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

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
Sauron said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Sauron said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Sauron said:
Jonathan Gress said:
Sauron said:
Jonathan Gress said:
minasoliman said:
All my life, animal and plant death before the Fall didn't seem to be an issue to me.  Most of the Coptic Sunday School servants, priests, and bishops I knew taught me a version of Old Earth Creationism.  It comes to my shock therefore to read posts by Gebre as espousing the "Ethiopian" view, but doesn't seem to realize he is probably contradicting the view of HH Pope Shenouda.  And I'm not talking about evolution, just merely the possibility of animal and plant death before the Fall.
Sure, I understand. It is very hard for anyone to believe that there was literally no animal or plant death before the first humans, since we have all those fossils that appear to have died well before humankind appeared. You have to resort to arguing that all the dating is wrong, which is tough. But would you be willing to accept that the death of those animals and plants is in some mystical sense caused by Man's transgression? Or do you feel that this would be impossible to believe, given that animals died before Adam in time? If impossible, is this because you think it's important for sin to precede death in time in order to have caused death?
It has nothing to do with fossils. Plants were given to man to eat in the pre-fall world. Plants are alive, so I do not understand how man could eat a living plant and not kill it. Was the plan that Adam would pick a peach off a tree, eat it, poop out the whole peach, and then stick it back on the tree?
The Fr Seraphim essay also provides patristic quotes showing that there wasn't even defecation in Paradise, so part of your argument is moot. And I suppose "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. The point is that, however hard it is for us to understand, there was no death of any kind in Paradise.
So Adam didn't have an anus? How about intestines? According to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work?

Was there respiration in Paradise?

You suppose that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive? What does that mean?
I think I already mentioned that it was hard to understand. :p
My questions were not about how hard to understand the issues are. I asked, according to the patristic quotes, how did the nitrogen cycle work, if there was respiration, and about Adam's anatomy. Please be responsive. I think we could agree that the pre-fall world has respiration because of the reference to animals and people having the "breath of life", yes?

I truly do not understand what you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?
I'm saying that it was different in some way. Given that prelapsarian nature operated under different laws than our postlapsarian nature, as we observe it today with our scientific tools, we don't really have any grounds, logically speaking, to object to descriptions that seem to contradict our current understanding of nature, viz. absence of death, rotting, defecation, sexual intercourse etc.
Do you understand why saying, "oh, it was different somehow" is not an explanation of anything?

Beyond that, you have failed to respond to my questions. I asked if the patristic quotes had an explanation for the nitrogen cycle in Paradise. Do they?

I asked if you think there was breathing in the Paradise. Was there?

I asked if Adam has intestines and an anus. Did he?

I asked you meant when you said that "fruit of the herb" is not meant to be alive. Could you please explain what you mean by that?

I do not know how I can make my inquiry any clearer.
You might as well be asking how is it physically possible for the risen Christ to pass through closed doors. Stop being so obtuse. The definition of a mystery is that it's inexplicable by ordinary natural laws.
That is a non sequitur and not responsive.

I think Genesis 2 makes it pretty clear that Adam breathed. I don't know why you don't even concede that point.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Jonathan Gress said:
Sauron said:
celticfan1888 said:
St. Augustine said that the Bible (including Genesis) should not be interpreted literally if it goes against what we know from science and reason.

In regards to what St. Augustine says:

"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2:9 by St. Augustine

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:20, Chapt. 19 by St. Augustine
Isn't it amazing that a 5th-century theologian can understand this concept but some 21st-century Christians cannot?
The problem is that many believe there are dangerous moral and dogmatic implications to accepting Darwinian theory. At least for Orthodox, who aren't dogmatic about Biblical literalism, this is the main issue. Personally I think the main task is to work out how our dogmas can still be true even if everything the evolutionists say is right, rather than refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe.
Who cares what many believe about the implications of a scientific concept? If a theory describes physical reality, either it is true or it is not. People who are concerned with the moral and dogmatic implications don't get to vote on physical reality.

