Metropolitan Kallistos Ware Preaches Evolution Heresy

[Maria]

The way I reconcile it is by not equating the causal relationship between sin and death with a rigid, temporal sequence. Basically, death in the world came about retroactively as a causal consequence of man's sin. Maybe it's a stretch, but since it's all mysterious anyway (why should the whole world be cursed because of Adam, for instance?), I'm not too bothered intellectually. Unfortunately, I can't get myself to buy the notion that Biblical creation is literally true in every particular; the evidence is just too much against it. Possibly it's all a great deception and actually the evidence goes the other way, but I'm underwhelmed by creationist science, to put it mildly, and you have to wonder why God wouldn't have arranged the evidence to point much more clearly to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I don't see the scientific theory of evolution as a matter of faith, so if you find you can't believe in it, I don't see any reason, spiritually, why you should. Maybe we could have a discussion of the scientific arguments in another thread. But I guess I wouldn't agree that Met Kallistos is a heretic simply by virtue of accepting evolution.

I believe neither in evolution nor in "creationism" because the so-called "creationists" believe that God created the world in seven days, even though the Bible does say that a day is like a thousand years. However, man created time or chronos, while God's time is eternal.

I simply rejoice and give thanksgiving for the creation of our universe, our world, and ourselves. It is God's Great Mystery. Therefore, I look forward to Heaven where we will give thanks eternally for all of God's good gifts to us.

[Matthew]

I made a good argument that was entirely ignored. So I guess we can't go much further on the matter.

You have contradicted the Mosaic timeline which testimony Christ confirmed in the Gospel ("If they will not believe Moses, neither will they believe if one should rise from the dead"), and you have contradicted the witness of Apostle Paul and the Holy Fathers who are all agreed that Sin took place FIRST and THEN Death entered the world through sin. And hence, AFTER the fall the flowers grew thorns, the snakes and animals became carnivorous etc. Why were these AFTER the fall, but death was retro-active? You divide up the results of sin arbitrarily into some that were activated retroactively upon a sinless creation billions of years upon innocent creatures including humanoids you say were prehuman men and women. This is completely unacceptable. If it all seems reasonable to you, I guess you are truly bulletproof in your position and there is no amount of reasoning we can do together to change your iron clad faith in your present conclusions, dear brother. I feel disappointed.

[jgress]

I made a good argument that was entirely ignored. So I guess we can't go much further on the matter.

You have contradicted the Mosaic timeline which testimony Christ confirmed in the Gospel ("If they will not believe Moses, neither will they believe if one should rise from the dead"), and you have contradicted the witness of Apostle Paul and the Holy Fathers who are all agreed that Sin took place FIRST and THEN Death entered the world through sin. And hence, AFTER the fall the flowers grew thorns, the snakes and animals became carnivorous etc. Why were these AFTER the fall, but death was retro-active? You divide up the results of sin arbitrarily into some that were activated retroactively upon a sinless creation billions of years upon innocent creatures including humanoids you say were prehuman men and women. This is completely unacceptable. If it all seems reasonable to you, I guess you are truly bulletproof in your position and there is no amount of reasoning we can do together to change your iron clad faith in your present conclusions, dear brother. I feel disappointed.

Christ wasn't talking about the literal interpretation of Genesis, but about how Moses and the prophets witnessed to Him. And I believe that the doctrine at stake here is the causal connection between sin and death. I fail to see how the temporal sequence itself is of doctrinal import. And I never said I believed that the flowers grew thorns after the Fall, but animals died before (you have fossilized flower thorns that pre-date humans). And now you are resorting to vitriol by calling my views "unacceptable"! I don't think your views are "unacceptable"; silly, maybe, but I think we should be able to talk about this freely.

If all these non-human creatures are "innocent", why were they punished along with Adam? Genesis clearly states that only Adam and Eve transgressed, so it defies reason that all animals should become mortal simply because of what Adam and Eve did. What would make far more sense would be that only Adam and Eve should become mortal, and the rest of the world remain immortal.

