Early Saints on Evolution

[Kamalayka]

Evolution was a popular idea among the “secular” Greek scientists and philosophers of the day. It seems that many on this forum seem to believe in evolution.

Well, here is what St. Basil (320-379) taught. He was very much against the idea of man, or anything for that matter, having evolved from something else.
St. Basil didn’t compromise by giving into “symbolic” interpretations of Genesis.

Here is what he said a Christian should believe, in accordance to Genesis:

“The nature of existing objects, set in motion by one command, passes through creation without change, by generation and destruction, preserving the succession of the species through resemblance until it reaches the very end. It begets a horse as the successor of a horse, a lion of a lion, and an eagle of an eagle; and it continues to preserve each of the animals by uninterrupted successions until the consummation of the universe. No length of time causes the specific characteristics of the animals to be corrupted or extinct, but, as if established just recently, nature, ever fresh, moves along with time.”* (Hexaemeron, IX, 2.)​

St. Gregory of Nyssa:
The first man, and the man born from him, received their being in a different way; the latter by copulation, the former from the molding of Christ Himself; and yet, though they are thus believed to be two, they are inseparable in the definition of their being, and are not considered as two beings… The idea of humanity in Adam and Abel does not vary with the difference of their origin, neither the order nor the manner of their coming into existence making any difference in their nature. (Against Eunomius, I, 34)

And again:

That which reasons, and is mortal, and is capable of thought and knowledge, is called man equally in the case of Adam and of Abel, and this name of the nature is not altered either by the fact that Abel passed into existence by generation, or by the fact that Adam did so without generation. (Answer to Eunomius)

**
St. Cyril of Jerusalem**
calls Adam “God’s first-formed man,” but Cain “the first-born man.” (Catechetical Lectures, II, 7) Again he teaches clearly, discussing the creation of Adam, that Adam was not conceived of another body: “That of bodies, bodies should be conceived, even if wonderful, is nevertheless possible; but that the dust of the earth should become a man, this is more wonderful.” (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 30)

St. Gregory
What of Adam? Was he not alone the direct creature of God? Yes, you will say. Was he then the only human being? By no means. And why, but because humanity does not consist in direct creation? For that which is begotten is also human. (Third Theological Oration, On the Son, ch. XI)

St. John Damascene
The earliest formation (of man) is called creation and not generation. For creation is the original formation at God’s hands, while generation is the succession from each other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us on account of the transgression. (On the Orthodox Faith, II, 30)​

Here is St. Basil’s response to those calling Genesis “allegorical”:

Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion. They describe also the production of reptiles and wild animals, changing it according to their own notions, just like the dream interpreters, who interpret for their own ends the appearances seen in their dreams. When I hear grass, I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand everything as it is said, a plant, a fish, a wild animal, and an ox. Indeed, I am not ashamed of the Gospel… Since Moses left unsaid, as useless for us, things in no way pertaining to us, shall we for this reason believe that the words of the Spirit are of less value than the foolish wisdom (of those who have written about the world)? Or shall I rather give glory to Him Who has not kept our mind occupied with vanities but has ordained that all things be written for the edification and guidance of our souls? This is a thing of which they seem to me to have been unaware, who have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let It be understood as it has been written. (Hexaemeron, IX, 1)​

and according to St. Ephraim the Syrian:

No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names. (Commentary on Genesis, ch. I)

St.John Chrysostom
God took a single rib, it is said: but how from this single rib did He form a whole creature? Tell me, how did the taking of the rib occur? How did Adam not feel this taking? You can say nothing about this; this is known only by Him Who created… God did not produce a new creation, but taking from an already existing creation a certain small part, from this part He made a whole creature. What power the Highest Artist God has, to produce from this small part (a rib) the composition of so many members, make so many organs of sense, and form a whole, perfect, and complete being. (Homilies on Genesis, XV, 2- 3)​

Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own “wisdom” here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill in those who allow themselves to listen to them, that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But I entreat you, let us not pay heed to these people, let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas. (Homilies on Genesis, XIII, 4)​

St. John of Damascus explicitly describes the allegorical interpretation of paradise to be part of a** heresy**, that of the Origenians:
*They explain paradise, the heaven, and everything else in an allegorical sense.* (On Heresies, 64)

 

[edwest2]

Thank you, very much, for this. What we have today is those who seek advantage over others. They tell us, listen to us and not the Church. The Church has no competency in such a thing as we call evolution. Yet the Church tells us quite clearly that we are not the casual, meaningless product of the mechanism but willed by the Living God. Yet strangers are anxious to gain our conversion and our trust so that even more words from Scripture can be reformed to their meaning, and not what was intended.

It is a little painful to realize to what degree some practice deception.

In love and truth,
Ed

 

[foxscape]

I think we’ve learned a bit more about nature since the theologians you quoted wrote their works. An example of an important theologian who had a great deal of exposure to the science behind evolution is Pope John Paul II. He wrote the following in 1996 to the pontifical academy of sciences:

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Just food for thought.

