Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
f* FR.SERAPHIMROSE
ROSE
HIEROMONKS[.:RAPHIM
| 934,1982 SAINTHERMANOF ALASKABROTHERHOOD
2000
Copyright 2000 by the
Contents
Sr. Herman ofAlaska Brotherhood
First Printing
Editor\ Preface:
Tse SronyBEHTND
THEBooK
Addressall correspondtnceto: b1 HieromonhDamascene l5
St. Herman ofAlaska Brotherhood l. The Intellectual Milieu of Fr.Seraphim's
P O. Box 70
FormativeYears l5
Platina,California96076
2. Fromthe EvolutionaryWorldviewro the
OrthodoxlVorldview l8
Frontcouer:The creationofthe sun, moon and stars("lightsin the firma- 3. The Rootsof Evolutionrsm 2l
menr ofrhe heavcns")on the Fourrh Day of Creation. lYallpaintingfom tbe 4. The Mind of the Holy Fathers 22
Far Monasteryof St.John thc Forerunner,Greecc. 5. Evolurionand Chiliasn' 24
6. "Tiaditionalists"in Favorof Evolution 7\
Bachcouu: Fr SeraphimRoseright after being ordainedto the priesthood. 27
7. The ScientificSideof the Question
Sr. HermanMonasterychurch,Sundayof the Myrrhbearing Vome n, April
8. The "SurvivalCourse"and the Courses on Genesis 4)
1t124,1977. 'fhe
9. Planofthe Book 34
10.Developme nts in the 1980s 35
I l. Developments in the 1990s:PhillipE. Johnson )/
12.Changes in the OrthodoxVorld 40
13.BeyondDarwinism 4l
14.The Present Book 4l
I 5. This Book'sPrimaryContributionto the Vorld 42
16.The Natureof Man 46
Introduction:Fn. Sr.nqlHn'{Rossero 2lsr-Cexruny Scrrxcr
by Phillip E. Johnson 49
Library ofCongrcssCatalogingin PublicationDara l . The Mechanismof Evolution:Murationand Selection 54
Rose,Fr. Seraphim(1934-1982). 2. The CommonAncestryThesis t8
Cenesis,creationandearlyman:theOrthodoxChris-
3. Evolution(in rheScienrificSense)
Is lnherently
tienvision.
Libraryof Congrcss CatalogucNumber:00-190128
Godless 60
ISBN t-887904-02-6 4. Conclusion:Can ScienceTell Us a Tiue Story
aboutOrigins? 6r
Corurrrrs Con.rtNrs
(Genesis
ChapterSeven:Ltrr Oursloe Penenrsr. 4: l-6:5) 217
l. The Banishment ofAdam 2t7
PART I 222
2. Cain andAbel
AN ORTHODOX PATzuSTIC 234
3. The Genealogyfrom Adam throughSethto Noah
COMMENTARYON GENESIS 243
4. The Corruptionof Mankind
Editor'sNote 65 247
ChaprerEighr:THe FI-oon(Genesis
6:6-8:22)
'Wsv
Foreword: Sruov rHe Boor or GrNests? o/
ChapterNine:THt DtspensroNoF THEPEopLEs
ChapterOne: Hov ro Rrno GsNEsts 69 (Cenesis9:l-l I :32) 266
I . Approach 69 l. NoahandCod! NewCovenant 266
2. The Holy Fathers:Our Key to the Understanding of Noah
2. The Generations 273
of Genesis 72 3. The Towerof Babel 275
of Our Approachto Understanding
3. BasicPrinciples
Genesis 82 PART II
4. Literalvs.SymbolicalInrerpretations 84 THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION
5. The Natureof cheText 88
ChapterOne:ScrrNceaNo rne Holv FnrHEns 283
ChapterTwo:Tss Stx Davsor CnrarroN(GENER^L
l. TrueTheologyand SecularKnowledge 283
OnsrnverroNs) 97
2. Science and ChristianPhilosophy 287
l. lntroduction 97 3. Disringuishing Fantasies
Materialistic from Scientific
2. GeneralRemarksaboutthe Six Days 100 Truth 288
3. Why Six Days? 102 4. Scienceasa LowerForm of Knowledge 290
ChaprerThree:THr Stx Devs(Dev rv Dnv) 106 5. An Alien Systemof'Ihought 291
6. 'fhe i.ackof PhilosophicalCultureamongOrthodox
1.The FirstDay(Cenesis l:1-5) 106 291
Christians
2. The SecondDay (Cenesisl:6-8) il5 292
7. The Philosophy of the Holy Fathers
3. The Third Day (GenesisI :9-13) ll9
4. The FourthDay (Genesis l:14-19) 123 ChapterTwo:A BnterCnrrlqul oF THEEvolurtoNanvMooel 293
5. The Fifth Day (Genesis
l:20-23) t28 l.lntroduction 293
6. The SixthDay (Genesisl:24-31) t39 2. HistoricalBackground 296
ChapterFour:Tsr CneartoNor MeN (Genesis
l:26-31;2:4-7) t45 3. "Proofs"ofEvolution 300
4. The Theoryof EvolutionIs Understandable
(Genesis
ChapterFive:P,q.RAotse 2:8-24) r64 Philosophically 315
191 5. The ConflictbetweenChristianTiuth and
ChaprerSix:Tue Fnll or MaN (Genesis
l: l-24) 1)4
EvolutionaryPhilosophy
CoNreNrs CoNrnnrs
l0 ll
CoxreNrs
AppendixFive:SuccEsrtoREc.ntNcs
by the Editor 636
I. PatristicSources 636
f l. Screnrific Sources 637
l. InitialReading 637
2. OrherImportantScientificCritiquesof Evolutionism 638
3. On "Human Evolution" 640
4. On Radiometric Dating 640
5. On theAgeofthe Earth 641
6. On the Dinosaurs 642
7. On the Flood 645
8. On BiologicalVariation 646
9. On the Historyof Darwinism 646
10.CreationScientisrs of the Holy Fathers
in Defense 646
I | . Aids in Apologetics 647
12. For the EducationofChildren 647
'Where 648
to Order TheseSources
Notes 65r
Bibliography oo/
Acknowledgments 682
GeneralIndex 683
ScriprureIndex 708
Sccncsfrom the lifc ofAdam and Evc.
Russianicon of thc cightccntbccnnry (dcuil).
t2
EortoR'sPRrrecn,
The Story behind the Booh
l)
GeN:sts,CrearlorunNnEart-YM,rN Enrror's Pperace
"The parricipants in the Darwin Centennialwereunderstandably evolvcd.So did all the animalsand plantsthat inhabitit, including
in a triumphalmood.'fhe prestige ofsciencewasneverhigher.Polio our humansclves, mind and soulaswell asbrain and body.So did
had beenconqueredby a vaccine;atomicpowerseemedto promise rcligion.
abundant,cheapenergy;spacetravelloomedin the nearfuture.Be- Evolutionaryman can no longertakerefugefrom his lonclincss
sidesthesetechnological achievements, sciencehad seemingly estab- in thc armsofa divinizedflther figurewhom he hashimsclfcreatcd,
lishedthat a purposeless processof evolutionwasour true creatorand nor escape from rhe responsibiliryof makingdccisions by shclrering
hencehaddethronedthe God of the Bible.The religiousimplicarions undcr the umbrellaof Divinc Authoriry nor absolvehimselffrom
of this intellectualrevolutionwerefrankly emphasized by the most the hard taskof mcetinghis presentproblemsand planninghis fu-
prominentspeaker at the centennial,the Britishbiologist,philosopher ture by relyingon rhe will of an omniscient,but unfortunatelyin-
and world statesman SirJulianHuxley. scrutablc,Providence.
"JulianHuxleywasthe grandsonof ThomasHenry Huxley,who Finally,thc evolutionaryvisionis enablingus to discern,how-
wasknown as'Darwin'sbulldog'because he wasthe most important evcrincompletely, rhelincaments of the new religionrharwe canbe
earlychampionof Darwin'stheory.T. H. Huxleyhad alsoinventedthe surewill ariseto servethe needsof the comingcra.
word agnostic ro describehis own religiousviews.Julian Huxley,a zo-
ologist,wasone of the scientificfoundersof the neo-Darwinian syn- In short, the triumph of Darwinism implied the death of God and set
thesis,rhe modern versionof Darwint theory. He was also the the stagefor replacingBiblical religion with a new faith bxed on evo-
promorerof a naturalistic religioncalledevolutionary humanism,and lurionary naturalism.That new faith would becomethe basisnot just
the foundingsecretary generalof UNESCO,rheUnitedNationsEdu- of sciencebut also of government,law and moraliry. h would be the
cational,Scientificand CulturalOrganization. ln short,JulianHuxley establishedreligiousphilosophyof modernity."'
wasone of the mostinfluentialintellectuals of the mid-rwentiethcen- Someof the world'smost eminenrscientists-from fuchard Owen
tury, and 1959was the high-watermark of his influence.Here are and Louis Agassizin the 1860s to Richard Goldschmidt and Otto
someexcerpts from Huxleyt remarhs at the centennial: Schindewolf in the 1940s-had shown to the scientific communiry
the embarrassingdifficulties of the rheory that was being heraldedat
will perhaps
Futurehistorians takethisCentennial Veekasepito- the Darwin Centennial,but thesescienrisrshad been held up to ridi-
mizingan importantcriticalperiodin the historyof thisearrhof cule and their valid objectionsdismissedout of hand. In addition to
ours-theperiodwhentheprocess ofevolution, in thepersonofin- thesevocal critics, there was a silent group of scientistswho disagreed
quiringman,bcganto be truly conscious of itsell.. . This is oneof with evolutionary theory but were afraid to challengethe prevailing
the first public occasions
on which it has been frankly facedthat all worldview.'fhe existenceof rhis group was even acknowledgedar the
aspectsof realiryarc subjcctto evolution, from atoms and srarsto Darwin Centennial by the paleontologistEverettClaire Olson of rhe
fish and flowers,from fish and flowersto human societiesand val- Universiryof California, who said,"lt is difficult to judge the sizeand
ues-indeed,that all realiryis a singleprocess of evolurion. composition of this silent segment,bur rhere is no doubt that the
ln 1859,Darwin opened the passage leading ro a newpsychoso- numbersare not inconsiderable. "'
cial lcvel, with a new pattcrn of ideologicalorganizarion-an Vhether they were silencedor chose ro remain silent, the many
evolution-centered organizationof thoughtand belief. scientistswho questionedDarwinism were nor heard by the American
ln rhe evolutionarypatternof rhoughtthereis no longcreither people. Consequently,when Fr. Seraphim began studying sci€nccin
ncedor room for the supernatural. The earthwas not crcatcd,it high schooland collegein the early 1950s,he was taughr that the cvo-
l6 T7
CrNssIs, CRr-ArloNauo ErnlY MaN Enrron'sPnepecs
and unassail-
lurionofall life from a primevalsouPwasan undisputed 'fact,'andhow can one deny'facts'?...I still remembermy freshman
ablefact,assure(in JulianHuxley'swords)asthe factthat earthgoes professor ofzoolog/expatiaring on the 'grearideasof man':for him the
aroundthe sun. greatestidea man ever inventedwas the idea of evolution;mucn
greater,he believed, than the'ideaof Cod."'
'\Y'orlduiew the Ultimately,Fr. Seraphim's strivingto undersrand the meaningof
2. From tlte Euolutionary to
realirycouldnot be satisfied by modernscience, dedicated asit wasto
Orthodox Worlduiew 'Wesrern
materialism, nor by philosophy, which had beenfoundedin
Possessed ofa brilliantmind, Fr.Seraphimfrom a youngageex- rationalism."l wasan undergraduate," he laterrecalled, "lookingfor
hibiteda burningdesirerc hnow,to understand realiryin the highest somekind oftruth in philosophy, and not findingir. I wasverybored
sense.In high schoolhe zealously soughtknowledgein scienceand with Westernphilosophy."During his sophomoreyear he beganro
mathematics: biology,zoology, algebra.Graduatingat the top of his seckhigherwisdomin rhe philosophyofancientChina,for which he
class,he was granteda scholarship to PomonaCollegein southern rundertook a srudyofthe Chineselanguage, both ancienrandmodern.
California,thanksto theenthusiasticendorsement of his mathteacher. Fr. Seraphimgraduatedfrom PomonaCollegein 1956and pur-
At Pomonahe continuedhis studyofscience'whichhe now com- suedhis study of ancientChineselanguageand philosophyat tne
binedwith a studyof philosophy. Underthe influenceof the human- AcademyofAsian Studiesin SanFrancisco and laterat rheUniversiry
istsof his time,he joinedin thegrandenterprise ofthinkerslikeJulian of Californiain Berkeley. \X/hileat the Academy,he discovered the
Huxley:to explainthe universe without God. ln a freshmanphiloso- writingsof the rwentieth-century Frenchmetaphysician Reni GuC-
phy paper(1952),he stated: non, a traditionalistwho lookedto the ancienr,orthodoxexDression
of the worldt religionsfor answersro ulrimarequesrions.GuCnon
All sciencepoints to thc existenceof the Universe,the totaliry of all both clarifiedand transfbrmedFr. Seraphim's inrellectualourlook.
things. Nothing in sciencepoinrs to thc existenceofa God removed Larerhe wrore,"lt wasGuCnonwho taughtme to seekand lovethe
from thc Universe.For thc presenttime' since I have not yet dcvcl- truth aboveall else,and to be unsatisfied with anythingelse."
oped my own theory of knowledgc,I assumefor convcniclcc' sake Fr.Seraphimteducationhadtaughthim to viewall thingsin rerms
rhat I can gain knowledge (as certain as it caz be obtained) through of historicalprogress,accordinsro rhe evolurionaryworldview of rhe
science.Therefore,I bclievein the findings ofscience rhat point to modernage.Upon discovering GuCnon,he beganro seerhingsin
the existenceofthc Universe;I rejectrhc conceptofan independent termsof historicaldisintegration
God for insufficientevidcnce. ln his book TheReignof Quantityand rheSignsof the Times,Gu|-
non explainedhow the eliminationof tradirionalspiritualprinciples
This statement may seem naive nowadays, when the despotism of has led ro a drastic degenerationof humaniry.He showedhow
scientificnaturalismis beingincreasinglycha.llenged, but it must be rwentieth-century science,with its rendency to reduceeveryrhing ro an
considered in the contextofthe 1950s,the decadeofthe ascendancy exclusively quantitativelevel,hascorruptedman'sconceptionof true
of Humanismandthe triumphalpronouncements of the DarwinCen- knowledge arrdconfinedhis visionto whatis temporaland material.
tenn ial. GudnonwroteeIsewhere that,"in attemptingto reducewerything
"At one time I believedentirelyin evolution,"Fr. Seraphimwas to the statureof man rakenasan end in himself,moderncivilization
I had thoughrverymuch about
laterto recall."I believednot because hassunk stageby sragero a levelof his lowesrelementsand aimsat lit-
this question,but simplybecause 'everyonebelievesit,' becauseit is a tle more than satisfringthe needsinherentin rhe marerialsideof his
l8 t9
GeNesIs,Cnr:anou ,rNo ElnlY MrN Eorron'sPnsrecs
nature."r Trying to fill in the gap left by scienceand materialismin the of rhe human mind aboveDivinely revealedtheology,is fraught with
modern age,"pseudo-religions" havesprung up; but in their confusion dangers,and thus leadsto subrle crrors mixed in with higher truths.
of psychicwith spiritual realiry they have only further obscuredthe \X/hile before he had relied on his mind to arrive at tuth, now he
trutn. knew He had to humble his mind before the Trurh as Person:Jesus
Guinon wrote that 'the modern world, consideredin itself is an Christ. Shortly afier his conversion he wrote, "Vhen I became a
anomaly,and evena sort of monstrosiry"land he regardedthe modern Christian I voluntarily crucified my mind, and all the crossesrhat I
scientific theory of evolution, which was developedin an attempt to bear have only been a sourceof joy for me. I have lost norhing, arrd
explain rhe universepurely naturalistically, asan offspringof this mon- gainedeverything."
strosiry.ln evolurionism,he wrote, "all realiry is placedexclusivelyin
'becoming'; involving the final denial of all in.rmutableprinciple, and
"' 3. TheRooxof Euolutionism
consequenrly of all metaphytic.
lt is likely that GuCnoncausedFr. Seraphimto questionevolution- During the early yearsfollowing his conversion,Fr. Seraphim
ism evenbeforethe latter beganhis conversionro Orthodox Christian- nradea thoroughexamination historyof \Vestern
of the philosophical
ity. "i beganto think more deeplyon this question [of evolutionism]," civilization,in orderto fully undersrand rhe pastcauses,presentstate
Fr. Seraphimlater recalled."l beganto seethat very often what cellsit- and futuredevelopment of the Vest'sapostasy from the "Old Order"
self'science' is not fact ar all, 6t philosophl, and I began very carefully of traditionalChristiancivilization.Out of this studywasto comehis
ro distinguish \etween scientifcfacx and scientifc philosophT." philosophical magnumopus,entirled T'hcKingdomof Man and the
ln his freshman year at Pomona, Fr. Seraphim had trusted the Kingdomof God.
modern scientificoudook. With his study of GuCnon, he was still to In ChapterFour of rhe proposedwork, Fr. Seraphimwasro dis-
regardmodern scienceas a way to knowledge'but now he saw this as cussthe new physicspropoundedat the end of the Renaissance by rhe
"knowledgeof the lowest,comnlonestsort." rationalisrsBacon and Descarres, which viewedrhe universeas a
GuCnon had shown Fr. Seraphim what to leavebehind and had closedsystemand aimedat giving first and.natural(i.e.,not Divine)
surted him on the path to Truth, but he had not shown him rhe final causes to all physicalphenomena.* In the samechaprerhe wasto de-
destination.He found this destinationwhen, by a miracle,he discov- scribethe modernphilosophyof progreswhicharoseat the end ofthe
ered that the Truth he was seekingwas a Person-Jesus Christ-lVhose Enlightenment, displacingrhe srableworldviewthat had character-
imagewas preservedundistortedin rhe Orthodox transmissionof the izedmuch of Enlightenmentthoughr.Theserwo a priori philosophi-
very Christianity he had previouslyrejected. cal commitments-to naturalismand to progress-formedthe
In Orthodox Christianiry Fr. Seraphim found the true, ancient seedbed out of which camethe theoryof evolution,which was firsr
worldview to replacethe modern evolutionaryone; and the key to this proposedby CharlesDarwin'sgrandfatherErasmusin 1794.As Fr.
worldview he found in the writings of the Orthodox Holy Fathers. Seraphimlarer observed,"'fhis rheorydevelopedtogetheruith the
The theologyofthe Holy Fathers,he understood,was basedon the liv- courseof modcrnpbilosophyfon Descartesonu.,ard,long before rhere
ing, Persond revelationof God to man, and thus was of an infinitely wasany 'scientificproof' for it.
higher order not only than science,but eventhan rhe metaphysicalin- The research Fr. Seraphimdid for his proposedbook wasprodi-
sightshe had gained through Gudnon. He neverceasedto appreciate
the crucial step that Gu6non had given him on his path to Truth, but ' For a gooddiscussion of the hisroricalrootsof naturalism,
secMichaelDen-
now he sawthat the path of metaphysics, which placesthe intellection rcn, Ettolution:A Tbeoryin Critis, pp.7l-73.
20 zl
GrNtsIs. Cnr.-euoNAND EARLYMAN Eorron's Pnrracs
gious.'fhousandsof Pagesof noteswerewritten' but the work was tinued to fill himself with the Scripturesand the writings of the Fa
nevercompleted,savefor ChapterSeven,on Nihilism'* By 1963' rhers,feedingon rhe true pasturesofthe soul. Over yearsofstudy, he
the future Fr. Herman,he washeavilyin-
alonswith his co-laborer, rcquired extensiveknowledgeof Patristicteaching,which had alread
uoluJdin beginningan OrthodoxChristianBrotherhoodin SanFran- been placedin the proper context for him through the courseshe had
cisco and opening the first city storefrontin America that sold attendedin San Francisco.ln addressinga particularissuein his writ-
Orthodoxmaterials.
exclusively ings, he would make use ofa wide rangeof Patristicsourcesboth an-
cient and modern, from both Eastern and \Vestern Christendom
many of them quite obscureand neverbeforerenderedin English.
4. I'he Mind of the HolT Fathers Fr. Seraphimi aim, however,was not to becomea scholarwhose
In the meantime,Fr. Seraphim's spiritualmentor,the sainrand specialrywas the Holy Fathers.Suchexperts,he wrote, are often'totd
miracle-worker ArchbishopJohn Maximovitch,had beguna sericsof srrangersto the true Patristictradition, and only make their living ar
theological courses, which Fr.Seraphimattendedseveral timesa week irs expense."As always,he had to go deeper,to get the whole picrure
for threeyears.AlthoughFr. Seraphimwasan Americanconvertand He had not only to graspthe Fathers'writings intellectually,but ro ac
all the courseswer..ondu.ted in Russian, he graduated at the headof wally acquire their mind, to learn ro think, feel and look at things as
the class.Among the many subjects covered,he wastaughtPatristics they did. He wanted their attitude to be his atrieude.Too often in con-
by BishopNektary (a discipleoF Optina Monastery,who later or- temporaryOrthodoxy the tendencyis to reinterpretthe Faith in order
dainedhim ro the priesthood)and Old Testament by Archimandrite to conform it to the mind of modern man. Fr. Seraphimknew he had
Spyridon(aclairvoyant elderandtheclosest manto Archbishop John)' to do just the opposite:to conform his consciousness to the mind ol
[-ier., in contrastro the rationalisticevolutionaryideas he had been the Fathers,to plug himself fully into the rwo-thousand-year connnu-
raughtwhile growingup, Fr. Seraphimlearnedthe revelation God of iry of Christian experience.
Hiiself regar,Cing the .r."tion of the universeand the natureof the He actually sufferedover this, praying fervently to God. He per-
first-crenteJ *orld, aspassed on throughthe Scriprures and the God- sonally addressedthe ancient Holy Fathersas fellow believersin the
bearingHoly Fathers throughoutthe centuries'Fr.Seraphim's instruc- Body of Christ and as vehiclesof Divine wisdom, so that he would be
tors-Archbishop John, Bishop Nektary and Fr' Spyridon-were given to see bow rhey apprehended realiry. He felt especially close to
themselves Holy Fathers of moderntimes,and thus Fr' Seraphimwas the fourth-century Father,St. Basil the Great, who among his many
able to receivethe Patristictransmission not only from books,but other major achievementswrote the definitive Patristiccommentary
from livingbearers lt wasthroughthe lips of liv-
of that transmission. on the Six Days of Creation.
ing repositoriesofsanctirythat the meaningof Genesis wasopenedto In introducing rhe Lives and writings of the Fathers to mod-
him. ern-day readers,Fr. Seraphimwrote of their inestimableworth:
In 1969FathersHermanand Seraphimmovedto the mountains
of northernCalifornia,wheretheybecamemonksandcontinuedtheir Thereis no problemof our own confusedtimeswhich cannotfind
Orthodoxmissionary work throughwriting, translatingand printing its solutionby a crrefuland reverenrreadingof thc Holy Fathers:
Fr.Seraphimcon- whethcrcomplcxphilosophical questionssuchas"evolution,"or the
Orthodoxmaterial.There,in theirforesthermitage,
straightfbrward moralquestions and "birth
of abortion,euthanasia,
control...." In all thcscqucstionsrhc Holy Farhers,
and our living
'Publishedposrhumously book: Eugcne(l-r'Scraphinr)
asa scpararc Rose'ly'i-
Reuohtionofthe ModernAge(1994)' Farhcrs who followthem,areour only surcguide.5
hilim: The Root
ofthe
22
(lruesrs, CrserroN ,tNo EnnrYM,cN Eorlon's [trsrece
Vhile working on TheKingdomof Man and theKingdomof God, 1b Fr. Seraphimit wasself-evidentthat evolutionism,with its rnnu-
Fr.Seraohimhad identifiedthe faithof modernmanasa secularform merablecorollariesin modern thought and life, wasantitheticalto the
of chiliasm:the beliefin the inevitabilityof progress and in the per- Orthodox worldview that he had embraced.He wrote:
fectibilityof thisfallenworld.Evolurionism, in its beliefin thegradual
I havealwaysregarded ev<.rlution,
in all its ramifications,asan rm-
development from the lowerto the higher,wascloselyboundup with
porranrpart of thc "modcrn American"intellectual baggage which I
chiliasm.In Fr.Seraphim's words,it wasan "almostinevitablededuc-
rion from it." left bchindwhcn I bccameOrthodox,and it nevcroccurredro me
Toeetherwith chiliasm,evolutionwaswhat Fr.Seraphimcalled"a rhatanyawarcOrthodoxChristianwould regardit asunimportant,
primordialforce,which seemsto capturepeoplequite especially now when many scientistshavcabandoned it (purelyon
deep-sJated
(There'sa good scicntificgrounds),whenrhepseudo-religious presuppositionsof its
aoarrfrom their consciousattitudesand reasoning.
,""ron fo, that: iis beendrilled into everyonefrom the cradle,and suppartcrsarc so evidcnt,and when it is so much bound up with
is veryhardto bringout andlook at rationally')"Echoingthe Masonry-ecumenism and the wholepseudo-religious outlook.
therefore
wordsofJulianHuxley,who at the DarwinCentennialhadcalledevo-
lution a "patternof thought,"Fr. Seraphimsaid that ft was"a riual Just how far his fellow Orrhodox Christianshad gone in accepring
tbought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea'" And this evolutionism was first made known to Fr. Seraphim in 1973. ln
thought-pattern, he observed,followeda coursethat was"just the op- February of that year he helped and encourageda public school
positeof what Christianiryteaches": reacher,A. Y., to write and publish an Orthodox article againstevolu-
rion. l'his article,as Fr. Seraphimlater wrote, "touchedsomethingvery
Theevolutionary of"up fromthcbeasts"
philosophy sccms
certainly deep." lt raiseda highly volatilesubjectwhich until then most Ortho-
wirh the Chrisrian
irreconcilable view of "flll from and
Paradisc," dox Christiansin the Vest had preferrednot to discuss.Soon after the
bedetermined
ourwholcviewofhistorywill certainly bywhichway arricle appeared,articlesbegancoming out in mainstreamOrthodox
we believc! journals(especiallythoseofthe Orthodox Church in Arnericaand the
Greek Archdiocese)in support of evolutionism.This was not surpris-
It was the chiliastic/evolutionarythought-pattern that had pro- ing to Fr. Seraphim,for he had known ever since his conversionthat
duced such politico-religiousmovements as international socialism many of the mainstreamOrthodox in America had capitulatedto the
(globalism)and ecumenism.All such movementssharethe samechili- spirit of rhis world and its intellectualfashions.However,he wasgenu-
astic goal' a coming "new order" in which all previousstandards,seen inely surprisedwhen his fellow 'traditionalist" Orthodox, who like
as relativeto a particularstagein a process,will be entirely changed' him were opposedto ecumenism,alsocameout in favor of evolution-
idea of ism, and roundly censuredA. Y. becauseof his article! "Frankly," Fr.
Just as all distinctions betweenorganismsare blurred in the
biologica.levolution-as the organismschangeinto one another over Seraphimwrote, "we are astonishedthat peoplewho areso keenon ec-
millions of years-so too all distinctionsbetweennationsand religions clesiasrical matters,ecumenism,etc., should seemneverro havegiven
are blurred in the chiliastic"new world order." much thought to such an important thing asevolution;apparentlyit is
becauseit seemsto be outsidethe Church sphere."
24
GeNrsts,CtteltoN eNn EaRLvM,cN Eorron'sPnnr,tce
To one of rhese'\raditionalisr" Orthodox, Fr. Seraphimwrote: promisedto senda detailedreply in English,wirh quotesfrom the
Holy Fathers. "Ve look forwardto thiswith openmind and someex-
We fullyagrecwirh A. Y that"evolutionisoneofthc mostdangerous pecration!" wroteFr.Seraphim. "Ve hopeto receive a confirmationof
concep$ thar facesOrthodox Christiansroday"-perhaps it is the our suspicionthat he is quitewronglyusedasvirtuallya proponentof
very key (intellecual)to rhc assaultupon the Chrrrch,to thc vcry cvolution."
"philosophy"(andthereis sucha thingl)of the comingAntichrisr. Severalmonths larer FathersHerman and Seraohimreceiveda
fbrty-pageepistlefrom Kalomiros."l must confess,'; wrote Fr. Sera-
With this in mind, he encouragedA. Y. to write a booklet on evo- phim, 'that it is shockingbeyondour expectations-giving the 'evol-
lutionism. In the meantime,he made his own in-depth study, both of utionary'teachingquite unadornedand unqualified,completewith
the scientifictheory of evolution and of the teachingof the Holy Fa- the'evolvedbeastAdam'and'he who deniesevolutiondeniesthe Sa-
thers regardingcreation, the first-createdworld and the first-creared cred Scriptures.'[n a way, however,we are rather glad of this-be-
man. He discoveredthat the ancient Fathers,although they ofcourse causenow Jbr the Jirx time we have found a reputableOrthodox
did not refuteevolution/c/ Jr (sinceit had not been invented until re- 'evolutionist'who is willing to be quite frank about matterswhich
cenr rimes), provided a definite refutation of its main tenets.They others,I believe, areafraidto speakup about."
spoke at length on the distinction berweenthe "kinds" of organisms Fr. Seraphimpur all his energ;zinro composinga reply,which
both at the time of their creation and afterwards,and were clearly rurned out to be as long as Dr. Kalomiros'lerrer.Fr. Seraphim's
against any philosophy that would confuse this distinction. Their letter-a rreatise, actually-is a masterpieceof Parrisricrhought,and
teaching allowed for uariationwithin each kind, which is observable we todaycanonly be gratefulthat his correspondence with Dr. Kalo-
and scientificallydemonstrable,but was adamantly opposed to the miros inspiredhim ro write it. Up to today,it is rhe clearesr, most
idea that one kind could be transformedinto another,which to this completePatristicrelirtationof evolutioneverwritten.
day has not been provedscientifically.
Having studied the doctrine of the Holy Farherstouching on the
7. TheScientifc Sideof the Quexion
creationof man and the world, Fr. Seraphimlound it so clear that he
was "simply amazedat the power 'evolution' has over even educated By this time, rhe originalideaof comingout with a bookleton
Orthodox minds. Such is the power of this world and its fashionable evolutionism no longerseemed adequateto Fr.Seraphim.Now he and
ideas." A. Y beganto planwritinga completebook.Fr.Seraphimwasro wnre
All the living transrnittersofPatristic tradition whom Fr. Seraphim aboutthe Patristicteachingon creationand earlyman,and alsoabour
knew wereawarethat evolutionarytheory was a faith rather than pure the philosophical originsof evolution,while A. Y. wasto wrireabout
science.The critics ofA. Y.'sarticle,however,kept holding up a tradi- evolurionasscientifictheoryand about"Christianevolurion.""Our
tionalist Orthodox writer and medicaldoctor, Dr. AlexanderKalomi- study,"wrote Fr. Seraphim,"is supposed to givea 'complete'picture,
ros, as one who was pro-evolution.Not being able to read Kalomiros' which hopefullywill clarify many minds. It! cerrainlyclarifiedmy
article in Greek, Fr. Seraphim was frustratedat having his name re- own mind, sincepreviously I hadnt thoughtin detailon manyaspecc
peatedlythrown at him in this way. He had appreciatedthe English of the question."
translationof Kalomiros' strong critique of ecumenism,Again* Fake Fr.Seraphim's correspondencewith Dr. Kalomiroshad underlined
{Jnion, and could not imagine how the sameauthor could be in favor for him the importanceof beingabreast with scientificdiscussrons
on
of evolution. He wrote to Kalomiros askine his views, and the latter the subjectof evolurion.Dr Kalomiroshad pridedhimselfon stand-
27
GrNesIs. Cnr",qrroNnNo Eanrv MaN Eolroa's Pnerace
ing superior to these discussions, since they were "Western" and thus rcmpt, as a Patristicscholar,ro make rhe ancienr Fathersbelieverr as
"not Orthodox." As Fr. Seraphim pointed out, however, well.
After the 1950s,this siruation beganto change.One by one, the
The questionofevolution can'tbe discusscdat all ifonc doesn'thavea "silent dissenters"menrioned ar rhe Darwin Cenrennial beganto sur-
basicgraspof thc scientificside of it (the "scientificproofs" of it) as fice. Reputablescientistsbeganraisingseriousdoubrsabout evolution,
well as the broaderphilosophyof evolution basedon it (Teilhardde ,rnd therewerejusr too many ofthem to be silenced.New advancesin
Chardin, etc.).... By this I doni mean that onc has to be a scientific the "hard sciences"of moleculargenetics,embryology,erc.,were mak-
specialistin order to discussthe scientificside of rhe question-rhe ing it very difficult for scienriststo reconciletheir data with rhe neo-
scientificside is not tbe most importanr one, and specialistsusually Darwinian model. Scientific books came our which were critical of
trip themselvesup by concentratingtoo much on it; but if onc isni [)arwin's theory, including Implicationsof Euolution(1961) by G. A.
sufficicntly aware of the scientific side one won't bc able to grasp the Kerkut, professorof Physiologyand Biochemistryat the Universiryof
questionin its full scope.One can'tsaywith assurance, florcxample, Southampron,England, and L'Euolutiondu uiuant(1973) by Pierre11
whether rnan has been on earth some sevenor eighr rhousrnd years (lrassi, one of the world s grearesrliving biologistsand ex-presidenrof
("more or less,"asthe Fathersoften say)ifonc is totally ignorantofthe the FrenchAcademyofSciences.Dr. Grassiendedhis book by issuing
principlesof radiometricdating, geologicstrata,etc., which "prove" this devastatingindicrment of Darwinian evolution:
that man is "millions ofyears" old. And such knowledge is not esoreric
ar all-the basicprinciplesof radiometricdating (cnoughto show irs Through use and abuseof hidden postulares, of bold, often ill-
strongand weak points) can be explainedin a rathershort article'.. . . fbundcdextrapolations, a pscudoscience hasbeencreared.It is tak-
'fhis is jusr a sampleto show that to get an1'where
in this questionone ing roor in thc veryhcartof biologyand is leadingastraymanybio-
must have a basic,layman'sawareness of the scientilicevidcnccsfor chemistsand biologisrs, who sincerelybelievethat the accuracy of
and againstevolution. If one is reasonablyobjectiveand not out to fundamenralconceptshas bcen demonsrrared, which is not rhe
"prove onet point" at any cost, such questionsnced not arouscpas- casc.('
sionatedcbates.fu a bruic principle,ofcourse, we must assumethat
scientificrzl (asopposedto variousopinionsand prejudices)cannot In spite ofsuch srarementsby mainstreamscienrists,the debateas
contradict revealedtuthif only wc understand both correctly. to whether evolutionarytheory was a pseudoscience remainedfor the
most parr within the walls of the scientificestablishment;it was still
During the first halfoftherwentieth century as we have seen, sct- not known to rhe public. As far as the Americanpublic wasconcerned,
entists were loath to question the evolutionary model. They would evolution was still just as much an incontrovertiblefhct in the 1970sas
resreveryhypothesissavethat ens-f61 on it everythingelse,all their it had been in the 1950s,when both Fr. Seraohimand Dr. Kalomiros
of data, rested.Those few scientists-includingsome
classification had gone to college.Peoplewishing to learn*har was reallyhappenrng
veryimporrantones-who daredto underminethis dogmawerecon- in the scientificcommuniry would haveto familiarizerhemselves with
sidered"heretics"and wereblacklisted.When Dr. Kalomiroswasgo- specializedbooks and journals.
ing to schoolin the 1950s,it was not only unfashionable but In his sinceredesireto know whar modern sciencehad to sayabour
oositivelyanathemanot to believein evolution;and hence his at- sv6l11l6n-q7lx1 was actually proved and whar was sp€cularion-Fr.
Seraphimstudied the mainsrreamscienrificliterarure,aswell as popu-
'Ve haveprovidedsuchan arriclein AppcndixFour,pp.626-35. lar treatmentsofthe "proofs"ofevolution and human origins. He also
28 29
GsNrsrs,CnrartoNnNo EanrvM-rn Eolroa's Pnerrcr
spoke to scientistsworking within the prevailingestablishment,who (using them of religious bias while not acknowledging rheir own
told him that many of the evolutioniststhemselvesadmitted that there rr'ligiousbias.As Dr. Henry Morris wrote:
was not actualproof for it, but that it "makesmore sense,"or "the al-
'l'he answerof rhe evolurionaryesrablishment to the crearionisr
ternariveis unthinkable"-i.e., Codt creation. For a true scienrisr, ar-
they maintained,the pure theory ofevolution is a convenientmeansof gumcnrshasnor bcenscientific,but emorional.Intimidationis evi-
classifying,and another model equally scientificwould be just as ac- dcntlythegameplan.The A.C.L.U.filesor threarens to file lawsuirs
ceptable. whcrevera rwo-model[creation/evolurion] approachis considered
Through his studiesand personalcontactsFr. Seraphim,although in a schooldisrricr.A verirable
streamof anti-creationisttiradeshas
he possessedno scientific degrees,became more abreastof the current pouredforth from the libcralnewsmedia,aswellasrhejournalsand
statusof evolutionarytheory than Dr. Kalomiros.Assuring Dr. Kalo- booksof thc cducational/scicnrificesrablishment.
Evolutionisrs ouo-
miros that he was not "againstscience,"he wrote to hinr: liclygloarover the mcrcstsuggcstion of a misqrroration
or misrepre-
sentationwhich thcy can discovcrin thc copiouslydocumented
Youscemto be unawareof the greatmassof rrrntifc literaturein re' creationistliterature,while rheir own writingsare saturatcdwirh
cenryearswhich is highlycriticalof the evolutionary thcory which out-of-context quotesand flagrantdisrortionsof the creationist ar-
ralksaboutrelegating it to poetryand metaphors insteadofscientific 8Une nts.
theory(Prof.Consrance, professorofbotanyat the Univcrsiry ofCali-
fornia,Bcrkelcy),or cvcndenyits validiryaltogether.lfyou wish (but Thus, by the time Fr. Seraphimwas making an in-depth study of
I couldindeedcompilea lix of hundred:(if nor
it is quitepointless!), rhis subiect in rhe early 1970s, the crearionisrmovemenr had been
thowand:)of repurablescientistswho now eitherdisbelievein evolu- made an object of ridicule in rhe public mind. Fr. Seraphim himself
tion entirelyor statethat it is highlyqucstionablescientifictheory. was at flrst somewhatskepticalabout the movement, not becausehe
was swayedby public opinion (in which he had absolutelyno rrusr),
In his studies,Fr. Seraphimappreciatedthe work of the scientific but becausehe saw the movemenras being basedon the rarionalistic,
creationists,a group o[ ProtestantChristians who were also profes- "cornmon sense" Scriptural interpretation of Protesrantismrather
sionalscientists.The creationsciencemovement had beencatalyzedin than on the Divinely revealedinterprerarionof the Orthodox Holy
America with the publication of the seminal textbook The Genesis Fathers.However, when he actually studied books by leading scien-
Flood6y Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb in 1960 (only a tific creationists-in particular 'l-he GenesisFlood and Scientifc Crea-
year after the Darwin Centennial),. and its growth had precisely tionism, both by Dr. Henry Morris-he was impressed by their
coincidedwith the growing doubts about evolutionary theory within careful researchand sober,thoughrful presenration."Their presenta-
the scientificestablishment.From its inception, its strategywas to em- tion of the'Creation Model,"' he wrote, "is a promising approachto a
ohasizenot how much evolution contradictsthe Bible, but how much more objectiveview of the whole question."
it contradictsscientificevidence.Its earlysuccess and influencecaused Fr. Seraphimlookcd ro scientificcrearionisrsnot to resolveques-
evolutionistsro take the offensive,caricaturingthe creationistsand ac- rions of theology and philosophy.(For thesequesrions,of course,he
rurned to the Holy Fathers,as well as to rraditional Orthodox phi-
losopherssuch as lvan V Kireyevsky,Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov,
' ln 1932a similarmovernenthad starredin England,callingirsclfrhe Evolu-
rion ProresrMovenrenr.Irs prime moverwasbiologisrDor-rglas
Dewar.Conrinuing and Constantinel-eontiev.)Rather,he usedrhe work of the scientific
itswork to thisday,it is now known asthe CreationScience
Movemenr. creationistsexclusivelyto deal wirh quesrioltsraisedby modern sci-
30 3l
GeNrsIs,Cne,rrIoNrNo liaprv M,c.r'l Eorron's Pre.rx;r
ence, in order to suppott the teachings he had alreadyfoundin Patris' Wcsrern thought from the Great Schism to the presenr.For all the
tic theology. Although these scientistsindeed lacked the Patristic rrrlkshe wrote extensiveoutlines, organizing the vast historical and
understandingof the nature of man and the first-createdworld (and philosophical researchhe had done for The Kingdom of Man and the
in generalthe whole Patristicfield of commentary on Genesis),their Kingdom of God. This was the ripened fruit, not only of rhar early re-
books presentedfacts which pointed to the fixiry of the "kinds" of search,but also of his rich store of experienceas an Orthodox Chris-
animals, the global Flood, and a (relatively)recent creation-all of rian. He was now much better equipped than before ro presenthis
which Fr. Seraphimhad found statedunequivocallyin the writings of knowledgein a way that would havea pracricalapplicationto the lives
rhe Holy Fathers.Hence, without intending to, theseProtestantsci- of contemporarypeople. He called his lecture seriesa "Survival
entistswere in many waysservingas activedefendersof PatristicOr- (lourse" becauseof his beliefthat, in order for peopleto surviveas Or-
thodoxy. rhodox Christiansnowadays,they had to understandthe apostasy,to
Fr. Seraphimt respectfor this courageousgroup of scientistsonly know why the modern ageis the way it is. ln order to protect oneself,
increasedwhen he made contact with the lnstitute for Creation Re- one must havean idea ofthe srrategyofone! enemy.Fr. Seraphimalso
search,locatedin his hometown ofSan Diego. He subscribedto their calledhis classes "a coursein Orthodox self-defense."
newsletter Acts and Facts, often discussing interesting new articles lwelve lectureswere given by Fr. Seraphim,each of them several
with rhe brothers at the monastery Frequentlyhe referredhis fellow hours long. The elevenrhlecturewason the subjectofevolution. Here
Orthodox Christiansto the many books put out by the Institute, bc- Fr. Seraphimbrought to bear not only his early research,but also his
ginning with the introductory work Scientifc Creationism.* more recentstudiesfor the proposedbook on the Patristicunderstand-
ing of crcation. In the lecture,he discussedevolution from all the dif-
f-erenrpoints of view-the historical, scientific, philosophical,and
8. The "suruiual Coursc"and the Courseson Genesis
theological-and ended with a prescnrationof the variousexpressions
The book that Fr. Seraphimplannedwas neverfinished.A. Y' sent of "Christian evolutionism," especiallythat of -leilhard de Chardin.
rough drafts of his own sectionsto Fr' Seraphim,which the latter re- The lecturewas thus a rich summary of all his thoughrson rhe subject
visedand augmentedwith his own writings, evensendingit to a pro- un untrl lyl).
fessorof natural sciencesfor review;but still the book remained in a In subsequentyearsFr. Seraphimcontinued ro write notesand out-
rough and fragmentary state. lines on creationand evolution.'fhen, in 198I , only a year befbrehis
ln rhe meantime,however,Fr. Seraphimcontinued to do research' death,he took up the subjectagainin earnest.During the "New Valaam
write and speakon evolution and the Patristicview ofcreation 1-heologicalAcademy"coursein the summer ofthat year,he gavea se-
In the summer of 1975, with the aim of giving pilgrims to the riesofclasseson the Patristicinterpretationofthe firsr threechaptersof
monasterya foundarion in Orthodoxy' FathersHe rman and Seraphim the book of Genesis.He put much effort into theseclasses beforehand,
held a three-weekcourse, naming ir the "New Valaam Theological writing out an extensivemanuscriprofa verse-by-vcrse commentary
Academy."Fr. Seraphimgavea seriesoflectureson the developmentof filled with Patristicquotations,many of which he translatedhimself.
His eight yearsof contemplating,readingand praying about this sub-
ject had not been in vain. His seriesof classes
was the product of a ma-
'The cstccmwirh which he camcto regardrhc Institutc for CrearionRcsearch
tured Patristicmind, of one who, perhapsmore than anyone else in
can bc sccnin his last talk on crearion/cvolution,given only a few weela bcforehis
rcpose,in which hc spokcat thc lcngrhabout the Instiruteand ir work. SeeAppen-
modern times, had searchedthrough the whole sum ofthe teachinBof
dix 1'hree,pp. 615-25. the Fathersin order to find and elucidate the single Patisric doctrine of
32 .il
Cta,trIopann EnnlvMrN
GsNtsts, Euron's Prrrncr
Creation. And how exaltedwas the teachingof the Fathersthat he Thinkingaboutmy Genesis coursethissummer,I wasrereadingpart
pouredforth, how much moreinspiringthan theattemptsof othersto of Dr. Kalomiros'letrers.How discouraging! One losesall inspirarion
conformthe Holy Fathers to modernintellectual fashions! ro gettanglcdup in rhissubject,sceinghow he handlesir... . Anyone
At the nextAcademycoursein the summerof 1982,Fr' Seraphim who is rcallyconvertedto Chrisrianirywill surelybeginro rethink his
continuedhis commentaryon Genesis, the fourth
this time discussing wholeinrellecrual outlook,woni hel Isn'rthe realproblemrhat Dr.
to the eleventhchapters. Within two weeksafterfinishingtheseclasses Kalomiros... andothersareinrellectuals who haven't fllly converted,
he unexpectedly fell ill, and within anotherweekhe reposedin the or havcbroughthcir intellecrualbaggage wirh rheminroOmhodoryi
Lord. His Patristiccommentaryon Genesis,therefore,was the last
achievement of his life. Fr. Seraphimhad frankly becomebored wirh rhe idea ofhaving ro
presencthe Parrisricteachingon crearionexclusivelyas it relatedto the
nrodern intellecrualbaggageof evolutionism. He had done rhis in his
9. ThePkn of the Book
letrerto Dr. Kalomirosback in 1974, but now, as he was preparinghis
In Fr.Seraphim!earlyplansfor the proposedbook,he thoughtit Patristiccommentary eight yearslater, he had distancedhimself from
bestto beginwirh a discussion of evolutionfirst,showingthat it has the controversy.He saw that the whole weight ofthe Parristicreaching
no coercivescientificevidence to supportit, and then to presentthe on the creationwas so powerful and compelling thar the unprovedas-
Patristicunderstanding of creation.At that time,he thoughtthat this sumprions and confused thinking of modern evolurionisrspaled in
was necessarybecause,before people could even take the Patristic comparison.l'he Patristicreaching,Fr. Seraphimsaw,could stand on
teachingseriously, they first had to understandthat what they had its own Divine authoriry,even before modern minds raisedon evolu-
learnedall their livesabout the undisputedfacr of evolurionwas in tionary teaching;and a discussionof evolution was only neededas a
fact disputed. secondaryconsideration.
At the end of his life, Fr.Seraphimthoughtdifferently.In his last
statedplanofthe proposedbook,he saidit shouldbeginwith his Pa-
10. Deuelopments
in the 1980s
rristiccommentaryon Genesis (i.e.,his l98l and 1982lectureseries),
which would be followedby a discussion of evolution."'l'he whole This wasprobablythe main reasonwhy Fr. Seraphimwanted to re-
outlineof it now becomes clearto me," he wrote. "lt shouldbe called versethe original order of the book. But there was possiblyanother
somerhingpositive(no evolutionin the title), suchas Genesis, Creation reason:in the last rwo yearsof Fr. Seraphim'slife, a change had begun
and EarlyMan: An Orthodox View, and the first and main part should to occur in the public'saccepranceofevolurion. We have mentioned
be simply an Orthodox inrerpretation (accordingto St. John Chry- earlier how, in the 1960sand 1970s,the growing doubts ofscientists
sostom,St. Ephraim,etc.)of the first chapters of Genesis'discussing about neo-Darwinism had beenmostly hidden behind the walls ofthe
'problems'raisedby modern men in the courseof the discusston. scientificcommuniry. By the end of the seventies, thesewalls beganto
Then, asthe secondary thought(lessthan half the book),a discussron crumble. The first fissureoccurred when rhe prominent paleontolo-
of thewholequestionofevolution."ln the present, posthumous com- gists Niles Eldredgeand StephenJay Gould publicizedtheir new evo-
pilation,we havefollowedthisplan. lutionary theory of"punctuated equilibrium" to accountfor rhe lack of
\Vhy did Fr.Seraphim changehis planlor the book?One cluemay transitional, evolutionary lorms in the fossil record (which forms
be found in the followingwordswhich Fr. Seraphimwrote in the would be expecredaccordingto classicalneo-Darwinism). The new
springof 1981: theory was not ofgrear interestto the generalpublic, but what was re-
34 35
GrnesIs, Cnr,rrtou ,lNo Eanu M,rN Eorron's Prupr,cn
JO 37
GrNrsIs. Cnl,'rtlolt run E,tPrYMrN Eorron's Pnr.r,qce
Biologisrswho spendtheir lifetimesstudyingbiologywill be te- (.lrrrstianiry.*On the basis of mathemarical probabiliry Dembski
obviously,
gitimatearrrhorities, on the dctailsofwhat they'velearned dcrnonstratesconclusivelythat undirected natural causescannor ac-
and
in thar investigation, an outsider can'treallychallengethat,but ( ount for biologicalcomplexiry
an outsiderdefinitelycanchallenge theirrhinking,Particularlywhen As suchcontributionscontinue to be made,Professor Johnsonuses
it rurnsout that theybelievein whartheybelievein not because of thcm to advancerhe casefor a Crearor.Vith his backgroundin politi-
what they know asbiologists, bu in spiteof what they know as bi- cirl theory,he is a carefulstrategist.He seeshis work and the work of
movementbasedon materialism...So,
ologists.lts a philosophical orherslike him in terms ofa "wedge"straregy."The idea," he says,
that'sa thinkingissue,and iri reallymorewithin my disciplinethan
ir! within rheirs.' is that you ger a few peopleout promoringa new way of rhinking
and new ideas.It'svcry shocking,and thcy rakca lot ofabuse.Thc
rhing is rharyou haveto havepcoplethar ralka lot abotrrthe rssue
Irr l99l ProfessorJohnson came out with the 6ook Darwtn on
and get it up fronr and takerhe punishmenrand rakeall the abuse,
Tiial. His clear-headedness in cutting through the rhetoric of Darwin-
andthcn you gerpeopleusedto talkingabourit. lr becomes an issue
ism and exposing the logical foundations of the controversyquickly
thcyarctrsedto hearingabour,andyou geta few morepeopleanda
won him the respectofcreationistsand non-creationists alike, and also
few more,and rheneventually you'velcgitimatedir asa regularpart
the ire of the die-hardcvolutionists,who to this day have not succeed- of rhc academic discussion.
And thar'smy goal:ro legitimaterhear-
ing in refutinga singleone of his arguments
Bumcntovercvolurionand particularlyoverrhe Darwinianmecha-
Johnson'swork has inspiredmore scientiststo come into the oPen nism and its supposedcreativepower, ro legitimarcthar as a
'fhe most
wirh rheir own hard questionsabout evolutionarytheory. mainstream scicnrificandacadcmic issuc.As soonaswe cando that
well-known among theseis Professorof BiochemistryMichael Behe'
and pur rhc sporlighton it, thcn everybody knowsrharthereis no
who in his 1996 book Darwini BlachBox showsrhar the astonishing
evidence. So,wc cani losethe argumcnr.Ve're boundro win it. \We
new discoveries ofbiochemistry cannot be accommodatedby any form jusr havcto normalizeir, and rhat rakespatienceand persistence,
of Darwinism. He presentsevidencefrom his field that interdcpendent
and rhat! whatwe arcapplying.ro
biochemicalmachinesmust have 6een designcd, although not being a
creationisthe doesnot positivelyidentifr the Designer.
ProfessorJohnson is also an admirer of Fr. Seraphim, and has
ln 1997 another thought-provokimgbook landed a strong blow
soughtto make Fr. Seraphim'slife and work more widely known.** W'e
againstDarwinism: Not b7 Chance!byDr. Lee Spetner.An Israelibio-
are grateful lor his introduction to rhe presentbook.
physicistand experton the geneticcode,Spetnerhasspcnt thirry years
researchingthe possibility of evolution on th€ geneticlevel. He nor
' AnorherOrrhodoxChrisrianprcscndyactivcin rcfuringevolurionism is John
only showswhy random mutationswill neverProducethe changesthat
Mark Reynolds, Professor
of Philosophy ar BiolaUnivcrsiry.
In a recent(1999)an-
evolutionistsclaim, but also offers new scientificavenuesfor investi- thology lre affirms rhar "The Fathersfrom rhe firsr cenruryforward overwhelmingly
garinghowyari^tion occurswithin the strict geneticlimits ofeach kind took a youngcarrh,global-flood view.. . Simplydiscardingrhe viewsof rhe Fathers
of organism. is not an option for any rhoughtful Christian" (Moreland and Reynolds,ed., Tbrce
The following year saw the publication of yet another maior Viewson Cteation and Euolution, p. 97).
]Vy'llliamA. Dembski, a professor '" SccPhillipJohnson's reviewof Fr. Seraphimtbiography, publishcdfirsr in
contribution: The DesignInferenceby
Boob & Cultare(Seprembcr/October, 1997)and laterin the collcctionofJohnsont
of mathematicsand philosophy,and a recent convert to Orthodox
r'\\.ryt. ( )b|?.tton!Suttaned.pp. )-3 --8.
38 39
GsNe.sts,CnterIoN AND EARLYMAN Enrror's Pnsr,rcc
.irnr by his fillow Orthodox. Now public opinion has begun to catch
12. Changesin the Orthodox lVorld rrp wirh him.
'fhe "wedge"ofwhich Professor Johnsonspeaks hasnot beenwith- 13. Bryond Daru,inism
out reDercussions in the Orthodox world. In 1998 TheChtistianActiu'
lnterestingly,Fr. Seraphim predicted these developments.In his
rir-a popular Orthodox journal that reached75,000 Orthodox
an articleby Dr' Kalomrros writings and talk, he said that atheism/agnosticism in modern science
Christianiof all backgrounds-published
(who had recentlyrePosed) which claimedthat modernevolutionary and philosophy,which relies heavilyon Darwinian theory, would in-
cvitably wane. This will be a boon for traditional Christians and for
theory was comprtiblewith Orthodox Christianiry'There was of
rhoseseekingthe true God; bur for others, Fr. Seraphimsaid, it will
coursenothingunusualaboutthis.As we haveseen,Orthodoxjour-
of evolurionism manytimesin lcad to a vaguedeism and variousshadesof pantheismthat will charac-
nalsin AmericahadshownaccePtance
wasthe readers'reactionto rerizerhe deceptive"religion of the future."*
the past.Vhat uar unusualand surprising
TheChristianActiuisthad alwaysreceivedlarge Phillip E. Johnson,as a Christian who is on the front lines of the
Dr. kalomiros'
^ti,cle. crearion/evolutiondebate,agreeswith the prognosisthat Fr. Seraphim
amountsof mail, but this time theywereinundared'ln the following
nradeover rwo decadesago. "lt is whar all my friendsand I havebeen
issuethe publisherwrote:
tliscussing,"he says."Scientific materialismis waning, but unhealthy
'We receivcdmore lctters to the cdiror about issue#ll than any forms of religion will largely take irs place."'t For Orrhodox Chris-
tians,this is all the more teasonto cling firmly to the common teach-
other prior issuc.Ve also rcceivedmore letrerson "Eternal Vill"'
ing of rhe Holy Fathers,whom Fr. Seraphim called a "sure guide to
rhe articlc on creation by Dr. Kalomiros, than any arricle wc have
rrue Christianiry"
ever publishcd,all of thcm in disagreementwith his views'
14. 7'bePresentBook
The editorwiselydecidedto print largeportionsof Fr' Seraphim's
with a statementthat Fr' Seraphim's presenta- The presentvolume has been compiled lrom the following mate-
letterto Dr. Kalomiros,
on the subjectofevolution was indeedthe rial, all of it by Fr. Seraphim:
tion ofthe ChurchFathers
traditional,Orthodoxone.*"
The responseto the 1998 ChristianActiaist aricle reptesenreda I . Letter to Dr. Kalomiros, 19741
maiorshift rincethe 1970s'when pro-evolution articlesevokednoth- 2. Lecture I I of the "Survival Course" in 1975, which includesboth
ing but cautioussilenceor openapproval in mainstream Orthodoxcir- Fr. Seraphim's"Brief Critique of rhe Evolutionary Model" and his
discussionof "Christian Evolutionism";
cle1.At that rime, Fr. Seraphimhad goneagainstpublic opinion in
contemporary AmericanOrthodoxy,and wasthus subiectedro criri- 3. Patristic Commentary on Genesis, 198I and 1982, taken both
from Fr. Seraphim'smanuscriptand from his oral delivery,includ-
ing rhc question-and-answcrsessions;
' Fr. Scraphim'slcncr to Dr. Kalomiroshad previouslybccn publishedin a spc- 4. Lettersfrom 1974 to l98l;
cial doublc-issucof thc Orthodox iournal Epiphany(Fall 1989-Vinter 1990)' edired
'I'his ground-brcakingis- 5. Miscellaneousnotes,including outlines,brief essays, and Fr. Sera-
and compilcdby Fr' Andrcw Rossiand StcphcnMurarore
,u", th. hr.t work of its kind ro appearin the American Orthodox press'also in- phim'sown additions to A. Y.'sunfinishedchapters.
cludedscientificand philosophical rcfuurionsofcvolutionby William A Dembski'
'\folfgang Smirh, and others. at lengrhin rhc Editor'sEpiloguc,pp. 545-90.
'This subjecris discusscd
40 4l
Cr.sarloN,rruoErnu Men
Gr:NesIs. EnIron's Pnsmce
Alrhough Fr. Seraphimneverlived to finalizethe book he planned, In overcomingthe temptarion,which had been bred in him from
rhe presenrvolume, taken from his own writings and lectures,covers ..hildhood, to feel he knew better than the ancients,Fr. Seraphimre-
all the main areasrhat he wanted discussed.*ln fact, in some waysthis vc:rledhow noble,howutterly treasurable is the Patristicmind. Clearly,
posthumouscollection is more full than the book he envisioned.For lrorn his writing one can seethat rhis is no ordinary human mind, bur
example,some of Fr. Seraphirnsmost interestingtheologicalobserva- romething Divine.
tions are found in the tape transcriptionsof his question-and-answer The Prophet Moses, the author of Genesis, had received his
sessions(Part IV), and some of his most concise and penetrating knowledgeof the creationfrom Divine vision-theoria in Creek. The
thoughts about evolutionism are contained in the selectionsfrom his lloly Fatherswho commented on the Scriprureswerealsopartakersof
letters(PartV). l)ivine theoria, and thus they are the only sure interpreters of Moses'
Fr. Seraphim'sdiscussionof the scientificside of the creation/evo- rcxt. Fr. Seraphim, having immersed himself in the mind of the Fa-
lurion issuedoesnot representas full a treatmentas he had envisioned thers,presentedto the modern world the Patristicziiaz of the cosmos,
'We have and thus raisedthe discussionfar abovethe merely rational and scien-
for the book, nor is it fully up to date. attempted to remedy
(
rhis siruation by including I ) ProfessorJohnson'sinrroduction on the rific.
reconsiderationof Darwinism roday,(2) explanatoryfootnotesto Fr. All creationists,wherher "Biblical" or "non-Biblical," have much
Seraphimi discussion,with references to more recentliterature,(3) an to learn from Fr. Seraphimkexposition.The "non-Biblical" creatron-
arricle on radiometric dating to supplement Fr. Seraphimi observa- ists will find in the teachingof rhe Farhersa mystical illumination of
tions (Appendix Four), and (4) a list of suggestedreading,including the book of Genesis,and thus they may look more closelyat that book
the most up'ro-date resources (Appendix Five). as a Divinely inspired "prophecyof the past." Biblical creationistswill
likewisefind that the Patristictesrimonyopensup new dimensionsin
their understandingofthe Bible: new levelsof meaningthat they ncver
15. This Boohi Primary Contibution to the WorA could havereachedthrough normal exegericalmeans.*
Once one acquiresthe mind of the Fathersas Fr. Seraphim did,
However. it is not in its discussionof scientific issuesthat the
uniquenessof this book lies.As we haveseen,thereis now plenry ofex-
'Some creationistwritingsconrainmistakenideasabour rhc Holy Frathers,
cellent material, by both creationistsand non-creationists,which
Lrescd on rhe ideathar Chrisrianirywascormptedfrom rhc rimc of St. Consranrine
brings to lighr theseissues. ro the ProtestantRcformation. lt is hopedrhatrhc prcscnrbook will helpencourage
Rather, rhis book adds a unique dimension to the current crea- a rccxaminarion ofthe Holy Fathers, so rharBiblicalcrcationists ofall backgrounds
tion/evolution debateby presenting,in a penetrating,detailedyet un- will scethat rhe Holy Fathcrsdo indecduphold rhc basicposiriorrs of prcscnt-day
adornedway, the orherworldly mind of the Holy Fathersx it percerves creationscicntists,and canin facrtakcthcir undersranding ro a higherleveL.
the creation,the first-createdworld, the naturesof createdthings and It appearsrhat sucha rcexaminarion hasalrcadybegun.ln l99l CreationRc-
ratch SocieE()uarterl1printcd an arricleaffirming Sr. Basil'sinterpretationofGene-
the original narureof man.
sis('An EarlyView of GcncsisOne," CRSQwrtetl,vol.27, pp. 138-39),which in
| 994 wasadaprcdand rcprintcdin anorhcrleadingcrcation isrnragazine, Cration I*
' Sincethis is a compilationof separarcbodiesof work doneat diffcrenrrimes N/r'lo ("GenesisMcans \X/hat k Says,"CreationEx Nihik, vol. )6, no. 3, p. 23).
for differenr purposes,rhere is somc repetitionof Parristicpassages.Had Fr. Scra- More reccntly, rnolecularbiologistJonarhan Wellshasadmirablydefended thc reach-
phirn livedto complerethis book himseli thesereperitions would of coursenot oc- ing of the Holy Fatherson crearion(seehis arriclc"AbusingTheology,"in Origiw &
cur. We havcclectcdro allow for rhem in this posthumous collcctionso as not to Dcsign,vol. 19, no. I, 1998),ashasBririshcrearionscientisr MalcolmBowdcn(scc
disrurbthc integriryand conrinuiryofeachscpararc work. his 1998 book TrueScience Agrees tuith the \ibb, pp.38-40).
42 4a
GeNesrs,CnurroN lNo EanI-vMeN Enrror's Pnrnrce
one can never view the book of Genesisas merely an allegory; but I'hcrcwill come a time of worldwidecataclysm, and thc whole
more than this, one can neverview the presentworld as before.Vhy? world will burst into flamc. Thc earth and sun and moon will
Becausethe Holy Fathers,like the Prophet Moses, mystica-llyper- burn-everythingwill burn;everything will vanishanda newworld
ceived the world as ir was first created. They taught from experience will riseup, morcbcautifulthan rheonc which thc first peoplecon-
that the world wasoriginally incorruptible,of a higher order than the remplated. Then will bcginerernal,joyouslife, total blessedness
in
materialworld which came into being after mant fall. A modern-day life that thc humansouloincscven
Christ.And it is for rhisblessed
Holy Father,St. Barsanuphiusof Optina (1845-1913), put ir this now on earth.''
way:
F'r.Seraphim,in acquiring the Patristicmind, lived with this im-
The beaurifulthingsof thisworld areonly hintsof that beautywith ,rgeever beforehim. In the morning, beforechurch services,he had a
which the first-createdworld was filled, as Adam and Eve saw ir. practiceof circling the entire monasterygrounds.As thc golden glow
That beaurywasdestroycdby thc sin of rhe first people. of rlre morning lighr filtered through the broad canopy of oak leaves,
lmagine a marveloussratueby a great master-and suddenry Irr.Scraphimcould be seenblessingand evenkissingrhe trees.
someone smashes it like a thunderbolt.Vhat will remainof it?Frag- "Whar's this?" Fr. Herman once askedhim. "Kissing trees!"
ments.We can pick thcm up; we can searchout thc neck,a portion Fr. Seraphimlooked up, smiling radiantly,and continued walking.
ofan arm, or the face.lndicationsof rhebeauryof the linesarepre- Fr. Seraphimknew berterthan anyonethat this old earrh,weighed
sewedin rhescseparatefragments,but they no longerproducefor us down by dre fallennessof rnan, had nor long ro live, rhat it would be
rhe formerharmony,rhe formerwholeness arrdbeauryThus also "obliteratedin the rwinkling of an eye,"transfiguredinto a new earth.
did rhe hll into sin of the first peoplcdestroythe beauryof Godi And yet, as Fr. Herman realizedwhile he watched him make his
world,and thereremainro usonly ltragments of it by which we may rounds, Fr. Seraphim was kissing rhe very "fiagments" of the lost
judgeconccrningthe primordialbeaury'r beautyof rhe original creation."He wanted to die," Fr. Herman says,
"to melt into the earth, which will be transformed....The very ideaof
Once, when standing beforea window at night, St. Barsanuphius the tree he kissedwas otherworldly,for treeswereoriginally createdin-
pointed ro the moon and said to his spiritualchildren: corruptible in Paradise, accordingro rhe reachingofSr. Gregory ofSi-
nai."
Itt no wott-
Look-what a picturelThisis left to usasa consolation. ln his commentary on Cenesis, Fr. Seraphim rnade a self-
dcr that the ProphetDavidsaid,"Thou hasgladdened mc, O Lord, revclarorystatementwhich confirmed this:
by Thy worla (Ps.9l:3). "Thou has gladdenedme," he says,al-
rhoughthis is only a hint of that wondrousbcaury,incomprchensi- In rhc peacefulmurmur of thc forests(whcrcso manyascetic strug-
ble to humanthought,whichwasoriginallycreatcd.\0'cdon'tknow glcrshaverakcnrcfugc)canwc not scca rcmindcrof the Paradisc of
what kind of moon therewasthen.what kind of sun,what kind of vegetation originallyinrendedfor our dwellingand [ood, and still
light.... All of thischangedafterthc fall.'o cxistingfor thoscablcto asccnd,likeSt. Paul,ro bcholdir?
The Holy Fathers'visionof rhe firsr-createdworld was at the same Fr. Seraphimalsohad a greatappreciationofthe animal kingdom:
time a glimpseof chefuture age.As St. Barsanuphiussaid; both the many wild anima.lswhich freely roamed around the monas-
tery, and the monastery'smany domesticatedanimals. Ever since he
44 45
CnsarroN
GeNssrs, nNoElnrv Mrx Eorlon's Paer,rcr
wasa boy he hadshownthis appreciation, which had inspiredhim to l.ike him, they were shown to be impervious to rhe elemenrs;like
spendrhreesummervacations studyingzoologyat theJuniorSummer hinr, rhey were nlasrersand stewardsof creation, and all creatures
Schoolof Science in SanDiego.Now that he wasan Orthodoxmonk ,rbcyedthem.
he viewedanimalsin a moresublimelight,
living in the wilderness, "Adam was in a state of sobriety," Fr. Seraphim said elsewhere.
evenwhile realizingrhartheytoo had beenaffectedby man'sprimor- "[.le looked at things and saw them the way they were.There was no
dial fall.Fr.Hermanrecallsa quietmomentwhensomeof the monas- ilouble rhought' like we have in our fallen state ... no looking at
tery'sanimalscame up to them. "From your point of view," Fr. thingsand imaginingsomethingelse."
Hermanaskedin a reflective mood,"whatareanimalsall about?" 1-hrough Christ, the saints also returned ro rhis pre-fall staceof
Fr.Seraphim replied:"They havesomethingto do with Paradise." sobricty ( z?slr in Greek). Vith pure, open awareness, they perceived
nor only the original nature of man, but also the distinct naturcs of
16. TheNatureof Man crcaredthings-"ideas" of the creativeMind of God.
Fr. Seraphim,in readingthe l"ivesofthese saints(especiallythe as-
Accordingto Fr.Seraphim,"The mostimportantquestionwhich ccric "deserr-dwellers"),was fascinatedby thesealmost contemporary
is raisedfor Orthodoxtheologyby the moderntheoryofevolutionis imagesof what man was in the beginning,and likewiseof what he will
tbe natureof man, and in particularthe natureof tbefrst-teated man be in the future age,when he will be raisedup in a body incorruptible.
Adam.""lhroughrationalism, and in particularthroughevolutionism, In fbllowing in their footsteps,Fr. Seraphim prayed much, cultivated
modernsecularman haslost an awareness of what he waslike before the lofty virtues oF sobriery and dispassion,and ascendedwith the
the fall, when he, like Paradise itself,was incorruptible.As Fr. Sera- saintsbeyond rhis corruptible earth.
phim cameto realize,most contemporary Christians,includingOr- "l could see," recallsFr. Herman, "that not only was his mind
thodoxChristians, havealsolostthisawareness-and this is oneof the working but his heart was involved,and his heart caught those things
biggesrproblemsof Christianirytoday.Vithout an awareness of our you just can'tget, asa rational being, from books.Things wereopen to
originalnature,we cannotknowwhat it is we shouldbe strivingto get him, but he couldni tell of them becauseotherswouldnt understand.
backto; we cannotknow what we aremadefor. The only way to re- 'l hat! why he said so few words, evenwhen I urged hirn to revealthe
gainthisawareness is, again,to acquirethe mind of the Holy Fathers. fruits of his contemplation....
'fhat is why rhepresentbook addsa vital dimension,not only to the "He wasnot at home in the world, he had no lust for life: and that's
currentcreation/evolution debate,but literallyto all aspects of human why he could go so high-into super-consciousness. "
lifc. From this vanragepoint, Fr. Seraphim shared the experienceof
"Vith the openingof their eyesthrough the transgression," Fr. tlre saintsin glimpsing the original narure of man and the naruresof
Seraphimwrote,'Adam and Eve havealreadylost the life of Para- creatcdthings. Thus, he saw evolution as untenablenot only because
dise....Fromnow on theireyeswill be opento the lowerthingsof this the Holy Fatherssaid so (although for him rhat was reasonenough in
earth,and theywill seeonly with difficulrythe higherthingsofGod. irself) or becausethere was no true scientificevidencefor it, but also
'l-hey are no longer dispassionate, but have begun the passionate becausehe recognizedthrough the light of inner sight that evolution-
earthlylife we stillhavetoday." ism abolishesmant original nature, takes away man! awarenessof
By becomingdispassionate through prayerand asceticsrruggle, I)aradiseand his lall from it, and destroysthe Divinely establisheddis-
the Orthodoxsaintsthroughoutthe agesrestoredin themselves, while tinction berweenthe naturesof createdthings.
yet in a corruptiblebody,somemeasure of the stateof pre-fallAdam. fhrough revelarionlrom above,the Prophet Mosesdescribedthe
4b 47
Cnn,rrIon,nxoEau-vMall
Ge.Ncsts,
48 49
Crxrsts, Cnr:artoN,rruoF,artr MaN INtronucrror,r
guided efforts to reinterpretthose teachingsin the light of modernist Roman Catholic and Protestantcircles.Desperarelyseekinganything
evolutionaryscience.He dcalt with scientificquestionsmainly in the rhat will supporr rheir program of melding Christianiry with evolu-
contextofdefending the Patristicwritings, and he directedhis teaching tionary naturalism,rhesetheologiansand scientistshaveclaimed thar
towardsfellow Orthodox believers.AJthoughhe understoodthe philo- such esteemedFiathers as Basiland Augustinetaughr a doctrine which
sophical roots ofevolutionary rheory very profoundly, he was not ex- is more or lesslike a primitive versionof modern evolutionaryrneory.
tensivelyinvolved with the scientific community. He seemsto have I need say no more on this subject,becauseno one who understanos
debatedthe subjectonly with Dr. Kalomiros,who was apparentlyes- Fr. Seraphimi lecrureson Genesisand creation,which are contained
teemedwirhin part of the Orthodox community but whose scientific in this volume, is in dangerof being misled by such perversemisinrer-
viewswere confusedand ladenwith rnisinlormation. pretations.*
My own writings are addressedro the world ar large, including Wirh those introductory commenrs our of rhe way, I will explain
secularintellectualsand religiousbelieversfrom a varieryof tradirions. ccrtain common misunderstandings of the scientificissueswith which
My writing and speakingbrings me into constantdebatewith a variery Fr. Seraphimhad to deal,and in rhe courseofdoing this I will arrempt
ofscientific authoritiesofgreaterand lesserrenown. Most ofmy critics to bring his discussionup to date. Fr. Seraphim! thought was thor-
would not consider the Church Fathersto be reliableauthorities,or oughly ar odds with rwenrieth-centuryscience,shapedx that science
evenrecognizetheir names.Many of them are alsosrronglyprejudiced lras been by is a priori commitmenr ro metaphysicalmaterialism.It
againstanything that smacksof "fundamentalism,"or even"rcligion," may well be, however,that rhe scienceofrhe nexr century will be more
and hence are repelledrather than persuadedby any referenceto the nrodesrand hencemore realisric,in which casehe may seemlike a man
Bible or its interpreters.'lb avoid endlessconfusion and distractton, who was far aheadof his time.
and to keep attention focusedon rhe most important point, I have $/hat is "evolution"?
firmly put asideall questionsof Biblical interpretation and religious A succincrand accuratedefinition of "evolution," as the term is
aurhoriry, in order to concentratemy energieson one theme. My undersroodby today'smainstreamscientistsand scienceeducarors,rs
theme is that, in Fr. Seraphim'swords, "evolution is zar'scienrificfact' given in the official (USA, 1995) policy sraremenrof the National fu-
at all, but philosophy."The philosophy in question is naturalism (the sociationof Biology Teachers*.(NABT):
doctrine that nature is "all thereis"), which for this purposeis identical
to materialism (the doctrine rhat reality consistsof nothing but the ' Seerhc arriclcby JonathanWclls,'Abusing'l'hcology: HowardVanT'ill's'Fo-
rgotrcn f)ocrrine of Crcarioni FunctionalIntcgriry"' in rhe journal Origiu & Dc-
particlesthat physicistsstudy). If materialismis true rhen nature had
rgz, vol. 19,no. l.
to be capableofdoing its own creating,and the existenceofa material-
" The complctctcxrofrhe NABf Statemcnr on rhe teaching ofcvolurronwas
istic evolutionaryprocesslollows asa matter of inevitablelogic. Hence, publishcdin 'fhc AmericanBiology'feathcrl)aruary, | 9q6), pp. (' t -62, and in rhc
I have argued, scientific materialistsbelieve in naturalisticevolurion colleuion Voices for Euohtion(Berkelcy,Calil: Narional (lenrer for ScicnceFiuca-
not becauseof the evidence,but regardless of rt. tion, f995) pp. 14044. Followingpubliccriricisnrby mysclfandorhcrs,the NABT
Alrhough my own project has led me to avoid the questionsof lmcndcd thc Srarcmenr to onrir rhc words"unsupervised" and "impersonal." This
amendmcnrwas in no way a changein thc subsrance of rhc NABT} position;it
Parristicauthoriry that most concernedFr. Seraphim,some of my de-
mcrclydcletedincautious wordsroo obviousand undcniable. -fhe Darwinianestab-
bating opponents have (like Dr. Kalomiros) invoked the Fathers in
lishmcnrprefersto makcirs main poinr-rhat God had nothingro do wirh evolu-
highly distorted form for their own purposes.I am thereforegratified tion-by persistcnr insinuarionrarherthal rhe kind of plain languagcthar inviccs
to seethat Fr. Seraphimhas thoroughly demolishedone of the favor- opposirion.'fhar evolurionwasnevergr.rided by an intelligenragenr(unril scienrific
ite canardsof accommodationistsnot only in Orthodoxy, but also in mandcveloped gcncticengineering) rcnrains
rhcsrandard Darwiniantcaching.
50 5l
(lrtttsts, CrsrrIoN ,,'NnEaRrv M,qH IN -I' R OD U C TION
I hc rlivcrsitvof life on carth is the outcome of evolution: an unsu- fbrms of earlier,"ancesrral"forms. In either forrn, rhe "[:w" doesnot
pcrviscd,irnpcrsonal,unprcdictableand natural processof tcmporal exist, and is not defended by qualified embryologistsin rhe profes-
dcsccntwith gcnetic modification that is affectcdby natural selec- sionalliterature.One can, howevel find sragesevident here rnJ th.re
tion, chance,historicalcontingenciesand changingenvironments. of characteristics thar, with inraginarion,can bc made to fir the pat-
rern of Haeckel'sLaw, and theseare conrinually cired to rhe public in
'fhis
definition contains three elemenrs: popular treatmentsas proof of "evolution." The most farno,r, .*r--
ple is the supposed"gill slits" possessed by human embryos ar one
L Evolution is an unsupervisedand irnpersonalprocess-i.e., ir is stageof development,although theseslits are nor gills and never de-
nor direcredor guided by God; velop inro gills.
2. Evolution is a natural processof descentwith modification by Although Haeckel'sLaw was discreditedmany decadesago, it has
which all of rodayt living organismsdescendedby a natural process such an irresisribleappealro rhe Darwinian imagination rhai it is still
from a singleprirnordial ancesrorwhich itself evolved(withour su- taught in many schoolsaround rhe world. Even repurablemuscums
pernaturalassistance) fronr non-living chemicals;and and universiriescontinue ro propagarea versionof ir. in a vagueand
'l'he mechanism
J. of evolution is a combination of random genetic unfalsifiableform. For example,the on-line PalconrologyMuseum at
changes(chance)and natural selection,operatingin the contexr of rhe Universiryof California at Berkeleyhas this ro sayabout Haeckel,s
historicalconringenciesand changingenvironments. t-Aw:
I will discussthesethreeelementsbelow,in reverseord€r.As a pre- The "law of recapirulation" has beendiscreditcdsincerhe beginning
liminary marter,however,I should firmly correct one of Dr. Kalorni- ofthe twenricth cenrury Expcrimentalmorphologistsand biologrsts
ros' many misunderstandings. Not every instanceof changein nature have shown rhat thcre is nor a one-to-onecorresDondence
berwcen
constitutes "evolurion,"as that term is usedtoday.The growrh ofa gi- phylogcnyrnd onrogcny.AJrhougha srrongfrrm,,l rccapirularionis
ant oak tree from an acorn is not evolution, nor is the developmentof nor correcr,phylogenyand onrogenyare inrcrrwined,and nrany bi-
a human baby from an embryo in the womb of its mother. Thesepro- ologisrsare beginning to both explorc and understandthe basisfor
ccsses of what biologistscall "development"are fundamenrallydiffer- rhis connection.' I
enr from biological evolution, becauserhey are programmed by the
information inherired from the parentsand henceare highly predict- In fact,researchinto embryologyhasshownthar it is a righrlydi-
able.A human embryo nevergrows into someanimal otlrer than a hu- rectedprocess which doesnot fit the Darwinianparadigmat all. Ef-
man being,and an acorn neverturns asidelrromits prograrnnredpath fons to alter rhe processby inducingrnu,"iion, ian produ..
to bccomea pine treeor a rosebush. defbrmitiesof varioussorts,but theydo not succeed in changingthe
'fhere pathofdevelopnrent so thartheembryodevelops
is a persistentlegend among evolutioniststhat "ontogeny into a viablecrearure
rccapitulates phylogeny;"that is, thar the developmenrof the human of a differentrvoe.
infant in the womb is a kind of rerun of evolutionaryhistory, as the
cmbryo goesfrom a fish stageto a reptile stageand so on. This non- ' Fbr an cxampleof rhc continuingpromotionof thc recapitularion
conceptin
prcscntarions of an Americanpublic 'Ielcvision
to rhe public,seerhe discussion
cxisrentphenomenon is often called "Haeckeli lavv," xfler Darwin's "NOVA" prograrnon humancmbryologyin nry interncrdcbarcrvith profcssor
Ken_
nrost prominenr German disciple.ln another form, the "Law" states ncth Millcr of BrownUniversiq,:
rhat the embryo goesrhrough not the adult stagesbut the embryonic http://www.pbs.org/wgbb/pagcs/nova/odyssey/debarc/indcx.hrml
i.]
Gr:ursrs. CnltrIoN aNn ErnlY MaN TN TR OD U C TION
At botrom,biologicalevolutionis a theoryof change,which un- Physics booksmaybc complicated, but ... the objecrsand phenom-
dertakesto explainhow it is possiblefor one kind of organismto enathat a physicsbookdescribcs arcsimplerthan a singlccellin rhc
changeinto somethingcomPletelydifferent.It alsoseeksto explain bodyof its aurhor.And rheaurhorconsisrs of rrillionsof thosecells,
how extremelycomplexbiologicalorgansand organismscan come manyo[ rhemdiffcrcntfrom eachothcr,organized wirh inrricatcar,
into existencewithout the needfor a supernatural Creator.As the emi-
chitccrureand precision-cngineering into a workingmachinecapa-
nent DarwinistRichardDawkinshasexplained, "Biology is the study
ble of writing a book.... Eachnucleus... conrainsa digitallycodcd
of complicatedthings that give the appearance of havingbeen de-
database larger,in informarioncontenr,than all .10volumesof the
signedfor a purpose."'Nonctheless, Dawkinssaysthat Darwin "made
Enryclopcdia Britannicapu togerher.And this figure is f<>reachcell,
fulfilledatheist"by explaininghow a
it possibleto be an intellectually not all rhecellsof rhc bodypLrtrogether.a
,nindles,materialmechanismcould perFormthe apParentrniracleof
biologicalcreation.The mechanismis thereforethe heartof the rhe- How does an unsupervisedmaterial processcreatesuch an inrri-
ory,asDarwin himselfexPlained: cate marvel, which is far more complex than a computer or a space
ship?
theOriginof Species'
In considering it is quiteconceivablethata 'fhe Darwinian answer
is that tiny changes-the sort of variations
on the mutualaffinities
reflecring
naturalist, of organicbeings,otr that appear in each generationand differentiarea juvenile organism
theirembryological their
relations' geographical geo-
distribution, fiom its parenrs-accumulate graduallyover many generationsuntil
and such othcr facts,might come to rhe conclu-
logical succession, they produce an entirely new kind of crearurewith new organs and
sion that each spccieshad not bccn indepcndentlycrcated,lrut had adaptivefearures.This mechanismhas never been shown to be capa-
descended,like varietics,from other spccics.Neverthclcss'such a ble ofgenerating anyrhing other rhan minor variarions(such as back-
conclusion, cven if well founded, would be unsatisfhcrory,unril it and-forrh variations in rhe size of finch beaks,or variations in the
could be shown how thc innumerablcspeciesinhabiting this world relativefrequencyof light and dark varietiesin a morh popularion).*
have been modified, so as to acquirethat perfectionof structureand Becauseit is the only naturalisticpossibilirythat has any plausibiliry
l
coadaptationwhich most iustly cxcitesour admiration whatever,Darwinisrsextrapolatewildly from rheserrivial examplesto
postularea mechanism capableof creating counrlessadaptive won-
ln other words, simply postulating that change has occurred, or that ders, including even the human brain. Such claims are poony sup-
primitive speciesare "ancestors" of modern sPecies,is not much of an ported, ro put it mildly, and in recentyearsrhey havecome up against
i-prou.-.n, over specialcreationunlessa mechanismof changeis
specified. is that "like begetslike."An ape.never
Our experience gives
* Althoughrhe pepperedmorh
bi.th to a human(or viceversa)'and it is still moreunthinkablethat a experimenrneverprovcdanythingof impor-
tancc,readcrs
shouldknow tharrheexpcrimcntitsclfwasrhercsultof Darwiniancn-
bacteriumwould givebirth to a butterfly.So how doesone kind ofor- thusiasnr.
Fordcrailsofhow sciencehasdiscreditcd
rheexperimenr,secrhcarriclcby
ganismchangeinio somethingcompletelydifferent?Above.all, how lonathanVells, "SecondThoughrsaboutPeppered Morhs."ar
loes this proc"ssof changebuild new complexorgans(like eyes, hrtpr//www.thc-scierrrisr.library.
upenn.edulyrl999/may/opin 99O524,html
54 55
IN TR OD U C TION
GrnrsIs. Cnr.auoNaNo EanrYMlN
)b 57
Grxtsrs, Crr-arroN,rNoEer.rvM,nu IN TR OD U C TTON
which they admit to be vulnerable,and somethingthey call the "fact of On the contrary a parrernof grearerand lessersimilarities,or of
evolution," which rhey claim to be undeniablytrue.'That takesme to v.rriarionswithin a basicrype, is more likely to be evidenceof a com-
the secondsubject. nron design plan rather than of a natural evolutionary process.This
was inadvertenrlydemonsrratedin a (1990) book by a Darwinist zo-
ologisr,who illustratedrhe "fact ofevolurion" by citing the exampleof
2. The Common AncestryThesit
l line of automobiles:
The differencebetweenthe supposedlyundeniable"fact of evolu-
tion" and "Darwin's theory" is obscure,for the very good reasonthat Everythingevolves,in rhe scnseof descentwith modificarion,
the mere existenceofa pattern ofrelationship has no greatsignificance whcrherit bc government policl religion,sporrscars,or organisms.
unlessthere is a rheory that explainshow the pattern came into exis- The rcvolurionary fiberglassCorverreevolvedfrom more munoane
tence.The "fact" is usuallydescribedas "common ancestry,"which is automoriveancestors in 1953.Other high pointsin the Corvettes
rhe proposition that humans (and other animals)sharea common an- evolutionaryrcfinementincludedthe 1962 model, in which the
cestorwith planrs,and fungi, and bacteria.-I'hesupposedproof of the original 102-inchwasshortenedto 98 inchesand the ncw closeo-
fact is that living things exist in groups,and the groupsare relatedby a coupeStingraymodelwasintroduced;the 1968model,the forerun-
pattern of greaterand lessersimilariry Humans are similar irr many ncr of today'sCorvettemorphology,which cmergedwith removable
ways to apes, somewhat less similar to rabbits, less similar still to roof panels;and the 1978silveranniversary model,with fastback
snakes,still lesssimilar to trees,and so on. All of the disparategroups sryling.Today'sversionconrinucsthe srepwise refinements rharhave
of the taxonomicorder (bacteria,plants,anima.ls,etc.) havea common been accumulatingsince 1953. The point is that rhe Corverte
biochemicalbasis,indicating that they come from a common source. cvolvedthrougha selection processactingon variations that resulted
The Darwinian explanarionof this pattern is that ir resulcsfrom com- in a series
oftransitionalformsandan endpointratherdistinctfrom
mon ancesrry,with thosegroups having the greatestdegreeof similar- thc sraningpoint. A similarprocess shapesrhe evolutionof organ-
ity being the ones with relativelyrecentcommon ancestots.In realiry lsms.-
the common ancestorsare postulatesin a theory,which aims to explain
the lact ofclassificationor relationship. Of courserhe Corvetres,like the organisms,havecommon fearures
'Ancestry"impliesa very gradualprocessofchange, sinceoffspring becausethey were conceivedin the mind of a designer,and not be-
differ only slightly in each generationfrom their parents.Hence the causesome mindlessprocessmade either one. In other words, the fact
common ancestrythesisimplies not only that the common ancestors oi relationshipis not evidenceof the existenceof a purely naturalistic
existedon the eanh, but also that very long lines of gradual descent or mindless mechanism of creation. Beethoven! symphoniesfollow
linked theseancient ancestorsto their putative modern descendants. the pattern of common designwith variations,but this partern has no
None of this can be confirmed from fossilstudies,but Darwinists be- tendencywhateverro supporr a rheory rhar the symphoniescomposed
lieve that the processmust have occurred nonethelessbecausethey themselveswithour any help from Beerhoven.
think it is the only scientific(i.e., naturalistic)explanationfor the pac Evolurionarytheory today is in a srateofconfusion, in which ma-
tern of life. jor figureslike StephenJay Gould and fuchard Dawkins disagreevro-
lenrly over how evolution is supposedto haveoccurred.(SeeChaprer
distincrionberweenthe "faci' and 'ihe- Four of my 6ook Reasonin the Bakncc for a review of rhesemajor dis-
' Fora gcneraldiscussion
ofthe elusive
ory" ofcvolurion,seechaprer5 ofmy book Darwin on'l'rial. agreemenrs.) Thesewarring ideologuesdo havea common program of
58 59
GsNesrs, eno ErnI-vM-lN
Cnr.,rnon IN -I' R OD U C ' TION
sorts,but it is a philosophicalprogramratherthan a scientificpro- pronrisesof healrhand lifc, ra spite ol'rhc toleranccof the scienrific
gram.Vhat theyagreeon is that,at all costs,God mustbe keptout of communiry for unsubsranriaredjust-so srories,bccausewe have a
the picture.That bringsus to the third and mostimportantparrofthe prior commitmcnr, a comnrirmcnt to materialism.lr is not rhar rhe
definition of evolution. methodsand institutions of sciencesomehowcompel us ro accepra
materialexplanarionof rhe phcnomenalworld, bur, on the contrary,
rhat we are fbrced by our a ptiori adhcrenceto marcrial causesro cre-
3. Euolution(in the Scientifc Sense)Is Inhercntly Godless
ate an appararusof invcstigarionand a sct of conceptsthat produce
'We
sawthat the NABT definitionstatesthat evolutionis by defi- material explanations,no matter how countcrintuitivc, no marrcr
nition "unsupervised." This requirement is not a conclusionthat Dar- how mvsrifring ro rhc uninitiarcd. Moreover,rhat marerialismis ab-
winistsreachfrom empiricalevidence, but a philosophical assumption solure,ftrr we cannot allow a Divinc Foor in rhe door:
rhat reflectstheirstartingpoint in metaphysical naturalismot materi-
'l-here
alism.If natureis all thereis, then naturehad to be ableto do its own is no need to saymore. \Ve can seethe proFoundrrurh of Fr.
creating.That impliesthe existence of a naturalistic evolutionarypro- Seraphim'scommenr that "EVOLUTION \VOULD NEVER HAVE
cesscapableof makingverycomplexthingsfrom simplebeginnings. I}I.]ENTHOUGHT OF BY MEN \flHO BELIEVE IN ]'HE COD
The process mustby unguidedat first,because a mind capable ofguid- WHOM ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS VORSHIP" (emohasisin
ing evolurionwould itselfhaveto evolvefrom non-livingmatter.Once the original).Once rhe Divine Foor is in rhe door, rhereis no reasonro
humanbeingshaveevolved,ofcourse,evolutioncanbecomea guided postulateeirher legionsof unobservablefossilancesrors,or a mindless
process, rhroughpracticeofeugenics andgeneticengineering. materialprocessthat performswondersof creation.
Giventheseassumptions, somethingat leastroughlylike Darwin-
ism simplyhasto be rrue,regardless ofthe evidence. Evolutionhasto
4. Conclusion:
srartwith chanceor randomchanges, andit hasto havesomemindless
Can Science TZII Us a Tiue Story about Origins?
guidingforcecapableof producingthe wondersof complexengineer-
ing thatwe callorganisms. That is why RichardDawkinshasarguedin Criticisms of evolutionary theory, however valid, cannot answer
lecturesthat, if complexlife existson otherplanets,Darwinianevolu- the most important quesrion.If we wish to know the rrurh abour ori-
tion wouldhaveto be responsible for it. Thereis no needfor evidence gins, should wc rely primarily upon Divine revelationor scientificin-
or observations, because the Darwinianmechanism is the only plausi- vestigation?Fr. Seraphim,like many creationists,believedrhar scrence
ble candidate for the job, given the starting point in naturalism. This was impotent when ir comes ro the subjecrof ultimate origins, and
logic explainswhy Darwinistsareunperturbedby all the evidentiary that rrue knowledgcon rhis subject can only come from revelation.
problemsrhat criticssuchasmyselfhaveidentified.The theoryhasto His reasonwas rhat the eventsof rhe Genesiscreationweek took place
be trueregardless, because otherwise we wouldbewithouta materialis- rundera unique set of laws, laws which were entirely different from
tic explanation for lifet complexiry and we would haveto turn to God. thosewhich haveoperatedsincethe Fall.
This logic has beensuccinctlyencapsulared in a paragraphfrom a lf rrue, that conclusionimplies that the enrire subjectoforigins is
1997essay by the leadinggeneticisr fuchardLewontin: outsideofscientific invesrigation.Sciencecan only observewhar rs go-
ing on in the world today,and can draw inferencesabout the remote
'Werakcthesidcof science in spiteof thepatentat'surdiry of someof pastonly by assuminga uniformiry over rime ofphysical processes and
in spiteof ic failurcto fulfill manyof its cxtravagant
its constructs, physicallaws.That is why evolutionaryscientists,fbr example,assume
60 6l
GrNrsrs,CnarlroN ar.toEarrv M,tN
62
EDITOR'S NOTE
'l'his Commentaryhas beentahenprimaril
fom Fr. Seraphimi oiginal
mnnuscipL whicb he urote in prcpantion for his courseon Genesisat
thc Neu Valaam TheologicalAcadzml summer sessions in t 981 and
1982. During the oral dtliwry of his course,uhieh uas tape-recordzd,
he
cxtcmporaneousll addtd ualuablcinsighx whicb werenot in the manu-
rcript. Not uanting to dzpiue tbc reado of this cxtra manrial, we hauc
includedmuch of it in the Commcntary,both in the main text and in thc
fiomotes. That is why the text may ai timeschangefom a polishedto a
morecolloquialtone.
We haue abo includtd Fn Scraphim'squcstion-and-ansuertesttons
with hb sndtnu duing the Genesiteourse,Thescarcfound in Pan M
Thefoomotesin this Commentary,as well as in the subscquentParts
of this biok, drc the wort of Fn Seiaphin himse$ unhsstheyarc indi-
catedaseditor'sfoonotes,
All thc Psalmreferencesfolhu thenunbering ofthe Scptuagint(Grcch)
ucrsionof thc Old Tistament.
65
Fonrwono
Vhy Studythe Booh
of Genesis?
Hy sHouLD we study such a book as Genesis?Vhy shouldni
we jusr bc concernedro saveour souls,insreadof rhinking
rrboutrhesethings,like what is the world going to be like at the end, oi
what was it like ar the beginning?Ve might get into trouble-Carl Sa-
gan might come and fighr with us.* Isn't ir saferto just occupy our-
selveswirh saying our prayers, and not think abour rhese grear
subjecrs? \(hy think about rheseremoterhingswhen we haveto rhink
aboutour salvation?
I've heard phraseslike these.In answerro them, we can say,first
of all, that there is a direct rektion betweenhou, you behaueand hou
you belieueabout man'sorigin. Fr. George Calciu, in his public ad-
dressesto young people living under communism in Romania, said:
"You have been told that you descendfrom the apes,that you
are a
beasrwhich must be trained."" That can be a vcry po*eriul rhing:
68 69
CnrarroN,rNnEauv MrN
Gr.Nrsrs, How ro REaoGrruasrs
"explainingaway" Paradiseand the fall ofman; but in readingthesein- ,'rrr rwentieth-cenrurymentaliry tend to do rhis. In reactionro rhe ex-
terpretationsone hasthe impressionthat they haveso litrle respectfor rrcrncliteralness ofour scienrificoutlook (a lireralnesswhich is required
the text of Genesisthat they treat ir as a primitive commentary on bv rhc very narureofscience),when we turn to non-scientifictexrsof
some recentscientificcheories.This is alsoan extreme.St. John Dam- lircratureor theologywe are very much predisposedto find non-literal
ascene,the eighth-centuryFatherwhose views generallysum up the or "universal"meanings.And rhis is natural:we want to savetheserexts
Patristicopinion of the first Chrisriancenturies,specificallystatesthat lrom appearingridiculousin the eyesof scientifically rrainedmen. But
the allegoricalinterpretationof Paradiseis part of an early heresyand wc must realizethat with this predispositionwe often leap ro conclu-
doesnor belongto the Church.' rions which we have not reallythought over very seriously.
-lo take an obvious example:V4ten we
One encounrersoften today a common way out berweentheserwo hear of the "Six Days" of
views.The sraremenrof a Roman Catholic nun (who is alsoa teacher) crcation,most ofus automaticallyadjustrhesedaysto accordwith what
was recentlypublicizedwidely under the tide: "God helpedcreateevo- (()ntemporaryscienceteachesof rhe gradualgrowth and developmenr
lution." She says:"The biblical story ofcreation has a religiouspur- of creatures."These must be some indefinirely long periods of
pose.k contains,but doesnot teach,errors.The evolutionarytheory rime-millions or billions of years,"our rwentieth-centurymind tells
of creation, in contrast, has a scientific purpose, and the searchfor rus;"all s[6s. *.ological strata,a]l thosefossils-they couldni havebeen
truth is the province of astronomers,geologists,biologists,and the lormed in a literal 'day."'And if we hearthar a fundamentalistin Texas
like. Those rwo purposesare distinct, and both offer truth to the hu- or southernCalifbrnia is once more loudly insistingthat thesedaysare
man mind and heart." She statesthat Genesiscomes from oral tradi- positivelyrwenry-four hours long and no longer,we can even become
tions which were limited by the scientificviewsof that time. indignant and wonder how peoplecan be so denseand anti-scientific.
According to this view,Genesisbelongsin one category,and scien- ln rhis courseI don'r intend to rell you how long thosedayswere.
tific truth or realiryin anorheriGenesishaslittle ifanything to do with []ut I rlrink we should be awarethat our narural,almost subconscious
any kind of trurh, wherherliteral or allegorical.Therefore,one doesn't rcndencyto regardrhem as indefinitelylong periods,therebythinking
reallyneed to think about the question:you read Genesisfor spiritual that we have solved the "problem" rhey presenr, is not really a
uplift or poetry,and the scientistswill tell you what you need to know thought-our answerro this problcm, bur more of a predispositionor
about the factsof the world's and mant beginning. prejudicewhich we havepicked up out ofthe inrellectualair in which
In one form or another this is a very common view today-but we live.* Vhen we look at thesedaysmore closely,however,we will see
what it actuallyamounts to is a failureto look at the questionat all; it that the whole questionis not so simple and that our natural predispo-
does not take Genesisseriously.But our very purpose in studying sirion in this as in many orher casestendsmore to cloud than to clari$,
Genesisis to take it seriously,to seewhat it actuallysays.None ofthese thc realquestion.
approacheswe have mentioned can do this. Ve must look elsewhere We will look at this specificquestion larer.For now I would urge
for rhe "key" to understandingCenesis. rusro lre nor too certainof our accustomedwaysof looking at Genesis,
In approachingGenesiswe must try to avoid pitfallssuchaswe have
mentioned above by a certain degreeof self-awareness: what kind of
''l-his commoncrrorwasevcnmadeby a rraditionalOrrhodoxrhinkerwhom
prejudicesor predisposirionsmight we havein approachingthe text?
Fr Scraphirngrcarlyrcspecrcd:l. M. Andrcycv(1894-t976), in his book Orthodox
-Wehave already mentioned rhat some of us may be too anxious to Apologctic Tlrology(1955).In a lenerofJuly 31t6, 1977,f-r Seraphimwrotc: "l
have the meaning of Genesisagree(or disagree)with some particular would say thar his [Andreyev's] simple cquarionof'drys' wirh 'pcriods'is roo
scientifictheory.frt us statea moregeneralprincipleasto how we, with loose."-F.o.
70 7l
CnrlrroN ,rNnllenrYM,lt.l
Gerur.sts, How ro Rr^.ro
CrNssls
72 73
'i
iE rJ
rf
FF
q+
?
tl
'r4
F;.
fri*i
',,.*.
ill rT
".lr-
I
L l.. -.*
(.1-1,).1-9).
*
ru
5r . I l. n i l t h c ( , r r '. r t . . L r . h l 'i s h , , 1 ,
ol ( . r c s . r r ci.rrr ( . : r 1 , 1 , . r Jio. rL
(N,rzi.rnrcn
.l
S t . ( i r c g o l v t h c h cr r l o q i :r n
) , . r r ch b i sh ,r p
ol'
ffi*
St. r \th r n .r r i u sr h c ( i rcr r r ,
l , i sl r ,r1 ,o l .\l cr e n L l irl
( . o n s r , r n r i n o p L( l - 1 5 t( ) 0 ) . i l r s j - .i ) .
ltnni n rlit ,rul liiiny 1,,t.1rbl .llonl l /,try,/',rttr r/t ( ti tau. (.ltt/tt/ttott ol
.\it ,\'ilnh: .\t,ttuttiLir,t ,\loutitttl, .\lounr ,,hht:, ia. 15 t6.
St.Ambrosc,bishop
of Milan(339-397).
St.EphraimrhcSyrian Fifh-ccrnry motaitfom thc
Q06-372). ChapclofSt. Victor'bfthc
iconfom Grcccc.
A conmnporary Goldtn 5k7,"Mihn, Italy.
BlessedAugustinc,bishop
St.Grcgory,bishopof
of Hippo (154-430).
Nyssa(33G-395).
kon b7Monk Thcopbencs Fraco by Monh Tbcopbanct
ikita
tbeCrcmn, Stauron thc Ctctan,fom thc Mctcore
Monastcryof Varham,
MountAthos,
Monastery,
c4, I )40.
Grcecc,six tccnth ccn*ry,
CENesrs,CrrxrroN aNo Eatly MaN How ro Rl;aoG r:Nnsrs
'fhen
there are various writings of St. Gregory the Theologian
.rboutthe crearionof man, about man'snatureand his soul. St. Macar-
ius the Great,St. Abba Dorotheus,St. Isaacthe Syrian and other wnt-
crsofthe asceticlife often talk about Adam and the fall. Sincethe basic
aim of the asceticlife is to return to the stateof Adam beforethe fall,
rhey write about what the hll means,what Paradisewas,and what ir is
wc are trying to get back to.
BlessedAugustinetoucheson rhe subjectof Genesisin The City of
Godl Sr. Gregory Palamaswrites on variousaspectsin his apologetic
works; and St. GregoryofSinai writes on Paradiseaswell.
(There are also some later commentarieswhich I have nor seen,
trnfortunately.One is by St. John of Kronstadt on the Hexaemeron
and another is by Metropolitan Philaretof Moscow on Genesis.)
These Fathersdon't give us all the answersto questionswe may
have about Genesis; we read them rather to get ov attitude toward,
Genesis.SometimesFarhersmay seemto conrradict each orher or ro
speakin a way we might not considervery usefulfor the questionswe
78 79
5 r . S v r r c o r rt l t c N c s
I h c , r L r q i : r n( t ) 1 r ) l 0 l 0 ) .
I I'lll rij'l
;'
i. ,/'
\ t ( , r c t , 'r \ o l \ r n . r r ( l - r ( '5 I t r ( r )
CrranloN axo Ernlv M,tN
GeNEsrs, How ro Rr,to GaNxrs
havetoday.Thereforewe musr havesome basicprincipleswhich gov- first man-and specifically,thar the body of Adam could have been
ern our understanding both of Genesisand the Holy Fathers. formed by natural generationin the womb of some not-quite-human
creature.Can such a statemenrlegitimatelybe used as a "proof" on
j. Basic Principlcs of Our Approach to Understanding Genesis this question?
It so happensthat we can find a passage in the works ofSt. Athana-
l. Ve are seeking tuth, !/e must respect the text of Genesis sius that specifically refutes rhis idea. In another place he says:
enoughto recognizethat it containstruth, eventhough rhat truth may "Though Adam only was lormed our of earth,yet irr him was involved
seemunusualor surprisingto us. lf it seemsto conflict with what we the succession of the whole race." r Here he quite specificallystatesrhat
think we know from science,let us rememberthat God is the Author Adam wascreatedin a way differentfiom all other men, which indecd,
of all truth, and anything genuinelyrrue in Scripture cannot contta- as we shall see,is the teachingof the Holy Fathersin general.There-
dicr anything that is genuinelytrue in science. fbre, it is illegitimareto take one quote of his and think rhar it proves
2. The Scriptureis Diuincin inspiration.Ve will look more closely or opensthe way to some favoriteidea ofour own. St. Athanasius'gez-
below ar what this means;but for a beginning,it meansthat we must rra/ sratementabout rhe narureof man saysnorhing whateverabout
look in it for truths ofa high order,and if we find difficulty in under- the specifc nature of Adams creauon.
standinganything we should suspectfirst our own lack of knowledge Such a misuseof quotationsfrom the Holy Fathersis a very com-
rarherrhan a deficiencyin the inspiredtext. mon pitfall in our dayswhen polemicson such subjecrsare often very
3. We should not hasten to offer our own explanations of "diffi- passionate. In this coursewe will try our best to avoid such pitfalls by
cult" passages,but should first try to familiarize ourselveswith what not forcing any of our own interprerarionson the Holy Farhers,but
the Holy Fathershavesaid about thesepassages, recognizingthat they simply rrying to seewhar rhey saythemselves.
havespiritualwisdom rhat we lack. 5. Ve do not need ro accept every word the Farhers wrore on
4. We should also bewareof the temptation to seizeon isolated, Cenesis;sometimesthey made useof the scienceof their rime for illus-
out-of-context quotes from the Holy Fathersto "prove" a point one rrativematerial,and this sciencewas mistakenin some ooints. But we
would like to make. For example,I have seenan Orthodox person, should carefullydistinguishtheir sciencefrom their theologicalstare-
wishing to provethat therewas nothing "special"about the creationof ments, and we should respecttheir whole approachand generalcon-
Adam, quote the following statementlrom St. Athanasiusthe Crear: clusionsand theologicalinsighrs.
"The first-createdman was made ofdust like everyone,and the hand 6. If we ourselvesrhink we can add somethingto the undersrand-
which createdAdam then is creatingalso and alwaysrhosewho come ing of the text for our days (perhapsbasedon thc-findingsof modern
after him."'This is a generalstatementabout Codt continuous crea- science),let ir be done cautiouslyand wirh full respectfor the integriry
tive activiry which no one would think of contradicting.* But the of rhe text of Genesisand rhe opinions of rhe Holy Farhers.And we
point this personwanted to make was that there was no real distinc- should alwaysbe humbbin this atrempt-the scienceof our own days
tion betweenthe creationof every living man and the creationof the alsohasits lailingsand mistakes,and if we rely too much on it we may
find ourselveswith wrong undersrandings. *
82 83
,lNo ErnrYMen
G;Nrsts,CncATtoN How ro RueoCrNmrs
7. Specificallyin this coursewe will be trying first to understand or figurative elements,for example, in the Genesisnarrative of the
the Fathers,and only tlten rc offer our own answersto some questlons, (larden ofEden, we easilyjump to rhe conclusionthat rhe whole nar-
if we havethem. rativeis a "symbol" or an "allegory."
8. Finally, if it is true rhat modern scienceis capableof throwing Our key to understandingGenesisis: how did the Holy Fathers
some light on the understandingof at leasta few passages of Gene- understandthis question,specificallywith regardto separarepassagcs
sis-for we do not need to deny that in some areasthe truths of these and generallywith regardto the book asa whole?
rwo spheresoverlap-l think that it is no lesstrue that the Patrisricun- Let us take some examples:
derstandingof Genesisis alsocapableof throwing light on modern sci- L Sr. Macarius the Grear of Egypt, a Saint of the mosr exalted
enceand givessome hints on how to understandthe factsof geology, mysticallife and whom one certainly cannor suspecrof overly lireral
paleontology,and other sciencesconcernedwith the early history of vicws of Scripture,writes on Genesis3:24: "That Paradisewas closed
the earth and of mankind. This study can thereforebe a fruitful one in irnd that a Cherubim wascommandedto preventman from enteringir
both directions. by a flaming sword: of this we believethat in visiblefashion it was in-
9. The aim of this course,however,is not to answera// questions deed just as it is written, and at rhe sametime we find that this occurs
about Genesisand creation,but rather,first ofall, to inspireOrthodox rnysticallyin every soul."o This is a passage which many of us might
Christiansto think about this subiectin a broaderway than it ts usu- lraveexpectedto have only a mysricalmeaning, but this great seerof
ally approached,without being satisfiedwith the simplistic answers Divine things assuresus thar it is also true "just as it is written"-for
that are so often heard. thosecapableof seeingir.
2. St. Gregory the Theologian, noted for his profound mystical
interpretationsof Scripture,saysof the tree of rhe knowledgeof good
and evil: "l-his tree was, accordingto my view Contemplation, upon
4. Literal us.Slmbolical Interpretations
which it is only safefor rhosewho have reachedmaturiry of habir to
t
This <luestionis a greatstumbling block for us modern men, who enter." Does this mean that he regardedthis rree as only a symbol,
have been brought up wirh a "scientific" education and worldview and not also a literal tree?In his own writings he apparentlydoes not
which has left us impoverishedin our understandingof symbolical give an answerto this quesrion,but another great Holy Father does
meaningsin literature.Too often, as a result of rhis, we iump to con- (for when they are teaching Orthodox doctrine and not jusr giving
clusions:if there is a symbolicalmeaning to some image in Scripture private opinions, all the great Fathersagreewirh each other and even
(fbr example,the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil) we are very help to interpret each other). Sr. Cregory Palamas,the fourreenth-
inclined to say"it's on$ a symbol"; the slightestindication of a figura- ccntury hesychastFather,commentson this passage:
rive or metaphorical meaning often leads us to dismiss rhe literal
meaning. Sometimesthis attitude can even lead to sweepingjudg- Grcgorythc Theologianhascalledthc treeofthc knowledge ofgooo
ments of whole portions or books ofscripture: lf there are symbolical and evil "contemplation" ... bur ir doesnot follow thar what is in-
volvedis an illusionor a symbolwithour existence of irs own. For
thedivineMaximus (rhe Confessor) alsomakesMoscsthc symbolof
ovcrthrows rhc so-callcdscicntificlacrsofthe preccding Ve haveto rcal-
generation.
(iontemporary judgmcnt,and Elilahthe symbolofforesighr! Arc theytoo rhensup-
izc whar is ficr and what is thcory. sciencchasmany viewswhich,
fifryvearsfionr now (ifthcy evenlast that long)'will bc and
overturned. therewill be posednot to havereallyexisted, but ro havcbeeninvcntcd"symboli-
newthcorics. cally"?"
84 85
CneeuoNlNo ErnrY MaN
GeNests, How ro Rreo ClnNr_sls
86 87
Gr:ursIs,CneertoNnr.toE,rnu MrN How ro REroGenrsrs
organs,and that His actsare describedin Scripture 4s thry reemto us rvhoknewlittle of science or the world,that it is full of primirivemy-
fhe Fathersare very careful over the text of Genesisin this regard. rhologyabout "creator-gods" and supernarural beings,rhat ir hasall
Thus, St. John Chrysostomstates: beentakenfrom BabylonianmFhology,erc.But no one canseriously
compareGenesis with anyof thecreationmythsof otherpeoples wirh-
'Whenyou hearthat "God plantedParadise in Edenin the East,"un- out beingstruckby the sobrieryandsimpliciryofthe Genesis account
(lreationmyrhsareindeedfull of fabulouseventsand fairy-talebeings
derstandrhe word "planted"befitringlvof God: that is, that He
commanded; but concerningthe wordsthat follow believeprecisely whicharenor eveninrendedto be takenasthe texris writren.Thereis
wascreatedand in rhat very placcwhererhe Scripture
that Paradise no competitionberweentheserextsand Genesis; rheyarenot in the
it.'u
hasassigned lcastcomparable.
Nonetheless, thereis a widespread popularview-without founda-
As for the "scientific" information given in the book of Gene- tion either in Scriptureor in Church tradirion-that Moseswrote
sis-and sinceit talksabour the formation of the world we know' there Lienesis afterconsultingotherearlyaccounts ofthe creation,or tharhe
cannor but be some scientificinformation there-contrary to popular simply recordedthe oral traditionsthat camedown to him; that he
belief, there is nothing "out-of-date" about it. Its observations,it is compiledand simplifiedthe talesthat had come down to his time.
'l'his,of course,would makeGenesisa work of humanwisdom
rrue, are all m^de aJ seenfLm earth Lnd 4s /lfecting manhind;but they and
do not put forth any particularteaching,for example'on the nature of speculation, and it would be poinrless to studysucha work asa state-
the heavenlybodiesor their relativemotions, and so the book can be mentoftruth aboutthe beginningofthe world.
read by eachgenerationand understoodin the light of its own scien- There are differentkinds of knowledge,and rhe knowledgethat
rific knowledge.The discoveryin recent centuriesof the vasrnessof comesdirectlyfrom God is quite distinctfrom that which proceed
spaceand the irnmensiryof many of its heavenlybodiesdoesnothing fiorn man'snaturalpowers.St. Isaacrhe Syriandisringuishes rhese
but add grandeurin our minds to the simple accountof Genesis. kindsof knowledgein rhefollowingway:
Vhen the Holy Fatherstalk about Genesis,of course'they try to
illusrrateir with examplestaken from the natural scienceof their time; Knowledge
whichis concerned
wirh thc visible,or whichreceives
we do rhe samething today.All this illustrativematerialis oPen to scl- through the senseswhat comesfrom the visible, is called natural.
entific criticism, and some of ir, in fact, has becomeout-of-date. Bur Knowlcdgewhich is concernedwith rhe power of rhe immirterial
the text of Genesisitself is unaffectedby such criticism, and we can and thc natureof incorporeal enritieswithin a man is callcdspiri-
only wonder ar how freshand timely it is to eachnew generation.And tual, because perceptions are received by the spirit and not by the
the theologicalcommentary of the Holy Fatherson the text partakesof senses.Becausc oftheserwo origins(perceptions ofthc visibleandof
this samequaliry. the spiritual)eachkind of knowledge alikecomesro thc soul from
withour. Bur rhe knowledgcbestowedby Divine power is called
supra-natural; it is morc unfiarhomable and is higherthan knowl-
5. The Nanre of the Text edgc.Contemplationof this knowledgccomesto rhc soul not from
A final important point to considerbeforeapproachingthe text of mattcr,which is oursideir.... Ir manifests and revcals irselfinthe rn-
Genesisitself: what hind of text is it? ncrmostdepthsof thc soul itself,immaterially, suddenly, sponrane-
We all know of the anti-religiousargumentsabout the Scripture, ously,and unexpectedly, since,according to rhewordsof Christ,'rhe
and in particularabout Genesis:that it is a creationofbackward people KingdomofGod is wirhinyou'(Lukel7:21).rr
88 89
How ro REr.oGrNEsrs
And from this onc is alrcadycxaltedin his mind ro that which prc-
cededthe composition(making) of the world, when therewas no
creature,nor heavcn,nor earch,nor angels,norhing of that which
was brought into being, and to how God, solelyby His good will,
suddenlybrought evcrythingfrom non-beinginto being,and every-
thing stood beforeHim in perfection.rz
Thus, one can believe that Moses and later chroniclers made use of
written recordsand oral tradition when it came to recording the actsand
chronology ofhistorical Patriarchsand kings; but an account ofthe be-
ginning of the world's existence,when there were no witnessesto Godt
mighry acts, can come only from God's revelation; it is a supra-natural
knowledge revealedin direct contact with God.* And this is exactlywhat
the Fathersand Church tradition rell us the book of Genesisis
St. Ambrose wrices:
Holy ProphctandGod.sccrMoscs(ll53l a.c.). ' The book of Exodusrecounrsrwo occasionson which God Himsclf saysro
Icon h Monk Tbcoohancsthc Cncan. Moses:"ln six daysthc Lord madeheavenand carth"(Ex.20:l l,ll:17),-Eo,
9l
I I, 't r r r llr . ar r( ir , r , rsr
r s
t
r;.
,t r}. ,)r. Jn- ' ry
\5 .,' . . .,4:.
.-' ')' i
r \-' .(. ,_.(
t7f,:i-q;
. ./k ', '.'n
\r J {, 1 ,\' | /
i. ,r,., l/ . ' ,'11
'.. r' " , ' l . ,'.
t. ,;
.. '-
I
+r o'., 'iyt
,;,q-,-
l l r t r t n r r r r c . l t o r . r r '. r r i f h c r vt r t :r .r vi r n cr s o f r h l l ) i vi n c r r r r r k: ''l n
t hc bcgin n inq ( iocl r lc.rrctl hc.rvcn an,l ,..urrh."I '
9.1
GeNnsrs.CnEerroNeNo Eenlv M,c.N How ro R"a,qo
Gsr.rssrs
High to utter what had beendoneby rhc Lord beforchis own birth. It
is for this reasonrhat he beginsto spcakthus:"ln the bcginningGod
createdrhc heavenand rheearth,"asifcalling out to usa.llwith a ioucl
voicc: it is not by the instrumion of men thar I say this; He \,)flho
calledthem (heavenand earth)out of non-beinginto being-ir is He
Vho hasrousedmy tongueto relateof them.And thereforeI enrreat
you, let us pay heedto thesewordsasif we heardnot Mosesbut rhc
very Lord of the universeVho speaksthrough the tongucof Moses,
and let us takeleavefor good ofour own opinions.r6
Let us seenow what we aretaughtby thc blcssedMoscs,who speaks Vith greatgratitude let us acccptwhat is relared(by Moses),not
not of himsclfbut by the inspirationofthc graccofthc Spirit.rt steppingout ofour own limitations,and not testingwhat is aboveus
asthe enemiesof the truth did when, wishingto comprehendevery-
He then has a fascinating description of how Moses does this. Ve thing with their minds, they did not realizethat human naturecan-
know that the Old Testament prophets foretold the coming of the not comprehendthe crcationof God.t7
Messiah. In the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation), St. John the
Theologian prophesied about the events of the end of the world and Ler us then rry to enrer rhe world ofrhe Holy Fathersand therr un-
the frrture ofthe Church. How did they know what was going to hap- derstanding of the Divinely inspired text of Genesis. Let us love and
pen? Obviously, God revealedit to them. St. John Chrysostom says respect their writings, which in our confused times are a beacon of
that, just as St. John the Theologian was a prophet of things of the fu- clariry which shines most clearly on the inspired rext irself. let us not
ture, Moses was d prophet of things of the past. He says the following: be quick to think we "know betrer" rhan they, and if we think we have
some undersranding rhey did not see, let us be humble and hesitant
All the other prophetsspokeeitherofwhat wasto occur aftera long about offering it, knowing the poverry and fallibiliry of our own
time or of what was about to happcn then; but he, the blessed minds. Let them open our minds to understand Godt revelation.
(Moses),who lived many gcncntions aftcr Ghc crcation of the We should add here a final note abour the study of Genesisin our
world), wasvouchsafed by the guidanceofthe right handofthe Most own times. The Holy Fathersof the early Christians who wrote about
94
nuo Elnrv Men
Cng,crroN
Gr.Nesrs,
96 97
GeNesIs,Cr.r-arroN.aNoElnrv MaN THa Srx D,rysor CneerroN
evolutionary theorywould haveit; theseland plantsexistfor a whole siry;Hc is nor subjectto rhe lawsofarr. The will of(lod is the crea-
day (billionsof years?) beforethe sunwascreated, while in any evolu- tor and artificerofnatureandofart and ofevcrythingexisring.l
tionaryconceptionthe sun precedes the earthitselC*Any reasonably
objectiveobserver would haveto concludethat the Six Daysof Crea- Speakingofthe Fifth Day of Creation,the same Fathersays:
tion, if theyarea trueaccountand not a productof arbitrary|ancyor
speculation, simply do not fit into the evolutionaryframework,and 'loday God goesover ro
the watcrsand showsus that from rhem, by
therefore thereis no needto makethem billionsof yearslong.Ve will His word and command,rhere proceededanimatccrearures....
seebelowalsohow the descriptionoftheseDaysby the Holy Fathers Whar mind, rell mc, canundersrandthis miracle?r
makesthis interpretation quiteimpossible. Evolutionarytheoryis ob-
viouslytalkingaboursomethingotherthan the Six Daysof Creation. St. Basilteachesin rhe Hexaemeron that in the Third Day therewas
And in actualfact,za scientifictheorycan tell us aboutthoseSix no natural necessiryfor watersto flow downward; this is a law ofour
Days.Sciencetriesto explain(sometimes with more and sometimes own world, but then there was as yer no law, until Clod'scommand
with lesssuccess) the changes of this world, basedon projectionsof came:
naturalprocesses which can be observedtoday.But the Six Daysof
Crearion not a natural process;they are what camebeforeall the Someoncnray,pcrhaps, askthis:Why doesthe Scripturereduceto a
^re processes
world'snatural beganto work. They areGod'swork; by very commandofthe Crcarorthat rendcncyto flow downwardwhichoe-
definitionthey are miraculousand do not fit into the naturallaws Iurgsnarurallyto warer?...[fwarerhasrhistendencyby narure,rhc
whichgovernthe world we seenow.**If we canknowwhat happened commandorderingthc warcrsto be garhcred togetherinto oneplace
in thoseSix Daysat all, it is not by scientificprojections or specula- would be superfluous.. .. 'Io thisinquirywe saythis,thatyou recog-
tions,but only by God'srevelation. modernscicntists
In this respect, nizedvery well rhe movemcnts of the warerafterrhe commandof
areno betreroff than the ancientcreators of cosmicspeculations and thc Lord, borh rhat it is unsready and unstablcand thar it is borne
myths.The writersof commenraries on Genesis emphasiz.ethis poinr' naturallydown slopesand into hollows;but how it had any power
St.JohnChrysostom writes: previousto rhat,beforcthc morionwasengendered in it from this
command,you yoursclfneithcrknow nor haveyou heardir from
\{Aat doesit mean that first there is heavcn,and thcn earth, first thc onc who kncw.Rcflectrhat rhevoiccof God makesnaturc,and thc
roofand then the foundation?God is not subiect to n:rturalneces- commandgivcnat rhat timc to crcationprovidcdthe futurccourse
ofactionfor the creaturcs.l
' Not only "Christianevolutionists"but rlso"old-carrh/progressivc
crcrriotrists-
arremprro forcethe SixDaysinro theevolutionary rimescaleofbillionsofyears,and Undoubtedly, here is one of the chief sourcesof the conflict be-
thusrheyroo must disrorrthe Gcnesis accounrin orderto dealwirh rhe contradic- rween scientific rheory and religiousrevelation.During the Six Days
tionsoutlinedabove .-Flo. nature itself uas being madc; our presenr knowledge of natural laws
*' ln his nores,Fr.Seraphim saysfurther:"The fossilrecordis aorarccordofrhe
'SixDays,'but of the historyof rhecorruptworld afer itscrcation.The Six Daysare cannot possiblyrell us how theselaws themselves were made.'fhe very
bqoxd sciencif.c obrruationand mcatwemrrt,and aredifferentin kind from what sci- subject of ultimate origins, of beginnings,of the Genesisof all
enccmeasures. (Cf. St. Symeonrhe Ncw 'l'heologianon thc new law of narurcaftcr things-is ourside rhe sphereof science.\X/hena scienristentersthis
thc fall ofAdam.) Tbeirtime kpsci not tnca*rablebyriencc anddocsnor fit in with realm, he guesses and speculateslike any ancientcosmologist;and this
anyscienrifi c theories."-Eo. not only distracrshim from his seriouswork of srudying the natural
98 99
Gr-Nests,Ctr,nrtoN ,rNo EanrYMaN Tne Srx D,lys or CnrarroN
processes of this world-it alsomakeshim a competitorof religious AJrhoughboth rheIighrandthecloudswerecreated in the rwinkline
reuelation,which is the only possiblesourceof our realknowledgeof ofan eyc,srillboth the dayand the nightofthe FirsrDay conrinuej
the beginningof things,iust asit is our only sourceof knowledgeof for rwelvehourscach.5
the finalendof all things.St. Basilwrites:
St. Basil the Great likewise emphasizesar various points of his
'!flcareproposing of the worldand to con-
to examinethestructure commenraryon the Six Days rhe insranraneous narureof God! crea-
not from thewisdomofthe world,but
templatcthe wholcuniverse, tion. On the Third Day of Creation,he writes,
from wharGod taughtHis servant whenHe spoketo him in person
andwithoutriddles.n Ar rhissayingall the densewoodsappeared; all the rreesshot up... .
Likewise,all rhe shrubswcre immediarelyrhick with leaf and
lf we can humble ourselves enoughro know that we can actuallyknow bushy;and rheso-called garlandplanrs... all cameinto cxistence rn
ratherlittle about the detailsof the Creationof the Six Days, we will a momenr of rime, alrhorrghthey were nor previouslyupon rhc
havea betrerchanceof understandingwhat we can about GenesisThe earrh.6"Let rheearthbring forth." This briefcommand*", i--.-
Holy Fathers,and not scientificor cosmologicalspeculations,are our diatelya mighrynarureand an elaboratc systemwhich broughrto
key to understandingthe text. pcrfccrion more swiftly rhan our thought the countlessproi"ni.,
of plants.T
100 r 0l
fns Srx Days ol CnulroN
Ge Nssts'ClalrtoN aNo ElnlY Mel
r02 103
GsNrsIs.Cns,crIoNaNo Eatt,vMeN Tnr Stx D,rysor Cneerror.r
tal forccsblcndedwirh rheworldof matteraccording to a gradarionl the lower creation,to have"evolved"out of it. In a later lecturewe will
first, it infuseditselfinto insensate nature;and in continuation of look closelyat what the Fatherssayof man'sorigin. Here we will only
rhisadvanced into the sentientworld;and then ascended to intelli- say that St. Gregory not only saysnothing whareverthat indicateshe
genrand rationalbeings.. . . Thc creationof man is related as coming believedsucha view, but other of his own viewscontradict it. Thus, he
last,as of one who took up into himsclfeverysingleform of life, agreeswith rhe rest of the Fatherswho have written on Genesisrhat
both that of plantsand rharwhich is scenin brutes.His nourish- Cod's creationis instantaneous; in rhis sametreatisehe saysthat "every
ment and growth he derivesfrom vegetablelife; for evcn in vegera- hillside and slope and hollow were crowned with young grass,and
blcssuchprocesses areto be seenwhcnalimcntis beingdrawnin by with the varied produce of the trees,jusr risen from the ground, yet
their rootsand givenoff in fruir and leaves. His sentientorganiza- shor up ar once inro their perfectbeaury" 't and that "rhe creationrs,so
tiorr he derivesfrom the brure creation.
But his faculryof thought to say, made oflhand by the Divine power, exisring at once on His
andreason is incommunicable, andis a peculiargift in our nature,... command.""'
It is not possible for this rcasoning faculryto existin thc lifc of the Further,St. Gregory statesspecificallyrhat the one reasonhuman
bodywithoutexistingby meansofsensations, and sincesensation is naturehascontacrwith the lower creationis becauseit sharesthe same
alreadyfound subsistingin rhc brute creation,necessarily, as it were, scntient nature;it comes,indeed,from the sameearth rhe lower crea-
by reasonof this one condition,our soul hastouch with thc other ruresalso sprang from. It is a totally arbirrary addition to the Sainr's
thingswhich arcknit up with ir; and theseareall thosephenomena meaning to insist rhat rhis means man "descended"from the brute
within us thatwe call"passions,"rl creation;in this case,indeed,it would be requiredalsothar he (and the
brutes)descendedfrom the vegetablecrearion,sincehe has somerhing
At rhe end of anotherdescriptionin a different book, St. Cregory of their nature also within himselL But evolutionary theory teaches,
concludes; not that animals"evolved"from plants,but that the rwo kingdoms are
separateand parallelbranchesfrom a common primirive ancestor.
