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

Thanks to God!

is that how u discovered our creator in Prometheus?

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

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.

@@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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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 🙏

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." (!!!)

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.

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?

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

@@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.

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 Christianity in general

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

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?

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.

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.

Same here Robert

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).

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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

Theistic evolution is a contradicting statement in itself.

@@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.

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.

@The Von... AMEN

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.

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?

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.

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

​@@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.

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

@@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.

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

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.

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

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Exactly!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

@@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.

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

@@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

@@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!

@@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

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

@@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.

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.

@@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

@@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.

@@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.

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.

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.

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.

@@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.

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

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

@@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.

Duly noted!

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.

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

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

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.

@@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?

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.

Look into critiques of evolution, its a silly theory

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.

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.

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

You're missing the point

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

Not Trent. Catholics have been wrong for 1000 years

Shut.up.heretic. Is that clear enough ?

Exactly, this isn't a dogma

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

@@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

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

The Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin.

Thank you! Amen!

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.

well said!

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

@@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

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

@@IgnatiusSeventy7 Sure

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

OCA!

Adam is not a saint in the orthodox church

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

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).

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

Always glad to hear from you, brother!

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

@@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.

@@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113 🧐

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

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!

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?

@@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!

@@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.

@@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.

​@@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.

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

​@@kalashi6305 Who did Cain marry, then?

Micro evolution is observed, and acceptable in Orthodox theology. Macro evolution has never been scientifically observed, and is not accepted by Orthodox Patristic tradition of Saints, who are glorified by God in life, and in death. A hypostasis stays a hypostasis, as said by every single Orthodox Saint who has come since Darwin. A modernist who says otherwise has not, and never will be glorified by God. This is literal fiction: "In biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL), is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process are still unknown, the prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event, but an evolutionary process of increasing complexity" Note that the common fetus 'common' bio-development of the last four generations in biology texts was found to be complete sketches and a fraud: see Earnst Haeckel.

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.

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

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.

@@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.

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.

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

@@itoldyouso6622 but the priest is teaching about orthodox teaching

@@nicolaiseraphim4836 A priest can be wrong

@@nicolaiseraphim4836 Orthodox has never depended on individuals, because individuals are fallen - instead, their is the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, and its Saints, which God glorifies in life, and in death - such as healing relics (preserved bodies and bones) and miraculous icons. 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.

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.

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.

Thank you. I understand this to be a very serious issue. Not a single Father of the Church or Saint at any time has promoted an evolutionary model. I don't understand why anyone would believe in Darwin's freemasonic pagan unscientific model with so much material disproving it, especially when they are a priest with the entire Orthodox Tradition stretched out before their very hearts, souls, and minds.

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.

@@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.

Funny that. a 6-day creation that can actually be explained in millions of years through a Six-Day understanding of the space time continuum.

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

Science is for the material world. Theology is for understanding the spiritual one. The Bible is a book of Theology not of Science and there is no way Moses could have explained evolution around 1500 BC and the Church Fathers had no idea about it, yet the story of Genesis is not contradicting science if you see the meaning behind the words. People that ignore science believe God and the Angles are beings that we can touch, that giants exist etc. They don't understand metaphors. God created the World through science and science explains how the material World works, because affecting the physical world needs physical action. Isn't the Bible telling us to search everything and believe in what is good ? Why just ignore something and call it satanic just because you think it's wrong?

I would respectfully say that the material things are not separated (in effect) from the spiritual world. God through the Spirit and angels continually interacts with all things in heavens and earth. So, the study of anything "material" should include the study of the spiritual. And also, the study of the spiritual includes the study of the "material". God operates and works in this world - the Greek words for work and operate are something like ERGA and ENERGIA (pardon my working from memory).

And a "miracle" is often a "power-work" which in Greek is something like ERGA DUNAMIS. (It uses those two root words anyway.)

And? Welcome to the complexities of life.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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?".

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.

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