Michael,

It is the latter, 2.) simple epigenetic adaptation to the environment, to which I was referring as “evidence that it has.”

The Fathers have a great deal to say about this, at least in terms of humans, when they address the meaning of – and the necessity for – the “garments of skin.”

I do not believe that the words “after its kind” and “after their kind” are without meaning. These words, found in both the creation narrative and the story of Noah, indicate a differentiation of species “at the beginning.” I have neither the capacity nor the inclination to prove my belief. It is admittedly based upon simple, although not simplistic, faith. Evidence to the contrary (and there is some) is very weak and highly speculative, requiring faith of another sort in order to be convincing.

You wrote: “The trouble with that is that we cannot serve two masters for long.”
This is why in my mind it is far less a debate about ‘evidence’ than it is about where these ideas lead in terms of our salvation.

One further note: As much as my previous comment may seem to relate only to creation and the origin of sin, it takes on its true significance (in my mind anyway) when one begins not with creation, but with the revelation of the Person of Jesus Christ and His redemptive work.

I think one part of your statement needs further clarification though:

I neither question nor debate whether evolution has occurred since the fall of man. There is plenty of evidence that it has – at least to some degree

The crucial thing here is what one means by the word evolution: 1. more complex and new species ‘evolving’ from less complex organisms; or 2 .simple epigenetic adaptation to the environment. It is a huge step from the fact of one to even the possibility of the other. A leap of faith and illogic that Darwin made initially and every one of his disciples since has been forced into making. They try to disguise that illogical leap as much as they can. They purport to ‘prove’ number 1 with evidence of number 2.

That is false reasoning. They also go from very small ambiguous specifics to the general ‘truth’ they hold a priori in a nanosecond because, for them, it is ‘indisputable’. That is not science.

You rightly set up the appropriate context from within which such questions need to be considered. However, the evolutionists with which I am familiar categorically deny and reject that context. They may profess and seem to hold to it as some sort of private belief but work and think outside that context when in their “scientific” context–functional atheists. The trouble with that is that we cannot serve two masters for long.

Evolutionary thought has always sought to describe origins apart from God, indeed intent on specifically denying the existence and agency of God.

They are intent on creating, promoting and substituting an entirely different understanding of the nature of creation (excuse me, can’t use that word–cosmos/life) and humanity. Since it has that as its premise, nothing it purports to prove is true. It is not science as it cannot observe, hypothesize, experiment and replicate.

It is philosophy purportedly based on observation, but every single “fact” and “proof” is found, evaluated, accepted or rejected, and interpreted from within a false construct. The simple acceptance of the revealed truth that God created ex nihilo destroys their entire edifice. Most cannot even entertain the idea of an transcendent intelligence guiding the material (as far from God as such an idea is).

There are those in the scientific community who see the fallacy and want to do something about it–even atheists. Greg does not appear to be one of them. For him the fallacy is ‘indisputable’ Of course it is within the philosophical construct which created it.

I hope you don’t mind if I engage a bit further on this subject.

In spite of what I may seem to have written, I do not deny the possibility – or even perhaps the fact – of evolution. The focus of my objection to evolution is its claim to be the model for the original creation as it was, in the words of Christ, “at the beginning,” as in…

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female…?”

It is here “at the beginning” that God created all things good. The Scriptures, the Fathers, and indeed the whole of the Orthodox Christian Tradition insist on the essential goodness of all creation regardless of how they read the creation story, be it narrative or allegorical. Yet when our Lord was called “Good teacher” by an inquirer, His reply was, “Why do you call me good? There is none good but God.” Thus, when creation is said to be good it is apparent that this goodness is grounded in the fact that it was created in union with God who freely gives His life to all things in accordance with the capacity of each creature to receive it.

A creation in union with its Creator (that is, a creation full of grace) is what St. Maximos clearly had in mind when he wrote of grace irradiating nature with a supranatural light, raising it above its natural limits. This description is not a denial of nature (and thus not a denial of science). It is a description of nature that is in union with the eternal life of its Creator, not subject to natural limits, and thus not a subject of scientific inquiry by means of the tools of the natural sciences, including the human mind.

Nature (be it human, animal, botanical…) when subjected to itself is subject to decay, corruption, or whatever similar word we might use to describe death. This is the nature that is the subject of natural scientific inquiry. It has its own laws that apply in their own way to the world as we know it now, the world governed by “the law of sin and death,” to use the words of the Apostle.

But again, “at the beginning” it was not so. Nor will it be so at the end when God is, again, “all in all.” And while I do not believe it is necessary to understand the Genesis narrative of the beginning or the visions of the end in a literal sense, I do believe they are very real descriptions, glimpses if you will, of a past and a future that are the only way our natural minds can even begin to comprehend the glory of union with the Blessed Trinity – a union prior to the corruption of death that came through sin and also a union wherein death is finally abolished and life reigns – not only among men, but also in the entire creation that “was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.”

The critical question for me, therefore, is the question of the origin of death. The Genesis account agrees with the Apostle (“Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men…”). It agrees with the Fathers. It agrees with the Liturgy of St. Basil and the whole liturgical tradition. Indeed, it agrees with the entirety of the Tradition. It even agrees with our own experience (which is to say that we know experientially that were born into the corruption of death, a corruption we did not choose and one in which even innocent infants die). Moreover, it is a condition of ours that is so repugnant to our good God that He Himself came in the flesh to abolish it for us and for all the creation He loves.

In stark contrast to the Tradition, however, the foundational premise of even ‘Christian’ evolutionary theory is the assumption that God created death and that death was active in the world prior to the sin of man. Building upon this premise, evolution posits a necessity for the development of biological mechanisms for survival within a hostile environment where the corruption of death is assumed. Being confessedly uninformed scientifically, I neither question nor debate whether evolution has occurred since the fall of man. There is plenty of evidence that it has – at least to some degree. But Holy Scripture and our God-bearing Fathers testify that apart from the sin of man which brought about his own death and the corruption of all the creation subjected to his dominion, survival is simply not an issue.

Finally, there is another aspect of truth/reality that relates directly to the Apostle’s words that, “as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin.” This aspect is the Orthodox Christian understanding of sin. While sin is never private or ‘individual’ (in the sense that it affects only the sinner), it is always personal (in the sense that it is the free choice of a human person). Orthodoxy insists on the priority of person over nature because human nature has no existence apart from specific human persons. ‘Humanity’ only exists as human persons (Greg, Brian, Sally). Thus, human nature per se does not sin; it merely participates in the sin of the person to whom is belongs. Only persons can sin. Only persons can love God or refuse to love. It is, therefore, not possible for a non-specific, impersonal, generalized ‘humanity’ to fall away from loving God and bring about the fall of all mankind. Only a person is capable of refusing to love the Persons of God. Only a person whose human nature once freely shared the eternal life of God by his communion in the divine Persons can bring about the subjection of his nature to the corruption of death by freely choosing to sever himself from that communion, thereby sinning against the One who is his life. And only a person in a position to father the entire race of man “in his own [corrupted] likeness, after his [corrupted] image (Genesis 5:3) can be the cause of death and sin being transmitted to all human nature.

It is for these and many other related reasons that will not fit into a blog comment that I cannot accept evolution as a theory of origin. I hope I have made it clear that none of these reasons have anything to do with a disregard for – or disrespect of – science.

As stated in an earlier comment, I repeat that there may be some things, indeed perhaps many things, that I have failed to consider. I am open to any correction that accords with the Tradition, and I sincerely look forward to your or anyone else’s comments that may expand the horizon of my understanding.

“Maybe he understands theology to be an assemblage of propositions where each has to have a particular quantity and heft. Digging deeper, one has to examine the narrative in which those propositions find their placement and thus meaning. My hunch is that he subsumes Genesis (perhaps all of scripture) to another narrative thus not recognizing that language, the primordial word, Logos/logoi, etc. is the ground of epistemology, not matter. He seems to believe that the Darwinian creation narrative has supplanted the Genesis narrative. This is the only context where his statement makes any sense.”

I can’t even imagine a sense it which any of this might be a true portrayal of Fr. Louth’s thinking. Have you actually read anything substantive by Fr. Louth that suggests in the slightest that this might actually be true? If you are serious, why don’t you ask Fr. Louth if this corresponds to his views?

I had no idea this thread was still going on. By evolution I mean two things, the observable fact of biological development from common ancestry and the model by which we understand that to have occurred – selection, drift, etc. Like all scientific models the latter is imperfect and subject to revision, but it’s a solid working approximation of what we know today about biological mechanism and history. Could it be overturned in some fundamental way by some future discovery? Of course: that’s all we get out of science – a narrow scope for building models of physical systems.

Michael, I am not sure what to make of the claim that basically everyone in the scientific world and much of the leading lights of the Orthodox world are ignoramuses spouting prejudice, but your comments are uninformed, arrogant, ungenerous and incorrect. I can only imagine how you would have greeted Copernicus.

