I don’t take it on faith that the sum of two integers is another integer.

My math teacher didn’t just say “The sum of two integers is another integer, and you’ll just have to take my word for that.” I learned sums by doing them. (Didn’t you?) Because I understand how addition works, I know two numbers with no fractional part, when combined, will still have no fractional part. Furthermore, every sum of whole numbers I have done in my entire life evidences this fact.

As a rule, I don’t take anything on faith. I aspire to let the winds of evidence blow me about like a leaf, and go wherever it takes me.

I also claim that 874 + 569 = 1443. That’s not visibly self-evident, but you need not accept that on faith either.

Yes you do. You have to have faith that 1 is a unique whole integer and that the combination of two such unproveable things will always equal another unique whole interger. It is just that the faith is so deeply inculcated into us that we no longer recognize our acceptance of the underlying assumptions as faith.

Maxim claims “all truth claims require faith”. Not true.

For a simple example, I claim 1+1=2. I don’t need faith to make that claim, and you don’t need faith to accept it.

I believe that facts which were not directly witnessed (Creation) were revealed to certain saint(s). These revelations were “gifts” similar to other gifts like powers of prophecy, clairvoyance and healing. Please notice the difference between “gift” and “knowledge”. The gift of healing does not require medical knowledge; it is the ability to call on God to heal the sick through supernatural means.
St. Matrona did not have knowledge of architecture and she was not only blind, she didn’t even have eyes, yet she could “see” the streets and buildings in Italy:

That afternoon Matrona listened to me attentively and said, “Don’t worry, don’t worry, you will pass your exam! Tonight, we’ll have tea and talk about it.” I could hardly wait for evening to come and when I joined her, she said, “I will go with you to Italy, to Florence, to Rome and we will see the works of the great masters.” Then she began to enumerate the streets, the buildings! She paused at one point: “Behold, the Plazzio Pitti… and here’s another palace with archways, similar to the one in your work – a building with three lower levels of massive stonework and two arched entryways.” She spoke in detail about the architectural elements of the building, and I was shocked at her knowledge of the subject. In the morning I ran to the institute, put tracing paper over my project and using brown ink I made corrections based on what she had said. The commission came at ten o’clock. They looked over my project and said, “And so, your project came out well, it looks excellent – go ahead and defend it!”

Eliot,

It was just the way you dared Isaac to challenge the holy words of the holy man as though quoting him closed the case. I thought I’d point out that Orthodoxy has no doctrine of infallibility for the saints. Also, since he never heard of the theory of evolution, it is not too wise to rely on St. Spyridon’s words as proof that it is unchristian. Whatever else we know, we do know that he wasn’t addressing evolution. Now, if you have some statement of a modern synod disapproving of the basic idea behind the theory, that would be interesting. But, in general, I think modern Orthodox hierarchs have preferred not to address the question other than to say that God created everything, including man.

Scott:

And, by the way, saints are not infallible.

None of them ever claimed such thing. I personally tend to give more weight to their words because of their virtues and the wonders they worked. They always attributed all their miracles to Christ. It seems that there is a word “simultaneously” you have a problem with. I’ll try to find the text somewhere else to see if the word “simultaneously” is there . If you cross out the word “simultaneously” can you find anything else wrong ?

” . . . made man from clay and created simultaneously all things visible and invisible.”

Specifically, I for one do not believe that the making of man from clay was necessarily a direct act but could have been done over a long period of time through evolving him from clay through a chain of evolution into his final present form. Also, the saint was dead wrong when he said God created simultaneously all things visible and invisible. The Creed does not say “simultaneously” and, in fact, the Genesis account specifically says that God created things progressively, one day this, another day that.

And, by the way, saints are not infallible.

The integrity of your faith seems to be wrapped up in evolution not being true.

Before taking a closer look at evolutionism and its implications I had read the lives of the Saints. Saints’ virtues and all their good deeds are copies taken from the great original – Christ. His Saints practiced hard asceticism, fasting, vigils, prayers, and virtues in general. Saints are usually reputed wonder-workers to whom great powers of prophecy, clairvoyance and healing were attributed through the ages.
St. Innocent tells us “Every sin drives away the Holy Spirit. Most hated, however, to Him are pornic sins among the bodily ones, and pride among the spiritual ones. The Holy Spirit, the perfect purity, cannot live inside a man defiled with sins. How can He stay in our heart, when it is filled with cares, desires and passions?”