If, thcrefore,Scripturetells us that man was made last' after every St. Cregory's"ascentby sreps,"therefore,does not at all show the
animatething, the lawgiver(Moses)is doing nothingclsethan de- chronologicaldescentof man from plantsand animals,but only shows
claringto usthedocrrineofthe soul,considering thatwhat is pcrfec his kinship with the lower creation through sharing che nutritive and
comeslast,according to a certainnecessarysequenccin the orderof sentientnature which all earthborn creatureshave, to the degreeGod
things....Thus we may suppose that naturemakes an ascenras lt has given it to them. He is describing,nor the bistoryof man, but his
wereby steps-l meanthe variousproperriesof life-from the lower natufe.
to rheperfectform.'" Ve will see more specificallybelow what St. Gregory acrually
rhought about the "mixing of natures"which is implied in the evolu-
This is one of the very few passagesin the writings of the Holy Fa- tionary theory.
therswhich believersin the evolutionarycosmogonyfind sympathetic
ro rheir views. lt speaksof an "ascentby steps . . . from the lower to the
perfect form," and statesthat man somehow "partakes"in the life of
the lower creation. But the evolutionary theory of origins requires
much more than thesegeneralviews,which no one will dispute.The
rheorv of evolution requires that man be shown to be a descendantof
104 105
Tna Srx D,vs (D.rv av D,rv)
vinc will joined wirh thc first irnpulscof His intelligenceis the
Vord of God?[r.a, Christ].The Scripturcdelineares Him in detail
in orderthar it mayshowthat God wishedthc crcarionnot only to
be accomplishcd, bur alsoro bc broughtro this birth rhroughsome
CHapmn THnEE, co-worker. Ir couldhaverelarcdcveryrhingfully asir began,"ln the
beginningGod crearcdrhe hcavens and the earrh,"thcn "He crc-
The succeeding actsof crearionbeginwith the words:'And God Ir wasfirting for the Holy Spirirro hoverasa proof thar in crcative
said."St. Basilasksthe meaningof rhis,and answersit for us: powcrHe is cqualro the Farherand the Son.For rhe Fatheruttcred,
rhc Son creared, and ir wasfining for thc Spirit alsoro offer His
Let us inquirehow God speaks.Is ir in our manner?...DoesHe work. And rhis He did 6y houering, thcrebyclearlyshowingthat all
manifest His hiddenthoughrby srrikingrheair wirh rhearriculare wasbroughtinto beingand accomplishcd by thc Tiinity.r
movementof thc voicelSurely,it is fantasricto saythat God needs
sucha roundaboutway for the manifestation of His thoughrs.Or, l:l-2 God createdthe heauensand the earth. And tbe earth was
is it not morc in conformirywith true religionto saythar rhe Di- aithout form and uoid (Sepruagint: inuisibleand unfnished).
106 r07
Grnrsrs,CnrarroNlln EenrvMrN Tne Srx Days (D,lv nv D,w)
108 109
Ge Nr.sts,Cnr:nrtoruaNo EanlY MaN Tsa Srx Drvs (Dev sv D,r.v)
l l0
lll
Gsxssrs,Cnea'rroN,rNn E,rnt-vM,qN THa Sx D,rys(Dlv sv Dev)
This First Day of creation (no matter how "long" one may guess The "five creations"rhat St. Ephraim mentions are the "four ele-
it to be) is the beginning of the cycle of seven days (each with its ments" our of which, accordingto rhe definition of ancienr scrence,
"day" and "nighi') which continues up to our own days. -l-hosera- everything on earrh consists,in addition ro "heaven." One does nor
tionalist commentatorswho see in the "sevendays" and the fact that have to acceptthis particularway of analyzingthe creation ro scerhar
"evening" precedes"morning" merely a projection backwardsof later there is indeedsomerhing"fundamental"abour rhe First Day of Crea-
Jewishcustomsshow themselvestotally out of harmony wirh the Pa- tion: ir contains the beginningsof everything that is ro come after.
tristic way of viewing these things, and they are thereforeunable ro One might speculateas to where the actual matter came from for the
answer the question: where and why did the Jews derive these cus- living creatures,the heavenlybodies,and other crearionsof tne next
toms?In rhe Patristicview, the revealedtext can and doesgive the lit- five days:was ir newly createdout of nothing, or was it really only a
eral origins of the world and the reasonsfor the Jewish customs rransformationof pre-existingmatter?Bur this would be a profitless
(which are now Christian-for our church day also beginswith Ves- exerciserhat would not, in any case,conrradictthe trurh that rhe basic
pers,the eveningservice). structureand matter of creationwas made on the First Day; the work
Thus we have come to the end of "Day One," the First Day of of the next five days is less"radical" than thar of the First Day-it is
crearion.k has establishedthe measureof time for all succeedingages rather a "shaping"than a "creation"in the strict sense.
(because"before"it therewas no time; time beginswith it). And in an- The very idea of "crearionout of nothing" or "from non-being"
other sensealso it is a day unlike those that follow it, as Sr. Ephraim sharply distinguishesthe Genesis account from that of aL pagan
explains: myths and speculationsabout creation.In rhe latter it is some kind of
"demiurge" or "fashioner-god"who forms the world out of already
Thus, accordingto the testimonyof Scripture,heavcn,earth,fire, existing matter-which, as the Holy Fatherssay, thus is a kind of
air, and the waterswere createdout of nothing; while the light "god" also. Genesis describes rhe absolute beginning of the whole
which was createdon the First Day and everythingelsethat was world, nor its developmentfrom somethingalreadyexisting;even rhe
tt2 ll3
Gewlsts,Cnr.,rrIoN,,iNoEattY MaN Txr Srx D,c,ys(Dev ov Dr)
creationsof the following five days, as we shall see, although they undcrstanding and of which ir is impossiblccven ro discoverrhe
come out ofthe matter which has alreadybeen created,are something namcs.-l'hese
fill cornplctely
thc cssence
ofthe invisibleworld.rT
radically new which cannot be understoodas a mere developmentof
the first-createdmatter.The speculationsof modern thinkers wno try Similarly,St. Ambrosewrites:
to tracethe world back to some ultimately simple matter which devel-
ops by itself can be seento be akin to the ancient paganspeculations; The Angels,Dominarions, and powcrs,alrhoughtheybcganto exisr
the radicalness of the Genesisexplanationis beyond them both-pre- ar somctime,wcrcalreadyin cxistencc whcn the world wascrcated.
ciselybecause comesfrom God! revelationand not the guesses
it and For all things "werc crcared,things visibleand rhinqs invisible,
projectionsof men. wherhcrThroncsor Dominationsor principalirics .,. po*crs. All
The Christian who understandsthe absoluteness of God's creatrve things,"we are rold, "havebeencrcarcdrhroughand unto Him"
(Col. l: I6).r8
work in the Six Days views the presentcreation with different eyes
rhan doessomeonewho views it as a gradualdevelopmentor "evolu-
Indeed,God said to Job: "When rhe starsweremade,all My angers
tion" from primordial matter (whether the latter is understoodas cre-
praisedMe with a loud voice" (Job 38:7, Septuagint).Ve will seeon
ated by God or asself-existing).ln the latter view, the world is seento
the Sixrh Day how Adam was tempred by satan, and therefore we
be "naturally" what it is, and one can trace it back to ever simpler
know that the battle of the proud angelsin heaven,asdescribedin rhe
forms, eachof which can be understood"naturally'';but in the former
view, the view of Genesis,one is placedbeforethe rwo radicalpolesof Apocafypse(12:7-8) has alreadybeen foughr before then, and satan
lrasalready"fallenlike lightning"(Luke l0: t8)..
exisrence: that which now is, and the absolutenothingnessfrom which
it came,suddenlyand by Godt will alone.
There is only one more questionfor us to ask concerningthe First
Day: where doesthe crearionof the world of angelsfit into it? Moses 2. The SecondDay (GenesisI:6_g)
describesthe creationonly ofthe visibleworld; when was the invisible
world ofspiritual beingscreated?SomeFathersthink they are included l:6-8 And God said, Let there be a rmanenr in the idt of the
f
in the creationof "heaven";others are not so specific,but know thar uaters, and let it sepdratethe uaters the waters. And God made tbe
fom
rhey werealsocreated"in the beginning."St. Basilteaches: frmament and separated tbe waters which were under the finnament
fom the uaters wbich u,,ereabouc thefrmament. And it utts ri. Ard God
In fact there did exist somcrhing,as ir seems,even beforc this calledtheJirnament Heauen.And therewaseuenitryand thcre wfls morn_
world,which our mind canattainby conremplation, but which has ing, a secondday-
beenleft uninvestigatedbecauseit is not adaptedto thosewho are Some have tried to find in this passagean ,,unscientific',view of
beginncrsand as yet infantsin undcrstanding. This wasa certain the heavens,as though Mosesbelievedin a kind of hard crystaldome
in which rhe srarsare embeddedand abovewhich there is a fictrtrous
conditionolder than thc birth of thc world and properto the su-
pramundane powers,one beyondtimc, cverlasting, without begin- store of water. But rhere is nothing so fantasticto be found in this
ning or end. In it the Creatorand Producerof all thingsperfected text.
rhc works of His art, a spirituallight befining the blcssednessof
thosewho lovc thc Lord. rationaland invisible narures,and the ' Fora sunrmaryofthe Orrhodoxteachingon rhccrearionand narureofrhe an_
wholeorderlyarrangement which surpass
of spiritualcreatures our gcls,seeSr.John f)amasccnc,On the OrtbodoxFtaith2:3.-Eo.
I ttl ll5
Cns.artonlNo E,rnrvMrN
GeNests. l'se Srx D,ws (Dev sv D,{v)
I'he word "firmament" seemsto have rwo shadesof meaning in moisturc,and lcrsrhe rareand filteredpart passrhroughinto rhc
Genesis,one quire specificand "scientific," the other general.In its highcr rcgions,but lersthe coarseand earthlypan drop below,so
general meaning the firmament is more or less synonymous with that, by the gradualreductionof the liquids,from the beginningro
"heaven"or "sky": the starsare called "lights in the firmament of the rhe end the samemild temperaturemay be prcse rved.rt
heavens"(Gen. l:14), and the birds fly "acrossthe firmament of the
heavens"(Gen. l:20). \7e who have lost the specificmeaning of"fir- The "firmament" in Genesis,therefore,is some kind of narurar
mament" would omit it in such descriptionsand say that starsand barrier or filter that separares rwo levelsof atmosphericmoisture.Ve
birds are both to be seenin the "heavens."The idea that the starsare do not observetoday such a definite phenomenonthar we could call a
embeddedin crystalspheresis a speculationof ancient paganthoughr "firmamcnt." Vas ir perhapsdifferent in rhe firsr-formedearth?
and doesnot haveto be projectedinto the inspiredtext of Genesis St. Basilbelievesthar the function ofthe "firmamenr" was ro Dre-
\i/hat, then, is the specific"scientific"meaningof the "firmament" servea mild remperarureover the whole earth. Now, it so happensthar
in this text? St. Basil teachesthat, even though it is also called we know ofa certain "greenhouse"effect on the earrh in prehistoric
"heaven," it is not synonymouswith the "heaven"mentioned at the times: tropical plantsand animalshavebeenfound in the ice of the far
beginningof Genesis. norrh, indicating that rhe northern regionswere indeed once rcmper-
ate. Further, in the secondchapterof Genesiswe are told that before
Sinceboth a secondnameand a funcrionpeculiarro the second the creationofman, "the Lord had not causedit ro rain uDon the earrh
heavenwas rccordcd,this is a different onc from thar recordcdin .. . but there went up a mist from rhe earrh,and watered r'hewhole face
the beginning,one of a moresolid natureand frrrnishinga special of the ground" (Gen. 2:5-6).
servicefor the universe....Ve bclicvcthat rhis word hasbeenas- The early earrh, then, seemsto have been a placerather different
signedfor a certainfirm naturewhich is capablcof supportingthc from the one we know: a place universallyremperate,plenriful in
f'luid and unstablewarer.And, surely,we necd not belicve,because moisturewhich constantlywateredan abundanrvegerarion,which, as
it seemsto havchadits origin,accordingto thc generalunderstancl- we shall see,was all thar Cod intended not only for the food of man,
ing, from water,that it is like eitherfrozenwateror somc.. trans- but evenofthe beasts(Gen. l:30).
lucent stone ... almost like thc air in transparency. Now, we Vhen did this happy situation comc ro an end?.Ve will soon look
comparethc firmament to none of thescthings.tuly, it is peculiar at the consequences ofthe fall ofman; but thereare indicationsthar rhe
to a childishand sinrpleintellcctro hold such notionsabout rhc earth evenafter the fall of man preservedsome of the characteristics of
heavens....Ve havebeen taught by rhc Scriptureto permit our the earliestearth. Let us look briefly ar what the Scripturesaysin the
mind to invcnt no fantasybeyondthc knowledgethat has been light of our scientificknowledgeof the armosphere. 'I-he Holy Fathers
grantcdit... . rhemselves often applied the scientificknowledgeof their times in un-
Not a firm and solidnature,which hasweightand resistancc, ir derstandingthe Scripture,and we are also permitted to do so-pro-
is not this that the word "firmament"means.[n that casethe earth vided only thar we do no violence ro rhe rexr of Scrioture and are
would morc legitimatclybe considered deserving of such a name. humble and moderatein our own supposedund.r.,anjing. The fol-
But, becausc the narure of the substances lying above is light and lowing explanation,rherefore,is offered not as dogma but as specula-
rarcand imperceptiblc, Hc calleddis (a)frmament,in comparison UOn.
with those very light substanccs which are incapableof perception The very phenomenonof rain is nor menrionedin the rext of
by thc scnscs. Now, imaginesomeplacewhich tendsto separare the Gencsis
unril the time of Noahiand rhenit is not an ordinaryrain but
116 t17
GsNrsls,Cnn-lrrot't,qNoEenrv MnN 'I'Hn Srx f)evs (Dav nv D,w)
a kind of cosmiccatastrophe:'All the fountainsofthe greatdeep burst ceiveGod's permissionro eat flesh;Gen. 9:3), givesway to the harsher
forth, and the windows of the heavenswere opened.And rain fell on post-Floodearrh we know, when there is "seedtimeand harvest,cold
the earth forry days and forry nights" (Gen. 7:ll-12). Immense-to and heat, summer and winter" (Gen. 8:22), and men no longer live
us, nearly unimaginable-amounts of water were loosedon the earth, nine hundred years as did Adam and rhe early Patriarchs,but very
reducingit virtually to its stateon the First Day ofcreation, when the quickly are reducedto the seventyor eighry yearswhich is rhe general
"deep" coveredthe earth. The rains we know today could not cause limit of our life even uo ro now.*
rhis to happen; but the text describessomething even worse: an lm-
mense underground supply of water was loosed, and the "firma-
msn1"-1hg atmospheric condition that preserveda Permanent
reservoirofwater in the air, evidentlyin the form ofclouds such as the 3. The Tltird Da1 (Cenesisl:9-13)
planer Venus has even now-was literally "broken" and emptied its l:9-10 And God said, Let the uaters under tlte heduensbe pathered
contentsupon the earth. togetherinro oneplace. tnd let tlr dry land appeat.And it wiso. God
In this light we can also understand why God Bavethe rainbow as ulled the dry knd Earth, and tlte uaters tbat weregathered togetber He
the sign of His covenantwith Noah and all creaturesthat therewould ulled Seas.And God sau' that it wasgood.
neveragain be such a flood upon earth. How could the rainbow have On eachDay of creationa command is given that becomesrhe law
been a sign, when supposedlyit had existedthroughour the centuries of narure for all time thereafter.From the Firsr Day, the successionof
before that? Evidendy the rainbow then appearedfor the first time. day and night begins;and frorn the Third Day, rhe warersbegin their
The rainbow is formed by the direct raysof the sun upon moisture in ceaseless movement.J'hus, "the elementof water was orderedto flow,
the air. lf the permanentcloud coverof rhe earth wasdissipatedby the and it never grows weary when urged on unce:uingly by rhis com-
breaking of the "firmament," then literally the direct rays of the sun mand."lu
struck the earth for the first time after the Flood. The rainbow had lt is tempting for us, in rhe pride of our scientific knowledge,to
been unknown to man beforethat-which is why it can now be a sign speculateabout the hou ol this event: Did rhe watersflow into under-
to man that literally the supply of moisture in the air is limited and
cannot causea universalflood any more. ' During his oml delivcryof rhissecrion,F-r.Seraphimexplainedrhislasrpoinr
Some scientistsrecently have speculated-on different evi- ororcfully: "Ve know rhar,wirh rhe raceof mankindup until rhc time of Noah,a
dence-that the amount of cosmic radiation striking the earth for verycxrraordinary thing happened. All rhe Patriarchs of the Old 'l-esramcnr
up ro
some reasonmanifesreda srriking increaseabout five thousandyears thcn arcsaidto havclivedrrcmcndous numbersofyears:Adamlived930 years,Me-
ago. This of coursewould be true if the watersabovethe firmament l i vcJ' )6' )ycrrs,orhcr slivcdc) 00. 800ycr n.
rhrrrrl .rh
"Nowadayspeoplcmighr say:'Thari an exaggerarion, rhar'sa nrisrake,
thar's
had servedasa filter and kept out harmful radiation.*
silly.'Bur alrosr everysingleParrirrchlivcdrharlong.... Only afrerNoah(who lived
In view ofall this, it would seemthat the time after rhe Flood is a 950 years,600 ofwhich werebeforerhe Flood),rheagcof manbeginsro decrease... .
whole new epoch in human history. The comparatively"paradisal" Vhv?'l-hc world evenbeforcNoahwasquirca differenrplace;rheworld beforcAd-
conditionsof the earrh up to the time of Noah, when a universaltem- lm! flll, cvenmorcso. Bcforcrhe time of Noah,man wasno! allowcdto cat mear;
peratenessprevailedover the earth and abundant vegetationsupplied nt:rnwaslivingon vcgcrablcs, arrdin lacrthe animalsof thecarthwcrcblessed ro eat
vclictables r"rnril
rhc timc ofNoah. C)fcoursc,
the needsof man without the needto eat meat (Noah is the first to re- rodayir'sinconceivablc rhatmancould
livc 900 ycars,bur undcr rhosetorallydiffcrcnrconditions,who knowswhar mighr
havehappcncdiCod crcatedrhe world in rhe bcginningtorallyncw and fresh,and
' Secpp.493n.-Eo. rccordingto a rorallydiffcrcntwayof life rhanwharwe know now."-Eo.
I l8 ll9
(ieNrsts, Cnr.,rtIor a.NoE,rrlv M,rN Tnr Srx Days (Dnv sv D,rv)
ground reservoirs? Did the land rise upl The Scripture does noc say, knowledgeof the "how" of rhe presentcrearion (ro the small extenr
and for this reasonthe Holy Fatherssay little on this subject.St. Am- rhat we know it) back to the first-crertedworld.
brosewrites: The dry land appearedat the command ofGod, and not by some
ratural process.St. Ambrose writes:
'What
Hc actuallyhasdonc,which I havenot learncdfrom the clear
tesrimonyof Scripture,I passoverasa mystery, lest,perchance,
thar It wasprovidedthar rhc earrhwould, to all appearance,havebccn
stir up otherquestions I
startingevenfronr this point. Ncvcrrhclcss, dry by the handofGod rarhcrthan by thesun,for thc carthactually
maintainin accordance with the Scriprurcs,rhat God canextendthc becamedry beforethe sun wascrcated.Wherefore,David, roo, dis-
low-lyingrcgionsand the openplains,asHc hrs said:"l will go be- tinguishedtheseafrom the land,referringro rheLord God: "For the
fbrethecand makelcvelthe mountains"(ls.45:2).rr seais His and He madeit, and His handsmadcthe dry land" (Ps.
945)j)
On this same question of the "how" of creation St. Gregory of
Nyssa teaches: l:ll-13 And God said, Let the earth put forth ueytation, plants
/elding seed,and f uit tecs bearingfuit in which is their seed,each ac-
fu for the question, how any single thing carnc into existence,we rcrding to ix hind, upon the earth. And it was so. The earth brought forth
must banish it altogcrherfrom our discussion.Even in the caseof uegetation, plznts yieAing seed,according to their own kinds, and trees
things which are quire within the graspofour undcrstandingand of bearing Jruit in which is tbeir seed,each according n in hind. And God
which wc have sensibleperccption,it would be impossiblefor thc tau that b u.'asgood. And there was euening and there was morning, a
specularivereasonto graspthe "how" of cheproduction of the phe- third day.
'fhe Holy Fhthersare unanimous in
nomenon; so much so, thar even inspired and saintly men havc emphasizingrhe miraculous
deemed such questions insolublc. For instance, the Aposrle says, natureof the creationof the Third Dav. St. Basilreaches:
"Through faith wc understandthat rhe worlds wcre framed by thc
word of God, so that things which are seenare not made of things "Lct thc earthbring forth herbs."And in thc briefestmomentof
which do appeai' (Heb. I I :3).... While the Apostlc afflrms rhat ir is time the earth,beginningwith germinarionin order that it mighr
an object ofhis faith rhar it was by thc will ofGod rhat the world it- kcepthc lawsof rhe Creator,passingthrougheveryform of increase,
selfand all which is thereinwas framed,... he hason thc other hand immediatclybroughrrhe shootsto pcrfcction.The meadowswere
left our of the investigationthe "how" of rhis framing... . Let us, fol- dcepwith thc abundanrgrass;the fertilcplains,ripplingwith stand-
lowing the exampleof the Apostlc, lcaverhe qucstion of the "how" ing crops,prescnted the pictureof a swcllingscawith irs moving
in cachcreatedthing, withour meddling with it ar all, but merelyob- headsof grain. And every hcrb and every kind of vegetableand
servingincidentallythat the movcment of God's will becomesat any whatevcrshrubsand legumesrherewere,rosefrom rhe earthat that
moment that He pleasesa fact, and thc inrention becomesat once time in all profusion...."Arrdthc fruit tree,"He said,"that bears
realizedin nature.2r fruit containingseedof its own kind and of irs own likeness on thc
earth."Ar thissayingall the densewoodsappeared; all thc trecsshot
the
In all that hasto do with the Six Daysof Creation,therefore, up, thosewhich arewont ro riseto rhe greatesr height,the firs,ce-
(and
Holy Fathersoffer fewguesses they arealwaystentarive)regarding dars,cypresses,and pines;likewise,all thc shrubswereimmediately
hou God created;and we likewiseshouldrefrainfrom projectingour thick wirh leafandbushy;andtheso-called garlandplants-the rose
120 l2t
Gexmts, Cnr,,lr IoN ,rno ElnrY MIN Tul Srx Days (Da.vsv D,rv)
bushes,myrtlcs,and laurels-all camc into existcnccin a moment of St. Ambrose waxeseloquenton this subiect:
rimc, although they were not previouslyupon rhe earth, each onc
with its own peculiarnaturc.ra Beforerhe lighr of the sun shallappear,ler the greenherb be born,
lct its lighrbe prior ro rharofthe sun.Ler rhcearthgerminare before
St. Ephraimthe Syrianstatesprecisely: it receivesthe fosteringcareof thc sun, lest rhcrebe an occasionfor
human error to grow. Let everyonebe informed that rhe sun is not
The herbs,at the time of their creation,wercthe productionsof a the authorof vcgetation.... How can the sun giverhe faculryoflife
singleinstant,but in appearance rhcyappeared the productionsof to growing planrs,when rhesehayealreadybeen brought forrn oy
months.Likewisethe trccs,at thc time of their crcation,werethe thc life-givingcreativepowerof God beforethc sun enreredinro
productionsof a singleday,but in thcir perfectionand fruits,which sucha lifeasthis?The sunis youngerrhanrhegreenshoot,youngcr
weigheddown rhe branches,they appcarcdthc producrionsof than rhegreenplant.le
years.25
The vegetarionand treesbrought forth seeds,"each accordingto
St. Gregory of Nyssaalso emphasizesthat what was created by God irs kind." This expressionofScripture is a key one in Patristicthought;
was not merelyseedsor a potentialiryfor growth, but the actual crea- we will devotea lengthy discussionto it under the Fifth Day of crea-
tions we know; seedscome from thosefirst-createdplants: tion, when living creatureswere brought forth likewise"each accord-
ins to its kind."
'Welearnfrom Scripturcin the accountofthc flrstcrcation,rharfirst
rhe earthbroughtforth 'ihc greenhcrb,"and rhat thcn from this
plantseedwasyieldcd,from which,whenit wasshedon theground,
4. TheFourthDay (Gencsis
t:14-19)
rhcsamef<rrmof theoriginalplantagainsprangup... . In the bcgin-
ning,wesee,ir wasnot an earrisingfrom a grain'but a grainconring l:14-19 And Godsaid,Let rherebe lightsin thefrmament of thc
from an ear,and, after that, the car growsround the grain.2(' lteauensto scparatethe dq fo^ the night, and let them befor signsand
for seasons andfor daysandyart and lct thembelighr in thefrmament
Plantsand treesappearedon earth, as the Fathersrepeatagain and of the heauensto giuc light upon thc carth. And it wasso.And God made
again,beforethe very existenceof the sun. St. John Chrysostomwrites: the tuo great lighx, thegreaterlight to rule the dq and the lcser light to
rule the night; He madethestarsalso.And Godsettltem in thef rmament
(Moses)showsyou that evcrythingwas accomplished bcforethe ofthe heauens to giuelight upon theearth,to rule ouertheday and ouerthe
creationof the sun,so that you might ascribethe ripeningof the night, and to separatethelightfon thedarftness. And Godsawthat it uas
fruitsnot to it, but to the Crcatorof the universe.2T good.And therewaseueningand thereuas morning, a fourth day.
l-he FourthDay ofcreationis a sourceofgreatembarrassment for
St. Basilstates: thosewho would like ro fit the Six Daysinto an evolutionaryframe-
work. -fhereis absolutely no way thiscanbe doneif the sun wasactu-
The adornmentof the earthis older rhan the sun,that thosewho ally creared on rheFourrhDay.
havebeenmisledmay ccascworshippingthc sun as the origin of For this reason, suchapologists for theevolurionary interpretation
lifc.r8 haveto believetharthesunwasreallycreared on rheFirsrDaywirh the
t22 l2J
Tnr Sx Drvs (Devsv Drv)
The heavens and the carrhhad comefirst; after thcm, light had
beencreated, dayand night separated, and in turn, the firmament
Thc crcationofthc sun, moon and stars("lights in rhc firmamcnt ofthe hcavcns") rJ?'atcr
and dry land rcvcalcd. had beencollectedinto a fixedand
on thc Fourth Day ofCrcation. ([t will bc noticcdthat, in rhis icon and in thc
onc on thc front covcr,thc planrsarc shownro havcalrcadybecn definitegathcring.Thc carthhadbeenfillcd with its properfruits;
crcatcdon thc Third Day.) for, it had broughtforth counrlcss kindsof herbs,and had bcen
hon fom SuchcuisaMonartcry, Moltraaia, Rottwlit, tkucnth ccznrT. adornedwith variedspccies of plants.However, thesundid not yct
exist,nor the moon,lestmcn mightcallthesunthefirsrcauscand
fathcrof light, and lesttheywho areignorantofGod might deem
it rheproducerof whargrowsfrom thc earth....If the crcationof
light had prcccdcd, why,now,is the sunin turn saidto havebeen
madcto givelight?....At the rimc (thc FirstDay)thc acrualnature
I ?S
GtNr,sls. CnsarIoN rrNo ErtrY M,tN THI Slx Devs(Dav av D,w)
of light was introduccd, but now this solar body has been made rellectual fashionsof the times, if we were not so fearful of being
ready to be a vehicle for rhat first-crearedlight.... And do not tell rhought "behind the times,"we would not havesuchdifficulty in open-
me that it is impossiblefor thcseto bc separated.I certainly do not
ing our minds to rhisalternariveexplanationofrhe worldt beginnings.
In the Scriptural-Patristic view the earth, as the home of man, the
say that thc separation of light from thc solar body is possible for
you and me, but that thar which we are able to separatein thought pinnacle of God's creation, is the center of rhe universe.Everything
can also be scparatedin actLraliryby the Creator of its nature....
else-no marrerwhat rhe scientificexplanationof its present stateand
"Ler thcm scrve,"He says,"for the fixing of days," not for making movement, or the physical immensity of it in comparison to the
days,but f<.trruling thc days.For, day and nighr are earlierthan the earrh-is secondary,and was madefbr the sakeof the earth, that is, for
gcncrationof the luminaries.rr man. Our God is of such power and majesrythar we need not doubt
rhat in a single momentary exerciseof His creativemight He brought
St. Ambrose makesa specialemphasison this point: into being this whole earth-large to us, but only a speckin the whole
universe-and that in another moment of His power He made the
Look first upon the firmamentofhcavenwhich wasmadcbeforerhc whole immensity of the starsof heaven.He could do vastly more than
sun;look first upon the earthwhich beganto be visibleand wasal- that if He willed; in the inspiredtext of GenesisHe has left us the bar-
readyformedbeforcthe sunput in irsappcarance; look at rheplants esroutline ofwhat He did do, and this account is not requiredto ac-
of rheearrhwhich preceded in rimethe light of the sun.The bram- cord with our human speculationsand guesses.
ble precededthe sun; rhe blade of grassis older than the moon. In our daysit hasbecomefashionableand easyto believethat every-
Therefore,do not believethat objectro be a god to which the gifts of thing "evolved,"by absolutelyuniform lawswhich we can now observe,
God are seen to be preferred.Three days have passed.No one, from a primordial blob ofenergy or matter; if one needs"God" to ex-
meanwhile,has lookedfor the sun, yct the brillianceof lighr has plain anything, it is only to be the "creator"ofthis blob, or the iniriaror
beenin evidcnceeverywhere. For the day,too, hasits lighr which is ofthe "big bang" that supposedlyhasproducedeveryrhingrhereis. 1b-
irsclfthe precursorof rhesun.l2 day it requiresa broadermind, lesschainedro "public opinion," to be-
gin to see the enormity of the creativeacts of God as describedin
The idea that life on earth from the beginning was dependenton Genesis.Thc Holy Fathers-the mosr "sophisticated"and "scienrific"
the sun, and eventhat the earth itselfcomesfrom the sun-is a recent minds of their lims-6sn be the unchainersof our fetteredminos.
idea that is nothing but the sheerestguess;ir even has no direct con- But surely, it mighr be asked,the creationsof God must make
necrion with the truth or falsiryof the so-calledevolution of life on sensefrom the "natural" point of view also.Why, therefore,did God
earrh. Becausemen in recentcenturieshavebeen looking for a "new" createsuch an enormousbody as the sun ro s€rvesuch a sma body as
and "natural" explanationof the world'sorigin, having rejectedthe ex- the earth?Couldnt He have conservedthis energy and made a sun
planation that comesfrom Divine revelation,it hasseemeda matter of nrore in accordancewith the scaleof rhe earth?
coursethat the sun-so much largerand astronomicallymore signifi- One could, of course,conceiveof a sun much smaller than the
canr rhan the earth,and the centerofthe earth'sorbit-should precede onc we know and much closer to the earrh, while prcservingits ap-
the earth, rather than the other way around. parent sizeas seenfrom the earth. But such a sun would expend its
But Divine revelation,as interpretedby rhe Holy Fathers,tells us energymany times more rapidly than our presenrsun does. Evidently
the contrary:that the earthcomesfirst, both in time and in significanc€, God made the sun the size and the distancefrorn earth it needsto
and rhe sun comessecond.Ifour minds were not so chainedto the in- haveif ir is to give ro earth rhe amounr of Iighr and heat ir requiresro
t26 127
GeNssrs, CR-E^rroN,rNo Elnrv M,q.N
supporr life to the end of this age, when the sun shall be darhened
(Matt.24:29).
lVe may also seeanother,a mysticd reason,for the fact that the
lighr precedesthe sun in the daysof creation.Here, admittedly,we
haveno Fathersto quotet and we offer this interpretationasour own
opinion.
Ve will seebelowthat the separationof man into maleand female
wasnor part of the original "image"in which Cod createdhim; and we
know thet it will not be part of mant nacurein the eternalkingdom of
heaven,for in the resaneetion thq neithcrmarry, nor aregiuenn mar'
riage,but arcastheangebof Godin heaaen(Matc, 22:30). RathecGod
madethe division into maleand femaleforeseeing the fall of man and
that the increaseof mankind would requirea passionate
eranon.
modeofgen-
Might it not be, then,that the sun and moon arealsonot part of
p
Godt original "image"of His creation,bur wereonly createdto mark
rhe days and months and yearsoF man'sfallen estate?The original
light, createdon the First Day, had no needofa body to contain it. At
the end ofthe world shallthesun be darhened,and the moonshall not
giue ber light, and thc smrsshallfall fon heaaen(Mttt. 24:29); and in
the kingdom of heaven,ason the First Day of Creation,therewill be
oncemore light without the sunand moon-for thecity had no necdof
the sun, neither of the moon, to shinc in it; for theglnry of the Lord did
lightcnit (Apoc.2l :23).
But thesearemysteriesat which we can do no more than guess.
t28
Gapasrs,Cn.e,rrroN,rNn Ernrv M,rN
Just as He said of the eanh only: "Let it bring forth," and thereap-
peareda greatvarieryof flowers,herbs,and seeds,and dl occurred
by His word alone,so hcrealsoHe said:"Lct the watcrsbring forth
swarmsof living creatures,and let birds fly abovethe earthacrossthe
firmamentof the hcavcns"-and instantlytherewereso many kinds
of crawlingthings, sucha varieryof birds, that one cannot number
rhcm in words.$
130
I r r r ' Sr r I ) . r r ': ( i) , r v r r r l) r t )
lii
Gr:Nrsrs, CrrarroN ,cNo E,rnrv M,\N Tsr Srx Davs (D.rv sv D,,rv)
down below in its womb. On rhe contrary, it is the Divine Word ofan oliverree,but fiom rhereedcomesanotherreed;andfrom seeds
thar is the origin ofall things made."Let the earth bring forrh"; not, springplantsrclaredto theseeds sown."fhus,what wasput forth by
let it put fonh what it has,bur, let it acquirewhat it does not have, thc earrhin its first generation
hasbeenpreservcduntil thc presen
sinceGod is enduing it with rhe power ofactive force.rs time,sincethc kindspersisted throughconstantreproducrion.l'
I J.l t35
CeNtsrs, CnnerroN eNo llnlv Maru Txr Srx Days (Dav rv Dev)
The artemprsof breeders,both of animalsand planrs,in all agesro seedof the wheatplant.The Lord told us rhat this is so when He
make a new speciesby mating individualsofdifferent speciesproduces said:"Thc Kingdom of Heavcnis like a man who sowedgood seed
(when ir succeeds)a result that only provesthe Patristicmaxim ofthe in his ficld, but whilc men wereasleep,his enemycilme and sowed
constancyof species:these"hybrids" are sterileand cairnor reproduce weedsamongrhe whear,"Ve gatherfrom this thar weedsand wheat
themselves.St. Ambrose usesthis examplero warn men against"un- ccrtainlyscemto be distinctborh in nameand in kind. Hence,the
natural unions" which go againstthe laws which God establishedin servants, "Sir,didstthou not sowgooo
too,saidto the householdcr,
the Days of Creation: seedin thy field?How then doesir haveweeds?" He saidto thcm,
'An encmyhath donerhis."One is rhe scedof the devil;the orher,
'What
purc and unrarnished generations follow wirhout intermin- rhat of Christ which is sownin accordance with iustice.Therefore,
glingone afteranorher,so rhat a thymallusproduccsa thymallus;a rhe Sonof Man sowedonc and the devil sowedthe othcr For thar
sca-wolf,a sea-wolf. Thc sea-scorpion, roo, preservesunstainedirs reasonthe narureof eachis distinct,sincethe sowersareopposed.
marriagebed.... Fish know norhingof union wirh alien specics. Christ sowsthe kingdom of God, whereasthe devil sowssin. How,
They do not have unnaturalbetrothalssuch as are designedly rhercfore, canthiskingdombeofone andthesameraceassin?"This
brought about berweenanimalsof rwo different speciesas, for in- is the kingdom of God," He says,"asthough a man shouldcastsecd
stance,thedonkeyand rhemare,or againthe femaledonkeyand rhe into theearrh."aa
horse,both beingexamples of unnaturalunion. Certainlytherearc
casesin which naruresuffcrsmorein the narureofdefilementratncr
Justasthe distinction ofspeciesis relatedto the distincrion berween
than that of injury ro rhe individual.Man as an abeaorof hybrid good and evil, so is the confusionofspeciesrelatedto moral relativiry.lt
barrcnness is responsiblefor this. He considers a nrongrelanimal is certainlywell known how believersin the relativiryofgood and evil,
morevaluablethanoneofa genuinespecies. Youmix togetheralien ofvirtue and vice,make useofthe cosmologicalrheoryofuniversalevo-
spcciesandyou minglediverseseeds.aJ lution to defend their belief as "scientific"and "factual": if man was
"once" a lower animal and is "evolving"inro somethingelse,then how
The distinctnessand integriryofthe "seeds"ofeach ofthe "kinds" can his inconstantnature be compelledto obey commandmenrsgiven
of creationis so much a part of Scripturaland Patristicrhought that ir at only one stageof his "development"?*Marxist atheismbound itself
servesin the Gospel as rhe basisfor the Parableof our Lord regarding to this theory of evolution from rhe very beginning and to rhis day
the distinctnessof good and evil, virtue and sin. St. Ambrose usesrhis preachesit asone ofthe cardinaldoctrinesofits relativisticphilosopny.
parable(Marr. l3:24-30) to illustratethe integriry of thes€edsof each
"kind":
'Aldous Htrxley[brorherofJulian Huxlcy]haslcfr a memoirrellinghow rhc
theoryofunivcrsalevolurion"liberared" hirnfrom theshacklesofrhc "old moraliry":
Thereis no dangerrharthe preceptof God, ro which naturehasac- 'l had motivesfor not wantingrhe world to havernslning.consequenrly as-
customeditself, may becomevoid in firture time by a failure of sumcdthar it had none,and wasablewithour any difficulry to find sarisfing rcasons
propagarion, sinccrodayrheintegriryofthe stockis srillpreserved
in for rhisassumprion..,,For mysclf,ar, no doubr,for mosrof my contcmporarics, rhc
\We
the seeds. know that cockleand the other alienseedswhich often philosophyof meaninglesncss wasessenrially an insrrumentof libcrarion,Thc lib-
are intersperscdamong fruits of the eanh are called"weeds"in the crarionwc desircdwassimultancously liberationfrom a certainpoliricaland cco-
nomicsysremand libcrationfrom a cerrainsysremof moraliry.\4 objccredto rhe
Cospcl.These,howevcr,belongro a specialspeciesand hayenot de-
moralirybecauscit inrcrfcredwith our scxualfreedom"(Aldous Huxley,"Confcssion
gencratedinro anorhcrspcciesby a process of murationfrom rhe ofa ProfcssedAtheist," Rcporl June1966,p. l9).
t36 137
GrNrsrs,Cn[.ArtoNruo E,reryMeN Tna Srx D,cys(D,rv ev Dav)
The idea of the consistencyof nature and the integrity and dis- Thosewho would haveit thar the soul migratesinto naturesdivcr-
tinctnessof its "kinds" runs throushout Patristicliterature.It servesas gent from eachother seemsro mc to oblirerateall naruraldistinc-
a model, for example,of the resuriectionof the human body. St. Am- tions;to blendand confuserogerhcr,in evcrypossiblerespecr, rhc
brosewrites,in his treariseon rhe resurrecrion: rational,rhe irrarional,the sentient,and rhe inscnsate; il that is, all
thesearc to passinto eachother,wirh no disrincrnaruralordersc-
Naturein all its produceremainsconsistent wirh irself... Seedsof cludingrhemfrom mutualrransition. To sayrhatoneand the same
one kind cannotbe changedinto anotherkind of plant,nor bring soul,on accountofa pamicular environmenr ofbody, is at one time
forrh produce differing f'rom its own sceds,so rhat men should a rationaland inrellccrual soul,and rhat rhen ir is caverncdakrng
springfrom serpentsand fleshfrom tceth;how much morc, indeed, with rhereptiles, or hcrdswith the birds,or is a lreasr
ofburden,or a
is it ro be believed
thatwhatever hasbeensownrisesagainin irsown carnivorous one,or swimsin thc decp;or evendropsdown to an ln-
nature,and that cropsdo not diffcr from rhcirsccd,rhatsofrthings sensate thing, so as to strikcout rootsor bccomea completetree,
do not springf-romhard,nor hardfrom soft,nor is poisonchangcd producingbuds on branches, and from rhosebuds a flower,or a
into blood; but that flesh is resroredfrom flesh, bonc from bonc, thorn, or a fruit edibleor noxious-ro sayrhis,is norhingshorrof
blood from blood, the humorsof rhe body from humors.Car, y. makingall rhingsthe sameand believingrharonc singlcnarurcruns
then,yc heathen, who areableto asserr a change,denya restorarron throughall beings;that thereis a connectionberwcenthernwhich
of the nature?{5 blendsand confuses hopclcsslyall rhc marksby which onecouldbe
disringuishcd from another.at
ln a similar view, St. Gregoryof Nyssawrires:
The idea that "one single nature runs rhrough all beings," of
Vhereas we learn from Scripturein the accounrof the first Crea- course,lies at the hearr of the theory of universalevolurion. Erasmus
tion, that first the earth brought forth "rhe grecnherb" (asthc nar- Darwin (the grandfather of Charles) had already pointed scientific
rative says),and that thcn from this planr seedwas yiclded, from specularionin this direction ar rhe end ofthe eighteenthcenrury.Such
which,when ir wasshedon the ground,rhesameform of rheorigi- an idea is profoundly alien to Scripturaland Parristicrhought.
nal plantagainsprangup, the Aposrle,it is to be observed, dcclares
that this very samerhing happensin the Resurrection also;and so
we lcarn from him the facr, nor only rhar our humanirywill be
6. TbeSixth Day (GenesisI:24-J I )
chcnchangedinto somcrhingnoblcr,but alsorhat whar wc havc
rhercinto cxpectis nothingelsethan rhat which wasar rhc bcgin- l:24-25 And God said,Let the eartb bringforth liuing creatures
ning.at' arcordingto their kinds: cattleand crcepingthingsand beasxof the earth
accordingto their hinds.And it wasso.And God madethe beastsof the
A strangeparallelro the modern theory of universalevolurion may earth accordingt0 their hindsand the cattleaccordingto their hinds,and
be seenin the ancient pagan teachingof the rransmigrarionof souls euerythingthat creepsupon thegroundaccordingto itshind. And Godsaut
(reincarnation).The reactionof the Holy Fathersto this idea, which that it uasgood.
they universallycondemned,showshow concernedrhey were to pre- The teachingofthe Holy Fathers on rhecreationofthe land ani-
serve the orderlinessof creation and rhe disrinctnessof its kinds of malson the Sixth Day doeslittle more rhan repeatwhat hasalready
crcatures.Sr. Gregoryof Nyssawrires: beensaidaboutthe otherlivingcreatures. l-hus,Sr.Ephraimwrites:
138 139
(ir.:r,rr-:srs,
Creer.roNlNo Elrly M,rN Tur SIx D,rYs(D.ry sv Dev)
I'hc carrhat God! comnrandimmediatelybroughtforrh creeping God made the world, asSt.John Damasceneteach€s,because,"llot
things,bcasrs ofthe field,creaturesofprcy,anddomesticanimals,as content to contemplateHimself, by a superabundance ofSoodnessHe
many aswerenecessary for the serviceof him who, on rhat veryday, saw fit thar there should be some things to benefit by and participate
transgressed 52
the commandmenrof his [,ord.48 in this goodness."
Perhapsno part of ScriPtureexPresses so well the awe-inspiring
St. Basilteaches: majesryof God in His creation,and man's nothingnessin compari-
son, as does the passagein which God speaksto Job out ofthe whirl-
The soulofbrure beastsdid not emergeafterhavingbeenhiddenin wind:
the earth,bur it wascalledinto existence
at the time of thc ctrm-
'Whe
mand.ae rc wast thou when I founded the earth?Tell me now, if thou
hastknowledge, who setthe measures ofit, ifthou knowest? Or who
With this acr of cr€arion,all is ready fbr rhe appearanceof man, stretched a line upon it? On what areits rings fastened?And who is
who is ro be lord over it all. But this magnificenrcrearionis not mcrcry he that laid the cornerstoneupon it? Whcn the starsweremade,all
for the practicaluse of man. There is something mysrica.lin ir; being My angelspraisedMe with a loud voice.And I shutuP the seawith
the good crearionof rhe All-good God, it can raiseour minds ro Him. gates,whcn it rushedout, cominglorth out of its mother'swomb'
St. John Chrysosromwrires: And I madea cloud irs clothing,and swathedit in mist And I set
boundsto it, surroundingit with barsand gatcs.And I saidto it,
God creared cverythingnot only for our use,but alsorhatwe,secrng Hirherto shaltrhou come,but thou shaltnor go beyond,but thy
rhegrearwealrhofhis creations,mighrbe asronished ar the mighrof wavesshallbe confinedwirhin thee Or did I ordcr thc morning
the Creatorand mighr undcrstandrhat all rhis wascreatedwirh wis- light in thy rimct and did thc morningstar then first seehis ap-
dom and unutterablcgoodness for rhe honor of man, who wasto pointcdplace;to lay hold of thc extremities of the earth,(o castout
appear,to rhe r.rngodly out of it? Or didst thou takeclayof rhe ground'and
form a livingcreature, andsct it with the powerof speechuPonthe
St. Basil,marvellingat rhe grandeurofGod! creation,says. carth?(Job38:4-14,Septuaginr).
Ler us glorifr the MastcrCraftsmanfor all that hasbeendone wisely 'l'he Genesisaccount of the creation of man is given in rwo ac-
and skillfully;and from rhe beauryofthc visiblethingslet us form counts, those of chapterone and chaPtertwo; thesewe shall examine
an ideaof Him rWhois morc rhanbeauriful;and fiom the erearrrcss in the next chapter.
ofthesepcrceprible andcircumscribed bodieslet usconceivJofHim
'Who
is infinireand immenseand \Whosurpasses all understanding 2:l-3 Thus the heauensand the earth werefnished, and all the host
in the plenitudeof His power.For evenif we areignorantof things of them. And on the seaenth dzy God fntshed His worh wbich He had
made,yet,ar lcast,that which in generalcomesunderour observa- done, and He r€stedon the seuenthdalyfrom all His work which He had
tion is sowonderfultharevenrhemosracutemind is shownto be ar done. So God bbsed the seaenthdzy and hallowed it, because0n it Gld
a lossasregards the lcasrof rherhingsin the world,eitherin thc abil- restedfom all His worh wbich He had done in creation.
iry to explain ir worthily or ro rcnderdue praisero rhe Crearor,ro Of this, God's "sabbath' rest from creation,St. John Chrysostom
Vhom bc all glory, honor,and powcr fbrever.tl writes:
t40 t4t
(ilr.rlsrs, Crr_errou nnn Elnly MnN Tun SrxDrYs(f).cvsv D,{v)
'I hc l)ivine
Scriprtrreindicatesherethat God resrcdfrom His works; Sr.Ephraimt('and orherFathers emphasize this newnessby stating
bur in the Gospcl Christ says:"My Father worketh hitherro, and I rheirbeliefthat the world wascreatedin the spring.St. Ambrosetres
work" (John 5:17). In comparing these utterances,is there not a this rogetherwith the factthat amongthe Hebrewsthe yearbeganin
contradicrionro be found in themi May it not be so; in the words of thespring:
the Divine Scriprurethere is no conrradiction whatevcr\Vhen tne
Scripture here says:"God resredltrom all His works," it rhercbyrn- He crcatedheavenand earthat th€ rime when the monthsbegan,
srrucrsus that on the SeventhDay He ceasedto creareand to bnng from which rime it is fitting that thc world took its rise Then there
out of nonexistenccinto existence;but when Chrisr says:"My Fa- wasthe mild temPcrature of spring,a season suitablefor all things.
ther worketh hitherto, and I work," it thereby indicaresto us His Consequcntly, thc ycar, too, has the stamp of a world coming to
uninterrupted Providcnce,and it calls "work" rhe preservationof birth.... In ordcrto showtharthecreatio n of thc worldtook placcin
whar exisrs,the giving to ir of continuance (of existence)and rnc the spring, Scripturesays: "This month shallbe to you the bcgin-
governanceof ir ar all times. Otherwise,how corrld the universeex- ningof months,it is for you the first in the monthsof thc ycar"(Ex.
ist, if a higher hand did not governand order everythingvisibleand l2:2), callingthc first month the springrime.It wasfitring rhat the
the human race?5J rheycarbc thc bcgirtningo[ generation.i-
bcginning<-,f
Viewing the marvel ofwhar happens every day in what we have be- Now, after this look at the Holy Fathers'veryrealisticunderstand-
come accusromed to call "nature"-the development, lor example, of a ing of the Six Days of Creation, Iet us turn to the more comPlexques-
fully mature plant, animal, or evenhuman being from a riny seed-we rion of rhe making of the crown of God'.screation,man.
cannot help but seethe continuouscreariveacriviryof God. But this is
not all the sameas rhe Creation of the Six Days, the original bringing
into being ofeveryrhing rhereis. The firsr chaprerof Genesisdescribes
this unique and unrepeatable creatron.
Being accustomedto the "working" of God in our presentworld,
we can scarcelyconceiveofthat orher kind of "work" which He did in
the Six Days.The world, then, while perfectand fully formed, wassrill
"new." St. Gregory the Theologianemphasizes rhat when God wished
to createAdam of rhe dust, "the Vord, having taken a parr of the
newly createdearrh, with His immorral hands formed my image."5a
St. Ephraim rhe Syrianteaches:
t42 | 4.t
CHeprBnFoun
The Creationof Man
(Genesis
| :26-3| ; 2:4-7\
t4 )
Tsr CnrerroN or M,tN
't47
GrNrsrs,CrrarroN aNo Eenly MIN Tse Cnt,trroN or M,lN
cvcryothcrin fiir order... . This wasto showthat He couldcallrnto freedom.Sr. Gregoryof Nyssasumsup the meaningof rhe imageof
beingnot only a natureakin ro Himself[i.e.,the angclic,invisible Cod mostconcisely:
worldl, but alsoone altogether alienro Him. For akin to Deiry are
thosenaturcswhich are intellectual, and only to be comprehended He crearcs man for no orherreasonthan that He is good;and being
by mind; but all of which sense cantakccognizancc areurtcrlyalien such,and havingthisasHis reasonfor enteringupon thecreationof
to It; and of thesethe fi.rrthesrremovedfrom It are all thoscwhich our narurc,He would not exhibitthe powcrof this goodness in an
areentirelydestituteofsoul and powerof motion. impcrfecform, givingour naturesomeoneof the thingsar His dis-
Mind, then,and sense, thusdisringuished fiom eachother,had posal,and grudgingit a sharein another:but the perfectform of
rcmainedwithin their own boundarics, and borein themselves the goodness is hereto be seenby His both bringingman inro being
magnificencc of the Creator-Word, silcntpraisersand thrilling her- from nothing,and fully supplyinghim with all goodgifts.But since
aldsof His mighrywork. Not yet wasthcreany minglingof both, thc list ofindividualgoodgiftsis a longone,ir is out ofthe quesrion
nor any mixtureof rheseopposites, tokensof a greaterwisdomand ro apprehcndit numcrically. The language ofScripturethereforeex-
generosiry in rhccrcationofnatures;nor asyerwercthe wholeriches presses it concisely by a comprehensive phrase,in sayingrhat man
of goodncss madeknown. Now rhe Crearor-Vord,determiningro wasmade"in the imageof God": for this is thc samcasto saythat
exhibitthis,and ro producea singlelivingbeingour ofboth (thein- He madehumannatureparticipantin all good;for ifthe Deiryis thc
visibleand rhe visiblecrearion,I mean)fashions Man; and rakinga fullnessof good,and this is His image,then rhe imagcfindsits re-
body from alreadyexistingmatter,and placingin ir a Brcathtaken semblancc to the Archerypein beingfilledwirh all good.o
from Himself (which the $7ordknew to be an intelligenrsoul, and
the imageof God),asa sort of secondworld,greatin lirtleness, He lWhat is the differenceberweenthe "image" and thc "likeness"of
placedhim on rhe earrh,a new Angel,a mingledworshipper, fully God in man?The Holy Fathersexplainthat the imageis given to us in
iniriatedinto thevisiblecrcarion,bur only partiallyinro the inteilec- full and cannot be lost; the likeness,however,wasgiven in the begin-
rual;king of all upon earth,but subjectro rhe King abovc;earthly ning only porenrially,and man himself was to work on atraining its
and heavenly; temporaland yer immorml;visibleand yet intellec- perfecrion.St. Basilthe Great teaches:
rual; half-wayberweengrearness and lowliness;in one personcom-
bining spiritand flesh;spirit because of rhe favorbesrowed on him, "Lcr us makcman in Our imagc,afterOur likencss."
\?c possess
the
flcsh on accounrof the height to which hc had beenraised;the one oneby crearion, weacquircthc othcrby freewill. In thefirsrstructure
that he mighr continucro live and glori! his benefactor, the other it is givenus to bc born in rhc imagcof Godl by frecwill thereis
that hc might suffcr,and by sufferingbe pur in remembrancc, and formedin usthebcingin thelikeness ofGod.... "Lct usmakeman in
be corrcctedif hc becamcproud in his grearncss; a living creature, Our image":Let him posscss by crcationwhatis in the image,but let
trained hereand rhcn movcd elscwhcre;and to complerethe mys- him alsobecomeaccordingto the likcness. God hasgivenrhepower
tery deificdby its inclinarionto God.r for this;if He hadcreatedyou alsoin the likeness, wherewouldyour
privilegebe?Vhy haveyorr beencrowned? And if the Crearorhad
\i(/hat is this image of God? Different Holy Farhershave empha-
given you everything, how would the kingdom of heavenhave
sizeddifferent aspecrsof the image of God in man: some have men- openedfor you?But it is propertharoneparris givenyou,whilethe
tioned man'sdominion over the lower crearion (which is mentioned orherhasbeenleft incomplete: this is so thatyou might completeit
specificallyin the text of Genesis);others, his reason;srill orhers,his yourselfandmighrbeworthyof therewardwhichcomesfromGod.t
t4t) t4)
GeNcsIs,CnurIoN aNo EanrvM,rN Tur Cns,rrroN or M,rN
In the very passageof Genesiswhich describesthe creationof man, elcmcntsis certainly to be found in all rhat partakesof human life.
it is said that he was creared"male and female."* Is this distinction, Thar rhe intellectualelemenr,however,prcccdesrhc other, we learn
then, part ofthe imageofGod? St. Gregoryof Nyssaexplainsthat the as from one who gives in order an account of the making of man;
Scripture refers here rc a tuofold creation of man: and we learn also that his communiry and kindred wirh thc irra-
tional is for man a provision for rcproduction... .
That whichwasmade"in the image"is onething,and thatwhich is He \V'ho brought all things into being and fashionedman as a
now manifested in wretchedncss is another,"God createdman," it wholc by His own will to the Divinc image ... saw bcforehandby
"in
says; the imagc of God creared He him." 'fhere is an cnd of the His all-sceingpower the failureoftheir will to keepa direct courseto
creationof thatwhich wasmade"in rhc image":then it makesa rc- whar is good, and its consequentdeclensionfrom thc angeliclife, rn
sumptionofthe accountofcreation,andsays,"malcand fcmalecre- ordcr thar the multitude of human souls might not be cut short by
ated He them." I presumcthat everyoncknows that this is a irs fall.... He formed for our naturc that contrivance for incrcasc
departurefrom the Prororype: fbr "in ChristJcsus,"as the Apostlc which bcfirs thosc who had f'alleninto sin, inrplanting in mankrnd,
says,"thereis neithcr malenor female."Yct the phrascdcclaresthat instcad of the angelic majcstyof nature, that animal and irrarional
man is rhusdivided. mode by which thcy now succecdone another.'i'
Thus the creationofour natureis in a sense rwofold:onc madc
like ro God, one dividedaccordingto rhis disrinction:for some- Thus the image of God, which, as all the Holy Fathers teach, is to
darkly conveysby its arrangemcnt,where
thing like this the passagc be found in the soul and nor the body ofman, has nothing to do with
ir Orst says, "God man, in thc imageof God creatcdH"
created the division into male and female. In God's idea of man, one might
him," and thcn, addingro what has bcensaid,"maleand female say-man as he will be in the Kingdom of Heaven-there is neither
createdHe thcm,"-a thing which is alienfrom our conceptionof male nor female;but God, foreknowing man'sfall, made this division
God. which is an inseparablepart of man'searthlycxistence.
I think that by thesewords Holy Scripturcconvcysto us a g.eat However,the reality of sexuallife did not come about before the
and lofiy doctrine;and the doctrineis this.\Vhile two natures-thc fall of man. St. John Chrysostom,commenting on the passage, "Now
Divineand incorporeal naturc,and the irrationallife of brutcs-arc Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived" (Gen.4:l)-which oc-
scparated from eachothcr asextremcs, human natureis the mean curred after the fall-says:
berween them [thisis similarto the ideaofSt. GregoryrhcThcolo-
gianwe havealreadyquoted]:for in the compoundnarureof man After the disobcdience,afterthe banishmenr from Paradise, then ir
we may beholda part of eachof the naturesI havementioned-of wasrhatmarriedlife began.Beforethedisobedience, the firstpeople
the Divinc,the rationaland intelligentclement,which doesnot ad- lived like angels,and therewas no talk of cohabitation. And how
mit the distinctionof malcand female;of the irrational,our bodily couldthis be,whentheywerefreeof bodilynecds? Thus, in the be-
form and structure,divided into malc and female:for eachof these ginning life wasvirginal;but when,because of rhe carelessness(of
the first people)disobedienceappeared and sin enteredthe world,
' ChristHimselfguotedthispassagcfrom Ccnesis. ln Mark l0:6 He says:"Bur
virginiry fled awayfrom them, sincerhey had bccomeunworthy of
from rhe beginningof thc creationGod madethem maleand femalc."His words
"from rhe beginningof thc crcation"clearlyconrradicrthe evolutionisrand old-
earrh/progrcssivc ideatharthercwerebillionsofycarsofearth historybc-
crcationist ' Thar is,thewholesexualfuncrionIin man]is seento betakcnfrom thc animal
of human beings.(Sccalsop. 228 n.\-Eo.
fore thc appearance creation.It wasnot mcantto bc thatway in rhc beginning.
lt0 l5l
,LxoEnnlv MaN
GtNesIs,Cae,qrIoN l-se CnrarloN or M-lN
sucha greatgood,andin irsplaccthcrcentcrcdinto cffectIhe law of view of marriageis rhis:that, while rhe pursuirof heavenlyrhings
marricdlife.7 shorrldbe a mant first care,yer if he can usethe advantages of mar-
riagewith sobrieryand nroderation,hc neednor despisethis way of
writes:
And St. John Damascene scrvingthe stare....Marriageis thc lastsrageofour separation from
the life rhar wasled in Paradise; marriageis the first rhing ro be left;
Virginity waspracticcdin Paradise.... Aftcr the fall,... to keepthe it is the firststation,asit were,for our deparrure ro Christ.e
racefrom dwindlingand beingdcstroyed by death,marriage wasde-
vised,so that by the begettingof childrcnthc race of men might be l:28 And God bbssedthem, and God said to tbem, Befuiful and
preserved. mubiply andfll the earth and subdueit; and hauedominion ouerthe
fsh
Bur they may ask:Vhat, thcn, does"malcand femalc"mean, of the sea dnd luer tbe birds of the air and ouer euery liuing thing that
and "increase and mukiply"?To which we shallreplythat the "in- mou€su?on the earth.
creaseand multiply"doesnot meanincreasingby the marriageun- "Be fruitful and multiply" are the very words alreadyaddressedby
ion exclusively,becauseif thcy had kept thc commandment Cod ro the crearuresof rhe water (Gen. l:22) and indicaremant kin-
unbrokenforever,Cod could haveincreasedrhe raceby someother ship with the lower creationand, through his fall, with their mode of
means.But, sinceGod, Who knowsall thingsbeforethcy cometo sexua.lgeneration.But there is also a deepermeaning to thesewords.
be, saw by His forcknowledgehow they were to fall and be con- St. Basilwrites:
demnedto death,He madeprovisionbeforehand by creatingthem
maleand femaleandcommandingthem to increase and multiply.s There are rwo kinds of increase:rhat of the body, and thar of rhc
soul.The increase of the soulis the development of knowledge with
In rhis as in other respeccs,as we shall seelater, man-like the rest rhe aim of perfection;rhe increasc of the body is the development
of the creation-before the fall was in a state different from that aFter from smallncss to normalsraturc.
the fall, eventhough thereis a continuiry betweenthesetwo statespro- To the animalsdeprivedof reasonHe thereforesaid "increase"
vided by Godt foreknowledgeofthe fall. according to bodilydevelopmenr, in thesense of completingnarure;
It should not be thought, however,that any of the Holy Fathers but to us He said"increase" accordingto rhe interiorMan, in the
looked upon marriageas a "necessary evil" or denied that it is a state line of progress thar leadsto God. This is what Pauldid, stretching
blcssedby God. They regardit as a good thing in our presentstateof out towardsrhatwhich is ahead,fbrgeningthat which he leaves be-
sin, bur it is a good thing thar is secondto the higher stateof virginiry hind (Phil.3: l3). Suchis the increase in spiritualrhings.. ..
in which Adam and Eve lived before their hll, and which is shared "Mulriply":'I'hisblessing concernsrhe Church.Let the Divrnc
even now by thosewho havefollowed the counselofthe Apostle Paul word not be limitedto a singleindividual,but let the Gospelof sal-
"to be even as I am" ( I Cor. 7:7-8). St. Gregory of Nyssa, the very Fa- vation be preachedthroughourthe earth."Multipll': to whom is
rher who teachesso clearlythe origin of marriagein our kinship with this ordcr addressedl-To those who give birth accordingro rhe
the beasts,alsodefendsrhe institution of marriagein the clearestfash- Cospel....
ion. Thus, in his treatise"On Virginiry," he writes: Thus,thesewordsapplyequallywell to the animalsdeprivedof
reason,but they acquirea particularmeaningwhen we haveto do
Let no one think rhat we deprcciare marriageasan instirution.We with the beingwho is in thc imagewith which we havebeenhon-
arewell awarethat it is not a strangerto God'sblessing...,
But our ored.lo
I S? t53
GeNrsIs,Crrerlott lNo EanrvMaN TsE CnlrrrroNor Mrn
Man is to "have dominion," also,not only over the externalcrea- we seehow animalisticwe arewhen we let passions control us. We
tion, but also over the beast-likepassionsthat lurk within him. St. havethese"animals"within ourselves, but we alsohavethe heavenly
Basilwrites: side,to which we arestrivingto gerback.
You havedominion over everykind of savagebeast.But, you will l:29-30 And Godsaid,Behold,I hauegiuenyou euery plantyielding
sa1 do I havesavagebeastswirhin mc?Yes,many of them. It is even seedwhich is upon theface ofall the eartb, and euerytee with scedin ix
an immensecrowd of savagebeastsrhat you carry within yourseli fuit; you shall hauethemfor food. And to euerybeastof the earth, and to
Do not rakethisasan insuk.ls not angcra smallwild lrcastwhenit euerybird of tbeain and to euerything tbat teeps on the earth, euerything
bark in your heart?ls it not morc savagerhan thc first dog that that hasthe breathof life, I hauegiuen euel:lgreenpkfi for food. And it
comes? And is not rhe trickeryrhat crouchesin a rreacherous soul uos so.
moreferocious than the bearofthe caverns?...\(/hat kind ofsavage Herewe arerold rharin the beginning,when the earthand all irs
beastdo we not havewithin us?...Youwcrecrcatedro havedomin- creatures werestill new and man had nor fallen,nor only men, lrur
ion; you are rhe masterof the passions,the masterof savagebeasts, eventhe beasts, weregivenonly greenplantsfor food;the beasts were
the masterof serpents,the masterof birds.... Be masterof the not meantto be,and in rhe beginningwerenor, carnivorous. Of this
thoughtswithin you in order to becomemasterof all beings.Ttrus, St. Basilsays:
the powerwhich wasgivenus throughliving beingspreparcs us to
exerciscdominion over ourselvcs. Ler the Church neglecrnothing: cvcrything is a law. God did not
say: "l have givcn you thc fishcs firr food, I have givcn you the cattle,
The beast-likepassionsarewithin us owing to our kinship with the thc reptiles,thc quadrupeds."lt is nor for this rhat He crcated,says
animal creationthrough our fall. St. Gregoryof Nyssawrites: the Scripture. In f-acr,thc first lcgislationallowed the use of fiuirs,
for we wcre srill judgcd worrhy of Paradise.
fu brute life first enteredinto the world, and man, for the reasonal- Vhat is the mysterywhich is conccalcdfor you under this?
readymentioned,took somethingof their nature(l meanthe modc lb you, to the wild animals and rhe birds, saysthe Scriprure,
of gcnerarion), he accordingly took at the sametime a shareof the fruits, vegetarion,and herbs (arc given).... We see,however,many
orherattributescontcmplatcd in rhatnature;for the likencssof man wild animalswho do not ear fruirs. \Vhar fruir docs rhe panthcr ac-
to God is not found in anger,nor is pleasure a markof thc superior cept ro nourish irsclP Vhat fruir can rhe lion satisfyhimsclf with?
nature;cowardice also,andboldness, and the desircofgain, and thc Ncverthcless,thesebcings,submirting to rhe law ofnarurc, were
dislike of loss,and all the like, are far removedfrom that stamp nourishcd by frrrits. But when man changedhis way of lifc and de-
which indicates Diviniry Theseanributcs,then,hunrannaturerook partcd from the limit which had bccn assigncdhim, the Lord, after
to irselffrom the sidcofthe brutes.r2 the Flood, knowing that men were wasreful,allowed rhem rhe useof
all foods: "Eat all thar in rhe sameway as ediblc plants" (Gcn. 9:3).
This is a very profound teaching.-I'hepeoplewho believein evolu- By this allowance,rhe orher animalsalso receivedrhe liberry ro eat
tionary ideas say, "Man comes from monkeys; therefore,you're an them.
animal-like creature."The Holy Fathers,however,say rhat we are a Sincethen the lion is a carnivorc,sincerhen alsovultureswatch
mingled creation,parr heavenly,part earthly.In the earthly side, Cod for carrion. For the vulturcs were nor yer looking over rhe earth at
made allowancefor the animal-like mode of reoroduction: and thus the vcry moment when rhc animals were born; in fact, nothing of
r54 t55
GrltssIs,CnurroN aNo Ernry M,rN Tue CmelroN or MaN
whar had receiveddesignationor exisrencehad yet died so that the the Divine Scripturesays(Gen. l:26-30).... God gaveovcr ro man
vulruresmighrearthem.Naturehadnor yet divided,for it wasin all at the bcginning this whole world asa kind of Paradise..
. . Adam was
ir freshness;hunrersdid nor capture,for suchwasnot yet rhe prac- madc with a body that was incorrupt, although materialand nor ycr
riceof mcn; the beasts, for their parr,did nor yet rearrheirprel for spiritual, and was placed by the Creator God as an immorral king
they werenor carnivores.. . , But all followedthe way of the swans, over an incorrupt world, not only over Paradise,bur also over the
and all grazedon rhe grassof the meadow... . whole ofcrcation which was under the heavens....This whole crca-
Suchwasthc firstcreariorr, andsuchwill be the restoration after rion in the bcginning was incorrupt and was createdby God in the
this.Man will returnto his ancienrconsrirurion in relectingmdice, manner ofParadise.But later ir wassubjectedby God to corruption,
a life weigheddown with cares,rhe slaveryof the soul wirh regardto and submirted to the vaniry of men.r!
dailyworries.When he hasrcnounccdall rhis,hc will returnto rnar
paradisallife which was not enslaved ro rhe passionsof rhe flesh, That is a remarkable
viewof the originalcreation.
which is free,the life ofcloseness to God, a partakerofthe life ofthe
angels.'r l:31 And Godsaweuerything that He had madz,and bchold,it was
ueryg00d.And thereuas eueningand thereuas mlrning, d sixth di!.
This life ofthe original creation,it should be noted, is not rhe life The first chapterof Genesisis entirelydevotedto the Six Daysof
of Paradise,into which man has nor yer been led; ir is the life of rhe Creation.In chaptertwo, the crearionof man is described in morede-
earth outside of Paradise,which God has already blessedas mans tail. One might saythat chapterone describes the crearionof human-
dwelling-placeafter his fall. St. Ephraim rhe Syrian writes of this: 14,,both in the exaltedsenseasGod'simage,and in its divided,earrhly
aspectasmaleand female;whilein chapterrwo rhespecificcreationof
Cod blessedour first anccstorson rhe earth, because,even beflore ric frst man Adam and rhefrst womanEve is set forth. Someof the
thcysinnedHe prepared the earrhfor thcirdwelling;for,beforerney orhercrearions ofthe Six Daysarealsomentionedin chaprerrwo, but
sinned,God kncw rhat rheywould sin.... He blessed (man)before not in the srrictchronolog;calorderof the first chapter.rVe should
settlinghim in Paradisc,
on rheearth,so thar by the blessing,
which keepthis in mind to avoidrheelementary mistakes of rationalist
critics
was prcccdcdby His goodncss,Hc might weakenthe powerof the who find "contradictions"berweentheserwo chaprersand suppose
cursewhichsoonstruckthe earth,ra theremustbe differentaurhorsof rhem.
In the beginning, rherefore,beforeman'sfall, the whole earth was 2:4-6 Tltescare thegenerationsof the heauens and of the edrtb ahen
Iike a kind of Paradise.
St. Symeonthe New Theologian reaches: tl)ry taerecreated,in the day tbat the Lord God madz the earth and the
lteauens,and euerypknt of thefeld beforeit u,asin the earth, and euerj
God, in the beginning,beforeHe plantedParadise and gaveit ovcr herb of thefeld beforeit grew:for the Lord God had not causcdit to rain
to the first-createdones,in five daysset in order rhe earthand wnar upon the earth,and therewasnzt a man t0 till theground. But therewent
is on ir, and thc heavcnand wharis in it. And on the SixrhDay He up a mistfom the earth,and aateredthe wholefaceofthe grzund (KJV).
createdAdam and placedhim aslord and king of rhe wholevisible This is a brief descriptionof the stareof rheworld beforethe ap-
creation.Thcn rherewasnor yet Paradisc.Bur rhis world wasfrc,rn pearance of man, emphasizing that without God rherewould have
God asa kind of Paradise, althoughir wasmaterialand sensuous... . beennothing,that He broughteverythinginto beingout of nothing.
God gaveir overro theaurhoriryofAdam andall hisdescendanrs, as St.JohnChrysostorn commenrs on rhispassage:
t56 t57
GsNesrs, Cru-arroru ,qpn Eanrv MeN Tne CRflrroN or Mar.r
Vhcn (thc Scripture) spcaksof heavenand earth, it understands thc creation, that Cod createdall rhc orher crcaturcsby His word,
everythingrogetherthat is in heavenand on earth.Therefore,just as while man He createdwith His own hands.. .. \?e do not say that
in rhc account of the creatures(in chapter one) it does not speak the Diviniry has hands ... but we affirm that cvery one of theseex-
about all of rhem in order, but having mentioned the most impor- pressionsindicatcs a grcater care on Godt part for man than for the
tant, it does not relareto us abour each onc in detail-so also this other creatures.lT
whole book, although it containsin imelf much elsc,ir callsthe book
of "the generationsof the heavenand of the carth," allowing us to St. Basil statesthat this verseemphasizeshow different in his origin
conclude from the mention of them that iu this book is to be in- is man from the animals:
cluded every'thingvisiblc that is in heavenand on earth.. .. The Holy
Spirit shows ... what occurred first and what aftcrwards,and likc- Above, the text saysthat God created; here it sayshowGad crcated,
wise rhe fact thar the earth produced its seedsby the word and com- If the versehad simply said that God created,you could have be-
mand ofthe Lord and beganto givc birth without nccding either the lieved thar He creatcd [man] as He did for the beasm,for the wild
cooperationof the sun, nor the moisturc of rain, nor thc tilling of animals,for rhe plants,for the grass.This is why, ro avoid your plac-
man, who was not yet created,... This (passagc)mcans that what ing him in thc classof wild animals, the Divine word has made
had not cxistedpreviouslyreceivedexistence,and what had not bcen known the particularart which Cod hasused for you: "God took of
appearedsuddenlyby His word and command.... All this is so that the dusr of the earth."'8
we might know thar rhe earth, for the germination of its seeds,had
no rreedof the cooperationof other elcments,but the command of The sameFarherrellsof the differenceberwcenthe "crearion"of
thc Crcator was sufficicnt for ir.r(' man and his "fashioning":
2:7 Thenthe Lord Godformed man of dustfom theground,and God,crcatedrhc inward man, andfasbioneddte ourwardman. Fash-
breathedinto his nosnilsthe breathof life; and man becamea liuing be- ioning is suitedto thc clay,and crcationto rhat which is in thc im-
irg. agc.Thus,rhe fleshwasfashioned, but the soulwascreatcd.re
Here we are given as much as we can know of rhe how of man's
creation.Therecanbe no doubt that the Holy Fathersunderstood by The creationof man indicatesboth his greatness
and his nothing-
"dust"the lireraldusrof theearth;but whentheyspeakof the "hands" ness:
ofGod which "took" this dusr,theymeanto emphasize the greatcare
in
of God and His directaction this work. Blessed
Theodoret writes:' "G<.rdtook of rhc dusr of thc earthand fashionedman." In this
world I havediscovered the rwo affirmationsthat man is nothing
\When we hear in the account of Moses that God rook /zsr from the and that man is great.Ifyou considernaturealone,he is nothing
earth and formed man, and we seekout the meaning of this utter- and has no valuclbut if you regardthc honor with which he has
ance,we discoverin it the specialgood disposition of God towards bcentreatcd,nran is somcthinggrcat....lfyou considerwhat ir is
thc human race. For the great Prophet notes, in his description of rhat (God) rook,what is man?But if you reflccton the One \X/ho
fashioned,what a greatthing is man!Thus at the sametimc hc rs
' BlcsscdThcodorct, Bishopof Cyrus ncarAntioch, wasa fifth-century Father nothingbecause of the honor (St.
of the material,and greatbecause
who wrorecommcnrarieson Scliprure. Basil).:o
lt8 r59
GrNrsts,Cnr:,lrror,rNpE,rnlyMaN THt CnearloN or MrN
ln rhe usual interpretation of the Holy Fathers, what was beingmixedwirh what is of the drrsr.It is a lighr enclosed in a cave,
"breathed"into man washis saa/.St. Iohn Chrvsostomwrites: but still ir is divineand inextinguishable.... The Vord spoke,and
havingtakena part of the newlycrearedeanh,with His immortal
'And the Lord God formcd man of the dust of thc ground,and handsformedmy imageand impartedto it His life;because He sent
breathedinto hisnostrilsrhcbreathof lif-c!"Mosesusedsucha crude into it the Spirir,which is a rayof the invisiblcDiviniry.22
mannerof speakingbecause he wasspeakingto peoplewho could
not listcnto him otherwise, aswe areableto do; andalsoto showus Such expressions, however,should not lead us to the falseopinion
rhatit waspleasing to God'sloveof nrankindto makethis thingcre- that the soul itself is Divine, or a parr of God. St. John Chrysostom
ated out of eartha participantof the rationalnatureof the soul, writes about this:
throughwhichthislivingcreature wasmanifesrascxcellentandpcr-
fect. 'And He breathedinto his nostrils (face?)rhc brcathof life": Ccrrainsenseless ones,beingdrawnawayby rheirown conceprions,
that is, rhe inbreathingcommunicatedro the onc createdout of without rhirrkingof anyrhingin a Cod-bcfirtingmanner,and wirh-
earththe powerof life,and rhusthe narureof the soulwasformcd. out payingany atrenrionto the adaprationof the exprcssions (of
ThcreforeMosesadded:'And manbecamca livingsoul";thatwhich Scripturc),dare to saythat the soLrlhasproceedcdfrom the Essencc
wascreatedour of dust,havingreceived rhe inbreathing,rhe breatn of God. O frenzy!O folly! How many pathsof perditionhas the
of lifc, "becamea living soul."Vhat does"a livingsoul" meanJAn devilopenedup for thosewho will to servehim!... Thus,when yttu
activesoul,whichhasthe membersof thebodyasthe implemcnts of hcarthat God "brearhed into hisfacerhebrearhof lifc," understand
its activities,
submissive to its will.2r that, just as He broughtforth the bodilesspowers,so alsoHe was
pleased that the bodyof man,createdout of dust,shouldhavea ra-
St. Seraphimof Sarovhas a rather different interpretationof this tionalsoulwhichcouldmakcuseof the bodilymcmbers.2l
passageof Scripture; in his "Conversationwith Motovilov" he states
that what was made from the dust of the earth was rhe entire human There are those today who would like to use the order of mans
nature-body, soul, and spirir ("spirii' being the higher part of the creationin this verseto "prove" thar man "evolved"from lower beasts:
soul)-and that what was breathedinto this nature was the graceof that his body or earthly nature camefirsr in time, and his soul or stare
rhe Holy Spirit.* This is a different perspectiveon rhe crearionof man of being in God's gracecame second.Such an interpretation is quite
(found in few other Fathers),and does not really conrradict the usual impossibleif we acceprthe Patristicunderstandingof man'screation.
interpretationthat it was the soul that was breathedinto man; those 1b begin with, we haveseenthat in the Parristicview the days of
who hold the latter view alsobelieverhat man was crearedin rhc grace 61sx1i6n-whslgver their precise"length" may have been-were very
ofGod. short periodsof time; that God'swork in eachof the dayswasswift, in-
St. Gregorythe'fheologian speaksofthe exaltednatureofman, the deed,instanraneous; rhar ar the end ofrhe Six Days rhe world was still
highestpart of whose nature comes not from earrh bur direcrly from "new" and not yet given over ro corruption and death.
God: Secondly,the Holy Farhersthemselvesinsist that the creation of
man is not to be understood chronologically;it is rather an ontohgical
Thc soulis the breathof God, and whilebeingheavenllit endures description that tells the makeupof man, but not the chronological or-
der in which it occurred.\)fhen St. John Chrysostomstatesrhat "be-
' Secpp. 43542 bclow.-Eo. fore" the inbreathing man was a "lifelessdummy," to or St. Seraphim
160 l6l
aNo Eerrv M,qN
Genesls,Cne,crIoN Tss CnrarroN or. M,q,N
statesthat he was zala "lifelessdummy" but a living and activehuman othcrwcrca lateraddition....Forasour naturcis conceived asrwo-
being-we must understandthe word "before"in the ontologicalsense fold,according to thc apostolicteaching,
madeup of rhcvisiblcman
of "without." But the creationof man itself-both body and soul, to- and rhehiddenman,if the onc camefirstand thc orhersupervened,
gether with che grace in which man was made-was instantaneous. the powerof Him thar madeuswill be shownro be in someway rm-
The Fathersfound it necessary to setforth this teachingquite explicitly perfcct,asnot beingsufficicntfor the wholeraskar once,but divid-
becausein ancient times there were rwo opposed but equally false ing the work,and busyingitselfwirh eachofthe halvesin turn.r"
teachingson this subject:one, that of the Origenistswho stated that
souls"pre-existed"the creationof bodiesand only enteredtheir bodies The idea ofthe "evolution" of man from a lower animal cannot be
as a "fall" from a higher state;and rhe other, rhat the body pre-existed harmonized with the Patristicand Scriptural view of man'screarion,
rhe soul and was thereforeof a nobler nature. St. John Damascene but requiresa sharp breakwith it: If man "evolves"solelyaccordingro
teaches: the lawsofnarure, then his rational nature,his soul, the imageofGod,
difl-ers not qualitatiuety but only quantitatitell from the beasts;he is
From the carth He formcd his body and by His own inbrcathing then a crearureonly of rhe earth, and there is no room for the Patristic
gavehim a rationaland undcrsranding soul,which lastwe sayis rhe view that he is partly ofearth and parrly ofheaven, a "mixture" of two
divinc image....'fhc body and the soul wereformedat thc same worlds, to use the phraseofSt. Gregory the -fheologian.Bur if, ro es-
timc-not one beforeand the other afterwards, as the ravingsof cape such earthly thinking, a Christian evolutionist admits a Divine
Origenwould haveit.2t creation of man's soul-"when his body was ready for ir," as some
say-rhen he not only partscompanywirh scientificthinkers,who will
And St. Gregoryof Nyssateachesin more derail (referringboth to the not admit "Divine" acts inro their conceptualframework, but he also
original creationof man and the conceptionof individual men today), presentsno consistentChristian outlook, mixing scienrific specula-
after refuting the oppositeerror of Origen: tions with "revealed" knowledge in a most haphazard way. In the
Patristic-Scriptural view the enrire Six Days of Creation is a seriesof
Others,on the contrarymarkingthe orderof the makingof man as Divine acts;in the uniformitarian scientificview, rhe origins of things
sratedby Moses,saythat the soul is secondto thc body in orderof (asfar back asscientiststhink they can be traced)are nothing but naru-
time,sinceGod first took dustfrom the earthand formcdman,and ral processes.These rwo views are as opposed as any rwo views can be,
then animatedthe beingthusformedby His breath:and by this ar- and any mixture of rhe rwo must be purely arbirraryand fanciful.
gumcntthey provethat the fleshis morenoblethan the soul,that
which waspreviously formcd Imorcnoble]than thar which wasaf-
terwardsinfuscdinto it. . .. Nor againarewe in our doctrineto bcgtn
by makingup man likc a clayfigure,and to saythar the soul camc
into beingfor the sakeof this;for surclyin that casethc intellectual
naturewould be shownto bc lcssprecious rhanthc clayfigurc.But
asman is one,the being consisting of soul and body,we areto sup-
poscrhar the beginningof his existencc is orrc,common to both
parts,so that he should not be found ro be antcccdentand postcrior
to himself,if thc bodilyelementwerefirst in point of time,and rhe
t62 I o-)
Peraorss
the rhird heaven"(2 Cor. l2:2). And againhe says:"l know sucha
man-whether in the body or out ofthe body I do not know, God
knows-that hc wascaughtup into Paradiseand heardsecrctwords
CHeprpn Frvr that man may not repeat"(2 Cor l2:3-5)... . If Paradise,
sucha naturethat Paulalone,or one like Paul,couldscarcely
rhen,is of
seeir
while alive,and still wasunablcto remembcrwhethcrhc sawir rrt
Paradise rhe body or out of the body,and moreover,heardwor& that he was
forbidden to reveal-if this be true, how will it be possiblefor us to
(Genesis2:8-24) dcclarerhe position of Paradisewhich we havenor beenablc to see
and, evenif we had succeeded in seeingit, we would be forbiddento
sharethis informationwith others?And, again,sincePaulshrank
2:8 And the Lord God plantcd a garden in Eden, in the east;and from exaltinghimselfby reasonof the sublimiryof the revelation,
there he put the man abom He had formed. how much more ought we to strivenot to be too anxiousto disclose
In the garden ("paradise" in Greek) where Adam dwelt before his thatwhich leadsto dangerby its vcryrcvelarion! The subjectof Para-
fall, we approacha subjectrhat is subtle and mystical,and at the same discshouldnot, rherefore, be trearedlightly.r
time is a necessary key to undersrandingthe whole of Christian teach-
ing. This Paradise, aswe shall see,is not merelysomethingthat existed Nevertheless, despitethe difficulry of speakingabout it, there are
before the fall; it existseven now and has been visited by some while certain things we can know about Paradise,as interpretedby the Holy
still alive on this earth;and it is also(in a somewhardifferenrform) rhe Fathers.
goal of our whole earthly life-the blessedstare to which we are striv- First of all, it is not merelya spiritual phenomenonwhich may be
ing to return and which we shall enjoy in its fullness(if we are among beheld now in vision as the Apostle Paul beheldit (of which more be-
the saved)at rhe end of this fallenworld. fow); it is also a part of the history of rhe earth.The Scripture and
Our knowledgeof Paradise,rherefore,is in a sensefuller than our Holy Farhersteachthat in the beginning, beforethe fall of man, Para-
knowledgeof the world of the Six Days of Creation; but at the same dise was right hereon earth. Sr. Ambrosewrites:
time it is ofa mysticalnaturethat renders"precise"statemenrsabout it
very difficult ro make. Take notc rhat God placedman (in Paradise)not in respectto the
Let us seeherewhat the Holy Fatherssayabour it. imageof God, but in rcspectto the body of man.The incorporeal
St. Ambrose reminds us, in the first chapter of his treaciseon doesnot existin a place.Hc placedman in Paradise, just as He
"Paradise,"thar we must be very careful in discussingthe "place" of placedthe sun in heaven.2
Paradiseand its nature:
Likewise,St. John Chrysostomteaches:
On approaching this subjecrI secmto be possessedby an unusual
eagerness in my questro clarifr rhe facrsabout Paradise,irs place, BlessedMosesregisteredeventhe nameof this place(Eden),so that
and its naturero thosewho aredesirous ofrhis knowledgc.1-hisis all rhosewho love ro speakempty words could nor deceivesimplc lis-
the moreremarkable sincerheApostledid not know wherherhe was tenersand saythat Paradise
wasnot on carth bur in heaven,and ravc
in thc bodyor out ofthe body,yet he saysrharhe "wascaughrup ro .. fu you hearthat "God planteda garden
with similarmy'thologies..
t64 165
CeurtoN lNo Entrv M,qN
GEt'tEsts. l,cRAorsE
easrwardin Eden," rhe word "plant" undcrstandof God in a God- holy rhing with a nature quite different from that o[ ordinary earthly
bcfiting way,that is, that He commandcdl bur regardingthe follow- fruits (LivesofSaints,Septemberll).
ing words, bclicverhat Paradiseprecisclywas crcatedand in the vcry A striking experienceof Paradiseis found in the Life of St. An-
placcwhere the Scripturehasassigncdir.... And thc word "plant" ler drew the Fool for Christ of Constanrinople(ninth century). This ex-
us understandas if it had becn said: He commandcd man to livc periencewas wrirten down in the Sainis own words by his friend
rhere,so that his view of Paradiseand his stay rhcre might furnish Nicephorus:
him a great satisfactionand might arouschim to a feeling of gratr-
tudc.' Onceduring a terriblewinter when Sr. Andrewlay in a ciry srrcet
fiozenand ncardeath,hesuddenlyfilt a warmrhwithin him andbe-
2:9 And out of the ground thc Lord God madeto grow euerytee that hcld a splcndidyourh with a faceshininglike the sun, who con-
is pbasant to the sigbt and goodforfood, the nee of life also in the midst of ducted him to Paradise and the third heaven."By Gods will I
the garden, and the tree of the bnowledgeofgood and euil. remainedfor rwo wceksin a swcetvision... . I sawnrysclfin a splen-
The connection of Paradisewith the earth is understood by St. did andmarvclous Paradisc..
. . In mind andhearrI wasastonished ar
Ephraim in such a literal way that he specifies,in his Commmtary on rhc unutterablcbeauryof thc Paradisc of God, and I rook swecrdc-
Genesis,thar asa placeof .reesit was createdon the Third Day with the light walkingin it. Therewcrc a multirudeof gardensthere,filled
restof the vegetablecreation.o with rall treeswhich, swayingin rhcir tips, rcjoicedmy cycs,and
But what connection can there be between this earthly Paradise from their branchcs thcrecameforth a grcatfragrance.... One can-
with its growing trees,and the obviouslyspiritual Paradisethat St. Paul not comparethesetrcesin their bcauryro any carrhlytrcc.... In
beheld?\7e may seean answerto this question in the descriptionof thcscgardcnstherc wcrc innumcrablcbirds with wings goldcn,
Paradiseby a Holy Fatherof the highestspiritual life, Sr. Gregory the snow-white, and of variouscolors.They saron the branches of the
Sinaite,who visited Paradisein the samestateof Divine vision as St. trecsof Paradiseand sangso wondrouslythat from thc swectncss of
Paul: thcir singingI wasbesidernysclfl..."
'I-herefore,Paradise,while
Edenis a placein which therewa"splantedby God everykind of fra- originally a realiryof this earth, akin ro
grantplant. It is neithercompletelyincorruptible,nor entirelycor- the natureof the world beforethe fall of man, is of a "material"which
ruptible.Placedbetweencorruptionand incorruprion,ir is always is differenr from rhe materialof the world we know today, placedbe-
both abundantin fruitsand blossoming with flowers,borh marurc rween corruption and incorruption. This exactly correspondsto the
and immarure.The mature treesand fruis are convertedinto fra- natureof man belorehis fall-for the "coatsof skins" which he put on
grantearthwhichdoesnot givcoffany odor ofcorruption,asdo thc when banishedfrom Paradise(aswe shallsee)symbolicailyindicatethe
treesof thisworld.This is from theabundance ofthe graceofsancti- cruder flesh which he then put on. From that rime on, in his cruder
ficationwhich is constantly pouredforth there.5 stare,man is no longer capableof evenseeingParadiseunlesshis spiri-
tual eyesare openedand he is "raisedup" like St. Paul. I'he present"lo-
A number of casesare known in the Lives ofsaints and righteous cation" of Paradise,which has remainedunchangedin its nature, is in
people of literal fruits being brought back by those who have been this higher realm, which also seemsto correspondto a literal "eleva-
lifted up to Paradise-for example,the appleswhich St. Euphrosynus tion" from the earth; indeed,some Holy Fathersstatethat evenbefore
rhe Cook brought back and which were eaten by the pious as some the fall Paradisewas in an elevatedplace,being "higher than all the rest
t66 t67
Ce Nasrs,CnE rnoN aNn Eanrv M,cN Plnaorse
of the earth"(St.John Damascene, OrthodoxFaith2:ll, p. 230; see fall, and even before the Flood in Noah'stime, that such geographical
alsoSt. Ephraim, Conmentaryon Genesis2, p. 310). questionsare not to be tracedout.
Concerningtherwo trees-oneof life and oneof the knowledgeof 'What
is more difficult for our modern menrality,formed by liter-
goodand evil-we shallspeaklater. alisticscience,to puzzleout is how the Fatherscan speakwithout dis-
tinguishing berween Paradiseas a Beographicallocation (before the
2:10-14 A riuerJlowedout of Edentu waterthegardin, and thereit fall), and Paradiseasa spiritual habitationofthe righteous(at the pres-
diuidedand becamefourriaers.Thenameofthefrst is Pisbon;it is theone enr rime). Thus, St. John Chrysostom,in the sametreatisejust quoted,
which/lows aroundtbe wholeknd of Hauilah, wherethereisgold; and tbe speaksof the one river of Paradisebeing so abundant becauseit was
gol/ ofthat hnd isgood;bellium and onyxstonc are tbere.Tbenameofthe preparedalsofor the later Patriarchs,Prophets,and other saints(begin-
secondriuer is Gilion: it is the one whichflows around the u.,holtknd of ning with the thief on the Cross-Luke 23:43) who are to inhabit it.'
C-nrl(Septuagint:"Ethiopia").And thenameof the third riueris Tigris, Evidently our modern ideas have become too dualistic: we divide
whichJlowseax ofAssyria.And thefourth riuer is the Euphrates. rhings too easilyinto "spirir vs. matter,"whereasthe realiryof Paradise
This passage emphasizes that Paradise beforethe fall waslocatedin parrakesof both.
a definiteplaceon earth.I'he Fathersforbid merelyallegorical inter-
pretations of thesefour rivers.Thus,St.JohnChrysostomsays: 2:15 The Lord God tooh the mdn and p* him in thegarden of Eden
to till and hcepit.
rhosewho lo,rero speakfronr theirown wisdomherealso
Perhaps In this passage,as interpretedby the Fathers,we may see some-
will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers or the waters precisely rhing of the spiritual occLtp^tionof Adam in Paradise.Before the fall
waters,but will insrill in thosewho decideto listen to rhem that they rherewas no need for a physicaltilling or cultivation of Paradise;this
(under the name of rivers and waters) representedsomcthing elsc. refers ro Adam! spiritual state. St. John Chrysostom writes (in a
But I beg you, let us not pay attention to thesepeople, let us close teachingidenticalto that of St. Ephraim, Commentaryon Gcnesis 2, p.
our hcaring againstrhem, and let us believcrhe Divine Scripture.- 3l l):
Thesefour riversaregenerallyunderstoodby the Fathersto be the "To till." Vhar was lackingin Paradise? And evcn if a tiller was
Tigris, Euphrates,Nile and Danube (or, accordingto others,the needed,wherewasthe plowl !/here werethe other implemcntsof
Ganges); the areaof the earthlyParadise,
therefore,is in the cradleof agriculture? 'fhc 'tilling" (or "working")of God consisred in cilling
ancient civilization.
St. John Chrysostomsaysof this passage (in an- and kcepingrhe commandments of God, rcmainingfaithfulto tne
othertreatise): commandment.. . . Just as to believcin God is thc work of God
(john 6:29),soalsoit wasa work ro believethe commandmentthat
From this know that Paradisewas not a small gardenwhich had an if he touched(the forbiddentree)he would die, and if he did nor
insignificantarea.Ir is wareredby such a rivcr thar from its lirllness touch ir, he would live.The work wasthe keepingof rhe spiritual
come out fbur rivers.s words...."To till and to keepit," it is said.To keepit flromwhom?
There werc no thieves,no passersby, no one of evil intent. To keep
It would be fruidessto speculatehow the one river of Paradisedi- from whom?To keepit for oneself;not to loseit by transgressing thc
videdinto four riverswhich,aswe knowthemtoday,havefour distinct commandmentito keep Paradisc for oncself,observingthe com-
sources.The world of today is so different from the world beforethe mandme nt.lo
168 169
Gewrsts, CllarIoN aNo E/rnrv M,qN Panausr-
of
St. Gregorythe Theologianopensup a deeperunderstanding male$ fecl! eat of euery tee of the garden, but of the tree of the knowl-
this"work"of Paradise: edgeof good and euil thou shah not eat, for in the day tbat tbou eatestof
it thou shalt surely dic.
... to rill theimmortalplants,by
ThisbeingHe placedin Paradise lf one is tempted to find allegoryin the account of creation and
which is perhapsmeant the Divinc conceptions,both thc simplcr Paradise,nowhere is the temptarion strongerrhan with regardto the
and the more perfect.'' rwo trees:one of"life" and one of"the knowledgeofgood and evil."
Yet the whole "realism"of the Patristicinterpretation of Genesis,as
And, in general,rhe asceticFathersreferthe'tilling" and "keep- well as the facr that Paradisewas (and is) indeeda "garden"with mate-
ing" ro rhe spiritualwork of prayer.Thus, St. Nilus of Sora,com- rial (or semi-material)trees,point to the fact rhat thesetreeswereactu-
menringon this interpretationby the ancientFather,Sr. Nilus of ally trees;and, aswe havealreadyseen,this very fact is emphasizedby
Sinai,writes: St. Gregory Palamas,speaking for St. Gregory the Theologran ancl
other Fathers.
Now thisSaintbringsforthfromantiquiry till and
rhatoneshorrld The account of the temptation in Paradise,therefore,is not an al-
keep; for rhe Scripturesavsthar God createdAdam and placcd lti.tt legory-a spiritual lessonclothed in the tale of a garden-but an his-
in Paradiseto rill and keep Paradise.For herc this St. NilLrsof Sinai torical account ofwhat actuallyhappenedto our first ancestors.V/hat
calls praycr the tilling of Paradise,and thc guarding againsr cvil happened,of course,was primarily a spiritual event, just as Adam's
thoughtsafter prayerhe callskeeping. dwelling in Paradisewas primarily a spiritual dwelling (aswe shall see
more clearlybelow); but the way in which this spiritual event occurred
And Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, commenting in his turn on these was indeed rhrough the tastingof the fruit of a "forbidden tree."
nvo Holy Fathers, writes: St. John Damascenewell describesthe double arpect,marerialand
immaterial,of Adamt dwelling in Paradise:
From thesetestimonicsit is clear thar God, having creatcdman :tc-
cording to His imagc and likeness,conductedhim inro a Paradiscof SonrchavcimagincdParadisc to havcbcen matcrial,whilc othcrs
sweetnessro till thc immortal gardcns,that is, rhe mosr pure, cx- havcimagincdit ro havebeenspiritual.Howcver,it seemsto mc
altcd, and perfect Divine thoughrs, according to St. (iregory the thar,just as man wascreatedboth scnsirive and intellcctual,so did
-fhcologian. And rhis meansnothing elsethan thar he renraincd,as rhisnrosrsacred domainof his haverhc rwofoldaspcctof bcingpcr-
being pure in soul and heart, in contcmplative,grace-filledpraycr, ceptibleboth to thc scnscsandto the mind. For,whilc in hisbodync
sacredlyworking in rhe mind alonc, that is, in thc swccrcsrvision of dwelrin thismostsacred andsuperblybeautifulplace,aswe havcrc-
God, and that hc manfully preservedthis, ir bcing thc work of Para- lared,spiriruallyhe residcdin a loftierand far morebeautifulplace.
dise,as the appleoFhis cye, Iestit everdecrcascin his soul and hcart. Therche hadthe indwcllingGod asa dwellingplaceand worc Him
'S?herefore, great is the glory of sacrcdand Divine nrcntal prayer, asa gloriousgarment.He waswrappedaboutwith His gracc,and,
whose vcrgc and summit, that is, bcginning and perfecrion, werc like someoneofthe angels, hc rejoicedin rhc enjoymcntofthat one
given to man by God in Paradise,and so it is from there rhar it has mosrswecrfruit which is rhc conremplarion of God, and by rhisne
its beginning.r2 wasnourished. Now,thisis indeedwhat is fittinglycalledthe treeof
life, for the sweetness
of Divinecontemplation communicates a life
2:16-17 And the Lord God commandedthe man, sa/ng Thou uninterrupted by deathto themrhatpartakeofir.rl
t70 t7l
Gsursrs,Cne,mroNeNo E,rnlyM.rN Penrorsr
Again, St. Damascenesaysthat Adam in Paradise, of the one rree of rhe knowledge of good and evil. Man was placed in
Paradise as in a state between that of heaven, where only the purely
whilein hisbodyhe livedon carthin rheworld ofscnsc,in hisspirit spiritual may dwell, and the corruptible earth-which came about, as
he dwclt amongthe angcls,cultivatingthoughtsof God and being we shall see, becauseof his fall.
nurturedon these.He wasnakedbecause of his innocenceand his rX/hat, then, was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and
simpliciryof life, and throughcreatures
he wasdrawn up to their why was it forbidden to Adam? ln the classical interpretation of St.
only Crcator,in Vhosc contemplarionhe rcjoiccdand rook de Gregory the Theologian, God gave Adam in Paradise
light.ra
a l-aw asa materialfor his frecwill ro act upon. This law wasa com-
The purposeof man'sdwelling in Paradiseand earing of "every mandmcnt as to what plants he might partakeof, and which one hc
tree" was obviouslynot merely to be satisfiedwirh rhe delightsof this mighr nor touch. 'fhis latter was the tree of knowledge;not, how-
marvelousplace,but to look and strivetowardssomerhinghigher; the cvcr,becauseir was evil from rhe beginningwhcn planted;nor was rt
very prcsenceof the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil, and of the forbidden becauseGod grudgcd ir to us-let not thc enemiesof
commandment not to eat of it, indicatesa challengeand a tesrwhich God wag their tongucsin that direction,or imitate the serpent.But
man must passrhrough beforeascendinghigher. Sr. Damascenerhus it would have bcen good if partakcn ol at thc proper time; lior thc
setsforth the ascensionto perfectionwhich was serforrh beforeAdam trec was, according to rrry rheorv,Contemplarion, which it is only
in Paradise: safefor thosc who have reachcdmaturiry ofhabit to enter upon, but
which is not good for those who are still sonrcwhat simple and
God says:"Of everytree of Paradise thou shalt eat," meaning,I grcedy;just as ncirhcr is solid food good for rhosewho are yet tcndcr
think: By nreans ofall creared thingsbc thou drawnup ro Me, their and have needof milk.' It
Creator,andfrom them reaprheonefruit which is Mysclf,Who am
the trueLife;let all thingsbe fruirfullifi to thecand makeparticipa- A nd S t. John D ama scenc wr it es:
tion in Me to be thc substancc of thy own cxistencel for thus t.tou
shaltbc immortal....He madehim a living beingro bc govcrned 'fhc trce of knowledgeofgood and evil is the power ofdiscernment
hereaccordingto this presentlife, and then to be removedclse- by nrultiple vision, and rhis is the conrplercknowing of one'sown
whcrc,thatis,to the world to come,andso ro completethe mystery nature.Of itself ir manifesrsrhe magnificenceof the Creatorand it is
by becomingDivine throughreversion to Cod-rhis, however,nor good fbr them that arc full-grown and have walked in the contem-
by beingrransformed into thc Divinc substancc, but by participa- plation of God-for them thar havc no fear of changing,becausein
tion in thc Divincillunrination.rt the coursc of time they havc acquired a ccrtain habit of such con-
templation. It is not good, however,for such as are still young and
'fhus Paradise-and indeed the whole earthly life of man-was are morc greedyin their appetitcs,who, becauscof thc uncertainry
made by God, in rhe phraseof St. Basil,"primarily as a placeof rrain- of rhcir prerseverancc
in the truc good and becauseof thcir not yet
ing and a schoolfor the soulsof men."'6 Man was given in the begin- being solidly establishedin their application to the only good, are
ning a path ofascentfrom glory ro glory, from Paradiseto the statusof
a spiritual dweller of heaven,through the training and tesringwhich ' St.CregoryPalamas expounds on thisteaching
ofSr. GrcgorytheThcologian.
(iod might sendhim, beginning with the commandmenr nor ro rasre Sec I-hcI'hilohdia, vol. 4, pp. 369-70.-Eo.
t72 t73
GrNesrs.CrmrroN eNo E,qr.ryMeN P,rnroIst
naturally inclined to be drawn away and disrractedby thcir solici- freedom, it cannot be thar we will not have knowledgeof evil. 'l'he
tudc for rheir own bodies.rs only choiceis whether we haveknowledgeofevil rhrough the mistakes
ofothers, or through ourselvesovercomingevil.
1b sum up the Orthodox reaching on the two trees of Paradise,Sr. Everyone,in order to becomea nratureChristian and to be estab-
John Chrysostom writes: lished in the way ofdoing good, has to know about evil. He has to
know what it is that he haschosennor to do. And this knowledgerar
The tree of life was in thc midst of Paradiseas a reward;the trec of be without falling into greatsins-if you are willing to rake the exam-
knowledgc as an object of contest and strugglc. Having kcpt thc plesof others.If you are able to see,almost as if it is your own experi-
commandment regardingthis trce, you will reccivea reward. And ence,when someoneelsemakesa tremendoussin, and ifyou are able
behold thc wondrous rhing. Evcry.wherein Paradiseevcry kind of to seethe resultofthat sin, then you can make that part ofyour experi-
tree blossoms,evcrywhcrc rhcy are abundant in fiuit; only in the encewithout fallinginto sin.
ccntcr are thcrc two treesas an objecr of battle and exercise."' Evidently that is what Adam could have done. lf he had resisted
this temptation, he would haveseenthat there was a temptation, that
'fhis is a profound subject,which is very much bound up with our
is, that everythingwas not perfect,and that rherewas someoneout to
human nature.* [n fact, we seein human life today sonrerhingof rhis g/, him. 'fhen, if a secondtemptation had come, he would haveseen
very temptation that Adam had. Although Adam was not fallcn that the serpent (or whateverelsewas used by the devil) was out to
then-and in this regard his state was different from our present rnakehim fall. He would have begun to realizetherewas such a thing
51x1s-n6ng1hgl6ss, his situation wassimilar ro thar of a young person asevil: an evil will that makeshim want to lose his Paradise.1-hrough
ofsixteen, seventeenor eighteenyearsold who is brought up in good- this he could have attained that knowledge of evil and eventually
nessand then comesto the agewhen he must himself make the choice tastedof that tree.
of whether ro be good or not. It so happensthat, becausewe havefree- The tree itself representsthe knowledgeof evil, since tasting of it
dom, there must be a choice. One mlsr consciously will to do good. mcant disobcying the commandment. Adam learned about evil
You cannot simply be good becausesomeonetells you ro be good. through his disobedience.He chose the way of sin and thereby dis-
Sooneror later in your freedomyou must activelychoosethe good or covercdin bitter experiencewhat it meant to be evil, and then to re-
elseit doesnot becomepart ofyou. That is true ofeveryone except,of pcnt of that evil and come back to goodness.
course,a child who dies quite young. So rhat is the path that Adam chose;and becauseofthat our whole
Thereforewhen one comesto the agear which one must becomca narurehasbeenchanged.Eachperson15ftsg-shs 52rnsasAdam-but
man, it is then that one must make the samechoiceAdam made-ei- we havebeenborn in sinsalready.F,vensmall children are filled with all
ther to freelychooseto do good or elseto make rhe mistakeofentering kinds of evil things. Nonethcless,realevil does nor come in until one
into evil. into a life of sin. consciouslychoosesto be evil. And that is the choiceofadulrhood.
The Holy Fatherssay that the tree ofthe knowledgeofgood and Thus, in a senseeveryonetastesof this tree, or elserefrainsfrom
evil is something which is only for maturepeople. Becausewe have rastingof it and goeson the path ofgoodness.Unfortunately,the odds
are very much againstone'ssurviving withour falling inro rheseevils,
'The followingdiscussion hasbcen rakenfrom Fr. Scraphimioral dclivery although there's no reason to fall into them. We see now the evil all
Many ofthe pcoplclisrcniogro him wercin theirtcensor earlyrwenties,
and he was around us, and we haveinstructorsand Holy Fathersto keep us on the
applyingrhcsubjccrmattcrdircctlyro theirown siruarion.-Eo. path of good. A personcan be raisedin Christianiry-like St. Sergius
t74 t75
(,r lr..srs,
(innxtroulno EanlyMnN Panaor sr:
ol l(.rdonczhor orher saintswho were in monasrerieslrom their child- Paradiscwas assigncdfor the habitation not of man, but of rhc irra-
hood-and he can be surroundedby good examples.He can seethe tional anirnals,rhc quadrrrpeds,rhe wild bcasts,the crawling things.
resultsofevils in othersand can choosenot to do thar himsell Theo- The royal and ruling dwelling for man was Paradise.This is why
retically,ir is quite possible.In birter practice,however,usuallyit hap- God brought the animals to Adam-because they were separatcd
pensthat we tasrethe tree by sinning ourselves. from him. Slaves do not always stand before their lord, but only
when therc is needfor them. The animalswere named and immedi-
2:18J0 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should ately sent away from Paradise;Adam alone remained in Paradise.rr
bealone;I aill mahea help meetfor him. And iut of the ground the Lord
Godformed euerybeastof tbefeU, and eueryfowl ofthe air: and brought The Holy Fathersinterpretthe namingof the animalsby Adam
them unto Adam to seetuhat he would call them: and whatsoeuerAdam quiteliterally,andseein it an indicationof mant dominionoverthem,
ralled euery liuing creature, that uas tlte name thereof And A&tm gaue his undisturbed harmonywith them,anda wisdomandintellectin the
namesto all cattle, and to thefoul of the air, and to euerybeastof thefeld; first man which far surpasses anything since known to man, St.
but for Adam thert was notfo nd a help meetfor him (KJ\). Ephraimwritesof this:
In this passage, again,we should not look fbr the "contradicrion"
somerationalistscholarsrhink they havefound, as though the rext de- Thc words"He broughrthem to Adam"showsthc wisdomof
scribesthe creationofthe animtls afler the crearionofman, conrra- Adam,and rhe pcacewhich existedberweenthe animalsand man
dicting the order of creation in rhe firsr chaprer.The subject of this bc[oreman transgressed the commandment. Fortheycamerogether
passage is the naming of rhe animalsby Adam, and only incidentally beforeman as beforca shcpherdfilled wirh love;without fear,ac-
doesthe texr mention rhat theseanimalshad alreadybeen createdby cordingto kinds and rypes,they passedbeforehim in floclcs,neither
Cod, and thar they were nor the "help meet" for Adam, which could fearinghim nor tremblingbcforeeachother.. .. It is not impossible
only be someoneof the same narureas he (woman, as mentioned in for a man to discovera few namcsand keeprhem in his memory.
rhe next passage). But it surpasscs rhepowero[ humannaturc,and is difficultfor him,
The animalsare "brought" to Adam becausetheir place is nor in of namesand not to givethe
to discoverirr a singlehour rhousands
Paradisebut in the earth outside;Paradiseis meant for the dwellins of lasrof rhosenamcdthe namesof thc first.... This is the work of
man alone-a pre-indicationrhar man aloneof all earthly crearur; is God, and if it wasdoneby man,ir wasgivcnhim by God.r2
meantfor the heavenlykingdom to which he can ascendfrom paradise
through keeping the commandmenrsof God. St. John Damascene ln other words, this was a sign of a truly Divine intelligencern
writes rhar Paradise Aclem.St. John Chrysosronrwrites:
wasa divineplaccanda worthyhabitationfor God irrHis image.And God docsrhisin orderto showus rhc greatwisdomofAdam ... ana
in it no brutebeasts
dwelr,bur only man,rhc handiworkof God.ro alsoso that in the givingof namesmight be sccna signof domrn-
ion.. .. Juscthink wharwisdomwasncededro givenamcsto somany
And St. John Chrysostomreaches: kinds of birds,repriles, wild and domesticanimals,and otherirra-
tionalcreaturcs ... to givethem all namcs,and namcsbelongingto
Adam wasgiven rhe whole earrh,but his chosendwellingwaspara- rhemandcorresponding to eachkind.. .. Justthink o[ how the lions
dise.He couldalsogo oursideo[ Paradise, bur the earthoursideof and leopards, vipersand scorpionsand serpents and all the other
t76 t77
-.q. T.\- -.*.
2:21-22 So the Lord God causeda deep sleepto fall upon the man,
and while he shpt tooh zne of his ribs and closedup its phce uith flesh;
and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man hc made into a
woman and brought her to the man.
Perhapsno passage of Genesisis more a touchstoneof our inrer-
pretation of the whole book rhan this brief passage of the crearionof
Eve from Adamt rib. If we undersrandit "as it is written," as rhe Holy
Farhersdid, we will have no difficulry understandingthe resr of the The creationofEvc from thc rib ofAdam.
book in the sameway. But ifwe havedifficulry understandingit in this Fracofrom Dcchani Mona*cry, Serbia,thirtccnth ccnnry.
simple way-and our modern minds almost instinctivelyrebelagainst
this simple interpretarion-we will undoubtedly find much else in
Genesisthat we havedifficulry understandingas the Fathersdid.
180
GeNrsls, CnterIoN lNo EenlY Mrt't
l'X/omanwas made our of the rib of Adam. She was not made of the
same earth wirh which he was formed, in order that we might realize
thar the physical nature of both man and woman is identical and
that there was one source for the propagation ofthe human race. For
that reason, neither was man creatcd togethcr with a woman' nor
were nvo men and two women created at the beginning, but first a
man and after that a woman. God willed it that human nature be es-
tablished as one. Thus, from the vcry inception of the human stock
He eliminated the possibiliry that many disparatenatures should
arise.... Reflect on the fact that He did not take a part from Adam's
soul but a rib from his body, that is to say,not soul from a soul, but
"bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" will this woman be called.25
t82
Ceruesrs,Cne,r'rroN,rNn Eaarv M-nN Penlolse
out of Adam's side. ls Eve rhcn born out of mans side withour a merscdin a deep sleephe wakesup from the pain. Moreover,such a
mothet and is a child not to be born without a hther, of a virgin'.s large membcr is taken out, a rib is torn out, and the sleepingone
womb? This debt of gratitudewas due to men from womankind: for does nor wakc up? God removed rhc rib nor violently, lcsr Adam
Eve was begotten ofAdam, and nor conceived of a mother, but as rr wakc up; He did not tear it out. The Scriprure,desiringto show the
28
were brought forth of man alone.:6 speedof the Creatort acr, says:"He took."
t84 185
P,rnnnrsa
How did it cometo his mind to saythis?How did he know the fu-
ture,and the factthat the humanracewould multiply?How did it
becomeknownto him that therewould be intercoursc berweenman
and wife?After all, this occurredafter the fall; but beforethat they
lived in Paradiselike angels,werenot arousedby thc flesh,wcre not
inflamedby other passionseither,werenot weigheddown by bodily
needs,but beingcreatedentirelyincorruptand immortal,did not
evenneedthe coveringof clothing.. .. And so,rell me,from whence
did the ideacomefor him to saythis?Is it not clcarthat, sincebcfore
the rransgression he was a participantof rhe graceof prophecy,he
sawall thiswith hisspiritualeyes?rl
t87
CsNesrs,
Cnrarroru,rNoEanlv M,tN Pen-lnrsr
188 189
Cerssrs, Cnr,uroN aNu E,cRr-v
M,rN
190 l9l
(ir:ur:srs,(lnl:ar roN ,rNn llatry MaN
-[b urrdersrand why rhe dcvil should wanr ro rcmpr Adam, one
lnust undcrst:lnd that the "warfare" in hcavcn (Apoc. l2:7) has alrcady
occurrcd, rnd that the dcvil end his angcls have alrcacly becn cast out
ofheaven into the lou'er realm ofearth becauseoftheir pridc.'I he mo-
tive of rhe dcvil is rnzy of marr, who is called to the estate thc clcvil has
l o s t . St. Ambr os c wr it es :
"lly thc cnvy of thc dcvil clcarh camc into thc world" (Visclonr
2:24). I hc causcof cnvy wrs rhc happincsso[ man pllccd in Para-
disc, bccauscthc dcvil could not brook thc tavorsrcccivetlby nran.
Ilis cnvy was arouscd bccauscmin, though firrrncd in slimc, was
ch,rsento bc,rn inhlbitrnt of l)rradisc. Ihc dcvil trcgento rcflcct
rhit man was an infi'rior crcarurc,vcr had hopcs of an ctcrnll lifi,
wlrcreashc, a crcaturcofsupcrior naturc, hrd fallcn arrdhad bcconrc
part of this munrlanc cxisrcncc.l
3:l*6 And he said unto thc uomatL Yca, hath God nid, Yeshall not
att of cucry tree oJ the garden? Aud the tL,otnannid unto tlr serpant, We
nn.y ut of thc Jittit o/'thc ters of tlrc gtrden; htt oJ tfu Jruit of thr rrt
uhirh is in the mirlst o;f the gtrden, (lod hatb nid, Yesball tlot cdt o/'it,
neither shall y touch it, lesty die. And tbe scrprnt said unto tht uonran,
Yesball not nrely die;for God doth hnow thnt in the dayye cat th€reof, Ad:rmand !'.venirh the rrccofrhc knowlcclgc ofgood and cvil.
then.yourayes shallbeo1>ened, and.yeshrt/lheasgods,knotuirtggoodand I:rex'oliou tlr Llhurth of tb Rrsunution, ,\u euitu MotasraT,
euil.And uhen the toomansawthat thc tee wasgoodforJitod,/1 d that it Rout nfu, tixtrnth ccnnty.
uaspleasantt0 the qter,dnd d treet0 bedesiredto makeoneuise, sbetook
192
Lv MaN
GtNssts, CntrrIoN ANo E,cR
ofthe fuit thereof,,and did eat, and gaueabo unto ber husbandwith hzr; =:;.q
and hedid eat(KJY).
The childlikeness of this dialogue,and the easewith which our
first parentsfell into a transgression
the
of the only commandmentthat
untestednatureof their virrue: t
"n-,,*4,,
tV
had been given them, indicate
everythinghad beengiventhem by God'sgrace,but they werenot yet
skilledin 'tilling and keeping"theirinwardstate.
The temptationofferedby thedevilcontainsthesameelements we
fallenmenknow in our own fight against sin. He offers,firstofall, not
an obviousevil but somethingwhichseemsgoodand true.Men were
FT;
indeedcreatedto be "godsand sonsof the mosthigh" (Ps.8 I :6, I I th
Kathisma),and wereawarethat from Paradise they wereto ascendto a
highercondition. The devil,therefore,as ir werethoughtcohimself(as
St.Ambroseexpresses it):
is my firstapproach,
This,rherefore, namely, him while
to deceive
he is desirousof improving his condition. In this way an attempt will
be made t<.,arousehis ambition.r
,
In causingour first ancestorsto look at the good thing of becom-
ing like gods, the devil hoped to cause them to forget the "small"
commandment which was the way God ordained them to achieve
this goal.
Again, the devil attackednot through the man, but through the
woman-not becausethe woman was weakeror more passionate,be- .t, 4
causeboth Adam and Eve still preservedthe dispassionateness of their
'fhe rcmptarionofAdam and Eve.
original nature-but for the simple reasonthat Adam alone had heard
the command of God, whereas Eve knew ic only indirectly, and Dctail ofa Rwian icon ofthc cigbcccntbcentury.
194
Gr.wrsrs, Cnrrrnor ,rt.to Eenrv M,ru
The successof the devil's temptation, finally, was due to his knowl-
edge (or guess)as to what is in the heart of man himself. It was not the
devil who caused Adamt fall, but Adamt own desire. St. Ephraim
writes: ; 2 ,:{
Thc tempting word would not have led into sin those who were
tcmpted if thc tempter had not been guided by their own dcsrre.
Evcn ifthe temptcr had not come,rhe tree itselfby its beaurywould
haveled their desireinto batde.Although the first anccstorssought
an excusefor themselvesin the counsclof rhe serpent,they were
harmed more by their own desirethan by the counselof the ser-
pent.t
rhe devil led the woman into captiviry drew away her mind and
causedher to think of hersclfaboveher worrh, so that, bcing drawn
away by cmpry hopes,she might lose cven what had bccn given
hcr,* 6
3':7 And the eys of thcm both wte opened,and thcl kncu that tbey
wcre nahed; and tbq scwedf.g haues togcther,and madc themselucsaprons
(K1V).
On this passage
St.John Chrysostomsays:
It was not the eating ofthe tree that opened their eyes:they had seen
even before eating. But since this eating served as an expression of
t96
Cnr-,qlroN
CleNrsls, lNo Elnlv MaN Tne F,rll on MlN
r9 8 199
GsNests,CnerrrroN,tNo EcRLvM,rN Tne F,{LLor MAN
200 201
CsNesrs.
CnsarrouaNo Eanly MrN Tur Far-lor MrN
sinned,why he rransgressed, He preparedhim especiallyso rhar hc sucha punishment? This alsowasa work of God'sunurrerable love
might say: "Forgive me." But therewasno humiliry!\?herewasthe of mankind.As a lovingfather,in punishingthemurdererof hisson,
word "forgive"? Therewasno repentance, bur the complcteoppo- breaksalsorhe knifeand swordby which hc pcrformedthe murder,
site. For he contradictedand rerorted: "The woman whom Thou and breaksthem into smallpieccs-in similarfashionthe All-good
gavestme" (deceivedme). He did not say,"My wife deccivedme," God, when this animal,like a kind of sword,servedas the instru-
but "the womanwhom -fhou gavestme," asif ro say:'ihis misfor- menrof thc devil'smalice,subjectsit to a constantpunishment,so
tune which Thou hasrbroughron my head."For rhus it alwaysrs, rharfrom this physicalandvisiblemanifestarion we might conclude
brethren:S?hena man docs not wish to rcproachhimself, hc does thedishonorin which it findsirselfAnd if theonewho servcdasrhe
not hesitateto accuseGod Himsell Thcn (God) came ro rhe instrumcntwassubjecred to suchangcr,what punishmentmust thc
womanand saidto her:And why did you not keepthe command- other bc undergoing?... 'fhc unqucnchablc 0re awaitshim (Mart.
ment?As it were,He cspecially hintedto hcr:At leasryou say"[or- 254t\."'
so
give," your soul might be humbled and you might be pardoned.
But againHe (did not hear)the word "forgive."For she also re- St. John evenspeculatesthat belorethe cursethe serpenr,without
plied:"The serpcntbcguilcdme," as if to say:The serpentsinned, having legs,went about in an upright position similar to thc wey it
and what is that ro me?Vhat are you doing,wrerchedones?Re- now srandsup when ready(o strike.r-
pent,acknowlcdge your sin, havepiry on your nakedness.Bur ner- BeforeAdam fell, he could be nakedand not notice ir; afterwards,
ther of thcm wished to accusehimself; neither had rhe leasr this is impossible.Before the fall, Adam had friendship with the ser-
humiliry And so you seenow clearlyto what our statehascome, pent like we have with dogs or cats or some domestic animal; after-
into what great misfortuneswe havebcen led by the fact that we wards we havean instinctivereactionagainstsnakes-which everyone
iustifu ourselves,
rhat we hold ro our own will and follow our- has probably experienced.This shows that our nature has somehow
selves.ls changed.
1-he "enmiry" in our fallen life, of course, much more than be-
rweenman and serpent,is berweenman and the devil; and in a special
3:14-15 And the Lord God said unto thc sertent, Becausethou hast senserhe "seedof rhe woman" is Christ. One nineteenth-centuryOr-
done this, thou art cursedaboueall cattle, and iboue euerybcdst of th. thodox comrnentaryon this passage says:
feld; upon thJ belly shab thou go, and dust shah thou eat zll the days of
thy life. And I will put enmit! betweenthecand the uom.ln, dnd benueen ncr
The firstwornanin thc world wasthe first to fall into thc dcvil'.s
tlry sccdand her seed;it shall bruise thy head, and thou shah bruise his heel andeasilygavchcrselfinto his powcr;but by her repentancc shcwill
(KJV). shakeoff his powcrovcrher,Likewise,in manyotherwomenalso,
'Ihe Fathers,with the realismof rheir understanding in thepersonof the mostblcsscd
espccially woman,the Virgin Mary,
of Gencsis,
interpret this punishmentasapplying first of all to the animal who was he will mcera powerfulresistancero his wiles....By the seedofthe
the instrumenr of man'sfall, but then also ro the devil who used rhis woman,which is hostilcto thc seedof the devil,one must under-
creature.St. John Chrysostomwrires: stand in particularone pcrsonfronr among rhe posreriryof the
woman,namelyHe Vho from eternitywaspfedestined for the sal-
But perhapssomeone will say:If thc counsclwasgivenby the devil, vationof men and wasborn in time of a womanwirhout a mant
usingthc serpenrasan insrrumcnr,why is this animalsubjecredro seed.He subsequentlyappearcdto the world to "destroythe works
202 203
Grlssrs, CnsrrroN,nNoEanryMeN Tne Fall or MaN
of the devil" (l John 3:8), rhar is, the kingdomof the devil, filled everysatisfacrion;rhat, being clothed in a body, you might not fecl
with his scrvants,wirh his seed....The strikingofthe spiritualser- anyrhingbodily.But sinceyou did not makcfitting useofsuchnap-
pent in the headby the seedof rhe womansignifiesthat Chrisrwill piness,but the abundance of goodthingsbroughryou ro suchgreat
complctelydefeatrhe devil and rake away from him all power to ingratirude,rherefore,so thar you might not be given over to yet
harm men.... Until the SecondComing rhc devilwill havethe op- grcatersclf-will,I am layingupon you a bridle,and I condemnyou
portuniryto harm men, includingChrist Himself;but his wounds to sorrowandgroaning.I shallarrangcthatyour givingbirth to chil-
will be easilyhcalcd,like woundsin thc heel,which arc nor danger- drcn-a sourceof greatconsolation-will beginwith sorrow'so that
ousbecause in the heel,which is covercdwith hardskin,thereis lit- in daily gricf and sorrowin givingbirth you might havea constant
tle blood.A wound in thc heclwasgivenby the powerless maliceof rcminderof how greatwasrhissin anddisobedience.. .. At firstI cre-
the devilto ChristHimself,againstVhom he arousedrhe unbeliev- aredyou equalin honor(to your husband)andwishedthat,beingof
ing Jewswho crucifiedHim. Bur this wound scrvedonly for the onc digniry with him, you might havecomnrunionin everything
greatershameof the deviland the healingof mankind.rs wirh him; and I cntrustcdto you,asto your husband,authoriryover
But sinceyou did not makefitringuseofthe equaliryin
all creatures.
Thus the "wound in rhe heel" represenrs rhe small amount rhar rhe honor,for this I am subjecting you to your husband....I subjectyou
devil is able to harm us sincethe coming of Christ. ro him and proclaimhim your lord, so thatyou might acknowledge
his aurhoriry;sinceyou are unableto lcad,therefore,learnto be a
3:16 And to tbe aoman He said, I will greatly mubiply thy pains and good subiect.20
thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bringforth chiUren, and thy submission
shall be to tlry husband, and he shall rule ouer thee (Septuaginr). St. John Chrysostom provides the answer to the problem of
Even while cursing the serpenr,God is awaiting the repentanceof "women'sliberation":becomesaintsand your problemsare ended.
Adam and Eve.St. Ephraim wrires;
3:17-19 And unto Adam He said, Becausethou hast hearhened
God beganwith the despiscd(serpcnt)so that, while the angcrof anto tbe uoice of thy wfe,. and hrzsteaten of the tee, of ahich I com-
righteousjudgmenrwas dircced againstit alone,Adam and Eve manded thee, sa/ng, Thou shah not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy
might bccomcterrifiedand rcpenr,and therebyrhc opportuniry tahc in solroa shab thou eat of it all tbe dzys of thy lifc. Thorns ako and
would havebeengivento (God's)goodnessto delivcrrhem from rhe thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat of the herb of the
cursesof righteousjudgmcnt. But when rhc scrpenrhad becn feld; in the sweat of thy face shah thou eat bread, till thou rerurn unto
cursed,and Adam and Evedid nor hastento enrrearics,God utcred
the punishmenrto them. He addressed Eve first, becauscby her 'Sr. John Chrysosrom writcsthat rhe equaliryrhat existedbcrwccnAdam and
handsin wasgivcnro Adam.rl' Evebeforethe fall did not cxcludca ccrtainorderin which Adamcvcnthcn wastne
hcad.Thus, he blamesAdam for nor guidingand correctingEve:'Afterall, you are
St. John Chrysostomwrires of Eve'spunishment: headofyour wife, and shehasbeencreatcdfor your sake;but you haveinvertcdthc
propcrordcr: not only haveyou failedto kecpher on rhe srraighrand narrowbut you
havebeendraggcddown wirh her,and whercasrhc rcstofrhc body should follow thc
Beholdthe Lord'sgoodness,and what meekness He showsaftersuch head,the contraryhasin facroccurred,rhe hcadfollowing the restofrhe body,turn-
a transgression.
He says:I wishedthat you would leada life without ing rhingsupsidcdown" (St.John Chrysostom,Homilicson Genaisl7:17, English
sorrowand pain, freeof everygrief and bittcrness,
and filled with vcrsion,Thc Frarhcrsof rheChurch,vol. 74, p. 231]'.-Eo.
204 205
CsNssrs,CnE,crroN
erunErary M,rN Tue Fnlr or MaN
the ground; for out of it utast thou tahen.* For dttst thou art, and unto for you a constant lessonto behavemodcstly and know your own
dust shalt thou return. narurc.' 21
Here Adam is given an imageof the trials and tribulationsof sim-
ply living in this fallen world. First of all, the earth is cursed for his Secorrdfy,Adam now becomesmortal, the creatures.
St.