The conflict between any scientific principle and Christianity is man-made. The fact that species of plants and animals evolve from each other has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not I should avoid anger, subdue my passions, be charitable, be humble, and so on.

I very much agree with your statement that it is folly "to refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe."
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
minasoliman said:
Jonathan Gress said:
The problem is that many believe there are dangerous moral and dogmatic implications to accepting Darwinian theory. At least for Orthodox, who aren't dogmatic about Biblical literalism, this is the main issue. Personally I think the main task is to work out how our dogmas can still be true even if everything the evolutionists say is right, rather than refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe.
I totally agree.
Thanks. :)

Of course, we don't know for certain if these scientific theories are right, and we should always be humble enough to acknowledge we might be wrong. At the same time, we should think carefully about how our beliefs might be affected by incontrovertible evidence that these theories are true.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Sauron said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Sauron said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Sauron said:
jckstraw72 said:
i completely agree with Gebre. the major issue is the question of death. if God is the author of death, then death is good. then we must ask why Scripture refers to death as the last enemy to be overthrown, and why Christ defeated death.
I think that is spiritual death, not physical death.

I think it is quite clear that there was physical death built into the pre-fall world. For example, Adam and Eve were given all plant (except one) to eat. If they plucked a carrot out of the ground and ate it, the carrot was dead. If the cow eat grass, the blades of grass were chewed, digested, and eliminated as poop.

How about Adam and Eve themselves? Did they have hair and fingernails, which are composed of dead cells? If there was no death, why be given the command to be fruitful and multiply in the pre-fall world?

With respect, this is a ridiculous argument. Christ did not come to conquer the death of grass and fingernail tissue. He came to conquer sin and death, which became inextricably linked after the Fall. There was no animate death prior to sin, and that is clearly what the Scriptures and the Church refer to when speaking of death. To assert that death means only spiritual death is a subjective interpretation that lacks import from Scripture, the Church, and the Fathers.
What support do you really have for that viewpoint? Can you give specific quotes of what the Scriptures, the Church, and the Fathers have to say about death that backs up your assertion?


Scripture is clear: "Life is in the blood." [Leviticus 17:11]



Selam
The Scripture was not written so that you will have a science text. The Scripture was written so that "ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name." John 20:31.

Sponges and jellyfish do not have blood. According to you, are they alive?


I don't think sponges and jellyfish need to be redeemed from sin. Let's try to remember the context of this discussion. We are dealing with the concept of death in an Orthodox Christian context. Within this context it is clear that death means physical and spiritual death of animate life. The Fall effected all of creation, but Scripture gives a clear indication of what constitutes "life". Atonement was always made by the shedding of blood, and by His blood
we have hope of salvation.


Selam
Who cares what you think about sponges and jellyfish? They are alive, yet have no blood. I hasten to add that they are also animate, as any trip to an aquarium will reveal.

Your response didn't address my point.


Selam
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Jonathan Gress said:
minasoliman said:
Jonathan Gress said:
The problem is that many believe there are dangerous moral and dogmatic implications to accepting Darwinian theory. At least for Orthodox, who aren't dogmatic about Biblical literalism, this is the main issue. Personally I think the main task is to work out how our dogmas can still be true even if everything the evolutionists say is right, rather than refuse to accept sensible explanatory theories for the biological facts we observe.
I totally agree.
Thanks. :)

Of course, we don't know for certain if these scientific theories are right, and we should always be humble enough to acknowledge we might be wrong. At the same time, we should think carefully about how our beliefs might be affected by incontrovertible evidence that these theories are true.
I wish I had something better to say, but you said it best :)
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Aposphet said:
So where did Cain find his wife?

;)
Does the answer to this question really matter for you?  I might have made a big deal about it, but not anymore.  We need to ask ourselves how does answering this question affects my faith and if it doesn't then there's no need.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
minasoliman said:
Aposphet said:
So where did Cain find his wife?

