Metropolitan Kallistos Ware Preaches Evolution Heresy

[joasia]

Why do you assume, a priori, that the mechanism of evolution is an "atheist explanation?"

Because the instigator of the erroneous theory was an atheist. He may have labelled himself as an agnostic, but who’s kidding who here. He wanted to eliminate the equation of God. He didn’t believe in a Creator. He claimed that all organic forms came from a common descendent, on it's own. How does that fit in with Genesis where God created fruits, plants, animals and humans seperately? He claimed we developed from the same source so we are all part of some pool of DNA goop. There was no God in his theory. HE WAS AN ATHEIST.

Where is the image of God in that? So when did God create the soul during this evolutionary timeline? You are just the same as the others. You NEVER ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

If it’s all scientic fact and you can say how old the earth is and how man developed from the same pool of goo as all living organisms, then fit that in with the creation of the human soul. Where is the CHRISTIAN TEACHING of that amongst you C.E.'s? How does God give a generation of homo sapiens a soul, who were born from homo sapiens without a soul or a mortal soul, like animals? Is that logical? Is that a divine act of Supra-Intelligence? No. That is a logic of the human level and therefore erroneous.

How do you know that God DIDN'T bring the complex flora and fauna of the created world into existence through a gradual process of natural selection and genetic mutation?

That’s not the theory of evolution that we are addressing here. That’s the theory of natural selection as you, yourself, identified. Are you capable of sticking to the subject? Don’t mix natural selection with the theory of evolution of species.

Really. Are ya...are ya able to stick to the subject? Because you do sound like your throwing all kinds of stuff around just to make a point. And I can tell you right now...the only point you make is that you don’t know how to keep on the subject.

Ya know why? Because you're beliefs are wrong. Everything that opposes Orthodox teachings will crumble. Anything false will crumble before the Truth, like false idols.

[GOCPriestMark]

How do you know that God DIDN'T bring the complex flora and fauna of the created world into existence through a gradual process of natural selection and genetic mutation?

Does the process of "natural selection" include death? If so, then how can this happen before sin? Is it not the sin of Adam and Eve which brings about the beginning of death? "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;" Romans 5:12

How do you reconcile "genetic mutation" with God's commandment for everything to bring forth "after its kind"? Genesis Chapter One verse 21 etc.

If, according to your "relativistic cosmic 'clock'", 6 days on earth equals 16 billion years in the rest of the universe, how old is the rest of the universe now, after 7,517 years of earth time? Or is this "clock" trying to tell us that a day on earth used to be much longer and has now shortened down to 24 hours?

St. Basil was writing, accurately, in the idiom and worldview of his time about the process and time frame of creation. There were scientific aspects of time and process (mechanism) which he would not have known . . .

And, obviously, he didn't need to 'know' in order to save his soul and the souls of many around him and those who would later read his writings.

Kallistos Ware said in the video that religion asks "why", so my next question is why do we need to know something more than what the Holy Archangel Gabriel delivered from God directly to the Holy Prophet and God-seer Moses? Are we afraid of the world's opinion of us, that they might see us as ignorant and maybe not even join us for that reason? It wasn't St Basil's writing of the Hexameron that converted souls, but his holiness of life. And this has always been true.

[Pravoslavnik]

There are several questions here. First of all, Darwin was NOT an atheist, and he never claimed that evolutionary theory was an atheistic theory. Would we say that Newton's theory of gravity is "atheistic"? Of course not. Describing a mechanism for natural phenomena does not imply that God was not involved in creating the mechanism, does it? An excellent book on the subject of Darwin and religious faith is Professor Kenneth Miller's book Finding Darwin's God. The book presents an outstanding, cogent analysis of the scientific data related to the evolution debate, and also denounces the erroneous notion of atheists like Stephen Jay Gould that evolutionary theory is atheistic.

