› ›

Origin of Humans

ZoxsasiZoxsasi
edited December 2014 in Faith Issues
How do Coptic Christians understand their origins? Do you believe that we originated from non-human life forms?

Here is a debate between Dawkins and Rowan Williams:


At 40:00, the moderator asks Dr Williams if he could accept that he originated from non humans. He says "Yes". This is the highest ranking cleric in the Anglican Church.

It means that he is admitting that Adam & Eve is just a myth, if not an outright lie. 

How does that change anything, in terms of our salvation, if we originated from non humans?

So God created a cell - the cell evolved after 4 million years. After a millions of years of natural selection, human species came into being. Is that correct?
Or, there was no God. There was a big bang that kicked everything off.

God breathed into Adam and Eve and gave them His Holy Spirit. The life giving Holy Spirit as a gift. If we originated from non human species, then at what point did we receive the Holy Spirit?

The creation, and fall from Grace, of the 1st creation, is the foundation of our faith. Its how we die. It explains the reason for Christ. If this is a lie, our faith is a lie. The head of the Anglican Church is just conceding in the debate. I'm not entirely sure whether he even believes in God himself.
«1

Comments

  • mabsootamabsoota
    he's no longer arch bishop.
    the anglicans let them retire after a while.
    it's not a job for life.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Well OK... but what about his comment?

  • mabsootamabsoota
    i think there are some Christians, even orthodox Christians who believe that some parts of evolution can be true, but some time, God came in, chose 2 pre-humans and made them adam and eve.
    i don't think like this, but it's not impossible to be a Christian and believe this.
    i know in egypt, evolution is not taught seriously like in europe and other countries, but in many countries people think evolution MUST be true, they don't even consider it may not be.

    so maybe he is trying not to make it too difficult for those people. 
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    edited December 2014
    Mabsoota,

    Dawkins and other evolutionary protagonists are claiming, in the name of Science, that God cannot be true because evolutionary science proves that man wasn't created. 

    The videos i've seen so far from Creation Scientists seem to show, unless i've completely misunderstood, that man wasn't created either, but the human species came about through evolution and natural selection, except that there is some sort of ID (Intelligent Design) causing this. The only reason given why there is some sort of I.D. is because of the probability of the correct amino acid sequence being generated by chance is so outlandishly high, that it would make scientific sense if a God did create it: i.e. there was an uncaused 1st cause.

    I'm not sure if this is sinking in, but your kids are going to go to school being taught that scientifically, God doesn't exist; however, if you choose to believe in that, that's your free will; and we can't stop you from believing in the tooth fairy, santa claus, or humpty dumpty either.

    Please please correct me if I've misunderstood this entire evolutionary theory, or have misunderstood how one should take this information, but as far as I know or can see, this is what is being taught as fact.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Hi Zoxsasi,

    I did not listen to the youtube video, but to give you a feeling of what I believe, ask yourself this question.  Would you tell someone: "did God create you or did the unity of sperm and egg and nine months in a womb create you?"  Would you say: "thank you God for this food or thank you mom for this food?"  Would you say:  "my success is due to God or my success is because I studied hard?"

    This is my personal way of approaching this issue.  Many times, I feel we waste our time because we are employing a Dawkins philosophy of a scientific concept, of which the former has nothing to do with the latter except being a mere philosophical interpretation of a true concept in science.  If the sun provides us light and warmth, does that mean we deny the True Light of True Light our Lord Jesus Christ, and the warmth of our spiritual life, the Holy Spirit?

    God bless.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Mina, Helen

    Here:


    This solves your problems. I'll write more later. I beg every Church servant to read this. 

    Forget Creation Science!! This is useless. Answer science with science. 