;)
Does the answer to this question really matter for you?  I might have made a big deal about it, but not anymore.  We need to ask ourselves how does answering this question affects my faith and if it doesn't then there's no need.
Just in case, to cover my bases, you probably were joking, and I have nothing against you for that.  In the past, I might have used this as a sticking point, and so if anything, I'm also criticizing my own past as well as anyone else to does ask this question seriously.
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
[quote author=Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. ;)


Selam

[/quote]

Everytime someone answers your questions in a way you don't like, you blow it off. That's what I was referencing. ;)
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
celticfan1888 said:
[quote author=Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. ;)


Selam
Everytime someone answers your questions in a way you don't like, you blow it off. That's what I was referencing. ;)
[/quote]



Lighten up my friend. I was only trying to be humorous.

I haven't blown off any answers by the way. In fact, the two fundamental issues I repeatedly raise have been blown off for pages on this thread. I'm still waiting for a reasonable response. So far, all I've gotten is that hair tissue and figernails have dead tissue, so that must prove that there was death prior to the Fall. If such arguments are the best that theistic evolutionists can come up with, then I feel pretty secure in my position. But I do applaud the creativity. Evolutionists are very ingenious in concocting ad hoc after ad hoc hypotheses. It's pretty entertaining actually. 


Selam
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
celticfan1888 said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Your response didn't address my point.


Selam
:) :) :) :) :)


Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. ;)


Selam
Correct. For an overview of human evolution in historical times, I commend to your attention the recent book, "The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution" by Cochran and Harpending.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
celticfan1888 said:
[quote author=Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Not to worry. In a few million years your hearing will be much better, and you might even be able to talk back. Don't get frustrated, just keep evolving. ;)


Selam
Everytime someone answers your questions in a way you don't like, you blow it off. That's what I was referencing. ;)


Lighten up my friend. I was only trying to be humorous.

I haven't blown off any answers by the way. In fact, the two fundamental issues I repeatedly raise have been blown off for pages on this thread. I'm still waiting for a reasonable response. So far, all I've gotten is that hair tissue and figernails have dead tissue, so that must prove that there was death prior to the Fall. If such arguments are the best that theistic evolutionists can come up with, then I feel pretty secure in my position. But I do applaud the creativity. Evolutionists are very ingenious in concocting ad hoc after ad hoc hypotheses. It's pretty entertaining actually. 


Selam

[/quote]

Of course, you have not responded to a number of points, such as:

1. Dead hair cells in a world with no death
2. The need to procreate in a world with no death
3. The need to eat in a world with no death
4. The nitrogen cycle in a world with no death
5. The need for green plants in a world with no death

I await your addressing of these issues. If you have to ask about the relevance of any of them, you do not understand enough about biology to participate in the discussion.
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
I haven't blown off any answers by the way. In fact, the two fundamental issues I repeatedly raise have been blown off for pages on this thread. I'm still waiting for a reasonable response. So far, all I've gotten is that hair tissue and figernails have dead tissue, so that must prove that there was death prior to the Fall. If such arguments are the best that theistic evolutionists can come up with, then I feel pretty secure in my position. But I do applaud the creativity. Evolutionists are very ingenious in concocting ad hoc after ad hoc hypotheses. It's pretty entertaining actually. 


Selam
Yes you have.

It's reasonable to those of us that comprehend it. If you don't just say you dont and we can fill you in on it.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SLX said:
For the evolutionist: why does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly?
I do not understand the purpose of the question. It appears premised on a false presumption. Science is generally not concerned with "why" but "how".

However, assuming that you genuinely wish to learn about the evolution of metamorphosis, I commend the following article to your attention:

Truman, J. W. and L. M. Riddiford, 1999. The origins of insect metamorphosis. Nature 401: 447-452.

http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf

Let us resume the discussion once you have read the article.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
SLX said:
For the evolutionist: why does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly?
That's an absurd question.

Why do you grow taller and get more teeth and hair with age?

Butterflies have a 4 part lifecycle:  egg, larva, pupa and adult. With Larva being a Caterpillar.

