Zanzibar Fishermen Catch Ancient Fish
Ed. (Banescu) Another “living fossil” discovery pokes holes in the secular Macro Evolutionary theory.
AP | Ali Sultan | July 16, 2007
ZANZIBAR, Tanzania - Fishermen have caught a rare and endangered fish, the coelacanth, off the coast of the Indian Ocean archipelago of Zanzibar, a researcher said on Monday.
The find makes Zanzibar the third place in Tanzania where fishermen have caught the coelacanth, a heavy-bodied, many-finned fish with a three-lobed tail that was thought extinct until it was caught in 1938 off the coast of South Africa. Since then two types of coelacanth have been caught in five other countries: Comoros, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique, according to African Coelacanth Ecosystem Program.
“Fishermen informed us that they caught a strange fish in their nets. We rushed to Nungwi (the northern reaches of Zanzibar) to find it’s a coelacanth, a rare fish thought to have become extinct when it disappeared from fossil records 80 million years ago,” said Nariman Jiddawi of the Institute of Marine Sciences, which is part of the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania’s commercial capital.
. . . more
Monday 16 Jul 2007 | Banescu | Intelligent design |
Sure is an ugly looking fish.
If a living thing, especially one that lived in water (the “craddle” of life), is capable of surviving in a flawless form for 360 million years, having undergone very little or no change then this presents the Macro Evolutionists with strong evidence that seriously challenges the gradual evolution model that supposedly turns simple organisms into progressively complex ones.
Furthemore, this latest “living fossil” fish is far from being the only example to demonstrate this. There are many other plants and animals, including the mighty cockroach, lice, and the Horseshoe Crab, that exhibit no differences from their original states, that first appeared millions or even hundreds of millions of years ago.
Here’s a link that includes just a small sampling of the various living fossils out there: http://www.newcreationism.org/Living_Fossils.html
Fr., he was so ugly that nothing else wanted to eat him
Re #1 and #3
The ugliness might explain this guy’s survival but it makes the reproduction part even more of a mystery.
Coelancanth couples always travel together, that way they don’t have to kiss each other goodbye
Chris has a link to http://www.dinofish.com/
If you click on biology & behaviour you will see a newborn coelacanth pup — isn’t he cute
Chris B - The exception does not disprove the rule, and this species does not challenge the theory of evolution.
The Coelancanth may have resided in an environment, deep ocean, where evolution occurred early on and later rare random mutations did not confer a significant enough advantage for an even newer form of the species to replace the older form. The fact that strains of viruses immune to antibiotics continue to evolve, for example, mean that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is alive and well.
To Dean:
I cannot discuss very much about Science things, but based on what you have just written, I am wondering. Would you timetravel with me back to an Orthodox Education Class I was once in, because I am interested in your take on what I heard.
First, briefly — this is how we arrived there. We responded to a call. Which was written on the masthead of AGAIN magazine (in the old days.) “A Call for the people of God to return to their roots in Orthodoxy once AGAIN.”
We got pretty far, we became chrismated, and then one day we are in this class. My toddler is on my lap when the Provost of the [state name withheld] University Medical School states that: ” [man] has descended from apes.” The priest gave this comment a pass.
What do you say?
Dean, I was not aware the Macro Evolution is supposed to “pause” in deep water! Also, notice I clearly stated MACRO Evolutionary theory, not Micro Evolutionary fact. I am well aware of and agree that Micro Evolution, otherwise known as adaptation to one’s environment, has been shown to occur and does happen with regularity in all organisms.
Talking about minor adjustments and “evolution” within a microorganism and within a species (ie: the acient shark, vs. modern shark, still a shark except smaller with slight variations in shape, etc.. but it did not turn into a dolphin or giraffe…) and extrapolating that into Macro Evolutionary proof is dishonest and a completely false analogy. Huge difference between viruses and bacteria developing resistance to drugs, and carbon and hyrdrogen atoms forming cells, who then turned into ameobas, who eventually turned into frogs given enough time.
Dean and Nancy L.
St. Athanasius: “In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included”
The philosophical naturalism underlying macro-evolution is not modern or new, it is pagan and quite ancient.
Dean, you cannot be Epicurean and Christian. You cannot be Marxist and Christian. You cannot subscribe to any type of determinism and be Christian.
Theistic evolution is no better as it is essentially a combination of neo-Platonism and Deism.
Every single one of the arugments against the Christian understanding on the matters disscussed here recently from homosexuality to euthanasia to this come from a place of denying the existence of the human being as created in the image and likeness of God. They come from a place that accepts the shattered, fallen image as “natural” and only want to shatter the image further out of pride, slavery to the passions and malice.
Nancy - I firmly believe, as we recite in the Creed, the God is the Creator of all things visible and invisible. However, this does not mean that evolution could not have been part of God’s plan or process. It’s possible that God’s intervention in our creation may have occurred before the apearance of our species on earth.
Francis Collins, the scientist who lead the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian writes:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/index.html
As Orthodox Christian’s we also believe that God is beyond all human understanding and comprehension. It is enough for us to know that God is the radiant core of all the goodness and love in the universe and that He gave his only begotten son so that we could attain salvation.
It is unneccesary, and frankly a bit ridiculous, to suggest that our faith in God depends on us believing that Adam and Eve rode around the Garden of Eden on the backs of dinosaurs like some fundementalists believe.
Michael,
Excellent point! That’s precisely what this is. C.S. Lewis in his essay “The Funeral of a Great Myth” said it quite eloquently:
Dean, if I may summarize what is communitcated to me from your post. Belief has no consequence in the “real world”. There is no way to know what God is really like and by extension what we are really like so we have to rely on empiricism and rationalism. Anyone one who believes otherwise is a closet fundamentalist since there is no explanation except the physical anyway.
The fact that the path you suggest leads to the denial of the teaching and experience of the Church is a matter of no consequence since it is only a comforting belief anyway.
You’re just like Jim, but at least he has some excuse. You have none.
Let me go over it again.
Marco-evolution stems from pagan materialism philosophically since it is founded on the assumption that matter is self-existent and self-organizing. One cannot accept such ideas and remain a Christian.
Theistic evolution is a vain attempt to have your cake and eat it too–to serve two masters. It is neo-Platonic and Deist in content and therefore incompatible with the teachings of the Church. Ultimately theistic evoloution is a denial of both the neccessity for and the reality of the Incarnation (the means of our salvation).
Sorry, Dean but you are once again wholly and compeltely wrong. It is instructive to me that in most of your posts you do not appeal to Orthodox sources at all, everything else but. It does not appear that you reach to the Church for understanding and sustenance.
Michael: If I may refer to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Crysostom, an impeccable Orthodox source:
http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
How do you interpret “ineffable, beyond comprehension, invisible, beyond understanding”?
I interpret it to mean that there are details of God’s nature and existence that are beyond our understanding and that it is futile and unnecessary to even try and understand. Into this “futile and unneccesary” category i would put the exact method God used to create the world. We don’t need to know how God created the universe, just that he did.
We don’t need to know how God created the universe, just that he did.
But I thought you said:
“It’s possible that God’s intervention in our creation may have occurred before the apearance of our species on earth.”
And then go on to affirm evolution as the origin of man
Which is it?
Clarification is in order: Our faith does not depend on knowing exactly how God created the universe, just that He did.
Clarification is in order: Our faith does not depend on knowing exactly how God created the universe, just that He did.
Actually, this is not quite true. You see, the manner in which something is created is related to what that something is. Would you say Dean, that art is wholly separate from it’s creator? Something beautiful (say, a painting or a statue) is separate from who created it, and how he created it?
Even materialist recognize this, when they look at a beautiful mountain scene or a sublime rock formation in a cavern, they express “wonder” and “awe” at the “blind forces” that created it - why is that? Thus, they see a beauty in the creation that is itself reflective of the beauty of the creator (in this case a material, “blind” creator).
Also…
We know allot about how the creation was created, and how it fell, and how it will be redeemed. This information is in basic conflict with a neo-epicurean (see Michael’s quote of St. Athanasius above) account.
If the two are in conflict, how do you resolve it?
Dean,
That’s true. However, just as we rely on our God-given reason, intelligence, and inquisite nature to reverse engineer God’s creation, we need to make sure that the laws and scientific principles we do discover are indeed correct and accurately and consistently reveal the hand of the Creator. We apply stringent parameters in physics, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, and other scientific areas of study. We require solid proof and repeatable experiments to verify and confirm any theory that seeks “law” status.
Unfortunately, the Macro Evolutionary “scientists” are flauting those standards by using the data and experiments which only conclusively and scientifically show adaptation to the environment (Micro Evolution) as existing in organisms at all levels of existence and across millions of years, and claiming that it proves Macro Evolution. Yet, very few of their peers bother to hold them accountable. If these folks want to gain credibility and insist their “theory” is “law”, they have a very long way to go. Unfortunately, our secular culture and most of the scientific community continues obfuscate the issues by referring to (Macro) Evolution as fact, in effect perpetuating a fraud. I don’t know about you but I certainly don’t like being lied to, and I’m certainly not going to trust pseudo-scientists who pick and chose their data and fill in the gaps in their theories with wishful thinking, avoidance of contrary evidence, and demonization of critics rather than relying on objective data and verifiable experiments.
Mr. Banescu says:
“Dean,
Clarification is in order: Our faith does not depend on knowing exactly how God created the universe, just that He did.
That’s true.”
I do not believe this statement of Dean’s to be true. Putting aside the “exactly” for a moment, how something is created is organically related to the why, when, what, and most importantly, by whom. Something created personally, can not at the same time be created impersonally. This is where Dean/materialists do not understand the implications of Epicurean philosophy and metaphysics. You can not add “persona”, to “impersonal”, and get “Christian evolution”. Christian evolutionism is a contradiction. Like Chesterton said, God my transcend logic, but he never simply breaks it (paraphrasing here).
The rest of your post stands on its own…
Dean, the main point of my post was not the use (in your most recent post, misuse of Orthodox sources). It is the fundamental divide between the philosophical materialism (neo-Epicurianism) that is the foundation for evolutionary biology and traditional Christianity.
One cannot be a Christian, especially an Orthdox one and accept that matter is self-existent and self-organizing. Once the assumption that matter is self-existent and self-organizing is abandoned, the entire structure of the neo-Epicurian macro-evolutionists belief collapses.
Let me remind you, God is Incarnate. “Submit yourself all ye nations, for God is with us!” The oxymoron “theistic evolution” ultimately denies the fact that our Lord did not shuck off our human nature upon Ascension. He is still fully human and fully divine therefore intimately involved in His creation. Our salvation and the healing of the rest of creation is dependent upon that. You would not have been able to receive the “Seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit” and even be in the Church otherwise.
Icons that are not created in accord with canonical rules are not to be used by the faithful or the Church. The how is just as important as the why and the what.
God says, “Let there be….” and it is. Our being is contingent only upon His Word, not on anything else in creation. So it is for every other thing, even the rocks. We, however, are the only creation into which He breathed a living soul and formed in His image and likeness. To assert that we “descended from the apes” is simply not Christian.
St. Gregory of Palamas in the 14th century rather nicely put to bed, for Orthodox, the fallacy that God cannot be reached, but only thought about (which your misuse of the quote from the Divine Liturgy implies when left to stand alone and out of context). God is wholly other and wholly unknowable in His essence, yet He reveals Himself to us in His energies which are uncreated. That is why we can have a deep, intimate, communion with the unknowable God that is real and personal. In case you’ve forgotten, the Divine Liturgy is all about creating a link between the known and the unknown, the seen and the unseen, the created and the uncreated that allows us to step into His Kingdom and be with Our Lord, God, and Savior. It is real, that is why the saints warn us to approach the Cup with reverance, humility, and repentance lest we eat and drink damnation to ourselves.
You have immersed yourself in western dichotomies to such and extent you fail to grasp the antinomical nature of the Orthodox, so forget what I said, go back to using western sources and apply yourself to the heart of my post, not the window dressing.
Note 20. Michael writes:
Most people think that random evolution means the physical laws that guided the self-organization of matter preexisted that self-organization. But if this were true then order, and not randomness, was already at work in the universe.
If the universe was completely random however, then the laws must have emerged out of the matter, and not the other way around. The only way to avoid this contradiction is by positing a big bang, which is to say we don’t really know how the universe began.
I’m fine with the unknowing. I think it is a mystery that may never be explained.
What then about Genesis? The key to Genesis is revealed when comparing it to the other creation narratives that exist — including evolution. (I think that Darwinian evolution is the creation story of philosophical materialism.) When we compare Genesis to the others, we discover that in creating the world by speaking it into existence, God is revealed as existing outside of space and time. This is a remarkable insight the Hebrews gave the world for up to that time, God was a captive of His creation, and thus there was no ontological distance between Creator and created. This is what I meant in an earlier thread that at the first prophetic utterance, paganism was doomed.
Genesis reveals not the origin of the world, but man’s place within it. And he can only understand his place within it by referencing God. If God is captive within the creation, then He is also the author of its brokenness and, ultimately, of evil. That’s one reason why the pagan deities were so capricious, even brutal.
Evolution of course posits no God — only energy, so the cultural ramifications of that creation story will differ from the pagan experience.
I wrote a review on a book that employed that premise: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary ethics, eugenics, and racism in Germany. Richard Wiekert, the author of the book, took a lot of flak for his thesis that the adoption of the evolutionary paradigm to social reorganization contributed to the rise of Hitler. But it makes sense. If creation narratives exert such influence in a culture (historically this point is indisputable), why would Darwinian evolution be any different?
Is all materialism pagan, or is there a particular quality that distinguishes “pagan materialism?”
Is all materialism pagan, or is there a particular quality that distinguishes “pagan materialism?”
Well yes, in that all materialism I have encountered (besides the most crude, sophmoric kind, which is unreasoned and unexamined) is neo-Epicurean, and not really much “neo” to it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism
Do materialists choose to be Epicurean, or is this a label you apply to them?
It seems like a lot of jargon to describe a significant percentage of all the research scientists in the world; I’m not certain how many consider themselves to be “neo-Epicureans.”
Note 10. You cannot subscribe to any type of determinism and be Christian.
Michael, would you elaborate “any type of determinism?” What does it reference?
Nancy,
There are several types of determinism: genetic, economic, spiritual. The basic premise for each of them is that some outside force determines the course of individual human life: our genes, economics/social status, or even God. Dean’s favorite is economic determinism, a.k.a. Marxism. My biggest gripe with Calvinism and its derivatives is its spiritual determinism.
Genetic determinism comes into play as part of the push for normalizing homosexuality—it’s in the genes, or the really good one: God made me this way it must be OK.
Among other problems determinism of all types ignores sin, the fall and excludes any possibility for salvation as the Church has always taught salvation: a free, unmerited gift of God’s grace, freely accepted. Since there is no freedom in deterministic philosophies, when they are expressed politically, tyranny is the result.
Evolutionary biology is deterministic on a grand scale. Not only is there no choice, there is no meaning in life, everything is simply determined by the “forces of nature”.
Phil, ideas have consequences, they never go away. It is simply a short hand to describing the content of their ideas and the fact that they are not modern, simply a more sophisticated version of an old fallacy. Since many of scientists are educated, it would surprise me if they were not at some level aware of the Epicurean content of their beliefs. I would be equally surprised if they applied them consciously. They have accepted a mind-set within which they work.
I’ve been studying the history of ideas all of my adult life. It is one of the things that led me to Christianity and eventually the Church.
Not to split hairs on your definition of determinism, Michael, but spiritual determinism does not reject salvation as an unmerited gift. In fact, it emphatically asserts that it is. What it does reject is the idea that man can freely choose to accept or reject it. In this view, man has no capability or internal resource to choose good. He must be “born again” from above, an event that occurs in a moment without any initiative or desire on the part of the recipient, and often occurring against the recipient’s own will.
Though believers in this will deny that man is “not free” to choose evil, they simultaneously insist that man is born as a slave to a force he has no power to reject and from which he cannot even desire to escape. Further, though God must rescue them from this state, He only desires that a relative few will do so.
Many will find this a sort of cosmic tyranny, but those attached to such doctrines will flatly insist that any such label is a blasphemous denial of the goodness of a sovereign God who’s “ways are past understanding”.
James, you are once again splitting into parts what is a unity.
It is not a gift if one is forced to receive it. God is either a loving, kneotic giver or a vengeful, sadistic tryannt. Spiritual determinism whether it is called Christian or Muslim is an abomination. I’ll reiterate that spiritual determinism precludes the possibility of salvation as the Church teaches it.
Many people recognize the poison of spiritual determinism and end up rejecting Christ because of it. A good part of the vengefulness expressed from time to time on this blog comes from people thinking that we Orthodox hold to the same views as the majority of western Christianity (either legalistic or deterministic or irrational pietists). We are none of those.
James you say,
You are accurate in your statement. Unfortunately, such belief denies the Incarnation and the salvation created by it. It is, (in my probably arrogant opinion IMAO) essentially mono-paganism
That being said there are a number of such people who actually love Jesus Christ and that will cover a lot as far as they personally are concerned.
Notes 29-30: I didn’t say I believe what I wrote, I was just stating what others have clarified for me. And sure, I have no reason to suggest that they’re “not Christian” because they hold some repugnant ideas (at least repugnant to many).
It’d be nice if they’d return the favor, however, since apparently being Orthodox (or Catholic) implies one isn’t a “True Christian”. For all this stuff about “believing in Jesus” being all one has to do, there’s really a rather large list of theological extras one has to accept (or not accept). Otherwise, you’re discarded rather quickly.
James, I realize you are not a proponent. The attitude you refer to is perfectly consistent with their theology.
Do materialists choose to be Epicurean, or is this a label you apply to them?
It is an accurate description of many peoples worldview/philosophy/faith. Just like “Christian”, or “Buddhist”
It seems like a lot of jargon to describe a significant percentage of all the research scientists in the world; I’m not certain how many consider themselves to be “neo-Epicureans.”
The half dozen of so folks whom I have known that could be described as “research scientists” were mix of Christians, theists, and neo-Epicureans.
Note 10.
It is unneccesary, and frankly a bit ridiculous, to suggest that our faith in God depends on us believing that Adam and Eve rode around the Garden of Eden on the backs of dinosaurs like some fundementalists believe.
Hi Dean,
Those are children at a neat park in Pensacola riding dinosaurs —
not that Adam and Eve necessarily did so. I believe the dinosaurs, being land animals were created on Day Six, the same day as Adam and Eve because this is what Moses was given by God to record for your benefit. They were plant eaters as were Adam and Eve, no meat. There was no killing/dying until after the Fall. More than likely, the fossil record of dinosaurs came about during the Great Flood - Noah. Dinosaurs survived by being taken on the ark. This is what the Bible says. (Stories of dragons …)
You can read a little about the Coelacanth in Seraphim Rose’s Genesis Creation and Early Man, page 306, footnote. This fish was to have lived 70 million years ago, and become extinct the same time as dinosaurs.
I also read the interview with Francis Collins you provided. In his case, evangelical seems to mean he believes in the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, Resurrection and things “miraculous.” Miraculous Six days? Statements in order? Never, for a theistic evolutionist.
Here I quote, “In his studies, Fr Seraphim appreciated the work of the scientific creationists, a group of Protestant Christians who were also professional scientists. The creation science movement had been catalyzed in America with the publication of the seminal textbook The Genesis Flood, by Dr Henry Morris, Dr John Whitcomb.”
Dean, I am compelled to defend against something if I may. You say: “frankly a bit ridiculous, to suggest our faith depends….” But, our faith depends upon whether the scriptures are true. Youths go to the University to be told the Bible is wrong because Genesis is “so wrong.”
If Genesis is ’so wrong’, then do you blame them for struggling mightily over whether the Scriptures are fables? Genesis 3:15 Jesus as Saviour is promised. Would you mind if I asked you this: If Genesis is ’so wrong’ — how can a youth, or even youself, truly respect the Bible as the Word of God?
Nancy - Thank you for reading the Francis Collins interview, even if you didn’t agree with it. He provides the persepective of a very respected scientist who is also a very sincere Christian trying to reconcile what others see as opposing “truths”.
However you accused people who do not believe that every word in the Bible is literal, of being less than true Christians, but rather “theistic evolutionists” and I believe that is a very serious, very wrong and inflammatory thing to do, deserving of a response.
First, did you see where Dr. Collins was asked “Obviously, you’re saying you should not read the Bible literally, especially the story of Genesis.”, and he responded:
Like Dr. Collins, I don’t believe we have to reject science in order to believe in God. When you drive your car across a bridge, you are not travelling across a magic concrete and steel span being held aloft by angels, but on a structure built following certain scientific egnineering and mathematical principles. When you take an antibiotic to relieve an infection the little pill isn’t full of solidified holy water, but chemical gents found by scientific research in biology and organic chemistry to help your body eliminate viruses and foreign organisms. The Geology that tells us the earth is millions of years old is based ion the same scientifc methods.
That is not to say there are no such things as miracles; but that God’s miracles and science coexist. Two summers ago, my mother was suffering from macular degeneration, her Priest recited the prayer for health for her in Church, and the very next week the FDA approved the drug that eventually restored her eyesight. Was it science or God? I would like to think both.
The stories of the early Old Testament can be seen as allegories that contain important “truths”, even if every word is not literally “true”. Look at the audience that Genesis was written for - illiterate, nomadic, desert wanderers. Is there any way that they could even begin to understand a scientific explanation of the origins of the universe, the earth and all its flora and fauna? Of course the stories had to be allegorical.
The Old Testament tells us a lot of other things that we cannot accept, literally or figuratively - that people should be stoned to death for eating shellfish or other offenses, or that a loving God wanted the Israelites to attack villages of the Caananites and slaughter their people, every man, woman and child.
The value in the Old Testament comes from the allegories that help us understand humanity’s relationship to God, from the Ten Commndments and the books of the Prophets, the Jeremiads that warn Israel to repent, and in doing so, set forth humanity’s first moral and ethical guidelines, and in the first intimations and foreshadowings of the coming of Christ, the Messiah. That is what I think we need focus on in the Old Testament, not whether the world was made in six days or six million years.
Dean, once again your false dicotomies lead to false conclusions. You oppose what you call a “literal” reading of Genesis with modern science.