^longwith
sake.St. John Chrysostomwrites: JohnChrysostomwritesthat,eventhoughAdamand Eveliveda long
time aftertheir fall,
Behold rhe reminders of the curse!Thorns it will bring forth, He
(God)says,and thisrles.I will do thisso that you will cnduresevcre ncvcrthclcssfrom rhe momcnt rhcy hcard, "Dust thou art, and unro
laborand caresand spendyour wholelife in sorrowrhat rhisnright dust shalt thou rcturn," thcy recciveda dcath senrencc,becamcmor-
be a restraintfor you, that you might not dreanrthat you are highcr tals and, one may say,died. lndicating this, rhc Scripture said, "ln
thanyour stationlbut tharyou might constantly remember your na- thc day that thou eatestof it [thc tree] thou shalt surelydic" (Gcn.
ture and might henceforthnot allowyourselfto cometo a sirrrilar 2: l7)-in other words,you shall rcceivca senrence;you shall now bc
' Ir maybe noredhcrethar-in modcrnsocieryespecially-theartemprof nrcn ' I.e.,so rharAdamwould rccognizc rharhe wasa crearedbeingand nor (iod,
and womento avoidrhe penances givenby God at the fall hasrcsulredin urrtold sincehe hadsuccumbed to the devilt tcmptation:"Yeshallbe asgods."-tio.
damagc,borh to the eanh and ro human bcings.'fhc artcmprof modcrnmen ro " St. GrcgoryPalamas addsro this rcachingby sayingthat man'.sphysicalcor-
avoidworkingby "thc swcatof [their]face[s]"hasresulredin moderntechnology, ruptibiliryand dearhresultcdfrom a spiritualdcarhrhatoccurredat thc timc of the
which in turn hasled to massive
pollutionand destruction of Godi crcation.Mod- fall: "lr was indeedAdam'ssoul thar dicd by becomingrhroughhis transgressio
ern womcr haveavoidedthc "painsand groanings" of millionsof binhs, but in so scpararcd frorn God; for bodily he conrinuedro livc afrcrthat rimc, evenfor 9J0
doing havebeenresponsible (alongwith the men) for millionsof murdcrsby abor- years.'fhc dearh,however,thar befellthe soul becauscof the transgression not only
rion.Thc abdicationby modcrnmen of rheirpositionof headshipin thc family,in crippledrhesouland mademan accursed; ir alsorendcred
rhe body irsclfsubjecrto
conjunctionwirh the unwillingncss of modern womcn !o be in "submissionro farigue,sufferingand corruptibiliry,and finally handedit over to dearh"(The Pbilo-
Ithcir]husband[s],"hasresulted
in theemotionalandspiritualcripplingofcoundess halia, vol.4, p. 296). Thc Holy Farhcrsrcachthar this physicalchangcin man! na-
childrcn-not ro mentionof thc husbands and wivesthemselvcs.-ED. turc alsopassed overto the othercrearures (secbelow).-Eo.
206 207
GrNssrs,CneArroNaNo EenlyMaN -l-sr Frll or MnN
ture wasmadesubjectro vanity,not willingly, but by reasonofhim who Sr. Symeon the New'fheologian is alsovery explicit rhat the mare-
hath subjectedit in hope." Becauserhe creatureitselfalsoshall be deliv- 1i2l61s21i6n-2nd not just Paradise-beforeAdam! fall was incorrupt
eredfrom the bondageofcorruption (decay)into rhe gloriousliberty of and withour death.. As we saw earlier, he writes that Adam was
the childrenofGod. For we know rhat the whole creationgroanethand originally "placedby the Creator God as an immortal king over an in-
travailethin pain togetherunril now." corrupt world, not only over Paradise,but alsoover the whole creatron
The commentaryofSt. John Chrysostomon this passage makesrhe which was under rhe heavens."ln rhe same Homily he goeson ro say
doctrine absolutelyexplicit: rhat, after Adam'srransgression,
'Whatmeans"for rhecreature wasmadesubiectto vanirv"?It became God did not curseParadise ... but He cursedonly the wholerestof
corruprible.
Vhy, andby whatcausclBy your fault,O man.Because thc earth,which alsowasincorruptand broughtforth everything by
you received
a bodymortalandsubjecrro sufferings,sorhcearthalso itscl[.. .
wassubjcctto a curse,and broughtforth thornsand rhistles. And thusit wasfitringin all justicefor theonewho hadbecome
corrupt and mortal by reasonof the transgression of the command-
And later in the samesecrion: ment,to liveupon the corruptiblecarrhand carcorrupriblefood....
Then alsoall crcarures,when they sawthat Adam wasbanishedfrom
Justasthe creature bccamecorruptiblewhenyour bodybecamecor- Paradise, no longerwishedto submit to him, the criminal.... But
ruptible,soalsowhenyour bodywill be incorrupt,the crearure
also God restrainedall thesecreaturesby His power,and in His compas-
will followaftcrir and becomecorrespondingro ir.ri sion and goodnessHe did not allow them immediatelyto strive
againstman,and He commanded that thecreationshouldremainrn
Here, it should be noted, the word "you" meansthe samething as the
submissionto him, and havingbecomccorrupt,shouldscryecor-
word "l" often does in the Orrhodox Divine services:Adam (because
rupt man for whom it hadbeencreated.. .,
we are all one man). St. John makesthis clearin anorherpassage:
Do you seethat thiswholecreationin the beginningwasincor-
tVhar armeddeathagainstthe whole universe? rupt and wascrcatcdby God in rhc mannerof Paradisel But laterit
The fact rhat only
wassubjecred by God to corruprion,and submitredto the vaniryof
one man tastedof rhe rree(Commentary
on Romans5: l5-21).ra
m e n . '* 2 6
208 209
GeNesrs,
CnsrrIoN,tro Ernr-vM,rN
At right: -fhe banish-
The Fathersalsomention that the sentenceof death,which took menrofAdam and Eve
effectat the fall, wasnot.iusta punishment.lt wasdso a good,because from Paradisc,
once man fell, if he wereto still be immortal, therewould be no way
Behu: Cain slaying
out for him. Imaginebeing in a srateofbeing unableto redeemyour-
Abcl, Cain askingGod
self, unableto get to Paradise,and then living and living and living, for mercy,Adam and
wirh no hopeofgetting out of this state.Death puts an end to sin. The EveweepingoverAbclt
fact that we areafraid of deathalreadywakesus up to begin to strug- dcarh,Evc (with child)
gle. Evenifwe forgetabout Paradise, we will be afraidofdeath and be- and Adam lamcnting,
gin to struggle,to overcomeour fallennature. Adamtilling thc
ground. Here arcshown
Cyril ofAJexandria(I444) writesaboutthe meaningofdiseaseand
thc major cons€quenccs
deathin fallenman: of rhefall: inclination
rowardsin (including
Man, having receivedas his lot an exhaustingfast and sorrows,was murdcr),pain(includ-
givcn ovcr to illncsscs,suffcrings,and thc other bittcr things as to a ing painin childbirth),
kind of bridle. Becausehe did not sensiblyrestrainhimself in rhat sorrow,hard labor,
and dcath.
life which wasfreefrom laborsand sorrows,he is givenover to mis-
Dcuib of a Rustian icon
fortunesso that by sufferingshe might heal in himself the disease ccnury.
of thc cightcentb
which camcupon him in the midst of blessedness.
By deaththc Giver ofthe kw stoppedthe spreadofsin, and in
thc vcry chastisement revealsHis lovefor mankind. Inasmuchashe,
in giving the commandment,joined deathto the transgression of ir,
and inasmuchasthe criminal thus fell under the chastisement, so He
arrangedthat the chastisementitself might scrvefor salvation.For
deathdissolves this animal natureofours and thus,on the one hand,
sropsthe activiry of evil, and on the other deliversa man from ill-
nesses, frecshim from labors,puts an end to his sorrowsand cares,
and stopshis bodily sufferings.\fith such a love for mankind has
thc Judgemixed thc chastisement.2T
The decreeof God, "Dust thou art, and unro dust shalt thou re-
rurn," just like evcrythingclselaid upon mankind after thc fall, will
be in effec until rhe end ofthe age.But by God'smercy,through rhe
2t0
Ctrutsrs, CnrerIoN ANDEARLyMAN
3:21 Unto Adam ako and to bis wife did the Lord God mahethem
coattof shins,
and clathcdthem.
St. Gregory of Nyssasaysthis meansthat they literally put on
"coats of skins," but it also means,figuratively,that rhey became
clothedin a dffircntkind of flesh;that is, their naturewaschanged.
2t2
GeNasts, Cns,,rltoN ,rNn Eanrv Mar.t Tse F,q.r.l
or MaN
3;22-23 And theLord Godsaid,BehoUtheman is become asoneof curscofa justcondemnation is loosedby the unjustpunishmcnrin-
Ul to hnowgood and And
euil. now,lex heputforth hishand and takeabo flictedon theJust.For it wasfitting that wood shouldbe healcdby
of tbe neeof life and eatand liueforeuer,therefore,the Lord Godscnthim wood,and that throughthc Passion of One Vho knew not passron
forth fom the GardenofEden,to till thegroundfom whencehe uastaken. shoLrldbe reminedall thesufferings of him who wascondemned be-
The Lord says"asone of Us," referringto Himselfin plural:the causeof wood.Ju
Holy Tiiniry. He castsAdam out so that Adam would not eat of the
Tieeof Life,whichwe seealsoin the BookofApocalypse (Revelation): It is very profound and moving when you read verseslike this,
the Treeof Life in the centerof Paradise. Eatingof this Treewould knowing the theologyof Paradiseand the future age.
makemanimmortalwithoutbeinggood,andGod doesnot wantthat; ln the SessionalHymn of Matins of that sameservice,we sing:
therefore,He castshim out.
In Paradise of old, rhe wood [i.e.,of the tree]srrippedme bare,for
3:24 And He castoutAdam and cdused him to duell oueragainxthe by givingits fruir to eat,rhc enemybroughrin death.Bur now the
Gardtn of Delight, and *ationed the Cherubim and thcfery swordthat woodofthe Crossthatclothesmenwith thegarmentoflifc hasbeen
turns about to heepthe way of the tee of life (Sepuagint). set up in the midstof the earth,and the wboleworld is filled with
As we saidin the first talk, Sr. Macariusof Egyptinterpretsthis boundless jolrl
mystically,sayingthat this is what happensto everysoulwhen Paradise
is closedto it. But it alsomeansexacrlywhat it says:that thereis a Another canticle:
Cherubimwith a flamin8sword.
O thricc-blesscd Trec, on which Christ the King and Lord was
* strctched!Through rhee rhc beguilcrfcll who rcmprcdmankind
'We wirh the tree.He wascaughtin thc rrapsetby God, Who wascruci-
have now coveredthe first three chaptersof Genesis,from
ficd upon thecin the flesh,grantingpeaccunto our souls.l2
which is takenthe basictheologyof the Church aboutthe origin of
man and, therefore,his goal.The servicesarefilled with this theology,
And rhe Ninth Song,Irmos:
especially to the Cross.On Septemberl4th, the Feastof
the services
the Exaltationof the Cross,thereare a numberof very good verses Todayrhedeaththatcamcto man throughcatingofthe treeis made
which show how the Church viewswhat happenedin Paradise and ofno effectthroughthe Cross.For thc curscofour motherEvethar
whar happenedwhen Christ came.They comparethe treeof which fell on all mankindis desrroyed
by the fruit of the pure Motherof
Adam tastedwith the Tiee which wasthe Cross.One of the versesfor God, whom all rhe powersof heavenmagnifr.rl
GreatVesperssays:
The Canon of the Feastof Epiphany,composedby Sr.John Dam-
Come,O ye peoples,ler us veneraterhe blessedWood,through ascene,rells us that the devil introduced death inro the creation,but
whichtheeternaljusticehasbeenbroughtto pass.For hewho by a that Christ hasovercomehim:
treedeceived Adam,is by theCrosshimselfdeceivcd;
our forefather
and he who by ryrannygainedpossession of the creatureendowed He who once assumedthe appearance of a malignantserpentand
by God with royaldigniry is overthrownin headlongfall. By rhc implanteddeathin thecreation,is now casrinto darkness
by Christt
Bloodof God the poisonof thc serpenr is washcd away;and the comingin the flesh.ra
214 215
GsNrsrs, CneAttoN rNo Eanrv MnN
2t6 2t7
.{:'
-\
I
I' t;,
,'
', 'l {: :
'!*ii*1
6
'l :'.P .\,
ii' '
i4 L;./
s,
n\ , ,
.,/o-
+
q
;,-S'.'h, .;
-
, :'fftt
t" ' .
\ r < r r c . l r . r n r [ . l il .,'J \,l .r 1 r .r n ,l I r , .r l i , r r l r c I.r l l :.\,l .r r r r.,,tr xr i n t.
. \ , l . r r r r , r r ,lI r c h .r r r csr i r r r l'\J.r
. r r ,r r r ,i Ir , r t tl r , l ,'r r t,.
,\,l,rrrr.rrrrI l v t l, c lr Lr ilinsI ' . r r . r t lr rlr
, onr . r l. r r
I r r n y t . o t t t , 4 ,l n t u r l l t.,r ;r u t, ,,t'l ,r ( ,,tt'r ,tttr o t,r 1 '/, t,tr l t,tn n o 't
Iltt',r,ttt ln',t, r/ r/,t' i.tr,rn r1,, tt r tt,t
lt t t ( ) t t st t r t l', r ur t r t r t
%
l l r()l l l tl ri \ P l .rrt. sl ri rl r r lr r 'r st r . 'r n n( ilr I ) ilr , r ( li\ ( .( \ ( r ) \ \ illr it ) \ iqht ( ) l
i t,.urJ.rs ofi cr i ng spi rit r lr l opl, or t Lr nit ir 'r *lr ir lr lr ill ir c lor t lo l: t t cr
| | r,l | rl ,i n(1.\t. I1r111,11111 t lr t r r r i, r |l r r r it r . :
#l
\\' 1r.r .\..l .Lr:r .i rrnc.. l,( i, , . 1 b. r nislr cJlr inr lr . nr I 'r r r '. Lr lirun, c. . lin I I i.
.ITil g,' ,,,l rrc" l l ri 1.r' cl ri rt r . L. l. r cllins, , Lr t r iJct lt r lr , 't t r r r lr t icr ,Ii'. u. r t lisc:
Il . scrtl trl l ri nr i n ,r v. r llo n( . r f l) , u. r ( li\ ( llt
'. t t nr . n. inn. . , l t lt Lr c. r lr . ,
.rr,1l i tr rl ri r thtr rrc|c \ ! , llr cf c( 1. . . .
I l rc l .rnri l v,tt tl r . r r r , , l, r , 't lr cr rlr c. , r r r r,.lir i. . lcr lr( . . r in \ \ 1 nr . r \ ! . r v
,rrr.lI,.i i rrt r,r l i r c i rr r lr , l. r r r .,l , t N, , , 1,l. r r cr t lr , r r r lr c Pl. r r r sr r lr cr . t lr c
l ,rnri l i cs,,l S .th ,rrrr lI : r r or, ls. . lr . I \ r r r t I r , .LIr ' , ., .trr|..t rrt r ol t lr oscr vr r , r
1! '
.; Jrrcl t .rl ' ,' r. rrn.lrvrrc , . r ll. . , .tllr c s. ns . l ( , , 't l . LI r . r r r t I r r r rt cLI lr t ir l. ur Ll,
't\til
ii :
i7 ,"
.\ t!- t r r it lr t lr . rl .rLrtl l rt . r. , rl nr . r r ,
* crrt .l ,,rl n.rn.l .nt.r . . l ir r t . r r r . r r r i. r qc
rl rc ,l ,rrgl rttn .l tl rr, . c* lr , , , l'r clr 1, . 1, , ''.
\\' r' i vi l l t.rl i c ul ) l l ris \ ul) i( '( t r lg. lin ir ) ( , cn. sis. lt . t Pt t t r ixl l, 't t t r r r r .
l (l Lr\onl \ n()l ( (l ri l l tl tc st r r t t ol , \ r l. t t t rot t t sit lr oi l'lt t . Lr li: c . t \ t lll( lx\ l
i rrq.rt l r' .r.r l i rr hi s l ong lilit inr c. r n. l l) ( f lr . lps in lr is t l. r , . cnr l. r nt . <l, r sr r
l o l l r( l rl ()()(l \\' .r\ r.ttl )( f , lif ii'r . r r t lr ', r nrt lr ( \ r . lt ( ol lr ll. r r nr r r t t liit t , lt , ,
tl rrr. \\' . ui l l (' \i l nri n(i n t lt is r r r Lt t st\ onl( ol r lr c plr r si. . r l . lr . Lr r t . t , - r r st r . t
ol tl ri s tl i l l cl cn,-t;l r(r( l( t r r \ 111'11 111 'J, ir it t , t llr t nclit ol l) ( inq( l( ) ( t ( )
l ' rrr.rrl i sc,ol rti l l scci ng t lr , . pl. r , . r . r r t l st ur , . llr r r r r vlr i. . lr r r r . r r rlr . r . . l,
l r ll. r r
.rnr] to rrl ri el r l rc i r..rl l c. . l r ( ) r ( lt r n. St . lolr n ( . lr llsost r r r : t ur ilr ''.
. |I
GsNcsrs,CnEArroNaNn Errrv M,rN LrreOulsroePananrse
Afterthedisobedience,afterthebanishmentfromParadise-rhenit
wasthatmarriedlife began.Beforethedisobedience,
thefirsrpeople
livedlikeangels
andtherewasno talkof cohabitarion.a
223
LIl ,l ( )t t\l t)| l ' \t{ ,\I)l \t
r\l rcl ol l crcd.r sl t r illt c oi t hc clr oict st .l, t r t ( l. r in, , r 'it lr ot t t , . hor , . c.
'f
;\l r.l cl rr' .r' .rndrrl f ir cr l t lr c llr . t bolr r , r nLli. r t linqs.r r lr ilc ( . r in olicr ct l
ci tl rtr thc..rrs,,rr t , r gct hcruit h t ht nr t lr c f lLr it st lr . r c r vclc, r t t hut
ti rrrc. r\l th,trrgh Iris r lr r illt c \ \ 'il\ p( ) or ( r t lr . r n t ht r r r r ill, . r ', r f lr is
,$1'-..'.
:-l f l rr,rthcr,sri l l i i hc h. r , l, , f icr t . l it n, , t r vit h, lir r l: r in.hi. r acr ill. . c. r l. , r
'-" t * r,rrl .l l r.rvcbccn plc. r . ir g, . r \ r v. r \( ll( s. r eliil. r ', r llr is lr lot lr cr . . . . llr r t
t
( T i t'
12 i rtg.,' \n.lI' c,.rttrcl r c, , il. r c. l r u. r ill. . r vir lrt lir J. r in,( '. Ll njc. t r J ir . '
-t.tt
l, rI r , ( ) r ] r 'srr ) L lhr , lor st ,
.|l|r'i
.t 3
q'
( i.rir, insrig.rtcrllrr,.r t[ nron,
sl,rring .\l'cl. Ilutsiar.fisn
tl rlt titttutt/tentury.
1t:6-7 Antl tLt Lorcl Ool nid to (.ain, W|y trt tltor ltttttnr r.'tr.yior-
tou,lil tnrl u,b.yii thy Loutlt ut,t(.f /L'n? Ilnt tltou nlt ritl)t?d if tln
1,,6t brouqht it rig/tr/1,,brt not iglttly di lerl it? []c sti//, n thr slnll bt
Itis sulnti::ion, anrl thou sluh ulc oytr ltin.
tk St.john ( ihrlsostolnsrlysof rhcscvcrscs:
)27
Cru rsts,CneartoN.rNoEarlv MaN
'We
seethe same thing today,as indeed throughout the history of
rnankind: God chastisesonly after giving men abundant opportunrty
ro repentand changerheir ways.
4:8 And Cain said to Abel his brothet Let usgo out into the pkin;
and it came to passthat uhen thry were in the plain Cain roseup ngninst
Abel his brotber,and sleu him.
In the early chaptersof Genesisrve see the beginningsof every-
thing that is ro be repeatedlater in human history.Here we seethe first
murder-and ir is a fratricide,the killing of one'sown brother.'
But here again,as with Adam after his sin in Paradise,God shows
first His concern that rhe guilry should repent,and then shows His
mercy evenwhen rhere is no repentance.
4:9-16 And the Lord God said to Cain, Vhere is Abel thy brorber?
And he said, I hnow not, am I my brother'sheeper? And the Lord said,
Adam and Abcl. Rxssianicont ofthc tucnteenth ccnfirm,
What hast thou done? The uoice of thy brotheri blood cries to me out of
the ground. And now thou art cursedfom the urth which has opened
lter mouth to receiuethy brother's blood fom thy hand. Vhen tbou tillest
the earth, then it shall not continue to girc its strength to thee: thou shah sball begroaning and nembting upon the carth, then it will be tbnt an1
be groaning and tembling on the earth. And Cain said to the Lord God, onethatrtnds me shallslayme.And the Lord God said to him, Not so,
My crime is too great for me to beforgiuen. If thou castestme out this da! anJ one that slaysCain shatl suffer seuenfoldaengeance; and the Lord
liom theface of the eartb, and I shall be biddcn fom thy presence,and I God seta marh upon Cain tbat no onethatfound him might slayhim.
So Cain wentforth fom the presenceof God nnd dueh in the knd of
' Irr [-r.rkcll:50-51, Chrisrspeaks Abcl: "That the
ofthe murderof righreous Nod oueragainstEden.
blootlofall rhc prophcts,rvhichwasshedfrom the lbrrndarion ofrhc world, may bc HereSt. Ephraimsays:
requircdofrhis gencration: from rhc bloodofAbel [thesonofAdanr]unro the blood
of Zacharias Ithe f.irhcrof St.John rhe Baprisd."By afFrmingthar the murderof
Abcl occurred"from rhc loundarionof rheworld,"thewordsof Chrisragaincontra'
Godappears to him withoutanger, sothatif he repents,
theprayer
dicr thc modcrncvolutionaryidcarhat thcrewercbillionsof ycarsofearth history pronouncedbyhislipsmightwashawaythesinof murderperformed
bcfbrerheeopeatance of man- Eo. by his hands,but if he doesnot repent,thena heavypunishment
229
Cnr'artor lNo Ea.nlvMaN
GsNr.sts,
After this, Cain finally did admit his guilt; but it was too late' St'
John Chrysostomsays:
230
GeNesrs, ,trn Flnrv Mnn
Cnr-arroN Lrrr.Ou-rsroePantnrse
Ephraimstates, thereis no intermarriage betweentheoffspringof Cain know it: the first city, the firsr crafts,the first arrs. It is obvious that
and thoseof the other childrenof Adam.'' The mark wasplacedon what is given here is no more than a hint ofall that went on then, but
Cain to preventrevenge from beingrakenagainsthim by thesehis rela- this is alreadyenough to give us a picture quite different from that pre-
tives.'rAnd sotherearerwoparallellinesof humaniry:asit wereimages sentedby the evolutionaryview of man'sorigins. In the Biblical view,
of the true followersof God and apostates from Him, or as Blessed what one might call "advanced"characteristics of civilization come at
Augustinelarerdescribed it, the Ciry of God and the Ciry of Man. the very beginning, and the first city is alreadyfounded by the son of
the first man. Nothing is said of the population of the world in the
4:17-22 And Cain knew his wife, and bauingconceiued shebore generationsof Adam, but it is obvious that, with the long life of the
Enoch;and he built a city; and hc namedthecity afer the nameofhis son, early Patriarchsand the command given them by God to increaseand
Enoch.And to Enochutasborn Gaidad; and Gaidad begotMalcleel;and multiply within a few generationsthere must have been many thou-
MaleleelbegotMethusalah;and Methusakh begotLamech.And I'amech sandsif not millions of people.
tookto himselftrao wiues;thenamcof theoncwasAda, and the nameof the (Rationalist Biblical scholars,seeing the beginnings of man tn
secondSella.And Ada boreJobel;he wasthefather ofthosethat dwell in primitive, stone-agecave-dwellers, deny the very existenceof Cain and
tents,feedingcattle.And the nameofhis brotherwasJubal; he it waswho Abel as historicalpersons.To them it is all a moral tale.)
inaentedthepsalteryand harp.And Selh abo boreThobel;he wa a smith, I-amechis the first man of whom it is said that he had two wtves.
a manufacturerbothofbrassand iron; and thesisterofThobel wasNolma. Apparently this custom, which appearsmore commonly after the
Fromwheredid rhewife of Cain come?Shecamefrom amongthe Flood, was a rarity in the daysof the first Patriarchs.
daughtersofAdam. Adam is the one from whom everyonecomes.The
bookof Genesis mentionsashischildrenonly Cain,AbelandSeth,but 4:23-24 And Lamcch said to his wiues,Ada and Sella, Hear my
rheywereonly the first ones;thereweremany others.Later,in Genesis uoice,ye wiues of Lamcch, consid.ermy words, becauseI haue slatn a man
5:4-5, we read that Adam lived sevenhundred yearsafter begetting to n1 sorrow and a )ro th to my grief Becauseuengeancehar been exacted
Seth,duringwhichtime"hebegotsonsanddaughters." Adamwasgiven seuentimeson Cain'sbeha$ on l.amech'sit sball be seuenDltimesseuen.
the commandto increase and multiply,and he livedfor nine hundred This passage hasbeen interpretedin variousways,but the simplest
and thirry years.Therefore,theremusthavebeenhundredsofchildren. explanationis that of St. John Chrysostom,who saysthat it indicates
This leadsto a secondquestion:"How is it that Cain couldmarry the voice ofconsciencein l.amech,who openly confessedhis sin and
his own sister? Isn'tthis againstthe lawsof the OrthodoxChurch?"Of declaredhimself worthy of greaterpunishment rhan Cain (for he had
course,this wasat the beginningof time,so they had a differentlaw; alreadyseenCain'spunishment for the crime of murder).'"
they werenot living underthe law we havenow.* In thosedayspeople
livedto be nine hundredyearsold. Obviouslyhumanirywasquitedif- 4:25-26 And Adam knew Euc his wife, and sheconceiuedand borea
ferentfrom the way we know it today,evenphysically. son, and called bis name Seth, sa/ng, For God bas rd;tcd uP t0 me anotl)er
In Genesis4:17-22 we seethe beginningsof civilizationas we seedinstead ofAbel, whom Cain slew.And Seth had a son, and he called
his name Enos:hc hopedto call on the name of the Lord God.
"sinccit wasin the beginningand Here the text returnsto the main line from Adam (through whom
"'You see,"explainsSt. John Chrysosrom,
thc humanracehadto incrcase from thcn on, it waspermissablc ro marrytheirown the Saviour'sgenealogywill be traced).Seth means"substitute."
sisrcrs"(Homilieson Gene* 20:3, Englishversion,Thc Farhersof rhe Church, vol. Verse26 is different in Hebrew:"Then beganmen to call upon the
82, p. 37).-Ep. name ofthe lord." In either caseit indicatesapparentlythe beginning
) 1) z) )
Gnrursls,Cm,qrroN AND EARLyMAN Lrrr Oursror P,cRAorse
of moreformalworshipof God, boundup with the nameof Enoslthis David the Psalmist.Here rhereis a temptation lor rationalistcriticism
ofSetharecalledin chaptersixthe "sonsof
is alsowhy thedescendants ro "reinrerpret"the text. Bur all the Holy Fathersacceptit just as ir is
God." wrirten: men at that time, in the first centuriesafter the creation,were
3. The Genealoglfom Adam throughSethto Noah reallyvery different physicallyfrom us. In chapterthreewe discusseda
litrle of the climate of the world beforethe Flood, when there was no
5:l-21 Tbis is tbegenealogyof men in the day in uhich God made rainbow becauseofthe firmament ofvapor encirclingthe earth, giving
Adam; in the image of God He made him: male and female He mad.e a moderateclimate and filtering out harmful radiation.Life was really
them,and blesedthem;and He calledbis nameAdam, in the da1 in quite different then (even Paradisewas still visible, as we have seen),
which He madethcm.And Adtm liued two hundredand thirty years,and and if we put offour prejudicesderived lrom picturesofcrude stone-
begota sonafer his ownform, and afier his own image,and he calledhis agecave-dwellers, there is no reasonfor us not to acceptthis fact.
nameSeth.And the daysofAdam, which he liucd afcr his begettingSeth, 2. The secondquestionconcernsthe genealogyitself:why was this
wereseuenhundredyears;and he begotsonsand daughters.And all the so important as to be recorded?Becausethe evolutionary theory re-
daysof Adam which he liued werenine hundredand thirry years,and he quiressomehundredsofthousandsofyearsfor the history ofmankind,
died. Nou, Seth liued two bundredand fue yenrs,and begotEnos.And rarionalistcritics are forced to reinterpretthis genealogy,stating either
Setbliued afer his begexingEnos,seuenhundredand seuenyears,and be thar rherearegapsofthousandsofyearsin it, or elsethat at leastsomeof
begotsonsand daughters.And all the daysof Sethu,,crenine hundredand rhe Patriarchswere not real peopleat all, but simply namessigniSing
tuelucyears,and he died. And Enosliued an hundredand ninetyyears, vastepochs.Ifso, rhen ofcourse thereis no genealogyhereat all.
and begotCainan.And Enosliuedafer his begettingCainan,seuenhun- Bur rhe Holy Fathersare unanimous in stating that this list of
dredandfJieen years,and he begotsonsand daughters.And all thedals of names ri preciselya genealogy,and it is important not merely as pre-
Enostuerenine hundredandfue years,and he died.And Cainan liued an servingdetailsofthe early history of mankind, but abovea.llbecauseit
hundredand seuent!yarl and he begotMaleleel.And Cainan liued afier is rhe genealogyof Christ.The whole genealogyof Christ is given in
his begettingMaleleel,seaenbundrcd and forry years,and he begotsons Lr.rkechapter three* (Matthew chapter one carries it only back to
and daughtcrs.And all tbe daysof Cainan werenine hundred and ten Abraham), and the Fathersare very carefulto harmonizeany seeming
year, and he died. And Malcleel liued an hundred and sixrJ and fue inconsisrencies in the names(for example, St. Gregory the Theologian
years,and he begotJared. And Maleleel liued afer his begettingJared, in his Homily on this subject)so asto preserveir asa precisegenealogy.
seuenhundredand tbirty years,and he begotsonsand daughters.And all 'Wehaveto choose:to be wirh the Scripturesand the Holy Fathers,or
the day: of Maleleelwereeight hundrcdand ninety andfue years,and he with the modern rationalist critics who take their wisdom from the
died. And Jared liued an hundred and sixt! and nuo years, and begot speculations(not the facts)of modern scientists.
Enoch:andJaredliued afer his begettingEnoch,eight hundredyears,and 3. From the number ofyears indicated in this passage(and later
he begotsonsand daughters.And all the daysofJared werenine hundred passages in Genesis),it is possibleto calculatethe ageofmankind. Ac-
and ixty and two years,and he died. And Enochliued an ltundred and cording to the numbers in the Septuaginttext of the Old ltstament,
sixtyandf ueyears,and begatMethusalah. we are now in the year 7490 from the creation of Adam... The He-
This passage hasseveralquesrions for us. brew rext has somewhatdifferent numbers,giving a total ageof man-
l. All rhe earlyPatriarchs lived nine hundredyearsor so, some-
thing fantasticto us who anaineighryor ninetyyearswith greatdiffi-
' On rhegenealogy of Christgivcnby Sr.Lukc,seepp. 528-29 below.-Eo.
culry,which hasbeenthe casewith mankindsincebeforethe rimesof " 1.c.,in I 982,duringthe sccondpart of Fr.Seraph
imt Gcnesis .-l-.o.
course
234 235
GrNssrs, CnEAt.toN ,tro Ernly M,tt
236
' -i
.f ri
t-...'
i|:r f :
I - i 0" " .
1''
1i '':
/
t..r"
i ;
.\
.t, ''
\
t,ti:i
.'
rr t
t . $, . ?
' !4 ,.
., f . i.
ttr
.T
T\'. i,\
\l\
,ii
\( lll L(1{ 1,Lll
l t,',,,,. i ,, I / ', , ,7,| ' ,t t : , ' tl ' , (,t,,1. ,' i ti ,, ( i ' :,,,i , ,,1 tl , I t,t ,t ' I i r': rr,t t : ,, t t
,,1tl 't \,r t,!!t..\',r.1,,rar1 /i r,,,;.r / j \
zl0orr: linos, rhe son ofScth.
Iirto h.yllasto l)ion.1'sius,l?utsia,
[)noch,thc sonofJarcd(dcreil).
lisn by Theoplnut tlr Orth in thr Olnn'h r'l rlt, lunsliguration
of tln .\ariour, lt'ot,gorod,
llu:stt, I.)iii.
Gl.Nlsts. Cle,trtoN rNo EeRt-YM,cN Lrrr.Oursror P,rnaorsr:
4. Beginningwith Genesischaprerfive we follow the historyof ffty-tltree years, and he died. And Nonh wasfue hundrcd years old, and
what can alreadybe calleda "chosenpeople":a peoplededicatedto be btgot three sons,Shem, Ham and Japheth.
God, handingdown the traditionsoftrue worshipand piery,and pre- These verses contain the genealogy of marrkind down to
paringultimatelyto givebirth to the promisedMessiah. Thus, little is Noah-the whole of humaniw down to the Flood. which occurred
saidof the descendantsof Cain; they are not the chosenpeople.The about rwo thousandyearsfrom the creation.
descendants ofseth are,and eventheyeventually becomecorruptand Larnechprophesied,giving his son the name Noah, which means
aredestroyed,savefor one man (Noah) and his sons. "rest," that in his days there would be an end to the sins of human-
ity-the Flood.
242 243
CrNesrs,CnlanroNANDEARLY
MAN LIraOurstoePanquse
"flesh" or fleshly.*St. Paul says:"They that are in the flesh cannot tions abour angelsmaring with men, and modern speculations of
pleaseCod" (Rom. 8:8). beings,areofcourseemptytalesbasedon idle fantasies.
outer-space
The "hundred and rwenry years"refer not to the life spanof man,
but to the time given for repentancebeforethe Flood-again indicat- 6:5 Now thegiants wereapon the earth in thosedaTs;and afer that
ing God's mercifulness.*' uhen the sonsoJ'Godwerewont to go in to thedzuglttersof men,thq bore
Some havespeculatedthat rhe "sonsofGod" were heavenlybeings children to them, thosewerethegiants of old, the menof renown.
or angels.The Holy Fatherswereawareof this interpretationand they By "giants"herewe do not needto understand enormousmen.Ac-
refuted it, saying rhat angelscannor beget men.'** Ancient specula- cordingro Sr.Ephraim,theoffspringofSeth,thechosenrace,weretall
and full in srarure,while the offspringof Cain, the cursedone, were
' St. Ephraimthc Syriancxplainsfurrherthat "rhc daughrers of Cain adorned small.*When rheserwo racesmixed,the rallness of the Sethitespre-
rhcmselves and becamea snarcto rhc eycsof thc sonsof Scrh.... l he cntiretribeof vailed.The "giant" statureof the men-the descendants of Seth-be-
Seth... wasstirredro a frenzyoverthenr.... Becausc thc sonsof Scrhwercgoingirr ro forerhe Floodis apparently oneofthe atrributes of humanirythat was
rhedaughtcrs ofCain, theyturncdawayfrom their first*ives whornthcy hadprcvi- lostwith the newclimacticconditionsof the post-Flood world.
ouslymken.Then thesewives,roo,disdained rheirown continence and now,bccause
Perhaps these"giants"with their mighrydeedsof strength(mani-
oftheir husbands, quicklybeganto abandontheirmodesrywhich up until thartime
for thcir husbands' sakc.lt is becausc of thiswantonncss that as-
festperhapsin warswith the offspringof Cain) werethe origin ofthe
thcy had prcscrvcd
sailcdborh thc men and the women,that Scripturesays,'allfleshhad corruptcdits
"gods"of laterlegendin Greeceand otherlands.
way' (Gcn.6:13\" (Comnentary on Gcnesis, F,nglish vcrsion,p. 135).-Eo,
" St. Ephraim wrircs:"lf thcy rcpent during this rime thcy will bc savedfrom
thc wrarhthat is atnur to comeupon thcm.But i[rhcy do not repcnt,by theirdceds
thcy will call down [thc wrath] upon thcmselvcs. Gracegranredonc hundrcdand
twenryyearsfor repenrance to a generarion tlrat,according wasnor worthy
to Jusricc,
of repentancc"(Commantaryo.fCenari,Englishvcrsion,p. | 36).-F-o.
"' The idcnrificationof rhc "sonsof God" as angelsor heavcnlybcingswas
bascdin parton tlrcapocryphal bookof Enoch.A conrnronrabbinicalinterpretarion
of thc fitst andsccondcenturies ,1.o..it canbc foundin rhcJcwislrwrirersFlavius Jo-
scphus(T'hcAntiquitiesof theJeuu l:3) and Philo ofAlcxandria (Thc Gianti, as well
as in somc gnosticwrirings(c.g.,thc ValentinianExposirion). Someof rhe carly
Christianwrircrsmistakenly acccptcdrhisintetpretation. (SeeVanderKamand Ad-
lcr, JcwishApocatypticHcritagc in Eatll Christianity, pp. 6l-88.1 'Sr. Ephrainrcxplairrs how this cameto bcr "Thc houscofCain, bccauscrhe
Thc firstcxrant(lhrisriarrrcfercncc ro the "sonsofGod" asthe dcsccodanrs of carthhad beencursedso asnot ro giverhem its strength,produccdsmallharvcsts,
Sethis in thc Fiw Book of Chronologr by the earlyChristianwrirerJuliusAfricanus deprivcdof its strength,jusr as ir is today that someseeds,fruits and grasses
givc
(,r.o. 200-245) (Ante-NiccncFathers, vol.6, p. I 3 I ). Th is interprctation
bccamcrhc srrengrhand somcdo not. Because, at that timc, theywerccursedand sonsof rhe
consistcnt tcachingof thc Church,beingserforth on rheological groundsby St.John cursedanclwcredwcllingin the landofcurses,theywould gathcrand cat producc
Chrysosrom(Commcnuryon Genetis22:6-71,St. tphraim rhc Syrian (Commcttary that lackcdnurrition,and thosewho ate thesewerewithour srrengthjust likc rhc
on Gcncsit6:3, Hlmt on the Natiuity l:48, Hynns on F'aith46:9, Hlmw agaiwt food that theyatc.As for rhc Serhires, on the otherhand,bccausc thcywcrcrhc dc-
Hcruict 19'.1-8, and Hymnt on Paradic l:11), St. John Cassian (Confcrencct scendants of rhe blessed
[Seth] and were dwelling in the landalongthe boundaryof
8:20-21),Blcsscd Augusrine(Ciryof God l5:23), St. GregoryPalamas ("Topicsof thc lenccof Paradisc,rhcir producewasabundanrand full of strcngth,So coowcrc
Naruraland ThcologicalScicncc"62), Sr.Athanasius(FourDiscoursuagainsttbeAri- the bodies of those that atc thrr produce strong and powerful" (Commentaryon
ans4:22), Sr. Cyril ofAlcxandria,and others.Secpp. 499-500 below-Eo. C'izarlr,F)nglishversion,p. 136).-Er,.
244 z.t)
Cneprrn Erctlr
TheFlood
(Genesis
6:6-8:22)
247
CnrrrtclNaNoEenrvMaN
Gr,ntsIs, Tur Frooo
ble ir is lor us to be virtuousevenwhenIivingin suchcorruPttimesas flood which will obliterateeuerything, and only thosewho are left in
our own, the Ark will be delivered.
In notingthat Noah hadonly threechildren(whileAdamandorh- Of course,one can imaginehow long it would take for Noah to
ersof the Patriarchs possiblyhad hundreds),the Fatherspoint to the All the peo-
build the Ark, living in the midstof a corruptgeneration.
chastityof Noah, who evenfrom the lawfulntarriage
abstained bed. pleweresettledin a fairlyclosearea,soprobablythewholeworld knew
about it. One can imagine,too, their response when Noah started
6:12-14 Theearthuas corruPtbefoleGod,and tbeenrthuasflled building a boat four hundred fifty feet long and saying, "Beware,
with iniquity. And theLord Godtau theearth,and it uas corrupted;be' rhere'sgoing to be a big flood." They probablytook their neighbors
causeall flesh had corruptedix way upon tlte carth. And the Lord God down, pointedout these"crazy''people,and laughedat them; and
said to Noah, A period of all mcn is comebeforeMe: because the earth bas their childrenprobablycameand threw rocks.The righteouswere
beenflled with iniquiE by them, and, behold, I dexroy tbem and the obeyingthe will ofGod, and peoplewerelaughing.
enfth. So it musthavebeena verystrangecommandfor a righteousman
HereSr.John Chrysostomemphasizes how Cod speaksto Noah to receive.lt showshe was in closeconmct with God. Like Abraham
faceto faceaboutthis plan for mankind.He asit weresaysro Noah: who waslaterprepared evento kill his own sonbecausehe knewGod
"Men haveperformedso much evil that their impietyhaspouredout had spokenro him, so Noah who wasrighteous,speakingdirectlyto
and coveredthe wholeearth.ThereforeI will destroyborh them and God, obeyedthecommandhe wasgiven.The verybuildingofsuchan
the earth.Sincetheythemselves havealreadydestroyed themselves be- immensestructure-which requireda good part of rhat hundredand
forehandby their iniquities,I will bringcomplereperditionand exter- rwenryyearsthesepeopleweregivenro repent-wasto serveasa visi-
minatethem and the earth,so that the earthmight be cleansed and ble warningto mankindof impendingdisaster.
I
deliveredfrom the defilementof so manysins."
Now God commandsNoah to makean Ark: 6:18-19 And behoUI bringaflood of watel pon the edrth,to de-
srol all llesb in uhich is the breathof life under heauen,and whatsoeuer
6:15-17 Mahe therefore for thyselfan Ark of squaretimber. Thou tbingsare upon the earth shdll die. And I uill establisltMy coaenanttuith
shab makethe Ark in compartments,and thou shaltpitcb it witltin and tbec,and thou sball cnter into theArh, and thy sonsand thy wife, and tby
taithoutwitb pitch. And thusshaltthou mahetheArh; threelsundredcu- sons'tuiueswith tbee.
bits thelzngth ofthe Arh, andffty cubix the breadth,and tbirty cubix the God revealswhat He is to do with mankind,and establishes a
heigbtofh. Thoushabnanou theArh in makingit, and in a cubitaboue covenant with \621-x 66n512ntly recurringthemethroughoutsacred
thou shahfnish it, and the door of the Arh thou shalt makeon tbe side; history:God makesan agreement with His chosenones.Cod doesHis
utith lowensecond,and third storiesthou shab mnkeit. will on earthnot by Hisy'ar,not by simplysayingthat is thewayit has
A cubit is supposed to be thedistancefrom theelbowto theend of ro be, but by finding a righteousman who will obey Him. God ar-
the hand, roughlyeighteeninches.'fhereforethe Ark, accordingto rangesthat menwill do His work on earth.
rhis,wasapproximately 450 feetlong,75 f'eetwide,and 45 feethigh. l'he sonsof Noah were included in the Ark, saysSt. John Chry-
This showsthat it wasa veryunusualtypeof strucrure,apparently sosrom,not becausethey wereasvirtuous asNoah (althoughthey did
like a big boat-a three-dimensional, rectangular boat-whose sole avoidrheevilsoftheir time)but for the sakeofNoah, jusrasSt. Paul's
purposewasto keepNoah and his childrenand the animalsfloating companionswere savedwith him when he was shipwrecked(Acts
throughthe courseofthe Flood. fhe ideais that thereis goingto be a 27:22-24\.
248 249
CrNrsts, CnseltoN ,cNoEanlv MaN Tnr Flooo
6:2O-23 And of all cattle and of all reptilesand of all uild beasts, the windows of heavenwere opened,apparentlya whole new atmos-
euenof all Jlcsh,thou shab bring bypairs of all, into the Arh, that thou pheric condition prevailed.Also, as the Farherssuggest,man had by
malestfeed thcm uith thyvlf maleandfemaletheyshall be.Of all winged rhis time becomelower, more fallen.
birdsafier their kind and of all tattle afer their hind, and of all reptiles
oeepingupon the eartbafer tbeir hind, pairs of all shall comein to thee, 7:4-9 For yet seuendaysbauingpassed,I bring rain upon the carth
male and fi:male to befed with thee.And thou shah raheto thyselfof all forry daysandforry nighx, and I will blot out eueryofipring which I haue
k;nd.soffood uhich ye eat, and thou sbabgather them to thyse$ and it madzfom theface of all the earth.And Noah did all thing uhateuertlte
shall befor theeand them to eat. And Noah did all thing uthateucrthe Lord Godcommanded him. And Noahwassixhundredyearsold tuhenthe
Lord Godcommandcd him, sodid he. Flood of uater wasupon the earth. And then went in Noah and bis sons
HereNoah is to put food in the Ark: vegetable food,with which and his wife, and his soni wiueswith him into theArk, becauseof the wa-
rheanimalsalsowereto be fed.[t wasto bestoredup in greatcompart- ter of the Fhod. And of cleanJlying teatures and of uncleanJlying crea-
mentsin theArk. tures,and ofclean cattleand of unclun cattle,and ofall thingsthat creep
Again,onecanimaginethe mockeryto which his contemporarics upon thc earth,pairs uent in t0 Noah into the Arh, maleand female, as
musthavesubjected him for sucha seemingly insaneproject-and yet God commandedNoah.
Noah obeyedGod withourquestion:truly a righteousman lor whom Modernrationalistcritics,of course,havegreatproblemswith the
'fhis is an wholestoryofNoah and theArk. Could therehavereallybeena vessel
the thingsof God comefirst and the opinionsof man last.
inspiringexamplefor us in our own corruptdays. largeenoughto hold two ofeachrypeofcreature(ofcourse,excluding
fish,insectsand orhercreatures that might be ableto surviveon their
own), and how could they havebeengatheredtogetherfrom all over
7:l-3 And theLotd Godsaidto Noah,Enterthou.and all tbyfamily the world?
into the Ark, for theehaueI seenrighteousbeforeMe in this generation. Concerningthe sizeof theArk (whichaswe havesaidwasroughly
malc and fentale,and oJ'the
And of the cleancattlc tahein to theeseuens, 450 feerlong,75 feetwide,and 45 feethigh),one modernesumate
unclcancattb pairs maleand female.And of cleanflying creaturesof the has found that such a vessel,divided into severalfloors as the text
skyseuens, malcandfcmale,and of all uncleanflying creaturespairs, male states,couldeasilyhold two of everykind of animalalivetoday,with
andfemale, to maintain scedon all the earth. room to spare.*
St.JohnChrysostom asksthequestionhow Noah knewthe diffcr- Somerationalists objectthat the animalson orherconrinents,for
enceberween"clean"and "unclean"animalsbeforethe law of Moses, exampleAmerica,could not havecome to the Ark. However,if the
when this distinctionwasmade;and he answers: from the wisdomof Floodwasreallya worldwidecatasrrophe suchasCenesisdescribes it
hisown natureimplanred by God.' in the verses that follow we haveno way of knowingwhat the earth
And why werethereto be sevenpairsoltcleananimals,and rwo lookedlike beforeit-the continentswe know wereformedby the
pairsofeveryrhingelse? St.JohnChrysostom tellsthe obviousanswer: Flooditselfandgeological processesthat haveoperated sincethen.Per-
so rhar Noah could offer sacrificewhen the Floodwasover,without hapstherewasonly azr continentthen;we don'tknow.
destroying anyof the pairs.'I'hisis indeedwhathe did (Cen.8:20).He How did the animalscome?Of course,God sentthem.The text
alsohad to haveanimalsto eat because, right afterthe Flood,God doesnot describe Noah capturingand forcingthemon boardthe Ark;
givesrhecommandto eatmeat.
Perhaps one reasonForeatingmeatwasthat,afterthe Flood,when ' SeeNoahi Arh: A I'easibitiryStudyby JohnWoodmorappe(1996)-Eo.
250 251
I t t t . I t oot r
. i1 c , 1, 1-
3 .' t thct si ntpl r " \\' (nl i n. ' I lt t liut lr cls r rnr i. . r 'st . ur rt l[ ) is ( luilc sir r r plv ant l
rr.rl i .ri ..rl l v. \t. I i ' l rr. r inr r vlr t . . . :
.!ri, ()rr Il ri s vcl r' ,l ,rr t hcr c bcgin t , , . , , r r r . lior r r r ht . . r srr . . 1. P] , . r , rItrt,., nr
' Ihc (,r.cl i t h.nc t h. t r . r Jir i, , n , 'l r hc r cnt . r nr r , , n.r lt r r r , , , xlr h, r rv, r r rbcr r io
L.rl l i ns1' c,,plto
1 \l ,rti ns.likc \ o. r h qoir q oLr r
. r nt .
l . rllinq, r llt lr c. r nir r r . rrl'o r lr r ,' \ r k.
" \tL .l ttun,t/' ,tttr/, \ lat , 1 \ t , t r ,, t l / ll, '"t / nL"ll l) r . l, r , r r r r r r '\ r cl. r r . r( r1t
os) ') - ll.
.rnLl 1'. .l I I .rl rrrvt. I o
li l
Genrsrs, CmerIoN aNo Eanlv M,qru H E ILOOD
254 ) q<
GeNrsrs,Cne,rnoNrNo Ernr,vM,rN
7:10 And it ctme to pttssafer the seuenday that the water of thc
Flnodcameupon the earth.
During rhe sevendaysthey are all getting into the fuk, adjusting
rhemselves, finding their quarters,gettingthe peoplein chargeoffeed-
ing set up, and deding with other pracricalproblems.
St. John Chrysostomdescribesthis as a terrible experience:the
smellof all the animals,with no windowslooking out. Noah wassup-
posedto takethe food which wassuitablefor himselfand feedit to the
animalsduring that time. Undoubtedly it was a time of fasting and
prayerand labor.They probablydid not eat full meals.
Then the Flood is describeq'
t Thc Aposrlc Pctcr makcsclcar that rhc Flood was univcrsalwhcn hc wrircs,
"\X/hcrcbyrhe world rhat rhcn was,bcing ovcrflowedwith watcr,perished"(2 Pctcr
3:6). In rhis as in other Ncw Tistamcnt paisagcsrcgardingthc Flood (Man. 24:39;
Noah (detail).
Luke 17 27:2 Pacer2:5), thc uniquc rerm kauhhtsmot("caraclysm")is used,rarhcr
Fnscoby Thcopbaacsthc Grcel in thc Church ofthc
rhan rhc usualCreekword for "flood."-Ep.
Transfguraion, Novgorod,Rutia, I 378,
"" Accordingto rhc Orthodox Christian Calcndar,which bcginson Scptcmbcr
l. we calculatethis asrhe rwenw-scvcnthofOctobcr.
256
Gr:Nlsts, (hexrloN ,rNtr L'.,rlt.vMaN
Arh outsideof
flcsh,as God commandedNoah. And thc I'ord God shut the
hin. And the FLoodwas upon the earthfbrty daTsandJitrry nightt.
As we have said, this was not just rain. Everything was comittg
down lrom the firmament, and cvcrything was conting up from un-
derneath,reducingthe c'arthto thc samcstateir was on the First L)ay
of Creation--chaos.
25u
CleNtsts,Creartoru aNo EatrrYMrN Tnr Frooo
ens and all the beastsand other irrational creaturcswhich dwelt in water stalcd.And thefountains of the deepwereclosedup, and theflood-
the mountains.5 gatesof heauen,and the rain fom hcauenwas witbheA. And the water
subsidedand uent off the earth, and afier an hundredand ffty dzysthe
Again he says: water wasdiminished.
"And God remembered Noah"doesnot meanthat He hadforgorren
BeholdhowtheScripture onceandrwiceandmanytimesinforms him in rhemeantime.It meansrharGod keothim in mind to savehim.
occurred
usthatthere a rhatnora singlecrea-
destrucrion.
universal Suchexpressions areanthropomorphic. so ihar we can understand.
turewassaved,but all drownedin the water-both menand ani- The Flood wasa hundredand fifly daysgoing up-almost half a
mals.6 year!All that time, Noah wasin the Ark wirhout any ventilarionor
sunshine.The wholesky wascoveredwith darkness. Then the warer
Ifpeopleweresowickedthen,did theyall perishspirituallyin the went down for a hundredand fifiy days.Alrogether,the earthwascov-
Flood?\i?'ere all of them condemned eternallyfor theirsinsor not? eredwith waterfor a year.At that time the landwasrisingup, tremen-
we
In the Scriptures are told aboutthosewho wereliv-
sPecifically dous undergroundreservoirs were being filled, and the whole
ing at the timeofNoah. In I Peter3:l8-20, theApostlePeterdescribes geographythat we now know wasbeingformed.
ho Christdescended to Hades,andwhom He sawthere:"For Christ
alsohathoncesufferedfor sins,the iust for the uniust,that He might 8:3 And theArh restedin tbeseaenthmonth,on the fiaenty4euenth
bring us to Cod, beingpur to deathin the flesh,but quickenedby the dq of the month, on tl)e mlunta;ns of Ararat.
Spirit:by whichalsoHe went and preached unto the spiritsin prison It camefinallyro resron rhe mountainsof Ararat,that is, the re-
which sometime were disobedient, whenoncethe gion ofArarat. Thereareseveralpeaks,bur therearerwo main peals of
[that is, in Hades],
Iongsuffering of God waitedin the daysof Noah,while the Ark wasa Ararat. lt camero resrin rhe seventhmonth, rhe rwenry-seventhday,
preparing,whereinfew,that is, eightsoulsweresavedby water."This exactlyfivemonthsafterit had begunto rain.
"salvation by water,"saysSt.Peter,isan imageof baptism.The Ark isan
imageofthe Church,ofbeingsavedfrom thewickedworld. 8:4-5 And thc udtt clntinued to furease until the te th month.
This quoteofSt. Petersaysdistinctlythat Christwent to preachto And in the tentb month, on thefrst day of the month, thc headsof the
thosewho perishedin the rimeofNoah. Therefore,theyhada chance mountainsue/esecn.
to repent,althoughphysicallythey all died. After death' they had the That is, rhe Ark had alreadycome ro resrupon the high peak.
excusethat Noah wasnot Christ or God Himself,and now they had Then the other peaksbeganto be seen.
the chanceto acceptChrist.'fhat,however, wasup to eachindividual
soul. Undoubtedly, some who died in the Flood acceptedChrist's 8:6-7 And it cameto passafer forty days,Noah openedthe windtta
preachingin Hades,and somedid not' Once onet heartgrowshard, of the Arh uhirh he had made.And be sentforth a rauen:and it utent
onedoesnot acceptChristeventhoughone knowsthat oneshouldre- forth and returnednot until the water wasdriedfom offthe earth.
pent,that this is onet lastchance.Pridegetsin the way. This doesnor meanthat it returned;it meansthat it neverdid
comeback.
8:l-3 And God remembered Noah,and all the wiU bcasts'and all
the canle,and all the birds, and all the reptilesthat ffeeP,4r man! as uere 8:8-14 And he sent a doueafer it to seeif the aater bad ceased
tuith him in theArh. And God broughta wind upon the earth,and the fom of the carth. And the doae,not hauingJiund restfor berfeet, rc-
261
'l'rrr,ljr.oon
tuttd to hint into tht tlrk, btctttrsct/t( ur{t(t ut/tr on tll t/r.frct of t/tt
&trt/r. A l |tt strtttltu/ otr hir /)t d itu/ took ltcr, tnd broutht lttr to
Lirrm/f into t/r tlrk. And lrt n( unin,/.yrt ! ot ltlx'r da.ys,lu ,tg,titr
.i.nt.f;rth tlrc dotv fivn tltr Ark. Anl tlrc dot'r rrtunrcd to /tin in t/tt
n'rnitq, uul lud a /a( oJ o/it'( tt tlri! irt lrr nnut/t;,tul Notlt knuu
tlnt tltt tt,,ttcrl.,,tdct,tsrd.fiont off'tlr rarth. t1t /uuittg ut,titul .y(t sutut
otlter r/ays,Lt' agtiu scnt.fitrth t/tt dorc, ,tnd sltr did no! rttunt to hinr
tt(ttitt tt .y morc. Anr/ it t'i rt( to frtit in t/r sit ltunr/rcl tnr/ .ftrst.yr,tr ol
tlr lifi' of'Noalt, itt r/t .first n0ntlt, o,t tltt firsrla1 of't/r uottt/t, rl,t u,,t-
nr subsirld.f)ntn rtlf tl,c 7171v/1. Anl Noalt oputtd tl.,r nfttirry 4 rlr Ark
u,ltith lu,lt,ul nnlr, h vu' /l)dt t/.t?uutr ltad sr/tsidrd.l)otn tlr
'tnl
fuu of tl,t urr/t. A l iu t/v settnl no t/t tlt( &tr!lt u,tt lriul, orr tlu'
t t(,.t1t.l-! ( rt'11! L lrt.J,r,/ t /,, rtt ortt /,.
'l'hus t.\olh u'ls in thc .,\rkfirr onc ycxr in lll.
Nolh scntollt l);r(lsto scoutirroLrnd. I:irsthc scntthe nvcn, rvhich
tlid rrot rcrrrrrrbccaLrsc (:rccortlirrq to St. Johrr(ihrvsosrrnr)ir lorrntl
llrt corpscsol rrrinralsanclpcoplcto cat. It l'us srili not sali'to go ctlt:
rhc highcslclcvutionsu,crcspoiledn,irlrthcsccorpscson thcnr.
$
t,
'l 'l
hcrr Nouh scnl tlrc (loyc. hc firsr titrrc tltc dovc rvct'ttottt. slte
firunclno trccsor vcgctrtlllcs ro c;tt. I he rnourttlirtsrvercsrill cor.ererl
.It ,,r,irlr slirnc.'l lrc sccorrcl tirrrcthc dovc Iixrnrl rr blirrrch,nlcanirr!lrhilr
tlrr. nccs rvr.rc rror,lortr oi thc rlal.r rtnrl u'crc bcginning to (rorv, [ru(
:
still not cnorrghro sul)portlili'.'l hc rhircltinrc tlrc dovc did not tctrrrrr
Irccrtusc sltc nou lir Lrttrlsrritrrtrlc livirrq contlitiotts. llrcrclirlc, Noalr
kntu it trrrv wrrslinlc l() c()r))!()Ll(.
8:1 5-1 9 tlt tlr Lorl (,ior/spo/ttto t\rtrr/t,itt.1,inq, ( .otttt out fittttt
t/r Ar/<,tbou t/t.1,u,ifitul rlty sorts,,urr/ t/t.l,sottsu,itts u,it/t tluc. ,'ltrr/
'rrrt./
tll tlr u,ild lntsts ttr tltdrt.\t/t\ tn1,tt,it/t t/rrt, tl/ flrlt lnth of bin/s aul
'tttr/
ht,uti, anrl nu'ry rc?til( molitt( t(/)ontlt( ur/lt, hritrc.firtl, u,it/t t/tu: ,trul
iunttsc.yt arul nultip|.y ulo tlt( urt/l. /ltul Noth crnt fin/t, rnd ltis
u,ili /tii sons,,tnrl/.,issoni u'irts u,irltltin. tlnd,rll rlu u,i1/ ltrtstsand
'turl
tll t/tr t,ttt/r tuul tuo.y,bir,/, ,tur/ tttr.J, rqttilt t rulir( tlotl tlr ttrt/t tlitr
t/ttir Iind, t,trw firth out o.fr/tt t1rI.
Nolh enrcrqinslronr rhc Ark. enrl thc cl<rvclrclr inlr the ,rlivc hrrtnch. Ilcrc rvc sccin Noalr thc inragcol Arlanr.lIc is thc only ol)c lcli,
l:reros _fron t/k'tuttiaul (.llnittitttt t,rtttconbi ia Rantt. tltinl rutrt4'. togethcrwirh Iris lenrily; hc is to bcsirr rr)lnl(;ndovcl xgilin. llc is
I6.t
GeNesrs,CnrrrroN rNn EtnrY MeN Tne Fr-oon
8:20-22 And Noah buih an alur to thc Lord, and noh of all chan
bc*ts, and of all chan birds, and ofcred a whob burnt'ffiring upon thc
alun And thc Lord God smclhd a smcll of suectncss, and thc Lord God
hauing consi&red,said"I will not an1 morcd4rsc th. carth, of the
because
worhsof mm, becawcthe imagination of man is intcntly bcnt upon cuil
thingsfrom bisyouth, I will not thacforeany morcsmitealt liuingftsh as
I hauc bnc. All thc daysof thc carth, sccdand harucst,coU and hcat,
summa and spring shall not ccascby dzy or night,
So we scethat, first ofall, Noah offerssacrifice,knowing like Abel
in his hean that this is fining to do in thanksgiving,after havingbeen
264 265
'fue DrspersroNor lnt Pr.opt.ns
zoo 267
Trls Drspr-nsloNoF THE PF-oPLEs
9:18-19 Nou the sonsof Noah wbich cameout of the Arh uere
Sbem,Ham andJapheth.And Ham uasthefather ofcanaan. Thcsetbree
arc the sonsof Noah; of theseweremenscatteredluer all the eaftb.
T'hisreemphasizes rhatNoah is like a newAdam.Fromhim come
all merrafterthe Flood.
Ham is mentionedasthe "farherofCanaan"because, accordingto
St.JohnChrysostom,'Ham did not restrainhis passion in theArk but
conceived a child when he shouldhavebeenrelraininglike his father
and brothers.In the Ark, rhepeoplewerein a stateof prayerand fast-
ing. Men abstained from theirwives,exceptfor Ham. This sin againsr
the law of prayerand fastingalreadyreveals Ham'scharacter.
269
GrNests,Cnr,rrIox,rno EanI-vM,rN
9:26-27 And he (Noah) said, Blessedbe the Lord God of Shem' and years.And all the daysof Noah uere nine hundredandffty years,and he
Canaan shall be his bond seruant.May God mahe roomfor Japh*h, and died.
let him duell in the habitations ofShem, and ht Canaan be his scruant. Noah, the secondprogenitorof the human race,lived slightly
Here Noah is making a prophecy,as all the Patriarchsdid when longerthan Adam.
they blessedtheir sons. He prophesiesabout these three sons from
whom the whole population of the earth will come. 2. The Generationsof Noah
Shem is the blessedone, the ancestoro[ the Semitic tribes, espe- of the sonsof Noah: Shcm,
lO:14 Now thescare the generations
cially the chosenpeople, the Jews.Japheth is the ancestorof all the Ham, Japheth;and sonsvere born to them /tfer the Flood. The sonsof
Gentiles,who later acceptthe word of salvationwhich Christ revealed
Japheth:Gorner,and Magog,and Madoi, and Jouan, and Elishah, and
first ofall to the Jews;they come to dwell in salvation('the habitations Thobcl,and Mosoch,and Thiras.And thesonsof Gomer:Aschanaz, and
ofShem") after the coming of Christ and the teachingofthe Apostles.' Riphath, and Thorgama.And the sonsofJouan: Elishah, and Thrsbish,
Canaan and all the offspring of Ham are to be the bond ser-
Cetians,Rhodians.'
vants-but they are also given salvatiorr.*The Holy Fathersmake a
The renthchaptergoesinto the generations of the sonsof Noah:
specialpoint thar, no matter who your ancestorsare, you can srill be
Shem, Ham, and Japheth.Sevenry-rwo offspring of the threesonsof
saved.For example,in Genesischapter elevenone of Ham's descen-
Noah are named,from whom comethe differentkinds of people.**
dants founded Nineveh, which pleasedGod by its repentancein the "Eachof thesenations,"saysSt. Ephraim,"dwelt in its own distinct
times of the ProphetJonah.St. John Chrysostomsaysof this: "Notice
place,with its own people,and spokeits own tongue."{Someofthese
how the impiery of one'sancestorsdoes not entirely Put our nature
kindsof peoplewe can now identi$ fairlywell;othersaremorediffi-
into disorder."r It does not make any difference if one's ancesroris
culrto identily.***
cursed.Any individual or peoplecan rePentand seekCodi grace,es-
pecially after the coming of Christ. But even before Christ, the
l0:5 From thesewerethe islan& of the Gentilesdiuidcd in their
Ninevites,eventhough they wereoffspringofCanaan who wascursed,
land, carh accordingto his tongue,in thcir tribesand in their nations.
still came to repentance.
This is a reference to whatwill occurafterthe fall of the Towerof
In the Gospel we read of the Canaanite woman who obtained
Babel.Out of all the seventy-rwo basictypesofpeople,therewill be a
grace;her daughter was healedthrough her faith. Christ said to her,
dispersion of humanitythroughoutall the earth.
"O woman, great is thy faith: be it done unto thee even as thou wili'
(Matt. l5:28). She was a direct offspring of Canaan,who was cursed.
' Ve havereplaced someof rhe namesin rhisSepruagint wirh vari-
translation
This shows that salvation is given to everyone. anrspellingsfrom rheKingJamcs Version,in thosecaseswhererhc larrcrarcmorefa-
miliarro Englishrcaders.-Eo.
9:28-29 And Noah liued afer tbe Flood threc hundred and ffty '- Dr. Villiam F. Albrighr,considered the world'sleadingauthoriryon thc ar-
chcologyof thc Near Easr,hassaidconcerningthe 'lable of Nationsin thc tenth
' Sr. Ephraim saysthat Noah'sprophccyrcgardingthc descendantso[ Canaan chaptcrofGcncsis:"k srandsabsolurely alonein ancienrlircrature,wirhouta rcmotc
wasfulfillcdin the cimeofJoshuabar-Nun:"And God dwclt in rhetcnt ofAbraham, parallcl,evenamongthe Greeks, wherewe find theclosest approachro a disrribution
thc descendant ofShem,and Canaanbccamctheirslavewhen in rhe daysofJoshua of peoplcsin gencalogicalframcwork....-fhe TableofNarionsremainsan astonish-
bar-Nun,rhc Israclites desrroyed ofCanaan and presscdthcir
rhe dwclling-places inglyaccurare documenr"("RecentDiscoveries in Bibletands,"articleappcodedro
leadcrsinto bondagc(cf. Joshua17:13)" (Commennryon Genesit,Englishvcrsion'p Robcrt Youngi ,4zalyticalConcordanccto the Biblc,p,25),-ED.
146) .-Eo . "' For an ovcrvicw,sccHcnry M. Morris, Thc Gcncsfu Rccord,ch. 10.-Eo.
273
Grnrsrs.CnrarloNaNo EeRr-y
M,c.N l'ur DrslensroN
on rue Ptopr_ts
275
GeNesrs,Cnrarlon ,lNo Eanrv MaN 'IHn DrsrrasloNorrss Proplr.s
276 277
Tnr: Drslr-:psr<lN
or, t Hr Pr:<lnt.ls
279
GrNEsrs,Crr,rrIor eruo Eenrv Mru
PARTII
PatriarchAbraham.
Frero b7 Monk Thcophanothe Crctan,
Suwonihim MonatcrT, Mount Athot,
ThePhihsophyof
sixtcnth ccn*ry .
Euolation
and dicd. And Cainan liued a hundrcd attd thirry lcdrt lnd begotSah;
and Cainan liued afer he had.begottcnSah, three hundred and thirty
lcdrs, and begotsonsand d4ughters,and died.And Salaliucd an hundted
and thirty yars, and begotHcber.And Sala liud afer he had begottcn
Hebenthreehundredand thirty years,and begotsonsand dzughtcrs'and
dicd. And Hebcr liaed an hundredand thirry-four years,and bcgotPebg.
And Hebcr liacd afer he had bcgomn Pclzgtttto hundred and seaenty
years,and bcgotsonsand daugbters,and died.And Pelzgliued an hundred
and thirty ycan and begotRagau.And Pehgliued afer hc had begotten
Ragau,nto hundrcd and nine years,and bcgotsonsand daughtets,and
dicd. And Ragauliued an hundrcdthirty and twoyears,and begotStuch.
And Rzgau liucd afo he had begottenSentcb,nto hundrcd and seten
1ears,and bcgotsow and daughtcn,and died. And Seruchliud a btn'
dredand thirty yars, and bcgotNacbor.And Seruchliuedafio he had be'
gottcn Nacho, two htndrcd years,and begotsonsand dzughters,and
dkd And Nachor liucd a hundred and settmty-nineyars' and begot
Thanha. And Nachor liued afcr hc bad bcgottenThanha, an handred
and tucrtT-fuc 1wrs, and bcgotsonsand daaghters,and he dicd. And
Tharrha liucd tnenty yars, and begotAbram, and Naehonand Haran.
Thesearethe offspringof Shem,down to Abraham-the new cho-
senone,whosedescendants wereto be a greatnation.
CHeprEn ONr
283
GrNesrs, a.NoEanrvMeN
CnexrtoN ScrrNcraxn rHr Holy Fnrnens
284 285
GrNrsIs, CnEATtonaNn EetrY M,rN Scrrncr ,qNolxt Hory Farnrns
286 287
ScrrNcr lNo rnr. Holy Ferners
GrNrsIs, Cnr'atloN ,rNo EnnlY MlN
lgnatius:"[HcJ
' In his book TheSoulafer Death,Fr. Scraphimwtotc ofBishop It is to be desiredtharsomeOrthodoxChristian,havingstudiedthe
face squarely thc very problcm
was pcrhapsthc firsr great i)rthodox rhcologianro appliedsciences, would then srudythe fundamcnrals
how to preservc rhe authentic Christian of the asceri-
*hici hasbccomcso acrrtcin our own daysl
entircly foreign to Onhodory and cismof the OrthodoxChurch,andbcqueathto mankinda truc phi-
,raii,ion ,.""hing in a world rhar hasbccomc
"nd ir so that it can he made losophy,founded upon preciseknowledgeand not upon arbitrary
strivcscithcrto overtirowanddismissit ot else'rcincerprei
thc Roman
.o.p",ibl. wirh a worldlyway of lifc and thinking Acutelyawarc-of hypotheses. Thc GreeksagcPlatoforbaderhe exerciseof philosopny
which were striving to 'modcrnize' Ortho-
C".iolia othc. Wcsterninflucnccs wirhoutrhc prcrequisire studyof marhematics.This is a trueviewof
"nd for the dcfensc of.Orrhodoxy both
dory cvcn in his days,BishopIgnatiuspreparcd the matter.Virhout a prerequisitc studyof mathematics, rogcther
sources (whose tcaching hc absorbed
ii i.l"ing d..ply into rhc aurhJnticO'thodox with the other sciences basedupon ir, and wirhout rhe activeand
of histimc) and by familiarizing him-
in so-c o?rhcL.rr Orthodoxmonasticcentcrs
grace-filled knowledge oiChristianiryit is impossiblein our time to
sc l f also w i th thc s c ienr if ic an d l i te ra ry c u l rrrre o fh i s c e n tury(heattendedanengi -
nccringschool,not a theological ,"-inary) Armedthus wirh a tnowledgcborh of set forrh a correctphilosophicalsystem.Many who considerthem-
of
O;;.- rhcologt and of sicul,r kno*lcdgc' he devotedhis life-to the defense sclvesadeptsin philosophybut areunacquainred with mathematrcs
modern deviation from it lt rs no cx-
authcnticOnhodiry and to an exPosurcof the and the naruralscienccs, upon encountering arbirraryfantasiesand
century Pos-
aqqcralionto say that no other Orrhodox country in rhe ninetecnth hypothcsesin the works of marcrialists,will not be able in any way
the tcmptarions and crrors of modern
,3..J *"it a dcicndcr of orthodoxy against to differentiarerhcm from knowledgederived from scienceirself,
rimes."-Eo,
288 289
GeNEsts,CaEArtoNlt'to EanlY Men ScrrNcr rNo rnt Hory FrrHsns
and will not be able in any way to givc a satisfactoryr€sPonscand So it is with the doctrineof the firsr man. God hasnor revealed
evaluarionof the most absurd ravingsof any kind of dreamer'Very
many detailsof rhe first stateof His creation,but it is sufficienrto
judge the philosophical-religiousspeculations of evolutionisrs.
often they are attracted to these ravings to thc point of dclusion' The
having rakenrhem as evident trurh ' '
Orthodoxdoctrineof creationhasnot beenknown in rhe Vest; rhe
RomanCatholicdocrrineis quitedifferent.
790 291
CnlarIoN'rxo E'lnlYM'lt.t
GeNrsIs,
it-accepted evolution.To the presentday,one can saythat evolution is beenquite high. Those defendingevolurion havenot beenable ro
eive
a centraldogma of"advanced"thinkers,ofpeople who are in harmony sound evidencein support of ir and, in fact, on severalrroints riere
with the times. caught on their ignoranceof recenrdiscoveriesin paleontoiogy.
From the very beginning,however,therewere peoplewho werear- are very sophisricatedand knowledgeablepeopleJefending
. .There
guing about this. In the time of Darwin, therewas a Catholic thinker' both points ofview. Here we will not evendiscussthe quesrionofathel
Sr. George Jackson Mivart (author of On the Genesisof Speciu' l87l)' istic cvolution becauseit is obviouslya philosophyof iools,. ofpeople
who believedin evolution but not in Darwin's idea of natural selec- who can believe,as Huxley said,that ifyou pur a group ofmonkeys ro_
rion, which reducedDarwin to despairbecausethe latter discovered gerher with rypewrirers they will eventually give you rhe Enryclopedia
that his idea could not be proved. Especiallyin the last ten to thirty Britannica,given enough time-if not millions then billions of vears.
years,therehavecome out many criticalaccountsofevolution from an according to the laws of chance. Someone calculated evolurionary
objectivepoint ofview. fu theseworks demonstrate,most ofthe books theory accordingro rhe laws of chanceand found thar in fhcr such a
supporting evolution begin with certain premisesand assunlprions thing would never happen.Anyone who can believethat can believe
arisingfrom the naturalisticoutlook. anything.
Now there is even a socieryin San Diego called the Institute for l-he more seriousdispute is berweentheisric evolution_rhat God
Creation Research, which hascome out with severalgood books.They crearedthe world and rhen it evolved-ancl rhe Christian point of
themselvesare religious,but they have severaibooks which discuss view. Here we musr saythat rhe lundamentalistpoint of view is incor_
evolution quite objectively,not at all from a religiousstandpoint.They recr in many instancesbecauserhe fundamentalisrsdo not know how
say there are two models for understandingthe universe:one is the to interpret Scripture.1-heysay,for example,rhat the book of Genesis
evolution model, and anotheris the creationmodel.They take the evi- must be.understood"literally,"and one cannor do this. The Holy Fa-
dence of the history of the earth, for example-the geologicallayers thers tell us which parrsare literal and which parrsare not.
and so forth-and they try to seewhich model it fits. They havedis- The firsr misunderstandingrhat must be clearedaway beforeeven
covered that fewer adjustments have to be made if one follows the discussingthis question is one rhar causesmany peopli ro miss the
model of creation-if therewas a God Vho createdthings in the be- point, and rhar is that we musr distinguish berween cuolution and
ginning and if the earth is not billions ofyearsold but only some thou- Variation is the processby which people make various hy_
!o:i:rio:
sands of years old. The evolutionary model, on the other hand, brids of peas,differenr breedsof cars,etc. After fifiy yearsof e*p.ii-
requiresa good many corrections.In this regard,it can be comparedto mentation, lor example, they camc up with a new breed of cat, a
the old model of the Ptolemaicuniverse (vs. the Copernicanmodel).* combination of Siamescand Persian,called the Hinralayancar, which
Like the Ptolemaic model, rhe evolutionary model is now proving has long hair like a Persianwith the coloring of a Siamcse.Ar first rhis
ouite cumbersome. had happenedaccidentally,but the car *", n.u", able to reproduceit-
Some membersof this Institute travel around to variousuniversi- self purely; and only now after all rheseycarsof expcrimcnrarionnave
ties. In the lastyearor rwo, they haveheld severaldebatesbeforethou- they come up with a new brecd which brcedsrrue. Likewise,rhereare
sandsofsoectatorsat universitiesin Tennessee, Texas,etc. lnteresthas different areeds of dogs, different varietiesof planrs, and the very
"races"of men are all quite different: pygmies,
Hottenrors, Chinese,
' Thc Prolemaicmodelheld rhat rhesunand plancrsrevolvearoundthe earrh. Northern Europeans-all different rypesof human beingswho came
by rheCopcrnicanmodcl,which holdsthat rheearthand plancrsrc-
Ir wasreplaced
volvearoundrhesun.-Eo. ' Cl Psalml3: l: "Thc fool hathsaidin his hean:Thereis no God."_Eo.
294 295
GsNlsts,Cnr,qlI<lNlNoEanlv MIN A Brrer Cnlrrque or lss EvoLulroNanyMoorL
from one ancestor.Therefore, the question ofvariation is one thing' develop itself, and that all the specieswere just as wc seethem today.
* 'l'he scientistsof that time acceotedrhar.
and must be distinguishedfrom evolution
There are undoubtedly nlany variationswithin one kind of crea- At the end ofthe period of Enlightenment,however,as the revolu-
pro-
rure, but thesevariationsneverproduceanything neu: they only tionary lever began ro come on, this very stableworldview began ro
is
duce a different uarie4'of dogor cat or bean or people' In fact' this break down, and alreadysome scientistswere coming up with more
more ofa proof againstevolution than for it becauseno one has ever radical theories.At the end of rhe eighteenthcentury, ErasmusDar-
'spe-
been able .orn. up with a new kind of creature The different win, the grandfatherof CharlesDarwin, had alreadycome up with rhe
are
cies"-and- this term is itself quite arbitrary-for the most part hypothesisthat all of life comesfrom one primordial filament-which
wherc
not able to bear offspring with eachother; and, in the few cases is exactlywhat is meant today by the rheory of evolution.* His theory
Sr' Am-
they can, the offspring is not able ro reproduceitselI Thus' did not concernonly one speciesor kind ofcreature,but proposedthat
med-
broseof Milan says:"This is an exampleto you, O man' to stoP a primordial blob or filament developedinto all the different kinds of
to be creaturesby transmutations."Vould it be too bold," he asked, "to
dling in the ways of God. God means for each creature
seParate." imagirrethat in the great length of time since the earth beganto exlst,
perhapsmillions of agesbeforerhe hisrory of mankind-would it be
too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisenfrom
2. Historical Background
one filament?"
During the period of the Enlightenment' the worldview was quite This new explanationof ErasmusDarwin was an attempr ro con-
of Ar-
stabl.. Jusi before this time' the Anglican Archbishop Ussher tinue rhe spirit of the Enlightenmentas utrer rationalismand simplic-
magh calculatedall the yearsgiven in the C)ld Testamentgenealogies ity. As rationalismentered deeperinto the mind, it was simpler (he
up with the idca that the world was createdin the year 4004 thought) to explain life ascoming from a singleliving filament than to
"ni.r.. fa-
s.c.** Newton believedthis, and the enlightenedworldview was in give the more "complicated"explanation that God gave being all at
vor of the ideathat God createdthe world in six daysand then left it to once to all different kinds of creatures.**
'fhere wasone naturalist,Chevalierde Lamarck (auhor of Philoso-
' ln his norcs,Fr Scraphinr writcs:"'I'hepopularmind acceptsmere'variation' phie zoologiquc,1809), who had a definire evolutionarytheory just af-
asproof of a much big6ierquesrion of 'cvolution' We leaveir to scientists
to define ter this, but hc had the idea that the changesnecessaryto account for
as
rhe limits of changcob,.r*bl. to thcm By irs grandioscconception'evolurion the evolvingof one speciesinto anorherweredue to the inheritanceof
suchcannotbc prorra/by rhc smallvrriarionsobservablc by scicncetoday '
acquired characteristics. This could never be proved, and has in lact
"Lct scicntists dcflncthc linrirsofvariation,and let thcm uscthc word andcon-
meraphy'ical been quite disproved.Hence, the ideaofevolurion did not take hold.
cepr of 'cvolution'in cxplainingchangc-bur let rhcnr.abandon
to cxtrapolatc small changcs into an all-encompassing princi- l-here was, however,one importanr geologisrar rhis period of the
schemcs which strivc
latreris truc, ler ir conrenarurally from rhe data wirhour forcingan intcr- early nineteenthcentury who gavea great impetus towardsrhe accep-
plc. lfthis
pretationon facrs."-Flo.
.'Thc Archbishop's finding waspublishedin 1650and wasso-otr addcdas a ' ErasmusDarwins book Zoozomia,in which he proposedrhis rheory,waspub-
Ilible His
marginalnorationro tlic book oi(lcn"'it in thc AuthorizedVcrsionofthc lishcdin 1794.-Eo.
(Hcbrcw)textofthe Old'l-estamentAccord- 'fhe tcrm "Darwinism"wasfirstapplicdto ErasmusDarwin'sthcoricsabour
cal.ilation*as bascdon the Masoreric "
ing,o thc Old T..t"ment chronoto6ry in rhe Scpmagint {()reck) texr',whichir trscd evolution,which includcdnaturalselection.
Thescrheoriesconrriburedmuch ro rhe
by"Or,hodo*Christians,the errth is approximately 1,500ycarsolder rhan Arch- idcas of his grandsorrCharles,alrhough rhe larrer ncver acknowledgedthe
bishopUsshcrtcalcularion.-F-o. dcbr.-Eo.
29(t 297
Gr.I.rnsts'CngrrIoN nNn Eenrv Mat't A Bnrrr Cnrrrqur olrsr EvoLurroN,rny
Mooe I
?98 299
Cne,crloN,rNnEanrvMnN
GtlNr:sts. A Bnren Cnrr.rqurorrur Evolurroruelr Mooer.
clevelopedaccording to its environment. This is not evolution but of creation; rherefore,all kinds of creatureswould have basic simi_
variation. From this, he jumped to the conclusion that if you keep larities.Ifyou believerhar God crearedall the crearures,thesediagrams
making small changeslike that, eventuallyyou will havean absolutely convince you rhar, yes,God createdthem accordingro a plrn. ifyou
different kind of creature.The problem in trying to prove this scien- believethar one crearureevolvedinto the other, you look rhe same
tifically is that no one haseverobservedtheselargerchanges;they nave diagramsand say,yes,one evolvcdinto the other. Bur there"ris no oroof
only observed changeswithin a kind.* either for or againstevolution in rhis. In actualfact, p.ople r..epi .uo-
lution on some orher basisand then look at such diagrams,and the
3. "l'roof" of Euolution diagramsconvincethem evcn more.
2. Secondly, there is "comparatircphysiology."The tsook General
Let us look now at the so-calledproofs of evolution to seewhat
ZoologXstates:" I-he tissue and fluids of organisms show many basic
they are.Ve are not going to try to disprove,but just to try to seethe
sinrilaritiesin physiologicaland chemicalpropertiesthat parallelmor_
qualiry of the proofs that arc used;what it is that seemsconvincing ro
phologicalfeatures."'For exampre,
peoplewho believein evolution.
L There is a srandardtextbook of zoology used rwenty yearsago,
from the hemoglobinin vcrrcbratebl<rcd,oxyhemoglobin crystals
GeneralZoologlby l'racy I. Storer,which listsa number of proofs.T'he
canbe obtained;thcir crysralline srrucrure. . . parallels
that of verte-
first proof in the book is called "comparatiuemorphologt," that is, a
brarcclassificarion basedon body srrucrurr.Thoscof cachspecics
comparisonof body structures.Man has arms, birds havewings, fish
arcdistinct.bur all frrlm a gcntrshavcsomecr)mmonah.rrrar"r,.r,a.
have flippers-the book has convincing diagramswhich make them
'l'he birds haveclaws and we have fingers-the Furthcrmore, thoseof all birdshavecerrainrcsenrblances brrrdiffer
look very much alike.
from crystalsobtainedfrom bloodof mammalsor reptiles.2
book showshow one might havedcvclopcdinto the other.*' All crea-
rures are shown to have a very similar strr.rcture,and the different
say rhe same rhing here as we said of morphology. Ifyou
srrucruresare arrange<raccording to different phyla and gena. Of
believein creation,you sayrhar God made similar creaiures*i,h,i-i-
course,this is not a proof. It is very logical, however,to one who be-
lar blood, and there is no problem. Ifyou believein evolution, you say
lievesin evolution.
thar one evolvedinto r he othcr.
On the other hand, the scientificcreationistssaythat ifyou bclicve
A daring sysremhas bcen devisedlrom precipirationsfrom blood.
that God createdthe universe,He must have had a basicmaster-plan
Scientistsseethat the precipirationsarcsimilar in eachspecies,thar they
havesomething in common wirhin one genus,and rhar rhey are quire
' l"his is bccause, ashasnow becnshowrrthroughgcncticrcscarch, rhccapaciry
distinct in differenrgenera:birds and monkeys,for example.From rhis
for variarion ofa parricular organisnr is limircd by thc inherentvariabiliryof thator-
ganism!gene pool. "ln other worcls," writes Phillip Fi "thc rea..," rhar they make certaincalcularionsand decidchow .rny y""i, aparton the
Johnson,
dogs doni bccome as big as elephants, much lesschange inro clcphants, is not rhar evolutionaryscalethesedifferent crearuresare.As it happens,their cal-
we jusr havcn'tbeenbrccdingthcm longienough.L)ogsdo not havethe gerteticca- culationsthrow everythingelseoff Ifrhis is to be accepred,orher dating
paciryfbr thardegrecofchange,and rhcysropgettingbiggerwhcn the gencticlimit systemshaveto be changed;so it is still conrroversial.It actuallyproves
is reachcd"(Datuin on Trial,p. 18).-Eo. nothing, becauseyou can acceprit as a proof either of evolution or of
" In this illusrration, on p. 2l 5 ol Gencral Zoolog,a "hypotheticalintcrmcdi-
Codt creation.
ate" (rcfcrrcd to as such in rhc caption) is shown berweenthc fin ofa fish and the
limb ofan arnphibian. ln other words, in thc absence ofan inrcrmediate spccies, rhe 3. Tlrereis a third argumentcalled"comparatiue
cmbryology."Text_
.
arrthorhad to invcnt onc.-llo. bookslike GeneralZoologltusedto havepicruresthat sho* Ji emury_
300 301
GENrsIs,CnrlrIoN lNn Ernlv M'ltl A Bnlrr Cnrrrqur or rus Evor.u.rroN.rny
Moonr.
onrc flsh. salamander, turtle' chicken,pig, man, etc. demonstrating seem ro be. Scientistsdare the strata by what kind of crearuresare
rhat they all look very much alike and sayingthat they graduallyde- found in them.
velop differently. You can see that man has so-called "gill-slirs" in the In the nineteenthcenrury rhey discoveredrhesestrata and derer-
embryo. Therefore,this is supposedto be a remembranceof his ances- mined which wereolder and which wereyounger;and now they havea
"biogeneric
try.* brnst Haeckel,in his 'theory of recapitulation"and rather elaboratesystem by which to tell which srrara are older and
(on- which are younger.*However,rhe whole dating sysremis rathercircu-
law," stated that "an individual organism in its development
togeny)tendsto recaPitulatethe stag€spassedthrough by its ancestors lar. Sinceoften thesesrraraare "upsidedown" accordingro rhe evolu-
(p-hylogeny)."IToday this theory is no longer acceptedby evolution- tionarymodel,**rheyhaveto makecerrainreadjusrmenrs. Iusrlike the
i.,r. S.i.niit,t havefound that the "gill-slits"are not gill-slitsat all' but Prolemaicsystemneededcertain adjusrments(epicycleshad to be de-
are,iustpreparingfor what is to be developedin the neck ofthe human vised,becauserhe planerswere not going around the earrh uniformly),
being. 5o this pioof hrs been pretry well discarded'-Again,they used in the sameway evolutionisrsmust make adjusrmenrswhen they find
the a'rgu-.nt that similarity meansproof, which in fact-it doesnot' that, according ro evolutionary rheory, the srrataare "upside down."
4. Another proof, which usedto be more powerful than it is today' They havero date them by rhe fossilsin rhcm. Bur ho* Jo rhey know
is that of "uestigidl"organs.Evolutionists claimed that there are certain that the fossilsin rhem are in the righr order? They know because
organs,like the appendixin man' which seemto haveno function now sonrewhereelse the fossilswere in the "righi' order accordingro tne
ani therefore must be left over from a previous stage of evolution' evolutionistmodel, and rheygor the systemfrom thar. Ifyou look at it
when a monkey or another of man'sancestorsused theseorgans' But closely,you seerhar ir is a circularsystem.One has ro have faith rhat
more and more these"vestigial"organsare found to havea certain usel this ecruallycorrespondsro realiry.
the appendix, for example,is found to have some kind of glandular There are a number of flaws in this. For one rhing, rhe crearures
function, so this argumentis alsolosingweight'** And just becausewe appearquite suddenlyin eachstrata,wirh no inrcrmediaryrypeslead-
do not know what a certain organ does,this does not mean that it is ing up ro rhem. Besidesrhis, as researchconrinues,,h.y finding
left over from some lower form of life. animalsin the srrarawhich are not supposedto be where they"i.
are. For
5. l'hen there are the argumens ftom paleontology:the study of example, now in rhe pre-Cambrian level they are finding iquid-like
fossils.Of course,the first seeminglyconvincingproofis the geological crearureslTribratltidia) and all kinds of quite complex animals like
srrata,as,for example,in the Grand Canyon whereyou seeall kinds of rhat, which should not be there becauserhey supposedlydid not
strata;and the lower you get the more primitive the creaturesthere evolve unril some hundred million years larer. Flirher you have ro
changeyour idea of the evolution of such creatures,or you havc ro say
that rhesewereexceptions.
' That is,a proofthat manevolvcdfrom aquaticanimalswith gills-Eo'
" "Pracricailyall thc so-callcd'vestigial'
organs'cspecially thoscin man' have
beenprovcdin reccntyearsro havedefinircusesand nor to be ar all At one
vestigial ' l hc" geol ogi cal co lum n"schem cdeviscdbyevolt r t ionisr s( wit hdar esass
timc. evolutionistsclainredthercwereabout 180 such vcstigialorgans in rnan'but cachstratum)is nowhercto bc lound in naturcasa conrplcrc sctofsedimenrs ofsran_
oracticallvnoneareclaimednow.Someofrhese were the thyroid gland' the rhyrrrus' dartirhi rkncss.k rsani m agr narryr r ucr urreharlr . r hccn
, . ynr hcr ir ed
lr omr om par ing
,h. .o."1*, thc pinealgland' thc car muscles, the tonsilsand thc appendi* All of a srrarumofrock in oneparrofrhc worldwith a simlarlookingsrrarumin anothcrpart
rhcsearenow known tcl havcuscful,and oftenessential functions" (Hcnry Morris' of theworld." SeeRichardMilron, Jlaairylr Mythsof Daiu,inism,chs.3,7._Eo.
Scicntifc Crcationitm,P. 76). For a detailedtreatmcnrof this subject'seethe book "'l heEnryckpcdiaBritannica(l l th ed.) tdmits rhar in somefieldsall rhe strara
"Vuugul Orgarc" arc I:ull4 Funttional by Dr' Jcrry Bergman and Dr Cieorge arecxactly"upsidedown" [i.c, primirivecrcarurcs are fbund at a hishcr levelrhan
Howe.-Eo, morc hi ghl ycvol vcd'on er j.
302 303
Cnr-artoNaNo Err'lY M'lN
Gr.Nests, A Bnrer Carrrqur or rHr EvoLurlox,tnyMoper.
In general,there is no proof that thesestratawere laid down over Moreover,rhere are only very parricularcondirions which causea
millioni of years.*The creationistswho talk about the Flood of Noah fossilto be left ar all. A creaturehas to be buried suddenlyin a cerrarn
saythat it is equallyconceivablethat the Flood causedexactlythe same kind of mud which allows it to be preserved.-The whoie idea of the
rhing. The simpler marine animalson the sea-bottomswould generally gradualnessof rhesephenomenais being called more and more into
b. tt. firrt to te buried, followed by fish and other organismsliving quesrion.'fhere is now proof thar oil and coal and such things can be
n€arerthe oceansurface.The more advancedanimals,including man' made in an extremely short time-in a mart€r of days or weeks.**
would be going on higher ground trying to ger away from the Flood' The formation of fossilsitself is very much in fauor of some carasrro-
ro
There woJd be f.* re-nantt of man becauseman would be trying Pne.
*' realmof paleontology,the most importanr argumenragalnsr
get on shipsand other things to get away .ln.the
evolurion is that it is hard to saythat therehaseverbeen found a iingle
thing which can be calledan intermediaryspecies.in fact, Darwin was
*'I'he uniformitarianassumptionthar the strarawerelaid down graduallyovcr
proccsscs sho* cxtremelyworried about this. He wrote:
millionsofyearsis not borneour by the evidenceModerngeological
like thosein the exisring
rhat n,rwhcr"todayarethererock bcingformcdanyrhing
originofthe srrataSceRichardMikon Shauo-
strata.This pointsto a carastrophic fhc numberof inrcrmediare varieties,
which havcformerlyexisreo,
(:rcttroittrn'
ing th, Myti, of'Darwinism' pp.72-79' and Henry Morris' 'Sirrnrfc Imust]be rruly cnormous.Why rhcn is nor cvcrygeological forma_
D D l U l-ll. -rD. tion and cvcrysrratunrfull of suchintermcdiare
furrhcr:"Thc lactthat' althoughrhisorderis gcncrally
linl<siGeologyas_
" Dr. Henry Morriss,rys surcdlydocsnor rcvealanysuchfincly-graduared
ro be expected, ii is fo,rndto havemanyexceptions' both in rermsof omissions and organicchain;ano
is alsocerrainlyto be expected in tcrmsof Delugcevents lrut is exrrcmcly this,pcrhaps,
is thc mostobviousandscriousobjecrionwhichcanoe
inuer.ions,
(I-hz Gencsis urgedagainstthe rhcory.Thc explanation
diflculr to accountfor logicallyin rermsofcvolutionand unilornriry" lies,asI bclieve,in thc cx_
l:kod, p. 276). trcmeimpcrlccrionof the gcological record.l
Dr f)avid M. Raup,curarorof (icologyat Chicago's l-ieldMuscumof Natural
History (which hottsesthc world'slargcstcollecrion of fossils)'hasmadecxrensivc
"ln rhe Today's scientistssay rhar the fossil record is extremely abundant:
srudi"sof thes.fossilsequenccs and hascomcto rhe following conclusion:
progressions ln general' there are more fossil speciesknown rhan living speci.s.Srill, the.e
y.carsafrcrDarwin,his aivocares hopedro find predictable
have not been found more rhan a couple which might be intcrprere<r
,h"." h"u. not becnfound-yct the optimismhasdicd hard,and somepurefantasy
hascreptinto the texrbooks."
Dr. R"up,*ho is considcrcd the world'sgrcetest livingpaleonrologist' is an evo-
tharone could frt just about any theory one likcsto 'I.c., ro prcventdecayby bacreriaor assaultby prcdators.Furthcrnrorc,
lutionist,bui hc acknowlcdges rhrs
jusr as well havc beeo deposired sro- scdimcntmusr be ofconsidereblc deprhro prevcnrrhc remainsfrornbeingdispcrscd
the fossil record.Hc say. that rhe fossilscould
asfar asany orderis conccrned (David Rar-rp'"Probabilistic oy
chastically (randornly), 'latural Proccsscs.
Richard Milron points our: "1bday thcre arc no known fuiliferoqs rocks6rm-
Modefs in EvolutionaryPalco-Biologv"'Arteriran Stienrit, lan'-Fe6 1977' p' 57)'
"Onc of thc ironiesof ing arrl'whcre in the world. I'hereis no shorragc
He cvcnnotesthc ironicimplicatiorxof this for creationisrs: oforgrnic ,.,rrainr,no lackofquier
debateis rhat rhc crearionists have accepred the mistakenno- scdrmenrary marinecnvironmcnrs_ lndecdrhcrearerhe bonesand shellsof millions
rhe evolution-crearion
orderly progression and thcy havc ofcreaturcs availableon landandsea.But nowherearerhcsebecomingslowlyburicd
tion that the fossil recordshowsa dctailedand
this'hct' in rhcir Flood gcology" (David Raup' in sedirnents and lirhified.They aresimplybcingerodedby wind, tide,weathcr,and
goncto greatlengthsto accomodare
iEuolutionend the liossilRecord,"Sciaaca, l98l' p 289)' predarors"(ShatrcrixgthaMTth of Datwinism,p.7g). This indicatesrhat rhc exisring
July l7'
"ln eqhsrwords,"writesDr. Henry Morris,"Raupis sayingrhatfloodgcologisrs fossilswcrc formed as a rcsuh ofa grcar carasrrophe.SeeHenry Morris, Scicntif,c
Cteationirn, pp. 97- I 0 l.-Eo.
nceclnot bother ro work out a Floodmodel for the ordcr ofthe fossils'sincerhereisni ** SeeJohnD. Morris,
any 'order' to acconrnrodatcl" (7 fu Biblica!Bafufor Modern Scicncc' p 363) -Eo TheYoung Earth,pp. 102_3._Eo.
304 305
GtNests,CntertoN aNn E,rnlYMen A Bnrrr Cnrllqur-op rHr EvolurroNrny Moor.L
as somehow being an intermediaryspecies.They will tell you about are exactlyrhe sameascurrenrlyliving species.Evolutionistshaveideas
the pterodacryl-l rePtilewith wings-and say that this reptile is be- that some are "rcprobate"speciesthat do not go anywherefor some
.o.ing biid. But why cani you simply say this is a reptile with reason,and othersare more progressive speciessincethey havethe en-
" ergy to go forward. But thar is faith, not proof. The fossil specieswhich
wings?'
Th.re a.e cert"in fossilscalled"index fossils"which, when seenrn a have been preservedare just as disrinct from each other as are living
certain stratum, determine thar that stratum cannot be any older or species.
younger than a certain date becausethat animal supposedlybecame 6. Then rhere are rhe 'bbuious" fzni$ proof of evolution.In mosr
.*tini a cerrain period. They found a fish*. swimming around in textbook of evolurion, rhereare arristic renderingstracing the evolu-
", which was supposedto be extinct sevenrymillion years tion ofrhe horseand the elephant.There is a greardeal ofsubjecriviry
the ocean
off the involved in this, jusr as when artists make the Neanderthalman look
ago.*" Becauseit was thought to be an index fossil, it threw
w:holething; and that particular layer which was dated according to benr over to resemblean ape.This is not scientificproof bur imagina-
chisextinct fish was no longercorrect.**** tion basedon one'sphilosophicalidea.There is quire a bit ofevidence
Vhy is it that certain speciesevolveand others stay the same as in the fossil record which is either againsrevolurion or shows rhat
they were?There are many specieslound in the "ancient"stratawhich there is no proof one way or the orher; and rhere are some things
which are quite remarkableand are unable to be explainedby evolu-
Ilon.
'Thc animalthar evolutionists mostoftcn citc asa reprilc-ro-bird rransltronts
Phillip F" johnson callsthe arrlae- The few "clear" lines of descent-the horse,pig, etc.-involve ei-
acruallynor the pterodecrylbv thearcbacoprar4
"odrl varianr, likc the contemporary duckbilled plarypus". (Daruit on ther variation within a rype (as,evidenrly,difkrent sizesof horses),or
opr"ryi
^n "mosaic form possessed no else (whcn it involvesapparentlydifferent kinds of crearures)merery
frioi, p, tOlt Henry Morris poinrsout rhat it is a [which]
rransitionafstructxrei'l'l-bc Biblical Basisfot Modcm Science' p' 341); and cvcn thc assumes (6u cannot prove) that one crearureis relaredro another by
cvolurionisrs StephenJayGould and NilesEldredge acknowledge that curiousmo-
direct descenr.*lfevolution is true, theselines ofdescenr may 6e plau-
saicslike archacopteryr do nor couni'as smooth inrermcdiarcs in the fossil rccord
notcs rhat'\hcre is no sible;but in no way do they constiture proof Forevolurion.
(Paleobiology, uol. 3 ispring 1977)'p. t47\. Michael Denron
qu".tion ,ilt this a..haicbi.d i, no, lcd up by a serics of transitional formsFroman
ordinaryterrestrial rcptilethrougha nunrbcrof glidingrypcs with increasingly dcvel- 'A reccnt arricle in lVorU Magazinc(July 17, 1999) has nored conccrning
(Euohuion: A 7heory in Crisit' p' probablyrhc best-known ofrheseallcgcdlincsof dcsccnr:"'l'he FieldMuscunr[of
oped fcarhe.suntil rhe auiancondition is teached"
176).-Ep . Chicagolis the sorrrccof rhatofr-rcprinrcd cxhibirpurportcdlvshowingrtrccvotu-
'* 'Ihe coelacanth, which wasdiscoveredin 1938off the coasrof Madagascar rion of rhehorse.Litrleskclcrons arelollowcdby slighrlylargerandevermorccqurne
Thc coclacanth wasrhoughrro bc closely related to the immediatcancest"tsof rhc skcletons, smoorhlymuraringunril we havcthc modcrn-day horsc.C)nrhc faccof it,
amohibians. When it wasdissccred' however,"irs internal organsshowedno signsof thisseems ro providea vividvisualproofofevolurion, wirh no nrissinglinksfrom rhe
beingpreadaptcd for a landenvironmentand gavc no of how it migihtbe
indication riny fcrret-likccrcarurero thc magnificenr srrllion,.rndir hasbccnusedassuchin
po.ri"bi.fo, a fith ro bccomean amphibian"(lohnson, Duwin on Trial' pp' 76-77; counrlcss sciencctexrbooks. It turnsout, though,rharrhe animalswhoseskelerons
scealsoDenron,pp l 57, 179-80).-Eo' areso arranged havenorhingro do with eachother -l hcy represent differcnrspecics,
"'1.c.. at aboutrhe sametime thar dirrosaurs weresupposed ro havcbccorne dillerenrbranches, and overlapping rimes,asevcncvolutionisrs---<alled on rne mat-
extinct.-Eo. rer by criricsof Darwinism-havcbecnforccclro admir.'l he FieldMuseum,ro its
*"" Thcrcaremanyothcrorganisms whosefossilshadbeenfoundozl1instrata credit,haspulledrheshowcase, subsritutinga phoroofthe old exhibir,alongwith an
rhoushtto bc hundredsof millionsof years old, and which wcrethus usedasindcx accounrof rheconrroversy" (GeneEdwardVcirh,"Admirringlts Mistakes,').
fossili-unril thcy wcrclound srill living in modcrn rimes F-ora partiallist of these On thc supposcd linesofdcsccnr,scealsoDenron,pp. 182-86, l9l, and Mil-
organisms,secSeiattfc Crcationin' pp.88-89 -Eo' ton, pp. 102-5.-E D .
306 307
Cne.mtoN,ruo EanlYM,aN
GeNnsrs, A BnrrrCnlrrqul or rrrr Evolurroru,q.nv
MoDeL
7. The final so-calledProof of evolutionis mutations.As a matter kind thar reproduces itselfeveryrendays.tfanyrhing,the evidence in
of fact, the seriousscientisrwill tell you that all the rest is not really that sphereis for the "fixiry"ofspecies..
proof, but the one proof is mutations Bur in the end,we haveto sayrharthereis no conclusive scientific
There ate some evolutionists,such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, proofrbr evolution;and likewisethereis no conclusiveprool againx
who say,"l haveprovedevolution becauseI havemadea new speciesin evolution,because eventhoughit mighr not seemroo llgical or too
the laboratory."After thirty yearsof working on fruit flies' which mul- plausibleaccordingro rheevidence, still thereis no proof ihar grvena
tiply very quickly, you can get the generarionalequivalentof several billion or trillion yearsa monkeymight not be producedf.io* an
hundred thousand yearsof human life in a lew decades'Dobzhansky amoeba.Who knows?If you don't considerfor a momenrwhat rhe
experimentedby irradiating fruit flies and finally came uP with two Holy Fatherssay,you mighr think that perhapsit's true, especially if
*hi.h hrd changes,and which no longer interbredwith the other kind thereis a Cod. Ifyou think it happened"by chance,"you haveno ar-
'fhis is his definition of species-that they do not inter- gumenrar all... To believeit happened by chancerequires
of fruit fly. muchmore
" fairhrhanto believein God. In anycase,theevidence
breed;thereltore,he said,"l haveevolveda new species we havejust ex-
In the first place, this was done under extremelyartificial condi- aminedwill makesenseto you accordingto what your philosophyis.
'l-he creationist
tions, with radiationl and you have to come up with a new theory of philosophyrequireslessadjustmentof the evidence,
radioactivewavesfrom outer sPacein order ro iustily it Secondly,it is and so it is morein accordance with the simplisticpresuppositions of
still a fruit fly. So it has no wings or it is purple insteadof yello*; it is modernscience.
still a fruit fly and is basicallyno different from any other fruit fly; it is Thereis onemorerhingthathasbeenusedasa kind of .proofof
.8.
simply another variery.So he hasactuallyproved nothing ' . evolution," and that is radiomenicdating radiocarbon,potasslum-
-
i,rrtherrnore, mutations are ninety-nine percent harmful' All ex- argon,uraniumdecay,***and so on. Thesewereall discovered in the
periments,including thoseby evolutionistswho haveworked on then.t presenrcenrury,someof them just recently.Evolutionists say rhese
io, decades,have proved unsuccessfulin showing any real systems provethe world is reallyveryold. One textbooksaysrheyhave
chanse-rnyfrom one kind of creatureto another,even the most primitive
' As gcnrrics expcrr [)r. l-cc Spctncr has observcd,"lf random murarions
could
cangrcarlyincrcase or decrcasc
- PhillipE. Johnsonnorcsthat'An cxpcrimenrcr eccount for rhe cvolurion oflife, rhen rhey musr have addecla lor of infbrmation ro
ctc the
rhe numberof bristles in a fiuir fly,... or grcatly reduce the wing size' ' but thc gcnomc from thc rinrc ofrhc firsr purativc organism unril rhc appcaranccofall
fruit flicsarestill fruit f1ics,usually maladapted ones Sonte accorrnrs crcdir rhe fruit prescnrlifc. lf this vastanrounr of information was btrilt up by an accumularionofa
fly experimcnts wirh producingncw specics, in the senscof popularions which do long scriesof random murationsand natural sclcction,then crch of rhcsemany bil-
not inrerbrccd with cach other; othcrs disputc that rlrc species border has in realiry lions of nrurationsmust havc, on rhe averagc,added somc informarion. ycr afier all
bccncrosscd. Apparently the question turns on how narrowly or broadly one dcfincs the molecular studics thar havc'bcendonc on mutarions, nor a sinele one has been
a species, espcciaily *irh rcspecr ro popularions thar are inhibited fiom interbrceding lbund rhar adds any gencric infornrarronlThey.rll losc intbrmariori!. Seef)r Spcr-
bui not tor"lly in."pablcof it. I am not intercsted in pursuingrlrequestion'ltcause ner'sauthorirativcrefutarionofcvolurion, Not by Chancc!-'F.o.
what is at issuc hcrc is dte capaciry ro crealc new organsand organismsby this " In saying "by chancc," Fr Scraphim rneans..wrrhoutdesign.'or ..wirhout an
rnerhod,not thc capacity ro producc separated breeding populationsln any casc' intelligcnr Designer."According ro rhe nco-f)arwirrianModcrn SynrhcticTheory of
thereis no ,ar.on ,o [r"li.u" thar rht kind of selccti<ln uscd in rhc fruir fly expcri- Flvolution,rhc fundamenral mcchanismofevolurion is chancc murarion, acrrnq ro_
nrcnrshasanything ro do with how fruit flics devcloped in thc first place"( Daruitt g c r h c r w i r h n . r r u r a ls e l c c r i o n .- F.u .
on l n t t l, o. | / ) ) . "" The uranium decaysystcmis rhe first radiometric merhod used historicallv.
For a s Lr m m a r y o f r h c d i flcr e n t d e fin itio n s o f "sp e cics" p r oposed by evol uri on- rhe method againstwhich orhershave becn calibrared,and thc main ruopo.r fo, rh.
ists,secabove,P. 134 n.-Flo. w i d c l v . r c c c p t c di d e a r h a r r h c e a r th r s 4 .6 b r l l i o n yca r ro j d .- Eo .
308 309
A Bnrr.rCrrrrque olrxe EvoLurlowenyMooeI
GeNssIs, Cnn,rrtoN lNo E'cnt-vMaN
beforewe hadonly rela- theory long before radiometric daring was ever heard oi* Any objec-
broughtabouta revolutionin dating,because
rive scientific book on the subject will tell you thar the only way we
tive i-deasofage and now we haveabsoluteideas'One cantesta certaln
systemand come up with the can give absolutenumbers of yearsto the differenr srratais by accepr-
rock accordirigto the Potassium-argon
of error ing the rheory of evolution.
iJ., ,ft^, the r"ockis rwo billion yt"ts old; theyallowa margin
"lndex fossils"are usedas the ulrimate indicarion ofrhe ageofthe
of aboutten percent.
strata,and the ageofrhe index fossilsis determinedby evolutionaryas-
The factofthe matteris that thegreatageof theearthwassuPPos-
were sumprions about them.** As The AmericanJounal of Sciencestates:
edly already"known" by scientistslongbeforethesedatingsystems
developed. Fromtheir inception,thedatingsystems were.based un-
on
provenuniformitarianpresuppositions of CharlesLyell'that theworld 1-heonly chronometricscaleapplicablein geologichistoryfbr rhe
N Berry srrarigraphic classification
1u".."n" millionsif not biliionsof yearsold As Villiam B
ofrocksand for datinggcologicevenrsex-
7-imeScab: actlyis tirrnishedby thc fossils.
Owing ro rhc irreversibilityofevortr-
writes in his book Grouth of'a Prehistoric
tion, they offcr an unambiguoustime scalcfirr relativeage
although
timescale'
of thegeologic
rhusis theverybasis determinations and for worldwidecorrelarion of rocks.'"' 6
Evolution
\Wallacepresented
the scalcitsclf was crccted before Darwin and 'fherefbre, it! another
of naturalsclection world''
to the scienrific circular arqunrent.The rheorv of evolution
thcir systcnr
,.-, '*ort " Lnly if 4ou know that rhe world is "millions of cnd of thc (lreraccous pcriod by rcfcrcnceto how long hc rhoughrit would havc
in daring;rhey sim- rakcnrhe shcllfish(whoselossilsarc lound in l:rterbeds)to havccvolvcdinto rhcir
yearsold."'Thus, r[.y are not reallyrevolutionary modcrn desccndants. l-yellcstinratcdthar rhc (]retaccous cndcd 80 nrillion ycars
new dating systemshad
ol" fi, in,o an alreadyacceptedview' If these agcr-not far from today'sacccpredfigurc of 65 nrlllion (ShaneringtheMyth ol Dar-
of three
iia .t thc world *r, oniy five thousand years old' instead tuitisn, p.22).-tl.o.
",scientistswould not haveacceptedthem so easily'** '* Vhcn diffcrentradionrcrrictcstsof a rock, perfirrrncdaccordingro onc or
billion,
- .
of all the
Thc geological column and approximate ages nrorcradiornctric procedurcs,comeup wirh discordanr agcs(asfrctlucntlynappensl,
to evolutionary cvolutionisrs rvilldccideuponan :rgcrharaccords
fossil-bearlng ,,L," *.r. also worked out according wirh rheiridcasofrhc cvolurionary
stagcs of"indcx firssils" fbundin rhesrmebcd.As l)r. John I). Morrisputsit, "Orrce
again,thc lossilsdirrerhe rocks,and rhc lossilsarcdarcdby c.volurion." ()nc fenrous
speaking'
thar,scientifically no onehasprooflor any caseof this wasthc daringcontroversy overrhe KNM-FlR-1470skulldiscotcreooy
" "lr mustbc rcmcmbered
to 6'000 ycarsago'at most' RichardLeakey, which is discrrssedin AppcndixFour.(Sccalsol.Lrbcnow,
datcsprior to thc bcginningofwrirtcn records'abour4'000 Sazeraf
;;;";;;;;i;;:ginniig of historynrusrnecessarilvbe basedon theassumptiooof Couention,pp. 247-288,and Milon, pp. 53-56.)-Eo.
p l50) -Eo "* Likcwise,V. M. Fllasser of thc Univcrsiryof Marylendwrircs:"fu is well
uniforlit"ri"nir-" iH.nry Mo,,;' Scicnifc Crcauonim'
Mikon observes, 'science has proposed many merhodsof geo- known,theordcrof the geological stratais fixedcnrirclyby meansof fcrssilsl rhus,rhc
" fu Richard
chronomctry-mcasuring thc Earth! agc-all o[ which ere subjecrto someunccr- geological mcthodpresumcs rhe cxistenccin rheseperiodsof livingbcingsofgradu-
to rheoceanl But rlly incrcasingcomplexiry"(EncTdopedtu Britannicall97 3), vol. 7, p. 850).
tainties[c.g. cfiluxofhcium into thearmosphcrcinfl-uxo[sah
decayof ura- J. Fl. O'Rourkc, writing in TheAncricanJoxnal ol'scicnt (Jzn. 1976, p. 53),
of rh... ."any mcthods,only one techniq'ri-rhar of the.radioactivc
of yearsAnd ir is starcs:"-l he intelligenrlaymanhaslong suspectcd
niu- and similarclcmcnts-yieldsan agefor rhe Earthof billions circuhr reesoning in rhe useof
promotedby Darwinists.and rrnifor- rocksto darc lossilsand lossilsto datc rocks.Thc gcologisrhasncverborhcrcdro
,hi, nn. .",hod thar hasbeenenrhusialrically
(Shaueringthc rhink of a gooclreply,feclingrhat expllnationsarc nor worrh rhe rroubleaslong as
rri,"ri"r g".l.git", while all other mcrhodt hauc been ncglected"
the work bringsrcsulrs. This is supposed to bc hard-headed pragmarism."-Eo.
Mlths of Daruinin, P. .18)-Lo'
310 3l r
A BnrcrCrurrqur or rHr EvoLurrorlatyMooe I
GeNssIs'CngxrloN'rNo EentYMr'n
3t7 3't3
A Br.rtr Cntrlqur or lrt EvolurtoNanvMoosl
GeNssIs, Cnlqrtoht lt'Io llAnl-v MIN
3t4 3t5
CnenrtoNauo EeruvMnr't
(lp.Nnsts, A Bnrer Cnrrrqur or .rne Evor.lrnoNany
Mopcr.
316 3t7
CtrartoN aNo ElnlY M'lN A Bnrer Cnrrrqur or rHe FlvoluloNrny Mooel
Gr-NrsIs,
knowledge progressingover thers say that human reasonhas beencorrupted since the flll of man;
though not doing much), and scientific
therefore,it must be submitted to faith and revelarionand thus raised
"'- whole world.
the
up to a higher level.Once reasonis exaltedabovefaith and tradition,
the, Enlightenment'
itri, U,ingt us to the secondmain aspectof
his book The Mahing of the its critical approachproducesits own destruction.J'he faith in human
which was o"loirh i, human progres' ln
reasonthat firsr produced Scholasticismthen produced the Refornra-
Modcrn Mind'1. H. Randall,Jr" writes:
tion, becausereasoncriticized religion itself. The Reformation was a
amongindividualmen criticism of medievalCatholicism,and rhen a criticism of Protesranr-
It wasfrom the sprcadof rcasonand science
hopedto bring about isrn produced the arheisr/agnostic philosophersof the nineteenthcen-
that rhe greatapostl.sof the Enlightenment
hopedfor a vert- rury. Finally, the critical approach of reason produced the actual
rhe ideallociervc,fmankind And from thcrethey
ccntury suicideof reason.Once one trusts reasonas the standardof truth, one
tablemillennium.From the beginningof the [eighreenth]
paan of progress rhrougheduca- must fbllow it all the way on its destructivecourse.One has no argu-
onwardrhereatoseone tncreasing
laid rhe foundarions fbr this ment againsrit.
tion. l.ockc,Helvdtius,and Bcntham
who Since the Middle Ages, rationalism had reduced the sphere of
generous drcam;all men,of whateverschool'savconly those
sin' bclievedwith all knowledgeas it criticizedeverytradition and the realiryof the spiritual
llung ... ,o the Christiandocrrincof original
o[ thc human racc At last world-eve rything exceptthe outward world. \Vith the English phi-
thcir ardentnaturcsin tne perfcctibiliry
it couldmake losopher David Hume in the latter part of the eighteenth century,
mankindheldin its own handsthe keyto im destiny:
rhc foolish.errorsof autonomous reasonfinally went as far as it could go: it desrroyedall
thc futurealmostwhat it would By destroying
nature'thetewerc certain knowledge,even of the ourward world. Hume said we cannor
the pastand returningto a rarionalcultivationof
know absolutetruth through our reason;we can only know what we
..rr."ly li-it, to humanwelfarethat mighrnot be transccnded'
"ny is this fiith in experience.He wrote:
It is difficultfor us to realizehow reccnta thing
human progress. The ancientworld seemsto havehad no conceP-
theGoldenAgc Reasonis a subjective faculrywhich hasno necessary relationwirh
tion of it; GreeksandRomanslookedbackratherto
Agcs' of course' thc "facts"wc scekto know lt is limited ro tracingrhc relationsof
from which man had degeneratcdThe Middle
which actuallyac- our ideas,which themselvesare alreadyrwicc removcdfrom "real-
couldbrook no suchthought The Renaissance'
couldever rrse iry" And our senses areequallysubjcctive,for thcy can neverknow
complishedso much' could nor imaginethat man
wereall on thc rhc 'thing in irsclf,"but only an imageof ir which hasin it no ele-
to ,h. levclof gloriousantiquiry;its thoughts
"g"in ccntury ment of neccssity and certainry-"rheconrraryof everymatterof
pasr.Only with thc growthof sciencein the scventeenth
ambirion" ' All rhe factis srill possible."rz
.o.rld dareto cherishsuchan overweening
-"n from Descartes
scientists, down' despised the ancientsand carricd
rI This, in fact, is a very deepthing in our modern thinkersof the last
rhcdavfor the fairhin progrets
rwo hundred years:rhis despairat neverbeing able ro know anyrhing,
Its philosophy which diss<.rlves
the very fabric of life. Believein rationalisticphiloso-
\tlhy did the Enlightenmenr worldview collaPse?
impossibleto revive' phy and start thinking things through, and you come againstHume
now s€;s hopelesslyiaiue, its art a Soldenage
o(her'The most and other thinkers like him, and suddenlythe whole world dissolves.
There are severalcauses,and they all overlapeach
very rat'lonalismupon Thus, with justiceone writer on the philosophyof the Enlightenment
fundamentalcauseis the critical approachofthe
The Holy Fa- has the following thing ro sayabour Hume:
*hi.h ,h. whole Enlightenmentworldview was based'
318 319
Gr'Nr:sIs'Cnnalloru lNn F'antr MaN A Bnrr,lCnrrreur <tl r.r-re
Evolur.roNany
Mont:r_
'Iir rcad Hunrc'sdialoliucsaftcr having retrdwith sympatheticundcr- given birth to the "evolutionary"worldview,which was quite different
of thc carly fiom rhe stableworldview of Newton, and which rose io rhe fore in
standing the earncsrdeistsand optimistic philosophcrs
a slight chill' a fccling thc nineteenthccnrury.
part of;he eightecnthcentury,is to cxpcriencc
ofthe E'nlightenment'at And so rhe eighreenrhcenrury began with grear oprimism, but
.rf,,pp..h"nrion. lt is as ifat the high noon
bc quret and sccurc mosr peopledid not realizethat by rhe end ofthe century rhe mosr ad-
the hour of thc sicstawhcn evcrythingsccmsto
sharp slipping of rhc vancedphilosopherswould destroyany possibiliryof any real knowl-
all abour, onc was suddenlyawarcof the short'
under the solid grottnd cdgeofthe externalworld and any constanrsrandardof rruth. lt takes
fbundations' a fainr far-off tremor rulning
rinre fbr deep ideaslike that to filter down to the people, bur wnen
of co-marn sc,rae.tl
rhcy do r hey producedisasrrouseffecrs.
'I'hese
disastrouseffecrswere seen in the French Revolution of
own
('I-his, of course, later produced the great earthquak€s of our I 789, which was rhe revolutionaryapplicationof rationalisticideasto
tim es .) the changing of societyand the whole ourward order of life. The end
Ti. ideal in sciencehad a function similar to that of of the eighreenthcentury brought with it rhe end of the Old Or-
"*p.rinlentalthe stability of rhc.Enlightenmentworldview' Bc- der-the end of an age of stabiliry when human instirutions and arr
reasonin dertroying
rs rreversJtlsrred:rt never
ing itself based in rationalism, this idcal and culture werebasedon ar lcasta remnanrof Christianiryand Chris-
and come to ncw ones'
sro'ps,but alwayswaits to test its conclusions tian feeling.'l'heoutbreakof the FrenchRevolurioncoincidedwith the
and why the sci-
r:i'", i, *tty r.i"ntific ideasare constantlychanging' end of Christian civilization. Before 1789 it was still the .,Old Re-
ove rtrrtown
entific synthesisat the time of Newton was gime"; after thar, it is the ageof Revolurion,our own times.
thc old synrhcsis'ln
ninally,the ideaof progresshelpedro dissolve In view ofall rhis, rhe rheoryofevolution is undersrandable philo-
as we ha;e seen,the an'icnts were lookcd to as the sophicafly. It aroseout of a searthfor a scientiJiclaw of progres to-justifi
the Renaissancc,
we could get back to them
,.u" ,,"ndrrd' lt was thought that, if only the modern Reuo/tttionaryadunnce.The theory of evolution was first
would be fine'
from the Middl-eAgcs and superstirion'we proposed by Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus in 1794-only
"n.{ "*ry of thought' thc
'fhe'r when the sciencesbecarircrhe domirtant mode five yearsafter the FrenchRevolution.*
see that anyone living to-
scientificworldview arose.Peoplebeganro J. H. Randall,Jr., who is himself an evolutionist, is sophisticared
t.)g antlqulry'
day has more scientific knowledge than -anyone.hvr .ln, enough to admit that rhe rheory of evolurion is e fairh, nor a proven
forward Jramatically with irs
Nl* r.i.n." for the first time hasmovcd facr:
expenments,
- etc.
' is building uPon the
Th. u.ry idea of progress-that the present At prescntbiologistsadmit rhat we do not, strictlyspeaking,
know
and that nran
past, that t(e future g.nJ,.tiont will improve uPoll us' anythingaboutthe causesofthe originsofncw species; we musrfall
the idea that there
iliig; .on*"n,ly ahJad-this obviouslyobliterates
everything
is o,i..onrtr,lt standard.Just as in Humet subjectivism'
is left to the fare of the future ' Many of Erasmus Darwin! friendsand associates
becomesrelative'One'sexistingstand'rrd wcrcsymparhizers wirh rhe
begin frenchrevolurionaries.
pcople who are going ro irnp'Jut upon ir' Aftcr a while' people
Erasmus wasa founderof rhe [_unarSociery,which included
constant move- theserevolurionary synrparhizers,and whosemembershipoverlappcdrhar of rhe
,o ti"li.e rhar this is a philosophyofconstantchange' Revolutionary Socicryled by rhc radicalEarlStanhope.
there Is.no peace'no Erasmuscspcciallyadmired
ment. Then the soul beginsto bc uPset lr senses Rousseau,rhc chief philosopherof rhc Revolurion.He wasalsoa frccmasou,aswas
idea of progresshad
,..uriry. Sy the end of rf,e eightttnih tcntuty this his son,CharlesDarwin'sfathcr.-Eo.
320 321
GsNesIs,Cne,"rIon rNo EaxlY MaN A Btrrr Cnrrrqur or rHr EvoLurloNrnyMool.l
back upon thc scientific faith rhat they occur becauscof chemical Randall mentions how the changinghuman institurions_rhe
dif_
* ferent ideasof moraliry et..-.nfo..e o-ne!faith in evolution:
changesin the germ plasm 'o
Evolutionists astheysay,'Any-
mustfall backupon this faith because, The conceprion ofman asan organisnr reacring to andacringupona
thing elseis unthinkable"-rhe"anythingelse"beingthat God created complexcnvironmentis now basic.'Allideasand institutioris
arcro_
the world 7,000or 8,000yearsago' day rhoughtof as primarilysocialproducts,functioninqin
social
Randallcontinues, theeffectofevolutionon theworld:
describing groupsand springingfrom the necessiry of effecringsorie kind of
adaprarionberweenhuman narureand its cnvironmenr,All
rhe
of mentodayhavcbecome
thc beliefs
In spiteof thcsedifficulties, fieldsof humaninrercsrtodayhaveundergonerhisgencralsocroro_
thoroughly pernreatcdwith the conccpt of evolution. The grcat un- gizingandpsychologizing rendency; rhccxamplcof religion.rndthe_
dcrlying notions and conceptsthat mcant so much to the eighteenth ology will bc a sufficicnr illustrarion.!(hercas rhe cighrecnrh
ccntury,Naturc and Reasonand Utiliry have largelygiven way to a centurythoughrof rcligionand theologyasa dcducrivcanJdemon-
new setbettcr expressingthc ultimate intellectualideasof the Crow- srrarivcscrofproposirions, men now considcrreligionasprimarilya
ing Vorld. Many social factorsconspiredto popularizethe idca of socialproduct,a wayof lifc springingfrom thesocialorganization
of
dcvclopmentand its corollaries.... nrerrireligiousexpcricnces. and rheologyasr rarionali.irionot cer_
Perhapsrhe fundamental emphasis brought by Evolution inro tain fundamentalf'eelings and cxpericnccs of humannature.Ve no
men! rninds has bcen upon the detailedcausalanalysisof the spe- longerprovcrhe existence of God, wc talk of the ..meanins of God
of changc.lnstead of sccking to discovcr rhe cnd or
cific proccsses in humanexpericnce"; we no longerdemonstrate rhefururi lif., *e
purposeof the world-processas a whole, or to disccrn thc ultimate invesrigatcthe effecrof rhe bcliefin immortaliryupon humancon-
causeor ground of all existenIthings-rhc fundamentaltask of ear- duct.l6
)zL 1 t1
GaNnsts,CnllrloN aNo Ernt.YMaN A Buer Cerrrqutot r.HeEvoLurloN.nny
Moocr
covery" of evolution-it is simply what is in the air. Once reason con- pernaturalsrateof Adam.Thosewho want to keepboth
Chrisrianiry
tinues its march, it will end in its own suicide. and evolutionism,rherefore, are forcedro stick an artificialparadis
Randall continues: onto an ape-likecreature.Theseareobviouslyrwo differenr
system
whichcannotbe mixed.
Evolution hasintroduced a whole new scaleofvalues. Where for the Vhar.finally happensis that the peoplewho do this (including
eighteenthcentury the ideal was the rational, the natural' even the many Carholicsin recentdecades) seethat they havebecomemixed
primirive and unspoiled,for us the desirableis identified ratherwith up and thereforerheyacceptthat evolutionmust be righr
and Chris_
the latter end ofthe proccssofdevelopment, and our terms ofpraise rianirya myth. They begin ro saythat the fall of mai
is only a fall
are "modern," "up-to-date,""advanced,""progressivc."Just as much trom cosmicimmaturiry:rharwhenape-likecrearures, beingin a srare
as the Enlightenmentwe tend to identifr what wc approvewith Na- of naiverC,evolvedinro human beings,rhey acquired
, iuil, .orn-
turc, but for us it is not rhe rationalorder of nature,but the culmina- plex-and rhar is the hll. FurrhermJre,they com. ro b?lieue
that
tion of an cvolutionary process,which we take for our leveragcin x/as nor just one pair of human beings,bur many.
::iginall),..there
existence.The cightecnrhcenrury could think of nothing worse to This is calledpolygenism-theideathar man camefrori
manydifii:r_
call a man than an "unnatural enthusiast";we prefer to dub him an enr palrs.
"antiquatcdand outgrown fossil."That agebelievcda theory ifit were Once you give in ro the ideathat Genesis and the origin of man
calledrational,usefuland naturali we favor it if it is "the most recent musr be inspectedrarionalistically_onrhe basisof the
iaturalistic
devclopment."tVe had rather be modcrnistsand progressivcs than philosophyof modernthinkers-then Chrisrianiryh", ,o
b. f u, .*"y.
sound reasoners.It is perhapsan open qucsrion if in our new scaleof Naturalisric philosophyis a realmofrelativetruths.In rhetelchingof
valucswc havenor lost as much as wc havegained . the Holy Fathers, on the otherhand,we havetrurhswhicharerevealed
The idea of evolution, as it has finally come to bc understood, and aregivento us by God-inspired men.
has rcinforcedthe humanisticand naturalisticarritude.lT In rhewritingsofthe Holy Farhers, rhereis a greardealof materiaj
,
abouc although one wouldn'tthink so. If one thinks
(hrough .evolurion,
wharevolurionis philosophically and theologically and then
looksup rhosequesrions in the Holy Farhers, therei,
5. The Conflict betueenChristian Tiuth d..l ofin_
formationto be found.W'ecannotgo into much of it"!r."i iighr now* bur
and EuolutionaryPhilosoPhT
we_willcovera few points in order to characterize .r,oluttn according
Now we musrlook to seewhatOrthodoxysaysaboutrhequestion to Patrisric reaching.
of evolution,whereit touchesupon philosoPhy and theology. Firsr,we shouldnotethat,accordingro rhe Holy Fathers,
creation
Accordingto the th€oryofevolution. man is cominguP from sav- is.s-omerhing quite differentfrom the *orld *. seeroday;an entirely
agery,and that is why booksshow Cro-MagnonMan, Neanderthal differenrprincipleis involved.This goesagainsrrhe rhinling
of mod-
Man, etc.,lookingvery savage, readyto beatsomeoneoverthe head ern "Christianevolutionists." One suchev-olurionist, rheGrlck.iheo-
and takehis meat.This is obviouslysomeone's imagination;it is not logian", Panagiotis Trempelas, writesthat,,itappears glo.iou,
basedupon the shapeof the fossilsor anythingelse' dlvrne-hkeand more in harmonywith the regular -or.
merh-ods "nd
of God
lfyou believethat man cameuP from savagery, you will interpret
all pasthisroryin rhoseterms.But according to Orthodoxy' man fell ' A morerhoroughcxamination
ofthis subjecris foundin partIll: Thc parrisric
_
from Paradise. In evolutionaryphilosophythereis no room for a su- Docrrineof Crearion.-Eo.
