Instantaneous Creation or Evolution? Genesis wins.

[jgress]

I always see that same paragraph of St Nectarius quoted on this subject. Can anyone provide some more context?

As to the passage of St John of Kronstadt, he seems rather to be arguing against those who claim to "see the Lord's mind" based on their study of geology and paleontology. That is clearly wrong, but it doesn't invalidate the studies themselves, which are just theories of chronology and descent. Natural science can only provide descriptions and explanations of natural processes; it can't give answers to deeper questions of purpose or meaning in life and the universe.

Bishop Nikolai has not been recognized as a saint by my church, so I'm not sure what authority he has. Interestingly, he also said some pretty liberal things and was something of an ecumenist for a time.

The rest of what you quoted is still just your private interpretation of what these Fathers said. None of the Fathers explicitly mention evolution or Darwin: you're the one who makes the connection explicit. So that's why I prefer to wait for our bishops to consider the topic and make their own pronouncements.

[Cyprian]

Ahh, the I prefer to wait for my bishops to make a pronouncement evasion. What are you all waiting for? Do you even know what view your bishop holds regarding Darwinistic evolution? Surely you must know what his thoughts are about the subject? In all the years you have been with him, has it never come up in conversation, or in a sermon, or in some context? If not, what is preventing you from simply asking him point blank what the Church's teaching is? If your bishops are divided or equivocal or ambivalent or ashamed to share their views on the matter, I can see why everyone is sitting on their hands doing nothing.

It reflect poorly on clergy when they do not give a clear simple confession of their beliefs, and play games.

In the absence of a simple yea or nay, I have to assume your bishops (whomever they are at present) believe the same as you do.

[jgress]

Ahh, the I prefer to wait for my bishops to make a pronouncement evasion. What are you all waiting for? Do you even know what view your bishop holds regarding Darwinistic evolution? Surely you must know what his thoughts are about the subject? In all the years you have been with him, has it never come up in conversation, or in a sermon, or in some context? If not, what is preventing you from simply asking him point blank what the Church's teaching is? If your bishops are divided or equivocal or ambivalent or ashamed to share their views on the matter, I can see why everyone is sitting on their hands doing nothing.

It reflect poorly on clergy when they do not give a clear simple confession of their beliefs, and play games.

In the absence of a simple yea or nay, I have to assume your bishops (whomever they are at present) believe the same as you do.

I thought doctrine was defined by bishops in council, not individual bishops offering their personal opinions, and certainly not by unbaptized outsiders presuming to teach authoritatively on behalf of the entire Church.

[Lydia]

A compelling argument against evolution is the existence of death. The bible explicitly teaches that death came into the world through Adam. If there was no death before Adam, how could anything evolve?
All creatures would have had to exist contemporaneously; from modern man to all his evolutionary antecedants. The same would hold true for all living creatures. There is no evidence for this at all. If we accept the teaching of the bible, we must reject evolution.

[jgress]

A compelling argument against evolution is the existence of death. The bible explicitly teaches that death came into the world through Adam. If there was no death before Adam, how could anything evolve?
All creatures would have had to exist contemporaneously; from modern man to all his evolutionary antecedants. The same would hold true for all living creatures. There is no evidence for this at all. If we accept the teaching of the bible, we must reject evolution.

Evolutionary theory assumes that death existed before humans so this is not a problem for the theory. The paleontological record certainly seems to support the existing of organisms living and dying, and evolving, long before humans. One can insist that despite the evidence from geology, biology, genetics, paleontology etc that there was no evolution and the world is only 7,000 years old, but that is not an argument I'm willing or able to make. Note that this does not mean I believe that science tells us what we need to know about Paradise or the Fall, but my own opinion is we cannot know those things through science alone. This is how I understand the quotes of the saints that Cyprian cited, though he interprets them differently. We have the Church to teach us about the things necessary for salvation precisely because we cannot do so on our own, using only our unguided reason.

If a council of bishops comes out and declares that I must not believe in any sort of evolution and must accept the world is only 7,000 years old, I'll certainly reconsider my position, but until then I'm not persuaded by Cyprian's arguments or those like them.