
Okay. We might be able to share the same sandbox, from time to time.

I am not an absolutist on this topic--to the point where I believe there is a conspiracy amongst scientists, I just prefer to keep hands-off the traditional interpretation of the Church. I don't think it's my place to try and explain the Genesis narrative in a way which tries to fit in evolution. Evolution, and even physics, tells little about God, and Genesis itself tells little about the underlying forces operating at the creation of the universe. I don't think it would be fare to characterize Orthodox creationists as being in any way in league with  the Protestant version of creationism. There are major differences, I believe. I do not believe in "creation science" either. I think it's intellectually weak. However, I believe I have a decent understanding of the limits of science, the diversity of opinions amongst reputable scientists, and the mysteries which have yet to be explained. I believe it is quite possible that scientific calculations point to an earth billions of years old and an evolution from simple to more complex species. I don't feel compelled, however, to say or speculate how man is descended from an ape-like ancestor or an amoeba. The theological adoption of that narrative warps our theology, and the scientific adoption of a strict Genesis narrative warps science (Genesis is, after all, a "prophetic" vision of the past, a revelation to Moses, which makes it kin to the other prophetic books and Apocalypse, and a bit different from, say the Gospels, although the Gospels are just written accounts of the actual revelation of God in the flesh.). The creation was miraculous. Just as the resurrection and the virgin birth and many other things. Glory to God for it all. I don't see the need to dogmatize on detail.
I'm fine with that. I'm even to the point that I have no issue interpreting Genesis literally, in the context of the Church. I don't believe the Bible can be used as a book of science, that's not the point, but it's written that way for a reason, and is inspired. My problem comes when we start using that literal interpretation to fight with modern science. To me, it cheapens the narrative and makes it "just a book of facts" which in all honesty, cannot be backed up. Why can't it be? Because that's not the point.

Many Orthodox do not hold to creation science, which is good, but I've met those that do. These are the ones that really bother me, for the reasons I just stated above. I don't think we need to talk about evolution theologically, because it's science theory, not theology. Genesis is theology. in the same way, Genesis is not science, and shouldn't be in a text book.

 

KBN1

High Elder
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
888
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Minneapolis
My priest told me that to reduce the creation accounts in Genesis to either 4.5 billion years or less than 10 thousand years is to miss the point.  I'm really not sure why either side takes such an absolutist stance.  Personally, I believe the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  But what I think about it means absolutely nothing.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sydney, Australia
Benjamin the Red said:
The word "yom" in Hebrew does not always mean a literal 24-hour day, and the first few chapters of Genesis are beautiful poetry that overturns the upside-down perspective on Creation given by other creation narratives that are both earlier than and contemporary with it. Even so, the ancients did not conceive of time quite that way.
Not to mention that the first "day" passes before the Lord creates the great lights of the sky by which the ancients measured minutes, days, weeks, months, years.
 

genesisone

Archon
Joined
Aug 20, 2005
Messages
2,906
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
68
Location
Niagara Region, Ontario
Αριστοκλής said:
Ugh...another pew thread under a different name.
Exactly. I don't disagree, but my thoughts led me to discussions arising from the question "So when is the Rapture?"  :D

If believing in evolution leads you to salvation, go for it. If it leads you astray, run in the opposite direction. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.
 

Rastaman

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
3,535
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Alberta, Canada
Assuming the two are not merged, what are the chances this thread will end up as long as the other thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.0.html ? :)
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Benjamin the Red said:
Gamliel said:
I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.
I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

Benjamin the Red said:
We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.
 

Luke

Taxiarches
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
7,199
Reaction score
63
Points
48
PeterTheAleut said:
Benjamin the Red said:
Gamliel said:
I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.
I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

Benjamin the Red said:
We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.
Fortunately there are still some who question it and keep on looking.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gamliel said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Benjamin the Red said:
Gamliel said:
I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.
I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

Benjamin the Red said:
We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.
Fortunately there are still some who question it and keep on looking.
As very well they should, since science cannot afford to be dogmatic. Looking at this from a scientific point of view, we may yet find a theory that explains the facts better than our current theory. We may uncover data we've never known before, data that requires a new explanation. If we're exercising the scientific method correctly, we have a responsibility to always maintain the falsifiability of a theory, because only then can we keep ourselves open to new information. That's the problem I see with creation "science": it's not falsifiable; therefore, it's not open to being corrected by new information.
 

