Evolution and an Orthodox Patristic understanding of Genesis

[Pravoslavnik]

"You asked for the name of the heresy that Cyprian mentioned and I told you that it's called Evolution."

Code: Select all

    "Evolution" is not the name of a heresy in Orthodox Christianity.  Please cite a reference from the Orthodox canons on this claim.  It is a serious matter to call a fellow Orthodox Christian a heretic, and St. Augustine cautioned the Fathers, and contemporary clergy, to be careful to avoid undermining the Church and offending the faithful by making dogmatic pronouncements about scientific matters which may turn out to be false.  He was writing, of course, subsequent to the publication of St. Basil and St. Ambrose's [i]Hexamera[/i].
     Based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity, the first 24 hours following the Big Bang--when measured from the theoretical point at which the Big Bang occurred--lasted roughly 8 billion years, when time is measured from the perspective of the planet earth.  The second 24 hour day--from the Big Bang perspective--lasted roughly 4 billion years, etc.  The six cosmological "days" of Genesis, and of St. Basil's [i]Hexameron[/i], would have lasted roughly 15 billion years in earth time, which is, interestingly, the consensus scientific calculation for the age of the earth.  I don't think that there is much controversy in the scientific community about the approximate 15 billion year age of the universe in earth-years.  Again, those who have ears, let them hear.  Let those who do not have ears avoid scandalizing the faithful.

[joasia]

"Evolution" is not the name of a heresy in Orthodox Christianity. Please cite a reference from the Orthodox canons on this claim.

Ok. So you see heresy as something that is officially denounced in the canons. I label heresy as something that teaches contrary to Orthodoxy which the holy fathers taught. Evolution is opposed to the Orthodox teachings. The holy fathers opposed the idea that man was evolved from another species. They wrote about it.

It is a serious matter to call a fellow Orthodox Christian a heretic, and St. Augustine cautioned the Fathers, and contemporary clergy, to be careful to avoid undermining the Church and offending the faithful by making dogmatic pronouncements about scientific matters which may turn out to be false.

I never accused anybody of being a heretic. I just stated that to support the evolution "theory" is an error. People can come to realize that what they thought was a logical explanation is really wrong. They are just simply mistaken.

Augustine had also taught in error, on some points. The Eastern rite doesn't consider him a saint. He was more favored by the West. Didn't he have a more Western scientific view? St. John Chyrsostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Ephraim the Syrian. The holy fathers didn't believe in the allegorical explanation of Genesis. They knew the truth and taught that the world and creation happened in 6 literal days. Are you saying that Augustine cautioned the Holy Fathers? The Holy Fathers had the authority by the Holy Spirit. Augustine made assumptions.

And how would Einstein be able to calculate this? As much as the world praised him, he is nothing compared to St. John Chrysostom and I put my trust in St. John..not Einstein. Why should I believe in a Jew over an Orthodox saint whose source of knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit. Do you disagree with this?

Again, those who have ears, let them hear. Let those who do not have ears avoid scandalizing the faithful.

I am not scandalizing. And I am a member of the faithful. How dare you accuse me of being outside the faith!!

You can call me everything else, but DO NOT brand me as unfaithful, because by saying that I scandalize the faithful...you brand me as being opposed and outside of it!

I AM ORTHODOX! And by saying I scandalize means that you brand me as an heretic!

Call me every name in the book, but DONOT question my faith!

[Pravoslavnik]

"The holy fathers didn't believe in the allegorical explanation of Genesis. They knew the truth and taught that the world and creation happened in 6 literal days."

Code: Select all

     Dear Joanna,

         What is a "day"?  It is a unit of time.  Time passes at different rates in the universe as a function of velocity.  The only constant in this regard is the speed of light.  This is an important concept in Einstein's theory of relativity, and confirmed by scientific data.  When time is measured from the theoretical point at which the Big Bang occurred--when God created the universe we live in ex nihilo--it is true that approximately six 24 hour "days" have passed during the past 15 billion years, measured from the perspective of the earth.  This is not intuitively obvious, because our sensory perceptions are adapted to the four dimensional space-time in which we live.  Modern physics also indicates that there may be extra dimensions of our space-time continuum that we can not perceive.  Is this, possibly, what Christ God meant when he said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is all around, but you cannot perceive it?"  Perhaps.
      St. Basil, and, of course, the author of Genesis, were right when they said that God created the earth, and the flora and fauna of the earth, in six days--when time is measured from the perspective of "God."  These six days lasted about 15 billion years in our time, consistent with the geological and paleontological data.  But the "New Earth creationists" like Henry Morris, and some Orthodox writers, are fundamentally wrong to claim that the six days of creation--or some approximation--should be measured in earth years.  There are also significant problems with theories other than Darwinism which try to explain the paleontological data.  It is absurd, for example, to imagine that God is consciously and deliberately "micro-managing" the trillions of genetic variations which occur daily in the biosphere--including all of the blind alleys and extinct species that have occurred throughout the history of life on earth, including the "great reptiles" (dinosaurs) described in Genesis during the Jurassic period of earth history?  Why did single celled organisms exist for billions of years on the earth before the emergence of multi-cellular organisms?  (In part, to create an oxygenated atmosphere.) The Darwinian theory accounts for this data very elegantly. Read Kenneth Miller if you are interested in learning more.
      As for the Holy Fathers, they did not always agree on everything.  St. John Chrysostomos, for instance, did not believe that life began at conception.  Does that mean that he was not a great saint, or that his writings are not to be revered?  Of course not.  St. Seraphim of Sarov said in his famous conversation with Motovilov that only people in the Russian Church could be saved.  He was speaking to a Russian, of course, in a society where there were some Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Masonic "trends." Do we take that as some infallible truth?  What is infallible in Orthodox Christianity are the Creed and the collective, conciliar rulings of the Church.
     St. Basil and his companions were educated at the Academy in Athens.  They were brilliant men who also acquired great sanctity and divine wisdom through the mystical, sacramental  life of the Church, but also thought about the cosmos with the paradigms of their day.  There is a sense in which St. Basil's [i]Hexameron[/i] is quite consistent with modern astrophysics, but it is not the sense that Henry Morris and the "New Earth creationists" have applied to it.  It is also not scriptural, not literally "infallible."

[joasia]

Pravoslavnik,

it is true that approximately six 24 hour "days" have passed during the past 15 billion years, measured from the perspective of the earth

You have yet to show proof that the earth is billions of years old. How is it calculated, since we know these scientists didn't live at that time.

This is not intuitively obvious, because our sensory perceptions are adapted to the four dimensional space-time in which we live.

This has nothing to do with KNOWING SCIENTIFICALLY THAT THE EARTH IS BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.

Is this, possibly, what Christ God meant when he said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is all around, but you cannot perceive it?" Perhaps.

You really should add the passages to this, otherwise, I will believe that you are paraphrasing at a wide angle. You twist the meaning. St. John preached: "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand" (Matt: 3;2). Who was he referring to other than Christ? But, the Jews couldn't perceive the truth because of their darkened souls.

I don't know what you're quoting, but if you can't provide the passage from the Bible, then you statement is invalid. Just the same, the Kingdom of God at hand refers to Christ.

But, what you're doing is twisting a false science to make it look like you're talking about some scientific perspective. It doesn't prove that the earth is billions of years old.

These six days lasted about 15 billion years in our time, consistent with the geological and paleontological data.

No, the geology and palenontology, of the age of the earth and the age of fossils are not scientific measurements...they are speculations of the measurements of something that is not and cannot be proven, by OBSERVATION. Science is an observation of facts. But, it is a fact that "scientists" date the age of fossils by what geological column they are found in and that the geological columns are dated in strata by what fossils they find in them. This is circular reasoning, which has no logical sense.

