Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Evolution or Creation Science?
Source:
Orthodox Church in America
URL Source: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-law ... /evolution-or-creation-science
Published: May 30, 2012
Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley
Post Date: 2018-02-14 09:59:32 by A Pole
Keywords: orthodox, creation, evolution
Views: 18096
Comments: 211
In my years as a priest and of sharing the Gospel, I have heard many reasons offered for not becoming a Christian: scandals associated with clergy, the wealth of the Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. I thought I had more or less heard it all, and so was unprepared for a reason one young man offered to justify his rejection of Orthodoxy—namely, that dinosaurs were not in the Bible. I blinked a few times, and was left temporarily speechless (something of a rarity with me, to which those who know me well can attest). His idea was that since dinosaurs obviously existed (their skeletons adorn our museums), then if the Bible was God’s Word, he should be able to read about dinosaurs in the Bible. Since he could not find them there (I refrained from mentioning certain fundamentalist interpretations of Leviathan and Behemoth in the Book of Job), then obviously the Bible could not be God’s Word and he could not remain Orthodox. He was referring of course to the old supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and in this arm-wrestling match, it was clear to him that Science had won. No Biblical dinosaurs, no more church-going. So, what’s the deal about dinosaurs? Why aren’t they in the creation stories in Genesis? Apart from the absurdity of supposing they’re not there because they aren’t mentioned by name (the duck-billed platypus isn’t mentioned by name either), it’s a valid question, and one that leads us headlong into the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Interpretation of the creation stories too often degenerates into an argument between the theory of evolution vs. what is sometimes called “creation science”. By “evolution” the average non-scientific person means the notion that Man descended from the apes, or from a common ancestor of apes and men. The name “Darwin” is usually thrown about, regardless of how the ideas in his On the Origin of Species have fared in the scientific community since Darwin wrote it in 1859, and most people’s knowledge of evolution is confined to looking at the famous evolutionary chart in National Geographic, showing how smaller hominids kept walking until they became human beings like us. By “creation science” is meant the view that the Genesis stories are to be taken as scientifically or historically factual, so that the earth (often considered to be comparatively young) was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. Since the time of the “Scopes monkey trial”, the argument between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has been going strong, and is often fought in the nation’s courts and departments of education. Arm-wrestling indeed. Happily for people with weak arms like myself, the Church does not call us to take part in this arm-wrestling match. The creation stories in Genesis were not written, I suggest, to give us a blow-by-blow account of how we got here. Rather, they were written to reveal something fundamental about the God of Israel and the privileged status of the people who worshipped Him. We assume today that the ancients wanted to know how we got here, and how we were created. In fact, they were mostly uninterested in such cosmic questions, and the creation myths that existed in the ancient near east spoke to other issues. Most people back then, if they thought of the question of cosmic origins at all, assumed that the world had always existed, and the various gods they worshipped were simply part of that eternal backdrop. That is where the creation stories were truly revolutionary. Their main point was not merely that God created the world; it was that the tribal God of the Jewish people was sovereign over the world. We take monotheism for granted, and spell “god” with a capital “G”. For us, God is singular and unique by definition. It was otherwise in the ancient near east. That age was populated by different gods, each with his or her own power, agenda, and career. And this is the point: in the Genesis stories, none of these gods are there. In the opening verses we read, “In the beginning God (Hebrew Elohim, a Jewish name for their God) created the heavens and the earth” and “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” The creating deity is called “Elohim” and “Yahweh”—the names for the Jewish God. Other rival deities are simply not there. It is as if they do not exist. They had been dethroned and demoted by their omission from the story. The opening verse of Genesis is a salvo fired into the world of polytheism, a ringing declaration that their gods were nobodies. We keep reading and discover that this Jewish God made everything that existed by His simple word of command. He simply said, “Light—exist!” (two words in the original Hebrew), and light sprang into existence. In the creation myths of the pagan cultures of that time, the gods created by lots of huffing and puffing (in an Old Babylonian myth, the god Enlil uses a hoe), but not so the God of the Jews. He is above all that. For Him, a simple sovereign word suffices. In fact, in the first chapter of Genesis, all the cosmos was brought into being by Him uttering ten simple commands (yep, it does foreshadow the Ten Commandments, given later). And Man is portrayed in these stories as the sum and crown of creation, giving the human person a dignity never before known. Man is said to have been made “in the image of God”—a revolutionary statement, since in those days, only kings were thought to be in the divine image. Despite this, Genesis invests the common man with this royal dignity. And even more: it says that woman shares this image and rule with him. In the ancient near east, women were chattel; in Genesis, she is a co-ruler of creation with the man. The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity. These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-31) not displayed.
