Metropolitan Kallistos Ware on evolution

[@OrthodoxPerspective]

The majority of people in the comments are misunderstanding what Met Kalistos is saying. He is not saying that science can decide everything about material things and religion should only discuss the spiritual. As such he is not affirming evolution or giving dominion to science to rule on that matter. If you read the paper one of his students wrote, you can see clearly there are many arguments laid out against the theory of evolution that purports to describe the origin of man. What Met Kalistos is saying is that, science can only say "we observe such and such mutation", "we observe such and such fossils" and then this can be fitted into some theory grounded in certain beliefs/axioms. This theory based on philosophical beliefs or assumptions should be described as an empirical scientific fact. Religion on the other hand, can still argue against evolution, but should not devolve to the same level of empirical investigation, but rather maintain it's focus on more fundamental beliefs that underlie such theories. For example, the theory of macroevolution is based on certain beliefs. For example, one axiom of materialistic evolutionists is that the only force working in nature is randomness, a force or variable that cannot be detected, but is believed to exist. This can be challenged in various ways and is itself not a scientific finding, but a belief or assumption about reality. Religion can challenge these fundamental philosophical beliefs and refute or argue against evolution. Met Kalistos is not saying that evolution as a grand theory is untouchable by us.

[@jamiehayn]

Memory eternal

[@pn5721]

I think cell biologist Rupert sheldrake has the most interesting take on the theory of evolution via his morphic resonance theory

[@NahasapeemapetilonX]

Put shortly: science is about Physics, religion about Metaphysics.

[@jfalconredskins]

Another way to put it is: science is about how, religion is about why.

[@Amy-be6ed]

But just as bad religion (philosophy) has been used to control civilization, can't bad science do the same? Why are we so optimistic that the world is not being fought over?

[@Viricanus]

@@jfalconredskins The problem is religion not just only about why but at the same time about how.

[@Emper0rH0rde]

I'd argue that it's not accurate to call Christianity a *religion.* Christianity is a *faith.* I believe it is the *true* faith. Religion is the way we structure our lives, in *light* of our faith.

[@arkrou]

This is wrong. Religion makes physical claims as well to support the evidence and interpretation of the Bible. Did Adam and Eve ever exist? Was there ever a fall? Did Jesus resurrect people? These are physical events.

[@OrthoArchitectDU]

Elder Paisios was a spiritual man, not a scientist. We don't blindly follow our spiritual leaders in every aspect without realizing they, like we, are human and do not know everything about every subject. We aren't descended from monkeys, and anyone who thinks so doesn't understand evolution.

[@devonjosiah7308]

Well put bro

[@Emper0rH0rde]

Anyone who thinks evolutionists think we are descended from monkeys doesn't understand the theory, either.

[@Cobruh_Commander]

We didn't come from goop that magically appeared either. Darwinism is a Masonic sham.

[@MrSofuskroghlarsen]

Amen.

[@paulr5246]

Except that it wasn't just SAINT Paisios. It was EVERY Saint that ever spoke on the subject who without exception my friend, who also condemned and pointed about both the spiritual and scientific absurdity of such fantastic origin stories that were concocted to explain away the God of Heaven and Earth.

[@musadawood2655]

Which ecumenical council(s) discussed the genre of Genesis?

[@Amy-be6ed]

Good question.

[@slavvingsquats2146]

@@itisnow Bible does not say the earth is flat btw. All early and medieval Christian societies knew the Earth was not flat. The Earth has been proven to be spherical since the ancient Greeks and the model of the universe which used celestial spheres was even improved upon by Christian societies and astronomers

[@randomango2789]

@Jack Clare What about viewing Gen 1-11 as real history told in a poetic and polemical way? There are parallels between Genesis and Babylonian mythology.

[@randomango2789]

@@slavvingsquats2146 While this is true, European Christian societies as well as the medieval Islamic world believed in geocentrism. Christians would use scripture and the science of their day to prove this. Even Martin Luther thought that rejecting biblical geocentrism for Heliocentrism was compromising scripture.

[@TruthBeTold7]

@@itisnow No, most Old Testament scholars, and even the official view of the papacy has held that Genesis is literal and in the historical genre. See my article on evolution. The link is in my Community section.

