Apologies that this is written by an Anglican who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy, but I think that this is an interesting article with much of relevance to this discussion. It argues that fundamental literalism and Modernist Biblical criticism are two sides of the same coin and argues for a different way of thinking. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2009/01/16/the-god-of-the-old-testament/
The section entitled Creator (6 sections in Orthodxy for Absokute Beginners) may be useful to anyone interested in the relationship between science and faith. http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/creator/creator.htm The view is that faith and science go together to answer two distinct questions: How does the world work - Science Why are we here - Theology "Science describes how the universe came to be and how it works. Religion should look for meaning in the universe and a relatiionship with the creator" The section below, also given in another post above, discusses evolution http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/creator/earth.htm
But so many of us (Christians) do not find an insurmountable conflict between evolution and Scripture and do not read the creation story literally. I love this article. What is your view of it? https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/evolution-or-creation-science However there are diverse and conflicting views amongst the Eastern Orthodox as well as amongs Anglicans and no doubt those of other denominations. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Evolution
This is interesting, along with some of the comments that follow the blog. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glor...2/06/evolution-creation-and-the-hidden-cause/
Popularity is no guarantee of the truth. The article was interesting. However, the scripture does not have to be a science book to convey the truth of our origin. And no theory , no matter how "scientific" it may appear, can be true if it deviates from God's Word. The Genesis story cannot be supported by ET. The two are incompatible. To believe both at the same time means that you do not take one or both seriously. We are either created by the divine being in His image or we are products of chance, genetic mutation, and environmental forces. We cannot serve two masters nor can we profess two worldviews diametrically opposed to one another. For my part, I choose the sure and certain ground of Holy Writ. To me the article just seemed to take a long time to say that the Creation story may have been fine for people in ancient times but it's just too hard to believe for us enlightened modern folks. We know better. I find that incredibly demeaning. Both for the Geneis story itself and its Author. If the Genesis story is mere allegory, why would Our Lord quote from it as if it were literally true? Can the author of all truth mislead us? I think not.
Apologies if I am posting too much on this topic - but I have just come across an interesting set of articles. The writer does have an "old earth" view, but the articles seem balanced and he does speak very highly of the work of a "young earth" writer. If you are of a mind to read them the link is below. I think that starting at article 5 rather than 1 might be useful and then going back to the others, but that is obviously up to anyone who wants to read them. He distinguishes allegory from allegorical interpretation, which is interesting in light of the original questions posed at the start of this thread. This takes you direct to article 1 http://www.reasons.org/articles/com...ch-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-1-of-5 This to article 5 http://www.reasons.org/articles/com...ch-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-5-of-5 LL I would be interested in your views on this research.
I have to say that there are several aspects to this debate, and we all come from our own position. With due respect to those who do, I don't find it essential to understand the creation accounts in Genesis, Job etc as scientific journals or contemporaneous historic records, however that does not mean for one moment that I do not receive them as true, and as vehicles of truth. I do accept the Theory of Evolution, and most importantly in that let me say that I accept that it is a theory. I feel it is disappointing that our education systems dumbs this down to a binomial possibility, and teaches it as fact against any opposing view. That being said I think that it is probably the best theory we have to date, given the methodology. Much of the scientific discussion ends up talking about a primeval atom. This seems to be the alpha point of the theories of the expanding universe. Alpha points ask other questions. The creation account in Genesis 1 is not so much an ex-nihilo account as some people assume. The spirit of God brooded over the face of the water. Christians are not forced to reject evolution, not are they forced to accept a single way of understanding the truth of the scriptural account. Anselm argues that if we follow reason logically and honestly we must arrive at the same conclusion as faith, because reason and faith are not diametrically opposed, despite what some would like us to believe. In the discussion we need to hear the truth that others speak, and speak our truth expecting it to be heard with as much respect as we have for their truth.