God either created out of nothing and is in His Creation (the Orthodox Christian view) or He did not. I tell you once again, you cannot accept a materialist or Deist interpretation and really be Orthodox. Theistic evoloution posits a God who is removed from His creation. If that is what you really believe, then nothing in the Orthodox Church can possibly have any reality for you. If your continued presence in the Church is only from cultural apathy, I suggest you are missing the point.
The Old Testament was written for us, for humanity, for Christians. You are just as ignorant of God, perhaps more so, as those “poor illiterate peasants” whom you look down on so easily.
You easily and blythly reject so much of the faith for which your forbearers suffered and died. Why, because they were illiterate peasants as many of them surely were? And today with all of our “modern” knowledge we are so superior?
Shame on you!
Michael - Show me where the Nicene Creed, our Orthodox testament of faith, requires a literal reading of the Old Testament. In fact show me how one thing I have said on this subject contradicts the Nicene Creed.
I’ve said over and over and over again the God created the universe, “heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible”. I believe that. Why is that not enough for you?
Note 35. Dean writes:
There is no such thing as “literally true” and this includes the literalism of history and science. IOW, the veracity of the scriptures does not rest in historicism or in science but for different reasons.
History is literature. What remains of an historical event IOW, is the text recounting the event. Historians know this which is why you have Marxist historians, classical historians, etc. Historiography is necessarily interpretive, that is, events are portrayed through the words of the historian.
Science, on the other hand, when it posits suppositions about origins, reaches far beyond its expertise and assumes the role that only literature can fulfill. Darwin’s hypothesis about the origins of man and the universe is just such an overreaching. Darwin’s hypothesis actually functions as a story; the story provides the framework by which the data is arranged. The evolutionary theory in other words is not the result of investigation, but the framework within which the investigation takes place. In the last one hundred years the evidence is proving scant, which is to say that the story guiding the investigation does not hold together.
So the scriptures are not “true” because they are (conform to) history or science. Rather, their veracity must rest elsewhere. Searching the scriptures we find that veracity lies in the authority of the prophet and apostle, that is, the ones through whom the accounts were given. The prophet and apostle made an audacious claim: their word came from God. The final ground of authority, then, rests in God. (Like I said, it’s an audacious claim.)
This is hard for a modern to hear, conditioned as he is to the notion that historical or scientific facts don’t reference a larger framework of assumptions — a story — that arrange the facts in a larger constellation of ideas that gives the facts their meaning. Put another way, the notion that a story does not exist and is not needed is the modern story.
You see this in the evolutionary hypothesis most clearly, especially when the hypothesis reaches into the larger culture, say, in Marxism or feminism, or any other story that posits the ground of meaning as material — matter — instead of a word. There is no voice in a material universe, only operations, collisions of molecules and atoms, processes, etc. that inevitably leads one down the road the Existentialists followed early in the last century (when the memory of Christian culture was still influential), to the nihilism of the present age (see: Awakening from Nihilism: The Templeton Prize Address).
These nomadic wanderers, then, were not as ignorant as we might think. They understood something about the universe that is lost today, despite their uninformed cosmologies, or superstitions. Why do you think the shepherds were the first ones informed of the birth of the King of Creation?
The Apostle Paul certainly understood this. If the world is created by a Word (the Word spoke the universe into existence), and if Light penetrates the darkness through a word, then we might grasp how powerful the Gospel really is. The veracity of the Gospel in other words, does not rest in historicity or science but in the fact it proceeds from the mouth of God and, when preached and heard, reveals Christ — the One by whom the world was created and though whom all things consist and have their being.
Dean, Fr. Hans says it better, but since you asked me and I’m arrogant enought to think that I actually have something to say, here we go: what do you mean by literal? If you mean by literal that God expressly created out of nothing and invested Himself in His Creation in a special way through us intially and later in the Incarnation Himself, then everything about the Orthdox Church requires that we read it that way.
If you think that “metaphocial” within the Orthodox Tradition means a way of harmonizing the Scripture with the mind of world, you are absoultely mistaken.
There is an entire book “Genesis, Creation and Early Man” which attempts to provide an answer to your question.
The philosophy that informs and drives macro-evolution denies what you qoute from the Creed. It requires the self-organization of matter. At least you can see that, can’t you? So any postulate that requires one species to change into another up to and including human beings is obviously not in accord with the techaings of the Church, right?
The idea of “theistic evolotion” accepts that and postulates further that God set things in motion and the rest is carried out in accordance with his natural laws, the Divine Clockmaker of Deisim (a heresy to Orthodox). That denies several things that are in the Creed that are the warp and woof of Orthodox Christianity, especially the Fall and its effects on all of Creation, not just upon us. Theistic evoloution denies the essential fact of man created as steward of creation.
It pretty explicitly denies the Incarnation, unless you want to say that the Incarnation was only spiritual in effect which is a heretical notion. Theistic evoloution also denies the theology of St. Maximus the Confessor and the cosmology expressed by St. Paul, espeically in Romans 1.
If the teleology inherent in “theistic evoloution” was true, Chardin (a proven fraud artist and an express heretic) would be a saint and there would be no need for our Lord to Incarnate. Actually, it seems to me that you would be quite comfortable with his philosophy unfortuantely.
Now, if you feel that that is a better explanation of the reality of things, great Dean. It just means that everything the Church teaches, and affirms is a lie.
“Theistic evolution” is simply an attempt to harmonize Christianity with philosophical naturalism because those who say they believe in it are either too lazy or too cowardly to stand for the truth of the Chrisitan revelation or have simply ceased to believe in the first place.
Everything you post here that I have read shows a reliance on worldly philosophies over that of the Church. Again, if you feel those philosophies provide a better explanation of who we are and how we are supposed to act, that’s peachy. Just don’t claim to be Orthdox at the same time. Have the intellectual and spiritual honesty to declare what you really believe. It cannot be both.
How can a two dimensional idea expicitly created to avoid the need for God be good enough for you?
Evolution sees death as the engine of progress. Christianity sees death as an enemy to be destroyed. The two views are not compatible.
Note 39. Michael writes:
Another possibility is that they do not understand philosophical naturalism or Christianity even though they think they do.
Yes, death. For Christians, death is not a natural part of creation it is a result of the ontological separation between man, the steward, and the Creator. That is why creation goans and travails until the advent of the Lord.
How one can sing the Pascha Homily and hold to the idea of evolution is beyond me. The only way to do it honestly is compartmentalization. God over here–science over there. Rationalization to avoid conflict.
Is that what you are doing Dean, rationalizing the obvious conflicts between the ideology that informs so many of your posts and the teaching of the Church?
Just remember Dean, science, philosophy, and politics are tools. They do not, are not not meant to, provide answers–only more questions. They are all creations of man’s mind and intellect. As such they can be and are used for good or evil (there’s that nasty fallen state again). Since our capacity for rationalisation is almost infinite, our excuses not to follow God, not to use our intellect in His service, are nearly the same.
There is only one way to the Father. Everything else is vanity.
Michael writes: “God either created out of nothing and is in His Creation (the Orthodox Christian view) or He did not. I tell you once again, you cannot accept a materialist or Deist interpretation and really be Orthodox. Theistic evolution posits a God who is removed from His creation.”
So what does that imply for the age of the earth? Would you say that, in accordance with the book of Genesis, that the earth is around 6,000 years old? If not, how old do you think it is, and when did life appear? I’m just wondering what your timeline is.
Don’t have one, don’t need one. It is what it is.
Just remember that time, like what we recognize as the material world was totally different prior to the fall. Then there is the fact of the Incarnation. No telling what that did to the non-human part of creation.
