LifeSiteNews | Matthew C. Hoffman | Feb. 4, 2008
A federal appeals court panel has upheld a Massachusetts policy of indoctrinating elementary school students with pro-homosexual attitudes without their parents consent.
The three judge panel ruled that a lower court decision was correct when it denied parents the right to remove their children from such classes, while admitting that the purpose of the literature to which their children were being exposed was to influence children to “tolerate” gay marriage.
“It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage,” the court admits. “That was the point of why that book was chosen and used.”
However, in the appeals court’s opinion, this doesn’t mean the children were being indoctrinated with anything. “Even assuming there is a continuum along which an intent to influence could become an attempt to indoctrinate, however, this case is firmly on the influence-toward-tolerance end. There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is no allegation that Joey was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights.”
The book referred to by the panel, “King and King”, depicts a “prince” who isn’t interested in a princess, but instead is “in love” with the princess’ brother. Their “love” is portrayed in a sympathetic manner, and the two “marry” each other. They are shown kissing on the lips at the end of the book, which was read to second graders in 2006 in Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts.
Two families complained to the school district, which responded that the school district was not obligated to advise families about such matters, and would not allow parents to opt-out. David Parker and other parents with children in the school district responded by filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. After the suit was dismissed by Federal District Judge Mark L. Wolf in early 2007, the parents appealed. Now, the Federal appeals court has rejected their appeal.
However, the families are determined to press on all the way to the Supreme Court, which is the next step in the appeals process. “We are fully committed to go forward,” Jeffrey Denner, lead attorney of the Parker legal team, told the pro-family group Mass Resistance. “We will continue to fight on all fronts that we need to.”
. . . more
humble,
We can and we must rule out all sorts of possibilities of how God created the world. For instance, God sent angelic or demonic beings from another realm to create us (clearly in accord with many pagan myths), God sent aliens from other planets to seed this world (favorite of any number of scientistic gurus), and a whole host of others each more fastasical than the last. We must reject those that are not in accord with the revealed nature of God; we must reject any that deny the Incarnation or violate the clear teachings of the Fathers of the Church. The quote extracted from the OCA article above does all three. Clearly the RC sources quoted go even further in such errors.
1.Any concept of evolution requires the pre-existence of matter. God created ex-nihlo by His Word, not just us but “All things visible and invisible”.
2. Any concept that posits the evolution of the body separate from the soul denies the fundamental body/soul unity taught by the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, not just us human beings but for all created things. Each created entity has a particular God-known and created essence reflected in its physical form.
3. If we are not a body/soul entity, then the salvific work of the Incarnation would be for naught. He took on our full nature, not just our soul. We have to choose between dualism and the Incarnational reality, between a non-existent or absent God or a God of three persons in one essence who knows the very hairs on our head because they were formed by His Word.
Any science that is founded upon a false understanding of the created universe will lead to false conclusions. The Church should neither promote nor acquiesce to what she knows is false.
Oh, BTW, I do not believe in silence in the face of cupidity. If we go by the corollary of Scriptural admonition that those that are faithful in little things will be faithful in greater things (those that are not faithful in little things will not be faithful in great things), there are clear reasons not to trust.
I have many wonderful and dear friends in the OCA: priests, lay and monastic. In obedience to their bishops, many of them are forced to be silent. I have no such restriction, but if you have a problem with my words, feel free to take it up with my bishop, His Grace Bishop Basil. If he directs me to be silent, I will be.
Or you can simply request that Chris Banescu, the moderator not post any similar comments of mine should I make them.
If my words are wrong, I will bear gladly the resonsibility for speaking them. I do not accept your admonition as valid probably because I am clearly not humble, but there you go.
Dear Michael Bauman,
I do not have a problem with your words. I very much appreciate your moral integrity and the profundity of your thoughts. I did not mean to admonish you!
I am the creature and I do not attempt to understand the CREATOR. I love Him, praise Him and marvel at His wisdom.
Our hierarchs could be wrong, they are humans. We have to let them know what we think as we would tell to our own fathers. It is good that we do not have only one pope. If the Greeks deviate from the truth (grave deviations) the Russians will admonish them (just an example), and so on. Imagine what the hierarchs in the communist countries went trough, during the atheists regime… And yet, the Orthodox Church came back to full life there. And we gained saints (like Blessed John Maximovitch).
Do not forget that Christ is the head of the Church. And rejoice: He promised us that the gates of the Hell shall not prevail!
p.s I am not humble, but I try to get this virtue. I took this name to remind myself of my goal.
I’m not claiming that they have it right, necessarily. As I mentioned, the specifics of someone’s personal religious beliefs are not possible to refute. I’m just maintaining, correctly, that it is not a logical fallacy to believe in a God who is good and omnipotent, and to also believe in evolution.
The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t require this belief, it merely permits it. So, like the statements “God loves all his creatures with all his heart” or “Saints and angels watch over us,” it is not a statement that can be called either logical or illogical; it is a matter of faith.
No concept of evolution really “requires” the pre-existence of matter. This is a straw man, and it seems to be unique to certain strains of Christianity, such as Orthodox and evangelicals. If you’re asserting it as a matter of logic, and not as a matter of faith (which wouldn’t make much sense), then you’re saying that this logic has escaped the entire Roman Catholic church, including the pope.
I’m aware that the theology differs between the two faiths. But as you and Jacobse phrase this, it’s not theology, it’s just self-evident philosophy, a matter of logic.
I understand that great thinkers can be wrong, and I’m not saying the pope is an icon of reason and logic. However, while your faith may be beyond argument, is it possible that your logic is wrong? For example, if there is nothing about the theory of evolution that actually indicates that only matter exists–which, mind you, is the case–then your faith need not be shaken; you can simply admit that your logic was fallible.
DavidS,
I would like to single out one of the quotes that you found on the internet. It is simply fascinating:
– Robert Jastrow
(God and the Astronomers [New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1978], 116. Professor Jastrow was the founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, now director of the Mount Wilson Institute and its observatory.)
I would comment: The scientists are far from conquering the highest peak, but as they pull themselves over every rock in the way to the highest peak, they will be greeted every time by theologians. The price we pay for this approach to get knowledge is the destruction of the system of morality. The theologians are again there, to restore the order, for the Church only is teaching healthy moral values.
