Evolution and an Orthodox Patristic understanding of Genesis

[Pensees]

Again, I can't stress enough, that an old earth would not prove evolution, nor would it negate the historicity of Genesis. I've lost nothing by the fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years before we did.

Peace.

[Myrrh]

I'm comfortable in believing that the earth is ancient, and find nothing in Scripture to indicate otherwise. When you learn more of the meaning of the original Hebrew, you'll come to agree.

why do so many Fathers disagree with you then?

I know the length of days isnt the most important issue, but i really see absolutely no reason to believe in an old earth, especially considering the universal concensus of the Fathers that the earth is roughly 7500 yrs old, as indicated on Church calendars.

In India they teach that the Vedas arrived around 10,000 years ago (from the north, in the direction of Russia; which as an aside, still has the Sanskrit name of God the Bestower of Blessings, Bog), and although the age of the Vedas and its origin has been disputed by Western scholars in the past, who couldn't imagine the Vedas were a) that ancient, and b) that indigenous, the ancient texts contain information which shows the traditional teaching is accurate. Recent archeological finds in coastal areas which are now under the sea also go back to that time showing a highly developed society existed. Stories of the flood are more than likely from this kind of time frame, the end of the ice age and volcanic eruptions bringing destruction to much of civilisation which existed around the coasts of India (and elsewhere, many share the story of the flood), causing a lot of this knowledge to be lost.

Adam is both "mankind" and a personal name in Genesis.

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/bo ... s/adam.htm

There are three different ways the Hebrew word "adam" is used in Genesis. "Adam" can just mean the generic term for mankind in general, or male in particular. In Genesis 1:27 the term "Adam" includes both male and female referring to all humanity. In Genesis Two "Adam" refers to a male in contrast to a female. The second use is a historical person named Adam. Hess states that not until chapter 4:25 is a historical person meant (Hess 1997, 31). The third use of "Adam" as a title, is seen in ancient Near Eastern parallels where the lu-sign for ruler means "man" (Hess 1990, 7).The Hebrew Adam and the Sumerian Adam are similar in usage. Both can mean humans or humanity (Hess 1993, 18 ). A.W. Sjoberg suggests that Adam, a-meaning arm or side, and dam meaning spouse, must be a Canaanite loanword in Sumerian (Ibid.). The Hebrew word eve means to live. The Sumerian logogram TI, meaning to enliven, is also a homonym for the word rib (Ibid., 20). As a general rule in the Hebrew, when Adam has a definite article, it means man or human; while Adam with no article is a personal name (Hamilton 1990, 159).

The name "Adam" in Genesis seems to be a word play with the name for "ground, adamah" from which man was formed (Hess 1997, 31). The Hebrew root word for "Adam" means "red" (Hess 1993, 15).

The historical Adam may be the same man named "Allum" the first king in the Sumerian King List, see The Weld-Blundell Prisim, who lived before the great flood. He was the first king of Eridu which may be the Biblical Eden. The Sumerians of Mesopotamia are the oldest known civilization. Adam is also equated with Adapa, the first sage of Eridu (Shea 1977, 27; Fischer 1996, 308). Shea explains that the "p" in Adapa could change to "m" in Hebrew giving the name Adama (Ibid., 37).

It appears that the Genesis account is a conflation of two ideas: the general account of mankind's arrival as in Genesis I and the formation of mankind in God's image and the beginning of self-reflection and knowledge in Genesis II, and an account of a historic Adam. There's been some interesting work recently by David Rohl who took the description of the Garden of Eden seriously as to detail, based on earlier work by someone whose name I can't recall, which placed it in Iran. One suggestion of his is that this was part of the change from hunter gathers to settled farming communities, but I think the chaos caused by the end of the ice-age could play a part too.

http://dooroodiran.blogspot.com/2003/12 ... rsian.html

Re: fathers who don't agree with an old earth story. The fathers were not infallible experts on everything. We are each of endowed with reason, but not with all knowledge. If those same fathers had known anything about Hindu Scriptures they might not have been so sure of themselves... A day and night of the Creator Brahma is calculated to be around 8,640,000,000 years according to their Scriptures.

Anyway, food for thought.

Myrrh

[尼古拉前执事]

Honest and independent-thinking scientists say that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, which is consonant with the Orthodox Church's chronolgy. For an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence pointing to a young earth, less than 10,000 years old, please refer to: http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c04.htm This webpage is well worth studying, memorizing, and bookmarking.

We are now in the year 7515 AM (anno mundi) since the creation, according to the Orthodox Christian reckoning. Our new year starts September 1, Julian reckoning. So the year 7516 AM will start on September 14, 2007, Gregorian reckoning (civil calendar).

