I've just spoken to some servants from the UK. They've told me that their Church, priests, bishops are 1000% against the theory of evolution being the precursor of mankind.
They've even given a seminar on this, and scientific presentations against it.
Mina/Katanikhorus,
Its really best you see the scientific proofs against the evolution of mankind before accepting a theology that is unorthodox. No?
You are literally teaching what the Church does not officially accept nor approve of.
Apparently, from speaking to these servants, they said that if mankind had evolved from an evolutionary process then there would have had to be evidence of intermediary-species. There are none. We just see Neanderthals.
That's fine, but the Church has no official doctrine on evolution and one of our late bishops believed in it and there are a number of priests and layman who profess.
Notice however what they're doing, they're giving scientific proof and arguments to which the scientific community is presenting much stronger and more compelling evidence to the contrary. Usually the reason for making these adverse cases is due to seeing a tension between evolution and the Genesis creation account that we just spoke about.
Its no surprise that the vast majority of the Coptic Orthodox, especially those in Egypt, do not believe in evolution, we have a strong bias against it due to all the reasons you've already posted and we've already discussed, nothing new there.
As a Christian, I believe in God as my Creator and of all that exists.
As a scientist, I am compelled by the evidence of the evolutionary process involved in forming humans.
Two different things. One is an ontological question, the other is a question of method and scientific process.
Well, if transitional is what the look for, rest assured, many have been found, but he who has eyes to see them, let them see. The argument that they only saw Neanderthals is a silly one to make and only proves they do not care about the fossil evidence.
Already, the theology of the Coptic Church presently actually gives reason for people like me to consider the fact that evolution does not and should not contradict Orthodoxy. People (including bishops) in the Church do not mind and in fact encourage teaching the idea that there was animal death before Adam was created and that the earth is indeed 4 billion years old. They don't mind the idea that dinosaurs were extinct before apes were created. Some in the church may even go so far as saying all animals went through evolution "except humans" despite the fact that the Scriptures teach both animals and humans are made from dust. So think about the next logical step after that. Ask these servants, did God create animal death? Or did Adam live at the same time as dinosaurs?
The problem is they are not searching for "transitions", but for an infinite number of transitions, so that they will never be satisfied with the answers. But thankfully, the Church AT LEAST acknowledges fossil science and the science of dating. But when you show them genetic evidence, they will resort to "well God made it look that way." Does God want to deceive us by making us look genetically and physically like apes? It is a terrible attempt, and it is an embarrassment to those in our church who think they know the science. To me, as a graduate of medical school, I see the same overreaching behavior of Copts who try so hard to "disprove" evolution as the overreaching people who try so hard to show vaccines are linked with autism. It becomes frustrating to even dialogue with them.
Mina, if Adam and Eve were not literally persons, but rather an allegorical representation of humanity then how do you explain this verse, "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." ~ Genesis 4:1,2
Who is Cain? Is he still an allegorical representation of humanity? What about the genealogy that follows? Where is the line? Was Noah allegorical too? Was Abraham not real?
Mina, if Adam and Eve were not literally persons, but rather an allegorical representation of humanity then how do you explain this verse, "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." ~ Genesis 4:1,2
Who is Cain? Is he still an allegorical representation of humanity? What about the genealogy that follows? Where is the line? Was Noah allegorical too? Was Abraham not real?
(PS just one minor correction; some Church fathers did believe angels are made in the image of God; it's not clear what St. Athanasius meant when he said "they are not the images of God")
"As Zoxasi mentioned, it would be practically impossible to reconcile the literal figures of Adam and Eve with evolution... unless we'd like to believe in a God who inserted himself in somewhere between 2.5M-200K years ago, and I personally never found that thought coherent with how the universe appears to work. I think theology has the ability to evolve and encompass more and more of what we understand of the world... and all truth is God's truth."
We are trying to view Genesis in light of the evolutionary "facts." Beekay says that the "theology has the ability to evolve and encompass more and more of what we understand of the world." To me that sounds like God of the Gaps. Can we stop trying to make Genesis fit the widely disputed "facts" of evolution?