Thank you for reading the Francis Collins interview, even if you didn’t agree with it. He provides the persepective of a very respected scientist who is also a very sincere Christian trying to reconcile what others see as opposing “truths”.
Hi Dean,
This is what I think to myself, “that may be.” Concerning “very sincere Christian.” Collins became a Christian after his foundational education was framed. So, it’s an understatement, he’s dealing with tons when he brings his entire lifework [identity iyw] to attempt to place it All under the Light of Sacred Scripture, and even further as Seraphim Rose has shown - re: Genesis, also under the Light of Patristic Writing.
However you accused people who do not believe that every word in the Bible is literal, of being less than true Christians, but rather “theistic evolutionists” and I believe that is a very serious, very wrong and inflammatory thing to do, deserving of a response.
Deny the sentence.
Dean, as you say those words are inflammatory. But I wish to point out you Interpolate into my own, in fact quite Peppered. Those words are not mine: I don’t like the whole sentence. So, if we could stay on task, so to speak and we will both leave off inflamation. No problem.
First, did you see where Dr. Collins was asked “Obviously, you’re saying you should not read the Bible literally, especially the story of Genesis.”, and he responded:
Dr Collins and Dean,
There is something else that threatens, which is not brought up by the interviewer.
But First. You say in essence, ‘believers are threatened when you start watering down any part of the Bible.’ We should come to an agreement: no “sincere Christian” will tolerate Watering Down the Bible, this is a Basic Given. What does ‘watering down’ mean? Diluting, messing with the text as it stands, whatever does not take the text as God-breathed - this dilutes. What was meant to ‘multiply faith & grace’ to our heart is set on the sideline, and therefore does no such thing. The scriptures are Exquisitely put together down to jot and tittle. This must be a given, or we can’t communicate (you & I, I mean) effectively. I do not think that only certain sects of Christians should be known for this high view of God’s Word.
So — What else threatens? Testing one’s inherited atheistic/evolutionist window on the world. God deliberately hides ‘his wisdom’ from the sincerely intelligent, but he gives it to the seeking, his own. And I believe he causes “his own” to seek, so there is no glory that can be ascribed to man or woman for being a “good seeker.” Or, a “good finder. All glory to God.
We were to a Russian Church this morning (out of town.) I don’t know if the text was also yours:
So, at any rate Dean, I believe I am free to apply St Paul’s appeal to this ragged disparity of views on Genesis. I think we should come to agree? What is the meat of the potato, for use of a strange phrase?
What if we tried to arrive at a one small unity concerning Genesis Seven.
Just two verses. I would like to know what you think this Biblical Text might possibly mean, in your Book? If it doesn’t mean what is meant by a normal understanding of words by one with a perhaps eighth grade education. And I believe the people closer to the time of Eden were actually *more* intelligent — if anything — than are we now. It took the *most* clever of deceivers to turn Adam/Eve around.
Another thing: How smart would *you* be if you lived to be 600 years?
Here’s Genesis Seven, 2 verses:
What does Francis Collins, who believes in the Virgin Birth! of all things, in the Holy Trinity! [whom St Basil stated that along with this doctirne was not given the gift of Arithmetic
] and by the by, the Deists of former days mocked rather than simply accept —- what does Francis Collins take this “troubling passage” in Genesis Seven to mean?
1. All the fountains of the Great Deep were broken up?
2. All the Windows of Heaven were opened?
3. Rain on the earth for 40 days and 40 nights?
Michael writes: “Just remember that time, like what we recognize as the material world was totally different prior to the fall.”
Ok, let me ask a different question. How long ago did the fall occur? Presumably time and the material world after the fall are pretty much the same as they are today, so it must be possible to estimate when the fall happened, right?
When you say that time and the material world were different before the fall, I guess I’m wondering if there is some way that you’re determining that, or if it’s simply an assumption that they must have been different, or else the book of Genesis wouldn’t make any kind of historical sense.
Jim, Note 48, why are you bothering with this?
Jim, Note 48, just seems like some kind of taunting rather than any kind of intelligent discussion.
There is no way that anybody has an answer to that question. Some things we just don’t know and may never know.
Whenever you address issues directly related to religion you reveal a kind of two-dimensional mind-set. God is the third dimension and you can’t begin to understand His influence if you are thinking two-dimensionally. Please note I don’t pretend to “understand God’s influence.” What tiny glimmer I have comes many from Scripture and the rest from life experience.
Missourian writes: “Jim, Note 48, just seems like some kind of taunting rather than any kind of intelligent discussion.”
I’m just asking questions. As this point I’m trying to understand what is being asserted, and what the implications are.
Dean was being taken to task for certain beliefs about evolution, up to and including ” . . . if you feel that that is a better explanation of the reality of things . . . It just means that everything the Church teaches, and affirms is a lie.”
So people are talking about serious things here. I ask Michael, what’s the timeline, how do you think things went down. He replied, I don’t have a timeline, but time and matter were different before the Fall.
So what does that mean? How were they different? Time was slower? Faster? Non-existent? The material world was — what? Bigger? Brighter? Made of different elements?
Missourian: “There is no way that anybody has an answer to that question. Some things we just don’t know and may never know.”
If no one knows how life originated, how old the universe is, how time and matter were different before the fall, etc., then how does anyone know that Dean is wrong?
Missourian: ‘Whenever you address issues directly related to religion you reveal a kind of two-dimensional mind-set. God is the third dimension and you can’t begin to understand His influence if you are thinking two-dimensionally. Please note I don’t pretend to “understand God’s influence.” What tiny glimmer I have comes many from Scripture and the rest from life experience.”
But just because we use the word “God” in connection with an issue, doesn’t mean that the implausible suddenly becomes plausible. Using the word “God” doesn’t automatically set one free from having to deal with the implications of one’s belief.
I don’t want to taunt anyone or make fun of anyone’s belief. But at the same time, I don’t think that religious beliefs should be given an automatic pass merely because they are religious. You know, when someone utters a religious belief there’s this kind of hush that falls across the room, and it is considered rude to question the belief because . . . well, because it’s a religious belief. I don’t buy that.
The larger issue here is not really about religious belief, but about the role that scientific knowledge should have in forming our beliefs about the world. If the biological and physical sciences are irrelevant to our understanding of those issues — if everything we need is in the first two pages of Genesis — then why bother with paleontology, geology, astronomy, biochemistry, genetics, and every other relevant field? Why build a Hubble space telescope that peers “millions” of light years into the universe, if the universe is only slightly older than the Sphinx?
Discussions about origins of the earth and life are usually doomed from the start because the terms are not defined up front. As a result, people end up talking past each other endlessly. So, why doesn’t everyone take a stab at defining these terms:
evolution
common descent
darwinism
theistic evolution
theistic darwinism
My bet is that everyone involved in this thread has different meanings attached to each of these terms
Jim, Note 50, how could you not understand after all this time
Dean describes himself as an Orthodox Christian. Michael was responding to Dean in the context of the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Michael considered Dean’s positions to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Since, Dean, asserts that he is an Orthodox Christian, Michael may have a point.
Jim, after all this time, how could you not understand this aspect of Michael’s comment? Really, Jim, we are talking about a matter of years now.
This raises another point, debating with you is like writing on water. The same point is explained over and over and over again. You don’t really respond with a counter-argument you just adopt the now, very tiresome pose of “I’m just asking questions.” Questions which the writer answered. After the answers are supplied, it is appropriate for you to address the answers, which you rarely do.