It is absurd, for example, to imagine that God is consciously and deliberately "micro-managing" the trillions of genetic variations which occur daily in the biosphere--including all of the blind alleys and extinct species that have occurred throughout the history of life on earth, including the "great reptiles" (dinosaurs) described in Genesis during the Jurassic period of earth history?

Are you an evolutionist then? Sounds like it. And why could God not be able to do that? What limited version of God do you believe in?

Christ said: "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But, the very hairs of your head are all numbered." (Matt. 10:30)

Christ explained it as a means to show that nothing which happens on earth is not observed by God, the Father and not a course of His will. Even dinosaurs that lived with mankind in Biblical times. The Jurassic period is a "scientific" invention.

Why did single celled organisms exist for billions of years on the earth before the emergence of multi-cellular organisms?

They didn't. This is a false leading question. Mankind and all creation existed in six days. There was no billions of years.

But, if you want to believe that you evolved from a rock then be kind to the pebbles on the road. Don't step on one or you might have killed a potential human or bee or dog. And for that matter, go to the zoo and visit your common descendants that didn't quite make it on your evolutionary development scale.

(

In part, to create an oxygenated atmosphere.)

You are mistaken here. The textbooks teach that the earth had no oxygen and it rained for billions of years. Where the rain came from, I don't know. But, then the rocks cooled down and absorbed the oxygen(that didn't exist).

If you want to teach that the earth evolved for billions of years, then there should at least be some kind of scientific logic involved. How is oxygen absorbed, when it is taught that the earth didn't have oxygen at the beginning?

The Darwinian theory accounts for this data very elegantly. Read Kenneth Miller if you are interested in learning more.

Darwin never had proof. He speculated, plus he wasn't even a scientist. He was studying theology before he fell into the heresy of evolution. What you've said so far is enough to cover anything they have taught. You are their parrot.

St. John Chrysostomos, for instance, did not believe that life began at conception.

Well, you are greatly mistaken or just a plain liar. Check out his homily on the prophesy of the Holy Conception.

Now..why would he write a homily about the Old Testament prophesy of Christ's conception if he didn't believe that there was life in the womb before birth? He wrote about a prediction of the coming life of Christ. How could he not value an unborn being, if he was accepting the born being, Christ? And who is so ignorant to believe that there is no life in the womb?

And to all who read this and listen carefully, with your hearts...why would the Apostle describe the Theotokos' visit to Elizabeth, where the baby in her WOMB(St. John the Baptist), when hearing the Mother of God's voice greeting her, leaped in Elizabeth's womb and by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Elizabeth said: But, why is it granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:43-44)

Would anyone believe that St. John Chrysostom would have such a thought that life did not exist at conception? St. John who was the most amazing writer of homilies and wrote on every part of the Bible. It's taught in the Bible. Of course, a person who is not a believer would not be swayed by such evidence.

St. John Chrysostom (c.345-407) who in his famous homilies railed against men who secured the abortions of their illegitimate offspring, called their actions "even worse than murder." Of such men who impelled women to have abortions, he said, "You do not let a prostitute remain a prostitute, but make her a murderer as well." (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies in Romans, XXIV)

Conception is considered the beginning of human life and the creation of the soul. This is the Orthodox view. What view you hold is opposed to God's order.

And WHY would the Orthodox church celebrate the events of the conceptions of Christ, the Theotokos and St. John the Baptist, if Orthodoxy and the saints of Orthodoxy didn't believe in them???

YOU are the one that scandalizes with your false beliefs. YOU are the one that is not Orthodox in faith. For what other reason would you have to say that St. John Chrysostom didn't believe that life existed at the moment of conception??

'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5, 6.

St. Basil's brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394), saw the fetus as a complete human being from the time of conception, and specifically rejected theories based upon formation or quickening: "There is no question about that which is bred in the uterus, both growing, and moving from place to place. It remains, therefore, that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul." (St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection)

St. Seraphim of Sarov said in his famous conversation with Motovilov that only people in the Russian Church could be saved

Where did he say that?? St. Seraphim never thought like that.

