“True faith is found in one’s heart, not mind. People who have faith in their mind will follow the Antichrist. But the ones who have faith in their heart will recognize him.” Archimandrite Gabriel (Urgebadze)
At the age of 9, I was called to Medicine. At the age of 10, my science teacher introduced us to Evolution. At 11, I began reading the Bible, which teaches Creation. What followed was a period of confusion and unrest. I could not reconcile the ‘science’ behind Evolution in my brain with what I felt to be true in my heart.
My conundrum between Evolution and Creation was finally resolved during my university life, when I learned about the Scientific Method outlined below in six simple steps:
- Ask a question about an Observation
- Conduct Background (foundational) Research to learn if the Question has been answered
- If not, propose a Hypothesis or Theory that might answer your question
- Design and conduct an Experiment (study) to test your Hypothesis
- Record your new Observations and Analyze your Data
- Draw your Conclusion and make further iterations
Evolution cannot get past step 3, for it is impossible to conduct an experiment to test something that requires millions of years to achieve. The best any honest scientist can do is to stop at step 3 and admit that Evolution is stuck in the theory phase and can never claim to be a scientific truth. It can even be argued that the Theory of Evolution does not even belong in the category of science, since it can never fully satisfy the Scientific Method. And yet, many scientists have not only accepted it as science, but even embraced it and wholeheartedly believe in it.
What I did not know as a child, was that not everything that is presented as science is actual science – “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” According to this definition, science is not an ideology, but a process that uses observation and experimentation to provide an explanation for something in the physical and natural world.
Let’s examine this process. Science is very complex, and good, high-quality scientific research is difficult to achieve. No scientific process is perfect, and all science has its limitations. These include but are not limited to:
- The observation may be inaccurate or subjective
- The background research may provide a poor foundation for further iterations
- The experimental design (method) may be flawed
- Even if well designed, the execution of the experiment may be flawed
- The sample size may not be large enough to provide statistical power
- The data recorded may be inaccurate, incomplete, or selected with bias
- The statistical analysis may not be appropriate to the study
- If any of the above occur, the wrong conclusions will be reached
Let’s apply observation to the Theory of Evolution. By observing natural selection or survival of the fittest, evolutionists claim that this observable phenomenon has given rise to evolution – one species changing into another species. However, natural selection has never been observed to result in the development of a new species. It has only been observed to change the appearance or phenotype of the same species. A classic example is the change in the predominant colour of the peppered moth population in England, from white to black. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most peppered moths were white, while only a few were black. When the white moths rested on the white trunks of birch trees, they were camouflaged from predatory birds, who mostly fed on the black moths. When the birch tree trunks began turning black from the pollution produced by new industries, the white moths became visible and easier prey for the birds who consumed them. As a result, more white than black moths were eaten, and eventually, the black peppered moths surpassed in numbers the white ones. Soon, the predominant colour of the peppered moth population changed from white to black, but the species did not change at all; it was still a peppered moth. The origin of species, therefore, is based on assumption and not on scientific rigor.
Let us now examine some background or foundational research respecting the Theory of Evolution. By using carbon-14 radioactive decay as a foundational basis for dating fossils to the order of millions of years, evolutionists claim that this is scientific evidence that the earth is old enough to have provided sufficient time for evolution to take place. In contrast, other dating methods, such as the magnetic decay of the earth, the accumulation of silicon in oceans, and population formulas, all date the earth as being just a few thousand years old. All radiometric dating methods, such as carbon-14, assume (i) constant and reliable rates of radioactive decay over long periods of time (ii) in a stable environment, and (iii) that all decay began at time zero. In fact, carbon dating is unreliable at best, and at worst, downright inaccurate. C-14 dating of living mollusks has been shown to register at several thousands of years, showing how unreliable this method can be. In short, all dating methods are based on assumptions and not scientific rigor.
Dating aside, other sound background research has completely disproved the Theory of Evolution. Spontaneous generation – the claim that life comes from non-living matter was disproved by Louis Pasteur in the mid-19th century. Despite this, evolutionists still rely on the concept of a ‘primordial soup’ that somehow spontaneously gave rise to a living organism billions of years ago.
The unbreakable Laws of Physics, such as the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, and the Law of Increasing Entropy flatly contradict the Theory of Evolution. Energy itself does not produce complex, functioning systems. That takes planning and a Planner! Great periods of time do not cause things to improve and get better or more complex. They cause them to break down and decay (Law of Entropy). Mathematics shows evolution to be so unlikely as to be impossible. The first and second laws of Thermodynamics also prove the Theory of Evolution to be impossible, and yet, many scientists insist on believing in the Theory of Evolution in the name of science.
There are many other problems with the Theory of Evolution. For instance, genetic mutations have never been observed to result in a superior organism, only an inferior one resulting in extinction, rather than evolution into more complex, sophisticated organisms. If different species do manage to mate, their offspring (such as the mule) are invariably sterile and cannot reproduce. In the fossil record, there are no in-between species – not a single bone showing one animal evolving into another. There are only distinct species. All pictures that show humans evolving from ape-like creatures are showing either apes or men, not apes changing into men. Nebraska Man was built up from the tooth of an extinct pig; Piltdown Man was fabricated from the jaw of a monkey whose teeth had been filed to look human; Java Man turned out to be an ape; Peking Man was puzzled together from the mixed bones of monkeys and humans; and Zinjanthropus turned out to be an ape. Much of what postures as ‘scientific’ in evolutionary ‘science’ is fabricated or imaginary, but because it appears in science books or is talked about by scientists, it is believed to be ‘scientific.’
