|
|
|
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
"...ill-informed rejection of evolutionary theory from all the Orthodox believers here, it seems..."
I haven't seen that, it must have been someone's personal opinion because the Orthodox do not have any specific teachings against evolutionary theory.
I found this on an "Experts" Q&A site on Eastern Orthodoxy:
"The Church has no "beliefs" on evolution. We believe that God created everything. HOW He did it is subject to debate, but we do not have to accept the accounts in Genesis as literal history. We don't "have" to believe in the THEORY of evolution either, but it seems to be the best that science can come up with at present".
Personally I find the Orthodox beautiful, fascinating and .... authentic. Were I younger I might be tempted to dip my toe in the water.
--------------
I do not have fully formed opinions about demons but I have witnessed evil and been aware of oppression. Some of this can be explained by psychology and doubtless there are scientific explanations for some of the things experienced by others. However, evil is evil however it can be explained and we all have our "demons".
I would not be too quick to dismiss other people's experiences. |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
| victoria plum wrote: | "...ill-informed rejection of evolutionary theory from all the Orthodox believers here, it seems..."
I haven't seen that, it must have been someone's personal opinion because the Orthodox do not have any specific teachings against evolutionary theory.
I found this on an "Experts" Q&A site on Eastern Orthodoxy:"
"The Church has no "beliefs" on evolution. We believe that God created everything. HOW He did it is subject to debate, but we do not have to accept the accounts in Genesis as literal history. We don't "have" to believe in the THEORY of evolution either, but it seems to be the best that science can come up with at present".
Personally I find the Orthodox beautiful, fascinating and .... authentic. Were I younger I might be tempted to dip my toe in the water.
--------------
I do not have fully formed opinions about demons but I have witnessed evil and been aware of oppression. Some of this can be explained by psychology and doubtless there are scientific explanations for some of the things experienced by others. However, evil is evil however it can be explained and we all have our "demons".
I would not be too quick to dismiss other people's experiences. |
It was ME she was referring to ... I actually DID say that the Orthodox church has never had an Ecumenical decision on the matter and that we are free to accept what we believe ... then I put foward ONE persons OPINION that was ANTI-EVOLUTION ...
Its rich that people constantly point fingers at me but they dont actually take CARE in understanding really what I was trying to say. Here is the post:
| Quote: | "Is there enough observational evidence in support of evolution to warrant its acceptance as a theory rather than a hypothesis?"
Given that this first question still arises suggests that no concrete evidence in support of the idea of (biological) evolution ...
You have to wonder why - thousands of people have been spending their whole lives "studying" evolution, for the past 150 years, and so far the mountain is yet to give birth even to a gnat, let alone a mouse.
What evidence for evolution, independent from the initial observations, is there?
Biodiversity? - initial observation.
Similarity of different life forms? - initial observation.
Life forms that no longer exist? - initial observation.
Artificial selection? - expression of already existing genetic information, irrelevant.
Allopatric/simpatric speciation (darwin's finches) - expression of already existing genetic information, irrelevant.
Superbugs/Resistance to anti-biotics, insecticides, etc - degradation of genetic code, irrelevant.
Mutations - degradation of genetic code, irrelevant.
Junk DNA - no such thing exists, irrelevant.
In the absence of any evidence for evolution it is neither a hypothesis, much less a theory; since the idea is neither directly testable, nor verifiable, nor falsifiable - if I say that a crocodile jumped from a tree 70 mln yrs ago and grew wings, how this statement can be tested, verified or falsified - it's not science. No evidence is possible ...
"Given the results of the first question -- i.e., given how good or bad the evidence supporting evolution appears to be -- should Christians believe in evolution?"
As a side comment: the development of modern science dates to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, so no ecumenical council has ever addressed how to integrate it with divine revelation in a coherent and consistent worldview.
As a result, there is not a dogmatic treatment examining how to resolve conflicts, whether apparent or real, when scientific findings appear to contradict divine revelation.
Many early Church Fathers were happy to use the primitive science of their day to divine purposes, perhaps suggesting to modern Christians a compatibilist resolution to the question. Other Fathers, however, clearly see conflicts and contradictions which they resolve in favor of their understanding of Christian revelation.
In general, the Orthodox Christian responses can be grouped into two large categories, which are labelled Compatibilism and Incompatibilism:
Compatibilists hold that science and theology are compatible and view them as complementary revelations of God. As God is the source of both his specific revelation of himself in the Christian faith and the source of the general revelation of himself in nature, the findings of science and theology cannot really contradict; the contradictions must be merely apparent and a resolution possible which is faithful to the truth of God's revelation.
