Mina, thank you for your through answers and for bearing with me even though I overlooked your earlier answers. I appreciate it a lot.
I feel uneasy with your view.
Here is why: According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomically_modern_human), "Anatomically modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens in the Middle Paleolithic, about 200,000 years ago." Assuming the citation is accurate (maybe you can help me find a peer reviewed article about the earliest home sapiens sapiens fossil discovered), there was modern humans alive before Adam. But somehow those humans, did not have the image of God? So God incarnated for sake of humanity up until Adam and Eve, but their parents, who were as anatomically similar as I am to my parents, didn't even have the image of God (whatever that means), and thus are not saved?All of this happened and the creation account said that God created Adam out of dust?
No problem! I appreciate your respect and kindness.
I have been where you have been, feeling uneasy. I had no one to direct me on how to deal with this except to say that these fossils are just wrong. When someone deals with science, it needs much more capable understanding of the science at hand. We have become inconsistent in making wrong some fossils but making correct every other animal fossil we find.
We now also can date with relative accuracy our ancestry based on genetics. When these fossils are found, it confirms most of the genetic calculations that are made. For instance, let's say I take your genes and my genes. We can trace back how many years ago the genes of Pefethronos and the genes of minasoliman converged, and this will be the date of our common ancestry with some margin of error. Using this same technique, we found that almost all humanity seem to have some sort of common ancestry around Adam's time with plus or minue a few a thousand years margin of error. Using this same technique, we went further back with other species to calculate other common ancestries as well. Notice how I keep saying "using this same technique". In other words, I have to be consistent. God gave us this scientific evidence I CANNOT IGNORE. My hands are tied.
There is another genetic technique where we calculated where the first homo sapien might have evolved off, and this was calculated to be about 500 to 200 thousand years ago (I think this was based on comparing our genes with Neanderthal genes). Anatomically modern humans (homo sapien sapien) is calculated to be about 200 to 50 thousand years ago, and there are fossils for these. I should correct myself from what I said earlier. The GENUS Homo began 2.5 million years ago, the first species found being Homo Habilus (and Homo Erectus about 2 million years ago). Here's a good interactive website on these fossils.
There is also genetic evidence of interbreeding between the genes of Neanderthals and the genes of Homo Sapien Sapiens about 50 thousand years ago. There was an Ice Age that ended about 10 thousand years ago, further pruning the hominid species into one particularly special group of homo sapien sapiens. Right after that, agriculture, cultivation, and animal domestication seems to have started, leading us right to Adam's time! This is one of the signs, I think, of the Image of God implanted in Adam, leading to this exponential advancement in language and technology.
So I have speculated on what these anthropological evidences mean while sticking with the theological and dogmatic tradition of the Church. Many times, when I say "I don't know", I am also saying, "at least I am still dogmatically sticking with the Orthodox tradition", and that no matter what the truth may be based on science, it will never contradict or disprove this tradition and this relationship of faith and grace I have with Christ. I encourage you to read through this whole thread and see my reasoning through this.
Thank you so much for your time and effort. At this time, I am going to avoid replying until I reread this thread among some of the other resources that were mentioned. I am open for more suggestions, preferably patristical.
Pray for me and that God my guide me to His Truth and strengthen my weak faith.
Creation is not a miracle in the strictest sense. A miracle is something that goes against the physical laws of the universe, for example the virgin birth or the resurrection. Creation is the making of the universe itself, so it cannot already be going against the laws of the universe. For example, you and I were both undoubtedly created by God, yet not one physical law was suspended to do this.
Science is the study of the method of how things come to be. Theology is the study of the nature of the universe in relation to God. In conclusion the Church teaches why and what, science teaches the How.
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.
Apologies if I misread you. I was taking into account other posts from earlier pages where I thought the idea was implied.
Given that I have spent so much time and effort expounding how theologically, evolution does not contradict Orthodoxy, I am not sure if you want me to get into a scientific debate, or do you have any underlying theological problems? In other words, is it really worth my time at the moment to discuss the scientific proof given my theological understanding, or do you really just want to discuss science based on a theological agreement between you and I? I hope people who do enter the discussion spend some time reading the discussion that has been already had to see why I specifically wanted to hammer out theological issues before getting into scientific discussions (which I think is unnecessary if the theological issues are agreed upon).
But I will divulge. The science is very simple. I do not know why Dawkins stumbled. Perhaps, he assumed the person in front of him knew about some intricacies to get into a Gould vs. Dawkins debate and tried to see how best to word it. We need to be careful when using Creationist videos, as they tend to take things out of context and lead to deception, and humiliation as well when you use these sources (I'm speaking out of personal experience in my undergraduate years). Now, I do not care less for Dawkins, as he is probably a brilliant scientist, but a big cry baby when it comes to his religious arguments. But on simpler terms, the main issue between Dawkins and Gould is the question "which came first to cause evolution for some species? the environment or the genes?" Gould seems to think the environment causes mutation, whereas Dawkins believe that mutation comes before the environment. That's the simplest way of putting it.