.
.
.
#32. To: A Pole (#31)
You do understand that Popper was not a scientist? He was primarily a philosopher of science, an intellectual. He also did work in social philosophy and other areas of philosophy, none of which interest me at all but which seems to be most of what you know about him. He is routinely considered the greatest philosopher of science in the twentieth century and, to some people, of all time. Questions like "how do we know what we know?", "how can we prove to others what we think we know?", "what is the proper metric for formulating and testing a hypothesis?", these are typical of the matters he dealt with.
What facts. I'd like to know if you would please.
Certainly for many it is , especially for those who do not know biology very well. Tell us -- which lessons or teachings OR discoveries have been made in the field of Biology have proven in any way shape or form "Evolution"? I mean of ANY LIFE? The Science of Biology proves OTHERWISE. Unless you can answer the challenge. Tick-tick...
What facts. I'd like to know if you would please. Yes, which "facts" support evolution? I'm also all ears....
Indeed. Nail hit on the head. There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus. It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam): a) Was CREATED BY GOD, sinless (all men as a result are revealed as "sinners.") It is obvious that Believers should take Jesus at His word -- that no one will come into the Presence of the Father but by through belief in the Son, of His Blood and Redemption...
Frankly, I considered it a cop-out from a wishy-washy flabby "Christian" who is too cowardly to stand on the Word.
I agree, Pilate asked Jesus what is truth and then killed him to sate his own ego and position. Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number. I cling to particular truth, firstly; I do not have an opposable thumb on my foot, secondly; I am created for a higher purpose and am able to contemplate God. Thirdly; I am an heir to all that God created. Fourthly I am saved by grace through belief in Jesus Christ
The good father means well (or does he?) He seems confused. Genesis indeed DOES have everything "to say for or against, the theory of evolution." "Creation(ism)" is explained in Genesis as a supernatural event. Within its text we are told that ALL life is created within SIX Days by God. That nullifies any attempted notion that any "Evolution" -- a totally unproven, un-scientific, bogus substitute version "Creation" -- is to be taken seriously on ANY level. ESPECIALLY by Christians. And especially as well by any serious "scientist" or researcher.
We should not be fazed by mere improbability. For instance, each of us is the result of thousands of generations of horny dudes persuading a woman to have sex (or raping her) during her period of fertility with a particular egg that could only be fertilized during a few days of one month in her life. And that one egg could be randomly fertilized by one of the ~200 million sperm that the man ejaculated into her while he was getting his jollies. Try to calculate the "probability" of that. I sometimes think I could almost prove that we don't exist because we ourselves are so insanely improbable. Yet we do seem to exist. So extreme improbability isn't all that...improbable. Annoying, eh? Science can be such a bitch.
Yes -- and as a couple of other posters also suggested, "Evolution" is more of a "Religion" than "Science." The basis of "truth" according to strict Evolutionists is un-proven Theory and Wishful Thinking they hope exonerates them from a Creator-God laws, Gospel, and His Judgement Day. I am created for a higher purpose and am able to contemplate God. Thirdly; I am an heir to all that God created. Fourthly I am saved by grace through belief in Jesus Christ Amen and Amen! We understand that as material beings we dwell in a physical world; But we are spiritual beings as well beneath our shell. We must feed our phsyical shell, but importantly, our spirit and soul. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. ~ Matthew 4:4
Can't see your YT content, Willie.
I see it (Firefox browser). It's a cheerful little song about always looking on the bright side of life. It's also kinda blasphemous.
Those who cling to religion are often confused, thus Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution but with God's intervention. You can't have it both ways, either, God is who he says he is, or he is not.
