Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey,
\nGreetings in our Lord Jesus Christ in Whom rejoice!<\/p>\n
Here are some more notes on evolution, specifically your chapters which we are returning herewith.<\/p>\n
II. Chapter on the \u201ccontext\u201d: too broad, and in the wrong place. The study should begin with a \u201cbang\u201d (after the Preface, which should be written last), and most logical is to start with \u201cEarly Man\u201d itself, so the reader can see what is being talked about. The \u201cContext\u201d offers a history of different strands of Humanism whose importance to the subject of evolution is not clear at the beginning. In any case these pages are too broad and general, and distract the reader\u2019s attention from the central point.<\/p>\n
III. \u201cScience as a Fetish\u201d and \u201cEarly Man\u201d: the points are good (we\u2019ll have more detailed criticism later when we see how they fit into the whole study); but here we\u2019ll give a word of advice: try as much as possible not to \u201cplay your hand\u201d too much or too soon. The Preface will already make it clear enough that you are against evolution: but all the way through, and especially in the \u201cscientific\u201d chapters, you should be as \u201cobjective\u201d and serene as possible, omitting in particular any comments that might show how you \u201cfeel\u201d about what you are presenting or criticizing (such as the \u201cheavens no\u201d on p. 5 which I\u2019ve marked) \u2014 such comments will have an adverse effect on those who aren\u2019t convinced yet, giving them the impressions that you are just hostilely disposed to evolution from the beginning, and therefore you are not open to whatever \u201ctruth\u201d it might contain. Remember that from the beginning (that being the character of our times and its mentality) the burden of proof is on you, and the majority of readers will not sympathize with any disparaging comments. Your basic tone in these chapters should not be: \u201cI\u2019m going to show you how ridiculous evolution is,\u201d but rather: \u201cLet\u2019s look at this question seriously and soberly, one point at a time, being as fair as possible to evolutionists, and see just what they believe and how much sense it makes.\u201d Actually, there are probably very few \u201cconvinced evolutionists\u201d among Orthodox believers, but very many who just \u201cgo along\u201d with the intellectual current, but still do have some nagging doubts about evolution which they just can\u2019t explain to themselves. For them you should be making the greatest possible clarification of this whole issue.<\/p>\n
III. B.: Further study of \u201cEarly Man\u201d seems the logical next step. Presumably your conclusion at the end of this chapter will not be: \u201cEvolution is proved false and special creation true,\u201d but rather: evolution, presented popularly as \u201cfact\u201d and \u201ctruth,\u201d has no coercive scientific evidence whatever to support it. All the supposed \u201cproofs\u201d of evolution can equally be used to \u201cprove\u201d another theory, depending on your presuppositions. Here you should set down in summary form all the major \u201cproofs\u201d of evolution (preferably quoting some major evolution textbook, or perhaps Encyclopedia Britannica \u2014 the 11th edition lists 8 evidences), showing that they presuppose a whole philosophy of nature which is not at all derived from \u201cproofs\u201d but from the intellectual climate of the age. (See, for example, the enclosed booklet, p. 67.) Here you should also have some quotes from evolutionists themselves showing how they realize that there is no actual coercive proof of evolution; but that it \u201cmakes more sense,\u201d or \u201cthe alternative is unthinkable\u201d \u2014 i.e. God\u2019s creation; or other similar quotes. And when you thus quote evolutionists \u201cagainst themselves,\u201d as it were, you should be careful not to \u201cpounce\u201d on them and say \u201cAha, they disprove themselves\u201d \u2014 but rather continue in a serene tone, not taking maximum advantage of their admissions \u2014 because you are going to let all their self-incriminating evidence speak for itself, until it piles up and at the end becomes absolutely self-evident, and then your own summation of this evidence will be very powerful!<\/p>\n
And then, here is where you should give the intellectual \u201ccontext\u201d of evolution, but much more specific than your ch. II. It is too much for most readers to understand the whole movement of Humanism, etc.; besides which, they are still not disposed to think you are giving them the real story about it. It would be good to quote an authoritative, objective source at this point. So: enclosed find 5 pp. of quotes from a good textbook on modern \u201cintellectual history.\u201d The author is himself \u201cmodern\u201d and believes in evolution, and so does not have your \u201cprejudices\u201d; yet he is quite precise and aware on the whole. These excerpts show accurately the change from the Newtonian mechanistic universe to, the evolutionary universe of our times. Some quotes like these, perhaps with a few comments in between, may be all you need to establish the \u201cintellectual climate\u201d in which evolution developed.<\/p>\n