In the simplest terms, and I'm sure Dawkins and Gould would agree, addition of genetic information has something to do with gene duplication, which have been observed. Studying the human genome, you will find a lot of genes that lead to different functions, but have striking similarities that makes it look like a duplication occurred before consecutive mutations on it. I like this article that elucidates it well.
Again, to highlight, Gould would probably say that the change in environment somehow would cause these types of gene changes, including duplication, whereas Dawkins thinks vice versa. Most scientists tend to agree with Dawkins on this one.
Another difference between the two is the timing of evolution, between "punctuated equilibrium" (Gould) and "gradual change" (Dawkins). I think most scientists side with Gould on this one.
I recommend watching any videos by Dr. Kenneth Miller, a Roman Catholic, who is excellent at explaining in simple terms some of the scientific arguments against evolution and what the responses for them are. He also wrote a really good book, "Finding Darwin's God", where he goes through detail in simple ways explaining the science there, and then goes through philosophical objections against atheists.
Finally, the issue of "a lot of" Western scientists against evolution is one I also investigated, and I found that to be taken out of context as well, further causing me to lose any trust on the credibility of Protestant creationist sources. Ask yourself, how many of these are biologists? What percentage of biologists are against evolution?
I am glad that we have moved out of having a theological discussion to having a scientific one. I hope that our issues with evolution are scientific based and not theologically based.
I am sorry have not had the chance to read all the postings but just a few pages so I have an idea of what is being said.
I feel uneasy about the theological view that is does not matter- my personal belief is that it definitely matters.
It is humbling enough for God to become man in the Incarnation, but to think that this man was not created as man
but evolved from animal species I personally cannot accept, besides the numerous open questions it leaves behind
such as what was the sin that they committed. So with all due respect dear Mina, we have to agree
to disagree on the theology.
On the science of mutations, Dawkins was asked a simple question about a building block- he should be able to roll off many examples. It will take me time to read through the list to investigate and I will get back to you on the mutations.
Regarding the video, I know personally a Hebrew scholar and I will send it to him to see what he thinks of the
idea that it is poetic- I happen to know he does not believe in evolution but I will ask him to explain why.
Regarding the number of scientists who question evolution, please have a look at this site which invites scientific
scholars to add their names if they doubt in the theory of evolution:
Where did I write that "man was not created as man"? That does not contradict the concept of evolution. I believe God "created man as man", and this occurred through evolution.
Let me ask you about your theology. Do you believe animals died before Adam was created? Do you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Do you believe that Adam and Eve literally had trees that gave them life or knowledge?
I am sorry have not had the chance to read all the postings but just a few pages so I have an idea of what is being said.
I feel uneasy about the theological view that is does not matter- my personal belief is that it definitely matters.
It is humbling enough for God to become man in the Incarnation, but to think that this man was not created as man
but evolved from animal species I personally cannot accept, besides the numerous open questions it leaves behind
such as what was the sin that they committed. So with all due respect dear Mina, we have to agree
to disagree on the theology.
On the science of mutations, Dawkins was asked a simple question about a building block- he should be able to roll off many examples. It will take me time to read through the list to investigate and I will get back to you on the mutations.
Regarding the video, I know personally a Hebrew scholar and I will send it to him to see what he thinks of the
idea that it is poetic- I happen to know he does not believe in evolution but I will ask him to explain why.
Regarding the number of scientists who question evolution, please have a look at this site which invites scientific
scholars to add their names if they doubt in the theory of evolution:
Regarding the articles on mutations you have included I will study them and get back to you.
Remember that macro-evolution is a theory not a fact. Please read the original book by Darwin 'On the
Origin of Species' which is full of doubts about his ideas, and a whole chapter on the imperfections of the
geological record (Chapter 9). Even Darwin had huge doubts about this theory which remains a theory to this day.
God bless.
You seem to have studied this quite well. The conclusions made so far, by members of this forum, is that mankind evolved from apes. You seem to differ.
But how does this change anything theologically?? Does this undermine our faith? If so how??
I understand that the Church has been teaching a literal interpretation of Genesis since I was a child, but so what? What differences does that make theologically if we evolved from Apes?
If you believe in this theory you are making up your own story and everyone can make up their own version-
+ how many human beings were there when sin entered the world?
+ what was the commandment that God gave them?
+ how many of them committed this sin?
+ if one of them committed the sin and the others did not, why should the others suffer? we suffer because
we were in Adam's loins when he sinned- we were part of his body so we inherited his fallen nature.
+ and so on...
WOW. I asked the exact same questions. I'm glad you asked these questions. I didnt get any straight answers. All I got was: "I don't know, I just know that Evolution is a fact".
I came to this forum with the idea of disproving evolution (Macro evolution), and all I got was countless attacks saying that I should correct my knowledge from sources who confirm macro evolution.
I love the way you write and articulate yourself. Perhaps you can make better sense of this situation and the answers you receive and just call me and give me a summary later on.
