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

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
Nebelpfade said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.

Selam
Fundamentalist evolutionary thinking?  I personally know that GiC has worked with evolutionary algorithms, which are built upon and execute according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection.  It provides an amazing insight into the abstract and theoretical aspects that shape nature, but at a more simplistic level.  In evolutionary computing, through the fields of artificial development and the optimisation of fitness functions, we are nearing a point where perfect biological simulations could take place.  When you are surrounded by this, it isn't fundamentalist thinking.  It is striving for, refining and truly understanding every aspect of one of the laws of Nature in ways we could never do before the advent of computing.  

We have a greater understanding of evolution than we even do of gravity (just look at the rivaling theoretical camps within quantum gravity), yet evolution is the one that is attacked.
All that may impress people who read your comments at a cursory glance and are intimidated by the scientific sounding tone. But nothing in what you say has anything to do whatsoever with validating the theroy of Darwinian evolution. Whereas Gic may witness the execution "according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection," another scientist may witness this esame execution according to "the beautiful mechanisms intrinsically woven into the fabric of nature by an ominoptent God." The reality of evolution within individual species and the occurrence of natural selection to a certain degree do not in any way translate into proof of Darwinian evolution.

Selam
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Nebelpfade said:
I'm sure you know my answer.  :p  There was always death, and there is no such thing as fully human
Yes there is, and it is represented by our Lord Jesus Christ. Would it be correct to assume you're not a Christian?
 

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:
Nebelpfade said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.

Selam
Fundamentalist evolutionary thinking?  I personally know that GiC has worked with evolutionary algorithms, which are built upon and execute according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection.  It provides an amazing insight into the abstract and theoretical aspects that shape nature, but at a more simplistic level.  In evolutionary computing, through the fields of artificial development and the optimisation of fitness functions, we are nearing a point where perfect biological simulations could take place.  When you are surrounded by this, it isn't fundamentalist thinking.  It is striving for, refining and truly understanding every aspect of one of the laws of Nature in ways we could never do before the advent of computing.  

We have a greater understanding of evolution than we even do of gravity (just look at the rivaling theoretical camps within quantum gravity), yet evolution is the one that is attacked.
Yeah, that gravity stuff is bogus. The Bible says that people can fly: "And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground: and the people did eat them with the blood" (I Samuel [I Kingdoms] 14:32 KJV).
And this has what to do with my comments above?
Again you reveal your vanity. My response was to Nebelpfade, not to you. I only included your post to give context to Nebelpfade's.

Your response is a typical tactic of those who can't defend their own propaganda. They ridicule the opposing point of view with sarcasm rather than defend their own position in a reasonable manner. Saul Alinsky would be proud.
I have already defended the theory of evolution on this very thread, which I believe to be sound science. Go back and read the thread, and you'll see my reasonable explanation. I have no interest in repeating myself until I'm blue in the face, because it won't do any good. But I will say this: Using Scripture as a basis for scientific theory is ridiculous, and therefore I ridicule it.
Now the personal insults, huh? Well, I won't reciprocate.

I too do not wish to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face. I have critiqued evolution enough on this thread already, without adequate answers to my many challenging questions. But I will continue to point out the disingenuous attacks of people like you who relentlessly accuse all of us who do not believe in evolution of using Scripture as a scientific textbook. That is a dishonest tactic.

But you are right, I won't change your mind because it is not open to change. But I remain open to the scientific evidence.

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.


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
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
So do you consider modern biology textbooks to be equal to scripture then?
As far as biology is concerned - no; I very, very, very much prefer them to Scripture.  8)
And I would prefer to use a cookbook for soup recipes. But that's really not the point, is it?
I thought it WAS the point. Scripture and other parts of the Holy Tradition of the Church exist in order to explain to us, Who Jesus Christ is - not to educate us about mechanisms of diversification of life on our planet.
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
Iconodule said:
Yes there is, and it is represented by our Lord Jesus Christ. Would it be correct to assume you're not a Christian?
Depends on who you ask.  If being Christian means having ignore or sacrifice scientific fact, I cannot understand why someone would want to be one in the first place.  Betraying the inquisitive nature of humanity seems like a greater 'sin'.

