Critique of evolution

[Rodion]

My answer to evolution is reposted from here: https://christisking.cc/threads/orthodox-resources-against-pseudo-evolution.391/page-2#post-12689

I always find it very surprising how many people take evolution as a threat to their faith. It is indeed a dangerous heresy in this sense. However, logically speaking, no scientific theory can challenge God because He can do whatever He wants. He can create us with evolution, or some other mechanism. It doesn't really matter. He created man from dust, which could mean that the dust became the primordial soup that somehow became man. If evolution is true, then it doesn't mean God didn't create man, it just means God created evolution as the process to create man. Just because details are missing from the Bible doesn't mean the details aren't there.

That said, there are serious, secular problems with evolution. Believe it or not, evolution was not accepted by most learned men in Darwin's day because no one could present a working model of how it could work. It was decades later when Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics was discovered, which is a true working model to track phenotypical changes between generations of all lifeforms, and then people starting putting genetics with evolution as a working model, and that is what convinced millions.

However, most people have terrible reasoning and logic, because as explained above evolution does nothing to invalidate God or Genesis, but I think people subconsciously wanted a reason not to believe in God so they could indulge in their sins. Even if God created man through some primate ancestor, it still doesn't change the fact that God controlled evolution to create man. It doesn't mean that evolution can happen without God, as the random chance theory has such low odds of being true it takes infinitely more faith to believe we are here due to luck than purpose.

So on one hand, I cannot understand why people care about evolution, and yet on the other hand, because so many people have used evolution as an excuse to sin, I can see why Christians have come to hate it. I pray that people will someday become enlightened enough to understand human theories as nothing more than guesswork to the mechanisms of God's creation.



This is another trap I see everyone fall into. People constantly forget that time for God is nothing like time for humans. It says so right in Proverbs 90,

Lord, you have been our dwelling place[a]
in all generations.
2 Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
3 You return man to dust
and say, “Return, O children of man!”[b]
4 For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.
5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.

So a thousand years to God is like a day to us. This also logically means the opposite must be true, even one day to God can feel like a thousand years. Hence why the Apostle Paul said so.

Thus the 7 day creation story is no where near the kinds of days we picture. A day to God could be a trillion+ years. Time is totally mailable to the Lord and he plays with it the same way an artist can arrange colors on a canvass to form a picture.

Since God exists outside of time, it therefore follows there are no contradictions for God, because the law of non-contradiction states someone or something cannot be in two places at once, i.e. they cannot be in two places at the same time. Yet since God exists everywhere, independently of time, it therefore logically follows that there are no contradictions for God, and All things are possible with God, which is why Jesus taught so.

Hence it is impossible for any scientific theory to disprove God, since we can only disprove things with contradictions, which cannot exist for God as everything is possible for God. Therefore if mankind's scientific theories do not match up to the Bible, it is because our scientific theories are incomplete and do not (and probably never will) understand the extent and capabilities of God.

If people were perfectly logical, they'd understand this and there would be a lot less sin and apostasy in this world. But since they are not, they must be protected from complicated theories which serve to confuse and damn others. This is a fairly compelling argument against free speech, by the way - if men are unable to understand complex ideas on their own without risking themselves to damnation, it means it is necessary to provide them with some means to protect them from falsehoods. That 'something' is obviously the Church, who has always had sensible limits on public discourse to protect the foolhardy public from reaching erroneous and dangerous conclusions.

I respectfully disagree, I think theistic evolution has huge problems and implications. Death before the fall being a huge one.

https://orthochristian.com/93210.html

This is a good article on the topic from Seraphim Hamilton, which I think may have already been posted on one of the threads here

 

[Samseau]

Death before the fall being a huge one.

There is nothing to support immortality for animals in the creation story; furthermore why would Adam and Eve need to eat if there was no "death," or how could they eat if they could not kill anything? They didn't eat meat?

Universal immortality sounds like make-believe.

 

[Iacobus]

There is nothing to support immortality for animals in the creation story; furthermore why would Adam and Eve need to eat if there was no "death," or how could the eat if they could not kill anything? They didn't eat meat?

Universal immortality sounds like make-believe.

From what I understand it is agreed among the Church Fathers that Adam and Eve did not kill or eat meat prior to the fall, nor did animals eat each other. This is why there are primarily allusions to fruit in the garden, which is a food source that can be partaken of without killing or death.

St. John Damascene:

Some have imagined Paradise to have been material, while others have imagined it to have been spiritual. However, it seems to me that, just as man was created both sensitive and intellectual, so did this most sacred domain of his have the twofold aspect of being perceptible both to the senses and to the mind. For, while in his body he dwelt in this most sacred and superbly beautiful place, as we have related, spiritually he resided in a loftier and far more beautiful place. There he had the indwelling God as a dwelling place and wore Him as a glorious garment. He was wrapped about with His grace, and, like some one of the angels, he rejoiced in the enjoyment of that one most sweet fruit which is the contemplation of God, and by this he was nourished. Now, this is indeed what is fittingly called the tree of life, for the sweetness of Divine contemplation communicates a life uninterrupted by death to them that partake of it.

St. Symeon the New Theologian (+ Fr. Seraphim Rose commentary):

St. Symeon the New Theologian is also very explicit that the material creation—and not just Paradise—before Adam's fall was incorrupt
and without death.* As we saw earlier, he writes that Adam was originally "placed by the Creator God as an immortal king over an incorrupt world, not only over Paradise, but also over the whole creation which was under the heavens." In the same Homily he goes on to say that, after Adam's transgression,

"God did not curse Paradise ... but He cursed only the whole rest of the earth, which also was incorrupt and brought forth everything by itself.... And thus it was fitting in all justice for the one who had become corrupt and mortal by reason of the transgression of the commandment, to live upon the corruptible earth and eat corruptible food… Then also all creatures, when they saw that Adam was banished from Paradise, no longer wished to submit to him, the criminal.... But God restrained all these creatures by His power, and in His compassion and goodness He did not allow them immediately to strive against man, and He commanded that the creation should remain in submission to him, and having become corrupt, should serve corrupt man for whom it had been created.

Do you see that this whole creation in the beginning was incorrupt and was created by God in the manner of Paradise? But later it was subjected by God to corruption, and submitted to the vanity of men."

St. Basil (+ Fr. Seraphim Rose commentary):

Genesis 1:29-30 And God said, Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. And it was so.

Here we are told that in the beginning, when the earth and all its creatures were still new and man had not fallen, not only men, but even the beasts, were given only green plants for food; the beasts were not meant to be, and in the beginning were not, carnivorous.

Of this St. Basil (On the Origin of Man) says:

Let the Church neglect nothing: everything is a law. God did not say: "I have given you the fishes for food, I have given you the cattle, the reptiles, the quadrupeds." It is not for this that He created, says the Scripture. In fact, the first legislation allowed the use of fruits, for we were still judged worthy of Paradise.

What is the mystery which is concealed for you under this? To you, to the wild animals and the birds, says the Scripture, fruits, vegetation, and herbs (are given). We see, however, many wild animals who do not eat fruits. What fruit does the panther accept to nourish itself? What fruit can the lion satisfy himself with?

Nevertheless, these beings, submitting to the law of nature, were nourished by fruits. But when man changed his way of life and departed from the limit which had been assigned him, the Lord, after the Flood, knowing that men were wasteful, allowed them the use of all foods: "Eat all that in the same way as edible plants" (Gen. 9:3). By this allowance, the other animals also received the liberty to eat them.

Since then the lion is a carnivore, since then also vultures watch for carrion. For the vultures were not yet looking over the earth at the very moment when the animals were born; in fact, nothing of what had received designation or existence had yet died so that the vultures might eat them. Nature had not yet divided, for it was in all its freshness; hunters did not capture, for such was not yet the practice of men; the beasts, for their part, did not yet tear their prey, for they were not carnivores. But all followed the way of the swans, and all grazed on the grass of the meadow.... Such was the first creation, and such will be the restoration after
this. Man will return to his ancient constitution in rejecting malice, a life weighed down with cares, the slavery of the soul with regard to daily worries. When he has renounced all this, he will return to that paradisal life which was not enslaved to the passions of the flesh, which is free, the life of closeness to God, a partaker of the life of the angels.