We have to live by faith and will not be wrong ever!
Glory be to Christ!“
Note 52. Phil writes:
Sure, which is why you go back to the basics and look at the philosophical ground of the Darwinian hypothesis (macro-evolution, not micro — a distinction you seem to miss altogether). The hypothesis holds that human existence is the result of material forces, — chemical, environmental, and genetic.
Posting a god above the process, as I’ve said countless times, works as a rhetorical device (call it post-modern religion — the meaning only exists in the sentence), but it can’t work logically unless that god is so removed that it exists only as a concept (as the noun in the sentence). It’s Artistotle’s unmoved mover light-years in the distance and past — untouchable, unreachable, much like the Muslim conception ironically.
Still, it’s a monotheistic god which speaks well of Aristotle (he saw something others of his era did not), but monotheism today is part of the air we breath so it probably just laziness on our part.
Further, that god is still within space-time and thus not the God of the culture in which the scientific method arose, that is, a God outside of space and time. (In cultural terms, a God outside of space and time is a necessary precondition of the scientific method because it gave rise to linear time.)
Your assertion really functions as a moralism (and a religious one at that). There is not much there.
Note 53. humble me writes:
humbleme, the destruction of morality occurs when man places himself as the touchstone of all that is true and right and good. Morality becomes subjective in this scenario, because man’s desires begin to rule his reasoning.* What he feels must be right because he feels it — and the stronger he feels it, the more right it must be. There is no higher standard, no higher authority, that bridle his passions, that direct him towards self-control of the more powerful passions. (Descarte said “I think, therefore I am” (itself problematic but influential nonetheless). It’s devolved to “I rut, therefore I am.”)
(In the Orthodox understanding the nous the “sun” that enlightens the reason, is darkened when man allows himself to be ruled by the passions.)
Further, it is not science that is the problem, it’s the materialistic myth (the idea that man in no more than his biological makeup) that justifies itself in the name of science that is the problem. Science can serve materialist designs (eugenics — social Darwinism — for example), but it can also serve a greater good (the conquest of disease for example). Science unlocks the mysteries of the material universe, and the knowledge gained is valuable. The ends to which that knowledge is applied — the moral/philosophical precepts that guide the application — however, lies beyond the purview of the scientific method, a conclusion that scientism has trouble with because it too labors under the materialist mythology.
Science is a great gift from God even though some men misuse it. Take the person healed through medicine for example. Whether medicine or a miracle, healing still takes place. And all healing ultimately comes from God.
One other thing to remember, morality without a foundation in proper anthropology and cosmology quickly disintegrates into moralism and then relativism. IMO that is what we are seeing today in our culture.
You keep phrasing this as if it’s a logical truism, when in fact your whole assertion rests on an opinion about the personality of God. There’s no grand, irrefutable quality to your statement “God wouldn’t allow evolution to form his creatures!” any more than there is to a child who states “God wouldn’t make it rain on my birthday! He loves me too much!” You’re presuming to know the mind of God. Which is your prerogative, but don’t pretend to take the philosophical or logical high ground; your argument is based on your own theology, not some distinct and reasoned philosophical principle.
That’s just gobbledygook. The God who created evolution must be inside space-time, but the God who created the Universe is outside of space-time? There’s nothing to back up that assertion.
I think when you say my assertion, you might just as well say “Your assertion–and the assertion of the Pope…” It adds a little je ne sais quoi.
Jacobse #56
I never attempted to diminish the achievements of science. You mentioned several and there are countless more.
Great scientists believed in God (ex: Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein).
See for example: I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame.”—Albert Einstein (1879-1955) (Source: Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941).
I mentioned previously the scientist and saint of the Orthodox Church Saint Luke Archbishop Of Simferopol (truly amazing man in both the scientific and theological realms). There were many more faithful scientist. I remember I read a affirmation made by a physicist (I forgot which one):” I have never seen a sane man who does not believe in God.”
In time, the science realms became more and more populated by atheist and agnostics scientists. They are the scientists in the quote “who have lived by their faith in the power of reason”. After a long and difficult journey the scientists come to see that the theologians were right. This is how I understand “greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”. Meanwhile, the crowd abandoned the faith in God (following their example) and puts its faith in science.
The misuse of the scientific achievements is frightening. You mentioned several. Add to that the humanity self-destruction capability, trough nuclear weaponry, and the sexual immorality and consequently, the break down of the family, due to the use of the birth control pills (not to mention the health effects).
Moderator,
James K says that he does not take religionists very seriously. It is more than obvious that he does not take religion seriously either. Why is he here to pollute the debate with his unfounded and grotesque affirmations? After all, this is an orthodox site!
From now on, I am not answering his comments nor bother to read them.
Humble (who is probably Christopher’s doppelganger) writes: “Unfounded and grotesque affirmations” on an “orthodox site”.
What affirmation did I make that you found “grotesque”? Are you referring to the statement about Fr. Rose (who I actually respect) along with the statement made by Archbishop Puhalo (whom I also respect a great deal and whose writings and talks I enjoy)? You might take it up with the contributors to Orthodox Wiki (owned and operated by a priest of the OCA).
I do have some regard for Christianity, in general, and some Christians as well. I’m sorry if my statement led you to believe otherwise. What I can’t abide is people who cloak their superstitions and personal, petty hatreds within a sacrosanct cloud of “religious belief”. Classifying gays as the “worst” of humankind is absurd, almost laughable.
Although I’m probably misusing the term, a religionist is someone who distorts or overemphasizes some elements of a religious doctrine to feed and gratify some element within their own personality, usually a negative one. The KKK who use some real passages in Scripture to justify their loathing for blacks are what I would consider to be “religionists”. Not all religionists are extremists, however, and most Christians are not religionists.
JamesK, I am so sorry you don’t understand. St. John was not speaking to or from a modern, secular view that so denegrates the human person that personal acts, even one’s personal state means next to nothing. Only the mass collective means anything. God is dead, let’s party!