Jim, Note 50, straw man argument and non-acknowledged underlying assumptions
This is a straw man argument.Many authors have noted that Christian religious belief is held up to ridicule and scorn in America with great regularity. The ACLU has devoted millions of dollars and millions of manhours to pushing Christianity out of the public sphere. To assert that religion is held sacred as a matter of course is simply inaccurate in America. Strawman number one.
You believe you have a clear idea of what is “plausible.” It is very clear to you. You believe you are challenging the “implausible.”
What you are not stating is how do you decide what is “plausible.” In general, atheists begin with the unchallenged and unprovable assertion that religious truths must be “implausible.” The very idea of asserting that a God exists and might act within His creation is, per se, implausible to you. Fine except that this constitute another unprovable assumption which is the bedrock of your mental world.
You have your own unacknowledged articles of faith. Among those unacknowledged articles of faith is the belief in science as a fountain of uncontestable truth. However, just a few weeks ago, you engaged in a long discussion with me, about the contingency of scientific theory. You claimed great insight into the theory of scientific knowledge and took great pride in pointing out its contingency and temporary nature.
Strawman number two. Religious beliefs are not given an automatic pass and no one on this board has suggested that they should be. Again, I find it somewhat amusing that you are now taking the side of scientific “truth” as against so-called “religious truth” when you were arguing in favor of the transitory nature of science just a few weeks ago.
Questions atheists need to answer. What would make them believein God?
The primary characteristic of a provable hypothesis is that it is testable. Example, a fortuneteller never tells someone that a lightning will strike on Tuesday, April 11 on the corner of Jackson and Main in Memphis, Tennesee
This is a testable hypothesis and they know they will fail the test.
Here is my test for atheists. Every atheist I know starts with the bedrock assumption that the very idea of God is absurd and that such ideas always are a result of ignorance or guile. My question is “what would it take to get you to believe in God.”
My assertion is that is the archangel Michael appeared in all his splendor with a choir of angels behind him to an atheist, the atheist would conclude that he was having a hallucination and seek the help of a psychiatrist. In short, there would be nothing that would convince the committed atheist. All manifestations of God would be considered to be hallucinations and the proof derived from the observation of nature would be considered to be something “scientifically” explanable. But, all science is based on the assumption that the universe is fundamentally orderly and that it is subject to laws. For example, we don’t think that Newton’s law of gravity held true in the 18th century but is no longer true in the 21st century. This is because we believe that the law of gravity reveals something about a universe which is constant and eternal. What is it about the universe that is constant, eternal and fundamental? Well, sounds alot like God to me.
Jim Holman, what could God do to convince you He is real?
What would God have to do to convince you he is real? What would be sufficient evidence in your mind?
Also remember that your respect for God must be founded on free will so you must include an experience that respects your free will to think and decide for yourself.
What if He appeared to you in the form of a human?
What if the human lived the same life all other humans did?
What if that human talked to us in plain terms and explained His desire for a close relationship with his Creatures?
Would that be enough? If not, what would be?
Jim, ignore Note 53, it is missing a paragraph, I will repost
Tom C in post #51 says:
Tom, parsing or defining these terms is not really necessary IMO. I perfer to know the following:
1. Do you accept creation ex-nilho or not?
2. Do you accept a loving Creator God who inter-pentrates His creation or not?
3. Do you accept that man is fallen or not?
4. If you accept the falleness of man, does our falleness affect the rest of the created world?
In general, however, the five items you mention all involve the idea that life changes from a state of lesser complexity to a state of higher complexity with each more complex form coming from the less complex form. The agency of the change differs whether one claims to be non-theistic or theistic in belief. Non-theists require a long time line (it keeps expanding to fit the current theory).
All of the arguments I have seen by evolutionists (Dean most recently) start with the idea of species adapatation and then do a jump-shift into species change–two ideas that are neither logically nor factually related. {See Missourian’s posts for further details on some of the logical fallacies inherent in the evolotionists approach.}
I really don’t care what non-theistists do or believe until it impacts me (I’m selfish that way),** but when someone who claims to be Orthodox makes statements that are at odds with the teaching of the Church as I understand it, I’m not going to let it pass.
So I’ll ask Dean, how his ideas square with the teaching of the Church given the brief responses I gave him? Since Dean’s pattern is to lob a bomb and run away I don’t expect an answer. I hope I’m wrong.
Jim, since I know your answers to my questions I really don’t need to know any more and do not care to keep going over the same ground with you.
Unfortunately, the elitism, mysogyny and racism inherent in evolutionary ideas effects all of us adversely.
#57 Michael
I can answer “Yes” to each of your questions. I believe in creation ex-nilhio, I believe in a loving creator who is immanent in creation (but not too immanent), I believe in the Fall, and I believe that the Fall affects all of creation.
I also do not believe that darwinism is correct, so obviously theistic darwinism is not correct.
However, like it or not, evolution, which simply means that life on earth has changed over time, is pretty much a fact that must be acknowledged. The question, then, is whether God could have created life gradually over time, or whether it had to happen at one instant. I think that creation could have happened gradually over time, so I guess that I am a theistic evolutionist.
So, do you think that my position is incompatible with answering yes to your questions? How does answering yes require that creation had to have occurred at one instant?
Missourian writes: “This raises another point, debating with you is like writing on water. The same point is explained over and over and over again. You don’t really respond with a counter-argument you just adopt the now, very tiresome pose of “I’m just asking questions.” Questions which the writer answered. After the answers are supplied, it is appropriate for you to address the answers, which you rarely do.”
In my experience here, when it comes to anything related to some theological idea, I have a difficult time getting a straight answer. For example, after Michael chewed on Dean because of his ideas on theist evolution, I asked Michael what his timelines of events was. He replied “Don’t have one, don’t need one. It is what it is.”
How exactly am I supposed to “address” an answer like that. It’s not an answer; it’s an evasion of an answer.
The home team here are really good at separating the wheat from the chaff, identifying and labeling the materialists, secularists, non-Orthodox, etc. When doing that they are really on their game. But when have to shift modes, from critic to defender, and stake out a very specific position and defend it . . . the attitude is often “don’t have one, don’t need one.”
In my experience here, when it comes to anything related to some theological idea, I have a difficult time getting a straight answer. For example, after Michael chewed on Dean because of his ideas on theist evolution, I asked Michael what his timelines of events was. He replied “Don’t have one, don’t need one. It is what it is.”
That’s because, as usual, you are asking within your frame of reference - materialism. Since you can’t think outside the box, all your questions only make sense within your frame of reference. You get straight answers (over and over and over again). You just don’t like the answers. Which begs the question, what are you doing here at OrthdoxyToday? Trying to save us backward Christians no doubt…:)
Besides, where you not supposed to be taking leave of us? What happened? Can’t find another Christian blog to harass??
Tom says:
However, like it or not, evolution, which simply means that life on earth has changed over time, is pretty much a fact that must be acknowledged. The question, then, is whether God could have created life gradually over time, or whether it had to happen at one instant. I think that creation could have happened gradually over time, so I guess that I am a theistic evolutionist.
Well, even here the content and meaning of “evolution” is problematic. As far as time, you ought to read Fr. Seraphim’s “God, Creation, and Early Man”. If one is going to take the fall seriously, that is that it really happened, then you can not get too caught up in a linear time frame of thinking where the physics/metaphysics is “eternal” or at least “from beginning to end of time”. The fall means that the whole cosmos fell, or changed. That means one can not project from the fall, what happened before the fall, which is when life (and everything else) was created ex nihilo. Interestingly, Fr. Seraphim shows where many Eastern Saints disagree with men like Thomas Aquinas, who uncritically project back conditions in the fall (this present age) to pre-fall man, animals, plants, etc.