Nothing can be "fully" anything, when the very definition is in a state of flux.  Were our common ancestors "fully human"?  Are we (Homo sapiens sapiens) "fully human"?  Will the Homo novus be "fully human"?  
 

Friul

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,492
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Earth, Solar System, Local Interstellar Cloud, Loc
Website
www.iheu.org
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
All that may impress people who read your comments at a cursory glance and are intimidated by the scientific sounding tone. But nothing in what you say has anything to do whatsoever with validating the theroy of Darwinian evolution. Whereas Gic may witness the execution "according to the beautiful mechanisms within evolution by natural selection," another scientist may witness this esame execution according to "the beautiful mechanisms intrinsically woven into the fabric of nature by an ominoptent God." The reality of evolution within individual species and the occurrence of natural selection to a certain degree do not in any way translate into proof of Darwinian evolution.

Selam
It wasn't meant to be a formal proof of evolution.  It was meant to comment on how he is far from a fundamentalist, since he is merely pushing for a truth that he has been surrounded by (though, we all are) and worked extensively within its theoretical framework.
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Nebelpfade said:
Iconodule said:
Yes there is, and it is represented by our Lord Jesus Christ. Would it be correct to assume you're not a Christian?
Depends on who you ask.  If being Christian means having ignore or sacrifice scientific fact, I cannot understand why someone would want to be one in the first place.  Betraying the inquisitive nature of humanity seems like a greater 'sin'.
Don't dodge the question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, fully divine and fully human?

Nothing can be "fully" anything, when the very definition is in a state of flux.  Were our common ancestors "fully human"?
Yes, Adam and Eve were fully human.

Are we (Homo sapiens sapiens) "fully human"?  Will the Homo novus be "fully human"?  
Despite transhumanist fantasies, there will be no homo novus. The Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of humanity, and he is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
 

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
Nebelpfade said:
Nothing can be "fully" anything, when the very definition is in a state of flux.  
Again you prove that Orthodoxy and Evolution are incompatible. For the Athanasian Creed affrims that "Our Lord Jesus Christ is fully God, fully man." So you see, belief in evolution does affect our theology, as Father Seraphim Rose correctly pointed out.


Selam
 

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
Iconodule said:
Nebelpfade said:
Iconodule said:
Yes there is, and it is represented by our Lord Jesus Christ. Would it be correct to assume you're not a Christian?
Depends on who you ask.  If being Christian means having ignore or sacrifice scientific fact, I cannot understand why someone would want to be one in the first place.  Betraying the inquisitive nature of humanity seems like a greater 'sin'.
Don't dodge the question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, fully divine and fully human?

Nothing can be "fully" anything, when the very definition is in a state of flux.  Were our common ancestors "fully human"?
Yes, Adam and Eve were fully human.

Are we (Homo sapiens sapiens) "fully human"?  Will the Homo novus be "fully human"?  
Despite transhumanist fantasies, there will be no homo novus. The Lord Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of humanity, and he is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Amen! Correct on all points Iconodule.

Selam
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
So do you consider modern biology textbooks to be equal to scripture then?
As far as biology is concerned - no; I very, very, very much prefer them to Scripture.  8)
And I would prefer to use a cookbook for soup recipes. But that's really not the point, is it?
I thought it WAS the point. Scripture and other parts of the Holy Tradition of the Church exist in order to explain to us, Who Jesus Christ is - not to educate us about mechanisms of diversification of life on our planet.
Part of understanding Who Jesus Christ is, is understanding sacred history, the reasons for Creation, and the manner in which the world was created. You can learn this by reading the Scriptures and such works as St. Basil's Hexaemeron. Biology textbooks don't even begin to touch on this- all they will tell you is how man, with his corrupted mind, has tried to piece together the way life works without the benefit of divine revelation.
 

ytterbiumanalyst

Merarches
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
35
Location
Springfield, MO
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Now the personal insults, huh? Well, I won't reciprocate.
Time will tell.

I too do not wish to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face. I have critiqued evolution enough on this thread already, without adequate answers to my many challenging questions.
In other words, no one has given you the answers you want to hear.

But I will continue to point out the disingenuous attacks of people like you who relentlessly accuse all of us who do not believe in evolution of using Scripture as a scientific textbook. That is a dishonest tactic.
Hmm. Who are the people like me?

