Evolution

edited December 1969 in Coptic Orthodox Church
Hello, I need to gather all the information I can get regarding Orthodoxy and the theory of evolution. Any reference to the church fathers would be great.

At this point, I have heard so many explanations that all appear to contradict one another and nothing seems to make sense regarding this issue. I am quite sure the topic is familiar with all of us since it is dominant in current scientific studies. If it is erroneous, how do we oppose it scientifically? I have heard Christians support evolution and others staunchly oppose it. Yet what is the Orthodox Church's view?

Comments

  • [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

    If by Church Fathers you are referring to men such as Sts. Basil or Cyril or Athanasius or Origen, then you won't find any answer from them.  The science of the times was such that evolution was not a scientific theory that existed.  If you are referring to modern day Orthodox theologians, then again, you won't find your answer either.  There is no consensus on the issue.  There are many Orthodox people (clergy and laymen) who accept evolution, and there are many others who don't.  I think the Church as a whole wisely does not have an opinion on the matter.  Belief in evolution does not in anyway enhance or hinder our spiritual growth, so it shouldn't be an issue of major concern. 
  • Granted the original church fathers would have no say on Darwin, haha  :D

    Yes, I was referring to current Orthodox theologians. Yet I am surprised we have no say on the issue..it does alarm me, quite honestly.

    Does anyone have anything else?
  • [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

    Out of curiosity, why would it alarm you?  If God chose to use evolution as the means of bring about the existence of man, then I'm not sure I see what the issue is.  Genesis is silent on how God created man, just that God did create man.  One can read into the Genesis account that God created everything as is, but one does not necessarily have to.  That would be taking Genesis as strictly literal, and even then, one would still be superimposing their preconceived ideas of what means God would or would not use to create man.  If one were to take Genesis allegorically, you would not run into this problem at all.  Again, based on the scientific evidence, the theory of evolution holds water.  If one chooses to accept it or reject it, that's fine.  Again, one's spirituality is not at stake when it comes to this matter, and in the end, that is what is important.
  • No worries, I found my answer.

    You are right.
  • if u think u found ur answer, share it with us

    anyway if it makes any difference
    here is
    http://freehovind.com/download
    complete explanation & biblical evidence

    & if any1 wanna a torrnt with all the lectures, do say so

    hope this helps u as it did 4 me
  • According to his biography, he "believes the KJV Bible to be the literal, inspired, infallible, inerrant word of the living God."

    He is a professor and does not understand what it took to get the King James Version? That it was based on the best manuscripts of the day! And new discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. have proceeded after it. To declare it "infallible, and inerrant" is absolutely narrow minded.

    But yes, I am attacking him rather than his arguments. I just wanted to say before I delve into this a bit more, this guy is a fanatic.

    He is deeply ingrained in his philosophy, and I think it is dangerous to support any particular science. His representation of Christian orthodoxy is nothing short of ironic. He is now in prison for evading taxes.
  • Um, actually, from what I've learned, as Κηφᾶς said, the Orthodox Church finds no offense in the theory of Evolution so it neither supports nor rejects it. We know that Genesis is not literal, but metaphorical...obviously God did not create the universe in seven days. Whether he chose evolution as a means to create man or not is not our concern; nor should it be. Genesis does not provide HOW God created man; only that man was created last..

    So perhaps evolution is correct. Shouldn't bother us either way..

  • Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    before any thing, we need 2 have a clear understanding of evolution.
    what is it? what is its definition?
    from that clear distinction we can realy begin.

    the mareial itself is rich, but well covered in dr. Kent Hovind video collection

    so, please download his collection.
    then make your own idea, believe what you want, ok comrade.

    i am not willing 2 comment on his imprisonment, but prefer 2 start
    a whole new thread about not only him but Keven Trudeau and
    others as well, so as the supression of cancer treatments & cures.
    dont know yet what will i name it.

    anyway, we here concentrate on evolution vs. creation only

    p.s.:
    [quote author=ServantOfJesus link=topic=6073.msg80827#msg80827 date=1199546729]
    Hello, I need to gather all the information I can get


    if true that u want 2 gather all the information, u dont want 2 miss this

    [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=6073.msg80831#msg80831 date=1199549225]
    [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

      Belief in evolution does not in anyway enhance or hinder our spiritual growth, so it shouldn't be an issue of major concern. 


    you are wrong, i erge u 2 download and watch the videos.
    because your idea of evolution is not clear nor comprehensive.
    so, dont support something u r not fully aware of.