Recall that science is a well-defined, systematic process, not a belief system, which is scientism – “the excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.” A belief system is something that an individual accepts based on faith. Faith is defined as complete trust or confidence in someone or something. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that which is seen was not made of things that are visible.” (Hebrews 11:1-6) In other words, some of us accept based on trust or faith, that God, who is invisible, made everything that is visible. Others accept based on faith that, despite all the solid scientific evidence to the contrary, the Universe was derived through evolution! Since neither Creation nor Evolution can be proven by the Scientific Method, but since Evolution has been disproven by the Laws of Science itself, I wonder which of the two belief systems requires greater faith!
Unlike the teachings of Holy Scripture, science and technology do not have all the answers to life’s questions and never will. They have never been able to create life or stop death. Science cannot explain on a molecular level the differences between identical twins who have different personalities, beliefs, or social outcomes despite identical upbringings and identical DNA. By using the Theory of Evolution, science tries to explain how the physical and biological world came into existence, but it cannot explain why we exist, or why Humanity differs as much as it does from the rest of nature.
The theory that humans evolved from apes does not explain why our species is the only one capable of reason and abstract thinking. The complex subjects of mathematics, physics, philosophy, medicine, and so on, are not typically studied or applied by animals. Only humans have shown such sophistication as to be able to ask questions, plan, develop, engineer, and create structures of immense diversity and complexity. As for the complexity and engineering marvels of beehives, spider webs and ant colonies, one should keep in mind that the behavior of these animals has never changed over time, because it is driven by innate instinct, and not by choice. Only humans are capable of creativity in what they choose to create, such as the diversity in architecture, literature, fine art, music and so on. What other creature understands the nature of time, reality, and truth, or is capable of reading, writing, speaking, and communicating in multiple languages? No other life form typically engages in research, philosophy, or spirituality, expressing both the ability and the need to engage in spiritual rituals, and pursue integrity and truth, or the opposite, immorality, falsehood, corruption, and greed. Why are we like this and for what purpose do we exist and possess these attributes? Science cannot answer these questions, but Genesis, does: only Humanity was created in the image and likeness of a loving God, and no other life form has this distinction.
In God’s own Image refers to the gifts God gave only to humans, such as abstract thinking, communication, artistic expression, creativity, spirituality and so on. This means that the first humans were given the knowledge, grace, and strength to perfect themselves by using their freedom – another gift – to willingly love God and to freely desire His plans for them by expressing their humility and obedience to Him. They were not created perfect in the absolute sense; they were created good with the potential to become perfect if they freely chose to enter a mutual relationship of love with God, expressed as obedience through trust. They were given God’s image with the potential to achieve His likeness in the training ground of Eden.[1]
Likeness, therefore, refers to the potential to become perfect and immortal. Had they entered a mutual relationship of love and trust with God, by using the gifts of God’s image to freely obey Him, Adam and Eve would have progressed to becoming Truly Human, which was the fulfillment of their perfection, also known as theosis or deification (meaning Godliness or Godlikeness, as opposed to becoming actual gods), a state of perfect harmony and fellowship with God in His Heavenly Kingdom. There, they would enjoy eternal life in a personal union with God, advancing from grace to grace and from glory to glory for eternity, even surpassing the glory of the Angels. This did not happen, but thanks to Christ’s Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, we can still achieve God’s likeness and deification by choosing humility and repentance. No other part of spiritual or material creation was given these gifts and this potential, something way beyond the scope of science, which is limited to the material world.
Still, science and technology are useful man-made tools that help us better navigate our physical lives through the modernization of farming, traveling, communicating and so on. We can also use science and technology to explore our Universe, and here, I would like to put things into perspective. The Universe – the physical, botanical, zoological, terrestrial, and extra-terrestrial infrastructure that has always existed since the beginning of linear time – is why we have science – mankind’s exciting, yet frequently blundering attempts to explore, understand, control, replicate, and manipulate elements of the Universe.
Unlike Evolution which can be disproved by science, there is no science that disproves Creation and there exists an enormous amount of sound science in cosmology, cellular biology, DNA research, astronomy, physics, human consciousness, and other disciplines, that strongly supports Creation by Intelligent Design. Investigative journalist, Lee Strobel, author of The Case for a Creator, presents his captivating interviews of multiple top scientists to uncover compelling scientific evidence in support of Intelligent Design vs. random events. For example, the Law of Thermodynamics agrees with the Church Fathers regarding God’s uncreated Energy and uncreated Light. Neither can be created or destroyed. To take this one step further, with his Theory of Relativity, E=mc2, where E is Energy, m is matter and c is the speed of light, Einstein may have explained how God used his uncreated Energy and Light to create matter.
Because sound science recognizes its own limitations, and that the quality of experimental design and execution plays a pivotal role, evidence-based scientific research is graded according to Levels of Evidence. For example, a well done, prospective, double-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) carries more weight and a higher level of evidence, than an equally well-done retrospective, observational study, which in turn carries more weight than consensus or expert opinion. Exceptions to these general principles can and do occur when quality comes into play.
For instance, an excellent observational study over a very long time with a very large sample size, can provide higher level evidence than a shorter, poorly done RCT with a small sample size. A perfect example of the former is the Traditional practice of the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church – effectively a two thousand year long, longitudinal observational study, with an immeasurably large sample size of study participants spanning all ages, races, and health conditions, that took place during times of population health and illness (including pandemics), where people communed from a common physical element (a cup or a spoon) without transmitting communicable disease. Chinese medicine, another ancient practice, is based on similar principles of experience and time. Since Traditional Medicine accepts Chinese Medicine as a form of Alternative Medicine, what is the difference between that and the Orthodox experience with Holy Communion, the Divine Medicine of the Body and the Soul?