I also found this which isn't totally relevant but is some interesting info:

Man’s condition before the Fall involved creation in grace, participating in the Divine Energies but not Essence, with the potential for deification. Adam and Eve were “conditionally immortal.” Their bodily existence did not have according to the Fathers the fallen coarser aspects of physical corporeality today. Human beings before the Fall did not experience “irrational desire” for pleasures, finding their pleasure in God. Direct relation with “the most simple and imageless essences of created beings” was possible, without the mediation of imagination, according to St. Maximus the Confessor.

Originally the Cosmos did not involve carnivority, or perishable and obnoxious fruits and plants or creatures. Animals were given plants to eat before the Fall. Decay and death were not present. As Abbot Damascene summarizes from patristic commentaries on Genesis, “the fossil record must be placed, historically, after the fall of man.”

The Fall, as St. Gregory of Nyssa indicated, involved the mind like a mirror receiving the image of formless matter instead of reflecting God as before. In effect, the result was an objectification of self and of the world and others, a “stripping of grace” or spiritual death, an inclination toward sin in fallen human nature. This made man subject to physical death, in the separation of soul from body. Sexual passion and procreation also emerged after the Fall. If Adam and Eve had not fallen, God would have provided other means for procreation, the Fathers wrote.

The Fathers indicate eschatological connections between man’s pre-fallen state, and the state of man and the cosmos to come with Christ’s Second Coming and the general resurrection. There will be both restoration to Paradise and even further fulfillment in deification then, except for those who have cut themselves off from grace because of wicked selfish lives on earth. The latter will experience God’s love then as a burning fire because of not learning to participate in His love during their embodied life in the here-and-now on earth. That involves the mystery of the freedom that God has granted to men. That inextricably relates to the redemption of human beings by Jesus Christ, as seen in the salvation of the Wise Thief on the Cross, and of the rescue of Adam and Eve from Hades on Holy Saturday. It also involves the Church’s sense of theodicy, that suffering and death are not to God’s blame (as some such as Ivan Karamazov blasphemously would aver) but rather are signs of God’s mercy, leading man towards redemption in deification through Jesus Christ, in the divine energies of the Holy Spirit.

https://orthochristian.com/132885.html

Still waiting on a reprint of Fr. Seraphim Rose's book on Genesis, all I have is a poorly scanned PDF which is hard to read.

 

[Samseau]

From what I understand it is agreed among the Church Fathers that Adam and Eve did not kill or eat meat prior to the fall, nor did animals eat each other. This is why there are primarily allusions to fruit in the garden, which is a food source that can be partaken of without killing or death.

St. John Damascene:



St. Symeon the New Theologian (+ Fr. Seraphim Rose commentary):



St. Basil (+ Fr. Seraphim Rose commentary):



I also found this which isn't totally relevant but is some interesting info:

https://orthochristian.com/132885.html

Still waiting on a reprint of Fr. Seraphim Rose's book on Genesis, all I have is a poorly scanned PDF which is hard to read.

Even if we accept that everything ate plants for food, it still does not support universal immorality for all of creation.

 

[Iacobus]

Even if we accept that everything ate plants for food, it still does not support universal immorality for all of creation.

That's true, I'm not exactly trying to prove any point per se, moreso trying to educate myself on the topic using the contention as a springboard for research.

I recall being exposed to the idea that there is a direct causal relationship between sin, and death/entropy/decay, and therefore that death/entropy/decay could not have been present in God's creation before sin entered the world as a consequence of the fall. Probably heard it from Dyer or Fr. Seraphim but need to do more research for info from Church Fathers. Obviously St. Paul makes this connection but maybe it can't necessarily be argued that he meant it in such a strong & literal philosophical sense.

https://orthochristian.com/152664.html

I hope this gets published in English one day too... it's really tragic that our libraries are deprived of modern Orthodox examinations of Creationism & evolution.