Some people, in a Christian context, take Genesis not as a complete fabrication per se, but as something that, while not literally true, is still metaphorically true. For example, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil being representative of a time when evolving man became aware of the concept of morality concerning the well being of his fellow man. While you certainly disagree, others who have no less claim to being Christian would nonetheless defend their understanding/perception on this point.
Your choice to use the adjective "astronomically" is a curious one, as the universe is filled with many trillions of worlds. The odds of any single planet having all the attributes of earth is indeed "astronomically" small, but the odds can become far more favorable in the context of asking if any one of these many trillions might have all needed characteristics.
Exactly. What they are saying is that either God is a liar or only partially tells the truth. The third alternative is that detractors don't believe that God has spoken through man (i.e. Moses and the Prophets.) So what some are trying to do is compromise and hedge their bet. God will NOT accept bet-hedging. This same folks are making an eternal choice -- they'd rather reject the Word of God and fall prey to unproven evo-theories and propaganda rather than become ostracized.
Yes, your characterization is valid. "Some" people, true. Still many others disregard it as a "Fairy Tale." Within those ranks, "Believers." That said, Genesis isn't intended to be a metaphor, but literal. God created by merely speaking the Word. For example, the eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil being representative of a time when evolving man became aware of the concept of morality concerning the well being of his fellow man. True. Yes, this was indeed the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. But in this case it was specifically Adam AND Eve partaking. The two of them were the first of God's human creatures to "become aware of the concept of morality" -- but more than that, they'd become aware of committing their first sin. Disobeying God led to THAT mortality as God had implicitly warned them not to eat the fruit, "Or you shall surely die." The rest of mankind obviously followed suit, leading to the necessity of Redemption and Redeemer. The "First Death" die has already been cast; It's the SECOND (and Final Life/Death) that we must concern ourselves with and be absolutely certain about resolving.
NOT surprised at his disdain.
You can see the vid at YouBoob. It's from Python's Life of Brian, the closing show tune with a mass crucifixion.
At the risk of entering into more of a debate than I have time or inclination to pursue, by "rest of mankind" you are no doubt referring to the descendants of Adam and Eve, and that brings up a common question: Did Cain marry his own sister? The Bible is silent on her identity, but if taken literally, that is of course the only explanation one could infer. What's your take?
Right now I am in a pub, my smartphone is tiny and I have a company.
Not by me.
The odds of any single planet having all the attributes of earth is indeed "astronomically" small, but the odds can become far more favorable in the context of asking if any one of these many trillions might have all needed characteristics. It is a matter of "context." IF I'd thought beyond the realm or context of Scripture (Genesis, Revelation speaking of "new Heaven and Earth")...and that man is special and unique to God's Creation... then, yes, maybe I'd be apt to ascribe to that mathematical equation of planetary "possibilities." I am obviously unable to do so.
Ok, you get a milligan ;-) *gulp-gulp-gulp...*
A flick I NEVER found humorous in the least.
The Bible is silent on her identity, but if taken literally, that is of course the only explanation one could infer. What's your take? YES, absolutely. By necessity. Both "The Beginning" and post-Noah's Flood occurred at an obviously different time and social context.
Orthodox do not need permission, they are free to believe without Pope telling them what to think.
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
As a further aside (though related), is the contemplative issue or question of DNA at Man's/Life's inception. We and all material life as well as the Universe are devolving and growing weaker. This in accordance with The Second Law of Thermodynamics (alone dismissing the notion of EVO-lution)... Contemplate THIS: If our DNA is a copy of a copy of a copy etc down through the generations, much like the copy machine copy after thousands of copies, it pales with the originals. The age of respective people mentioned during pre-Flood days are crazy-old; anywhere from 350+-900 years old. AFTER the Flood, man's age was downgrades by God to be "120 years." I'd just posted links to "Giant" skeletons that have been discovered and documented in the New York Times in the early 1900s; There are also recent discoveries of giant skeletons on the island of Sardinia. These skeletal remains are also found in many other places. (Yes, the evidence being hidden/eliminated from public viewing.) The Bible speak OF "Giants." Goliath was a giant. The Great Flood left its evidence of a giant world embedded and sealed in its fossils and bone -- ferns, insects, dinosaurs, etc. Did that Great Flood event and all that went with it (change of magnetic field, elements, atmosphere, air pressure, shield from destructive radiation) alter man's DNA that adversely? (as well as the rest of life?) Just food for thought.
