Orthodoxy and Creationism

Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission ^ | Fr. Deacon Andrey Kuraev

[jb6]

I was being sarcastic when I wrote that.

[Antonello]

Sorry about that. I was on a roll responding to SmartCitizen and answered your post as if it came from him. I'll re-read it and respond in better context.

(Pinging SmartCitizen as well as a courtesy since I mentioned him in this post.)

[Antonello]

I was being sarcastic when I wrote that.

Yeah, I caught on to that. Sorry again for the knee-jerk response.

[SmartCitizen]

But all of those men believed in the scientific method and acted as scientists. People who try to cram faith into science (such as Creationists) do not.

The creationists I know do. So, faith and science are separate? Did not God create both? Is not Jesus Lord over faith and science and every other human domain on earth? Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. Faith is just a blind non-rational leap into the dark right? While science is reasonable and physical right?

Tell me, which "science" or "scientist" do you subscribe to and how do you decide which scientist is right? There are many Christian scientists who believe as I believe and many atheistic scientists who believe in philosphical materialism (a system that has been disproven and shown to be wholly inadequate and illogical). How do you decide what is science and what is not? What is your criteria?

The Christianity I believe in combines both faith and science and reason. Any faith without reason is a blind non-rational leap into the dark, and it borders on existentialism (another inadequate philosophy). If it wasn't for "faith" that comes from the Christian worldview, the biggest theories of science would never have been discovered. Their discovery was only possible because men like Newton and Kelvin had "faith" in a rational God, and extrapolated thru their "faith" in that God, that His creation was ordered and therefore could be discovered thru reasoned research and experimentation. Without that worldview, it could not happen. In fact, that is precisely why none of these big discoveries were made in China, or India. Eastern philosophy does not hold to a rational creator-god, but to chaos and uncertainty.

You people have a lot to learn.

[SmartCitizen]

Okay, are you people Hugh Ross acolytes or something?

[SmartCitizen]

I don't think you or I have the authority to dictate to God what He is allowed to tell someone.

Scripture is the ultimate authority as far as it is revealed to us. If anyone believes anything that contradicts scripture, that person is engaging in heresy. The Bible claims itself to be the Word of God.

[SmartCitizen]

You are inflating your personal distaste of the possibility that God may have used alliteration (apparently without checking with you first to see if you would allow Him to do so) into an empty argument that He is not allowed to even help someone understand what He meant.

I see, so the bible doesn't mean what it says? God is saying one thing but it is tricky so that you have to be a God-hating naturalist to understand it? I am the one taking scrpture at face value, you are the one reading weird things (like NATURALISTIC science) into it. Hmmm....

[SmartCitizen]

Did God create troglidites or hominids or something?

Yes. And birds, fish, trees, mushrooms, and those annoying little gnat-things that buzz in your ear.

So, God created human-like creatures - pre-adamites? Is that what you are saying? That Adam and Eve were the first humanoid types with a soul? Where is that in scripture?

[SmartCitizen]

The scientific method was created by a Christian - Francis Bacon. So, just how does naturalistic (anti-christian) science rate any credibility?

[Antonello]

Who's Hugh Ross?

[Antonello]

I prefer to devote time and effort into learning about the scriptures, not just their words but their origins as well. I may read a passage, search out what is known about how it came to be included in the Bible, ponder it, consider how it relates to other biblical passages, pray about it, etc. After all this, I accept that the understanding my studies grant to me is God's answer to my questions about it.

I gather that you, on the other hand, are content to lazily accept with blind faith the opinion of someone else who may or may not have pursued their own research.

I daresay that between you and I, it is not I that has the least amount of respect and love for His Word.

[A. Pole]

It is written in the Bible that God made man from clay. If He did it using evolution who are we to make fuss about it?

[GarySpFc]

Jesus Himself said that Moses wrote of Him. Jesus quoted from most books of the Old Testament, including the Noah flood account. Any Christian who believes evolutionary theory has to deal with the words of Jesus Christ, who said: "In the beginning, God made them male and female." The beginning simply means the beginning with reference to time. Time did not exist before God created the universe and the physical laws.

Exactly! The theistic-evolutionist is in a quandry when dealing with the exactness of Christ's words as contained in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6.

In 19:4 it is easier to suppose that copyists changed the Greek ktizo (which is supported by several excellent witnesses) to ðïéÞóáò, thus harmonizing it with the Septuagint text of Gn 1.27 (which is quoted in the immediate context), than to suppose that ðïéÞóáò was altered to suit the Hebrew word used in Gn 1.27 which means “created”

[GarySpFc]

Some of you are attempting to reconcile the Word of God with Darwinism, without knowing what is being taught in the classroom.

In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."

How do they know the process was unsupervised?

How do they know the process was mindless?

How do they know the process was purposeless?

Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "purposeless" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way ... and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith ... just as much as OUR conclusion is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal creator being involved in the evolutionary process.

To be fair, as was reported by Brendan Sweetman, Ph.D. in a letter to The Kansas City Star August 21, NABT removed the language after it was pointed out by the philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, and the theologian Huston Smith, that their guideline was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. However, the concept of natural selection (absent a creator) remains the central tenant of evolution as taught in the classrooms. The definition of natural selection includes unsupervised, mindless and purposeless. Clearly, in defining evolution they have left the world of science and entered the world of philosophy and theology, and established atheism (a religion) in our classrooms.

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms. Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

[Zeroisanumber]

The scientific method was created by a Christian - Francis Bacon. So, just how does naturalistic (anti-christian) science rate any credibility?

Because science works whether or not you are a Christian. Because a broken machine is just as likely to be fixed by a kick as it is by a prayer. Because science is knowledge, not faith.

[Zeroisanumber]

Tell me, which "science" or "scientist" do you subscribe to and how do you decide which scientist is right?

The scientist who produces repeatable, provable results or whose explanation makes the most sense in light of the evidence given.

Without that worldview, it could not happen. In fact, that is precisely why none of these big discoveries were made in China, or India. Eastern philosophy does not hold to a rational creator-god, but to chaos and uncertainty.

The Chinese and Indians made discoveries of their own as equally important to the development of human learning. Most of these discoveries were made in the field of early agriculture, but there were important discoveries in metallurgy and most notably, in chemistry. Ever hear of gunpowder?

In fact, those two countries fell by the wayside primarily because they took too much on faith and tradition. They became calcified by orthodoxy, and only now are they coming out of a very long dark age.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC INTREP

[Just mythoughts]

Evolution IS NOT scriptural. Evolutionists are mentioned though.

[SmartCitizen]

I daresay that between you and I, it is not I that has the least amount of respect and love for His Word.

So, you think it is a proper hermeneutic to read naturalistic science into the biblical text? Any time that the bible agrees with any atheistic naturalistic scientist, it is pure coincidence. An atheist does not have the truth, does not have the proper worldview, and therefore is not capable of finding the truth. The truth can only be found through Jesus Christ. Without Him, a person is in darkness in all areas of life.

As far as origins of the text, I don't buy for a second that any interpretation can credibly be construed to include pre-adamite hominids.

[SmartCitizen]

However, the concept of natural selection (absent a creator) remains the central tenant of evolution as taught in the classrooms.

That is true. And almost all catholic schools teach that evolution is true. Probably not the atheistic variety, but evolution nonetheless.