Let dead dogs lie.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SLX said:
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
That's exactly my point.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
That's exactly my point.
Which is what?
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
That's exactly my point.
Which is what?
The point being that science cannot have a say in deriving meaning out of a process; it can tell us how but not why. My problem is those that use science as a way to explain away the miraculous conception of a caterpillar to butterfly.

But you are right I am asking the wrong audience. My attempt to be clever fell on its face.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
That's exactly my point.
Which is what?
The point being that science cannot have a say in deriving meaning out of a process; it can tell us how but not why. My problem is those that use science as a way to explain away the miraculous conception of a caterpillar to butterfly.

But you are right I am asking the wrong audience. My attempt to be clever fell on its face.
I don't understand what you mean by "explain away" metamorphosis.

I have previously encountered people who have complained that science "took away the mystery" of something e.g. that the moon become less romantic after we sent men there and brought back moon rocks. Who cares if the moon is less mysterious? The job of science is the describe the physical universe. If explaining how metamorphosis works ruins it for you, that is a personal problem.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
That's exactly my point.
Which is what?
The point being that science cannot have a say in deriving meaning out of a process; it can tell us how but not why. My problem is those that use science as a way to explain away the miraculous conception of a caterpillar to butterfly.

But you are right I am asking the wrong audience. My attempt to be clever fell on its face.
I don't understand what you mean by "explain away" metamorphosis.

I have previously encountered people who have complained that science "took away the mystery" of something e.g. that the moon become less romantic after we sent men there and brought back moon rocks. Who cares if the moon is less mysterious? The job of science is the describe the physical universe. If explaining how metamorphosis works ruins it for you, that is a personal problem.
Not saying it ruins anything for me. This reminds me of the sublimity argument in the Abolition of Man on the waterfall. Does a waterfall cease being beautiful once it is described by science?
 

celticfan1888

Archon
Joined
Nov 15, 2010
Messages
3,026
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Louisiana
SLX said:
The point being that science cannot have a say in deriving meaning out of a process; it can tell us how but not why. My problem is those that use science as a way to explain away the miraculous conception of a caterpillar to butterfly.

But you are right I am asking the wrong audience. My attempt to be clever fell on its face.
I'm an evolutionary biology major...I'm willing to answer what ever questions you have of the mechanisms of evolution if you like.

Just because science explains how something works doesnt mean it takes its beauty away, that's your opinion. Stop stuffing words down our throats.
 

Achronos

Toumarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
13,265
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
House Of Balloons
celticfan1888 said:
SLX said:
The point being that science cannot have a say in deriving meaning out of a process; it can tell us how but not why. My problem is those that use science as a way to explain away the miraculous conception of a caterpillar to butterfly.

But you are right I am asking the wrong audience. My attempt to be clever fell on its face.
I'm an evolutionary biology major...I'm willing to answer what ever questions you have of the mechanisms of evolution if you like.

Just because science explains how something works doesnt mean it takes its beauty away, that's your opinion. Stop stuffing words down our throats.
I'm not stuffing words down anyone's throat. Speaking of beauty, science doesn't have an authority on that either.
 

Sauron

High Elder
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
844
Reaction score
0
Points
0
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
That's exactly my point.
Which is what?
The point being that science cannot have a say in deriving meaning out of a process; it can tell us how but not why. My problem is those that use science as a way to explain away the miraculous conception of a caterpillar to butterfly.

But you are right I am asking the wrong audience. My attempt to be clever fell on its face.
I don't understand what you mean by "explain away" metamorphosis.

I have previously encountered people who have complained that science "took away the mystery" of something e.g. that the moon become less romantic after we sent men there and brought back moon rocks. Who cares if the moon is less mysterious? The job of science is the describe the physical universe. If explaining how metamorphosis works ruins it for you, that is a personal problem.
Not saying it ruins anything for me. This reminds me of the sublimity argument in the Abolition of Man on the waterfall. Does a waterfall cease being beautiful once it is described by science?
Ok, but I still don't understand what you mean by "explain away" metamorphosis.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
3,125
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Sydney, Australia
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Sauron said:
SLX said:
Maybe instead of evolutionist I should have said naturalist.

