Creation, Evolution, and the Orthodox Christian Understanding of Genesis - Fr. Lawrence Farley

[@ProtectingVeil]

📙 FREE eBOOK on the wisdom of modern Orthodox Christian elders: social.protectingveil.com/freebook1

[@owenswabi]

That was fantastic, and exactly what I expected from orthodoxy. How orthodoxy can be so intuitive and consistent is a testament to its truth

[@ProtectingVeil]

Thanks to God!

[@elizabethshaw734]

I am a Scientist and have no problem reconciling what I do in science with the father Son and Holy Spirit. Genesis included. It will never be a missing link because we all assimilated into each other there is no such thing as a missing link. My religious beliefs only makes me during my work more in awe of God.

[@gabrieljosemaria]

is that how u discovered our creator in Prometheus?

[@mariogagliardi8491]

Einstein said that if anyone assumed he doesn't believe in God, they must have misunderstood his works. One cannot avoid the truth.

[@lexludovice3458]

It’s a shame to claim as a scientist but believe on something without having a proof of scientific data. I’m just a regular guy who has faith and believes in God.

[@radscorpion8]

@@mariogagliardi8491 First, just because Einstein believed in something doesn't make it true. What you have just stated is the opposite of truth, its actually a logical fallacy, called appeal to authority. Second, Einstein didn't believe in the Christian God. He's on record multiple times saying he believes in a Spinozan God, which is more of a metaphor for the universe and nature than a real deity. Best wishes

[@radscorpion8]

As a scientist I would think the main problem with believing Christianity comes from the fact that most of it has to be believed on faith, whereas science expects you to come to conclusions only when you see multiple lines of evidence supporting a theory. There aren't multiple lines of evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus for example, though there are multiple anecdotes from 2000 years ago...which shouldn't be considered rigorous data for a true scientist. And beyond that there are all sorts of obviously fantastical stories, like the flooding of the Earth and the survival of a single family via a massive "zoo-boat" that housed giraffes and elephants (do you really believe that happened?) or the creation of humans from clay as depicted in the old testament...? Or that time an entire town was raised from the dead (Lazarus)? Seriously. Any scientist worth their salt is going to have some pretty obvious issues with the bible. If it were sold today in bookstores it would clearly go into the fantasy section

[@molapotsasanyane9855]

"I don't know" - is one of the most holy and significant statements by the Orthodox church that all of humanity can learn a lot from. The scientists too do not know. Them and us all know so little that ultimately, we all don't know.

[@olgak.1139]

"Εν οίδα, ότι ουδέν οίδα." I know one thing,that l know nothing." Socrates.

[@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113]

Strictly speaking we know more than nothing (hence we have invented e.g. the internet), we only do not know everything about anything, which still qualifies as not knowing.

[@The42Horsepower]

Whether or not Genesis is allegory or literal historical fact isn't something I concern myself too much with; it is Divine Truth first, any other definition comes second.

[@opabinnier]

Alleluia! You speak with dignity and humility which is the wisdom given to all but somehow not everyone can find it! Maybe pride blinds people.

[@MrTripleAgamer]

Agree, you can see the bad fruits when put the other way around.

[@chocolateneko9912]

Focus on the Soul (eternal message) then try to discern the rest. ☦️

[@radscorpion8]

lol. But that's obviously a major problem. If you are going to arbitrarily declare that certain things are allegory while others a literary fact, then "divine truth" is equally unclear. Is it the divine truth that the world was created in 7 days? Or is it the divine truth that that's just a metaphor? If everything in the bible is a metaphor, including the commandments, including sin, including the devil, then what is your "divine truth" but thousands of different, equally viable interpretations? And if you can't determine which interpretation is correct, than you have no idea what it is you believe, and accordingly your divine truth is equally confused

[@cigler3299]

This has to be historical because the genealogies play out to bring the messiah so Adam and Eve had to be historical people.

[@DRiceArizona]

I am fascinated by how he wraps up at the end with the dignity of all. I am a seeker by nature. I have been many Christian denominations and have found myself drawn more to Orthodoxy of late. These videos have been a great resource for me. Thank you.

[@ProtectingVeil]

Thanks to God...glad you found us and that you're finding them edifying!

[@amigos2841]

Same tbh, I am currently a protestant but whilst being a man of faith I am also a man of facts and evidence and come to orthodox teachings when I find find the answer in the protestant faith, I wish I had a orthodox church near me 🙏

[@hannahbaker3080]

Watching this 5 years on, how’s your journey to Orthodoxy been?

[@ItsBanjaxxedM8]

Im relitively new to theology and this was one of the biggest questions i had. Fr. Lawrence Farley had answered brilliantly and has helped me move one step closer to god. Thank you.

[@ProtectingVeil]

Glory to God!

[@rh10033]

As a protestant that is a creationist, I have never heard the beginning of Genesis explained in this way. But it makes so much sense!

[@mamaliamalak7825]

I come from a very similar background and viewpoint. I have recently been digging more, trying to understand the text from the viewpoint of when it was written. It has required reading up on the stories from that time, and I have slowly come to start thinking that I have been trying to make the text say things that it wasn't trying to say. One of the first things a Bible student should learn, is to read something in it's context. Both the text, and when it was written. How it would be understood to the audiance it was written for. So far, the journey has been eye opening. Learning things I have never known, and having to unlearn things I thought I knew.

[@forrestb1165]

Science and Orthodox Christianity are not at odds with one another.

[@Pavlovsobaka]

@@forrestb1165 Christianity in general

[@admiralmurat2777]

Until you read a bunch of 20th century saints that somehow can smell falsehood on you for not accepting YEC 😂

[@robertattaway3119]

For myself, I choose to believe that the 1st 11 chapters of Genesis are history, not myth. I'm not going to get irate with someone who differs on these points. I think I'll be safe in believing St. Basil the Great in what he wrote on these passages of Scripture.

[@Noone-rt6pw]

When the earth formed, many things could have been different from modern day with different dynamics. As Pangea seems valid and the continental divide does seem obvious. So why try to justify what isn't readily known? The important thing is living the faith, as being good, doing good when it's in ones hands and avoiding do evil, then loving especially fellow believers and forbearing one another in love, other words overlooking faults and mistakes, etc., as one time we all had faults to deal with. Etc. Etc. We do not have to be theologians to have faith in God and live like it. I should edit this, where in the days of Peleg giants roamed the earth and the earth was divided. It could reference something else, but the Continental Divide is very obvious when looking at a World Map. Then the giants spoke of has been said to reference people that were giants, which what it was translated from might mean giant people, but if it included people, it would seem to say that. However, we're told dinosaurs roamed the earth and there's replicas made from their bones, which assuming or speculating it must mean people might be just that, where they had no knowledge of dinosaurs or anything outside their daily life. Yet, we need to leave room for conspiracy theory, where the governments could have fabricated these dinosaur relics and told everyone they are real. Just consider Orson Welles Invasion of the World, which is on you tube. In 1939 people believed scientists motion life on Mars, when they heard the broadcast, it terrified many and from my understanding had many panicking.

[@thomaswayneward]

Since Darwinian evolution has not been proved scientifically and is actually being proved to be an incorrect theory, you have done well to believe the Bible. Love science, but not politically charged science.

[@philiphoward5877]

Same here Robert

[@intensity33]

Amen amen! The way Genesis 1-11 is written, it makes very little sense to say that it's all myth, especially with the specific genealogies, different writing styles, etc. It makes far more sense for them to be different historical accounts compiled and edited together by Moses. Yes, the writers may have used some figurative language or allegorical speech in order to convey certain truths, but doing so shouldn't undermine the historical reality of what they were describing. Farley likes to bring up issues like "reconciling" the two creation "stories" of Genesis 1 and 2; I am stunned this is a problem when Genesis 1 is a broad overview of the week, and Genesis 2 focuses in on day 6. He also likes to point out that animals were created after man in Genesis 2 in contradiction to before man in Genesis 1, instead of simply recognizing that God made a few more on day 6 to include Adam in the creation process. Or the hardness of the firmament, which could either be just a figurative expression, or maybe it really is a reference to the layer of ice that was supposed to be around the earth pre-flood when it didn't rain and mists came up from the earth instead. I can see the poetic way in which Genesis 1 is written (while recognizing that it could have still happened in that way since creation, no matter how you look at it, was miraculous, and so the laws of nature as we have them now would have been suspended to a degree in much the same way as when either Moses or Christ performed miracles that defied nature). But even if we see Genesis 1 as poetic and mythological literature, the rest of it? If Genesis 2-11 it was meant to be mythological, it was written quite poorly as far as myths go. In fact, it is very different from all other myths written during that timeframe. Further, if Genesis is all myth, why is there a worldwide flood story in cultures across the globe, pointing to a universal flood? Why is there dinosaur bones that still have tissue on them (shouldn't that be gone after 65 million years?) or tracks of human and dinosaurs side by side? Science and archeology are always changing and learning more. In contrast, the Word of God stands forever, and we shouldn't have to side with the devil by saying, "did God really say?" Dating methods have proven to be highly inaccurate outside of very specific conditions, and one of the reasons I think we get such wacky numbers and broad ranges is because we're trying to measure something created from the The Eternal One, God Himself, and so there are "DNA marks" (for lack of a better term) of His infinite nature found within the fabric of creation. So, I think it is important to just take God at His Word, knowing that He can do all things (miraculous or not). And while it's important to focus on the point of the accounts in Scripture (i.e. with Genesis, how there is one God who made all things out of nothing) rather than the specific fundamental details as is common in Protestantism, at the same time, I believe it is much safer to air on the side of caution by taking God at His Word and leaning towards the miraculous understanding of things like Jonah in the whale, worldwide flood, and so on. It is the position of humility to recognize that we don't know, all we have is God's Word. Just some thoughts on the subject. Fr. Seraphim Rose had some great things to say about this subject, and it's a real shame that his books are so hard to find, where as Farley's are hot off the press. The patristic consensus on this matter is clear, and we shouldn't be reinterpreting everything to fit in with the critical scholar community that has long since abandoned their faith in the Church and her Holy Tradition (including the Scriptures).

[@amigos2841]

That is what I love about the orthodox churches is the fact most answers you will get is who knows rather than trying to have an official dogmatic response, I am protestant but when I want answers I do look at our orthodox brothers for clarity and strengthen my faith, personally I believe genesis is half literal half metaphor, I personally believe that the 6 days are literal days but 1 day is at least 1000 years or more, but again who knows what is important is following God

[@joshua_wherley]

On the topic of evolution, I'd like to point out an interesting comment that I heard from the Roman Catholic KZbinr Brian Holdsworth. While discussing the topic, he mentioned that evolution inherently implies that it is good to live; various species adapt over different periods of time to be better suited to live in their respective environments. This begs the question, why? What is the purpose of living if the universe effectively created itself, without God? If there is no higher power or ultimate purpose to living, and we are all effectively nothing but victims of circumstance, why bother trying to live long lives? Nothing would matter in the end except for whatever subjective value we give to life. This point helped me to realize that even evolution may point back to God and His creating power, depending on how it is viewed.

[@justinbowers2749]

I disagree, Evolution has only one law “survival of the fittest” which goes entirely against God

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

Logos has created everything, therefore as logos is the word for reason (there is no other word in Greek for reason), we must assume that everything is created in some rational or causal way. To think that it is not, would seem to favour the Old Testament myths traced to the Sumerians and Chaldeans over St Paul, St John the Evangelist, many of the early Christian Saints, the Nicene Creed and all who say that Christ is Logos. What does it mean "ultimate purpose" in relation to life? Why does a caterpillar have ultimate purpose if God created a solid firmament between two oceans of water with the earth below and some dark space below the earth but the caterpillar has no ultimate purpose if it is driven through evolution to adapt and survive?

[@timothyhoneycutt3648]

As an OCA member myself, I'm disappointed. The sticking point to me is the teaching that death entered the world via Adam's sin (Rom 5:12). If this is true, that death did not occur prior to Adam, how can evolution hold up? Fr. Lawrence gives no explanation of this and leads us into a worldview the Fathers reject. Unfortunately, he avoided the words of the Fathers here and gave theory and not evidence, even textual critique

[@sweettendercharles1556]

When you point this out to him in the comments to one of his pro-evolution blog posts, he says "I've covered this in my book, I suggest you pick up a copy." (!!!)

[@critiquingchristianity]

On what grounds can we say plant and animal death couldn’t exist before the fall of Adam? BTW, I am not an evolutionist. It is a heresy.

[@olerocker3470]

Also one must consider that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God. To propose evolution as a "hill not to die on" I think is a sign of spiritual blindness. When during the evolutionary process did mankind become in the image and likeness?

[@critiquingchristianity]

Ole Rocker, Also consider evolution easily accommodates heresies like transmigration of souls / reincarnation (metempsychosis).

[@mavisemberson8737]

@@critiquingchristianity Scientific Discovery is not un Orthodox. Evolution is a scientific hypothesis which holds together. I think you are not well grounded in Orthodoxy.. but perhaps you are cradle Orthodox Transmigration of souls is not science at all.

[@remingtonsloan8331]

There are a lot of comments that say, "Farley is way off," but this humble approach to understanding scripture is what led me to the truth of Orthodoxy, the truth of God which defends itself. Force is a sign of heresy. Thank you, Fr. Lawrence. God bless you!

[@innoclarke7435]

Wait, what? "Force is a sign of heresy?" Does that mean St. Nicholas of Myra was a heretic because he struck the heretic Arius? And if Farley's position "defends itself," why is it in such stark contrast to every Father and saint who ever commented on the subject?

[@gigachad2221-g4n]

There's nothing humble in Father Farley's "approach", if he refuses to adhere to the Patristic teaching regarding the creation of the world... Father leans on his own understanding here.

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

Do you believe the world is flat ​@@gigachad2221-g4n

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

​@@gigachad2221-g4ndo you believe it's held by pillars, water above the earth, and that humans were both created after and before animals? Obviously, you don't. What's wrong with having an allegorical interpretation? There's no dogma regarding evolution as heresy or sin in the Orthodox church. His approach was humble and it shows that even if evolution WAS true, it would not affect the Christian faith or the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

[@TheTijuT]

Dear makers of 'Protecting Veil', thank you so much for the wonderful work you do. May many come to know our Lord through your work. May many find peace through the path you show. I am an Eastern Rite Catholic here, and am very grateful for our shared traditions very much.

[@iliya3110]

It turns out that some Russian and Serbian Orthodox saints - who were never Westerners or Protestant - felt that Darwinism was heretical. St Theophan the Recluse, St John of Kronstadt, St Barsinouphius of Optina, and St Nikolai of Serbia all spoke against evolutionism. St Theophan even declared Darwin and his teachings worthy of formal anathema.

[@madcyborg1822]

"Some", no, not some, every single Orthodox saint since the 1850s, including Greek saints, American saints, Russian saints, Romanian saints, Serbian saints, etc, UNIVERSALLY condemned evolution and called it a demonic heresy. The 7 Ecumenical councils anathemize anyone who does not strictly follow the teachings of the Church Fathers, which is that Genesis literally happened.

[@Pavlovsobaka]

Evolutionism as an ideology yes. I can agree with that. That’s where darwinism and eugenicism comes from. However, evolution is most probably nonetheless true because there is just overwhelming evidence for it. To deny it wouldn’t do any favour to any church at this point. To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out it isn’t true or maybe it’s different than what we currently understand it to be but I think the Church shouldn’t reject it. Maybe treat it with suspicion but not reject. If we deny evolution we would also have to get rid of most of biology.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

What these Saints have in common is that they had lived under Communism and had experienced Fascism and Nazism. All three ideologies espoused the idea of social Darwinism and often rejected Christianity on the grounds that it appeared, on the surface, in their understanding, to oppose reason. In practice, Cristianity opposed their morals. That is what the Saints are opposed to, not science. Fr Seraphim Rose completely misunderstands their opposition to social Darwinism and claims they were in favour of the idea of American creationism, which the Saints never talk about. Americans of course, being raised to believe in the Creationism and the literalness of the Old Testament, an idea traced back to the Inquisition, espouse Seraphim Rose even as he was defending himself from criticism by the Orthodox Church itself. The odd thing is that if you prode American Christians about how they understand the Genesis story, what they undestand is not what the Genesis story says. Are you really saying that the sky is solid? That the stars are lamps on the sky. That the planets do not move in relation to its other? Also if you ask Americans how many Genesis stories are there in the Book of Genesis, it becomes apparent that most American Christians have not read past the first page of the Gideon Bible.

[@gigachad2221-g4n]

@@NicholasAggelopoulos stop with the copy and paste replies troll.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

@@gigachad2221-g4n If you have read the reply, why do you ask the question?

[@shantil7764]

I have never heard such a transforming explanation of genesis…. Wow.

[@thevonschmittousvonschmitt8839]

I was raised Protestant and most mainstream Protestant denominations promote theistic evolution. Only the fringe evangelicals and more vocal fundamentalist take Genesis as History. Father Farley, being a convert from a fundamentalist background, is basically reading straight out of the Protestant John Walton’s book: “The lost World of Genesis one.” Walton an Old Testament professor at Wheaton college, who surprisingly contradicts his Genesis as myth and metaphor claims, when he asserts Adam and Eve were real historical figures, and then goes on to use the genealogies “in Genesis “ LOL to back up his claim. And like Walton, Father Farley seems to straddle the fence at times in this interview. Those truly seeking the enlightened path will chuckle and turn away at such hypocrisy and lack of decisiveness in regard to the subject of Evolution. A topic that the Western world has embraced wholeheartedly as truth for well over 100 years... Thankfully however, the patristic fathers is are quite clear on the historical reality of Genesis as well as its spiritualization in order to teach others helpful truths. Yet the spiritualized teachings never were meant to detract from the greater historical reality of scripture but rather enhance our understanding of it. It should not be, therefore, astonishing to Orthodox in the west, that the resurrected Orthodox Church in Russia has become such great fans of the reposed Fr Seraphim Rose ( the Philosopher) if you will, whose books on creation, evolution, eschatology and the religion of the future, are still selling like “hot cakes” in the East. After all, the Russian church suffered immeasurable atrocities at the hands of a regime guided by the atheistic philosophy of evolution. Nevertheless, we are still ashamed of the word of God here in the west. We tell our selves, that can’t happen to us!” “We will get it right this time!” Pray for us Fr Seraphim!! Have mercy on us oh Lord on our shallow and weak faith! For we love the praises of man rather than the praise of God.” We are ashamed and must apologize for the harshness of your word.” Forgive is for turning away so many seeking the truth and leading so many astray. Protecting the veil would do well to look for other teachers concerning this matter.

[@mythologicalmyth]

Theistic evolution is a contradicting statement in itself.

[@stevobear4647]

@@mythologicalmyth That way one could straddle the fence and give more credence to the academia and lift their career. Oh he did talk about people in archeology doing what he appears to be doing himself.

[@zefciu]

That atheistic regime actively persecuted proponents of the Theory of Evolution. Several darwinists were executed or sent to GULag for promoting this idea, that was deemed anti-marxist.

[@dondon3341]

@The Von... AMEN

[@eldermillennial8330]

zefciu You have to be more nuanced about that. It depended on if they could use evolution to their philosophical advantage. When evolution could be argued by some to be advancing humanity to a state of ABSOLUTE Equality and Equity, the Commies loved it. When it was used by some to advance DELIBERATE inequality, as the Nazis wanted, or incidental inequality, as all simple rationalists insist upon, the Commies HATED it. Anything that hinders “Utopia” had to be suppressed; never mind that absolutely everything in the fallen universe hinders it.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

This was a breath of fresh air for me. Im so used now to listen to former protestant Orthodox converts declaring anathemas on anyone who dares entertain scientific ideas on the church fathers behalf. Its depressing. The best hermeneutical key here is that Adam refers to mankind rather than one man. Another I would add is that the pristine state of man in eden is not just about the past: it encompasses the destiny of mankind, the plan of God for man, that which we look FORWARD to restore and fulfill in salvation. Its not a narrative that's limited to one moment in time.