Now about the issue of genealogy, at what point was the genealogy in Genesis literal? I think we can all agree that Abraham was a literal human being, otherwise we would have no covenant, right? Let us take it back to Noah, was Noah literal? Did the flood happen or was that an allegorical story? What about Enoch, was he literal or allegorical?
Mina, you said you did not know about Adam and I respect that, but at which point in the genealogy must we know?
Again, this is a misunderstanding of the word allegorical.
Allegory is not synonymous with symbolic. Allegory simply means that a concrete material story which represents a much harder to understand mystical reality. This is not to say that Adam and Eve never existed, but that these first humans are representative of humanity in general and this is how the Church has seen it.
Look at the Monday Theotokia, it speaks about how Adam fell and God was pleased to bring him back. Clearly here we are speaking about Adam as being representative of humanity. This is allegorical without denying the existence of Adam as the first human being made in the Image and Likeness of God along with his companion Eve.
This shallow observation of the Scriptures with only seeing the details and not seeing what's behind it is endemic of our modern day.
But the existence or the nonexistence of a literal Adam and Eve has implications. I would like an answer from you as well, at what point was the genealogy of Genesis literal? Was it all? Was part of it? Which part?
Again, this is a misunderstanding of the word allegorical.
Allegory is not synonymous with symbolic. Allegory simply means that a concrete material story which represents a much harder to understand mystical reality. This is not to say that Adam and Eve never existed, but that these first humans are representative of humanity in general and this is how the Church has seen it.
Look at the Monday Theotokia, it speaks about how Adam fell and God was pleased to bring him back. Clearly here we are speaking about Adam as being representative of humanity. This is allegorical without denying the existence of Adam as the first human being made in the Image and Likeness of God along with his companion Eve.
This shallow observation of the Scriptures with only seeing the details and not seeing what's behind it is endemic of our modern day.
God Bless
No one is disputing that, and this in fact proves what we are trying to say, but it becomes increasingly difficult to have a conversation when individuals are themselves unsure of the existence of said patriarchs and place sole emphasis on the symbolic meaning. Just as St Clement taught us, that scripture ought to be read in 2 ways. The literal first(which is necessary) then once that literal story is read we understand it in a cosmological and spiritual manner, meaning the allegorical.
But what has been implied in the 10+ pages here is that Adam may or may not have existed. That is unacceptable theologically and spiritually. Christian anthropology and theology demand their very existence because it is that abstract reality and dealing with God that brought us into the fold of time, sin, prophecy, the incarnation etc. The fall itself is dependent on that very disobedience, and to cast light on the very essence of the fall which is the launchpad for Gods intervention with humanity is to deny something so basic it would make anyone unfit to comment or even contemplate about it until they are with faith and reason able to accept that fact.
This is what Chrysostom warned about and even demanded, among other fathers.
Again Im curious, as i commented before and then pfethronos after me, looking at the very clear genealogy of the Gospels, do you say that the apostles started out with literal then allegorical persons?
I never once implied that Adam may or may have not existed. I just told you that reading the Genesis creation account as allegory does not negate Adam's existence. Of course Adam existed if humanity was to start anywhere than it was by him. But being hung up on proving his existence causes the problem of avoiding the spiritual meaning of the story.
Again an allegory does not mean what is written didn't happen, but that the words are like icons of the reality that took place. They are mere representations of a deeper reality that occurred not easily communicated through human language.
To deny Adam's existence is to deny that humanity started. To deny this would be idiotic since there must have been a first human ancestor in which God breathed His Image and Likeness. This is undeniable, at the same time this first human, Adam, is representative of a much larger group of humans.
Its clear you haven't been reading the posts since no one denied that humanity at one point fell in Adam and God came to restore that by becoming flesh. Where did anyone deny that humanity fell?
"As Zoxasi mentioned, it would be practically impossible to reconcile the literal figures of Adam and Eve with evolution... unless we'd like to believe in a God who inserted himself in somewhere between 2.5M-200K years ago, and I personally never found that thought coherent with how the universe appears to work. I think theology has the ability to evolve and encompass more and more of what we understand of the world... and all truth is God's truth."