Is murder worse than homosexuality? How do you have any room to comment anyway since over the years you have repeatedly and explicity denied any real hierarchy of values. You take a secular apophatic approach: I don’t know what values and being are, I just know that they can’t be what the Church says.
However, having pondered St. John’s words let me hazard the following:
The Bible and the Tradition from which St. John was speaking make it abundantly clear that the perversion of the soul is far worse than harm to another’s body.
Homosexuality is a vast distortion of the soul from the way in which God made it, it also dishonors the body and is some cases destroys it. When it is turned into a weapon of societal destruction as the politicized agenda has become, it is truly heinous and the destruction will far exceed anything dreamt of by Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. In Roman’s 1 which contains St. Paul’s list of vicious sins it is clear that the preversion of God’s creation is the root cause of all the villany. Read Romans 1:17-25, especially 22-25:
The list of specfic sins follows (verses 26-32) and includes murder. Idolatry is the root sin from which all others follow, but the first to flow from the perversion of God’s truth is sexual lust for one’s own gender.
It is a leap of miraculous proportions to then say that everyone who suffers from said sin is the worst as you imply we think. Neither the Bible nor the Tradition makes such a claim (I realized that many who claim to be Christian are caught in such an illogical and un-Biblical syllogism) As a sin, however, homosexuality is much more difficult to overcome than murder. That makes it worse. It is worse because it is at the heart of the demonic rebellion against the order of God’s creation and the tremendous hubris entailed in that rebellion. I know you are one of those of whom I spoke earlier that believes neither in sin nor the demonic, so forgive me for speaking in such an irrational manner, but you can’t even forgive can you since without a hierarchy of values forgiveness is simply another one of those archaic ideas that you can so easily dismiss.
Archbishop Puhula’s viscious personal attacks on Blessed Fr. Seraphim is a perfect example of why I do not trust the OCA bishops to teach rightly. +Lazar disagrees with the theology that Fr. Seraphim taught, and more particularly is threatened by Fr. Seraphim’s willingness to challenge bishops if he thought they were wrong which included +Lazar personally at one point.
Fr. Seraphim himself felt he might not make it into heaven because of his sins. That is for God to judge. Despite his sins, however, there are many in the United States and in Russia who have either returned to the Church or come to the Church because of Fr. Seraphim. I am among them. I sincerely doubt there is one person who has become homosexual or continued in his homosexuality because of Fr. Seraphim.
It is not righteous to judge the truth of a teaching based on what one thinks they know about the sinfulness of a particular person. No one but God knows the state of Fr. Seraphim’s soul. We can only hope and pray that Fr. Seraphim’s memory be eternal, that God forgive all of his sins so that he may be in a place of brightness, a place of verdure, a place of repose where all sickness, sorrow and sighing have fled away. If God chooses to reveal to us in the world that His power is greater than Fr. Seraphim’s sins, that He has accepted Fr. Seraphim among the righteous in heaven, it would not surprise me. What I do know is that among many Fr. Seraphim is already known as a strong intercessor for those with the besetting sin of lust. Sometimes a thorn in the flesh is given and endured for the benefit of others who are perhaps not as strong. The life of the Cross.
A drastically different idea from the ‘humanist’ one that thinks it is perfectly fine for people to engage in any activity they want because nothing really matters any way. Talk about lack of perspective!!
Michael, a very interesting post, but I am confused by the concern about Archbishop Puhalo (and to some degree, the apparent despondency and almost despair over the souls of men such as Fr. Rose who were widely considered saints). My understanding of Orthodoxy is that the Spirit preserves the Orthodox church and cannot allow it to be led astray. If you do not trust Puhalo (who I still think to be a very good man), it seems to imply that that may not be the case: that dishonesty and corruption can take hold and send the Church veering off into some other heretical course.
So, you may disagree with many (most?) of the OCA bishops that are living today. But if the Church is a whole is capable of that level of error today, why was it not capable of similar or different types of errors in its past history, rendering invalid many of the elements of those very traditions you hold as true today?
If the church body as it is (which is comprised of its hierarchy, priests and bishops) is part of the Tradition, then one must affirm that the Tradition is still led by the Spirit, albeit imperfectly at times, and that one must accept the decrees of the keepers of that Tradition, whether one agrees with them or not.
Have I misunderstood? I know things are somewhat different within the RCC, but the concept of tradition and obedience to the hierarchy still holds.
With all due respect, it seems that individuals becoming arbiters over what is true and what is not is just another variation of Protestantism.
Michael Bauman,
Thank you for your comment. I doubt that the intended destination will benefit from it, but others will surely do.
People who spread ideas like ‘homosexuality is widely accepted” or “there is nothing wrong with homosexuality” are lying or they have serious moral issues (or both). Homosexuality is a perversity and will never be widely accepted. God is already punishing it. The AID ( named initially ‘gay cancer’) did not appear by chance among them. The New Orleans city was not destroyed by chance, just before the gay parade. Tsunamis did not hit Thailand (were sexual tourism is legal) by chance.
Father Seraphim Rose was an amazingly gifted man. Our culture is pushing us to live in sin. He escaped the cultural influence, did an honest search for truth and found it. He defeated the devil, who was left to play his well known trick: calomny!
God worked His work trough Fr. Seraphim!
He paid here, on earth for his sins. God is just and punishes sin. I hope I’ll pay for my sins here on earth, too.
Fr. Sreaphim, pray for us, the sinners, to the Almighty God whose glory you are seeing!
Jacobse 56)
More on the misuses of the science:
Evolution theory is also an example of the misuse of science. Let me explain:
Accurate scientific observations were deliberately used to draw a a false conclusion:
humans evolved from monkeys.
Our kids are very smart. They very often ask the teachers: If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? The get a lame explanation: the science has not figure out that yet. I know, some can came up with a more ‘scientific’ explanation that this.
Evolution will never be able to account for the special, wonderful gifts that only the humans have: power of reasoning (which ultimately led to scientific discoveries), a wide range of artistic abilities (music, painting, literature, poetry,…), compassion and more.
Religion has the answer, and had it for more than centuries: we are created in the image and likeness of God. Religion tells us how we have been created: …God looked at all he had done and saw that it was very good…
Evolution theory is an insult to the human kind.