Any good scientist knows that science is a cerebral activity that must follow the Scientific Method, unbiased by any personal belief system. Faith, on the other hand, is an activity of the heart. When science descends from the brain to the heart, it loses its dispassionate objectivity and becomes Scientism, an idol for worship. Similarly, when faith in God is in the brain, we are not faithful followers, for we are relying on our very limited cerebral understanding rather than our love for God to follow Him. In the early 1960’s, St. Luke of Crimea, a renowned scientist, attended a medical conference dressed as a bishop. A communist approached him saying, “Do you still believe in God? Don’t you know we sent someone into space, but he didn’t find evidence of God up there?” to which St. Luke replied, “And as a surgeon, I have observed many brain surgeries up close, but I have never found evidence of wisdom in there either.” The communist’s mistake was his tower of Babel mentality in assuming that the Creator would be found residing within His own creation. The boundaries of limited and error-prone science represent our very limited human understanding of life; whereas God’s unlimited wisdom, which always surpasses human understanding (including science) is found by Faith.
While knowledge and understanding are good and can help lead us to salvation, on their own, they will not save us. Salvation hinges on our relationship with Christ and with our fellow human beings who are icons of Christ. Christ wants us to love Him as He loved us. The expression of true love is much more than a feeling. It requires a willing sacrifice of our very selves – especially our pride – submitted to Him in the form of obedience through trust.
Conflict between faith and science can only occur when the two try to occupy the same throne. Rational science, which drives our material understanding of the created, natural Universe, belongs in the rational mind – part of our image of God – a divine gift that enables us to get to know our Creator by exploring His awesome creation. Our personal connection with the supernatural Creator, however, belongs in the heart – where we approach the likeness of God – the place where we develop a relationship of trust and love for the One and only Truth. The rational mind need not conflict with the heart. In fact, if we are honest and humble searchers or scientists, the rational mind naturally leads us to God, who then occupies the heart. When the intricate precision and the unlimited beauty of Creation, from the tiniest organism to the vast expanse of the Universe humbles and wows us enough, we seek the ONE behind it all. When we find Him, that Pearl of great price that surpasses even the great beauty that led us to Him, we fall in love in worship of Him, cherishing Him in our hearts. If we are not humbled by our scientific discoveries or the awesomeness of the Universe but become proud of our own ability to have discovered them, we end up worshipping the discovery itself – the science – which is no different than our ancestors’ worship of the sun, the moon, or the fruit tree that gave them food.
“True faith is found in one’s heart, not mind. People who have faith in their mind will follow the Antichrist. But the ones who have faith in their heart will recognize him.” St. Gabriel tells us plainly that there is no place for science on the throne of the heart, just like there is no place for faith on the throne of the mind. God gave us a mind to think and explore for the purpose of guiding our hearts to the One to Whom we truly belong. “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:33) If we are to be truly Human, fulfilling His divine plan for us to have His image and likeness – something science can never give us – only He can occupy the throne of our hearts, for He dwells in His saints. (Ephesians 2:19-22) Can any relationship with the Father be closer or more intimate? What an awesome divine plan for Humanity! True science is not at odds with God. It is just one of many exciting and intriguing paths gifted to us that leads us to the heart of the matter – the Lover like no other.
Irene Polidoulis MD CCFP FCFP
[1] The Deification As the Purpose of Man’s Life, 11–14.
Take a look, judge for yourself: https://www.bitchute.com/video/IAcFTBxkzGuS/
Is your safety at risk? Avoid getting a new cell phone.
Cancel your contract and throw the phone away. You are holding the key to the tyranny (and brainwashing) in your hands.
I’m sorry but using evolution as an example of bad science is, unfortunately, not helping your point. There’s numerous misconceptions and innaccuracies of your portrayal of it that needs to be pointed out. For readability I will list them in no particular order:
1.) “However, natural selection has never been observed to result in the development of a new species.” – Um, this isn’t true. https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
2.) “The unbreakable Laws of Physics, such as the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, and the Law of Increasing Entropy flatly contradict the Theory of Evolution.” – No it doesn’t, that only applies in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system, it continually receives energy from an external source, the sun.
3.) “Energy itself does not produce complex, functioning systems. That takes planning and a Planner! Great periods of time do not cause things to improve and get better or more complex. ” – No, that’s not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is that the input of energy lead to the development of self-sustaining chemical reactions, leading to life as we know it. Now, what would be a far more fruitful argument is that the framework that allowed for this to happen, such as carbon having the properties that it does, very much does to point to a planner. Science can’t that and nor should it because it’s not a scientific question.
4.) “By using carbon-14 radioactive decay as a foundational basis for dating fossils to the order of millions of years, evolutionists claim that this is scientific evidence that the earth is old enough to have provided sufficient time for evolution to take place.” – This is not true, C-14 dating is only used within a span of a few tens of thousands of years. There are numerous other forms of radioactive dating such as uranium-lead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93lead_dating) which are used for other times periods. Radioactive decay is very well established science, we can even see it in a lab. We can experimentally show that it occurs at predictable rates, and what these rates are. To “debunk” this tool, you HAVE to therefore debunk all of nuclear physics which predicts radioactive waste from nuclear fission reactions. Did the people of Chernobyl have nothing to worry about when their nuclear power plant exploded?
