No, i didn't meet any copts who do (myself included) but i had a friend who is a baptist minister (ordained) who does and i met an anglican vicar who did. having said that, most baptists and anglicans i know don't.
If we deny the inerrancy of the creation account we may feel free to question anything in scripture like Our Lord's miracles and Resurrection.
However we have a problem in this anniversary year of Darwin's birth. We live in a world where the theory of evolution is accepted as fact and it is an elegant theory backed up by a lot of evidence. The evidence of DNA. The evidence of geology and fossil evidence.
Believing, after a long search, in the innerancy of scripture and the Orthodox faith how can I square the circle? I am interested in, in an amateur way, in evolution, but I can't reject my knowledge of Our Saviour so I treat evolution as a theory not as fact. Its a bit like enjoying science fiction whilst believing that Christ will come at the conclusion of things-the world will not become perfect
hi, aidan, good to c u again :) i never believed in evolution and i had hilarious discussions with my A level teacher (at age 17) about it. she had never met a 'non-believer' before and had no idea the creationist science was so well thought out. she was a lovely lady though and all our long and public debates were in good humour. basically these are the problems with evolution theory: you can tell the ages of the fossils by their level in the rocks, and you can tell the ages of the rocks by the fossils in them. so its a bit flawed! also you can tell the age of really old things by uranium dating: measuring the amount of uranium that is radioactive. this works if the proportion of uranium that is radioactive has always remained the same throughout all known time. we have NO evidence that it has, so can't rely on uranium dating. the great flood changed a lot of rock levels and probably changed the amounts of radiation in the earth as well. so we can only really date back acurately to around that time. ok, there are good theological arguments that the earth was not made in 6 24hr periods (or maybe it was) but there are no good arguments (as far as i can see) that humans are just a succesful type of primate that are not really special or that the earth is millions of years old. those Christians who believe in evolution think that God started it all of with a big bang and kept checking how well it was 'cooking' so i think its ok for a Christian to believe this, just i haven't seen any good evidence for this view personally. may God guide us and bring His creative power into all our lives
I was on another Coptic Forum a while back where some of the people I knew accepted evolution.
I have always taken the view that the world looks like it has an age just as Adam looked like he was 21 or whatever. How could it be possible to create a world with no age? It seems to me to be impossible. If you were a world designer then you would have to have an assumed age. If you created a river valley then that would assume that the river had been there for thousands of years slowly eroding the soil. If you created a mountain range it would assume a history of tectonic movements that had forced the mountains upwards. Everything would have to have a built in age.
The trees that God created would look like they were 50 or 100 years old. The animals were mature and would like they were a year, or 2 years, or 5 years old. Everything had a built in age and a built in history. It can't be helped.
So I have always considered that the universe has a built in age, but that it is in fact relatively young in absolute terms, and that there was a real Adam and Eve even if the geological record describes a much longer history.
Peter / Aidan, Mabsoota - thanks for your responses.
WHy I am asking is because I find it bewildering how Copts or Christians in general, can believe that we came from other species (i.e) that we evolved from other species, and yet believe that Christ came to save us? Save us from what? The entire reason for salvation is rooted in the story given in Genesis. Man required salvation from death. Death entered humanity from the sin of Adam. If Adam didnt exist - then this nullifies everything after the book of Genesis (from the OT to the NT).
Christ came to return man back to his original glory - to make us back into the image and likeness in which He created the 1st man; to nullify the death that entered humanity, by His death. All this is our theology based on the account of the creation given in Genesis.
Scholars such as Richard Dawkins and his peers hold very sensitive positions in Society. They are evangelical Atheists who are in positions to influence scientific academic curriculum in schools. Rather than present macro-evolution as "theory" - they present it as "fact". Christians, who may not have scientific accumen or confidence in their faith, may be influenced deeply to reject their Creed (which clearly states that God created the heavens and earth, and all things..) in favour of darwinism and other theories presented to explain the existence of mankind.
Dawkins is not just head of a university - but he is the Editor in Chief of the New Scientist Magazine. He has an agenda of his own, and that agenda was clearly manifested in the publicity campaign in London where posters saying "GOD PROBABLY DOESNT EXIST, SO STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE" were spread all over London buses in an attempt to draw people's attention towards his way of thinking: that religion serves no purpose, and atheism is the only common sensical solution for mankind.
But, as an Orthodox Christian, I do believe in Christ, and I have had miracles happen to me and my family. I'm not talking about silly catholic miracles.. you know the type - Ohhh I lost my pen, I found my pen.. prayer works. We are talking about hardcore Orthodox miracles. So, Christ exists (for me!) - if Christ exists and is God, it means for me that Genesis is true. I cannot believe that Christ exists without accepting Genesis - the reason for His coming and His Crucifixion and His Resurrection and Ascension. All this was because of Genesis.
So, I resume - how can Christians neglect Genesis and yet believe in Christ? Its a very strange faith? Is it not? What kind of faith would such an opinion lead to?
Yet, i am astounded daily by hearing how Christians can believe in the propaganda of atheists, and yet maintain that they are Christian and believe in Christ.
That's why I created this thread. I just wanted to know how someone could really believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, and yet deny that Genesis happened.
Richard Dawkins is not a scholar, he is a Public Relations Specialist. He really has no vested interest in finding 'Truth'. He is part of the establishment. He is a Professor of the "Public Understanding of Science" as if the public does not have the capacity to teach themselves anything and must be infantalized. Welcome to the New World Order.
I must agree with you all. However lets not just cheerily say 'I don't believe in evolution' when Darwin's theory is all pervasive and cannot just be dismissed without reasons. I think St Peter tells us to give reasons for the faith we hold. I think Deacon Peter's post gives us a possible way to address the situation. It must be addressed, however.
By the way, I am a teacher in London. All schools are to receive a 'Darwin box' I look forward to seeing what's in it. The atheist establishment feels under threat!
[quote author=aidan link=topic=7618.msg100020#msg100020 date=1233906073] I must agree with you all. However lets not just cheerily say 'I don't believe in evolution' when Darwin's theory is all pervasive and cannot just be dismissed without reasons. I think St Peter tells us to give reasons for the faith we hold. I think Deacon Peter's post gives us a possible way to address the situation. It must be addressed, however.
By the way, I am a teacher in London. All schools are to receive a 'Darwin box' I look forward to seeing what's in it. The atheist establishment feels under threat!
