Seraphim Rose - Genesis, Creation & Early Man

&

GENESIS, CREATION and EARLYMAN 'TheOrthodox(hristian ?ision

f*

FR.SERAPHIMROSE

ROSE HIEROMONKS[.:RAPHIM | 934,1982

SAINTHERMANOF ALASKABROTHERHOOD 2000

Copyright 2000 by the Sr. Herman ofAlaska Brotherhood First Printing Addressall correspondtnceto: St. Herman ofAlaska Brotherhood

P O. Box 70 Platina,California96076 Frontcouer: The creationofthe sun, moon and stars("lightsin the firmamenr ofrhe heavcns")on the Fourrh Day of Creation. lYallpaintingfom tbe Far Monasteryof St.John thc Forerunner,Greecc. Bachcouu: Fr SeraphimRoseright after being ordainedto the priesthood. Vome n, April Sr. HermanMonasterychurch,Sundayof the Myrrhbearing 1t124,1977.

Library ofCongrcssCatalogingin PublicationDara Rose,Fr. Seraphim(1934-1982). Cenesis, creationandearlyman:theOrthodoxChristienvision. Libraryof Congrcss Cataloguc Number:00-190128 ISBN t-887904-02-6

Contents Editor\ Preface: Tse SronyBEHTND THEBooK b1 HieromonhDamascene

l5

l. The Intellectual Milieu of Fr.Seraphim's FormativeYears 2. Fromthe EvolutionaryWorldviewro the OrthodoxlVorldview 3. The Rootsof Evolutionrsm 4. The Mind of the Holy Fathers 5. Evolurionand Chiliasn' 6. "Tiaditionalists" in Favorof Evolution 7. The ScientificSideof the Question 8. The "SurvivalCourse"and the Courses on Genesis 'fhe Planofthe Book 9. 10.Developme nts in the 1980s I l. Developments in the 1990s:PhillipE. Johnson 12.Changes in the OrthodoxVorld 13.BeyondDarwinism 14.The Present Book I 5. This Book'sPrimaryContributionto the Vorld 16.The Natureof Man

40 4l 4l 42 46

Introduction:Fn. Sr.nqlHn'{Rossero 2lsr-Cexruny Scrrxcr by Phillip E. Johnson

49

l . The Mechanismof Evolution:Murationand Selection 2. The CommonAncestryThesis 3. Evolution(in rheScienrificSense) Is lnherently Godless 4. Conclusion:Can Science Tell Us a Tiue Story aboutOrigins?

l5 l8 2l 22 24 7\

27 4)

34 35 )/

54 t8 60

6r

Corurrrrs

Con.rtNrs (Genesis 4: l-6:5) ChapterSeven:Ltrr Oursloe Penenrsr. ofAdam l. The Banishment 2. Cain andAbel from Adam throughSethto Noah 3. The Genealogy 4. The Corruptionof Mankind

PART I AN ORTHODOX PATzuSTIC COMMENTARYON GENESIS Editor'sNote 'Wsv Sruov rHe Boor or GrNests? Foreword:

65

ChapterOne: Hov ro Rrno GsNEsts

69 69

I . Approach 2. The Holy Fathers: Our Key to the Understanding of Genesis of Our Approachto Understanding 3. BasicPrinciples Genesis 4. Literalvs.SymbolicalInrerpretations 5. The Natureof cheText ChapterTwo:Tss Stx Davsor CnrarroN(GENER^L OnsrnverroNs)

o/

72 82 84 88

6:6-8:22) ChaprerEighr:THe FI-oon(Genesis oF THEPEopLEs ChapterNine:THt DtspensroN (Cenesis 9:l-l I :32) l. NoahandCod! NewCovenant of Noah 2. The Generations 3. The Towerof Babel

l. lntroduction 2. GeneralRemarksaboutthe Six Days 3. Why Six Days? ChaprerThree:THr Stx Devs(Dev rv Dnv) l:1-5) 1.The FirstDay(Cenesis 2. The SecondDay (Cenesisl:6-8) 3. The Third Day (GenesisI :9-13) 4. The FourthDay (Genesis l:14-19) (Genesis The Fifth Day l:20-23) 5. l:24-31) 6. The SixthDay (Genesis

106 106 il5 ll9 123 t28 t39

l:26-31;2:4-7) t45 ChapterFour:Tsr CneartoNor MeN (Genesis (Genesis 2:8-24) ChapterFive:P,q.RAotse

r64

ChaprerSix:Tue Fnll or MaN (Genesis l: l-24)

191

247 266 266 273 275

PART II THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION ChapterOne:ScrrNceaNo rne Holv FnrHEns

97 97 100 102

217 2t7 222 234 243

l. TrueTheologyand SecularKnowledge and ChristianPhilosophy 2. Science Fantasies from Scientific Materialistic 3. Disringuishing Truth 4. Scienceasa LowerForm of Knowledge 5. An Alien Systemof'Ihought CultureamongOrthodox 6. 'fhe i.ackof Philosophical Christians The Philosophy of the Holy Fathers 7.

283 283 287 288 290 291

291 292

ChapterTwo:A BnterCnrrlqul oF THEEvolurtoNanvMooel 293 l.lntroduction 2. HistoricalBackground 3. "Proofs"ofEvolution 4. The Theoryof EvolutionIs Understandable Philosophically 5. The ConflictbetweenChristianTiuth and EvolutionaryPhilosophy

293 296 300 315 1)4

CoNrnnrs

CoNreNrs Chapter-fhree:"CHnrsrlaNEvolu,rtoNlst'1" I . Introduction 2. Lecomtedu Notiy 3. Fr.AnthonyKosturos 4. Karl Rahner Trooster 5. Stephanus 6. The RomanCatholicView of OriginalMan Dobzhansky 7. Theodosius de Chardin 8. Teilhard 9. The Chiliasmof Teilhardde Chardin in the Light of Orthodoxy 10.Teilhardism of Teilhardde Chardin I I . "Orthodox"Followers

339 339 347 345 346 348 349 351 354 365 370 372

PARTIII THE PATRISTICDOCTRINEOF CREATION Editor'sNote Not Fact I . Philosophy, 2. A ClearDefinition Not Evolution 3. Development, 4. How Do the Holy FathersInterpretGenesis? l5:21) 5. "By Man CameDeath"(l Corinthians 6. DivineVision 7. The Natureof Man

379 382 383 385 lc) )

465 468 469 470 473 q /1

475 477 479 480 483 487 488 491 492 494 495 495 496 499 499

409 422

PART IV QUESTIONS AND ANSVT,RS l. The Ageof the Earth 2. Carbonl4 Dating Srrata 3. Geological 4. A Matterof Models 5. The Origin of the HeavenlyBodies(Patristic Cosmogony)

6. ScientificCreationists 7. VariousEvolutionaryIdeas 8. The Limitsof BiologicalChange 9. "Human Evolution" Inquiry I 0. The Limitsof Scientific I l. The BiblicalChronology of Souls,"Reincarnation," I 2. The Pre-existence and Evolution 13.The Natureof Paradise 14.FreeWill 15.The CreationofAdam and Eve 16.The Mind of Adam and Heaven 17.Paradise 18.The Devil 19.ChrisisSpiritualBody 20. The Firmament 21. The "Location"of Paradise 22. Betweenthe Falland the Flood 23. The Flood vs. ModernTextualCriticism 24. PatristicInterpretation 25. The Agesofrhe Patriarchs 26. DifferentInterpretations

457 459 460 461 462

PART V SELECTIONSFROM LETTERS I . A Key in the Programof Anti-Christianiry 2. TheisticEvolution to Orthodoxy 3. A RivalThought-pattern PrimordialForce 4. A Deep-seated 5. The ArgumentagainstEvolutionIs Not Scientificbut Theological Problems ofToday 6. The RealIntellectual 7. Such"Theology" We Do Not Need 8. A Productofthe "Spiritofthe Times"

503 504 507 510 511

5tz ) t4

5t4

CoNreNls

Cor'{rcNrs 9. LookingForwardwith an Open Mind 10.QuibblingoverVords I I . The Holy Fathersasthe Answerto Medieval Scholasticism 12.ScientificFaith 13.At Lastthe RealBattleBegins 14.Lovefor the Holy Fathers Ideas I 5. The Powerof This Vorld and lts Fashionable 16.UnknowinglyHarboring"ModernIdeas" 17.GenuineScience 18.ClearingUp Confusion of Christ 19.The Genealogies 20. The LargerIdeaof Naturalism \rY7ho 21. Scientists QuestionEvolution 22. AvoidingOne-sidedness 23. ThreeAxioms 24. Notesfrom a Dialogueon Evolution 25. Clergyin Greeceagainst"OrthodoxEvolutionism" 26. PeopleAre Readyto Hear This

5t, 5t5 ) to

5t7 524

527 528 529 530 sl) 533 t38 542

,4.r.lo EvoLurloNt, AppendixOne:Nores oN SCIENCE, PHu-osopnv CHnrsrr,rN Vorld I . The lncorruptionof rheFirst-Creared and the Questionoflncorruption 2. Science 3. Evolutionand "CosmicReligion" 4. The "Mysticism"of Teilhardde Chardin 5. Evolutionasthe ExactOppositeof Christianiry ShouldNot Be Indifferent 6. Vhy OrthodoxChristians to Evolution and "lvory-TowerOrthodoxy" 7. Paleontology Different fromAnimals 8. Man asQualitatively 9. The RomanCatholicIdeaofthe StateofAdam (Accordingto Fr. Michael Pomazansky) 10.Readingthe FossilRecord I l. An "lnferiorityComplex"amongChristians Foolsfue We? 12.Vhat Kind of Simple-minded Chronology 13.The Old Testament 14.The MissingEvidence

)4)

SruDIEs AppendixTwo:Ou.rLlNesoF PRoposED Editort Epilogue:EvolurroNlslrANDTHERrucloN or rHe Fvruae by HieromonkDamascene I . The Passing of ScientificMaterialism asthe Philosophy of Antichrist 2. Evolutionism "Prophet" 3. Teilhardde Chardinas 4. Elements of Teilhardisrr, Synthesis 5. A New Evolutionary for Christiansto be 6. The Minimum Requirements Acceptedwithin the New Synthesis 7. The "God" of the New Synthesis of Antichrist 8. The Philosophy behind the Philosophy The Spirit 9. Philosophy upon Christians 10.The Effectof Evolutionary I I . The "Vedge"and Beyond 12.The StateofOrthodoxyToday l0

545 545 548 550 552 557 564 565 575 581 583 587

I . Evolution 2. PatristicSection

591 591 593 594 596 596 598 599 600 600 601 601 602 602 603 604 604 6r2

AND AppendixThree:Fa.Ssnapstv'sLasr Talx oN CREATIoN 615 EvolurroN AppendixFour:THe Falru or RaololasrntcD.crlNc by Curt Sewell Dating l. Radioactive Errors 2. Experimenral 3. DocumentedDiscrepancies 4. Skull1470 5. GrandCanyonDating of Errors 6. Causes 7. OriginalIsotopicMaterial 8. Conclusion ll

626 626 627 oz/

628 629 631 632 635

CoxreNrs AppendixFive:SuccEsrtoREc.ntNcs by the Editor I. PatristicSources f l. Screnrific Sources l. InitialReading 2. OrherImportantScientificCritiquesof Evolutionism 3. On "Human Evolution" 4. On Radiometric Dating 5. On theAgeofthe Earth 6. On the Dinosaurs 7. On the Flood 8. On BiologicalVariation 9. On the Historyof Darwinism of the Holy Fathers 10.CreationScientisrs in Defense I | . Aids in Apologetics 12. For the EducationofChildren 'Where to Order TheseSources

636 636 637 637 638 640 640 641 642 645 646 646 646 647 647 648

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 represents one Hrs noox, compiledand publishedposthumously, Patrislife of the great in the I of rhemosrimportantachievements collectionof all Fr.SeraphimRose.It is an exhaustive tic philosopher, and from transcriptions rherelevantmaterial-both from manuscripts lectures-thatFr.Seraphimproducedon the subject of tape-recorded and creationoverthe courseof nine years,up until his reof Genesis studentofPatristic posein 1982.As such,it canbe usedby the serious philosophyas a compendiumthat may be referredto over and over gathagain.But it is morethan a textbook.Behindthe posthumously within the eredcomponentsof this book therelies a story: a story life and work, which wasalwaysconwhole story of Fr. Seraphim's cernedwith the ultimatemeaningof the beginningand end of all things.It is our purposehereto tell that story.

f

Fr SeraphimRoscamidstoneof the oldesrsrandsof livingtrccson earth, atopMount YollaBolly in northernCalifornia,October,l98l .

L TheIntellecnal Milieu of Fr. Seraphim's FormatiueYears In the 1950s,when Fr.Seraphim(then!,ugene)Rosewasattending high schooland collegein California,the theoryof evolutionwas overall competingviewsof lts ascendancy ar the heightof its prestige. culminatedin the greatDarwinCentheoriginof life andthe universe Universiry of Chicagoin 1959,commemoat the tennialcelebration rating the publicationof CharlesDarwint Origin of Spcuesone camefrom all overto sharein the trihundredyearsearlier.Scientists umph, not only of a scientifictheory,but of a worldview.As PhillipE. Johnsonwrites: l)

GeN:sts,CrearlorunNnEart-YM,rN "The parricipants in the Darwin Centennialwereunderstandably ofsciencewasneverhigher.Polio in a triumphalmood.'fhe prestige had beenconqueredby a vaccine;atomicpowerseemedto promise abundant,cheapenergy;spacetravelloomedin the nearfuture.Beestabsciencehad seemingly achievements, sidesthesetechnological of evolutionwasour true creatorand process lishedthat a purposeless hencehaddethronedthe God of the Bible.The religiousimplicarions by the most of this intellectualrevolutionwerefrankly emphasized the Britishbiologist,philosopher at the centennial, prominentspeaker SirJulianHuxley. and world statesman "JulianHuxleywasthe grandsonof ThomasHenry Huxley,who he wasthe most important wasknown as'Darwin'sbulldog'because earlychampionof Darwin'stheory.T. H. Huxleyhad alsoinventedthe ro describehis own religiousviews.Julian Huxley,a zoword agnostic synologist,wasone of the scientificfoundersof the neo-Darwinian thesis,rhe modern versionof Darwint theory. He was also the humanism,and religioncalledevolutionary promorerof a naturalistic generalof UNESCO,rheUnitedNationsEduthe foundingsecretary ln short,JulianHuxley cational,Scientificand CulturalOrganization. cenof the mid-rwentieth wasone of the mostinfluentialintellectuals tury, and 1959was the high-watermark of his influence.Here are at the centennial: from Huxleyt remarhs someexcerpts Veekasepitowill perhaps takethisCentennial Futurehistorians mizingan importantcriticalperiodin the historyof thisearrhof in theperson ofinofevolution, ours-theperiodwhentheprocess of itsell.. . This is oneof quiringman,bcganto be truly conscious which has been frankly facedthat all occasions on it the first public aspectsof realiryarc subjcctto evolution, from atoms and srarsto fish and flowers,from fish and flowersto human societiesand valof evolurion. ues-indeed,that all realiryis a singleprocess passage leading ro a newpsychosoopened the ln 1859,Darwin cial lcvel, with a new pattcrn of ideologicalorganizarion-an organization of thoughtand belief. evolution-centered patternof rhoughtthereis no longcreither ln rhe evolutionary The earthwas not crcatcd,it ncedor room for the supernatural. l6

Enrror's Pperace evolvcd.So did all the animalsand plantsthat inhabitit, including mind and soulaswell asbrain and body.So did our humansclves, rcligion. Evolutionaryman can no longertakerefugefrom his lonclincss in thc armsofa divinizedflther figurewhom he hashimsclfcreatcd, nor escape from rhe responsibiliry of makingdccisions by shclrering undcr the umbrellaof Divinc Authoriry nor absolvehimselffrom the hard taskof mcetinghis presentproblemsand planninghis future by relyingon rhe will of an omniscient,but unfortunatelyinscrutablc, Providence. Finally,thc evolutionary visionis enablingus to discern,howevcrincompletely, rhelincaments of the new religionrharwe canbe surewill ariseto servethe needsof the comingcra. In short, the triumph of Darwinism implied the death of God and set the stagefor replacingBiblical religion with a new faith bxed on evolurionary naturalism.That new faith would becomethe basisnot just of sciencebut also of government,law and moraliry. h would be the establishedreligiousphilosophyof modernity."' Someof the world'smost eminenrscientists-from fuchard Owen and Louis Agassizin the 1860s to Richard Goldschmidt and Otto Schindewolf in the 1940s-had shown to the scientific communiry the embarrassingdifficulties of the rheory that was being heraldedat the Darwin Centennial,but thesescienrisrshad been held up to ridicule and their valid objectionsdismissedout of hand. In addition to thesevocal critics, there was a silent group of scientistswho disagreed with evolutionary theory but were afraid to challengethe prevailing worldview.'fhe existenceof rhis group was even acknowledgedar the Darwin Centennial by the paleontologistEverettClaire Olson of rhe Universiryof California, who said,"lt is difficult to judge the sizeand composition of this silent segment,bur rhere is no doubt that the "' numbersare not inconsiderable. Vhether they were silencedor chose ro remain silent, the many scientistswho questionedDarwinism were nor heard by the American people. Consequently,when Fr. Seraphim began studying sci€nccin high schooland collegein the early 1950s,he was taughr that the cvo-

T7

CrNssIs, CRr-ArloNauo ErnlY MaN

and unassaillurionofall life from a primevalsouPwasan undisputed ablefact,assure(in JulianHuxley'swords)asthe factthat earthgoes aroundthe sun. '\Y'orlduiew the to 2. From tlte Euolutionary Worlduiew Orthodox ofa brilliantmind, Fr.Seraphimfrom a youngageexPossessed realiryin the highest hibiteda burningdesirerc hnow,to understand soughtknowledgein scienceand sense.In high schoolhe zealously Graduatingat the top of his algebra. biology,zoology, mathematics: to PomonaCollegein southern class,he was granteda scholarship of his mathteacher. endorsement California,thanksto theenthusiastic At Pomonahe continuedhis studyofscience'whichhe now comUnderthe influenceof the humanbinedwith a studyof philosophy. ofthinkerslikeJulian istsof his time,he joinedin thegrandenterprise ln a freshmanphilosowithout God. Huxley:to explainthe universe phy paper(1952),he stated: All sciencepoints to thc existenceof the Universe,the totaliry of all things. Nothing in sciencepoinrs to thc existenceofa God removed from thc Universe.For thc presenttime' since I have not yet dcvcloped my own theory of knowledgc,I assumefor convcniclcc' sake rhat I can gain knowledge (as certain as it caz be obtained) through science.Therefore,I bclievein the findings ofscience rhat point to the existenceofthc Universe;I rejectrhc conceptofan independent God for insufficientevidcnce. This statement may seem naive nowadays, when the despotism of

but it must be cha.llenged, scientificnaturalismis beingincreasingly ascendancy ofthe the decade 1950s, context ofthe in the considered of the DarwinCenof Humanismandthe triumphalpronouncements tenn ial. "At one time I believedentirelyin evolution,"Fr. Seraphimwas I had thoughrverymuch about laterto recall."I believednot because 'everyone it is a it,' because believes this question,but simplybecause l8

Enrron'sPnepecs

'fact,'andhow can one deny'facts'?...I still remembermy freshman professor ofzoolog/expatiaring on the 'grearideasof man':for him the greatestidea man ever inventedwas the idea of evolution;mucn greater, he believed, than the'ideaof Cod."' Ultimately,Fr. Seraphim's strivingto undersrand the meaningof realirycouldnot be satisfied by modernscience, dedicated asit wasto 'Wesrern materialism, nor by which had beenfoundedin philosophy, "lookingfor rationalism."l wasan undergraduate," he laterrecalled, somekind oftruth in philosophy, and not findingir. I wasverybored with Westernphilosophy."During his sophomoreyear he beganro seckhigherwisdomin rhe philosophyofancientChina,for which he rundertook a srudyofthe Chineselanguage, both ancienrandmodern. Fr. Seraphimgraduatedfrom PomonaCollegein 1956and pursuedhis study of ancientChineselanguageand philosophyat tne AcademyofAsian Studiesin SanFrancisco and laterat rheUniversiry of Californiain Berkeley. \X/hileat the Academy,he discovered the writingsof the rwentieth-century Frenchmetaphysician Reni GuCnon, a traditionalist who lookedto the ancienr,orthodoxexDression of the worldt religionsfor answersro ulrimarequesrions.GuCnon both clarifiedand transfbrmedFr. Seraphim's inrellectualourlook. Larerhe wrore,"lt wasGuCnonwho taughtme to seekand lovethe truth aboveall else,and to be unsatisfied with anythingelse." Fr.Seraphimteducationhadtaughthim to viewall thingsin rerms of historicalprogress, accordinsro rhe evolurionaryworldview of rhe modernage.Upon discovering GuCnon,he beganro seerhingsin termsof historicaldisintegration ln his book TheReignof Quantityand rheSignsof the Times,Gu|non explainedhow the eliminationof tradirionalspiritualprinciples has led ro a drastic degenerationof humaniry.He showedhow rwentieth-century science, with its rendency to reduceeveryrhing ro an exclusively quantitativelevel,hascorruptedman'sconceptionof true knowledge arrdconfinedhis visionto whatis temporaland material. GudnonwroteeIsewhere that,"in attemptingto reducewerything to the statureof man rakenasan end in himself,moderncivilization hassunk stageby sragero a levelof his lowesrelementsand aimsat little more than satisfringthe needsinherentin rhe marerialsideof his

t9

GeNesIs,Cnr:anou ,rNo ElnlY MrN

nature."r Trying to fill in the gap left by scienceand materialismin the havesprung up; but in their confusion modern age,"pseudo-religions" of psychicwith spiritual realiry they have only further obscuredthe trutn. Guinon wrote that 'the modern world, consideredin itself is an anomaly,and evena sort of monstrosiry"land he regardedthe modern scientific theory of evolution, which was developedin an attempt to asan offspringof this monexplain rhe universepurely naturalistically, "all is placedexclusivelyin realiry strosiry.ln evolurionism,he wrote, 'becoming'; involving the final denial of all in.rmutableprinciple, and "' of all metaphytic. consequenrly lt is likely that GuCnoncausedFr. Seraphimto questionevolutionism evenbeforethe latter beganhis conversionro Orthodox Christianity. "i beganto think more deeplyon this question [of evolutionism]," Fr. Seraphimlater recalled."l beganto seethat very often what cellsitself'science' is not fact ar all, 6t philosophl, and I began very carefully ro distinguish \etween scientifcfacx and scientifc philosophT." ln his freshman year at Pomona, Fr. Seraphim had trusted the modern scientificoudook. With his study of GuCnon, he was still to regardmodern scienceas a way to knowledge'but now he saw this as "knowledgeof the lowest,comnlonestsort." GuCnon had shown Fr. Seraphim what to leavebehind and had surted him on the path to Truth, but he had not shown him rhe final destination.He found this destinationwhen, by a miracle,he discovered that the Truth he was seekingwas a Person-Jesus Christ-lVhose imagewas preservedundistortedin rhe Orthodox transmissionof the very Christianity he had previouslyrejected. In Orthodox Christianiry Fr. Seraphim found the true, ancient worldview to replacethe modern evolutionaryone; and the key to this worldview he found in the writings of the Orthodox Holy Fathers. The theologyofthe Holy Fathers,he understood,was basedon the living, Persond revelationof God to man, and thus was of an infinitely higher order not only than science,but eventhan rhe metaphysicalinsightshe had gained through Gudnon. He neverceasedto appreciate the crucial step that Gu6non had given him on his path to Truth, but which placesthe intellection now he sawthat the path of metaphysics, 20

Eorron'sPnsrecs of rhe human mind aboveDivinely revealedtheology,is fraught with dangers,and thus leadsto subrle crrors mixed in with higher truths. \X/hile before he had relied on his mind to arrive at tuth, now he knew He had to humble his mind before the Trurh as Person:Jesus Christ. Shortly afier his conversion he wrote, "Vhen I became a Christian I voluntarily crucified my mind, and all the crossesrhat I bear have only been a sourceof joy for me. I have lost norhing, arrd gainedeverything."

3. TheRooxof Euolutionism

During the early yearsfollowing his conversion,Fr. Seraphim nradea thoroughexamination of the philosophical historyof \Vestern civilization,in orderto fully undersrand rhe pastcauses, presentstate "Old and futuredevelopment of the Vest'sapostasy from the Order" of traditionalChristiancivilization.Out of this studywasto comehis philosophical magnumopus,entirled T'hcKingdomof Man and the Kingdomof God. In ChapterFour of rhe proposedwork, Fr. Seraphimwasro discussthe new physicspropoundedat the end of the Renaissance by rhe rationalisrsBacon and Descarres, which viewedrhe universeas a closedsystemand aimedat giving first and.natural(i.e.,not Divine) causes to all physicalphenomena.* In the samechaprerhe wasto describethe modernphilosophyof progreswhicharoseat the end ofthe Enlightenment, displacingrhe srableworldviewthat had characterizedmuch of Enlightenmentthoughr.Theserwo a priori philosophical commitments-to naturalismand to progress-formedthe seedbed out of which camethe theoryof evolution,which was firsr proposedby CharlesDarwin'sgrandfatherErasmusin 1794.As Fr. Seraphimlarer observed,"'fhis rheorydevelopedtogetheruith the courseof modcrnpbilosophyfon Descartesonu.,ard,long before rhere wasany 'scientificproof' for it. The research Fr. Seraphimdid for his proposedbook wasprodi' For a gooddiscussion of the hisroricalrootsof naturalism, secMichaelDenrcn, Ettolution:A Tbeoryin Critis, pp.7l-73.

zl

GrNtsIs. Cnr.-euoNAND EARLYMAN

gious.'fhousandsof Pagesof noteswerewritten' but the work was nevercompleted,savefor ChapterSeven,on Nihilism'* By 1963' the future Fr. Herman,he washeavilyinalonswith his co-laborer, uoluJdin beginningan OrthodoxChristianBrotherhoodin SanFrancisco and opening the first city storefrontin America that sold Orthodoxmaterials. exclusively 4. I'he Mind of the HolT Fathers spiritualmentor,the sainrand In the meantime,Fr. Seraphim's ArchbishopJohn Maximovitch,had beguna sericsof miracle-worker timesa week which Fr.Seraphimattendedseveral courses, theological for threeyears.AlthoughFr. Seraphimwasan Americanconvertand at the headof he graduated wer..ondu.ted in Russian, all the courses covered,he wastaughtPatristics the class.Among the many subjects by BishopNektary (a discipleoF Optina Monastery,who later orby Archimandrite dainedhim ro the priesthood)and Old Testament manto Archbishop John)' elderandtheclosest Spyridon(aclairvoyant been had ideas he evolutionary [-ier., in contrastro the rationalistic of raughtwhile growingup, Fr. Seraphimlearnedthe revelation God the .r."tion of the universeand the natureof the Hiiself regar,Cing and the Godon throughthe Scriprures *orld, aspassed first-crenteJ instructhroughoutthe centuries'Fr.Seraphim's bearingHoly Fathers tors-Archbishop John, Bishop Nektary and Fr' Spyridon-were of moderntimes,and thus Fr' Seraphimwas Holy Fathers themselves not only from books,but able to receivethe Patristictransmission lt wasthroughthe lips of livof that transmission. from livingbearers wasopenedto ofsanctirythat the meaningof Genesis ing repositories him. In 1969FathersHermanand Seraphimmovedto the mountains of northernCalifornia,wheretheybecamemonksandcontinuedtheir work throughwriting, translatingand printing Orthodoxmissionary Fr.SeraphimconOrthodoxmaterial.There,in theirforesthermitage, Rose'ly'ibook: Eugcne(l-r'Scraphinr) asa scpararc 'Publishedposrhumously (1994)' Age Modern ofthe Reuohtion Root ofthe hilim: The

22

Eorron's Pnrracs

tinued to fill himself with the Scripturesand the writings of the Fa rhers,feedingon rhe true pasturesofthe soul. Over yearsofstudy, he rcquired extensiveknowledgeof Patristicteaching,which had alread been placedin the proper context for him through the courseshe had attendedin San Francisco.ln addressinga particularissuein his writings, he would make use ofa wide rangeof Patristicsourcesboth ancient and modern, from both Eastern and \Vestern Christendom many of them quite obscureand neverbeforerenderedin English. Fr. Seraphimi aim, however,was not to becomea scholarwhose specialrywas the Holy Fathers.Suchexperts,he wrote, are often'totd srrangersto the true Patristictradition, and only make their living ar irs expense."As always,he had to go deeper,to get the whole picrure He had not only to graspthe Fathers'writings intellectually,but ro ac wally acquire their mind, to learn ro think, feel and look at things as they did. He wanted their attitude to be his atrieude.Too often in contemporaryOrthodoxy the tendencyis to reinterpretthe Faith in order to conform it to the mind of modern man. Fr. Seraphimknew he had to do just the opposite:to conform his consciousness to the mind ol the Fathers,to plug himself fully into the rwo-thousand-year connnuiry of Christian experience. He actually sufferedover this, praying fervently to God. He personally addressedthe ancient Holy Fathersas fellow believersin the Body of Christ and as vehiclesof Divine wisdom, so that he would be given to see bow rhey apprehended realiry. He felt especially close to the fourth-century Father,St. Basil the Great, who among his many other major achievementswrote the definitive Patristiccommentary on the Six Days of Creation. In introducing rhe Lives and writings of the Fathers to modern-day readers,Fr. Seraphimwrote of their inestimableworth: Thereis no problemof our own confusedtimeswhich cannotfind its solutionby a crrefuland reverenrreadingof thc Holy Fathers: whethcrcomplcxphilosophical questions suchas"evolution,"or the straightfbrward moralquestions of abortion,euthanasia, and "birth control...." In all thcscqucstionsrhc Holy Farhers, and our living who followthem,areour only surcguide.5 Farhcrs

(lruesrs, CrserroN ,tNo EnnrYM,cN

Eorlon's [trsrece

5. Euolutionand Chiliasm

6. "Tiaditionalisx" in Fauor ofEuolution

Vhile working on TheKingdomof Man and theKingdomof God, Fr.Seraohimhad identifiedthe faithof modernmanasa secularform and in the perof chiliasm:the beliefin the inevitabilityof progress in its beliefin thegradual fectibilityof thisfallenworld.Evolurionism, from the lowerto the higher,wascloselyboundup with development words,it wasan "almostinevitablededucchiliasm.In Fr.Seraphim's rion from it." Toeetherwith chiliasm,evolutionwaswhat Fr.Seraphimcalled"a primordialforce,which seemsto capturepeoplequite deep-sJated (There'sa good aoarrfrom their consciousattitudesand reasoning. ,""ron fo, that: iis beendrilled into everyonefrom the cradle,and is veryhardto bringout andlook at rationally')"Echoingthe therefore wordsofJulianHuxley,who at the DarwinCentennialhadcalledevolution a "patternof thought,"Fr. Seraphimsaid that ft was"a riual to Orthodoxy, not just another idea'" And this tbought-pattern followeda coursethat was"just the ophe observed, thought-pattern, positeof what Christianiryteaches":

1b Fr. Seraphimit wasself-evidentthat evolutionism,with its rnnumerablecorollariesin modern thought and life, wasantitheticalto the Orthodox worldview that he had embraced.He wrote:

sccms certainly of"up fromthcbeasts" philosophy Theevolutionary "flll and Paradisc," from view of wirh the Chrisrian irreconcilable bywhichway bedetermined ourwholcviewofhistorywill certainly we believc! It was the chiliastic/evolutionarythought-pattern that had produced such politico-religiousmovements as international socialism (globalism)and ecumenism.All such movementssharethe samechiliastic goal' a coming "new order" in which all previousstandards,seen as relativeto a particularstagein a process,will be entirely changed' idea of Just as all distinctions betweenorganismsare blurred in the biologica.levolution-as the organismschangeinto one another over millions of years-so too all distinctionsbetweennationsand religions are blurred in the chiliastic"new world order."

24

asan rmev<.rlution, in all its ramifications, I havealwaysregarded "modcrn baggage which I American"intellectual porranrpart of thc left bchindwhcn I bccameOrthodox,and it nevcroccurredro me rhatanyawarcOrthodoxChristianwould regardit asunimportant, havcabandoned it (purelyon especially now when many scientists of its presuppositions scicntificgrounds),whenrhepseudo-religious suppartcrsarc so evidcnt,and when it is so much bound up with and the wholepseudo-religious outlook. Masonry-ecumenism Just how far his fellow Orrhodox Christianshad gone in accepring evolutionism was first made known to Fr. Seraphim in 1973. ln February of that year he helped and encourageda public school reacher,A. Y., to write and publish an Orthodox article againstevolurion. l'his article,as Fr. Seraphimlater wrote, "touchedsomethingvery deep." lt raiseda highly volatilesubjectwhich until then most Orthodox Christiansin the Vest had preferrednot to discuss.Soon after the arricle appeared,articlesbegancoming out in mainstreamOrthodox journals(especiallythoseofthe Orthodox Church in Arnericaand the Greek Archdiocese)in support of evolutionism.This was not surprising to Fr. Seraphim,for he had known ever since his conversionthat many of the mainstreamOrthodox in America had capitulatedto the spirit of rhis world and its intellectualfashions.However,he wasgenuinely surprisedwhen his fellow 'traditionalist" Orthodox, who like him were opposedto ecumenism,alsocameout in favor of evolutionism, and roundly censuredA. Y. becauseof his article! "Frankly," Fr. Seraphimwrote, "we are astonishedthat peoplewho areso keenon ecmatters,ecumenism,etc., should seemneverro havegiven clesiasrical much thought to such an important thing asevolution;apparentlyit is becauseit seemsto be outsidethe Church sphere."

GeNrsts,CtteltoN eNn EaRLvM,cN

Eorron'sPnnr,tce

To one of rhese'\raditionalisr" Orthodox, Fr. Seraphimwrote:

promisedto senda detailedreply in English,wirh quotesfrom the "Ve look forwardto thiswith openmind and someexHoly Fathers. "Ve hopeto receive wroteFr.Seraphim. pecration!" a confirmationof our suspicionthat he is quitewronglyusedasvirtuallya proponentof " cvolution. Severalmonths larer FathersHerman and Seraohimreceiveda fbrty-pageepistlefrom Kalomiros."l must confess,'; wrote Fr. Seraphim, 'that it is shockingbeyondour expectations-giving the 'evolutionary'teachingquite unadornedand unqualified,completewith the'evolvedbeastAdam'and'he who deniesevolutiondeniesthe Sacred Scriptures.'[n a way, however,we are rather glad of this-becausenow Jbr the Jirx time we have found a reputableOrthodox 'evolutionist'who is willing to be quite frank about matterswhich others,I believe, areafraidto speakup about." Fr. Seraphimpur all his energ;zinro composinga reply,which rurned out to be as long as Dr. Kalomiros'lerrer.Fr. Seraphim's letter-a rreatise, actually-is a masterpiece of Parrisricrhought,and we todaycanonly be gratefulthat his correspondence with Dr. Kalomiros inspiredhim ro write it. Up to today,it is rhe clearesr, most completePatristicrelirtationof evolutioneverwritten.

We fullyagrecwirh A. Y that"evolutionisoneofthc mostdangerous concep$ thar facesOrthodox Christiansroday"-perhaps it is the very key (intellecual)to rhc assaultupon the Chrrrch,to thc vcry "philosophy"(andthereis sucha thingl)of the comingAntichrisr. With this in mind, he encouragedA. Y. to write a booklet on evolutionism. In the meantime,he made his own in-depth study, both of the scientifictheory of evolution and of the teachingof the Holy Fathers regardingcreation, the first-createdworld and the first-creared man. He discoveredthat the ancient Fathers,although they ofcourse did not refuteevolution/c/ Jr (sinceit had not been invented until recenr rimes), provided a definite refutation of its main tenets.They spoke at length on the distinction berweenthe "kinds" of organisms both at the time of their creation and afterwards,and were clearly against any philosophy that would confuse this distinction. Their teaching allowed for uariationwithin each kind, which is observable and scientificallydemonstrable,but was adamantly opposed to the idea that one kind could be transformedinto another,which to this day has not been provedscientifically. Having studied the doctrine of the Holy Farherstouching on the creationof man and the world, Fr. Seraphimlound it so clear that he was "simply amazedat the power 'evolution' has over even educated Orthodox minds. Such is the power of this world and its fashionable ideas." All the living transrnittersofPatristic tradition whom Fr. Seraphim knew wereawarethat evolutionarytheory was a faith rather than pure science.The critics ofA. Y.'sarticle,however,kept holding up a traditionalist Orthodox writer and medicaldoctor, Dr. AlexanderKalomiros, as one who was pro-evolution.Not being able to read Kalomiros' article in Greek, Fr. Seraphim was frustratedat having his name repeatedlythrown at him in this way. He had appreciatedthe English translationof Kalomiros' strong critique of ecumenism,Again* Fake {Jnion, and could not imagine how the sameauthor could be in favor of evolution. He wrote to Kalomiros askine his views, and the latter

7. TheScientifc Sideof the Quexion By this time, rhe originalideaof comingout with a bookleton no longerseemed evolutionism adequate to Fr.Seraphim.Now he and A. Y beganto planwritinga completebook.Fr.Seraphimwasro wnre aboutthe Patristicteachingon creationand earlyman,and alsoabour the philosophical originsof evolution,while A. Y. wasto wrireabout evolurionasscientifictheoryand about"Christianevolurion.""Our study,"wrote Fr. Seraphim,"is supposed to givea 'complete'picture, which hopefullywill clarify many minds. It! cerrainlyclarifiedmy own mind, sincepreviously I hadnt thoughtin detailon manyaspecc of the question." Fr.Seraphim's correspondence with Dr. Kalomiroshad underlined for him the importanceof beingabreast with scientificdiscussrons on the subjectof evolurion.Dr Kalomiroshad pridedhimselfon stand27

GrNesIs. Cnr",qrroNnNo Eanrv MaN

Eolroa's Pnerace

ing superior to these discussions, since they were "Western" and thus "not Orthodox." As Fr. Seraphim pointed out, however,

rcmpt, as a Patristicscholar,ro make rhe ancienr Fathersbelieverr as well. After the 1950s,this siruation beganto change.One by one, the "silent dissenters"menrioned ar rhe Darwin Cenrennial beganto surfice. Reputablescientistsbeganraisingseriousdoubrsabout evolution, ,rnd therewerejusr too many ofthem to be silenced.New advancesin the "hard sciences"of moleculargenetics,embryology,erc.,were making it very difficult for scienriststo reconciletheir data with rhe neoDarwinian model. Scientific books came our which were critical of [)arwin's theory, including Implicationsof Euolution(1961) by G. A. Kerkut, professorof Physiologyand Biochemistryat the Universiryof Southampron,England, and L'Euolutiondu uiuant(1973) by Pierre11 (lrassi, one of the world s grearesrliving biologistsand ex-presidenrof the FrenchAcademyofSciences.Dr. Grassiendedhis book by issuing this devastatingindicrment of Darwinian evolution:

The questionofevolution can'tbe discusscdat all ifonc doesn'thavea basicgraspof thc scientificside of it (the "scientificproofs" of it) as well as the broaderphilosophyof evolution basedon it (Teilhardde Chardin, etc.).... By this I doni mean that onc has to be a scientific specialistin order to discussthe scientificside of rhe question-rhe scientificside is not tbe most importanr one, and specialistsusually trip themselvesup by concentratingtoo much on it; but if onc isni sufficicntly aware of the scientific side one won't bc able to grasp the florcxample, questionin its full scope.One can'tsaywith assurance, whether rnan has been on earth some sevenor eighr rhousrnd years ("more or less,"asthe Fathersoften say)ifonc is totally ignorantofthe principlesof radiometricdating, geologicstrata,etc., which "prove" that man is "millions ofyears" old. And such knowledge is not esoreric ar all-the basicprinciplesof radiometricdating (cnoughto show irs strongand weak points) can be explainedin a rathershort article'.. . . 'fhis is jusr a sampleto show that to get an1'where in this questionone of the scientilicevidcnccsfor must have a basic,layman'sawareness and againstevolution. If one is reasonablyobjectiveand not out to "prove onet point" at any cost, such questionsnced not arouscpassionatedcbates.fu a bruic principle,ofcourse, we must assumethat scientificrzl (asopposedto variousopinionsand prejudices)cannot contradict revealedtuthif

only wc understand both correctly.

rwentieth century as we have seen, sctentists were loath to question the evolutionary model. They would During the first halfofthe

savethat ens-f61 on it everythingelse,all their resreveryhypothesis classification of data, rested.Those few scientists-includingsome veryimporrantones-who daredto underminethis dogmawereconsidered"heretics"and wereblacklisted.When Dr. Kalomiroswasgobut ing to schoolin the 1950s,it was not only unfashionable his atoositivelyanathemanot to believein evolution;and hence 'Ve haveprovidedsuchan arriclein AppcndixFour,pp.626-35.

28

Through use and abuseof hidden postulares, of bold, often illfbundcdextrapolations, a pscudoscience hasbeencreared.It is taking roor in thc veryhcartof biologyand is leadingastraymanybiochemistsand biologisrs, who sincerely believethat the accuracy of fundamenralconceptshas bcen demonsrrared, which is not rhe casc.(' In spite ofsuch srarementsby mainstreamscienrists,the debateas to whether evolutionarytheory was a pseudoscience remainedfor the most parr within the walls of the scientificestablishment;it was still not known to rhe public. As far as the Americanpublic wasconcerned, evolution was still just as much an incontrovertiblefhct in the 1970sas it had been in the 1950s,when both Fr. Seraohimand Dr. Kalomiros had gone to college.Peoplewishing to learn*har was reallyhappenrng in the scientificcommuniry would haveto familiarizerhemselves with specializedbooks and journals. In his sinceredesireto know whar modern sciencehad to sayabour sv6l11l6n-q7lx1 was actually proved and whar was sp€cularion-Fr. Seraphimstudied the mainsrreamscienrificliterarure,aswell as popular treatmentsofthe "proofs"ofevolution and human origins. He also 29

GsNrsrs,CnrartoNnNo EanrvM-rn spoke to scientistsworking within the prevailingestablishment,who told him that many of the evolutioniststhemselvesadmitted that there was not actualproof for it, but that it "makesmore sense,"or "the alternariveis unthinkable"-i.e., Codt creation. For a true scienrisr, they maintained,the pure theory ofevolution is a convenientmeansof classifying,and another model equally scientificwould be just as acceptable. Through his studiesand personalcontactsFr. Seraphim,although he possessedno scientific degrees,became more abreastof the current statusof evolutionarytheory than Dr. Kalomiros.Assuring Dr. Kalomiros that he was not "againstscience,"he wrote to hinr: Youscemto be unawareof the greatmassof rrrntifc literaturein re' thcory which cenryearswhich is highlycriticalof the evolutionary insteadofscientific it to poetryand metaphors ralksaboutrelegating ofCaliprofessor ofbotanyat the Univcrsiry theory(Prof.Consrance, fornia,Bcrkelcy),or cvcndenyits validiryaltogether.lfyou wish (but I couldindeedcompilea lix of hundred:(if nor it is quitepointless!), thowand:)of repurablescientistswho now eitherdisbelievein evoluscientifictheory. tion entirelyor statethat it is highlyqucstionable In his studies,Fr. Seraphimappreciatedthe work of the scientific creationists,a group o[ ProtestantChristians who were also professionalscientists.The creationsciencemovement had beencatalyzedin America with the publication of the seminal textbook The Genesis Flood6y Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. John Whitcomb in 1960 (only a year after the Darwin Centennial),. and its growth had precisely coincidedwith the growing doubts about evolutionary theory within the scientificestablishment.From its inception, its strategywas to emohasizenot how much evolution contradictsthe Bible, but how much and influencecaused it contradictsscientificevidence.Its earlysuccess evolutionistsro take the offensive,caricaturingthe creationistsand ac' ln 1932a similarmovernenthad starredin England,callingirsclfrhe EvoluDewar.Conrinuing rion Proresr Movenrenr.Irs prime moverwasbiologisrDor-rglas Movemenr. itswork to thisday,it is now known asthe CreationScience

30

Eolroa's Pnerrcr (using them of religious bias while not acknowledging rheir own rr'ligiousbias.As Dr. Henry Morris wrote: 'l'he answerof rhe evolurionary esrablishment to the crearionisr argumcnrshasnor bcenscientific,but emorional.Intimidationis evidcntlythegameplan.The A.C.L.U.filesor threarens to file lawsuirs whcrevera rwo-model[creation/evolurion] approachis considered in a schooldisrricr.A verirable streamof anti-creationist tiradeshas pouredforth from the libcralnewsmedia,aswellasrhejournalsand booksof thc cducational/scicnrific esrablishment. Evolutionisrs ouoliclygloarover the mcrcstsuggcstion of a misqrroration or misrepresentationwhich thcy can discovcrin thc copiouslydocumented creationistliterature,while rheir own writingsare saturatcdwirh out-of-context quotesand flagrantdisrortionsof the creationist ar8Une nts. Thus, by the time Fr. Seraphimwas making an in-depth study of rhis subiect in rhe early 1970s, the crearionisrmovemenr had been made an object of ridicule in rhe public mind. Fr. Seraphim himself was at flrst somewhatskepticalabout the movement, not becausehe was swayedby public opinion (in which he had absolutelyno rrusr), but becausehe saw the movemenras being basedon the rarionalistic, "cornmon sense" Scriptural interpretation of Protesrantismrather than on the Divinely revealedinterprerarionof the Orthodox Holy Fathers.However, when he actually studied books by leading scientific creationists-in particular 'l-he GenesisFlood and Scientifc Creationism, both by Dr. Henry Morris-he was impressed by their careful researchand sober,thoughrful presenration."Their presentation of the'Creation Model,"' he wrote, "is a promising approachto a more objectiveview of the whole question." Fr. Seraphimlookcd ro scientificcrearionisrsnot to resolvequesrions of theology and philosophy.(For thesequesrions,of course,he rurned to the Holy Fathers,as well as to rraditional Orthodox philosopherssuch as lvan V Kireyevsky,Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, and Constantinel-eontiev.)Rather,he usedrhe work of the scientific creationistsexclusivelyto deal wirh quesrioltsraisedby modern sci3l

GeNrsIs,Cne,rrIoNrNo liaprv M,c.r'l

Eorron's Pre.rx;r

ence, in order to suppott the teachings he had alreadyfoundin Patris' tic theology. Although these scientistsindeed lacked the Patristic understandingof the nature of man and the first-createdworld (and in generalthe whole Patristicfield of commentary on Genesis),their books presentedfacts which pointed to the fixiry of the "kinds" of animals, the global Flood, and a (relatively)recent creation-all of which Fr. Seraphimhad found statedunequivocallyin the writings of rhe Holy Fathers.Hence, without intending to, theseProtestantscientistswere in many waysservingas activedefendersof PatristicOr-

Wcsrern thought from the Great Schism to the presenr.For all the rrrlkshe wrote extensiveoutlines, organizing the vast historical and philosophical researchhe had done for The Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God. This was the ripened fruit, not only of rhar early research,but also of his rich store of experienceas an Orthodox Chrisrian. He was now much better equipped than before ro presenthis knowledgein a way that would havea pracricalapplicationto the lives of contemporarypeople. He called his lecture seriesa "Survival (lourse" becauseof his beliefthat, in order for peopleto surviveas Or-

thodoxy. Fr. Seraphimt respectfor this courageousgroup of scientistsonly increasedwhen he made contact with the lnstitute for Creation Research,locatedin his hometown ofSan Diego. He subscribedto their newsletter Acts and Facts, often discussing interesting new articles with rhe brothers at the monastery Frequentlyhe referredhis fellow Orthodox Christiansto the many books put out by the Institute, bcginning with the introductory work Scientifc Creationism.*

rhodox Christiansnowadays,they had to understandthe apostasy,to know why the modern ageis the way it is. ln order to protect oneself, one must havean idea ofthe srrategyofone! enemy.Fr. Seraphimalso "a coursein Orthodox self-defense." calledhis classes lwelve lectureswere given by Fr. Seraphim,each of them several hours long. The elevenrhlecturewason the subjectofevolution. Here Fr. Seraphimbrought to bear not only his early research,but also his more recentstudiesfor the proposedbook on the Patristicunderstanding of crcation. In the lecture,he discussedevolution from all the diff-erenrpoints of view-the historical, scientific, philosophical,and theological-and ended with a prescnrationof the variousexpressions of "Christian evolutionism," especiallythat of -leilhard de Chardin. The lecturewas thus a rich summary of all his thoughrson rhe subject un untrl lyl). In subsequentyearsFr. Seraphimcontinued ro write notesand outlines on creationand evolution.'fhen, in 198I , only a year befbrehis death,he took up the subjectagainin earnest.During the "New Valaam 1-heologicalAcademy"coursein the summer ofthat year,he gavea seriesofclasseson the Patristicinterpretationofthe firsr threechaptersof the book of Genesis.He put much effort into theseclasses beforehand, writing out an extensivemanuscriprofa verse-by-vcrse commentary filled with Patristicquotations,many of which he translatedhimself. His eight yearsof contemplating,readingand praying about this subject had not been in vain. His seriesof classes was the product of a matured Patristicmind, of one who, perhapsmore than anyone else in modern times, had searchedthrough the whole sum ofthe teachinBof the Fathersin order to find and elucidate the single Patisric doctrine of

8. The "suruiual Coursc"and the Courseson Genesis The book that Fr. Seraphimplannedwas neverfinished.A. Y' sent rough drafts of his own sectionsto Fr' Seraphim,which the latter revisedand augmentedwith his own writings, evensendingit to a professorof natural sciencesfor review;but still the book remained in a rough and fragmentary state. ln rhe meantime,however,Fr. Seraphimcontinued to do research' write and speakon evolution and the Patristicview ofcreation In the summer of 1975, with the aim of giving pilgrims to the monasterya foundarion in Orthodoxy' FathersHe rman and Seraphim held a three-weekcourse, naming ir the "New Valaam Theological Academy."Fr. Seraphimgavea seriesoflectureson the developmentof 'The cstccmwirh which he camcto regardrhc Institutc for CrearionRcsearch 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. SeeAppendix 1'hree,pp. 615-25.

32

.il

Cta,trIopann EnnlvMrN GsNtsts, And how exaltedwas the teachingof the Fathersthat he Creation. pouredforth, how much moreinspiringthan theattemptsof othersto fashions! to modernintellectual conformthe Holy Fathers At the nextAcademycoursein the summerof 1982,Fr' Seraphim the fourth this time discussing continuedhis commentaryon Genesis, Within two weeksafterfinishingtheseclasses to the eleventhchapters. fell ill, and within anotherweekhe reposedin the he unexpectedly Lord. His Patristiccommentaryon Genesis,therefore,was the last of his life. achievement 9. ThePkn of the Book In Fr.Seraphim!earlyplansfor the proposedbook,he thoughtit of evolutionfirst,showingthat it has bestto beginwirh a discussion to supportit, and then to presentthe no coercivescientificevidence of creation.At that time,he thoughtthat this Patristicunderstanding was necessarybecause,before people could even take the Patristic they first had to understandthat what they had teachingseriously, learnedall their livesabout the undisputedfacr of evolurionwas in fact disputed. At the end of his life, Fr.Seraphimthoughtdifferently.In his last statedplanofthe proposedbook,he saidit shouldbeginwith his Pa(i.e.,his l98l and 1982lectureseries), rristiccommentaryon Genesis of evolution."'l'he whole which would be followedby a discussion "lt shouldbe called wrote. clearto me," he outlineof it now becomes Creation somerhingpositive(no evolutionin the title), suchas Genesis, main part should View, the first and and and EarlyMan: An Orthodox (accordingto St. John Chrybe simply an Orthodox inrerpretation of Genesis'discussing the first chapters sostom,St. Ephraim,etc.)of 'problems'raisedby modern men in the courseof the discusston. thought(lessthan half the book),a discussron Then, asthe secondary composthumous of thewholequestionofevolution."ln the present, pilation,we havefollowedthisplan. changehis planlor the book?One cluemay \Vhy did Fr.Seraphim be found in the followingwordswhich Fr. Seraphimwrote in the springof 1981:

34

Euron's Prrrncr Thinkingaboutmy Genesis coursethissummer,I wasrereadingpart of Dr. Kalomiros'letrers.How discouraging! One losesall inspirarion ro gettanglcdup in rhissubject,sceinghow he handlesir... . Anyone who is rcallyconverted to Chrisrianirywill surelybeginro rethink his wholeinrellecrual outlook,woni hel Isn'rthe realproblemrhat Dr. Kalomiros... andothersareinrellectuals who haven't fllly converted, or havcbroughthcir intellecrual baggage wirh rheminroOmhodoryi Fr. Seraphimhad frankly becomebored wirh rhe idea ofhaving ro presencthe Parrisricteachingon crearionexclusivelyas it relatedto the nrodern intellecrualbaggageof evolutionism. He had done rhis in his letrerto Dr. Kalomirosback in 1974, but now, as he was preparinghis Patristiccommentary eight yearslater, he had distancedhimself from the controversy.He saw that the whole weight ofthe Parristicreaching on the creationwas so powerful and compelling thar the unprovedassumprions and confused thinking of modern evolurionisrspaled in comparison.l'he Patristicreaching,Fr. Seraphimsaw,could stand on its own Divine authoriry,even before modern minds raisedon evolutionary teaching;and a discussionof evolution was only neededas a secondaryconsideration. 10. Deuelopments in the 1980s This wasprobablythe main reasonwhy Fr. Seraphimwanted to reversethe original order of the book. But there was possiblyanother reason:in the last rwo yearsof Fr. Seraphim'slife, a change had begun to occur in the public'saccepranceofevolurion. We have mentioned earlier how, in the 1960sand 1970s,the growing doubts ofscientists about neo-Darwinism had beenmostly hidden behind the walls ofthe scientificcommuniry. By the end of the seventies, thesewalls beganto crumble. The first fissureoccurred when rhe prominent paleontologists Niles Eldredgeand StephenJay Gould publicizedtheir new evolutionary theory of"punctuated equilibrium" to accountfor rhe lack of transitional, evolutionary lorms in the fossil record (which forms would be expecredaccordingto classicalneo-Darwinism). The new theory was not ofgrear interestto the generalpublic, but what was re-

35

GrnesIs, Cnr,rrtou ,lNo Eanu M,rN

gardedas really newsworthywas that, contrary to popular belief, the fossilrecorddid not at all fit Darwinian expectations.CoLrld went so far as ro call the lack of transirionalforms the 'trade secretof paleontology."This becameinternationalnews,and it set in motion the next phasein the crumbling of the Darwinian edifice. Another extremely important development,beginning in 1980, was the resurgenceof catastrophismin geology.Ceologistsbegan to challengethe reigning uniformitarian model that had inspired Darwin (the idea that the sedimentarylayerswere formed gradually,at consrantrates),demonstratingthat ir was incapableof accountinglor the rock beds of the earth'scrust, especiallythe fossil deposits.A have number of geologisa, calling themselves"n€o-catastroPhists," thus returnedto the idea that practicallyall the stratawere formed by Although they reject Biblical cafloods and other such catastrophes. tastrophism and retain the srandard evolutionary/uniform itarian framework of billions of years,these non-crearionistgeologistshave offered secularconfirmarion of what Flood geologistssttch as Henry Morris havebeensayingfor years. In the yearsfollowing Fr. Seraphim'sreposein 1982, new developments havecontinued to bc seen.More non-Christian,non-creationist scientistshave made known the facr that the neo-Darwinian theory does not account for the new data in the fields of geology,paleontolory, astronomy,genetics,physics,biochemistry and other sctences. Some are looking for a new model, though they hardly know where to turn. It is of coursetoo much to assumethey will all turn to the "Creation Model," since,as Fr. Seraphimpoinred out, neither creation nor evolution can be conclusivelyproved: both are a matter of faith and philosophy,of a choiceol' presuppositions. A number ofgood books havecome out sinceFr. Seraphimt death which havehelpedto bring the fallaciesof neo-Darwinisminto public view. In 1985 thereappeareda book by Australianmolecularbiologist Michael Denton, Euolution:A Theoryin Clrirr, which offered a systematic critique of the current evolutionarymodel from a varieryof scientific disciplines. From his own specialry,Denton showed that the of molecularbiologistsarecastingmore and more doubt on discoveries Darwinian claims. JO

Eorron's Prupr,cn

1 L Deuclopntenx in the 1990s: Phillip E. Johnson -fhe most interestingand unexpectedevent in the evolution debate in recentyearshasbeenthe riseofa prolessorof law, Phillip E. Johnson, ;rsone of the world's leadingcritics of Darwinism. Johnson,who has reught law at the Universiryof California at Berkeleyfbr nearly thirry vcars,saysthar one ofhis specialties is "analyzingthe logic of argumenrs ,rnd identiSing rhe assumptionsthat lie behind thosearguments."In 1987, in reading the argumentsfor evolution in Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmakcr,he noticed that they were basedon rheroric rather than hard science."l could see,"he recalls,'ihat Dawkins achievedhis word magic by the very tools thar are familiar ro us lawyers.... I picked up one book afrer another,and becameincreasingly f.rrscinated with rhe obviousdifficultiesin the Darwinist case-difficulties that were being evaded by tricky rhcroric and empharic repetiu()n. Johnson also noticed the way his scienrificcolleaguesresponded when he askedhard questionsabout Darwinism: Instcadof takingthe intcllectual quesrions seriouslv and responding to them,rhcywouldanswcrwichall sortsofevasions and vaguelanguage,makingit impossible to discuss rhcrealobjccrions to Darwinism.'fhis is the waypeoplcralkwhcn rhey'rerryingvcry hardnor ro understand something. Anothertip-offwasthesharpcontrasrI noticcdberweenrhccxrremelydogmarictonethat f)arwinistsusewhcnaddressing thegcneralpublicand thc occasional frank acknowledgments, in scicntific circles,ofseriousproblemswith the theory.... It wasan enormorrs shockro mc gcrtinginro rhisto see,in facr, how bad the reasoning rcallyis, how illogicalthc whole scientific fieldofevolutionis and how rcsisranr rhescicntisrs arcro havingany logic broughtinro ir. So I felr like rhercwasa rcalopportuniryfor sonrcbodyoutsideof scienccwhosc inrercsrwas in good logical thinking rarherrhan promotingany one particularsetof solurions, and rhar'srhemissionI'vebeenon cver:ince.,,.

37

GrNrsIs. Cnl,'rtlolt run E,tPrYMrN who spendtheir lifetimesstudyingbiologywill be teBiologisrs on the dctailsofwhat they'velearned obviously, gitimatearrrhorities, that,but can'treallychallenge and an outsider in thar investigation, when theirrhinking,Particularly an outsiderdefinitelycanchallenge of it rurnsout that theybelievein whartheybelievein not because what they know asbiologists, bu in spiteof what they know as bimovementbasedon materialism...So, ologists.lts a philosophical that'sa thinkingissue,and iri reallymorewithin my disciplinethan ir! within rheirs.' Irr l99l ProfessorJohnson came out with the 6ook Darwtn on in cutting through the rhetoric of DarwinTiial. His clear-headedness foundations of the controversyquickly logical the ism and exposing alike, and also won him the respectofcreationistsand non-creationists the ire of the die-hardcvolutionists,who to this day have not succeeding in refutinga singleone of his arguments Johnson'swork has inspiredmore scientiststo come into the oPen 'fhe most wirh rheir own hard questionsabout evolutionarytheory. well-known among theseis Professorof BiochemistryMichael Behe' who in his 1996 book Darwini BlachBox showsrhar the astonishing ofbiochemistry cannot be accommodatedby any form new discoveries of Darwinism. He presentsevidencefrom his field that interdcpendent although not being a biochemicalmachinesmust have 6een designcd, creationisthe doesnot positivelyidentifr the Designer. ln 1997 another thought-provokimgbook landed a strong blow againstDarwinism: Not b7 Chance!byDr. Lee Spetner.An Israelibiophysicistand experton the geneticcode,Spetnerhasspcnt thirry years researchingthe possibility of evolution on th€ geneticlevel. He nor only showswhy random mutationswill neverProducethe changesthat evolutionistsclaim, but also offers new scientificavenuesfor investigaringhowyari^tion occurswithin the strict geneticlimits ofeach kind of organism. The following year saw the publication of yet another maior ]Vy'llliamA. Dembski, a professor contribution: The DesignInferenceby of mathematicsand philosophy,and a recent convert to Orthodox

38

Eorron's Pnr.r,qce (.lrrrstianiry.*On the basis of mathemarical probabiliry Dembski dcrnonstratesconclusivelythat undirected natural causescannor ac( ount for biologicalcomplexiry As suchcontributionscontinue to be made,Professor Johnsonuses thcm to advancerhe casefor a Crearor.Vith his backgroundin politicirl theory,he is a carefulstrategist.He seeshis work and the work of orherslike him in terms ofa "wedge"straregy."The idea," he says, 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 and get it up fronr and takerhe punishmenrand rakeall the abuse, andthcn you gerpeopleusedto talkingabourit. lr becomes an issue thcyarctrsedto hearingabour,andyou geta few morepeopleanda few more,and rheneventually you'velcgitimatedir asa regularpart of rhc academic discussion. And thar'smy goal:ro legitimaterhearBumcntovercvolurionand particularlyoverrhe Darwinianmechanism and its supposedcreativepower, ro legitimarcthar as a mainstream scicnrificandacadcmic issuc.As soonaswe cando that and pur rhc sporlighton it, thcn everybody knowsrharthereis no evidence. So,wc cani losethe argumcnr.Ve're boundro win it. \We jusr havcto normalizeir, and rhat rakespatienceand persistence, and rhat! whatwe arcapplying.ro ProfessorJohnson is also an admirer of Fr. Seraphim, and has soughtto make Fr. Seraphim'slife and work more widely known.** W'e are grateful lor his introduction to rhe presentbook. ' AnorherOrrhodoxChrisrianprcscndyactivcin rcfuringevolurionism is John Mark Reynolds, Professor of Philosophy ar BiolaUnivcrsiry. In a recent(1999)anthology lre affirms rhar "The Fathersfrom rhe firsr cenruryforward overwhelmingly took a youngcarrh,global-flood view.. . Simplydiscarding rhe viewsof rhe Fathers is not an option for any rhoughtful Christian" (Moreland and Reynolds,ed., Tbrce Viewson Cteation and Euolution, p. 97). reviewof Fr. Seraphimtbiography, '" SccPhillipJohnson's publishcdfirsr in Boob & Cultare(Seprembcr/October, 1997)and laterin the collcctionofJohnsont r'\\.ryt. ( )b|?.tton!Suttaned.pp. )-3 --8.

39

GsNe.sts,CnterIoN AND EARLYMAN

12. Changesin the Orthodox lVorld 'fhe "wedge"ofwhich Professor hasnot beenwithJohnsonspeaks in the Orthodox world. In 1998 TheChtistianActiu' out reDercussions rir-a popular Orthodox journal that reached75,000 Orthodox an articleby Dr' Kalomrros Christianiof all backgrounds-published which claimedthat modernevolutionary (who had recentlyrePosed) theory was comprtiblewith Orthodox Christianiry'There was of coursenothingunusualaboutthis.As we haveseen,Orthodoxjourmanytimesin of evolurionism nalsin AmericahadshownaccePtance reactionto readers' wasthe the past.Vhat uar unusualand surprising TheChristianActiuisthad alwaysreceivedlarge Dr. kalomiros' ^ti,cle. amountsof mail, but this time theywereinundared'ln the following issuethe publisherwrote: 'We receivcdmore lctters to the cdiror about issue#ll than any other prior issuc.Ve also rcceivedmore letrerson "Eternal Vill"' rhe articlc on creation by Dr. Kalomiros, than any arricle wc have ever publishcd,all of thcm in disagreementwith his views'

Enrror's Pnsr,rcc .irnr by his fillow Orthodox. Now public opinion has begun to catch rrp wirh him. 13. Bryond Daru,inism lnterestingly,Fr. Seraphim predicted these developments.In his in modern science writings and talk, he said that atheism/agnosticism and philosophy,which relies heavilyon Darwinian theory, would incvitably wane. This will be a boon for traditional Christians and for rhoseseekingthe true God; bur for others, Fr. Seraphimsaid, it will lcad to a vaguedeism and variousshadesof pantheismthat will characrerizerhe deceptive"religion of the future."* Phillip E. Johnson,as a Christian who is on the front lines of the crearion/evolutiondebate,agreeswith the prognosisthat Fr. Seraphim nradeover rwo decadesago. "lt is whar all my friendsand I havebeen tliscussing,"he says."Scientific materialismis waning, but unhealthy forms of religion will largely take irs place."'t For Orrhodox Christians,this is all the more teasonto cling firmly to the common teaching of rhe Holy Fathers,whom Fr. Seraphim called a "sure guide to rrue Christianiry" 14. 7'bePresentBook

The editorwiselydecidedto print largeportionsof Fr' Seraphim's presentathat Fr' Seraphim's with a statement letterto Dr. Kalomiros, the was indeed on the subjectofevolution tion ofthe ChurchFathers traditional,Orthodoxone.*" The responseto the 1998 ChristianActiaist aricle reptesenreda articlesevokednothmaiorshift rincethe 1970s'when pro-evolution Orthodoxcirmainstream in ing but cautioussilenceor openapproval cle1.At that rime, Fr. Seraphimhad goneagainstpublic opinion in AmericanOrthodoxy,and wasthus subiectedro criricontemporary ' Fr. Scraphim'slcncr to Dr. Kalomiroshad previouslybccn publishedin a spccial doublc-issucof thc Orthodox iournal Epiphany(Fall 1989-Vinter 1990)' edired 'I'his ground-brcakingisand compilcdby Fr' Andrcw Rossiand StcphcnMurarore ,u", th. hr.t work of its kind ro appearin the American Orthodox press'also inrcfuurionsofcvolutionby William A Dembski' cludedscientificand philosophical '\folfgang Smirh, and others.

40

The presentvolume has been compiled lrom the following material, all of it by Fr. Seraphim: I . Letter to Dr. Kalomiros, 19741 2. Lecture I I of the "Survival Course" in 1975, which includesboth Fr. Seraphim's"Brief Critique of rhe Evolutionary Model" and his discussionof "Christian Evolutionism"; 3. Patristic Commentary on Genesis, 198I and 1982, taken both from Fr. Seraphim'smanuscriptand from his oral delivery,including rhc question-and-answcrsessions; 4. Lettersfrom 1974 to l98l; and Fr. Sera5. Miscellaneousnotes,including outlines,brief essays, phim'sown additions to A. Y.'sunfinishedchapters. at lengrhin rhc Editor'sEpiloguc,pp. 545-90. 'This subjecris discusscd 4l

Gr:NesIs. Cr.sarloN,rruoErnu Men Alrhough Fr. Seraphimneverlived to finalizethe book he planned, rhe presenrvolume, taken from his own writings and lectures,covers all the main areasrhat he wanted discussed.*ln fact, in some waysthis posthumouscollection is more full than the book he envisioned.For example,some of Fr. Seraphirnsmost interestingtheologicalobservations are found in the tape transcriptionsof his question-and-answer sessions(Part IV), and some of his most concise and penetrating thoughts about evolutionism are contained in the selectionsfrom his letters(PartV). Fr. Seraphim'sdiscussionof the scientificside of the creation/evolurion issuedoesnot representas full a treatmentas he had envisioned 'We have attempted to remedy for the book, nor is it fully up to date. ( rhis siruation by including I ) ProfessorJohnson'sinrroduction on the reconsiderationof Darwinism roday,(2) explanatoryfootnotesto Fr. to more recentliterature,(3) an Seraphimi discussion,with references arricle on radiometric dating to supplement Fr. Seraphimi observations (Appendix Four), and (4) a list of suggestedreading,including (Appendix Five). the most up'ro-date resources

15. This Boohi Primary Contibution to the WorA However. it is not in its discussionof scientific issuesthat the uniquenessof this book lies.As we haveseen,thereis now plenry ofexcellent material, by both creationistsand non-creationists,which brings to lighr theseissues. Rather, rhis book adds a unique dimension to the current creation/evolution debateby presenting,in a penetrating,detailedyet unadornedway, the orherworldly mind of the Holy Fathersx it percerves the creation,the first-createdworld, the naturesof createdthings and the original narureof man. bodiesof work doneat diffcrenrrimes ' Sincethis is a compilationof separarc Had Fr. Scrafor differenr purposes,rhere is somc repetitionof Parristicpassages. would of coursenot ocphirn livedto complerethis book himseli thesereperitions collcctionso as not to cur. We havcclectcdro allow for rhem in this posthumous work. disrurbthc integriryand conrinuiryofeachscpararc

42

EnIron's Pnsmce In overcomingthe temptarion,which had been bred in him from ..hildhood, to feel he knew better than the ancients,Fr. Seraphimrevc:rledhow noble,howutterly treasurable is the Patristicmind. Clearly, lrorn his writing one can seethat rhis is no ordinary human mind, bur romething Divine. The Prophet Moses, the author of Genesis, had received his knowledgeof the creationfrom Divine vision-theoria in Creek. The lloly Fatherswho commented on the Scriprureswerealsopartakersof l)ivine theoria, and thus they are the only sure interpreters of Moses' rcxt. Fr. Seraphim, having immersed himself in the mind of the Fathers,presentedto the modern world the Patristicziiaz of the cosmos, and thus raisedthe discussionfar abovethe merely rational and scienrific. All creationists,wherher "Biblical" or "non-Biblical," have much to learn from Fr. Seraphimkexposition.The "non-Biblical" creatronists will find in the teachingof rhe Farhersa mystical illumination of the book of Genesis,and thus they may look more closelyat that book as a Divinely inspired "prophecyof the past." Biblical creationistswill likewisefind that the Patristictesrimonyopensup new dimensionsin their understandingofthe Bible: new levelsof meaningthat they ncver could havereachedthrough normal exegericalmeans.* Once one acquiresthe mind of the Fathersas Fr. Seraphim did,

'Some creationistwritingsconrainmistakenideasabour rhc Holy Frathers, Lrescd on rhe ideathar Chrisrianirywascormptedfrom rhc rimc of St. Consranrine ro the Protestant Rcformation. lt is hopedrhatrhc prcscnrbook will helpencourage a rccxaminarion ofthe Holy Fathers, so rharBiblicalcrcationists ofall backgrounds will scethat rhe Holy Fathcrsdo indecduphold rhc basicposiriorrs of prcscnt-day creationscicntists, and canin facrtakcthcir undersranding ro a higherleveL. It appearsrhat sucha rcexaminarion hasalrcadybegun.ln l99l CreationRcratch SocieE()uarterl1printcd an arricleaffirming Sr. Basil'sinterpretationofGenesis('An EarlyView of GcncsisOne," CRSQwrtetl,vol.27, pp. 138-39),which in | 994 wasadaprcdand rcprintcdin anorhcrleadingcrcation isrnragazine, Cration I* N/r'lo ("GenesisMcans \X/hat k Says,"CreationEx Nihik, vol. )6, no. 3, p. 23). More reccntly, rnolecular biologistJonarhan Wellshasadmirablydefended thc reaching of the Holy Fatherson crearion(seehis arriclc"AbusingTheology,"in Origiw & Dcsign,vol. 19, no. I, 1998),ashasBririshcrearionscientisr MalcolmBowdcn(scc his 1998 book TrueScience Agrees tuith the \ibb, pp.38-40). 4a

GeNesrs,CnurroN lNo EanI-vMeN

Enrror's Pnrnrce

one can never view the book of Genesisas merely an allegory; but more than this, one can neverview the presentworld as before.Vhy? Becausethe Holy Fathers,like the Prophet Moses, mystica-llyperceived the world as ir was first created. They taught from experience that the world wasoriginally incorruptible,of a higher order than the materialworld which came into being after mant fall. A modern-day Holy Father,St. Barsanuphiusof Optina (1845-1913), put ir this way:

I'hcrcwill come a time of worldwidecataclysm, and thc whole world will burst into flamc. Thc earth and sun and moon will burn-everythingwill burn;everything will vanishanda newworld will riseup, morcbcautifulthan rheonc which thc first peopleconThen will bcginerernal,joyouslife, total blessedness in remplated. life that thc humansouloincscven Christ.And it is for rhisblessed now on earth.''

The beaurifulthingsof thisworld areonly hintsof that beautywith which the first-createdworld was filled, as Adam and Eve saw ir. That beaurywasdestroycdby thc sin of rhe first people. lmagine a marveloussratueby a great master-and suddenry it like a thunderbolt.Vhat will remainof it?Fragsomeone smashes ments.We can pick thcm up; we can searchout thc neck,a portion ofan arm, or the face.lndicationsof rhebeauryof the linesarepresewedin rhescseparatefragments,but they no longerproducefor us arrdbeauryThus also rhe formerharmony,rhe formerwholeness did rhe hll into sin of the first peoplcdestroythe beauryof Godi of it by which we may world,and thereremainro usonly ltragments judgeconccrningthe primordialbeaury'r Once, when standing beforea window at night, St. Barsanuphius pointed ro the moon and said to his spiritualchildren: Itt no wottLook-what a picturelThisis left to usasa consolation. mc, O Lord, dcr that the ProphetDavidsaid,"Thou hasgladdened by Thy worla (Ps.9l:3). "Thou has gladdenedme," he says,alrhoughthis is only a hint of that wondrousbcaury,incomprchensible to humanthought,whichwasoriginallycreatcd.\0'cdon'tknow what kind of moon therewasthen.what kind of sun,what kind of light.... All of thischangedafterthc fall.'o The Holy Fathers'visionof rhe firsr-createdworld was at the same time a glimpseof chefuture age.As St. Barsanuphiussaid;

44

F'r.Seraphim,in acquiring the Patristicmind, lived with this im,rgeever beforehim. In the morning, beforechurch services,he had a practiceof circling the entire monasterygrounds.As thc golden glow of rlre morning lighr filtered through the broad canopy of oak leaves, Irr.Scraphimcould be seenblessingand evenkissingrhe trees. "Whar's this?" Fr. Herman once askedhim. "Kissing trees!" Fr. Seraphimlooked up, smiling radiantly,and continued walking. Fr. Seraphimknew berterthan anyonethat this old earrh,weighed down by dre fallennessof rnan, had nor long ro live, rhat it would be "obliteratedin the rwinkling of an eye,"transfiguredinto a new earth. And yet, as Fr. Herman realizedwhile he watched him make his rounds, Fr. Seraphim was kissing rhe very "fiagments" of the lost beautyof rhe original creation."He wanted to die," Fr. Herman says, "to melt into the earth, which will be transformed....The very ideaof the tree he kissedwas otherworldly,for treeswereoriginally createdincorruptible in Paradise, accordingro rhe reachingofSr. Gregory ofSinai." ln his commentary on Cenesis, Fr. Seraphim rnade a selfrevclarorystatementwhich confirmed this: murmur of thc forests(whcrcso manyascetic In rhc peaceful strugglcrshaverakcnrcfugc)canwc not scca rcmindcrof the Paradisc of vegetation originallyinrendedfor our dwellingand [ood, and still cxistingfor thoscablcto asccnd,likeSt. Paul,ro bcholdir? Fr. Seraphimalsohad a greatappreciationofthe animal kingdom: both the many wild anima.lswhich freely roamed around the monastery, and the monastery'smany domesticatedanimals. Ever since he 45

CnsarroN nNoElnrv Mrx GeNssrs, which had inspiredhim to wasa boy he hadshownthis appreciation, studyingzoologyat theJuniorSummer spendrhreesummervacations in SanDiego.Now that he wasan Orthodoxmonk Schoolof Science living in the wilderness, he viewedanimalsin a moresublimelight, evenwhile realizingrhartheytoo had beenaffectedby man'sprimordial fall.Fr.Hermanrecallsa quietmomentwhensomeof the monastery'sanimalscame up to them. "From your point of view," Fr. mood,"whatareanimalsall about?" Hermanaskedin a reflective replied:"They havesomethingto do with Paradise." Fr.Seraphim 16. TheNatureof Man Accordingto Fr.Seraphim,"The mostimportantquestionwhich is raisedfor Orthodoxtheologyby the moderntheoryofevolutionis tbe natureof man, and in particularthe natureof tbefrst-teated man and in particularthroughevolutionism, Adam.""lhroughrationalism, of what he waslike before modernsecularman haslost an awareness itself,was incorruptible.As Fr. Serathe fall, when he, like Paradise Christians,includingOrphim cameto realize,most contemporary this is oneof the havealsolostthisawareness-and thodoxChristians, of our biggesrproblemsof Christianirytoday.Vithout an awareness originalnature,we cannotknowwhat it is we shouldbe strivingto get backto; we cannotknow what we aremadefor. The only way to reis, again,to acquirethe mind of the Holy Fathers. gainthisawareness 'fhat is why rhepresentbook addsa vital dimension,not only to the of human debate,but literallyto all aspects currentcreation/evolution lifc. "Vith the openingof their eyesthrough the transgression," Fr. Seraphimwrote,'Adam and Eve havealreadylost the life of Paradise....Fromnow on theireyeswill be opento the lowerthingsof this earth,and theywill seeonly with difficulrythe higherthingsofGod. 'l-hey are no longer dispassionate, but have begun the passionate earthlylife we stillhavetoday." through prayerand asceticsrruggle, By becomingdispassionate while the Orthodoxsaintsthroughoutthe agesrestoredin themselves, of the stateof pre-fallAdam. yet in a corruptiblebody,somemeasure 4b

Eorlon's Paer,rcr l.ike him, they were shown to be impervious to rhe elemenrs;like hinr, rhey were nlasrersand stewardsof creation, and all creatures ,rbcyedthem. "Adam was in a state of sobriety," Fr. Seraphim said elsewhere. "[.le looked at things and saw them the way they were.There was no ilouble rhought' like we have in our fallen state ... no looking at thingsand imaginingsomethingelse." 1-hrough Christ, the saints also returned ro rhis pre-fall staceof sobricty ( z?slr in Greek). Vith pure, open awareness, they perceived nor only the original nature of man, but also the distinct naturcs of crcaredthings-"ideas" of the creativeMind of God. Fr. Seraphim,in readingthe l"ivesofthese saints(especiallythe aswas fascinatedby thesealmost contemporary ccric "deserr-dwellers"), imagesof what man was in the beginning,and likewiseof what he will be in the future age,when he will be raisedup in a body incorruptible. In fbllowing in their footsteps,Fr. Seraphim prayed much, cultivated the lofty virtues oF sobriery and dispassion,and ascendedwith the saintsbeyond rhis corruptible earth. "l could see," recallsFr. Herman, "that not only was his mind working but his heart was involved,and his heart caught those things you just can'tget, asa rational being, from books.Things wereopen to him, but he couldni tell of them becauseotherswouldnt understand. 'l hat! why he said so few words, evenwhen I urged hirn to revealthe .. fruits of his contemplation.. "He wasnot at home in the world, he had no lust for life: and that's " why he could go so high-into super-consciousness. From this vanragepoint, Fr. Seraphim shared the experienceof tlre saintsin glimpsing the original narure of man and the naruresof creatcdthings. Thus, he saw evolution as untenablenot only because the Holy Fatherssaid so (although for him rhat was reasonenough in irself) or becausethere was no true scientificevidencefor it, but also becausehe recognizedthrough the light of inner sight that evolutionism abolishesmant original nature, takes away man! awarenessof I)aradiseand his lall from it, and destroysthe Divinely establisheddistinction berweenthe naturesof createdthings. fhrough revelarionlrom above,the Prophet Mosesdescribedthe

47

Cnn,rrIon,nxoEau-vMall Ge.Ncsts, crearion and the first-createdworld. Through the grace of Christ working within them, the Holy Fathersprovided further illumination of Moses'words.And finally,through the sameaction of grace,a Holy Fatherofour own times, Fr. SeraphimRose,has piercedthrough the delusionof evolutionismand illuminared the teachingsof the Fathers for contemporaryTiuth-seekers It is our hope and prayerthat more and more of theseseekerswill -fhrough the work of peoplelike Professors carch the message. Johnson, Spetnerand Dembski, they can seethat, at the very least,evolution has not been proved nor is it provable.Through the work of rhe scientificcreationists,they can examinethe greatmassofscientific evidence that points to the veracityof Genesisas an historicalaccount. And then, through the Holy Fathersof the Orthodox Church, they can raisetheir minds and heartsabove this f'allen,corruptible earth. From there they will view the world and themselvesas they are in trurh, and as they are meant to be. Hieromonk Damascene Sr. Herman of AlaskaMonastery Commemoration of St. John Maximovitch

Junel9lJuly2, 1999

48

INrnooucrroN

Fr. SeraphimRoseand 2Ist-Centur! Science BY PHILLIPF-.IOHNSON

J rrnsr He,rnoof FarherSeraphimRosein the summerof 1996, I whilelecturingin the Seatrle area.A youngman who had beenin contactwith the monksat the Monasteryof St. Herman in Platina, California,broughrme a stackofbooks,sayingthat the monkswould like me to write an essayro accompany a collecrionof Fr. Seraphim' writingson Cenesisand evolution.I had mostof rhebooksmailedto my officebut selected theslimmestone(Nihilim) to readon rhetrip. I wasFascinated by the insightdisplayed in this earlywork, and needed no urgingto readlaterall the othermaterials I received, includingFr. l)amascene Christensen's biographyand rhe previouslyunpublished writingscollectedin this volume.Fr. SeraphimRosebelievedin and livedby the teachings ofthe earlyChristianChurch,but (or shouldI say"and therefore"?) he alsothoroughlyunderstoodrhe problemsof moderniry.I am honoredto havebeeninvitedto assistin bringinghis teachingto the artentionof a broadersectionof the public. My raskis ro reviewthe srateof the scientificquesrions today,ro givethe readera sense of how well Fr.Seraphims critiqueofevolutionary naturalism standsup now rhata maiorreconsideration of Darwinismis beginningto occurin thesecular world.I shouldexplainfirsrrhar my involvement wirh the subjectofevolutionhasbeenquitedifferent fromhis.Fr.Seraphim's primaryobjective wasto explaintheteaching oF the Church Farhers, especially with respectto their understanding of the Scriptures, sothat Orrhodoxbelievers would not be misledby mis49

Crxrsts, Cnr:artoN,rruoF,artr MaN

INtronucrror,r

guided efforts to reinterpretthose teachingsin the light of modernist evolutionaryscience.He dcalt with scientificquestionsmainly in the contextofdefending the Patristicwritings, and he directedhis teaching towardsfellow Orthodox believers.AJthoughhe understoodthe philosophical roots ofevolutionary rheory very profoundly, he was not extensivelyinvolved with the scientific community. He seemsto have debatedthe subjectonly with Dr. Kalomiros,who was apparentlyesteemedwirhin part of the Orthodox community but whose scientific viewswere confusedand ladenwith rnisinlormation. My own writings are addressedro the world ar large, including secularintellectualsand religiousbelieversfrom a varieryof tradirions. My writing and speakingbrings me into constantdebatewith a variery ofscientific authoritiesofgreaterand lesserrenown. Most ofmy critics would not consider the Church Fathersto be reliableauthorities,or evenrecognizetheir names.Many of them are alsosrronglyprejudiced againstanything that smacksof "fundamentalism,"or even"rcligion," and hence are repelledrather than persuadedby any referenceto the Bible or its interpreters.'lb avoid endlessconfusion and distractton, and to keep attention focusedon rhe most important point, I have firmly put asideall questionsof Biblical interpretation and religious aurhoriry, in order to concentratemy energieson one theme. My theme is that, in Fr. Seraphim'swords, "evolution is zar'scienrificfact' at all, but philosophy."The philosophy in question is naturalism (the doctrine that nature is "all thereis"), which for this purposeis identical to materialism (the doctrine rhat reality consistsof nothing but the particlesthat physicistsstudy). If materialismis true rhen nature had to be capableofdoing its own creating,and the existenceofa materialistic evolutionaryprocesslollows asa matter of inevitablelogic. Hence, I have argued, scientific materialistsbelieve in naturalisticevolurion of rt. not becauseof the evidence,but regardless Alrhough my own project has led me to avoid the questionsof Parristicauthoriry that most concernedFr. Seraphim,some of my debating opponents have (like Dr. Kalomiros) invoked the Fathers in highly distorted form for their own purposes.I am thereforegratified to seethat Fr. Seraphimhas thoroughly demolishedone of the favorite canardsof accommodationistsnot only in Orthodoxy, but also in

Roman Catholic and Protestantcircles.Desperarelyseekinganything rhat will supporr rheir program of melding Christianiry with evolutionary naturalism,rhesetheologiansand scientistshaveclaimed thar such esteemedFiathers as Basiland Augustinetaughr a doctrine which is more or lesslike a primitive versionof modern evolutionaryrneory. I need say no more on this subject,becauseno one who understanos Fr. Seraphimi lecrureson Genesisand creation,which are contained in this volume, is in dangerof being misled by such perversemisinrerpretations.* Wirh those introductory commenrs our of rhe way, I will explain ccrtain common misunderstandings of the scientificissueswith which Fr. Seraphimhad to deal,and in rhe courseofdoing this I will arrempt to bring his discussionup to date. Fr. Seraphim! thought was thoroughly ar odds with rwenrieth-centuryscience,shapedx that science lras been by is a priori commitmenr ro metaphysicalmaterialism.It may well be, however,that rhe scienceofrhe nexr century will be more nrodesrand hencemore realisric,in which casehe may seemlike a man who was far aheadof his time. $/hat is "evolution"? A succincrand accuratedefinition of "evolution," as the term is undersroodby today'smainstreamscientistsand scienceeducarors,rs given in the official (USA, 1995) policy sraremenrof the National fusociationof Biology Teachers*.(NABT):

50

' Seerhc arriclcby JonathanWclls,'Abusing'l'hcology: HowardVanT'ill's'Forgotrcn f)ocrrine of Crcarioni FunctionalIntcgriry"' in rhe journal Origiu & Dcrgz, vol. 19,no. l. " The complctctcxrofrhe NABf Statemcnr on rhe teaching ofcvolurronwas publishcdin 'fhc AmericanBiology'feathcrl)aruary, | 9q6), pp. (' t -62, and in rhc colleuion Voices for Euohtion(Berkelcy,Calil: Narional (lenrer for ScicnceFiucation, f995) pp. 14044. Followingpubliccriricisnrby mysclfandorhcrs,the NABT lmcndcd thc Srarcmenr to onrir rhc words"unsupervised" and "impersonal." This amendmcnrwas in no way a changein thc subsrance of rhc NABT} position;it -fhe Darwinianestabmcrclydcletedincautious wordsroo obviousand undcniable. lishmcnrprefersto makcirs main poinr-rhat God had nothingro do wirh evolution-by persistcnr insinuarionrarherthal rhe kind of plain languagcthar inviccs opposirion.'fhar evolurionwasnevergr.rided by an intelligenragenr(unril scienrific mandcveloped gcncticengineering) rcnrains rhcsrandard Darwiniantcaching.

5l

(lrtttsts, CrsrrIoN ,,'NnEaRrv M,qH I hc rlivcrsitvof life on carth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupcrviscd,irnpcrsonal,unprcdictableand natural processof tcmporal dcsccntwith gcnetic modification that is affectcdby natural selection, chance,historicalcontingenciesand changingenvironments. 'fhis

definition contains three elemenrs:

L Evolution is an unsupervisedand irnpersonalprocess-i.e., ir is nor direcredor guided by God; 2. Evolution is a natural processof descentwith modification by which all of rodayt living organismsdescendedby a natural process from a singleprirnordial ancesrorwhich itself evolved(withour supernaturalassistance) fronr non-living chemicals;and 'l'he mechanism J. of evolution is a combination of random genetic changes(chance)and natural selection,operatingin the contexr of historicalconringenciesand changingenvironments. I will discussthesethreeelementsbelow,in reverseord€r.As a preliminary marter,however,I should firmly correct one of Dr. Kalorniros' many misunderstandings. Not every instanceof changein nature "evolurion," constitutes as that term is usedtoday.The growrh ofa giant oak tree from an acorn is not evolution, nor is the developmentof a human baby from an embryo in the womb of its mother. Theseproccsses of what biologistscall "development"are fundamenrallydifferenr from biological evolution, becauserhey are programmed by the information inherired from the parentsand henceare highly predictable.A human embryo nevergrows into someanimal otlrer than a human being,and an acorn neverturns asidelrromits prograrnnredpath to bccomea pine treeor a rosebush. 'fhere is a persistentlegend among evolutioniststhat "ontogeny rccapitulates phylogeny;"that is, thar the developmenrof the human infant in the womb is a kind of rerun of evolutionaryhistory, as the cmbryo goesfrom a fish stageto a reptile stageand so on. This noncxisrentphenomenon is often called "Haeckeli lavv," xfler Darwin's nrost prominenr German disciple.ln another form, the "Law" states rhat the embryo goesrhrough not the adult stagesbut the embryonic

IN -I' R OD U C TION

fbrms of earlier,"ancesrral"forms. In either forrn, rhe "[:w" doesnot exist, and is not defended by qualified embryologistsin rhe professionalliterature.One can, howevel find sragesevident here rnJ th.re of characteristics thar, with inraginarion,can bc made to fir the patrern of Haeckel'sLaw, and theseare conrinually cired to rhe public in popular treatmentsas proof of "evolution." The most farno,r, .*r-ple is the supposed"gill slits" possessed by human embryos ar one stageof development,although theseslits are nor gills and never develop inro gills. Although Haeckel'sLaw was discreditedmany decadesago, it has such an irresisribleappealro rhe Darwinian imagination rhai it is still taught in many schoolsaround rhe world. Even repurablemuscums and universiriescontinue ro propagarea versionof ir. in a vagueand unfalsifiableform. For example,the on-line PalconrologyMuseum at rhe Universiryof California at Berkeleyhas this ro sayabout Haeckel,s t-Aw:

The "law of recapirulation" has beendiscreditcdsincerhe beginning ofthe twenricth cenrury Expcrimentalmorphologistsand biologrsts have shown rhat thcre is nor a one-to-onecorresDondence berwcen phylogcnyrnd onrogcny.AJrhougha srrongfrrm,,l rccapirularionis nor correcr,phylogenyand onrogenyare inrcrrwined,and nrany biologisrsare beginning to both explorc and understandthe basisfor rhis connection.' I

In fact,research into embryologyhasshownthar it is a righrlydirectedprocess which doesnot fit the Darwinianparadigmat all. Effons to alter rhe processby inducingrnu,"iion, ian produ.. defbrmitiesof varioussorts,but theydo not succeed in changingthe pathofdevelopnrent so thartheembryodevelops into a viablecrearure of a differentrvoe. ' Fbr an cxampleof rhc continuingpromotionof thc recapitularion conceptin prcscntarions to rhe public,seerhe discussion of an Americanpublic 'Ielcvision "NOVA" prograrnon humancmbryologyin nry interncrdcbarcrvith profcssor Ken_ ncth Millcr of BrownUniversiq,: http://www.pbs.org/wgbb/pagcs/nova/odyssey/debarc/indcx.hrml

i.]

Gr:ursrs. CnltrIoN aNn ErnlY MaN

L TheMechanismof Euolution:Mutation and Selection At botrom,biologicalevolutionis a theoryof change,which undertakesto explainhow it is possiblefor one kind of organismto changeinto somethingcomPletelydifferent.It alsoseeksto explain how extremelycomplexbiologicalorgansand organismscan come Creator.As the emiwithout the needfor a supernatural into existence "Biology is the study nent DarwinistRichardDawkinshasexplained, of havingbeen deof complicatedthings that give the appearance Dawkinssaysthat Darwin "made signedfor a purpose."'Nonctheless, fulfilledatheist"by explaininghow a it possibleto be an intellectually ,nindles,materialmechanismcould perFormthe apParentrniracleof biologicalcreation.The mechanismis thereforethe heartof the rheory,asDarwin himselfexPlained: thata it is quiteconceivable theOriginof Species' In considering otr of organicbeings, on the mutualaffinities reflecring naturalist, geodistribution, geographical their relations' theirembryological and such othcr facts,might come to rhe conclulogical succession, sion that each spccieshad not bccn indepcndentlycrcated,lrut had descended,like varietics,from other spccics.Neverthclcss'such a conclusion, cven if well founded, would be unsatisfhcrory,unril it could be shown how thc innumerablcspeciesinhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquirethat perfectionof structureand l coadaptationwhich most iustly cxcitesour admiration ln other words, simply postulating that change has occurred, or that primitive speciesare "ancestors" of modern sPecies,is not much of an

TN TR OD U C TION

rvings,kidneys and brains) which did not exist before?The origin of rhe human mind is of coursethe ultimate problem, and Dawkins acknowledges the scopeofrhe problem: Physics booksmaybc complicated, but ... the objecrsand phenomenathat a physicsbookdescribcs arcsimplerthan a singlccellin rhc bodyof its aurhor.And rheaurhorconsisrs of rrillionsof thosecells, manyo[ rhemdiffcrcntfrom eachothcr,organized wirh inrricatcar, chitccrureand precision-cngineering into a workingmachinecapable of writing a book.... Eachnucleus... conrainsa digitallycodcd database larger,in informarioncontenr,than all .10volumesof the Enryclopcdia Britannicapu togerher.And this figure is f<>reachcell, not all rhecellsof rhc bodypLrtrogether.a How does an unsupervisedmaterial processcreatesuch an inrricate marvel, which is far more complex than a computer or a space ship? 'fhe Darwinian answer is that tiny changes-the sort of variations that appear in each generationand differentiarea juvenile organism fiom its parenrs-accumulate graduallyover many generationsuntil they produce an entirely new kind of crearurewith new organs and adaptivefearures.This mechanismhas never been shown to be capable ofgenerating anyrhing other rhan minor variarions(such as backand-forrh variations in rhe size of finch beaks,or variations in the relativefrequencyof light and dark varietiesin a morh popularion).* Becauseit is the only naturalisticpossibilirythat has any plausibiliry whatever,Darwinisrsextrapolatewildly from rheserrivial examplesto postularea mechanism capableof creating counrlessadaptive wonders, including even the human brain. Such claims are poony supported, ro put it mildly, and in recentyearsrhey havecome up against

i-prou.-.n, over specialcreationunlessa mechanismof changeis gives is that "like begetslike."An ape.never Our experience specified. bi.th to a human(or viceversa)'and it is still moreunthinkablethat a bacteriumwould givebirth to a butterfly.So how doesone kind oforganismchangeinio somethingcompletelydifferent?Above.all, how loes this proc"ssof changebuild new complexorgans(like eyes,

experimenrneverprovcdanythingof importancc,readcrs shouldknow tharrheexpcrimcntitsclfwasrhercsultof Darwiniancnthusiasnr. Fordcrailsofhow science hasdiscreditcd rheexperimenr, secrhcarriclcby "SecondThoughrsaboutPeppered Vells, lonathan Morhs."ar hrtpr//www.thc-scierrrisr.library. upenn.ed ulyrl999/may/opin 99O524,html

54

55

* Althoughrhe pepperedmorh

GrnrsIs. Cnr.auoNaNo EanrYMlN insuperablenegativeevidence.l'he detailsare given in my book Darwin on Tiial. and in various articleswhich are collectedat my Veb site (http://www.arn.org).iVery briefly, rwo independentlines of evidenceare decisive: | . Fossilstasis.Thefossil record is pervasivelycharacterizedby a patrcrn of suddenappearanreFollowedby rrasn New rypesof organismsappearsuddenlyand futly formed, and they remain basicallyunchanged rhereafter.This pattern can be used to supPort the proposition that creationoccurrednot just at the beginning but throughout earth'shistory (assumingthe dating of the rocksis accurate),*'but it consistently refusesto support the key Darwinian claim that one kind of creature into somethingcompletelydifferent This pattern changesscep-by-step in the fossilrecofevidencecannot be attributedto any incompleteness in jusr those and undeniable most obvious ord, becausethe pattern is areas(especiallymarine invertebrates)where the record is most complete. The very anti-Darwinian stateof the fossil record was known ro insidersall along as the "tradesecretof paleontology"'but it first came ro the atrentionofthe generalpublic in the 1980s,due to the publicity given to the theory ofevolution by "punctuatedequilibria." This theory attempted to reconcilcDarwinism with the pattern of sudden appearanceand stasisby supposingthat significantevolution occurs in small groups,which go away from the (unchanging)main population, accumulatemutations, and then reapPearas a new specieswithout leavinga traceof the transformationin the fossilrecord.By this means the absenceof evidencefor evolution became rransformedinto evidencelor invisibleevolution. In the memorable(1995) words of Niles Eldredge,one of the founders of the punctuated equilibria theory, "Evolution cannot foreverbe going on somewhereelse.Yet thati how

' Many of PhillipE. Johnson\articlescanalsobe found in his book Objcctiont Swtai ned.(1998\. -L.o. however,are them" The currendyacceptedradiomctricdating proccdures, SeeFr.Scraassunrprions. and evolutionist unifbrmirarian selves basedon unprovcn Four, wcll as Appendix 459-60, as on pp. of this subiect 309-14, phim'sdiscussion "Thc Faithof Radiomerric l)aring,"pp.62G35.-Eo. )b

IN TR OD U C TION

rhc fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleonrologistlooking to lcarnsomethingabout evolurion."* ' As Eldredge'sremark implies, this specracularpattern of fossildisconfirmation persistsevenafter more rhan a century of determinedeffbrrs by Darwinisr paleontologiststo find evidencethat will supporr rheir cherishedtheory. Any doubtful fossil rhat could conceivablybe interoretedasan intermediateform in a Darwinian transitionhasbeen cited as proof that Darwinism is true, and yer even afrer rheseheroic cflbrts the bulk of the fossilrecord is as thoroughly inconsistentwirh l)arwinian expectarionsasir waswhen Darwin proposedthe theory in 1859. 2. Irreducible complcxit!.A 1996 book by molecular biologist Michael Behe** has brought to public arrenrion rhe lacr thar biological systemsat the molecularlevelareirreduciblycomplex.'I'hismeansrhar they are made up of many complicatedparrs and subsysrems,all of which haveto be in placein order for the systemasa whole to perfbrm a useful function. In other words, these inrricate systemscannot be built up step-by-stepas the Darwinian rheory requires,and molecular biologistsdo nor even arrempr ro presenrdetailed scenariosof how evolution might have produced them. As with the pervasivesrasisin the fossilrccord,irreduciblecomplexityat the molecularlevelhas long beenknown ro specialisc,but hasbeenkepr from public attention becausebiologistsdid not know how to explain it wirhin a Darwinian frarnework.-fhis illustratesthe phenomenon famously describedby -fhomas Kuhn: facts which do not fit rhe dominant scienrific paradigm tend to be systematicallyignored,becausethey are a distracrion fiom the prevailingresearchagenda. \X/hen they are faced with the devastaringevidenceagainst the L)arwinian mechanism,and rerninded of the lack of positiveevidence in its favor,Darwinists tend to retreatto what they think is a more defensible linc. 1-hey distinguish berween "Darwin's specific theory,"

o[ the punctuatcdequilibriumcontroversy, sccchap' For a gencraldiscussion tcr 4 of rny book Darwit on Triat(2 cd,, 1993\. '" Michael Behe, Danuini Black Box: Thc BiochenticalChallzngc to Euolution 0 996).

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 evolution," which rhey claim to be undeniablytrue.'That takesme to the secondsubject.

On the contrary a parrernof grearerand lessersimilarities,or of v.rriarionswithin a basicrype, is more likely to be evidenceof a comnron design plan rather than of a natural evolutionary process.This was inadvertenrlydemonsrratedin a (1990) book by a Darwinist zoologisr,who illustratedrhe "fact ofevolurion" by citing the exampleof l line of automobiles:

2. The Common AncestryThesit The differencebetweenthe supposedlyundeniable"fact of evolution" and "Darwin's theory" is obscure,for the very good reasonthat the mere existenceofa pattern ofrelationship has no greatsignificance unlessthere is a rheory that explainshow the pattern came into existence.The "fact" is usuallydescribedas "common ancestry,"which is rhe proposition that humans (and other animals)sharea common ancestorwith planrs,and fungi, and bacteria.-I'hesupposedproof of the fact is that living things exist in groups,and the groupsare relatedby a pattern of greaterand lessersimilariry Humans are similar irr many ways to apes, somewhat less similar to rabbits, less similar still to snakes,still lesssimilar to trees,and so on. All of the disparategroups of the taxonomicorder (bacteria,plants,anima.ls,etc.) havea common biochemicalbasis,indicating that they come from a common source. The Darwinian explanarionof this pattern is that ir resulcsfrom common ancesrry,with thosegroups having the greatestdegreeof similarity being the ones with relativelyrecentcommon ancestots.In realiry the common ancestorsare postulatesin a theory,which aims to explain the lact ofclassificationor relationship. 'Ancestry"impliesa very gradualprocessofchange, sinceoffspring differ only slightly in each generationfrom their parents.Hence the common ancestrythesisimplies not only that the common ancestors existedon the eanh, but also that very long lines of gradual descent linked theseancient ancestorsto their putative modern descendants. None of this can be confirmed from fossilstudies,but Darwinists believe that the processmust have occurred nonethelessbecausethey think it is the only scientific(i.e., naturalistic)explanationfor the pac tern of life.

Everythingevolves,in rhe scnseof descentwith modificarion, whcrherit bc government policl religion,sporrscars,or organisms. The rcvolurionary fiberglass Corverreevolvedfrom more munoane automoriveancestors in 1953.Other high pointsin the Corvettes evolutionaryrcfinementincludedthe 1962 model, in which the original 102-inchwasshortenedto 98 inchesand the ncw closeocoupeStingraymodelwasintroduced;the 1968model,the forerunncr of today'sCorvettemorphology,which cmergedwith removable roof panels;and the 1978silveranniversary model,with fastback sryling.Today's versionconrinucsthe srepwise refinements rharhave been accumulatingsince 1953. The point is that rhe Corverte cvolvedthrougha selection process actingon variations that resulted in a series oftransitionalformsandan endpointratherdistinctfrom thc sraningpoint. A similarprocess shapesrhe evolutionof organlsms.-

ofthe elusive distincrionberweenthe "faci' and 'ihe' Fora gcneraldiscussion ory" ofcvolurion,seechaprer5 ofmy book Darwin on'l'rial.

Of courserhe Corvetres,like the organisms,havecommon fearures becausethey were conceivedin the mind of a designer,and not becausesome mindlessprocessmade either one. In other words, the fact oi relationshipis not evidenceof the existenceof a purely naturalistic or mindless mechanism of creation. Beethoven! symphoniesfollow the pattern of common designwith variations,but this partern has no tendencywhateverro supporr a rheory rhar the symphoniescomposed themselveswithour any help from Beerhoven. Evolurionarytheory today is in a srateofconfusion, in which major figureslike StephenJay Gould and fuchard Dawkins disagreevrolenrly over how evolution is supposedto haveoccurred.(SeeChaprer Four of my 6ook Reasonin the Bakncc for a review of rhesemajor disagreemenrs.) Thesewarring ideologuesdo havea common program of

58

59

eno ErnI-vM-lN Cnr.,rnon GsNesrs,

IN -I' R OD U C ' TION

programratherthan a scientificprosorts,but it is a philosophical gram.Vhat theyagreeon is that,at all costs,God mustbe keptout of the picture.That bringsus to the third and mostimportantparrofthe definition of evolution.

pronrisesof healrhand lifc, ra spite ol'rhc toleranccof the scienrific communiry for unsubsranriaredjust-so srories,bccausewe have a prior commitmcnr, a comnrirmcnt to materialism.lr is not rhar rhe methodsand institutions of sciencesomehowcompel us ro accepra

3. Euolution(in the Scientifc Sense)Is Inhercntly Godless 'We sawthat the NABT definitionstatesthat evolutionis by defi"unsupervised." is not a conclusionthat DarThis requirement nition assumption but a philosophical winistsreachfrom empiricalevidence, naturalismot materirhat reflectstheirstartingpoint in metaphysical alism.If natureis all thereis, then naturehad to be ableto do its own of a naturalistic evolutionaryprocreating.That impliesthe existence cesscapableof makingverycomplexthingsfrom simplebeginnings. ofguida mind capable mustby unguidedat first,because The process ing evolurionwould itselfhaveto evolvefrom non-livingmatter.Once humanbeingshaveevolved,ofcourse,evolutioncanbecomea guided andgeneticengineering. process, rhroughpracticeofeugenics somethingat leastroughlylike DarwinGiventheseassumptions, ofthe evidence. Evolutionhasto ism simplyhasto be rrue,regardless andit hasto havesomemindless srartwith chanceor randomchanges, guidingforcecapableof producingthe wondersof complexengineerThat is why RichardDawkinshasarguedin ing thatwe callorganisms. lecturesthat, if complexlife existson otherplanets,Darwinianevolufor it. Thereis no needfor evidence tion wouldhaveto be responsible is the only plausibecause the Darwinianmechanism or observations, job, This starting point in naturalism. for the given the ble candidate logic explainswhy Darwinistsareunperturbedby all the evidentiary problemsrhat criticssuchasmyselfhaveidentified.The theoryhasto because otherwise we wouldbewithouta materialisbe trueregardless, we would haveto turn to God. for lifet complexiry and tic explanation in a paragraphfrom a This logic has beensuccinctlyencapsulared fuchardLewontin: 1997essay by the leadinggeneticisr 'Werakcthesidcof science in spiteof thepatentat'surdiry of someof its constructs, in spiteof ic failurcto fulfill manyof its cxtravagant 60

materialexplanarionof rhe phcnomenalworld, bur, on the contrary, rhat we are fbrced by our a ptiori adhcrenceto marcrial causesro create an appararusof invcstigarionand a sct of conceptsthat produce material explanations,no matter how countcrintuitivc, no marrcr how mvsrifring ro rhc uninitiarcd. Moreover,rhat marerialismis absolure,ftrr we cannot allow a Divinc Foor in rhe door:

'l-here is no need to saymore. \Ve can seethe proFoundrrurh of Fr. Seraphim'scommenr that "EVOLUTION \VOULD NEVER HAVE I}I.]ENTHOUGHT OF BY MEN \flHO BELIEVE IN ]'HE COD WHOM ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS VORSHIP" (emohasisin the original).Once rhe Divine Foor is in rhe door, rhereis no reasonro postulateeirher legionsof unobservablefossilancesrors,or a mindless materialprocessthat performswondersof creation. 4. Conclusion: Can Science TZII Us a Tiue Story about Origins?

Criticisms of evolutionary theory, however valid, cannot answer the most important quesrion.If we wish to know the rrurh abour origins, should wc rely primarily upon Divine revelationor scientificinvestigation?Fr. Seraphim,like many creationists,believedrhar scrence was impotent when ir comes ro the subjecrof ultimate origins, and that rrue knowledgcon rhis subject can only come from revelation. His reasonwas rhat the eventsof rhe Genesiscreationweek took place rundera unique set of laws, laws which were entirely different from thosewhich haveoperatedsincethe Fall. lf rrue, that conclusionimplies that the enrire subjectoforigins is outsideofscientific invesrigation.Sciencecan only observewhar rs going on in the world today,and can draw inferencesabout the remote pastonly by assuminga uniformiry over rime ofphysical processes and physicallaws.That is why evolutionaryscientists,fbr example,assume 6l

GrNrsrs,CnarlroN ar.toEarrv M,tN that the processthat createdplantsand animalsin the first placeis funvariationwe can observetodamentallyrhe sameprocessof small-scale day in the living world. There may be little evidenceto support that assumption,but without it a scienceof originswould be helpless.Conceivably,there may have been some very unDarwinian creativeevolutionary processoperating in the distant past, which employed mechanismswhich are no longer in operation today. Such a process would be nearly as unacceptableto scientific materialistsas outright creationism,becausea mechanismwhich is in principle unobservable to scientificstudy asa miracle. is as inaccessible Sciencecould discardthe Darwinian theory without seriouslossif therewere at hand another materialistictheory,one likewisebasedon uniformitarian and naturalisticassumptions.But what if there r'r no alternativetheory, or at least no theory with enough factual supporr Scientistswho want to explain to command widespreadacceptance? everythingwill alwaysinsiston making assumptionsthar permit them to achievetheir grand objective,and they will alwaysbe extremelyreluctant to admit rhat their methods may be inadequateto explain the mysteriesof creation. Sciencedoes not like (o tolerate rival ways of understanding,and hence ambitious scientistswill bitterly denounce rhose religious thinkers who raise the possibiliry that physical laws haveprofoundly changedsince the time of creation.Fr. and processes Seraphim was not intimidated by that sort of denunciation, nor should othersbe. Uniformitarianism,like naturalism,is a philosophical assumprion,not a fact. It is perfectly rational to make other assumptions, including assumptionsthat point to the conclusion that we can only haveknowledgeabout origins if God haschosento rcveal lt to us.

62

PARI I An Orthodox Patristic Commentary on Genesis

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 manurcript. 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 indicatedaseditor'sfoonotes, All thc Psalmreferences folhu thenunbering ofthe Scptuagint(Grcch) ucrsionof thc Old Tistament.

Icon of thc ProphcrMoses,aurhorof the book of Gcncsis,painredon the wdls of the Christian caracombsin Rome,secondcentury.t.p.

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 Sagan might come and fighr with us.* Isn't ir saferto just occupy ourselveswirh 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 addressesto 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:

showingthecrcetionof Flve,the fall,rhe Iconof thc Crearionand Redemption, the Annuncirtion,rlrc(lrucifixionof(jhrist, rhc cxpulsionfiom Paradisc, and dcsccntinto hcll,anclthe cnrryof nraninto the Ilcsurrection Kingdonrof Hcavcn.lcon from thc Monastcryof Sr.Anthony of Siya,Russia,primcd h Rus&1Palon k no. 10, 1895.

' ln a lcttcrof 1981,[:r Scraphirlspeaks ofOarl .S.rgani C-orzrar tclcvisionscrics rnd lrook:"Onc ofour subscribers jusrscntusa clipping:rboutthis,which seemsro be muclrin rheair now.and it scemsrypicalofthc waycvolurionis prcachcdrodayas clogmaand almosrrcligion."-Eo. " At rhetime Fr.Scraphirn gavcrhislccture,Fr.CeorgeCalciu(1927-) wasin prisonfor dcliveringhis homiliesto rheyouth. Inspiredby Fr.George's heroismand nrovcdby his words,F-r.Seraphimlarerpublishedrhe homilicsin Thi OrrhodoxVord. In I 997 thcywerepublishedin bookforrnby rheSr.HcrmanBrotherhood undcrthc tide Chrit L Calling /az/'l'he abovequorarionis found on p. 27 of rhat book; orher pcrccplvecoornrenrs aboutcvolurionarcfoundon pp.33,34, 152, l!,A._Eu

67

,rNoEatrYMaN GeNesrs, Cnr,qrIoN "scienceproveswe'rejust animals,and therefore,let'sgo out and blow up a church."* and Godgaue Secondly,theboohof Genesiis a part of theScriptures, know the meaning supposed to our saluation.lVe're the Scripnres us for of the Holy Fathers. throughall the commentaries of the Scriptures in church;all therrcomThe Fathers talkedaboutthe bookof Genesis the book of wereactuallysermonsgivenin church,because mentaries The great Lent. all weekdays during Great in church on is read Genesis Fatherswho did this wereSt. John Chrysostom,St. Basilthe Creat, and St.Ambroseof Milan. Their sermonswererakendown in shorthand by peoplewho werein churchlisteningto them,so that others a part couldreadthem.Thus,the readingofthesetextswasconsidered life ofpeoplewho went to church.We havesomewhat ofthe everyday Therefore,the account of Genesisor the idea nowadays. lost this Apocalypsehasbecomea very mysteriousrealmsomehow.'i/e areso weretalkingaboutthem of thesesubjects-butthe Fathers scared Finally (this is the big poinr): our Christianityis a religionwhich telb usaboutwhat wearegoingto bedoingin eternallife.lt is to prepare us for something erernzl,not this uorld. If we think only about rll/r world, our horizonis very limited,and we doni know what is after death,wherewe camefrom,wherewe'regoing,what is the purposeof life.Vhen we talk aboutrhebeginningofrhings,or the rzlof things, we find out what our wholelife is about.

in onc of of Optina(1845-1913)madca similarobservarion ' St.Barsanuphius "The entire systcm accordphilosopher Darwin creatcd an rall<s: English hisspirirual weak, the a srruggle ofthe strong againsr which is a struggle for cxistcnce, ing to life This is alreadythe bewhercrhoscthatareconqucred arcdoomcdto dcstruction,... and thoscwho cometo belicvcin ir wouldni think ginningof a bcstialphilosophy, frierrd-and a woman,or robbingtheir closest rwiccaboutkillinga man,assaulring right ro commir chcse with full recognition of rheir would do all rhis calmly, a they (From Brotherhood, EUer Barsanofthe St. Hcrman rheforrhcomingbook crimes." up hi t s of Op t i xa.)-F,o.

68

Cneprpn ONs

Hou to Read Genesis I . Approach

r.:e srrusr,noneof us knowshow to approachthis book. Modern f I science and philosophyhavefilled our mindswith so many theoriesand supposed factsaboutthe beginnings of rhe universe and man rharwe inevitablycomero thisbookwith preconceived notions.Some wantit to agreewith rheirparticularscientificrheories; otherslook for ir ro disagree. Borhoftheselook to it ashavingsomethingscientificto say;but otherslook on it assheerpoetry,a productofreligiousimaginationhavingnothingto do with science. 'l'he centralquestionthat causes our difficultiesin understanding thisbookis: how "literally"arewe ro readit? SomeProrestant fundamenralists tell us it is all (or virtuallyall) "literal."But such a view placesus in someimpossibledifficulties: quireapartfrom our literalor non-literalinterprerarion ofvariouspassages, the verynarureof the realirywhichis described in the firsrchaptcrs of Genesis(the very creationof all things) makesir quite inrpossible for euerything to be understood"literally";we don't even havcwords,for example,to describe"lirerally"how somethingcan comeour of norhing.How doesGod "speak"?-does He makea noise which resounds in an atmosphere that doesniyer exist?This expranation is obviouslya little too simple-che realityis morecomplex. Then thcreis the oppositeexrreme. Somepeoplewould like to interpretrhisbook (arleastthe earliest chapters whichgivethe mostdifficulry)asbeingan allegory, a poeticwayof describing somethingthat is reallymuchcloserto our experience. RomanCatholicthinkersrn recent years,for example,havecomeup with someingeniouswaysof 69

CnrarroN,rNnEauv MrN Gr.Nrsrs, "explainingaway" Paradiseand the fall ofman; but in readingtheseinterpretationsone hasthe impressionthat they haveso litrle respectfor the text of Genesisthat they treat ir as a primitive commentary on some recentscientificcheories.This is alsoan extreme.St. John Damascene,the eighth-centuryFatherwhose views generallysum up the Patristicopinion of the first Chrisriancenturies,specificallystatesthat the allegoricalinterpretationof Paradiseis part of an early heresyand doesnor belongto the Church.' One encounrersoften today a common way out berweentheserwo views.The sraremenrof a Roman Catholic nun (who is alsoa teacher) was recentlypublicizedwidely under the tide: "God helpedcreateevolution." She says:"The biblical story ofcreation has a religiouspurpose.k contains,but doesnot teach,errors.The evolutionarytheory of creation, in contrast, has a scientific purpose, and the searchfor truth is the province of astronomers,geologists,biologists,and the like. Those rwo purposesare distinct, and both offer truth to the human mind and heart." She statesthat Genesiscomes from oral traditions which were limited by the scientificviewsof that time. According to this view,Genesisbelongsin one category,and scientific truth or realiryin anorheriGenesishaslittle ifanything to do with any kind of trurh, wherherliteral or allegorical.Therefore,one doesn't reallyneed to think about the question:you read Genesisfor spiritual uplift or poetry,and the scientistswill tell you what you need to know about the factsof the world's and mant beginning. In one form or another this is a very common view today-but what it actuallyamounts to is a failureto look at the questionat all; it does not take Genesisseriously.But our very purpose in studying Genesisis to take it seriously,to seewhat it actuallysays.None ofthese approacheswe have mentioned can do this. Ve must look elsewhere for rhe "key" to understandingCenesis. In approachingGenesiswe must try to avoid pitfallssuchaswe have what kind of mentioned above by a certain degreeof self-awareness: prejudicesor predisposirionsmight we havein approachingthe text? -Wehave already mentioned rhat some of us may be too anxious to have the meaning of Genesisagree(or disagree)with some particular scientifictheory.frt us statea moregeneralprincipleasto how we, with

70

How ro REaoGrruasrs

,'rrr rwentieth-cenrurymentaliry tend to do rhis. In reactionro rhe exrrcrncliteralness ofour scienrificoutlook (a lireralness which is required bv rhc very narureofscience),when we turn to non-scientifictexrsof lircratureor theologywe are very much predisposedto find non-literal or "universal"meanings.And rhis is natural:we want to savetheserexts lrom appearingridiculousin the eyesof scientifically rrainedmen. But wc must realizethat with this predispositionwe often leap ro conclurions which we have not reallythought over very seriously. -lo take an obvious example:V4ten we hear of the "Six Days" of crcation,most ofus automaticallyadjustrhesedaysto accordwith what (()ntemporaryscienceteachesof rhe gradualgrowth and developmenr of creatures."These must be some indefinirely long periods of rime-millions or billions of years,"our rwentieth-centurymind tells rus;"all s[6s. *.ological strata,a]l thosefossils-they couldni havebeen lormed in a literal 'day."'And if we hearthar a fundamentalistin Texas or southernCalifbrnia is once more loudly insistingthat thesedaysare positivelyrwenry-four hours long and no longer,we can even become indignant and wonder how peoplecan be so denseand anti-scientific. ln rhis courseI don'r intend to rell you how long thosedayswere. []ut I rlrink we should be awarethat our narural,almost subconscious rcndencyto regardrhem as indefinitelylong periods,therebythinking that we have solved the "problem" rhey presenr, is not really a thought-our answerro this problcm, bur more of a predispositionor prejudicewhich we havepicked up out ofthe inrellectualair in which we live.* Vhen we look at thesedaysmore closely,however,we will see that the whole questionis not so simple and that our natural predisposirion in this as in many orher casestendsmore to cloud than to clari$, thc realquestion. We will look at this specificquestion larer.For now I would urge rusro lre nor too certainof our accustomedwaysof looking at Genesis,

''l-his commoncrrorwasevcnmadeby a rraditionalOrrhodoxrhinkerwhom Fr Scraphirngrcarlyrcspecrcd:l. M. Andrcycv(1894-t976), in his book Orthodox Apologctic Tlrology(1955).In a lenerofJuly 31t6, 1977,f-r Seraphimwrotc: "l would say thar his [Andreyev's] simple cquarionof'drys' wirh 'pcriods'is roo loose."-F.o.

7l

CnrlrroN ,rNnllenrYM,lt.l Gerur.sts, men of the to the wisdomof the God-bearing and to openourselves understanding pastwho havedevotedso much intellectualeffort to TheseHoly Faasit wasmeantto be understood. rhe text of Genesis Genesis. rhersareour keyto understanding 2. TheHoly Fathers:Our Ke1to the Undrrstandingof Genesis we find the "mind of the Church"-the living In the Holy Fathers 1'heyareour link berweenthe anof God'srevelation. understanding and today!rediry Without cienttextswhichcontainGod! revelation sucha link it is everymanfor himself-and the resultis a myriadof inand sects. terpretarions This alreadyis on Genesis. commentaries TherearemanyPatristic importantby extremely an indicationto us that this text is considered the Fathersof the Church. lrt us look now at which Fatherstalked aboutthis textandwhat bookstheywrote of In this courseI will makeuseprimarilyof four commentaries the earlyFarhers: on wrotea largerandsmallercommentary L St.JohnChrysostom 'fhe was Gencsis' Homilies on larger,called the whole book of Cenesis. duringGreatl,ent' sinceduring delivered actuallya courseof lectures Lent the book of Genesisis read in church.This book contains homiliesand is somesevenhundredpageslong.*Another sixry-seven hunyear,St.Johndeliveredeightotherhomilies,comprisingseveral dred more pages.He alsowrote a treatisectlled On the Creationof the 'lYorld,overa hundred pageslong. Thus, in St. John Chrysostomwe He is one of Genesis. havea thousandpagesor moreof interpretation of this book. of rhemain interpreters 2. St. Ephraimthe Syrian,from aboutthe sametime asSt. John on the wholebook ln his work, alsohasa commentary Chrysostom, calledsimply Interpretationof the Booksof the Bible,severalhundred

How ro Rr^.ro CrNssls pagesaredevotedro Genesis.St. Ephraim is valuedas an Old Testa(i.e.,of nrenrinterpreterbecause he knewHebrew,wasan "Easterner" ;rnEasternmentaliry),and knewscrences. 3. St. Basilthe Greatgavehomilies*on the Six Daysof Creatron, called the Hexaemeror-meaning"Six Days." There are orher Hexumera in the literatureof the earlyChurch,somegoing backro the ** It secondcentury.St. Basil's, onemightsay,is the mostauthoritative. doesnor coverthe whole of Cenesis,but only the first chapter.Another book by him which we will quoteis calledOz theOrigin of Man, whichis like a continuationof the Hexaemeron. 4. In the Vest, St.Ambroseof Milan readSt. Basil'shomiliesand wrotehomilieson the Six Dayshimself.'*.His Hexaemeron is quite a bit longer,about threehundredpages.**** St. Ambrosealsowrote a wholebookon Paradise, a continuationof rheHexaemeron, aswell asa bookon Cain and Abel. In additionto thesebasiccommentaries, we will look ar a numoer of bookswhich do not go into the wholebook of Genesisor into the wholeofthe Six Days.For example,the brotherofSt. Basil,St. Gregory of Nyssa,hasa book On theMahingof Man, which goesinto detail about the end of the first chapterand the beginningof the second chapterof Genesis.

from thc Russiancdition ' For thc prcscntwork, Fr.Scraphimtranslatcdpassages and St. Ephraimrhe Syrian'sCommcntary ofSr. JohnChrysostomlsHomiliu on Gencsir (sccbclow).SinceFr. Scraphim'sreposc,borh thcscworks havebecnpubon Gcnesis ofthc Church,vols.74,82'87'91.-Eo. lishcdin Enelish,in'I-hc Fathcrs

* "Homilies"usuallymeansrhey wcrc dcliveredin church,whcrc the people stoodand listcncd. washeld in high esteemin rhe ancientChurch.Sr. " St. Basil! Hcxacmcron (iregory rhe Theologianwrore of ir: "\7hen I rake his [Built] Hexaemeron in my handand readit aloud,I am wirh my Crcaror,I understand the rcasons for crealion, lnd I admiremy Creatormore rhan I fornrerlydid when I usedsighraloneas my tcacher(Sc.CrcgoryrhcTheologian, Homily 43:67," Panegytic on St.Basil").-Eo. yeersafter St. Ba"'Sr. Ambrosei homiliesweredeliveredabout sevenreen sil's.-Eo. t'** Here we can seehow, when one Frther speaksspecificallyon one passagc, rnorhcrFatherwill perhaps saysomcrhingin derailaboura differcnrpassagc. Ifyou you ger a vcry goodoverviewof how the nrind of the Church, kccpit all rogcrher, how thc Fathersin generallook at rhescpassagcs. You mighr find a disagrcemcnr ovcr sonrclirtle inrcrpreration, somesmallpoint, but coocerningthe big pointsyou will seetheyall sayrhesamething in diffcrentways,that theyarequirein harmonyovcr how to intcrprcrrhc bookof Ccncsis.

72

73

'i

iE rJ

rf ?

q+ FF ill

',,.*.

'r4

fri*i

rT I

.+

L l.. ru -.*

".lrrr 'f::i{'r-";

\r. lohrr (.lrrlso sro rr ( (;( , 1( lf r l ol nrotrth ). .rrr.lrbislrol' ( ii,ns t.rrrtirrop (.J lc i.i . r 0- ) .

F;.

tl

*

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 (.1-1,).1-9).

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.

.l

S t . ( i r c g o l v t h c h cr r l o q i :r n (N,rzi.rnrcn ) , . r r ch b i sh ,r p ol' ( . o n s r , r n r i n o p L( l - 1 5 t( ) 0 ) .

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 i l r s j - .i ) .

St.EphraimrhcSyrian Q06-372). iconfom Grcccc. A conmnporary

St.Grcgory,bishopof Nyssa(33G-395). kon b7Monk Thcopbencs ikita tbeCrcmn, Stauron Monastery, MountAthos, c4, I )40.

St.Ambrosc,bishop of Milan(339-397). Fifh-ccrnry motaitfom thc ChapclofSt. Victor'bfthc Goldtn 5k7,"Mihn, Italy.

BlessedAugustinc,bishop of Hippo (154-430). Fraco by Monh Tbcopbanct thc Ctctan,fom thc Mctcore Monastcryof Varham, 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. Macarius the Great,St. Abba Dorotheus,St. Isaacthe Syrian and other wntcrsofthe 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 Sr.Macariusthc Greatof Egypr (ca. 300-390). lcor by Arcbimandrite (1prian. Holy'frinity Monastery.

Sr.lsaactheSyrian(sevcnrh century), lcon b1 fi Pacbomiot Mount Athor

I have also made use ofoutlines of Orthodox dogma. The book of

St. John Damascene,On the OrthodoxFaitb, containsmany chaprers on questionsaboutthe Six Days,the creationof man, the fall, Paradise, and so forrh. The catechismsof the early Church-the Great Catechismof St. Gregory o[ Nyssa and,the Catechctic/tlLecturesof Sr. Cyril of Jerusale m-also havea fewdetailson rhesequesrions. On onespecificquesrionofthe Patristic worldviewI haveusedthe treatises on the Resurrection by Srs.Athanasius the Grear,Gregoryof Nyssa,andAmbroseof Milan. St. Symeonthe New Theologianhaswritten homilieson Adam, the fall and the earlyworld,whichwe havein Englishin the book llr Sin of Adarn.* ' [-aterpublishedunder thc rirle TheFirx-CreatedMan,-Eo. 78

'BfessedAugusrincalso wrore e lcngthy work on rhe subjcct, I'hc Literal Medningof Gcnetit,which containsidels that arc at varianccwith Patrisrictcaching (seebclow,p. 102 n). Fr.Seraphimwasawarcof rhc cxistcnce of this work, bur hc saidhe had not secnit (seepp. 217). In 1982,shortlyafterhis repose, it appeared in Englishas vols.4l and 42 in rhe AncienrChrisrianWrirersseries(New York: PaulistPress). Orher of Blcssed Augusrinc's teachings had deficiencics aswell,duc ro his rcndencyro over-rationalize. Fr.Seraphimwrotethat "someofhis writings,sr,rch rs his anti-PclagiantreariscsOr the 'Iiinity, arcrcadonly wirh caution." It shouldbe added, however,thar BlessedArrgustine's errorshavc ncver causcdhim to be regardedas a hercricby rhe Orrhodox Church, which h,rsal*ays honoredhim asa Fithcr ofpiety (especially on the basisofhis non-dogmaticwork like TbeConfesiont),while not acceptinghis theological exaggerarions. Fr Seraphimwrotea wholebook on this subject, Thc Plate ofBh*ed Axgustineia thc Orthodox Chutclt, Ir shouldalsobc notedrhar,cvenwhcreBlcssed Augustinc's interpretation of Ccncsisis questionablc, it is in no scnscconrparible with cvolurionism or an "oldearth"view,assomerwcntieth-cenrury scholars hevcclaimcd.Augusrinemainrained thar thc rransformarion from one kind of crcarurcinto anotherwasirnpossiblc, and that thc world was crcaredin about 5500 r.c. SecJonarhan!/ells' dcfenscof Augustinein his article"AbusingTheology:HowardVanf-ill's'ForgonenDocrrine "-Eo. FuncrionalI nrcsriry.' of Crearion'.s

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.

St. Abb;r [)ororhcosot ( irrzu, l).rlcstinc(rixth ccnrLrrv).

5t . J ohn l ) e m l s c c r r c ( ol l) r nt ar c t t r , 5 1 r i a ) ( ( r : r i , ; {) ) .

\ t ( , r c t , 'r \ o l \ r n . r r ( l - r ( '5 I t r ( r )

,/'

GeNEsrs, CrranloN axo Ernlv M,tN

How ro Rr,to GaNxrs

havetoday.Thereforewe musr havesome basicprincipleswhich govern our understanding both of Genesisand the Holy Fathers.

first man-and specifically,thar the body of Adam could have been formed by natural generationin the womb of some not-quite-human creature.Can such a statemenrlegitimatelybe used as a "proof" on this question? It so happensthat we can find a passage in the works ofSt. Athanasius that specifically refutes rhis idea. In another place he says: "Though Adam only was lormed our of earth,yet irr him was involved the succession of the whole race." r Here he quite specificallystatesrhat Adam wascreatedin a way differentfiom all other men, which indecd, as we shall see,is the teachingof the Holy Fathersin general.Therefbre, it is illegitimareto take one quote of his and think rhar it proves or opensthe way to some favoriteidea ofour own. St. Athanasius'gezrra/ sratementabout rhe narureof man saysnorhing whateverabout the specifc nature of Adams creauon. Such a misuseof quotationsfrom the Holy Fathersis a very common pitfall in our dayswhen polemicson such subjecrsare often very passionate. In this coursewe will try our best to avoid such pitfalls by not forcing any of our own interprerarionson the Holy Farhers,but simply rrying to seewhar rhey saythemselves. 5. Ve do not need ro accept every word the Farhers wrore on Cenesis;sometimesthey made useof the scienceof their rime for illusrrativematerial,and this sciencewas mistakenin some ooints. But we should carefullydistinguishtheir sciencefrom their theologicalstarements, and we should respecttheir whole approachand generalconclusionsand theologicalinsighrs. 6. If we ourselvesrhink we can add somethingto the undersranding of the text for our days (perhapsbasedon thc-findingsof modern science),let ir be done cautiouslyand wirh full respectfor the integriry of rhe text of Genesisand rhe opinions of rhe Holy Farhers.And we should alwaysbe humbbin this atrempt-the scienceof our own days alsohasits lailingsand mistakes,and if we rely too much on it we may * find ourselveswith wrong undersrandings.

j. Basic Principlcs of Our Approach to Understanding Genesis l. Ve are seeking tuth, !/e must respect the text of Genesis enoughto recognizethat it containstruth, eventhough rhat truth may seemunusualor surprisingto us. lf it seemsto conflict with what we think we know from science,let us rememberthat God is the Author of all truth, and anything genuinelyrrue in Scripture cannot conttadicr anything that is genuinelytrue in science. 2. The Scriptureis Diuincin inspiration.Ve will look more closely below ar what this means;but for a beginning,it meansthat we must look in it for truths ofa high order,and if we find difficulty in understandinganything we should suspectfirst our own lack of knowledge rarherrhan a deficiencyin the inspiredtext. 3. We should not hasten to offer our own explanations of "difficult" passages,but should first try to familiarize ourselveswith what recognizingthat they the Holy Fathershavesaid about thesepassages, havespiritualwisdom rhat we lack. 4. We should also bewareof the temptation to seizeon isolated, out-of-context quotes from the Holy Fathersto "prove" a point one would like to make. For example,I have seenan Orthodox person, wishing to provethat therewas nothing "special"about the creationof Adam, quote the following statementlrom St. Athanasiusthe Crear: "The first-createdman was made ofdust like everyone,and the hand which createdAdam then is creatingalso and alwaysrhosewho come after him."'This is a generalstatementabout Codt continuous creative activiry which no one would think of contradicting.* But the point this personwanted to make was that there was no real distinction betweenthe creationof every living man and the creationof the

effort,nothingwould cxistor come into 'Vithout God'scontinuouscreative being.Ve think ir is "natural" thar planc grow from a sced,that cverything,in fact, But withoutGod, this proandgrowsinro a full individr:al. comcsfrom a smallseed cesscannotcontinuc.SoofcourseCod is srillcrearingroday,"from thedust."

'lr is a very commonvicw amongpcoplewho do not go roo dceplyinro rhe qucsriontlrar"ancicntscicnce is wrong,modcrnscicnccis right,and rhercforc wc can rrusteveryrhing thc nrodcrnscicnrisrs rcll us." Bur ir so happens rharonegcncration

82

83

,lNo ErnrYMen G;Nrsts,CncATtoN 7. Specificallyin this coursewe will be trying first to understand the Fathers,and only tlten rc offer our own answersto some questlons, if we havethem. 8. Finally, if it is true rhat modern scienceis capableof throwing of Genesome light on the understandingof at leasta few passages sis-for we do not need to deny that in some areasthe truths of these rwo spheresoverlap-l think that it is no lesstrue that the Patrisricunderstandingof Genesisis alsocapableof throwing light on modern scienceand givessome hints on how to understandthe factsof geology, paleontology,and other sciencesconcernedwith the early history of the earth and of mankind. This study can thereforebe a fruitful one in both directions. 9. The aim of this course,however,is not to answera// questions about Genesisand creation,but rather,first ofall, to inspireOrthodox Christiansto think about this subiectin a broaderway than it ts usually approached,without being satisfiedwith the simplistic answers that are so often heard.

4. Literal us.Slmbolical Interpretations This
How ro RueoCrNmrs or figurative elements,for example, in the Genesisnarrative of the (larden ofEden, we easilyjump to rhe conclusionthat rhe whole nar-

rativeis a "symbol" or an "allegory." Our key to understandingGenesisis: how did the Holy Fathers understandthis question,specificallywith regardto separarepassagcs and generallywith regardto the book asa whole? Let us take some examples: L Sr. Macarius the Grear of Egypt, a Saint of the mosr exalted mysticallife and whom one certainly cannor suspecrof overly lireral vicws of Scripture,writes on Genesis3:24: "That Paradisewas closed irnd that a Cherubim wascommandedto preventman from enteringir by a flaming sword: of this we believethat in visiblefashion it was indeed just as it is written, and at rhe sametime we find that this occurs rnysticallyin every soul."o This is a passage which many of us might lraveexpectedto have only a mysricalmeaning, but this great seerof Divine things assuresus thar it is also true "just as it is written"-for 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 which it is only safefor rhosewho have reachedmaturiry of habir to t enter." Does this mean that he regardedthis rree as only a symbol, and not also a literal tree?In his own writings he apparentlydoes not give an answerto this quesrion,but another great Holy Father does (for when they are teaching Orthodox doctrine and not jusr giving private opinions, all the great Fathersagreewirh each other and even help to interpret each other). Sr. Cregory Palamas,the fourreenthccntury hesychastFather,commentson this passage:

Ve haveto rcalgeneration. scicntificlacrsofthe preccding rhc so-callcd ovcrthrows (iontemporary viewswhich, has many sciencc what is thcory. izc whar is ficr and therewill be and (ifthcy will bc overturned. last that long)' even fifryvearsfionr now newthcorics.

Grcgorythc Theologianhascalledthc treeofthc knowledge ofgooo "contemplation" and evil ... bur ir doesnot follow thar what is involvedis an illusionor a symbolwithour existence of irs own. For (rhe thedivineMaximus Confessor) alsomakesMoscsthc symbolof judgmcnt,and Elilahthe symbolofforesighr! Arc theytoo rhensupposednot to havereallyexisted, but ro havcbeeninvcntcd"symbolically"?"

84

85

ments of whole portions or books ofscripture: lf there are symbolical

CneeuoNlNo ErnrY MaN GeNests,

How ro Rreo ClnNr_sls

to 3. These are specificinterpretations.As for generalaPProaches the "literal" or "symbolical"natureof the text of Genesis,let us look at the words of severalother Holy Fathers who havewritten commentaries on Genesis.St. Basil the Great in his Hexaemeronwrires:

5. St.JohnChrysostom, speaking specifically of rheriversof paradise,writes:

Thosewho do not admir thc common meaningof the Scriptures saythat wateris nor water,but someothernature,and theyexplain a plant and a fish accordingto their opinion.... (But) whcn I hear eve"grass,"I think of grass,and in the samemanncrI understand ox- Inrythingas it is said,.a plant,a fish,a wild animal,and an deed,"l am not ashamedof the Gospel(Rom. l:16)."... (Some) haveattemptedby falseargumentsand allcgoricalinterpretationsro bestowon the Scripturea digniry of rheir own imagining.But himselfwiserthan the theirsis the atritudeof one who considers of own ideasin pretcnsc his introduces Spirit and of rhe revelations writas it hasbcen Therefore,let it be undersrood an e-xplanation. ten.

4. St. Ephraim the Syriantells us similarly in the Commentaryon Genesis: ir of SixDaysis an allegory: No oneshouldthinkthattheCreation to thcacaccording to saythatwharsecms, impermissible islikewise count, to have been created in six days, was created in a singlc instant, and likewise that certain names presentedin this account cither signily nothing, or signif, somethingelse.On the contrary,wc must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in thc beginningare actuallythc heavenand the earth and not something elseunderstoodunder the namcsof heavenand earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heavenand earth is not empry names,bur rhe very esscnceof the created naturcs corresponds to the force of thcse namcs.o rcads:"l take all in thc literal ' The Ecrdmanstranslationof this samepassagc vol 8' p. l0l) -Eo (Niceneand Post-Nicene Fathcrs, SccondSerics, sense"

86

Perhapsone who lovesto spcakfrom his own wisdom here also will not allow thar the rivers are acrually rivcrs, nor thar the warersare preciselywarcrs,but will instill, in rhosewho allow rhemselves to listen to them, rhe idea that they (undcr the names of rivcrs and waters) represenrcdsomcthing elsc, Bur I enrrearyout let us not pay heed ro rhcscpcople,ler us stop up our hearingagainstthcm, and lcr us belicvcrhc Divinc Scriprurc,and following whar is wrirren in rr, ler us strivc to preseryein our soulssound dogmas.9

This showsthat the Holy Fatherswere hcing rhis quesrionin rheir day, in the fourth cenrury.'I'herewere many people who were interpreting rhe rextof Genesisasan allegory,running wild with symbolical interpretations,and denying thar it has any lireral meaningar all-especially rhe firsr three chapterswe will be studying. Therefore, the Holy Farhersmade a specificpoint of sayingft hasa lircral mcanrng, and we must understandexacrlywhar that meaning is. This should be enough to show us thar rhe-Holy Fatherswho wrote on Genesiswere in generalquite "literal" in their inrerpretatron of the text, evenwhile, in many cases.allowing ata a symbolii or mystical meaning.There are,ofcourse,in Scripture,as in everykind ofliterature, obvious metaphorswhich no one in his right mind would think of raking"lirerally."For example,in Psalml0J ir says.'tnesun knoweth his going down." Vith full respectfor rhe text, we do not need to believethat the sun has a consciousness and lirerally "knows', when it is to ser;rhis is simply a normal deviceof poetic languageand should causerrouble ro no one. There is, further, one imporrant kind of srarement in Scrip1111s-xndthereare many examplesof it in Genesis-which the Holy Fatherstell us specificallyzal to understandin a literal way. Theseare anthropomorphic sraremenrsmade of God as thoughHe were a man who walks, talks,getsangry,erc.All such statementswe are to unoerstand in a "God-befitting" manner-that is, basedon our knowledge from Orthodox reachingthat God is purely spiritual, has no physic"al

87

Gr:ursIs,CneertoNnr.toE,rnu MrN organs,and that His actsare describedin Scripture 4s thry reemto us fhe Fathersare very careful over the text of Genesisin this regard. Thus, St. John Chrysostomstates: 'Whenyou hearthat "God plantedParadise in Edenin the East,"understandrhe word "planted"befitringlvof God: that is, that He the wordsthat follow believeprecisely but concerning commanded; wascreatedand in rhat very placcwhererhe Scripture that Paradise it.'u hasassigned As for the "scientific" information given in the book of Genesis-and sinceit talksabour the formation of the world we know' there cannor but be some scientificinformation there-contrary to popular belief, there is nothing "out-of-date" about it. Its observations,it is rrue, are all m^de aJ seenfLm earth Lnd 4s /lfecting manhind;but they do not put forth any particularteaching,for example'on the nature of the heavenlybodiesor their relativemotions, and so the book can be read by eachgenerationand understoodin the light of its own scienrific knowledge.The discoveryin recent centuriesof the vasrnessof spaceand the irnmensiryof many of its heavenlybodiesdoesnothing but add grandeurin our minds to the simple accountof Genesis. Vhen the Holy Fatherstalk about Genesis,of course'they try to illusrrateir with examplestaken from the natural scienceof their time; we do rhe samething today.All this illustrativematerialis oPen to sclentific criticism, and some of ir, in fact, has becomeout-of-date. Bur the text of Genesisitself is unaffectedby such criticism, and we can only wonder ar how freshand timely it is to eachnew generation.And the theologicalcommentary of the Holy Fatherson the text partakesof this samequaliry. 5. The Nanre of the Text A final important point to considerbeforeapproachingthe text of Genesisitself: what hind of text is it? We all know of the anti-religiousargumentsabout the Scripture, and in particularabout Genesis:that it is a creationofbackward people 88

How ro REroGenrsrs

rvhoknewlittle of science or the world,that it is full of primirivemyrhologyabout "creator-gods" and supernarural beings,rhat ir hasall beentakenfrom BabylonianmFhology,erc.But no one canseriously compareGenesis with anyof thecreationmythsof otherpeoples wirhout beingstruckby the sobrieryandsimpliciryofthe Genesis account (lreationmyrhsareindeedfull of fabulouseventsand fairy-talebeings whicharenor eveninrendedto be takenasthe texris writren.Thereis no competitionberweentheserextsand Genesis; rheyarenot in the lcastcomparable. Nonetheless, thereis a widespread popularview-without foundation either in Scriptureor in Church tradirion-that Moseswrote Lienesis afterconsultingotherearlyaccounts ofthe creation,or tharhe simply recordedthe oral traditionsthat camedown to him; that he compiledand simplifiedthe talesthat had come down to his time. 'l'his,of course,would makeGenesisa work of humanwisdom and speculation, and it would be poinrless to studysucha work asa statementoftruth aboutthe beginningofthe world. There are differentkinds of knowledge,and rhe knowledgethat comesdirectlyfrom God is quite distinctfrom that which proceed fiorn man'snaturalpowers.St. Isaacrhe Syriandisringuishes rhese kindsof knowledgein rhefollowingway: Knowledge whichis concerned wirh thc visible,or whichreceives through the senseswhat comesfrom the visible, is called natural. Knowlcdgewhich is concernedwith rhe power of rhe immirterial and thc natureof incorporeal enritieswithin a man is callcdspiritual, because perceptions are received by the spirit and not by the senses. Becausc oftheserwo origins(perceptions ofthc visibleandof 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 knowledgc.Contemplationof this knowledgccomesto rhc soul not from mattcr,which is oursideir.... Ir manifests and revcals irselfinthe rnncrmostdepthsof thc soul itself,immaterially, suddenly, sponraneously,and unexpectedly, since,according to rhewordsof Christ,'rhe KingdomofGod is wirhinyou'(Lukel7:21).rr

89

How ro REr.oGrNEsrs St. Isaac in another place describes how, in men of the highest spiritual life, the soul can rise to a vision of rhe beginning of things. Describing how such a soul is enraptured at the thought of rhe frlture ageof incorruption, St. Isaacwrires: And from this onc is alrcadycxaltedin his mind ro that which prccededthe 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 everything 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 beginning 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: Moses"spoketo God thc Most High, nor in a vision nor in drcams, but mouth ro mouth" (Numbersl2:G8). Plainlyand clearly,not by figurcsnor by riddles,therewasbestowcdon him the gift ofthe Divine presence. And so Moscsopcnedhis mourh and uncredwhat the Lord spokewithin him, accordingto rhe promisc He madero him when Hc dircctedhim to go to King Pharaoh:"Go thereforeand I will open thy mouth and instruc thee what thou shouldestspeak" (Ex. 4: l2). For, if he had alreadyacceptcdfrom God whar hc should sayconccrningrhe libcrationof rhe pcople,how much morc should you acccptwhat Hc should sayconcerninghcaven?Thercfore,"not in the persuasivcwords of wisdom," not in philosophicalfallacies, "but in thc dernonstrationofthe Spirit and power" (l Cor. 2:4), hc Holy ProphctandGod.sccrMoscs(ll53l a.c.). Icon h Monk Tbcoohancsthc Cncan.

' The book of Exodusrecounrsrwo occasionson which God Himsclf saysro 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

\5 .,' .

.-' ')'

r

\r J

ry

,)r. Jn- '

r}.

i

\-' .(.

.

.,4:.

,_.(

t7f,:i-q; . ./k ', '.'n {, i. '..

.. 'I

,\' | 1 l/ . ' ,r,., r' " , ' l . ,'. t.

,;,q-,-

/ ,'11

,;

+r o'., 'iyt

uf#.;

I 'r o p h c r \ l r r s o n \ l o L r n r Si n r i l cr l i vi n q l i ,,n r ( i o tl tl r c l .r b l c,,o t r h c l .r w ( l r . t l : 1 f l ) . I t , t /n tu l i u t,( "tu / i l :n n tr ) , r .n 3 t0

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 '

In e si nri l rrrvci n, S r. Il rr silr vr ir cs nt r hc r , cr y bcsinninr l of - his l, / r s-

Ihir rnlrr. rvh,r is rnurlccrlrrrrltrt thc.rn{cl.. br.in1;considcrcdrr,ortln ol tl rc si gl rtol (' ocl l :rccr , r f ir c. r - ep, , r tlo r Lr rr hor c t hing. $hich hc ( hc.rrdfiottr ,od.r'

$ .

.Ur '{t/

I' roplrct Ilo'e . rc.civin e his ilr ' ' t r c v c lr t ion < r l( lod. : r r \ l, r L I I r r l l o r c l , (lrr. .]: I 5) . At r t r p.r lr t v is i, r nol l' . r r r dir c llt:tirtr litrt

oI th t^'t..ttIl) ..tt| \'

S t..fohn (i hrysOsront i n his f loniliu on ( , r 'zr r ,.-rcor r cs back aglin .rntl l qi l i rr to thr' srl tcnrcrrt t hlr cvcr Y ur r r cl 0i't lr c Scr iPt Lt r cis I ) ivinclv i rrspi reclantl hl s rr pr' ofi rrrndnr clninlS- - - t har ir is nor i\ {oscs'r vor ds,but ( ,orl s:

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

ProphctMoscswritingin Eden. hontkpicccu thcboohof Garcsirit thcBiblcof bo Sakclhiol Consuntinoob, *o. 940.

Let us seenow what we aretaughtby thc blcssedMoscs,who speaks not of himsclfbut by the inspirationofthc graccofthc Spirit.rt He then has a fascinating description of how Moses does this. Ve know that the Old Testament prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah. In the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation), St. John the Theologian prophesied about the events of the end of the world and the frrture ofthe Church. How did they know what was going to happen? Obviously, God revealedit to them. St. John Chrysostom says that, just as St. John the Theologian was a prophet of things of the future, Moses was d prophet of things of the past. He says the following: All the other prophetsspokeeitherofwhat wasto occur aftera long time or of what was about to happcn then; but he, the blessed (Moses),who lived many gcncntions aftcr Ghc crcation of the world), wasvouchsafed by the guidanceofthe right handofthe Most

94

Thus, we should approach the early chapters of Genesis as we would a book of prophecy, knowing thar ir is actual evens being described, but knowing also that-because of their remotenessro us and becauseoftheir very nature as the very first eventsin the history ofthe world-we will be able to undersrand rhem only imperfectly, even as we have a very imperfect understanding ofthe eventsat the very end of the world as ser forrh in the Apocalypse and other New Testament Scriptures. St. John Chrysostom himself warns us not ro think we understandroo much about rhe crearion: Vith greatgratitude let us acccptwhat is relared(by Moses),not steppingout ofour own limitations,and not testingwhat is aboveus asthe enemiesof the truth did when, wishingto comprehendeverything with their minds, they did not realizethat human naturecannot comprehendthe crcationof God.t7 Ler us then rry to enrer rhe world ofrhe Holy Fathersand therr understanding of the Divinely inspired text of Genesis. Let us love and respect their writings, which in our confused times are a beacon of clariry which shines most clearly on the inspired rext irself. let us not 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 about offering it, knowing the poverry and fallibiliry of our own minds. Let them open our minds to understand Godt revelation. We should add here a final note abour the study of Genesisin our own times. The Holy Fathersof the early Christians who wrote about

nuo Elnrv Men Cng,crroN Gr.Nesrs, at various points to take rhe Six Days of Creation found it necessary note of rhe non-Christian scientificor philosophicalspeculationsof their days-such views,for example,asthat the world is eternal,that it produceditseli that it was createdout of pre-existingmatter by a limired fashioner-god(demiurge),and the like. In our own times, too, thereare non-Christianspeculationsabout the beginningsof the universe,of life on earth, and the like' and we cannot help but touch on them at variouspoints of our commentxry. The most widespreadsuch ideastoday are those bound up with the so-calledtheory of "evolution." We will have to discusssome of these let us statewhat ideasbriefly,but in order to avoid misunderstandings we mean by this word. The conceptof "evolution" has many levelsof applicationin both scientificand popular language:sometimesit is no more than a synonym for "developmsnl";x1other times ir is usedto describethe "variations" that occur within a species;and again, it describesreal or hypothesizedchangesin nature oF a somewhat larger kind. In rhis coursewe will not have to be concernedwith these kinds of "evolution," which belong pretry much to the realm ofscientific fact and its interpretation. The only kind of "evolution"we will haveto deal with is evolurion asa "cosmogony"-that is, a theory about the origin of the world. This kind of theory of evolution occupiesthe sameplacefor contemPorary studentsof the book of Genesisas the ancientspeculationson the origins of the world did for rhe earlyChurch Fathers.There are those' of course,who will insistthat eventhis kind of evolution is perfectlyscientific; in fact, some of them are quite "dogmatic" about it. But any reasonablyobjectiveview will haveto admit that the evolutionarycosmogony, unlessit claims to be Divinely revealed,is just as speculative as any other theory of origins and can be discussedon the same level wirh rhem. Although it may claim to have its foundation in scientific facts,it itself belongsto the realm of philosophy and even toucheson theology,inasmuchas it cannot avoid the question ofGod as Crearor of the world, whether it accepts or deniesHim. In this course,therefore,we will touch on "evolution"only asa untversalrheorythat artemptsto explainthe origin ofthe world and oflife.

96

CHaprsn Two

TheSix Daysof Creation (GENERAL OBSERVATIONS)

l. Introduction

ow LEr us studythe Parristic modelofthe Six Daysof Creation. Ve will not occupyourselves with trying to guess"how long"

thesedayswere,althoughby the time we come ro the end we will havea pretty good idea ofhow the Farhersviewedtheir lengrh. Many fundamentaliststhink their literal interpretationof Genesisis lost if these days are not acceptedas preciselyrwenty-four hours long; and many otherswho want to reconcileGenesiswith the modern theory of evolution drink their hopesresrupon acceptingthesedaysas millions or billions of yearslong so they will accordwith the supposedfindings of geology.I think we can safelysaythat both oftheseviewsmissrhe mark. It is not that thesedays could not have been rwenty-four hours long, if God so willed; one or rwo Fathers(St. Ephraim the Syrian,for example)even srarepreciselyrhat they were rwenty-lour hours long. But most Farhersdo not sayanything ar all on the subjecr:it was not a subjectof debarein their rimes,and it seemsnot ro haveoccurred to rhem to insist on projectingthe rime scaleofour fallen world back to rhe stupendousand miraculouseventsofthose Six Days. Bur if we do not need to define rhe Six Days of Creatron as twenty-four hours long, it is quite impossiblefor us ro regardrhem as millions or billions of yearslong-that is, to force rhem into an evolutionary time scale.The evenrsof the Six Dayssimply do nor fir inro rhe evolutionarypicture at all. In Genesisthe first living things are grasses and treesupon rhe dry land; life did not first appearin the sea,as the

97

GeNesIs,Cr.r-arroN.aNoElnrv MaN

theorywould haveit; theseland plantsexistfor a whole evolutionary while in any evolubeforethe sunwascreated, day (billionsof years?) the earthitselC*Any reasonably tionaryconceptionthe sun precedes would haveto concludethat the Six Daysof Creaobjectiveobserver tion, if theyarea trueaccountand not a productof arbitrary|ancyor simply do not fit into the evolutionaryframework,and speculation, therefore thereis no needto makethem billionsof yearslong.Ve will seebelowalsohow the descriptionoftheseDaysby the Holy Fathers Evolutionarytheoryis obquiteimpossible. makesthis interpretation viouslytalkingaboursomethingotherthan the Six Daysof Creation. And in actualfact,za scientifictheorycan tell us aboutthoseSix with more and sometimes Days.Sciencetriesto explain(sometimes of this world, basedon projectionsof with lesssuccess) the changes which can be observedtoday.But the Six Daysof naturalprocesses not a natural process;they are what camebeforeall the Crearion ^re processes beganto work. They areGod'swork; by very world'snatural definitionthey are miraculousand do not fit into the naturallaws whichgovernthe world we seenow.**If we canknowwhat happened or speculain thoseSix Daysat all, it is not by scientificprojections modernscicntists In this respect, tions,but only by God'srevelation. and of cosmicspeculations areno betreroff than the ancientcreators emphasiz.e this poinr' on Genesis myths.The writersof commenraries writes: St.JohnChrysostom \{Aat doesit mean that first there is heavcn,and thcn earth, first thc roofand then the foundation?God is not subiect to n:rturalnecescrcrriotrists' Not only "Christianevolutionists" but rlso"old-carrh/progressivc rimescaleofbillionsofyears,and arremprro forcethe SixDaysinro theevolutionary accounrin orderto dealwirh rhe contradicthusrheyroo must disrorrthe Gcnesis tionsoutlinedabove .-Flo. *' ln his nores,Fr.Seraphim saysfurther:"The fossilrecordis aorarccordofrhe 'SixDays,'but of the historyof rhecorruptworld afer itscrcation.The Six Daysare bqoxd sciencif.c obrruationand mcatwemrrt,and aredifferentin kind from what sci(Cf. St. Symeonrhe Ncw 'l'heologianon thc new law of narurcaftcr enccmeasures. thc fall ofAdam.) Tbeirtime kpsci not tnca*rablebyriencc anddocsnor fit in with anyscienrifi c theories."-Eo.

98

THa Srx D,rysor CneerroN siry;Hc is nor subjectto rhe lawsofarr. The will of(lod is the creator and artificerofnatureandofart and ofevcrythingexisring.l Speakingofthe Fifth Day of Creation,the same Fathersays: 'loday God goesover ro

the watcrsand showsus that from rhem, by His word and command,rhere proceededanimatccrearures.... Whar mind, rell mc, canundersrand this miracle?r St. Basilteachesin rhe Hexaemeron that in the Third Day therewas no natural necessiryfor watersto flow downward; this is a law ofour own world, but then there was as yer no law, until Clod'scommand came: Someoncnray,pcrhaps, askthis:Why doesthe Scripturereduceto a commandofthe Crcarorthat rendcncyto flow downwardwhichoeIurgsnarurallyto warer?...[fwarerhasrhistendencyby narure,rhc commandorderingthc warcrsto be garhcred togetherinto oneplace 'Io would be superfluous.. .. thisinquirywe saythis,thatyou recognizedvery well rhe movemcnts of the warerafterrhe commandof thc Lord, borh rhat it is unsready and unstablcand thar it is borne naturallydown slopesand into hollows;but how it had any power previousto rhat,beforcthc morionwasengendered in it from this command,you yoursclfneithcrknow nor haveyou heardir from onc who kncw.Rcflectrhat rhevoiccof God makesnaturc,and thc commandgivcnat rhat timc to crcationprovidcdthe futurccourse ofactionfor the creaturcs.l Undoubtedly, here is one of the chief sourcesof the conflict berween scientific rheory and religiousrevelation.During the Six Days nature itself uas being madc; our presenr knowledge of natural laws cannot possiblyrell us how theselaws themselves were made.'fhe very subject of ultimate origins, of beginnings,of the Genesisof all things-is ourside rhe sphereof science.\X/hena scienristentersthis realm, he guesses and speculates like any ancientcosmologist;and this not only distracrshim from his seriouswork of srudying the natural

99

Gr-Nests,Ctr,nrtoN ,rNo EanrYMaN

of this world-it alsomakeshim a competitorof religious processes sourceof our realknowledgeof which is the only possible reuelation, the beginningof things,iust asit is our only sourceof knowledgeof the finalendof all things.St. Basilwrites: '!flcareproposing of the worldand to conto examinethestructure not from thewisdomofthe world,but templatcthe wholcuniverse, whenHe spoketo him in person from wharGod taughtHis servant andwithoutriddles.n enoughro know that we can actuallyknow lf we can humble ourselves of the Creationof the Six Days, we will details ratherlittle about the havea betrerchanceof understandingwhat we can about GenesisThe Holy Fathers,and not scientificor cosmologicalspeculations,are our key to understandingthe text. 2. Gental Remarhsabout the Six DaYs V'hat, then, can we sayof theseSix Days? First:One Orthodox personreflectingon the Six Days very nicely our aim in studying them: we should measurethem, not expressed quantiratively,but theologically.The imporrant thing about rhem is not how long they were, but what happenedin them They are the statement of six immenseffedtiue actsof God which produced the universeaswe know it. In a moment we will look at thesesix actsin detail' Second:As we haveseen,by their very nature the eventsof these daysare miraculous,are not subjectto the lawsof naturethar now govern the world, and we cannot understandthem by pro)ectionsfrom our presentexPeflence. Third: a point very much emphasizedby the Holy Fatherswho 'fhe creativeactsof (lod in the Six Days are havewritten on Genesis: sudden,instantaneous. St. Ephraim the Syrian,who understandsthe daysof Crearion to that the creativeactsofGod in be rwenry-fourhours long, emphasizes thesedaysdo zafrequirerwenry-fourhours'but only an instant.Thus, concerningrhe FirsrDay he writes:

100

Tne Srx D,lys or CnrarroN AJrhoughboth rheIighrandthecloudswerecreated in the rwinkline ofan eyc,srillboth the dayand the nightofthe FirsrDay conrinuej for rwelvehourscach.5 St. Basil the Great likewise emphasizesar various points of his commenraryon the Six Days rhe insranraneous narureof God! creation. On the Third Day of Creation,he writes, Ar rhissayingall the densewoodsappeared; all the rreesshot up... . Likewise,all rhe shrubswcre immediarelyrhick with leaf and bushy;and rheso-called garlandplanrs... all cameinto cxistence rn a momenr of rime, alrhorrghthey were nor previouslyupon rhc earrh.6"Let rheearthbring forth." This briefcommand*", i--.diatelya mighrynarureand an elaboratc systemwhich broughrto pcrfccrion more swiftly rhan our thought the countlessproi"ni., of plants.T Sr. Ambrose writes that when Mosessaysso abruptly..ln the beginning Cod created,"he intends ro ,,expressthe incomprehensible speedof the work." And, having the cosmologicalspeculaiions of the Greeksin mind, he writes words that apply equallywell ro the specula_ tions of our own times: He (Moses)did nor look forwardto a lareand leisurelycrearionof the worldour ofa conrourse of atoms." St. Ambrose saysfurrher: And fittingly (Moses)added:"He created,,, lestir be rhouehrrhere wase delayin crearion.Furrhernrore. men would seeal.o how in_ comparable thc Creatorwas\?ho complctedsucha greatwork rn the briefestmomcnrof His creative act,so muchso tharthe effecrof His will anticipated the perccprion of rime.,, St. Athanasiusthe Great-in arguing againstthe Arian reaching that Christ is the "beginning" of all rhingi and thus like the crea_

r 0l

Ge Nssts'ClalrtoN aNo ElnlY Mel

fns Srx Days ol CnulroN

1l6n-5gs5 fbrth as his understanding of the Six Days of Creation that all things in each of these days were created simultaneousl:

and imagcof God, rhis is nor in thc leasrsurprising;sincefor him, as for a king, the royal dwclling had to be preparedand only then was

As to the separatcstarsor thc greatlights,nor rhis appearcdfirst, and that second,but in one day and by the samccommand, they were all calledinto bcing. And such was thc original formation of the quadrupeds,and ofbirds, and fishes,and cattle, and plants.... No onc creaturewas made before anorher,but all things originate subsisted at once togetherupon one and the samecommand.'u

3. WhY Six DaYs? "it Ve havealreadyquoted St. Ephraim the Syrian,who statesthat is likewiseimpermissibleto say that what seems,accordingto the account (of Genesis),to havebeencreatedin the courseof six days,was createdin a single instant " The Holy Fathersare quite insistent tn their faithfulnessto the text of Genesis:when the text says"day," thcy find it impermissiblero understandsome indefinitely long epoch, but they also find it impcrsinceGod's creativeactsare instantaneousl missibleto interpret theseSix Days as merely some Iiterary deviceto creation.tAlthough eachcreativeact is expressa totally instantaneous inrtrnt"neour, the whole creationconsistsof an orderly sequenceof thesecreativeacts. St. Gregory the Theologianwrrtes: To the days (of creation) is added a ccrtain firstness'sccondncss, and so on to the seventhday of restfrom work, and by rhirdness, bcingbroughtinto orderby thesedaysis dividedall thar is creared' unurerablelaws,but not producedin an instant,by the Almighry Vord, for \X/homto think or to speakmeansalrcadyto perform thc in the world last,honoredby the handiwork deed.If man appeared 'This is, in fact, what BlesscdAugustincerroncouslyraught. In his book The (but did not insist)rhat rhe daysofcreation Litctal Mcaningof Gczarlr,hc suggcsred all thc angclsconrcmplating dcvice ro describe werenot pcriodsof rimebut a litcrary instant.-Eo totally in one occurred rhcworksofcrcation,which in rcaliry

r02

rhc king to be led in, accornpaniedby all creatures.rr In the same vein St. John Chrysosrom writes: The Almighry right hand of God and His limidesswisdom would have had no difficulry in crearingcverything in a single day. And whar do I say,in a singleday?-in an instant. But sincc He crcatccl everything that exists nor for His own bcncfir, bccauseHe needs nothing, bcing All-sufficienrunro Himself, on rhe conrrary Hc crcarcd everything in His love of mankind and goodncss,and so Hc creltcs in parts and offcrs us lry the mouth of rhe blcssedProphct a clcar tcachingofwhat is createdso that we, having found out about this in dctail, would not fall under thc influcnce of those who arc drawn away by human reasonings....And why, you will say, was man creatcd afrerwards,if he surpasscdall rhesc crcatures?For a good reason.Vhen a king inrends ro cnrer a ciry his armsbcarcrs and others must go ahcad,so that the king might enter chambcrsalready preparcd fbr him. I)rccisclyrhus did God now, intending ro placcas it wcrc a king and masrerover everyrhingcarthll at firsr arrange all this adornmenr, and only then did He creatc rhe master (man).rr

St. Gregoryof Nyssarepearsrhis samereachingthat man, as king, appearedonly after his dominion had been preparedfor him; but he also has another, more mystical interpretationof the sequenccol rhe Six Days which some have rried ro interpret as an expressionof rhe theory ofevolution. Ler us thereforelook cltxely at this teaching.He writes: Scriptureinforns us rharrheDciry procceded by a sortofgraduared and ordercdadvanccro the creationof nran.After rhe fourrdarions of thc universcwerclaid,asthe historyrecords, man did not appear on the earthat once;bur rhe crearionof rhe brutesprccededhim, and thc plantspreceded rhem.'fhercbyScriprurcshowsthat thc vi103

GsNrsIs.Cns,crIoNaNo Eatt,vMeN to a gradarionl tal forccsblcndedwirh rheworldof matteraccording of and in continuation insensate nature; first, it infuseditselfinto to intelliinto the sentientworld;and then ascended rhisadvanced coming is related as of man . . Thc creation genrand rationalbeings.. last,as of one who took up into himsclfeverysingleform of life, both that of plantsand rharwhich is scenin brutes.His nourishment and growth he derivesfrom vegetablelife; for evcn in vegeraareto be seenwhcnalimcntis beingdrawnin by blcssuchprocesses His sentientorganizatheir rootsand givenoff in fruir and leaves. his faculryof thought creation. But tiorr he derivesfrom the brure andis a peculiargift in our nature,... is incommunicable, andreason rcasoning faculryto existin thc lifc of the for this It is not possible is and sincesensation bodywithoutexistingby meansofsensations, were, as it necessarily, brute creation, alreadyfound subsistingin rhc by reasonof this one condition,our soul hastouch with thc other thingswhich arcknit up with ir; and theseareall thosephenomena within us thatwe call"passions,"rl At rhe end of anotherdescriptionin a different book, St. Cregory concludes; If, thcrefore,Scripturetells us that man was made last' after every animatething, the lawgiver(Moses)is doing nothingclsethan dethatwhat is pcrfec claringto usthedocrrineofthe soul,considering in the orderof sequencc to a certainnecessary comeslast,according makes an ascenras lt that nature we may suppose things....Thus wereby steps-l meanthe variousproperriesof life-from the lower to rheperfectform.'" in the writings of the Holy FaThis is one of the very few passages 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

Tnr Stx D,rysor Cneerror.r

the lower creation,to have"evolved"out of it. In a later lecturewe will look closelyat what the Fatherssayof man'sorigin. Here we will only say that St. Gregory not only saysnothing whareverthat indicateshe believedsucha view, but other of his own viewscontradict it. Thus, he agreeswith rhe rest of the Fatherswho have written on Genesisrhat Cod's creationis instantaneous; in rhis sametreatisehe saysthat "every hillside and slope and hollow were crowned with young grass,and with the varied produce of the trees,jusr risen from the ground, yet shor up ar once inro their perfectbeaury" 't and that "rhe creationrs,so to say, made oflhand by the Divine power, exisring at once on His command.""' Further,St. Gregory statesspecificallyrhat the one reasonhuman naturehascontacrwith the lower creationis becauseit sharesthe same scntient nature;it comes,indeed,from the sameearth rhe lower crearuresalso sprang from. It is a totally arbirrary addition to the Sainr's meaning to insist rhat rhis means man "descended"from the brute creation;in this case,indeed,it would be requiredalsothar he (and the brutes)descendedfrom the vegetablecrearion,sincehe has somerhing of their nature also within himselL But evolutionary theory teaches, not that animals"evolved"from plants,but that the rwo kingdoms are separateand parallelbranchesfrom a common primirive ancestor. St. Cregory's"ascentby sreps,"therefore,does not at all show the chronologicaldescentof man from plantsand animals,but only shows his kinship with the lower creation through sharing che nutritive and sentientnature which all earthborn creatureshave, to the degreeGod has given it to them. He is describing,nor the bistoryof man, but his natufe. Ve will see more specificallybelow what St. Gregory acrually rhought about the "mixing of natures"which is implied in the evolutionary theory.

105

Tna Srx D,vs (D.rv av D,rv)

CHapmn THnEE,

TheSix Days (DAYBY DA\l (Genesis | :l -25;2:l-3)

ET us turn now to the text of Genesisand seebriefly what God brought into being during the Six Days of Creation:

l. The FirstDay (Genesis l: l-5) l:l In thebeginning ... This bookis aboutthe veryfirstthingsin theworld. But therecan alsobe a mysticalsignificance to the words,asSt.Ambrosereaches: A bcginning in a mysticalsenscis denotedby the statemenr:I dm the frst and the hs, thc beginning and thc cnd (Apoc. I :8).. . . In rruth, He Who is the beginning of all things by virtue of His Diviniry is also thc end... . 'Iherefore,in this beginning, rhat is, in Christ, God created hcaven and earth, 6ccauseall things werc made through Him and without Him was madz nothing that was madr (John l:3).1

The succeeding actsof crearionbeginwith the words:'And God it for us: said."St. Basilasksthe meaningof rhis,and answers Let us inquirehow God speaks. Is ir in our manner?... DoesHe manifest His hiddenthoughrby srrikingrheair wirh rhearriculare

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 co-worker. Ir couldhaverelarcdcveryrhingfully asir began,"ln the beginningGod crearcdrhe hcavens and the earrh,"thcn "He crcatedlight," next,"Hc crcaredrhe firmarncnr."Bur now, introducing God ascommandingand speaking, ir indicares silendyHim r
movementof thc voicelSurely,it is fantasric to saythat God needs sucha roundaboutway for the manifestation of His thoughrs.Or, is it not morc in conformirywith true religionto saythar rhe Di-

l:l-2 God createdthe heauensand the earth. And tbe earth was aithout form and uoid (Sepruagint: inuisibleand unfnished).

106

r07

Grnrsrs,CnrarroNlln EenrvMrN St. Basilask: andthc earthwercofequalhonor,that How is it, ifborh the heavens werebroughtto perfectionand the eanh is still impcrthe heavens of fectandunfinishcd? Or, in short,whatwasthe lackofpreparation thc earth) And lor what reasonwas it invisiblel Surely,thc perfect in itsstateofabundance: the budding conditionofthc earthconsists of all sortsof plants,the puttingforth of the lofry treesboth fruitful and barren, the freshnessand fragranceof flowers,and whatever on eartha linle latcrby the commandof God to thingsappeared adorntheir mother.Sinccasyet thercwasnothingof this,the Scripspokeof it as incompletc.!7e might saythe samc ture reasonably that theywerenot yct broughtto pcrfection alsoabourthe heavcns; nor had they receivedtheir properadornmenr,since themselves, they wcre not yet lighredaroundby the moon nor the sun, nor crowncdby the choirsofthe stars.For,thescthingshadnot yet becn made.Therefore,you will nor err fiom the truth if you saythat the alsowereincompletc.o heavens St. Ambrose speaksof this work of the First Day as the "fbundation" of the world: The good archirecrlays rhe foundation first, and afterwards,when the foundationhasbcenlaid,plotsrhevariousparrsof the building, . Why oneaftertheother,andthenaddstheretotheornamenration... ntsat the samerimeastheyarosc did not God ... grantto the eleme as if their appropriate adornments, Hc, at the momentof creatron, immediacely to gleamwith studded wereunableto causethe heavens with flowers and fruit? That could the earth ro be clothed starsand very well havehappened.Yet Scripturepoints out that things were first createdand afterwardsput in order,lestir be supposedthat they justasifthe wercnot actuallycreated andthattheyhadno beginning, it were, gencrared from the beginning natureof thingshad been,as addedafterwards.t and did not appearto be something St. Eohraim says: 108

Tne Srx Days (D,lv nv D,w) Hc saidrhisdesiringto showrharemptiness preccded the natures(of things).. . Therewasrhcnonly the earrh,and thercwasnothingbcsideir." l:2 And darhnessaas upln thc face of the deep. The warersofthe "deep"werecreatedrogerherwirh the earth and completely submergedthe earth. This is the causeof its unfinished appearance. The Farhersassumethere was a cerrain light createdwith rhe heavens,since the heavensare the region of light; but if so rhe clouds covering the earth prevenred its reaching the earrh. St. Ephraim writes: If evcryrhingcreated(whetherits crearionis mentionedor nor) was createdin six days,then the cloudswerecrcatedon the first day.... For everythinghadto be crearedin six days." (This is another indication, incidenrally,that the work of the Six Days is disrinct from the continuous creativework ofGod afrer that, and thar we cannor understandit by projectingback from our presenr experience.) Sr. Ambrose specificallyrejectsthe opinion that rhe "darkness" here refersallegoricallyro powersofevil.s

l:2 And theSpirit ofGod wasmouingouerthefaceofthe waters. Herewe seethe activiryof rheThird Personof the Holy Triniry in rhecrearion. St.Ambrose wrires: Thercwasstill to comethe plenitudeof the operarionin the Spirit, as it is writrcn: "By the Vord of rhe Lord the heavenswere establishedand all the powerof them by the Spirit of His mouth" (Ps. 32:6).... The Spiritfiaingly movedoverthe earrh,dcsrincdto bear fruit, becausc by rhe aid of the Spirit ir hcld the seedsof new birth which werero gcrminareaccordingto the words of rhe Prophet: "Scndforth Thy Spiritand theyshallbe createdand Thou shaltrenew thc faceof rhc earth"(Ps.103:32).e

109

Ge Nr.sts,Cnr:nrtoruaNo EanlY MaN

St. Ephraimgivesusa homeyimageofthe activiryofthe Spiriron the FirstDay: [The Holy Spirit]warmedthe watersand madethenrfcrrileand cawingson pableof birth, like a bird whenit sitswith irsoutstretched its eggsand by its warmrh givesthem warmth and producesfertiliry for us then an imageof in them.This sameHoly Spiritrepresented Holy Baptism,in which by His movingover the watcrsHe gives

Tsa Srx Drvs (Dev sv D,r.v) mcnt consisted in its appearance anddisappcarance; afterits sudden disappearance rherecamerhe dominionof night, and with irs appearancethis dominion endcd.Thus the light producedalso rhe threefollowingdays....It aidedthe conceptionand bringingforth of everythingthat the earrhwas ro produceon the third dayl as fbr rhesun,when ir wasestablished in the firmamenr,it wasto bring ro maturitywhat hadalreadybeenproducedwirh rhe aid of rhc originallighr.rl

birth to thc childrenof God.ro

in the otherdaysof Creation,for The Holy Spiritalsoparticipated of 'the DivineSpiritwhichmademe" (Job33:4). Jobspeaks

l:4 And God saw that the light utasgood. God callseachstageof His work "good," seeingits perfectand unspoilednatureand, asSt. Ambroseteaches,looking forward to the perfection of the whole work:

l:3 And Godsaid, Let therebe light; and therewaslight. St. Ambrosewrites; is the God is the authoroflight, andthe placeand causeofdarkness world. But the good Author uttcredthe word "lighi'so that He thereinand thusmake might revealthe worldby infusingbrighrncss rhen,the air becamcbrightand darkits aspectbeautiful.Suddenly, The nessshrankin terrorfrom the brillianccof the novclbrightness. the wholeunivcrse brillianceof the light whichsuddenlypcrmeated overwhclmedthe darknessand, as it were, plungedit inro the abyss. " St. Ephraim, in harmony with the other Fathers,tells us clearly that this light had nothing to do with the sun, which was createdonly on the Fourth Day: on earthwaslike eithera brightcloud,or The light which appcared pillar that illuminedthe Hebrewpeoplein rhe sun, or the a rising thedarkness thatcmdesert.In anycase,thelight couldnot dispcrse its subeverywhere either had not extended if it bracedeverything sance or its rays,like rhe risingsun.The originallight wasshed everywhcreand was not enclosedin a singledefinite place;it diswithout havingany movement;its wholcmovepersedthe darkness l l0

God, asjudgcof rhcwholework,foresceing what is goingto happen assomcthingcomplcted,commendsthat part of His work which is still in irsinitialstages, beingalrcadycognizantof its termination.. .. Hc praiscs eachindividualparrasbefittingwharis to come.rl l:4-5 And God separatedthe light fom the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darknessHe calted Night. St. Basilcomments on this passage: "God separated rhe light f'romrhe darkncss." Thar is, Cod madc their naturcsincapableof mixing and in opposirion,onc ro rhc othcr.For,He dividedandseparated themwith a verygrerrdistinction berweenthem."A,ndGod callcdthe lighr Day and the darkness Nighr." Now, henceforth,after thc crcarionof rhe sun, it is day whcn rhe air is illuminatedby rhe sun shiningon the hemisphere abovcthe earrh,and night is thedarkness of thc carthwhenthe sun is hidden.Yet,it wasnot ar that timc accordingto solarmorion,bur it waswhen rhat first createdlighr wasdiflusedand againdrawnrn accordingto the measure ordainedby God, thardaycameand nighr succcedcd.'o l:5 And therewaseueni gdnd thue udt mornin& lne da!. lll

Gsxssrs,Cnea'rroN,rNn E,rnt-vM,qN St. Basilcontinues: Evening,rhen,is a commonboundaryline of day and nightl and similarly,morningis the parr of night borderingon day.In order, therefore,to give the prerogativeof prior generarionro the day, Mosesmentionedfirst the limit of rhc day and then that of rhe night,asnight followedthe day.The conditionin thc world befbre that whichwasopthc creationof light wasnot night,but darkness; posedto the day wasnamednight; whcreforeit reccivcdits namc laterthandredaydid.... for Vhy did he say"one"and not "first"?It is moreconsistent him who intendsto introducea sccondanda rhirdanda fourth day, to call rhe onewhich bcginsthe scrics"first."But he said"one" bchc wasdetiningthc mcasurc ofdry andnight.r' cause This First Day of creation (no matter how "long" one may guess it to be) is the beginning of the cycle of seven days (each with its "day" and "nighi') which continues up to our own days. -l-hoserationalist commentatorswho see in the "sevendays" and the fact that "evening" precedes"morning" merely a projection backwardsof later Jewishcustomsshow themselvestotally out of harmony wirh the Patristic way of viewing these things, and they are thereforeunable ro answer the question: where and why did the Jews derive these customs?In rhe Patristicview, the revealedtext can and doesgive the literal origins of the world and the reasonsfor the Jewish customs (which are now Christian-for our church day also beginswith Vespers,the eveningservice). Thus we have come to the end of "Day One," the First Day of crearion.k has establishedthe measureof time for all succeedingages (because"before"it therewas no time; time beginswith it). And in another sensealso it is a day unlike those that follow it, as Sr. Ephraim explains: Thus, accordingto the testimonyof Scripture,heavcn,earth,fire, air, and the waterswere createdout of nothing; while the light which was createdon the First Day and everythingelsethat was

tt2

THa Sx D,rys(Dlv sv Dev) creatcdafter it werc createdout of what exisredbefore.For when Mosesspeaksof what wascrcatcdour of norhing he usesthe word "crcated" (Hebrew bara): God createdtbe heauensand the earth. And althoughit is not written thar fire,rhe watersand rhe air were creatcd,it is likewisenor saidthat theywereproducedfrom what existedcarlicr.And thereforethey alsoare our of norhing,jusr as heavcnand earthareour of nothing,Bur when God beginsro crcateout of what alreadyexisred, rhe Scriptureusesan expression like rhis Godsaid, lct thuc be light, and the rest.And if ir is said: 6al crcatcdthegreatseamon$ers,\eforethis the following is said:Lct the watcrs bting forth swarms of living craturcs. There(orc, only the above-nanred five kinds of crearionswerecreatedour of norhing, while everything elsewascreatedout of what hadalreadybeencreatedout of nothing.r6 The "five creations"rhat St. Ephraim mentions are the "four elements" our of which, accordingto rhe definition of ancienr scrence, everything on earrh consists,in addition ro "heaven." One does nor have to acceptthis particularway of analyzingthe creation ro scerhar there is indeedsomerhing"fundamental"abour rhe First Day of Creation: ir contains the beginningsof everything that is ro come after. One might speculateas to where the actual matter came from for the living creatures,the heavenlybodies,and other crearionsof tne next five days:was ir newly createdout of nothing, or was it really only a rransformationof pre-existingmatter?Bur this would be a profitless exerciserhat would not, in any case,conrradictthe trurh that rhe basic structureand matter of creationwas made on the First Day; the work of the next five days is less"radical" than thar of the First Day-it is rather a "shaping"than a "creation"in the strict sense. The very idea of "crearionout of nothing" or "from non-being" sharply distinguishesthe Genesis account from that of aL pagan myths and speculationsabout creation.In rhe latter it is some kind of "demiurge" or "fashioner-god"who forms the world out of already existing matter-which, as the Holy Fatherssay, thus is a kind of "god" also. Genesis describes rhe absolute beginning of the whole world, nor its developmentfrom somethingalreadyexisting;even rhe ll3

Gewlsts,Cnr.,rrIoN,,iNoEattY MaN creationsof the following five days, as we shall see, although they come out ofthe matter which has alreadybeen created,are something radically new which cannot be understoodas a mere developmentof the first-createdmatter.The speculationsof modern thinkers wno try to tracethe world back to some ultimately simple matter which develops by itself can be seento be akin to the ancient paganspeculations; of the Genesisexplanationis beyond them both-prethe radicalness and it ciselybecause comesfrom God! revelationand not the guesses projectionsof men. of God's creatrve The Christian who understandsthe absoluteness work in the Six Days views the presentcreation with different eyes rhan doessomeonewho views it as a gradualdevelopmentor "evolution" from primordial matter (whether the latter is understoodas created by God or asself-existing).ln the latter view, the world is seento be "naturally" what it is, and one can trace it back to ever simpler forms, eachof which can be understood"naturally'';but in the former view, the view of Genesis,one is placedbeforethe rwo radicalpolesof that which now is, and the absolutenothingnessfrom which exisrence: 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 describesthe creationonly ofthe visibleworld; when was the invisible world ofspiritual beingscreated?SomeFathersthink they are included in the creationof "heaven";others are not so specific,but know thar rhey werealsocreated"in the beginning."St. Basilteaches: In fact there did exist somcrhing,as ir seems,even beforc this but which has world,which our mind canattainby conremplation, beenleft uninvestigatedbecauseit is not adaptedto thosewho are This wasa certain beginncrsand as yet infantsin undcrstanding. conditionolder than thc birth of thc world and properto the suwithout beginpowers,one beyondtimc, cverlasting, pramundane ning or end. In it the Creatorand Producerof all thingsperfected of rhc works of His art, a spirituallight befining the blcssedness the narures, and thosewho lovc thc Lord. rationaland invisible our which surpass of spiritualcreatures wholeorderlyarrangement I ttl

Txr Srx D,c,ys(Dev ov Dr) undcrstanding and of which ir is impossiblccven ro discoverrhe namcs.-l'hese fill cornplctely thc cssence ofthe invisibleworld.rT Similarly,St. Ambrosewrites: The Angels,Dominarions, and powcrs,alrhoughtheybcganto exisr ar somctime,wcrcalreadyin cxistencc whcn the world wascrcated. For all things "werc crcared,things visibleand rhinqs invisible, wherhcrThroncsor Dominationsor principalirics .,. po*crs. All things,"we are rold, "havebeencrcarcdrhroughand unto Him" (Col. l: I6).r8 Indeed,God said to Job: "When rhe starsweremade,all My angers praisedMe with a loud voice" (Job 38:7, Septuagint).Ve will seeon the Sixrh Day how Adam was tempred by satan, and therefore we know that the battle of the proud angelsin heaven,asdescribedin rhe Apocafypse(12:7-8) has alreadybeen foughr before then, and satan lrasalready"fallenlike lightning"(Luke l0: t8)..

2. The SecondDay (GenesisI:6_g) l:6-8 And God said, Let there be a rmanenr in the idt of the f uaters, and let it sepdratethe uaters the waters. And God made tbe fom and separated tbe waters which frmament were under the finnament fom the uaters wbich u,,ereabouc thefrmament. And it utts ri. Ard God calledtheJirnament Heauen.And therewaseuenitryand thcre wfls morn_ ing, a seconddaySome have tried to find in this passagean ,,unscientific',view of the heavens,as though Mosesbelievedin a kind of hard crystaldome in which rhe srarsare embeddedand abovewhich there is a fictrtrous store of water. But rhere is nothing so fantasticto be found in this text. ' Fora sunrmaryofthe Orrhodoxteaching on rhccrearionand narureofrhe an_ gcls,seeSr.John f)amasccnc,On the OrtbodoxFtaith2:3.-Eo.

ll5

GeNests. Cns.artonlNo E,rnrvMrN

l'se Srx D,ws (Dev sv D,{v)

I'he word "firmament" seemsto have rwo shadesof meaning in Genesis,one quire specificand "scientific," the other general.In its general meaning the firmament is more or less synonymous with "heaven"or "sky": the starsare called "lights in the firmament of the heavens"(Gen. l:14), and the birds fly "acrossthe firmament of the heavens"(Gen. l:20). \7e who have lost the specificmeaning of"firmament" would omit it in such descriptionsand say that starsand birds are both to be seenin the "heavens."The idea that the starsare embeddedin crystalspheresis a speculationof ancient paganthoughr and doesnot haveto be projectedinto the inspiredtext of Genesis \i/hat, then, is the specific"scientific"meaningof the "firmament" in this text? St. Basil teachesthat, even though it is also called "heaven," it is not synonymouswith the "heaven"mentioned at the beginningof Genesis.

moisturc,and lcrsrhe rareand filteredpart passrhroughinto rhc highcr rcgions,but lersthe coarseand earthlypan drop below,so that, by the gradualreductionof the liquids,from the beginningro rhe end the samemild temperaturemay be prcse rved.rt The "firmament" in Genesis,therefore,is some kind of narurar barrier or filter that separares rwo levelsof atmosphericmoisture.Ve do not observetoday such a definite phenomenonthar we could call a "firmamcnt." Vas ir perhapsdifferent in rhe firsr-formedearth? St. Basilbelievesthar the function ofthe "firmamenr" was ro Dreservea mild remperarureover the whole earth. Now, it so happensthar we know ofa certain "greenhouse"effect on the earrh in prehistoric times: tropical plantsand animalshavebeenfound in the ice of the far norrh, indicating that rhe northern regionswere indeed once rcmperate. Further, in the secondchapterof Genesiswe are told that before the creationofman, "the Lord had not causedit ro rain uDon the earrh .. . but there went up a mist from rhe earrh,and watered r'hewhole face of the ground" (Gen. 2:5-6). The early earrh, then, seemsto have been a placerather different from the one we know: a place universallyremperate,plenriful in moisturewhich constantlywateredan abundanrvegerarion,which, as we shall see,was all thar Cod intended not only for the food of man, but evenofthe beasts(Gen. l:30). Vhen did this happy situation comc ro an end?.Ve will soon look at the consequences ofthe fall ofman; but thereare indicationsthar rhe earth evenafter the fall of man preservedsome of the characteristics of the earliestearth. Let us look briefly ar what the Scripturesaysin the light of our scientificknowledgeof the armosphere. 'I-he Holy Fathers rhemselves often applied the scientificknowledgeof their times in understandingthe Scripture,and we are also permitted to do so-provided only thar we do no violence ro rhe rexr of Scrioture and are humble and moderatein our own supposedund.r.,anjing. The following explanation,rherefore,is offered not as dogma but as specula-

Sinceboth a secondnameand a funcrionpeculiarro the second heavenwas rccordcd,this is a different onc from thar recordcdin the beginning,one of a moresolid natureand frrrnishinga special servicefor the universe....Ve bclicvcthat rhis word hasbeenassignedfor a certainfirm naturewhich is capablcof supportingthc f'luid and unstablewarer.And, surely,we necd not belicve,because it seemsto havchadits origin,accordingto thc generalunderstancling, from water,that it is like eitherfrozenwateror somc.. transNow, we lucent stone ... almost like thc air in transparency. it is peculiar things. tuly, to none of thesc comparethc firmament to a childishand sinrpleintellcctro hold such notionsabout rhc heavens....Ve havebeen taught by rhc Scriptureto permit our mind to invcnt no fantasybeyondthc knowledgethat has been grantcdit... . ir Not a firm and solidnature,which hasweightand resistancc, is not this that the word "firmament"means.[n that casethe earth of such a name. deserving would morc legitimatclybe considered is light and substances lying above becausc the narure of the But, Hc calleddis (a)frmament,in comparison rarcand imperceptiblc, which are incapableof perception very light substanccs with those the Now, imaginesomeplacewhich tendsto separare by thc scnscs.

The very phenomenonof rain is nor menrionedin the rext of Gencsis unril the time of Noahiand rhenit is not an ordinaryrain but

116

t17

UOn.

GsNrsls,Cnn-lrrot't,qNoEenrv MnN a kind of cosmiccatastrophe:'All the fountainsofthe greatdeep burst forth, and the windows of the heavenswere opened.And rain fell on the earth forry days and forry nights" (Gen. 7:ll-12). Immense-to us, nearly unimaginable-amounts of water were loosedon the earth, reducingit virtually to its stateon the First Day ofcreation, when the "deep" coveredthe earth. The rains we know today could not cause rhis to happen; but the text describessomething even worse: an lmmense underground supply of water was loosed, and the "firmamsn1"-1hg atmospheric condition that preserveda Permanent reservoirofwater in the air, evidentlyin the form ofclouds such as the planer Venus has even now-was literally "broken" and emptied its contentsupon the earth. In this light we can also understand why God Bavethe rainbow as the sign of His covenantwith Noah and all creaturesthat therewould neveragain be such a flood upon earth. How could the rainbow have been a sign, when supposedlyit had existedthroughour the centuries before that? Evidendy the rainbow then appearedfor the first time. The rainbow is formed by the direct raysof the sun upon moisture in the air. lf the permanentcloud coverof rhe earth wasdissipatedby the breaking of the "firmament," then literally the direct rays of the sun struck the earth for the first time after the Flood. The rainbow had been unknown to man beforethat-which is why it can now be a sign to man that literally the supply of moisture in the air is limited and cannot causea universalflood any more. Some scientistsrecently have speculated-on different evidence-that the amount of cosmic radiation striking the earth for some reasonmanifesreda srriking increaseabout five thousandyears ago. This of coursewould be true if the watersabovethe firmament had servedasa filter and kept out harmful radiation.* In view ofall this, it would seemthat the time after rhe Flood is a whole new epoch in human history. The comparatively"paradisal" conditionsof the earrh up to the time of Noah, when a universaltemprevailedover the earth and abundant vegetationsupplied perateness the needsof man without the needto eat meat (Noah is the first to re' Secpp.493n.-Eo. I l8

'I'Hn Srx f)evs (Dav nv D,w) ceiveGod's permissionro eat flesh;Gen. 9:3), givesway to the harsher post-Floodearrh we know, when there is "seedtimeand harvest,cold and heat, summer and winter" (Gen. 8:22), and men no longer live nine hundred years as did Adam and rhe early Patriarchs,but very quickly are reducedto the seventyor eighry yearswhich is rhe general limit of our life even uo ro now.*

3. The Tltird Da1 (Cenesisl:9-13) l:9-10 And God said, Let the uaters under tlte heduensbe pathered togetherinro oneplace. tnd let tlr dry land appeat.And it wiso. God ulled the dry knd Earth, and tlte uaters tbat weregathered togetber He ulled Seas.And God sau' that it wasgood. On eachDay of creationa command is given that becomesrhe law of narure for all time thereafter.From the Firsr Day, the successionof day and night begins;and frorn the Third Day, rhe warersbegin their ceaseless movement.J'hus, "the elementof water was orderedto flow, and it never grows weary when urged on unce:uingly by rhis command."lu lt is tempting for us, in rhe pride of our scientific knowledge,to speculateabout the hou ol this event: Did rhe watersflow into under' During his oml delivcryof rhissecrion,F-r.Seraphimexplainedrhislasrpoinr ororcfully: "Ve know rhar,wirh rhe raceof mankindup until rhc time of Noah,a verycxrraordinary thing happened. All rhe Patriarchs of the Old 'l-esramcnr up ro thcn arcsaidto havclivedrrcmcndous numbersofyears:Adamlived930 years,Merhrrrrl .rh l i vcJ' )6' )ycrrs,orhcr slivcdc) 00. 800ycr n. "Nowadayspeoplcmighr say:'Thari an exaggerarion, rhar'sa nrisrake, thar's silly.'Bur alrosr everysingleParrirrchlivcdrharlong.... Only afrerNoah(who lived 950 years,600 ofwhich werebeforerhe Flood),rheagcof manbeginsro decrease... . Vhv?'l-hc world evenbeforcNoahwasquirca differenrplace;rheworld beforcAdlm! flll, cvenmorcso. Bcforcrhe time of Noah,man wasno! allowcdto cat mear; nt:rnwaslivingon vcgcrablcs, arrdin lacrthe animalsof thecarthwcrcblessed ro eat vclictables r"rnril rhc timc ofNoah. C)fcoursc, rodayir'sinconceivablc rhatmancould livc 900 ycars,bur undcr rhosetorallydiffcrcnrconditions,who knowswhar mighr havehappcncdiCod crcatedrhe world in rhe bcginningtorallyncw and fresh,and rccordingto a rorallydiffcrcntwayof life rhanwharwe know now."-Eo.

ll9

(ieNrsts, Cnr.,rtIor a.NoE,rrlv M,rN

Tnr Srx Days (Dnv sv D,rv)

Did the land rise upl The Scripture does noc say, ground reservoirs? and for this reasonthe Holy Fatherssay little on this subject.St. Ambrosewrites:

knowledgeof the "how" of rhe presentcrearion (ro the small extenr rhat we know it) back to the first-crertedworld. 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 lest,perchance, thar tesrimonyof Scripture,I passoverasa mystery, I startingevenfronr this point. Ncvcrrhclcss, stir up otherquestions God can extend thc with the Scriprurcs, rhat maintainin accordance low-lyingrcgionsand the openplains,asHc hrs said:"l will go befbrethecand makelcvelthe mountains"(ls.45:2).rr

It wasprovidedthar rhc earrhwould, to all appearance, havebccn dry by the handofGod rarhcrthan by thesun,for thc carthactually becamedry beforethe sun wascrcated.Wherefore,David, roo, distinguishedtheseafrom the land,referringro rheLord God: "For the 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: fu for the question, how any single thing carnc into existence,we must banish it altogcrherfrom our discussion.Even in the caseof things which are quire within the graspofour undcrstandingand of which wc have sensibleperccption,it would be impossiblefor thc specularivereasonto graspthe "how" of cheproduction of the phenomenon; so much so, thar even inspired and saintly men havc deemed such questions insolublc. For instance, the Aposrle says, "Through faith wc understandthat rhe worlds wcre framed by thc word of God, so that things which are seenare not made of things which do appeai' (Heb. I I :3).... While the Apostlc afflrms rhat ir is an object ofhis faith rhar it was by thc will ofGod rhat the world itselfand all which is thereinwas framed,... he hason thc other hand left our of the investigationthe "how" of rhis framing... . Let us, following the exampleof the Apostlc, lcaverhe qucstion of the "how" in cachcreatedthing, withour meddling with it ar all, but merelyobservingincidentallythat the movcment of God's will becomesat any moment that He pleasesa fact, and thc inrention becomesat once realizedin nature.2r

the In all that hasto do with the Six Daysof Creation,therefore, (and Holy Fathersoffer fewguesses they arealwaystentarive)regarding hou God created;and we likewiseshouldrefrainfrom projectingour 120

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 acrcrding to ix hind, upon the earth. And it was so. The earth brought forth uegetation, plznts yieAing seed,according to their own kinds, and trees bearing Jruit in which is tbeir seed,each according n in hind. And God tau that b u.'asgood. And there was euening and there was morning, a third day. 'fhe Holy Fhthersare unanimous in emphasizingrhe miraculous natureof the creationof the Third Dav. St. Basilreaches: "Lct thc earthbring forth herbs."And in thc briefestmomentof time the earth,beginningwith germinarionin order that it mighr kcepthc lawsof rhe Creator,passingthrougheveryform of increase, immediatclybroughrrhe shootsto pcrfcction.The meadowswere dcepwith thc abundanrgrass;the fertilcplains,ripplingwith standing crops,prescnted the pictureof a swcllingscawith irs moving headsof grain. And every hcrb and every kind of vegetableand whatevcrshrubsand legumesrherewere,rosefrom rhe earthat that time in all profusion...."Arrdthc fruit tree,"He said,"that bears fruit containingseedof its own kind and of irs own likeness on thc earth."Ar thissayingall the densewoodsappeared; all thc trecsshot up, thosewhich arewont ro riseto rhe greatesr height,the firs,cedars,cypresses, and pines;likewise,all thc shrubswereimmediately thick wirh leafandbushy;andtheso-called garlandplants-the rose

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 rimc, although they were not previouslyupon rhe earth, each onc

St. Ambrose waxeseloquenton this subiect:

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 it receivesthe fosteringcareof thc sun, lest rhcrebe an occasionfor human error to grow. Let everyonebe informed that rhe sun is not the authorof vcgetation.... How can the sun giverhe faculryoflife to growing planrs,when rhesehayealreadybeen brought forrn oy thc life-givingcreativepowerof God beforethc sun enreredinro sucha lifeasthis?The sunis youngerrhanrhegreenshoot,youngcr than rhegreenplant.le

St. Ephraimthe Syrianstatesprecisely: The herbs,at the time of their creation,wercthe productionsof a the productionsof rhcyappeared singleinstant,but in appearance months.Likewisethe trccs,at thc time of their crcation,werethe and fruits,which of a singleday,but in thcir perfection productions weigheddown rhe branches,they appcarcdthc producrionsof years.25 St. Gregory of Nyssaalso emphasizesthat what was created by God was not merelyseedsor a potentialiryfor growth, but the actual creations we know; seedscome from thosefirst-createdplants:

The vegetarionand treesbrought forth seeds,"each accordingto irs kind." This expressionofScripture is a key one in Patristicthought; we will devotea lengthy discussionto it under the Fifth Day of creation, when living creatureswere brought forth likewise"each accordins to its kind."

'Welearnfrom Scripturcin the accountofthc flrstcrcation,rharfirst rhe earthbroughtforth 'ihc greenhcrb,"and rhat thcn from this plantseedwasyieldcd,from which,whenit wasshedon theground, rhcsamef
4. TheFourthDay (Gencsis t:14-19)

Plantsand treesappearedon earth, as the Fathersrepeatagain and again,beforethe very existenceof the sun. St. John Chrysostomwrites: bcforethe (Moses)showsyou that evcrythingwas accomplished creationof the sun,so that you might ascribethe ripeningof the fruitsnot to it, but to the Crcatorof the universe.2T St. Basilstates: The adornmentof the earthis older rhan the sun,that thosewho havebeenmisledmay ccascworshippingthc sun as the origin of lifc.r8

t22

l:14-19 And Godsaid,Let rherebe lightsin thefrmament of thc lteauensto scparatethe dq fo^ the night, and let them befor signsand andfor daysandyart and lct thembelighr in thefrmament for seasons of the heauensto giuc light upon thc carth. And it wasso.And God made the tuo great lighx, thegreaterlight to rule the dq and the lcser light to rule the night; He madethestarsalso.And Godsettltem in thef rmament ofthe heauens to giuelight upon theearth,to rule ouertheday and ouerthe night, and to separatethelightfon thedarftness. And Godsawthat it uas good.And therewaseueningand thereuas morning, a fourth day. l-he FourthDay ofcreationis a sourceofgreatembarrassment for thosewho would like ro fit the Six Daysinto an evolutionaryframework. -fhereis absolutely no way thiscanbe doneif the sun wasactually creared on rheFourrhDay. For this reason, suchapologists for theevolurionary interpretation haveto believetharthesunwasreallycreared on rheFirsrDaywirh the l2J

Tnr Sx Drvs (Devsv Drv) heavens,but only appcarcdon the Fourth Day-apparently after the cloud coveringofthe earthduring the first threedayshad lifted.* But we should remind ourselvesoncemore that the firsr chaprers of Genesisare not an accountof the naruraldevelopmentof the earth accordingto the lawsnow governingthis development,bur an account ofthe miraculousbcginningsofdl things.\7e arenor freeto rearrange the Daysof Genesisto fit our theories;we must ratherhumbleour understandingso as to comprehendwhat the sacredtext actuallysays. And here asalwa/s the Holy Fathersare our key to this comprehension. How did they understandthe Fourth Day? The Holy Fathersareunanimousin amrming that the sun and the heavenlyluminaries were reated on rhe Fourrh Day; they did not merelyappcarthen.There is no reasonwhy, if the text of Genesispermitted it, the Fatherscould not have acceptedthe seeminglymore "natural explanation"that the light of the sun illuminated the first threedaysofcreation, but that the orb of the sun only becamevisible from earth on rhe Fourth Day. That they universallyrejectrhis explanation can only meanthat the text of G€nesisdoesnot allow it. St. John Chrysostomwrires: "He createdthe sun on the Fourth Day so that you might not think that it producesthe day."30 St. Basilteaches:

Thc crcationofthc sun, moon and stars("lights in rhc firmamcnt ofthe hcavcns") on thc Fourth Day ofCrcation. ([t will bc noticcdthat, in rhis icon and in thc onc on thc front covcr,thc planrsarc shownro havcalrcadybecn crcatcdon thc Third Day.) hon fom SuchcuisaMonartcry, Moltraaia, Rottwlit, tkucnth ccznrT.

The heavens and the carrhhad comefirst; after thcm, light had beencreated, dayand night separated, and in turn, the firmament rJ?'atcr and dry land rcvcalcd. had beencollectedinto a fixedand definitegathcring.Thc carthhadbeenfillcd with its properfruits; for, it had broughtforth counrlcss kindsof herbs,and had bcen 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 crcationists'as 'This is thc cxplanationoFcrcd by many "old-earrh/progrcssivc wcll asby "Chrisriancvolutionists."-Ep. I ?S

GtNr,sls. CnsarIoN rrNo ErtrY M,tN of light was introduccd, but now this solar body has been made ready to be a vehicle for rhat first-crearedlight.... And do not tell me that it is impossiblefor thcseto bc separated.I certainly do not 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 can also be scparatedin actLraliryby the Creator of its nature.... "Ler thcm scrve,"He says,"for the fixing of days," not for making days,but f<.trruling thc days.For, day and nighr are earlierthan the gcncrationof the luminaries.rr

St. Ambrose makesa specialemphasison this point: Look first upon the firmamentofhcavenwhich wasmadcbeforerhc sun;look first upon the earthwhich beganto be visibleand wasallook at rheplants readyformedbeforcthe sunput in irsappcarance; in rimethe light of the sun.The bramof rheearrhwhich preceded ble precededthe sun; rhe blade of grassis older than the moon. Therefore,do not believethat objectro be a god to which the gifts of God are seen to be preferred.Three days have passed.No one, meanwhile,has lookedfor the sun, yct the brillianceof lighr has For the day,too, hasits lighr which is beenin evidcnceeverywhere. of rhesun.l2 irsclfthe precursor The idea that life on earth from the beginning was dependenton the sun, and eventhat the earth itselfcomesfrom the sun-is a recent idea that is nothing but the sheerestguess;ir even has no direct connecrion with the truth or falsiryof the so-calledevolution of life on earrh. Becausemen in recentcenturieshavebeen looking for a "new" and "natural" explanationof the world'sorigin, having rejectedthe explanation that comesfrom Divine revelation,it hasseemeda matter of coursethat the sun-so much largerand astronomicallymore significanr rhan the earth,and the centerofthe earth'sorbit-should precede the earth, rather than the other way around. But Divine revelation,as interpretedby rhe Holy Fathers,tells us the contrary:that the earthcomesfirst, both in time and in significanc€, and rhe sun comessecond.Ifour minds were not so chainedto the in-

t26

THI Slx Devs(Dav av D,w) rellectual fashionsof the times, if we were not so fearful of being rhought "behind the times,"we would not havesuchdifficulty in opening our minds to rhisalternariveexplanationofrhe worldt beginnings. view the earth, as the home of man, the In the Scriptural-Patristic pinnacle of God's creation, is the center of rhe universe.Everything else-no marrerwhat rhe scientificexplanationof its present stateand movement, or the physical immensity of it in comparison to the earrh-is secondary,and was madefbr the sakeof the earth, that is, for man. Our God is of such power and majesrythar we need not doubt rhat in a single momentary exerciseof His creativemight He brought 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 whole immensity of the starsof heaven.He could do vastly more than that if He willed; in the inspiredtext of GenesisHe has left us the baresroutline ofwhat He did do, and this account is not requiredto accord with our human speculationsand guesses. In our daysit hasbecomefashionableand easyto believethat everything "evolved,"by absolutelyuniform lawswhich we can now observe, from a primordial blob ofenergy or matter; if one needs"God" to explain anything, it is only to be the "creator"ofthis blob, or the iniriaror ofthe "big bang" that supposedlyhasproducedeveryrhingrhereis. 1bday it requiresa broadermind, lesschainedro "public opinion," to begin to see the enormity of the creativeacts of God as describedin Genesis.Thc Holy Fathers-the mosr "sophisticated"and "scienrific" minds of their lims-6sn be the unchainersof our fetteredminos. But surely, it mighr be asked,the creationsof God must make sensefrom the "natural" point of view also.Why, therefore,did God createsuch an enormousbody as the sun ro s€rvesuch a sma body as the earth?Couldnt He have conservedthis energy and made a sun nrore in accordancewith the scaleof rhe earth? One could, of course,conceiveof a sun much smaller than the onc we know and much closer to the earrh, while prcservingits apparent sizeas seenfrom the earth. But such a sun would expend its energymany times more rapidly than our presenrsun does. Evidently God made the sun the size and the distancefrorn earth it needsto haveif ir is to give ro earth rhe amounr of Iighr and heat ir requiresro

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 thq neithcrmarry, nor aregiuenn mar' heaven,for in the resaneetion riage,but arcastheangebof Godin heaaen(Matc, 22:30). RathecGod the fall of man and madethe division into maleand femaleforeseeing modeofgenthat the increaseof mankind would requirea passionate eranon. Might it not be, then,that the sun and moon arealsonot part of 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.

p

5. TheFifh Day (Genesisl:20-23) l:20-23 And God said, Let tbe watersbing forth swarmsof liuing creatures,and lct birdsfly abouethe edrth 4ffots the frmamcnt of the heauen| So God createdthe gredt scamonstersdnd eueri litting ereature that moaes,with uhich the u.,aterssuarm, accordingto their hinA, and cuerywinged bird accordingto its hind. And God saw that b wasgood. tbcm, saying,Bcfitirful and muhiply, andfll the waters And God blzssed in tlte scas,and lzt birds mubipl on thc earth.And thercwaseueningand tl)ereaas morning, affih day.

t28

Thc crcationofthc crcaturcsofsca and air on thc Fifth Day ofCrcarion. Iconfon Suchcuita Monastcty,Moldzuiz, Romania,ca. t584.

Gapasrs,Cn.e,rrroN,rNn Ernrv M,rN

In his commentary on the Fifth Day of Creation,St.JohnChrysostomemphasizes the preciseness and accurateness of the orderin whichthecreationis described. The blesscdMoses,instructedby the Spirit ofGod, teachcsus with suchdetail ... so that we might clearlyknow both the order and the way ofthc crearionofeachthing. If God had not beenconccrnedfor our salvationand had not guidcd thc tongue of thc Prophet, it would havebccn sufticicntto sayrhat God crcatcdthe hcavcn,and thc carth,and the sea,and living crearurcs, without indicatingeither thc ordcr of the daysor what wascrcatedearlierand what larcr.... But hc distinguishesso clearlyboth thc order of creationand the numbcr ofdays, and instructsus abouteverythingwith greatcondescension,in order that we, coming to know the whole truth, would no longer heedrhc falsetcachingsof thoscwho speakof everything accordingto their own reasonings, but might comprehendrhe unutterablepowerofour Creator.rl Thus, on the Fifth Day, he wrires: Just as He said of the eanh only: "Let it bring forth," and thereappeareda 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.$ St. Basil writes: All water was in eagerhasteto fulfill the command of its Creator, and the greatand ineffablepowerof God immediarelyproducedan efficaciousand activelife in crcaruresof which onc would not even be able to enumcratethe specics,assoon as the capaciryfor propagatingliving creaturescamero the $,arersthrough His command.3t

130

The crcationofthe crearures ofscaand air on rhc Fifth Day ofCreation, Wallpaintingfon thc Far MonastcryofSt. John thc Forcrunnct, Grcccc-

I r r r ' Sr r I ) . r r ': ( i) , r v r r r l) r t ) \n,l S t.,' \url ,rt,rc: \t rl ri s ..,' nrrn,rncl r lr c r r . r t cr sir t r t : t cdi. t t clv lr , , r r t , l i, 'r r lr r hcir , , ll \l )ri rr!1.l l rc fi \' .r\ \\ '( r c in l. Llr r r rllr . r 'l, r kcr 1t r , , t lLr , c,t lr l cir r lt r ot . rr r l l i l c. l l rc rc.ri r' cl l I' c q. r r r o bc, r r . r llnr . r r r ( r ( ) l r ( l) r ilc\ . . . . \ \ c: r t t t t t r ipli. ir l r ) l t lr ( I r . ur ) c\ol . r ll r lr , '. c'1, , ,ic' r r lri. lr .rl ' 1,.' t,, r' c.,,l l t l r,.rrr r r lr l rv I)i rrrrc,.r,rrrrrr. r lrg.r Ir . l, r , , t r qht r , , lii. ir r . l r r r oI r r cr rt t, l t ir r r . . . '\ t lir t nr . inr l r lr r 1'r ir r , iPlc, r l lil, . l, r c rl )c \.l n)( i n' t.rrr.Lri'r t . r r r t i. LI l rr,' rrrl l rti nt,, cri srct r r c. . . . lhc slr . r lr . . r r r r cll . r r t lr t lt oq. t . t t r r r ir r r , r (\i \l (n!c,l t tl rr'r.rhr rt ir r r clr r t lr , . . r r r r c( r . , lt l\ ( l) r ) \ ( l I Icrc. .ts i tt tl tc rl t.tt iot t oi ; Ll]lir ir t g t lt ir lir . ( , ot l ( r r ilt ( \ t lt ( lir \ l ( ) l ...r,. l r l i i Ir,.l :

/,1.\'.

ii;,'\,\

( i ,,rlor,l . r' rl rt l l r' ' tlir r ss, r l r '. r lr t lir lt lr , r r r . ls,. r ' r r L kinLlt , , lr c I 'rr r r r r 'lr rrr' r,.,l ,,r rr.rtrrr.r,rt t , . tl lr cir Irrrrrl l )( r\ ,rr( . , , r r r r , 'llc, iI t r r r t . , , t t ir . s 1. Ir,,tqcrrr,rrl r.ncrcr llr r 'r t t r t t r t ir r , r c, r r ,. r r r , llr c. ot t t c t t t t t t r r 't i) t t1\ ' Il .r.i l t. tl rctcl orr' . l c t t t s t l. t nr int t lr t nr r ', r ninr l{) l lll. r \ l) r ( \ slor l. I ( ott..t.l r ol tl rc t lr t ct r lr t r s ir r r r lr i. .I r lili is r lclt ct l. "( . 1( lt il( ( ( ) l( l P r' .Ltr' tl i rrrl to i t.l i i rr..l .' l l trt.

Il r,.r. ,..rn [r.' nrt r lor r lt t r r lr . r lcvt r t lr . r t t lt . li, , lr l. t t lt . t r r t t t il. t rtrr,rrl . tl t.Lr' 1ri l 1(l Ll Ir,rrr i Ir1()rl \ I\ , I lr . r l i) 1 t lr 1s, .t' lrt t 't t l. t t . ( , , r r l ct c. t t cLl .rl l rl re l ' i i rrl ol (ki l l 0r' ( \ t lr : t t r r c knor r t ot l. t r . llr is ( . ul l) ( \ ( ( lt ilt t ll( if ol i cn Ic[rr' .rtcrli l \\(rl i ()r ] \ t lr . r t ( , , r r l ! r ( . ll( \ inun( ( li. t l. 'lr . r r r r lit t . t . t t t t lr '. tl r.Lti t i r Il i r * ,,t.1 ,rl ,,r : . t lt . t t lr t inr ls t lr c, r r r '. t lt t t c' ir t t , , l, , ing. t lr . r t it i' n()r .l nrl tLl | .l ll )r()l )( \ ol t lr L r v. t t ct r ( ) r . . lr ( ] r t ( ) lr r ir t r l t ir rt lr lil. . ( ) r r t llc l cs lspcr t liit t r ol l .Ltr..r' p,,i rrt5t. [J;rsi urit l t lr c \ ir t lr l) r Lr) ; Icr ir l, r ir r ql, , r t lr , t t lr cr '. t r t lr ] , li, lr r or1, r ', lr r , c*h. r t ' ,ri .l : rr.r' up i n i t, br r r I lc \ \ ] r , r l1, nct lr . . , 'r r r nr . t r r ,. lr l', , I , c't , r r ', c
rrl ri tl r i t l ncl lr it l. l.n in ir : r r , , r, lir l it Lr 1't . t lr c st t r lucct lt c 1,l .Lrrr. 'cr r , l l ).rl rrror l l r( rr.rkor t lr c. t lr t r ss t r lr i. lr lr . r , .Il'ccr tlr r , lr l. r rst 't t lcr vllct 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 thar is the origin ofall things made."Let the earth bring forrh"; not,

ofan oliverree,but fiom rhereedcomesanotherreed;andfrom seeds springplantsrclaredto theseeds sown."fhus,what wasput forth by thc earrhin its first generation hasbeenpreservcd until thc presen time,sincethc kindspersisted throughconstantreproducrion.l'

let it put fonh what it has,bur, let it acquirewhat it does not have, sinceGod is enduing it with rhe power ofactive force.rs

havea verydefiniteteachingon the "kinds" of The Holy Fathers creation.Let us only bearin mind herethat we neednot definepreof moderntaxonomy ciselyrhe limitsof these"kinds."The "species" (thescience arbitraryanddo nor necesaresometimes ofclassification) but in generalone might to the "kinds"of Genesis; sarilycorrespond asincludedin a "kind" thosecreatures understand sayrhatthe Fathers capableof producinga fertileoffspring,aswill be seenin what follows.* (except, ofcourse,for that the "kinds"of Genesis St. Basilreaches thosethat mayhavebecomeextinct)maintaintheir natureto cheend of time: Thcreis nothingrruerthanthis,thateachplantcitherhasscedor there existsin it some gcncrativepower. And rhis accounts for the cxpression"ofits own kind." For the shoot ofthe reedis not productive * The definitionof"species"hasbeenrhe subjectof much debatein the modern wasgencrscientificcommuniryIn rhefirsthalfofthe rwenticrhcentury,a spccies and producc ally defincdasa groupof planrsor animalsrhararc ablero inrcrbrecd a definitionrhatwasmuch fcrrilcoffspring.By 1942,biologisrlirnstMayrsuggesred lesslimiring: a speciesis a group that is "reproducrivelyisolated"from other such matewirh anorhergrorrp,alrhoughit maybe capablc groups(i.c.,doesnorgenerally is rodayaccepted by manybiologists, Beofdoing so).This newdefinirionofspecies causeit is so loose,ir makesir casicrro showthat one "specics"(actuallya breeding popularion)can "evolve"into anorher.Thus, for example,thc polar bcarand the grizzlybeararc classifiedin moderntaxonomyasscparatcspccies,although rhey arc capable of maringwirh eachothcrandproducingferrilcoffspring.In viewof rhe Pain Genesis, howevcr,it would seemrhar trisricreachingon rhe "kinds"describcd within one of the originalcreof bcararebur diffcrentvarielies rheserwo "spccics" ated"kinds." ofthe changingdefinitionofspeciesin modcrnscicnce, For furrherdiscussion seefuchard Mlfton, Shaneringthz Mlths of Darwinism,pp. 143-53. For sourceson "kind," secp. 646 below.-Eo. rhequestionofvariarionwithin eachcreated I J.l

And further:

Thc natureof existingobjects,set in motion by one command, passes rhroughcreationwithout changc,by generation and destrucrion, prcservirrg the succession of rhe kinds througlrrescmblanc of a until it reaches the vcry cnd. It begetsa horscas the successor horse,a lion of a lion, and an eagleof an cagle;and it continuesto preservc cachof rhc animalsby uninterruptcdsucccssions until thc consummation ofrhc universe. No lcngthof timc causes the specific charactcristics ofthe animalsto bc corruptcdor extinct,but, asifesjust rccently, tablished nature,cverfresh,movesalongwith timc.a0 Similarly,St. Ambrose teaches: In thc pine conc natureseemsro express an imageof itsclf;ir prcservcsits peculiarproperties which it receivcd from thar Divineand cclestial command,and it rcpcatsin thc succession and ordcrof the until rhcendof rime is fulfilled.a' ycarsirsgeneration And the sameFathersayseven more decisively:

The Vord of God pcrmcatesevcrycrearurcin the consritution of the world. Hence,asGod hadordained,all kindso[ livingcreaturc wcrequickly producedfrom the earrh.In complianccwith a fixed law they all succeedeachother flromageto ageaccordingto their aspecrand kind. The lion generares a lion; the tigcr,a tigeritheox, an oxi the swan,a swan;and rhe cagle,an eagle.tJ(hat was once enioinedbccamein naturea habitfor all timc. Hencethc carthhasnot ceasedto offcr the homageof her service.The original speciesof living creaturesis reproducedfor future agcsby successive generations of its kind.ar

t35

CeNtsrs, CnnerroN eNo llnlv

Maru

The artemprsof breeders,both of animalsand planrs,in all agesro make a new speciesby mating individualsofdifferent speciesproduces (when ir succeeds)a result that only provesthe Patristicmaxim ofthe constancyof species:these"hybrids" are sterileand cairnor reproduce themselves.St. Ambrose usesthis examplero warn men against"unnatural unions" which go againstthe laws which God establishedin the Days of Creation: 'What

purc and unrarnished generations follow wirhout interminglingone afteranorher,so rhat a thymallusproduccsa thymallus;a sca-wolf,a sea-wolf. Thc sea-scorpion, roo, preserves unstainedirs marriagebed.... Fish know norhingof union wirh alien specics. They do not have unnaturalbetrothalssuch as are designedly brought about berweenanimalsof rwo different speciesas, for instance, thedonkeyand rhemare,or againthe femaledonkeyand rhe horse,both beingexamples of unnaturalunion. Certainlytherearc cases in which naruresuffcrsmorein the narureofdefilementratncr than that of injury ro rhe individual.Man as an abeaorof hybrid barrcnness is responsible for this. He considers a nrongrelanimal morevaluablethanoneofa genuinespecies. Youmix togetheralien spccies andyou minglediverseseeds.aJ The distinctnessand integriryofthe "seeds"ofeach ofthe "kinds" of creationis so much a part of Scripturaland Patristicrhought that ir servesin the Gospel as rhe basisfor the Parableof our Lord regarding the distinctnessof good and evil, virtue and sin. St. Ambrose usesrhis parable(Marr. l3:24-30) to illustratethe integriry of thes€edsof each "kind": Thereis no dangerrharthe preceptof God, ro which naturehasaccustomeditself, may becomevoid in firture time by a failure of propagarion, sinccrodayrheintegriryofthe stockis srillpreserved in \We the seeds. know that cockleand the other alienseedswhich often are intersperscdamong fruits of the eanh are called"weeds"in the Cospcl.These,howevcr,belongro a specialspeciesand hayenot degencratedinro anorhcrspcciesby a process of murationfrom rhe

t36

Txr Srx Days (Dav rv Dev) seedof the wheatplant.The Lord told us rhat this is so when He said:"Thc Kingdom of Heavcnis like a man who sowedgood seed in his ficld, but whilc men wereasleep,his enemycilme and sowed weedsamongrhe whear,"Ve gatherfrom this thar weedsand wheat ccrtainlyscemto be distinctborh in nameand in kind. Hence,the "Sir,didstthou not sowgooo servants, too,saidto the householdcr, seedin thy field?How then doesir haveweeds?" He saidto thcm, 'An encmyhath donerhis."One is rhe scedof the devil;the orher, rhat of Christ which is sownin accordance with iustice.Therefore, rhe Sonof Man sowedonc and the devil sowedthe othcr For thar reasonthe narureof eachis distinct,sincethe sowersareopposed. Christ sowsthe kingdom of God, whereasthe devil sowssin. How, rhercfore, canthiskingdombeofone andthesameraceassin?"This is the kingdom of God," He says,"asthough a man shouldcastsecd into theearrh."aa Justasthe distinction ofspeciesis relatedto the distincrion berween good and evil, so is the confusionofspeciesrelatedto moral relativiry.lt is certainlywell known how believersin the relativiryofgood and evil, ofvirtue and vice,make useofthe cosmologicalrheoryofuniversalevolution to defend their belief as "scientific"and "factual": if man was "once" a lower animal and is "evolving"inro somethingelse,then how can his inconstantnature be compelledto obey commandmenrsgiven at only one stageof his "development"?*Marxist atheismbound itself to this theory of evolution from rhe very beginning and to rhis day preachesit asone ofthe cardinaldoctrinesofits relativisticphilosopny. 'Aldous Htrxley[brorherofJulian Huxlcy]haslcfr a memoirrellinghow rhc theoryofunivcrsalevolurion"liberared" hirnfrom theshackles ofrhc "old moraliry": 'l had motivesfor not wantingrhe world to havernslning.consequenrly assumcdthar it had none,and wasablewithour any difficulry to find sarisfing rcasons for rhisassumprion..,, For mysclf,ar, no doubr,for mosrof my contcmporarics, rhc philosophyof meaninglesncss wasessenrially an insrrumentof libcrarion,Thc libcrarionwc desircdwassimultancously liberationfrom a certainpoliricaland cconomicsysremand libcrationfrom a cerrainsysremof moraliry.\4 objccredto rhe moralirybecauscit inrcrfcredwith our scxualfreedom"(Aldous Huxley,"Confcssion ofa Profcssed Atheist," Rcporl June1966,p. l9).

137

GrNrsrs,Cn[.ArtoNruo E,reryMeN

Tna Srx D,cys(D,rv ev Dav)

The idea of the consistencyof nature and the integrity and distinctnessof its "kinds" runs throushout Patristicliterature.It servesas a model, for example,of the resuriectionof the human body. St. Ambrosewrites,in his treariseon rhe resurrecrion:

Thosewho would haveit thar the soul migratesinto naturesdivcrgent from eachother seemsro mc to oblirerateall naruraldistinctions;to blendand confuserogerhcr,in evcrypossiblerespecr, rhc rational,rhe irrarional,the sentient,and rhe inscnsate; il that is, all thesearc to passinto eachother,wirh no disrincrnaruralordersccludingrhemfrom mutualrransition. To sayrhatoneand the same soul,on accountofa pamicular environmenr ofbody, is at one time a rationaland inrellccrual soul,and rhat rhen ir is caverncdakrng with rhereptiles, or hcrdswith the birds,or is a lreasr ofburden,or a carnivorous one,or swimsin thc decp;or evendropsdown to an lnsensate thing, so as to strikcout rootsor bccomea completetree, producingbuds on branches, and from rhosebuds a flower,or a thorn, or a fruit edibleor noxious-ro sayrhis,is norhingshorrof makingall rhingsthe sameand believingrharonc singlcnarurcruns throughall beings;that thereis a connectionberwcenthernwhich blendsand confuses hopclcssly all rhc marksby which onecouldbe disringuishcd from another.at

Naturein all its produceremainsconsistent wirh irself... Seedsof one kind cannotbe changedinto anotherkind of plant,nor bring forrh produce differing f'rom its own sceds,so rhat men should springfrom serpentsand fleshfrom tceth;how much morc, indeed, is it ro be believed thatwhatever hasbeensownrisesagainin irsown nature,and that cropsdo not diffcr from rhcirsccd,rhatsofrthings do not springf-romhard,nor hardfrom soft,nor is poisonchangcd into blood; but that flesh is resroredfrom flesh, bonc from bonc, blood from blood, the humorsof rhe body from humors.Car, y. then,yc heathen, who areableto asserr a change,denya restorarron of the nature?{5 ln a similar view, St. Gregoryof Nyssawrires: Vhereas we learn from Scripturein the accounrof the first Creation, that first the earth brought forth "rhe grecnherb" (asthc narrative says),and that thcn from this planr seedwas yiclded, from which,when ir wasshedon the ground,rhesameform of rheoriginal 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 chcnchangedinto somcrhingnoblcr,but alsorhat whar wc havc rhercinto cxpectis nothingelsethan rhat which wasar rhc bcginning.at' A strangeparallelro the modern theory of universalevolurion may be seenin the ancient pagan teachingof the rransmigrarionof souls (reincarnation).The reactionof the Holy Fathersto this idea, which they universallycondemned,showshow concernedrhey were to preserve the orderlinessof creation and rhe disrinctnessof its kinds of crcatures.Sr. Gregoryof Nyssawrires: 138

The idea that "one single nature runs rhrough all beings," of course,lies at the hearr of the theory of universalevolurion. Erasmus Darwin (the grandfather of Charles) had already pointed scientific specularionin this direction ar rhe end ofthe eighteenthcenrury.Such an idea is profoundly alien to Scripturaland Parristicrhought.

6. TbeSixth Day (GenesisI:24-J I )

l:24-25 And God said,Let the eartb bringforth liuing creatures arcordingto their kinds: cattleand crcepingthingsand beasxof the earth accordingto their hinds.And it wasso.And God madethe beastsof the earth accordingt0 their hindsand the cattleaccordingto their hinds,and euerythingthat creepsupon thegroundaccordingto itshind. And Godsaut that it uasgood. The teachingofthe Holy Fathers on rhecreationofthe land animalson the Sixth Day doeslittle more rhan repeatwhat hasalready beensaidaboutthe otherlivingcreatures. l-hus,Sr.Ephraimwrites: 139

(ir.:r,rr-:srs, Creer.roNlNo Elrly M,rN

Tur SIx D,rYs(D.ry sv Dev)

I'hc carrhat God! comnrandimmediatelybroughtforrh creeping things,bcasrs ofthe field,creatures ofprcy,anddomesticanimals,as many aswerenecessary for the serviceof him who, on rhat veryday, transgressed the commandmenrof his [,ord.48

God made the world, asSt.John Damasceneteach€s,because,"llot ofSoodnessHe content to contemplateHimself, by a superabundance saw fit thar there should be some things to benefit by and participate 52 in this goodness." so well the awe-inspiring Perhapsno part of ScriPtureexPresses man's nothingnessin comparimajesryof God in His creation,and son, as does the passagein which God speaksto Job out ofthe whirl-

St. Basilteaches: The soulofbrure beasts did not emergeafterhavingbeenhiddenin the earth,bur it wascalledinto existence at the time of thc ctrmmand.ae With this acr of cr€arion,all is ready fbr rhe appearanceof man, who is ro be lord over it all. But this magnificenrcrearionis not mcrcry for the practicaluse of man. There is something mysrica.lin ir; being the good crearionof rhe All-good God, it can raiseour minds ro Him. St. John Chrysosromwrires: God creared cverythingnot only for our use,but alsorhatwe,secrng rhegrearwealrhofhis creations, mighrbe asronished ar the mighrof the Creatorand mighr undcrstandrhat all rhis wascreatedwirh wisdom and unutterablcgoodness for rhe honor of man, who wasto appear,to St. Basil,marvellingat rhe grandeurofGod! creation,says. Ler us glorifr the MastcrCraftsmanfor all that hasbeendone wisely and skillfully;and from rhe beauryofthc visiblethingslet us form an ideaof Him rWhois morc rhanbeauriful;and fiom the erearrrcss ofthesepcrceprible andcircumscribed bodieslet usconceivJofHim 'Who is infinireand immenseand \Whosurpasses all understanding in the plenitudeof His power.For evenif we areignorantof things made,yet,ar lcast,that which in generalcomesunderour observation is sowonderfultharevenrhemosracutemind is shownto be ar a lossasregards the lcasrof rherhingsin the world,eitherin thc abiliry to explain ir worthily or ro rcnderdue praisero rhe Crearor,ro Vhom bc all glory, honor,and powcr fbrever.tl

t40

wind: 'Whe rc wast thou when I founded the earth?Tell me now, if thou Or who ofit, ifthou knowest? who setthe measures hastknowledge, who is And fastened? a line upon it? On what areits rings stretched he that laid the cornerstoneupon it? Whcn the starsweremade,all My angelspraisedMe with a loud voice.And I shutuP the seawith gates,whcn it rushedout, cominglorth out of its mother'swomb' And I madea cloud irs clothing,and swathedit in mist And I set boundsto it, surroundingit with barsand gatcs.And I saidto it, Hirherto shaltrhou come,but thou shaltnor go beyond,but thy wavesshallbe confinedwirhin thee Or did I ordcr thc morning light in thy rimct and did thc morningstar then first seehis apof the earth,(o castout pointcdplace;to lay hold of thc extremities out of it? Or didst thou takeclayof rhe ground'and rhe r.rngodly andsct it with the powerof speechuPonthe form a livingcreature, carth?(Job38:4-14,Septuaginr). 'l'he Genesisaccount of the creation of man is given in rwo accounts, those of chapterone and chaPtertwo; thesewe shall examine in the next chapter. Thus the heauensand the earth werefnished, and all the host 2:l-3 of them. And on the seaenth dzy God fntshed His worh wbich He had done, and He r€stedon the seuenthdalyfrom all His work which He had done. So God bbsed the seaenthdzy and hallowed it, because0n it Gld restedfom all His worh wbich He had done in creation. Of this, God's "sabbath' rest from creation,St. John Chrysostom writes:

t4t

(ilr.rlsrs, Crr_errou nnn Elnly MnN

Tun SrxDrYs(f).cvsv D,{v)

Scriprtrreindicatesherethat God resrcdfrom His works; bur in the Gospcl Christ says:"My Father worketh hitherro, and I work" (John 5:17). In comparing these utterances,is there not a

by stating this newness emphasize orherFathers Sr.Ephraimt('and rheirbeliefthat the world wascreatedin the spring.St. Ambrosetres this rogetherwith the factthat amongthe Hebrewsthe yearbeganin thespring:

'I hc l)ivine

contradicrionro be found in themi May it not be so; in the words of the Divine Scriprurethere is no conrradiction whatevcr\Vhen tne Scripture here says:"God resredltrom all His works," it rhercbyrn-

ist, if a higher hand did not governand order everythingvisibleand

He crcatedheavenand earthat th€ rime when the monthsbegan, from which rime it is fitting that thc world took its rise Then there suitablefor all things. of spring,a season wasthe mild temPcrature a world coming to the stamp of too, has thc ycar, Consequcntly, n of thc worldtook placcin birth.... In ordcrto showtharthecreatio "This month shallbe to you the bcginsays: spring, Scripture the ningof months,it is for you the first in the monthsof thc ycar"(Ex. l2:2), callingthc first month the springrime.It wasfitring rhat the

the human race?5J

rheycarbc thc bcgirtningo[ generation.ibcginning<-,f

srrucrsus that on the SeventhDay He ceasedto creareand to bnng out of nonexistenccinto existence;but when Chrisr says:"My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," it thereby indicaresto us His uninterrupted Providcnce,and it calls "work" rhe preservationof whar exisrs,the giving to ir of continuance (of existence)and rnc governanceof ir ar all times. Otherwise,how corrld the universeex-

Viewing the marvel ofwhar happens every day in what we have become accusromed to call "nature"-the development, lor example, of a

fully mature plant, animal, or evenhuman being from a riny seed-we 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:

Now, after this look at the Holy Fathers'veryrealisticunderstanding of the Six Days of Creation, Iet us turn to the more comPlexquesrion of rhe making of the crown of God'.screation,man.

rheanimals,birdsand man wereat rhe Justasrhe rrees,the grasses, sametime borhold andyoung:old in the appearance of rheirmembersand structures, youngin rhe time of their creation;so alsothe moon wasat the samctime both old and young:youngbecause ir wasjust created,old bccauseir wasfull ason the fifteenrhday.tt

t42

| 4.t

CHeprBnFoun

The Creationof Man (Genesis | :26-3| ; 2:4-7\

l:26-27 ThenGodsaid,Let us makeman in our image,afer our liheness,and let them hauedominion ouerthe fish ofthe sea,)nd ouerthe birA ofthe air, and ouerthc cattle,and ouerilt thi carth, and ovcr eaem creepingthing that creepttrponthe earth. So God teated man in his ouin image,in the imageof God He createdhim: maleand fcmale He neated tnem. Ve haveseenchatthe Crearionof rhe Six Daysis the work of the Holy Tiiniry and in particularthat the Fathercommands:,.Let there be!" and the Son creares. In rhe creationof man, however,a specialconsultarion,asrr were, is madebetweenthe Personsofthe Tiiniry. Of rhis St. Basilsays: The crearionof man. Detail ofd Rsian ion ofabout theyeat 1570, rou locatedat thz Soluychcgo*t Mwcum of History and Art.

"Let usmakeman". . . Thiswordwasnot yerusedfor anyof theorganizedbeings;therewaslighr, and rhe commandmcntwassimple: "God said,Ler therebe light." The heavenwasmade,and therewas no deliberarion for the heaven.. .. Here,man is not yet,and rhereis a delibcrationover man. God did nor say,asfor the other beings:,.Let man be!" Recognizethe digniry thar belongsro you. He did not causeyour origin by a commandmenr, bur rherewasa consulration in God in orderto know how ro inrroduceinto life rhislivingbcrng worthyofhonor.... V4ry did God not say,"Make,"but "Let us makcman"?It is so that you mighr recognizcrhe sovereignryHe desiresthat in bringrng your amentionon rhe Father,you would not denythe Son;He dc_ siresyou ro know thar the Farherhascreatedby the Sonand thar thc t4 )

Tsr CnrerroN or M,tN Son hascrcatcdby thc willof the Father,and that you shouldglorifr the Fatherin the Son,and the Sonin thc Holy Spirit.... (But) He did not say:"And thcy created,"so that you might not drawfrom thisa prctextfor polytheism.l Similarly, St. John Chrysostom says: Why, when the heavenwascreated,wasit not said:"Let us make," but rather:Let therebe heaven,let therebe light, and so concerning eachpart ofcrearion;but hereonly is thereadded:"Lrt us make,"by which is cxpressed counsel,deliberation,and communicarionwith somconeequd in honor?rJ/ho is it that is to be createdthat he is grantedsuch honor?It i5 man-x greatand wondrousliving bcing, and for God more preciousthan all rhe crearion....Thcre wascounsel,deliberation,and communication,nor because God hasneedof counsel-may this not be!-but in order by the very meansof expression to showus the digniryofwhat is created.... And Vho is it to \X/homGod says:"Let us makeman"?It is the \YondcrfulCounsetor,MighE God,Princeof Pcace,Fathcroftbe agcto comc(1s.9:6 KjV QV), the Only-begottenSonof God Himsclf To Him He says:"Let us make man in our image,after our likencss." He did not say:"ln mineandthinc,"or "in mineandyours,"bur "in our imagc,"indicatinga singlcimagcand a singlclikencss.2

St. Gregory the Theologian speaksvery poetically about the creation of man asa mixture of the higher and lower worlds that God had already created. First:

Thc Holy Trinity appcaringro Abrahamin rhc form ofthrcc visitors. Frcscob7 Thcophanes thc Grcckin tbc Churchofthc Trancfgumtion, Nougorod,Rusia, 1378.

He gavebeing to the world of thought [i.e.,thc world of incellectual beings,angelsl,asfar asI cln reasonon thesematters,and estimate grearthings in my own poor language.Then, whcn this first Creation was in good order, He conccivesa secondworld, materialand visible;and this a systemofearth and sky and all that is in thc midst of them: an admirablecreationindeedwhenwe look at the fair form of everypart, but yet more wonhy of admirarionwhen we considcr thc harmonyand unisonofthc whole,and how cachpart fia in with

't47

GrNrsrs,CrrarroN aNo Eenly MIN cvcryothcrin fiir order... . This wasto showthat He couldcallrnto beingnot only a natureakin ro Himself[i.e.,the angclic,invisible worldl, but alsoone altogether alienro Him. For akin to Deiry are thosenaturcswhich are intellectual, and only to be comprehended by mind; but all of which sense cantakccognizancc areurtcrlyalien to It; and of thesethe fi.rrthesrremovedfrom It are all thoscwhich areentirelydestituteofsoul and powerof motion. Mind, then,and sense, thusdisringuished fiom eachother,had rcmainedwithin their own boundarics, and borein themselves the magnificencc of the Creator-Word, silcntpraisers and thrilling heraldsof His mighrywork. Not yet wasthcreany minglingof both, nor any mixtureof rheseopposites, tokensof a greaterwisdomand generosiry in rhccrcationofnatures;nor asyerwercthe wholeriches of goodncss madeknown. Now rhe Crearor-Vord,determiningro exhibitthis,and ro producea singlelivingbeingour ofboth (theinvisibleand rhe visiblecrearion,I mean)fashions Man; and rakinga body from alreadyexistingmatter,and placingin ir a Brcathtaken from Himself (which the $7ordknew to be an intelligenrsoul, and the imageof God),asa sort of secondworld,greatin lirtleness, He placedhim on rhe earrh,a new Angel,a mingledworshipper, fully iniriatedinto thevisiblecrcarion,bur only partiallyinro the inteilecrual;king of all upon earth,but subjectro rhe King abovc;earthly and heavenly; temporaland yer immorml;visibleand yet intellecrual; half-wayberweengrearness and lowliness;in one personcombining spiritand flesh;spirit because of rhe favorbesrowed on him, flcsh on accounrof the height to which hc had beenraised;the one that he mighr continucro live and glori! his benefactor, the other that hc might suffcr,and by sufferingbe pur in remembrancc, and be corrcctedif hc becamcproud in his grearncss; a living creature, trained hereand rhcn movcd elscwhcre;and to complerethe mystery deificdby its inclinarionto God.r

Tse Cnt,trroN or M,lN

freedom.Sr. Gregoryof Nyssasumsup the meaningof rhe imageof Cod mostconcisely: He crearcs man for no orherreasonthan that He is good;and being such,and havingthisasHis reasonfor enteringupon thecreationof in an our narurc,He would not exhibitthe powcrof this goodness impcrfecform, givingour naturesomeoneof the thingsar His disposal,and grudgingit a sharein another:but the perfectform of goodness is hereto be seenby His both bringingman inro being from nothing,and fully supplyinghim with all goodgifts.But since thc list ofindividualgoodgiftsis a longone,ir is out ofthe quesrion ofScripturetherefore The language exro apprehcndit numcrically. phrase,in sayingrhat man presses it concisely by a comprehensive wasmade"in the imageof God": for this is thc samcasto saythat He madehumannatureparticipantin all good;for ifthe Deiryis thc fullnessof good,and this is His image,then rhe imagcfindsits reto the Archerype in beingfilledwirh all good.o semblancc lWhat is the differenceberweenthe "image" and thc "likeness"of God in man?The Holy Fathersexplainthat the imageis given to us in full and cannot be lost; the likeness,however,wasgiven in the beginning only porenrially,and man himself was to work on atraining its perfecrion.St. Basilthe Great teaches: "Lcr us makcman in Our imagc,afterOur likencss." \?c possess the

\i(/hat is this image of God? Different Holy Farhershave emphasizeddifferent aspecrsof the image of God in man: some have mentioned man'sdominion over the lower crearion (which is mentioned specificallyin the text of Genesis);others, his reason;srill orhers,his

oneby crearion, weacquircthc othcrby freewill. In thefirsrstructure it is givenus to bc born in rhc imagcof Godl by frecwill thereis ofGod.... "Lct usmakeman in formedin usthebcingin thelikeness by crcationwhatis in the image,but let Our image":Let him posscss God hasgivenrhepower him alsobecomeaccordingto the likcness. wherewouldyour you alsoin the likeness, for this;if He hadcreated And if the Crearorhad privilegebe?Vhy haveyorr beencrowned? given you everything, how would the kingdom of heavenhave openedfor you?But it is propertharoneparris givenyou,whilethe this is so thatyou might completeit orherhasbeenleft incomplete: yourselfandmighrbeworthyof therewardwhichcomesfromGod.t

t4t)

t4)

GeNcsIs,CnurIoN aNo EanrvM,rN of Genesiswhich describesthe creationof man, In the very passage it is said that he was creared"male and female."* Is this distinction, then, part ofthe imageofGod? St. Gregoryof Nyssaexplainsthat the Scripture refers here rc a tuofold creation of man:

Tur Cns,rrroN or M,rN elcmcntsis certainly to be found in all rhat partakesof human life. Thar rhe intellectualelemenr,however,prcccdesrhc other, we learn as from one who gives in order an account of the making of man; and we learn also that his communiry and kindred wirh thc irrational is for man a provision for rcproduction... .

That whichwasmade"in the image"is onething,and thatwhich is is another,"God createdman," it in wretchedncss now manifested "in He him." 'fhere is an cnd of the imagc of God creared says; the creationof thatwhich wasmade"in rhc image":then it makesa rcsumptionofthe accountofcreation,andsays,"malcand fcmalecreated He them." I presumcthat everyoncknows that this is a fbr "in ChristJcsus,"as the Apostlc departurefrom the Prororype: says,"thereis neithcr malenor female."Yct the phrascdcclaresthat man is rhusdivided. rwofold:onc madc Thus the creationofour natureis in a sense like ro God, one dividedaccordingto rhis disrinction:for somedarkly conveysby its arrangemcnt,where thing like this the passagc "God man, in thc imageof God creatcdH" created Orst says, ir him," and thcn, addingro what has bcensaid,"maleand female createdHe thcm,"-a thing which is alienfrom our conceptionof God. I think that by thesewords Holy Scripturcconvcysto us a g.eat and lofiy doctrine;and the doctrineis this.\Vhile two natures-thc naturc,and the irrationallife of brutcs-arc Divineand incorporeal human natureis the mean from eachothcr asextremcs, scparated berween them [thisis similarto the ideaofSt. GregoryrhcThcologianwe havealreadyquoted]:for in the compoundnarureof man we may beholda part of eachof the naturesI havementioned-of the Divinc,the rationaland intelligentclement,which doesnot admit the distinctionof malcand female;of the irrational,our bodily form and structure,divided into malc and female:for eachof these ln Mark l0:6 He says:"Bur from Ccnesis. ' ChristHimselfguotedthispassagc from rhe beginningof thc creationGod madethem maleand femalc."His words "from rhe beginningof thc crcation"clearlyconrradicrthe evolutionisrand oldideatharthercwerebillionsofycarsofearth historybccrcationist earrh/progrcssivc of human beings.(Sccalsop. 228 n.\-Eo. fore thc appearance

lt0

He \V'ho brought all things into being and fashionedman as a wholc by His own will to the Divinc image ... saw bcforehandby His all-sceingpower the failureoftheir will to keepa direct courseto whar is good, and its consequentdeclensionfrom thc angeliclife, rn ordcr thar the multitude of human souls might not be cut short by irs fall.... He formed for our naturc that contrivance for incrcasc which bcfirs thosc who had f'alleninto sin, inrplanting in mankrnd, instcad of the angelic majcstyof nature, that animal and irrarional mode by which thcy now succecdone another.'i' Thus the image of God, which, as all the Holy Fathers teach, is to

be found in the soul and nor the body ofman, has nothing to do with the division into male and female. In God's idea of man, one might say-man as he will be in the Kingdom of Heaven-there is neither male nor female;but God, foreknowing man'sfall, made this division which is an inseparablepart of man'searthlycxistence. However,the reality of sexuallife did not come about before the "Now fall of man. St. John Chrysostom,commenting on the passage, (Gen.4:l)-which Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived" occurred after the fall-says: After the disobcdience, afterthe banishmenr from Paradise, then ir wasrhatmarriedlife began.Beforethedisobedience, the firstpeople lived like angels,and therewas no talk of cohabitation. And how Thus, in the becouldthis be,whentheywerefreeof bodilynecds? (of of rhe carelessness ginning life wasvirginal;but when,because the first people)disobedience appeared and sin enteredthe world, virginiry fled awayfrom them, sincerhey had bccomeunworthy of ' Thar is,thewholesexualfuncrionIin man]is seento betakcnfrom thc animal creation.It wasnot mcantto bc thatway in rhc beginning.

l5l

,LxoEnnlv MaN GtNesIs,Cae,qrIoN

l-se CnrarloN or M-lN

sucha greatgood,andin irsplaccthcrcentcrcdinto cffectIhe law of marricdlife.7

view of marriageis rhis:that, while rhe pursuirof heavenlyrhings shorrldbe a mant first care,yer if he can usethe advantages of marriagewith sobrieryand nroderation,hc neednor despisethis way of scrvingthe stare....Marriageis thc lastsrageofour separation from the life rhar wasled in Paradise; marriageis the first rhing ro be left; it is the firststation,asit were,for our deparrure ro Christ.e

writes: And St. John Damascene Aftcr the fall,... to keepthe Virginity waspracticcdin Paradise.... wasdeby death,marriage racefrom dwindlingand beingdcstroyed race of men might be vised,so that by the begettingof childrcnthc preserved. Bur they may ask:Vhat, thcn, does"malcand femalc"mean, and mukiply"?To which we shallreplythat the "inand "increase by the marriageuncrease and multiply"doesnot meanincreasing becauseif thcy had kept thc commandment ion exclusively, unbrokenforever,Cod could haveincreasedrhe raceby someother means.But, sinceGod, Who knowsall thingsbeforethcy cometo be, saw by His forcknowledgehow they were to fall and be conby creatingthem demnedto death,He madeprovisionbeforehand and multiply.s maleand femaleandcommandingthem to increase In rhis as in other respeccs,as we shall seelater, man-like the rest of the creation-before the fall was in a state different from that aFter the fall, eventhough thereis a continuiry betweenthesetwo statesprovided by Godt foreknowledgeofthe fall. It should not be thought, however,that any of the Holy Fathers evil" or denied that it is a state looked upon marriageas a "necessary They regard it as a good thing in our presentstateof blcssedby God. sin, bur it is a good thing thar is secondto the higher stateof virginiry in which Adam and Eve lived before their hll, and which is shared even now by thosewho havefollowed the counselofthe Apostle Paul "to be even as I am" ( I Cor. 7:7-8). St. Gregory of Nyssa, the very Farher who teachesso clearlythe origin of marriagein our kinship with the beasts,alsodefendsrhe institution of marriagein the clearestfashion. Thus, in his treatise"On Virginiry," he writes: marriageasan instirution.We Let no one think rhat we deprcciare But our arewell awarethat it is not a strangerto God'sblessing..., I S?

l:28 And God bbssedthem, and God said to tbem, Befuiful and mubiply andfll the earth and subdueit; and hauedominion ouerthe fsh of the sea dnd luer tbe birds of the air and ouer euery liuing thing that mou€su?on the earth. "Be fruitful and multiply" are the very words alreadyaddressedby Cod ro the crearuresof rhe water (Gen. l:22) and indicaremant kinship with the lower creationand, through his fall, with their mode of sexua.lgeneration.But there is also a deepermeaning to thesewords. St. Basilwrites: 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 rhe aim of perfection;rhe increasc of the body is the development from smallncss to normalsraturc. To the animalsdeprivedof reasonHe thereforesaid "increase" according to bodilydevelopmenr, in thesense of completingnarure; but to us He said"increase" accordingto rhe interiorMan, in the line of progress thar leadsto God. This is what Pauldid, stretching out towardsrhatwhich is ahead,fbrgeningthat which he leaves behind (Phil.3: l3). Suchis the increase in spiritualrhings.. .. "Mulriply":'I'hisblessing concernsrhe Church.Let the Divrnc word not be limitedto a singleindividual,but let the Gospelof salvation be preachedthroughourthe earth."Multipll': to whom is this ordcr addressedl-To those who give birth accordingro rhe Cospel.... Thus,thesewordsapplyequallywell to the animalsdeprivedof reason,but they acquirea particularmeaningwhen we haveto do with the beingwho is in thc imagewith which we havebeenhonored.lo

t53

GeNrsIs,Crrerlott lNo EanrvMaN

TsE CnlrrrroNor Mrn

Man is to "have dominion," also,not only over the externalcreation, but also over the beast-likepassionsthat lurk within him. St. Basilwrites:

we seehow animalisticwe arewhen we let passions control us. We havethese"animals"within ourselves, but we alsohavethe heavenly side,to which we arestrivingto gerback.

You havedominion over everykind of savagebeast.But, you will sa1 do I havesavagebeastswirhin mc?Yes,many of them. It is even an immensecrowd of savagebeastsrhat you carry within yourseli Do not rakethisasan insuk.ls not angcra smallwild lrcastwhenit bark in your heart?ls it not morc savagerhan thc first dog that soul And is not rhe trickeryrhat crouchesin a rreacherous comes? \(/hat kind ofsavage moreferocious than the bearofthe caverns?... beastdo we not havewithin us?...Youwcrecrcatedro havedominion; you are rhe masterof the passions,the masterof savagebeasts, the masterof serpents,the masterof birds.... Be masterof the thoughtswithin you in order to becomemasterof all beings.Ttrus, us to the powerwhich wasgivenus throughliving beingspreparcs exerciscdominion over ourselvcs.

l:29-30 And Godsaid,Behold,I hauegiuenyou euery plantyielding seedwhich is upon theface ofall the eartb, and euerytee with scedin ix fuit; you shall hauethemfor food. And to euerybeastof the earth, and to euerybird of tbeain and to euerything tbat teeps on the earth, euerything that hasthe breathof life, I hauegiuen euel:lgreenpkfi for food. And it uos so. Herewe arerold rharin the beginning,when the earthand all irs creatures werestill new and man had nor fallen,nor only men, lrur eventhe beasts, weregivenonly greenplantsfor food;the beasts were not meantto be,and in rhe beginningwerenor, carnivorous. Of this St. Basilsays: 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 animal creationthrough our fall. St. Gregoryof Nyssawrites: fu brute life first enteredinto the world, and man, for the reasonalreadymentioned,took somethingof their nature(l meanthe modc of gcnerarion), he accordingly took at the sametime a shareof the of man orherattributescontcmplatcd in rhatnature;for the likencss a markof thc superior to God is not found in anger,nor is pleasure nature;cowardice also,andboldness, and the desircofgain, and thc dislike of loss,and all the like, are far removedfrom that stamp which indicates Diviniry Theseanributcs,then,hunrannaturerook to irselffrom the sidcofthe brutes.r2

thc reptiles,thc quadrupeds."lt is nor for this rhat He crcated,says the Scripture. In f-acr,thc first lcgislationallowed the use of fiuirs, for we wcre srill judgcd worrhy of Paradise. Vhat is the mysterywhich is conccalcdfor you under this? lb you, to the wild animals and rhe birds, saysthe Scriprure, fruits, vegetarion,and herbs (arc given).... We see,however,many wild animalswho do not ear fruirs. \Vhar fruir docs rhe panthcr accept ro nourish irsclP Vhat fruir can rhe lion satisfyhimsclf with? Ncverthcless,thesebcings,submirting to rhe law ofnarurc, were nourishcd by frrrits. But when man changedhis way of lifc and departcd from the limit which had bccn assigncdhim, the Lord, after 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 evolutionary ideas say, "Man comes from monkeys; therefore,you're an animal-like creature."The Holy Fathers,however,say rhat we are a mingled creation,parr heavenly,part earthly.In the earthly side, Cod made allowancefor the animal-like mode of reoroduction: and thus

By this allowance,rhe orher animalsalso receivedrhe liberry ro eat them.

r54

t55

Sincethen the lion is a carnivorc,sincerhen alsovultureswatch for carrion. For the vulturcs were nor yer looking over rhe earth at the vcry moment when rhc animals were born; in fact, nothing of

GrltssIs,CnurroN aNo Ernry M,rN

Tue CmelroN or MaN

whar had receiveddesignationor exisrencehad yet died so that the vulruresmighrearthem.Naturehadnor yet divided,for it wasin all ir freshness; hunrersdid nor capture,for suchwasnot yet rhe pracriceof mcn; the beasts, for their parr,did nor yet rearrheirprel for they werenor carnivores.. . , But all followedthe way of the swans, and all grazedon rhe grassof the meadow... . Suchwasthc firstcreariorr, andsuchwill be the restoration after this.Man will returnto his ancienrconsrirurion in relectingmdice, a life weigheddown with cares,rhe slaveryof the soul wirh regardto dailyworries.When he hasrcnounccdall rhis,hc will returnto rnar paradisallife which was not enslaved ro rhe passions of rhe flesh, which is free,the life ofcloseness to God, a partakerofthe life ofthe angels.'r

the Divine Scripturesays(Gen. l:26-30).... God gaveovcr ro man at the bcginning this whole world asa kind of Paradise.. . . Adam was

This life ofthe original creation,it should be noted, is not rhe life of Paradise,into which man has nor yer been led; ir is the life of rhe earth outside of Paradise,which God has already blessedas mans dwelling-placeafter his fall. St. Ephraim rhe Syrian writes of this: Cod blessedour first anccstorson rhe earth, because,even beflore thcysinnedHe prepared the earrhfor thcirdwelling;for,beforerney sinned,God kncw rhat rheywould sin.... He blessed (man)before settlinghim in Paradisc, on rheearth,so thar by the blessing, which was prcccdcdby His goodncss,Hc might weakenthe powerof the cursewhichsoonstruckthe earth,ra In the beginning, rherefore,beforeman'sfall, the whole earth was Iike a kind of Paradise. St. Symeonthe New Theologian reaches:

madc with a body that was incorrupt, although materialand nor ycr spiritual, and was placed by the Creator God as an immorral king over an incorrupt world, not only over Paradise,bur also over the whole ofcrcation which was under the heavens....This whole crcarion in the bcginning was incorrupt and was createdby God in the manner ofParadise.But later ir wassubjectedby God to corruption, and submirted to the vaniry of men.r!

That is a remarkable viewof the originalcreation.

l:31 And Godsaweuerything that He had madz,and bchold,it was ueryg00d.And thereuas eueningand thereuas mlrning, d sixth di!. The first chapterof Genesisis entirelydevotedto the Six Daysof Creation.In chaptertwo, the crearionof man is described in moredetail. One might saythat chapterone describes the crearionof human14,,both in the exaltedsense asGod'simage,and in its divided,earrhly aspectasmaleand female;whilein chapterrwo rhespecificcreationof ric frst man Adam and rhefrst womanEve is set forth. Someof the orhercrearions ofthe Six Daysarealsomentionedin chaprerrwo, but not in the srrictchronolog;cal orderof the first chapter.rVe should keepthis in mind to avoidrheelementary mistakes of rationalist critics "contradictions" who find berweentheserwo chaprersand suppose theremustbe differentaurhorsof rhem.

God, in the beginning,beforeHe plantedParadise and gaveit ovcr to the first-createdones,in five daysset in order rhe earthand wnar is on ir, and thc heavcnand wharis in it. And on the SixrhDay He createdAdam and placedhim aslord and king of rhe wholevisible creation.Thcn rherewasnor yet Paradisc.Bur rhis world wasfrc,rn God asa kind of Paradise, althoughir wasmaterialand sensuous... . God gaveir overro theaurhoriryofAdam andall hisdescendanrs, as

2:4-6 Tltescare thegenerationsof the heauens and of the edrtb ahen 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 herb of thefeld beforeit grew:for the Lord God had not causcdit to rain upon the earth,and therewasnzt a man t0 till theground. But therewent up a mistfom the earth,and aateredthe wholefaceofthe grzund (KJV). This is a brief descriptionof the stareof rheworld beforethe appearance of man, emphasizing that without God rherewould have beennothing,that He broughteverythinginto beingout of nothing. St.JohnChrysostorn commenrs on rhispassage:

t56

t57

GsNesrs, Cru-arroru ,qpn Eanrv MeN Vhcn (thc Scripture) spcaksof heavenand earth, it understands everythingrogetherthat is in heavenand on earth.Therefore,just as in rhc account of the creatures(in chapter one) it does not speak

Tne CRflrroN or Mar.r thc creation, that Cod createdall rhc orher crcaturcsby His word, while man He createdwith His own hands.. .. \?e do not say that the Diviniry has hands ... but we affirm that cvery one of theseexpressionsindicatcs a grcater care on Godt part for man than for the

about all of rhem in order, but having mentioned the most important, 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 included every'thingvisiblc that is in heavenand on earth.. .. The Holy

is man from the animals:

Spirit shows ... what occurred first and what aftcrwards,and likcwise rhe fact thar the earth produced its seedsby the word and command ofthe Lord and beganto givc birth without nccding either the

Above, the text saysthat God created; here it sayshowGad crcated,

cooperationof the sun, nor the moisturc of rain, nor thc tilling of man, who was not yet created,... This (passagc)mcans that what

animals,for rhe plants,for the grass.This is why, ro avoid your plac-

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

If the versehad simply said that God created,you could have believed thar He creatcd [man] as He did for the beasm,for the wild ing him in thc classof wild animals, the Divine word has made

we might know thar rhe earth, for the germination of its seeds,had no rreedof the cooperationof other elcments,but the command of thc Crcator was sufficicnt for ir.r('

2:7 Thenthe Lord Godformed man of dustfom theground,and breathedinto his nosnilsthe breathof life; and man becamea liuing beirg. Here we are given as much as we can know of rhe how of man's by creation.Therecanbe no doubt that the Holy Fathersunderstood "dust"the lireraldusrof theearth;but whentheyspeakof the "hands" the greatcare ofGod which "took" this dusr,theymeanto emphasize in work. Blessed Theodoret writes:' of God and His directaction this

The sameFarherrellsof the differenceberwcenthe "crearion"of man and his "fashioning": God,crcatedrhc inward man, andfasbioneddte ourwardman. Fashioning is suitedto thc clay,and crcationto rhat which is in thc imagc.Thus,rhe fleshwasfashioned, but the soulwascreatcd.re The creationof man indicatesboth his greatness and his nothingness:

ance,we discoverin it the specialgood disposition of God towards thc human race. For the great Prophet notes, in his description of

"G<.rdtook of rhc dusr of thc earthand fashionedman." In this world I havediscovered the rwo affirmationsthat man is nothing and that man is great.Ifyou considernaturealone,he is nothing and has no valuclbut if you regardthc honor with which he has bcentreatcd,nran is somcthinggrcat....lfyou considerwhat ir is rhat (God) rook,what is man?But if you reflccton the One \X/ho

' BlcsscdThcodorct, Bishopof Cyrus ncarAntioch, wasa fifth-century Father who wrorecommcnraries on Scliprure.

what a greatthing is man!Thus at the sametimc hc rs fashioned, nothingbecause of the material,and greatbecause of the honor (St. Basil).:o

lt8

r59

\When we hear in the account of Moses that God rook /zsr from the earth and formed man, and we seekout the meaning of this utter-

GrNrsts,Cnr:,lrror,rNpE,rnlyMaN ln rhe usual interpretation of the Holy Fathers, what was "breathed"into man washis saa/.St. Iohn Chrvsostomwrites: 'And the Lord God formcd man of the dust of thc ground,and breathedinto hisnostrilsrhcbreathof lif-c!"Mosesusedsucha crude he wasspeakingto peoplewho could mannerof speakingbecause not listcnto him otherwise, aswe areableto do; andalsoto showus rhatit waspleasing to God'sloveof nrankindto makethis thingcreated out of eartha participantof the rationalnatureof the soul, wasmanifesrascxcellent andpcrthroughwhichthislivingcreature (face?) 'And fect. He breathedinto his nostrils rhc brcathof life": that is, rhe inbreathingcommunicatedro the onc createdout of earththe powerof life,and rhusthe narureof the soulwasformcd. ThcreforeMosesadded:'And manbecamca livingsoul";thatwhich wascreatedour of dust,havingreceived rhe inbreathing, rhe breatn of lifc, "becamea living soul."Vhat does"a livingsoul" meanJAn activesoul,whichhasthe membersof thebodyasthe implemcnts of its activities, submissive to its will.2r St. Seraphimof Sarovhas a rather different interpretationof this passageof Scripture; in his "Conversationwith Motovilov" he states that what was made from the dust of the earth was rhe entire human nature-body, soul, and spirir ("spirii' being the higher part of the soul)-and that what was breathedinto this nature was the graceof rhe Holy Spirit.* This is a different perspectiveon rhe crearionof man (found in few other Fathers),and does not really conrradict the usual interpretationthat it was the soul that was breathedinto man; those who hold the latter view alsobelieverhat man was crearedin rhc grace ofGod. St. Gregorythe'fheologian speaksofthe exaltednatureofman, the highestpart of whose nature comes not from earrh bur direcrly from God: Thc soulis the breathof God, and whilebeingheavenllit endures ' Secpp. 43542 bclow.-Eo.

160

THt CnearloN or MrN beingmixedwirh what is of the drrsr.It is a lighr enclosed in a cave, but still ir is divineand inextinguishable.... The Vord spoke,and havingtakena part of the newlycrearedeanh,with His immortal handsformedmy imageand impartedto it His life;because He sent into it the Spirir,which is a rayof the invisiblcDiviniry.22 Such expressions, however,should not lead us to the falseopinion that the soul itself is Divine, or a parr of God. St. John Chrysostom writes about this: Ccrrainsenseless ones,beingdrawnawayby rheirown conceprions, without rhirrkingof anyrhingin a Cod-bcfirtingmanner,and wirh(of out payingany atrenrionto the adaprationof the exprcssions Scripturc),dare to saythat the soLrlhasproceedcdfrom the Essencc of God. O frenzy!O folly! How many pathsof perditionhas the devilopenedup for thosewho will to servehim!... Thus,when yttu hcarthat God "brearhed into hisfacerhebrearhof lifc," understand that, just as He broughtforth the bodilesspowers,so alsoHe was pleased that the bodyof man,createdout of dust,shouldhavea rationalsoulwhichcouldmakcuseof the bodilymcmbers.2l There are those today who would like to use the order of mans creationin this verseto "prove" thar man "evolved"from lower beasts: that his body or earthly nature camefirsr in time, and his soul or stare of being in God's gracecame second.Such an interpretation is quite impossibleif we acceprthe Patristicunderstandingof man'screation. 1b begin with, we haveseenthat in the Parristicview the days of 61sx1i6n-whslgver their precise"length" may have been-were very short periodsof time; that God'swork in eachof the dayswasswift, indeed,instanraneous; rhar ar the end ofrhe Six Days rhe world was still "new" and not yet given over ro corruption and death. Secondly,the Holy Farhersthemselvesinsist that the creation of man is not to be understood chronologically;it is rather an ontohgical description that tells the makeupof man, but not the chronological order in which it occurred.\)fhen St. John Chrysostomstatesrhat "before" the inbreathing man was a "lifelessdummy," to or St. Seraphim l6l

aNo Eerrv M,qN Genesls,Cne,crIoN

Tss CnrarroN or. M,q,N

statesthat he was zala "lifelessdummy" but a living and activehuman being-we must understandthe word "before"in the ontologicalsense of "without." But the creationof man itself-both body and soul, together with che grace in which man was made-was instantaneous. to setforth this teachingquite explicitly The Fathersfound it necessary becausein ancient times there were rwo opposed but equally false teachingson this subject:one, that of the Origenistswho stated that souls"pre-existed"the creationof bodiesand only enteredtheir bodies as a "fall" from a higher state;and rhe other, rhat the body pre-existed rhe soul and was thereforeof a nobler nature. St. John Damascene

othcrwcrca lateraddition....Forasour naturcis conceived asrwofold,according to thc apostolicteaching, madeup of rhcvisiblcman and rhehiddenman,if the onc camefirstand thc orhersupervened, the powerof Him thar madeuswill be shownro be in someway rmperfcct,asnot beingsufficicntfor the wholeraskar once,but dividing the work,and busyingitselfwirh eachofthe halvesin turn.r"

teaches: From the carth He formcd his body and by His own inbrcathing soul,which lastwe sayis rhe gavehim a rationaland undcrsranding divinc image....'fhc body and the soul wereformedat thc same as the ravingsof timc-not one beforeand the other afterwards, Origenwould haveit.2t And St. Gregoryof Nyssateachesin more derail (referringboth to the original creationof man and the conceptionof individual men today), after refuting the oppositeerror of Origen: Others,on the contrarymarkingthe orderof the makingof man as sratedby Moses,saythat the soul is secondto thc body in orderof time,sinceGod first took dustfrom the earthand formcdman,and then animatedthe beingthusformedby His breath:and by this argumcntthey provethat the fleshis morenoblethan the soul,that which waspreviously formcd Imorcnoble]than thar which wasafterwardsinfuscdinto 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 rhanthc clayfigurc.But naturewould be shownto bc lcssprecious consisting of soul and body,we areto supasman is one,the being is orrc,common to both poscrhar the beginningof his existencc and postcrior not be found ro be antcccdent parts,so that he should to himself,if thc bodilyelementwerefirst in point of time,and rhe

t62

The idea ofthe "evolution" of man from a lower animal cannot be harmonized with the Patristicand Scriptural view of man'screarion, but requiresa sharp breakwith it: If man "evolves"solelyaccordingro the lawsofnarure, then his rational nature,his soul, the imageofGod, difl-ers not qualitatiuety but only quantitatitell from the beasts;he is then a crearureonly of rhe earth, and there is no room for the Patristic view that he is partly ofearth and parrly ofheaven, a "mixture" of two worlds, to use the phraseofSt. Gregory the -fheologian.Bur if, ro escape such earthly thinking, a Christian evolutionist admits a Divine creation of man's soul-"when his body was ready for ir," as some say-rhen he not only partscompanywirh scientificthinkers,who will not admit "Divine" acts inro their conceptualframework, but he also presentsno consistentChristian outlook, mixing scienrific speculations with "revealed" knowledge in a most haphazard way. In the Patristic-Scriptural view the enrire Six Days of Creation is a seriesof Divine acts;in the uniformitarian scientificview, rhe origins of things (asfar back asscientiststhink they can be traced)are nothing but narural processes.These rwo views are as opposed as any rwo views can be, and any mixture of rhe rwo must be purely arbirraryand fanciful.

I o-)

Peraorss

CHeprpn Frvr

Paradise (Genesis2:8-24)

2:8 And the Lord God plantcd a garden in Eden, in the east;and there he put the man abom He had formed. In the garden ("paradise" in Greek) where Adam dwelt before his fall, we approacha subjectrhat is subtle and mystical,and at the same time is a necessary key to undersrandingthe whole of Christian teaching. This Paradise, aswe shall see,is not merelysomethingthat existed before the fall; it existseven now and has been visited by some while still alive on this earth;and it is also(in a somewhardifferenrform) rhe goal of our whole earthly life-the blessedstare to which we are striving to return and which we shall enjoy in its fullness(if we are among the saved)at rhe end of this fallenworld. Our knowledgeof Paradise,rherefore,is in a sensefuller than our knowledgeof the world of the Six Days of Creation; but at the same time it is ofa mysticalnaturethat renders"precise"statemenrsabout it very difficult ro make. Let us seeherewhat the Holy Fatherssayabour it. St. Ambrose reminds us, in the first chapter of his treaciseon "Paradise,"thar we must be very careful in discussingthe "place" of Paradiseand its nature:

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 that man may not repeat"(2 Cor l2:3-5)... . If Paradise, rhen,is of sucha naturethat Paulalone,or one like Paul,couldscarcely seeir while alive,and still wasunablcto remembcrwhethcrhc sawir rrt 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 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 from exaltinghimselfby reasonof the sublimiryof the revelation, how much more ought we to strivenot to be too anxiousto disclose thatwhich leadsto dangerby its vcryrcvelarion! The subjectof Paradiscshouldnot, rherefore, be trearedlightly.r Nevertheless, despitethe difficulry of speakingabout it, there are certain things we can know about Paradise,as interpretedby the Holy Fathers. First of all, it is not merelya spiritual phenomenonwhich may be beheld now in vision as the Apostle Paul beheldit (of which more befow); it is also a part of the history of rhe earth.The Scripture and Holy Farhersteachthat in the beginning, beforethe fall of man, Paradise was right hereon earth. Sr. Ambrosewrites: Take notc rhat God placedman (in Paradise)not in respectto the imageof God, but in rcspectto the body of man.The incorporeal just as He doesnot existin a place.Hc placedman in Paradise, placedthe sun in heaven.2 Likewise,St. John Chrysostomteaches:

On approaching this subjecrI secmto be possessed by an unusual eagerness in my questro clarifr rhe facrsabout Paradise, irs place, and its naturero thosewho aredesirous ofrhis knowledgc. 1-hisis all the moreremarkable sincerheApostledid not know wherherhe was in thc bodyor out ofthe body,yet he saysrharhe "wascaughrup ro

BlessedMosesregisteredeventhe nameof this place(Eden),so that rhosewho love ro speakempty words could nor deceivesimplc liswasnot on carth bur in heaven,and ravc tenersand saythat Paradise with similarmy'thologies.. .. fu you hearthat "God planteda garden

t64

165

GEt'tEsts. CeurtoN lNo Entrv M,qN

l,cRAorsE

easrwardin Eden," rhe word "plant" undcrstandof God in a Godbcfiting way,that is, that He commandcdl bur regardingthe following words, bclicverhat Paradiseprecisclywas crcatedand in the vcry placcwhere the Scripturehasassigncdir.... And thc word "plant" ler

holy rhing with a nature quite different from that o[ ordinary earthly fruits (LivesofSaints,Septemberll). A striking experienceof Paradiseis found in the Life of St. Andrew the Fool for Christ of Constanrinople(ninth century). This ex-

us understandas if it had becn said: He commandcd man to livc rhere,so that his view of Paradiseand his stay rhcre might furnish him a great satisfactionand might arouschim to a feeling of gratr-

periencewas wrirten down in the Sainis own words by his friend Nicephorus:

tudc.'

2:9 And out of the ground thc Lord God madeto grow euerytee that is pbasant to the sigbt and goodforfood, the nee of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the bnowledgeofgood and euil. The connection of Paradisewith the earth is understood by St. Ephraim in such a literal way that he specifies,in his Commmtary on Genesis,thar asa placeof .reesit was createdon the Third Day with the restof the vegetablecreation.o But what connection can there be between this earthly Paradise with its growing trees,and the obviouslyspiritual Paradisethat St. Paul beheld?\7e may seean answerto this question in the descriptionof Paradiseby a Holy Fatherof the highestspiritual life, Sr. Gregory the Sinaite,who visited Paradisein the samestateof Divine vision as St. Paul:

Onceduring a terriblewinter when Sr. Andrewlay in a ciry srrcet fiozenand ncardeath,hesuddenlyfilt a warmrhwithin him andbehcld a splcndidyourh with a faceshininglike the sun, who conducted him to Paradise and the third heaven."By Gods will I remainedfor rwo wceksin a swcetvision... . I sawnrysclfin a splendid andmarvclous Paradisc.. . . In mind andhearrI wasastonished ar rhc unutterablcbeauryof thc Paradisc of God, and I rook swecrdclight walkingin it. Therewcrc a multirudeof gardensthere,filled with rall treeswhich, swayingin rhcir tips, rcjoicedmy cycs,and from their branchcs thcrecameforth a grcatfragrance.... One cannot comparethesetrcesin their bcauryro any carrhlytrcc.... In thcscgardcnstherc wcrc innumcrablcbirds with wings goldcn, snow-white, and of variouscolors.They saron the branches of the trecsof Paradise and sangso wondrouslythat from thc swectncss of thcir singingI wasbesidernysclfl..."

Edenis a placein which therewa"splantedby God everykind of franor entirelycorgrantplant. It is neithercompletelyincorruptible, ruptible.Placedbetweencorruptionand incorruprion,ir is always with flowers,borh marurc both abundantin fruitsand blossoming and immarure.The mature treesand fruis are convertedinto fragrantearthwhichdoesnot givcoffany odor ofcorruption,asdo thc ofthe graceofsanctitreesof thisworld.This is from theabundance forth there.5 poured ficationwhich is constantly

'I-herefore,Paradise,while originally a realiryof this earth, akin ro the natureof the world beforethe fall of man, is of a "material"which is differenr from rhe materialof the world we know today, placedberween corruption and incorruption. This exactly correspondsto the natureof man belorehis fall-for the "coatsof skins" which he put on when banishedfrom Paradise(aswe shallsee)symbolicailyindicatethe cruder flesh which he then put on. From that rime on, in his cruder stare,man is no longer capableof evenseeingParadiseunlesshis spiritual eyesare openedand he is "raisedup" like St. Paul. I'he present"lo-

A number of casesare known in the Lives ofsaints and righteous people of literal fruits being brought back by those who have been lifted up to Paradise-for example,the appleswhich St. Euphrosynus rhe Cook brought back and which were eaten by the pious as some

cation" of Paradise,which has remainedunchangedin its nature, is in this higher realm, which also seemsto correspondto a literal "elevation" from the earth; indeed,some Holy Fathersstatethat evenbefore 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 2, p. 310). alsoSt. Ephraim, Conmentaryon Genesis Concerningtherwo trees-oneof life and oneof the knowledge of goodand evil-we shallspeaklater.

fall, and even before the Flood in Noah'stime, that such geographical questionsare not to be tracedout. 'What is more difficult for our modern menrality,formed by literalisticscience,to puzzleout is how the Fatherscan speakwithout distinguishing berween Paradiseas a Beographicallocation (before the fall), and Paradiseasa spiritual habitationofthe righteous(at the presenr rime). Thus, St. John Chrysostom,in the sametreatisejust quoted, speaksof the one river of Paradisebeing so abundant becauseit was preparedalsofor the later Patriarchs,Prophets,and other saints(begin-

2:10-14 A riuerJlowedout of Edentu waterthegardin, and thereit diuidedand becamefourriaers.Thenameofthefrst is Pisbon;it is theone which/lows aroundtbe wholeknd of Hauilah, wherethereisgold; and tbe are tbere.Tbenameofthe gol/ ofthat hnd isgood;bellium and onyxstonc secondriuer is Gilion: it is the one whichflows around the u.,holtknd of C-nrl(Septuagint:"Ethiopia").And thenameof the third riueris Tigris, whichJlowseax ofAssyria.And thefourth riuer is the Euphrates. This passage emphasizes that Paradise beforethe fall waslocatedin intera definiteplaceon earth.I'he Fathersforbid merelyallegorical of thesefour rivers.Thus,St.JohnChrysostomsays: pretations Perhaps rhosewho lo,rero speakfronr theirown wisdomherealso will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers or the waters precisely waters,but will insrill in thosewho decideto listen to rhem that they (under the name of rivers and waters) representedsomcthing elsc. But I beg you, let us not pay attention to thesepeople, let us close our hcaring againstrhem, and let us believcrhe Divine Scripture.-

Thesefour riversaregenerallyunderstoodby the Fathersto be the Tigris, Euphrates,Nile and Danube (or, accordingto others,the is in the cradleof Ganges); the areaof the earthlyParadise, therefore, (in ancivilization. St. Chrysostom says of this passage ancient John othertreatise):

ning with the thief on the Cross-Luke 23:43) who are to inhabit it.' Evidently our modern ideas have become too dualistic: we divide rhings too easilyinto "spirir vs. matter,"whereasthe realiryof Paradise parrakesof both. 2:15 The Lord God tooh the mdn and p* him in thegarden of Eden to till and hcepit. In this passage,as interpretedby the Fathers,we may see somerhing of the spiritual occLtp^tionof Adam in Paradise.Before the fall rherewas no need for a physicaltilling or cultivation of Paradise;this refers ro Adam! spiritual state. St. John Chrysostom writes (in a 2, p. teachingidenticalto that of St. Ephraim, Commentaryon Gcnesis l): 3l

It would be fruidessto speculatehow the one river of Paradisedividedinto four riverswhich,aswe knowthemtoday,havefour distinct sources.The world of today is so different from the world beforethe

"To till." Vhar was lackingin Paradise? And evcn if a tiller was needed,wherewasthe plowl !/here werethe other implemcntsof 'fhc 'tilling" (or "working")of God consisred in cilling agriculture? of God, rcmainingfaithfulto tne and kcepingrhe commandments commandment.. . . Just as to believcin God is thc work of God (john 6:29),soalsoit wasa work ro believethe commandmentthat if he touched(the forbiddentree)he would die, and if he did nor touch ir, he would live.The work wasthe keepingof rhe spiritual 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 thc from whom?To keepit for oneself;not to loseit by transgressing commandmentito keep Paradisc for oncself,observingthe commandme nt.lo

168

169

From this know that Paradisewas not a small gardenwhich had an insignificantarea.Ir is wareredby such a rivcr thar from its lirllness come out fbur rivers.s

Gewrsts, CllarIoN aNo E/rnrv M,qN

Panausr-

of St. Gregorythe Theologianopensup a deeperunderstanding this"work"of Paradise:

male$ fecl! eat of euery tee of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledgeof good and euil thou shah not eat, for in the day tbat tbou eatestof it thou shalt surely dic. lf one is tempted to find allegoryin the account of creation and Paradise,nowhere is the temptarion strongerrhan with regardto the rwo trees:one of"life" and one of"the knowledgeofgood and evil." Yet the whole "realism"of the Patristicinterpretation of Genesis,as well as the facr that Paradisewas (and is) indeeda "garden"with material (or semi-material)trees,point to the fact rhat thesetreeswereactually trees;and, aswe havealreadyseen,this very fact is emphasizedby St. Gregory Palamas,speaking for St. Gregory the Theologran ancl other Fathers. The account of the temptation in Paradise,therefore,is not an allegory-a spiritual lessonclothed in the tale of a garden-but an historical account ofwhat actuallyhappenedto our first ancestors.V/hat happened,of course,was primarily a spiritual event, just as Adam's dwelling in Paradisewas primarily a spiritual dwelling (aswe shall see more clearlybelow); but the way in which this spiritual event occurred was indeed rhrough the tastingof the fruit of a "forbidden tree." St. John Damascenewell describesthe double arpect,marerialand immaterial,of Adamt dwelling in Paradise:

... to rill theimmortalplants,by ThisbeingHe placedin Paradise which is perhapsmeant the Divinc conceptions,both thc simplcr and the more perfect.''

And, in general,rhe asceticFathersreferthe'tilling" and "keeping" ro rhe spiritualwork of prayer.Thus, St. Nilus of Sora,commenringon this interpretationby the ancientFather,Sr. Nilus of Sinai,writes: till and rhatoneshorrld Now thisSaintbringsforthfromantiquiry keep; for rhe Scripturesavsthar God createdAdam and placcd lti.tt in Paradiseto rill and keep Paradise.For herc this St. NilLrsof Sinai calls praycr the tilling of Paradise,and thc guarding againsr cvil thoughtsafter prayerhe callskeeping. And Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, commenting in his turn on these nvo Holy Fathers, writes: From thesetestimonicsit is clear thar God, having creatcdman :tccording to His imagc and likeness,conductedhim inro a Paradiscof sweetnessro till thc immortal gardcns,that is, rhe mosr pure, cxaltcd, and perfect Divine thoughrs, according to St. (iregory the -fhcologian. And rhis meansnothing elsethan thar he renraincd,as being pure in soul and heart, in contcmplative,grace-filledpraycr, sacredlyworking in rhe mind alonc, that is, in thc swccrcsrvision of God, and that hc manfully preservedthis, ir bcing thc work of Paradise,as the appleoFhis cye, Iestit everdecrcascin his soul and hcart. 'S?herefore, great is the glory of sacrcdand Divine nrcntal prayer, whose vcrgc and summit, that is, bcginning and perfecrion, werc given to man by God in Paradise,and so it is from there rhar it has its beginning.r2

2:16-17 And the Lord God commandedthe man, sa/ng Thou t70

SonrchavcimagincdParadisc to havcbcen matcrial,whilc othcrs havcimagincdit ro havebeenspiritual.Howcver,it seemsto mc thar,just as man wascreatedboth scnsirive and intellcctual, so did rhisnrosrsacred domainof his haverhc rwofoldaspcctof bcingpcrceptibleboth to thc scnscs andto the mind. For,whilc in hisbodync dwelrin thismostsacred andsuperblybeautifulplace,aswe havcrclared,spiriruallyhe residcdin a loftierand far morebeautifulplace. Therche hadthe indwcllingGod asa dwellingplaceand worc Him asa gloriousgarment.He waswrappedaboutwith His gracc,and, like someoneofthe angels, hc rejoicedin rhc enjoymcntofthat one mosrswecrfruit which is rhc conremplarion of God, and by rhisne wasnourished. Now,thisis indeedwhat is fittinglycalledthe treeof life, for the sweetness of Divinecontemplation communicates a life uninterrupted by deathto themrhatpartakeofir.rl t7l

Gsursrs,Cne,mroNeNo E,rnlyM.rN Again, St. Damascenesaysthat Adam in Paradise,

Penrorsr 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 he dwclt amongthe angcls,cultivatingthoughtsof God and being nurturedon these.He wasnakedbecause of his innocence and his simpliciryof life, and throughcreatures he wasdrawn up to their only Crcator,in Vhosc contemplarionhe rcjoiccdand rook de light.ra

spiritual may dwell, and the corruptible earth-which

came about, as

we shall see, becauseof his fall. rX/hat, then, was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and why was it forbidden to Adam? ln the classical interpretation of St. Gregory the Theologian, God gave Adam in Paradise a l-aw asa materialfor his frecwill ro act upon. This law wasa com-

The purposeof man'sdwelling in Paradiseand earing of "every tree" was obviouslynot merely to be satisfiedwirh rhe delightsof this marvelousplace,but to look and strivetowardssomerhinghigher; the very prcsenceof the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil, and of the commandment not to eat of it, indicatesa challengeand a tesrwhich man must passrhrough beforeascendinghigher. Sr. Damascenerhus setsforth the ascensionto perfectionwhich was serforrh beforeAdam in Paradise: God says:"Of everytree of Paradise thou shalt eat," meaning,I think: By nreans ofall creared thingsbc thou drawnup ro Me, their Creator,andfrom them reaprheonefruit which is Mysclf,Who am the trueLife;let all thingsbe fruirfullifi to thecand makeparticipation in Me to be thc substancc of thy own cxistencel for thus t.tou shaltbc immortal....He madehim a living beingro bc govcrned hereaccordingto this presentlife, and then to be removedclsewhcrc,thatis,to the world to come,andso ro completethe mystery by becomingDivine throughreversion to Cod-rhis, however,nor by beingrransformed into thc Divinc substancc, but by participation in thc Divincillunrination.rt

mandmcnt as to what plants he might partakeof, and which one hc mighr nor touch. 'fhis latter was the tree of knowledge;not, howcvcr,becauseir was evil from rhe beginningwhcn planted;nor was rt forbidden becauseGod grudgcd ir to us-let

not thc enemiesof

God wag their tongucsin that direction,or imitate the serpent.But it would have bcen good if partakcn ol at thc proper time; lior thc trec was, according to rrry rheorv,Contemplarion, which it is only safefor thosc who have reachcdmaturiry ofhabit to enter upon, but which is not good for those who are still sonrcwhat simple and grcedy;just as ncirhcr is solid food good for rhosewho are yet tcndcr and have needof milk.' It A nd S t. John D ama scenc wr it es: 'fhc trce of knowledgeofgood and evil is the power ofdiscernment by nrultiple vision, and rhis is the conrplercknowing of one'sown nature.Of itself ir manifesrsrhe magnificenceof the Creatorand it is good fbr them that arc full-grown and have walked in the contemplation of God-for

them thar havc no fear of changing,becausein

the coursc of time they havc acquired a ccrtain habit of such contemplation. It is not good, however,for such as are still young and are morc greedyin their appetitcs,who, becauscof thc uncertainry

'fhus Paradise-and indeed the whole earthly life of man-was made by God, in rhe phraseof St. Basil,"primarily as a placeof rraining and a schoolfor the soulsof men."'6 Man was given in the beginning a path ofascentfrom glory ro glory, from Paradiseto the statusof a spiritual dweller of heaven,through the training and tesringwhich (iod might sendhim, beginning with the commandmenr nor ro rasre

expounds on thisteaching ofSr. GrcgorytheThcologian. ' St.CregoryPalamas Sec I-hcI'hilohdia, vol. 4, pp. 369-70.-Eo.

t72

t73

in the truc good and becauseof thcir not yet of rhcir prerseverancc being solidly establishedin their application to the only good, are

GrNesrs.CrmrroN eNo E,qr.ryMeN

P,rnroIst

naturally inclined to be drawn away and disrractedby thcir solici-

hasbcen rakenfrom Fr. Scraphimioral dclivery 'The followingdiscussion Many ofthe pcoplclisrcniogro him wercin theirtcensor earlyrwenties, and he was applyingrhcsubjccrmattcrdircctlyro theirown siruarion.-Eo.

freedom, it cannot be thar we will not have knowledgeof evil. 'l'he only choiceis whether we haveknowledgeofevil rhrough the mistakes ofothers, or through ourselvesovercomingevil. Everyone,in order to becomea nratureChristian and to be established 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 be without falling into greatsins-if you are willing to rake the examplesof others.If you are able to see,almost as if it is your own experience,when someoneelsemakesa tremendoussin, and ifyou are able to seethe resultofthat sin, then you can make that part ofyour experiencewithout fallinginto sin. Evidently that is what Adam could have done. lf he had resisted this temptation, he would haveseenthat there was a temptation, that is, that everythingwas not perfect,and that rherewas someoneout to g/, him. 'fhen, if a secondtemptation had come, he would haveseen that the serpent (or whateverelsewas used by the devil) was out to rnakehim fall. He would have begun to realizetherewas such a thing asevil: an evil will that makeshim want to lose his Paradise.1-hrough this he could have attained that knowledge of evil and eventually tastedof that tree. The tree itself representsthe knowledgeof evil, since tasting of it mcant disobcying the commandment. Adam learned about evil through his disobedience.He chose the way of sin and thereby discovercdin bitter experiencewhat it meant to be evil, and then to repcnt of that evil and come back to goodness. So rhat is the path that Adam chose;and becauseofthat our whole narurehasbeenchanged.Eachperson15ftsg-shs 52rnsasAdam-but we havebeenborn in sinsalready.F,vensmall children are filled with all kinds of evil things. Nonethcless,realevil does nor come in until one consciouslychoosesto be evil. And that is the choiceofadulrhood. Thus, in a senseeveryonetastesof this tree, or elserefrainsfrom rastingof it and goeson the path ofgoodness.Unfortunately,the odds are very much againstone'ssurviving withour falling inro rheseevils, although there's no reason to fall into them. We see now the evil all around us, and we haveinstructorsand Holy Fathersto keep us on the path of good. A personcan be raisedin Christianiry-like St. Sergius

t74

t75

tudc for rheir own bodies.rs 1b sum up the Orthodox reaching on the two trees of Paradise,Sr. John Chrysostom writes: The tree of life was in thc midst of Paradiseas a reward;the trec of knowledgc as an object of contest and strugglc. Having kcpt thc commandment regardingthis trce, you will reccivea reward. And behold thc wondrous rhing. Evcry.wherein Paradiseevcry kind of tree blossoms,evcrywhcrc rhcy are abundant in fiuit; only in the ccntcr are thcrc two treesas an objecr of battle and exercise."'

'fhis is a profound subject,which is very much bound up with our human nature.* [n fact, we seein human life today sonrerhingof rhis very temptation that Adam had. Although Adam was not fallcn then-and in this regard his state was different from our present 51x1s-n6ng1hgl6ss, his situation wassimilar ro thar of a young person ofsixteen, seventeenor eighteenyearsold who is brought up in goodnessand then comesto the agewhen he must himself make the choice of whether ro be good or not. It so happensthat, becausewe havefreewill to do good. dom, there must be a choice. One mlsr consciously You cannot simply be good becausesomeonetells you ro be good. Sooneror later in your freedomyou must activelychoosethe good or elseit doesnot becomepart ofyou. That is true ofeveryone except,of course,a child who dies quite young. Thereforewhen one comesto the agear which one must becomca man, it is then that one must make the samechoiceAdam made-either to freelychooseto do good or elseto make rhe mistakeofentering into evil. into a life of sin. The Holy Fatherssay that the tree ofthe knowledgeofgood and evil is something which is only for maturepeople. Becausewe have

(,r lr..srs, (innxtroulno EanlyMnN ol l(.rdonczhor orher saintswho were in monasrerieslrom their childhood-and he can be surroundedby good examples.He can seethe resultsofevils in othersand can choosenot to do thar himsell Theoretically,ir is quite possible.In birter practice,however,usuallyit happensthat we tasrethe tree by sinning ourselves. 2:18J0 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should bealone;I aill mahea help meetfor him. And iut of the ground the Lord Godformed euerybeastof tbefeU, and eueryfowl ofthe air: and brought them unto Adam to seetuhat he would call them: and whatsoeuerAdam ralled euery liuing creature, that uas tlte name thereof And A&tm gaue namesto all cattle, and to thefoul of the air, and to euerybeastof thefeld; but for Adam thert was notfo nd a help meetfor him (KJ\). In this passage, again,we should not look fbr the "contradicrion" somerationalistscholarsrhink they havefound, as though the rext describesthe creationofthe animtls afler the crearionofman, conrradicting the order of creation in rhe firsr chaprer.The subject of this passage is the naming of rhe animalsby Adam, and only incidentally doesthe texr mention rhat theseanimalshad alreadybeen createdby Cod, and thar they were nor the "help meet" for Adam, which could only be someoneof the same narureas he (woman, as mentioned in rhe next passage). The animalsare "brought" to Adam becausetheir place is nor in Paradisebut in the earth outside;Paradiseis meant for the dwellins of man alone-a pre-indicationrhar man aloneof all earthly crearur; is meantfor the heavenlykingdom to which he can ascendfrom paradise through keeping the commandmenrsof God. St. John Damascene writes rhar Paradise wasa divineplaccanda worthyhabitationfor God irrHis image.And in it no brutebeasts dwelr,bur only man,rhc handiworkof God.ro

Panaor sr: Paradiscwas assigncdfor the habitation not of man, but of rhc irrational anirnals,rhc quadrrrpeds,rhe wild bcasts,the crawling things. The royal and ruling dwelling for man was Paradise.This is why God brought the animals to Adam-because they were separatcd from him. Slaves do not always stand before their lord, but only when therc is needfor them. The animalswere named and immediately sent away from Paradise;Adam alone remained in Paradise.rr

The Holy Fathersinterpretthe namingof the animalsby Adam quiteliterally,andseein it an indicationof mant dominionoverthem, harmonywith them,anda wisdomandintellectin the his undisturbed anything since known to man, St. first man which far surpasses Ephraimwritesof this: Thc words"He broughrthem to Adam"showsthc wisdomof Adam,and rhe pcacewhich existedberweenthe animalsand man Fortheycamerogether the commandment. bc[oreman transgressed beforeman as beforca shcpherdfilled wirh love;without fear,accordingto kinds and rypes,they passedbeforehim in floclcs,neither fearinghim nor tremblingbcforeeachother.. .. It is not impossible for a man to discovera few namcsand keeprhem in his memory. But it surpasscs rhepowero[ humannaturc,and is difficultfor him, of namesand not to givethe to discoverirr a singlehour rhousands lasrof rhosenamcdthe namesof thc first.... This is the work of God, and if it wasdoneby man,ir wasgivcnhim by God.r2 ln other words, this was a sign of a truly Divine intelligencern Aclem.St. John Chrysosronrwrites:

Adam wasgiven rhe whole earrh,but his chosendwellingwasparadise.He couldalsogo oursideo[ Paradise, bur the earthoursideof

God docsrhisin orderto showus rhc greatwisdomofAdam ... ana alsoso that in the givingof namesmight be sccna signof domrnion.. .. Juscthink wharwisdomwasncededro givenamcsto somany wild and domesticanimals,and otherirrakinds of birds,repriles, ... to givethem all namcs,and namcsbelongingto tionalcreaturcs to eachkind.. .. Justthink o[ how the lions rhemandcorresponding vipersand scorpionsand serpents and all the other and leopards,

t76

t77

And St. John Chrysostomreaches:

-.q.

T.\- -.*.

Adam namingthe animals. Ftaco by Monk Thcophancstbc Cretan in thc Catholiconoftbt Monasnry of St.Nichola Arupawas, Mctcora, Grcccc,1527,

GEwtsrs,CnrarroNeNp Ernry MaN evenmoreferociousanimalscameto Adam asto a lord, with all submission,in orderto receive namesfrom him, andAdamdid nor fear a singleone of thesewild beasts....The nameswhich Adam gavc them remainuntil nonr:God confirmedthem so that we might constantlyrememberrhe honor which man receivedfrom the Lord ofall when he receivedthe animalsunder his authoriry,and might ascribe the reasonfor the removal(of rhis honor) to man himseli who losr his authorirythroughsin.2r Becauseman possesses in himself somethingof the animal nature, as we have seen,and this animal nature becamedominant in him becauseof his fall, Adamt naming of the animalsalsoindicatesthe origina.ldominance of man's mind over this lower, passionarenarure. Sr. Ambrose writes: The beastsofthe field and the birdsofthe air which werebroughtto Adam areour irrationalsenses, because beastsand animalsrepresent passions the diverse ofthe body,whctherofthe moreviolent kind or evenofthe morerempcrare.... God grantedto you rhepowerofbeing ableto discernby rhe applicarionof soberlogic the species of eachand everyobjecr,in ordcr that you may be induced ro form a judgmenton all of rhem.God calledthem all to your arrenrion,so that you might realizetharyour mind is superiorto all of them.2a 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 inrerpretation 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 book in the sameway. But ifwe havedifficulry understandingit in this 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

The creationofEvc from thc rib ofAdam. Fracofrom Dcchani Mona*cry, Serbia,thirtccnth ccnnry.

GeNrsls, CnterIoN lNo EenlY Mrt't

is also a stumbling block for thosewho wish to proThis passage morethe evolutionistviewof the originof life and of mankind'In this view, man (at leastin his body) is a descendentof lower animals;the "farher"ofthe first man, therefore,must havebeena non-humancreature closelyrelatedto the higherapes.The wholepoint of this evoluirom more tionaryviewis that man and everyliving beingdeveloped by by naturallawsnow known (or hypothesized) primitiveorganisms ,cierrc.: to acceDtthe evolution of the first man from lower animals, and then prouidea wife for him by the miracleof takingone of his ribs-is surelysomethingno evolurionistcould agreeto. If Adam "evolvednaturally'' from the beasts,then Eve must have done the accountof Eve'screationasdesame;but ifyou acceptthe miraculous scribedin Genesis,you open yourselfby this very fact to understandingthe entireSix Daysof Creationin the Patristic,and not the way. naturalistic, \Xr'hatdo the Holy Fatherssayofthe creationof Eve?St. Ambrose

TT i'i['Irgtiir DXF['L7,fr$iltr

writes: 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 established 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

tryingto makebeginningChristiansunderSt.Cyril of Jerusalem, standthe virginbirth of Christ,writes: WhatmotherconwasEvebegotten? Of whomin thebeginning thatshewasborn the Scripture sairh But ceivedherthe motherless? t82

The creationofEve from the rib ofAdam. Fretcollom the Church ofthc Resurtcrtion,SrcheuiuaMonascry, Romania,sitteenthccnrury.

Ceruesrs,Cne,r'rroN,rNn Eaarv M-nN

Penlolse

out of Adam's side. ls Eve rhcn born out of mans side withour a mothet and is a child not to be born without a hther, of a virgin'.s

merscdin a deep sleephe wakesup from the pain. Moreover,such a

womb? This debt of gratitudewas due to men from womankind: for Eve was begotten ofAdam, and nor conceived of a mother, but as rr were brought forth of man alone.:6

(We shallseelaterhow the Churchseesrhe parallelberweenEveand theVirgin Mary and betweenthe miracles of the firstcreationand the miracles of the re-creation throughChrist.) St.JohnChrysostom, whilewarningus that rheword "took" must be understood in a waybefittingGod, Vho hasno "hands,"clearlyindicateshis literalinterpretation of thispassage: Greatarethesewords;thcysrrrpass everymindof man:rheirgrearnesscanbe understood in no otherwayrhanby beholding them with rheeycsof faith...."God caused a deepsleepro fall upon Adam,and he slept."This wasnot a simpleecstasy and not a usual sleep;but sincerhe mosr wiseand skilledCrcarorof our narure wished to rake from Adam one of his ribs. therefore,so rhat hc might not feelthe pain and rhen be hosrilelydisposedto the one createdfrom his rib, lest,remembering rhepain,he harethe created being,God plungedAdam into a deepsleepand, as ir werccommandinghim to be cmbracedby a kind of numbness,brought upon him sucha slecpthat hc did nor fecl in the leasrwhar happened....Takinga certainsmallpart from an alreadyprepared creation, from this part He madea wholc living being.'Vhat power doesthe Highcst Arrisr, God, haveto producefrom this small part the compositionof so many members,ro arrangeso many organs ofsenscand form a whole,perfectand completebeingwhich could converseand, because of its oncnessof nature,furnish rhe man greatconsolarion!27

large membcr is taken out, a rib is torn out, and the sleepingone does nor wakc up? God removed rhc rib nor violently, lcsr Adam wakc up; He did not tear it out. The Scriprure,desiringto show the 28 speedof the Creatort acr, says:"He took."

And St. Ephraim writes: The man who up to now had beenawakeand wasenjoyingthe shining of the light and had not knownwhat restwas,is now srretched our nakedon the carth and givenover to sleep.Probabll Adam saw in sleepthe very rhing that was happcningto him. \i0henin thc rwinklingof an eyerhe rib wastakenout, and likewisein an instanr fleshtook irs place,and rhe baredbone took on the full appearance and all the beauryof a woman-then God broughtand presented her to Adam.2e All this took placeon the very day of man'screation,the Sixth Day. To our limited minds the creationof man and woman is just as inconceivable,as miraculous,as "speccacular" as all the other creationsof God when they were made in the beginning. 2:23-24 And Adam said, Thit is now bone of my bone and flesh of my Jbsh; she shall be calbd Woman, bccauseshe uat tahen out of Man. Thereforeshall a man bate his father and mother, and shall cleaue anto his u,'ife:and tbcy shall be oneflesh.' Here Adam namesthe first woman even as he had just named rhe animals,indicating at the same time her onenessin nature with him, owing to her literal origin from his body, and the institution of marriage,since in prophecyhe foresawthat the marriageunion would be necessarybecauseof the fall. Commenting on this passage, St. Ephraim writes:

In another treatisethe sameFarherwrires: How did Adam not fcelpain?How did he not suffer?One hair is torn out of the body,andwe cxpcrience pain,andevenif one is im-

' Chrisr Himself quoresfrom rhis vcrseof rhc book of Genesis(sccMatthcw l9:5 and Mark 10:7-8),followingit with the words:"Vhat thcrcforcGod harh joincdtogethcr, let not man put asundcr"-Eo.

t84

185

P,rnnnrsa "This now":that is,the onewho hascometo me afterthe animalsis not suchasthey;theycamefrom the earth,but sheis "boneof my boneandflcshofmy flesh."Adamsaidrhiseitherin a propheticway or, as noted abovc,accordingto his vision in slecp.And just ason this day all the animalsreceivedfrom Adam their namesaccording to theirkinds,soalsothe bone,madeinto a woman,he callednot by herpropernamc,Eve,but by the nameofwoman,the namebelonging to the wholekind.ro Sr. John Chrysosromsaysof the samepassage: How did it cometo his mind to saythis?How did he know the future,and the factthat the humanracewould multiply?How did it berweenman becomeknownto him that therewould be intercoursc 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

(heirexpulsionfronr Paradise, Thc crcarionofAdam and Evc,rhcir remprarion, and thcir sorro*. Deuib ofa Russianicon of the ruentcenth cenrury.

Thus we seethat Adam was not only a great intellect-a greatseer of the realiryof this world who was given the abiliry to name the animals,He was alsoa prophet who saw the future. 2:25 And the man and his wife were both nahed, and tuere not ashamed. Adam and Eve were created,like the whole ofrhe first creation,in the bloom ofyouth and beaury,and alreadypossessing the sexualdistinction that would be neededin rheir fallen states,yet there was no desire,no passionatethought berweenthem. This, in the view of the Fathers,is the clearestindication of rheir dispassionateness before the fall, and of the fact that their minds were directed first of all to the glory of the heavenlyworld above.St. Ephraim writes:

t87

CsNesrs, Cnrarroru,rNoEanlv M,tN 'fhey werenot ashamed because rhcywcreclorhcdwirh glory.':

Pen-lnrsr dom, srrengthandunlimitedpower,andall the orhcrgoodand holy qualities.r5

St. John Chrysostomteachesthe samething: occurred,they wereclothedin the glory Beforesin and disobedience high, and wcre not ashamcd; bur after the violation of the comon mandmenttherecameboth shameand the awareness oftheir nakedness." And Sr.John Damascenewrites: like that, fbr thar is passionlessGod wantedus ro be dispassionate ncssto the highestdegree.ro Let us now sum up the stateofAdam in Paradisein the words ofa recenrFarher,St. SeraphimofSarov: Adam wasimmune ro the actionof the elementsto sucha degree that warercouldnot drown him, fire couldnot burn him, the earth andtheair couldnot harmhim couldnor swallowhim in itsabvsses. by any kind ofaction whatever.Everythingwassubjcctto him asthe belovedof God, as the king and lord of creation,and everyrhing Adam was lookedup to him, asthe perfectcrown ofGodt creatures. madeso wisc by this breathof life which wasbrearhedinto his face lipsofGod, theCrcatorand Rulerofall, rhatthere from thecreative neverhasbeena manon earthwiseror moreintclligentrhanhc, and it is hardlylikelythat therceverwill be.Vhen the Lord commanded him to give namesro all rhe creatures,he gaveeverycreaturea name which completelyexpressed all thc qualiries, powersand propertics givenit by God ar its creation.Owing to rhisverygifr of the supernatural graceof God which was infusedinto him by the breathof life, Adam could seeand understandthe Lord walking in Paradise, and comprehendHis words,and the conversation of the holy Anof all beasts, birds,and rcptilcsand all that rs gcls,and the language now hiddenfrom us fallenand sinfulcreatures. but wasso clearto Adam beforehis fall. To Evealso thc tord God eavethe samcwrs188

To some extent man even today can rerurn to something of this paradisalsrarerhrough the graceof God, as may be seenin the livesof many saints,which abound in miraclesunbelievableto worldly men. The Life of St. George,for example(April 23), who was preservedunharmed in the midst of rhe cruelestrorturesand evendeaths,reminds us ofAdami invulnerabiliryin Paradise. Still, however,in his fallensrareman can arraln to no more rhan a glimpseof the stateof Adam; only in the agero come will this Paradise be restoredto us in its iullness,and then (if only we be among the saved)we will seewhar an angelicstareit is (and was). St. Gregory of Nyssa writes: The rcsurrection promises us norhingelsethanthe rcstoration ofthe fallento rheirancientstate;for thc graccwe look for is a certainreturn to the firct life, bringingbackagainto Paradise him who was castout fiom ir. If rhen,the lifc of thoserestored is closelyrelaredto that of the angels, it is clearthat the life beforerhetransgression was a kind ofangeliclife,and henccalsoour.erurnro rheancientcondition of life is comparedto the angels.16 In Orthodox ascericliterature,where the aim constantly kepr in view is our restorarionto Paradise,the unspoiledand dispassionate nature ofAdam beforethe fall is held up as rhe model and goal ofour ascetic srruggle.St. Abba Dorotheuswrites, in the very first words of his Spi ri na I I nstruc tion s: In rhe bcginning,when God crearedman, He placedhim in Paradiscand adornedhim with everyvirtue,givinghim the commandment nor ro rasreof the treewhichwasin the midstof Paradise . And thushe remainedrherein theenjoymenrofParadise: in prayer,in vision,in everygloryand honor,havingsoundsenses and beingin the samenaturalcondirionin which he wascreated.For God crcarcq man accordingro His own image, thar is, immortal,masrerof him189

Cerssrs, Cnr,uroN aNu E,cRr-v M,rN self, and adorned with cvcry virtue. But when he transgressed the commandmcnt, cating rhc fruit of the tree of which God had commanded him not to taste,then he was banishcd from Paradise,fell away from the natural condition, and f'ell into a condirion againsr nature,and then he remainedin sin, in love of glorl in lovc for the cnjoymcntsof this age,and of orhcr passions,and he was mastercd by them, for hc becametheir slavethrough the transgression.rT The awareness that Adam\

state in Paradise was rhe natural hu-

CHeprBnSrx

TheFall of Man (Genesis 3:1-24)

man condition, and the one to which we may hope to return by God's grace, is one of the greatesrspurs to ascetic struggle. This awarenessis

thus of the most practicalbenefit to Orthodox Chrisrianswho hope to inherit God's Kingdom. Vith the fall of man, Paradiseceasedto be a reality of this ear(h and was placedout of our reach;but rhrough the graceof God made availableto Christiansthrough the SecondAdam, Christ, we may still hope to attain it. Actually, rhrough Christ we are able not only to gain back the stateof Adam before the fall, but to attain a stateevenhigher than that: the statewhich Adam would have artainedhad he not fallen. Even in our fallen state,can we not be reminded of Paradiseand our fall from it in the naturethat surroundsus?ln the animalsir is not difficult to see the passionsover which we should be masrers,bur which havelargelytaken possession of us; and in the peacefulmurmur (where of the forests so many asceticstrugglers have taken refuge) can we not seea reminderofthe Paradiseofvegetationoriginally intended for our dwelling and food, and still existingfor those able to ascend, with St. Paul,to behold it?

teaching on the SixDaysof Creation,the f)ne nnneoby rhe Parristic I creationofthe firstmanandhisdwellingin Paradise, we arenow readyto understandthe accountof his fall in rhe rhird chapterof Cenesis.Ir is clearthar,like all elsein this God-inspired book, this is an historicalaccount,but one which must be understood, first and foremost,in a spiritualsense. 3:l Now the serpentwasmlre subtlethan an! otherwild reanre that thc Lord Godhad made. Virh rhe"serpenr," onceagain,we find an imagerharour modern rationalisticmind would like to understandallegorically. But here again,the Fathersare relentlessly realisricin rheir interpretation. St. JohnChrysostomteaches: Do not regard thc prescnt scrpent; do not regardhow we flee it and feel repulsionrowardsir. It was nor such in the beginning.The serpent was the friend of man and thc closesrof rhosewho servcdhim. And who madc it an enenry?The sentenceofGod: "Cursed are you aboveall the cartle,and abovcall wild animals.... I will put enmiry berwccn you and the woman" (Gcn.3:14-15). lt was rhis enmiry that destroyedthe friendship.I mcan nor a rational fricndship, but one ofwhich an irrarionalcreatureis capable.Similar ro rhe way that now the dog manifestsfriendship,not by word but by natural movemcnts, just so did the serpentscrveman. As a creaturewho enjoyed grearcloseness to man, the serpentscemedto rhe devil to be a con-

190

l9l

(ir:ur:srs,(lnl:ar roN ,rNn llatry MaN v cn i cn r to ol ( f ir r dc c c pti o n )....' l ' h u s , th c c l c v i ls l to k c rhrorrghthc scrpcnt,tlcccivingAdanr. I bcg your krvc ro hc,rrmy words nor cerclcssly.l'hc qLrcstionis not:ln crsy onc. Many,rsk: How did thc scrpcnt spclk rvith a human voicc, or with r scrpcnt'shissing,and horv did l.-veundcrstandl Bcfirrc thc rransgrcssionAdanr u,ls illlcd u'ith rvisdonr,unclerstrnding,trnd rhc gifi r>fprophccy... . l'hc rlcvil noticcd both thc wisdom of thc serpenr lnd Adam\ opinion r>f ir-.becrusc thc larrerconsidcrcclthc scrpr-ntwisc. And so lrc spokc rhroLrghir, so rlrar Adam rnighr rhink thar rhc serpcnr,hcing wisc, w ls l b l e t o m im ic t hc I r u n rl n v o i c ca l s o .l -[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 motive 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 Paradisc, 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, then.yourayes shallbeo1>ened, and.yeshrt/lheasgods,knotuirtggoodand euil.And uhen the toomansawthat thc tee wasgoodforJitod,/1 d that it uaspleasantt0 the qter,dnd d treet0 bedesiredto makeoneuise, sbetook 192

Ad:rmand !'.venirh the rrccofrhc knowlcclgc ofgood and cvil. I:rex'oliou tlr Llhurth of tb Rrsunution, ,\u euitu MotasraT, Rout nfu, tixtrnth ccnnty.

Lv MaN GtNssts, CntrrIoN ANo E,cR

and did eat, and gaueabo unto ber husbandwith hzr; ofthe fuit thereof,, and hedid eat(KJY). of this dialogue,and the easewith which our The childlikeness of the only commandmentthat first parentsfell into a transgression the untestednatureof their virrue: them, indicate had been given everythinghad beengiventhem by God'sgrace,but they werenot yet skilledin 'tilling and keeping"theirinwardstate. we The temptationofferedby thedevilcontainsthesameelements sin. He offers,firstofall, not fallenmenknow in our own fight against an obviousevil but somethingwhichseemsgoodand true.Men were indeedcreatedto be "godsand sonsof the mosthigh" (Ps.8 I :6, I I th they wereto ascendto a Kathisma),and wereawarethat from Paradise as ir were thoughtcohimself(as The devil, therefore, highercondition. it): St.Ambroseexpresses

=:;.q

t

"n-,,*4,, tV

FT;

to deceive him while namely, is my firstapproach, This,rherefore, 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 becoming 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,beof their causeboth Adam and Eve still preservedthe dispassionateness original nature-but for the simple reasonthat Adam alone had heard the command of God, whereas Eve knew ic only indirectly, and thereby might be consideredmore likely to disobey it. St. Ambrose writes of this: (The devil)aimedto circumvenr Adam by meansof the woman.He received the hcavdid not accostthe man who had in his prescncc herwho hadlcarnedof it from her huscnlycommand.He accosted from God the commandwhich was bandand who had not receivcd thatGod srrokcto thc woman. Thercis no statement to be observed. 194

.t, 'fhe rcmptarionofAdam and Eve. Dctail ofa Rwian icon ofthc cigbcccntbcentury.

4

Gr.wrsrs, Cnrrrnor

,rt.to Eenrv M,ru

Ve know that Hc spoke to Adam. Hcnce we must concludc that the command was communicated through Adam to the woman.{

The successof the devil's temptation, finally, was due to his knowledge (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 serpent.t fu a result ofthe temptation, as St. John Chrysostom describesir, 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 * St. Ephraim addsrhat parr of Eve'ssin lay in her rrying ro usurpAdam'sheadship and "scnioriry":"Shchasrcncdto cat beforchcr husbandthat shcmighr bccomc headovcr hcr hcad,thar shc might bccomcthc onc ro givc commandto that one by whom shewasto be commandedand that shc might bc oldcr in diviniry rhan rhc onc who was oldcr than she in humaniry" (Sr. Ephraim, Commcnury on Gcncsis, Englishvcrsion,p. I l3).-Eo.

t96

'And thc cycsofthcm both wcrc opcncd,and thcy kncw rhar rheywerc nakcd." Frcsco fom tbe ancicnt Cbittian caucomh in Romc,thitd ccnnry *o,

Cnr-,qlroN lNo Elnlv MaN CleNrsls, andviolationofthe commandment givenby God,and disobedience for this reasonthcy werc then dcprived of thc glory that clothed them, havingbecomeunworthyof suchgrearhonor,the Scripture says:They ate,and their eyeswereopened,and they knew that rhey werenakcd.Beingdcprivedof the gracefrom on high for the transgression of the commandmcnt,theysawalsorheir physicalnakcdness,so that from the shamethat took hold of them rhey might undcrstandinto what an abysstheyhad beencastby the transgression of rhc Master'scommandmcnt... . !7hen you hear,"rheireyes wereopened,"understand thisto meanthar(God)gavethcm ro feel their nakedness and the lossofthe glory which they had enjoyedbefore the eating...,Do you sccrhat the word "opened"refersnot to the bodilyeyes,but to mcntalvisionlT With the opening of their eyesthrough the transgression, Adam and Eve have alreadylost the life of Paradise,even though they have not yet been banishedfrom it; from now on their eyeswill be open to the lower things of this earth,and they will seeonly with difficulry the higher things of God. They are no longer dispassionate, but have begun the passionateearthly life we still know today. 3:8 And tbey heard the uoiceof the Lord God walking in the garden in thc cool of the day; and Adam and his uife bid themselues fom the presenceof the Lord God amongst the neesof tbc garden. St. John Chrysosromwrites of this: rVhat do you sayl God walks?Are you going ro ascribefeerro Him,

Tne F,rll on MlN

And St. Ambrose writes: In my opinionGod maybe saidto walkwhcreverthroughoutScripturethe prcsence of God is implied.') In the dialogue that follows,we seethat Cod comesto Adam not ro condemn him or banishhim from Paradise,but to bring him to his senses. Sr. John Chrysosromwrites: Hc did not delayin the least,bur assoonas He sawwhat had happencdand thc seriousncss of the wound,He immcdiatelyhastcncd with a trearment,so that the wound would not becomeinflamed and becomeincurable....Payheedto the [-ord'slovc of mankind and His extremelackof ill will. He could,wirhoutcvcnvouchsafing a rcplyto the one who had pcrformcdsucha sin,haveimmcdiately which Hc had alrcadydccrccdbcsubjccted him to thc punishnrcnt dclays,asks forehandfor thc transgression: but He is long-suffiring, and listensto thc answcr,andagainasks,asifcvokingrheguiltyonc ro justifr himsclfin ordcr that whcn thc mattcrhad becnrcvealed He mightshowhim His lovcof mankindevcnafiersucha rransg.c.sion."'

3:9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto bim, Whert art thou? Of this St. Ambrose says: What, rhcn,docsHe meanby'Adam,whercrrt thou?"DoesHc not mean"in what circumstanccs" arc you; nor, "in what placc"?It rs, rherefore,nor a question,lrut a reproofl.From what conditionof beatitude,and grace,Hc meansto say,haveyou fallen goodness, into thisstateof misery? Youhavcforsakcnetcrnallifc.YoLrhaveentombedyourselfinthe waysofsin anddcath."

and not understandanythinghigher?No, God doesnot walk-may this not be! In very fact,how can He Vho is everywhere and fills all Vhose things, rhrone is heavenand rhc earth His footstool-walk in Paradisc? Vhat scnsibleman would say this?Thcn whar doesrr mean:"Thcy heardthe voiceof rheLord God walkingin rhegarden in the coolof the day (midday)"1 He wishedto arousein themsuch a feelingof God\ closeness that it would makcrhemuneaslwhich indeedhappened:They felt this, and tried to hide thcmselvesfrom God, \Vho wasapproachingthem.3

3:10-13 And he said, I heard Thy uoicein the garden, and I tads afaid, becauseI was nahed; and I hid myself And He said, Who toll thee

r9 8

199

GsNests,CnerrrroN,tNo EcRLvM,rN

Tne F,{LLor MAN Instead of acknowledgingwhat hc had donc himsclf, which acknowledgmentwould have been profitable for him, Adam retells what happencdto him, somcthing that was profitlessfor him..,. Adam docs not confesshis guilt, but accuseithc woman..., And whcn Adam docsnot wish to confcsshis guilt, God addrcsscs a question to Evc and says:'\(rhat is this rhat thou hastdone?"And Evc, insreadof cntrcatingwith tearsand taking the guilt upon hersclf,as if shc docs not dcsircto obtain forgivcnessfor hcrsclfand hcr husband, docs not mention thc promiscgiven hcr by the scrpcntand how hc pcrsuadcdhcr.... Vhen both had been qucstioncdand it wasrcvcaledthat they havencitherrepentancenor any true justification, God turns to the serpcnt,not with a questionbut with dcfinitc punishment.For whcre thcre was room for rcpcntancc,thcrc was questioning;but one who is a strangerto repentanccis simply givcn thc judgc'sscntcnce.rs

.Adam, whcrcart rhoul" Iwry caningsfom a Byzantinc carhct,Ansuntinopb, tcnth ccntun.

that thou udst ndhed?Hdtt thou eatenof tbc nee, wbercofI eommanhd theethat thou shouldestnot eat?And thc man said, The woman whom Thougauestme to be with me,shegaucmc of thc rce, and I did eat.And the Lod Godsaid uflto the aoman, V(/'hatk tbis that thou hastdnnc?And the uotnan saiL Theserpentbeguihdmc, and I did eat. In this dialoguethe FathersseeGod's call for man to rePent'St. John Chrysostomwrites: (God)asksaboutthis not because He did not know:He knew,and but in orderto showHis lovcofmankindHc condeknewperfccdy; theirsin.12 andcallsthcmto confcss scends to thcirwcakness

The same Father adds: If our first anceJtorshad desircdto repcntcvcn aftcr thc transgrcssion of rhc commandment,then, cventhough thcy would nor navc what they had beforcthc transgression resroredto themselves of thc commandment,at leastthey would havc been dclivcredfrom the cursesthat wereuttcredto the carth and to thcmsclvcs.ra

So we cannot simply say that Adam and Eve sinned and then were condemned, They were given a chanc€ to repent bcforc they were condemned. St. Abba Dorotheus takes this account from Genesis as the classic example of mant unwillingness to repent and his deep-seateddesire to

justifr hisownbchaviorevenwhenit isexposed assinfirlby GodHimself:

But man respondsnot with repentance,but with self-justification, therebybringing punishmentupon himself.St. Ephraimcommentson this passage:

After thc hll, (God) gavc (Adam) thc opportuniry to repcnt and bc pardoncd,but his ncck rcmainedunbending.For (God) camc and said to him: "Adam,whcrc art thou?"That is, from what glory into what shamchavcyou come?And thcn, when He askedhim why hc

200

201

Tur Far-lor MrN

CsNesrs. CnsarrouaNo Eanly MrN sinned,why he rransgressed, He preparedhim especially so rhar hc "Forgive might say: me." But therewasno humiliry!\?herewasthe word "forgive"? Therewasno repentance, bur the complcteoppo"The site. For he contradicted and rerorted: woman whom Thou gavestme" (deceivedme). He did not say,"My wife deccivedme," but "the womanwhom -fhou gavestme," asif ro say:'ihis misfortune which Thou hasrbroughron my head."For rhus it alwaysrs, brethren:S?hena man docs not wish to rcproachhimself, hc does not hesitateto accuseGod Himsell Thcn (God) came ro rhe womanand saidto her:And why did you not keepthe commandment?As it were,He cspecially hintedto hcr:At leasryou say"[orso give," your soul might be humbled and you might be pardoned. But againHe (did not hear)the word "forgive."For she also replied:"The serpcntbcguilcdme," as if to say:The serpentsinned, and what is that ro me?Vhat are you doing,wrerchedones?Repent,acknowlcdge your sin, havepiry on your nakedness. Bur nerther of thcm wished to accusehimself; neither had rhe leasr humiliry And so you seenow clearlyto what our statehascome, into what great misfortuneswe havebcen led by the fact that we rhat we hold ro our own will and follow ouriustifu ourselves, selves.ls

3:14-15 And the Lord God said unto thc sertent, Becausethou hast done this, thou art cursedaboueall cattle, and iboue euerybcdst of th. 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 tlry sccdand her seed;it shall bruise thy head, and thou shah bruise his heel

This alsowasa work of God'sunurrerable love sucha punishment? of mankind.As a lovingfather,in punishingthemurdererof hisson, breaksalsorhe knifeand swordby which hc pcrformedthe murder, and breaksthem into smallpieccs-in similarfashionthe All-good God, when this animal,like a kind of sword,servedas the instrumenrof thc devil'smalice,subjectsit to a constantpunishment,so we might conclude rharfrom this physicalandvisiblemanifestarion thedishonorin which it findsirselfAnd if theonewho servcdasrhe to suchangcr,what punishmentmust thc instrumcntwassubjecred 'fhc unqucnchablc 0re awaitshim (Mart. other bc undergoing?... 254t\."'

St. John evenspeculatesthat belorethe cursethe serpenr,without having legs,went about in an upright position similar to thc wey it now srandsup when ready(o strike.rBeforeAdam fell, he could be nakedand not notice ir; afterwards, this is impossible.Before the fall, Adam had friendship with the serpent like we have with dogs or cats or some domestic animal; afterwards we havean instinctivereactionagainstsnakes-which everyone has probably experienced.This shows that our nature has somehow changed. 1-he "enmiry" in our fallen life, of course, much more than berweenman and serpent,is berweenman and the devil; and in a special senserhe "seedof rhe woman" is Christ. One nineteenth-centuryOrsays: thodox comrnentaryon this passage

But perhaps someone will say:If thc counsclwasgivenby the devil, usingthc serpenrasan insrrumcnr,why is this animalsubjecred ro

ncr The firstwornanin thc world wasthe first to fall into thc dcvil'.s shcwill andeasilygavchcrselfinto his powcr;but by her repentancc shakeoff his powcrovcrher,Likewise,in manyotherwomenalso, in thepersonof the mostblcsscd woman,the Virgin Mary, espccially he will mcera powerfulresistance ro his wiles....By the seedofthe woman,which is hostilcto thc seedof the devil,one must understand in particularone pcrsonfronr among rhe posreriryof the woman,namelyHe Vho from eternitywaspfedestined for the salvationof men and wasborn in time of a womanwirhout a mant seed.He subsequentlyappearcdto the world to "destroythe works

202

203

(KJV). 'Ihe Fathers,with the realismof rheir understanding of Gencsis, interpret this punishmentasapplying first of all to the animal who was the instrumenr of man'sfall, but then also ro the devil who used rhis creature.St. John Chrysostomwrires:

Grlssrs, CnsrrroN,nNoEanryMeN of the devil" (l John 3:8), rhar is, the kingdomof the devil, filled with his scrvants, wirh his seed....The strikingofthe spiritualserpent in the headby the seedof rhe womansignifiesthat Chrisrwill complctelydefeatrhe devil and rake away from him all power to harm men.... Until the SecondComing rhc devilwill havethe opportuniryto harm men, includingChrist Himself;but his wounds will be easilyhcalcd,like woundsin thc heel,which arc nor dangerousbecause in the heel,which is covercdwith hardskin,thereis little blood.A wound in thc heclwasgivenby the powerless maliceof the devilto ChristHimself,againstVhom he arousedrhe unbelieving Jewswho crucifiedHim. Bur this wound scrvedonly for the greatershameof the deviland the healingof mankind.rs Thus the "wound in rhe heel" represenrs rhe small amount rhar rhe devil is able to harm us sincethe coming of Christ. 3:16 And to tbe aoman He said, I will greatly mubiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bringforth chiUren, and thy submission shall be to tlry husband, and he shall rule ouer thee (Septuaginr). Even while cursing the serpenr,God is awaiting the repentanceof Adam and Eve.St. Ephraim wrires; God beganwith the despiscd(serpcnt)so that, while the angcrof righteousjudgmenrwas dircced againstit alone,Adam and Eve might bccomcterrifiedand rcpenr,and therebyrhc opportuniry would havebeengivento (God's)goodnessto delivcrrhem from rhe cursesof righteousjudgmcnt. But when rhc scrpenrhad becn cursed,and Adam and Evedid nor hastento enrrearics,God utcred the punishmenrto them. He addressed Eve first, becauscby her handsin wasgivcnro Adam.rl'

Tne Fall or MaN everysatisfacrion;rhat, being clothed in a body, you might not fecl anyrhingbodily.But sinceyou did not makcfitting useofsuchnapof goodthingsbroughryou ro suchgreat piness,but the abundance ingratirude,rherefore,so thar you might not be given over to yet grcatersclf-will,I am layingupon you a bridle,and I condemnyou to sorrowandgroaning.I shallarrangcthatyour givingbirth to childrcn-a sourceof greatconsolation-will beginwith sorrow'so that in daily gricf and sorrowin givingbirth you might havea constant .. At firstI crercminderof how greatwasrhissin anddisobedience.. aredyou equalin honor(to your husband)andwishedthat,beingof onc digniry with him, you might havecomnrunionin everything wirh him; and I cntrustcdto you,asto your husband,authoriryover all creatures. But sinceyou did not makefitringuseofthe equaliryin you to your husband....I subjectyou honor,for this I am subjecting ro him and proclaimhim your lord, so thatyou might acknowledge his aurhoriry;sinceyou are unableto lcad,therefore,learnto be a good subiect.20 St. John Chrysostom provides the answer to the problem of "women'sliberation":becomesaintsand your problemsare ended. 3:17-19 And unto Adam He said, Becausethou hast hearhened anto tbe uoice of thy wfe,. and hrzsteaten of the tee, of ahich I commanded thee, sa/ng, Thou shah not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy tahc in solroa shab thou eat of it all tbe dzys of thy lifc. Thorns ako and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat of the herb of the feld; in the sweat of thy face shah thou eat bread, till thou rerurn unto

Beholdthe Lord'sgoodness, and what meekness He showsaftersuch a transgression. He says:I wishedthat you would leada life without sorrowand pain, freeof everygrief and bittcrness, and filled with

writcsthat rhe equaliryrhat existedbcrwccnAdam and 'Sr. John Chrysosrom Evebeforethe fall did not cxcludca ccrtainorderin which Adamcvcnthcn wastne hcad.Thus, he blamesAdam for nor guidingand correctingEve:'Afterall, you are 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 head,the contraryhasin facroccurred,rhe hcadfollowing the restofrhe body,turning rhingsupsidcdown" (St.John Chrysostom,Homilicson Genaisl7:17, English vcrsion,Thc Frarhcrs of rheChurch,vol. 74, p. 231]'.-Eo.

204

205

St. John Chrysostomwrires of Eve'spunishment:

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 dust shalt thou return. Here Adam is given an imageof the trials and tribulationsof simply living in this fallen world. First of all, the earth is cursed for his sake.St. John Chrysostomwrites:

for you a constant lessonto behavemodcstly and know your own

Behold rhe reminders of the curse!Thorns it will bring forth, He (God)says,and thisrles.I will do thisso that you will cnduresevcre laborand caresand spendyour wholelife in sorrowrhat rhisnright be a restraintfor you, that you might not dreanrthat you are highcr thanyour stationlbut tharyou might constantly remember your nature and might henceforthnot allowyourselfto cometo a sirrrilar srareof dcception. "Thou shaltcat of thc hcrb of the field;in thc sweato[ rhy face shaltthou eatbread."Seehow afterhis (Adamt)disobedicncc evcryrhing wasnot as it had beenbeforein his lifel I, He says,bringing you into rhisworld,wantedyou to livewithourafflictions,without labors,without cares,wirhour sorrows;to bc in contentmcntand prosperiry and nor be subjectto bodilynecds,but ro bc a strangcrto all this and enjoyperfectfreedom.But sincesuchfreedomwasnor of benefitto you, I will cursetheearthso that hcnceforthir will not bc asit wasformerly,givingforth fruit withoutsowingandcultivarion, bur will do soonly with greatlabor,exertionandcares.I will subjccr you to constantalllictions and sorrows,and forceyou to do everyrhingwith exhausring cfforts,that theserormentinglaborsmighrbe

' Ir maybe noredhcrethar-in modcrnsocieryespecially-theartemprof nrcn and womento avoidrhe penances givenby God at the fall hasrcsulredin urrtold damagc,borh to the eanh and ro human bcings.'fhc artcmprof modcrnmen ro avoidworkingby "thc swcatof [their]face[s]"hasresulredin moderntechnology, which in turn hasled to massive pollutionand destruction of Godi crcation.Modern womcr haveavoidedthc "painsand groanings" of millionsof binhs, but in so (alongwith the men) for millionsof murdcrsby abordoing havebeenresponsible rion.Thc abdicationby modcrnmen of rheirpositionof headshipin thc family,in conjunctionwirh the unwillingncss of modern womcn !o be in "submissionro hasresulted in theemotionalandspiritualcripplingofcoundess Ithcir]husband[s]," childrcn-not ro mentionof thc husbands and wivesthemselvcs.-ED.

206

narurc.' 21

Secorrdfy, Adam now becomesmortal, the creatures. St. ^longwith JohnChrysostomwritesthat,eventhoughAdamand Eveliveda long time aftertheir fall, ncvcrthclcssfrom rhe momcnt rhcy hcard, "Dust thou art, and unro dust shalt thou rcturn," thcy recciveda dcath senrencc,becamcmortals and, one may say,died. lndicating this, rhc Scripture said, "ln thc day that thou eatestof it [thc tree] thou shalt surelydic" (Gcn. 2: l7)-in other words,you shall rcceivca senrence;you shall now bc mortal s.' " l l

T'he Visdom of Solomondeclares:"God made man incorruotible" (Visdom 2:23\; bv through Adam's disobedienceboth he and the creaturesbecamemortal and corruptible. In the Epistleof St. Paul to the Romans there is a teachingabout how the whole creationis "groaning" becauseit is subjectto "vaniry," thar is, to rhe corruption (decay)that enreredrh€ world becauseof the pride of one man. The creation is waiting for man to be deliveredso that it itselfcan be restoredto the original stateof incorruption-when the creatureswill be wanderingaround the forestlike they are now but incorrupt like they were in the daysofAdam. ln Romans 8:19-22 we read: "For the earnestexpectationof the creaturewaiteth for the manif'estation of the sonsof God. For the crearharhe wasa crearedbeingand nor (iod, ' I.e.,so rharAdamwould rccognizc sincehe hadsuccumbed to the devilt tcmptation:"Yeshallbe asgods."-tio. addsro this rcachingby sayingthat man'.s physicalcor" St. GrcgoryPalamas ruptibiliryand dearhresultcdfrom a spiritualdcarhrhatoccurredat thc timc of the fall: "lr was indeedAdam'ssoul thar dicd by becomingrhroughhis transgressio scpararcd frorn God; for bodily he conrinuedro livc afrcrthat rimc, evenfor 9J0 years.'fhc dearh,however,thar befellthe soul becauscof the transgression not only crippledrhesouland mademan accursed; ir alsorendcred rhe body irsclfsubjecr to farigue,sufferingand corruptibiliry,and finally handedit over to dearh"(The Pbilohalia, vol.4, p. 296). Thc Holy Farhcrsrcachthar this physicalchangcin man! na(secbelow).-Eo. turc alsopassed overto the othercrearures

207

GrNssrs,CneArroNaNo EenlyMaN

-l-sr Frll or MnN

ture wasmadesubjectro vanity,not willingly, but by reasonofhim who hath subjectedit in hope." Becauserhe creatureitselfalsoshall be deliveredfrom the bondageofcorruption (decay)into rhe gloriousliberty of the childrenofGod. For we know rhat the whole creationgroanethand travailethin pain togetherunril now." The commentaryofSt. John Chrysostomon this passage makesrhe doctrine absolutelyexplicit:

Sr. Symeon the New'fheologian is alsovery explicit rhat the mare1i2l61s21i6n-2nd not just Paradise-beforeAdam! fall was incorrupt and withour death.. As we saw earlier, he writes that Adam was originally "placedby the Creator God as an immortal king over an incorrupt world, not only over Paradise,but alsoover the whole creatron which was under rhe heavens."ln rhe same Homily he goeson ro say rhat, after Adam'srransgression,

wasmadesubiectto vanirv"?It became 'Whatmeans"for rhecreature corruprible. Vhy, andby whatcausclBy your fault,O man.Because you received a bodymortalandsubjecrro sufferings, sorhcearthalso wassubjcctto a curse,and broughtforth thornsand rhistles. And later in the samesecrion: bccamecorruptiblewhenyour bodybecamecorJustasthe creature ruptible,soalsowhenyour bodywill be incorrupt,the crearure also will followaftcrir and becomecorresponding ro ir.ri Here, it should be noted, the word "you" meansthe samething as the word "l" often does in the Orrhodox Divine services:Adam (because we are all one man). St. John makesthis clearin anorherpassage: tVhar armeddeathagainstthe whole universe? The fact rhat only one man tastedof rhe rree(Commentary on Romans5: l5-21).ra

... but He cursedonly the wholerestof God did not curseParadise thc earth,which alsowasincorruptand broughtforth everything by itscl[.. . And thusit wasfitringin all justicefor theonewho hadbecome corrupt and mortal by reasonof the transgression of the commandment,to liveupon the corruptiblecarrhand carcorrupriblefood.... Then alsoall crcarures, when they sawthat Adam wasbanishedfrom Paradise, no longerwishedto submit to him, the criminal.... But God restrainedall thesecreaturesby His power,and in His compassion and goodnessHe did not allow them immediatelyto strive againstman,and He commanded that thecreationshouldremainrn submissionto him, and havingbecomccorrupt,shouldscryecorrupt man for whom it hadbeencreated.. ., Do you seethat thiswholecreationin the beginningwasincorrupt and wascrcatcdby God in rhc mannerof Paradisel But laterit wassubjecred by God to corruprion,and submitredto the vaniryof m e n . '* 2 6

St. Macariusthe Great saysthe samerhing:

" Earlierin thesameEpisrlc(Rom,5:l2), St. Paulexplainsrhar"by onc mansin (l Cor. 15:21-22)hewrites:"For cnreredthe world, and dcathbysin." Elscwhcre sincc by man camedearh,by man camealso the resurreccion of rhe dead.For as in Adamall die,evenso in Chrisrshallall be madcalive."-Eo.

'In his notes,Fr. Seraphimintroducesrhisteachingwith the followingwords aboutSt. Symeon:"[-et us now readand be inspiredby this teachingassetforth in form by onc ofrhe grcaresr pcrfccrand unequivocal Sainrsofthe OrrhodoxChurch, a latcFatherwho srarcdrhercachingof thc OrthodoxChurchsodivinelyand clearly rharhc wasrhc rhird and lasr,afrerSt,John thc Evangelist and St. CregoryNazianrrn, ro bc called'Theologian'by theChurch."-Eo. "ln Adamrhc scnrencc " C[. St. MaximustheConfessor: ofdcathwasimposed on nature,sincc scnsualplcasurehad bccomerhe principle of its generarion"(Tbc Phikkalia, vol. 2, p. 248). On the rcstofthc crcaturesbccomingcorrupriblethrough man'sfall, sccalsopp. 409-22, 59 l -93 below.-Ep.

208

209

Adamwasplacedaslord andking of all thccrearures.... Burafterhis captiviry there was taken captive together with him the crearion whichservedhim andsubmitedro him, because rhroughhim death cameto reign overeverysoul,25

GeNesrs, CnsrrIoN,tro Ernr-vM,rN The Fathersalsomention that the sentenceof death,which took effectat the fall, wasnot.iusta punishment.lt wasdso a good,because once man fell, if he wereto still be immortal, therewould be no way out for him. Imaginebeing in a srateofbeing unableto redeemyourself, unableto get to Paradise,and then living and living and living, wirh no hopeofgetting out of this state.Death puts an end to sin. The fact that we areafraid of deathalreadywakesus up to begin to struggle. Evenifwe forgetabout Paradise, we will be afraidofdeath and begin to struggle,to overcomeour fallennature. Cyril ofAJexandria(I444) writesaboutthe meaningofdiseaseand deathin fallenman: Man, having receivedas his lot an exhaustingfast and sorrows,was givcn ovcr to illncsscs,suffcrings,and thc other bittcr things as to a kind of bridle. Becausehe did not sensiblyrestrainhimself in rhat life which wasfreefrom laborsand sorrows,he is givenover to misfortunesso that by sufferingshe might heal in himself the disease 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 illnesses, 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 Finallp St. Symeon the New Theologian wrires of how, through the Crucifixion and Resurrectionoffesus Christ, the senrenceofdeath is abolished: The decreeof God, "Dust thou art, and unro dust shalt thou rerurn," just like evcrythingclselaid upon mankind after thc fall, will be in effec until rhe end ofthe age.But by God'smercy,through rhe

2t0

At right: -fhe banishmenrofAdam and Eve from Paradisc, Behu: Cain slaying Abcl, Cain askingGod for mercy,Adam and EveweepingoverAbclt dcarh,Evc (with child) and Adam lamcnting, Adamtilling thc ground. Here arcshown thc major cons€quenccs of rhefall: inclination rowardsin (including murdcr),pain(including painin childbirth), sorrow,hard labor, and dcath. of a Rustian icon Dcuib ccnury. of thc cightcentb

Ctrutsrs, CnrerIoN ANDEARLyMAN powerofthe exraordinarysacrificcof Christ, in rhe futurc agcit will no longerhaveany cffcct, when the gencralresurrectionwill occur, which resurrectioncould not possiblyoccur unlcssthe Son of God Himsclf had riscnfrom the dead,$7ho had died for the abolition of the above-mentioneddecreeand for rhc resurrecrionof the entire human nature.28 In the general resurrection, all of crearion will be delivered from corruption together with man, just as ir once became subject to corruption becauseof him. St. Symeonwrites: When man againwill be renewedand becomespiritual, incorrupr and immortal, then also thc whole creation,which had been sub.jectedby God to man to servehim, will be deliveredfrom this servrtudc, will be rcnewedtogethcrwith him, and becomcincorrupr and asit werespiritual.... It is not fitting for the bodiesofmcn to bc clothed in thc glory of resurrectionand to becomeincorrupr before the rcnewalof all crearures.But just as in rhe bcginning,first the whole creadonwas creatcdincorrupt, and rhenfrom it man wastakcnand made,so also it is fitting that againfirst all the creationshouldbecomcincorrupr, and then the corruptiblebodiesof mcn alsoshould be rencwcdand bccomeincorrupt, so rhat oncc morc thc wholc man might bc incorrupt and spirirualand that he mighr dwell in an incorruptiblc,cternal, and spiritualdwelling.2e 3:2O And Adam calbd his wife'snane Eue bccauscshe was the mothcr

of all liuing. Eve means"life." Adam now givesher a particularname in addition to the nameWoman. 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

St. Paulof Obnora,Russia(1317-1429),onc of thc many Orrhodox sainc who, through thc rcdemptivesacrificcofJcsus Chrisr, rcgainedthe likenessofAdam in Paradise. St. Paul'sLife, translatcdby Fr. Scraphim,rellsofhow anothcrsainrwcn! ro whcrc St. Paulwas living in thc forcst and saw thcre a wondrous sight: i{ flock of birds surroundcd chemarvclousanchoritc; lialc birds perchcdon rhc Eldcrl hcad and shouldcrs,and hc fcd thcm by hand. Ncarbystooda bear,awaitinghis food from thc saint;foxes,rabbitsand orhcr bcastsran about,wirhout any enmiry among rhcmsclvcsand not fcaring rhc bcar.Bchold the lifc of innocentA&m in Edcn, thc lordship of man ovcr crcation,which togcthcr with us groansbccauscof our fall and thirsts so bc dclivcrcdinco rhc 'liberry of thc childrcn of God' (Rom. 8:21)." 5t. Paullivcd to bc I 12 ycarsold. Scchis Lifc in Tbc Notthcta Thcbaid (Sr.HcrmanBrotherhood,1975).

GeNasts, Cns,,rltoN ,rNn Eanrv Mar.t

asoneof 3;22-23 And theLord Godsaid,BehoUtheman is become hand And now, he putforth his and takeabo to hnow good and euil. lex Ul of tbe neeof life and eatand liueforeuer,therefore,the Lord Godscnthim forth fom the GardenofEden,to till thegroundfom whencehe uastaken. The Lord says"asone of Us," referringto Himselfin plural:the Holy Tiiniry. He castsAdam out so that Adam would not eat of the (Revelation): Tieeof Life,whichwe seealsoin the BookofApocalypse Eatingof this Treewould the Treeof Life in the centerof Paradise. makemanimmortalwithoutbeinggood,andGod doesnot wantthat; He castshim out. therefore, him to duell oueragainxthe 3:24 And He castoutAdam and cdused Gardtn of Delight, and *ationed the Cherubim and thcfery swordthat turns about to heepthe way of the tee of life (Sepuagint). As we saidin the first talk, Sr. Macariusof Egyptinterpretsthis mystically,sayingthat this is what happensto everysoulwhen Paradise is closedto it. But it alsomeansexacrlywhat it says:that thereis a Cherubimwith a flamin8sword. * 'We

have now coveredthe first three chaptersof Genesis,from which is takenthe basictheologyof the Church aboutthe origin of man and, therefore,his goal.The servicesarefilled with this theology, the services to the Cross.On Septemberl4th, the Feastof especially the Exaltationof the Cross,thereare a numberof very good verses and which show how the Church viewswhat happenedin Paradise which whar happenedwhen Christ came.They comparethe treeof Adam tastedwith the Tiee which wasthe Cross.One of the versesfor GreatVesperssays: Come,O ye peoples,ler us veneraterhe blessedWood,through whichtheeternaljusticehasbeenbroughtto pass.For hewho by a treedeceived our forefather Adam,is by theCrosshimselfdeceivcd; of the creatureendowed and he who by ryrannygainedpossession by God with royaldigniry is overthrownin headlongfall. By rhc is washcd Bloodof God the poisonof thc serpenr away;and the 214

Tse F,q.r.l or MaN is loosedby the unjustpunishmcnrincurscofa justcondemnation flictedon theJust.For it wasfitting that wood shouldbe healcdby wood,and that throughthc Passion of One Vho knew not passron be reminedall thesufferings of him who wascondemned shoLrld becauseof wood.Ju It is very profound and moving when you read verseslike this, knowing the theologyof Paradiseand the future age. ln the SessionalHymn of Matins of that sameservice,we sing: of old, rhe wood [i.e.,of the tree]srrippedme bare,for In Paradise by givingits fruir to eat,rhc enemybroughrin death.Bur now the woodofthe Crossthatclothesmenwith thegarmentoflifc hasbeen set up in the midstof the earth,and the wboleworld is filled with jolrl boundless Another canticle: Trec, on which Christ the King and Lord was O thricc-blesscd strctched!Through rhee rhc beguilcrfcll who rcmprcdmankind wirh the tree.He wascaughtin thc rrapsetby God, Who wascrucificd upon thecin the flesh,grantingpeaccunto our souls.l2 And rhe Ninth Song,Irmos: Todayrhedeaththatcamcto man throughcatingofthe treeis made ofno effectthroughthe Cross.For thc curscofour motherEvethar fell on all mankindis desrroyed by the fruit of the pure Motherof God, whom all rhe powersof heavenmagnifr.rl The Canon of the Feastof Epiphany,composedby Sr.John Damascene,rells us that the devil introduced death inro the creation,but that Christ hasovercomehim: He who once assumedthe appearance of a malignantserpentand implanteddeathin thecreation,is now casrinto darkness by Christt comingin the flesh.ra

215

GsNrsrs, CneAttoN rNo Eanrv MnN

That is brieflythe theologyof the beginningof all things,Paradise, originalAdam,hisfall and thestateto whichwe haveto try to getback by the SecondAdam Who is Chrrst. If you interpretall theseeventsin the earlyhistoryof mankindas simplyan allegory, asa pretrystorywhichsayssomethingelseentirely, will of Paradise. For example, you be deprivedofa true understanding saythat the ideaof Paradise does many RomanCatholictheologians therefore, we have not fit in with the findingsofmodernanthropology; ro reinterpreteverythingfrom the conclusionthat man evolvedfrom loweranimals.Originalsin,theysay,mustmeanthatassoonasmanbeto becomeawareof himself,and therefore camesufficientlydeveloped waslike a fall. They cannorfit Paradise to becomeman, rhis awareness because in Paradise manwasa divinizedbeing. inro thisscheme, It is very importantfor us to seetheserwo entirelyopposedconThe firstviewis that manwascreateddirectlyby God with a ceprions. intellige nce,with that originalnaturefrom which we fell superhuman awayand to which we are calledback.The other view is that man The secondview,of course,leadsto a comesup from lowercreatures. if we wereonce something philosophyof moral relativism,because thenwe aregoingto Desomerhing else,somekind of ape-likecrearure, else-we are headingfor Superman.(Most evolutionistssay in so many words that collectivehumanitywill becomeSuperman.)This viewalsoleadsto religiousideaslike thoseofTeilhardde Chardin,who saysthat thewholeworld is evolvinginto a higherstate,that the world itselfislike the breadwhich is beingtransmuted into the otherworld, and then it all becomes Christ.Of course,that is like pantheism, like somefrightful heresy-which is exacrlywhat Antichrist needsin order ro comero reign.Peoplewill think theyaregodswhileactuallyhaving thisanimalisticphilosophy. we seethat Christ When we hold to the viewof the Holy Fathers, actudlydied on the Cross.It is a real,physicalevent,not an imageor allegory;and at the sametime it hasspiritualconsequences, bringing aboura changein man'scondition.lt givesussalvation:not figurarive In the sameway,Adam tastedofa tree salvation,but actualsalvation. This, too, wasa physicaleventwith spiritual and therebylost Paradise. changingman'scondition. consequences, 2t6

CHaprBn SsvBN

Life OutsideParadise (Genesis 4:l-6:5)

cHAprER we examinedthe banishmentof Adam J r.rrHr IRECEDING f,orn rhepoinr of viewof Paradise; now we will look ro seewhere I he went. Vith Genesischapterfour beginseanhlylife aswe know it now-bur in many respects very differentfrom our life now as we shallsee. which haveabunclant Unlikc the first rhreechaptersof Genesis, Patristiccommentaries, the laterchapters haveonly a few.Ve will rely of St.JohnChrysostomand St. chieflyon rheGenesisCommentaries of Ephraimthe Syrian.In the Vest therearealsothe Commentaries which I havenot seen,and a few others. Blessed Augustine, we will be mainlyfollowing In the fourth and succeeding chapcers with a few variantsfrom the text of Genesis, the Greek(Septuagint) from the Hebrew. King JamesVersion,which is translated L TheBanihment oJ'Adam

To where Chapterfour beginswith Adamin a stareof banishment. "The Lord wasAdam banished? The Greektextof Genesis 3:24 reads: God ... casrour Adam and causedhim to dwelloveragainstthe Garden of Delight." Since,aswe haveseen,Paradiseis an actualplace,so alsothe earth Ve to which Adam wasbanishedwasan actualplace,nearto Paradise. sawin Genesischapter2 (v. 7-8) that Adam wascreatedout of the earthand then led into Paradise; so now he is banishedto the place "geographical wherehe wascreated. The Holy Farhers aresurprisingly 2t7

.{:'

-\ I

I' t;, ,'

', 'l {: :

' :ii .,1

,:.r ',. 1....i{

'!*ii*1

6

ii' '

s, n\ , ,

-

;,-S'.'h,

, :'fftt

t" ' . ,\,l,rrrr.rrrrI l v t l, c lr Lr ilinsI ' . r r . r t lr rlr , onr . r l. r r Iltt',r,ttt ln',t, r/ r/,t' i.tr,rn r1,, tt r tt,t

'l

i4

:'.P

.\, L;./ +

.,/oq .;

\ 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. r r ,r r r ,i Ir , r t tl r , l ,'r r t,. . \ , l . r r r r , r r ,lI r c h .r r r csr i r r r l'\J.r . t,tr l t,tn n o 't 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 '/,

lt t t ( ) t t st t r t l', r ur t r t r t

% #l

.ITil

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 . : \\' 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. 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

1!

.;

't\ til

.\

,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 ' lr t ir l. ur Ll, 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

ii :

i7 ," t!- t

* crrt .l ,,rl n.rn.l .nt.r . . l ir r t . r r r . r r r i. r qc r r it lr t lr . rl .rLrtl l rt . r. , rl nr . r r , 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 .
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 ( ) tl rrr. \\' . ui l l (' \i l nri n(

l r ll. r r 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, .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 ''. l l r, ri tu i ,' l I' rr.rrlisct,.r , n il it . r r , r r r r , , lin \ , l. r nr . r n Lr nl, c, r r . r l, l.

..1

,

;-

'

;,. l.

-

.J/

'-'--::

..4"

rillrrr{ thr' q roLr nil.. r lt tr lr is lr . r nr s hnr c nt lr , r r r I ' . r r . r t l i w ' tl,r { /,trr,l,o l \ t ( , t t r y t lit t r t t r t , \ lut , t , t t \ . / ( ) D t , t ) 1 1 , t .

t t l tl i tI.,rt tl r, ' .ur, ti n r , . r ll. r t l, , l ] r ir r rr r r r \ lr l) r {) llr :t lr r L. r r st , r r t lr ]r,l ,l i rr( l ,,l l ' ,rr,L,l i r ct li, r t lr cr lr icr ir r r t , , r r c, r r ,rrr . r r r r ingli'r t lr , 'cr r cJ l i rrrrl c.t,, tl r.rtl r. rr,'r l. l r r ot l. r ll. r q. r ininr o r lr , 'r , r r r r r 'it r . r t r st r r 'r r ir r r t t . S cti rtg I' .tt.trl i sr' .ti ll t hcr t . . \ , . l, r r rir r st ill . , , nr clr , , r vr iosc t o ( 'r t t ll lt r ' r\ n()t tt(.l ft\ l l \ t.tf i l \\ . t \ I f ( ) t r t ( ; ( ) ( l . t . r t Lt t r liit t r l lr . , - . t t r r . llr t r '' , , 'r . \l rrrcorr' r..Ii ri ntrtl l r It . r , in li, , , li, t t t r l t , . . r r lr . t r lt t 'li, r t . I lr . t cli, r t . r 't t t t (.rr i nri l qi n( tl rrrt r\drrr r r r r r s in r r st . r lt ol lt Pt r lr r n, . t ir r r d \ ( r 'uqqlc. ll( ' l cl l on.c.rn,.i l ort l ri . of i! lin. ll \ r . lt c. iln( l no\ \ ' lr . ir r i, r ing t o l) ( l( \ \ r(nl l )r((l [)\' sc.i nq t l t t' I ' .t r ,t. i i . . . r r I r i. . I rlr . l, r st . Il ri s tt.rr' l ri rrr'i,s sc t lir lr lr . r l. o in t hc ( ) r 't hot lox ( . lr r r lch sclvi. t li, r . |I

GsNcsrs,CnEArroNaNn Errrv M,rN

LrreOulsroePananrse Chapterfour beginswith the first storyof life afterthe fall, when Adam is living in his new place:the story of Cain and Abel. Here we seethe first differencein the life of Adam and Eve berweentheir statein Paradiseand their stareoursideof Paradise:it is only aftertheirbanishment that marriedlife and the begettingof children begin.As we haveseen,the Fathersarequire specificthat, before the fall, Evewasa virgin.St.JohnChrysostom writesofrhis: Afterthedisobedience, afterthebanishment fromParadise-rhenit wasthatmarriedlife began.Beforethedisobedience, thefirsrpeople livedlikeangels andtherewasno talkof cohabitarion.a

Adam and Eve in affliction, wirh Cain and Abel bearingrhcir offcrings. Frtco fom thc ancitnt CbrLtian caucombt fourtb ccn*ry.

Forgiveness Sunday,when Orthodox Christianspreparingto enterthe pr€srruggl€of GrearLent aregiven,asan inspirationto repentancer and beholdingwhat ciselythe imageofAdam sittingoutsideParadise he had lost: he wept: and, lamentinghis nakedness, Adamsat beforeParadise "Voe is me!By evildeceitwasI persuaded andledastray. Now I am anexilefromglory..." ("Glory"for "[ord, I HaveCried").] 2. Ain and Abel 4:l And Adam hnew Euehis uife, and sbeconceiued and brought forth Cain and said, I hauegained a man thrzugh God.And shcagain borehis brotherAbel. (The nameCain means"gained.")

Of course,this doesnot deprivethe insritutionof marriageof its honorandblessing from God. k simplyshowsthat rheoriginalstateof Adam wasnot marriedlife aswe know it. The originalsratewaslike the stateto whichwewill return,whentherewillbeno marriage or givingin (cf. marriage Matt. 22:30), andeveryonewill be in the virginal state. The Fathersdo raisethe question:how would childrenhavebeen born ifAdam had not fallen?They sayrhatchildrenwould havebeen born in a way that God knew, but not accordingto this way we have now,which, asSt. Gregoryof Nyssadiscusses, is bound up wich our animalnature.This [the sexualmodeof reproducrion] will not be in Paradise was not in the to come,and the originalParadise. 4:2-5 And Abel wdsd heeperof sheep,but Cain wasa tiller of the ground.And it wassoartersometime that Cain broughtof thefuits of tbe earth a sdcrifceto the Lord. And Abel abo broughtof thefrst-born of bis sbeepand of his fatl;ngs. And God looked upon Abel and his gifs, but Cain and his sacrifcesHe regardtdnot. And Cain uas exceedingfsonoutftl and bis countcnancc fell. Vhere did Cain and Abel get the ideaof sacrifice? The Fathersrell us that the ideaof offeringsacrificeto God, oFrerurningto Him rhe bestthingsofthe earth,wasplacedin the conscience ofman from the verybeginningof hisexistence. God madepeoplero serveHim, andso rhe first thing they thought of was to offer thanksgivingto Him for what thevhad.

223

LIl ,l ( )t t\l t)|

l ' \t{ ,\I)l \t

ll Lrt rr lrv rliil ( ,od looli luvorrrbly ort t lrc'srr,. r ill,.r' ol ,.\lrclurri rtol on Lrcrt lrortrrlrc Iirtlc l(\r \\'( h.lvc tlrlt oi (.rtint ls IIc plrrvinqlitvrrrittsT sc stt r\bcl ollcrcd l)('sl lrctr'. thrtt thc thilt hc hrrrl,his lllst born rrrtr'l (.:rin l.rrlirrqs" ol thc shc.p;bLrt ollcrcclonll sorrrc'lirrits,"rrt,tc:rlingt,r rlivc thc bcst hc hatl. llc hatl the iclcuof sacrificc,but lrc hetl rhr:rtti trrdc: \\1cll,I'llgivcsontcol tltistlrlt I ltavr'.' I lc Llitlrr\r)rrIkclp.rrti!ulrrrlrinrpolt.rrrr rhing of it, u,hclcls,\bcl rvascurcirrlto gir,cthc bcstth;rt lrc hrrcl.( l,rinIr,rclit in his natrrlcto ollcr sucrilicc.[rrrthc riid nor luo li,rrrrhis orvnnarurcthc \\'illingt hanksgilinqof his hcllr; .rrrrlAbcl dicl. ' I lrcrclirrc,( ,orl r'.rspl..rscrlrlitlr r\bcl'so{1irintl.urrrlnot rvit[r( .airr's. Sr. l.phr,rirrrrvritcs:

d; F,q

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. ;\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

'f

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

,$1'-..'. :-l

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 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 * 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

f

'-" t ,/t I

)i

h,. cl i ,l n,,r .l l rhi r, . r '. n t lr or r I h it r r '. r s. r r r ty, r t I r s, r :lr c r licl n, , t t . r kc .urc l i rr tl rc gr,,,rl. . t t s <, tt lt c hcst llr r it r . I n t lr r :r ot t l ol t lr c olr c ollct i rrq s.r.ri l i .c tl rtr,. r r ': r rn, , l, r vclir r t lr t ( ) r r c \ \ 'ho r . . eiveJ t hc ollcr

.:l i 'i'\

( T

12

t'

i

t

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 . ' (l .ri rr rl .rs sott' rvlit l t t , , t t nr t . lt

bcr lt t t . , . lt it sx( f ill( c \ \ r ls r cjcct c( 1,

brrt l l ro [rc.urrscol u r iccp pr t ssionr vlt ir h is t cvcalcr l lr clc f ir l t ] r t lir 'r t ri rrrc i n ]rrrrrrrrnhi sl orr , : c r r vr '.St . lohn ( ) hr yst ost onrsl\ '\ r ) l t llis l) ii\ \ r iqc:

.,,ti

lr ' :'l

l l i s s o r r o r r p r , , . c c .l cd l i ,r r ti Iu ,, r ( .1 \( ) n \: l r ( ) l o n l l l r
lris

b r , r t l r c r r r . r ' . t ( . c l ) tcr l .' ( . r r r r. r nil ,\ lr ll. / rr' r' r l t r t n r / , , ( l , t t , l , , , l

\r

( 't

it.< t.

li,t) tt,t'

\lr tt,t,ttr t,

St. l:phr.rirrrs[)ccilicslhal (;o(i's .t((cl)trUr((of r\bcl'sqili rVltsrr:urin lo consun)cir, rvhilc lisrctl ll lilt uhir'h trurrc d,rrvn lirrrl hr'.rr',. ( .ains ollclirrg r(nlilin(d \\'itlloLlt[rcittgi,rttstrrrctl. 'l i v o o t h c r p l r c c 'i n S cr i p tL r r csp c.r kr r l - th c'.r .r i l i c',r l s 1 '. . r l i , 'n l r {c ' n c r . r l l r : I I r h r r .l :I.l u r r r lI l cl 'r r r s I I r 't.

-t.tt

( l .r i n .r r r dAb cl . b ttr tl r tr

l, rI r , ( ) r ] r 'srr ) L lhr , lor st , .|l|r'i

3

.t

q' ( i.rir, insrig.rtcrllrr,.r t[ nron, sl,rring .\l'cl. Ilutsiar.fisn tl rlt titttutt/tentury.

lltrt hcrc again (locl'srrrcrcvis shorvn.JLrstrrsHc clrre ro Ad:rnrxl'tcr hc sinncdand lskcd hinr, "Vhcrc art thoui" givinghinl il chilnccro tcpent.so ,low Flc c()nrcsto (llin with thc silmc()pporrrrnitv: 1t:6-7 Antl tLt Lorcl Ool nid to (.ain, W|y trt tltor ltttttnr r.'tr.yiortou,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. St.john ( ihrlsostolnsrlysof rhcscvcrscs:

tk

(llin enrl Ailtl oflcrirrg thcir f.\pc.tivc sir.rill(csr() (l(xl. " An tl (io d ltxrkcclu pon i\ bc l . r nd his gilr s , llu ( ir t in . t o r lI i s rtot" (t icn. ,'t:.15). sa.riilccs I lc rcg,urrlccl Rus:ir n J) utt of t/,r' :i\'t.(,1t1' ..,1t ury.

l l cl rol cl rvh.rt.rrrunt r t t cr ablcc, r nt lcsccnsi, rol r r concclr r l ( , , r d sar * rhat (lairr r,",rsirosscsscrl, so to sPe.rk.Iry rhc [r,r.si,,nofcnvr'; bur scc horv,i n l l i s goodncr s,I lc applicsr o hinr . r cor r cspol
)27

Cru rsts,CneartoN.rNoEarlv MaN handto softenhisheartandcalmhis mind, and for thispurposcHe subjects his brotherto him anddoesnot takcawayhisauthoriryover him. But evenaftersuchcarcandaftersuchtreatmentCain rcceived (of Cain in the inwarddisposirions no bencfit.Suchis the difference andAbel);suchis the powerofevills '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 everything 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 the Lord said, And he said, I hnow not, am I my brother'sheeper? 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 be groaning and tembling on the earth. And Cain said to the Lord God, My crime is too great for me to beforgiuen. If thou castestme out this da! liom theface of the eartb, and I shall be biddcn fom thy presence,and I Abcl: "That the ofthe murderof righreous ' Irr [-r.rkcll:50-51, Chrisrspeaks ofrhc world, may bc blootlofall rhc prophcts,rvhichwasshedfrom the lbrrndarion from rhc bloodofAbel [thesonofAdanr]unro the blood requircdofrhis gencration: of Zacharias Ithe f.irhcrof St.John rhe Baprisd."By afFrmingthar the murderof Abcl occurred"from rhc loundarionof rheworld,"thewordsof Chrisragaincontra' dicr thc modcrncvolutionaryidcarhat thcrewercbillionsof ycarsofearth history of man- Eo. bcfbrerheeopeatance

Adam and Abcl. Rxssianicont ofthc tucnteenth ccnfirm,

sball begroaning and nembting upon the carth, then it will be tbnt an1 onethatrtnds me shallslayme.And the Lord God said to him, Not so, anJ one that slaysCain shatl suffer seuenfoldaengeance; and the Lord God seta marh upon Cain tbat no onethatfound him might slayhim. So Cain wentforth fom the presenceof God nnd dueh in the knd of Nod oueragainstEden. HereSt. Ephraimsays: Godappears to him withoutanger, sothatif he repents, theprayer pronounced byhislipsmightwashawaythesinof murderperformed by his hands,but if he doesnot repent,thena heavypunishment 229

Cnr'artor lNo Ea.nlvMaN GsNr.sts, But Cain, insrcad him suchasthe crimedeserves. might be assigned and ro the All-knowing is filled with dissatisfaction, of rcpentancc, 'Who Cain to Himself,he ro draw in order brother askedof his One "l with anger: know nor' Am I my brotheri keeper?"' answers

i'''1,:j

St. John Chrysostom notes the differencebetween the curse pronouncedon Adam and that pronouncedon Cain: of thc How far rhissin (of Cain) wasgrea(erthat the transgression first-created(Adam) may be seenin rhe differencein curses Thcrc (the Lord) said:"Cursedis the groundin thy labors"(Gen 3:18) for rhe and pouredout thecurseon theearth,showingcarepreciscly crime,he himself(rhc man; but here... sinceit is an unforgivable "Thou art curscdfrom rhe to the curse: performerof it) is subjected earth."He (Cain)acredalmostlikc the serpentwho servedas the implementofrhe devil'splan;iustastheformet throughdcception, his brotherand led introduceddeath,so rhe lattcr,havingdeceived him out to the field, armedhis hand againsthim and performed murder.Therefore,just as the Lord saidto the serpent:"Thou art cursedaboveall thc brutesof theearth"(Gcn.3: I 5), soalsowasit ro he actedsimilarly."' Cain,because After this, Cain finally did admit his guilt; but it was too late' St' John Chrysostomsays: it with greatprecision.But He did confess(his sin),and confessed there was no benefit from this ar all, becausehe confessedat the wrong timc. He shouldhavedone this at the right time, whcn ne couldhaveinclinedtheJudgeto mcrcy." One should add to this that his confessionis more an admissionof fact that an indication of repentance;he regretted'but did not repent of his sin-a very common occutrenceamong men uP to this day. And so Cain went off to live in the land of Nod, a lower territory but still not far from Eden. At this time in human history mank geographicaldistribution is still very limited' From this tinre forth, as St.

230

OainslayingAoet. Byzantinc mosaicfom Moareab Catbedrat,Sicily, tuclftb ccntury.

,trn Flnrv Mnn GeNesrs, Cnr-arroN betweentheoffspringof Cain thereis no intermarriage Ephraimstates, and thoseof the other childrenof Adam.'' The mark wasplacedon from beingrakenagainsthim by thesehis relaCain to preventrevenge tives.'rAnd sotherearerwoparallellinesof humaniry:asit wereimages from Him, or as Blessed of the true followersof God and apostates it, the Ciry of God and the Ciry of Man. Augustinelarerdescribed shebore 4:17-22 And Cain knew his wife, and bauingconceiued Enoch;and he built a city; and hc namedthecity afer the nameofhis son, Enoch.And to Enochutasborn Gaidad; and Gaidad begotMalcleel;and MaleleelbegotMethusalah;and Methusakh begotLamech.And I'amech tookto himselftrao wiues;thenamcof theoncwasAda, and the nameof the secondSella.And Ada boreJobel;he wasthefather ofthosethat dwell in tents,feedingcattle.And the nameofhis brotherwasJubal; he it waswho inaentedthepsalteryand harp.And Selh abo boreThobel;he wa a smith, a manufacturerbothofbrassand iron; and thesisterofThobel wasNolma. Fromwheredid rhewife of Cain come?Shecamefrom amongthe daughtersofAdam. Adam is the one from whom everyonecomes.The mentionsashischildrenonly Cain,AbelandSeth,but bookof Genesis rheywereonly the first ones;thereweremany others.Later,in Genesis 5:4-5, we read that Adam lived sevenhundred yearsafter begetting Adamwasgiven Seth,duringwhichtime"hebegotsonsanddaughters." and multiply,and he livedfor nine hundred the commandto increase years. Therefore,theremusthavebeenhundredsofchildren. and thirry This leadsto a secondquestion:"How is it that Cain couldmarry Isn'tthis againstthe lawsof the OrthodoxChurch?"Of his own sister? course,this wasat the beginningof time,so they had a differentlaw; they werenot living underthe law we havenow.* In thosedayspeople livedto be nine hundredyearsold. Obviouslyhumanirywasquitedifferentfrom the way we know it today,evenphysically. In Genesis4:17-22 we seethe beginningsof civilizationas we "sinccit wasin the beginningand "'You see,"explainsSt. John Chrysosrom, ro marrytheirown from thcn on, it waspermissablc thc humanracehadto incrcase sisrcrs"(Homilieson Gene* 20:3, Englishversion,Thc Farhersof rhe Church, vol. 82, p. 37).-Ep. ) 1)

Lrrr.Ou-rsroePantnrse know it: the first city, the firsr crafts,the first arrs. It is obvious that what is given here is no more than a hint ofall that went on then, but this is alreadyenough to give us a picture quite different from that presentedby the evolutionaryview of man'sorigins. In the Biblical view, of civilization come at what one might call "advanced"characteristics 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 generationsof Adam, but it is obvious that, with the long life of the early Patriarchsand the command given them by God to increaseand multiply within a few generationsthere must have been many thousandsif not millions of people. (Rationalist Biblical scholars,seeing the beginnings of man tn deny the very existenceof Cain and primitive, stone-agecave-dwellers, Abel as historicalpersons.To them it is all a moral tale.) I-amechis the first man of whom it is said that he had two wtves. Apparently this custom, which appearsmore commonly after the Flood, was a rarity in the daysof the first Patriarchs. 4:23-24 And Lamcch said to his wiues,Ada and Sella, Hear my uoice,ye wiues of Lamcch, consid.ermy words, becauseI haue slatn a man to n1 sorrow and a )ro th to my grief Becauseuengeancehar been exacted seuentimeson Cain'sbeha$ on l.amech'sit sball be seuenDltimesseuen. hasbeen interpretedin variousways,but the simplest This passage explanationis that of St. John Chrysostom,who saysthat it indicates the voice ofconsciencein l.amech,who openly confessedhis sin and declaredhimself worthy of greaterpunishment rhan Cain (for he had alreadyseenCain'spunishment for the crime of murder).'" 4:25-26 And Adam knew Euc his wife, and sheconceiuedand borea son, and called bis name Seth, sa/ng, For God bas rd;tcd uP t0 me anotl)er 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. Here the text returnsto the main line from Adam (through whom the Saviour'sgenealogywill be traced).Seth means"substitute." Verse26 is different in Hebrew:"Then beganmen to call upon the name ofthe lord." In either caseit indicatesapparentlythe beginning z) )

Gnrursls,Cm,qrroN AND EARLyMAN

Lrrr Oursror P,cRAorse

of moreformalworshipof God, boundup with the nameof Enoslthis is alsowhy thedescendants ofSetharecalledin chaptersixthe "sonsof God."

David the Psalmist.Here rhereis a temptation lor rationalistcriticism ro "reinrerpret"the text. Bur all the Holy Fathersacceptit just as ir is wrirten: men at that time, in the first centuriesafter the creation,were reallyvery different physicallyfrom us. In chapterthreewe discusseda litrle of the climate of the world beforethe Flood, when there was no rainbow becauseofthe firmament ofvapor encirclingthe earth, giving a moderateclimate and filtering out harmful radiation.Life was really quite different then (even Paradisewas still visible, as we have seen), and if we put offour prejudicesderived lrom picturesofcrude stonethere is no reasonfor us not to acceptthis fact. agecave-dwellers, 2. The secondquestionconcernsthe genealogyitself:why was this so important as to be recorded?Becausethe evolutionary theory requiressomehundredsofthousandsofyearsfor the history ofmankind, rarionalistcritics are forced to reinterpretthis genealogy,stating either thar rherearegapsofthousandsofyearsin it, or elsethat at leastsomeof rhe Patriarchswere not real peopleat all, but simply namessigniSing vastepochs.Ifso, rhen ofcourse thereis no genealogyhereat all. Bur rhe Holy Fathersare unanimous in stating that this list of names ri preciselya genealogy,and it is important not merely as preservingdetailsofthe early history of mankind, but abovea.llbecauseit is rhe genealogyof Christ.The whole genealogyof Christ is given in Lr.rkechapter three* (Matthew chapter one carries it only back to Abraham), and the Fathersare very carefulto harmonizeany seeming in the names(for example, St. Gregory the Theologian inconsisrencies in his Homily on this subject)so asto preserveir asa precisegenealogy. 'Wehaveto choose:to be wirh the Scripturesand the Holy Fathers,or with the modern rationalist critics who take their wisdom from the speculations(not the facts)of modern scientists. 3. From the number ofyears indicated in this passage(and later in Genesis),it is possibleto calculatethe ageofmankind. Acpassages cording to the numbers in the Septuaginttext of the Old ltstament, we are now in the year 7490 from the creation of Adam... The Hebrew rext has somewhatdifferent numbers,giving a total ageof man-

3. The Genealoglfom Adam throughSethto Noah 5:l-21 Tbis is tbegenealogyof men in the day in uhich God made Adam; in the image of God He made him: male and female He mad.e them,and blesedthem;and He calledbis nameAdam, in the da1 in which He madethcm.And Adtm liued two hundredand thirty years,and begota sonafer his ownform, and afier his own image,and he calledhis nameSeth.And the daysofAdam, which he liucd afcr his begettingSeth, wereseuenhundredyears;and he begotsonsand daughters.And all the daysof Adam which he liued werenine hundredand thirry years,and he died. Nou, Seth liued two bundredand fue yenrs,and begotEnos.And Setbliued afer his begexingEnos,seuenhundredand seuenyears,and be begotsonsand daughters.And all the daysof Sethu,,crenine hundredand tuelucyears,and he died. And Enosliued an hundredand ninetyyears, and begotCainan.And Enosliuedafer his begettingCainan,seuenhundredandfJieen years,and he begotsonsand daughters.And all thedals of Enostuerenine hundredandfue years,and he died.And Cainan liued an hundredand seuent!yarl and he begotMaleleel.And Cainan liued afier his begettingMaleleel,seaenbundrcd and forry years,and he begotsons and daughtcrs.And all tbe daysof Cainan werenine hundred and ten year, and he died. And Malcleel liued an hundred and sixrJ and fue years,and he begotJared. And Maleleel liued afer his begettingJared, seuenhundredand tbirty years,and he begotsonsand daughters.And all the day: of Maleleelwereeight hundrcdand ninety andfue years,and he died. And Jared liued an hundred and sixt! and nuo years, and begot Enoch:andJaredliued afer his begettingEnoch,eight hundredyears,and he begotsonsand daughters.And all the daysofJared werenine hundred and ixty and two years,and he died. And Enochliued an ltundred and sixtyandf ueyears,and begatMethusalah. This passage hasseveral quesrions for us. l. All rhe earlyPatriarchs lived nine hundredyearsor so, something fantasticto us who anaineighryor ninetyyearswith greatdifficulry,which hasbeenthe casewith mankindsincebeforethe rimesof 234

of Christgivcnby Sr.Lukc,seepp. 528-29 below.-Eo. ' On rhegenealogy .-l-.o. imt Gcnesis course " 1.c.,in I 982,duringthe sccondpart of Fr.Seraph

235

GrNssrs, CnEAt.toN ,tro Ernly M,tt

kind over a thousandyearsless.The Fatherswerenevertroubled over this difference(Blessed Augustine,for example,explainsit in TheCity of Godasa matterofsecondaryimportance),*but they acceptedwirhout questionboth the greatageof rheeerlyPatriarchsand rhe approximateageof mankind assomefour to five thousandyearsar the birth of Christ (actually,just over 5,500 accordingto the Sepruaginrtext).** * SceBlessedAugusrine,Thc Ciry of God 1513 (pp. 293-94 in rhc Ecrdmans translation). Elscwhcrein Thc City of God writtcn in a.p. 413-426, Blessed Augustincwrircs:"lrt us omir thc conjccruresof mcn who know not whar rhcy say, whcn thcy spcakof rhe natureand origin ofthc human racc..., They aredcceivcdby thosehighly mcndaciousdocumcnrswhich profcssto give the hisroryofmany thousandsofycars, rhough reckoningby thc sacredwritings wc find rhat not 6,000 ycars havepasscd"(City ofGod 12:10,p. 232). Augustincgocson to saythat rhc ancicnr Greckchronology"doesnot cxcccdrhc truc accouncof rhe durarion of rhe world as it is given in our documcnrsIi.c., rhe Scriprurcs],which arc truly sacrcd."-Eo. "' Thc carlicstextantChristianwritingson rhe agcof thc world accordingro rhc Biblicalchronologyarcby Thcophilus(.r.o.ll5-l8l),thcsixrhbishopofAotioch from the aposrles,in his apologcticwork TbAutolyau (Anrc-NicencFathcrs,vol. 2, pp. I I 8-21) I and by JuliusAfricanus (a.o. 200-245), in his Fiuc BooksofChronologr (Ante-NicencFarhcrs,vol. 6, pp. 130-38). Eorh ofrhcsc carly Christian wrirers, following rhc Scptuagintvcrsion of thc Old Tcstamcnt,dccrmined thc agc of thc world to havcbccn abour 5,530 yearsar thc binh ofChrist. The common Blzantinc Chriscianrcckoning,alsoderivcdfrom the Sepruagint, placedrhedatcofcreationat 5,508s,c. This darc,which undcrwcntminor revisions bcforebcing finalizcdin thc scvcnthccnrury ,r.o., servcdasthc srarringpoinr of rhe Calcndar of rhc Bfrantinc Empirc and thc EasrcrnOrthodox Church, and was known asthc Impcrial CrcarionEraofConsanrinoplc. Thc EasrernChurch avoidcd thc useofthc ChristianEra (a.c.-,r.o.) sinccthc darcof Christ'sbirrh wasdcbatcdin Consrantinoplcas latc asthc fourtccnth ccnrury (sceE, J. Bickcrman,Chtoaologyof thc Ancicnt \VorA, p.73 ; E. G. fuchards,Mapping fimc, p. 107; V. Crumcl, Za Chronologic,p. 62; and Jack Fincgan, Handbool of Biblical Chronohg, p. lO8). Vhen RussiarcccivcdOrthodox Chrisrianiryfrom Blzantium, sheinhcritcd rhe Orthodox Calcndarbascdon the Crcation Era. Thc crcationof thc world was usedas thc starting point of thc calcndarof the Rusian Empire unril rhc Vcstcrnizing rcforms of Pctcr I at rhc bcginning of thc cightccnth ccnrury (scc Nicholas fuasanovsky,,4 HirtorT of R*sit, p. 244\, and ir srill forms thc basis of tradirional Orthodox calcndarsup to today. Fr. Scraphimwritcs that "evcn thc most mysticalFathcrs"such as St. Isaacthe Syrianacccptcdwithour qucstionrhc common undcrsrandingofrhc Church rhat thc worfd wascreatcd'more or lcss"in 5,500 a.c. Scebclow, op.53940,602.-Eo.

236

Adam. Fmco by Thcophanathc Greekin thc Church oftbc Tiansfguration of tbc Sauiour Noagorod,Rwsia, 1j78.

'

-i

.f ri

t-...' f

i|:r

:

- i 0" " . 1'' 1i '': I

/

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 , ,,1tl 't \,r t,!!t..\',r.1,,rar1 /i r,,,;.r / j \

I t,t ,t ' I i r': rr,t t : ,, t t

zl0orr: linos, rhe son ofScth. Iirto h.yllasto l)ion.1'sius,l?utsia,

ilt h/i: ltrcl, t dcscendcnrof [rnor. Ilussian ion af tht;ixt.ot/) t.trtttl

lisn

[)noch,thc sonofJarcd(dcreil). 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

4. Beginningwith Genesischaprerfive we follow the historyof what can alreadybe calleda "chosenpeople":a peoplededicatedto God, handingdown the traditionsoftrue worshipand piery,and preThus, little is paringultimatelyto givebirth to the promisedMessiah. people.The not the chosen are Cain; they of saidof the descendants becomecorruptand ofseth are,and eventheyeventually descendants (Noah) his sons. and one man savefor aredestroyed,

5:22-24 And Enochuas well-pleasingto Godafer his begutingMe' thusalah,two hundredyears,and he begotsonsand daaghters.And all tbe daysofEnocb werethreehundredand sixtTandfue yeats.And Enochwas God tanslated him. uell-pleasingto God,and wasnlt fo nd, because "By faith Enochwastranslated Of EnochSt. Paulsaysprecisely: God transthat he shouldnot seedeath;and wasnot found,because that he testimony' had this he his translarion lated him: for before God" (Heb. I I :5). pleased Patristictraditionis unanimousthat Enoch,who so pleasedGod will returnat the end that he did not die but went aliveinto Paradise, (Elijah) who was takenup alivcinto wirh Elias of the world, together heaven,to preachthe SecondComingof Christ;theywill die asmarryrs at that time, being resurrectedafter threeand a half days(Apoc. ch . I l ) .

Lrrr.Oursror P,rnaorsr: ffty-tltree years, and he died. And Nonh wasfue hundrcd years old, and be btgot three sons,Shem, Ham and Japheth. These verses contain the genealogy of marrkind down to Noah-the whole of humaniw down to the Flood. which occurred about rwo thousandyearsfrom the creation. Larnechprophesied,giving his son the name Noah, which means "rest," that in his days there would be an end to the sins of humanity-the Flood.

4. TheCorruptionof Manftind 6:24 And it cametopas whenmenbeganto benumerousupontbe ear J, and daughrcrsuere born to them, that tbe sonsof God,hauingseen the daughtersoJ'menthat thqt uere bmutiful, took to themselues uiuet of all uhom theychose. And theLord Godsaid,My Spiritshallcertainlynot remainamongthesemenforeuer,berause thry areJlesb,but theirdaysshall bea hwrdrcd and ttumtyJcafs. In the Patristicunderstanding, the "sonsof God" wcre rhe offl springof Seth,the chosenpeoplewho wercto preserve thcmselves in virrue.They wereliving in a higherplace,alongthe boundaryof Paradisc.'l-hcywcrecalled"sonsofGod" bccause throughthemChrisrwrt to comc. 1'he "daughtersofmen" werethe offspringofCain. l-hey were the forbidden people, the outcasts.-I-he sons ol'Cod were supposedto

5:254:l And M*husakh liued an hundrel and sixty and seuen years, and begot Lamech. And Methusakh liued afer his begetting, And Lamccheighthundredand nttoyears,and begotsonsand daugbters. all the daysof Methusakh which he liued, werenine hundred and sixty and nineyarl and he died.And Lamechliued nn hundredand eighty and eightyears,and begota son.And hemlbd his nameNoah,sayitg,this one will causcttsto ceasc fom our worhs,andliom the toils ofoar hands, andfrom the earth, whicb the Lord Godhascursed.And l-amechliued af ter his begettingNoah,fae hundredand sixry and fue years,and begot sonsand daughters.And all the daysof Lamechuere s(uetthundredand

keep themsclvespure, and were not supposedto marry inro thc line of Cain. (l.ater on, this sameideawas relatedto rhe Jews,who were supposed to kecp themselvesseparatefrom everyoneelse.)The sons of (lod were to keep themselvcsscparareso thar they could becomeprogenitorsof the Saviour. St. Ephraim statesthat a preponderanceofdaughters were born ro the oflipring of Cain, indicating the dying out of Caint raceand rheir desireto marry the sonsofSeth so asto preserverheir race.The sonsof Cod, being moved by carnallust, departedfrom the command ofGod that they should be separatefrom all thosewho wereof Cain. They fell into the trap, and rhe whole of mankind becamecorrupt-became

242

243

CrNesrs,CnlanroNANDEARLY MAN

LIraOurstoePanquse

"flesh" or fleshly.*St. Paul says:"They that are in the flesh cannot pleaseCod" (Rom. 8:8). The "hundred and rwenry years"refer not to the life spanof man,

of tions abour angelsmaring with men, and modern speculations outer-space beings,areofcourseemptytalesbasedon idle fantasies.

but to the time given for repentancebeforethe Flood-again indicating God's mercifulness.*' Some havespeculatedthat rhe "sonsofGod" were heavenlybeings or angels.The Holy Fatherswereawareof this interpretationand they refuted it, saying rhat angelscannor beget men.'** Ancient specula-

6:5 Now thegiants wereapon the earth in thosedaTs;and afer that uhen the sonsoJ'Godwerewont to go in to thedzuglttersof men,thq bore children to them, thosewerethegiants of old, the menof renown. enormousmen.AcBy "giants"herewe do not needto understand cordingro Sr.Ephraim,theoffspringofSeth,thechosenrace,weretall and full in srarure,while the offspringof Cain, the cursedone, were of the Sethitespresmall.*When rheserwo racesmixed,the rallness "giant" vailed.The statureof the men-the descendants of Seth-beforerhe Floodis apparently oneofthe atrributes of humanirythat was world. lostwith the newclimacticconditionsof the post-Flood Perhaps these"giants"with their mighrydeedsof strength(manifestperhapsin warswith the offspringof Cain) werethe origin ofthe "gods"of laterlegendin Greeceand otherlands.

of Cain adorned ' St. Ephraimthc Syriancxplainsfurrherthat "rhc daughrers and becamea snarcto rhc eycsof thc sonsof Scrh.... l he cntiretribeof rhcmselves thc sonsof Scrhwercgoingirr ro Seth... wasstirredro a frenzyoverthenr.... Becausc ofCain, theyturncdawayfrom their first*ives whornthcy hadprcvirhedaughtcrs and now,bccause rheirown continence ouslymken.Then thesewives,roo,disdained quicklybeganto abandontheirmodesrywhich up until thartime oftheir husbands, that asfor thcir husbands' sakc.lt is becausc of thiswantonncss thcy had prcscrvcd sailcdborh thc men and the women,that Scripturesays,'allfleshhad corruptcdits vcrsion,p. 135).-Eo, on Gcnesis, F,nglish way' (Gcn.6:13\" (Comnentary "lf wrircs: thcy rcpent during this rime thcy will bc savedfrom St. Ephraim " thc wrarhthat is atnur to comeupon thcm.But i[rhcy do not repcnt,by theirdceds Gracegranredonc hundrcdand thcy will call down [thc wrath] upon thcmselvcs. wasnor worthy to a generarion tlrat,according to Jusricc, twenryyearsfor repenrance of repentancc"(Commantaryo.fCenari,Englishvcrsion,p. | 36).-F-o. "' The idcnrificationof rhc "sonsof God" as angelsor heavcnlybcingswas bookof Enoch.A conrnronrabbinicalinterpretarion bascdin parton tlrcapocryphal ,1.o..it canbc foundin rhcJcwislrwrirersFlavius of thc fitst andsccondcenturies Joscphus(T'hcAntiquitiesof theJeuu l:3) and Philo ofAlcxandria (Thc Gianti, as well Someof rhe carly as in somc gnosticwrirings(c.g.,thc ValentinianExposirion). (SeeVanderKamand AdChristianwrircrsmistakenly acccptcdrhisintetpretation. lcr, JcwishApocatypticHcritagc in Eatll Christianity, pp. 6l-88.1 of ro the "sonsofGod" asthe dcsccodanrs Thc firstcxrant(lhrisriarrrcfercncc by the earlyChristianwrirerJuliusAfricanus Sethis in thc Fiw Book of Chronologr (,r.o. 200-245) (Ante-NiccncFathers, vol.6, p. I 3 I ). Th is interprctation bccamcrhc tcachingof thc Church,beingserforth on rheological groundsby St.John consistcnt Chrysosrom(Commcnuryon Genetis22:6-71,St. tphraim rhc Syrian (Commcttary on Gcncsit6:3, Hlmt on the Natiuity l:48, Hynns on F'aith46:9, Hlmw agaiwt Hcruict 19'.1-8, and Hymnt on Paradic l:11), St. John Cassian (Confcrencct ("Topicsof 8:20-21),Blcsscd Augusrine(Ciryof God l5:23), St. GregoryPalamas Naruraland ThcologicalScicncc"62), Sr.Athanasius(FourDiscoursuagainsttbeArians4:22), Sr. Cyril ofAlcxandria,and others.Secpp. 499-500 below-Eo.

244

'Sr. Ephrainrcxplairrs how this cameto bcr "Thc houscofCain, bccauscrhe carthhad beencursedso asnot ro giverhem its strength,produccdsmallharvcsts, givc deprivcdof its strength,jusr as ir is today that someseeds,fruits and grasses at that timc, theywerccursedand sonsof rhe srrengrhand somcdo not. Because, cursedanclwcredwcllingin the landofcurses,theywould gathcrand cat producc that lackcdnurrition,and thosewho ate thesewerewithour srrengthjust likc rhc on the otherhand,bccausc thcywcrcrhc dcfood that theyatc.As for rhc Serhires, were in land along the boundaryof and dwelling the scendants of rhe blessed [Seth] thc lenccof Paradisc,rhcir producewasabundanrand full of strcngth,So coowcrc the bodies of those that atc thrr produce strong and powerful" (Commentaryon C'izarlr,F)nglishversion,p. 136).-Er,. z.t)

Cneprrn Erctlr

TheFlood (Genesis 6:6-8:22)

6:6-8 And the Lord Godhauingseenthat the wichedactionsof men weremubiplied upon the earth, and that eueryone in his heart wasmtently broodingouereuil continually, tben God laid it to heart lHebrcw: rcpentcdl that He bad madz man upon the earth, and He pondzredit deep$.And God said, I uill blot out man whom I hauc madt fom the face of the earth, euenmdn with cattlz,and reptibsuhh flying oeaturesof the sky,for I am grined that I hauemadethem. Here the narrativeemphasizes the universaliryofevil, affectingold and young alike (much asin our own days). God, of course,doesnot "repent"thar he mademan-this is an adaptationto our earthlyunderstanding. He simplyresolves to punish men and makea new beginningwith his righteousman,Noah,who is to becomelike a newAdam. Just as the whole of creationwas made for man and is to be renewedwith him at the end of this world, when there will be a new heavenand a new earrh,so roo rhe creationperishestogetherwith the unrighteous men of Noaht rime.

RightcousNoah. Fraco b7Monh Thcopbznesthc Crcmn, Suutonibiu Monestcry,Mornt Athos, ttxtaanthccntul)t.

6:9-l I But Noabfoand graccbeforethe Lord God.And theseare thc gencrationsof Noah. Noah tuasajust man; beingperfectin hisgcncration, Noah wasuell-phaing to God.And Noah begotthrcesons,Shen, Ham andJapheth. The Fathersemphasizehow greatwasthe virrue of Noah to be so perfectin the midstofa corruptgeneration, and thereforehow possi247

CnrrrtclNaNoEenrvMaN Gr,ntsIs, ble ir is lor us to be virtuousevenwhenIivingin suchcorruPttimesas our own, In notingthat Noah hadonly threechildren(whileAdamandorhpossiblyhad hundreds),the Fatherspoint to the ersof the Patriarchs bed. who abstained evenfrom the lawfulntarriage chastityof Noah, 6:12-14 Theearthuas corruPtbefoleGod,and tbeenrthuasflled with iniquity. And theLord Godtau theearth,and it uas corrupted;be' causeall flesh had corruptedix way upon tlte carth. And the Lord God the earth bas said to Noah, A period of all mcn is comebeforeMe: because tbem and the behold, I dexroy by them, and, beenflled with iniquiE enfth. how Cod speaksto Noah HereSr.John Chrysostomemphasizes faceto faceaboutthis plan for mankind.He asit weresaysro Noah: "Men haveperformedso much evil that their impietyhaspouredout and coveredthe wholeearth.ThereforeI will destroyborh them and themselves behavealreadydestroyed the earth.Sincetheythemselves forehandby their iniquities,I will bringcomplereperditionand exterand minatethem and the earth,so that the earthmight be cleansed I deliveredfrom the defilementof so manysins." Now God commandsNoah to makean Ark: 6:15-17 Mahe therefore for thyselfan Ark of squaretimber. Thou shab makethe Ark in compartments,and thou shaltpitcb it witltin and taithoutwitb pitch. And thusshaltthou mahetheArh; threelsundredcubits thelzngth ofthe Arh, andffty cubix the breadth,and tbirty cubix the heigbtofh. Thoushabnanou theArh in makingit, and in a cubitaboue thou shahfnish it, and the door of the Arh thou shalt makeon tbe side; utith lowensecond,and third storiesthou shab mnkeit. to be thedistancefrom theelbowto theend of A cubit is supposed the hand, roughlyeighteeninches.'fhereforethe Ark, accordingto 450 feetlong,75 f'eetwide,and 45 feethigh. rhis,wasapproximately This showsthat it wasa veryunusualtypeof strucrure,apparently boat-whose sole rectangular like a big boat-a three-dimensional, purposewasto keepNoah and his childrenand the animalsfloating throughthe courseofthe Flood. fhe ideais that thereis goingto be a 248

Tur Frooo and only thosewho are left in flood which will obliterateeuerything, the Ark will be delivered. Of course,one can imaginehow long it would take for Noah to All the peobuild the Ark, living in the midstof a corruptgeneration. pleweresettledin a fairlyclosearea,soprobablythewholeworld knew when Noah started about it. One can imagine,too, their response building a boat four hundred fifty feet long and saying, "Beware, rhere'sgoing to be a big flood." They probablytook their neighbors down, pointedout these"crazy''people,and laughedat them; and their childrenprobablycameand threw rocks.The righteouswere obeyingthe will ofGod, and peoplewerelaughing. So it musthavebeena verystrangecommandfor a righteousman to receive.lt showshe was in closeconmct with God. Like Abraham who waslaterprepared evento kill his own sonbecause he knewGod had spokenro him, so Noah who wasrighteous,speakingdirectlyto God, obeyedthecommandhe wasgiven.The verybuildingofsuchan immensestructure-which requireda good part of rhat hundredand rwenryyearsthesepeopleweregivenro repent-wasto serveasa visible warningto mankindof impendingdisaster. 6:18-19 And behoUI bringaflood of watel pon the edrth,to desrol all llesb in uhich is the breathof life under heauen,and whatsoeuer tbingsare upon the earth shdll die. And I uill establisltMy coaenanttuith tbec,and thou sball cnter into theArh, and thy sonsand thy wife, and tby sons'tuiueswith tbee. a God revealswhat He is to do with mankind,and establishes with \621-x 66n512ntly recurringthemethroughoutsacred covenant with His chosenones.Cod doesHis history:God makesan agreement will on earthnot by Hisy'ar,not by simplysayingthat is thewayit has ro be, but by finding a righteousman who will obey Him. God arrangesthat menwill do His work on earth. l'he sonsof Noah were included in the Ark, saysSt. John Chrysosrom,not becausethey wereasvirtuous asNoah (althoughthey did avoidrheevilsoftheir time)but for the sakeofNoah, jusrasSt. Paul's companionswere savedwith him when he was shipwrecked(Acts 27:22-24\. 249

CrNrsts, CnseltoN ,cNoEanlv MaN

6:2O-23 And of all cattle and of all reptilesand of all uild beasts, euenof all Jlcsh,thou shab bring bypairs of all, into the Arh, that thou malestfeed thcm uith thyvlf maleandfemaletheyshall be.Of all winged 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, male and fi:male to befed with thee.And thou shah raheto thyselfof all k;nd.soffood uhich ye eat, and thou sbabgather them to thyse$ and it shall befor theeand them to eat. And Noah did all thing uthateucrthe Lord Godcommandcd him, sodid he. food,with which HereNoah is to put food in the Ark: vegetable rheanimalsalsowereto be fed.[t wasto bestoredup in greatcompartmentsin theArk. Again,onecanimaginethe mockeryto which his contemporarics insaneproject-and yet him for sucha seemingly musthavesubjected Noah obeyedGod withourquestion:truly a righteousman lor whom 'fhis is an the thingsof God comefirst and the opinionsof man last. inspiringexamplefor us in our own corruptdays.

7:l-3 And theLotd Godsaidto Noah,Enterthou.and all tbyfamily into the Ark, for theehaueI seenrighteousbeforeMe in this generation. malc and fentale,and oJ'the And of the cleancattlc tahein to theeseuens, unclcancattb pairs maleand female.And of cleanflying creaturesof the pairs, male skyseuens, malcandfcmale,and of all uncleanflying creatures andfemale, to maintain scedon all the earth. asksthequestionhow Noah knewthe diffcrSt.JohnChrysostom enceberween"clean"and "unclean"animalsbeforethe law of Moses, from the wisdomof when this distinctionwasmade;and he answers: by God.' hisown natureimplanred And why werethereto be sevenpairsoltcleananimals,and rwo tellsthe obviousanswer: St.JohnChrysostom pairsofeveryrhingelse? so rhar Noah could offer sacrificewhen the Floodwasover,without destroying anyof the pairs.'I'hisis indeedwhathe did (Cen.8:20).He right afterthe Flood,God alsohad to haveanimalsto eat because, givesrhecommandto eatmeat. Perhaps one reasonForeatingmeatwasthat,afterthe Flood,when 250

Tnr Flooo the windows of heavenwere opened,apparentlya whole new atmospheric condition prevailed.Also, as the Farherssuggest,man had by rhis time becomelower, more fallen.

7:4-9 For yet seuendaysbauingpassed,I bring rain upon the carth forry daysandforry nighx, and I will blot out eueryofipring which I haue madzfom theface of all the earth.And Noah did all thing uhateuertlte Lord Godcommanded him. And Noahwassixhundredyearsold tuhenthe Flood of uater wasupon the earth. And then went in Noah and bis sons of the waand his wife, and his soni wiueswith him into theArk, because ter of the Fhod. And of cleanJlying teatures and of uncleanJlying creatures,and ofclean cattleand of unclun cattle,and ofall thingsthat creep upon thc earth,pairs uent in t0 Noah into the Arh, maleand female, as God commandedNoah. Modernrationalistcritics,of course,havegreatproblemswith the wholestoryofNoah and theArk. Could therehavereallybeena vessel largeenoughto hold two ofeachrypeofcreature(ofcourse,excluding that might be ableto surviveon their fish,insectsand orhercreatures own), and how could they havebeengatheredtogetherfrom all over the world? Concerningthe sizeof theArk (whichaswe havesaidwasroughly 450 feerlong,75 feetwide,and 45 feethigh),one modernesumate has found that such a vessel,divided into severalfloors as the text states,couldeasilyhold two of everykind of animalalivetoday,with room to spare.* Somerationalists objectthat the animalson orherconrinents,for exampleAmerica,could not havecome to the Ark. However,if the it Floodwasreallya worldwidecatasrrophe suchasCenesisdescribes in the verses that follow we haveno way of knowingwhat the earth lookedlike beforeit-the continentswe know wereformedby the that haveoperated sincethen.PerFlooditselfandgeological processes hapstherewasonly azr continentthen;we don'tknow. How did the animalscome?Of course,God sentthem.The text Noah capturingand forcingthemon boardthe Ark; doesnot describe ' SeeNoahi Arh: A I'easibitiryStudyby JohnWoodmorappe(1996)-Eo.

251

I t t t . I t oot r . i1 c ,

1, 1-

3 .' t

.!ri, i'tq lil,i.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 . . . : ()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 tl rc.,l rth.rpc. und p. . r r , r cks,ot h. r . r r r ir r r , r l. . r r scr r r blc lionr r lr c r vcsr . .rrtrlsti l l othcrsl r.r. t cr r cd r , r conr cf ionr t hc nolt lr . 'l lr c lions lt li r hcir tl ri rkcts.l i crcc 1,.'e. t . . : lr r r,cr ut ol r hcir r lt ns, r hc r iecr . r r r rrlvil. l , r t s. t crttncotrt ol tl rci r llil. {cr r r csscs, r hc. r nir r r ir ls, rtlhc nr ot r nt . r ir r r . r sst r r r l tl ctl ti ,,nr tht nr,rr r nt . r ins. lh. . ont cr r r lr , , r ; r r ics oi No. r lril
,;

{(thcr \vi tl ) thcrrr .hor v *, , lr c. . r nil . lr c, 1, . nr cr '. . 1l( ) g( r llcf ,I . r l( ( ) ll\ .in' l \l ,.,rr' ,\\' . , .,{1, . 'r , 1,'r , . . ' ', 1

t

Irr othcr rror,l s, i r r r ust havc bt cn qr r it c. r sl) ccl. r cr r l: r(r\ '( nt . l) ( . ( ) l) l( l ,r,rki rtg rtt i t * orr]rl n r : r r r cl: \ \ 'h. lts q( ) ing r ) n? I hc t lr ( ) uqlr r r licl nor oc

I r.

,d,

-(

h;i::_ \ \'', '''

9--

-

\,,.rh c. r llingr hr . r r r ir r , r l' r r r r . t hc ; \ r k . I ),rt rl ,'l a llt"t,tn i, ou ol rl,r 'ti i)ttt t u!/t | | tttut-l'

(ur t(J thcl ]l tl r.tt soDt ct lt ir t g\ uP( nlillr r r lt l \ \ . ls o( cr ! ing. t r hich nr ighr rl l { )\' ct l l ( rrl r() r ci )( l r l il n( ( . It:tti onrtl i stsel tolr t r s.ol ( ( ) u[ sr . \ \ '( ) ul( l r cjcct llr is il( count . l\ lir ll ol nri fJ(l (s; bLtt shr' .hort lt lni t lr . r 'c lr t nr ilu. lcs I r cr r ',r r st lr cr c r r r c ir r all of (i orl s rl c.rl i ngs* i tl r r iglr t cor r s nr ( n? Noillr is likt . r sccor r r l r \ r llnr . ir r \\' l )r)s(l )r(scn(( tl r,. rv ilcl bl. r st s I r cc, , r ncr ncck . r nr l obcr licnr . l i )r tl l ( \i Irrl c rr:i t sor 1. t llc aninr . r lsr lir l nol il( t r r ckt r r ch ot lr cl. lr r sr : r s r\rl .ttu u.ts.t ri gl rtcor t r r r t lr r rlr n, . l t hcr clir t t ht aninr . r ls wer ( . lir l) clLc rvi tl r ,,r. i l n()rl r(r.uo Llr ( l llilr . \ ( ) t ( ) ( )uit lr Nolr h. I n ( ) lt lt or kr r t . t hclc i r tl rc ,.,l t..1rt ol .\ !t ( / ) t ) ( / ohit ) , : . t\ r t ir lr \ \ h( ) lt us lr t conr c likt ' r r nt o t ht i i r' 51cr(.rtc(l ,\Ll anr.In t hc Pt csr . t t r rol . sur lt lr r iglr t cor r sl) cr s{}lt , . r r ) inlir ls rrl ti ..l t.tr. ttrttLtr:tlcttc'r r t icrI r ccor r r t ir r llr r nt , lr r r '. \ \ 't st t t lr is il t r r ur r c. r ous l .i rcs oi S :ri nts,ri qlr t t r lr t o \ '( r v r ( ( ( lr t r incs. Sr . Ser . r plr inrol Ser ov .rr.l S t. l ' etrl o1 ()btto t . t ir I {t r ssil. r r r r r lSt . I icr r r ln in r \ nr cr i. u, ur t lr l cu cr.rnr1,l cs." l ht

llolv l'. r t lr t 'r 'ss. r v t h. r t is cr . r ct ll ulr ar I r lppcnet l

' 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 qoir q L.rl l i ns1' c,,plto \l ,rti ns. likc \ o. r h oLr r . r nt . l . r llinq , r llt lr c. r nir r r . rrl'o r lr r ,' \ r k. 1 " \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

4tftilfr rhTf ltdeKfftl lfiT^CKevfifi cKBorof

Noah rcceivingthc commandofGod and callingthc animalsinto the Ark. Contmtporary Grch icoa by GcorgcNiholacopoulos,

with Noah. The lion would not eat the lamb becauseNoah was a righteousman. With a righteousman, rhe lawsof naturechange. A big ob,jectionof rationa.listsis rhe uniaersaliryof the Flood: Many peoplesay,"There are accountsof Babylonianfloods in about 3000 s.c. It musthavebeena localflood in the Babylonianarea.There coudn'thavebeena flood over the whole earth!"* But why not? God made the whole earth; God can destroythe whole earth. tVhy shouldnt therebe a flood overthe whole earth?From the way it is describedin the Scripture,it is quite clearthat this is what is meant.The when "a.llthe fountainsof the abyss Flood describedin the next verses, were broken up and rhe floodgatesof heavenwere opened" (we disof wateraboveit cussedthis breakingofthe firmamentand the release

H E ILOOD

At ofenormousproportions. in chapterthree),is a cosmiccatastrophe rhe sametime, undoubtedly,therewasvolcanicactiviry underground water was coming out, and all kinds of spectacularthings were happening,which would accountfor the fact that rhereare high mounover Mt. Everestat thirry rains now. The Flood was not necessarily chousandfeet; Mt. Everestcould have arisenafter that. Before the Flood, it could havebeenthat the mountainswerefairly low, perhaps somefew thousandfeethigh insteadof chirrythousandfeethigh. The Scripruredescribesthe watersof the Flood as being rwentytwo and a half feet abovethe highestmountain. lf ir wasonly a local flood, how could you haveflood watersthat high in the areaof Babylonia, without having water coveringthe whole earth?And if it was only a local flood, why didnt Cod simply tell Noah to leavethe area aheadof time?\(/hy did He havehim build this Ark? Noah could have goneawayfrom the Flood area,asLot fled Sodom. He will never at the endof the Flood,God promises Furthermore, (Gen.9:11).Of course,after againallowsucha universalcatastrophe that there havebeen many severelocal floods, but nevera universal flood.* In RomanCatholicboofts,somemodernscholarssay,"There must havebeenother peopleleft in other partsofthe world. Noah wasjusr a symbol of this stageof mankind." But if the Flood wasnot universal, or at leastif therewerehuman survivorsof it apart from Noah and his family,thereis no point or meaningto this Biblicalaccountof it. The * As hasbeenwell known sincc rhe compilationsmadc by secularhistoriansR.

' This is rhc claim borh of"Christian cvolutionists"and ofmost "old-carth/progrcssivccrcationisrs."-Eo.

Andrcc, H. Uscncrand.l. G. Frazer,accountsofa grcatDclugcare ro bc found in ancicntculturesall ovcrthc world,on all thc contincnts.In thc majoriryofthescFlood srorics,rhe Dclugc rcsulrsfrom the sinsof a fallcn humaniry,thc old world is submergcdundcr rhc waters,only a fcw pcopleand animalsarc saved,and a ncw world comcsinto being (c[ Micca Eliade,A Historyof Rcligiousldtas, vol. I, pp. 63-64.) Among the most interestingFlood storiesarethoscofthc AustralianAboriginal pcoplcs, which arc rcplctc with striking parallclsto thc Gcncsisaccount (seeHoward Aboriginal Flood Storics,"and "AboriginalFlood Lcgcnd," CraaCoares,'Ausrralian tion Er Nihilo, vol. 4, nos. I and l). As John Mackaywritesin CrcationEx Nihito, thc almostuniversaldisseminarionofparallcl Floodstorics"providesfascinatingcircumsunrial cvidcnccrhar the common anccstorofAborigincs, Jcws,and indccd all rhc modcrn raccsof man wasNoah."-Ep.

254

) q<

GeNrsrs,Cne,rnoNrNo Ernr,vM,rN wholepoint hereis the totdly new beginningof mankindchatoccurs with it.* In recentyearscreationscientisrshavemadefruitful geologicalinvestigationsthat do indeedpoint to a universalFlood somefive thousandor so yearsago (seeJohn C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, Flood). TheGenesi: 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 finding their quarters,gettingthe peoplein chargeoffeedrhemselves, 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 wassupposedto 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' In the six hundredthyear ofthe life of Noah, in the second 7:ll-17 day of the month,** on this da1all thefounmontlt, on the ntenry-seuenth tainsofthe ablsswerebrohenup, and thefoodgatesofbeauenwereopened. And thc rain wru upon the earthfortl dals and forty nighx. On that uery day enteredNoab, Shem,Ham, Japhcth,the sonsof Noah, and the utife of Noah, and the threewiucsof his sonswith him into the Arh. And all thc wiU beastsafer thcir hind, and all catth arter their hind, and caeryreptih mouingitselfon the edrthafter hs hind, and eueryJling bird afer itshind, wentin to Noah into theArk, pairs, mah andfemab of allflzsh in which is the breath of life. And they that cntred went in mah and femalt of all 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; Luke 17 27:2 Pacer2:5), thc uniquc rerm kauhhtsmot("caraclysm")is used,rarhcr rhan rhc usualCreekword for "flood."-Ep. "" Accordingto rhc Orthodox Christian Calcndar,which bcginson Scptcmbcr l. we calculatethis asrhe rwenw-scvcnthofOctobcr.

256

Noah (detail). Fnscoby Thcopbaacsthc Grcel in thc Church ofthc Transfguraion, Novgorod,Rutia, I 378,

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 underneath,reducingthe c'arthto thc samcstateir was on the First L)ay of Creation--chaos. 7:17-24 And the tuateraboundedgrcat/1and borc up thc Arh, and it uas lifed on high fom of tfu earth. And th( uater prauailed and abowtdedexcudingQ upon the earth, and tlrc Arb uas horne upon the w* ter. And tha u,aterpreuailedexrcedinglyup0n the eartlr' and coueredall the high mountains uhich uerc uttdel heau t. triJicennbix upwards uns the witer raisd,' and ir cotaredallth high mountains And thert died allfash that mouedupon tlt( carth, oJ'flJingcredturcsand cattle,ttnd ofwild lteasts, and eueryreltile moi g uPon tht e/trth, ltnd Q(1 man. An/ ,tl! things *hicb hauethe brtath ol life, and ultat(u u/ls on tfu dry land, dicd And (iod blotted out erery ffipring uhich tu/ts ttpl theJitce oJ'tltc eartb, both nan and beast,and repriles,and hirds oJ'thesk1''and tl,ry uert bloued out tntl thosetuitlt hin in the Arb lrom he adrth, dnd Noah u,asltft alonr, And thc uater u,asraisedouu thc carth 4n hundred and.f liy days. Noah was six hundreclyearsold at thc tirnc ofthc l;lrx>d;thcrefirrc Cod gave mankind only one hundrcd ycarsand sevendays, not one 'l'his is bchundred and twcnty ycars to rePcnt as He had decrcccl. causc,es St. John Chrysoston says,nren had bccomc Ltnworthv of morc time, being unnrovcdcven whcn secinlithe Ark and its anirlals miraculouslyassembledin it.a It wasclearcnough bv thcn that pcoplc were not repentlng. 'l hc Flood covcrctleventhe highcst mountirinsrvith flficcn ctrbits (twcnty-rwo and a halffcet) ofwater' St. John (ihrysostomsaysof rhis: Fificcncubitsupwlrds was thc watcr raiscdabovcthc mounteitrs' docsthc Scripturcrcvcalthis t
25u

lhc lrlood. Russian.fietcooJ thc tixt/?Ddi ft ntry.

CleNtsts,Creartoru aNo EatrrYMrN

Tnr Frooo

ens and all the beastsand other irrational creaturcswhich dwelt in

water stalcd.And thefountains of the deepwereclosedup, and thefloodgatesof heauen,and the rain fom hcauenwas witbheA. And the water subsidedand uent off the earth, and afier an hundredand ffty dzysthe water wasdiminished. "And God remembered Noah"doesnot meanthat He hadforgorren him in rhemeantime.It meansrharGod keothim in mind to savehim. Suchexpressions areanthropomorphic. so ihar we can understand. The Flood wasa hundredand fifly daysgoing up-almost half a year!All that time, Noah wasin the Ark wirhout any ventilarionor sunshine.The wholesky wascoveredwith darkness. Then the warer went down for a hundredand fifiy days.Alrogether,the earthwascoveredwith waterfor a year.At that time the landwasrisingup, tremendous undergroundreservoirs were being filled, and the whole geographythat we now know wasbeingformed.

the mountains.5

Again he says: onceandrwiceandmanytimesinforms BeholdhowtheScripture rhatnora singlecreadestrucrion. occurred a universal usthatthere turewassaved,but all drownedin the water-both menand animals.6 Ifpeopleweresowickedthen,did theyall perishspirituallyin the eternallyfor theirsinsor not? all of them condemned Flood?\i?'ere aboutthosewho werelivwe told sPecifically In the Scriptures are ing at the timeofNoah. In I Peter3:l8-20, theApostlePeterdescribes to Hades,andwhom He sawthere:"For Christ ho Christdescended alsohathoncesufferedfor sins,the iust for the uniust,that He might bring us to Cod, beingpur to deathin the flesh,but quickenedby the unto the spiritsin prison Spirit:by whichalsoHe went and preached whenoncethe were disobedient, which sometime [that is, in Hades], of God waitedin the daysof Noah,while the Ark wasa Iongsuffering preparing,whereinfew,that is, eightsoulsweresavedby water."This "salvation by water,"saysSt.Peter,isan imageof baptism.The Ark isan imageofthe Church,ofbeingsavedfrom thewickedworld. This quoteofSt. Petersaysdistinctlythat Christwent to preachto thosewho perishedin the rimeofNoah. Therefore,theyhada chance to repent,althoughphysicallythey all died. After death' they had the excusethat Noah wasnot Christ or God Himself,and now they had wasup to eachindividual the chanceto acceptChrist.'fhat,however, Flood acceptedChrist's in the who died some Undoubtedly, soul. preachingin Hades,and somedid not' Once onet heartgrowshard, onedoesnot acceptChristeventhoughone knowsthat oneshouldrepent,that this is onet lastchance.Pridegetsin the way. Noah,and all the wiU bcasts'and all 8:l-3 And God remembered the reptilesthat ffeeP,4r man! as uere and all all the birds, the canle,and tuith him in theArh. And God broughta wind upon the earth,and the

8:3 And theArh restedin tbeseaenthmonth,on the fiaenty4euenth dq of the month, on tl)e mlunta;ns of Ararat. It camefinallyro resron rhe mountainsof Ararat,that is, the region ofArarat. Thereareseveralpeaks,bur therearerwo main peals of Ararat. lt camero resrin rhe seventhmonth, rhe rwenry-seventh day, exactlyfivemonthsafterit had begunto rain. 8:4-5 And thc udtt clntinued to furease until the te th month. And in the tentb month, on thefrst day of the month, thc headsof the mountainsue/esecn. That is, rhe Ark had alreadycome ro resrupon the high peak. Then the other peaksbeganto be seen. 8:6-7 And it cameto passafer forty days,Noah openedthe windtta of the Arh uhirh he had made.And be sentforth a rauen:and it utent forth and returnednot until the water wasdriedfom offthe earth. This doesnor meanthat it returned;it meansthat it neverdid comeback. 8:8-14 And he sent a doueafer it to seeif the aater bad ceased fom of the carth. And the doae,not hauingJiund restfor berfeet, rc261

'l'rrr,ljr.oon

$

t, .It :

Nolh enrcrqinslronr rhc Ark. enrl thc cl
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,,tnr 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 (:rccortlirrq tlid rrot rcrrrrrrbccaLrsc to St. Johrr(ihrvsosrrnr)ir lorrntl llrt corpscsol rrrinralsanclpcoplcto cat. It l'us srili not sali'to go ctlt: rhc highcslclcvutionsu,crcspoiledn,irlrthcsccorpscson thcnr. '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 ,,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(. ( .otttt out fittttt 8:1 5-1 9 tlt tlr Lorl (,ior/spo/ttto t\rtrr/t,itt.1,inq, 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. Ilcrc rvc sccin Noalr thc inragcol Arlanr.lIc is thc only ol)c lcli, togethcrwirh Iris lenrily; hc is to bcsirr rr)lnl(;ndovcl xgilin. llc is I6.t

GeNesrs,CnrrrroN rNn EtnrY MeN

Tne Fr-oon delivered.He offersthe cleananimals-both birds and beasts,suchas dovesand sheep. Also, we seehow God's mercy is shown. God seesthat men will continueto be evil, and that is why He allowsmeat to be eaten,in accordancewith the lower condition of post-Floodhumaniry.He promises,however,neveragainto cursethe earth (asHe did to Adam) or destroymankind. The normal life of the fallen earth will continue to the end. In the Flood, everythingwas killed; but at the end of the world, therewill be a renewalofthe earth.In fact, peopleliving then will not evendie. What we call the "end of the world," therefore,will not be the same as destroyingit. It will be a transfigurationof the whole world.

Noah and his family, havingcomc out ofthc Ark, offcr a wholc burnt-offcringupon thc akar. Rustiu frcscoof thc ixtccnth ccnmrT,

given the samecommandthat Adam wasgiven: "lncreaseand multiply." He becomesthe hther of all living after the Flood. Notice how Noah-even though he knew it was probablysafeto go out sincethe dove did not come back-waited until God spoke. The whole time he waspatientlywaiting on Cod. 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 and thc Lord God alun And thc Lord God smclhd a smcll of suectncss, of the th. carth, because hauing consi&red,said"I will not an1 morcd4rsc 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

CHaprnn NINE

TheDispersionof thePeoples (Cenesis 9:l-ll:26)

L Noah and Godi Ncw Couenant Noahand hissons,and saidto them,Inteaseand 9:l-2 Godblessed mubiplT,andfll theearthand hauedominionouerit. And thedreadand thefear ofyu shall be uponall tbe wild beas*ofthe earth,on all the hirds of tbesky,and on all tltings mouingupon tbe earth,and uponall thefshes of thesea,I haueplacedthernundcryourpower. Noah is now givenauthorityovercreationsuchas wasgivcn to Adamat the verybeginnirrg. 9:3 And eueryreptilelHebrew: mouingthingl which is liuing shall betojot for meaL This is rhe first time Cod givesthe commandallowingpeopleto eat mear.

9:3-7 I haregiuenall thingstolou 4sthegleenherbs.But fesh with bloodof life ye shallnot eat. Foryour bhod ofyour lircs will I requireat and I willrequire the life ofman at the hand of thehand ofall wi//. beasts, his brotherman. He that shcdsman'sblood,insteadofthat bloodshall his own beshed,for in thc imageof GodI mademan. But do ye increaseand nubipl;y,andfll theearth,and hauedominionouerit. God hasgiventhe samecommandmentto Noah that He gaveto andmultiply.He hasgiven foodasHe gaveto Adam, Adam:to increase ro exceptthat now He hasalsoallowedmeatto be eaten(corresponding the new conditionsof man afterthe Flood).And iust like Adam was zoo

given one fastingcommandment to keep-nor to eat of the treeof the knowledge of good and evil-so Noah is given one command: not to eat blood. The blood belongsto God, the meat to man. That is why according to Jewishfood rules,you have to slaughterthe animal with a sharpweapon,and not strangleit so that the blood remainsinside.It is symbolical:the blood that comesout is offered to God. The commandment regardingblood, saysSt. John Chrysostom, was given to Noah to act againstman'sinclination to murder, to make him meek,evenwhile allowinghim to eatmeat (which requireskilling). Blood is, at it were, a symbol of life-and that belongsto God. This parricularteachingwas still in forcein the Acts of the Apostles.In the teachingsof the Apostlesdescribedin Acts, rhe one dietary command given to Gentile convertsto Christianity was that they not eat srrangledanimals, from which the blood was not let out (cf. Acts

15:21,29;2125). 9:8-17 And Godspoheto Noah and to his sonswith him, saying, withyou,and withyour seedaferyou, And beholt/I establish my couenant and aith eueryliuing creaturewith you, of birds and of beasrs,and with all the u,ild beastsof the earth, ds ndn)/ asare with 1ou, of all that come out of theArh. And I uill establishm! cou€nantuith you, and all flesh shall not any moredie b7 the uater ofthe Jlood,and thereshall no morebe a Jlood of water to destrolall thc earth. And the Lord God said to Noah, This is the sign of the couenantuhich I setbetweenMe and you, and betueen euerylliuing creaturewhich is with you for parpemalgenerations.I setmy bow [rainbow] in the cload,and it shall befor a sigt ofcouenant benaeenMc and the earth.And it sball be when I g,tther cloudsupon the earth, that My bow shall be seenin the cload.And I will rcmemberMy whichis bctueenMc andyu, and betweencueryliuingsoalin couenant, allflesh, and thereshall no longerbetuaterfor a deluge,so,tsto blot out all the flesh.And My bowsballbe in the cloud,and I will look to remember euerLutingcouenantbetueenMe and the earth, and betweeneueryliuing soul in all /lesb, which is upon the earth. And God said to Noah, This is the sign oJ'the couenant,uhich I haue made betweenMe and all Jlesh, whichis upontheearth. HereGod makesa covenantwith mankindthroughNoah,just as 267

Trls Drspr-nsloNoF THE PF-oPLEs

yearsla(erHe makesa covenantwirh Abraham,and still larerwirh Moses. The rainbowis an appropriate reminderthat the rain is not perpetual,sinceit occursonly when the sun breaksthroughthe clouds.It is verylikelythat rainbowswerenor seenbeforethe Flood,sincethe sun did not shinedirectlythen:therewasa cloud layeracrossthe firmament,causinga greenhouse effectoverrheearth.The rainbow,therefore,becameanotherpart of the newconditionsof the world afterthe Flood,when therewasno morecloudcovering.

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 in theArk but St.JohnChrysostom,'Ham did not restrainhis passion a child when he shouldhavebeenrelraininglike his father conceived and brothers.In the Ark, rhepeoplewerein a stateof prayerand fasting. Men abstained from theirwives,exceptfor Ham. This sin againsr the law of prayerand fastingalreadyreveals Ham'scharacter. and he planteda 9:20-21 And Noab beganto be a ltusbandman, uinryard.And hedrankofthe winc,and uasdrunh,and wasnakedin his

Noahwirh rhedovcand the signof rhe rainbowin rhesky. Contcnpordryicox by 'll Ct'zrh.

house. \flhy did Noah, a righteous man, get drunk? Perhaps,as St. Ephraim suggests, it wasbecausehe had not drunk wine for many years; he had beena yearin the Ark, and it takesseveralyearsto plant the vines and get grapeswith which to make wine. Or else,as St. John Chrywine was actually not even drunk before the Flood. sosrom suggestsr Noah was the first to cultivatevineyards.Therefore,he would not have known rhe power ofwine; he drank it to seewhat it waslike, and it overwhelmed him. If this was the case,wine-drinking goestogetherwith meat-eatingasone of the new conditions of the post-Floodworld. 9:22-25 And Ham thefather of Canaan saw the nahednasof hisfa-

269

GrNests,Cnr,rrIox,rno EanI-vM,rN tbenand hc werrtout and tuA his tuo brotherswitbout.And Shemand Japhcth,hauingtahena garment,put it on both their bachsand taentbach' aards, and coueredthe nahednesoftheir father; and theirface udt bdch' of their father And Noah recoaered uard and theysau not the nahedness from the wine, and hnetaall that hisyoungersonhad doneto him. And hc said, Carsedbe theseluantCandon,a shueshall he be to his bretbren. Verse21 againcallsHam "the father of Canaan"to remind us of his uncontrollednature. tVhat wasthis sin of Ham?The sin was not so much that he saw then they werenot nearlyasfastidiousabout his fathernaked,because that kind of thing aswe arenort Rather,his sin lay in the fact that he saw him in a shameful condition-drunk, all sprawled out-and thereforehe mochcdhis father;he staredat the spectacleand went out and spreadtalesabout his father'ssin. In English,a "ham" is an actor who makesa big show of himself. In Russian,the word "ham" meanssomethingmuch worse.It refersto someoneabsolutelyshameful,without any manners,politenessor decency(likethe Sovietsin moderntimes). His brothThe sin of Ham wasthe sin of being totally shameless. father, and covered up their in with respect, ers,on the contrary,came thus coveredup the whole thing beforeit could be spreadabout.Thus Ham, the secondson, now becametheloungcst. But why was Canaancursedinsteadof Ham his father?St. John Chrysostomsaysit was becauseHam once receivedGod's blessing,* and now the cursemust be on his offspring,which hurts him, too.*t Moreover,Canaanprobablyalsosinned.St. Ephraim suggeststhat it wasactuallyCanaan,asa small boy,who went in and wasthe first to seeNoah. He went out and told his father,so he himself was partly

guilry. Now we will seethe differencebeween the threesonsof Noah. ' Cf. Gencsis9:l: "God blcsscdNoah and his sons."-Ep. '. St.John Chrysostomcxplains:"You know wcll, ofcoursc, how in many cascs farhershavcbcggcdto cndurepunishmcnrin placcoftheir childrcn, and how sccing rhcir childrenbcaringpunishmcntprovcsa morc gricvousform ofchastiscmcntthan being subjccr to it themsclvcs"(Homilics on Genetfu29:.21, English version, p. 2 13) .-ED .

Shcm. Russianicon of tbc skteentb cennry.

Gst ttsts, CnsaltoN,rNo EanlY MaN

9:26-27 And he (Noah) said, Blessedbe the Lord God of Shem' and Canaan shall be his bond seruant.May God mahe roomfor Japh*h, and let him duell in the habitations ofShem, and ht Canaan be his scruant. Here Noah is making a prophecy,as all the Patriarchsdid when they blessedtheir sons. He prophesiesabout these three sons from whom the whole population of the earth will come. Shem is the blessedone, the ancestoro[ the Semitic tribes, especially the chosenpeople, the Jews.Japheth is the ancestorof all the Gentiles,who later acceptthe word of salvationwhich Christ revealed first ofall to the Jews;they come to dwell in salvation('the habitations ofShem") after the coming of Christ and the teachingofthe Apostles.' Canaan and all the offspring of Ham are to be the bond servants-but they are also given salvatiorr.*The Holy Fathersmake a specialpoint thar, no matter who your ancestorsare, you can srill be saved.For example,in Genesischapter elevenone of Ham's descendants founded Nineveh, which pleasedGod by its repentancein the times of the ProphetJonah.St. John Chrysostomsaysof this: "Notice how the impiery of one'sancestorsdoes not entirely Put our nature into disorder."r It does not make any difference if one's ancesroris cursed.Any individual or peoplecan rePentand seekCodi grace,especially after the coming of Christ. But even before Christ, the Ninevites,eventhough they wereoffspringofCanaan who wascursed, still came to repentance. In the Gospel we read of the Canaanite woman who obtained grace;her daughter was healedthrough her faith. Christ said to her, "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. This shows that salvation is given to everyone. 9:28-29

And Noah liued afer tbe Flood threc hundred and ffty

o[ Canaan ' Sr. Ephraim saysthat Noah'sprophccyrcgardingthc descendants wasfulfillcdin the cimeofJoshuabar-Nun:"And God dwclt in rhetcnt ofAbraham, ofShem,and Canaanbccamctheirslavewhen in rhe daysofJoshua thc descendant ofCanaan and presscdthcir rhe dwclling-places desrroyed bar-Nun,rhc Israclites Englishvcrsion'p leadcrsinto bondagc(cf. Joshua17:13)" (Commennryon Genesit, 146) .-Eo .

Tnr DrspsnsroN or rss PEopLr,s years.And all the daysof Noah uere nine hundredandffty years,and he died. Noah, the secondprogenitorof the human race,lived slightly longerthan Adam. 2. The Generationsof Noah of the sonsof Noah: Shcm, lO:14 Now thescare the generations Ham, Japheth;and sonsvere born to them /tfer the Flood. The sonsof Japheth:Gorner,and Magog,and Madoi, and Jouan, and Elishah, and Thobcl,and Mosoch,and Thiras.And thesonsof Gomer:Aschanaz, and Riphath, and Thorgama.And the sonsofJouan: Elishah, and Thrsbish, Cetians,Rhodians.' The renthchaptergoesinto the generations of the sonsof Noah: Ham, and Sevenry-rwo offspring of the threesonsof Shem, Japheth. Noah are named,from whom comethe differentkinds of people.** "Eachof thesenations,"saysSt. Ephraim,"dwelt in its own distinct place,with its own people,and spokeits own tongue."{Someofthese kindsof peoplewe can now identi$ fairlywell;othersaremoredifficulrto identily.*** l0:5 From thesewerethe islan& of the Gentilesdiuidcd in their land, carh accordingto his tongue,in thcir tribesand in their nations. This is a reference to whatwill occurafterthe fall of the Towerof of all the seventy-rwo basictypesofpeople,therewill be a Babel.Out dispersion of humanitythroughoutall the earth. wirh varisomeof rhe namesin rhisSepruagint translation ' Ve havereplaced Version,in thosecases whererhc larrcrarcmorefafrom rheKingJamcs anrspellings miliarro Englishrcaders.-Eo. the world'sleadingauthoriryon thc ar'- Dr. Villiam F. Albrighr,considered chcologyof thc Near Easr,hassaidconcerningthe 'lable of Nationsin thc tenth wirhouta rcmotc chaptcrofGcncsis:"k srandsabsolurely alonein ancienrlircrature, parallcl,evenamongthe Greeks, wherewe find theclosest approachro a disrribution of peoplcsin gencalogical framcwork....-fhe TableofNarionsremainsan astonishdocumenr"("RecentDiscoveries in Bibletands,"articleappcodedro inglyaccurare to the Biblc,p,25),-ED. Robcrt Youngi ,4zalyticalConcordancc Rccord,ch. 10.-Eo. "' For an ovcrvicw,sccHcnry M. Morris, Thc Gcncsfu

273

Grnrsrs.CnrarloNaNo EeRr-y M,c.N "lslandsof the Gentiles"refersnot necessarily to literalislands, but to the factthat the Gentilesformedseparate peopleswho werelike islandsof humaniry. lO:6-20 And the sonsof Ham: Cush,and Mizraim, Pbud, and Canaan.And the sonsof Cush:Saba,and Euila, and Sabatha,and Rhegma, and Sabathaca.And tbesonsof Rhegma:Saba,and Dadan. And Cushbegot Nimrod: hc beganto bea giant apzn the earth. He wasa great hunter beforethe Lod God; thereforethE say,As Nimrod thegiant bunter before the Lord. And the beginningofhis hingdomwasBabylon,and Orcch,and Archad, and Chaltnne, in the hnd of Shinar. Out of that hnd came Ashur and buih Nineueh,and theciryRehoboth, and Chakch.And Dase Nineueh thi benteen and Chalach: is thegreat city. And Mizraim begot the Ludiim, and the Nephthalim, and the Enemetiim,and the Labiim, and the Patrosoniim,and the Chasmoniim(whencecameforth Ph/istiim) and the Gaphthoriim.And CanaanbegotSidonhisfrst-born, and theHettite, and theJebusite,and theAmorite, and tbe Girgashite,and the Euite, and the Aruhite, and the Sinite, and the Aradian, and the Samarean,and theAmathite; and afer this the tribesof the Canaaniteswere dxpersed.And the boundariesof the CanaanitestuereJiom Sidon till one comesto Cerara and Gaza, till one czmesto Sodom and Gomorrah, Adama and Seboim,asfar as Dasa. Theseweretlte sonsof Ham in tbcir tribesaccordingto their tongues,in their counties, and in their nattons. Herearenamedrheoffspringof Ham. Many of thesearetribesthe Hebrewslaterfought;but they includethe Ninevires, who aswe have saidrepentedwhenthe ProphetJonahpreached to them. 10:21 And to Shemhimselfalsowerechild.rcnborn, thefathcr of all thesonsof Hebentbe brotherofJapheththe ellcr Shemis rhe ancestorof Heber.Heberis wherewe ser rhe name Hebrew. 10:22-32 Sonsof Shem,Elzm,and Ashunand Arphaxal, and Lud, and Aram, and Cainan.And sonsof Aram, Uz, and Ul, and Gater,and Mosoch.And ArphaxadbegotCainan,and CainanbegotSala.And Sak bcgotHeber.And to Hebertaerebom nuo sons,the nameofone, Peleg,bc-

l'ur DrslensroN on rue Ptopr_ts

causein ltis daysthe eartb wasdiuidcd,and tbe namcof his brotherJektan. And Jektan begotElmodad, and Saleth,and Sarmoth, and Jarach, and Odorrah,and Aibel, and Dech, and Eual,and Abimael,and Saba,and Uphir, and Euik, and Jobab,all thesewerethe sonsofJehtan.And their daelling wasfom Masse,till onecomesto Saphera,a mountain of theeast. ThesewerethesonsofShemin their nibes,'arcording ro their tingues,in their countries,and in their nations-Thesearethetibes ofthe sonsofNoah, accordingto their generations,accordingto their nations:of them werethe islandsof the Gentilesscatteredour the earth afer the Flood. The islandsofpeopleshallnow beginto leadrheirown individual lives. Of the seventy-rwodifferent peoplesnamed, fourteenare of areof Shem. Japherh,thirty-oneareof Ham, and rwenry-seven 3. 'fhe Tbwerof Babel

ll:l-2 And all theeartl)aar onelip, and therewasonelznguagerc all. And it cameto passasthel mouedfom the ea*, thqtfound a plain in the hnd ofShinar, and theydwelt therc. Evidentlythiswasbefore all the descendants menrionedin chapter ten,when mankindwasnor yersodispersed. The sonsbeganto beger theiroffspring,but apparently mankindwasstill fairlyconcenrrared in that area.1-heysrill hadone language and wereonein mind.Shinaris the plainof Babylon,of theTigrisand Euphrates. ll:34 And a man said to his neighboxCone, let us makebriths and bakethem uith fre. And thc brick wasto themfor ttonc,and tbeir mortar taasbinmen. And thry said, Come,let us build for ourselues a ,.ity and touen whosetop shall be to heauen,and let us maheto ourselues a name,beforewe arc scattercdabroddupon thefdce of all the eartb. They alreadyknewthe prophecythat manwould be scattereo over all the faceof rheearth.They madeone morearremptro makea grear namefor themselves: a greattremendous project,which would prove rhatwe aresupremebeings.This is repeated rhroughouthistory-the empire of Alexanderthe Great, the Communist regime,Hirler's Thousand-Year Reich,etc.The sin behindthisis oride. 275

GeNesrs,Cnrarlon ,lNo Eanrv MaN

'IHn DrsrrasloNorrss Proplr.s

1'he sites A rypicalz-iggurat. havcbccn of 32 suchziggurats found in the Mcsoporarnien atea, I Ilusna t i on fi om Tr ue Sciencc Agrecswirh rhc lliblc by Mabobn Rouden,p. 31.

Such towers are known in Babylonian-Assyrianhistor%and some still survivc.They are calledziggurats:templeswith a shrineon top. St. John Chrysostomsaysthat theseare a symbol that man did not want ro sraywithin the limits that God had given him. He wanred to make In our modern times, an image of rhis himself a god: self'-deification. The idea is to build somethinghigher can be found in our skyscrapers. than anyone has ever built befbre.You can go to the top, and the climate is totally different from down below. It can be raining down lrelow, and you can be on top abovethe clouds,in the sunshine. In chapter elevenwe seethat, within five hundred yearsafter the Flood, mankind had again become corrupt and proud. It says men wereofone tongue, one voice.They all agreedon one thing: that they would become great. It is like mankind today.'fhere are a few exceptions-peoPle who do not agreewith what is going on-but for the most part, men rre cither agreeingwith what is going on or clse they are being dragged along with this great project to build Paradiseon earth: the Communist society,or a comfortablereign of earrhlyvalues;but God is forgotten. Mankind is doing it again. And if man does thar, what is God going to do? He promised that He will not destroy the earth like He did before; therefore, He will find various other ways to stop man: plagues,disasters,earthquakes,volcanoes.In this case,He confounds rheir tongues.

276

'fhe'fowcr of Babcl lnd thc confusionof ronSues. Dctail ofa Ru*ian icon of tbc seutnteentlt ccntury.

ll:5 And the Lord camedown to seethe citTand the toucn ruhich tbesonsof menbuih. Of course,this doesnot meanthar He did nor "see"before;ir emphasizes that He waslookingverycarefullyto makesurewhatwasgoing on. He doesnot chastise withourknowing. ll:6 And the Lord said, Behold,thercis onerace,and onelip ofall, and thry hauebegunto do this, and now nothingshallfailfom themofall that theymay baueundertakento do. In otherwords,theyhavecontinuedro be proud,and haveundertakenthis tremendous projectagainsrGod. ll:7 Come,and hauinggone down/et usthereconfoundthcir tongue, that tltey nay not understandeachthe uoiceof his neighbor. Vhen Cod sayshere,"Come,"to whom is He speaking? It is the 277

Tnr: Drslr-:psr
Thc 'lbwcr of Babeland the confusionof tongucs Russianfitst'o of thc sixtrnth ettury'

* S i nceFr,S eraphi rn'. rcgr s scir r l9U2, wccansccf ur t hcr r csulr sof t heset r em c we cannotcthar,throughthc variorrs dousprojects.In particular, fbrmsofclectronic mcdia,rhc world is noq for thc firsr tinrc sinccrhc'lbrvcrof Babcl,bccomingof "onc lip"-nor in thc senscofbeingofonc languagc, bur in thc sense ofbcing ofonc rnind,of orreidcr,arrdonewayofthinking.'l'hissignels that rhcjudgmentof(iod is onccagainat rhc door,jusrasir wasat rhc tirneof rhelbwer of llabel.-Eo.

279

GrNEsrs,Crr,rrIor eruo Eenrv Mru

PARTII PatriarchAbraham. Frero b7 Monk Thcophanothe Crctan, Suwonihim MonatcrT, Mount Athot, sixtcnth ccn*ry .

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 chowereto be a greatnation. senone,whosedescendants

ThePhihsophyof Euolation

CHeprEn ONr

Scienceand the Holy Fathers EDITOR S NOTE: This chapterhasbeentahenfom amongthe miscelhneousnotesof Fr Seraphimfound afer his rEose.Eachsectionrepresents d sep!ftaes! of notcs.Wehauechosenand anangedthosenotesuhich prouide the bestinnoduction to the chaptersthat folhta. Other miscelkneous notesof Fx Seraphimmay befound in Appendix One.

I. Tiue Thcohgyand Secahr Knowlzdge ue arracx of modernatheisticthought on Christianity hasbeen I so effecrivethat many Orchodox Christiansare defensiveand feelinferior abouttheir own Orthodox wisdom,and areverywilling to admit rhat thereis truth and wisdomto be Foundin modernsecular knowledgeaboutwhich Orthodoxyhas"no opinion."They rhusunderva.lue the immeasurably rich rraditionof rhe Holy Fathers,which givesus Christianwisdomnot by any meansonly on narrowecclesiastical or theologicalsubjects,but on much else.Patristicwisdom comprises an OrrhodoxChristian's wholephilosophyof life, including his attitudetowardmodernconveniences, scienrificknowledge,and otherthingswhichdid nor existin their modernform in the lifetimes of the Holy Fathers of the past. RomanCarholictheologylong agogaveup trying to give the standard of wisdomro conremporary men, with the resultthat it is now "generallyassumed"thar answersro many modernquesrionsareto be found in modern"wisemen"-scientistsand evenphilosophers. Orthodox Chrisriansknow berrerthan this, and must be quite carefulin decidinghow much to believethese"wisemen." f

(1806-1856). IvanV Kireyevsky

283

a.NoEanrvMeN CnexrtoN GrNesrs, of Genesis, C)neareaof commonconfusionis the interpretation "scientific" It theoryof evolution. is no exagin viewof the especially gerationto saythat many evenamongOrthodox Christiansassume that sciencehasmuch to sayin helpingChristiansto "interpret"the Herewe shallexaminethisassumption-notat firstby texrof Genesis. examiningdirectlythe theoryof evolution,aboutwhich of coursethe did not speakdirecdy,sinceit is a productof eighteenth Holy Fathers and nineteenthcentury'Enlightenment"thoughtwhich wasunheard of in earliercenturies-but chieflyby examiningthe attitudeof the on the one hand,and their Holy Fatherstowardsecularknowledge, and interpretingGenesis,on the other principlesfor understanding of Genesisitself). hand (andalsotheir interpretation No one will dare to say that the Holy Fathers,and Orthodox that is, opposedro scienChristiansin general,are"againstscience," tific knowledgeinsofarasit is actuallyknowledgeof nature.As Cod is and of nature,therecan be no conflict the authorboth of revelation whateverbetweentheologyand science,aslong aseachis true and remains in the spherewhich belongsto it by nature.Further,those on the book of Cenesisdid Holy Fatherswho wrote commentaries not hesitateto makeuseof the scientificknowledgeof natureknown to the subiect.Thus Fr. Miat that time, insofaras it wasapplicable in a perceptivearticlecomparingthe Hexaemeron chaelPomazansky,* of Sr. Basilwirh the Homilies0n the DaJsof Creationof St' John of ofSt. Basilto a certaindegree Kronstadt,notesthat "the Hexaemcron of his time ofthe naturalsciences of the knowledge is an encyclopedia his intentionbeingto showthe greatin their positiveattainments," The nessof God asit is still visiblein the obviouskindsof creatures. is constantly is one that to be sure, of the naturalsciences, knowledge and exopento revisionowing to new findingsmadeby observation writin the even periment,and so it is that thereone may find errors ingsof Se.Basiland otherHoly Fathers, iust asthereareerrorsin the

ScrrNcraxn rHr Holy Fnrnens works of everyonewho writes concerningscientificfacts.Theseerrors in no way detract from the overall value ofsuch works as rhe Hexaemcron, wherein scientific facts are never used as more than illustrations of principleswhich derive, not from knowledgeof narure, but from revelarion. Vith regard to knowledge of te facx of narure, modern works of scienceare of coursesuperiorto the "scientific"part of the Hexaemeronand similar works of Holy Fathers, being based as they are on more precise observations of nature. This is the one and on$ respect in which sciencecan be said to be superior or "improve" on the writings of the Holy Fathers;but this is a point which in the Holy Fathersis quite incidentalto orher, theologicaland moral reachings. But ler us distinguishquire carefullyberweenactualscientificfacts and something quite different which is today,when different kinds of knowledgeare not often carefullydistinguished,often confusedwith "facr." Fr. Michael Pomazanskycontinues: St. Basilacknowledgcs all rhe scienrificfacrsof naturalscience. But he docs not acceptthe philosophicalconccptions, or the interpretationsofthe facts,whichwerecontemporary to him: the mechanisric theoryof rhe origin of the world, the teaclringof the cterniryand unbeginningncss of the naturalworld [and the like]. St. Basilthe Greatknewhow to raisehimsclfabove rhetheoriescontemporary to him concerningrhc basicprinciplesof the world, a,nd,his Hexaemeronsrandsout as a bright and exaltedsysrcmwhich revealsthe mcaningof Ccnesis, and rcignsabovethc fbrmcr(thcorics) asa bird soarsabovethc creatures which are able ro move only alons thc carth.'

(1888-1989),one of the lasrliving graduarcs of a ' Fr MichaclPomaz,ansky prc-Revolutionaryrhcologicalacademy,wasa theologicalwriter for whom Fr. Seraeditionof andannotatedthe F-nglish Ijr.Scrapbimrranslarcd phim hadgrearrespect. DogmaticI'bcolog.-Eo. Fr. Michael\ major work C)rthodox

'fhe conceprionsand rheoriesof present-dayscience(such as rhe "theory of evolution") are clearlyof the sameorder as was that part of the "science"contemporaryto him which Sr. Basildid nor accepr,inasmuchas ir was clearlyopposedto Christian revelation.Ve shall see in what follows whether or nor rhe rheory ofevolution is an exception ro this generalrule that the independentphilosophicalspeculationsof non-Christians(which alwayshavea greateror lessappearanceof "sci-

284

285

GrNrsIs, CnEATtonaNn EetrY M,rN

enrificfact"to supportthem)haveno Partin the OrthodoxChristian as interpretedand worldview,which is foundedon Divine revelation handeddown by rhe Holy Fathers. One thing moreshouldbe saidaboutthe distinctionin the very and scientificknowledge' natureand qualiryoftheologicalknowledge and is judged according revelation from God's The former proceeds to that revelation,and it leadsthe soul up ro its to its faithfulness Source;while scientificknowledgeproceedsfrom the factsof rhe but to be Faithfulto the Facts' physicalworld and it hasno PurPose on Genesisof St. Basilthe bne ne.d only read the commentaries Great,St. John Chrysostom,St. John of Kronstadt,or any of the Holy Fathers,to see how theseHoly Fathersconstantlyuse the knowledge to them,whethertheological which is available knowledge of Godt doingsor iust scientificknowledgeof God'screatur€s-to mentalgazeup to the Creator,offer moral insrrucdraw the reader's tion, and the like: bur neuetto restcontentwith the merc abstract of things....knowledge \(e shallhaveoccasionlateron to rememberthe distinctionsberweensecularand theologicalknowledge.For now let it be suflicient for us to know that secularknowledgecan teachus nothing about itself If it atthat is not containedin that revelation God'srevelation the Divineby humanreasoning' temptsto do soit is tryingto measure by means "interpret" partsof Genesis thosewho think to ln particular, to find clear,theological of ihe evolutionarytheorymustbe prePared ofthat theoryin God'srevelation. evidence

Scrrncr ,qNolxt

Hory Farnrns

2. Scienceand Christian Philosophy The Russianphilosopherlvan V. Kireyevsky(180G1856), a disciple of Elder Macariusof Optina, wrore:* Thc scicnccs in rheiressential part,i.e.,asknowledgc, belongequally to rhc paganandChristianworldandaredisringuished only by their philosophical side.Carholicism couldnot givethcm thisphilosophical sideof Christianirybecausc shedid not possess it herselfin pure form.And sowc seethatthescicnccs, asthe inheritance of paganism, havcflourishedpowerfullyin Europe,but haveendcdin atheism,as an inevitablcconscqucncc of rheirone-sided developmcnr... ,2 Chrisrianphilosophyalonccan give to the sciences a correcr foundation.J In Russia(asopposedto rhe Vesr), all the GreckHoly Fathers, nor cxcludingrhemostprofoundthinkcrs,wcrerranslared and read,andcopied,andsttrdiedin the quietof "Havinghimselfbccn ' In his SurvivalCorrrse,Fr.Seraphim saidof Kircyevsky: a son of rhe Vesr and gonc ro (iernranyto studywirh rhe most advanced philoso_ phcrs-Hegcl and Schelling-hewasrhoroughlypcnerratcd wirh rhe rifesrcrnsprnt ond rhcn bccamcrhoroughlyconvcrcd to Orrhodoxy.'l-hcreforehc saw that thcsc

St. CregoryPalamason the distinction bc' Hcrc Fr. Scraphimgoeson ro <1uote Ve haveomirrcd thesequotesheresrnce knowledge. secular and true theology rween (scc 423-24').-Eo. Part lll in are conrained thcy PP

rwo rhingscouldnot bc put togcrher. Hc wantcdto find our why rheywercdiffcrcnt and wharwasrheanswerin onc'.s soul,whatone hadtochoosc....Hedid nor comc back ro Orrhodoxyin order ro bc againstthe world wirhour undcrstandingit. Rarher.ir wasin Orthodoxyrhat hc found rhe key to undcrsranding thc hi.,roiyof tlrcWcsrcrnworld and whatwashappcningthcrc." It is noreworrhyrhar Kireycvsky's fbrmer rcachers Hcgcl and Schelling,with whom hc waspersonally acquainted, wererhc firsrmajorphilosophers in rheVesr to propoundrhephilosophyof"spirirualevolution."This wasmanyycarsbeforcCharlcsDarwincarneout wirh his biologicaltheory(scep. 562). Bcsidcs wriringphilosophical worksof his own, Kireyevsky wasinsrrumental in hclping his eldcr,Macariusof Oprina. to edir and publish major prrrisricworks which werescnrafl overRussia.SceFr. l.conid Kavelin,EldcrMacariw of Optina, pp. 287-307.-1,o.

286

287

GrNrsIs, Cnr'atloN ,rNo EnnlY MlN

ScrrNcr lNo rnr. Holy Ferners

which did theseholy embryosof the universities our monasteries, not exist.lsaacof Syria,the mostprofoundthinkerofall the philosophicalwriters,remainsto this time in copiesof the rwclfthand werein living' unceasing thirteenthcenturies.And thescmonasteries contactwith the PeoPlc.a fhis is the foundation of rrze enlightenment' The sciencesnow have gon. ht astray, their knowledge wisted' make their recause they helveno Christian foundation; thinking to :wn foundation they have stumbled over their own unconscious Pre'tpirit of ,uppositio.,,and havestupidly assumedthe preiudicesof the Present-daysciencesexisrin a stateof "learnedignorance"'a ,h. "e"." exisrs mass"ofdetailsin a concexrof stupidiry' Contemporary science knowledge' in a stateof philosophicalbarbarism,a rrue Dark Agesof Only true Christianiry can give it true philosophy'

fom Scientifc Truth 3. DistinguishingMaterialistic Fantasies Bishop lgnatiusBrianchaninov(1807-1867)- teachesthat' for true nu. philo.opiy today,one must know both true Christianiryand lgnatius:"[HcJ ' In his book TheSoulafer Death,Fr. Scraphimwtotc ofBishop very problcm thc squarely face was pcrhapsthc firsr great i)rthodox rhcologianro Christian rhe authentic to preservc how *hici hasbccomcso acrrtcin our own daysl and to Onhodory foreign entircly ,.""hing in a world rhar hasbccomc ,raii,ion "nd he made that it can ir so strivcscithcrto overtirowanddismissit ot else'rcincerprei thc Roman .o.p",ibl. wirh a worldlyway of lifc and thinking Acutelyawarc-of 'modcrnize' Orthoto were striving which othc. Wcsterninflucnccs C".iolia "nd both of.Orrhodoxy the dcfensc for dory cvcn in his days,BishopIgnatiuspreparcd absorbed (whose hc tcaching sources ii i.l"ing d..ply into rhc aurhJnticO'thodox himof histimc) and by familiarizing in so-c o?rhcL.rr Orthodoxmonasticcentcrs 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 ,"-inary) Armedthus wirh a tnowledgcborh of nccringschool,not a theological of rhcologt and of sicul,r kno*lcdgc' he devotedhis life-to the defense O;;.rs no cxit lt from deviation modern authcnticOnhodiry and to an exPosurcof the century Posaqqcralionto say that no other Orrhodox country in rhe ninetecnth of modern crrors and tcmptarions the ,3..J *"it a dcicndcr of orthodoxy against rimes."-Eo,

288

BishopIgnariusBrianchaninov, canonizcd by rhe Russian OrrhodoxChurchin 1988.

science;wirhout this, one can'rdisringuishmaterialisticfanrasiesfrom scientifictruth. He writes: It is to be desiredtharsomeOrthodoxChristian,havingstudiedthe appliedsciences, would then srudythe fundamcnrals of the ascericismof the OrthodoxChurch,andbcqueathto mankinda truc philosophy,founded upon preciseknowledgeand not upon arbitrary hypotheses. Thc GreeksagcPlatoforbaderhe exerciseof philosopny wirhoutrhc prcrequisire studyof marhematics.This is a trueviewof the matter.Virhout a prerequisitc studyof mathematics, rogcther with the other sciences basedupon ir, and wirhout rhe activeand grace-filled knowledge oiChristianiryit is impossible in our time to set forrh a correctphilosophical system.Many who considerthemsclvesadeptsin philosophybut areunacquainred with mathematrcs and the naruralscienccs, upon encountering arbirraryfantasies and hypothcsesin the works of marcrialists,will not be able in any way to differentiarerhcm from knowledgederived from scienceirself,

289

GeNEsts,CaEArtoNlt'to EanlY Men and will not be able in any way to givc a satisfactoryr€sPonscand evaluarionof the most absurd ravingsof any kind of dreamer'Very often they are attracted to these ravings to thc point of dclusion' having rakenrhem as evident trurh ' '

ScrrNcr rNo rnt Hory FrrHsns

So it is with the doctrineof the firsr man. God hasnor revealed many detailsof rhe first stateof His creation,but it is sufficienrto judge the philosophical-religious speculations of evolutionisrs. The Orthodoxdoctrineof creationhasnot beenknown in rhe Vest; rhe RomanCatholicdocrrineis quitedifferent.

4. Scienceas a Louer Form of Knowlcdge " The Orthodox Christian is not "againstscience But he expects from scienceonly that knowledgewhich it is capableofgiving' by its v€ry nature-no; theology,not a philosophyof life Yet in our rime of i.rtellect.,alconfusion,when "science"hasachievedsuch Prestigein the popular mind asto be synonymouswith knowledgeitself,it happensall ioo oft.n that scientistspresumeto teachthat which they did not learn by meansofscienceat all; suchscientists,in fact' talk like theologians' Modern sciencethinks it is "knowledge"par excellence'and before its prestigeOrthodox believerswaver,often apologizingfor believing "re*hat..etttt "unscientific,"remaining content with the pietism or Iigiousfeeling"which is the placewhere the scientificestablishmcntallows faith today. But true Orthodox Christianiryis quite different' It is not bound up with any current of modern thoughti it is a knowledges-upcriorto sctence,and it certainlyneednot apologizeto a lowerform ofknowledge' tVe know God createdthe world in "measure,number and weighi' (Wisdom 1l:20); but God has not revealedto man the detailsof His orderedcreation,and thosewho pry into the "mystery of nature" find Godk out only an infinitesimalpart of the mysterieswhich.comefrom cais not man fallen rhat infinite wisdom. Modern sciencehas proved pableofusing well what knowledgehe hasobtained' But modirn scienceis no, only knowledge lt has divorced itself from revelation,and thereforeplaceditself at the disposalof heretical' un-Christian and anti-Christian theories and philosophies' Often theseconflict with revelationbecausethey enter the realm open only

5. An Alien Spem of Thought There is much conlusionaboutevolurion.Somesay,"Orthodox Christianshaveno quarrelwith cvolution,"or rheyusetireon. phras. "Cod-guidedevolution."-fhis understanding of evoltrtionis rather primitive:assuming it is a "scientificfact"on rhelevelof heliocenrrism. In lact thoseopposedto evolutionareoftencomparedto the Roman CatholicChurch againstGalileo,and evenOrchodoxChristiansare rarherafraidro be found "naive"or be left behindrhe intellectual currentsor fashions of theage. But thewholedoctrineof evolutionis rathermorecomolexthanof a single"scientific fact"or even"hyporhesis. " And ir rj a docirine-a beIief involvingmanyspheres of thoughtand by no meansjust science; and it is sufficientlycoherentro be ablero speakof it asa moreor less coherentdoctrine.We shallfind it to be a wholedistinctiueapproachto reulity,with itsown distinctive philosophical and rheological pr.r.,ppositionsanddeductions. In rheology, in particular, it offersa conscious altanatiueto OrthodoxChrisrianiryon a numberof keydogmas.

6. TheLach ofPhilosophicalCulturt amongOrthodoxChristiarn

'Inrcrestingly,BishopIgnatiuswroterhisat abourrhe time Darwins Ozlz o/ Speriercameout in England.-F,o.

The misunderstanding of evolutionon the partof someOrthodox Christianscomesfrom a wantof philosophical culture: l. They do not havea criricalapproachto scienrific"findings"(although,in full harmonywith the modernspirit,theydo havea critical approachro Scriprure)and do not understandrhe natureof scientific "evidence"which supposedly supporrsevolution,nor know how to distinguishberweenfact andphilosophl.They are unnecessarily awed

790

291

ro theology.

CnlarIoN'rxo E'lnlYM'lt.t GeNrsIs, troubleto invcstianddo not takethe necessary by scientific"exPerts" thc questionthemselves' eate -2, "spirit of the age" Tti"y do not undcrstandrhe philosophical the "scitheynaivelyaccePt *hich gaveriseto evolurion,and therefore of evolution entific iaci' of evolution,but rejectthe fi nished2/l/osopD;r areone whole; il, i" ftitit"ta de Chardin.'fheydo not seethar these "fact" ofevolririou, rhr-philo.phq, therewould neverhavebecnthe lution. rhe Holy Faf. 'fn.y do not understandthe pbiLosophy^of suchas therr-th.ii *hole outlookon ''ttttu" tnd un specificquestions rhings' of individuel rhenatures ofthe HolTFathen T fhe Phitosoplry saidnothingaboutevolution"-this is usedby many "The Fathers one unnts 0r Orthodox as an excusefor actually belicuingwbatcuer "science" sa4son thissubject' u)hdteuer must be more scriousand more But our attitudeto the Fat'hers doesnot meanm€rely profoundthanthis.Beingfaithfulto the Fathers if no ro quoterhe"mor feel"free"to think asone pleases ili';;;Jt thought' Rather,it meansenteringinto their ;;;".t ;t; "u"itbl.. of the Chrrrchof Christ' and havinga coherent iirin r. the thought philosophyof life"derived from our life in the Church in harmony *i,t' ,tt. tiroughtof the Fathers' did havea philosophy'indeeda theology'which And the F"athers the questionof evolutionand rnekesit absolutelyclear .n.o-f"*., "F-volu*h"t ,h. Onhodox Christianmustthink aboutthisquestionany morethan Buddhismis a "heresy";but it tion" is not a "heresy," so manyerrorsandfalseviewsasto includes,impliesand Presupposes orthodox U. ,",ify in.omp"tibie*iit onhodo* Christianiry'Most in their so and i.ti"u.rr't"u. not tho,tghtdeeplyon this question' evolution' ."..I".rn.r, they think i i.,orntho* "possible"to accePt Orthomake to ihe restof thisstudywill attemPtto clarifi this issue' of Orthodox theologyand of the irnplications io* Ct.ir,i"n. "*ri. whichhavea veryclearviewof the the philosophvof the Holy Fathers, .hi.fqu.r,tn. raisedby evolutionfor Chrisrianbelievers' 292

Cuaprsn Two

A Brief Critique of the Eaolutionar!Moful EDITOR'S NO'IE: Thischapnr hasbeentransribedfom a tapedlecnre that Fr. Seraphimgaue during his "Orthodox Suruiual Course"in the summerof 1975. The sectiontitlcs and someadditions to thc text haue beentakenfom his written outline of the course.Additions haueako been takenfom preuiouslecturesin the samecourse,which prouide necesary barltgroundto thepresenrdiscussion.

l. Introduction o\7 wE coME to a key conceptwhich is extremelyimportanr for undersrandingboth the religious and the secular outlook of conremporaryman. This idea is an exrremelycomplex one, and herc we can give only a skerchyoutline of rhe problems involved in this question. CharlesDarwint Origin of Species cameout in I 859, was instantly acceptedby many people,and soon becamevery popular. Peoplesuch as T. H. Huxley and Herberr Spencerin England, togetherwith Ernsr Haeckel in Germany (author of 7-hcRiddle of the Uniuerse,1899) and others, popularizedthe ideasof Darwin and made evolution the very center oftheir philosophy.lt seemsto explain everything.Of course, people like Nietzschepicked it up and used it for their so-calledspiritual prophecies.Thus, the peoplewho werein the main schoolofVestern thought-which was rationalism carried as far as you can take

293

MeN GsNrsts,Cna.ttIoN nNo Ea.nrY it-accepted evolution.To the presentday,one can saythat evolution is a centraldogma of"advanced"thinkers,ofpeople who are in harmony with the times. From the very beginning,however,therewere peoplewho werearguing about this. In the time of Darwin, therewas a Catholic thinker' Sr. George Jackson Mivart (author of On the Genesisof Speciu' l87l)' who believedin evolution but not in Darwin's idea of natural selecrion, which reducedDarwin to despairbecausethe latter discovered that his idea could not be proved. Especiallyin the last ten to thirty years,therehavecome out many criticalaccountsofevolution from an objectivepoint ofview. fu theseworks demonstrate,most ofthe books supporting evolution begin with certain premisesand assunlprions arisingfrom the naturalisticoutlook. Now there is even a socieryin San Diego called the Institute for which hascome out with severalgood books.They Creation Research, themselvesare religious,but they have severaibooks which discuss evolution quite objectively,not at all from a religiousstandpoint.They say there are two models for understandingthe universe:one is the evolution model, and anotheris the creationmodel.They take the evidence of the history of the earth, for example-the geologicallayers and so forth-and they try to seewhich model it fits. They havediscovered that fewer adjustments have to be made if one follows the model of creation-if therewas a God Vho createdthings in the beginning and if the earth is not billions ofyearsold but only some thousands of years old. The evolutionary model, on the other hand, requiresa good many corrections.In this regard,it can be comparedto the old model of the Ptolemaicuniverse (vs. the Copernicanmodel).* Like the Ptolemaic model, rhe evolutionary model is now proving ouite cumbersome. Some membersof this Institute travel around to variousuniversities. In the lastyearor rwo, they haveheld severaldebatesbeforethouTexas,etc. lnteresthas sandsofsoectatorsat universitiesin Tennessee, modelheld rhat rhesunand plancrsrevolvearoundthe earrh. ' Thc Prolemaic by rheCopcrnicanmodcl,which holdsthat rheearthand plancrsrcIr wasreplaced volvearoundrhesun.-Eo.

294

A Btrnr Cnlrrque or rsr Evor.ulloNrnyMorrr:r.

beenquite high. Those defendingevolurion havenot beenable ro eive sound evidencein support of ir and, in fact, on severalrroints riere caught on their ignoranceof recenrdiscoveriesin paleontoiogy. are very sophisricatedand knowledgeablepeopleJefending . .There both points ofview. Here we will not evendiscussthe quesrionofathel istic cvolution becauseit is obviouslya philosophyof iools,. ofpeople who can believe,as Huxley said,that ifyou pur a group ofmonkeys ro_ gerher with rypewrirers they will eventually give you rhe Enryclopedia Britannica,given enough time-if not millions then billions of vears. according to the laws of chance. Someone calculated evolurionary theory accordingro rhe laws of chanceand found thar in fhcr such a thing would never happen.Anyone who can believethat can believe anything. l-he more seriousdispute is berweentheisric evolution_rhat God crearedthe world and rhen it evolved-ancl rhe Christian point of view. Here we musr saythat rhe lundamentalistpoint of view is incor_ recr in many instancesbecauserhe fundamentalisrsdo not know how to interpret Scripture.1-heysay,for example,rhat the book of Genesis must be.understood"literally,"and one cannor do this. The Holy Fathers tell us which parrsare literal and which parrsare not. The firsr misunderstandingrhat must be clearedaway beforeeven discussingthis question is one rhar causesmany peopli ro miss the point, and rhar is that we musr distinguish berween cuolution and Variation is the processby which people make various hy_ !o:i:rio: brids of peas,differenr breedsof cars,etc. After fifiy yearsof e*p.iimentation, lor example, they camc up with a new breed of cat, a combination of Siamescand Persian,called the Hinralayancar, which has long hair like a Persianwith the coloring of a Siamcse.Ar first rhis had happenedaccidentally,but the car *", n.u", able to reproduceitself purely; and only now after all rheseycarsof expcrimcnrarionnave they come up with a new brecd which brcedsrrue. Likewise,rhereare different areeds of dogs, different varietiesof planrs, and the very "races"of men are all quite different: pygmies, Hottenrors, Chinese, Northern Europeans-all different rypesof human beingswho came ' Cl Psalml3: l: "Thc fool hathsaidin his hean:Thereis no God."_Eo.

295

GsNlsts,Cnr,qlI
2. Historical Background During the period of the Enlightenment' the worldview was quite of Arstabl.. Jusi before this time' the Anglican Archbishop Ussher magh calculatedall the yearsgiven in the C)ld Testamentgenealogies up with the idca that the world was createdin the year 4004 "ni.r.. fas.c.** Newton believedthis, and the enlightenedworldview was in it to left vor of the ideathat God createdthe world in six daysand then writcs:"'I'hepopularmind acceptsmere'variation' ' ln his norcs,Fr Scraphinr to define of 'cvolution' We leaveir to scientists quesrion big6ier much asproof of a as rhe limits of changcob,.r*bl. to thcm By irs grandioscconception'evolurion by scicncetoday ' suchcannotbc prorra/by rhc smallvrriarionsobservablc "Lct scicntists dcflncthc linrirsofvariation,and let thcm uscthc word andconmeraphy'ical cepr of 'cvolution'in cxplainingchangc-bur let rhcnr.abandon princian all-encompassing into changcs small to cxtrapolatc strivc which schemcs an intcrforcing wirhour data from rhe narurally ir conre ler is truc, latrer plc. lfthis pretationon facrs."-Flo. addcdas a .'Thc Archbishop's finding waspublishedin 1650and wasso-otr Ilible His marginalnorationro tlic book oi(lcn"'it in thc AuthorizedVcrsionofthc (Hcbrcw)textofthe Old'l-estamentAccordcal.ilation*as bascdon the Masoreric in rhe Scpmagint {()reck) texr',whichir trscd ing,o thc Old T..t"ment chronoto6ry 1,500ycarsolder rhan Archby"Or,hodo*Christians,the errth is approximately bishopUsshcrtcalcularion.-F-o. 29(t

A Brrer Cnlrrque or lss EvoLulroNanyMoorL develop itself, and that all the specieswere just as wc seethem today. 'l'he scientistsof that time acceotedrhar. At the end ofthe period of Enlightenment,however,as the revolutionary lever began ro come on, this very stableworldview began ro break down, and alreadysome scientistswere coming up with more radical theories.At the end of rhe eighteenthcentury, ErasmusDarwin, the grandfatherof CharlesDarwin, had alreadycome up with rhe hypothesisthat all of life comesfrom one primordial filament-which is exactlywhat is meant today by the rheory of evolution.* His theory did not concernonly one speciesor kind ofcreature,but proposedthat a primordial blob or filament developedinto all the different kinds of creaturesby transmutations."Vould it be too bold," he asked, "to 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 one filament?" This new explanationof ErasmusDarwin was an attempr ro continue rhe spirit of the Enlightenmentas utrer rationalismand simplicity. As rationalismentered deeperinto the mind, it was simpler (he thought) to explain life ascoming from a singleliving filament than to give the more "complicated"explanation that God gave being all at once to all different kinds of creatures.** 'fhere wasone naturalist,Chevalierde Lamarck (auhor of Philosophie zoologiquc,1809), who had a definire evolutionarytheory just after this, but hc had the idea that the changesnecessaryto account for the evolvingof one speciesinto anorherweredue to the inheritanceof This could never be proved, and has in lact acquired characteristics. been quite disproved.Hence, the ideaofevolurion did not take hold. l-here was, however,one importanr geologisrar rhis period of the early nineteenthcentury who gavea great impetus towardsrhe accep' ErasmusDarwins book Zoozomia,in which he proposedrhis rheory,waspublishcdin 1794.-Eo. 'fhe tcrm "Darwinism"wasfirstapplicdto Erasmus Darwin'sthcoricsabour " evolution,which includcdnaturalselection. Thescrheories conrriburedmuch ro rhe idcas of his grandsorrCharles,alrhough rhe larrer ncver acknowledgedthe dcbr.-Eo.

297

Gr.I.rnsts'CngrrIoN nNn Eenrv Mat't

A Bnrrr Cnrrrqur olrsr

EvoLurroN,rny Mooe I

wlrspublished'l)a rwin rcadit ' I n 183I , a yearefter Lyell'sPrincipletof Geology becamcDarwin'smcntor' and voyagc, l,yell the Aftcr thc Seagla voyage on his during madchim think ofapplying idcas rhat t-yellls later statemcnrs Dar*in's from it iscl-ca. of livingcreaturesl.nhis prihisrory the past ro of Lrniformirarianism rhe principles wharhecalltd"Mou,rteletteri,t.yellmadcir clcarrhathc wasinteorrrponabolishing; stratain termsof rbc Gcnesisf'lood' rhegeologic saicgeology,;i.c.,intcrpreting U"nry V. Morriswritcs:"lr is worth noringthat ncithcrDarwin nor Lyellwcrc divinity str'rdent f)arwin wasan aPostate in thc modernsense. trainedasscientists whoseonly degrcewasin rheologyCharlesLyellwastrainedasa la\aycr'not :rsa geof hisday-Cuvier, Buckland.for cxamplc-believcd ologist.1'heleadinggcologisrs of our own day are now returning!o and manyof the geologists in iatastrophism, hrharuie*. Lyellmusrhaveknown that thc actualdaraof geologyprcdominantly on long insisted Ycr he dogirnaricallv nor uniformitarianism. uoredcrtasrrophisnr, reicctingthe Biblicalchronologyin the proccss" agesand uniformiry sarcastically (Morris, 'l'heLong Wr againstGod,p. 162). Lycll accused hasacrually Stephcn JayGould,oneofroday\lcadingcvolurionisrs' " Lycllrelicdupontrucbitsofcttnningto ofdcceptionin hispromotionof rhissystem: vicw asthc olrlyrrucgieolopry"Lyellimposedhis irnagihis unifbrmirarian csrablish nation trpon rhe evidcnce"(Col.ld' h'er SinccDatuin, pp' \49-50)'-Eo'

-I-hisidea, togetherwith the idea which was now gaining sympathy-that speciesevolve one into the other-led to another idea. If you put thesetwo ideasrogether,you get the idea that mosr likely the world is not just a few thousandyearsold like the Christiansseemro say,but that it must be very many thousandsor millions of yearsold, or even more. Thus arosethe idea of rhe grearerand grearerageof the earth. But againthis belief(that the world must be very old) wasonry a presupposition;it was not proved. Already rhis ideawassinking into the minds of men when in 1859 Charles Darwin came our wirh his book propounding the idea of naruralselection.Darwin's idea was opposedro that of Lamarck,who said thar the giraffeevolvedbecausea short-neckedcrearurestretched its neck to earthe higher leaves,irs offspringhad a neck an inch longer, the next one stretcheda litrle more, and graduallyit becamewhat we know today as a giraffe.This is againstall scicnrificlaws,becausesuch things do not happen.An acquiredcharacteristiccannor be inherited. For example,when Chinesewomen had their feerbound, their daughterswere alwaysborn wirh normal feet. Darwin, on the other hand, came up with the idea rhat there were perhapstwo longer-neckedcrearureswhich survivedbecausethey had longernecks;they werejoined rogetherbecauseall the restdied offdue to adyersecircumsrancesor disaster;and rheir offspring did have longer necksbecausea changehad occurredwithin rhem: what scientists today call a "mutarion." This mighr have been a chancething ar first, but once reproducrion between rwo such creatureshas taken place,it continuesdown rhrough rhe ages. Of course,this is a 3zrsrbecauseno one hasobservedsuch a thing happen. But this guesssrruck the consciousness of rhe people; they werc like tinder, all ready for it, and this was the spark. The idea sounded so plausible;and the idea of evolurion took hold-nor becauseit was proved. As a mattcr of fact, the speculationsof Darwin were basedalmost entirely upon his observations,not of evolution, but of uariation. lWhen he was traveling in the GalapagosIslands,Darwin wondered why there were thirteen different varieriesof one kind of finch, and thought that it was becausethere was one original varierywhich had

?98

299

tance of this idea of evolution. This was CharlesLyell, who in 1830 cameup with rhe theory of uniformitarianism,that is' that all we secin th.."rth today is due not to catastrophg5-16x 5uddsnflood or someoperatingtoday thing similar-but ratherro the fact that the processes havJeen operatingin pastages,from the beginningof the world, asfar back aswe can see.Therefore,if we look at the Grand Canyon, we see that the river has been eating away the canyon, and we can calcuIate-by taking into accounthow fastthe water flows,how much water there is in it now, the quality of the soil and so on-how long ir must have taken to wear away the canyon Lyell thought that if we assume were alwaysgoing on at the samerate-this being that theseprocesses very rationaland givento calculation-we can come up with a uniform explanation ofthings. ln his book Principlesof Geolog, Lyell wrote: whatcvcrhavcfrom the carlicsttime ro whichwc canlook No causcs back,to the prcscnt,everactcdbut rhosenow actingand they have ofenergyfron which theynow exert ncvcractedwith diffcrcntdegrees Of course,there is no proof of this; this is merelyhis hypothesis'.

Cne,crloN,rNnEanrvMnN GtlNr:sts.

A Bnren Cnrr.rqurorrur Evolurroruelr Mooer.

clevelopedaccording to its environment. This is not evolution but variation. From this, he jumped to the conclusion that if you keep making small changeslike that, eventuallyyou will havean absolutely different kind of creature.The problem in trying to prove this scientifically is that no one haseverobservedtheselargerchanges;they nave only observed changeswithin a kind.*

of creation; rherefore,all kinds of creatureswould have basic simi_ larities.Ifyou believerhar God crearedall the crearures,thesediagrams convince you rhar, yes,God createdthem accordingro a plrn. ifyou believethar one crearureevolvedinto the other, you look rhe same diagramsand say,yes,one evolvcdinto the other. Bur there"ris no oroof either for or againstevolution in rhis. In actualfact, p.ople r..epi .uolution on some orher basisand then look at such diagrams,and the diagramsconvincethem evcn more. 2. Secondly, there is "comparatircphysiology."The tsook General ZoologXstates:" I-he tissue and fluids of organisms show many basic sinrilaritiesin physiologicaland chemicalpropertiesthat parallelmor_ phologicalfeatures."'For exampre,

3. "l'roof" of Euolution Let us look now at the so-calledproofs of evolution to seewhat they are.Ve are not going to try to disprove,but just to try to seethe qualiry of the proofs that arc used;what it is that seemsconvincing ro peoplewho believein evolution. L There is a srandardtextbook of zoology used rwenty yearsago, GeneralZoologlby l'racy I. Storer,which listsa number of proofs.T'he first proof in the book is called "comparatiuemorphologt," that is, a comparisonof body structures.Man has arms, birds havewings, fish have flippers-the book has convincing diagramswhich make them 'l'he birds haveclaws and we have fingers-the look very much alike. book showshow one might havedcvclopcdinto the other.*' All crearures are shown to have a very similar strr.rcture,and the different srrucruresare arrange
300

from the hemoglobinin vcrrcbratebl
3. Tlrereis a third argumentcalled"comparatiue cmbryology."Text_ . bookslike GeneralZoologltusedto havepicruresthat sho* Ji emury_ 301

GENrsIs,CnrlrIoN lNn Ernlv M'ltl turtle' chicken,pig, man, etc. demonstrating onrc flsh. salamander, rhat they all look very much alike and sayingthat they graduallydevelop differently. You can see that man has so-called "gill-slirs" in the embryo. Therefore,this is supposedto be a remembranceof his ances"biogeneric try.* brnst Haeckel,in his 'theory of recapitulation"and (onlaw," stated that "an individual organism in its development togeny)tendsto recaPitulatethe stag€spassedthrough by its ancestors (p-hylogeny)."IToday this theory is no longer acceptedby evolutioni.,r. S.i.niit,t havefound that the "gill-slits"are not gill-slitsat all' but are,iustpreparingfor what is to be developedin the neck ofthe human being. 5o this pioof hrs been pretry well discarded'-Again,they used the a'rgu-.nt that similarity meansproof, which in fact-it doesnot' 4. Another proof, which usedto be more powerful than it is today' is that of "uestigidl"organs.Evolutionists claimed that there are certain organs,like the appendixin man' which seemto haveno function now ani therefore must be left over from a previous stage of evolution' when a monkey or another of man'sancestorsused theseorgans' But more and more these"vestigial"organsare found to havea certain usel the appendix, for example,is found to have some kind of glandular function, so this argumentis alsolosingweight'** And just becausewe do not know what a certain organ does,this does not mean that it is left over from some lower form of life. 5. l'hen there are the argumens ftom paleontology:the study of fossils.Of course,the first seeminglyconvincingproofis the geological srrata,as,for example,in the Grand Canyon whereyou seeall kinds of strata;and the lower you get the more primitive the creaturesthere ' That is,a proofthat manevolvcdfrom aquaticanimalswith gills-Eo' 'vestigial' thoscin man' have organs'cspecially all thc so-callcd " "Pracricaily vestigial ar all At one be nor to beenprovcdin reccntyearsro havedefinircusesand in rnan'but vcstigial organs such clainredthercwereabout 180 timc. evolutionists the rhyrrrus' gland' were the thyroid noneareclaimednow.Someofrhese oracticallv All of appendi* thc and the tonsils ,h. .o."1*, thc pinealgland' thc car muscles, (Hcnry Morris' functions" rhcsearenow known tcl havcuscful,and oftenessential Scicntifc Crcationitm,P. 76). For a detailedtreatmcnrof this subject'seethe book "Vuugul Orgarc" arc I:ull4 Funttional by Dr' Jcrry Bergman and Dr Cieorge Howe.-Eo,

302

A Bnlrr Cnrrrqur or rus Evor.u.rroN.rny Moonr. seem ro be. Scientistsdare the strata by what kind of crearuresare found in them. In the nineteenthcenrury rhey discoveredrhesestrata and derermined which wereolder and which wereyounger;and now they havea rather elaboratesystem by which to tell which srrara are older and which are younger.*However,rhe whole dating sysremis rathercircular. Sinceoften thesesrraraare "upsidedown" accordingro rhe evolutionarymodel,**rheyhaveto makecerrainreadjusrmenrs. Iusrlike the Prolemaicsystemneededcertain adjusrments(epicycleshad to be devised,becauserhe planerswere not going around the earrh uniformly), in the sameway evolutionisrsmust make adjusrmenrswhen they find that, according ro evolutionary rheory, the srrataare "upside down." They havero date them by rhe fossilsin rhcm. Bur ho* Jo rhey know that the fossilsin rhem are in the righr order? They know because sonrewhereelse the fossilswere in the "righi' order accordingro tne evolutionistmodel, and rheygor the systemfrom thar. Ifyou look at it closely,you seerhar ir is a circularsystem.One has ro have faith rhat this ecruallycorrespondsro realiry. There are a number of flaws in this. For one rhing, rhe crearures appearquite suddenlyin eachstrata,wirh no inrcrmediaryrypesleading up ro rhem. Besidesrhis, as researchconrinues,,h.y finding "i. animalsin the srrarawhich are not supposedto be where they are. For example, now in rhe pre-Cambrian level they are finding iquid-like crearureslTribratltidia) and all kinds of quite complex animals like rhat, which should not be there becauserhey supposedlydid not 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.

' l hc" geol ogi cal co lum n"schem cdeviscdbyevolt r t ionisr s( wit hdar esass cachstratum)is nowhercto bc lound in naturcasa conrplcrc sctofsedimenrs ofsran_ dartirhi rkncss.k rsani m agr narryr r ucr urreharlr . r hccn , . ynr hcr ir ed lr omr om par ing a srrarumofrock in oneparrofrhc worldwith a simlarlookingsrrarumin anothcrpart of theworld." SeeRichardMilron, Jlaairylr Mythsof Daiu,inism,chs.3,7._Eo. "'l heEnryckpcdiaBritannica(l l th ed.) tdmits rhar in somefieldsall rhe strara arecxactly"upsidedown" [i.c, primirivecrcarurcs are fbund at a hishcr levelrhan morc hi ghl ycvol vcd'on er j.

303

Cnr-artoNaNo Err'lY M'lN Gr.Nests, In general,there is no proof that thesestratawere laid down over millioni of years.*The creationistswho talk about the Flood of Noah saythat it is equallyconceivablethat the Flood causedexactlythe same rhing. The simpler marine animalson the sea-bottomswould generally b. tt. firrt to te buried, followed by fish and other organismsliving n€arerthe oceansurface.The more advancedanimals,including man' would be going on higher ground trying to ger away from the Flood' ro There woJd be f.* re-nantt of man becauseman would be trying *' get on shipsand other things to get away *'I'he uniformitarianassumption thar the strarawerelaid down graduallyovcr sho* proccsscs millionsofyearsis not borneour by the evidenceModerngeological the exisring in like those rhat n,rwhcr"todayarethererock bcingformcdanyrhing originofthe srrataSceRichardMikon Shauostrata.This pointsto a carastrophic (:rcttroittrn' ing th, Myti, of'Darwinism' pp.72-79' and Henry Morris' 'Sirrnrfc D D l U l-ll. -rD.

furrhcr:"Thc lactthat' althoughrhisorderis gcncrally " Dr. Henry Morriss,rys and both in rermsof omissions ii is fo,rndto havemanyexceptions' ro be expected, is exrrcmcly lrut events Delugc in tcrmsof is alsocerrainlyto be expected inuer.ions, (I-hz Gencsis diflculr to accountfor logicallyin rermsofcvolutionand unilornriry"

A Bnrer Carrrqur or rHr EvoLurlox,tnyMoper. Moreover,rhere are only very parricularcondirions which causea fossilto be left ar all. A creaturehas to be buried suddenlyin a cerrarn kind of mud which allows it to be preserved.-The whoie idea of the gradualnessof rhesephenomenais being called more and more into quesrion.'fhere is now proof thar oil and coal and such things can be made in an extremely short time-in a mart€r of days or weeks.** The formation of fossilsitself is very much in fauor of some carasrroPne. realmof paleontology,the most importanr argumenragalnsr .ln.the evolurion is that it is hard to saythat therehaseverbeen found a iingle thing which can be calledan intermediaryspecies.in fact, Darwin was cxtremelyworried about this. He wrote: fhc numberof inrcrmediare varieties, which havcformerlyexisreo, Imust]be rruly cnormous.Why rhcn is nor cvcrygeological forma_ tion and cvcrysrratunrfull of suchintermcdiare linl<siGeologyas_ surcdlydocsnor rcvealanysuchfincly-graduared organicchain;ano this,pcrhaps, is thc mostobviousandscriousobjecrionwhichcanoe urgedagainstthe rhcory.Thc explanation lies,asI bclieve,in thc cx_ trcmeimpcrlccrionof the gcological record.l

l:kod, p. 276). l-ieldMuscumof Natural Dr f)avid M. Raup,curarorof (icologyat Chicago's hasmadecxrensivc of fossils)' History (which hottsesthc world'slargcstcollecrion "ln rhe conclusion: following and hascomcto rhe srudi"sof thes.fossilsequenccs ln general' progressions hopedro find predictable y.cars afrcrDarwin,his aivocares ,h"." h"u. not becnfound-yct the optimismhasdicd hard,and somepurefantasy hascreptinto the texrbooks." is an evolivingpaleonrologist' the world'sgrcetest Dr. R"up,*ho is considcrcd likcsto just one theory any about frt tharone could lutionist,bui hc acknowlcdges srodeposired jusr beeo well havc as the fossil record.Hc say. that rhe fossilscould "Probabilistic (David Rar-rp' (randornly), asfar asany orderis conccrned chastically Modefs in EvolutionaryPalco-Biologv"'Arteriran Stienrit, lan'-Fe6 1977' p' 57)' "Onc of thc ironiesof He cvcnnotesthc ironicimplicatiorxof this for creationisrs: the mistakennohave accepred debateis rhat rhc crearionists rhe evolution-crearion and thcy havc progression orderly tion that the fossil recordshowsa dctailedand (David Raup' Flood gcology" rhcir this'hct' in goncto greatlengthsto accomodare iEuolutionend the liossilRecord,"Sciaaca, p 289)' l98l' July l7' "ln eqhsrwords,"writesDr. Henry Morris,"Raupis sayingrhatfloodgcologisrs nceclnot bother ro work out a Floodmodel for the ordcr ofthe fossils'sincerhereisni p 363) -Eo (7 fu Biblica!Bafufor Modern Scicncc' any 'order' to acconrnrodatcl"

'I.c., ro prcventdecayby bacreriaor assaultby prcdators.Furthcrnrorc, rhrs scdimcntmusr be ofconsidereblc deprhro prevcnrrhc remainsfrornbeingdispcrscd oy 'latural Proccsscs. Richard Milron points our: "1bday thcre arc no known fuiliferoqs rocks6rming arrl'whcre in the world. I'hereis no shorragc oforgrnic ,.,rrainr,no lackofquier scdrmenrary marinecnvironmcnrs_ lndecdrhcrearerhe bonesand shellsof millions ofcreaturcs available on landandsea.But nowherearerhcsebecomingslowlyburicd in sedirnents and lirhified.They aresimplybcingerodedby wind, tide,weathcr,and predarors"(ShatrcrixgthaMTth of Datwinism,p.7g). This indicatesrhat rhc exisring fossilswcrc formed as a rcsuh ofa grcar carasrrophe.SeeHenry Morris, Scicntif,c Cteationirn, pp. 97- I 0 l.-Eo. ** SeeJohnD. Morris, TheYoung Earth,pp. 102_3._Eo.

304

305

Today's scientistssay rhar the fossil record is extremely abundant: there are more fossil speciesknown rhan living speci.s.Srill, the.e have not been found more rhan a couple which might be intcrprere
A Bnrrr Cnrllqur-op rHr EvolurroNrny Moor.L

GtNests,CntertoN aNn E,rnlYMen as somehow being an intermediaryspecies.They will tell you about the pterodacryl-l rePtilewith wings-and say that this reptile is bebiid. But why cani you simply say this is a reptile with .o.ing " wings?' Th.re a.e cert"in fossilscalled"index fossils"which, when seenrn a certain stratum, determine thar that stratum cannot be any older or younger than a certain date becausethat animal supposedlybecame a cerrain period. They found a fish*. swimming around in .*tini ", which was supposedto be extinct sevenrymillion years the ocean off the ago.*" Becauseit was thought to be an index fossil, it threw w:holething; and that particular layer which was dated according to chisextinct fish was no longercorrect.**** Vhy is it that certain speciesevolveand others stay the same as they were?There are many specieslound in the "ancient"stratawhich rransltronts mostoftcn citc asa reprilc-ro-bird 'Thc animalthar evolutionists johnson calls the arrlaeF" Phillip acruallynor the pterodecrylbv thearcbacoprar4 (Daruit on plarypus". duckbilled "odrl varianr, likc the contemporary opr"ryi ^n no "mosaic possessed form [which] frioi, p, tOlt Henry Morris poinrsout rhat it is a p' 341); and cvcn thc rransitionafstructxrei'l'l-bc Biblical Basisfot Modcm Science' that curiousmoacknowledge StephenJayGould and NilesEldredge cvolurionisrs in the fossil rccord inrermcdiarcs do nor couni'as smooth saicslike archacopteryr rhat'\hcre is no notcs Denron uol. 3 ispring 1977)'p. t47\. Michael (Paleobiology, formsFroman of transitional serics qu".tion ,ilt this a..haicbi.d i, no, lcd up by a dcvelwith increasingly rcptilethrougha nunrbcrof glidingrypcs ordinaryterrestrial p' (Euohuion: Crisit' in A 7heory oped fcarhe.suntil rhe auiancondition is teached" 176).-Ep . in 1938off the coasrof Madagascar which wasdiscovered '* 'Ihe coelacanth, to the immediatcancest"tsof rhc related wasrhoughrro bc closely Thc coclacanth "irs organsshowedno signsof internal however, When it wasdissccred' amohibians. of how it migihtbe no indication gavc and for a landenvironment beingpreadaptcd (lohnson, on Trial' pp' 76-77; Duwin amphibian" po.ri"bi.fo, a fith ro bccomean scealsoDenron,pp l 57, 179-80).-Eo' ro havcbccorne weresupposed "'1.c.. at aboutrhe sametime thar dirrosaurs extinct.-Eo. *"" Thcrcaremanyothcrorganisms whosefossilshadbeenfoundozl1instrata old, and which wcrethus usedasindcx years rhoushtto bc hundredsof millionsof rimes F-ora partiallist of these in modcrn living fossili-unril thcy wcrclound srill -Eo' pp.88-89 organisms,secSeiattfc Crcationin'

306

are exactlyrhe sameascurrenrlyliving species.Evolutionistshaveideas that some are "rcprobate"speciesthat do not go anywherefor some reason,and othersare more progressive speciessincethey havethe energy to go forward. But thar is faith, not proof. The fossil specieswhich have been preservedare just as disrinct from each other as are living species. 6. Then rhere are rhe 'bbuious" fzni$ proof of evolution.In mosr textbook of evolurion, rhereare arristic renderingstracing the evolution ofrhe horseand the elephant.There is a greardeal ofsubjecriviry involved in this, jusr as when artists make the Neanderthalman look benr over to resemblean ape.This is not scientificproof bur imagination basedon one'sphilosophicalidea.There is quire a bit ofevidence in the fossil record which is either againsrevolurion or shows rhat there is no proof one way or the orher; and rhere are some things which are quite remarkableand are unable to be explainedby evoluIlon.

The few "clear" lines of descent-the horse,pig, etc.-involve either variation within a rype (as,evidenrly,difkrent sizesof horses),or else (whcn it involvesapparentlydifferent kinds of crearures)merery (6u cannot prove) that one crearureis relaredro another by assumes direct descenr.*lfevolution is true, theselines ofdescenr may 6e plausible;but in no way do they constiture proof Forevolurion.

'A reccnt arricle in lVorU Magazinc(July 17, 1999) has nored conccrning probablyrhc best-known ofrheseallcgcdlincsof dcsccnr:"'l'he FieldMuscunr[of Chicagolis the sorrrccof rhatofr-rcprinrcd cxhibirpurportcdlvshowingrtrccvoturion of rhehorse.Litrleskclcrons arelollowcdby slighrlylargerandevermorccqurne skcletons, smoorhlymuraringunril we havcthc modcrn-day horsc.C)nrhc faccof it, thisseems ro providea vividvisualproofofevolurion, wirh no nrissing linksfrom rhe riny fcrret-likccrcarurero thc magnificenr srrllion,.rndir hasbccnusedassuchin counrlcss sciencctexrbooks. It turnsout, though,rharrhe animalswhoseskelerons areso arranged havenorhingro do with eachother -l hcy represent differcnrspecics, dillerenrbranches, and overlapping rimes,asevcncvolutionisrs---
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 of fact, the seriousscientisrwill tell you that all the rest is not really proof, but the one proof is mutations There ate some evolutionists,such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, who say,"l haveprovedevolution becauseI havemadea new speciesin the laboratory."After thirty yearsof working on fruit flies' which multiply very quickly, you can get the generarionalequivalentof several hundred thousand yearsof human life in a lew decades'Dobzhansky experimentedby irradiating fruit flies and finally came uP with two *hi.h hrd changes,and which no longer interbredwith the other kind 'fhis is his definition of species-that they do not interof fruit fly. " breed;thereltore,he said,"l haveevolveda new species In the first place, this was done under extremelyartificial conditions, with radiationl and you have to come up with a new theory of radioactivewavesfrom outer sPacein order ro iustily it Secondly,it is still a fruit fly. So it has no wings or it is purple insteadof yello*; it is still a fruit fly and is basicallyno different from any other fruit fly; it is simply another variery.So he hasactuallyproved nothing ' . i,rrtherrnore, mutations are ninety-nine percent harmful' All experiments,including thoseby evolutionistswho haveworked on then.t decades,have proved unsuccessfulin showing any real io, -rnyfrom one kind of creatureto another,even the most primitive chanse

kind thar reproduces itselfeveryrendays.tfanyrhing,the evidence in that sphereis for the "fixiry"ofspecies.. Bur in the end,we haveto sayrharthereis no conclusive scientific proofrbr evolution;and likewisethereis no conclusiveprool againx evolution,because eventhoughit mighr not seemroo llgical or too plausibleaccordingro rheevidence, still thereis no proof ihar grvena billion or trillion yearsa monkeymight not be producedf.io* an amoeba.Who knows?If you don't considerfor a momenrwhat rhe Holy Fatherssay,you mighr think that perhapsit's true, especially if thereis a Cod. Ifyou think it happened"by chance,"you haveno argumenrar all... To believeit happened by chancerequires muchmore fairhrhanto believein God. In anycase,theevidence we havejust examinedwill makesenseto you accordingto what your philosophyis. 'l-he creationist philosophyrequireslessadjustmentof the evidence, and so it is morein accordance with the simplisticpresuppositions of modernscience. Thereis onemorerhingthathasbeenusedasa kind of .proofof .8. evolution," and that is radiomenicdating radiocarbon,potasslumargon,uraniumdecay,***and so on. Thesewereall discovered in the presenrcenrury,someof them just recently.Evolutionists say rhese systems provethe world is reallyveryold. One textbooksaysrheyhave

or decrcasc cangrcarlyincrcase - PhillipE. Johnsonnorcsthat'An cxpcrimenrcr the ctc wing size' the reduce or grcatly fly,... in a fiuir bristles rhe numberof ' but rhe fruit crcdir accorrnrs ones Sonte maladapted usually fruit f1ics, fruit flicsarestill which do in the senscof popularions wirh producingncw specics, fly experimcnts has in realiry border species that rlrc disputc othcrs other; with cach not inrerbrccd dcfincs one or broadly narrowly on how turns question the Apparently bccncrosscd. interbrceding fiom are inhibited thar ro popularions *irh rcspecr espcciaily a species, in pursuingrlrequestion'ltcause bui not tor"lly in."pablcof it. I am not intercsted new organsand organismsby this ro crealc capaciry hcrc is dte what is at issuc populationsln any casc' breeding separated ro producc capacity rnerhod,not thc in rhc fruir fly expcriuscd selccti
ists,secabove,P. 134 n.-Flo.

308

' As gcnrrics expcrr [)r. l-cc Spctncr has observcd,"lf random murarions could eccount for rhe cvolurion oflife, rhen rhey musr have addecla lor of infbrmation ro thc gcnomc from thc rinrc ofrhc firsr purativc organism unril rhc appcaranccofall prescnrlifc. lf this vastanrounr of information was btrilt up by an accumularionofa long scriesof random murationsand natural sclcction,then crch of rhcsemany billions of nrurationsmust havc, on rhe averagc,added somc informarion. ycr afier all the molecular studics thar havc'bcendonc on mutarions, nor a sinele one has been lbund rhar adds any gencric infornrarronlThey.rll losc intbrmariori!. Seef)r Spcrner'sauthorirativcrefutarionofcvolurion, Not by Chancc!-'F.o. " In saying "by chancc," Fr Scraphim rneans..wrrhoutdesign.'or ..wirhout an intelligcnr Designer."According ro rhe nco-f)arwirrianModcrn SynrhcticTheory of Flvolution,rhc fundamenral mcchanismofevolurion is chancc murarion, acrrnq ro_ 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 . "" The uranium decaysystcmis rhe first radiometric merhod used historicallv. rhe method againstwhich orhershave becn calibrared,and thc main ruopo.r fo, rh. 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 .

309

GeNssIs, Cnn,rrtoN lNo E'cnt-vMaN

beforewe hadonly relabroughtabouta revolutionin dating,because ofage and now we haveabsoluteideas'One cantesta certaln tive i-deas systemand come up with the rock accordirigto the Potassium-argon of error iJ., ,ft^, the r"ockis rwo billion yt"ts old; theyallowa margin of aboutten percent. The factofthe matteris that thegreatageof theearthwassuPPoswere edly already"known" by scientistslongbeforethesedatingsystems on were.based unFromtheir inception,thedatingsystems developed. of CharlesLyell'that theworld provenuniformitarianpresuppositions N Berry 1u".."n" millionsif not biliionsof yearsold As Villiam B 7-imeScab: writes in his book Grouth of'a Prehistoric although timescale' of thegeologic rhusis theverybasis Evolution \Wallacepresented the scalcitsclf was crccted before Darwin and world'' to the scienrific of naturalsclection thcir systcnr

The radiomctricdating sysIt is all dependent on 'aheady YourPhilosoPliT know that rhe world is "millions of ,.-, '*ort " Lnly if 4ou in daring;rhey simyearsold."'Thus, r[.y are not reallyrevolutionary new dating systemshad ol" fi, in,o an alreadyacceptedview' If these of three thc world *r, oniy five thousand years old' instead iia .t ",scientistswould not haveacceptedthem so easily'** billion, . of all the Thc geological column and approximate ages to evolutionary fossil-bearlng ,,L," *.r. also worked out according no onehasprooflor any speaking' thar,scientifically " "lr mustbc rcmcmbered to 6'000 ycarsago'at most' datcsprior to thc bcginningofwrirtcn records'abour4'000 be basedon theassumptiooof of historynrusrnecessarilv ;;;";;;;;i;;:ginniig p l50) -Eo uniforlit"ri"nir-" iH.nry Mo,,;' Scicnifc Crcauonim' 'science many merhodsof geoproposed has observes, Mikon " fu Richard thc Earth! agc-all o[ which ere subjecrto someunccrchronomctry-mcasuring to rheoceanl But tainties[c.g. cfiluxofhcium into thearmosphcrcinfl-uxo[sah decayof uraof rh... ."any mcthods,only one techniq'ri-rhar of the.radioactivc of yearsAnd ir is niu- and similarclcmcnts-yieldsan agefor rhe Earthof billions rrniforpromotedby Darwinists.and ,hi, nn. .",hod thar hasbeenenrhusialrically (Shauering thc rri,"ri"r g".l.git", while all other mcrhodt hauc been ncglected" Mlths of Daruinin, P. .18)-Lo'

310

A Bnrr.rCrrrrque olrxe EvoLurlowenyMooeI theory long before radiometric daring was ever heard oi* Any objecrive scientific book on the subject will tell you thar the only way we can give absolutenumbers of yearsto the differenr srratais by accepring the rheory of evolution. "lndex fossils"are usedas the ulrimate indicarion ofrhe ageofthe strata,and the ageofrhe index fossilsis determinedby evolutionaryassumprions about them.** As The AmericanJounal of Sciencestates: 1-heonly chronometricscaleapplicablein geologichistoryfbr rhe srrarigraphic classification ofrocksand for datinggcologicevenrsexactlyis tirrnishedby thc fossils. Owing ro rhc irreversibility ofevortrtion, they offcr an unambiguoustime scalcfirr relativeage determinations and for worldwidecorrelarion of rocks.'"' 6 'fherefbre, it! another circular arqunrent.The rheorv of evolution ' For exanrple,in rhc ninercenthcenturyCharlcsl_vellatrenrptcdro darethc of cnd thc (lreraccous pcriod by rcfcrcnceto how long hc rhoughrit would havc rakcnrhe shcllfish(whoselossilsarc lound in l:rterbeds)to havccvolvcdinto rhcir modcrn desccndants. l-yellcstinratcdthar rhc (]retaccous cndcd 80 nrillion ycars agcr-not far from today'sacccpredfigurc of 65 nrlllion (ShaneringtheMyth ol Dartuitisn, p.22).-tl.o. '* Vhcn diffcrentradionrcrrictcstsof a rock, perfirrrncdaccordingro onc or nrorcradiornctric procedurcs, comeup wirh discordanr agcs(asfrctlucntlynappensl, cvolutionisrs rvilldccideuponan :rgcrharaccords 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 caseof this wasthc daringcontroversy overrhe KNM-FlR-1470skulldiscotcreooy RichardLeakey, which is discrrssed in AppcndixFour.(Sccalsol.Lrbcnow, Sazeraf Couention,pp. 247-288,and Milon, pp. 53-56.)-Eo. "* Likcwise,V. M. Fllasser of thc Univcrsiryof Marylendwrircs:"fu is well known,theordcrof the geological stratais fixedcnrirclyby meansof fcrssilsl rhus,rhc geological mcthodpresumcs rhe cxistencc in rheseperiodsof livingbcingsofgradurlly incrcasingcomplexiry"(EncTdopedtu Britannicall97 3), vol. 7, p. 850). J. Fl. O'Rourkc, writing in TheAncricanJoxnal ol'scicnt (Jzn. 1976, p. 53), starcs:"-l he intelligenrlaymanhaslong suspectcd circuhr reesoning in rhe useof rocksto darc lossilsand lossilsto datc rocks.Thc gcologisrhasncverborhcrcdro rhink of a gooclreply,feclingrhat expllnationsarc nor worrh rhe rroubleaslong as the work bringsrcsulrs. This is supposed to bc hard-headed pragmarism."-Eo.

3l r

GeNssIs'CngxrloN'rNo EentYMr'n millions of years is not provetl by the "millions of years,"becausethe not true' there ls no rely upon the theory ofevolution' Ifevolution is n."d io, th" millions of Years' which the radioS..ondly, there are certain basic assumptions which rracethe decay metric dating systemsmust make l'he systems' "daughter" components' require: (l) rate of radioactiveminerals to rarehas alwaysbeen that there is absoluteuniformity-that the decay there on' {.2) the same for as long as the processhas becn going .rhat they admit ir;; ;;.; no .ontnriin.tion from outside sources-which (3) that the thing being dated has been isolated'buried ;;;;;;p"", outside' and no organic *a"ttt' h"s been rouching it from ,o-.*h.,., in the n."rty, l
3t7

A BnrcrCrurrqur or rHr EvoLurrorlatyMooe I crearionistsadmit that it has a fair accuracyback perhaps3,000 years, "although with considerablescarrerand uncertainry."* lr has been testedon certain articleswhose age has been determined, and ir has proved to be not too far offin many cases.Bur beyond 2,000 or 3,000 yearsit becomesextremelydubious. Even those who are adherentsto rhis sysremadmit that, becausethe half'-lifeof Carbon 14 is 5,600 yearsor so, it cannot be accuratebeyond 25,000 or 35,000 yearsat the most.'fhe other systems,such as porassirrm -argon, uranium decay, etc., claim to measure a half-life of 1.3 and 4.5 billion years respectively; and thereforewhen they talk about proving the ageof old rocksthey are using thesesystems. 'fhe Carbon 14 system is used only on organic marrer; and potassium-argonand uranium systemsare usedon rocks.'*'fhe same things are true lor the latter as they are for the fbrmer: there musr be uniformiry throughout the billions of years, and no contamination fiom outside.ln the potassium-argonmethod, for example,you musr assumetha. it was all Potassium40 in the beginning beforeit decayed to Argon 40;'-* and all rhesethings you have ro rake on faith. Ifyou rry to measureanyrhing "recenr," say only a million yearsago, and use this systemwith a half-life ofover a billion years,it is like trying to measurea millimeter with a yardstick:it is not very accurateeven assumingit is valid. There have been numerous caseswhen they have applied this systemto new rocls and havecome up with agesof mil. Henry M. Morris, ScientrfcCreationim,p. 162.^fhe rcasonswhy radiocarbon daringhrs someaccuracy up to 3,000yearsago(but nor bcforc)arccxplaincdon pp. t64-(17.SeerfsoJohn I). Morris, Thc Younglhrth, pp. 6447.-Eo. methodscannotbc applicdro fossilsrhcmselves nor to thc sedi" Radioisotopc mentlry rockconrainingrhefossils, but only ro igncousrockswhichmaylieabovcor bclowrhc fossil-bcaring strarum.-Eu. 'Argon40 is a vcrycontmonisotopein rheatrnos"' 'fhis is a big assumprion. phcrcand rhc rocksof the Earth'scrust.Indced,argonis rhe rwelfihmostabundanr chemicalclemenron Earth,and morerhan99 perccnrof ir is Argon40. Thcreis no *'ay ro rcll whcrhcranygivcnsampleofArgon 40 is rhe rcsiduc physicalor chemical of radioactivc decayor waspresentin thc rockswhen rheywerefornred"(Milron,p. 47). Thar Argon40 wasprescnrin pocassium mincralsat thc rimeofthcir formarion is evidenced by rhespecracularly erroncous darcswhich rhepotassium-argon mcthod givesto reccnrlyformcd rocksof known agc(seebelow).-Eo.

3't3

GeNssIs, Cnlqrtoht lt'Io llAnl-v MIN

lt relionsor billion years.*Therefore,the wholething is veryshakv' quiresthat thosebillionsof yearsexistin the firstplace'*' There are other kinds of testswhich havebeenusedat vartous for example,the rateat which sodiumand variouschemicals ti-., "r, into the ocean'You measurethe amount of the eleare discharged how much approximately mentsther; arenow in the ocean'measure up with a come you of it goesinto the seaeveryyear,and from that g,u.rs"of ho* old theoceanmustbeiand probablytheoceanis asold as the world was ?f,. *orta. They did this with sodiumand discovered answers 100 million year ol,l. But it wasfound that you getdiffe-rent years' of2'000 age an on whichelementyou use:Ieadgives depending 8,000years'some100years,some50 million-there is abotiers giv"e solutelyno uniformiry' on the Thar. ,r. other tests.For example,a testwasdone based corona the through rateat whichHelium 4 is enteringthe atmosphere ofthe earthis bur several ofthe sun;thisindicatedthat the-atmosphere thousandyearsold.') -fhereiore,thesetestsareveryunsure;and someof them makeit old' verydubiousthat the world couldbe anlthing like 5 billion ycars 'Vrh.n you.o-. down ro it. it dependswhatyourfaith.is' Sornescievolutionis unthinkableunentiststhink the earthis veryold because believe l.r, th. ."rth is veryold' If you believein evolution'you must *ork on not does theearthis veryold',sinceit is obviousthatevolution uscdthc P-otassium-areion ' For cxamplc,rhc HawaiianInstirutcofCcophysics mer h o d ro d at ev olc anic r o c k s n c a rH u a l a l c i ,H a w a i i a n d goragcsofupr< l 3bi l | i on ln ycars-whcn thc rocksare known to havebccn formcd in a modcrneruPtton (Kilatrca) formedlessthan 200 ycarsagofrom an ecrivevolcano i aOl. Si.if", -.f.t rgesof up to 22 million years.l-itry-ycar-old werefound to BivePotasslum-algon p'oduccJnrodclagesashighas3 5 milZ-ealand, N"* Mi Nga,truhoe, l"u" flo*, "t (S eeM ilt on,pp. 38 ,4 7 -4 8 )-Eo l ion ye a rs. -ii Or. dating(irrthiscascthc rrraniunt Jot n O. Morrisc*plainsth"t radiomerric that the carth.isat lcasrold enoughfor is basedon 'the assumprion dc."y ^.thod) lead[i e ' rhe "daughrer"componentlrn a sPccrth. p,.r.nt amountof radiogenic we knew rhat the ,o h"u" bccn producedLy presentratcsof uranium dccay l f daringcouldhelpto detcrmine -"n' thar radioisotopc eanhwasold, rhc possibiliry "xistt old carth and young earth lt asbctucct rcsring it is uscless cxactlyhow old, but it rzrrarthe old carth" (John D. Morris, 1h YoungEarth' p 57) -t'o'

3t4

A Br.rtr Cntrlqur or lrt

EvolurtoNanvMoosl

a short time scale.But asfar asscientificproofgoes,thereis none whatsoeverrhat the earth is 5 billion yearsold, or 7,500 yearsold-it could be either.It dependson what kind ofsuppositionsyou start with. 4. Tlte Theory of Euolution Is Understandable Phihnphbally So evolution is not, in fact,a scientificproblem; ir is a phiksophical question.Ve haveto realizethat the theory of evolution is acceptable to certain scientists,philosophersand other people becausethey have been preparedfor it. Let us look now at its philosophicalantecedents in rhe aposrasyof Westernsocieryfrom rraditionalChristianiry.* As we have seen, rhe idea of evolution aroseat the end of the eighteenthcentury,which was the end of the Enlightenment and the beginning of the RevolutionaryAge-our own age. T'he Enlightenmenr was characterizedby a stableworldview, but that stabiliry could not last; it had to give way to the evolutionaryworldview.Ve will discusslater why this was so. One of the classicalworks on the Enlightenmem, The Europcan Mind by Paul Hazard, states: [n rhis period] a moral clashtook placcin Europe.Thc inrervalbcof which it is a linealdescendenr, and the rweenrhe Renaissance, FrcnchRcvolurion,for which ir wasforgingthc wcapons,constirutcsan epochwhich yicldsto nonein historicalimportance.r" The Enlightenmentwas the classicalage of modern Europe.This period berweenthe Renaissance and modern timeswas the first realarof the new forceslet loose by rempt to make a harmonious synahesis the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation,**without losing the spiritual baseof sornekind of Christianiry. in thissccrionhasbeentakenfrom prcviorrs ' Someofthe fbllowingdiscussion lectures of Fr.Seraphim\"SurvivalCoursc."-Eo. " Fr.Seraphimshowedin a previouslccturcrhat,afterthe Schismofthc Western (lhurch from rhc OrrhodoxChurch,thc Vesrerntendencyrowardrarionalism wenrunchccked. This wasscenalmosrimmcdiarcly afterthe Schismwirh thc riscof in which reasonwascxalredabovefaithand tradirion.-Eo. Scholasticisnr,

3t5

(lp.Nnsts, CnenrtoNauo EeruvMnr't age,this new harm-ony'was tbr The first aspectofthis new classical 'the scientifc worlduieu, which took the form of the oJ' ty'.ominance early Enworld-machine of lsaacNewton'- The age of Newton' the to seemed lightenment,was a tlme when scienceand rational religion way all was right with the world, and the arts flourishedin a "ir..,h", ii which they were neveragain to {lourish in the West' of intellecBeforethis time, the Vest had known severalcenturies tualfermentandevenchaosasthemedievalRomanCatholicsynthesis to heateddiscollapsedand new forcesmade themselvesfelt' leading

purposes fu:'l] 1'hereligious bloodywarfare' pu,.i Yi:.: l:lttical "nd Var in 1648'whichdevasendedwith ,h. .lor. of theThirryYears' a complexity and tated Germany. Protestantismhaj rebelledagainst ln ancrent pagan corruption in Catholicisml there was a renaissance the natural man' thoujht and art; a new humanism had discovered backgroundl and' *ii.f, purn.a the idea of God ever more into the as rhe stanmore significant for thc future, sciencereplacedtheology came to seem dard of-knowledge,and the study of nature and its laws the most importanr intellectualpursuit' and early eighteenth.centuries.'however'a cerBy the seuenteenth Vestern. thought' tain equilibrium and harmony were. reached in. was not' after ali, overthrown by the new ideas' bur and conrrarathe. adapteditself to the new spirit, and the difficulties. ideas had not yet Ji.,ion, oi modern naturalistic and rationalistic -n,irri'"niry part of made themselvesfelt. Particularly in rhe most enlighrened seemed Europ", England, France and Germany' it almost fr.r.rn religious *i:h,,tht that a golden rg. hrj.orn.' especiallyin contrast of the sev*"r, *"hi.h h"i."uag.d thesecountries up to the nriddle exiswhose God enteenth century. Th-e enlightenedman believedin of the beliefsof t.nc. .ould be iationally demonstrated,was tolerant could be exothers. and was convinced that everything in the world

Christ' btrt irr ' Sir lsaacNewton (1642-1727\wasa rheisrwho bclicved Jcsus ofChrisrianity.Likc othcr Enlightenabourrhe rarionaliry wasrackcdwith anxietics hirnselfto savingChristianhe committed l hontas Jeflerson, ."nt think.r, ,u.h "s that is' corruptions.'' iry by rewritingthc Biblcarrdpurgrngit ofwhar he callcdrhe (Ci l.rn li liylor. ft rh-edocrrineoI rhc lrirriry. ,ri. ,i'i,".uioui"r."r". H. r,.1.crcJ $e Mind: of Mcn, pP.34243.)-Eo

316

A Bnrer Cnrrrqur or .rne Evor.lrnoNany Mopcr. plained by modern sciencewhose latestadvanceshe eagerlyfollowed. l'he world seemedto be a vast machine in perpetual motion whose every movement could be describedmathematically.It was one great harmonious universe,orderedas a uniform mathematicalsystem.The classicalwork expressingthese ideas, Newton's Principia Mathematica, was greeredwith universalacclaim when it appearedin 1687, showing that the educaredworld at thar time was rhoroughly ripe for this new gosPel. In the new synthesisofrhe Enlightenmenr,"Nature" replacedGod as the central idea-even rhough God was not thrown out until rhe very end of this period. The ageofthe Newtonian systemwas also the ageof the religion of Reason.Religion was now subjectedto rhe sanre standardaswas science:to the study of rhe ourward world, that is, the standardof reason.Thus conrinued the processwhich had begun with Scholasticismsoon after the Schism, when reasonwas olaced above faith and tradition. The Enlighrenmentwas rhe rime when men dreamedof a rcligion of reasonableness. ln terms of religion, deism was perhaps the most typical movementof the eighteenthcenrury.The ideaof deism is that Cod exists, but Hes quite irrelevanr;rhat is, He createsthe world and sreps back. Newton himself believedthat he could not calculatequite everything correctly,asfor instancethe pathsofcome6; he had rhe idea that the universewas like a greatwatch which God made and then stepped back, and that once in a while He had to step in and correcrit, wind ir up again. But later astronomerssaid that no, this is nor rrue; one can actually havea unified theory which explainseverythingincluding all irregular movements,and so God is necessaryonly at the beginning. God becomesextremelyvague.*Thus miraclesand prophecybeganto be called into question, and many writers already began to say rhat they were just superstition.In this the French becamemore radical than the English. Looking at the Enlightenmenrworldview,one can seewhat a harmonious idea it appearedto be-of Nature ruling over everJthing,the mysteriesof Nature being discovered,God still being in heaven (al' On deismand irsvaguespiritualiryseepp. 54648,570.-F.o.

3t7

CtrartoN aNo ElnlY M'lN Gr-NrsIs, knowledge progressingover though not doing much), and scientific the "'- whole world. the, Enlightenment' itri, U,ingt us to the secondmain aspectof The Mahing of the book his which was o"loirh i, human progres' ln Modcrn Mind'1. H. Randall,Jr" writes: amongindividualmen It wasfrom the sprcadof rcasonand science hopedto bring about that rhe greatapostl.sof the Enlightenment hopedfor a vertrhe ideallociervc,fmankind And from thcrethey ccntury tablemillennium.From the beginningof the [eighreenth] rhrougheducapaan of progress onwardrhereatoseone tncreasing fbr this foundarions rhe laid tion. l.ockc,Helvdtius,and Bcntham who drcam;all men,of whateverschool'savconly those generous sin' bclievedwith all llung ... ,o the Christiandocrrincof original o[ thc human racc At last thcir ardentnaturcsin tne perfcctibiliry it couldmake mankindheldin its own handsthe keyto im destiny: errorsof rhc foolish. thc futurealmostwhat it would By destroying nature'thetewerc the pastand returningto a rarionalcultivationof li-it, to humanwelfarethat mighrnot be transccnded' ..rr."ly "ny is this fiith in It is difficultfor us to realizehow reccnta thing The ancientworld seemsto havehad no concePhuman progress. theGoldenAgc tion of it; GreeksandRomanslookedbackratherto Agcs' of course' from which man had degeneratcdThe Middle which actuallyaccouldbrook no suchthought The Renaissance' couldever rrse complishedso much' could nor imaginethat man wereall on thc to ,h. levclof gloriousantiquiry;its thoughts "g"in ccntury pasr.Only with thc growthof sciencein the scventeenth ambirion" ' All rhe dareto cherishsuchan overweening .o.rld -"n from Descartes the ancientsand carricd down' despised scientists, rI rhcdavfor the fairhin progrets Its philosophy \tlhy did the Enlightenmenr worldview collaPse? impossibleto revive' now s€;s hopelesslyiaiue, its art a Soldenage o(her'The most There are severalcauses,and they all overlapeach upon rat'lonalism very fundamentalcauseis the critical approachofthe The Holy Fa*hi.h ,h. whole Enlightenmentworldview was based'

318

A Bnrer Cnrrrqur or rHe FlvoluloNrny Mooel

thers say that human reasonhas beencorrupted since the flll of man; therefore,it must be submitted to faith and revelarionand thus raised up to a higher level.Once reasonis exaltedabovefaith and tradition, its critical approachproducesits own destruction.J'he faith in human reasonthat firsr produced Scholasticismthen produced the Refornration, becausereasoncriticized religion itself. The Reformation was a criticism of medievalCatholicism,and rhen a criticism of Protesranrisrn produced the arheisr/agnostic philosophersof the nineteenthcenrury. Finally, the critical approach of reason produced the actual suicideof reason.Once one trusts reasonas the standardof truth, one must fbllow it all the way on its destructivecourse.One has no argument againsrit. Since the Middle Ages, rationalism had reduced the sphere of knowledgeas it criticizedeverytradition and the realiryof the spiritual world-eve rything exceptthe outward world. \Vith the English philosopher David Hume in the latter part of the eighteenth century, autonomous reasonfinally went as far as it could go: it desrroyedall certain knowledge,even of the ourward world. Hume said we cannor know absolutetruth through our reason;we can only know what we experience.He wrote: Reasonis a subjective faculrywhich hasno necessary relationwirh thc "facts"wc scekto know lt is limited ro tracingrhc relationsof our ideas,which themselvesare alreadyrwicc removcdfrom "realiry" And our senses areequallysubjcctive, for thcy can neverknow 'thing rhc in irsclf,"but only an imageof ir which hasin it no element of neccssity and certainry-"rheconrraryof everymatterof factis srill possible."rz

This, in fact, is a very deepthing in our modern thinkersof the last rwo hundred years:rhis despairat neverbeing able ro know anyrhing, which diss<.rlves the very fabric of life. Believein rationalisticphilosophy and start thinking things through, and you come againstHume and other thinkers like him, and suddenlythe whole world dissolves. Thus, with justiceone writer on the philosophyof the Enlightenment has the following thing ro sayabour Hume:

319

Gr'Nr:sIs'Cnnalloru lNn F'antr MaN 'Iir rcad Hunrc'sdialoliucsaftcr having retrdwith sympatheticundcrof thc carly standing the earncsrdeistsand optimistic philosophcrs a slight chill' a fccling part of;he eightecnthcentury,is to cxpcriencc E'nlightenment'at ofthe .rf,,pp..h"nrion. lt is as ifat the high noon bc quret and sccurc the hour of thc sicstawhcn evcrythingsccmsto slipping of rhc sharp all abour, onc was suddenlyawarcof the short' under the solid grottnd fbundations' a fainr far-off tremor rulning of co-marn sc,rae.tl

own ('I-his, of course, later produced the great earthquak€s of our tim es .)

ideal in sciencehad a function similar to that of Ti. "*p.rinlentalthe stability of rhc.Enlightenmentworldview' Bcreasonin dertroying rs rreversJtlsrred:rt never ing itself based in rationalism, this idcal and come to ncw ones' sro'ps,but alwayswaits to test its conclusions and why the scir:i'", i, *tty r.i"ntific ideasare constantlychanging' rtrrtown ove entific synthesisat the time of Newton was thc old synrhcsis'ln ninally,the ideaof progresshelpedro dissolve lookcd to as the were as we ha;e seen,the an'icnts the Renaissancc, we could get back to them ,.u" ,,"ndrrd' lt was thought that, if only would be fine' from the Middl-eAgcs and superstirion'we "n.{ "*ry of thought' thc 'fhe'r when the sciencesbecarircrhe domirtant mode living toanyone that see scientificworldview arose.Peoplebeganro t.)g antlqulry' day has more scientific knowledge than -anyone.hvr .ln, with irs Jramatically forward Nl* r.i.n." for the first time hasmovcd etc. expenments, ' is building uPon the Th. u.ry idea of progress-that the present and that nran past, that t(e future g.nJ,.tiont will improve uPoll us' the idea that there iliig; .on*"n,ly ahJad-this obviouslyobliterates everything is o,i..onrtr,lt standard.Just as in Humet subjectivism' the future fare of the left to is becomesrelative'One'sexistingstand'rrd begin pcople who are going ro irnp'Jut upon ir' Aftcr a while' people constant move,o ti"li.e rhar this is a philosophyofconstantchange' there Is.no peace'no ment. Then the soul beginsto bc uPset lr senses idea of progresshad ,..uriry. Sy the end of rf,e eightttnih tcntuty this

320

A Bnrr,lCnrrreur
Darwin! friendsand associates ' Many of Erasmus wcrcsymparhizers wirh rhe frenchrevolurionaries. Erasmus wasa founderof rhe [_unarSociery, which included theserevolurionary synrparhizers, and whosemembershipoverlappcdrhar of rhe Revolutionary Socicryled by rhc radicalEarlStanhope. Erasmus cspccially admired Rousseau, rhc chief philosopherof rhc Revolurion.He wasalsoa frccmasou,aswas his son,CharlesDarwin'sfathcr.-Eo.

321

GsNesIs,Cne,"rIon rNo EaxlY MaN

A Btrrr Cnrrrqur or rHr EvoLurloNrnyMool.l

back upon thc scientific faith rhat they occur becauscof chemical * changesin the germ plasm 'o

Randall mentions how the changinghuman institurions_rhe dif_ ferent ideasof moraliry et..-.nfo..e o-ne!faith in evolution:

astheysay,'Anymustfall backupon this faith because, Evolutionists thing elseis unthinkable"-rhe"anythingelse"beingthat God created the world 7,000or 8,000yearsago' theeffectofevolutionon theworld: describing Randallcontinues, of mentodayhavcbecome thc beliefs In spiteof thcsedifficulties, thoroughly pernreatcdwith the conccpt of evolution. The grcat undcrlying notions and conceptsthat mcant so much to the eighteenth ccntury,Naturc and Reasonand Utiliry have largelygiven way to a new setbettcr expressingthc ultimate intellectualideasof the Crowing Vorld. Many social factorsconspiredto popularizethe idca of .. dcvclopmentand its corollaries.. brought by Evolution inro emphasis Perhapsrhe fundamental men! rninds has bcen upon the detailedcausalanalysisof the speof changc.lnstead of sccking to discovcr rhe cnd or cific proccsses purposeof the world-processas a whole, or to disccrn thc ultimate causeor ground of all existenIthings-rhc fundamentaltask of earlier scicnceand philosophy-men have comc to examineiust what thc processis and jusr what it does in its parts They havc reiccted the ... contemplation ofa fixed and sratic structure ofTruth, and adoptcd insreadrhe aim of investigatingall the littlc truths which cxperimentationcan rcveal Nor rhar Truth which is the sourceofall to the rcalm of truths, lifting mant soul aboveall httman experiences aftcr an tnscarch thc eternal .. , but thc paricnt, tirclcss,and endlcss finiry of t-rnitetruths in our experience-this is thc prescnt-daygoal of all scientificand philosophicalendcauor'r' biologist'Prowasmadeby a leadingBritishevolurionary " A similarstatement fcssorL. Harrison Matthcws,in a Forcwordto a I971 cdition of Darwin's Origin of "'l'hc factof evolurionis the backboncof biology,and biologyis thus in thc Specics: peculiarposirionofbeinga scicnccfoundedon an unproventheory-is it thena sci.n." n, hi,hl.. . llelicfin evolurionis thusexactlyparallclto bclicfin spccialcrca" know to be truc but neirhcr,up to rhe which believers rion-borh arc concePts hasbecncapablcof proof"-F-o. present, )zL

The conceprion ofman asan organisnr reacring to andacringupona complexcnvironmentis now basic.'Allideasand institutioris arcro_ day rhoughtof as primarilysocialproducts,functioninqin social groupsand springingfrom the necessiry of effecringsorie kind of adaprarionberweenhuman narureand its cnvironmenr,All rhe fieldsof humaninrercsrtodayhaveundergonerhisgencralsocroro_ gizingandpsychologizing rendency; rhccxamplcof religion.rndthe_ ology will bc a sufficicnr illustrarion.!(hercas rhe cighrecnrh centurythoughrof rcligionand theologyasa dcducrivcanJdemonsrrarivcscrofproposirions, men now considcrreligionasprimarilya socialproduct,a wayof lifc springingfrom thesocialorganization of nrerrireligiousexpcricnces. and rheologyasr rarionali.irionot cer_ tain fundamentalf'eelings and cxpericnccs of humannature.Ve no longerprovcrhe existence of God, wc talk of the ..meanins of God in humanexpericnce"; we no longerdemonstrate rhefururi lif., *e invesrigatc the effecrof rhe bcliefin immortaliryupon humanconduct.l6

V'e seeveryclearlythat this is rhe nex(sragebeyondHume, who . all rhesethings.Youcanno long., bJeue ln thoseold ideas. 9.:r:r:t.9 This is the nexrsrage, and it hasnothingio do with the.,scienrific dis' 'l-hisis thc basicrencrof rhc evolutionary worldvicwand thc Rcvorurronar Agc regarding hurnannarurc.h is builr inro the scicntificphilos<.rphy of Darwrnrsm and.rhcpoliricalphilosophy ofr)arwin! admircrKarrMarx;and ir is crmmon ro art toralitarian and uropianschemcs derivingfrom thescrwo, includingmodernlibcrel_ ism and radicalfcrninism.JudgcRobcrt H, Bork, in his book Slouciing Titu4fle6o_ mortab: Modetn Libcralim and Amctican Dcclinc, puts rhis cuolurionary renc succinclyasfollows:"Human natureis infinitclymallcable so rhara new,bcrrcr,ano perhapspcrfccrhumannarurccanbe produccdby thc rcarrangcmenr ofsocrarinsrirurions." F'eminisrShereHite, in the Hite kport on the Ftami[, expresscd rhis belief whenshcsaid:"Thercis no suchthing asa fi-xed.hu-"n n"r,_ir"., i.",t i, ,, p.ychological " strucrurerharis carefullyimplanccd in our mindsas*" 1.",n"a rh. lou. powcrequarions "nd of rhe hmily-for life. Fonunarclythe familyis a hunraninsriru_ ron: humansnradcir and humanscanchangcir.',_Eo. 1 t1

GaNnsts,CnllrloN aNo Ernt.YMaN

A Buer Cerrrqutot r.HeEvoLurloN.nny Moocr

is simply what is in the air. Once reason concovery" of evolution-it tinues its march, it will end in its own suicide.

pernaturalsrateof Adam.Thosewho want to keepboth Chrisrianiry and evolutionism,rherefore, are forcedro stick an artificialparadis onto an ape-likecreature.Theseareobviouslyrwo differenr system whichcannotbe mixed. Vhar.finally happensis that the peoplewho do this (including many Carholicsin recentdecades) seethat they havebecomemixed up and thereforerheyacceptthat evolutionmust be righr and Chris_ rianirya myth. They begin ro saythat the fall of mai is only a fall trom cosmicimmaturiry:rharwhenape-likecrearures, beingin a srare of naiverC,evolvedinro human beings,rhey acquired , iuil, .ornplex-and rhar is the hll. FurrhermJre,they com. ro b?lieue that x/as nor just one pair of human beings,bur many. ::iginall),..there This is calledpolygenism-theideathar man camefrori manydifii:r_ enr palrs. Once you give in ro the ideathat Genesis and the origin of man musr be inspectedrarionalistically_onrhe basisof the iaturalistic philosophyof modernthinkers-then Chrisrianiryh", ,o b. f u, .*"y. Naturalisric philosophyis a realmofrelativetruths.In rhetelchingof the Holy Fathers, on the otherhand,we havetrurhswhicharerevealed and aregivento us by God-inspired men. In rhewritingsofthe Holy Farhers, rhereis a greardealof materiaj , abouc although one wouldn'tthink so. If one thinks .evolurion, (hrough wharevolurionis philosophically and theologically and then looksup rhosequesrions in the Holy Farhers, therei, d..l ofin_ formationto be found.W'ecannotgo into much of it"!r."i iighr now* bur we_willcovera few points in order to characterize .r,oluttn according to Patrisric reaching. Firsr,we shouldnotethat,accordingro rhe Holy Fathers, creation is.s-omerhing quite differentfrom the *orld *. seeroday;an entirely differenrprincipleis involved.This goesagainsrrhe rhinling of modern "Christianevolutionists." One suchev-olurionist, rheGrlck.iheologian", Panagiotis Trempelas, writesthat,,itappears glo.iou, dlvrne-hkeand more in harmonywith the regular "nd -or. merh-ods of God

Randall continues: Evolution hasintroduced a whole new scaleofvalues. Where for the eighteenthcentury the ideal was the rational, the natural' even the primirive and unspoiled,for us the desirableis identified ratherwith the latter end ofthe proccssofdevelopment, and our terms ofpraise are "modern," "up-to-date,""advanced,""progressivc."Just as much as the Enlightenmentwe tend to identifr what wc approvewith Naturc, but for us it is not rhe rationalorder of nature,but the culmination of an cvolutionary process,which we take for our leveragcin existence.The cightecnrhcenrury could think of nothing worse to call a man than an "unnatural enthusiast";we prefer to dub him an "antiquatcdand outgrown fossil."That agebelievcda theory ifit were calledrational,usefuland naturali we favor it if it is "the most recent than devclopment."tVe had rather be modcrnistsand progressivcs It is perhapsan open qucsrion if in our new scaleof sound reasoners. valucswc havenor lost as much as wc havegained . The idea of evolution, as it has finally come to bc understood, has rcinforcedthe humanisticand naturalisticarritude.lT

5. The Conflict betueenChristian Tiuth and EuolutionaryPhilosoPhT Now we musrlook to seewhatOrthodoxysaysaboutrhequestion and theology. of evolution,whereit touchesupon philosoPhy man is cominguP from savofevolution. Accordingto the th€ory agery,and that is why booksshow Cro-MagnonMan, Neanderthal readyto beatsomeoneoverthe head Man, etc.,lookingvery savage, imagination;it is not and takehis meat.This is obviouslysomeone's else' anything basedupon the shapeof the fossilsor you will interpret lfyou believethat man cameuP from savagery, man fell Orthodoxy' to all pasthisroryin rhoseterms.But according In evolutionaryphilosophythereis no room for a sufrom Paradise. 324

' A morerhoroughcxamination ofthis subjecris foundin partIll: Thc parrisric _ Docrrineof Crearion.-Eo. 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 fbrms by evolutionarymethods,"'' (\7e will nore heie that oftentimes'theologians"are quite behind often th. ti-.r. In order to apologizefor the scientificdogma' they become up with things *hlch th. scientistshavealreadyleft behind' -fhe "theologians" often readingthe literature' causethe scientists*are are scaredthat they are going to be old-fashionedor say something can which is not in accordancewith scientificopinion' So' often they fall for an evolutionaryidea by not rhinking the ouite unconsciously and whole thing through' by nor having a thoroughgoingphilosophy' not being J*are oiscienrific evidcncearrdscientificquestions) -idea that Panagiotis1-rempelassets forth-that creation is The with the methodswhich God usesall the supposedto be in accord-ance certainly norhing Patristic about it' becauseCreation is ri-.-ha, about when the world came into being. Every Holy Fatherwho writes different were-quite this will say that those first Six Days of Creation world' from anything elsethat ever happenedin the history of rhe He says mystery' is a Even BlesiedAugustinesaysthat the creation our own we reallycan'teventalk rbou, it becauseit! so different from laws present-day e*p.ri.nce' it's beyond us. Ve simply cannot proiect. ofthe olnature back into the pastand come up with an understanding all this of beginning creation.Creation is somethingdifferent; ir's the and,not the way it is now. of Some rather naive "theologians"try to say that the Six Days to Creation can be indefinitely long periods'that they can correspond the the different geologicalstrata.This, of course,is nonsensebecause or four geologicalst.ita do'not hauesix easilyidentifiablelayers'or five hing of,he sort. There are many, many layers'and they do not i, "ni weak accorrespondat all to the Six Daysof Crearion So that is a very

entire resr of thc crearion;that is, this First Day, which he sayswas rwenry-[our hours long, is exactlyrhe same day which is repearedin rhe resrof creation.' Ifyou think about it, rhereis norhing parricularlydiflcult in rhar idea,sincerhe crearionofGod is somethingrotally outsideour prcsenr knowledge.The accommodationofdays to epochsdoesnot ,ny sense;you cannot fit them together.l-herefore,why do you-"k" need to havea day that is a thousandor a million yearslong?** 'I'he Holy Fathers sayagainwith one voice thar thc creativeacrsof Cod, are instantaneous.Sr. Basil rhe Great, St. Ambrose the Grear, St. Ephraim and many others say that, when God creates,He says rhe word and it rs,Fasterthan thought. There are many Patristicquorarionsabout this, but we wil nor go into them here. None of the Holy Fatherssay rhat the creation *-as slow. l-here are Six Days of Creation, and they describerhis not as a

commodation. be As a matter of fact-even though it looks as though it might those rerribly fundamentalisticto sayit-the Holy Fathersdo saythat divides D"y, *.r. twenty-fourhours long. St. Ephraim the Syrianeven rhat' th# into r*o periods,twelvehours each.St' Basilthe Great says "first day" but in the book of Genesis,the First Day is called not the "one day" becausethat is the one day by which God measuredout the

376

' Sccp. 401 bclow-Eo. ** Somc modern commen[atorc, artempringro place rhe Genesisaccount wirhin rhe cvolutioraryrimescale,lravetricd in vain ro showrharrhe Holv Fathers bclievedthe Six Daysof Creation ro be vastages.Thosewho havequotcd Sr. John l)anrascenei mentionof'the sevenagesof thc world" lor this purposc(On tbe (h, tbodoxfaitb havcmisinrcrprered his meaning.-l'heidearhai world hisroryis ,2:1\ compriscd oIsevcnages, corresporrding ro rhesevcndaysofrhe CrearionVeek, is an ancienrone,foundcvenin pre-Christian rimes(secDamianThompson,TheEndof Timc,pp.7,29, and FrancisHaber, 7hcAgr ofthc lVorld,pp. l9-2 i ); bur according to rhis idca thc sevenagcscome46arthe CrcarionVcck. St. Symeonthe Ncw I hco_ logiannrakesrhisclcarin his discussiorr of rhc Six Daysof(ircationand rheScvenrh Day of Cod'srest:'IGod],asrhe Foreknower ofcverytlring, arranged thc wnorccrce_ rion irr ordcrand in an orderlysequcnce, and He assigncd sevendaystharthcy rnighr bc an inrageof rhe ageswhich wcre *bscquentl rc passin rimc" ( llt FirrCreated Man, pp. 89-9O,emphasisadded). St.JohnL):rnrascenct own wriringsmakeclcartharwhenhespeaks ofrhe ..scven agcs"hc is referringro world history after thc Creation !(cck, for hc saysthar .ihc scvenagesof the prcscntworld includemanyagcsrn rhc senscol rhc gcncrarions of nen" (On tlte Ortbodoxl.:aith2:ll. This \ecomescvcnmorc evjdcnrin a larcrchaorcr of rhe samework, in which hc writcsspecifically abourthc Six Daysof Crcation, showingrhar he regardsrhc length of thcseDays----
327

(lr.nlsts' CnrxrIoN aNo ElnrY MaN something long process.The idea that man has been evolving from say that the lo*".r' i, ,o,"lly foreign to any Holy Farhers'Rarher'.they for rhe higher lo*"r..e"ture, came"firstin order ro preparerhe realm createdbecreaturewho is man, who must havc his kingdom already madeby fore he comes.St. Gregory the Theologiansaysthat man.was ea-rth' God on the Sixth Day and enteredinro rhe newly created the world l'here is a whole Patristicteachingconcerningthe srateof Blessed As and of Adam before the fall. Adam waspotentiallyimmortal' eithermortal Augustinesays,he wascreatedwith the possibiliryofbeing in the body' o, il--or,"l in ,he body,and he choseby his fall to be mortal About The creationbefoie the fall ofAdam was in a differentstate us' But this the Holy Fathersdo not tell r:svery much; it is really.beyond asSt,Gregory certainHoli Fathersof the most contemplativesort' such that Parasays St Gregory rhe Sinaite,do describethe stateof Paradise. hasbecomeindiseexistsnow in the samestateit wasin then' but that it so that visibleto us. It is placedberweencorruption and incorruption' around us' when a tree fallsin Paradise,it doesnot rot awal' like we see which tells hint but is turned into the most fragrantsubstanceThis is a there' us that Paradiseis beyond us, that someother law exists Ve know of people rvho have been to Paradise'like St' Euphrothere' These syrrusthe Cook,'whl brought back three applesfrom. were kept fo. a little while; the monks divided them uP ,i,... "ppl., that they ate .nd r,. ih.*, and they *ere very sweet.The accounrsays with rzardo to them like holy bread,which meansthis had something people ten and yet it *as something different from matter' Nowadays is the source what are speculatingabout matter and antimatter' about should we be o, ,oot of ,r,"ir"r-they doni know any more' So why surprisedthat there is a different kind of matter?* 'We know also that rherewill be a different body' a spiritual body'

A BnrrrCnrrrquror rss EvoLulroNrny MooeI

Our resurrected body will be of a differenrkind of marterthan we know now.Sr.GregoryrheSinairesaysir will be like our presentbody, but without moistureandheaviness. Vhat that is we do nor know.oecause,unlessonehasseenan angel,onehasnot hadexperience of this. 'We do not haveto speculare abourexactly*hat kind of marterthis is, because tharwill be revealed ro uswhenwe needto know ir, in the nextlife. It is enoughfor usto know that paradise, and thestareof rhe wholecreationbeforethe fall of Adam,wasquitedifferentfrom what we know now. The law ofnaturewe know now is rhelawofnaruretharGod gave when Adam fell; rhat is, when He said,"Cursedbe the earthfoirhy sake"(Gen.3: l7) and,"ln painthou shahbring forth children',(Gen. 3:16).Adam broughtdeathinto the world, so it is verylikelythat rro creaturedied beforerhe fall. Beforethe fall, Eve *a, uirgin.God -need " mademaleand femaleknowingman would fall and would this meansof reproducing. l'here is an elementofgrearmysteryin rhestateofcrearionbefore the fall of Adam,whichwe do nor needro pry into because we arenot interested in the "how" ofcrearion.Ve know that rherewasa creanon of Six Days, and the Holy Fatherssay rhey were rwenry-four-hour days.There is nothing surprisingabourrhis-rhat rhe actswerernstantaneous: God wills and it is done,He speaks and ir is done.Since we believein God Vho is A.lmighry,th.re l, no problem whatsoever. But how it looked,how many kinds of crearure,,1.r.rswsls-fo1 sxample, whether there were all the different kinds of carswe seeor whether rherewere five basicrypes-we dont know, and it's not rmportanrfor usto know.* To add ro the theoryof evolutionthe ideaof God, assomeChristian evolutionists do, givesno help ar all. Or rarher,ir givesonry one help:it gersyou out of the problemof finding our *hire everything

t ElscwhereFr. Scraphim quoted Professorl M Andreyevof Holy Triniry ar rhe fall: "Christianiryhasalwaysviewedthe Seminaryon h,r* -"t"i.hangcd fallofman changed pr...n, J,"," ofnt",,c, asbcingt-hcresultofa fall inrosin The wascuned6y ()od" lhc *hole of naturc' in.ludinl thc nature of maltct itsclf,which St Trurh" "sciciti{ic Knowlcdgcand Christian (Gcn. l: l7) (Andrcyev, 'Nationa! -in .Vladinir Mysticat Thaologl I'he Cahndarfor 1974'p.69). Sccrlso Vladimir Lossky' of thc Eatcn Church,PP. 103-4.-Eo.

..has 'As Phillip E. Johnsonpoinrsour, thc doctrineof creationscicnrisrs al_ waysbeenrhar Cod crcaredbasickinds,or typcs,which subscguently diversificd. -l he mostfamous cxamplcofcrcarionistmicroevolurion involves ihe descendants of Adamand Eve,who havcdiversificd from a comrnonancesrral pair ro crcareall rhe divcrscraccsofthe human spccics"(Darwin on Tiia!, p.6g). -io.

328

329

GrNrsts. Crr,lrIoN ,cNnEArr-YM,AN came from in the first place.Insteadof a greattapiocabowl of cosmtc jelly,you haveGod. That is more clear;it is a straight idea.If you have rhe tapiocajelly in spacesomewhere,it is very mysticaland difficult to understand.If you are a materialist,it makessenseto you, but that is purely on the basisofyour prejudices. But apart from this-the questionof where everyrhingcame from to begin with-there is no particularhelp to be derived from adding God to the idea of evolution. The difficulties in the theory are srill there,no matter if God is behind it or not. The modern philosophyof evolution and Orthodox teachingdiffer in their understandingnot only of the past of man, but also of man'sfuture. If rhe creationis one great filament which evolvesand is transmuredinto new species,then we can expectthe evolution of "Superman"-which we will discussshortly.* If, however,the crearion is made up of distinct creatures,then we can expectsomethingdifferent. 'We do not have to expectcreaturesto changeor to rise up from the lower to the higher. Concerning the transmutabiliryof "kinds" of creatures,the Holy Fathershavequite a definite teaching.(The Holy Fathersusethe word "kinds," accordingto the word usedin Genesis;"species"is a very arbitrary concept,and we do not haveto take it asa limit.) Briefly we will quote a few Holy Farhersabout this. St. Gregory of Nyssaquotes his sister Macrina on her deathbed, when she was speakingabout this very question,opposing the idea oF the pre-existenceand transmigrationof souls, which was taught by Origen. Shesays,in the words ofSt. Gregory: Thosewho would haveir that the soul migratcsinto naturesdtvcrgent from eachother seemto me to obliterateall naruraldistincrions, to blend and confusetogether in every possiblerespecrthe If, that is, all rational.ths irrational,the sentientand thc insensate. theseare to passinro eachotherwith no distinctnaturalordersecludingthem from mutualtransition.To saythat oneand the same soulon accountofa particularenvironmcntofbody is at onc time a

* \ St.Macrina andherbrother, (J30-39j). St.Gregory of Nyssa Motaic icon in Rome.

"ChristianEvolutionism."-Eo. 'See the ncxtchaprer:

330

(leruesls, Crr-rrroNrNn Eerly Mr,n

A Bnrrr Cnrllqur clr rHe EvorulroNapy Moorl

rationaland intcllccrual sr rel="nofollow">rrl and that rhcn it is cavcrncd alongwith or herdswith rhebirds,or is a bcasrof burdenor a carthe reptiles, nivorousonc,or swimsin thedecp,or cvendropsdown to an inscnsatething so as to srrikeout roots and becomea completetrec producingbudson branchcs andfrom rhoscbudsa flowcror a thorn or a fruit cdible
332

St. Basilthe Crcat (329-179). lconfon Phihtbeou Motastery, Mount Athos, Grcece.

which means"Six Days": theseare commentarieson the Six Days of Crcation. Thcre is onc by St. Basil the Great in the East, one by St. Anrbroseof Milan in the Vest, and other lesserones.'I'hereare commentarieson the book of Genesisby Sr. John Chrysostom and St. Fiphraim the Syrian, and therc are many wrirings on thesc sutrlecrs scatteredin the writings o[many other Holy Fathers.l'he recenrHoly FatherSt. John of Kronstadt alsowrote a Hexaemeron. l'hese books are very inspiring, becausethey are not mere aDsrracr knowledge;they are full of pracricalwisdom. Thc Holy Fathersusc a love of nature and rhe splendorof God\ creation ro give examplesfor us human beings.There are many quaint little examplesof how we should be like the dove in its love for its marc, how wi should be like the wiser animalsand nor be like the dumber animals,etc. In our own monastery,we can take an examplefrom our squirrels.They are very greedy.Ve are not supposedto be like thar; we should be eentle like the deer.Ve haveall around us cxampleslikc rhar.

333

GrNr:sts,(lnl.altoN aNo EntrI-vM-nN

A Bnrrr Cnrrrqur or rus EvoLurlopanyMoorl

St. Basrlquotcs Cod! words in Genesis,"l-et ln his Hexaemeron, "was imthe earth bring forth." "This brief command," saysSt. Basil, mediatelya mighry nature and an elaboratesystemwhich brought to perlection more swiftly than our thought the countlesspropertiesof to re, abour God! commandmcnt' "Let the earth bring plrnts." Elsewhe 'l:l l)," Sr' Basil says' "At this saying all the iorth .regetation(Gen. densewoods appeared;all the treesshot up .. all the shrubswere tmmediatelythick with leafand bushy . '. all cameinto existence in a mo-

other. If we do not understandrhe whole variery of God,.screation, that is our fault, nor God's. Sr. Ambrose has a number of quotarionsalong rhe same line. His Hexaemeron is very closeto St. Basil'sin spirit. Ve haveother quoresfrom Holy Fatherswhich show us a very interesringthing: thar they were-combatingin ancient times something akin to the modern theory of evolution. This was the hereticalidei thar the soul of man was created ufer his body. The same idea is raught today by "Christian evolurionists,"although of coursc rne an_ cienr heresyis nor the sameas rhc modern rheorylThose who taught rhc ancienr heresybasedrheir idea on a misinterpretationof Genesis 2:7: "And God forrned man of the dust of the earrh, and breathed into his nostrils the brearh of life; and man becamea living soul.,' Even roday, "Christian evolutionists"siezeon this passageand say, "That meansman was somerhingelse first, and rhen he iecame human."

m ent of time."t' In the Ninth Homily of his Hexaemeron'St. Basilhas a quotc on ofcrcatures,one after the other' He the very questionofthe succession quotesGenesis:"Let the earth bring forth living creaturesaccordingto t-heirkinds: cattle and creepingthings and beastsof the earth (Gen l:24)." St. Basilsaysabout this: Considerthe Vord of God movingthroughall creation,havingbegun at thar time, activeup to the prcscntand cllicaciousuntil rhe ofthe world.As a ballwhcn pushcd end,evento rheconsummation a slopcis borncdownwardby its by somconeandthen meetingiwith own shapeand inclinationof the groundand docsnot sropbcforc ir, soroo the narureclfexistingobjects,sct somclcvclsurfaccrcccivcs in morion by onc comrnand,passcsthrough creationwithorrt thc succcssio'of prcscrving and destrucrion, change,by gcneration thc veryend.lt bcgcts until it reachcs rhckindsthroughrcsemblancc and an eagleofan ofa lion, a lion horse, of a a horscasa successot eachof the animalsby unintercagle.And it continuesto Preserve of thc universcNo rhe consummation until ruptcd successions of the animalsro be rhespecificcharacteristics lcngthof cimecauses naturc,ever corruptcdor extinct,But, asifestablished iust recenrly,

ln ancienr rimes,this falseidea (that the soul was crearedafter the body) was conrrastedby rhe opposite-and equally false-idea of the pre-existence of souls.'I'he Holy Fathers,in refuting borh thesetheories,clearlysratedthar the soul and body of man wie created, simultaneouly.Thus, Sr.John Damascene writes: Thc bodyand thesoulwereformcdar thesametimc, not onebefore and rheorheraftcrwards, asthe ravingsof Origcnwould haveir.2l S:: C.:gorf ofNyssa goesinro greaterderail in refuring borh here. sies.First, he describesOrigen'sidea ofthe pre-existence olsouls, rhar is, that souls"fell down" into our world:

This is a statemen.not of sciencebut of philosophy.1'his is the way God createdcreatures:each one has a certain seed,a certain narure, and transmits that to its offspring. When there is an exception' then it is a monstrosiryiand this does not invalidarethe principle of the natures of things, each one of which is quite distinct from the

Someof thosebeforeour time who havcdealrwirh the questionof principlesthink it right ro sayrhatsoulshavea prcviousexisrcncc as a pcopleand a socieryof theirown, and rharemonqrhemalsorhere are standards ofvice and ofvirruc, and rhar rhe ioul rhere,which abidcsin goodncss, remainswirhoutexperience ofconjunctionwirh the bodl Bur if ir doesdeparrfrom irs communionwith good, it fallsdowrrto rhislowerlife andsocomcsro be in a bodv.ra

334

335

frcsh,mouesalongwith rime.lr

CeNssrs, lNo EenryM,rN Crr.erroN

A Bnrrr Carlqu: on .rst EvolurroN,tryMoorr

Then St.Gregorydescribes the otherheresy, whichcorresponds to the ideasof modern"Christianevolutionists":

ceivcdas rwofold,accordingro rhe aposrolicreachings, madeup of thc visiblcman and rhc hiddcn man, if rhc one canreflrsrand rhe othersupcrvened, rhe powerof Him rharmadcuswould be shown to be in someway imperfect,asnot bcingcompletelysuflicienrfor the wholeraskat once,bur dividingthe work and busyinghimself wirh eachof thc halvesin turn.r,'

Others,on rhecontrary,markingtheorderof the makingof man as statedby Moses,saythat the soul is secondro the body in orderof time,sinceGod firsrtook dustfrom the earthand formedman,and thenanimatcdthe beingthusformedby His brearh.And by thisargumentthey provethat the fleshis morenoblethan the soul,thar which waspreviouslyformedthan that which wasaftcrwardsinfused into ir. For they saythat the soulwasmadcfor rhe body,thar the thing formcd might nor be without brearhand motion, and thar cveryrhing thatis madefbr something elseis surelylessprecious than that for which ir is madc.r5 Surely this theory, although it is in a different climare of ideas,is very closeto the modern evolurionisrs'idea that marrer indeed is rhe f.rst rhing, and the soul is secondary. St. Cregory of NyssareFutesthis theory as follows: Nor againarcwc in our doctrinero beginby makingup man likc a clayfigure,and ro saythat the soulcameinto beingfor the sakeof this; fbr surelyin that casethc intellccrual naturewould be shown to bc lessprcciousthan the clayfigure.But asman is onc, thc being consisring ofsoul and body,we areto supposcthat rhc beginningof his existence is onecommonto both parts,so that hc shouldnot be found to be antccedent and posteriorto himsclf,if thc bodily clcmcnt wcre first in poinr of rimc, and thc other werea lateraddition. For we are to saythar in rhe powerof Cod'sforeknowleclge, accordingto the docrrinelaid down carlicrin our discoursc, all rhc fullnessof human naturehad pre-existence. And ro this the prophcticwriting bcarswirness which saysrharGod knowethall things beforerheybe. And in the crearionof individuals,not to placethc one elementbcforethe othcr:neirherrhesoul bcforerhe body,nor the contrary,that man nraynor be ar strifeagainsrhimsclfby being dividedbv rhediffercncein ooinr n[ rime.For asour natureis con-

336

Of course,the whole basisfor an idea of evolution is that you do thar God is powerful enough to crearerhe whole world by 19, !:li*.. His \?ord. You are rrying ro help Him our by lerring Nature do most of the creating. The Holy Fathersalso talk about what it means that Adam was crearedfrom the dust. Some people take rhe fact that Sr. Arhanasius rhe Grearsaysin his writings, "The firsr-createdman was made of dust like everyone,and the hand which createdAdam then is creatinsalso and always those who come after him," and rhey say, ,.Thar rieans Adam could havebeendescendedfiom some other crearure.He didnt need to be taken from lireral dust. You dont have to rake rhat parr of Cenesisliterally."Bur it so happensthis very poinr is discussedin great detail by many Holy Fathers.They come up with many differcnr ways of expressingit, and make it absolutelyclear that Adam and Cain are rwo different kinds of people.Cain was born of man, whereasAdam had no father.Adam was crearedof rhe dusr, directly by the hand of Christ. Many Fatherstaughr the s.rme:St. Cyril of Jeiusalem,.St.John Damascene,and orhers. When wc come ro rhe quesrionof whar is ro be inrerpretedliterallv in Cenesisand whar is ro be inrcrprered figurarively or aliegorically. rhe Holy fathers ser forrh for us very clear teachings.In his ciommenrary, St. John Chrysosromevenpoinrsour in certainpassages exactlywhat is figurariveand whar is literal. He saysthose*ho try t.-omake ir all allegorical are trying ro desrr<.ry our fairh. For the most parr, rhe rrurhs in the book of Genesisare on rwo Ievels:there are lireral truths, and there are also-many times for our spirirual benefit-spirirual truths. In flacr,rhere are sysremsof three or four levelsof meaning;bur it is sufficienrfor us ro kno* that there are many deeper meaningsin rhe Scriprures,and very seldom is the

337

GsNesrs, CnsxrroNrnn EanrvMnw literal meaning destroyed.Only occasionallyis the meaning entirely figurarive. ln general,we can characterize evolution in its philosophicalaspect asa naturalistic"heresy''*which comesclosestofall to being rhe opposite of the ancienr heresy of the pre-existenceof souls. The "preexisrenceof souls" idea is that there is one kind of soul nature which runs throughout creation,while evolution is the rdeathere is one kind of materialbeing which runs throughour creation.Both of rheseideas destroythe idea of the distinct naturesof createdbeings. The idea of evolurion was a heresythat was lacking in ancicnt rimes. UsuallyOrthodoxy is midway berweenrwo errors:for example, between the doing away with rhe Divine Nature by Arius, and the doing away with the human nature by Monophysitism. In this particular case,the orher heresy(evolurion) was not incarnated in ancient times. This heresy "waited" until modern times to make its aPpearance. Ve will seemuch more clearlythe philosophicalside of evolutionism when we look ar a few of rhe sccalled Christian evolutionrsrs.

CHapranTsnrs *

Ch ristian Euoluti onism"

EDITOR S NOTE: This chapterhasbeenculled fom threesources:( I ) a nanscription ofa lecture that Fr. Seraphimgaue dttrntg bis ,,Orthodox SuruiualCourse"in 1975 (a continuationofthe lecturelontainedin the pyrcding chapxr); (2) Fr Seraphim'sowi writings for an unfnished cltapt1 lte wastuorhingon uith A. y, a public rchoil teacher;and (3) Fr Seraphimimiscelkneos noteson Teilbardde Chardin. Therenltrng com_ positeprouidesa remarkablyextensiuetreatmentof '.Christian euolutionism'.-especially of Tiithard, uhom Fr. Serap-himcalled .,thegreat euohttionist'prophet' of our times."

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

he explaincd 'Fr. Scraphimwas usingthis word figurativelyhere.Elscwherc thar "cvolurion is not sniuly spcaleinga hcrcsy,bur . .. an ideologyrhar is profoundly foreignto thc rcachingof OrthodoxChristianiry, and ir involvesone in so nrany wrong docrrincsand attitudesrharir would bc far bcrrcrif ir wcrc simplya hcrcsy and couldthusbe easilyidenrificdantlcombatrecl."-F-p.

338

' Karl Marx wasa dcvout Darwinist. who in Dat Kapinl calledL)arwin,s rheory ''cpochmaking."He bclicvcdhis rcductionist, rnareriarisiic rheorics ofrhe cvorution ofsoci:rlorganizarion ro bc deduciblefrom Darwinsdiscovcries, an 33t)

CeNr:srs, Cnr:erroNeNo E,cnlvM,{N "disproved,"but is arrivedat-or rejected-by meansof a kind of evidencequite different from scientificproof. However,thereis nothing in the evolutionaryview ofthe world in itself which requiresit to be atheistic,and in lact the evolutionaryrheory makesmuch more sensero normal human reasonif one has laith in at leastsomekind of God who puts the processin motion, guidesit, etc. The philosophyof the world as a "chance"play of atoms, which themselvescame into existenceby "chance,"is satisfyingonly to the most limited and stunted minds. The outlook of the Orthodox Christian toward evolution, therefore, is by no meansthe simple one ol the rejectionof a philosophy which is openly anti-religiousor anti-Christian;the more sophisticated evolutionistsare all "religious" to some degree,and there are many "Christian evolutionists,"some of them even having the reputationof being "Orthodox theologians."Here we shall examine the views of some of these"Christian evolutionists,"all of them either claiming to be Orthodox Christiansor at leasthaving their evolutionaryviewsrecommended by Orthodox Christians.[n this way we shall be abie to see the evolutionary philosophy at its best, "reconciled"with Orthodox theology,as it were;and so we shall be ableto begin to seewhether the philosophyof evolution is reallycompatiblewith Orthodox Christianiry Here we shall not subjectthe viewsof these"Christian evolutionists" to detailed criticism, but will rather look to seewhat questions theseviews raisefor Orthodox faith. -fhesequestionswill then be examined in detail in our final sectionon rhe Orthodox Patristicview of creation. articles,and In the last few yearsthere have [sgn 21si6135-5rnall somelongerones-in the Orthodox presson this very questionof evolution. The oficial Greek Archdiocese newspaper! The Orthodox Obarticleswhich arequite surprisingin that they are serm, primed several so far away from Orthodoxy. One of these,"Evolution: A Heresy?", quoresthe "well-known Orthodox theologian,PanagiotisTiempelas": It appears moregloriousanddivine-likeand morein harmonywith in nature the regularmethodsof God which we dailyseeexpressed methods.Himself to havccrcatedthe variousformsbv cvolurionarv

340

"CHnrst"IaN EvoLutroHtstvr" remainingrhefirstandsupreme crearive Causeofthc secondary and immediarecauses to which arcowedrhe developmenr of thc variery ofspecics.r

This is the view ofall "Chrisrianevolutionists,"and it raisesthe extremely imponanr quesrionof wherher it is possiblero attain knowledgeof God's creationby meansof .the regularmerhods of God which we daily seeexpressed in nature";rhis is by no meansassimprea ques_ tion as ir might appear!And anorher,no less important question is raisedby this view; Vhat is it, then, thar God createdin theteg,nn,ng (for evolurion by definition is a processin time, and musr nave a beginning)?Did He createonly the ,,cosmicblob" ro which atheist philosophers. reduce rhe origin of the evolutionary process?Or must we. be rora y agnostic abour this ,.beginning,,' as many atheisr philosophcrstell us we must be? The article concludes: As longasChristiansrecognize rhecreative powcrofGod in the processof Evolurion,it is borhboldandhastyto callEvolutiona heresy. This conclusionrevealsratherclearlythe simple_minded approach ro the whole quesrionof the philosophyof euoluiion which prevailsin "Christian evolutionists" who have not given serious and critical thoughr-to the real problemswhich rhis pf,ilosophy presents for Orthodox faith. The whole point of this article, wtrich ,..-. ,o pr"r.n, th.eviewpoint of many of the Orthodox clergy in America (i.e., those who havebeen raisedin an "evolutio-nary"arirrosphe.ewirhour grvrng much rhought ro ir) is this: if "God,' is added ro rhe theory of Jvolul tion, ir becomes acceptableto Orthodox Christians; *. ,.. only againstevolution if it is atheisric.But this is surelya very naiveanswer to a rathercomplicatedquescion!Vhat of the philosophy ol evolution itself?Is it compatiblewith Orthodox Christian theology and philoso_ phy, even with "God" added to ir? All of rhe grear he;ics ol ni.,ory have also believedin "God": indeed, .The de'mons also belieu", tremble" (James2: l9). More rigorous thinking rhan "no rhis is required beforean Orthodox Christian can know what ri rhink ofevolution.

341

M,cN Gp.Nesrs, CaeartoNaNo EaRI-v The article in the Greek Archdiocesenewspapersaysthat evolution cannot really be a heresybecauserhere are many Christianswho believein it. BesidesTrempelas,it quotestwo other "Christian evolutionists": Lecomtedu Noiiy and Teilhardde Chardin. Let us look for a moment at Lecomtedu Noiiy and his views. 2. Lecomtedu Noiiy Pierre Lecomte du Noiiy was born in Paris in 1883 and died in New York in 1947. A widely known and respectedscientist,mathematician and physiologist,he wrote severalbooks on scientific philosophy. His popular book, Human Destiny,sets forth his conclusions about evolution. It turns out he was nor much of a Christian, for he believedthat man createdhis own God, who is actually"a formidable I fiction." He was very patronizing towards Chrisrianiry: he believcd thar Chrisrianiryhas been misunderstoodand misinterpretcd,bur it is and is a usefultool for mant continuing evostill good for rhe masses, lution on a moral and ethicalplane.It hasno objective,absolutetruth. Christ is not God, but Het perfectman. Christian tradition, however, somehowhelpsto educatethc racctowardsfurther evolution. He says, whichwill cnd in the Ve areat thc bcginningof thc transformations superiorrace...,rEvolutioncontinucsin our time, no longeron tbe or amtonical ptane,btt on te qiritual and moralphne. physiological 'W( ar(.J( rhc dawnof ,r ncw plr.rse of evolution.4 It is difficult enough to find scientificevidencefor physicalevolution, but it is impossiblero find evidencefor spiriuul evolution.Nevertheless,he believesin it. He says, in the sccond arc identicalwith thoscexpressed Our conclusions is interpreted in a ncw providcd rhat this chapter of Gencsis, chapter of r truth way and considercd as thc highly symbolicalcxpression by its rcdactoror by thc sagcswho which wasintuirivelyperceived communicared ir to him.t Of course,the book of Genesiswas not wrir(en through mere hu-

342

"CantsrIaru Evclr_ut.rorutsv"

man inruirion.On the conrrary, rheHoly Fathers sayrhatMosesheard from God the truths containedin it. St. John Chrysostomsaysrne book of Genesisis a propheqof thepast:that is, Mosessawan exalted visionof whar rheworld wasin the beginning. St.lsaacthe Syriandescribes how sucha visioncanrakeplace:how the soul of a holy man can ascendro a vision of the beginningof things.Describinghow sucha soulis enraptured at the thorightoithe futureageof incorruption,St. Isaacwrires: And fromrhisoneis already exalred in hismindro tharwhichorc_ cededthe composition(making)of the world, when th.r. *", nu crearurc,nor hcaven,nor carth,nor angels,nothingof rhat which wasbroughrinro being,and to how God, solclyby His good will, suddenlybrorrghteverythingfrom non-beinginto being, "nd.u"rythingsroodbeforcHim in perfcction.6 MonsieurLecomtedu Noiiy conrinues: Lct us try ... to analyzerhe sacredtexras though ir wcrea highly symbolical and crypricdescription ofscientificrruths.T This, of course, is exrremelyparronizing-as if poor Moses tried his best ro get a scientificpicture of the way things were, and all he came up with were theseimages. Lecomredu Noiiy explains: The omniporenccof God is manifcsted by the fact rhat man, desccndedfrom the marineworms,is todaycapableof conceivingrhe futurcexisrence ofa supcriorbeingand o[wanting ro bc his ancesror.Christbringsus thc proofthar rhisis not an unrealiirable drcam bur an accessible ideal.s

Thar is, Christ is some kind of Superman,and rhis is the ideal to which man is now evolving. Lecomredu Noiiy givesus a new "criterionof good and evil" which he saysis "absolute wirh respect to Man": 343

CENesrs. CrrerroN ,rNoEAnrvMrN evoluGood is that which conrributesto ths courseof ascending evolurion.. ofhuman tion... . Evilistharwhichopposes . . The respect personaliry is based on therecognirion ofman! dignityasa workerfor evolution,as a collaboratorwith God....eThc only goal of man shouldbcrheattainment of humandignirywith allitsimplications.r0 He goeson to saythat thereare "thinking men" in all religions,and thereforeall religionshavea "unique inspiration,"a "spiritualkinship," an "original identity." He says: 'fhe uniry of religionsmust be soughtin that which is divinc, namelyuniversal, in man,.,," No marterwhat our religion,we are all like peoplear rhe bottom of a valleywho seekto climb a snowy peak that dominatesthe others.\7e all havcour eyesfixcd on thc we differon what roadto take....One samcgoal....Unforrunately they mustall mectar the day,providedthey neverstop ascending, top of rhe mountain. . . the roadto it matterslittlc.''

"CxnrsrrlNEvorurroNrsv" 2. The bookof Genesis, he believes, musrbe "inrcrpretedin a new way,"symbolically. Specifically, the transgression ofAdam wasnor an historicalevent,bur simply'the symbolof the dawn of humanconsciousness." Can an OrthodoxChristianbelieverhis?How doesOrthodoxChristianiryunderstand the bookof Genesis? 3. Fr. Anthony Koxuros Let us return now ro rhe viewson evolurionof other Orthodox Christians. In anorherarticleof the GreekArchdiocese's OrtbodoxObseruer(Fe6.6, 1974),Fr.AnthonyKosrurosanswers a quesrionsenrin by a reader:"lfAdam and Evewerethe first humans,wheredid their son Cain get his wife?Doesour Churchshedany lighr on rhrsqucsrion?"Fr. Kosturosreplies: Man\ originis too far backin hisroryfor anypcrsonor groupro knowhowmanbegan. for?]Sci[Vhat,then,is rhebookof Genesis enccis scillgropingfor answcrs. Thc wordAdamdcnotescarth.The word Eve,lifc. Generally, and only gcnerally, our rradirionaltheologianstakethe view that all of us stemfrom one malcand one fcmale.... There arc otherswho feel thar humankindappearedin clusters, a few hcreand a fcw thcre... . No rheologian hasrhedefinitivc answeron rhe subjectof man'sorigin and his development.... The dawnof humanhistoryis a mysrcry.

Of course,the top of the mountain is not the salvationof the soul; it is nor rhe kingdom ofheaven, but is preciselythe chiliasticNew Age. It may be seenwith little difficulty that Lecomtedu No[y's views are nor at all Orthodox, or evenvaguelyChrisrian,but deistic.k is useful for us to know theseviews,however,because,behind the surfaceof a religious relativism which no Orthodox Christian can accept, du Noi.iy! "evolutionary"views are by no meansuntypical of contemporary "Christian evolutionists,"including many Orthodox Chrisrians, and they raisephilosophicaland religiousquestionswhich any thinking Orthodox Christian must be preparedto answer.Let us mention here rwo groupsofthese questions. l. As a corollary to the universaliryofevolution, which all evolutionists accept (everythingin the world evolves,norhing is excepted from this natural process),he seesin the future ofhuman evolution the coming of a "superman"or "superiorrace."Also, he speaksof the future ofhuman evolution ason the "moral and spirirual" plane.Can an Orthodox Christian believein such things?Ifnot, whar reasondoeshe haveto exempt man from the otherwiseuniversalnatural process?

According to Fr. Kosturos,it is "science"that is trying ro find the answer to this question. Evidently, the Orrhodox interprctation of Cenesis is quite symbolical and allegorical;we do not really know whether such a person as 'Adam" ever exisred.This is the vicw presentedby the official Greek Archdiocesenewspaper. And what ofthe Orrhodox theologyofAdam and the first-creared man? What of the Orthodox feasrdevoted to Adam and the other Forefathers? \Vhat ofthose who haveAdam for their parron Saint?Is it a matrer of indifferenceto an Orrhodox Chrisrian rhar the Church, if the "Christian evolutionisrs"are correcr,may have been mistaken all thesecenturiesin her teachingon rhis subiecr,and that this teaching

344

345

Grrrsrs, CnErrIoN,rNoE^nry M,cN

"CnntsrIlN EvoLurtoNrsvl"

may now have to be revisedif "science,"after all, doescome up with the answerto the questionof man'sorigin? ls it an exaggerationro say 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 understanding of the limits ofscience in exploring this question? Later,in anotheranswerto a reader'squestion,Fr. Kosturossays:

2. Can we seriouslyrhink that the firsr man to evolvewascapa_ bleofthc firstsin...?

Perhaps thercaremanyAdamsand Eveswho appcared concurrcntly in differcntareas,and thcn mct. How man was creatcdand how iniriallyis a mystcry.Don't letanyonctcll you otherman procreatcd wise.Our Churchgivcsyou thc opportuniryto ponderrhc subjects aboutthenr.'r you menrionandcomeup wirh yourown specularion The answerto the question,"Vhere did Cain get his wifc?" is acrually very easy:Adam and Eve had many children who are not mentioned by name in Genesis.The account in Genesisis only rhe basic outline of the story.

He answers: Scienrists preferro conceivchominization[i.e.,rhc makingof man] ashavingtakcnplacein manyindividuals_a..popularion;'_rarher rhanin a singlcpair. (Actually,some scientiststhink rhat and some dont.) He saysrhar ir is the first group of recognizablemen ("original man',) that commined the fi rst transgression: Cracecould bc offcredto rhc originalgroup and, upon beingrc_ jectcdby thar groupi freeand ycr mutuallyinflucncing choice,oe losrto rhc wholcofsuccceding humaniry Rahner then asks:

4. Karl Rahner Fr. Kosturos mentions the possibility that "humankind appeared in clusters."This is a referenceto the evolutionary theory of "polygenism." The promirrent Jesuit "theologian"Karl Rahner (who until recentlywas rather "conservative"in his views on evolution)* has examined rhis quesrionand hasmade a "reconciliation"of the evolutionary view with the Christian doctrine in a way that will doubtlessbe imitared by the Greek Archdiocesein the future. (ln general,the Orthodox modernisrsare alwaysone srepbehind the Roman Catholicsin this processof "updating" the Churcht views.) In an article entitled "Original Sin, Polygenism,and Freedom" (summarizedin Theology Digest,Spring, 1973), Rahner posedwo questions: l. How is evolutioncompatible wirh rhedoctrineof Adam'spreternatr,rral sifrsi 'Karl Rahner(1904-1984)is widcly consideredro be the leadingRoman Carholicrheologian of rherwentiethccnruryHe scrvedasan officialpapaltheological cxpertbeforeand duringthe SecondVaticanCouncil.-Eo.

346

In the frx man or group such as paleontologyrevealsro us, how could therc hayebeena degrccof freedomsufficientlydevelopcdro havemadepossible sucha fateFul choiceasoriginalsin?How canwc attempt to reconcilethe supernaturalor preternaturalparadisc_ siruarionof 'Adam" (individualor group)wirh whatwe know of rhe originsof the biological, anrhropological, culruralworld? He answershis quesrionby saying: It is not easyto derermineprecisely whercand whenan earrhlycrea_ rureacruallybecamespiritand rhusfrec... . Ve mayserenely reckon wirh rhe fact rhat originalsin rcallyhappencd,bur at a momenr which cannorbe more accuratclydctermined.Ir was,,sometime,, wirhin a fairly long rimc-spanduringwhich many individuals may havcbeenalreadyexisringand capableof performingrhc guilry act "simulraneously.". ..

ln other words,rhe whole rhing becomesvery vague.Obviously 11/

GrNrsrs, Cnr.,rrrouaNn Eanlv MaN

"CnrtsltaN EvoLultorrsv"

the next generationof thinkers is going to do away with some of this double talk.

an idealizedimage.. . of a world without sin; rhc author fof Genesis] knows quite well it does not correspond to realiry. . . He specifically

5. Stephanus Tioostu

did not mean to say that thc original srateofgrace ofAdam and Evc in all irs puriry was once upon a rime an actual realiryin rhe hisrory

A recentbook by anotherJesuitsums up well the attitude of the "enlightened Christian" toward Adam and Paradise.StephanusTiooster is a DutchJesuir who, in his book Ezolution and the Doctine ofOriginal Slz, staresforrhrightly: "Those who take the scientificdoctrine ofevolution seriouslycan no longeracceptIthe] traditionalpresentation."So we must find "an interpretationrhat is relevantto our times."'n "The proponentsof the doctrine of evolution," he says, visualizc mankindasa rcalirywhich,in thecourseofhistory,only vcry Its earlresr graduallymatured ro achievea degreeof self-realization. formsapemergencemustbe conceivedof asfumblingtransitional primitivelevelsof humancxistence. Such pearingnextto cxrremely primitiveintermcdiare formsof humanlifestill musthavebeen intimatelyfusedwirh theirprehistoric animalstate .. . . But in thisevoluof tbis tionary theory tbuc is no roomfor a'paradisaicat"cxistcnce highly prchittoricman. To placean extremclygifted and privileged in comspiritualmanarrhebeginning ofhumanlifeon carthappears modern scientific on rhis matter.r5 pletecontradiction ro rhought This. ofcourse. is true. Tioosterconrinues: Acccptanceof the modernviewpoint,however,eliminatesthe possiofevil in theworldon thebasisof biliry ofaccountingfor thegenesis sin committedby rhe first man.Aftcr all, how couldso primitivea human being havebeenin a position to rcfuseGod'soffcr of salvation; howcouldsucha primitivebcinghavebcencapable ofa breach ofcovenantwith God?t6

of manki nd.re Of course, if you believe in evolution, it makes no sense to talk about

Paradise. You'reonly foolingyourselfif you try to combinerheserwo different formsof thinking. "Theologians"like Troosrerhavedrawn thoroughgoingconclusionsfrom the message of evolution;is it possibleto believein evolution and not drawtheseconclusions? 6. TheRomanCatholic Viewof Origrnal Man

The RomanCarholicsin the pasrhavehad someproblemsabout knowingwhen man began,if one acceprs evolution.Therearedifferent theoriesdependingon wharone thinks.I don'rknow what is allowednow, but in rhe old daysyou werenot allowedto believethat man'ssoulcouldevolvefrom matter.Youhad to believethar man was givena soular a parricularmoment.At rhat momenthe becameman, and thereforehe wasno longersubjectto all the lawsof evolution.* Obviouslythis is srickingin oneof rhese"epicycles" againto makethe theorycorrespond to onet own beliefs.

Since for Tiooster the fall of Adam is not an historical event, he "explains"the existenceofevil by giving it a new name: 'the phenomenon of cosmic immaturity."'7 Adam actually is not one man; he is "Everyman."'t And the book of Genesisis

' Commcnringon PopeJohn PaulIIi recenrsraremenr ro rhe llonrificalAcad(Octobcr22, 1996)rhar"thc rheoryofevolurionis morcrhana hycmy ofSciences pothesis,"Cardinal 1'homasJ. !(inning of Scotlandsummarizedthc Roman CatholicChurch'spositionon evolutionasfollows:"The Churchlcavcsrhe belicvcr freeto acccptor rejccrrhe variousevolutionaryhyporhcscsso long asrhcy do nor insistrharthe mind and spirirof mansimplyemergedfrom rheforcesof living marrcr with no room for God" ('Ihe Glagow Hcrald,Jan. I t, 1997, p. l9). Ncverrhelcs, thercarcmanyRomanCatholicswho rcmainopposcdto evolurion,includingscientisrswho havcwritrenbook and papersagainsrir. Among thcsclrc Dr. Guy Bcrrhault (geology)in France,Dr. Roberro Fondi (palcontology)and Dr. Giuseppc Scrmonti(generics) in lraly,and Dr VolfgangSmith (physics, marhcmatics) in rhc UniredSrates.-Eo.

348

349

GBrutsts,CrtxrIox

,tNn Lrrt-v M.rru

Either you believein evolution-in which caseman is a very primitive creaturewhich came from rhe beasts,and the textbookson evolurion will tell you that man still hasthe savageinsideof him, and all the picturesshow him evolving from a monkey-likecreature-or elseyou believethat man descendedfrom a being who was greaterthan we are now who wasacruallyperfectman in his own way and was not subject ro corruption.-Ihe Holy Fatherseven tell us that Adam did not void faecalmatter.He had the Treeof I-ife to eat fronr, but he did not eat as we do now. In his "Conversationwith Motovilov," St. Seraphimof Sarovhas a whole sectionon the stateof Adam: how he was not subject to being iniured or hurr. He was quite invulnerableto the elements,he could nor be drowned, etc. 'I-homasAquinas It is interestingthat, even in the Middle Ages, askedpreciselythesequestionsand tried to solvc them: What was the stateofAdam, did he void faecalmatter,how was it that he could not be harmed? He has elaborateexplanations.First of all, he says that matter becausewe cannot believethat he would Adam did void f-aecal be of a different marerial than we are now. Secondly,he was never harmed and was imperviousto drowning not becauseit was impossible, but becauseGod arrangedto take all the bouldersout ofthe way, never to have the stream rise roo high, etc. ln other words, God arranged the world correctly so that Adam walked very carefully and neverhappenedto get hurt. But Orthodoxy believesthat our nature was originally immortal. Abba Dorotheus saysthis in the very first chapter of his discourses, 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 meanr ro live eternallyin the body, and that is the way it was in the beginning. Only after falling did we lose that nature and rhat blessed sratein which Adam was beholding God. According to Orthodoxy, the immortal state of man in Paradise was his nature.Our nature now is changed.Then we were potentially immortal; now we have been changed into a mortal being, that is, mortal in the body. The Catholicsteach,on the contrary,that the stateofnran in Para-

J50

"CunlsrraNEvoLurrollsv,, ,Jisewasa ntpernatural state,thar man actually was jusr like we know him roday-mortal 62n-[s1 God gavehim an exrragift, a specialstateof grace.When he fell, he simply fell awayfiom th"t extrag.rce *hich had been:rddedro him; and rhereforehis narurewa, nor cf,anged. Bur accordingto Orthodoxy, our very narurewascharigedand ruined at the fall. Christ is the new Adanr; and in Him *. ,o ^..1.r,o..o our old nature. Some liathers,like St. Symeon the New I'heologian,discussedthe question:\X/hy,then, did we nor immediatelybecorie immortal when Christ died and resurrected? St. Symeon saysir was so rhat we would not be forced to be saved:we still must achieveour own salvation.And the creation is waiting for us to achieveour salvation,when it too will rise up to rhe state in which it was before rhe fall-in fact, evcn ro a higher srate. All this is filled with mysteries;it's beyond us, but srill we know enough of,it from the Holy Farhers.Sr. Symeon has a long quore on the stateof man beforerhe fall.- 'l'he whole ofcreation, he says,*"" ,n_ corrupt just like man, and only after rhe fall did rhe crearuresbesin to die. Vhen the new world comes,"rhe new heavenand the new Jarrh.' (Apoc. 2l:l), then "the meek ... will inherit the earrh',(Matt. 5:5). Vhat earth is rhar? It is this earth you see right here, only it will be burned up and restored so rhat all the crearuresnow will be incorruptible. That is what the whole crearionis strivinq for, what the crearurcsare groaning after.\Vhen St. paul srid they ,.-cre subiecrto vaniry" (Rom. 8:20), this means rhey were subjcct ro corrupuon, through thc fall of man. 7. TheodosiusDobzhansfo Ler us rurn now ro an "Orthodox Christian evolutionisr"whose ideasare quite in harmony with recenr Roman Catholic rhousnr on the subjecrofevolution, and who brings up still other implicationsof the evolutionary theory which any Orthodox Chrisrian musr sruoy closely. ' Sccrhisquoreon pp.420-22.-F,o. J5l

(;ENEsrs,CtE^t t( )N AND EARLYMAN

,.Cnntsrtaru EvoLurroNlsu,,

Thcrxl,rsiusDobzhansk,-is a RussianOrthodox scienristwho is of_ ten tlrorcd by other "(ihrisrian evolutionists."A well_known generr_ cisr,hc is pres€nrlyprofbssorofgeneticsar the Universiry of California ;rt I)avis. I think hc srill has his fruit flies, and is continuing to make elpenments.on rhcm ro prove evolurion.* He was born in Russiain rne yearot rhe canonizarionofSt. TheodosiusofChernigov [1900], in

fromhisparents; andthatiswhyhewaicaliedTheo1ntl.t 11n.1y.1

doslus..Alrs,. he becamean aposrare.He came ro America in the rwenttrs and hasbeenan Amcricansincerhar rime.,. nrr been,absolurelyprohibited in Soviet Russia, although the ,n. Sovrer screnrisrs know about him. Once when a film was accidentally ", presenredat one scientificmeeting in Russia which showedhim on ir, all the scientistscheered;but rhe fi'lm waswithdrawn. H. i. conslaer.d nonexistent,a non-personbecausehe left Russia. Bur he rhinks like a communlst, Although he was baprizcdOrrhodox, when his wife died he had , her cremared,took rhe ashcsand scatteredthem in rhe Sierras.,,*As can see,,he nevergoesto church; he,squire b.yonJ ,e gion. 3: i: :,": r\everrhet€ss, tor hrs Chrisrian evolutionist views, he was granted an

O:c'.11e rheology by Sr.Vtadimir's o,,hoJo""S"rntnrry TS:i't ^ofAt the sametime, he gave In New York tn 1972.

an addressto the Sec_ TheologicalConferenceJf the Onhodox Theologi_ ::d"tl::-'1",:.jil cal soclery of America, which was attended by all rhe renowned "theologians"of the variousOrthodox bodies.His id.rs on .uolution, 'Fr. Seraphimis refcrringro Dobzhansky's arremprro crearca ncw spccrcs Dy cxposingfruir flics ro radiationso as

t,io.k ri th.c MindsofMen(it, D,il'*: [: fr:f:ij :ftffi i .lil,i:t*':,JL,l,i

wirh fruir fliesbcganin rhc 1920swith ThomasHunt Morgan'"ud,"ilr-ir'r,,,f , rni_ nor'indusrry'amongrcsearchers. The srubbornfruir fly has lu"ry g.n.,,. indignitypossiblc,bur so far nor onc has.u., produ."d "ndur.J i"f.*"p, ,".,n* fruir fly" (ln thc Mitdt of Men, p.I63)._ED. ""y,t " Hcnry M. Morriswrircs:,,Dobzhansky wasprobably,nexrro JulianHuxlcy, rhe most influcnrialcvolurionisr of the rwcnriethcenrury.,, l)obzhanskyreposedin

L]]j:^r,|r1"-.:]*, O e en fa k Cn. _1. _ D

thatFr.Scraphinr gaverhetccuref-rn *t

'ct

,iiJ.t

"'Cremarion is srricrlyforbiddenin rheOrrhodox Church._Flo.

352

"p,",

n",

from whathe and manyofficialrepresenrarives of Orrhodoxyin Amer_ rcaapparentlybelieveto be an ,,Orthodox"viewpoint, aresetfbrth in two Orthodox periodicals,St. Vkdiniri Theoiogical euartert1 and Concern. In an articlewhich waswell publicizedand summarized without rn many Orthodox periodicalsin America, ,,Evolution: :_olJnenr God's SpecialMethod of Creation"(Concern,Spring, l9Z3), Dobzhanskyaccuses anyoneopposedro rhe rheoryoi *o'iu,ion of .,blas_ phemy. He saysin rhisarticle: Natural sclectionis a blind ano a crearrveprocess.... Narural screc_ tion does zat work accordingro a foreordained plan.

Dobzhanskynoresrhe extraordinary varieryof life on (he earrh, _ and callsit "whimsicaland superfluous.'t H. ,"i, rVhar a senscless operarion to labricare a multitude of spe cies cx ni_ b.ilo[kom norhinpil,and then ler mosr of them die our! .. . Whar is rhe senseof having as many as rwo or thrce million speciesliving on earrh?. . . \0as rhe crearorin a jocular mood? Is rhc Creator .. . playrng practicaljokes? No, Dobzhansky reasons, The organicdivcrsirybcconres,howcver,reasonable and undcrstand_ ablc if the Creator hascreatedrhc living world, not by gratuirousca_ price bur by cvolurion propclled by natural scl.ction. i, i. *.u,,g ,,, hold crearionand cvolution as mutually cxclusivc alrernarives.

Vhar he.meansby this is that it acruallymakes no difference , whetheryou havea God or not. He saysrhar iod or.hr.. million-species by meansof naruralselection. f, ,n",-"L.r-*J .nf i.r, ,;ffy ,f,". sayingHe createdthe originalkindsall at once? Accordingro Dobzhansky, rhereis no plan to it; it is all iusta blind process.For an Orthodox Christian,this raises quesrion: the Does God beginrhe process of evolution,and then t,"u" no lor,,roi ou., i,,

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 fllls (Luke 2l: I 8)? In this point of "Christian evolutionary" philosophy we see how falseis the very question which the evolurionistis striving to answer. fhe creative activity of God is not suficient explanation for him of the diversity of the visible creatioll; there must be a better explanation-one basedon the clearlyun-Christian presuppositionthat God is not in control of His own creation, that His Providencedoes not exist!' The "God" of this kind of evolutionary philosophy is clearly deistic,and the view of this "Christian evolutionist" is not to be disringuished from that of the "semi-Christian" (or non-Christian) [-ecomte du Noiiy. Dobzhansky is filled with the usual liberal Christian ideas that Genesisis symbolical,that man'sawarcnessis the causeof the tragrc in the world today, and that the only escapeis for meaninglessness man to realizethat he can cooperatewith the enterpriseofcreation, for participarionin this enrerprisemakesmorral man parr of God's eternal design.And he says,

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (lS8l-l9jj) was a French Jesuit priest,'theologian" and paleontologist,who was presentat the discovery.of many of the great fossil "men" of our century. He took part with rwo other people in the "discovery"of the fraudulent piltdown Man.* He discoveredthe tooth, which was dyed. It is nor Known whether he had a part in it. One of the orher men has been accusedof being the one who fabricated the Pilrdown Man; and it has been hushed up thar Teilhard de Chardin had anything to do with ir. But it is already known from rhe earlier books thar he discoveredthe roorh.* * Teilhard was presentar the new discoveriesof Java Man, which were incidentallyall locked up in a closetsomewherein Holland, and not allowed to be examinedagain.He was presenrat many of the discoveriesofPeking Man, though not ar the very beginning.He was also presentwhcn the fossilsofPeking Man disappeared.***So we have no fossilsof PekingMan left; only drawingsand modelsexist. Above all, Teilhardwasthe one who waschiefly responsiblefor the inttpr€tation of ell thesefindings.As he himsclf said,

The mosrgallantandby far thc mostnearlysuccessful artemptro do this-coopcratewith God! cternaldcsign-has beenrhat of Teilhardde Chardin.r"

I had the goodfortune,unusualin a scientificcarecr,of happening to be on thc sporwhen ... cardinalfindsin rhehistoryoffossilrnen hadcomcro lighr!

8. Teilhard de Chardin W'ewill now look inro rhis lasrevolutionisr,who is the grearevolutionist "propher" of our times: Teilhard de Chardin. He is obviously the " Chrisrian evolutionist" of the century, widely revered by Orthodox, and considercdby some "Orthodox theologians"(aswe shall sce) as being on rhe samelevelas rhe Orthodox Holy Fathers.

He fit theserogetherinro evidencefor human evolution. We won,t go

' Dobzhansky wrote:" Man hascvolvedfrom anccsrors rharwcrc nor human... . 'l'he creationofGodt imagein man is not an cventbut a proccss, and thereforerhe "Ethicsand (Dobzhansky, rnorallaw is a productofan evolurionary devclopment" Valuesin Biologicaland Culrural Evolution," 1qgon,tbcJotnal of Religionand Stiezca,asreportedin rhe los AngelcsTimet,June 16, 1974, part 4, p. 6).-E o.

' In 1953it wasdiscovered rharthc skullof PilrdownMan skillfullyconrbined thc j ,rwof an epew i rh rherkull of r m , r . lcr nm an.- F o. " Phillip E. Johnsonnotcs:"Many persons familiarwith rhe evidcncc(includ_ ing Ievolurionistsl SrcphenJayGoulcland Louis [,eakey)haveconcludcdthat Teilhardwasprobablyculpablyinvolvcdin prep.rring thc piltdownfraud,alrhoughthc evidenceis nor conclusive"(Darwin on 'liial, p. 203). Malcolm Bowdengivcsa de_ railcdhisroryofthc Pilrdown hoax in his books,4pe,racn: l:actor Fallacy?indScience u: [uolurion.- Eo. "'"1'hroughout all rhe investigarions rcgardingthc whereabours ofrhe fossils, 'lcilhard,who had considerable responsibiliry for rhe laboraroryand irs collcction, and livcd in Pekingrhroughourrhc war,neverappears ro havegivenhis accountof thc cvenrs"(Malcolm Bowden,,4pe-men:I:actor Falhcy?p. 123).-ED,

354

355

GaNssIs,Cnr,ertoxaNo Eanlv MIN into this evidencenow, exceptto say that it is very shaky.One evolutionisr wrirer, Fl Clark Howell (aurhorof Early Man), hassaid: One of the prime difficulricsis that rcallysignificanthuman fossil skulls are exceptionallyrare: everyrhingwhich has bcen found to date could be ruckedaway in a largecoflin. All the restmust bc referredto somethingelse.jr And we just don't know what the relation is of these piccesto each otner. Teilhard de Chardin was both a scienristand a "mystic." The surprising thing is not so much that hc was a combination of theserwo (he was a Jesuit,after all), but rather that he is quite respectedboth by rheologians-Roman Catholic theologians,and in lact many Orthodox so-calledtheologians-and by scientisrs.His book Tlte Phenome' non of Man has an introduction by Julian Huxley, the grandson of Darwin's famous contemporaryand Proponent'1'. H. Huxley. Julian Huxley is an absolureatheistevolutionist.He cannot fully agreewith leilhardt attempt to reconcileCatholicism and evolution, but basically he agreeswith his philosophy. This brings us to a subiecrwe discussedearlier:*mans exPectation of the merging of religion and science.The earlier scientistsin the 'West, were all at the birrh of modern scienceduring the Renaissance' philosophy' with Pythagorean were filled They oriented. mystically Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), who is considereda forerunner of modern scienceand philosophy,was a mysticalPantheis(.He believed that the whole world is God, that God is the soul of the world, and that "Nature is God in things." His philosophycombined religion and sciencein a singlepantheisticvision. In the nineteenthcentury, the socialistprophet Saint-Simonsaid the time is coming when not only will the socialorder be a religious institution, but scienceand religion will come together,and sctence will no longer be atheistic. Teilhard de Chardin was the kind of "SurvivalCourse,"from which rhis of Fr Seraphim's ' That is, in earlicrsectiorrs discourse hasbcentaken.-Ep. J)O

"Cgnrsrrlt EvolurroNrsrr.r" thinker he was looking for: one who would bring together science and religion. Also in the ninereenthcentury, the American philosopher Ralph W'aldo Emerson spoke about the very same thing. Since he faced a situation in which man'sfairh had beendivorcedfrom knowledgebecauseof modern enlightenment,he calledfor the resrorarionof uniry in man, and spoke of how we can ger faith and knowledgeback together.He saysrhis in his essay"On Nature": The rcasonwhy thc world lacksuniry andliesbrokenand in hcaps, is because man is disunitedwith himself He cannotbe a naturalist until hc sarisfies all rhcdemandsofthe spirit.Loveis asmuchits dcnrandasperception....Deepcallsunto deep,but in actuallif'e,the marriageis nor celcbrared. Therc are innocentmcn who worship God afterthe traditionof rheirfathers,bur rheirsenseof dury has nor yet exrendedto all their faculties.{That is, they aredLrtifurro thcir own religion,bur theydo not durifullypursucscience and phiIosoph,v.l And therearcpaticntnaruralists, but theyfreeze their subjecr under the winrry lighr of the understanding. [That is, rrrcy divorcephilosophyfrom religion.l... But whena fairhfulthinker, resolutcro dcracheveryobjecrfrom personalrelationsand seeir in rhe light of thoughr,shall,at rhesamerimc,kindlescicnccwith the fire of the holiestaffcctions, then will God go forrh ancw into the crcation.zl

Again,Teilhardde Chardinis a "prophet"who promises to fulfill these expecrarions, who discovers rhat scienceand religionare once more compatible.* ln St. Vhdimiri TheologicalQuarterf and Conctn, fheodosius Dobzhansky summarizes what'leilhardde Chardintried ro do in his books.Teilhard,he says,describes rhreestages throughwhich evolu'A morereccnrartcmptto combinescience, religionandevolutionary philosophy is found in Tbc Mariagc of Senscand Soul:Intcgrating Scienccatd Rcligion by Ken Wilbcr,pp. 103-l l. For morcabourthc union ofscienceand religion,sccrnc F.diror's F.prlogue of rheprcsentbook.-Ln. 5)/

GrNesls. Cnl,,\Trorunruo Elnlv M,qru

"Cutrsr.tar Evoluttotrlsv"

tionary developmenthas passed,making use of his own technical terms:

many peoplefollow, wherherthey'reChrisrian,atheist,or wharever_a kind of new universalrevelationfor mankind. And everything,includ_ ing religion,musr be undersroodin terms of evolution. 'l-he wrirings of Teilhard de Chardin are so filled with a jargon of . his own invention thar ir is easyro dismiss-or accept-him wirhour understandingthe full significanceof his rhought. Above all, one must undersrandwhat it is that has inspiredhis thought, for it is this basic inspirarionand worldview that has capturedthe fancy of rhe modern intellecrual,"Christian" and atheistalike, despitethe difficulry of his language. 'l-hat which inspired Teilhardde Chardin, and inspireshis followers, is a certain unitary uiewof realiry,a joining of Goj and the world, of the spiritual and the secular,into a singie harmonious and allencompassingprocesswhich can not only be graspedby the modern intellecrual,but can be y'/r by the sensirivesoul that is in closeconracr with the spirit of modern life; indeed,the next step of the processcan 6e anticipatedby rhe "modern man," and that is why Teilhard de Chardin is so readily accepredas a "propher" even by people who do not believein Clod: he announces,in a very "mysrical',way, the future which every thinking man roday (savefor consciousOrthodox Christians) hopesfor.* There are rwo sidesto this unitary thought ofTeilhard de Charclin: the worldly (by which he atrractsand holds even rotal atheistssucn as Julian Huxley), and the spiritual (by which he attracts,,Christians"and givesa "religion" to unbelievers). 'Ieilhardt own words leaveno doubr that first and foremosthe was passionatelyin love with the world, with the earth:

thc cvolution of inanimate naturci secFirst, there is cosmogenesis, the deond, biogenesis,biologicalevolution; and, third, noogenesis, v e l o p men r of hr r m ant ho u g h t

'ltilhard alsospeaks thesphereoflifel and of"spheres: the "biosphere," rhe"noosphere," the sphereof thought.He saysthewholeof theglobe by a webofthought which he callsrhe"noonow is beingpenetrared sphere." "Up to here,"continuesDobzhansky, ficts.'Ib of demonstrablc firmlyon a foundarion Tcilhardsrands based completchis theologyof naturehe thenembarkson prophery "conviction, strictly undcnronHe speaks ofhis onhisreligioas faitb. strable ro scicncc, that the universe has a direction and that it could-indced, if wc are faithful, it should-result in somc sort of 2J irreversibleperfection." Dobzhansky quotes with approval the following statement of Teilhard de Chardin about what evolution is: Is evolution a theory,a sysremor a hypothesis?It is much m61s-i1 is a generalposrulateto which all theories,all hypothcses,all systcms nrust hcnccforwardbow and which thcy must satislTin order to be rhinkableand true. Evolution is a light which illuminatesall facts,a rrajectorywhich all linesof thought must follow. 'fhis is what evolution is.* ra

That is, evolutionbecomesin Teilhard'sthought-whicn many,

'i'he world (irs

value,its infallibiliryand its goodness)-rhat,wnen all is saidanddonc,is the first,rhclasr,and rheonly rhingin which I believe.rt

Dobzhanskyhimselfcchocsthis Tcilhardianvicw: "Evoluttonon ' Elsewhere of universal the cosmic,biologicaland humanlevelsarepartsof one grandprocess cvolurion" (Dobzhansky,"Ethics and Valucs in Biological and Cultural F-volur ion").-En .

' Thar is, everypcrsonwho is in rhe tradirionof rationalism, cominqfrom thc ageof thc Finlighrenmenr, and uhimarclyfrom rhc MiddleAqerin rheVcst aftcrrhc S cl ri snr.

-358

359

GEumrs,Cns,rrIoNaro EAnrvM,tt'r

"Cnnrsrr,rxEvolurroNrsr'.r"

Now the earthcan certainlyclaspme in her giant arms.Shecan swellme with her life,or takemc backin to her dust.Shecandeck herselfout for me with everycharm, with everyhorror, with every mysteryShecan intoxicateme with her perfumeof tangibiliryand uniry.26

Then, is it rcallytrue,Lordi By helpingon rhcspreadofscicnceand freedom,I canincrease the dcnsiryof rhedivineatnrosphere, in irself aswellasfor me:thatatmosphere in whichir is alwaysmy onedesire to be immcrsed? By layinghold of rhecarthI cnablcmyselfro cling closely to you.... May the world's energies,mastcrcdby us, bow down bcforeLrs andacceprtheyokeofour power. May thc raceof men, grown to fullcr consciousness and grear strength,bccomegroupedinto rich and happvorganisms in which life shallbe put to berreruseandbrinpiin a hundrcdfoldrcturn''

ln this beliefhe certainlyleavesOrthodox Christianiry behind. He believed,as one of his biographersaccuratelyreports,that "salvation was no longer ro be sought in'abandoning the world,'but in active 'participation' in building it up."r7 He consciouslyabandoned the "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;

all rhosegoody-goodyromancesabout the saintsand the marryrs! Vhatever normal child would want to soendan etcrnitvin such boringcompany?r8

I am not spcakingmetaphorically whcn I sayrhar ir is rhroughour the lengthand breadthand deprhof the world in nrovcmcnrthar man canattainthe experience and visionof his god.

He believedthat "what we are all more or lesslacking at this more ment is a new definition of holiness." He wrore:

In perfect harmony wirh his secularyer "searching"times, he declares tnat

The modernworld is a world in evolution;hence,rhcstaticconcepts of teachings of the spirituallife mustbe rethoughtand the classical Christmustbe reinterprercd.Jn

the time haspassed in which God couldsimplyimposeHimsclfon us from wirhour,asmasrerand ownerof rhe csrare.Hcnceforrhrhe world will knceldown only beforerheorganicccntcrof its own elrol unol l .

This is a reflectionof the overthrowingof the old universeof Newron. Teilhardwanrs ro put Christianiryinto the samecategory,because it also is bound up with rhe classical,static way of thinking. Now we havea new way ofthinking; and therefore,just aswe havea rrewphysics,we must havea new Christianiry. But Teilhard'sphilosophyis no meresecularizationof Chrisrianiry; his mosr powerful and influential vision is that ofthe spiritualization 0f the worl/andworldly activiry. Teilhard was not merely in love with the world and all "modern progress"and scientificdevelopment;his distinguishing mark was that he gavethesethings a distinctly "religious" significance.He wrote:

360

"Evolution" for hirn is not an idea destructiveto religion, but a religious idea in itselfi Christianiryand cvolurionare nor rwo irrcconcilable visions,bur two perspectives desrinedro fir rogcthcrand complcmenteach othcr.Ja

He ardentlybelieved and taughtrhat"evolutionhascomero infuse new blood,so to speak,into the perspectives and aspirations of Christianity."r'"Evolurion,"indeed,accordingro Teilhard,is preparingthe way for a new revelarion of God: 361

Gunesrs,Cnl.xrroN ar.roEenry MIN

"Cnr.rsrr,q.N Evolurrot.trsu"

The carth . . . crn casrmc ro my knecsin expccrarionof what is maturing in hcr breast... . She has becomefor me, ovcr and aboveher-

Teilharddoesnot wish ro "converr"the world, but only to offer the papacy as a kind of mystical cenrer of man's religious quesr, a superdenominational Delphic Oracle. As one of his admirers summanzes his view:

selfl rhc body of him who is and of him who is coming.J6

Evolution,for ltilhard, is a process whichinvolvesthe "buildingofthe cosmicbodyof Christ in whichall thingsareunitedwirh God."r7 A faithfulson of the RomanCatholicchurch,Teilhardexprcsses his visionof the union of God and the world in terms of Larin theology,offeringa "newdevelopmenr" in Catholicthoughrin his striking "Tiansubstantiation" ideaof the of theearth:" As our humaniry assimilarcsrhe matcrial world, and as rhc Host Ii.c., thc Ronran Carholic Host] assimilatesour hunraniry, rhc eucharistictransformationgoesbeyond and complctesthc rransubstanriarionof thc brcad on rhe alrar. Step by srep ir irresisriblyrnvadcs thc universc..,. The sacramentalSpecicsarc formed by rhe totaliry of dre world, and rhc duration of rhc crearion is thc rinrc neededfor its consecrarion.ls

In thisprocess ofevolution,the "Bodyof Chrisi'is beingformedin rheworld-not the Christof Orthodoxy,bur the "universal Christ"or "Super-Christ," which 'leilharddefinesas "a synrhesis of Christ and the universe." '''This "evolvingChrisr"will bringabourthe uniryof all rel;gioos: A gcncralconvergcncc of rcligionsupona univers:rl Christwho frrndarncntrllysatisfics rhenrall: thisseems ro mc rheonly possiblc convcrsionof thc world, rnd rhe orrlyform in which a relieionof thc firrurecanbe conceivcd,40 Christianity for him is not the unique Tiuth, but only "an cmcrging phylum of evolution,"'rrsubjectto changeand rransformationlike everything else in the "evolving" world. Even like recent Popes, ' Tcilhardwrorc aboutrhiswhilc in China in 192(t-7,aftcr lravinscelebrarcd Massin tlrcCobi f)csert.

362

If Christianiry... is indeedto bc rhe religionof romorrow,rherers onlyonewayin whichit canhopero comcup ro rhemeasure ofrodayt grcarhumanitariantrendsand assimilatc rhem;and thar is througn theaxis,livingandorganic,ofirs Carholicism ccnrered on Rome.'4l At the sametime that the universeis "evolving" into rhe "Body of Christ," man himself is reachingrhe pinnacle of his evolutionary development:"Super-humaniry"'ltilhard writes: Evidenceobligesour reasonro acceprthat somethinggrearerthan the man of todayis in gesrarion upon the earth. Like Lecomtedu Noiiy, and indeedall thinkers who havea "religious" view of evolution, Teilhard identifies rhe evolving "Superhumanity" with Christ, and conversely,interpretsChrist in rerms of "Super-humaniry": In orderro bc ablcro continuero worshipasbeforewe mustbe able to sayto ourselves,aswe look at rhe Son of man (not 'Apparuithumanitas," 6ut) 'Apparuit Superhtmanitai' ("Super-Humaniry has appeared").{l Here Teilhard'srhought becomes"mystical,"and he doesnor srare clearlywhether human personaliryis preservedin "Super-humanity," or whether it is simply merged in rhe universal"Super-Chrisr" In the words of his biographer:

''ltilhard himselfwrotc: "Everythinggoesro show rhat if Chrisrianiryis in truth desrincdro be,asir professcs, andasir is conscious ofbcing, rhe religionoftomorrou ir is only rhroughrhe Iiving,organicaxisof its RomanCatholicismrhat ir canhopcto mcasure up to rhcgreatnrodernhumanisrcurrcntsand becomconcwith rheni' (-li'ilhard de Chardin, Christianiryand Ewlution, p. 168).-Ep.

363

CeNesrs,Cnr,qrroNlNo Eanlv M.nN

"Csnrsrr,rNEvor.ulroNrsv"

Humanirywould reacha point of developmenr when it would detach itsclfaltogetherfrom the carthand unite with Omega....'A phenomenon ourwardlysimilarto deathperhaps(wriresTeilhard), and acccssion to the supreme but in realirysimplenretamorphosis

faithful rn Chrisr,who is of Cod. This major taskis pursuedwirh the rigorand harmonyofa naturalprocess ofevolution.a')

svntnests_ -

The "supremesynthesis," the pinnacleof this evolutionaryis whatTeilhardcalledthe "PointOmega": spiritualprocess, One day,the Gospeltellsus, rhetensiongradually accumulating between humaniry andGodwill rouchthelimitsprescribed by thc possibilities of the world. And then will come the cnd. Then the of Christ,which hasbeensilentlyaccruingin rhings,will prcsencc suddenlybe revealed-like a flash of light from pole ro pole. Thc spiritualatomsof thc world will be bornealongby a forcegcncraredby thc powersof cohesionproperto the universeitsclf,and will occupl wherherwithin Christ or withour Christ (but always underthe influenceof Christ),the happincss or paindesignatcd for them by the living structureof the Plerorna[the fullnessof thingsl.{1 This "Point Omega' is not an otherworldly goal,but is only the end of "the movementofthe universero its evolurionarygoal"; "the climax of evolurion is idenrified . . . with the risenChrist of the Parousia.'46 All men, Teilhardbelieves, shoulddesirethis goal,for it "is an accumulation ofdesiresthar should causethe Pleromato burst upon us."a'Again, he wntes: To cooperate in totalcosmicevolutionis theonly deliberate act thar can adequately exprcss our devotionto an evolutiveand universal Christ."o Nevertheless, with or without man\ will, the Parousiawill come, for it is the culmination of a natural process: The uniquebusiness ofthe world is thephysicalincorporation ofthe

364

Of course,he is completelydoing awaywith all ideasof Christianiry which have been hitherto. Christianity is not an individual trying to savehis soul; it is everybodyin the world evolving by a natural processup to the Omega Point. Christiansshould not fear the natural processof evolution, ]tilhard believes,becauseit only brings them inexorablyto God: 'fhough frighrcnedfor a momentby evolution,thc Christiannow pcrccivesthat what it offcrs him is nothing but a magnificenr mcansof fcclingmorc at one with God and of givinghimsclfrnore to him. In a pluralisricand staticNaturc,thc univcrsaldominatron of Christ could, strictlyspeaking,still be rcgardcdas an exrrinsic and superimposed power.In a spiriruallyconvergingworld, this "Christic"energyacquires an urgencyand intensityof anotherorder altogether.50 9. The Chiliasm ofTeilhard de Chardin. There are a few more views of Teilhard de Chardin which we should mention. Interestingly,he looks for a statewhich will take us beyond the dead end of communism. During World \Var II he wrote that communism, fascismand democracywere all fighting eachother, and thar we must go beyond that: 'l'he greataffair for modcrn mankind is to breakits wayou by forcingsomcthreshold ofgreatcrconsciousncss. \(herher Chrisriansor nor, rhe men who are animatedby this conviction form a honogeneots cltegory. Thc greateventwhich we arc awaiting[is] thc discoveryof a synthcticact of adorationin which areallicdand mutuallyexalred ' An carly Chrisrian hcresybascdon a misinrcrprctationof rhe book of Apocalypse,"chiliasm"can refcr more gcncrallyro any sccularor rcligiousbclicf in the perfectabiliry of this fallenworld.-Eo. JO)

CeNesrs,CnEAr.roN,tNo Eanry MrN rhe passionaredesirc to conqucr the \}forld, and thc passionatedesrre to unitc ourselvcswith God; the uital act, qecifcal$ new, concsponding to d ncw ageof the Eartb.tl

One canseethar,in Teilhard,chiliasmis verysrrong:rheNew Age emerges: In Communism, aranyrarein itsorigins, hith in a universal human organismrcacheda magnificcntstateof exalrarion.. . . On the other hand, in its unbalanccd admirationfor rhe rangiblepowersof the Universc, it hassysremarically excluded from its hopesrhepossibiliry of a spiritualmeramorphosis of the Univcrsc.tz In other words, if you add spiritualiry ro communism, you have the answer.*Teilhardgoeson ro say. rVe must unire.No morepoliticalfronrs, but onegrearcrusadefbr humanadvancement.. . . The dcmocrar,the communistand the fas_ cistmusrjetrisonrhedeviarions and limirarionsof theirsysrcms and pursuero rhe full rhc positiveaspirations which inspircrheirenrhusiasm,and thcn,quire naruralll rhe newspirit will burst rhc exclusive bonds which still imprison it; rhc three currentswill find rhcmsclves mergingin rhe conceptionof a common task;namely,ro promotethespirirualfurureof the Vorld.... The functionof man is to build and direc thc wholeof rhe Eanh.... \Weshallcnd by oerceivingrhar rhe grearobjecrunconsciously pursucdby scicnccrs nothingclscrhanthe discovery o[God.5r ' Commcnringon rheJesuir and Dominican"workcrpriesrs,'who in rhe 1940s and 50sjoincdcommunisrandsocialist parries(andwho sutscquenrly lcfi rhepriesthood),-lcilhardwrorc:"Pricsr-workcrs find in the faceofa humaneMarxismnot only jusricebur hopc and a fcclingfbr rhe Earthwhich is srrongcrrhan.evangelical humaniry"' (quorcdin Malachi Marrin, l-heJcsuitt,p. 290). Elsewherche said: "Maaixs belicvein the futurc of mankind*hilc preienr-davChrisrians 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 rhe Editor! Epiloguebclow.-Eu.

366

"CstrrsrreNEvolurloNrsv"

'l'har is how mysricism comesrighr into the middle of science.Science nowadaysis losing all of its bearings;it has become indeterminate, positing a whole universeof anrimatrer,which mixes scienrists up.. It all ends in mysticism. -Ibilhardwrites: The onQ truly natural and rcal human Uniry is the Spirir of the Earth.... A conqueringpassionbeginsto show itself,which will swccpawayor rransformwharhashirhcrtobeenrhc immaturiryof rhe carth.... Thc call rowardsthc greatUnion [i.e.,the univcrsal uniry of mankind]whoscrealization is thc only business now afoor in nature....-On thishyporhesis, undcrwhich (in conformirywith thc findingsof psycho-analysis) Loveis rhe primitiveand universal psychicenergy, doesnot cveryrhing aroundus becomeclear...?The Sense ofEarrh is rhe irresistible pressure which will comear the righr momenrro unircthem [all humaniry]in a commonpassion. T'heagcof nationsis past.The taskbeforeus now,if we would not perish,is ro shakcoff our ancientprejudices,and to build thc Eartlr... . The greatconflicrfrom whichwe shallhaveemerged will mcrcry haveconsolidatcd in theVorld the needro believe.Havingreached a higherdegree ofself-masterltheSpiritofEarthwill cxpericnce an increasingly vital needrc adore;out ofunitersaleuolutionGodemerges rn our consciousness asgrcaterand moreneccssary thanever.... At whatmomentin rheNoosphcre hasrhercbeena morcurgcrrr necdto find a Faith,a Hopc to givc meaningand soul to rhe immcnscorganismwe arebuilding?5a Here he means rhat rhe whole modern revolution has losr itself. 'When ir tries to build a new Paradise,it destroyseveryrhing;therefore, it needsro havea religiousmeaningaddedro ir; and this 'ltilhard provides. All the rhings in modern life, he says,are good. Only add to 'Ar prescnt, evolutionary cosmologists arepositingrharasmuch asnincrypcrcentof the matrcrin thc univcrscis "dark"or "exotic"61116x-lp.

367

GrHrsts, Cnserroru,rno Eanly MaN

"CHnrsrteNEvoLutIoNtsv"

them this: the idea that they are all heading for a neq spiritual kingoom. Teilhardsaysfurther:

end the idca thar God is thrown our, Christianity is thrown out, and rhe world is Divine. The world is somehowthe body of Cod, and man 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 Dostoyevskydepictedin "The Grand Inquisitor." He triesro unire the spiritual sidewith the scientificside,and wirh a New Order which will be political. He is a prophet of Antichrist.' And so wirh this, the modern rarionalismin our time comesto an end. Reasonfinally comesto doubr or even to deny iaelf." Scienceis upset; it doesnot know wha( matter is, whar it can know and whar it cannot know. Relativism pervadesall spheres.For some, this doubt and relativismlead to the philosophyof the absurd.'*' It turns out that, having gone through all theseexperimentsof the aposrasy,man cannot deuel|p drything morefLr binuelf He tried everyrhing and eachtime he wasconfident that he had finally found the answer.As he did this, however,he overthrew more and more from the past.And alwayswhateverhe made was overthrown by the next generation. Now he comesfinally to doubting evenwhether the world exists,and what he is. Many peoplecommit suicide.Many destroy.$7hat is left for man? There is nothing left except rc uah for a new revelation. And modern man is in such a stare-having no valuesystemand no religion of his own-that he cannot but acceptwhatevercomesas being this new revelation.

In us the evolutionof the Vorld towardsthe spirit becomesconscious.. . . We cannoryerundcrsrand exacrlywhercit will leadLrs,bur it would be absurdfor us ro doubt that it will leadus towardssome endofsuprcmevalue.5t In this he is trying to be a prophet, but he is nor reallyquite surewhere it is all going. The generating principleofour unificationis not finallyro be [ound in the singlecontemplation o[ thesameTiurh or in thc singlcdesirc awakened 6y Something, bur in the singleatrractioncxerciscd by the sameSomeone ,!(' Therefore, in spiteofall theapparentimprobabiliries, we areinevirably approachinga new age in which the Vorld will casroff irs chains,to giveitselfupar lastto thepowero[its internalaffinities.... 'With rwo thousandyearsof mysricexpcriencc[of Roman Catholicismlbehindus, the contacrwhichwc can makewith rhe personalFocusof rhe Universe hasgaincdjusrasmuchexplicitrichness 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 ultimarc,thc rcalizarionof God ar the hean of rhc Noosphcre[rhe mcntalworldl, the passage of rhe circlesli.e.,of all the sphereslto their common Center,rhe apparitionat lasrof rhe "Theosphere"

This longing is very deep in modern man-rhis is what he wants. All modern philosophical,chiliastic,socialisricsysremshave as rheir

rcachingon this subjectis discusscd more fully in rhe lldirori ' |r Scraphim's Epilogue.-l)o. '" Earlierin his"SurvivalCourse,"Fr.Scraphimspokcofhow fairhin "purereason" was undermincdtowardsrhe end of thc Enlightennrenr by the philosopher David Hurnc.lmmanuelKant andothers.Somcof rhisdiscussion hasbeenincludcd in rhe previouschaprcr,pp. 318-24.-Eo. to rhewritersCamus,Kafka,Ionesco, erc.In rheearly1960s,Fr. '*' A reference Scraphimwrorc an essaycalled"Thc Philosophyof the Absurd,"which waspublishedposthumouslyrn 'I he OtthodoxlVod no. 106 (1987). Flp.

368

369

[i.e.,whenmanand rheworld becomeGod]lt7

GeNesrs, Cnr,rnorur.NoE,ralvMaru

10. Teilhardisn in the Light ofOrthodoxl 'fhe evolutionaryphilosophyof Teilhardde Chardin is, strictly rhe productof the meetingof modernphilosophywith Rospeaking, man Catholicism.Howeversrronglytilhardism mighrseem to break wirh cerrainaspecrs ofrhe ultramontane RomanCatholicismofyesterday,therecanbe no doubtthat it is in profoundharmonywith and ad"spiritual"currentofapostateRome:the mirablyexpresses the deepest "otherworldliness" for a rhis-worldl*chiliasticend,or asrecent useof ir, the "sanctification of the world." Vithin RoPopeshaveexpressed "revelation" quite as justified man Catholicism,Teilhardismis a new agoof the "Saofseveralcenturies and as"traditional"asthe revelation credHeartofJesus,"which itselfinspiredone oflbilhardk "mystical" meditationsin a monologuewith Cod: Two ccnturicsago, your Church IRoman Catholicism] beganto f'ecl rhe particular power ofyour heart.... Brrt now [wc are becorningl] awarethat your main purposcin this revcalingto us ofyour heart was to cnablcour lovc to escapefrom the constrictionsofthe too narrow, too prccise,too limited imagcof you which we had lashionedfbr ourselvcs.'Vhat I discern in your brcastis simply a furnacc of firc: ancl thc morc I fix my gazeon its ardencythe more ir sccmsro me that all around it rhc contoursofyour body nrclt awayand beconrcenlarged beyond all mcasure,till thc only fcaturcsI can distinguish in vou are thoseof thc faceof the world which has burst inro {lamc.5" The "revelation" of thc ".SacredHeart," in this view, is thrrs merely a prepararion for the still more universal revelation of "evolution" in our own rimes. Evcn in rhe nineteenrh century, the "reactionary" Pope Pius IX, far from condemning rhe evolutionary views ofSt. George Jackson

Mivart, confbrredon him an horrorarydoctorareof philosophyafter ( 1876).5'' theirpublication In Teilhardism, RomanCatholicismhascomevirruallyro the farthestlimit of irs blasphemy againstthe true teachingofthe Churchof which is precisely Christ.'fhat is called"Chrisi'in this philosophy 370

"CxnIsrIln EvoLurt
what the Orthodox Church knows as Antichrist:the "emerging" pseudo-Chrisr who promisesmankind a "spiritual"kingdan of thi world.ln this philosophyrhe conceptof and tasrefor the otherworld, the possession of whichdisringuishes OrthodoxChristiansfrom other men,is totallyobliterated. As we haveseen,Teilhardis deeplyin harmonybothwirhthe modernoutlookdzlwith RomanCatholicism, bothof whicharenow converging"in a newworldview.He righdysawrhatevolurion,if it is true, cannotbe keptin onecomparrment ofhumanthought,but profoundly aff-ccts thewholeofthought.He wasunconcerned to "reconcile" evolution with singlepoinrsof Christianrraditionand dogma,because he rightlysawtharrhereis no possible reconciliation. Euolution is a 'new revelation"to man, and it is the singlemosr importanrpart of rhe worldviewof the "Third Ageof the Holy Spirii'which is now comrng upon the lasrhumanity.*In the Iighr of evolutioneveryrhingmusr change-not justthe"staticworldview"of Holy Scriptureandthe Holy Fathers, but one'swholeourlookrowardli[c, God, and the Church. The simpleOrrhodoxbelieverwho mayacceprthe ideaof "evolution" innocentlybecause he hasbeentold it is'tcientific,"will doubrlessbe bewilderedat the Teilhardianideaof "evolurion"and wonder what possible connecrion ir haswirh the "scientificfacts"which "everyone acceprs" roday.It is time,then,finally,to approachrheanswers ro the questions aboutevolutionand Christianfaith which this srudyof "Christianevolurionism"has raised.Nor everyonewho believesin someform of evolutioncan acceprthe pseudo-mysticism of tilhard de Chardin;but this blasphemous "mysticism"is only a most logical deductionfrom viewswhosefull implicationsareentirelyunrealized ' A relercnce ro rhcchiliasric predicrion ofJoachinrof Fiorc,rhc rwclfrhccnrury I;rtin abborwho sawthc rwo agesof rhe Farher(Old lisramcnt)and thc Son (Ncw 'Ilstament) givingwey to a final "Third Ageof rhc Holy Spirir."'l'his rcacnrng was takcnup in thc rhirtccnrhccnruryby rhc Franciscan Spiriruals, who viewedJoachim asrhcirpropher.ln rhe nincreenrh cenruryir wasrevivcdby rheanti-OrrhodoxRussianrhinkerNicholasBcrdyaev, who predicted rhcadvcnrof"a ncwand final Revelarion': "rhe New Agc of the Holy Spirii' characrerizctl by "a ncw spiritualiryand a new nrysricism; in ir rhcrewill be no morcof rhc asccticworldvicw."SccFr. Sera, phim Rosc,Orthol0ry and the Religionofthc Fututt, pp. xxxiii.-F)o.

371

CrNrsrs, CnEarroN AND EARLYMAN

by rhosewho acceptevolution"in somcform." Unknownro mosrOrthodoxChristians, the Holy Fathers of the OrthodoxChurchhaveset forth a clearteachingon the natureof the world, God'screation,and the first-creared man which answers all the ouestionsthat modernist 'theologians," uho do not hnowttti Orthodoxftnching0f the Orthodox Fatbers,rhink areso uncertainand difficult. Teilhard's monstrousviewof the "Omega'wasmadepossiblepreciselybecause evolutionary philosophyfirstobscured the'Alpha"-that is,theOrthodoxdoctrineof thecreationolrtheworld arrdman.Orthodox theologyin our own timehascomesomuchunderrheinfluenceof this modernphilosophythat most"Orthodoxtheologians" no longer teachthe Orthodoxdoctrineof Cod'screation.The ideasexpressed in "conserrheofficialorganofrhe GreekArchdiocese of America,by the vative" theologianPanagiotistempelas (if he has been correctly quoted),by TheodosiusDobzhanskyand St. Vladimir'sTheological Seminarywhichawardedhim an honorarydoctorate, by periodicals of in America] the AmericanMetropolialOrthodox Church and the "StandingConferenceof CanonicalOrthodox Bishops"in America-are so far from Orthodoxyahaton€canonly marvelat the "'WesttheseOrrhodoxChrisrianswho are, ern caprivity"that hasenchained afterall, freeto readthe Holy Fathers and think for themselves. BeforeapBut let us not be shockedby rhismediocreignorance. ler proachingthe teachingof the Holy Fathers themselves, usexamine briefly the viewsof "Orthodox theologians"who accepteuentheteaching ofTeilharddc Chardinbimselfas "Orthodox," andrevealtherebynot merelytheirprofoundignorance ofOrthodoxteaching, but evenmore their captivationby a teachingtotallyand utterlyforeignto Holy Orthodoxy.

"Cnntsrraru EvoruttoNIsv" USSR.'After this publication,F-r.John Meyendorffof the American Metropoliawrore: fhe Christocentric undersranding of manandtheworldwhich,accordingto Teilhard,arcin a stareofconstanrchangeandsrrivingrowardsthc "OmegaPoint," rhar is, rhe highesrpoint of beingan
-lbilhardism seems to havemadea deepimpression on Russian Orthodox"liberals"afterthetranslation and publication(significanr in irselflof ThePhenomenon ofManin Moscowin 1965-the firstbookof a "Christianthinker"(if one exceprs the propaganda volumeof Hew"Red lett Johnson,the Deanof Canterbury")to be publishedin the

'In his book lbe Jesuix(1987),Fr. MalachiMarrin commenrson'leilh,rrdi conncctionwirh Marxism:"For TLilbard,Marxismprcsenrcd no realdifficulry.'-l-hc ChristianCod on high,'hc wrorc,'andrheMarxisrGod ofProgrcss arercconcilcd in Chrisr.'l,ittlc wonderrharTbilhardde Chardinis the only RomanCarholicauthor whoscworksarcon publicdisplaywirh rhoscof Marxand Leninin Moscow's Hall of ( lhe Jeuix, p. 290).-Eo. Arhei,sm" " An organ of rhe Parisianschoolof modcrnistOrthodox rhcology,abour which seeMonk Damascene Chrisrensen,Not of 'l'hi World,pp. 464-76.-F.o.

372

373

11. "Orthodox"FollowersofTiilhard de Chardin

Crpr-sts, CnmrtoN ,rtlo Eanrv Meu

'fhe Messengeri major "Orthodox"arricleon Teilhardismis by a PolishOrthodox priest,Fr. GeorgeKlinger,and is entitled"Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and OrthodoxTradition."('rThis authorfinds that Teilhardt'ihought so often uncoverspointsof approachto the best to quotethese"best and he then proceeds traditionsof Orthodoxy,"or heresyoI Monwhich are: the third-century tradirionsof Orthodoxy," tanism ("rhe evolutionismof Easternthought is confirmedin the of the threeHypostastudyof Montanism,whichsawthe appearance epochsofhuman hisrory");uo sesofthe Holy Trinity in threesuccessive of LatinmonkJoachim Fiore,with hisprophecyof thc rwelfth-century the coming"Third Ageof the Holy Spirir' to replacethe agesof the schoolof and the whole "Paris-modern" Old and New Testaments; (He doesquotea few Berdyaev, and their"liberal"followers. Bulgakov, quotes is supportiveof the also;but not one of these genuineFathers ideaofevolution.)Indeed,no onewill doubtthat thereis a kinshipbenor that the whole and evolutionaryphilosophy, rweenthesesources "new Christianiry"of our own rimeshasdeep charismatic-ecumenical roots preciselyin the doctrine of evolution-}lr t all tbis has notbing whateuerto do with Orthodoxl and the Holy Fathersof the Church! Fr. ro GeorgeKlingeris so far from Orthodoxythat he doesnot hesirare -leilhard "cosmic" or follow de Chardininto his dizzyingvisionof the "super-Christ": rolcof Chrisr,of theDivine muchon thccosmic Fr.Tcilhard spcaks roohc"converp;cs" Milieu,andverylittlcofrheChurch.In thiscase with tendencies akin to him in Orthodox theology.. In Fr. Teilhard,rhc Churchis identifiedwith thc workingof Christin rhecosnlos,('1

And again: Accordingto Fr.Tcilhard,throughcommunionof the Holy Mysterthe Bodyof Christ....These becomes icsrheworld bcingsanctified profoundest that havebeensaidin recent rhoughtsare possiblythc of Christianiry.6 timeson the questionof the centralsacramcnt

:r /tl

"Cxtlst-r.eruF,v401 below.)-Eo.

375

Gruesrs,Cnr-rtroNeNn Ernrv Mln they have ro say on the questionsaffecting the doctrine and philosophy ofevolution. \Vhat are the sphereso[science and theology?How must an Orrhodox Christian interpret the book of Genesis?rJ/ho was the first man, when did he live, what was his origin and nature?Vhat was the stateof the first-createdworld? Vho is able to seethings as they were "in the beginning"?We shall seekanswersto such questtons not ofone or two ofthe Fathersonly, not ofdubious Fathersor in obscureworks, not by taking quoresout of context so as to fit preconceived notions. Rather, we shall ask the Fathers of undisputed aurhoriry in rhe Orrhodox Church and seekto find what the "Patristic mind" is on this question.We shall investigatethe commentarieson GenesisofSt. John Chrysostomand St. Ephraim the Syrian,the commentarieson the Six Days of Creation by St. Basil the Crear and St. Ambrose of Milan, the catecheticalworks of St. Cyril of Jerusalem,St. Gregory of Nyssa,St. John Damascene,the Homilies on Adam and the first-createdworld by St. Symeon the New Theologian and St. Gregoryof Sinai, the theologicalwritings of St. Macariusthe Creat, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. lsaacthe Syrian,St. Abba Dorotheus,St. Gregory Palamas,and other Fathers,as well as the witnessoI the Divine servicesof the Orthodox Church. Ve find there much rhat ts new (o many Orthodox Christians,especiallysincemany of thesewrirings have not been translatedinto English. Ve shall find there not manv "details"concerningthings which are beyond us, 6ur a preciseand rcherentdoctine of that which we need to know. We shall find that the most pressingquestionsraised by the doctrine of evolution are answeredfor us. Ve shall find therethe inspiring Patristicdoctrine ofthe f irst creation, the nature of Adam, and the final state of all and vain for us the "Omega" of 'feilcreatures-which makestasteless hard de Chardin and all the empty speculationsofthose who havenot that knowledgeof rhe first and last things which God has revealedto His chosen people,Orthodox Christians.

376

PARTIII The Patristic Docnine of Creation

EDITOR'SNOTE

{J

.);

f6

rCft l:'

l)ctail of rhe icon"l he Syorbolof rhe Faith,"showingAdamand F-vcbcingcasr out of Paradisc, Cain slayingAbcl,and Adanrand F-vclarncntingAbcl'sdcarh. Russin icon olth secondhalf of tlte n,enteenth rcntury, noit lo&ted nt KolonenskoyeM xseurn,Motrc tu.

Tbefollouing btter w*s uritten $' Fr. Seraphimto Dr AlexanderKalomiros, a GreekOrthodox medicrtldlctlt church writer, and "Christian euol tionist." Fr. Seraphimwar resplndingto a letterfom Dr. Kahmiros, in which thc latter attemptedto show that the Holy Scripturesand the teachingof the Holy Fathersaere compatibb with modrrn euolutionary 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? 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 stagcofeuolution 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 defnitiue innoduction to the Patristic doctrine of reation and the defnitiue Patristic refatation of the modcrn theory of euolution. lV'epresentit herewith sectiontitlcs addedby the editor. For moreabout Fr. Seraphimicorrespondcnce utith Dr. Kalomiros,see the Editor\ Preface(pp. 2C30, 35, 40) and thc sebctionsfom Fr Seraphim'slettersin Part V (pp.514-15, 52244).

379

Fifth Veek of GreatLenr, I 974 Dear Dr. Kalomiros, in our LordJesusChrisr. Greetings At lastI am writing my replyto your letreron "evolution."This reply expresses the viewofour Brorherhoodon this question.I will repeat 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 "Eerdmans" nineteenthcenturywhich areprintedin the NiceneFathersSeries.I havegiventhe sourcesasfully aspossibleso that you can readthem in Greek.Ifyou havequestionsabout theseor any other PatristiccitationsI 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 lbelievethat is the way we shouldthink also.May Christ our God bless me to soeaktruthfullv.

Adam (derail). Frcscob1 Thcophanathc Grcehin thc Churcb of thc Tiawfguration ofthc Sauiour,Novgorod,Ruia 1378.

The questionof "evolution"is an extremely importantone for Orfor in it areinvolvedmanyquesrions thodoxChristians, whichdirectly affectour Orthodoxdoctrineand outlook: the relativeworth of scienceand theology,of modernphilosophyand Parrisricreaching;the docrrineof man (anthropology); our arrirudetowardthe writingsof the Holy Fathers(do we reallytake seriouslyrheir writings and rry ro Iiveby them,or do we believefirsrof all in modern"wisdom,"the wisdom of thisworld,and acceprthe teachingofthe Holy Fathers only if it harmonizeswith this 'wisdom"?);our inrerpretation of the Holy Scriptures,and especiallyrhe book of Genesis.In what follows I will touchon all thesesubiects. 381

Gr:Ncsrs. Crr:arroruaNr>Earu MaN

f ue PerersrrcDoclnrNe or Ctr:xrron

Beforeone beginsto discussthe question of evolution, one must have a clear idea of what he is talking about. I say this becauseI have with very learnedpeoplewho speakas had very surprisingexperiences if they knew all abour this subjectand yet they make very elementary mistakeswhich revealthat there is much that they do not know about it. In particular,almost everyonewho writes about evolution asarzrr that he knows what "evolution" is-and yet what he saysrevealsthat he has a very confusedidea of it. The question of evolution is by no meansa simple one, and there is so much confusion in people'sminds about ir-including the minds of most Orthodox Christians-that we cannot eventalk about it until we are quite surethat we know what we are talking about. You haveaskedus to "clearyour mind very carefullyofall Vestern conceprions,whether these are theological,philosophical,or scr€ntific." I assureyou rhat I havetried to do this, and throughout this letter I will constantlybe on the wxch not ro rhink in terms of Western conceprions,becauseI agreewith you that rheseconceptionsfalsiS the subject matter, and by meansofthem one cannot understand the question ofevolution. But in turn I askyu to try very carefullyto cleanse your mind of whateverpreconcep(ionsabout the questionsof evolution you may have-what you have learnedin school,what you have read in sci entific books, what you may think about "antievolurionisrs,"what Greek theologiansmay have said about the subject. Let us try to reasontogether,not in the manner of 'Westernrationalists,but as Orthodox Christianswho love the Holy Fathersand wish to understandtheir teaching,and also as rational beingswho do not accept the teachingof any modern "wise men," whether they be theologiansor philosophersor scientistsunbs rhat teaching accords with the Scriptural and Patristic teaching and does not come from some foreign philosophy.

explain the lacrs discoveredby science.Facrsare one rhing (prrresci_ ence)and explanarionsof factsis another (philosophy).', I must tell you first ofall thar at one timc I believedentirely rn evolution. I believednot becauseI had thought very much about rhis tluestion, but simply because"everyonebelievesit," becausert is a "fact," and how can one deny "facrs"?But then I beqanto rhink nrorc deeplyon this quescion.I beganro scerhat very oft"n *har callsitself ".scicnce"is not faa at all, but philosopbl, and I began very carefully to distinguish beween scientif cfacx and scientif c phihsophy. Afrcr many yearsI came to the fbllowing conclusions: a. Evolurion is zat "scierrtificfaci' ar all, but philosophy. b. lr is a.ft/sr philosophywhich was invenredin the Westas a reaction againsrRoman Catholic-Proresrant theology,and which drsguised itselfas"science"in order to make irselfrespecrable and deceivep-eople who are willing ro acceprscientificfact. (ln the Vesr almosr ali modern errors do this same thing; even "Chrisrian Science"claims to be "scientific,"so alsoSpiritism,variousHindu cults, etc.) c. It is contrary ro the teachingof the Holy Fiatherson very many Pornrs. I have deliberatelygiven you my conclusionsbefore explaining . them to you, in order ro make you srop and think: are you sure thet you have pur away all your preconceptionsabour evolution and are prcparedro rhink clearlyand dispassionately on rhis subject?Are you willing ro admir that there may be some truth in what I will now have to sayon this subject?I must tell you frankly that mosr ,.evolurionisrs" will stop ar this point and say: rhis man is crazy,he is denying facts.I am rrusring thar your mind is ar leastopen enough to read the resrof what I will say,which I try to baseentirely on the Holy Fathers.If I makemisrakes. I hope that you will rell mc.

2. A ClearDefnition l. Philosopfu, Not Fact Firstofall, I agree enrirely with youwhenyousay:"Youmusrnot pure scienrrwirh the different philosophicaltheorieswrittcn ta conFuse

382

Many of rhe argumenrs between"evolutionisrs" and ,,antievolurionisrs" areuseless, for one basicreason:theyareusuallynor arguing aboutrhesamething. Eachone ofthem means,ne thing when he hearsrheworld "evolurion,"and theothermeans slmething;lse; ^nd 383

GrNrsrs, CrurrroN lNo Ernt-vMrN rhey argue in vain becausethey are not even talking about the same thing. Therefore,in order to be precise,I will tell yor exactbwhar I mean by the word "evolution," which is the meaning it hasin all textbooks ofevolution. But first I must show you that in your letter you have usedthe word "evolution" to mean .wo entirely different things, but you write as f tbq wcre the samething. You have failed here to distinguish berween scientifcfact and philosophy. a. You write: "The first chaptersofthe Holy Bible are nothing else but the history ofcreation progressingand being completedintime.... Creation did not come into being instantly,but followed a sequenceof appearances, a developmentin six different'days.'How can we call this progressof Creation in time if not evolurionl" I answer:all that you say is true, and if you wish you can call rhis thi is not what the controuersl process of creation "evolution"-but ouer euolutionis about. Nl scientific textbooks define evolution as a specrfc theory concerning HOW creaures came to be in time: BY

MEANS OF THE TRANSFORMATIONOF ONE KIND OF INTO ANOTHER, "COMPLEX FORMS BEINC CREATURF. DERIVEDITROMSIMPLERFORMS"tN A NATURALPROCESSTAKINC COUNTLESS MILLIONSOF YEARS(Storer, 6ez"evolved eral Zoologi. Later on, when you talk about rhe beast" Adam,you revealthatyou believein thisspecifcscientifctheoryalro.I

Tsr P,rrnrsrlcf)oclnrur- op CnrarroN 'l'here

are very many books in rhe English languagewhich discussthe question of evolution from a scientifcpoint of view. Perhapsyou do not know thar many scientisxdeny tbe fact of'euolution (meaning the clerivationof all exisringcreaturesby rransforrnationfrom other creatures), and vcry many scientistsstare thar it is imposible to know by scienct zthcthercuolution is true or not, because tltereis no euidenceuhateuer that can conclusiue$proue or disproueit. If yol wish, in another lctter I can discusswirh you the "scienrificevidence"for evolution. I assure you that if you look at this evidenceobjectively,withour any p reconcep tionsabour what you will find in it, you will discoverthar rhere is not onc pieceofevidencefor evolution that cannor equallybe explainedby a theory of "specialcreation." Pleasebe very clear that I am not rclling you rhar I can disproue the theory ofevolution by science;I am only telling you that the theory of evolution can neitlter be proued nor disprouedby science.'I'hose scienristswho say that evolution is a "faci' are acruallyinterpretingrhe scientific Faasin accordanceuith a philosophicaltheory; rhose who say that evolution is not a facr are likewise interprcting the evidence in accordance wi t a diferent philosophical the<>ry.By pure sciencealone ir is not possibleconclusivelyto prove or disprove the "faci' of evolution. You should alsoknow that many books havelikewisebeen writtcn about'the difficultiesofthe evolutionarytheory." Ifyou wish, t will be glad to discusswith you some of thesedifticulries,which seem to be totally unexplainableifevolution is a "facr."

hope to show you that the Holy Fathersdid zarbelievein this specific scientifictheory,even though this is certainlynot the most important aspectof the doctrine of evolution, which more fundamentally is in error concerning the nature ofman, as I will show below. b. You say: " \7e all came into being by evolution in time. ln our mother'suteruseachone of us was ar first one single-cellorganism ... this, whether he and finalfy a perfectman." Of courseeuerlonebelieves is an "evolutionist"or an "anti-evolutionist."But this has nothing to do with the doctrineof evolutionwhich is being disputed. c. Again you say:'Adam was of which race,white, negro, red, or yellow?How did we becomeso different from one another when we are descendents o[ one singlecouple?ls this differentiationof man in different racesnot a product of evolution?" I answeragain: No, this is aar what the word "evolution" means!

I wish to make very clear to you: I do not ar all deny the facr of dtange and deuehpmentin nature. 1-hat a full-grown man grows from ;rn embryo; that a grear rree grows from a srnall acorni thar new uarierlrs of organismsare developed,whether the "races"of man or different kinds of cars and dogs and fruit trees-bur all of this is zar euolution: ir is only variation within a definite kind or species;it does not prove or even suggesr (unless you already belieuethis for nonscientific reasons)that one kind or speciesdevelopsinto anorher and

384

.]85

3. Derclopment, Not Euolutiotr

Tns Parnrsrtcl)oclrrNe on Cncerroru

GsNesrs, CRt,cloN aNo Enntv M,rN that all presenrcreaturesare the product of such a developmentfrom one or a few primitive organisms.I believe that this is clearly the as I will now point teachingof St. Basilthe Great in rhe Hexaemeron, out. St. Basilwrites: In Homily 5:7 of the Hexaemeron, who is livingin vicedespairof himself,knowLet no onc,thercfore, rhe properties of plants,so thc diliing that, asagriculturcchanges gcnceof thesorrlin the pursuitofvirtue cantriumphoverall sortsof infirmitics. " will deny that the "propNo onc, "evolurionist"or "anti-evolutionist, erries"of creaturescan b€ changed;but this is nor a proof of evolution unlesti can be shown rhat one kind or speciesran be thanged into an' changesinto another in an uuin' othcn and even more, rhat eueryspecies tenupted chain back to the mostprimitiue organism. I will show below whar St. Basilsayson this subject. Again St. Basilwrites: of tlreparricular How then,rheysa1docsthc canhbringforth seeds kind, whcn, aftcr sowinggrain, wc frcquentlygathcr this black wheatlI'his is nor a changcto anotherkind, but asit weresomediseascand dcfcctof the seed.Ir hasnot ccasedto bc whcat,but has beenmadcblackby burning.l would seemtoindicatethar St. Basildoesnot believein "a This passage changeto anothcr kind"-but I do not acceptthis asconclusiveproof, since I wish to know what St. Basil real\ te ches,and not maKe my own arbitrary inrerpretationof his words. All that can reallybe said of this passageis that St. Basilrecognizessome kind ofa "change"in the wheat which is zata "changeto another kind." This kind ofchange is zal evolution. Again St. Basilwrites: Ccrrainmen havcalreadyobservedthat, if pincsare cut down or burncd.rhcyarcchangedinro oak foresrs.2

386

'l'hisquote reallyprovesnorhing,and I useit only because ir hasbeen usedby othersro showrhatSt. Basilbelieved(l ) that onekind ofcrea_ tureactuallychanges into another(but I will showbelowwharSt. Basil actuallyteaches on rhissubjecr);and (2) that St. Basilmadescientific mistakes, sincethisstatement is untrue.HereI shouldstatean elementary truth: modern science,uhen it dealswith scicntificfacx, doesindeedusuallyknow morethan rhe Holy Fathers. andihe Holv Fathers caneasilymakemistakesof scientificfacrs;jr i not srientificdcts uhich welookfor in the Holy Fathers,but true rheologyand the true philoso_ phy which.is.based on theology.Yetin this particularcar. it ilrppens that St. Basilis scientifcallycorrect, because it often in fact happensrhat in a pine forestrhereis a strongundergrowthof oak (rhi forestin whichwe live,in fact,is a similarkind of mixedpine-oakforest),and when the pine is removedby burningthe oak growsrapidlyano producesthe changefrom a pine to an oak forestin ren oi fid.en yearr. 'fhis is zar nolution,bur a differenrkind of chanee,and I will now show thar St. Basilcouldnot havebelievedrhat tie pine is actually transformedor euoluedimo an oak. Let us seenow what St. Basilbelievedabout the .,evolution', or "fixiry"of species. He writes: -fhere is nothing

rruer than rhis, that each plant either has seeoor rhere cxistsin ir some generarivepower. And rhis accountsfor tne expression"of its own kind." For rhe shoot ofrhe reedis not Droquc_ rivc ofan olive rree.bur from thc rcedcomesanorhcr rccd; f.oa seedsspring plants related ro the seedssown. Thus, whar"nd was pur forrh by the earrh in its first gcnerationhasbecn prcserveduntil the presenrtime, since rhe kinds persistcdrhrough consranrrep.oduc_ tron.'

Again, St. Basilwrites: The natureof exisringob.jects, set in motion by one command, passes throughcreationwirhoutchange,by generation and destruc_ tion, preservingthe successionof the kinds through resemblance, until it reaches the veryend. It begetsa horseas rhe successor of a

387

CrNests, Cnsrrtox ,rNo EantY MeN horse,a lion ofa lion, and an cagleof an eaglcland it continues to until the preserveeach of the animalsby uninterrupted successions consummationofthe universe.No length of timc causesthe specific ofthe animalsro be corrupted or extinct, but, as ifescharacteristics

THa ParrusrrcDoclnrrueor Cne_nrroN

or allegories. Now you will understandwhy I do not accePtyour quotations from St. Gregory of Nyssaabout the "ascentof nature from the least to the perfect" as a proof of evolution. I believe,as the sacredScripture of Genesisrelates,that there was indeed an orderly creation in

stepsl but nouherein Genesisor in the wrirings of St. Gregory of Nyssais ir stated that one hind of crearurewas transformedrnro another kind, and that all creaturescame to be in this manner! I ouite disagreewirh you when you say: "Creation is describedin rhe first chaprer of Genesis exactly as modern sciencedescribesit." If by "modern science" you mean euolutionaryscience, rhen I believe you are mistaken,as I haveindicated.You havemade a mistakeby assuming that the kind ofdevelopment describedin Genesis,in St. Gregory of Nyssa and in other Fathers,is rhe sameas rhar describedby the doctrine of evolution; but such a thing cannotbe assumedor raken for granted-you must proue it, and I will gladly discusswirh you Iater the "scientificprooF" for and againstevolution, if you wish. 1-he deuclopmentof creation according to God! plan is one rhing; rhe modern scientific (bur actually philosophical) theory which expkins this developmentby rhe transformarionof one kind of creatureinto another,starringfrom one or a few primirive organisms,is quite a different thing. The Holy Fathersdid zarhold this modern theory; ifyou can show me that they did hold sucha rheory. I will be glad to lisren ro you. lf, on rhe orher hand, by "modern science"you mean science which does zar bind itself ro the philosophicaltheory of evolution, I still disagreewith you; and I will show below why I believe, according (o the Holy Fathers, that modern science cannot artuin to any hnowledgeat all oftbc Six DaysofCreation. In any case,it is very rrbi,rrry ,o identi$, rhe geologicalstratawith "periodsof creation."There are numerous difficuhies in the way of this naive correspondenceberween Genesisand science.Does "modern science"really believe that the grassand rreesof the earthexistedin a long gcologicalperiodbeforethe existenceof the sun, which was created only on the Fourth Day? I believe you are making a seriousmistakein binding up your intcrprcration of Holy Scripture with a particubr scientifc theory (not at all a "fact"). I believerhat our interpretationof Holy Scripture should be bound up wirh no scientifc theory, neirher "evolurionary" nor any other. Ler us rarher acceprthe Holy Scriptures as the Holy Fathersteach ru (abour which I will write below), and let us nor speculateabout the how of creation.The doctrine of evolution is a modern soeculation

388

389

rablishedjust rccently,nature,ever fresh,movcsalong with time.n lt seems quite clear that St. Basil did

ot believe that one kind of

creatureis transformedinto another,much lessthat ezrrycreaturenow existingwas evolvedfrom some other creature,and so on back to the most primitive organism. This is a modcrnphilosophicalidea. I should tell you that I do not regardthis questionas being of particular importancein itself;I shalldiscussbelow other much more lmportant questions. lf it were really a scient$c fact rhar one kind of .r.",ur...n be transformedinto another kind' I would have no difficulry believingit, sinceGod can do anything, and the transformattons and developmentswe can seenow in nature (an embryo becoming a man, an acorn becomingan oak tree,a caterpillarbecominga butterfly) are so astonishingthat one could easily believethat one species could "evolve" into another. But there is no conclusive scicntifc proof that such a thing has euerhappened,much lessthat this is the law of rhe universe,and everythingnow living derivesultimately from some primitive organism.The Holy Fathersquite clearlydid not believein any such rheory-because the theory of euolution aas not inuented til moderntimes.It is a product of the modern Westernmentality,and if you wish I can show you later how rhis theory developed togethetwith tbe courseofmodtrn philosophyfom Descartesonward,long before there was any "scientificproof" for it. The idea of evolution is entirely absent from the text of Genesis,accordingto which eachcreatureis generated "accordingto its kind," zat "one changing into another." And rhe Holy Fathers,as I will show below in detail, acceptedthe text of Genesisquite simply, without readinginto it any "scientifictheories"

GeNssIs. Clr:xnoN

AND !,^RLY MAN

about the ltow of creation,and in many respectsit contradicts the teachingof the Holy Fathers,as I shall show below. Ofcourse I acceptyour quotationsfrom St. GregoryofNyssa;I have found otherssimilar to them in other Holy Fathers.I will cerrainlynot deny rhatour natureis partly an animal nature,nor that we arebound up with the whole ofcreation,which is indeeda marvelous ':liry. But all this has nothing whateuerto do with the docnine of euolution,that doctrine which is definedin all texrbooksasthe derivationofall presentlyexisting crearuresfrom one or more primitive creaturesthrough a processofthe transformationofone kind ofspeciesinto another. Further,you should realize(and now I begin to approachrhe important teachingsofthe Holy Fatherson this subjecr)that St. Cregory of Nyssahimself quite explicitly did zar believein anything like the modern doctrine of evolution, for he teachesthat thefrst man Adzm u.,asindeed created directfi by God and was not generated like all other men.ln his book 'Against Eunomius" he writes: theirbeingin I The firstman,and rhe manborn from him, rcceived diffcrent way; the latter by copularion,theformerfom the moding of ChristHimte$ andyet, rhoughtheyarethusbelicvcdto be rwo, rhey in the definitionof rheirbeing,and are not considare inseparablc . . 'fhe ideaof humaniryin AdamandAbeldoes eredasrwo beings.. oftheir origin,ncitherrheordcrnor rhe not varywith rhedifference mannerof their coming into cxistencemaking any diflcrenccin rheirnature.t

Tse Plrntsr:c DoclnrNs op CnearroN hand which crearedAdam then, is creatingnow alsoand alwaysthose who come after him." How can anyone deny this obvious rrurh of (lod's continuous creativeactiviry?But this general rruth does nor at aff contradict rhe specifictrurh that the firsr man was made ,n a wa1/ differentfom all other men,asorher Fathersalso clearly reach.Thus, Si. Oyril ofJerusalemcallsAdam "God's firsr-pnz cd man," bur Cain ,,the tirx- born man."t Again, he teachesclearly,discussingrhe creation of Adam, that Adam was not conceiuedof another body: ',1'hat of bodies bodiesshould be conceived,evenifwonderful, is nevertheless possible: bu rhat the dust of the earth should beome a man, this is more wonder-

ful."" Yetagain,rhedivineGregory theTheologian writes:

1'heywho make"Unbegotten" and "Begoten"naruresof equivocal Godswould perhapsmakeAdamand Serhdifferin n"rur., rin..,n" fornaerwas not born offlesh (for hc aat oeated),bu thc latrcr was born of Adamand Eve., And the sameFathersaysevenmore explicitly: Vhar of Adaml lVasbe not alonethe directocaturc of God?yes, you will say.Washe thentheonly humanbeing?By no means.And wny, but becausc humanitydocsnot consisin dircctcrcation?For thar which is begottcnis ,rto human.ro And St. John Damascene,whosetheologygivesconciselyrhe teaching ofall the early Fathers,writes:

And again: and is mortal,and is capablcof thoughtand That which reasons, is called"man"equallyin rhecaseofAdam and ofAbel, knowledge, and this nameof the narureis not alteredcitherby the factthatAbel passedinto existenceby generation,or by thc facr rhat Ad.zmdid so witboutgcncration.6

fhe earliest formation(of man)is called"crcation"and not ..gencrarion." For "crcation"is thc origtnatJbrmationat God\ hani, while "generarion"is the succession from eachorher madcneccssary by rhe Ir scntence ofdeath imposcdon us on accountofthe transgression.

Of courseI agreewith the reachingofSt. Athanasiuswhich you quote, that "the first-createdman was made of dust like everyone,and the

what of Eve?Do you nor believethat, as the Scriprureand _And Holy Farhersreach,shewasmade from Adam'srib and wasnot born of some other creature?But Sr. Cyril wrires:

390

39r

Ce Nesrs,CRrfi'rol ,ruo Eenly MIN Eve was begortenofAdam, and not conceivedofa mother, bur as rt were broughtforth oJ man alone.t)

And St. John Damascene,comparing the Mosr Holy Morher of God with Eve,wrires: Just as rhe lattcr wasformcd Jiom Adam uithout conncction,so also did the formcr bring forth the new Adam, who wasbrought forrh in accordancc with the lawsofparturirionandabovcthc narureofgcneration.lJ It would be possiblero quore other Holy Farherson this subject, but I will not do so unlessyou quesrionthis poinr. Bur with all ofthis discussionI have nor yer come ro the most important quesrionsraised by the theory ofevolution, and so I shall now rurn ro some of them.

THe PerrrsrrcDocrntNr.or CnearloN

and easilyfall into acceptingour own "wisdom" in placeof the teaching 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 I'-atbers: if we will listen to their teaching insteadof thinking we are wise enough to teachothers from our own "wisdom," we will not go asrray. And now I ask you to examine with me the very important and fundamentalquestion:how do the Holy Fathersteach us to interpret rhe book of Genesis?Let us put away our preconceptionsabout "literal" or "allegorical"interpretarions,and let us seewhat rhe Holy Fatbersteachus about readingrhe text of Cenesis. 'We cannor do better than to begin with Sr. Basilhimself,who has wrirten so inspiringly of the Six Days of Creation. ln rhe Hexaemeron he writes: 'f hoscwho do not admit rhccommonmeaningof thc Scripturcs say

4. How Do the HoQ Ptatberc Interpret Genesis? In whar I havewritten about Adam and Eve, you will note that I quoted Holy Fatherswho interpret the texr of Genesisin a way rhat might be called rather "literal." Am I correct in supposingthar you would like ro inrerprerthe rext more "allegorically''when you say tnat to believein the immediatecreationof Adam by God is "a very narrow conception of the SacredScriprures"?This is an extremelyimportant point, and I am rruly astonishedto find rhat "Orthodox evolurionists" do not at all bnou how the Holy Fathers interpret the booh of Genesis.I am sure you will agreewith me that we are notfec to interpret the Holy Sripnres as we pleate,but we musr interprer them as the Holy Ftathers teacb us. I am afraid rhat not all who speak about Genesisand evolution pay artenrion ro rhis principle. Some peopleare so concernedro combat Protestanrfundamentalismthat they go ro extremelengrnsro refuteanyonewho wishesto interprerthe sacredrext of Genesis"literally"; but in so doing they neverrefer to St. Basilor other commenrators on the book of Genesis,who sratequite clearlythe principleswe are to follow in interpretingthe sacredtext. I am afraid that many ofus who professto follow the Patristictradition are sometimescareless,

i92

that watcris not water,bur someother nature,and they explaina plantand a fishaccordingto their own opinion.Thcy describcalso it according to rhc producrionof reptilcsandwild animals,changiing who inrerpretfor rheirown norions,justlike thedreamintcrpreters, sccnin their dreams.When I hear rhcir own endsrhe appcarances "grass," everyI rhink ofgrass,and in thesamcmannerI undcrstand thingasit is said,a plant,a fish,a wild animJ, andan ox. "lndccd,I . . SinccMoscsleft unsaid,asuscam not ashamcdof the Gospel.". lessfor us,rhingsin no waypertainingto us,shallwe for rhisreason bclicvethat rhc w<,rdsof the Spirir:rreof lessvalucrhanthc ftxtlish wisdom (of thosewho lravewritren about the world)?Or shall I with rathcrgivegloryto Him Vho hasnot kcprour mind occtrpied vaniriesbut hasordaincdtharall thingsbc writtcnfirr thc cdificarion l-his is a thing of which rhcysccnrto mc and guidanccofour s<.ruls? ro havebcenunawarc,who havcattcmptedby falscargumcntsand ro bcstowon rhc Scripturea digniry of allegoricalinterpretarions rhcir own imagining.But rheirsis rhe attitudeof onc wboconsiders of the Spiritand introduceshis own himse('uiserthan thc reuelationt as ideasin pretcnseofan explanation.Therefbre,let h be understood it hasbeenwritten,t4

393

Gexrsrs,Cnr,r:.roN a,NoElnry MlN

Tsr ParnrsrrcDocrnrxr or CnrerIoN

Clearly,St. Basil is warning us to bewareof "explainingaway" thingsin Genesis which aredifticultfor our commonsenseto understand;it is ueryeagfor tbe "enlightened"modzrnman to do this, euenif he is an OrthodoxChristian.Lrr us thereforetry all rhe harderto understandthe sacredScripturea theFathcrsunderstandit, andnot according to our modern"wisdom."And let us not be satisfied with rheviewsof one Holy Father;ler usexaminetheviewsof other Holy Fathersaswell. One of the standardPatrisriccommentarieson rhe book of Genesisis that of St. Ephraimthe Syrian,His viewsareall the moreimportant for us in thar he was an "Easterner"and knew the Hebrew languagewell. Modern scholarsrell us thar "Easterners"are given to "allegorical"interpretations, and that the book of Genesislikewise mustbe understood in rhisway.But let usseewhatSt.Ephraimsaysin his commentaryon Genesis: No oneshouldthinkrhattheCreation of SixDaysis an allegory; rt is likewiseimpermissible to saytharwhatseems, according ro theaccounr, to havebeencrearedin the courseofsix days,wascreatedin a singleinstanr,and likewiserhat ccrtainnamespresented in this account eithersignif norhing,or signifrsomethingelse.On the contrary one must know thar just as the heavenand the earrhwhich werecrearedin the beginningare actuallythe heavenand the earth and nor somerhingelseundersrood underthe namesof heavenand earth, so also euerythingclsethat is spohcnof a being creatcdand brought into ordtr afer the reation of hcauenand earth is nlt cmpty namcs,btt the very essence ofthc creatednaturescorrespondsto the forccof rhcscnames.It Theseare still, ofcourse, generalprinciples;let us look now ar several specificapplicationsby St. Ephraim ofthese principles. Alrhough borh rhc light and the cloudswerecrearedin tbc tuinhling ofan ey, still borh the day and the night of rhe First Day continued for tweluehourscach,t6 Again:

394

St. Ephraim thc Syrian(306-372). Iconfom Meteora,Grctcc.

'Vlhenin thctwinhlingofan (Adam!)rib wasrakenout andlikeEe wisein an instantthefleshrookirs place,and the barerib took on rhecompleteformandall thebeauryofa woman,thenGod ledner herto Adam.rT andpresentcd "asit is writIt is quiteclearthat St.Ephraimreadsthebookof Genesis "the rib of ren"; when he hears"the rib of Adam' he understands Adam," and doesnot understandthis as an allegoricalway of saying the Likewisehe quiteexplicitlyunderstands somerhingelsealtogether. Six Daysof Creationto be iuscsix days,eachwith rwenry-fourhours, which he dividesinto an "evening"and "morning" oftwelvehourseach'

195

CENesrs,CnEArroNaln Eanly M-lr.r

'fnr Parllsllc Dor:r'rrltt tlr Cnr^artoN

I have deliberatelytaken the "simple" commenraryon Genesisof St. Ephraim the Syrian, before quoting orher more "mystical" conrmentaries,becausethis "simple" understandingof Genesisis the most offensiveto the "enlightened"modern mind. I suspectthat most Orthodox Christianswho are not well read in the Holv Farherswill immediatelysay:"This is too simple! We know more rhan rhar now Give us more sophisticatedFathers."Alas for our modern "wisdom"-s5s19 are no more "sophisticated" Fathers,for euentl)e moJt "myxical" F'athers understand the *xt of Genesisin just the 'iimplt" way St. Ephraim does! Those who wish more "sophistication"in the Holy Fathersare under the influence of modern Wesrernideaswhich are entirely loreign to the Holy Fathersof the Orthodox Church. But I will haveto show this by quoting many Holy Fathers. Let us examine now specificallythe question of the "length" of the Six Days of Creation. I believethat this is still a question of secondary importance among those raisedby the theory of evolurion, but it certainly will not hurt us to know what the Holy Fathers thoughr of this, all the more so becausehere we will begin to glimpse the great difference which exists between the modern Western idea of creation,and the Patristicidea oFcreation.No matter how we understand them, these"Days" are quire beyond the comprehensionof us who know only the corrupt "days" of our fallen world; how can we even imagine those Days when God's crearivepower was mightily at work? 'fhe Holy Ilathersrhemselvesdo not seem to speak much about this quesrion, doubtless because16r them it was not a probbm. h is a problem for modern men chiefly becausethel tl to underxand God's cleatiln bl meansof the hws of nanre of ourfallen world. [t seemsto be assumedby the Fathersthat those Days, in duration, were not unlike rhe days we know, and some of them indeed specifr rhat rhey were twenry-four hours in length, as does St. Ephraim. But there rs one thing about rheseDays which it is most important for us to understand, and that concernswhat you have written about whether Cod created"instantly." You write: "SinceGod createdtime, ro crearesomerhing'instanrly' would be an act contrary to His own decisionand will.... Vhen we

speakabout the creationof stars,plants,animalsand man we do not speakabout miracles-we do not speakabout the extraordinaryinterofcreation." ventionsofCod in creationbut about the'natural'course "modern wisdom" lor I wonder if you are not substitutinghere some rhe teachingof the Holy Fathers?Vhat is rhe beginningof all things bv a miracle?lhavealreadyshowedyou that St. Gregoryof Nyssa,St. Cyril of Jerusalem,St. Gregory the 'fheologiarr,and St. John Damascene (and indeed all the Fathers)teach that the first man Adam appeared in a way diferent fom the nlltural gcneration of all other men; likewisethe first creatures,accordingto the sacredrext of Cenesis,appeared in a way different from all their descendants:they appearednot by natural generation but by the uord of God.'fhe modern theory of evolution denies this, because thc tbeory of euolution was inuented by unbelieuers who wished to deny Godi action in tedtion and uPltin the creationb! 'hatural" meansalone. Do yo't not seewhat philosophyis 6e' hind the theory of evolution? \Ybat do the Hof Fatherssaj about this?I have already quoted St. Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Cenesisdescribes how all God\ creatiue ttcts/1re done in an instant, evcn though rhe whole "Days" of creationlast for rwenry-lour hours each. Let us now seewhat St. Basil the Great saysabout God's creativeacts in the Six

396

397

f)ays. In speakingof the l'hird Day of Creation,St. Basilsays: all the trecsshorup.... At this sayingall the dcnsewoodsappearcd; with lcafand bush; thick Likewisc,all thc shrubswereimmediateQ in a mo' garlandplants... all cameinto existencc and thc so-called upon te earth,'" thry wcte not prcuiotts mentol'timc,althoagh Again, he says: "Lcr the earrhbring fbrth." This brief commandwasimmediately a systemwhich broughtto perfectton mighw natureand an elaboratc thougbt 1e countlcsspropcrriesofplanrs.to nore swifly than our

Again,on theFifthDay:

GsNrsrs, Crs,rrroN ,lNn Early MaN 'I'hc command came, Immediatej riverswcrc producrive and marshy lakeswere fruitful ofspeciesproper and narural to each.*l0

Likewise,St. John Chrysostom,in his commentaryon Genesis, teaches: 'lodayGod gocsovcrro rhc warersand showsus tharfrom rhem, oy His word and command,thereprocecded animatccrearurcs. $/hat mind, tefl nre,can undcrstandthismiraclc?'X4tar ronguewill bc able worthily to glori! rhe Crearor?Hc saidonly: "Lct the carrhbring forrh"-and immediatejHe arousedir to bearfruir.... As of rhc earthHc saidorrly:"Let it bring fonh"-and thercappeared a grcar varieryof flowers,grasscs, and sceds,and cvcrythingoccurred67Hrs uord alone;so alsohercHe said:"Ler rhc warcrsbring forth"... and suddentydterea,ppcared so many kinds ofcrecping things,sucha variery of birds,that it is impossible evenro enumcrarcthem with words,ll

Here I will repeat: I believe that modern sciencein most cases knows more than St. Basil, St. John Chrysosrom, Sr. Ephraim, and other Fathersabout rhe properriesof fishesand such spccificscienrific 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 Dr. JonarhanVells, a molccularbiologisr,hasfurthcrclucidared ' Recenrly Sr. Basilt tcachingon the Six Daysof Crearion,rhus refuringthoscwho would rry ro mekcthis tcachingcornpatiblc wirh evolurionism. Haraa, Quoring fronr Sr. Basil'.s meron,Dr. Vcfls writes:"'fhc Hcxacmaron asa wholc nrakcsit abundanrly clcrr rhat the first insrant[of crearion]wasfollowedby scvcralmorespccialactsofcrearion. Whcn rhe heavens first came into being thev wcre 'imperfcct,'becauscrhc sun, moon and s(ars'were nor yct crcatcd.''1_hesc thingswerecreared larer,by directacrs of Cod: 'ln rhc bcginningGod creatcdrhc lreaven and the carrh;afrcrwrrdsHe crcatcd lighr, rhcn llc crcatedrhc firmament.''fhc warcrswerc inirially'scarrered in many places,'and camerogerheronly aftcr God said,'Lcr rhc warersundcr rhe 'unfinishcd'after hcavenbe gatlrcred unto oneplacc.'Andrheearthrenrained irs initial crcationsinccir lackcdrhe'growthofall kinds of planrs'unril God spccifically commandedrhe earrhto 'bring fonh grass'and 'produccfruit."' flonarhan\X/ells, 'Abusing Theology," Otigiw & Design,vol. | 9, no. I ).-Eo.

398

Tus PrrnlsllcDocrnrNE ot CnsxrroN in any casetries to explaineverlthingwithout Him; ot theJeGodbearingHoly Fathrr?\i7henyou saythat God doesnor createinstantly, I believethat you aregivingthe teachingofmodern "wisdom,"zatthe teachingof the Holy Fathers. Of course,thereis a sensein which it is rruetharGod'screationis nor thework ofan instant;but herealsothe Fathers arequiteprecise in theirteaching.I havequotedSt. Ephraim,who says:"ft is likewiseimpermissible ro sayrharwharseems, accofdingto rhe accounr,ro have beencreatedin the courseof sixdays,wascreatedin a singleinstant." Vith this in mind, let us look at the passage you havequotedfrom St. Gregoryof Nyssa:"Man wascreatedlasrafterthe plantsand animals because naturefollowsa parhwhich leadsgraduallyto perfection.""lr is asif by stepsthat naturemakesits ascentin life properries from rhe leastto the perfect."In quotingthesepassages, you haverriedro understandthem in the senseof rhe moderndoctrineof evolution.But cerrainlyit is not properro readinto theseancienttextsrhe conclusionsof modernphilosophy! HereSt.Gregoryof Nyssais surelyreaching nothingdifferentfrom what manyotherFathers raught,basedon a very"lireral"understanding of Genesis. Thus, St. Cregory the Theologianteaches,when he, like St. Ephraim,alsostatesthat the creationis nor "instantaneous": To the days (of creation) is added a ccrtain firsrness, secondncss, rhirdness,and so on to rhc seventhday of restofworks, and by these days is dividcd all that is created,being brought inro ordcr by unuttcrabfe laws, but not produced in an intznt by the Almighry Vord, for Vhom ro think.rr to speakmeansalreadyto perfornr the deed. lf man appearedin the world lasr, honored by thc handiwork and image ofGod, this is not in the leastsurprising;sincefor him, as for a king, rhe royal dwelling had to be preparedand only rhen was rhe king to bc led in, accompanicdby all creatures.2l

Again,St.JohnChrysostom teaches: The Almighryrighthandof GodandHis limirless wisdomwould havehad no difficulryin creatingeyeryrhingin a singleday.And 399

Grrrsrs, CnrerroN .rNo Eenl-yMaN

TNa Perr.rsrrcDocrn:NE or CnslrroN man createdafterwards,if he surpasscdall thesecreatures?For a good reason.\/hcn a king intends to cnter a ciry, his armsbearcrs and othersmust go ahead,so ahatthc king might enrerchambcrsalreadypreparedfor him. Prcciselythus did God now, intending ro placeas it werea king and masterover everythingearthly,at first arrangeall this adornment,and only then did He crearerhe master.23 Thus the Patristicteachingis clearlythat God, although He could have created everything insrantly, chose instead to createit in sragesof increasing perfection, cach*age being the work ofan instant or a vcry short time, culminating in the creation of man, the king of creation; and the whole work is completed,neither in an instant nor in an indefinitely long time, but asit werea mean berweenthesetwo extr€mes, precisely in six days. St. Ephraim and St. John Chrysostom, in their commentaneson Genesis,clearly regard Godt creation as being the work of six "literal" days,on eachone of which God creates"immediately''and "instantly." And St. Basilthe Great also,contrary ro a widespreadbelief of "Christian evolutionists,"viewing God's creationsas "immediate" and "sudden," regarded the Six Days as being precisely of twenry-four-hours' durarion; for he says,regarding the First Day:

Sr.JohnChrysosrom andSr.GregoryrheThcologian. Iconb7Monk Thcopbancs tbeCrctan,Stavronihiu Monatcry MountAthos,tixtccnthccnnarr.

"Thcre waseveningand morning." Thismeansthespaccofa da1and a night-... "Ard therewaseveningand morning, one day."\(/hy did he say"one" and not "first"?... He said"one" bccausebc wasd.cfning tbc mcasurc ofday and nightand combiningthe rime ofa night and a day, sincethc tucnty-four hoursfll up tbc interual of onc day, i[, of course,night is understood with day.'}

what do I say,in a singledayi-in a singleinstant.But sinceHe created everything that exists nor for His own benefit, becauseHe needsnorhing, being All-sufficient unto Himself, on rhe conrrary He createdeveryhing in His loveofmankind and goodness,and so He createsin partsand offersus by the mouth ofthe blessedProphet a clcar reachingof what is crearedso that we, having found out about this in dctail, would nor hll under the influenceofrhose who arc drawn awayby human reasonings....And why, you will say,was

' St. Ambrose,who rcadSr. Basil'sHexaemeron, gavc rhis samcreachingin his own Hcxacmcron. Conccrning rhe closeof rhe First Day of Crcarion,Sr, Ambrosc wrotc: "ln notablefashionhasScriprurcspokcnofa'day,' not rhe'first day.'Bccausc a second,thcn a third, day,and finally the remainingdayswerc ro follow,a 'first day' could havebccn mcnrioned,following in rhisway rhc naruralordcr.Bur Scriprurccsrablishcda law thar rwcnry-four hours, including borh day and nighr, should bc giventhc namcofday only, asifone wereto sayrhc lcngth ofonc day is rwcnty-four hours in exrcnt (St. Ambrosc,Hcmcmcrol l:37).-Eo.

400

401

CcNr:sls.CnExllor.l .,\NoEA.RryMaN

But evenSt.Gregorythe'fheologian,this most"conremplarive" of Fathers, believedprecisely rhesamething,for he says: fust asthefrst creationbeginswith SundayQnd thisis nidcnt fom the dzyafer it isSanday,because it is rhedayofrefact thatthcseuenth posefromworks),soalsothe sccondcreationbeginsagainwith rhe samedayIi.c.,thedayof Resu rrection].21 And againthe Theologiansays,givingthe Patristicviewofrhe kind of world into whichAdamwasplaced:

Tnr PalnrsrrcDocrnrNeor Cnr,rrloru lf thc enemiesof truth will insisrthar ir is impossiblero producc somethingfrom what is nonexistent, wc will askthem:\0'asrhefirst mancreatedfrom earrh,or not?!/ithout doubt thcy will agreewith us and say,Yes,lrom earch.Then let them tell us, how was flesh formcdfrom earth?From earrhrherccan be dirt, bricks,clay,tile: bur how was flesh produccd?How were bones,nerves,sinews,fat, skin, nails,hair (produced)? How, from rhesinglcmarcrialar hand, "lb this theycannot arc rhcreso many thingsof difFerenr qLraliries? evenopcn their mouths(to reply).'7 And againSr.John Chrysostomwrires:

The Vord, havingtakena pan of thenewlycreatcd carth,wirh His immorral handsformedmy image....2(' As I havesaid,I do not regardthis questionasone of the firsrimportancein discussing the questionof evolution;but it is nevertheless quite symptomaticof the influenceof modernphilosophyon them, that "Christianevolutionists" are so anxiousro reinterpret theseSix "wise Daysso asnot to appearfoolishbeforethe men"of this world, who have"provedscientiOcally'' that whatever"crearion"rherewas took placeovercountless millionsof years.Most importantly,rhe reasonwhy "Christianevolutionists" havesuchdifficulrybelievingin the Six Daysof Creation,which gaveno problemro the Holy Fathers,is becausethey do not understandwhat happenedin thoseSix Days: rhey believethat long naturalprocesses weregoingon, acof development cordingto the lawsofour presen( corruptworld;but in actualfacr,according to rhe Holy Farhers,the natureof thatfrst-crcateduorld was quitedifferentfom our tuorld,asI will show below. Let us look now morecloselyat anotherbasicPatristiccommentary on the book of Cenesis,that of St. John Chrysosrom.You will note that I am not quotingobscureor dubiousFathers,bur only rhe very pillarsof Orthodoxy,in whom our wholeOrthodox teachingis the mostclearlyand divinelyexpressed. In him onceagainwe find no "allegory"ar all, but only the strict inrerprerarion of rhe texr as it is turitten.Like the other Fathers,he tellsus thar Adam was formedliterallyfom dust,and Eveliterallyfom Adam'srl&. He writes: 402

God took a singlcrib, it is said:but how from thissinglerib did He form a wholecrearure? Tlll me,how did the takingof rhe rib occur? How did Adamnor feelrhisraking?Youcansaynorhingabourrhis; this is knownonly by Him \Vho creared.... God did nor producea new crcation,but rakingfrom an alreadyexistingcreationa certarn smallpart, from this part He madea wholecreature.Vhat power the HighestArtist God has,to producefrom rhissmallpart (a rib) the compositionof so many mcmbers,makc so many organsof scnse, and form a whole,pcrfcc, andcompletebeing.28

lfyou wish, I can quote many orher passages from this work, showing that St. John Chrysostom-is he not rhe chief Orthodox interprererof SacredScripture?-everywhereinrerprets the sacredtext of Genesisan it is writtcn, believing rhat it was nothing else rhan an actua),serpent (through whom rhe devil spoke) who tempted our first parents in Paradise,that God actually broughr all rhe animals beforeAdam for him to name,and "the nameswhich Adam eavethem remain evenuntil now."r') (But according to euolutio,rar| docrrine, many animals werc extinct by the time of Adam-must we then believethat Adam did nor name "all the wild beasts"IGen. 2:19] bur only the remnantof them?)Sr.John Chrysostomsays,when speakingofthe riversofParadise: Perhapsone who lovesto speakfrom his oun wisdomherealsowill

403

GeNpsrs, Cne,rtroNANDEARLY MAN

Txr Parnlsrrc Docrnrrueop CnranoN

nor allow that rhe riversare actuallyrivers,nor that thc watersare waters,but will instillin thosewho allowthemselves ro lisprecisely (undcr ten to thcm, that they rhe namesof riversand waters)represenredsomcthingelse.Bur I entreatyou, ht us not pd)/heedto these pcoph,letussropup our hearingagainstthem,and let us believerhc Divinc Scripture,and followingwhat is written in it, Iet us srriveto presewcin our soulssounddogmas.l0

St. John of Damascus, in his work On Heresies,explicitly describesthe allegoricalinrerpretationof Paradiseto be parr ofa heresy,that of rhe Origenians:

Is there need to quote more from this divine Father?Like St. Basiland St. Ephraim he warns us: Not to bclieucwhat is containedin the Diuine Scripnre, but to introducesomethingebcJlom one'sown mind-tbis, I belieue,wbjeca *or who hazzrdsucba tbing to great&tnger.rl Beforegoing on I will briefly answerone obiection which I have heard from rhosewho defend evolution: they say that if one readsall rhe Scriprure"as it is written" one will only make oneselfridiculous. They say that if we musr beli€verhat Adam was acrually made from dust and Eve from Adam'srib, then must we not believethat God has "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 commenraryof rhe Holy Fatherson the book of Genesis.All the Holy Fathersdistinguishbetweenwhat is saidabout creation,which must be taken "asit is written" (unlessit is an obviousmetaphoror other figure of speech,such as "rhe sun knoweth his going down" of rhe Psalms; bur rhis surelydoesnot needto be explainedto any bur children),and what is said about God, which must be understood,asSt. John Chrysostomsaysrepeatedly,"in a God-befitting manner." For example,St. John Chrysostomwrites: 'When

TheycxplainParadise, rheheaven, andcvcrythingclsein an allcgorrcalscnse.li But what, then, arewe ro undersrandofthose Holy Fathersofprofbund spiritual life who interpret the book of Genesisand other Holy Scriptures in a spiritual or mysrical sense?Ifwe ourselues had not goneso auay the Patristic underxanding of Stipnre, this uouU present far fom no probtem whaterer to zr. The same text of Holy Scriprure is true "as it is written," and ir alsohas a spiritual interpretation.Behold what the great Fatherof the desert,St. Macarius rhe Great, a clairvoyantSaint who raisedthe dead,says: That Paradisewas closedand rhat a Cherubim wascommandedto preventnran from enreringir by a flaming sword:of this we believe rhat in uisibbfashion i wasindecdjust asit b wrincn, and at thc same timewe find that this occursmysricallvin everysoul.ll4 Our modern "Patristicscholars,"who approachthe Holy Fathers not asliving founts ofrradition but only asdead"academicsources,"invariably misunderstand this very important point. Any Orthodox Christianwho /rzssin the tradition of the Holy Farhersknows that when a Holy Fatherinterpretsa passage of Holy Scriprurespirituallyor allegorically, he is not therebydenyingix literal meaning,which he atsumesrhe readerknows enough to accepr.I will give a clearexampleof thrs. The divine Gregory the Theologian, in his Homily on the Theophany,writes concerningthe liee of Knowledge:

you hear,beloved,rhat "God planredParadisein Eden in thc East," understandthe word "planted" befiningly of God: thar is, that He commandcd;but concerningrhe words thar follow, belieuc prcciseQthat Paradiscwas creatcdand in that aeryphce where the Scripnrc basassignedit.r)

This is a profound spiritual interprerarion,and I do not know of any passagein this Father! writings where he saysexplicitly that this

404

405

The treewas,accordingro my view,Conrcmplation,upon which it is only safefor thosewho havcreachedmaturiry of habit to enrer.35

CtNesrs,Cnralror auo EnnryMIN tree was also a literal rree, "as it is wrirten." ls it thereforean "open question," as our academicscholarsmight tell us, whether he completely "allegorized"the story ofAdam and Paradise? Of course,we know from orher writings of St. Gregory that he did not allegorizeAdam and Paradise.Bur even more important, we have the direct testimonyof anothergreatFatherconcerningthe very question of St. Gregory'sinterpretationof the 'lree of Knowledgc. But before I give this testimony I musr make sure you agreewirh me on a basic principle of interpreting the wrirings of the Holy Fathers. Vhen thel are giuing the teaching of the Church, the HoQ Fathers (if only they are genuine Holy Farhersand not merely ecclesiastical writers of uncerrain authoriry) do not contradict each other even if to our feeble understanding there rcem to be contradictions between them. lt is academicrationalismthat pits one Fatheragainstanother, tracestheir "influence" on eachother, divides them into "schools"and "factions,"and flnds "contradictions"berweenthem. All of this is foreign to thc Orthodox Christian understandingof the Holy Fathers. For us the Orrhodox teachingofthe Holy Farhersis one singlewhole, and since the whole of Orthodox reachingis obviously nor contained in any one Father(fbr all the Fathersare human and thus limired), we find parts of it in one Fatherand orher parts in another Father,arrd one Father explainswhat is obscurein another Father; and it is nor even of primary importance for us who said what, as long as it is Orthodox and in harmony with the whole Patristicteaching.I am sure that you agreewith me on this principle and that you will not be surprised that I am now going to presenran interpretationof the words of St. Gregory the Theologian by a great Holy Father who lived a thousandyearsafter him: Sr. Gregory Palamas,Archbishop of 'I'hessalonica. Againsr St. Cregory Palamasand the other hesychastFatherswho taught the true Orthodox docrrine oF the "UncrearedLight" of Mt. Tabor,therc roseup the WesrernrationalistBarlaam.Ihking advantage of rhe facr that St. Maximus the Confessorin one passagehad called this Light oi the liansfiguration a "symbol of theology," Barlaam taught that this Light was nor a manifestarionof rhe Diviniry but only something bodily, not "literally" Divine Lighr, but only a "symbol" of

406

Tur Prlnrsrrc l)oclntrunor Cnr.rrroN it. This led -St.Gregory Palamasto make a reply which illuminateslor us the relation betweenthe "symbolical"and "lireral" inrerpretationof Holy Scripture,particularlywith regardto the passage from St. Gregory the Theologianwhich I havequoted above.He writes that Barlaam and others do not scerhar Maximus,wise in Divinc marters,hascallcdrhc l-ight of rhe Lord'sTransfiguration a "synrbolof theology"only by analogyand in a spiritualscnse.In [acr, in a rheologywhich is analogical and intcndedro clevarcus, objcctswhich havean existenceof theirown bcconrerhcmsclvcs, in facrand in words,symbols by homonymy;it is in rhis sensethar Maximuscallsthis Light a "symbol."...Similarly,GregorytheTheologianhascalledthc trceof thc knowledge ofgood andevil "conremplation," havingin his con"contemplation" templarionconsidcrcd it asa symbolof this whrch is intendedto elcvrtc us; but it docsnotfollou that what * inuohrd k an illutiott or a rymbolwithout existencc of ix own. For thc divinc MaximusalsomakesMosesthe symbolof judgment,and Elijahrhe symbol of forcsighrlAre thel too then supposed not to haucreatQexistcd,l:>ur t
407

Grxrsrs, CnEerroru ,qxoEanly Mar

THr P,rrusrrc Docrruut or CnrarIoN

At this point the "Orthodox evolutionist" might try ro salvagehis position (of believing both in the modern theory of evolution and in the teachingofthe Holy Fathers)in one of rwo ways. a. He may try to say that we now know more than the Holy Fathers about nature and thereforewe really can inrerpret the book of Genesisbetter than they.But eventhe "Orthodox evolutionisr"knows that the book of Genesis is not a scientifc teatise, 6u a Divinely inspiredwork of cosmogonyand rheology.The interpretationof rhe Divinely inspired Scripture is clearly the work of God-bearing theologians,not of natural scienrists,who ordinarily do nor know the very first principlesofsuch interpretation.It is rrue rhar in the book of Genesismany "facts"of narureare presented.But ir must be carefully noted that thesefactsare not hcts such aswe can observenow Dur an entirely specialkind of facts:the creationof the heavenand rhe earth, of all animalsand plants,of the first man. I have alreadypointed out 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 creation of Adam it offers only philosophinl specuktions, nor scienriflc knowledge. According to the Holy Fathers,it is posiblefor us to hnow something of thisfrx-crcated world,6u this knowledgeis noraccessible ro natural science.I will discussthis questionfurther below. b. Or again,the "Orrhodox evolurionist,"in order to preseryerhe unquestionedPatristicinterpretationof at leastsome of the facrsdescribedin Genesis,may begin to make arbitrary modificarionsof the theory of evolution itself,in order to make ir "fir" the text of Genesis. 'I'hus, one "Orthodox evolutionist" might decide thar the creation of the first man musr be a "specialcreation"which does nor fir inro rhe generalpattern of the rest of creation, and thus he can believe the Scripturalaccounrof the creationofAdam more or less"as it is wrirten," while believing in the rest of the Six Days' Crearion in accordance with "evolutionary science"; while another "Orthodox evolutionist" might acceptrhe "evolution" of man himself from lower crearures,while specilying that Adam, the "first-evolvedman," appearedonly in very recenttimes (in the evolurionarytime scaleof "mil-

lions of years"),thus preservingat leastthe historical realiryof Adam ,rnclrhe other Patriarchsaswell asthe universallyheld Patristicoprnion (about which I can speakin anotherletter,ifyou wish) that Adam was createdabout 7,500 yearsago. I am sure you will agreewith me that such rationalisticdevicesare quite foolish and futile. If the unrverse "cvolves,"as modern philosophy teaches,then man "evolves"with it, and we must acceptwhateverall-knowing "science"tells us about the ageof man; but if the Patristicteachingis correct,it is correct regarding borh man and the resrofcreation. If you can explain to me how one can acceptthe Patristicinterprerarion of rhe book of Genesisand still believein evolution, I will be glad to listen to you; but you will also haveto give me better scientifc evidencefor evolution than that which so far exists,for to the objective and dispassionate observerthe "scientificevidence"for evolution is extremely weak.

40ti

409

5. "By Man Camc Death" ( I Corinthians | 5:2 I ) Now I come at last to the rwo most inrportant questionswhich are raisedby the rheory ofevolution: the natureofthe first-createdworld, and the nature of rhe firsr-createdman Adam. I believeyou expresscorrectlythe Patristicteachingwhen you say: "The animalsbecamecorrupted becauseof man; the law of the jungle is a consequence ofrhe fall of man." I alsoagreewith you, as I havealreadysaid, that man, on the side of his body, is bound togetherwith arrd is an organic part of the whole of the visible crearion, and this helps make it understandablehow rhe whole crearion fell together with him into death and corruption. But you think that this is a proof of evolution, a proof that man'sbody evolved from some other creature! Surely if this is rhe case,the God-inspired Fatherswould have known about it, and we would not havehad to wait for the atheisrphilosophersof the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturiesto discoverthis and tell us about it!! No. the Holv Frathersbelievedrhat the whole crearion fell with

CrNrsls,CnrerroNaNoEetly MaN Adam,but theydid zarbelieverharAdam "evolved"from someother creature; why shouldI believedifferenrlyfrom the Holy Farhers? Now I cometo a veryimporrantpoinr.Youask:"How is it that the fall of Adam broughtcorruprionand the law of the junglero the animals,sinceanimalshavebeencreatedbeforeAdam?Ve know rhatanimalsdied,killedand devoured oneanothersincerheirfirsrappearance on earthand not only afterrheappearance of man."* How doyou knout this?Areyou surethat this is what the Holy Fatbers teach?Yor explainyour poinr,not by quotingany Holy Fathers, bur by givinga philosophyof "time." I certainlyagreewith you thar God is oucide of time; ro Him everythingis present.But rhis fact is not a proof that animals,who died because of Adam, died beforehe fell.tWhat do the Holy l.atherssay? It is rrue,ofcourse,that mostHoly Farhers speakaboutanimalsas alreadycorrupribleand morcal;but theyarespeaking aboutrhcirfallen state.Vhat abouttheirsratebeforerhetransgression of Adam? 'l'hereis a verysignificanthint about rhis in the commenraryon Genesisof St. Ephraim the Syrian.\flhen speakingof the "skins" which God made for Adam and Eve afrer rheir transgression, St. Ephraimwrites: 'Nor only "Chrisrian evolurionisrs"such as L)r. Kalomiros, bur also ,.oldearrh/progrcssive crearionists"(who do nor believein cvolurion prr rr lrur acccpt the cvolutionary schemaof "millions o[ years")are forced by their posirion ro conclude thar thcrc were millions of yeersof death and dccay bcfore thc appcaranceof man. Here is one cxample from an olcl-carth/progressive crcationisr:rrricleinrended as a carechesis for children: "Starring about 2 ro 4 million ycarsago God bcgancreatingman-likc mammals or'hominids.'These crearurcssrood on rwo fecr, had lergc brains, and uscd tools. Sornceven buricd their dcad anclpainredon cavcwalls. Howcvcr. rhcy werc very diflcrcnt from us. Thcy had no spirir. They did nor have conscienccslike we do. fhey clrd nor worship ( io,.lor csrahlirhrcligiouspracriccs. "ln rime, all rhcsenran-likc crcatureswent cx(inct. "fhcn, abour l0 ro 25 rhousand ycarsago, God replaccdthcm wirh Adam and [vc" (Hugh Ross,"(icnesis One, L)inos.rnrs, rnd ( llvemcn ). -Eo. " In his lerrcr, Dr Kalomiros had argued thar, since God is ourside rime, Adam's fall had a rctroaoiue effeq on lll rhe other crcarurcs; rhus, "animals werc in corruprion long bcforc the appearanccof man on carrh."-Eo,

4t0

Txe ParnlsrrcDoclnrue or Cnr-rrroN Onc may supposethat the first parents,touchingtheir waistswrth rheir hands,found thar rhcy wcrc clcrrhedwith garmentsmadeof aninralskins-killed, it may be,beforetheir veryeyes,so thar rhey mighr eat rheir meat,covertheir nakcdness with thc skins,aal iz their wry deatb might tce the deathofthcir own body.tT I will discussbelow the Patristicteachingof the immortaliry of Adam belore his transgression, but here I am only inreresredin the guestion ofwhether animalsdied beforethe fall. \flhy should St. Ephraim suggest that Adam would learn about death by seeingrhe dearh of animals-if he had already seenthe death of animals beforc his ftdnsglession (which he certainly had accordingro rhe evolurionaryview)?But rhis is only a suggestion;thereareother Holy Fatherswho speakquite definitely on this subject;as I will show in a moment. But first I must ask you: if it is true as you say rhar animals died and the creationwas corrupted beforerhe transgression ofAdam, then how can it be that God looked at His creation after every one of the f)ays of Creation and "saw that it was good," and after creating the animals on the Fifth and Sixth Days He "saw that they were good," 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 could they be "good" ifrhey werealreadymortal and corruptible,contrary to God: plan for them? The Divine servicesof the Orrhodox Clrurch contain many moving passages of kmentation abot rhe "corrupted creation,"aswell asexpressions of joy that Christ by His Resurrecrion lras "recalledthe corrupted crearion." How could God seethis lamentable condition of the crcation and say tbat it taas "uerygood"? And again, we read in the sacredtext of(;enesis:'And God said, llehold I havegiven ro you everyseed-bearing herb sowingseedwhich is upon all the earth, and everytree which has in irselfthe fruit of seed that is sown, ro you ir shall be for food. And to all the wild beastsofthe carth, and to all the flying creaturesof heaven,and to every reprile creepingon the earth, which has in itself rhe breath of life, evencuer)l greenPlantfor foo4 and it wasso" (Gen. I :29-30). Why, if rhe animals devoured each other before the fall, as you say, did God give rhem, evm "all the wild beats and eucry reptile" (many of which are now 4tl

Ceuesrs, CnsarroN ruo E,relyMrN

l'ur Pnlrrsrrc Doclnrrur or Crearror

strictlycarnivorous) only "greenplantsfor food"?Only long afterthe transgression of Adarndid God sayro Noah:'And everyreprilewhich is living shall be toyoufor meat;I hauegiuenall thingsto lou dt thegreen herbs"(Gen.9:3). Do you nor senseherethe presence of a mystery which so far hasescapedyou because you insiston interpretiugthesacred text of Genais by meansof moderneuolutionaryphilosophy,which will not admit that animalscould everhavebeenofa nanre di/ferentfrom that which thry nowposses? But the Holy Fathers clearlyteachthat theanimals(aswellasman) werediferent beforerhe transgression of Adam! Thus St. John Chry-

animals were different from what they now are?Similarly, St. John Damascenetells us that

sostomwfltes:

Perhapsyou will objecrthat in rhe sameplaceSt. John Damascenealso says,speakingof the creationof animals,"Everything w:rsfor the suitabfe use of man. Of the anima.ls,somewcreforfood, such asdeer,sheep, and rhe like." But you must readthis passage iz context:for at gazelles, (just the cnd of this paragraphwe read asyou havenoted thar God created man male and Femaleforcknowing Adam's transgression):

It is clearthat man in the beginninghad complcreaurhoriryovcr the animals....But rhat now we are afraidand terrificdof beasrs and do nor haveauthoriry over rhcm, this I do not deny.... In thc beginningit wa: not so,but the beasttfearedand trcmblzdand submir ted to thcir master.But when through disobedience he lost boldness, then alsohis authorirywasdiminished.That all animalsweresubject to man, hcar what the Scripturesays:He broughtthe beasrs and all irrational crearures"ro Adam to see what he would call rhem"(Gcn.2:19).And hc, seeingrhebeastsnearhim, did not run away,but like anotherlord he givesnamesro the slaveswhich are subjectro him, sincehc gavenamesro all animals.. . . This is already sufficicnt as proof that beastsin the beginningwerc nor frightful for man. But there is anorher proof not lesspowerful and even clearer.Vhich? The conversarion of rhe serpent wirh rhe woman. If thc beasthad beenfrighrful to man, rhen seeingthe serpentthe womanwould not havcsropped,would nor haverakenhis advicc, would not haveconversed wirh him with suchfearlessness, but immediatelyon seeinghim would havebeen terrified and run away. But behold, she conversesand is nor afraid;thercuat not yct thcn anyfear)8

at that time rhe earth brought forth of itselfy'alrr for thc uscof the animalsthat weresubiecrto man, arrdthcre werencitherviolenr rainsupon the earrhnor wintry storms.But afterthe fall, "whenhc and wasbccomelike to thcm" .. . wascomparedto senselcss beasts then tbe creationnbject to him roseup agaiut tb* rulcr appointedb1 the Crcator.)')

God knew all rhingsbeforerheyweremadcand He sawthat man in hisfeedom wouldfall and begiuen oaerto corruption:yet for man's suitablcuseHe madeall the thingsthat are in the sky and on the earthand in the water.t" Do you not see from the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathersthat God createscreaturesso that they will be useful to man eaenin his corruprcd state; bv He does not cleate them already corntpted, and they were not corrupted until Adam sinned. But ler us rurn now ro a Holy Fatherwho speaksquite explicitly abour the inconuption of the oeation before Afumi disobedience: St. Gregory the Sinaite. He is a Holy Fatherof the highestspiritual life and theologicalsoundness,who attained to the heightsof Divine vision. In rhe Russian Phitohalia he writes:

Is ir not clear that St. John Chrysostomreadsthe first part of rhe text of Genesis"as it is written," as an historical account of the state of man and creation before the transgression of Adam, when borh man and

Tbe prerntly existing creation was not originally createdcorruptiblc; but aferwardsitfell undercorntption,"being madcsubjectto vaniry," accordingto rhe Scripture,"not willingly,but by rcasonof him," 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 and sanctifiedAdam hasrencwcdthc crearionalso,bur He hasnor yerdelivered it from corruption.al

'fhe teachingof the Holy Fathers,if we acceptit "as it is written" rnd do not try to reinterpretit by meansof our human wisdom, is clearly that the state of creatulesbeforethe nansgressionof Adam was quite differcntfom their presentstarr. I am not trying to tell you that I know preciselywhat this statewas; this stateberweencorruption and incorruption is very mysteriousto us who live entirely in corruption. Another great Orthodox Farher,St. Symeon the New Theologian, teachesthar the lzw of nanre we nlw know is diferent fom the Ltw of nature beforeAdami n'ansgresion.He writes;

Further,the sameFathergivesus remarkabledetailsabout the state of the creation(in parricular,Paradise)beforeAdam'srransgresslon: Edenis a placcin which thercwasplanredby God evcrykind of fragrantplant. Ir is neithercomplctelyincorruprible, nor entirelycorruptiblc. Placedbetuee/tcorn4ptiox and incorruption,it is alwaysboth abundanrin fruirs and blossoming with flowers,both marureand immature.I'he maturerreesand fruits are convcrtedinto fragrant earth uhich doet not gire of ary odtr of corruption, as do the treet of th* world.-l'hisis from the abundancc of rhc graceofsanctificarion which is constantly pouredforrh there.{l (This passageis expressedin the present rense-becausetltc Paradisein which Adam waspkced is still in existence, but is not visible to our normal senseorgans..) What will you sayofthese passages? \7ill you still be so cerrarn,as 'irniformitarian" evolurionaryphilosophyteaches,that the creation Dr/rrthe fall wasjust the sameasit is now after the fall?The Holy Scriprure teachesus rhar "God made not death"(Wisdom I : l3), and St. John Chrysostomteachesthat

Thc words and decreesof God becomerhe law of naturc.Therefore alsothe decrceof God, utteredby Him asa resultof the disobcdienccofthe first Adam-thar is, the decrceto him ofdeath and corruprion-became thehw of nanrc, ctcratl and unabuable.as \X/hat the "law of nature" was before Adamt transgression,which of us sinful men can define? Certain$ natural science,bound up entirely with its observation of the prescnt stateof creation, cannot inuestigate it. Then how do we hnow anything at all about /r? Obviously, because God has revealedsomerhingof ir ro us rhrough the SacredScripture. But we know also, from the wrirings of Sr. Gregory the Sinaite (and other writings which I shall quote below),that God has revealedsomething besideswhat is in the Scriptures.And this brings me to another extremelyimportant questionraisedby evolution.

just as the creaturebccamecorruptiblc tuheryour bodl becantecorruqtible,so alsowhen your body will be incorrupt, rhe crearurealso wifl follow afrer ir and bccomccorrespondingro it (Homilicson Romans).o'

6. Diuine Vision

Adam wasplacedasthe lord and king of all crcarures. . .. But afer his captiuiq, thcre was taken captive togerhcr wirh him rhe creation whichservedhim andsubminedto him, becausc throughhim death cameto reignovercucrysoul.44

What is the sourceof oar nae hnowlzdgeof thefr*-teated world, and how is it diferent fom sciencc? How can St. Gregory the Sinaite know what happensro rhe ripe fruits of Paradise,and why can natural science nor discoversuch a thing? Sinceyou are a lover of the Holy Fathers, I believeyou alreadyknow the answerto this question. Still, I will set lorth the answet basednot on my own reasoningbut on the unquestionableauthoriry of a Holy Fatherof the highestspiritual Iife, St. Isaacthe Syrian,who spokeofthe soul'sascentro God basedon bis

414

4t5

And Sr. Macariusrhe Grear says:

CeNesrs, CnrarroNeNo EenryMaN

Tne Prrrusrtc DocrprNt op Cnlrrroru

own experience a/l ln describinghow the soul is enrapturedat the thought of the future ageof incorruprion, St. Isaacwrires:

midst,and walkedon the surfaceof the seaason dry land.Bur all rhisis abovenaturc,conrrar), ro rhecapabiliries of klowlcdge,and it is shown rhar the larrcris vain in all its capabiliriesand laws.Do you scchou hnowhdgcprcscruesthc boundsof nanrel Do you rcc hotut'iith goesabouenaturcandthcre rracesrhe srepsof its parh?The capabilitiesof knowledgefor 5,000years,or a lirtle moreor lessthan this, governedrhe world, and man in no way could raischis headfrom the carthand acknowledge his Creator,until our fairh shoneforth anddelivered usfrom thedarkness ofearrhlydoingandvainsubmissionto the cmprysoaringofthe mind.And cvennow,whenwc havc found an impenurbable seaand an inexhaustible rrcasure, agairrwc desirero turn awaytowardtiny springs.Thercis no knowl.Jgcthar would not be poor,no mamerhow much ir might be enriched.But the treasures of faith canbe containedneitherby rhc hcavennor by the earth.ae

And from this one is alreadyexaltedin his mind to rhat which precededthecomposition ofthe world,whentherewasno crearure, nor heaven,nor earth,nor angels,norhingof that which wasbroughr into being, and to how God, solely by His good will, sudztenl1 broughteuerything /iom non-beinginto being, and everythingstood bcforeHim in perfecrion.i" Do you seethat St. Gregory the Sinaiteand orher Holy Fathersof rhe highest spirituaf tife beheld the first-createdworld ir the stateof Diuine uision, which is beyond all natural knowledge?St. Gregory rhe Sinaite himself statesrhat the "eighr primary visions" of rhe state of perfect preyer are: (l) God, (2) the angelic powers, (3) "theconposition ofuisible things,"(4) the condescensionof the Word (the Incarnarion),(5) the universalresurrection,(6) the SecondComing of Christ, (7) eternal torments, (8) the eternal Kingdom of Heaven.ot\Vhy should the "compositionofvisible things" be included rogerherwirh the other objects of Divine vision which are all within the sphereof theological knowledgealone,and not scientificknowledge?ls ir nor becausethere is an aspect and state of crearuresbryond the sphercof scientifc hnouledge,which can only be seen,asSt. IsaachimselfsawGod's crearion,in vision by God! grace?The objecrs of rhese visions, St. Gregory teaches,"are clearlybeheldand known by thosewho haveatrainedby gracecompletepuriry of mind." "' In another placeSt. Isaacthe Syrian clearlydescribesthe dffirence bctweennatural hnowledgeandfaith, which leadsto vision. Knowledgcis a rulc of nature,and rhis rule preserves it in all its steps.But faith performsits journeyabouenature.Knowlcdge doesnot anempt to permit anlthing to cometo it which is subtersiueof namre, but avoidsthis; but faith permitsrhis and says:"Thou shalttrcad upon rheaspand thebasilisk, andthou shakrramplcon the lion and the dragon"(Ps.90:13)....Many by fairh haveenteredflames,bridled thc burning powerof fire and passedunharmedrhroughirs

4t6

Do you now seewhat is at srakein the argument berweenthe patristic understandingof Genesisand the docrrine of evolurion?The doctrine of evolurion arremprsto understandthe mysteriesof Godt creation by meansof narural knowledgeand worldly philosopny,not evenallowing the possibilirythar there is somerhingin rhesemysreries which placesrhem beyond its capabilitiesof knowing; while the book of Genesisis an account of God's creation asseenin [jiuine uision b7 tbe God+eerMoscs,and rhis vision is confirmed also by the exoerienceof later Holy Farhers. Now, even rhough revealed knowledg" i, high.. than natural knowledge,still we know that rherecan be no conflici between tlue revelation and. mtc natural knowledge. Bur there raz be conflict berweenrevelation and human ph ilosophy, which is ofren in crror. There is rhus no conflict berweenrhe knowledeeof creationconrained in Genesis,as interpreredfor us by the Hoi-y Fathers,and rhe rrar knowledge ofcreatures which modern sciencehas acquired by observation;but theremost cerrainlyis an irreconcilableconflicr berween the knowledge contained in Genesisand the rain pbilosophicalspecuktions of modern scientists, anenlightcned by faitb, about the state of'the world in the Six Days of Creation. Where rhere is a genuine conflici berween Genesisand modern philosophy. tf we *uhlo know the truth ue +t/

CeNesrs. Cnr,,rnoNnNn EenrvM,rN must accqt the teaching ofthe Holy Fathersand reject theJitlse opinions of 'lhe world has now become so infected by vain scientifc philosophers. modern philosophy posingasscienrrthat very few, even among Orthodox Christians,are willing or able to examinerhis questiondispassionately and discover what the Holy Farhers really :aughr, and then accept the Patristic teaching eten if it seemsutter foolishnessto the uain uisdom of this wortd. Concerning the true Patristicview of the first-createdworld, already I think I have indicated enough to you of the Patristic views which at first sight seem"surprising"to an Orthodox Christian whose understandingof Genesishasbeen obscuredby modern scientificphilosophy.Most "surprising"ofall, perhaps,is the fict that rhe Holy Fathers understoodthe text of Genesis"asit is written," and do not allow us ro interpret it "freely" or allegorically.Many Orthodox Christians wirh a "modern education" have become accustomedto associaring such an interpretationwith Protestantfundarnentalism, and they are afraid of being considered"naive" by sophisticatedscientific philosophers;but it is clearhow much more profound is the true Patrisricinrerpretationthan that of the fundamentalists,on the one hand, who haveneverevenheardof Divine vision and whoseinterpretationsometimes coincideswith that of the Holy Fathersonly by accident,as ir were;and on the other hand, how much more profound is the Patristic interpretationthan that of those who uncritically acceptthe speculations of modern philosophyas ifthey were true knowledge. It may help the "modern" C)rthodoxChristian to understandhow the incorruption of the first-createdworld is beyond the competence ofscience to investigate,if he would examinethe fact of incorruption 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 in the Most Holy Mother of God, of Whom we sing: "Thee '*4ro without corntptioz gavest birth to God the Vord, trr.re Mother of God, we magnifo." The Theotokia of our Orthodox Divine scrvices are full of rhis doctrine. St. John Damascenepoints out that tn rwo respectsthis "incorruption" is beyondthe hus of nature. "So far as He had no father, (Christ's) birth was above the nature of generation"' and "in that His birth was painless,it was above the laws of genera418

-fnr PrrrusrrcDocrnrNsor Cnsa:ron

tion."'" Vhat doesthe OrthodoxClhrisrian saywhen a modernunocIiever,under the influenceof modernnaturalisticphilosophy,insists rhat such "incorruption"is "impossible,"and demandsthat Christiansbelieveonly what canbe provedor observed by science? Doeshe not hold to his faith, which is a revealed knowledge.in spiteof,\tience"and itsphilosophy? Doeshe nor indeedtell this pseudoscienri rhar he cannotposibly hnow or understandthisfact of inconupnon,nasmucltas tht worksof God are abouenature?-fhen why should we hesitateto believethe trurh abourrhe creationbeforeAdamsfall, if we becomeconvincedthat rhe Holy Fathersindeedteachus that it is somerhingquite beyondthe competence of scienceto invesrigate or know?One who acceptsrhe evolutionaryphilosophyof tlre creatron beforeAdam'stransgression, and rhus reiectsrhe parristicreaching only prepares the way in his own soul,and in the soulsof orhers,r-o accepran evolurionaryor other pseudoscientific view of many orner Orthodoxdoctrinesalso.We heartodaymany Orthodoxpriesrswho tell us, "Our fairh in Christ doesnor dependon how we inrcrprer Genesis.You can believeas you wish." But how can it be thar our negligence in undersranding one parr of God'srevelarion(which,by the way,is indeedcloselybound up with Christ, rhe SecondAdam, Vho becameincarnatein orderto restor€us to our originalstate)will nor leadto negligence in understanding the wholedoctrineofthe Orthodox Church? It is nor for nothing rhat Sr. John Chrysosrom closelybinds rogetherthe conectand stlict interpretationof Scripnre (sprctfnlu Genesis)and tlte conectdogmasuhich are esential for d r SALVA'UON.Speaking of thosewho interpretthe bookof Genesis allegorically, he says: Lct us nor pay heed to thesepeoplc,lct us stop up our hearing againstrhem,and let us believethc DivineScripturc,and followrng what is saidin ir, ler usstriveto prcservc in our soulssounddogmas, and at chesametime ro leadalsoa right lifc, so rharour life iould both rcstifr of rhe dogmas,and the dogmaswould give firmnessto our life.... Ifwe livewellbut will bc ncgligentovcrrighrdogmas,wc can acquirenothing for our salvation.If wc wish ro bc dclivcred from Gehennaand receivethc Kingdom,we musrbe adorncdboth

419

Gr.Nrsrs,CnaelrolraNo Ee.nrvMnN

Tur Prtnrsrrc DoclnrNe or Cnrnrroru

with the one and wirh the other-both with rightness of dogmas, andstrictness of life.tr

gavcit over into the authoriryofAdam and all his descendants... 'And God plantedParadise in Edcnin rhe East.And God mader<, spring up also out of the earth every rree beautiful to rhe eye and good for food" (Gen. 2:8-9), witb uarious f'yits wltich neuerspoilcd and nevcrceased, but wcrcalwaysfcth and tweet and afforded a grcar satisfactionand pleasantness for rhc first-crcatedones. For ir was necessarythat an incorruptiblc dclight bel rnishedfor thosebodiesof thefrstcrcatcdona, whichwereinconupt.... Adam wascrcatedwith a bodytbat wasincomrpt,wen rhough marerialand nor yer spirirual, and he was placedby the Creator God asan immortalking oueran incorrapt worA, not only oucrParadisc,but ako ouerthe wholecreation whichwasunderthe heayens.... (After Adam'stransgrcssion) God did not curseParadise. .. but Hc cursedonly the whole restof the carrh, which wasalsoincorrxpt and producedeveryrhingby itselfi...He who had becomecorrupt and mortalby rcasonof the transgression of the commandmenr, in all justicehad ro livc alsoon a corruptibleearthand eatcorruptiblc food..,. Then alsoall crearures, when theysawrhatAdam wasbanishedfrom Paradise, no longerwishedro submirto him the transgressor.... But God restrained all thesccrearures by His power,and in His compassion and goodness He did nor allow them immediately to rush againstman, and He commandedrhat rhe crearion should rcmain in submissionto him and, hauingbccomccorruptiblc, shouldscrvecorruptibleman for whom it wascrcated,with the intentionthat when man shouldagainbe renewedand becomespiritual, incorrupt,and immortal,and the whole creation,which had beensubjected by God ro man in bondageto him, shouldbc dcliveredfrom thisbondage, ir wouldbe rencwcdtogerherwith him and becomeincorruptandasit wcrespirirual..,. It is not fitting for thc bodiesof men ro be clothedin the glory of resurrectionand becomeincorrupt beforcthe renewalof all crcatures,But asin the beginning,frst thc wholecreationwascreatedincorntpt, and ther fom it was tahcn and crearcdnaz, so also ir is firting rhat firsr rhc wholecreationshouldbccomeincorrupt,and thcn the corrupr bodicsof men should be renewcdand becomcincorrupt,that againthc wholeman might be incorruprand spiritual

There is one orher question regardingthe stateof the first-createcl world about which you may wonder: what about the "millions of years"ofthe world'sexistencewhich science"knows to be a faci'? -fhis letter is alreadytoo long and I cannot discussthis questionhere.But if you wish, in another letter I can discussthis question also, including rhe "radiocarbon" and other "absolute" dating sysrems,giving yo:u the uietusof reputablc scientistsa6out them and showing you how these "millions ofyears" alsoarc nzt at all a factbr:r only more "philosophy." I'his very idea was never even thought of until men, under the infuence of nanralistic philosophl,6egan already to belieuein evolution and saw that ifevolution is rrue, rhen the world ,nzrt be millions of yearsold (since evolution has neuerbcenobserued,ftisconceivableonly under rhe suppositionofcountlessmillions ofyears which can bring about those which are too "minute" for contemporaryscientistsro see).If processes separatyou will examinethis questionobjectivelyand dispassionarely, ing genuine euidence fom suppositionsand phitosophy,you will see,I beis no lieve, that there genuine factual evidencewhich requiresus to believethat the earth is more than 7,500 yearsold. Vhat one believes about rhis is entire$ dqendent on hk philosophyof the creation. To sum up the Patristicteachingofthe first-createdworld I can do no better than to copy out rhe divine words ofa Holy Fatherwho so shone forth in mental prayer rhat he was only the third Father to be called by the entire Orthodox Church "Theologian": I mean St. Symeon the New Theologian. In his 45th Homily (Russianedition), speakingfrom Patrisrictradition and probablyalsofrom his own experience,he says: God, in the beginning,beforeHe plantedParadise and gaveir over to thc first-createdones,in five dayscstablishedthe earth and what is in it, and the heavenand what is in it, and on the Sixth Day He createdAdam and placcdhim as lord and king of the whole visible creation.Paradisethen did nor yet exist. But this world was from God asa kind of Paradise, althoughit wasmarerialand sensual.God

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 dwelling.. . . Do you scc rhar this whole creation in the bcginning uat

tholicism and Protestantism,has deep roots in the Roman Carholic scholastic tradition. 'I'he view ofhuman nature and the creation of Adam which you sct lrorth in your letter is very nruch influcnced by your opinion thar Adam, in his body, was an "evolvedbeast."This opinion you haveobtained,not from the Holy Fathers(for you cannot find one Farherwho believedthis, and I have alreadyshowedyou thar the Fathersindeed bclievequite "literally" that Adam was createdfrom the dusr and not fronr any other creature),bur from modern science.Lrt us then look, first of all, at the Orthodox Parristicview of the nature and value of secular,scientiflcknowledge,particularlyin relation to revealed,rheologicalknowledge. -I'his Patristicview is very well set forth by the grearhesychastFarher, St. Gregory Palamas,who was forcedto defend Orthodox theology and spiritual experiencepreciselyagainsta Vestern rarionalist, Barlaam,who wished to reducethe spirirualexperienceand knowledge of hesychasmro somerhing arrainableby scienceand philosophy.In answeringhim, St. Gregory set forth generalprincipleswhich are well applicablein our own day when scientisrsand philosophersthink rhey can understandthe mysteriesof creationand man'snature better than Orthodox rheology.He writes:

incorrupt and ctcatel fu God in the ordtr of Paradisel But aferwards it was subjcctedby Cod to corruprion and submitted to the vaniry of men. You should know likewisc what is to be thc brightly shining stateof rhe crearionin the furure age.For whcn it will bc rcnewed,it will not be again thc sarncas it was whcn it was createdin rhc beginning. Bur it will be such as,accordingto the word of thc divine Paul, our body will be.,.. l-he whole creation,by Godt command, aficr thc generalresurrectionis to be not such as it was creatcd-matcrial and sensual-but it will bc re-creatcdand will bccomea certain immaterialand spirirualdwelling, far abovecvery organ of setrsc.5z Could there be any clearer teaching of the state of the first-created

world befbrethe transgression of Adam?

7. Tbe Nanre of Man And now I come to the final and most important question which is raisedfor Orthodox theology by the modern rheory of evolution: tl)e naturc of man, rnd in particular ,he nature of theJirst-creatadman Adan. I saythat rhis is the "most important question" raisedby evolution becausethe doctrine of man, anthropology, touches most closelyupon theology,and here,perhaps,it becomesmost possibleto identiS theologicallythe error of evolutionism. It is well known that Orthodoxy teachesquite differently from Roman Catholicism regarding man'snature and Divine grace,and now I shall attempt to show rhat the theologicalview of man'snature which is implied in the theory of evolution, and which you have explicitly set forth in your letrcl is not the Orthodox view of man, but is much closer to the Roman Catholicview; and this is only a confirmation of the fact rhat the theory of evolution, far from being taught by any Orthodox Farher, is simply a producr of the Westcrnapostatementaliry and even, despitethe fact rhat it originally was a "reaction"againstRoman Ca-

422

The bcginningof wisdom is to be sufficicntlywisero distingursh and preferto the wisdom which is low, terresrrial and vain, that which is truly useful,hcavcnly, andspirirual,tharwhichcomesfrom God arrdconductstowardHinr and which rcndcrsconformablero God thosewho acquireit.5t He reachesthat the latter wisdom alone is good in itsell while the fbrmer is both good and evil: Thc practice of thc gracesof differcnr languages,the power of rhetoric,hisroricalknowledge, the discovcry of the mysrerics of nature,rhc variousmethodsof logic. . . all rhescthingsareat rhcsamc time good and evil, not only because thq' are manifested accordingto the ifua oJthov who usethcm and easilytakc theform which is giuen 423

GeNrsIs,CntrirloN ,rNoErnr-vMrN thcm b1 thc point of uicw of thor who potsesstbcm, 6u also becausc the studyof them is a goodthing only to the degreethat it develops view.But it is bad for one who in the eyeof the soula penetrating giveshimselfover to this study in order to remainin it unril old age.to

Further, even

TsE P,rrntsrtc DocrrrNr or Cnr,qrIoN than the Holy Farhers, usingrcuhr knowbdgeto reintelPrettbe tedching of the SacredScriptureand the HoU Fathcrs.IVho can fail ro seethat the rarionalistic,naturalisticspirit of Barlaamis quite closeto that of modern evolutionism? But notice that St. Gregory is speakingof scientific knowledge which, on its own level,is true;it becomesfalseonly by warring against rhe higher knowledgeof theologr. ls the theory ofevolution eventrue

Therecouldhardlybe a betteraccountthan this ofwhat modern "Christianevolutionists" wiser havetriedto do by thinkingthemselves

scientifically? I havealreadyspokenin this letterof the dubious natureof the scienrific evidencelor evolution in general,about which I would be glad to write you in anotherletter.Here I must saya word specificallyabout rhe scientific evid encefor human euolution,sincehere we already begin ro rouch on the realm of Orthodox theology. You sayin your letter that you are happy not to havereadthe wrirings of Teilhard de Chardin and other exponentsof evolution in the \(est; you approachthis whole question"simply." But I am afraid that this is whereyou havemadea mistake.It is well and good to acceptthe 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 But why should we acceptthe writings of modern sci€ntistsand philosophers'timply," merely taking their word when they tell us that somerhing is trte-euen if this acceptance forces t to changeour theo' logical rieus? On the contrary, ue must b( uery critical when mod,ern wise men tell us how we should interpret the Holy Scriptures.We must be critical not only with regardto their philosophy,but alsowith regardto the "scientificevidence"which they think supportsthis philosophy; for ofien this "scientifceuidence"is ixdfphilosophy. "fhis is especiallytrue of the (lhardin; JesuitscientistTeilhard de for not only has he written the most thorough and influential philosophy and rheology based on evolution, but ltc was abo closelyconnected with the discouery and interpretation of almox all the fossil euidencefor the "cuolution of man" that was discoueredin his lili:time. And now I must ask you a very elementaryscientinc qucstion: uhat is the euidrncefor the "euolutionofman'?About this question too I cannot go inro in detail in this letrer,but I will discussit briefly. I can write more in detail later,if you wish.

424

425

saysthe samerhingasdo thosefrom without, if one of rhe Fathers thc concordznccis only uerbal, the tbought being quite dffirent. The to Paul,'ihe mind of Chrisi' (l Cor. former,in facr,have,according "fu the at besta human reasoning. 2:16),while the lamerexpress heavcnis distantfrom theearth,so is My thoughrdistanrfrom your evenif the thinkingof thoughi' (ls. 55:9),saiththc Lord. Besides, thesemenwercat timesthc sameasthatof Moses,Solomon,or thcir imitators,what would it bcnefitthcm?\?har man o[ soundspirit and belongingro the Churchcould from this draw thc concluston that thcir teachingcomcsfrom God?55 From secularknowledge,Sr. Cregory writes, wc absolute$J'orbidto expcctanl ?r?cition whctcucrin the bnowledgeof Diuine things;for it is not possibleto draw from ir any certaintcach5" ing on the subjectof God. For "God harhmadeit foolish." And this knowledgecan also be harmful and fight againsttrue theology: The powerof rhis reasonwhich hasbeenmadefoolishand noncxisrent cntersinto battb againstthoscuho acceptthc taditiont in simplicity ofheart: it dupisestbe uritingt of'thespirit, afcr the cxam?leof mcn who havetreand tltem carclesy and hauctet up thc cr.^ion againstthe Creator.tT

Gerursrs, CnexlroN,qNoEaRr_y MrN 'l'hescientificfossil evidence for the,,evolution of man,'consists of: Neanderthal pekingMan (several Man (manyspecimens); skulls);rhe "men"calledJava,Heidelberg, piltdown (unril menry yearsago), and rherecerrtfindsin Africa:all extre-mely fr* otf,er frag_ liagmr,rtary: ^nri ^ ments. The totdl;/itsil euidence for the 'buolutiotiof man" couldbe coitainedin a boxthesizeofa cofin, andit is from widelyseparated partsof the earth,with no reliableindicarionof evenrektiue(muchless,,absoIute") age,and uith no indicntionwltateuerof hou thcsedifferent.men,, wereconnected with eachother whetherby descentor kins'hip. Further,one of these"evolurionary ancesrors of man,.'.,lriltdown Man," was discoveredrwenry yearsago ro have been a daliberate faud. Now it is an interestingfacrthaiTbilhardde Chardinwas azr of the "discouerers" of "Pihdoun Man"-a fact which you will not find in mosr rexrbooks or in biographies oI him. He ,.discouered" the ca_ nine rooth of this fabricare6l 6162su1s-3tooth which had already beendyedwirh rhe inrent to causedeceprionregardingits agewhen he found it! I do nor havethe evidence ro sayth;r ltil-hardde Chardin consciously parricipated in fraud;Ithink ir morelikelvrhat he wastlre victim of the actualperperraror of rhe fraud, and tharhe was s1 tofnd prooJ'forthe "euolutionof'man,'in uhich be already lnxio.tts belieued rharhe simply did nor pay any arrentionro the anatomical ,,man" difficultieswhich this crudelyfabricared prcsenred ro any objectiveobservcr. And yet in evolurionary rexrboolsprintedbefbrethe discoveryof the fraud,PiltdownMan is acceptedasan evolutionary ancesrorof man u.,ithout question; his ,,skull',is evenillustrared(even thoughonly fragmentsofa craniumhad beendiscovered); and it is confidentlystatedthat "he combineshumancharacteristics with orhers far rcrarded" (Tracy I. Storer,GencralZootogt, l95l). This, of course,is jusr what is requiredfor a,,missinglink; berweenman and aperand thar is why rhe piltdown fratd wascomposed preciselyofa mixtureof humanand apebones. Sornerime larerrhissameTeilhardde Chardinparticipared in rhe discovery,and aboveall in the "interpretarion,"of ,,peling Man.,, Thanksto his "interpretarion" (for by thenhe hadestablished i..ou,._ ,,peking tion asone of the world'sleadingpaleontologists), Man'i also enteredevolurionary texrbooks asan ancesror ofman.... 426

THe Parrtsllc DocrnINeor CnsrrIoru 'l-eilhardde Chardin was also connectedwirh the discoveryand thoue all tbe interPretatiznof some of the finds of "Java Man," which rvcrc fragmentary. ln fact, ever)'rvherehe went he found "evidence" tt,hirh exactll matchedhis expectationJ--{amely,that man has "evolved"

liom ape-likecreatures. If you will examineobjectivelyall the lossilevidencefor the "evo0r euen lrrtion of man," I believeyou will find that thereis no conclusiue rrmotely reasonableruidencewhateuerfor this "euolution."The evidence men want to belieue is befievedto be prooffor human evolution because tbis; they belieue in a phihsophy that requiles that man elzlued fom ape' NeanderthalMan is simply "Homo sapiens,"no tlifferlike creatures. cnt lrom modern man than modern men aredifferent from eachother' l variation within one definite kind or species.*Pleasenote that the 2lrrrrrs of NeanderthalMan in evolutionarytextbooksare the lnvenidca of uhat'?rimitiue man" must rion of artists tulto hauea preconceiued hauelookedlihe, basedon evolutionary philosophy! I havesaid enough,I believe,not ro show that I can "disprove"the "cvolution of man" (for who can proue or disproueanlthingwith such fragmentaryevidence?l),but to indicate that we must be very critical indeed of the biased interpretationsof such scanry evidence.Ler us lcave it to our modern pagansand their philosophersto become excited with the discoveryof every new skull, bone' or even a single rooth, about which newspaperheadlinesdeclare:"New Ancestor of Man Found." This is not even the realm of vain knowledge;it is the realm of modtrn fables and fairy tales,of a wisdom which truly has become astonishinglyfoolish.

* Many cvolurionists als<;ltchavecome to thc conclusiont\x Homoereclus (Univcrsity hughlin Villirrm S. For cxample npient , Homo longswithin rhcspecies beandAleurs,notcdthc manysimilariries ,,IConnccticur),in studyingthe Eskirnos (Sinatthroput\. concludes He pcople Homo ercctut r*een rhcsclrcoplesand rhc Asian overa short havedevelopcd, his study:"Vhen we find that significantdiffcrences in Alaska and (irecnpcoples' as contiguous relarcd and rinrespan,bcrwecnclosely renro(e bcrwccn vasr rhar cxist rhe differenccs land. and when wc considcr SrouP of and Bushmen,who arc known to belongto thc singlespecics suchas Flskimos this within justifiable bclongs rhtt Sinanthtopus concludc to it sccms Homosapiens, samediversespccies" \Scicte 142,Nov 8, 1963,p. 644J.-Eo.

427

GrNrsrs, CnaalroN eNo Eenry MaN

Tur- Plrr.rsnc Doc'lnrNr or CnrarroN

Vhere doesthe C)rrhodoxChristian turn if he wishesto learn rhe true doctrine ofthe creation of rhe world and man? St. Basil tells us clearly:

examinethe structureof the world and contemplate the wholc unrverse, beginning, not fom the wisdom of the world, but fom tuhat God taught His servant aben He qokc to bim in peron aad witbout riddbs.@

becauseof his nature,which is dust from the ground, but becauseof rhe supernatr:ralgracegiven to him by the breathof God." Now, befbre examining rhe Patristic reachingof man's nature, I will admit that this word "nature" can be a litde ambiguous,and that onc can find passages where the Holy Fathersuse the expression"human nature" in the way it is usedin common discourse,as referringto rhis fallen human naturewhoseeffectswe observeeveryday. But there is a higher Patristic teaching of human aturc, a specifc doctine of huntan ndt re, giuen by Diuine reuelttion, whiclt cannot be understoodor arceptedlry one who belieuesin euolution.'fhe evolutionary doctrine of hunran nature, basedon a "common sense"view of fallen human nature, is the RomanCatholic,not rhe Orthodox, reaching. 'l'he Orthodox doctrine of hunran nature is ser forth mosr conciselyin the "Spiritual Insrructions"ofAbba Dorotheus.This book is acceptedin the Orthodox Church as rhe 'ABC," the basictextbook of Orthodox spiritualiry;it is the first spiritual readingwhich an Orthodox monk is given, and it rcmainshis constantcompanion for the rest of his life, ro be readand re-read.It is mosr significanrrhat the Orthodox doctrine of haman naturc is retforth in the ueryfrst page of this booh, becausethis doctrine is thelitundation of the entire Orthodox spiritual life. Vhat is this doctrine? Abba Dorotheus wrires in the very first words of his First lnstruction:

Now we shall see that the evolutionary view of man'sorigin not only teachesus norhing in realiryof man'sorigin, but rather reachesz fake doctrine of man, as you yourself prove when you are forced to expressthis doctrine lz order to defendthe idza ofeuolution. When setting forrh your view of man'snature, basedon your acceptanceof the idea of evolution,you wrire: "Man is not naturalu the image of God. Narurally he is an animal, an evolvedbeast,dust from the ground. He is the image of God supernaturally. " And again: "Ve seethat by himself man is norhing, and let us nor be scandalizedby his natural origin." "God's breath of life transformedthe animal to man without changing a single anatomical feature of his body, without changing a single cell. I would nor be surprisedif Adam's body had been in all aspectsthe body ofan ape."Again: "Man is what he is, not

In thc bcginning,whcn God createdman (Gen.2:20), He placed hirn in Paradise and adornedhim with cvcryvirrue,givinghim rhc commandmcntnot to tastcof thc treewhich was in rhe midst of Paradisc. And thushc remainedrherein the enioymenrof Paradise; in praycr,in vision,in everyglory and honor,havingsoundsenses an,Jbeing in thc samenatural condition in u.bich he wascreated.For God createdman accordingro His own image,rhar is, immortal, masterof himsellandadornedwirh everyvirrue.But whcn he transgressed the commandment, eatingthe fruir ofthc treeof which God hadcommandedhim not ro tasre,then hc wasbanishedfrom Paradise(Gcn. 3),fall awayfon tbe nahtrdlcondition,andfell into a condition againstnanra, and then hc remainedin sin, in loveofglorl in lovefor the enjoymenrs ofthis ageandofother passions, and he was

WhenccshallI beginmy narrarioniShallI refurcthe vaniryof the heathens? Or shallI proclaimour rruth?The wisemenof the Greeks wrotemanyworksaboutnature,but not onc accoun(amongthem remainedunakeredand firmly cstablishcd, for rhe latcraccounralwaysovcrthrewthe prccedingone. As a consequence, thercit nonced us to refute their tuords: thry auail rnuna/ly their ou,rt totdoing5s for for Like St. Basil, Ict w lcauethc accountsof ouxidcrs to thote oudd€, and nrn bach to the exphnation of the Chwch.t') Let us. like him.

428

42t)

GnNgsrs,Crllrlou

THr: Pxrnrslrc Doclnrnr oF CRF-{'roN

aNo Eealy MaN

masteredby rhcm, for he became himsclf their slave through the rransgrcssion. (Thc l,ord JcsusChrist) acceptedour vcry narure,the esscnccof our constitution, and becamc a new Adam in the imagc of God \Vho created the first Adamr He renewedthe natural condition and madc thc scnscsagain sound, as they were in the beginning. The children ofhumiliry ofwisdom are:self-reproach, nor rrusring onet own mind, harred of ones own will; for rhrough them a man is enabled to come to himselfand retum to the natural conduutn through purifring himself by rhe holy commandmenrsof Christ.6l

The samedocrrineis setforth bv otherasceric Fathers. Thus Abba Isaiahteaches: In thc beginning,when God crearedman, He placedhim in Paradisc, and he had then sound senses.which stoodin theit natural ordzr: Itut when he obeyedrhc one who deccivedhim, all his serrses were changed into an unnatural tratc and he was then cast our from his glory.6) And the same Farher continues' And so, Icr him who dcsircs to comeinto his naural condition cu off all his flcshlydesires,so as to placehimself in thc condirion according to the n/ttare of thc (spbinal) mind.63

T'heHoly Fathers clearlyteachrhar,whenAdam sinned,man did nor merely lose somethingwhich had 6een ad*d to bis nature,bur rarherhumannatureitselfaaschanged, corru?tcd,ar rhesamerime rhat man lost Godt grace.The Divine services of the OrrhodoxChurch also,which area foundationof our Orthodoxdogmaticreachingand spiriruallife, clearlyteachthat the human naturewhich we now observeis not naturalto aJ,bur hasbeencorrupted:

And again: 'fhc Crearor and Lord, desiring to savefrom coffrtption tbe corruptedbuman nature,havingcomc to dwell in a womb cleanscdby rhc Holy Spirit,is unutterablyformed(Menaion,Jan.23, Theotokion of thc SixthCanticleof thc Canonof Marins). k can be nored in such hymns also that our whole Orthodox conceprion of the Incarnation of Christ and our salvationthrorrgh Him is bound up w|rh a proper understandingof human nature as it uas n the 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 on tl)is earth, beforetbefall ofAdam, and that our nanre will then be the nature of Afutm----onlyeven higher, becauseeverything material and changeablewill then be left behind, as rhe quote alreadygiven from St. Symeonthe New 'l'heologianclearlyindicates. And now I must show you frlrther that evenyour doctrine ofhuman narureas it is notu in thisfalbn uorU, is incofiect, is not according ro rhe reachingofthe Holy Fathers.Perhapsit is a resultofcarelessexyou pressionon your part-but I believe it is probably preciselybecaase baue been led into error by bclieuing the theory of euohrtion-thar you write: 'Apart from God man is from his nature nothing ar all, because his natureis the dust from the ground, like the natureofthe animals."* Because 1ou belieuein the phihsophy of euolution,you are forced either to believethat human nature is only a low, animal nature, as you indeedexpressby sayingthat "man is nor naturallyth e imageofGod"l or

transgrcssion,without corruption a child is born anew (Menaron, Dec. 22, Marins, Thcotokion of the Sixrh Canricleof the Canon).

'The evolutionaryworldvicw,as we havcsccn,holds rhat "therc is no such rhing asa fixed'hunran nature"' (ShereHite, I'hc Hie Rcportot the Famit). Man Darhasrhe samenatureas the animals(rhe"singlcfilamcnr"positcdby Erasmrrs win), and thisnaturcis constantly evolving. Sinccnranis no morcthanan animal,hc is, like thc animals,whollysubjccrto environmental conditioning.That is why "huvicw man narurc"in rhis is infinirelymallcablc, and can bc changcd("cvolvcd")at will by rhc rcarrangemcnr ofsocialinstiturions. Sucha view is,ofcourse,toralirarian in its narurc,as hastrcn secnin all politicalatrcmptsto enlorceir, cversincerhe FrenchRevolution.As Robert H. Bork remarks,"Sinceactualhumansrcsisrarviolenccwill bc required" temprsto rcmakerhcir natures,cocrcionand, ultinrately, (SlouchingtowardsGomotab,p. 27\. (Secabove,p. 323 n.)-Eo.

430

431

Healing humannanre, whichhad becomccornrptedby the ancicnt

Crrvrsrs, Cnalrroru ,rnoEnnlyMeN

Tue Parrrs'rIcDocrnrNr or CnurIoN

ar best(sinceI rhink that you do not reallybelieverhis,beingOrthodox),you dividehumannarurearrificiallyinro rwo parts;that which is from "nature"and thatwhich is from God. Bur the true Orthoooxanthropologyteachesthat human natureis one,ir is rhat which we have from God; we do not bauesomen/1ture"fromthe animals"or "fromthe dux" which is diferent fom the nature with which God createi us. And therefore,euenthef/1llen, corruptedltuman nature uhich ue ltauenotais not "n0thirryat all, "asyou say,bur it still preserves in somedegreerne "goodness" in which God createdir. Beholdwhat Abba Dorotneus writesof this doctrine:

Iitffl )l \\ttt h

iti:

Ve haue naturally tbe uirtucsgiuen to us b1 God. For whcn God created man, He sowed virtues in him, as also He said: "Let us crcarc

,:::;,:,: ,ilt:ii:,:

man in our imagc and likcness"(Gen. l:26). lr is said: "[n our image," inasmuchasCod crearcdthe soul immorral and with authoriry over irself,and "in our likencss,"rcferring to virtues.... 81 nature Cod gauc us uirtuet. But passionsdo not bclong to us by naturc, bt rey do not evcn havcany subsranceor composition.... But the soul in irs love of plcasure,having inclincd away from virtues, insrills rhe passionsin itselfand strengthensthcm agairrstitselfl(r Further, rhese God-given virrues still exercise themselves even in our fallen state. This is the extremely importanr Orthodox reaching of St. John Cassian, who rhus refured the error ofBlessed Augustine, who

indeedbelievedrhat man aparrfrom God! gracewas"noihingat all." St.Cassianreaches in his ThirteenthConference: That rhc hunran racc aficr the fall a*ually did nor losc rhe knowlcdgc of good is affirmed by rhe Aposrle,who says:"When rhe Gentiles, who have not the law, do bJ natule tllote tbings that are of thc Iau rhescwho have not rhe law are a law to thenrselves, who show the work of rhe law writtcn in theit hearts"(Rom. 2: l4- I 5).

And again:

the Roman(ca.35G435). Sr.JohnCassian Icon b1Archinandritc Cypriaa of HolT TrinitT Monatcery,Jordaxtillc, Ncw York

whatis;trst wouldnor havcsaidthisifthcy couldnot havediscerncd human not think that should b1 tbeir ndrutal rearoz.Thereforeone narureis caprblconly of evil."' "he Likcwise,with regardto the righteoLrs Job,St. Cassianaskswhether conqueredthe varioussnaresof the enemyin this battle aPartfrom his ofGod's grace'''and he answers: own virtue, but only with the assistance him by his ownpower Howcver,thc graccof God also Job conquercd did not abandonJob;lestthc tcmptcrburdenhim with temptations abovehis strength,it (God'sgrace)allowedhim to bc temptedzr mucb asthe virtuc ofthe temptcdonc couldbcar''"'

To thePharisees Hesaidrhattheycanknowrherruth:"\Vhyevenof yourselvcs do yc not judgerharwhichis jusri" (Lukel2;57).He 432

Again, with regardro the PatriarchAbraham:

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 whicb tbe Lord had instillzdin him, but that u,bichhe $owel by h* ownfeedom.67

ceedingfrom above,might not be haughryand exalt ourselvcsbecauseof our digniry and mighr not disdainrhe Creator,but might alwaysdirectour gazetowardHim, and so rhat our digniry mighr kcepwithin boundsthe infirmiryjoined to us?-So that we might krtow that at rhe sametime we are both immenselygreatand immensely low,earthlyandheavcnly, remporalandimmornl, inheritors of lightand inherirors offire or darkncss, dependinguponwhichside we incline rowards?Sowasour constitutionestablishcd, andthis, asfar :rsI cansee,wasin orderrhattheeanhlydustmighrhrrmbleus if we shouldimaginero exaltourselves because ofthe imageof God.tu

Of course,the reasonwhy Augusrine(and Roman Catholicismand Protestantismafter him) believedrhar man was nothing withour gracc, was becausehe had an inconect conceptionof human nature,l)ased,on a naturalisticview ofman. The Orthodox doctrine,on rhe other hand, o/ human nature as it was reated ln tbe beginning b1 God and is euen nlu preseruedin part in ourfallen state,preventsus from falling into any sucn 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 the Scripturesays,"Vhat hastthou that thou didst not receive?"( I Cor. 4:7). Man has no "animal nature" as such and nevcr did have;he has only the fully human naturewhich God gavehim in the beginning,and which he has not entirely lost even now. Is it necessary to quote for you the mulritude of clear Parrisricevidencethat the "image of God," which is to be lound in the soul, rey'rs to mani natare /1ndis not somethingtdded fom without?Ler it suffice to quote the marvelloustestimony of St. Gregory the 'l'heologian,showing how man b-yhis constitutionstands berween rwo worlds, and is free to follow whicheverside of his nature he will: I dcrnor understand how I bccamejoincdro thebodyarrdhow,bcing tbeimageoJ'God,| \ccanc mixcdwirh dirr.... Vhat wisdomis revealedin me,and whata grcatmysrcry!\/as it not for rhisrhatClod led usinro thiswarfarcandbattlewirh thc body,tharwc, beingapart ol Diuiniry [how boldly thc -fheologianspeaksof nran! narurc,so boldlythatwc cannotrakehis wordsabsolutclyliterally!J,'andpro' The Orthodoxrheologicalwrirer VladimirLosskyexplains why rhissraremenr clnnot bc takcnliterally,and quotcsfrom Sr. Grcgoryrhe Thcologian'.s orherwritingscoshowrh:rrhe did nor belicvcthe humanspiririrselfrobc an Uncreared parrof 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 Church,pp. l17-18; scc also rhc reachingo[ St. John Chrysosromon p. 16l lbove. Eo.

434

This image of God which man possesses by his nature was not completelylost even among rhe pagans,as St. John Cassianteaches;it has not been lost eucntoday, when man, under the influence of modcrn philosophy and evolurionism,is trying to turn himself into a subhuman beast-for even now God awairs man's conversion, awaits his awakening to the t e human nature which be has within bim. And this brings me to rhe very important poinr ofyour interpreration of the reaching of the God-bearing Father oi almost our own times, St. Seraphimof Sarov,contained in his famous "Conversation with Motovilov." Sr. Seraphimis my own parron Sainr,and it was our Brotherhood ofSt. Herman that firsr publishedrhe compleretexr of this "Conversation" in the Russianlanguagein which it was spoken (for the prerevolutionaryedition was incomplete),as well as orher of his gcnurne rvordswhich had hitherto been unpublished.So you may be sure that we do not believethat he taught a falsedoctrine ofthe narureof man, one that contradicrsrhat of other Holy Fathers.But let us examine what St. Seraphimhimself says. As you correctlyquore him, St. Seraphimsays: Many explainthar when it saysin rhc Biblethat God breathedthc breathoflife into thc hce ofAdanrrhefirst-crcatcd, who wascreated by Him from rhe dusrof the ground,it musrmeanrharunril rhcn therewrs ncirhcrhumansoul nor spirit in Adam,bur only thc flesh creatcdfrom thc dust of the ground.This interpretarion is wrong,

435

GnNrsrs,Cnr.rrror rNn Ernly MrN

THs Prrnlsrlc DocrtrNE.op CnEArroN then,according to Moses'word,'Adambecame a livingsoul"(Gen. 2:7), tharis, completely andin cverywaylike God,and,likc Him, foreverimmonal.*69 This is the one Patristicquote you give which rrarr?rro supporr your view that man u)asfrst d beast,and then (lzter in time) receiuedthe imageof Godand beeame man.This is indeedwhat you mwtbelieveif you acceptrhe theory ofevolution, and I am glad ro seerharyou have the courageto expressclearlywhat all "Orthodox evolutionists"actually believe(evenifin a rarherconfusedmanner)but areoften afraidto expressopenly for fearofoffending other Orrhodox believerswho are "naive" and in their "simpliciry" refuseto believerhar man in actud fact is "descended from apes"or apeJikecreatures. But herelet us rememberthe wordsof Sr. GregoryPalamaswhich I havealreadyquoted:

(1759-1833). St.Scraphim ofSarov, Russia

for thc l,ord creatcdAdam from the dust of the ground with the constitution which our dear litde father, rhe holy Apostle Paul confirms: "May your spirit and soul and body be preservcdblamelessat the comingof our LordJesusChrisi' (l Thes.5:23).And all rhesethree parts of our nature were createdfrom rhe dust of the ground,and Adam wasnot createddead,but an activebeing like all the orheranimatecrcaturcs ofGod livingon eanh.The point is that ifthe Lord God had not then brearhedinto his facethe breathoflife (thatis, thc graceof our Lord God the Holy Spirit ...), Adam,howevcr pcrfcct he had beencrearedand superiorto a.llthe other crearuresof God as the crown of creationon earrh,neverrhelcss would have been without the Holy Spirir wirhin himsclf, like unto the other creatures,although he possessed flesh, soul and spirit. But whcn rhe Lord God breathedinto Adamt 6ce rhc breath of life.

436

If oncof theFathcrssaystbcnmc thingasdo those fom without,thc concordancc k only ucrbal,thc thoaghtbcing quitc difercnt. The former, in fact,have, according ro Paul,"rhemindofChrisi'(l Cor 2:16),whilerhelatterexpress ar besta humanreasoning.... Vhat manof soundspirit and bclongingto the Churchcouldfrom this conclude that theirteaching comesfrom God?70 And in fact, I must tell you that lou hauecompletelymisundzrstoodrhe teachingofSt. Seraphim, who is not at all teachingwhat the doctrine ofevolution reaches. This I canshowby quoting both rhe clearteaching ofother Holy Fathers and that ofSt. Seraphimhimsell Bur first I must explainwhat might seemto a rationalisrro be a "contradiction" berweentheteachingofSt. Seraphimand that ofother Fathers.First, we should be clear that when St. Seraphimspeal$of manasbeingcomposed of"spirir and souland bodf'he is zorcontradicting thosemany other Holy Farherswho speakof human natureas ' Herc wc havccorrcctcdsomcmisrakcsin rhe Englishrranslarion.(Thc rranslarion that Dr. Kalomiros uscd as his source had nor bccn done by Fr Scnohim.)-En.

437

Cr:Npsrs.CrearroN eNn E,rnry MaN

merely"souland body";he is merelymakinga distinctionberween differentaspects of the soul and speakingoi rhem separately, as many Holy Fathersalsospeak.*Second,in sayingrhar the "breathof life" which God breathedinto the faceof Adam is the graceof the Holy Spirit,he is not contradictingthe verymany Holy Fatherswho reach that the "breathof life" is the soul,bu is only givinga perhapsmore interpretation profoundandprecise ofthis passage from Scripture.But is he actuallymakingrherationalistic distinctionwhichyou makebetweenthe natureo{ manwhichexisted"before"this breathing, and the gracewhich wascommunicatedby it? DoesOrthodox theologyaccept the rigid dichoromywhich RomanCatholicteachingmakesbetween "nature"and "grace,"asthoughmen kneweveryrhing thereis to know abouttheserwo greatmysteries? No; Orthodox theologydoesnot hnoo such a rigid dichotomy, and find so many"contrxdictions" that is why rationalistscholars between differentOrthodoxFathers on this subject,aswill be clearfrom a single example:Doesimmortalitybelongto the human soulby natureor bygrace? Di|ferent Orthodox Fatherswho areo[ eqrsalauhoriry ansuer differentlyon rhis question,not because thry teachdifferentlyahoutman "contradict" anclthus eachother, but becausethel approachtbe questionfom differentsides.Thosewho approachthe questionof mani nature more from the sideof the presentcorruptedhuman naturesay that man'ssoulis immorralby grace;whilethose(especially rheascctic and mysticalFathers)who beginwith the view of man'snattre asit was view the soul ratheras immortalby nature.It may in the beginning, evenbe that onc and thesameFatherviewsthequestionnow from one and now from the other side,as doesSt. Gregoryof Nyssawhen he saysin one place:"Thar which reasons, and is mortal,and is capableof thoughtand knowledge, is called'man"';''but in anotherplacehe says:"Man did notin the courseof his firsr productionhaueunitedrc tlte wry essence of his nanre thc liability to passionand to dcath."-' Does thisereatFather"contradici'himself?Of coursehe doesnot.

-fHe Plrnrs'rrr:Do<;rnrNsor CneArroN What belongsto frst-created Adam by nature and uthat b! grace?Let us not make falscrationalisticdistinctions,but let us admit that we do notfully understandthis mystery.Nature and graceboth comefom God. '['he nature of first-createdAdam was so exalted that we can onry laintly understandit now by our own experienceof grace,which has beengiven to us by the SecondAdam, our Lord JesusChrist; bur Ad,rm'sstatewasalsohigher than anything we can imagineevenfrom our orvn experienceof grace,for even his high nature was made yet more perfectby grace,and he was,as St. Seraphimsays,"complerelyand in evcryway like God, and, like Him, forevcrimmortal." Vhat is absolutelyclear,and wlrar is sufficient lor us to know, is that the creationof man-of his spirit and soul and body, iz rhe Divine gracewhich perfected hi5 nxlups-Lr 2 yingle act of ueation, and it cannot be artificiallydivided up, as though one part of it came "first," :rnd another part "later." God created man in grace,bur ncither the Holy Scripturesnor the Holy Fathersteach us rhar this grace came hter in time than the creationof man'snature. 'fhis teachingbelongs to MedievalLatin scholasticism, as I will show below. St. Seraphimonly appears ro teachthis doctrine,becausehe speak in termsof the simple narrativeof the sacredtext of Genesis.But it is clear enough, as St. Cregory Palamassays,rhat "theconcordanceis only uerbal, the thought being quitc dffirent. " To be convinced of this we have only to examine how the Holy Fathersinstruct us to interpret the sarred nana ueofGenerL thispoint. Fortunarely for w, this ueryquestionuas raisedand ansueredby the Ho! Fathers.-fhisansweris summed up for us by St. John Damascene: Fromrhecarth(God)formcdhis bodyand by His own inbreathrng soul,which lastwe sayis the gavchim a rationaland undersranding divinc imagc.... The body and thc soul uerc formcd at thc nmc time-not onebeforeand the otherafieru,ards, as rhe ravingsof Origenwouldhaveit.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. I , p. 280 ). Ep .

Herelet us be sureagainthat we understandthat although St. John speaksoFthe inbreathingofGod as the soul,he doesnot reacha
438

439

Grrursrs,Cnr-rrrourNo E,rnryMrN trinedifferentfrom St.Seraphim, who speaks of this inbreathing asthe graceofthe Holy Spine. St. John in fact hardlyspeak ofgrace at all in the creationofman, for it is undzrstood asbeingpresentin thetaholeprocess of credtion,aboveall in the creationof the imageof God, the soul, which he teaches is part of our nature.St. Gregoryof Nyssalikewise speakof the creationof manwithout payingspecialattentionro what comesfrom "nature"and whar from "grace,"only endinghis whole with the words: rreatise May we afl return ro that Diuine gracein which God at tbeflrt crc/lkd man, whenHe said,"Let us make man in our imageand likeness"7'

St.John Damascene and otherswho speakof the inbrearhing of God asthe soulviewthis matterfrom an aspectslightlydifferenrfrom rhat ofSt. Seraphim;but clearlytheteachingofall theseFathersregardingthe whob creationof man, and in particular regardingthe question of whetherthe narratiuc of Genesis indicatesa differencein time betweenthe 'forming"and "inbreatbing"of m4n-fu y$25a7y2. St. John Damascene speaksfor all the Holy Fatherswhen he saysthat rhey occurred"at the sametime-not lne beforeand theotheraferwards." In sayingthis, St.John Damascene wasrefuringin particularthe Origenistheresyof the "pre-existence of souls."Bv thereaas abo a lteresyopposed to this, wbich taught tbe 'prc-existence" of tbc human bod1, "This hercsywas jux ar it is taughtby modern"Christianeuolutionists. refuted by specifically St.Gregoryof Nyssa,whom I shallnow quore. Afterdiscussing the Origenisterrorof the "pre-existence of souls," St. Gregorycontinues: Others, on the contrary,rnarkingthe order of rhe crcationof man as stated by Moses,say rhat the soul it secondto tbe body in order oftime,

- Vladimir lossky both affirmsand clarifiesrhis poinr: "'fhe 'f)ivine brcath' pointsto a modeofcrcation,by virrLrcofwhich the humanspiriris intimarelyconnecredwith grace,and is prodtrced by ir in rhcsamewayasa movcmenrofarr rsproduccd by rhc brcarhand is inscparablefrom ir" (The Mytieal TbeologX of the Eastcm Cbwch,p. ll8).-F.o.

440

Tsr PnrnrsrrcDocrnlne op CnEtnoN sinceGod first took dust from thc carthand formedman,and tnen animatcdthebeingthusformedby His brcath:andby thisargumcnt rheyprovethat the fleshis more noble than rhe soul, drat which was previouslyformed rhan that which wasafterwardsinfusedinto it: for theysayrhat the soulwasmadefor the body,that the thing formed thar is might not bc without brcathandmotion,andthateverything rhantharfor whichrt rs madefor somerhing elseissurelylessprccious madc.... Tbedoctine of bothis equallyto be rcjected.Tt Specifically refuring the doctrine of the "pre-existenceof the body," St. Gregory says: Nor againarewc in our doctrineto beginby makingup man like a clayfigurc,and ro saythat the soulcameinto beingfor the sakcof naturewould be shownto this;for surelyin thatcascthe intellectual be lesspreciousthan the clay figure.But asman is one,thc beingconsiting of souland body,weare to suppotethat the beginningof bis existenccis onc,comnlon to both parts,so that he should not be found to be anrcccdenrand posteriorto himself,if thc bodilycltmcnt were frst in poinr of ime, ard tbeotherwcrca latcraddition.... For asour natureis conceived astwofold,accordingto the apostolicteaching, madcup of the visibleman and the hiddenman, if the one came first and the orhcr supervencd,thepowerof Him that madcuswill be sbownto bc in somcwa1 impe(ict, at not bc;ngcom?lctclfsulJicientJitr the wholetaskat oncabut dividing rhe work, and busyingitselfwith eachof rhc halvesin turn.'6 Do I need to point out that the "God" of "Christian evolution" rr precisel this kind of God wbo is not "clmpletel! suficient for thc whole task at one"; and the uery reason why the docnine of euolution uas nuentedwasto account for the universe on the assumption that God either does not exist or is incapabb of reating in six days or bringing tlte w0 d into existenceby His mere uord? EYOL.UTION \7OULD

NEVERHAVEBEENTHOUCHT OF BYMEN \flHO BELIEVE IN THE GOD VHOM ORTHODOXCHRISTIANS\(ORSHIP 'fhe accountofthe creationof man in the book of Genesismust be

441

Tur Prrnrslrc DocrnrNeor CnmrtoN

GrNesrs, Ctr,rrroN lNo Eenrv MlN

understood in a "God-befitting manner." Here you have made the mistake of acceptinga literal interpretationofthe text preciselyuhere the Holy Fathersdo not allnw thi!How important it is for us to read the Hofy Scriprures as the HoU Fathersinstuct as, and not accordingto our own understanding! It is quitc clear that St. Seraphim did not understandrhe text of Genesisin the way in which you haveinterpretedit. Indeed, there are in the same "Conversationwith Motovilov" which reother passages veal that St. Seraphimviewed the creationand nature ofAdam lz 2rrcise$ the same wa! as the whole Panistic tradition. 'fhus, immediatelyafter the passage which Fou quote, and which I have reproducedabove, there follow thesewords which you,Ji,J not quote (the English translationhere is not precise,and so I am rranslating directly from the Russianoriginal): Adrtm wascreatedto suchan extantimmune to tbt action ofeueryoncof crcatedb1 God,rharneithercould waterdrown him, nor theelements nor fireburn him, nor couldtheearrhswallowhim up in its abysscs, Evcrycould the air harm him by its actionin any way whatsoever. rhingwassubjectto hirn.... T'his is preciselya descriptionof the incorruption of Adam'sbody in a crcation subject to laws quite different from today's "laws of nngulg"-r2 uhich as an "cuolutionist"lou cannlt belieue,since you nust believe with modern philosophy that the material oeation was "natural," that is,conupted, euenbeforethefall ofAdam! St. Seraphimsays: Again, shortly after this passage,

,rf vicw of evolutionary philosophy it is quite absurd: why should "(lod" evolve Adam's body from beasts"naturally," and then create lrvc miraculously?The "God" of euolution doesnot perform such miraLet us look now specificallyat the Orthodox Patristicview of the bodyol Ftst-createdAdam, which according to rhe evolutionary doctrine had to be corruptible like the corruptible world from which it "cvolved,"and might even have been, as you state,entirely that of an xPe. 'l'he Holy Scripture explicitly teaches: "God createdman incorraptib/e" ('Wisdom 2:23). St. Gregory the Sinaiteteaches: 'I'heboQ, theologianssry, wascreatedincorruptibb,which is how rt but justasthe soul will arise,justasthe soulwascreatedpassionless; subhad rhe frccdom to sin, so t}r bodyhad thepotsibilityto become ject to conuption.'-8 And again: The incorrupriblebody will be carthll but withoLrtmoistureand havingbcenunurterably changedfrom animarero spiricoarscness, and heavenly. so that it wilf be both ofthe dust tual, Justasit wascrcated in thc beginning,soalsowilt it arbe, that it may beconformableto the imageof the Sonof Max b7 entircparticipation in deifcation.l'

Do you believein this creationof Eve from Adam'srib as an historical farr asall the Holy Fathersdo?No, you cannor,becausefrom the point

Notice here that the body in the future agewill still be "of the dust." tVhen looking at the corruptibledust of this fallenworld, we are humbled to think of this side of our nature;but when we think of that lzcorruptible dust of the f.rst-reated worll out of tahich God madc Adam, how exahed we are by the grandeur of even this, the lowest part of Godt un utterablecreation! giving a symbolicalinterpreSt. Gregory the Theologian suggests, "garments of skins" with which God clochedAdam and tation of the Eve after their transgression,rhar theflesb of our presenthuman body is different Ji"om thefesh off nt-created Adam:

442

443

'fo Evcalsothe Lord God gavcthc samewisdom,strength,and unlimiredpower,andall the othergoodand holy qualities.And He cteated her notliom tbe dust of tbeground but fom Adam'srib in *e which He had plantedin the midst Men of delight,in the Paradisc of the earrh.77

Ce Nesrs,Cnn,rrroN ,ruo Eenly MrN Adam "is clothed in garnrcnrsof skin" (perhapsa coarscr,morral, and antagonisricfl esh).3o

Again,Sr. Cregorvrhe Sinairesays: Man was createdincorruptible,as also he will arise;bur not unchangeable, nor ycr changeable, bur havingthe powerat hisown dcsireto changeor nor... . Corruptionis thc offspringof flesh.'lb ear food and cxcrererhe cxcess, ro hold rhe headproudly,and to lie down to sleep-are rhe natural arrributesof beastsand catclc,inro wbich wc ako, hauingbecomelihe to the caulethroughthe transgrestion, fell awayfon tbe God-giuengood things natural r, rJ, and became from rational,canle-like, andfrom divine,bcsrial.sr ConcerningAdam'sstatein Paradise, St. John Chrysosromreaches: Man livedon earrhlikc an angcl;he wasin the bodl but he had no bodily necds;like a king, adornedwith purplc and a diadcmand clothedin royalgarb,he rook dclightin rhe dwellingof Paradise, havingan abundance in everything....Belorcrhe hll men lived in Paradise likc angels;rheywerenot inflamcdwith lust,werenor kindled by orherpassions eirher,wercnot burdenedwirh bodilyneeds; 6u beingcrcatcdentirelyincorruptibleand inmortal, they did not cvennecdrhecoverirrg ofclothing.8:

THr PernrsrrcDocrrrxs or CalerroN would havedrawnnearto pcrfbctglory and, havingbcenchanged, and the soul of would have bccome as it were God, each lighr-shining by reasonof rhc illuminationswhich would havc beenpouredout upon it from the Godhead!And this sensual and crudclymatcrialbodywould havcbccomeasit wercimmatcrialand spiritual,aboveeveryorganof sense; and the joy and reioicingwith which we would then havebeenfillcd from contactonc wirh anorhcrin rrurhwould havebeenunurterablc and beyondthc thought 'fheir wasnot weigheddown by labors of nran.... life in Paradisc and wasnot madcdifficulr by misfortunes.Adam u,atcreatedwith a bodl incorruptible, cucnthoughmatcrial and notyet spirinal.. . . Conccrningour bodyrhcApostlesays:"lt is soweda naturalbody,ir will arise"not suchas the body of the first-creatcd onc wasbeforethe rransgression of thc commandme nr-thar is, marerialjsensual, changeable, havingncedof sensualfood-but "it will arisea spiritual body" (l Cor l5:44), and Lrnchangcablc, suchaswasrhe body, afrerHis Resurrcction, ofour Lord JcsusChrist,the secondAdam, thc first-bornamongthc dead,which is incomparably moreexccllcnt than the bodyof the first-creared Adam.'J

lf now, afrer we rransgressed the commandment and were condemncdto die, peoplehavemultipliedso much,just imaginehow manyofthem therewould havebeenifall who havebeenborn from the creationof the world had not died?And what a life theywould havelived, bcingimmortaland incowpt, srrangersro sin, sorrows, andcaresandseriousnceds?l And how,havingadvanced in the kccping of rhe commandmenrs and in rhe goodorderingof the dispositions of the heart,in rime rhcy would haveascendcd to the mosr

From our experienceofour own corruptible body it is not possible fbr us to undersrandrhe srareof the incorruprible body of Adam, which had no natural needsaswe know them, which ate of"every tree" of Paradisewithout excretingany excess,and which did not know sleep(until God's direct action causedhim to sleep,so that Eve might be createdfrom his rib). And how much lessarewe able to understand the even more exaltedstate of our bodies in the future ase! Bur we -who know enough from the Church's reachingro refure those think rhey can understandthesemysteriesby scientificknowledgeand philosophy. The state of Adam and the frst-reated world has been pkced foreuer bqond the hnouledge ofscience b! the banier ofAdam's tansgression, tuhich changedthe uery nature ofAdan and the reatiln, and indeed the nature of knowledgeitself Modern scienceknows only what it observes and what may be rcasonablyinferred from observation; its guessesabout the earliestcreation have no more and no lessvalidiry than the myths and fablesofthe ancienr pagans. The true knowlcdgeof

444

445

St. Symeon the New 'fheologian likewisespeaksclearly of firstcrearedAdam in Paradise, and his final srarein rhe future age:

'frre Pnrnrsrrc DocruNr ol Crp,rrroN

Cl:Ntsrs,Ctr:,rlloNaro Errtl-yMaN Adam and thefrsvu"palsa! u6 al-as muth as is usefalfor us to knou+is accessible onlT in Gotdi reuelationan:in the Diuine u,isionoJ'tfu Saints.

All that I havesaid in this letrer,derivedstrictly from the Holy Fathers,will come asa surpriseto many Orrhodox Christians.-i'hosewho havereadsome ofthe Holy Fatherswill perhapswonder why they "haven't heard it before."'l'he answeris simple: if they have read many of the Holy Fathers,they ltaue encounteredthe Orrhodox doctrine of Adam arrd the creation; but theyhaue beeninterpreting the Patristic texts hitherto through the eyesof modern scienceand philosophy, and threfore theyhauebeenblinded to the nue Patristic teaching.ft is also true that rhe doctrineofthe bodyof Adam and rhe materialnatureof rhe firsr-creared world is taught most clearlyand explicitly in rhe larerFathersofexalted spiritual lifb such as St. Symeon rhe New Theologian and St. (iregory the Sinaire,and the writings of rheseFarhersare not widely read even today in Greek or Russian,and hardly any ofthem existat all in other languages.(ln fact, severalofthe passages I havequoted from Sr. Gregory the Sinaite havebeen misrranslatedin the English Philohalia.) I was very interestedro read in your lerter that you set forth the correct Parristicreachingthat "'fhe crearionof God, even the angelic nature, hasalwaysbeen,in comparisonwith God, somethingmaterial. Angels are incorporealin comparisonwith us, biological men. But in comparison with God rhey are also material and bodily creatures." This teaching, which is ser forth most clearly in the asceticFarhers such asSt. Macariusthe Grear and St. Gregory the Sinaite,helpsus ro understandthe'tpirirual body" with which we shall be clothed in rhe furure age,which is in somc way of the dust, earrhly,but has no mois(ure or coarseness, as Sr. Cregory the Sinaireteaches;and it also helps us ro undersrand rhat third stateof our body, thar which first-created Adam had before his transgression. Likewise,this doctrine is essential in our understandingof the acrivity of spirirual beings,angelsand demons, evenin the presentcorrupribleworld. 'fhe greatRussianOrthodox Fatherof the nineteenrhcentury, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, devotesan entire volume of his collecredworls (volume 3) to this subject, and to comparing the authentic Orthodox Parrisricdoctrine with

446

tlrc modern Roman Catholic doctrine, as set forth in nineteenthcenrrrry 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, rroncrheless is quite precisein that part which we can know; but the Ilomrn Catholic teaching is extremelyindefinite and imprecise.The rclson lor this indefinitenessis not far to seek:from the time Papalism bcganto abandon the Patristicteaching,it graduallygaveitselfovcr to rhe influenceof worldly knowledgeand philosophy,first rhat of such philosophersas Barlaam, and then of modern science.Even by the nineteenthcentury Roman Catholicism no longer had a certain teaching of its own on thesesubjects,but had grown accustomedto accept whatever"science"and its philosophysay. Alas, our present-dayOrthodox Christians, and not least those who have been educatedin 'theological academies,"hauefollou,edtbe Roman Catholicsin this and haue cometo a similtr stateof ignoranceof the ltanistic teaching.-lhis is why even Orthodox priests are extremely vague about the Orthodox teaching of Adam and the first-crcated world and blindly acceptwhateverscicncesaysabout thesethings.... 'l'he vague teachingon Paradiseand creation of Roman Catholicisnr-and of those Orthodox Christianswho are under \Vesterninfluencein this matter-has deep roots in the past of WesternEurope. l-he Roman Catholic scholastictradirion, evenat the height of its Medieval glory, already taught a falsedoctrine of man, and one which doubtlesspaved the way for the later acceptanceof evolutionism,first in rhe apostateWest, and then in the minds of Orthodox Christians who are insufficiently aware of rheir Patristic tradition and so have fallen under foreign influences.[n fact rhe teachingof Thomas Aquinas, unlike the Orthodox Patristicteaching,in its doctrine of man li quite compatible tuitb the idea of nolution which you aduocate. Thomas Aquinas, in rhe Summa Theologica,teachesthat: In rlresrateofinnocence,thc humanbodywasin ixe('corruptible,bur ir couldbc prescrved from corruptionby the soul. Again: 447

GrNrsrs,Cmmon ,rNnE,rnlyMen It belongsto man to begetoffspring,because of his nanralfi comtptiblc body.Ea Again: In Paradise man would havebeenlike an angelin his spiritualiryof mind,yct with an aninal lifc in hisbody.85 Man! body wasindissoluble,nor by rcasonofany intrinsicvigorof immortaliry,brt by reason ofa supernanralforcegivenby Godto therazl,whercbyit wasenabled to prcserverhe body from all corruption so long asir itself remained subjectto God.... This powcrof prescrving the body from corruprion wasnot nanral to thenul but the gift ofgracc.86Now ir is clear tharsucha subjection of rhebodyto rhc souland of the lowerpowersto reason(asAdam had in Paradise)wat notfom nature,or orherwiseit would haveremained aftersin.87 This lastquote showsclearlyrharThomas Aquinasdoesnor know rhar man'snature waschangedafter the transgression.Again: The immortaliryof rhc first starewasl>ascd on a *pematuralforccin thesoul,and,not on any intrinsicdisposition of the body.88

Tus P.rrnrsrrc Docrnrneor Car-rr.loN prcsentfallenworld!As againstSr.Seraphim's splendidvisionof mant inrulnerabilirytu the elementsin Paradise,behold 'fhomas Aquinas' purelymechanistic explanarion ofthc rarionalistic quesrions: whathappenedwhena hardbodycameirrroconractwith thesoftbodyofAdam? In thc stateofinnoccnce, man'sbody could be prcscrvedfrom suffering injury from a hard body, pardy by rhc useof his rcason,whercby he could avoid what was harmful; and parrly also by Divinc providcncc, which so preservedhim, thar norhing o[ a harmful naturc could conrc upon him unawares.!l

l]inally,1'homas Aquinas himself does not teach,but other Medieval scholastics(Villiam of Auxerre,Alexanderof Hales,Bonaventure)did teach, rhe very [oundarion of presenr-day"Christian evolutionary" viewsof man'screation: Man wts not creatcdin grace,but gracc tuat bestowedon him subsequently,beforcsin.')

How low is the view of thosewho rry ro understandGod'screarionand Paradisewhen their starting point is rheir everydayobservationof this

In a word: accordingro Orthodox docrrine,which comesfiom t)ivine vision, Ad,am'snature in Paradisewas different from presenr humiln nature, borh in body and soul, and this exalred narure was pcrficted by Godi grace;bur according to Larin doctrine, which is basedon rationalisricdeductionsfrom rhe presentfallencreation,man is naturally corruptible and mortal, just as he is now, and his srare in I)aradise was a special,supernaturalgift. I havequoted all thesepassages from a heterodoxaurhoriry nor ln order to argue over derailsof Adam's life in Paradise,but merely to show how far one corruptsthe marvelousParristicvision ofAdam and rhe first-createdworld when one approachesit with the wisdom of this falfen world. Neither sciencenor logic can tel! us a thing about Parudis€; and yet many Orthodox Christiansare so cowed by modern science and its rationalisticphilosophythat rhey are actuallyafraid to readseriously the first chaptersof Genesis,knowing that modern "wise men" find so many things rherethar are "dubious" or "confused"or need ro be "reinterpreted,"or that one may obtain the repurarionof being a

448

449

So far is Thomas Aquinas from the true Orrhodox vision of rhe firstcreatedworld that he understandsit, as do modern "Christian evolurionists,"solelyfrom the viewpoinr ofthis fallen world; and thus he is forced to believe,againsrthe testimony of Orrhodox Holy Fathers, that Adam naturally .r/rprin Paradise,s" and that he voided faecalmatter, a sign of corruption: Somesaythat in the stateof innocence man would not haveraken morethan necessary food, so thar therewould havebeennorhing supcrfluous. This,however, is unreasonable to suppose, asimplyingrhat therewould havebcenno faecalmaner.Thcreforetherewasnecdfor voidingthesurplus, yetsodisposed by Godasnot ro beunbefining.')0

THeP,rrnrsrrc DoctntNnol CnearroN "firndamentalist" if one daresto readrherexrsimply,"asir is written," asall the Hofi Fathersreadit. Theinxinct of thesimplz OrthodoxChristian is soundwhenhe recoik "fashionableuiett thdt man is descended Jiom the "sophisticated, fom an apeor anyotherlower.,."tur., or even(asyou say)rhatAdam might havehad the very body of an ape.St. Nectariosof Pentapolis righrly expressed his righteousangeragainstthosewho try to "provetharman is an ape,from which they boastthat they aredescended."*That is the

St. Ncctarios(Kcphalas) of Pentapolis, Arhensand Aegina

(r84Gr920).

'-I'he Creek rhcologianand philosophcrSr. Necrarios(184G1920) wrore: "I'hoscwho denythe immottaliryofrhc soulundermineborh rhc morallaw and rhc foundations ofsocieries, which rheywanr ro seecollapsing inro ruins,in orderrhar they mighr proverhar man is an ape,from which rhcy boastthat they arcdesccnded" (Stud1concernlngthc Immornliry of thc Sozl,Arhcns, l90l; quorcd in Consranrine Cavarnos,Modem CreekPhilotophenoa the Human Soul, p, 85), St. NccreriosreadIamarck'sevolurionaryrrctriscltbihtophiezoologiqueantJ Darwir's TheDctcenrofMzz. Discussingrhcscworks in his book Skctchconccrning Man (Arhcns,f893), Sr. Necrarioswrorc: "The rwo volumesof rhe work Philosophie zoologiquearein rheirenrireryinrendedro upholdrhe degrading evolurionary rhcoryrcgardingman.The firstvolunresceksro provetharthe humanorganismevolvedfrom rhat ofan ape,asa rcsulrofchancecircumstanccs. And rhesecondvolumcsccksro provcthatrhcdistinctive excellcnces ofrhc humannrindarenothingbur an exrension ofa powerwhich the animalshavc,differingonly in dcgree.Havingweakand badly serloundarions... l:marck claimsro proverhat in carlicrrimesnarureproduced rhroughmarvelous evolutiononespecics from another,earlieronc.He seeks to estab(nor contemporaneous) lisha gradualchainhavingsucccssive linksand rhusro produce finallyrhc humanspecies througha mcramorphosis that is thc revcrse of rhe rruth,and not lessmarvclous than rherransformations one rcadsaboutin myth!... " fhe Darwinianrheoriesimaginedthat rhcyarrivedat the solutionof rhe anthropological qucstionby accepring the modeofevolurion.Theserheories, oor being basedon soundfoundarions, insteadof solvingrhc problemrcndcrcdir moreenigmaric,because theydeniedthevalidiryofrevealcdrruth,viewedmanasbelongingto the sameorderasrhe irrarionalanimals,deniedhis spirirualoriginand atriburcd to him a verylowlyorigin.Thcir failurehadasits chiefreason rhe negarion ofhis lofry originandofhis spiritualnature,whichisakogether alicnro marrcrand ro the physicalworld.In general, withoutrhcacccptance ofrevealed trurh,manwill remainan insolubleproblcm.Thc acceptance of it is rhe firm and safefoundarionupon which cvcryin
451

CcNesrs,CneerroNeruoEanlyMll iew of Orthodox holiness,which knows rhat creation is not as modern wise men describeit by their vain philosophy,but asGod revealedit to Moses"not in riddles,"and as the Holy Fathershavesecnit in vision. Mani nature is dffirent fom ape natt4reand har neuerbeenmixed with ir If Cod, for the sakeof our humility, had wished to make such a mixrure, the Holy Fathers, ahl sau the uery "composition of uisible things" in Diaine uision, aouU haueknlun it. HOW LONC WILL ORI'HODOX CHRISTIANS RL,MAIN

IN CAPTIVITYTO THIS VAIN \TESTERNPHILOSOPHY? Muchis saidaboutthe"Western captiviry" of Orthodoxtheology in recentcenturies;when will we realizethat ir is a far more drastic "Westerncaprivity"in which everyOrthodoxChristianfindshimself today,a helpless prisonerofthe "spiritofthe times,"ofthe dominaring currentof worldly philosophywhich is absorbedin the very arr we breathein an apostare, God-hatingsociery? An Orthodox Chrisrian who is nor consciously fightingagainstthe vainphilosophyof this age simplyaccepxit into himse$andis at peacewith it because his own understanding of Orthodoxyis distorted,doesnot conformto the Patristic standard. The sophisticated, worldly-wise laughat thosewho callevoluriona "heresy."'frue, evolution is not strictlytpcakinga heresy;neither is Hinduism,strict$speahing a heresy: but like Hinduism(with which it is indeedrelated,and whichprobablyhadan influenceon irsdevelopmenr) evolurionismis an ideologythat is profoundlyforeignto the reachingof Orthodox Christianiryand ir involvesone in so many wrongdoctrinesand attitudesthat it would be far betterif it weresimply a heresyand couldthusbe easilyidentifiedand combatted.Evolutionismis 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 OrrhodoxChristian under its influencet0 reddthe Holy Scripnresand not understand them, auromatically"adiusting"rhe texr to fit his preconceivedphilosophyof nature.Its acceptance cannotbut involvethe acceprance alsoof alternatiueexp/anations of otherpartsof Divine revelarion,ofan 452

Tst Parprsrrc Doclnrre or Cnr-arroN

"adjustment" rlr.ltomatic of otherScripturaland Patristicrextsro fit in rvithmodern"wisdom." I belieuethat in yur feelingfor Godi creation,asyou destibe it in .yourletter,you are Orthodox;but why do you feel thar you musr corrupt this feelingwith modernwisdomand justifr rhis new ideology which is so foreignto Orthodoxy?You havewrirten most movingly "against falseunion";how we wishrhatyou would now becomejust as greata zealot "against Orfake wisdom,"and rell the Greek-speaking thodoxChristianswho haveaccepted this new doctrinemuchtoo uncritically rharour only uisdomcomes fom theHo! Fathers,and all that contradicts it is a lie, evenif it callsitself"science." I begyour forgiveness if anythingthar I havesaidseemsharsh;I havetried only ro speakthe truth as I seeit in the Holy Fathers.If I havemadeany mistakes in my citationsfrom the Holy Fathers, I beg you to correctthem,but not to let any smallmistakes keepyou from seeingwhat I havetried to say.Ther€is much elsethar I couldsayon rhissubject,bur I will wait for your replybeforedoingso.Aboveall, I havethe heartfeltwish that both you and we might seethc tae Patistic teaching on this subject,which is so imporranrlor our wholeOrthodox worldview.I askyour prayers for myselfand our Brotherhood. Vith lovein Christour Saviour, monk Seraphim,

453

PARI IV Questionsand Ansurers

Thc ProphcrMoscs. A contcmporaryiconfom Grtecc.

Questionsand Ansu,ers FROMTHE COURSEON C]ENESIS ( 1981and1982)

sessions bauebeentranEDIT'OR'SNOTE: T-hese question-and-answer talhs.Sectiontitles hauebeen of Fr Seraphim's vribedfrom taperecordings addedtry the editor.

L TheAgeoJthe Eartlt rrrDENT:Accordinp;to Biblical chronology,the earth is about

Sr.Euphrosynus rhe Cook ofAlcxandria(ninrhccntury,commemorated Septcmbcr I I ), who wls grantedaccess ro Paradise. Hc gaveto a pricstof his monasrery rhrce -fhe monasricbrethren applesfiom Paradise, which cmitrcdan ineffablefragrance. dividedthe applcsanrongrhernselves and disrriburcdpiecesof rhemasa blcssingro many,cspccially t
7,500 yearsold. But accordingto the evolutionists,and even htsrory as it is taught in high schools,the earth is billions of yearsold. How do you explain this? Fn. Stnrpurv: We have a few books on the subject which I will show you.'l'here are a number ofpeople in the last ten or twenty years who have begun to make a counterattackagainstpeople who:rre exrremelysureabout this theory.There is a group in San Diego calledthe and anotherup in Michigan calledthe Insritute for Creation Research, Crearion ResearchSociery.They havecome out with somequitc scicnrific books,which go inro this question:on what basisdo peoplemake rheir assumptionsabout thesemillions and billions of years?It turns out that there is a lot more hyporhesisthan lact in this theory. There is a book by an evolutionist called The Grouth of'a I'reltistoric Time Scalr,in which the author (\flilliam B. N. Berry) admits .t) /

(leNtsls,Crr:alrctN,rrvoEanryMaN

QuesrroNsaNo ANswrns

that to interpret the millions and billions ofyears, ir hasto be assumed rhat rhe fossilizedcreaturesin the lower levelsof rocks are the evolutionary ancestorsof those in the higher levels.But it ofren nappens that theselayersare in the wrong order accordingro evolurionaryrheory: the layerswirh more primiriveorganismsareon rop. Therefore,it's like in rhe times of Copernicus.Then there was the Ptolemaicinterpretationof the movemenrof rhe heavenlybodies,rhat the sun, planetsand starsall go arorrndthe earth. The question arose: why don't rhe planetscorrespondro the srars?Some of the ancients said it is becausethey are on differenrspheres.That is, rhe srarsare furrher awayand rhe planetsare closer;therefore,the planetsappearro go faster.But then why do the planerssomerimesgo forward, and somerimes backwards?In order to explain how they moved, the Ptolemaic asaronomers had ro say that they go around eachother somehow in a very complex movemenr of cyclesand epicyclesas rhey swing arourrd the earth. Some are going backwards,orhers are performing figure eights.It becameso complex to follow rhe movementsof theseplanets accordingto this Ptolemaicmodel thar Copernicusgor the idea that rnaybe they were all wrong-maybe rhe earth and the planets were going around the sun. He beganmaking calcularionson the basisof this idea,and his theory was much simpler.Finally we carnero accepr that theory as the rrue one. Like the Ptolernaicastronomers,evolutionistswho study srrara contairringfbssilsoften find that rhey are upside down, in the wrong order, or too closerogerheraccordingro evolutionaryideas.They call these"disconformities,""para-conformities"or "pseudo-conformiries." l'hey have to make allowancesfor the fact rhar everyrhing is in the wrong order. If you ask them how they know whar is rhe right order, they will admit that the only reasonthey know the right order is rhar they know evolutiorris rrue.'You seethere is something funny about it. They aresupposedto prove rhe theory,and ro prove the theory they have to start wirh the theory. -fherefbreitt not as facrualas ir's presenteo. The scientificcreationists,asthey call themselves, havesome rnrer-

csting books about evidencesof how old the earth is.* lt just depends ,rn what kind of evidenceyou're using. lt is a very hypotheticalquesrion. It is nor nearlyas definite as the book of Genesis.

' SeeVilliam B. N. Bcrry,Oroath of a Prehistoric'[ime .Satk,p.42.

458

F.r>.

2. Carbon I4 Dating Sruorxr: What about the Carbon l4 dating system? Fn. SenapHIu:Carbon dating is only usedon organic substances 'I'he half-life of Carbon l4 is 5,700 years,so obviously this method can't go back too far. Some people think you can go back 20,000 years or more with it, but this involvesso much guessworkthat it cannot be accurate.Even peoplewho defend it say that it is fairly reliable back to about 3,000 yearsago, but if it goesback further than that ir getsmore and more unreliable.The systemis basedon a whole ** set of assumptions. Accordingto the scientists,the most reliabledating systemis not radiocarbon, but tree-ring dating [dendrochronologyl.They were recently ableto testa whole seriesofthings, cornparingradiocarbondates with rree-ringdates,and they found our rhar rhe radiocarbondaring method was off more than they thought. The tree-ring counts have tended ro give greateragesby severalcenturiesthan radiocarbonages.

' 'l'he main books that ljr. Seraphimrcf-crredro werc 7-be(ienen Ftood(1961) and.Sriettifc Creationin (1974), both by Dr. Henry Morris. f-or referenccs to morc rccentcrcarionist literatureon theageof rhc earth,sccpp. 641-42 below-F-o. *' Robcrr Lec, assisrantcdiror of rhe Anthropological Journal ol Canada,wrircs involvedin radiocarlxrn dering:"Tlrc rrr>ublcs ofthe radiocarlbour thc uncertainry dcepand scrious.L)espitc ycers of technologibon datingmethodareundeniably -35 the underlyingassrrmprions havc been cal rcfinementand bettcr undcrstancling, stronglychallcngcd.... Conrinuinguscofrhc mcthoddcpcndson a 'fix-ir-as-we-go approach,all,:wingfbr contarninarionhcrc, fracriorration thcrc, and calibration wherrcver possible.Ir shouldbc no surprise,rhen,that fullv half the datesare rejccrcd.'l-hew
459

CeNesrs,CnsrrroN,tNo Eanr-vM.rN

QurslroNs euo ANswsns

Other radiometric dating methods are used to get older agesof millions and billions of years:the potassium-argonm€thod, etc. There are all kinds of assumptionsinvolved in thesemerhods,also;you have to accepttheseassumptionsbeforethe systems"work."* All ofthem go on the xssumptionthat therewas no contaminarionover the centuries betweenone elementand the other,and that rherewasnone ofthe end elements["daughter"components]presentat the beginning.The evolutionistsdon't know that; they assumeit was all uniformitarian, from zero to what we know now. If thati rue and the rate has been uniform, then we can calculaterhe ageof rhe fossilssomewhataccurately; but if it's not true, the whole systemcould be very far off. And there have been notorious mistakes. Peoole have done radiometric resrson rock which has just formed recenrli,and they havecome up with ages of uo to three billion vears.

fact, the evolutioniststhemselves will probablytell you that. The question is: doesthe other model make more sense? 'Whe n it comesto somethinglike thesestrara,of course,it is a scientific quesrion.The deposition of rhe strarais obviously a scicnrific processthat occurred in time.' fherefore, it is different from the Six Days of Creation-it is a quesrion of what happened afer the Six Days. It is open to onet own scientificapproach.

3. GeologicalSnata Stuornl: \X/hatabout the diflerent strata,like in the Grand Canyon, which are assumedto be depositedat a certain rate? Fn. Sr,nqpnrv: There is a vast scientificquestion regardingthese strata.The stratadon't havelittle signsrhat say,"l'm five million years old; I'm ten million yearsold." There'san excellentbook on this subjecr, The GenesisFlood, by Henry Morris, in which he interprets these stratain terms of a singleuniversalcatastrophe,that is, Noaht Flood. It is presentedscientifically.You can examine it and see whether it makessenseor not.** I think more peopleshould look at both of thesesidesof the picture and seewhich model makesmore sense.There are many respects in which the evolutionarymodel about thesestratahas holes in it; in

' Radiocarborrdating is bascdon a differcnr ser of assumptionsthan arc rhe other mcthods.For a brief ovcrvicwof rhcseassumprions, seeHenry M. Morris, ScientifcCreationitm,pp. 14049, 162-67.-Eo. " The Grand Canyon is discussedspecificallyin Thc GcnesisFloodon pp. l5l-52. Scc also thc more rcccnt book, Grand Canyon:Monumentto Catasttophc (1994),cditedby gcologisr StevenA. Austin.-Eo.

460

4. A Matter of Models Fn. SenlpHIv: Scienristshavewhar are called modell Yexerdaywe discussedthe Ptolemaic model-that the earth is the centerof the universe,and that all the starsand planetsgo around the earth. Since,according 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, reselrchin rhisareahasbcendoncby F-rench " Someof rhc mostinrcresring geologisrCuy llcrthaulr,firsrat rhc lnstirurcdc Mcchanique desFltrides at Merseilles ,rndlatcret rhc hydreulics laboratory ofColoradoUnivcrsiry's trrginccrirrg Rescarch (lcnrer. Sincc1985,"writcsllichar<1 Milron, "Berthaulrhls carricdout a scricsof laborarory cxpcrinrcnts involvingpouringscdimcntsinto largctankso[ mouingwarer ro studythe internll srrucrurcofthc srrarl,enrl how hminlrion takcsplace.... Vhat Bcrthaultfoundwasrhat .. . rhc scdimcnrs settlcdon rhc borrornmoreor less imnrediatcly, bur rhe fine particleswereseparated fionr largcrparriclesby currenr tlow giving thc appcarancc oflaycrs....-l-hcrcsultswercpublishcdby thc Frerrch Acadcnry ofScicnccs in 1986and l9[il] andwcrcprcscntcd ro rlrcNarionalOongrcss of Scdirncntologists at Brestin 1991....'l he laborarory work hls not lrccncarried out in isolarionbut hasbeensupplcnrcntcd by fieldobservetiorrs frornrraturaldisasterssuchas thc Colorado'BijouCreek'flood of 1965,thc lormationof scdimenrs 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 scalcis rcducedfrom hundredsof millionsofyearsro onc or morccataclysms producirrgalnrosrinstantaneous lanrinac'IBcrrhault,CompteeR?n/l$ Academie det Scirare/l f)cccmber3, 1986,February16, 19881. "Theseinnocent-souncling wordsarethe deathkncll of rhc idearharrhc cxistcnceof thousands of metersof scdirnenrs is by itsclfevidenccfor a grearagcof rhc Earth" (Milron, ShaucringtheMythsof Darwinisn, pp.77-78).-Eo.

461

Cr'Nrsrs,CnexrrorulNn Enrrr MIN etc. Like right now you can seerhat, for the lasrsix monrhs or so, Saturn and Jupiter havebcen in the sky together.Ifyou were observing, yor.rcould seethat at first one went fbrward, then they both wenr backward, then Saturn became fainrer and Jupiter became brighter. According to the Copernican model, you can explain that this is because they are in different phasesin their orbits as rhey go around the sun. From our poinr ofview they seemto get closertogerher,when actually they are simply going around the sun. Another exanrple is Venus. Right now Venus has become once more an eveningstar low on the horizon. A few monrhs ago, ir wasa morning srar-it was rherealready in the morning beforethe sun rose. The Ptolemaicmodel was found ro be lackins becauseit did nor explainthe factsaswell asthe Copernicanmodel. said rhat if we interpret the earth and rhe orher planetsasgoing around the sun, then all these motions make sense;rhat is, rhey-opernicus are mathematically very simple to explain.F-ventuallythat wasaccepred.Now, by calculating accordingto the Copernicanrnodel,we can sendrocketshipsquire closeto Saturnand not miss;in fact, it is astonishinglyaccurate.So obviously it seemsro be true that all rhe planetsdo indeedgo around the s n, even though, accordingto our observation,the sun goesaround the earth. Therefore, it is very imporrant whar kind of models you have of things. ln this course,we are going ro study the Patristicmodel oF the Six Days of Creation.

5. 'l'he Origin of thc HmuenQBodies(Patistic Cosmogonl) Fn. Snnapnrv:J'he Genesisaccountof the FourrhDay of Creation is verydifficult ro fit inro rhe usualideasof the evolurionof the universe,because the Scriprures and the Holy Frathers statequlrecertainly that the sun wascreatedon rhat Day, afer the earrhand the plantsand the rreeswerealreadyrhere.Furthermore, the Fathcrssay thar thesun,the moonand the srars(andall the blackholesand whateveris out there)were all created on the Fourth Day in one insrant. Cod wavedHis handand thewholething cameinto being,trillionsof 462

Qursrrons ,rNoANswers rnilcs away. Of course, God is bigger than the universe, so why wouldn't He be able to do rhat?He has no problem. 'fhis gives you a totally diffbrenr outlook on the world. [t is a explanation of the beginning of things. whole cosmogony---the 'I'he modern evolutionarycosmogony,popularizedby people like Oarl Sagan,holds that there was a point which had a "big bang," and then everythingdevelopedlrom that without any God.. [fyou believe in that, it is natural to believethat the biggerbody, the sun, came first, and that it somehowshot off the earth.'fhere are all kinds of diflerent rheoriesabout how it did that. Some think the sun was formed fiom a gasand dust cloud, and that its heatdroveout the gas,leavingonly the dust, which condensedand cooled down, forming the planets.Others to rhink thar the sun almostcollided with a passingstar,causinggasses bc torn off the solar surf;ce, and that thesegasseslater formed into planets.1'hesedifferent theoriesare all speculation,becauseno one was around at that time, and rhose things are not happening now. 'l'hey are perhapsin accordancewith what we think shouldbetrue, becauseit seemsthe bigger bodies should be antecedentto the smaller bodies.But accordingto Genesisand the Holy Fathers,the earth-this small lirrle rhing, this speckin shsunlvsl5s-was first, and the tremendous sun came after it. Nowadaysatheist philosopherslike to say that the relativesizeof rhe earth provesman is but a specklost in the universe.-fhey say,"The earrh is so small, the universeis so big-so obviously the univcrseis rnore important than man, and God did not make everything for wasAbbi ' -fhe nranacknowledgcd as'ihc fatherof the llig ll:rng"cosnrogony (icorgesl,emaitre(1894-196(t,a Jesuitpricst.Onc day in 1931,rvhilerc:rdingan arriclcon the originandcnd ofthc world,he camcrrpwith the idearharthe univcrsc of his fcllow explodcdand rhcn evolvedout of a "primevalatom."A conrcmporary 'l'eilhard rried to do for astrononry what Teilhard had donefor de Chardin, hc Jcsuit, worldviewofmocicrn of Christianirylod rhcevolurionary biology:createa synthesis of [)arwint "priHis "primevalatom"is ofcoursethc cosmogonic equivalcnt scicncc. to havccnrcrged and evolvcd)." l hc idca mcvalsoup"(out of which life is supposed of clfevolurion,"wrotc lrmaitrc, "hasplaycdan importanrrole in the dcvelopmenr . -I he evolutionof theworld canbecomparcdro a displayoffirework asrrophvsics... thar hasjust cnded" (Lemaitre,TheI'rimeualAton, pp. 87, 78).-Eo.

463

GeNrsrs, CnpanloN aNo Eenly M,rN

Queslrows aNo ANswens

man." Bur if you think in termsof what the Fatherssay-thar rhe sun was made afrer the earrh had alreadybeen ghsss-1hsn it is clear tnat everything was made for man. SruosNt: In our galaxythereareso many orher suns.Do the Holy Fatherssayanyrhing about thosesuns? Fn. SrnepnIv: No, becausethey knew lessabout rhe composirion of the universethan we know now. And there is simply no pracrical reasonto speakmuch about them, exceptro saythar they are thereand Cod createdthem. The only placewe know man livesis right here. SluoeNr: Is thereany conflict at all berweenthe Orthodox unoersrandingof the crearionof rhe world and the fact thar there rs more than one sun? Fn..Ssnapstv: No, becausetheret only one sun for us. St.uosNr: The other sunsare srars. Fn. Srnnlsrv; Yes.For us they aren'tsuns.T'he sun is a particular thing which is the centerof our lifb, which givesus light and warmrh, around which we grow and without which we can'r live. The other starsarent central to us like rhat. If there were orher suns with other earths,ir would make rhings more complicated.We have no information thar such a rhing is true. The Scripturesand the Farhersalways look upon things as seen from the earth. You can't placeyourselfin some hyporheticalplace,in some other galaxy,and look back on earrh.' That's a totally abstracr way of looking at things,sincewe aren'rtherebut right here.We'retold what we need ro saveour souls,and we'renor told a singlething about any of theseother suns, planets,etc. If it were useful for us to know that, God would havetold us. In fact, it is a very interestingthing: from all rhe spaceprobes to other planets so far, it looks as though there have been deliberate indicationsto show ro us rhat rhe earrh is the placewhere lile is. Orher placesare dead bodies. S.ruoeNr: What about specularionconcerningbeings from other olanets?

Fn. Srnepnrv: Peoplewho look for beings on other planersger bound up with a whole occult philosophyof life: that there are higher bcings who are coming to rescueus and help us out; wejust bow down to them and they will give us all the powerswe need.Actually, all rhesemyrhs about beingson other planetscorrespondto what we know about demons and how they operate.When you start speculating about them and get involved with ideasabout higher racesof cxtraterrestrials-it all comesdown to demons.Besidesangels,the only kind of intelligent beingswe know of is demons.* 6. Scicntif c Creatiottisx Fn. SenepHIu: 'I'hereis a lot ofliterature nowadaysconcerningthe qucsrionofcreation and evolution. It hasbecomequite a vital question especiallyin the last ren or rwenry years. Recently there was a very one-sided article in Time magazine which made fun of people who are againstevolution; it made them look like cuckoos-imbeciles who were going back to the time before the ScopesMonkey Trial, and so forth.** But ifyou readthe literature of some of thesecreationistgroups, it's very interesting.There is one group in San Diego called the Institute for Creation Researchwhich puts out some very interesring books. One is called Creation: The Facx of Lrfe,which goesinto someof the scienrificquestions;anorherone rs about fossils: Euolution: The l:ossitsSal ly'alThere is an excellent book called ScientiJic Cieationism, which is meant as a texrbook for high schools.There is a good, soberbook on dinosaurswhich is not hearyhanded at all. It doesnt mention anything about evolution, but just givesthe story ofdinosaurs.*** It is for peoplewho want to readwirhout having all kinds ofscientific hypothesesforced upon them.

writers.For Fr.Seraphimtdiscussion ' As do science-fiction of science ficrion, scehisbook OrtbodotTand tbc Religionofthe F:uture,ch.6, sec.|.-Eo.

' Iior a derailcddiscussionof UF()s by Fr. Scraphinr,seeOrtbodot7and the Religion of thc l:ucurc,ch. 6.-Eo. " "Putting Darwin Backin thc Dock: 'Scicntific'(lrearionisrs Ohallcngcthc 'l'heoryof Evolution March I 6, I 98 I , pp. 80-82. Thc articlccon," 'fimr magazinc, "Nothing in biologymekessense cludedwith a quorcfrom Theodosius l)obz-hansky: exccptin rhc light of evolution."-Eo. bookson dinosaurs, seeDD.642-45 below.-Eo. "' for a lisrof crcarionisr

464

465

CsNesrs,Cnexuol ar.roEanry Marl

'fhis particular group is very good becausethey do not rry ro push the Bible. They know they could nor ger inro public schoolsif they did, and therefore they have books (like Sientifc Creationisml rnar presentthe materialpurely from the scientificpoint of view.And they presentit nor simply as anri-evolurionisrs.Instead,rhey presentrwo rrodels. Just like what we were saying about the Copernican model versusrhe Ptolcmaicmodel, they presentrhe creationistmodel versus the evolutionist model, and then they ask the question:which model better explains facts?l'he 6ook Scientifc Creationisn givesyou a whole seriesof facts,then givesyou the explanarionaccording to rhe creationist model and according to thc evolurionist model. They think that the creationistmodel makcsmore sensebecausethe evolurionists haveto make all kinds of"cycles"and "epicycles"to explainall kinds of embarrassingthings. In 1960 rhe famous movie lnherit the Vind, al:ou rhe Scopes'lrial of 1925, greatlyinfluenced how rhc gcneralpublic regardedrhe creation/evolution debare.'fhe movie depicted the famous atheist lawyer ClarenceDarrow asa grearhero becausehc stood for science,progress, the future oi mankind and so forth. It wasn't cluire so simple as all that.* But after the movie came our, many peoplc who wcre dubious about evolution gor rarher scaredbecauscthey didni wanr ro be accusedof being anti-progressand anti-science. Nevertheless,during rhe last rwenty yearsthere have been some very interestingscientificrreatiseswrirren on rhe subjecr,bringing up the many "proofs" of cvolution which are questionable.-l-heseproofs are ofren prcsenredin high school rextbooksas rruth and fact, but when you look closelyyou find rhar they aren'tfacts.For cxample,they bring up the so-calledfact rhat a humln embryo recapirulares irs evolutionary ancesrry,that there are gill slits on rhe rhroat and so forrh. However,if yoLrreadanv evolutionaryrextbooknow on embrvology,it ' ln fact,thc movic(basedon rhc playby Jcromcl-awrcncc and RoberrE. t,ce) wasa highlvficrionalizcd accounrofrhc trial and rhc cvcntssurroundingit. In real 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

QumlroNs aNo ANswrns rvill say this is a myth.'I'he "gill-slits"have nothing to do with evoturion or recapitulation;that'ssimply the way the embryo develops.In lircr, the developmentof the brain, the nerves,the heart, etc., inside rhe embryo rotally contradictsthe way it should be if it is only recaf irulatingevolutionaryanceslry. -l'hereare a number of points abour evolutionisnrwhich, even if you don't want to believeright away in one or the other view, make vou srop and question and think a little more about the evidencefbr lnd againsr.lt is rhe same with radiometric dating systemsand thc evolutiorrary/unifbrmitarianinterpretationof geologicalstrata. I'here is an exccllent book by a professorof geology,Henry Morris, called 'l'be Gencsis|'lood, which tries to interpret the strata, the ice age,etc. in rcrnrsof the F-loodof Noah. He presentshis evidenceand it's very scrcnrifically pur together.You can read it and agreeor disagree,but it's presentedon a scientificlevel. The Institute purs our a monthly newslertercalledAcx and Facts which describeswhat they'redoing, and in every issuethey have a little filler which dealswith some aspectof evolution or creation.They have becn having a great number of debatesduring rhe last five years irt universities,which have been very well attended;sometimesthousands of srudents come. The creation scientisrsare very well prepared-rhey have read all the larestliterature-while the evolutionist scientistsoften are so confident that they dont particularly keep up with the latestevents.Therefore,in rhe last issueof rhe magazine.Sclencq which is very evolutionist,one article saysthat it has becomeso bad now-rhe evolutionistscientistsare so ill-preparedand are tcaching their srudentsso poorly-rhat all you have ro do is have a creationist scientistwith three or four factsfrom the last five years,and he will spin circles around rhe evolutionists.So the evolutionistshave been waking up and sayingthat they have been neglectingtheir dury ro raiseup their offspring in the right spirit. They are trying to educate them berter now to get back to the original principlesof evolution.

467

CrNssrs.CnslnoN ar.roErrr-yM.rx

7. Various Euolutiondry ldeds Fn. Senrpsrrnr:There is so much interpretationinvolved in evolutionary theory that if you ask evolutioniststo explain how evolurion occurs,they cannot agreeon an answer.I-hey usedto sayit happensby natural selectioncoupled with mutation: small changeswhich, after a cerrainnumber ofgenerations,finally resultin a new kind ofcreature. But it so happensthat mutations are so universallyharmful that you can't explain any kind of upward progressby mutations. Right now rhere'sa big debate going on over whether to rhrow out Darwinian gradualismaltogetherand havesomeother theory.The latestideathey have gone back to-an idea devised forry years ago-is called the "Hopeful Monster" theory. -l-he prominent geneticist Richard Goldschmidt [of the Universiry of California at Berkeley]came up with this idea becausehe saw that the accumulationof natural selecrion and mutation could not producecomplexstructures.*You cannot explain,for example,the eyeby a seriesofgradual changes,becauseei'fhe organismthat sudther you havean eyeor you dont havean eye. denly getsa retina or some other part of an eyewill haveno use for it. It has to mate with a creaturewith the samecharacteristic,and then that characteristicmust be preserveduntil it developsinto a higher form and finally the whole eye develops.This simply can't happen; it doesn't make any sense.You have to have rhe eye all ofa sudden corne into existence.**Therefore,Goldschmidt proposedthat evolutiolr occurs in jumps-large-scale mutationsresultingin a "hopeful monster" rhat is able to surviveand reoroduce. by Darwinists whenGoldschnridt firstpropoundedit ' This theorywasrejccted in I 980 by evolutionist of Harin | 940, but ir wasrehabilitated Srephen JayGor"rld vardin his populararticle"Rerurnof the HopcfulMonstcr."-ED. nco-Darwinian apologisr Richard '. ln his book TbeBlind \Yatcbmakcr(1985), Dawkinshastriedto explainthe evolutionofan eyc.Dawkins'arguments havebccn refutedon rhecvidcnceof biochemisrry by Michrel Bchein his seminalbook Darwin\ Bhck Box (1996),pp. l5-22,36-39. tu Phillip E. Johnsoncomments,"To movcfrom Dawkinsro Behcis like movingfrom the childrcnilibraryto thc laboratory" (Johnson,Objections Sutaincd,p. 54).-Eo.

468

QueslroNs,rnn ANswens Goldschmidt invoked this theory to explain thc origin of birds. A bird wing is a rremendousthing. If a reprile simply has a bone sticking out of its back, it is not very well adaptedto survive.h must have rwo whole wings which work, and there must be a femaleand male with the same wings in order ro reproduce them. 'Ihercfore, rhe "Hopeful Monster" idea proposedthat a reptile laid an egg and our hatched a bird!* Peoplenow are seriouslyreturning to this idea and rrying ro find a balanceberweenir and Darwinism, becausethey realize that small changescannot produce these tremendouslycomplex structures." Theseideasare for scientiststo discuss,bur it! inrerestingfor us to be awareofwhat they are discussing.

8. The Limix of Biological Change lVhateverspeciesis still around roday comesdown Fn. SEnq.pHr^,{: in an unbroken link from rhe samehind of creaturein the past.'fhere are many speciesthat are no longer around; bur unril rhey becameextinct they were the samekind ofthing rhat they were from the beginning. You can seegreatnumbersofchangeswirhin eachkind ofcreature. For example,the dachshundand the German shepherdall come from the samekind, but rhey'reaJldogs,and they can mate and reproduce. So too wirh the "races"of men: ahhough rhey look quite different, they are all of the samekind. 'fhose who call themselvescreationisrsdo not say that there are no changes.There are lots of changes in nature, but they are all within certain limits. That's what the whole debare over evolution ' Coldschmidtciredwith approvalrhisreptilc-to-bird sccnario asfirstsuggcsted by rhc renownedpaleontologisr Orro Schindewoll-Eo. why Srcphcn " Anothcrreason wanredto rchabiliJayGould,a pelconrologisr, carethe 'HopefulMonsrer"theorywasro accounrlor rhc lackof intermediary spcciesin rhefossilrccord.Gould\ revisionof Goldschmidrls rhcorv.callcd"ounquated etluilibrium, is currentfybeingdebaredby cvolurionr,,rs. \e< Joltnson, Darwin on Trial,pp. 3244 and Dcnron, Epolution:A I heoryin Cr*i, pp. 192-95.-Eo.

469

GrNrsrs,CnrlrroN aNo Enuy Meru and creation is all about: whether rhe limits are strictly defined according to "kinds"-which might nor be quite the same as "species"-or whether everythingcomes from an original glob of organic matter which developedinto all the different kinds of things. Everyrhing we know now about the genetic code seemsto be againstthe latter idea.An organismcannot "evolve"into something that is not in agreementwith its geneticcode.* Much of the debateberweenevolutionists now centers on how this could be possible. We have not found out how.*'

9. "Human Euolution" SruoeN'r: What do you think of the fossil men that have been discovered? Fn. Senepstv: Many theories have been coming out in recent years.The I-eakeysin Africa havebeen nraking all kinds oftliscoveries wanrs his eachyear.Of course,eachpersonwho is making discoveries "man" ro be the ancestorof all mankind; so he wants ro overthrow all the previousideas,come up with a new one, and claim he has found the "missing link." So we alwaystake with a grain of salt what these PeoPlesay. In 1959 Louis and Mary Leakeydiscovereda skull of an extinct ape,Au*ralopithrzs ("Southern Ape"), which was generallysupposed to be the ape ancestorofall the fossilmen--of Hamo ercctus, erc. Five yearslater they announcedthat they lound human fossilsin the same bcd as those of rhe Austalopithirus.'"* Since stone tools were found ' I.e.,rharis outsidethe rangeof variationspccificdby thc DNA for rhar parricularorganism.-Eo. " 'I-hebesrbook on rhissubjecris Nar 67 Chane! by Dr.l-ee Sperner,an expert on rhc gcncticcodc. SccSuggcstedRcadings,pp. 63940,-F,o. "' 'l he statusol Ausnalopitbicutas an extinct ape was establishedas early as 1954by rhe compararivc anaromyrcsearch ofzoologisrSollyZuckerman.1-hefact with rhe australopithecines rhat true humanslivcd ascontemporaries indicatcsthat the lqnerhad nothingro do with humanorigins.FbllowingLouisand Mary Leakcy's and Homoeretus[osdiscovery,their son fuchard l,eakeyalsofo-lnd Ausnalopithecus silsin thesamestratum.-Ep. 4 /ll

Quxrrots

aNn ANswens

thereafso,rhey named rheir new find Homo habilis,or "Handy Man."* 'l'his threw rhe whole scenarioof human evolution back, becausean evolutionary ancestorcannot be in the same bed as its descendant. Homo erectus" was also thrown out of rhe line and placed after Homo habilis; and humans using srone rools are now said ro have Iived rwo million yearsago. Of course,theseare all guesses. There are so many holesand difficulries in the various theories,and rhere is so much rhat each 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 Man." Fronr rhe 1890sonwardsthere had been a concertedsearcnro find the missinglink, which wasexpectedto be halfapeand halfman. So in l9 I I a verycleverman in EnglandnamedCharlesDawsontook a human skull, combined it with the jawboneof an ape,and f.ileddown the apeteeth.A yearlarerTeilhardde Chardin discoveredthe missingcanine tooth. \7ith irs very primirive jaw and very advancedskull, rhis "Pilr' "Since f964," wrircs RichardMiftot "Homohabillr hasbeenreevaluated and ir hasbccnsuggcstcd rhatonc of rlrchandbonesis a pieceofvertebra,rharrwo more boncscouldhavcbclongcdro a trec-dwelling monkcy,and rlrarsixorherscamcfrom sonreunspccificd nonhorninid.But whateverrhc nreritsof rhc originaldescriprion, thc factrcmoinsthat handyman is human-nor a missinglink. Homohabilisiscalculatcdto havchad a smallbrrin: pcrhapsonly half thc sizcof rhe averagc modern humani. But, as Dr. A. J. Vhirc haspoinredout, rhe habilineswerealsosmall in sralure,so rheirbrainswerenor smallin rclarionro rhcirbody size,rarherIike modcrn Pygmrcs. ''lndee
471

CeNEsrs, CerArroNnNn EanryMar'r

QurslroNs ano ANswens

down Man" was taken to be an evolutionaryancestorof man. Somescientistsdid question it and had big discussions,but the vasr majoriry acceptedit.* Finally in the 1950s,some scientistsrestedir by meansof the Carbon l4 method ofdating, which givesfairly accurateresultsback to 2,000-3,000 years.'fhey found that one part was more ancient,one ** part wasmore modern,and so it wasobviouslyrwo differentcreatures. Thereforethe whole thing was discredited. SruosNr: tVhat about the skulls rhey have found of Neanderthal Man? Fn. Ssnnpurv: The Neanderthal Man is now acceorcdas Homl tapiens: samespecies as man, different variery-no moie different from man than Englishmenare different from the Chinese.*** Actually,the fbssilmen arevery few in number.*'** And, ofcourse, everythingis basedon your interpretation:is it an apeor a man?[r is not parricularlysimple ro find somethingin berweenboth of them. In any fossilthat you see,either of "primitive" men or "advanced"apes,it does not say,"l am the ancestorofpeople roday."So you cannot tell whether it is an ancestor,a cousin, or not relatedat all. It's your interpretation. So lar there is actually no persuasiveancient man that really looks as rhough it is halfuay berweenman and ape.There are different kinds of fossilmen, some "primitive," some wirh largeskulls,some with small skulls:but they are no more differenrlrom eachorher rhan are rhe dif-

li'rcnt men who live today.So the burden of proof in rhis, I think, is srill upon thosewho want ro prove thar one comesfrom rhe orher. Of course, this whole quesrion of whether one comes from the orhcr raisesa whole lot of quesrionsin the text of Genesis-abour rhe for example.If man is millions of yearsold, you have ro genealogies, make some big epicyclesro accounr for the genealogies of the Patriarchs.In fact,somesayrhar Patriarchsarent reallypeople:they'rereally just namesfor vastages.

were wrirten on Pilrdown 'More than five hundreddoctoraldissertarions Man.-Eo. " In 1982, right aftcr l;r. Seraphinrtrcposc,rlre jawbonewas conclusively lound to be rharof an oranguran.-Eo. suggesrcd that Ncanderrhal Man once "' In rhc larc 1980ssonrccvolutionists againbc givenhis carlicrdcsignation,Homoneanderthalcrco. However,cventhcy adwcrecontemporary with modcrnhunransand could have mincd that Neanderthals interbredwith them. SecLubenow,BoncsofContcntion,p.68.-[io. "-' Richardbakey hasquotedf'ellowpaleontologisr David Pilbcamassaying: "'lf you broughtin a smartscientistfrom anorhcrdisciplincand showedhim the meagrecvidence we'vegiorhed surclysay,"Forgctit; rhereisn'renoughto go on."' NeirherDavidnor othersinvolvedin the searchfor rnankindcanrakerhisadvice,of coursc,but we rcnrainfi-rllyawarcof rhe dangersof drawing conclusionsfrom cvi dence that is so incomplete" (Richard E. Leakey, l'he Mahing of Manhiad, l 9 8l ).-ED .

I0. The Linix of Sticntifc Inquiry SrunrNr: I'm not surprisedwhen you say rhar ideasof hunran evolution are changing,as they find nlore rhings conrributing to the thcory of evolution. Ultimarely,we will seerhe whole picture of evolurion conrcto lighr. Fn. SeulHIv: Vell, it all dependson your presuppositions, becauseoften thosepresuppositionsare very strong. SruneN,r: Vhar I'm sayingis thar generallywhat happensin scienceis that they are going along and rhey havea rheory,and then they find that their suppositionsare incorrecr,as you said. And thcn rney have to change their rheory and there is a srep, an improvemenr in knowledge,in science. Fn. Sennpntv: Yes.And therearecerrainweak points in the theory of evolution itself as it is put lorth now. Of course, we haveto understand there are different meaningsfor rhat word. l'he evolution of a particularvarieryof finch or somerhing-1hat's nor what we are talking about.That'ssimply a changewithin a singlenature.But evolution as a theory about the origin of the world-that's beyond the realm of science.Thatt specularionabout the bcginnings,just like the ancrent Greekspeculationsabout whether thc world was infinite or alwayscxisted,etc. ln order to acceptthe evolurionarytheory of origins as it is usually presentednow one hasto acceptthat the Six Daysof Creation are zara supernaturalacr, (har is, an acr rhar is different in kind from what is happening now According ro rhe inrerprerationof the Church, ir is very distinct: there wereSix Days of Creation in which God made rhe

473

Cr:Nrsrs,Crr.xrroN EARLY MAN ^ND

QuesrroNsaNo ANswens

whole world, and He is not doing that any more. 'I'hereforeyou cannor deduce what they were like. Maybe you can deduce 6ack almostto that point, but you can'tdeducewhat the actualbeginningwas.So I think in that respectscientistsshould be much lessdogmatic in looking ar and discussingthe very beginning. The text of Genesisis quire clear that rhesesix acts were quire outside of our sphereof knowledgetoday.Ve can't know about them at all, exceptas God Himself has chosento revealthem. That is why I would say that scientistsare off if they try to deduce the beginning from whar is happeningnow. You can rake the ideaof unifornrirarianism (i.e., that evcrything has happenedat the same rate as it happening now) up to a certain point-a few thousandyearsperhaps.Before that ir is very dubious that ev€rfhing has been happeningat the same rate.

tr,rcteda hundred yea$ here and there when they were copying the tcxt. The Fathersadmit that in the Scripturethere can be small errors. 'l'here'.sno particular Patristic teaching that we have to define the worfd as being exaccly7,490 yearsold. It could be a litrle more or a litrlc less:it's not an importantquestion. But whether Adam lived either sevenor cight thousandyearsago, or whether he lived millions of yearsago-that ri an imporranr question. That is a big subject that affectsthe whole text of Genesis.We havc to understandwho Adam was-whether he was a personor nor) and so lorrh. If he lived millions of yearsago, there are a whole lot of questionsthar you have to ask about how tradition has interprered nrankind sincerhat time.

I I . 'l'be Biblical Chronology SruosNr; Do we know exactllhow old the earth is frorn the Biblical chronologies? 'fhere Fn. Sen,rpstr'.t: actuallyare questionsabout this. l he Greek (Septuagin$ (ext and the Hebrew (Masoretic) tcxts of Genesisare different. According to the Septuagint,the world is about 7,500 years old;* accordingto the Hebrew text, it's about 6,000 yearsold. lis an obviousdiscrepancy.How do we solveproblemslike that? ['he Fathers admit that therecan be a Iittle mistakethat is handed downl there are simply miscopyingsand so forth. In fact, BlessedAugustine has a whole chapreron this question.**Perhapssome scribesadded or subcalcndrrscsrablished in Consran' Followingthe tradirionalf
I2. The Pre-existencc ofSouk, "Reinrarnation," and Euolution

SruosNr: Why did Origen believethat the soul came from the spiritual realm down into the body? Fn. SsR^t'HIv: He was under the influenceof philosophieswhich said that matter is evil. Peoplelook around and seethat sins come becauseof the flesh, and therefore rhe idea was developed,especially among the Manichaeansand similar teachers,that matter itself is evil and that the soul is a noble thing which is imprisoned in matter. From rhis they developedrhe idea that the soul has for aeonspast been in some other realm. Sruor:Nr: Why were soulsbroughr down into matrer if matter is evil? Fn. Seno,pHnra: According to Origen, it was becausethey sinned in thar other realm. This representsa dualisticview of the universe:there is one good aspecr-rhe soul, and one evil aspect-marrer, the body. The Chrisrian view,on the other hand, seesthe soul and the body together,with the knowledgethat the body will actuallybe transformed.In fact, we will seein our study of Genesisthat the body in the beginningwasdifferent lrom the way it was after the fall.

(lrNssrs,Carerron lruo Eanrr Me.r'r Sruor.rur:Was thereany influenceof Easrernideason Origen? Fn. Ssntpnlv: Undoubtedly. Peoplecame fiom India ro Alexandria, whereOrigen lived, and rhey raught there.One of Origen'steachers was from India. S'ruorrur: The idea of the pre-exisrence of souls is similar ro what " Hinduism teacheson the transmigrationofsouls or "reincarnarion. Fn. SrnenHrv: Righr. Sruoetqr: And how is rhat relaredto evolution? Fn. SennrHtt'.t:The idea behind the cosmogony of evolurion is that everythingcomes lrom a single filamenr: in the beginning there was one blob, and from thar comesall living things: animals,insects, plants,etc. (Of course,thereare immensedifficultiesin thar theory becauseyou havero show how within that original blob the genericcode and the means of translating it appearedsirnultaneously;rhen you have to show how the information was added to produce the genetic code for man and all the different crearures.This has never been done.) The idea of "reincarnation"is similar in rhat, accordingro rhe ancient Buddhist, Hindu, Greek and Roman undersranding,ir involved rransmigrationinto different creatures:beasts,insectsand even plants. (ln modern times peoplehavechangedthat idea: they assumethar in their "previouslives" rhey were human beings,becausethey dont like the ideaofhaving beena monkey or a treeor something.Peoplelike to think that they were Napoleon or Julius Caesar,but they doni like to think that they werean oak beam in Rome someplace.-Ihey are flattering themselves.) ln general,we can say that rhis idea rhat everything is one-like one "Chain of Light" which can be divided inro different kinds ofbeings-is not acceptedat all by the Holy Fathers.They say that in the beginning all the different kinds of crearureswere presenr,and that from them the seed producesrhe same kinds of creaturesunril rhe end of time.'

QursrtoNs ann ANsvtns

13.I'he Nanre of Paradise

'A morc cxrensive rreatmenrof reincarnation may be found in Fr. Seraphimi book fhc Soulafer Deatb,pp. 121-27.-Eo.

F-n.Senepurv: Bcforewe begin a new ch:rpter,can anyone give a resumi of what the earthly Paradisewas? SruDENr: It's nor the materialworld aswe know it, but then a6;ain it is not in the noetic realm, but somewherein berween.lt is a more rarefiedphysicalplace. Fn. Senepnrv: Yes.And was it on the earth or in heaven? SruoENr: Neither. I thought it was elevatedabovethe earth. Fn. Snnq.prrru: Ycs,but actuallyin the beginningit was parr of carth, even though it might havebeenin a higher place.And now? SruoeNr: It\ acruallya place,but you can't Berthere in a worldly geographicalway. Fn. Senepntlt: Has anyone becn there in the lasr few thousand years? SruoENr: l'he thief on the cross[cf. L,uke23:43]. Fn. Srnapurv: 'l-hat! right, but hc didn't come back to tell us. Did anyonecome back? Sruorrr: St. Andrew the Fool fbr Christ of Constantinopie. Fn. Seunurv: Yes.Vho else? SlunrNr: 'fhere was a cook in a monastery. Fn. Srnepnrv: Right, St. Euphrosynusthe Cook. SruoeNr: Are there any mentioned in the book T'heSoul After Deatb? Fn. Srnerurr'a: Yes,there are severalmentioned there who came back to tell us. They alwayssa5 like St. Paul,that they cani reallyexpresswhat rhey saw.They do give some descriptionsof Paradise(Sr. Andrew, for example,talks about the plants, a beautiful garden,and abovethat heavenitselF),but this is so far outsideofour normal exDerience that they cani talk about it very rnuch. They saw the starein which we are ro be in rhe ageto come. Paradisewas a specialplace on this earth which was created,according to St. Ephraim, together with the plantson the Third Day. On the Sixth Day God placed man in it. It was originally a placeof rhe earth as if to show thar man wasmeant to ascendfrom earrhto heaven.

476

477

Cl:Nrsrs,CnexrroNaNo E,cRry M.AN

QursrrclNs aNo ANswens

It was not entirelymaterial;it wasof refined matter which we don't understand.Bur becauseof man'sf-all,it was as if rhis heavenly aspectof earth-a specialpart of the original earth-went up and out of our sight, though we are still able to get back to it. At the sametirne, af-ter rhc hll. the originalcarth fell inro corruption. SruorNr: According to the Fathers,when was hell created?Vas it creatcdwhen the heavenswerecreated,or when the earth wascreated? Fn. Sennpnrv: Hell wasn'treallycreated,just like evil wasn'rreally creared.Hell is simply the srateand the placeinro which rhe fallen angelsfell. In other words, in a sense,they made it themselves.'fheScriptures speakofthe place"preparedfor the devil and his angels"[Matr. 25:411, but they do not mention how it came into being. Ve arent told in detail about the angelseither,nor about their fall; thcre are just

did nor recognizeHim when they saw Him. It is a very mysterious kind ofstare. Nonetheless,it is bound up with rhe body. Sluonxr: IfAdam and Eve had not fallen, could Adam have advlnced to the stateof perfectionwirhout Chrisr? Fn. SsnapHIu: Theoretically,you could think like that. Whether Christ would have come anpvay is a different question. God knew wher He wanted to do beforehand,and He knew the way things would be. And the way things uere wasrhar Christ did come. But He would no( haveneededto come to redeemus ifAdam had not sinned Of course,this is all verydeepand profound. LaterI'll quote a few of which talk about thesethings.The theologyofthe Church is thc services constantlygiven to us in the servicesbecausethat is what keepsus rn remcmbranceof where we came from and where wc are going.

brief references hereand there. It's obvious thar rt happenedbeforethe serpentappearsin (lenesis. Any othcr questions?Is it difficult to understandthis concept of somerhingwhich is not exactlymaterial,not exactlyspiritual? SruusNr: W'e'revery used to thinking dualistically:material vs. sp iritual. Fn. Sr.nannIpr:That's right. In the future agewe will have bodres, but rhe bodieswill be spiritual.It will be a realmsimilarto thc original Paradise,although Paradisewas evidently "cruder," that is, comparatively material.'fhe future realmwill be a spiritual dwelling, but at the same time there will be bodics in it.* \Vhat was the first examDleof su cha body? SruoeNr: Christ resurrecte
14. Free Vill

' St. Symconthc New Thcologianwritcsof rhe rcncwcdcreationin rhc fururc age:" l'hewholeworldwill bccomemoreperfectthananyword candescribe. Having becomcspirirualand divinc,it will bcconrcunitedwirh thc nocricworld;ir will bc a certainmenralParadise, a heavenly rhc inalicnablc inheritance ofthe sons Jerusalem, olGod" (Homily 45, in TheFitst-Created Man, pp. 104-5).Furrherreachings ofSr. Synrconon the fiturc agearefoundon p. 422 above.-[')o.

SruoeNl: \X/henAdarn fell, did he realizeat that point that he had f reewill? Fn. SrnnpHIv: Once he disobeyed,he realizedhe was naked, he saw rhar he was running away from God, and he began ro make excuses.[n other words, the whole path which is the consequence ofsin was opened up to him. So he saw this depth in himself-that he was able to chooseevil eventhough he reallydid not intend to. SluoErur: So he wasn't really consciousof his free will until that point? Fn. Ssnrnsrv: Vell, the Fatherssay that, although he was aduh in body and very exaltedin mind, he wasstill very simple becausehe was untested.He was in a stareofgoodnesswithout being testedby evil. SluoeNr: So did Adam know what he was doing when he fell? Fn. Ssnapurpr:He knew one rhing: that there was a commandmenr. But he wasnot testedin obeyingthe commandmentsyet, and in his simpliciry he fell. Stunen'r: Beforehe partook ofthe apple,wasAdam at all awareof what evil was? Fn. .Sr.upnru: I think that when he observedrherewere temprations, 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 him like rastingof the tree without filling. Vhen he was mature and ready,he could have known the consequences of evil without falling into evil himself. That, however, is my id,ea.The Fathers don't talk about rhis particular aspect,but they do say that the tree of rhe knowledgeof good and evil is somethingwhich is only fbr maturepeople."' (None of the Holy Fatherssay rhe fruit was an apple, by the way. Somepeoplethink it wasa fig. It is a Vestern ideathat it wasan apprc. We are not given particular infbrmation about that; it was jusr a tree with fruit.)

Sruor.rt: Vere the bodyand soulof man originallymeanrro be separate? Fn.Senaputv:No. IfAdam hadnot died,wewouldnot needto ralk aboutbodyandsoul,because rhebodywould itselfbecomerefinedand soul-like.In the endwe would havethe stateofrhe spiritualbody. StunsNr: Did God breathea soulinto Eve,too? Fn. Ssnepstlt:In whateverway He knows,He gaveher rhesame thing He gaveAdam. \(le are not told detailslike that. The whole thing is simplya miracleof God. SruosNr:Why is ChrisrcalledrheSecondAdam? Fn. Senelslr,.r:We arethe offspringof Adam. Evenif Adam had not flllen and the animalmodeof reproducrionhad not beenrnstrruted,therewould havebeensomemeansofgenerationfrom rhisone rnan.All men comefrom Adam,and therelore Adam is like humanrry. Adamruinedthewholeplan for mankind,bur God was"smarrer"becauseHe had already"figuredour" how to bring this planaboutwirhour Adam.Therefore,theOne throughWhom mant originalnarureis resrored, throughVhom we haverhe opporruniryro be in Paradise oncemore,is calledthe SecondAdam. SruotNr,:Doesn'rSr. Paulsaysomerhingabout how deathcame to all throughone man? Fn. SeRApHrr'.{: That'sright, dearhcamefrom one man and life comesfrom one Man.* Because Adam tastedof the tree,our narure waschanged. Thereforewhenthe Holy Fathers speakaboutrhenature of man,sometimes theyreferro the fallen,corruptednaturewe haveas a resultof the fall;but sometimes they(for example, AbbaDorotheus) speakaboutthe originalnatureofmankind, in orderto givean rmage ofwhat we aresupposedro gerbackro. 'l'he RomanCatholicidea,by the way,is different.They sayrhat in rhe beginningman wasnatural,and that he had extragracewhich madehim supernatural; and then when he fell, he losrthc graceand went backto the statehe wasmadein. -fhat is a wholedifferenrcon-

15. The CreationoJ'Adamand Eue SruoENr: Did God creareone man and one woman?C)r are Adam and Everepresentative ofa particularkind ofpersonor group ofpcrsons? Fn. Srnqpntv: He created the whole human nature rn onc p2n-1[s first man, Adam-and our of his flesh took the first woman. From them comesthe restof mankind. S,ruorNr: Vhen God createdEve our of rhe rib of Adam, did He take thosequaliriesrhar are pxrticular to womankind from Adam, or did He endow her wirh orher,complementaryqLraliries? Fn. Sr.nepnlv: We aren'rtold. He gave her whatever qualiry He neededto give her, srarringfrom rhe rib. The rib of a man does not produce a woman; therefore,ir's a miracle. God took the parr from Adam simply to show that the origin of mankind is one. The whole of mankind is already presenrin the original man. Everyone produced after that-from this one man-has rhe same nature,rhe sameimageof God, which is seenin rhe soul. ' St.JohnChrysostom wrires:'AdamIbeforerhe fill] kncw that obedience was goodanddisobedience waseviltand rhenhc learnedmoreclcarlywhcn,havingc.rrcn from the tree,hc wasbanishedfrom Paradise (.Erg]r and dcprivcdofrhat blcssedncss" Homitieson Geneti s7 :3, p. 7 64).-E.o " SectheguotesofSr. GrcgoryrhcThcologianandSr.Johnf)amascerrc on pp. 173-74 above.-Eo.

480

' | (-,or.l5 21-22: "For sinccby mancarncdearh,by mancamealsorhc resurrcctionof thc dead.For as in Adam all dic, cvcn so in (lhrist shallall bc madc al i vc.' -to.

481

QumrloNsrrvoAnswrns ception,and it fits in with evolution,because ir soundsasthoughthe wholecrearionwasnaturalto beginwith, and God didn't creareeverythingincorrupt.In the RomanCatholicvieq Adamwasnot madeimmortal;he becemeimmortalwhenGod addedgracero him. Bur in the Orthodox view, man wascreatedimmortal; his whole naturewasdifferent,and when he fell that naturewasrwistedand changed.lVe can still get back to the originalstate,of course,but only if rhe graceof God throughChrisrHimself raises us up. SruoEur: But thestatewe'restrivingfor is not the staterharAdam wasinr it'sthe statethat Adam wasmeantta be ir'. Fn. ScRApFTI^.{: fught. Bur the originalsrareis an imageof thar other state,becauseit wascloseto it already. 16. TheMind of Adam

of hcr and Adam l-he creationof Eve,and the blessing Vord. by God the Iconfom TioyanMonatery, Bulgria, ninetecnthcentxry,

SruosNr: The knowledge that Adam hadwasa revelation. He did not haveaccumulatedknowledgelike we havenow. Is that right? Fn. Se.nrpsIr'.r: Yes.When the animalscame before him he did not know aboutthem. He instantlygavewhateverGod placedin his mind. Sruor,Nr:It wasall spirirual. Fn. Sen-rpstlr:Yes.It wasa very exaltedthing. Ve havean image of that when a clairvoyantelderlooksat somebodyfor the first rime, tellshis name,tellshis sin and tellshim what to do ro savehis soul.k's exactlythe samekind ofthing. It's /rs doing,bur only rhroughGodt grace.His mind is giving this startlinginformation,bur iis only becausehe is in directcontactwith God that he cando it. SruoeN.r:Do the Holy Fathersteachthat imaginationis part of our hllen nature? Fn. Srnc.pHr^.{: Yes. Sruotlrr: lmaginationis so mucha part of our rhinkingnow. Fn. Srunnrv: fught. SruosNr.:How did Adam rhink?What do the Fathers sayhis srate of mind was? Fn. Ssnepstv: It was a srarecalledsobriery:arpsriin Greek.In other words,he lookedat thingsand saw them the way they were.

483

QursrloNsrNo ANswcns

r':.rr,''

(detail). Adam in Paradise lVall-painting b1Monk Thcopbanathc Crcnn in tbe Catholiconof tbe MonastcryofSt. NicholzsAnapatsas,Meteora,Grcece,1527.

Iherewasno "doublethought."' ln fact,he nor only lookedat them and sawthe way they were,but he alsonamedall rhe creaturesasthey camebeforehim. SruopNr: But Ive heardpeoplesay rhat imaginationhas to do with our creativepowers,which area reflectionofGodt creativepowcrs.That'sa goodthing;that'show we makebeaurifulrhings.... Fn. SrnapHrnr: That dependsupon what you meanby the word "imagination." Thereareseveral aspects ofit. One aspectis thecreatrve f-aculry which is part of our originalnature. SruoeNr:And ir waswith that faculrythatAdam namedthe crearures? Fn.Sennlurr'.r: fught. But in our fallensra(ethiscreativetalenrbecomesmixedup with double-rhinking: lookingat thingsandimagining somethingelse.So the word "imagination"doeshaverwo meanings, but in our fallenstateit is alwaysboundup with double-thinking. "* Sruprrr: Vhy, accordingto the Holy Fathers,did imagination and double-thinking comein? Fn. SsRApHr^{: That just seemsto be a naturalparr of our fallen state.No longerdo we look at thingsdirectly the way they are,for we 'St. Grcgoryrhe Sinaitc(1265*1346)writcs:"Thc mcmory was originally simpleand one-poinred, bur asa resultof rhe fall irs naruralpowershavebccnpcrverred:it haslosr irs recollectcdness in God and hasbecomecompound instcadof simple,diversificdinsreadofone-poinred" (Tbe Pbilokalia,vol.4, pp. 222).-Eo. " Sr. Maximus rhe Confcssor(580y'r62) reaches:"Thc mind o[ Adam at first was nor impressed by rhe imaginarion,which standsberwccnrhe mind and thc rhoughrs,setringup a wall aroundrhc mind and not allowingit to enrerinro thc (/agol)ofcrcarcd beings." mosrsimpleand imageless essences Sr. Nicodemusofrhc Holy Mountain(1748-1809)cxplainshow rhe dcvil deccivesthroughthc imagination: "The devilhasa verycloserelarionship and familiariry wirh the imaginarion....For he, bcingcrearedby God originallyas a purc and simplemind wirhoutform and image,asrhe orhcrdivineangels,larercamero love rhe lorms and rhc imagination.Imaginingrhat he could ser his throncabovcthe heavcns andbccomelikeGod, hc fcll from beingan angcloflighrandbccamea devil of darkness.... Thc devil usesthe imaginationas his organ.He deceivedAdam throughrhe imaginarionand raiscdup ro his mind rhc hntasyof bcingcqualwirh God. Beforcrhc disobedicncc,Adam did nor haverhe imaginariveaaribute" (Nicodemusof the Holy M ov.nain,A Handboohof Spirinal Counscl,pp. 149-50).-Eo.

485

(ieNrsrs,Cne.rrroNeuo EanryMaru

Ques'rrousaNo ANswrrs

are weak-wc arc, in a way, incapacitated.We look at things and dont quite seethe way they are. Mren we sober up, we doi but usuallywe are nor in rhat srare. S'ruoeNr: "Now we seethrough a glass,darkly" Il Cor. l3:l2]. Fn. Senrpsru: That's right. Adam saw the whole creationclearly, both the crearionbelow and the creationabove.And, therefore,he was in full possession of the factsabout everything,only he neededexperiin order to be tested. ence Sruprnt: I read somewherethat imagination is usedby peoplein their striving to regainthat imageof Paradiserhey lost. Fn. SsRApHlv:Vell, you could say that, becauseit's obvious that man, once he fbll, is striving fbr happiness.Even unbelieversand people who think they doni believein God and wouldnt acceptParadise or anything like that-rhey are all striving for happiness.And of course,only in the Church do we receivethe fullnessof that happiness and find the way to it, which is through following Christ on the Cross. If you're just going to write poetry you'll be very exaltedfor one day and the next day down in the dumps. You simply cani get beyond your narure thar way. For you to get beyond your fallen nature, obviously Someonefrom abovehasto lift you up. The One \X/homade the nature Himself has to changeyou. SruorNr': I'm inrerestedto hearmore about how Adam named the animals. Fn. Ssna.pHr^,r: SinceAdam wasoriginally in a stareof dispnsion,his mind was in an extremelyexaltedstatewhen God brought rhe animals beforehim in Paradisein order for him to name rhem. Adam gavethe animals namesin accordancewith their qualities.In other words, he had some kind of supernaturalfaculry; his mind was crystal-clear,so rhat he instantlysaw what were the qualitiesofeach creatureand what name it should have.Of course,we have lost rhat languagehe spoke. 'We don't havethat clarity of mind; ir's rotally beyond us. St. Symeon the New 1'heologiansaysthat Adam was "an immortal king over an immortal 61gxsi6n"-n61 just Paradise,but the whole earth. Of course,Paradisewas made lor his dwelling. He had been created outside of Paradise,on the earth, and then led into Paradise,his home. The animalswere not directly in Paradise;they were "brought"

'lb rhcre. us they would look like paradisalcreatures,but they were acrually outside the boundariesof Paradiseand were brought into it when Adam nanredthem. Vhen Adarn fell, he went back to the earth from which he came. llc rvassentoutsideagainto live on the earth by the sweatofhis brow.

486

17. Paradiseand Heauen Sluor-Nr: In the next lile man will be in Paradiseor in heaven.Are l'lradiseand heavennot the same,or are they rhe same? [in. Senrr.psru:From our point of view, who are so far away,it's all rhc sarne.Ifyou get into one you shouldgive thanksto God. But apparently rherewill be distincrionsbccausethere are "many mansions" lJohn l4:2], and dilferent places;that is, some saintsattain to grear Iieedorn,greatfamiliarirywith God, and othersbarelyget in. And'ihe mcekwill inherit thc earth" IPs.36:l l; c[ Matr. 5:5]. Sr. Symeonthe Ncw'fheologian saysthis meansthe meek will inherit this very earrh here.. So apparentlysome will be on earth wirh the abiliry to go up higher;otherswill be on higher levels.'fhe whole thing is not revealed to Lrslwe'rejust given a glimpse.If we enter into that state,then we will seeexactlywhat happens. 'f his whole creation-what was meant in the beginning-will be irgain.Vhether the sameparricularbeastswill be there (sinceeach individual creaturehasa diffcrent "personaliry")-we aren'ttold. But the samecreatureswill be rherc.Apparently,even that very serpentwill be rhere,only now we will be friendly with him. Flventhe scorpionsand cvervthing else... if they can't harm you, then there'.s no terror in all theseanimals. Sluorrr': The righteouspeople who have died already,like the new martyrs-are they in Paradise, in heaven,or in a placethat is separatc?What do the Fathersteachabotrt this? Fn. Ssnapslu: All we have to go on is the visionsofvarious people, like St. Salvius[of Albi] who died and went to heaven.Usually when it is specificallyParadise,greengrowing things are seen.But St. Salviuswent to some other placewhere there were no green growing ' SeeSt.Symeonthc New Thcologian, 7-bel:irst-Created Mar, pp. I 04-5.-t

487

n.

GsNssrs, CnsrrIoNaNoErnrvM,rN

QursrroNserunANswens

rhingsbut just multitudesof peoplein white:saints,marryrs.In other words,they are in heaven.St. Andrewthe Fool for Christ,when he wentto Paradise, didni seepeoplethere,but he sawpeoplein heaven.* 'Ve arenot told in detailaboutthinsslike that.

SruolNr: You read in Cenesiswhere it says the serpent will be bruisingthe heels[Gen. 3: l5l. [s that how he is rrying to get us back in Vould it be right to say rhe statewhere he is--
18.TheDeuil SruoeNr:About the enmiryberweenAdam and the serpent:You said that the devil was enviousof Adam beforeAdam fell becauseof uponhim. But you alsosaidAdamwasinthe hvor that wasbestowed feriorto the serpent. he is an intellectual Fn. SenapHtv:The devil is superiorbecause The body is a lower element; to the body. He is not subject being. he is superior.But man is goingto get that whi€h rhedevil therefore, And that is why,to thisday,rhedevil is, and heaven. lost,that Paradise is just plain angry. you can figureout the devil. Evenaccordingto humanpsychology, Justthink: you had immortallife andyou knewrhatyou weredamned ro hell. Then thereis this otherbeingwho is lowerthan you, who is nor worth evenspittingon, and he is goingto get that whichyou lost. becausethereis no reOf course,you aregoing to be terribly enuious, for you.** You aregoingto be trying everypossibleway to penrance gethim in thesamestateyouarein. ' St.Salvius wasa bishopin Gaul(Francc)in rhcsixthcenruryAbout Sr'Salvius ofhcaven,sec[:r SeraphimRosc,ThcSoulaftcr Sr. Andrcw and thcir experience and Death,pp. 135-39. Eo. rheactionof his frcc teachthat,sinccrhedevilis bodiless, " T hc Holy Fathers whcrcas humanbeingshavca chanceto repcnt will in choosingcvil wasimmurable; narureis writesthat "The angel's whilerheyaresrillin the body.St.JohnDamasccne ir is incorporeal.For it is owing ro rheweakncss nor susceptible ofrepenrancebecause of his body that man comesro haverepcntance."Elscwhcrcthc samcFarherstares: "One shouldnotethat the fall is to thc angclsjust what dcarhis ro mcn. For,just as thcrc is no repcntanccfor nreoafter their death,so is there nonc for the angelsaftcr thatthedevil,afterh is fallby delibofh is incorruptibiliry rheirlall... . I t wasby reason and immovablyrooredin evil. In thc samcway cratechoice,becameunrepentingly elcctionofvirtuc, rheangelswereimmutablyfoundedin again,aftcrtheirdelibcrarc good by grace"(Sr.John Damascene,On thc OrthodoxFaith 2:3,2:4\.-Eo'

488

a grearergood.

489

CrNesrs, CrealroN aNo Erely M,qr.r

QunsnoNs ,lrunANswrns

Satanhasan independent personaliry, bur in the long run he loses out. Evenwhenhe causes somererriblething like the RussianRevolution, out of ir come the New Marryrs, t.i..endous inspirationfor men.You can imaginewhat would have" happenedro Russiawithout the Revolution,the way it was going.Probablyir would havebeen evenworsethan Greeceroday-a frightfulplaceof worldliness, only pretendingto be Orthodox-but insteadir waschastised. Therefore,a good thing actuallycameout of rhe Revoluriondespirethe fact rhat thedevilmeantevil.The devilis independent, he cando evil,but God alwaysbringsgood out offt to thosewhosewilk uant good-* Sr.uosNr:l'he devil can'tdo anyrhingwithout God allowingit, canhe? Fn. Senq.pHtr"r: No, he can't.\X/henwe sayrhat rhedevil is bound for a thousandyears-ahewhole time betweenthe first and second 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 devil do anythingto him ar all. ]*/henwc havetemptations, they are

c\lcrly like the serpentbruising the heel:they area small thing, and we .hould shakethem off. Only if we allow ourselvesto be overcomeby rhcm do we fall into despondencyand anger and all kinds ofsins. So rhc devilt power is very limited Sruosnl: But it wasn'tthat way beforeChrist. Fn. SsnapHIv: Beforethe coming of Christ, satanhad much more lx)wer becauseeveryonewas bowing down to idols, which were derrron ic. SruosNt: But in the whole schemeof things, it was all within ( iod's plan. Fn. Senapsru: Vell, yes,but it's a very mysticalthing. Everything is within the plan, and yet each person freely does what he wants tn that plan. And God brings goodnessand good order out ofthe whole rhing, no matter how many demonsor men want to do evil.

19. Christ\ Spiritual Body

l-ikcwise.Sr. Macariusthc Crearof F-gypt(J00-390)writcsrhar"l'he lord of rlrisworld Ithedcvil] is a rod ofchasrismcnr and a scourgeto bcginners in thc spiriruallifi. Yet,ashasbcensaid,hc bringsthenrgrcatgloryandaddcdlronorbecause of the efl'lictions and trialsrheycndure.In thisway hc hclpsrhemro:rtrainthc srareof perfcction,while he prepares cvengrearerand harsherpunishmcnrfor hinrself.ln short,somcthingmost bencflcialis broughrabourrhror.rgh him.... Evil, whilc intendingwhat is nor good,conrritrures ro rhc good.For,in soulswhoscinrcntionis sound,eventhat which appears harmfulrcsulcin somerhing good.As Sr. Paulsays: All rhingswork togerhcrfor goodro rhemrharlovcGod' (Rom.8:28)" (Thc Philohalia, vol. 3, pp. 300-l ).-tio. " Accordingto the Holy Farhers, the "thousandyears"mcnrionedin Apocalypse(Rcvelarion) 20:2 rcpresents rhe pcriodberwcenthe firsrand secondconrrngs of Chrisr.Vc are now irr this pcriod.SeeArchbishopAverky1'aushe" and Fr.Seraphim Rosc,'l-beApoulypr in tbe liacbingsofAncientChristianiry,pp.254-58.-Eo.

Sruosrr: How doesChrist fit in with the placewhererhe sainrc arenow,and with rhe statethat you sayAdam wasmeantto achieve? Fn.Sennrutv:JesusChrist is God. SruneNr: Yes,and He! worshippedby the saints;but doesHe possess a spiritualbodylike thesaintswill have? Fn.Sanepnllr:Yes,He still hasHis body.St.Andrew,for example, sawChriston the thronein heaven. of God, and we communewith SruoENr:But He is the essence Him spiritually. He is the Light. But Christ Yes,God is ever)'where. Fn.Senalutna: body. is alsotherein heavenin His resurrected How it worksin practice,we arenot worthy of knowing:that is' whetherwe will be walking abourand talking with Him. But just think-He walkedaboutthe earthwith His disciples. ofGod, but ... Sruotwr: That explainsit. He is theessence Fn. Senanstu:But He took flesh.He becamelike us, and therefbrethat fleshis therein the otherworld.In heavenwe will haveconand alsowith Him in His body. ractwith God spiritually,

490

491

(elcvcnrlr "'fhcre is norhingincidenral ' Sr. l'crerDamascenc cenrury)teachcs: or cvil in creation,and evcn whar rakcsplaccagainstGod'swill is miraculously changcdby God into somcthinggood. For cxanrple,the fhll of the devil was not God'.swill, yer ir hrs becn rurncd ro rhe arlvanragc of rhoscbeing saved"(The lrhiloR Al ta , vo t , : r. o. t ) / t .

CeNrsrs,CnsrroN aNo EanrvMeru

o ANsvrns QursrroNsar.r

SruoeN,r:And we will commune with Him in His essence ? Fn. SsRAlHlr'.{: No. There is a teachingof St. Gregory Palamason the essenceand energiesof Cod. Ve do not have any direct contact with God in His essence, but we know Him in His energies(gracc). StuopNr: So the saintsdon't havecontact with the essence? Fn. Senansrpr:No, they have contact rhrough the energies,and so they are becomeparricipantsin God. We cant think like God: we cant think His thoughts or rhink what He was doing before the world was made, or anyrhing like that. We can only parricipareaccording as He allowsus, by His grace.

crrrh came up, and at the sametime the waterswhich bcforehad been rrbovethe firmament camedown. It is a very challengingtheory that some peoplehave put forward in conncction with the fact that the rainbow was given to Noah as a sign therewould be no more flood, indicating that rain aswe know it and the resulting rainbow were experiencedthen for the first timc. Somestudieshaveshown that about five thousandyearsago there was somechangein cheatmosphereof the earth which allowedthe cosmic radiation to come through.* It is very likely that the watersabovethe firmament wereactuallya cloud layerover the whole earth,which produced a greenhouseeffect.** Fossilremainseverpruherein the world resriryto the facr that in the past the earth had a universallywarm climate, with ample moisturefor abundant plant and animal life.." Besidesthe fossilevidence,there is evidencefrom the fact rhat there are remnanrs of animals in frozen soils on rhe Arctic lslands north of

20. The Firmament SruneHr: V/hat was the firmament? Fn. Se,nq.pHr^.r: Very interestingquesrion.Let me briefly summarize it. The text of Genesissaidtherewasa firmamenr thar "divided the waterswhich were under rhe firmament from the waterswhich were above the firmament" (Gen. l:7). Later on, in ancient Greece,there arosethe theory rhat the universewas composedof ten spheres,with the earth, the moon, and eachplanetoccupyingits own sphere.*Some people, under the influence of this theory, rhought that the rext of Cenesistaught rherewas a kind ofglass bowl over rhe earth. St. Basil the Great specificallydiscussedthis question,and he said there was no such thing: there was simply a force of nature which kepr rhe waters above-that is, sonre kind of more rarefied waters-from the waters beneath. In the time of Noah, when the Flood began, the windows of heavenwere opened and the waterscame in. In other words, it seems that the firmament "cracked,"so thar power of nature holding those waters abovewas loosenedsomehow That is one of the reasonswny the Flood was a universaldisaster.The warersfrom underneath the ' The ProphetMoscs,rheaurhorof Gcnesis, livcdin rhe sixteenth cenruryr.c. Thc Crcck conccptof the sphericalunivcrscwas first deviscdby Pychagoras in thc sixrhccnruryr.c. and wasrcvisedby Euxodusin rhe fourrhcenturya.c.-Eo.

ofthc lormationofradiocaroonrn ' Thcscstudieswerebasedon mcasurcnrenrs whichoccursby a complexsetofreacrions thc earth's uppcratnrosphere, berwcenthe incomingcosmicradiationand armospheric Nitrogen14.The dateoffive thousand yearswasprovidedby Roberrl-. Whitelaw NuclearConsultanrand Professor of Mechanicalling;inccring,Virginia PolytechnicInstirurc and StatcUniversiry SecSriaatif c Credtion isrn,pp. | 65-66.-Eo. " SeeHenry Morris, 'l he Gcneti F-kod,pp. 240-58, and JosephC. Dillow, I/r \Yaters Aboue:Eartlti Pre-FloodVaporCanopy-Eo. "'According ro E. H. Colben. an cvolurionist,"Marry lirrcsof dinosaurs cvolvedduring thc 100 million ycarsor more of Mcsozoichisroryin which thcy livecl....ln rhoscdaysrhe canh had a tropicalor sub-rropical climarcovermuch of irslandsurfacc, and in thc widcsprcad tropicallandsthcrewasan abundancc of lush vcgetation. 1-helandwrs low and therewercno high morrnteins formingphysicalor clinracricbarricrs"("Evolurionary(lrowth I{ates in thc [)inosaurs,".l'daztrfc l\lonrbly, August1949,p.7l). rV. J. Arkell, in 6is book Jur'tssicGzotogy o.frhe World (p-(rl5), wrires:'A fairlyrich floraoftcmpcratcfaciesflorrrishcd wirhinor ncarboth the Arcticand AnrarcricCirclcs,in Flasr(lreenlandand Crahamland." 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 lound rhousands of wcll prescrved lcavcs,rcrainingtheir originalcellularsrrucrure and organiccontent.(SceRaymondChris, Cbronirleof HigberEducation,March 20, l 99l ).-ti D .

492

493

QursrroNsANDANsvERs

GtNlsrs,Cnrnrron aNo Eenrr Mal Siberia-areas that could never supporr such animals under presenr * climaticconditions.

2 L Thc "Location" of Paradise Fn. SEnalurv: The connecrionof Paradisewith our conremporary world is a very profound one becausein the beginning Paradisewas part of earth-an elevatedplacelike a mounrain. When Adam wascast out of Paradisehe went lower down the slopeand beganliving tl.rere. 'I'hen Cain had to go srill lower down. 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 interpreted as the -l'igris, the Euphrates,the Nile and the Canges. There are variousinterpretarions. SruoeNr: ls rheresti a mounrain rhere? Fn. Ssnlpstu: No. You see,whar we havenow is a differenr realiry. For one thing, rhe Flood ofNoah came,and apparentlyrherewere tremendous cataclysmsduring that time-probably volcanoeserupting, mountains rising up-of which we seerhe resultsnow. lt is very likely th at before Noah there were not the five continents we know n6'a-1hs1s was a rremendously dffirent earth. Maybe there was one continent. Ve have no idea,actuaLlly; we are nor rold abour rhat. The earth becameso completelydiflerenr rhar roday we cannor say.Right now those four rivers do not come from the same source;they nave been changed.Nevertheless, you can point and say rhat in thar arears the cradle of ancient civilization; ir is apparentlywhere we all came from.

Now of course,Paradisehas been separatedfrom the earth. But l'roplc still go to Paradise.We know of peoplewho have been there, likc St. Euphrosynusthe Cook. He brought back apples,which people are like holy bread. He actually experiencedParadiseas if it was \omething physical,but ir was different from our everydaymaterial rcality.You can only get there in a stateof exaltation;you have to be .rut of yourself. Paradiseis now gone from us, becauseAdam was originallydifferent from what we are now. He was of a higher nature. In fact, rhe Fatherssay that he was of flcsh, but it was a flesh somehow hal{iruayberweenwhat we know as flesh and spirit. [t's a whole differentthine.

22. Bttween the Fall and the Flood S'ruosr.r'l:When Adam was thrown out from Paradise,what was rhar separarionlike? but it saysthat he Adam wascastout from Paradise, Fn. Ssnepnura: sar there looking at it. It was still visible,and even Cain could still see Paradise.One of thc Fatlterssaysthat perhapsuntil the Flood people They could not get to ir becausetherewere two could still seeParadise. it, angelsrhereguarding but we know they were somehow closerbecauseGod was constantlytalking to rhe Patriarchs.Then there was a wlrole different statewhich is very difficult lor us to imaginc now becauseafter Noah this new period enterswhen we do not havecontact wirh God that way. Beforc rhe Flood, God came and talked directly evento Cain, the sinner.

23. Tbe Flood *

in his book The Quatentary Era (vol.2, p. 650), srates: J. K. Charlesworrh, "Vast hcrdsof mammorhand orher animals(rhe New Sibcrianlslandsin rhe far north of Asiahavcyieldcdmammorh,wooly rhinoceros, muskox, saigaanrclopc, reindccr,tiger,arcricfox,glurron,bearand horscamongthe 66 animalspecics) requiredforcsts, nreadows andsreppes for rhcirsustcnance ... andcouldnor havelived in a climatelike the prcsenr,wirh irs icy winds,snowywintcrs,f-rozen groundand rundramossrheyerr round."-Ilo.

SrunEr't.r:Somesaythe Flood wasonly berweenthe Tigris and the Euohrates. Fn. Sr,nanHIu:That would be a local flood. But what is described in Scriotureis a universalFlood, over the whole earth. SruneNr' Is that why shellsare lound on the tops of mountains?

494

495

GnNEsrs, CnmrroN aNo E,rnryM,qN

QurslroNs euo Aruswrns

Fn. Serutpnrv: Yes.Of course,rhat is also due to the mounralns risingup.* The question of what mounrainswere belore the Flood and how high the Flood rose cannot be solvedconclusively,becauseir is very likely the cataclysmwas so exrremethat the whole earrhwas quite different then. All the mountains may haverisenup at that time. F-nrirely differentgeographicaland geologicalfeatureswould havebeencreated. Those peoplewho acceptthe ideaofrhe Flood in their studiesofgeology-like Henry Morris, in The GenesisFlood-say that most of the layerswere formed during and right after the rime of rhe Flood, not over millions ofyears. Readthe book.

rcn down. A lot was preservedin oral tradition. The basic text of ( ienesiswasrevealedto the prophet Moses.We are not evenconcerned rhar every singleword is actuallycorrect accordingto the way he reccivedit.'I'he Protestantscan becomevery upset about this question. It doesn'r bother us because, if it is interpreted in tbe Church, the (lhurch itself is the guaranteethat it will be preservedin the right spirit. The Hebrew and Greek texts disagreein a lot of specificand snrallpoints-the agesof the Patriarchs,fbr example. SrunrNr: The first chapterof Genesistellsofthe Six Daysand the crearion of man and woman. Then in rhe second chapter, the text 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. Fn. SsnnlHtv: No, it is simply a retellingof the story from a different point of view. One account concernsthe origin of Man himself; rhe other concernsthe specificorigin of the first people, Adam and

24. Patristic hterpretation us.Modern T?xtual Criticism Sruoeur: Did Moseswrite cveryword of the firsr five books of the Bible?And do we know when exacrlythey werewritten down? Fn. Srnepnrv: Vhen it says ar rhe bcginning'the lrook of Moses,"etc., it means"by Moses,in his rradirion." One of the books (Deuteronomy) mentions Moses' death; thereforehe did not write that part. In the samevr'ay,rhe Psalmsof David were not written all by David. Maybe half were wrirren by him, and orhers were writren by other people. The Orthodox Church is not so concerned that every word is writren by that person to whom ir is ascribed.We are not that concerned becausewe have the idea of nadition, rhat is, this is the book of Moses, "in the tradition of" Moses. The basic part comesfrom the hand itselfi other parrswere added later,which are all in the tradition of Moses. I canf give you exactdetailsof when actuallyrhe books were wrir' l'har rheFloodwastrniversal is wirnesscd by rhevastextcnrof sedimcnrary dcposits(lormedby aqucousacrion)overwh:rris rodaydry land.O. D. Von Engeln and KcnnerhE. Castcr,in thcir book Gcotog,wrire:'Abourthree-fourrhs, perhaps morc,of the landarcaof rhc carth,55 millionsquaremilcs,hasscdimcnrary rockas the bedrockat rhe surlaceor directlyunderthe coverof manrle-rock.. . . '[ he rhicknessof rhc srratifiedrocksrangcsfrom a fcw fecr ro 40,000 feeror more ar any onc placc....The vastbulk ofrhc srratifiedrocksis composedof shallow-watcr deposirs. Lu.

L.ve. Modern scholarslike to say,'Aha! that meanstherewererwo different authors,and you haveto separatethem and examinethe viewpoint of eachone-what were they trying to say?"This is not required,becauseevenif the text washandeddown somehowin corrupt form, still the basicrexr has come to us and we know that it all relatesro Tiuth. Therefore, the interpretationof the Church is our key to understanding how the rwo accountsfit together. When we come across rhings like this, we simply say thar rhe same story is being rold from rwo different poinrs of view-of emphasis.1'here is actually no basic problem. 'I'his ideathar there must be rwo different authorsor that tnereare three Isaiahs becausethere are three different periods spoken about-this is very childish.'['he modern scholarsoperateon the assumption that no one could talk about the future. Of course,wirh that idea you would have to castout all the prophets. SruorNl: Sometimeswe forget that there is a whole school of theology that is basicallyhumanistic and goes under the assumption that a book that tells of something in the future obviously had to be written later so that it looked backwards.

496

497

Crnests, Cnearrot lNn Eenly MaN

Fn. Srnrlurv: Yes,and that is purelyrheirassumption. According to our faith,we simplycannoracceprrharbecause we Lelieverhatthere areprophers. Thereis onebookwirh prophecies whicharenot fulfilled yer: rhe booko[ rheApocalypse. Accordingro somemodernscholars, rr doesnot ralk abourfurureevents.We believe,however,thar we are going to seerhe fulfillmenrof rhoseeventsaheadof us, always rn a form whichis a lirtle hidden.Ve cannotsayprecisely that the world is goingto end in 2005or somesuchdate;but aswe seetheeventsbeing fulfilled,.weseerhe profoundmeaningof rhis prophecywhich was writrenaheadof the event. Evenif ir couldbe that differentpartsofrhe bookof Genesrs were written down by diFferenrscribesat differentrimes,rhar might accounr fbr somedifferenceof language,bur it is totally a seclndary quesrionwhich doesnot affectthe main point. -fhe nrain poinr is: Vhar is rhe.Truthspokenaboutin rhesetexts?.I-har is the basicthing we havc ro keep in mind in inrerpretingany sacredrcxr: What is tbe texttalkingabout, whatis the ofit? All theselirtlequestions of -e"ning whenit waswrittendown and how manydifferent*^y, it *". *.,tt",., down (scholarsevenanalyzeit to figurehow many rimesdifferenr words.are uscd,separaring our parricuiarsynonymsto showrharthere weredifferenraurhors,erc.)-all that rs a wasteof time,acrually. l.he rnainquestionis, again:Vhar is the'Iiurh contained in it?And our keyro understanding whatis thetruth in the bookofGenesisor anyof the booksof Scriprureis the teachingof the Church handed down from rhe Holy Fathers. imporrantthing is thatwe acceptthat the textitselfis a wholc, ,The and.thatir is speaking abour'Iruth;and we shouldhaveutmosrrespect for ir asthe word of God. Whenwe cometo somerhinqrhar sccmsro be a contradiction, we haveto look deeperand se. hoi the Holy Fa_ thersresolved thisconrradicrion. Oncein a whilewe cancomeup with a little inrerpretarion ourselves. For example,we discussed this idea aboul.th;firmamenr:no Holy Fatherralksspecifically aboutrhis rheory.,\4odernpeople.have rhoughtaboutit, and it hasweightasa the_ ory,but it is not in rhesamecaregory asa revealed Tiuth. Il is simplya helpto interpretthe text.

498

QulstloNs lNo ANswrlrs

25 7 he Agesof tlte I'ntriarchs said to Phaljn. Seneprrlu: In Genesis47:9 we read':'And Jacob hundred and thirry r,nh, the days and the yearsof my life ' are a yearsof my life' and they r,.,,,..p"* and evil havebeen the daysof rhe ir.,u"no, attainedto the daysof the life of nry farhers"'. complained thirty yea-rso]d, ret !; lr."U lived to be a hundred lhis is another rhat he was not living very long, as did his forefarhers

irrdicationthattheea=rlierPatriarchsindeedlivedaverylongtime.T werevery awareof thar' l.rtcrdcscendants

26. D iferen t I ntelPretd tiont \X/ho among the ancientwriters held that the "sons of Sruor:Nr: (iod" [Gen. 6:2-4] were angels? AthF*. Se*p,rt", Tertulliai, St Justin Martyr' Athenagoras[of These are the earlier Facnsl, and Lacrantius,the minor Latin writer' and St',Ephraimthe ,n.rc. ftl"i.t e"tters such asSt' John Chrysostom they that the "sonsofGod" had bodiesand that therefore ;;;; could not be angels.' Scripture' This leadstJ the quesrionof different interpretations-of Church the of I" ,t'i. l""r* *. are ;iving the standardinterpretation who might give differFathers,but ofcou,r.1h",. ut" differentFathers of the various in,.rpr.,"tions. The question is: Vhat do we think "n, Sometimesthey might evenseemto conf-lict' i,l,.rp..,'r,ionri ""-*. very rich source' rhuul,l keep in rnind that the Scripture is a there are ar least which is not e*hauited by one interpretation Usually figurativeor allegorirwo interpretations:a literal interpretationand a cal one. Sometimesthere is alsoa mysticalinterpretation-' arepossibleBut thereare rules: -I'herefore, different interPretations

begotoffspringofwomen Accord'The "sonsofGod" mcntionedin Gencsis in rclarionto nran'and cannotbeget ing ro Orrhorloxdoctrinc,angelsarebodiless hunr"n bcingr. Seep. 244 abovc-F'n'

499

CENssrs,Cmarroll nNo Ernry MrN

l) Whereit is opinion,it shouldnot be helddogmatically or used to fight anotheropinion. 2) This opinionmusthavea serious foundation,and nor besimply basedon the latestintellectualfashion.For example,we shouldnot simplyfall into the latestfashionof scienceficrionand comeup with the ideathat the "sonsofGod" couldbe outer-space beings;thereis no seriousfoundationfor that. with rherestof Scripture. 3) It mustmakesense 4) Therearesomeopinionswhich areinadmissiblel and therearc certaininterpretations whichconflicrwith theteachingofthe Church. For example,we know that the "sonsof God" cannotbe angels,for this goesagainstthe Orthodoxdoctrineof angels. At other times, there is simply no need ro have a different interpretation. Forexample, we might be remptedto think, on the basisof our own opinion today,that the Patriarchs could not live nine hundredyears.We cannotreinterpret the Scripturethat way,however, unlesswe havea substantial basisfor this. We mustbe ableto show,in Scriptureor the writingsof the Fathers, that it makessense ro havethis interpretation. As for rhisparricularopinion,the Farhers all agreethat the Patriarchs did live nine hundredyears.As we haveseen,the ParriarchJacobwasawarethat a hundredand thirry yearswasquite a young agecomparedto that of the fathersbeforehim. The world wasso differenrand so new rhenthat ir is quiteplausiblethat peoplelivcd rhat long,thoughit is quiteforeignto our experience. Ve cannotoverrurn what theysaid.

500

PARTV SeIectionsfrorn Letters

Selectionsfrom Letters EDITORS NOTE: For a bachgroundto theseexeerpxfom Fr Seraphimi letters,seetheEditor! Prefaceaswcll astheEditor'sNote onp. 379. Sectiontitleshauebeensuppliedb1 the editor.Namesbauebeenabbreuiatedin ord.erto protectthepriuacy of liuing persons.

l. A Kq in the Programof Anti-Christianity (To A. Y., Atgust 16129,1972)

ofrhe Fr Seraphim, duringGrcarLrnr of 1972,rypingin rhc rcfecrory Platina,California. St, HcrmanMonasrery,

which is a hoaxand fraudifever anythingwas, /\ s ron EvoLUTloN, fI. *e havelong wantedto havea good objectiveexposC(because oF its devastatinganti-Christian religious overtonesand even foundation), but haveneverhad rhechanceto go inro it ourselves. The statementsof Fr. L. which you quotedon it soundnaivein the extreme. Over a yearago Fr.N. mentionedhe wasgoingto prinr an articleon it would be entirelycritical rhesubjectby Kalomiros,but we assumed watering and exposechewholefraudof it. Ve know ofno conceivable down or modificationof the evolutionaryhypothesiswhich would make it acceptableeither to theology,philosophy,or science--cerscientists rainly the more sophisticated today no longertake it seriously,and recognizethat it becamepopular solelyby an act of faith .. and highly riggedevidence!. Well, I think itt beyondus to start"interfering"with orherfellow Orthodox publicationsand argueover what we think they should print, unlessof coursewe havesomefactsor informationthey dont have,or unlessthey askus to giveour opinion. But surelywe havethe right to acceptor rejectwhat they do say,and even(if we feel it is nec503

GrNrsrs,Crr-arroN aNoErnly MIN essary)to publishsomethingthat contradictsit-without, of course, publicly"fighting"with them. I guesswe'll jusr haveto wait and see (theretusuallymorenoisethanevercomesout of the "grapevine" into publicview).We can'timaginerhatFr. N. or Fr. P would publishanything reallypro-evolution, but evena vaguemiddle-of-rhe-road article would be harmfulenough,in viewofthe fact that evolutionseemsto be sucha key in the wholeprogramof anri-Christianiry. 2. TheisticEuolution (To A. Y.,January3llFeb. 13, 1973) The "Evolution"afticlefor the next issuelooksvery good to us, quite comprehensive and ro the point, and alsoI dont think there's anfhing thereto which Fr. P and otherscould ob.ject(l'll tell you what I gatheredfrom rhembelow).However,rhearticlecould be improvedby expanding a little on several points: l. At the bottomofp. I you mention "anyform of euolution," and, at the end of that paragraph you speciry:"arheistic physicalevolurion, or theisticphysicalevolurion,or spiritualevolurion."Howevcr your articleis reallyaddressed almostentirelyagainstatheisticphysicalevolution and its absurdities, and somepeoplemight rakeadvantage of this ro sayyou havenireallyconsidered more"refined"formsof rheistic or spiritualevolution.In sucha short article,of course,it's really not possibleto go into them,bur perhapsa sentence or rwo moreon them will showwhl theycan'rbe rakenseriouslyeither and are nor at all more "refined"(just more vagueand confrrsed!). Thus, 'iheistic" evolution,as I understandits motives,is the inventionof men who, 6eingafaid rhatphysical evolutionis really"scientific," stick"God" in at variouspointsof theevolurionary process in ordernot ro be left our, in order to conform "rheology"to rhe "latestscientificdiscoveries." But this kind of artificialthinking is satisfactory only to the mosr "God" suppliesrhe vagueand confusedminds(for whom, apparently, energyand orderrhatcant be explainedaccordingto the SecondLaw of Thermodynamics): it is sarisfactory neitherfor theologynor Forscience,but just mixesthe rwo realmsup. Again,"spirirual"evolurionappliesrhe"conclusions" of atheisticphysicalevolutionro the "spiritual"

504

Srlr.crloNsrnov Lrrlrns rc.rlmand comesto resultswhich are monstrousand unacceptableeirher from the scienrificor the theologicalpoint of view: a mix-uP and (onfusion which can only disguiseitself in f-antasticjargon tr la Teilh,rrdde Chardin. Both thesekinds ofevolution dependentirelyon acceptanceofphysical evolution,and ifthat is shown to be unsound they llll; and in addition they are self-conrradictorybecausethe whole purlroseand intent of the theory of physicalevolution is n fnd an cxph' ation of the world without God;i.e., physical evolutionis b7 ix natare ith?istic,and it's only ridiculouswhen "theologians"run after the latest "scientific"theory in order not to be left behind by the times. I'm afraid I'm wasting too many words on this point, but you reallyshould tell the readera little more asto why other kinds ofevoluThe central point, of course,is that evotion are no more satisfactory. "scientific," but rather a kind of science-fiction lution is not at all rheology,rhe product of faith (an atheisticfaith, but nonethelessfaith). -Ihat ii is still so widely acceptedsuretyshowshow low not only theology, but just plain commonsenserhinking havefallen today.(l still remember my freshmanprofessorof zoology expatiaringon the "great ideasofman": for him the greatestidea man ever inventedwasthe idea ofevolution; much greater,he believedthan the "idea of Cod.") 2. On Piltdown, Peking,JavaMan, etc. on p. 3: lsn't Piltdown the only one that is universallyacceptedasa fraud?Ifso, it would be wisest ro emphasizeit (citing the book on the subject,if you have the referenceat hand) and menrion the great doubts and questionssurrounding the others,so as not to be accusedof racingaheadof the evidence! * youd better give a brief 'l-hermodynamics: 3. The SecondLaw of definition ar rhe beginning (seealso the enclosedclipping, showing what brought a Sovietscientistto God). 4. You end with a referenceto the "Gospel of foolishness"-which might inadvertentlylead some readersto think that, after all, you ad-

* Fora discussion ofthe rhcoryofcvolurionwith thc Secofthe incompatibiliry (the scc 7"6a ond Law of Thermodynamics univcrsal"principlcof disintcgration") -[haxton, Olscn' Rogcr L. Valtcr L. Bradlcy and Mystcryof Lifc! Otilz by CharlesB. madc by vague appcal refuration of thc pp. I l3-26. Thesepagesconraina thorough rhcrmodynamics.-Eo. non-equilibrium to open-system, evolurionists

505

CENesrs, Cne,crroN rNo Eenly Mlr.l mit that evolution somehow makessenseand you have to be higher and more spiritual to see that it 6[6c5n'1. \6-6n every level, from comnlon senseon up, evolurion is nonsense!Behold what real, unredeemedfoolishnessrhey fall into who try ro do wirhout God! The arricle, though short, is excellent,wirh a very good use of quotes from Darwin and orhers.Probablyyou will get lots of discussion on this. Perhapsone day you could pur rogerhera longer, more detailed article on evolution, with ample citations both from evolutionists (showing rheir naive faith and sloppy rhinking) and their sound critics (l recalla good book I read some yearsago by an ornithologisr: Douglas l)ewar, Dfficubies of tbe Euolutionary'lheory),"to serveas a referencesourcefor thosewho care to think seriouslyon the subjecr.In general,people are so afraid of challengingscientists"on their own ground" that they'reafraid to ger inro this subject; a little clearrhinking such as your short article alreadyrevealscan dispcl a lor of this fear and the fbg that surroundsthe question... . Fr. P.mentioneda lirtle rhe questionofevolution ([ didnt nrention your forthcoming article on the subject),enough for me to seehis basic attitude and fears,I think. His concern abour "fundamentalism" seemsto stem from a f-earrhat the Orthodox battle againstevolutionism might get bogged down azrthe samebuel as the "supposed" scientific argumentsfor ir, and there rhus might be endlessargumentson fossil evidence,rhe precisemeaning of the "Six Days," etc. He is of courseright that our Orrhodox approachto the subjectshould not be on the scientificbut ratheron the theologicallevel;but I alsogathered that he is not fully awareofthe flimsinessofthe "scientific"evidencein favor of evolutionism, which makes him perhapsoyer-cautior.ls and fearful on the whole subject.Yes,we should keep our basicapproach high and theological;but we can also blow up that "scientific" cvi-

' Douglasf)cwarwasa lcadcrof rhe EvolutionProtcsrMovcmentrharbeganin Englandin 1932.His valuablccontributions, conrainedin his 6ooksDificultiet of tltc Ettolutionary'l-heory(l,ondon, l93l) and Mote Dfficxlties of thc Euolutionary Theory(19381aresrill rcfcrrcdro. His description of rhc hyporherical evolurionof thc whale is quoted in Michael f)cnton, Ewlution: A l-heory in Cruit pp. 2 17 18 ,-Eo .

506

SelecrloNs rtou

Lt.t'rcns

clcncewhich just doesni make senscand which is really the result of blind prejudiccand falsetheologizingin the guiseofscience. 3. A Riual Thought-paxern to Orthodoxl (To Fr. N., April 5/18, 1973) 'Ihe most important point, regardingevolution: a. First ofall, let us shock you righr offby sayingthat we read the article beforepublicarion,*made many suggestions(which wereall incorporatedinto the article),and fully approvedit; and now rereadingit after receivingyour letter we find nothing seriouslywrong with it-cxceprthat it is much too short and concise.Of course,now wttn your lerrer it becomesobvious also that the approach was perhaps too abrupt and direcr for many Orthodox readerstoday,and more pr€pararion ofthem should perhapsbe made. b. l"herefore,there is obviously some deep disagreementbetween your viewsand ours on this subject.I havealwaysregardedevolution, in all its ramifications,asan important part of the "Americanmodern" intellectualbaggagewhich I left behind when I becameOrthodox, and it never before occurred to me that any aware Orthodox Christian would regardir as unimportant, especiallynow when many scientists have abandonedit (purely on scientific grounds), when the pseudoreligiouspresuppositionsof its supportersare so evidenr,and when it is so much bound up with masonry-ecumenismand the whole modern outlook. pseudo-religious We were frankly astonishedat your objection to the article, and havebeen thinking long and hard to try ro find your thinking on this subject.Then it occurredto us: apparentlyyou regard"modern" ideas 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 theological(evolution). Is this true? Nonetheless,I don't see how it can be denied thar aboutin rhc prc' Thc arriclcon cvolurionby A. Y, which Fr.Scraphimspeaks vioussection.-ED.

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 .onverts didn't seemto grasp this point, and some of them began to ,liscusshow this or that modern current crn be understoodor accepted or criricizedin terms of Orthodoxy-a falseoutlook, becausethereare rrvo quite separatemental worlds involved,and the differenceis rather .. grcarcrrhan that berweenrwo totally unrelatedlanguages.. Ve fully agreewith A. Y that "evolution is one of thc most dan€ierous conceptsthat facesthe C)rthodoxChrisrian today"-perhaps it is rhe very key (intellectual)to the assaultuPon the Church, to the very "philosophy"(and there is such a thing!) of the coming Antichrist.If *c understandyou and Father E. aright, you regard it as merely an "idei'which one can take or leave,and which can involve one in endlcss modernist-fundamentalistdiscussionswhich are totally Pointless (how many "hours" itt the first "sevendays"?etc.). Ve certainly agree of such discussions,but now the issueis much on rhe pointlessness decperthan that; "evolution" is a whole mind-set that is quite incomDatiblewith Orthodoxy. But that is a treatisein itself.A. Y.'sarticle,as i said, is much too brief, but perhapsit will havethe good effectofinspiring a thorough treatment of the subiecr (zat a "modernist-

Church, develop in arheist-agnostic minds, and then move through the whole ofsociery unril rhey reachthe Church, changingform in rhe meanrimeto fit in with eachcurrent o[ideas. "Evolurion" is one such idea (but iti not reallyan "idea"-see below) thar has not yet directly attacked Orrhodoxy. But look whar it has already done to Roman Catholicism: is it nor rrue rhar rhe whole dissolution of Roman Catholicism in the last decadeis directly bound up with the "unleashing" of Teilhardism (whose books were more or less banned up to then) in that sameperiod, a processwhich was presentedfor popular consumption ten yearsago in a rather cheap bur symptomatic novel, The Shoesof the l:ishermani By rhis I do not mean rhar a certain number of Teilhardian rheseswere opposed to so many Roman Catholic thesesand conqueredthem: for his evolution is not really a "heresy"(we will agreerhat this rerm applied ro him, especiallyfrom the Orthodox side, is imprecise!), but rather a whole riual thoughtpartern offering a whole different approach to life (and, consequently, religion);and being alreadyso much a part ofthe "spirit ofthe age,"irs approachwas persuasivenor by argumenr bur by fitting in with unconsciousarrirud€sof peoplewho wereoutwardly Roman Carholic. 'We were rather surprisedwhen you (and Fr. E., too, as I recall) mentioned thar you haven'rreadTeilhardand weren'rfimiliar with his ideas;i.e., you are waiting for the wave to hit Orthodoxy before you starr rhinking of rhe subject.But really,Teilhardismis the "Christianity" (and "C)rthodoxy")ofthe furure, or rarher its metaphysicalfoundarion (it firs very nicely in with "charismatic"phenomena),and it is by no meansroo early to find out whar is hitting us! Here ir may well be that A. Y.'sposition (as a layman in rhe midst of the world, and coming from outsideof Orthodoxy which hasalreadybeencomplerely captured by "evolutionary''spirituality and philosophy) has enabled him to be aware of somerhing that the more "shehered"Orthodox (clergy,monks, lifelong Orthodox) simply don't see yet. How overjoyed I myself was ro find this "shelteredness" when I becameOrthodox, becauseI saw that in this "world-ro-itself" I would be able to change completely my menral orientation (not to menrion spirirual) and no longer think at all in terms oI the reigning despotismof ideas

508

tundamentalist"fight, but alsonot what Fr. E. apparentlywants to do, to srand so far abovethe issuethat one can't even discern that evolution ri a crucial question,and destructiveof Orthodoxy not so much orientation.). becauseof its thesesasbecauseof its in rellectual-spiritual Significantly,the same mail that brought your letrer brought also Concern,withthe articleofTheodosiusDobzhansky(who iust received a l)octorate honoris causafrom Sr. Vladimir's Seminary)on "Evolution: God's Method of Creation." Vell, here are the argumentsof an "Orrhodox evolutionist,"and they are the sameas all other evolutionary arguments,emotional faith with not one shredofgenuine evidence ro support it (although hc presentsmaterialtha( looksvery fbrmidable and "scientific").But more importanr: readbetweenthe lines and answer: does this man believein God as a true Orthodox Christian believes in Him? He does not! He believesin Him as "modern" man believes;he is a deist.And very revealingis his conclusion:"One of rhe greatrhinkersofour age,Teilhardde Chardin, wrote the following: 'ls evolution a theory a system,or a hypothesis?It is much more-it

509

is a

CrNrsts, Cnt:.erroNrNo Early MaN

Seu.clroNsrRoMLETIERS

generalposrulatero which all rheories,all hypotheses,all sysremsmust henceforwardbow and which they must sarisfyin order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminatesall facts,a trajectory which all linesof thought musr follow-this is what evolution is."' This indeed is Ieilhardism, and by "all theoriesand sysrems"hc meansin particulartheologyand spiritualiry,as being parr of rhe highest evolutionarylayer,the 'iroosphere,"which is just now converging in the evolutionaryapexcalledthe "Omega Point" or "Super Chrisr." I hate to appcar"fundamentalisr,"but this mammoth srrucrureresrson just a few little "fundamenral"lacts (or fabrications),which mosr people seemalraid to get near becausethey seemso "scientific,"beginning with the transitionofone speciesinro another and so up the ladder. -lb sum up: Whareverweaknesses A. Y.'sarticle on evolution may have,it is an attempr ro answera realproblemwhich we cannot avoid: that ideologicalorientation and value-systemwhich is taughr in all pubfic schools as fact which poisons and strrpefiesOrthodox ^nd minds without ever atracking Orthodoxy as such.A. Y.i responseis sound, evenif it is nor (ofcourse) perfect.Ve Orrhodox are nor afraid to be "narrow" on the questionof ecumenism;why should we be afraid ro be "narrow" on the quesrionofevolution) fhe wvo issues,after all, are very closelybound up with eachother.

matters,ecumenism,etc., r.,hcdrhat people so keen on ccclesiastical should seemneverto havegiven much thought to such an important rhing as evolution; appar€ntlyit is becauseit seemsto be outside the ( ihurch sphere).... Ve must be "wise as serpenrsand gentle as dovcs" in what we do .rnd say now and by no meansmust we allow ourselvesto be dragged into an argument on "modernis(-fundamentalisi'lines. Maybe they irrc"modernists,"I don't know; but we certainlyare not fundamental'l ists. he truth lies much deeperthan either of these nterely rational positions,and it will not be easyto presentit so that ir will be properly understood,judging from Fr. N.'s 6rst r€sPonse.I don't think either ),ou or we should "argue"at all, but preParefor a more thorough Presenrarion of the whole subject. Frankly, we want to really persuade rhem, and rhe way to do that is to go into the subjectdeeply,especially the spiritual implications. Whar we must keep in mind and get across,I think, is not really cvolurion as a beresyor wrong idea, on the same level with other ideas, and rherefbrego out fighring with the ordinary weaponsof polemics' Evolurion is not that kind of idea-but rather a kind of deep-seated primordial force which seemsto capturepeoplequite apart from their a good reasonfor that: it's consciousattitudesand reasoning.(There'.s been drilled into everyonefrom the cradle,and thereforeis very hard ro bring out and look at rationally.) k's a riual thought-patternro Or' thodoxy, not just another idea. Your article,beyond any doubt, is going to make you "unpopular" in places.Do not let this discourageyou, or force you into a "defensive"posrure.Your article is probablygoing to do somethingvery painful at first but ultimately positive: bring out into the oPen some attitudeswhich havelong been hiding in the shadows.

4. A Deep-seatedPrimordial Force

(ToA. Y.,April 5/I 8, 1973) Just a note. Ve receivedMonday a rather shocking letrer from Fr. N. expressing extremedispleasure wirh your "evolution"article. He apparentlysentyou a letter,too, a copy ofwhich he said he wasenclosing in his letter ro us (bur he didni). After reading his letter, we read your article together once again-and neitherof us find anyrhing wrong with it, exceptthat it is much roo shorr and concise.After looking in vain for any other source of Fr. N.'s displeasure, we can only concludethat Fr. N. and Fr. E. apparentlyare just nor awareof the whole issueof evolution, wherher in its scientificside or in its religious-rheological implications.Obviously your article has touched somerhingvery deep (frankly we are asron-

510

Eullution Is Not Scientifc 5. TheArgumentag/1inst but Theological (To Fr. N., PalmSundaylApril91221,1973) (By theway,in caseI didni makeit clearin my lastletrer, theargu"scientific"theoryof evolutionis not itself menragainstrhesupposed 5l I

GENlsrs,CnrarloNeNo E,rnryMaN scientific,lor "science"itself can neither prove nor disproveir, for science it's only guesswork:rhe argumentagainsrir is rheological,thar it involvesimplicationswhich are enrirely unacceptablefor Orrhodory, and theseimplicationscan't be escaped,and everypropounder ofevolution usesthem, rhe theistsand spiritualistsbeing worse than rhe atheists.) 6. The Real Intellectual Problemsof Tbday

(To A. Y.,June29lluly 12, 1973) 'We receivedFr. E.! "Open Letter" roday,togetherwith your note. Yes,we foundtoo that he completely missedrhepoinr,andall the very nice quotes from the Fatherson rhe different degreesof knowledge meannothingwhenone stopsto realizerharyou arenor ar all atracking scientifichnowlrdge, but only pseudoscientific, pseudo-religious philosophymasquerading as science,and you are using scientific knowledgenor to defend theologybut only to desrroythe selfcontradictorytheoriesof rhe pseudo-scienrisrs. Are thesepointsreally sodifficultto understand or imoossible to defend? Unlesswe arecrazy,Fr. E. irasgoneoff somewhere in rhe clouds and is not at all in contactwith what is goingon in rhe world today, intellectually-whichis verymuchof concernto OrthodoxChrisrians who live in this world. Fr. 8., in trying to standso far "above"rhe wholequestion,doeszargivethe impression thar he speaksfrom the heightsofthe third degreeofknowledge(whichseems ro be what he is tryingto hint at?),but ratherusesrhisexalredknowledge lor ratherrationalisticpurposes. We areverydisappointed to seesuchnarrowness. And the replyofrhe morherro theOrthodox"highschoolyouth"(this apparentlysums up his "answer"to the whole problem of evolution!)-how naiveand spineless!* Can Fr. E. reallybe so unawareof ' Fr E. hadwrinen rhar,ifan Orrhodoxyouthcomcshomcfrom schoolrclling his nrorhcrrharhe lcarnedrharmancvolvcdfrom a lowerspecies, thc mothcr'.s bcsr replywould bc,"My ['oy,(iod couldhavecrcatedusby any mannerHe wishcd,and no onewill everbc ablero explainor comprehcnd His ways.All we cando is thank Him for creatinsus."-Eo.

5t2

SrLecrroNs rnou Lrlltns

rhe anti-Christianpurposesof such "scientific"educarion?His reply is ln open invitation to rhe youth ro acceptwhateverthe school teaches him-bccause we poor Orthodox Christians,alas,having such high knowledge,can't "know any better." ['ll tell you frankly (but dont quote me!)-this isnf theology,ir's hogwash.Therel a real and pressing problem here, and you've attacked it honestly,freshly,and well (consideringthe short spaceyou had); if there are deficienciesor mrsrakesin what you'vesaid, they can be talked about in a friendly nranner. But alas,his only aim is to discredityou and pur you in your place. 'l his is wrong and sick. Forgivemy strong language.... After readingFr. E.'sepistle,we begin (o despairabout the "Greek wisdom" of our own day, which seemsto have all too much in common with the ancient variery!Vhat will happen when they really begin to find out how simple and unconcernedabout all those things that excitethem we "Russians"are?One basicelement seemslacking in all their "wisdom," one which the Holy Fathersemphasizeis essential for genuineOrthodox life: suffering.The "wisdom" born of leisure and idle disputesis not worth having; but the wisdom born of deep suffering(suchasGod hasgiven aboveall to the Russiansin our day) is alone truly balancedand sound, evenifit can nor give a glib answerto every mocking question.Ler us try to enter more deeply into this suffering,God giving us His graceto do so!... Any reply you make to Fr. E. should be brief and ro the poinr. He lras obviously taken unfair advantageof you in order thoroughly to discredityou, basedon rhe rcpurarionof the monasteryas againstyou, a "nobody." He is riding on a currenr of inrellecrualfashion,and rhis will pass,and it will not be for the good ofrhe monasterythat it hasallowed itself to do this and not facethe rral intellcctualoroblemsof the

d"v.... It will not be easyto ger the point of your longer study on evolution acrossto peoplewho think like Fr. 8., but with Cod! help it can be done. There is somethingdeep and importanr here-a rather "academic" approach to theology that does nor come to grips with the ant i-rheology of our day.

5t3

(lsNrsls. CnerrroN aNo F,nnr-yMIN

7. Such "Theology" We Do Not Need (]b A. Y., Jdy 4117,1973) Just a note. Fr. E.'s letter has sunk in a little deeper,and ir makes us even more disturbed than at first. This is zar an answer to ut4rlthing and is a disserviceto English-speakingOrrhodox Christians. Such 'theology" we do not need. Ve thought of writing a note to him ourselves,but there is no point, sincehe alreadyhas readour letters to Fr. N. defendingyou and speakingof the need for all of us to get rid of our 'American modern" intellectualbaggagere: evolution, etc. 'Without entering into a public debatewith him, we should by all meanstry to prcsentsound Orthodox viewson thosepoints where he is obviouslyoffthe beam.Your "evolution"booklet will be very important from this point of view,and we are writing out a number of points which we hope to seetreatedor mentioned rhere,and also some suggestionson how to avoid being placedinto certainstereorypedcategories,by which peoplecan be persuadednot even to listen to what you say.Do you havea generaloutline of the arricleyet? 'We've written Dr. Kalomiros a letter,and hope to receiveconfirmation of our suspicion that he is quire wrongly used as virtually a proponent of evolution. 8. A Produx of'tbe "Spirit of the Times" (To Fr. N., August l9lSeptember I , 197.3) -I'hank you for your new letter.On "evolution": what can we say in reply? We will tell you just what we think: the article on "exetasres"*by no meansis an "objectiveOrthodox presentationon evolution"-it is rather a simple-minded"liberal" presentation,in no way different from what any Protestantor Catholic magazinemight publish, and is exactlywhat one would expecrof the Greek Archdiocese, in harmony with its general"liberal" orientation.-l'he article does nor

SrI-ecrloNs rnov Lnrlrns

cvcn raisethe mosrseriousquestions which "evolution"poses,much lessanswerthem. It is an absolurely typicalproductof the "spirit of rhctimes." ApparendyFou think ratherdifferenrly.But Father,let therebe peaceamongus!"Evolution"is an extremely complicated quesrion,all aspects of it considered, and not one of us is in a posirionto know "all aboutit" and givea definitivejudgmenton all irs aspecrs. Callingit a "heresy," of courseis a greatsimplification, lor it is much morecomplexthan that,and it is evidentthat differentpeoplehavequitedifferent things in mind when they hear the word "evolution,"which conrplicates nlattersevenmore.A. Ys articlewas intendednot for theologians but for simplepeople,and thereforeits toneand presenra tion areadmirredlysomewhatsimplisticand sharp.-fherearedisadvantagesro this, rhe first of which is that it obviouslydidnt say anythingro youa.ndapparently othersof a similaroutlook.Obviously fbr suchpeoplea much morethoroughpresentarion shouldbe made, and I think thiswould makeit much easierfor you ro seehow inade<;uaterhe "Exerastes" arricleis, aswe rhink. Ifyou had readthe grotesque,satanic'theology"of'Ieilhardde Chardin,you would certainly geta funny feelingfrom an arriclein whichhe is heldup asan example of a reasonable approachto this<1ucsuon. 9. Looking Forward with an OpenMind (To A. Y.,September 812l, t973)

Yesterday we finallyreceived a replyfrom AlexanderKalomrrosro our letter inquiring as to his viewson sy6lulisn-3nd he promrse soonto senda detailedreplyin English,with quotesfrom the Holy Fathers.We look forwardro rhiswith open mind and someexpecra tion! 10. QuibblingouerWords (To A. Y.,Veek of November6, t973)

Concerningevolution:Fr. E. is quibblingoverwords,because he simplydoesnor understand rhewholequesrion.He obviouslymrsun-

"-Eo. '(lrcek for "evolution.

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 "scientific" statement, but is only, quite properly, ridiculing thc who find mans origins in the ape-kingdom).and St. pseudo-scientists (who Basif is scientificallycorredin his staremenron pines and oaks, and he certainlydid not intend to saythat the srelof one producesthe emphasizesthat each kind of creaother, since the whole Hexaemeron ture reproduces only accordingto its kind). But it is futile to make an answerto thesepoinrs:rather,the whole discussionmust be placedin a different, more seriousconcext.Hopefully, this will be what your future article on evolution will do (wheneverGod wills!).

just right, can be very important for giving our genuineOr1'rcsented rhodox outlook on contemporaryscience and "wisdom." I've also found commentarieson Genesisby St. Ephraim rhe Syriln and St. John Chrysostom,and some more isolatedstatemenrsin othcr Fathers.There can be no doubt at all how the FathersunqcrsroodGenesis-quite "literally''!I was at f.irsta litrle uncertainabour a quore from St. Gregory the Theologian,showing that he regardedrhe trec ofthe knowledgeofgood and evil asa symbol; and some Fathers, suchasSt. Gregoryof Nyssa,are full ofsuch symbols,leadinga scholar like Florovskyto ask:doeshe understandthe accountofcreation asenrirely symbolic or not? And then, to resolvemy uncertainry,leaf.ing through a French translationwe haveofSt. Gregory Palamas,I found that, in opposingthosewho saythat the UncrearedLight of Mt. 'Iabor is only a "symbol," he cites the very passagelrom St. Gregory the Theologian about the tree ofknowledge, and says that ofcoursehe also acceptedit ashaving an existenceof its own! All ofthese quotespur rogethershould do much to give our Orthodox peoplethe sound Orrhodox approachto Cenesisand creation,which I think many are now afraid of, due to the prestigeof "science."

I L The Holy Fathers as the Ansaer to Medieual Scholasticism (Ib A. Y., Jantary 9122, 1974) lnterestingly,just before receivingyour letter I was reading and rhinking about Khomiakov's close friend Kireyevsky,who thought very similarly and is even better becauseof his closeconnection with Optina and the Holy Fathers....Kireyevsky'sthoughts on the difference berweenthe Catholic-Westernmentality and Orthodoxy might well serveas an article or pamphletalso,which would be very instructive especiallyfor converts roday.The answerto Medieval scholasticism, he says,is the great Orrhodox Fatherswho lived at the same time-namely, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory the Sinaite, St. Gregory Palamas. And speakingof this contrast,my researchinto the Fathersconcerning evolution hasturned up somethingremarkable-the Catholic and Orthodox doctrinesofAdam and crearionare significanrlydifferent, and "evolution" can be fitted rather nicely preciselyinto the Catholic doctrine, but not at all into the Orthodox! This point can be made pretry well by comparing severalpassagesof the Summa Theologicaof 'I'homas Aquinas (l always wondered why I kept that book!) wirh rhe passage from St. Symeonwhich you have,and another from St. Gregory rhe Sinaite.The whole discussionof "evolution," if it is ' Seeabove,pp. 451 n.-Eo.

5 t6

12. Scientifc Faith (To A. Y, January24lFebrvry 6, 1974) Here are some more noteson evolution, specificallyyour chapters which we are returning herewith... . Presumablyyour conclusion at the end of this chapter [on the popular sciencetextbook Early Manl will zar be: "Evolution is proved falseand specialcreariontrue," but rather:evolution, presentedpopularly as "fact" and "truth," has no coercivescientificevidencewharever ro supporrit. All the supposed"proofs"ofevolution can equallybe used to "prove" another theory, depending on your presuppositions.Here you should setdown in summary form all the major "proofs" of evolution (preferablyquoting some major evolution textbook, or perhaps Enqclopedia Britannica-the eleventh edition lists eight evidences), a whole philosophyofnaturewhich is not showing rhat they presuppose "proofs" from at all derived but from the intellectualclimateofthe age.

Cr:ruesrs, Cr

n'ror.llNo EARryMeN

(See,for example,the enclosedbooklet,' p. 67.) Here you should also havesome quotesfrom evolutionistsrhemselves showing how rhey rcalize that there is no actual coerciveproof of evolvion; bur thar it "makes more sense,"or "the alternativeis unthinkable"-i.e. Godb creation;or other similar quotes.And when you thus quote evolutionists "againsr themselves,"as ir were, you should be careful not to "pounce"on them and say'Aha, they disprovethemselves"-but rather continue in a serenetone, zot taking maximunr advantageof their admissions-becauseyou are going to let all their self-incriminatingevidence speak for itself, until it piles up and at the end becomes absolutelyself-evident,and then your own summarionofthis evidence will be very powerful! And then, hereis whereyou should give the intellectual"conrext"

SrlscrroNs rnou Lerrsns

'Kenncch N. Taylor, comp. and cd., Enlution and the High ScboolStudent ( l 972).-8 r,. ** John Herman Randall,Jr, Tbc Mahing of thc Molcrn Mind: A Sururyof thc IntellectxatBaclgroandol thePracatAge(1926).-Flo.

I doni know what or how much you planned to write on "Ortho.lox cvolutionists"and Teilhard, but I rhink it might be possiblero combine them in a single chapter called "Christian evolutionism." (llarher in the same way that, in our "charismatic"arricle, we combined testimony from Protestant,Catholic, and Orthodox chansmatics-both becausethe tesrimony of all groups reinforce each other, irnd bccausethere is really no differenceberweenthem; so also, "Orrhodox evolutionism"is exactlythe sameas "Carholic evolutionism.") 'I-his also would give more punch to the secrionwhich I arn compiling to lollow the Patristicquotes, and which mighr be called, effecrively I hope: "Latin Scholasticism:The Theological Foundation of 'Christian Evolutionism."' ln such a chapter on "Christian evolurionism," a basic thing ro show will be that adding "God" to evolution doesnot at all changeits basic philosophical-theologicaloutlook and intent. God becomcs a deusex machinafor savingevolutionwhen the absurdiryofbelieving in ir without God, as a pure chanceprocess,becomesroo evident.Thus, quoting f)obzhanskyand others,you can show how rhey believein rhe slme ndturalistic universe,without God's interference,asdo the atheistic evolutionists:the denial of God's Providence,etc. As the climax to this secrion:Teilhard de Chardin as exrremely symptomaticof the "spirit of the age"-a "religious"thinker hascome into fashion,favoredevenby Julian Huxley and the SovietUnion! (l'll send some material from Russiaon 'leilhard.) You might look at Lecomte du Noiiy also, since rhe Greek Archdiocesearricle menrions him togetherwith f'eilhard de Chardin.. . . An important part of this "Christian evolutionism"chapter:quore Teilhardde Chardin (the passage quoted by Dobzhanskyat the end of his article) on evolution as absolurely"universal"-by this time the mere quoting of this passage will alreadyshow the readerhow much such a view is dependenton simply absorbingthe "spirit ofthe rimes." This quote showsthe blind faith of some "religious"figuresin the latest current ofscientific faith; and it offersan exactparallelto the blind faith crf Alexander Pope in a diferent scienrific f'airh: his adoration of Newton and his mechanical-deist universeof oerfect order. which was mocked a century later by Volrairei Candidi, a sarireon rhe "best of

518

5t)

oFevolution.... It is too much lor most readersto undersrandthe whole movement of Humanism, etc.: besideswhich, they are still not disposedto think you are giving rhem the realsrory about it. k would be good to quote an authoritative,objectivesourceAr this point. So: enclosedfind five pagesof quotes from a good rexrbook on modern "intellectualhistory."**The author is himself "modern" and believesin evolution, and so doesnot haveyour "prejudices"iyer he is quire precise and aware on the whole. These excerptsshow accuratelythe changefrom the Newtonian mechanisticuniverseto the evolutionary universeof our times.Somequoteslike rhese,perhapswith a few comments in berween,may be all you needto esrablishrhe "inrellectualclimate" in which evolution dcvelooed. Now you are ready ,o ih" areaof philosophy and thcorogy; "n,". for the lack of xrict stientifc proofof evol:rion m€ans rhar thesequestions basicallyare not scientifc,but come from faith. Ar the sametime you disengageyourselffrorn the dead-endof trying to "disprove"evolution: by scienceit can be neither proved nor disproved;it is a quesrion of a diflerenr order rhan science.

Gewrsrs,CnarrroNeno Eanlv MaN

SErrcrroNsnnolr Lerrtns

all possibleworlds" (rhe phraseis Leibniz's,but it sums up the faith of the whole seventeenthto early eighreenrhcentury philosophical"establishment"). Pope'swords ... will perhapsmake your readersbegin ro see that one should not place so much Faith in any scientific philosophy-faith. AlexanderPope,"Essayon Man":

creation-Adam, which is totally independent of all scientiflc fashions. For Orthodoxy DOES NOT FOLLO\fl THE PHIT.OSOPHY OF THE ACE, becauseit has its own philosophybasedon revelarion. .l'he Holy Fathershave a complete theologyof the origin of man and creation which is not bound up with any intellectual fashion that passes away.This docrrine is not modified with every passingphilosophy, is not bound up with either the staticuniverseofperfbct harmony of Newton (which departedfrom Orthodoxy by rnaking the unrverse p'trely nanralistir-and evolution is actuallyjusr rhe presentphilosophy of the naturalizeduniversedivorced frorn Cod and His action), nor with rhe developing universeof Teilhard de Chardin and othcr fashionablethinkers t oday. Our philosophy is NO'I' OF -f H IS \(iORLD, and it is THE ANS\iflER ro rhe vain speculationsof motlern man: Above all, the whole study should be assimple and as much to the point and as "obiective"as possible.lf one acceptsrhe principle of objecriviry and believesin the Holy Fathers-then the whole study,even in a very low key, should graduallybuild itself up to a devastatingand convincingconclusion. By the way, in your "scientific"chaptersI hope you havea gooo account of the "carbon dating system"and whatever"evidence"there is lor "millions of years";also,you must be preparedfor answersin several points o[ the "history of mankind"-how do you explain Neanderthal Man, for example?.. .' 'We've receivedFr. N.'s newesrcommenrson evolurion, where he trics to identifr anti-evolutionismwith the secrarianfringe. Vhy such pointlesscomments?One sensesthat he somchow feelsunsafion evofution, is somehow threatened 6y anri-evolurionism.Actually, he only confusesmore thosepeoplewho are alreadyuncertainenough what to believeabout evolution. And then yesterdaywe receivedfrom the "Z-ion Orrhodox He rmirage"a copy ofthe letter to Fr. N. which you had alreadyshowedus, ro-

All are but partsofone stupendouswhole, Vhose body Nature is, and God the soul .. . All Nature is but Art. unknown to thee: All chance,direction,which thou canstnot see; All discord,harmony not understood; All partial evil, universalgood: And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite, One truth is clear,whateveris, is right. And in anotherplacein Pope'sworks: Nature and Nature'slawslay hid in night: Cod said, Zet Newton be!and all was [,ight. Volraire mocked this philosophy becauseit had become out ofdtte; and thus your readeris warned, the suggestionis made: maybe evolution too is such a passingfaith that will becomeout ofdate one day,or is alreadybecoming so! And this inevitablyhappensif Christian philosophyacceptsthe philosophyof rhe "spirit of the age," which comes and goes.In generalit will be a good idea to contrastthe Newtontan universewith the evolutionary:this contrasrwill give the readerprobably all the intellectual"context" of evolution he needs,and in a very painlessway, without forcing him ro understandthe whole hisrory of modern thought. Many peoplesimply arent awarethat there has ever been a "science"that wasnt "evolutionary,"and the contrast between Newton and evolution shows how one scientifictheory givesway to the next. Thus you will undermine the scientific"Faith"ofyour readers! (ln our theologicalsection,we will also be quoting St. Basil the Great and Fr. Michael Pomazanskyon this subject.)...The climax of the whole arriclewill then be in presentingthe Orthodox theology of

520

' For an answer to rhis question, sec Marvin l-. I-rrberroq Ronu ofCoucntion: A OrcatiortistAstetsmentof Human Fotsib, ch. 6.-Et>.

521

Grrur-srs, Cnr,rrroN aun Enp.ry M,rN

StlrcltoNs rnov Lelrens

getherwirh an articlewhich we hadn'tseen,called"The Creation Narrative."Seeingthequotefrom St.Hippolyruson pagel, we looked Forwardto somePatristicdocumentation. Bur alas,the authordoesnt come throughwith this, and he turns out to be quire vagueon rhc wholesubjecthimselflIn the nexrto lastparagraph of p. 2 he quite loseshimselfin wild "specularions" which are not only unscriprural (l've neverheard.of anyonewho threw dinosaursinbeforethe Six Days of Creation)but are also doctrinallyunsound(the suggesrion that therecould havebeenevil in the visiblecrearionbeforeAdam'srransgression)..ln a word, the aurhoris quite naive,and in his fear thar "sciencemight be right" about the "millionsof years"he alreadyhas quitea lot in comnronwith manypresent-day evolutionisrs.

comments about "Vestern rarionalisrs,"etc. However, he ends very nicely and begs us to tell him where he is wrong-ra ue m st do this. Frankly, I would like to "convcrr" him completely. But God only knows what is possible,and how much his mind is srill open. The most encouragingthing is thar he, like us, regardsthe matter as rxtrcmelyimportant, as opposed to those who think it's unimportant and that everyonecan believeas he wishes.Virh Dr. Kalomiros at last the realbattle begins. You can read the letter on your next visit (l'm beginning now on rry reply to it), but in generalrhis is my feelingabout ir (Fr. Herman hasn'treadit yet): l. Patristicallyit is very weak.Very lew Fathersare quoted, and rhe only really "evolutionary" quote is a passagefrom St. Gregory of 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 who alreadybelieues in evolurion will be sure ro rhink it'proves evolurion."' It does not, 6f 66u15g-i1 is merely a generalstatementof the orderly progressionof Gods creation from the lowest to the highesr, with the most perfect creature,man, coming last. Nothing is said about man or any creature"evolving,"and in another part of the same book (Oa the Making of Man) St. Cregory saysexplicidy that Adam was azgenerated,but wascreateddirectly by Christ. 2. Therc is a long 'theological"discourseon man! narure,which is very partial and one-sided,but will requirea solid answerwith quores fiom Holy Fathers-for evolution aboveall involvesa ldse anthropolagr,,doctrine of man. 3. It is quite obvious that Kalomiros has gone ro rhe Fathersa/readyknowing that evolution is a "fact." He obviously has zal given deep thought to examining thc presuppositionsof rhe "hct" ofevolution, so we will have to challengehim to srart thinking and not bring to the Holy Fathers his preconceptionsbased on modern l7estern "wisdom."

li. At Lastthe RealBanleBegins (To A. Y, Fcbruary25lMarch10, 1974) Ve received yesterday rhelong-awaited epistleof Dr. Kalomiroson "evolution"-forry pageslongl I must confessthat it is shockingbeyond our expecrations-giving the "evolutionary" reachingquite un"evolved adorncdand unqualified, conrplere wirh the beastAdam"and "he who deniesevolutiondeniesrheSacredScriptures." In a way,howwe rather ever, are glad of this-because nowfor thefrst timewe have Founda reputableOrthodox"evolutionisr" who is willing to be quite frank about matterswhich orhers,I believe,are afraid to speakup aboutfor fearofoflending"weakconscienccs" whichareqnder"Vesterninfluences." I havewritrcn him a shortlertersayingI wish ro makea long and detailedreplyto him and to starta "dialogue"with him on rhissubject. I believethat if we cananswerhim point by point, and raisethe pointshe doesnimention,we canmakerheForthcorning publicationa verypowerfulone. I must confess to beingratherdisappointed in the toneo( his lerter,which is somewharin rhe "elevated" tone of Fr. E., with repeated * Theseidcasarcactuallyderivcdfrornrhe"Gap" theory,which posits rharrhcre werebillionsof yearsof carthhistorylxfore the Six D:rys.Sccp.603 below-Eo.

4. He is ueryimpreciseon rhe vcry meaning of the word "evolution"-he thinks the development from embryo to mature man is "evolution," and that the existenceof dilferenr racesof men is due to "evolution." Very naive.

\') )

523

MaN GarrsIs, Cnt,rltoN lruo E,anr-v

SELtctrous rrlolt Lr.lruts

5. The man is zar a theologian,but readsthe Fathersby hit and m iss.

on this subject,but only wish ro acceptrhe teachingof the Holy Farhcrs. So far we have not found any "evolutionist" or "antievolutionist" who sersforth the real Orthodox teachingon this subject, and that is why we ourselveshavebeenmaking rescarchon it. 'fhc Protestanrfundamentalistobjectionsto evolution are nrostly superficial and rationalistic(as you yourselfhave noted), being basedon an interpretation of the book of Genesis that comes fiom "comnron sense,"and not from tbe Holy Fathers. 'We are not theologians(and I will tell you frankJyrhar we distrust peoplewho call themselves'theologians,"for almost all of them seenr to us to be .justacademicrationalisrs)bur we dearly hue rhe Holy Fathers and wish to live by their teaching,and we sensethar you
14. Louefor the Ho$ Fathers (To Dr. AlexanderKalomiros, February25, SecondSundayof Great Lem, 1974) 'We

havereceivedyour letter concerning"evolution," for which we thank you very much. I haveread it, trying, as you said,to removeall 'Wesrern conceptionsfrom my mind. I hope, if God gives me the srrength,to study your points carefullyand write you a very long and detailedreply beforetoo long, but for che presentI wish to say only a few things. I myselfhavebeensearchingthe Holy Fatherslor some time seeking ro find out their teachingon the questionswhich are raisedby "evolution." I have been compiling a great many passages from rheir in which you quote your letwrirings, including most ofthe passages ter. I have tried very hard not to project into these passagesany "Preconceived" opinions of my own, but I must acknowledgerhat my conclusionsregardingthe teachingof the Holy Fathersarequite different from yours. I believethat I can show you that some ofyour interpretationsof the Holy Fathersare incomplete-that is, rhat you have presentedonly a part of their teachingand haveoverlookedother parts that are quite essentialto rhe question.I would also like to presentro you Patrisrictexts on questionswhich you do not raisein your letter, but which I believeare alsoquite essentialfor understandingthe quesrions raisedby evolution. I note also in your letter that your use of the term "evolution" is somewhatimprecise,and I would like to discussthis question also in somedetail. I agreewith you that this subjectis vital and extremelyimportant. W'ehavefound very few peoplewho are willing or able to think clearly on this subject,with the result rhat there is much confusion in the minds of Orthodox laithful concerningit. Ve are thereforevery grateful to you for writing your viewsso clearlyand outspokenly. Like you, we also do not want to have merely "our own opinion"

I have almost finished my "reply" to Dr. Kalomiros, and I rhink God has helped me to put all the Patrisricmaterial (or almost all) I havebeen collecting into a coherenrpresentation,and much more effectivelythan if I had gone aheadwith the "soberand objective"presentarion I had plannedon. One ofthe Egyptian Eldersonce said to St. John Cassian(roughly!):"l'm glad you expressedrhis questionso stupidly, becausenow I can clearlyset fonh the nue d,octrine."Kalomiros has expressed"stupid evolutionism"so well (which orher Greeksare afraid to do openly), that the reply to him almost writes itself! Although I know the Fathersonly poorlS still rheir doctrine touching on "evolution" is so clear once one purs ir all rogerher,that I am simply amazed at the power "evolution" has over even educaredOrthodox minds. Such is the power of this world and its fashionableideas.I will

>24

525

15. The Power ofT'his \Yorld and lts Fashionable Ideas (To A. Y, Marci 2115, 1974)

GrNrsrs,CnLqlroNann Elnrv MaN

SrLrcrtoNs rnov Lnt.rr:ns

send you a copy of my letter and Kalorniros'letter also when I finish ryping ir...._itis almosr twiceas longas Kalomiros' letter to us and will probablybe lorty printed pages. Of course,now that I've done this I donf quite know what relation to this lerter has to our projectedbook-which is absolutelynecessary ger out! It may be that the book mighr be nrost effectivepreciselyin this letrer form, only somewhatrevisedand divided up into chapters, and with all your scientificand philosophicalmaterial enteredat the appropriate places.(You will notice that I mention this marerial at variouspoinrs of the Ietterwithout going into it, as the letter is almost entirely Patristic.)Anyway,seewhat you think onceyou readthe letter, and we will alsoseewhat Kalomiros replies... . Of course,many peoplewill be upsetthat the evolution questionis "raised"againand not kept quiel-[u1 \'vsagreewith Kalomiros that it 'l-here is shou/d.be raised and the true Patristic teaching set forth. somerhingvery unsound about wishing to keep "quiet" about a quesrion which remainsso confusedin most Orthodox minds.... Prayfor us. Tbday I hope to finish the lastand most important section of rhe lerter to Kalomiros, concerning the nature of man-on which Kalomiros has expressedsomething perilously close to Augusrinianism,basedon a very wrong interpretationof the words of St. Seraphimof Sarovl

rcallya marterof indifferenceeirher;there is a profound Patristic teachingin this,as I indicarein my lerterro Kalomiros.But it would be good to havefurther Patristictestimonyon this-so pleasesayif you know of any.We will continueto collectPatrisric materialfor rhe finalversionof the book.

| 6. Unknowingly Harboring "Modcrn ldeas" (To A. Y, March 9/27, 1974)

17. GcnuineScience (To A. Y.,St.ThomasTuesday, April 10, 1974)

For my own background I checkedout rwo booksin rhe Redding library: RaymondDarr's/z Searchof the MissingLink, which looks to bc roo popular to be of much use;and [Louis] Leakey'sAdam\ Ancesrarr, to which I find myself,after a few chapters,rather symparhetic, irrasmuch as ir seemsto be rathercarefuland precisescientifically (of course,fone discounrs thearremptto fir all the evidence inro an "evolurionary"framework,which doesindeedseemto be a philosophica intrusion).. .. I'vecomeacross several references to the "fluorinedatingsystem," but no thoroughdiscussion of it-Leakey mentionsit as beingin irs infanry in the 1940s.h hasro do apparently with the rateof absorption of fluorine,whichseemsto be vastlyvariantdependingon molsture,etc.It would be goodfor us to givea kind of "philosophy" ofthe datingsystems-i.e.,showingthat we do not rejectthemoutrighr,but rhat their significance is relariveand limired,somewhathelpfulin the (whichwe shouldalsoemphasize genuinesrudyof paleonrology is a legitimatescience), but not anyabsolute answerro anything.In general, we shouldcommunicate a very"friendlyfceling"rowardgenuinesci-

The objectivescientificapproachis very necessary-not enough to get boggeddown in "scientificproofs"-but just enough to slrow that rhe scientificproofscanceleachother out, as it were, leavingthe ques'I'he tion ofevolution in its realsphereofphilosophy and theology.... weaknessof evolution asscienceand philosophywill only serveto emphasizethe importanceof the Patristicview which is so definite and reallypowerful... . By the way, I begin to seethat I myself havebeen harboring some "modern ideas"on the Six Days of Creation. It's true that this is not the most importanr question involved with evolution, but itt not

I will be workingon the final, Patrisric sectionthis fall, and God willing rhewholestudywill be completeby the time Kalomirossends his promisedreply,which shouldgiveus all rhe "Patristicargumenrs" of the supporters ofevolution,makingour studyascompleteaspossi-

526

527

ence.

18.ClearingUp Confasion (To A. Y, Augusr21t5, 1974)

GeNesIs,Cneertol aNn Eatrv Matt

SrrecrroNspnov Lerrens

ble. I think the impacr of this study will be considerable.I do not rhink most consciousOrthodox Christiansare terribly preiudiced in favor ofevolution; but they are somewhatconfusedas to what or how much ro believeofwhat "sciencesays."Our study is supposedto give the "complete" picture, which hopefully will clarily many minds. [r's cerrainlyclarified my own mind, since previouslyI hadnt thought in ofrhe question. dctailon many espects

the answerofSt. Gregorythe Theologian*and other Fathersis that the few differences in the two stem from the practice of the younger brother taking the older brothers wife ro raiseup offspring for him, if he was childless-and one genealogycallsthe father rhe one who was rhe real father, and the other takesthe one for whom he was a Father,so ro speak.You rnight look in the Scriptural index of any Fathersyou haveand seeifanyone commenrson Luke 3:24ff..* 20. The Larger ldea of Naturalism

19. The Genealogiesof Christ alo A. Y., Seprember22lOctober 5,1974) 'We receivedthe rwo sectionson Evolution. "Christian Evolution" I readover hastily,and it looks good-probably we can leaveany final revisionsuntil the whole article is readyfor final form. The "scientific" part, however,Fr. Herman and I read togetherand found problems. Basically,everythingwe want to say is there, and the tone is good (itt even a little laa understateda( times!);but the meaning doesn'tcome through simple and clear, there being so many side questions-or rarher,the side questionsare not yet welded inro the whole so as to leaveone single,convincing impression:that evolution is philosophy, and sciencehas nothing to do with it-with a strong hint (which comes from just presentingthe evidenceitself) that rhe scientificevidence ifanytlring is againstevoluion. -l'herefbre,I will try ro rethink and re-outlineand rearrangethe materialand seeifthe meaningcan be made somehowmore transparent. fu for the final Patristicsection:I am still compiling cirationsand making notes,hoping to get asbroad an atcackaspossibleon the question. I seemto recallthat in Fr. P's tape he mentions the fact that the Saviour'sgenealogyback to Adam might contain some "syrnbolical"

(To A. Y, February14127,1976)

I myselfwould say ... that our basicfamewar,{ of [making ref-erencesto] popularand high schooltexts [on evolution]is the right one-for that is how it is taughtand understood and wheretheevolutionary philosophycomesthroughloud and clear.But it would be goodto strengthen our positionwith morereference ro "sophisticated scientificsources-to showwe areawarethat scientists don't believe everythingthey give the high schoolstudent,and evenrealizethat much there comesfrom "faith"-but still hale the basiceuolutionary fzith that the universe"explainsitself" and can be understoodin

names?-i.e., that there might be whole gaps of hundreds or thousandsof years?l'hat! an important point. There is no doubt that the Holy Fathers regarded these names precisely as a lisr of fathers, bnt since no one ever doubted this before they doni have many explicit statemenrson the subject. lncidentally, the Fatherswere very concerned to reconcilethe genealogyin Luke with that of Matthew, and

' SccSr. Gregorythe Thcokrgian,"Thc Gcnealogyof Christ," in Tbe WorksoJ' Our Fatber amotg thc Sainu ()regorytbc l-beotogian(in Russian),vol. 2, pp. 298-300.-Eo. a passagc by rhe elcvenrh-ccnrury Bibli" In his notcs,Fr.Seraphimrranslated cal commenraror lllessed'fheophylacrus of Bulgariaconcerningwhy St. l.uke the Evangclist carricdthe gencalogy ofOhrisrall thewaybackto Adamr"1'hcnariviryof thc Lord,asbeingwirhoutsecd,encountcrcd misrrust. Thcreforerhc Evangclist, dcsiringiro showrhatat anorherrimealsoa nranwasproducedwirhoutseed,asccnds from the lowcr(dcscendanrs) up to Adamand Gocl.As it werehe speaks thus:Ifyou do not believethat rhesecondAdam[Christjwasborn wirhoutseed,rhenI bcgyou ro turn in mind ro rhcfirstAdam,andyouwill find tharhewascreatedby (iod wirhour seed,and afterrhisyou will nor be unbclicvilg"(quotedin rhc Connentaryon theGoryclofLukebyBishopMichacl[Kiev,1899],p.308). After Fr.Seraphimirepose, a commcntaryon theGospelofSt.[-ukcby Sr.Ambroscof Milan cameout in Englishtranslation; ir containsan extcnsivc discussion of thc gencafogyof Christ back to Adam (St. Ambroseof Milat, F:cposition of tbe Holy Gospelaccordingto St.Lxke 11998),pp. 8l - I I l). -Eo.

528

529

Ct:prsrs,CttxrroN arvoE,rnr-y MnN 'iratural" rerms.I don't recallif we havemade it clearan).whereyet thar our argumenr is only secondarilyagainstthe particular rheory of evolution, and primarily againstthe larger idea of nanralisn-riat the universeexplainsitself.

21. ScicntistsVho QuestionEuolution (-lb Dr. AlexanderKalomiros,February22lMarch 6, lg76) '!7'e receivedyour new letteron evolution... . Now I do nor know if ir is possiblero conrinue this discussionor not. You have placed me in a "category":I am a "fundamentalist," a "lireralisr,"I am "againstscience"and under "Westerninfluence."I am afraid that anyrhing I may now say,you will dismissas of no value. If so, there is no point in my evenreplyingto your lerrer;your mind is alreadymade up abour mc and you will nor listen ro whateverI may say. I hopcthat this is nal sa,because you arc rhe firsr Orrhodox evolurionist I havefound who is willing to discussthis questionat all, and I think both ofus could gain grearlyby conrinuing this discussion.Bur I will haveto tell you clearlythat, despiteyour impression,I am nar a fundamentalist,nor am I "againsrscience";quite the conrrary. But you are placing an impossiblelimirarion to rhis discussion when you say:"l would discussevolution with you from the scientific point ofvicw only if you had somediplomaofone of the biologicalor geologicalbranchesof naruralscience."Sinceyou wish it to be so, I of coursecan say norhing. But let me quore one ofyour scientificst:rrements:"'fhe stagesof the embryo in the uterusare exacrlyrhe stagesof life'sevolurion upon earth.'fhis is so exactrhat evenrhe gills ofour ancient ancestors,rhe fishes,existin the foerusofeven rhe most perfected animalsof the solid earth, the mammals."And now le( me euorc two statementsmade in scientificiournalsand rexrbooksby scientisrspossessingadvanceddegreesin their specialties: ' l. "Haeckel's recapitulationtheory (which is exactly what you have describedro me as an unquesrionedscientific fact) has been demonsrraredro be wrong by numeroussubsequentscholars."(WalterJ. Boch, biologist of Columbia University,New York, in the article

t30

rnov Ltrrnrs Srr-EcrroNs

"Llvolurion by Orderly Law," in Science,vol. 164, May 4, 1969, p. 684.) 2. "The type of analogicalthinking that leadsto theoriesthat development is basedon the recapitulationof ancestralstagesor the like no longer seemsat all convincing or evcn very interesting ro biologists." (Prof. C. H. Vaddington, University of Edinburgh, in Principlesof Embryolog, 1965, p. 10.) I do not bring theseexamplesin order to debatethis theory with you; I do so only in order to show you that something which you accept as undisputedscientificfact is not only disputed but evendenied by reputable scientists,many of whom are themselvesevolutionisr! The same is true of some other "scientificfacrs"which you cite, and which you refuseto allow me to discusswith you. Despitc your accusatiolr, I am not "againstscience."l do not have an advanceddegreein science,but I havetaken collegecoursesin zoology and done considerablereadingin scientificsourceson the tneory and facts of evolution. I have read the Life book on Evolution* and fbund it very disappointing,becauseI hoped to find in it demonstrations offacts (becauseI am sincerelyinterested to know whether evoludon is ttte or not!), and insteadI found only diagramsand picrures and descriptionswhich are zrl convincing to anyone with an open mind, but only to someone who already belieuesin evohtion on otht mind is evidentlyclosedon this subject,and you seemto grounds.YorLr be unaware of the great mass of scientifc literature in recenr years which is highly critical of the evolutionary theory, which talk about relegatingit to poetry and metaphorsinsteadofscientific theory (Prof. Constance,professorof botany at the University of California, Berkeley),or evendeny its validiry akogether.lfyou wish (but it is quite pointless!),I could indeedcompile a lisl.of hundreA (if not thousands) of reputablescientistswho now either disbelievein evolution entirely or srarerhat it is highly questionableas a scientific theory. Many of them sratequite openly (evidentlyGreeceis still behind the Vest in this regard)rhat a "literal" crearionin six rwenty-four-hourdays is ,rZ possibleinterpretation of the scientifc facx tuhich we now haue. (Al' Ruth Moore, Eaolution(Lik Naure Library, 1962).-Eo.

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 nor one of the first imporrance,in my opinion.) There is also now much scientifc evidencethat rhe world is no older than 8,000 to 10,000 years.(l do nor say that this is "scientificallyproved"-l say only whar scientiststhemselues now say-thar rhere are some undisputed scientific ficts which make senseonly if rhe world is very young.) Are you going to rell me rhar I am crazy or "againsrscience" when I can quote docrors ol geologicaland biohgical scicnces (rnany of whom are not "fundamenralists")who say rhings like this? Ifso, then thereis no poinr discussingthe issLre further, becausethat would mean rhacyou yourselfareagainstscience,are againstan imparrial and objective examinationofscientific facts.I pray that this is nor so, fbr rhen your viewson evolution would be worrhless,being only the crearionof your own imagination. I do not wish to discussin detail wirh you any ofthe scienrificevidencefor or againstevolurion-rhere are orherswho can do this much better than [. I only ask,ro begin wirh, that you allow me to sendyou one book, written by a scienrificspecialist(in geology,I believe),who has given his views at lecturesro geologicalsocietieshere in Amerrca, that contains,in a rather balanceddiscussion,criticismsof the many weak points ofthe evolurionaryrheory.I do not agreewith everything written there (ir is on a somewhat popular, college-agelevel), but ir doesgive us a beginningfor possiblefurrher discussion.Religionrs not mentioned in this book, which discusses only scientific evidence.If you are willing to read this book, or at leasrsome chaptersof it which interestyou, with a reasonablyopen "scientific"mind-thcn it will be possiblcto continucour discussion.

tasreful,is helpful, becauseit shows the reaction that our "evolution book" would havehad in somequarrersif it hadnt first been testedby " I have This will help us to avoid "one-sidedness. rhis correspondence. rhe impressionKalomirosdemonstratesquite a bit of rationalismhimself:he writes not as from wirhin a tradition himsell but asone who is nriuingto get into the tradieion.Our uninterruprcd Russianrradition' for all its realand supposedWesternisms,hasa strengthand resiliency ofrradirion" do not have.May God help us to which the "rediscoverers cxpresstheserhings in a way that can be acceptedand assimilatedtod"y. 23. Three Axioms (To Fr. I., Jrlly31t6, 1977)

'1.c., a dctailedreplyin additionro rhe compararivclv brief replyhe had just scnt.-Eo.

Abour "evolution"-1rysvTgJsglad to have your comments. If you reallywant ro seethem so much, and Dr. Kalomiros has alreadydisrributed his letters,we could sendyou copies,aFterwe'vemade our reply to his secondletter. But really,this correspondencehas not been very fruitful at all. At first we wereencouragedby the hct that he was willing to discussthe matter at all (which FewOrthodox seemto want ro do), and we respondedto him in a tone that we thought was roughly the sameas his own, not fearing to be correctedon any mistakeswe mighr nTake,but hoping that-although startingalmost poles xparr-we might in the end "work out" this question in friendly debate and come rather closetogetherby the end of it. But we seenow rhat our reply seemsonly to haveoflended him (perhapsmost ofall he disliked our strong implication that he is probablyiust as much under "Westerninfluence"asthe restofus poor mortals!),and his secondletrer offers almost no chancefor an extensionof the debate.Our reply will probably be short (wheneverwe get a chancc even lor rhat!) and will have to begin by poinring out some of the contradictionshe has fallen into himsell, with littlc hope of even getting him interesredin some of the more basicquestionswhich (as I recall)haveni even bcen menrionedyet by either of us. But for now (leapingat the chanceto chew this question a little more!) I will only give you a few ofnty own observations,not on "evo-

532

533

22. Auoiding One-sidedness (To A. Y, March 17130,t976) I haveni gone back to Kalomiros' lerter, and probably won'r artempt a reply beforesummer.*The letter,although I find its tone dis-

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 so essentiel. First ofall, we werevery disappoinredin all the thlss glsllsrs on the subjecrwhich we have seen.There is very lirtle there that wc wodd disagree wirh-save for the flippanr rone in some places-but they never really get to the question of evolution ar all, and rney arc certainly nor rhe Orrhodox answeror approachto the questionwhich Fr. E. had promised to give. ln fict, theseletters reveala distrnct attempr nrl ro approachthe question ar all, but rather ro stay aboveit, with a rarher superior air. Symptomaric is Fr. E.'s conf'ession(either there or elsewhere)that he has never read Teilhard de Chardin and doesnt need ro, as also his evident ignoranceof the whole scientific side of the question.('fhe "funny carroon" he included has nothing to do with any'irew findings," lor example,but wasold newseighty years ago.) Likewise with Dr. Kalomiros: he prides himself on knowrng nothing at all of Westernteachingson evolution (apart from what he regardsas "scientificfacts") and insisrsthat we pay atrention only to what /r teacheson the subject,which is "Parristic." l. 'l'his brings us to Axiom no. I in our approachro rhe quesrion (not the mosr important one, but first in order ofdiscussion):thc <1uestion ofevolution can'tbe discussed at all ifone doesnt havea basicgrasp ofthe scientificsideof it (rhe "scientificproofs"ofevolurion) aswell as the broaderphilosophyofevolurion basedon it (-t'eilhardde Chardin, etc.).This is preciselywhar rhe BFarhersseemro be afraid of, and in generalour Orthodox theologiansalso (including Fr Michael Pomazanskyif I'm not mistaken):once you get into "science,"the thcologian is out of his depth, rhereare endlessfruitlessdebates,etc. I think this is why Dr. Kalomiros'evolution articlesin the Creek religiouspress stirred up uneasiness bur no distincr protests:because"theologians"in generaljust don't know how to handle the scientificside. By this I donl mean that onc has ro be a scientificspecialistin order to discussthe scienrificside of the quesrion-rhe scientificside is zat the most importanr one, and specialisrs usuallyrrip rhemselves up by concenrratingtoo much on it; but if one isni sufficientlyawareof the scientific side one won'r be able to grasp rhe quesrion in its full scope.One can'r say wirh assurance,for example,whether man has

lrccn on earth some sevenor eight thousand years("more or le5s,"x5 rhc Fathersoften say) if one is totally ignorant of the principlesof ratliomerricdating, geologicstmta,etc., which "prove" that man is "millions of years"old. And such knowledgeis not esotericat all-the basic principlesof radiometricdating (enough to show its strong and weak poinrs) can be explainedin a rather short article.And the questionof of yearsor some wlrcther man has been on earth for some thousands nillions of yearsis one that certainlytoucheson some basicOrthodox (luesrions-whether the genealogies of the Scriptureare actuallygenealogies(as all the Fatherscertainly believed)or iust skerchylists with many long blanks in rhem; whether some of the Patriarchsof the Old 'lbsramcnt (if rheseare not genealogies)might not be "symbols" insrcad of concrete people; whether Adam himself ever existed (especiallv in view of what seems the prevailing theory now among cvolutionists-"polygenism," that new speciesbegin in many pairs simtrltaneously)ietc. This is just a sampleto show rhat to get anywhere ofthe scienin this questionone must havea basic,layman! awareness riflc evidenccsfor and againstevolution. lf one is reasonablyobiective and not our to "proveone'spoint" at any cost,such questionsneednot rrouse passionatedebates.As a basicprinciple, of course,we must assume that scientific ffiah (as opposedto variousopinions and prejudices) cannot contradict revealedtruth, if only we understandthem both correctly. Your point-to start with basic theologicalprinciples-l think is good, and theseshould alwaysbe fundamcntal.And one must always be well awareof the different modesof knowledgeand not mix them up. The trouble is, the quesrionof evolution is so complex that one isn't alwaysawarewhich aspectof it hasceasedto be scientificand has intruded on theologyor philosophy,or exactlywhere the realconflicts arise.There, I think it is very importanr, as a secondaxiom: 2. To be aware of chebasicphilosophiesunderlyins or derived from evolutionismand variousother viewsoforigins. The evolutionaryphiIosophyof "up from the beasts"certainlyseemsirreconcilablewith the Christian view of "fall from Paradise,"and our whole view of history will certainly be determinedby which way we believelThe Catholics used to solve this problem wir6 a deusex machina: when the body had

534

5)5

Cr,;Nrsls, Ctr,rrroru eruoEanrxMaN evolvedsufliciently, God "specially creared" a soulfor it-there evorution is correct,and so is Genesis, broadlyinterpreted.Kalomiroshas basicallythe sameview,thoughhe hasa more Patristicvocabulary to describe it-bur suchviewsareveryarrificialandcontrived:the Christianswait for the latestevolutionaryhypothesis and nvist the rext of Genesisto fit in with it. 'l'his won'rdo! An awareness of how evolu(suchas Teilhardde Chardin)view the whole tionary philosophers questionofevolution,whileit maynot solveanyspecificquestion,will still givea broaderview of the wholeintellectualbackgroundbehind evolution. 3. Axiom 3: l'he whole quesrionof Genesiscannorbe well approachedby Orrhodoxpeoplewithout appealingto the basicOrrhodox sources: the Holy Fathers.Especially valuable:rhe Hexaemera of St. Basiland St.Ambrose;commentaries on Genesis by St.JohnChrysostomand St. Ephraimthe Syrian;Hornilieson Adam,Paradise, and the first-created world by St. SymeonrheNew Theologian(especially homily45 in the Theophanthe Recluse editionof 1892),St. Gregory the Sinaite(in the RussianPhilohalia), Sr. Abba Dorotheus(Instruction I); commentaries of variousFathers on relatedpassages of Scripture (for example,Romans8:l9-22 concerningrhe "vaniry"or "corruption"of the post-Adamic world,or St.GregorytheTheologian on the Cenealogies of Christ);Homilieson the subjectof the Resurrection,or wheneverthe questionof "seed"or "growth"is discussed; treatises on the origin of man (St.Gregoryof Nyssa);Patristicdiscussionson reincarnation and rhepre-existence of souls(whicharephilosophicallyrelatedto the questionofevolution);etc. About Dr. Kalomiros:our secondreply ro hinr will poinr our wherewe rhink hc wenrastrayin his Patrisric interpretations. Bur our generalimpression of his rwo letters(which we won'r write him directlyfor fearofoffendinghim again)is rhis: l. He is very unprepared to discussthe questioneirherscientificallyor philosophically. He is unawarcof 'Wesre rn discussions of the subjectand is only concernedro stand "superior"to them-which one can'tdo if one isnt awareof them.It is abundanrlvobviousfrom his rwo lettersthat he (andprobablyGreekscienrists in general)is far behindthe West,and he is holdingro scientificand philosophical po536

Srltcltons

rtov Lnr'rr:ns

srtionslong abandonedor in processof revisionby Westernscientists themselves.As one example:his defenseof Haeckel\ "recapitulation" theory of the human embryo: today's euolutionarytextbooks of embryology dismissit asa nineteenth-centuryfantasy,but Kalomrrosnot only clings to it as an "obvious proof" of evolution, but even forbids us to discussany scientificquestionswith him until we ger advanced degreesin the physical sciences(a rypical refuge of someone who doesn'rwant a free discussionof the subiect)!He is not aware,either, of rhe lessdogmatic spirit which many evolutionary scientistsnow have, nor of the immense number of scientists(with advanccddegrees!)who now haveabandonedevolution entirely or are skepricalof 2. He is theological/1, unprepared for such a discussion-something which surprisedus most ofall. Evenafter promising us that he was going to reply only after readingall the basic Patristictexts on the subject, he still bases'hiswhole argument on rwo or three Patristicrexrs, very one-sidedlyinterprered,and does not even answera number of our Parristiccitations (which are only a small part of the Patristicpassageswe have found). His St. Gregory of Nyssaquote saysnothing whateverof evolution unlessyou read it inro the passage; and the St. Seraphimquote certainlydoes not sustainhis interpretation,wherein he does preciselywhat he accusedus of doing-taking "chronologically" words which are "ontological"in reference. Vhen I saythat Dr. Kalomiros is "unprepared,"I do not of course mean that heis incapableof discussingthe question-merely that he is so prejudiced in advance(with a complex about being "inferior" to "Vestern wisdom") thar he does not view the question at all objectively.... I quoted St. Ephraim'svery "fundamentalistic"view [that the Six Days were rwenry-fourhours longJwithout preciselyagreeingwirh him-and Dr. Kalomirosdismissedit by saying"he was using the scienceof his time." But sincethe scienceof St. Ephraim'stime most certainly did not rcachthar the world was createdin six twenry-four-hour days (with twelve hours betweeneachcreative"moment"), I can only assumethat Dr. Kalomiros is not preparedto examine Patristrcevrdence very obiectively,using any excuseto dismisswhatever doesni asreewith his own views.

537

CeNtsrs, Cnrxrror ,rNoErnryMeN

Snnc.rroNsrrov Lrr-rens

A few rroteson our conrinuing "dialogueson evolution." Many thanks for your two letrers... . I . The questionof the "ageof the earth" is a question raisedby sci'ence (which cannor give it a completely satisfactoryanswer) and touching on Revelationand cerrain rheologicalquesrions.From the point of view of Biblical interpreration,rhis questionis dependenton a more fundamentalone:'ihe ageof mankind." Here rhe rexr of Genesis doesnot needto fear the evidenceoFscience;and sincemodern science doesralk a6ot this, we haveto havean inrelligentanswerro the opinion concerning the "millions of years"during which, supposedly,not

merely"galaxies"haveexisted,but even man himself and his near "ancestors"have been walking on earth. Onc cannot escaperhe qursrion of the existenceof man in chronologicaltime (sinceboth Genesiswirh its Patristicinterpretersand scienceseemto be talking about the same kind of "years"we know) by relerenceto the forrnarionof galaxiesand the relativiryof time-the "primordial galaxies"rhemselves are a producr of the scientificspeculationsof modern thinkers,and neither more nor lessdeservingof credencerhan ancient Greek speculationsconcerning the origin of the world. 2. This raisesanotherfundamentalquestion:how much should we use sciencein a commentary on Genesis?I would say,as a very minimum: we must know enough about scienceand its modern speculations to have an answer to those who use it to "disprove Cenesis." 'fhus its chief function today is perhapsnegarive.But beyond that, I think our attitude should be that ofSt. Basilin his Hexaemeron: rhe legitimate conclusionsof scienceshould be usedwheneverthey help the task of interprering the sacredtext. -fhe "science-phobia'which has been causedamong some Orthodox Christiansby the ;f2/seuse of sciencc on the part of anti-Christiansshould be overcome.ln rhe caseof evolution, I don't seehow the questioncan be discussedat all without 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 know how to assess their relativevalue.The "scientificcreationists"are very usefulin this regard,becausethey havehunted up evidencewhich had been selectivelydisregardedby predisposedevolutionists(for example, the remarkableevidenceofan earth "under 10,000 yearsold," which must definitely be weighed againstthe evidencefor an earth much older, . .. etc.) 3. But is the questionofthe ageofthe human race(some7,000 or 8,000 yearsvs. a million or more years)really theological,or important?You doubt whether it is. I offer rwo observations: a. The Holy Farhers(probably unanimously) certainly have no doubt that the chronologyof the Old ltstament, from Adam onwards, is to be accepted"literally." They did not have the fundamentalist's over-concernfor chronologicalprecision,but even the most mystical

538

539

I would stronglysuspecr rhat Fr. MichaeI Pomazansky would prefer not to make any generalcommenrson rhe question of evolu1i6n-h6v7sys1,if you gave him specificquesrionstouchrng on theology,you might ger answers.But then again,he might be so afraidof the scienrificsidethat he might hesitate evenhere. This lerteris alreadytoo long. UnfortunarelSI just wont have time for somewhilero setdown rhePatristic quotesI havefoundup to now. But somerime perhapsI will get the time. You might be inrerestedin someofthe publications ofthe Institutelor CreationResearch in San Diego, especiallybooks like Scientifc Creationism(pulslic school-i.e., non-religious edirion)which presentonly scientificevidencewirhout reference ro religion.Their presenration of rhe "Creation Model" is a promisingapproachro a moreobjectiveview of the wholequestion.I'heir religiousviews,of course,sufferfrom the gen(in particular,their unawareeralshortsightedness of fundamentalism nessof thewholePatristicfieldof commentaryon Genesis-but most Orthodoxpeoplehavea similarlackof awareness!). I'm enclosingrwo of their pamphlets, with their address so you canordersomeof their booksif you want. would like to keepup this discussion, a little at a time, if you . .l

w ts n to .

24. Notesfom a Dialogte on Euo/ution (To Fr. I., August8/21, 1977)

Gr-Nrsrs, CnenrlclNaNo E,rnryMau

Stl.r.c'noNs lrov l,l't.ttns

Fathers(St. lsaacthe Syrian,St. Cregorv Palamas,etc.) werequite certain rhar Adam lived literally some 900 years,that there werc some 5,500 years ("more or less")benveenthe creation and the Birrh of Christ, etc.* (BlessedAugustinehas a good discussionas to the diltferences between the Greek and Hebrew chronologies-the thousand years"more or less"didn't bother him any more than it did other Fathers-but the assertionthat Adam lived a million or more yearsago, and that rhus rhe Old [and New] 'lestamentchronologyis quite arbitrary or fanciful,could not but haveevokednumerousPatristicdiscussions.) Can we be so trusting of the conclusionsof modern science (especiallyif we have a basicknowledgeof radiometricdating proceduresand the philosophyunderlying them!) as to totally overturn the Patristicopinion?Dr. Kalomirosand other Orthodox evolutionistssay we should, without a secondthought-l would say this is dangerous presumption,and an intrusion ofdubious scienceinto the realmofrevealedrruth. \When Dr. Kalomiros dismissesthe Patristicinterpretation of rhe Old Testamentchronologyas "Jewishrationalism,"I even begin to wonder what his basicattitude to the Fathersis? It seemsto to saythe least. havean elementof disrespect, b. More imporrant (more theological):one'spicture of reality,of rhe world, definitely influencesone\ view of God. I offer you (very briefly) rwo pictures("models")of man and his world: (1) Man createdsome 7,000-8,000 years ago, separarelyfrom by nature other creatures(not descendedfrom others),dispassionate (in soul and body), wirh Eve miraculouslycreatedlrom his rib (in a way we cannor describewith scientific precision,as St. John Chrysostom indicates),in a world ofcreatureswith naruresbasicallystable 'See thc quorcsofSt. lsaacrhe Syrianon p. 419 aboveand p. 602 bclow St. Isaacwritesthat,in histimc (theseventh ccnruryr.o.), rhedemonswerc6,000years old, rcckoningtheir agefrom rhc creationof the world (AsccticalHoniliet Homily rhc Grcarlikcwiscstatcstlrar,in his time, 54, Englishedition,p. 269).St. Macarirrs satan"is alrcady6,000 ycarsold" (Fifu SpiritualHomiliet Homrly 26, Englishediserics, p. 167). tion, Classics of!/esrernSpirirualiry writesthat 'Adam In hisLctrerto the Revcrend Nun Xenia,Sr.(ircgoryl'alamas ycars" (Tbc Philohaconrinuedro live after rhar time Ii.c., afier his fall] cvcn for 930 p.296).-Eo. lia, vol.4,

and nor in processof becoming orher natures.Much coLrldbe said on separatedctails of this picture, and knowledgeof many of the details can never be precise;but basically:it does not contradicr the text of (lenesisand is harmoniouswith rhe Orthodox view of (lod. (2) Man descendedfrom lower crearures,passionateby his origin irnd nature, becomingdispassionatcin Paradise(when grace brought him out of his bestialstate,accordingto Kalomiros)ar a momenr very hazy both chronologicallyand theologically(today Ronrln Catholic cvolutionistsdeny Paradisealtogerherbecausethcy can't reconcileit with evolurionary philosophy), existing in his fallen srareperhapsa million or more years,during which rime he graduallycame up from savagcryto civilization,the recordof hirn in the Old Testanrenrbeing extrernelysketchy and nor ro be raken seriouslywhen ir speaksof "years";the world around man being in a consrantsrateofchange and ascentfrom one narure to another,and this wholc processb.r,rg explainable("more or less")by science,exceprfor rhe original impulscof creationitsclf (which produceda ratherundifferentiaredmasswirh the "porentialiry" of all future developments).(Kalomiros insisrsthere is nothing "miraculous" about the Six Days of Creation-they all proceededaccordingro scienrificlaws!).This picrure, that of "theistic"or "God-guided" evolution, can be reconciledwith the rext of Gcnesis and its Patristicinterprerationonly by meansof many jumps and improvisationsand wholesaledisregardof Patristicevidence.-I'he chief reason,I suspect,why ir doesnor give rhe horrors to Orrhodox believcrs in "God-guided evolution" (as,for example,Fr. N. professes himself to be)-is simply becausethey put their heads in the sand and 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 affectedby such a picture of the world? For example,the view of an "Orthodox evolurionisr"like -fheodosiusDobzhansky(in his address on receivingan honorary docroratefrom Sr. Vladimir! Seminary:;urterly deniesthe Providenceof God in rhe world; his "God" is rhe deist God. St. John Damascene(following St. Gregory of Nyssaand orhers) sraresrhar it is unworrhy ofGod to believerhat He crearedman\ body and soul in separatemomenrs, as if He did not have power fbr thc whole act at once; this act of creationwas simultaneous;here the text

540

541

(lr:Ntsls,Cnut t
Ssltc ltotts rrov Ln:''ttlns

of Genesisis not to be interpretedliterally or "chronologically"(Kalomiros spccifically denics this-his interpretation of St. Scraphimt words would collapseotherwise!).How much less worthy of God, then, to belicvc thar He createdonly somc kind o[ material ocean of potentialityand left everythingro "evolveby itself" accordi.ngro narural laws! All this, asyou can see,is an informal discussionpresentedfor your reflection-precise citationswill havc ro be given when I havetrme.

in Greecelor srarting his own schism fiorn thc Old Calendarisrsover thc issueof the lcon of the 'Irinity showing God rhe Fatheras an old nran-lre insiststhe icon is hereticaland jusrifiesthc breakingof comnrr.rnionwith rhosewho venerareor evcn tolerareit.

25. Clergt in ()reeceagainst "Orthodox &'olutionisni' (To Bishop Cregory, November 22lDecernbcr5, 1980) In the l98l Conferencein PennsylvaniaI notice thar Dr. Alexander Kalomiros will be speakingon "'fhe Creation of Man and rhe Vorld," and I greatly lear that his talk and his very presencewill only promote rhe spirit of "criticisni' which is poisoning our Church so much. I myself had a lengthy corrcspondcncewirh Dr. Kalonriros some yearsago on the subjecrof "creationand evolution," and I discoveredto nty astonislrmentthat he is an adhercnrof rhe most naive kind ofevolutionism (he wrotc that Adarn could well havehad the face ofan ape, becausehe was at first an ape-likecrearurcro whonr (lod gave His Spirit!), and that he is most docrrinaircand arrogant in upholding his opinions (he rcfusedro discussany scientificevidencewith me becauseI have no doctor'sdegreein science,and when I criricized some of his opinions and showedthar someof his scientific"cvidence" is outdated and is no longer accepredeven by evolutionarytextbooks in the West,he broke off the correspondence with me). Dr. Kalomiros' opinions on creationhavebeengrearlycriticiz.edby conservarive clergy in Grcece,*and theologically,in his correspondcncewith me, he had very shaky and superficialgrounds lor upholding his scientiflcevolutionism. In addition, Dr. Kalomiros has now made himself notorious

26. PeopleAre Readyto Hear This (To Fr. A. Y, Meat-fareSarurday,I 981)

Thinking about my Genesiscoursethis summer, I was rereading part of Dr. Kalorniros'letrers.How discouraging!One losesall inspiration to gcr tanglcd up in this subject,sceinghow he handlesit. And really,thc tone is just likc Deacon L.'s. I wondered why, and Fr. Hernran answercdme: -l'hey'retrying to keepup with rhc "advanced"fashions in the universities;and I think that'.sprobably really the answer. EspeciallyKalomiros' repcatcd insistence(l)eacon L. says the sanre rhing) ovcr how many have"lost their souls"becauseoflireral interpretations of (lencsis-rhat is, we have ro give them Genesison rlerr lcvel, changing the trurh if need be so as nor ro offend them or give thenr more than they can chew. But anyone who is really conuertedto Christianiry will surelybegin to rethink his whole inrellectualourlook, won't heI Isni the real problem rhat Dr. Kalomiros, Deacon L., and othcrs are intellectualswho haven't been fully converted, or have brought their intellectual baggagewith rhem inro Orrhodoxy-rhe samc thing rhey accuseorhersof? 'I-hiswas the diseaseof the Russian intellectualconverrsearlierin this century,*and I think our Greeksfall inro the samecategory. -l'herefbre,I am plowing ahcadwith Genesisaccordingro the Holy Fathers,realizingthat ir may causcmorc wevesamong the Greeks(arrd name-calling-but I'm already a 'iheosophist" and can't get much worse than that!), especiallysincc it will be "competition" to l)r. Kalomiros' talk in Pennsylvania. 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. Scraphimsaysfurrhcr: "Conscrvarive theologians in Crcccercgardhim IDr Kalomiros]as a radical evolutionisr."-Eo.

' 1.c..thosellussiancmigranrs who fbrnrcdrlrcI)arisian schoololnrodcrnisr Orthodoxrhcology.-Eo.

542

543

Cr:Nrsrs,CnearroNaNo E^nLvM.qNl book. The whole outline of it now becomesclear to me. It should be calledsomethingpositive(no evolution in the title), such as "Genesis, Creation and Early Man: An Orthodox View," and rhe first and main part should be simply an Orthodox interpretation (accordingto St. John Chrysostom,St. Ephraim, etc.) of the first chaptersof Cenesis, discussing"problems"raisedby modern men in the courseof the discussion.Then, as the secondarythought (lessthan half the book), a discussion of the whole questionof evolution.... lf we can carry it through, it should be a pioneeringwork which will make rhis question at leastdiscussibleamong Orthodox Christians, many ofwhom are concernedbur just dont know where to begin to think it through. \X/hatdo you think? Any ideasor discussions? I will be working on the whole first part for the summer course,and maybeyou and I could look over and organizethe restof it somerime this summer.Then it will be timely to print it, especiallysincethe subject will be somewhatin the air with my and Kalomiros' talks. RereadingKalomiros'letters,I seethar rhereis somerhingquire basic at stake.... It is obvious that Kalomiros has no intenrion whatever to humble himself beforethe mind of the Fathers.He "knows berrer" than they, and therefore he easily categorizesas "absurd" opinions which they held becausehe hirnselfhasthought it our berrer,with the aid of modern science.[n this casehe is broader than the Fathers;in most cases,perhaps,our Greeksare narrower-but it is their own wisdom that they trust and which they wish ro imposeon others.Our key is-sticking ro rhe wisdom of the Church, rrusring our own Fathers and the Holy Fatherswho lived before.Peopleare readyto hear this.

EorroR'sEprrocuE

Euolutionismand tlte Religion of the Future Euolution is not partially true or false. It tzrosefrom-dcmandsto be acceptedas-a whole philosopbJof the world and life. 7'hescientift lrypothesis is quitesecondary.

'I-heargurnentagainstthesupposed "scientift"theoryof euo'l-he Iution is not itselfscientifc.... argumcntagainstit is theological,that it inuoluesimplications ubich are entirely unacceptabbfor Orthodoxl, and theseimplications can't be escaped, and euerypropounderofeuolution usesthem, the theistsand spirinatists beingworsethan the atheists. -Fr. Seraphim But I fear lest lry any meant, dt the serpentbeguiledEuc throughhis subtlety,soyour mindssbouldbe conuptedfrom thesimplicitythat is in Christ. _2 Cor. I I :3 I. Tbe Pasing of Scientifc Materialim

climareat rhebeginningof rhe f,on rHose ,rwaneof the intellectual I' newmillennium, it is apparent thatscientific materialisnr rswaning.The factthat thework ofpeoplelike Professors and Johnson Behe is evokingsuchwidespread interestindicatesthat rhe generalpopulation is not satisfied with thestandardneo-Darwinian exolanation that life and all living formscameinto beingrhroughpurelymarerialisri 544

545

Ctxr:sts,Cns,ruoueNo Eart-vMan

Eorrrln'sEprr-ocuu

evolutionist(larl Sagan causes.Indeed,in 199(rthe lateatheist/agnostic deploredthe fact that "only nine percentof Americansacceptthc central finding of biology that human beings(and all other species)have slowly evolvcdfrom more ancient beingswith no divine intervenrion necdedalong the way."r 'fhe naruralisticexplanationof the origin of life is truly what Fr. Scraphimcalledit-"a philosophyof lools"-and in the words ofAbraham Lincoln, "you cani fool all the peopleall the time." Thus the Darwinian ediflce,which has dorninated sciencefor over a century,is now crumbling. Fr. Seraphimpredictedthis. Back in the 1970she was alreadyprcdicting the fall of atheisticcommunism, togcthcrwith the fall of atheisnr/agnosticisrnin modern scienceand philosophy. He knew they would fall becausethe dialecticalmaterialismof Marxism and the scientific nraterialismof Darwinism deniesmani natural religiousintcrest, and this interest cannot be ultimately suppressed.On a deeper level,Fr. Seraphimknew that uncompromisin6;materialismwould fall because,accordingto the propheciescontained in the Scripturesand the Patristicwritings, the deceptionsof the last times would not be atheistic/agnosticbut pseudo-spirirual.'I'hey wol:.ld not involvc (at

soniclod11cs. Ir is bccausc thc wholcmodcrnworldviewis rotarhcistic, it is zot agnostic;it bclievesin God. 'I'he pcriod in which agnosricism and athcismarc replacing Christianityis only a tenrporary pcriod.Irs purposeis ro do awaywith the rruc God of traditional Chrisrianiryso that pcoplecan comc backand worshipthe 'iruc God" accordingto rhe rcvolutionaryphilosophy, as rhc Masonsdo to thisday.'fhc GrandArchitectis the nsw God.

When this wrirer first met Fr. SeraDhimar rhe Universitv of California,SantaCruz in 1981,Fr. Seraphimpredicrcdthe fhll oiathersric communism in Russia,as well as the rise of the new globalistsysrcrn that would build upon rhe foundationslaid by communism. Needless to say,the accuracyof this Scripturallyand Patristicallybascdprediction was stunningly confirmcd in the yearsfbllowing his reposc,and continuesto be confirmed. In his talk ar rhe universiryFr. Seraphim maintained that, unlike rhe old-school marerialisticcommunism of Marx and L.enin,rne ncw "Communism," he said, globalismwould offer a pseudo-spiritualiry.

Agc lwhich dircctlyprcccdcdtlrc l'hc idcalof rhc F-nlighrcnnrcnt thar Agc]wasdcism,and it wasftonrthisarrnosphcre Rcvolutionary (irand Architcct:a modernMasonryarosc.Dcismis thc idcaof rhc and doesn'rtouchus. God who is somcwhcrc rcmotcin the heavcns fbr producThe dcisticidcaof Masonrywasrhc powcrrcsponsiblc and thc wholc rcvolutiontrymovenlent ing thc FrcnchILcvolurion why dcism-although of our rimcs.-I'hcrcis a vcryinrportantrcas<>n rodayir scems quiteoutmodcdanddisproved-lasrcd on in thc Ma-

docsnot havethc final answerbccausc ir is a vcry ncgativcrhing.ln f'acr,ifyou lookar whathasbecnhappeningin Russia for thc lastrcn or twcnty ycars,you crn seerhat thcrc'.s a full rcvolt,asfar asthe p.,rplc'.smcnralirygoes.Evcrrrhoughthc dicrarorship hasbcenjusr as strongilscvcr,cspecially in the lastrwo ycars,puttingmorcpcoplcin prisonagain,rhc pcoplcarc risingup morcand more,not in armed rcvolrbut in rhcir minds,arrdarc bccomingindcpcndcnt.Vhich nrcansthatsooncror latcrthc wholcsystcmis goingro collapsc. And so communisntdocs not havcthc answcr;it cannotconquerthc whole world and bring happincss as it claimsit can. But in the meantimeir is prcparing[or onc vcry inrportantrhingwhich hasr
546

547

leastinitially) an overt attempt to do away with traditional Christianiry, but would rather seekto subvertChristianiryby denaturingit and purring in irs placea cleversubstrtute. F-orthose who have lost the savor of traditional Christianiry, Fr. in scicnce,philosoSeraphimsaid, rhe waning of atheism/agnosticism phy and governmentwill coincidewith a return ro rhe deism of Freemasonry:the "new religion" out of which the modern Revolutionary Age was born. In his SurvivalCourseof 1975, hc said:

GrNrsrs,Cnarrror ,ruo Eanly MIN ideasof the Unired Narions,florexample,wc scesomcrhingrhar lookslikea spiritualanswer.'TheU.N. claimsro be fbr the fbundation ofone worldgovcrnment whichwill not bea ryrannl nor bascd upon any particularidealike communism,bur on somerhingvery vague,with no Christianbasisfor it. In fact,aboutrwenryycarsago theybuik a meditationchapclin the U.N. building,andat that rime theyhada big discussion aboutwhatwould bc rheobjectofworship in it. You can't have a Cross,bccauserhen you're immcdiately brandedasChrisrian;you cani haveanyrhingMoslemor Hindu hecauscagainyou'rcidenrifiedlit hasto be aboveall religions. Finally thcy decidcdon a blacksroneblock.Pcoplcexperiencc an awesome feelingbeforeit, aslxfore an idol: a veryvaguekind of religiousinterest.Of coursc,everybody hasa rcligiousinterest: you cant hidc ir, and communisnris going to fall because of thar. But sucha vague rhingis exacdywhatthe dcvillikcsto grabholdo[ In anyparricular beliefyou can be mistaken,but at leastyou pur your heartinto ir, and God can evenforgivcall kindsof mistakes.Bur ifyou don't have any particuiarreligiousbeliefand you givc yourselfover ro some kind of vagueidea,rhcnthedemonscomein and beginro act.l 2. Euolutionism as thc Pbilosopby ofAntichrist As we haveseenearlier in this book, the atheisticcommunism of the old schoolwas evolutionistboth in that it promoted (and, in the caseof Leninism, enforced)a naruralisricexplanarionof the origin of life, and in that it held that human socierywas,like biologicalsysrems, naturally evolving from the lower ro rhe higher.The deep connecrron berween Marxist communism and Darwinian evolurion was recognized by Marx himself,who wasan avid follower of Darwin'sideas. rVhen Marxism hlls, its counterparr,I)arwinism, is bound ro fol* The diffcrence berweeninrernarional communismand

U.N. alobalisnr rs nr-rr asrealasone might rhink.Of thc scvcnrccn individualsidenrifiedby thc U.S.Snre DcparrmentashavingshapedU.S. policyleadingro rhe crearionof the United Narions,all bur onc werc lateridenrifiedassecretmembersof rhe CommtrnistParry USA.The U.N. s firsrSecrerary who orchesrrared General. the conference rhardrcw up chcU.N. Charrer,wasa man larerconvicred asa Sovietagcnr:Algcr Hiss.

548

EoIron'sElllocue low suic.Yet,as Fr. Seraphimtaught, thesetwo were nevermeant to be In the courseof apostasymastermindedby the enendsin themselves. cmy ofour salvation,they are but vehiclesby which to destroyfaith in the God of rraditional Christianity and rhus preparethe way for what Fr. Seraphimcalled'the religion ofthe future." The anti-tradition and anti-Christianityof Marxistcommunismand Darwinianevolutionism only serveasa preperationfor somethingfar worse:r counter-traditiotl and counterfeitChristianiry that, "if ir were possible,shall deceivcthe very elect" (Mart. 24:24). Just as a new globalism-now with a spiritual face-is the step beyond atheisticcommunism, so too a new, "spiritualized"evolutionism is the step beyond old-school Darwinism. At rhis juncture, Fr. Seraphim believed, sciencewill combine with religion to form one unrversal,evolutionarysynthesis. With rhe passingof materialisricMarxism and Darwinisnr, lllr idea ofeuolation will not die, bur will continue to prepare mankind for the religion ofthe future. This is becauseevolutionismis more than an arrempt to explain the origin of the universewithout relerenceto Cod. Quite apart from its context within scientificmaterialism,evolution is an inherentelement in the coming counter-traditionthat will purport 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 'philosophy' knd there is sucb a thing!) of the roming Antichrist." Here it is interestingto note that, in his SurvivalCourse,Fr. Seraphim placed his lectureon Evolution as part of a secrioncalled "The New Religion." But it was not Charles Darwin, with his extreme mechanisticview,whom he sawasthe forerunnerof the New Religion. Rather,it wasTeilhardde Chardin, who attemptedto combine evolurionary sciencewith evolutionaryspirituality."Teilhardism," Fr. Seraphinr wrote, "is the 'Christianiry' (and 'Orthodoxy') of the future, or rather its metaphysicalfoundation." Fr. SeraphimcalledTeilhard both of Antichrist. rhe "prophet" and the "predecessor" It is our purpose here to place Fr. Seraphim'spredictions in the conrexrofintellectual developmentswhich haveoccurredin the nearly rwo decadessincehis repose,and at the same time to placethesenew develoomentswithin the contexr of the traditional Orthodox world-

549

(leNrsrs,CnEArrounruoEenu MaN

Eorron's Epllocue

view. Before advancingto current times, however,let us go back and look more closelyat the ideasof the man whom Fr. Seraphimcalled rhe prophet of rhe religion of the future.

alwaystherc that I found concentratcdin an cver morc dazzlingand consistcntform, the csscnceor rather the very soul of rhe Earrh."

3. l-eilbardde Chardin as "Prophet" 'leilhardde Chardin himselfclaimedthat his intention was ro founda new religion.In a letterhe wrote: As you alrcadyknow,what dominatesnry interestand my preoccupationsis the effort ro cstablishin mysclfand to spreadarounda ncw rcligion(you maycall it a berterChristianiry)in which the pcrto be thegrcatneolithicproprietorof formcrtimes, sonalGod ccases in orderto becomethe soulof rheworld; our relisiousand cultLrral sragecallsftrr rhis.l -leilhardexulted that this new religion "is burgeoningin the heart of modern man, from a seedsown by the idea of evolution."'A religion ofthe earth," he wrote, "is being mobilized againstthe religion of heaven."In his own words, this is rhe "religion ofthe future."' ln some placesTeilhardwrote about his own spiritual experiences, out oFwhich he would mold the new religion. For example,he relates how CosmicConuergencc and Chrixic Emergence(his own conceprsand terms) "made themselvesfelt at the very core of my being... . They reactedendlesslyupon one another in a flashofextraordinary brilliance, releasingby their implosion a light so inrensethat ir transfigured(or 5 for me the very depthsof the Vorld." even'transubstantiated') Elsewhere he speaks of his psychic discovery of rhe noosphere, which he perceivesas a conscioussphericalenvelopeor aura stretching around the earrh: Therewassomethingmore:aroundthissentientprotoplasntic layer the biosphere], an was ultimate envclope beginning ro become Ii.e., apparentto mc, rakingon itsown individualiry andgradually detaching itselflikea luminousaura.This envelopc wasnot only conscious, but thinkine,andfrom thetimewhenI firstbecame awareof it, it was

550

Ve will speakmorelateraboutthe natureofsuch spiritualexperiences.For now it will sufficeto point out rhattheyareconnected with precisely the kind of"vagueideas"by whichFr.Seraphimsaid'thedemonscomein and beginto acr." Like his fellow"propher"FriedrichNierzsche, Teilhardfelt that he wasperhapsthe only personin historyto havereceived suchrevelations.In an arriclecompletedonly one month beforehis death,Teilhardwrote: How is it, then,thatasI look aroundme,srilldazzlcdby wharI have seen,I find that I am almostthe only personof my kind, the only onc to havcseen?...I cannot,whcn askcd,<1uote a singlewritcr,a singlework, rhatgivesa clearlyexpressed descriprion ofthe wonderful "Diaphany"that hastransfigured for everything me.7 In himself alone, Teilhard claims, have "love of God and faith in the world" come togetherin just the right proporrion to fusespontaneously. furd he goes on to predict that what has taken place in only himself will one day occur universally: Sooneror later therewill be a chain reaction.This is one more proof thatTiuth hasto appcaronly once,in a singlemind, for ir to be rmpossiblefor anythingeverto preventit from spreadinguniversally andsetringeverything ablaze.s Despite Teilhard'sclaims abour himself, Fr. Seraphim maintained that 'leilhard was not the sole founder of the new relision. In a letter he wrote: I think rhat S. hasovercstimated Teilhardt/irrct influenccon the "New Christianiry"That phrase wascoined(l think) by [Claudede] Saint-Simon150 yearsago,and much preparation wasmadefor ir beforeTlilhard.ProbablyTeilhardappeared at just rhe righr rime to )) l

Cenesrs, CrrarroN eNo E,rnly MrN takc advantageof the modernist currenr irnd makc evcryonestart ro think of it in connectionwith his namc.

4. Elemenx of Ttilhardism It should be rememberedthat, according ro Fr. Seraphim, the "Christianiry of the future" will not be 'ltilhardism prr ra bur ir will reston a "metaphysicalfoundation" that hasalreadybeenlaid down by Teilhard.The componenc of this foundation mighr be summed up as follows: l. Panentheism. Vhile leilhard himself exrolled whar he called "Christian pantheism,"* his doctrine could more preciselybe termed paneztheism.'l'he dictionary defines panenrheismas 'the docrrine that Cod includesthe world as a parr rhough nor rhe whole of his being."'That Teilhard'steachingfits this descriptionexactlyis clearfrom his statementthat the world "is a part, an aspecr,or a phaseof God."ru Speakingof the "part of God" which is the evolving cosmos,ne says, "We must be careful to note that under rhis evolutive facer Omesa only revealshalf of itsetf " I | 'ltilhard believedthar, sincethe world is God, and sincethe world is evolving,God too is in a processof evolution-or ar leastthar "part" of the world which is God. He wrote that'the Vorld 'endomorphizes' G od," and that "God'transformshimself'asHe incorporates us."'r Ar the same time, he believedthat God is both rhe Evolverand the endpoint of evolution: the "Omega Point." ln rhe evolution of human consciousness, he aFfirmed,this new "cosmogenesis-God" would naturally replace'the Father-Godof rwo rhousandyearsago."'' Such a view, ofcourse, narurallyenrailsa vaguereligiousimpulse toward the cosmositself.'fhus, Teilhard spoke oi his "innate urge . . . ro look for the Divine not in a cleavagewith the physicalworld but through matter,and, in somesort of way, in union with matter."'o 2. No creation h.y extra-cosmicintelligence.In an article entitled

ttDI'roRs L.PILocuE "Notc on the Essence of 'fransformism,"Teilhard writes that the real point of evolution is not rhat reptileshave descendedfiom fish' etc. Rather,it is that the origin of life and of speciescan be adequatelyunderstoodin terms of a "physicalconnection." Surprisingly,it does not matrer to him whether or not this connectiolt is understoodin terms of lines of descent,as in Darwinian theoryl perhapsthere is another connection. What matters is that we rule out "the intervention of an intelligence" in the operationsol Nature.'' exrra-cosmic How doesthis idea,which accordswirh that of atheist-materialists, -lbilhard, coincidewith Teilhard'sconceptof "spirirualevolution"?For rhe God of the universe is not an "extra-cosmicinrelligence";the 'l'he world is God! "body"; cosmos r'sGod, the "soul of the L,arth." therefore, the natural processof evolution-rhe "physical connecrion"-is at the sametime "spiritual."1-he"inrelligence"behind evolution, which Teilhard refersto as "soul," "spirit," "consciousness"'etc., 'I'he subject of evolution is God; therefore, is fbr him inta-cosmic. 'leilhard writes, "(lod cannot create excePt evolutively.""' feilhard even went so far as to postulate"psychicselection"as an evolttrionary mechanism rhat could be appendedonto or replacc rhe Darwinian

being'\hc doctrinerharthcreis no God bur rhe combincdfbrccs ' Panrhcisnr (Wcbsreri]-hird New Intcrnaand lawsthararenranili:sted in rheexisringunivcrse" tionrl Dicrionary).

ideaof naturalselection.'' Contrary to the Christian doctrine of an omniPotent, impassable Teilhard'sevolutionary God Vho createsimmediatelyand efforrlcssly, God "labors to produce" and is "alwaysobliged to Passrhrough a whole seriesof intermediariesand to overcomea whole successionof inevitablerisks."'n 3. Tbe confrsion of the psythic with the spiritual.'All that exists is matter becoming spirir," wrote -leilhard. "'I-hereis neither spirit nor matter in the worldl the'stuff of the universe'is 'spirit-matter.' " ' ' Elsewherehe wrote that, "from a purely scientific and emPirical Spirit, then' standpoint,the true name for'spirii is'spiritualization."' from the unconsclousto is a process,"a gradualand systematicpassage rt' self-conscious." to the the conscious,and from the conscious 'leilhard believedthat, while living organismsare evolving,"spiriC' is evolving along with them. But for him thesewere not rwo seParatc they were aspectsof a singlespirit-matterevolution. processes: Just as the conceprof biologicalevolution underminesthe distinc-

552

553

CsNrsrs, Ctl:arroNANDEARI_y MAN

EoIton's EPIlocue

tion betweenthe crearednaruresof living forms-seeing,asdid ErasmusDarwin,a "singlelivingfilament"berween thcm-so too-[bilhard's conceptof spiritualevolution(consciousncss becomingspirit) underminesthe disrinctionbetweenthe psychicand rhetruly spirirual. 4. Nibilism: tbe destuctionof 'lruth. 'All around us," writes Teilhard,"and wirhin ourselves, God is in process of'changing';his brillianceincreases, and the glow of his coloringgrowsricher."r,II the Cod of creariorr is changing,thereis no irnmurableFirstprinciple,no basisfor Absolutetuth. Evolutionismis thusan expression of nihilism, accordingto the definirionof FriedrichNierzsche: "-fhat rhereis no tnuh: that rhereis no absolLrte srateof affairs-no 'rhins in itselfi' 7'hisaloneis Nihitint, and of the ntlst txtremeflrrl. " Wh.ir Fr. Seraphim calledthe "mcraphysical foundation"of 'lbilhardism,rhen,is acruallythe rotallackof sucha foundation. 5. Chiliasm:the inuersionof Tiuth. -leilhardbelievedthat rhc psychicprincipleof rhenoosphere--"the soulof rheEardr'-would gradually convergein the OmegaPoint,at which time the "part of God', which wasevolvingin the world would ar lasrreachsuprenre Uniry. In this dcrctrine,which Teilhardtermed.cosntogenesis, Christicemergcnce,etc.,we seean extremeand fantasric expression ofwhat ljr. Seraphim idenrifiedascbiliasm: rhebelicfin the perlectibilirv of rhisfallen earrh.Chiliasm,Fr. Seraphimtaught,is rhe other sideof rhe coin of nihilism;it is che"posirive"conrenrthat fills the void left in the wake of nihilism.Justascvolurionis rhelogicalcorollaryof nihilism,chiliasmis (in Fr.Seraphinis words)"alnrostan inevitable deduction"from evolution.\X/hilenihilismis a negationof'liurh (anri-1'rurh), chiliasm is an exacrinversionof it (counter--l-rurh). In one placeFr.Seraphimexplained:

ing of Chrisr . . .), and man irr the lastdavswill be muchlowerspiritually rhan in the earll'Church.. ; incorruptionand immortaliry prcccdecorruptionand mortaliryThc perfectionand immortaliry or "evolution" of tlrc coming age (heaven)are not a deuelopment from the prescntworld (asTcilhardde Chardinwould haveit .. .),

The wholc"evolurionary philosophy" whichgrasps peoplcroday lcadsthcm ro bclicve,ofien unconsciously,in a vicw ofcreation ano lifc' which is jusr thc opposite of whar Christianiry reachcs:simple

but a radicaltransformation. Gal. The ultimate goal of this inversion,of course, 6. Man becomes cannot but include a pervertedconceptof the deificationof man' Teilhard pointed to "the existenceaheadof us of some critica.land final point of ultra-hominization,correspondingto a completereflectionof the noosphereupon itself." "ls it not conceivable,"he asked' "that Mankind, at the end of its totalization ... may reacha critical level of maturity where ... it will detachitself from this planetand join the one of things, the Omega Point?"" rrue, irreversibleess€nce deificaIn his SurvivalCourse,Fr. Seraphimspokeabout the {:alse the Superman: idea of tion of man in relation to Nietxche's Contemporarywritcrssuchas Erich Kahlertalk abouthow all the and in ideas,areProducboth physically of moderrtsocicry, changes ing what he calleda mutation,somekind of irew man."*And if, on scicntificideaofcvolurron, top ofrhat, we bearin mind rhcso-called believcdin, we seerhatthisidcaof thc comwhich in facrNietzsche lt is a real ing ofa'!rew man,"ofsupermatr,is not at all a fantasy. by Wcsrcrnman in idcathat hasbeenarrivcdar naturally'logically, his tllling awayfrornGod and rryin;ito find the new religion' Fr. ScraphimconsideredNietzscheto be, togetherwith Teilhardde Chardin, a major prophet of Antichrist. Vhile Nietxche's role was with nihilism, -lbilhard'swas more demore negative,being associated

firllsro rhe impcrf'ecr(Paradiseto flllcn world; and cven hisrorically, rhe Holy Fathcrsnorc rhc fall of mankind in gcncralunril the corn-

' The GermanthinkerErich Kahler( I 885-1970)wrotc:"T he powerfultrcnd presentin rhc ofrhc individual .. nranifestly and invalidation rowardthedisrLrption scicnrific, political' technological, lifc-cconomic, nrostdiversecurrcntsof modern ro we induced arc rhat overwhclming so artistic-appcars psychicand cducarional, (Kahler, Towcr dnd Ilr nature" of human ."" in it a tr,.tcmutation,a rransformarion tlteAbJs. pp. 225-2(t).

554

555

begerscomplcx, savagery"evolves"to civiliz.ation,imperfecr grvcs rise to perfcct, "progrcss,"ctc, According ro Orthodoxy, rhc pcrfecr

CaNesls,Cnea-rron ,ruo Eenw M,ru

Eotron's[]llt.or;utt

ceprively positive, associatedwith evolutionary chiliasm. But as Fr. Seraphimsabovequore indicates,Nierxche was also an evolurionist, and he wasalsochiliasticin his anticipationof rhe Supermarr. Drawing from the words of Nie rxche, Fr. Seraphimidentified rhe underlying philosophy of the rwentieth cenrury as follows: "God is dead;thereforeman becomesGod, and everythingbecomespossible." The God that Nietzscheproclaimedto be dead was of coursethe God of traditional Christianiry.As we have seen,however,this "dearh of God" is only a remporary phaseto make way for the new God of deism, with whom, in leilhard! inverredvision of "ultra-hominization," man is expectedto ulrimarelymerge. 7- Euolutionism replacel Christ as the Sauiour. This idea was expressedopenly in a blasphemoussraremenrrhat Teilhardwrorc onry a few monrhs beforehis death: "[t is Christ, in very rruth, who savesbur should we nor immediatelyadd that at the same time it is Christ who is savedby Evolution?"" ln'leilhard's conception,Christ roo is a product ofevolution; hence,evolution is greaterrhan Christ. If evolutionismwere rrue, therewould havebeen millions of years of death before "hominids" emerged into humans. ln this view, of course, the Genesis accounr of mans fall and its primarv consequence-death-can be read only allegorically.This abolishesrhe whole reasonof Christs coming, being crucifiedand resurrectingfiom the dead in order to saveman from the conseouences of rhe hll. Evolurionism, then, necessitares rhar the Chrisrian alleqorizethe Biblicalaccounrnor orrly of rhe crearionbur alsoof rhe ,eJemprion. fhe Saviour thus becomesso disrant as to becomc a deistic conccotion. If the mcchanismof evolution (whether torally material, rs in Darwinism, or marerial-spiritual,as in tilhardism) has brought man upward from slime,what "fall" is rherefor Chrisr to reverse? Here the effectsof thc evolutionist inversion of Truth are seen ntost clearl1,.In true Chrisrianiry a Saviour is neededto inrervenein history in order to miraculouslyreversea downward trend, while in evolutionisma deterrninisric,"intra-cosmic"processis naturally bringing abour an upward rrend, making a Savioursuperfluous. Teilhard himself has rnade this clear ro us. "We have to make a choice":he says,"evolurionor intrusion."rs By intrusion he mearrsprc-

which as we intelligence," cisely'the interventionofan extra-cosmic -[-he "evolution or rntruof choice lraveseen he categoricallyrejects. sion" appliesto rhe redemption of man jusr as it does to the origin of lifi. Mankind needsa Saviour.Accordingto its own philosophy,evolurionism eliminates the need for an extra-cosmicintelligenceto "intrude" into human history-as happenedwhen the transcendent(;od

))6

becameman in JesusChrist-because evolution itself has become a 'l-hat is why, as Dr. Volf'gang Smith has said in his kind of saviour. valuablestudy Tbilhardkmand the New Religion,"lt is lirerallytrue thxt -li'ilhard hasdeified evolution."'"

5. A Nau Etolutiondry Syntltesis

Having discussedall thesepoints ofltilhardism in our attempt to identily the meraphysicalfbundation of the "religron of the future"' 'leilhard's ideas did not ultithar we should once more emphasiz.e 'spirir metely come fronr him. As Fr. Seraphimsaid' "T'herercally rs a r7-and 'llilhard rappedinto it. of rhe times'" Whe n Teilharddied in 1955, thc neo-L)arwiniantheory of evolu'I'he synthesis tionary gradualismwas nearingthe peak of its prestige. he devisedberweenevolution and spirituality fit the intellectualmilieu of his times. -fhis is reflectedin his idea of "psychicselection":a spiri-

view of neo-Darwinian natural selection rualiz-ed But, as we have seen,the intellectualmilieu has changcdconsiderably sinceTeilhard'stimes. Now that the neo-Darwinian cdifice has begun to crumble, a new synthesisof evolution and spirituality is emerging-one that retainsthe metaphysicalfoundation laid down by 'l'eilhardismbut which takesinto accountthe new developments. One of the main architectsof this new synthesisis the contemporary American wrirer Ken Vilber. As the most influential thinker in Psychology,Wilber is now enthe movement known as T'ranspersonal joying a growing vogue among spiritually oriented intellectuals.Both PresidentBill Clinton and Vice-PresidentAl Gore have read his writtWith sixteenbooks rransings and publicly calledattention to them.28 lated into over twenty languages,he is now the most rranslated

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_ cerrainwhetherhe will be a figureof continuing inrpoirance,as'ltil_ hard de Chardin has been..Mrat concernsus now is rhar he, at leasras much as any orher thinker now wriring, seemsto be on the cutring edgeof the spirit of the rimes.* Wilber does nor atrempr to be an original thinker'l'he ra.skhe has chosen for himself, he says, is ro garher "orienring generalizations": that is, to take whar he regardsas rhe "besi' from iveryrhing and everlwhcre,and organizeit ir.rtoone philosophical,y,rth.ris.,',Ii his work, one seesa confirnratiol.rof what Fr. Seraphim wrore rwo dccadesago:

rhc lianspersonalAbsolute,which he calls(deliberatelyusing a gener,rliz.d tcrm) "Spirit." 'Ieilhard de Chardin, usessome of Although Vilber quotes from his rerminology,and offerspraisefor him' he cannot' strictly speaking, 'lbilhardt writings rePresentonly a small bc called Teilhardt follower. fiacrion of the thousandsof sourceswhich Vilber has integratedinto lris system.However,it is of deep significancethat Vilber, as a transnlitrer ofthc core ofmodern philosophy,hascome up with an integral visionof the spirir of the tirnes;and it is, in all its maior comPonents' -lcilhardianl 'fhe fiarnework of Wilber's synthesisof universalwisdom is the idea of Evolution within what he calls the "Great Nest of Being " Hc rightly observes:"lf there is one idea that dominatesthe modern and 'ltilhard, he is very portmudcrn nrind at lrrge, it is evoh.rtion."'' l.ike inuch inrerested in science, having done graduate research in biochemistryuntil his interesrin philosophy/spiritualirycausedhim to redirecrhis energies.Like'lbilhard also, he aims through his wrirrngs to lrclp combine scienceand religion' and has recentlywritten a book 'l-heManiage of Sensetlnd Slul: lntegrating Scienreand on rhe subiect, Religion(1998).- He readilyaccePtsthe latesttheoriesby which scienrific materialism has attempted to exPlain the universewirhout God-from a Big Bang of fifteen billion yearsago to the evolurion of rhen he entleavman "from simpG insentientand lifeless2161115"-xn.l into thesctheorics." ors to injectspirirrr:rliry lVilber refersto his philosophyas "euolutionary pa entheism'"" ln his fbrmulation, evolution is precededby "involution": Spirtt mantfesting itself in the universe,and rhen forgetting that it is Spirit He

A clraracrcrisric of modcrn currcnrs of rhorrght is ,,univcrs:rlism"-rhc arrcrnprro makca synthcsis rharwill includcall .,rrarrial" vicws:Masonry,ccunenism,Hcgclianism, Bahai,Unirarianrsm, 'l-hisis what "evolutionary" uniry of all rcligiorrs. philosophyis_a "universal"rhcory to cxplaineverything,and to jusrily cvcrything thc wayit is-univcrsalsalvation, a cosmicviewof evcrythingcnrcring into rhe univcrsalharmonyof rhingsasrhcyarc. Vilber, in drawing togetherhis synthesisof everything(one of his rnost popular rirfes is called A Brief History of Euerything), draws from the "widsom rradirions" (i.e., tradirional religions anJ philosophies, East and Wesr), fiom Vestern philosophers,and from rnodern psy_ clrologistsand scicntisrs;and ar the samerime he closelyfollows con_ temporary popular culture and fashionsin order, as he says,.,ro spor r.hezeitgext."*' "'Among his readersand colleagueshe is respectedfor his apparenr ability to integrate literally thousands of iirtellecrual sourcesAt once. For many, his aura of brilliance is inrensificd by the fact rhar he writes about having reachedadvancedlevelsof -l'ibetan Buddhist meditarion and having had an experienceof merging with

writcs: by "throwingitselfout" or "empryingita universe Spirirmanifests into mind, which condenses self" to createsoul,which condenscs into mattcr,thc dcnscstform of all' inro body,which condcnscs F-achof thoselevelsis still a levclof Spirit,btrrcachis a rcdttccdor

' As a signof rhis-
Core have Clinton and Vice-President ' Ihis is rhc book in which President shownspccialintercst.

55ri

559

CsNesrs.CrulrroN ,rNoElnly MnN

Eorron'sEprlocur:

"stepped down"versionof Spirir.At the end of rharproccss of involurion,all of the higherdimensions arccnfblded,aspotenrial,in the lowestmaterialrealm.And oncerhc matcrialworld blowsinro existence(with, say,rhc Big Bang),then the revcrse proccss-orevolution-can occur,movingfrom matterto living bodiesto symbolic mindsto luminoussoulsro purcSpiriritself In thisdcvelopmenr or jerrison evolutionaryunfolding,eachsuccessivc levcl docs nor or denythe previouslevcl,but rarherincludesor embraces it, jusrasatomsareincludedin molccules, whicharcincludcdin cells.whicharc includedin org:rnisms. Eachlevelis a wholc rhar is alsoparr of a largcrwholc.... In orherwords,eachcvolutionaryunfoldingtransccndsbur includesirs predeccssor(s), wirh Spirit rranscending and includingabsolutcly evcrything.'n

opcrarcsin parr by Darwiniannaturalsclecrion,but rhis proccss simply selcctsthosc transfrrrmarions rhar havc a/read;yoccrrred 6y mechanisms rhatabsolutely nobodyundcrstands.J'

Vilber saysthar this spiritual view of evolution must replacethe marcrialisticview, and notes rhar scientificmaterialismis now ironically, paving the way for an "euolutionbeyondrationality." rt In a chilling i nversion of Fr. Seraphim's prognosis, Wilber says rhat (which he callsrhe "flarland" menrality) is bur rationalism/materialism a step in man! evolurionarydevelopmenr:a srep away frorn old religious conceptions,so rhar man can arriveat a higher conceptof the Divine. Thus, in Vilber's view, materialism providesa positiuefuncrion, even though it must passaway in order to make rhe way for the new religiousconsciousness. Observing the widening fissuresin the neo-Darwinian establishmenr which haveappearedsinceTeilhard'sdeath,Vilber correcrlyobservesthat the Darwinian theory of "evolution by natural selecrion.. . can'texplain macroevolutionat alll"rt'He writes: 'fhc standard,glib, neo-Darwinian explanationof naturalselection-absolurclynobodybelieves rhis anymore.'Evolutionclcarly ' Vilber is writing in the form of dialoguehere,and so is spcakinghyperbolically.In actual[act,thcrearc manywho srill hold tenaciously ro rhe srandardneoDarwinianexplanarion, in spircof rhegrowingconringentof cvolurionisrs who op, poseit.-Ihe chiefrpologisr ofold-schoolnco-L)arwinism is RichardDawkins.

560

He goeson to point our that random murarions"cannot even begin to explain" the production of a wing or an eye, and thar rhcrc is 'iro evidencerultatsoeuer of intermediateforms."tu But elsewhere,rctaining the idea of the evolutionary processitself, Vilber says,"The orthodox scientific theory of evolution seemscorrecron thc what of cvolution, but it is proloundly reductionisrand/or conrradicrory on rhe how (and why) ofevoluriorr." "'As a panenrheisr,he seesthe Spirit which has manifesredas rhe cosmos(i.e., which lr the cosmos)as the driving fbrce behind evolution, and asevolution itself. Spiriris ... fully presentat eachand cverys(ageas thc euolutionary processixelf Spirir is rhc processof its own sclf-actualizationand unfolding;its being is its own becominglirs Goal is the Path ie seli'" In stepwith current developmenrs,\V'ilber infr.rscs this impcrsonal "Spirir" into thc "punctuatedequilibriurn"model ofevolurionrhar has been devisedby the nraterialist-evolurionists StephenJay (lould end Niles Eldredgeto accountfor thc lack of intermediareforms in the fossil record. According ro Vilber, Spirit maniFcstsitself in new fbrms which come inro ex istencenor gradually (as in standard nco, f)arwinism) but in "a huge leap,in a quantum-like fashion." He relers to this as "emergentevolution" and even as "creativeemergence."rl AJong with Teilhard, he speaksof the producrion of new orgrnisrns not as an effortlesscreativeact by a rranscendcnrGod, but as a laborious Process: Evolutionis not a statisrical accident-it is a laboringtowardSpirir, drivcn,not by happy-go-lucky chancc,howcvercomforringrharnotion is to thosewho dcny rcalityro any lcvelhighcrrhan insenrrent mattcr,but by Spiritirself.ar 561

Cr:nesrs,CnexrroN rruoEanlvMrr.r

Enrr-or's EpILocur

In an introductionro the reachings of rhe Hindu evolutionistSri Aurobindo,Wilberwrites: As Aurobindosaw-probablynroreclcarlythan anybctdy bcfcrre or since-the scienrificaccountof evolution,which relieson nothing but frisky dirr, dynamicmattcr,and proccsssysrcms(e.g.,chaos thcorics,flr-from-equilibriumdissipativcstructures,autopoicsis, scricsof transcrc.)cannotevcnbcginto cxplainthc cxtraordinary formarionsthar broughtforrh lifc from matterand mind fmm lifc, andtharis dcstincdto bringforrh,in just rhesanrcwiry,highcrmind ald overmindand supcrmind:Spiritalonccan accountfor the asronishmcntrharis the gloryof cvolurion.aJ Vilber acknowledgesthe fact that almost all prcmodern cultures viewed the history ofthe world not asan evolutionaryunfolding from a lower state,but rather as a devolution from a higher state."But," he wntes,

And, rhis extraordinaryview conrinucd, evoluion in generalis nothing bLrt rhe growrh and dcvelopmenttoward that consummatc porenrial, rl:,arsuml um bonum, rlnt cnsperfcctimmut, thar highcst (lround and Goal of our own decpcst naturc. Evolurion is simply Spirit-in-action,God in the making, and that making is dcstined to carry all of us straight to thc Divine.aa

l-ikeTeilhard,Vilber speaks of the"universal organism.. . growing realizarowardirs own highesrporentials, namely,the ever-unfolding rionandacrualization ofSpirit."a'Burasa transpersond psychologis he alsofocuseson indiuidual growthand evolution.Sincewe, like everyrhingelsein the cosmos,aremanifestations of Spirit,aswe further we merely remember that, after all, we are the very our evolution rolling: Cod-t AM-that hasstartedthe universe Vru are tlre Kosnos, Iiterally. But you rend to undcrstand this ultimatc lact in incrcasingglimpscsof rhe infiniry rhat you are,and you rcalize exactly why you srarrcd this wonderful, horriblc Game of Lifc. Bur it is absolutelyrror a cruel Came, nor ultimately, because

ro pinpoinrcxsomctimcin thc moderncra-ir isalmosrimpossible actly-the idca of hisroryas devolution(or a fall from Cod) was skrwlyrcplaccdby thc ideaof historyascvolution(or a growthrowardGod). We secir cxplicirlyin FriedrichSchelling(1775-1854); rhedoctrinewith r genius GcorgHegcl(1770-1831)propounded ( rarelycqualcd;HcrbcrtSpenccrI 820- 1903)madcevolutiona universallaw;and hisfricndCharlesf)arwin ( I 809- t ti82) appliedit to in Sri Aurobindo(1872-1950), biology.Ve thcn find ir appearing

you, and you alonc, instigatcdthis Drama.... If we cngageall the levclsofour own porential . .. woni that bctter hclp us to rcmcmbcr rhc Sourcc of thc great Gamc of Lifc, which is not othcr than our own dccpcstSclf?IfSpirit is thc Oround and Goal ofall ofthcse lcvcls,:rnd if wc are Spirit in truth, woni thc wholcheartedcngagemcnt olt all of thcsc levcls hclp us remcmbcr who and what we really arcJ...4('

who gavepcrhapsirs most accuratcand mosr profoundspirirual and Picrrel'eilharddc Chardin(1881-1955). who nradcit conrexr, larnousin theVcst. within thc span
a world wherethc Kosmosis yoursoul,the cloudsyour lungs,rheraindropsrhebeatofyour heart....Youwill look at the moonaspartof your bodyand bow to the sunaspartofyour heart,and all of it rsjust

562

563

Now echoing Nietzsche, !(ilber calls our deepest Selfour "Superman Self."at In realizing rhat you are God, he says,"You will awaken to

so.

what he ring, he recommends In order to expeditethis remembe calls"integralpractice"for all levelsofour being,sayingthatwe should "nrix and match"physicaland spirirualpractices rangingfrom jogging

GsNesrs, CnexrroNIND E,rntJMrN

Eorron'sEpllocue

to tantric sexualiryto deiry yoga to centering prayer to Advaita Vedanta ro "Christian formlessmeditation."oo

its attitude toward evolution. "Religion will also haveto adjust its attirude toward evolution in general"lhe says,and "any religion rhat atrempts 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 within the Neu Synthesis In T'he Mariage of Senseand Saal, Wilber outlines the agenda rhat the world must follow in order to combine sciencewith religion, t0 as well as to establisha "universaltheology" which all religionscan embracewithout losing their ourward differences.He tells the mainstream scientific establishmentthat, in order ro inregratewith religion, modern sciencemust renounceits allegianceto uncompromising materialism.Sciencemust "do nothing more than expand from narrow empiricism (sensoryexperienceonly) to broad empircism (direct experiencein general)";t'that is, ir must also include psycho-spirirual experience. Vilber then tells religion what it must do in order to fit within the broadestparametersof the new religio-scientificparadigm. Firsr of all, he says,"Religions the world over will have rc brackettheir mythic belief," and he cites as examples Moses parting the Red Sea, Chrisr being born of a Virgin, and the creatiolt occurring in six days.5t He concedesthat proponents of a religion can keep any mythic beliefsthey want, "as long as they do not expectany form of scienceor any other religion to acknowledgethem": -I'hisdocsnot meanthat we will loseall religious and todifferenccs New-Age cal color and fall inro a unifbrm mushof homogcnizcd solspirirualiry...Most rcligionswill continueto offcr sacramcnts, (and in othertranslative or horizontalconsolations), acc,and myths of verticalconpractices additionto the genuinelytransfornrative needsto changedramarically rcmplation.Nonc of that neccssarily for any religion,althoughit will be scr in a largercontextthat no longerdcmandsthat its mythsbc the only mythsin the world.tj The secondchangethar Vilber saysreligion must make concerns

564

'Ib the cxtcnt religionsbrackertheir mythic beliefsand focuson thcir esoteric core. . . an acceptance of cvolutionis a modestadjusrnrcntindecd.In fact,AurobindohasalrcadybroughtVcdanta(and the entireswecpof Indianphilosophy)into an evolutionary accord. AbrahamIsaacKook hasalreadypointcdout rhar "Thc theoryof wirh rhc secrers cvolutionaccords of Kabbalahberterthanany orher theory"'fhc greatIdealists havealreadyclearedthe way for an evolutionaryspirirualiryAnd hasnot thc Popehimselffinallydeclared that "cvolutionis morethana hypothesis"?is A little later, Vilber brings our a notable exception ro his concessionthat religionscan keeptheir "myths" and still participarcin tlre new synthesis: allegiance to a mythic Edenrn lb rhecxtentthat a religionpledges any actualscnse,it will haveinsuperablc difficultyparticipatingin and philosophy."' rheintegrationof modcrnscicncc Lastly,he praises'ltilhard de Chardin for helping Christians to overcome this insuperableobstacle: asa [-Itilhards]notionofthc Orncgapoinr (of Christconsciousncss) future atrractorfor prcsentevolution-a notion borrowedfrom Schellingand Hegel-freed many Christiansfrom the impossible mythicbeliefin a literalGardenof Edenand a morbid fixation(a Romanticdeathwish)to thc long-dcceased past.tT 7. The "God" of the New Slnthesis Applying his teachingson the evolution of consciousness to the political sphere,Wilber writes:

565

GrNrsls, (ln'rartoN ,r.no E,rnrv MIN Spirirual or rransracionalawarcnessis transli\eralawareness,not prrliberal awarcness.lt is not reactionaryand,regrcssiue, it is cuolution("progressivc" ary and progres:iue being one oI rhc common terms for "libcral"). Thus, genuinespirirual experience(or spiritual Enlightenment) as it displaysitself in thc political arenais not prerationalmythic belief ... but rather transrational awareness,wlich, building on the gains of liberal rationalitT and political liberat*m, extcnds rhose frcedoms flrom the political to the spiritual sphcre.... The result, we might say,is a libcral Spirit, a libcral God, a liberal Coddess.t8

EchoingTeilhard,Vilber callsthis liberalSpirit the "World Soul"* and speaksin chiliastictermsabouthow scienceand spiritualitywill togetheropcnmankindup to the new God: And so thcre wc stand now, at r:rtionality,poised on the edge of transrarionafpcrceprion,a rientia a*ionis that is bringing here and thcrc, bur evcr and ever more clearll ro all sortsof pcople in all sorts of places,powerfrrlglirnmersof a true Dcsccnt of the all-pcrvading 'World Soul.:e

All this, Vilber says,is bringingabout a "worldcentric"awareness, pluralism": basedin "universal And wc arc sceingsigns of this new, inregral undcrstandingacross the board-in psychology,philosophy,business,economics...."

At the end oF this processlieswhat Vilber, borrowingrerminology from leilhardand otherwriters,calls"the centauricevolutionaryepoch," "the integrationof the noosphere and biosphere, the supranat' tionalorganization of planetary consciousncss." Of course,Vilbe r's"liberalGod" of the cmergingglobalreligious is just the kind of "vagueidea'rhat Fr. Seraphimsays consciousness 'The paganidcaofa "Vorld Soul"is refirtedat lengthby Sr.(iregoryl)alamas. 'fbe Sec Philolalia. vol. 4, po. 347-49.

566

t DI'roR's EPIl-ocuE

nrakesone susceptibleto demonic influence. ln the context of rhe vaguereligiousfeeling that characterizes the new religiousconsciousncss,this "God" may seem like a Creator of sorts.A clear theological cvaluarion,however,revealsthis conceptof deiry as a revivalof pagan idcaswhich are hr removedfrom the true Creator-God of rhe Bible, the Holy Fathers,and Orthodox Christianity. Ken Wilber himself affirms that his idea oF "creativeemergence," by which he attempts ro combine spiritualiry with the recent evolurionary conceprof "punctuated"evolution, is rooted in ancient pagan philosophy.lt was given its rnost detailedexpressionin neoplaronism, which issuedthe lasrmajor challengeof paganphilosophyto Christian theologyat the dawn oF Orthodox Christian civilization in the fourth cenrury A.D.3In one form or anothel it has been found in virtually every strain of falsemysticism (rheosophy,kabbalah,etc.) since thar rime. It is perhapsthe highestidea that humanly devisedmetaphysics can arrive ar when the fallen mind of man is not submitted to-and raisedup by-Divinely revealedtheology. Accordingto rhe paganphilosophicalnotion, the deiry doesnot credteex nihilo in the classicalChristian sense,but ratherdiffusesor emanatesitselfinto the crearion.Formsand beingsappearsuddenly,but this is an "emergence"out ofan impersonalCodhead ratherthan a creation wholly "other" than His creatron. by a Persorral God Who is in essence As against the pagan view, the Orthodox rheologian Vladimir Losskyelucidatesthe true meaningofcreation accordingto the Scriprural-PxtristicChristian doctrinc: Crcationex nihilod,ocsmcanjust suchan act of producingsomcdringwhich is "outsideof God"-thc productionof an cntirclyncw subjcct,with no originofany kind eitherin thc Divinc Naturcor in any matteror potentiallyof beingexternalro God. Ve might say 'Wilbcr claimsrhat Plotinus(a.o. 205-270),the nrain thinker of thc neothe world hasevcr platonicschool,was "arguablythc grcatcstphilosopher-mystic krown" (The Marriageo/ Setrcanl So , p. l8). He sccsthc Indian philosopherNaEmprincss garjuna(second-rhird ccntury,r.o.),who raughrthar Absolrrrc manifcsrs irselfasall fbrm, as Plorinus'contcmporary coun[crpartin rhe East(lfilbcr, Sar, Eolog, Spiriruality:Thc Spirit of Euolution,pp. (t38 69,692*97).

567

CrNesrs,Cnr:erroNrNo E,rnlyMaN

Eorlon's Epllo<;ur-

rhat by creationex nihilo Co,J'inakesroom" for somethingwhich is whollyoutsideof Himself;that, indecd,He sctsup the "outside"or nothingness alongside His plenitude. Thc resuftis a subjecrwhich is entircly"othcr" infinirelyremovcdfrom Hirn, "nor by placcbur by nature,"asit is expresscd by St.JohnDamascenc.* Thc crcationis not a kind of speading out or infinitcdiffusion "The of thc Godhead.... Good difl'usingirselfbv irself" of neoplatonismis not thc God of Sr. Paul,Who "callerhthoscthings which be not asthoughthcywere"(Rom.4:17).ur

excessitybur our oflove. He lovesus, His creatureswho are in essence lcrnal to Him, and He wishes us to meet Him in a pefsonal rclarionshipof love, so thar we may participat€in Him through His grace.Vladimir Losskywrites that, in the Christian vision,

According to the neoplatonic idea, since Absolute Being is ultimately impersonal,it has no Personalwill. 'Iherefore,the production ofbeings cannot be an act of freewill, but is rather a natural dilfusion that occursby virtue of some necessiry ofthe Divine Nature. ln other words, it is the natureof the Godheadto diffuseitself into the realmof form and appearances; there is no "choice"involved. ln the Christian revelation,on the other hand, since God is Personal, he crearesby a Ji'eeact of will. Vladimir Lossky writes:

rhe crearcduniverseis thus nor seen,as in platonicor platonizing rhought,under the paleand attenuatcdaspcctof a poor rcplicaof the Godhead;rathcrit appcarsasan cntirclynew being,ascreation freshfronr the handsof the God of Gcnesis"\Whosawrhat ir was willedby God and the joy of His Visdom, good,"a creatcduniverse "a harmoniousordinancc,""a marvellously composcdhymn to the powerof the Almighry,"asSt.Cregoryof Nyssasays.-

' St. OregorvPalamas writcsrhat"evcrycrearcdnatureis far removcdfronrand conrplcrclvforeignto thc Divine Nature" (7be Philokalia,vol. 4, p. 382), even rhoughCoclcrcatcs and sustains thecrearionrhroughHis l)ivinegrace(energies).

Thus, rhe impersonalGod of the pagan(and neo-pagan)conceprion is shown to be vastly"weaker"than the God of Orthodox Christianity. [t cannot volitionally createex nihilo in rhe true sense,but can only of necessitymanifestforms out of its own nature. Vhile this view of "God" and "creation"is indeednorhing new,we have seen how it has been given a new evolutionary framework in modern times by rhinkerslike Teilhardand Vilber. In Vilber's words, the ancient pagan teaching of a seriesof diffusions of the Divine Nature has now been "temporalized"by the modern theory of evolution.6t The paganideaof "creativeemergence"appearsto fill in the all the gapingholeswhich exist in the currentlycompeting modelsof naturalistic evolution. lntegratedwith the "punctuated equilibrium" model evolutionistsStephenJay Gould and Niles devisedby atheist/agnostic "Spirii' to explain both rhe lack of intervague Eldredge, it provides a mediate forms and the lack of a purely naturalistic mechanism of evolution. Once the evolutionistadmits a vagueconcept of deiry, the idea that Vilber has synrhesizedmakesabsolutesense,fitting in periectly with the evolurionary framework of billions of yearsof earth history. According to this view, Cod has "emerged" into the world over billions of years in successivelyhigher forms. 1r is xill erolutio*-u Vilber affirms at every turn-bur it is far removed from the old naturalisticparadigm.

568

569

The creationis a work ofwill and not of naturc.... ln thc actofcr.*'I hereis, in tion God wasunderno necessity of any kind whatcver. fact, nothing in the Divine Naturewhich could bc thc necessary causeofrhe productionofcrcatures: creationmight just aswell not exist.God couldequallywell not havccrearedi crcationis a frceact of His will. and thisfreeact is thc solcfoundationofthc existencc of all beings.... Crcation,which is thusa freeact of thc will, and not (likc the shiningforth of rhe Divinc energies) a naturaloutpouring,is an act propcrto a God Who is Pcrsonal, ro the -liiniry Whosecommon will bclorrgs ro the DivineNaturc."r In the Orthodox Christian vision, then, God createsnot our of ne-

CrNssrs, CnalrloN ,rNo EeRLyMlN

It is inrerestingto note thar StephenJay Gould is a Marxisr, and has himself commented on the connecrion berwecn his "ounctuated equilibrium"theory ofevolutionaryleapsand rhe Marxisr ideaofsocial evolution through successive, rapid changes(revolution).u6This connectionshedsfurrher light on Fr. Seraphim! prediction thar spirituality will be added to communism ro form the religion of rhe futu re. In discussingthe "God" of the new religio-scienrificsynthesis,we should comment here on an apparenrconrradiction in [jr. Seraphim's prognosis.In one place Fr. Seraphrmsaysthat the new God will be that of the deism of Freemasonryand the Enlighrenment,and elsewhere he says thar 'ltilhard is rhe predecessorof the New Religion-and Teilhard,aswe haveshown, wasa panenrheist. Upon closeexamination, however,the differenceberweendeism and panentheismis seento be more one ofdegreerhan ofsubsrance.In his SurvivalCourse, Fr. Seraphimpointed out rhat, "in rerms of religion, deisnrwas perhapsthe most typical movemeni' of rhe Enlightenment, but at rhe same time the deisric philosophersof that rime replacedCod with "Nature" as their cenrralconceprtand some called God 'ihe soul of the world." Fr. Seraphimdescribedthe Enlightenment idealasfollows:"Nature ruling overeveryrhing,rhe mysteriesofNarure beingdiscovered,God still being in His heavenalthough nor doing very much, and scienrificknowledgeprogressing over rhe whole world." The L.nlightenmentthinkers were fully in the rradition of modern science, which aroseduring the Renaissance out of a kind of "natural mysticism"-and even,as in the caseof GiordanoBruno (1548-1600),out ofrhe marriageofscienceand total panrheism. ln his book The Making of the Modern Mind, J. H. Randall, Jr., wrires that, in rhe Enlightenment,the ideal of the Natural was "thar which men wanred to realizethemselves; and ir easilypassedover rnro the Divine. Nature wasGod's model for man; nay, it was rhe very face of God himself."t" In this way, Enlightenmentdeism passedover not inro pure pantheism,but into a kind of deism/pancnrheism.Enlighrenment thinkerskept rheir impersonaldeisticGod "in heaven,not doing much," but their religious interest becamedirected toward the "face"of God which rhey identifiedwith impersonalNature.

570

Eot'xrn'sEprlocue

If 'feilhard de Chardin is indeed the prophet of the future combinirtion of scienceand religion,then for the most part this combinarion It will will be not purely pantheistic,but rather deistic/panentheistic. bc remembered that Fr. Seraphimcalled the famous evolutionary scicntisr 'fheodosius Dobzhansky a "deisi' after reading Dobzhanskyt 'iheological" statements-and Dobzhansky was an admirer of the prnentheistTeilhardde Chardin. But it is a secondarypoint just how far the future combination of scienceand religionwill go on the scalefrom deism to pure pantheism. The main point is that, unlike the scientificmaterialismof today, the refigio-scientificsynthesisof tomorrow willhave a "God," and it will not be He Vhom 'lbilhard disparaginglycalled 'the Father-God of rwo thousand yearsago." Its "God" will be vague,and it will not be I)erso nal. 'l'he sanrecan be saidofthe "Chrisi'of the New Religion.Already we can seewithin the mainstreamculture a concertedeffort to reinterprer Christ so that He is no longer rhreateningto the fallen human narure and to the devil-so that He is no longera Sauiour. If, accordingto the neo-paganview both we ourselvesand Christ (togetherwith everythingelse)are but diffusionsof the l)ivine Nature, rlren there is nothing for Christ to do but guide us back to gnosisof what we alreadyare. -fhis idea, of course,is preciselythe idea that is now being promoted under the guiseof being the authentic, esoteric teachingof Christ. In actual fact, it is but a revivalofthe ancientgnosric heresy,basedon paganphilosophy,that was rightlv condemned by rhe early Fathers. Ken Vilber speaksofthe teachingswhich are being "rediscovered" in rhe gnostic texts: It is obviousfrom thesetextsthat Jesus'primary religiousactiviry wasro incarnarein and as his followers,in the manner,not of the notion),bur ofa true Spirionly historicalSonofGod (a monstrous and daughtersof God.... to becomc sons Cuide helping all tual strandsto the pointsout that thcrcarethrcecsscntial ElainePagels CosPcls:(l) rcvcalcd in the Gnostic of Chrisr, as csotericmessage "Self-knowledge is knowlcdgeof Godl the [highest]selfand rhe di-

571

M,rlr Grt tpsts,CnrarIoN,\I.toE,tRt-v

Eorrrrn'sElrr.oc;ur:

(2) "'I'he'livingJesus' vincareidenricirl." of thcsctcxtsspeakof illusion and enlighteoment, not of sin and rcpcntance.(3) "Jcsusrs not asLord but asspiritualguide."Ler ussimplynorethat prcsented rcligion.on rhosearcprecisely ren*s of Dharmakaya

rhis philosophyis paganin nature.But if ir is indeedthe philosophyof Anrichrist,as Fr. Seraphimhassaid, it mrrsrbe also infernal in n:rture. 'l'his conclusionis borne out by the following considerations: 'l-he idea that man can becomeGod, no matter what sophistil. cated modern guise it may rake (whethcr "ultra-homin ization," as in 't-eilhard, "remembering,"as in Vilber) is an expressionof rhe prior mordial tempration of satan to mankind: "In the day ye eat thereof, your eyesshall be opened,and ye shall be asgods" (Gen. J:5). lt is also rhe same temptation by which satan, who desired to be equal with God, fell from heaven. This is the first reasonwhy Fr. Seraphinrcalled evolutionism the key ro the philosophyof the last greatdeception.In its "spiritualized"

Here is a clear example of rhe denatured Christianity of which we spoke earlier.Christ is seenas a vagueconcept of ultimate Cood, the belief in Him as the only begottenSon of God is rejectedas a monstrous notion, and the idea is put forth that we ourselvescan be just like Him. This is a crucial element in the "religion of rhe future," for by it the Antichrist will actuallybe convincedthat he is another incarnate Son of Cod. ln an ourward way, the imitator of Christ will appearas a kind of saviour,solving man'seconomic and political problems and olfering to satisly his spiritual aspirationsrhrough what Fr. Seraphim called a "melting pot" of scienceand world religions.On a deeperlevel, however,the real saviourwill be seenas evolution itself, moving forward in a natural development of this world into the Kingdom of God. The last greatdeceiver,who in the end will pretend to be Christ, will be seenas but anothermagnificentproduct of evolution. 8. The Philosophy ofAntichrist According to Fr. Seraphim,the "New Religion" and "New Christianiry" foreshadowedby lbilhard de Chardin will be based in a " demonic initiatiott hitherto restrictedto the pagdn world.""'ln his book Orthodory and the Religon of the Funre he describessome of the "religious experiments"-ranging from UFO encounters to "charismatic" phenomena to sophisticatedmeditation practices-which have preparedformerly Christian peoplesfor this initiation by making them open and passiveto new spiritualexperiences.tu Obviously,not everyonewho will experiencethe "demonic initiation" of the New Religion will at the sametime consciouslyembrace rhe full scopeofthe philosophybehind ir. And yet, as Fr. Seraphimhas said,there ri such a philosophy,and its key is to be lound in evolutionism, specificallyTeilhardianevolurionism.We havealreadyshown thar \7 )

forrl, it is the basison which man becomesrhe Supermanand realizes his godhood. It is a philosophicalmanifestationof rhe devil! first offering ro man. According to the sober measuring-stickof Orthodox Christian spirirual lif'e,thcre must alwaysbc a distinction berweenthe creature and the (lreator.Saintsnray be wholly filled with God's UncreatedEnergies(grace)ro such an extent that they are said to be "deified," but they remain creaturesby naturc 2. l'he fact thar evolutionismis an exact inversionof Tuth is another indication that it is connectedwith dark forces. Fr. Seraphim once said, "The very narure of the last great world ruler is to be aril-Christ-and 'anti' meansnot merely 'against,'but also 'in imirarion of, in placeo1.""' He will seernro take the placeof Christ, but will actually be rhe oppositeof Him. He will copy the'lruth, but will presentit to the world in an invertedimage,as in a mirror. The demonic principle of inversionis seenin the rituals performed by saranists,in which they attempt to violarenature by acting in a way exactlyoppositeto the natural order:walking backwards,writing backwards,readingthe Lord'sPrayerbackwards,etc. L)volutionismis a philoof this attempt to mock God by reversingthe Truth. sophicalexpression The title of one of Ken Vilber's bool<s,Uplion Ed.ez,is a good example ofthe principleofinversion,sinceaswe haveseenmankind hasin reality gone downfrornEdenand can only be raisedup againby JesusChrrst. Here ir is worth noting that not only tradirional Christianity but ) /J

(lerursts.Cntanou ,qNuE,nrrv M,rN

all traditional cultures see mankind as hlving fallcn from a higher state,from a "golden age"; it is only rhe modern evolutionary worldview that seesthe opposire.J'his is because,being connectedwith ancient times, theseculrurespreserveda memory of rvhat had becn lost; and beirrgnroreconnectedwith the naturalorder,they undcrstoodthe processof degenerationthar had taken place. Evolutionism is the product of rrodern man who has becomeso divorced from the narural order rhar he can honestlybelievein its exactinvcrsion. 3. Panentheism-viewing the cosmos as God-ties man to the carth and prevenrshim from reaching out to the true God of the Above,'ihe Father-Godof rwo thousandyearsago." Here it should be rememberedthat satan was himself cirsrout from heaven ano consigncd to the earth and the "underheaven"(Teilhard'snoosphere). "I'hus he is intenselyjealousof man'.sability to go to heaven,and rries by every rreans to keep man'svision fixed on sub-heavenrealms. ln panentheism,he can keep man worshipping and serving"the creature morc rarherthan the Creator" (Rom. l:25). 1-hedeiry is loweredto the psychic and even the physical realms, becoming a psycho-physical Creator. As we have seen,however,this is not a true Creator at all, sincethe universeis "creating"itself,or nrore preciselyeuoluingitselfin :r natural unfolding. "(lod" thus becomessubiectto change:a concept rorally unacceptablcto Orthodox theology. It will be noticed that, in his epistleto the Romans,St. Pauldid not speakof the pagansworshipping rhe creatureratherthan the Creator; he spokeof them worshippingthe c reatulemorethan the Creator.'l-his is a descriptionnot of pure pantheismbut of panentheism.Panenrhethat "part" ofthe deiry is outsidethe ism, aswe haveseen,acknowledges cosmos,but this "part" is disrantand uninvolved(asin deism).ln terms of religiousfeeling,that "part" which i the cosmosbecomesthe overriding deiry.1-hisis cleadyseenin the nature mysticismofl-eilhard de Chardin. Since satan has been called the "prince of this world" (literally, "prince of this cosmos"),'it is obviouswhy it is in his best interestto

Eorron'sF.prr.ocus keepthe religrousaspirationsof man direcredprinrarilywithin the cosltlos.

4. The idea of an impersonal/transpersonal Cod, said Fr. Sera"people who doni wanr ro meer the PersonalGod, phim, comesfrom bccauseHe definirely requiresthings of you." " As we have seen,an impersonalGod hasno freedomor will, but is subjectto necessiryas ir "emerges"into the world of forms, fulfilling the "porentialities"of its own existence.Such a God clearlycannor acr as the Judgeof man. By striving to take away God! Personhood-and thus His freedom and will-man sceksto escapeGod's judgment. Ultimately, howcver,Cod rr the Judge;and in denying Him asJudgeman also denies Him asthe only Onc \Vho can fbrgivehis sins.The impersonalisrconccpt of deiry,therefore,can be seenas an intellectualconstrucrbehind which man tries in vain to hide from the living God, just as Adam rried to hide among the treesofthe Garden and then tried to deny personal responsibilityfbr his actions.Without facing up ro the Personal (lod and repenting,man will not receivefrom Him salvation-and rhat is what the devil wants. 9. The Spirit behind the PhihsophJ

'Chrisr callsrhe dcvil 'ihe princeof rhisworld" threetimesin rhc Gospclof J ohn(Jo h nl 2 :31, l4: 30, l6: I l ).

Perhapsthe aboveconsiderarions are enough to indicatethe infernal intelligcnce behind the emerging zeitgeist. However, it may be helpful to presentsome external verification,conring from recorded encounrerswith this intelligence. ln 1976, rhe traditional Roman Catholic aurhor Fr. Malachi Marrin came out with the book Hostageto the Deuil, which contained case-studies of the possessions and exorcismsof five living Americans. Fr. Malachi researched his subjectthoroughly,interviewingthe people involved and transcribingrape-recordings of the exorcisms.Although tlris book dealswith exorcismsnot perfbrmedby Orrhodox clergyand hence is problematicin its descriptionsof how they should be conducted, it olfcrs valuableinsightsinto the ideaswhich demons usc on rnodern peoplein order to ger them under their influence. In one chapter,the author recountsthe story of a Romar:Carholic priest who becamedemonically possessed as a result of his deep in-

>/4

575

GcNs.srs,CnEATToN nuo Eanry Marl

volvementin Teilhardianevolutionarymysricism,which he learned aboutin an anthropology classat seminary. \X/hilein a srateof partial possession, the priestreceived wordsthroughwhat he latercalled"remotecontrol."He preached Teilhard's evolurionary ideasand changed the wordsof priestlyritualsto reflectblasphemy, saranworship,and a Teilhardian worshipofEvolutionand the "Spiritofthe Earth." \X4ren anotherpriestcameto exorcizehim, he said,againthrough"remote control":"EvolutionmakesJesuspossible. And only evolutioncando t nat .

Finally leaving the Catholic Church, the possessedpriest (now calling himselfJonathan)beganhis own church, where he could more easilypreachthe words thar he was receiving: He could preachon the MissingLink, for exarnplc, or a picturcof Neanderthal Man, andmakerhccntireideaofevolurionfrom inanimatematterappeara gloriousbcginning.For rhe furure,Jonarhan had a srill moregloriousoutlook.Thcrewasa new beingin proccss now, he told his congregations; and it would live in a new tirne. "New Being" and "New Time" becamehiswatchwords. was simple.... Everywherein rhc world Jonathant message around us therc were naturalsacraments, naruralshrincs.natural holincss,natural immortaliry naturaldeiry,There was a natural graceand ovcrwhclnringnaruralbcaury Furthermore,in spitc of thc chasmthat institutionalreligionhad dug berweenhumansand the natureof the world, thc world and all humanswerc onc in somenaturallymysticalunion. We camcfrom thar union and by dcarh we went back inro ir. Ionathancalledthat natural union 'Abba Father." In effect,Jonathannradea fatefulsynthesis of Teilhardian evolurionarydoctrincsand TcilhardsideaofJesus.And he pernreated ir wirh a decphumanismand a knowingeycfur rhc yawningindiffcrenccnow grippingtraditionalChristians. ln Jonathantoutlook,"religious"bcliefbecamecasyagain.At onc pole,one could acccptthe currenrlypervasive idca thar man evolvcdfrorn inanimatcmatter.Ar thc other,onc had no nccd ro "resurrccrion" aim at belicvingin an unimaginable of thc body.In-

576

Eotron's Epru>cul: stead,therc was a rcturn '\o whcrc we canrefrom," asJonathanttscd ro say:a gointr;back to the oncncssof naturc and of tlrc univcrsc. All this allowcd the cleverusc ofthe full rangcofvocabulary and conccpt about "salvation,""divinc lovc," "hope," "goodness,""evil," "honesry"-all tcrms and idcasthar were alrcadyso comforting and familiar to his congregation.But all thcsc tcrms were understoodin a scnsecomplctcly diffcrcnt fiom the traditionalonc: minus a supernaruralGod, minus a Godman callcdJcsus,and minus a supcrnatu-a ral condition callcd "pcrs,rnal,rltcrlife." At one point, Jonathan was instructed by his "remote control" to go out into the woods, where he would undergo a full demonic initiarion and his possessionwould become complete. "l was reaching the veined heart ofthe world," he told Fr. Malachi in one oftheir conversations, "to where Jesus,the Omega Point, was evolving and evolving, and was on the threshold of emerging." "lt seernedto him," writes Fr. Malachi, that "only this world was fbrgiving and clcansing," that ir alonc "united the elemenrs,"He had thc impressionrhar now ar last hc had "brokcn through," and rhat the rcvclationof all rcvelarionshad bccn grantedhim: thc rcal rruth, the rcal god, the rcalJesus,thc reat holiness,thc rcal sacrament,the real being, and rhe new timc tn which all this ncwncsswould inevitably takc ovcr. He lost count of ordinary time, of thc sun and thc wind, of thc ri vcr and i rs banks....The r ocksbccam cI iving t hings,his br ot hcr s and sistcrs,his millennial cousins,witncssinghis consccrationwtth rcvcrenccthat only naturc had. And thc watcr around him winkcd with gleaming eycs with thc song ir had learncd millions of years ago, from the swirling atoms of spacc,bc'forerhcrc was any world -' arrd man to hear ir. lr was an irrcsistiblccqrtasvftrr Ion.rrhan

conditionwas madeknown to all The seriousness of Jonathan's when,while performinga weddingserviceby the ocean,he wasinsrigatedby the dark powersto drown the bride-an atten)ptat which he exorcism,the fortunatelyfailed.At one point during his subsequent 577

CrNnsrs, CamrroN aND Ennly M,cNl

demon inhabitinghim beganunering ltilhardian paeansro world unrty: lwo or thrcebillion ycarsago,thc Earth.Eachonc of us 50 trillion cclls... . 200 million tonsof men,women and children.'lwo trillion tons of animallifc.... All so that Jesuscan cnrcrge.Oh, beautiful Omega!Praisethc Lord of this worldwith whichwc areall, all 200 million tonsof us,arconc.' r(' In the lastcase-studyof his book, Fr. Malachi rellsofthe possessron ofa distinguished parapsychologistand adept at Vajrayanameditarion, Carl V During his exorcism,the inhabiting demon is compelledby the priest-exorcistto tell how he deluded his host. The demon\ words, as recordedon tape,are especiallyrevealing.At one point it says: Oncc spirir is confirscdwith psychc,wc can lcr anybodysec,hear, He wasours.He is ours. touch,rastc,know,desircthe impossible. Hc is of rhc Kingdom.r' Of particularinterestis an interchangethat occurredlater berween the priestand the hostilespirit. [n rcading it, one should keep in mind our former discussionof panentheismand the concept of biological evolution occurring through rhe consciousness of the "Soul of the Vorld." Here, through the fallen spirit'sown admissions,we are givcn a glimpsc into both the rcligion and the scienceof the furure: "\Whcrcwcreyou lcadingCarl?" "'lo knowledge of the universe." The wordscomeout from bc(larl's twccn tightlyclcnchcdrccth. "Vhat knowlcdgc?"

Eot'ron's EPIt-ocun "How do you mean a 'part' rnerelyl" "They are partsof a greaterphvsicalbeing " "Vhat being?" "The universe." "-fhe univcrseof martcr?" I C 5.

'And of psychicforccs?" " "Yes. 'And rharthiswascrcatorof humansl" " " Yes. "A personalcrearorl" "No." "A physicalcreator?" "Yesalso." "A prychoplrysical crcaror?" "Yes.Indeed,yes." "Vhy did you leadCarl in thisway?" "Because hc would lcadothers." "Vhy lcadothcrsin thisway?" "Because rhcntheybelongto thc Kingdom." "Why belongro rhc Kingdoml".. . "lYlry, Priesr?lVhy?... IYHY?Becausewe hate thc Latter. We hate.Hatc. Hate.Wc hatethosestainedwirh hisblood.We hateand despisethoserhat follow him. \Wewant ro diverrall from him and wc want all in the Kingdomwherehe cannotrcachthem. Vhere thcycannorgo with him... . " "

dialogues from exorcisms aretranscriptions ofactual ' 'l'hisrnd thc subsequent rccorornSs.

It now remainsfor us to ask: Did the chief "prophet" o[ the New Religion in the modern West, Teilhard de Chardin, receive his ideas rhrough direct contactwith the hostilepowers,asdid the peoplein the aboveaccounts? Ve havealreadyseenhow Teilhardbecameawareof the "conscious envelope"surrounding the earth, in preciselythe realm of the underheavenwhich, accordingto Orthodox ascetictheology,the demons reside. But a mor€ revealingpassageis found in one of Teilhard'searly compositionsentitled "'l-he Spiritual Powerof Matter" (dated August

578

579

Thcre is no answcrat flrst. Then slowlyand grudginglyrnc wordscoms."The knowledge that humansarcjusta partof the unrvcrsc.

C eNesrs, CrearroN,rNnEar.rvMaN 8, l9l9), which seemsto be a dramatizedaccountof a mysticalexperience through which Teilhard had recentlypassed.Teilhard appended this piecero one of his last books, The Heart of the Marrr (his "Conthan I could today the hcady fessions"),to "expressmore successfully emotion I experiencedat that tinre from my contact with Matter."-" 1-heaccountbegins: 'I'hc man was walking in the dcserr,followedby his companion, a breath whenthe-['hingswooped downon him.., . Then,suddenly, his forehead, brokcthroughrhc barrierof his ofscorchingair passcd hissoul.'i'heman felt hc wasceasinpi closcdcyelids,and penetrated ofhim as ro bc merclyhimsclf;an irresistible rapturctook possession rhoughall rhe sapof all living things,flowingat one and the samc momentinto the too narrowconfinesof his hcart,wasmightily reflshioningrhcenfecbled fibrcsof hisbcing... . pcril opAnd at thc samctime thc anguishof somcsupcrhuman pressed him, a confuscdfcclingthatthc forcewhichhadsweptdown o[ cvil and upon him wascquivocal,rurbid,rhe combinedcsscnce goodncss.. .. "Youcalledme:hercI am" [says'the'I'hing"l."Grownwearyof absrractions, of attenuations, of rhe wordinessof sociallife, you wantedto pit yourselfagainstRealiryenrireand untamed....I was wairingfor you in orderro bc madeholy.And now I am establislrcd on you for life,or for death.,,.He who hasonceseenme can never forget me: he must either damn himselfwith me or saveme with hirnscli " IThe seerreplies:l"O you who arc divineand mighry,what is 8u your name?Speak." Having quoted rhis account in his book on Teilhard, Dr. Volfgang Smith observes,"lt is strangeindeed that Teilhard should address as 'divine' a spirit thar is not holy, and susceptibleof being damned.... Such are the 'signs'Teilhard de Chardin the mystic has *' left behind-meager perhaps,bur nor insignificant."

580

Enrron's Eprr.ocur

10.

'Tlte

Effect ofEuolutionary Philosophy upon Christians

Reflecting on how our once-Christiansociety is becoming ever nrore open to such infernal experiences, Fr. Seraphimasked: Vhat hasbroughrhumaniry-and indecd"Christendom"-ro this desperate state?Certainlyir is not any ovcrt worshipof rhc devil, which is limitedalwaysto a fbwpeople;rarher,it is somerhingmuch moresubrle,andsomethingfcarfulfor a conscious OrthodoxChrrstian to reflecton: ir is thelotsof thcgace of God,which followson the lossof rhe savorof Christianiry8r For those who, in our posr-Chrisrianrimes, are still able ro taste the savor of true Christianity, it is amazing that learned Christians-let alone Orthodox Christians-could embrace the infernal evolutionary vision of Teilhard de Chardin and his successors. As F-r. Seraphim has shown, however,this has in fact happened,even within Orthodoxy. Official Orthodox journals have praised and recommended the writings of lbilhard, with a well-known Orthodox theologian going so far as to say that Teilhard was connected "with the profound intuition of thc Orthodox Fathersof rhe Church."n' ltilhardi follower 'I'heodosiusDobzhansky,whoseevolutionarydersmexactly nt Fr. Seraphim'sdescriptionof the "religion of the future," was asked ro give a theologicaldissertationbefore a conferenceof all rhe most important Orrhodox 'theologians" in America, after which he was grantedan honorary doctorateoftheology lrom an American Orthodox Seminary!Clearly,what Fr. Seraphimcalled the lalse"Orthodoxy of the future" has alreadyarrived. For the Roman Catholic Church in Anrerica, it has been much worse. Dr. Volfgang Smith, a traditional Roman Catholic scientisr and philosopher,has remarked: So far asthe CatholicChurchin mostpartsof Europeand America is concerned, it might nor be roo much of an oversrarcment to contend that Teilhardism hasindeedbccomethe dominanrtrend.sa

581

CsNrsls,CnealroNar.roE,cnlvM.^N

Eolrol's Eptt-ocue

It appearsthat Protestantchurcheshave largelyescapedthe direct influence of 'ltilhardism, although here too rhe zeitgeist5ehind Teilhard's philosophy has infiltrated church walls. ln Orthodory and the Religion of the l:urure, Fr. Seraphim points out how charismatic churcheshave embracedas their prophet the anri-Orthodox Russian thinker NicholasBerdyacv,whosechiliasticvision ofthe "T-hird Age of the Holy Spirit" is basedon the same vague,chiliastic longing as is Teilhard's"Omega Point." Further,the very experiences evokedby the charismatic movement, of being taken over by a vague, impersonal force that is calledthe "Holy Spirit," open peopleup to rhe initiation which will characterizethe religion of the future. " Ibilhardism," Fr. Seraphirn noted in one pllce, "fits very nicely in wirh 'charismatic'

tlrought is to "broaden" onc'.smenral outlook. not ncccssarilydircctly attacking religiousideas(bur sometimesrhis also),in ordcr to make it irnpossibleto think in "narrow" rcligiousterms:

phenomena." Once again we should point out that the falseChristianiry (and be -lbilhardianrn an Orthodoxy) of the future will be not necessarily overt sense.As Fr. Seraphimwntes: who believcs in somcform ofevolutioncanacccprthe Nor evcryonc of Teilharddc Chardin; bur rhis blasphcmous pseudo-mysticism "mysricism"is only a mostlogicaldeducrionfrom vicwswhosefirll implicationsare entirelyunrealized by thosewho acceptevolution "in sonrcform." Teilhardhasonly given blatantexpressionto a spirir which is subtly at work in the world, undermining true Christianiry and building up a cleversubstitute.l-ike Ken Vilber and other thinkers who have fully imbibed the zeitgeist,'feilhard has shown us the true spirit behind evolution. This samespirit underminesChristian faith to one degreeor anorher,dependingon how much Christiansgive thelnselvesup to it. Even a relativelysmall degreeof capitulation can have seriousconsequencesfor one'sfaith. In his notes,Fr. Seraphimsummarizedthe effect that the products of evolutionary ph ilosophy-especially the evolutionary rime scale-have had on Christianiry:

(a) T'he ageof man and the univcrseis billions, nor rhousandsof years.This wcakcnsrhe "realistic"view ofthe Old Testamcnt,Adam, thc Parriarchs,Paradisc. (b) Mans lifctime becomeslcss crucial. Sooner or larec it becomes impossiblcto conrinuc ro stressthe "narrow" view of man's lifetime (and decisionfor ctcrnity) ifone believcsin a "broad, evotving" univcrse,especiallyin connection wirh Christianiry (c) 'fhc "broad" view of the naturesof things must sooncr or later involvc the narure of rnan: if everything changet i6 naturc, "evolves"fronr and to somcthing elsc-then why not man?

I L The "Wedge"and Bryond In the Christian world today,there is a wide rangeoflevelsofaccomodation to the evolutionaryworldview. Fr. Seraphimhas said of all such fcrrmsof accommodation: I think it needsto bc poinrcdour with urmostclarirythat thc rcligion of "compromise" is self'-deception, and rharthereexisttodayat bortomonly rwo absolutcly irrcconcilablc altcrnatives for man:faith in thc worldandthe rcligionofself,whoscfruit is death;andhith in Chrisrthe Sonof God, in Whom aloneis eternalLile.8t

One of rhe chief ideological-religious funcrionsof "evolutionary"

Here. indeed.is rhe crux ofthe matrer.Those who are seriousand earnestabout rheir faith in Christ the Son ofCod realizethat no fbrm of accommodationto the world is possible.They know the alternatrves to be irreconcilable.The prince of this world knows this also,and thus seestheseearnestChristians as his first targets.Constantly they are held up to ridicule, rejectedby the mainstreamacademicestablishment and then called "yahoos"for not being a part of it.3" Chrisrians must be preparedto acceprthis ridicule; if not, they will nor be able to face the far worse arracksrhar are, according to prophecy,ro come when the floodgatesofapostasybreak lorth in the world.

582

583

Cr"Nssrs,CrlrrroN at'tn Ea.nr-v MaN Many who call themselvesChristiansare in realiry so deeply "of the world" that ourward acceptanceby the world and its academicestablishment means more to them than spiritual acceptanceby Jesus Christ. The reigning philosophyof evolutionism is acceptedby rhem because,at the deepestlevel,beyond their intellectualbelief in Christ, rheir faith is what Fr. Seraphimidentifiedas"faith in rhe world and rhe religion of self."They do not love Christ enough to war with the spirir of this world-the devil-and so the world shapesthem. The spirit of rhe world sersthe intellecrualfashions,the fashionsset rhe tone for them, and they go in stepwith the world. Not being willing to die for Christ, they are certainlynot willing to be called"yahoos"lor Him by the world. On rhe other hand, there are many other Chrisrianswho truly do love Christ first of all but who have allowed some degreeof evolutionary philosophy into their Christian worldview simply because they do not know, becausethey havenot been informed of its fallacies and the unproven assumprionson which it is based.As Fr. Seraphim observes:

Eorron'sEur-ocus rheir claims can now be seen more widely for what they really are; philosophicaland religiousclaims.l.ooking at the siruation from that vantagepoint, Christianscan choosetheir philosophy.Vith the fall of materialisricDarwinisnr, they can know that their choice is not based on "science,"which cannot say anything for sure abour origins, but rarher on what thel wisb to belieue. For those who choosefaith in Christ over faith in the world, rejecting naruralistic,Darwinian evolution is only a beginning. (Even

Here is where rhe "wedge" that Phillip E. Johnson has described performsan important function. It may be true that, for a grearmany people, the crack that the "wedge" has driven into materialisticDarwinism will play right into evolutionarydeism/panentheism,but for thosewho seekthe true Christ it holds much positivesignificance.In freeingChristiansfrom the fear rhat evolution is an establishedscientific facr, it makesthem leel more freeto believeasChristians. Most scientists,ro be sure,will continue to hold up evolution as a fact even without holding onto the Darwinian mechanismfor ir, bur as a result of the "wedge" that has entered inro the culture at large,

Ken Vilber does as much!) True faith in Christ means rejectingthe core of evolutionaryphilosophy itself,which reachesfar beyond Darwinism and is in fact "the key to the philosophyof Antichrist." Vhen this underlying philosophy is abandoned,not only does the idea of biologicalevolution fall away (whether naturalisticor "God-guided"), but so do the other corollariesof evolutionary philosophy,including the evolutionary/uniformitariantime scaleand the evolutionary cosmogony. It is at this point that the work of the scientific creationistsperform a crucial function. These scientistsare what has righdy been 'fheir "narrow" called "the thin edge of Phillip Johnson's'wedge."' position at this thin edge has madc them "the offscouring of all things" ( I Cor. 4: l3) in the eyesof rhe world, but they haveendured rhis out of their earnestdevotion to Christ. In terms of basic Christian rheology,theirs is the only consistentand tenable scientific model oforigins. As apologistsfbr creation,they draw rhe battle lines not only at biologicalevolution, br:t at evcry other product of evolutionary philosophy in the field of science,beginning with the uniformirarian "billions of years"scenario.lf this scenariowere true, even the idca of a Creator-God, who fbr billions of yearswas "constantly replacingextinct specieswith new species,"t'comes to resemblethe weak, attenuated,"laboring" deity of Vilber's "creativeemergence." lf there were really billions of yearsof animal death and millions of yearsof "hominids" beforeman'sappearancc,then the whole meaning of the goodnessof the first-createdworld, the death that came into the world as a resultof man'ssin. and the redemption of the world by Chrisr becomesmuddled if not entirely lost. On the other hand, if, as the Bible and the Biblical creationistshold, God made man at the be-

584

t85

"spiritof rhe agc"which fhey do not understand the philosophical gaverisero evolution,and thereforethey naivelyacceprthe "scienti0c fact" ofevolution, but rejectrhe finished, phi/osop@ofcvolurron asin Teilharddc Chardin.Thcy do not seetharrheseareonewhotc; wirhout the philonplry,there would nevcr havc becn the "fact" of cvolution.

Csrursrs,CtexrroN aruo Eeply Mnt.t

Eorron'sEprr-ocur

ginning of the world, if indeed Christ was speaking rruly when He said rhat 'fom the beginning of'the creation God, made them male and f'emale,"if rhe whole universeis reallymade for man and man has inhabited it for irs durarion, if we today can rraceour ancestryback to the flrsr man and woman, createddirectly by the hand of God at the world's origin only some thousandsof yearsago-rh en, indeed, hout closeis Cod!How crucial becomesman'slifetime, how immediare his decision for eterniry! How preciousis our life, and how preciouswe must bc, in the hands of an All-Powerful God Vho has brought all things into being, Jitr zs, in Six Days! Even afier man brought death into the world by turning away from his Creator, the (lreator came and took the sentenceofdeath upon Himself our of love fbr his precious creature,man. On the foundation of this uncompromisedChristian belief in the creation and redemption, the Holy Fathersbegin to raiseour understandingto yet higher levels,sheddingthe light of Divin e yision I theoza) on the (iod-inspired book of Genesis.Nowhere in rhe world does rhereexist such a wealth of rheologicalknowledgeon rhe origin ofthe world and of man as is found in the writings of the Holy Farhers, which are themselvesbasedon the only inerranr account of crearion the world hasever known. Virh the Holy Farhersas a guide, no consciousOrthodox Christian can everbe in doubr or confusion about his origin, lor the Holy Fathers provide the most precise rheological exposition-as much as rhe human mind can grasp-of how man and the whole world came into being. Through Parristicrheology,we are protectedagainsrthe falsedeification of man and crearionthat runs throughout paganand neo-pagan 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 accessto something far nrore glorious.Through the writings of the Frarhersour minds and heartsare raisedup to knowledgeofthe true God, living, Personal,closer ro us rhan our own brearh, Vho lreely and without necessityuilled w into existenceout of nothing, \X/ho oy nature is wholly "orher" than His creationand yer \Vho upholds and sustains everything in creationar every moment through His Uncreated

grace (energies),penetraringall things without mixing with them.88 Although we know that we are not God or a Part of Him, we find that our living God callsus into intimatecommunion with Him through parricipation in the life of His grace,that we may become sons and .laughrersofGod not by nature and begetting(aswith Christ the only begottenSon ofGod) but by graceand adoption.'Ve are callednor to rhc lalseglory which satanonce sought and was therebycast down to hell, but ro the true "power to becomesons ofGod" (John I:l2)'

586

587

rvhich raisesus to heaven. 'fhrough the Holy Fathers,we behold the full grandeurof man as he was originally created:of what the Holy Scripturecalls "the image of God" in man. The true God of the Christiansis so unfathomablein His power and nrajesrythat even the image of Him in man-though absolutely nothing in comparison with the Divine Nature-is rril/ grearer.rhan the feeble"God" of theisticevolution or "creativeemergence. Finally, through the Holy Scripturesilluminated by the Holy Farhers,we seecreation in a new light, as it is in truth We seea young earth createdespeciallyfor man, and yet partakingof decaybecauseof man'-ssin. Even amidst the decay and corruption, we can bchold rhrough the light of Christian contemplationglimpsesof the world as it was first made and was intended to be, and we can see the numberlesscreatedbeings,as "words" (logoi) calledinto being by the will of God, "groaning" in expectationof our redemption' when the world will be createdanew when the very nature of matrcr will be changed,and when, through the power of Christ's Resurrecrion,we roo will arisein resurrectedbodies."'

of OrthodoxTTbdal 12. The.State and creationSo clearis the visionof Genesis Suchis the Patrisric that, up to today,ofwitnessof the Holy Fathersrhat it is deplorable in Americacontinueto comeout with ficialOrthodoxrepresentatives acceptance ofevolution"in someform." By this acarriclesexpressing ofcreathe Cenesisaccounts and by theirdesireto allegorize ceprance

Cr.Ntsrs, Crl alloNrNo E,lnryMrN tion and Eden,they havealreadyshownthemselves ro be more tnan willing to abideby the minimum requirements which, accordingro Ken Vilber, Christianswill haveto follow in orderto be includedin rhe coming integrationof scienceand religion.But true Orthodox Christians, lookingat Vilber'sguidelines in reverse image,canseeexactlywhat not rc do so asnor to be subsumedinto the philosophyof the comingAntichrist.I[, as Fr. Seraphimmaintains,evolutionismis the key ro the philosophyof theAntichrist,thenthe OrthodoxPatristic visionof Cenesis,creationand earlyman is a key to remaining outsidethat infernalphilosophyand within rhe hearrof true Christianlty. Pious Orthodox Christians,especiallyin lands which have rraditionally been Orthodox, have always believed in rhe ScripturalPatristicteachingon creation-or else,ar the very least,they have alwayswanttd to believe,but havebeenlefr without apologericwcapons againstthe modern evolutionaryonslaught.Now, at last, they are being provided wirh such weapons.The recenr (1999) publication in Moscow of Deacon Daniel Sisoev'sChronble of tbe Beginning (Letopis nachala)is a very positivesign for the future. Publishedwirh rhe blessing of PatriarchAiekseill of Moscow and All Russia-the head of by far the largestOrthodox Church in the world-this book presents honestlyand lorthrighrly rhe Patrisricteachingon Genesis.'I'he author comesto all the sameconclusionsasdid Fr. Seraphimregardingthe Six Days, Paradise,the ageof the earth, the global Flood, etc., simply becausethe Orthodox rradirion is so clearon rhesesubjects.Only those whose unstatedaim is to reconcileOrthodoxy with an alien philosophy would come to other conclusrons. Like Fr. Seraphirn,Deacon Daniel quoresar lengrh from the Bible and the Holy Fathers,and, in those placeswhere the ScripturalPatristicteachingis ar odds wirh modern evolutionary/uniformitarian assumptions,he defendsthe faith with evidencegatheredby the scientific crearionists,primarily Dr. Henry Morris.*

Eort clt's Eprr-o<;utr Vith books like this coming out in Orthodox countries,' Orthodox Christiansare becomingequippedto severthemselvescompletely, not only from Darwinian evolution, but from the very core ofevolutionisr philosophywith all its destructiveramifications.By the graceof God, the false"'Christianiry' (and Orthodoxy') of the future" will not be universal.Unto the end of the world, therewill still be thosefollowing the Father-God of rwo thousand yearsago, today and forever. The counrer-rrurhwill pass,while the Tiuth of Christ, as He has promised us, will not passaway. ln the altar of his monastery,Fr. Seraphimwas once found weeping beforethe Holy Table.\X/henhis monasticco-struggleraskedhim whar was wrong, Fr. Seraphim replied, "The Tiuth is diminishing." His partner found it remarkablerhat he would be prayingand weeping over rhis. But he understood:The Tiuth for which Fr. Seraphim had once searchedso desperatelyand had finally found was not an abstract idea, but rather a Person:the God-man JesusChrist. What Fr. Seraphim had been weepingover was the fact that faith in this'I'ruth was diminishing, and that its irreconcilablealternarive-faith in the world and the religion of self-was waxing stronger. Christ Himself has said, "Vhen the Son of Man returns, will He find laith on the earth?"His scrvant,Fr. Seraphim,spent his life in de'Irurh so that there would I:e fairh in Christ, so that there fense of would be fairhful followersof Him who would not fall prey ro the intellecrualfashionsthat have been put into rhe air by rhe spirit of this world. 1-he path is exceedinglynarrow much more so than most Christians realize.Fr. Seraphimhasprovidedus with the foundarion offaith in Christ-the Orthodox teaching on creation and the first-created nlan-so that at least"the very elect" would not be deceived. ln view ofall that hasbeensaid,the creation/evolutiondebatethat

'Dercon Danielrcfersfrcquenrlyro Henry Morris'book Tfu BiblicalBasis for Modern Sticncc, which was publishedin Russianrranslarionin St. Petersburg in t995.

'Orher booksrhat haverccenrlyconrcour in Russiadcfcodingthc Parrisric on tbe (lrcationof the \Vorld(Moscow,1996) and tcachingon creationincludeScience (Moscow, borh by PricstTimothy Alferov.An imor Corruptioal 1997), Euofutiort porranrcontriburionhasalsobecnmadcby Anron KoscnkoofVolgograd,Russia,in zhizn (OrthodoxLry' in Russian),vol. his lcngthy lctrerto the c'Jirorof Pratoslaunala 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. Adam and Eveat rhc [:st Judgmcnt. Detaib ofan cxtctior wall paintingfom Romania,sixteenrhccnmrT.

is now raging in Americacan be seenasan actualspirirualwar. Virh the quesrionof evolutionrhrowninto suchstrikingrelief,the choice lying beforehumaniry is becomingever more clear as rhe world approachesits dissolution. The winnowing of which Christ spoke has alreadybegun. Togetherwith Fr. Seraphimand the Holy Fathersbeforehlm, may we one day be gatheredinto the heavenlygarner by Christ, in Vhom aloneis cternallife. -Hieromonk Damascene

590

L TheInconuption ofthe First-CreatcdIYorA Vain aretheywho saythat cheHoly Fatherswere"naivein science" and simply "didnt know" about evolution (as if the Holy Spirit withheld this informationfrom the Divinely inspiredFathersand Enlightenment and revealed it only to eighteenth-century Scriptures, man and his laterdescendants!). On the contrary they knew quite well what was being said in Genesis.We know, therefore,that beforethe corraption fall of Adam some7,500 yearsago, no credturcexperienced [decay];but the whole evidencefor "evolution"liespreciselyin the evioccurredbeforethe "evolurion denceofcorruption which, supposedly, of man"! Need we hesitateto know where the truth lies?If science findsthat the Virgin Birth of Christ is outsiderhe lawsof natureasit believeit absoknows them, we Orthodox Christiansnonetheless lurely; in the sameway,evenifsciencefinds the incorrupt creaturesof "impossible" the first periodofthe world'sexistence by the lawsofna1111s i1 l
CtNcsrs, Cnnarroru ,rruo Eanly M,rN

Nores oN ScreNcr:, EvolurrorulNo CunlsrrlruPulr.osopu,

The words and decreesof God become the law of nature. Therefore also the decreeof God, urtered by Him as a resuk of thc disobcdi-

It is vain for us to imagine that we are more "sophisricated"than the Holy Fathers,being madeso wise by modern "enlightenment"and sciencethat we know better than they how to read and interpret the Divinely inspired Scriptures(as Sr. Basil says,consideringourselves "wiser than the revelationsof the Spirit").' The superiorityof modcrn knowledge over that of the Holy Fatherslies solely in one respect, which lies at the very bottom of the hierarchyof knowledge:in the quantity of scientificfactsnow availableto us (but not everythingthat calls itself "scientificfact" I such!);in every other respecrour knowledge in inferior ro rheirs.They knew lar betrer rhan todayt scienrisrs and philosophersthe phceof scientificknowledgein the whole hierarchy of knowledge;and they saw clearlythar the proper interpretation of (lenesisis the task of theology,not science,and it is facilitated,nor at all by a knowledgeof prescnt-dayscienrificfacts,but rarher by advancementin spiritual life and understanding.-Ihat indeed is why the whole doctrine of creation is presentedmost clearly,preciselyin the writings of a Father like St. Symeon the New Theologian, who atrained the heightsof spiritual life. The notion that we now, "enlighr-

ence of the first Adam-thar is, the decreeto him of death and corru 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. Therefore, in order to abrogaterhis decree,the Son of God, our Lord JesusChrist, wascrucifiedand died, offering Himselfas a sacrifice for the redemption of man from dearh.r

That is to say: rhe law ofnature before Adami disobedienceis dif ferent fom the hw of nanre now in forcc, and it is thereforetotalb anhnowableby rcience.. . . Cerrain it is that sciencecannot, on the basisof observinga creationwhich is ever).rvhere corruptibleand mortal, make even the slightesrinferenceabout a crearionnor subjecrro rheselaws. lX/hat was before rhe disobedienceofAdam, and whar is beyond the end of this corrupribleworld (when the creationwill not be destroyed but totally transformcl)-are totalu oukidc the sphereof sciertceand may be known only through Orthodox theology in accordancewith Cod'r revelat ion to mankind.... Ar this point the sincereOrthodox believerwho is confused becausehe has been taught "evolution" from his childhood and cannot force himself to disbelievein it all ar once-will ask: Is it not srill Dossible somehow ro "reinterpret"the incorruptibility of Adam and the first creation so as nor to be too much outside rhe fashionsof contemporary ideas?To which the answeris: Ifyou wish ro "reinterprer" the xate beforethe corruptible, fiallenworld ws kn6lr,'-1hs11you musr likewise"reinterpret"the state aftu rhis fallen world, the furure bliss of heaven,for rhe two correspondand only differ, as St. Symeon has pointed out in thc long passagequored above [sec pp. 420-22), it that the future srareof the world will be fully spiritual,corresponding 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 Christiansbelievethat we will actuallybe immorral and incorruptible in that next life-if God will only number us among rhe saved-or only metaphoricallyand allegoricallyso? If we believeand think as the Holy Fathersdo, then our future incorruptibiliry will be real, as was thar of rhe crearionand of Adam beforehis disobedience.

,92

ened" by science, can understand Genesis better than the Holy Fathers,is itself a result of thar evolutionary philosophy which virrually everyonenow holds quite unconsciously.. .. 'l'hus rhe whole structure of evolurionary ideas and philosophy concerningthe supposedlycorruptible creationbeforeAdam is seento be an elaboratefable like unto those the ancients had about their "gods," and which wereso well refutedby the God-bearingFathersof the first Chrisriancenturies....If the world is acknowledged to be incorrupt beforethe disobedienceofAdam, the needofevolurionistsfbr "millions of years"vanishes:there are then no fossils,no extincr species,no "survivalofthe fittest" [beforethe lall of man]. 2. Scienceand thc Qutstion of Incorruption Scienceis silent before evident miraclesof incorruption in New Testament times: the Morher of Godt painlessbirthgiving without a father (seeespeciallyrhe Theotokion ofone ofthe Songsofrhe Canon of Epiphany);alsoChrist'sResurrection.Secondarily,the incorruption

5)3

(lrrr:sls, Crr,rrroN AND f,^RLyMAN

of holy relics,alsomiracles of Chrisrand the Saints.l-heorderoJ'Jallen c/eationit bereinterruptedhy a higherku-,so roo crearionbeforethe fall is unknowablebecause a differenrlaw orevailed.* 3. Euolutionand "CosnticReligion" I. One of the chief ideological-religious functionsof "evolutionary" thoughtis to "broaden"one! menralourlook,nor necessarily directlyattackingreligiousideas(bur sometinres this also),in orderro makeit impossible to think in'harrow"religious rerms: (a) T'heageof man and the universeis billions,nor rhousands of years.'l-hisweakens the "realistic"viewof the Old -lestament, Adam, the Patriarchs, Paradise. (b) Man'sliletimebecomes lesscrucial.Sooneror later,it becornes impossible to continueto stress a "narrow"viewof man'.s lifetime(and decisionfor eterniry)ifone believes in a "broad,evolving"universe, especially in connecrion wirh Christianiry. ' 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 pcoplc, cvcn cvidcnt bclicvcrsin Cod, nor to nrcnrioo ovcrr arhcisrs,say. I arlnrit that rhc lawsof naturc wcrc sct down by (iod, and rhcrefirrcI cannot grenr rhar rhcy 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 your lawsofnaturc, and not rhc lawsofneturc for the purposcsof(iod and rhe goocl 'l of man. his is thc old lcirvcnof tlrc Pharisces,to which a worthv rcply we' givcn 1900 ycarsago: ''I'hc Son of men is l.ord cvcn of thc sat'barhd,ry (M.rrt. I 2:ll)! Our (locl is a ( iod ofordct, and He ciirrcrsthc world by nreansof laws.'l lrc laws in and of thcnrsclvcs
Putlosopttv Norrs ot'tScIsNce,Evot.urIoN ANDCHRIsTIAN (c) The "broad" view of the naturesofthings must sooneror later invofve the narure of man: if everything changesits nature,"evolves" from and to something else-then why nor man? All evolutionists rhink so, and Christianswho deny this while acceptingthe restofevolutionary rheory make fools of themselves,being "fundamentalists"in part, "evolutionists"in Part. 2. Evolurion is a'totalitarian" thought-fbrm; it attempts to give a outlook for rhe wholeof lif'e. As Teilhard de religious-philosophical (quoted by T'heodosiusDobzhansky)affirms: "ls approvingly Chardin evolution a rheory,a systemor a hypothesis?It is much m61g-i1 i5 2 generalpostulateto which all theories,all hypotheses,all systemsmust henceforwardbow and which they must satis0,in order to be thinkable and rrue. Evolution is a light which illuminatesall facts,a trajecrory which all lines of thought must follow This is what evolution is" (Concern,Spring, I 973). Evolution is not partially true or false.It arosefrom-demands to be accepted as-^ tuholc philosophy of the world and life. The scientific hypothesisis quite secondary. 3. A characteristicof modern currents of thought is "universalism"-the attempt to make a synthesisthat will include all "partial" views:Masonry,ecumenism,Hegelianism,Bahai, Unitarianism, uniry of all religions.This is what "evolutionary"philosophy i5-2 ''un1vs1sal" rhcory to explain ever)'rhing,and to iustifr everyth;ngthc way it is-universal salvation,a cosmic view of everythingentering into the universalharmony of things as they are. 4. As a conscqucnce,harmony is found berweenevolution (and orher universalistideas)and "mysticel" writcrs of the past,and an atrempt is specificallymade ro show the harmony betweenTeilhardism and Orthodox"mystical"tradition, quoting St. Symeonthe New Theologian, St. Isaacthe Syrian,etc.'l'hosewho do not come up to mystical, universalist heights are dismissed as "legalistic," "moralistic,"

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 boundlcsslygrcatcrcxrcnt?"(Fronr thc lorrhcoming book ofthc Sr. Hermen Brorhcrho<xl, Fller Btrsanxlhi$ of Optina.) [o.

narroq etc. But in this way the harmony of C)rthodoxtradition is desrroyed:one part is turned againstrhe other in order to make Orthodoxy fir into the harmony of modcrn universalisticideas. This is uerymuch in conformity with thepridc of "modern"ideas:\/e 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

with our thought.Bur this is directlyagainsrthe Holy pastcompares Fathers who warnagainstreaching too high,not recognizing one'ssubtle hiddenprideand passions. Specifically, oursis leastof all a rrmeto "mysrical"ideasand writers,anddragthem inro spreadand popularize the marketplace. lt is Farbetterto be humble,revererheseexakedwrirers,and not presumethat one can understand them.The writingsof Theophanthe Recluse aremoresuitedto our condirion.

the earlyChurch (cf. the propheciesof St. Nilus the Myrrh-gusherand St. Niphon of Constantia);t incorruption and immortality precede corruprion and mortaliry.I'he perfectionand immortaliry of the coming age(heaven)are not a dtuelopmenor "evolution" fronr the present world (asTeilhard de Chardin would have it; actually,chiliasm is almosr an inevitablededuction from evolution), but a radical rransformation. The whole aim of "evolutionaryphilosophy" is to upsctthis Chrisrian outlook, basedon God Who does everything as He wishes,and make instead something more "undcrstandable"to fallen nlen-rationalism, humanism. That is why "evolution" was developedgraduphilosophy before any ally by modern agnosric-atheistic-deistic

4. The "Mlsticism" of Tiilhard dc Chardin One can be syrnpatheticwith Teilhardde Chardin'sintentro reconcile scienceand Christianity,which spokein rwo entirelydifferenr languagesin his day.1rue, all rhat is tar in scienceis not in conflicr with Orthodox truth, and a ferventChristiancan be a trurhful scientist.Bur falsetheories,misrakenpersonalfanciesand opinions-cannot serveas a basisfor a true worldview whetherthey come from scienceor religion. Teilhard de Chardin solvedthe dichotomy of scienceand Chrisrianiry by throwing up a vaguc"mysticism"berweenthem; thus he was faithFul neither ro true sciencenor rrue religion,bur simply inventeda new false teachingof his own-it is very attractivebecauseit is in accord with "mystic" and "universalist" currents of our rimes. But to serious thought, to rrurh, his reachingis but anorherofthe seriouserrorsofour times,and a very fruitful one for the coming unified worldview of the last humanity. He is a predecessor ofAntichrisr.

The whole "evolutionaryphilosophy" which graspspeople roday leadsthem to believe,ofren unconsciously,in a view of crearionand life which is just the opposireof what Christianiry teaches:simple begetscomplex, savagery"evolves"to civilization,imperfectgivesrise ro perfect, "progress," etc. According ro Orthodoxy, the perfect falls ro the imperfect(Paradiseto fallenworld; and evenhistorically,the Holy Fathers nore rhe fall of mankind in general unril rhe coming of Christ-cf St. Symeon the New Theologian and Sr. Gregory of Nyssa),and nran in the lastdayswill be much lower spiritually than in

'St. Nilus rhe Myrrh-gusher(tl65l), appearingposrhumously ro rhc fallen aboutrhe stareof monk 'l-heophancs on Mounr Arhosin theycar 1817,prophesied Vhcn humaniryin thc lasttimcs:"1-hepeoplcof that rime will bc unrecogniz-alrle. reesonwill be clarkcned thc rinrcofthe appearance ofAntichrisrwill bc near,peoplc's rnoreand morc. 'l-he ofcarnal sins;criminaliryand impietywill increase becausc will changc,and it will be peoplc's appeamncc worl<'lwill bccomcunrecognizablc; of theshanrclessness in lashions impossible to distinguish men from wonrcnbccarrsc and hair sryles.'l'hesepeoplcrvill beconrccoarsc,wild, and crucl,like aninralsbecausco[ rhe tcmptarionsof Antichrisr.There will trc no rcspcctfor parcnrsand -lhen Christiantreditionand nrannerswill changc. cldcrs,lovc will disappcar.... will rcign instead,fornicatiorand dissiparion Modesryend chastirywill disappean lcvcls....Fornicetion, amongrhe pcople.Deceirand lvaricewill reachunbclievable craliy deeds,theft, and murdcr will dominarcsocicry.... adulrcry,homosexualirv, -l-heChurchofGod will bc dcprivedofGod-fiaringpastors." Sccalsothe prophecics lifi, in I hc Ortltodox rhedcgencration ofOrthodox nTonastic ofSr. Niluscorrccrning lVordno.2l (1968),pp. 143-49. (iyprus(fourthccnturv)is The propheryof St. Niphon, Ilishopof (lonsrantia, of thc [-ord asfollows:"To rhc vcryend of thisagcthcrcshallrrotbc lackingProphcts ofslran. Bur in the lasrtimcsthoscwho truly will scrvcCod God, asalsoscr,ranrs willsuccccdin hidingrhcmselvcs from menandwill not performin theirnridsrsigns rnd wondersasat rhe prcsenrtime, bur rheywill trauclby a path ofactivity tnrcr' mixedwith humiliry,and in thc KingdomofHeaventhcywill bc grearer thrn thc Frrherswho havebeenglorifiedby signs.For at that tinreno onc will pcrhrrnrbefore rhe cyesof merrmiraclcswhich would inflanrenrenand inspirethem ro strivcwirh zealfor ascetic labors....Many,beingpossesscd by ignorancc, will fall into thc abyss, parh"(qrrotedin Fr.Seraphim goingasrrayin the brcadthof thc broadand spacious Rosc,Orthodoxyand the Rcligionof the Furzrelfourrh cdirionl, p. 169).*Eo.

596

597

5. Euolution at rhe Exact Opposite ofChristianity

Gp:Nnsrs, Cnea:'roNluo Elnlv MaN "scientific"proof was ever for:nd. Thc Orrhodox Chrisrian perspective (Paradise,the shortnessof [rime allotted to] this world, erc.)is t whoh neu lfiltoh for those made stupid by modern "enlightenment" philosophy,of which evolution is a key product. 6. lVfu Ortltodox Christians Should Not Be Indffirent to Euohttiort Some say that Orthodox Christiansshould pay no attcntion to "evolurion"-that it is "science"and has nothing to do with theology. lfevolution is taught in schools,our attitude should be one ofindifference:God could createman in any way He chooses,our tradition does not tell us how or give us any teachingto opposcto evolution. This argument is falsebecause: l. St. Petersays:"Be ready always to give a defensero everyone that asksyou for an accountof the hope that is in you" ( I Peter3:15). The question of evolution toucheson Christian faith, spccificallyregarding creationand thc nature of man. Even if the enemiesof Christianiry are very ridiculous in their argumcnts, our consclence dcmands that we have an answer to them, both for their sake (for they are also living souls whoseerror keepsrhem from God) and becausethere are simple soulswho can be led away from God by ridiculous argumenrs.'Io the Soviet cosmonaurwho "looked fbr God" in spaceand thought his failure to find Him disprovedthc existenccof God-our answer is clear: we Christians have a teaching about wherher God is locared"in the sky" or not, and this atheisrargument (which is taken scriouslyby some poor souls) is easilyrefuted by presenting the true doctrine of God Who is, in the words of St. John Damascene, withourbeginning;rndwithout end,everlasting and erernal,uncreatcd,unchangcable, rrnalterable, sinrple,uncompoundcd, incorporeal, invisible,impalpable,uncircumscribed, unlimited, incomLrnfarhomlblc, prchensiblc, unconraincd, good,just, rhc Maker of all crcatcdthings,all-powerful,all-ruling,all-sccing,the Provider, rhc Sovcreign. and rhc ludgc,rfall.J 598

Nolr:s oN ScrgNcr-.EvolurroN,rNoCttttlsrtlN Putt-osopHv 2. Many C)rthodoxChristiansare not merely "indifferent" to evolution; rhey openly accept it, unaware that thcreby they accept the doctrine of creationand the first-creatcdrnan, which L.atin-Scholastic 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 now' after so many vain argumentsbrought forth by both sidesin the past century, becomeso confusedthat even many very awareOrthodox Christiansdo not havea coherentview on the whole subject;and very few are thosewho know the Patristicteachingconcerningthe inrerprerarionofrhe text of Genesis,all the more so in that few ofthe Pa1i/estern rristic works on Genesisare to be found in English or other languages. 7. Paleontologyand "Iuory-TbwerOrthodoxy" Paleontologyis an impreciseand very outward science.And evolurion does nltcome from paleontology-it is a philosophywhich many accept. paleontologists Paleontology and theology are not two entirely independent spheres-that'.sa modern rationalisticidea. They are diff'erentlevels which sometirnes overlap. And the basic pbilosophyof the rwo Ii.e., of Orrhodox theologyand evolutionistpaleontologylis radicallydistinct; man asfallen from the angelic state, vs. man ,'r;i/rg up from savagery. One can't hold both cheseideasseriously. The idea that paleontologycan believewhateverit wants and Orthodox Christianiry isnt affccted-this is an ostrich nrentality, which makesOrrhodoxy either fliry talesor simply remote from life. On the contrary,Orthodoxy oFtenimpingeson everydayproblems;and a lack of Orthodox plllosophyn apply revelationto life, nreanswe are criP' p.led far ordinary life. -I'his is iuory-tower Ortbodory, not real Orthoooxy. 'We

must be preciseabout "science." Most people dssume"science" knows what it is talking about. Brt there is no such thing as "science"-there are different "sciences,"each one with a very different Paleontologyis one of the /ar precise levelof accuracyand preciseness.

599

GrNr-srs, Ctrrtror eNn E,rnlvMrN

Nores oN ScltNct, Evot-ulloNANDCHRrsrlAN Purr<>solr.ry

requiring much guessworkto fill vastgapsof time and knowlsciences, edge.. All the sciencesconnectedwith "proving" evolution are imprecise-pre hisrory, paleontology, geology. The more precise sciences whose testimony is called for to "prove" sy6lusi6n-srn[syology, ge-

natural s,ate,as in Orthodox theology),and after this man remainsin his 'natural" condition. His natureis nor injured, but only placed in disorder-the fleshoverweighsthe spirit. ('I'he Protestanterror is a little different: accordingro Luther and Calvin, human nature was comlrletel!corruptedby rhe fall and can do norhing to help itself.) Augustine, in opposing Pelagranism, went ro rhe opposite error and stated that in fallen man freedom to do good was completel!annihikted; rhe graceof God is everything(cl Protestantism). Thus Catholicism underestimatesthe nature of man before the fall, and his nature after the fall (and so opposed St. John Cassian). 'fhe same error again appearedin Barlaam,who underestimatedthe srateof Divine vision accessible ro man in this life, and so he opposed St. Cregory Palamas. The greatness of man and his origin and destiny are not understood by the Latins-they make him too small,obviouslybecausethey measure everythingby a this-world$standard.Their theology comes fiom human pisdom,not Divine revelationand Divine vision.

netics,etc.-if anyrhing give ptoo( againstevolution.'* 8. Man as Qualitatiuely Diferent llom Animals According to evolutionism,Adam was born of carnal intercourse of non-human creatures.This is a "son of God"?! To reconcileevolution and Orthodox teaching,one must say either: (l) The difference berween man and bezsrsis quantitatiue rather than qualitative:one last litde mutation producedman. This is repugnant ro theology,which holds thar the image of God is qualitatively different f166 [s2s15-n6 beastis "almost man." Or: (2) Adam wasborn a beast,and becameman only by a miracle of God's "inbreathing." 'fhis is repugnant to science,which seeksto explain everything by natural laws, and rejectsnriraculousexplanations. 9. Thc Rornan Catholic ldea ofthe State ofAdam (According to Fr. Michael Pomazansky) In the Roman Catholic view,the resulrof the fall is the lossby man of a supernanral state given by God's grace (it is not rhe loss of his

10. Reading the Fossil Record Evolutionists(e.g., Dobzhansky)say that if evolution is not true, then God is playing'iricks" on man wirh fossils,etc. Not so-because evolutionistsreadinto the fossilsrheir own religiousand philosophical beliefs. But indeed, if evolution be rraa then God has "tricked" the writers of Holy Scripture and rhe Holy Farherswho havc inrerpreted ir!

"'fhc moreprcciserhescicnce(c.g.,geobserves: ' In othernores,Fr.Seraphim netics),rhe lessconvincingproof [ofevolurion]rhercisl thc Iessprecisc(paleonrology,archeology, prchisrory), rhe bolderrhespecularion ar rhecxpense of facrs." Phillip F-.Johnson,commenringon Michacl H. Browni l'he Scarclt.for Eue ( 1990),notcs:"'I hc book showsthc contcmptrhar'hard science' molccularbiolorvhobasctheirtheoricsabourhumanevolugistshavcf
The prestigeof sciencehas produced an "inferiority complex" in Christians.Scienceproduces"results,"as a result of what no one will deny is reallyknowledge;but this hasproducedin generalan air ofsuperstitious awc surrounding the pronouncementsof "science" (or, rather,scientists)on many rhings which it is not competent ro judgc. And so when sciencetoucheson things mentioned in Scriprure,for ex-

600

601

I l. An "lnferiority Comp/ex"among Christians

Gnrqesrs, CnexrroN.rNoEaRryMar.r

Nolr:s oN ScreNcr,Evor.ulron,rNoCnnls,naNPHtt.osopH'

ample,believers aremuchtoo quickto backoffand defendtheirtreasuresby sayingthey are"metaphors"or do not meanliterallywhat they say.This is nowhereclearerthan in the first chaptersof Genesis,which hastento interpretin a wayacceptable to the larest"scisuchbelievers entificopinion."

any doubt a matter of some few thousandsof years,involving the liferimes of specificmen, and it can in no way be interpretedas rnillions of yearsor whole agesand racesof men.) 14. The Missing Euidence All attemptsro reconcileevolution and Christianiry are artificial;

12. \Vhat Kind of Simple-mindedFookAre \Ye? Musrwe havea naiveimmigrantpsychology in theWest?-Chantof maning in our services and readingin Scripturerhatthe genealogy "who (Luke wasfthe son] of God" kind startswith Adam, 3:38),and agesofNeanderthds, believing"in actualfaci' thattherewerecountless foolsarewe JavaMan, erc.,beforeAdam?\X/hatkind of sinrple-minded wisdomof this beforethe "scientific" nor ro seerhatif we arespeechless world,our viewof man and creationmakesno senseat all and is only some kind of fairy tale-in which all the Holy Fathersbelieued,but we us our "Orthodoxtheology"-and hnowbener!Thus,scienceteaches wearesounderthe fascinarion ofmodernWestern ideasthatwe fall for it!

l. The Day-Age theory Ii.e., rhe Six Days are actuallyperiodsof milIionsor billionsof yearsl;* 2. The "Gap" theory [i.e., therewas a gap of billions ofyears berween Genesisl:l and Cenesisl:2];*' 'I'he body ofAdam evolvedand then his soul was createdor grace 3. was given to him. 'fhe whole question ofevolution has never been even formuhted lrom an Orthodox point of view. The missingevidenceis the Patristic evidence.The main purposeof this book is to presentthis-as an addition to the evidencelor the crearion"modcl."

The rime elapsedfrom Adam to the presentday is no morethan some7,500 years,as the Holy Fathersneverdoubt. St. John Chrywhich sosromsaysclearlythat Christ "openedfor us todayParadise, had remainedclosedfor some5,000years."o Au.rd St. IsaacrheSyrian: BeforeChrist "for five thousandyearsfive hundred and some years But why needGod left Adam(i.e.,man)to laboron the earth."5... whcn lesslyquoterheFarhers who all saythe samething, everyOrthodox Christianneedonly look at any Orthodoxcalendarto discover that we are now living in "the year7482 from the Creationof the world," accordingto the chronologythat hascomedown to us from the earliestChristian times.(The Farhers,by rhe way,werervell aware of somehundredsof yearsberweenthe Greekand of the discrepanry HebrewOld Testament chronology, and it did not botherthem;they waspredid not quibbleoveryearsor worrythat thestandardcalendar "to cise the veryyear";it is suffrcientthat what is involvedis beyond

by the Scottishstonethcorywaspopularizcd ' I'hc firstvcrsionof thc L)ay-Agc 'festinotl rlr of Rockt,18 57. I h is book wasactuallypubnrasonHugh M illcr in h is on Clrristmas sinceMiller shorhirnselfin a fit of dcpression lishcdposthumously, l.vc. lti56. 'Ibday,thc Day'Agctheoryis associared wirh both'\hcisricevolution"and "olcl Fora cririqucof this thcory,seerhe booksby Hcnry carth/progrcssivc crcationism." Rasis Modtrn Stiente,pp. ll7-21, nd Defendixgtlte Faitlt Motis, I be Biblical for with'irrogrcssive creationisnr.sce 77rr of thc problcnrs pp. 66-70. For discussion tlte I'aith, pp.75-78, Modcrn Scicrttc. pp. ll4-ll(l Dclinding Iliblical Bast for 2 t 5-20; the l>ookL)rzationand 7'ine:A Rtporton thc l\'ogresiucCrcationistBookb7 Hugh Ross, by Mrrk V.rn Bebt,cr.rnd P:rul'Lrylor end thc erticlcsby Kcn Harn, "Whart Vrong with 'Progrcssivc Orcarionl"'and "The (iod of an Ol
602

603

13. The Old Testament Chronology

Sruolr's oF PnoPoseo Ourt INFS

AppaNorxTwo

Outlines of ProposedStudies EDITORS NOTE: Thesetao oatlinesuere written b1 Fr. Seraphirnat dffiren.t timesnnd repr\enr separare dnemptsto sammarizethe ,oints he want(d to couer.Thefrst is datedSeptembcrl gZg; the secondis undated.

l. Ewlution I. Introduction:approaches, merhodology. A. Evolutionis a questionthat is contioversial because of: l. The implicatioz for moraliryworldview,etc.,of onevrcwor otner. 2..The inherentcomplexiryofthe subject,and irsvasrncss. _ B. The maindifficulry: l. l'he reconciliationof the evolutionary rheory,s physicaland rzeraphysical aspecrs. 2. Extremes: a) Projectionofphysicaltheoriesonto the metaphysical dimensionof beginnings. Many scientisrs hnu. no, properly appreciated the limitationof sciencein this realm, which cansaynorhing whateverof beginnings, which are not observable or repeatable or predictable,"b tt aremtraculous by their very nature. &) Some6rndamenralists haveerredin the opposiredirection, trying to dictateto physicalscienceon rhe basisof personalinturpretation of God'srevelation. c) Rapectfor mtth in both physical (i.e., scienrific) and meraphysical (i.e., religiouirevelation)realmsis indis604

pensable.One truth cannot contradict the other-but iheir interrwining is a complex subject'No.,&rr, whether physical (science)or spiritual (theology-where truth and not speculationis involved)can be denied' ll. Critique of evolutionarytheory. A. Evolutionary rheory is overdone-it has dominated scientific thinking for a cenrury and has had enormous influence in nonscientificrealms(moraliry educarion,religion) totally out of proportion to the actual nature and certainry of its knowledse. (lod' B. The history of it-the searchfor an explanationwithout This does not cntireb discrcdit it, becauseactually almosr all of our knowledgeis distortedby biasesand predispositions:but ir alreadyguaranteesthat the final outcome of this searchwill be one-sidJ and partial.Recentreactionagainstevolutionarytheory among many scientistsis a sign of this Cl. Basic evolutionist argumentsare all inconclusive;there Is no proof for or against. O. Hirio.y of thi rise and decline of the evolutionary hypothesis (see Ii-Ienry] Morris, etc.)-the Scopes trial, fashions rn thought, respectabiliryMany Orthodox people.suffer from "infeiioriry complex"; they want to be "up ro date" and are fearful of being identified as "fundamentalists"'The debatein Greecesuffersfrom this. We must be abovethis' lll. Answer: A. Not thc "Bible"-ir needsinterpretation'* B. Not "science"-it lacksthe higher metaphysicaldimension by Its own natute. C. Not "agnosticism":scienceand religion in airtighr comPartments;they must come together. "sciD. Not "Christian evolutionism": the falsecombination of '['his means Christianiry giving ground ence" and "relision."

' Here Fr. Scraphimmcansthar thc answcris not simply thc Blblc lry iuclf, sincc -l'he of rhe Biblecanbe misintcrpreted. ansrvcris the Biblewirh thc interprer:rtion (sccbclow).-Eo the Holv Fathers

605

(lsNrsrs,CnlarroN aNo Errry MaN beforeevolutionism,allowing it to dictatc dognra (Teilhardde Chardin,erc.) E. l'he answer:the Orthodox Patristicview (i.e., the Orrhodox interpretationof Scriprure),wirh awareness of science.This is what Kireyevsky called for. Science musr t:e enligbtenedand raisedup in knowledgebyfaith and revelarion.Bur no onc in all rhe evolution controversyhas made more than a token use of the Farhers.Vhat do the Farhersreach? Fi The following is not "all rhe answer";rarher,it is an approacn to rhe answersfor Orrhodox Chrisriansby rrying first of all to identily the question-vthere are rhe sourcesof harmony and conflict berweenconremporaryscienceand the Holy Fathers? C. To be avoided: "proof texrs," out of context statementsfrom rhe Fathers,picking and choosing. IV Patristicsources(list chiefones) and their principlesofinterpreration of Scripture ("literal" bur also "befitting God"-cf. Sr. John Chrvsostom). V 1'he basicquestion: A. Beginnings. l. Sciencehas been misrakenin treadingon rhis ground: it is beyond irs scope.The beginning of Iife or of the unrverse can only be the subjectof rhe wildest guesscs,unlcssit has been revealed.Sciencehas soughr it becauseit rhrew out revelation-this was a fatal mistakewhich began rhe whole controversy.Ifsociety doesnor h.rvea revelariJnor "model" of beginnings which scientistscan accepr, then scientrsrs should be more humble in speculationsand not try ro supply this by irs groundlessprojecrions. 2. Bcginnings by rheir very narure are metaphysical, mnaculous. If we can know them at all, it is only by revelation.If we can'tknow them, rhen don'r guess. .1. All "scientific" hypothesesabout beginnings are only a cheapimitarion of rheology-no "God," bur a "cosmicrapioca" instead;no "crearion,"bur a "big bang" instead-this is ridiculous.Scientistsdoni realizethe ridiculousness of it because rhey have no theologicalawareness.Beginnings are 606

Sr-uoltts OuruNrs or PnoposE.o "off bounds" to scientists-they seekthem only becauseof and knowledge in modern the crisis of religious ataa/eness sciences to usurp the role of times, which has led the secular the role of revelation. theology,human guesses 4. Once the miraculousnessof beginnings is admitted, then orher questionsin evolution take on new light. The conflict between"gradualevolution" and "Six-Day creation" is seen in a new light-either one is equally thinkable (cf. Julian Huxlcy: "l can conceiveof a six-daycreation-but there is 'Ilrz the questionbecomes,not whether no God to do itl"). one is proued by present scientific findings (neitber one is-science can'tdo it!) but: how can I make the bestwhote picture, incorporating rrue scientific findings and true knowledgeof revelation? 'fhe B. Six Days. l. F'alseideasof Day-Age:" l ,000 years= I day."' This is too low a level of "reconciliation";it does not removethe maln problem. 2. The Patristicview: the Holy Fathersdidn't reallydiscussthe question as we see it becausethe evolutionary idea wasn't present. lt seernsLssumcdthat the days are very short-cf. Cregory the Theologian on the "newly createdearth" for Adam, St. Ephrairn the Syrian,etc. 3. But a much more fundamenralquestion is the corruptionof the world in thoseSix Days-cf. St. Symeonthe New Theologian. The most consistentinterpretationoF the Holy Fathers is that the world knew no corruption until Adam'sfall. If this is accepted, then the greater Part of evolution's schemaof prehistoryis thrown out. Some (e.g., Kalomiros) would elaboratelyiustifr the evolutionary view, taking St.

of 2 Pcrcr.3:8onto thc " Fr.Scraphimis spcakinghcreof the falscextrapolarion words in Gcnesis. ln othernotcshc writes:"St. Perer's Six DaysofCrcationdescribcd (A thousandyears[arcwith the [,ord]asone day')is a gcneralrrurh,nor applicable wc mustexamincrhe Gencsiscaseindi!o everyuscof the word 'day'in Scripture; vidually."-Eo.

607

GrNrsrs,CneArroNaNo Elnry MaN Cregory of Nyssa's"rwo crearions,"etc. and showing the "full agreement"of the Fatherswith rhe idea that the world was corrupr from the very beginning-this is obviouslyexaggerated. 4. Scienceenlightenedby faith does not need rc force a,nyinterpretarionon rhe Six Days which would contradict scien, tific uniformitarian assumprion5-Su1 21 least it will withhold certaintyof opinioni in rh. faceof rhe possibilityof a radically different world before Adam's fall. This is also bound up with the quesrionof beginnings. Those Six Days are part of rhe Creation(i.e., the metaphysicalrealm, miraculous),and henceall the more unknowablein detail. C. "Fixiry of Species"-"SpecialCreation." l. There hasbeen much unnecessary controversyon rhis question. "Kinds" vs. "species."The popular mind acceptsmere "variation" as proof of a much bigger question of "evolution." Ve leaveit to scienriststo define the limits of change observablero rhem. By irs grandioseconceprion,evolution as such cannot be prouedby the small variationsobservable by scienceroday. 2. But revelation and the Patrisric witness definitely have something ro say on this point: Sr. Basil (an "eaglealways producesan eagle"),St. Ambrose (the mule, a donkey-horse hybrid, is inferrile;this is a sign to man: "Man, don't interfere").Science,ofcourse,doesnor deny rhe stabiliryand the fixiry ofkinds (and rhe steriliryofhybrids) in presentexpenence:6ur evolutionarybelief requiresthat the ultimarc ancestorsof living creaturesare not many but one. But why?-Because theology (the quesrion of "beginnings" again!)has intruded inro science.This is beyond proof. And scienceis faced with the fact rhat an immense number of "links" are missingberweenkinds, both today and in fossils. 3. A philosophicalpoint: quot€ Sr. Gregory of Nyssaon rhe "confusionof narure." If reincarnationis acceored:it is rhe samefor evolution. 4. Let scienrisrsdefine the limits ofvariation, and let rhem use

608

Ou ruNrs op Pronosr.nS'ruolrs

the word and concept of "evolution" in explaining change-bur let them abandon metaphysicalschemes which strive ro extrapolatesmall changesinto an allencompassingprinciple. If this latter is true, let it come narurallyfrom the data without forcing an interpretationon facrs. D. l-he "first-formedman." l. Here a whole seriesofquestionsarise,and perhapsthis is tne one areawhere there is a seriousclash between the evolutionary hypothesisand revealedknowledge.Let us carefully separatethe differentquestionsinvolved. 2. "From the dust." a) 'fhere have been attempts to explain this by quoting St. Athanasius('bll men are from the dust")-i.e., there is "norhing special"about this creation. 6) Bur the Fathers precisely emphasize rhe speciabtesof man'screation(c[ St. Basil)-ol: course, not by the literal hand of Cod, but separatefrom all other actsof creation; it is somethinghigher. 3. Apology for evolution: a) 'fhe idea that Adam came last, and therefbre "descended" from the restof creation.Quote St. Gregory the Theologian on why he came lasr; St. Gregory of Nyssa. Narlrzg can be inferred from the Scripturesor the Fathersfavoring rhe evolurion of man-you must project this belief into the rexts. /) The very narrativeof Genesissaysthe body came [irst, then the soul-cf. St. John Chrysostom (Adam was first a "dummy") and Sr. Seraphim (Adam was first a "livrng 61s21u1s"-56rnsbasetheir whole evolutionistargument on this n ineteenth-centuryFather!).But we must clearly distinguishberweenthe truth and the way it is described owing to the limitations of human language.Sarnts Chrysostomand Seraphimare nor discussingrhe chronological creation of man, but the composite nature of man, on which they do not (incidentally) disagreebu only 609

CrNEsrs,Cne,rrroN,cNDEARLY MAN havea different perspective.But quote St. John Damascene and St. Gregory of Nyssa on rhe simultaneouscre* tion of man. r) Some,wishing to preserveboth the Scriptureand evolution, insert the "divine" act of man! creation rather arbitrarily inro the evolutionaryhistory of man (as'Ibilhard de Chardin said might be done). Some would have man evolvedfrom lower beasts,but with a separate"plasma";* otherswould havehim a beastuntil God breathedin his "soul" or "grace."-All such argumentsare artificial: sci' ence does not need them to explain man as it thinks he is, and from the theologicalside it is arbitrary to stick a human soul into an otherwise"natural" process. 4. Can Adam havenon-human ancestors? a) Evolution saysyes-so much so that if you deny this point you reallydo away with evolution, which is nothing if it is not universal. E) Quote the Fatherson the firx-formed man with no father or mother. l'he Fathersclearlybelievedhim to have no anccstors ofany kind. 5. A relatedquestion:the ageof man, the antiquiry of Adam. a) All rhe Fathersacceptthe Old'ltstament chronology,c. 7,500 years.One writer IDr. Kalomiros]saysthis is "Jewish rationalism"; others point out the discrepancybetween the (lreek and Hebrew texts. Quote Blessec Augustineon this poinr-the Fatherswere not "literal," but said "more or less."Latest Protestantapologistsalso havebecomelessliteral on this, but point out rhe difference between a men millions of years old, and some 6,000- 10,000years... D) Genealogiesolt Christ show that Adam is the "son of God." The Fathersare very concernedto reconcilediscrepanciesand show that this is a literal genealogy,not a hendwritingis unclearherc.-Eu. ' Fr.Seraphinr's " Sec,fbr cxamplc,Hcnry Morris, '[he GenaisFtood,Appendix2.-lio.

610

OurLrNr.sot PnonoseoSruores list of "syrnbolic ancestors."Thus, man is some rhousandsof yearsold, not millions. 6. One Adam or many? a) "Polygenisrn"-commonly acceptedin evolutionist circles-makes no sensefor man. Adam is a oerson, 7. The creationof Evc. a) This is a stumbling block for evolutionists.If this is "literal," rhen the evolurionaryhypothesisdoesnor apply ro man; if he is "evolved"then he is alreadymaleand female like all rhe restof "evolved"nature. 6) Quote rhe Fathers-Sainrs John Chrysosrom, Ephraim rhe Syrian,and others. r) Again, it is a question of"beginnings" which sciencertself is unpreparedto handle. Ifscientisrsregardit as "absurd," it is primarily on nonscientificgrounds. 8. The nanre of the first-lormed man-Paradise. a) A real place? or symbolism?All the Fathers assumeParadise is a realiry.If Paradiseis unreal, and Adam never had a state unfallen-then heaven itself becomesdubious, and the rransfiguredstateof man is open to question. 9. The lall of man. a) Again,lett nor get boggeddown in details. 6) Is ir an historicalact? r) The consequences-sinand death are passedto us. VI. Conclusions. A. Give the Orthodox Patristic"model" of creation. B. Scienceis afraid ofir because,under the influencenot ofpurely scientificconsiderarionbut rathershapedby the mod,ernphilotophic men.alicy, it fears the metaphysical or supernatural. But its own speculationson beginnings are alsometaphysicaland supernatural. C. The weaknessof the theory of evolution as a sweepingtheory (as opposed ro its applicationson small areas)lies in the facr that it refusesro admir the metaphysicalwhere it naturally bclongs. Ifwe can know beginnings,ir is only through revelatron. 6ll

CeNesrs, CnrerrorunNn Elnlv Man If not, it's all guesses. Here revelationand faith must come to the aid of scienceand raiseit up to seeberter. 2. Panistic Scction I. Introduction. A. This will not be only Patristictheology,but also Patristicpbrlosophly:rhe views of the Fathers on questions that are not directly dogmatic. The disruption of knowledgebrought about by a disproportionateemphasison logic and sciencein the modern lWesthas affectedmany Orthodox thinkers also.One efltecrhas been to place'theology" and "philosophy" and "science" in watertight compartments.This resultsin the retreatof theology before science,which gives a large part of one\ "worldview" now. This makes it possiblefor very direct and zealousOrthodox Christiansto think they can believehoth in the Parristicaccountof crearionand in evolution-as if the rwo were entirelydistinct. No, they overlap,and there is a placeof conflict which can only be resolvedby applying rhe Patrisric philosophyrc the whole ofone\ worldview. B. 'fhe distinction, ofcourse, musr be nradeberweenrhe realm of facts(and those viewswhich dependon facts)and the realm of philosophyassuch;quote Fr. Michael Pomazanskyon St. Basil and St. John of Kronstadt.*The Fathersto be surecan be mistaken in their views if thesedepend on factswhich are wrong; we must readthem with discernmentand no preconceivednonons. II. The questionof "Nature" and "Seed." A. This is nor a scierrtificbut a philosophicalquestion. Even the ideaof "species"is arbitrary,asscientistsadmit. Philosophy,on the other hand, doesnot demand that we know all rhe dttailsof the distinctionsand similaritiesand categoriesof creatures,but it has a definite view about the ideaofthe "natures"ofthings. B. The evolutionaryview constitutesa philosophy in itself: that ' Seerhisquoreon pp.284-85 above.-Eo.

612

Ourr.rrrsor Pnoposeo Sluorrs

naturein principleis fluid, one kind ofcreaturebecominganother kind, and all creatures proceedingfrom one or a few primitiverypes.This is a sweepingphilosophyfor which, o/ clurse,there is no proof whatever-even if "evolution" on a smallscalecould finally be "proved"(which so far it hasnot been).Sincethis vast view of evolutionis not scienrificbut we mustcriticizeir on rhebasisof Patristicphiphilosophical, losophy. C. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,in On theResurrectioz, teachesthat nature is not confused, and thingsaredistinct,eachwith irs own nature.The bookof Genesis says'tachaccordingto its kind." So alsoSt. Basiland St. Ambrose....The Patristicview is definitelytharnaturesaredisrinctand don'rmingle,and rhatthis is the way Cod createdthem. "Freaks"are clearlyexceptions Evolutionaryphilosophyof "one nature"running rhroughall creationis unfoundedscientificallyand un-Patristicphilosophically, and is the oppositeofthe heresyofrhe pre-existenc and transmigration of souls,aboutwhich morewill be saidbelow. Only compellingscientificproof could force us to change this Patristic philosophy; and thereis no suchproof. IIL The Creationof the Six Days. A. lf the Patristicphilosophyof "nature"is differentfrom that of evolution,the Patristicideaof the oeationof naturemusrlikewise differ. Here we must think preciselyon a number of points. B. Kalomiros:quoteSt. Gregoryof Nyssa,and the popularidea that Cenesisdescribes creationjust like modernscience.But this is veryvague. C. Twenry-four-hour days:is this somekind of defectin the Fa"fi.rndamentalism" rhers,a beforeirs time, a capriviryof premodernscience? D. No: thereis profoundmeaningin it. l. Godt omnipotence and swif acrionis emphasized, for onet ideaof natureis indeeddependent on one'sideaof God. Ve shallseelaterthar the "God" of "evolutionists" is not at all rheGod of Christianr. 6l.l

CrNesrs.Cnnxrror aNo E,lrrl M.rr.r

AppnNorx Tunrp

Fn Seraphim\Last Thlhon Creationand Euolution

Adanr.redccnrcd (ihrist. by Jesus Russianliesco oJ' dte dghteentlt r?ntury.

2. The Six Days are a mean berweenextrenles,and define the narureof rime. 3. The nature of the creativeprocess(and of the first-created world) is understood by the Fathers quite diferently from evolurionism. Evolutionism merelyprojectspresentnatural laws into the beginnings,without seeingthat Cenesis,the beginning ofall things, is somethingquite distinct from the presentstateof things, and knowledgeof it is not available to science but only through revelation.Vhich brings us to the key point: IV The PatristicInterpretationof Genesis. A. Moses;Divine knowledge;the realismof the Fathers. B. The natureofour knowledgeofthe first-createdworld. V. The first-createdworld; the fall. Vl. Adam and the nature of man.

6t4

EDITOR'S NO7"E: T'hefollou,ing talk, taken entirelyfom a tape transrription, tuasgiuen as an intoduction to the secondsessionof Fr. Seraphim's courseon Genesis, August 1982. Seueralof his studentsuere new, not hat)ingattendedtbefrn sesionin August1981. ThereJbre, beJitre prouiding a Patristiccommentaryon tbefourth to eleuenthchaptersof Gencsis (fom Cain and Abel to the TowerofBabel), Fr Seraphimrecappedwhat he had said during thefrst session about scienceas it relatesto Scriprure and the Hofi Fathers.lVithin a feu wceksafer giuing this talk, he u,as taken to the hospital,and on September 2 he reposedin the Lord.

HEeuEsrroNof how we approachthe book of Genesisis bound up with our modernoutlook on life. Ve haveall beenbrainwashed.Whoeverwatchesrelevisionor goesro schoolhearscerrain ideasput acrossin the nameof science, someof which arescienrific and someof which arenot scientific-theyarespeculations. Someof what is put acrossis philosophy, and someof ir evencomescloseto a kind of religion. -l'hisis especially strongin the SovietUnion,whererheyreachrhat manhasdescended from monkeys. The Sovietstatepushesrhisideaas a kind of dogma.Therefore,when peoplebecomeChristian,they throw offthis ideathat had beenforcedupon rhem.Herein the West, on the other hand,ir is not quite so easyro seeit asdogma,because herewe arefree;science is supposed to be freeand haveirs own theo-

6r 5

GeNrsts,CnexrtorurNo EanrvMrN riesand its own reasonsfor having thesetheories.Therefore,often we think somethingis a scientifictruth when it is not so at all, but rather is open to speculationand to discussion.Unfortunately,this very suoject of evolutionism is very emotion-charged,and thereforea lot of peopleare not willing to discussit. They would ratheracceptwhatcver is in the.air,whateveris taught in the scienceclass,without thinking too mucn. Another reasonwhy peopledo not want to think about or discuss this issueis becauseit is very conrplicared.You can get involved in all kinds of complex questionswhich are totally irrelevant.For example, you tell somebody,"l dont believethat man comes from a monkey"; and he says,"But sciencedoesntteachthat man comes{'roma monkey." "Vell, I dont believethat he comesfrom an ape." "But sciencedoesn'tteachhe comes from an ape. Scienceteaches he comes fiom a lower creaturewhich is not an ape, but something clse." In fact, nowadayssome evolutionistssaythat some of the apesdescendedlrom men, insteadof vice versa.*There are all kinds of evidence you can add up on whareverside you want to take. Ail these detailsaside,however,there are cerrain basic questionsone can ask. "Does man come directly from the hand of God, or does he come from some lower creature?"-That is a very basic question which should be open to discussion.And there are rwo ways ofapproaching rhe discussion:one from rhe side of Genesis(and we have to know how to understandwhat the book of Genesissays),the other from the side of science. It so happensthat scienceis not at all ascertainabout this question assome peopleclaim it is. The Sovietssaythat everythingis quire certain and dogmatic about it, and you simply acceptwhat rhe scienrists rell you and that is the truth. ln the Vesr, fortunately,rherehas beena lot ofcriticism and discussionof this matter.

Fp. Sen,qpH tt"t'sl-rsr Talr

Whe n Darwin's theory first came out in the late nineteenthcenrury, rherewas a lot of discussion,most of it not on a very high level. Peoplein the Church of England,for example,were very upset by the whole idea that man came from a lower creature,but they did not have any reallyscientificpreparationto discussthe question;therefore,they became"fundamental"about it. In fact, up to this day,thereare fundamentalistswho get up in arms whenever you mention the subiect. They sayeverythingis absolutelyliteral in the book of Genesis;they go ro the opposite extremeand make it very difficult to have a rational discussionon the subject. On the whole, the scientificdiscussionwasstill not on a very high level when, in 1925, there occurred the famous "Scopes Monkey therewas a law* Trial," which you haveall heardabout. In Tennessee volunteered to be a and a teacher against the teaching of evolution, nominal defendantin a testcase.Actually the statewon that case;but the hmous lawyer, