Metropolitan Kallistos Ware Preaches Evolution Heresy

[joasia]

Pravo(not),

Let's go through the "above" responses, shall we? Just to show that I read your response.

There are several questions here. First of all, Darwin was NOT an atheist, and he never claimed that evolutionary theory was an atheistic theory. Would we say that Newton's theory of gravity is "atheistic"? Of course not. Describing a mechanism for natural phenomena does not imply that God was not involved in creating the mechanism, does it? An excellent book on the subject of Darwin and religious faith is Professor Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God. The book presents an outstanding, cogent analysis of the scientific data related to the evolution debate, and also denounces the erroneous notion of atheists like Stephen Jay Gould that evolutionary theory is atheistic.

About Darwin. About a book. Nothing about the soul. next...

Secondly, I fully agree that the scientific issues related to the evolution debate are not important for our salvation. Everything that is needed for our salvation is provided for us by the Fathers and the Church. At the same time, I have long agreed with St. Augustine that Church leaders need to be cautious about assertions related to scientific matters, in order to avoid scandalizing the faithful. Consider the condemnation of Galileo by the Papacy. This historical error by the Catholic Church has probably been quite destructive to the faithful, implying that the teachings of the Church are flawed or erroneous. The only reason that I have ever written a single syllable to Orthodox priests and laity on the subject of evolution is that I believe the "Young Earth Creationists" in the Orthodox Church may be committing the same fundamental error today that the Roman Catholic Church committed in the time of Galileo. St. Paul wrote in the Epistle for today-- Meatfare Sunday-- that we need to take pains to avoid scandalizing the faithful.

About science. About church. Nothing about the soul. Next....

Third, time passes at markedly different rates at different points in the universe. Time is, in fact, a function of the expanding physical universe, and physicists have posited that there may well be dimensions of space-time in which time, literally stands still. (Could this describe the "physics" of the kingdom of heaven?) In his book The Science of God the MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder has demonstrated that time-- when measured at the theoretical point where the Big Bang occurred--has passed very slowly relative to time as measured way out "here" on planet earth. In fact, the first 24 hour "day" measured at the Big Bang point zero lasted about 8 billion years when time is measured from earth! The second "day" lasted about 4 billion years, etc. in a logarithmic regression. Strange but true. From the perspective of God, the first "day" of creation may well have lasted 8 billion years in earth-time. So "literal,"Orthodox interpretations of Genesis may be far more scientifically precise than any of our modern atheist detractors ever imagined, at least if Einstein's theory of relativity is correct !!

About time. Nothing about the soul. Next...

Finally, the mechanism of Darwinian evolution IS precisely genetic mutation with natural selection based on habitats. Let us not play word games here, simply for the purpose of obscuring the truth. Everything in this historical process does "bring forth" according to its kind, but there are variations within species that may--over a long time span-- result in gradual speciation. I look very different than my brother, and my Shetland Sheep dog looks very different than my Papillon. Depending on environmental conditions, some members of a "kind" may be more likely to have descendants (who resemble them) than others. Yet, my brother and I are both hominids, and my dogs are both canines. What makes evolution as a mechanism of actual speciation appear counter-intuitive to us, according to Professor Miller, is is the unfathomably VAST time frame of earth's history. Miller has even proposed using a unit for the vast dimension of evolutionary time in biology, called "d" (for Darwin.)

About natural selection. Nothing about the soul. So?

Have you understood a single word that I have written here about the possible relevance of Einstein's theory of relativity for the classical Orthodox interpretation of the Hexameron, the six "days" of creation which lasted about 15 billion earth-years?

How does that answer my question about when the soul was created along this billions of years timeline of evolution from a pool of goo? This isn't the first time I've read your responses. Are you perhaps schizophrenic? In your mind, you feel you are answering a question, but going on with your psycho-babble.

Cyprian, do you see an answer to my question in his babblings?

[joasia]

Pravo(not) wrote:

3) You did not answer my question. If the "daughters of men" who married Adam's sons were really the daughters of Adam-- as you assert-- why, then did the Genesis text use the plural "men"?

The daughters of men were those who fell away from worshipping God in truth. The sons of God were those who continued the line of Seth who worshipped the true God. If you follow Holy Scripture, then you will see that all mankind came from Adam and Eve.

Was there more than one Adam? And doesn't your interpretation imply that Adam's sons married their own biological sisters?

That's not personal interpretation, that is the explanation of the holy fathers. Who else on earth was there? Of course they were related due to Adam and Eve. They were the descendents.

And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. (Gen. 5:4)

The Holy Bible is not a fairy tale, it is a fact and any so-called Orthodox Christian who thinks that evolution has a place in the Bible is ignorant.

Who do you think they are going to marry

[Pravoslavnik]

Joanna,

Code: Select all

How about my original response of February 20th to your question--including your own quote-- on this very thread?   Is that specific enough to clarify the point you are babbling about here?  Here it is:

by Pravoslavnik on Fri 20 February 2009 5:09 am

Joanna writes: "When I faced an Orthodox Christian Evolutionist, I'd always ask: when did God create the soul during these stages of evolution?"

Pravoslavnik responds: A fair question, deserving a considerate response. In the original Hebrew text of Genesis there are two different verbs used to describe the process of God's "creation" of the cosmos. One verb is used to describe multiple stages of the creation, including the creation of men from the earth-- literally, the "adamah." The other verb refers to the special, distinct creation of Adam-- wherein God breathed into Adam "and he became a living soul." The Genesis text goes on to describe the eventual marriage of Adam's sons to "the daughters of men." Who were these "men" and their "daughters?" One possible interpretation is that Homo Sapiens evolved from hominids--as seems evident from the scientific data-- and that Adam was the first Homo Sapien given an immortal soul-- denoted by the specific verb.

P.S. Which Orthodox Christian "heresy" refers to evolutionary theory as un-Orthodox? Certainly not chiliasm, which refers to eschatology rather than to any scientific theory regarding the origin of cosmic phenomena.

[Pravoslavnik]

Has anyone else at the St. Euphrosynos Cafe noticed that when some people here make false, insulting comments, they never apologize? Of course, we should not necessarily expect apologies from anyone, but bear with slander and insults patiently. On this thread, for instance, Cyprian specifically claimed that I was incorrect, even ridiculous, to suggest that any Orthodox Christians have claimed that St. Augustine of Hippo was not a saint. He also insisted that I give specific quotes about St. Augustine's admonishment to Orthodox Christians to avoid scandalizing the faithful by making inaccurate statements regarding matters of science. Yet, when I gave these specific references on both accounts, he issued no apology for slandering me.

Code: Select all

       Similarly, on this thread, Joasia repeatedly insisted that I had not attempted to answer her question regarding evolutionary theory and the creation of the "soul."  Yet, when I re-posted my original response of February 20th, she did not apologize for her error.

      Two things.  I am not in the habit of making false statements, here or elsewhere, which are unsupported by evidence and analysis, including the analysis of the Patristics in relation to science.   Secondly, if I have offended anyone here by speaking what I perceive to be the truth, I am sorry for the offense.  I also forgive those who have slandered me here, or misunderstood and/or misrespresented what I have said.

I do hope, and believe, that we all share a common love for Christ and the Holy Church.

[Cyprian]

1) Read The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church by Father Michael Azkoul, pp. 199-206 (Dormitian Skete Publications- 1986.) This section of a text on Orthodox dogmatic theology specifically denies the sainthood of St. Augustine of Hippo. In fact, the writings of Father Michael on the subject of St. Augustine prompted Father Seraphim Rose to write his monograph of the subject of Blessed Augustine.

Fr. Michael Azkoul is a priest with the schismatic and heretical group called "the H.O.C.N.A". Neither are Orthodox in their beliefs. Fr. Michael Azkoul also has no credibility when it comes to the holy bishop of Hippo, for he once wrote "A Rejoinder to Fr. Alexander Schmemann" where he states:

"Then, he compares the Synod to the Donatists of the 4th century, an analogy which is inapplicable. The Donatists were in fact heretics, because they departed from the traditional sacramentology of the Church and identified themselves as the Catholic Church. Blessed Augustine made this same observation and refuted them in eleven different treatises."

Years later, Fr. Michael accused St. Augustine of being the source of all Western heresy. So when exactly did St. Augustine go from being "blessed" to the source of all Western heresy in the opinion of Fr. Michael? Fr. Michael is unstable in his beliefs, which is why he was shamed into publicly recanting his Darwinist beliefs in 2001:

Dear Fr Seraphim,

Please forward to Mr Moss:

The theory of biological evolution is something with which I wrestled for a long time. What I wrote in Anti-Christianity was my solution at the time. I had read the "hexaemera" of several Fathers and I did not find in them an explicit denial of evolution, of change in nature, the development of species --- except man. I flirted with the idea that Adam and Eve were set aside in Paradise to start again the human race. Were there not people when Christ was born, and was He not a new "beginning"? Besides, would not this situation explain from where Cain's wife came --- from the old race which had not been chosen to share in Adam's privilege. So, I wrote in the book that there was some truth to Darwinism. Since that time, however, I have come to see my error: if evolution is precisely as modern science presents it, then, it is wrong, because it does not take into account that death did not exist before Adam sinned. Animals did not kill each other until that moment. The "catastrophism" of the great Deluge explains the rocks and fossils to which scientists ascribe millions of years. I realized, too, that the cosmic model of the evolutionists cannot be tested, not by their own methods. I am not convinced that God created the world in 6 24 hour days; neither do the Fathers insist upon it. I am certain that the human race originated with one man and one woman; even as it is renewed by One Man and One Woman (the Church).

I hope this frees me from the charge of heresy.

Fr Michael

What is quite evident is that Fr. Michael Azkoul cannot even make up his own mind as to what he believes; at one time holding heretical beliefs on the origin of man, and then recanting; at one time in a public rejoinder calling Augustine "blessed", and another time the source of all Western heresy.