[@matthew13711]

Raised a Protestant I was a dogmatic young Earth guy. I had to discount many facts in order to cling to an issue I was taught was of Paramount importance. Thank God for the Orthodox Church and a new understanding of reality and priorities! Our Creator used science to create us and I pray our scientists will repent and honor our Creator with their findings.

[@mythologicalmyth]

Our Creator used science. You have no idea the implications nor the contradictions in that statement. God is one infinite act or action. Science is the discovery of this act, not the other way around.

[@matthew13711]

So God used magic? LOL science is both the discovery and the practical application of creation.

[@AlexiusY21]

The Church fathers also seem to have been "dogmatic young Earth guys"... Just saying.

[@peterandjoycevanbreemen600]

I appreciate your contribution and the others here, incl. the honorable Fr. Lawrence. Just thinking out loud here, but I find it interesting to think about there is a "divine nature" (see 2Peter). I would suppose that "Natural Philosophy" as we know it begins with a false presupposition that "Nature" excludes the interaction of angels and Spirit. I would rather suppose that God constantly interacts, by divine nature, with what we call physical nature. In my view, then, the word "science" (which has been limited in our culture to exclude divine nature) should include the presupposition of divine nature constantly interacting and holding-together all things in heavens and earth.

[@non-inertialobserver946]

Finally a voice of reason

[@michaelgrinder2588]

Thank you for posting this, Herman. I nearly abandoned the Christian faith when I was in college because I was taught that Christianity stands or falls on a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. I found Fr. Lawrence's book "In the Beginning" to be very helpful and was disappointed when Ancient Faith pulled it from publication. Fortunately, Bishop Maxim rescued it at St. Sebastian Press.

[@ProtectingVeil]

Thanks to God! It's always a blessing to get feedback, brother!

[@innoclarke7435]

I don't wish to be harsh (and please, my tone isn't meant to sound as harsh as it probably will seem), but perhaps you should've spent less time worrying about how the Church's teachings don't correspond to what modernity tells you and more time sitting, thinking about the innumerable examples of where the one-two secular nonsense of macro-evolution and the Big Bang fall apart. I mean it, spend five minutes alone, just thinking it through. I would be truly amazed if you couldn't find at least two examples of where these ideas break down. It has already been recommended by another commenter, but I'll recommend it again. The Patristic teaching (that is to say, the *Truth*) regarding creation is easily seen and explained in "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" by Fr. Seraphim Rose. God bless you and God be with you, Michael.

[@gigachad2221-g4n]

@@ProtectingVeil The Fathers believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis, ie. God created man instantaneously. That said, if we can't count on Genesis being history, than how can we know the accounts of the Virgin birth, Christ's miracles, etc. to be history?

[@eldermillennial8330]

Mark White Yet, the context of Genesis doesn’t make clear if the Hebrew word “YM” is referring for certain to the usual “Yom: Day”, or the more rare “Yoam: Era”, when referring to the first Six units of time of Creation.

[@Giorginho]

Look into critiques of evolution, its a silly theory

[@vickykentrota9031]

Your videos never cease to be enlightening.Thank you and God bless you

[@DanicusRex-m1m]

As a former protestant beginning my journey to orthodoxy, I think a lot of these "problems" stem from our stance on solo scriptura. If the Bible is seen as the only authority, it can quickly become a box that rejects everything that isn't mentioned by it. Technically, America shouldn't exist because it was never mentioned in the Bible, for example. Instead, what I'm gathering (and I am still learning, so please consider this an observation rather than am iron clad statement) is that the orthodox church seems to have a greater respect for the "mystery" aspect of how God operates. It seems to understand that we can't understand some concepts, but that we can understand the commandments in the Bible and have an obligation to honor those commandments. Essentially making arguments over evolution, global vs local flood, or whatever, less important to the clearly laid out tools for salvation and reconciliation with God through his son, Jesus Christ.

[@feeble_stirrings]

This was fantastic. I've love to hear more on this particular subject matter.

[@ProtectingVeil]

Duly noted!

[@JamesR-f9l]

Justin Martyr an Apostolic Church Father had an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

So did St John Chrysostom on several points, St Basil on even more points, St Gregory of Nyssa almost entirely and many other Christian Saints. The literal interpretation of Genesis is completely foreign to Orthodox thought, Father Lawrence makes it clear but he is worried of disenchanting American converts who have been raised thinking that Christianity presupposes the literalness of the Old Testament, a western idea.

[@anthi-mariakouvatsou8746]

@@NicholasAggelopoulos I agree that evolution is probably true, but why are all modern saints against Darwinian evolution, if it is true? This is the only thing that makes me wonder if I am wrong.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

@@anthi-mariakouvatsou8746 - Fr Seraphim Rose quoted several modern Fathers out of context and this has now gone viral on the internet among Americans, although Fr Seraphim was responding to criticism from the Orthodox Church in doing so (that unfortunately has not gone as viral). Most of the Fathers quoted by Fr Seraphim lived under Communism and had experienced Fascism and Nazism. All of those ideologies had adopted a concept called Social Darwinism. It had nothing to do with Darwin. It was a theory that newer ideologies must replace the old ones and people adhering to old ideologies and all inferior races like the Jews and Slavs etc must become extinct. It was used to oppress their enemies and also to discriminate against Christians (regarded as old fashioned cultural fossils). The Saints living under Communism were opposed to social Darwinism and the whole ideological trend based on it but Fr Seraphim, knowingly or not, has quoted them out of context. On the contrary, after the publication of Darwin's first book, on the Origin of the Species, where Darwin presents his theory of natural selection through the survival of the fittest, the Patriarch of Constantinople wrote to congratulate him for his compelling theory, objecting only that the appearance of language has no precedent in animals. St Gregory of Nyssa had no problem with that. Moreover, Charles Darwin later published a second book, the Descent of Man, where he tried to explain how language might have evolved, quite possibly in response to the letter from the Patriarch of Constantinople.

[@anthi-mariakouvatsou8746]

@@NicholasAggelopoulos thank you very much. I needed this reply. This is very interesting. Do you mean that Saint Gregory of Nyssa wasn't against Darwinian evolution? I didn't understand what you said about him.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

Thereby Scripture shows that the vital forces blended with the world of matter according to a gradation; first, it infused itself into insensate nature; and in continuation of this advanced into the sentient world; and then ascended to intelligent and rational beings. Accordingly, while all existing things must be either corporeal or spiritual, the former are divided into the animate and inanimate. By animate, I mean possessed of life: and of the things possessed of life, some have it with sensation, the rest have no sensation. Again, of these sentient things, some have reason, the rest have not. Seeing, then, that this life of sensation could not possibly exist apart from the matter which is the subject of it, and the intellectual life could not be embodied, either, without growing in the sentient, on this account the creation of man is related as coming last, as of one who took up into himself every single form of life, both that of plants and that which is seen in brutes. His nourishment and growth he derives from vegetable life; for even in vegetables such processes are to be seen when aliment is being drawn in by their roots and given off in fruit and leaves. His sentient organization he derives from the brute creation. But his faculty of thought and reason is incommunicable , and is a peculiar gift in our nature, to be considered by itself. - from St Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and its Resurrection.

[@elizabethshaw734]

Beautifully put! It satisfies both my sciency side and my Humanity.

[@paisios2541]

Many Saints were well aware of the theory of evolution and those who commented on it all spoken very strongly against it. There's not a single Saint who says that evolution is an acceptable opinion for Orthodox Christians to hold. These modern Saints all spoke against the theory of evolution, many explicitly saying that it's a satanic deception: St Paisios, St Joseph The Hesychast, St John of Kronstadt, Sts Barsanuphius and Ambrose of Optina, St Nikolai Velomirovich, St John Maximovitch, St Justin Popovich, St Sophrony of Essex, St Nectarios of Aegina, St Theophan the Recluse, St Luke the Surgeon. As well as many not yet officially canonized holy Elders such as Elder Ephraim of Arizona. There's not a single Saint who says that the question of evolution is one that the Church has nothing to say about. THIS is the voice of God speaking to us, and what we test ourselves against.

[@elenihelenmelb]

Let all GLORY BE TO GOD +++ Exactly - we live in deceiving times where even the ELECT WILL BE FOOLED +++ Lord have Mercy + Happy Lent +++

[@madcyborg1822]

I find it sad how many converts to Orthodoxy bring their evolutionism and instead of completely letting the faith change them, these converts and so called "believers" try to change Orthodoxy and interpert the scripture to the atheist philosophy of evolution. There is also scientific evidence for creation. Uranium/lead dating, c14 dating, ice rocks in space with helium showing a young earth. In fact, 90% of dating methods used by secularists declare a young earth. The other 10% are unstable and unproven methods that give very wrong dates and contradict each other. Theistic evolution disagrees with the Church and all of the Holy Fathers. It is blasphemy and heresy to question their "knowledge" that the Holy Spirit gave to them. Can the Virgin Mary's parents be traced back to apes hanging on trees? No, we are all descendants of Adam, who lived 7500 years ago. It baffles me that these so called "believers" would rather trust an openly anti-Christian theory made with unproven assumptions, than to trust the Word of God.

[@paisios2541]

@@madcyborg1822 it's very tragic. We have to put everything, including our mind, up onto the cross to be crucified.

[@paisios2541]

@@madcyborg1822 and we even have the example of St Luke the Surgeon who was himself one of the smartest scientists in Russia at the time and he completely rejected evolution. There is absolutely no basis to believe in evolution as an Orthodox Christian.

[@Yellow_Fish7]

Yup. I mainly see this disturbing neutrality on evolution only with OCA priests on youtube, not in ROCOR.

[@kingofstringz1000]

I honestly did not realize there were so many fundamentalists within the Orthodox community until I encountered this comment section… I’m somewhat dismayed and saddened by the realization…

[@bobo7140]

You say “fundamentalist” as if it’s a bad thing. I honestly didn’t know there were priests in the Orthodox Church teaching Gnostic heresies that have been condemned thousands of years ago and so many Orthodox Christians were buying into these new rehashed heresies. That’s a very unfortunate reality.

