Dear Father Ioannikios,<\/p>\n
Christ is in our midst!<\/p>\n
A few notes on our continuing \u201cdialogues on evolution\u201d many thanks for your two letters (one to Br. Makarios).<\/p>\n
1. Concerning \u201cday-age\u201d\u2014I agree entirely with the proposal to measure them \u201cnot chronologically but theologically.\u201d I only suggest we be consistent in doing so. Dr. Kalomiros and others, when they say that \u201cday-age\u201d or \u201ca thousand years in the sight of God is as one day\u201d immediately conclude that the way is open to accepting the \u201cgeologic ages\u201d with their fabulous millions of years as compatible with the Genesis \u201cdays.\u201d They thus measure the \u201cages\u201d quite \u201cchronologically\u201d\u2014which makes not one bit more sense than the fundamentalists\u2019 \u201c24 hour days.\u201d The best position, I think, on this point is that of Blessed Augustine: \u201cWhat kind of days these were it is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!\u201d (City of God, XI, 6.) The eight \u201cday,\u201d we know, is to be without end; the seventh \u201cday\u201d is a definite duration of at least some thousands of years; the first six \u201cdays,\u201d if they could be measured chronologically at all (and we shouldn\u2019t say they absolutely couldn\u2019t be, since such Fathers as St. Ephraim of Syria say they could), might be 24-hours long, or perhaps of some other duration. We should only be aware of the mystery of those first \u201cdays\u201d which eludes our precise apprehension.<\/p>\n
2. The question of the \u201cage of the earth\u201d is a different question, raised by science (which cannot give it a completely satisfactory answer) and touching on Revelation and certain theological questions. From the point of view of Biblical interpretation, this question is dependent on a more fundamental one: \u201cthe age of mankind.\u201d Here the text of Genesis does not need to fear the evidence of science; and since modern science does talk about this, we have to have an intelligent answer to the opinion concerning the \u201cmillions of years\u201d which, supposedly, not merely \u201cgalaxies\u201d existed, but even man himself and his near \u201cancestors\u201d have been walking on earth. One cannot escape the question of the existence of man in chronological time (since both Genesis with its patristic interpreters and science seem to be talking about the same kind of \u201cyears\u201d we know) by reference to the formation of galaxies and the relativity of time\u2014the \u201cprimordial galaxies\u201d themselves are a product of the scientific speculations of modern thinkers, and neither more or less deserving of credence than ancient Greek speculations concerning the origin of the world.<\/p>\n
3. This raises another fundamental question: how much should we use science in a commentary on Genesis? I would say, as a very minimum: we must know enough about science and its modern speculations to have an answer to those who use it to \u201cdisprove Genesis.\u201d Thus its chief function today is perhaps negative. But beyond that, I think that our attitude should be that of St. Basil in his Hexaemeron: the legitimate conclusions of science should be used whenever they help the task of interpreting the sacred text. The \u201cscience-phobia\u201d which has been caused among some Orthodox Christians by the false use of science on the part of anti-Christians should be overcome. In the case of evolution, I don\u2019t see how the question can be discussed at all without a basic knowledge of the \u201cscientific proofs\u201d for and against. I don\u2019t mean we should become passionately attached to them or place them on the same level as theology\u2014we should just be aware of them and know how to assess their relative value. The \u201cscientific creationists\u201d are very helpful in this regard, because they have hunted up evidence which had been selectively disregarded by pre-disposed evolutionists (for example, the remarkable evidence of an earth \u201cunder 10,000 years old,\u201d which must definitely be weighted against the evidence for an earth much older; the overlapping human and dinosaur tracks in Texas, etc.)<\/p>\n
4. But is the question of the age of the human race (some 7000 or 8000 years vs. a million or more years) really theological, or important? You doubt whether it is. I offer two observations:<\/p>\n