[@allies7184]

Matt 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Remember that the Bible is God's way of speaking to us. God is the most powerful, the most intelligent being ever. While we, if compared to God, are weak, and unwise. How would he relate to us in the written word? Well, He would do so by knowing exactly what our minds can comprehend. Some of us might have no problem with a detailed explanation of creation, others might become too confused. One thing is for certain, Christ spoke often in parables, which are made up moral stories. It's like a child going up to a dad, and asking him, "Where do babies come from?" If he's too little to understand, the wise father will use a funny parable to placate the child's curiosity, however, if the child is mature a more detailed explanation is required. All in all, it really doesn't matter if you believe in Creationism, or Evolution. What does matter is that, like a child, you have faith that your Father knows exactly what he's doing. * One day is as a thousand years to God, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8

[@allies7184]

Constantine Dragases Yes for many years.

[@davidstout6051]

Spot on.

[@cindymarzett]

so profound

[@panokostouros7609]

The Ghae Science

[@otrwp79]

well put

[@bayreuth79]

Is it possible to reconcile the patristic doctrine of the fall and evolution?

[@nikolaoskal7438]

The simple answer is no. They are two opposite viewpoints.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

As a biologist and an Orthodox Christian, I tend to think so yes. St Athanasius' "On The Incarnation" certainly allows for physical death before the fall, among other nuances that allow room for both.

[@Cobruh_Commander]

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Where does he allow that? Sounds like you are stretching the text to suit your own views.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

@@Cobruh_Commander Thank you, I am open to that possibility. I will present three passages from chapter 1 of On The Incarnation and let you tell me if you don't understand it to say that we were created mortal by natural law, with incorruptibility and potential immortality being a gift of grace on condition we remain unfallen, but that by falling we were once again corruptible under natural law - worse than before in fact. For ease of reading, given the format, I will post three separate excerpts from parts 3, 4, and 5 of Chapter 1 in three separate comments.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

@@Cobruh_Commander Chapter 1 part 3, second half: For God is good - or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, ●upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent●, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked - namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things - namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. ●But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption.● This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, “Of every tree that is in the garden you shall surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, but in the day that you do eat, you shall surely die.” “You shall surely die” - not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption.

[@sesomyort]

That was the response of a true politician, where both sides are pleased with his answer, yet walk away without knowing his opinion...

[@i.see.mancos2913]

SesomYort, evolution should be writen as such, evilution. In this aspect he spoke like a true heretic, and in trying to please bouth sides he actualy corrupted the faith.

[@nevnad4587]

No, I think he was quite clear about his opinion.

[@TheOrganicBeats]

I think Bishop Kallistos's opinion is that the Holy Trinity created the physical universe through the evolutionary process, which according to theorists last approx. 13 billion years.

[@PHOTOLOIART]

It would be real helpful if he would shove the holy trinity up his all mighty fucked ass.

[@Nukefandango]

“I don’t like his answer. Therefore it wasn’t clear.”

[@jfalconredskins]

Why do they laugh at the beginning? Is it because of the sarcasm in how was the question was formulated?

[@arimagoo4687]

Evolution is not contrary to religious beliefs including Christian types. It's just another way of seeing the Mystery , does not exclude God in the picture or the story.

[@gabrielr4329]

No, Genesis is historical.

[@TruthBeTold7]

Evolution is absolutely contrary to Orthodox Christian faith. See my article on evolution. The link is in my Community section.

[@ownagesniper1]

@@TruthBeTold7 Evolution is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Genesis is allegorical.

[@phunnyfilosophy]

How the hell do you reconcile the evolutionary realities of sexuality and death with the creation account? And the geneologies. And Christ's reference to Adam. How.

[@ObjectiveBob]

You don't.

[@thedisintegrador]

You don’t read that literally, which is something that the church fathers did

[@Cobruh_Commander]

@@thedisintegrador Yes they did you liar.

[@Cobruh_Commander]

@@tomkunnel411 It doesn't hurt to call a spade a spade. He's making the same error as the neo-Platonists/Gnostics when it comes to the historicity of the Scriptures. If it didn't happen in history, it's a bunch of fables. It's not rocket science.

[@Cobruh_Commander]

@@tomkunnel411 Lying about Scripture still isn't evidence either. Why should I believe in a grand narrative that's been concocted by Masons over the Orthodox Phronema of the Fathers? What do these frauds have that the Church doesn't? Did the Holy Spirit lie to the Church about the beginning?

[@TruthBeTold7]

Your understanding is incorrect. All of the Church Fathers believed the earth was less than 6,000 years old at the time they wrote. Evolution cannot occur within that time frame. Read St. John of Damascus' "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." He encapsulates the teaching of the Fathers up to his time. And read Father Seraphim's book, "Genesis, Creation and Early Man." The god of Evolution is NOT the God of Christianity. The former is a god in process.