Now you are ready to enter the area of philosophy and theology: for the lack of strict scientific proof of evolution means that these questions basically are not scientific, but come from faith. At the same time you disengage yourself from the dead-end of trying to \u201cdisprove\u201d evolution: by science it can be neither proved nor disproved; it is a question of a different order than science.<\/p>\n
IV, V: I don\u2019t know what or how much you planned to write on \u201cOrthodox evolutionists\u201d and Teilhard, but I think it might be possible to combine them in a single chapter called \u201cChristian evolutionism.\u201d (Rather in the same way that, in our \u201ccharismatic\u201d article, we combined testimony from Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox charismatics \u2014 both because the testimony of all groups reinforce each other, and because there is really no difference between them; so also, \u201cOrthodox evolutionism\u201d is exactly the same as \u201cCatholic evolutionism.\u201d) This also would give more punch to the section which I am compiling to follow the Patristic quotes, and which might be called, effectively I hope: \u201cLatin Scholasticism: the Theological Foundation of Christian Evolutionism\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
In such a chapter on \u201cChristian evolutionism,\u201d a basic thing to show will be that adding \u201cGod\u201d to evolution does not at all change its basic philosophical-theological outlook and intent. God becomes a deus ex machina for saving evolution when the absurdity of believing in it without God, as a pure chance process, becomes too evident. Thus, quoting Dobzhansky and others, you can show how they believe in the same naturalistic universe, without God\u2019s interference, as do the atheistic evolutionists: the denial of God\u2019s Providence, etc.<\/p>\n
As to the climax to this section: Teilhard de Chardin as extremely symptomatic of the \u201cspirit of the age\u201d \u2014 a \u201creligious\u201d thinker has come into fashion, favored even by Julian Huxley and the Soviet Union! (I\u2019ll send some material from Russia on Teilhard.) You might look at Lecomte DuNo\u00fcy also, since the Greek Archdiocese article mentions him together with T. de \u0421.; I have a feeling it will be easier to find good quotes from him!<\/p>\n
An important part of this \u201cChristian evolutionism\u201d chapter: quote T. de C. (the passage quoted by Dobzhansky at the end of his article) on evolution as absolutely \u201cuniversal\u201d \u2014 by this time the mere quoting of this passage will already show the reader how much such a view is dependent on simply absorbing the \u201cspirit of the times.\u201d This quote shows the blind faith of some \u201creligious\u201d figures in the latest current of scientific faith; and it offers an exact parallel (which you should by all means take advantage of!) to the blind faith of Alexander Pope in a different scientific faith: his adoration of Newton and his mechanical-deist universe of perfect order, which was mocked a century later by Voltaire in Candiele, a satire on the \u201cbest of all possible worlds\u201d (the phrase is Leibniz\u2019, but it sums up the faith of the whole 17th and 18th century philosophical \u201cestablishment\u201d). Popes words are \u201cjingly\u201d and will catch your readers unawares and perhaps make them begin to see that one should not place so much faith in any scientific philosophy-faith.<\/p>\n
Alexander Pope, \u201cEssay on Man\u201d:<\/p>\n
All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
\nWhose body Nature is, and God the soul,…
\nAll Nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
\nAll chance, direction, which thou canst not see;
\nAll discord, harmony not understood;
\nAll partial evil, universal good:
\nAnd, spite of pride, in erring reasons spite,
\nOne truth is clear, whatever is, is right.<\/p>\n
And in another place in Popes works:<\/p>\n
Nature and Natures laws lay hid in night:
\nGod said, Let Newton be! and all was Light.<\/p>\n
Voltaire mocked this philosophy because it had become out of date\u2022, and thus your reader is warned, the suggestion is made: maybe evolution too is such a passing faith that will become out of date one day, or is already becoming so! And this inevitably happens if Christian philosophy accepts the philosophy of the \u201cspirit of the age,\u201d which comes and goes. In general it will be a good idea to contrast the Newtonian universe with the evolutionary: this contrast will give the reader probably all the intellectual \u201ccontext\u201d of evolution he needs, and in a very painless way, without forcing him to understand the whole history of modern thought. Many people simply aren\u2019t aware that there has ever been a \u201cscience\u201d that wasn\u2019t \u201cevolutionary,\u201d and the contrast between Newton and evolution shows how one scientific theory gives way to the next. Thus you will undermine the scientific \u201cfaith\u201d of your readers! (In our theological section, we will also be quoting St. Basil the Great and Fr. Michael Pomazansky on this subject.)<\/p>\n