Cheers,
JRB

 

[EphelDuath]

I’ll patiently wait for someone in this thread to provide where the Church teaches that the Book of Genesis may not be taken allegorically, despite the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Justin Martyr and various other early Church Fathers; as well as when the Church’s allowance of believing in theistic evolution was revoked.

As for my own contribution to this topic: seeing as how the Church makes no ruling on youth earth creationism versus theistic evolution, Christians should cease to focus on this (save perhaps as a hobby) and focus on the real problems of the world, like moral relativism and poverty.

 

[Kamalayka]

I think we’ve learned a bit more about nature since the theologians you quoted wrote their works. An example of an important theologian who had a great deal of exposure to the science behind evolution is Pope John Paul II. He wrote the following in 1996 to the pontifical academy of sciences:

Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Just food for thought.

Cheers,
JRB

This is ironic:

You are an Orthodox using the Pope to prove your point,
while I am a (soon-to-be) Catholic using the Church Fathers to prove mine!

HAHA

 

[jeff61]

It is true that there was an overwelming consensus among the Church fathers and doctors that rejected not only evolution but heliocentrism as well.

It’s ashamed that most Catholics have accepted the psudo-science that is evolution today.

 

[Kamalayka]

It is true that there was an overwelming consensus among the Church fathers and doctors that rejected not only evolution but heliocentrism as well.

It’s ashamed that most Catholics have accepted the psudo-science that is evolution today.

There is a difference though. Heliocentrism doesn’t contradict Scripture; evolution does.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center of the universe. Try to find one verse! You can’t!

And if you quote where it talks about God stopping the sun for Joshua, then my reply will be this:
Look at Fatima’s “Miracle of the Sun.”

 

[cyberwolf001]

There is a difference though. Heliocentrism doesn’t contradict Scripture; evolution does.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center of the universe. Try to find one verse! You can’t!

And if you quote where it talks about God stopping the sun for Joshua, then my reply will be this:
Look at Fatima’s “Miracle of the Sun.”

I shall do you one better!

I will use a web page frequently cited by many Catholic apologeist which has tons of Bible Quotes and stuff from the Church Fathers on how to take it and evidence it was an infallible defined dogma.

Link

An remember this is no heretical site but ONE OF THE most cited Catholic webpages on the web.

 

[Kamalayka]

I shall do you one better!

I will use a web page frequently cited by many Catholic apologeist which has tons of Bible Quotes and stuff from the Church Fathers on how to take it and evidence it was an infallible defined dogma.

Link

An remember this is no heretical site but ONE OF THE most cited Catholic webpages on the web.

Let me say two things:

1. The earth is the center of creation (in a spiritual sense).
2. The earth very well could be the center in a physical sense, as well.

If it were possible to measure the size of the universe, we may very well find that the earth is in the literal center. It’s just speculation of course, but if it were possible to somehow measure it, then that would be hilarious!

 

[Kamalayka]

Here are Bible quotes that support later scientific discoveries.
**
The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere**
Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.

** The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.**

  Job 28:25
  To establish a weight for the wind,
  And apportion the waters by measure.

The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
**
The book of Leviticus describes the value of blood.**
Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’

The blood carries water and nourishment to every cell, maintains the body’s temperature, and removes the waste material of the body’s cells. The blood also carries oxygen from the lungs throughout the body. In 1616, William Harvey discovered that blood circulation is the key factor in physical life—confirming what the Bible revealed 3,000 years earlier.

The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.

  Psalm 135:7
  He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
  He makes lightning for the rain;
  He brings the wind out of His treasuries. 

  Jeremiah 10:13
  When He utters His voice,
  There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
  “And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
  He makes lightning for the rain,
  He brings the wind out of His treasuries.” 

  Job 36:27-29
  For He draws up drops of water,
  Which distill as rain from the mist,
  Which the clouds drop down
  And pour abundantly on man.
  Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
  The thunder from His canopy?

This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.
**
The Bible describes the recirculation of water.**

  Ecclesiastes 1:7
  All the rivers run into the sea,
  Yet the sea is not full;
  To the place from which the rivers come,
  There they return again. 

  Isaiah 55:10
  For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
  And do not return there,
  But water the earth,
  And make it bring forth and bud,
  That it may give seed to the sower
  And bread to the eater,

**
The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.
**
Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The word translated “circle” here is the Hebrew word chuwg which is also translated “circuit,” or “compass” (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched—not something that is flat or square.​

The Bible affirms many scientific discoveries made centuries later.

Skeptics will say that this is only a coincidence. (Talk about double-standard…)

 

[Hesychios]

Evolution was a popular idea among the “secular” Greek scientists and philosophers of the day.

In what day? 400BC… 200 AD… 600 AD?

Please kindly provide a reference, I had not heard of that before.

 

[Hesychios]

I’ll patiently wait for someone in this thread to provide where the Church teaches that the Book of Genesis may not be taken allegorically, despite the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Justin Martyr and various other early Church Fathers; as well as when the Church’s allowance of believing in theistic evolution was revoked.

As for my own contribution to this topic: seeing as how the Church makes no ruling on youth earth creationism versus theistic evolution, Christians should cease to focus on this (save perhaps as a hobby) and focus on the real problems of the world, like moral relativism and poverty.

