Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Confused on the "Evolution" concept?
I know we don't believe in evolution... but I was wondering (since it's soo hard to disprove evolution, and also yet prove it) about many general questions. Apparently I don't know enough of evolution to be able to defend our faith -which I am thankful to God for he gives all things within his will and in due time. All we look like to them [evolutionists] is crazy fanatics, that have no science based backround. I was watching videos on youtube to keep what I said to my friend that to be a true sciencist you need to look at both sides without a bias. Unfortuneately I have many bias's against evolution but not for the science-based evidence against it -like a true sciencist would do, except it won't be a "bias", but rather for my anger and hate in the fact that I can't defend against it. For examples their: fossel records; bacteria; many more which i will bring up in this discussion.
Please pray for me!
Please pray for me!
Comments
http://www.carm.org/creation-evolution-debate
I know we don't believe in evolution...
Yes we do.
[quote author=Sevant of Jesus Christ link=topic=8878.msg111189#msg111189 date=1267073550]
I know we don't believe in evolution...
Yes we do.
No we don't. lol
[quote author=sodr2 link=topic=8878.msg111195#msg111195 date=1267117196]
[quote author=Sevant of Jesus Christ link=topic=8878.msg111189#msg111189 date=1267073550]
I know we don't believe in evolution...
Yes we do.
No we don't. lol
Yes we do and no we don't haha. Theres macroevolution and microevolution; we believe in microevolution, which is evolution within a species, such as humans losing their use of vestigial organs, such as the appendix, wisdom teeth, and tailbone. We do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys, which would be macroevolution.
Yes we do and no we don't haha. Theres macroevolution and microevolution; we believe in microevolution, which is evolution within a species, such as humans losing their use of vestigial organs, such as the appendix, wisdom teeth, and tailbone. We do not believe that humans evolved from monkeys, which would be macroevolution.
About a year ago, I used to think exactly like you.
Enjoy watching these series, if you delight:
Wait a while.
The Orthodox Church did not insist the world was flat.
The world IS the center of the universe. Geography is far from the correct way of understanding reality.
And evolution does not seem to me or many of the Fathers to be consistent with the Christian Faith.
Father Peter
Science is never conducted in a vacuum and the scientist, when dealing with matters of scientific faith (and much science requires faith) cannot answer the questions which theology does, and when science believes it can then it becomes a false religion.
Macro-evolution is a matter of scientific faith therefore it is properly liable to criticism by theology. To say that these two domains are separate is itself a theological point of view and not necessarily Orthodox. The issue of macro-evolution, as an example, tends to deny the reality of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race, and therefore tends to attempt to demolish the foundation of our Christian Faith. Yet macro-evolution cannot be scientifically proved. It requires faith. It requires theological presuppositions which are usually not Orthodox at all.
Believing in macro-evolution, do you believe that Adam and Eve are the progenitors of our humanity and were two historical human beings?
Father Peter
I am not speaking for the Church of course, but as someone who has spent many decades considering theological matters.
I suppose my main objection is when the historical reality of Adam and Eve are put in doubt.
I would also say that it is impossible for science to disprove that God created the universe some 10-15,000 years ago, since clearly the universe would have to have been created with an apparent history. It is impossible to create a river valley, for instance, without it appearing to have a several thousand year history of erosion. The light from distance galaxies would also have been created, galaxies themselves formed complete and mature as if they had been turning for millions of years. This is alll a necessary fact of any creation - it is impossible to create the universe ex-nihilo without it having an apparent history. Even the creation of a mature tree in the Garden of Eden requires that the tree have an apparent history. If a tree had been cut down it would have had tens of tree rings, each one describing an apparent year of growth that was apparently real, necessary for the creation of the tree, and yet did not occur. Science cannot disprove this.
What is apparent to us has a history of millenia, what is the objective reality from God's perspective occurred 10-15,000 years ago.