324 1)(
GlNests,Cnr-qrtoN'lNo EltrY M'qN A Bnrrr Cnlrrque or rse Evolulronlry Moosr.
varlous
which we daily see expressedin nature to have createdthe entire resr of thc crearion;that is, this First Day, which he sayswas
fbrms by evolutionarymethods,"'' rwenry-[our hours long, is exactlyrhe same day which is repearedin
(\7e will nore heie that oftentimes'theologians"are quite behind rhe resrof creation.'
often
th. ti-.r. In order to apologizefor the scientificdogma' they Ifyou think about it, rhereis norhing parricularlydiflcult in rhar
be-
come up with things *hlch th. scientistshavealreadyleft behind' idea,sincerhe crearionofGod is somethingrotally outsideour prcsenr
readingthe literature' -fhe "theologians" often knowledge.The accommodationofdays to epochsdoesnot
causethe scientists*are ,ny
are scaredthat they are going to be old-fashionedor say something sense;you cannot fit them together.l-herefore,why do you-"k" need to
can
which is not in accordancewith scientificopinion' So' often they havea day that is a thousandor a million yearslong?**
'I'he Holy Fathers
ouite unconsciously fall for an evolutionaryidea by not rhinking the sayagainwith one voice thar thc creativeacrsof
and
whole thing through' by nor having a thoroughgoingphilosophy' Cod, are instantaneous.Sr. Basil rhe Great, St. Ambrose the Grear, St.
not being J*are oiscienrific evidcncearrdscientificquestions) Ephraim and many others say that, when God creates,He says rhe
-idea
The that Panagiotis1-rempelassets forth-that creation is word and it rs,Fasterthan thought.
supposedto be in accord-ance with the methodswhich God usesall the There are many Patristicquorarionsabout this, but we wil nor go
ri-.-ha, certainly norhing Patristic about it' becauseCreation is into them here. None of the Holy Fatherssay rhat the creation *-as
about
when the world came into being. Every Holy Fatherwho writes slow. l-here are Six Days of Creation, and they describerhis not as a
were-quite different
this will say that those first Six Days of Creation
world'
from anything elsethat ever happenedin the history of rhe ' Sccp. 401 bclow-Eo.
is a mystery'He says ** Somc modern
Even BlesiedAugustinesaysthat the creation commen[atorc, artempringro place rhe Genesisaccount
our own
we reallycan'teventalk rbou, it becauseit! so different from wirhin rhe cvolutioraryrimescale,lravetricd in vain ro showrharrhe Holv Fathers
present-day laws bclievedthe Six Daysof Creation ro be vastages.Thosewho havequotcd Sr.
e*p.ri.nce' it's beyond us. Ve simply cannot proiect. John
ofthe l)anrascenei mentionof'the sevenagesof thc world" lor this purposc(On tbe (h,
olnature back into the pastand come up with an understanding
of all this
tbodoxfaitb havcmisinrcrprered his meaning.-l'heidearhai world hisroryis
creation.Creation is somethingdifferent; ir's the beginning ,2:1\
compriscd oIsevcnages, corresporrding ro rhesevcndaysofrhe CrearionVeek, is an
and,not the way it is now. ancienrone,foundcvenin pre-Christian rimes(secDamianThompson,TheEndof
of
Some rather naive "theologians"try to say that the Six Days Timc,pp.7,29, and FrancisHaber, 7hcAgr ofthc lVorld,pp. l9-2 i ); bur according
to
Creation can be indefinitely long periods'that they can correspond to rhis idca thc sevenagcscome46arthe CrcarionVcck. St. Symeonthe Ncw I hco_
the logiannrakesrhisclcarin his discussiorr
the different geologicalstrata.This, of course,is nonsensebecause of rhc Six Daysof(ircationand rheScvenrh
or four Day of Cod'srest:'IGod],asrhe Foreknower ofcverytlring,
geologicalst.ita do'not hauesix easilyidentifiablelayers'or five
arranged thc wnorccrce_
rion irr ordcrand in an orderlysequcnce, and He assigncd sevendaystharthcy rnighr
i, hing of,he sort. There are many, many layers'and they do not bc an inrageof rhe ageswhich wcre *bscquentl rc passin rimc" ( llt FirrCreated
"ni weak ac-
correspondat all to the Six Daysof Crearion So that is a very Man, pp. 89-9O,emphasisadded).
commodation. St.JohnL):rnrascenct own wriringsmakeclcartharwhenhespeaks ofrhe ..scven
be
As a matter of fact-even though it looks as though it might agcs"hc is referringro world history after thc Creation !(cck, for hc saysthar .ihc
those scvenagesof the prcscntworld includemanyagcsrn rhc senscol rhc gcncrarions
rerribly fundamentalisticto sayit-the Holy Fathersdo saythat of
divides nen" (On tlte Ortbodoxl.:aith2:ll. This \ecomescvcnmorc evjdcnrin a larcrchaorcr
D"y, *.r. twenty-fourhours long. St. Ephraim the Syrianeven of rhe samework, in which hc writcsspecifically
rhat' abourthc Six Daysof Crcation,
th# into r*o periods,twelvehours each.St' Basilthe Great says showingrhar he regardsrhc length of thcseDays----<vcn rhe firsr threc Days,bcfore
"first day" but
in the book of Genesis,the First Day is called not the rhesunwasmade-as corresponding to rhe lengthofsolardays,365 ofwhich makc
"one day" becausethat is the one day by which God measuredout the up'ihc rwclvenronrhsof the sun" (On thc OrthodoxL:a;th2ja\.-.ED.
376 327
(lr.nlsts' CnrxrIoN aNo ElnrY MaN A BnrrrCnrrrquror rss EvoLulroNrny
MooeI
328 329
GrNrsts. Crr,lrIoN ,cNnEArr-YM,AN
330
(leruesls,
Crr-rrroNrNn Eerly Mr,n A Bnrrr Cnrllqur clr rHe EvorulroNapy Moorl
rationaland intcllccrualsr>rrl
and that rhcn it is cavcrncd
alongwith
the reptiles,or herdswith rhebirds,or is a bcasrof burdenor a car-
nivorousonc,or swimsin thedecp,or cvendropsdown to an inscn-
satething so as to srrikeout roots and becomea completetrec
producingbudson branchcs andfrom rhoscbudsa flowcror a thorn
or a fruit cdible<l1161isu5-1esayrhisis norhingshortof making
all things the same,and believingthat one singlc nature runs
throughall beings,that rhercis a connecrionberwecnthcm which
blendsand confuses hopelcsslyall thc marksby which onc couldbc
distinguishcd from another.re
332 333
GrNr:sts,(lnl.altoN aNo EntrI-vM-nN A Bnrrr Cnrrrqur or rus EvoLurlopanyMoorl
St. Basrlquotcs Cod! words in Genesis,"l-et other. If we do not understandrhe whole variery of God,.screation,
ln his Hexaemeron,
"was im- that is our fault, nor God's.
the earth bring forth." "This brief command," saysSt. Basil,
mediatelya mighry nature and an elaboratesystemwhich brought to Sr. Ambrose has a number of quotarionsalong rhe same line. His
perlection more swiftly than our thought the countlesspropertiesof Hexaemeron is very closeto St. Basil'sin spirit.
to re, abour God! commandmcnt' "Let the earth bring Ve haveother quoresfrom Holy Fatherswhich show us a very in-
plrnts." Elsewhe
'l:l teresringthing: thar they were-combatingin ancient times something
iorth .regetation(Gen. l)," Sr' Basil says' "At this saying all the
akin to the modern theory of evolution. This was the hereticalidei
densewoods appeared;all the treesshot up .. all the shrubswere tm-
thar the soul of man was created ufer his body. The same idea is
mediatelythick with leafand bushy . '. all cameinto existence in a mo-
raught today by "Christian evolurionists,"although of coursc rne an_
m ent of time."t'
cienr heresyis nor the sameas rhc modern rheorylThose who taught
In the Ninth Homily of his Hexaemeron'St. Basilhas a quotc on
ofcrcatures,one after the other' He rhc ancienr heresybasedrheir idea on a misinterpretationof Genesis
the very questionofthe succession
2:7: "And God forrned man of the dust of the earrh, and breathed
quotesGenesis:"Let the earth bring forth living creaturesaccordingto
into his nostrils the brearh of life; and man becamea living soul.,'
t-heirkinds: cattle and creepingthings and beastsof the earth (Gen
Even roday, "Christian evolutionists"siezeon this passageand say,
l:24)." St. Basilsaysabout this:
"That meansman was somerhingelse first, and rhen he
iecame hu-
Considerthe Vord of God movingthroughall creation,havingbe- man."
gun at thar time, activeup to the prcscntand cllicaciousuntil rhe ln ancienr rimes,this falseidea (that the soul was crearedafter the
ofthe world.As a ballwhcn pushcd body) was conrrastedby rhe opposite-and equally false-idea of the
end,evento rheconsummation
by somconeandthen meetingiwith a slopcis borncdownwardby its pre-existence of souls.'I'he Holy Fathers,in refuting borh thesetheo-
own shapeand inclinationof the groundand docsnot sropbcforc ries,clearlysratedthar the soul and body of man wie created, simulta-
somclcvclsurfaccrcccivcs ir, soroo the narureclfexistingobjects,sct neouly.Thus, Sr.John Damascene writes:
in morion by onc comrnand,passcsthrough creationwithorrt
change,by gcneration and destrucrion, prcscrving thc succcssio'of Thc bodyand thesoulwereformcdar thesametimc, not onebefore
rhckindsthroughrcsemblancc until it reachcsthc veryend.lt bcgcts and rheorheraftcrwards,
asthe ravingsof Origcnwould haveir.2l
a horscasa successot of a horse, a lion ofa lion, and an eagleofan
eachof the animalsby uninter- S:: C.:gorf ofNyssa goesinro greaterderail in refuring borh here-
cagle.And it continuesto Preserve .
until rhe consummation of thc universcNo sies.First, he describesOrigen'sidea ofthe pre-existence olsouls, rhar
ruptcd successions
rhespecificcharacteristics of the animalsro be is, that souls"fell down" into our world:
lcngthof cimecauses
corruptcdor extinct,But, asifestablished iust recenrly,naturc,ever
frcsh,mouesalongwith rime.lr Someof thosebeforeour time who havcdealrwirh the questionof
principlesthink it right ro sayrhatsoulshavea prcviousexisrcncc
as
a pcopleand a socieryof theirown, and rharemonqrhemalsorhere
This is a statemen.not of sciencebut of philosophy.1'his is the
are standards ofvice and ofvirruc, and rhar rhe ioul rhere,which
way God createdcreatures:each one has a certain seed,a certain na-
abidcsin goodncss, remainswirhoutexperience
rure, and transmits that to its offspring. When there is an exception' ofconjunctionwirh
the bodl Bur if ir doesdeparrfrom irs communionwith good, it
then it is a monstrosiryiand this does not invalidarethe principle of
fallsdowrrto rhislowerlife andsocomcsro be in a bodv.ra
the natures of things, each one of which is quite distinct from the
334 335
CeNssrs, lNo EenryM,rN
Crr.erroN A Bnrrr Carlqu: on .rst EvolurroN,tryMoorr
336 337
GsNesrs,
CnsxrroNrnn EanrvMnw
I. Innoduction
r{EREAREronvs of evolutionaryphilosophy,mosr norablyrhe
Marxist,*which loudly proclaimthemselves to be an all_
suflrcient philosophy of life, replacingrhe ,,disproved',philosophy
of
Christianity.'fhe argumentsof thesearheist.uolutionisi. are naive
in
rhe extremeand full ofself-contradictions,and there is no need
to con_
cern ourselveswirh rhem; even many contemporary atheists(outside
the Sovietorbir) realizethat belief in Cod can neirher be ,,proved',
or
' Karl Marx wasa dcvout Darwinist. who in Dat Kapinl calledL)arwin,s
''cpochmaking."He bclicvcdhis rcductionist, rheory
rnareriarisiic
rheoricsofrhe cvorution
'Fr. Scraphimwas usingthis word figurativelyhere.Elscwherc he explaincd ofsoci:rlorganizarion
ro bc deduciblefrom Darwinsdiscovcries, an<lrhusproposed
thar "cvolurion is not sniuly spcaleinga
hcrcsy,bur . .. an ideologyrhar is profoundly to dedicrrehi.sDas Kapita!rc Darwin. 'fhe funeralorarion over Marx,s
body,deliv-
foreignto thc rcachingof OrthodoxChristianiry, and ir involvesone in so nrany crcd by Engcls,srressedthe evolurionarybasisof conrmunism:..Jusras Darwin dis-
wrong docrrincsand attitudesrharir would bc far bcrrcrif ir wcrc simplya hcrcsy covcredrhc |rw of cvolurionin organicnarure,so Marx disiovered
thc law of
and couldthusbe easilyidenrificdantlcombatrecl."-F-p. cvolurionir) hLrmenhistorv."-F_r>
338 33t)
CeNr:srs,
Cnr:erroNeNo E,cnlvM,{N "CHnrst"IaN
EvoLutroHtstvr"
The article in the Greek Archdiocesenewspapersaysthat evolu- man inruirion.On the conrrary, rheHoly Fathers sayrhatMosesheard
tion cannot really be a heresybecauserhere are many Christianswho from God the truths containedin it. St. John Chrysostomsaysrne
believein it. BesidesTrempelas,it quotestwo other "Christian evolu- book of Genesisis a propheqof thepast:that is, Mosessawan exalted
tionists": Lecomtedu Noiiy and Teilhardde Chardin. Let us look for a visionof whar rheworld wasin the beginning.
moment at Lecomtedu Noiiy and his views. St.lsaacthe Syriandescribeshow sucha visioncanrakeplace:how
the soul of a holy man can ascendro a vision of the beginningof
2. Lecomtedu Noiiy things.Describinghow sucha soulis enraptured at the thorightoithe
futureageof incorruption,St. Isaacwrires:
Pierre Lecomte du Noiiy was born in Paris in 1883 and died in
New York in 1947. A widely known and respectedscientist,mathema-
And fromrhisoneis already
exalred
in hismindro tharwhichorc_
tician and physiologist,he wrote severalbooks on scientific philoso-
cededthe composition(making)of the world, when th.r. *", nu
phy. His popular book, Human Destiny,sets forth his conclusions
crearurc,nor hcaven,nor carth,nor angels,nothingof rhat which
about evolution. It turns out he was nor much of a Christian, for he
wasbroughrinro being,and to how God, solclyby His good will,
believedthat man createdhis own God, who is actually"a formidable
I suddenlybrorrghteverythingfrom non-beinginto being,
fiction." He was very patronizing towards Chrisrianiry: he believcd "nd.u"ry-
thingsroodbeforcHim in perfcction.6
thar Chrisrianiryhas been misunderstoodand misinterpretcd,bur it is
and is a usefultool for mant continuing evo-
still good for rhe masses,
MonsieurLecomtedu Noiiy conrinues:
lution on a moral and ethicalplane.It hasno objective,absolutetruth.
Christ is not God, but Het perfectman. Christian tradition, however,
Lct us try ... to analyzerhe sacredtexras though ir wcrea highly
somehowhelpsto educatethc racctowardsfurther evolution. He says,
symbolical and crypricdescriptionofscientificrruths.T
Ve areat thc bcginningof thc transformations whichwill cnd in the
This, of course, is exrremelyparronizing-as if poor Moses tried his
superiorrace...,rEvolutioncontinucsin our time, no longeron tbe
best ro get a scientificpicture of the way things were, and all he came
physiologicalor amtonical ptane,btt on te qiritual and moralphne.
'W( ar(.J( rhc dawnof ,r ncw plr.rse up with were theseimages.
of evolution.4
Lecomredu Noiiy explains:
It is difficult enough to find scientificevidencefor physicalevolu-
tion, but it is impossiblero find evidencefor spiriuul evolution.Nev- The omniporenccof God is manifcsted by the fact rhat man, de-
ertheless,he believesin it. He says, sccndedfrom the marineworms,is todaycapableof conceivingrhe
futurcexisrence
ofa supcriorbeingand o[wanting ro bc his ances-
Our conclusions arc identicalwith thoscexpressed in the sccond ror.Christbringsus thc proofthar rhisis not an unrealiirable
drcam
chapterof Gencsis,providcd rhat this is
chapter interpretedin a ncw bur an accessible
ideal.s
way and considercd as thc highly symbolicalcxpression of r truth
which wasintuirivelyperceived by its rcdactoror by thc sagcswho Thar is, Christ is some kind of Superman,and rhis is the ideal to
communicared ir to him.t which man is now evolving.
Lecomredu Noiiy givesus a new "criterionof good and evil"
Of course,the book of Genesiswas not wrir(en through mere hu- which he saysis "absolutewirh respect
to Man":
342 343
CENesrs.
CrrerroN ,rNoEAnrvMrN "CxnrsrrlNEvorurroNrsv"
Good is that which conrributesto ths courseof ascending evolu- 2. The bookof Genesis, musrbe "inrcrpretedin a new
he believes,
tion... . Evilistharwhichopposesevolurion..
. . The respect
ofhuman way,"symbolically.Specifically,
the transgression
ofAdam wasnor an
personaliry is based ofman! dignityasa workerfor
on therecognirion historicalevent,bur simply'the symbolof the dawn of humancon-
evolution,as a collaboratorwith God....eThc only goal of man sciousness."Can an OrthodoxChristianbelieverhis?How doesOr-
shouldbcrheattainment of humandignirywith allitsimplications.r0 thodoxChristianiryunderstand the bookof Genesis?
344 345
Grrrsrs, CnErrIoN,rNoE^nry M,cN "CnntsrIlN EvoLurtoNrsvl"
may now have to be revisedif "science,"after all, doescome up with 2. Can we seriouslyrhink that the firsr man to evolvewascapa_
the answerto the questionof man'sorigin? ls it an exaggerationro say bleofthc firstsin...?
thar it is exnemely importat for an Orthodox Christian to b/tue a uery
clear uiew of thc Churcb's teaching on the origin ofman, as uell as a clear He answers:
understanding of the limits ofscience in exploring this question?
Scienristspreferro conceivchominization[i.e.,rhc makingof man]
Later,in anotheranswerto a reader'squestion,Fr. Kosturossays:
ashavingtakcnplacein manyindividuals_a..popularion;'_rarher
Perhaps thercaremanyAdamsand Eveswho appcared concurrcntly rhanin a singlcpair.
in differcntareas,and thcn mct. How man was creatcdand how
man procreatcd iniriallyis a mystcry.Don't letanyonctcll you other- (Actually,some scientiststhink rhat and some dont.)
He saysrhar ir is
wise.Our Churchgivcsyou thc opportuniryto ponderrhc subjects the first group of recognizablemen ("original man',) that commined
you menrionandcomeup wirh yourown specularion aboutthenr.'r the fi rst transgression:
The answerto the question,"Vhere did Cain get his wifc?" is ac- Cracecould bc offcredto rhc originalgroup and, upon beingrc_
rually very easy:Adam and Eve had many children who are not men- jectcdby thar groupi freeand ycr mutuallyinflucncing
choice,oe
tioned by name in Genesis.The account in Genesisis only rhe basic losrto rhc wholcofsucccedinghumaniry
outline of the story.
Rahner then asks:
4. Karl Rahner
In the frx man or group such as paleontologyrevealsro us, how
Fr. Kosturos mentions the possibility that "humankind appeared
could therc hayebeena degrccof freedomsufficientlydevelopcdro
in clusters."This is a referenceto the evolutionary theory of "poly-
havemadepossible sucha fateFul
choiceasoriginalsin?How canwc
genism." The promirrent Jesuit "theologian"Karl Rahner (who until
attempt to reconcilethe supernaturalor preternaturalparadisc_
recentlywas rather "conservative"in his views on evolution)* has ex-
siruarionof 'Adam" (individualor group)wirh whatwe know of rhe
amined rhis quesrionand hasmade a "reconciliation"of the evolution-
originsof the biological,
anrhropological,culruralworld?
ary view with the Christian doctrine in a way that will doubtlessbe
imitared by the Greek Archdiocesein the future. (ln general,the Or-
He answershis quesrionby saying:
thodox modernisrsare alwaysone srepbehind the Roman Catholicsin
this processof "updating" the Churcht views.) In an article entitled It is not easyto derermineprecisely
whercand whenan earrhlycrea_
"Original Sin, Polygenism,and Freedom" (summarizedin Theology
rureacruallybecamespiritand rhusfrec... . Ve mayserenelyreckon
Digest,Spring, 1973), Rahner posedwo questions: wirh rhe fact rhat originalsin rcallyhappencd,bur at a momenr
which cannorbe more accuratclydctermined.Ir was,,sometime,,
wirh rhedoctrineof Adam'spre-
l. How is evolutioncompatible
wirhin a fairly long rimc-spanduringwhich many individuals
ternatr,rral
sifrsi may
havcbeenalreadyexisringand capableof performingrhc guilry
act
"simulraneously.". ..
'Karl Rahner(1904-1984)is widcly consideredro be the leadingRoman
Carholicrheologianof rherwentiethccnruryHe scrvedasan officialpapaltheologi-
cal cxpertbeforeand duringthe SecondVaticanCouncil.-Eo. ln other words,rhe whole rhing becomesvery vague.Obviously
346 11/
GrNrsrs, Cnr.,rrrouaNn Eanlv MaN "CnrtsltaN EvoLultorrsv"
the next generationof thinkers is going to do away with some of this an idealizedimage.. . of a world without sin; rhc author fof Genesis]
double talk. knows quite well it does not correspond to realiry. . . He specifically
did not mean to say that thc original srateofgrace ofAdam and Evc
5. Stephanus Tioostu in all irs puriry was once upon a rime an actual realiryin rhe hisrory
A recentbook by anotherJesuitsums up well the attitude of the of manki nd.re
"enlightened Christian" toward Adam and Paradise.StephanusTiooster
is a DutchJesuir who, in his book Ezolution and the Doctine ofOriginal Of course, if you believe in evolution, it makes no sense to talk about
Slz, staresforrhrightly: "Those who take the scientificdoctrine ofevo- Paradise. You'reonly foolingyourselfif you try to combinerheserwo
lution seriouslycan no longeracceptIthe] traditionalpresentation."So different formsof thinking.
we must find "an interpretationrhat is relevantto our times."'n "Theologians"like Troosrerhavedrawn thoroughgoingconclu-
"The proponentsof the doctrine of evolution," he says, sionsfrom the message of evolution;is it possibleto believein evolu-
tion and not drawtheseconclusions?
visualizcmankindasa rcalirywhich,in thecourseofhistory,only vcry
graduallymatured ro achievea degreeof self-realization. Its earlresr
6. TheRomanCatholic Viewof Origrnal Man
emergencemustbe conceivedof asfumblingtransitional formsap-
pearingnextto cxrremely primitivelevelsof humancxistence. Such The RomanCarholicsin the pasrhavehad someproblemsabout
primitiveintermcdiare formsof humanlifestill musthavebeen inti- knowingwhen man began,if one acceprs evolution.Therearediffer-
matelyfusedwirh theirprehistoric animalstate.. . . But in thisevolu- ent theoriesdependingon wharone thinks.I don'rknow what is al-
tionary theory tbuc is no roomfor a'paradisaicat"cxistcnce of tbis lowednow, but in rhe old daysyou werenot allowedto believethat
prchittoricman. To placean extremclygifted and highly privileged man'ssoulcouldevolvefrom matter.Youhad to believethar man was
spiritualmanarrhebeginning ofhumanlifeon carthappears in com- givena soular a parricularmoment.At rhat momenthe becameman,
pletecontradictionro modern scientific
rhought on rhis matter.r5 and thereforehe wasno longersubjectto all the lawsof evolution.*
Obviouslythis is srickingin oneof rhese"epicycles"
againto makethe
This. ofcourse. is true. Tioosterconrinues: theorycorrespond to onet own beliefs.
348 349
GBrutsts,CrtxrIox ,tNn Lrrt-v M.rru "CunlsrraNEvoLurrollsv,,
Either you believein evolution-in which caseman is a very primi- ,Jisewasa ntpernatural state,thar man actually was jusr like
we know him
tive creaturewhich came from rhe beasts,and the textbookson evolu- roday-mortal 62n-[s1 God gavehim an exrragift, a specialstateof
rion will tell you that man still hasthe savageinsideof him, and all the grace.When he fell, he simply fell awayfiom th"t extrag.rce *hich had
picturesshow him evolving from a monkey-likecreature-or elseyou been:rddedro him; and rhereforehis narurewa, nor cf,anged.
believethat man descendedfrom a being who was greaterthan we are Bur accordingto Orthodoxy, our very narurewascharigedand ru-
now who wasacruallyperfectman in his own way and was not subject ined at the fall. Christ is the new Adanr; and in Him *. ,o
ro corruption.-Ihe Holy Fatherseven tell us that Adam did not void our old nature. ^..1.r,o..o
faecalmatter.He had the Treeof I-ife to eat fronr, but he did not eat as Some liathers,like St. Symeon the New I'heologian,discussedthe
we do now. question:\X/hy,then, did we nor immediatelybecorie immortal when
In his "Conversationwith Motovilov," St. Seraphimof Sarovhas a Christ died and resurrected? St. Symeon saysir was so rhat we would
whole sectionon the stateof Adam: how he was not subject to being not be forced to be saved:we still must achieveour own salvation.And
iniured or hurr. He was quite invulnerableto the elements,he could the creation is waiting for us to achieveour salvation,when it too will
nor be drowned, etc. rise up to rhe state in which it was before rhe fall-in fact, evcn ro a
'I-homasAquinas
It is interestingthat, even in the Middle Ages, higher srate.
askedpreciselythesequestionsand tried to solvc them: What was the All this is filled with mysteries;it's beyond us, but srill we know
stateofAdam, did he void faecalmatter,how was it that he could not enough of,it from the Holy Farhers.Sr. Symeon has a long quore on
be harmed? He has elaborateexplanations.First of all, he says that the stateof man beforerhe fall.- 'l'he whole ofcreation, he says,*"" ,n_
Adam did void f-aecal matter becausewe cannot believethat he would corrupt just like man, and only after rhe fall did rhe crearuresbesin to
be of a different marerial than we are now. Secondly,he was never die. Vhen the new world comes,"rhe new heavenand the new Jarrh.'
harmed and was imperviousto drowning not becauseit was impossi- (Apoc. 2l:l), then "the meek ... will inherit the earrh',(Matt.
5:5).
ble, but becauseGod arrangedto take all the bouldersout ofthe way, Vhat earth is rhar? It is this earth you see right here, only it will be
never to have the stream rise roo high, etc. ln other words, God ar- burned up and restored so rhat all the crearuresnow will be
ranged the world correctly so that Adam walked very carefully and incorruptible. That is what the whole crearionis strivinq for, what the
neverhappenedto get hurt. crearurcsare groaning after.\Vhen St. paul srid they ,.-cre subiecrto
But Orthodoxy believesthat our nature was originally immortal. vaniry" (Rom. 8:20), this means rhey were subjcct ro corrupuon,
Abba Dorotheus saysthis in the very first chapter of his discourses, through thc fall of man.
where he setsforth for us the imageof Adam, the first man, to give us
an inspiration of what we have to strive for and get back ro. Ve are
7. TheodosiusDobzhansfo
meanr ro live eternallyin the body, and that is the way it was in the be-
ginning. Only after falling did we lose that nature and rhat blessed Ler us rurn now ro an "Orthodox Christian evolutionisr"whose
sratein which Adam was beholding God. ideasare quite in harmony with recenr Roman Catholic rhousnr on
According to Orthodoxy, the immortal state of man in Paradise the subjecrofevolution, and who brings up still other implicationsof
was his nature.Our nature now is changed.Then we were potentially the evolutionary theory which any Orthodox Chrisrian musr sruoy
immortal; now we have been changed into a mortal being, that is, closely.
mortal in the body.
The Catholicsteach,on the contrary,that the stateofnran in Para- ' Sccrhisquoreon pp.420-22.-F,o.
J50 J5l
(;ENEsrs,CtE^t t( )N AND EARLYMAN
,.Cnntsrtaru
EvoLurroNlsu,,
Thcrxl,rsiusDobzhansk,-is a RussianOrthodox scienristwho
is of_ from whathe and manyofficialrepresenrarives
ten tlrorcd by other "(ihrisrian evolutionists."A well_known of Orrhodoxyin Amer_
generr_ rcaapparentlybelieveto be an ,,Orthodox"viewpoint,
cisr,hc is pres€nrlyprofbssorofgeneticsar the Universiry
of California
aresetfbrth in
two Orthodox periodicals,St. Vkdiniri Theoiogical
;rt I)avis. I think hc srill has his fruit flies, and is continuing euartert1 and
to make Concern.
elpenments.on rhcm ro prove evolurion.* He was
born in Russiain In an articlewhich waswell publicizedand summarized
rne yearot rhe canonizarionofSt. TheodosiusofChernigov without
[1900], in rn many Orthodox periodicalsin America, ,,Evolution:
fromhisparents;
andthatiswhyhewaicaliedTheo- :_olJnenr
1ntl.t 11n.1y.1 God's SpecialMethod of Creation"(Concern,Spring,
doslus..Alrs,.he becamean aposrare.He came ro America in l9Z3), Dob-
the rwen- zhanskyaccuses anyoneopposedro rhe rheoryoi *o'iu,ion of .,blas_
ttrs and hasbeenan Amcricansincerhar rime.,.
phemy. He saysin rhisarticle:
nrr been,absolurelyprohibited in Soviet Russia,
,n. although the
Sovrer
", screnrisrsknow about him. Once when a film was accidentally
Natural sclectionis a blind ano a crearrveprocess....
presenredat one scientificmeeting in Russia Narural screc_
which showedhim on ir, tion does zat work accordingro a foreordained
all the scientistscheered;but rhe fi'lm waswithdrawn. plan.
H. i. conslaer.d
nonexistent,a non-personbecausehe left Russia.
Bur he rhinks like a Dobzhanskynoresrhe extraordinary
communlst, _ varieryof life on (he earrh,
and callsit "whimsicaland superfluous.'t
H. ,"i,
Although he was baprizcdOrrhodox, when his wife
, died he had
her cremared,took rhe ashcsand scatteredthem
in rhe Sierras.,,*As rVhar a senscless
can see,,he nevergoesto church; he,squire b.yonJ operarion to labricare a multitude of spe cies
cx ni_
3: i: :,": ,e gion. b.ilo[kom norhinpil,and then ler mosr of them
r\everrhet€ss, tor hrs Chrisrian evolutionist views, he was granted die our! .. . Whar is
an rhe senseof having as many as rwo or thrce million
O:c'.11e rheology by Sr.Vtadimir'so,,hoJo""S"rntnrry speciesliving on
TS:i't ^ofAt the sametime, he gave
In New York tn 1972. earrh?. . . \0as rhe crearorin a jocular mood? Is
rhc Creator .. . play-
an addressto the Sec_ rng practicaljokes?
TheologicalConferenceJf the Onhodox Theologi_
::d"tl::-'1",:.jil
cal soclery of America, which was attended
by all rhe renowned No, Dobzhansky reasons,
"theologians"of the variousOrthodox
bodies.His id.rs on .uolution,
The organicdivcrsirybcconres,howcver,reasonable
and undcrstand_
'Fr. Seraphimis refcrringro Dobzhansky's
arremprro crearca ncw spccrcs ablc if the Creator hascreatedrhc living world,
not by gratuirousca_
Dy
cxposingfruir flics ro radiationso as price bur by cvolurion propclled by natural
t,io.k
ri th.c
MindsofMen(it, D,il'*: [: fr:f:ij :ftffi i .lil,i:t*':,JL,l,i scl.ction. i, i. *.u,,g ,,,
hold crearionand cvolution as mutually cxclusivc
wirh fruir fliesbcganin rhc 1920swith ThomasHunt alrernarives.
Morgan'"ud,"ilr-ir'r,,,f , rni_
nor'indusrry'amongrcsearchers. The srubbornfruir fly has lu"ry g.n.,,. Vhar he.meansby this is that it acruallymakes
indignitypossiblc,bur so far nor onc has.u., produ."d "ndur.J , no difference
i"f.*"p, ,".,n* whetheryou havea God or not. He saysrhar
fruir fly" (ln thc Mitdt of Men, p.I63)._ED. ""y,t iod or.hr..
" Hcnry M. Morriswrircs:,,Dobzhansky million-species
by meansof naruralselection.
wasprobably,nexrro JulianHuxlcy, f, ,n",-"L.r-*J
.nf i.r, ,;ffy ,f,".
rhe most influcnrialcvolurionisr of the rwcnriethcenrury.,, sayingHe createdthe originalkindsall at once?
l)obzhanskyreposedin
thatFr.Scraphinr
gaverhetccuref-rn *t ,iiJ.t Accordingro Dobzhansky,
L]]j:^r,|r1"-.:]*, 'ct n", rhereis no plan to it; it is all iusta blind
O e en fa k Cn. _1. _ D "p,", process.For an Orthodox Christian,this raises quesrion:
"'Cremarion is srricrlyforbiddenin rheOrrhodox
Church._Flo.
the Does
God beginrhe process of evolution,and then t,"u" no lor,,roi ou., i,,
352
353
Cr:Nrsrs,Cr.eauoN ,rruoE,rnrr M,rN "CsrlsrraN EvoLurroNrsu"
end?Vhat of Cod's Providence,without which not a hair of our head Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (lS8l-l9jj) was a French Jesuit
fllls (Luke 2l: I 8)? priest,'theologian" and paleontologist,who was presentat the discov-
In this point of "Christian evolutionary" philosophy we see how ery.of many of the great fossil "men" of our century. He took part
falseis the very question which the evolurionistis striving to answer. with rwo other people in the "discovery"of the fraudulent piltdown
fhe creative activity of God is not suficient explanation for him of the Man.* He discoveredthe tooth, which was dyed. It is nor Known
diversity of the visible creatioll; there must be a better explana- whether he had a part in it. One of the orher men has been accusedof
tion-one basedon the clearlyun-Christian presuppositionthat God being the one who fabricated the Pilrdown Man; and it has been
is not in control of His own creation, that His Providencedoes not hushed up thar Teilhard de Chardin had anything to do with ir. But
exist!' The "God" of this kind of evolutionary philosophy is clearly it is already known from rhe earlier books thar he discoveredthe
deistic,and the view of this "Christian evolutionist" is not to be dis- roorh.* *
ringuished from that of the "semi-Christian" (or non-Christian) [-e- Teilhard was presentar the new discoveriesof Java Man, which
comte du Noiiy. were incidentallyall locked up in a closetsomewherein Holland, and
Dobzhansky is filled with the usual liberal Christian ideas that not allowed to be examinedagain.He was presenrat many of the dis-
Genesisis symbolical,that man'sawarcnessis the causeof the tragrc coveriesofPeking Man, though not ar the very beginning.He was also
meaninglessness in the world today, and that the only escapeis for presentwhcn the fossilsofPeking Man disappeared.***So we have no
man to realizethat he can cooperatewith the enterpriseofcreation, for fossilsof PekingMan left; only drawingsand modelsexist.
participarionin this enrerprisemakesmorral man parr of God's eternal Above all, Teilhardwasthe one who waschiefly responsiblefor the
design.And he says, inttpr€tation of ell thesefindings.As he himsclf said,
354 355
GaNssIs,Cnr,ertoxaNo Eanlv MIN "Cgnrsrrlt EvolurroNrsrr.r"
into this evidencenow, exceptto say that it is very shaky.One evolu- thinker he was looking for: one who would bring together science
tionisr wrirer, Fl Clark Howell (aurhorof Early Man), hassaid: and religion.
Also in the ninereenthcentury, the American philosopher Ralph
One of the prime difficulricsis that rcallysignificanthuman fossil W'aldo Emerson spoke about the very same thing. Since he faced a
skulls are exceptionallyrare: everyrhingwhich has bcen found to situation in which man'sfairh had beendivorcedfrom knowledgebe-
date could be ruckedaway in a largecoflin. All the restmust bc re- causeof modern enlightenment,he calledfor the resrorarionof uniry
ferredto somethingelse.jr in man, and spoke of how we can ger faith and knowledgeback to-
gether.He saysrhis in his essay"On Nature":
And we just don't know what the relation is of these piccesto each
otner. The rcasonwhy thc world lacksuniry andliesbrokenand in hcaps,
Teilhard de Chardin was both a scienristand a "mystic." The sur- is because man is disunitedwith himself He cannotbe a naturalist
prising thing is not so much that hc was a combination of theserwo until hc sarisfies
all rhcdemandsofthe spirit.Loveis asmuchits dc-
(he was a Jesuit,after all), but rather that he is quite respectedboth by nrandasperception....Deepcallsunto deep,but in actuallif'e,the
rheologians-Roman Catholic theologians,and in lact many Ortho- marriageis nor celcbrared. Therc are innocentmcn who worship
dox so-calledtheologians-and by scientisrs.His book Tlte Phenome' God afterthe traditionof rheirfathers,bur rheirsenseof dury has
non of Man has an introduction by Julian Huxley, the grandson of nor yet exrendedto all their faculties.{That is, they aredLrtifurro
Darwin's famous contemporaryand Proponent'1'. H. Huxley. Julian thcir own religion,bur theydo not durifullypursucscience and phi-
Huxley is an absolureatheistevolutionist.He cannot fully agreewith Iosoph,v.lAnd therearcpaticntnaruralists, but theyfreeze their sub-
leilhardt attempt to reconcileCatholicism and evolution, but basi- jecr under the winrry lighr of the understanding. [That is, rrrcy
cally he agreeswith his philosophy. divorcephilosophyfrom religion.l... But whena fairhfulthinker,
This brings us to a subiecrwe discussedearlier:*mans exPectation resolutcro dcracheveryobjecrfrom personalrelationsand seeir in
of the merging of religion and science.The earlier scientistsin the rhe light of thoughr,shall,at rhesamerimc,kindlescicnccwith the
'West, were all
at the birrh of modern scienceduring the Renaissance' fire of the holiestaffcctions,then will God go forrh ancw into the
mystically oriented. They were filled with Pythagorean philosophy'
crcation.zl
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who is considereda forerunner of
modern scienceand philosophy,was a mysticalPantheis(.He believed Again,Teilhardde Chardinis a "prophet"who promisesto fulfill these
that the whole world is God, that God is the soul of the world, and expecrarions,
who discoversrhat scienceand religionare once more
that "Nature is God in things." His philosophycombined religion and compatible.*
sciencein a singlepantheisticvision. ln St. Vhdimiri TheologicalQuarterf and Conctn, fheodosius
In the nineteenthcentury, the socialistprophet Saint-Simonsaid Dobzhansky summarizes what'leilhardde Chardintried ro do in his
the time is coming when not only will the socialorder be a religious books.Teilhard,he says,describesrhreestagesthroughwhich evolu-
institution, but scienceand religion will come together,and sctence
will no longer be atheistic. Teilhard de Chardin was the kind of
'A morereccnrartcmptto combinescience, religionandevolutionary philoso-
phy is found in Tbc Mariagc of Senscand Soul:Intcgrating Scienccatd Rcligion by
' That is, in earlicrsectiorrs "SurvivalCourse,"from which rhis
of Fr Seraphim's Ken Wilbcr,pp. 103-l l. For morcabourthc union ofscienceand religion,sccrnc
hasbcentaken.-Ep.
discourse F.diror'sF.prlogue
of rheprcsentbook.-Ln.
J)O 5)/
GrNesls. Cnl,,\Trorunruo Elnlv M,qru "Cutrsr.tar Evoluttotrlsv"
tionary developmenthas passed,making use of his own technical many peoplefollow, wherherthey'reChrisrian,atheist,or wharever_a
terms: kind of new universalrevelationfor mankind. And everything,includ_
ing religion,musr be undersroodin terms of evolution.
'l-he wrirings
thc cvolution of inanimate naturci sec-
First, there is cosmogenesis, of Teilhard de Chardin are so filled with a jargon of
.
ond, biogenesis,biologicalevolution; and, third, noogenesis,
the de- his own invention thar ir is easyro dismiss-or accept-him wirhour
v e l o p men r of hr r m ant ho u g h t understandingthe full significanceof his rhought. Above all, one must
undersrandwhat it is that has inspiredhis thought, for it is this basic
'ltilhard alsospeaks the "biosphere,"
of"spheres: thesphereoflifel and inspirarionand worldview that has capturedthe fancy of rhe modern
rhe"noosphere,"the sphereof thought.He saysthewholeof theglobe intellecrual,"Christian" and atheistalike, despitethe difficulry of his
now is beingpenetraredby a webofthought which he callsrhe"noo- language.
'l-hat which inspired
sphere." Teilhardde Chardin, and inspireshis follow-
"Up to here,"continuesDobzhansky, ers, is a certain unitary uiewof realiry,a joining of Goj and the world,
of the spiritual and the secular,into a singie harmonious and all-
Tcilhardsrands firmlyon a foundarionof demonstrablc ficts.'Ib encompassingprocesswhich can not only be graspedby the modern
completchis theologyof naturehe thenembarkson prophery based intellecrual,but can be y'/r by the sensirivesoul that is in closeconracr
onhisreligioas
faitb.He speaksofhis"conviction,
strictly
undcnron- with the spirit of modern life; indeed,the next step of the processcan
strable ro scicncc, that the universe has a direction and that it 6e anticipatedby rhe "modern man," and that is why Teilhard de
could-indced, if wc are faithful, it should-result in somc sort of Chardin is so readily accepredas a "propher" even by people who do
2J not believein Clod: he announces,in a very "mysrical',way, the future
irreversibleperfection."
which every thinking man roday (savefor consciousOrthodox Chris-
Dobzhansky quotes with approval the following statement of Teil- tians) hopesfor.*
hard de Chardin about what evolution is: There are rwo sidesto this unitary thought ofTeilhard de Charclin:
the worldly (by which he atrractsand holds even rotal atheistssucn as
Is evolution a theory,a sysremor a hypothesis?It is much m61s-i1 Julian Huxley), and the spiritual (by which he attracts,,Christians"and
is a generalposrulateto which all theories,all hypothcses,all systcms givesa "religion" to unbelievers).
'Ieilhardt own
nrust hcnccforwardbow and which thcy must satislTin order to be words leaveno doubr that first and foremosthe was
rhinkableand true. Evolution is a light which illuminatesall facts,a passionatelyin love with the world, with the earth:
rrajectorywhich all linesof thought must follow. 'fhis is what evolu-
'i'he world (irs
tion is.* ra value,its infallibiliryand its goodness)-rhat,wnen
all is saidanddonc,is the first,rhclasr,and rheonly rhingin which I
That is, evolutionbecomesin Teilhard'sthought-whicn many, believe.rt
-358 359
GEumrs,Cns,rrIoNaro EAnrvM,tt'r "Cnnrsrr,rxEvolurroNrsr'.r"
Now the earthcan certainlyclaspme in her giant arms.Shecan Then, is it rcallytrue,Lordi By helpingon rhcspreadofscicnceand
swellme with her life,or takemc backin to her dust.Shecandeck freedom,I canincrease the dcnsiryof rhedivineatnrosphere,in irself
herselfout for me with everycharm, with everyhorror, with every aswellasfor me:thatatmosphere in whichir is alwaysmy onedesire
mysteryShecan intoxicateme with her perfumeof tangibiliryand to be immcrsed? By layinghold of rhecarthI cnablcmyselfro cling
uniry.26 closely to you....
May the world's energies,mastcrcdby us, bow down bcforeLrs
ln this beliefhe certainlyleavesOrthodox Christianiry behind. He andacceprtheyokeofour power.
believed,as one of his biographersaccuratelyreports,that "salvation May thc raceof men, grown to fullcr consciousness and grear
was no longer ro be sought in'abandoning the world,'but in active strength,bccomegroupedinto rich and happvorganisms in which
'participation' in building it up."r7 He consciouslyabandoned the life shallbe put to berreruseandbrinpiin a hundrcdfoldrcturn''
"old" forms of Christian spiritualiry in favor of new secularones. He
disdained "God," for him, is to be lound only in the midst of the world;
He believedthat "what we are all more or lesslacking at this mo- In perfect harmony wirh his secularyer "searching"times, he declares
re
ment is a new definition of holiness." He wrore: tnat
The modernworld is a world in evolution;hence,rhcstaticconcepts the time haspassedin which God couldsimplyimposeHimsclfon
of the spirituallife mustbe rethoughtand the classical of
teachings us from wirhour,asmasrerand ownerof rhe csrare.Hcnceforrhrhe
Christmustbe reinterprercd.Jn world will knceldown only beforerheorganicccntcrof its own elro-
l unol l .
This is a reflectionof the overthrowingof the old universeof New-
ron. Teilhardwanrs ro put Christianiryinto the samecategory,because "Evolution" for hirn is not an idea destructiveto religion, but a relig-
it also is bound up with rhe classical,static way of thinking. Now we ious idea in itselfi
havea new way ofthinking; and therefore,just aswe havea rrewphys-
ics,we must havea new Christianiry. Christianiryand cvolurionare nor rwo irrcconcilable
visions,bur
But Teilhard'sphilosophyis no meresecularizationof Chrisrianiry; two perspectivesdesrinedro fir rogcthcrand complcmenteach
his mosr powerful and influential vision is that ofthe spiritualization 0f othcr.Ja
the worl/andworldly activiry. Teilhard was not merely in love with the
world and all "modern progress"and scientificdevelopment;his dis- He ardentlybelieved and taughtrhat"evolutionhascomero infuse
tinguishing mark was that he gavethesethings a distinctly "religious" new blood,so to speak,into the perspectives
and aspirationsof Chris-
significance.He wrote: tianity."r'"Evolurion,"indeed,accordingro Teilhard,is preparingthe
way for a new revelarionof God:
360 361
Gunesrs,Cnl.xrroN ar.roEenry MIN "Cnr.rsrr,q.N
Evolurrot.trsu"
The carth . . . crn casrmc ro my knecsin expccrarionof what is ma- Teilharddoesnot wish ro "converr"the world, but only to offer the pa-
turing in hcr breast... . She has becomefor me, ovcr and aboveher- pacy as a kind of mystical cenrer of man's religious quesr, a super-
selfl rhc body of him who is and of him who is coming.J6 denominational Delphic Oracle. As one of his admirers summanzes
his view:
Evolution,for ltilhard, is a processwhichinvolvesthe "buildingofthe
cosmicbodyof Christ in whichall thingsareunitedwirh God."r7 If Christianiry... is indeedto bc rhe religionof romorrow,rherers
A faithfulson of the RomanCatholicchurch,Teilhardexprcsses onlyonewayin whichit canhopero comcup ro rhemeasure ofrodayt
his visionof the union of God and the world in terms of Larin theol- grcarhumanitariantrendsand assimilatc rhem;and thar is througn
ogy,offeringa "newdevelopmenr" in Catholicthoughrin his striking theaxis,livingandorganic,ofirs Carholicism ccnreredon Rome.'4l
ideaof the "Tiansubstantiation" of theearth:"
At the sametime that the universeis "evolving" into rhe "Body of
As our humaniry assimilarcsrhe matcrial world, and as rhc Host Christ," man himself is reachingrhe pinnacle of his evolutionary de-
velopment:"Super-humaniry"'ltilhard writes:
Ii.c., thc Ronran Carholic Host] assimilatesour hunraniry, rhc
eucharistictransformationgoesbeyond and complctesthc rransub-
Evidenceobligesour reasonro acceprthat somethinggrearerthan
stanriarionof thc brcad on rhe alrar. Step by srep ir irresisriblyrn-
the man of todayis in gesrarion
upon the earth.
vadcs thc universc..,. The sacramentalSpecicsarc formed by rhe
totaliry of dre world, and rhc duration of rhc crearion is thc rinrc
Like Lecomtedu Noiiy, and indeedall thinkers who havea "relig-
neededfor its consecrarion.ls
ious" view of evolution, Teilhard identifies rhe evolving "Super-
humanity" with Christ, and conversely,interpretsChrist in rerms of
In thisprocessofevolution,the "Bodyof Chrisi'is beingformedin "Super-humaniry":
rheworld-not the Christof Orthodoxy,bur the "universal Christ"or
"Super-Christ,"which 'leilharddefinesas "a synrhesisof Christ and In orderro bc ablcro continuero worshipasbeforewe mustbe able
'''This "evolvingChrisr"will bringabourthe uniryof all
the universe." to sayto ourselves,aswe look at rhe Son of man (not 'Apparuithu-
rel;gioos: manitas," 6ut) 'Apparuit Superhtmanitai' ("Super-Humaniry has
appeared").{l
A gcncralconvergcncc of rcligionsupona univers:rl
Christwho frrn-
darncntrllysatisfics
rhenrall: thisseems
ro mc rheonly possiblccon- Here Teilhard'srhought becomes"mystical,"and he doesnor srare
vcrsionof thc world, rnd rhe orrlyform in which a relieionof thc clearlywhether human personaliryis preservedin "Super-humanity,"
firrurecanbe conceivcd,40 or whether it is simply merged in rhe universal"Super-Chrisr" In the
words of his biographer:
Christianity for him is not the unique Tiuth, but only "an cmcrg-
ing phylum of evolution,"'rrsubjectto changeand rransformationlike
''ltilhard himselfwrotc: "Everythinggoesro show rhat if Chrisrianiryis in
everything else in the "evolving" world. Even like recent Popes,
truth desrincdro be,asir professcs, andasir is conscious ofbcing, rhe religionofto-
morrou ir is only rhroughrhe Iiving,organicaxisof its RomanCatholicismrhat ir
' Tcilhardwrorc aboutrhiswhilc in China in 192(t-7,aftcr lravinscelebrarcd canhopcto mcasure up to rhcgreatnrodernhumanisrcurrcntsand becomconcwith
Massin tlrcCobi f)csert. rheni' (-li'ilhard de Chardin, Christianiryand Ewlution, p. 168).-Ep.
362 363
CeNesrs,Cnr,qrroNlNo Eanlv M.nN "Csnrsrr,rNEvor.ulroNrsv"
Humanirywould reacha point of developmenr when it would de- faithful rn Chrisr,who is of Cod. This major taskis pursuedwirh
tach itsclfaltogetherfrom the carthand unite with Omega....'A the rigorand harmonyofa naturalprocess ofevolution.a')
phenomenon ourwardlysimilarto deathperhaps(wriresTeilhard),
but in realirysimplenretamorphosis and acccssion to the supreme Of course,he is completelydoing awaywith all ideasof Christian-
svntnests_ - iry which have been hitherto. Christianity is not an individual trying
to savehis soul; it is everybodyin the world evolving by a natural pro-
The "supremesynthesis," the pinnacleof this evolutionary- cessup to the Omega Point.
is whatTeilhardcalledthe "PointOmega":
spiritualprocess, Christiansshould not fear the natural processof evolution, ]til-
hard believes,becauseit only brings them inexorablyto God:
One day,the Gospeltellsus, rhetensiongradually
accumulating
'fhough frighrcnedfor a momentby evolution,thc Christiannow
between
humaniry andGodwill rouchthelimitsprescribed
by thc
of the world. And then will come the cnd. Then the
possibilities pcrccivesthat what it offcrs him is nothing but a magnificenr
prcsencc of Christ,which hasbeensilentlyaccruingin rhings,will mcansof fcclingmorc at one with God and of givinghimsclfrnore
suddenlybe revealed-like a flash of light from pole ro pole. Thc to him. In a pluralisricand staticNaturc,thc univcrsaldominatron
spiritualatomsof thc world will be bornealongby a forcegcncr- of Christ could, strictlyspeaking,still be rcgardcdas an exrrinsic
aredby thc powersof cohesionproperto the universeitsclf,and and superimposed power.In a spiriruallyconvergingworld, this
will occupl wherherwithin Christ or withour Christ (but always "Christic"energyacquires an urgencyand intensityof anotheror-
underthe influenceof Christ),the happincss or paindesignatcd for der altogether.50
them by the living structureof the Plerorna[the fullnessof
thingsl.{1 9. The Chiliasm ofTeilhard de Chardin.
364 JO)
CeNesrs,CnEAr.roN,tNo Eanry MrN "CstrrsrreNEvolurloNrsv"
rhe passionaredesirc to conqucr the \}forld, and thc passionatedesrre 'l'har is how mysricism
comesrighr into the middle of science.Sci-
to unitc ourselvcswith God; the uital act, qecifcal$ new, concspond- ence nowadaysis losing all of its bearings;it has become indetermi-
ing to d ncw ageof the Eartb.tl nate, positing a whole universeof anrimatrer,which mixes scienrists
up.. It all ends in mysticism.
One canseethar,in Teilhard,chiliasmis verysrrong:rheNew Age -Ibilhardwrites:
emerges:
The onQ truly natural and rcal human Uniry is the Spirir of the
In Communism,
aranyrarein itsorigins,
hith in a universal
human Earth.... A conqueringpassionbeginsto show itself,which will
organismrcacheda magnificcntstateof exalrarion.. . . On the other swccpawayor rransformwharhashirhcrtobeenrhc immaturiryof
hand, in its unbalanccd admirationfor rhe rangiblepowersof the rhe carth.... Thc call rowardsthc greatUnion [i.e.,the univcrsal
Universc, it hassysremarically
excluded from its hopesrhepossibiliry uniry of mankind]whoscrealization is thc only business
now afoor
of a spiritualmeramorphosisof the Univcrsc.tz in nature....-On thishyporhesis, undcrwhich (in conformirywith
thc findingsof psycho-analysis) Loveis rhe primitiveand universal
In other words, if you add spiritualiry ro communism, you have the psychicenergy, doesnot cveryrhing aroundus becomeclear...?The
answer.*Teilhardgoeson ro say. Sense ofEarrh is rhe irresistible
pressurewhich will comear the righr
momenrro unircthem [all humaniry]in a commonpassion.
rVe must unire.No morepoliticalfronrs,
but onegrearcrusadefbr
humanadvancement.. . . The dcmocrar,the communistand the fas_ T'heagcof nationsis past.The taskbeforeus now,if we would not
cistmusrjetrisonrhedeviarions and limirarionsof theirsysrcms
and perish,is ro shakcoff our ancientprejudices,and to build thc
pursuero rhe full rhc positiveaspirations which inspircrheirenrhu- Eartlr... .
siasm,and thcn,quire naruralll rhe newspirit will burst rhc exclu- The greatconflicrfrom whichwe shallhaveemerged will mcrcry
sive bonds which still imprison it; rhc three currentswill find haveconsolidatcd in theVorld the needro believe.Havingreached a
rhcmsclves mergingin rhe conceptionof a common task;namely,ro higherdegree ofself-masterltheSpiritofEarthwill cxpericnce an in-
promotethespirirualfurureof the Vorld.... The functionof man is creasingly vital needrc adore;out ofunitersaleuolutionGodemerges rn
to build and direc thc wholeof rhe Eanh.... \Weshallcnd by oer- our consciousness asgrcaterand moreneccssary thanever....
ceivingrhar rhe grearobjecrunconsciously pursucdby scicnccrs At whatmomentin rheNoosphcre hasrhercbeena morcurgcrrr
nothingclscrhanthe discovery o[God.5r necdto find a Faith,a Hopc to givc meaningand soul to rhe im-
mcnscorganismwe arebuilding?5a
' Commcnringon rheJesuir and Dominican"workcrpriesrs,'who in rhe 1940s
and 50sjoincdcommunisrandsocialist parries(andwho sutscquenrly lcfi rhepriest- Here he means rhat rhe whole modern revolution has losr itself.
hood),-lcilhardwrorc:"Pricsr-workcrs find in the faceofa humaneMarxismnot 'When
ir tries to build a new Paradise,it destroyseveryrhing;therefore,
only jusricebur hopc and a fcclingfbr rhe Earthwhich is srrongcrrhan.evangelical
it needsro havea religiousmeaningaddedro ir; and this 'ltilhard pro-
humaniry"' (quorcdin Malachi Marrin, l-heJcsuitt,p. 290). Elsewherche said:
"Maaixs belicvein the futurc of mankind*hilc preienr-davChrisrians vides. All the rhings in modern life, he says,are good. Only add to
do nor"
(quotcd in JoscphV. Kopp, Tiilhard de Chardin..A'New Syntiesisof Euolution).
On
thc ncw spiritualirythar is beingbuilr on thc foundarions laid by communrsm,scc 'Ar prescnt,evolutionary cosmologists arepositingrharasmuch asnincrypcr-
rhe Editor! Epiloguebclow.-Eu.
centof the matrcrin thc univcrscis "dark"or "exotic"61116x-lp.
366 367
GrHrsts, Cnserroru,rno Eanly MaN "CHnrsrteNEvoLutIoNtsv"
them this: the idea that they are all heading for a neq spiritual king- end the idca thar God is thrown our, Christianity is thrown out, and
oom. rhe world is Divine. The world is somehowthe body of Cod, and man
Teilhardsaysfurther: wants to be a god. Now man haslost God; God is dead;the Superman
wants to be born. Teilhard expressesmodern man's desire for what
In us the evolutionof the Vorld towardsthe spirit becomescon- Dostoyevskydepictedin "The Grand Inquisitor." He triesro unire the
scious..
. . We cannoryerundcrsrand exacrlywhercit will leadLrs,bur spiritual sidewith the scientificside,and wirh a New Order which will
it would be absurdfor us ro doubt that it will leadus towardssome be political. He is a prophet of Antichrist.'
endofsuprcmevalue.5t And so wirh this, the modern rarionalismin our time comesto an
end. Reasonfinally comesto doubr or even to deny iaelf." Scienceis
In this he is trying to be a prophet, but he is nor reallyquite surewhere upset; it doesnot know wha( matter is, whar it can know and whar it
it is all going. cannot know. Relativism pervadesall spheres.For some, this doubt
and relativismlead to the philosophyof the absurd.'*'
The generating principleofour unificationis not finallyro be [ound It turns out that, having gone through all theseexperimentsof the
in the singlecontemplationo[ thesameTiurh or in thc singlcdesirc aposrasy,man cannot deuel|p drything morefLr binuelf He tried every-
awakened 6y Something,bur in the singleatrractioncxerciscd by the rhing and eachtime he wasconfident that he had finally found the an-
sameSomeone ,!(' swer.As he did this, however,he overthrew more and more from the
past.And alwayswhateverhe made was overthrown by the next gen-
Therefore, in spiteofall theapparentimprobabiliries, we areinevira- eration. Now he comesfinally to doubting evenwhether the world ex-
bly approachinga new age in which the Vorld will casroff irs ists,and what he is. Many peoplecommit suicide.Many destroy.$7hat
chains,to giveitselfupar lastto thepowero[its internalaffinities.... is left for man? There is nothing left except rc uah for a new revela-
'With
rwo thousandyearsof mysricexpcriencc[of Roman Ca- tion. And modern man is in such a stare-having no valuesystemand
tholicismlbehindus, the contacrwhichwc can makewith rhe per- no religion of his own-that he cannot but acceptwhatevercomesas
sonalFocusof rhe Universe hasgaincdjusrasmuchexplicitrichness being this new revelation.
as the contact we can make, afrcr two rhousandyearsof Scie.t..,
wirh thc naruralspheres of rhe World. Regardcd as a "phylum"of
lovc,Christianiryis so Iivingthar,ar rhisvefy momcnr,we canscelr
undergoing an cxtraordinary mutationby elevaring irsclfto a firmcr
consciousness of irs universal
value.
[s thcrenot now undcrwayonefurrhermetamorphosis, the ul- ' |r Scraphim's rcachingon this subjectis discusscd
more fully in rhe lldirori
timarc,thc rcalizarionof God ar the hean of rhc Noosphcre[rhe Epilogue.-l)o.
mcntalworldl, the passage of rhe circlesli.e.,of all the sphereslto '" Earlierin his"SurvivalCourse,"Fr.Scraphimspokcofhow fairhin "purerea-
their common Center,rhe apparitionat lasrof rhe "Theosphere" son" was undermincdtowardsrhe end of thc Enlightennrenr by the philosopher
David Hurnc.lmmanuelKant andothers.Somcof rhisdiscussion hasbeenincludcd
[i.e.,whenmanand rheworld becomeGod]lt7
in rhe previouschaprcr,pp. 318-24.-Eo.
'*' A reference to rhewritersCamus,Kafka,Ionesco, erc.In rheearly1960s,Fr.
This longing is very deep in modern man-rhis is what he wants.
Scraphimwrorc an essaycalled"Thc Philosophyof the Absurd,"which waspub-
All modern philosophical,chiliastic,socialisricsysremshave as rheir lishedposthumouslyrn 'I he OtthodoxlVod no. 106 (1987). Flp.
368 369
GeNesrs,
Cnr,rnorur.NoE,ralvMaru "CxnIsrIln EvoLurt<lNIsv"
370 371
CrNrsrs, CnEarroN AND EARLYMAN "Cnntsrraru
EvoruttoNIsv"
by rhosewho acceptevolution"in somcform." Unknownro mosrOr- USSR.'After this publication,F-r.John Meyendorffof the American
thodoxChristians, the Holy Fathersof the OrthodoxChurchhaveset Metropoliawrore:
forth a clearteachingon the natureof the world, God'screation,and
the first-creared man which answers all the ouestionsthat modernist fhe Christocentric
undersranding
of manandtheworldwhich,ac-
Orthodox 'theologians,"uho do not hnowttti Orthodoxftnching0f the cordingto Teilhard,arcin a stareofconstanrchangeandsrrivingro-
Fatbers,rhink areso uncertainand difficult. wardsthc "OmegaPoint," rhar is, rhe highesrpoint of beingan<t
Teilhard's monstrousviewof the "Omega'wasmadepossiblepre- evolution,which is identifiedby rhcaurhorwith God Himscll,con-
ciselybecause evolutionaryphilosophyfirstobscured the'Alpha"-that necrsTeilhardwirh the profoundinruirionof thc OrthodoxFathers
is,theOrthodoxdoctrineof thecreationolrtheworld arrdman.Ortho- of the Church.o0
dox theologyin our own timehascomesomuchunderrheinfluenceof
this modernphilosophythat most"Orthodoxtheologians" no longer More specifically,the editor (presumablyNikita Struve)of thc Or-
teachthe Orthodoxdoctrineof Cod'screation.The ideasexpressed in thodox periodical from Paris,Messenger of the RussianStudent Cbristian
rheofficialorganofrhe GreekArchdiocese of America,by the "conser- Mouement,ttwrites:"lr should be noted that rhe chief characrcristicof
vative" theologianPanagiotistempelas (if he has been correctly Teilhardismis not at all rhe acceDranceof evolurion-this has been no
quoted),by TheodosiusDobzhanskyand St. Vladimir'sTheological novelty for a long time among rireologiansand religiousphilosopners.
Seminarywhichawardedhim an honorarydoctorate, by periodicals
of l'he soul ofthe teachingofrhe Frenchthinker is a new approachto the
the AmericanMetropolialOrthodox Church in America] and the problem of the world and crearion." In his reachingon this Teilhard
"StandingConferenceof CanonicalOrthodox Bishops"in Amer- "only sctsforth in contemporarylanguagethe teachingof the Apostle
ica-are so far from Orthodoxyahaton€canonly marvelat the "'West- Paul concerningnature,which is not excludcdfrom the plan ofsalva-
ern caprivity"that hasenchained theseOrrhodoxChrisrianswho are, rion." Vhen reflectingon 'the Mass of the World" 'Ieilhard'sexperi-
afterall, freeto readthe Holy Fathers and think for themselves. ences"were for him somethinglike a cosmic l-iturgy which is invisibly
But let us not be shockedby rhismediocreignorance. Beforeap- performed in the world. Here is rhe very heart ofrhe Teilhardianproc-
proachingthe teachingof the Holy Fathers ler
themselves, usexamine lamarion, which restoresro us the forgotten, immemorially Christian
briefly the viewsof "Orthodox theologians"who accepteuentheteach- understandingofthe universeand rhe Divine Incarnation. Preciselyit
ing ofTeilharddc Chardinbimselfas "Orthodox," andrevealtherebynot illuminated for Teilhard rhe meaningof evolution as rhe movemenrof
merelytheirprofoundignorance ofOrthodoxteaching, but evenmore the whole cosmos roward the Kingdom of God and enabled him to
their captivationby a teachingtotallyand utterlyforeignto Holy Or- overcome the negative approach to the world which is deeply rooted
thodoxy. among Christians. " o'
11. "Orthodox"FollowersofTiilhard de Chardin 'In his book lbe Jesuix(1987),Fr. MalachiMarrin commenrson'leilh,rrdi
conncctionwirh Marxism:"For TLilbard,Marxismprcsenrcd no realdifficulry.'-l-hc
-lbilhardism
seemsto havemadea deepimpression on Russian Or- ChristianCod on high,'hc wrorc,'andrheMarxisrGod ofProgrcss arercconcilcd in
thodox"liberals"afterthetranslation
and publication(significanr
in ir- Chrisr.'l,ittlc wonderrharTbilhardde Chardinis the only RomanCarholicauthor
whoscworksarcon publicdisplaywirh rhoscof Marxand Leninin Moscow's Hall of
selflof ThePhenomenon ofManin Moscowin 1965-the firstbookof ( lhe Jeuix, p. 290).-Eo.
Arhei,sm"
a "Christianthinker"(if one exceprs
the propaganda volumeof Hew- " An organ of rhe Parisianschoolof modcrnistOrthodox rhcology,abour
lett Johnson,the "Red Deanof Canterbury")to be publishedin the which seeMonk Damascene Chrisrensen,Not of 'l'hi World,pp. 464-76.-F.o.
372 373
Crpr-sts, CnmrtoN ,rtlo Eanrv Meu "Cxtlst-r.eruF,v<lr_urroIrsv"
'fhe Messengeri major "Orthodox"arricleon Teilhardismis by a Enough hasbeensaid to show how far rhe "Orthodox" followersof
PolishOrthodox priest,Fr. GeorgeKlinger,and is entitled"Fr. Teil- -leilhardde Chardin
wander from sound Orthodox doctrine, and how
hard de Chardin and OrthodoxTradition."('rThis authorfinds that profoundlyignoranr they are of rhe rrue reachingof the Holy Fathersof
Teilhardt'ihought so often uncoverspointsof approachto the best the Orrhodox Church whom they so glibly mention.'I-he patristic il-
traditionsof Orthodoxy,"or and he then proceeds to quotethese"best litcracyof our own day is so great rhat any 'theologian"can say virtu-
tradirionsof Orthodoxy," which are:the third-century heresyoI Mon- ally anything and artribute it to a "Holy Father"and nor be correcred.
tanism ("rhe evolutionismof Easternthought is confirmedin the l)articularlywith regardto evolurion ir is allowed ro make exrremery
studyof Montanism,whichsawthe appearance of the threeHyposta- vaguesratemenrswhich seemro give a "Patristic"justification for be-
sesofthe Holy Trinity in threesuccessive epochsofhuman hisrory");uo lief in this modern docrrine. "The Greck Farhers had a cosmrc
thc rwelfth-century LatinmonkJoachim Fiore,with hisprophecyof
of view"-which makesthem akin to Teilhardde Chardinl "J'he F-athers
the coming"Third Ageof the Holy Spirir' to replacethe agesof the didnt interprer Genesisliterally"-which meanswe are free ro rnrer-
Old and New Testaments; and the whole "Paris-modern" schoolof pret ir in terms of evolution! "Genesislends itself to an evolurionary
Bulgakov, Berdyaev,and their"liberal"followers.(He doesquotea few in terp rcration"-according to our modern wise men who do nor know
genuineFathers also;but not one of these quotes is supportiveof the the Farhers!"The Hexaemeron ofSt. Basil is favorableto evolution."*
ideaofevolution.)Indeed,no onewill doubtthat thereis a kinshipbe- One could mulriply such examplesof looserhinking.
rweenthesesources and evolutionaryphilosophy, nor that the whole 'We
have seen enough of these feeble speculationsof modern
charismatic-ecumenical "new Christianiry"of our own rimeshasdeep thinkers; it is time now ro go ro the Farhersthemselvesto revealwhat
roots preciselyin the doctrine of evolution-}lr t all tbis has notbing
whateuerto do with Orthodoxl and the Holy Fathersof the Church! Fr. " Suchvagiuc srarcmcnts wcrcmadeby Fr.JohnMeyendorffinan arriclcentirled
ro ''Oreati<rn
GeorgeKlingeris so far from Orthodoxythat he doesnot hesirare vs. Evolution,"published,inTbeOrtbodoxChnrrA rheofficial organofrhc
follow -leilhardde Chardininto his dizzyingvisionof the "cosmic" or OrthodoxChurchin America.Havinginrrodtrccd rhesubjecrofrhe Biblicalaccounr
of the creation,I;r. Meycndorffwrires:"The New 'fesramcnrclcarlyaffirms rhar
"super-Christ": ,allegory,
somcOld'li:sramentaccounrs arero bc undcrstood spiritually,
asan (Cal.
4:24).In his lamousscrmons'On rhcSix [)rys ofCrcarion,'St. BasilrheCreatholds
Fr.Tcilhard
spcaks muchon thccosmic rolcof Chrisr,of theDivine rhcviewrhar(lod crcatedrhc world 'in one nromenr,'endrhen,lefrir rolling,under
roohc"converp;cs"
Milieu,andverylittlcofrheChurch.In thiscase lrisown guidance, brrralsoin accordancc wirh its own crcatedlaws.Clearl* Sr. Basil
akin to him in Orthodox theology.. In Fr. Teil-
with tendencies docsnot understand biblicalchronologylircrally.Hc firlly.rc.cprsrhcscienrificidcas
hard,rhc Churchis identifiedwith thc workingof Christin rhecos- of his own day,and his undcrsranding sccmsquirc conrparible with rhc idca ofa
C<r<l-guidc<l cvolution"("(ircarionvs.Evolurion,"7'heOrtlndoxClturdt,vol. 18,no.
nlos,('1
3, March1982).
'l-hisstarcrnent, of coursc,conrainsgrossmisrcprcscnrations. In (lalarians4:24
And again: St. Paulis spcakingspecifically ofAbrahamt rwo sonsbeingan allcgoryof rhc r*o
covcnants-frornwhichwe arcobviouslynor ro concluderharSr. Paulrhoughrrhat
Accordingto Fr.Tcilhard,throughcommunionof the Holy Myster- Abrahamand hissonsdid nor a6aexisrashisrorical pcrsonslAnd aswc havesecn,Sr.
icsrheworld bcingsanctified becomes the Bodyof Christ....These Basilwrotcin hisconrmcnrary on rheSixl)avsofCrcarionthat tlrcScripture should
"bc undc'rsroocl asir hasbecnwrittcn. sr. Basilr;rughrthrt C,d nra.lc.ucryrhingac-
rhoughtsare possiblythc profoundest that havebeensaidin recent
cordingto thc Gencsischronologyin insrantancous creativcacrson cachof rhc Six
timeson the questionof the centralsacramcntof Christianiry.6 DiLys, rh:rtrhc Six [)rys wcrerealdays,lnd rhatonc "kind" ofcrcaturccouldnor be
transformed into anorher.(Secpp. 38(>401 below.)-Eo.
:r /tl
375
Gruesrs,Cnr-rtroNeNn Ernrv Mln
376
EDITOR'SNOTE
Tbefollouing btter w*s uritten $' Fr. Seraphimto Dr AlexanderKalo-
miros, a GreekOrthodox medicrtldlctlt church writer, and "Christian
euol tionist." Fr. Seraphimwar resplndingto a letterfom Dr. Kahmi-
ros, in which thc latter attemptedto show that the Holy Scripturesand
the teachingof the Holy Fathersaere compatibb with modrrn euolution-
ary theory.Accordingto Dn Kalomiros,Adam was an "euoluedbeast,"
who at the appropriatepoint in his euol tiznary dttehpmcnt rcceiuedthe
grace of God and thus becameman. Dr. Kalomiros arote: "When th?
{J Lord God breathedinto Adam'sface the breath of life, then the nolued
.); beastbecamea logicalreature.... I woul/ not be surprisedif Adani
bodyhad beenin all retpects the bodyof an ape.... Adzm wasprobably
biologicallylesseuoluedthan man of presentdzys.... He uas tahenfom
the top stepof the euolutionarykdder of anthropoids.Man doesnot come
fom monheysbat fom anotherbranchof anthropoidswith a parallcl
euolution. Wehauenothing by which to concludein uhicb stagcofeuolu-
tion the breathof God wasgiuen to the animal."
Fr. Seraphim'srepl! to Dr. Kalomiros,published posthumous\ in
EpiphanyJournal (Fall 1989-\VintcrI990) and kter in abridgedform
iz J'he Christian Acrivisr(Spring/Summer1998),has becomethe de-
fnitiue innoduction to the Patristic doctrine of reation and the defni-
tiue Patristic refatation of the modcrn theory of euolution. lV'epresentit
f6 rCft l:'
herewith sectiontitlcs addedby the editor.
l)ctail of rhe icon"l he Syorbolof rhe Faith,"showingAdamand F-vcbcingcasr For moreabout Fr. Seraphimicorrespondcnce utith Dr. Kalomiros,see
out of Paradisc, Cain slayingAbcl,and Adanrand F-vclarncntingAbcl'sdcarh.
the Editor\ Preface(pp. 2C30, 35, 40) and thc sebctionsfom Fr Sera-
Russin icon olth secondhalf of tlte n,enteenth rcntury, noit lo&ted nt
phim'slettersin Part V (pp.514-15, 52244).
KolonenskoyeM xseurn,Motrc tu.
379
Fifth Veek of GreatLenr, I 974
Dear Dr. Kalomiros,
Greetings in our LordJesusChrisr.
At lastI am writing my replyto your letreron "evolution."This re-
ply expresses the viewofour Brorherhoodon this question.I will re-
peat to you that I havewritten this reply not as an "expert" on the
Holy Fathers, but asa "lover"ofrhe Holy Fathers, which I believeyou
arealso.Mosr of rhe citationsI havemadeherefrom the Holy Fathers
I have translatedfrom the RussianPatristictranslationsof the
nineteenth century,wirh somealsofrom the Englishtranslations ofthe
nineteenthcenturywhich areprintedin the "Eerdmans" NiceneFa-
thersSeries.I havegiventhe sourcesasfully aspossibleso that you can
readthem in Greek.Ifyou havequestionsabout theseor any other Pa-
tristiccitationsI will be gladto discussthem furtherwith you. I am
nor at all concernedmerelyto find citarionsthat "provemy poinr,"
and in fact you will noticethat I havealsoincludedsomecitarions
which do not seemro '!(prove my point"-for I am interestedfirst and
only in finding /ou theHoly Fathrs tho gbt on thcsequestions,
for lbe-
lievethat is the way we shouldthink also.May Christ our God bless
me to soeaktruthfullv.
381
Crr:arroruaNr>Earu MaN
Gr:Ncsrs. f ue PerersrrcDoclnrNe or Ctr:xrron
Beforeone beginsto discussthe question of evolution, one must explain the lacrs discoveredby science.Facrsare one rhing (prrresci_
have a clear idea of what he is talking about. I say this becauseI have ence)and explanarionsof factsis another (philosophy).',
had very surprisingexperiences with very learnedpeoplewho speakas I must tell you first ofall thar at one timc I believedentirely rn evo-
if they knew all abour this subjectand yet they make very elementary lution. I believednot becauseI had thought very much about rhis
mistakeswhich revealthat there is much that they do not know about tluestion, but simply because"everyonebelievesit," becausert is a
it. In particular,almost everyonewho writes about evolution asarzrr "fact," and how can one deny "facrs"?But then I beqanto rhink nrorc
that he knows what "evolution" is-and yet what he saysrevealsthat deeplyon this quescion.I beganro scerhat very oft"n *har callsitself
he has a very confusedidea of it. The question of evolution is by no ".scicnce"is not
faa at all, but philosopbl, and I began very carefully to
meansa simple one, and there is so much confusion in people'sminds distinguish beween scientif cfacx and scientif c phihsophy. Afrcr many
about ir-including the minds of most Orthodox Christians-that we yearsI came to the fbllowing conclusions:
cannot eventalk about it until we are quite surethat we know what we a. Evolurion is zat "scierrtificfaci' ar all, but philosophy.
are talking about. b. lr is a.ft/sr philosophywhich was invenredin the Westas a reac-
You haveaskedus to "clearyour mind very carefullyofall Vestern tion againsrRoman Catholic-Proresrant theology,and which drsguised
conceprions,whether these are theological,philosophical,or scr€n- itselfas"science"in order to make irselfrespecrable and deceivep-eople
tific." I assureyou rhat I havetried to do this, and throughout this let- who are willing ro acceprscientificfact. (ln the Vesr almosr ali mod-
ter I will constantlybe on the wxch not ro rhink in terms of Western ern errors do this same thing; even "Chrisrian Science"claims to be
conceprions,becauseI agreewith you that rheseconceptionsfalsiS the "scientific,"so alsoSpiritism,variousHindu
cults, etc.)
subject matter, and by meansofthem one cannot understand the ques- c. It is contrary ro the teachingof the Holy Fiatherson very many
tion ofevolution. But in turn I askyu to try very carefullyto cleanse Pornrs.
your mind of whateverpreconcep(ionsabout the questionsof evolu- I have deliberatelygiven you my conclusionsbefore explaining
.
tion you may have-what you have learnedin school,what you have them to you, in order ro make you srop and think: are you sure thet
read in sci entific books, what you may think about "anti- you have pur away all your preconceptionsabour evolution
and are
evolurionisrs,"what Greek theologiansmay have said about the sub- prcparedro rhink clearlyand dispassionately on rhis subject?Are you
ject. Let us try to reasontogether,not in the manner of 'Westernra- willing ro admir that there may be some truth in what I will now have
tionalists,but as Orthodox Christianswho love the Holy Fathersand to sayon this subject?I must tell you frankly that mosr ,.evolurionisrs"
wish to understandtheir teaching,and also as rational beingswho do will stop ar this point and say: rhis man is crazy,he is denying facts.I
not accept the teachingof any modern "wise men," whether they be am rrusring thar your mind is ar leastopen enough to read the resrof
theologiansor philosophersor scientistsunbs rhat teaching accords what I will say,which I try to baseentirely on the Holy Fathers.If I
with the Scriptural and Patristic teaching and does not come from makemisrakes. I hope that you will rell mc.
some foreign philosophy.
2. A ClearDefnition
l. Philosopfu,
Not Fact Many of rhe argumenrs and ,,anti-
between"evolutionisrs"
evolurionisrs"
areuseless,for one basicreason:theyareusuallynor ar-
Firstofall, I agree with youwhenyousay:"Youmusrnot
enrirely guing aboutrhesamething. Eachone ofthem means,ne thing when
pure scienrrwirh the different philosophicaltheorieswrittcn ta
conFuse he hearsrheworld "evolurion,"and theothermeans slmething;lse;
^nd
382 383
GrNrsrs, CrurrroN lNo Ernt-vMrN Tsr P,rrnrsrlcf)oclnrur- op CnrarroN
rhey argue in vain becausethey are not even talking about the same 'l'here
are very many books in rhe English languagewhich discussthe
thing. Therefore,in order to be precise,I will tell yor exactbwhar I question of evolution from a scientifcpoint of view. Perhapsyou do
mean by the word "evolution," which is the meaning it hasin all text- not know thar many scientisxdeny tbe fact of'euolution (meaning the
books ofevolution. But first I must show you that in your letter you clerivationof all exisringcreaturesby rransforrnationfrom other crea-
have usedthe word "evolution" to mean .wo entirely different things, tures), and vcry many scientistsstare thar it is imposible to know by sci-
but you write as f tbq wcre the samething. You have failed here to dis- enct zthcthercuolution is true or not, becausetltereis no euidenceuhateuer
tinguish berween scientifcfact and philosophy. that can conclusiue$proue or disproueit. If yol wish, in another lctter I
a. You write: "The first chaptersofthe Holy Bible are nothing else can discusswirh you the "scienrificevidence"for evolution. I assure
but the history ofcreation progressingand being completedintime.... you that if you look at this evidenceobjectively,withour any p reconcep
Creation did not come into being instantly,but followed a sequenceof tionsabour what you will find in it, you will discoverthar rhere is not
appearances, a developmentin six different'days.'How can we call this onc pieceofevidencefor evolution that cannor equallybe explainedby
progressof Creation in time if not evolurionl" a theory of "specialcreation."
I answer:all that you say is true, and if you wish you can call rhis Pleasebe very clear that I am not rclling you rhar I can disproue
process of creation "evolution"-but thi is not what the controuersl the theory ofevolution by science;I am only telling you that the the-
ouer euolutionis about. Nl scientific textbooks define evolution as a ory of evolution can neitlter be proued nor disprouedby science.'I'hose
specrfc theory concerning HOW creaures came to be in time: BY scienristswho say that evolution is a "faci' are acruallyinterpretingrhe
MEANS OF THE TRANSFORMATIONOF ONE KIND OF scientific Faasin accordanceuith a philosophicaltheory; rhose who say
CREATURF. INTO ANOTHER, "COMPLEX FORMS BEINC that evolution is not a facr are likewise interprcting the evidence in ac-
DERIVEDITROMSIMPLERFORMS"tN A NATURALPROC- cordance wi t a diferent philosophical the<>ry.By pure sciencealone ir
ESSTAKINC COUNTLESS MILLIONSOF YEARS(Storer, 6ez- is not possibleconclusivelyto prove or disprove the "faci' of evolu-
eral Zoologi. Later on, when you talk about rhe "evolved beast" tion.
Adam,you revealthatyou believein thisspecifcscientifctheoryalro.I You should alsoknow that many books havelikewisebeen writtcn
hope to show you that the Holy Fathersdid zarbelievein this specific about'the difficultiesofthe evolutionarytheory." Ifyou wish, t will be
scientifictheory,even though this is certainlynot the most important glad to discusswith you some of thesedifticulries,which seem to be
aspectof the doctrine of evolution, which more fundamentally is in totally unexplainableifevolution is a "facr."
error concerning the nature ofman, as I will show below.
b. You say: " \7e all came into being by evolution in time. ln our
3. Derclopment, Not Euolutiotr
mother'suteruseachone of us was ar first one single-cellorganism ...
and finalfy a perfectman." Of courseeuerlonebelieves this, whether he I wish to make very clear to you: I do not ar all deny the facr of
is an "evolutionist"or an "anti-evolutionist."But this has nothing to dtange and deuehpmentin nature. 1-hat a full-grown man grows from
do with the doctrineof evolutionwhich is being disputed. ;rn embryo; that a grear rree grows from a srnall acorni thar new uarie-
c. Again you say:'Adam was of which race,white, negro, red, or rlrs of organismsare developed,whether the "races"of man or differ-
yellow?How did we becomeso different from one another when we ent kinds of cars and dogs and fruit trees-bur all of this is zar
are descendents o[ one singlecouple?ls this differentiationof man in euolution: ir is only variation within a definite kind or species;it does
different racesnot a product of evolution?" not prove or even suggesr (unless you already belieuethis for non-
I answeragain: No, this is aar what the word "evolution" means! scientific reasons)that one kind or speciesdevelopsinto anorher and
384 .]85
CRt,cloN aNo Enntv M,rN
GsNesrs, Tns Parnrsrtcl)oclrrNe on Cncerroru
'l'hisquote
that all presenrcreaturesare the product of such a developmentfrom reallyprovesnorhing,and I useit only because ir hasbeen
one or a few primitive organisms.I believe that this is clearly the usedby othersro showrhatSt. Basilbelieved(l ) that onekind ofcrea_
teachingof St. Basilthe Great in rhe Hexaemeron, as I will now point tureactuallychanges into another(but I will showbelowwharSt. Basil
out. actuallyteaches on rhissubjecr);and (2) that St. Basilmadescientific
In Homily 5:7 of the Hexaemeron, St. Basilwrites: mistakes, sincethisstatement is untrue.HereI shouldstatean elemen-
tary truth: modern science,uhen it dealswith scicntificfacx, doesin-
Let no onc,thercfore,who is livingin vicedespairof himself,know- deedusuallyknow morethan rhe Holy Fathers. andihe Holv Fathers
ing that, asagriculturcchanges rhe propertiesof plants,so thc dili- caneasilymakemistakesof scientificfacrs;jr i not srientificdcts uhich
gcnceof thesorrlin the pursuitofvirtue cantriumphoverall sortsof welookfor in the Holy Fathers,but true rheologyand the true philoso_
infirmitics. phy which.is.based on theology.Yetin this particularcar. it ilrppens
that St. Basilis scientifcallycorrect,
becauseit often in fact happensrhat
" will deny that the "prop-
No onc, "evolurionist"or "anti-evolutionist, in a pine forestrhereis a strongundergrowthof oak (rhi forestin
erries"of creaturescan b€ changed;but this is nor a proof of evolution whichwe live,in fact,is a similarkind of mixedpine-oakforest),and
unlesti can be shown rhat one kind or speciesran be thanged into an' when the pine is removedby burningthe oak growsrapidlyano pro-
othcn and even more, rhat eueryspecieschangesinto another in an uuin' ducesthe changefrom a pine to an oak forestin ren oi fid.en yearr.
'fhis is
tenupted chain back to the mostprimitiue organism. I will show below zar nolution,bur a differenrkind of chanee,and I will now
whar St. Basilsayson this subject. show thar St. Basilcouldnot havebelievedrhat tie pine is actually
Again St. Basilwrites: transformedor euoluedimo an oak.
Let us seenow what St. Basilbelievedabout the .,evolution', or
How then,rheysa1docsthc canhbringforth seeds of tlreparricular "fixiry"of species. He writes:
kind, whcn, aftcr sowinggrain, wc frcquentlygathcr this black
wheatlI'his is nor a changcto anotherkind, but asit weresomedis- -fhere is nothing
rruer than rhis, that each plant either has seeoor
eascand dcfcctof the seed.Ir hasnot ccasedto bc whcat,but has rhere cxistsin ir some generarivepower. And rhis accountsfor tne
beenmadcblackby burning.l expression"of its own kind." For rhe shoot ofrhe reedis not Droquc_
rivc ofan olive rree.bur from thc rcedcomesanorhcr rccd; f.oa
This passage would seemtoindicatethar St. Basildoesnot believein "a seedsspring plants related ro the seedssown. Thus, whar"nd was pur
changeto anothcr kind"-but I do not acceptthis asconclusiveproof, forrh by the earrh in its first gcnerationhasbecn prcserveduntil the
since I wish to know what St. Basil real\ te ches,and not maKe my presenrtime, since rhe kinds persistcdrhrough consranrrep.oduc_
own arbitrary inrerpretationof his words. All that can reallybe said of tron.'
this passageis that St. Basilrecognizessome kind ofa "change"in the
wheat which is zata "changeto another kind." This kind ofchange is Again, St. Basilwrites:
zal evolution.
Again St. Basilwrites: The natureof exisringob.jects, set in motion by one command,
passes throughcreationwirhoutchange,by generation and destruc_
Ccrrainmen havcalreadyobservedthat, if pincsare cut down or tion, preservingthe successionof the kinds through resemblance,
burncd.rhcyarcchangedinro oak foresrs.2 until it reaches
the veryend. It begetsa horseas rhe successor
of a
386 387
CrNests, Cnsrrtox ,rNo EantY MeN THa ParrusrrcDoclnrrueor Cne_nrroN
horse,a lion ofa lion, and an cagleof an eaglcland it continues to stepsl but nouherein Genesisor in the wrirings of St. Gregory of
preserveeach of the animalsby uninterrupted successions until the Nyssais ir stated that one hind of crearurewas transformedrnro an-
consummationofthe universe.No length of timc causesthe specific other kind, and that all creaturescame to be in this manner! I ouite
ofthe animalsro be corrupted or extinct, but, as ifes-
characteristics disagreewirh you when you say: "Creation is describedin rhe first
rablishedjust rccently,nature,ever fresh,movcsalong with time.n chaprer of Genesis exactly as modern sciencedescribesit." If by
"modern science" you mean euolutionaryscience, rhen I believe you
lt seems quite clear that St. Basil did ot believe that one kind of are mistaken,as I haveindicated.You havemade a mistakeby assum-
creatureis transformedinto another,much lessthat ezrrycreaturenow ing that the kind ofdevelopment describedin Genesis,in St. Gregory
existingwas evolvedfrom some other creature,and so on back to the of Nyssa and in other Fathers,is rhe sameas rhar describedby the
most primitive organism. This is a modcrnphilosophicalidea. doctrine of evolution; but such a thing cannotbe assumedor raken
I should tell you that I do not regardthis questionas being of par- for granted-you must proue it, and I will gladly discusswirh you
ticular importancein itself;I shalldiscussbelow other much more lm- Iater the "scientificprooF" for and againstevolution, if you wish. 1-he
portant questions. lf it were really a scient$c fact rhar one kind of deuclopmentof creation according to God! plan is one rhing; rhe
.r.",ur...n be transformedinto another kind' I would have no diffi- modern scientific (bur actually philosophical) theory which expkins
culry believingit, sinceGod can do anything, and the transformattons this developmentby rhe transformarionof one kind of creatureinto
and developmentswe can seenow in nature (an embryo becoming a another,starringfrom one or a few primirive organisms,is quite a dif-
man, an acorn becomingan oak tree,a caterpillarbecominga butter- ferent thing. The Holy Fathersdid zarhold this modern theory; ifyou
fly) are so astonishingthat one could easily believethat one species can show me that they did hold sucha rheory. I will be glad to lisren
could "evolve" into another. But there is no conclusive scicntifc proof ro you.
that such a thing has euerhappened,much lessthat this is the law of lf, on rhe orher hand, by "modern science"you mean science
rhe universe,and everythingnow living derivesultimately from some which does zar bind itself ro the philosophicaltheory of evolution, I
primitive organism.The Holy Fathersquite clearlydid not believein still disagreewith you; and I will show below why I believe, according
any such rheory-because the theory of euolution aas not inuented til (o the Holy Fathers, that modern science cannot artuin to any hnowl-
moderntimes.It is a product of the modern Westernmentality,and if edgeat all oftbc Six DaysofCreation. In any case,it is very rrbi,rrry ,o
you wish I can show you later how rhis theory developed togethetwith identi$, rhe geologicalstratawith "periodsof creation."There are nu-
tbe courseofmodtrn philosophyfom Descartesonward,long before there merous difficuhies in the way of this naive correspondenceberween
was any "scientificproof" for it. The idea of evolution is entirely ab- Genesisand science.Does "modern science"really believe that the
sent from the text of Genesis,accordingto which eachcreatureis gen- grassand rreesof the earthexistedin a long gcologicalperiodbeforethe
erated "accordingto its kind," zat "one changing into another." And existenceof the sun, which was created only on the Fourth Day? I be-
rhe Holy Fathers,as I will show below in detail, acceptedthe text of lieve you are making a seriousmistakein binding up your intcrprcra-
Genesisquite simply, without readinginto it any "scientifictheories" tion of Holy Scripture with a particubr scientifc theory (not at all a
or allegories. "fact"). I believerhat our interpretationof Holy Scripture should
be
Now you will understandwhy I do not accePtyour quotations bound up wirh no scientifc theory, neirher "evolurionary" nor any
from St. Gregory of Nyssaabout the "ascentof nature from the least other. Ler us rarher acceprthe Holy Scriptures as the Holy Fathersteach
to the perfect" as a proof of evolution. I believe,as the sacredScrip- ru (abour which I will write below), and let us nor speculateabout the
ture of Genesisrelates,that there was indeed an orderly creation in how of creation.The doctrine of evolution is a modern soeculation
388 389
GeNssIs. Clr:xnoN AND !,^RLY MAN Tse Plrntsr:c DoclnrNs op CnearroN
about the ltow of creation,and in many respectsit contradicts the hand which crearedAdam then, is creatingnow alsoand alwaysthose
teachingof the Holy Fathers,as I shall show below. who come after him." How can anyone deny this obvious rrurh of
Ofcourse I acceptyour quotationsfrom St. GregoryofNyssa;I have (lod's continuous creativeactiviry?But this general
rruth does nor at
found otherssimilar to them in other Holy Fathers.I will cerrainlynot aff contradict rhe specifictrurh that the firsr man was made ,n a wa1/
deny rhatour natureis partly an animal nature,nor that we arebound up differentfom all other men,asorher Fathersalso clearly reach.Thus, Si.
with the whole ofcreation,which is indeeda marvelous ':liry. But all this Oyril ofJerusalemcallsAdam "God's firsr-pnz cd man," bur Cain ,,the
has nothing whateuerto do with the docnine of euolution,that doctrine tirx- born man."t Again, he teachesclearly,discussingrhe creation of
which is definedin all texrbooksasthe derivationofall presentlyexisting Adam, that Adam was not conceiuedof another body: ',1'hat of bodies
crearuresfrom one or more primitive creaturesthrough a processofthe bodiesshould be conceived,evenifwonderful, is nevertheless possible:
transformationofone kind ofspeciesinto another. bu rhat the dust of the earth should beome a man, this is more wonder-
Further,you should realize(and now I begin to approachrhe im- ful.""
portant teachingsofthe Holy Fatherson this subjecr)that St. Cregory Yetagain,rhedivineGregory
theTheologian
writes:
of Nyssahimself quite explicitly did zar believein anything like the
modern doctrine of evolution, for he teachesthat thefrst man Adzm 1'heywho make"Unbegotten" and "Begoten"naruresof equivocal
u.,asindeed created directfi by God and was not generated like all other Godswould perhapsmakeAdamand Serhdifferin n"rur., rin..,n"
men.ln his book 'Against Eunomius" he writes: fornaerwas not born offlesh (for hc aat oeated),bu thc latrcr was
born of Adamand Eve.,
The firstman,and rhe manborn from him, rcceived theirbeingin I
diffcrent way; the latter by copularion,theformerfom the moding of And the sameFathersaysevenmore explicitly:
ChristHimte$ andyet, rhoughtheyarethusbelicvcdto be rwo, rhey
are inseparablc in the definitionof rheirbeing,and are not consid- Vhar of Adaml lVasbe not alonethe directocaturc of God?yes, you
eredasrwo beings.. . . 'fhe ideaof humaniryin AdamandAbeldoes will say.Washe thentheonly humanbeing?By no means.And wny,
not varywith rhedifference oftheir origin,ncitherrheordcrnor rhe but becauschumanitydocsnot consisin dircctcrcation?For
thar which
mannerof their coming into cxistencemaking any diflcrenccin is begottcnis ,rto human.ro
rheirnature.t
And St. John Damascene,whosetheologygivesconciselyrhe teaching
And again: ofall the early Fathers,writes:
That which reasons, and is mortal,and is capablcof thoughtand formation(of man)is called"crcation"and not ..gencra-
fhe earliest
knowledge, is called"man"equallyin rhecaseofAdam and ofAbel, rion." For "crcation"is thc origtnatJbrmationat God\ hani, while
and this nameof the narureis not alteredcitherby the factthatAbel "generarion"is the succession from eachorher madcneccssaryby rhe
passedinto existenceby generation,or by thc facr rhat Ad.zmdid so scntenceofdeath imposcdon us on accountofthe transgression. Ir
witboutgcncration.6
what of Eve?Do you nor believethat, as the Scriprureand
_And
Of courseI agreewith the reachingofSt. Athanasiuswhich you quote, Holy Farhersreach,shewasmade from Adam'srib and wasnot born of
that "the first-createdman was made of dust like everyone,and the some other creature?But Sr. Cyril wrires:
390 39r
Ce Nesrs,CRrfi'rol ,ruo Eenly MIN THe PerrrsrrcDocrntNr.or CnearloN
Eve was begortenofAdam, and not conceivedofa mother, bur as rt and easilyfall into acceptingour own "wisdom" in placeof the teach-
were broughtforth oJ man alone.t) ing of the Holy Farhers.I firmly believe that the whole u)orA ou ook
and philosoph.yof life for an Orthodox Cbrixian may befound in the Holy
And St. John Damascene,comparing the Mosr Holy Morher of God if we will listen to their teaching insteadof thinking we are
I'-atbers:
with Eve,wrires: wise enough to teachothers from our own "wisdom," we will not go
asrray.
Just as rhe lattcr wasformcd Jiom Adam uithout conncction,so also And now I ask you to examine with me the very important and
did the formcr bring forth the new Adam, who wasbrought forrh in fundamentalquestion:how do the Holy Fathersteach us to interpret
accordancc with the lawsofparturirionandabovcthc narureofgcn- rhe book of Genesis?Let us put away our preconceptionsabout "lit-
eration.lJ eral" or "allegorical"interpretarions,and let us seewhat rhe Holy Fa-
tbersteachus about readingrhe text of Cenesis.
It would be possiblero quore other Holy Farherson this subject, 'We
cannor do better than to begin with Sr. Basilhimself,who has
but I will not do so unlessyou quesrionthis poinr. Bur with all ofthis wrirten so inspiringly of the Six Days of Creation. ln rhe Hexaemeron
discussionI have nor yer come ro the most important quesrionsraised he writes:
by the theory ofevolution, and so I shall now rurn ro some of them.
'f hoscwho do not admit rhccommonmeaningof thc Scripturcs
say
4. How Do the HoQ Ptatberc
Interpret Genesis? that watcris not water,bur someother nature,and they explaina
plantand a fishaccordingto their own opinion.Thcy describcalso
In whar I havewritten about Adam and Eve, you will note that I rhc producrionof reptilcsandwild animals,changiing it according
to
quoted Holy Fatherswho interpret the texr of Genesisin a way rhat rheirown norions,justlike thedreamintcrpreters, who inrerpretfor
might be called rather "literal." Am I correct in supposingthar you rhcir own endsrhe appcarances sccnin their dreams.When I hear
would like ro inrerprerthe rext more "allegorically''when you say tnat "grass,"I rhink ofgrass,and in thesamcmannerI undcrstand every-
to believein the immediatecreationof Adam by God is "a very narrow thingasit is said,a plant,a fish,a wild animJ, andan ox. "lndccd,I
conception of the SacredScriprures"?This is an extremelyimportant am not ashamcdof the Gospel.". . . SinccMoscsleft unsaid,asusc-
point, and I am rruly astonishedto find rhat "Orthodox evolurionists" lessfor us,rhingsin no waypertainingto us,shallwe for rhisreason
do not at all bnou how the Holy Fathers interpret the booh of Genesis.I bclicvethat rhc w<,rdsof the Spirir:rreof lessvalucrhanthc ftxtlish
am sure you will agreewith me that we are notfec to interpret the Holy wisdom (of thosewho lravewritren about the world)?Or shall I
Sripnres as we pleate,but we musr interprer them as the Holy Ftathers rathcrgivegloryto Him Vho hasnot kcprour mind occtrpied with
teacb us. I am afraid rhat not all who speak about Genesisand evolu- vaniriesbut hasordaincdtharall thingsbc writtcnfirr thc cdificarion
tion pay artenrion ro rhis principle. Some peopleare so concernedro and guidanccofour s<.ruls? l-his is a thing of which rhcysccnrto mc
combat Protestanrfundamentalismthat they go ro extremelengrnsro ro havebcenunawarc,who havcattcmptedby falscargumcntsand
refuteanyonewho wishesto interprerthe sacredrext of Genesis"liter- allegoricalinterpretarions ro bcstowon rhc Scripturea digniry of
ally"; but in so doing they neverrefer to St. Basilor other commenra- rhcir own imagining.But rheirsis rhe attitudeof onc wboconsiders
tors on the book of Genesis,who sratequite clearlythe principleswe himse('uiserthan thc reuelationt of the Spiritand introduceshis own
are to follow in interpretingthe sacredtext. I am afraid that many ofus ideasin pretcnseofan explanation.Therefbre,let h be understood as
who professto follow the Patristictradition are sometimescareless, it hasbeenwritten,t4
i92 393
Gexrsrs,Cnr,r:.roN
a,NoElnry MlN Tsr ParnrsrrcDocrnrxr or CnrerIoN
394 195
CENesrs,CnEArroNaln Eanly M-lr.r 'fnr Parllsllc Dor:r'rrltt tlr Cnr^artoN
I have deliberatelytaken the "simple" commenraryon Genesisof speakabout the creationof stars,plants,animalsand man we do not
St. Ephraim the Syrian, before quoting orher more "mystical" conr- speakabout miracles-we do not speakabout the extraordinaryinter-
mentaries,becausethis "simple" understandingof Genesisis the most ventionsofCod in creationbut about the'natural'course ofcreation."
offensiveto the "enlightened"modern mind. I suspectthat most Or- I wonder if you are not substitutinghere some "modern wisdom" lor
thodox Christianswho are not well read in the Holv Farherswill im- rhe teachingof the Holy Fathers?Vhat is rhe beginningof all things
mediatelysay:"This is too simple! We know more rhan rhar now Give bv a miracle?lhavealreadyshowedyou that St. Gregoryof Nyssa,St.
us more sophisticatedFathers."Alas for our modern "wisdom"-s5s19 Cyril of Jerusalem,St. Gregory the 'fheologiarr,and St. John Damas-
are no more "sophisticated" Fathers,for euentl)e moJt "myxical" F'athers cene (and indeed all the Fathers)teach that the first man Adam ap-
understand the *xt of Genesisin just the 'iimplt" way St. Ephraim does! peared in a way diferent fom the nlltural gcneration of all other men;
Those who wish more "sophistication"in the Holy Fathersare under likewisethe first creatures,accordingto the sacredrext of Cenesis,ap-
the influence of modern Wesrernideaswhich are entirely loreign to peared in a way different from all their descendants:they appearednot
the Holy Fathersof the Orthodox Church. But I will haveto show this by natural generation but by the uord of God.'fhe modern theory of
by quoting many Holy Fathers. evolution denies this, because thc tbeory of euolution was inuented by
Let us examine now specificallythe question of the "length" of unbelieuers who wished to deny Godi action in tedtion and uPltin the
the Six Days of Creation. I believethat this is still a question of sec- creationb! 'hatural" meansalone. Do yo't not seewhat philosophyis 6e'
ondary importance among those raisedby the theory of evolurion, hind the theory of evolution?
but it certainly will not hurt us to know what the Holy Fathers \Ybat do the Hof Fatherssaj about this?I have already quoted St.
thoughr of this, all the more so becausehere we will begin to glimpse Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Cenesisdescribes
the great difference which exists between the modern Western idea of how all God\ creatiue ttcts/1re done in an instant, evcn though rhe
creation,and the Patristicidea oFcreation.No matter how we under- whole "Days" of creationlast for rwenry-lour hours each. Let us now
stand them, these"Days" are quire beyond the comprehensionof us seewhat St. Basil the Great saysabout God's creativeacts in the Six
who know only the corrupt "days" of our fallen world; how can we f)ays.
even imagine those Days when God's crearivepower was mightily at In speakingof the l'hird Day of Creation,St. Basilsays:
work?
'fhe Holy Ilathersrhemselvesdo not seem to speak much
about At this sayingall the dcnsewoodsappearcd; all the trecsshorup....
this quesrion, doubtless because16r them it was not a probbm. h is a Likewisc,all thc shrubswereimmediateQ thick with lcafand bush;
problem for modern men chiefly becausethel tl to underxand God's and thc so-called garlandplants... all cameinto existencc in a mo'
cleatiln bl meansof the hws of nanre of ourfallen world. [t seemsto be mentol'timc,althoagh thry wctenot upon
prcuiotts te earth,'"
assumedby the Fathersthat those Days, in duration, were not unlike
rhe days we know, and some of them indeed specifr rhat rhey were Again, he says:
twenry-four hours in length, as does St. Ephraim. But there rs one
thing about rheseDays which it is most important for us to under- "Lcr the earrhbring fbrth." This brief commandwasimmediately
a
stand, and that concernswhat you have written about whether Cod mighw natureand an elaboratc systemwhich broughtto perfectton
created"instantly." nore swifly than our thougbt 1ecountlcsspropcrriesofplanrs.to
You write: "SinceGod createdtime, ro crearesomerhing'instanrly'
would be an act contrary to His own decisionand will.... Vhen we Again,on theFifthDay:
396 397
GsNrsrs, Crs,rrroN ,lNn Early MaN Tus PrrnlsllcDocrnrNE
ot CnsxrroN
'I'hc command
came, Immediatej riverswcrc producrive and marshy in any casetries to explaineverlthingwithout Him; ot theJeGod-
lakeswere fruitful ofspeciesproper and narural to each.*l0 bearingHoly Fathrr?\i7henyou saythat God doesnor createinstantly,
I believethat you aregivingthe teachingofmodern "wisdom,"zatthe
Likewise,St. John Chrysostom,in his commentaryon Genesis, teachingof the Holy Fathers.
teaches: Of course,thereis a sensein which it is rruetharGod'screationis
nor thework ofan instant;but herealsothe Fathers arequiteprecisein
'lodayGod gocsovcrro rhc warersand showsus tharfrom rhem,
oy theirteaching.I havequotedSt. Ephraim,who says:"ft is likewiseim-
His word and command,thereprocecded animatccrearurcs.$/hat permissible ro sayrharwharseems, accofdingto rhe accounr,ro have
mind, tefl nre,can undcrstandthismiraclc?'X4tar ronguewill bc able beencreatedin the courseof sixdays,wascreatedin a singleinstant."
worthily to glori! rhe Crearor?Hc saidonly: "Lct the carrhbring Vith this in mind, let us look at the passageyou havequotedfrom St.
forrh"-and immediatejHe arousedir to bearfruir.... As of rhc Gregoryof Nyssa:"Man wascreatedlasrafterthe plantsand animals
earthHc saidorrly:"Let it bring fonh"-and thercappeared a grcar because naturefollowsa parhwhich leadsgraduallyto perfection.""lr
varieryof flowers,grasscs, and sceds,and cvcrythingoccurred67Hrs is asif by stepsthat naturemakesits ascentin life properries
from rhe
uord alone;so alsohercHe said:"Ler rhc warcrsbring forth"... and leastto the perfect."In quotingthesepassages, you haverriedro un-
suddentydterea,ppcared so many kinds ofcrecping things,sucha va- derstandthem in the senseof rhe moderndoctrineof evolution.But
riery of birds,that it is impossibleevenro enumcrarcthem with cerrainlyit is not properro readinto theseancienttextsrhe conclu-
words,ll
sionsof modernphilosophy! HereSt.Gregoryof Nyssais surelyreach-
ing nothingdifferentfrom what manyotherFathers raught,basedon a
Here I will repeat: I believe that modern sciencein most cases
very"lireral"understanding of Genesis.
knows more than St. Basil, St. John Chrysosrom, Sr. Ephraim, and
Thus, St. Cregory the Theologianteaches,when he, like St.
other Fathersabout rhe properriesof fishesand such spccificscienrific
Ephraim,alsostatesthat the creationis nor "instantaneous":
facts; no one will deny this. But who knous mor€about the wal in ahich
God acts:modern science,which is not even sure that God exists,and
To the days (of creation) is added a ccrtain firsrness, secondncss,
rhirdness,and so on to rhc seventhday of restofworks, and by these
' RecenrlyDr. JonarhanVells, a molccularbiologisr,hasfurthcrclucidared Sr. days is dividcd all that is created,being brought inro ordcr by unut-
Basilt tcachingon the Six Daysof Crearion,rhus refuringthoscwho would rry ro
tcrabfe laws, but not produced in an intznt by the Almighry Vord,
mekcthis tcachingcornpatiblc wirh evolurionism.Quoring fronr Sr. Basil'.s
Haraa,
meron,Dr. Vcfls writes:"'fhc Hcxacmaron for Vhom ro think.rr to speakmeansalreadyto perfornr the deed.
asa wholc nrakcsit abundanrly clcrr rhat
the first insrant[of crearion]wasfollowedby scvcralmorespccialactsofcrearion. lf man appearedin the world lasr, honored by thc handiwork and
Whcn rhe heavens first came into being thev wcre 'imperfcct,'becauscrhc sun, image ofGod, this is not in the leastsurprising;sincefor him, as for
moon and s(ars'were nor yct crcatcd.''1_hesc
thingswerecreared larer,by directacrs a king, rhe royal dwelling had to be preparedand only rhen was rhe
of Cod: 'ln rhc bcginningGod creatcdrhc lreaven and the carrh;afrcrwrrdsHe crc- king to bc led in, accompanicdby all creatures.2l
atcd lighr, rhcn llc crcatedrhc firmament.''fhc warcrswerc inirially'scarrered in
many places,'and camerogerheronly aftcr God said,'Lcr rhc warersundcr rhe
hcavenbe gatlrcred unto oneplacc.'Andrheearthrenrained 'unfinishcd'after Again,St.JohnChrysostom
teaches:
irs ini-
tial crcationsinccir lackcdrhe'growthofall kinds of planrs'unril God spccifically
commandedrhe earrhto 'bring fonh grass'and 'produccfruit."' flonarhan\X/ells, The Almighryrighthandof GodandHis limirless wisdomwould
'Abusing Theology," Otigiw & Design,vol. | 9, no. I ).-Eo. havehad no difficulryin creatingeyeryrhingin a singleday.And
398 399
Grrrsrs, CnrerroN .rNo Eenl-yMaN TNa Perr.rsrrcDocrn:NE or CnslrroN
400 401
CcNr:sls.CnExllor.l .,\NoEA.RryMaN Tnr PalnrsrrcDocrnrNeor Cnr,rrloru
402 403
Cne,rtroNANDEARLY
GeNpsrs, MAN Txr Parnlsrrc Docrnrrueop CnranoN
nor allow that rhe riversare actuallyrivers,nor that thc watersare St. John of Damascus, in his work On Heresies,explicitly describesthe
preciselywaters,but will instillin thosewho allowthemselves ro lis- allegoricalinrerpretationof Paradiseto be parr ofa heresy,that of rhe
ten to thcm, that they (undcr rhe namesof riversand waters)repre- Origenians:
senredsomcthingelse.Bur I entreatyou, ht us not pd)/heedto these
pcoph,letussropup our hearingagainstthem,and let us believerhc TheycxplainParadise,
rheheaven,
andcvcrythingclsein an allcgorr-
Divinc Scripture,and followingwhat is written in it, Iet us srriveto calscnse.li
presewcin our soulssounddogmas.l0
But what, then, arewe ro undersrandofthose Holy Fathersofpro-
Is there need to quote more from this divine Father?Like St. Basiland fbund spiritual life who interpret the book of Genesisand other Holy
St. Ephraim he warns us: Scriptures in a spiritual or mysrical sense?Ifwe ourselueshad not goneso
far auay fom the Patristic underxanding of Stipnre, this uouU present
Not to bclieucwhat is containedin the Diuine Scripnre, but to intro- no probtem whaterer to zr. The same text of Holy Scriprure is true "as it
ducesomethingebcJlom one'sown mind-tbis, I belieue,wbjeca *or is written," and ir alsohas a spiritual interpretation.Behold what the
who hazzrdsucba tbing to great&tnger.rl great Fatherof the desert,St. Macarius rhe Great, a clairvoyantSaint
who raisedthe dead,says:
Beforegoing on I will briefly answerone obiection which I have
heard from rhosewho defend evolution: they say that if one readsall That Paradisewas closedand rhat a Cherubim wascommandedto
rhe Scriprure"as it is written" one will only make oneselfridiculous. preventnran from enreringir by a flaming sword:of this we believe
They say that if we musr beli€verhat Adam was acrually made from rhat in uisibbfashion i wasindecdjust asit b wrincn, and at thc same
dust and Eve from Adam'srib, then must we not believethat God has timewe find that this occursmysricallvin everysoul.ll4
"hands," rhat He "walks" in Paradise, and the like absurdities?
Such an
obiection could not be made by anyone who has read even a single Our modern "Patristicscholars,"who approachthe Holy Fathers
commenraryof rhe Holy Fatherson the book of Genesis.All the Holy not asliving founts ofrradition but only asdead"academicsources,"in-
Fathersdistinguishbetweenwhat is saidabout creation,which must be variably misunderstand this very important point. Any Orthodox
taken "asit is written" (unlessit is an obviousmetaphoror other figure Christianwho /rzssin the tradition of the Holy Farhersknows that when
of speech,such as "rhe sun knoweth his going down" of rhe Psalms; a Holy Fatherinterpretsa passage of Holy Scriprurespirituallyor alle-
bur rhis surelydoesnot needto be explainedto any bur children),and gorically, he is not therebydenyingix literal meaning,which he atsumesrhe
what is said about God, which must be understood,asSt. John Chry- readerknows enough to accepr.I will give a clearexampleof thrs.
sostomsaysrepeatedly,"in a God-befitting manner." For example,St. The divine Gregory the Theologian, in his Homily on the The-
John Chrysostomwrites: ophany,writes concerningthe liee of Knowledge:
'When
you hear,beloved,rhat "God planredParadisein Eden in thc The treewas,accordingro my view,Conrcmplation,upon which it
East," understandthe word "planted" befiningly of God: thar is, is only safefor thosewho havcreachedmaturiry of habit to enrer.35
that He commandcd;but concerningrhe words thar follow, belieuc
prcciseQthat Paradiscwas creatcdand in that aeryphce where the This is a profound spiritual interprerarion,and I do not know of
Scripnrc basassignedit.r) any passagein this Father! writings where he saysexplicitly that this
404 405
CtNesrs,Cnralror auo EnnryMIN Tur Prlnrsrrc l)oclntrunor Cnr.rrroN
tree was also a literal rree, "as it is wrirten." ls it thereforean "open it. This led -St.Gregory Palamasto make a reply which illuminateslor
question," as our academicscholarsmight tell us, whether he com- us the relation betweenthe "symbolical"and "lireral" inrerpretationof
pletely "allegorized"the story ofAdam and Paradise? Holy Scripture,particularlywith regardto the passage from St. Greg-
Of course,we know from orher writings of St. Gregory that he did ory the Theologianwhich I havequoted above.He writes that Barlaam
not allegorizeAdam and Paradise.Bur even more important, we have and others
the direct testimonyof anothergreatFatherconcerningthe very ques-
tion of St. Gregory'sinterpretationof the 'lree of Knowledgc. do not scerhar Maximus,wise in Divinc marters,hascallcdrhc
But before I give this testimony I musr make sure you agreewirh l-ight of rhe Lord'sTransfiguration a "synrbolof theology"only by
me on a basic principle of interpreting the wrirings of the Holy Fa- analogyand in a spiritualscnse.In [acr, in a rheologywhich is
thers. Vhen thel are giuing the teaching of the Church, the HoQ Fathers analogical and intcndedro clevarcus, objcctswhich havean exis-
(if only they are genuine Holy Farhersand not merely ecclesiastical tenceof theirown bcconrerhcmsclvcs, in facrand in words,symbols
writers of uncerrain authoriry) do not contradict each other even if to by homonymy;it is in rhis sensethar Maximuscallsthis Light a
our feeble understanding there rcem to be contradictions between "symbol."...Similarly,GregorytheTheologianhascalledthc trceof
them. lt is academicrationalismthat pits one Fatheragainstanother, thc knowledge ofgood andevil "conremplation," havingin his con-
tracestheir "influence" on eachother, divides them into "schools"and templarionconsidcrcd it asa symbolof this "contemplation" whrch
"factions,"and flnds "contradictions"berweenthem. All of this is for- is intendedto elcvrtc us; but it docsnotfollou that what * inuohrd k
eign to thc Orthodox Christian understandingof the Holy Fathers. an illutiott or a rymbolwithout existencc of ix own. For thc divinc
For us the Orrhodox teachingofthe Holy Farhersis one singlewhole, MaximusalsomakesMosesthe symbolof judgment,and Elijahrhe
and since the whole of Orthodox reachingis obviously nor contained symbol of forcsighrlAre thel too then supposed not to haucreatQex-
in any one Father(fbr all the Fathersare human and thus limired), we t<thavcbccn invented"symbolically"?
istcd,l:>ur And could not Perer,
find parts of it in one Fatherand orher parts in another Father,arrd for one who would wish ro eleyatehimselfin contemplation, be-
one Father explainswhat is obscurein another Father; and it is nor comca symbolof faith,Jamesof hope,andJohnof lovclr6
even of primary importance for us who said what, as long as it is Or-
thodox and in harmony with the whole Patristicteaching.I am sure It would be possibleto mulriply such quotationswhich show wnat
that you agreewith me on this principle and that you will not be sur- the Holy Farhersactually raught about the interpretation of Holy
prised that I am now going to presenran interpretationof the words Scripture,and in particularof the book of Genesis;but I havealready
of St. Gregory the Theologian by a great Holy Father who lived a presentedenough ro show that the genuine Patristicteachingon this
thousandyearsafter him: Sr. Gregory Palamas,Archbishop of 'I'hessa- subject presentsgravedifficulties for one who would like to interpret
lonica. the book of Genesisin accordancewith modern ideasand "wisdom,"
Againsr St. Cregory Palamasand the other hesychastFatherswho and indeed the Patristic interpretation makesit quite impossiblerc har-
taught the true Orthodox docrrine oF the "UncrearedLight" of Mt. monize the accountof Genesiswirh the theory ofevolution, which re-
Tabor,therc roseup the WesrernrationalistBarlaam.Ihking advantage quiresan entirely "allegorical"interpretationof the texr in many places
of rhe facr that St. Maximus the Confessorin one passagehad called where the Patristicinterpretationwill nor allow this. The docrrine thar
this Light oi the liansfiguration a "symbol of theology," Barlaam Adam was creared,nor from rhe dust, but by developmentfrom some
taught that this Light was nor a manifestarionof rhe Diviniry but only other creature,is a novel teachingwhich is enrirely foreign to Ortho-
something bodily, not "literally" Divine Lighr, but only a "symbol" of dox Christianiry.
406 407
Grxrsrs, CnEerroru
,qxoEanly Mar THr P,rrusrrc Docrruut or CnrarIoN
At this point the "Orthodox evolutionist" might try ro salvagehis lions of years"),thus preservingat leastthe historical realiryof Adam
position (of believing both in the modern theory of evolution and in ,rnclrhe other Patriarchsaswell asthe universallyheld Patristicoprnion
the teachingofthe Holy Fathers)in one of rwo ways. (about which I can speakin anotherletter,ifyou wish) that Adam was
a. He may try to say that we now know more than the Holy Fa- createdabout 7,500 yearsago. I am sure you will agreewith me that
thers about nature and thereforewe really can inrerpret the book of such rationalisticdevicesare quite foolish and futile. If the unrverse
Genesisbetter than they.But eventhe "Orthodox evolutionisr"knows "cvolves,"as modern philosophy teaches,then man "evolves"with it,
that the book of Genesis is not a scientifc teatise, 6u a Divinely in- and we must acceptwhateverall-knowing "science"tells us about the
spiredwork of cosmogonyand rheology.The interpretationof rhe Di- ageof man; but if the Patristicteachingis correct,it is correct regard-
vinely inspired Scripture is clearly the work of God-bearing ing borh man and the resrofcreation.
theologians,not of natural scienrists,who ordinarily do nor know the If you can explain to me how one can acceptthe Patristicinterpre-
very first principlesofsuch interpretation.It is rrue rhar in the book of rarion of rhe book of Genesisand still believein evolution, I will be
Genesismany "facts"of narureare presented.But ir must be carefully glad to listen to you; but you will also haveto give me better scientifc
noted that thesefactsare not hcts such aswe can observenow Dur an evidencefor evolution than that which so far exists,for to the objective
entirely specialkind of facts:the creationof the heavenand rhe earth, and dispassionate observerthe "scientificevidence"for evolution is ex-
of all animalsand plants,of the first man. I have alreadypointed out tremely weak.
that the Holy Fathersteachquite clearlythat rhe crearionof rhe first
man Adam, for example, is quite different from rhe generarion of men
today; it is only the latter that sciencecan observe,and abour rhe crea-
tion of Adam it offers only philosophinl specuktions, nor scienriflc
5. "By Man Camc Death" ( I Corinthians | 5:2 I )
knowledge.
According to the Holy Fathers,it is posiblefor us to hnow something Now I come at last to the rwo most inrportant questionswhich are
of thisfrx-crcated world,6u this knowledgeis noraccessible ro natural raisedby the rheory ofevolution: the natureofthe first-createdworld,
science.I will discussthis questionfurther below. and the nature of rhe firsr-createdman Adam.
b. Or again,the "Orrhodox evolurionist,"in order to preseryerhe I believeyou expresscorrectlythe Patristicteachingwhen you say:
unquestionedPatristicinterpretationof at leastsome of the facrsde- "The animalsbecamecorrupted becauseof man; the law of the jungle
scribedin Genesis,may begin to make arbitrary modificarionsof the is a consequence ofrhe fall of man." I alsoagreewith you, as I haveal-
theory of evolution itself,in order to make ir "fir" the text of Genesis. readysaid, that man, on the side of his body, is bound togetherwith
'I'hus, one "Orthodox evolutionist" might decide arrd is an organic part of the whole of the visible crearion, and this
thar the creation of
the first man musr be a "specialcreation"which does nor fir inro rhe helps make it understandablehow rhe whole crearion fell together
generalpattern of the rest of creation, and thus he can believe the with him into death and corruption. But you think that this is a proof
Scripturalaccounrof the creationofAdam more or less"as it is wrir- of evolution, a proof that man'sbody evolved from some other crea-
ten," while believing in the rest of the Six Days' Crearion in accor- ture! Surely if this is rhe case,the God-inspired Fatherswould have
dance with "evolutionary science"; while another "Orthodox known about it, and we would not havehad to wait for the atheisrphi-
evolutionist" might acceptrhe "evolution" of man himself from lower losophersof the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturiesto discoverthis
crearures,while specilying that Adam, the "first-evolvedman," ap- and tell us about it!!
pearedonly in very recenttimes (in the evolurionarytime scaleof "mil- No. the Holv Frathersbelievedrhat the whole crearion fell with
40ti 409
CrNrsls,CnrerroNaNoEetly MaN Txe ParnlsrrcDoclnrue or Cnr-rrroN
Adam,but theydid zarbelieverharAdam "evolved"from someother Onc may supposethat the first parents,touchingtheir waistswrth
creature; why shouldI believedifferenrlyfrom the Holy Farhers? rheir hands,found thar rhcy wcrc clcrrhedwith garmentsmadeof
Now I cometo a veryimporrantpoinr.Youask:"How is it that the aninralskins-killed, it may be,beforetheir veryeyes,so thar rhey
fall of Adam broughtcorruprionand the law of the junglero the ani- mighr eat rheir meat,covertheir nakcdness with thc skins,aal iz
mals,sinceanimalshavebeencreatedbeforeAdam?Ve know rhatani- their wry deatb might tce the deathofthcir own body.tT
malsdied,killedand devoured oneanothersincerheirfirsrappearance
on earthand not only afterrheappearance of man."* I will discussbelow the Patristicteachingof the immortaliry of Adam
How doyou knout this?Areyou surethat this is what the Holy Fatbers belore his transgression, but here I am only inreresredin the guestion
teach?Yor explainyour poinr,not by quotingany Holy Fathers, bur by ofwhether animalsdied beforethe fall. \flhy should St. Ephraim sug-
givinga philosophyof "time." I certainlyagreewith you thar God is gest that Adam would learn about death by seeingrhe dearh of ani-
oucide of time; ro Him everythingis present.But rhis fact is not a mals-if he had already seenthe death of animals beforc his ftdnsglession
proof that animals,who died because of Adam, died beforehe fell.t- (which he certainly had accordingro rhe evolurionaryview)?But rhis
What do the Holy l.atherssay? is only a suggestion;thereareother Holy Fatherswho speakquite defi-
It is rrue,ofcourse,that mostHoly Farhers speakaboutanimalsas nitely on this subject;as I will show in a moment.
alreadycorrupribleand morcal;but theyarespeaking aboutrhcirfallen But first I must ask you: if it is true as you say rhar animals died
state.Vhat abouttheirsratebeforerhetransgression of Adam? and the creationwas corrupted beforerhe transgression ofAdam, then
'l'hereis a verysignificanthint about
rhis in the commenraryon how can it be that God looked at His creation after every one of the
Genesisof St. Ephraim the Syrian.\flhen speakingof the "skins" f)ays of Creation and "saw that it was good," and after creating the
which God made for Adam and Eve afrer rheir transgression, St. animals on the Fifth and Sixth Days He "saw that they were good,"
Ephraimwrites: and at the end ofthe Six Days,after rhe creationofman, "God saw all
the things that He had made,and behold, they were very good." How
'Nor only "Chrisrian evolurionisrs"such as L)r. Kalomiros, bur also ,.old- could they be "good" ifrhey werealreadymortal and corruptible,con-
crearionists"(who do nor believein cvolurion prr rr lrur acccpt the
earrh/progrcssive trary to God: plan for them? The Divine servicesof the Orrhodox
cvolutionary schemaof "millions o[ years")are forced by their posirion ro conclude Clrurch contain many moving passages of kmentation abot rhe "cor-
thar thcrc were millions of yeersof death and dccay bcfore thc appcaranceof man. rupted creation,"aswell asexpressions of joy that Christ by His Resur-
Here is one cxample from an olcl-carth/progressive crcationisr:rrricleinrended as a recrion lras "recalledthe corrupted crearion." How could God seethis
carechesisfor children:
"Starring about 2 ro 4 million ycarsago God bcgancreatingman-likc mammals lamentable condition of the crcation and say tbat it taas "uerygood"?
or'hominids.'These crearurcssrood on rwo fecr, had lergc brains, and uscd tools. And again, we read in the sacredtext of(;enesis:'And God said,
Sornceven buricd their dcad anclpainredon cavcwalls. Howcvcr. rhcy werc very dif- llehold I havegiven ro you everyseed-bearing herb sowingseedwhich
lcrcnt from us. Thcy had no spirir. They did nor have conscienccslike we do. fhey is upon all the earth, and everytree which has in irselfthe fruit of seed
clrd nor worship ( io,.lor csrahlirhrcligiouspracriccs. that is sown, ro you ir shall be for food. And to all the wild beastsofthe
"ln rime, all rhcsenran-likc crcatureswent cx(inct. "fhcn, abour l0 ro 25 rhou-
carth, and to all the flying creaturesof heaven,and to every reprile
sand ycarsago, God replaccdthcm wirh Adam and [vc" (Hugh Ross,"(icnesis One,
L)inos.rnrs,rnd ( llvemcn ). -Eo.
creepingon the earth, which has in itself rhe breath of life, evencuer)l
" In his lerrcr, Dr Kalomiros had argued thar, since God is ourside rime, Ad- greenPlantfor foo4 and it wasso" (Gen. I :29-30). Why, if rhe animals
am's fall had a rctroaoiue effeq on lll rhe other crcarurcs; rhus, "animals werc in cor- devoured each other before the fall, as you say, did God give rhem,
ruprion long bcforc the appearanccof man on carrh."-Eo, evm "all the wild beats and eucry reptile" (many of which are now
4t0 4tl
Ceuesrs,
CnsarroN
ruo E,relyMrN l'ur Pnlrrsrrc Doclnrrur or Crearror
strictlycarnivorous) only "greenplantsfor food"?Only long afterthe animals were different from what they now are?Similarly, St. John
transgression of Adarndid God sayro Noah:'And everyreprilewhich Damascenetells us that
is living shall be toyoufor meat;I hauegiuenall thingsto lou dt thegreen
herbs"(Gen.9:3). Do you nor senseherethe presence of a mystery at that time rhe earth brought forth of itselfy'alrr for thc uscof the
which so far hasescapedyou because you insiston interpretiugthesacred animalsthat weresubiecrto man, arrdthcre werencitherviolenr
text of Genais by meansof moderneuolutionaryphilosophy,which will rainsupon the earrhnor wintry storms.But afterthe fall, "whenhc
not admit that animalscould everhavebeenofa nanre di/ferentfrom wascomparedto senselcss beasts and wasbccomelike to thcm" .. .
that which thry nowposses? then tbe creationnbject to him roseup agaiut tb* rulcr appointedb1
But the Holy Fathers clearlyteachthat theanimals(aswellasman) the Crcator.)')
werediferent beforerhe transgression of Adam! Thus St. John Chry-
sostomwfltes: Perhapsyou will objecrthat in rhe sameplaceSt. John Damascenealso
says,speakingof the creationof animals,"Everything w:rsfor the suit-
It is clearthat man in the beginninghad complcreaurhoriryovcr abfe use of man. Of the anima.ls,somewcreforfood, such asdeer,sheep,
the animals....But rhat now we are afraidand terrificdof beasrs gazelles,and rhe like." But you must readthis passageiz context:for at
and do nor haveauthoriry over rhcm, this I do not deny.... In thc the cnd of this paragraphwe read (just asyou havenoted thar God cre-
beginningit wa: not so,but the beasttfearedand trcmblzdand submir ated man male and Femaleforcknowing Adam's transgression):
ted to thcir master.But when through disobedience he lost boldness,
then alsohis authorirywasdiminished.That all animalsweresub- God knew all rhingsbeforerheyweremadcand He sawthat man in
ject to man, hcar what the Scripturesays:He broughtthe beasrs hisfeedom wouldfall and begiuen oaerto corruption:yet for man's
and all irrational crearures"ro Adam to see what he would call suitablcuseHe madeall the thingsthat are in the sky and on the
rhem"(Gcn.2:19).And hc, seeingrhebeastsnearhim, did not run earthand in the water.t"
away,but like anotherlord he givesnamesro the slaveswhich are
subjectro him, sincehc gavenamesro all animals.. . . This is already Do you not see from the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathersthat
sufficicnt as proof that beastsin the beginningwerc nor frightful God createscreaturesso that they will be useful to man eaenin his cor-
for man. But there is anorher proof not lesspowerful and even ruprcd state; bv He does not cleate them already corntpted, and they
clearer.Vhich? The conversarion of rhe serpent wirh rhe woman. If were not corrupted until Adam sinned.
thc beasthad beenfrighrful to man, rhen seeingthe serpentthe But ler us rurn now ro a Holy Fatherwho speaksquite explicitly
womanwould not havcsropped,would nor haverakenhis advicc, abour the inconuption of the oeation before Afumi disobedience: St.
would not haveconversed wirh him with suchfearlessness, but im- Gregory the Sinaite. He is a Holy Fatherof the highestspiritual life
mediatelyon seeinghim would havebeen terrified and run away. and theologicalsoundness,who attained to the heightsof Divine vi-
But behold, she conversesand is nor afraid;thercuat not yct thcn sion. In rhe Russian Phitohalia he writes:
anyfear)8
Tbe prerntly existing creation was not originally createdcorruptiblc;
Is ir not clear that St. John Chrysostomreadsthe first part of rhe text but aferwardsitfell undercorntption,"being madcsubjectto vaniry,"
of Genesis"as it is written," as an historical account of the state of man accordingto rhe Scripture,"not willingly,but by rcasonof him,"
and creation before the transgression of Adam, when borh man and Adam,"who harhsubjected it in hope"ofthe rcncwalofAdam who
4tz 4t3
GENssrs,
CpearloneNu Eanly MeN Tss ParrusrrcDoclnrNe clsCnuxrrclN
had becorncsubjectro corruprion(Rom.8:20).He Vho rcnewed 'fhe teachingof the Holy Fathers,if we acceptit "as it is written"
and sanctifiedAdam hasrencwcdthc crearionalso,bur He hasnor rnd do not try to reinterpretit by meansof our human wisdom, is
yerdeliveredit from corruption.al clearly that the state of creatulesbeforethe nansgressionof Adam was
quite differcntfom their presentstarr. I am not trying to tell you that I
Further,the sameFathergivesus remarkabledetailsabout the state know preciselywhat this statewas; this stateberweencorruption and
of the creation(in parricular,Paradise)beforeAdam'srransgresslon: incorruption is very mysteriousto us who live entirely in corruption.