    [quote author=clay link=topic=6073.msg80887#msg80887 date=1199764142]
    According to his biography, he "believes the KJV Bible to be the literal, inspired, infallible, inerrant word of the living God."

    He is a professor and does not understand what it took to get the King James Version? That it was based on the best manuscripts of the day! And new discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. have proceeded after it. To declare it "infallible, and inerrant" is absolutely narrow minded.

    But yes, I am attacking him rather than his arguments. I just wanted to say before I delve into this a bit more, this guy is a fanatic.

    He is deeply ingrained in his philosophy, and I think it is dangerous to support any particular science. His representation of Christian orthodoxy is nothing short of ironic. He is now in prison for evading taxes.


    i dare u 2 download his video collection, no just the first part of it
    Kent Hovind - 100 Reasons Evolution is So Stupid! (2001-04-06)[01h49m47s].avi and say what u r against

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    all in one torrent file, i will post separately.
    hope u konw how 2 deal with the p2p thing.
    if not, i will be posting that as well.
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    please no one post a reply on this unless u see at the very least
    the first file of the collection
    Kent Hovind - 100 Reasons Evolution is So Stupid! (2001-04-06)[01h49m47s].avi
    :)
  • i tried 2 make the torrent in attachment, but it gives erorr of size,
    though it is only 105 kilobytes  ???

    so here is where u can get it:
    http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3646874/Kent_Hovind_Compilation
    18.6 GB of material
    download them one by one, u dont have 2 download it all.
    use utorrent it supports this feature, just select none then
    mark the one u will download

    good luck everyone
  • ....

    The Church's views have already been listed, Taymourlang. I am not quite sure what point you are attempting to make. I, for one, accept that which the Church teaches. Whether you agree or disagree is superfluous.

    And last I checked, Kent Hovind is not the Orthodox Church.
  • yes i know he is not orthodox
    i only say he did a great effort though
    not being orthodox does not conflict with his idea
    yes he is a kjb fanatic, which i totally disagree
    yet i dl his vids, not only that, but i intend to dl the anti-creationists
    as well to see do they really stand on a solid rock?
    i make my own mind, which does not conflict with me being
    coptic orthodox
    forgive my enthuthiasim, i hated what i have been taught in the
    text books, and now i know it was out of the evolution theory
    i even hate the whole thing even more
    sorry again
  • [quote author=taymourlang link=topic=6073.msg80975#msg80975 date=1200248530]

    [quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=6073.msg80831#msg80831 date=1199549225]
    [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]

      Belief in evolution does not in anyway enhance or hinder our spiritual growth, so it shouldn't be an issue of major concern. 


    you are wrong, i erge u 2 download and watch the videos.
    because your idea of evolution is not clear nor comprehensive.
    so, dont support something u r not fully aware of.


    You have no clue what my ideas of evolution are, so you can in no way definitively say whether my views on it are clear or comprehensive or not.  And if you think that belief or non-belief in evolution is an impediment to one's spiritual life, then perhaps you should sit and look at the state of your spiritual life, if you feel threatened by a scientific theory.
  • We know that Genesis is not literal, but metaphorical

    We know that ?

    Genesis can be interpreted symbolically and literally, depending on the verse, and sometimes both. It is not much different than the rest of the Bible in that regard, but the real existence of Adam and Eve, and the reality of the flood for example, is not a symbol, although it presents a type for many soteriological aspects of the redemptive work of Christ.

    It should be also noted that the Bible is not subject to reinterpretation according to science discoveries, theories, new archeological findings in some cave, and many other irrelevant factors to the truth of the Orthodoxy. The history of science as ever changing and self contradictory at many times, caught between many competing theories that need some markets to flourish and bring profit to their founders, is enough proof for the lack of absolute standard in science. Science, like anything else, is relative.

    Evolution is no exception. It is a theory that needs much more proof than a couple of fossils here and there to theorize about the various transitions from one species to another. More experimental data and not just theoretical evidence to back up such possibilities has to be conducted. For example, the changes in DNA cannot be produced without any external effect such as very strong radiation. The nature, the location, the type, the emergence of the source for such massive strong effect that repeated itself in intervals, maybe thousands of times, is not known. As such, it remains a theory with very little concrete evidence of support. 

    I say that while I do no see any danger on the faith or a contradiction to Genesis should a certain stage of evolution have taken place, but I do not think that there is enough scientific evidence to make evolution a fact.

    Origen and Gregory of Nyssa apparently believed in two stages of creation, but not in evolution as it is understood now.
Sign In or Register to comment.