Orthodox Resources Against Pseudo-Evolution

[Samseau]

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.

That being said, the 7000-year-old earth also seems improbable. Such a view requires us to believe man once lived among the dinosaurs. What is interesting though, is that recorded history only goes back about 6500 years. And around that time, all kinds of civilizations started emerging in the Middle East, China, etc. Perhaps the Flood wiped out all antediluvian records. Anything before that is pure conjecture.

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.

 

[OrthoSerb]

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.

You're underplaying how much evolution as a world view matters. A non-Christian could posit that a generic God could have created man as part of a Darwinian evolutionary process, but there are very serious objections to the idea that the Christian God could use such a process. The mechanism of creation matters because it has implications with respect to the nature of the Creator and one's entire understanding of reality. It's not that details would be missing from the Bible, it would directly contradict the Bible. The most glaring problem would be the idea that death did not come about as a result of the Fall but that it was what God intended from the beginning. The link between death and sin is completely undone according to the evolutionary world view. That's completely incompatible with the Bible and what the Church has always taught, there's no squaring that circle.

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.

It's not just that people are not logical and cannot understand complex ideas. These are not just matters of the intellect. Its that a certain purity and grace are required to discern spiritual truths:

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God

Matthew 5:8

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.

1 Corinthians 1:27

Many people don't have a basic level of prerequisite purity and many of those who don't have it don't even want it. I agree that in general we are swamped with false or satanic information that serves to mislead and that this should be dealt with. But ultimately we're not saved by our level of intelligence and our ability to understand complex ideas.

 

[analyst_green]

You're underplaying how much evolution as a world view matters. A non-Christian could posit that a generic God could have created man as part of a Darwinian evolutionary process, but there are very serious objections to the idea that the Christian God could use such a process. The mechanism of creation matters because it has implications with respect to the nature of the Creator and one's entire understanding of reality. It's not that details would be missing from the Bible, it would directly contradict the Bible. The most glaring problem would be the idea that death did not come about as a result of the Fall but that it was what God intended from the beginning. The link between death and sin is completely undone according to the evolutionary world view. That's completely incompatible with the Bible and what the Church has always taught, there's no squaring that circle.

Here's something I don't quite grasp. Adam caused the Fall, "therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of pleasure to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. So He cast out Adam, and made him dwell opposite the garden of pleasure. He then stationed the cherubim and the fiery sword which turns every way to guard the way to the tree of life." (Genesis 3:23-24)

Since cherubim are angelic beings that generally do not have physical bodies, wouldn't this imply the Garden of Eden is not a physical place on Earth as we understand it? How could angels guard it if it was a physical place, and wouldn't we be able to see this "fiery sword" or "tree of life" somewhere on this planet? If the Fall then didn't happen in time because time only exists in the created world, but happened outside of time, then it could still introduce death into the world without that being God's original intention. Ergo death is still solely a consequence of Adam's Original Sin. And Adam would still be the first man, but there would be men that came before Adam in time though not necessarily through evolution.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. I just think there's something the Genesis account is pointing to that we cannot fully understand.

 

[Samseau]

You're underplaying how much evolution as a world view matters. A non-Christian could posit that a generic God could have created man as part of a Darwinian evolutionary process, but there are very serious objections to the idea that the Christian God could use such a process. The mechanism of creation matters because it has implications with respect to the nature of the Creator and one's entire understanding of reality. It's not that details would be missing from the Bible, it would directly contradict the Bible. The most glaring problem would be the idea that death did not come about as a result of the Fall but that it was what God intended from the beginning. The link between death and sin is completely undone according to the evolutionary world view. That's completely incompatible with the Bible and what the Church has always taught, there's no squaring that circle.

Why would it have been impossible for God to have created the garden of Eden through evolution? God can do whatever he wants. He doesn't need to tell anyone how he does it. He also can control time, and could make evolution happen instantly, despite trillions of years having passed by.

