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

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:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
Gebre, since you're posing here fundamentally the same argument that jckstraw72 has advanced against evolution, I think the same question can be asked of you that many have asked of jckstraw72.  What makes you believe you should trust the Scriptures and your Fathers to be infallible authorities on things scientific?  Why should you trust them, who quite likely knew just about as much nothing of modern science as our EO Fathers, over those men and women who actually study and conduct research in science as their life work?
we believe the Church should be trusted on Scripture. Genesis is Scripture. Why do you believe scientists should be trusted on Scripture before the Church?
Speak for yourself, jckstraw72, and let Gebre Menfes Kidus speak for himself.

BTW, jckstraw72, you're putting words into my mouth, since I never said scientists should be trusted over the Church as to how the Scriptures should be understood.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I forgot to mention Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic priest, geologist, and paleontologist, who helped with the finding of Peking man.  He also wrote many books on his religious beliefs intertwining them with evolution.  In fact, he even believed evolution had an "omega point," i.e. that man evolving to be like Christ.

God bless.
come on now -- Fr. Seraphim deals with him extensively -- that man was hardly a Christian, if at all. He said that evolution saves Jesus Christ. He said that evolution is the light which illumines all things, all theories, all beliefs and that everything in life must conform to evolution. He has replaced Jesus as the light with evolution. And Dobhzansky approvinly quotes him on it! Both are barely Christian if at all. Dobhzansky was a deist by belief although he remained officially Orthodox.
Proof?
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Heorhij said:
Gebre,

You asked me to simplify what I wrote about Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos. Here's another version of what I wrote - maybe it will be smoother and less technical. I am not sure that it will be helpful because others, notably Riddikulus and Mina, made great points that contribute into this discussion a lot better than mine. But I'll still try. Again, the whole point here is that there is no such thing as one universal scientific method.

Early scientists were mostly positivists and "inductivists," meaning that they thought that science begins with factual observations ("unlike non-science, science is derived from facts"), and that conclusions in science are made by induction - if something is true in this situation and in that and in that, then this something is true in all situations. As you yourself correctly stated, Popper challenged this approach, based on two reasons: 1. Factual observations are still "theory-laden," i.e. even to observe something, you must already have a concept, a theory, a framework (Kantian "category") in your mind, and 2. Induction is, strictly speaking, wrong from the point of view of the formal logic. Popper attempted to replace the inductivist approach to science with a "falsificationist" approach, which means that actual science may begin not from observations, but from a rather voluntaristic statement that may not, per se, correspond to factual observations. However, this statement must be falsifiable, meaning that if evidence is found that there exists something incompatible with the made statement, or with logical deductive predictions that follow from this statement, it must be withdrawn. If my hypothesis is that all swans are white, and then suddenly someone finds just one black swan, I take my hypothesis back and begin to think about another hypothesis.

While Popper's ideas are universally recognized as interesting, some practical observations contradict them. Duhem in the 19th century, and Quine in the 1950-s wrote that scientists actually do not always wish to take back their hypotheses when they seem to be falsified by others. For example, the hypothesis that the Earth moves could be "falsified" in the 16th and 17th century because of the so-called tower phenomenon. Throw a stone from the top of the tower, and it will land near its foot - hence, the Earth does NOT move. However, scientists like Galileo objected to that, saying that in fact the stone moves forward together with the moving Earth (implying what we call an "auxillary hypothesis" of inertia). Another example may be that when medical researchers found that stress, high blood pressure, high blood sugar etc. can cause certain diseases, this seemed to "falsify" Robert Koch's hypothesis that every human disease is caused by a microorganism or an infectious agent. Yet, proponents of the Kochian idea said, well, it's just that our methods, technologies are imperfect, so we fail to see the infectious agent, but it is there. And in many cases they turned out to be correct: for example, we now know that Helicobacter pylori is the cause of peptic ulcer and (more recently) a retrovirus is the cause of the chronic fatigue syndrom. So, falsification is not a panacea either, it does not seem to really work as science progresses.