    Dr Berlinski isn't even a Christian.
  • mabsootamabsoota
    hi, i don't believe in evolution, never did.
    i used to have humourous debates with my science teacher about this when i was 17.
    she could not fight my arguments and was shocked!
    certainly, there are loads of scientific arguments why it can't be true.

    it was all good natured, though, she respected my opinion, and i respected her position and would always stop discussing it in class if she frowned (we would continue after class).
    but some Christians believe in SOME aspects of evolution, and i don't want them to feel shunned.
    so this is why i have a more balanced opinion about it.

    i don't have kids, but when i have the privilege of discussing this with my friends who are kids, 
    i make it clear that God really did create us and we are very different from animals.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited December 2014
    Dr. Berlinski works for the Discovery Institute, and is primarily a philosopher and does contribute to mathematics as well. His mathematical arguments are weak. You can make the same argument about pregnancy. What are the chances of you to be born? Actually considering all probabilities from conception to birth, it is very unlikely that there is enough time for 40 weeks to be enough for development of an embryo and fetus. So I suppose the medical science of pregnancy is doubtful as well. It is a silly and stupid argument, and it seems it gets him well-paid by the Discovery Institute, a pseudo-science and religious institution.

    And since a bunch of Christians like to pay an agnostic for questioning science, I invite you to search in youtube for Dr. Jerry Coyne's proof of the fact of evolution. He is an atheist, and I disagree with his religious sniping, but he presents excellent and irrefutable scientific evidence of evolution. I also recommend two Christians, Dr. Kenneth Miller and Dr. Francis Collins, who present the same arguments as well.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    What's wrong with you Mina?

    Do you think I'm interested in the scientific proof of evolution?? 

    I don't believe we evolved from a simple cell and just mutated until we became humans. 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited December 2014
    There are many things wrong with me. God knows, and my priest knows, and yet He still sees fit to give me grace despite offending Him countless times. But with science, I know what I'm talking about. This philosopher is showing you how money can help him make a decision against evolution.

    Being not interested in the scientific proof of a scientific study is like an atheist who says I don't want to even bother to come visit your church or pray to your God to see He exists. Both stem from fearing you might be wrong. I know I had to deal with that, but thank God, I still have strong faith. Evolution or no evolution, it matters not for my Orthodox faith. To disprove evolution is a complete waste of time for people unless you want to have a nice paycheck from the fraudulent Discovery Institute.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    You agree with Evolution of Man? I.e. we evolved from a cell that was the result of some crazy explosion? Have you seen the scientific evidence against this?

    If God didn't create man, it means that man wasn't created in incorruption . It means he wasn't even created. It means we are the product of time + chance + matter.

    It means there is no God.

    It means I can go off and kill everyone who every pee'd me off and not feel bad about it. 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited December 2014
    That is an atheistic philosophical interpretation of a scientific concept, where one has nothing to do with the other.  Do not let science mingle with spirituality.  Whichever way God chose to create us is studied by the evidence we have, and the evidence is overwhelmingly pro-evolution, not anti-evolution.  The fact of evolution does not mean there is no God.  It only means this is how God used the dust of the earth that eventually lead to human evolution and development.

    I encourage you to think long and hard about my previous questions. Did God create you or did the unity of sperm and egg and nine months in a womb create you? Is God disproven because of embryology?

    Furthermore, just because evolution is a fact does not dictate what morality is.  If I see a chimpanzee who has a harem of female chimpanzees, kill the babies that does not belong to him, and kill any male chimp that crosses his territory, does that mean I also will act like a chimp?  It is a scientific fact that lions and chimps live brutal lives, but what does this have to do with religion and spirituality?  The moral argument of evolution holds no water, and is a desperate way for anti-evolutionists to blind themselves from the actual facts of the science.

    So yes, I accept the evolution of man, that we evolved from a single cell.  If you are a person like me, who studied biochemistry, genetics, microbiology, oncology, immunology, physiology, and comparative anatomy, the evidence cannot be ignored.  I have read about the challenges against it, but you would be mistake to call these challenges "evidence" because the evidence supports evolution.  I also believe that only mankind was given the Image of God.  I do not speculate on how this meshes with the science of evolution.  I accept the facts of evolution and I believe in God my Creator and my Savior and follow to the best of my ability His Son, the Logos, Jesus Christ, who became a Law for us, a Law of freedom and transcending morality and creation.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Mina,
    The evidence against evolution is also compelling. Look, microevolution is not being disputed. We are talking about macro-evolution. I.e. that species can evolve into different species.