SDMPNS

High Elder
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
540
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
FLORIDA
I am cradle Orthodox and I remember almost 50 years ago being taught in Sunday School that the Book of Genesis does not contain literal truth but it does contain spiritual truth...I was a zoolology major for a while in University and never had trouble with my religious beliefs...
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
genesisone said:
Αριστοκλής said:
Ugh...another pew thread under a different name.
Exactly. I don't disagree, but my thoughts led me to discussions arising from the question "So when is the Rapture?"  :D

If believing in evolution leads you to salvation, go for it. If it leads you astray, run in the opposite direction. If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.
Exactly so.
 

pasadi97

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.
 

Agabus

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
6,324
Reaction score
3
Points
0
I believe in evolution inasmuch as I believe in genetics. I find science fascinating, but when people start debating literal Genesis I just can't give a ****.
 

Agabus

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
6,324
Reaction score
3
Points
0
PeterTheAleut said:
pasadi97 said:
Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.
Why? In what do you hope we'll be instructed?
This is the guy who says that if you believe in evolution you support the Nazi pogrom.
 

pasadi97

OC.Net Guru
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
0
Points
0
pasadi97 said:
Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.
Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
 

Agabus

Taxiarches
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
6,324
Reaction score
3
Points
0
pasadi97 said:
pasadi97 said:
Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.
Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
No one says that.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
pasadi97 said:
pasadi97 said:
Some movies you may want to see:  http://www.drdino.com/category/type/video/creation-seminars/

Very instructive.
Instructive in seeing both parts of the debate. he actually said can you believe that a rock became prince, through evolution?

Next time when you have a rock in hand, be carefull since it may become through its own powers, a future prince.... according with evolution. Hundreds years ago this was called fairy tale....now is called science.
This site you offer as instructive of the "other" side of the debate is a Protestant apologetics site. What bearing do they have on what the Orthodox have to say about evolution? Also, considering all the things you preach against Protestantism on this forum, why do they suddenly become credible when it's evolution you're attacking?
 

Benjamin the Red

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Georgia, United States
PeterTheAleut said:
Benjamin the Red said:
Gamliel said:
I can only speak for myself:  Evolution is an interesting hypothesis, but there still is proof left to be done.  I know, those who believe in it are going to get after me for not calling it a theory or law.  Those who are against it usually think of the literal days of Genesis 1.  Having learned some biblical Hebrew, I am not sure if Genesis 1 was meant to be a straight narrative or if there is some poetry in there.  Also, the ancient Hebrews were not as worried about chronology as we are.  I am kind of on the fencepost.  I figure that if things were created by evolution, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.  If not, it is because the LORD decided to do it that way.
I have no issue with that. Evolution is a hypothesis, that is, a theory which is not proven fact. Evolution will always be theory, because true "science" is only that which can be done again and again in a lab and produce the same results.
Actually, a scientific theory is exactly that: a hypothesis that has been verified time and time again in the laboratory, has never been proven wrong despite many attempts to do so, and can be used to predict what we should see if we apply it to new data. By that definition, much of what you consider scientific "fact" is really nothing more than theory.

Benjamin the Red said:
We cannot do that with evolution, and so it is always a theory.
False standard... Evolution is a theory not because it cannot be proven factual. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven a reliable explanation of observable facts.
You can't repeat evolution in a lab. Evolution is useful theory in that it seems to mesh with the evidence found and helps explain what we see in history and in labs, but evolution itself has not, cannot, be repeated clinically. Many other things, pasturization for example, can be repeated. Because of this, it disproved the long-held belief in spontaneous generation.

Evolution has been proven a reliable explanation, that's correct, and so yes it is a good theory. But, also remains a theory, because although it provides a reliable explanation of that which is observed, it cannot itself be clinically observed and repeated.
 

mabsoota

Archon
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
2,859
Reaction score
0
Points
0
from what i've seen of the coptic church, we're not that keen on it.
egyptian, babylonian, hebrew and indian medicine predates european medicine and culture by hundreds of years, so we are not that interested in some crazy british guy's theory
;)
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Mix myth and science and you get the worst of both worlds.

It is simply a false dichotomy. Folks clinging to a "literal" reading of Genesis (do they believe Adam saw God's back?) whatever that means, have bought into the prevailing Western metaphysical tradition that truth is primary a statement of correspondence.

That's why I love it when EOs make a big deal about being "Eastern", when they fall pretty much into the same metaphysical traps as the "Westerns".

 
Top