Furthermore biological matter has various elements in it while it’s alive in predictable proportions. The dating methods used are determined by the strata. For something really recent we’d use C-14. For something like a dinosaur that are found in strata much older we’d use different techniques that are more appropriate.
5.) “There are only distinct species. All pictures that show humans evolving from ape-like creatures are showing either apes or men, not apes changing into men.” – This is a misunderstanding of how things are classified and how species radiation works. For one thing, the fossils themselves actually show this transition. This along with dating methods is an example of how we know piltdown man and other such things listed were frauds. They diverged substantially from what the fossil evidence of hominids like Homo Erectus were showing. This proved the method worked. For another thing, you’re assuming when a species undergoes an evolution that it is only happening to one individual. But think about it, if there’s an open ecological niche, wouldn’t more than one individual in a group move to exploit it? Then within that subgroup they’d breed with eachother, leading them to branch off into a whole species over time as they drift further away from the main group.
6.) “In the fossil record, there are no in-between species – not a single bone showing one animal evolving into another. There are only distinct species.” – This is disingenuous. Birds branched off from dinosaurs, but did that mean dinosaurs went extinct? No. They branched off long before that and co-existed for tens of millions of years. Because of their close relationship to the two legged types they retained many common features. Even going further back you can see many examples of transitional forms such as Tiktaalik and even earlier than that there’s Lungfish. If you look at the fins of fish that were around at the time, you’d notice they have bones that are very similar to what would become the feet of land animals. So what you’d expect to see are forms like Tiktaalik that were better adapted to land than before, but eventually was outcompeted by later species that were better on land than it was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_tetrapods
Transitional species like Tiktaalik is exactly what we would expect to see if the theory of evolution accurately described the history of life on Earth. To hang ones faith on the Biblical account of creation being literally true is dangerous and spiritually unfruitful. There is a good reason the church doesn’t take an official stance on it. After all, what does it have to do with your path to salvation? https://www.oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/evolution-or-creation-science
1) It is surprising you are not embarrassed to post that. So a finch starts out as a finch, and the offspring remain a finch, but because they garbled up their songs they are no longer breeding with the other finches. And as the article states, “No exact rule exists for deciding when a group of animals constitutes a separate species.” So the researchers wanted to grab headlines by making it seem as if some really huge change took place. The animals could breed together successfully, but the females aren’t game as song is very important for finches. Now go from a reptile to a bird or even from a finch to an ostrich, and we may have something there.
2) The Earth is not a closed system. The Universe is a closed system. You don’t have to simply account for the Earth, you have to account for the birth of the Universe as well.
3) What is being suggested is that you can’t test the assertion “input of energy lead to the development of self-sustaining chemical reactions, leading to life as we know it.” There is no experimental way to confirm that. Or at least, none that anyone has thought of. So it is an opinion, but such an idea is frequently presented as a fact and that “fact” is used to disprove God by claiming there is no supernatural, merely material processes. The whole point of that section of the article is you cannot confirm or reject via experiment.
4) The assumption is that the rates of decay have been constant and you know what time zero looked like. Which, you don’t.
5. Again, assumptions. None of this is either experimentally testable or even observable. If you could watch a hominid become a human-like organism, then you have something here. But you can’t. What you have are fossils. And usually not even complete fossils, and fossils do not give you soft tissue so the reconstruction of appearance is total guesswork. Beyond that, you assume you know how species radiation works, but as no one has ever actually experimentally caused or seen anything on that scale, then how do you know what species radiation is like? You don’t actually. Which doesn’t make it not true. It merely means it is not science, which requires falsifiability as primary requirement.
6. “Birds branched off from dinosaurs, but did that mean dinosaurs went extinct?” – prove it. Actually, prove any “transitional” species became any other species. Can you falsify it experimentally? Was this ever observed? Prove what you are saying. Can’t? No, of course you can’t actually prove any of that. We are just supposed to accept it. Just because you can’t prove it doesn’t make it false, but it does mean that we are under no requirement to treat it as science. “What you expect to see” is a great example of potential confirmation bias.
7. The primary idea of the article is that Evolution cannot be “proven” scientifically. In fact, it isn’t really “science” since it is not falsifiable. Quite the contrary – hanging your hat too much on science is dangerous and spiritually unfruitful:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/can-we-save-science-from-orthodoxy/
We failed to hold “evolutionary” scientists to proper scientific standards and now we are facing a crisis of “consensus” among multiple disciplines. Even doctors are abandoning evidence-based medicine in favor of following the “consensus” of expert opinion. We should be skeptical and questioning of everything. You could very well be right about Evolution, and the author of this piece could be wrong about Young Earth Creation, but the point of the article is that is a battle of faith. You cannot disprove creation. She cannot disprove Evolution. At that point, you are operating outside the scientific method. The limits of falsifiability have been exceeded and now you are doing religion.
1.) When species begin to diverge they are close enough to breed. If you want an example, you can see this in your own genome. https://www.sapiens.org/column/field-trips/human-genome-project-neanderthals/
2.) Please keep it in context, this whole conversation is clearly about evolution of life on Earth. Taking things out of context is how Protestants try to defend their nonsense against the weight of Orthodox truth, I know I’ve had many conversations like this with them.
3.) I never used it to disprove God at all, where did I say that? If anything I said the opposite, life would never have happened if the properties of matter and energy didn’t just so happen to be arranged the way they were.