By the way, the thought occurs to me that the spiritual tone of Fundamentalism\u2019s opposition to evolution is actually based more on the Newtonian universe than Christianity! Undoubtedly Archbishop Ussher was a convinced Newtonian! \u2014 you should look into that. The climax of the whole article will then be in presenting the Orthodox theology of creation \u2014 Adam, which is totally independent of all scientific fashions.<\/p>\n
For Orthodoxy DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE AGE, rather Orthodoxy has its own philosophy based on Revelation. (The Holy Fathers have a complete theology of the origin of man and creation which) This Revelation is not bound up with any intellectual fashion that passes away. It is a doctrine not modified with every passing philosophy, not bound up with either the static universe of perfect harmony of Newton (which departed from Orthodoxy by making the universe purely naturalistic \u2014 and evolution is actually just the present philosophy of the naturalized universe divorced from God and His action), nor with the \u201cdeveloping\u201d universe of T. de C. and other fashionable thinkers today. Orthodox philosophy is NOT OF THIS WORLD; but it is THE ANSWER to the vain speculations of modern man, and certainly the answer to a mankind filled with the \u201cspiritual malaise\u201d D. [Dostoyevsky] perceives.<\/p>\n
Above all, the whole study should be as simple and as much to the point and as \u201cobjective\u201d as possible. If one accepts the principle of objectivity, and believes in the Holy Fathers \u2014 then the whole study, even in a very low key, should gradually build itself up to a devastating and convincing conclusion.<\/p>\n
By the way, in your \u201cscientific\u201d chapters I hope you have a good account of the \u201ccarbon dating system\u201d and whatever \u201cevidence\u201d there is for \u201cmillions of years\u201d; also, you must be prepared for answers in several points of the \u201chistory of mankind\u201d \u2014 how do you explain Neanderthal Man, for example? (I\u2019ve just found an Orthodox pamphlet on this subject, written 25 years ago, which views him as the descendant of Cain.)<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve received Fr. Neketas\u2019 newest comments on evolution, where he tries to identify antievolutionism with the sectarian fringe. Why such pointless comments? One senses that he somehow feels unsafe on evolution, is somehow threatened by anti-evolutionism. Actually, he only confuses more those people who are already uncertain enough what to believe about evolution.<\/p>\n
And then yesterday we received from the \u201cZion Orthodox Hermitage\u201d a copy of the letter to Fr. Neketas which you had already showed us, together with an article which we hadn\u2019t seen, called \u201cThe Creation Narrative.\u201d Seeing the quote from St. Hippolytus on page 1, we looked forward to some patristic documentation. But alas, the author doesn\u2019t come through with this, and he turns out to be quite vague on the whole subject himself! In the next to last paragraph of p. 2 he quite losses himself in wild \u201cspeculations\u201d which are not only unscriptural (I\u2019ve never heard of anyone who threw dinosaurs in before the six days of creation) but are also doctrinally unsound (the suggestion that there could have been evil in the visible creation before Adam\u2019s transgression). In a word, the author is quite naive, and in his fear that \u201cscience might be right\u201d about the \u201cmillions of years\u201d he already has quite a lot in common with many present-day evolutionists. (Same viewpoint is in the enclosed booklet.) We look forward to your objective presentation of the proof or lack of it concerning the \u201cage of the earth\u201d and man.<\/p>\n
It is time to get this out. Pray for us.<\/p>\n
With love in Christ our Saviour,
\nSeraphim, monk<\/p>\n
P.S. Why don\u2019t you think of printing in a format something like the enclosed booklet? It could be \u201cpopular\u201d! We could make the cover and give some other help.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dear Brother in Christ, Alexey, Greetings in our Lord Jesus Christ in Whom rejoice! Here are some more notes on evolution, specifically your chapters which we are returning herewith. II. Chapter on the \u201ccontext\u201d: too broad, and in the wrong place. The study should begin with a \u201cbang\u201d (after the Preface, which should be written […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1305","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1305","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1305"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1305\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1305"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1305"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1305"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}