You did not answer my questions. I asked you if you believe in the literal trees. Furthermore, you did not answer if you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that animal death existed before Adam or not. Let's have a theological basis before having the scientific discussion. If we do not have a theological basis, then we are treating science like dogma. To me science is not a spiritual necessity in one's life. It may make someone look ignorant for rejecting certain scientific explanations like the spherical earth or that we revolve around the sun, but it is nonetheless not a discussion of "heresy", but a discussion of science. Katanikhoros assumed you agree with the theology, but you don't. So, there is no progress to scientific discussion if the theology is not dealt with.
The problem with the "dissenters of Darwin" list is that for one thing, many of them signed a vague statement on being healthy skeptics of Darwinism. That could mean anything, and many of those who signed disavowed from their signatures or did not know what they were signing. Others are either scientists who have not kept themselves up to date with the latest research or are really more into philosophy than into science. As it goes, given the list, assuming all the names are genuine dissenters who are highly qualified to "dissent", it still makes up about 0.02% of the scientific community. That is not "a lot".
Based on my research with IDists and creationists, they tend to like to leave a lot of information and sensationalize their opposition to evolution by engaging in dishonesty. I have lost any real trust to find them credible. One particular scientist that is very popular in the list is Michael Behe. What is interesting is that despite him being the strongest advocate of Intelligent Design based on biochemical models, he actually is not against the idea that chimps and humans share a common ancestry, which left a lot of creationists very angry and confused at him. I am also personally confused at him.
Some of the sensationalist problems is this idea of bullying. The problem is not so much as it is bullying, but rather the fact that you would introduce a pseudo-scientific way of studying science, which allows for more open discussions of other pseudo-science, like astrology. Is it really "bullying" when the Church does not allow heretics to infect the Church with wrong theology? I think it is important that proper science does not allow the testing of "supernatural". Otherwise, we turn God into a creature who can be tested by science.
Finally, your argument on the "insult" is not theological or scientific, but emotional. There is no rational basis at all on the idea that because you have common physical and genetic descent from apes means one is insulting you. It is also an insult in Arabic to call someone "dust" or "mud", and yet the Bible says we were created from such. Should one be insulted at God for giving humanity and chimpanzees over 99% genetic similarities?
If you believe in this theory you are making up your own story and everyone can make up their own version-
1 how many human beings were there when sin entered the world?
2 what was the commandment that God gave them?
3 how many of them committed this sin?
4 if one of them committed the sin and the others did not, why should the others suffer? we suffer because
we were in Adam's loins when he sinned- we were part of his body so we inherited his fallen nature.
+ and so on...
1. It doesn't matter in my opinion theologically
2. I do not believe there were literal trees. The central theological point is that Adam fell because he wanted to be his own god, not to be united to the Tree of Life, God Himself
3. All of us commit this sin until today; if two people can fall into the sin, all of us can. If Adam couldn't avoid Eve's suggestion, how much more all of humanity? Sin is like an infection that spreads so quickly to all who are not mature in the grace of God.
4. How is that any less fair? This question is based on emotionality again. How is it fair that I born from Adam's loins receive his punishment from my birth when I did not do what he did?
Just to be clear you said we received Adam's sin because we were in his loins, this is an inadequate explanation at best, and deceiving at worst. Sin is not spread genetically, we inherit corruption because as humanity we are interconnected and made to be one Body (though most of us are not One Body).
As humanity we have fallen together, and as humanity we are made to rise together. By merit of being humanly related to Adam in one way or another we have fallen. This is not something that was biologically predisposed to happen but through our own free will we have given our backs to God seeking to be our own masters and lords as St. Gregory the Theologian says in our liturgy, "I plucked for myself the sentence of death."
You cannot discredit an argument because it offends your sensibilities of what you find insulting or not. Mina brings up a great point there.
Zoxsasi, no one once attacked you. We gave you several points and you yourself seemed to agree after some time and we addressed each of your questions. This accusation that we just said its fact and shut you up is dishonest. You seem confused, you seemed to not see a theological issue with God using evolution to create humans a couple of posts ago. Yet you seem bent on believing that certain scientific findings are somehow inherently at odds with Christian faith and Orthodox theology. Don't confuse atheist philosophical baggage attached to some evolutionists for the actual science. We all come from a bias to distrust evolution in the Church so I see where you are coming from, but you should listen more to the arguments being presented to you.
As for God creating man, who disagreed with that? Were you not created by God? Does God have to snap his fingers or do it this or that way to create you? Did He have to do that with Adam? Is a long lasting act any less done by God than one that is short, as if time were of the essence? Think about your assertions and questions.
Sorry for the delay- I have been busy trying to find somewhere to stay as we are travelling shortly and not sure where we are going!
I will answer your questions, but first I would like to clarify my standpoint:
I do not believe in evolution because it does not make scientific sense, and not because I am trying to defend the
account of creation. If I were an atheist I would not believe in it either. I know personally and I am sure that there are many
atheist who do not believe it either. It just doesn't make sense. We all have common scientific sense. We know if we throw up
a ball it will come down again without having studied the law of gravity. And the further I research it, the more unscientific it becomes.