The theory of Evolution was quickly embraced by those who regarded it as the best thing serving their own ends and wants (desires and passions). It also serves as a point of departure from the Truth toward the slippery slope leading to bottomless trap of falsehood. Nowadays there is a competition between Truth and the feeling of awed wonder that science can give us. During the 1st Ecumenical Synod of Nicaea there was a competition between Truth and rhetorical art. The truth was demonstrated back then by the miracle of St. Spyridon :

Saint Spyridon, however, did not let them stop him, because he knew that the Wisdom from on high is superior to the human and ephemeral wisdom; he approached the Sophist, then, and said to him: «In the Name of Jesus­ Christ, note my words, philosopher, and listen to what I want to tell you!». The Sophist replied to him: «Speak and I will listen to you! ». Spyridon then said: « There is only one God, Creator of heaven and earth. He created the heavenly Powers, made man from clay and created simultaneously all things visible and invisible. It was by His Word and His Spirit that heaven and earth were created, the sea flew out, the firmament stretched out, the animals were born, man was created, the most beautiful of His creatures. All the stars were created, the sun and the moon, night, day and all the rest. We know, then, that the Word is the Son of God and God Himself. We believe that, for us, He was born of the Virgin, was crucified and buried. Then he rose and raised us with Him, granting us incorruptible and immortal life. We assert that He will come a second time to judge all people and examine our own works, words and thoughts. He is of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, equal in dignity, and reigns with Him. Don’t you agree philosopher? », he asked him.

We must relate here the famous miracle of the tile. After these words, the Saint took a tile in his left hand and held it tight. Moreover, for a wonder! Fire rose up immediately in the air, water poured out on the earth and the argyle of the clay remained in the hands of the Saint, symbolizing in this way the life giving and indivisible Trinity. Everybody was amazed. The philosopher did not seem to be the same person any more, to possess neither the same mind nor the same language, he that knew so well to oppose and to quarrel.

My question is : from what St. Spyridon said, which part do you believe and which part you don’t?

The integrity of your faith seems to be wrapped up in evolution not being true. I would hate to add non-negotiables to the Creed like that and turn out to be wrong. Yes I am sure some people are worried about being ridiculed or mocked for believing something unpopular, but there are also people who are concerned about the truth and don’t want to deny the truth.

Oops. I meant Scott.

Robin:

Well, I believe that says it all.

What does it say? First of all, why are you taking it out of context? It was just an idea which “might seem exaggerated, if not absurd, but the reverse (monkeys evolving into man) is equally absurd”. Secondly, I can even defend the idea.
Lucifer and all the fallen angels were once beautiful creatures. Pride and disobedience changed them into ugly creatures.
Elder Cleopa spent ten years praying in the wilderness and he had some interesting encounters (Robin would call it “fairytales”). He says that “one devil alone is so ugly, that if he were to come here where we are now and show his face just as it is in hell, none of us will survive the horror. We would all die of such ugliness and terror at the sight of a fallen angel.”
There is a growing number of cafeteria Christians: they pick and choose which doctrines they will (or will not) accept. We fear the risk of being laughed at by secular humanists. As a result there is a lot of confusion. A respected Hieromonk once told me: “be grateful that your priest is not an evolutionist”. If we keep going on like this, we’ll become ourselves secular humanists.

Well, I believe that says it all.

Why would God create lower hominids that very closely resemble man,even seeming to be evolving in a line that ends in man? Why would God create the world in such a way that we can discover a way to date fossils and the Earth itself and plant false evidence which would lead us to grossly overestimate the ages? Is He more like a mischevious Pan who wishes to trick us into believing something contrary to Scripture?

I don’t think so. Believe what you will. I’m tired of beating this dead horse.

The story of the Tower of Babel tells about the confusion of tongues. Ever heard the idea that the monkeys devolved from man? The most disobedient and arrogant were turned into monkeys. Such a claim might seem exaggerated, if not absurd, but the reverse (monkeys evolving into man) is equally absurd, yet it is the only “politically correct” version of our origin.

Apparently you believe that the methods used to date fossils and the Earth itself are accurate.
See: The Dating Game by David N. Menton, Ph.D.

In this “circular dating” method, all ages are based on evolutionary assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and animals are believed to have evolved.

I am getting tired too. Let us pray, lest we perish!