Incompatibilists hold that science can be incompatible with faith. They usually argue either that science is philosophically based on a kind of naturalism or that God's specific revelation is infallible and therefore trumps the findings of human reason in the case of any conflict between them. This is often based on a suspicion of human reason to arrive at reliable conclusions in the first place.
Here is the opinion of a friend of mine (Compatibilist): One ought not to confuse the work of God in creating the whole universe from the Big Bang (or whatever) onwards and proceeding to direct it through the evolution of life on earth *- *with His separate creation of the image of God within the evolved mankind.
According to the narrative of Genesis, God created the cosmos and all that is in it; how and why He chose to do it we most likely will never understand (although if He did it simply for His own enjoyment, that would suffice).
In Genesis God then made man, both male and female on the sixth “day”, taking Adam and breathing into him the spirit of life - making him in the image and likeness of God, giving him an immortal soul and then a mate.
There is an implication that humans existed before Adam, but that only with Adam did they become fully human. This does not at all contradict the scientific discoveries dating the world as being some billions of years old. Nor does it contradict the idea of some form of evolution of species including homo sapiens etc.
What concerns us is the creation of man in the image of God. *What went before is of great scientific interest and helps us to understand the whole stupendous work of God’s seven phases of Creation - but it in no way explains modern humans who, precisely because God created them in His own image, are now separated completely from their pre-Adamian forebears.
The “Most Recent Common Ancestor” theories have various methods of arriving at that point, however, taking into account the most isolated populations (Australian aborigines and Pacific Islanders), the MRCA would be somewhere in the period 140,000 - 100,000 years ago. *If we therefore posit the Adamian creation as being in that period, it allows us to follow Christian teaching that all humans on earth today have the image of God within them.
The term “days” is used in Genesis to denote the distinct phases of God’s creation work because it was written as a general narrative, not a scientific treatise. *The Old Testament is fairly careless with its usage of time designations, indifferently mixing days and years and greater periods of time. So there is no reason for failing to accept the scientific dating of the earth and the whole universe. Indeed some scientific theses now suggest that the development of the universe had "at least" five distinct periods.
While many scientists are indeed athiests, I nevertheless, see science as part of the revelation of the work of God. Man is being privileged to search out God and His works. Agreed, man will persist in misunderstanding and perversly misinterpreting that work - but when was it otherwise?
There is no conflict between the general idea of evolution and the revelation of the fact of Creation - when one understands both of them correctly. I would however suggest that we by no means understand evolution fully.
---
Quote from The Philokahlia, The Complete Text, Vol. One, to St Antony the Great:
Quote:
God, being eternally good and bounteous, gave man power over good and evil. He made him the gift of spiritual knowledge, so that, through contemplating the world and what is in it, he might come to know Him who created all things for man’s sake. But the impious are free to choose not to know. They are free to disbelieve, to make mistakes and to conceive ideas which are contrary to the truth. Such is the degree to which man has power over good and evil. |
The text that is bolded CLEARLY states that there are two types of Orthodox thinking ... I dont know how Bela Lagusi came to her conclusions ... if someone wishes to be a compatabilist they have that right and its not fanatacism. |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
Yes, Vix - The Orthodox Church has made no official decree on the issue. It sometimes seems that people, that is, Christians, dwell too much on the mechanics of how the earth and man got here. IMHO, these technicalities do not matter in the great scheme of things. I believe God created everything - that's the most important thing, imo. Salvation doesn't depend on how genetics mutate or how many years fossils have been around. (I am not saying this to disrespect scientific study and exploration - yes, we're eternally curious about everything, but this has led to many great scientific and medical discoveries that have enriched our lives and made the world a better place.)
This article makes a lot of sense (to me):
http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm
| Quote: | | There is a real danger here that a biologist, having read some arrogant creationist book, will apply the word "rubbish" to Christianity in general. |
What say you, JMC, or Ceramic? 
P.S. I haven't read your posts re evolution, Ceramic. |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
I'm sorry Ceramic, I really had no idea it was you that BL (who is surely male?) was talking about as I don't know nglr. I assumed the post or posts was/were on here, I thought it might have been Jayem as he was the only Orthodox until you arrived and I guessed whatever he said had been misunderstood - as you obviously were.