Please do not be intimidated by the "overwhelming evidence of evolution". There are so many problems with this theory- I will list a few of them to you in another post. I have to get ready to go to church.
That is fine if you do not believe that science is a spiritual necessity in one's life- this is true, but this theory is being taught as fact in
science and so we must address it scientifically.
To answer your questions, I believe in literal trees as I believe in the literal rivers- the Euphrates for example mentioned in the same account.
I do not believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
You are quick to brush off the list of the dissenters of Darwin - the video you show is very old saying this list had 100 but it has nearly 600 now. We need to look into this more detail. These things need time to look into carefully. I agree with you about Behe- he is a strange case.
Re bullying, these were scientists who were questioning scientific evidence not trying to bring in the supernatural. There is a huge difference between the role of the Church which is to guard and keep unchanged the Faith that was once entrusted to the saints, and the role of
science which is to make new scientific discoveries. These people were bullied for saying for example that the years that were
being said to be the life of this rock/fossil were way that which it really was (this was an atheist scientist).
Over and above my rejection of evolution from a scientific viewpoint, as a Christian who believes in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, I find it unbelievable that God would do things this way. This is a spiritual rejection not an
emotional one. Throughout the Bible, there is a clear distinction between animal and man.
You believe that Adam wanted to be his own god- how and why did this happen? We believe that our Lord corrected the sin of Adam by
fasting from food- this is because Adam was unable to fast. As you have an opinion of what happened, other people will have their
opinion of what happened, and their will be different opinions depending on the number of people.
I will get back to you with what the Hebrew scholar says about the creation account.
Dear Katanikhorus
I am sure that this is what I read from one of His Holiness Pope Shenouda's books- I will check but I am pretty sure. It makes
far more sense to me. When death entered Adam we were part of him. We are more than interconnected- we are his seed.
You say that "we are interconnected and made to be one Body (though most of us are not One Body)".
In the New Testament in Christ, the Church is One Body. How can we be humanly related to each other when apes were
changing into men at different rates- this does not make sense to me, my friend? Yes the Liturgy of Saint Gregory points to the
literal account "I plucked" from what? from the tree.
I am discredited this argument on a purely scientific basis. The fact that I believe in God and in His incarnation adds to this basis
that I cannot believe God would do things this way, to watch the survival of the fittest.
My dear brothers in the Lord, why are you defending something that is not a scientfic law but is under investigation?
Please do not be fooled. No one has seen one species turning into another even though they have been trying hard.
Please do not feel intimidated but "trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding".
CopticCopa, Here's my issue. If you are going to disagree with Evolution on Scriptural basis because you've become unable to read past the letters of Genesis to read its message, than you must also accept that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth and that the moon burns you at night (all with verses that appear to make those claims).
If on the other hand, you can't accept a scientific theory because you see it as unbefitting of God, who are you to make that claim? "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it , “Why have you made me like this?” (Romans 9:20)
You are now subjecting God's method of creation to suit your own ideas. Is it any less amazing if God makes the universe as it is within the blink of an eye or over the process of billions of years? Is man any less God's creation by whatever method God employed to make him? The problem here is that the Fathers teach us that God is a mystery and we are imposing our own limitations on Him and putting Him in a box.
If you still have doubts about the Trees, St. Gregory the Theologian did not believe they were literal trees, or at least he saw the story allegorically. Kind of like how we read the Book of Revelation. It is an abstract incomprehensible mystical reality expressed in cruder and raw human language in the form of a concrete story.
As for man being an animal, this is something almost all the Church Fathers disagree with you on. Read through the likes of St. Athanasius or St. Cyril of Alexandria and you will see they all refer to man as physically being an animal. Its not surprise we have appendages, follow the same primary biological functions as most mammals with their instincts and drives and have a genetic makeup that is 98% similar to that of chimpanzees. This is only fact. But it is not surprising since we are all made from the dust, we are physical beings with a physical animal nature. However above and beyond that we are made in the Image and Likeness of God, who is His Logos (who said if you see Me you have seen the Father). We are thus rational (like the Logos), have freedom of will (like the Omnipotent), make moral choices and perceive objective morality (like the Good God) in our conscience and bear the imprints of creativity (like the Creator) and our center of self a consciousness (like the great 'I AM'). This is our spiritual component which cannot be accounted for by science since it studies material things. This is why the philosophy which excludes the supernatural aka Materialism, cannot account for free will but believes in biological determinism (that all our thoughts and actions are merely the response to neural impulses). We cannot reason or choose anymore than an ape desires to have sex and acts on that drive. This is the materialist view, it is not science (ironically), but a philosophy (which excludes the supernatural). We also cannot make moral choices anymore than a lion forcibly copulates with a lioness. The lion doesn't really rape the lioness and so on the materialist view the same can be said about the human. All this shows that the divine imprint that we bear is in our spirit and that the human is not *ONLY* explained by science (study of the physical universe), since he is not only physical.