Aidan, Im a strong believer in micro-evolution. I believe that the human being can physiologically diversify to adapt to changes of his or her environment; and I do believe these characteristics are passed on genetically. This is just micro-evolution. I do not believe nor accept that we evolved from primitive species such as apes that are now extinct.
The weirdest thing is this:
There is so much truth in evolution with so much lies.
Here is a truth: That man was hairier before. (I MEAN REALLY HAIRY!). --> yes, I believe that the human being was much hairier than what he was now. I mean LITERALLY furry. But look at the story of Isaac's son: Jacob and Esau. It was said of Esau that he was so hairy, that when Jacob tried to trick his father in pretending to be his brother, he had to cover himself with animal skin (he was that hairy!). But the lie is that it assumes all humans were hairy!! Yet Jacob was NOT hairy at all.
Because we see a pattern that humans were hairier before, it does not mean that all humans were hairy.
So, scientifically, we discover a pattern, then completely UNSCIENTIFICALLY, if not foolishly we just paint all of history with the same brush: that all the entire species were hairy and therefore we came from primitive species.
We should NOT generalise in science.
Has anyone here studied Chemistry? When you are studying GSCE chemistry, all you learn are laws. One would think at 16 years of age that everything follows laws. This is very naive. When you do A-LEVEL Chemistry, you study nothing BUT the exceptions to those laws. When you go onto university, you seem to be struggling with the fact that scientific laws aren't always correct, and the exceptions to them seem to be what is binding a theory.
If one had an agenda to believe in his heart that God does not exist, how easy would it be to paint a picture of human genome history as one evolving ONLY from primitive species. That would be easy. The same way it would be easy to for someone who hates Americans, to say all americans are gun-crazy, ignorant, religious bunch of people. There's no difference. We generalise with one group of people due to our inherent hatred of them, and we generalise scientifically due to our own personal belief that God doesn't exist.
But - now, more to the point: What can be said for Christians who believe that we evolved from primitive species and yet believe in God? Can the two beliefs co-exist? it seems like a paradox! How can that be? To be believe that Christ is our saviour, and yet totally reject the fact that He is also our Creator?
Aiden, the Atheist establishment are forcing us to believe in their way of thinking : that there is NO God. They are not using science to achieve this; but they are ABUSING science to achieve this.
Its very serious, and it is at the heart of our faith. If ANYTHING will destroy Christianity in the UK, it will be this.
Once you tell someone: "Its scientifically proven that we came from Apes" then it doesnt have the same weighting as "its well known that we came from apes". The word "scientifically" only seems to add status to the statement. It shuts down all doors for dialogue, research and understanding. That is abuse of science. To assume that one law applies to everything. To assume that one pattern can be applied to everything. This is not only unscientific, but Its TRULY UNFAIR!!!
There were "SCIENTIFIC" studies to see whether Wireless network equipment causes cancer. It was done by those who had an interest that it would be preferrable that it didnt cause cancer - nor any adverse health effects.
They said "it is scientifically proven that wireless micro-radiation does not cause cancer".
Independent scientists then came forward and did their own study who said "Scientifically, it is proven that exposure to microcellular radiation can cause adverse health effects".
You know what the SPINELESS government's health warning is to those who use cell phones?????????
"Wireless Cellphones are safe, but don't use them too often, nor near your head".
I do find it hard to fit my Orthodox Christianity with full on evolution. I do believe that Adam and Eve are not, and cannot be, just mythic characters.
That said, I could imagine that it could be possible that God granted self-awareness in some sense to two proto-human individuals who became Adam and Eve.
But I can't fit Evolution without a Fall into our Orthodox faith. It just doesn't seem to work.
I'm not gonna argue that humans were hairier back then.. but not to the point of furry. God created us in HIS own image.. and I doubt God is furry. Maybe Esau was one of a kind.. really really hairy.. but I wouldnt call all humans furry.
Besides the Story of Isaac and his sons, do you have any other sources to back this up?
[quote author=Tεκcoνι μέσα Πεχριcτoc link=topic=7618.msg100025#msg100025 date=1233927816] QT_PA_2T,
about the hairy issues:
I'm not gonna argue that humans were hairier back then.. but not to the point of furry. God created us in HIS own image.. and I doubt God is furry. Maybe Esau was one of a kind.. really really hairy.. but I wouldnt call all humans furry.
Besides the Story of Isaac and his sons, do you have any other sources to back this up?
Peace.
Im not saying that all humans were furry.. im sorry if that's how it came across. On the contrary!! Im saying that there was cases known to us where in fact some people were really hairy. It does not mean that this was the genetic makeup of all mankind during the time of such humans. It may very well be a localised issue, and we cannot deduce from this that ALL HUMANS were hairy to the point of furriness (like with Esau).
I'm saying that it was clear from the Bible that the level of hair on men was much more than what it is today - to the extent that it was literally furry (The Bible proves this - there was no need to go and do studies on it, the answer is in the story of Esau and Jacob).
To answer your particular question: Jacob wanted to trick his father in thinking that he was Esau. So he dressed himself in ANIMAL FUR. That's how hairy is brother was.
However, given that Jacob was not furry, we cannot generalise and say that all humans were hairy. If Esau was furry, perhaps there was a gene somewhere that caused that? Perhaps somewhere in his geneology there was someone furry. But this is a proof that not all humans were furry. ONE INCIDENT or even SEVERAL INCIDENTS doesnt make it a law.
Scientists have discovered that humans were considerably hairier than what they are today. Pro-Atheists are happy to take this as meaning that we did evolve from other species. But we cannot generalise in science
Hello there.I am fairly new to this forum and to the world of tasbe7a. so having had to take a formal course on this issue. i have come to realize why i didn't pass this course the first time.. i was trying to hard to firgure out where leviathons(i.e. dinosuares) and evolved primates come into play. having spoken to a freind who is lutheran they believe that adam and eve where created among others.... i completely reject the idea of evolution... having had to sit in a course on it two times it has just made me realize that there is more to it that is false then there is truth. i often thought okay well if geneology is involved then how come all primates didn't evolve, also its quite simple everything consist of certain genes. As beings of God the untlimate creator it is bound that we are going to have some similarities to every other being on this earth. A Greek Orthodox Bishop put it quite simply.
One important consideration and a reason why we cannot as Christians accept the full implications of Darwinianism, that is Divine Providence. Divine Providence implies that God is cares for us individually, not just as species. God cares for sparrows and the hairs of our head. We are not just links in a chain and death (the way evolution proceeds) is an aberration. God is a possible first mover in an evolutionary scenario but no way does he care for us therefore we cannot square the circle.