Edit: Good post Claire, I agree with the sentiments expressed. |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
| Quote: | Its rich that people constantly point fingers at me but they dont actually take CARE in understanding really what I was trying to say
|
If this is what you were trying to say:
| Quote: |
In the absence of any evidence for evolution it is neither a hypothesis, much less a theory; since the idea is neither directly testable, nor verifiable, nor falsifiable - if I say that a crocodile jumped from a tree 70 mln yrs ago and grew wings, how this statement can be tested, verified or falsified - it's not science. No evidence is possible ... |
Then you were as wrong as wrong can be. End of. |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
| Quote: | | if someone wishes to be a compatabilist they have that right and its not fanatacism. |
Agreed. |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
| Quote: | You ask me whether it is possible that He Who is the Father should not be prior in existence. I ask you to tell me when the Father existed, the Son as yet being not; prove this, gather it from argument or evidence of Scripture. If you lean upon arguments, you have doubtless been taught that God's power is eternal. Again, you have read the Scripture that says:
'O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto Me, there shall be no new god in thee, neither shalt thou worship a strange god.'
The first of these commands betokens [the Son's] eternity, the second His possession of an identical nature, so that we can neither believe Him to have come into existence after the Father, nor suppose Him the Son of another Divinity. For if He existed not always with the Father, He is a "new" [god]; if He is not of one Divinity with the Father, He is a "strange" [god]. But He is not after the Father for He is not "a new god; nor is He "a strange god", for He is begotten of the Father, and because, as it is written, He is 'over all, God blessed for ever' (Rom 9:5) |
-St. Ambrose of Milan. NPNF, SS Vol X |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
| Claire wrote: | Yes, Vix - The Orthodox Church has made no official decree on the issue. It sometimes seems that people, that is, Christians, dwell too much on the mechanics of how the earth and man got here. IMHO, these technicalities do not matter in the great scheme of things. I believe God created everything - that's the most important thing, imo. Salvation doesn't depend on how genetics mutate or how many years fossils have been around. (I am not saying this to disrespect scientific study and exploration - yes, we're eternally curious about everything, but this has led to many great scientific and medical discoveries that have enriched our lives and made the world a better place.)
| Quote: | | There is a real danger here that a biologist, having read some arrogant creationist book, will apply the word "rubbish" to Christianity in general. |
What say you, JMC, or Ceramic? |
I agree with what you have written and what you have quoted. It's an incredibly unimportant debate, because the argument cannot change what has happened already. The only way it can have importance is if you are an ideologue of some kind who has put some huge stake in evolution being either correct or false; however if that is the case then I submit holding to either a pro- or anti- evolutionary ideology is a bigger problem in itself than whether said ideology is right or not. |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
Good Morning, JMC.
| Jayem Sea wrote: |
I agree with what you have written and what you have quoted. |
That's good to hear. . :) |
| [split topic] Evolution (again) |
| Jayem Sea wrote: | | Claire wrote: | Yes, Vix - The Orthodox Church has made no official decree on the issue. It sometimes seems that people, that is, Christians, dwell too much on the mechanics of how the earth and man got here. IMHO, these technicalities do not matter in the great scheme of things. I believe God created everything - that's the most important thing, imo. Salvation doesn't depend on how genetics mutate or how many years fossils have been around. (I am not saying this to disrespect scientific study and exploration - yes, we're eternally curious about everything, but this has led to many great scientific and medical discoveries that have enriched our lives and made the world a better place.)
| Quote: | | There is a real danger here that a biologist, having read some arrogant creationist book, will apply the word "rubbish" to Christianity in general. |
What say you, JMC, or Ceramic? |
I agree with what you have written and what you have quoted. It's an incredibly unimportant debate, because the argument cannot change what has happened already. The only way it can have importance is if you are an ideologue of some kind who has put some huge stake in evolution being either correct or false; however if that is the case then I submit holding to either a pro- or anti- evolutionary ideology is a bigger problem in itself than whether said ideology is right or not. |
However, the matter did seem of enormous importance to ceramic, who cried out rather hysterically that Jesus was born of Theotokos, and she should not be asked to believe J's ancestors were monkeys (not that they were, anyway). Now she backtracks, realising that the orthodox Orthodox position is that there is no official decree on the matter, and saying it was only her private opinion. And the Catholic Church takes a similar stance, stating that evolution might only explain mankind's physical origins, but has nothing to say about the origin of the soul.
All these attempts to downplay the real importance religious people actually place on the evolution debate strike me as being very evasive. I don't quite know what your own stance is, but it struck me as anti-evolutionary, given the rather literal seriousness with which you approach Genesis 2.
The soul we do not now about ,though each of us has a subjective experience of individuality. However, this sense of individuality proves on investigation to be rather fluid. What we do know is that evolution is the most important scientific paradigm to emerge during the last 300 years or so (for evolutionary ideas certainly pre-dated Darwin), and that its ramifications into all areas of life, including social organisation and morals, are enormous. I don't see a more important paradigm emerging for a long while.
Meanwhile, there are the American fundies, who while you Orthodox andCatholics are sitting on the fence, may cause a lot of unpleasant trouble. Then there are the Muslim fundies. Say na more.
|
|
|
|