There's no circle to square. Contradictions do not apply to God, which makes sense, as God is without contradictions. It's impossible for Him to make an error because there are no errors for Him.

 

[Aboulia]

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.

You really need to read some patristics, as you're seriously triggering me. Before I even touch this, Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification," the idea that species change over time, give rise to new species, and share a common ancestor. I have no problem saying my common ancestor is clay, but this is akin to saying the human form/essence doesn't exist. This is why evolution destroys the foundations of the faith, because if evolution is true, then there is no stable reality, and if there's no stable reality then repentance is impossible as there's nothing to return to, as The connection between man and God, not only doesn't exist, but Christ didn't connect the two. The Incarnation would be nothing but theater, As @TrainedLogosmotion has already alluded to with the Dahmer quote, which I'm surprised has not recieved more comments.

If evolution is true, then why bother to hold the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical councils? Actually, the Iconoclasts might be on to something if evolution is true, because then God didn't take on human nature because it doesn't really exist. What human nature did Christ take on? ~The ancient human nature of Palestine in ~30-37 BC? It's a good thing our humanity is enlightened by the current year and Orthodoxy is irrelevant.

 

[Lawrence87]

Why would it have been impossible for God to have created the garden of Eden through evolution? God can do whatever he wants. He doesn't need to tell anyone how he does it. He also can control time, and could make evolution happen instantly, despite trillions of years having passed by.

There's no circle to square. Contradictions do not apply to God, which makes sense, as God is without contradictions. It's impossible for Him to make an error because there are no errors for Him.

I think the issue is with how much these worldviews are in conflict with one another.

Theistic evolutionism proposes that life arose and developed via natural means then suddenly when man arose things took a totally different, supernatural tone. Its kinda like if you wrote a gritty drama that suddenly turned into a musical in the third act. Not to compare Christianity with a musical, but merely to illustrate the contrast. You have billions of years of evolution leading to the events in Eden, it just doesn't really fit if you ask me.

Usually theistic evolutionists downplay the events in Eden and give them a metaphorical or symbolic interpretation, but then Christ's role is then reduced to saving us from a symbolic problem. It's clear to me that Adam necessarily has to exist in order for Christianity to make sense.

I don't think you can combine two opposing worldviews in a way that makes sense. Thankfully you don't need to because evolution is untesable, unscientific, unobserved nonsense

 

[Aboulia]

I don't know if this will help, but this is from St John of Damascus' "Fount of Knowledge", I don't emphasize anything, the odd formatting in the first paragraph comes from the pdf itself.
-----------------------------------------
Now, these are the five terms to which every philosophical term may be reduced. Accordingly, we must know what each one means and what they have in common with one another and in what they differ. They are genus, species, difference, property, and accident.
Genus is that which is predicated—that is, affirmed and expressed (for to be predicated is to be affirmed in respect to something) —of several things that are specifically different in respect to what pertains to their essence. Species, on the other hand, is that in which something is, but which is predicated of several things that are numerically different. And difference is that which is predicated of several things specifically different in respect to their particular sort, and it is included in the definition as essential. This is that which cannot be and not be in the same species and cannot not be in the species to which it belongs. When present, it assures the existence of the species; when absent, the species is destroyed. Also, it is impossible for it and its opposite to be in the same species. Thus, for example, the rational cannot not be in man, because that which is irrational is not man. When it is present, it constitutes the nature of man; when it is absent, it destroys it, because that which is irrational is not man. Now, one must know that this is c a l l e d e s s e n t i a l , n a t u r a l , c o n s t i t u e n t , a n d distinguishing, and specific difference, essential quality, and natural property of a nature. It is very properly said by the philosophers to be a difference which is presentative of the nature possessing it and most proper to this nature itself. A property is that which exists in one species and in the entire species, everything that can laugh is a man. An accident is that in which something is of a certain sort and which is predicated of several things differing in species but which does not enter into the definition. It can either be or not be, for, when present, it does not assure the existence of the species, and when it is absent, the species is not destroyed. It is called a non-essential difference and quality. It is either separable or inseparable. That accident is separable which is sometimes present and sometimes absent in the same hypostasis, as would be sitting, lying, standing, sickness, or health. That, on the other hand, is inseparable which is not constituent of a substance because it is not found in the entire species, but which, nevertheless, when it does become present in some hypostasis, cannot be separated from it. Such, for example, are the having of a snub nose, being hook- nosed, being gray-haired, and the like. This inseparable accident is called a characteristic peculiarity. This is because such distinctiveness produces the hypostasis, which is to say, the individual—and an individual is that which subsists in itself of substance and accidents, is numerically distinct from the others of the same species, and does not signify what but whom. In the following we shall, with God’s help, learn more accurately about these things.