Code: Select all

    Secondly, I fully agree that the scientific issues related to the evolution debate are not important for our salvation.  Everything that is needed for our salvation is provided for us by the Fathers and the Church.  At the same time, I have long agreed with St. Augustine that Church leaders need to be cautious about assertions related to scientific matters, in order to avoid scandalizing the faithful.  Consider the condemnation of Galileo by the Papacy.  This historical error by the Catholic Church has probably been quite destructive to the faithful, implying that the teachings of the Church are flawed or erroneous.  The only reason that I have ever written a single syllable to Orthodox priests and laity on the subject of evolution is that I believe the "Young Earth Creationists" in the Orthodox Church may be committing the same fundamental error today that the Roman Catholic Church committed in the time of Galileo.   St. Paul wrote in the Epistle for today-- Meatfare Sunday-- that we need to take pains to avoid scandalizing the faithful.

      Third, time passes at markedly different rates at different points in the universe.  Time is, in fact, a function of the expanding physical universe, and physicists have posited that there may well be dimensions of space-time in which time, literally stands still.  (Could this describe the "physics" of the kingdom of heaven?)  In his book [i]The Science of God[/i] the MIT physicist Gerald Schroeder has demonstrated that time-- when measured at the theoretical point where the Big Bang occurred--has passed [i]very slowly[/i] relative to time as measured way out "here" on planet earth.  In fact, the first 24 hour "day" measured at the Big Bang point zero lasted about 8 billion years when time is measured from earth!  The second "day" lasted about 4 billion years, etc. in a logarithmic regression.  Strange but true.  From the perspective of God, the first "day" of creation may well have lasted 8 billion years in earth-time.  So "literal,"Orthodox interpretations of [i]Genesis[/i] may be far more scientifically precise than any of our modern atheist detractors ever imagined, at least if Einstein's theory of relativity is correct !!

  Finally, the mechanism of Darwinian evolution IS precisely genetic mutation with natural selection based on habitats.   Let us not play word games here, simply for the purpose of obscuring the truth.   Everything in this historical process does "bring forth" according to its kind, but there are variations within species that may--over a long time span-- result in gradual speciation.  I look very different than my brother, and my Shetland Sheep dog looks very different than my Papillon.   Depending on environmental conditions, some members of a "kind" may be more likely to have descendants (who resemble them) than others.  Yet, my brother and I are both hominids, and my dogs are both canines.  What makes evolution as a mechanism of actual speciation appear counter-intuitive to us, according to Professor Miller, is is the unfathomably VAST time frame of earth's history.  Miller has even proposed using a unit for the vast dimension of evolutionary time in biology, called "d" (for Darwin.)

[joasia]

And still you haven't replied to the issue of the soul. You can't even reply that you don't know. You just ignore it completely. Typical.

And forget about trying to search for the answer. You won't find it.

Darwin was an atheist.

[Pravoslavnik]

Joasia,

Code: Select all

  Please read my above response to your question about the soul.  I very explicitly answered your question.  Unfortunately, you either did not bother to read my response, or did not understand it and the scriptural references on the subject.

  Have you understood a single word that I have written here about the possible relevance of Einstein's theory of relativity for the classical Orthodox interpretation of the [i]Hexameron[/i], the six "days" of creation which lasted about 15 billion earth-years?

 Your view of the evolution issue reminds me of the Renaissance Popes who condemned Galileo as a heretic for believing that the earth revolved around the sun...

[Cyprian]

On the contrary, the Holy Fathers have not been nearly as dogmatic about this matter as you pretend.

What matter? You can't seem to focus on one matter at a time. Be specific. Which matter do you assert the Holy Fathers are not dogmatic about? Then cite your evidence.

St. Augustine of Hippo specifically commented-- at a time in history subsequent to the writing of the Hexamerae of both St. Basil and St. Ambrose--that the Church Fathers needed to be particularly careful about any scientific (or unscientific) assertions related to the mechanism and time frame of God's creation.

Give us the exact citation, please.

Of course, some people insist that St. Augustine was not an Orthodox saint or Father, but Father Seraphim Rose has dealt with this subject quite cogently.

No Orthodox Christian would ever insist such a thing. I challenge you to cite one Orthodox Christian of any repute who has ever insisted such a thing.

How prescient Augustine was in this case! He was writing some 1,600 years prior to the insights of Darwin, and of Einstein's theory of relativity, which has properly interpreted the nature of cosmic time as a function of relative velocity.