Challenging Popper, Thomas S. Kuhn developed a theory of "paradigm shift." According to Kuhn, science develops in cycles. It always begins with a revolutionary - visionary person stating something that is accepted as a "paradigm" (central notion): for example, that unless a body is acted upon by some forces, it keeps moving without acceleration or deceleration. (That's the famous first law of Newtonian mechanics: note that it was not a record of any factual observation and it could be "falsified" VERY easily at the time of Newton). Then comes a period of what Kuhn called "regular science." It means that a growing number of scientists begin to develop the paradigm, looking at various situations where this paradigm can be applied. They do not produce any new paradigms and, moreover, they develop a "tunnel vision" in that they refuse even to recognize anything that does not fit the paradigm they re developing. That leads to stagnation and crisis. Then, during the crisis, a next visionary enters the scene and announces a totally different paradigm - and the cycle repeats.

Imre Lakatos was not satisfied by what he viewed as "subjectivism" in Kuhn's paradigm shift theory, and tried to develop his own theory of science, known as the theory of research programs. According to Lakatos, science is, indeed, moved forward by paradigms. Yet, these paradigms do not change each other arbitrarily. Rather, a paradigm, or a "hard core" statement, gives rise to a "research program," i.e. a network of people working on this paradigm (again, much like "normal scientists" in Kuhn's account), developing its "protective belt" - a large and growing number of auxillary statements, hypotheses, theories, etc. Several "research programs" work in parallel, and some of them become "progressing," i.e. their "protective belt" is being challenged, partially falsified, and changing, while their "hard core" (which, importantly, gives rise to the protective belt) remains the same.

I do not know Karl Hempel's works, - thank you for pointing out that they exist; I will certainly lok into that. However, I hope the examples above illustrare the idea that the mere notion that there is, or even should be, some unique, well-defined, "one-size-fits-it-all" "scientific method" is simply unsustainable. We do not quite know how science develops, why it makes progress. Diferent philosophers explain this quite differently. Studies of some very famous scientists' personal journals indicate that their methods (in the philosophical sense) differed greatly, and that they, in their pursuit, often violated the neat "scholarly" rules of "THE" scientific method.

And again, most importantly: yes, NOTHING in science is ever "proven." And yet, science exists and makes progress and continues to serve the humankind.

Best wishes,

G.
Hey, thank you Heorhij. I was able to follow that. ;)

Acouple of questions:

1. If the scientific method is changing, then how is objectivity maintained? What prevents a scientist with a beloved theory from simply resorting to unlimited ad hoc and auxillary hyopotheses in order to keep their theory alive?

2. What do you think about what I said earlier regarding beginning with wonder and curiosity as the most objective point of scientific reference? In other words, human knowledge is the product of curiosity. Even as infants, we are instinctively curious and wonder about our surroundings and environment. That is how we learn. Why should we abandon this epistemological foundation when it comes to science?

Thanks again for the in depth expalanation. I appreciate the time it must have taken to write all that. It was very helpful.

BTW, on a slightly different note, are you familiar with the naturalist Loren Eisley? I read his autobiography many years ago, and really enjoyed it. I think you would like it too. It's called All the Strange Hours.

Selam



 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
No one here asserts that God did not create the dinosaurs. But how do you explain the fossil record and other paleoherpetological issues in a time frame of only 7000 years?
Macro evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when interpreting these fossil records, which makes perfect sense. But uniformitarianism is still an assumption, and it is not the only reasonable explanation for the fossils. Catastrophism could just as easily account for this.
How so?
 

sodr2

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Heorhij said:
Religious beliefs cannot be alternatives to scientific theories and vice versa.
yes they can.... MIRACLES!
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
No one here asserts that God did not create the dinosaurs. But how do you explain the fossil record and other paleoherpetological issues in a time frame of only 7000 years?
Macro evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when interpreting these fossil records, which makes perfect sense. But uniformitarianism is still an assumption, and it is not the only reasonable explanation for the fossils. Catastrophism could just as easily account for this.

Selam
A catastrophe within the last 7000 years can explain fossils which are millions of years old? Can it also explain how we can see stars billions of light years away?