4.) Leave this here, I’m not a geologist so there’s a limit to how much I can say about it personally. https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-geologist-know-the-age-of-mountains?share=1
https://ncse.ngo/radiometric-dating-does-work
5.) No, it’s not an assumption. There’s lots of fossil evidence to support it. For example there’s this image of hominid skulls that have been found, and you can see very clearly the closer it gets to modern humans they more human-like they become. In other words, transitionary species. http://theoryofhumans.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/3/48038011/179816799.jpg
6.) Just gave you a whole list, but there’s also others like Tiktaalik that I mentioned previously. For this specific example there’s the Anchiornithidae, which is the family the famous Archeopteryx comes from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornithidae
And if it was a transitional form it would be expected to share a lot in common with birds and the two legged dinosaurs it branches from. And it does. The bone structure is the same, the way the pelvis is positioned is the same, they both had feathering, similar general skeletonal layout, they had a similar head shape, etc. If evolution were not true, that evidence wouldn’t exist.
7.) See, now you’re starting to sound a like a Protestant when I show them how their doctrines don’t match with Scripture or even historical fact for that matter. The supposed issue with radioactive dating is actually an attack on an entirely different field of science, geology. It also can be disproven because it makes testable predictions. I’m not as familiar so I wouldn’t put that forward, however the theory of evolution also puts forward testable predictions of its own such as transitional fossils, which I have shown MANY examples of. In fact, here’s whole other list of early transitional forms leading from fish to land animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elpistostegalia#Phylogeny
If you want a better example of scientism I would talk about Lysenkoism. Because the theory of evolution, and mendellian theory of inhereted traits also conflicted with Marxist doctrine the USSR tried inventing its own competitor to it and declared it to be THE science. In other words, the scientific method wasn’t allowed to be followed because anyone who did got sent to the gulag which is more like what we see today. Also much like today it ended in tragedy, although on a much larger scale. Today we see something similar with politicians and TV “scientists” like Fauci not following the epidemiology showing clearly that mask mandates are ineffective at best, and blue state/European covid policies aren’t helping reduce infection rates at all.
1. Modern humans bred with Neanderthals. Why are they a separate species again since the offspring were fertile? How do you know they would ever diverge? Has anyone either observed or experimentally confirmed a multi-cellular speciation that resulted in mating incompatibility? You seem to be simply assuming it would happen. Can you prove it does, or has?
2. To a degree, the author could have been clearer between the origin of the Universe and Evolution, which are not the same. However, nothing in this paragraph limits discussion to Earth. The Earth is absolutely not a closed system. The Universe is. If you resort to calling names, then you were probably caught out and don’t know how else to respond. The Universe is a closed system. Evaluate that in light of the laws of Thermodynamics if you wish.
3. Dodging the issue. Yes, there is a Creator God who ordered everything. You specially said, “input of energy lead to the development of self-sustaining chemical reactions, leading to life as we know it.” That is an alternative to the idea that God created everything as it is. Sort of the “prime mover” idea. God set it all in motion, then it developed on its own with His guidance. Lovely. Prove that energy can leaad to self-sustaining chemical reactions that lead to life as we know it. Run an experiment. Link to an experiment. Technically this is abiogensis not Evolution, but for the purposes of the article it is close enough. In any case, prove it. Otherwise, accept that you can’t prove it any more than you can prove Creation. You accept the premise on faith. Not science, which has to be testable.
4. From the paper you linked, “A few verified examples of incorrect radiometric ages are simply insufficient to prove that radiometric dating is invalid. All they indicate is that the methods are not infallible. Those of us who have developed and used dating techniques to solve scientific problems are well aware that the systems are not perfect; we ourselves have provided numerous examples of instances in which the techniques fail.” So you link to an article to prove something that concedes prior dating systems have been abandoned after having once been accepted, and the existing systems for dating have documented failures, even by the proponents. But on this you would hang your hat? It gets back to – trust us, we’re experts so what we are saying now is true. Your link, by the way, did not actually address the questions we posed to the methods of dating.
5. It is an assumption because you start from the premise that Evolution is real. Then you find skulls that exhibit a variety of characteristics, some more human than others. Then you arrange them in sequence and put them in a PowerPoint slide that then becomes Meme on Twitter. Whee! Science! Well, there are apes extant today whose skeletons would look similar to ours, but they are not our ancestors. Again, there is no way to prove this because you can’t either experimentally or observationally watch as humans “evolve.” You assume we did, that we must have, and that skulls which exhibit human-like characteristics on some level must be our ancestors. This is such a deep article of faith for you, that it is conclusive. It simply must be true.
6. Again, all assumptions. You find fossils and arrange them in a pattern. If you dug up a 10 million year old miniature poodle and a 5 million year old mastiff, would you assume the smaller size evolved into the larger? Or the reverse? or would you assume that they were different species altogether? You assume that anything in common between birds and dinosaurs is evidence of common descent, but you can’t prove that scientifically. Evolutionist tell stories they make up about animals they have never seen and which may be unlike anything we have today. Evolutionists aren’t alone in this. Archaeologists do the same thing. They dig up a pre-historic town and next thing you know they are writing massive, sensational papers about their amazing find. They usually, in the absence of some kind of written record, can’t prove much of what they assert either. Yet, just like Evolution, so many “facts” about pre-history end up being taught to impressionable students. The whole point is that Evolution can’t be proven experimentally or observationally. Therefore, could be true, but is open to debate. Creation also cannot be proven scientifically. It is a question of faith.