As for evolution and your arguments against it, scientifically they are untenable. I don't think you completely understand the theory by the things you are saying. You cannot sit and watch a species evolve, but fossil records and mechanisms for it have been discovered and the theory is almost as well established as Newton's gravitational theory. But I digress, I don't care to prove or disprove evolution, but to show that science (the study of nature) is but one way to read and express God's glory: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge." (Psalms 19:1-2)
As for you having differing opinions on what happened. Theology is not something subject to individual opinion but is a matter of the consensus of the Fathers and the teaching of the Church in her Liturgy, ScripturesScriptures, Councils and Saints. The Fall happened due to sin and turning away from He who is Life. The return happened through the Incarnation which includes the entire life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ including everything in between.
Our trust in God is not compromised by studying science and following it to its natural conclusions. Neither is it compromised by properly understanding the message of the Bible and how it was inspired and meant to be read.
I hope you actually answer to the points of the post.
Can someone kindly explain to me what our faith is? Why did Christ die for?
Katanikhoros: i'm so sorry if you interpreted my post as being harsh: when I say "being attacked" - i was exaggerating, if not being a tad bit sarcastic. Im really impressed with the way CopticCopa writes. I tend to write with emotion and feelings, or humour, may not be interpreted well in text messages.
You have been wonderful.
I appreciate your input very much. Please forgive my style of writing.
I know CoptiCopa - and hence why I speak to her this way.
Anyway fellas: back to business.
1. Why did Christ die for?
a) With Macro-Evolution:
If we take macro-evolution - Adam and Eve didnt exist literally, they were symbolic of all of mankind. So all these human species seemed to have lost the grace given to them; Christ came and ...? What benefit was Christ's death on the cross? It makes ZERO sense.
God's objective is to re-unite/ reconcile man back with Him. What does God's Incarnation have to do with that?? Why not just forgive man and move on??
b) Without Macro-evolution
So let's forget about the fact or theory that we evolved from Apes, and just take into account the literality of Genesis: Adam and Eve sinned. We inherited a corrupt nature from them.
YES guys. this is a genetic inheritance. It doesn't mean that we inherit sin genetically!! NO! It means that we inherit the CONSEQUENCES of sin of which the consequences are physical indeed: i.e. we are now prone to death : physically and spiritually.
My theology, my understanding of the Bible, scripture makes perfect sense when we take into account the literality of Genesis. God's Incarnation and death and resurrection makes zero sense outside the literality of Adam and Eve.
Can we all agree on 1 thing: WE CANNOT accept macro-evolution and accept equally that Adam and Eve existed (as 2 distinct humans). Its impossible.
I cannot understand Minasoliman's theology in why He thinks Christ had to be incarnated given that he accepts macro-evolution. Please do explain. I definitely appreciate that there IS a theology out there that exists that helps make sense of our Christian faith; but do I understand it?? is it comprehensible?? No!
The next question is this: Should I understand it? Is theology only for theologians?? I have to disagree with this. I really do. Its like me trying to understand the Incarnation and refusing to read St Athanasius's work on the Incarnation. Its just pointless. We have to understand it. We have to understand it in order to explain it others and our kids.
I do not believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
...
These people were bullied for saying for example that the years that were
being said to be the life of this rock/fossil were way that which it really was (this was an atheist scientist).
There is plenty to talk about on a theological basis, since you and I disagree on theology. However, I am intrigued by this, since I did not expect you say this. I honestly have never heard of any Egyptian, Coptic or Muslim, who is against the idea that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. No Coptic person I know, bishop, priest, or laity, ever espoused any idea that the Earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old. Every Copt I have spoken to face to face have expressed agreement that the fossil record is consistent with a very very very old age of the Earth, and that many animals were killed off before any human being was created. The geologists and physicists are overwhelmingly supportive of this fact. It is a FACT that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The record has shown consistency on this regard.
Those "atheist scientists" who are against the geological science are very strange people (I suppose Dr. Behe is not the only strange man around). I think I can understand why the scientific community has a strong skepticism over them, as there is always a science journal article after article that confirms how wrong they are, probably with more certainty than evolution itself!
Have safe travels CoptiCOPA. I also will limit my discussion. I think I answered theological questions sufficiently in this whole thread. If more basic issues like animal death before the creation of man, the age of the Earth, and the non-literality of the trees in Eden (and yes, even Euphrates river I take allegorically, not literally), then we have a very basic disagreement that requires discussion on this front before we can discuss the science.
For the science, I will resume more discussion on it sometime later when I can spend more than an hour on the computer to pull some very thorough resources for you, but I do recommend Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God" (I don't know how many times I made this recommendation), which addresses your geological concerns as well as evolution.
Also, if I may add, gravity is "not observed". We see the effects of some sort of pull on objects to a central point, and we call it "gravity". It is a "theory" that explains the fact that objects with matter and size have some force or impact on another object with matter and size. But we do not know what "gravity" really is yet.