[@kingofstringz1000]

@@bobo7140 You are correct that I use fundamentalist as a pejorative. I know not of the Gnostic Heresies present in current priests of which you speak, but I look towards the Fathers who excavated scripture for the rich spiritual meaning which lies within, the divine pattern by which we are called to participate. This level of thinking is difficult to obtain and requires deep contemplation, meditation, and prayer, and so I am drawn to that spiritually rich tradition of mysticism in the Fathers who seem to have long transcended purely a “literal” reading of scripture, which is to say to exist on the surface rather than diving deep within the pattern. If this sounds heretical to you than so be it, but the only heresies I see are those of the fundamentalists unwilling to engage with the deep truth of, the metacosmic reality revealed in scripture, satisfied with a lay level understanding which will lead one to achieve which we are called to achieve. None of this is directed at you of course, for I do not know you, but I wish you the best and pray that we all may participate in the divine nature. God bless

[@kingofstringz1000]

@@orthodoxphronesis With all due respect, to throw around the term “heresy” so cavalierly and then to tell me to repent is to speak from such monumental arrogance that I find to be something that I personally would seek repentance for. I’m trying to have the humility to say that there is a deep spiritual understanding which we must seek and which never altogether self evident, which was largely the approach the fathers had to scripture. So for me to ask a question such as “What constitutes the death described in Genesis?” should not be deemed heresy, for then dogma becomes an obstacle to a deeper spiritual understanding, which itself then becomes heretical. Just as certain fathers sought to understand what it is meant by the light in Genesis 1:3, as it does not have to necessarily mean physical light, we too may ask the same or death. Why must this be regarded as heretical? I have seen many people throwing around that term heresy and again, that pride and arrogance is what I find needs repentance.

[@kingofstringz1000]

@@orthodoxphronesis I’ll pray for you as well, as we should all pray for each other in humility and love. All I will say is that you have no idea what my thoughts are on this matter or my theological perspective and yet you are so willing to jump to accusations of heresy, I would stop and think about this disposition. I am merely saying that I am open to the many mysteries presented in scripture, and I believe there was no death before the fall but we must go deeper in our spiritual understanding and ask what is meant by death, what is meant by the fall, and so on. For even scripture describes the eating of the fruit, “but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die” but we know that Adam and Eve do not physically die that same “day”. So there must be a deeper understanding to these things. I just implore you to be careful with your accusations and to see that we are all brothers in Christ, and I will always choose the Logos before “science”. I really appreciate your willingness to pray for me brother. God bless you and your family.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

They are all American converts mostly from Protestantism who understand very little about Orthodox Christinity. I am sure part of the problem is because of inadequate catechism. Creationist beliefs are very much an American disease.

[@sweettendercharles1556]

No. Fr. Lawrence does NOT present an Orthodox interpretation of Genesis. He believes in the evolution theory. Ancient Faith Publishing stopped printing his book for this reason. Read the Fr. Seraphim Rose book, "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man" for the Orthodox, Patristic approach to this issue.

[@mavisemberson8737]

Shibboleth!. Listen to his words. Science does not conflict with Christianity

[@sweettendercharles1556]

@@mavisemberson8737 Give me a break. The evolutionary theory is NOT science - it is a philosophy. I did listen to his words, Mavis. I have read some of his blog posts as well, and had a brief correspondence with him on this topic. That is why, when I came across this video, I posted the comment above that I did. The evolutionary theory is not scientific, it is a false theory/philosophy and it DOES contradict the Scriptural and Patristic Christianity of our Orthodox faith, and it also contradicts the scientific method (the principles of genetic entropy and irreducible complexity prove this). Fr. Lawrence knows that, but insists on continuing to promulgate this modernist nonsense. I mean no disrespect to a priest of the Church and it is not my intention to judge him. I take issue with his words and ideas, which are in blatant contradiction to the teachings of the Orthodox Fathers on the topic of creation and our salvation in Christ - meaning, God created us incorruptible, and Christ has come to us to restore us to an incorruptible state. The unanimous witness of the Church is that death and corruption are unnatural, and entered the world through the sinful fall of Adam. But Darwin and Fr. Lawrence say that death and corruption had already existed for millions of years and are in fact natural to the created world. These are two mutually exclusive concepts, Mavis. The Fathers take Genesis literally, they do not deny the historicity of Adam and Eve. But Fr. Lawrence does. This is a major problem, therefore, why I said above that Fr. Lawrence is NOT presenting the Orthodox interpretation of Genesis here.

[@mavisemberson8737]

Sweet Tender Charles! Hardly tender :-) The bible was brought together by the Church from writings of the Jewish Tradition. The ancient view by all people, except the Jews , was that the world, if it was created at all or just happened to be there was peopled by gods . Sun Moon etc. These had no interest in people but must be placated by sacrifices The Jews were persecuted for this viewpoint. Those who espouse the ideas you promote believe the Bible was created as it now appears and it must be inerrant much like the Koran. That is an idea which appeals to extreme Protestants.. The Creed says that I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. That means he is outside of time and space. There is no reason to think he is limited by successsive time

[@mavisemberson8737]

I was trying to add that I have a degree in Archaeology and Ancient History and Physical Geography I was educated in the 1950's and 60s before education became so watered down .The Fathers are not innerrant as their own lifestories will tell you. They were products of their time and their cosmography. Many truths were told but they had no knowledge of scientific investigation because that was not a study for theologians in their historical period. Maybe for philosophers to a small degree, but educated people were deterrred from practical experiment. That was for merchants and engineers. and builders who wrote very little.

[@sweettendercharles1556]

@@mavisemberson8737 Read my comment again. I said everything to you that I wanted to say already.

[@Alejandr01836]

You can't deny micro-evolution such as insects developing pesticide resistance. But it requires faith and seems impossible to me that life came out of some primordial chemical soup by chance.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

Exactly!

[@Jcarte4308]

I always understood it as God creating base model creatures with the ability to adapt and change. Over time all these various species pop up in different regions of the earth as they spread out. Humans included.

[@eduardovalentin9416]

Very true! Which is why I think Fr. Lawrence is being careful with how he's putting this. Sadly a lot of 6-day creationists don't really understand evolution outside of blogs from their favorite pop-theologians.

[@jasonmuniz-contreras6630]

Because it most likely didn't happen by chance. A divine hand was and is guiding the totality. However I don't believe the Genesis narrative. I also don't believe creation was an act of god nor was creation ever wholly good(or evil). Creation was an outcome of the war between God and the Enemy. That or material-corporal reality may be the only reality.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

By chance is an expression used by some American scientists to object to the craze of Creationism. Of course it is not by chance that certain genes will survive and not others. It is also not chance that there is a lot of hydrogen and helium in the sun but not any oxygen, for example. The western emphasis is that God creates through miracles, that the miraculousness of the miracles prove God (even though no one has witnessed much miraculousness in their lives). That is the problem, whereas the Orthodox emphasis is that God creates through Logos, through reason, i.e. rationally or causally.

[@jmtheboat]

Excellent. I love the way Fr. Lawrence sums up the Genesis story.

[@ProtectingVeil]

Always glad to hear from you, brother!

[@gigachad2221-g4n]

@@ProtectingVeil Fr. summed up nothing of Genesis. He uttered heresy.

[@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113]

@@gigachad2221-g4n - You are not an Orthodox Christian, so that's ok. Is the Nicene Creed also heresy? Because I read something about a Trinity in it.

[@gigachad2221-g4n]

@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 🧐

[@gigachad2221-g4n]

@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 I am Orthodox. You make no sense. The Church Fathers did NOT teach evolutionary theory. This priest should know better.

[@annekoch2834]

Very interesting take on Genesis: the ancients didn’t care how the world was created, they were more concerned about how to live once we got here. It would be interesting to hear Fr Lawrence speak on the book of Job from the perspective of its ancient writer.

[@sweettendercharles1556]

That is not true. Of course they cared how the world was created. He only says that to attempt to justify his rejection of the Church Father's unanimous teaching on Genesis, and supplant it with his own.

[@annekoch2834]

@@sweettendercharles1556 I don't hear any rejection of the Church Fathers from Fr Lawrence. But after listening to him teach about Scripture I seem to love God and Orthodoxy more. Fr Lawrence does not overlay an agenda on top of Scripture unlike some others I have heard.

[@sweettendercharles1556]

@@annekoch2834 He is rejecting the consensus of the Church Fathers - their unanimous consensus on the Creation of the world and man, and how this occurred. Yes, he does lay an agenda on top of Scripture - an agenda that insists that the Darwinian evolutionary model is true, when it is not true. You, and me, and all Orthodox Christians need to love God and the Church for Who He is, and now Who you think He is. This is very very important. Ancient Faith Publishing dropped Fr Lawrence's book after receiving theological criticism to it - the book was withdrawn for containing anti-Patristic and anti-Orthodox content. Please understand this.

[@annekoch2834]

@@sweettendercharles1556 Wow those are weighty accusations. Have you personally read Fr Lawrence's books to be sure your allegations are true? I have read many of Fr Lawrence's books and can attest that he relies heavily on patristic teaching, he does not reject the consensus of the Church Fathers, and he does not suggest that Genesis supports Darwinian evolution. I cannot speak to why his book on Genesis was not published by Ancient Faith but another Orthodox Press did publish it. Tread carefully Charles before you publicly slander a priest of God.

[@sweettendercharles1556]

@Pine Fresh I follow the teachings of the Orthodox Church and the consensus of the Holy Fathers - and in that regard, the universe was created by God 7,531 years ago.

[@maybeantoniovivaldi2522]

For this priest to say there is no Orthodox position is just disingenuous. St. Gregory Palamas says: "Gregory the Theologian has called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 'contemplation'... but it does not follow that what is involved is an illusion or a symbol without existence of its own." St. Ephraim the Syrian: "No one should think that the creation of the Six Days is an allegory." St. Isaac the Syrian: "...God, solely by His good will, suddenly brought everything from non-being into being, and everything stood before Him in perfection". For a channel claiming to be Orthodox to promote heresy and plant the seeds of doubt of the truthfulness of the Scripture is shameful.