You are quite deluded. I pray that Christ will enlighten you.

[/quote]

[Pravoslavnik]

Dear Joanna;

Code: Select all

   The most precise dating of the earth derives from the analysis of  rubidium/strontium ratios in rocks.  There are also multiple radioactive nuclides in the solar system with known half-lives of decay which allow us to make estimations of the minimum age of the solar system by their presence or absence.   There is a convergence of data using these methods indicating an approximate 3.5 billion year age for the earth itself.  (There is an excellent review of this data on pages 69-76 of Kenneth Miller's book [i]Finding Darwin's God[/i].)

    For a carefully written, cogent analysis of why the various "creationist" theories in vogue during the past twenty years fail to explain the data of biology and paleobiology, see Miller's book, in which specific chapters are devoted to an analysis of the "theories" of Henry Morris, Michael Behe, and others.  The illustrations are quite detailed and exact, and it would take several pages for me to reduplicate his analysis.  

   Would we, by extension, invoke some sort of metaphysical explanation for why objects fall to the earth under the force of gravity?  Do you also doubt that genes frequently mutate in nature, and that these mutations may lead to phenotypic variations of variable adaptivity to particular environments?  Does God need to "micro-manage" this process, which occurs through the natural laws of the cosmos?  Clearly, God's creation operates largely through natural laws.  This is not to say, however, that God cannot intervene in the natural processes of the cosmos that we study through science.  I, personally, do not believe that random mutations and natural selection alone have accounted for the entire existence of complex life on the planet.

    St. John Chrysostom taught that the soul entered the body at birth, if I am not mistaken.  I will have to do some hard work to find this reference, but have very little time.  The point of the reference has to do with whether the holy Fathers are invariably infallible in each of their pronouncemnts on any subject, even when they have disagreed with each other.  It is a general epistemological issue.

    "The kingdom of heaven is all around you, but you cannot see it" is a quotation of Christ, Himself.  It is from the Gospels, and perhaps you can look it up on a computerized text.

      I'll have to find St. Seraphim's quotation about the "Russian" Church.

[joasia]

St. John Chrysostom taught that the soul entered the body at birth, if I am not mistaken.

No. A person with no faith, translated it to explain that and you are reading the author's greatly misguided opinion.

Even without reading whatever it is that you mistakenly understood, the fact that St. John the Baptist leaps in Elizabeth's womb and that the holy fathers explain that St. John was quite aware of God's presence(in the Theotokos' womb) shows that St. John was not a physical anomaly, but had a soul before birth. This is a fact in the Bible.

If you think that St. John Chrysostom would not understand this, then you are greatly mistaken. Does it make sense that he would not know something as simple and spiritually obvious as all the other saints attest to?

Just admit that you misunderstood a passage or remembered it wrong, or the translator/author is a liar. But, quit trying to explain it. You are wrong.

"The kingdom of heaven is all around you, but you cannot see it" is a quotation of Christ, Himself. It is from the Gospels, and perhaps you can look it up on a computerized text.

It still refers to Christ Himself. He is the Kingdom of Heaven that is present and walking amongst them and the hypocrite jews can't see it because their hearts are hard as rocks.

I'm not going to search it for you. You brought it up. Do you're own work. But, don't quote something you can't back up. If you are going to make definite statements, then you better have the resource to back it up. Otherwise, you look like you are talking in ignorance.

I will deal with the other points later.

Joanna

[jckstraw72]

2 things about Augustine:

1. Yes he is a saint according to Orthodoxy
2. I find it amusing that Orthodox will hardly ever point to him as an authority on a theological issue, but the evolutionists always make sure to point out what he said about science. And when they point it out, they are already assuming evolution to be true and therefore the creationists are going against what Augustine wrote, but since evolution is a theory based entirely on the assumption of uniformitarianism, and isnt science at all, Augustine's statement does not apply to creationists at all.