    So - what you are saying is this: God created an ape from dust and then breathed in him when he evolved into a man?? 

    Someone get me a theologian ASAP to tell me the implications of this???!!!


  • mabsootamabsoota
    so i was trying to allow for both opinions to be valid...
    i'll step out now and allow you to debate.

    (ducks to avoid the flying words)...
    ;-)
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited December 2014
    It is a farce to try to differentiate "micro" and "macro" evolution.  Both occur in the same manner, on the micro-genetic level.  If we believe in consistency, the Logos who makes creation all consistent in its laws of nature, then consistently what works in the micro is similar in the macro, or accumulates in the macro.  The fact that there is a differentiation with some people means they do not know anything about evolution.

    I'm saying man evolved, and at some point, God decided to bless man with His Image.  How and when are things I do not claim to know, but I cannot in good conscience contradict what is flat out true in science.  There is no "compelling evidence" against evolution.  It is all smoke and mirrors of a religiously motivated group, not scientifically motivated.

    There are no serious theological implications, unless you believed in certain preconceptions about creation or the Bible.  I know many people who have great standing in the Church who find no problem with evolution and our theological teachings.  In most respected Orthodox Christian theological seminaries, this issue of evolution is usually not seen as an issue.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    There are NO serious theological implications? How can you say that?
    So God created a simple cell, he waits a few billion years until it evolves into a man. He then breathes His Spirit into man?

    So when He told them to be fruitful and multiply - how can He say that? They were already multiplying! That's how they ended up as humans - through natural selection and elimination of weaker traits in the genetic pool within the ape species that led to human species.

    Then there's death. All species die. 
    It means that the 1st human species were already prone to death without Adam messing it up. They died already. Death wasn't something that man inherited from some fallen nature through sinning. Man was already living/dying and reproducing. Where's God in any of this??


  • coptic_deacon
    @Zoxasi

    1. I take issue with your approach. Every single one of your posts has begun with an extremely oversimplified and reductionist assumption. This is where you are getting confused. You cannot explain everything in a series of one-sentence explanations. This is the hallmark of a Protestant. By oversimplifying everything you lose the very essence of an idea - any idea - and what it is you're saying.

    2. Discovery Institute. I did not watch the video you posted and I assure you I won't. The Discovery Institute is a think tank for conservative policy - the most non-christian form of government policy. Any self-respecting, decent and intelligent human being would not work for such a foundation. They are a political organisation under the guise of a scientific institute, funded by a bunch of gun-toting, bigoted, racist, Protestant, uber-capitalist hillbillies. I wouldn't be seen dead listening to their garbage.

    3. I don't see what the problem is with being descended from the great apes. People seem to be offended at the mere suggestion, as though apes were so simple to create we could just make one in my garage on my day off. The creation of the ape is something so spectacular it is beyond the comprehension of any person. The fact that God went further and created man from this creature by 'imbuing' him with His Image is even more so.

    4. You seem to be confusing death with Death. Death (capital D) is demise as a result of sin and the subsequent claims by Satan on the soul. Let's call this, for the sake of argument, 'Thanatos'. death (small d) is the final state of the corporeal form, indicated by a process of decay and the eventual permanent end of the vital processes of the body, whereby it reaches a state of whole chemical equilibrium. There is no doubt that death occurred routinely before man was created, however, it was Thanatos that was brought on by the original sinsince animals don't have a soul, and no, dogs don't go to heaven. That is why we chant in Eastertide saying '...defeated Death by death...'