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

@@1sanitat1 no the orthdox agree with each other everyone else is a heretic. Many orthodox trie to fuse evolution which is not science but fantasy to fuse evolution with orthodoxy. It's a huge mistake they only doing this because they fear those evolutionists shame on them these cowards. To speak such words to believe in these modernistsic worldviews and methods

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

@@1sanitat1 st basils view was clear that there was no evolution and that the creation was not something that took centuries or thousands of years. Everything was made in six days!

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

@@1sanitat1 oh I see you play this kind of game. If you have something to write then write it .Dont waste my time. St BASIL in the hexameron says it clearly that he does not support the allegory in this chapter

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

@@1sanitat1 if you believe in the evolution you cannot claim yourself an orthodox Christian it goes against the scriptures in every sense.

[@ΟΜΑΚΕΔΏΝ-ο5λ]

@@1sanitat1 if you believe that the Syrian st were wrong then you dont believe they had the holy spirit or that the holy spirits says to everyone something else and that's blasphemous. It's even blasphemous to believe in this evolution.

[@josephjude1290]

Actually, he did state that there is no Orthodox position. He has great videos and commentary!

[@1sanitat1]

Exactly, this isn't a dogma

[@mariorizkallah5383]

@@1sanitat1 the Synodical Letter of Saint Sophronius of Jerusalem (6th ecumenical council) disagrees with you.

[@mariorizkallah5383]

@@1sanitat1 it is a dogma. Evolution is fake and his heretical and blasphemous. our Lord did not evolve from monkeys. No saint agrees with you, no church father agrees with you. Your lust for acceptance of this world’s unorthodox philosophy has led you to be against Christ

[@mavisemberson8737]

Scepiticism is the basis of science. A paleontologist would never say he had discovered anything.He would say his findings tend to suggest something. Then he would publish it after peer reviewing and prepare to defend his conclusions. So investigation proceeds as in a forensic examination of the surviving evidence. No one is ever positive, except scientific journalists ( magazines)

[@vladr90]

I guess you've been living in fairytale land, then. Unfortunately this is exactly what contemporary"scientists" do - pretend to have discovered how the universe began for instance. And then the journals that they control to begin with, publish their dogmatic propaganda as "fact", just as the soviets have done, same garbage. Welcome to the real world.

[@mavisemberson8737]

You condemn yourself by your assertions about scientists. Extremely untrue.Learn some science for a start. Take Care ..@@vladr90

[@feralandroid]

Great video. I’m new to the church so this is an honest question I have. The church fathers affirmed that death entered the world through Adam’s sin. How does this allow for evolution, which is a system built on death and power?

[@cvrki7]

This is exactly my question as well. Evolution and genesis are antithetical to each other

[@Constantineopulos]

Death is one of those words that the English language has one definition for, which Greek and Hebrew can have multiple definitions for. When the Church Fathers spoke of death, did they mean physical death? Or did they mean spiritual death? That is a better question to ask. The answer to which I honestly don’t have at this moment. That’s why we have our spiritual fathers, for they can answer these questions much better than some random strangers on the internet.

[@marknagy4524]

This is a beautiful explanation, thank you Father!

[@brotheraugustine]

His response to this question fails all three tenets of St. Vincent's Rule for determining what is Christian truth and what is error: universality, antiquity, and consensus. The position he promotes was believed nowhere, ever, by any Church Father or theologian.

[@smithluke270]

This is not true. Pretty much no one in the early church believed in a literal account of genesis. As he said, it is mythology used as a way of communication, and people back then understood that. For example, if someone back then said that the goddess of fortune was good to them, it might have actually meant simply that they were rich.

[@brotheraugustine]

@@smithluke270 Show me all these Church Father books that deny the literality of Genesis, and didn’t have those views disagreed with by the Church as a whole.

[@smithluke270]

@@brotheraugustine Just look up Thomas Aquinas's writings or what the catholic scholastics said about that

[@smithluke270]

Plus its a bit silly to say that they 'denied' the literality of Genesis or even that they would have talked about that, since it was obvious to them that it was mythology, since they lived at a time when mythology and truth weren't rationaly divided, so they wouldn't have been denying anything

[@brotheraugustine]

@@smithluke270 Why would an Orthodox Christian care what Aquinas and other schismatics have to say? I take it from your response that you can’t actually name the books I challenged you to name.

[@NiveusCornix]

I enjoyed Father Lawrence Farley's speech, I dont much care for my fellow Orthodox followers of Christ who buy full sale into the full blown creation story. If you really read all the literature surrounding Evolution, it verifibly disproves young earth creationism. If you buy widely unteneble pseudoscientific claims in young earth creationism, I'd argue that your putting far too much faith in that than in Christ. This whole evolution predicament we live in isn't even a problem in the Jewish community, I don't understand really how it is in our community, if we both accept the OT as divinely inspired word. I have faith that despite scientific fact, Christ God made us in His image, and gave us the capacity to observe this Earth and figure out how He created us, to help us interpret better the divinely inspired word in Genesis. Those who make Evolution the end all, be all of your faith in Him should reconsider that 2 things can be true at once. And again, I don't fully buy into Evolution Theory, it's really more of a philosophy, but without a doubt Genesis is simply not a tenable verbatim explanation of how this Earth was made. Fine, judge other believers and call them heretics, but if anyone want's this issue to be firmly resolved we would need an EC. Until then, like it or not, we can still have members who accept what 98% of our Earths human scientists have discovered to be true. Oh and here, this is the official OCA's answer to this very question(though this answer is written by Fr. Lawrence Farley) oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/evolution-or-creation-science

[@dondon3341]

Ecumenical council has already settled it. "Let anyone who sayeth death was natural before the sin of Adam and/or that the protoplast i.e. Adam would have died even if he did not sin... be anathema" see actual quote above ratified in Nicea II. The mechanism of evolution is DEATH. The so-called "science" for evolutionary theory contradicts itself on every level. This is an issue you should really read both sides on. Not just the run of the mill mainstream anti-tradition side.

[@NiveusCornix]

Don Don I’ve read into this topic extensively. I can’t bring myself to deny the best set of facts based on concrete evidence and observations that we have available as of now, within the scientific community. You aren’t referencing the 2nd Council of Nicaea, which talked about mostly Icons and their validity, and yes I realize Adam and Eve are canonized Saints, which relates to why they are depicted on Icons, I don’t deny their existence. Your comment actually appears to stem from the Catholic Council of Trent, and you can correct me if I am wrong brother, and give me a link to something more direct.

[@dondon3341]

Don Don For all who claim there needs to be a council to settle this. OK... done. EVOLUTION condemned! "Canon 109 of African Code, (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at Trullo and Nicea II. That Adam was not created by God subject to death. That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body-that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX. Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema" Death is the mechanism of Evolutionary theory.

[@dondon3341]

Not Trent. Catholics have been wrong for 1000 years

[@alucard197]

Shut.up.heretic. Is that clear enough ?

[@RhenishHelm]

I would enjoy longer videos of your interviews, in addition to this content.

[@ProtectingVeil]

Thanks for your comment...I would *love* to do some longer form content. It is mostly a time and commitment issue (I suppose that's true of most of life(?!)) Thank you for your patience...I am hoping to get there!

[@aeoncenturycompanyincorpor6967]

I'm sympathetic to a more open-ended understanding of the Genesis creation account; however, here is the problem. You cannot get the Salvation story spoken of by the NT without a literal Adam. A metaphor is not truth. If Adam is just a metaphor, there is not real salvation needed, because the sin never happened. That's my problem. The NT clearly refers back to the historicity of Adam's fall as the basis of the need for the Blood of Christ, of the Incarnation. This cannot be true of a mere metaphor.

[@ThePhilosorpheus]

If you understand Adam as mankind, there is no contradiction. The story is as metaphorical as it is literal. We need salvation because we ourselves constantly repeat the sin of Adam.

[@dansgone2229]

Read St. Basils Hexaemeron , is gives a very “unscientific “ creation account of how God created the heaven and earth. Not sure why Fr. Farley says there is no Orthodox understanding of creation? St. Basil is a great saint and was highly educated. Regardless, modern “mainstream” sciences tend to “refute” point by point , every single thing written in Genesis regarding the creation account. This is because their “saints” (Newton, Darwin, Einstein, etc...) ultimately stand in opposition to belief in God who created by word.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

Please! St Basil said that the earth is round, whereas the Old Testament interpretation at the time it was written maintained the belief that the earth was flat. St Basil said that the waters above, were not above the firmament (what the story of Genesis says, but were in the sky, the clouds. St Basil says that God did not really speak, as he does not have a mouth. He says it is meant figuratively, that he ordered. He says that the first day of creation was not a 24 hour day but of unknown duration, as it came between eternity and the second day. He says that the planets move and have independent trajectories, as everyone knew in his time, where the Old Testament story says that they were all affixed onto the firmament and were not moving independently. If you agree with St Basil, you must disagree with the literal reading of the Genesis. If you disagree with St Basil, presumably you believe in the stars being lamps stuck on a solid sky or that there are waters above the earth and even above the sky but a void underneath. The choice is easy to make, if you want to keep your sanity.

[@elizabethshaw734]

I am a Scientist and I just said we don't know twice. :-)

[@NGAOPC]

“I don’t know WITH CERTAINTY” is a given in science, but is not so in media accounting scientific claims, or pop sci “spokesmen” (Tyson, Dawkins, J Coyne), who are not representative of all scientists, I understand Father’s phraseology in that way. Science textbooks are regularly revised as we learn more about temporal realities of Creation.

[@stuntman083]

The Infallible Ecumenical Councils affirm Genesis as literal and Adam as first man. Anathema to those that say Genesis is a myth

[@IgnatiusSeventy7]

Do you happen to have a reference to which Ecumenical Council?

[@stuntman083]

@@IgnatiusSeventy7 Canon 109 of Carthage, was ratified at Trullo. Also Canon 3 of Trullo references the age of the earth, around 6000 years old at the time

[@IgnatiusSeventy7]

@@stuntman083 thank you, I appreciate it a lot.