But you are right, I won't change your mind because it is not open to change. But I remain open to the scientific evidence.
As I thought. So much for not using personal attacks.

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Same tired rhetoric. Same either/or fallacy. No new ideas at all.

You keep using that word, yet your behaviour shows you have no interest in peace at all.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  :angel:
And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam
Allow me:

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church."  
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Conclusion: he's either an idiot, or purposely deluding people, or both.
I don't see Fr Seraphim as an idiot, but as someone who hadn't been able to shake himself free of fundamentalist thinking; on this subject in particular.
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.


Selam
:laugh:  :laugh:  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel! It's a shame that it hasn't done the same for you and others like you who live in fear that accepting the truth of a scientific theory will bring the sky down upon your heads. There is no incompatibility between science and religion, except for the one people like you create.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
PeterTheAleut said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Ukiemeister said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Father Rose stood on the foundation of the Early Fathers. Dismiss their interpretation of the Scriptures, and you dismiss Orthodoxy. You are free to believe what you want regarding the Bible and interpet it however you choose, but in so doing you act like a fundamentalist evangelical rather than an Orthodox Christian.

Selam
There is no indication that the Scriptures were ever meant to be used as a scientific text. They were meant to record God's Revelation and His interaction with mankind. It did that. But the Scriptures were not emant to be used a exhaustive scientific text.
Read Father Rose, and read the Early Fathers such as St. Basil the Great on the Creation. No one is saying that the Scriptures are meant to be an exhaustive scientific text. The Fathers have shown us how to interpret and understand the Sacred Scriptures, and we cannot simply jettison their divine wisdom and guidance whenever it conflicts with the latest scientific fad.

Selam
And what about Blessed 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 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])

"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." (ibid, 2:9)
I concur with Augustine. The earth is round, not flat. The earth revolves around the sun, the sun does not revolve around the earth. So it has been scientifically proven. The theory of evolution has not been scientifically proven. If it is proven, then I will believe in it. But as this thread perfectly demonstrates, those who vociferously prosyletize about evolution fail to provide an abundance of evidence to equal the abundance of their religious scientific convictions.


Selam
The validity of a scientific theory often lies more in whether it has not yet been disproven than in whether it has yet been proven.  So I put before you this challenge, Gebre.  Prove evolutionary theory false from the basis of science and science alone.  I'd be willing to bet you can't.
To the objective mind, the lack of any fossil evidence that demonstrates intermediary species runs contrary to evolutionary theory.
What lack of fossil evidence?

 

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
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
Heorhij said:
Iconodule said:
So do you consider modern biology textbooks to be equal to scripture then?
As far as biology is concerned - no; I very, very, very much prefer them to Scripture.  8)
And I would prefer to use a cookbook for soup recipes. But that's really not the point, is it?
I thought it WAS the point. Scripture and other parts of the Holy Tradition of the Church exist in order to explain to us, Who Jesus Christ is - not to educate us about mechanisms of diversification of life on our planet.
Part of understanding Who Jesus Christ is, is understanding sacred history, the reasons for Creation, and the manner in which the world was created. You can learn this by reading the Scriptures and such works as St. Basil's Hexaemeron. Biology textbooks don't even begin to touch on this- all they will tell you is how man, with his corrupted mind, has tried to piece together the way life works without the benefit of divine revelation.
But I don't dispute that. Nonetheless, Hexaemeron does not contain the exact scientific data. Biology textbooks do. So, when I am interested in the questions like "why," "what for," for what purpose," I read St. Basil - but when I am interested in the question "how," and in a very narrow mechanistic sense, - I read Darwin or Ernst Mayr.
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.

Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
 

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
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.

Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
 

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:
Now the personal insults, huh? Well, I won't reciprocate.
Time will tell.

I too do not wish to repeat myself until I'm blue in the face. I have critiqued evolution enough on this thread already, without adequate answers to my many challenging questions.
In other words, no one has given you the answers you want to hear.

But I will continue to point out the disingenuous attacks of people like you who relentlessly accuse all of us who do not believe in evolution of using Scripture as a scientific textbook. That is a dishonest tactic.
Hmm. Who are the people like me?