Another great Orthodox Farher,St. Symeon the New Theologian,
Edenis a placcin which thercwasplanredby God evcrykind of fra- teachesthar the lzw of nanre we nlw know is diferent fom the Ltw of
grantplant. Ir is neithercomplctelyincorruprible, nor entirelycor- nature beforeAdami n'ansgresion.He writes;
ruptiblc. Placedbetuee/tcorn4ptioxand incorruption,it is alwaysboth
abundanrin fruirs and blossoming with flowers,both marureand Thc words and decreesof God becomerhe law of naturc.Therefore
immature.I'he maturerreesand fruits are convcrtedinto fragrant alsothe decrceof God, utteredby Him asa resultof the disobcdi-
earth uhich doet not gire of ary odtr of corruption, as do the treet of enccofthe first Adam-thar is, the decrceto him ofdeath and cor-
th* world.-l'hisis from the abundancc of rhc graceofsanctificarion ruprion-became thehw of nanrc, ctcratl and unabuable.as
which is constantly pouredforrh there.{l
\X/hat the "law of nature" was before Adamt transgression,which of
(This passageis expressedin the present rense-becausetltc Paradisein us sinful men can define? Certain$ natural science,bound up entirely
which Adam waspkced is still in existence,
but is not visible to our nor- with its observation of the prescnt stateof creation, cannot inuestigate
mal senseorgans..) it.
What will you sayofthese passages? \7ill you still be so cerrarn,as Then how do we hnow anything at all about /r? Obviously, because
'irniformitarian" evolurionaryphilosophyteaches,that the creation Dr- God has revealedsomerhingof ir ro us rhrough the SacredScripture.
/rrthe fall wasjust the sameasit is now after the fall?The Holy Scrip- But we know also, from the wrirings of Sr. Gregory the Sinaite (and
rure teachesus rhar "God made not death"(Wisdom I : l3), and St. John other writings which I shall quote below),that God has revealedsome-
Chrysostomteachesthat thing besideswhat is in the Scriptures.And this brings me to another
extremelyimportant questionraisedby evolution.
just as the creaturebccamecorruptiblc tuheryour bodl becantecor-
ruqtible,so alsowhen your body will be incorrupt, rhe crearurealso
6. Diuine Vision
wifl follow afrer ir and bccomccorrespondingro it (Homilicson Ro-
mans).o' What is the sourceof oar nae hnowlzdgeof thefr*-teated world, and
how is it diferent fom sciencc? How can St. Gregory the Sinaite know
And Sr. Macariusrhe Grear says: what happensro rhe ripe fruits of Paradise,and why can natural sci-
ence nor discoversuch a thing? Sinceyou are a lover of the Holy Fa-
Adam wasplacedasthe lord and king of all crcarures.. .. But afer his thers, I believeyou alreadyknow the answerto this question. Still, I
captiuiq, thcre was taken captive togerhcr wirh him rhe creation will set lorth the answet basednot on my own reasoningbut on the
whichservedhim andsubminedto him, becausc throughhim death unquestionableauthoriry of a Holy Fatherof the highestspiritual Iife,
cameto reignovercucrysoul.44 St. Isaacthe Syrian,who spokeofthe soul'sascentro God basedon bis
414 4t5
CeNesrs,
CnrarroNeNo EenryMaN Tne Prrrusrtc DocrprNt op Cnlrrroru
own experience a/l ln describinghow the soul is enrapturedat the midst,and walkedon the surfaceof the seaason dry land.Bur all
thought of the future ageof incorruprion, St. Isaacwrires: rhisis abovenaturc,conrrar), ro rhecapabiliries of klowlcdge,and it
is shown rhar the larrcris vain in all its capabiliriesand laws.Do you
And from this one is alreadyexaltedin his mind to rhat which pre- scchou hnowhdgcprcscruesthc boundsof nanrel Do you rcc hotut'iith
cededthecomposition ofthe world,whentherewasno crearure, nor goesabouenaturcandthcre rracesrhe srepsof its parh?The capabili-
heaven,nor earth,nor angels,norhingof that which wasbroughr tiesof knowledgefor 5,000years,or a lirtle moreor lessthan this,
into being, and to how God, solely by His good will, sudztenl1 governedrhe world, and man in no way could raischis headfrom
broughteuerything/iom non-beinginto being, and everythingstood the carthand acknowledge his Creator,until our fairh shoneforth
bcforeHim in perfecrion.i" anddelivered usfrom thedarkness ofearrhlydoingandvainsubmis-
sionto the cmprysoaringofthe mind.And cvennow,whenwc havc
Do you seethat St. Gregory the Sinaiteand orher Holy Fathersof rhe found an impenurbable seaand an inexhaustible rrcasure,agairrwc
highest spirituaf tife beheld the first-createdworld ir the stateof Diuine desirero turn awaytowardtiny springs.Thercis no knowl.Jgcthar
uision, which is beyond all natural knowledge?St. Gregory rhe Sinaite would not be poor,no mamerhow much ir might be enriched.But
himself statesrhat the "eighr primary visions" of rhe state of perfect the treasuresof faith canbe containedneitherby rhc hcavennor by
preyer are: (l) God, (2) the angelic powers, (3) "theconposition ofuisi- the earth.ae
ble things,"(4) the condescensionof the Word (the Incarnarion),(5)
the universalresurrection,(6) the SecondComing of Christ, (7) eter- Do you now seewhat is at srakein the argument berweenthe pa-
nal torments, (8) the eternal Kingdom of Heaven.ot\Vhy should the tristic understandingof Genesisand the docrrine of evolurion?The
"compositionofvisible things" be included rogerherwirh the other ob- doctrine of evolurion arremprsto understandthe mysteriesof Godt
jects of Divine vision which are all within the sphereof theological creation by meansof narural knowledgeand worldly philosopny,not
knowledgealone,and not scientificknowledge?ls ir nor becausethere evenallowing the possibilirythar there is somerhingin rhesemysreries
is an aspect and state of crearuresbryond the sphercof scientifc hnoul- which placesrhem beyond its capabilitiesof knowing; while the book
edge,which can only be seen,asSt. IsaachimselfsawGod's crearion,in of Genesisis an account of God's creation asseenin [jiuine uision b7 tbe
vision by God! grace?The objecrs of rhese visions, St. Gregory God+eerMoscs,and rhis vision is confirmed also by the exoerienceof
teaches,"are clearlybeheldand known by thosewho haveatrainedby later Holy Farhers. Now, even rhough revealed knowledg" i, high..
gracecompletepuriry of mind." "' than natural knowledge,still we know that rherecan be no conflici be-
In another placeSt. Isaacthe Syrian clearlydescribesthe dffirence tween tlue revelation and. mtc natural knowledge. Bur there raz be
bctweennatural hnowledgeandfaith, which leadsto vision. conflict berweenrevelation and human ph ilosophy, which is ofren in cr-
ror. There is rhus no conflict berweenrhe knowledeeof creationcon-
Knowledgcis a rulc of nature,and rhis rule preserves it in all its rained in Genesis,as interpreredfor us by the Hoi-y Fathers,and rhe
steps.But faith performsits journeyabouenature.Knowlcdge doesnot rrar knowledge ofcreatures which modern sciencehas acquired by ob-
anempt to permit anlthing to cometo it which is subtersiueof namre, servation;but theremost cerrainlyis an irreconcilableconflicr berween
but avoidsthis; but faith permitsrhis and says:"Thou shalttrcad the knowledge contained in Genesisand the rain pbilosophicalspecuk-
upon rheaspand thebasilisk, andthou shakrramplcon the lion and tions of modern scientists, anenlightcned by
faitb, about the state of'the
the dragon"(Ps.90:13)....Many by fairh haveenteredflames,bri- world in the Six Days of Creation. Where rhere is a genuine conflici be-
dled thc burning powerof fire and passedunharmedrhroughirs rween Genesisand modern philosophy. tf we *uhlo know the truth ue
4t6 +t/
CeNesrs.
Cnr,,rnoNnNn EenrvM,rN -fnr PrrrusrrcDocrnrNsor Cnsa:ron
must accqt the teaching ofthe Holy Fathersand reject theJitlse opinions of tion."'" Vhat doesthe OrthodoxClhrisrian saywhen a modernunoc-
'lhe world has now Iiever,under the influenceof modernnaturalisticphilosophy,insists
scientifc philosophers. become so infected by vain
modern philosophy posingasscienrrthat very few, even among Ortho- rhat such "incorruption"is "impossible,"and demandsthat Chris-
dox Christians,are willing or able to examinerhis questiondispassion- tiansbelieveonly what canbe provedor observed by science?
Doeshe
ately and discover what the Holy Farhers really :aughr, and then accept not hold to his faith, which is a revealed
knowledge.in spiteof,\ti-
the Patristic teaching eten if it seemsutter foolishnessto the uain uisdom of ence"and itsphilosophy? Doeshe nor indeedtell this pseudoscienri
this wortd. rhar he cannotposibly hnow or understandthisfact of inconupnon,n-
Concerning the true Patristicview of the first-createdworld, al- asmucltas tht worksof God are abouenature?-fhen why should we
ready I think I have indicated enough to you of the Patristic views hesitateto believethe trurh abourrhe creationbeforeAdamsfall, if
which at first sight seem"surprising"to an Orthodox Christian whose we becomeconvincedthat rhe Holy Fathersindeedteachus that it is
understandingof Genesishasbeen obscuredby modern scientificphi- somerhingquite beyondthe competence of scienceto invesrigate
or
losophy.Most "surprising"ofall, perhaps,is the fict that rhe Holy Fa- know?One who acceptsrhe evolutionaryphilosophyof tlre creatron
thers understoodthe text of Genesis"asit is written," and do not allow beforeAdam'stransgression, and rhus reiectsrhe parristicreaching
us ro interpret it "freely" or allegorically.Many Orthodox Christians only prepares the way in his own soul,and in the soulsof orhers,r-o
wirh a "modern education" have become accustomedto associaring accepran evolurionaryor other pseudoscientific view of many orner
such an interpretationwith Protestantfundarnentalism, and they are Orthodoxdoctrinesalso.We heartodaymany Orthodoxpriesrswho
afraid of being considered"naive" by sophisticatedscientific philoso- tell us, "Our fairh in Christ doesnor dependon how we inrcrprer
phers;but it is clearhow much more profound is the true Patrisricin- Genesis.You can believeas you wish." But how can it be thar our
rerpretationthan that of the fundamentalists,on the one hand, who negligence in undersranding one parr of God'srevelarion(which,by
haveneverevenheardof Divine vision and whoseinterpretationsome- the way,is indeedcloselybound up with Christ, rhe SecondAdam,
times coincideswith that of the Holy Fathersonly by accident,as ir Vho becameincarnatein orderto restor€us to our originalstate)will
were;and on the other hand, how much more profound is the Patristic nor leadto negligence in understandingthe wholedoctrineofthe Or-
interpretationthan that of those who uncritically acceptthe specula- thodox Church? It is nor for nothing rhat Sr. John Chrysosrom
tions of modern philosophyas ifthey were true knowledge. closelybinds rogetherthe conectand stlict interpretationof Scripnre
It may help the "modern" C)rthodoxChristian to understandhow (sprctfnlu Genesis)and tlte conectdogmasuhich are esential
for d r
the incorruption of the first-createdworld is beyond the competence SALVA'UON.Speaking of thosewho interpretthe bookof Genesis al-
ofscience to investigate,if he would examinethe fact of incorruption legorically,
he says:
as it has been manife*ed by God's action euen in our prescnt clrrapted
world. Ve can find no higher manifestationof this incorruption than Lct us nor pay heed to thesepeoplc,lct us stop up our hearing
in the Most Holy Mother of God, of Whom we sing: "Thee '*4ro againstrhem,and let us believethc DivineScripturc,and followrng
without corntptioz gavest birth to God the Vord, trr.re Mother of what is saidin ir, ler usstriveto prcservc
in our soulssounddogmas,
God, we magnifo." The Theotokia of our Orthodox Divine scrvices and at chesametime ro leadalsoa right lifc, so rharour life iould
are full of rhis doctrine. St. John Damascenepoints out that tn rwo both rcstifr of rhe dogmas,and the dogmaswould give firmnessto
respectsthis "incorruption" is beyondthe hus of nature. "So far as He our life.... Ifwe livewellbut will bc ncgligentovcrrighrdogmas,wc
had no father, (Christ's) birth was above the nature of generation"' can acquirenothing for our salvation.If wc wish ro bc dclivcred
and "in that His birth was painless,it was above the laws of genera- from Gehennaand receivethc Kingdom,we musrbe adorncdboth
418 419
Gr.Nrsrs,CnaelrolraNo Ee.nrvMnN Tur Prtnrsrrc DoclnrNe or Cnrnrroru
420 zt,t I
C eNrsts,Cnr,altoN,qNo EIRLy M,\N 'I'ss Prrnrsnc DocrtrNa op Cpe,rrror.r
and that he might dwcll il an incorrupr, cternal and spiritual tholicism and Protestantism,has deep roots in the Roman Carholic
dwelling.. . . Do you scc rhar this whole creation in the bcginning uat scholastic tradition.
incorrupt and ctcatel fu God in the ordtr of Paradisel But aferwards 'I'he view ofhuman nature and the creation
of Adam which you
it was subjcctedby Cod to corruprion and submitted to the vaniry sct lrorth in your letter is very nruch influcnced by your opinion thar
of men. Adam, in his body, was an "evolvedbeast."This opinion you haveob-
You should know likewisc what is to be thc brightly shining tained,not from the Holy Fathers(for you cannot find one Farherwho
stateof rhe crearionin the furure age.For whcn it will bc rcnewed,it believedthis, and I have alreadyshowedyou thar the Fathersindeed
will not be again thc sarncas it was whcn it was createdin rhc begin- bclievequite "literally" that Adam was createdfrom the dusr and not
ning. Bur it will be such as,accordingto the word of thc divine Paul, fronr any other creature),bur from modern science.Lrt us then look,
our body will be.,.. l-he whole creation,by Godt command, aficr first of all, at the Orthodox Parristicview of the nature and value of
thc generalresurrectionis to be not such as it was creatcd-matcrial secular,scientiflcknowledge,particularlyin relation to revealed,rheo-
and sensual-but it will bc re-creatcdand will bccomea certain im- logicalknowledge.
materialand spirirualdwelling, far abovecvery organ of setrsc.5z -I'his Patristicview is very well set forth by the
grearhesychastFa-
rher, St. Gregory Palamas,who was forcedto defend Orthodox theol-
Could there be any clearer teaching of the state of the first-created ogy and spiritual experiencepreciselyagainsta Vestern rarionalist,
of Adam?
world befbrethe transgression Barlaam,who wished to reducethe spirirualexperienceand knowledge
of hesychasmro somerhing arrainableby scienceand philosophy.In
answeringhim, St. Gregory set forth generalprincipleswhich are well
7. Tbe Nanre of Man applicablein our own day when scientisrsand philosophersthink rhey
can understandthe mysteriesof creationand man'snature better than
And now I come to the final and most important question which Orthodox rheology.He writes:
is raisedfor Orthodox theology by the modern rheory of evolution:
tl)e naturc of man, rnd in particular ,he nature of theJirst-creatadman The bcginningof wisdom is to be sufficicntlywisero distingursh
Adan. I saythat rhis is the "most important question" raisedby evo- and preferto the wisdom which is low, terresrrial
and vain, that
lution becausethe doctrine of man, anthropology, touches most which is truly useful,hcavcnly,
andspirirual,tharwhichcomesfrom
closelyupon theology,and here,perhaps,it becomesmost possibleto God arrdconductstowardHinr and which rcndcrsconformablero
identiS theologicallythe error of evolutionism. It is well known that God thosewho acquireit.5t
Orthodoxy teachesquite differently from Roman Catholicism regard-
ing man'snature and Divine grace,and now I shall attempt to show He reachesthat the latter wisdom alone is good in itsell while the
rhat the theologicalview of man'snature which is implied in the the- fbrmer is both good and evil:
ory of evolution, and which you have explicitly set forth in your let-
rcl is not the Orthodox view of man, but is much closer to the Thc practice of thc gracesof differcnr languages,the power of
Roman Catholicview; and this is only a confirmation of the fact rhat rhetoric,hisroricalknowledge, the discovcry of the mysrerics
of na-
the theory of evolution, far from being taught by any Orthodox Fa- ture,rhc variousmethodsof logic. . . all rhescthingsareat rhcsamc
rher, is simply a producr of the Westcrnapostatementaliry and even, time good and evil, not only because thq' are manifested
accordingto
despitethe fact rhat it originally was a "reaction"againstRoman Ca- the ifua oJthov who usethcm and easilytakc theform which is giuen
422 423
GeNrsIs,CntrirloN ,rNoErnr-vMrN TsE P,rrntsrtc DocrrrNr or Cnr,qrIoN
thcm b1 thc point of uicw of thor who potsesstbcm, 6u also becausc than the Holy Farhers, usingrcuhr knowbdgeto reintelPrettbe tedching
the studyof them is a goodthing only to the degreethat it develops of the SacredScriptureand the HoU Fathcrs.IVho can fail ro seethat the
in the eyeof the soula penetrating view.But it is bad for one who rarionalistic,naturalisticspirit of Barlaamis quite closeto that of mod-
giveshimselfover to this study in order to remainin it unril old ern evolutionism?
age.to But notice that St. Gregory is speakingof scientific knowledge
which, on its own level,is true;it becomesfalseonly by warring against
Further, even rhe higher knowledgeof theologr. ls the theory ofevolution eventrue
scientifically?
if one of rhe Fatherssaysthe samerhingasdo thosefrom without, I havealreadyspokenin this letterof the dubious natureof the sci-
thc concordznccis only uerbal, the tbought being quite dffirent. The enrific evidencelor evolution in general,about which I would be glad
former,in facr,have,according to Paul,'ihe mind of Chrisi' (l Cor. to write you in anotherletter.Here I must saya word specificallyabout
2:16),while the lamerexpress at besta human reasoning. "fu the rhe scientific evid encefor human euolution,sincehere we already begin
heavcnis distantfrom theearth,so is My thoughrdistanrfrom your ro rouch on the realm of Orthodox theology.
thoughi' (ls. 55:9),saiththc Lord. Besides, evenif the thinkingof You sayin your letter that you are happy not to havereadthe wrir-
thesemenwercat timesthc sameasthatof Moses,Solomon,or thcir ings of Teilhard de Chardin and other exponentsof evolution in the
imitators,what would it bcnefitthcm?\?har man o[ soundspirit \(est; you approachthis whole question"simply." But I am afraid that
and belongingro the Churchcould from this draw thc concluston this is whereyou havemadea mistake.It is well and good to acceptthe
that thcir teachingcomcsfrom God?55 writings of the Holy Scipture and the Holy Fatherssimpfi; that * tbc
uqt thE should be dccePted,and rhat is the way I try to accept tlrem
From secularknowledge,Sr. Cregory writes, But why should we acceptthe writings of modern sci€ntistsand phi-
losophers'timply," merely taking their word when they tell us that
wc absolute$J'orbidto expcctanl ?r?cition whctcucrin the bnowledgeof somerhing is trte-euen if this acceptance forces t to changeour theo'
Diuine things;for it is not possibleto draw from ir any certaintcach- logical rieus? On the contrary, ue must b( uery critical when mod,ern
5"
ing on the subjectof God. For "God harhmadeit foolish." wise men tell us how we should interpret the Holy Scriptures.We
must be critical not only with regardto their philosophy,but alsowith
And this knowledgecan also be harmful and fight againsttrue theol- regardto the "scientificevidence"which they think supportsthis phi-
ogy: losophy; for ofien this "scientifceuidence"is ixdfphilosophy.
"fhis is especiallytrue of the (lhardin;
JesuitscientistTeilhard de
The powerof rhis reasonwhich hasbeenmadefoolishand noncxisr- for not only has he written the most thorough and influential philoso-
ent cntersinto battb againstthoscuho acceptthc taditiont in simplic- phy and rheology based on evolution, but ltc was abo closelyconnected
ity ofheart: it dupisestbe uritingt of'thespirit, afcr the cxam?leof mcn with the discouery and interpretation of almox all the fossil euidencefor
who havetreand tltem carclesy and hauctet up thc cr.^ion againstthe the "cuolution of man" that was discoueredin his lili:time.
Creator.tT And now I must ask you a very elementaryscientinc qucstion:
uhat is the euidrncefor the "euolutionofman'?About this question too I
Therecouldhardlybe a betteraccountthan this ofwhat modern cannot go inro in detail in this letrer,but I will discussit briefly. I can
"Christianevolutionists" wiser
havetriedto do by thinkingthemselves write more in detail later,if you wish.
424 425
Gerursrs,
CnexlroN,qNoEaRr_y
MrN THe Parrtsllc DocrnINeor CnsrrIoru
'l'hescientificfossil
evidence for the,,evolution of man,'consists of: 'l-eilhardde Chardin was also connectedwirh the discoveryand
Neanderthal Man (manyspecimens); pekingMan (several skulls);rhe thoue all tbe interPretatiznof some of the finds of "Java Man," which
"men"calledJava,Heidelberg, piltdown (unril menry yearsago),
and rvcrc fragmentary. ln fact, ever)'rvherehe went he found "evidence"
rherecerrtfindsin Africa:all extre-mely
liagmr,rtary: fr* otf,er frag_ tt,hirh exactll matchedhis expectationJ--{amely,that man has "evolved"
ments. The totdl;/itsil euidence ^nri ^
for the 'buolutiotiof man" couldbe coi- liom ape-likecreatures.
tainedin a boxthesizeofa cofin, andit is from widelyseparated partsof If you will examineobjectivelyall the lossilevidencefor the "evo-
the earth,with no reliableindicarionof evenrektiue(muchless,,abso- 0r euen
lrrtion of man," I believeyou will find that thereis no conclusiue
Iute") age,and uith no indicntionwltateuerof hou thcsedifferent.men,,
rrmotely reasonableruidencewhateuerfor this "euolution."The evidence
wereconnected with eachother whetherby descentor kins'hip. men want to belieue
is befievedto be prooffor human evolution because
Further,one of these"evolurionary ancesrors of man,.'.,lriltdown tbis; they belieue in a phihsophy that requiles that man elzlued fom ape'
Man," was discoveredrwenry yearsago ro have been a daliberate NeanderthalMan is simply "Homo sapiens,"no tliffer-
like creatures.
faud. Now it is an interestingfacrthaiTbilhardde Chardinwas azr cnt lrom modern man than modern men aredifferent from eachother'
of the "discouerers"of "Pihdoun Man"-a fact which you will not find l variation within one definite kind or species.*Pleasenote that the
in mosr rexrbooks or in biographies oI him. He ,.discouered" the ca_ 2lrrrrrs of NeanderthalMan in evolutionarytextbooksare the lnven-
nine rooth of this fabricare6l 6162su1s-3tooth which had already idca of uhat'?rimitiue man" must
rion of artists tulto hauea preconceiued
beendyedwirh rhe inrent to causedeceprionregardingits agewhen
hauelookedlihe, basedon evolutionary philosophy!
he found it! I do nor havethe evidence ro sayth;r ltil-hardde Char- I havesaid enough,I believe,not ro show that I can "disprove"the
din consciously parricipated in fraud;Ithink ir morelikelvrhat he "cvolution of man" (for who can proue or disproueanlthingwith such
wastlre victim of the actualperperraror of rhe fraud, and tharhe was fragmentaryevidence?l),but to indicate that we must be very critical
s1 tofnd prooJ'forthe "euolutionof'man,'in uhich be already
lnxio.tts indeed of the biased interpretationsof such scanry evidence.Ler us
belieued rharhe simply did nor pay any arrentionro the anatomical
lcave it to our modern pagansand their philosophersto become ex-
difficultieswhich this crudelyfabricared ,,man"
prcsenred ro any ob- cited with the discoveryof every new skull, bone' or even a single
jectiveobservcr. And yet in evolurionary rexrboolsprintedbefbrethe rooth, about which newspaperheadlinesdeclare:"New Ancestor of
discoveryof the fraud,PiltdownMan is acceptedasan evolutionary
Man Found." This is not even the realm of vain knowledge;it is the
ancesrorof man u.,ithout question; his ,,skull',is evenillustrared(even realm of modtrn fables and fairy tales,of a wisdom which truly has be-
thoughonly fragmentsofa craniumhad beendiscovered); and it is come astonishinglyfoolish.
confidentlystatedthat "he combineshumancharacteristics with orh-
ers far rcrarded" (Tracy I. Storer,GencralZootogt, l95l). This, of
* Many cvolurionists havecome to thc conclusiont\x Homoereclus als<;ltc-
course,is jusr what is requiredfor a,,missinglink; berweenman and
longswithin rhcspecies Homo npient For cxample , Villirrm S. hughlin (Univcrsity
aperand thar is why rhe piltdown fratd wascomposed preciselyofa andAleurs,notcdthc manysimilariries be-
,,IConnccticur),in studyingthe Eskirnos
mixtureof humanand apebones. r*een rhcsclrcoplesand rhc Asian Homo ercctutpcople (Sinatthroput\. He concludes
Sornerime larerrhissameTeilhardde Chardinparticipared in rhe his study:"Vhen we find that significantdiffcrences havedevelopcd, overa short
discovery,and aboveall in the "interpretarion,"of ,,peling Man.,, rinrespan,bcrwecnclosely relarcd and contiguous pcoples' as in Alaska and (irecn-
Thanksto his "interpretarion" land. and when wc considcr rhe vasrdifferenccsrhar cxist bcrwccn renro(eSrouP
(for by thenhe hadestablished i..ou,._
tion asone of the world'sleadingpaleontologists), ,,peking suchas Flskimos and Bushmen,who arc known to belongto thc singlespecics of
Man'i also Homosapiens, it sccms justifiableto concludc rhtt Sinanthtopus bclongswithin this
enteredevolurionary texrbooks asan ancesror ofman.... samediversespccies" \Scicte 142,Nov 8, 1963,p. 644J.-Eo.
426 427
GrNrsrs, CnaalroN eNo Eenry MaN Tur- Plrr.rsnc Doc'lnrNr or CnrarroN
Vhere doesthe C)rrhodoxChristian turn if he wishesto learn rhe becauseof his nature,which is dust from the ground, but becauseof
true doctrine ofthe creation of rhe world and man? St. Basil tells us rhe supernatr:ralgracegiven to him by the breathof God."
clearly: Now, befbre examining rhe Patristic reachingof man's nature, I
will admit that this word "nature" can be a litde ambiguous,and that
WhenccshallI beginmy narrarioniShallI refurcthe vaniryof the onc can find passages where the Holy Fathersuse the expression"hu-
heathens? Or shallI proclaimour rruth?The wisemenof the Greeks man nature" in the way it is usedin common discourse,as referringto
wrotemanyworksaboutnature,but not onc accoun(amongthem rhis fallen human naturewhoseeffectswe observeeveryday. But there
remainedunakeredand firmly cstablishcd, for rhe latcraccounral- is a higher Patristic teaching of human aturc, a specifc doctine of hu-
waysovcrthrewthe prccedingone. As a consequence, thercit nonced ntan ndt re, giuen by Diuine reuelttion, whiclt cannot be understoodor
for us to refutetheir tuords:
thry auail rnuna/ly for their ou,rttotdoing5s arceptedlry one who belieuesin euolution.'fhe evolutionary doctrine of
hunran nature, basedon a "common sense"view of fallen human na-
Like St. Basil, ture, is the RomanCatholic,not rhe Orthodox, reaching.
'l'he Orthodox doctrine of hunran nature is ser forth mosr
con-
Ict w lcauethc accountsof ouxidcrs to thote oudd€, and nrn bach to ciselyin the "Spiritual Insrructions"ofAbba Dorotheus.This book is
the exphnation of the Chwch.t') acceptedin the Orthodox Church as rhe 'ABC," the basictextbook of
Orthodox spiritualiry;it is the first spiritual readingwhich an Ortho-
Let us. like him. dox monk is given, and it rcmainshis constantcompanion for the rest
of his life, ro be readand re-read.It is mosr significanrrhat the Ortho-
examinethe structureof the world and contemplate the wholc unr- dox doctrine of haman naturc is retforth in the ueryfrst page of this booh,
verse, beginning, not fom the wisdom of the world, but fom tuhat becausethis doctrine is thelitundation of the entire Orthodox spiritual life.
God taught His servant aben He qokc to bim in peron aad witbout Vhat is this doctrine? Abba Dorotheus wrires in the very first
riddbs.@ words of his First lnstruction:
Now we shall see that the evolutionary view of man'sorigin not In thc bcginning,whcn God createdman (Gen.2:20), He placed
only teachesus norhing in realiryof man'sorigin, but rather reachesz hirn in Paradiseand adornedhim with cvcryvirrue,givinghim rhc
fake doctrine of man, as you yourself prove when you are forced to ex- commandmcntnot to tastcof thc treewhich was in rhe midst of
pressthis doctrine lz order to defendthe idza ofeuolution. Paradisc. And thushc remainedrherein the enioymenrof Paradise;
When setting forrh your view of man'snature, basedon your ac- in praycr,in vision,in everyglory and honor,havingsoundsenses
ceptanceof the idea of evolution,you wrire: "Man is not naturalu the an,Jbeing in thc samenatural condition in u.bich he wascreated.For
image of God. Narurally he is an animal, an evolvedbeast,dust from God createdman accordingro His own image,rhar is, immortal,
the ground. He is the image of God supernaturally. " And again: "Ve masterof himsellandadornedwirh everyvirrue.But whcn he trans-
seethat by himself man is norhing, and let us nor be scandalizedby his gressed the commandment, eatingthe fruir ofthc treeof which God
natural origin." "God's breath of life transformedthe animal to man hadcommandedhim not ro tasre,then hc wasbanishedfrom Para-
without changing a single anatomical feature of his body, without dise(Gcn. 3),fall awayfon tbe nahtrdlcondition,andfell into a con-
changing a single cell. I would nor be surprisedif Adam's body had dition againstnanra, and then hc remainedin sin, in loveofglorl in
been in all aspectsthe body ofan ape."Again: "Man is what he is, not lovefor the enjoymenrs ofthis ageandofother passions, and he was
428 42t)
GnNgsrs,Crllrlou aNo Eealy MaN THr: Pxrnrslrc Doclnrnr oF CRF-{'roN
masteredby rhcm, for he became himsclf their slave through the And again:
rransgrcssion.
'fhc Crearor and Lord, desiring to savefrom coffrtption tbe cor-
(Thc l,ord JcsusChrist) acceptedour vcry narure,the esscnccof
our constitution, and becamc a new Adam in the imagc of God ruptedbuman nature,havingcomc to dwell in a womb cleanscdby
\Vho created the first Adamr He renewedthe natural condition and rhc Holy Spirit,is unutterablyformed(Menaion,Jan.23, Theoto-
madc thc scnscsagain sound, as they were in the beginning. kion of thc SixthCanticleof thc Canonof Marins).
The children ofhumiliry ofwisdom are:self-reproach, nor rrusr-
ing onet own mind, harred of ones own will; for rhrough them a
k can be nored in such hymns also that our whole Orthodox concep-
man is enabled to come to himselfand retum to the natural conduutn
rion of the Incarnation of Christ and our salvationthrorrgh Him is
bound up w|rh a proper understandingof human nature as it uas n the
through purifring himself by rhe holy commandmenrsof Christ.6l
beginning,ro which Christ has restoredus. We believethat we will one
day live witlr Hint in a uorld uery much lihe the worA thut existedbere
The samedocrrineis setforth bv otherasceric
Fathers.
Thus Abba
on tl)is earth, beforetbefall ofAdam, and that our nanre will then be the
Isaiahteaches:
nature of Afutm----onlyeven higher, becauseeverything material and
changeablewill then be left behind, as rhe quote alreadygiven from St.
In thc beginning,when God crearedman, He placedhim in Paradisc,
Symeonthe New 'l'heologianclearlyindicates.
and he had then sound senses.which stoodin theit natural ordzr: Itut
when he obeyedrhc one who deccivedhim, all his serrses
And now I must show you frlrther that evenyour doctrine ofhu-
were changed
into an unnatural tratc and he was then cast our from his glory.6)
man narureas it is notu in thisfalbn uorU, is incofiect, is not according
ro rhe reachingofthe Holy Fathers.Perhapsit is a resultofcarelessex-
And the same Farher continues'
pressionon your part-but I believe it is probably preciselybecaase you
baue been led into error by bclieuing the theory of euohrtion-thar you
And so, Icr him who dcsircs to comeinto his naural condition cu off
write: 'Apart from God man is from his nature nothing ar all, because
his natureis the dust from the ground, like the natureofthe animals."*
all his flcshlydesires,so as to placehimself in thc condirion according
to the n/ttare of thc (spbinal) mind.63
Because 1ou belieuein the phihsophy of euolution,you are forced either
to believethat human nature is only a low, animal nature, as you in-
T'heHoly Fathers clearlyteachrhar,whenAdam sinned,man did deedexpressby sayingthat "man is nor naturallyth e imageofGod"l or
nor merely lose somethingwhich had 6een ad*d to bis nature,bur
'The evolutionaryworldvicw,as we havcsccn,holds rhat "therc is no such
rarherhumannatureitselfaaschanged, corru?tcd,ar rhesamerime rhat rhing asa fixed'hunran nature"' (ShereHite, I'hc Hie Rcportot the Famit). Man
man lost Godt grace.The Divine services of the OrrhodoxChurch hasrhe samenatureas the animals(rhe"singlcfilamcnr"positcdby Erasmrrs Dar-
also,which area foundationof our Orthodoxdogmaticreachingand win), and thisnaturcis constantly evolving.Sinccnranis no morcthanan animal,hc
spiriruallife, clearlyteachthat the human naturewhich we now ob- is, like thc animals,whollysubjccrto environmental conditioning.That is why "hu-
serveis not naturalto aJ,bur hasbeencorrupted: man narurc"in rhis vicw and can bc changcd("cvolvcd")at
is infinirelymallcablc,
will by rhc rcarrangemcnr Sucha view is,ofcourse,toralirarian
ofsocialinstiturions.
in its narurc,as hastrcn secnin all politicalatrcmptsto enlorceir, cversincerhe
Healing humannanre, whichhad becomccornrptedby the ancicnt FrenchRevolution.As Robert H. Bork remarks,"Sinceactualhumansrcsisrar-
transgrcssion,without corruption a child is born anew (Menaron, temprsto rcmakerhcir natures,cocrcionand, ultinrately, violenccwill bc required"
Dec. 22, Marins, Thcotokion of the Sixrh Canricleof the Canon). (SlouchingtowardsGomotab,p. 27\. (Secabove,p. 323 n.)-Eo.
430 431
Crrvrsrs,
Cnalrroru
,rnoEnnlyMeN Tue Parrrs'rIcDocrnrNr or CnurIoN
432 433
CeNesrs,
Cnr.a'r'roN
nNn F,rtl.yMnN Tur Prrnrsrrc DoclnrNr or Cnr-erroN
God's righteousness wished to rest rhc fairh of Abraham,not that ceedingfrom above,might not be haughryand exalt ourselvcsbe-
whicb tbe Lord had instillzdin him, but that u,bichhe $owel by h* causeof our digniry and mighr not disdainrhe Creator,but might
ownfeedom.67 alwaysdirectour gazetowardHim, and so rhat our digniry mighr
kcepwithin boundsthe infirmiryjoined to us?-So that we might
Of course,the reasonwhy Augusrine(and Roman Catholicismand krtow that at rhe sametime we are both immenselygreatand im-
Protestantismafter him) believedrhar man was nothing withour gracc, mensely low,earthlyandheavcnly, remporalandimmornl, inheritors
was becausehe had an inconect conceptionof human nature,l)ased,on a of lightand inherirors
offire or darkncss,
dependinguponwhichside
naturalisticview ofman. The Orthodox doctrine,on rhe other hand, o/ we incline rowards?Sowasour constitutionestablishcd,
andthis, asfar
human nature as it was reated ln tbe beginning b1 God and is euen nlu :rsI cansee,wasin orderrhattheeanhlydustmighrhrrmbleus if we
preseruedin part in ourfallen state,preventsus from falling into any sucn shouldimaginero exaltourselves because
ofthe imageof God.tu
a falsedualismberweenwhat is "man's"and what is "God's." To be sure,
euerythinggood that man has isfom God, not the lea* his uery nature, (or This image of God which man possesses by his nature was not
the Scripturesays,"Vhat hastthou that thou didst not receive?"( I Cor. completelylost even among rhe pagans,as St. John Cassianteaches;it
4:7). Man has no "animal nature" as such and nevcr did have;he has has not been lost eucntoday, when man, under the influence of mod-
only the fully human naturewhich God gavehim in the beginning,and crn philosophy and evolurionism,is trying to turn himself into a sub-
which he has not entirely lost even now. human beast-for even now God awairs man's conversion, awaits his
Is it necessary
to quote for you the mulritude of clear Parrisricevi- awakening to the t e human nature which be has within bim.
dencethat the "image of God," which is to be lound in the soul, rey'rs And this brings me to rhe very important poinr ofyour interprera-
to mani natare /1ndis not somethingtdded fom without?Ler it suffice to tion of the reaching of the God-bearing Father oi almost our own
quote the marvelloustestimony of St. Gregory the 'l'heologian,show- times, St. Seraphimof Sarov,contained in his famous "Conversation
ing how man b-yhis constitutionstands berween rwo worlds, and is free with Motovilov."
to follow whicheverside of his nature he will: Sr. Seraphimis my own parron Sainr,and it was our Brotherhood
ofSt. Herman that firsr publishedrhe compleretexr of this "Conversa-
I dcrnor understandhow I bccamejoincdro thebodyarrdhow,bcing tion" in the Russianlanguagein which it was spoken (for the pre-
tbeimageoJ'God,| \ccanc mixcdwirh dirr.... Vhat wisdomis re- revolutionaryedition was incomplete),as well as orher of his gcnurne
vealedin me,and whata grcatmysrcry!\/as it not for rhisrhatClod rvordswhich had hitherto been unpublished.So you may be sure that
led usinro thiswarfarcandbattlewirh thc body,tharwc, beingapart we do not believethat he taught a falsedoctrine ofthe narureof man,
ol Diuiniry [how boldly thc -fheologianspeaksof nran! narurc,so one that contradicrsrhat of other Holy Fathers.But let us examine
boldlythatwc cannotrakehis wordsabsolutclyliterally!J,'andpro- what St. Seraphimhimself says.
As you correctlyquore him, St. Seraphimsays:
' The Orthodoxrheologicalwrirer VladimirLosskyexplains why rhissraremenr
clnnot bc takcnliterally,and quotcsfrom Sr. Grcgoryrhe Thcologian'.s orherwrit- Many explainthar when it saysin rhc Biblethat God breathedthc
ingscoshowrh:rrhe did nor belicvcthe humanspiririrselfrobc an Uncreared parrof
breathoflife into thc hce ofAdanrrhefirst-crcatcd,
who wascreated
Diviniw. lhe phrase"part of f)iviniry" rcfersto a participationin Divine energy
(gracc)rhat is properto nan's spirit. Seel-ossky,'l'beMytital Theologlofthe Eutetn by Him from rhe dusrof the ground,it musrmeanrharunril rhcn
Church,pp. l17-18; scc also rhc reachingo[ St. John Chrysosromon p. 16l therewrs ncirhcrhumansoul nor spirit in Adam,bur only thc flesh
lbove. Eo. creatcdfrom thc dust of the ground.This interpretarion
is wrong,
434 435
GnNrsrs,Cnr.rrror rNn Ernly MrN THs Prrnlsrlc DocrtrNE.op CnEArroN
436 437
Cr:Npsrs.CrearroN eNn E,rnry MaN -fHe Plrnrs'rrr:Do<;rnrNsor CneArroN
merely"souland body";he is merelymakinga distinctionberween dif- What belongsto frst-created Adam by nature and uthat b! grace?Let
ferentaspects of the soul and speakingoi rhem separately, as many us not make falscrationalisticdistinctions,but let us admit that we do
Holy Fathersalsospeak.*Second,in sayingrhar the "breathof life" notfully understandthis mystery.Nature and graceboth comefom God.
'['he
which God breathedinto the faceof Adam is the graceof the Holy nature of first-createdAdam was so exalted that we can onry
Spirit,he is not contradictingthe verymany Holy Fatherswho reach laintly understandit now by our own experienceof grace,which has
that the "breathof life" is the soul,bu is only givinga perhapsmore beengiven to us by the SecondAdam, our Lord JesusChrist; bur Ad-
profoundandprecise interpretation ofthis passage from Scripture.But ,rm'sstatewasalsohigher than anything we can imagineevenfrom our
is he actuallymakingrherationalistic distinctionwhichyou makebe- orvn experienceof grace,for even his high nature was made yet more
tweenthe natureo{ manwhichexisted"before"this breathing, and the perfectby grace,and he was,as St. Seraphimsays,"complerelyand in
gracewhich wascommunicatedby it? DoesOrthodox theologyaccept evcryway like God, and, like Him, forevcrimmortal."
the rigid dichoromywhich RomanCatholicteachingmakesbetween Vhat is absolutelyclear,and wlrar is sufficient lor us to know, is
"nature"and "grace,"asthoughmen kneweveryrhing thereis to know that the creationof man-of his spirit and soul and body, iz rhe Di-
abouttheserwo greatmysteries? vine gracewhich perfected hi5 nxlups-Lr 2 yingle act of ueation, and it
No; Orthodox theologydoesnot hnoo such a rigid dichotomy, and cannot be artificiallydivided up, as though one part of it came "first,"
that is why rationalistscholars find so many"contrxdictions" between :rnd another part "later." God created man in grace,bur ncither the
differentOrthodoxFathers on this subject,aswill be clearfrom a sin- Holy Scripturesnor the Holy Fathersteach us rhar this grace came
gle example:Doesimmortalitybelongto the human soulby natureor hter in time than the creationof man'snature. 'fhis teachingbelongs
bygrace? Di|ferent Orthodox Fatherswho areo[ eqrsalauhoriry ansuer to MedievalLatin scholasticism, as I will show below.
differentlyon rhis question,not because thry teachdifferentlyahoutman St. Seraphimonly appears ro teachthis doctrine,becausehe speak
anclthus "contradict" eachother, but becausethel approachtbe ques- in termsof the simple narrativeof the sacredtext of Genesis.But it is
tionfom differentsides.Thosewho approachthe questionof mani na- clear enough, as St. Cregory Palamassays,rhat "theconcordanceis only
ture more from the sideof the presentcorruptedhuman naturesay uerbal, the thought being quitc dffirent. " To be convinced of this we
that man'ssoulis immorralby grace;whilethose(especially rheascctic have only to examine how the Holy Fathersinstruct us to interpret the sa-
and mysticalFathers)who beginwith the view of man'snattre asit was rred nana ueofGenerL thispoint.
in the beginning, view the soul ratheras immortalby nature.It may Fortunarely for w, this ueryquestionuas raisedand ansueredby the
evenbe that onc and thesameFatherviewsthequestionnow from one Ho! Fathers.-fhisansweris summed up for us by St. John Damas-
and now from the other side,as doesSt. Gregoryof Nyssawhen he cene:
saysin one place:"Thar which reasons, and is mortal,and is capableof
thoughtand knowledge, is called'man"';''but in anotherplacehe Fromrhecarth(God)formcdhis bodyand by His own inbreathrng
says:"Man did notin the courseof his firsr productionhaueunitedrc gavchim a rationaland undersrandingsoul,which lastwe sayis the
tlte wry essenceof his nanre thc liability to passionand to dcath."-' Does divinc imagc.... The body and thc soul uerc formcd at thc nmc
thisereatFather"contradici'himself?Of coursehe doesnot. time-not onebeforeand the otherafieru,ards,
as rhe ravingsof Ori-
genwouldhaveit.7:r
' fhe spirit(in Greek,zoar)is thc highestpart ofthe humansoul,ln rhe words
ofSr. DiodochusofPhotiki,it dwells"in rhc deprhsofthe soul"(ThePhilokalia, vol. Herelet us be sureagainthat we understandthat although St. John
I , p. 280 ). Ep . speaksoFthe inbreathingofGod as the soul,he doesnot reacha <loc-
438 439
Grrursrs,Cnr-rrrourNo E,rnryMrN Tsr PnrnrsrrcDocrnlne op CnEtnoN
May we afl return ro that Diuine gracein which God at tbeflrt crc/lkd Specifically refuring the doctrine of the "pre-existenceof the
man, whenHe said,"Let us make man in our imageand likeness"7' body," St. Gregory says:
St.John Damascene and otherswho speakof the inbrearhing of God Nor againarewc in our doctrineto beginby makingup man like a
asthe soulviewthis matterfrom an aspectslightlydifferenrfrom rhat clayfigurc,and ro saythat the soulcameinto beingfor the sakcof
ofSt. Seraphim;but clearlytheteachingofall theseFathersregardingthe naturewould be shownto
this;for surelyin thatcascthe intellectual
whob creationof man, and in particular regardingthe question of be lesspreciousthan the clay figure.But asman is one,thc beingcon-
whetherthe narratiuc of Genesis indicatesa differencein time betweenthe siting of souland body,weare to suppotethat the beginningof bis exis-
'forming"and "inbreatbing"of m4n-fu y$25a7y2. St. John Damascene tenccis onc,comnlon to both parts,so that he should not be found
speaksfor all the Holy Fatherswhen he saysthat rhey occurred"at the to be anrcccdenrand posteriorto himself,if thc bodilycltmcnt were
sametime-not lne beforeand theotheraferwards." frst in poinr of ime, ard tbeotherwcrca latcraddition.... For asour
In sayingthis, St.John Damascene wasrefuringin particularthe natureis conceived astwofold,accordingto the apostolicteaching,
Origenistheresyof the "pre-existence of souls."Bv thereaas abo a madcup of the visibleman and the hiddenman, if the one came
lteresyopposed to this, wbich taught tbe 'prc-existence"
of tbc human bod1, first and the orhcr supervencd,thepowerof Him that madcuswill be
jux ar it is taughtby modern"Christianeuolutionists. "This hercsywas sbownto bc in somcwa1 impe(ict, at not bc;ngcom?lctclfsulJicientJitr
specificallyrefuted by St.Gregoryof Nyssa,whom I shallnow quore. the wholetaskat oncabut dividing rhe work, and busyingitselfwith
Afterdiscussing the Origenisterrorof the "pre-existence of souls," eachof rhc halvesin turn.'6
St. Gregorycontinues:
Do I need to point out that the "God" of "Christian evolution" rr
Others, on the contrary,rnarkingthe order of rhe crcationof man as precisel this kind of God wbo is not "clmpletel! suficient for thc whole
stated by Moses,say rhat the soul it secondto tbe body in order oftime, task at one"; and the uery reason why the docnine of euolution uas n-
uentedwasto account for the universe on the assumption that God ei-
ther does not exist or is incapabb of reating in six days or bringing tlte
- Vladimir lossky both affirmsand clarifiesrhis poinr: "'fhe 'f)ivine brcath' w0 d into existenceby His mere uord? EYOL.UTION \7OULD
pointsto a modeofcrcation,by virrLrcofwhich the humanspiriris intimarelycon-
necredwith grace,and is prodtrcedby ir in rhcsamewayasa movcmenrofarr rspro-
NEVERHAVEBEENTHOUCHT OF BYMEN \flHO BELIEVE
duccd by rhc brcarhand is inscparablefrom ir" (The Mytieal TbeologX of the Eastcm IN THE GOD VHOM ORTHODOXCHRISTIANS\(ORSHIP
'fhe accountofthe creationof man in the book of Genesismust be
Cbwch,p. ll8).-F.o.
440 441
GrNesrs, Ctr,rrroN lNo Eenrv MlN Tur Prrnrslrc DocrnrNeor CnmrtoN
understood in a "God-befitting manner." Here you have made the ,rf vicw of evolutionary philosophy it is quite absurd: why should
"(lod" evolve Adam's body from beasts"naturally," and then create
mistake of acceptinga literal interpretationofthe text preciselyuhere
the Holy Fathersdo not allnw thi!How important it is for us to read the lrvc miraculously?The "God" of euolution doesnot perform such mira-
Hofy Scriprures as the HoU Fathersinstuct as, and not accordingto our
own understanding! Let us look now specificallyat the Orthodox Patristicview of the
It is quitc clear that St. Seraphim did not understandrhe text of bodyol Ftst-createdAdam, which according to rhe evolutionary doc-
Genesisin the way in which you haveinterpretedit. Indeed, there are trine had to be corruptible like the corruptible world from which it
"cvolved,"and might even have been, as you state,entirely that of an
other passages in the same "Conversationwith Motovilov" which re-
veal that St. Seraphimviewed the creationand nature ofAdam lz 2rr- xPe.
'l'he Holy Scripture explicitly teaches: "God createdman incorrapti-
cise$ the same wa! as the whole Panistic tradition.
'fhus, immediatelyafter the passage which Fou quote, and which I b/e" ('Wisdom 2:23).
have reproducedabove, there follow thesewords which you,Ji,J not St. Gregory the Sinaiteteaches:
quote (the English translationhere is not precise,and so I am rranslat-
'I'heboQ, theologianssry, wascreatedincorruptibb,which is how rt
ing directly from the Russianoriginal):
will arise,justasthe soulwascreatedpassionless; but justasthe soul
Adrtm wascreatedto suchan extantimmune to tbt action ofeueryoncof had rhe frccdom to sin, so t}r bodyhad thepotsibilityto become
sub-
theelements crcatedb1 God,rharneithercould waterdrown him, nor ject to conuption.'-8
fireburn him, nor couldtheearrhswallowhim up in its abysscs, nor
could the air harm him by its actionin any way whatsoever. Evcry- And again:
rhingwassubjectto hirn....
The incorrupriblebody will be carthll but withoLrtmoistureand
T'his is preciselya descriptionof the incorruption of Adam'sbody in a coarscness, havingbcenunurterably changedfrom animarero spiri-
crcation subject to laws quite different from today's "laws of tual, so that it wilf be both ofthe dust and heavenly.Justasit wascrc-
nngulg"-r2 uhich as an "cuolutionist"lou cannlt belieue,since you ated in thc beginning,soalsowilt it arbe, that it may beconformableto
nust believe with modern philosophy that the material oeation was the imageof the Sonof Max b7 entircparticipation in deifcation.l'
"natural," that is,conupted, euenbeforethefall ofAdam!
Again, shortly after this passage,St. Seraphimsays: Notice here that the body in the future agewill still be "of the dust."
tVhen looking at the corruptibledust of this fallenworld, we are hum-
'fo Evcalsothe Lord God gavcthc samewisdom,strength,and un- bled to think of this side of our nature;but when we think of that lz-
limiredpower,andall the othergoodand holy qualities.And He cte- corruptible dust of the f.rst-reated worll out of tahich God madc Adam,
ated her notliom tbe dust of tbeground but fom Adam'srib in *e how exahed we are by the grandeur of even this, the lowest part of
Men of delight,in the Paradisc which He had plantedin the midst Godt un utterablecreation!
of the earrh.77 St. Gregory the Theologian suggests, giving a symbolicalinterpre-
tation of the "garments of skins" with which God clochedAdam and
Do you believein this creationof Eve from Adam'srib as an historical Eve after their transgression,rhar theflesb of our presenthuman body is
farr asall the Holy Fathersdo?No, you cannor,becausefrom the point different Ji"om thefesh off nt-created Adam:
442 443
Ce Nesrs,Cnn,rrroN ,ruo Eenly MrN THr PernrsrrcDocrrrxs or CalerroN
Adam "is clothed in garnrcnrsof skin" (perhapsa coarscr,morral, pcrfbctglory and, havingbcenchanged, would havedrawnnearto
and antagonisricfl esh).3o God, and the soul of each would have bccome as it were
lighr-shining by reasonof rhc illuminationswhich would havc
Again,Sr. Cregorvrhe Sinairesays: beenpouredout upon it from the Godhead!And this sensual and
crudclymatcrialbodywould havcbccomeasit wercimmatcrialand
Man was createdincorruptible,as also he will arise;bur not un- spiritual,aboveeveryorganof sense; and the joy and reioicingwith
changeable,nor ycr changeable, bur havingthe powerat hisown dc- which we would then havebeenfillcd from contactonc wirh an-
sireto changeor nor... . Corruptionis thc offspringof flesh.'lb ear orhcrin rrurhwould havebeenunurterablc and beyondthc thought
food and cxcrererhe cxcess, ro hold rhe headproudly,and to lie of nran.... 'fheir wasnot weigheddown by labors
life in Paradisc
down to sleep-are rhe natural arrributesof beastsand catclc,inro and wasnot madcdifficulr by misfortunes.Adam u,atcreatedwith a
wbich wc ako, hauingbecomelihe to the caulethroughthe transgrestion, bodl incorruptible, cucnthoughmatcrial and notyet spirinal.. . . Con-
fell awayfon tbe God-giuengood things natural r, rJ, and became ccrningour bodyrhcApostlesays:"lt is soweda naturalbody,ir will
from rational,canle-like,andfrom divine,bcsrial.sr arise"not suchas the body of the first-creatcd onc wasbeforethe
rransgression of thc commandme nr-thar is, marerialjsensual,
ConcerningAdam'sstatein Paradise,
St. John Chrysosromreaches: changeable, havingncedof sensualfood-but "it will arisea spiri-
tual body" (l Cor l5:44), and Lrnchangcablc, suchaswasrhe body,
Man livedon earrhlikc an angcl;he wasin the bodl but he had no afrerHis Resurrcction, ofour Lord JcsusChrist,the secondAdam,
bodily necds;like a king, adornedwith purplc and a diadcmand thc first-bornamongthc dead,which is incomparably moreexccl-
clothedin royalgarb,he rook dclightin rhe dwellingof Paradise, lcnt than the bodyof the first-crearedAdam.'J
havingan abundance in everything....Belorcrhe hll men lived in
Paradise likc angels;rheywerenot inflamcdwith lust,werenor kin- From our experienceofour own corruptible body it is not possible
dled by orherpassions eirher,wercnot burdenedwirh bodilyneeds; fbr us to undersrandrhe srareof the incorruprible body of Adam,
6u beingcrcatcdentirelyincorruptibleand inmortal, they did not which had no natural needsaswe know them, which ate of"every tree"
cvennecdrhecoverirrg ofclothing.8: of Paradisewithout excretingany excess,and which did not know
sleep(until God's direct action causedhim to sleep,so that Eve might
St. Symeon the New 'fheologian likewisespeaksclearly of first- be createdfrom his rib). And how much lessarewe able to understand
crearedAdam in Paradise,
and his final srarein rhe future age: the even more exaltedstate of our bodies in the future ase! Bur we
-who
know enough from the Church's reachingro refure those think
lf now, afrer we rransgressed the commandment and were con- rhey can understandthesemysteriesby scientificknowledgeand phi-
demncdto die, peoplehavemultipliedso much,just imaginehow losophy. The state of Adam and the frst-reated world has been pkced
manyofthem therewould havebeenifall who havebeenborn from
foreuer bqond the hnouledge ofscience b! the banier ofAdam's tansgres-
the creationof the world had not died?And what a life theywould sion, tuhich changedthe uery nature ofAdan and the reatiln, and indeed
havelived, bcingimmortaland incowpt, srrangersro sin, sorrows, the nature of knowledgeitself Modern scienceknows only what it ob-
andcaresandseriousnceds?l And how,havingadvanced in the kccp- serves and what may be rcasonablyinferred from observation; its
ing of rhe commandmenrs and in rhe goodorderingof the disposi- guessesabout the earliestcreation have no more and no lessvalidiry
tions of the heart,in rime rhcy would haveascendcd to the mosr than the myths and fablesofthe ancienr pagans. The true knowlcdgeof
444 445
Cl:Ntsrs,Ctr:,rlloNaro Errtl-yMaN 'frre Pnrnrsrrc DocruNr ol Crp,rrroN
Adam and thefrsvu"palsa! u6 al-as muth as is usefalfor us to knou+is tlrc modern Roman Catholic doctrine, as set forth in nineteenthcen-
accessible
onlT in Gotdi reuelationan:in the Diuine u,isionoJ'tfu Saints. rrrry l.atin sources.His conclusion is that the Orthodox doctrine on
rhese matters-on angels and demons, heaven and hell, Para-
.lisc-even though it is given to us by sacredtradition only in part,
All that I havesaid in this letrer,derivedstrictly from the Holy Fa- rroncrheless is quite precisein that part which we can know; but the
thers,will come asa surpriseto many Orrhodox Christians.-i'hosewho Ilomrn Catholic teaching is extremelyindefinite and imprecise.The
havereadsome ofthe Holy Fatherswill perhapswonder why they "ha- rclson lor this indefinitenessis not far to seek:from the time Papalism
ven't heard it before."'l'he answeris simple: if they have read many of bcganto abandon the Patristicteaching,it graduallygaveitselfovcr to
the Holy Fathers,they ltaue encounteredthe Orrhodox doctrine of rhe influenceof worldly knowledgeand philosophy,first rhat of such
Adam arrd the creation; but theyhaue beeninterpreting the Patristic texts philosophersas Barlaam, and then of modern science.Even by the
hitherto through the eyesof modern scienceand philosophy, and threfore nineteenthcentury Roman Catholicism no longer had a certain teach-
theyhauebeenblinded to the nue Patristic teaching.ft is also true that rhe ing of its own on thesesubjects,but had grown accustomedto accept
doctrineofthe bodyof Adam and rhe materialnatureof rhe firsr-creared whatever"science"and its philosophysay.
world is taught most clearlyand explicitly in rhe larerFathersofexalted Alas, our present-dayOrthodox Christians, and not least those
spiritual lifb such as St. Symeon rhe New Theologian and St. (iregory who have been educatedin 'theological academies,"hauefollou,edtbe
the Sinaire,and the writings of rheseFarhersare not widely read even Roman Catholicsin this and haue cometo a similtr stateof ignoranceof
today in Greek or Russian,and hardly any ofthem existat all in other the ltanistic teaching.-lhis is why even Orthodox priests are extremely
languages.(ln fact, severalofthe passages I havequoted from Sr. Greg- vague about the Orthodox teaching of Adam and the first-crcated
ory the Sinaite havebeen misrranslatedin the English Philohalia.) world and blindly acceptwhateverscicncesaysabout thesethings....
I was very interestedro read in your lerter that you set forth the 'l'he vague teachingon Paradiseand creation of Roman Catholi-
correct Parristicreachingthat "'fhe crearionof God, even the angelic cisnr-and of those Orthodox Christianswho are under \Vesternin-
nature, hasalwaysbeen,in comparisonwith God, somethingmaterial. fluencein this matter-has deep roots in the past of WesternEurope.
Angels are incorporealin comparisonwith us, biological men. But in l-he Roman Catholic scholastictradirion, evenat the height of its Me-
comparison with God rhey are also material and bodily creatures." dieval glory, already taught a falsedoctrine of man, and one which
This teaching, which is ser forth most clearly in the asceticFarhers doubtlesspaved the way for the later acceptanceof evolutionism,first
such asSt. Macariusthe Grear and St. Gregory the Sinaite,helpsus ro in rhe apostateWest, and then in the minds of Orthodox Christians
understandthe'tpirirual body" with which we shall be clothed in rhe who are insufficiently aware of rheir Patristic tradition and so have
furure age,which is in somc way of the dust, earrhly,but has no mois- fallen under foreign influences.[n fact rhe teachingof Thomas Aqui-
(ure or coarseness, as Sr. Cregory the Sinaireteaches;and it also helps nas, unlike the Orthodox Patristicteaching,in its doctrine of man li
us ro undersrand rhat third stateof our body, thar which first-created quite compatible tuitb the idea of nolution which you aduocate.
Adam had before his transgression. Likewise,this doctrine is essential Thomas Aquinas, in rhe Summa Theologica,teachesthat:
in our understandingof the acrivity of spirirual beings,angelsand de-
mons, evenin the presentcorrupribleworld. 'fhe greatRussianOrtho- In rlresrateofinnocence,thc humanbodywasin ixe('corruptible,bur
dox Fatherof the nineteenrhcentury, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, ir couldbc prescrvedfrom corruptionby the soul.
devotesan entire volume of his collecredworls (volume 3) to this sub-
ject, and to comparing the authentic Orthodox Parrisricdoctrine with Again:
446 447
GrNrsrs,Cmmon ,rNnE,rnlyMen Tus P.rrnrsrrc
Docrnrneor Car-rr.loN
448 449
THeP,rrnrsrrc
DoctntNnol CnearroN
451
CcNesrs,CneerroNeruoEanlyMll Tst Parprsrrc
Doclnrre or Cnr-arroN
iew of Orthodox holiness,which knows rhat creation is not as modern rlr.ltomatic"adjustment" of otherScripturaland Patristicrextsro fit in
wise men describeit by their vain philosophy,but asGod revealedit to rvithmodern"wisdom."
Moses"not in riddles,"and as the Holy Fathershavesecnit in vision. I belieuethat in yur feelingfor Godi creation,asyou destibe it in
Mani nature is dffirent fom ape natt4reand har neuerbeenmixed with .yourletter,you are Orthodox;but why do you feel thar you musr cor-
ir If Cod, for the sakeof our humility, had wished to make such a rupt this feelingwith modernwisdomand justifr rhis new ideology
mixrure, the Holy Fathers, ahl sau the uery "composition of uisible which is so foreignto Orthodoxy?You havewrirten most movingly
things" in Diaine uision, aouU haueknlun it. "against falseunion";how we wishrhatyou would now becomejust as
HOW LONC WILL ORI'HODOX CHRISTIANS RL,MAIN greata zealot "against fake wisdom,"and rell the Greek-speaking Or-
IN CAPTIVITYTO THIS VAIN \TESTERNPHILOSOPHY? thodoxChristianswho haveaccepted this new doctrinemuchtoo un-
Muchis saidaboutthe"Western
captiviry"
of Orthodoxtheology
in critically rharour only uisdomcomes fom theHo! Fathers,and all that
recentcenturies;when will we realizethat ir is a far more drastic contradicts it is a lie, evenif it callsitself"science."
"Westerncaprivity"in which everyOrthodoxChristianfindshimself I begyour forgiveness if anythingthar I havesaidseemsharsh;I
today,a helpless prisonerofthe "spiritofthe times,"ofthe dominaring havetried only ro speakthe truth as I seeit in the Holy Fathers.If I
currentof worldly philosophywhich is absorbedin the very arr we havemadeany mistakes in my citationsfrom the Holy Fathers, I beg
breathein an apostare, God-hatingsociery? An Orthodox Chrisrian you to correctthem,but not to let any smallmistakes keepyou from
who is nor consciously fightingagainstthe vainphilosophyof this age seeingwhat I havetried to say.Ther€is much elsethar I couldsayon
simplyaccepxit into himse$andis at peacewith it because his own un- rhissubject,bur I will wait for your replybeforedoingso.Aboveall, I
derstanding of Orthodoxyis distorted,doesnot conformto the Patris- havethe heartfeltwish that both you and we might seethc tae Patistic
tic standard. teaching on this subject,which is so imporranrlor our wholeOrtho-
The sophisticated,worldly-wise laughat thosewho callevoluriona dox worldview.I askyour prayers for myselfand our Brotherhood.
"heresy."'frue, evolution is not strictlytpcakinga heresy;neither is Vith lovein Christour Saviour,
Hinduism,strict$speahing a heresy:but like Hinduism(with which it Seraphim,monk
is indeedrelated,and whichprobablyhadan influenceon irsdevelop-
menr) evolurionismis an ideologythat is profoundlyforeignto the
reachingof Orthodox Christianiryand ir involvesone in so many
wrongdoctrinesand attitudesthat it would be far betterif it weresim-
ply a heresyand couldthusbe easilyidentifiedand combatted.Evolu-
tionismis closelybound up with the wholeaposrare mentaliryof rhe
rotten "Christianity''of rhe Vest; it is a vehicleof the whole "new
spiritualiry"and "newChristianiry'inwhich the devil is now srriving
to submergethe lasttrue Christians.It offersan ahernatiueexplanation
of creationto that of the Holy Fathers; it allowsan OrrhodoxChris-
tian under its influencet0 reddthe Holy Scripnresand not understand
them, auromatically"adiusting"rhe texr to fit his preconceivedphi-
losophyof nature.Its acceptance cannotbut involvethe acceprance
alsoof alternatiueexp/anationsof otherpartsof Divine revelarion,ofan
452 453
PARI IV
Questionsand Ansurers
Thc ProphcrMoscs.
A contcmporaryiconfom Grtecc.
Questionsand Ansu,ers
FROMTHE COURSEON C]ENESIS
( 1981and1982)
L TheAgeoJthe Eartlt
that to interpret the millions and billions ofyears, ir hasto be assumed csting books about evidencesof how old the earth is.* lt just depends
rhat rhe fossilizedcreaturesin the lower levelsof rocks are the evolu- ,rn what kind of evidenceyou're using. lt is a very hypotheticalques-
tionary ancestorsof those in the higher levels.But it ofren nappens rion. It is nor nearlyas definite as the book of Genesis.
that theselayersare in the wrong order accordingro evolurionaryrhe-
ory: the layerswirh more primiriveorganismsareon rop.
2. Carbon I4 Dating
Therefore,it's like in rhe times of Copernicus.Then there was the
Ptolemaicinterpretationof the movemenrof rhe heavenlybodies,rhat Sruorxr: What about the Carbon l4 dating system?
the sun, planetsand starsall go arorrndthe earth. The question arose: Fn. SenapHIu:Carbon dating is only usedon organic substances
why don't rhe planetscorrespondro the srars?Some of the ancients 'I'he half-life of Carbon l4 is
5,700 years,so obviously this method
said it is becausethey are on differenrspheres.That is, rhe srarsare fur- can't go back too far. Some people think you can go back 20,000
rher awayand rhe planetsare closer;therefore,the planetsappearro go years or more with it, but this involvesso much guessworkthat it
faster.But then why do the planerssomerimesgo forward, and some- cannot be accurate.Even peoplewho defend it say that it is fairly reli-
rimes backwards?In order to explain how they moved, the Ptolemaic able back to about 3,000 yearsago, but if it goesback further than
asaronomers had ro say that they go around eachother somehow in a that ir getsmore and more unreliable.The systemis basedon a whole
very complex movemenr of cyclesand epicyclesas rhey swing arourrd set of assumptions. **
the earth. Some are going backwards,orhers are performing figure Accordingto the scientists,the most reliabledating systemis not ra-
eights.It becameso complex to follow rhe movementsof theseplanets diocarbon, but tree-ring dating [dendrochronologyl.They were re-
accordingto this Ptolemaicmodel thar Copernicusgor the idea that cently ableto testa whole seriesofthings, cornparingradiocarbondates
rnaybe they were all wrong-maybe rhe earth and the planets were with rree-ringdates,and they found our rhar rhe radiocarbondaring
going around the sun. He beganmaking calcularionson the basisof method was off more than they thought. The tree-ring counts have
this idea,and his theory was much simpler.Finally we carnero accepr tended ro give greateragesby severalcenturiesthan radiocarbonages.
that theory as the rrue one.
Like the Ptolernaicastronomers,evolutionistswho study srrara ' 'l'he main books that ljr. Seraphimrcf-crredro werc 7-be(ienen Ftood(1961)
contairringfbssilsoften find that rhey are upside down, in the wrong and.Sriettifc Creationin (1974), both by Dr. Henry Morris. f-or referenccs to morc
order, or too closerogerheraccordingro evolutionaryideas.They call rccentcrcarionist literatureon theageof rhc earth,sccpp. 641-42 below-F-o.
*' Robcrr Lec, assisrantcdiror of rhe Anthropological
these"disconformities,""para-conformities"or "pseudo-conformiries." Journal ol Canada,wrircs
l'hey have to make allowancesfor the fact rhar everyrhing is in the lbour thc uncertainry involvedin radiocarlxrn dering:"Tlrc rrr>ublcs
ofthe radiocar-
bon datingmethodareundeniably dcepand scrious.L)espitc-35ycersof technologi-
wrong order. If you ask them how they know whar is rhe right order,
cal rcfinementand bettcr undcrstancling, the underlyingassrrmprions havc been
they will admit that the only reasonthey know the right order is rhar stronglychallcngcd.... Conrinuinguscofrhc mcthoddcpcndson a 'fix-ir-as-we-go
they know evolutiorris rrue.'You seethere is something funny about approach,all,:wingfbr contarninarionhcrc, fracriorration thcrc, and calibration
it. They aresupposedto prove rhe theory,and ro prove the theory they wherrcver possible.Ir shouldbc no surprise,rhen,that fullv half the datesare re-
have to start wirh the theory. -fherefbreitt not as facrualas ir's pre- jccrcd.'l-hew<rnder is,surcly,rhat rhe renrairring
halfcone rc 6c atcepted.
"No mattcrhow'uscful'iris, rhough,the radiocarbon mcthodis still nor capa-
senteo.
blc of yieldingaccurarc and reliablercsults.Thercarc grossdiscrepancies, rhe chro-
The scientificcreationists,asthey call themselves, havesome rnrer- nololy is uncvenand relativc,rnd thc acccpred darcsareusuallyrhc selecred datcs"
("1{adiocarbon,Ages in Error," AntlmpokgicalJoutnal of Anada, vol. 19, no. 3,
' SeeVilliam B. N. Bcrry,Oroath of a Prehistoric'[ime .Satk,p.42. F.r>. I 981,pp. 9, 29).-E o.
458 459
CeNesrs,CnsrrroN,tNo Eanr-vM.rN QurslroNs euo ANswsns
Other radiometric dating methods are used to get older agesof fact, the evolutioniststhemselves
will probablytell you that. The ques-
millions and billions of years:the potassium-argonm€thod, etc. There tion is: doesthe other model make more sense?
'Whe
are all kinds of assumptionsinvolved in thesemerhods,also;you have n it comesto somethinglike thesestrara,of course,it is a sci-
to accepttheseassumptionsbeforethe systems"work."* All ofthem go entific quesrion.The deposition of rhe strarais obviously a scicnrific
on the xssumptionthat therewas no contaminarionover the centuries processthat occurred in time.' fherefore, it is different from the Six
betweenone elementand the other,and that rherewasnone ofthe end Days of Creation-it is a quesrion of what happened afer the Six
elements["daughter"components]presentat the beginning.The evo- Days. It is open to onet own scientificapproach.
lutionistsdon't know that; they assumeit was all uniformitarian, from
zero to what we know now. If thati rue and the rate has been uni-
4. A Matter of Models
form, then we can calculaterhe ageof rhe fossilssomewhataccurately;
but if it's not true, the whole systemcould be very far off. And there Fn. SenlpHIv: Scienristshavewhar are called modell Yexerdaywe
have been notorious mistakes. Peoole have done radiometric resrson discussedthe Ptolemaic model-that the earth is the centerof the uni-
rock which has just formed recenrli,and they havecome up with ages verse,and that all the starsand planetsgo around the earth. Since,ac-
of uo to three billion vears. cording to what one can observe,the planetsmove around rhe earth at
dift-erentspeedsthan the stars,the Ptolemaicastronomershad to have
theoriesabour how cheywent back and Forrhand formed figure eights,
3. GeologicalSnata
Stuornl: \X/hatabout the diflerent strata,like in the Grand Can- " Someof rhc mostinrcresring reselrchin rhisareahasbcendoncby F-rench ge-
yon, which are assumedto be depositedat a certain rate? ologisrCuy llcrthaulr,firsrat rhc lnstirurcdc Mcchanique desFltrides at Merseilles
,rndlatcret rhc hydreulicslaboratory ofColoradoUnivcrsiry's trrginccrirrgRescarch
Fn. Sr,nqpnrv: There is a vast scientificquestion regardingthese (lcnrer. Sincc1985,"writcsllichar<1 Milron, "Berthaulrhls carricdout a scricsof
strata.The stratadon't havelittle signsrhat say,"l'm five million years laborarory cxpcrinrcnts involvingpouringscdimcntsinto largctankso[ mouingwa-
old; I'm ten million yearsold." There'san excellentbook on this sub- rer ro studythe internll srrucrurcofthc srrarl,enrl how hminlrion takcsplace....
jecr, The GenesisFlood, by Henry Morris, in which he interprets these Vhat Bcrthaultfoundwasrhat .. . rhc scdimcnrs settlcdon rhc borrornmoreor less
stratain terms of a singleuniversalcatastrophe,that is, Noaht Flood. imnrediatcly, bur rhe fine particleswereseparated fionr largcrparriclesby currenr
It is presentedscientifically.You can examine it and see whether it tlow giving thc appcarancc oflaycrs....-l-hcrcsultswercpublishcdby thc Frerrch
Acadcnry ofScicnccs in 1986and l9[il] andwcrcprcscntcd
makessenseor not.**
ro rlrcNarionalOongrcss
of Scdirncntologistsat Brestin 1991....'l he laborarory work hls not lrccncarried
I think more peopleshould look at both of thesesidesof the pic- out in isolarionbut hasbeensupplcnrcntcd by fieldobservetiorrs frornrraturaldisas-
ture and seewhich model makesmore sense.There are many respects terssuchas thc Colorado'BijouCreek'flood of 1965,thc lormationof scdimenrs
in which the evolutionarymodel about thesestratahas holes in it; in followingrhe Mount Sr. Helensertrprionin 1980,and oceandrillingby the Clomar
Challcngersurveyvesselin 1975....Accordinpi ro Bcrrhauh,"I'hcscexperimenrs
contradicrthe ideaof rhe slowbuild up of one layerlollowcdby anorhcr.'I-hetimc
' Radiocarborrdating is bascdon a differcnr ser of assumptionsthan arc rhe scalcis rcducedfrom hundredsof millionsofyearsro onc or morccataclysms pro-
other mcthods.For a brief ovcrvicwof rhcseassumprions, seeHenry M. Morris, ducirrgalnrosrinstantaneous lanrinac'IBcrrhault,CompteeR?n/l$ Academie det Sci-
ScientifcCreationitm,pp. 14049, 162-67.-Eo. rare/l f)cccmber3, 1986,February16, 19881.
" The Grand Canyon is discussedspecificallyin Thc GcnesisFloodon pp. "Theseinnocent-souncling wordsarethe deathkncll of rhc idearharrhc cxis-
l5l-52. Scc also thc more rcccnt book, Grand Canyon:Monumentto Catasttophc tcnceof thousands of metersof scdirnenrs is by itsclfevidenccfor a grearagcof rhc
(1994),cditedby gcologisr StevenA. Austin.-Eo. Earth" (Milron, ShaucringtheMythsof Darwinisn, pp.77-78).-Eo.
460 461
Cr'Nrsrs,CnexrrorulNn Enrrr MIN Qursrrons ,rNoANswers
etc. Like right now you can seerhat, for the lasrsix monrhs or so, Sat- rnilcs away. Of course, God is bigger than the universe, so why
urn and Jupiter havebcen in the sky together.Ifyou were observing, wouldn't He be able to do rhat?He has no problem.
yor.rcould seethat at first one went fbrward, then they both wenr back- 'fhis gives you a totally diffbrenr outlook on the world. [t is a
ward, then Saturn became fainrer and Jupiter became brighter. Ac- whole cosmogony---the explanation of the beginning of things.
cording to the Copernican model, you can explain that this is because 'I'he modern evolutionarycosmogony,popularizedby people like
they are in different phasesin their orbits as rhey go around the sun. Oarl Sagan,holds that there was a point which had a "big bang," and
From our poinr ofview they seemto get closertogerher,when actually then everythingdevelopedlrom that without any God.. [fyou believe
they are simply going around the sun. Another exanrple is Venus. in that, it is natural to believethat the biggerbody, the sun, came first,
Right now Venus has become once more an eveningstar low on the and that it somehowshot off the earth.'fhere are all kinds of diflerent
horizon. A few monrhs ago, ir wasa morning srar-it was rherealready rheoriesabout how it did that. Some think the sun was formed fiom a
in the morning beforethe sun rose. gasand dust cloud, and that its heatdroveout the gas,leavingonly the
The Ptolemaicmodel was found ro be lackins becauseit did nor dust, which condensedand cooled down, forming the planets.Others
explainthe factsaswell asthe Copernicanmodel. said rhat rhink thar the sun almostcollided with a passingstar,causinggasses to
if we interpret the earth and rhe orher planetsasgoing around the sun, bc torn off the solar surf;ce, and that thesegasseslater formed into
then all these motions make sense;rhat is, rhey-opernicus
are mathematically planets.1'hesedifferent theoriesare all speculation,becauseno one
very simple to explain.F-ventuallythat wasaccepred.Now, by calculat- was around at that time, and rhose things are not happening now.
ing accordingto the Copernicanrnodel,we can sendrocketshipsquire 'l'hey are perhapsin accordancewith what we think shouldbetrue, be-
closeto Saturnand not miss;in fact, it is astonishinglyaccurate.So ob- causeit seemsthe bigger bodies should be antecedentto the smaller
viously it seemsro be true that all rhe planetsdo indeedgo around the bodies.But accordingto Genesisand the Holy Fathers,the earth-this
s n, even though, accordingto our observation,the sun goesaround small lirrle rhing, this speckin shsunlvsl5s-was first, and the tremen-
the earth. dous sun came after it.
Therefore, it is very imporrant whar kind of models you have of Nowadaysatheist philosopherslike to say that the relativesizeof
things. ln this course,we are going ro study the Patristicmodel oF the rhe earth provesman is but a specklost in the universe.-fhey say,"The
Six Days of Creation. earrh is so small, the universeis so big-so obviously the univcrseis
rnore important than man, and God did not make everything for
5. 'l'he Origin of thc HmuenQBodies(Patistic Cosmogonl) ' -fhe nranacknowledgcd as'ihc fatherof the llig ll:rng"cosnrogony wasAbbi
(icorgesl,emaitre(1894-196(t,a Jesuitpricst.Onc day in 1931,rvhilerc:rdingan
Fn. Snnapnrv:J'he Genesisaccountof the FourrhDay of Crea- arriclcon the originandcnd ofthc world,he camcrrpwith the idearharthe univcrsc
tion is verydifficult ro fit inro rhe usualideasof the evolurionof the explodcdand rhcn evolvedout of a "primevalatom."A conrcmporary of his fcllow
universe,because the Scriprures and the Holy Frathersstatequlrecer- 'l'eilhard de Chardin, hc rriedto do for astrononry what Teilhardhad donefor
Jcsuit,
tainly that the sun wascreatedon rhat Day, afer the earrhand the biology:createa synthesis of Christianirylod rhcevolurionary worldviewofmocicrn
plantsand the rreeswerealreadyrhere.Furthermore, scicncc. His "primevalatom"is ofcoursethc cosmogonic equivalcntof [)arwint "pri-
the Fathcrssay
mcvalsoup"(out of which life is supposed to havccnrcrged and evolvcd)." l hc idca
thar thesun,the moonand the srars(andall the blackholesand what-
clfevolurion,"wrotc lrmaitrc, "hasplaycdan importanrrole in the dcvelopmenr of
everis out there)were all created on the Fourth Day in one insrant. asrrophvsics... . -I he evolutionof theworld canbecomparcdro a displayoffirework
Cod wavedHis handand thewholething cameinto being,trillionsof thar hasjust cnded" (Lemaitre,TheI'rimeualAton, pp. 87, 78).-Eo.
462 463
GeNrsrs, CnpanloN aNo Eenly M,rN Queslrows aNo ANswens
man." Bur if you think in termsof what the Fatherssay-thar rhe sun Fn. Srnepnrv: Peoplewho look for beings on other planersger
was made afrer the earrh had alreadybeen ghsss-1hsn it is clear tnat bound up with a whole occult philosophyof life: that there are higher
everything was made for man. bcings who are coming to rescueus and help us out; wejust bow
SruosNt: In our galaxythereareso many orher suns.Do the Holy down to them and they will give us all the powerswe need.Actually,
Fatherssayanyrhing about thosesuns? all rhesemyrhs about beingson other planetscorrespondto what we
Fn. SrnepnIv: No, becausethey knew lessabout rhe composirion know about demons and how they operate.When you start speculat-
of the universethan we know now. And there is simply no pracrical ing about them and get involved with ideasabout higher racesof cx-
reasonto speakmuch about them, exceptro saythar they are thereand traterrestrials-it all comesdown to demons.Besidesangels,the only
Cod createdthem. The only placewe know man livesis right here. kind of intelligent beingswe know of is demons.*
SluoeNr: Is thereany conflict at all berweenthe Orthodox unoer-
srandingof the crearionof rhe world and the fact thar there rs more
6. Scicntif c Creatiottisx
than one sun?
Fn..Ssnapstv: No, becausetheret only one sun for us. Fn. SenepHIu: 'I'hereis a lot ofliterature nowadaysconcerningthe
St.uosNr: The other sunsare srars. qucsrionofcreation and evolution. It hasbecomequite a vital question
Fn. Srnnlsrv; Yes.For us they aren'tsuns.T'he sun is a particular especiallyin the last ren or rwenry years.
thing which is the centerof our lifb, which givesus light and warmrh, Recently there was a very one-sided article in Time magazine
around which we grow and without which we can'r live. The other which made fun of people who are againstevolution; it made them
starsarent central to us like rhat. If there were orher suns with other look like cuckoos-imbeciles who were going back to the time before
earths,ir would make rhings more complicated.We have no informa- the ScopesMonkey Trial, and so forth.** But ifyou readthe literature
tion thar such a rhing is true. of some of thesecreationistgroups, it's very interesting.There is one
The Scripturesand the Farhersalways look upon things as seen group in San Diego called the Institute for Creation Researchwhich
from the earth. You can't placeyourselfin some hyporheticalplace,in puts out some very interesring books. One is called Creation: The Facx
some other galaxy,and look back on earrh.' That's a totally abstracr of Lrfe,which goesinto someof the scienrificquestions;anorherone rs
way of looking at things,sincewe aren'rtherebut right here.We'retold about fossils: Euolution: The l:ossitsSal ly'alThere is an excellent book
what we need ro saveour souls,and we'renor told a singlething about called ScientiJic Cieationism, which is meant as a texrbook for high
any of theseother suns, planets,etc. If it were useful for us to know schools.There is a good, soberbook on dinosaurswhich is not heary-
that, God would havetold us. handed at all. It doesnt mention anything about evolution, but just
In fact, it is a very interestingthing: from all rhe spaceprobes to givesthe story ofdinosaurs.*** It is for peoplewho want to readwirh-
other planets so far, it looks as though there have been deliberate out having all kinds ofscientific hypothesesforced upon them.
indicationsto show ro us rhat rhe earrh is the placewhere lile is. Orher
placesare dead bodies. ' Iior a derailcddiscussionof UF()s by Fr. Scraphinr,seeOrtbodot7and the Re-
S.ruoeNr: What about specularionconcerningbeings from other ligion of thc l:ucurc,ch. 6.-Eo.
olanets? " "Putting Darwin Backin thc Dock: 'Scicntific'(lrearionisrs Ohallcngcthc
'l'heoryof Evolution ," 'fimr magazinc,
March I 6, I 98 I , pp. 80-82. Thc articlccon-
cludedwith a quorcfrom Theodosius l)obz-hansky: "Nothing in biologymekessense
' As do science-fiction
writers.For Fr.Seraphimtdiscussion of science
ficrion, exccptin rhc light of evolution."-Eo.
scehisbook OrtbodotTand tbc Religionofthe F:uture,ch.6, sec.|.-Eo. "' for a lisrof crcarionisr bookson dinosaurs, seeDD.642-45 below.-Eo.
464 465
CsNesrs,Cnexuol ar.roEanry Marl QumlroNs aNo ANswrns
'fhis particular
group is very good becausethey do not rry ro push rvill say this is a myth.'I'he "gill-slits"have nothing to do with evotu-
the Bible. They know they could nor ger inro public schoolsif they rion or recapitulation;that'ssimply the way the embryo develops.In
did, and therefore they have books (like Sientifc Creationisml rnar lircr, the developmentof the brain, the nerves,the heart, etc., inside
presentthe materialpurely from the scientificpoint of view.And they rhe embryo rotally contradictsthe way it should be if it is only reca-
presentit nor simply as anri-evolurionisrs.Instead,rhey presentrwo f irulatingevolutionaryanceslry.
rrodels. Just like what we were saying about the Copernican model -l'hereare a number of points abour evolutionisnrwhich, even if
versusrhe Ptolcmaicmodel, they presentrhe creationistmodel versus you don't want to believeright away in one or the other view, make
the evolutionist model, and then they ask the question:which model vou srop and question and think a little more about the evidencefbr
better explains facts?l'he 6ook Scientifc Creationisn givesyou a whole lnd againsr.lt is rhe same with radiometric dating systemsand thc
seriesof facts,then givesyou the explanarionaccording to rhe crea- evolutiorrary/unifbrmitarianinterpretationof geologicalstrata. I'here
tionist model and according to thc evolurionist model. They think is an exccllent book by a professorof geology,Henry Morris, called
that the creationistmodel makcsmore sensebecausethe evolurionists 'l'be Gencsis|'lood, which tries to interpret the strata, the ice age,etc. in
haveto make all kinds of"cycles"and "epicycles"to explainall kinds of rcrnrsof the F-loodof Noah. He presentshis evidenceand it's very scr-
embarrassingthings. cnrifically pur together.You can read it and agreeor disagree,but it's
In 1960 rhe famous movie lnherit the Vind, al:ou rhe Scopes'lrial presentedon a scientificlevel.
of 1925, greatlyinfluenced how rhc gcneralpublic regardedrhe crea- The Institute purs our a monthly newslertercalledAcx and Facts
tion/evolution debare.'fhe movie depicted the famous atheist lawyer which describeswhat they'redoing, and in every issuethey have a lit-
ClarenceDarrow asa grearhero becausehc stood for science,progress, tle filler which dealswith some aspectof evolution or creation.They
the future oi mankind and so forth. It wasn't cluire so simple as all have becn having a great number of debatesduring rhe last five years
that.* But after the movie came our, many peoplc who wcre dubious irt universities,which have been very well attended;sometimesthou-
about evolution gor rarher scaredbecauscthey didni wanr ro be ac- sands of srudents come. The creation scientisrsare very well pre-
cusedof being anti-progressand anti-science. pared-rhey have read all the larestliterature-while the evolutionist
Nevertheless,during rhe last rwenty yearsthere have been some scientistsoften are so confident that they dont particularly keep up
very interestingscientificrreatiseswrirren on rhe subjecr,bringing up with the latestevents.Therefore,in rhe last issueof rhe magazine.Scl-
the many "proofs" of cvolution which are questionable.-l-heseproofs encq which is very evolutionist,one article saysthat it has becomeso
are ofren prcsenredin high school rextbooksas rruth and fact, but bad now-rhe evolutionistscientistsare so ill-preparedand are tcach-
when you look closelyyou find rhar they aren'tfacts.For cxample,they ing their srudentsso poorly-rhat all you have ro do is have a crea-
bring up the so-calledfact rhat a humln embryo recapirulares irs evo- tionist scientistwith three or four factsfrom the last five years,and he
lutionary ancesrry,that there are gill slits on rhe rhroat and so forrh. will spin circles around rhe evolutionists.So the evolutionistshave
However,if yoLrreadanv evolutionaryrextbooknow on embrvology,it been waking up and sayingthat they have been neglectingtheir dury
ro raiseup their offspring in the right spirit. They are trying to edu-
' ln fact,thc movic(basedon rhc playby Jcromcl-awrcncc and RoberrE. t,ce) cate them berter now to get back to the original principlesof evolu-
wasa highlvficrionalizcd accounrofrhc trial and rhc cvcntssurroundingit. In real
tion.
life,thc Scopcs'liialwasnot a scriouscrimrnalprosecurion bur a mockr,hl uscdasa
tcstcaseby thcA.C.l-.U.John-l'.Scopes wasa volunreer
defcndanr who wasnevcrin
dengcr of going to jail. Scc Phillip Fi, Johnson,I)efeatingDanuinim by Opcning
Mi nd.t,pp. 24-32.-F.D.
466 467
CrNssrs.CnslnoN ar.roErrr-yM.rx QueslroNs,rnn ANswens
468 469
GrNrsrs,CnrlrroN aNo Enuy Meru Quxrrots aNn ANswens
and creation is all about: whether rhe limits are strictly defined ac- thereafso,rhey named rheir new find Homo habilis,or "Handy Man."*
cording to "kinds"-which might nor be quite the same as "spe- 'l'his
threw rhe whole scenarioof human evolution back, becausean
cies"-or whether everythingcomes from an original glob of organic evolutionary ancestorcannot be in the same bed as its descendant.
matter which developedinto all the different kinds of things. Every- Homo erectus" was also thrown out of rhe line and placed after Homo
rhing we know now about the genetic code seemsto be againstthe habilis; and humans using srone rools are now said ro have Iived rwo
latter idea.An organismcannot "evolve"into something that is not in million yearsago.
agreementwith its geneticcode.* Much of the debateberweenevolu- Of course,theseare all guesses. There are so many holesand diffi-
tionists now centers on how this could be possible. We have not culries in the various theories,and rhere is so much rhat each
found out how.*' evolutionisrtries ro push through his or hcr own claims.
Thereareevenoutright hoaxes.Vhen I srudiedzoologyin collep;e in
the 1950s,one ofthe proofsofthe evolution of man wasthe "Piltdown
9. "Human Euolution" Man." Fronr rhe 1890sonwardsthere had been a concertedsearcnro
find the missinglink, which wasexpectedto be halfapeand halfman. So
SruoeN'r: What do you think of the fossil men that have been
in l9 I I a verycleverman in EnglandnamedCharlesDawsontook a hu-
discovered?
man skull, combined it with the jawboneof an ape,and f.ileddown the
Fn. Senepstv: Many theories have been coming out in recent
apeteeth.A yearlarerTeilhardde Chardin discoveredthe missingcanine
years.The I-eakeysin Africa havebeen nraking all kinds oftliscoveries
tooth. \7ith irs very primirive jaw and very advancedskull, rhis "Pilr-
eachyear.Of course,eachpersonwho is making discoveries wanrs his
"man" ro be the ancestorof all mankind; so he wants ro overthrow all
' "Since f964," wrircs RichardMiftot "Homohabillr hasbeenreevaluated and
the previousideas,come up with a new one, and claim he has found
ir hasbccnsuggcstcd rhatonc of rlrchandbonesis a pieceofvertebra,rharrwo more
the "missing link." So we alwaystake with a grain of salt what these boncscouldhavcbclongcdro a trec-dwelling monkcy,and rlrarsixorherscamcfrom
PeoPlesay. sonreunspccificd nonhorninid.But whateverrhc nreritsof rhc originaldescriprion,
In 1959 Louis and Mary Leakeydiscovereda skull of an extinct thc factrcmoinsthat handyman is human-nor a missinglink. Homohabilisiscal-
ape,Au*ralopithrzs ("Southern Ape"), which was generallysupposed culatcdto havchad a smallbrrin: pcrhapsonly half thc sizcof rhe averagc modern
humani. But, as Dr. A. J. Vhirc haspoinredout, rhe habilineswerealsosmall in
to be the ape ancestorofall the fossilmen--of Hamo ercctus, erc. Five
sralure,so rheirbrainswerenor smallin rclarionro rhcirbody size,rarherIike mod-
yearslater they announcedthat they lound human fossilsin the same
crn Pygmrcs.
bcd as those of rhe Austalopithirus.'"* Since stone tools were found ''lndee<l,
onc ofrhc ironicaspccrs ofthc discovcry of Houo hafill is rharwhile
Darwinistsconccnrrate theiratrentionon inrerpreting fingcrboncsand vertcbrac at
' I.e.,rharis outsidethe rangeof variationspccificdby thc DNA for rhar par- Olduvai Corge [whercrhe Homohabilisfossilswcrefuund], atrcnrptingto cstablish
ricularorganism.-Eo. thc creaturetcredentials asa missinglink, rhcy appcarto haveovcrlookedrhc lact
" 'I-hebesrbook on rhissubjecris Nar 67 Chane! by Dr.l-ee Sperner,an expert rhatonly a few hundredmilesro rhewesr,in rhc forcsrs of Z,aire,
arcrhe Mburi peo-
on rhc gcncticcodc. SccSuggcstedRcadings,pp. 63940,-F,o. plc who arcon average only four feetsix inchesrallandwho, in srature,brarncapac-
"' 'l he statusol Ausnalopitbicutas an extinct ape was establishedas early as iry, and cvenway offife, are comparablcto Homohabilis.Yerrhe Mburi arc nrodern
1954by rhe compararivc anaromyrcsearch ofzoologisrSollyZuckerman.1-hefact mcn in cverysense of rheword exceptthat thcy do not watchtelevision docrrmenra-
rhat true humanslivcd ascontemporaries with rhe australopithecinesindicatcsthat rics nor rcccivcgrantsfrom scicncc-fundingbodies"(Sbaxcringthc Myth of Darwin-
the lqnerhad nothingro do with humanorigins.FbllowingLouisand Mary Leakcy's ism,pp. 206-7). SecalsoLubenow,Bonetof Oontention,pp. I 57-66.-Flo.
discovery,their son fuchard l,eakeyalsofo-lnd Ausnalopithecusand Homoeretus[os- " A6our Hono eretrz.r, sceabove,p, 427 n. For a dctaileddiscussion.sceLubc-
silsin thesamestratum.-Ep. now,pp. 120-57.-FD.
4 /ll 471
CeNEsrs,
CerArroNnNn EanryMar'r QurslroNs ano ANswens
down Man" was taken to be an evolutionaryancestorof man. Somesci- li'rcnt men who live today.So the burden of proof in rhis, I think, is srill
entistsdid question it and had big discussions,but the vasr majoriry upon thosewho want ro prove thar one comesfrom rhe orher.
acceptedit.* Finally in the 1950s,some scientistsrestedir by meansof Of course, this whole quesrion of whether one comes from the
the Carbon l4 method ofdating, which givesfairly accurateresultsback orhcr raisesa whole lot of quesrionsin the text of Genesis-abour rhe
to 2,000-3,000 years.'fhey found that one part was more ancient,one genealogies, for example.If man is millions of yearsold, you have ro
part wasmore modern,and so it wasobviouslyrwo differentcreatures. ** make some big epicyclesro accounr for the genealogies of the Patri-
Thereforethe whole thing was discredited. archs.In fact,somesayrhar Patriarchsarent reallypeople:they'rereally
SruosNr: tVhat about the skulls rhey have found of Neanderthal just namesfor vastages.
Man?
Fn. Ssnnpurv: The Neanderthal Man is now acceorcdas Homl ta-
I0. The Linix of Sticntifc Inquiry
piens: samespecies as man, different variery-no moie different from
man than Englishmenare different from the Chinese.*** SrunrNr: I'm not surprisedwhen you say rhar ideasof hunran
Actually,the fbssilmen arevery few in number.*'** And, ofcourse, evolution are changing,as they find nlore rhings conrributing to the
everythingis basedon your interpretation:is it an apeor a man?[r is not thcory of evolution. Ultimarely,we will seerhe whole picture of evolu-
parricularlysimple ro find somethingin berweenboth of them. In any rion conrcto lighr.
fossilthat you see,either of "primitive" men or "advanced"apes,it does Fn. SeulHIv: Vell, it all dependson your presuppositions, be-
not say,"l am the ancestorofpeople roday."So you cannot tell whether causeoften thosepresuppositionsare very strong.
it is an ancestor,a cousin, or not relatedat all. It's your interpretation. SruneN,r: Vhar I'm sayingis thar generallywhat happensin sci-
So lar there is actually no persuasiveancient man that really looks as enceis that they are going along and rhey havea rheory,and then they
rhough it is halfuay berweenman and ape.There are different kinds of find that their suppositionsare incorrecr,as you said. And thcn rney
fossilmen, some "primitive," some wirh largeskulls,some with small have to change their rheory and there is a srep, an improvemenr in
skulls:but they are no more differenrlrom eachorher rhan are rhe dif- knowledge,in science.
Fn. Sennpntv: Yes.And therearecerrainweak points in the theory
'More than five hundreddoctoraldissertarions were wrirten on Pilrdown of evolution itself as it is put lorth now. Of course, we haveto under-
Man.-Eo. stand there are different meaningsfor rhat word. l'he evolution of a
" In 1982, right aftcr l;r. Seraphinrtrcposc,rlre jawbonewas conclusively particularvarieryof finch or somerhing-1hat's nor what we are talk-
lound to be rharof an oranguran.-Eo.
ing about.That'ssimply a changewithin a singlenature.But evolution
"' In rhc larc 1980ssonrccvolutionistssuggesrcd that NcanderrhalMan once
againbc givenhis carlicrdcsignation,Homoneanderthalcrco. However,cventhcy ad-
as a theory about the origin of the world-that's beyond the realm of
mincd that Neanderthals wcrecontemporary with modcrnhunransand could have science.Thatt specularionabout the bcginnings,just like the ancrent
interbredwith them. SecLubenow,BoncsofContcntion,p.68.-[io. Greekspeculationsabout whether thc world was infinite or alwayscx-
"-' Richardbakey hasquotedf'ellowpaleontologisr David Pilbcamassaying: isted,etc.
"'lf you broughtin a smartscientistfrom anorhcrdisciplincand showedhim the
ln order to acceptthe evolurionarytheory of origins as it is usually
meagrecvidence we'vegiorhed surclysay,"Forgctit; rhereisn'renoughto go on."'
presentednow one hasto acceptthat the Six Daysof Creation are zara
NeirherDavidnor othersinvolvedin the searchfor rnankindcanrakerhisadvice,of
coursc,but we rcnrainfi-rllyawarcof rhe dangersof drawing conclusionsfrom cvi
supernaturalacr, (har is, an acr rhar is different in kind from what is
dence that is so incomplete" (Richard E. Leakey, l'he Mahing of Manhiad, happening now According ro rhe inrerprerationof the Church, ir is
l 9 8l ).-ED . very distinct: there wereSix Days of Creation in which God made rhe
473
Cr:Nrsrs,Crr.xrroN EARLY
MAN QuesrroNsaNo ANswens
^ND
whole world, and He is not doing that any more. 'I'hereforeyou cannor tr,rcteda hundred yea$ here and there when they were copying the
deduce what they were like. Maybe you can deduce 6ack almostto that tcxt. The Fathersadmit that in the Scripturethere can be small errors.
'l'here'.sno
point, but you can'tdeducewhat the actualbeginningwas.So I think in particular Patristic teaching that we have to define the
that respectscientistsshould be much lessdogmatic in looking ar and worfd as being exaccly7,490 yearsold. It could be a litrle more or a lit-
discussingthe very beginning. rlc less:it's not an importantquestion.
The text of Genesisis quire clear that rhesesix acts were quire But whether Adam lived either sevenor cight thousandyearsago,
outside of our sphereof knowledgetoday.Ve can't know about them or whether he lived millions of yearsago-that ri an imporranr ques-
at all, exceptas God Himself has chosento revealthem. That is why I tion. That is a big subject that affectsthe whole text of Genesis.We
would say that scientistsare off if they try to deduce the beginning havc to understandwho Adam was-whether he was a personor nor)
from whar is happeningnow. You can rake the ideaof unifornrirarian- and so lorrh. If he lived millions of yearsago, there are a whole lot of
ism (i.e., that evcrything has happenedat the same rate as it happen- questionsthar you have to ask about how tradition has interprered
ing now) up to a certain point-a few thousandyearsperhaps.Before nrankind sincerhat time.
that ir is very dubious that ev€rfhing has been happeningat the same
rate.
ofSouk, "Reinrarnation,"
I2. The Pre-existencc
I I . 'l'be Biblical Chronology and Euolution
SruosNr; Do we know exactllhow old the earth is frorn the Bibli- SruosNr: Why did Origen believethat the soul came from the
cal chronologies? spiritual realm down into the body?
'fhere
Fn. Sen,rpstr'.t: actuallyare questionsabout this. l he Greek Fn. SsR^t'HIv: He was under the influenceof philosophieswhich
(Septuagin$ (ext and the Hebrew (Masoretic) tcxts of Genesisare said that matter is evil. Peoplelook around and seethat sins come be-
different. According to the Septuagint,the world is about 7,500 years causeof the flesh, and therefore rhe idea was developed,especially
old;* accordingto the Hebrew text, it's about 6,000 yearsold. lis an among the Manichaeansand similar teachers,that matter itself is evil
obviousdiscrepancy.How do we solveproblemslike that? ['he Fathers and that the soul is a noble thing which is imprisoned in matter. From
admit that therecan be a Iittle mistakethat is handed downl there are rhis they developedrhe idea that the soul has for aeonspast been in
simply miscopyingsand so forth. In fact, BlessedAugustine has a some other realm.
whole chapreron this question.**Perhapssome scribesadded or sub- Sruor:Nr: Why were soulsbroughr down into matrer if matter is
evil?
' Followingthe tradirionalf<rrmof C)rthodoxcalcndrrscsrablished in Consran- Fn. Seno,pHnra:According to Origen, it was becausethey sinned in
tinoplcduringrhe rimeof rheSevcnEcumeniql(louncils.Fr Scraphinr and rhe St. thar other realm.
HcrmanBrorhcrhood printedthc yearfronrthc creationof thc world, basedon thc This representsa dualisticview of the universe:there is one good
Scpruaginc chronology,on tlrc nrasthcad of their annualSt. LlcrmanCalcndars. aspecr-rhe soul, and one evil aspect-marrer, the body. The Chris-
ThcscCalcndars continucto bc publishedup ro roday;rhus,rhc masrhead of the
rian view,on the other hand, seesthe soul and the body together,with
2000 St. Hcrmrn Calcndarrcads"'fhc Ycar7508 from rhe(lrcationof rhe Vorld,"
the knowledgethat the body will actuallybe transformed.In fact, we
Sceabove,p.236 n.-lio.
" BlessedAugusrine,The Oiry of God 15.13, pp. 293-94. See above,p. will seein our study of Genesisthat the body in the beginningwasdif-
236.-8.o. ferent lrom the way it was after the fall.
4/ 4
(lrNssrs,Carerron lruo Eanrr Me.r'r
QursrtoNs ann ANsvtns
476 477
Cl:Nrsrs,CnexrroNaNo E,cRry
M.AN QursrrclNs aNo ANswens
It was not entirelymaterial;it wasof refined matter which we don't un- did nor recognizeHim when they saw Him. It is a very mysterious
derstand.Bur becauseof man'sf-all,it was as if rhis heavenly aspectof kind ofstare. Nonetheless,it is bound up with rhe body.
earth-a specialpart of the original earth-went up and out of our Sluonxr: IfAdam and Eve had not fallen, could Adam have ad-
sight, though we are still able to get back to it. At the sametirne, af-ter vlnced to the stateof perfectionwirhout Chrisr?
rhc hll. the originalcarth fell inro corruption. Fn. SsnapHIu: Theoretically,you could think like that. Whether
SruorNr: According to the Fathers,when was hell created?Vas it Christ would have come anpvay is a different question. God knew
creatcdwhen the heavenswerecreated,or when the earth wascreated? wher He wanted to do beforehand,and He knew the way things would
Fn. Sennpnrv: Hell wasn'treallycreated,just like evil wasn'rreally be. And the way things uere wasrhar Christ did come. But He would
creared.Hell is simply the srateand the placeinro which rhe fallen an- no( haveneededto come to redeemus ifAdam had not sinned
gelsfell. In other words, in a sense,they made it themselves.'fheScrip- Of course,this is all verydeepand profound. LaterI'll quote a few of
tures speakofthe place"preparedfor the devil and his angels"[Matr. which talk about thesethings.The theologyofthe Church is
thc services
25:411, but they do not mention how it came into being. Ve arent constantlygiven to us in the servicesbecausethat is what keepsus rn re-
told in detail about the angelseither,nor about their fall; thcre are just mcmbranceof where we came from and where wc are going.
brief referenceshereand there. It's obvious thar rt happenedbeforethe
serpentappearsin (lenesis.
14. Free Vill
Any othcr questions?Is it difficult to understandthis concept of
somerhingwhich is not exactlymaterial,not exactlyspiritual? SruoeNl: \X/henAdarn fell, did he realizeat that point that he had
SruusNr: W'e'revery used to thinking dualistically:material vs. f reewill?
sp iritual. Fn. SrnnpHIv: Once he disobeyed,he realizedhe was naked, he
Fn. Sr.nannIpr:That's right. In the future agewe will have bodres, saw rhar he was running away from God, and he began ro make ex-
but rhe bodieswill be spiritual.It will be a realmsimilarto thc original cuses.[n other words, the whole path which is the consequence ofsin
Paradise,although Paradisewas evidently "cruder," that is, compara- was opened up to him. So he saw this depth in himself-that he was
tively material.'fhe future realmwill be a spiritual dwelling, but at the able to chooseevil eventhough he reallydid not intend to.
same time there will be bodics in it.* \Vhat was the first examDleof SluoErur: So he wasn't really consciousof his free will until that
su cha body? point?
SruoeNr: Christ resurrecte<r. Fn. Ssnrnsrv: Vell, the Fatherssay that, although he was aduh in
Fn. SenepHtu: Yes-the resurrectedbody of Christ, which wa-s body and very exaltedin mind, he wasstill very simple becausehe was
able to go through closeddoors and walls. He was able to give the ap- untested.He was in a stareofgoodnesswithout being testedby evil.
pearanceof eating although He did not need to eat; He had wounds SluoeNr: So did Adam know what he was doing when he fell?
that could be rouched,and yet He looked so different that the disciples Fn. Ssnapurpr:He knew one rhing: that there was a command-
menr. But he wasnot testedin obeyingthe commandmentsyet, and in
' St. Symconthc New Thcologianwritcsof rhe rcncwcdcreationin rhc fururc his simpliciry he fell.
age:" l'hewholeworldwill bccomemoreperfectthananyword candescribe. Having
Stunen'r: Beforehe partook ofthe apple,wasAdam at all awareof
becomcspirirualand divinc,it will bcconrcunitedwirh thc nocricworld;ir will bc a
what evil was?
certainmenralParadise,a heavenly rhc inalicnablc
Jerusalem, inheritance
ofthe sons
olGod" (Homily 45, in TheFitst-Created Man, pp. 104-5).Furrherreachings ofSr. Fn. .Sr.upnru: I think that when he observedrherewere tempra-
Synrconon the fiturc agearefoundon p. 422 above.-[')o. tions, that would have been fbr him the opcning of the awareness of
478 479
GrNrsrs,Crsa:rorueNo EapryM,qn QulsrroNsaNnAuswr:rrs
evil.. Had he nor fallen, rhat awareness in itself could have been for Sruor.rt: Vere the bodyand soulof man originallymeanrro be
him like rastingof the tree without filling. Vhen he was mature and separate?
ready,he could have known the consequences of evil without falling Fn.Senaputv:No. IfAdam hadnot died,wewouldnot needto ralk
into evil himself. aboutbodyandsoul,because rhebodywould itselfbecomerefinedand
That, however, is my id,ea.The Fathers don't talk about rhis par- soul-like.In the endwe would havethe stateofrhe spiritualbody.
ticular aspect,but they do say that the tree of rhe knowledgeof good StunsNr: Did God breathea soulinto Eve,too?
and evil is somethingwhich is only fbr maturepeople."' Fn. Ssnepstlt:In whateverway He knows,He gaveher rhesame
(None of the Holy Fatherssay rhe fruit was an apple, by the way. thing He gaveAdam. \(le are not told detailslike that. The whole
Somepeoplethink it wasa fig. It is a Vestern ideathat it wasan apprc. thing is simplya miracleof God.
We are not given particular infbrmation about that; it was jusr a tree SruosNr:Why is ChrisrcalledrheSecondAdam?
with fruit.) Fn. Senelslr,.r:We arethe offspringof Adam. Evenif Adam had
not flllen and the animalmodeof reproducrionhad not beenrnstr-
ruted,therewould havebeensomemeansofgenerationfrom rhisone
15. The CreationoJ'Adamand Eue
rnan.All men comefrom Adam,and therelore Adam is like humanrry.
SruoENr: Did God creareone man and one woman?C)r are Adam Adamruinedthewholeplan for mankind,bur God was"smarrer"be-
and Everepresentativeofa particularkind ofpersonor group ofpcrsons? causeHe had already"figuredour" how to bring this planaboutwirh-
Fn. Srnqpntv: He created the whole human nature rn onc our Adam.Therefore,theOne throughWhom mant originalnarureis
p2n-1[s first man, Adam-and our of his flesh took the first resrored, throughVhom we haverhe opporruniryro be in Paradise
woman. From them comesthe restof mankind. oncemore,is calledthe SecondAdam.
S,ruorNr: Vhen God createdEve our of rhe rib of Adam, did He SruotNr,:Doesn'rSr. Paulsaysomerhingabout how deathcame
take thosequaliriesrhar are pxrticular to womankind from Adam, or to all throughone man?
did He endow her wirh orher,complementaryqLraliries? Fn. SeRApHrr'.{: That'sright, dearhcamefrom one man and life
Fn. Sr.nepnlv: We aren'rtold. He gave her whatever qualiry He comesfrom one Man.* Because Adam tastedof the tree,our narure
neededto give her, srarringfrom rhe rib. The rib of a man does not waschanged. Thereforewhenthe Holy Fathers speakaboutrhenature
produce a woman; therefore,ir's a miracle. God took the parr from of man,sometimes theyreferro the fallen,corruptednaturewe haveas
Adam simply to show that the origin of mankind is one. a resultof the fall;but sometimes they(for example, AbbaDorotheus)
The whole of mankind is already presenrin the original man. speakaboutthe originalnatureofmankind, in orderto givean rmage
Everyone produced after that-from this one man-has rhe same ofwhat we aresupposedro gerbackro.
'l'he RomanCatholicidea,by the way,is different.They sayrhat
nature,rhe sameimageof God, which is seenin rhe soul.
in rhe beginningman wasnatural,and that he had extragracewhich
madehim supernatural; and then when he fell, he losrthc graceand
' St.JohnChrysostom wrires:'AdamIbeforerhe fill] kncw that obedience
was went backto the statehe wasmadein. -fhat is a wholedifferenrcon-
goodanddisobedience waseviltand rhenhc learnedmoreclcarlywhcn,havingc.rrcn
from the tree,hc wasbanishedfrom Paradise and dcprivcdofrhat blcssedncss"(.Erg]r
Homitieson Geneti s7 :3, p. 7 64).-E.o ' | (-,or.l5 21-22: "For sinccby mancarncdearh,by mancamealsorhc resur-
" SectheguotesofSr. GrcgoryrhcThcologianandSr.Johnf)amascerrc on pp. rcctionof thc dead.For as in Adam all dic, cvcn so in (lhrist shallall bc madc
173-74 above.-Eo. al i vc.' -to.
480 481
QumrloNsrrvoAnswrns
483
QursrloNsrNo ANswcns
485
(ieNrsrs,Cne.rrroNeuo EanryMaru
Ques'rrousaNo ANswrrs
are weak-wc arc, in a way, incapacitated.We look at things and dont 'lb
rhcre. us they would look like paradisalcreatures,but they were ac-
quite seethe way they are. Mren we sober up, we doi but usuallywe rually outside the boundariesof Paradiseand were brought into it
are nor in rhat srare. when Adam nanredthem.
S'ruoeNr: "Now we seethrough a glass,darkly" Il Cor. l3:l2]. Vhen Adarn fell, he went back to the earth from which he came.
Fn. Senrpsru: That's right. Adam saw the whole creationclearly, llc rvassentoutsideagainto live on the earth by the sweatofhis brow.
both the crearionbelow and the creationabove.And, therefore,he was
in full possession of the factsabout everything,only he neededexperi- 17. Paradiseand Heauen
ence in order to be tested. Sluor-Nr: In the next lile man will be in Paradiseor in heaven.Are
Sruprnt: I read somewherethat imagination is usedby peoplein l'lradiseand heavennot the same,or are they rhe same?
their striving to regainthat imageof Paradiserhey lost. [in. Senrr.psru:From our point of view, who are so far away,it's all
Fn. SsRApHlv:Vell, you could say that, becauseit's obvious that rhc sarne.Ifyou get into one you shouldgive thanksto God. But ap-
man, once he fbll, is striving fbr happiness.Even unbelieversand peo- parently rherewill be distincrionsbccausethere are "many mansions"
ple who think they doni believein God and wouldnt acceptParadise
lJohn l4:2], and dilferent places;that is, some saintsattain to grear
or anything like that-rhey are all striving for happiness.And of Iieedorn,greatfamiliarirywith God, and othersbarelyget in. And'ihe
course,only in the Church do we receivethe fullnessof that happiness mcekwill inherit thc earth" IPs.36:l l; c[ Matr. 5:5]. Sr. Symeonthe
and find the way to it, which is through following Christ on the Cross. Ncw'fheologian saysthis meansthe meek will inherit this very earrh
If you're just going to write poetry you'll be very exaltedfor one day here.. So apparentlysome will be on earth wirh the abiliry to go up
and the next day down in the dumps. You simply cani get beyond higher;otherswill be on higher levels.'fhe whole thing is not revealed
your narure thar way. For you to get beyond your fallen nature, obvi- to Lrslwe'rejust given a glimpse.If we enter into that state,then we will
ously Someonefrom abovehasto lift you up. The One \X/homade the seeexactlywhat happens.
nature Himself has to changeyou. 'f his whole creation-what was meant in the beginning-will be
SruorNr': I'm inrerestedto hearmore about how Adam named the irgain.Vhether the sameparricularbeastswill be there (sinceeach in-
animals. dividual creaturehasa diffcrent "personaliry")-we aren'ttold. But the
Fn. Ssna.pHr^,r:SinceAdam wasoriginally in a stareof dispnsion,his samecreatureswill be rherc.Apparently,even that very serpentwill be
mind was in an extremelyexaltedstatewhen God brought rhe animals rhere,only now we will be friendly with him. Flventhe scorpionsand
beforehim in Paradisein order for him to name rhem. Adam gavethe cvervthing else... if they can't harm you, then there'.s no terror in all
animals namesin accordancewith their qualities.In other words, he theseanimals.
had some kind of supernaturalfaculry; his mind was crystal-clear,so Sluorrr': The righteouspeople who have died already,like the
rhat he instantlysaw what were the qualitiesofeach creatureand what new martyrs-are they in Paradise, in heaven,or in a placethat is sepa-
name it should have.Of course,we have lost rhat languagehe spoke. ratc?What do the Fathersteachabotrt this?
'We
don't havethat clarity of mind; ir's rotally beyond us. Fn. Ssnapslu: All we have to go on is the visionsofvarious peo-
St. Symeon the New 1'heologiansaysthat Adam was "an immortal ple, like St. Salvius[of Albi] who died and went to heaven.Usually
king over an immortal 61gxsi6n"-n61 just Paradise,but the whole when it is specificallyParadise,greengrowing things are seen.But St.
earth. Of course,Paradisewas made lor his dwelling. He had been cre- Salviuswent to some other placewhere there were no green growing
ated outside of Paradise,on the earth, and then led into Paradise,his
home. The animalswere not directly in Paradise;they were "brought" ' SeeSt.Symeonthc New Thcologian, 7-bel:irst-Created
Mar, pp. I 04-5.-t n.
486 487
CnsrrIoNaNoErnrvM,rN
GsNssrs, QursrroNserunANswens
rhingsbut just multitudesof peoplein white:saints,marryrs.In other SruolNr: You read in Cenesiswhere it says the serpent will be
words,they are in heaven.St. Andrewthe Fool for Christ,when he bruisingthe heels[Gen. 3: l5l. [s that how he is rrying to get us back in
wentto Paradise, didni seepeoplethere,but he sawpeoplein heaven.* rhe statewhere he is--<ompletely hopeless? Vould it be right to say
'Ve
arenot told in detailaboutthinsslike that. rhat he tries to cripple our walk with Cod in this way?
Fn. Sr,ntpstn: Yes.You can give many interpretationsof that par-
18.TheDeuil ricularphrase.lt meansthat the devil doesnot havepower to do much.
lfhe were upright, then he would be a dangerousfoe; he would be bit-
SruoeNr:About the enmiryberweenAdam and the serpent:You ing us in everyplace.
said that the devil was enviousof Adam beforeAdam fell becauseof Sruorxr: lf he cant do much, how is it that he is able to snatchus
the hvor that wasbestowed uponhim. But you alsosaidAdamwasin- from any given stateand pull us down low?
feriorto the serpent. F-n.Srntptru: If we havethe graceofGod and are not cooperat-
Fn. SenapHtv:The devil is superiorbecause he is an intellectual rng with rhe devil, he can't. It's only when we ourselvesallow our will
being. He is not subject to the body.The body is a lower element; to be drawn away by the devil.
therefore, he is superior.But man is goingto get that whi€h rhedevil Actually, we can allow ourselvesto be drawn away just like Adam
lost,that Paradise
is, and heaven. And that is why,to thisday,rhedevil was, even without the devil. Adam could have sinned without satan,
is just plain angry. becausehe saw the pleasantaspectof the forbidden fruit and therewas
Evenaccordingto humanpsychology, you can figureout the devil. alreadya temptation for him to want it for himself outside the com-
Justthink: you had immortallife andyou knewrhatyou weredamned mandment of God.
ro hell. Then thereis this otherbeingwho is lowerthan you, who is S'ruoeNr.:This may be an irrelevantquestion,but would you com-
nor worth evenspittingon, and he is goingto get that whichyou lost. menr on Indian snakecharmers?It is reallyweird how they make the
Of course,you aregoing to be terribly enuious, becausethereis no re- snakesriseand stand up and so on.
penrance for you.** You aregoingto be trying everypossibleway to Fn. Senalnru: There is somethinBvery symptomatic in the fact
gethim in thesamestateyouarein. that they are involved with that kind ofa creaturein the first place.lt
showsthat thereare demonsat work somewherethere.Just in general,
' St.Salvius wasa bishopin Gaul(Francc)in rhcsixthcenruryAbout Sr'Salvius you can say rhat much abour it
and Sr. Andrcw and thcir experience ofhcaven,sec[:r SeraphimRosc,ThcSoulaftcr
S,ruoeNr: Is saranusedasa tool by God?
Death,pp. 135-39. Eo.
Fn. Ssnapsru: Whoa! That is a profound question.
" T hc Holy Fathers teachthat,sinccrhedevilis bodiless, rheactionof his frcc
will in choosingcvil wasimmurable; whcrcas humanbeingshavca chanceto repcnt S.ruorNr: You know how God let sarantempt Job.
whilerheyaresrillin the body.St.JohnDamasccne writesthat "The angel's narureis Fn. SsnA.priru:'fhat\ right. We do not believein a dualism: that
nor susceptible ofrepenrancebecause ir is incorporeal.For it is owing ro rheweakncss there\ a God and theret a devil, and they are fighting eachother-like
of his body that man comesro haverepcntance."Elscwhcrcthc samcFarherstares: the Manichaeansbelieve.tVe believethat actuallyGod is in chargeof
"One shouldnotethat the fall is to thc angclsjust what dcarhis ro mcn. For,just as
everything;and evenwhen things go againstHim, He usesthat either
thcrc is no repcntanccfor nreoafter their death,so is there nonc for the angelsaftcr
for His greaterglory or to bring men to salvation.So everythingin the
rheirlall... . I t wasby reason ofh is incorruptibilirythatthedevil,afterh is fallby delib-
cratechoice,becameunrepentingly and immovablyrooredin evil. In thc samcway world happenseither becauseGod wills it that way or becauseHe a/-
again,aftcrtheirdelibcrarc elcctionofvirtuc, rheangelswereimmutablyfoundedin lowsft rhat way due to the presence of freedom,in order to bring about
good by grace"(Sr.John Damascene,On thc OrthodoxFaith 2:3,2:4\.-Eo' a grearergood.
488 489
CrNesrs, CrealroN aNo Erely M,qr.r QunsnoNs ,lrunANswrns
Satanhasan independent personaliry,bur in the long run he loses c\lcrly like the serpentbruising the heel:they area small thing, and we
out. Evenwhenhe causes somererriblething like the RussianRevolu- .hould shakethem off. Only if we allow ourselvesto be overcomeby
tion, out of ir come the New Marryrs, t.i..endous inspirationfor rhcm do we fall into despondencyand anger and all kinds ofsins. So
men.You can imaginewhat would have" happenedro Russiawithout rhc devilt power is very limited
the Revolution,the way it was going.Probablyir would havebeen Sruosnl: But it wasn'tthat way beforeChrist.
evenworsethan Greeceroday-a frightfulplaceof worldliness, only Fn. SsnapHIv: Beforethe coming of Christ, satanhad much more
pretendingto be Orthodox-but insteadir waschastised. Therefore,a lx)wer becauseeveryonewas bowing down to idols, which were de-
good thing actuallycameout of rhe Revoluriondespirethe fact rhat rrron ic.
thedevilmeantevil.The devilis independent, he cando evil,but God SruosNt: But in the whole schemeof things, it was all within
alwaysbringsgood out offt to thosewhosewilk uant good-* ( iod's plan.
Sr.uosNr:l'he devil can'tdo anyrhingwithout God allowingit, Fn. Senapsru: Vell, yes,but it's a very mysticalthing. Everything
canhe? is within the plan, and yet each person freely does what he wants tn
Fn. Senq.pHtr"r:
No, he can't.\X/henwe sayrhat rhedevil is bound that plan. And God brings goodnessand good order out ofthe whole
for a thousandyears-ahewhole time betweenthe first and second rhing, no matter how many demonsor men want to do evil.
comingsof Christ..-thar doesn'rmeanrharhe cant do anything.Ir
meanshe cando only what God allows.Vhen a personis walkingin
the graceof Christ,thenonlyif he himselffallsawayfrom rhatcanrhe
19. Christ\ Spiritual Body
devil do anythingto him ar all. ]*/henwc havetemptations, they are
Sruosrr: How doesChrist fit in with the placewhererhe sainrc
arenow,and with rhe statethat you sayAdam wasmeantto achieve?
' Sr. l'crerDamascenc (elcvcnrlrcenrury)teachcs: "'fhcre is norhingincidenral
or cvil in creation,and evcn whar rakcsplaccagainstGod'swill is miraculously Fn.Sennrutv:JesusChrist is God.
changcdby God into somcthinggood. For cxanrple,the fhll of the devil was not SruneNr: Yes,and He! worshippedby the saints;but doesHe
God'.swill, yer ir hrs becn rurncd ro rhe arlvanragc
of rhoscbeing saved"(The lrhilo- possess a spiritualbodylike thesaintswill have?
R Al ta , vo t , : r. o. t ) / t . Fn.Sanepnllr:Yes,He still hasHis body.St.Andrew,for example,
l-ikcwise.Sr. Macariusthc Crearof F-gypt(J00-390)writcsrhar"l'he lord of sawChriston the thronein heaven.
rlrisworld Ithedcvil] is a rod ofchasrismcnr and a scourgeto bcginnersin thc spiri- SruoENr:But He is the essence of God, and we communewith
ruallifi. Yet,ashasbcensaid,hc bringsthenrgrcatgloryandaddcdlronorbecause of
the efl'lictionsand trialsrheycndure.In thisway hc hclpsrhemro:rtrainthc srareof Him spiritually.
perfcction,while he prepares cvengrearerand harsherpunishmcnrfor hinrself.ln Fn.Senalutna: Yes,God is ever)'where.He is the Light. But Christ
short,somcthingmost bencflcialis broughrabourrhror.rgh him.... Evil, whilc in- is alsotherein heavenin His resurrected body.
tendingwhat is nor good,conrritrures ro rhc good.For,in soulswhoscinrcntionis How it worksin practice,we arenot worthy of knowing:that is'
sound,eventhat which appears harmfulrcsulcin somerhing good.As Sr. Paulsays: whetherwe will be walking abourand talking with Him. But just
All rhingswork togerhcrfor goodro rhemrharlovcGod' (Rom.8:28)" (Thc Philo-
think-He walkedaboutthe earthwith His disciples.
halia, vol. 3, pp. 300-l ).-tio.
Sruotwr: That explainsit. He is theessence ofGod, but ...
" Accordingto the Holy Farhers, the "thousandyears"mcnrionedin Apoca-
lypse(Rcvelarion) 20:2 rcpresents rhe pcriodberwcenthe firsrand secondconrrngs Fn. Senanstu:But He took flesh.He becamelike us, and there-
of Chrisr.Vc are now irr this pcriod.SeeArchbishopAverky1'aushe" and Fr.Sera- fbrethat fleshis therein the otherworld.In heavenwe will havecon-
phim Rosc,'l-beApoulypr in tbe liacbingsofAncientChristianiry,pp.254-58.-Eo. ractwith God spiritually, and alsowith Him in His body.