There is only one truth. Not one for you and one for me. You and I may claim our opinions but let us never lay claim to what is God's alone.
you Thank you Philip for putting things succinctly as usual! And yes, I agree that evolutionary theories should be presented in schools alongside other theories. Having thought about this overnight, just adding one further point to how I get to my own view. When Genesis was written, the creation account was quite new and different compared to the other creation accounts around at the time, which spoke about multiple warring gods and the violence of creation. Genesis offered a totally different account of one God who said "'Let there be light' and there was light and God saw the light, that it was good." The principal behind the account, which is what I see as most imporant, being that there is one God who brought all creation into being by His command. In Exodus, Moses received the law from God. We have verses that say, for example, "And if a mean beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two he shall not be punished, for he is his property." (Exodus 20: 20-21) and similar about women (" and if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave..."). Again, this was a new way to thinking, in an age when slaves/women were chattel with no rights and people could do whatever they wanted with them. God was introducing a different moral code. Do I really think that God thinks that keeping people as property and beating them is right and acceptable in the 21st century? No, I don't - but the introduction of a moral code was revolutionary at the time and what could be understood/accepted at the time within that society.
I came across some article myself this morning: https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/can-you-believe-both-the-bible-and-evolution "There is simply no way of reshaping the Bible into a book that also somehow supports the theory of evolution. If we are brave enough to accept the creation account at face value, then theistic evolution becomes impossible to believe. We cannot believe both the Bible and evolution. Both Old and New Testaments consistently support the account of the divine creation of Adam and Eve." https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1043-are-genesis-and-evolution-compatible "...how could anyone possibly say that the two concepts “show amazing agreement” on almost “all issues”? That is an absolutely absurd conclusion. It is little wonder that “theistic evolutionists” (those who attempt to perform a “marriage” between the Scriptures and Darwinism) have the respect of neither devotees of the Bible nor the disciples of Darwin." http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ4.html It seems interesting to me that theistic evolutionists, in seeking reconcile genesis with ET, consistently sacrifice the truth and authority of scripture in order to make the two work. Genesis must relegated to mere myth while ET becomes the unquestioned and unquestionable truth of our origins. No man can serve two masters...choose you this day whom you will serve.
That's an obvious yes. However I'm of the theistic evolution camp and don't believe I sacrifice any revealed truth in the process.
I like the science. I find it so interesting. The way the universe expands and how time works n gravity. But evidence? - geology, fossils, carbon dating, dinosaurs, other humanoid ape skulls; I just cant ignore all that.
I still don't get how these things negate creation? I love science too (I am a homeschooling mom so I'm quite involved with it).
I think about this a lot actually. I do think the big bang is right. That the whole universe started from a point - they call it a singularity. But where did the singularity come from - ok so genesis. before it all started there was nothing - not time - no space. Then singularity appeared - infinitely hot - n expanded and burst into light....LET THERE BE LIGHT... i dunno if can see wot im saying but i dont think science n believing in god is like - totally apart. I dont think the adam n eve story is real n i think evolution is - but thats ok - it doesnt men god didnt create the whole thing starting w the big bang...i dunno if ur getting me but thats wot I think.
Evolution is still a theory as it can not be proven by the scientific method we were taught in grade school...for me 6th grade natural science. Macro-evolution can not be proven. The fossil record has way too many gaps. Way too many people make wild assumptions based on very little evidence such as "lucy" that was found in Africa. We speculate wildly over her, but if you have seen what was actually found, maybe 50% of the skeleton and not all in one place.....not very good science. Also as my 10th grade basic biology teacher, Mrs. Nall, told us when we were talking about scientific findings of the 17th century, only life begats life. At one time people thought flies were created by rotten meat. Francesco Redi proved life can not spontaneously generate. Or as Aquinas reasoned "the uncaused cause". Micro-evolution or adaptation is easily proved. Changes within species. That is what Darwin was mainly talking about. The Bible or Holy Scriptures have proved science wrong in some aspects. Hittites were only mentioned in the Scriptures. Until the 19th century that was used to prove how wrong Scripture is. Until the ancient Hittite civilization was discovered. Many thought David was the Jewish King Arthur until 1994 and Tel Dan. So I look at the motives behind so called evidence. I also apply the scientific method to the presented evidence and make my decision. Also, if we believe God raise Christ from the death and He is God, could it not be as the Scripture says? I believe so and suspect that which tries to deny God glory. Science use to be used to help us understand our God. Not so much now. Far too many scientist have agendas to be taken at face value. Blessings, Fr. Mark
I have no doubt that God could create the world in 7 days, exactly as said in Genesis. The distinction between macro and micro evolution is interesting and certainly makes sense. What I struggle with is the scientific evidence for the age of the earth and the different periods (Jurassic, Triassic etc) that are meant to have happened prior to man. I am not a scientist - so don't know much about the findings and evidence for this - is there good evidence that these periods didn't happen, that the earth is much younger or that ages of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals didn't exist?