a. The Holy Fathers (probably unanimously) certainly have no doubt that the chronology of the Old Testament, from Adam onwards, is to be accepted \u201cliterally.\u201d They did not have the fundamentalist\u2019s over-concern for chronological precision, but even the most mystical Fathers (St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory Palamas, etc.) were quite certain that Adam lived literally 900 years, that there were some 5500 years (\u201cmore or less\u201d) between the creation and the Birth of Christ, etc. (Blessed Augustine has a good discussion as to the differences between the Greek and Hebrew chronologies\u2014 the thousand years \u201cmore or less\u201d didn\u2019t bother him any more than it did the other Fathers\u2014but the assertion that Adam lived a million or more years ago, and that thus the Old (and New) Testament chronology is quite arbitrary or fanciful, could not but have evoked numerous patristic discussions.) Can we be so trusting of the conclusions of modern science (especially if we have a basic knowledge of radiometric dating procedures and the philosophy underlying them!) as to totally overturn the Patristic opinion? Dr. Kalomiros and other Orthodox evolutionists say we should, without a second thought\u2014I would say this is dangerous presumption, and an intrusion of dubious science into the realm of revealed truth. When Dr. K. dismisses the patristic interpretation of the \u041e\u0422 chronology as \u201cJewish rationalism,\u201d I even begin to wonder what his basic attitude to the Fathers is? It seems to have an element of disrespect, to say the least.<\/p>\n
b. More important (more theological): one\u2019s picture of reality, of the world, definitely influences one’s view of God. I offer you (very briefly) two pictures (\u201cmodels\u201d) of man and his world:<\/p>\n
(1) Man created some 7000-8000 years ago, separately from other creatures (not descended from others), dispassionate by nature (in soul and body), with Eve miraculously created from his rib (in a way we can not describe with scientific precision, as St. John Chrysostom indicates), in a world of creatures with natures basically stable and not in process of becoming other natures. Much could be said on separate details of this picture, and knowledge of many of the details can never be precise, but basically: it does not contradict the text of Genesis and is harmonious with the Orthodox view of God.<\/p>\n
(2) Man descended from lower creatures, passionate by his origin and nature, becoming dispassionate in paradise (when grace brought him out of his bestial state, according to Kalomiros) at a moment very hazy chronologically and theologically (today Roman Catholic evolutionists deny paradise altogether because they can\u2019t reconcile it with evolutionary philosophy), existing in his fallen state perhaps a million or more years, during which time he gradually came up from savagery to civilization, the record of him in the \u041e\u0422 being extremely sketchy and not to be taken seriously when it speaks of \u201cyears\u201d; the world around man being in a constant state of change and ascent from one nature to another, and this whole process being explainable (\u201cmore or less\u201d) by science, except for the original impulse of creation itself (which produced a rather undifferentiated mass with the \u201cpotentiality\u201d of all future developments). (Kalomiros insists there is nothing \u201cmiraculous\u201d about the Six Days of creation\u2014they all proceeded according to scientific laws!). This picture, that of \u201ctheistic\u201d or \u201cGod- guided\u201d evolution, can be reconciled with the text of Genesis and its patristic interpretation only by means of many jumps and improvisations and wholesale disregard of patristic evidence. The chief reason, I suspect, why it does not give the horrors to Orthodox believers in \u201cGod-guided evolution\u201d (as, for example, Fr. Neketas Palassis professes himself to be)\u2014is simply because they put their heads in the sand and don\u2019t bother to think about it at all, because of a very unhealthy science-phobia. But my point here is: is not one\u2019s view of God basically affected by such a picture of the world? For example, the view of an \u201cOrthodox evolutionist\u201d like Theodosius Dobzhansky (in his address on receiving an honorary doctorate from St. Vladimir\u2019s Seminary!) utterly denies the Providence of God in the world; his \u201cGod\u201d is the Deist God. St. John Damascene (following St. Gregory of Nyssa and others) states that it is unworthy of God to believe that He created man’s body and soul in separate moments, as if He did not have power for the whole act at once; this act of creation was simultaneous; here the text of Genesis is not to be interpreted literally or \u201cchronologically\u201d (Kalomiros specifically denies this\u2014his interpretation of St. Seraphim\u2019s words would collapse otherwise!). How much less worthy of God, then, to believe that He created only some kind of material ocean of potentiality and left everything to \u201cevolve by itself\u201d according to natural laws!<\/p>\n