490 491
CeNrsrs,CnsrroN aNo EanrvMeru QursrroNsar.r
o ANsvrns
SruoeN,r:And we will commune with Him in His essence ? crrrh came up, and at the sametime the waterswhich bcforehad been
Fn. SsRAlHlr'.{:
No. There is a teachingof St. Gregory Palamason rrbovethe firmament camedown.
the essenceand energiesof Cod. Ve do not have any direct contact It is a very challengingtheory that some peoplehave put forward
with God in His essence, but we know Him in His energies(gracc). in conncction with the fact that the rainbow was given to Noah as a
StuopNr: So the saintsdon't havecontact with the essence? sign therewould be no more flood, indicating that rain aswe know it
Fn. Senansrpr:No, they have contact rhrough the energies,and and the resulting rainbow were experiencedthen for the first timc.
so they are becomeparricipantsin God. We cant think like God: we Somestudieshaveshown that about five thousandyearsago there was
cant think His thoughts or rhink what He was doing before the somechangein cheatmosphereof the earth which allowedthe cosmic
world was made, or anyrhing like that. We can only parricipareac- radiation to come through.* It is very likely that the watersabovethe
cording as He allowsus, by His grace. firmament wereactuallya cloud layerover the whole earth,which pro-
duced a greenhouseeffect.** Fossilremainseverpruherein the world
resriryto the facr that in the past the earth had a universallywarm cli-
mate, with ample moisturefor abundant plant and animal life.." Be-
20. The Firmament
sidesthe fossilevidence,there is evidencefrom the fact rhat there are
SruneHr: V/hat was the firmament? remnanrs of animals in frozen soils on rhe Arctic lslands north of
Fn. Se,nq.pHr^.r: Very interestingquesrion.Let me briefly summa-
rize it. The text of Genesissaidtherewasa firmamenr thar "divided the ' Thcscstudieswerebasedon mcasurcnrenrs ofthc lormationofradiocaroonrn
waterswhich were under rhe firmament from the waterswhich were thc earth's uppcratnrosphere, whichoccursby a complexsetofreacrions berwcenthe
above the firmament" (Gen. l:7). Later on, in ancient Greece,there incomingcosmicradiationand armospheric Nitrogen14.The dateoffive thousand
arosethe theory rhat the universewas composedof ten spheres,with yearswasprovidedby Roberrl-. Whitelaw NuclearConsultanrand Professor of Me-
chanicalling;inccring,Virginia PolytechnicInstirurc and StatcUniversiry SecSriaa-
the earth, the moon, and eachplanetoccupyingits own sphere.*Some
tif c Credtion isrn,pp. | 65-66.-Eo.
people, under the influence of this theory, rhought that the rext of
" SeeHenry Morris, 'l he Gcneti F-kod,pp. 240-58, and JosephC. Dillow, I/r
Cenesistaught rherewas a kind ofglass bowl over rhe earth. St. Basil \YatersAboue:Eartlti Pre-FloodVaporCanopy-Eo.
the Great specificallydiscussedthis question,and he said there was no "'According ro E. H. Colben. an cvolurionist,"Marry lirrcsof dinosaurs
such thing: there was simply a force of nature which kepr rhe waters cvolvedduring thc 100 million ycarsor more of Mcsozoichisroryin which thcy
above-that is, sonre kind of more rarefied waters-from the waters livecl....ln rhoscdaysrhe canh had a tropicalor sub-rropical climarcovermuch of
irslandsurfacc, and in thc widcsprcadtropicallandsthcrewasan abundancc of lush
beneath.
vcgetation. 1-helandwrs low and therewercno high morrnteins formingphysicalor
In the time of Noah, when the Flood began, the windows of clinracricbarricrs"("Evolurionary(lrowth I{ates in thc [)inosaurs,".l'daztrfc
heavenwere opened and the waterscame in. In other words, it seems l\lonrbly, August1949,p.7l). rV. J. Arkell, in 6is book Jur'tssicGzotogy o.frhe World
that the firmament "cracked,"so thar power of nature holding those (p-(rl5), wrires:'A fairlyrich floraoftcmpcratcfaciesflorrrishcd wirhinor ncarboth
waters abovewas loosenedsomehow That is one of the reasonswny the Arcticand AnrarcricCirclcs,in Flasr(lreenlandand Crahamland."
the Flood was a universaldisaster.The warersfrom underneath the ln 1991,the fossilrcmainsofa plant-eating dinosaur,25 to 30 lcct long, wcrc
fbund in a smallsecrionof cxposedrock in thc intcriorof Antarctica,about 400
milesfrom thc SourhPolc.Evcn closcrro the Pole(about250 rniles),geologists
' The ProphetMoscs,rheaurhorof Gcnesis, livcdin rhe sixteenth
cenruryr.c. lound rhousands of wcll prescrvedlcavcs,rcrainingtheir originalcellularsrrucrure
Thc Crcck conccptof the sphericalunivcrscwas first deviscdby Pychagoras
in thc and organiccontent.(SceRaymondChris, Cbronirleof HigberEducation,March 20,
sixrhccnruryr.c. and wasrcvisedby Euxodusin rhe fourrhcenturya.c.-Eo. l 99l ).-ti D .
492 493
GtNlsrs,Cnrnrron aNo Eenrr Mal QursrroNsANDANsvERs
Siberia-areas that could never supporr such animals under presenr Now of course,Paradisehas been separatedfrom the earth. But
*
climaticconditions. l'roplc still go to Paradise.We know of peoplewho have been there,
likc St. Euphrosynusthe Cook. He brought back apples,which peo-
ple are like holy bread. He actually experiencedParadiseas if it was
2 L Thc "Location" of Paradise \omething physical,but ir was different from our everydaymaterial
rcality.You can only get there in a stateof exaltation;you have to be
Fn. SEnalurv: The connecrionof Paradisewith our conremporary
.rut of yourself. Paradiseis now gone from us, becauseAdam was
world is a very profound one becausein the beginning Paradisewas
originallydifferent from what we are now. He was of a higher nature.
part of earth-an elevatedplacelike a mounrain. When Adam wascast
In fact, rhe Fatherssay that he was of flcsh, but it was a flesh some-
out of Paradisehe went lower down the slopeand beganliving tl.rere.
'I'hen Cain had to go srill lower how hal{iruayberweenwhat we know as flesh and spirit. [t's a whole
down. differentthine.
SruotNr: h saysin Genesisrhat the river flowing out of Paradise
parted and becamethe Euphratesand other rivers.
Fn. SrnapHrv: Yes.Four rivers are mentioned, which are usually
22. Bttween the Fall and the Flood
interpreted as the -l'igris, the Euphrates,the Nile and the Canges.
There are variousinterpretarions. S'ruosr.r'l:When Adam was thrown out from Paradise,what was
SruoeNr: ls rheresti a mounrain rhere? rhar separarionlike?
Fn. Ssnlpstu: No. You see,whar we havenow is a differenr realiry. Fn. Ssnepnura: Adam wascastout from Paradise, but it saysthat he
For one thing, rhe Flood ofNoah came,and apparentlyrherewere tre- sar there looking at it. It was still visible,and even Cain could still see
mendous cataclysmsduring that time-probably volcanoeserupting, Paradise.One of thc Fatlterssaysthat perhapsuntil the Flood people
mountains rising up-of which we seerhe resultsnow. lt is very likely could still seeParadise. They could not get to ir becausetherewere two
th at before Noah there were not the five continents we know angelsrhereguarding but we know they were somehow closerbe-
it,
n6'a-1hs1s was a rremendously dffirent earth. Maybe there was one causeGod was constantlytalking to rhe Patriarchs.Then there was a
continent. Ve have no idea,actuaLlly; we are nor rold abour rhat. The wlrole different statewhich is very difficult lor us to imaginc now be-
earth becameso completelydiflerenr rhar roday we cannor say.Right causeafter Noah this new period enterswhen we do not havecontact
now those four rivers do not come from the same source;they nave wirh God that way. Beforc rhe Flood, God came and talked directly
been changed.Nevertheless, you can point and say rhat in thar arears evento Cain, the sinner.
the cradle of ancient civilization; ir is apparentlywhere we all came
from.
23. Tbe Flood
*
J. K. Charlesworrh, in his book The Quatentary Era (vol.2, p. 650), srates:
"Vast hcrdsof mammorhand orher animals(rhe New Sibcrianlslandsin rhe far SrunEr't.r:Somesaythe Flood wasonly berweenthe Tigris and the
north of Asiahavcyieldcdmammorh,wooly rhinoceros, muskox, saigaanrclopc, Euohrates.
reindccr,tiger,arcricfox,glurron,bearand horscamongthe 66 animalspecics) re- Fn. Sr,nanHIu:That would be a local flood. But what is described
quiredforcsts,nreadows andsreppes for rhcirsustcnance
... andcouldnor havelived in Scriotureis a universalFlood, over the whole earth.
in a climatelike the prcsenr,wirh irs icy winds,snowywintcrs,f-rozengroundand SruneNr' Is that why shellsare lound on the tops of mountains?
rundramossrheyerr round."-Ilo.
494 495
GnNEsrs,
CnmrroN aNo E,rnryM,qN QurslroNs euo Aruswrns
Fn. Serutpnrv: Yes.Of course,rhat is also due to the mounralns rcn down. A lot was preservedin oral tradition. The basic text of
risingup.* ( ienesiswasrevealedto the prophet Moses.We are not evenconcerned
The question of what mounrainswere belore the Flood and how rhar every singleword is actuallycorrect accordingto the way he re-
high the Flood rose cannot be solvedconclusively,becauseir is very ccivedit.'I'he Protestantscan becomevery upset about this question.
likely the cataclysmwas so exrremethat the whole earrhwas quite dif- It doesn'r bother us because, if it is interpreted in tbe Church, the
ferent then. All the mountains may haverisenup at that time. F-nrirely (lhurch itself is the guaranteethat it will be preservedin the right
differentgeographicaland geologicalfeatureswould havebeencreated. spirit. The Hebrew and Greek texts disagreein a lot of specificand
Those peoplewho acceptthe ideaofrhe Flood in their studiesofgeol- snrallpoints-the agesof the Patriarchs,fbr example.
ogy-like Henry Morris, in The GenesisFlood-say that most of the SrunrNr: The first chapterof Genesistellsofthe Six Daysand the
layerswere formed during and right after the rime of rhe Flood, not crearion of man and woman. Then in rhe second chapter, the text
over millions ofyears. Readthe book. scemsto start over,telling of how man was formed of the dust of the
ground and Eve was createdfrom Adam'srib. lt looks like it was rwo
stories.
24. Patristic hterpretation us.Modern T?xtual Criticism
Fn. SsnnlHtv: No, it is simply a retellingof the story from a differ-
Sruoeur: Did Moseswrite cveryword of the firsr five books of the ent point of view. One account concernsthe origin of Man himself;
Bible?And do we know when exacrlythey werewritten down? rhe other concernsthe specificorigin of the first people, Adam and
Fn. Srnepnrv: Vhen it says ar rhe bcginning'the lrook of L.ve.
Moses,"etc., it means"by Moses,in his rradirion." One of the books Modern scholarslike to say,'Aha! that meanstherewererwo differ-
(Deuteronomy) mentions Moses' death; thereforehe did not write ent authors,and you haveto separatethem and examinethe viewpoint
that part. In the samevr'ay,rhe Psalmsof David were not written all of eachone-what were they trying to say?"This is not required,be-
by David. Maybe half were wrirren by him, and orhers were writren causeevenif the text washandeddown somehowin corrupt form, still
by other people. The Orthodox Church is not so concerned that the basicrexr has come to us and we know that it all relatesro Tiuth.
every word is writren by that person to whom ir is ascribed.We are Therefore, the interpretationof the Church is our key to under-
not that concerned becausewe have the idea of nadition, rhat is, this standing how the rwo accountsfit together. When we come across
is the book of Moses, "in the tradition of" Moses. The basic part rhings like this, we simply say thar rhe same story is being rold from
comesfrom the hand itselfi other parrswere added later,which are all rwo different poinrs of view-of emphasis.1'here is actually no basic
in the tradition of Moses. problem.
I canf give you exactdetailsof when actuallyrhe books were wrir- 'I'his ideathar there must be rwo different authorsor that tnereare
three Isaiahs becausethere are three different periods spoken
' l'har rheFloodwastrniversalis wirnesscd
by rhevastextcnrof sedimcnrary dc- about-this is very childish.'['he modern scholarsoperateon the as-
posits(lormedby aqucousacrion)overwh:rris rodaydry land.O. D. Von Engeln sumption that no one could talk about the future. Of course,wirh that
and KcnnerhE. Castcr,in thcir book Gcotog,wrire:'Abourthree-fourrhs, perhaps idea you would have to castout all the prophets.
morc,of the landarcaof rhc carth,55 millionsquaremilcs,hasscdimcnrary rockas
SruorNl: Sometimeswe forget that there is a whole school of
the bedrockat rhe surlaceor directlyunderthe coverof manrle-rock.. . . '[ he rhick-
nessof rhc srratifiedrocksrangcsfrom a fcw fecr ro 40,000 feeror more ar any onc theology that is basicallyhumanistic and goes under the assumption
placc....The vastbulk ofrhc srratifiedrocksis composedof shallow-watcr depos- that a book that tells of something in the future obviously had to be
irs. Lu. written later so that it looked backwards.
496 497
Crnests, Cnearrot lNn Eenly MaN QulstloNs lNo ANswrlrs
498 499
CENssrs,Cmarroll nNo Ernry MrN
500
Selectionsfrom Letters
503
GrNrsrs,Crr-arroN
aNoErnly MIN Srlr.crloNsrnov Lrrlrns
essary)to publishsomethingthat contradictsit-without, of course, rc.rlmand comesto resultswhich are monstrousand unacceptableei-
publicly"fighting"with them. I guesswe'll jusr haveto wait and see rher from the scienrificor the theologicalpoint of view: a mix-uP and
(theretusuallymorenoisethanevercomesout of the "grapevine" into (onfusion which can only disguiseitself in f-antasticjargon tr la Teil-
publicview).We can'timaginerhatFr. N. or Fr. P would publishany- h,rrdde Chardin. Both thesekinds ofevolution dependentirelyon ac-
thing reallypro-evolution,
but evena vaguemiddle-of-rhe-road article ceptanceofphysical evolution,and ifthat is shown to be unsound they
would be harmfulenough,in viewofthe fact that evolutionseemsto llll; and in addition they are self-conrradictorybecausethe whole pur-
be sucha key in the wholeprogramof anri-Christianiry. lroseand intent of the theory of physicalevolution is n fnd an cxph'
ation of the world without God;i.e., physical evolutionis b7 ix natare
2. TheisticEuolution ith?istic,and it's only ridiculouswhen "theologians"run after the latest
"scientific"theory in order not to be left behind by the times.
(To A. Y.,January3llFeb. 13, 1973)
I'm afraid I'm wasting too many words on this point, but you
The "Evolution"afticlefor the next issuelooksvery good to us, reallyshould tell the readera little more asto why other kinds ofevolu-
quite comprehensive and ro the point, and alsoI dont think there's tion are no more satisfactory. The central point, of course,is that evo-
anfhing thereto which Fr. P and otherscould ob.ject(l'll tell you lution is not at all "scientific," but rather a kind of science-fiction
what I gatheredfrom rhembelow).However,rhearticlecould be im- rheology,rhe product of faith (an atheisticfaith, but nonethelessfaith).
-Ihat
provedby expanding a little on several
points: ii is still so widely acceptedsuretyshowshow low not only theol-
l. At the bottomofp. I you mention "anyform of euolution," and, ogy, but just plain commonsenserhinking havefallen today.(l still re-
at the end of that paragraph you speciry:"arheisticphysicalevolurion, member my freshmanprofessorof zoology expatiaringon the "great
or theisticphysicalevolurion,or spiritualevolurion."Howevcr your ideasofman": for him the greatestidea man ever inventedwasthe idea
articleis reallyaddressed almostentirelyagainstatheisticphysicalevo- ofevolution; much greater,he believedthan the "idea of Cod.")
lution and its absurdities, and somepeoplemight rakeadvantage of 2. On Piltdown, Peking,JavaMan, etc. on p. 3: lsn't Piltdown the
this ro sayyou havenireallyconsidered more"refined"formsof rheis- only one that is universallyacceptedasa fraud?Ifso, it would be wisest
tic or spiritualevolution.In sucha short article,of course,it's really ro emphasizeit (citing the book on the subject,if you have the refer-
not possibleto go into them,bur perhapsa sentence or rwo moreon enceat hand) and menrion the great doubts and questionssurround-
them will showwhl theycan'rbe rakenseriouslyeither and are nor at ing the others,so as not to be accusedof racingaheadof the evidence!
'l-hermodynamics: * youd better give a brief
all more "refined"(just more vagueand confrrsed!). Thus, 'iheistic" 3. The SecondLaw of
evolution,as I understandits motives,is the inventionof men who, definition ar rhe beginning (seealso the enclosedclipping, showing
6eingafaid rhatphysical evolutionis really"scientific,"
stick"God" in what brought a Sovietscientistto God).
at variouspointsof theevolurionary process in ordernot ro be left our, 4. You end with a referenceto the "Gospel of foolishness"-which
in order to conform "rheology"to rhe "latestscientificdiscoveries." might inadvertentlylead some readersto think that, after all, you ad-
But this kind of artificialthinking is satisfactory only to the mosr
vagueand confusedminds(for whom, apparently, "God" suppliesrhe * Fora discussionofthe incompatibiliryofthe rhcoryofcvolurionwith thc Sec-
energyand orderrhatcant be explainedaccordingto the SecondLaw
ond Law of Thermodynamics univcrsal"principlcof disintcgration")
(the scc 7"6a
of Thermodynamics): it is sarisfactory
neitherfor theologynor Forsci- Mystcryof Lifc! Otilz by CharlesB. -[haxton, Valtcr L. Bradlcy and RogcrL. Olscn'
ence,but just mixesthe rwo realmsup. Again,"spirirual"evolurionap- pp. I l3-26. Thesepagesconraina thorough refuration of thc vagueappcalmadc by
pliesrhe"conclusions" of atheisticphysicalevolutionro the "spiritual" evolurioniststo open-system, non-equilibrium rhcrmodynamics.-Eo.
504 505
CENesrs,
Cne,crroN
rNo Eenly Mlr.l SelecrloNs rtou Lt.t'rcns
mit that evolution somehow makessenseand you have to be higher clcncewhich just doesni make senscand which is really the result of
and more spiritual to see that it 6[6c5n'1. \6-6n every level, from blind prejudiccand falsetheologizingin the guiseofscience.
comnlon senseon up, evolurion is nonsense!Behold what real, unre-
deemedfoolishnessrhey fall into who try ro do wirhout God! 3. A Riual Thought-paxern to Orthodoxl
The arricle, though short, is excellent,wirh a very good use of (To Fr. N., April 5/18, 1973)
quotes from Darwin and orhers.Probablyyou will get lots of discus-
'Ihe most important point, regardingevolution:
sion on this. Perhapsone day you could pur rogerhera longer, more
detailed article on evolution, with ample citations both from evolu- a. First ofall, let us shock you righr offby sayingthat we read the
tionists (showing rheir naive faith and sloppy rhinking) and their article beforepublicarion,*made many suggestions(which wereall in-
sound critics (l recalla good book I read some yearsago by an orni- corporatedinto the article),and fully approvedit; and now rereadingit
thologisr: Douglas l)ewar, Dfficubies of tbe Euolutionary'lheory),"to after receivingyour letter we find nothing seriouslywrong with it--
serveas a referencesourcefor thosewho care to think seriouslyon the cxceprthat it is much too short and concise.Of course,now wttn your
subjecr.In general,people are so afraid of challengingscientists"on lerrer it becomesobvious also that the approach was perhaps too
their own ground" that they'reafraid to ger inro this subject; a little abrupt and direcr for many Orthodox readerstoday,and more pr€pa-
clearrhinking such as your short article alreadyrevealscan dispcl a lor rarion ofthem should perhapsbe made.
of this fear and the fbg that surroundsthe question... . b. l"herefore,there is obviously some deep disagreementbetween
Fr. P.mentioneda lirtle rhe questionofevolution ([ didnt nrention your viewsand ours on this subject.I havealwaysregardedevolution,
your forthcoming article on the subject),enough for me to seehis ba- in all its ramifications,asan important part of the "Americanmodern"
sic attitude and fears,I think. His concern abour "fundamentalism" intellectualbaggagewhich I left behind when I becameOrthodox, and
seemsto stem from a f-earrhat the Orthodox battle againstevolution- it never before occurred to me that any aware Orthodox Christian
ism might get bogged down azrthe samebuel as the "supposed" scien- would regardir as unimportant, especiallynow when many scientists
tific argumentsfor ir, and there rhus might be endlessargumentson have abandonedit (purely on scientific grounds), when the pseudo-
fossil evidence,rhe precisemeaning of the "Six Days," etc. He is of religiouspresuppositionsof its supportersare so evidenr,and when it
courseright that our Orrhodox approachto the subjectshould not be is so much bound up with masonry-ecumenismand the whole
on the scientificbut ratheron the theologicallevel;but I alsogathered pseudo-religious modern outlook.
that he is not fully awareofthe flimsinessofthe "scientific"evidencein We were frankly astonishedat your objection to the article, and
favor of evolutionism, which makes him perhapsoyer-cautior.ls and havebeen thinking long and hard to try ro find your thinking on this
fearful on the whole subject.Yes,we should keep our basicapproach subject.Then it occurredto us: apparentlyyou regard"modern" ideas
high and theological;but we can also blow up that "scientific" cvi- as being of two rypes: those that directly attack the Church, which
must be confronted and uprooted mercilessly(masonry,ecumenism)i
and thosewhich do nor directly artackthe Church and are nor directly
' Douglasf)cwarwasa lcadcrof rhe EvolutionProtcsrMovcmentrharbeganin theological(evolution).
Englandin 1932.His valuablccontributions, conrainedin his 6ooksDificultiet of Is this true? Nonetheless,I don't see how it can be denied thar
tltc Ettolutionary'l-heory(l,ondon, l93l) and Mote Dfficxlties of thc Euolutionary
Theory(19381aresrill rcfcrrcdro. His descriptionof rhc hyporherical evolurionof
thc whale is quoted in Michael f)cnton, Ewlution: A l-heory in Cruit pp. ' Thc arriclcon cvolurionby A. Y, which Fr.Scraphimspeaks
aboutin rhc prc-
2 17 18 ,-Eo . vioussection.-ED.
506 507
Get.lesls,
Carxnou nNo Eanrr Mlp Sst.ecrIoNssrou Lr.trtRs
"modern" ideasareafier all one whole: rhey are formcd first outsiderhc (rrr which evolurion has a key place).I did notice, however,that othcr
Church, develop in arheist-agnostic minds, and then move through .onverts didn't seemto grasp this point, and some of them began to
the whole ofsociery unril rhey reachthe Church, changingform in rhe ,liscusshow this or that modern current crn be understoodor accepted
meanrimeto fit in with eachcurrent o[ideas. "Evolurion" is one such or criricizedin terms of Orthodoxy-a falseoutlook, becausethereare
idea (but iti not reallyan "idea"-see below) thar has not yet directly rrvo quite separatemental worlds involved,and the differenceis rather
attacked Orrhodoxy. But look whar it has already done to Roman grcarcrrhan that berweenrwo totally unrelatedlanguages.. ..
Catholicism: is it nor rrue rhar rhe whole dissolution of Roman Ve fully agreewith A. Y that "evolution is one of thc most dan€ier-
Catholicism in the last decadeis directly bound up with the "unleash- ous conceptsthat facesthe C)rthodoxChrisrian today"-perhaps it is
ing" of Teilhardism (whose books were more or less banned up to rhe very key (intellectual)to the assaultuPon the Church, to the very
then) in that sameperiod, a processwhich was presentedfor popular "philosophy"(and there is such a thing!) of the coming Antichrist.If
consumption ten yearsago in a rather cheap bur symptomatic novel, *c understandyou and Father E. aright, you regard it as merely an
The Shoesof the l:ishermani By rhis I do not mean rhar a certain "idei'which one can take or leave,and which can involve one in end-
number of Teilhardian rheseswere opposed to so many Roman lcss modernist-fundamentalistdiscussionswhich are totally Pointless
Catholic thesesand conqueredthem: for his evolution is not really a (how many "hours" itt the first "sevendays"?etc.). Ve certainly agree
"heresy"(we will agreerhat this rerm applied ro him, especiallyfrom on rhe pointlessness of such discussions,but now the issueis much
the Orthodox side, is imprecise!), but rather a whole riual thought- decperthan that; "evolution" is a whole mind-set that is quite incom-
partern offering a whole different approach to life (and, consequently, Datiblewith Orthodoxy. But that is a treatisein itself.A. Y.'sarticle,as
religion);and being alreadyso much a part ofthe "spirit ofthe age,"irs i said, is much too brief, but perhapsit will havethe good effectofin-
approachwas persuasivenor by argumenr bur by fitting in with un- spiring a thorough treatment of the subiecr (zat a "modernist-
consciousarrirud€sof peoplewho wereoutwardly Roman Carholic. tundamentalist"fight, but alsonot what Fr. E. apparentlywants to do,
'We were
rather surprisedwhen you (and Fr. E., too, as I recall) to srand so far abovethe issuethat one can't even discern that evolu-
mentioned thar you haven'rreadTeilhardand weren'rfimiliar with his tion ri a crucial question,and destructiveof Orthodoxy not so much
ideas;i.e., you are waiting for the wave to hit Orthodoxy before you orientation.).
becauseof its thesesasbecauseof its in rellectual-spiritual
starr rhinking of rhe subject.But really,Teilhardismis the "Christian- Significantly,the same mail that brought your letrer brought also
ity" (and "C)rthodoxy")ofthe furure, or rarher its metaphysicalfoun- Concern,withthe articleofTheodosiusDobzhansky(who iust received
darion (it firs very nicely in with "charismatic"phenomena),and it is a l)octorate honoris causafrom Sr. Vladimir's Seminary)on "Evolu-
by no meansroo early to find out whar is hitting us! Here ir may well tion: God's Method of Creation." Vell, here are the argumentsof an
be that A. Y.'sposition (as a layman in rhe midst of the world, and "Orrhodox evolutionist,"and they are the sameas all other evolution-
coming from outsideof Orthodoxy which hasalreadybeencomplerely ary arguments,emotional faith with not one shredofgenuine evidence
captured by "evolutionary''spirituality and philosophy) has enabled ro support it (although hc presentsmaterialtha( looksvery fbrmidable
him to be aware of somerhing that the more "shehered"Orthodox and "scientific").But more importanr: readbetweenthe lines and an-
(clergy,monks, lifelong Orthodox) simply don't see yet. How over- swer: does this man believein God as a true Orthodox Christian be-
joyed I myself was ro find this "shelteredness" when I becameOrtho- lieves in Him? He does not! He believesin Him as "modern" man
dox, becauseI saw that in this "world-ro-itself" I would be able to believes;he is a deist.And very revealingis his conclusion:"One of rhe
change completely my menral orientation (not to menrion spirirual) greatrhinkersofour age,Teilhardde Chardin, wrote the following: 'ls
and no longer think at all in terms oI the reigning despotismof ideas evolution a theory a system,or a hypothesis?It is much more-it is a
508 509
CrNrsts, Cnt:.erroNrNo Early MaN Seu.clroNsrRoMLETIERS
generalposrulatero which all rheories,all hypotheses,all sysremsmust r.,hcdrhat people so keen on ccclesiastical matters,ecumenism,etc.,
henceforwardbow and which they must sarisfyin order to be thinkable should seemneverto havegiven much thought to such an important
and true. Evolution is a light which illuminatesall facts,a trajectory rhing as evolution; appar€ntlyit is becauseit seemsto be outside the
which all linesof thought musr follow-this is what evolution is."' ( ihurch sphere)....
This indeed is Ieilhardism, and by "all theoriesand sysrems"hc Ve must be "wise as serpenrsand gentle as dovcs" in what we do
meansin particulartheologyand spiritualiry,as being parr of rhe high- .rnd say now and by no meansmust we allow ourselvesto be dragged
est evolutionarylayer,the 'iroosphere,"which is just now converging into an argument on "modernis(-fundamentalisi'lines. Maybe they
in the evolutionaryapexcalledthe "Omega Point" or "Super Chrisr." I irrc"modernists,"I don't know; but we certainlyare not fundamental-
hate to appcar"fundamentalisr,"but this mammoth srrucrureresrson 'l
ists. he truth lies much deeperthan either of these nterely rational
just a few little "fundamenral"lacts (or fabrications),which mosr peo- positions,and it will not be easyto presentit so that ir will be properly
ple seemalraid to get near becausethey seemso "scientific,"beginning understood,judging from Fr. N.'s 6rst r€sPonse.I don't think either
with the transitionofone speciesinro another and so up the ladder. ),ou or we should "argue"at all, but preParefor a more thorough Pres-
-lb sum up: Whareverweaknesses A. Y.'sarticle on evolution may enrarion of the whole subject. Frankly, we want to really persuade
have,it is an attempr ro answera realproblemwhich we cannot avoid: rhem, and rhe way to do that is to go into the subjectdeeply,especially
that ideologicalorientation and value-systemwhich is taughr in all the spiritual implications.
pubfic schools as fact which poisons and strrpefiesOrthodox Whar we must keep in mind and get across,I think, is not really
^nd
minds without ever atracking Orthodoxy as such.A. Y.i responseis cvolurion as a beresyor wrong idea, on the same level with other ideas,
sound, evenif it is nor (ofcourse) perfect.Ve Orrhodox are nor afraid and rherefbrego out fighring with the ordinary weaponsof polemics'
to be "narrow" on the questionof ecumenism;why should we be afraid Evolurion is not that kind of idea-but rather a kind of deep-seated
ro be "narrow" on the quesrionofevolution) fhe wvo issues,after all, primordial force which seemsto capturepeoplequite apart from their
are very closelybound up with eachother. consciousattitudesand reasoning.(There'.s a good reasonfor that: it's
been drilled into everyonefrom the cradle,and thereforeis very hard
4. A Deep-seatedPrimordial Force ro bring out and look at rationally.) k's a riual thought-patternro Or'
(ToA. Y.,April 5/I 8, 1973) thodoxy, not just another idea.
Your article,beyond any doubt, is going to make you "unpopular"
Just a note. Ve receivedMonday a rather shocking letrer from Fr. in places.Do not let this discourageyou, or force you into a "defen-
N. expressing extremedispleasure wirh your "evolution"article. He ap- sive"posrure.Your article is probablygoing to do somethingvery pain-
parentlysentyou a letter,too, a copy ofwhich he said he wasenclosing ful at first but ultimately positive: bring out into the oPen some
in his letter ro us (bur he didni). attitudeswhich havelong been hiding in the shadows.
After reading his letter, we read your article together once
again-and neitherof us find anyrhing wrong with it, exceptthat it is Eullution Is Not Scientifc
5. TheArgumentag/1inst
much roo shorr and concise.After looking in vain for any other source but Theological
of Fr. N.'s displeasure, we can only concludethat Fr. N. and Fr. E. ap-
(To Fr. N., PalmSundaylApril91221,1973)
parentlyare just nor awareof the whole issueof evolution, wherher in
its scientificside or in its religious-rheological
implications.Obviously (By theway,in caseI didni makeit clearin my lastletrer, theargu-
your article has touched somerhingvery deep (frankly we are asron- menragainstrhesupposed "scientific"theoryof evolutionis not itself
510 5l I
GENlsrs,CnrarloNeNo E,rnryMaN SrLecrroNs rnou Lrlltns
scientific,lor "science"itself can neither prove nor disproveir, for sci- rhe anti-Christianpurposesof such "scientific"educarion?His reply is
ence it's only guesswork:rhe argumentagainsrir is rheological,thar it ln open invitation to rhe youth ro acceptwhateverthe school teaches
involvesimplicationswhich are enrirely unacceptablefor Orrhodory, him-bccause we poor Orthodox Christians,alas,having such high
and theseimplicationscan't be escaped,and everypropounder ofevo- knowledge,can't "know any better." ['ll tell you frankly (but dont
lution usesthem, rhe theistsand spiritualistsbeing worse than rhe quote me!)-this isnf theology,ir's hogwash.Therel a real and press-
atheists.) ing problem here, and you've attacked it honestly,freshly,and well
(consideringthe short spaceyou had); if there are deficienciesor mrs-
6. The Real Intellectual Problemsof Tbday rakesin what you'vesaid, they can be talked about in a friendly nran-
(To A. Y.,June29lluly 12, 1973) ner. But alas,his only aim is to discredityou and pur you in your place.
'l his is wrong and sick. Forgivemy strong language....
'We
receivedFr. E.! "Open Letter" roday,togetherwith your note. After readingFr. E.'sepistle,we begin (o despairabout the "Greek
Yes,we foundtoo that he completely missedrhepoinr,andall the very wisdom" of our own day, which seemsto have all too much in com-
nice quotes from the Fatherson rhe different degreesof knowledge mon with the ancient variery!Vhat will happen when they really be-
meannothingwhenone stopsto realizerharyou arenor ar all atrack- gin to find out how simple and unconcernedabout all those things
ing scientifichnowlrdge, but only pseudoscientific, pseudo-religious that excitethem we "Russians"are?One basicelement seemslacking
philosophymasquerading as science,and you are using scientific in all their "wisdom," one which the Holy Fathersemphasizeis essen-
knowledgenor to defend theologybut only to desrroythe self- tial for genuineOrthodox life: suffering.The "wisdom" born of leisure
contradictorytheoriesof rhe pseudo-scienrisrs. Are thesepointsreally and idle disputesis not worth having; but the wisdom born of deep
sodifficultto understand or imoossible to defend? suffering(suchasGod hasgiven aboveall to the Russiansin our day) is
Unlesswe arecrazy,Fr. E. irasgoneoff somewhere in rhe clouds alone truly balancedand sound, evenifit can nor give a glib answerto
and is not at all in contactwith what is goingon in rhe world today, every mocking question.Ler us try to enter more deeply into this suf-
intellectually-whichis verymuchof concernto OrthodoxChrisrians fering,God giving us His graceto do so!...
who live in this world. Fr. 8., in trying to standso far "above"rhe Any reply you make to Fr. E. should be brief and ro the poinr. He
wholequestion,doeszargivethe impression thar he speaksfrom the lras obviously taken unfair advantageof you in order thoroughly to
heightsofthe third degreeofknowledge(whichseems ro be what he is discredityou, basedon rhe rcpurarionof the monasteryas againstyou,
tryingto hint at?),but ratherusesrhisexalredknowledge lor ratherra- a "nobody." He is riding on a currenr of inrellecrualfashion,and rhis
tionalisticpurposes. We areverydisappointed to seesuchnarrowness. will pass,and it will not be for the good ofrhe monasterythat it hasal-
And the replyofrhe morherro theOrthodox"highschoolyouth"(this lowed itself to do this and not facethe rral intellcctualoroblemsof the
apparentlysums up his "answer"to the whole problem of evolu- d"v....
tion!)-how naiveand spineless!* Can Fr. E. reallybe so unawareof It will not be easyto ger the point of your longer study on evolu-
tion acrossto peoplewho think like Fr. 8., but with Cod! help it can
be done. There is somethingdeep and importanr here-a rather "aca-
' Fr E. hadwrinen rhar,ifan Orrhodoxyouthcomcshomcfrom schoolrclling
his nrorhcrrharhe lcarnedrharmancvolvcdfrom a lowerspecies, demic" approach to theology that does nor come to grips with the
thc mothcr'.sbcsr
replywould bc,"My ['oy,(iod couldhavecrcatedusby any mannerHe wishcd,and ant i-rheology of our day.
no onewill everbc ablero explainor comprehcndHis ways.All we cando is thank
Him for creatinsus."-Eo.
5t2 5t3
(lsNrsls. CnerrroN aNo F,nnr-yMIN SrI-ecrloNs
rnov Lnrlrns
514 5t5
CrNrsrs,Cnra'rroNlNo EaRr-v
M,cN SelrcnoNs rrolr l-r:rr r.rs
dersrandsboth St. Nectarios(who certainly is not trying to make a 1'rcsented just right, can be very important for giving our genuineOr-
"scientific" statement, but is only, quite properly, ridiculing thc rhodox outlook on contemporaryscience and "wisdom."
pseudo-scientists who find mans origins in the ape-kingdom).and St. I've also found commentarieson Genesisby St. Ephraim rhe Syr-
Basif (who is scientificallycorredin his staremenron pines and oaks, iln and St. John Chrysostom,and some more isolatedstatemenrsin
and he certainlydid not intend to saythat the srelof one producesthe othcr Fathers.There can be no doubt at all how the Fathersunqcr-
other, since the whole Hexaemeron emphasizesthat each kind of crea- sroodGenesis-quite "literally''!I was at f.irsta litrle uncertainabour a
ture reproduces only accordingto its kind). But it is futile to make an quore from St. Gregory the Theologian,showing that he regardedrhe
answerto thesepoinrs:rather,the whole discussionmust be placedin a trec ofthe knowledgeofgood and evil asa symbol; and some Fathers,
different, more seriousconcext.Hopefully, this will be what your fu- suchasSt. Gregoryof Nyssa,are full ofsuch symbols,leadinga scholar
ture article on evolution will do (wheneverGod wills!). like Florovskyto ask:doeshe understandthe accountofcreation asen-
rirely symbolic or not? And then, to resolvemy uncertainry,leaf.ing
through a French translationwe haveofSt. Gregory Palamas,I found
I L The Holy Fathers as the Ansaer to Medieual Scholasticism that, in opposingthosewho saythat the UncrearedLight of Mt. 'Iabor
(Ib A. Y., Jantary 9122, 1974) is only a "symbol," he cites the very passagelrom St. Gregory the
Theologian about the tree ofknowledge, and says that ofcoursehe also
lnterestingly,just before receivingyour letter I was reading and acceptedit ashaving an existenceof its own! All ofthese quotespur ro-
rhinking about Khomiakov's close friend Kireyevsky,who thought gethershould do much to give our Orthodox peoplethe sound Orrho-
very similarly and is even better becauseof his closeconnection with dox approachto Cenesisand creation,which I think many are now
Optina and the Holy Fathers....Kireyevsky'sthoughts on the differ- afraid of, due to the prestigeof "science."
ence berweenthe Catholic-Westernmentality and Orthodoxy might
well serveas an article or pamphletalso,which would be very instruc- 12. Scientifc Faith
tive especiallyfor converts roday.The answerto Medieval scholasti-
(To A. Y, January24lFebrvry 6, 1974)
cism, he says,is the great Orrhodox Fatherswho lived at the same
time-namely, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory the Si- Here are some more noteson evolution, specificallyyour chapters
naite, St. Gregory Palamas. which we are returning herewith... .
And speakingof this contrast,my researchinto the Fatherscon- Presumablyyour conclusion at the end of this chapter [on the
cerning evolution hasturned up somethingremarkable-the Catholic popular sciencetextbook Early Manl will zar be: "Evolution is proved
and Orthodox doctrinesofAdam and crearionare significanrlydiffer- falseand specialcreariontrue," but rather:evolution, presentedpopu-
ent, and "evolution" can be fitted rather nicely preciselyinto the larly as "fact" and "truth," has no coercivescientificevidencewharever
Catholic doctrine, but not at all into the Orthodox! This point can be ro supporrit. All the supposed"proofs"ofevolution can equallybe used
made pretry well by comparing severalpassagesof the Summa Theo- to "prove" another theory, depending on your presuppositions.Here
logicaof 'I'homas Aquinas (l always wondered why I kept that book!) you should setdown in summary form all the major "proofs" of evolu-
wirh rhe passage from St. Symeonwhich you have,and another from tion (preferablyquoting some major evolution textbook, or perhaps
St. Gregory rhe Sinaite.The whole discussionof "evolution," if it is Enqclopedia Britannica-the eleventh edition lists eight evidences),
showing rhat they presuppose a whole philosophyofnaturewhich is not
' Seeabove,pp. 451 n.-Eo. at all derived from "proofs" but from the intellectualclimateofthe age.
5 t6
Cr:ruesrs,
Cr n'ror.llNo EARryMeN SrlscrroNs rnou Lerrsns
(See,for example,the enclosedbooklet,' p. 67.) Here you should also I doni know what or how much you planned to write on "Ortho-
havesome quotesfrom evolutionistsrhemselves showing how rhey rc- .lox cvolutionists"and Teilhard, but I rhink it might be possiblero
alize that there is no actual coerciveproof of evolvion; bur thar it combine them in a single chapter called "Christian evolutionism."
"makes more sense,"or "the alternativeis unthinkable"-i.e. Godb (llarher in the same way that, in our "charismatic"arricle, we com-
creation;or other similar quotes.And when you thus quote evolution- bined testimony from Protestant,Catholic, and Orthodox chansmat-
ists "againsr themselves,"as ir were, you should be careful not to ics-both becausethe tesrimony of all groups reinforce each other,
"pounce"on them and say'Aha, they disprovethemselves"-but rather irnd bccausethere is really no differenceberweenthem; so also, "Or-
continue in a serenetone, zot taking maximunr advantageof their ad- rhodox evolutionism"is exactlythe sameas "Carholic evolutionism.")
missions-becauseyou are going to let all their self-incriminatingevi- 'I-his
also would give more punch to the secrionwhich I arn compil-
dence speak for itself, until it piles up and at the end becomes ing to lollow the Patristicquotes, and which mighr be called, effec-
absolutelyself-evident,and then your own summarionofthis evidence rively I hope: "Latin Scholasticism:The Theological Foundation of
will be very powerful! 'Christian Evolutionism."'
And then, hereis whereyou should give the intellectual"conrext" ln such a chapter on "Christian evolurionism," a basic thing ro
oFevolution.... It is too much lor most readersto undersrandthe show will be that adding "God" to evolution doesnot at all changeits
whole movement of Humanism, etc.: besideswhich, they are still not basic philosophical-theologicaloutlook and intent. God becomcs a
disposedto think you are giving rhem the realsrory about it. k would deusex machinafor savingevolutionwhen the absurdiryofbelieving in
be good to quote an authoritative,objectivesourceAr this point. So: ir without God, as a pure chanceprocess,becomesroo evident.Thus,
enclosedfind five pagesof quotes from a good rexrbook on modern quoting f)obzhanskyand others,you can show how rhey believein rhe
"intellectualhistory."**The author is himself "modern" and believesin slme ndturalistic universe,without God's interference,asdo the atheis-
evolution, and so doesnot haveyour "prejudices"iyer he is quire pre- tic evolutionists:the denial of God's Providence,etc.
cise and aware on the whole. These excerptsshow accuratelythe As the climax to this secrion:Teilhard de Chardin as exrremely
changefrom the Newtonian mechanisticuniverseto the evolutionary symptomaticof the "spirit of the age"-a "religious"thinker hascome
universeof our times.Somequoteslike rhese,perhapswith a few com- into fashion,favoredevenby Julian Huxley and the SovietUnion! (l'll
ments in berween,may be all you needto esrablishrhe "inrellectualcli- send some material from Russiaon 'leilhard.) You might look at Le-
mate" in which evolution dcvelooed. comte du Noiiy also, since rhe Greek Archdiocesearricle menrions
Now you are ready ,o ih" areaof philosophy and thcorogy; him togetherwith f'eilhard de Chardin.. . .
"n,".
for the lack of xrict stientifc proofof evol:rion m€ans rhar theseques- An important part of this "Christian evolutionism"chapter:quore
tions basicallyare not scientifc,but come from faith. Ar the sametime Teilhardde Chardin (the passage quoted by Dobzhanskyat the end of
you disengageyourselffrorn the dead-endof trying to "disprove"evo- his article) on evolution as absolurely"universal"-by this time the
lution: by scienceit can be neither proved nor disproved;it is a ques- mere quoting of this passage will alreadyshow the readerhow much
rion of a diflerenr order rhan science. such a view is dependenton simply absorbingthe "spirit ofthe rimes."
This quote showsthe blind faith of some "religious"figuresin the lat-
est current ofscientific faith; and it offersan exactparallelto the blind
'Kenncch N. Taylor, comp. and cd., Enlution and the High ScboolStudent
( l 972).-8 r,. faith crf Alexander Pope in a diferent scienrific f'airh: his adoration of
** Newton and his mechanical-deist universeof oerfect order. which was
John Herman Randall,Jr, Tbc Mahing of thc Molcrn Mind: A Sururyof thc
IntellectxatBaclgroandol thePracatAge(1926).-Flo. mocked a century later by Volrairei Candidi, a sarireon rhe "best of
518 5t)
Gewrsrs,CnarrroNeno Eanlv MaN SErrcrroNsnnolr Lerrtns
all possibleworlds" (rhe phraseis Leibniz's,but it sums up the faith of creation-Adam, which is totally independent of all scientiflc fash-
the whole seventeenthto early eighreenrhcentury philosophical"es- ions.
tablishment"). Pope'swords ... will perhapsmake your readersbegin For Orthodoxy DOES NOT FOLLO\fl THE PHIT.OSOPHY
ro see that one should not place so much Faith in any scientific OF THE ACE, becauseit has its own philosophybasedon revelarion.
.l'he
philosophy-faith. Holy Fathershave a complete theologyof the origin of man and
AlexanderPope,"Essayon Man": creation which is not bound up with any intellectual fashion that
passes away.This docrrine is not modified with every passingphiloso-
All are but partsofone stupendouswhole, phy, is not bound up with either the staticuniverseofperfbct harmony
Vhose body Nature is, and God the soul .. . of Newton (which departedfrom Orthodoxy by rnaking the unrverse
All Nature is but Art. unknown to thee: p'trely nanralistir-and evolution is actuallyjusr rhe presentphiloso-
All chance,direction,which thou canstnot see; phy of the naturalizeduniversedivorced frorn Cod and His action),
All discord,harmony not understood; nor with rhe developing universeof Teilhard de Chardin and othcr
All partial evil, universalgood: fashionablethinkers t oday. Our philosophy is NO'I' OF -f H IS
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's
spite, \(iORLD, and it is THE ANS\iflER ro rhe vain speculationsof motl-
One truth is clear,whateveris, is right. ern man:
Above all, the whole study should be assimple and as much to the
And in anotherplacein Pope'sworks:
point and as "obiective"as possible.lf one acceptsrhe principle of ob-
Nature and Nature'slawslay hid in night: jecriviry and believesin the Holy Fathers-then the whole study,even
Cod said, Zet Newton be!and all was [,ight. in a very low key, should graduallybuild itself up to a devastatingand
convincingconclusion.
Volraire mocked this philosophy becauseit had become out ofdtte; By the way, in your "scientific"chaptersI hope you havea gooo ac-
and thus your readeris warned, the suggestionis made: maybe evolu- count of the "carbon dating system"and whatever"evidence"there is
tion too is such a passingfaith that will becomeout ofdate one day,or lor "millions of years";also,you must be preparedfor answersin sev-
is alreadybecoming so! And this inevitablyhappensif Christian phi- eral points o[ the "history of mankind"-how do you explain Nean-
losophyacceptsthe philosophyof rhe "spirit of the age," which comes derthal Man, for example?.. .'
and goes.In generalit will be a good idea to contrastthe Newtontan 'We've
receivedFr. N.'s newesrcommenrson evolurion, where he
universewith the evolutionary:this contrasrwill give the readerproba- trics to identifr anti-evolutionismwith the secrarianfringe. Vhy such
bly all the intellectual"context" of evolution he needs,and in a very pointlesscomments?One sensesthat he somchow feelsunsafion evo-
painlessway, without forcing him ro understandthe whole hisrory of fution, is somehow threatened 6y anri-evolurionism.Actually, he only
modern thought. Many peoplesimply arent awarethat there has ever confusesmore thosepeoplewho are alreadyuncertainenough what to
been a "science"that wasnt "evolutionary,"and the contrast between believeabout evolution.
Newton and evolution shows how one scientifictheory givesway to And then yesterdaywe receivedfrom the "Z-ion Orrhodox He rmir-
the next. Thus you will undermine the scientific"Faith"ofyour read- age"a copy ofthe letter to Fr. N. which you had alreadyshowedus, ro-
ers! (ln our theologicalsection,we will also be quoting St. Basil the
Great and Fr. Michael Pomazanskyon this subject.)...The climax of
' For an answer to rhis question, sec Marvin l-. I-rrberroq Ronu ofCoucntion: A
the whole arriclewill then be in presentingthe Orthodox theology of OrcatiortistAstetsmentof Human Fotsib, ch. 6.-Et>.
520 521
Grrur-srs,
Cnr,rrroN
aun Enp.ry
M,rN StlrcltoNs rnov Lelrens
getherwirh an articlewhich we hadn'tseen,called"The Creation comments about "Vestern rarionalisrs,"etc. However, he ends very
Narrative."Seeingthequotefrom St.Hippolyruson pagel, we looked nicely and begs us to tell him where he is wrong-ra ue m st do this.
Forwardto somePatristicdocumentation. Bur alas,the authordoesnt Frankly, I would like to "convcrr" him completely. But God only
come throughwith this, and he turns out to be quire vagueon rhc knows what is possible,and how much his mind is srill open. The
wholesubjecthimselflIn the nexrto lastparagraph of p. 2 he quite most encouragingthing is thar he, like us, regardsthe matter as rx-
loseshimselfin wild "specularions" which are not only unscriprural trcmelyimportant, as opposed to those who think it's unimportant
(l've neverheard.of anyonewho threw dinosaursinbeforethe Six Days and that everyonecan believeas he wishes.Virh Dr. Kalomiros at last
of Creation)but are also doctrinallyunsound(the suggesrion that the realbattle begins.
therecould havebeenevil in the visiblecrearionbeforeAdam'srrans- You can read the letter on your next visit (l'm beginning now on
gression)..ln a word, the aurhoris quite naive,and in his fear thar rry reply to it), but in generalrhis is my feelingabout ir (Fr. Herman
"sciencemight be right" about the "millionsof years"he alreadyhas hasn'treadit yet):
quitea lot in comnronwith manypresent-day evolutionisrs. l. Patristicallyit is very weak.Very lew Fathersare quoted, and rhe
only really "evolutionary" quote is a passagefrom St. Gregory of
li. At Lastthe RealBanleBegins Nyssa-a passagewhich I noted a few weeks ago, by the way, and
thought at the time: "lU better use rhis and explain it, becauseone
(To A. Y, Fcbruary25lMarch10, 1974)
who alreadybelieues in evolurion will be sure ro rhink it'proves evolu-
Ve received yesterday rhelong-awaited epistleof Dr. Kalomiroson rion."' It does not, 6f 66u15g-i1 is merely a generalstatementof the
"evolution"-forry pageslongl I must confessthat it is shockingbe- orderly progressionof Gods creation from the lowest to the highesr,
yond our expecrations-giving the "evolutionary" reachingquite un- with the most perfect creature,man, coming last. Nothing is said
adorncdand unqualified, conrplere wirh the "evolved beastAdam"and about man or any creature"evolving,"and in another part of the same
"he who deniesevolutiondeniesrheSacredScriptures." In a way,how- book (Oa the Making of Man) St. Cregory saysexplicidy that Adam
we
ever, are rather glad of this-because nowfor thefrst timewe have was azgenerated,but wascreateddirectly by Christ.
Founda reputableOrthodox"evolutionisr" who is willing to be quite 2. Therc is a long 'theological"discourseon man! narure,which is
frank about matterswhich orhers,I believe,are afraid to speakup very partial and one-sided,but will requirea solid answerwith quores
aboutfor fearofoflending"weakconscienccs" whichareqnder"Vest- fiom Holy Fathers-for evolution aboveall involvesa ldse anthropol-
erninfluences." agr,,doctrine of man.
I havewritrcn him a shortlertersayingI wish ro makea long and 3. It is quite obvious that Kalomiros has gone ro rhe Fathersa/-
detailedreplyto him and to starta "dialogue"with him on rhissub- readyknowing that evolution is a "fact." He obviously has zal given
ject. I believethat if we cananswerhim point by point, and raisethe deep thought to examining thc presuppositionsof rhe "hct" ofevolu-
pointshe doesnimention,we canmakerheForthcorning publicationa tion, so we will have to challengehim to srart thinking and not bring
verypowerfulone. to the Holy Fathers his preconceptionsbased on modern l7estern
I must confess to beingratherdisappointed in the toneo( his ler- "wisdom."
ter,which is somewharin rhe "elevated" tone of Fr. E., with repeated 4. He is ueryimpreciseon rhe vcry meaning of the word "evolu-
tion"-he thinks the development from embryo to mature man is
* Theseidcasarcactuallyderivcdfrornrhe"Gap" theory,which posits "evolution," and that the existenceof dilferenr racesof men is due to
rharrhcre
werebillionsof yearsof carthhistorylxfore the Six D:rys.Sccp.603 below-Eo. "evolution." Very naive.
\') ) 523
GarrsIs, Cnt,rltoN lruo E,anr-v
MaN SELtctrous rrlolt Lr.lruts
5. The man is zar a theologian,but readsthe Fathersby hit and on this subject,but only wish ro acceptrhe teachingof the Holy Fa-
m iss. rhcrs. So far we have not found any "evolutionist" or "anti-
evolutionist" who sersforth the real Orthodox teachingon this sub-
14. Louefor the Ho$ Fathers ject, and that is why we ourselveshavebeenmaking rescarchon it. 'fhc
(To Dr. AlexanderKalomiros, Protestanrfundamentalistobjectionsto evolution are nrostly superfi-
cial and rationalistic(as you yourselfhave noted), being basedon an
February25, SecondSundayof Great Lem, 1974)
interpretation of the book of Genesis that comes fiom "comnron
'We
havereceivedyour letter concerning"evolution," for which we sense,"and not from tbe Holy Fathers.
'We
thank you very much. I haveread it, trying, as you said,to removeall are not theologians(and I will tell you frankJyrhar we distrust
'Wesrern
conceptionsfrom my mind. I hope, if God gives me the peoplewho call themselves'theologians,"for almost all of them seenr
srrength,to study your points carefullyand write you a very long and to us to be .justacademicrationalisrs)bur we dearly hue rhe Holy Fa-
detailedreply beforetoo long, but for che presentI wish to say only a thers and wish to live by their teaching,and we sensethar you <ro
few things. also. May it be that by this love, with the help of God and by rhe
I myselfhavebeensearchingthe Holy Fatherslor some time seek- prayersof these Holy Fathers,we may now begin a "dialogue" with
ing ro find out their teachingon the questionswhich are raisedby you rhar will bring us all to rhe true Patristicteachingand be of help
"evolution." I have been compiling a great many passages from rheir llso to others.
wrirings, including most ofthe passages which you quote your let-
in Everythingthat I write will be readand criricizedby my co-laborer
ter. I have tried very hard not to project into these passagesany "Pre- Ilr. Herman, ro whom I am in obedience,and we will try alsoto obtain
conceived" opinions of my own, but I must acknowledgerhat my the opinions of some ofour Russiantheologianswhom we respecr.
conclusionsregardingthe teachingof the Holy Fathersarequite differ-
ent from yours. I believethat I can show you that some ofyour inter- 15. The Power ofT'his \Yorld and lts Fashionable Ideas
pretationsof the Holy Fathersare incomplete-that is, rhat you have (To A. Y, Marci 2115, 1974)
presentedonly a part of their teachingand haveoverlookedother parts
that are quite essentialto rhe question.I would also like to presentro I have almost finished my "reply" to Dr. Kalomiros, and I rhink
you Patrisrictexts on questionswhich you do not raisein your letter, God has helped me to put all the Patrisricmaterial (or almost all) I
but which I believeare alsoquite essentialfor understandingthe ques- havebeen collecting into a coherenrpresentation,and much more ef-
rions raisedby evolution. fectivelythan if I had gone aheadwith the "soberand objective"pres-
I note also in your letter that your use of the term "evolution" is entarion I had plannedon. One ofthe Egyptian Eldersonce said to St.
somewhatimprecise,and I would like to discussthis question also in John Cassian(roughly!):"l'm glad you expressedrhis questionso stu-
somedetail. pidly, becausenow I can clearlyset fonh the nue d,octrine."Kalomiros
I agreewith you that this subjectis vital and extremelyimportant. has expressed"stupid evolutionism"so well (which orher Greeksare
W'ehavefound very few peoplewho are willing or able to think clearly afraid to do openly), that the reply to him almost writes itself! Al-
on this subject,with the result rhat there is much confusion in the though I know the Fathersonly poorlS still rheir doctrine touching on
minds of Orthodox laithful concerningit. Ve are thereforevery grate- "evolution" is so clear once one purs ir all rogerher,that I am simply
ful to you for writing your viewsso clearlyand outspokenly. amazed at the power "evolution" has over even educaredOrthodox
Like you, we also do not want to have merely "our own opinion" minds. Such is the power of this world and its fashionableideas.I will
>24 525
GrNrsrs,CnLqlroNann Elnrv MaN SrLrcrtoNs
rnov Lnt.rr:ns
send you a copy of my letter and Kalorniros'letter also when I finish rcallya marterof indifferenceeirher;there is a profound Patristic
ryping ir...._itis almosr twiceas longas Kalomiros' letter to us and will teachingin this,as I indicarein my lerterro Kalomiros.But it would
probablybe lorty printed pages. be good to havefurther Patristictestimonyon this-so pleasesayif
Of course,now that I've done this I donf quite know what relation you know of any.We will continueto collectPatrisricmaterialfor rhe
this lerter has to our projectedbook-which is absolutelynecessary to finalversionof the book.
ger out! It may be that the book mighr be nrost effectivepreciselyin
this letrer form, only somewhatrevisedand divided up into chapters, 17. GcnuineScience
and with all your scientificand philosophicalmaterial enteredat the (To A. Y.,St.ThomasTuesday,
April 10, 1974)
appropriate places.(You will notice that I mention this marerial at
variouspoinrs of the Ietterwithout going into it, as the letter is almost For my own background I checkedout rwo booksin rhe Redding
entirely Patristic.)Anyway,seewhat you think onceyou readthe letter, library: RaymondDarr's/z Searchof the MissingLink, which looks to
and we will alsoseewhat Kalomiros replies... . bc roo popular to be of much use;and [Louis] Leakey'sAdam\ Ances-
Of course,many peoplewill be upsetthat the evolution questionis rarr, to which I find myself,after a few chapters,rather symparhetic,
"raised"againand not kept quiel-[u1 \'vsagreewith Kalomiros that it irrasmuch as ir seemsto be rathercarefuland precisescientifically (of
'l-here is course,fone discounrs
shou/d.be raised and the true Patristic teaching set forth. thearremptto fir all the evidence inro an "evo-
somerhingvery unsound about wishing to keep "quiet" about a ques- lurionary"framework,which doesindeedseemto be a philosophica
rion which remainsso confusedin most Orthodox minds.... intrusion).. ..
Prayfor us. Tbday I hope to finish the lastand most important sec- I'vecomeacross several referencesto the "fluorinedatingsystem,"
tion of rhe lerter to Kalomiros, concerning the nature of man-on but no thoroughdiscussion of it-Leakey mentionsit as beingin irs
which Kalomiros has expressedsomething perilously close to infanry in the 1940s.h hasro do apparently with the rateof absorp-
Augusrinianism,basedon a very wrong interpretationof the words of tion of fluorine,whichseemsto be vastlyvariantdependingon mols-
St. Seraphimof Sarovl ture,etc.It would be goodfor us to givea kind of "philosophy" ofthe
datingsystems-i.e.,showingthat we do not rejectthemoutrighr,but
| 6. Unknowingly Harboring "Modcrn ldeas" rhat their significanceis relariveand limired,somewhathelpfulin the
(To A. Y, March 9/27, 1974)
genuinesrudyof paleonrology (whichwe shouldalsoemphasize is a le-
gitimatescience), but not anyabsolute answerro anything.In general,
The objectivescientificapproachis very necessary-not enough to we shouldcommunicate a very"friendlyfceling"rowardgenuinesci-
get boggeddown in "scientificproofs"-but just enough to slrow that ence.
rhe scientificproofscanceleachother out, as it were, leavingthe ques-
'I'he
tion ofevolution in its realsphereofphilosophy and theology.... 18.ClearingUp Confasion
weaknessof evolution asscienceand philosophywill only serveto em-
(To A. Y, Augusr21t5, 1974)
phasizethe importanceof the Patristicview which is so definite and
reallypowerful... . I will be workingon the final, Patrisric
sectionthis fall, and God
By the way, I begin to seethat I myself havebeen harboring some willing rhewholestudywill be completeby the time Kalomirossends
"modern ideas"on the Six Days of Creation. It's true that this is not his promisedreply,which shouldgiveus all rhe "Patristicargumenrs"
the most importanr question involved with evolution, but itt not of the supportersofevolution,makingour studyascompleteaspossi-
526 527
GeNesIs,Cneertol aNn Eatrv Matt SrrecrroNspnov Lerrens
ble. I think the impacr of this study will be considerable.I do not the answerofSt. Gregorythe Theologian*and other Fathersis that the
rhink most consciousOrthodox Christiansare terribly preiudiced in few differences in the two stem from the practice of the younger
favor ofevolution; but they are somewhatconfusedas to what or how brother taking the older brothers wife ro raiseup offspring for him, if
much ro believeofwhat "sciencesays."Our study is supposedto give he was childless-and one genealogycallsthe father rhe one who was
the "complete" picture, which hopefully will clarily many minds. [r's rhe real father, and the other takesthe one for whom he was a Father,so
cerrainlyclarified my own mind, since previouslyI hadnt thought in ro speak.You rnight look in the Scriptural index of any Fathersyou
dctailon many espects ofrhe question. haveand seeifanyone commenrson Luke 3:24ff..*
528 529
Ct:prsrs,CttxrroN arvoE,rnr-y
MnN rnov Ltrrnrs
Srr-EcrroNs
'iratural" rerms.I don't recallif we havemade it clearan).whereyet thar "Llvolurion by Orderly Law," in Science,vol. 164, May 4, 1969, p.
our argumenr is only secondarilyagainstthe particular rheory of evo- 684.)
lution, and primarily againstthe larger idea of nanralisn-riat the 2. "The type of analogicalthinking that leadsto theoriesthat de-
universeexplainsitself. velopment is basedon the recapitulationof ancestralstagesor the like
no longer seemsat all convincing or evcn very interesting ro biolo-
gists." (Prof. C. H. Vaddington, University of Edinburgh, in Princi-
21. ScicntistsVho QuestionEuolution plesof Embryolog, 1965, p. 10.)
(-lb Dr. AlexanderKalomiros,February22lMarch 6, lg76) I do not bring theseexamplesin order to debatethis theory with
you; I do so only in order to show you that something which you ac-
'!7'e
receivedyour new letteron evolution... . cept as undisputedscientificfact is not only disputed but evendenied
Now I do nor know if ir is possiblero conrinue this discussionor by reputable scientists,many of whom are themselvesevolutionisr!
not. You have placed me in a "category":I am a "fundamentalist," a The same is true of some other "scientificfacrs"which you cite, and
"lireralisr,"I am "againstscience"and under "Westerninfluence."I am which you refuseto allow me to discusswith you.
afraid that anyrhing I may now say,you will dismissas of no value. If Despitc your accusatiolr, I am not "againstscience."l do not have
so, there is no point in my evenreplyingto your lerrer;your mind is al- an advanceddegreein science,but I havetaken collegecoursesin zool-
readymade up abour mc and you will nor listen ro whateverI may say. ogy and done considerablereadingin scientificsourceson the tneory
I hopcthat this is nal sa,because you arc rhe firsr Orrhodox evolurionist and facts of evolution. I have read the Life book on Evolution* and
I havefound who is willing to discussthis questionat all, and I think fbund it very disappointing,becauseI hoped to find in it demonstra-
both ofus could gain grearlyby conrinuing this discussion.Bur I will tions offacts (becauseI am sincerelyinterested to know whether evolu-
haveto tell you clearlythat, despiteyour impression,I am nar a funda- don is ttte or not!), and insteadI found only diagramsand picrures
mentalist,nor am I "againsrscience";quite the conrrary. and descriptionswhich are zrl convincing to anyone with an open
But you are placing an impossiblelimirarion to rhis discussion mind, but only to someone who already belieuesin evohtion on otht
when you say:"l would discussevolution with you from the scientific grounds.YorLr mind is evidentlyclosedon this subject,and you seemto
point ofvicw only if you had somediplomaofone of the biologicalor be unaware of the great mass of scientifc literature in recenr years
geologicalbranchesof naruralscience."Sinceyou wish it to be so, I of which is highly critical of the evolutionary theory, which talk about
coursecan say norhing. But let me quore one ofyour scientificst:rre- relegatingit to poetry and metaphorsinsteadofscientific theory (Prof.
ments:"'fhe stagesof the embryo in the uterusare exacrlyrhe stagesof Constance,professorof botany at the University of California, Ber-
life'sevolurion upon earth.'fhis is so exactrhat evenrhe gills ofour an- keley),or evendeny its validiry akogether.lfyou wish (but it is quite
cient ancestors,rhe fishes,existin the foerusofeven rhe most perfected pointless!),I could indeedcompile a lisl.of hundreA (if not thousands)
animalsof the solid earth, the mammals."And now le( me euorc two of reputablescientistswho now either disbelievein evolution entirely
statementsmade in scientificiournalsand rexrbooksby scientisrspos- or srarerhat it is highly questionableas a scientific theory. Many of
sessingadvanceddegreesin their specialties: them sratequite openly (evidentlyGreeceis still behind the Vest in
' l. "Haeckel's recapitulationtheory (which
is exactly what you this regard)rhat a "literal" crearionin six rwenty-four-hourdays is ,rZ
have describedro me as an unquesrionedscientific fact) has been possibleinterpretation of the scientifc facx tuhich we now haue. (Al-
demonsrraredro be wrong by numeroussubsequentscholars."(Wal-
terJ. Boch, biologist of Columbia University,New York, in the article ' Ruth Moore, Eaolution(Lik Naure Library, 1962).-Eo.
t30 531
Gslrsrs, CneeuoNauo Elnly Mar.r Sr,LEcrIoNsrnotr'rl"rLlr-ns
though you will r€callthar I wrote in my first letter rhat this questionis tasreful,is helpful, becauseit shows the reaction that our "evolution
nor one of the first imporrance,in my opinion.) There is also now book" would havehad in somequarrersif it hadnt first been testedby
much scientifc evidencethat rhe world is no older than 8,000 to rhis correspondence. " I have
This will help us to avoid "one-sidedness.
10,000 years.(l do nor say that this is "scientificallyproved"-l say rhe impressionKalomirosdemonstratesquite a bit of rationalismhim-
only whar scientiststhemselues now say-thar rhere are some undis- self:he writes not as from wirhin a tradition himsell but asone who is
puted scientific ficts which make senseonly if rhe world is very nriuingto get into the tradieion.Our uninterruprcd Russianrradition'
young.) Are you going to rell me rhar I am crazy or "againsrscience" for all its realand supposedWesternisms,hasa strengthand resiliency
when I can quote docrors ol geologicaland biohgical scicnces (rnany of which the "rediscoverers ofrradirion" do not have.May God help us to
whom are not "fundamenralists")who say rhings like this? Ifso, then cxpresstheserhings in a way that can be acceptedand assimilatedto-
thereis no poinr discussingthe issLre further, becausethat would mean d"y.
rhacyou yourselfareagainstscience,are againstan imparrial and objec-
tive examinationofscientific facts.I pray that this is nor so, fbr rhen 23. Three Axioms
your viewson evolution would be worrhless,being only the crearionof
(To Fr. I., Jrlly31t6, 1977)
your own imagination.
I do not wish to discussin detail wirh you any ofthe scienrificevi- Abour "evolution"-1rysvTgJsglad to have your comments. If you
dencefor or againstevolurion-rhere are orherswho can do this much reallywant ro seethem so much, and Dr. Kalomiros has alreadydis-
better than [. I only ask,ro begin wirh, that you allow me to sendyou rributed his letters,we could sendyou copies,aFterwe'vemade our re-
one book, written by a scienrificspecialist(in geology,I believe),who ply to his secondletter. But really,this correspondencehas not been
has given his views at lecturesro geologicalsocietieshere in Amerrca, very fruitful at all. At first we wereencouragedby the hct that he was
that contains,in a rather balanceddiscussion,criticismsof the many willing to discussthe matter at all (which FewOrthodox seemto want
weak points ofthe evolurionaryrheory.I do not agreewith everything ro do), and we respondedto him in a tone that we thought was
written there (ir is on a somewhat popular, college-agelevel), but ir roughly the sameas his own, not fearing to be correctedon any mis-
doesgive us a beginningfor possiblefurrher discussion.Religionrs not takeswe mighr nTake,but hoping that-although startingalmost poles
mentioned in this book, which discusses only scientific evidence.If xparr-we might in the end "work out" this question in friendly de-
you are willing to read this book, or at leasrsome chaptersof it which bate and come rather closetogetherby the end of it. But we seenow
interestyou, with a reasonablyopen "scientific"mind-thcn it will be rhat our reply seemsonly to haveoflended him (perhapsmost ofall he
possiblcto continucour discussion. disliked our strong implication that he is probablyiust as much under
"Westerninfluence"asthe restofus poor mortals!),and his secondlet-
22. Auoiding One-sidedness rer offers almost no chancefor an extensionof the debate.Our reply
(To A. Y, March 17130,t976) will probably be short (wheneverwe get a chancc even lor rhat!) and
will have to begin by poinring out some of the contradictionshe has
I haveni gone back to Kalomiros' lerter, and probably won'r ar- fallen into himsell, with littlc hope of even getting him interesredin
tempt a reply beforesummer.*The letter,although I find its tone dis- some of the more basicquestionswhich (as I recall)haveni even bcen
menrionedyet by either of us.
'1.c., a dctailedreplyin additionro rhe compararivclv
brief replyhe had just But for now (leapingat the chanceto chew this question a little
scnt.-Eo. more!) I will only give you a few ofnty own observations,not on "evo-
532 533
Cr:Nrsrs,Cr.r.arroN
aNo E,rnlyMalr rnov Ll:r'ltns
SeLec.rror.rs
Iution" itself,but on the /lpprodchro it, which seemsso difficult but is lrccn on earth some sevenor eight thousand years("more or le5s,"x5
so essentiel. rhc Fathersoften say) if one is totally ignorant of the principlesof ra-
First ofall, we werevery disappoinredin all the thlss g- lsllsrs tliomerricdating, geologicstmta,etc., which "prove" that man is "mil-
on the subjecrwhich we have seen.There is very lirtle there that wc lions of years"old. And such knowledgeis not esotericat all-the basic
wodd disagree wirh-save for the flippanr rone in some places-but principlesof radiometricdating (enough to show its strong and weak
they never really get to the question of evolution ar all, and rney arc poinrs) can be explainedin a rather short article.And the questionof
certainly nor rhe Orrhodox answeror approachto the questionwhich wlrcther man has been on earth for some thousands of yearsor some
Fr. E. had promised to give. ln fict, theseletters reveala distrnct at- nillions of yearsis one that certainlytoucheson some basicOrthodox
tempr nrl ro approachthe question ar all, but rather ro stay aboveit, (luesrions-whether the genealogies of the Scriptureare actuallygene-
with a rarher superior air. Symptomaric is Fr. E.'s conf'ession(either alogies(as all the Fatherscertainly believed)or iust skerchylists with
there or elsewhere)that he has never read Teilhard de Chardin and many long blanks in rhem; whether some of the Patriarchsof the Old
doesnt need ro, as also his evident ignoranceof the whole scientific 'lbsramcnt (if rheseare not genealogies)might not be "symbols" in-
side of the question.('fhe "funny carroon" he included has nothing to srcad of concrete people; whether Adam himself ever existed (espe-
do with any'irew findings," lor example,but wasold newseighty years ciallv in view of what seems the prevailing theory now among
ago.) Likewise with Dr. Kalomiros: he prides himself on knowrng cvolutionists-"polygenism," that new speciesbegin in many pairs si-
nothing at all of Westernteachingson evolution (apart from what he mtrltaneously)ietc. This is just a sampleto show rhat to get anywhere
regardsas "scientificfacts") and insisrsthat we pay atrention only to in this questionone must havea basic,layman! awareness ofthe scien-
what /r teacheson the subject,which is "Parristic." riflc evidenccsfor and againstevolution. lf one is reasonablyobiective
l. 'l'his brings us to Axiom no. I in our approachro rhe quesrion and not our to "proveone'spoint" at any cost,such questionsneednot
(not the mosr important one, but first in order ofdiscussion):thc <1ues- rrouse passionatedebates.As a basicprinciple, of course,we must as-
tion ofevolution can'tbe discussed at all ifone doesnt havea basicgrasp sume that scientific ffiah (as opposedto variousopinions and preju-
ofthe scientificsideof it (rhe "scientificproofs"ofevolurion) aswell as dices) cannot contradict revealedtruth, if only we understandthem
the broaderphilosophyofevolurion basedon it (-t'eilhardde Chardin, both correctly.
etc.).This is preciselywhar rhe B- Farhersseemro be afraid of, and Your point-to start with basic theologicalprinciples-l think is
in generalour Orthodox theologiansalso (including Fr Michael Po- good, and theseshould alwaysbe fundamcntal.And one must always
mazanskyif I'm not mistaken):once you get into "science,"the thcolo- be well awareof the different modesof knowledgeand not mix them
gian is out of his depth, rhereare endlessfruitlessdebates,etc. I think up. The trouble is, the quesrionof evolution is so complex that one
this is why Dr. Kalomiros'evolution articlesin the Creek religiouspress isn't alwaysawarewhich aspectof it hasceasedto be scientificand has
stirred up uneasiness bur no distincr protests:because"theologians"in intruded on theologyor philosophy,or exactlywhere the realconflicts
generaljust don't know how to handle the scientificside. arise.There, I think it is very importanr, as a secondaxiom:
By this I donl mean that onc has ro be a scientificspecialistin or- 2. To be aware of chebasicphilosophiesunderlyins or derived from
der to discussthe scienrificside of the quesrion-rhe scientificside is evolutionismand variousother viewsoforigins. The evolutionaryphi-
zat the most importanr one, and specialisrs usuallyrrip rhemselves up Iosophyof "up from the beasts"certainlyseemsirreconcilablewith the
by concenrratingtoo much on it; but if one isni sufficientlyawareof Christian view of "fall from Paradise,"and our whole view of history
the scientific side one won'r be able to grasp rhe quesrion in its full will certainly be determinedby which way we believelThe Catholics
scope.One can'r say wirh assurance,for example,whether man has used to solve this problem wir6 a deusex machina: when the body had
534 5)5
Cr,;Nrsls,
Ctr,rrroru
eruoEanrxMaN Srltcltons rtov Lnr'rr:ns
evolvedsufliciently, God "specially creared" a soulfor it-there evoru- srtionslong abandonedor in processof revisionby Westernscientists
tion is correct,and so is Genesis, broadlyinterpreted.Kalomiroshas themselves.As one example:his defenseof Haeckel\ "recapitulation"
basicallythe sameview,thoughhe hasa more Patristicvocabulary to theory of the human embryo: today's euolutionarytextbooks of em-
describe it-bur suchviewsareveryarrificialandcontrived:the Chris- bryology dismissit asa nineteenth-centuryfantasy,but Kalomrrosnot
tianswait for the latestevolutionaryhypothesis and nvist the rext of only clings to it as an "obvious proof" of evolution, but even forbids
Genesisto fit in with it. 'l'his won'rdo! An awareness of how evolu- us to discussany scientificquestionswith him until we ger advanced
tionary philosophers (suchas Teilhardde Chardin)view the whole degreesin the physical sciences(a rypical refuge of someone who
questionofevolution,whileit maynot solveanyspecificquestion,will doesn'rwant a free discussionof the subiect)!He is not aware,either,
still givea broaderview of the wholeintellectualbackgroundbehind of rhe lessdogmatic spirit which many evolutionary scientistsnow
evolution. have, nor of the immense number of scientists(with advanccdde-
3. Axiom 3: l'he whole quesrionof Genesiscannorbe well ap- grees!)who now haveabandonedevolution entirely or are skepricalof
proachedby Orrhodoxpeoplewithout appealingto the basicOrrho-
dox sources: the Holy Fathers.Especially valuable:rhe Hexaemera of unprepared for such a discussion-something
2. He is theological/1,
St. Basiland St.Ambrose;commentaries on Genesis by St.JohnChry- which surprisedus most ofall. Evenafter promising us that he was go-
sostomand St. Ephraimthe Syrian;Hornilieson Adam,Paradise, and ing to reply only after readingall the basic Patristictexts on the sub-
the first-created world by St. SymeonrheNew Theologian(especially ject, he still bases'hiswhole argument on rwo or three Patristicrexrs,
homily45 in the Theophanthe Recluse editionof 1892),St. Gregory very one-sidedlyinterprered,and does not even answera number of
the Sinaite(in the RussianPhilohalia), Sr. Abba Dorotheus(Instruc- our Parristiccitations (which are only a small part of the Patristicpas-
tion I); commentaries of variousFatherson relatedpassages of Scrip- sageswe have found). His St. Gregory of Nyssaquote saysnothing
ture (for example,Romans8:l9-22 concerningrhe "vaniry"or whateverof evolution unlessyou read it inro the passage; and the St.
"corruption"of the post-Adamic world,or St.GregorytheTheologian Seraphimquote certainlydoes not sustainhis interpretation,wherein
on the Cenealogies of Christ);Homilieson the subjectof the Resur- he does preciselywhat he accusedus of doing-taking "chronologi-
rection,or wheneverthe questionof "seed"or "growth"is discussed; cally" words which are "ontological"in reference.
treatises on the origin of man (St.Gregoryof Nyssa);Patristicdiscus- Vhen I saythat Dr. Kalomiros is "unprepared,"I do not of course
sionson reincarnation and rhepre-existence of souls(whicharephilo- mean that heis incapableof discussingthe question-merely that he is
sophicallyrelatedto the questionofevolution);etc. so prejudiced in advance(with a complex about being "inferior" to
About Dr. Kalomiros:our secondreply ro hinr will poinr our "Vestern wisdom") thar he does not view the question at all objec-
wherewe rhink hc wenrastrayin his Patrisric interpretations.Bur our tively.... I quoted St. Ephraim'svery "fundamentalistic"view [that the
generalimpression of his rwo letters(which we won'r write him di- Six Days were rwenry-fourhours longJwithout preciselyagreeingwirh
rectlyfor fearofoffendinghim again)is rhis: him-and Dr. Kalomirosdismissedit by saying"he was using the sci-
l. He is very unprepared to discussthe questioneirherscientifi- enceof his time." But sincethe scienceof St. Ephraim'stime most cer-
callyor philosophically. He is unawarcof 'Wesre rn discussions of the tainly did not rcachthar the world was createdin six twenry-four-hour
subjectand is only concernedro stand "superior"to them-which days (with twelve hours betweeneachcreative"moment"), I can only
one can'tdo if one isnt awareof them.It is abundanrlvobviousfrom assumethat Dr. Kalomiros is not preparedto examine Patristrcevr-
his rwo lettersthat he (andprobablyGreekscienrists in general)is far dence very obiectively,using any excuseto dismisswhatever doesni
behindthe West,and he is holdingro scientificand philosophical po- asreewith his own views.
536 537
CeNtsrs,
Cnrxrror ,rNoErnryMeN Snnc.rroNsrrov Lrr-rens
I would stronglysuspecr rhat Fr. MichaeI Pomazansky would pre- merely"galaxies"haveexisted,but even man himself and his near "an-
fer not to make any generalcommenrson rhe question of evolu- cestors"have been walking on earth. Onc cannot escaperhe qursrion
1i6n-h6v7sys1,if you gave him specificquesrionstouchrng on of the existenceof man in chronologicaltime (sinceboth Genesiswirh
theology,you might ger answers.But then again,he might be so its Patristicinterpretersand scienceseemto be talking about the same
afraidof the scienrificsidethat he might hesitate evenhere. kind of "years"we know) by relerenceto the forrnarionof galaxiesand
This lerteris alreadytoo long. UnfortunarelSI just wont have the relativiryof time-the "primordial galaxies"rhemselves are a prod-
time for somewhilero setdown rhePatristic quotesI havefoundup to ucr of the scientificspeculationsof modern thinkers,and neither more
now. But somerime perhapsI will get the time. You might be inrer- nor lessdeservingof credencerhan ancient Greek speculationscon-
estedin someofthe publications ofthe Institutelor CreationResearch cerning the origin of the world.
in San Diego, especiallybooks like Scientifc Creationism(pulslic 2. This raisesanotherfundamentalquestion:how much should we
school-i.e., non-religious edirion)which presentonly scientificevi- use sciencein a commentary on Genesis?I would say,as a very mini-
dencewirhout reference ro religion.Their presenration of rhe "Crea- mum: we must know enough about scienceand its modern specula-
tion Model" is a promisingapproachro a moreobjectiveview of the tions to have an answer to those who use it to "disprove Cenesis."
wholequestion.I'heir religiousviews,of course,sufferfrom the gen- 'fhus its chief function today is perhapsnegarive.But beyond that, I
eralshortsightedness of fundamentalism (in particular,their unaware- think our attitude should be that ofSt. Basilin his Hexaemeron: rhe le-
nessof thewholePatristicfieldof commentaryon Genesis-but most gitimate conclusionsof scienceshould be usedwheneverthey help the
Orthodoxpeoplehavea similarlackof awareness!). I'm enclosingrwo task of interprering the sacredtext. -fhe "science-phobia'which has
of their pamphlets, with their address so you canordersomeof their been causedamong some Orthodox Christiansby the ;f2/seuse of sci-
booksif you want. encc on the part of anti-Christiansshould be overcome.ln rhe caseof
would like to keepup this discussion, a little at a time, if you evolution, I don't seehow the questioncan be discussedat all without
. .l
w ts n to . a basic knowledge of the "scientific proofs" for and against.I don'r
mean we should become passionarely attachedrc them or place them
on the same leveI as theology-we should just 6e awareof rhem and
24. Notesfom a Dialogte on Euo/ution know how to assess their relativevalue.The "scientificcreationists"are
(To Fr. I., August8/21, 1977) very usefulin this regard,becausethey havehunted up evidencewhich
had been selectivelydisregardedby predisposedevolutionists(for ex-
A few rroteson our conrinuing "dialogueson evolution." Many ample, the remarkableevidenceofan earth "under 10,000 yearsold,"
thanks for your two letrers... . which must definitely be weighed againstthe evidencefor an earth
I . The questionof the "ageof the earth" is a question raisedby sci- much older, . .. etc.)
'ence (which cannor give it a completely satisfactoryanswer) and 3. But is the questionofthe ageofthe human race(some7,000 or
touching on Revelationand cerrain rheologicalquesrions.From the 8,000 yearsvs. a million or more years)really theological,or impor-
point of view of Biblical interpreration,rhis questionis dependenton a tant?You doubt whether it is. I offer rwo observations:
more fundamentalone:'ihe ageof mankind." Here rhe rexr of Genesis a. The Holy Farhers(probably unanimously) certainly have no
doesnot needto fear the evidenceoFscience;and sincemodern science doubt that the chronologyof the Old ltstament, from Adam onwards,
doesralk a6ot this, we haveto havean inrelligentanswerro the opin- is to be accepted"literally." They did not have the fundamentalist's
ion concerning the "millions of years"during which, supposedly,not over-concernfor chronologicalprecision,but even the most mystical
538 539
Gr-Nrsrs,
CnenrlclNaNo E,rnryMau Stl.r.c'noNs
lrov l,l't.ttns
Fathers(St. lsaacthe Syrian,St. Cregorv Palamas,etc.) werequite cer- and nor in processof becoming orher natures.Much coLrldbe said on
tain rhar Adam lived literally some 900 years,that there werc some separatedctails of this picture, and knowledgeof many of the details
5,500 years ("more or less")benveenthe creation and the Birrh of can never be precise;but basically:it does not contradicr the text of
Christ, etc.* (BlessedAugustinehas a good discussionas to the diltfer- (lenesisand is harmoniouswith rhe Orthodox view of (lod.
ences between the Greek and Hebrew chronologies-the thousand (2) Man descendedfrom lower crearures,passionateby his origin
years"more or less"didn't bother him any more than it did other Fa- irnd nature, becomingdispassionatcin Paradise(when grace brought
thers-but the assertionthat Adam lived a million or more yearsago, him out of his bestialstate,accordingto Kalomiros)ar a momenr very
and that rhus rhe Old [and New] 'lestamentchronologyis quite arbi- hazy both chronologicallyand theologically(today Ronrln Catholic
trary or fanciful,could not but haveevokednumerousPatristicdiscus- cvolutionistsdeny Paradisealtogerherbecausethcy can't reconcileit
sions.) Can we be so trusting of the conclusionsof modern science with evolurionary philosophy), existing in his fallen srareperhapsa
(especiallyif we have a basicknowledgeof radiometricdating proce- million or more years,during which rime he graduallycame up from
duresand the philosophyunderlying them!) as to totally overturn the savagcryto civilization,the recordof hirn in the Old Testanrenrbeing
Patristicopinion?Dr. Kalomirosand other Orthodox evolutionistssay extrernelysketchy and nor ro be raken seriouslywhen ir speaksof
we should, without a secondthought-l would say this is dangerous "years";the world around man being in a consrantsrateofchange and
presumption,and an intrusion ofdubious scienceinto the realmofre- ascentfrom one narure to another,and this wholc processb.r,rg ex-
vealedrruth. \When Dr. Kalomiros dismissesthe Patristicinterpreta- plainable("more or less")by science,exceprfor rhe original impulscof
tion of rhe Old Testamentchronologyas "Jewishrationalism,"I even creationitsclf (which produceda ratherundifferentiaredmasswirh the
begin to wonder what his basicattitude to the Fathersis? It seemsto "porentialiry" of all future developments).(Kalomiros insisrsthere is
havean elementof disrespect, to saythe least. nothing "miraculous" about the Six Days of Creation-they all pro-
b. More imporrant (more theological):one'spicture of reality,of ceededaccordingro scienrificlaws!).This picrure, that of "theistic"or
rhe world, definitely influencesone\ view of God. I offer you (very "God-guided" evolution, can be reconciledwith the rext of Gcnesis
briefly) rwo pictures("models")of man and his world: and its Patristicinterprerationonly by meansof many jumps and im-
(1) Man createdsome 7,000-8,000 years ago, separarelyfrom provisationsand wholesaledisregardof Patristicevidence.-I'he chief
other creatures(not descendedfrom others),dispassionate by nature reason,I suspect,why ir doesnor give rhe horrors to Orrhodox believ-
(in soul and body), wirh Eve miraculouslycreatedlrom his rib (in a crs in "God-guided evolution" (as,for example,Fr. N. professes him-
way we cannor describewith scientific precision,as St. John Chry- self to be)-is simply becausethey put their heads in the sand and
sostom indicates),in a world ofcreatureswith naruresbasicallystable don't bother ro rhink abour ir at all, becauseof a very unhealthy
science-phobia. But my point hereis: is not one! view ofGod basically
'See thc quorcsofSt. lsaacrhe Syrianon p. 419 aboveand p. 602 bclow St. affectedby such a picture of the world? For example,the view of an
Isaacwritesthat,in histimc (theseventh ccnruryr.o.), rhedemonswerc6,000years "Orthodox evolurionisr"like -fheodosiusDobzhansky(in his address
old, rcckoningtheir agefrom rhc creationof the world (AsccticalHoniliet Homily on receivingan honorary docroratefrom Sr. Vladimir! Seminary:;ur-
54, Englishedition,p. 269).St. Macarirrs rhc Grcarlikcwiscstatcstlrar,in his time, terly deniesthe Providenceof God in rhe world; his "God" is rhe deist
satan"is alrcady6,000 ycarsold" (Fifu SpiritualHomiliet Homrly 26, Englishedi-
God. St. John Damascene(following St. Gregory of Nyssaand orhers)
tion, Classicsof!/esrernSpirirualiry serics, p. 167).
In hisLctrerto the Revcrend Nun Xenia,Sr.(ircgoryl'alamas writesthat 'Adam sraresrhar it is unworrhy ofGod to believerhat He crearedman\ body
conrinuedro live after rhar time Ii.c., afier his fall] cvcn for 930 ycars"(Tbc Philoha- and soul in separatemomenrs, as if He did not have power fbr thc
lia, vol.4, p.296).-Eo. whole act at once; this act of creationwas simultaneous;here the text
540 541
(lr:Ntsls,Cnut t<lNaNrrF-,rrryMaru Ssltc ltotts rrov Ln:''ttlns
of Genesisis not to be interpretedliterally or "chronologically"(Kalo- in Greecelor srarting his own schism fiorn thc Old Calendarisrsover
miros spccifically denics this-his interpretation of St. Scraphimt thc issueof the lcon of the 'Irinity showing God rhe Fatheras an old
words would collapseotherwise!).How much less worthy of God, nran-lre insiststhe icon is hereticaland jusrifiesthc breakingof com-
then, to belicvc thar He createdonly somc kind o[ material ocean of nrr.rnionwith rhosewho venerareor evcn tolerareit.
potentialityand left everythingro "evolveby itself" accordi.ngro naru-
ral laws! 26. PeopleAre Readyto Hear This
All this, asyou can see,is an informal discussionpresentedfor your
(To Fr. A. Y, Meat-fareSarurday,I 981)
reflection-precise citationswill havc ro be given when I havetrme.
Thinking about my Genesiscoursethis summer, I was rereading
25. Clergt in ()reeceagainst "Orthodox &'olutionisni' part of Dr. Kalorniros'letrers.How discouraging!One losesall inspira-
(To Bishop Cregory, tion to gcr tanglcd up in this subject,sceinghow he handlesit. And
November 22lDecernbcr5, 1980) really,thc tone is just likc Deacon L.'s. I wondered why, and Fr. Her-
nran answercdme: -l'hey'retrying to keepup with rhc "advanced"fash-
In the l98l Conferencein PennsylvaniaI notice thar Dr. Alexan- ions in the universities;and I think that'.sprobably really the answer.
der Kalomiros will be speakingon "'fhe Creation of Man and rhe EspeciallyKalomiros' repcatcd insistence(l)eacon L. says the sanre
Vorld," and I greatly lear that his talk and his very presencewill only rhing) ovcr how many have"lost their souls"becauseoflireral interpre-
promote rhe spirit of "criticisni' which is poisoning our Church so tations of (lencsis-rhat is, we have ro give them Genesison rlerr
much. I myself had a lengthy corrcspondcncewirh Dr. Kalonriros lcvel, changing the trurh if need be so as nor ro offend them or give
some yearsago on the subjecrof "creationand evolution," and I dis- thenr more than they can chew. But anyone who is really conuertedto
coveredto nty astonislrmentthat he is an adhercnrof rhe most naive Christianiry will surelybegin to rethink his whole inrellectualourlook,
kind ofevolutionism (he wrotc that Adarn could well havehad the face won't heI Isni the real problem rhat Dr. Kalomiros, Deacon L., and
ofan ape, becausehe was at first an ape-likecrearurcro whonr (lod othcrs are intellectualswho haven't been fully converted, or have
gave His Spirit!), and that he is most docrrinaircand arrogant in up- brought their intellectual baggagewith rhem inro Orrhodoxy-rhe
holding his opinions (he rcfusedro discussany scientificevidencewith samc thing rhey accuseorhersof? 'I-hiswas the diseaseof the Russian
me becauseI have no doctor'sdegreein science,and when I criricized intellectualconverrsearlierin this century,*and I think our Greeksfall
some of his opinions and showedthar someof his scientific"cvidence" inro the samecategory.
is outdated and is no longer accepredeven by evolutionarytextbooks -l'herefbre,I am plowing ahcadwith Genesisaccordingro the Holy
in the West,he broke off the correspondence with me). Dr. Kalomiros' Fathers,realizingthat ir may causcmorc wevesamong the Greeks(arrd
opinions on creationhavebeengrearlycriticiz.edby conservarive clergy name-calling-but I'm already a 'iheosophist" and can't get much
in Grcece,*and theologically,in his correspondcncewith me, he had worse than that!), especiallysincc it will be "competition" to l)r. Kalo-
very shaky and superficialgrounds lor upholding his scientiflcevolu- miros' talk in Pennsylvania.
tionism. In addition, Dr. Kalomiros has now made himself notorious Speakingof Genesis,I seeno reasonwhy this courseon Genesis
couldn't be turned into the main porrion of our long-lost "evolution"
* In anorhcrlerrer(ro Fr D. S., Nov. 23lDcc.6, 1980)Fr.
Scraphimsaysfur-
rhcr: "Conscrvarive
theologians in Crcccercgardhim IDr Kalomiros]as a radical ' 1.c..thosellussiancmigranrs
who fbrnrcdrlrcI)arisian
schoololnrodcrnisr
Or-
evolutionisr."-Eo. thodoxrhcology.-Eo.
542 543
Cr:Nrsrs,CnearroNaNo E^nLvM.qNl
544 545
Ctxr:sts,Cns,ruoueNo Eart-vMan Eorrrln'sEprr-ocuu
546 547
GrNrsrs,Cnarrror ,ruo Eanly MIN EoIron'sElllocue
ideasof the Unired Narions,florexample,wc scesomcrhingrhar low suic.Yet,as Fr. Seraphimtaught, thesetwo were nevermeant to be
lookslikea spiritualanswer.'TheU.N. claimsro be fbr the fbunda- endsin themselves. In the courseof apostasymastermindedby the en-
tion ofone worldgovcrnment whichwill not bea ryrannl nor bascd cmy ofour salvation,they are but vehiclesby which to destroyfaith in
upon any particularidealike communism,bur on somerhingvery the God of rraditional Christianity and rhus preparethe way for what
vague,with no Christianbasisfor it. In fact,aboutrwenryycarsago Fr. Seraphimcalled'the religion ofthe future." The anti-tradition and
theybuik a meditationchapclin the U.N. building,andat that rime anti-Christianityof Marxistcommunismand Darwinianevolutionism
theyhada big discussion aboutwhatwould bc rheobjectofworship only serveasa preperationfor somethingfar worse:r counter-traditiotl
in it. You can't have a Cross,bccauserhen you're immcdiately and counterfeitChristianiry that, "if ir were possible,shall deceivcthe
brandedasChrisrian;you cani haveanyrhingMoslemor Hindu he- very elect" (Mart. 24:24).
causcagainyou'rcidenrifiedlit hasto be aboveall religions. Finally Just as a new globalism-now with a spiritual face-is the step
thcy decidcdon a blacksroneblock.Pcoplcexperiencc an awesome beyond atheisticcommunism, so too a new, "spiritualized"evolution-
feelingbeforeit, aslxfore an idol: a veryvaguekind of religiousin- ism is the step beyond old-school Darwinism. At rhis juncture, Fr.
terest.Of coursc,everybody hasa rcligiousinterest: you cant hidc ir, Seraphim believed, sciencewill combine with religion to form one unr-
and communisnris going to fall because of thar. But sucha vague versal,evolutionarysynthesis.
rhingis exacdywhatthe dcvillikcsto grabholdo[ In anyparricular With rhe passingof materialisricMarxism and Darwinisnr, lllr
beliefyou can be mistaken,but at leastyou pur your heartinto ir, idea ofeuolation will not die, bur will continue to prepare mankind for
and God can evenforgivcall kindsof mistakes.Bur ifyou don't have the religion ofthe future. This is becauseevolutionismis more than an
any particuiarreligiousbeliefand you givc yourselfover ro some arrempt to explain the origin of the universewithout relerenceto Cod.
kind of vagueidea,rhcnthedemonscomein and beginro act.l Quite apart from its context within scientificmaterialism,evolution is
an inherentelement in the coming counter-traditionthat will purport
2. Euolutionism as thc Pbilosopby ofAntichrist ro satisry man's religious interest. "Perhaps,"wrote Fr. Seraphim, "/r ri
the uery hey Gntcllecnal) to the assauh uPon the Churcb, to the uery 'ph-
As we haveseenearlier in this book, the atheisticcommunism of
ilosophy' knd there is sucb a thing!) of the roming Antichrist."
the old schoolwas evolutionistboth in that it promoted (and, in the
Here it is interestingto note that, in his SurvivalCourse,Fr. Sera-
caseof Leninism, enforced)a naruralisricexplanarionof the origin of
phim placed his lectureon Evolution as part of a secrioncalled "The
life, and in that it held that human socierywas,like biologicalsysrems,
New Religion." But it was not Charles Darwin, with his extreme
naturally evolving from the lower ro rhe higher.The deep connecrron
mechanisticview,whom he sawasthe forerunnerof the New Religion.
berween Marxist communism and Darwinian evolurion was recog-
Rather,it wasTeilhardde Chardin, who attemptedto combine evolu-
nized by Marx himself,who wasan avid follower of Darwin'sideas.
rVhen Marxism hlls, its counterparr,I)arwinism, is bound ro fol- rionary sciencewith evolutionaryspirituality."Teilhardism," Fr. Sera-
phinr wrote, "is the 'Christianiry' (and 'Orthodoxy') of the future, or
* The diffcrence
rather its metaphysicalfoundation." Fr. SeraphimcalledTeilhard both
berweeninrernarional
communismand U.N. alobalisnr rs nr-rr
rhe "prophet" and the "predecessor" of Antichrist.
asrealasone might rhink.Of thc scvcnrccn individualsidenrifiedby thc U.S.Snre
DcparrmentashavingshapedU.S. policyleadingro rhe crearionof the United Na- It is our purpose here to place Fr. Seraphim'spredictions in the
rions,all bur onc werc lateridenrifiedassecretmembersof rhe CommtrnistParry conrexrofintellectual developmentswhich haveoccurredin the nearly
USA.The U.N. s firsrSecrerary General. who orchesrraredthe conference rhardrcw rwo decadessincehis repose,and at the same time to placethesenew
up chcU.N. Charrer,wasa man larerconvicred asa Sovietagcnr:Algcr Hiss. develoomentswithin the contexr of the traditional Orthodox world-
548 549
(leNrsrs,CnEArrounruoEenu MaN
Eorron's Epllocue
view. Before advancingto current times, however,let us go back and alwaystherc that I found concentratcdin an cver morc dazzlingand
look more closelyat the ideasof the man whom Fr. Seraphimcalled consistcntform, the csscnceor rather the very soul of rhe Earrh."
rhe prophet of rhe religion of the future.
Ve will speakmorelateraboutthe natureofsuch spiritualexperi-
3. l-eilbardde Chardin as "Prophet" ences.For now it will sufficeto point out rhattheyareconnected with
preciselythe kind of"vagueideas"by whichFr.Seraphimsaid'thede-
'leilhardde Chardin himselfclaimedthat his intention was ro
monscomein and beginto acr."
founda new religion.In a letterhe wrote: Like his fellow"propher"FriedrichNierzsche, Teilhardfelt that he
wasperhapsthe only personin historyto havereceived suchrevela-
As you alrcadyknow,what dominatesnry interestand my preoccu- tions.In an arriclecompletedonly one month beforehis death,Teil-
pationsis the effort ro cstablishin mysclfand to spreadarounda hardwrote:
ncw rcligion(you maycall it a berterChristianiry)in which the pcr-
sonalGod ccases to be thegrcatneolithicproprietorof formcrtimes, How is it, then,thatasI look aroundme,srilldazzlcdby wharI have
in orderto becomethe soulof rheworld; our relisiousand cultLrral seen,I find that I am almostthe only personof my kind, the only
sragecallsftrr rhis.l onc to havcseen?...I cannot,whcn askcd,<1uote a singlewritcr,a
singlework, rhatgivesa clearlyexpressed
descriprion ofthe wonder-
-leilhardexulted that this new religion "is burgeoningin the heart
ful "Diaphany"that hastransfigured for
everything me.7
of modern man, from a seedsown by the idea of evolution."'A relig-
ion ofthe earth," he wrote, "is being mobilized againstthe religion of In himself alone, Teilhard claims, have "love of God and faith in
heaven."In his own words, this is rhe "religion ofthe future."' the world" come togetherin just the right proporrion to fusesponta-
ln some placesTeilhardwrote about his own spiritual experiences, neously. furd he goes on to predict that what has taken place in only
out oFwhich he would mold the new religion. For example,he relates himself will one day occur universally:
how CosmicConuergencc and Chrixic Emergence(his own conceprsand
terms) "made themselvesfelt at the very core of my being... . They re- Sooneror later therewill be a chain reaction.This is one more proof
actedendlesslyupon one another in a flashofextraordinary brilliance, thatTiuth hasto appcaronly once,in a singlemind, for ir to be rm-
releasingby their implosion a light so inrensethat ir transfigured(or possiblefor anythingeverto preventit from spreadinguniversally
5
even'transubstantiated') for me the very depthsof the Vorld." andsetringeverything ablaze.s
Elsewhere he speaks of his psychic discovery of rhe noosphere,
which he perceivesas a conscioussphericalenvelopeor aura stretching Despite Teilhard'sclaims abour himself, Fr. Seraphim maintained
around the earrh: that 'leilhard was not the sole founder of the new relision. In a letter
he wrote:
Therewassomethingmore:aroundthissentientprotoplasntic layer
Ii.e.,the biosphere],an ultimate was
envclope beginningro become I think rhat S. hasovercstimated
Teilhardt/irrct influenccon the
apparentto mc, rakingon itsown individualiry
andgraduallydetach- "New Christianiry"That phrasewascoined(l think) by [Claudede]
ing itselflikea luminousaura.This envelopc
wasnot only conscious, Saint-Simon150 yearsago,and much preparation wasmadefor ir
but thinkine,andfrom thetimewhenI firstbecame awareof it, it was at just rhe righr rime to
beforeTlilhard.ProbablyTeilhardappeared
550 )) l
Cenesrs, CrrarroN eNo E,rnly MrN ttDI'roRs L.PILocuE
takc advantageof the modernist currenr irnd makc evcryonestart ro "Notc on the Essence of 'fransformism,"Teilhard writes that the real
think of it in connectionwith his namc. point of evolution is not rhat reptileshave descendedfiom fish' etc.
Rather,it is that the origin of life and of speciescan be adequatelyun-
derstoodin terms of a "physicalconnection." Surprisingly,it does not
4. Elemenx of Ttilhardism
matrer to him whether or not this connectiolt is understoodin terms
It should be rememberedthat, according ro Fr. Seraphim, the of lines of descent,as in Darwinian theoryl perhapsthere is another
"Christianiry of the future" will not be 'ltilhardism prr ra bur ir will connection. What matters is that we rule out "the intervention of an
reston a "metaphysicalfoundation" that hasalreadybeenlaid down by exrra-cosmic intelligence" in the operationsol Nature.''
Teilhard.The componenc of this foundation mighr be summed up as How doesthis idea,which accordswirh that of atheist-materialists,
-lbilhard,
follows: coincidewith Teilhard'sconceptof "spirirualevolution"?For
l. Panentheism. Vhile leilhard himself exrolled whar he called rhe God of the universe is not an "extra-cosmicinrelligence";the
'l'he world is God! "body";
"Christian pantheism,"* his doctrine could more preciselybe termed cosmos r'sGod, the "soul of the L,arth."
paneztheism.'l'he dictionary defines panenrheismas 'the docrrine therefore, the natural processof evolution-rhe "physical connec-
that Cod includesthe world as a parr rhough nor rhe whole of his be- rion"-is at the sametime "spiritual."1-he"inrelligence"behind evolu-
ing."'That Teilhard'steachingfits this descriptionexactlyis clearfrom tion, which Teilhard refersto as "soul," "spirit," "consciousness"'etc.,
'I'he subject of evolution is God; therefore,
his statementthat the world "is a part, an aspecr,or a phaseof God."ru is fbr him inta-cosmic.
Speakingof the "part of God" which is the evolving cosmos,ne says, 'leilhard writes, "(lod cannot create excePt evolutively.""' feilhard
"We must be careful to note that under rhis evolutive facer Omesa even went so far as to postulate"psychicselection"as an evolttrionary
-
only revealshalf of itsetf " I | mechanism rhat could be appendedonto or replacc rhe Darwinian
'ltilhard believedthar, sincethe world ideaof naturalselection.''
is God, and sincethe world
is evolving,God too is in a processof evolution-or ar leastthar "part" Contrary to the Christian doctrine of an omniPotent, impassable
of the world which is God. He wrote that'the Vorld 'endomorphizes' God Vho createsimmediatelyand efforrlcssly, Teilhard'sevolutionary
G od," and that "God'transformshimself'asHe incorporates us."'r Ar God "labors to produce" and is "alwaysobliged to Passrhrough a
the same time, he believedthat God is both rhe Evolverand the end- whole seriesof intermediariesand to overcomea whole successionof
point of evolution: the "Omega Point." ln rhe evolution of human inevitablerisks."'n
consciousness, he aFfirmed,this new "cosmogenesis-God" would natu- 3. Tbe confrsion of the psythic with the spiritual.'All that exists is
rally replace'the Father-Godof rwo rhousandyearsago."'' matter becoming spirir," wrote -leilhard. "'I-hereis neither spirit nor
Such a view, ofcourse, narurallyenrailsa vaguereligiousimpulse matter in the worldl the'stuff of the universe'is 'spirit-matter.' " ' '
toward the cosmositself.'fhus, Teilhard spoke oi his "innate urge . . . Elsewherehe wrote that, "from a purely scientific and emPirical
ro look for the Divine not in a cleavagewith the physicalworld but standpoint,the true name for'spirii is'spiritualization."' Spirit, then'
through matter,and, in somesort of way, in union with matter."'o is a process,"a gradualand systematicpassage from the unconsclousto
rt'
2. No creation h.y extra-cosmicintelligence.In an article entitled the conscious,and from the conscious to the self-conscious."
'leilhard believedthat, while living organismsare evolving,"spiriC'
is evolving along with them. But for him thesewere not rwo seParatc
' Panrhcisnr
being'\hc doctrinerharthcreis no God bur rhe combincdfbrccs
and lawsthararenranili:sted (Wcbsreri]-hird New Intcrna-
in rheexisringunivcrse" processes: they were aspectsof a singlespirit-matterevolution.
tionrl Dicrionary). Just as the conceprof biologicalevolution underminesthe distinc-
552 553
CsNrsrs,
Ctl:arroNANDEARI_y
MAN EoIton's EPIlocue
tion betweenthe crearednaruresof living forms-seeing,asdid Eras- ing of Chrisr . . .), and man irr the lastdavswill be muchlowerspiri-
musDarwin,a "singlelivingfilament"berween thcm-so too-[bilhard's tually rhan in the earll'Church.. ; incorruptionand immortaliry
conceptof spiritualevolution(consciousncss becomingspirit) under- prcccdecorruptionand mortaliryThc perfectionand immortaliry
minesthe disrinctionbetweenthe psychicand rhetruly spirirual. of tlrc coming age (heaven)are not a deuelopment or "evolution"
4. Nibilism: tbe destuctionof 'lruth. 'All around us," writes Teil- from the prescntworld (asTcilhardde Chardinwould haveit .. .),
hard,"and wirhin ourselves, God is in process of'changing';his bril- but a radicaltransformation.
lianceincreases, and the glow of his coloringgrowsricher."r,II the
Cod of creariorr is changing,thereis no irnmurableFirstprinciple,no 6. Man becomes Gal. The ultimate goal of this inversion,of course,
basisfor Absolutetuth. Evolutionismis thusan expression of nihil- cannot but include a pervertedconceptof the deificationof man' Teil-
ism, accordingto the definirionof FriedrichNierzsche: "-fhat rhereis hard pointed to "the existenceaheadof us of some critica.land final
no tnuh: that rhereis no absolLrte srateof affairs-no 'rhins in itselfi' point of ultra-hominization,correspondingto a completereflectionof
7'hisaloneis Nihitint, and of the ntlst txtremeflrrl. " Wh.ir Fr. Sera- the noosphereupon itself." "ls it not conceivable,"he asked' "that
phim calledthe "mcraphysical foundation"of 'lbilhardism,rhen,is ac- Mankind, at the end of its totalization ... may reacha critical level of
ruallythe rotallackof sucha foundation. maturity where ... it will detachitself from this planetand join the one
5. Chiliasm:the inuersionof Tiuth. -leilhardbelievedthat rhc psy- rrue, irreversibleess€nceof things, the Omega Point?""
chicprincipleof rhenoosphere--"the soulof rheEardr'-would gradu- In his SurvivalCourse,Fr. Seraphimspokeabout the {:alse deifica-
ally convergein the OmegaPoint,at which time the "part of God', tion of man in relation to Nietxche's idea of the Superman:
which wasevolvingin the world would ar lasrreachsuprenre Uniry.
In this dcrctrine,which Teilhardtermed.cosntogenesis,Christicemer- Contemporarywritcrssuchas Erich Kahlertalk abouthow all the
gcnce,etc.,we seean extremeand fantasric expressionofwhat ljr. Sera- changes both physically
of moderrtsocicry, and in ideas,areProduc-
phim idenrifiedascbiliasm: rhebelicfin the perlectibilirv
of rhisfallen ing what he calleda mutation,somekind of irew man."*And if, on
earrh.Chiliasm,Fr. Seraphimtaught,is rhe other sideof rhe coin of top ofrhat, we bearin mind rhcso-called scicntificideaofcvolurron,
nihilism;it is che"posirive"conrenrthat fills the void left in the wake which in facrNietzsche believcdin, we seerhatthisidcaof thc com-
of nihilism.Justascvolurionis rhelogicalcorollaryof nihilism,chili- ing ofa'!rew man,"ofsupermatr,is not at all a fantasy. lt is a real
asmis (in Fr.Seraphinis words)"alnrostan inevitable deduction"from idcathat hasbeenarrivcdar naturally'logically, by Wcsrcrnman in
evolution.\X/hilenihilismis a negationof'liurh (anri-1'rurh), chiliasm his tllling awayfrornGod and rryin;ito find the new religion'
is an exacrinversionof it (counter--l-rurh).
In one placeFr.Seraphimexplained: Fr. ScraphimconsideredNietzscheto be, togetherwith Teilhardde
Chardin, a major prophet of Antichrist. Vhile Nietxche's role was
The wholc"evolurionary
philosophy"
whichgrasps
peoplcroday with nihilism, -lbilhard'swas more de-
more negative,being associated
lcadsthcm ro bclicve,ofien unconsciously,in a vicw ofcreation ano
lifc' which is jusr thc opposite of whar Christianiry reachcs:simple ' The GermanthinkerErich Kahler( I 885-1970)wrotc:"T he powerfultrcnd
begerscomplcx, savagery"evolves"to civiliz.ation,imperfecr grvcs rowardthedisrLrption and invalidation presentin rhc
ofrhc individual .. nranifestly
rise to perfcct, "progrcss,"ctc, According ro Orthodoxy, rhc pcrfecr nrostdiversecurrcntsof modern lifc-cconomic, technological,political'scicnrific,
cducarional, psychicand artistic-appcars so overwhclming rhat we arc induced ro
firllsro rhe impcrf'ecr(Paradiseto flllcn world; and cven hisrorically,
."" in it a tr,.tcmutation,a rransformarion of human nature" (Kahler,Ilr Towcrdnd
rhe Holy Fathcrsnorc rhc fall of mankind in gcncralunril the corn-
tlteAbJs. pp. 225-2(t).
554 555
CaNesls,Cnea-rron
,ruo Eenw M,ru Eotron's[]llt.or;utt
ceprively positive, associatedwith evolutionary chiliasm. But as Fr. cisely'the interventionofan extra-cosmic intelligence," which as we
Seraphimsabovequore indicates,Nierxche was also an evolurionist, -[-hechoice of "evolution or rntru-
lraveseen he categoricallyrejects.
and he wasalsochiliasticin his anticipationof rhe Supermarr. sion" appliesto rhe redemption of man jusr as it does to the origin of
Drawing from the words of Nie rxche, Fr. Seraphimidentified rhe lifi. Mankind needsa Saviour.Accordingto its own philosophy,evolu-
underlying philosophy of the rwentieth cenrury as follows: "God is rionism eliminates the need for an extra-cosmicintelligenceto "in-
dead;thereforeman becomesGod, and everythingbecomespossible." trude" into human history-as happenedwhen the transcendent(;od
The God that Nietzscheproclaimedto be dead was of coursethe God becameman in JesusChrist-because evolution itself has become a
of traditional Christianiry.As we have seen,however,this "dearh of 'l-hat is why, as Dr. Volf'gang Smith has said in his
kind of saviour.
God" is only a remporary phaseto make way for the new God of de- valuablestudy Tbilhardkmand the New Religion,"lt is lirerallytrue thxt
ism, with whom, in leilhard! inverredvision of "ultra-hominization," -li'ilhard hasdeified evolution."'"
man is expectedto ulrimarelymerge.
7- Euolutionism replacel Christ as the Sauiour. This idea was ex-
pressedopenly in a blasphemoussraremenrrhat Teilhardwrorc onry a
5. A Nau Etolutiondry Syntltesis
few monrhs beforehis death: "[t is Christ, in very rruth, who saves-
bur should we nor immediatelyadd that at the same time it is Christ Having discussedall thesepoints ofltilhardism in our attempt to
who is savedby Evolution?"" ln'leilhard's conception,Christ roo is a identily the meraphysicalfbundation of the "religron of the future"'
product ofevolution; hence,evolution is greaterrhan Christ. 'leilhard's ideas did not ulti-
we should once more emphasiz.e thar
'spirir
If evolutionismwere rrue, therewould havebeen millions of years metely come fronr him. As Fr. Seraphimsaid' "T'herercally rs a
of death before "hominids" emerged into humans. ln this view, of r7-and 'llilhard
of rhe times'" rappedinto it.
course, the Genesis accounr of mans fall and its primarv conse- Whe n Teilharddied in 1955, thc neo-L)arwiniantheory of evolu-
quence-death-can be read only allegorically.This abolishesrhe 'I'he synthesis
tionary gradualismwas nearingthe peak of its prestige.
whole reasonof Christs coming, being crucifiedand resurrectingfiom he devisedberweenevolution and spirituality fit the intellectualmilieu
the dead in order to saveman from the conseouences of rhe hll. of his times. -fhis is reflectedin his idea of "psychicselection":a spiri-
Evolurionism, then, necessitares rhar the Chrisrian alleqorizethe rualiz-edview of neo-Darwinian natural selection
Biblicalaccounrnor orrly of rhe crearionbur alsoof rhe ,eJemprion. But, as we have seen,the intellectualmilieu has changcdconsid-
fhe Saviour thus becomesso disrant as to becomc a deistic concco- erably sinceTeilhard'stimes. Now that the neo-Darwinian cdifice has
tion. If the mcchanismof evolution (whether torally material, rs in begun to crumble, a new synthesisof evolution and spirituality is
Darwinism, or marerial-spiritual,as in tilhardism) has brought man emerging-one that retainsthe metaphysicalfoundation laid down by
upward from slime,what "fall" is rherefor Chrisr to reverse? 'l'eilhardismbut which takesinto accountthe new developments.
Here the effectsof thc evolutionist inversion of Truth are seen One of the main architectsof this new synthesisis the contempo-
ntost clearl1,.In true Chrisrianiry a Saviour is neededto inrervenein rary American wrirer Ken Vilber. As the most influential thinker in
history in order to miraculouslyreversea downward trend, while in the movement known as T'ranspersonal Psychology,Wilber is now en-
evolutionisma deterrninisric,"intra-cosmic"processis naturally bring- joying a growing vogue among spiritually oriented intellectuals.Both
ing abour an upward rrend, making a Savioursuperfluous. PresidentBill Clinton and Vice-PresidentAl Gore have read his writ-
Teilhard himself has rnade this clear ro us. "We have to make a tWith sixteenbooks rrans-
ings and publicly calledattention to them.28
choice":he says,"evolurionor intrusion."rs By intrusion he mearrsprc- lated into over twenty languages,he is now the most rranslated
))6 557
Cr:rursrs,
Crra.rroruaNo Eanrr MaN L.orron's F.PIt-o<;ut:
academicaurlror in rhe United Stares.We iire nor in a position ro as_ rhc lianspersonalAbsolute,which he calls(deliberatelyusing a gener-
cerrainwhetherhe will be a figureof continuing inrpoirance,as'ltil_ ,rliz.d tcrm) "Spirit."
hard de Chardin has been..Mrat concernsus now is rhar he, at leasras 'Ieilhard de Chardin, usessome of
Although Vilber quotes from
much as any orher thinker now wriring, seemsto be on the cutring his rerminology,and offerspraisefor him' he cannot' strictly speaking,
edgeof the spirit of the rimes.* 'lbilhardt writings rePresentonly a small
bc called Teilhardt follower.
Wilber does nor atrempr to be an original thinker'l'he ra.skhe fiacrion of the thousandsof sourceswhich Vilber has integratedinto
has chosen for himself, he says, is ro garher "orienring generaliza- lris system.However,it is of deep significancethat Vilber, as a trans-
tions": that is, to take whar he regardsas rhe "besi' from iveryrhing nlitrer ofthc core ofmodern philosophy,hascome up with an integral
and everlwhcre,and organizeit ir.rtoone philosophical,y,rth.ris.,',Ii visionof the spirir of the tirnes;and it is, in all its maior comPonents'
his work, one seesa confirnratiol.rof what Fr. Seraphim wrore rwo -lcilhardianl
dccadesago: 'fhe fiarnework of Wilber's synthesisof universalwisdom is the
idea of Evolution within what he calls the "Great Nest of Being " Hc
A clraracrcrisric of modcrn currcnrs of rhorrght is ,,univcrs:rl- rightly observes:"lf there is one idea that dominatesthe modern and
'ltilhard, he is very
ism"-rhc arrcrnprro makca synthcsis rharwill includcall .,rrarrial" portmudcrn nrind at lrrge, it is evoh.rtion."'' l.ike
vicws:Masonry,ccunenism,Hcgclianism, Bahai,Unirarianrsm, inuch inrerested in science, having done graduate research in
'l-hisis what "evolutionary"
uniry of all rcligiorrs. philosophyis_a biochemistryuntil his interesrin philosophy/spiritualirycausedhim to
"universal"rhcory to cxplaineverything,and to jusrily redirecrhis energies.Like'lbilhard also, he aims through his wrirrngs
cvcrything
thc wayit is-univcrsalsalvation, a cosmicviewof evcrythingcnrcr- to lrclp combine scienceand religion' and has recentlywritten a book
ing into rhe univcrsalharmonyof rhingsasrhcyarc. 'l-heManiage of Sensetlnd Slul: lntegrating Scienreand
on rhe subiect,
Religion(1998).- He readilyaccePtsthe latesttheoriesby which scien-
Vilber, in drawing togetherhis synthesisof everything(one of his rific materialism has attempted to exPlain the universewirhout
rnost popular rirfes is called A Brief History of Euerything), draws from God-from a Big Bang of fifteen billion yearsago to the evolurion of
the "widsom rradirions" (i.e., tradirional religions anJ philosophies, man "from simpG insentientand lifeless2161115"-xn.l rhen he entleav-
East and Wesr), fiom Vestern philosophers,and from rnodern psy_ ors to injectspirirrr:rliryinto thesctheorics."
clrologistsand scicntisrs;and ar the samerime he closelyfollows con_ lVilber refersto his philosophyas "euolutionary pa entheism'"" ln
temporary popular culture and fashionsin order, as he says,.,ro spor his fbrmulation, evolution is precededby "involution": Spirtt mant-
r.hezeitgext."*' "'Among his readersand colleagueshe is respectedfor festing itself in the universe,and rhen forgetting that it is Spirit He
his apparenr ability to integrate literally thousands of iirtellecrual writcs:
sourcesAt once. For many, his aura of brilliance is inrensificd by the
fact rhar he writes about having reachedadvancedlevelsof -l'ibetan Spirirmanifests a universe by "throwingitselfout" or "empryingit-
Buddhist meditarion and having had an experienceof merging with self" to createsoul,which condenscs into mind, which condenses
inro body,which condcnscs into mattcr,thc dcnscstform of all'
F-achof thoselevelsis still a levclof Spirit,btrrcachis a rcdttccdor
' As a signof rhis-<rr rarhcrasa resultof ir-Ann Codoff,rhe currenrheadof
the largcsrpublishingconglomcrate in rheworld,llandonrHousc,hls sirid:..l.hcrcis
no livingwrircr I wouldrarhcrpublishnrorerhanKcn \X/ilber..' ' Ihis is rhc book in which President Core have
Clinton and Vice-President
" /.citgeistis C,ernnn for "spirir o{ thc rirrcs." shownspccialintercst.
55ri 559
CsNesrs.CrulrroN ,rNoElnly MnN Eorron'sEprlocur:
"stepped down"versionof Spirir.At the end of rharproccss of invo- opcrarcsin parr by Darwiniannaturalsclecrion,but rhis proccss
lurion,all of the higherdimensionsarccnfblded,aspotenrial,in the simply selcctsthosc transfrrrmarions
rhar havc a/read;yoccrrred 6y
lowestmaterialrealm.And oncerhc matcrialworld blowsinro exis- mechanisms rhatabsolutely nobodyundcrstands.J'
tence(with, say,rhc Big Bang),then the revcrseproccss-orevolu-
tion-can occur,movingfrom matterto living bodiesto symbolic He goeson to point our that random murarions"cannot even be-
mindsto luminoussoulsro purcSpiriritself In thisdcvelopmenr or gin to explain" the production of a wing or an eye, and thar rhcrc is
evolutionaryunfolding,eachsuccessivc levcl docs nor jerrison or 'iro evidencerultatsoeuerof intermediateforms."tu But elsewhere,rc-
denythe previouslevcl,but rarherincludesor embraces it, jusrasat- taining the idea of the evolutionary processitself, Vilber says,"The
omsareincludedin molccules, whicharcincludcdin cells.whicharc orthodox scientific theory of evolution seemscorrecron thc what of
includedin org:rnisms. Eachlevelis a wholc rhar is alsoparr of a cvolution, but it is proloundly reductionisrand/or conrradicrory on
largcrwholc.... In orherwords,eachcvolutionaryunfoldingtran- rhe how (and why) ofevoluriorr." "'As a panenrheisr,he seesthe Spirit
sccndsbur includesirs predeccssor(s),wirh Spirit rranscending and which has manifesredas rhe cosmos(i.e., which lr the cosmos)as the
includingabsolutcly evcrything.'n driving fbrce behind evolution, and asevolution itself.
Vilber saysthar this spiritual view of evolution must replacethe Spiriris ... fully presentat eachand cverys(ageas thc euolutionary
marcrialisticview, and notes rhar scientificmaterialismis now ironi- processixelf Spirir is rhc processof its own sclf-actualizationand
cally, paving the way for an "euolutionbeyondrationality." rt In a chill- unfolding;its being is its own becominglirs Goal is the Path ie
ing i nversion of Fr. Seraphim's prognosis, Wilber says rhat seli'"
rationalism/materialism (which he callsrhe "flarland" menrality) is bur
a step in man! evolurionarydevelopmenr:a srep away frorn old relig-
In stepwith current developmenrs,\V'ilber infr.rscs
this impcrsonal
ious conceptions,so rhar man can arriveat a higher conceptof the Di-
"Spirir" into thc "punctuatedequilibriurn"model ofevolurionrhar has
vine. Thus, in Vilber's view, materialism providesa positiuefuncrion,
been devisedby the nraterialist-evolurionistsStephenJay (lould end
even though it must passaway in order to make rhe way for the new
Niles Eldredgeto accountfor thc lack of intermediareforms in the fos-
religiousconsciousness.
sil record. According ro Vilber, Spirit maniFcstsitself in new fbrms
Observing the widening fissuresin the neo-Darwinian establish-
which come inro ex istencenor gradually (as in standard nco,
menr which haveappearedsinceTeilhard'sdeath,Vilber correcrlyob-
f)arwinism) but in "a huge leap,in a quantum-like fashion." He relers
servesthat the Darwinian theory of "evolution by natural selecrion.. .
to this as "emergentevolution" and even as "creativeemergence."rl
can'texplain macroevolutionat alll"rt'He writes:
AJong with Teilhard, he speaksof the producrion of new orgrnisrns
not as an effortlesscreativeact by a rranscendcnrGod, but as a labori-
'fhc standard,glib, neo-Darwinian
explanationof naturalselec- ous Process:
tion-absolurclynobodybelieves rhis anymore.'Evolutionclcarly
Evolutionis not a statisrical
accident-it is a laboringtowardSpirir,
' Vilber is writing in the form of dialoguehere,and so is spcakinghyperboli- drivcn,not by happy-go-lucky chancc,howcvercomforringrharno-
cally.In actual[act,thcrearc manywho srill hold tenaciously ro rhe srandardneo- tion is to thosewho dcny rcalityro any lcvelhighcrrhan insenrrent
Darwinianexplanarion, in spircof rhegrowingconringentof cvolurionisrs who op,
mattcr,but by Spiritirself.ar
poseit.-Ihe chiefrpologisr ofold-schoolnco-L)arwinism is RichardDawkins.