 

[Samseau]

That's true, I'm not exactly trying to prove any point per se, moreso trying to educate myself on the topic using the contention as a springboard for research.

I recall being exposed to the idea that there is a direct causal relationship between sin, and death/entropy/decay, and therefore that death/entropy/decay could not have been present in God's creation before sin entered the world as a consequence of the fall. Probably heard it from Dyer or Fr. Seraphim but need to do more research for info from Church Fathers. Obviously St. Paul makes this connection but maybe it can't necessarily be argued that he meant it in such a strong & literal philosophical sense.

https://orthochristian.com/152664.html

I hope this gets published in English one day too... it's really tragic that our libraries are deprived of modern Orthodox examinations of Creationism & evolution.

How can sin exist for things without free will, such as animals?

 

[Iacobus]

How can sin exist for things without free will, such as animals?

The argument would be that man's sin stained and corrupted all of creation including animals, not that animals themselves sinned.

 

[Psiman]

From what I understand it is agreed among the Church Fathers that Adam and Eve did not kill or eat meat prior to the fall, nor did animals eat each other. This is why there are primarily allusions to fruit in the garden, which is a food source that can be partaken of without killing or death.

Fruit contains seed.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Darwinism is also inconsistent with the atheist metaphysic. In the atheist worldview, the cosmos is chaotic, random, chance-based. There isn't a Divine purpose, a telos.

So why is Darwinian evolution suddenly imbued with purpose, design, intelligence?
"Survival of the fittest" is an overlay of reality, it assumes purpose, order, design. Why would a species evolve to become more adaptable for survival? Why would they not just devolve until they are all extinct? The atheist answer, as always, boils down to this: It just is. Ad-hoc: It just is. You don't need to give any reasons, it just is.

Darwinism makes infinitely more sense in a theistic worldview. The only question is if Christianity is that worldview that can cohere with Darwinism, which I don't believe it does. So Darwinism becomes increasingly untenable when looking at it's many assumptions about the world.

 

[Bizet]

This is one of the most interesting CIK forum discussions I've read in a while. I'm learning a lot

 

[Blade Runner]

"Survival of the fittest" is an overlay of reality, it assumes purpose, order, design. Why would a species evolve to become more adaptable for survival? Why would they not just devolve until they are all extinct? The atheist answer, as always, boils down to this: It just is. Ad-hoc: It just is. You don't need to give any reasons, it just is.

Yes, and it gets even more complicated than this. They can't explain the quality of becoming too fit for the environment. This has happened several times in history, in various species of animals. That is, the adapt such dominant characteristics that they multiply, and multiply in fact so fast that they overpopulate relative to the food supply that they can acquire, even having moved and dominated other regions. So it is a reality that the selfish gene is also mostly BS, and population genetics, harmony and aging/death are built in to our wonderful universe. It is a fascinating topic. I'm very much in tune with the modern researching of the anti-aging industry, and I remain skeptical, but I find it fascinating as well. The wisest among this crowd realize what I just stated and I have borrowed these ideas because I am convinced by them (aging is programmed largely, aging due to "wear and tear" is largely incorrect).

 

[Giordano Bruno]

There is nothing to support immortality for animals in the creation story; furthermore why would Adam and Eve need to eat if there was no "death," or how could they eat if they could not kill anything? They didn't eat meat?

Universal immortality sounds like make-believe.

My understanding is that before sin, the Garden of Eden wasn't dissimilar to Heaven.

Maybe there was death, but Christ has already conquered death no? Anything that died might be physically killed, but there's no reason God wouldn't return it to life.

With sin though? Now God has to separate Heaven and Earth. I think the fact that people being resurrected is so rare suggests there is a reason of some kind that sin would make it preferable for those who die to stay in Heaven permanently.