[@stuntman083]

@@IgnatiusSeventy7 Sure

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

No they don't. Not as modern crazed Americans understand them.

[@Yallquietendown]

Being 'mythological' doesn't mean the events aren't historical. The founding of America is both mythological and historical.

[@peterandjoycevanbreemen600]

Thank you! This is what needed so much to be said. I need to know more about this.

[@xaviorjimenez2227]

You're missing the point

[@tyn3496]

Thank you for this. I really needed to hear this summary, as I have been wondering if I am in sin with some of my "scientific" beliefs I am faced with in my career while maintaining my Orthodox faith.

[@kcrooks7]

This is one of the reasons I want to become orthodox.

[@dansgone2229]

Gods position is that He says Himself that He created in six days (Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17). He said it to all Israel and He said it a second time personally to Moses. If anyone cannot accept this miracle, don’t ask them to believe that bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. If you destroy the very foundations of faith and believing from the very beginning and what God Himself says about it, then you (and not God) are building your own “foundation” on sand.

[@gigachad2221-g4n]

Thank you! Amen!

[@tracygriffin4439]

Only former Evangelicals who convert to Orthodoxy get bent out of shape over evolution. People who are born and raised Orthodox don't worry very much about it.

[@jamesbarksdale978]

When I became an Evangelical Christian in my late teens I learned quickly that evolution was evil and creationism was good. I no longer see it that way. It's been freeing not to feel obligated to defend the biblical creationist view against the secular evolutionists. I'm now quite happy to leave the matter in God's hands, thank you very much.

[@inbetweennames4438]

Don't listen to this man. I am an Orthodox priest. This man does not speak rightly. The Orthodox position necessarily excludes neo-Darwinian evolutionary hypotheses. God did not use evolution (including death, deformity, and disease) as a mode of creation.

[@thingsweneverdid3782]

Now you can have your cake and disbelieve it too!

[@mythologicalmyth]

well said!

[@American-Jello]

So basically, the Orthodox position is clearly summed up in the Nicene Creed. Plain and simple. Everything else is secondary and can be discussed.

[@noelleangelus]

Brilliant and helpful as always.

[@marshalkrieg2664]

Evolution disables Original Sin and thus renders Jesus's sacrifice unnecessary.

[@LaserKatze]

I like to view it like this: if man would not have sinned, man would be naturally immortal but could still die to catastrophes(man would be probably protected by god) and murder(which is a sin, so if man didn’t sin there’d be no murder) So us adapting to our environment is definitely possible, since we do not know if God created our common ancestor and then made sure to have him evolve to what we are now. We do not know if other human species were such extrem heretics and sinners that god made us and catastrophe erase them. Original sin isn’t erased by evolution, nor is Christ‘s sacrifice

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

The Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin.

[@Giorginho]

Evolution is a silly pagan mythology, absolutely no need to "reconcile" it with the Orthodox teaching.

[@Pdstor]

Darwinism is not at all reconcilable. Evolution at the small scale is certain (one can demonstrate it) and at a large scale can happen in ways that fit the Genesis history fine and dandy without relying on the Calvies to fill in details for us over at AIG; it's been around for thousands of years and has been flirted with in writings like Augustine's. An earlier council would have declared it heretical like they did Origen's lies and the falsehood of an eternal endless and philosophically necessary universe.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

Oh, but the myths of the Chaldeans and Sumerians and Assyrians that found their way into the creation story are absolute scientific truths? Get in touch with reality please.

[@mixahl4923]

St Joseph the Hesychast said that the theory of evolution emitted ' a foul smell' and then told the man that believed it that it was wrong.

[@flaviusaetius5701]

Everyone: Who created the world? Protestants: goD Atheists: Big Bang Orthodox: no

[@saulm58]

The Big Bang actually is not an atheist theory. It was originally postulated by the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. The more basic idea to relate the Bing Bang with God is that it implies the existence of an initial cause that transcends the physical world (because something cannot come out of nothing).

[@Maine-Life]

This whole debate of evolution is a bit silly. All living things change over time....and that's not really an issue. If someone is focusing their entire belief system on whether that is true or not is instead focusing all of their faith on the created....not the creator. We were all created...the exact mechanism of how the creator did it isn't terribly important. All that scientific discoveries do is show the wonder of the creator. I think some of the issue is that people confuse the origins of the old testament with the new testament. The gospels and the epistles were written about specific events that the writer had first hand experience with or was something that happened in a very near time frame to the writer. Genesis isn't that.....not even close.

[@cuttlefisch]

Which Jurisdiction does Fr. Lawrence belong to?

[@ProtectingVeil]

OCA!

[@Scandimania]

How do you reconcile the presence of death prior to the fall? What is the need for Christ and salvation when death was evidently not caused by the fall?

[@johngillatt2740]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In an instance, that is good enough for me. To God it was an instance. I am smaller than God so it may look like it took longer than that to me. What I like about Fr Lawrence 's position is believe God first.

[@bodysuit1134]

I think that genesis is clearly mythological, but I reject evolution. The All-Good God created the world perfectly good. If evolution is true, death always existed in the world and is not foreign to it.

[@KayElayempea]

That is my problem with evolution of life from nothing, that it requires that death existed before humans. Now you could say that the Fall involved spiritual death, but then that still means that physical death is good and killing other things is also good since God said everything was good in the beginning. Genesis does not seem to support that killing people is good and says people were initially given only plants to eat. I see no problem with evolution occurring after the fall. I have no problem with the earth being very old or young. I have no problem with God creating the universe by his word and initiating a big-bang type of event.

[@bodysuit1134]

@@KayElayempea yea, I'm pretty open to all that and I also think it's irrelevant. We are given what we are able to handle and what we need to know. You're absolutely right about death not existing before the fall. I would even argue death, as a thing, is against God's very nature, who is life. God did not create death according to the scriptures, but created all things that they would have their life in them.

[@bodysuit1134]

This is an amazing video

[@davidwalker9594]

Im currently interested in looking deeper into Orthodox Christianity, as ive lately been burnt out by a lifetime of evangelicalism. Im happy to hear that the OC church doesnt die on the hill of creationism and evolution.. and really science as a whole. As i have gotten older I've noticed that many evangelicals do not like to engage in logical discorce about the world and will only truly engage if their beliefs are met. The clash between faith and logic has been a real problem in my experience and have just resided myself as an agnostic theist.. as I cannot ignore objective truth. But I do not believe that science could ever interfere with the principles that Jesus stood for. Evangelical Christianity became a process of battling ideas than actually doing the true message of Jesus, in my experience. One note I would like to challenge is when you said scientists dont often like to say they're wrong, I don't think that is a true statement for the majority. Science is nothing more than the pursuit of understanding the natural world. Once good evidence presents itself, it is the duty of a scientist to use it for discovery. This is why i believe it is called scientific law and theory.

[@zita-lein]

Loved this! ❤💙

[@dondon3341]

For all who claim there needs to be a council to settle this. OK... done. EVOLUTION condemned! "Canon 109 of African Code, (120 of Council of Carthage), ratified at Trullo and Nicea II. That Adam was not created by God subject to death. That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body-that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema. Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX. Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema" Death is the mechanism of Evolutionary theory.

[@dondon3341]

Looks like you’ve never actually read St. Basil or you’d see how out of context your quote is. Fossils, coal deposits, oil, layers of rock etc are actually strong evidence of a world wide flood. Let me ask you... what kind of rock are fossils typically found in?

[@dondon3341]

@@yeehaw6267 Sorry, too hard to respond to your question via cell phone... yes these things can be explained via the Creationist Model i.e. the Worldview of ALL the God Bearing Church Fathers. 1. "...humanoid creatures..." Humanoid fossils labeled as so-called "missing links" have nearly ALL been proven to be hoaxes including piltdown man, nebraska man and many others. That said, the so-called Neanderthal, for example, were simply humans that probably died out during the flood. They were simply a line of Adam that was larger than most but even modern men are shown to have traces of Neanderthal DNA. They were men... not ape-men. 2. "... that pre-date..." The dating of fossils is highly debatable even amongst evolutionary scientists, let alone their contemporaries i.e. PHD's that believe in the 6 day Creation model just like our Church Fathers do. So your claim that one fossil predates another is not something that can be proven, simply hypothesized and speculated upon. Most dating techniques are theory laden and rely directly on broad, un-provable assumptions. 3. "St. Basil..." your quote as mentioned above is completely misrepresenting St. Basil's position on Creation and that of death. Death entered the world via the sin of Adam and that includes death of animals. Please read the Hexameron... it is very reckless and completely dishonest to argue for a godless position using cherry picked quotes of the Fathers without ever having read those works. This work, actually ALL of St. Basil's writings are solid GOLD. Reading his works can only lead to good things for any Orthodox Christian. May God have mercy on us and free us from the delusions and lies of the enemy. God bless!

[@dondon3341]

@@yeehaw6267 No sir... that's not all you had to say. (animals etc.) You asked deliberate theory laden questions (first about fossils of man/animals) as if those questions debunked the Patristic world view i.e. the Biblical world view. I answered those questions coherently and you backtrack to "I'm not here to debate...". Novelty is NOT "worth consideration". If the Fathers taught against such ideas then those ideas are stupid. Why do you even bother to cherry pick and make dishonest claims about these goofball modern ideas being somehow in line with the teaching of the Fathers? You don't care about what the fathers teach... just own up to it being a novelty and against the Orthodox Traditions... then you can start your own new sect or join the Catholics and Protestants in re-writing the faith. Orthodoxy is not up for "debate" to mold to worldly ideas. God bless.

[@dondon3341]

@@yeehaw6267 Open my "eyes and heart" to what? Re-inventing the Faith? No. I pray God will lead you to Faith in His Word and His Revelation as TRUE without adding or taking away via the lens of modernity. God bless.

[@derek123wil0]

​@@dondon3341 you seem to not be able to wrap your head around compatibilism. Compatibilists Faith is the strongest because they do not fear science, the process of man discovering the manifestation of gods creation. We fear God and only God. You, who think that the scientific process can possibly "add or take away" from Faith in His Word must have not as strong a Faith as you imagine yourself to.