......

Still further, every division of genus into species will go as far as two or three or, very rarely, four species, because it is impossible for a genus to be divided into five or more species. Man, on the other hand, is divided into all individual men, and these are unlimited in number. For this reason there are some who say that that which is from species to individuals is not to be called division, but enumeration. Whence it is clear that Peter and Paul and John are not species but individuals, that is to say, hypostases. Nor is man the genus of Peter and Paul and John and the other individual men, but their species. Thus, man, too, is a most specific species, for he is a species belonging to the superior order in so far as he is contained under it; and he is the species of those inferior to himself, in so far as containing them. For, that which is contained by a genus is a species, and that which contains the individuals, or individual substances, is also species. This last, then, is the most specific species, which comes immediately above the individuals, and which they define by saying that it is a species which is predicated in the category of essence of several numerically different things. In the same way, the horse and the dog and other such species are most specific. Those which stand between the most general genus and the most specific species are subaltern genera and species—species of the superior order and genera of the inferior.

Then there are also the essential and natural differences and qualities which are called dividing and constituent, because they divide the superior and constitute the inferior. Thus, the corporeal and incorporeal divide substance. Similarly, the animate and the inanimate divide the body. Similarly, the sentient and the non-sentient divide the animate. These, then, go to make up the animal, for I take an animate sentient substance and I have an animal, because the animal is an animate sentient substance. Again, I take an inanimate non-sentient substance and I have a stone Again, I take an animate non-sentient substance and I have a plant. Further still, the rational and the irrational divide the animal, and the mortal and the immortal divide the rational. So I take the animal, which is the genus of these last, and the rational and the mortal and I have a man, for man is a mortal rational animal. Then I take the animal and the irrational and the mortal and the terrestrial and I have a horse, a dog, and the like. Or I take the irrational and the mortal and the aquatic and I have a fish. Now, differences are called essential and natural, because they make one species differ from another and one nature and essence from another essence and nature.

....

The holy Fathers paid no attention to the many inane controversies, and that which is common to and affirmed of several things, that is to say, the most specific species, they called substance, and nature, and form—as, for example, angel, man, horse, dog, and the like.

----------------------------------------

 

[analyst_green]

You really need to read some patristics, as you're seriously triggering me. Before I even touch this, Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification," the idea that species change over time, give rise to new species, and share a common ancestor. I have no problem saying my common ancestor is clay, but this is akin to saying the human form/essence doesn't exist. This is why evolution destroys the foundations of the faith, because if evolution is true, then there is no stable reality, and if there's no stable reality then repentance is impossible as there's nothing to return to, as The connection between man and God, not only doesn't exist, but Christ didn't connect the two. The Incarnation would be nothing but theater, As @TrainedLogosmotion has already alluded to with the Dahmer quote, which I'm surprised has not recieved more comments.

If evolution is true, then why bother to hold the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Ecumenical councils? Actually, the Iconoclasts might be on to something if evolution is true, because then God didn't take on human nature because it doesn't really exist. What human nature did Christ take on? ~The ancient human nature of Palestine in ~30-37 BC? It's a good thing our humanity is enlightened by the current year and Orthodoxy is irrelevant.