One last thing. If people should abandon their faith because of evolution (and here I mean a full,Orthodox faith) they may do out of impatience. The theory of Darwin may, possibly be replaced by a different interepretation of the facts.
[quote author=petroc link=topic=7618.msg100027#msg100027 date=1233938442] Hello there.I am fairly new to this forum and to the world of tasbe7a. so having had to take a formal course on this issue. i have come to realize why i didn't pass this course the first time.. i was trying to hard to firgure out where leviathons(i.e. dinosuares) and evolved primates come into play. having spoken to a freind who is lutheran they believe that adam and eve where created among others.... i completely reject the idea of evolution... having had to sit in a course on it two times it has just made me realize that there is more to it that is false then there is truth. i often thought okay well if geneology is involved then how come all primates didn't evolve, also its quite simple everything consist of certain genes. As beings of God the untlimate creator it is bound that we are going to have some similarities to every other being on this earth. A Greek Orthodox Bishop put it quite simply.
GOD BLESS
Bishop Ware is saying that he does not find a problem with being an Orthodox Christian and accepting the theories of evolution. He says that it is possible for God to work through evolution.
But what kind of evolution is he talking about?? Is he accepting theories that suggest we originated from primates?? and that these primate species were created as a result of a big bang????
Theologically speaking, and someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but our entire salvation, the very reason for Christ coming to earth, taking the form of a man and being crucified was for the sin that Adam made. Death entered humanity from Adam's sin. Christ came to save us and give us eternal life.
Surely (PLEASE CORRECT ME HERE IF I AM WRONG!) - but surely - it is impossible to accept the Bigbang theory and our faith that believes Christ created man, by the Will of the Father, through the Son, with the Life Giving Holy Spirit.
Now, I'm not saying that the creation took EXACTLY 6 days, and God rested on the 7th. I'm sure that these days or timeframes may not be on the 24 hour scale we use here to measure time, and no one knows the exact conversations that took place between God and His creation... but to go to the extent of saying that God did not create man - but man rather existed from a random explosion that created life NULLIFIES God as the creator. It robs God of His position in the story of life. Atheists have taken control of the narrative and are directing it towards their ideals and ideologies.
I think Bishop Kallistos is NOT answering the question. He is saying that he believes in evolution (but he's not saying whether he believes in micro or macro evolution) - Yes, I agree with him entirely that God did not have to create everything as it is now, but that he could have created it through the evolutionary process.. yes. But what is bugging me is the terms Bishop Kallistos is using.
He knows VERY well that the students are asking about evolution at the MACRO level.. not the MICRO level where even my hair colour changes according to the sun's good will. Micro evolution complements the story in Genesis. It is only a scientific detail that we can accept that explains how God intended our ecological and biological systems to work. That's fine. But he is not addressing the real issue: MACRO evolution.
I don't believe that Macro Evolution is a threat for Orthodox faith. I believe Orthodox faith IS a threat to Macro Evolution.
[quote author=elepti link=topic=7618.msg100015#msg100015 date=1233883009] Richard Dawkins is not a scholar, he is a Public Relations Specialist. He really has no vested interest in finding 'Truth'. He is part of the establishment. He is a Professor of the "Public Understanding of Science" as if the public does not have the capacity to teach themselves anything and must be infantalized. Welcome to the New World Order.
:-\ Eh?
I thought he got his B.A. ('59) in zoology, and his M.A. ('62) & PHD ('66) At Oxford U in Philosophy . . .
[quote author=GArgiriadis link=topic=7618.msg100042#msg100042 date=1233956895] [quote author=elepti link=topic=7618.msg100015#msg100015 date=1233883009] Richard Dawkins is not a scholar, he is a Public Relations Specialist. He really has no vested interest in finding 'Truth'. He is part of the establishment. He is a Professor of the "Public Understanding of Science" as if the public does not have the capacity to teach themselves anything and must be infantalized. Welcome to the New World Order.
:-\ Eh?
I thought he got his B.A. ('59) in zoology, and his M.A. ('62) & PHD ('66) At Oxford U in Philosophy . . .
Is this background info wrong?
George
George,
You are right except in one thing: Dawkins WAS the head of Science at one of the Schools at Oxford Uni. This has changed.. it is someone else (THANK GOD!). I actually find the man quite annoying and a bit of a demogog. I think what the poster meant was that he has his own agenda. Im sure they knew that he was heading a section at the Uni of Oxford.
And frankly, I couldnt agree more with Elepti: he IS a public relations specialist - with no other interest than spreading his ignorant driven agenda that God doesnt exist!
He seems to me a man who is constantly wrestling with God and we should pray for him that he finds the one he is trying so hard, too hard, to deny.
I think that all of Dawkins writings and speeches are an effort by him to convince himself of a truth that at a deep level he doubts. Somewhere in his soul he is wrestling with God. It is the one who has no interest in God at all who is too lazy to find Him. Dawkins is obsessed with God and we might pray and hope that he finally meets the one who occupies his whole life.
[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=7618.msg100046#msg100046 date=1233959039] He seems to me a man who is constantly wrestling with God and we should pray for him that he finds the one he is trying so hard, too hard, to deny.
I think that all of Dawkins writings and speeches are an effort by him to convince himself of a truth that at a deep level he doubts. Somewhere in his soul he is wrestling with God. It is the one who has no interest in God at all who is too lazy to find Him. Dawkins is obsessed with God and we might pray and hope that he finally meets the one who occupies his whole life.
Deacon Peter
I never saw it this way... he is obsessed with God. Quite right Peter.
As a scientist, he needs common sense and logic coupled with physical proof for everything to make sense to him.
What is remarkable, that as a scientist, we believe that everything happens for a reason. Cause and Effect. Nothing is haphazard. What a very strange life and sadness must occur in any human who could possibly believe that his soul is limited and will never live after death. What a very dark, depressed and dry person that must be who is convinced that we are here on earth for no really intelligent reason other than to exist haphazardly and procreate.
Do you feel your soul will end?
Is death LOGICAL? it is not logical! Injustice is not logical. And vengence does NEVER bring about justice. SO it is really illogical.
Why were we created with a soul that experiences these terrible things? Surely there must be an explanation to these things that Dawkins must be searching for!?