[jckstraw72]

yeah i just got the St. Herman's calendar for 2007 and i was very pleased to see "the year 7515 since the creation of the world"

[Pensees]

I believe the fact that the universe and everything within it was created is more important than the date and time of its Creation.

As for the question of Creation vs. evolution, I agree with the conclusions of this popular Orthodox catechism:

American society as a whole, and certainly the authors of science textbooks, simply assume evolution to be a scientifically established fact. Those who do not accept the assumption are labeled as "fundamentalists", "obscurantists" and "intellectual cave men." It is not surprising therefore, that many religious thinkers, including a few Orthodox Christians, have accepted the evolutionary worldview and have tried to reconcile it with the biblical doctrine of creation.

Before we proceed any further, let us define exactly what is meant by evolution. I am not referring to the natural process whereby the characteristics of species are changed and adapted to the environments (micro evolution). I am, rather, referring to the theory according to which all life on earth evolved in a completely random process from the chance self-creation of living cells from a "pre-biotic soup" of elements at the dawn of the earth's history (macro evolution).

Evolution is a materialistic philosophy which seeks to explain the world solely in terms of itself, without any reference to a Creator. It should be obvious, therefore, that evolution is incompatible with the Orthodox Christian worldview. Indeed, in the words of fr. Seraphim Rose, "It is a rival thought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea" (Not of this world, p.512).

But how can the Orthodox Church disagree with scientific fact? Is this not the same as believing that the earth is flat or that it is the center of the solar system? Furthermore, could not God have used evolution to bring about the creation of man?

Theistic evolution, or the belief that God created and directs the evolutionary process, would be a plausible philosophy if there were any real, scientific proof of evolution. However, there is none. To be sure, there is ample proof of species changing and adapting to their environments, but no proof whatsoever that one classification of animal evolved into another classification.

Although literally hundreds of thousands of fossils have been discovered in the last 135 years, the same gaps in the fossil record remain today that so troubled Charles Darwin when he wrote "The Origin of Species". The novel evolutionary theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium, put forth by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is nothing more than an admission that the gaps in the fossil record are real and will not be filled in. In other words, there are no missing links.

Furthermore, the development of molecular biology has shown that living cells are far more complex than Darwin or anyone in the nineteenth century had imagined. The simplest living cell is a far more complicated machine than any human invention. In order to successfully duplicate itself, it must contain exactly the right acids and enzymes, each in its proper place, performing its assigned function, processing literally millions of pieces of information. Statistically, the chances of such a cell coming into being as a result of the random conglomeration of acids are astronomically remote. No molecular biologist has been able to come up with a plausible explanation for the emergence of necessary cell components such as DNA, much less for the emergence of living cells themselves.

If evolution has never actually been proven, why is it universally accepted as an established fact? The answer is quite simple. Modern science assumes that the world is explainable solely in terms of itself. Scientists may not be able to explain how random amino acids accidentally formed cells or how amphibians evolved into mammals, but they have no other choice but to accept the "truth" of evolution as long as they assume that the world explains itself. In other words, evolution must be true, because modern, scientific method needs it to be true.

It should be noted that this line of reasoning is not only circular, it is inherently religious. The a priori assumption that the world is explainable solely in terms of itself is itself not based upon empirical investigation. In 1993, noted evolutionist and philosopher of science Michael Ruse admitted as much before a scientific convocation called to debunk creationism. This admission came ten years after he had testified in an Arkansas court that evolution was not based on any preconceived philosophical notions.

The acceptance of evolution as fact has grave ramifications for human society. If man is nothing more than an evolved animal, then there is no rational basis for asserting the inherent dignity of man.

"Social Darwinism" was an attempt initiated by Darwin's own cousin to apply the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest to human society. Although it is common for evolutionists to disavow any relation with Social Darwinism, Darwin's own writings make it clear that he was sympathetic to the idea. Indeed, Social Darwinism is a perfectly logical extension of the theory of evolution.

The "science" of eugenics was born out of this movement. Eugenics was an attempt to create better humans through scientific methods of population control and selective breeding. Widely practiced in the United Kingdom and the United States in the early part of the 20th century, eugenics became the "scientific" basis for Hitler's attempt to create a Master Race.

Hitler's initial attempts at population control (the forced sterilization of the mentally retarded) and selective breeding (laws regulating mixed marriages) were based on existing laws in force in Britain and the U.S. These programs ultimately led to extermination camps for pure-blooded Germans.

Fifty years after the end of World War II, little has changed except for the sophistication of the methods. Abortion as population control, genetic engineering, and designer sperm banks are all the result of a materialistic worldview, which assumes that man is nothing more than an evolved animal. Why then, should man not try to "improve" himself by altering his genetic makeup? Why, indeed, should one assume that all men are equal?