Evolution theory is not science, but an example of misuse of science to serve evil ends: to undermine morality because it interfered with sexual freedom.
Why are our honest scientists being silent?
Michael,
Once again you are making assumptions regarding disputes among clergy/hierarchy. This is not the proper venue for this. I personally know +Lazar. He has stayed at my home. He has never felt threatened by anyone’s theology. His condemnation of Fr. Seraphim’s gnostic teachings regarding the “Toll Houses” are justified.
Regarding any alleged statements +Lazar has made on the homosexuality of Fr. Seraphim I am unaware.
A non-believer likes to divide those of us by quoting one or two Church officials as if their words were the definitive position of Orthodoxy.
Humble: I noticed that you quoted Saint John Chrysostom. Going back to my question to Michael about what he accepts and what he discards among the writings of the Orthodox saints, do you accept what Chrysostom stated about the Jews?
These are strong words, Humble, and not words that I think are shared by many Orthodox believers today. Many Orthodox have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from some of these writings by re-interpreting his words in a more palatable light.
Why, then, would you insist we take at face value St. John’s words about homosexuals? What litmus test do you use when determining what to accept or reject among a saint’s writings?
I don’t make assumptions regarding +Lazar’s dislike of Fr. Seraphim. I’ve read his own words to that effect. +Lazar likes Fr. Seraphim’s theology even less, calling Fr. Seraphim a Gnostic. I also know that Fr. Seraphim had frequent run-in’s with the hierarchy of both ROCOR and the OCA not limited to +Lazar and also including Fr. Alexander Schmemann and many bishops. It is a matter of record that quite a few bishops thought Fr. Seraphim should have been defrocked because of his actions and statements concerning them. It is also a matter of record that late in life Fr. Seraphim did what he could to make personal amends to anyone he had offended. He and Fr. Alexander made peace.
+Lazar has a duty to critique the theology of Fr. Seraphim as do we all, but it should not be accompanied by ad hominum attacks. That being said, maybe +Lazar and Fr. Seraphim will end up on the same icon some day. That wouldn’t surprise me either.
The Orthodox Church is a rowdy organization and it always has been, probably always will be. She dosen’t fit nicely into anyone’s box. She has a way of confounding the expectations of those around her and especially those within her. Personally, I don’t equate questioning the actions and intentions of bishops with dividing the Church. I don’t question +Lazar’s dedication to God any more than I do Fr. Seraphim’s. I just think +Lazar is seriously wrong in his approach to Fr. Seraphim.
One of those sayings of Fr. Seraphim that I particularly like and appreciate is “Don’t expect me to defend sin” No question that Fr. Seraphim struggled with homosexuality. Fr. Seraphim, I am certain, did not defend his own sin. God used him anyway and IMO continues to use him despite that sin. Strength coming from weakness by the grace of God.
Perhaps someone who’s Orthodox and feels that their view of evolution is based in sound, well-reasoned philosophy could patiently and helpfully point out one or two of the things that are wrong with that analysis?
Acquiescing when a really bad argument is made just because the speaker is trying to achieve the same ends as you is not a sign of intellectual, moral, or spiritual rigor.
Everybody,
Let’s not deviate again! Jesus was Jew, his Holy Mother was Jew, the Holy Apostles were Jews. May Jews are christens. There are many non-christen honest Jews. What kind of Jews do you think was St. John talking about?
I suggest: everybody refrain to comment on this. Leads nowhere!
I would appreciate comments on the misuses of science. Thank you.
What about focusing on:
?
Note 69. Phil writes:
Like trying to put Aristotle on top of Darwin perhaps?
Note 71. humbleme, that’s exactly the point Berlinski makes. Berlinski doesn’t hold to ID, but he is no fan of Darwin either precisely for the reason you describe: reducing the human being to biology can’t explain the complexity of the person and why he possesses characteristics that, while not removed from biology, clearly point to something more occurring than random molecular assembling.
Commentary ran an interesting article authored by Berlinski last month about this issue: God of the Gaps.
Regarding James K. James likes to posit extreme positions (by current convention anyway) and then place himself squarely between them. It doesn’t matter if the positions are recent or historical (history serves to buttress modern cultural assumptions). Things appear more reasonable that way and you don’t have to wrestle with difficult questions. You are free however, to accuse others of intolerance, hypocrisy — whatever the discussion closing pejorative of the hour happens to be.
It is a misuse of science to apply it to anything but techincal questions, i.e., how do material things work, or not work. Anything more than that is, from a scientific perspective mere untestable speculation. Science as philosophy or as an arbiter of what it means to be human or attempting to answer questions of eschatology is simply Scientism, an ideology accepted and propagated on faith. As with any ideology, its proponents seek to destroy any who disagree with it wishing to acquire as much power as possible. All ideology is inherently tyrannical.
Christianity can certainly become a dogmatic ideology rather than a living experience of the Incarnate Lord. The non-Christians who post here tend to think of Christianity as mere ideology because that is all they have experienced of it. They reject the ideology thinking they are rejecting authentic Christianity. Unfortunately, they are so invested in their rejection of the false that they cannot open themselves up to the authentic. That is the ultimate poison of all heresy and legalism. Ideology of any kind is a false god, a parasite, that always directs the good intentions of man toward evil. So has the ideology of Scientism distorted the discpline of science and fostered the false dicotomy between faith and reason. A dicotomy which is unfortunately endemic in the western mind with deep roots. The bifurcation of the human being that both Scientism and Christian legalism perpetuate is a horror.
Another failure in understanding: sin in the Church is not the sin of the Church, it is a sin against the Church. Something that even many sincere Christians have trouble with. Unfortunately, JamesK and others delight in pointing out sin in the Church and equating it with the sin of the Church seeking to manipulate us into defending sin simply because it happened in the Church. Sin is sin and not to be defended anywhere it is found, most of all in oneself. Psalm 50/51 says, “…against thee only have I sinned, and done evil in thy sight…” Sin is an offense against God, it lies heavier upon those who are supposed to know better.
God has told us both explicitly in the Judeo-Christian revelation and in many other less direct ways throughout our history what constitues sin. It is only our own arrogance and unwillingness to accuse ourselves that allows us think we know better.