Still, I think this is the sort of question I should ask my priest before I make any judgements about.

I spent years theorising about aliens, only for my priest to tell me conclusively that they did not exist. I think this is a similar topic.

Thinking about it, Adam and Eve having biological immortality (can still be killed, but won't die of ageing alone), would also make sense. The Bible says that humans like Noah lived 950 years?

 

[Lawrence87]

The fundamental issue with evolutionary philosophy and Christian theology is that the two worldviews make contradictory claims.

Evolution states that death was the driving factor behind the development of our species, and that with time natural selection will refine us to be better adapted and more able to thrive in our environment.

Christianity states that death is a consequence of the fall, and that rather than moving towards perfection, mankind began with paradise and fell away.

In general Christian theistic evolution does not do a good job of reconciling the two viewpoints. If Genesis is allegorical then Christ's saving work on the cross is only saving us from an allegorical fall. Other attempts are a kind of mixture wherein all other life evolved for millions of years and then humans were inserted and the fall account occurred after billions of years of evolution. Neither of these really work as a reconciliation of the two. I personally don't think they need to be reconciled. I believe that evolution is false. However there is only one plausible means that can reconcile them, but it is rare that Christians follow this line of reasoning:

It goes something like this. The Genesis account is literally true. God created the world, and paradise as described. However at the point of the fall reality itself was so drastically altered that when death was introduced it reverberated back in time and gave us the appearance that there was billions of years of death before we came along. That the creation described as "good" was fundamentally altered by the fall and everything we can see with science essentially takes us to the moment of the fall, not creation.

I think its a bit of a stretch. But to my mind it is the only reasonable reconciliation I have heard between evolution and Christianity. I think there are enough problems with evolution that one does not need such reconciliation, but I do think that most attempts except the above, tend to underwrite Christian theology in a fundamental sense.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

However at the point of the fall reality itself was so drastically altered that when death was introduced it reverberated back in time and gave us the appearance that there was billions of years of death before we came along.

Romans 8 is pretty clear that the Creation suffers in the fall with Adam, so I don't think you're out of your gourd, but what do you mean by this? Are you referring to the fossil record?

 

[Lawrence87]

Romans 8 is pretty clear that the Creation suffers in the fall with Adam, so I don't think you're out of your gourd, but what do you mean by this? Are you referring to the fossil record?

The idea would be that as far as science can look back. Assuming for the purposes of this discussion that it is entirely accurate. The Big Bang is not the instant of creation, but the wall that separates us from paradise. We cannot see beyond it due to being separated from God. And the subsequent appearance of billions of years of evolution is a consequence of that. I don't know how exactly that process would be explained by a proponent of this notion.

This article explains the idea in more detail.

As I say I do find it a bit of a stretch, and it reads a lot into the "garments of skin" part. But it is certainly the best attempt at reconciling the worldviews that I have found.

Edit sorry put the wrong link

 

[Australia Sucks]

The transmutation of species (macroevolution) is a myth. It is not observed in nature nor does the fossil record bear conclusive evidence for it. Most Darwinians don't even care enough to realize that Darwin did not know what we know today about DNA and how genetic information is encoded.

What about in plants? Humans have selectively bred plants, fruits and vegetables to be completely different. Broccoli and Cauliflower were created by humans selectively breeding wild cabbage. Broccoli is something completely distinct from wild cabbage and was selectively bred b the Etruscans in Italy to become Broccoli which did not exist before. Is that not an example of macro-evolution?

 

[Australia Sucks]

The wisest among this crowd realize what I just stated and I have borrowed these ideas because I am convinced by them (aging is programmed largely, aging due to "wear and tear" is largely incorrect).

I agree and basic logic would seem to support that their is some kind of genetic limit to lifespan for each animal.

This is evident in the fact that generally species with long lifespans have lower reproduction rates and species with short lifespans have higher reproduction rates. Ecologically speaking this is the only way that populations of various species can attain balance. And in the case that a species lives long and has a high reproduction rate then its usually counterbalanced by a low survival rate. For example turtles can live a long time and lay many eggs but only a small percentage of those eggs will survive as turtles into adulthood.