There are many illogical things that we will experience as humans that a scientific mind will not rest until it has answer to.
There is one thing though that they will find: that their logic will never bring them joy. That one day, their logic in living against God's commandments undoubtedly results in suffering for them. If I did not believe this, I also wouldnt care. God cares enough for us that He doesnt want us to live in sin because we suffer whilst we are in this state. I too do not want atheists to be fooled by the illusion that what is sinful to God is just an opinion that has nothing to do with them. This is the Dawkins Delusion. And I would not care so much unless others who followed him were being deluded into a false sense of security; into a false sense of freedom.
Yes, we should pray for him. I pray that scientifically he discovers God. I pray that God reveals Himself to Dawkins. The sooner the better before he leads others into a state of delusion.
I think it will be increasingly hard to be a Christian in today's society. If we believe in the creation as described in Genesis, we will be mocked. If we have conservative values, we will be mocked.
But the mocking is where scientists are already telling us that scientifically - God doesnt exist, because God didnt create anything - and if He did create anything, it wasn't mankind because we were just a freak accident in the Universe called the Big Bang.
I think the Sunday School servants should be addressing this issue. It must understandably be weakening the faith of our youth who are constantly bombarded by atheist propaganda daily.
I agree that Sunday School is an ideal place/time to adress this, but I also think care should be taken not to take the issue too far, (i.e. don't encourage the kids to ignore their teachers or disrespect them). I also have a suggestion on how this can be presented even to relatively young children before they get too confused by their teachers.
We are all God's children and (compared to His omnipotence) we rarely (if ever) pass the stage of being toddlers.
We already know that our faith should be the absolute and unquestioning faith of a toddler. We already frequently talk about how (for example) we should not worry about tomorrow, what we will eat or what clothes we will wear, because our heavenly Father privides. If we follow the example of a toddler, these things come natural. This adressed the metaphor in light of the closeness of a child to their parents.
We rarely adress the other side of this metaphor. Almost as important as the close bond of a child to their parents is for a child to have periods of unstructured playtime, time to play with blocks to learn to understand shapes, time to bang things together to understand sounds, to clap, to babble, to experiment with everything at their disposal.
It is impotrant for the child to do these things without the help of the parents so they can learn on their own. They will invariably get into trouble; they will invariably make mistakes (eating crayons etc.), but this is all part of learning.
Science is similar to the unstructured play of a toddler. We observe the world around us and experiment; we make guesses and experiment some more to see if we were right. If out experiments match our guesses we share our findings with others and do things based on those findings. This is all very good, natural and appropriate.
Science goes wrong when it is taken too seriously. We call our guesses "Hypotheses" to make them sound fancy, and when they match our experiments we call them "Laws". We then use those "Laws" to do good things like build and make medicines, but then we (some of us, ;)) think that means we are self-reliant and don't need God, or even deny His existence.
Science (unstructured playtime) is very good and healthy when we're not eating crayons and making atomic weapons, but we need our Father near enough to keep us from choking, falling down stairs, vaporizing ourselves, etc.
This is my first post and I really apologize for it's length. I agree with many of the posts in this thread. But...
But I do have the following to add: Our faith should not be based on evidence for, or worse, lack of evidence against. This is not to suggest that anyone on this forum is Orthodox because they believe the evidence for evolution to be weak. But just so that others who read your zealous posts do not misunderstand – we are Orthodox Christians regardless of any evidence for or against the theory of evolution, or any other theory for that matter.
While we must always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15) and we maintain that we are not blind followers of tradition (Ephesians 4:17,18), we are nonetheless sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1) and hold the mystery of faith (1 Timothy 3:9). It is one thing to see and believe, but truly blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed (John 20:29). Whether the Earth is 4.6 billion or 10,000 years old, we are still Orthodox. Sure we are rational beings that have an inner need to make sense out of everything – and this separates us from many other religions where questions are frowned upon – but there is a grey line where faith must trump reason. It makes no sense that water can be changed into wine, but we believe it happened and many martyrs literally bet their life it happened.
To the Sunday School Servants: if you present arguments to those whom you serve that the theory of evolution is wrong or lacking and therefore Genesis must have been right, you are erroneously creating a dichotomy between evolution and Genesis 1. This dichotomy will carry on with them for a long time thereafter, and if they are ever convinced later that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, they will stop believing in the rest of the Bible. It is counter-productive to take a firm stance on evolution and it is unnecessary to create a dichotomy (it is far from the truth that Genesis 1 and the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive).
The rest of this post is my opinion, but please read Origen's excerpt on the bottom: Since this post may come off as patronizing, I will state my personal opinion on the issue. I believe that the theory of evolution is well established within the scientific community. Most of the science behind the theory is sound and peer reviewed. While I am against the way evolution is currently taught in schools, I do believe it should be taught and I am against creation science being taught in a science class.
First, I am against the way it is taught – the way evolution is currently taught strongly implies chance and coincidence to be the primary movers. This is not scientific (it is actually circular reasoning to make that claim: science assumes all causation to be natural, i.e. no supernatural causation, and thus science cannot claim that a supernatural causation did not occur).
Second, I think evolution should be taught – much of biology would not make sense without evolution. In fact, I think evolution is an integral part of biology. I am currently a medical student and I know that quite a few things in medicine make more sense when you consider evolution. Does that make it a fact, or does that prove beyond all doubt that every tenant of evolution is true? No, but it is based on good science, glues many concepts together, and it would be a scientific crime to not teach it. Humans may have been the exception to the rule of survival of the fittest and there is considerable lack of evidence for a good link between the pigmy chimp and humans, but if solid evidence of a good link ever shows up, we are still Orthodox Christians!
Third, I am against Creation Science being taught. It is not scientific that between 6k and 10k years ago the Earth and life were created in 6 days. The science is weak, not peer reviewed and quite frankly relies too much on the notion of “your weakness is my strength.” They are under the assumption that if the theory of evolution fails, their 6 day theory prevails. Good science is providing evidence and not poking holes in other theories in order to push forward my own. I believe that we as Copts should actually have a firm stand against such Protestant Fundamentalism.
Two final notes: While Creation Science does not appeal to my taste, I am a proponent of intelligent design authors. I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Michael Behe, and I love and appreciate all the works of S Meyer, W Dembski, J Wells, D Kenyon, P Johnson, and of course Behe. The smartest thing they have done is separate creation science from intelligent design. They are not the same thing – intelligent design is true science and could be peer reviewed if given the chance. God bless their work.
