Evolution and an Orthodox Patristic understanding of Genesis

[Pravoslavnik]

Dear C.v.,

Code: Select all

     Thanks again for repeating yourself once more again on the subject of paleobiology and Darwinian theory.  I can tell that you have learned a great deal from our rather extensive discussion here during the past few months, but you never answered my questions.  Did you find an "Orthodox defence" of Newtonian laws of gravitation, or of Einstien's theory of relativity, to parallel your request for an "Orthodox defence" of Darwinian theory regarding the origin of species?
       Incidentally, just a brief brain teaser for you, since you have demonstrated such a profound grasp of paleobiology as a basis for teaching us about these subjects.  Why do you think that there are so many extant or recently extinct marsupials--from rather diverse genii, including canines--on the Australian continent, and in Tasmania, when marsupials in the rest of the world are limited to only one species?  For that matter, why are there no duck-billed platypii, kiwies, or kangaroos anywhere else?  Any thoughts?

[Cyprian]

We don't need to defend that zionist, communist, racist, antisemite, plagiarist quack Albert Eintstein. You put forward the talmudist Albert Einstein as an authoritative source for your tripe.

Are you aware that Albert Eintstein in a signed letter (which I have seen with my own eyes at an exhibit), said the earth was about 1 billion years old?

Prior to that, in the 19th century the consensus was that the earth was about 70 million years old. A century prior to that some said it was 70,000 years old.

Like any fish story, the tale just keeps growing bigger, and bigger, and bigger.

Perhaps not too many years from now the earth will be said to be 6.66 billion years old?

And as for your droning on about Darwin, do you know what the full title to his book is?

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Darwin was a talmudic racist. He hatched his theory to justify claims to superiority of the white race.

[Pravoslavnik]

We don't need to defend that zionist, communist, racist, antisemite, plagiarist quack Albert Eintstein.????

Dear Cyprian,

Code: Select all

    This has to be one of the most oxymoronic, ad hominem diatribes I have ever read.  No, we don't need to defend Albert Einstein.  His character was quite beyond reproach, and a worthy example for us all. In fact, Einstein's estimation of the age of earth was not far wrong, and certainly far closer to the truth than previous estimates, as we now know from the analysis of strontium-rubidium ratios in rocks, which give a fairly precise dating of 3.5 billion years for the age of the earth.

      As for the Fundamentalist critique of Darwin, I take it that the scriptures, properly interpreted by them, imply something like this:

    "Then the Lord said, 'Let us instantaneously create the four-footed creatures to crawl upon the face of the earth, each according to its kind, but in Tasmania and Australia, let us create them-- rodents, canines, and diverse others of their own kind--with marsupial pouches...."

[stumbler]

Pravo - This article might be of interest to you, and is certainly related to our discussion here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ounce.html

It seems that at least one theory of physics suggests that before the "big bang," there was infinite energy, which could be a description of God himself.

Newer theories have other suggestions, which would impact our Biblical understanding of creation quite differently.

[ChristosVoskrese]

Dear Pravoslavnik,

There are many animals that are only found in certain countries. How does this prove we came from a rock 3 billion years ago?

As for an Orthodox defence of Newton's laws of gravity or Einstein's theory of relativity, neither of these are in conflict with the Holy Scriptures. Evolution is a direct attack on the Creator. It was created to show how the world and all life could have possibly started without God.

What I meant when I talked about an Orthodox defence of theistic evolution was this: You accuse me of using non-Orthodox sources to prove Creationism, yet you use non-Orthodox sources to prove evolutionism.

A couple of questions: If you believe that the soul was created at a certain time after billions of years of evolution, then how can you expect an animal with no soul to raise a child that was given a soul by God?

Or do you expect that all the homo sapiens, that lived during that moment, were miraculously given a soul in an instant?

[Pravoslavnik]

C.v.,

Code: Select all

   Evolutionary theory is not an ideology.  It is a brilliant scientific theory which offers a rather remarkable explanation for the complex data of paleobiology.  Yes, various species throughout the planet are adapted to specific environments.  But this, in itself, does not explain the data regarding the unusual incidence of marsupial pouches in diverse mammalian species in Tasmania and Australia.  Why is it that even a canine species in that region, the Tasmanian Wolf, has a marsupial pouch?  Could it be that a common ancestor of these diverse species--geographically isolated from its international relatives like the North American opossum-- had genetic programming for a marsupial pouch?  Or did God just, somewhat arbitrarily, decide to create multiple marsupial species in Tasmania via an uncharacteristically non-uniformitarian fiat?

   You maintain that Darwinian theory conflicts with Biblical accounts of creation, despite the fact that I have presented very extensive arguments to the contrary, based upon a relativistic concept of cosmological time.  Where does it say in the scriptures that God did not create the universe and life on earth through long-term evolutionary processes?  Explain.  You also argue that other scientific theories do not conflict with the scriptures.  Yet, I will remind you that there was a time when many sincere, devout Christians condemned Galileo and Copernicus for their theories regarding  planetary motion and the heliocentric model of the solar system.  How could a true Christian believe that the earth was not the center of the universe?  Or that the earth is a sphere?

   How do you define "soul," and how do the Holy Fathers define the term?  I never claimed that God created the body and soul of Adam separately.  Please do not misquote me on this.  I said that the specific man Adam--as opposed to the "adamah" (homo sapiens)--was, according to St. Seraphim of Sarov, the first man into whom God breathed His Holy Spirit.  The Holy Fathers distinguish between the soul of man and a noetic faculty of the soul which is based upon the Divine Archetype of the Christ, and which enables man to exist in communion with God.  Through disobedience Adam was cast out of the mystical paradise of Eden and became mortal.  Through His glorious Incarnation, Christ God restored for us the possibility of redemption and communion with the Triune God following the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Church on the first Pentecost.

[Pravoslavnik]

Dear Stumbler,

Code: Select all

   Thanks for the NG reference on the "Big Bounce."  I was under the impression that the string theory had succeeded as a physical "theory of everything," but was not really testable.  If you are interested in the Big Bang theories in relation to [i]Genesis[/i], you should read physicist Gerald Schroeder's [i]The Science of God[/i].  If Schroeder's Hebrew translations are accurate, it is rather astounding how precisely the text of [i]Genesis[/i] fits with modern astrophysical theories of cosmogeny.  Of course, Hebrew sages have always believed that the Torah mystically encodes the entire history of the world, which is why Jewish scribes were taught for centuries that they could not alter a single letter of the Torah without endangering the planet!  What is equally astounding to me is that many of the new  complex, lengthy equidistant letter sequences (ELS's) found in the Old Testament contain definite references to Jesus as the Christ and Messiah!  The most profound and statistically improbable of these have come from Exodus 20, Psalm 22, and Isaiah 53.   Unfortunately, some mathematically unsound garbage has been published about "Bible codes," which have caused widespread skepticism. The best book I have read on this subject is Edwin Sherman's [i]Bible Code Bombshell[/i], and many of his findings are posted on his [i]Bible Code Digest[/i] website.  He is not Orthodox, but he is a very good statistician.