Brian, I certainly respect your thoughtful disagreement, which is a model for Christian discussion. Thank you. Obviously there are many Orthodox who believe differently.

Father you hit on two of the reasons I reject every prevailing theory of evolution no matter how “indisputable”: they are linear and mechanistic denying the Word of God as creator and/or the interpenetration of the creation by God, and they deny man as both microcosm and image of God and the possibility for each of us personally to be interpenetrated by Jesus Christ. The eschatological reality of Christ is replaced by a modern form of chiliasm.

The Creative Word of God is still reverberating throughout creation and present in each Christian who receives the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit and others as well. If there is anything we might call “evolution” if is not centered on the Incarnation and the living Word of God it is not only disputable it is false.

If it does not uphold and support the sacramental authority of man to exercise dominion as we dress and keep the earth and enhance its fruitfulness it is a lie.

There is no reason that sound science cannot be predicated on belief in God, the Incarnation and Second coming. Our God is not a gnostic God.

Great quote Brian. Thank you. I need to add AOI like buttons.

Brian,

Thank you for your thoughtful and profound response to my questions.

“Grace irradiates nature with a supra-natural light, and by the transcendence of its glory raises nature above its natural limits”
-St Maximos the Confessor

This is why natural science, while highly valuable and to be fully respected within its proper realm, has so little to offer in terms of this subject.

Fr. Hans often refers to the account of Genesis as a narrative. I understand what he means but it is much more than that. It is the collective memory of a people and the traditional manner in which revealed truth and learned wisdom were guarded and transmitted. Initially and, IMO, most authentically as oral tradition elder to disciples. It is the matrix and the context within which every succeeding generation both learns of and interprets the existential circumstances of their own time.

This is compelling discussion. Here is how I would frame it (this is a work in progress): the text contains the narrative; it reveals the vivifying Word that spoke creation into existence and sustains it yet today and incorporates the history of the people to whom it was given and yet constitutes that community* at the same time. (*Ekklesia – Church: those called out; those who respond to that Word when they hear it.)

As a Christian this means that I believe the Gospel is at the center of the Holy Tradition, and why I have trouble with the Orthodox apologetic that argues that Holy Scripture is one part of Tradition among others. I believe instead that the Scriptures are the foundation of all authority within the Church because they contain that primordial Word — the Word of God spoken through the mouth of the prophet and apostle. Tradition is authoritative in that it is contextualizes (acculturates) that eternal Word in space and time, but that word (the Gospel) will never be contained, indeed cannot be contained, by any temporal structure because its source is eternal.

So to say that Genesis is narrative posits that the ground of epistemology is language — a spoken word. That word is vivifying, life creating. It does not negate scientific knowledge, but frames it, contextualizes it in ways that gives it proper its purpose and meaning. Indeed, that word is its source as well.

Let me give an example. From April 2 to August 15 I lived through a miracle. A young man in my parish (23 years old) was in a very serious accident and suffered traumatic brain injury (two skull fractures). The doctors told us later that 95% of the people with his level of injury die, and the other 5% are institutionalized the rest of their lives with very severe impairments.

Long story short, this man was completely healed. All that remains is a slight deficit in reading but this is healing up as we speak. August 15 was the Dormition and the day the part of his skull that was removed was replaced. Even the doctors say his healing is miraculous.

This miracle occurred through the direct intervention of Elder Paissios who is known to bring healing to these types of injuries, especially for young men in Greece who have suffered brain injuries due to car and motorcycle accidents.

I saw many things and here is one: Miracles do not contravene nature. Rather, nature itself somehow recovers its natural healing prowess, it is brought back to what it must have been like in Eden or what it will become in the Kingdom of God (take your pick, both are the same). Miracles are, in a sense, nature “speeded up” — natural processes that employ greater restorative power that what is normally seen and experienced.

As I witnessed this I pondered it and saw the congruence between the unseen and the seen, the uncreated and the created, the spiritual and material, the non-quantifiable and quantifiable and saw that there was no conflict between them. The knowledge and practical skill of the doctors and the nurses was as important as the prayers, anointing, the unseen but tangible power that the presence of Elder Paissios afforded, and so forth. In fact, when I would go into the young man’s room to pray, some nurses would join us because I would pray for them and the doctors too.

The interpentration of the uncreated with the created elevates the creation. It reveals the divine dimension of the work of the nurses and doctors as well and I would tell them that, not using this language of course but something more practical like “You are doing the work of God” — which they were. The elevation occurs because all materiality originated through this spoken word — what I call the primordial word — and still holds it together and gives it coherence and its marvelous complexity (Genesis and the Apostle Paul teaches us that).