And what have you to say about the other half of my post which you quoted here, where you made a completely false statement based upon your own assertion, which you made less than two hours before your "recollection"?
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
sodr2 said:
Heorhij said:
Religious beliefs cannot be alternatives to scientific theories and vice versa.
yes they can.... MIRACLES!
The scientist is free to believe in miracles, but he cannot base his formal scientific theories on such miracles.  One of the fundamental premises of a scientific hypothesis or theory is that it be falsifiable--the possibility must exist that the theory can be proven false by later tests.  Belief in miracles is certainly legitimate to the person of faith, but there's no way that the assertion of a miraculous event can ever be tested and proven false.  (Can a miracle be repeated on command in a scientific laboratory?)  Therefore, miracles cannot be accepted as scientific explanations for any phenomena.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
minasoliman said:
So you're saying I'm a deist?
Not really surprising, minasoliman. I don't know about you, but I have never encountered a Creationist who will not, at some stage in a discussion of this sort, resort to an attack of the spirituality of their opponent.  I don't understand the motivation, but it happens.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
No one here asserts that God did not create the dinosaurs. But how do you explain the fossil record and other paleoherpetological issues in a time frame of only 7000 years?
Macro evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when interpreting these fossil records, which makes perfect sense. But uniformitarianism is still an assumption, and it is not the only reasonable explanation for the fossils. Catastrophism could just as easily account for this.

Selam
A catastrophe within the last 7000 years can explain fossils which are millions of years old? Can it also explain how we can see stars billions of light years away?
You obviously don't understand catastrophism, and your questions are tautological.

Selam
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
No one here asserts that God did not create the dinosaurs. But how do you explain the fossil record and other paleoherpetological issues in a time frame of only 7000 years?
Macro evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when interpreting these fossil records, which makes perfect sense. But uniformitarianism is still an assumption, and it is not the only reasonable explanation for the fossils. Catastrophism could just as easily account for this.

Selam
A catastrophe within the last 7000 years can explain fossils which are millions of years old? Can it also explain how we can see stars billions of light years away?
You obviously don't understand catastrophism,
Would you care to explain catastrophism to us, then?

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
and your questions are tautological.
In that they needlessly repeat what?
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
No one here asserts that God did not create the dinosaurs. But how do you explain the fossil record and other paleoherpetological issues in a time frame of only 7000 years?
Macro evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when interpreting these fossil records, which makes perfect sense. But uniformitarianism is still an assumption, and it is not the only reasonable explanation for the fossils. Catastrophism could just as easily account for this.

Selam
A catastrophe within the last 7000 years can explain fossils which are millions of years old? Can it also explain how we can see stars billions of light years away?
You obviously don't understand catastrophism,
Would you care to explain catastrophism to us, then?

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
and your questions are tautological.
In that they needlessly repeat what?
Basically, catastrophism is an explanatory theory that takes into account the possibility of a single momentary cause that manifests effects which have the appearance of having taken long periods of time to produce. (Sorry for the unartful sentence  :-[) Uniformitarianism asserts that the rate of change which is observable now must be assumed to have aways existed and is to account for the effects we observe today.

In other words, the effects we observe about moutains, canyons, and such could have been produced by millions of years of time, or they could have been effected by a catastrophic event such as a universal flood. Macro evolutionists reject catastrophism as a viable consideration, and yet ironically they rely on catastrophism to explain the origin of the universe, i.e. the Big Bang theory.


As for tautology, this is what many people do in trying to defend their position. For example, an atheist might ask, "How can you believe Jesus was God when God doesn't exist?" That's a tautology. This is essentially what ytterbiumanalist did when he asked, "A catastrophe within the last 7000 years can explain fossils which are millions of years old? " His question assumes the very issue which is up for debate. That is tautological.