Finally, ancient Coptic wisdom reveals to us that we should not take the first few chapters of Genesis literally. I will not leave you with words of Pope John Paul or Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, or even Pope Shenouda III, who after reading overwhelming supporting evidence of evolution wisely chose a stance that would not be injured if evolution is to ever be correct (that’s right, Pope Shenouda III, because of his majestic wisdom, also took a stance similar to his eminence Kallistos Ware). Instead, I will leave you with ancient and time-tested wisdom – the words of a man who shaped and put into words Coptic theology: Origen (as you read this excerpt, keep in mind it was written in the EARLY 3rd century. Enjoy, and pray for me.
"For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves... Now who is there… possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. [it] cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification." *Origen, De principiis, THIRD CENTURY AD.
This discussion for sure is beneficial. Argue there until your heart's content but don’t let it disturb your peace or create more questions or doubts in your mind. I am not sure about the exact quote and who said it but it read:
“While scientists discuss the problems of the universe and other difficult topics, many ordinary people had already infiltrated the kingdom to God.”
i enjoyed all the impressive scientific arguments above. however i think flexmd has the best sentiments when reminding us that this can distract us from the kingdom of God! as long as u realise God made us (over 10000 or 10000000 years), loves us, grieves for our weakness, died for us in order to defeat death and lives with us by His Holy Spirit, its not too important exactly how we arrived at where we are now. it matters more where we are going from here ;)
Comments
If we deny the inerrancy of the creation account we may feel free to question anything in scripture like Our Lord's miracles and Resurrection.
However we have a problem in this anniversary year of Darwin's birth. We live in a world where the theory of evolution is accepted as fact and it is an elegant theory backed up by a lot of evidence. The evidence of DNA. The evidence of geology and fossil evidence.
Believing, after a long search, in the innerancy of scripture and the Orthodox faith how can I square the circle? I am interested in, in an amateur way, in evolution, but I can't reject my knowledge of Our Saviour so I treat evolution as a theory not as fact. Its a bit like enjoying science fiction whilst believing that Christ will come at the conclusion of things-the world will not become perfect
In Christ
i never believed in evolution and i had hilarious discussions with my A level teacher (at age 17) about it. she had never met a 'non-believer' before and had no idea the creationist science was so well thought out. she was a lovely lady though and all our long and public debates were in good humour.
basically these are the problems with evolution theory: you can tell the ages of the fossils by their level in the rocks, and you can tell the ages of the rocks by the fossils in them. so its a bit flawed!
also you can tell the age of really old things by uranium dating: measuring the amount of uranium that is radioactive. this works if the proportion of uranium that is radioactive has always remained the same throughout all known time. we have NO evidence that it has, so can't rely on uranium dating.
the great flood changed a lot of rock levels and probably changed the amounts of radiation in the earth as well. so we can only really date back acurately to around that time.
ok, there are good theological arguments that the earth was not made in 6 24hr periods (or maybe it was) but there are no good arguments (as far as i can see) that humans are just a succesful type of primate that are not really special or that the earth is millions of years old.
those Christians who believe in evolution think that God started it all of with a big bang and kept checking how well it was 'cooking' so i think its ok for a Christian to believe this, just i haven't seen any good evidence for this view personally.
may God guide us and bring His creative power into all our lives
But, isnt some of Darwins theories and hypothesis true and obvious. or do we Coptics dont belive it all???
+mahraeel+
I have always taken the view that the world looks like it has an age just as Adam looked like he was 21 or whatever. How could it be possible to create a world with no age? It seems to me to be impossible. If you were a world designer then you would have to have an assumed age. If you created a river valley then that would assume that the river had been there for thousands of years slowly eroding the soil. If you created a mountain range it would assume a history of tectonic movements that had forced the mountains upwards. Everything would have to have a built in age.
The trees that God created would look like they were 50 or 100 years old. The animals were mature and would like they were a year, or 2 years, or 5 years old. Everything had a built in age and a built in history. It can't be helped.
So I have always considered that the universe has a built in age, but that it is in fact relatively young in absolute terms, and that there was a real Adam and Eve even if the geological record describes a much longer history.
Does any of that make sense. It does to me.
Deacon Peter
WHy I am asking is because I find it bewildering how Copts or Christians in general, can believe that we came from other species (i.e) that we evolved from other species, and yet believe that Christ came to save us? Save us from what? The entire reason for salvation is rooted in the story given in Genesis. Man required salvation from death. Death entered humanity from the sin of Adam. If Adam didnt exist - then this nullifies everything after the book of Genesis (from the OT to the NT).
Christ came to return man back to his original glory - to make us back into the image and likeness in which He created the 1st man; to nullify the death that entered humanity, by His death. All this is our theology based on the account of the creation given in Genesis.
Scholars such as Richard Dawkins and his peers hold very sensitive positions in Society. They are evangelical Atheists who are in positions to influence scientific academic curriculum in schools. Rather than present macro-evolution as "theory" - they present it as "fact". Christians, who may not have scientific accumen or confidence in their faith, may be influenced deeply to reject their Creed (which clearly states that God created the heavens and earth, and all things..) in favour of darwinism and other theories presented to explain the existence of mankind.
Dawkins is not just head of a university - but he is the Editor in Chief of the New Scientist Magazine. He has an agenda of his own, and that agenda was clearly manifested in the publicity campaign in London where posters saying "GOD PROBABLY DOESNT EXIST, SO STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE" were spread all over London buses in an attempt to draw people's attention towards his way of thinking: that religion serves no purpose, and atheism is the only common sensical solution for mankind.
But, as an Orthodox Christian, I do believe in Christ, and I have had miracles happen to me and my family. I'm not talking about silly catholic miracles.. you know the type - Ohhh I lost my pen, I found my pen.. prayer works. We are talking about hardcore Orthodox miracles. So, Christ exists (for me!) - if Christ exists and is God, it means for me that Genesis is true. I cannot believe that Christ exists without accepting Genesis - the reason for His coming and His Crucifixion and His Resurrection and Ascension. All this was because of Genesis.
So, I resume - how can Christians neglect Genesis and yet believe in Christ? Its a very strange faith? Is it not? What kind of faith would such an opinion lead to?
Yet, i am astounded daily by hearing how Christians can believe in the propaganda of atheists, and yet maintain that they are Christian and believe in Christ.