Therein lies the biggest problem with evolution. It requires us to suppose that there was once a generation of hominid apes. And these apes were not men, they were animals without a spirit or nous to commune with God. But then suddenly their women gave birth to human beings, who do have a spirit. So what was the last generation of beasts and the first generation of men? Did it happen all at once everywhere, or did men evolve separately? When you think about it, it seems really nonsensical.

Usually theistic evolutionists downplay the events in Eden and give them a metaphorical or symbolic interpretation, but then Christ's role is then reduced to saving us from a symbolic problem. It's clear to me that Adam necessarily has to exist in order for Christianity to make sense.

My understanding of a symbolic interpretation, such as that brought forth by Jonathan Pageau, is not that the events described didn't happen. It's that they happened, but they happen symbolically. Meaning the the story of Eden does not describe literal events, but symbolizes some sort of meta-narrative that took place in human history or consciousness. In which case we still do need Christ because the Fall is a real problem that actually happened.

 

[Lawrence87]

My understanding of a symbolic interpretation, such as that brought forth by Jonathan Pageau, is not that the events described didn't happen. It's that they happened, but they happen symbolically. Meaning the the story of Eden does not describe literal events, but symbolizes some sort of meta-narrative that took place in human history or consciousness. In which case we still do need Christ because the Fall is a real problem that actually happened.

I don't really know what that means. It sounds like intellectual masturbation.

"Well it depends what you mean by happened, and what you mean by event... like because events can happen symbolically in a meta narrative substrate that is more hyper real than reality itself... *voice starts cracking and eyes well up with tears*"

I prefer to keep things simple. Christ is Lord, He is the Son of God, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. He did not descend from a monkey.

 

[Iacobus]

The only perspective from which "evolution from a common ancestor" is at all a reasonable conclusion to draw is if you eliminate Divine Creation from the picture as a possibility. That's why it's been such a key battleground for modernity and scientism. If you include the possibility of miraculous creation (which is in fact needed for their explanations too but they pretend like it isn't), suddenly the evidence is not nearly so compelling.

 

[BrotherAugustine]

Therein lies the biggest problem with evolution. It requires us to suppose that there was once a generation of hominid apes. And these apes were not men, they were animals without a spirit or nous to commune with God. But then suddenly their women gave birth to human beings, who do have a spirit. So what was the last generation of beasts and the first generation of men? Did it happen all at once everywhere, or did men evolve separately? When you think about it, it seems really nonsensical.



My understanding of a symbolic interpretation, such as that brought forth by Jonathan Pageau, is not that the events described didn't happen. It's that they happened, but they happen symbolically. Meaning the the story of Eden does not describe literal events, but symbolizes some sort of meta-narrative that took place in human history or consciousness. In which case we still do need Christ because the Fall is a real problem that actually happened.

St. Basil is very clear in his Hexaemeron: Creation happened in 6 days, and all the events described in Genesis happened literally.

 

[analyst_green]

St. Basil is very clear in his Hexaemeron: Creation happened in 6 days, and all the events described in Genesis happened literally.

I plan to read it, but St. Basil lived before we knew the Earth spins on its axis. How does he propose the measurement of a day? God didn't create the sun until the fourth "day". How long is a day without the sun?

To be honest, it seems the demons are using this topic to attack me so I'll bow out of this thread. Anyways evolution has been adequately refuted. You guys all mean well and I appreciate the insights, but I really need to speak with my priest.

 

[BrotherAugustine]

I plan to read it, but St. Basil lived before we knew the Earth spins on its axis. How does he propose the measurement of a day? God didn't create the sun until the fourth "day". How long is a day without the sun?

To be honest, it seems the demons are using this topic to attack me so I'll bow out of this thread. Anyways evolution has been adequately refuted. You guys all mean well and I appreciate the insights, but I really need to speak with my priest.

It’s not about St. Basil, it’s about Moses the God-Seer who encountered God directly and wrote down what God communicated to him in the Book of Genesis. St. Basil just clarified that Moses meant what he wrote and was not (only) using allegory or symbolism. I think you’ll enjoy his brief work on this topic.