Selam
 

Heorhij

Merarches
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
8,574
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Columbus, MS, USA (Originally from Ukraine)
Website
www.muw.edu
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
1. If the scientific method is changing, then how is objectivity maintained? What prevents a scientist with a beloved theory from simply resorting to unlimited ad hoc and auxillary hyopotheses in order to keep their theory alive?
Criticism, especially a criticall mass of critically-minded peer scientists. Not an ideal thing (I personally had my share of suffering from what I perceived as an unfair criticism of NIH reviewers... :) ), but there is nothing better so far.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
2. What do you think about what I said earlier regarding beginning with wonder and curiosity as the most objective point of scientific reference? In other words, human knowledge is the product of curiosity. Even as infants, we are instinctively curious and wonder about our surroundings and environment. That is how we learn. Why should we abandon this epistemological foundation when it comes to science?
I do appreciate it. Of course, curiosity and awe are the most important movers of science.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Thanks again for the in depth expalanation. I appreciate the time it must have taken to write all that. It was very helpful.
Thank YOU. I am not a philosopher, so maybe my explanations, diletantic as they are, weren't all that accurate. But I do hope that as I am myself learning the long and complicated field of history and philosophy of science, I will be better prepared for answering people's questions about what science is and what it is not.

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
BTW, on a slightly different note, are you familiar with the naturalist Loren Eisley? I read his autobiography many years ago, and really enjoyed it. I think you would like it too. It's called All the Strange Hours.
No, I am not. Thanks again for your interesting references!
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
48
Location
Portland, Oregon
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
No one here asserts that God did not create the dinosaurs. But how do you explain the fossil record and other paleoherpetological issues in a time frame of only 7000 years?
Macro evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when interpreting these fossil records, which makes perfect sense. But uniformitarianism is still an assumption, and it is not the only reasonable explanation for the fossils. Catastrophism could just as easily account for this.

Selam
A catastrophe within the last 7000 years can explain fossils which are millions of years old? Can it also explain how we can see stars billions of light years away?
You obviously don't understand catastrophism,
Would you care to explain catastrophism to us, then?

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
and your questions are tautological.
In that they needlessly repeat what?
Basically, catastrophism is an explanatory theory that takes into account the possibility of a single momentary cause that manifests effects which have the appearance of having taken long periods of time to produce. (Sorry for the unartful sentence  :-[) Uniformitarianism asserts that the rate of change which is observable now must be assumed to have aways existed and is to account for the effects we observe today.

In other words, the effects we observe about moutains, canyons, and such could have been produced by millions of years of time, or they could have been effected by a catastrophic event such as a universal flood. Macro evolutionists reject catastrophism as a viable consideration, and yet ironically they rely on catastrophism to explain the origin of the universe, i.e. the Big Bang theory.
Macro evolution theory is the product of research in a scientific field, biology, that has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory.  The Big Bang theory is more the fruit of the study of astronomy or astrophysics.  Therefore, I think it's a bit of an "apples to oranges" comparison to talk of macro evolutionists explaining the origin of the universe via the Big Bang theory.


Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
As for tautology, this is what many people do in trying to defend their position. For example, an atheist might ask, "How can you believe Jesus was God when God doesn't exist?" That's a tautology. This is essentially what ytterbiumanalist did when he asked, "A catastrophe within the last 7000 years can explain fossils which are millions of years old? " His question assumes the very issue which is up for debate. That is tautological.
Actually, what you're describing is an argument that begs the question.  Tautology is more of a compound proposition in which all the assertions are true, such as "It will rain tomorrow, or it won't."
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
ytterbiumanalyst said:
No one here asserts that God did not create the dinosaurs. But how do you explain the fossil record and other paleoherpetological issues in a time frame of only 7000 years?
Macro evolutionists assume uniformitarianism when interpreting these fossil records, which makes perfect sense. But uniformitarianism is still an assumption, and it is not the only reasonable explanation for the fossils. Catastrophism could just as easily account for this.

Selam
Modern uniformitarianism (actualism) differs from nineteenth century Lyell uniformitarianism. The prevailing view in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was that the earth had been created by supernatural means and had been shaped by several catastrophes, such as worldwide floods. In 1785, James Hutton published the proposal that Earth's history could be explained in terms of processes observed in the present; that is, "the present is key to the past." This was the beginning of uniformitarianism. Charles Lyell, in his Principles of Geology, modified Hutton's ideas and applied this philosophy to explain geological features in terms of relatively gradual everyday processes.