[@saenzperspectives]

TruthBeTold7 "For reflective Christians, it is important to appreciate that there are alternative models to thinking about these issues within the long tradition of reflection on the Bible, which can easily be reappropriated today. A good example is the approach to the interpretation of the Genesis creation narratives developed by Augustine of Hippo a thousand years before the “Scientific Revolution” of our modern period, and fifteen hundred years before Darwin’s Origin of Species. There is no way in which Augustine can be considered to have “accommodated” his biblical interpretation in order to fit in new theories about the “big bang” or natural selection. Augustine’s classic work On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, written between 401 and 41, was intended to be a “literal” commentary on the text (“literal” here means something along the lines of “in the sense intended by the author”). This “traditional” - i.e., ancient - way of reading Genesis predates by more than a millennium the literal readings of this text which became characteristic of English-speaking Protestantism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For Augustine, the natural meaning of the Genesis creation accounts is that God brought everything into existence in a single moment of creation. Yet the created order is not static, in that God endowed it with the capacity to develop. Augustine uses the image of a dormant seed to help his readers grasp this point. God creates seeds, which will grow and develop at the right time. Using more technical language, Augustine asks his readers to think of created order as containing divinely embedded causalities which emerge or evolve at a later stage. Yet Augustine has no time for any notion of random or arbitrary changes within creation. The development of God’s creation is always subject to God’s sovereign providence. The God who planted the seeds at the moment of creation also governs and directs the time and place of their growth and development. Now this isn’t a theory of biological evolution, as we would now understand the term. Neither Augustine nor any of his contemporaries had access to the geological or biological information that would have opened up this issue for them. They were not anti-evolution; the idea just never occurred to them, because there was no evidence available to them to open up this line of thought. Yet Augustine’s approach can be developed, easily and naturally, to respond to this new insight. And many would argue that, if British theologians of the nineteenth century had had a better knowledge of their intellectual heritage, their response to the challenge of Darwinism would have been more interesting, constructive, and productive."-Alister McGrath, Gresham college lecture - 23 February 2016. Video of lecture: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/epjXkKeEi9VpmKc Transcript of lecture: s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/content.gresham.ac.uk/data/binary/394/23Feb16AlisterMcGrath_ThePresentDebate.docx "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field in which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.""-Saint Augustine, 401 AD "In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."-Saint Augustine

[@TruthBeTold7]

@@saenzperspectives Hear this video response. kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6a9eqSmdqeZh6M

[@TruthBeTold7]

@@saenzperspectives Hear my last few videos on Augustine, Young Earth Creationism and Evolution.

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

Turn on your comments​@@TruthBeTold7

[@theclassic6198]

Ware is off his rocker......

[@peachjwp]

There is only one truth not two written in two books, the book of nature and the revealed book, the Bible. We read the Bible to know how to get to heaven NOT find out how the heavens go. Mind you I am very skeptical of the evolutionary claims of science: my objections too numerous to mention.

[@dad2054]

Jerry Peach we don't read the bible to,go,to,heaven.... we read it to be become more like Christ.

[@DoyleTX]

Well put

[@OCPRS]

Met. Kallistos Ware raises interesting points, but ultimately fails to recognize the value of the narrative of Genesis and how it is to be understood vs. evolutionary hypotheses. He does mention the Image of God (mankind) but if evolution is accepted, does this mean the God (the image spoken of) is Himself something that developed?

[@jackcimino8822]

OCPRS Toronto God's image does not mean a literal image. It is spiritual attributes

[@jfalconredskins]

Evolution is not a hypothesis, not sure if you said that on purpose or simply do not understand what it means.

[@John-bf7ny]

evolution is toward the (imge of) God :„ you are Gods” . Also, theosis is evolution both spiritual and biological.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

The word for image is a verb so it has more to do with our role as stewards (child "gods", dare I say, without being misunderstood) than any idea that we physically image God who is immaterial.

[@kennethsizer6217]

We are created in the image of God. It doesn't necessarily follow that we are created in one step. An oxford shirt is created from tuffs of cotton growing in a field, but there are many, MANY steps.

[@OrthoArchitectDU]

Gjergji311, you misread my comment, please re-read it.

[@OrthoArchitectDU]

And science has not yet inferred something which is inconsistent with the Divine Revelation. If we understand that evolution cannot and should not exclude the possibility of the existence and influence of God, it doesn't contradict divine revelation. We are not and should not ever be Orthodox Fundamentalists. If one wants to be one, join the schismatics in the so-called "True Orthodox Churches".