Another central problem with “evolution” or, “life changing through time” is it does not take the category of “Man” seriously. Man ends up bleeding into “mankind”, and the individual (heart/body/soul/spirit unity) ends up being categorically “linked’ in a hard way to what is essentially a platonic idealism of “mankind”. Interestingly, this idea was first thought about and put forward in western theology, going way back at least to Aquinas and his followers. You can’t get a “Great Chain of Being” without bleeding the particular into the “one” in a platonic sort of way.
The basis of “evolution”, even in the weak sense that you think of it here is really the atomic physics/metaphysics of Epicurus. Once you realize that Christian metaphysics and physics flow from a different source (the personal - the Holy Trinity) then the “fact” of “time” and “change” do not look so compelling after all. You have to first assume atomistic materialism…
Tom, I can’t write well enough to give you a complete answer to #57, but I’ll give you a few indications. I think you’re intelligent enough to pick them up and run with them. First of all, evolution does not mean simply that life has changed, but that the more complex life forms come from less complex life. The more complex life forms in turn begat even more complex life.
RE: A Creation and Incarntional approach
1. Adaptation, change, and relationships in and between various forms of life in no way imply the transmogrification from species to species postulated by evolution.
2. Time is mutable.
3. Time as we know it is a measure of the rate of decay and is linear.
4. Prior to the fall, time, if it existed at all, did not measure decay because there was no decay.
5. Physical matter existed without decay prior to the fall therefore it was a different substance than it is now.
6. The Bible describes God’s Word creating specific creatures and beings not creating in general. (There is much patristic commentary here, especially St. Maximus the Confessor). (See also Fr.Hans, Post #38)
7. When God Incarnated, it is reasonable to assume that the physical reality of the created order began to change back in the direction of what it was like before the fall.
8. Creation is not linear. (See Life after Death by Fr. Thomas Hopko)
Some questions to ponder re: evoloution:
A. Somehow the energy from the sun in our own solar system is sufficient to overcome entropy in evolution, but insufficient to significantly influence global warming (HUH?)
B. Molecular biology and information theory vitiate against any type of species change (the more complex coming from the less complex).
C. Among the many constants assumed by evolutionists is time yet the Theory of Relativity (which unlike evolution is subject to verification) shows that time is not constant.
D. A corollary of time being constant is that the rate of decay over vast amounts of time is both mesurable and constant. There are many reasons to suspect that such is not the case, but no way to prove it either way.
E. Death is an engine of progress (Fr. Hans post #40)
*******************************************
Your questions: So, do you think that my position is incompatible with answering yes to your questions? I do believe that your answering yes to my questions is incompatible with evolution.
How does answering yes require that creation had to have occurred at one instant?
“Instant” is a measure of time and has no meaning prior to the fall. Look more closely at my question #2. If God dwells in His Creation and His Creation in Him, what evolves? Is it not a matter of overcoming sin and death? Did not the very same Word that brought us into existence and still reverberates througout His creation, become one of us and die, resurrect and ascend to re-open paradise for us?
Tom, I can’t write well enough to give you a complete answer but I’ll give you a few indications. I think you’re intelligent enough to pick them up and run with them. First of all, evolution does not mean simply that life has changed, but that the more complex life forms come from less complex life. The more complex life forms in turn begat even more complex life.
RE: A Creation and Incarntional approach
1. Adaptation, change, and relationships in and between various forms of life in no way imply the transmogrification from species to species postulated by evolution.
2. Time is mutable.
3. Time as we know it is a measure of the rate of decay and is linear.
4. Prior to the fall, time, if it existed at all, did not measure decay because there was no decay.
5. Physical matter existed without decay prior to the fall therefore it was a different substance than it is now.
6. The Bible describes God’s Word creating specific creatures and beings not creating in general. (There is much patristic commentary here, especially St. Maximus the Confessor). (See also Fr.Hans, Post #38)
7. When God Incarnated, it is reasonable to assume that the physical reality of the created order began to change back in the direction of what it was like before the fall.
8. Creation is not linear. (See Life after Death by Fr. Thomas Hopko)
Some questions to ponder re: evoloution:
A. Somehow the energy from the sun in our own solar system is sufficient to overcome entropy in evolution, but insufficient to significantly influence global warming (HUH?)
B. Molecular biology and information theory vitiate against any type of species change (the more complex coming from the less complex).
C. Among the many constants assumed by evolutionists is time yet the Theory of Relativity (which unlike evolution is subject to verification) shows that time is not constant.
D. A corollary of time being constant is that the rate of decay over vast amounts of time is both mesurable and constant. There are many reasons to suspect that such is not the case, but no way to prove it either way.
E. Death is an engine of progress (Fr. Hans post #40)
*******************************************
Your questions: So, do you think that my position is incompatible with answering yes to your questions? I do believe that your answering yes to my questions is incompatible with evolution.
How does answering yes require that creation had to have occurred at one instant?
“Instant” is a measure of time and has no meaning prior to the fall. Look more closely at my question #2. If God dwells in His Creation and His Creation in Him, what evolves? Is it not a matter of overcoming sin and death? Did not the very same Word that brought us into existence and still reverberates througout His creation, become one of us and die, resurrect and ascend to re-open paradise for us?
Tom, tried posting a longer, more complicated response to your questions in #57 but it comes down to this:
Change does not imply the less complex giving rise to the more complex.
The Creation of God is specific, not general. (see Fr. Hans #38)
Look more closely at my question #2: If God dwells in His Creation and His Creation dwells in Him, what is there to evolve. Is it not a matter of overcoming sin and death? Did not the Word that brought us into existence and still reverberates throughout His Creation become one of us, died, resurrected, and ascended to re-open Paradise to us?
James, try this link if you want to know more about Orthodoxy. Then poke around and read a few of the other topics and posts.
Christopher writes: “The fall means that the whole cosmos fell, or changed. That means one can not project from the fall, what happened before the fall, which is when life (and everything else) was created ex nihilo.”
Of course the problem is that science does just fine projecting backwards. It’s not like at a certain point the scientific data all of a sudden don’t make any sense. Astronomy, astrophysics, geology, biology, genetics, paleontology, all work very well, all producing testable hypotheses that can be confirmed or refuted by the evidence. If indeed everything changed so much at a certain point, then when is that point? I’m sure scientists would like to know.
Of course you can’t or won’t specify when that point is. Because if you did, someone could actually do some fact-checking and see if your claim was true. And that must be avoided at all costs. Apparently it is the essence of Orthodox belief to claim that such a point exists, but to actually ask when it happened is an attack on Orthodoxy.
This whole thing of “everything was different before the fall” has absolutely no basis in any kind of fact or evidence. It’s all about protecting the theology. I was a fundamentalist for over ten years, and I used to protect the theology too. I feel your pain.
Missourian writes: “You have your own unacknowledged articles of faith. Among those unacknowledged articles of faith is the belief in science as a fountain of uncontestable truth.”
But scientific statements can be contested. Scientists do that all the time. If you want examples of statements that can’t be contested, look at theological statements.
Missourian: “However, just a few weeks ago, you engaged in a long discussion with me, about the contingency of scientific theory. You claimed great insight into the theory of scientific knowledge and took great pride in pointing out its contingency and temporary nature.”