Father Peter
the problem is, there are many evolution theories, and although most of them are linked to an atheist standpoint, it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
having said that, most people who say 'i believe in evolution' haven't investigated the theory (theories) very thoroughly and don't realise that the theory of evolution started as an atheistic concept.
it's also possible (and i think more likely) that God didn't use millions of years and thousands of extinct species to create man. together with father peter, i want to emphasize that believing that adam and eve existed is important for the understanding of the Christian faith.
when i was 15 i studied evolution and creation in great detail and had many (respectful!) debates with my teacher, who had never before considered that the Bible had anything to add to the study of the origins of the universe. she went away with great food for thought, and, as i took time to study the evolution theories dilligently, i passed my exam, and we were both richer for the experience.
i think it's important to point out, that some of the creation theories promoted by various north american websites also have serious flaws (as does classical darwinian macro-evolution), so when we discuss 'evolution' and 'creation' we may need to spend a little time defining what we discuss. i can see why some Christians can be put off creation theories, especially in the light of some churches historically having an anti-scientific perspective.
as a scientist, i believe it is not dangerous to mix science and religion. as Christians and scientists/health workers/schoolchildren learning biology, we actually have a responsibility to share our faith in a way that makes sense. and if our faith says 'God made the world, well, then maybe He didn't', it's not surprising people start to question whether or not Christianity makes sense or should be left for a few religious 'nuts' to enjoy. in my own experience, every time i learn something more about the workings of the human body i am filled with wonder at the intricate beauty of God's creation, and find it draws me closer to God.
i think we should think about all these issues very carefully and ask God for guidance, remebering that God is not someone who only wants to dwell in us when we take communion on a sunday, but is also with us every day, 'even to the end of the world'. it matters what we discus with our colleagues about this, and, as Christians, we should explain that indeed God did create us for a relationship with Him, and we do need to trust in the salvation that can only come through Jesus in order to be close to God. whether He did this in 10,000 years or 10,000,000 years is open to debate, but we did not arrive here by chance, and so it is not just a matter of chance where we go from here.
may He guide our study and our thoughts and our prayers, to God be the glory for ever and ever.
Actually, I'd say it's fundamentalism. The Bible should be taken literally in the sense that the truest meaning of what we read should be taken literally. The author of Genesis didn't intend to determine science. His point was different. The question is... what did he really mean to teach (acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit)? It was concerning God and what His plan was, and was expressed through the scientific knowledge of his era. That's why I don't think it's good to look at Genesis as a science book... our origins is up for science to discover.
But if this world was created through an evolutionary process, then God was the author of it. Of course, the Bible has no errors in it, since God is the author. I would... say so, yeah (since the Genealogy of Jesus goes back to Adam). You're right... but what science is doing is simply describing the apparent history. I mean, I believe successful operations have been carried out through divine intervention. But is this really necessary to be learned in medical school? Obviously no. IMO, if someone believes in anything that contradicts the Nicene Creed, then the person's not following true Christian faith.
I am a M.B. & B.Ch. I believe that science is still way short of the notion of what's scientifically termed 'the metaphysical', i.e. this means in part the spiritual. I believe that the science of evolution (classic or neo-) is false/wrong science - though I can still study, understand and take tests for ANY theory you like: it does not imply that I may take it for granted especially if NOT proven.
The sudden appearance of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman at the same timing and imperatively in the same place approximately 7000 years ago (+ or - whatever) implies a special creation event. This is incompatible with any evolution theory.
The second point I'd like to emphasize is that God does not deceive us but false science may. The wisdom and power of God are unlimited, but science is naturally and inherently limited. So now who would you believe is more to consider as the correct choice, in other words I came to understand that whenever science conflicts with what the Lord clearly teach us (esp. in great detail like in Genesis) that this very part of science is drifting away from Truth.
God inspired all Scripture not to be useful to the ancestors alone but to all humans in all eras. He is the One who was there and will be for ever and ever. The word of God is forever alive and perpetually effective.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him.
What are these invisible things St Paul refers to? As a start, we may think of what we cannot see with our bare naked eyes, then elaborate piece by piece..
GBU