Michael, I don’t think it’s legalism to attempt to find a pattern, a system or consistency of approach to matters. The one thing I’ve admired about Catholicism is its consistent treatment of ethics. I also have a certain (albeit grudging) respect for Protestant fundamentalism in the sense that it is often strict and predictable in the manner that it interprets Scripture. With Orthodoxy, I’m often hard-pressed to determine how one declares what is correct or not correct. Sometimes an Orthodox believer will passionately defend the writings of a Saint or Church Father, even if other teachings of that same Saint are discarded as errant. Humble accepts at face value the writings of Chrysostom on one topic while pretty much ignoring his other writings on other matters (“He can’t mean that!”). On what basis? I don’t know. Personal feeling? This, again, seems very akin to the Protestant notion that God’s revelation to the individual takes precedence over any declared doctrine as declared by a ruling church body. ( “I don’t need no Pope to tell me what’s what!”)
Ah well, perhaps I will never “get” Orthodoxy.
73) Jacobse,
One does not have to be very smart to come up with this observation on the humans complexity (intellectual, artistic, spiritual) which differentiate us from all the animals. It is almost a mater of common sens. I would not be surprised to hear that even the children are asking their teachers this kind of questions. You do not need to go into details like micro/macro evolution to question the validity of this theory. Most of the observations and statements regarding different animal species might be correct.
There is a barrier, an wall, that separates human kind from the animals. There is no way to tunnel this wall. The attempt to link the humans to the monkeys was based only on the fact that they look alike. In Berlinski’s article it is pointed out that “because of the differences in anatomy and the way of life, biologists place the two species not only in separate genera but in separate families”
Michael Bauman said : humble,
We can and we must rule out all sorts of possibilities of how God created the world.
I bet, you were very disappointed when I said : I am the creature and I do not attempt to understand the CREATOR. I love Him, praise Him and marvel at His wisdom.
Let me attempt to understand the Creator. The Bible tells us that he created all things. He created the animals, and I do not have a problem admitting that the way He did it was trough some sort of an ‘evolution like’ process. It did not take Him thousands of years to do it, but one day for all. The time is actually relative. Not really relevant for “…with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” – II Peter 3:8
The conclusion of the evolution theory is FALSE and as I said, an insult to human kind. Humans do not come from monkeys.
Yet, it is presented to our children in school as a fact.
Actually, I’ve said several times that Darwin the man is pretty much irrelevant to the theory of evolution, and that the theory of evolution, as currently understood, is distinct from “Darwinism.” He wasn’t right about everything. If you want a more specific condemnation of any particular bad arguments that Darwin made, let me know.
Beyond that, if you have problems with the way the pope and I view the theory of evolution, don’t you think that might be the result of your personal religious beliefs and not the result of irrefutable logic? I realize that you’re not Catholic, it just seems odd that you’d be so snide with me about one of the few issues where I seem to agree with both John Paul II and Benedict IVI.
I should edit that to say:
1.) I meant “Benedict XVI”
2.) I don’t mean to suggest, by “personal religious beliefs,” that the personal nature=wrong. I just mean to make a distinction between something which an individual accepts on faith and a proposition which can logically demonstrated to be false or true.
Phil,
You are right. To use “the science has not figure out that yet” as an answer to the question:
is really a bad example and should not be used for any purpose.
I suggest a more ‘scientific’ answer to the above question:
I bet, we will be able to trick most of our kids with this one.
Now comes the science proposal: scientists have to identify what kind of chemical changes triggered monkeys interest in science? Later, they have to identify what kind of chemical changes in the brain makes, artists, and all the others attributes which are only specific to humans.
In order to get the founding for these research ( which might seem useless to many), they have to point out the following expected benefits of this proposal:
Once the chemical processes listed above are identified, we can induce them in the elephant brain (the elephants seem wise and peaceful to me) and compare the science that elephants produce with the humans science. An large agreement is expected between these two sciences: human science and elephant science.
An other animal might be used if considered that it will be more appealing in order to get the necessary money for this ‘research’.
When they succeed in this research, the evolution theory will be proven to be right.
Until then, Evolution theory is an insult to the human kind.
The Germans took it very seriously and we now what happened.
Note 77. Phil writes:
I’ll let the Pope speak for himself. It’s the “irrefutable logic” I have trouble with. With Darwinism for example, as with all assertions about origins, “irrefutable logic” depends on non-material (read “unproveable”) assertions. It’s philosophy Phil. Try and prove it if you want, but calling it “scientific” or “irrefutable” or even “religious” (which you try to do with the illogical — in the real sense of the term — interspersion of Aristotle onto Darwin) just doesn’t work.
You tend to categorize those things you disagree with as “religious beliefs” and the things you agree with as “irrefutable” not realizing your opinions are never free of transcendent assertions.
Note 80–
I never called the theory of evolution “irrefutable.” The phrasing I use for that tends to be “examing the available evidence and deciding that it’s a plausible explanation”– a far cry.
I simply contend, correctly, that those who find the theory of evolution plausible but feel that God, or a God, is probably responsible for setting it in motion (for example, if they believe that all events, whether they appear to be random or organized, are the result of God’s will) cannot be irrefutably demonstrated to be wrong.
That is, you keep phrasing it as if there is some logical impossibility to believing that God could allow evolution, and then you name-check Aristotle and Darwin as if that makes the case. I’m not asserting that God did allow evolution, just that the people who think so are not guilty of any logical fallacy, as you seem to keep asserting that they are.
Humble writes: “Now comes the science proposal: scientists have to identify what kind of chemical changes triggered monkeys interest in science? Later, they have to identify what kind of chemical changes in the brain makes, artists, and all the others attributes which are only specific to humans.”
According to evolutionary theory, mental capacity in the Homo genus developed over time, something around a million years. Primate evolution occurred over a period of around 65 – 70 million years. Within these time periods, there were many different branches of species, the vast majority of which no longer exist.
So you can’t look at a modern monkey and assume that humans evolved from it. Modern monkeys developed through a completely different evolutionary path, and are not in any sense our “ancestors.”
Humble: “When they succeed in this research, the evolution theory will be proven to be right.”