    5. You suggested a distaste and dismissal for/of the Big Bang. The first chapter of Genesis recounts this event clearly. Creation did not occur in six packets of time, 24 hrs each. It occurred over millions and billions of years (a fact proven by Pope Shenouda himself). The Sun was created on the fourth day. How then could the first three be solar days? The Church also teaches that we are currently in the Seventh day (yes, that same seventh day on which He rested). The Church goes further and says that the Eighth day is counted as eternity beginning on the Day of Judgment. How else can you explain the existence of the fossil record? And if God created man as you are suggesting, why would He create a new being, thrust him in the midst of an existing ecosystem, causing a major upset to the ecosystem?

    Buddy, I don't know you but a lot of what you are saying sounds distinctly Protestant and medieval Roman Catholic. 

    I should mention that I personally am only 99% convinced that evolution is correct, however, if that is because I don't know anywhere near enough about it, or because it actually is only 99% right, I have no idea, and that it for me to find out.

    Cheers Pal.
  • Amoussa01

    Coptic deacon,

    I have issue with your point number 4. This seems more like your interpretation rather than what the fathers teach. We say in the Holy Liturgy that man was created immortal. This very word implies that there was no Death (Thanatos as you like to call it) or physical death Period. Lets take it a step further and say you were correct in your ideology. What was the point of created man if he was going to die (albeit in bodily form) anyway? God could have just kept us as spirits. Why create us in bodily form only to have us die and then unite with Him by spirit? This sounds ridiculous!

    You know what sounds really protestant? Someone who provides their own interpretation on the scripture without any use of orthodox/apostolic references to back up their claim.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Easy CopticDeacon,

    I appreciate the response and elaboration , but I'm not at all impressed by the judgement going on!! 

    As for the world being created in 6 days, I've never even believed that it was ever a 24x6 hour event. I always understood this as a chronological order in which things were created. 

    I hate asking questions and being judged upon it. 

    What the heck is wrong with D. Berlinski?? Why are you refuting his video?

    Secondly, let's talk about Death. Our Abouna said that the result of sin was death (and I think H.H Pope Shenouda III mentioned this, but I'd need to look into that) - both spiritual and physical. In fact, in this case, it means only spiritual death resulted. Nothing else. We were therefore destined to die physically?

    Can you stop judging me when I write? If I keep sentences short, it doesn't mean i'm protestant!! 

    And secondly, regardless of which foundation Berlinski belongs to, is what he is arguing valid? Concerning the fossil records?? Yes/No? 

     
  • Amoussa01
    Here is a reference:

    "But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, "Of every tree that is in the garden thou shalt surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat, but in the day that ye do eat, ye shall surely die."[7] "Ye shall surely die"—not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption."

    On the Incarnation Chapter 1
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    edited December 2014
    Hi Amoussa01,

    Thank you for being smart enough to bring the Incarnation of the Word to our attention in this discussion.

    Why can't we discuss things in a civilised, non antagonistic manner - I'm happy to be corrected; but I feel many priests need to get their patrology corrected also.

    Here's Chap 1 of the Incarnation of the Word: Look at what Athanasios is saying:







    He made all things out of nothing
    through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and     of all these His earthly creatures He reserved
    especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them,
    therefore, upon men who, as animals, were
    essentially impermanent,

     a) What do you all understand by the way he says : "... upon them therefore, upon men who, as animals..." ?? (As animals?).

    So we were "animals" and somehow God chose us?

    b) That were were "essentially impermanent" - 

    Surely that implies we were created as animals - impermanent - i.e. die-able.




  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I have an issue with point #2. Even if the Discovery institute was last bastion of Satan, ad hominem attacks on the Discover Institute or Berlinski are not roper responses. We are here to discuss evolution and religion in this thread, not dismiss an argument (or a video in this case) simply because we don't like the author or the patron organization. If the video has something that is wrong, address it specifically. Address the content, not the speaker's credibility.