 

[Lawrence87]

The only perspective from which "evolution from a common ancestor" is at all a reasonable conclusion to draw is if you eliminate Divine Creation from the picture as a possibility. That's why it's been such a key battleground for modernity and scientism. If you include the possibility of miraculous creation (which is in fact needed for their explanations too but they pretend like it isn't), suddenly the evidence is not nearly so compelling.

Indeed. A lot of evolutionism is just making explanations of things that fit with the presumption of evolution.

A exists. Therefore A evolved. Then they just come up with fantasy stories that nobody can verify.

 

[KomnenAl]

Why would it have been impossible for God to have created the garden of Eden through evolution? God can do whatever he wants. He doesn't need to tell anyone how he does it. He also can control time, and could make evolution happen instantly, despite trillions of years having passed by.

There's no circle to square. Contradictions do not apply to God, which makes sense, as God is without contradictions. It's impossible for Him to make an error because there are no errors for Him.

Because evolution requires death and there was no death before Adam's fall. This is a central dogma of the Church.

 

[WoodArch4033]

Why would it have been impossible for God to have created the garden of Eden through evolution? God can do whatever he wants. He doesn't need to tell anyone how he does it. He also can control time, and could make evolution happen instantly, despite trillions of years having passed by.

There's no circle to square. Contradictions do not apply to God, which makes sense, as God is without contradictions. It's impossible for Him to make an error because there are no errors for Him.

Have you read Fr. Seraphim Rose's lecture on evolution in his Orthodox survival course which we posted? It makes a very strong case against evolution, beyond the simple "no death before the fall" and "Christ is not a descendant of primitive primates" answers. Those answers are good though, and if one has simple faith that should be enough to cast doubt upon darwinianism. Also the great difference between pagan and Christian accounts of creation is that God created the world ex nihilo, which means God created everything out of nothing, you probably already know the meaning of that term as you are a smart guy. Aristotle and I believe Socrates took issue with the pagan accounts of creation, and yes evolution was a concept, it arose in pagan thought. Because evolution and the gods imply using simpler, more chaotic less purposeful matter and molding it into something more advanced is the almost universal pagan idea of creation; if one lived in UR, Egypt, Rome, or the Aztec cities, any advanced and yet broken, defiled and Godless pagan city believed this. The only people who had an advanced, holy, elaborate system of worship, and eventual riches from plundering the Egyptians and cities from the Canaanites who weren't nomadic yet believed in One God and ex nihilo creation were The Hebrews. Anyways that's an aside. But once Christ conquered pagan cities, and more accepted this eternal God, The Church has always taught that the 6 days of creation are literal. As far as I'm aware, heretics like origin were the only prominent figures who fully gave into allegory. Saints who quote that Psalm in context of creation do not mean to diminish the literal material reality of six day creation, but to draw upon the mystery of God's eternal existence and the very concept of time that we experience. After all, Christ was slain at the foundation of the world. That's what created the world, yet mysteriously we experience His incarnation of a woman born after the foundation of the world, and His death and resurrection as an entrance into a greater new creation... So basically with that, it is both and. Both at the foundation of the world, and after His incarnation of the Virgin Mother of God. So God is eternal and He never began existing, but somehow when He created the world, we experience it at a starting point, in the way God has revealed time to us, it began in the six days of creation, and God is not the god of confusion, so we cannot accept presuppositions of godless scientists... we are completely set apart, "holy" from the rest of creation, it cannot be that God decided that at some arbitrary point of goodness that he bestowed His image upon man, after he had only been an advanced primate... Adam and Eve were the first humans. God created man's body and soul at the same time, and The Fathers are against those who say the body is something where God decided to simply blow the spirit into later, though that comes later in Genesis' chapters, we believe and even The Ecumenical Councils teach that God created man's body and soul at the same time. Fr. Joseph Gleason elaborates on this and what the Fathers say as well in his stream that many of us have posted, and so does the six day creation substack even more as they translate chapters of that Russian book. We couldn't have possibly been the bodies of primate ancestors living as animals until we became "advanced" and God decided that we get a soul now too. Also, if Adam and Eve weren't the only humans at their time, it is unjust that upon those in the image of God who have choice and consequence for their sins received the spiritual consequences of Adam and Eve's fall without making a choice. That's totally different from animals becoming fallen, who have no spiritual consequence, or the descendants of Adam and Eve, who God said would be the ancestors of their own salvation (Christ) (harrowing of hades).