7. Again with the name calling. You said, “There is a good reason the church doesn’t take an official stance on it.” Okay, no argument there. But then because you link to a priest who takes an essentially agnostic stance on Evolution versus Creationism, which we then fail to endorse, now we are Protestant? Is there dogma or not? If there is no dogma, then opinion rules the day. And since this can’t be proven one way or the other, that is what we are left with. As for Geology, there are many hypotheses in Geology which can’t be tested. They also are adopted by “consensus.” Their output in terms of dating is heavily relied upon to “prove” Evolution and disprove the Creation story in the Bible, so it was fair game. “Transitional” fossils are not TESTS! You find fossils and arrange them to fit a narrative. They are props in a story, not experiments or observations of natural events. This appears to be a big part of your faith. It isn’t of ours, which is why we are content to simply say science has limits and Evolution may be true, but cannot be proven. Neither can Creation.
However, it appears to be a sticking point with you. As it appears to be with Manfred. Presumably because a symbolic reading of Genesis sets you apart from those unscientific, yahoos the Protestants. You are educated and enlightened, not like those Young Earth types who embarrass every one. Look – you can’t prove Evolution. It does not fit the definition of testable. If I hold up a “transitional” fossil from one of your charts and demand you show me how the change to the more “evolved” form came about, or even prove to me that it happened at all, what will you do? You will start from a premise that Evolution must be real and that this must have happened. That is not actual scientific evidence if viewed by someone who does not share your presumption that Evolution is real.
Creation is also not falsifiable. Evolution not being proven does not mean that Young Earth is correct. Earth could be old, and we could simply get all our dating wrong in terms of when Creation occurred, etc. There is no way to prove anything either way. However, believing in a Young Earth or rejecting Evolution in favor of not having a defined theory are no more strange than believing in Evolution. This is a difference of opinion or a difference of religious sensibilities as it were. And again, the limits of science and how it can become faith were really the whole point of the article.
Lysenkoism is an excellent example of points the article is making. We totally agree with your last paragraph. Let us know if you ever want to turn that last paragraph into a full-blown 1,200 to 3,000 word article. It seems like it would be a good one.
1.) Neanderthals were not human beings, while being very similar their genome was still 0.3% off which is fairly significant.
2.) The universe is almost 14 billion years old. While there is some debate over the exact age of it, we know it’s in that ballpark within a few billion years because we can see it. Now, that shows the universe is indeed very old. So, as for your entropy problem the answer is yes, the universe is heading towards entropy which is the heat death of the universe, but that isn’t for a conceivably long time (1X10^100 years). From what I can tell there’s a lot of debate about this and it isn’t settled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
3.) No, it doesn’t dodge anything. To say God created everything as is becomes a scientific statement, which as has been shown is very easily debunked, and frankly makes us look bad. Doesn’t it add more to the mystery that not only did God order everything in a certain but likely from time to time guided the development? Is it really a coincidence that a massive asteroid obliterated the dinosaurs, paving the way for mammals to take over, leading to us? Or that inexplicably hominids underwent a rapid evolution leading to sentience?
4.) Real science is never considered infallible, if it was then those faulty methods wouldn’t have been uncovered and discarded. At one time dinosaurs were theorized to be these very slow, lumbering lizards. But, new evidence came in which disproved that theory and showed not only were they active they were far more bird like than anyone imagined possible. Contrary to what you saw in Jurassic Park, raptors did indeed have feathers just like birds.
Furthermore to estimate the age of the Earth they don’t just use the Earth itself, they use extraterrestrial objects like meteorites. Using uranium-lead dating those turned out to be 4.5 billion years old. Now, when we went to the moon the rocks brought back were also dated and……they were the same age. Given that the universe is many billions of years old it stands to reason that these figures are most likely correct.
5.) No, you’ve got it backwards. The going assumption is that a theory isn’t accepted as being true unless evidence is found, either tested or observed that corroborates it. We have accurate dating techniques to show when the owners of those skulls were around. Again, it’s based on evidence. The original theory for human evolution was that we started off with human like heads and ape like bodies. This was why piltdown man was taken at face value. HOWEVER, more and more early fossils like Australopithicus were discovered which showed exactly the opposite. Piltdown man was an outlier, leading to a more extensive investigation which unveiled the fraud. In other words, new evidence debunked a theory, which is exactly how science over time is supposed to operate.
6.) Ironic example seeing as to how both are a result of selective breeding, showing an artificial version of how selection causes changes. What we’d look for are morphology changes, are there differences beyond size between a mastiff and a poodle? Not really. There are substantial differences between lobe finned fish and tetrapods, but there are fossils showing very clearly the link between them.
7.) No, it’s a Protestant mentality. One of the core aspects of Protestants I’ve found is they always refuse to accept that the Orthodox church is the original church. In their theory, we’re all just part of the invisible church and all these other denominations are “local churches”, of which Orthodoxy is one of many. Of course this is easily disproven, not only is it interpreting Scripture out of its historical context but completely ignores that our bishops can trace their lineage back to the founding Apostles. No joke, on Wikipedia there’s a list of Bishops/Patriarchs of Byzantium I’ve shown people which shows a clearly documented line going all the way back to St Andrew the Apostle. They still won’t accept it. It just comes down to abject denial of reality. Beyond earthly history Protestantism has other, very easily disproven contradictions that it holds as core doctrine such as the entire Epistle to James contradicting Sola Fide, yet they cling to it anyway. Why?