I didn’t have “great insight” or “great pride.” What I did have was an undergraduate education in philosophy, including courses in philosophy of science. I wanted to clear up any misunderstanding about the issue. And yes, scientific knowledge is contingent. That doesn’t mean that it’s worthless or can be casually dismissed with a wave of the hand. The knowledge of the maximum possible volume of a liquid moving through a pipe of a certain dimension is in principle contingent, but when someone builds a nuclear power plant next door, you better hope that the engineers know the formula.
Missourian, look. You know science. You’ve studied more science than I have. When people say that “everything was different before the fall,” just ask when that happened. Ask what evidence they have for that. These are simple, common-sense questions, not “materialism.” And I can tell you right now that you will NEVER get a direct answer. Never. Or in the miraculous event that you do get an answer, investigate for yourself whether the answer is correct. You’re smart, you’ve studied science, so check out the answer.
We depend on scientific knowledge in all sorts of life and death situations. Scientific knowledge is not the kind of thing that can be switched on and off like a floor lamp. “Oh, look here comes theology, so let’s turn off science.” Doesn’t work that way, though many wish it were so.
Christopher: “Besides, were you not supposed to be taking leave of us? What happened? Can’t find another Christian blog to harass??”
Oh, I’m cutting back. The Schiavo thread appears to be just about over. I’m not posting anything on the social or political threads. I just dropped in here to try to bring a touch of reality to the discussion. I’ll stop by once in a while, but for the most part you will be able to operate without any reality check from me.
When did time begin? When will it end.
The Alpha and Omega
All centered on the Cross
Note 67. Jim writes:
You get two choices in life: 1) time is linear, or 2) time is circular.
The first was given to the world through the Jews, Genesis in particular (this is the genius of Genesis), and makes progress possible. The second was the view of the entire known world which, in historical terms was supplanted by the preaching of the Gospel by Paul in Greece.
Thus, the question you pose is one into which science cannot reach, because it largely deals with religion/philosphy. Also, your experience as a fundamentalist has no bearing on it either, which is to say it cannot be answered by psychology either.
Science cannot extend beyond the ‘boundaries’ as such, which is to say it cannot extend beyond the beginning (or project beyond the end) whether one believes time is linear or circular. Science has to defer to theology here; it has no other choice. If scientists choose to extend themselves beyond these boundaries, then we see the rise of the cult of the scientist (think Carl Sagan for example), but not necessarily the extension of science.
What then is the point of the distinction between linear and circular time? The discipline of science can only arise in a linear framework, because linear time posits the idea of progress (and in its secular variant the idea of self-generating evolution). Circular time cannot do this. That is why the scientific method arose in a Christian milleau.
You are basically saying that science is silent about questions of theodicy. Of course it is.
Fr. Hans writes: “You are basically saying that science is silent about questions of theodicy. Of course it is.”
There are all sorts of questions and issues into which science cannot reach, and in those cases it would make no sense at all to look for a scientific understanding. To claim that only scientific knowledge is valid is not science, but is what the scholar Huston Smith calls “scientism.” It is a false view of both science and knowledge that has nothing to do with science itself.
Likewise, there are all sorts of questions and issues that are perfectly within the domain of science, and in those areas we look to science for answers.
What I object to is when science is rejected even in the areas in which a scientific understanding is completely valid and necessary. Science will never have anything to say about the Trinity. It has a great deal to say about geological and astronomical timelines, and various biological developments along those timelines.
The idea that “everything was different before the fall so we have no idea what happened” is simply an attempt to render science irrelevant in areas in which it is completely relevant, under the smokescreen of attacking “modernism” and “materialism.” Such a move has one main effect: it makes Christianity look silly. It is a marvelous tool for driving people away from Christianity. Oh, you’ll always find people who will believe anything, but most of the people recognize a scam when they see it.
Michael and Christopher -
I actually agree with much of what you have written, but I do think you are evading some basic questions that are of importance here. Let me try a few:
1) Whether you think time began after creation, or after the Fall, it did begin at some point. After it began, is it subject to scientific investigation? To put it very baldly, is dating rocks possible?
2) When we read that Man was created from the dust, do you envision an event where a cloud of dust was formed into a human, or is it a metaphorical statement that humans are constituted of elements from nature.
3) Did the Fall occur when Adam ate the apple, or is that, again, a poetical way of describing a reality of current human exisitence?
BTW, it is not true that “evolution” which is what most people call darwinism, is based on self-organization of matter. Self-organization is really an alternative to darwinism that has has gained traction as darwinism has become less and less plausible. If God is immanent in creation, why is self-organization not possible? It strikes me as consistent with Orthodox theology that God could create from within creation.
Tom, a brief and inadequate reply to your questions:
I’m not evading anything it is just that the questions Jim poses from within his framework don’t have much relevance to the Orthodox framework. Since he has repeatedly said that he does not want to enter into the Orthodox mind, I just don’t see much point in going over the same ground with him.
The key difference between evolution, even the theistic variety, and traditional Christianity is evolution looks from the bottom up and is completely impersonal. Traditional Christianity looks from the top down and is throughly personal.
Quick stab at your questions:
1. Is dating rocks possible—only if you intend to marry, but doesn’t that question belong on another thread?
Seriously: sure. Just be careful that you don’t allow the evolutionists to phrase the debate in the false dichotomy science vs. religion. It is not about science at all, it is about defending the philosophy of philosphical naturalism as all that is necessary to make sense of the universe. Again the methods, the results and the use of the results will be vastly different depending upon which faith assumptions are used.
2. The picture of the creation of man (wholly inadequate and stickly my own personal one) is a master potter. I don’t know if you have every done any pottery, forming the clay with your hands into the shape you want, coloring it with glaze, then firing it. The master potter knows exactly what elements make up the clay (many different types), what plasticity and firing qualities are necessary to achieve what he has in mind. He blends the clay, prepares it by adding just the right amount of water and kneads it to drive out air bubbles that would cause it to explode during firing. Then he forms it in the shape desired either using just his hands or on a wheel. After drying, the vessel is glazed (most glazes are natural and elemental). One of my favorite is salt (you are the salt of the earth). {The salt is introduce during the firing process and melts into the clay producing a variety of wonderful warm earth colors that are full of texture} Then of course pot is fired in the kiln so that it can become permanent and useable. Making the pottery involves all of you and you invest the clay with your own personality from start to finish. Each and every “pot” is unique even when they are part of a set and a certain amount of uniformity is desired. I’ve always associated Jesus making clay with His spittle and annoiting the blind man with the act of creation too.
3. The fall actually occurred. The fruit is symbolic of the decision to choose our own will and knowledge over communion with God. It is evident from Scriptures that the consequences of the split were not instantaneous. Essentially, they continued until the Incarnation reversed them. Now we have the choice to follow the path back to communion or continue on our own way. The whole “science of evolution” was created and largely maintained by those who wanted a system that would allow them to go their own way, ignoring God. Theistic evolution buy into the same rebellion.
Self-organinzation of matter is an essential element in any materialistic explanation of the natural world. What else is natural selection?
Remember two parts of the traditional Christian understanding about us: we are the microcosm and the steward of creation. God is united with His creation in and through us. The Christian understanding therefore avoids pantheism and is quiet specific and personal.
Further reading:
On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius
The Ancestral Sin by John Romanides
Genesis, Creation and Early Man, by Fr. Seraphim Rose, ed. by Hieromonk Damascene Christian.
Of course there is a veritible plethora of books and articles addressing the topic from all perspectives, but I like these three.
Tom, here is my take - perhaps Michael will correct my mistakes:
1) Yes, dating of rocks is possible, post fall, and possibly only with in an “age” post fall (in other words, Time itself post fall is divided up by “ages” - I may be reading more into the Fathers here than is warranted). But what does it mean to date a rock