The same thing with evolution. The essence of evolution at the molecular level is not observed (consider the Gould vs. Dawkins debate), but we do see genetic changes between species so much so, we can draw a consistent genetic tree of speciation predictable with the various calculations of ages that are consistent with the geological records. In other words, genetic changes over time that causes speciation is a fact, but the very exact mechanism is a theory being worked on.
This is the "language" of science. Theory explains fact, and the ones that explains facts the best are the ones that are being tested.
The first full humans to exist with God's Image and Likeness were Adam and Eve (and perhaps others, which in any case is irrelevant). They were in communion with God in a Paradaisical state of Joy here on earth. When they fell, and if others, whoever they represented as well, they became subject to the natural law of death which effected all animals. How long ago was this? I have no clue. How literal is the earlier part of the genealogy to be taken? I also have no clue. It seems that archaeology shows evidence of much of what happened as far back as Abraham, and a flood which spanned a large part of ancient civilization is well attested to among many different cultural myth stories.
We are forgetting that God does not dictate the Bible to the prophets verbatim but rather the Holy Spirit inspires in the person and they write with the imperfect human language of the time to communicate these truths (with their idioms, science, history and genealogies). The message of salvation behind the words is perfect and reliable because it is inspired by the Spirit and leads us to the true Word of God, the words in and of themselves on their own are not.
"For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
"You search the Scriptures for you think that in these you have life, but these are which testify of Me, yet you are not willing to turn to Me."
St. Irenaeus and St. Theophilus of Antioch believed that Christ would have been incarnate even if the Fall did not happen. So God did not become man merely for sin, but also for theosis or deification. This is the foundation of my thinking, and the most basic summary of my whole explanation for this discussion.
Fr. John Behr wrote a book called "Becoming Human" (endorsed by HG Bishop Suriel of Melbourne), where he explains Christ's words on the Cross, "It is Finished" as a statement of completing the creation of mankind, which its ultimate goal was to unite it to the divine nature. But because of sin, it also "finished" on the Cross. The divine life is through the Cross, which is the image of the divine life of self-sacrificial love so that we may look forward to the hope of the Resurrection.
That's my theology.
The bird cannot fly high in the sky without wings, and your human nature cannot allow you to ascend unless you are united fully and truly with the divine nature.
The human nature is sinful, impure, profane, and falls short of everything, but if it unites with God, it will be sanctified and can be raised above its ego. It can be holy and not submissive to the malicious targets.
Thank you for waiting for me. After two weeks holiday we came back to no hot water and a broken PC, but thank God everything is back to normal now. I have had a chance to read through this thread from the beginning and have much to say to you. As I said, by God’s grace, I will answer the points raised since I joined the discussion, so at the end of this post I have listed them, so that if you would like to amend anything, please just let me know.
Before that I would like to clarify what has been said about Saint Athanasius the Apostolic’s ‘On the Incarnation of the Word’ earlier on in this thread. I had a copy which I took with me on holiday. When you read from the beginning you will learn three things that Saint Athanasius was very clear about. He
1. Expressly refuted the man-made versions of creation stories of his day, starting with the Eipicurean theory which is in essence the theory of evolution, followed by the Platonic and Gnostic notions. He refutes all three theories.
2. Upholds the Scripture version of the creation as the only divine truth
3. Confirms that death entered the world as a consequence of the Fall
The passage that has been quoted earlier on in this thread is from chapter one "Creation and the Fall" section 3. But what does Saint Athanasius say in section 2? He says:
1. St Athanasius Refutes the Evolutionary Theory of His Time
“In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are self originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was, and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all.
Others take the view expressed by Plato...
Then, again, there is the theory of the Gnostics..."
Immediately after refuting each one of these three philosophies of the origin of life, he goes on to say at the beginning of part 3:
“Such are the notions which men put forward. But the impiety of their foolish talk is plainly declared by the divine teaching of the Christian faith. From it we know that, because there is Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself…”
2. St Athanasius Upholds the Scriptural Account
He calls it the “divine teaching of the Christian faith”; it is not man’s teaching, but God’s, it is divine and therefore above every foolish notion of man. In the paragraph below and elsewhere he refers to the literal account.
3. St Athanasius Confirms that Death was a Consequence of the Fall
The continuation of part three has already been quoted earlier on May 22:
“For God is good—or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, 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, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. 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." (Gen. 2.16) ‘Ye shall surely die’-not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption"
The claim has been made that this account says that man would "revert back to the natural law of death". However, Saint Athanasius did
not say that man would "revert back" but he said that man would "come under the natural law of death", which means that they had
not been under it before.
Saint Athanasius also maintains that death came after the Fall in the same chapter 1:
(section 4):
“For God had made man thus (that is, as an embodied spirit), and had willed that he should remain in incorruption. But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion”.
(section 5):
“as also Wisdom says "God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the world." (Wisdom 2. 23) When this happened, men began to die, and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for transgressing the commandment”.
We note that Saint Athanasius quotes Wisdom, "by envy of the devil death entered into the world", as does Saint Basil in his Divine Liturgy. Therefore, both these saints uphold the teaching that death entered the world as a consequence of sin.