Geologists today no longer subscribe to Lyell uniformitarianism. Starting in the late ninteenth century, fieldwork showed that natural catastrophes still have a role in creating the geologic record. For example, in the later twentieth century, J. Harlan Bretz showed that the Scablands in eastern Washington formed from a large flood when a glacial lake broke through an ice dam; and Luis Alvarez proposed that an asteroid impact was responsible for the extinction of dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Actualism (modern uniformitarianism) states that the geologic record is the product of both slow, gradual processes (such as glacial erosion) and natural catastrophes (such as volcanic eruptions and landslides). However, natural catastrophes are not consistent with creationist catastrophism, such as "Flood geology." First, they are much smaller than the world-shaping events proposed as part of the creationists' catastrophism. More to the point, they still represent processes observed in the present. Meteorites, glacial melting, and flash floods still occur regularly, and we can (and do, as in the examples above) extrapolate from the observed occurrences to larger events of the same sort. The scale of events may change, but the physical laws operating today are key to the past.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD200.html
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
jckstraw72 said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
The issue of macro evolution is one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to belong to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Our Fathers have taught that according to Scriptural chronology (derived most notably from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of our canon) the earth is only about 7,000 years old. This time frame precludes any possibility for the process of macro evolution. As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, I embrace the apostolic Faith and Teaching of my Church; and therefore I don't have to worry about being deceived by the vagaries and vicissitudes of secular science.
Gebre, since you're posing here fundamentally the same argument that jckstraw72 has advanced against evolution, I think the same question can be asked of you that many have asked of jckstraw72.  What makes you believe you should trust the Scriptures and your Fathers to be infallible authorities on things scientific?  Why should you trust them, who quite likely knew just about as much nothing of modern science as our EO Fathers, over those men and women who actually study and conduct research in science as their life work?
we believe the Church should be trusted on Scripture. Genesis is Scripture.
The Church/Fathers should be trusted for theological explanations of scripture, but not scientific explanations of the world in which we live. If we allow them to hinder our exploration of this planet, we are going to have that whole geocentric mess all over again; where people of knowledge and experience, who knew more than the Church were subject to persecution and death. People who study science still know more than the Church in regard to science and if we don't pay heed to they knowledge, or if we attempt to hinder them, as did the Church with Galileo, people are simply going to have good cause to laugh at us in everything that we say; including what we have to say regarding Christ.

As St Augustine said;

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.   

Why do you believe scientists should be trusted on Scripture before the Church?
Scientists should be trusted with regard to science, because that is what they know; the Fathers should be trusted with regard to theology because that is what they know.

 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
minasoliman said:
Gebre,

I didn't really insult you.  I just called you what you thought of yourself.  You said "I'm not a scientist," therefore, you are ignorant of the information we're presenting to you, and furthermore, you remain to keep your eyes closed to the information.

Read this article here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
Now, I haven't called myself "demonically deceived."  But if you feel "ignorant" is an insult, then you've only insulted yourself.

God bless.
In admitting my ignorance about many things, I am not insulting myself. Are you omniscient my friend? Unless you are God, then you are also ignorant about many things. By admitting our ignorance, we are able to learn. By thinking others are ignorant but we are not, we remain ignorant. There's no shame in admitted ignorance, but when ignorance is combined with arrogance, then a fool is born.

Selam
Either you're misunderstanding my point, or you're just being annoying.

I did not claim I'm omniscient.  Neither am I God.  Yes, I am ignorant of many things, but certainly not the science of biology and evolution its cornerstone.  In fact, I am required to accept it as a fact to understand its principles and use it to the best of my ability through research and clinical experience to help patients.  Therefore, I am not ignorant of the science of evolution, and thus I am qualified to talk about it and debate.

You proclaimed your ignorance in front of us all and said you're not a scientist.  Clearly, therefore, you do understand nor are qualified to placed judgment on something you do not know.  Thus, you also make yourself "rationally" ignorant, because in fact, not only are you ignorant, but now you show yourself to be irrational.  You don't even understand the science, and yet you judge it as a demonic deception.  Not only ignorance, and irrationality, but also hypocrisy.  You pretend to be "humble" and yet you don't even know when to draw the line on yourself and what you "think" you know.