That's why I created this thread. I just wanted to know how someone could really believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, and yet deny that Genesis happened.
By the way, I am a teacher in London. All schools are to receive a 'Darwin box' I look forward to seeing what's in it. The atheist establishment feels under threat!
I must agree with you all. However lets not just cheerily say 'I don't believe in evolution' when Darwin's theory is all pervasive and cannot just be dismissed without reasons. I think St Peter tells us to give reasons for the faith we hold. I think Deacon Peter's post gives us a possible way to address the situation. It must be addressed, however.
By the way, I am a teacher in London. All schools are to receive a 'Darwin box' I look forward to seeing what's in it. The atheist establishment feels under threat!
Aidan,
Im a strong believer in micro-evolution. I believe that the human being can physiologically diversify to adapt to changes of his or her environment; and I do believe these characteristics are passed on genetically. This is just micro-evolution. I do not believe nor accept that we evolved from primitive species such as apes that are now extinct.
The weirdest thing is this:
There is so much truth in evolution with so much lies.
Here is a truth: That man was hairier before. (I MEAN REALLY HAIRY!).
--> yes, I believe that the human being was much hairier than what he was now. I mean LITERALLY furry. But look at the story of Isaac's son: Jacob and Esau. It was said of Esau that he was so hairy, that when Jacob tried to trick his father in pretending to be his brother, he had to cover himself with animal skin (he was that hairy!).
But the lie is that it assumes all humans were hairy!! Yet Jacob was NOT hairy at all.
Because we see a pattern that humans were hairier before, it does not mean that all humans were hairy.
So, scientifically, we discover a pattern, then completely UNSCIENTIFICALLY, if not foolishly we just paint all of history with the same brush: that all the entire species were hairy and therefore we came from primitive species.
We should NOT generalise in science.
Has anyone here studied Chemistry? When you are studying GSCE chemistry, all you learn are laws. One would think at 16 years of age that everything follows laws. This is very naive. When you do A-LEVEL Chemistry, you study nothing BUT the exceptions to those laws. When you go onto university, you seem to be struggling with the fact that scientific laws aren't always correct, and the exceptions to them seem to be what is binding a theory.
If one had an agenda to believe in his heart that God does not exist, how easy would it be to paint a picture of human genome history as one evolving ONLY from primitive species. That would be easy. The same way it would be easy to for someone who hates Americans, to say all americans are gun-crazy, ignorant, religious bunch of people. There's no difference. We generalise with one group of people due to our inherent hatred of them, and we generalise scientifically due to our own personal belief that God doesn't exist.
But - now, more to the point: What can be said for Christians who believe that we evolved from primitive species and yet believe in God? Can the two beliefs co-exist? it seems like a paradox!
How can that be? To be believe that Christ is our saviour, and yet totally reject the fact that He is also our Creator?
Aiden, the Atheist establishment are forcing us to believe in their way of thinking : that there is NO God. They are not using science to achieve this; but they are ABUSING science to achieve this.
Its very serious, and it is at the heart of our faith. If ANYTHING will destroy Christianity in the UK, it will be this.
Once you tell someone: "Its scientifically proven that we came from Apes" then it doesnt have the same weighting as "its well known that we came from apes". The word "scientifically" only seems to add status to the statement. It shuts down all doors for dialogue, research and understanding. That is abuse of science. To assume that one law applies to everything. To assume that one pattern can be applied to everything. This is not only unscientific, but Its TRULY UNFAIR!!!
There were "SCIENTIFIC" studies to see whether Wireless network equipment causes cancer. It was done by those who had an interest that it would be preferrable that it didnt cause cancer - nor any adverse health effects.
They said "it is scientifically proven that wireless micro-radiation does not cause cancer".
Independent scientists then came forward and did their own study who said
"Scientifically, it is proven that exposure to microcellular radiation can cause adverse health effects".
You know what the SPINELESS government's health warning is to those who use cell phones?????????
"Wireless Cellphones are safe, but don't use them too often, nor near your head".
That said, I could imagine that it could be possible that God granted self-awareness in some sense to two proto-human individuals who became Adam and Eve.
But I can't fit Evolution without a Fall into our Orthodox faith. It just doesn't seem to work.
In Christ
Deacon Peter
about the hairy issues:
I'm not gonna argue that humans were hairier back then.. but not to the point of furry. God created us in HIS own image.. and I doubt God is furry. Maybe Esau was one of a kind.. really really hairy.. but I wouldnt call all humans furry.
Besides the Story of Isaac and his sons, do you have any other sources to back this up?
Peace.
QT_PA_2T,
about the hairy issues:
I'm not gonna argue that humans were hairier back then.. but not to the point of furry. God created us in HIS own image.. and I doubt God is furry. Maybe Esau was one of a kind.. really really hairy.. but I wouldnt call all humans furry.
Besides the Story of Isaac and his sons, do you have any other sources to back this up?
Peace.
Im not saying that all humans were furry.. im sorry if that's how it came across. On the contrary!! Im saying that there was cases known to us where in fact some people were really hairy. It does not mean that this was the genetic makeup of all mankind during the time of such humans. It may very well be a localised issue, and we cannot deduce from this that ALL HUMANS were hairy to the point of furriness (like with Esau).
I'm saying that it was clear from the Bible that the level of hair on men was much more than what it is today - to the extent that it was literally furry (The Bible proves this - there was no need to go and do studies on it, the answer is in the story of Esau and Jacob).
To answer your particular question: Jacob wanted to trick his father in thinking that he was Esau. So he dressed himself in ANIMAL FUR. That's how hairy is brother was.
However, given that Jacob was not furry, we cannot generalise and say that all humans were hairy. If Esau was furry, perhaps there was a gene somewhere that caused that? Perhaps somewhere in his geneology there was someone furry. But this is a proof that not all humans were furry. ONE INCIDENT or even SEVERAL INCIDENTS doesnt make it a law.
Scientists have discovered that humans were considerably hairier than what they are today. Pro-Atheists are happy to take this as meaning that we did evolve from other species. But we cannot generalise in science
GOD BLESS
One last thing. If people should abandon their faith because of evolution (and here I mean a full,Orthodox faith) they may do out of impatience. The theory of Darwin may, possibly be replaced by a different interepretation of the facts.