We are trying to view Genesis in light of the evolutionary "facts." Beekay says that the "theology has the ability to evolve and encompass more and more of what we understand of the world." To me that sounds like God of the Gaps. Can we stop trying to make Genesis fit the widely disputed "facts" of evolution?
Now about the issue of genealogy, at what point was the genealogy in Genesis literal? I think we can all agree that Abraham was a literal human being, otherwise we would have no covenant, right? Let us take it back to Noah, was Noah literal? Did the flood happen or was that an allegorical story? What about Enoch, was he literal or allegorical?
Mina, you said you did not know about Adam and I respect that, but at which point in the genealogy must we know?
I am not sure if this question has any relevance to the discussion of evolution though. If the problem is in the literality of genealogy, as I mentioned, you can believe in a literal genealogy without contradicting the science of evolution. My main concern is holding it to the same theological standards as Christ, which I disagree with. To what degree should the genealogy be taken literally? That I do not know. Perhaps, beekay can answer this question. I am much more comfortable in my faith holding to a strict genealogy. At the very least, I am glad to see we have archaeological evidence of the existence of King David, and that is one of the most important lineage we understand.
In addition, it also seems to me that the genealogy AFTER David does not seem dogmatically important, as even the gospels contradict each other, and there is no patristic agreement as to what they mean. Some say one of them is according to the Theotokos and the other to Joseph. Some say one of them is according to Joseph's adopted family and the other Joseph's literal family. I think it is safe to assume, it does not matter, so long as Jesus is the son of David, then I think that is okay.
One of the facts of evolution is that the earth is an old earth. That animals existed and died before Adam was even created. Most Church fathers believed the earth is very young. By now, the belief would be 8-15 thousand years old. Now, the history of humanity as documented by the discussion of Adam and Noah all occurred about 4-5 millenia before Christ. Evolution deals with everything before that up until humanity. So the question now becomes, what does Biblical history have anything to do with "evolution"? The fact that people are obsessing over Biblical genealogy with concerns over evolution makes me wonder if people understand the science completely? The 10 page discussion here focused on the creation and existence of Adam and Eve, not on anyone after Adam.
We are all assuming that Mina and Kata have the same opinion, but I think its slightly different; and this is causing some confusion as they both seem to agree with Evolution; yet, if I'm not mistaken, Minasoliman may believe or have the opinion that the account in Genesis is allegorical in the sense that Adam may be representative of all humanity; whereas Kata's definition of allegory may be somewhere along the lines that Adam existed.
Its hard to say.
All I know is that there is a LOT of confusion over this issue, and many many people are upset at this.
As I said, I am comforted by the fact that we have excellent Coptic Christians like Minasoliman who are scientists and Copts who have NO problem reconciling their faith with evolutionary theory. That's good as it means that our problem is theological. I.e. If they have managed to still accept Christ's salvific work on the cross with Evolution, what difference does it make indeed whether we were created by dust or through Apes? What does that change??
Let's face it: The Book of Genesis tells us that its allegorical: God created the world and everything therin within 6 days. So God has days? Does He? Which timezone then is God in? Let's think about that.. welll, heaven is just above Earth, so we're looking at GMT+3.
That's nonsense. God doesn't have time. He is Timeless. So, its pretty obvious that Genesis is more allegorical than it is scientific or literal.
Now - here are some concerns: if we accept it as being allegorical, then what else is symbolical? Where does the symbolsim end? what is factual? Is Noah's ark symbolical? Did that really happen??
Did it??
Scientists are also saying that its impossible to have happened?? When there was a flood all over the earth, was it just in ONE region or literally over-all-the-Earth???
I would prefer addressing these issues HEAD ON rather than burying our heads in the sand and assuming that if we insist that the Bible is literal; and tell our kids that its either God's Words that has to be believed over the general consensus of the Scientific Community, we are simply, and unwittingly, building a door in which our faithful can use to leave the faith. That's wrong.
No way do I dispute the existence of God; but you must all understand: OUR THEOLOGY and our church teachings has been such that we've been fed a "literal" interpretation of Genesis to the point that once there's now doubt that comes from what we've been taught, its as if it spreads doubt in our hearts throughout the entire validity of the Bible. (Now, that's not me, but I think it could apply to others).