I respectfully disagree; It is clear as day. The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.) The meat of the matter -- what God wants ALL to "see" and understand is what is transparent.
I stand corrected to some degree -- You are right on this count; The Word does become more apparent or transparent to Believers as the Holy Spirit is embraced.
Your comment is silly, Liberator. Genesis did not predict Christ's GOSPEL.
You aren't understanding the context of my post, Buck.
Genesis was only written about 1000 BCE. It was written after the Babylon expulsion of the Jews. You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
You do realize that King Herod never met Jesus although that song pretends he did. However, the general mocking of Jesus by the Sandhedrin and priests and mobs is pretty accurate. The Monty Python clip is probably more blasphemous, though much of it is just cheeky Brit humor since Life Of Brian is a comedy about someone who is mistaken for a Jewish messiah. It's not about Jesus directly.
Probably not the final version. However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that. They didn't exactly have word processors or even printing presses in Moses' time.
I guess it did. But stated plainly, it was incest. Permitted at one time, but, if I'm not mistaken, specifically prohibited at another, and with Genesis avoiding any explicit mention of Cain's marrying his sister, as though it's something that was better off not mentioned. I would criticize it being regarded as a matter of "social context" however. That makes it sound like whether incest was acceptable or not is purely a cultural determination. Wasn't it prohibited in one of the myriad of laws established in the OT? (I don't remember).
Back your statement with facts based on scientific research and discovery. You will never see an authentic Biblical record more recent than 1000 BCE. Why? Because there aren't any. The Jews acquired their writing skills by the Babylonians, it was cultural tradition within that empire to write. There are records going back before even 1000 BCE, but for the Jews, there is nothing. Why? They were nomadic in nature before the Babylonians taught them otherwise.
This is your theory, which of course runs counter to evolutionary theory. No, not necessarily. For example, a rock rolling up hill might be viewed as violating the laws of thermodynamics. But what if that hill was beside a much taller mountain that had a land slide? Rocks falling from that mountain gain speed, and their momentum carries them up the smaller hill. End result: rocks roll uphill without any violation of the law of thermal dynamics. Evolution of life into more complex life forms could similarly be the outplay of a much greater dissipation of energy. While the perspective of Genesis being a literal book is one people take, I do not see how it's origin as merely a collection of stories created and refined in times of old, purely as the work of man created out of a need to explain man's origins and give satisfaction to the natural distress of people who otherwise saw themselves as perishable as any animal, could be so easily dismissed. So **why** should someone believe Genesis is anything other than that? I would suggest it's for the same reason it was believed long ago -- out of a desperate need to believe we are more than human and that our existence does not end with death. That is quite understandable. Like you, I believe we ARE more than human. In fact, I believe we are far more than human than even Christianity teaches, which seems to be that the soul is sort of a that minor part is left over after a person dies. But Genesis is simply not the only explanation available to reach the conclusion that we are more than human. The soul is our primary identity, our human nature only secondary. In my view, it is not inaccurate to say we are, in fact, angels living in human bodies for a short time, and our origin, as angels, is not earthly. Only our human bodies originated from earth, not us as souls or, perhaps, angels. Stated another way in contemporary terms, human bodies are mere rental units for souls, and not something that is created as a result of human conception, which is an idea that is quite illogical, frankly. But because of the natural assumption that our physical bodies define all there is about us, our tendency, and the tendency of the ancients who composed Genesis, is/was to bring God down to man's level, and that's what Genesis largely does. Everything just works under this model. Including evolution, which becomes completely inconsequential in this context. It also explains why God would care about us more than animals.
Comments (73 - 211) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "I have problem with recalling any significant scientific discovery made by Popper or thanks to him. Can you help me? "
#33. To: A Pole (#9)
consider it as a very plausible theory, with many facts supporting it.
#34. To: A Pole, no gnu taxes (#12)
(Edited)
Evolution is a religion.
#35. To: A K A Stone, A Pole (#33)
consider it as a very plausible theory, with many facts supporting it [EVOLUTION].
