Evolution and Eastern Orthodoxy - dedicated to the "Woodsman"

[Raz]

This is a very complex subject for which even some reputable scientists fail to agree. But for the most part they certainly do agree at least where microevolution is concerned. The difficulty that many Western Christians have with Macroevolution seems to be concentrated among various Evangelicals, particularly those of the "Fundamentalist" category. Mercifully I was never deep into any of that.

The Orthodox also have problems with the assertion of what seems to be the present-day scientific consensus on Macroevolution, specifically that ALL life on the Earth originated from a single cell. I personally find that assertion extremely problematical and really don't concern myself with it. A little over 100 years ago scientists thought the Universe was stable - then they discovered that it was expanding. Given time they'll learn more.

I'll simply accept the Patristic consensus as to the origin of life - and man in particular - until scientists discover far more about the universe and life itself. Perhaps at that time the majority of them won't be so determined to accept randomness and dismiss the idea of a Designer.

Before I post numerous documents and hyperlinks, Woodsman, I want you to read the attached.
It expresses the very heart of Orthodoxy, and having experienced the numinous and miraculous in my own life leads me to focus upon the "one thing needful" (St. Luke 10:41-42) - and avoid the arguments of prejudiced 'fundamentalists' on both sides of the divide.

[jk]

Re: Evolution and Eastern Orthodoxy - dedicated to the "Woodsman"

iirc, sponges are believed to have a separate origin, though this may be controversial.

[Woodsman]

Re: Evolution and Eastern Orthodoxy - dedicated to the "Woodsman"

This is a very complex subject for which even some reputable scientists fail to agree. But for the most part they certainly do agree at least where microevolution is concerned. The difficulty that many Western Christians have with Macroevolution seems to be concentrated among various Evangelicals, particularly those of the "Fundamentalist" category. Mercifully I was never deep into any of that.

The Orthodox also have problems with the assertion of what seems to be the present-day scientific consensus on Macroevolution, specifically that ALL life on the Earth originated from a single cell. I personally find that assertion extremely problematical and really don't concern myself with it. A little over 100 years ago scientists thought the Universe was stable - then they discovered that it was expanding. Given time they'll learn more.

I'll simply accept the Patristic consensus as to the origin of life - and man in particular - until scientists discover far more about the universe and life itself. Perhaps at that time the majority of them won't be so determined to accept randomness and dismiss the idea of a Designer.

Before I post numerous documents and hyperlinks, Woodsman, I want you to read the attached.
It expresses the very heart of Orthodoxy, and having experienced the numinous and miraculous in my own life leads me to focus upon the "one thing needful" (St. Luke 10:41-42) - and avoid the arguments of prejudiced 'fundamentalists' on both sides of the divide.

Grateful to you Raz for the effort.

[Raz]

Re: Evolution and Eastern Orthodoxy - dedicated to the "Woodsman"

The document attached is not an easy read for the Western mind unfamiliar with Orthodox thought.
It lays out why Evolution never caused such upheaval among the Orthodox as it did among Christians of the West.

The Western church, at least since Aquinas, seems preoccupied with rationalism while the East has with few exceptions remained committed to hesychasm as the basis for knowledge of God. It will be very helpful to read the following articles found at these hyperlinks in order to fully understand Dr. Metallinos' essay.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Hesychasm

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Gnosiology

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apophatic_theology

Apophatic statements are essential to understanding Orthodox theology.

MUCH more to follow.

[charliebrown]

Re: Evolution and Eastern Orthodoxy - dedicated to the "Woodsman"

Thanks Raz I just linked these articles and will read sometime over the summer.

[flintlock]

Re: Evolution and Eastern Orthodoxy - dedicated to the "Woodsman"

Yes, keep em coming Raz.

[Raz]

Re: Evolution and Eastern Orthodoxy - dedicated to the "Woodsman"

Among the Incompatibilist sources one of the most well known was Fr. Seraphim Rose. Fr. Seraphim apparently insisted on a near literalist interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis, an approach he identified with the holy Fathers of the Church.
I do NOT share his opinion in this matter and although I'm certainly no patristic scholar, neither am I unread and uninformed.


I'm attaching a critique of Fr. Seraphim's book Genesis, Creation and Early Man by two Orthodox scholars: George and Elizabeth Theokritoff. Mr. Theokritoff is a paleontologist and his wife an Orthodox theological scholar. Should you want to read Fr. Seraphim's book - at least the part where he disputes Dr. Kalomiros, a compatibilist - I'm attaching also.

After giving a few days to digest these documents I intend to begin posting what a priest friend of mine thinks about this matter, as well as the opinion of an Orthodox layman that closely resembles my own.

*As a matter of information: The Theokritoffs reference several Orthodox scholars and priests or hierarchs who come under criticism as "modernists" by Fr. Seraphim Rose. Among those Metropolitan Kallistos Ware would definitely lean to the more "liberal" strain of Orthodoxy, if there actually is such a strain, but Fr. George Florovsky (also criticized) most certainly would not; he was among the more "conservative" Orthodox theologians of the 20th Century.

[Raz]

Re: Evolution and Eastern Orthodoxy - dedicated to the "Woodsman"

Here are two opinions of Orthodox men on Evolution and Creation.

The first is by Fr. Stephen Freeman, a very good acquaintance and friend of mine.
The other is by Jonathan Hayward, a thoroughly scientific man who I do not know.

While I mostly agree with Fr. Freeman, my own personal thoughts and current opinion more closely resembles that of Mr. Hayward.