The Church shows us that Adam is representative of humanity. When the Monday Theotokia says God came to bring Adam back again is he not representing humanity?
When St. Paul says "The first man was of the dust of the earth and the second Man is the Lord from heaven" is he not showing us how these two persons each represent us. The first representing us in our state of corruption which we returned to when we left our communion with God in Adam, and the second our restoration in Christ which crowns us as heavenly sons of the Father.
Guys, no one is denying the allegorical lessons represented by the story of creation and the fall. Why are we not on the same page?
"If the problem is in the literality of genealogy, as I mentioned, you can believe in a literal genealogy without contradicting the science of evolution."
How? How can you believe that Adam was the first person to be created in the image of God, while believing that he "evolved" from some kind of an inferior ancestor? Why was there no mention of the encounter between Adam the first "full-human" and his inferior animal parents who did not have the image of God?
How can you accept the theory of macro-evolution while believing in the literal genealogy inGenesis?
The Torah was traditionally believed to be written by Moses. At best it's a tradition from Moses himself. It seems Moses wanted only to concentrate on Adam, and his direct descendants. Moses, in all possibility, probably believed the world was created in six literal days. He may have saw dinosaur fossils and thought that Adam or his descendants may have seen these giant monsters, but did not think it necessary to write about them either.
Science now teaches us that most dinosaurs died off more than 60 million years before the first homo sapien fossils were dated. If that is a problem to be squared with the Bible, then I can understand your question. But if you accept that dinosaurs did die 65 million years ago, then the question of the genealogy from Adam to Christ should not be an issue for you, as it should not be an issue with evolution.
Mina, if macroevolution is how God created humans, who is Adam's parents? Who is Eve's parents? Why did the Holy Spirit feel the need to inspire the writer of Genesis to not mention them, but rather say that Adam was created out of dust and Eve out of his side?
Because there was no need to. Also, last time I checked the gospel didn't say that St. Mary was created from dust or by some other supernatural means instead of a regular human birth.
We believe in the miracle of the incarnation. We believe in the miracle of the resurrection. Why can't we believe in the miracle of creation?
Because they're not theologically relevant or important. That's like asking why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire Moses to write about dinosaurs, or the solar system and galaxies? The Torah is primarily a theological work. Inspiration of the Holy Spirit is not a dictation into the ear of a writer, but a relationship of a writer with God's grace, who in turn is inspired by His grace to write about insights into man's nature and His relationship with God, and what the goals of this relationship will give birth to, which is the Messiah.
Furthermore, equating the creation of Adam with the incarnation is something I also disagree with. There is no salvation coming from Adam's creation. Adam's creation only means that I physically exist. Christ's incarnation means that my existence is now being united into the divine existence, and this is infinitely more important than explaining how I exist (except the fact that God created me, despite being born from my mother's womb, He still was fully involved in creating me as much as He created Adam and as much as He created the beginning of the universe).
I also touched on the fossil evidence, that homo sapiens first appeared 2.5 million years ago, and homo sapien sapiens first appeared about 200 thousand years ago. Unless fossil dating is found to be wrong, these are evidences you have to deal with. Based on the fact that we already accept fossil science and most Copts I have talked to do not have a problem with dinosaurs dying off 65 million years ago, one has to come to grips with the fact these homo sapien fossils also exist and I gave a possible answer:
Now, could it be your explanation is that there is a miracle, and that Adam was created from dust despite all these homo sapiens existing before Adam? That could be another interesting theory. But why straw at gnats for this?
Comments
Notice however what they're doing, they're giving scientific proof and arguments to which the scientific community is presenting much stronger and more compelling evidence to the contrary. Usually the reason for making these adverse cases is due to seeing a tension between evolution and the Genesis creation account that we just spoke about.
Its no surprise that the vast majority of the Coptic Orthodox, especially those in Egypt, do not believe in evolution, we have a strong bias against it due to all the reasons you've already posted and we've already discussed, nothing new there.
As a Christian, I believe in God as my Creator and of all that exists.
As a scientist, I am compelled by the evidence of the evolutionary process involved in forming humans.
Two different things. One is an ontological question, the other is a question of method and scientific process.