I couldn't careless about the evolution of metamorphosis, my question. as you have elucidated, is as to why not how.
Then you are asking the wrong question to the wrong people. Do you call the local pizza joint for a question about refinancing a loan? No.

Science can tell us "what" and "how", but not "why". I am sure you could ask any number of "why" questions such as why Planck time is 5.39x10-44 seconds or why the charge of an electron is 1.6x10-19 coulombs, but those are simply not matters that are the subject of science.
That's exactly my point.
Which is what?
The point being that science cannot have a say in deriving meaning out of a process; it can tell us how but not why. My problem is those that use science as a way to explain away the miraculous conception of a caterpillar to butterfly.

But you are right I am asking the wrong audience. My attempt to be clever fell on its face.
I don't understand what you mean by "explain away" metamorphosis.

I have previously encountered people who have complained that science "took away the mystery" of something e.g. that the moon become less romantic after we sent men there and brought back moon rocks. Who cares if the moon is less mysterious? The job of science is the describe the physical universe. If explaining how metamorphosis works ruins it for you, that is a personal problem.
Not saying it ruins anything for me. This reminds me of the sublimity argument in the Abolition of Man on the waterfall. Does a waterfall cease being beautiful once it is described by science?
This is an aside, but Max Weber's works on anomie and entzauberung highlight the double-edgedness of demytifying the universe. I commend them to you guys.
 

Hiwot

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
USA
Selam lekulekemu :)

Here is what I think of evolution when I dare to speculate on an issue I have very little knowledge of both from scientific or theological perspective. For me Christ is the beauty of this world without Him there is no point to all that is. So.. when I do speculate and When I think of Adam being made of clay first, out of the very fabric of what makes the earth, the cosmos, so I am made out of the same stuff that the stars are made out of, The animals of the sky, the sea, or the solid earth, the plants and everything else in the cosmos. We share a common element of substance in its diverse configuration and/or manifestation. So when I read the biologists and chemists say surprise we are made of the same stuff as the amoeba, I say where is the surprise in that? Not to discredit their findings but really revelation has already told us that the human is both of this earth and of the divine. What does then being made of this earth and being made in the Image and likeness of God signify? When Adam entered the created world as steward of creation the fact that he shares what he is with the rest of creation around him and is created in the image and likeness of God makes him the rightful king, priest, and steward. though not like Darwin have suggested across species or from one species into another , there is indeed change that we all can see because I think Within creation there is a potential to co create, change, to adopt, to grow into its full potential, this potential itself is the creation of God. Man the cosmic priest would cease to be what he is when he attempts to get rid of God from the picture and function or control nature alone. When he does that he degenerates and becomes like the animals lead for the most part by instincts and passions. Or like a child who plays with fire eventually gets burned a Godless intelegience will eventually be used to kill. The corruption that has infected the Godless humanity will permeate everything that surrounds him since matter is part of him. In this priesthood of Adam and his offering of the created world back to the creator and the creator transforming the created world through Christ and man’s ultimate connection with it ,I think there is great mystery in here that I do not have an iota of understanding. so let me stop my rumbling ..
blessed day :)
 

Hiwot

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
USA
oh and btw Achronos, I read somewhere that Cain married his sister Awa, Seth also married his sister Azura many of them married thier sisters back then.
 

Gebre Menfes Kidus

Merarches
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
10,800
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Age
52
Location
Jackson, MS
Website
www.facebook.com
Hiwot said:
Selam lekulekemu :)