[@ethan1268]

What’s wrong being a fundamentalist when God through divine revelation wills that you must in order to follow His laws. It’s absurd that Christ, The Word and Son of God may partake in the human nature that evolved from fish, then ape etc, utterly absurd.

[@mclkr9174]

@@ethan1268 yeah but theres no absurdidty in a godman being born from a virgin and turning water into wine on a flat, 10000 year old earth. you Orthotrads are literally fucking BRAINDEAD its crazy

[@ethan1268]

@@mclkr9174 all your own assumptions on what is and what is not possible. The world came into existence out of nothing, the greatest and most absurd miracle possible but you never seem to talk about that.

[@mclkr9174]

@@ethan1268 shut up idiot the big bang is consistent with science and religion but your stupid ass young earth creationism isnt

[@ethan1268]

@@mclkr9174 once again, ad hominem is not an argument? Is science truth?

[@petergianakopoulos4926]

The Bible is interested in explaining Eternal Truths not scientific facts

[@OrthodoxPerspective]

scientific data is better explained by Creationism than evolution. Read Fr Seraphim Rose Genesis, creation and early man.

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

​@@OrthodoxPerspectivehe provides no valid argument. Prove me wrong

[@thenerdypreacher2681]

This can't be recognized as a Christian response, this is philosophy not based in scripture and cannot therefore be recognized as Christian. It's mixing theology, science, and superstition with "Christian" language.

[@davidmeyr4558]

"...the data of what people decided was revelation."

[@TruthBeTold7]

I don't believe in the flat earth. Now you're slandering me. As for your other lies, give me a break. You're under mind control if you believe in Evolution. I am open to the possibility of a Geocentric model, however. See this book "Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right," by Sungenis and Bennett.

[@expecttheunexpected8070]

By this you are deniyng of being an eastern orthodox and accepting a lie and twisting the truth(and there is no truth that has lie in it) and it is a shame you are doing it on purpose...this is nothing more but a heresy ..u cannot call urself an orthodox beacuse u are changing the basic dogma of the orthodox church and by doing that u are falling away from the Christ himself because u dont believe in his words (or in ur case some of his words) and the words of our saints (which are the words of God).So tell me how can u say that evolution happend when that theory is denying the exsistence of the sin,soul, God...u cannot serve two kings thus u cannot pick what suits u the best from the both sides and make ur own oppinion or say how there are no two sides of this (which is true when we speak of science but NOT the science that supports the theory of the evolution)..and also u cannot say that some orthodox people support the theory while some dont..the ones who do are acceptting heresy/one side has to be wrong so its on u to believe whether sceince is right or the Christ

[@amalialovesicecream]

Yes, science explains(well) but does not create.

[@JimmysJunkAcct]

The problem with this sort of reasoning (basically the claim that there is an empirical and non-empirical sphere withing our knowledge), is that the non-empirical sphere requires blind faith. You have to believe it FIRST in order to "see it". Make is simpler and just eliminate that sphere all together.

[@antonypowell3761]

The bible was science to a generation that could not understand jargon. The order of creation is, in fact, compatible with Science and the 6 days mentioned could be interpreted as stages lasting centuries or millennia. The fact is that the Bible is not wrong on anything, except when they deliberately write fables, and saying otherwise is the babble of those who cringe at the thought of proper analysis.

[@pwnedd11]

Heresy. I see why some Orthodox do not like him.

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

How is this heresy

[@SuperGogetem]

Masonic hand-sign signifying his true allegiance.

[@ObjectiveBob]

Loooool

[@SuperGogetem]

Your ignorance is showing.

[@wisdommorepreciousthanrubi8321]

I noticed him doing the occult symbol what a fake he is.

[@DeAngeloJohnson-ee9bt]

Bro what

[@robbier.jackson732]

I'm disillusioned with Timothy Ware. Now he's just a old fool

[@JP-sd7di]

"But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'you fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire." - Matthew 5:22 (Revised Standard Version)

[@arimagoo4687]

+Autistically Linguistic great response!

[@pvonberg]

Unkind, un-Christian, incorrect. You are not intellectually superior to this great man, my friend.

[@simonohare3262]

Surely why the Universe came into being is a philosophical question, not a religious one.

[@jfalconredskins]

How the universe formed has nothing to do with evolution, which was what was being discussed here.