All this, as you can see, is an informal discussion presented for your reflection\u2014precise citations will have to be given when I have time.<\/p>\n
5. A different point, from your letter to Br. Makarios. On the \u201ccoats of skin\u201d\u2014yes, I recall that St. Gregory the Theologian also gives the interpretation (as his personal opinion) that these could signify the \u201ccoarse flesh\u201d of Adam after his fall. A very important point, bound up with the curse and the change in the nature of the world and man, as opposed to the \u201cvery good\u201d (i.e. incorrupt) state in the beginning. Dr. Kalomiros says: the world was obviously corrupt and mortal before Adam\u2019s fall; it was only incorrupt in God\u2019s idea of it before the actual creation, the \u201cfirst creation\u201d as opposed to the \u201csecond creation\u201d of St. Gregory of Nyssa. As opposed to this, one could collect patristic evidence (for example, St. Simeon the New Theol., Homily 45, where it is very explicit) that shows, the material creation (and not just paradise) before Adam\u2019s fall to be incorrupt and without death. But here I think we should beware taking the opposite side from Kalomiros and thinking we know with \u201cscientific certainty\u201d (as he thinks he does) what the nature of material reality was before the fall. Bishop Theophan the Recluse (in his commentary on Rom. 8:21) has a word of caution on this. I think it is enough to point out the different state of the world before the fall, its rather mysterious nature (to us who never saw it), and the inappropriateness of applying the law of scientific \u201cuniformitarianism\u201d to it. (Andreyev makes this point.)<\/p>\n
6. A final point for now: it seems to me that in the \u201cintellectual space\u201d where science and theology overlap (a good description!) in the question of evolution, there are two quite different spheres of conflict and\/or agreement between them:<\/p>\n
a. Everything related to the \u201cSix Days\u201d and in general the state of the world before Adam: this is shrouded in some mystery (because of the different state of the world then) and it would be foolish for us to try to be \u201cscientifically precise\u201d about it. This is the biggest mistake of Kalomiros (and also of many fundamentalists). The creation of Adam from the dust is a mystery (for example); we can\u2019t picture it. But still we can know enough of it from the Fathers to avoid unworthy opinions about it. (It was instantaneous; Adam came from no other creature; etc.) The evolutionists remove the mystery from it\u2014all is according to scientifically-known natural processes; from an Orthodox person, this is inexcusable rationalism.<\/p>\n
b. Everything related to Adam after his fall\u2014i.e., human history as a whole\u2014is much more accessible to us according to our present knowledge. Thus, a discussion of the \u201cchronology\u201d of the Six Days is useless; but the \u201cchronology\u201d of mankind from Adam on down is accessible to us, limited only by physical factors (documents, paleontology, archeology). Here we should apply our God-given minds to find the most worthy explanations of the supposed \u201cconflicts\u201d between Genesis and paleontology. And this means: reading the patristic commentaries, and understanding the scientific evidence.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve already used up my time. I look forward to your next comments.<\/p>\n
With love in Christ,
\nUnworthy Hieromonk Seraphim<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Dear Father Ioannikios, Christ is in our midst! A few notes on our continuing \u201cdialogues on evolution\u201d many thanks for your two letters (one to Br. Makarios). 1. Concerning \u201cday-age\u201d\u2014I agree entirely with the proposal to measure them \u201cnot chronologically but theologically.\u201d I only suggest we be consistent in doing so. Dr. Kalomiros and others, […]<\/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-1424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1424","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=1424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1424\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/orthodoxaustralia.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}