In what follows, please don\'t mistake my intentions for being antagonistic. I can see that we have an incredible amount of ground to cover, so I am merely trying to be as direct as I can.
Who said anything about evolution? The topic here is the age of the Earth. Sure, an ancient Earth is a prerequisite for evolution to have occurred, but the Earth was accepted by scientists to be old for decades before evolution was discovered. And the reason it wasn\'t generally known or accepted in Orthodox circles until recently is that it simply wasn\'t around until recently -- that is, if I correctly interpret what you mean by \'recently\'.
Well, count me among them! Debating the age of the Earth has for some years been a great hobby of mine, and I furthermore have an above-average training in science, with a MS in physics. Despite all that, I am not aware of a single piece of evidence which supports a \'young\' Earth. One of my hopes for this conversation is that you or others here will be able to show me some.
Trying to stay on the topic (which is the age of the Earth), I can\'t name a single educated adult who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, who does not have religious motivation for their belief. There\'s nothing wrong with a religious motivation, but your implication that there are people who believe in a young Earth for purely scientific reasons makes me extremely curious. Given what I know about the state of the evidence, I can\'t fathom that actually being the case. But I have a much harder time believing you would be lying about this (or anything else). So I hope you can name some of these people or introduce them to me, to satiate my curiosity.
I have a lot to say on this subject, but it\'s really off-topic. Suffice to say that:
1) I have studied science, and there is nothing at all unscientific about evolution.
2) There was no scientific theory of evolution -- no testable, well-stated formulation of the idea -- until Darwin\'s 1859 masterpiece.
I\'m fully prepared to back this all up and to go into greater detail, but if evolution really bugs you then it\'d be best to start a new thread on it.
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the geological record contains several features (e.g. sorting of fossils) which are inconsistent with a global flood.
Again, I hope my manner doesn\'t come across as too brusque. I\'m just trying to participate without letting it get in the way of my work, family, or spiritual lives. We seem to have wildly different views of the evidence; if we hope to work towards some sort of common ground, it seems best to move along quickly. I hope there are no misunderstandings, and if they are then I further hope that subsequent posts will quickly clear them up. This should be a good starting point, though.
In Christ,
Chip
jdalton wrote:
Hmm, an important question to ask is "Why are you even asking this question?" I.E. until recent times the whole concept of evolution was basically unknown and not accepted generally in Orthodox circles.
It has only become an issue because so many people do not know the tremendous amount of science that supports a Creation and Flood analysis of the evidence.
Even many non-Christian scientists do not believe in evolution because of the great holes in the theory of evolution, e.g the wildly varying answers given in dating supposed layers of millions of years of rocks.
Those of us who studied science know how unscientific evolution is. And as various quotes have shown, the early fathers disagreed with the Greek notions of what passed for "evolution" back then.
So the basic question is "Why do modern Orthodox feel the need to believe in both an unscientific and un_orthodox belief?" Belief in evolution implies a view of Adam and Eve and history that just does not marry with Genesis nor with what Jesus Christ, Sts. Peter and Paul clearly believed in- a literal Adam and Eve and a literal flood- were they wrong?!!! If they were right then all the supposed evolution evidence is easily explained by a flood.
Fr. John D'Alton
Be the first person to like this.