The problem is that your “experiment” has absolutely nothing to do with the way that evolution works. No one says that intelligence is something that can be induced or injected into any animal.
Let me give you example. According to geological theory, the Grand Canyon developed over millions of years. According to your approach, the only way that a geologist could “prove” that would be to take a river, do something to it, and instantaneously turn it into another Grand Canyon. Well, it doesn’t work that way, and that’s not the claim that geologists are making.
You’re basically setting up conditions of proof so utterly impossible that no evolutionary scientist could possibly meet them, because that’s not how evolution works in the first place.
James K,
The problem with the West’s systematic theology causes them problems. For example, their legalistic view of “sin” is that it strictly interpreted as “lawlessness.” Can it be “lawlessness”? Certainly. But “sin” means “missing the mark.” A western dilemma would be- “Is it sin to lie in order to save the life of a Jew, hiding upstairs, who is being haunted by the Nazis?” How would this be handled in the west? There are three main schools of ethical thought:
Unqualified Absolutism- One cannot lie under. It is a sin.
Conflicting Absolutism- There are greater and lesser sins. In this case, lying would be the lesser sin. So I must lie but still ask for forgiveness.
Graded Absolutism- “The principle that a higher obligation absolves me from a lower stands firm.” -Charles Hodge So it is still sin because I am breaking the law. However, I am absolved because I did a higher good.
How do they compare to Orthodoxy?
Orthodoxy – Sin keeps me from communion with God. It’s not a matter of “breaking a law.” If I lie to save someone’s life, I have not broken any law nor have I “missed the mark.” No need for forgiveness or absolution.
Jim Holman writes:
1) Then why the scientists fail to find any fossil remains to prove the above assertion?
Even worse, they try to ‘make up’ such profs.
2) Any affirmation concerning “evolution over millions of years” is just theory. Never to be proved! The only method we have to date ‘once living organisms’ is 14C ( and such alike) which can’t be trusted for more than, let say 5,000 years back (maybe more), but no way for millions of years back.
I was most of my life one of the many people out there, who thought that science will answer all our questions and solve all our problems. I was very serious about science. I spent about a decade as an undergraduate/graduate student in one of the sciences branches. I was not an atheist, nor an agnostic but ‘an indifferent about religion’.
I am totally disappointed by the scientists (many of them). They uncover non trivial, very complex lows of matter They get very excited about their discoveries. And they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the “Low_maker”. Many started to acknowledge Him.
It is like somebody is watching the traffic in a large city, makes observations and writes down laws in terms of observables that he defines. Then he concludes: the traffic is smooth by chance! We know that we made the traffic rules.
Or, somebody looks at what a computer does and concludes: the computer is intelligent! We know that we wrote the software that makes the computer “intelligent”. We even made the hardware.
I was most of my life one of those “modern ears” who did not believe in sin and demonic. I would still be one of them, defending the evolution theory, if ‘something’ would not have happened.
That ‘something’ is “receiving the gift of faith”. Yes, this is a gift from God, like the power of reason and all the other gifts specific to human kind. I did not seek to receive this gift. Life (perhaps God?) brought me down to my knees. This is how I god rid of the square box around my head. I came to understand that atheism is irrationality and ignorance.
Science is becoming more and more a new tower of Babel. Scientists labor to built this tower (publish or perish!). Scientists are trying to place themselfs above God. Some of them started to play a very dangerous game: they started to play God ( cloning, steam cell research).
I am now very serious about religion. The Orthodox Church has the fullness of truth. The Catholic Church has parts of the truth. The others, are branches cut off from the ‘tree of life’ and are going to perish because they have no roots (the sacraments).
Note 81. Phil writes:
As a Westerner you really have only three options (we will avoid Eastern polytheism for the moment): Aristotle, Plato, or the Hebrew prophets. Aristotle’s teaching is that ‘god’ (our term) is the “unmoved mover” — the one who sets the world into motion. Plato taught the materiality represents an imperfect forms of an ideal form — the world is a “copy” in a sense, albeit not perfect, of a perfect realm. The prophets taught the the world was created out of nothing by the “God of Abraham” who exists outside of space and time.
Darwin is a materialist (in the philosophical sense). Order emerges from chaos (the absence of any order); all non-material constituents of human experience emanate from matter. There is no room for an unmoved mover (implies a preexisting order); a realm of perfect form (Platonic dualism can’t coexist with materialism); or a God outside of space and time that creates (in which case the means of creation has to be the spoken word* — order is imposed on disorder, on the waters of chaos to use biblical terminology).
(*Not related but still interesting — The post-modernist literary critics, albeit inadvertently, are close to a fundamental truth about creation: the creation either is, or is not, logo-centric.)
Thus again, posit Aristotle above Darwin if you want, but the construction is illogical because it demolishes materialism. Randomness is rendered illegitimate because randomness must exist as part of larger (even if undetected) order for your construct to make sense. Read through a definition of materialism again to grasp this.
What you really ought to do if you want to defend your line of reasoning is argue that Darwin was not a materialist. This is the real ground of the debate and not whether ‘god’ set the entire process into motion. But this too will be difficult. Start by asking yourself why the severe Darwinian apologists like Richard Dawkins object to any notion of God within the Darwinian hypothesis. (He could not accept your construct, BTW.)
As for “irrefutably demonstrated,” neither can it be irrefutably demonstrated to be wrong that the first amino acids combined because of laser energy directed from Venus by a long extinct horde of brainy insects who evolved thumbs on their forelegs. (Hey, somebody probably believes this!)
Note 83: I can see how the West’s approach might seem legalistic and almost clinical and cold in the way it defines matters of ethics. However, I think a sensitivity to the nuances of morality is in order, one that is lost when one judges matters of great gravity as if the “right thing” is immediately apparent. I think the efforts of the West are an attempt to address these nuances, even if such attempts might seem to trivialize (and “materialize”?) the spiritual element of these decisions.
For many of us, ethics are a simple matter: put in an honest day’s work, don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t cheat on your spouse. It becomes a bit more complex as one’s responsibility for others increases, whether in corporate or government or church life.