Thus my word to the doctors and nurses, the prayers of the family and others, and most importantly St. Paissios’ intercession (his word to God), converged with the work of the doctors and nurses in that mysterious way that these things do, to affect the healing of my parishioner in all of its multi-dimensionality. The seen and unseen came together — and the glue, the interface, that which made the whole experience coherent and united its purposes and and effected its eventual outcome — was knowledge that was drawn and actualized from both the uncreated and created dimensions of human life and experience.

So when I hear the assertion that the ground of epistemology is matter — biological and chemical processes — and beyond that nothing can be known I ask myself then how do we explain the healing of the young man?

For Father Louth to make a statement like: “The Fathers of the Church need to be reinterpreted in light of modern science” is to place him wholly outside the tradition of the Church because he is changing the context of the Apostolic deposit of faith.

Maybe he understands theology to be an assemblage of propositions where each has to have a particular quantity and heft. Digging deeper, one has to examine the narrative in which those propositions find their placement and thus meaning. My hunch is that he subsumes Genesis (perhaps all of scripture) to another narrative thus not recognizing that language, the primordial word, Logos/logoi, etc. is the ground of epistemology, not matter. He seems to believe that the Darwinian creation narrative has supplanted the Genesis narrative. This is the only context where his statement makes any sense.

Nonetheless, I believe the scriptures are the primordial narrative — the text in which the words about the Word are contained, revealed, and amplified into their proper context and meaning. They reveal why there is no conflict between the non-material and material and why the dichotomy between faith and science is a false one.

I am not a “literalist” either. I am not now nor have I ever been a Protestant. Strange that Greg is not as leary of those converts who agree with him.

Since he has already said the ideas he holds are “indisputable” it is unlikely he will enter into real dialog with those who dispute them as, technically, we cannot exist.

Fr. Hans often refers to the account of Genesis as a narrative. I understand what he means but it is much more than that. It is the collective memory of a people and the traditional manner in which revealed truth and learned wisdom were guarded and transmitted. Initially and, IMO, most authentically as oral tradition elder to disciples. It is the matrix and the context within which every succeeding generation both learns of and interprets the existential circumstances of their own time.

For Father Louth to make a statement like: “The Fathers of the Church need to be reinterpreted in light of modern science” is to place him wholly outside the tradition of the Church because he is changing the context of the Apostolic deposit of faith.

Unfortunately, when he made that statement it was so totally unexpected I was unable to respond.

By the way, when I heard long ago from Met Kallistos’s own lips that “the ordination of women to the priesthood remains an open question,” I ceased to trust his judgement. Such statements reveal an intellectualism that is not properly disciplined by the the Spirit of the Tradition.

Lest I be misunderstood (yet again), it is acknowledged that there are those in Orthodoxy who fear change of any kind. Such people can be said to be merely ‘conservative,’ and they tend to view those who believe it is time to change certain aspects of the expression of our Faith as ‘liberal.’ It would be a serious, albeit virtually inevitable, mistake for those who favor women in the priesthood to confuse objections to their views with mere conservatism. Therefore, let not the accusation be leveled that objections to such innovation are motivated by fear of change. Faithfulness to the truth cannot be equated with mere conservatism.

Perhaps. Greg will have to speak for himself.

For the record, I would merely state that it has often been truly said that the Bible is not a science text, but that it is given to us for our salvation. All Orthodox Christians, those who understand the Biblical account of creation as a sort of primitive historical narrative, those who view it more in terms of a description of a long evolutionary process, and those who view it in terms of an allegory (which it most certainly is, although not necessarily to the exclusion of historical narrative) agree on this point.

The question, therefore, that needs to be explored is where these differing views lead in terms of our salvation. I have studied this question extensively – not as a scientist, but as an Orthodox Christian – and find that neither the assumptions of Biblical literalists nor those of evolutionists (of any kind) are consistent with the Faith of the Church (and they must be if they are to lead to salvation).

I remain fully open to learning something I had not previously considered. Since God created all that is, there can be no contradiction between science and Christianity as long as science remains within its proper realm. I freely admit that my premise will always remain the Faith of the Church, and all information new to me will be filtered through and judged by that premise. Does this make me a Fundamentalist? In the eyes of some it does, although I am not. But if I must bear being dismissed by the label, I will have to suffer the misunderstanding and remain faithful to the Tradition.