My point isn’t to accuse anyone who believes in creationism of being literal Protestants, but to point out that it has the very same mindset, a parallel which is very clear to me as I’ve dealt with both, and it’s not a healthy way of thinking. Most fundamentalist Protestants will never accept the full truth that is Orthodoxy no matter how much proof you show them.
As for Lysenkoism, to do a writeup like that justice I’ll need some time to do proper research. I’m interested as I think it’s very timely and I’ll get back to you with something as soon as I can.
1. Were Neanderthals made in the image and likeness of God? If they weren’t human, did they have souls? If they didn’t have souls, how could they breed with humans that have souls? If they weren’t human, but had souls, did that mean Adam was not their father but somehow they were ensouled anyway? Well, if evolution is true, then at what point did our ancestors become made in the image and likeness of God? When did we acquire immortal souls? Where is the dividing line between man and an animal – all of us having descended not from Adam but from a common ancestor? Then again, the definition of a species is: “A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.” So genetic variation or not, if the Neanderthals were capable of breeding with humans to produce fertile offspring, then were they a separate species? That opens up a can of worms considering modern taxonomy. Canis lupus and canis lupus familiaris breed easily to produce fertile offspring, yet we arbitrarily separate them on the basis of domestication. There is one bison herd left in North America that is not tainted with cow DNA, yet we continue to declare them separate species, when in reality these are all examples of distinct breeding populations within a single species expressing phenotypic variation. If Neanderthals and humans could easily breed and produce fertile offspring, they are the same species, and we can avoid all the theological issues that would derive from claiming you could have a set of humans that were separate from sons of Adam.
2. Multiple things here. First, measuring the age of the Universe is not so straightforward. You first construct a model based on assumptions and then calculate the age. From NASA: “A variety of reasonably independent methods for determining the age of the universe are available, but none of course are a direct measurement: each rely on certain modeling assumptions.” The assumptions include that the Universe is flat, has a finite age, is homogenous (equal spacing of matter, physical laws are the same everywhere), is isotropic (same properties in every direction), and is expanding at a constant rate from a starting point. Now if any of those assumptions is wrong, or other aspects of your model are incorrect, then your age is going to be way off. Now these methods could be correct, but then again, they could all be garbage because the underlying models and assumptions could easily be garbage. Who would know? How would you know?
Now, one reason we are so hard on cosmology, evolution, and climate change is that these disciplines mainstreamed taking modeling results and turning them into “facts.” And people went along with that. Notice what you did – “the universe is almost 14 billion years old.” You stated it as if Moses himself had brought that down from the mountain. These disciplines have gotten a pass for decades, and that primed us to accept modeled data as if it were God’s own truth. Then COVID happened, and we have spent two years in lock downs and wearing masks largely on the basis of models. At some point, we may figure out a way to actually measure the age of the universe that is not based on so many assumptions and so reliant on a choice of underlying model, not to mention peer pressure among researchers – but we are not there yet.
The aspect of Entropy in this article has nothing to do with the eventual heat death of the Universe. A simple way of considering Entropy is that nature tends towards disorder and decay. Following the Big Bang, proponents of an evolving Universe postulate that complexity arose with no action of a Creator – galaxies, planets, stars, solar systems, all order in the Universe arose from chaos. The possibility of this occurring has been calculated at 10 to the 123rd power to 1. Yet, because scientists demand consideration of only material causes, then we persist in treating this seriously. “Since God can’t exist, then this must be what happened, no matter the odds or the 2nd Law of Thermo.” In any case, this isn’t really an argument you need to engage. As an Orthodox Christian, you can avoid all that by saying that God created the order in the Universe. The argument is for atheists concerning the origin of the Universe, not something that needs much discussion between Orthodox Christians.
3. No, to say God created everything as it is would be to take Genesis at face value. That is not a scientific statement, as it is not falsifiable. It is a faith-based statement. And it is not at all so easily debunked. Theistic evolution is a religious idea. You can’t prove it, but you can build a case for it philosophically if you choose. The problem comes when you think you are being scientific, but you aren’t. As long as we treat these as Theological opinions, then ducky. What makes us look bad is being so afraid of looking “anti-science” that we don’t demand proper rigor. We ended up with closed churches, multiple spoons, masks, no kissing icons, vaccine mandates, etc. on some level because bishops and priests did not want to look “anti-science.” That fear of “looking bad” kept many silent, even as they vented to us in private about how much this was all a bunch of hooey. Demanding adherence to proper scientific principles and limitations makes you look good, not bad.
Prove an asteroid obliterated the dinosaurs. Prove that event cleared the way for mammals to lead to us. If hominids underwent a rapid evolution leading to sentience, when did we become actual bearers of the image and likeness of God? So our ancestors went from animal, to human with immortal souls….when? How? Can you prove to us how that process worked?
4. Of course, science is method and over time should be self-correcting. Have you ever seen a dinosaur? No one else has either. Observed one in the wild? Done an autopsy? Just bones. We have absolutely no idea what dinosaurs were like, and having feathers does not prove they are the forebears of birds or that they are even related, though they could be. It proves that some had feathers. Most of what constitutes an animal is soft tissue that is not preserved. Never mind social and behavioral characteristics. What you think we know about dinosaurs is so much guesswork.