I made that point not to make fun of Genesis, but to try to explain that the story doesn't make "sense" in any case, regardless of how we interpret it. There's a mystery going on that we can't explain. Evolution can't explain it, and doesn't purport to. We don't really know why the world is full of death and corruption. Genesis tells us that it is related to our own sins, but doesn't explain how. Likewise, science doesn't tell us why the world is full of death and corruption; we just know that it is.

[Maria]

I made a good argument that was entirely ignored. So I guess we can't go much further on the matter.

You have contradicted the Mosaic timeline which testimony Christ confirmed in the Gospel ("If they will not believe Moses, neither will they believe if one should rise from the dead"), and you have contradicted the witness of Apostle Paul and the Holy Fathers who are all agreed that Sin took place FIRST and THEN Death entered the world through sin. And hence, AFTER the fall the flowers grew thorns, the snakes and animals became carnivorous etc. Why were these AFTER the fall, but death was retro-active? You divide up the results of sin arbitrarily into some that were activated retroactively upon a sinless creation billions of years upon innocent creatures including humanoids you say were prehuman men and women. This is completely unacceptable. If it all seems reasonable to you, I guess you are truly bulletproof in your position and there is no amount of reasoning we can do together to change your iron clad faith in your present conclusions, dear brother. I feel disappointed.

Remember, according to earth scientists, our primitive earth only had perennial herbs and trees as the climate was very temperate. There was no need for plants to bloom, produce seeds, and then die. We have grasses here in Southern California that do not die. They reproduce by sending roots everywhere which sprout in diverse places. They do not need to seed, even though they do flower and go to seed.

Then something like a huge asteroid hit this planet shaking its very core and producing terrible earthquakes and active volcanoes which caused huge plumes of vapor to rise into the skies causing massive flooding. The impact possibly took the earth out of its orbit for a time, and gave it a wobble - the Chandler Wobble. This changed our day and night cycles and gave us our seasons. Remember that Greenland, that almost frozen wasteland, was once fertile land with abundant grapevines and vast valleys filled with grasslands to feed tremendous herds of animals. In England, they found skeletal remains of rhinos, which are a tropical animal and also a carnivore, just as deadly as a crocodile when in water.

Did this asteroid hit the earth upon Adam's sin and thus bring death into the world along with the seasons and annual plants that die every year? With colder climates, animals would need greater stores of energy. Fat and animal meat provide enormous amounts of energy during cold climates that grass cannot usually provide. However, mountain goats found on the frozen slopes of the Alps and in Scandinavia prove that vegetarian animals can survive in frigid climates. They just grow more luxurious coats.

[Maria]

If all these non-human creatures are "innocent", why were they punished along with Adam? Genesis clearly states that only Adam and Eve transgressed, so it defies reason that all animals should become mortal simply because of what Adam and Eve did. What would make far more sense would be that only Adam and Eve should become mortal, and the rest of the world remain immortal.

This position would make good sense except that if animals were to remain immortal, then we would be overridden, unless these animals were to go to an animal heaven. :mrgreen:

There's a mystery going on that we can't explain. Evolution can't explain it, and doesn't purport to. We don't really know why the world is full of death and corruption. Genesis tells us that it is related to our own sins, but doesn't explain how. Likewise, science doesn't tell us why the world is full of death and corruption; we just know that it is.

With this I can agree, Jonathan. Life is a Holy Mystery. Even in Heaven, we will still be confronted with the Holy Mystery surrounding God's Holy Essence, which will remain inexplicable.

[jgress]

Forgive me, I shouldn't have said your views are "silly", Icxypion. I used to have the same views myself, and they certainly made sense to me at the time.

[Maria]

Forgive me, I shouldn't have said your views are "silly", Icxypion. I used to have the same views myself, and they certainly made sense to me at the time.

My dad, an astrophysicist and chemical engineer, used to believe in evolution when he was in college. In fact, he became agnostic. Then later in life, he reverted to Christianity and became a creationist. Finally, he saw that there was some faulty reasoning with the creationists, so he rejected both the theory of evolution and that of creationism, preferring to accept Genesis by faith and not to question the Holy Mystery of Life.