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: 24556
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 105.
#4. To: A Pole (#0)
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. Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here, but that God is real regardless of the method. That is certainly my own sentiment. For that reason, I'm a bit surprised to see you post it Stone. It in no way makes any case for Creationism over Evolution.
It doesn't matter to you because you're not a Christian. It does matter though. Very much. Also if Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us. If it doesn't matter why do biased scientists try to prove something that happened in the past by making stuff up with their fervid imagination? Have a good day sir. I might add that I respect you as a person and a poster. You handle yourself well and are always courteous and kind. Unlike me sometimes.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
YOU: This is your theory, which of course runs counter to evolutionary theory. No, it's not actually MY theory; It's a scientific theory that has yet to be disproven. 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. I'm not a scientist, but firstly, my impression was that may be a case involving the Law of Gravity. And whatever natural "law" that considers the ramification of momentum. In your case the momentum and energy was temporary while the original energy source was as you pointed out, a dissipated energy. I don't believe either the Second Law of Thermodynamics applied, nor in your example did the simple mechanism apply to a living creature. If you are citing this example to suggest a catalyst for "evolution" may be a case of biological "momentum" (or perhaps, "acceleration" of DNA change), the dynamic of THAT much change -- as billions of molecular, cellular perfectly executed and aligned FOR THE BETTER...are astronomical odds. A virtual impossibility. (we're just riffing here, Ping -- exchanging thoughts/opinions.) 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. Yes, we are on the same page more than anyone might think. You mean we are far "more" than just our physical shell -- to which we do both concur. It is amazing how few people can actually understand and embrace this simple idea. True, this perspective concept is not taught, embraced or contemplated by some sects of "Christianity." But generally, Christianity DOES teach and concede the notion of a physical body, spirit AND soul. You really do get this aspect of our identity. FAR more than many Christians I know -- never mind people in general. 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. Heavy stuff... Our soul is who we are ultimately. Still and all, we possess spirits AND a physical mortal flesh (or "bio-shell.") Your POV regard -- that man is an angel who dwells in a flesh & blood bioshell "for a short time" is an interesting perspective. God said he "knew us" before we were born. Our bodies may have been conceived on earth, but how about our spirit and soul? For that matter, once the egg is fertilized, what of THEM? /rhetorical. Ultimately, can it be said that our bodies were born/created in the flesh "in the image of God," as extension of our individual soul -- created by God in Heaven? It's my understanding that Angels dwell in Heaven with God. Demons are exiled Angels who rebelled, and who act as an agent of Satan, who led the very first "Rebellion/"Resistance" as "provocateurs-of-sin." (tangential related aside: Saul Alinsky dedicated his Rules For Radicals book to "Satan.") All that said, I understand your Angel = Man concept and correlation. 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. THAT is a uniquely wild concept. NOT as out-there as one might at first impression think. A "RENTAL-UNIT." (For a soul whose Final Destination is not yet determined.) "LANDLORD": Almighty God. Yes! "FINAL PAYMENT" due on Judgment Day. That leads me to bringing up the next logical question: WHAT is the "currency" for paying off our "debt," aka "sins"? For Christians, the answer or solution lies simply and directly in the Gospel and through Jesus Christ. 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. Moses composed Genesis. The Ancients either retained some oral tradition or texts, passing them on. But remember -- Moses SPOKE DIRECTLY TO GOD (Burning-Bush). I don't think ancient man was monolithic about "bringing God down to man's level." In some cases that may have been true -- those who challenged his Deity; Or that this was the purpose of writing Genesis. The ancients -- true logical, faithful men who innately knew of a Creator-God or being much Greater-Than-Himself -- were worshipful and in awe of Him. The "rebel" Ancients chose instead to worship "gods" and representative of them: Statues, other beings, the sun, the earth, etc. THE overall purpose of Genesis is as a historically accurate account of The Beginning, guaranteed by the One who divinely inspired the writing of it, as well as the entire Bible. AS WRITTEN, literally. Why Genesis was also written was because it was vital to "knowing" God as holy, one who created WITH PURPOSE, WITH LAWS, and who loves man, creating us in HIS "Image." Genesis sets the plate for the REST of His Word. Remove it or dilute it and the rest of the Bible matters not.
LOL I think you know that isn't how science works.
#106. To: Tooconservative (#105)
I don't understand you. Can you be more specific?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here,
#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)
#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):
#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.
#53. To: Liberator (#50)
(Edited)
The rest of mankind obviously followed suit,
#62. To: Pinguinite (#53)
#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)...
#104. To: Pinguinite (#72)
ME: "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)...
#105. To: Liberator (#104)
No, it's not actually MY theory; It's a scientific theory that has yet to be disproven.
Replies to Comment # 105.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 105.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]