    " a) What do you all understand by the way he says : "... upon them therefore, upon men who, as animals..." ?? (As animals?).
    So we were "animals" and somehow God chose us?b) That were were "essentially impermanent" - Surely that implies we were created as animals - impermanent - i.e. die-able."
    This is not how I understood it. I think St Athanasius meant men (or humanity) share the same "natural law of death" or corruptibility or natural potential for death (after the fall). This doesn't mean humans are animals evolutionarily. This doesn't substantiate an evolutionary process. It means we share some characteristics. But in man's case, God had mercy on the race of men and "created man without corruption" (St Basil Reconciliation prayer). The better translation is God built (as in built a house); God "built man on the foundation of incorruptibility" but man chose to become corruptible. And from the first quote Amoussa provided, man lost the incorruptibility when he was exiled from the Paradise of Joy. 

    The problem I have with evolution is that there are too many contradictions to our liturgical terminology and faith, as well as biblical evidence. Preferably, we can discuss each apparent contradiction and see if evolution and religion can be reconciled to a certain degree without saying the other party is full of garbage.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Hi Remnkemi,

    I'm glad someone is seeing the light here.

    Can someone tell me how on earth does one reconcile the Orthodox faith : that God created man in incorruption with the evolutionary term view: "Man wasn't even created - he evolved from a species".

    Even if God created man through an evolutionary process, it means that man's origin came from a source that was corruptible. If God created man in corruption, then this is in clear contradiction to the theory of evolution.

    Therefore, why all the attacks on me when I said that the head of the Anglican Church accepts that Genesis is a myth and that we could have evolved from a lower animal form or species?

    Secondly, I don't care what channel Berlinski works for. Is the content of what he's saying good? Does it hold water? 

    Finally, there is one burning question that really needs to be answered here before we move on:

    According to the Orthodox faith: Did God create man in incorruption - physically, or spiritually? 

    i.e. is human death (physical death) a Design Intent? or is it a result of sin? 

    Once we answer this question, we can easily see how to reconcile our faith with darwinian scientists (in the event that we did indeed evolve from chimps). 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    I know ad hominems are not the best looking of discussions on this.  But when you deal with so much intelligent design literature and the deception the movement has played over the years that continues to create more atheists every generation, I cannot accept to respect such people as reputable.  Nevertheless, I will try to give you a cogent scientific argument against Berlinski when I get the time.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    edited December 2014
    "Mina,

    Why are you interested in attacking Berlinski?? He's making an educated, a solid argument against Evolutionary theorists. What are you saying???What are you doing? You need to go and confess asap! lol"
    Professing an objection against someone else is not a "confessable" offense. Everyone is free to argue his belief. Contrary beliefs are not considered sin (unless it is verifiable heresy). While you may believe evolution is a heresy, many pious, intelligent, patristically-minded Orthodox believe it is not. 

    "What's wrong with you man? Enta Erd yabni???? "
    Just as I stated it was wrong for an ad hominem attack on Berlinski, it is just as wrong to attack Mina for his beliefs and call him a monkey. While I understand you meant it as a pun given the discussion at hand, it is nonetheless offensive. If you don't want people attacking Berlinski, you can't attack those who attack him. It simply is not logical, nor Christian in any form.

    "I like what Berlinski is saying!! Why are you so hellbent that we came from Apes???"
    Stop for a moment and consider the possibility that we may find biblical, patristic and logical evidence that reconciles evolutionary science and religion. Since we are not God, nor were we present at creation, nor do we have a solid "smoking-gun" reason against evolution, let's not be so adamantly opposed to evolution (especially since most scientist, theologians, and philosophers don't agree on the exact definition of evolution).

    I personally don't endorse evolution. But let's be honest on what we know and don't know and what we can prove and not prove.
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited December 2014
    Are you saying I confess from my beliefs or from my attacking of Berlinski?

    I stated my reasons.  I've had experience with these folks.  They are dishonest in their approach.  And I'm stating this in good conscience.  I'm not backing down.  I would be sinning if I did not truthfully state their purpose.

    Like I said, when I get the time, I will give you a scientific refutation.  As for theology, I have grappled with it, and I know where the issues lie.  Nevertheless, they do not give me a major stumbling block.  We only create stumbling blocks that shouldn't be there.
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    Hi Mina,

    OK.Let's start with some framework. 