I was personally told by Archbishop Gregory (George) of Colorado almost twenty years ago that "Augustine of Hippo is not a saint." Hence, some Orthodox do deny the sainthood of Augustine, contrary to your assertion.

Abp. Gregory of Colorado is a schismatic and heretic, spawned from the same Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline that poisoned the mind of Fr. Michael Azkoul. Fr. Panteleimon of HTM was poisoned by the teachings of Fr. John Romanides. None of these charismatic figures are Orthodox in their beliefs.

2) Read St. Augustine's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1 Chapter 19:

"Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world...Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

Thank you for the citation. A nice quote from Blessed Augustine. But as I said before, this quote has absolutely nothing to do with justifying the Darwinist heresy. Anyone can see that on the face of it. St. Augustine, like all the holy fathers, did not subscribe in any way to the Evolutionist heresy.

[Cyprian]

Pravoslavnik responds: A fair question, deserving a considerate response. In the original Hebrew text of Genesis there are two different verbs used to describe the process of God's "creation" of the cosmos. One verb is used to describe multiple stages of the creation, including the creation of men from the earth-- literally, the "adamah." The other verb refers to the special, distinct creation of Adam-- wherein God breathed into Adam "and he became a living soul." The Genesis text goes on to describe the eventual marriage of Adam's sons to "the daughters of men." Who were these "men" and their "daughters?" One possible interpretation is that Homo Sapiens evolved from hominids--as seems evident from the scientific data-- and that Adam was the first Homo Sapien given an immortal soul-- denoted by the specific verb.

Pravoslavnik,

Please clarify for us what exactly it is that you wish to assert. Are you saying that not all men, but only some men trace their descent from Adam? Who specifically are you referring to when you speak of "the creation of men from the earth-- literally, the 'adamah'"? Whatever became of these "adamah" as you put it? Do you assert that some of the human race descends from these "adamah", and others from Adam, whom you claim was a distinct and separate creation?

One trait that is traditionally seen with heretics is that when asked to provide specific answers to direct questions, they engage in a plethora of diversionary tactics, never clearly and directly answering the questions put to them.

Why can't you simply give a clear and succinct answer as to how Christians are supposed to understand the creation of the first man?

[Cyprian]

On this thread, for instance, Cyprian specifically claimed that I was incorrect, even ridiculous, to suggest that any Orthodox Christians have claimed that St. Augustine of Hippo was not a saint.

Of course I never "specifically" stated any of the sort. You will not find these words "incorrect" and "ridiculous" in any of my posts to date on this thread. This is merely your characterization of the implications of my statements, which are not far off the mark, I should add. It is ridiculous and incorrect to suggest that any Orthodox Christian (of any repute) has claimed that St. Augustine was not a saint. Of course, one may frequently encounter certain Orthodox Christians who are ignorant of the traditions of the Church, who simply spout their mouths off about things they know nothing about, but this is certainly nothing new. This is why I specifically clarified that one will not find Orthodox Christians of "any repute" who espouse these things.

St. Augustine was enrolled in a list of Holy Fathers at the 5th Ecumenical Council. The saint was spoken of favorably and quoted in the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils as well. Anyone who denies the sanctity of St. Augustine contradicts the judgment of the holy fathers given in Council. They also set up themselves contrary to the opinions of the three holy pillars Sts. Photius the Great, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus.

If the likes of J. Romanides, G. Gabriel, M. Azkoul, Gregory of Colorado, L. Puhalo and others wish to stretch forth their necks contrary to the witness of the Holy Fathers that is their choice. But we are under no obligation to pretend that they are orthodox in their beliefs while they stubbornly oppose the traditions of the Church.

He also insisted that I give specific quotes about St. Augustine's admonishment to Orthodox Christians to avoid scandalizing the faithful by making inaccurate statements regarding matters of science. Yet, when I gave these specific references on both accounts, he issued no apology for slandering me.

I used the word please when simply asking you to cite the thoughts of St. Augustine you were referring to. Forgive me, but I do not see how I "slandered" you for merely asking you to give the specific citation. I was not asking you to cite the saint's words because I believed you were unable to, rather I simply didn't see what you were claiming St. Augustine said had to do with the subject at hand, and figured it might become clearer if instead of paraphrasing the saint, you simply posted the actual quotation found in his writings. To be honest, now that you have provided the specific citation, I still fail to see how it favors your case.

Similarly, on this thread, Joasia repeatedly insisted that I had not attempted to answer her question regarding evolutionary theory and the creation of the "soul." Yet, when I re-posted my original response of February 20th, she did not apologize for her error.

I can't see how you answered her question in any clear way. All I could gather from your answer is that it seems that you believe God created "men of the earth" (i.e. "adamah"), and then also created Adam in a separate and distinct manner. You have not been exactly forthcoming with us regarding the exact nature of these "adamah" and what ever became of them.