The Orthodox doctrine of creation is wholly incompatible with such an approach. It is an unalterable dogma of the Orthodox Church that each and every human being, from the moment of conception, is a unique and unrepeatable person created in the image of God. Furthermore, because man is created in the image of the Holy Trinity, human nature itself is one and indivisible. Each human being possesses and sums up in himself the entirety of the human race. Therefore, all men are equal, regardless of their race, mental capacities, or situation in life.

The theory of evolution is not simply a matter for scientists. It has a direct effect on how we view the world and man's place in it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all Orthodox Christians to clearly understand the issues involved.

The Faith, Clark Carlton, p.73, Regina Orthodox Press, 1997

Peace.

[尼古拉前执事]

St. Ambrose:

The shape of the circles of years to come has been given form by the
first dawn of the world. Based on that precedent, the succession of
years would tend to arise, and at the commencement of each year new
seedlings would be produced, as the Lord God has said: Let the earth
bring forth the green herb and such as may seed, and the fruit tree,
yielding fruit after its kind. And immediately the earth produced the
green herb and the fruit-bearing tree (Gen. 1:11). By this very fact
both the constant mildness of divine Providence and the speed in
which the earth germinates favor for us the hypothesis of a vernal
period.

For, although it was in the power of God to ordain creation at
any time whatsoever and for earthly nature to obey, so that amid
winter's ice and frost earth might bear and produce fruits under the
fostering hand of His celestial power, He refrained.

It was not in His eternal plan that the land held fast in the rigid
bonds of frost should suddenly be released to bear fruits and that
blooming plants should mingle with frosts unsightly.

Wherefore, in order to show that the creation of the world took
place in the spring, Scripture says: This month shall be to you the beginning of months, it is for you the first in the months of the year (Ex. 12:2), calling the first month the springtime. It was fitting that the beginning of the year be the beginning of generation and that generation itself be fostered by the gentler breezes. The tender germs of matter would be unable to endure exposure to the bitter cold of winter or to the
torrid heat of summer.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Sixth Psalm, Concerning the Octave:

To clarify these matters, I will now set forth their meaning. The
time of this life in the first constitution of creation is fulfilled
in one week consisting of seven days. The creation of beings began on
the first day, and the completion of creation terminated on the
seventh day. Scripture says that the first beings were created on one
day [Gen 1.5] and on the second day the second beings were created,
and so forth until the sixth day when all the rest were created. The
seventh day is the end of creation and encompasses within itself the
time coextensive with the creation of this world. Therefore, as no
other heaven was made except this one, and no parts of the world were
added to those which were made at the beginning, but creation was
established in itself while remaining in its dimensions without
augmentation or diminution, thus no other time existed except that
which was determined with creation, for the nature of time is
circumscribed in the week of days. When we measure time with days,
beginning from the first and closing with the seventh again, we
return to the first day. We always measure the totality of time
through the circle of seven days until things endowed with motion
pass away and the flux of the world's movement ceases.

St. Basil the Great, Hexaemeron, Homily II:

1. "And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night."
   Since the birth of the sun, the light that it diffuses in the air,
   when shining on our hemisphere, is day; and the shadow produced by
   its disappearance is night. But at that time it was not after the
   movement of the sun, but following this primitive light spread abroad
   in the air or withdrawn in a measure determined by God, that day came
   and was followed by night.

"And the evening and the morning were the first day." Evening is then
the boundary common to day and night; and in the same way morning
constitutes the approach of night to day. It was to give day the
privileges of seniority that Scripture put the end of the first day
before that of the first night, because night follows day: for,
before the creation of light, the world was not in night, but in
darkness. It is the opposite of day which was called night, and it
did not receive its name until after day. Thus were created the
evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a
night, and afterwards no more says day and night, but calls them both
under the name of the more important: a custom which you will find
throughout Scripture. Everywhere the measure of time is counted by
days, without mention of nights. "The days of our years," says the
Psalmist. "Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been,"
said Jacob, and elsewhere "all the days of my life." Thus under the
form of history the law is laid down for what is to follow.

And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture
say "one day the first day"? Before speaking to us of the second, the
third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to
call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore
says "one day," it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and
night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four
hours fill up the space of one day--we mean of a day and of a night;
and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal
length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe
their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure
the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the
heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every
time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy
the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one
day.

St. Maximus the Confessor, Four Hundred Chapters on Love, Fourth
Century:

1. Seek the reason why God created, for this is knowledge. But do
   not seek how and why he only recently created, for that question does
   not fall under your mind since while some divine things are
   comprehended by men others are not. As one of the saints has
   said, "Unbridled speculation can push you over the precipice."

[Pensees]

Again, please do not forget the church fathers who held that each "day" of Genesis represented a thousand years or an indefinite period of time.