I agree with you.

The church does not teach that the Bible is an infallible source of scientific or historical information.

The Fathers of the church are not considered that because of what they believed in the sphere of science, and they were neither infallible, nor impeccable. They were basically insightful prayerful men, but each had his faults and they would have had to have been psychic to have anticipated the theory of evolution as expressed by Darwin. The theory Kamalayka refers to is new to me.

I have held to the idea of theistic evolution myself as probably most nearly correct, but in the big scheme of things it’s not something to get one’s knickers in a twist over.

 

[Kamalayka]

In what day? 400BC… 200 AD… 600 AD?

Please kindly provide a reference, I had not heard of that before.

www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/ancient.html -

 

[cyberwolf001]

Let me say two things:

1. The earth is the center of creation (in a spiritual sense).
2. The earth very well could be the center in a physical sense, as well.

If it were possible to measure the size of the universe, we may very well find that the earth is in the literal center. It’s just speculation of course, but if it were possible to somehow measure it, then that would be hilarious!

Well if you read that site you’ll find it dosn’t give you that kind of wiggle room. It means exactly what it says on the tin. Earth has been infallible defined by dogma as the physical AND sprtual center of the universe and will never move till Judgement day.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I agree with you.

The church does not teach that the Bible is an infallible source of scientific or historical information.

Yes it does. It teaches that God is the primary author of the Bible, and as such, everything contained within the Bible is infallible true - even the historical and scientific matters.
Pope Leo XIII: In Providentissimus Deus:

"It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.** For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of those difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond,** because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said, as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it - such a system cannot be tolerated. For all the books that the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it…This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican…Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author…Such has always been the belief of the Holy Fathers.

"It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error. And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error, that they labored earnestly, with no less skill than reverence, to reconcile with each other those numerous passages which seem at variance - the very passages which in great measure have been taken up by “higher criticism”; for they were unanimous in laying it down, that those writings, in their entirety and in all their parts, were equally from the afflatus of Almighty God, and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true.

Pope Benedict XV:

Although these words of our predecessor [referring to the above encyclical of Leo XIII] leave no doubt for dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church - nay, what is a particular sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning - who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point.

We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But we remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect our predecessor’s injunctions, and overstep the limits set by the Fathers.

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious, and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest-things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or lesser knowledge.

Lastly:

More recently, however, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine which insists, claims and demands for these “books in their entirety and in all their parts” (Leo XIII) a divine authority preserving them from all possible error, some Catholic writers have nevertheless seen fit to restrict or limit the truth of Holy Scriptures only to those matters of Faith and morals, considering all the rest, being of the field of physics and of history, as “something that is simply mentioned in passing” - and having, as they pretended, no connection whatsoever with the Faith. But our predecessor, Leo XIII, of undying memory, tore to pieces, and rightly so, these very same errors in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus of November 18, 1893.

“It is absolutely forbidden to pretend that the sacred writer himself has fallen into error, since divine inspiration not only excludes any and all possible error in itself, but even loathes and excludes it, since God, Who is sovereign truth, cannot be the author of any possible error”.

This is the teaching of the Church. For a longer discussion on this topic, see this thread.

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution was a popular idea among the “secular” Greek scientists and philosophers of the day. It seems that many on this forum seem to believe in evolution.

What the early fathers and Greek scientists believed about the diversification of life on earth are neither more nor less relevant to science today than are what they believed about conception, or why things fall, or whether blood circulates.

 

[EphelDuath]

There is a difference though. Heliocentrism doesn’t contradict Scripture; evolution does.

No it does not. Suggesting that God is incapable of speaking in parables in the Old Testament, even though he does several times in the New Testament, is plainly absurd.

Why did God have to ask Adam how he knew he was naked? Why did he have to “come down” to see the Tower of Babel? Both of these minor but highly significant items tell me that Genesis was not intended to be a literal story about creation. early Church Fathers also realized. many

The Church allows its members to believe in theistic evolution. Please stop bickering over this matter; one, you’re only dividing Christians even further, and two, this issue really needs to take a backseat to other problems in the world.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I’ll patiently wait for someone in this thread to provide where the Church teaches that the Book of Genesis may not be taken allegorically, despite the teachings of St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Justin Martyr and various other early Church Fathers; as well as when the Church’s allowance of believing in theistic evolution was revoked.

Here ya go. This is from the Biblical Commission at the time of Pius X.
Biblical Commision under Pope St Pius X:

Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis

June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?

Answer: In the negative.

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?

Answer: In the negative to both parts.

III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?

**Answer: **In the negative.

 

[EphelDuath]

Considering I am not arguing that Genesis consists of “allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality” or that Adam and Eve were not real people, my thesis is not affected.

Furthermore, if you honestly believe that Catholics are not permitted to believe in theistic evolution, then you believe the Church has currently contradicted her own teachings by allowing it now. Are you a sedevacanist?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Considering I am not arguing that Genesis consists of “allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality” or that Adam and Eve were not real people, my thesis is not affected.

Sorry if I must misunderstood you. What is your position?