    I was born Coptic Orthodox in a Coptic Orthodox environment. I go to Church often. I was taught that God created man. I was taught that man was created in incorruption.

    It means he was created different than other animals. Incorruption means man will not die. 
    Animals die.

    Now you are telling me that we came from animals. 

    Hello!? 

    Is there anyone here listening to this conversation? Whilst my faith is being utterly destroyed, does anyone have anything useful to say??

    So - let's play this out:

    God created man via an intermediary phase through apes or chimps. We have a common ancestor with apes which spawned Humans and then spawned chimps.

    God then breathes His life into this human specie. 

    So - when St Basil says: "You created Man in incorruption" - that needs to be changed. Because he created man in corruption. We are animals that God just chose to bless us. It means that death was a design intent. 

    When God said: "If you eat of this tree you will surely die" - he meant spiritually. That's it. 
    We're just a bunch of stupid apes that were going to die anyway. 

    Well.. i feel a whole lot better. There's me thinking, like an idiot, that God created us eternal, and we died physically and spiritually. Apparently, we only died spiritually. That's awesome. 

    And you're concerned that people will be atheist if they discover that evolution was wrong??????????????? 
    How thoughtful! 

    So our nature was always the same. God forgive that priest who taught us that we inherited a corrupted nature that was prone to death. If Adam's sin was the corruption of his spiritual nature, it wouldn't have been something we inherit. We inherit only the consequences of the physical nature. 

    So, right now, Im not sure if I'm muslim, buddhist or anglican or just an ape. Im SO confused.

    Mabsoota - did we come from apes?? What is this?? Why is this just me who is confused about this??? 

  • minasolimanminasoliman
    edited December 2014
    How is it that you think I'm rude when you reply "Hello?" And you continue to misrepresent my beliefs.  I have stated repeatedly what I believe.  I'm not sure I am the one who is being belligerent here.  When I am typing, I'm not yelling at the screen.  I am calmly giving you my thoughts on the matter.  Do you want to have a discussion, or you do want to give me a meltdown?

    The phrase "in incorruption" is very important.  That means God created us in His own grace.  We are not incorruptible by nature.  Only the divine nature is incorruptible.  Therefore, we who are "essentially corruptible" were created "in incorruption" or "in His divine grace".

    Why would your faith be shaken?  What difference does it make whether we are created directly from corruptible dust or corruptible dust-driven apes?  I too was born of the Coptic Orthodox Church.  And when I studied science, my faith was shaken because I was taught that God became man so that man might read a book.  Or that For God so loved the world that He gave us His Bible.  No!  I was set correct when I started reading the Church fathers and had spiritual guidance from many Orthodox individuals who set me right.  Thank God, my Orthodox faith is even stronger.  Just because I accept evolution does not mean I lose faith.  My faith in Christ is stronger than the reality of the world.  The world is not where peace comes from, but peace comes from Christ.  The world is under the natural law of death, as St. Athanasius teaches, but I believe in the One who is by nature Life.

    Many people who pursue the honest subject of science and evolution, who find out that evolution has been misrepresented in our churches, and that it is a fact of nature are grown up into this stumbling block of their faith.  Is God is pithy that He is unable to create us through complicated means?  God is much more powerful and engineering.  There was not a moment, and there still is not a moment when God is not involved.  God is involved in every single second of our lives and in every single second of creation.  Just the mere existence of our very own material and spiritual selves requires the grace of God.  Existence in and of itself is not something divorced from God's grace, but is involved in the very grace of God Himself.

    Just as I can explain the scientific process of embryology for any human being does not mean God is divorced from the process.  God in His wisdom creates us and places the laws of science in whatever way He pleases, and I simply reply, "Glory be to God forever.  Amen!"  Science is only a small dimension of God's manifest glorious acts.
  • cyril
    +1
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I posted another response but the internet ate it. I will resubmit it later.
Sign In or Register to comment.