God Bless
Already, the theology of the Coptic Church presently actually gives reason for people like me to consider the fact that evolution does not and should not contradict Orthodoxy. People (including bishops) in the Church do not mind and in fact encourage teaching the idea that there was animal death before Adam was created and that the earth is indeed 4 billion years old. They don't mind the idea that dinosaurs were extinct before apes were created. Some in the church may even go so far as saying all animals went through evolution "except humans" despite the fact that the Scriptures teach both animals and humans are made from dust. So think about the next logical step after that. Ask these servants, did God create animal death? Or did Adam live at the same time as dinosaurs?
The problem is they are not searching for "transitions", but for an infinite number of transitions, so that they will never be satisfied with the answers. But thankfully, the Church AT LEAST acknowledges fossil science and the science of dating. But when you show them genetic evidence, they will resort to "well God made it look that way." Does God want to deceive us by making us look genetically and physically like apes? It is a terrible attempt, and it is an embarrassment to those in our church who think they know the science. To me, as a graduate of medical school, I see the same overreaching behavior of Copts who try so hard to "disprove" evolution as the overreaching people who try so hard to show vaccines are linked with autism. It becomes frustrating to even dialogue with them.
May I just say, Mina and Kata, that I've personally drawn a lot of comfort from this thread and discussion with you.
I don't think it has been fruitless in anyway whatsoever.
The fact that we have already individuals who have no problem in reconciling their faith with evolution is already a good sign.
The next step is perhaps a Paltalk session with everyone interested in this topic joining in.
I'll setup a time and date and let you all know the details soon.
Thanks
Keep me in your prayers.
It was nice discussing this with you despite some of the frustration we both felt!
Pray for me as well,
God bless you
http://tasbeha.org/community/discussion/comment/173070/#Comment_173070
Game over
(PS just one minor correction; some Church fathers did believe angels are made in the image of God; it's not clear what St. Athanasius meant when he said "they are not the images of God")
practically impossible to reconcile the literal figures of Adam and Eve with
evolution... unless we'd like to believe in a God who inserted himself in
somewhere between 2.5M-200K years ago, and I personally never found that
thought coherent with how the universe appears to work. I think theology has
the ability to evolve and encompass more and more of what we understand of the
world... and all truth is God's truth."
Allegory is not synonymous with symbolic. Allegory simply means that a concrete material story which represents a much harder to understand mystical reality. This is not to say that Adam and Eve never existed, but that these first humans are representative of humanity in general and this is how the Church has seen it.
Look at the Monday Theotokia, it speaks about how Adam fell and God was pleased to bring him back. Clearly here we are speaking about Adam as being representative of humanity. This is allegorical without denying the existence of Adam as the first human being made in the Image and Likeness of God along with his companion Eve.
This shallow observation of the Scriptures with only seeing the details and not seeing what's behind it is endemic of our modern day.
God Bless
Just as St Clement taught us, that scripture ought to be read in 2 ways. The literal first(which is necessary) then once that literal story is read we understand it in a cosmological and spiritual manner, meaning the allegorical.
The fall itself is dependent on that very disobedience, and to cast light on the very essence of the fall which is the launchpad for Gods intervention with humanity is to deny something so basic it would make anyone unfit to comment or even contemplate about it until they are with faith and reason able to accept that fact.
This is what Chrysostom warned about and even demanded, among other fathers.
Again an allegory does not mean what is written didn't happen, but that the words are like icons of the reality that took place. They are mere representations of a deeper reality that occurred not easily communicated through human language.
To deny Adam's existence is to deny that humanity started. To deny this would be idiotic since there must have been a first human ancestor in which God breathed His Image and Likeness. This is undeniable, at the same time this first human, Adam, is representative of a much larger group of humans.
Its clear you haven't been reading the posts since no one denied that humanity at one point fell in Adam and God came to restore that by becoming flesh. Where did anyone deny that humanity fell?
God Bless
Because there was no need to. Also, last time I checked the gospel didn't say that St. Mary was created from dust or by some other supernatural means instead of a regular human birth.
We believe in the miracle of the incarnation.
We believe in the miracle of the resurrection.
Why can't we believe in the miracle of creation?