Orthodixie
Mrs Allen was my 8th grade science teacher. She often let it be known that she did not believe in God. She also taught Evolution. Perhaps these two facts have tainted me. That is, I’ve always believed in God and, barring some days of college-fog, have always disbelieved in Evolution. Ol’ Mrs Allen done made a Creationist outta me.
Recently, 30 years later, I blogged some questions about Evolution that today’s students are asking in science classes. I knew this would spark debate, it always does. But in the South, where we can argue for hours about BBQ sauces, Evolution is pretty much a dead issue. Face it, there are benefits to living in the Bible Belt. The Internet’s a different story.
Upon converting to Orthodoxy I was pleasantly surprised to learn that it was OKAY to disbelieve Evolution and OKAY to believe in revealed Creation. Gosh, that’s not very Episcopalian! And while the views of Fr Seraphim Rose might be a bit extreme for some Orthodox, I have found that taking the Theory of Evolution with a grain of salt — or paying no heed to it at all — to be the Orthodox norm. (I mean, we do sing about a created Adam & Eve at almost every single service.) True, I also know that Orthodox academicians at colleges and seminaries may differ. But remember, not everyone is perfect.
Any way, after posting the Evolution piece, I received a private email from an Orthodox scientist who took exception to my post. Here, in part, is his email:
Your recent post on Darwin and the strange ascientific crusade among so-called evangelicals against teaching kids the facts about palaeontology and archaeology was, in my humble opinion, just the sort of persiflage that distracts people from the ongoing nature of scientific revelation. As an Orthodox Christian for thirty-five years and an archaeologist for over thirty, I have yet to find a contradiction between my Orthodox faith and my scientific inquiries, even when excavating in Greece where controversies about the past are seen as living arguments that must be pursued by all citizens to the death.
It seems to me the real problem is that we have such a tiny, minute amount of all prehistoric material brought to light, that we don’t really know enough to make as many definitive judgements as many people would like so whenever new knowledge contradicts what we have speculated about in the past, this is used as ammunition to say, “Hah! The miserable frauds were lying all along!”
As scientists, we try to present our views in a prudent and balanced manner. This doesn’t make for the political polemics that our enemies in the Willful Ignorance Community are constantly throwing at us, but it is based on verifiable facts, however, errant our speculations made from those facts. Many of the contentions made by Creation Science (a painful oxymoron) are also speculations but speculations not anchored in peer reviewed journals and painstaking accuracy. Rather, jumbled nonsense about texts that were published over half a century ago is used to malign today’s scientists who are struggling painfully to make sense of the past with only the tiniest fragments of actual material. Science is difficult, painstaking, and requires oftentimes going down many blind alleys and often admitting to various prior errors before before we approach the light of the fullness of truth. This is somewhat analogous to the spiritual life as well. Propaganda is a quick and painless way to get feeling scientific without actually having to do science, as drugs are a quick and painless way to get spiritual without having to actually address the hard work of spiritual development.
The discovery of therizinosaurus falcarius is just the latest miniscule slice of the fossil record to reveal itself to us and it IS a transitional fossil, just in case you were still looking for such things.
As stated earlier, my aversion to the Theory of Evolution and its many agnostic proponents was formed in my grade school years. I am not versed enough in the scientific realm (stunted, perhaps) to make a good argument on the topic, nor do I plan to learn. It just doesn’t interest me. I am delighted and highly entertained, however, by the use of the word “persiflage” and plan to use it the next time folks are arguing about BBQ. But I digress …
What I gleaned from the email was that the writer disagreed; not much more. So I asked some friends for comments. As with the scientist, I have not listed the respondents’ names, but have suggested that they may do so in the Comments.
This kindly fellow is possibly mistaking all the scientific and non-scientific critiques of evolutionism as being creationist. Frogs have legs; Socrates has legs = Socrates is a frog.
I love archeology, palaeontology and the rest; and while evangelicals may need to do more solid theology about creation and the evidence, Darwinians need to puzzle out why the evidence doesn’t add up for one theory to rule the roost. Also, Darwinians need to be reminded that atheism and scientific materialism are– like Darwinianism– theories that don’t account for all the evidences.