Here is what I think of evolution when I dare to speculate on an issue I have very little knowledge of both from scientific or theological perspective. For me Christ is the beauty of this world without Him there is no point to all that is. So.. when I do speculate and When I think of Adam being made of clay first, out of the very fabric of what makes the earth, the cosmos, so I am made out of the same stuff that the stars are made out of, The animals of the sky, the sea, or the solid earth, the plants and everything else in the cosmos. We share a common element of substance in its diverse configuration and/or manifestation. So when I read the biologists and chemists say surprise we are made of the same stuff as the amoeba, I say where is the surprise in that? Not to discredit their findings but really revelation has already told us that the human is both of this earth and of the divine. What does then being made of this earth and being made in the Image and likeness of God signify? When Adam entered the created world as steward of creation the fact that he shares what he is with the rest of creation around him and is created in the image and likeness of God makes him the rightful king, priest, and steward. though not like Darwin have suggested across species or from one species into another , there is indeed change that we all can see because I think Within creation there is a potential to co create, change, to adopt, to grow into its full potential, this potential itself is the creation of God. Man the cosmic priest would cease to be what he is when he attempts to get rid of God from the picture and function or control nature alone. When he does that he degenerates and becomes like the animals lead for the most part by instincts and passions. Or like a child who plays with fire eventually gets burned a Godless intelegience will eventually be used to kill. The corruption that has infected the Godless humanity will permeate everything that surrounds him since matter is part of him. In this priesthood of Adam and his offering of the created world back to the creator and the creator transforming the created world through Christ and man’s ultimate connection with it ,I think there is great mystery in here that I do not have an iota of understanding. so let me stop my rumbling ..
blessed day :)


Your speculations are not rambling my brother. You are telling the truth, and I hope others will see the wisdom in what you say. Thank you as always dear brother!


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
Hiwot said:
though not like Darwin have suggested across species or from one species into another , there is indeed change that we all can see because I think Within creation there is a potential to co create, change, to adopt, to grow into its full potential, this potential itself is the creation of God.
Absolutely. All this potential is in the genome, in the precise sequence of nucleotides in the DNA (or, in the case of some viruses, RNA). Sometimes it is enough for a mutation to change just one nucleotide, and the mutant acquires very different properties, and they may be heritable. However, evolution is not always "improvement." It depends on the environment. Mutants who have the so-called "s" allele of hemoglobin and live in the USA are rightly considered to be ill. But the same mutants who live in the jungle in the Amazon basin have an advantage because their red blood cells aren't suitable for the malaria parasite; so, their illness nonwithstanding, they live longer and have more children than the people with a "good" hemoglobin.

 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Hiwot said:
Selam lekulekemu :)

Here is what I think of evolution when I dare to speculate on an issue I have very little knowledge of both from scientific or theological perspective. For me Christ is the beauty of this world without Him there is no point to all that is. So.. when I do speculate and When I think of Adam being made of clay first, out of the very fabric of what makes the earth, the cosmos, so I am made out of the same stuff that the stars are made out of, The animals of the sky, the sea, or the solid earth, the plants and everything else in the cosmos. We share a common element of substance in its diverse configuration and/or manifestation. So when I read the biologists and chemists say surprise we are made of the same stuff as the amoeba, I say where is the surprise in that? Not to discredit their findings but really revelation has already told us that the human is both of this earth and of the divine. What does then being made of this earth and being made in the Image and likeness of God signify? When Adam entered the created world as steward of creation the fact that he shares what he is with the rest of creation around him and is created in the image and likeness of God makes him the rightful king, priest, and steward. though not like Darwin have suggested across species or from one species into another , there is indeed change that we all can see because I think Within creation there is a potential to co create, change, to adopt, to grow into its full potential, this potential itself is the creation of God. Man the cosmic priest would cease to be what he is when he attempts to get rid of God from the picture and function or control nature alone. When he does that he degenerates and becomes like the animals lead for the most part by instincts and passions. Or like a child who plays with fire eventually gets burned a Godless intelegience will eventually be used to kill. The corruption that has infected the Godless humanity will permeate everything that surrounds him since matter is part of him. In this priesthood of Adam and his offering of the created world back to the creator and the creator transforming the created world through Christ and man’s ultimate connection with it ,I think there is great mystery in here that I do not have an iota of understanding. so let me stop my rumbling ..
blessed day :)


Your speculations are not rambling my brother. You are telling the truth, and I hope others will see the wisdom in what you say. Thank you as always dear brother!


Selam
I can see the allure of your reading list now.
 
Top