But you are right, I won't change your mind because it is not open to change. But I remain open to the scientific evidence.
As I thought. So much for not using personal attacks.

One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Same tired rhetoric. Same either/or fallacy. No new ideas at all.

You keep using that word, yet your behaviour shows you have no interest in peace at all.
So you think that peace means agreeing with you?


Selam
 

Riddikulus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
4,788
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Queensland, Australia
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
One thing seems clear from this thread however: Orthodoxy and evolution are not compatible. There are two fundamentally opposed worldviews that cannot be reconciled. One is an atheistic naturalist worldview, and the other is a theistic worldview. And these two are diametrically opposed to each other. No one should be so naive as to think otherwise.
Selam
Only in your mind, Gebre. Perhaps you should stop trying to confine others to the limitations of your thinking with manipulative rhetoric. No one's buying it.  ;)
I respectfully ask that you try to argue against my positions without levying unwarranted insults such as accusing me of "manipulative rhetoric."

Selam
No one's buying the outrage, either, Gebre. If you can't keep personal comments intended to manipulate your audience out of your postings, don't be surprised that someone is going to mention them.
 

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
Riddikulus said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Riddikulus said:
GiC said:
Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
Asteriktos said:
Believe it or not, some of us have read the Church Fathers and came to a different conclusion. Seems impossible, I know  :angel:
And yet you cannot answer any of the questions that the theory of evolution begs. For example, why don't you respond to each of the specific quotes I posted by Father Rose instead of merely replying by a "rolling of the eyes?" I suspect it's because you have fundamentalist religious zeal for a fashionable but unsubstantiated scientific theory, and neither Scripture, the Fathers, Orthodoxy, or rigid science will dissuade you from your precious presuppostions.

Selam
Allow me:

Gebre Menfes Kidus said:
In answer to the OP, "Is evolutionary theory compatible with the Orthodox Christian faith?":


"Evolution is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"I have always regarded evolution, in all its ramifications, as an important part of the 'modern American' intellectual baggage which I left behind when I became Orthodox."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Teilhard de Chardin (a  paleontologist and Catholic religious philosopher who promoted evolution) rightly saw that evolution, if true, cannot be kept in one compartment of human thought, but profoundly affects the whole of thought. He was unconcerned to 'reconcile' evolution with single points of Christian tradition and dogma, because he rightly saw that there is no possible reconciliation. In the light of evolution everything must change - not just the 'static worldview' of the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers, but one's whole outlook toward life, God, the Church."  
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The whole purpose and intent of the theory of physical evolution is to find an explanation of the world without God; i.e, physical evolution is by its nature atheistic."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"The teaching that 'by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin' (Romans 5:12) becomes extremely hazy if not entirely lost when one sees man as having evolved from lower creatures over millions of years."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Evolution is one of the most dangerous concepts that faces Orthodox Christians today - perhaps it is the very key to the assault upon the Church, to the very 'philosophy' of the coming Antichrist."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

"Man must know the truth about where he came from before he can know where he is going."
Irrelevant to the scientific method.

Conclusion: he's either an idiot, or purposely deluding people, or both.
I don't see Fr Seraphim as an idiot, but as someone who hadn't been able to shake himself free of fundamentalist thinking; on this subject in particular.
And Gic's answers are irrelevant in regard to the question of the OP. So either you and he are idiots, or purposely deluding people, or both. I don't see you as an idiot, but as someone who isn't able to shake themsleves free of fundamentalist evolutionary thinking.


Selam
:laugh:  :laugh:  You are funny, Gebre. Before I converted to Orthodoxy I had Creationist leanings. Orthodoxy set me free of such fundamentalist drivel! It's a shame that it hasn't done the same for you and others like you who live in fear that accepting the truth of a scientific theory will bring the sky down upon your heads. There is no incompatibility between science and religion, except for the one people like you create.
Why do you insist on deliberately misrepresenting those of us who reject evolution as affirming an incompatibility between science and religion? This tactic won't work with me, and I will point out the dishonesty of it whenever it happens. Who is the fundamentalist here: you who place complete faith in a theory which is unproven, or I who remain open to the evidence?

Selam
 
Top