The Origins of the World and Mankind (Evolution etc.)

Orthodox Publications ^ | 09-13-03 | Bishop Alexander (Mileant)

[jecIIny]

I believe Bishop Alexander recently reposed in the Lord so ignore the email address at the top.

[andysandmikesmom]

Bookmarking for a later read...a very long article, needing a goodly amount of time given over to reading and understanding what it says...it looks to be an interesting read...thanks...

[trashcanbred]

Two things that are interesting to point out in the conclusion:

The purpose of the Holy Scripture is spiritual, not scientific: to teach man to have faith and to live correctly, to show him what he should strive for. It is therefore incorrect to seek scientific revelations in Scripture or to compare them to scientific findings. Scripture reveals the principles of existence and allows man to explore the details himself.

If "contradictions" sometimes arise between scientific discoveries and the teachings of the Holy Scripture, it is always through misunderstanding. It shows only that a scholar or theologian has misinterpreted something or overstepped the bounds of his area of competence.

I don't think some Freepers who are pro-ID are gonna buy these conclusions.

[trashcanbred]

ping

[jecIIny]

Without a doubt those who are scriptural literalists will not be happy with this work. But not being a literalist I am not loosing a lot of sleep over it.

[DinosaurKnight]

This mischaracterises the position of creationists. We believe in such observable processes as natural selection, but take issue with the billions of years for the age of the earth. The Bible says God created creatures to reproduce according to their "kinds". This means that we believe God created animals of a kind (i.e. an ancestral wolf/dog) that gave rise through genetic imperfections to all the species of the kind (i.e. all wolves and domestic canines) that we see today. Natural selection has shaped this process ever since death and decay became part of the world. Much of the difficulty in "reconciling" the Bible to the evidence we see arises from preconceived notions about what the Bible says. The evidence fits with a literal interpretation of the Bible's history.

[RightWhale]

the "anthropic" principle in science. This principle claims that the Universe arose in order to shape rational life in it and that both the laws of physics and the original parameters were chosen in such a way as to guarantee its appearance.

No it doesn't. This is sort of in the same county, but it isn't in the ballpark with the rest of the pseudo-definitions.

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for the ping, but I don't use the evolution list in religion threads. Causes too many misunderstandings.

[FormerLib]

A very interesting work that will take reasonable men some time to digest.

But I expect we shall see much from those who can accept or reject every work sans comprehension.

[Matchett-PI]

"The evidence fits with a literal interpretation of the Bible's history." ~ DinosaurKnight

Item of possible interest. Check out this web site when you get time:

Science in Christian Perspective http://www.asa3.org/ The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

Also take a peek at the book that one of the long-time ASA members wrote, and see what you think.

At Amazon.com:

The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate (Paperback) by Dick Fischer
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556731884/002-8261228-7635245?v=glance&n=283155

[DinosaurKnight]

Thanks for the info.

[Matchett-PI]

You're welcome!

[metmom]

The so-called "creationists" adhere to an extreme position, insisting upon a literal interpretation of every word of the Biblical account of the world’s creation: all plant and animal species were made suddenly in their ultimate form; no evolutionary processes ever took place and no intermediate links ever existed in the animal world. Likewise, according to this perspective, the days of creation were regular days lasting 24 hours. The world has only existed some 7,500 thousand years (the sum of the life-spans of the pre-Flood and post-Flood patriarchs).

If by *literalists* he means those who hold to such an extreme, narrow view as those that he has labelled *creationist* here, then I'd have to agree that those people would not be happy with this. But the vast majority of creationists I know don't fit in that category he described. This is a great article and should be read by many even though it takes so long. Thanks for posting it.

[jecIIny]

I have generally been much impressed by the writing of Bp Alexander. His was a sharp mind and a great soul that will be missed.

[metmom]

There is an interesting section here on the Flood, near the end of this very long article, that you might find an interesting read.

[metmom]

He makes so much sense in what he said. It's obvious he has put a lot of thought into it.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Jeez Louise. Can I freepmail you my address so you can mail me the book? :-)

[jecIIny]

Just go to the link you can download it. There are tons of very good articles on this site.

[Coyoteman]

There is an interesting section here on the Flood, near the end of this very long article, that you might find an interesting read.

Thanks for the ping. Indeed an interesting bit of research. This is just the type of flood I would have expected. And post-Ice Age floods are known from other areas as well the channeled scablands of eastern Washington, for example).

By the way, the vast majority of early peoples lived along major creeks or rivers, leading to the prevalence of flood stories throughout the world.

Again, thanks for the ping.