Look at the Iraq conflict: I still think it was done for the wrong reasons, but good does seem to be coming out of it (I read of the recent re-opening of the Iraq Symphony that occurred without incident and of other religious and personal freedoms that seem to be increasing there). Thankfully I do not have to deal with such decisions, because I do not honestly know what the “right” thing to do was in this instance. Is my sense that we should tend to our own nation’s problems born out of a regard for the thousands of military personnel, a respect for the lives of those caught in the unfortunate crossfire of our military endeavors in other nations, or am I just being practical and selfish by wanting our funds to stay here? Practicality should certainly not be the final arbiter of one’s actions: sometimes it is more ethical to be impractical.
This is not just in matters of war: when one’s decisions impact the lives of many others, one must sometimes weigh many competing goods. How does one even begin?
So, I must confess that I prefer a more reasoned and analytical approach to these matters, one that includes a bit of self-awareness in terms of one’s motives, even if it lends itself to a certain neurotic and labored element in one’s decision-making processes.
Humble writes: “Any affirmation concerning “evolution over millions of years” is just theory. Never to be proved!”
About five miles from where I used to live is a very nice fossil bed located in a sandstone railroad cut. There you can find fossil snails, clams, and the occasional sea star. The interesting thing is that this place is at an elevation of around 600 feet. But obviously, it used to be under water. In fact most of the state used to be under water, which we know from the existence of other similar fossil beds.
That kind of rise in elevation does not happen overnight. It does not happen in 5,000 years. This is an example of how biological evolution intersects with geology.
Jim Holman writes:
In note 84. I said : Then why the scientists fail to find any fossil remains to prove the above assertion? Even worse, they try to ‘make up’ such profs.
Here, I was referring to humanoid like fossils, which would link us to our supposed ancestors, the apes. This kind of fossils are a lot larger than the insect fossils ( therefore, easier to find) and a lot more recent than the insect fossil ( about one million years old for humanoids compared to about 50 millions years for insects. This is the claim that the evolution theory makes).
Second, I did not claim that the nice fossil bed located in a sandstone railroad cut , that you have seen, is 5000 years old. I said that the science (taken by many as holding “irrefutable truths”) cannot prove any statement concerning evolution over millions of years. The only mean to date ‘once living organisms’ , as of today, is carbon 14 (and the alike) which is accepted to be accurate for, let’s be extremely generous, and say 30,000 years ( this would account for the expected progresses in the science in the next 20 years).
That being said, the evolution theory claim:
is just narrative ( as Jacobse said many times), and I would add: the evolution theory is just narrative stuffed with scientific terms.
The fossil bed made of fossil snails, clams, and the occasional sea star found at an elevation of around 600 feet rather proofs the Universal Flood ‘theory’ (3000 BC )
Signed: Humble, a humble lover of Christ!
Actually, that just proves the Earth is older than 5,000 years. It doesn’t prove anything about Evolution.
The problem with that sentence (and the reason I think “the theory of evolution” is a better term than “Darwinism”) is that it suggests that Darwin’s personal beliefs somehow affect the nature of the theory of evolution.
But I think we can both agree that no quality of Charles Darwin the man–be it his philosophical beliefs, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or his personality–has any impact on whether evolution occurred. It’s pretty likely that, if Darwin had never been born, someone else would have published a similar theory, and it would have faced a similar century of scrutiny.
So if we look at it as a question: “How did the variety of species come to populate the earth?”–and an answer: “One theory is that speciation occurred through macro-evolution,” it’s pretty clear that no personal quality of any human being has any impact on whether that theory is correct.
As an educated man, you must realize this, so I surmise that your statement “Darwin was a materialist” is poetic, and not an assertion that Darwin’s beliefs have any effect on the correctness or incorrectness of a scientific theory.
The phrasing there is infelicitous. What I ought to do to defend my line of reasoning is argue that the theory of evolution is not necessarily a materialist theory.
This is something that I have done repeatedly. The only way that your contention, that “God cannot possibly have allowed species to evolve from some forms into very different forms,” can be true is if either
a) God has an inherent limitation,
or
b) The theory of evolution is inherently materialist.
Michael Baumann has argued that God has a self-imposed limitation, that is, God would not choose to allow evolution create his people. I do not argue with that; it is a matter of faith for him, and it’s not subject to a logical claim.
You argue that the theory is inherently materialist, and I disagree. I suspect that you don’t really understand the theory of evolution, but have instead read extensive philosophical analyses of it.
As I’ve said, the ToE is a description of a process that might have occurred. If the process occurred, then the theory is correct. If the process did not occur, then the theory is incorrect. This is true of all scientific theories that describe processes, and the ToE is unique only because it describes a process that took place over millions of years.
In order for the ToE to be inherently materialistic, as you suggest, there must be some aspect of it that specifically contradicts the notion that there can be a higher power. This is not the case. The only aspect of the theory that you can point to is this” that random things can happen. But thousands of scientific theories depend on random things happening.
We need not accept that “random” means “un-caused by God.” We could easily interpret “random” as “unpredictable.” Most theologians will tell you that God causes events that we cannot predict.
Additionally, people who believe that God may have caused the events of evolution to occur–the majority of evolutionists, mind you–have already rejected the notion that the theory of evolution is inherently evolutionist.
Earlier, you suggested that, statistically speaking, the odds of evolution producing something like humas are very unlikely. Many people see this as support for the notion that evolution was “guided” by God or a supreme being.
Note 91. Phil writes:
Where do you get the idea that categorizing a philosophical outlook as “personal beliefs” negates the dependency of the Darwinian hypothesis on philosophical materialism? Ignore his beliefs if you want, but Darwin’s hypothesis is entirely dependent on philosophical materialism. You cannot separate one from the other.
That Darwin was a materialist is an undeniable fact. That Marx was a materialist is an undeniable fact. That Freud was a materialist is an undeniable fact. That their philosophic outlook (their “beliefs”) informed and influenced their theories is an undeniable fact.
Now if you are saying that pointing out Darwin’s belief in philosophical materialism is not sufficient to discredit the theory, I would agree. The same goes for Marx or Freud. But it does not follow (which it appears you are trying to say), that any discussion of the dependency of Darwin’s theory on philosophical materialism is defacto out of bounds because of Darwin’s “personal beliefs.” That makes no sense at all.