In Christ
Hello there.I am fairly new to this forum and to the world of tasbe7a. so having had to take a formal course on this issue. i have come to realize why i didn't pass this course the first time.. i was trying to hard to firgure out where leviathons(i.e. dinosuares) and evolved primates come into play. having spoken to a freind who is lutheran they believe that adam and eve where created among others.... i completely reject the idea of evolution... having had to sit in a course on it two times it has just made me realize that there is more to it that is false then there is truth. i often thought okay well if geneology is involved then how come all primates didn't evolve, also its quite simple everything consist of certain genes. As beings of God the untlimate creator it is bound that we are going to have some similarities to every other being on this earth. A Greek Orthodox Bishop put it quite simply.
GOD BLESS
Bishop Ware is saying that he does not find a problem with being an Orthodox Christian and accepting the theories of evolution. He says that it is possible for God to work through evolution.
But what kind of evolution is he talking about?? Is he accepting theories that suggest we originated from primates?? and that these primate species were created as a result of a big bang????
Theologically speaking, and someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, but our entire salvation, the very reason for Christ coming to earth, taking the form of a man and being crucified was for the sin that Adam made. Death entered humanity from Adam's sin. Christ came to save us and give us eternal life.
Surely (PLEASE CORRECT ME HERE IF I AM WRONG!) - but surely - it is impossible to accept the Bigbang theory and our faith that believes Christ created man, by the Will of the Father, through the Son, with the Life Giving Holy Spirit.
Now, I'm not saying that the creation took EXACTLY 6 days, and God rested on the 7th. I'm sure that these days or timeframes may not be on the 24 hour scale we use here to measure time, and no one knows the exact conversations that took place between God and His creation... but to go to the extent of saying that God did not create man - but man rather existed from a random explosion that created life NULLIFIES God as the creator. It robs God of His position in the story of life. Atheists have taken control of the narrative and are directing it towards their ideals and ideologies.
I think Bishop Kallistos is NOT answering the question. He is saying that he believes in evolution (but he's not saying whether he believes in micro or macro evolution) -
Yes, I agree with him entirely that God did not have to create everything as it is now, but that he could have created it through the evolutionary process.. yes. But what is bugging me is the terms Bishop Kallistos is using.
He knows VERY well that the students are asking about evolution at the MACRO level.. not the MICRO level where even my hair colour changes according to the sun's good will. Micro evolution complements the story in Genesis. It is only a scientific detail that we can accept that explains how God intended our ecological and biological systems to work. That's fine. But he is not addressing the real issue: MACRO evolution.
I don't believe that Macro Evolution is a threat for Orthodox faith. I believe Orthodox faith IS a threat to Macro Evolution.
Richard Dawkins is not a scholar, he is a Public Relations Specialist. He really has no vested interest in finding 'Truth'. He is part of the establishment. He is a Professor of the "Public Understanding of Science" as if the public does not have the capacity to teach themselves anything and must be infantalized. Welcome to the New World Order.
:-\ Eh?
I thought he got his B.A. ('59) in zoology, and his M.A. ('62) & PHD ('66) At Oxford U in Philosophy . . .
Is this background info wrong?
George
[quote author=elepti link=topic=7618.msg100015#msg100015 date=1233883009]
Richard Dawkins is not a scholar, he is a Public Relations Specialist. He really has no vested interest in finding 'Truth'. He is part of the establishment. He is a Professor of the "Public Understanding of Science" as if the public does not have the capacity to teach themselves anything and must be infantalized. Welcome to the New World Order.
:-\ Eh?
I thought he got his B.A. ('59) in zoology, and his M.A. ('62) & PHD ('66) At Oxford U in Philosophy . . .
Is this background info wrong?
George
George,
You are right except in one thing: Dawkins WAS the head of Science at one of the Schools at Oxford Uni. This has changed.. it is someone else (THANK GOD!). I actually find the man quite annoying and a bit of a demogog.
I think what the poster meant was that he has his own agenda. Im sure they knew that he was heading a section at the Uni of Oxford.
And frankly, I couldnt agree more with Elepti: he IS a public relations specialist - with no other interest than spreading his ignorant driven agenda that God doesnt exist!
I think that all of Dawkins writings and speeches are an effort by him to convince himself of a truth that at a deep level he doubts. Somewhere in his soul he is wrestling with God. It is the one who has no interest in God at all who is too lazy to find Him. Dawkins is obsessed with God and we might pray and hope that he finally meets the one who occupies his whole life.
Deacon Peter
He seems to me a man who is constantly wrestling with God and we should pray for him that he finds the one he is trying so hard, too hard, to deny.
I think that all of Dawkins writings and speeches are an effort by him to convince himself of a truth that at a deep level he doubts. Somewhere in his soul he is wrestling with God. It is the one who has no interest in God at all who is too lazy to find Him. Dawkins is obsessed with God and we might pray and hope that he finally meets the one who occupies his whole life.
Deacon Peter
I never saw it this way... he is obsessed with God. Quite right Peter.
As a scientist, he needs common sense and logic coupled with physical proof for everything to make sense to him.
What is remarkable, that as a scientist, we believe that everything happens for a reason. Cause and Effect. Nothing is haphazard. What a very strange life and sadness must occur in any human who could possibly believe that his soul is limited and will never live after death. What a very dark, depressed and dry person that must be who is convinced that we are here on earth for no really intelligent reason other than to exist haphazardly and procreate.
Do you feel your soul will end?
Is death LOGICAL? it is not logical!
Injustice is not logical. And vengence does NEVER bring about justice. SO it is really illogical.
Why were we created with a soul that experiences these terrible things? Surely there must be an explanation to these things that Dawkins must be searching for!?
There are many illogical things that we will experience as humans that a scientific mind will not rest until it has answer to.
There is one thing though that they will find: that their logic will never bring them joy. That one day, their logic in living against God's commandments undoubtedly results in suffering for them. If I did not believe this, I also wouldnt care. God cares enough for us that He doesnt want us to live in sin because we suffer whilst we are in this state. I too do not want atheists to be fooled by the illusion that what is sinful to God is just an opinion that has nothing to do with them. This is the Dawkins Delusion. And I would not care so much unless others who followed him were being deluded into a false sense of security; into a false sense of freedom.
Yes, we should pray for him. I pray that scientifically he discovers God. I pray that God reveals Himself to Dawkins. The sooner the better before he leads others into a state of delusion.
I think it will be increasingly hard to be a Christian in today's society. If we believe in the creation as described in Genesis, we will be mocked. If we have conservative values, we will be mocked.