Scientists for heavens sake don't even know what to think about vitamin c, and the people who are actual correct about vitamin c and holistic living rather than getting tons of stabbys are outcasts in their field:

Seraphim Hamilton has also done some streams on the emerging effort of creationist scientists (beyond what has been done by some protestant scientists)
Also off topic but I like Stephen Myers research on the evidence for The Exodus, he's also anti-evolution but not young earth, unfortunately:

 

[Kingdom]

This is a reply to the image regarding shared chimp DNA:

Post in thread 'Orthodox Resources Against Pseudo-Evolution' https://christisking.cc/threads/orthodox-resources-against-pseudo-evolution.391/post-8678

Do yourself a favor and watch this 10 minute clip on how scientists came up with the "98% the same as monkey DNA". This sent me into a fit of laughter. What an absolute joke!

"And think not to say within yourselves, 'We have Abraham to our father': for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." -Matthew 3.9

I think the theory of hominid evolution is for many more of a blow to hubris than anything else. For some reason, the claim that we "muh evolved from monkeys" is a bigger thing for many than the fact that they do not live virtuously and that their faith / religious life is a made in China fake shell, a shallow pretension devoid of any depth and spirituality.

That being said, there is no such thing as vertical "evolution of species", as this is a logical and empirical impossibility. There is only adaptative microevolution or the acquisition of traits within the same genus.
Nor does the amount of genetic difference, whatever it may be, in any way confirm the so-called "evolution of species".

Not that a strictly literalist interpretation of Genesis (which is slightly different in Targumic materials) does not have its problems. For example, there is the question of Cain's offspring and who (or *what* non-Adamic hominids) they bred with in the land of Nod. And those TTS-narrated 10-minute instant-wisdom videos never touch that sort of things.

 

[Samseau]

Because evolution requires death and there was no death before Adam's fall. This is a central dogma of the Church.

No, the Bible says death did not exist for humans. Adam and Eve could not die, but other animals and plants that Adam and Eve had dominion over definitely could die, or else they wouldn't have had dominion over them.

How would Adam get his protein if he couldn't hunt in the garden? And they were eating food, otherwise the forbidden fruit would not have been tempting for them.

Thus if animals and plants could die, they could have been morphing through an evolutionary mechanism. Not saying such a mechanism exists, just that it could plausibly exist and even if it did exist, it wouldn't matter at all.

 

[Unending Powerhouse Match]

How would Adam get his protein if he couldn't hunt in the garden? And they were eating food, otherwise the forbidden fruit would not have been tempting for them.

I don't think there is any reason to assume that Adam even needed protein, that his body functioned in the same way our fallen bodies do. I might be remembering this wrong or something, but isn't it Church tradition that every animal, including carnivores such as lions, ate grass in paradise? There is nowhere near enough basic nutritional value in grass to keep a pig alive let alone a lion, and certainly not enough protein to provide sufficient building blocks for them to be such massive animals with such thick skin and muscles (I don't think most people understand just how muscular pigs are and how big they get). At a very fundamental level, I don't think very many things in creation operated then like they do now. For all I know, humans changed so drastically in so many ways after the fall that it's unfathomable to us what it was like to exist as a pre-fall human.

 

[Cornelius V.E.]

Not Orthodox sources, but these alien professors from Columbia, Stanford, and Yale do a decent job debunking evolution from scientific and mathematical viewpoints:



and