My kids, especially my dinosaur-loving son, like to watch science shows. I hate it when the “earth is millions & millions of years old” and Evolution — not stated as theory but fact — is presented within every narrative paragraph. But it does give me opportunity to also teach my children what has been revealed in Scripture. If that makes me a Fundamentalist, so be it.
Well, I don’t find much disagreeable about your friend’s reply, but he does need to recognize one aspect of science of which he is in denial or at least honestly ignorant: Science itself is a religion. Proof? OK. Science has its doctrines and dogmae, and if a member of Science should have the temerity to dispute a Holy Dogma of Science, he is excommunicated by the Synod of Ruling Bishops, those august gents (of both sexes) who divide the Word of Science, and who are Infallible when speaking from the Chair of Academic Enlightenment.
Example? Ancient human remains discovered a few years back in Washington are, to paleontological eyes, certainly not Indian, but pre-date Indian habitation of this continent. Orthodox Science is joining with some groups of American Indians to deny, obscure, and destroy this evidence at any cost because it simply isn’t palatable to either group’s taste. Is it the truth? Well, that doesn’t matter, does it? Pure science is a noble thing, but the sheer willfulness and religious zeal for the preservation of the moment’s scientific orthodoxy that is found among too many scientists holds back discovery and mimics a medieval dark age for a system of gathering knowledge that is supposed to enlighten us all.
I’m sure that our current age did not invent agendas but with vested interests starting at Point Z and asking science to prove that destination correct by filling in Points A thru Y, it is frustrating.
The best reply from a purely theological stance came from an Orthodox priest:
On the one hand, for [the author of the email], truth is something that can be discovered by the uncovering or accumulation of data; but he also speaks of the “ongoing nature of scientific revelation” as if the data procured by a scientific method is something that is revealed to man who cannot come to it (that which is revealed) of his power.
This is the fundamental issue. For him, it seems, data and its accumulation can “reveal” Truth, that is that which transcends human reason can be obtained by human reason. Data, as we know, must be interpreted. It is bound to its level, the level of the reason. But whenever we speak of the origins of the Created order, we speak not in the realm of physics (on the level of reason and created things), but in the realm of metaphysics (that which transcends the level of the physical and created things). The faculty that “interprets” on the “metaphysical” level is the Nous. Whenever we engage in questions related to the nature of God in His energies and His creation, we must, to “apprehend” them aright, have a noetic approach.
Thus, the question of the origins of the Creation is not strictly a mechanical and physical question, but a noetic question (if we could put it such). As such, all scientific methods by definition fall short because what is required to prove these kinds of theories is observation from the start. In other words, we must be there with God “at the beginning” to observe the mechanics of the how of Creation was created in order to prove any of the theories. That, obviously, is something that reason — the human faculty — cannot do! Noetically, on the other hand, we “know” that God created and is creating. In other words, the “divine” faculty in man is required to know the Divine. (When we men are “led” by the Nous, the Nous then “informs” the reason and it is applied spiritually…but that’s a different discussion entirely.) But reason can only work with data. Reason can be appropriately applied if it can see the beginning and end of the data and observe a process to test a theory. Because of this limitation of the reason, we are never going to be able to know the mechanics of creation; we are never going to be able to determine which fossil is “transitional” and, the bigger question, we are never going to be able to prove a transformist macro-evolution. Rather, we are going to always have competing scientific theories that contradict each other. (That is, until scientists become metaphysicians.)
None of this is to refute the reality of micro-evolution; ie that species adapt to their surroundings to survive. The created order that we can observe is amazingly beautiful and complex and to the scientist who is in way a metaphysician, it can only strengthen his faith! But the fundamental issue here is epistemological; that is to say, a matter of knowing and knowledge. The faculty of the reason, which is the faculty that is deployed for scientific research, is limited and cannot, by definition, ever give us the “big picture” related to the “why” and even the “how” of Creation.
So there, Mrs Allen!
(Speaking of whom … One day in class, she flatly stated that there was no God because no one had ever seen Him, I disagreed. She said that if I could show her, in the Bible even, where anyone had ever seen God, she would rest her case. The next day I took a Bible to school and Mrs Allen allowed me to read to the class how Moses was allowed to see God’s back. I’m not certain if it was vindication or placation, but I don’t remember her ever bad mouthing God again. I do regret however that I never saw her in church nor got to witness to her about Lexington style BBQ.)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In