As for the age of the Earth, we discussed the issue with various methods of dating and the Time 0 problem. The Earth may very well be 4.5 billion years old, but the various dating methods all rely on the decay of radioactive nuclides into a daughter nuclide, and that can lead to false results as has been shown since you don’t know the relative size of the samples at Time 0. Given where we are in science, it is no doubt that every one goes along with the “accepted science”, even if they have reservations. Go against the crowd, and you are stripped of funding and banished. Everyone knows what the acceptable answers are. Not having our livelihoods depend on the answers to age of Moon rocks, we can ask hard questions. And we should.
5. You find a skull dated to 3.5 million years ago. Call her Suzie. She looks more apelike. You find another skull dated to 1.5 million years ago. Same general geographic region. Call him Joe. Joe’s skull is more human-like. The typical assertion is that Suzie is Joe’s ancestor. Right? Except, how do you know that? Suzie could have been an evolutionary dead end. Joe’s ancestor could be undiscovered because, as you know, the fossil record is horribly incomplete with large gaps. Or, maybe the two animals were actually around at the same time, but we simply haven’t found an older fossil for Joe or a later example of Suzie. Any way, could we use the scientific method to “prove” that Suzie is Joe’s ancestor?
1. Ask a question about an Observation – Suzie is dated earlier and has more ape-like appearance, could she be Joe’s ancestor?
2. Conduct Background (foundational) Research to learn if the Question has been answered – Nobody knows for sure.
3. If not, propose a Hypothesis or Theory that might answer your question – We think Suzie is Joe’s ancestor.
4. Design and conduct an Experiment (study) to test your Hypothesis – help me out here. What do we do now? How do we prove that Suzie is Joe’s ancestor, instead of them just being two skulls dug up from two different animals that may or may not be related and which could actually have been two animals existing at the same time? How do we go forward?
5. Record your new Observations and Analyze your Data – And, how?
6. Draw your Conclusion and make further iterations – Evolution skips straight from step 3 to this step.
What you have are a bunch of bones and you are assuming, because you accept Evolution as a given, that there is a relationship between this bones. You’ve constructed a narrative and then you defend it as if it were the Trinity. This is not healthy, and has set a poor precedent in other disciplines.
6. Not ironic at all – intentional, controlled, directed selective breeding that has produced the most extreme phenotypic divergence of any species on Earth, without interfering in their ability to reproduce across breeds. At the beginning we mentioned some issues with taxonomy in the current world, prehistory is no better. The fossils “clearly link” ancient species because they have been interpreted to have a link. You can’t prove that link. Which means – not science.
7. If that is not the pot calling the kettle black at this point. We know Protestantism and its challenged relationship to history:
https://orthodoxreflections.com/evangelicalism-and-inconvenient-christian-history/
You keep falling back into a religious paradigm when we are supposed to be having a scientific discussion, are we not? If Evolution is science, then why are we looping back into religion? Precisely because Evolution is an adjunct to your religious faith. Theistic evolution is a thing, and we get that, but you persist in trying to “prove” your points. Using the scientific method, you won’t be able to. We aren’t trying to “prove” anything, because we are aware that the limits of science preclude us from doing so. Intuitively, you must understand that as well because you keep bringing up Orthodoxy as if rejecting Evolution is somehow tied into rejecting the Faith.
The two things are not related. Your entire paragraph is essentially making a case that Evolution is unquestionable reality, and that is not the case. It is not revelation. Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches also claim Apostolic succession, so we have to be aware of that when evangelizing. There are competing claims, erroneous, but they do exist.
No hurry, but the piece on Lysenkoism would be quite welcome.
Dear “Illumined”
I understand from this discourse that you are well read in the area of evolutionary “science.” If you have not already done so, please consider expanding your horizons further by also reading, “the Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel.
Illumined,
“I’m sorry but using evolution as an example of bad science is, unfortunately, not helping your point.”
Absolutely.
Many countries are descending into full-blown fascism, many people are pressured, or effectively forced, to take part in a large-scale medical experiment with already documented numerous and serious side effects (including evidence of abortive effects on pregnant women) — so what does one do? Publish apologetics for young-earth creationism. Now, that will surely, surely convince those who up to now have held the view that those who oppose the current policies are people who are ignorant of, or don’t understand science.
The point was not Young Earth Creationism, the point was the unscientific nature of Evolution. Perhaps if we hadn’t given “scientists” a pass on Evolution and Climate Change (“experts agree”) and instead demanded they adhere to the same evidence standards as other disciplines then we would not be in this mess. Now would we? The article said you can’t prove or disprove Evolution or Creation. If it is not falsifiable, then it isn’t science – whether that involves faith-based acceptance of the jab or of masking.
Theories of evolution are falsifiable.
Feel free to do so. How would you apply the scientific method to a hypothesis concerning abiogenesis or Evolution? And please note the previous comment, Evolution not being falsifiable does not make it not true. It makes it impossible to prove. Creation is also impossible to prove. Evolution not being proven does not make Young Earth true. Both can be false, and Creation but on a different timescale could be true. Unless you can come up with a way to test all this out, we know of no way to settle the debate.
The purpose of this article and the previous science article was specifically to delineate the limits of science and highlight the way it easily morphs into a religious belief.
Thank you for clearly stating the obvious: Belief in evolution is absolutely a religious belief.
I love this, almost exactly how I explained my children to be wary when someone claims they have “the science”. Asking the right questions is the most important thing they can do today.
Real, true science is wonderful exploration!
“However, natural selection has never been OBSERVED to result in the development of a new species.”
— Also, vowel shifts have never been OBSERVED to result in the development of a new language.
Thank you for this clear exposition demonstrating the complementarity of true science and true faith. And it was a pleasure to read your refutation of the theory of evolution. An excellent piece!