But the mocking is where scientists are already telling us that scientifically - God doesnt exist, because God didnt create anything - and if He did create anything, it wasn't mankind because we were just a freak accident in the Universe called the Big Bang.
I don't believe that Macro Evolution is a threat for Orthodox faith. I believe Orthodox faith IS a threat to Macro Evolution.
That is very well said, the gates of hell shall not prevail against our church and its orthodox faith!
We are all God's children and (compared to His omnipotence) we rarely (if ever) pass the stage of being toddlers.
We already know that our faith should be the absolute and unquestioning faith of a toddler. We already frequently talk about how (for example) we should not worry about tomorrow, what we will eat or what clothes we will wear, because our heavenly Father privides. If we follow the example of a toddler, these things come natural. This adressed the metaphor in light of the closeness of a child to their parents.
We rarely adress the other side of this metaphor. Almost as important as the close bond of a child to their parents is for a child to have periods of unstructured playtime, time to play with blocks to learn to understand shapes, time to bang things together to understand sounds, to clap, to babble, to experiment with everything at their disposal.
It is impotrant for the child to do these things without the help of the parents so they can learn on their own. They will invariably get into trouble; they will invariably make mistakes (eating crayons etc.), but this is all part of learning.
Science is similar to the unstructured play of a toddler. We observe the world around us and experiment; we make guesses and experiment some more to see if we were right. If out experiments match our guesses we share our findings with others and do things based on those findings. This is all very good, natural and appropriate.
Science goes wrong when it is taken too seriously. We call our guesses "Hypotheses" to make them sound fancy, and when they match our experiments we call them "Laws". We then use those "Laws" to do good things like build and make medicines, but then we (some of us, ;)) think that means we are self-reliant and don't need God, or even deny His existence.
Science (unstructured playtime) is very good and healthy when we're not eating crayons and making atomic weapons, but we need our Father near enough to keep us from choking, falling down stairs, vaporizing ourselves, etc.
George
But I do have the following to add: Our faith should not be based on evidence for, or worse, lack of evidence against. This is not to suggest that anyone on this forum is Orthodox because they believe the evidence for evolution to be weak. But just so that others who read your zealous posts do not misunderstand – we are Orthodox Christians regardless of any evidence for or against the theory of evolution, or any other theory for that matter.
While we must always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15) and we maintain that we are not blind followers of tradition (Ephesians 4:17,18), we are nonetheless sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see (Hebrews 11:1) and hold the mystery of faith (1 Timothy 3:9). It is one thing to see and believe, but truly blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed (John 20:29). Whether the Earth is 4.6 billion or 10,000 years old, we are still Orthodox. Sure we are rational beings that have an inner need to make sense out of everything – and this separates us from many other religions where questions are frowned upon – but there is a grey line where faith must trump reason. It makes no sense that water can be changed into wine, but we believe it happened and many martyrs literally bet their life it happened.
To the Sunday School Servants: if you present arguments to those whom you serve that the theory of evolution is wrong or lacking and therefore Genesis must have been right, you are erroneously creating a dichotomy between evolution and Genesis 1. This dichotomy will carry on with them for a long time thereafter, and if they are ever convinced later that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, they will stop believing in the rest of the Bible. It is counter-productive to take a firm stance on evolution and it is unnecessary to create a dichotomy (it is far from the truth that Genesis 1 and the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive).
The rest of this post is my opinion, but please read Origen's excerpt on the bottom:
Since this post may come off as patronizing, I will state my personal opinion on the issue. I believe that the theory of evolution is well established within the scientific community. Most of the science behind the theory is sound and peer reviewed. While I am against the way evolution is currently taught in schools, I do believe it should be taught and I am against creation science being taught in a science class.
First, I am against the way it is taught – the way evolution is currently taught strongly implies chance and coincidence to be the primary movers. This is not scientific (it is actually circular reasoning to make that claim: science assumes all causation to be natural, i.e. no supernatural causation, and thus science cannot claim that a supernatural causation did not occur).
Second, I think evolution should be taught – much of biology would not make sense without evolution. In fact, I think evolution is an integral part of biology. I am currently a medical student and I know that quite a few things in medicine make more sense when you consider evolution. Does that make it a fact, or does that prove beyond all doubt that every tenant of evolution is true? No, but it is based on good science, glues many concepts together, and it would be a scientific crime to not teach it. Humans may have been the exception to the rule of survival of the fittest and there is considerable lack of evidence for a good link between the pigmy chimp and humans, but if solid evidence of a good link ever shows up, we are still Orthodox Christians!
Third, I am against Creation Science being taught. It is not scientific that between 6k and 10k years ago the Earth and life were created in 6 days. The science is weak, not peer reviewed and quite frankly relies too much on the notion of “your weakness is my strength.” They are under the assumption that if the theory of evolution fails, their 6 day theory prevails. Good science is providing evidence and not poking holes in other theories in order to push forward my own. I believe that we as Copts should actually have a firm stand against such Protestant Fundamentalism.
Two final notes:
While Creation Science does not appeal to my taste, I am a proponent of intelligent design authors. I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Michael Behe, and I love and appreciate all the works of S Meyer, W Dembski, J Wells, D Kenyon, P Johnson, and of course Behe. The smartest thing they have done is separate creation science from intelligent design. They are not the same thing – intelligent design is true science and could be peer reviewed if given the chance. God bless their work.
Finally, ancient Coptic wisdom reveals to us that we should not take the first few chapters of Genesis literally. I will not leave you with words of Pope John Paul or Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, or even Pope Shenouda III, who after reading overwhelming supporting evidence of evolution wisely chose a stance that would not be injured if evolution is to ever be correct (that’s right, Pope Shenouda III, because of his majestic wisdom, also took a stance similar to his eminence Kallistos Ware). Instead, I will leave you with ancient and time-tested wisdom – the words of a man who shaped and put into words Coptic theology: Origen (as you read this excerpt, keep in mind it was written in the EARLY 3rd century. Enjoy, and pray for me.
"For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves... Now who is there… possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. [it] cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification."
*Origen, De principiis, THIRD CENTURY AD.
“While scientists discuss the problems of the universe and other difficult topics, many ordinary people had already infiltrated the kingdom to God.”
as long as u realise God made us (over 10000 or 10000000 years), loves us, grieves for our weakness, died for us in order to defeat death and lives with us by His Holy Spirit, its not too important exactly how we arrived at where we are now.
it matters more where we are going from here ;)