#36. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13, no gnu taxes, Pinguinite (#6)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
b) ALL Sinners must be mortal and die (along with ALL life and matter) within this Material Realm as a result
c) Can not nor will NOT enter the holy presence and spiritual Realm of God- the-Creator as a Sinner
d) As a result, a substitute/proxy "sinless" man (Jesus, God-in-the-flesh) is required to "pay" for the sin-debt. Only the sin-less can be in the presence of God
Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6, (KJV 2000)
#37. To: Pinguinite (#4)
This is a thoughtful, candid write-up on the issue that is indeed very much in line with the sentiments of many, though not all, Christians.
#38. To: Liberator (#37)
#39. To: Liberator (#36)
Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6, (KJV 2000) It is obvious that Believers should take Jesus at His word -- that no one will come into the Presence of the Father but by through belief in the Son, of His Blood and Redemption...
#40. To: A Pole (#0)
"[Genesis] has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution."
#41. To: paraclete (#39)
(Edited)
Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number.
#42. To: paraclete (#39)
Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number.
#43. To: Willie Green (#38)
#44. To: Liberator (#43)
Can't see your YT content, Willie.
#45. To: Liberator (#40)
#46. To: Liberator (#36)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
Indeed. Nail hit on the head.
There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus.
It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam):
#47. To: Tooconservative (#44)
#48. To: Liberator, paraclete (#42)
Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number.
#49. To: paraclete (#45)
You can't have it both ways, either, God is who he says he is, or he is not.
#50. To: Pinguinite (#46)
Some people, in a Christian context, take Genesis not as a complete fabrication per se, but as something that, while not literally true, is still metaphorically true.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#44)
It's a cheerful little song about always looking on the bright side of life. It's also kinda blasphemous.
#52. To: Liberator (#51)
#53. To: Liberator (#50)
(Edited)
The rest of mankind obviously followed suit,
#54. To: Liberator (#34)
Tick-tick
#55. To: Tooconservative (#32)
He is routinely considered the greatest philosopher of science in the twentieth century and, to some people, of all time.
#56. To: Pinguinite, paraclete (#48)
...The universe is filled with many trillions of worlds.
#57. To: A Pole (#54)
#58. To: Tooconservative (#52)
It's from Python's Life of Brian, the closing show tune with a mass crucifixion.
#59. To: Pinguinite (#53)
...that brings up a common question: Did Cain marry his own sister?
#60. To: paraclete (#45)
Those who cling to religion are often confused, thus Catholics are allowed to believe in evolution but with God's intervention.
#61. To: Liberator (#50)
Genesis isn't intended to be a metaphor, but literal
#62. To: Pinguinite (#53)
#63. To: A Pole (#61)
(Edited)
Genesis is a mystical book with hidden meaning visible to the elect
#64. To: A Pole (#61)
...visible to the elect
#65. To: Liberator (#63)
The only things "mysterious" are the details. It is stated that there WILL be "mysteries," i.e, things mankind will never know, or not intended to know (either because they are un-important OR because they possibly detract or distract from what is actually important: THE GOSPEL.)
#66. To: buckeroo (#65)
#67. To: Liberator (#66)
#68. To: Willie Green (#47)
(Edited)
Brian Cohen is born in a stable next door to the one in which Jesus is born, which initially confuses the three wise men who come to praise the future King of the Jews. Brian grows up an idealistic young man who resents the continuing Roman occupation of Judea. While attending Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, Brian becomes infatuated with an attractive young rebel, Judith. His desire for her and hatred for the Romans lead him to join the "People's Front of Judea", one of many fractious and bickering independence movements, who spend more time fighting each other than the Romans.
#69. To: buckeroo (#67)
You will never find a record that suggests "Genesis" was written before.
#70. To: Liberator (#59)
Both "The Beginning" and post-Noah's Flood occurred at an obviously different time and social context.
#71. To: no gnu taxes (#69)
However, the records that were preserved were definitely written before that.
#72. To: Liberator (#62)
We and all material life as well as the Universe are devolving and growing weaker.
This in accordance with The Second Law of Thermodynamics (alone dismissing the notion of EVO-lution)...
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]