Where these things don't apply nature has other mechanisms to ensure population balance.

The animals that can live forever

Is it possible to escape the slow and steady progression of ageing?

www.science.org.au

"Lobsters don’t have this problem thanks to a never-ending supply of an enzyme called telomerase, which works to keep regenerating telomeres. They produce lots of this enzyme in all of their cells throughout their adult lives, allowing them to maintain youthful DNA indefinitely.

Telomerase is not unique to lobsters. It is present in most other animals, including humans, but after passing the embryonic life stage, levels of telomerase in most other cells decline and are not sufficient for constantly re-building telomeres.

Unfortunately for lobsters though, there’s a catch: they literally grow too big for their own shells. Lobsters continually grow larger and larger, but their shells can’t change size, meaning a lifetime of ditching too-small shells and growing a brand-new exoskeleton each time. That takes a fair amount of energy. Eventually, the amount of energy required to moult a shell and grow another new one is simply too much. The lobster succumbs to exhaustion, disease, predation or shell collapse."

The basic point being that for most species genetically programmed ageing is nature's mechanism for controlling their population.

 

[Blade Runner]

What about in plants? Humans have selectively bred plants, fruits and vegetables to be completely different. Broccoli and Cauliflower were created by humans selectively breeding wild cabbage. Broccoli is something completely distinct from wild cabbage and was selectively bred b the Etruscans in Italy to become Broccoli which did not exist before. Is that not an example of macro-evolution?

No, as you say it's simply selective breeding. Hybridization can happen after distinct differences, due to regionalization and other selection (environmental) pressures that arise. Subspecies and races are good example of this for larger mammals.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

What about in plants? Humans have selectively bred plants, fruits and vegetables to be completely different. Broccoli and Cauliflower were created by humans selectively breeding wild cabbage. Broccoli is something completely distinct from wild cabbage and was selectively bred b the Etruscans in Italy to become Broccoli which did not exist before. Is that not an example of macro-evolution?

That's an example of micro-evolution. Plant breeding is like dog breeding. You can have different breeds of dogs but a dog's DNA can only ever breed with a dog. It's not analogous to the Darwinian idea that truly distinct species share a common ancestor. Darwin did not arrive at his conclusion through DNA, he predates Watson and Crick, but through comparative anatomy. Comparative anatomy in itself is not evidence for evolution. I could just as easily look at the same data and say it's evidence of a common designer.

 

[Australia Sucks]

That's an example of micro-evolution. Plant breeding is like dog breeding. You can have different breeds of dogs but a dog's DNA can only ever breed with a dog. It's not analogous to the Darwinian idea that truly distinct species share a common ancestor. Darwin did not arrive at his conclusion through DNA, he predates Watson and Crick, but through comparative anatomy. Comparative anatomy in itself is not evidence for evolution. I could just as easily look at the same data and say it's evidence of a common designer.

But my whole argument is that Broccoli and Wild Cabbage are so different that they are completely different plants. The level of difference is comparable to the difference between Chimpanzees and Humans. At what point does micro-evolution become macro-evolution? Are you arguing that the defining line is if one species can breed with another? A donkey can cross breed with a horse to make a mule. Are they not two different animals though?

You can even cross breed a zebra and a donkey to produce a Zonkey/Zebadonk :
"If you have a male Donkey and female Zebra then you end up with a Zebadonk. Sadly the Zonkey is a sterile creature, similar to the Mule and Liger, so it cannot produce offspring of its own. Zonkeys can live in the wild though, although they are very rare and the majority of Zonkeys are found in zoos around the world."

Although most Zonkeys are sterile there have been rare cases of some that could reproduce.

zebras possess between 32 and 46 depending on the species, while donkeys have 62. Is that not sufficient evidence of two distinct species? Would it be fair to say its possible that Donkeys and Zebras shared a common ancestor?