A humble, person who knows his own ignorance and who has a sense of rationality will not call something he doesn't know a "demonic deception."  He will with humility and kindness ask, not judge, but ask.  That is all that is required of you.  I ask when I don't know something; neither should I get into a discussion and form an opinion if I find myself unqualified to do so.  I mean you don't even know much about your own church, and many times you asked our Ethiopian brothers in the forums for answers in your own Ethiopian Church tradition.  How much more decency do you need to develop before placing judgment on something you think you know and have told us you're not even part of?

I hope you understand by now my frustration with you.

God bless.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
jckstraw72 said:
minasoliman said:
I forgot to mention Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic priest, geologist, and paleontologist, who helped with the finding of Peking man.  He also wrote many books on his religious beliefs intertwining them with evolution.  In fact, he even believed evolution had an "omega point," i.e. that man evolving to be like Christ.

God bless.
come on now -- Fr. Seraphim deals with him extensively -- that man was hardly a Christian, if at all. He said that evolution saves Jesus Christ. He said that evolution is the light which illumines all things, all theories, all beliefs and that everything in life must conform to evolution. He has replaced Jesus as the light with evolution. And Dobhzansky approvinly quotes him on it! Both are barely Christian if at all. Dobhzansky was a deist by belief although he remained officially Orthodox.
With the little I've read about him and from him (and boy did he write a lot...and I bought almost all of them), I seemed to get the sense he's closer to Orthodox teaching of theosis than his Catholic counterparts accusing him of heresy.  The first person who introduced me to Fr. Pierre was a Greek Orthodox priest I personally knew, may God rest his soul.

I would be interested to read what Fr. Seraphim thought though.

As for Dobhzansky, his student calls his beliefs deistic, and yet Dobhzhansky leaves us from his writings with the idea that he was defending a benevolent God.  So I don't know personally.  Even his own student uses Dobhzansky's same arguments to defend God's benevolence, oddly enough.  I don't think that's remotely deistic imo.

It's possible though, just as in any great Church father, people may misunderstand and/or misconstrue their writings/beliefs.

God bless.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Riddikulus said:
minasoliman said:
So you're saying I'm a deist?
Not really surprising, minasoliman. I don't know about you, but I have never encountered a Creationist who will not, at some stage in a discussion of this sort, resort to an attack of the spirituality of their opponent.  I don't understand the motivation, but it happens.
First time in this forum I've encountered it.  Outside it though, people thought I was an atheist.  Amazing how people cannot separate the idea of evolution from atheism.

Well, actually to be fair, this is actually the second time to have my spirituality questioned (demonic deception was the first).  First time being called a deist though.
 

AlexanderOfBergamo

High Elder
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
706
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Bergamo, Italy
I-didn't-call-you-a-deist

Evolution and deism are very similar in that God gives a beginning to the universe, which develops on its own. The only difference with deism is that you believe in a Saviour, but concerning creation, you are very similar.
I also never said your an atheist. I just don't believe that God created evolution. And I don't believe water and oil are divided by God everytime. The difference is, as I already said, that water and oil respond to universal laws of physics God put into the world. Evolution is a chaotic process governed by billions of changing factors, so I don't apply the same deterministic categories as you do, that's all. Am I free AT LEAST to reject evolution "per se" or am I obliged to follow every single scientific theory in the world? What I'm asking here is if I'm an heretic for rejecting a scientific theory, since many others on this forum have been accused to be ignorant and fools for believing in a more literal approach of science MORE THEN  ONCE. Do you want to be free in your positions? Then accept the possibility of others being creationists, respect them and love them for their positions. As I can't be sure evolution isn't true, you can't also be sure that it is true. What's wrong with your attitudes is using ABSOLUTE STATEMENTS such as "evolution is certainly true" or "evolution is a scientific fact", claims which prevent other Christians, in their exegetical freedom, to reject it. I will never be comfortable with the evolution theory as a scientific law, and I can't accept others to put it as a fact when indeed it doesn't. "In the beginning God created heaven and earth". Every single law, every single atom of this universe, existed by God's will, and exists as it is for a specific purpose God had planned since the beginning. God in his eternity SUSTAINS the universe according to its laws. If I'm not free to believe this - which is a fundament of Scripture - then we have nothing to share anymore.

In Christ,  Alex
 
Top