560 561
Cr:nesrs,CnexrroN
rruoEanlvMrr.r Enrr-or's EpILocur
GcorgHegcl(1770-1831)propounded rhedoctrinewith r genius own dccpcstSclf?IfSpirit is thc Oround and Goal ofall ofthcse lcv-
(
rarelycqualcd;HcrbcrtSpenccrI 820- 1903)madcevolutiona uni- cls,:rnd if wc are Spirit in truth, woni thc wholcheartedcngagemcnt
versallaw;and hisfricndCharlesf)arwin ( I 809- t ti82) appliedit to olt all of thcsc levcls hclp us remcmbcr who and what we really
larnousin theVcst. man Self."at In realizing rhat you are God, he says,"You will awaken to
Suddcnly,within thc span<lfa nrcrcccnturyor s(',scriousmtn<ts a world wherethc Kosmosis yoursoul,the cloudsyour lungs,rherain-
wcre enrerraining a notion that prcmodcrnculturcs,lor thc most dropsrhebeatofyour heart....Youwill look at the moonaspartof
part, had nevcrcvenoncc considercd, namclyrhar-likc all orhcr your bodyand bow to the sunaspartofyour heart,and all of it rsjust
living systems-we humansare in the processof growingtowardour so.
own bighest potentlal,and if rhat highestporcntialis God, rhen we In order to expeditethis remembe ring, he recommends what he
aregrowingtowardour own Codhood. calls"integralpractice"for all levelsofour being,sayingthatwe should
"nrix and match"physicaland spirirualpractices rangingfrom jogging
562 563
GsNesrs,
CnexrroNIND E,rntJMrN Eorron'sEpllocue
to tantric sexualiryto deiry yoga to centering prayer to Advaita Ve- its attitude toward evolution. "Religion will also haveto adjust its atti-
danta ro "Christian formlessmeditation."oo rude toward evolution in general"lhe says,and "any religion rhat at-
rempts to reiect evolution sealsits own fate in the modern world."'o
Ily way of persuasion,he adds:
6. The Minimum Requiremenxfor Christians to be Accepted
'Ib the cxtcnt religionsbrackertheir mythic beliefsand focuson
within the Neu Synthesis
thcir esoteric
core. . . an acceptance
of cvolutionis a modestadjusr-
In T'he Mariage of Senseand Saal, Wilber outlines the agenda
nrcntindecd.In fact,AurobindohasalrcadybroughtVcdanta(and
rhat the world must follow in order to combine sciencewith religion,
t0 the entireswecpof Indianphilosophy)into an evolutionary accord.
as well as to establisha "universaltheology" which all religionscan
AbrahamIsaacKook hasalreadypointcdout rhar "Thc theoryof
embracewithout losing their ourward differences.He tells the main-
cvolutionaccords wirh rhc secrers
of Kabbalahberterthanany orher
stream scientific establishmentthat, in order ro inregratewith relig-
theory"'fhc greatIdealists havealreadyclearedthe way for an evo-
ion, modern sciencemust renounceits allegianceto uncompromising
lutionaryspirirualiryAnd hasnot thc Popehimselffinallydeclared
materialism.Sciencemust "do nothing more than expand from nar-
that "cvolutionis morethana hypothesis"?is
row empiricism (sensoryexperienceonly) to broad empircism (direct
experiencein general)";t'that is, ir must also include psycho-spirirual
A little later, Vilber brings our a notable exception ro his
experience.
concessionthat religionscan keeptheir "myths" and still participarcin
Vilber then tells religion what it must do in order to fit within
tlre new synthesis:
the broadestparametersof the new religio-scientificparadigm. Firsr
of all, he says,"Religions the world over will have rc brackettheir
lb rhecxtentthat a religionpledges
allegiance to a mythic Edenrn
mythic belief," and he cites as examples Moses parting the Red Sea,
any actualscnse,it will haveinsuperablc
difficultyparticipatingin
Chrisr being born of a Virgin, and the creatiolt occurring in six
rheintegrationof modcrnscicncc and philosophy."'
days.5t He concedesthat proponents of a religion can keep any
mythic beliefsthey want, "as long as they do not expectany form of
Lastly,he praises'ltilhard de Chardin for helping Christians to over-
scienceor any other religion to acknowledgethem":
come this insuperableobstacle:
-I'hisdocsnot meanthat we will loseall religiousdifferenccsand to-
[-Itilhards]notionofthc Orncgapoinr (of Christconsciousncss)
asa
cal color and fall inro a unifbrm mushof homogcnizcd New-Age
future atrractorfor prcsentevolution-a notion borrowedfrom
spirirualiry...Most rcligionswill continueto offcr sacramcnts, sol-
Schellingand Hegel-freed many Christiansfrom the impossible
acc,and myths (and othertranslative
or horizontalconsolations), in
mythicbeliefin a literalGardenof Edenand a morbid fixation(a
additionto the genuinelytransfornrative practicesof verticalcon-
Romanticdeathwish)to thc long-dcceased past.tT
rcmplation.Nonc of that neccssarily needsto changedramarically
for any religion,althoughit will be scr in a largercontextthat no
longerdcmandsthat its mythsbc the only mythsin the world.tj 7. The "God" of the New Slnthesis
564 565
GrNrsls, (ln'rartoN ,r.no E,rnrv MIN t DI'roR's EPIl-ocuE
Spirirual or rransracionalawarcnessis transli\eralawareness,not nrakesone susceptibleto demonic influence. ln the context of rhe
prrliberal awarcness.lt is not reactionaryand,regrcssiue,
it is cuolution- vaguereligiousfeeling that characterizes the new religiousconscious-
("progressivc"
ary and progres:iue being one oI rhc common terms for ncss,this "God" may seem like a Creator of sorts.A clear theological
"libcral"). cvaluarion,however,revealsthis conceptof deiry as a revivalof pagan
Thus, genuinespirirual experience(or spiritual Enlightenment) idcaswhich are hr removedfrom the true Creator-God of rhe Bible,
as it displaysitself in thc political arenais not prerationalmythic be- the Holy Fathers,and Orthodox Christianity.
lief ... but rather transrational awareness,wlich, building on the Ken Wilber himself affirms that his idea oF "creativeemergence,"
gains of liberal rationalitT and political liberat*m, extcnds rhose frce- by which he attempts ro combine spiritualiry with the recent evolu-
doms flrom the political to the spiritual sphcre.... The result, we rionary conceprof "punctuated"evolution, is rooted in ancient pagan
might say,is a libcral Spirit, a libcral God, a liberal Coddess.t8 philosophy.lt was given its rnost detailedexpressionin neoplaronism,
which issuedthe lasrmajor challengeof paganphilosophyto Christian
EchoingTeilhard,Vilber callsthis liberalSpirit the "World Soul"* theologyat the dawn oF Orthodox Christian civilization in the fourth
and speaksin chiliastictermsabouthow scienceand spiritualitywill cenrury A.D.3In one form or anothel it has been found in virtually
togetheropcnmankindup to the new God: every strain of falsemysticism (rheosophy,kabbalah,etc.) since thar
rime. It is perhapsthe highestidea that humanly devisedmetaphysics
And so thcre wc stand now, at r:rtionality,poised on the edge of can arrive ar when the fallen mind of man is not submitted to-and
transrarionafpcrceprion,a rientia a*ionis that is bringing here and raisedup by-Divinely revealedtheology.
thcrc, bur evcr and ever more clearll ro all sortsof pcople in all sorts Accordingto rhe paganphilosophicalnotion, the deiry doesnot cre-
of places,powerfrrlglirnmersof a true Dcsccnt of the all-pcrvading dteex nihilo in the classicalChristian sense,but ratherdiffusesor ema-
'World natesitselfinto the crearion.Formsand beingsappearsuddenly,but this
Soul.:e
is an "emergence"out ofan impersonalCodhead ratherthan a creation
All this, Vilber says,is bringingabout a "worldcentric"awareness, by a Persorral God Who is in essence wholly "other" than His creatron.
basedin "universalpluralism": As against the pagan view, the Orthodox rheologian Vladimir
Losskyelucidatesthe true meaningofcreation accordingto the Scrip-
And wc arc sceingsigns of this new, inregral undcrstandingacross rural-PxtristicChristian doctrinc:
the board-in psychology,philosophy,business,economics...."
Crcationex nihilod,ocsmcanjust suchan act of producingsomc-
At the end oF this processlieswhat Vilber, borrowingrerminology dringwhich is "outsideof God"-thc productionof an cntirclyncw
from leilhardand otherwriters,calls"the centauricevolutionaryep- subjcct,with no originofany kind eitherin thc Divinc Naturcor in
och," "the integrationof the noosphere and biosphere, the suprana- any matteror potentiallyof beingexternalro God. Ve might say
tionalorganization of planetary t'
consciousncss."
Of course,Vilbe r's"liberalGod" of the cmergingglobalreligious 'Wilbcr claimsrhat Plotinus(a.o. 205-270),the nrain thinker of thc neo-
platonicschool,was "arguablythc grcatcstphilosopher-mystic the world hasevcr
consciousness is just the kind of "vagueidea'rhat Fr. Seraphimsays
krown" (The Marriageo/ Setrcanl So , p. l8). He sccsthc Indian philosopherNa-
garjuna(second-rhird ccntury,r.o.),who raughrthar Absolrrrc Emprincss manifcsrs
'The paganidcaofa "Vorld Soul"is refirtedat lengthby Sr.(iregoryl)alamas. irselfasall fbrm, as Plorinus'contcmporary coun[crpartin rhe East(lfilbcr, Sar,
'fbe Eolog, Spiriruality:Thc Spirit of Euolution,pp. (t38 69,692*97).
Sec Philolalia. vol. 4, po. 347-49.
566 567
CrNesrs,Cnr:erroNrNo E,rnlyMaN Eorlon's Epllo<;ur-
rhat by creationex nihilo Co,J'inakesroom" for somethingwhich is cessitybur our oflove. He lovesus, His creatureswho are in essence
ex-
whollyoutsideof Himself;that, indecd,He sctsup the "outside"or lcrnal to Him, and He wishes us to meet Him in a pefsonal
nothingness alongside His plenitude.Thc resuftis a subjecrwhich is rclarionshipof love, so thar we may participat€in Him through His
entircly"othcr" infinirelyremovcdfrom Hirn, "nor by placcbur by grace.Vladimir Losskywrites that, in the Christian vision,
nature,"asit is expresscd by St.JohnDamascenc.*
Thc crcationis not a kind of speading out or infinitcdiffusion rhe crearcduniverseis thus nor seen,as in platonicor platonizing
of thc Godhead.... "The Good difl'usingirselfbv irself" of neo- rhought,under the paleand attenuatcdaspcctof a poor rcplicaof
platonismis not thc God of Sr. Paul,Who "callerhthoscthings the Godhead;rathcrit appcarsasan cntirclynew being,ascreation
which be not asthoughthcywere"(Rom.4:17).ur freshfronr the handsof the God of Gcnesis"\Whosawrhat ir was
good,"a creatcduniverse willedby God and the joy of His Visdom,
According to the neoplatonic idea, since Absolute Being is ulti- "a harmoniousordinancc,""a marvellously composcdhymn to the
mately impersonal,it has no Personalwill. 'Iherefore,the production powerof the Almighry,"asSt.Cregoryof Nyssasays.-
ofbeings cannot be an act of freewill, but is rather a natural dilfusion
that occursby virtue of some necessiry ofthe Divine Nature. ln other Thus, rhe impersonalGod of the pagan(and neo-pagan)concep-
words, it is the natureof the Godheadto diffuseitself into the realmof rion is shown to be vastly"weaker"than the God of Orthodox Christi-
form and appearances; there is no "choice"involved. anity. [t cannot volitionally createex nihilo in rhe true sense,but can
ln the Christian revelation,on the other hand, since God is Per- only of necessitymanifestforms out of its own nature.
sonal, he crearesby a Ji'eeact of will. Vladimir Lossky writes: Vhile this view of "God" and "creation"is indeednorhing new,we
have seen how it has been given a new evolutionary framework in
The creationis a work ofwill and not of naturc.... ln thc actofcr.*- modern times by rhinkerslike Teilhardand Vilber. In Vilber's words,
tion God wasunderno necessity of any kind whatcver. 'I hereis, in
the ancient pagan teaching of a seriesof diffusions of the Divine
fact, nothing in the Divine Naturewhich could bc thc necessary Nature has now been "temporalized"by the modern theory of evolu-
causeofrhe productionofcrcatures: creationmight just aswell not tion.6t
exist.God couldequallywell not havccrearedi crcationis a frceact The paganideaof "creativeemergence"appearsto fill in the all the
of His will. and thisfreeact is thc solcfoundationofthc existencc of gapingholeswhich exist in the currentlycompeting modelsof natural-
all beings.... istic evolution. lntegratedwith the "punctuated equilibrium" model
Crcation,which is thusa freeact of thc will, and not (likc the devisedby atheist/agnostic evolutionistsStephenJay Gould and Niles
shiningforth of rhe Divinc energies) a naturaloutpouring,is an act Eldredge, it provides a vague "Spirii' to explain both rhe lack of inter-
propcrto a God Who is Pcrsonal, ro the -liiniry Whosecommon mediate forms and the lack of a purely naturalistic mechanism of
will bclorrgs ro the DivineNaturc."r evolution. Once the evolutionistadmits a vagueconcept of deiry, the
idea that Vilber has synrhesizedmakesabsolutesense,fitting in per-
In the Orthodox Christian vision, then, God createsnot our of ne- iectly with the evolurionary framework of billions of yearsof earth
history. According to this view, Cod has "emerged" into the world over
' St. OregorvPalamas writcsrhat"evcrycrearcdnatureis far removcdfronrand billions of years in successivelyhigher forms. 1r is xill erolutio*-u
conrplcrclvforeignto thc Divine Nature" (7be Philokalia,vol. 4, p. 382), even Vilber affirms at every turn-bur it is far removed from the old natu-
rhoughCoclcrcatcs thecrearionrhroughHis l)ivinegrace(energies).
and sustains ralisticparadigm.
568 569
CrNssrs, CnalrloN ,rNo EeRLyMlN Eot'xrn'sEprlocue
It is inrerestingto note thar StephenJay Gould is a Marxisr, and If 'feilhard de Chardin is indeed the prophet of the future combi-
has himself commented on the connecrion berwecn his "ounctuated nirtion of scienceand religion,then for the most part this combinarion
equilibrium"theory ofevolutionaryleapsand rhe Marxisr ideaofso- will be not purely pantheistic,but rather deistic/panentheistic. It will
cial evolution through successive, rapid changes(revolution).u6This bc remembered that Fr. Seraphimcalled the famous evolutionary sci-
connectionshedsfurrher light on Fr. Seraphim! prediction thar spiri- cntisr 'fheodosius Dobzhansky a "deisi' after reading Dobzhanskyt
tuality will be added to communism ro form the religion of rhe fu- 'iheological" statements-and Dobzhansky was an admirer of the
tu re. prnentheistTeilhardde Chardin.
In discussingthe "God" of the new religio-scienrificsynthesis,we But it is a secondarypoint just how far the future combination of
should comment here on an apparenrconrradiction in [jr. Seraphim's scienceand religionwill go on the scalefrom deism to pure pantheism.
prognosis.In one place Fr. Seraphrmsaysthat the new God will be The main point is that, unlike the scientificmaterialismof today, the
that of the deism of Freemasonryand the Enlighrenment,and else- refigio-scientificsynthesisof tomorrow willhave a "God," and it will
where he says thar 'ltilhard is rhe predecessorof the New Relig- not be He Vhom 'lbilhard disparaginglycalled 'the Father-God of
ion-and Teilhard,aswe haveshown, wasa panenrheist. rwo thousand yearsago." Its "God" will be vague,and it will not be
Upon closeexamination, however,the differenceberweendeism I)erso nal.
'l'he sanrecan be saidofthe "Chrisi'of the New Religion.Already
and panentheismis seento be more one ofdegreerhan ofsubsrance.In
his SurvivalCourse, Fr. Seraphimpointed out rhat, "in rerms of relig- we can seewithin the mainstreamculture a concertedeffort to reinter-
ion, deisnrwas perhapsthe most typical movemeni' of rhe Enlighten- prer Christ so that He is no longer rhreateningto the fallen human na-
ment, but at rhe same time the deisric philosophersof that rime rure and to the devil-so that He is no longera Sauiour.
replacedCod with "Nature" as their cenrralconceprtand some called If, accordingto the neo-paganview both we ourselvesand Christ
God 'ihe soul of the world." Fr. Seraphimdescribedthe Enlightenment (togetherwith everythingelse)are but diffusionsof the l)ivine Nature,
idealasfollows:"Nature ruling overeveryrhing,rhe mysteriesofNarure rlren there is nothing for Christ to do but guide us back to gnosisof
beingdiscovered,God still being in His heavenalthough nor doing very what we alreadyare. -fhis idea, of course,is preciselythe idea that is
much, and scienrificknowledgeprogressing over rhe whole world." The now being promoted under the guiseof being the authentic, esoteric
L.nlightenmentthinkers were fully in the rradition of modern science, teachingof Christ. In actual fact, it is but a revivalofthe ancientgnos-
which aroseduring the Renaissance out of a kind of "natural mysti- ric heresy,basedon paganphilosophy,that was rightlv condemned by
cism"-and even,as in the caseof GiordanoBruno (1548-1600),out rhe early Fathers.
ofrhe marriageofscienceand total panrheism. Ken Vilber speaksofthe teachingswhich are being "rediscovered"
ln his book The Making of the Modern Mind, J. H. Randall, Jr., in rhe gnostic texts:
wrires that, in rhe Enlightenment,the ideal of the Natural was "thar
which men wanred to realizethemselves; and ir easilypassedover rnro It is obviousfrom thesetextsthat Jesus'primary religiousactiviry
the Divine. Nature wasGod's model for man; nay, it was rhe very face wasro incarnarein and as his followers,in the manner,not of the
of God himself."t" In this way, Enlightenmentdeism passedover not only historicalSonofGod (a monstrous notion),bur ofa true Spiri-
inro pure pantheism,but into a kind of deism/pancnrheism.Enlighr- tual Cuide helping all to becomc sons and daughtersof God....
enment thinkerskept rheir impersonaldeisticGod "in heaven,not do- ElainePagels pointsout that thcrcarethrcecsscntial strandsto the
ing much," but their religious interest becamedirected toward the csotericmessage of Chrisr, as rcvcalcd
in the Gnostic CosPcls:(l)
"face"of God which rhey identifiedwith impersonalNature. "Self-knowledge is knowlcdgeof Godl the [highest]selfand rhe di-
570 571
Grt tpsts,CnrarIoN,\I.toE,tRt-v
M,rlr Eorrrrn'sElrr.oc;ur:
(2) "'I'he'livingJesus'
vincareidenricirl." of thcsctcxtsspeakof illu- rhis philosophyis paganin nature.But if ir is indeedthe philosophyof
sion and enlighteoment, not of sin and rcpcntance.(3) "Jcsusrs Anrichrist,as Fr. Seraphimhassaid, it mrrsrbe also infernal in n:rture.
'l'his conclusionis borne out by the following considerations:
prcsentednot asLord but asspiritualguide."Ler ussimplynorethat
'l-he idea that man can becomeGod, no matter what sophisti-
rhosearcpreciselyren*s of Dharmakaya rcligion.on l.
cated modern guise it may rake (whethcr "ultra-homin ization," as in
't-eilhard, "remembering,"as in Vilber) is an expressionof rhe pri-
Here is a clear example of rhe denatured Christianity of which we or
spoke earlier.Christ is seenas a vagueconcept of ultimate Cood, the mordial tempration of satan to mankind: "In the day ye eat thereof,
belief in Him as the only begottenSon of God is rejectedas a mon- your eyesshall be opened,and ye shall be asgods" (Gen. J:5). lt is also
strous notion, and the idea is put forth that we ourselvescan be just rhe same temptation by which satan, who desired to be equal with
like Him. This is a crucial element in the "religion of rhe future," for God, fell from heaven.
by it the Antichrist will actuallybe convincedthat he is another incar- This is the first reasonwhy Fr. Seraphinrcalled evolutionism the
nate Son of Cod. key ro the philosophyof the last greatdeception.In its "spiritualized"
ln an ourward way, the imitator of Christ will appearas a kind of forrl, it is the basison which man becomesrhe Supermanand realizes
saviour,solving man'seconomic and political problems and olfering his godhood. It is a philosophicalmanifestationof rhe devil! first of-
to satisly his spiritual aspirationsrhrough what Fr. Seraphim called a fering ro man.
"melting pot" of scienceand world religions.On a deeperlevel, how- According to the sober measuring-stickof Orthodox Christian
ever,the real saviourwill be seenas evolution itself, moving forward spirirual lif'e,thcre must alwaysbc a distinction berweenthe creature
in a natural development of this world into the Kingdom of God. and the (lreator.Saintsnray be wholly filled with God's UncreatedEn-
The last greatdeceiver,who in the end will pretend to be Christ, will ergies(grace)ro such an extent that they are said to be "deified," but
be seenas but anothermagnificentproduct of evolution. they remain creaturesby naturc
2. l'he fact thar evolutionismis an exact inversionof Tuth is an-
other indication that it is connectedwith dark forces. Fr. Seraphim
8. The Philosophy ofAntichrist
once said, "The very narure of the last great world ruler is to be
According to Fr. Seraphim,the "New Religion" and "New Chris- aril-Christ-and 'anti' meansnot merely 'against,'but also 'in imira-
tianiry" foreshadowedby lbilhard de Chardin will be based in a " de- rion of, in placeo1.""' He will seernro take the placeof Christ, but
monic initiatiott hitherto restrictedto the pagdn world.""'ln his book will actually be rhe oppositeof Him. He will copy the'lruth, but will
Orthodory and the Religon of the Funre he describessome of the "re- presentit to the world in an invertedimage,as in a mirror.
ligious experiments"-ranging from UFO encounters to "charis- The demonic principle of inversionis seenin the rituals performed
matic" phenomena to sophisticatedmeditation practices-which by saranists,in which they attempt to violarenature by acting in a way
have preparedformerly Christian peoplesfor this initiation by mak- exactlyoppositeto the natural order:walking backwards,writing back-
ing them open and passiveto new spiritualexperiences.tu wards,readingthe Lord'sPrayerbackwards,etc. L)volutionismis a philo-
Obviously,not everyonewho will experiencethe "demonic initia- sophicalexpression of this attempt to mock God by reversingthe Truth.
tion" of the New Religion will at the sametime consciouslyembrace The title of one of Ken Vilber's bool<s,Uplion Ed.ez,is a good example
rhe full scopeofthe philosophybehind ir. And yet, as Fr. Seraphimhas ofthe principleofinversion,sinceaswe haveseenmankind hasin reality
said,there ri such a philosophy,and its key is to be lound in evolution- gone downfrornEdenand can only be raisedup againby JesusChrrst.
ism, specificallyTeilhardianevolurionism.We havealreadyshown thar Here ir is worth noting that not only tradirional Christianity but
\7 ) ) /J
(lerursts.Cntanou ,qNuE,nrrv M,rN Eorron'sF.prr.ocus
all traditional cultures see mankind as hlving fallcn from a higher keepthe religrousaspirationsof man direcredprinrarilywithin the cos-
state,from a "golden age"; it is only rhe modern evolutionary world- ltlos.
view that seesthe opposire.J'his is because,being connectedwith an- 4. The idea of an impersonal/transpersonal Cod, said Fr. Sera-
cient times, theseculrurespreserveda memory of rvhat had becn lost; phim, comesfrom "people who doni wanr ro meer the PersonalGod,
and beirrgnroreconnectedwith the naturalorder,they undcrstoodthe bccauseHe definirely requiresthings of you." " As we have seen,an
processof degenerationthar had taken place. Evolutionism is the impersonalGod hasno freedomor will, but is subjectto necessiryas ir
product of rrodern man who has becomeso divorced from the narural "emerges"into the world of forms, fulfilling the "porentialities"of its
order rhar he can honestlybelievein its exactinvcrsion. own existence.Such a God clearlycannor acr as the Judgeof man.
3. Panentheism-viewing the cosmos as God-ties man to the By striving to take away God! Personhood-and thus His free-
carth and prevenrshim from reaching out to the true God of the dom and will-man sceksto escapeGod's judgment. Ultimately, how-
Above,'ihe Father-Godof rwo thousandyearsago." Here it should be cver,Cod rr the Judge;and in denying Him asJudgeman also denies
rememberedthat satan was himself cirsrout from heaven ano con- Him asthe only Onc \Vho can fbrgivehis sins.The impersonalisrcon-
signcd to the earth and the "underheaven"(Teilhard'snoosphere). ccpt of deiry,therefore,can be seenas an intellectualconstrucrbehind
"I'hus
he is intenselyjealousof man'.sability to go to heaven,and rries which man tries in vain to hide from the living God, just as Adam
by every rreans to keep man'svision fixed on sub-heavenrealms. ln rried to hide among the treesofthe Garden and then tried to deny per-
panentheism,he can keep man worshipping and serving"the creature sonal responsibilityfbr his actions.Without facing up ro the Personal
morc rarherthan the Creator" (Rom. l:25). 1-hedeiry is loweredto the (lod and repenting,man will not receivefrom Him salvation-and
psychic and even the physical realms, becoming a psycho-physical rhat is what the devil wants.
Creator. As we have seen,however,this is not a true Creator at all,
sincethe universeis "creating"itself,or nrore preciselyeuoluingitselfin
9. The Spirit behind the PhihsophJ
:r natural unfolding. "(lod" thus becomessubiectto change:a concept
rorally unacceptablcto Orthodox theology. Perhapsthe aboveconsiderarions are enough to indicatethe infer-
It will be noticed that, in his epistleto the Romans,St. Pauldid not nal intelligcnce behind the emerging zeitgeist. However, it may be
speakof the pagansworshipping rhe creatureratherthan the Creator; helpful to presentsome external verification,conring from recorded
he spokeof them worshippingthe c reatulemorethan the Creator.'l-his encounrerswith this intelligence.
is a descriptionnot of pure pantheismbut of panentheism.Panenrhe- ln 1976, rhe traditional Roman Catholic aurhor Fr. Malachi Mar-
ism, aswe haveseen,acknowledges that "part" ofthe deiry is outsidethe rin came out with the book Hostageto the Deuil, which contained
cosmos,but this "part" is disrantand uninvolved(asin deism).ln terms case-studies of the possessions
and exorcismsof five living Americans.
of religiousfeeling,that "part" which i the cosmosbecomesthe over- Fr. Malachi researched his subjectthoroughly,interviewingthe people
riding deiry.1-hisis cleadyseenin the nature mysticismofl-eilhard de involved and transcribingrape-recordings of the exorcisms.Although
Chardin. tlris book dealswith exorcismsnot perfbrmedby Orrhodox clergyand
Since satan has been called the "prince of this world" (literally, hence is problematicin its descriptionsof how they should be con-
"prince of this cosmos"),'it is obviouswhy it is in his best interestto ducted, it olfcrs valuableinsightsinto the ideaswhich demons usc on
rnodern peoplein order to ger them under their influence.
'Chrisr callsrhe dcvil 'ihe princeof rhisworld" threetimesin rhc Gospclof In one chapter,the author recountsthe story of a Romar:Carholic
J ohn(Jo h nl 2 :31, l4: 30, l6: I l ). priest who becamedemonically possessed as a result of his deep in-
>/4 575
GcNs.srs,CnEATToN
nuo Eanry Marl Eotron's Epru>cul:
volvementin Teilhardianevolutionarymysricism,which he learned stead,therc was a rcturn '\o whcrc we canrefrom," asJonathanttscd
aboutin an anthropology classat seminary.\X/hilein a srateof partial ro say:a gointr;back to the oncncssof naturc and of tlrc univcrsc.
possession,the priestreceivedwordsthroughwhat he latercalled"re- All this allowcd the cleverusc ofthe full rangcofvocabulary and
motecontrol."He preached Teilhard's evolurionaryideasand changed conccpt about "salvation,""divinc lovc," "hope," "goodness,""evil,"
the wordsof priestlyritualsto reflectblasphemy,saranworship,and a "honesry"-all tcrms and idcasthar were alrcadyso comforting and
TeilhardianworshipofEvolutionand the "Spiritofthe Earth." \X4ren familiar to his congregation.But all thcsc tcrms were understoodin
anotherpriestcameto exorcizehim, he said,againthrough"remote a scnsecomplctcly diffcrcnt fiom the traditionalonc: minus a super-
control":"EvolutionmakesJesuspossible. And only evolutioncando naruralGod, minus a Godman callcdJcsus,and minus a supcrnatu-
-a
t nat . ral condition callcd "pcrs,rnal,rltcrlife."
Finally leaving the Catholic Church, the possessedpriest (now
calling himselfJonathan)beganhis own church, where he could more At one point, Jonathan was instructed by his "remote control" to
easilypreachthe words thar he was receiving: go out into the woods, where he would undergo a full demonic initia-
rion and his possessionwould become complete. "l was reaching the
He could preachon the MissingLink, for exarnplc, or a picturcof veined heart ofthe world," he told Fr. Malachi in one oftheir conver-
Neanderthal Man, andmakerhccntireideaofevolurionfrom inani- sations, "to where Jesus,the Omega Point, was evolving and evolving,
matematterappeara gloriousbcginning.For rhe furure,Jonarhan and was on the threshold of emerging."
had a srill moregloriousoutlook.Thcrewasa new beingin proccss "lt seernedto him," writes Fr. Malachi,
now, he told his congregations; and it would live in a new tirne.
"New Being" and "New Time" becamehiswatchwords. that "only this world was fbrgiving and clcansing," that ir alonc
Jonathant message was simple.... Everywherein rhc world "united the elemenrs,"He had thc impressionrhar now ar last hc
around us therc were naturalsacraments, naruralshrincs.natural had "brokcn through," and rhat the rcvclationof all rcvelarionshad
holincss,natural immortaliry naturaldeiry,There was a natural bccn grantedhim: thc rcal rruth, the rcal god, the rcalJesus,thc reat
graceand ovcrwhclnringnaruralbcaury Furthermore,in spitc of holiness,thc rcal sacrament,the real being, and rhe new timc tn
thc chasmthat institutionalreligionhad dug berweenhumansand which all this ncwncsswould inevitably takc ovcr.
the natureof the world, thc world and all humanswerc onc in He lost count of ordinary time, of thc sun and thc wind, of thc
somenaturallymysticalunion. We camcfrom thar union and by ri vcr and i rs banks....The r ocksbccam cI iving t hings,his br ot hcr s
dcarh we went back inro ir. Ionathancalledthat natural union and sistcrs,his millennial cousins,witncssinghis consccrationwtth
'Abba Father." rcvcrenccthat only naturc had. And thc watcr around him winkcd
In effect,Jonathannradea fatefulsynthesis
of Teilhardian evolu- with gleaming eycs with thc song ir had learncd millions of years
rionarydoctrincsand TcilhardsideaofJesus.And he pernreated ir ago, from the swirling atoms of spacc,bc'forerhcrc was any world
-'
wirh a decphumanismand a knowingeycfur rhc yawningindiffcr- arrd man to hear ir. lr was an irrcsistiblccqrtasvftrr Ion.rrhan
enccnow grippingtraditionalChristians.
ln Jonathantoutlook,"religious"bcliefbecamecasyagain.At The seriousnessof Jonathan'sconditionwas madeknown to all
onc pole,one could acccptthe currenrlypervasive idca thar man when,while performinga weddingserviceby the ocean,he wasinsri-
evolvcdfrorn inanimatcmatter.Ar thc other,onc had no nccd ro gatedby the dark powersto drown the bride-an atten)ptat which he
aim at belicvingin an unimaginable "resurrccrion"of thc body.In- exorcism,the
fortunatelyfailed.At one point during his subsequent
576 577
CrNnsrs, CamrroN aND Ennly M,cNl Eot'ron's EPIt-ocun
demon inhabitinghim beganunering ltilhardian paeansro world "How do you mean a 'part' rnerelyl"
unrty: "They are partsof a greaterphvsicalbeing "
"Vhat being?"
lwo or thrcebillion ycarsago,thc Earth.Eachonc of us 50 trillion "The universe."
cclls... . 200 million tonsof men,women and children.'lwo trillion "-fhe univcrseof martcr?"
tons of animallifc.... All so that Jesuscan cnrcrge.Oh, beautiful I C 5.
Omega!Praisethc Lord of this worldwith whichwc areall, all 200 'And of psychicforccs?"
million tonsof us,arconc.' r(' "
"Yes.
'And rharthiswascrcatorof humansl"
In the lastcase-studyof his book, Fr. Malachi rellsofthe possessron "
" Yes.
ofa distinguished parapsychologistand adept at Vajrayanameditarion, "A personalcrearorl"
Carl V During his exorcism,the inhabiting demon is compelledby the "No."
priest-exorcistto tell how he deluded his host. The demon\ words, as "A physicalcreator?"
recordedon tape,are especiallyrevealing.At one point it says: "Yesalso."
"A prychoplrysicalcrcaror?"
Oncc spirir is confirscdwith psychc,wc can lcr anybodysec,hear, "Yes.Indeed,yes."
touch,rastc,know,desircthe impossible. He wasours.He is ours. "Vhy did you leadCarl in thisway?"
Hc is of rhc Kingdom.r' "Because hc would lcadothers."
"Vhy lcadothcrsin thisway?"
Of particularinterestis an interchangethat occurredlater berween "Because rhcntheybelongto thc Kingdom."
the priestand the hostilespirit. [n rcading it, one should keep in mind "Why belongro rhc Kingdoml".. .
our former discussionof panentheismand the concept of biological "lYlry, Priesr?lVhy?... IYHY?Becausewe hate thc Latter. We
evolution occurring through rhe consciousness of the "Soul of the hate.Hatc. Hate.Wc hatethosestainedwirh hisblood.We hateand
Vorld." Here, through the fallen spirit'sown admissions,we are givcn despisethoserhat follow him. \Wewant ro diverrall from him and
a glimpsc into both the rcligion and the scienceof the furure: wc want all in the Kingdomwherehe cannotrcachthem. Vhere
thcycannorgo with him... . " "
"\Whcrcwcreyou lcadingCarl?"
"'lo knowledge of the universe."
The wordscomeout from bc- It now remainsfor us to ask: Did the chief "prophet" o[ the New
twccn (larl'stightlyclcnchcdrccth. Religion in the modern West, Teilhard de Chardin, receive his ideas
"Vhat knowlcdgc?" rhrough direct contactwith the hostilepowers,asdid the peoplein the
Thcre is no answcrat flrst. Then slowlyand grudginglyrnc aboveaccounts?
wordscoms."The knowledge that humansarcjusta partof the unr- Ve havealreadyseenhow Teilhardbecameawareof the "conscious
vcrsc. envelope"surrounding the earth, in preciselythe realm of the under-
heavenwhich, accordingto Orthodox ascetictheology,the demons re-
' 'l'hisrnd thc subsequent
dialogues
from exorcisms
aretranscriptions
ofactual side. But a mor€ revealingpassageis found in one of Teilhard'searly
rccorornSs. compositionsentitled "'l-he Spiritual Powerof Matter" (dated August
578 579
C eNesrs,
CrearroN,rNnEar.rvMaN Enrron's Eprr.ocur
580 581
CsNrsls,CnealroNar.roE,cnlvM.^N Eolrol's Eptt-ocue
It appearsthat Protestantchurcheshave largelyescapedthe direct tlrought is to "broaden" onc'.smenral outlook. not ncccssarilydi-
influence of 'ltilhardism, although here too rhe zeitgeist5ehind Teil- rcctly attacking religiousideas(bur sometimesrhis also),in ordcr to
hard's philosophy has infiltrated church walls. ln Orthodory and the make it irnpossibleto think in "narrow" rcligiousterms:
Religion of the l:urure, Fr. Seraphim points out how charismatic (a) T'he ageof man and the univcrseis billions, nor rhousandsof
churcheshave embracedas their prophet the anri-Orthodox Russian years.This wcakcnsrhe "realistic"view ofthe Old Testamcnt,Adam,
thinker NicholasBerdyacv,whosechiliasticvision ofthe "T-hird Age of thc Parriarchs,Paradisc.
the Holy Spirit" is basedon the same vague,chiliastic longing as is (b) Mans lifctime becomeslcss crucial. Sooner or larec it be-
Teilhard's"Omega Point." Further,the very experiences evokedby the comes impossiblcto conrinuc ro stressthe "narrow" view of man's
charismatic movement, of being taken over by a vague, impersonal lifetime (and decisionfor ctcrnity) ifone believcsin a "broad, evotv-
force that is calledthe "Holy Spirit," open peopleup to rhe initiation ing" univcrse,especiallyin connection wirh Christianiry
which will characterizethe religion of the future. " Ibilhardism," Fr. (c) 'fhc "broad" view of the naturesof things must sooncr or
Seraphirn noted in one pllce, "fits very nicely in wirh 'charismatic' later involvc the narure of rnan: if everything changet i6 naturc,
phenomena." "evolves"fronr and to somcthing elsc-then why not man?
Once again we should point out that the falseChristianiry (and
be -lbilhardianrn an
Orthodoxy) of the future will be not necessarily
I L The "Wedge"and Bryond
overt sense.As Fr. Seraphimwntes:
In the Christian world today,there is a wide rangeoflevelsofacco-
Nor evcryonc who believcsin somcform ofevolutioncanacccprthe modation to the evolutionaryworldview. Fr. Seraphimhas said of all
pseudo-mysticism of Teilharddc Chardin; bur rhis blasphcmous such fcrrmsof accommodation:
"mysricism"is only a mostlogicaldeducrionfrom vicwswhosefirll
implicationsare entirelyunrealized
by thosewho acceptevolution I think it needsto bc poinrcdour with urmostclarirythat thc rclig-
"in sonrcform." ion of "compromise" is self'-deception,
and rharthereexisttodayat
bortomonly rwo absolutcly irrcconcilablc for man:faith
altcrnatives
Teilhardhasonly given blatantexpressionto a spirir which is subtly at in thc worldandthe rcligionofself,whoscfruit is death;andhith in
work in the world, undermining true Christianiry and building up a Chrisrthe Sonof God, in Whom aloneis eternalLile.8t
cleversubstitute.l-ike Ken Vilber and other thinkers who have fully
imbibed the zeitgeist,'feilhard has shown us the true spirit behind evo- Here. indeed.is rhe crux ofthe matrer.Those who are seriousand
lution. This samespirit underminesChristian faith to one degreeor earnestabout rheir faith in Christ the Son ofCod realizethat no fbrm
anorher,dependingon how much Christiansgive thelnselvesup to it. of accommodationto the world is possible.They know the alternatrves
Even a relativelysmall degreeof capitulation can have seriousconse- to be irreconcilable.The prince of this world knows this also,and thus
quencesfor one'sfaith. seestheseearnestChristians as his first targets.Constantly they are
In his notes,Fr. Seraphimsummarizedthe effect that the products held up to ridicule, rejectedby the mainstreamacademicestablish-
of evolutionary ph ilosophy-especially the evolutionary rime ment and then called "yahoos"for not being a part of it.3" Chrisrians
scale-have had on Christianiry: must be preparedto acceprthis ridicule; if not, they will nor be able to
face the far worse arracksrhar are, according to prophecy,ro come
funcrionsof "evolutionary"
One of rhe chief ideological-religious when the floodgatesofapostasybreak lorth in the world.
582 583
Cr"Nssrs,CrlrrroN at'tn Ea.nr-v
MaN Eorron'sEur-ocus
Many who call themselvesChristiansare in realiry so deeply "of rheir claims can now be seen more widely for what they really are;
the world" that ourward acceptanceby the world and its academices- philosophicaland religiousclaims.l.ooking at the siruation from that
tablishment means more to them than spiritual acceptanceby Jesus vantagepoint, Christianscan choosetheir philosophy.Vith the fall of
Christ. The reigning philosophyof evolutionism is acceptedby rhem materialisricDarwinisnr, they can know that their choice is not based
because,at the deepestlevel,beyond their intellectualbelief in Christ, on "science,"which cannot say anything for sure abour origins, but
rheir faith is what Fr. Seraphimidentifiedas"faith in rhe world and rhe rarher on what thel wisb to belieue.
religion of self."They do not love Christ enough to war with the spirir For those who choosefaith in Christ over faith in the world, re-
of this world-the devil-and so the world shapesthem. The spirit of jecting naruralistic,Darwinian evolution is only a beginning. (Even
rhe world sersthe intellecrualfashions,the fashionsset rhe tone for Ken Vilber does as much!) True faith in Christ means rejectingthe
them, and they go in stepwith the world. Not being willing to die for core of evolutionaryphilosophy itself,which reachesfar beyond Dar-
Christ, they are certainlynot willing to be called"yahoos"lor Him by winism and is in fact "the key to the philosophyof Antichrist." Vhen
the world. this underlying philosophy is abandoned,not only does the idea of
On rhe other hand, there are many other Chrisrianswho truly do biologicalevolution fall away (whether naturalisticor "God-guided"),
love Christ first of all but who have allowed some degreeof evolu- but so do the other corollariesof evolutionary philosophy,including
tionary philosophy into their Christian worldview simply because the evolutionary/uniformitariantime scaleand the evolutionary cos-
they do not know, becausethey havenot been informed of its fallacies mogony.
and the unproven assumprionson which it is based.As Fr. Seraphim It is at this point that the work of the scientific creationistsper-
observes: form a crucial function. These scientistsare what has righdy been
'fheir "narrow"
called "the thin edge of Phillip Johnson's'wedge."'
fhey do not understand the philosophical "spiritof rhe agc"which position at this thin edge has madc them "the offscouring of all
gaverisero evolution,and thereforethey naivelyacceprthe "scien- things" ( I Cor. 4: l3) in the eyesof rhe world, but they haveendured
ti0c fact" ofevolution, but rejectrhe finished,
phi/osop@ofcvolurron rhis out of their earnestdevotion to Christ. In terms of basic Chris-
asin Teilharddc Chardin.Thcy do not seetharrheseareonewhotc; tian rheology,theirs is the only consistentand tenable scientific
wirhout the philonplry,there would nevcr havc becn the "fact" of model oforigins. As apologistsfbr creation,they draw rhe battle lines
cvolution. not only at biologicalevolution, br:t at evcry other product of evolu-
tionary philosophy in the field of science,beginning with the unifor-
Here is where rhe "wedge" that Phillip E. Johnson has described mirarian "billions of years"scenario.lf this scenariowere true, even
performsan important function. It may be true that, for a grearmany the idca of a Creator-God, who fbr billions of yearswas "constantly
people, the crack that the "wedge" has driven into materialisticDar- replacingextinct specieswith new species,"t'comes to resemblethe
winism will play right into evolutionarydeism/panentheism,but for weak, attenuated,"laboring" deity of Vilber's "creativeemergence."
thosewho seekthe true Christ it holds much positivesignificance.In lf there were really billions of yearsof animal death and millions of
freeingChristiansfrom the fear rhat evolution is an establishedscien- yearsof "hominids" beforeman'sappearancc,then the whole meaning
tific facr, it makesthem leel more freeto believeasChristians. of the goodnessof the first-createdworld, the death that came into
Most scientists,ro be sure,will continue to hold up evolution as a the world as a resultof man'ssin. and the redemption of the world by
fact even without holding onto the Darwinian mechanismfor ir, bur Chrisr becomesmuddled if not entirely lost. On the other hand, if, as
as a result of the "wedge" that has entered inro the culture at large, the Bible and the Biblical creationistshold, God made man at the be-
584 t85
Csrursrs,CtexrroN aruo Eeply Mnt.t Eorron'sEprr-ocur
ginning of the world, if indeed Christ was speaking rruly when He grace (energies),penetraringall things without mixing with them.88
said rhat 'fom the beginning of'the creation God, made them male and Although we know that we are not God or a Part of Him, we find that
f'emale,"if rhe whole universeis reallymade for man and man has in- our living God callsus into intimatecommunion with Him through
habited it for irs durarion, if we today can rraceour ancestryback to parricipation in the life of His grace,that we may become sons and
the flrsr man and woman, createddirectly by the hand of God at the .laughrersofGod not by nature and begetting(aswith Christ the only
world's origin only some thousandsof yearsago-rh en, indeed, hout begottenSon ofGod) but by graceand adoption.'Ve are callednor to
closeis Cod!How crucial becomesman'slifetime, how immediare his rhc lalseglory which satanonce sought and was therebycast down to
decision for eterniry! How preciousis our life, and how preciouswe hell, but ro the true "power to becomesons ofGod" (John I:l2)'
must bc, in the hands of an All-Powerful God Vho has brought all rvhich raisesus to heaven.
things into being, Jitr zs, in Six Days! Even afier man brought death 'fhrough the Holy Fathers,we behold the full grandeurof man as
into the world by turning away from his Creator, the (lreator came he was originally created:of what the Holy Scripturecalls "the image
and took the sentenceofdeath upon Himself our of love fbr his pre- of God" in man. The true God of the Christiansis so unfathomablein
cious creature,man. His power and nrajesrythat even the image of Him in man-though
On the foundation of this uncompromisedChristian belief in the absolutely nothing in comparison with the Divine Nature-is rril/
creation and redemption, the Holy Fathersbegin to raiseour under- grearer.rhan the feeble"God" of theisticevolution or "creativeemer-
standingto yet higher levels,sheddingthe light of Divin e yision I theo- gence.
za) on the (iod-inspired book of Genesis.Nowhere in rhe world does Finally, through the Holy Scripturesilluminated by the Holy Fa-
rhereexist such a wealth of rheologicalknowledgeon rhe origin ofthe rhers,we seecreation in a new light, as it is in truth We seea young
world and of man as is found in the writings of the Holy Farhers, earth createdespeciallyfor man, and yet partakingof decaybecauseof
which are themselvesbasedon the only inerranr account of crearion man'-ssin. Even amidst the decay and corruption, we can bchold
the world hasever known. Virh the Holy Farhersas a guide, no con- rhrough the light of Christian contemplationglimpsesof the world as
sciousOrthodox Christian can everbe in doubr or confusion about his it was first made and was intended to be, and we can see the
origin, lor the Holy Fathers provide the most precise rheological numberlesscreatedbeings,as "words" (logoi) calledinto being by the
exposition-as much as rhe human mind can grasp-of how man and will of God, "groaning" in expectationof our redemption' when the
the whole world came into being. world will be createdanew when the very nature of matrcr will be
Through Parristicrheology,we are protectedagainsrthe falsedeifi- changed,and when, through the power of Christ's Resurrecrion,we
cation of man and crearionthat runs throughout paganand neo-pagan roo will arisein resurrectedbodies."'
philosophy. We are protected againstvainly rhinking we can merge
with a vague,namelessTranspersonal Absolureand from exulring in a
falsenature mysricismand worship of the earth; bur we are given ac-
of OrthodoxTTbdal
12. The.State
cessto something far nrore glorious.Through the writings of the Fra-
rhersour minds and heartsare raisedup to knowledgeofthe true God, visionof Genesis
Suchis the Patrisric and creationSo clearis the
living, Personal,closer ro us rhan our own brearh, Vho lreely and that, up to today,of-
witnessof the Holy Fathersrhat it is deplorable
without necessityuilled w into existenceout of nothing, \X/ho oy na- ficialOrthodoxrepresentatives in Americacontinueto comeout with
ture is wholly "orher" than His creationand yer \Vho upholds and sus- arriclesexpressingacceptanceofevolution"in someform." By this ac-
tains everything in creationar every moment through His Uncreated ceprance the Cenesisaccounts
and by theirdesireto allegorize ofcrea-
586 587
Cr.Ntsrs,
Crl alloNrNo E,lnryMrN Eort clt's Eprr-o<;utr
tion and Eden,they havealreadyshownthemselves ro be more tnan Vith books like this coming out in Orthodox countries,' Ortho-
willing to abideby the minimum requirements which, accordingro dox Christiansare becomingequippedto severthemselvescompletely,
Ken Vilber, Christianswill haveto follow in orderto be includedin not only from Darwinian evolution, but from the very core ofevolu-
rhe coming integrationof scienceand religion.But true Orthodox tionisr philosophywith all its destructiveramifications.By the graceof
Christians, lookingat Vilber'sguidelines
in reverseimage,canseeex- God, the false"'Christianiry' (and Orthodoxy') of the future" will not
actlywhat not rc do so asnor to be subsumedinto the philosophyof be universal.Unto the end of the world, therewill still be thosefollow-
the comingAntichrist.I[, as Fr. Seraphimmaintains,evolutionismis ing the Father-God of rwo thousand yearsago, today and forever. The
the key ro the philosophyof theAntichrist,thenthe OrthodoxPatris- counrer-rrurhwill pass,while the Tiuth of Christ, as He has promised
tic visionof Cenesis,creationand earlyman is a key to remaining us, will not passaway.
outsidethat infernalphilosophyand within rhe hearrof true Christi- ln the altar of his monastery,Fr. Seraphimwas once found weep-
anlty. ing beforethe Holy Table.\X/henhis monasticco-struggleraskedhim
Pious Orthodox Christians,especiallyin lands which have rradi- whar was wrong, Fr. Seraphim replied, "The Tiuth is diminishing."
tionally been Orthodox, have always believed in rhe Scriptural- His partner found it remarkablerhat he would be prayingand weeping
Patristicteachingon creation-or else,ar the very least,they have al- over rhis. But he understood:The Tiuth for which Fr. Seraphim had
wayswanttd to believe,but havebeenlefr without apologericwcapons once searchedso desperatelyand had finally found was not an abstract
againstthe modern evolutionaryonslaught.Now, at last, they are be- idea, but rather a Person:the God-man JesusChrist. What Fr. Sera-
ing provided wirh such weapons.The recenr (1999) publication in phim had been weepingover was the fact that faith in this'I'ruth was
Moscow of Deacon Daniel Sisoev'sChronble of tbe Beginning (Letopis diminishing, and that its irreconcilablealternarive-faith in the world
nachala)is a very positivesign for the future. Publishedwirh rhe bless- and the religion of self-was waxing stronger.
ing of PatriarchAiekseill of Moscow and All Russia-the head of by Christ Himself has said, "Vhen the Son of Man returns, will He
far the largestOrthodox Church in the world-this book presents find laith on the earth?"His scrvant,Fr. Seraphim,spent his life in de-
honestlyand lorthrighrly rhe Patrisricteachingon Genesis.'I'he author fense of
'Irurh so that there would I:e fairh in Christ, so that there
comesto all the sameconclusionsasdid Fr. Seraphimregardingthe Six would be fairhful followersof Him who would not fall prey ro the in-
Days, Paradise,the ageof the earth, the global Flood, etc., simply be- tellecrualfashionsthat have been put into rhe air by rhe spirit of this
causethe Orthodox rradirion is so clearon rhesesubjects.Only those world.
whose unstatedaim is to reconcileOrthodoxy with an alien philoso- 1-he path is exceedinglynarrow much more so than most Chris-
phy would come to other conclusrons. tians realize.Fr. Seraphimhasprovidedus with the foundarion offaith
Like Fr. Seraphirn,Deacon Daniel quoresar lengrh from the Bible in Christ-the Orthodox teaching on creation and the first-created
and the Holy Fathers,and, in those placeswhere the Scriptural- nlan-so that at least"the very elect" would not be deceived.
Patristicteachingis ar odds wirh modern evolutionary/uniformitarian ln view ofall that hasbeensaid,the creation/evolutiondebatethat
assumptions,he defendsthe faith with evidencegatheredby the scien-
tific crearionists,primarily Dr. Henry Morris.* 'Orher booksrhat haverccenrlyconrcour in Russiadcfcodingthc Parrisric
tcachingon creationincludeScience on tbe (lrcationof the \Vorld(Moscow,1996) and
Euofutiortor Corruptioal (Moscow, 1997), borh by PricstTimothy Alferov.An im-
'Dercon Danielrcfersfrcquenrlyro Henry Morris'book Tfu BiblicalBasis
for porranrcontriburionhasalsobecnmadcby Anron KoscnkoofVolgograd,Russia,in
Modern Sticncc,
which was publishedin Russianrranslarionin St. Petersburg in his lcngthy lctrerto the c'Jirorof Pratoslaunala zhizn (OrthodoxLry' in Russian),vol.
t995. 49. oo. 12 (Deccmber,1999).
588 589
GeNesls, CnlrrroN eNo Eenry MrN
ApppNorx ONr
Noteson Science,Euolution
and ChristianPhilosophy
EDITOR'S NOTE: Thercsectionsof Fn Seraphim\ notesuerc uitten
ouer te courseof seueralyars. SectionsI and 13 werewrinen in 1974;
the restcannotbepreciselydated, Tithsfor sections3 and 9 wereprouidtd
b1 Fr. Seraphim;the othertiths hauebcenaddtd by the editor.
590 59'l
CtNcsrs, Cnnarroru ,rruo Eanly M,rN Nores oN ScreNcr:,
EvolurrorulNo CunlsrrlruPulr.osopu,
The words and decreesof God become the law of nature. Therefore It is vain for us to imagine that we are more "sophisricated"than
also the decreeof God, urtered by Him as a resuk of thc disobcdi- the Holy Fathers,being madeso wise by modern "enlightenment"and
ence of the first Adam-thar is, the decreeto him of death and cor- sciencethat we know better than they how to read and interpret the
ru p ti o n -bec am e t he l a w o f n a tu re , e re rn a l a n d unal rcrabl c. Divinely inspired Scriptures(as Sr. Basil says,consideringourselves
Therefore, in order to abrogaterhis decree,the Son of God, our "wiser than the revelationsof the Spirit").' The superiorityof modcrn
Lord JesusChrist, wascrucifiedand died, offering Himselfas a sacri- knowledge over that of the Holy Fatherslies solely in one respect,
fice for the redemption of man from dearh.r which lies at the very bottom of the hierarchyof knowledge:in the
quantity of scientificfactsnow availableto us (but not everythingthat
That is to say: rhe law ofnature before Adami disobedienceis dif calls itself "scientificfact" I such!);in every other respecrour knowl-
ferent fom the hw of nanre now in forcc, and it is thereforetotalb an- edge in inferior ro rheirs.They knew lar betrer rhan todayt scienrisrs
hnowableby rcience.. . . Cerrain it is that sciencecannot, on the basisof and philosophersthe phceof scientificknowledgein the whole hierar-
observinga creationwhich is ever).rvhere corruptibleand mortal, make chy of knowledge;and they saw clearlythar the proper interpretation
even the slightesrinferenceabout a crearionnor subjecrro rheselaws. of (lenesisis the task of theology,not science,and it is facilitated,nor
lX/hat was before rhe disobedienceofAdam, and whar is beyond the
at all by a knowledgeof prescnt-dayscienrificfacts,but rarher by ad-
end of this corrupribleworld (when the creationwill not be destroyed vancementin spiritual life and understanding.-Ihat indeed is why the
but totally transformcl)-are totalu oukidc the sphereof sciertceand whole doctrine of creation is presentedmost clearly,preciselyin the
may be known only through Orthodox theology in accordancewith writings of a Father like St. Symeon the New Theologian, who at-
Cod'r revelat ion to mankind.... rained the heightsof spiritual life. The notion that we now, "enlighr-
Ar this point the sincereOrthodox believerwho is confused be- ened" by science, can understand Genesis better than the Holy
causehe has been taught "evolution" from his childhood and cannot Fathers,is itself a result of thar evolutionary philosophy which virru-
force himself to disbelievein it all ar once-will ask: Is it not srill Dos- ally everyonenow holds quite unconsciously.. ..
sible somehow ro "reinterpret"the incorruptibility of Adam and the 'l'hus rhe whole structure of evolurionary ideas and philosophy
first creation so as nor to be too much outside rhe fashionsof con- concerningthe supposedlycorruptible creationbeforeAdam is seento
temporary ideas?To which the answeris: Ifyou wish ro "reinterprer" be an elaboratefable like unto those the ancients had about their
the xate beforethe corruptible, fiallenworld ws kn6lr,'-1hs11you musr "gods," and which wereso well refutedby the God-bearingFathersof
likewise"reinterpret"the state aftu rhis fallen world, the furure bliss the first Chrisriancenturies....If the world is acknowledged to be in-
of heaven,for rhe two correspondand only differ, as St. Symeon has corrupt beforethe disobedienceofAdam, the needofevolurionistsfbr
pointed out in thc long passagequored above [sec pp. 420-22), it "millions of years"vanishes:there are then no fossils,no extincr spe-
that the future srareof the world will be fully spiritual,corresponding cies,no "survivalofthe fittest" [beforethe lall of man].
ro the "spiritual body" of the men who will dwell in it, and no ronger
will it be possiblefor irs incorruptibiliry to be lost. Do we Orthodox
2. Scienceand thc Qutstion of Incorruption
Christiansbelievethat we will actuallybe immorral and incorruptible
in that next life-if God will only number us among rhe saved-or Scienceis silent before evident miraclesof incorruption in New
only metaphoricallyand allegoricallyso? If we believeand think as Testament times: the Morher of Godt painlessbirthgiving without a
the Holy Fathersdo, then our future incorruptibiliry will be real, as father (seeespeciallyrhe Theotokion ofone ofthe Songsofrhe Canon
was thar of rhe crearionand of Adam beforehis disobedience. of Epiphany);alsoChrist'sResurrection.Secondarily,the incorruption
,92 5)3
(lrrr:sls, Crr,rrroN AND f,^RLyMAN Putlosopttv
Norrs ot'tScIsNce,Evot.urIoN ANDCHRIsTIAN
of holy relics,alsomiracles
of Chrisrand the Saints.l-heorderoJ'Jallen (c) The "broad" view of the naturesofthings must sooneror later
c/eationit bereinterruptedhy a higherku-,so roo crearionbeforethe invofve the narure of man: if everything changesits nature,"evolves"
fall is unknowablebecause a differenrlaw orevailed.* from and to something else-then why nor man? All evolutionists
rhink so, and Christianswho deny this while acceptingthe restofevo-
lutionary rheory make fools of themselves,being "fundamentalists"in
3. Euolutionand "CosnticReligion"
part, "evolutionists"in Part.
I. One of the chief ideological-religious functionsof "evolution- 2. Evolurion is a'totalitarian" thought-fbrm; it attempts to give a
ary" thoughtis to "broaden"one! menralourlook,nor necessarily di- religious-philosophical outlook for rhe wholeof lif'e. As Teilhard de
rectlyattackingreligiousideas(bur sometinres this also),in orderro Chardin (quoted approvingly by T'heodosiusDobzhansky)affirms: "ls
makeit impossible to think in'harrow"religious rerms: evolution a rheory,a systemor a hypothesis?It is much m61g-i1 i5 2
(a) T'heageof man and the universeis billions,nor rhousands of generalpostulateto which all theories,all hypotheses,all systemsmust
years.'l-hisweakens the "realistic"viewof the Old -lestament, Adam, henceforwardbow and which they must satis0,in order to be think-
the Patriarchs, Paradise. able and rrue. Evolution is a light which illuminatesall facts,a trajec-
(b) Man'sliletimebecomes lesscrucial.Sooneror later,it becornes rory which all lines of thought must follow This is what evolution is"
impossible to continueto stress a "narrow"viewof man'.s lifetime(and (Concern,Spring, I 973).
decisionfor eterniry)ifone believes in a "broad,evolving"universe, es- Evolution is not partially true or false.It arosefrom-demands to
pecially in connecrion wirh Christianiry. be accepted as-^ tuholc philosophy of the world and life. The scien-
tific hypothesisis quite secondary.
' St . B arse nu ph irrsof Opti nu ( lll45- l9l. l) wr it c s in his c c l l - n o r c s : '( l c r r a i n 3. A characteristicof modern currents of thought is "universal-
pcoplc, cvcn cvidcnt bclicvcrsin Cod, nor to nrcnrioo ovcrr arhcisrs,say. I arlnrit ism"-the attempt to make a synthesisthat will include all "partial"
that rhc lawsof naturc wcrc sct down by (iod, and rhcrefirrcI cannot grenr rhar rhcy
views:Masonry,ecumenism,Hegelianism,Bahai, Unitarianism, uniry
can lrc brokcn.'(]od cannot brcak thc ordcr that Hc Hinrsclf hrs csrablishcd.Onc
could lnswcr such crafty sophisrsthus: Arn:rzirrg!It's just as if Ood and man exisr fbr
of all religions.This is what "evolutionary"philosophy i5-2 ''un1vs1-
your lawsofnaturc, and not rhc lawsofneturc for the purposcsof(iod and rhe goocl sal" rhcory to explain ever)'rhing,and to iustifr everyth;ngthc way it
'l
of man. his is thc old lcirvcnof tlrc Pharisces,to which a worthv rcply we' givcn is-universal salvation,a cosmic view of everythingentering into the
1900 ycarsago: ''I'hc Son of men is l.ord cvcn of thc sat'barhd,ry (M.rrt. I 2:ll)! Our universalharmony of things as they are.
(locl is a ( iod ofordct, and He ciirrcrsthc world by nreansof laws.'l lrc laws in and of
4. As a conscqucnce,harmony is found berweenevolution (and
thcnrsclvcs<io nor producc eny nranifistationsin narurc.'l hcy nrcrely rcgularcand
orher universalistideas)and "mysticel" writcrs of the past,and an at-
bal:rnccthc powcrsof neturc. In rr;rttrrc,in rhis visiblcworld, variousfbrccsfirnction,
and thc lowcsr ol rhcnr vicld to rhc highcr: thc physicelviclds ro rhe chenrical,thc rempt is specificallymade ro show the harmony betweenTeilhardism
chcrnical to the organic, lnd finally, all o[thenr togcrhcr ro thc highcst of all, the and Orthodox"mystical"tradition, quoting St. Symeonthe New Theo-
spiriturl. Virhout thc inrervcnrion of thc highcst forccs, thc lowcr forccs worrld logian, St. Isaacthe Syrian,etc.'l'hosewho do not come up to mysti-
firnction in a honrogcnous,immurablc ord.-r.Ilur the highcr firrccsllrcr, and somc- cal, universalist heights are dismissed as "legalistic," "moralistic,"
tinrcs cvcn suspcndrhc acrionsofrhe lowcr. In srrcha narural subordinarionofthe narroq etc. But in this way the harmony of C)rthodoxtradition is de-
lowcr forccsto thc highcr. nor one oi- thc llws of nlrurc is changed.-I-hus,firr exam-
srroyed:one part is turned againstrhe other in order to make Ortho-
plc, a physicianchangesthc progrcssionof a discasc,l nran changcsthc flce of rhc
eartlr [Tythc digging ofcanals, .lnd so on. Clnnor (]od causc rhc same (hing ro a
doxy fir into the harmony of modcrn universalisticideas.
boundlcsslygrcatcrcxrcnt?"(Fronr thc lorrhcoming book ofthc Sr. Hermen Brorh- This is uerymuch in conformity with thepridc of "modern"ideas:\/e
crho<xl, Fller Btrsanxlhi$ of Optina.) [o. know berter than the ancientsi only the most exabed thought of the
594 )v)
Gr:Nrsls,CrurrclN AND E^RLyMAN Nolrs ou Scrruce, Evolurron aNo CHnrsnaN PHII-osopnv
pastcompares with our thought.Bur this is directlyagainsrthe Holy the earlyChurch (cf. the propheciesof St. Nilus the Myrrh-gusherand
Fathers who warnagainstreaching too high,not recognizingone'ssub- St. Niphon of Constantia);t incorruption and immortality precede
tle hiddenprideand passions. Specifically,
oursis leastof all a rrmeto corruprion and mortaliry.I'he perfectionand immortaliry of the com-
spreadand popularize "mysrical"ideasand writers,anddragthem inro ing age(heaven)are not a dtuelopmenor "evolution" fronr the present
the marketplace.
lt is Farbetterto be humble,revererheseexakedwrir- world (asTeilhard de Chardin would have it; actually,chiliasm is al-
ers,and not presumethat one can understand them.The writingsof mosr an inevitablededuction from evolution), but a radical rransfor-
Theophanthe Recluse aremoresuitedto our condirion. mation.
The whole aim of "evolutionaryphilosophy" is to upsctthis Chris-
4. The "Mlsticism" of Tiilhard dc Chardin rian outlook, basedon God Who does everything as He wishes,and
make instead something more "undcrstandable"to fallen nlen-ra-
One can be syrnpatheticwith Teilhardde Chardin'sintentro recon- tionalism, humanism. That is why "evolution" was developedgradu-
cile scienceand Christianity,which spokein rwo entirelydifferenr lan- ally by modern agnosric-atheistic-deistic philosophy before any
guagesin his day.1rue, all rhat is tar in scienceis not in conflicr with
Orthodox truth, and a ferventChristiancan be a trurhful scientist.Bur 'St. Nilus rhe Myrrh-gusher(tl65l), appearingposrhumously ro rhc fallen
falsetheories,misrakenpersonalfanciesand opinions-cannot serveas monk 'l-heophancs on Mounr Arhosin theycar 1817,prophesied aboutrhe stareof
humaniryin thc lasttimcs:"1-hepeoplcof that rime will bc unrecogniz-alrle. Vhcn
a basisfor a true worldview whetherthey come from scienceor religion.
thc rinrcofthe appearance ofAntichrisrwill bc near,peoplc's reesonwill be clarkcned
Teilhard de Chardin solvedthe dichotomy of scienceand Chrisrianiry rnoreand morc. 'l-he
becausc ofcarnal sins;criminaliryand impietywill increase
by throwing up a vaguc"mysticism"berweenthem; thus he was faithFul worl<'lwill bccomcunrecognizablc; peoplc'sappeamncc will changc,and it will be
neither ro true sciencenor rrue religion,bur simply inventeda new false impossible to distinguishmen from wonrcnbccarrsc of theshanrclessness in lashions
teachingof his own-it is very attractivebecauseit is in accord with and hair sryles.'l'hesepeoplcrvill beconrccoarsc,wild, and crucl,like aninralsbe-
"mystic" and "universalist" currents of our rimes. But to serious causco[ rhe tcmptarionsof Antichrisr.There will trc no rcspcctfor parcnrsand
cldcrs,lovc will disappcar.... -lhen Christiantreditionand nrannerswill changc.
thought, to rrurh, his reachingis but anorherofthe seriouserrorsofour
Modesryend chastirywill disappean instead,fornicatiorand dissiparion will rcign
times,and a very fruitful one for the coming unified worldview of the
amongrhe pcople.Deceirand lvaricewill reachunbclievable lcvcls....Fornicetion,
last humanity. He is a predecessor ofAntichrisr. adulrcry,homosexualirv, craliy deeds,theft, and murdcr will dominarcsocicry....
-l-heChurchofGod will bc dcprivedofGod-fiaringpastors." Sccalsothe prophecics
ofSr. Niluscorrccrning rhedcgencration ofOrthodox nTonastic lifi, in I hc Ortltodox
5. Euolution at rhe Exact Opposite ofChristianity lVordno.2l (1968),pp. 143-49.
The whole "evolutionaryphilosophy" which graspspeople roday The propheryof St. Niphon, Ilishopof (lonsrantia, (iyprus(fourthccnturv)is
asfollows:"To rhc vcryend of thisagcthcrcshallrrotbc lackingProphcts of thc [-ord
leadsthem to believe,ofren unconsciously,in a view of crearionand
God, asalsoscr,ranrs ofslran. Bur in the lasrtimcsthoscwho truly will scrvcCod
life which is just the opposireof what Christianiry teaches:simple be- willsuccccdin hidingrhcmselvcs from menandwill not performin theirnridsrsigns
getscomplex, savagery"evolves"to civilization,imperfectgivesrise ro rnd wondersasat rhe prcsenrtime, bur rheywill trauclby a path ofactivity tnrcr'
perfect, "progress," etc. According ro Orthodoxy, the perfect falls ro mixedwith humiliry,and in thc KingdomofHeaventhcywill bc grearer thrn thc Fr-
the imperfect(Paradiseto fallenworld; and evenhistorically,the Holy rherswho havebeenglorifiedby signs.For at that tinreno onc will pcrhrrnrbefore
Fathers nore rhe fall of mankind in general unril rhe coming of rhe cyesof merrmiraclcswhich would inflanrenrenand inspirethem ro strivcwirh
zealfor ascetic labors....Many,beingpossesscd by ignorancc, will fall into thc abyss,
Christ-cf St. Symeon the New Theologian and Sr. Gregory of
goingasrrayin the brcadthof thc broadand spacious parh"(qrrotedin Fr.Seraphim
Nyssa),and nran in the lastdayswill be much lower spiritually than in Rosc,Orthodoxyand the Rcligionof the Furzrelfourrh cdirionl, p. 169).*Eo.
596 597
Gp:Nnsrs,
Cnea:'roNluo Elnlv MaN Nolr:s oN ScrgNcr-.EvolurroN,rNoCttttlsrtlN Putt-osopHv
"scientific"proof was ever for:nd. Thc Orrhodox Chrisrian perspective 2. Many C)rthodoxChristiansare not merely "indifferent" to evo-
(Paradise,the shortnessof [rime allotted to] this world, erc.)is t whoh lution; rhey openly accept it, unaware that thcreby they accept the
neu lfiltoh for those made stupid by modern "enlightenment" phi- L.atin-Scholasticdoctrine of creationand the first-creatcdrnan, which
losophy,of which evolution is a key product. is rotally opposed ro rhe Orthodox Christian doctrine as set forth
clearlyespeciallyin the Holy Fathersofthe highestspiritLrallife.
3. In generalthe question of "evolution" and "creation" has by
6. lVfu Ortltodox Christians Should Not Be Indffirent
now' after so many vain argumentsbrought forth by both sidesin the
to Euohttiort
past century, becomeso confusedthat even many very awareOrtho-
Some say that Orthodox Christiansshould pay no attcntion to dox Christiansdo not havea coherentview on the whole subject;and
"evolurion"-that it is "science"and has nothing to do with theology. very few are thosewho know the Patristicteachingconcerningthe in-
lfevolution is taught in schools,our attitude should be one ofindiffer- rerprerarionofrhe text of Genesis,all the more so in that few ofthe Pa-
1i/estern
ence:God could createman in any way He chooses,our tradition does rristic works on Genesisare to be found in English or other
not tell us how or give us any teachingto opposcto evolution. languages.
This argument is falsebecause:
l. St. Petersays:"Be ready always to give a defensero everyone
7. Paleontologyand "Iuory-TbwerOrthodoxy"
that asksyou for an accountof the hope that is in you" ( I Peter3:15).
The question of evolution toucheson Christian faith, spccificallyre- Paleontologyis an impreciseand very outward science.And evolu-
garding creationand thc nature of man. Even if the enemiesof Chris- rion does nltcome from paleontology-it is a philosophywhich many
tianiry are very ridiculous in their argumcnts, our consclence paleontologists accept.
dcmands that we have an answer to them, both for their sake (for Paleontology and theology are not two entirely independent
they are also living souls whoseerror keepsrhem from God) and be- spheres-that'.sa modern rationalisticidea. They are diff'erentlevels
causethere are simple soulswho can be led away from God by ridicu- which sometirnes overlap. And the basic pbilosophyof the rwo Ii.e., of
lous argumenrs.'Io the Soviet cosmonaurwho "looked fbr God" in Orrhodox theologyand evolutionistpaleontologylis radicallydistinct;
spaceand thought his failure to find Him disprovedthc existenccof man asfallen from the angelic state, vs. man ,'r;i/rg up from savagery.
God-our answer is clear: we Christians have a teaching about One can't hold both cheseideasseriously.
wherher God is locared"in the sky" or not, and this atheisrargument The idea that paleontologycan believewhateverit wants and Or-
(which is taken scriouslyby some poor souls) is easilyrefuted by pre- thodox Christianiry isnt affccted-this is an ostrich nrentality, which
senting the true doctrine of God Who is, in the words of St. John makesOrrhodoxy either fliry talesor simply remote from life. On the
Damascene, contrary,Orthodoxy oFtenimpingeson everydayproblems;and a lack
of Orthodox plllosophyn apply revelationto life, nreanswe are criP'
withourbeginning;rndwithout end,everlasting and erernal,uncre- p.led far ordinary life. -I'his is iuory-tower Ortbodory, not real Ortho-
atcd,unchangcable, rrnalterable,
sinrple,uncompoundcd, incorpo- ooxy.
'We
real, invisible,impalpable,uncircumscribed, unlimited, incom- must be preciseabout "science." Most people dssume"science"
prchensiblc, unconraincd, Lrnfarhomlblc,good,just, rhc Maker of knows what it is talking about. Brt there is no such thing as "sci-
all crcatcdthings,all-powerful,all-ruling,all-sccing,the Provider, ence"-there are different "sciences,"each one with a very different
rhc Sovcreign.and rhc ludgc,rfall.J levelof accuracyand preciseness.Paleontologyis one of the /ar precise
598 599
GrNr-srs,
Ctrrtror eNn E,rnlvMrN Nores oN ScltNct, Evot-ulloNANDCHRrsrlAN
Purr<>solr.ry
sciences,requiring much guessworkto fill vastgapsof time and knowl- natural s,ate,as in Orthodox theology),and after this man remainsin
edge.. All the sciencesconnectedwith "proving" evolution are impre- his 'natural" condition. His natureis nor injured, but only placed in
cise-pre hisrory, paleontology, geology. The more precise sciences disorder-the fleshoverweighsthe spirit.
whose testimony is called for to "prove" sy6lusi6n-srn[syology, ge- ('I'he Protestanterror is a little different: accordingro Luther and
netics,etc.-if anyrhing give ptoo( againstevolution.'* Calvin, human nature was comlrletel!corruptedby rhe fall and can do
norhing to help itself.)
Augustine, in opposing Pelagranism, went ro rhe opposite error
8. Man as Qualitatiuely Diferent llom Animals
and stated that in fallen man freedom to do good was completel!anni-
According to evolutionism,Adam was born of carnal intercourse hikted; rhe graceof God is everything(cl Protestantism).
of non-human creatures.This is a "son of God"?! Thus Catholicism underestimatesthe nature of man before the
To reconcileevolution and Orthodox teaching,one must say ei- fall, and his nature after the fall (and so opposed St. John Cassian).
ther: 'fhe same error again appearedin Barlaam,who underestimatedthe
(l) The difference berween man and bezsrsis quantitatiue rather srateof Divine vision accessible ro man in this life, and so he opposed
than qualitative:one last litde mutation producedman. This is repug- St. Cregory Palamas.
nant ro theology,which holds thar the image of God is qualitatively The greatness of man and his origin and destiny are not understood
different f166 [s2s15-n6 beastis "almost man." by the Latins-they make him too small,obviouslybecausethey meas-
Or: (2) Adam wasborn a beast,and becameman only by a miracle ure everythingby a this-world$standard.Their theology comes fiom
of God's "inbreathing." 'fhis is repugnant to science,which seeksto human pisdom,not Divine revelationand Divine vision.
explain everything by natural laws, and rejectsnriraculousexplana-
tions.
10. Reading the Fossil Record
600 601
Gnrqesrs,
CnexrroN.rNoEaRryMar.r Nolr:s oN ScreNcr,Evor.ulron,rNoCnnls,naNPHtt.osopH'
ample,believersaremuchtoo quickto backoffand defendtheirtreas- any doubt a matter of some few thousandsof years,involving the life-
uresby sayingthey are"metaphors"or do not meanliterallywhat they rimes of specificmen, and it can in no way be interpretedas rnillions
say.This is nowhereclearerthan in the first chaptersof Genesis,which of yearsor whole agesand racesof men.)
suchbelievers hastento interpretin a wayacceptable to the larest"sci-
entificopinion." 14. The Missing Euidence
602 603
Sruolr's
oF PnoPoseo
Ourt INFS
604 605
(lsNrsrs,CnlarroN aNo Errry MaN OuruNrs or PnoposE.o
Sr-uoltts
beforeevolutionism,allowing it to dictatc dognra (Teilhardde "off bounds" to scientists-they seekthem only becauseof
Chardin,erc.) the crisis of religious ataa/enessand knowledge in modern
E. l'he answer:the Orthodox Patristicview (i.e., the Orrhodox times, which has led the secular sciences to usurp the role of
interpretationof Scriprure),wirh awareness of science.This is theology,human guesses the role of revelation.
what Kireyevsky called for. Science musr t:e enligbtenedand 4. Once the miraculousnessof beginnings is admitted, then
raisedup in knowledgebyfaith and revelarion.Bur no onc in all orher questionsin evolution take on new light. The conflict
rhe evolution controversyhas made more than a token use of between"gradualevolution" and "Six-Day creation" is seen
the Farhers.Vhat do the Farhersreach? in a new light-either one is equally thinkable (cf. Julian
Fi The following is not "all rhe answer";rarher,it is an approacn Huxlcy: "l can conceiveof a six-daycreation-but there is
to rhe answersfor Orrhodox Chrisriansby rrying first of all to 'Ilrz the questionbecomes,not whether
no God to do itl").
identily the question-vthere are rhe sourcesof harmony and one is proued by present scientific findings (neitber one
conflict berweenconremporaryscienceand the Holy Fathers? is-science can'tdo it!) but: how can I make the bestwhote
C. To be avoided: "proof texrs," out of context statementsfrom picture, incorporating rrue scientific findings and true
rhe Fathers,picking and choosing. knowledgeof revelation?
IV Patristicsources(list chiefones) and their principlesofinterprera- B. 'fhe Six Days.
tion of Scripture ("literal" bur also "befitting God"-cf. Sr. John l. F'alseideasof Day-Age:" l ,000 years= I day."' This is too
Chrvsostom). low a level of "reconciliation";it does not removethe maln
V 1'he basicquestion: problem.
A. Beginnings. 2. The Patristicview: the Holy Fathersdidn't reallydiscussthe
l. Sciencehas been misrakenin treadingon rhis ground: it is question as we see it becausethe evolutionary idea wasn't
beyond irs scope.The beginning of Iife or of the unrverse present. lt seernsLssumcdthat the days are very short-cf.
can only be the subjectof rhe wildest guesscs,unlcssit has Cregory the Theologian on the "newly createdearth" for
been revealed.Sciencehas soughr it becauseit rhrew out Adam, St. Ephrairn the Syrian,etc.
revelation-this was a fatal mistakewhich began rhe whole 3. But a much more fundamenralquestion is the corruptionof
controversy.Ifsociety doesnor h.rvea revelariJnor "model" the world in thoseSix Days-cf. St. Symeonthe New Theo-
of beginnings which scientistscan accepr, then scientrsrs logian. The most consistentinterpretationoF the Holy Fa-
should be more humble in speculationsand not try ro sup- thers is that the world knew no corruption until Adam'sfall.
ply this by irs groundlessprojecrions. If this is accepted, then the greater Part of evolution's
2. Bcginnings by rheir very narure are metaphysical, mnacu- schemaof prehistoryis thrown out. Some (e.g., Kalomiros)
lous. If we can know them at all, it is only by revelation.If would elaboratelyiustifr the evolutionary view, taking St.
we can'tknow them, rhen don'r guess.
.1. All "scientific" hypothesesabout beginnings are only a
of 2 Pcrcr.3:8onto thc
" Fr.Scraphimis spcakinghcreof the falscextrapolarion
cheapimitarion of rheology-no "God," bur a "cosmicrapi-
Six DaysofCrcationdescribcd in Gcnesis.ln othernotcshc writes:"St. Perer's
words
oca" instead;no "crearion,"bur a "big bang" instead-this is
(A thousandyears[arcwith the [,ord]asone day')is a gcneralrrurh,nor applicable
ridiculous.Scientistsdoni realizethe ridiculousness of it be- !o everyuscof the word 'day'in Scripture;wc mustexamincrhe Gencsiscaseindi-
cause rhey have no theologicalawareness.Beginnings are vidually."-Eo.
606 607
GrNrsrs,CneArroNaNo Elnry MaN Ou ruNrs op Pronosr.nS'ruolrs
Cregory of Nyssa's"rwo crearions,"etc. and showing the the word and concept of "evolution" in explaining
"full agreement"of the Fatherswith rhe idea that the world change-bur let them abandon metaphysicalschemes
was corrupr from the very beginning-this is obviouslyex- which strive ro extrapolatesmall changesinto an all-
aggerated. encompassingprinciple. If this latter is true, let it come
4. Scienceenlightenedby faith does not need rc force a,nyin- narurallyfrom the data without forcing an interpretationon
terpretarionon rhe Six Days which would contradict scien, facrs.
tific uniformitarian assumprion5-Su1 21 least it will D. l-he "first-formedman."
withhold certaintyof opinioni in rh. faceof rhe possibilityof l. Here a whole seriesofquestionsarise,and perhapsthis is tne
a radically different world before Adam's fall. This is also one areawhere there is a seriousclash between the evolu-
bound up with the quesrionof beginnings. Those Six Days tionary hypothesisand revealedknowledge.Let us carefully
are part of rhe Creation(i.e., the metaphysicalrealm, mi- separatethe differentquestionsinvolved.
raculous),and henceall the more unknowablein detail. 2. "From the dust."
C. "Fixiry of Species"-"SpecialCreation." a) 'fhere have been attempts to explain this by quoting St.
l. There hasbeen much unnecessary controversyon rhis ques- Athanasius('bll men are from the dust")-i.e., there is
tion. "Kinds" vs. "species."The popular mind acceptsmere "norhing special"about this creation.
"variation" as proof of a much bigger question of "evolu- 6) Bur the Fathers precisely emphasize rhe speciabtesof
tion." Ve leaveit to scienriststo define the limits of change man'screation(c[ St. Basil)-ol: course, not by the literal
observablero rhem. By irs grandioseconceprion,evolution hand of Cod, but separatefrom all other actsof creation;
as such cannot be prouedby the small variationsobservable it is somethinghigher.
by scienceroday. 3. Apology for evolution:
2. But revelation and the Patrisric witness definitely have a) 'fhe idea that Adam came last, and therefbre "descended"
something ro say on this point: Sr. Basil (an "eaglealways from the restof creation.Quote St. Gregory the Theolo-
producesan eagle"),St. Ambrose (the mule, a donkey-horse gian on why he came lasr; St. Gregory of Nyssa. Narlrzg
hybrid, is inferrile;this is a sign to man: "Man, don't inter- can be inferred from the Scripturesor the Fathersfavor-
fere").Science,ofcourse,doesnor deny rhe stabiliryand the ing rhe evolurion of man-you must project this belief
fixiry ofkinds (and rhe steriliryofhybrids) in presentexpen- into the rexts.
ence:6ur evolutionarybelief requiresthat the ultimarc an- /) The very narrativeof Genesissaysthe body came [irst,
cestorsof living creaturesare not many but one. But then the soul-cf. St. John Chrysostom (Adam was first
why?-Because theology (the quesrion of "beginnings" a "dummy") and Sr. Seraphim (Adam was first a "livrng
again!)has intruded inro science.This is beyond proof. And 61s21u1s"-56rnsbasetheir whole evolutionistargument
scienceis faced with the fact rhat an immense number of on this n ineteenth-centuryFather!).But we must clearly
"links" are missingberweenkinds, both today and in fossils. distinguishberweenthe truth and the way it is described
3. A philosophicalpoint: quot€ Sr. Gregory of Nyssaon rhe owing to the limitations of human language.Sarnts
"confusionof narure." If reincarnationis acceored:it is rhe Chrysostomand Seraphimare nor discussingrhe chrono-
samefor evolution. logical creation of man, but the composite nature of man,
4. Let scienrisrsdefine the limits ofvariation, and let rhem use on which they do not (incidentally) disagreebu only
608 609
CrNEsrs,Cne,rrroN,cNDEARLY
MAN OurLrNr.sot PnonoseoSruores
havea different perspective.But quote St. John Damas- list of "syrnbolic ancestors."Thus, man is some rhou-
cene and St. Gregory of Nyssa on rhe simultaneouscre* sandsof yearsold, not millions.
tion of man. 6. One Adam or many?
r) Some,wishing to preserveboth the Scriptureand evolu- a) "Polygenisrn"-commonly acceptedin evolutionist cir-
tion, insert the "divine" act of man! creation rather arbi- cles-makes no sensefor man. Adam is a oerson,
trarily inro the evolutionaryhistory of man (as'Ibilhard 7. The creationof Evc.
de Chardin said might be done). Some would have man a) This is a stumbling block for evolutionists.If this is "lit-
evolvedfrom lower beasts,but with a separate"plasma";* eral," rhen the evolurionaryhypothesisdoesnor apply ro
otherswould havehim a beastuntil God breathedin his man; if he is "evolved"then he is alreadymaleand female
"soul" or "grace."-All such argumentsare artificial: sci' like all rhe restof "evolved"nature.
ence does not need them to explain man as it thinks he 6) Quote rhe Fathers-Sainrs John Chrysosrom, Ephraim
is, and from the theologicalside it is arbitrary to stick a rhe Syrian,and others.
human soul into an otherwise"natural" process. r) Again, it is a question of"beginnings" which sciencert-
4. Can Adam havenon-human ancestors? self is unpreparedto handle. Ifscientisrsregardit as "ab-
a) Evolution saysyes-so much so that if you deny this surd," it is primarily on nonscientificgrounds.
point you reallydo away with evolution, which is noth- 8. The nanre of the first-lormed man-Paradise.
ing if it is not universal. a) A real place? or symbolism?All the Fathers assumePara-
E) Quote the Fatherson the firx-formed man with no father dise is a realiry.If Paradiseis unreal, and Adam never
or mother. l'he Fathersclearlybelievedhim to have no had a state unfallen-then heaven itself becomesdubi-
anccstors ofany kind. ous, and the rransfiguredstateof man is open to ques-
5. A relatedquestion:the ageof man, the antiquiry of Adam. tion.
a) All rhe Fathersacceptthe Old'ltstament chronology,c. 9. The lall of man.
7,500 years.One writer IDr. Kalomiros]saysthis is "Jew- a) Again,lett nor get boggeddown in details.
ish rationalism"; others point out the discrepancybe- 6) Is ir an historicalact?
tween the (lreek and Hebrew texts. Quote Blessec r) The consequences-sinand death are passedto us.
Augustineon this poinr-the Fatherswere not "literal," VI. Conclusions.
but said "more or less."Latest Protestantapologistsalso A. Give the Orthodox Patristic"model" of creation.
havebecomelessliteral on this, but point out rhe differ- B. Scienceis afraid ofir because,under the influencenot ofpurely
ence between a men millions of years old, and some scientificconsiderarionbut rathershapedby the mod,ernphilo-
6,000- 10,000years... tophic men.alicy, it fears the metaphysical or supernatural. But
D) Genealogiesolt Christ show that Adam is the "son of its own speculationson beginnings are alsometaphysicaland
God." The Fathersare very concernedto reconciledis- supernatural.
crepanciesand show that this is a literal genealogy,not a C. The weaknessof the theory of evolution as a sweepingtheory
(as opposed ro its applicationson small areas)lies in the facr
' Fr.Seraphinr's
hendwritingis unclearherc.-Eu. that it refusesro admir the metaphysicalwhere it naturally bc-
" Sec,fbr cxamplc,Hcnry Morris, '[he GenaisFtood,Appendix2.-lio. longs. Ifwe can know beginnings,ir is only through revelatron.
610 6ll
CnrerrorunNn Elnlv Man
CeNesrs, Ourr.rrrsor Pnoposeo
Sluorrs
612 6l.l
CrNesrs.Cnnxrror aNo E,lrrl M.rr.r
AppnNorx Tunrp
Fn Seraphim\Last Thlhon
Creationand Euolution
EDITOR'S NO7"E: T'hefollou,ing talk, taken entirelyfom a tape tran-
srription, tuasgiuen as an intoduction to the secondsessionof Fr. Sera-
phim's courseon Genesis, August 1982. Seueralof his studentsuere new,
Adanr.redccnrcd not hat)ingattendedtbefrn sesionin August1981. ThereJbre, beJitre
pro-
by Jesus (ihrist.
uiding a Patristiccommentaryon tbefourth to eleuenthchaptersof Gencsis
Russianliesco oJ'
(fom Cain and Abel to the TowerofBabel), Fr Seraphimrecappedwhat
dte dghteentlt
r?ntury. he had said during thefrst sessionabout scienceas it relatesto Scriprure
and the Hofi Fathers.lVithin a feu wceksafer giuing this talk, he u,as
taken to the hospital,and on September2 he reposedin the Lord.
2. The Six Days are a mean berweenextrenles,and define the
narureof rime.
3. The nature of the creativeprocess(and of the first-created HEeuEsrroNof how we approachthe book of Genesisis bound
world) is understood by the Fathers quite diferently from up with our modernoutlook on life. Ve haveall beenbrain-
evolurionism. Evolutionism merelyprojectspresentnatural washed.Whoeverwatchesrelevisionor goesro schoolhearscerrain
laws into the beginnings,without seeingthat Cenesis,the ideasput acrossin the nameof science, someof which arescienrific
beginning ofall things, is somethingquite distinct from the and someof which arenot scientific-theyarespeculations. Someof
presentstateof things, and knowledgeof it is not available what is put acrossis philosophy,and someof ir evencomescloseto a
to science but only through revelation.Vhich brings us to kind of religion.
the key point: -l'hisis especially
strongin the SovietUnion,whererheyreachrhat
IV The PatristicInterpretationof Genesis. manhasdescended from monkeys. The Sovietstatepushesrhisideaas
A. Moses;Divine knowledge;the realismof the Fathers. a kind of dogma.Therefore,when peoplebecomeChristian,they
B. The natureofour knowledgeofthe first-createdworld. throw offthis ideathat had beenforcedupon rhem.Herein the West,
V. The first-createdworld; the fall. on the other hand,ir is not quite so easyro seeit asdogma,because
Vl. Adam and the nature of man. herewe arefree;science is supposed to be freeand haveirs own theo-
6t4 6r 5
GeNrsts,CnexrtorurNo EanrvMrN tt"t'sl-rsr Talr
Fp. Sen,qpH
riesand its own reasonsfor having thesetheories.Therefore,often we Whe n Darwin's theory first came out in the late nineteenthcen-
think somethingis a scientifictruth when it is not so at all, but rather rury, rherewas a lot of discussion,most of it not on a very high level.
is open to speculationand to discussion.Unfortunately,this very suo- Peoplein the Church of England,for example,were very upset by the
ject of evolutionism is very emotion-charged,and thereforea lot of whole idea that man came from a lower creature,but they did not have
peopleare not willing to discussit. They would ratheracceptwhatcver any reallyscientificpreparationto discussthe question;therefore,they
is in the.air,whateveris taught in the scienceclass,without thinking became"fundamental"about it. In fact, up to this day,thereare funda-
too mucn. mentalistswho get up in arms whenever you mention the subiect.
Another reasonwhy peopledo not want to think about or discuss They sayeverythingis absolutelyliteral in the book of Genesis;they go
this issueis becauseit is very conrplicared.You can get involved in all ro the opposite extremeand make it very difficult to have a rational
kinds of complex questionswhich are totally irrelevant.For example, discussionon the subject.
you tell somebody,"l dont believethat man comes from a monkey"; On the whole, the scientificdiscussionwasstill not on a very high
and he says,"But sciencedoesntteachthat man comes{'roma monkey." level when, in 1925, there occurred the famous "Scopes Monkey
"Vell, I dont believethat he comesfrom an ape." Trial," which you haveall heardabout. In Tennessee therewas a law*
"But sciencedoesn'tteachhe comes from an ape. Scienceteaches against the teaching of evolution, and a teachervolunteered to be a
he comes fiom a lower creaturewhich is not an ape, but something nominal defendantin a testcase.Actually the statewon that case;but
clse." the hmous lawyer, Clarence Darrow, made such a casefor how ri-
In fact, nowadayssome evolutionistssaythat some of the apesde- diculous it is to stand by theseold Biblical ideas-which are not "sci-
scendedlrom men, insteadof vice versa.*There are all kinds of evi- entific," and so forth-that from that time everybodybecamescared
dence you can add up on whareverside you want to take. Ail these to be againstevolution. Thus, thosewho were againstit iust remained
detailsaside,however,there are cerrain basic questionsone can ask. quiet and did not haveany particularargument. (T'herewere actually
"Does man come directly from the hand of God, or does he come some good books in that period which criticized the theory ofevolu-
from some lower creature?"-That is a very basic question which tion, but they were outside the main trend.)** Even very [undamen-
should be open to discussion.And there are rwo ways ofapproaching talist peopleoften would give way on variouspoints about rhe theory
rhe discussion:one from rhe side of Genesis(and we have to know of evolution, or elsethey would not want to discussevolution because
how to understandwhat the book of Genesissays),the other from the it was roo difficult. And there are so many complex issuesinvolved
side of science. that it i a very difficult subject to discussrationally unlessyou are
It so happensthat scienceis not at all ascertainabout this question prepareo.
assome peopleclaim it is. The Sovietssaythat everythingis quire cer- However,in the last rwenty yearsor so tlrerehave been a number
tain and dogmatic about it, and you simply acceptwhat rhe scienrists of peoplewho have beerrlooking at this whole quesriona little more
rell you and that is the truth. ln the Vesr, fortunately,rherehas beena
lot ofcriticism and discussionof this matter. 'Actually it wasmerclya symbolicmeasure. Thc p;ovcrnorsignedthe bill only
with the explicitundcrsrandingthar ir would nor bc cnforccd.-Eo.
" F<rrexample,the booksby EnglishbiologistDouglasDcwar,Diffcubics oftbc
'John Gribbin and JercmyChcrfas,in rheirarticlc"Desccntof Man or As- Etolucion Thcory(London, l93l ) and More Dfficulties of the Evolution Thcory
cenrofApe?"wrire:"'lb translatc
our suggestioninto that fbrm ofspeech,we rhink (1938).ln 1959the Germanz.oologist BernhardRenschprovideda longlistoflcad-
rhat rhc chimp is dcsccndcd
from man, that thc commonancesror of rhc rwo was who
ing scientificauthoritics did not acceptneo-Darwinianclaims(scchis book
nroreman-likcthanapc-likc"(NewSckntkr,vol. 91, Sept.3, 1981,p. 592).-Llo. Euolutionabouethe Spccier (lolumbia
Leuel, UniversityPress,1959,p. 57\.-E,o,
( r |( ) 6t7
CiaNnsrs,
Ctr:arloNnNo Ernly Mnn Ft. SenqPstu'sLasr Tlrr
objectively,criticizing and discussingsometimesvarioussmall poinrs, dentswill be more againstcreationistideas.In the South' the students
sometimesthe whole theory.This has been a very good thing. Science are mor€ in favor of them. In fact, in one Placethe evolutionistswho
should welcome it. Unfortunatelx it has nor been too well receivedin were debating said they felt like they were a lion in a den of Daniels:
scientificcircles. everything was reversed.
I've becomeacquainredwith thesepeople.T'here is one group in The discrrssions of the creationscientistsare very interestinS.They
San Diego called rhe Institute for Creation Research;rhey put our a arequire up on the latestliteratureand discoveries. On the other hand,
monthly newslettercalledActsand Farrswhich discusses what is hap- recenrlysome ofthe evolutionistshavestoppeddebatingcreation/evo-
pening in their research.Usually it hasan inserrwhich goesinro a spe- lution becausethey generallyare not PrePared.A number of them re-
cific scientificquestion.For example,one is on the law ofentropy and cenrly admitted that, since thesecreationistsare so uP on their details
crearionism,another one is on experimentalpsychologr,and so forth; and so sharp in debate,they are putting the evolutioniststo shame.*It
there are often quite sophisticateddiscussions.They discussthe ageof is time, they say,that evolutionistsgo back and begin to find out what
the earth, the age of the solar sysrem,and all those questionswhich rheir argumentsare, becausethrough all these yearsthey have been
you haveto know about ifyou are going inro the scientificside of rhis taking for granted that everyonethinks like they do. They were not
tssue. readyfor all the criticism from the sideof creationism,which goesinto
1'hesepeopleare very good. Their lnsritute is a Protesrantreligious quite spccific points which are very dubious according to the
school, but they are operaring purely on rhe basisof scienrific criti- evolutionistinterpretation.
cism.- l'hey put out a number oftextbooks, including a very good one The Creation ResearchSociery in Michigan now has a voring
called Scicntifc Creationism, in which they discuss all the various membershipof well over six hundred scientists,all of whom signed a
points about evolurion and creationwirhout mentioning anything re- srarementthat they were in favor of the creationistinterpretation of
ligious,becausewhen they start mentioning religiousrhings,ofcourse, origins.**Therefore,if someonetellsyou that evolution is the only sci-
rheir textbook could neverbe usedin a high schoolor a college.In the entific interpretation,yott should be aware that there are at leastsix
last few yearsespecially,they havegorrenquite a bit of impetus behind hundred scientistswho say no There are thousandsmore who, al-
them. They have been having a number of debatesin big universiries
all over the country, and there hasbeen grearinteresr-students come " In 1996Dr. F,ugenie Scotr,cxccucivc directorofthc NarionalCerrterfor Sci-
our by the thousands."' -['he student responsedependson where the (a
enceEdr.rcation privarcorganizarion dedicated to protecringrhereaching ofevolu-
tion fronr creationistchallenges), warnedher fellow evolurionisrs: 'Auoid debaus' lf
debatc takesplace. lf it occurs in a universiry in California, rhe stu-
your localcampusChristianfcllowshipasks you to'dcfcnd cvolurion,'pleasc dcclinc
... you will probablyget bearen"(EugenicC Scott,"Monkey Business," Ila Sri-
'l-he Insritutccurrenrlyhassomcforry Ph.D.scicnrisrs on irs rcsidcnrf:rculry enccs, Jan.-Fcb., 1996,p. 2l).-Eo.
adjunctlaculryand advisoryboard.-F-o. " F,achof thescvoting nrcmbershasone or morc post-graduarc degreesin scl-
'- Scicntists
from the Instirurcfor CrearionResearch haucoarricioated in well cncc. 'fhe sraremenr that rheysigncd affirms thar "all basicrypcsof living things'in-
over threehundredfbrmel crcarion/cvolurion .Jcbrrc'.uru.rllyhcl,.l,,n ,,,n,u"..,ry cludingman,wcremadcby Cod during the Crearion Veek describcd in Genesis"
canrpuscs lnd opposinglacultycvolutionary scicntisrs.'l-hcmostacrivcdrba(crhas and thar "the grearFlooddescribed in Genesis ... was an evenr
historic worldwidc in
bccn Dr. [)uanc(]ish, who rcceived his Ph.D. in biochcnristrv lronr U.C. Bcrkclcv irs cxrentand effcct."Although voting membcrt o[ rhe Socicry musr havc posr-
ard hcld kcv posirions
ar Bcrkclcy,( .orncllUniverrityMc,lical( ollegc.rndI hr Up- graduatescicnccdegrees, thosewirhout suchdegrces can bc susraining or studcnr
john Companybeforcjoining thc Insrirutefor CrearionResearch irr 1971.Now inembers. -l'he Socierypublishes a peer-reviewed journal, Crcation Rctcarch SorictT
sevenry-eightycarsold, l)r. Gishconrinuesro debareevolutionisr professors on cam- it is now centercdin Missouri, and has an experiment starion in north-
QuarterQ;
puseswith largcnumbcrsofsrudenrsarrending. He hasnevcrlosra debare.-Eo. ccnrralArizona (secp,648 below).-F,o.
6t8 6t9
Crnssrs,CrsxrroN aun EnnrvMaN Fn. Srnalsrv's [.asr Talx
though they would not make that actualstatement,nevertheless synr- ment for this particular exception. The creationistssay, why not
parhizeand are willing to discussthe issue.In fact, one of our friends changethe rheory and make it more simple?
who is a scientisttold us rhat more and more people in rhe scientific Unfortunately,thereis a lot ofprejudice in this areabecausepeople
world, although they still srick ro the evolution "model," do not even sayrhar if you talk about creation,you'retalking abour religion.Actu-
insist that it is truth; it is for them a nodel thar helps to explain how ally,everyscientifictheory hasto havesomethingwhich is assumedon
things came to be, how they are now developing,and so forth. faith. l'he evolutionistsassumetheir belief on fairh. The really rigor-
'fhe creationistsare quite objectiveabout this. They offer a visual
ous onesinsist that once therewas norhing or therewas a point of tre-
presenrationof the rwo models, by which you can see what should mendousenergywhich suddenlyexplodedand producedthe unrverse.
happen accordingto the creationistmodel, and what should happen lt requiresa great amount of ltaith to believethat. [f you believe in
accordingto the evolutionistmodel. Cod, you havea whole differenrapproach.Of course,if you believein
These creationistssay that the situation now is like it was in the God, rhen, since He is infinite, He can do whateverHe wants. Then
time of Copernicus. Befbre Copernicus there was the gcocentric you can be freero seewhat firs the scientificfacrsand what firs the text
model: rhat the sun, planetsand starsgo around the earth. ln order ro of Genesis.
explain how the planersmove accordingto this interpretation,it was One common misrakein approachingthe book of Genesisis to say
necessaty to make so-calledcyclesand epicycles. rhat it is sonrethingreligious,maybe even myrh, while sciencerreats
For example,they noticed that Mars appearedto go fasterthan the rhe factualaspect.l'hat is an oversimplifiedview,becauseGenesistalks
starsfor a while, and then it suddenlywent backwards.They had to about truth, and thus there will be an overlappingberweenwhat sci-
figure out what kind of movementit had to haveto make it do this. IF enceralksabout-because scienceis rrying to get to truth-and wha(
it was simply going around the earth, it was a very strangething that ir Genesistalks about. We haveto be awarerhar we cannot put them in
shoLrldbe suddenlygoing backwards.-l-herefore,they had to nrakeall rwo diflerenr categories.Vhen peopletry to separatethem in this way
kinds of adiustmentsin the sky to account for rhe fact that it did nor (which they very frequentlydo as an answerto the question) they do
follow a regularmovement.Finally thesemovementsand adjustments nor rrearGenesisasa serioustext. They say Genesisis not to be inter-
becameso complicatedthat Copernicussaid it was much easierto ex- pretedasa text that acturlly talks about the origins of nature,exceptas
plain everythingas if the earrh and the planetswent around the sun. a kind ofspeculationor asa handing down ofancient myths, Babylo-
The starsout thereare comparativelyfixed; they are furrher away than nian creationtales,or somethingIike that.
the planets.According to this concept,you haveto make fewer epicy- -fherefbre, the question is: how are we going to approach this
clesand fewer adjustmentsin the calculations.* whole rext of Genesis?I think wc have only one answer.We have to
-fhe creation scientistssay that this is exactlywhat is happening
understandhow this text hasbeen understoodby the Church over the
with the evolutionarytheory. Wheneversomething comes up which pastrwo thousandyears,becauseit is a rext which comesfrom God-a
goesagainstrhe evolutionary theory, the evolutionistsput in another revealedtext-and the Church which has preservedthe revelationof
cycleor epicycle.-I'heyexplainthat it cannot reallybe that way because God must havethe way to understandit. Therefore,you cannot trust
it goesagainstthe theory,and that is why they haveto make an adjust- someonewho simply opensup the text, in the English translationhe
has,and giveswhat seemsto him to be a very basicinterpretation.Fur-
' 'I hc heliocentric
modclthat Copernicus proposedhad been;rrrivcdat by rhc rhermore,you cannot trust your own interpreration,becauseyou are
CreekastronomcrArisrarchus o[ Alcxandriain the rhird cenrury8.c., bur at rhat going to put your modern ideasir,to it. Yor.rare going to make it evolu-
tinrcthc thcoryhadbecnrcjected and ignoredbv scholars.-Eo. tionist or antievolutionist, accordingto your prejudice.That docs not
620 62r
(leur:srs,CncarroNnNn E,rnlyMaN Fn. Ssp.alNru's
Llsr Tnlx
tell us what rhe text of Genesissays.'lo understandwhat ir says,we So we approachthis text as Divinely revealed,realizingthat we will
have to understandhow the Church understandsit. ln other words, obtain a basicunderstandingof it not through our common sense,nor
what is the Patristicreadingof it, how do the Frathers understandrhe through science(although of course we have to use common sense
rexr?That is what rhis courseis abour. also,and we have to use sciencewhere it appliesto a given rext), bur
'We
discussedin the last yeart course the first three chaptersof through the Holy Fathers.
Cenesis,which are ofcourse the "thickesi'ones, requiring rhe mosr in- This raisesanorher quesrion. Peoplewho are scientificallyaware
terpretation.T'hesechaptersdiscussthe whole Six Days of Orearion, will say the Fathersmade mistakesin science.For example,St. Basil
the crearionof man, the fall of man, the stateof Paradise,and man's the Great, in his writings on the Six Days of Creation,statesthat there
banishmentfrorn Paradise. are some creatures,such as certain frogs, which spontaneouslycome
Last yearwe saw that the interpretarionof the Holy Fathersis not from the dust. This was accordingto the scienceof his day. Knowing
exactlywhar the Protestantswould be satisfiedwith becausert rs not rhis isni true, people in modern times say rhat the man made a mis-
"fundamental" enough in some respects;and the peoplewho want ro take, since the scienceof his day, through which he was interpreting
conrbineGenesiswith the modern theory ofevolution would also not the scientific aspecr,was wrong. And it is true that, in this respect,
be satisfiedwith it becauseit is much too "fundamental"for them. Ac- when rhereare scientifichcts, we can correct the writings of the Holy
tually, if you want one word to describehow the Fathersinterprer Fathers.Some people, however,think this meanswe can correcr the
Genesis, I think you can say they interpret it very realitically. That is, texr of Genesis.But if you look at the rexr of Genesis,you will seerhat
first of all, rhey acceptthat (and this is a very basicpoint) the texr is whenever the Fathersmake thesemisinterpretationsbecauseof their
Diuinely irupired.In fact, St. John Chrysostomsaysthat it is a book of knowlcdge of the scienceof their day, it is lrot becausethe text of
propheq. Somebooks prophesythe future, but the book of Genesisis a Genesissaysthat. It is becausethat is the most logicalway to readit on
proPhcryof the Pasr'l'hisis necessary 'Ibday we would have litde
because,when the world was cre- the basisof the scientificknowledge. a dif-
ated,therewas no witness.You cannot possiblyhavesomeonegive you ferenr way of reading it, and we might be more correct. The text re-
a firsthand accounrofwhat happenedar the beginning of the world, nrainsthe same.
becausetherewas no one there.Therefore,unlessthe One V/ho made Actually there is not a single statement in the text of Genesis
the world Himself tellsyou, you will neverknow'l'herefore all we have which commits one either to the idea that the sun is going around the
are guesses. earrh or rhe earrh around the sun, or anything of the sort. Thar is all
According ro the Holy Fathers,however,we do have this knowl- a marrer of larer interpretation,dependentupon our scientificaware-
edge becauseGod rcvealedit to the prophet Moses. Moscs was rn a ness.'I'hus the rext of Genesisis not open to this criticism of science.
stateof ecstasywhen he receivedthis text about the beginningsof the We might correcrrhe interpretationof rhe Fathersif it dealswith spe-
world: therefore,we haveto read Genesisrather as we would read the cific scientificquestionslike where frogscome from or something like
book of the Apocalypse,the last book of the Bible, which dealswith tnat.
prophecieswhich havenot been fulfilled yet and so is ratherdifficult to By the way, we should also not be afraid ofscience in interpreting
understand. the book of Genesisbecauseall the writings ofthe Holy Fathersabout
Cenesis,then, should be understoodas prophecy,accordingro the the Six Days of Creation arefilled wirh scientific facts, based on thc
Holy Fathers,accordingto the restofthe Holy Scriprure,and according scienceof their day. For example,when St. Basildiscusses the creation
ro our own experiencein rhe Church. A lot ofit, ofcourse,is beyond us; of rhe birds, fish, or land animals,he goesinto all the different kinds
therefbrewe can sayonly a few things about some parts ofthe rext. and explainstheir customs.He then tellshow we can draw examplesof
622 623
Geursrs,CnearroNrruo E.rxlyMeN L"rsrTer-x
Fr. SnnepHrlr's
moral life from them, like a bird that is faithful to its mate. That is all afterthat is His continuousProvidence overthe world,which is actu-
very nice and interesting,but the rext of Genesisdoesnot stand or fall ally a continuouscreation,because without the IivingVord of God,
on that. This is explanatorymaterial.Actually, someonetoday could how coulda seedbecomean individualpersonor plantor animal?It is
go into the scientificfacrswe haveabour creation, using theseas ex- all very miraculousand a work of creation,bv it's dffirent from the
planatory material, and could write a tremendousbook on this very crearionwhich wasar the beginning,in the first Six Days.If you do
subjectof the Six Days of Creation. Unfortunately,peopletend to be not seethat,you will makea lot of mistakes.
too narrow-mindednowadays;the scientistswill not broadentheir ho- Ve will seein our readingof the next chaptersof Genesis-four
rizon enough to take in the whole aspectof Genesis.The ones who through eleven-that rhereis evena basicdifferenceberweenthe way
read Cenesisusually are not preparedenough for the scientific side. men were beforethe Flood and the way they were after the Flood.
Nevertheless, we can keepthis possibiliryin mind; rhe subjectis a very There area numberof thingswhich changedwith the Flood.But ir
fruitful areafor discussion. wasin the Six Daysrhateverything we know now cameto be,and af-
Also, we are nor to be afraid ofsciencebecausesciencecannot oos- ter rhat is simplythe continuationofthosethingswhichwerealready
sibly contradict revealedtruth. If ir\ truch, ir! truth. Theret one lind creared, according ro rhelawswhichGod madeand gaveto nature.
revealedfrom Cod, and one kind revealedin nature.The kind revealed
from God is absolute,we say,becauseit comesdirecrly from God. Bur
its interpretationreliesupon our wisdom, which we obtain from the
Church and the Holy Farhersas we go. Vhen we have understood
that, then we can even make our own speculations,as long as we do
not say that those speculationsare on rhe samelevel as the text irself.
Scienceis much more speculative,especiallywhen it comes to these
very early things like rhe crearionof the world, since no one was there
to seelt.
I should mention alsoa basicfaccabout the first Six Days of Crea-
tion that we discussedlastyear:thoseSix Daysare quite dilferent from
what is going on now. The Holy Fathersmake it quire clear that you
cannot make deducrionsbasedupon what is happening now and de-
rive an understandingof the first Six Days of Creation, becausewhar
was happeningrhen was the creationofthe world out ofnotbing. That
is not happeningtoday. Now we havethe continuous creariveacrivity
of Cod. St. John Chrysostom discussesrhis very matter in his com-
mentary on Cenesis.As he points out, in Genesisit is said that God
restedfrom His works (Cen.2:2), that is, ceasedro creare,Dur our
Lord in the GospelofJohn saysthar the Farhercontinuesto work (cf.
John 5:17), and thereforeHe must still be creating.So theseare rwo
different rhings.Vhat was in the beginningwas the crearionof Cod,
from which He rested.That is no longer taking place.rVhat happens
624 625
Tne Fe,rrsor R.enrovr-rr.lcDrrllrc
2. Experimental Errors
Lf o* car creationistsexpectpeopleto accepta young earth when
I I sciencehas provcd through radiometricdating thar the earth is The methods that give ancient ages produce almost as many
billions ofyears old?" "wrong" answersas"right" ones.The "correct"answeris chosenon the
'fhis basisofstratigraphicsequences,
article addresses
that question,which representsthe thinking that is, whar kinds offossilsare buried
of a large number of peopleroday.Certainly the majority of scientisrs nearby.Of course,the fossildaresdependon the assumptionofevolu-
acceptradiomerricdating. And yer, there is really no scienrificreason tion. And, of course,the public doesnot usuallyhear of thescwrong
proving that radiometricdating is correct,and a number of evi{ences answers.
showing that it doesnot work. Ve will discussseveralof these.We will l'his statement-that radiometric dates are "correcred"by refer-
find that hith in materialism,and rejectionof any supernaturalacriv- enceto evolution-basedindex fossils-is hotly contested,but examina-
ity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis,even before any tion of the technical literature shows rhar ii is true, in spire of what
measurementsare made. Mosr people, even the experrsin the field, clemenrrryrexrbookssay.Ler us look ar a number of ex.rmples.
forget the assumprionson which radiometricdating is based.
3. Documented D iscrepanci es
l. RadioactiveDating
The generalpublic believesthat radiomerric resultsare consistenr
There are basicallyrwo different kinds of radioacrivedating meth- and thus demonsrrablyreliable.But the technicalliteratureshowsoth-
ods. One is the Carbon l4 sysremusedfor dating fragmenrsofonce- erwise.John \floodmorappedid an extensiveliteraruresearch,looking
living organisms.It has neverusedfor non-organicsamples,and almost at 445 technicalarticlesfrom 54 reputablegeochronologyand geologr
nevereven attempted if the sampleis rhought ro be much older than journals.'
about 50,000 years.Ir furnishessome good evidencesrhar crearionisrs These reporrs listed over 350 dates, measuredby radiometric
often use.But we will not discussthe C-14 method in this article. methods,that conflicred badly with the agesassignedto fossilsfound
The secondbroad categoryis sometimescalled "healy-metal dat- in rhesesame strata.They covered"expecred"agesranging from I to
ing," and includesuranium-thorium-lead, rubidium-strontium,and >600 million years.In almost every caseof a discrepancy,thc fossil
626 627
Cr,vesrs,Cru-qrronaNo Ennly M,rN THnFarrnor RaorourrnrcDlrrt.tc
dateswere acceptedas correct.l'he radiometricdateswere discarded. lyzedthe raw rock, and got datesrangingfrom 2'12ro 230 MY-the
Voodmorappe quoted one researcher assaying: Tiiassicperiod,vastlyolder than expected.Because mammalbones
had beenfound belowthis stratum,they saidthesedateswereobvi-
ln gencral,datcsin the'correctball park'areassumed to bc'correct ouslyin errorbecause of"the possible
presence ofextraneous argonde-
and arcpublished, bur thosein disagreement wirh othcrdaraarcscl- rived from inclusionsof pre-existing rocl$." Eventhough the rock
dorn publishednor arcdiscrepancies fully explaincd.l lookedgood,anythingolderthat 5 MY wasobviouslywrong in view
of rheirknowledge of the "sequenceof evolutionary development."
'When
thesereportsdid discussthe possiblecausesof errors,rhey Meanwhilea teamfrom the Universiryof Californiaat Berkeley,
usedwords such as"possibly,""perhaps,""probably,""may havebeen," led by C. H. Curtis,analyzed severalKBS pumicerocksand found
etc. Reasonsgiven usuallyinvolveddetrital intrusion, leakageor leach- somethat werearound 1.6 MY and somethat wereabour 1.8 MY.
ing of someof the isoropesin the sample,and somerimesthe initial iso- Orher measurcments, someas low as.5 MY weresaidto be anoma-
topic content of the sample.For K-Ar dates,it is easyto blame argon louslyyoung. Thesewereexplainedas possibleoverprintingby an
lossifthe reportedageis too short,or argonabsorptionifit is too long. alkaline-richhot waterinfusion.
It is well known that argon, which is a gas,diffuseseasilythrough Between1969 and 1976several reamsmadea numberof radio-
rock, and thereis no way ofknowing whether that may havehappened metricmeasurements, andthe resultsclusteredaroundahreeages- I .8
in any given case. MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY. Eachteamcriticizedthe others'technique
Errors are parricularly bad with the K-Ar (potassium-argon) of rocksampleselection. Most radiometricarguments weresaidto fa-
method. Studieshave been made of submarinebasaltrocks of known vor the 2.(r MY date,but the paleontological argumentsfavoredthe
recentagenear Hawaii. Thesecame lrom the Kilaueavolcano.The re- 1.8MY date-(that is wherethe skullwould bestfit evolutionary the-
sults rangedtp rc 22 million years.Joan Engelswrote: ory). And final agreement cameonly afterpaleontologistshad agreed
on fossilcorrelationinvolvingrwo species of exrincrpigs.The final ac-
It is now well knownthat K-Ar agesobtaincdfionr differcnrmincr- cepteddarefor the skullwas1.9MY Commentingon this methodof
alsin a singlerockmaybe strikinglydiscordant.r selectingrocksamples for radiometric
dating,Lubenowasks;
4. Shull t470 The questionarises,"How docs one know when one has good sam-
plcs for daring?" The only answcr to that qucstion is that "good"
In 1972fuchardLeakeylound a skull ncarLakeRudolfin Kenya samplcsgive dates that are in accord with evolutionarypresupposr-
that he saidwas"virtuallyindistinguishable" lrom that of a modern tions. "Bad" samplesare rhe ones rhat give datesnot in conformity
human.Yetit wasfoundbeneatha layerof the volcanicKBS1'uffrhat w i th ev,rl uti on-a cl assicillur t r at i, , nol cir cularr casonins. s
had an acceptedradiometricdateof 2.6 MY (millionsof yearsold).
Leakeydeclared that theskullwas2.9 MY andsaidtharit "fits no prc-
vious modelsof human beginnings."It wasnamedKNM-ER-1470 5. Grand Canlon Dating
(for KenyaNationalMuseum,EasrRudolf,#1470). Creationistshavecriticizedmanyaspects of datingrocksby radio-
Marvin Lubenowgivesa gooddescription of the ten yearsof con- activiry but haveofferedlitrle realproof that the methodis flawed.
troversysurroundingthe datingof thisskull.' However,the Institute for CreationResearch is now in the earlyphascs
In the first attemptar daringthe KBS Tuff, Fitchand Miller ana- ofgettingsuchproof for igneousrock."
628 629
Cexests,Cne.rrIoN.ruo [lruv MaN Tne F,trrHor Rrorovr.rnrc Darrr.rc
" fhe purposeof rhis project," the ICR scientisrswrite, "is to use This result alone should be enough ro throw strong doubts on heary-
the'most reliable'radioactiveisotopedating method (the'isochron metal radiomerricdating methods,but we must wait for the project's
method') with the most accurateanalytical measurementtechnique completion beforetoo many conclusionsare drawn.*
(the isorope dilution mass spectrographtechnique) to establishrhe
'ages'ofvarious Grand Canyon rocks." 6. Causesof Enors
The ICR scientistshaveengageda licensedcommercialgeotechni-
There are severalpossiblesourcesfor the crrors associated with ra-
cal laboratory to help plan and overseethe project and prevent bias
diometric dating. The main problems (beginning wirh those of least
lrom influencing the results,and to submit rock samplesto several
rmportance)are:
qualified laboratoriesin a manner that will avoid subterfugc.
l. AccuraE of decal rates--mosr of rheseare rhoughr to be known
The Grand Canyon has many different rock strataand types.Eve-
within a few percenrand, if wrong, would haveonly a minor effect on
ryone agreesthat the Precambrianmetamorphic rocks buried below
'I'heseinclude the lriniry Gneiss, dates.
the Canyon floor must be the oldest.
2. Constllnryofdecd! rater-most scientistsbelieve these have been
ElvesChasm Gneiss,and the ZoroasterCranite.
constant through rhe ages,although this cannor really be known. But
Everyonealsoagreesthat the Quaternarylava flow on the Unikaret
one of thc early investigators,Profcsssor John Joly of Tiiniry College,
Plateau is probably the youngest igneous deposit there. This came
Dr.rblin,reporredevidenceshowingvariation.TBarrySetterfield's report
from a volcano, after all of the beds of sedimentarysrrata were laid
on possiblevariationoFthe speedoflight alsogiveshistoricalreferences
down, and after the canyon was eroded.The lava flowed over the rim,
to variationsin decayratesover the last 300 years.nBur most scientisrs
and down the sidesof the alreadyerodedcanyon.
havebeen lessthan enrhusiasricin their acceptanceof this concepr.
Most conventional geologistsbelieve that the deep gneissesand
3- Neutron actiuatio by unknown rarzrcr-Profe ssor Melvin Cook
granitesare more than 600 million yearsold, probably closerto 2,000
examinedores from a Katangamine and found rhat they had no Pb-
million years,and rhat the age of rhe Unikaret Plateaubasalticlava
204 and no thorium, yet rhere was appreciablePb-208! That appar-
flow should be measuredin just thousandsofyears, becauseit is obvi-
ently could not have been primordial, and could not have resulred
ously younger than the sedimentarysrrataof the upper canyon walls.
from thorium decay.The only way it corrld be explainedis by neutron
Thus, by comparing the accuratelymcasurcd"ages"of a number of
activation ofPb-207. When Cook correctedfor this, the calculatedage
samplesfrom theserwo regions,we should get an idea of the general
wasreducedfrom 600 million yearsto near modern.eIn most ores,it is
reliabiliryof radiometricmethods.
not possibleto seethis effectso clearly,but rhis showsthat some neu-
The preliminary resultslook very interesting.But only the recent
tron flux, possiblyfrom a supernova,nrust havehad a strong influence,
lava flow measurements had beencompletedat the time of my last re-
and this would probably be worldwide, affectingall rocks in a manner
Port. rhat could nor be easilydeterminedtoday.
Several"model age" figureswere obtained for this same set of re-
4. IntegritT of atoms in the rock-rhis is certainly a point of much
cent rocks, and they were quite discordant (that is, they all disagreed
concern to all chronologists,and is rhe most-cited reasonfor obvious
with each other). The "more accurate"rubidium-strontium isochron
errors in dating measurements.Uranium salrsare water soluble, and
agewas reportedto be 2.1 billion years.
most minerals are subject to unequal leaching of chemical compo-
But rhat ageis clearlywrong. The lavabeing dared flowed over the
edge of the alreadyeroded canyon. Thus, the age "2.1 billion years" ' Sec Steven A. Ausrin, ed., Grand Canlox: Motwncnt to Catatttuph. (1994), ar
musr be many rhousandsof times older than the actualageofthe lava. wcll as rhe accompanying video, Orand Claryon: Monurne4t ro thc F-tood.-F,D.
630 631
Grxrsrs, CnrarroN ,qNDEaRr-vMlN 'f Hr F,q.rrH
or l{aorovrrnrc DnrrNc
nents. Argon migratesunpredictablyin and out of rocks. Hurley re- Notice the casualacceprance of the belief that the Biblical accounr
ported that radioactivecomponentsof graniteslie on the surfaceof cor.rldn'treally be true. In his classicgeochronology rext5ook lAgesof
grains,and can be easilyleachedaway.Z-irconcrystalshavebeen dated Rochs,Pknex and Starsl, Henry Faul says:
by U-Pb methods, but ion microprobe studieshave shown rhar ura-
nium and lead are embeddedin different partsof the crystalstructure. If one assumes that the solarsystemcondcnsed from a primordial
'l'his shows that the Pb-206 acttallv could not hauecomefrom uranium cloud,it followsthat thc materialsof planets,asrcroids,
and meteor-
decay:rhcsc darcsmust thereforc be invalid. iteshavea commonorigin, lron meteorires conrainsomcleadbut
5. Byfar the mostimportant probhm is the original isotopiccontentof only infinitcsimalrracesof uraniumand thorium,and thercfbrerhe
the rock. How can we possiblyknow whar the original marerialwas? Ieadis uncontarninated by radiogcniclcadand canbc regarded asa
Vc will see that this answerdependson a decision involving some- goodsampleof primordiallcad.Table6- I liststhe isotopiccomposr-
thing that cannot be proven-a decisionmade by faith. rion of lead extractedfrom somc iron mctcorites.l'hese data now
canbe usedas(Pb207/Pb20a), and (Pbr06/Pb2&;, in the Houtermans
cquation,and all rharrcmainsto be fbrrndto pcrmira calcularion of
7. Original Isotopb Material
theagcofrhc carrhis a leadsarnple from a closcdsubsystem of wcll-
The uniformitarian geologistmust assumesome initial concenrra- knownage.lo
tion. If his choice is good, and the other error sourcescan be mini-
mized,he could makean accurateagedetermination-provided his set Noticc Faul'sstarringpoinr-"lf one assumesthat rhe solarsysrem
of assumptionsis correct.But his assumptionsare alwaysbasedon the condensedfrom a primordial cloud...." That meansa purely naturalis-
theory of un iformitarianism-that is, that the earth and its rockscame ric earrh-origin,over a long period of time. Here he shows rhe belief
into existencein a purely materialisricway,without supernaturalinrer- conlmon among almosr all evolutionisr scientists that the earth and
vention, a long time ago. If he rhen tries to use theseresultsto prove the solarsystemevolvedfrom a cloud o[gas and dust, over a very long
that the earth is old and was not crcated,he is using circular logic. He time, starting billions of yearsago. From this basicbelief, Faul argues
is actually ruling out the possibilityof a supernaturalsix-daycreation rhat the original makeup of the earth'schemicalsmust havebeensimi-
beforethe measurementis madc. lar ro what we can s€eroday in mereorircs.
I took a geologycoursear nry local collegea few yearsago. [n the This assumptionis one of the main evidencesused to derermine
firsr classsession,the instructor emphasizedthe imporranceof unilor- the age of the earth and the lead isotope rario in rhe composition of
mirarian beliefsas rhe foundation of historicalgeology,and said some- primordial rocks. Bur ir is strongly basedon belief in uniformitarian-
thing like this: ism and a naturalisticorigin of the earth. \Wirhour this foundational
belief, all of thc various long-age dating measurementswould be
Peopleusedro belicvcin all sortsof catasrrophes, causedby super- meaningless.
naturalinterventions.'fhesefblkralcsled peoplcto believcrhat thc On the other hand, if the earrh had been suddenlycreated(asthe
carrhwasonly a fcw thousandyearsold. Now, of course,we know Bible says),rhe Creator could havemade ir any way He wanted to. He
suchrhingsnevcrhappcncd, and that thc earthis much older rhan would not have been constrained ro lollow any of man's rules-
that. It hascvolvcdslowly,ovcrbillionsof years.This occurredac- -indeed, He hasalreadydemonstraredrhat. Vhen He made the trees
cordingro the "uni[ormitarianprinciple"-rharall processes
havcal- in the Garden of Eden, rhey immcdiatelyhad fruit on rhem. Vhen Hc
waysfbllowedthe samenaturallawswe observctoday. madeAdam and Eve,they werein a marure form, not tiny infants.We
632 633
GrNssrs,Cnp-arroNnNn Ernry Mlru THt Fa.rrnor RaorovelnrcDarrnc
are told that He createdthesethings with an appearanceof age.' Vhy His own creation,then it is reasonableto believerheBiblicalaccounr,
couldn't He also have made rocks the same way? Vhy couldn't they and.rnageofjust thousands ofye;rrs.
have contained Lead 206 and Argon 40, so that they appeared"ma- Neitherof thesechoices is forcedupon usby thephysicalevidence
ture"?Scientistsagreethat Lead 204 musr havebeen presenrsince rhe Rather,we makethe choicefor philosophical reasonsjrhenfit the evi-
earth! beginnings.\Yy'hycould nor mosr of the Lead 206, 207 and 208 dencesinto oneor theotherfoundationalbeliefsvstem.
also haveoriginated in the sameway?
Sincea prehistoricacr of God is not amenable ro scientificinvesri- 8. Conclusion
gation, and is thereforeoutside of the scientific method, many scien- Many scientists, teachers,
and much of the media,arevery good
tists exclude God from scientific possibiliry and simply assumethar
spokesmen for theevolutionisrs'
long-age beliels.And rnany(lhrisri.rns
God never intervened.'l'hey searchfor purely materialisticexplana- havegone along with rhesescientists' "long-ag;c-of-the-earrh"
srare-
tions as if rhey were the only scientificallyacceptablechoice. But this ments,usuallywithour realizingthat theyarebasedon naturalistic as-
leadsto a real problem. Ve seerhat radiogenicdating is not jusr based
sumptionsthar completely rule our any sort of intervention by a
on physical measurements.Its foundarion resrs on a philosophical
crcatorCod. They havenot recognizecl rheFallacy ofcircularreasoning
belief-one's belief in how the world came into cxisrence. in theselong-agebeliefs.In this way,theyhavekrsrthe loundationof
'We
seethat the questionof "young-earthvs. ancienr-earth"can be
their faith,needlessly.
resolved only according to which of rwo foundational hiths one
cnooses.
If we choosefaith in materialismand excludethe possibilityofsu- Curtis SewelLJr., workedfor 44 yearsas an Eletronics Engineerin
pernaruralintervenrion,then it is reasonable to believethat the earrh is the nuclear industry beginning ir the Manhattan Projeu of the U.S.
billions of yearsold. Army during WorA lVarII (thtfrx atomicbomb).Forfue yearshe was
However, if we recognizea God Vho can and has intervened in Chief Engineeroflsotopes,Inc. Amonghis dutiesthereweredcsigting in-
strumentrltionfol radiochemicalanalTsisof uariousspecimens, including
''I'his was caregorically affirmedby Sr. Ephraim rhe Syrian in his fourrh- Carbon14 datingsystems. h 1988he rctiredfzm LawrenceLiuermore
cenruryComnrcntaryon Ccnesis: "AJrhough thc grasseswereonly a momentolclar NationalLaboratory.
theircrearion, rheyappeared asifrhey weremonrhsold. L,ikewise, rhe rrecs,although
Mr. Sewellat onetimc heldto the uniformitar;an uiewthat theearth is
only a dayold when thcysprourcdlortlr,werenevcrrhclcss likc trccsycarsold, sincc
rheywerefully grownand fruirswcrcalreadybuddingon rheirbranchcs." billions ofyearsoA, but in the courseof his manyyearsofworh he beganto
Lrtcr, in cxplaininghow rhe nroonhad rheeppearancc oFagcat thc tinrc of its doubt the "proof" of this becauselte satutltat it wasbasedon circukr logic.
creation,St. Ephraimwrites:"Jusrasthc rrecs,rhcvcgcrarion, rhcaninrals,thc birds, Thestoryof how he mouedfom theeaolutionary worAuieuto the Chris-
and cvcnmankindwcrcold [whcntheywcrecrcarcdl,soalsowcrcthcyyoung. IDeT tian worlduiewis recounted in his boohGodat Ground Zero (1997).
tucreoA actordirg to the appc'trnnreof tltcir limbs and tlteir sub$arcet,1,etthel uere
yung because of tltc hour and nomentoftheir teation" (Conrnentaryon Gerctis,F.ng-
vcrsion,
Copyright@1994by the Bible-Science
Association,
Inc.
lish pp. 90-91;crnphasis addcd).
Virh this Scriptural-Patristic undcrsranding of rhe manncrin which God cre- P O. Box 33220,Minneapolis,
Minnesota55433-0220
atedrhe world, thc enrircbasisof radiornerric datingmerhodsfills apart.'I'hc facr
that Sr. F,phrainr
Fora list of furthercritiquesof radiometricdating,seepp.64041
raughrir in rhe fburth ccnturyindicares rharit is nor tn ad hocar-
gumcnrof prescnt-day cfearionscientisrs bur rarhcra straighrforward intcrpretarion below.
of Scripture.-Eo.