Moving on…
You don’t really understand philosophical materialism, which is to say you don’t really understand the philosophical ground of the evolutionary theory. Random does not mean “uncaused by God.” That’s a theological assertion. Random means that no cause — no agent of ordering — preexisted the ordering of matter into the structures they finally took. Nor does random mean “unpredictable.” The term “unpredictable” still implies an order above the event (something cannot be “unpredictable” unless we first understand what is predictable; there is no such thing as predictability with random events, there is only chance).
Again, you can try to impose order into randomness by claiming God caused it, but then you 1) get into useless speculations about God; or 2) deny the real philosophic ground of the theory; or 3) redefine terms to mean something other than what they really mean.
Yes, of course they do. Any thinking person will discover that the demands that philosophical materialism place on the human psyche are too great to bear. I suspect that’s why you want to place Aristotle on top of the whole enterprise. (Richard Dawkins would never do such a thing, BTW. He gets it.) But all this reveals is that they don’t really understand the philosophic ground of the theory.
The Darwinian hypothesis (macro-evolution) is a closed system — no room for an agent of ordering (including God or physical law) is allowed. Positing God as the author of the entire process is merely a short-term resuscitation.
Note 89. humblebe writes:
Yup. Darwin’s theory is the creation narrative of the philosophical materialist.
In terms of cultural history, this narrative arose when the scientific revolution gave rise to a cult of progress (the Eiffel Tower is one of its monuments) that died on the battlefields of WWI. It’s a fascinating period of history.
Jacobse writes:
Can you expand this for me. I don’t really get it, but I am sure is a very interesting idea.
Not too long, please. Thanks.
I think the problem in our communication, Jacobse, is that I’m very legalistic and specific. You’re assuming that any statement I make that is not in favor of one side of an argument is automatically in favor of the opposite. That is not the case.
To wit: Darwin’s personal beliefs–or whatever you wish to call his “philosophical outlook”–do not automatically render a theory which he helped create “philosophically materialist.”
Now, look carefully at the above statement. That statement is not an argument that the theory of evolution is not philosophically materialist. It is simply an argument that, if it is, that is due to something other than Darwin’s personal beliefs. We wouldn’t call Darwin’s grocery list a “philosophically materialist grocery list,” unless there was some aspect of it which asserted that nothing but matter and energy exist.
Ergo, according to you, there must be some aspect of the theory of evolution that makes it, unavoidably, philosophically materialist.
As far as I can tell, you claim that this aspect is: the theory of evolution posits that at some point in the development of species, there was chaos.
Since God and chaos cannot coexist, the theory of evolution is therefore materialist. Am I summing up your point accurately?
“Darwin’s theory is the creation narrative of the philosophical materialist.”
If by this you mean that change must occur in a random fashion, then you’re absolutely correct. I’m not sure how “randomness” can be verified scientifically since by definition, randomness is a chain of events that cannot be duplicated in any meaningful or reliable way. Guided change, perhaps, could still allow for a Creator, and I think this is closer to the view of Christian believers in evolution who feel that essentially a coerced “morphing” of matter occurred in life forms over eons of our measurable time (although for God who is above and outside of time it could have occurred in an instant). Random change certainly does not allow for the notion of a God actively involved in the universe. He couldn’t be unless one believes God noticed something happening in an area He wasn’t attending to and suddenly became interested in what was going on.
You might find the following opinion in Salon interesting:
Note 95. Phil asks:
No. Look up the definition of philosophical materialism. Look at that philosophical ground of the Darwinian hypothesis. One and the same.
“Chaos” in the Darwinian sense (macro-evolution) does not allow for the possibility of an outside agent of change (God, physical law, etc.). “Random” IOW, means exactly that. Over billions and billions of years, random interactions gave rise to increasingly complex structures.
Introducing God into the picture, say, placing Aristotle on the top of the enterprise tries to do — what? — probably make it appear the chaos is not really chaos, and the randomness is not really random. It’s a comforting sentiment I guess, but it doesn’t work — not if one takes the definitions at their word, and understands what is meant by God.
Again, I don’t think you really grasp what materialism is (in the philosophical sense). Sagan was a materialist. Dawkins is a materialist. Materialism is the belief that all that exists is matter, that which can be empirically measured.
Note 96. James, a religion of science has already been tried. It’s led to eugenics, concentration camps, gulags, etc. — Marx, and his march of inevitable progress.
The article is very interesting for this reason (even if it panders to the secular left too much): it reveals the cultural shift occurring toward religion even on the left.
If the science were to be honestly used, it would be proving over and over again that the Bible is true.
The kind of fossil bed that Jim Holman mentioned “made of fossil snails, clams, and the occasional sea star found at an elevation of around 600 feet” is not unique. Many like it have been discovered at even higher elevations. These discoveries are being deliberately ignored. As Glen noticed, “they do not prove anything about Evolution”. They prove that the Universal Flood ‘theory’ (3000 BC ) is correct.
I believe James and especially Phil are here to burn out our precious time with their very long (mostly pointless) comments. And you, Jacobse, are their principal target.
Anyone agrees?
Note 94. humbleme writes:
Darwin was a man of his age, swept along in a tremendously exciting period of history where science was unlocking long held secrets of the working of creation, where the industrial revolution was freeing man from the poverty and drudgery that had been his lot of centuries, where new political ideas that promised a better society were bandied about, and so forth.
Arising in this epoch was also a kind of faith in progress, an optimism and hope that as mankind unlocked the secrets, the world would become an infinitely better place. That didn’t happen. Instead, Europe got caught up in WWI (“The War to End all Wars”) — a pointless bloodbath really, and the faith in progress died alongside it. (You see the rise of Existentialism after it.)
Out of the epoch emerged Darwin, Marx, Freud, you see the collapse of the classical forms in art (read Roger Shattuck’s The Banquet Years) — all in all a very vibrant time — but also one where destructive ideas were unleashed (Marxism, eugenics, etc.) that caused untold suffering.
You still see vestiges today. Marxism has collapsed, its moral bankruptcy evident to almost everyone except some African and S. American dictators and American academics. Eugenics still exists in organizations like Planned Parenthood (PP markets most abortions to blacks, etc.)