[@KE4VVF]

Absolutely Wonderful! Thank you

[@marycayburkindine1003]

This is the most sensible and open explanation of Genesis and evolution and creation. I like that it's not that important.

[@rhb30001]

I thought God created everything from nothing and just spoke everything into existence?

[@davidford694]

I am always appalled when I realize how much harm has been and is caused by people who are certain about that which they have no right to be certain of.

[@vladr90]

Just about how certain you are about what you just realized about others?!

[@costakeith9048]

That's why scientism is a heresy, it posits certainty from the fallible observations of wicked men. We can only be certain of that which has been revealed to us by God.

[@DontDrinkthatstuff]

@@costakeith9048 Seems very convenient tbh. I agree that Scientism has become a toxic faux-religion in many respects but I don't honestly see how you can look at the earth and not think it's extremely old.

[@semprequeleroscomentariose8916]

Nice. If you can put the audio transcript, thanks.

[@joshf2218]

I think it’s an issue to reduce Genesis to SIMPLY polemics. It’s more of a correcting of the record than just polemics.

[@probablysmart]

I wouldn't discount a word from Genesis, every word is directly related to our salvation..You discount that, or you call it "symbolic or mythological" you open the door for a heresy to come in.. When in doubt, take the scripture word-by-word. Don't try to box God within a working theory or a frame of work so we don't look bad in front of a world that looks for every chance to discount the existence of God. God created the everything in 6 day, because He simply can, and He said so.. Had it been billions of years, He would have told us, that it took billions of years!!! Also read the book of Job and it has a lot more answers on Genesis. The Books of Matthew and Luke both counted all generations from Christ to Adam, that means Adam did not evolve from an ape.. so let's not get carried away! Or you want to discount those too? :) :)

[@FirstnameLastname-sw1ry]

The Church should perhaps take a position? Darwinism is base line theologically Atheist. Is Darwinism also not the cannery in the coal mine? Looks what groups promote it, and demand people and churches bend their theology and beliefs around it? Darwinism is a litmus test.

[@bryankoverby]

I post this with as much respect and charity as possible but you have to be corrected on this Fr. According to St. Irenaeus of Lyon's Against Heresies Book III you are allegorizing and mutilating the scriptures as the Marcionites did.

[@Pdstor]

Can I ask for a clarification on the Orthodox position on **Darwinism,** the thought that animals evolved without the intervention of God, but rather by accumulation of gradual changes and random catastrophe? I would assume we would reject that, even if one would say "if an antitheist went out into the field, one would arrive at old Earth Darwinianism." One can still say these things and remain non-Darwinist, even a bizarre form of YEC, and nevertheless perfectly Orthodox, IMO. But I have doubts about proclaiming Darwinism.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

As Fr Lawrence has not responded, I will try: It depends on what you think God is. The Catholic Church has held the idea that God is proven by the supernaturalness of His miracles. So without intervening, potentially nothing would happen, the world presumably should freeze. That is not the reality we see, there are no constant supernatural miraclous everywhere, so it is a bit problematic. The idea has been generally adopted in the West. In Orthodoxy, we believe that Christ is Logos and that the mioraclea along with everything else have a rational explanation. As long as are able to find rational explanations to natural phenomena, that agrees with our Christian belief that the are created through Logos. The Saints who opposed "Darwinism" lived under Communism and had eperienced Nazi and Fascist ideologies which at the time espoused theories of social Darwinism (read some article on it in Wikepedia or elsewhere). That was what the Saints were opposed to, they were not concerned with scientific theories, they were defending Christianity, they were not writing books of science.

[@gmansard641]

I like how this man refers to Genesis as "mythology." Contrary to the popular concept a myth is not a lie or deception. A myth is a story that is not necessarily factual, but contains deeper truths. Take Jesus' parables. Did these accounts actually happen, or did He make up these stories as a teaching technique to convey deeper concepts?

[@DontDrinkthatstuff]

If Jesus isn't divine and didn't do the miracles he spoke of, why believe anything he says?

[@katherine3486]

Can anyone point to Cain and his Sister? Someone at Church is asking and I've NO idea

[@kalashi6305]

There's no evidence in the scriptures that Cain married his sister.

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

​@@kalashi6305 Who did Cain marry, then?

[@davidroutledge6314]

Fr. Seraphim Rose of Blessed Memory has a remarkable book on this very topic called, "Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision". The book profusely quotes the Church Fathers' interpretation of Genesis. My issue with the whole Creation vs. evolution debate is that the debate's "either/or" framing greatly diminishes the possibility that the two positions can be reconciled. Why not accept that there was a Six-Day Creation AND evolutionary development of creatures? What I mean by this is the Genesis story largely recounts God's perfect creation of the Universe in its "pre-lapsarian" state (before the Fall). All of Creation was at rest in God's goodness, perfection, and Light. But after the Fall, Adam and Eve were evicted from this All-Perfect paradisaical Creation to a world whose prince was Satan. (Ever wonder what was outside the Garden of Eden? Where did Satan and his demons reside?) The Fallen World, no longer at rest in God, is one of dissolution, restlessness, selfishness, evil, competition, and death - a realm ruled by demonic principalities. Perhaps this world, where creatures are merely shadows of their perfect "kinds" (as created by God), fallen from grace on account of Adam's sin, and hence struggle for existence through killing and exploitation of the world's now limited resources. Perhaps evolution truly is Satanic in that it's a condition of this fallen (post-lapsarian) world, and the ascent/descent of species throughout disrupted time is determined by creatures insatiable will towards preservation and freedom from death, which only God can provide.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

Fr Seraphim Rose wrote his book in response to Fr Kalomiros, a Greek Orthodox priest who had written a letter to explain to him the mainstream Orthodox view. Fr Seraphim does not quote anything from the 40-page letter but launches into an apology that appeals to American Christians because the western perspective is less balanced and much more on the side of the Old Testament as a book of facts attacking science as myths. We hear that all the time. Essentially Fr Seraphim Rose was moving away from mainstream Orthodox belief and when the Church responded, he defended himself by quoting a number of Saints out of context.

[@rusmeister7144]

My disappointment is in the good father’s faith in modern science, and skepticism toward the patristic consensus on how they saw anthropology. If nothing else, the general denial of Adam as a specific man, and not merely or only an abstraction for all mankind are contradicted in Orthodox iconography, and the fact that Adam is an actual patron saint for Christians with the name of Adam. Who are they praying to? An abstraction? All mankind? It is clear that there was a definite single and unique human being whose name was Adam, and all of the fathers agree that he was literally the father of the human race. And the whole issue of sin and death entering the world through a fully-formed man, or sin and death reigning in a world where no men had ever existed, is not dealt with. Scripture and patristics affirm the former. The latter contradicts the former flat-out, and cannot exists in the same universe as the former, and it is what evolutionists must believe. Fr Lawrence doesn’t touch the issue, and it’s pretty damning to the pro-evolutionary camp’s (the firm believers in the general infallibility of modern science) case.

[@jeeves9428]

Adam is not a saint in the orthodox church

[@rusmeister7144]

@@jeeves9428 Uh, yes he is. He is a Holy Forefather, and the feast day is at the end of December.

[@peterandjoycevanbreemen600]

I find Fr. Lawrence presentation to be quite interesting. And the comments here are to be respected as well. I think that the negative commenters above may be more generous with Fr. Lawrence if they realize that he is speaking as a Theist not a Deist. If I may contribute, even though I am a student and not a teacher, I think that this topic may be profitably approached by considering the terms "theism" vs. "deism". I think I have gathered secondhand from NT Wright that "deism" is similar to Epicureanism and is the ancient assumption that God is far away and separate from the created nature and systems. And Darwin's philosophy was Deism. In contrast, THEISM and its cousins is the view that God not only began things at a beginning but that Elohim interacts with all things on an ongoing basis. ….. If my definitions are basically true, then when we consider the PROCESS in which the stars, planets, biological things, and human things all have proceeded and are proceeding, then we must carefully examine HOW WE DEFINE "creation" and "evolution". Why should we assume that these words are clearly defined? Why should we assume that a Charles Darwin clearly defined something termed "evolution". Why would we assumed that "creation" (which in the Hebrew of Genesis one is often a word which may mean "formation") needs to be limited? Rather, in Scripture, if I am correct, God is shown to begin and continually interact with the things which are made.

[@peterandjoycevanbreemen600]

So, where I am going with my above comment is like this. If God, through the Spirit and angels is continually interacting with all things (and "all things" includes the impartation of divine nature as well as something which materialists call physical nature), then Creation is an ongoing thing. New Creation is already occurring in the Church. The wolf and the lamb shall lie down together. Resurrection life is a partaking of the divine nature. The Church shall have dominion over the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and every animal. So, we must not let the Enemy falsely define our terms such as "evolution" or "creation". God can create a "new species" from time to time.

[@peterandjoycevanbreemen600]

And Fr. Lawrence in his wonderful speech here left the door open for us to explore Truth in the light of the Holy Scriptures and the nurturing of the Church.

[@GuitarDhyana]

Thank you, Father! Very excellent. Shared widely.

[@MajorMustang1117]

The Living Word of God is very clear on this. If the Scriptures are not clear or are allegorical, then they are up for debate. They are not. What God has breathed, is fact. If it is simply symbolism or mythology, then it leads to other questions like; "If the creation of the Earth didn't happen literally as described in Genesis, then how do I know Sodom and Gomorrah actually happen? Maybe it's a story with meaning? If that isn't literal, then is the Exodus real? Did the Hebrews actually cross the parted sea? Did Elijah literally do miracles? Was Jesus really born of a Virgin? It's either all true, or it's all false. It is God's Word, or it isn't.