634 b J)
SlrcctsLto Rrlotucs
636 ()5/
CrNrsrs,CpEllroN .ruo E,lnrvMaN Suc;cr-slsoReeorNcs
L Biological Euolutionism by Constantine Cavarnos (second edi- This was one ofthe main books thar first inspired Phillip E. Johnson
tion, 1987). This book by a contemporaryGreek Orthodox philoso- to write about evolution.
pher places evolutionism in its historical context and includes a 2. Daruini Bhck Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Euolution by
critique of it by a major Grcek Orthodox saint of the rwentieth cen- Michael Behe(1996). Dr. Behe,Associatel)rofessorof Biochemisrryat
rury,Sr. Nectariosof Penrapolis. Lehigh University,is alsonot a creationist,and yet he openly discusses
2. Darwin on Tiial by Phillip E. Johnson (secondedition, 1993). the failure of Darwinian evolution to account lor rhe enormously
Called'the book rhat makesevolutionisrsfurious," this bestsellerrocked complex machinery inside the cell. He is able ro presenrhighly de-
the scicntificestablishmentwith its well-reasoned, understatedyet dev- tailed technicalinformation (which is necessaryto adequatelyconvey
astatingargumentsagainstthe "fact" of evolution. Molecular biologist thc findings of biochemistry) in a way that everyonecan grasp. His
Michael Denton (seebelow) hascalledit 'irnquestionablythe besrcri- book hascontributedgreatlyto the current reevaluationof Darwinism
tique of Darwinism I haveevcr read." (Professor Johnsonhasfurthered by non-creationists.
rlris critique in his subsequent6ooks: DefeatingDarwinism by Opening 3. Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theorl of Euolution 6y
Min*, Reasonin the Bnlance, and Objections Sustained.) Dr. Lee Spetner (1997), an lsraeli biophysicist.This is perhapsthe
3. Scientifc Creationisttrby Henry M. Morris (1985 edition). An most important book on evolution to have come out in recentyears.
excelle nt summary by rhe founder of America'screationsciencemove- Dr. Spetner,whose technicalknowledge of his subject is well in ad-
menr, rhis book discusses everything Fronrthe beginning of the uni- vanceof that of the averagebiologist,showsrhar all usefulgenericin-
verseto the origin of man. Fr. Seraphinrused it more than any other formation was initially present in each organism. He demonstrates
book on creation science.In srudying this well-documented book, that chance mutations cannot produce grand-scaleevolution, since
readerswill be able to form their own conclusionsabout the grearbody thesemutations result not in increasedgeneticinformation but rather
of evidenceamassedby scientific crcationists. in a lossof information. (This, incidentally,supports the traditional
4. Shanering the Mltbs of Darwinism by Richard Milton (1997). view that the universeis in hct devolving.)He then goeson to posit
An exrremely well-wrirten and engaging book by a British science that the variationsthat do occur within eachkind of organismare the
journalist who is neither a creationistnor a religiousbeliever.Milton result of iriggers" or "cues"which a "biological Engineer" (i.e., God)
calls into question not only the myths of Darwinism but also the built into organismsro enable rhem to adapt to their environment.
myths of radiometricdating. His reviewof the evidencehasled him to His book is excellentfor scholarlyskeptics,as well as for scierrtists
conclude that, "becauseradioactivedating methods are scientifically who are looking at new possibilitiesfbr undersranding biological
unreliable,it is at presentimpossibleto say with any confidencehow variation.
old rhe Earth is." AustraliancreationscientistDr. Carl Vieland, reviewingthis book
in Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 20, no. l, writes:
2. Othcr Important Scientifc Critiques of Euolutionism
-Ib saythat Spetner's
book is an absolutc"must"for anyonedefcnd-
l. Euolution:A Theoryin Crisisby Michael Denton (1985). Dr. ing Scripturein this increasingly cducatcdageis an understarcmcnt.
Denton, an Australianmolecularbiologist and medical researcher, is a To put it succinctly, it is clearrhar unlessevolurionists
can pull a
religiousagnostic,not a creationist.His widely acclaimedbook exam- brandnew rabbitout ofthe hat,Spetnerhasblownthe wholeevolu-
ines the mounting evidenceagainstevolutionism from a number of tionarymcchanism out ofthe wateronccand for all. fhe evolutron-
scienrificdisciplines,especiallyhis own specialry,molecular biology. arylhumanistesrablishment cannot allow rhis to happen,of
638 639
CENlsrs, CrmrroN aNn Eanlv MaN Succrsrro RraorNcs
course... . I trust that readersof this book will make it as hard as pc's- book, The Mytholngy of Modern Dating Methodsby John Woodmo-
siblefor them to ignorc this groundbreakingwork, by sprcadingir as rappe(1999).Dr. HenryMorriswriresof this book:
far and fast as rhey can.
Voodmorappe,.. hasdemonstrated that the variousassumptions
on which radioacivc dating rechniquesare basedareall wrong, and
3. On "HumanEuolution"
hc hasdonc this masterfully and overwhclmingly-bycirarions(al-
The mostcomplete,accurate and up-to-datecritiqueof the myth mosr500 separare articles)from evolutionistswho spccialize
in rhe
of human evolution is Bonesof Contention:A CreationistAsessment of field, not from other crearionisrs
who alrcadyagreewith this world-
Human Fossils by Dr. Marvin L. Lubenow (1992).. The fruit of
rwenry-fiveyearsof research into human fossils,this book contarns He has entitlcd this study The MytbohgT of Modtrn Dating
someof the mostcomprehensive humanfossilchartsto be foundany- Methods,and,hasstructuredir around rhe many assumptionswhich
wherein the scientificliterature,aswell asdescriotions of whereand hc calls"myths"-and what he rhen calls"rcalirychecks,"which
how thesefossilswerefound, and rhe controversies involvedin their documcntrhe fact that thcy reallyare mythicaland not real.Hc
datingand classification.Basedentirelyon fossilsaccepteduncondi- doesthis so thoroughlyrhat rhe term "ovcrkill"alnrosrcomesto
tionallyby evolutionists,it is heavilydocunrented from the mosr re- mindl
centscientificsources.
Highly recommended. The rnonographis quirc rcchrricaland is not casyto read,al-
"myrh/reality
thoughits interesring check"strucuremakesit abour
ascasyto lollow aspossiblcwirh sucha subject.
4. On RadiometricDating
Curt Sewell'sl:ook, Godat GroundZero(1997),containsall the
materialincludedin AppendixFourof the presenrbook,plus helpful 5. On theAgeof the Earth
technicaldescriptionsof eachof the majorradiometricdatingmeth-
ods. Marvin L. Lubenog in an appendixrc Bonesof Contention: A AJthoughasFr.Seraphimsaysit is impossible to "prove"scientifi-
CreationistAssessmentof Human Fossils,givesa derailed history of the callythat theearthis a certainnumberof yearsold-whether 5 billion
famous"skull 1470" mentionedby Sewell,showinghow evolutionist or 7,500-the readermay be interesred in lookingat someof rhe evi-
assumptions dererminewhich radiometricfindingsareaccepted. dencesfor a young ageof the earrh.ln TheBiblical Basisfor Modzrn
Dr. Mace Baker,ar the end of his book TheRealHistoryof Dino- Science (1984),p. 477, Dr. Henry Morris hascompileda list of (r8
saurs(1997),providesanotherhelpftrlcritiqueof radiometricdating. global processes indicatingrecenrcreation.Dr. RussellHumphreys
His 3O-page essay drawsfrom a largenumberofsourcesby evolurion- providesa briefexplanation ofseveralofthesein his article"F,vidcnce
ists. for a Young\X/odd"(CreationLt Nihilo, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 28-31),
The most thoroughand up-to-darecritiqueis found in the new which alsopresents compellingevidencefrom archeological and his-
toricaldata.
' Not to be confusedwirh Eonctof Contewrazby RogerLewin ( 1987),an evolu-
A more detaileddiscussionof evidencesof recenrcrearionis
tionisrand lirerarycolleagueof RichardLrakey.Lcwin'.s book,incidentally,
is a good found in The Young Earth(1994)by the geologistDr. John D. Mor-
cvolutionisr treatmcnrofrhc subjccr,for ir acknowledgesrhcvasrarnountofspecula- ris, son of Dr. Henry Morris. Vritten on a popularlevelfor high-
tion and subjcctiviryinvolvcdin rheinrerpretarionof "humaoanccstor" fbssils. schoolstudents,this book alsocontainsa cririqueof radiomerricdat-
640 641
Cenr:srs.
Cnsarronnuo F,,rnryMaN Succrsleo Rl,rnrNcs
ing and an illuminating account of the circular reasoningwhich evo- entombmentof such numbers of such greatcreaturesliterallydemands
lutionists rypically ernploy when dating fossils(pp. l3-16). Scientific someform ofcarastrophicaction."
material is interspersedwith interestinganecdotesabout the authort All ofrhis, ofcourse, is seenby crearionistsasevidencethat the fos-
work as a creation scientist,including an accounr of his lecrure tour silizeddinosaursdied during the Noahic Flood. For a presentarionof
of universirycampusesand scientificresearchinstitutcs in Moscow in this evidence from all over the world, see Tht GenesisFlood bv lohn
1990, and of his enrhusiasticreceprionby Russianbiology students Vhircornb and Henry Morris, pp. 279-281; Scientifc Creatioits'mby
@p.23-24). Henry Morris, pp. 98-99; That Their Words Ma1 Be L/sedagainx
(1984)is anotherhelpfulre-
In theMindsofMen6ylan1'.-faylor Themlry Henry Morris, pp. 266-72; The Real History of Dinosairsby
source.In chaprer I I, 'Iaylor delvesinro many scientific areasrelating Mace Baker, pp. 3l-39; Dinosaursby Mace Baker,p. 156; ,,Exce p-
to the age of the earth, and into hisroricaldata. Looking at the cos- tional Soft-TissuePreservationin a FossilisedDinosaur" (CreationEx
rrologiesof ancient civilizations-Abyssinian,Arab, Babylonian, Chi- Nihilo l-echnicalJotrnal, vol. 12, no.2); Dinosaurs by Desrgzby Duane
nese,Egyptian, Indian and Persian-he points our that none of them Cish, pp. 8-9 'fbe Great Dinosaur Mystery Soluedby Ken Ham, pp.
purs rhe date of crearionearlierrhan 7000 s.c. 58, l-15; and the video The Fbotstepsof Lauiathanby American portrair
Films.
3. Evolurionistshavelong debaredabour the worldwide extinction
ofdinosaurs,but have yer ro come up with an adequaretheory.Crea-
6. On the Dinosaurs
rion scientistsgenerallyagreethar the main causewas rhe drasticenvi-
In discussionsabour the Biblical reachingon creation, one of the ronmenralchangeberweenthe pre-Flood and post-Floodworld. For a
mosr frequenrlyaskedquestionsis "Vhat about the dinosaurs?"As an discrrssion of this and other causes,seeDinosaursb.yD*ign by Duane
inrroduction to dinosaursfrom a Chriscianviewpoint, we recommend Cish, pp. 76-77: The Real History of Dinosaars by Mace Baker, pp. 57;
'I'he
Dinosaurs(1991, third edition forthcoming in 2000) and 'fhe Real Great Dinosaur Mystery Solued by Ken Ham, pp.6l-68: and Di-
Historl of Dinosaurs(1997), both by Dr. Mace Baker. nztaurs,tbe Lost World, and Youby John D. Morris, p. 33.
'I-herc are many considerations and litrle-known facts about 4. The recentdiscoveryof fresh (unfossilized)dinosaurbones,and
dinosaurswhich are coveredin a number of creationistsources: of'lyrannosaurusboneswhich appearro contain blood cells,indicares
l. I-ike lossilsofother animals,dinosaurfossilsappcarsuddenly in rhatthe dinosaurscould not havedied our seventymillion yearsago,as
the fossilrecord,without evolutionaryancesrorsor inrermediatelrorms cvolurionistsclaim. See "Fresh Dinosaur Boncs Found" by Margaret
betweenkinds of dinosaurs.See"Dinosaurs and Dragons" by Russell Held,er(CreationEx Nihi/0, vol. 14, no. 3);'fhe Great Dinosaur Mys-
M. Cirigg (Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 14, no. 3)t and 'l'be Great Dinosaur tery Solved by Ken Ham, pp. l4-16, tg11-..1;T-heGreatAlashanDino-
MysterySoluedbyKen Ham, pp. 19, ll4. saurAduentureby Davis, Liston and Whitmore; and the video I/e
2. Dinosaursrypicallydo not restin the fbssilrecord as if they died Fooltepsof Leuiathaz by American Portrait Films.
of natural causes,but are most commonly found in positions rhar sug- 5. Sincethe lossil record represenrsrhose aninralswhich died due
gestcatastrophicburial, and ofien a very violent one. 'fhey must have to rhe Noahic Flood, the question of wherher any dinosaurssurvived
been buried quickly under layersof sediment,for not only are their re- rhe Flood via the Ark cannot be answered from a srudy oF fossils.
mains found in abundance,bur in many casesoriginal bone material Rarher,we must turn to ancient literature and tlie earliestaccountsof
and skin imprints are preserved.There are a number of massivedino- hLrmanhistory after the Flood. Evolutionisrs cannot explain the de-
saur graveyardsall ovcr the world. As Dr. Henry Morris writes, "The scriprionsof "dragons" found in ancient cultures fronr-all over thc
642 643
Gsnrsrs,CnrerIoN,rruoElnry MeN Succes.renRnaotNcs
645
GtNr:sts,Cnl:atroN aNo Eltty MaN SuccrslroRr-corNcs
earth'.spre-Flood vapor canopy is the 480-pagescienrificsourcebook Malcolm Bowden,in his recentbook Tiue9iencc Agreeswith tbe
T'hetYaters Aboueby JosephC. Dillow (1981). Bible(1998),refutesthe claim that the earlyFathersinterpretedthe
-l'he following books will be of intercstto Bowdensaysthat the
thosewishing to make a Cenesisaccountof creationonly allegorically.
study of what happenedafier the Flood and the dispersionof rhe peo- Fathers were "sensible in
lircralists" their approach to Genesis,which is
plcs A/ier the Floodby Bill Cooper; T'heyCame/iom Babel by S. A. nor far from Fr.Seraphim's assertion that the Fathers Gene-
interpreted
Crantlll; 'l'lte Puzzle of Arcient Mar by Donald tl. Chirtick; and The sis 'realistically."
Biblical Basis/ir Modun ScicncebyHenry M. Morris, chapters I 5- 16. Seealsothe articlessupportingthe reachingof St. Basil'sHrxaa-
meron:"CenesisMeansVhat lt Says,"in CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 16,
L On Biological Variation
no.4, p.23 (September-November, 1994),and'An EarlyView of
GenesisOne," in Creation Research SocietyQuarterly,vol. 27, pp.
As an introduction to biological variarion within the original (
1 3 8 -3 9 l9 9 l ).
"kinds" describcdin Genesis,the following books and arriclesare rec-
ommended: Not b7 Chance!by L)r. l-ee Sperrrer, chapter seveni Oze
I L Aids in Apologetics
Blood: '['he Biblical Ansuer to Racismby Ken Ham, Carl Vieland and
Don Batten;"Bearsacrossthe Vorld" by PaulaWesronand Carl Wie- Irr his book That Their WordsMay Be UsedagainstThem,Henry
land (CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 20, no. 4); and 'Adaptarionswirhin the Morris hascompilednearlythreethousandquotesfrom evolutionists
Bear Family:A Contribution ro the Debareabour the Limits of Varia- which revealthe weaknesses and uniformirarian-
of both evolutionism
tion" by Dr. David J. 'iyler (CrcationMatters,vol.2, no. 5). ism.The fruit of overfifty yearsof study,thisanthologycanbe a very
usefultool for Christiansdefendingtheir faith. Includesa compa€t
9. On the History of'Dartuittism
disc.
ln CrcationScientistsAnsuer Their Critics,veterandebaterDuane
Helpful marerial on the philosophicaland socrologicalroors of Gish respondsto the most importantanti-creationistbooksand arti-
l)arwinism can be lound in -l'he Riseof the Euoluion Fraud by Mal- cles,substantiaringthe factsand argumentsin the creationistlitera-
colnr Bowden; The Long lYar against Godl:>yHenry M. Morris; [Jnder- ture.
standing tbe 7'imes(unabridged edition) by David A. Noebel;
Euolution:A 7-beoryin C-rrr by Michael Dcnton, pp. (t9-77: Algny l>y
'[aylor. 12. For the Educationof Children
JeremyRifkin, pp. 63-108; and ln the Minds dMenby Ian [.
Scientifc Creationismby Henry Morris waswritten especiallyfor
10. Cruuion Scientisx in Dcfrnse of the Holy Fathers
high schoolstudents,and remainsthe bestgeneraltextbookon the
subiect.TheAmazingStoryof Creationby Duane Gish is suirablefor
Jonathan Vells, who is now doing postdocroralresearchin mo- junior high as well as high schoolstudents.lts readabletext, many
lecular biology at the Universiry of California at Bcrkeley,has de- and largeformatmakeit veryeasyto follow.Cover-
colorillustrations
fended St. Basil and l)lessedAugustine against claims rhar their ing a broadrangeof subiects-fish,flowers,stars,dinosaurs, etc.-tt
teachingsare conrpariblewith cvolutionism. Seehis article 'Abusing oflersmuch interesting materialfor schoolprojects.
Thcology: Howard Van 'fill's 'ForgotrenL)octrineof Creariont Furrc- Phillip Johnson'sDefeatingDaruinism by OpeningMinds (1997)
rional Integrity,"'in Origins(r Desigtt,vol. 19, no. I (1998). waswritrenon a high-school levelwith the specificpurposeof teach-
647
GeNc.srs,
CnaenoNrNo Ernry M,rN Succes.rr:o fu,qoINcs
ing youngpeoplehow to seethrough the deceptiveargumenrsfor evo- ObjectionsSuxainedttyPhillip E. Johnson,and the journal Ozfz.r
lutionismand to understand rhebasicscientificissues without getting (t Designcan be orderedfrom AccessResearchNerwork, P O. Box
boggeddown in details. 38069,ColoradoSprings,CO 80937-8069. http://wwwarn.org
The bestbrief treatmentofcreationscienceis BoneofContention:Is Shaneringthe Mlths of Darwinismby Richard Milton can be or-
EuolutionTrue?bySylviaBaker(secondedition, 1986).This 35-page, dered from Park StreetPress,One Park Street, Rochester,Vermont
magazine-format book haslong beena favoriteof Christianeducators. 05767.
The aurhoris ableto presenrall rhe majorscientificissues succincrly Mace Baker's 6ool<s,Dinosaursand TheRealHistoryof Dinosaurs,
andaccurately, withoutoversimplifring. The accounrofher conversion and S. A. Cranfill'st:ook Thel Camefom Babelcanbe orderedfrom
from evolutionismro crearionism addsto rhespecialcharacter of this New Century Books, 2683 RosebudLane, Redding,CA 96002.
little book.which hashelpedto bring abour,i.,. r"-. conversionin hnp://www.dinobooks.com
manyotherpeople.Schoolreachers, and alsonrissionaries,
may order Malcolm Bowden'sbook, The Riseof theEuolutionFraudand Tiue
the bookat bulk discountsfrom the Insritutefor CrearionRescarcn. ScienceAgreeswith theBible,canbeorderedfrom The BereanCall, P O.
The Institutefor CrearionResearch andAnswersin Genesis offera Box7019, Bend,OR 97708-7019. Telephone orders800-937-6638.
numberof othereducational resources, nor only for high-schoolstu- Algeny6y JeremyRifkin is out of print and mustbe obtainedfrom
dentsbut also for junior-highand elemenrary schoolstudents,and usedbookstores or interlibraryloan.
evenfor preschoolers. ALI- THE OTHERBOOKSAND /1DIOS in thissectioncanbeor-
The bestdinosaurbooks for childrerrare Dinosaursfu Duign by deredfrom the Institutefor CreationResearch, Il O. Box2667,El Ca-
Duane Gish, and The GreatDinosaurMysteryand the Bible by Paul jon, CA 9202I . Telephone orders800-628-7640.http://www.icr.org
Taylor.(The above-mentioned video by Paul1'aylor,The GreatDino- The Institutefor CreationResearch, the CreationResearchSoci-
saurMystery, is alsosuirablefor childrenaswell asadults.)Junior-high ery and Answersin Genesis Their news-
offerfreeillustratedcatalogs.
and high schoolstudentsinrerested in dinosaurscan referro the rwo lertersareenrirled (respectively)Actsand Facts,CreationMatters,and
booksby Mace Baker(seeabove). AnsuersUrdzte.
64)
NorBs
Pagenumbersof Parristicworks refer to the sourcesused by Fr.
Seraphim.SinceFr. Seraphimtrepose,severalof the foreignJanguage
sourceshavebeentranslatedinto English(seeBibliography).
All bracketedreferences
areby the editor.
3. CharlesDarwin, Thc Origin ofSpe- I l. St. Isaacthe Syrian,RussianPlri/a- Commemorarionof rhe Martyr Ma- 16. St . Ephr aim , Com m cnt ar yon
4ar (Pcnguined., 1984),p. 66. halia lDobrotolubicJ,sec. 491 English mas,' pp. 656-57. Gencsil, p. 293.
4. Dawkins, Tbe Elind Watebmakcr rranslarion,Early Fathcnfon the Pbilo- 12. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilicson 17. St. Basil rhc Crcar, Hcxaetncron
nore3, pp. 2-3. halia,p. 196. Cencsi3:3, p. l8; 8:2,pp.60-61. l: 5, p. 9.
5. Niles Eldredge,Reinwnting Dar' l2. Sr. Isaac thc Syrian, Arcetical 13. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,On thc Soul 18.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hexaeneron
uin: Thc Grcat Debat?dt th. High Tablc HomilietHomily21, Russian edition,p. and the Resurrection, pp.44142, l: 5, p. 18.
of EuolutionatyThcoryp.95. 108;Hornily85, GreekeditionIHomily 14. St. CregoryofNyssa,On theMah- 19, St. Basil thc Grcar, Hexaemeron
6. Tim Bcrra, Evolutionand thc Myth 37, p. 180 in thc Englishcdition pub- ing of Man 8, pp. 393-94. 3: 34, 7; pp. 4143, 4748.
ofCrcationkm,pp. I l8-19. lishedaftcrFr.Seraphim's repose]. 15.Ibi d. l :5, p. 389. 20. St. Basil rhe (irear, Hcxacnreron
7. fuchard Lcwonrin,'Billions and 13.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmeron 16.Ibi d.3:I, p. 390. 4: 3,p. 57.
Billions of Dcmons," in Thc Ncu York l:2, pp. 6-7. 21.St.AmbroseofMilan, Hexaemeron
Rclicw of Books,lanuary 9 , 1997, pp. 28, 14. Sr. Basil thc Grcat, H*acmeron 3: 3,p. 78.
3 1. l : l ; p .4 . 22. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,On the Soul
15. Sr.John Chrysostom,Homilia on
Chapter Three: Tse Stx Days
and tbe Rcsuncction, pp.457-58.
Gcnetisl4:2, p. I lO. (Dnv sv Dnv) 23. St. Ambrose,Hexacmcron3:4, p,
1 6 .l b i d . 2 :2 ,p .9 . l. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcron u0.
PARTI: AN ORTHODOX 1 7 ,Ib i d . l : I5, pp. l 4- 15. 24. St. Basil the Grcar, Hexaemtron
PATRISTICCOMMENTARY 2. St. Basilthc Grear,Hetaemtnn3:2, 5: 54, p. 74.
ON GENESIS ChapterTwo: Tsr. SIx Dnvs op pp.38-39. 25. St . Ephr aim , Com m . r t 4r ! on
CnurroN (GrNeul Osstnve- 3. St. Ephraim, Commentary on ()cne- Gencsil, p.298.
ChapterOne: How ro READ rroNs) si I, p.286. 26. St. Cregoryof Nyssa,On tbe Soul
4. Sr.Basilthe Great,Hcxacmcron2:1, and thc Rauncction,p. 467.
Cenesrs l. Sr. JohnChrysostom.EightHoni- pp.2l -22. 27. St. John (-hrysoxom, Commcn-
1. Sr. John Damasccne, On Heresiet lieson Gcnaitl:3, pp.71l-32. 5. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hexaemcron tary on Genetu6:4, p. 44.
64, p. 126. 2. St. John Chrysostom,Homilicson l:7, pp. 26,28-29. 28. St. Basil the Grcat, Hcxacmeron
2. St. Athanasius, Mignc PG.25, p. GcncsbT:3, p.52. 6. St. Ephrainr,Commennryon Gcne- 5: l, p. 67.
429. 4:2,
3. St. Basilthe Grear,Hcxaemeron ri I, p. 283. 29. St. Ambroseof M ilan, Hetaemen'n
3. Sr.Athanasius thcGrcat,"FourDis- pp. 56-57 . 7. ll>id.,p. 284. 3:6,p. 87.
courses againstthe Arlans"2:48,p.375. 4. Ibid. 6: I , p. 83. 8. Sr. Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcton 30. St. John Qhrysoxom, Commcn-
4. Sr.Macarius rheCrear,Seuen Homi' 5. St. Ephraim, CommcntarT on Genc' l :8, p.31. ury on Genesit 6:4, p. 45.
tiet4:5, p. 385. si l, p. 287. 9. Ibid., pp.32-33. 31. St. Basil rhc Grcat, Hetaemcron
5. Sr.CrcgoryrhcThcologian, "Hom- 6. Sr. Basilthc Crear,Hexacmeron5:6, 10. St. Ephraim, CommentarTon 6:2-3, 8, pp.85-86,97.
ily on Theophany," scc.12,p.348. P.7 4 . Gencsis l, pp. 286-87. 32. St. Ambroscof Milan, Hcxaemcron
6. Sr. Gregory Palamas,Dcfcnscof tbe 7 . Ib i d .5 :1 0 ,p .8 2 . I l. St,Ambroseof Milen, Hexacmeron 4: 1,p. 126.
Holy HcEtbacs,Triad 2:3, p.432. 8. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hctaemeron l :9, p.39. 33. Sr. John Chrysosrom, Conncn-
7. St.BasilrheGrcat,Hcxaemcron 9:1, l :2 , p p . 5 ,7 . 12. Sr. Ephraim, Comnentary on taryon GencsisT:3, p. 53.
pp. 135-36. 9 . l b i d . l :5 , p .8 . Gcncsis I, pp.287-88. 34. I bid. ,p. 52.
8. Sr. Ephraim rhe Syrian, Commtn' l0. Sr.AthanasiusthcGreat,FourDis- 13.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcron 35. Sr.Basil,HexaemcronT:1, p. 105.
tary on Gencsitl, p.282. courretagainrt thc Arians 2:48, 60; pp. 2:5,p. 65. 36. Sr. Ambrosc,Hcxacntcron 5:1,2,
9. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homilia on 3 7 4 ,3 8 1 . 14. St. Basil thc Grcar, Hcxaemcron pp. 160-62.
Genesis l3:4, p. lO7. I l. Sr.GregoryrbeThcologian, Hom-
2:8,p.33. 37. Sr, Basil,HeraemcronT:2, p. 107,
10.Ib i d . l 3 : 3, p. 106. ily 44, "On Ncw \)?cck,
Spring,and thc
15.Ibid.,pp.33-34. 38. lbid. 8:| , p. I 17.
652 l)).t
Nores ro Prcrs 135-l6l Norrs ro Pecr.sl6l- 189
39. l6 i d . 5 :2 ,p. 69. 4. St, Circploryof Nyssa,On tbc Mak- 23. St. John Chrysostom,Honilies on 14.I bid.2: 30,p. 265.
40. tb i d .9 :2 ,p. 137. ing of Man l6:10, p. 405. Gzntsul3'.2, pp. 103-4. | 5. lbid. 2: i t-t2, pp. 233-35.
4l . Sr. Ambrose,Hcxrcmeron3:16, 5. St. Basil, On thc Origin of Man 24. Ibi d. l 2:5, p. 100. 16.Sr. Basil,Hexaemerot l:5, p.9.
pp. I 19-20. l :1 6 -1 7 , p p .2 0 7 -l l. 25, Sr. John Damascenc, On tbe Or- 17.St. Crcgorythc Thcologian,"Scc-
42. lt:id.6:3,p.232. 6. St. Cregory of Nyssa,On thc Mak- tltodoxFaith2:12,p. 235 [Fathcrs ofthe ond Orationon Easter"8, p.425.
43. lbid. 5:9.p. 166. ing of Man 16-17, pp. 405,407. Churchscricsl. 18. St. John Damasccne, On thc Or-
44. Ib i d .l :1 0, pp. 99- 100. 7.5t. JohrrChryso'tom.Figlt Homi 26. St. Cregoryof Nyssa,On theMak- thodoxFaitb 2: I l, pp. 232-33 [Farhers
45. Sr. Ambrose,On Belitf in thc Ra' lieson GeneitS:4, pp. 160-{1. ing of Man28-29, pp. 419-21. ofrhe Churchseries].
unection2163,7O,pp. 184-85. 8. Sr.John Damascene,On the Ortbo- 19.Sr.John Chrysostom,On the Crea-
46. St. Crcgory of Nyssa,On theSoul dox Faitb 4:24, p. 394 [Fathcrsof the tion of tbe \VorU5:7, pp. 7 93-9 4 .
axd tfu Resarrection,p. 467. Churchserics]. Chapter Five: Penlotst 20. Sr.John Damascenc, On thc Or-
47. lbi<J.,p. 454. 9. Sr. Cregory of Nyssa,On Vrginity f . S t. A mbrose. P aru dise1, pp. thodoxFaith2:11,p. 230 IFarhers of rhc
48. Sr. Ep hr aim , Com m e n ta ryo n 8, t2. pp.352-53,358. 287-88. Churchseriesl.
GcneisI, p. 302. 10.St. Basil,On thc Origin ofMan2:5, 2. Ibid.,p. 289. 2l . St.John Ohrysosrcnt,On tltz Crea-
49. St. Basil,Hemcmeron 9:3, p. 138. pp.235-39. 3. St. John Chrysostonr, Honilics on tion of the \Vorld6:\, p.799.
50. Sr.John Chrysostonr,Homilicson I I . l b i d . l :1 9 , p p . 2t7-2t. Genesit 1334, pp. 105-6. 22. St . Ephr aim , Com m ent ar yon
G ene s* 7 :5p,.5 5. 12. Sr.Crcgoryof Nyssa,On tbc Mak- 4. Sr. Bphrainr,Commentary on Gcnc- G cnet 2, u p. 313- 14.
5 I . Sr. Basil,Hcxaemeron l; I I, p. 19. ing of Man 18, pp.407-8. si 2, p.309. 23. Sr.John Chrysostonr,Hontttieson
52. St. John Damascene, On the Or- | 3. Sr. Basil. Or rhc Origin o/ Man 5. St. (iregorythc Sinaitc,"Chaptcrs Genettu l4'.5,pp. I l5-16.
thodoxFaith 2:2, p. 205 [Fathersof thc 2:6-7 , pp. 23945 . on Commandmcntsand Dogmas" l0r 24. Sr.Ambrosc,I'aradic,ch, 11,pp.
Churchsericsl. 1 4 , Sr. E p h ra i m, C ommcntaryon RussianPhilokalia / Dohrotolubiel,'tol. 5. 329-.10.
53. St. John Chrysostom,Homiticson Gencsis l, pp. 304-5. lF.nglishPhilokalia,vol. 4, p.213.) 2s. lbiJ. , . hs. l0- l l, pp. . 127.329.
GenesilO7, p. 82. 15.Sr. Symeonrhc New Theologian, 6. Qrroted in Fr. Scraphim Rosc, Ihc 26. Sr. Cyril ofJerusalem,Atecbctical
54.St.GregorytheThcologian, Hom- Homily 45:l, 4, in T'hcSinofAdzn, pp. Soulafer Death,p. 145. lln thc revisetl I.ccturcs l2),9, p.80.
ily 7, "On the Soul." 6 4 , 6 7 ,7 5 . [n th e new edi ti on,pub- fourrhprinring,rhispassage is foundon 27. St. John Chrysostom,Homilicson
51. St. Ep hr aim , Com ne n ta ryo n lished under thc rirle 7bc Firn-Created pp. 137 38. E n.l Genetisl5:2-3, pp. l2l-22.
GcnesiL p. 30O. Maz, rhis paas.rgc is found on pp.87- 7. Sr. John Ohrysostom, Homilics on 28. St.John Chrysosrcm,On tbt Ctca-
56. Ib i d .,p . 287. 8 8 ,9 0 , l 0 3 .l Geneful34, p. 107. tion of tbe \Votld5:8, p.796.
57. St. Ambrose,Hexaemeron 1:13,p. 16. Sr.John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on 8. Sr.John Chrysosrom,On tbe Crea- 29. Sr. F-phraim, Commentaryon
1 3. Genestu l2:2, pp. 95-96. tionoJ'tbe WorLl5:5,p.791. Gcnestu2, p. 315.
17. Blessed'fheodoret, quoted in the 9. Ibi d.,pp.79l -92. 30. Ibid.
Chapter Four: Tne CnEArroN op Dogmatic Theologyof Metropolican 10.Ibi d.,p. 791. 31. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilieson
Macarius, vol. I, pp. 43043. I l. St. Crcgorythc Theologian, "Sec- Gcnesis l54, pp. 123-24.
MnN
18.St. Basil,On tbeOrigin ofMan2:4, ond Orationon Eastci'8, p.421. 32. Sr. Ephraim, Commcxtaty on
l. Sr. Basil, On thc Origin of Maa
P.233. 12. BlessedPaisiusVelichkovsky,I6e Genesis 2, p. 316.
l: 34, p p . 1 7 l- 75. 19.lbid.2:3,
p.233. Scroll, Six Chaptcn on Mcntal Ptdyer,cn, 33. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilicson
2. Sr. John Chrysostom,Eight Homt- 20.lbid.2:2,pp.229-31 . 2, in l'he Orthodox\Vord,no. 48 (1973), Genesis l5:4, pp. 123-24.
liet on Genai 2:l-2, pp.735-37. 21.Sr.JohnChrysostom, Homilieson pp. I8-fq lln Link Ruttian Phlohalia, 34. Sr. John l)amasccnc,On tbe Or-
3. Sr. Gregory rhe Theologian,"Scc- Gcne*l2'.5,pp.99-100. vol.4, this passage is foundon p. -31.] thodorFaith2:11,p. 231 [Fathers oftne
o nd Ora ri o n on E as ( er " 6 -7 , p p . 22.St.GregorytheTheologian, vol.2, 13. Sr. John Damascene, On thc Or- Churchscrics].
424-25. Homily-, "On rheSoul."pp.3l , 3.t. thodoxFaith2:ll, p. 232 [Fathers of the 35. St. Seraphimof Sarov,Little Rxs-
Churchseriesl. ian Pbihhalia, vol. l, pp. 8l-82. [n tne
654 655
Norss ro Pec:s 189-223 Norss 'ro Pncrs225-314
rcvised fourrh edition, this passagcis 20. St. John Chrysostom,Homilis on 5. Sr. Ephraim, Commcntaryon Gene- PARTII:
f oundo n p .9 0. 1 Gcncstu 17:7-8,pp. 149-50. sis4, p. 338. THE PHILOSOPHY OF
36. St. GrcgoryofNyssa, On tbcMak- 2 t.l b i d ., t7 :9 , p . t 52. 6. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homitieson
EVOLUTION
ing of Man 17,p. 407. 22.lbid., p. t53. Ccnesis l85, p. 164.
37. Sc.Abba Dorochcus,Spiitual In- 23. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliu on 7, St. Ephraim, Commcnuryon Gcne-
structiou l, pp. l9-2O. Romau,Homily l4:5, p. 665. sis4, p. 339.
Chapter One: ScIsNce AND THE
24. Ibid., Homily r0:2, p. 595. 8. St. John Chrysostom,Homilicson
Horv Fernsns
25. St. Macarrusrhe Crcat, Fifty Spiri- Generit18:6, pp. 16546.
tual Homilia, Homily I I, pp. 85-86. 9, 5t. Ephraim, Commcntaryon Gcnc- l. Fr. MichaclPomazansky, "1'alkson
Chapter Six: Tnr FALL or M,a.N 26. St. Symconthc New Thcologian, is 4, p. 241. rhe Six Days by Sr the
Basil Grear,and
10. St. John Chrysostom,Homilieton 'Ialks on the Days of Creation by St.
l. St. John Chrysostom,On tht Crza- Homily 45, in Tbc Sin of Adan, pp.
tion of the \Y'orA6:2, pp. 800- I . 6749,75. [n the new edition, pub- Gencsil9:3, pp. 17l-72. John of Kronstadr," Prauottaunlpxt'
2. Sr. Ambrosc, Paradisc12, pp. lishcd undcr thc tide lla First-Creatcd I l l bi d.,p, 173. (Tbc Orthodox lVal annual, 1958, pp.
332-33. Man, rhis paasageis found on pp. 12. S t. E phrai m, C omm cnt ar yon 39, 41.
3.Ibid.,p.333. 9 l -9 4 , 1 0 3 .1 Gcnefi 4, p. 346. 2. I. V Kireyevsky,C)ompleteWorkt
4. lbid. 27. St. Cyril of Alexandria,"On the 13.Ibi d.,p. 345. vol. I , p. I 18.
5. St. Ephraim, Commentary on Gcnt- lncarnationof the Lord." 14.St.JohnChrysostom,Homilies on 3. I bid. ,p. I 19.
r r r3, p . 3 1 8 . 28. Sr. Symeonrhc New Theologian, Genctit2O:2, pp. 179 81. 4. I bid.
6. St. John Chrysostom,Homiticson Thc Sin of Adan, p. 62. [Thc Firtt- 5. Bishop I gnat ius Br i: r nchaninov,
Gcnetis16:4,p. 132. CrcatcdMan, p. 83.1 Works, vol.3, p. \25.
ChapterEight:THE.Fl-ooo
7. Ibid. l6:5, pp. 133-34. 29. Ibid., pp. 69, 73. lTbc Firt-
8. I bi d . l 7 :1 , p. 138. CrcatedMan, pp. 94, 100.1 l. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliesot
Chaprer Two: A Bntrr Cnl'rtque
9. Sr. Ambrosc,Paradiv 14, p. 346 30. Morhcr Mary and Archimandrirc Gencsis 24:3, pp. 229-30.
MODEL
OF THE EVOLU'I'IONARY
10. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilia on Kallistos Vare, rrans,, Tbc Fatal Mc- 2. lbid. 24:5, pp. 234-35.
Gcnesis 17:2-3, pp. 14042. naion,p. 134. 3. St. Ephraim, Commcntaryon Gcne- l. Tracy l. Srorer,GcncralZoologlt,p.
I l. Sr.Ambrose,Parulit 14,p.348. 3 1 . Ib i d .,p . 1 4 6 . sisT, pp. 357-58. 2t6.
12. Sr.John Chrysosom, Homilia on 32.16id.,p. t47. 4. St. John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on 2. Ibid.
Gcncs*l7:5, p. 145- 3 3 . Ib i d .,p . l 5 l . Gencsit 252, p. 244. 3. Ibid.,p. 220.
l3. Sr. Ephraim, Commcntaryon 3 4 . Ib i d .,p .3 6 9 . 5.l bi d.25:6,p.25r. 4. CharlesDar*in, The Origin oJSpe-
Gcncsis 3, pp.329-30. 6. lbid. 25:6, p. 252. cra (ModernLibrarycd.),p. 234.
14. Ibid.,p. 326. 5. Villiam B. N. Bcrry Gtowthof a
ChapterSeven:Lrre Oursrns PrcbistoricTimcScale,p,42.
15. St. Abba Dorotheus,Spirinal In- ChapterNine: Trts Dtspenstot't
*uctiou l, pp. 26-27. P,rnrorse 6. O. H. Schindewolf, "Commenrson
OF THE PEOPLES Some Srratigraphic -Ierms," Ameriutn
16. St. John Chrysosrorn,Homiticson l. Sr. Ephrainrthc Syrian,Paradiscl,
Gnest 17:6,p. 146. pp. 35940. L Sr. John Chrysostom,Homiliq on .fournalofScience, vol.255 (June1957),
17.St.john Chrysostom,On thc Crca- 2. St. John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on Gcncst 28:4, p. 29 | . p.394. Qtrorcdin Hcnry Morris,Srraz-
tionof thc lVotA6:7, p.813. Gcncsis18:-3,p. 16O. 2. Cf. ibid. 297, pp. 3o9-10. tifc Crcationism, p. 135.
18. BishopBcssarion , Conmentaryon J. Morhcr Mary and Archimandrirc 3. Ibi d. 29:8,p. 3l l . 7. \Tilfiam B. N. Berry,Orou,it ofa
Churcb-Scrticc Parablct, vol. l, pp. Kallistos Varc, trans., Tbe Lcntcn 4. Sr. Ephraim, Commcnuryon Gcnc- Prcltitoric Tint Scalc,p.23.
) o- )/ . Triodion,p. 169. sis4, p. 366. 8. SeeJ. P Rileyand C. Skirrr-rw, cd.,
19. St. Ephraim, Conmcntary on 4. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliet on 5. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homilicson Chmical Occanography. vol. |, p. 164
Gcneis3, p.332. Gcnesitl8:4, pp. 160-6l. Genesis 3O4, p. 318. 9, Henry Faul,Nutkar Gcology.lFora
656 657
Nores ro Pacss3l 5-358 Nores ro Ptczs 359-374
658 659
Nores ro Pecm 386-414 Nolrs ro Pacas414444
PARTIII: ily 44, "On Ncw Weck,Spring,and rhc 44. Sr. Macarir.rs the Grear,Ftfu Sprn- I'hikkalia,vol. l,2rl, p,
l-ew,"Rtrssian
Commemorationof the Marryr Ma- rual Honiliet Homily I I, pp. 85-86. 283.
THE PATRISTIC
DOCTRINE
mas," pp. 656-57 . 45. St. Synreonthc New Thcologian, $.lt:id. 2:2,p.284.
OF CREATION 23. St.John Chrysosrom,Honilies on Homily.38, Russianedition,vol. 2, p. 64. Sr.AbbaDororheus, Spiritualln-
Gencsb 3:3, p. l8; 8:2,pp.60-{1. ll9. [New English translationby Fr. Jtlrlrrzt Ins(ruction12,"On thef'earof
L St.BasilrhcGrear,HetacneronS:5, 24. St. Basil, Hcxaeneron2:8, pp. Seraphinrin 'lhc Fitt-CreatedMan, pp. Furure'lbrment."
P . 73. 33-34. 82-83.J 65. St. John Cassian, Conferences,
2. lbi d . 5 :7 ,p . 77. 25.St.GregorythcTheologian, Hom- 46. St. Isaacrhe Syrian,Homily 21, Thirreenth(lonlcrence12,p. 4l | .
3 . I bid .5 :2 ,p . 69. ily 44, "On New Veck, Spring,and the R ussi anedi ri on,p. 108; Hom ily 85, 66. Ibid., I hirreenthConlercncetr,
4 . l6id .9 :2 , p . 137. Commemorarionof rhe Martyr Ma- GreckeditionIHomily 37, p. 180in rhe p. 414.
5. St. Gregory of Nyssa,"Against mas,"p, 657, linglisheditionpublishedaficr Fr. Sera- 67, I bid. ,p. 415.
E unomi u s"l :3 4 , p. 8l. 26.St.Gregorvthe1'heologian, Hom- phim'sreposel. (r8.Sr.Gregorythc'fhcologian,Hom-
6. 5r. Gregory o[ Nyssa,'Answcr ro ily 7, "On the Soul,"p. 33. 47. Sr,Gregorythe Sinaire, "Chaprers ily 14,"On Lovefor rhe Poor,"p. 208.
Eunomius'SecondBook,"p. 299. 27. Sr.John Chrysosronl,Honilies oh on Commandmenrs and Dogmas"130, 69. IScerheoriginalRussian vcrsionof
7. Sr. Cyril ofJerusalcm,Catcchctical Gcncsis2:4, pp. I l-12. RussianPhihkalia.,vol. 5, p. 213. lhis passagc in St. Scraphimof Sarov,
Lecnres2:7, p. (). 2 8 . Ib i d . l 5 :2 -3 , p p . t2t-22. 48. Ibi d. "Conversation of 5t. Seraphimof Sarov
8. I bid . l 2 :3 0 ,p. 80. 2 9 . Ib i d . l 4 :5 , p . I1 6. 49. Sr. lsaacrhe Syrian,Homily 25, on rhc Aim of the ChristianLifi," pp.
q. St. Gregorythe Theokrgian. "OrLr- 3 0 . Ib i d . l 3 ;4 , p . 1 0 7. Russiancdition, pp. 125-27; Homily 8l-82. hte r publislrcdit Rus*y Palont-
rion on the Holy Lights"12,p.356. 3 1 . Ib i d . 1 3 :3 ,p . 1 0 6. 62, Greckcdition IHomily 52, English liA, no. 2 ( 1990),p. 84.1
10. S t, Grc gor y t hc T heo l o g i a n , 32. Ibid. edi ri on,p. 2551. 70. Sr.GregoryPalamas,Defcnse oftbc
"'l'hird l'heologicalOrarion-On thc 3J. Sr.John f)amarcene. On Hertsut 50. Sr. John Damascene,On rfu Or- Holy Herycba;ts, Triad l:l I, p. 34.
S on"ll, p . 3 0 5 . 64, p. t26. thodoxFaith 4:14, p. 85 [Niceneand 7 | . Sr. Gregoryof Nyssa,'Answer ro
I l. Sr. John Damascene, On thc Or- 34. St. Macariusrhe Crear, Saaaa Posr-Nicene Farhers seriesl. liunomius,SecondBook,"p. 299.
thodox Faith 2:30, p. 43 [Nicene and Honilies4:5, p. 385- 5l . St. John Chrysostom,Honiliet on 72. Sr.Gregoryof Nyssa,"On Virgin-
Post-Nicene F-arhers scriesl. 3 5 . St. C re g o ry r hc Thcol ogi an, Genesis l3:4, p. 107. iry,"ch. 12,p. 357.
12. St. Cyrif ofJcrusalem,Catcchctical "Homily on theThcophany"12,p.348. 52. Sr. Symeonthe New'fhcologian, 73. Sr. John Damascenc, On tbc Or
Lcttutct 12:-29,p.80. 36. Sr.GregoryPalamas,Defent ol the Homily 45, Russiancdirion,vol. 2, p. thodoxFaith.2:12,p. 235 lFathers ofthe
l3. St. John Damascene, On thc Ot- Hol Herycha*,-friad2:3, pp. 430-32. 367-183. [New lranslalionby Fr. Sera- Churchseriesl.
tbodoxf-aitb 4:14 {Nicene and Post- 37. St. Ephraim, Commentaryon phim in l-he First-CrcatcdMan, pp. 74. St. GregoryofNyssa, On the Crca-
NicencFathcrs sericsl,p. 85. Gcnctis3, pp. 334-35. 87-r06.1 tion of Man 30:34, p. 427.
14. Sr. Basil, Hexaemcron 9:1, pp. 38. St. John Chrysostom,Homitieson 53. Sr. GregoryPalamas,Defcnsc ofthc 75. Ibid. 28:I , 8, pp. 419-20.
\35-36. Gaesit9:4,pp. 69-7O. HolTHesychatts,-friad l:2, p. | 2. 7(t. lbid. 29:1, 2, pp. 420-21.
15. St. Ephraim,Commentary on 39. St. John Damasccnc,On thc Or- 54. Ibid.,Triad l:6, p. 20. 77. Sr.Seraphim ofSarov,"Convcrsa-
GenctiI, p.282. thodoxFaith2:10,p.229 [Fathers ofttre 55. Ibi d.,Tri adt:l l , p.34. tion ofSt. Serrphimof Sarovon rheAim
16.Ibid.,p. 287. Churchscricsl. 56. Ibid.,Triad I :12,p. 36. of rhe ChristianLife" [originalRussrrn
17.lbid.,p. 315. 40. Ibid.,p. 228, 57. Ibi d.,Tri adl :15, p.44. versionl,p. 82. [AJsopublishedin Rrs,!
18.St.Basil, Hcxaemcron
5:6,p.74 4l. St.Gregorythe Sinaice, "Chapters 58. Sr. Basil,Hexacmeron l:2, p. 5. Patomnih, no.2 (1990),p. 84.1
19.Ibid.5:10, p.82. on Commandmentsand Dogmas"I l, 59. Ibi d. 3:3,p. 41. 78. St. Cregory rheSinaite,"Chapters
20.Ibid.7:1,p. 105. RussianPhilohalia,vol. 5, pp. l8l*82 60. l bi d. 6rI, p. 83. on Commandmenrs and f)ognras"82,
2 f . Sr.JohnChrysosrom,Homiliuon 4 2 . tb i d . 1 0 ,p . l 8 l . 6f. St. Abba Dororheus,Spitual In- Russian Pbihkatia, vol. 5, p. 195.
Gcncsis 7:3,p. 52. 43. Sr.John Chrysostom,Honiliet on tt'rationt, ch. l. 79. lbid. 4( r ,p. 188.
22.Sr.Grcgory thcTheologian,
Hom- RomantHomlly l4:5, p. 665. (.l2.Abba Isaiah,"On rhc Narural 80.5t. Gregoryrhe1'heologian, Hom-
660 661
Norrs ro Pxcr,s444-557 N orrs 'ro Pr,cts 557-57 3
ily 38, "On the Nariviryof rheSaviour," 7 . l b i d .,p . 1 0 0 . 27. Fr.SeraphimRose,"The Chincse 49. lbid. ,p. 2 | 2.
'l
P . 528 8 . Ib i d .,p . 1 0 2 . Mind." in hc Orthodox Word, nos. 50. Kcn Wilber, TheMarriqe of Srwe
8l . St. GregoryrheSinairc,"Chapters 9. Vcbsrert Third New Inrcrnarional 187-88,p. I03. and Sout,p.203.
on Commandments and Dogmas"8, 9, Dictionaryofrhc EnglishLanguagc, Un- 28. Sharnbhelalnrerviewwirh Kcn 51. I bid. ,p. 160.
V i l ber: Thc P ubl i cation of O zc '1fuMarriagc
RussianPhilohalia, vol.5. p. l8l. abridged,vol. 2 (Encyclopedia Briran- 52. Kcn Wilber, ofSense
82. St. John Chrysostom,Homiticson n i c a ,In c .,l 9 7 l ), p . 1 630. Tiste-TheJounak of KenWilber 1999. and Soul,p.203.
Genesis l3:4, p. lOTt l5:4, p. 123. 10. Tlilhard dc Chardin,Science and 29. Ken Vilber, .lrx, Ecokrgy,
Spirinal- 53. I bid. ,p. 204.
83. Sr. Symeonthe New 1'heologian, Chrit, p. l8O. i41pp. viii-ix. 54. I bid. ,pp. 205, I I l
Homily 45, Russianedirion,vol. 2, pp. ll. 'leilhard de Chardin, The Phe- 30. Ken Vilbcr, Onc Titstc:TbeJour- 55. lbid. ,p. 205.
368-70, 381. [New translarionby Fr. nomcnonof Man, p, 270. nab of Ken lVilber p.92. 56. lbid. ,p. 206.
Seraphimin 'lhe First-CrcatcdMan, pp. 12. Tlifhard de Chardin, TheHeart of 3l . Ken Vilbcr, A Bricf H*tor1 of 57. I bid. ,p. 208.
88, 90, 103-4.-Eo.l tlr Mattcr pp. 52-53. Euerytlting, p.300. 58. I bid. ,pp. 2l I - 12.
84. l'homas Agulnas,Summa l-beo- fJ. Teilhardde Chardin.Cltristianity 32. Ken l0/ilbcr, Upli'om Fdzn,p.25. 59. Ken Vilber, Sax,Z-ratogtSpirituat-
/ofra I, Quesr.98, Arr. l. and Etolution,p,2O2. 33. Kcn Wilber, 'l he CollcoedlVorhs of it7,p.524.
85. Ib i d .I, 9 8: 2. 14. Teilharddc Chardin.Scicnce and Ken lVilbcnvol. 2, p. I l 60. Ken Wilber, One Tata pp. 3l l,
86. Ib i d .I,9 7; 2. Cbr*t, p.44. 34. Ibi d. 34r.
87. Ib i d .I. 9 5:L 15. 'l'eilhardde Chardin, Tht Heart of ,35.Kcn \Vilbcr, 5rr, Ecology,
Spiritual- 61. Ken !/ilber, Sax,Ecologt,Spirituat-
88. Ib i d .I, 9 7: 3. theMatten pp. I l0- 13. ity p. 524. it7, pp. 186-87 .
89. Ib i d . I, 9 7: 3. 16.Teilharddc Chardin.Chri anitT 36. Kcn Vilbcr, A Brief Hittory of' 62. Vladimir L.ossky,Tbe Mytical
'l
9O.lbid. l,97:4. and Euolution,p, 179. Eucrything, p. 300. heologl of thc Llatetn Chutch, pp.
9l . lb i d . I, 9 7: 3. f 7. tilhard dc Chadin, 1-bePhe- 37. lbid.. p. 22. 92-93. On ncoplatonism, scc also pp.
92. Scel b i d . I , 95:l. nomcnonof Man, p. 149. 38. Ibi d..p. 23. 29-38.
I8. feilharddc Chardin.( .lhritidniry .39. Kcn Vilber, tlp llon Eden, p. (,3. lbid., pp.93-94.
and Evolution,p. 31. 321. 64. I bid. ,p. 95.
Editor's Epilogue: EvoLUTroNrsM
19. Icilharddc (lhardin, HumanEn- 40. Ibi d.,pp. 32l -22. 65. Ken Vilber, TbeManiageof Sense
AN D ,TH L RS I I CI O N oT T H e
etgy,pp. 57-58. 4l. KenVilbcr.,4 BricfHiwry of Ew- and Soul,p. 2O5.
Furunr 20. lbid., p. 96. rything,pp.23-24. 66. Niles Eldredgeand StephenJay
l. Carl Sagan, 'fhc Demon-Hauated 2 f. Teilharddc Chardin, 'fhe Heart of 42. Kcn Vilber, I heManiagc ofSensc Gor.rld,"Punctuatedliquilibtia," Palra-
\Y'orA:Scicnceat a Candb in tbe Dark, p, eheMauez p. 53. and Soul: lntcgratingScienc and Rcligion, biology,vol. . 3 ( Spr ing t 977) , pp.
327.Quoredin PhillipF..Johnson, "The 22. Fricdrich Nicrzschc, The \Vilt to p. 108. 14546. Cired in Lurher Sunderland,
Church of Darwin," lVattSneetJournal, I'owenvol. I, in The Comptcte\Yorb of 43. K en V i l ber, Forewor d r o, 4 Darwini Enigma,p. I l0 I I l. Scc also
Aug. 16 , 1 9 9 9. FriedrichNietzschc,vol.14, t909, p.6. GreaterPsythology by A. S. Dalal (forrh- pp. 108-9.
2. Qu o te d in M onk Dam a s c e n c 23.'l?ilhard dc Chardin, Actitntion of con'trngJ. 67. J. H. Randall, lr., Ibe Mahing of
Chrisrenscn,Not of Tbit WorA,p. 886. Energy,p. 290; 'fbe Futxrc of Man, p. 44. Ken Vifbcr, Thclllartiagc ofScnr tlr Mo&rn Mind, pp.278.
3, l'cilhard de Chardin, Lettresi Llon' t2 7 . and Soul,pp. 1034. 68. KenWilber,Upfon Eden,p.256,
tine Zanta, p. 127, 24, tilhard de Chardin, '|-heHeart of 45. Ibid.,p. 208. quotingfrom Elaint Pagels, "1'heGnos-
4. Tcilhard de Chardin, Actiuationof theMauer,p.92. 46, Kcn Vilbcr, Onc Tixtc,pp.2lO, ric Gospels'Rcvclarions," Ncw YorkRc-
Energt, p. 383l' Scienceand Chritt, p. 25.-leilhard de Chardin, quored in 212. uiewof Boob,vol.26,nos.16-19, 1979.
120: Hou I Bclian p.41. Volfgang Smirh, Tiilhatdism and the 47. Ken Vilber, A Brief Hisnry of 69. Fr SeraphimRose,Ortbodoryand
5. Tcilhard de Chardin, Thc Hcart of New Rclilon, p.23. Euerything,
pp. 314,316. tbcRdigionofthcFunrc,p. 188.
thc Mattel, p.83. 26. Volfgang Smirh, Tiilhardismand 48. Ken Wilber,One Taste,
pp. 282, 70.Ibid.,pp. 188-89.
6. Ibid., p. 32. theNew Rcligion, p.219. 70. 7 | . Fr Scraphim
Rose,"Signsof tne
663
Nores ro Prcs 575-629 Nores ro Pncr.s629-63.1
Times," in The Ortbodox lVord, nos. 'l heologyof tbc Eattern Church,pp. 6. GrandCanyonDatingProiect,In- ficld, "Thc Aromic Constenrs,Light,
20O-t, p. 142. 98-99. srirure for Creation Rescarch,10946 andf ime,"Menlo Park,Calil: Sranford
72. Fr. Seraphim Rose.quored in WoodsideAvenueNorth, Santee,Celif. Rescarch InstiturcInrernational Invitcd
Monk f)amasceneChrisrcnscn,Nar 4f Appendix One: Nores oN Scr- 92071. Research Report,August1987.
Tbis \Vorld,p. 44. '. ofthr RoyalSoci' 9. Melvin Cook, Itrchitory and Earth
ENCE, EVoLUTIoN AND CHRIS. Joly,J.. Proreedings
73. Malachi Martin, Hosugc to thc r4y (l-ondon,ScriesA 102, 1923),p. Modek,pp. 54-55.
TIAN PHILOSOPHY
Dctit, p. 124. 682. 10. Henry Farl, Agesof Rotb, Planctt
74.lbid., pp. t26-27. l. Sr. Symeonthe New Theologian, 8, TrevorNorman and Barlv Serrer- and Star, pp. 65,67.
75. lb i d .,p . 1 30- 31. Homily 38, Russiancdirion,vol.2, p.
76. lb i d .,p . 1 40. 319. {Ncw English rranslarionby Fr.
77. Ibid., p. 386. Scraphimin 'l-heFirst-Crcated
Man, pp.
78. Ib i d .,p p . 390- 91. 82-83.1
79. Tcilhardde Chardin, TheHeart of 2. St. Basil the Great, Hexacmeron9:'l ,
theManet p. 6l . PP.r35-36.
80. lb i d .,p .6 8. 3. Sr.John Damascene,On the Ortho-
8l . WolfgangSmirh, Tcilhardism and dox Faith l:2, p. 167 lFathersof ttre
thc Ncw Rcligion,p.231. Churchseriesl.
82. Fr SeraphimRose,Ortbodotyand 4. Sr.JohnChrysostom, Honrily "On
the Religionof thc Faturc, p. 189. rheCrossand the -l-hief"l:2.
83. Fr.John Meyendorff,"Teilharddc 5. Sr, Isaacthe Syrian,Homily 19,
Chardin: A PrepararoryNore" (in Rus- Russianedition, pp. 85 [Homily 29,
sian), in Messcnget oftbe RussianStudcnt En g l i s he d i ti o n p
, . 1 4 31.
Christian Moucmcnt, Pari, no, 95-96,
197O,p. 32.
84. Volfgang Smih, T/ilhardin and
Appendix Four: THe Farru or
tbeNew Religion,p. 2l l. R rotot"rst.nrc
DarrNc
85. Eugene(Fr.Seraphim)Rose,Ler- l. JohnWoodmorappc. "Radiometnc
rer ro Cleb D. Podmoshcnsky, Jan. CeochronologyReappraiscd,"in Crea-
2115, 1962,quored in Monk Damas- tion RtsearchSocictTQuarterly, vol. 16,
ceneChristensen,Not oJ Thfu WorA,p. Se p re mb eI9r 7 9 .p p . I02-2' ). l 4?. [S ec
t87. alsoJohn Woodmorappet1999 book,
86. Ct Srephen JayGould,"The Ver- The Mltbologl of Modcm Dating Meth-
dict on Crcationism,"The Ncu Yoth odt.)
TimesSundayMagazinc,July 19, 1987, 2 . l b i d .,p . I 1 4 .
p . 34. 3. JoanC. Engels,"Effectsof Sample
87. Hugh Ross,"CenesisOne, Dino- Pu ri ry o n D i s c o rd anrMi neral A ges
sarus,and Cavemen." Found in K-Ar Dating," Jounal of Geol-
88. Cf. Sr. John Damasccne,Oz /a og7,vol.79, September 197I, p.609.
OrthodoxFaith l: l4; Vladimir Lossky, 4. Marvin L. Lubcnow, Bona of Con-
Thc Mystical l-hcotogy of the Eastetn tention: A Crcdtionitt Atscssmcntof Hu-
Cburch, p.89. man Fottils,pp. 24746.
89, C[. Vladimir Lossky,ThcMytical 5 . l b i d .,p . 2 5 5 .
664 665
Brnuocnepuv
PATRISTIC/ORTHODOXSOURCES
Editionsof Parristic
workscitedin bracketsreferto Englishtrans-
larionsthatappeared afterFr.Seraphimtrepose, transla-
or to alternate
tionsthat Fr. Seraphimdid not use.
All worls arein Englishunlessotherwisenoted.
Alferov, Priest Timothy. Sciencc on tbc Creation of the lV'orld (Nauha o sot-
uorenii mira) (in Russian). Moscow, 1996.
Euolutionor Corntption?(Euoluxiyaili thnle?) (in Russian).Mos-
t997 .
Ambroseof Milan . lExpositionof the Holy Goryelaccordingto St.Luke.Erna,
Calif.:Centerfor Tiaditionalist OrthodoxStudies,1998.1
-. Hexacmcron(The Six Day); Paradise. Thc Fathersof the Church,
vol. 42. Ncw York:The Fathersof the Church, Inc., 1961. [Another
English translation,not usedby Fr. Seraphim,is in Nicene and Post-
Nicenc Fathers,secondserics,vol. 10. Grand Rapids,Michigan:\Wm.B.
Eerdmans,reprinted1983.1
-. Niceneand Post-NiceneFathers, sec-
On Beliefin tbc Resunectioz.
ond series,vol. 10. Grand Rapids,Michigan:\7m. B. Eerdmans,re-
printed1983.
I. M. "ScientificKnowledge
Andreyev, and ChristianTiurh" (in Russian).
5r.
Vhdimir National Cabndarfor I 974. New York.
Augustine,Blessed.City of Gol. Niceneand Post-NiceneFathers,first series,
vol.2. GrandRapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans, reprinted1988.
Averky (Taushev),Archbishop,and Fr. Seraphim(Rose). TheApocalypse in
ofAncientChritianitT. Platina,Cali[: St. Herman Brother-
thc Tlachings
hood, 1985.Secondedition,1995.
t.)o /
DIBL IOGRAPHY D IB LIOGR A P H Y
Athanasiusthe Creat, St. Four DicoursetAgainst the z4rlazr.Nicene and Moscow TheologicalAcademl 1887. [New Englishtranslation:St.
Post-Nicene Fathers,secondseries,vol.4. Grand Rapids,Michigan: Ephrcmthe Syrian. SelectedProseIZorAr.The Fathersof the Church, vol.
Vm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted1987. 91. Washington, D.C.: The CatholicUnivcrsiryof AmericaPress,I994.
Also containsSr. Ephraimi Llommentary on Erodus.)
of Optina,St."Sr.Barsanuphius,
Barsanuphius Elderof Oprina." TheOrtho-
nos.200-l (1998),
dox W'ord, -. Hltnns on thc Natiuit:y,in Ephremthe Syian: Hyrzzr. New York:
PaulistPress,1989.
(The SixDals). The Farhersof the Church,
Basifthe Great, St. Hexaemeron
vol. 46. lVashington,D.C.: The CatholicUniversityof AmericaPress, -- Paraditc(in Russian),in Thc Vorhsof Our Fatheramongthe Sainx,
1963.[AnotherEnglishtranslation, not usedby Fr. Seraphim,is in Ni- Ephraimthc Syrian SergievPosad:MoscowTheologicalAcademy,1907.
cene and Post-NiceneFarhers,sccondseries,vol. 8. Grand Rapids, [New English translation:Sr. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymnson Paradise.
Michigan:Wm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted1983.1 Cresrwood,New York:St.Vladimirt Scminary,1998.1
-. On the Otigin oJMan. The sourcefrom which Fr. Seraphimtrans- Gregoryof Nyssa,St. On tbc Soul and thc Resrrcction:On the Mahing oJ'
latedthiswork hasnot beenfound.Thereis a homilyby St. Basilwith a Man; On Virf nity; AgainstEunomius;Ansuerto Eunomiut'SccondBook.
similar tirle, On the Form of Man,inl. P Migne. PanologiaGraeca,vol. Niccneand Post-Nicene Fathers,secondseries,vol. 5. Grand Rapids,
30. Paris.188(r. Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans, reprintcd1983.
(in French).Louvain:
Gregory Palamas,Sr. Defenseof the Ho! Herychasts
Bessarion(Vissarion),Bishop.Commentary Parablet(Tolk-
on Church-Scruice
ouaniye naparimii),vol. I (in Russian).
St. Petcrsburg,
1894. SacrumLovaniense,
Spicilegium 1959.
"TopicsofNaruralandTheological
Science."
ln ThcPhilohalia,vol.
Calciu, Fr. ()eorge. Christ h Calting Yor!A Coarsein CatacombPastorship.
Platina,Calil: St. HcrmanBrorherhood, 1997. 4. London:Faberand Faber,1995.
669
Btst-rocRAnriv BIsLtocRApHv
Isaacrhe Syrian,Sr.,Ascetical Homilier(in Russian), secondedirion.Sergicv vol. I (in Russian).Moscow, l9l l. Re-
Kireycvksy,l. Y. Conplete\Y'orhs,
Posad,1893.[New Englkh translation: Boston,Mass.:Holy Transfigu- printcdin 1970by GreggInrernational Publishers
Limited,Vestmcad,
rationMonastery, 1984.] Farnborough, Hanrs.,England.
..........-.-'
_. 'Directions on SpiritualTraining." ln Early Fathers
fom the Philo- Koscnko,Anton. "Lerterro the Ediror."ln Prauoshunaya
zDrzz'(inRussian),
kalia. Lond,onand Bosron:Faber& Faber.1954. vol.49,no. l2 (December, 1999).
Isaiah,Abba."On rhe Natural[.aw."In the RussianPhilohaliaIDobrotolubic], Leonid(Kavclin),Fr. EAer Macariusof Optina.Platina,Calif : St. Herrnan
vol. l. Moscow:AthoniteRussianMonasteryof St. Panteleimon, 1895. Brotherhood,1995.
JohnCassian,St. Confcrences(in Russian).
Moscow:AthonireRussianMon- Lossky,Vladimir. The Mystical Tbeologyof the Eattem Churcb. L'tndt>n:
asteryof St. Panreleinron, 1892. INew English translation:Ancient jamesClarke& Co., 1957.
ChrisrianVriters,vol. 57. New York:NcwmanPress,1997.]
Macarius,Metropoliran. OrthodoxDogmati T'heolog(in Russian).St. Pc-
John Chrysostom,Sr. Homilieson Gcnesis (in Russian).ln The Vhrh of St. tersburg,1883.
lohn Chrysoxom, vol. 4. St. Petersburg:
St. PetersburgTheologicalAcad-
Macariusthc Great,St. Ffu SpiritualHonilies: SevenHomilies(in Russian).
cmy,1898.INew Englishrranslation: Thc Fathersof theChurch,vol.74
ln Spirinal Discourses, Epistlesand Homitiu, F<turdt Edition. Holy
(Homiles l-17), vol. 82 (Homilies 1745), and vol. 87 (Homilics
Tiinity-St.SergiusLavra,1904. [Englishtranslarions, not uscdby Fr.
46-67). Vashington,D.C.:'fhe CatholicUniversiryof AmericaPress,
Seraphirrr:(l) Fifu SpiritualHomilie:.'Villits, Calif.: EastcrnOrthodox
r986, 1990,1992.1
Book, 1974. (2) Fifu SpiritualHomilet and thc GrcatLetter CleorgeA.
-. Eight Homilieson Genesis (in Russian).In Thc ll'orh of St.John
Maloncy,trans.Classics of VesrcrnSpiritualiryNew York:PaulistPress,
Chrysoston,
vol. 4. Sr. Pctcrsburg:St. PetcrsburgTheologicalAcademy, t992.)
1898.
Marl Mother, arrdArchimandrircKallistosV,/are
. ThcFestdlMcnaion.Lon-
-. On tbe Creationof the lVorU(n Russian).In Thc Worfuof St.John don: Faberand Faber,1969.
Chrysosnm, vol. 6. St. Petersbrrrg:
St. PcrersburgTheologicrl Academy,
1900. -. fbs ["an76nTriodion.London: Faberand Faber,1978.
Homitieson Romau (in Russian).In Tlte tX)'orks of St.Jobn Chry- Michaef, Bishop.Commentary of Luke(in Russian).
on tlteGospel Kiev,1899.
sostom,
vol. 9. St. Petersburg:
St. PercrsburgTheologicalAcademy,1903. Necrariosof Penrapolis,St. ShetchconcerningMan (in Greek).Athens,1893.
[Englishtranslation, not uscdby Fr.Scraphim:Niccneand Post-Nicene
-. Stud! concerningthc Immortaliry of tlr Soul (in Greek). Athcns,
vol. I l. GrandRapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans,
Farhers, reprinted l90l.
1980.1
Nicodcmusof the Holy Mountain, St. Nicodtmu of the Ho$ Mountain: A
John Damasccnc,St. On the OrthodoxFaith; On Heresies.ln St.Johnof Da- The Classicsof l?csternSpiritualiry.Ncw
Handboohof Spirinal Counsel.
mascutlYritings.Thc Fathersof theChurch,vol. 37. Washington,D.C.: York:PaulisrPress,1989.
The CatholicUniversiryof AmericaPress,1958.
Paisius(Velichkovsky),St. TheScroll:Six Chaptenon Mcntal Prayer.The Or-
-. On the OrthodoxFaith.Niccneand Post-NiccneFathers,secondse-
tbodoxlVord,no. 48 (1973). ILaterpublishedin Little RussiatPhitohalia,
ries,vol. 9. Grand Rapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted
vol.4. Platina,Calif : St. HermanBrotherhood,1994.1
1983.
ThePhilohalia,vol. 3. London: Fabcrand Fabcr,I984.
JuliusAfricanus. The Five Booksof Chronolog.Ante-NiceneFathers,vol. 6:
Fathersof rhc Third Century Grand Rapids,Michigan:Wm. B. Ecrd- ThePhilohalia,vol. 4. London: Faberand Fabcr,1995.
mans,rcprinted1975. Fr. Michael."Talk on the Six Daysby St. Basilthe Great,and
Pomazanslry,
670 671
Brguocr.epuv Brglrocg'tplty
672 o /5
Brguoctalnv Blsr_rocRApHy
Rahncr,Karl,S.J."OriginalSin, Polygenism,
and Frecdom,"in TheologDi- Aqtrinas,Thomas. Summa Thcologica.New York: BenzigcrBrorhers,1948.
gctt,Sprinl 1973. \Westminsrer,
Reprinted198I by ChristianClassics, Maryland.
Speaight,Roberr, Tiilhardde Cha in: A Biogrn?b. London: Collins, 1967. Austin, Stcven A-, ed,.Grand Canyon:Monttment to Catastropbc.Sanrce,
Calif.:Insrirurefor CrearionRescarch.
1994.
Tcilharddc Chardin, Picrre.Actiuationof Energ. New York: Harcourt Brace
1970.
Jovanovich, Becker,Carl L. TheHeauenlyCity of tlteEighteenth-Cennry
Pbilosophers.
New
Havcn,Conn.:YaleUniversityPrcss,1970.
-. BuiAing tbe Earth.'WestNyack, Ncw York: CrassCurrentsreprim,
1959. Behe,MichaelJ. Darwinl Bkch Box: ThcBiocbemical
Cballcnge
to Euolution.
(fi7i1sianiryand Euolution.New York: Harcourt BraccJovanovich, Ncw York:The FreePrcss/Simon & Schuster.
1996.
-.
A HarvcsrBook, 1969. Bergman,Jerry,and GeorgeHowe. "WstigralOrgau" Are Fu/ly Functional.
TerreHaute,Indiana:CrcationResearch SocieryBooks,1990.
-. ThcDiuine Milieu. Ncw York: Harper & Row,Publishers,1960.
Berra,Tim. Evolutionand theMyth ofCrcation*m,StanfordUniversirypress,
-. flls fssre oJ'Man.London:Collins,1965.
r990.
-. The Heart of the Matter. New York: Hartcourr BraceJovanovich,
Berry,William B.N. Growthof a PrehistoricTimeScale.SanFrancisco:Vl H.
t979.
Freeman & Co., 1968.
-. Hoa J Bcllczr.Ncw York: Harper & Row, 1969.
Berthault,Guy Comptes-Rendu
Academiedet Srrczce,/1(Dccember3, 1986;
-. HumanEnergr.London:Collins,1969. February 16, 1988).
-. Hymn of the Uniuersc.
Ncw York: Harper & Row, 1965. Bickerman,E. J. Chronolngyof tbeAncient V/orA.khica, New York: Cornell
-. Letnzsi LlontineZanta. Paris:Dcsclic de Brouwer,1965. UnivcrsiryPress,1968.
-. TbcM;ytticalMitieu: Vritingsin Timeof lVar.Ncw York: Harpcr anu Bork, RobertH. Slouchingtowar& Gomonah:ModernLiberalbmand Amui-
Row,1968. canDccline.Ncw York: ReganBooks/HarperCollins, 1996.
-. TbePhenomenon
of Mat Ncw York: Harpcr & Row 1959. Bowderr,Malcolm. Ape-nten:Factor Falhry?Bromley,Kent, England:Sover-
Sciencetnd Christ.L.ondon:Collins, 1968. e t g n l 'u D l c a u o n s . l yl /.
-.
"Evolurion:A Hcresyl" OrtbodoxObseruet,
Trcmpelas,Parragiotis. Attgust8, . TheRiseof thc EuolutionFraud. Bromlcy,Kcnr, England:Soverergn
t r 73. Publications,
1982.
l rooster, Stcphants. Euolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin. Clen Rock, -. Scienceus.Euolution.Bromley,Kent, England:Sovercignpublica-
Ncw Jcrsey:Newman Prcss,1968, rions,1991.
-. TrueScienceAgrecswith the Bible.Bromley,Kent, England:Sover-
cign Publicarions,
1998.
Brown, Michael H. TheSearch for Eue.New York: Harper & Row, I990.
OTHER SOURCES
fom Baconto Mill. New york:
Burrt, Edwin A., ed..ThcEnglishPhilosopbcrs
Albright,Villiam F. "RecenrDiscoveriesin BibleLands."In RobertYoung, RandomHouse,1939.
Analtical Concordttnce
to ,heBibh. NewYork: Funk and Vagnalls, 1936. Charlesworth,J. K., Thc QuaternaryEra, vol. 2. London: Edward Arnold
Arkell,V. l. Jurasti Geologof the \Yorld.New York: Hafner PublishingCo., Co., t957 .
1956. Chris,Raymond."Scienrists
ReportFindingFossils
of Dinosaurs
in Anrarcti-
674 t)/ )
Brnrlocupsv BIsLtocRAt'HY
ca\ Interior"; "Discoveryof Leavesin AnrarcricaSparksDebareover son, Brooks,ed., The Modcrn Library,New York, Random House,
'Whether Region Had Near-TemperateClimare." t968, t)92.
Cbroniclr of Highr
Education,March20. 1991. Engels,JoanC. "Effectsof SamplePuriryon DiscordantMineralAgcsFound
Coates,Howard.'AboriginalFloodLcgend."Creation
Ex Nihilo,vol.4, no. 3 in K-Ar Dating."/ournalofceolog,vol.79 (September l97l ).
(Octoberl98l ). Faul,Henry.Agesof RochtPknex and Staru.New York:McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Coates,Howard and V. H. Douglas,comp. 'AustralianAboriginalFlood _. Nuchar Gcolog.New york: Johnviley, 1954.
Stories."Introduction by John Mackay.CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 4, no. I
Ficlds,Veston'W. Unformedand Unflled: A Critiqueof thc Gap Thcory.Col-
(Marchl98l ).
linsville,lll.: Burgener
Enrerpriscs,
1976.
Colbert, E. H. "EvolutionaryGrowrh Ratesin the Dinosaurs."Scientifc
Finegan,Jack. Handboohof Biblical Chronolog.Revisededition. Peabody,
MonthQ, August1949.
Mass.:Hendricl<sonPublishers,1998.
Cook, Melvin. Prehistory
and Earth Modcls.London: Max Parrishand Co. '1.
Gish, Duarre CrcationScientisuAnswerTheir Critics.El Cajon, Cali[: In-
Ltd.. 1966. stitutefor CreationRcscarch,1993,
Darwin, Charles.Tbc Origin of Species
byMcansof Nanral Selection,
and The Gould,Stephen "Puncruated
Equilibria:The Ternpo
Jay,and NilesEldredge.
Dcscentof Man and Selectionin Rehtion ro .Srx.New York: Modern Li- and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered." vol. 3 (Spring
Paleobiolog',
brary,Random House. t977).
-. TheOrigin of SpecietNew York: Penguin,1984. Grassi, PierreP. Euolutionof Liuing Organismr.New York: AcademicPress,
"DarwinistsSquirm under Spodight:lnterviewwith Phillip E. Johnson." 1977.
CitizenMagazine,]anuary 1992. Gribbin,John and JeremyCherfas."Descentof lvlan-or fucent of Ape?"
Dawkins,Rtchard. TheBlind tVatcbmaher.
New York: Norton, 1986 NewScientist, vol. 9l (September 3, l98l).
Denton, Michael. Euolution:A Theon iz Crlrri. Bcthesda.Marvland: Adler Grumel,V La Chronologic(in French).BibliothtqueBlzanrine:TiaitCd'E-
& Adler,1986. tudesBlzantinesl. Paris,1958.
Dewar,Douglas.Dfficultiesof theEuolutionaryThcory.London:Thynne and Gtrinon, RenC.Crkisof theModcrn W'orld.London: Luzac & Co., 1975.
Co.. t9ll. -. TheReignof Quantity and the Signsof the Times.London: Luzac &
-. More Dfficulties of the EuolutionaryTheory.London: Thynne & Co., 1953.
Co.. 1938. Haber, FrancisC. TheAgeof the \YorA:Moscsto Darwin. Baltimore:The
Dillow, JosephC. The lVater Abouc:Earth\ Pre-FloodVaporCanopy.Chi- JohnsHopkinsPress,1959.
cago:Moody Prcss,rcvisededition,1982. Ham, Ken. "The God of an Old Earth." CreationEx Nihilo, vol.21, no. 4
Elasscr,V. M. "Origin, Composition and Age of thc Exrh." Enqctopcdia (t999).
Britannica,vol. 7, 1973. Hazard,Paul. TheEuropeanMind, 1680-1715.New York, Meridian Books,
Efiadc,Micea.,{ Hitory of Rcligious
ldees,vol. l. Chic-ago:Universiryof Chi- 1963.
cagoPrcss,1978. Howell, F. Clark. New Scientist,March 25, 1965.
Eldredge, Niles. ReinuentingDarwin: The Great Dcbateat the Higb Tabb of Huxfel Aldous."Confessionofa Professed Arheisr."Report,June,1966.
EuolutionaryZrory. New York,John Wiley & Sons,1995.
Johnson,Phillip E. Daruin on Tiial. Secondedition. DownersGrove, Illi-
Emerson,Ralph Valdo, TheSebctedtX/ritingsof Palph lVaHoEmerson,Atkin- nois:Inrcr VarsiryPress,
1993.
o/ o 677
BtgLtoctralnv BrsLrocRApHv
- Defi'atingDarwinism by OpeningMind:. Downers Grovc, Illinois: Tbc Remarkable Recordof'Job.Grand Rapids,Mich.: Bakcr Book
-.
InrerVarsiryPrcss,1997. House,1988.
-. on Euolution, Lau' (t Cubure.
ObjectionsSwtaircd: SubjectiueEssays -. ggigpsift Creationism.
CreenForesr,Arkansas:MastcrBooks, I 974.
DownersGrove,Illinois:InterVarsiryPress,1998. Rcviscdedition,1985.
-. Rcasonin the Bahnce: The CascagainstNaturalism in Science,Lau' /" Morris,Henry M., andJohnC. Vhitcomb. TlteGenesiFlood.Phillipsburg,
Education.
DownersGrove,Illinois:InterVarsiryPress,1995. Ncw Jcrsey:Presbyterian
and RcformedPublishing,1961.
Joscphus,Flavius. CompletetYorks.Grand Rapids,Mich.: Kregel Publica- Morris, John D. Tbe YoungEarth. Grccn Forest,Arkansas:Master Books,
tions,1960. 1994.
Kahler,Erich. T'beTbwerand tbcAbyss:An Inquiry into the Tiansformation
of Nictzsche,Friedrich. The \Yill to Potucr,vol. I, in The ComplerclY'orhsof
thc Indiuidual.New York: GcorgeBrazilicr,lnc. 1957. Friedrich Nietzsche,vol. 14. New York: 'l'he Macmillan Company,
l.awrence,Jefl."Communiquilntcrview:PhillipE. Johnson."Communiqul: 1909.
A QuarterQJournal Spring 1999. Norman,'frevorand BarrySerrerfield,"The AtonricConstanrs, [-ight,and
Leakey,fuchard. TheMahingofMankind. London: MichaclJoseph,198l. Tirrrc."Mcnlo Park,Calil: StanfordRescarch
lnstitutcIntcrnationalln-
Lemaitre, Canon Georges.ThePrimeuatAtom:An Essa.y
on Cosmogony.
New vitcd RcsearchRcport,August1987.
York:D. Van NosrrandCompanl 1950. Olson, EverettClaire. "The Evolurionof Life." Euolutionafcr Darwin: The
Lewontin,Richard."BillionsandBillionsof Demons."TheNew YorhRcuiew Uniuerrityof Chic'1go
Ccntennial,vol. I . Chicago:Universiryof Chicago
of Boohs
, January9, 1997. Prsss,1960.
678 679
Brsr.rocRAnHv BrsLrocRApuv
Rifkin, Jeremy.Algeny.New York:The Viking Prcss,1983. VanderKrnr,JamesC. and Villiam Adler.TheJaabh Apoca$pticHeritagein
Early Christianity.Minneapolis:FortressPrcss,1996.
vol. l. London: Aca-
Riley,J. P and G. Skirrow,ed. CbemicalOceanognPhJ,
(technicalmonograph).El
Vardiman,Larry. TheAgeof theEarth\ Atmosphere
dcmicPress,1965.
Cajon,Califl:lnstitutefor CreationResearch,
1990.
Ross,Hugh. "GencsisOne, Dinosaurs,and Cavemcn."Pasadena,
Cali[:
websirc,updatedjuly 8, 1997.
to Believe
Rcasons Veith,GcneEdward.'Admininglrs Misrakes."\Y'orld
Magazine,
vol. 14,no.
)/ (luly 17, 1999).
as a Candb in thc Darb.
Sagan,Carl. The Dtmon-Haunted\l'orA: Science
New York:RandonrHouse, 1996. Von Engeln,O. D., and K. E. Caster Geolog.New York: McGraw Hill,
1952.
O. H. "Commcnrson SomcStratigraphic
Schindewolf, Terms."American
'Wells, "AbusingTheology:HowardVanTill\.ForgortenDoctrine
vol. 255 (Junc1957).
JournalofScience, Jonathan.
of CreationsFunctionalIntegriry,"'in Origins6 Duign,vol. 19, no. I
Scotr,EugcnicC. "MonkeyBusiness."
TheSciences, 1996.
January-February, ( 1998).
Scwcll,CLrrt. God at GroundZero: The Mathattan Project,and a Scicntist\
Flood.Phillipsburg,
JohnC., and Henry M. Morris. TheGenctis
\Yr4itcomb,
Discoucryof Christ,the Creator.Green Forest,Arkansas:Mastcr Books,
Presbytcrian
NewJersey: and RefornredPublishing,l96l.
t997.
Wilber, Kcn. A Brief Historyof Eaerything.
Bostoff ShambhalaPublications,
Smith, Volfgang. Tlilbardim and the New Religion.RocUord, Ill.: Tan
t996.
Books,1988.
-. 1116 of Kcn V[/ilber,vol.2.Boston:ShambhalaPubli-
Cstls6laalVorks
Spetncr,Dr. Lee. Not b1 Chance!Shateing the Modcrn Thcoryof Evolution.
New York:The JudaicaPress,1998. cations,1999.
.................._.
fe1ss,'e16frc A GreaterPsyhologybyA. S. Dalal (forthcoming).
Stafford,Tim. "The Making of a Rcvolution." Christianiy Tbday,December
8, t997. -. The Marriagc of Senseand Soul: Intcgr4ting Scicnccand Rcligion.
Storer,Tracy l. GeneralZoolog. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York:RandomHouse,BroadwayBooks,1998.
Inc.,1951. -. One Ta*e: TheJournalsof Ken \Y/ilbcr.Boston:ShambhalaPublica-
Sundcrland,Lurher Darwin'sEnigma.Santee,Calif.: MastcrBooks,1992. tions,1999.
Taylor, Ian -1. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the Ncw lY'orldOrdcr Thid -. Spirinaliry: ThcSpirit of Euolutror.Boston:Sbambhala
Sex,Ecology,
edition.Minneapolis: TFE Publishing,l99l . Publications,
1995.
Taylor, Kcnneth N., ed. and comp. Euolutionand the High SchoolSrudent. -. Upfom Eden:A TiantpcrsonalVicwof Human Euolution.'Vhearon,
'Vhearon,
Ill.: TyndaleHouscPublishers,1972. Illinois:'I'heTheosophical Housc,198I .
Publishing
Thaxton, CharlesB., WalterL. Bradleyand RogerL. Olsen. ThcMystcryof Voodmorappe, John. Thc Mybohgl of Modcrn Dating Methods(technical
CurrentTheories.
Life'sOrigin: Reasscsing Dallas,Texas:Lewisand Stan- monograph).El Cajon,Calii: Institutcfor CreationRescarch,
1999.
len 1984. -. Nodhi Ark: A FcasibilitySndy kechnical monograph).El Cajon,
Thompson, Damian. TheEnd of Tine. Hanover, New Hampshire: Univer- Calif.:lnstirutefor CreationRescarch,
1996.
of New England,1997.
siryPress -. "RadiomerricGeochronologyReappraised."
CreationResearcb
Soci-
Van Bebber,Mark, and PaulTaylor. Crcationand Time:A Reporton the Pro- cryQuarter\,vol. l6 (Seprember
1979).
680 681
/-\ T
AcTNowI.EDGMENTS bENERAL INDEX
682 683
lNorx Ir{oEx
684 685
INoex I Nnex
686 687
Irunex INorx
688 689
Iuorx Iroex
.rs.rkcvrn rheprogr.rm ofanri-Chrisrianiry. ''prrx,fr' o[ 300-302, 307-309, 385, 466, 562.593, 599, 60 t ,607408,61 t ,6t 4 , gcologicstraralaiddown by,304, 460, 496
5 0 4,588 47 |, 5t 7- 5t 8, 534 . 5 3 9 622. Se abo Death: rcsultsfrom men! mankind ailowedto car mcat aftcr, 250
.rsa rrvalrhoughr-patrern ro Onhodoxy, rcfi.rredby Sr.Nccrariosof Pcnrapolis, 45 | fall; Paradisc:banishmentfrom post-Floodcondirions,l19, 245, 251.
5 0 8,5l I rcjccrsimmurablc'Iruth, 322 conscqucnccs of, 206,211,556,611 265-266,269,643
:rsa scicncc-ficrionthcologz.505 rcpfaccsChrist a5saviow, 55G557 , 572 Godi forsightof, 128 post-Floodhistory,646
asa vehiclcof rhe"newspiriruality," 452 scientistswho havcabandoncdor arc cno- humanscxualreproduction aftcrthe, l5l, pre-Flo<rdconditions. | 18, 269, 643, 6ab
rr an exprcssion of nihilism,554 calof, 17, 29-32, 36, .18,40, 48, 57, 153,187 universaliry of, 254-255,260,495, 588
as an invcrsionof truth, 554-555, 57J 531, 537. 6t 7 lawofnarurcchangcdar rh.,44,329,592 worldwidc climatc bcfotc, 235, 493
574 "spirnual,"342,344, 504.5 t2, 545, 553- mani narurechangcdat rhc, 152,351 Florovskl Fr. Gcorgcs.517
asrhe keyto thc philosophy ofAntichrist, 554, 556-557, 560. 562. 573 marricd lifc bcginsaftcr thc, 152 Flowers,| 39, 647
509,548-549,585 spirirualiry ot, 508 ofmankind in gcneraluntil thc coming o[ crcationof, t30
asthc oppositeofChrisrianirp554, 596 'ihcisric, 295, 504, 512,519, 541, 545, Christ,554,574,196 Fluorincdating,527
athcistic,504,519, 546 587 Faschm,165-366 Fondi,Robcrto,349
basedon philosophy, not fact,291, 307, universal, 137 139,344, 367 Fashions,intcllecrual, 500, 513, 521, 525, Foorrtpsol Luarhan (Amcncan lortalt
309,3 | 5, 321.324,383.388,4 | 8,425, Euoluion(Ruth Moore), 5l I t58,584,589,597,605 Films),64-3
5r7.5.3 r, 535,6r3 Ewltion aboue thc Spccia Lcucl (RenschJ, Ftsring,256. 267, 269 Forgivencss, 201-202,575
biological,585 617 , o d r h e , 1 0 7 . 1 4 5 , 1 4 7 ,3 7 ) ,5 7 1 ,
F a t h c rG Forgiveness Sunday,222
cannor be provedor disprovedby sciencc, Eaohrtion and thc Docnin. of Originnl Sin 574, 589 Fosils,36, 56,302-303,307.3l I, .155,4511,
385,5 t2, 5 t7-5 t8, 607{,08. 6ll (Troosrcr),348 laul, Hcnry,6.13 460, 469, 506, 593, 601, 608, 627
deincd,384,190 "Evolution: Codls SpccialMcrhod of Crca- Feminism,.l23 circular rcasoningcmploycdwhcn dating,
dctlr<auon rrl, ))/ tion" (Dobzhansky), 353 Ficld Muscum oi Narural History, Chicago, 642
dilTtrcnce bcrwecn variarion .rnd, 295- Evolution ProrestMovcnrcnr,30, 506 304, 107 dinosaur,(r42-64.1
296,385,389,473 Etolution: A Thcoryin Crtis (Denton), 21, Fields,\(csronV.,603 formation of, .105
cf-Iictof, on the world,322 36, 306, 469, 506, 638, 646 Fincgan, Jack,236 hv:me^,324, 470, 472, 640
''cmcrgcnt,56l Ewhtion: Thc Foxilt Say Firmamcnt,I I l, ll6, l2l, 124, 126, 128, i n d cx,3 0 6 ,3 lI
"God-guidcd,"291, 375.541, 585 Evolutionary humanisnr, ^/r/(Gish),465
l6 | 30, 235. 258, 269. 49).493 misrakcnnotion ofordcrly progrcssionof,
gencralcffccr of,on Christianiry,582,594 Evolutionarymodel, 294, 303, 460, 466 brcakingof, | 18,254 -104
history of, 562 Evolutionaryrimc scalc,228, 294, 297, 299, crcationof, | 07, I l5 stasr{In (hc rccord.rl, ){F) /, Jt,J
"hunran,"344, 347, 349-350,355,425- 309-3t2. 327, 408, 4tO, 420, 457, separarionof rhe warersaboveand bclow, srochasric deposirionof, 304
428, 470, 472473, 546, 600, 609, 52t - 522, 535, 54 t , 5 6 9 , 5 7 7 - 5 7 8 , | 1 5 ,l t 7 rcsriryro univcrsallywarm climare in the
6 t 5 416,640 582, 585, 593-594, 603, 6t0, 626, Fint-C-natcdMan, I6a (5t. Symeonthc New past,49.3
idca ot, 549-510 633-635 Theologran),78, 47a, 636-637 Founr of Knou,ldge (St. John Damasccnc),
incomparible with Chrisrianiry, 292, 330, Evolurionary worldview20,321, 34O,463, lirst-crcarcdworld, 26. 32, 42, 44, 48, 376, 332
3 4 1 ,408,591 574, 583, 635 402,409,4 | 5, 4 | 8, 420,422,447449, Fr a n cc,3 l 6 ,3 4 9
lack of transitional forms for, 36, -10J, tcachingof, on humannarure,J23, 43 | 536,585 Franciscan Spirituals.371
305-306, 469, 56t , 569, 608, 642 Lxorcism,)/), ) /6 bchcldin l)ivinc vision,44, 416 FrccChurch ofScotland, (r03
leadsto doctrincof Supcrman, 216 Exrinction,134 incorruprion of, 212,443 Frccwill (frcedom),173-175, 434, 443,479,
linkedto moralrelativism,137 Exposhionof th Holl Cotpd acroding to St. knowleJgeof. nor acccssiblc ro naturalsci- 489,568,575
''macroevolurion,S60 la*r (Sr.Ambrose),529 FrcnchAcadcmyofScicnccs, 29, 461
e n c e I. 2 1 ,4 0 8 ,4 l 5 , 4 1 8 ,4 4 5 ,5 9 2 ,641
nrechanism of, 39, 52, 54-55,57,5940, Extraterrcsrrials (UFOs,outcr-spacc beings), matcrialot,446 FrcnchRcvolution, 3l 5, 321, 431, 546
62, 553, 556, 56t, 569,584,639 245, 464465,500,572 Fruit flics ldmsophila n.l4nogatt.t) , 308, 352
nccdro understand rhcscicntific
sidcofthc liyc,hypothcrical evolurionof, 468, 561 Fish,l16, 145,153,I 55,266,300,304,306.
qucstionof, 5J4 553,647 Galapagrslslands,299
nfw synthclrs ol, )) / Faith,3f 5, 317, 319, 434, 549, 582-583, crcationof, 102, 129, 131-132,393,613 Galaxics,{(1, 539
not strictlyspcakinga hcrcsy,452,508, i89, 606 Fiue Book of Chronolop (ulius Africanus), Gdilco, 291
5t5 lcadsto Divinevision,4l6 242,245 Gangcsfuvcr, 494
ol "spirir-mat(cr," 551 Fall,6t , 66,70, 78, 98, t t7 , 156, t64-t 65, Flood, 32, I18, t69, 243-244, 248, 250, Grp rhcory 603
phikrsophyof, 4t2, 4t4, 4t9, 425, 443, r 67, 169,173,r 80, 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2\8. 259. )64-265, 267,272, 27\- Cna274
508,5 14-536,54t, 545,554,558,573, 205,2 t 5-216, 223,a24, 328, 348,4 t 4, 276, 279, 467, 492, 494495, 625, 641, Gcncalogics, 233-235,).43,273-275, 296,
582, 584-585, 589, 597, 6t2 43 t, 442,444,478, 485,487,495,175, 645. Steabo Ccology: Flood gcologr 473, 528-529, 535-536, 602, 6 t 0
690 691
lNoex INos.x
"GcnealogyofChrist, The" (St. Crcgory thc of angcls,488 on rhc crcarionof man. 150, 162, 440, mr.rs of rhc Holy Mounrain),485
Thcologian),529. 5ir alaJesusChnst: of G od, 95, l4l, 400 536,54) Harvard Universiry468
genealogyof of thc originalcrcation,4ll, 569, 585 on rhc hcrcsyofthc pre-existcncc ofsouls, Hawaiianlnstitutcof Geophysics, 314
Gcnoal Zoohgy(Srcter),300-301, 384, 426 Gorc, Vicc-PrcsidcnrAl, 557, 559 345 Haz-ard, PaLrl, 315
Gcnak Flood, I/e (Vhitcomb and Morris), Gould, StcphcnJay,35, 59,298, 306, 315, on rhc hcrcsyof thc prc-cxisrcnccof ttre Hean of th Mancr (Tcilhard, de Chardin),
30-3t, 256, 304, 459460, 467. 493, 468469 , 56t , 569-57 0 body,336,44G-441 t80
496, 610, 643, 645 Cr ac c ,160, 170- 171,1 8 8 - 1 9 0 ,1 9 4 , 1 9 8 - on rhc hc.csy of rhc lransmiSrationof Heavcn,447. 477, 488,49t,550,555,587,
Gcnai Rccord,7hc \Hcnry Morris),273 t99, 247, 347, 349, 422, 432434, s o u l s .l 1 9 , 3 1 0 5 9 7 ,6 tl
Cencticcnginccring, 60 438-440, 448449, 481, 483, 488, on thc imageofGod in man,149 disringuishcdfrom Paradise, 487
Genetics,36. 38, 300, 309, 349,352,470. 492, 54t , 569, 573 , 5 8 1, t 8 7 , t 8 9 , 6 0 0 , GregoryPalamas, St., 81,85, 17l, 173,245, Hcber,274, 280
476,600,639 60.3,610.SraataJcsusChrist:graccof 376, 406,437, 439, 492, 516-5 17, 566, Hebrcw languagc,217. 233, 247, 296, 394,
Genrilcs,272-27 3, 275, 432 in the crcarionof man, 436 568,601 474,497, U4
Gcoccnrrism,620- .Jrra&oPtolcmaicmodcl lossof, 430 on sccularand thcologicalknowlcdge, Hebrcws,143,274.Sr alto)cws
Ceochrorrology, 627, 6-33 Gradualisnr,Darwinian, 468, 557, 561 423424 origin of thc namcof, 274
Ceochronomcrrl310, 314 Grahrml;rnd,493 on rhc agcofAdam, 540 Hcgcl,Gcorg,287, 562, 565
(lcography,2(rl, 49(r Grand Architccr (of dcism),54(t547 on thc dcathofAdam, 207 Hcgclianism,558,595
''Gcologiccolumn,"303, 310 GrandCanyon,298, 302,460,630 on rhc distincrion berwccntheologyrnd HeidclbcrgMan, 426
Ccofogicstrara,28, 7) ,294,302-303, 3lO- Grand Canyon: Monumtnt to Catastrophc sccularknowlcdge,286 Hcldcr,Margarcr,643
31t, 458, 460461, 467, 535, 627, (Austin),460,(r45 GrcgorytheSinaite, St.,45,79,81,328, )76, Helioccntrism. 2()1,620. seealsoCopcrni-
629430 Grand Inguitiror (Dostoycvsky),369 4r3, 4t5-416, 443-444, 446, 456, can modcl
circulararguments usedin dating,3l I Grassd. PicrrcI1,29 485,516,536 Hell,447,478,488,587
daredby index fossils,306, 31 | Gnar Alashan Dinotaur Alvcnurc \D,wis, "cightprimaryvisions"of, 416 Hclvltius,Claude,318
"disconforrrities.""prra'conformitics, Lisron,!?hirmorc), 643 vision of Paradise of, 166 Hcrcry 2l(r, 290, 292,332, 335, -138,34i.
.pscudo-conformitics" (Sr. Crcgoryo1 Nyssa),7u 365,374,405,452,515
in, 458 GreatCatccbism Gregorythc Thcologian,St., 75,79,85, 102,
do not correspondro the Six Days, 326, Grat Dinoraur Myrtry (vidco by Prul Tay. t 42, t7 0- t7 t , 328,376,39 t ,397, 400, Hcrmanof Alaska,St.,253
389 tor),644,648 402, 406407 , 434, 443, 480,607 Herman(Podmoshcnsky), h,22, 45, 523,
intcrprcredin rernrsof rhc Noahic Flood. Grcat Dinosaur Mytcry and tfu Bibh lPaul on man asa "mixturc" of rwo worlds, 147, 525,528,543
460,645 Taylor),648 163 Hcsychasm,406, 423
laiddorvnduringrhc Flood,104,496 Grrat Dinotaur MytzrL Solocd(Ham), 642 on Paradise,170 Hcxacmtmn(St. Ambrosc),73, 333, 335, 536
''upsrdcdown accortlingto evolutionirr 644 on (hc crcationofman, 609 Hcxaemtmn(St. Basil),73, 86, 93, 99, 284-
concep(ions,30-1,458 Crcat Nesrof Bcing,559 on rhc na.urcof man, 160-161,434 285, 332, 334, 375, 386, 393, 398, 5 t 6,
Gcology,36, 70. 84, 2911,304-305, 3,,- Crccce,245, 456, 484, 490. 492, 531, 605 on rhcgcncafogrofCh risr,235,529,536 536,539,647
3t2, 349,460,467, 496,t.10,512,600, conscrvarivcclcrgy in, 542 on rhc (rcc of thc knowlcdgcof good an<t Hcxacmcmn(St. JohnofKronsradt),79
6 17,630, 63 2.6 41 Grcek astronomy,620 evil,t73, 405,407,5t7 Hinduism,383, 452, 476, 548,562
Flood gcology,36, 304, 645 Crcck chronolory, 23(r G r i b b i n ,J o h n ,6 1 6 Hippolyrusof Romc,St.,522
Gcorgcrhc CrcatMarryr,Sr.,189,644 Grcck OrrhodoxArchdioccscofAmcrica, 25, Grigg, Ruscll M., 642, 644445 Hiss,Alger,548
G crma ny,287. 293 ,31 6 340, 342, 345,346,372,5t4,5t() Grou'th of a Prhktoit Tim? Srd& (Bcrry), Hirory ofRutsia, A (Riasanovsky),2,36
Gramq 245. 274 Crcckphilosophy,10r, 478,473, 476, 4r2, 110,457 Hic Rcporton ttu Fami4r323, 431
Cilion (riverof Edcn),l(r8 5t 3, 539 Gudnon, Rcnd,l9-20 H i r c,Sh cr c,3 2 3 ,4 3 1
Gish, Duanc T., 619, (>43l.144,647 448 G r c ek , 273, 289, 318 Hidcr,Adolph,275
G l ob a l ism,24,54 7-5 49 Crcenhouseeffcct, | 17, 269, 493 Hadcs,260 Holy Farhcrs
C no s t i cism, 24 4,5 71 ()rccnland,427, 493 Hacckel,Ernst,52, 293, 302, r30, ,37 "conrradic(ionsbcrwccn,498
Godat CroundZcn (Scwcll).635, 640 (ircgoryol Nyssa,St.,73, 76,78, 103-t05, Hacckel! [-aw, 52-53. Src a&o Emt>ryologyt lovcfor,95, 381-382,415, 124-525
Godoff,Ann,55ll I20. r38, r54, t89, 223, 33t, 376, Rccrpitulariontheory scicncc and,612, 623
ColdcnAge,318, 574 388-390, 397, 399, 438, 523, 537, 569, Ham (son of Noah), 243,247,256,269, H o l y Sp i r i r ,1 0 7 , 1 0 9 - l 1 0 , 1 4 7 , 3 7 1 ,3 9 3 ,
Goldschnridr, Richard,| 7, 4(r8 t 96. 608 { r 0, 6ll 273-274 43t , 436, 438, 440, 59 t , 593
againstthc confusionof naturcs,6l 3 Ham, k* 603, 642443,646 graccof, 160
Goodncss,l-16-137, 149, 174-175, 199, in defcnseof rhc institutionof marriage, Handbook of Biblical Chronolog (Fincgan), Holy Triniry,lO7, 109, 146,2t4, 279, 316,
2 04, 344,4r0 ,57 7 236 543,568
in hunrannaturc,432 on rhc "coatsofskins,"212 Hanlbool of Spirituat Colzrl (Sr. Nicodc- 'tonsulration"of, 145, 147
692 693
IHoax INoEx
694 695
lppex INoex
Jonah,Prophct,272, 274 rcvcalcd,417, 609 Lrrcralrnrerprerlionof Scriprurc. 5rr lnter- crearion of, 78,83, ll7, 143,144,l4r.
Joscphus. Flavius,244 scientific,
286, 288, 290, 316, 318, 320, prcrarionof Scripturc:litcral t 47, t 48, 150, 157- t t 9, 185, r 9l,
Joshuabrr'Nun, 272 408,4 t 54 16,425,445,5 t 2, 59), 623 Litcral Mearing of Genai, Th (Blcssed 29t , 335, 337, t 9t , 397,4|, 423,
JudgmcnrofGod, 204, 575 sccular,283-284, 286, 288, 424 Augustinc), 79, 102 429-430, 436, 439-440, 449, 4r7,
JuliusAfricanus, 242,245 (hcologicai.286, 288, 290, 292, 3 16, 4 16, Locke,John,318 540,586,609, 622,634,638
lrpircr 462 423,425 Logoiof crcaturcs,485,587 dominion ovcrlowcrcrcation of, 145,149,
farusic GcohgJol thc \VorA grkcll),493 KolomcnskoyeMuscum,Moscow,378 Long rlhr ageinx God, I/z (Hcnry Morris), t53-t54, t77, r80, 188,4r2-413
Jrrstin Martyr, St.,499 Kook, Abrahamlsaac,565 298,646 fallcnnaturcof, 210,481,483,486.571
Kosturos,Fr Anthony,J45-346 tosskl Vladimir, 434, 567-569 lleshof,diffcrcnt afrcrthcfaII.443,445
(abbalah,56J, 167 Kuhn,Thomas,57 Lot, Righreous,255 image ofGodin, 149-l5l,154,157, 163,
Kafla, Franz,369 love l6t, 170, 189, 428429, 43t-432,
(ahlcr, Erich,555 La6ot,2Q6,2l I ofGod for rnan,103, 160,I88, 199-200, 434435,4)7, 439440,480,t87,600
Kalomiros,Alexandcr,2G30, 35, 404 l, 50, l-acentius,499 2 0 3 , 2 r 0 , 4 0 0 , 1 6 9 ,t 86 irrbrcathing of, 162,436,438440
52, 379, 381, 4t0, 437, 503,514-5t5, Lake Rudoll Kcnya,(r28 ofman for Cod, ll4,569,584 instantaneously nradc,162
522-527, 532-534, 536-537, 540- Lamarck.Chcvalicr dc, 297,299, 451 Lubenow, Marvin L., 3ll, 521, 628429, Iikencss of Godin, 149,170,432,440
5 44. 607,6t0 ,61 3 L^m.ch, 233-234, 243 640 natrrre of, 46, 149-150,154,160,180,
Kant. lnrmanucl,369 l:sr Judgmcnt, 590. Stc abo Judgment of Lukc, St.,Apostlc,529 t90, 2t2, 350,390,422423, 428-
Kcnya NationalMuscum,628 cod Lukc,Gospclof St.,528-529 429, 43r-432, 434-435,437-443,
Kcrkut, G. A., 29 taughlin,Villiam S.,427 LunarSocicry321 452,480, 483,526,t<)t, 598,601, 609,
tQromiakov,Alcksci,5 l6 Lewrcncc Livcrmorc Narional l-aborarory, Lyell,Charles, 298, 310-31I 6t 4
(in&, 2(r,38, 123,133,139,297.300,308, 635 naturcof, corruptcdat rhc fall,429430,
329-.330, 334, 385-387, 469, 476, Lawrcncc,Jcromc,466 Macarius of Oprina,Sr.,287 445,448,481
516, 639,642 Lcad isoropes,631-634 Macarius rhcCrcat,Sr.,78,7r,85,208,214, originaldcsignation of, 172
as creaturcscapablcof bcaringfcrtilc off- Lrakcy,Louis,355, 470, 527 3 7 6 , 4 0 5 , 4 t 4 , 4 4 6 , 4 90 originalnerureof,42,4647, 189,194,
s pring,lJ4,2 96 Lcakcy,Mary, 470 Macrina,5t., 330, J.l,l 216,35|. 409,422,43t,438,449,48t,
confusion of, linkcd to moral relativism, Lcakcy, Richard.3l l, 470,472,628,640 Madagascar,306 483,485,495,540,6tl
137 l.ccomtcdu Noiiy, Picrrc,342-343, 363, 519 Making of Mankind, Ilr (tuchard Lcakcy), originally vegcrarian,
155,266
distinctncssand integriryof, 136-138, dcismof, 344 472 soulof, l5l, 160-162,182,2O7,435,
387-389,608,6t2-4t3 l-cc,Robcrt,459 Makingof thc Modcm Mind, Ttu (Randal.,, 437439, 441,443,481,609 (rc aLo
do nor ncccssarily corrcspondto thcspccicr t-ce,Robcrt8.,466 570 Soul)
of modcrntaxonomy,134.470 trhigh Univerciry639 Malc and fcmale,divisbn inro, 128, 145, spccialncss ofthe crcarionof, 609
mainraintheir narurcro ihc end of timc, Lcibniz,Gonfried, 520 | 50, | 57,234,250-25| ,256,586,6tI spiritof, 160,172,434437,43,
| 34-t 35 Lcmaitrc.Abbd Gcorgcs,463 division of, madc in forcknowlcdgcof the stands bctwccnrwoworlds,434
variarions wirhin, 296,469 Lcnin,Vladimir,373,547 t a l l ,1 5 1 - 1 5 2 , 4 1 3 Manhattan Proiccr,635
wcnt inro thcArk, 250, 256 Lcninism,548 Mammals,J0l. Saea/roAnimals Manichecans, 475,489
KingJamesVcrsion,217,273 knt, Grcar,68, 72, 222, 524 Manrmorhs,494 MappingTim lRichztrls),236
KingdomofCod, 89, 137,572 Lconid(Kavclin),Fr.,287 Man,258,477 Marriagc, l5l-152, 185,244,248
(ingdom ofHcavcn,66,128,l:17,150-l51, LEuolutiondu uivanr\Crassu,29 age of,235,538-540, 594, 602, blcsscd by G od,152, 223
4 t 6,419, 59 7 Lcwontin,fuchard,60 610-61I prophccy of, 185
Kingdon ofMan and thc Kingdon ofGod, Thc Liberalism,modern,323, 566 asa mixtureof two worlds,147,163 Manugcof9ntcandSorl(Vilbcr),559,564,
(Fr.SeraphimRosc),21, 24, 33 Light, lll, 123, 445, Sccalro Uncrcatcd asqualirativcly diffcrcntfrom thc bcasts, 567
Kireyevsky, lvan Y. , 282, 287, 516, 606 l.ight 163,600 Mers,620
Klingcr, Fr. Ccorgc,374 crcariono[, I 10, ll2,14t,394 asrh. crownofcrcerion, l{3, 147,I88 Martin,Fr.Malachi, 366,373,575,577
KN-MER-1470skull,3 l l, 628,640 ofhcavcnlybodics,123 bodyandsoulcrcatcd simulrancously, t62, Martyrs,488. .Srra/roNcw Martyrsof Rus-
Knowlcdgc,438, 474, 535, 586 of thc sun, l2Gl27 J)s,4t9.44t,475,5 4t , 6t 0 liz
D i v i nc,614 or iginal,I 10, 128 body of, l5l, 160-162,165, 172, 180, Man, K.arl,323,339,373,547-548
nautal,284,416417 Likcncssof God. ScrMan:likcncssof 6od irr t82,185,205,207 -208,2t2,328,409, Marxism,137,339,366,a73,546,548-549,
narurcof, changcda( rhc fall, 445 Lincoln,Abraham,546 4tt,42t,423,434,4 36437, 439, 441, 570
poscsscdby Adam, 483 Lincsof dcsccnt, hypothctical,307,
553 443447, 475, 479, 48t , 609 Masonry(frccmasonry), 25, 321,507,546-
pscudoscicnrific, 512 Lions,135, 177,253,4t6 creatcd in grace, 160,439 547, 558, 570, 595
696 697
rNDEX Inorx
698 699
INnex Inrex
OnrhcMakingofMan(St. Grcgoryof Nyssa), PachomiosofMount Athos, Fr, 78 lifcspanof, tt9,234-236, 497, 499- Pomazanskl Fr. Michacl, 284-285, 520,
73,5 2 3 Paganism,287, 3t6, 435, 445, 567-569, t00 534,600, 2
Or thcOriginof Man(St.Basil),73 57t - 574, 586 Patristicphilosophy,612-61 3 PomonaCollcgc, l8-20
OnthcOrthodox Faith(St.JohnDamasccne), Pagels, Elainc,571 PaulofObnora,St.,213, 253 PonrificalAcadcmyof Scicnccs,.149
78, t68,327,332,489 Pain,204, 206, 208, 2t t, 329 Paul,St., Aposrlc,45, 107,120, 138, 152, Ptrpc,Alcxandcr,519-520
On tb Rcsuncction (St. Grcgoryof Nysa), PaisiusVelichkovsky,St., 170 t 64, 190,242,244 ,249, 351, 373, 375, Porassium-argon dating,309-3 10, 3 t 2-J 14,
613 Palcobiohg1,306 422, 424, 432,436437, 445,477,48 t, 460,627429,634
On tbz TrinirylBlessed, Augustinc),79 Paleonrofogy,36, 53, 56, 84, 295, 302, 304- 490,574 Prayer,l 7O,256, 269, 352, 429
Onc Blood: Tfu &bhol Antwr to Racism 305,3t2, 347,349,355,426, 469,472, caughtup to Paradis.andrhe third hca"cn, mcntal,170,420
(Ham,Vieland.Bartcn),646, 648 527, 599400, 629 t65-167 perfcct,416
Oneworldgovernment, 547-548 Panenthcism, 552, 559, 561, 570-57 |, 574, PckingMan, 355, 426, 505 Prc-cxisrencc of souls,hcresyof, 162, 330,
OptinaMonastcry, 22,44,516,644 578,584 Pclagianism, 601 335, t38, 440,47147 6, 536,613
Origcn,162,330,335,4O5,440,475476 Panrhcism, 216. 356, 552, 570-57t, 574 Pcleg,274,280 Prc-existcnceof thc body,hcrcsyof, 162,335,
Originof Spcciet (CharlcsDarwin),15,54, I'aradisc, 4547,70, 73, 79, 88,92, 153,t75, Peppcrcdmorh crpcrimcnt, 55 440
290,293 t 89, 192, 194, 1 9 8 , 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 , 2 r 3 , Pcrsia,642 Prchisto11600, 607
Origint6 Daign.41, 51,398,646,649 2t5-216, 228, 242-243, 324. 350, PcnonalGod, 550, 567-568, 57 |, 175, 586, Prepodobnymczning of, 253
O'Rourke, J. E.,3l I 403, 405-406, 4t4, 42t, 429-430, t89 Pridc, 192, 207, 260, 275, 277
Onhodoxcalendar, 236,474 442, 444-445, 447448, 478, 481, PctctDarnarcenc,St., 490 Prin.ipii Math.mati.a (Ncwron), 3 | 7
OrrhodoxChristianiry, 20, 22. 38, 253, 484, 486, 515-536, 541, 154, 583, 588, Pctcr,St.,Apostlc,256,260, 407, 598, 607 Ilincipbs of Enbryobgl (Vaddingron), 5lI
28(r- 288, 290-292,340-34t. 345, 596, 598, 602, 6l l, 622, 637, 650. Scc Pharisces, 432, 594 hintiph of Gcohp (Lycll). 298
394, 405407, 4t8, 452, 507-508, a/raFirst-crcatedworld Pharoah, 9l, 499 Progress, 19,2 1,24, 3 | 8, 320-321, 324, 360,
51 6 ,5 6 7 as diffcrcnt from thc rcst of thc original Phcnomcnon ofMan, I}l (TLilharddc Char- 3 7 3 ,5 5 4 ,5 6 6 ,5 7 0 ,5 9 6
OrrhodoxChristians, 25-26,32-33,404 1, crcarion,lt6, 177,478 din!,356,372 Progrcssivccrcarionism.Sra Old-carth/pro-
46 , 6 t, 8 4 , t 90, 222, 283, 3 4 0 -3 4 t, asscmi'mercrial, 167, 171,477478,495 Philarctof Moscow,Sr.,Mctropolitan,79 grcssivccrcationism
344-145,159, 37t-372, 376, 38t- a5srilfcxistingnow, 164, 169,414,487 Philo of Alexandria,244 Prophecy,94-95, 187. 192, 317, 498, 546,
382, .196,418, 44t, 446447, 44r, banishment from,66, l5l,167, 186,190, Phihkalia. 207, 209, 4t 3, 438, 446, 485, ,83,597,622
452-453,5t2-5t4, 528, 533, 539, 209,2 1r,2t 4,2t7, 378, 421,42', 480, 490,536,540 of rhc past,343, 622
544, 573, 58t, 588,589,t98-599, 494495,622 Phihnphic zoobgiqw (|.:marck), 297, 451 Prntcstantism, 31, 43, 51,316, 3lt, .383,
606,612 cannot be known about rhrough natural ''Philosophyof rhc Absurd (Fr. Senphim 4t8, 423,434,497,5t 4, 5 t9, 525,582,
Orrhodox Church.72,232,236,292,352, sciencc,449 Rosc),369 6 0 1 ,6 1 0 ,6 1 8 ,6 2 2
37t, 420, 429,437, 445,473, 479, locarionof, l6!-165, t67-169,27t , 477, l'hilorhcouMonasrcryMount Athos.JJJ Providencc,142, 354, 5 19, 54 1, 624
496-498, 507 508, 5tt, 542, 494 Physics,36, -149 Psalms,496
555, 588, 62t'[0,422, 624 natureof, 164-165,167, l7l,328,477 Pilbcam,David,472 Pscudo-rcligion, 20, 507,512
Divincscrviccs of, 208,376, 4ll, 418, originally part of thc carth,494 PiltdownMan, 355, 426, 47 1, 505 Pseudoscicncc, 29, 5 12
430 placcdbctwccn corruption and incorrup- Pishon(rivcr of Edcn), 168 Pscudo-spiritualiry, 546-547
OrthodoxChurchin Amcrica(OCA),25, tion, 166-167, 187, 20,, 328, 414, Pius lX, Popc,370 Psychicand spiritual,confusionof,554,
42t,456 Phrc of Rlesed Augurtin. in thc Orthodox 578
"Orthodoxevolutionists,'
408, 519, 521, plantingof, 157, 164, 166, 404, 420 Chwch, Thc (Fr. Scnphim Rosc), 79 Psychicrcality,20, 550, 564, 574
Sedlro'Chrisrian
530,540-542. cvolu- plantsin, 167, 17D,415,456,477 Planets, 458, 46 l, 464, 492, 620, 633 Psychicsclcction (conccpr of Tcilhard dc
tionism riversof, 87, 168,494 Plants,58, l2J, 126, 142, 155, 173, l9O, Chardin\,553,557
Ort hodot Obtcrttn 340, 345 visionsof, 165-167,328, 456,477, 487- 334, 387,393, 462, 476,625 Psychology, 488, 558, 566,618
t)rrh,'dox ThcoloBicrlSocicryof Amcrica. 488 c r c a t i o no f , l 0 l - 1 0 2 , l 2 l - 1 2 2 , 1 3 0 ,1 3 3 , Prcrodactyls, 306
352 I'arapsychology, 578 t38, 157,408,477 Ptolemaic model,294,J01. 458, 461, 466
Onhodor \Yod, 67, 369, 597 Perts,342,373 distincrncsofkinds of, 138 Puncruatcd equilibrium,35, 56, 469, 561,
Orrhodox worldvicw,549 Parisianschool of Orthodox rhcology,373- in Pandisc,166, 170,414,477 567,569-570
Orthodory and th Rcligion of the Funn (Fr. 374 originallygivcn ro man for food, 155 PuzzlcofAndcnr Man lChirrick), 646
ScraphinrRosc),371, 4U-465, 572, Pas s ions154,
, 156,18 0 ,1 8 7 ,1 9 0 ,1 9 8 , 2 1 5 , Plato,289 Pythagoras/Pythagorcan philosophy,356,
582,597 269, 429, 432, 444, 541 Platonism,569 492
Outcr-spacebcings.Jar Extratcrrcsrrials. Parriarchs(Old Tlsramcnr), 169, 233, 235, Plotinus,567
Owcn, Richard, 17 248,272, 409. 473, 495,535 , 583, 594 Polygcnism, 325, 346, 535,6l I Qratcmar1 Era (Charlesworrh), 494
700 701
IN o e x INorx
702 703
INorx Iruorx
Scttcrficld, Barry63t 326, a89,473,608 Bishopsin Amcrica(SCOBA),372 rs prophct of Antichrisr, 339, 354, 357
Scwell,Curt,Jr.,626,635,640 ShctchconctmingMan (St. Ncctarios),451 Sranhopc, Ead,32l 359, 368-369,549-550 ,57 t , 579,596
Scxual modeof gcncration, 128,I5t 154, SloucLi ng towardsGon olrub (Bork), 323, 43 1 Stars,108, I 16,458, 461, 620,647 blasphcmyof, 556
t87,223,481 Smith, Wolfgang,40, 349, 557, 580-581 creationof, 124, l4l, 462 chiliasmof, 365--16(r
ShanrringrhcMltht of Daruinisn (Milon), Snakcs/snakccharmcrs, 203, 489. Sce ako Stavronikita Mooastcry,Mount Athos, 74, involved in thc "discovcrf' of Piltdown
13 4 3 , 0 3 ,301, t
- 310- 31, 47t , 6 4 9 serPcnr 76, 246, 280, 400 Man, 355, 426, 47 1
Shen (sonof Noah),243, 247, 256, 269- Sobriery,47, 153,483, 486 Stcfanatos, Joannc,253 on Marxism, .166,37J
270 ,2 7 t,2 72- 275, 279 Socialism,24,356,368 Storcr,TracyI., 300, 384, 426 pancnthcism of, 552, 570-57t, 574
S hina r,2 7 5 Sodom , 255, 274 Struve,Nikita,373 praiscdby ThcodosiusDobzhansky,354,
Shoaof rhcFithcrnanlMorrisL. Vcsr),508 Solarsysrcm Study conccming thc lmmortality of thc Sorl 3t8
Siberia,494 agco[ 618 (St.Nectarios),451 spirirualexpcriences
of, 510-551,57v-
Sicily,132 otigin of, 462464,633 Subjcctivism,3 t 9-320 580
Simpliciry, 424,545 Solomon,King,424 Suchevirsa Monasrcry.Moldavia.Romanie, uniraryvicwof, 359,367
S in, 13 6 , t7 4 176, 190. 194, 1 9 9 -2 0 0 , SolvychcgodskMuseum of History and Art, t24, t19,183, t93 'fcilhardism,508,510,552,556-557,576,
204--205,2tO, 230, 248, 270, 275, t44 S u f f c r i n g1, 4 8 ,1 8 4 , 5 1 3 578,581,595
347-348,429,475,479, 489,49r, 572, Son,God rho,107,| 45, | 47, 37 l, 17 | -572, Sunna Thcologita(Aguinas),447, t l6 rnd charismrric phenomcna, 582
515,585,597 Christ, L)rd; \Vord ot
583. Srr a/roJcsus S u n ,4 5 , 1 0 8 ,t t 8 , t 2 2 , t 2 t, 1 2 8 ,l 6 t, 4 i 8 , as rhc "Christianiry" of thc futurc, 508,
SinofAdan,7lr {St.Symeon rhcNcwTheo- Cod 462, 464,620,623 549 (rrr ala Rcligionofrhc future)
log i a n ),7 8, 636 "SonsofGod," 221, 2.14,243-244,4r9-5OO bcforcthe fall, 44 Iiihardin and thc Nca kligion \Smith),
S inai, Mo u n t,93 Soul, 139, I5l, t60-162, t70, 182,207, c r r a r e da l ( c rr h cc a | l h ,l 2 l ,1 2 6 1 2 7 ,4 6 2 557
Sinanthtoput, 427 286, 330, 135-)36, 435439, 44t. crarcd aftcr rhc plants,98, 389, 462 Tcmptation, 288, 433, 490
Sisocv, DeaconDaniel,5{18 443, 448, 475, 48 t, 536, 609-6 10 crcationof, I l0-l I l, 123,124,125,463 in I'aradisc.171, 174,57a \sccako Adanl
S ixD ays, 7 3 ,8 6, 91, 96- 98,100,1 0 2 -1 0 3 , crcerionof, 159-1 60, 43t, 443 Supcr-humanity(conccprof Tcilhard ac tcmptationofi Evc:tcmptation of)
| 14,t20,t42-t43, t45,157,t63,t82, immortaliryof, 432, 438, 451 Chardin),-363 Tenncsscc, 294,617
t9 t, 296,333,375-376,393,408,4 l l, not a partofGod, l6l Superman,concept ot,216, 330, 344, 369, Tirrullian,499
4 t7, 441, 46t462 , 497, 506,522,526, Sot't afcr Dcath, Irlr (Fr. Seraphim Rosc), 555-556,563,573 Tcstinonlofttu Rock(Millcr), 603
54| , 564,586,588, 603,607,62242.5, 248, 477, 488 SurvivalCourse (Fr SerephimRose),-12-33, Tcxas,71, 294
632 Sovicts,270, 339, )52, 505, 519, 548, 598, 4t,3t5, J39, 356,369, 546,549, 570 Tixtual criricism,modern,496
cannotb. cquarcdwith "pcriods."7l 6154t6 Swift, Dcnnis l-., 644 That Thdr lVot& May Bt U*d against Ihcn
dcfinerhcnartrre of rime,6l4 Spacetravcl, 16, 464 Symbolof thc Faith,3Z8 (Hcnry Morris) , (113-644, 647
Fifrh Da1 99, 123, 128, 129,t3O, 13I- Spccics,96, 137, 305, 307, 309, 332, 341. Symbolical inrcrprcrarionof Scripturc. Sra Thaxton, CharlcsB., 505
r32,397,4r I 385-386, 469470, 535, 553, 612 Intcrprcrarionof Scriprurc:symbolical Thcodorcr,Blcsscd,BishopofCyrus, 158
FirstDay,106,| 08, I 10,I l2-l 14,I 18- changingdefinition of in modcrn scicncc, SymcontheNcw-fhcologian. St.,78,81,98, Thcodosius ofChcrnigov,St.,352
l | 9, r 28,258,326 r34,308 156,35 t, 376, 4 t 5, 420,411,444,446, Theology, 408, 422425, 479, 503, 5Or,
Fourrh Day,| l0, t23, 124,125,389,462 vasr nr.rmberof in thc original crcation, 478, 486-487, 5t6, 536, 59t-593, n 2 t 1 3 ,t 1 8 ,tl 5 , tl 9 ,5 6 7 ,5 7 4 ,5 7 9 ,
lcngthof, 97, lOO,162,326,329,375, r30,133 595-596,607.617 585-586,598-602.60t
395-397 , 40t, 53t, 537,607,6t3 Spcnccr, Herberr,293, 562 and scicncc, 593,607 608,612
nor accordingto lawsof prcscntcorrupt Spcrncr,L-cc,38, 48. 309,470,639 TablcofNations,273 Thcology Digat,346
'fabor,Mount, 406, 'fhcophanthcReclusc,
world,402,624 Spni bowl, 434437, 439 517 St.,Bishop,536,596
not an allcgory394 asrhc highcrparrofrhc soul,160 -liylor, lan T., 316. 352. 642, 646 Thcophanes the Crctan,74, 76-77, 90, 179,
SccondDay,I 15 dcfincd,438 Taylor,Parrl,603, 644 246, 2U0,400, 456, 484
sequence of instantancous crcativcacts notitselfan uncreatcdpart ofDiviniry, 434 Technology,206 Theophancs rhc Grcck, 146,237, 239. 241,
dnring,| 02, 327, 329, 334,396-397, Spirit ofthc agc(spirit ofthc timcs,zrirgzo), Ttilhard dc Chardin,Picttc,28, 33, 216, 292, 257, 380
399 ,4 0 1 292, t08. tl5, 5t9-520, 557-559, 342, 354-376, 425, 463, 505, 508- Thcophanes,Monk ofMount Athos, 597
Sevenrh Day,l4l-142 575,582,584 509, 5r5, 5 19, 52r, 534, 536, 549-559, ThcophilusofAntioch, Bishop,242
Six rhDa y,I I5 , 133,139, 157 ,1 8 5 ,4 1 1 , Spiritism,383 5 7 2 - 5 7 3 , 5 7 6 , 5 8 1- 5 8 2 , 5 8 4 . 5 9 5 , Thcophylactusof Bulgaria,Blesscd,529
420,477 Spiritualbody,481, 491,592. Sceako Rcsur- 597,606,6t0 'fhcosophy,567
T hirdDa p l 0 l, l l l, I 19, 121 ,1 2 4 ,1 6 6 , rcctedbody. "Orrhodox" followcrsot, 372-375, 58| ThzyCancfon Babd (Cranfill) , (,46, 4,49
397 ,4 7 7 Spyridon(Efimov),Archimandrirc, 22 and Kcn Vilber, 559, 562-563,565-566, Third Age of rhc Holy Spirir (concepr of
unobscrvablc byscicncc,98-99, 109,I64, SrandingConfcrenccof CanonicalOrthodox t69, 582 Jorchimor.l:iorc), 371, 374, i82
704 705
INorx IN D EX
706 707
Scruprun.e
INoex
708 709