St. Augustine's quote (which you have yet to provide), has nothing to do with that racist & atheist Darwin, nor that racist, zionist, talmudic, atheist Einstein, who claimed the earth was only one billion years old, contrary to the prevailing "wisdom" of the scientists of our generation, who claim it is 4.5 billion years old.

It is truly a pity that sincere Orthodox Christians like yourself have been virtually incapable of grasping the relationships between time, relativity, and an accurate, non-Fundamentalist interpretation of the Genesis text.

What you really mean here, is that you are sorry that I have devoted my time to learning what the God-inspired Holy Fathers have handed down about the origin of man, rather than wasting my time studying the useless quackeries of that plagiarist, zionist, racist, unbelieving Jew, Einstein.

You have also consistently failed to realize that evolutionary theory is not only scientifically correct, but fully Orthodox. The truths of science and of Orthodox Christianity are an intercalated whole.

Which one? The Evolutionary fish story that just a few short centuries ago claimed the earth was 70,000 years old? Or the evolutionary fish story which a little more than a century ago posited that the earth was 70 million years old? Or perhaps the evolutionary fish story of Albert Einstein, who not long ago claimed the earth was about one billion years old? Or could you possibly be referring to the the latest rendition of this fish story which now claims the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. When will the fish story end? It seems that the time is not far off when they will claim the earth is 6 billion years old.

The kind of "science" that you spew forth falls under this classification:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

And, by the way, can you kindly explain again who these "daughters of men" were who mated with Adams sons? The last explanation that you offered here made no sense whatsoever, as I indicated at the time.

It probably made no sense whatsoever, because you were too lazy to seek out the explanations I provided. You must have been too busy wasting your time reading rabbinical scholars or Einstein.

Post by Cyprian on Mon 25 June 2007 6:57 pm
http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... 138#p43138

If you wish to know the meaning of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis chapter six,

go read St. John Cassian's VIII Conference
go read St. Ephraim's Commentary on Genesis
go read St. John Chrysostom's Homily 22 on Genesis
go read St. John Chrysostom's VIII Homily on 2 Timothy
go read St. John Chrysostom's Commentary on Psalm 4
go read St. Augustine's City of God Book XV
go read St. Gregory Palamas' Homily V
go read St. Jerome's Homily 45 on Psalm 132 (133)

At least half of these are online.

Now, what exactly did you find unsatisfactory in the explanation provided by these Holy Fathers?

Most recently I posted another quote from St. Photius on this very subject
http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... 191#p47191

Also read the 10th Homily of St. Isaac the Syrian while you are at it.

I believe that you insisted that these "daughters of men" were, in fact, Adam's own daughters.

I didn't insist on anything--that is--except that you put away the foolish prattling of science falsely so-called, found in the books of atheists and theomachists you are constantly citing, and better spend your time seeking out revelation through prayer, the sacred Scriptures, and the holy Fathers.

Also, can you kindly name the Orthodox "heresy" which condemns the scientific theory of evolution? If you presume to call a fellow Orthodox Christian a heretic for accepting a scientific theory as true, I should think that, at the very least, you would have the courtesy to name the "heresy" for us!!

I have no idea what you are talking about here. There is no such thing as an "Orthodox 'heresy'". This is an oxymoron, since "orthodox" by definition means "right glory" or "right belief". A heresy is obviously not true or correct or upright in its praise or confession of God.

[Pravoslavnik]

Cyprian,

1) Read The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church by Father Michael Azkoul, pp. 199-206 (Dormitian Skete Publications- 1986.) This section of a text on Orthodox dogmatic theology specifically denies the sainthood of St. Augustine of Hippo. In fact, the writings of Father Michael on the subject of St. Augustine prompted Father Seraphim Rose to write his monograph of the subject of Blessed Augustine. I was personally told by Archbishop Gregory (George) of Colorado almost twenty years ago that "Augustine of Hippo is not a saint." Hence, some Orthodox do deny the sainthood of Augustine, contrary to your assertion.

2) Read St. Augustine's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1 Chapter 19:

Code: Select all

         "[i]Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world...Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn[/i]."

3) You did not answer my question. If the "daughters of men" who married Adam's sons were really the daughters of Adam-- as you assert-- why, then did the Genesis text use the plural "men"? Was there more than one Adam? And doesn't your interpretation imply that Adam's sons married their own biological sisters?