[@VITAMINOZA1976]

This is just terrible and really hard to watch and listen. It’s really sad to hear this Father speaking like this. He did Reserch on what other cultures think of creation but he didn’t read our orthodox holy fathers and their thoughts on creation. Our Fathers who were illumined with Holy Spirit and knew to interpret the words of genesis and Bible itself. Saint Basil the great, Saint John of Kronstadt, Saint John Chrisostom, Saint John of Shanghai, Saint Gregory new Theologian and many many others. If he didn’t read them he can find many books written from our holy fathers on this topic and understand what really happened. This is just a blasphemy on the creation. He even used some terms to defend his stand ( ADAM) like there was no first Adam but nation Adam. From who then God took rib from? I can understand this person that he doesn’t know but this video has 22 thousand view and if nobody says something this is going in wrong direction. I want to say that CHURCH has a stand on creation and YES it is very important stand and teaching where we come from so can know where are we going to. It is very important to know how the earth and nature was in the beginning and in what state was Adam and Eve before the Fall. That IS essential and crucial point in church teaching.

[@mythologicalmyth]

Genesis and Moses were just mythologizing after experiencing the presence of God? That is laughable at best.

[@whoami8434]

I wonder why, then, if the genesis account was not a real event in the world, why it is that Jesus must be a real event in the world. Why, if the fall was not a real event but mere allegory (etc) that Jesus must save us from a mere allegory. If the genesis account of the fall was not literally true as a kind of historical account, then why must Jesus be a literally true historical account? If genesis didn’t happen, it seems equally understandable that Jesus didn’t need to happen, since the reality he was saving us from is not the true fallen nature, but a kind of human psychological disposition. He would be participating at the level of human psychology, not ultimate reality. But the reason I don’t accept this idea is that Jesus was saving us from a primordial condition that began not from a material set of parents making some mistake, but by some immaterial reality which, in the Bible, is represented in the genesis story. So genesis can be “true” and really require us to be saved- necessitating that Jesus do that saving-but does not need to be a material reality. I’m not sure if this makes sense, but it seems to account for the asymmetry between the obviously allegorical Genesis and the obviously literally true story of Jesus. In this way, one could actually understand the fall of man as the beginning of the world. We eat of the tree and, in our primordial disobedience, we are sent to exist as material beings outside the immediate presence of God. Then, for whatever reason, God becomes man and saves us from this reality, allowing us once again to enter into communion with him.

[@CoolCakesJack]

The irony is that Father just outright ignores what contemporary saints have said about this very issue. Which is a very Protestant/evangelical thing to do (ignore what holy men and Saints say)

[@admiralmurat2777]

Most 20th century saints are just being reactionary to their fears. They blow smoke up people's ass all the time.

[@tecomaman]

The genesis account of creation was the creation of our solar system

[@Pdstor]

Did you see the same physicist modeling the Earth as being on a flat geodesic with the waters above the firmament being comets?

[@tecomaman]

@@Pdstor There must have been water at the ozone layer so all the earth would be warm ,green house ,my guess

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

You clearly have never read the story of creation in Genesis

[@tecomaman]

@@NicholasAggelopoulos Yes I gave ,when did God create the sun and the moon

[@tecomaman]

@@NicholasAggelopoulos the heaven is where birds fly ,read

[@mythologicalmyth]

Attacking the argument : Christ said, “If you believed in Moses, you would believe in me.” The finger of God wrote the Torah including the 10Cs at Mt Sinai. No one has ever refuted 24-hour day cycles with sunrise and sunset. The so-called greatest scholars cannot refute the original language they can only impose symbolism in place of the plain literal reading. The sciences are biased by antitheism and peer-review is not the same rigorous standard of physical sciences. Mechanistic encumbrances are constrained by time, they grossly limit the future of discoverability divorced from materialist propaganda. The argument capitulating to nihilism’s neopagan trans humanism is laughably and precisely refutable. (By me). Evolution is mathematically improbable: exponentially. These people defending mechanistic science are clueless

[@elizabethshaw734]

The Lord could have created the whole thing via evolution we just don't know it tells us 7 days. The Bible also tells us a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. That could be a way of explaining Evolution we just don't know if I say again. I never found anyone to agree with me that God may have done it by Evolution until I met the Orthodox Church.

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

While it is true that individual scientists in publishing a paper often try to make a strong claim, that is still considered as evidence in the context of a hypothesis and their claim is usually that their finding supports an hypothesis, not that it proves it. The idea of evolution is an idea as old as science itself. Excavations at the School of Hippocrates in Greece have unearthed evidence of fossils being collected and presumably studied. The theory of evolution lies at the foundation of biology and medicine and it is not an untested idea. It is also accepted by some of the Saints, e.g. St Gregory of Nyssa, on the Soul and its Resurrection. The opposition comes from the likes of the Inquisition which considered the Old Testament as a book of true facts and anything that differes from it, when read literally, is considered a fallacy. This is the idea championed today in America. Ouside America, I have not come across Orthodox Christians who hold the belief that the Old Testament is only facts or even mostly facts. It is useful in providing a background, prophesies about the coming of a Messiah and other information, without which it would be difficult to understand the life of Christ, why he attacked the merchants at the temple, why he said he was the son of God, rather than of gods, etc. Our school theologian in Athens, who was also an ordained priest and entrusted with teaching theology at schools by the Church, referred to some of the stories as myths. That is also how the Saints referred to thm, one finds that word used very often. Myths are useful for edification, as parables, etc but are not necessarily facts. It is ridiculous to think that the myths which can be traced to other non-Christian cultures in Mesopotamia, from a time when most people could not read or write should overrule the Apostles and Evangelists, the other Saints or the Nicene Creed, regarding who creates and how.

[@peterandjoycevanbreemen600]

See the last minute of this video. It is clear that Fr. Lawrence is fully Theistic, believing in a God who has dominion over all things. This is as he so well says, that we do not "die on this hill" fighting over an opinion. The crucial agreement we must have is that we are Creational Theists. That is we all agree that God begins things and is in charge of developing us toward the goal. We all are in unity if we agree that God is in charge. Fr. Lawrence does not say here that God has left a material world to evolve itself. That would be Deism.

[@breambo3835]

With evolution there is nothing to deny as there is no scientific empirical evidence to support the hypothesis of evolution. To assume evolution is false.

[@nicolaiseraphim4836]

So acutally was Adam real story or only myth? especially according to Orthodox Church

[@itoldyouso6622]

This priest is wrong. Orthodox do not teach it's a mythology.

[@nicolaiseraphim4836]

@@itoldyouso6622 but the priest is teaching about orthodox teaching

[@Giorginho]

@@nicolaiseraphim4836 A priest can be wrong

[@alucard197]

You start with doubt about Genesis, and then you end up with doubt about anything in the Bible.

[@thomervin7450]

And? Welcome to the complexities of life.

[@Cobruh_Commander]

@@thomervin7450 "And?" Dispel the demonic whisperings with prayer and study of the Fathers and scriptures, not to mention people who refute this Ma$onic crap.

[@MrSofuskroghlarsen]

@@Cobruh_Commander Masonic crap? Do you sincerely believe that all the researchers in neuroscience, biology, behavioral sciences, etc are part of a world-wide scheme of trying to impose a false narrative? There is so much evidence for evolution.

[@Cobruh_Commander]

@@MrSofuskroghlarsen I never said that, you're making up a strawman. However, a lot of people in it are just doing it because that's how they get paid. Follow the money, it's easier to bribe scientists than politicians. What evidence? You mean the forgeries, assumptions and frauds that uphold this grand narrative? You're interpreting "evidence" through a worldview that doesn't add up.

[@MrSofuskroghlarsen]

@@Cobruh_Commander Believe what you want, my friend, but evolution is not made up. I'm a Christian too and I get why the narrative of evolution at first can feel threatening to our narrative (problem of evil, original sin, anthropology etc), but It is permissable to think that evolution happened and not buy into evolution as a grand narrative that explains everything. If you sincerely think that evolution is a forgery then I won't sit here and argue, because frankly it Isn't that important for our faith. However, I'm a graduate in biological psychology, with several courses in neuroscience and evolutionary psychology, and I can say to you that the evidence is there.

[@chris714s]

We have psalm 148 sung at our liturgies which praises God for “the water above the heavens”…. This is referring back to Genesis 1. I find it so discouraging that we today in this atheistic/demonic influence world favor unproven science over the truth statements concerning creation in Holy Scriptures. When Genesis says God spoke (thru His Word, Christ) and created this world, in the manner laid out, we ought to believe it. I see none of the church fathers arguing with that, instead praising God for it! Evolution is a demonic/humanistic theory proposed by secular scientists, who in their minds do not have God. And we take that today and try to marry it with Holy Scripture? We should definitely be more fundamentalist about this imho. God explains Himself and what He has done in scripture and thru His church. But we fallen humans today say that isn’t good enough smh Forgive me for my rant. I’m real passionate about this matter 🙏

[@markdelft1769]

07:30. Did Jesus also then just accommodate the mythical interpretation of all of us? It is troubling to see us start out saying there is no firm position and then set one forth: myth. This accommodating of materialistic "science" puts me in mind of the the late 1800's in Protestant history. If the main thrust is ethical then no need to mention "science". The thrust is salvation of man, not ethics or science, lets not be distracted. Fr. Lawrence, forgive me a sinner, and God be with your spirit.

[@alexs8335]

Mark, you create an artificial problem. Contradiction is possible between two scientific opinions , or between two theological opinions. We don't choose between science and the Bible, or between science and religion, these are two different kinds of human knowledge. Science is methodologically materialistic, it studies the material world, and it uses the method of an empirical observation + mathematics and logic. We know that the Earth rotate around the Sun from science, not from the Bible or theology. Science answer question "how?", religion answer question "why?".

[@markdelft1769]

Since science is rooted in a lineal time, material, space construct how can it discern the Holy Mighty, Immortal, God Who defies understanding. He is not known or seen. His ways are past finding out. He turned the flame of fire that consumed the mighty men into a soothing dew for the Hebrew children. No sense of how can enter here, is it just myth then? Is everything that defies science a myth? Maybe science needs to discover a bit more. He entered the room, the doors being closed, may He do this for our darkened minds and hearts.

[@alexs8335]

@@markdelft1769, is it a quote from the accusatory speech of the Galileo Galilei trial?

[@Jordan-1999]

I believe that the Holy Trinity created heaven and earth in six days. I believe that Adam was created on the sixth day. I don't think the earth is young, and I don't believe in evolution.

[@dollarbar1]

Can you image the image of God being born out of instinctual animal procreation