Regarding the Church Fathers interpretation of Scripture, we must discern whether their contemplations were allegorical or metaphorical. In the metaphorical way of contemplation the literality of the account is not being denied at all. On the contrary, it is upheld, but in order to extract spiritual lessons from it, literal things may be taken to symbolize other things. For example when we say that the censer is the Virgin, we are not denying that the censor is a real censor. I remember listening to a sermon of His Holiness Pope Shenouda in Arabic, I think it was about anger, in which he mentioned that the Fathers often used the ‘metaphorical way’ of interpreting the Bible (saying ‘metaphorical’ in English).
Saint Basil the Great Rejects Allegorisation
In Saint Basil’s Hexaemeron (homily on the six days of creation), Part 9, he says the following:
“I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. ‘For I am not ashamed of the gospel’. Romans 1:16”
What we can determine from this is even if one Church Father allegorized the creation account, other Fathers have the opposite stand. As we can see, both Saint Athanasius and Saint Basil uphold the straightforward reading of the creation account.
Please let me know which Church Father you think saw the creation account as allegory and where exactly in their writing, and I will research it diligently, by the grace of God.
Comments
Science is the study of the method of how things come to be. Theology is the study of the nature of the universe in relation to God. In conclusion the Church teaches why and what, science teaches the How.
God Bless
Let me ask you about your theology. Do you believe animals died before Adam was created? Do you believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old? Do you believe that Adam and Eve literally had trees that gave them life or knowledge?
As for God creating man, who disagreed with that? Were you not created by God? Does God have to snap his fingers or do it this or that way to create you? Did He have to do that with Adam? Is a long lasting act any less done by God than one that is short, as if time were of the essence? Think about your assertions and questions.
God Bless
Here's my issue. If you are going to disagree with Evolution on Scriptural basis because you've become unable to read past the letters of Genesis to read its message, than you must also accept that the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth and that the moon burns you at night (all with verses that appear to make those claims).
If on the other hand, you can't accept a scientific theory because you see it as unbefitting of God, who are you to make that claim? "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it , “Why have you made me like this?” (Romans 9:20)
You are now subjecting God's method of creation to suit your own ideas. Is it any less amazing if God makes the universe as it is within the blink of an eye or over the process of billions of years? Is man any less God's creation by whatever method God employed to make him? The problem here is that the Fathers teach us that God is a mystery and we are imposing our own limitations on Him and putting Him in a box.
If you still have doubts about the Trees, St. Gregory the Theologian did not believe they were literal trees, or at least he saw the story allegorically. Kind of like how we read the Book of Revelation. It is an abstract incomprehensible mystical reality expressed in cruder and raw human language in the form of a concrete story.
As for man being an animal, this is something almost all the Church Fathers disagree with you on. Read through the likes of St. Athanasius or St. Cyril of Alexandria and you will see they all refer to man as physically being an animal. Its not surprise we have appendages, follow the same primary biological functions as most mammals with their instincts and drives and have a genetic makeup that is 98% similar to that of chimpanzees. This is only fact. But it is not surprising since we are all made from the dust, we are physical beings with a physical animal nature. However above and beyond that we are made in the Image and Likeness of God, who is His Logos (who said if you see Me you have seen the Father). We are thus rational (like the Logos), have freedom of will (like the Omnipotent), make moral choices and perceive objective morality (like the Good God) in our conscience and bear the imprints of creativity (like the Creator) and our center of self a consciousness (like the great 'I AM'). This is our spiritual component which cannot be accounted for by science since it studies material things. This is why the philosophy which excludes the supernatural aka Materialism, cannot account for free will but believes in biological determinism (that all our thoughts and actions are merely the response to neural impulses). We cannot reason or choose anymore than an ape desires to have sex and acts on that drive. This is the materialist view, it is not science (ironically), but a philosophy (which excludes the supernatural). We also cannot make moral choices anymore than a lion forcibly copulates with a lioness. The lion doesn't really rape the lioness and so on the materialist view the same can be said about the human. All this shows that the divine imprint that we bear is in our spirit and that the human is not *ONLY* explained by science (study of the physical universe), since he is not only physical.
As for evolution and your arguments against it, scientifically they are untenable. I don't think you completely understand the theory by the things you are saying. You cannot sit and watch a species evolve, but fossil records and mechanisms for it have been discovered and the theory is almost as well established as Newton's gravitational theory. But I digress, I don't care to prove or disprove evolution, but to show that science (the study of nature) is but one way to read and express God's glory: "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge." (Psalms 19:1-2)
As for you having differing opinions on what happened. Theology is not something subject to individual opinion but is a matter of the consensus of the Fathers and the teaching of the Church in her Liturgy, ScripturesScriptures, Councils and Saints. The Fall happened due to sin and turning away from He who is Life. The return happened through the Incarnation which includes the entire life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ including everything in between.
Our trust in God is not compromised by studying science and following it to its natural conclusions. Neither is it compromised by properly understanding the message of the Bible and how it was inspired and meant to be read.
I hope you actually answer to the points of the post.
God Bless
My beloved in the Lord
Thank you for waiting for me. After
two weeks holiday we came back to no hot water and a broken PC, but thank God
everything is back to normal now. I have had a chance to read through this
thread from the beginning and have much to say to you. As I said, by God’s
grace, I will answer the points raised since I joined the discussion, so at the
end of this post I have listed them, so that if you would like to amend
anything, please just let me know.
Before that I would like to clarify what
has been said about Saint Athanasius the Apostolic’s ‘On the Incarnation of the
Word’ earlier on in this thread. I had a copy which I took with me on holiday.
When you read from the beginning you will learn three things that Saint
Athanasius was very clear about. He
1. Expressly refuted the man-made versions of creation stories of his day, starting with the Eipicurean theory which is in essence the theory of evolution, followed by the Platonic and Gnostic notions. He refutes all three theories.
2. Upholds the Scripture version of the creation as the only divine truth
3. Confirms that death entered the world as a consequence of the Fall
The passage that has been quoted earlier on in this thread is from chapter one "Creation and the Fall" section 3. But what does Saint Athanasius say in section 2? He says:
1. St Athanasius Refutes the Evolutionary Theory of His Time
“In regard to the making of the universe and the creation of all
things there have been various opinions, and each person has propounded the
theory that suited his own taste. For instance, some say that all things are
self originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these;
they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is
contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if
all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the
outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would all be uniform and without
distinction. In the universe everything would be sun or moon or whatever it was,
and in the human body the whole would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of
fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even
within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and
head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a
prevenient Cause; and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and
Maker of all.
Others take the view expressed by Plato...
Then, again, there is the theory of the Gnostics..."
Immediately after refuting each one of these three philosophies of the origin
of life, he goes on to say at the beginning of part 3:
“Such are the notions which men put
forward. But the impiety of their foolish talk is plainly declared by the
divine teaching of the Christian faith. From it we know that, because there is
Mind behind the universe, it did not originate itself…”
2. St Athanasius Upholds the Scriptural Account
He calls it the “divine teaching of the Christian faith”; it is not man’s teaching, but
God’s, it is divine and therefore above every foolish notion of man. In the
paragraph below and elsewhere he refers to the literal account.
3. St Athanasius Confirms that Death was a Consequence of the Fall
The continuation of part three has already been quoted earlier on May 22:
“For God is good—or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead,
and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything.
Grudging existence to none therefore, 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, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the
impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word
Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and
expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might
continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise.
But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He
had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law
and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition.
If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original
innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or
care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. 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." (Gen. 2.16) ‘Ye
shall surely die’-not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of
corruption"
The claim has been made that this account says that man would "revert back to the natural law of death". However, Saint Athanasius did
not say that man would "revert back" but he said that man would "come under the natural law of death", which means that they had
not been under it before.
Saint
Athanasius also maintains that death came after the Fall in the same chapter 1:
(section 4):
“For God had made man thus (that is, as an embodied spirit), and
had willed that he should remain in incorruption. But men, having
turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come
inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which
God had created them, they were in process of becoming corrupted entirely, and
death had them completely under its dominion”.
(section 5):
“as also Wisdom says "God created man for incorruption and as
an image of His own eternity; but by envy of the devil death entered into the
world." (Wisdom 2. 23) When this happened, men began to die,
and corruption ran riot among them and held sway over them to an even more than
natural degree, because it was the penalty of which God had forewarned them for
transgressing the commandment”.
We note that Saint Athanasius quotes Wisdom, "by envy of the devil death entered into the world", as does Saint Basil in his Divine Liturgy. Therefore, both these saints uphold the teaching that death entered the world as a consequence of sin.
Allegorical or Metaphorical?
Regarding the
Church Fathers interpretation of Scripture, we must discern whether their
contemplations were allegorical or metaphorical. In the metaphorical way of
contemplation the literality of the account is not being denied at all. On the
contrary, it is upheld, but in order to extract spiritual lessons from it,
literal things may be taken to symbolize other things. For example when we say
that the censer is the Virgin, we are not denying that the censor is a real
censor. I remember listening to a sermon of His Holiness Pope Shenouda in
Arabic, I think it was about anger, in which he mentioned that the Fathers
often used the ‘metaphorical way’ of interpreting the Bible (saying
‘metaphorical’ in English).
Saint Basil the Great Rejects Allegorisation
In Saint Basil’s Hexaemeron (homily on the six days of
creation), Part 9, he says the following:
“I know the laws of allegory,
though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit
the common sense of the Scriptures,
for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in
a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles
and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters
of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve
their own ends. For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic
animal, I take all in the literal sense. ‘For I am
not ashamed of the gospel’. Romans 1:16”
What we can determine from this is even if one Church
Father allegorized the creation account, other Fathers have the opposite stand.
As we can see, both Saint Athanasius and Saint Basil uphold the straightforward
reading of the creation account.
Please let me know which Church Father you think saw
the creation account as allegory and where exactly in their writing, and I will
research it diligently, by the grace of God.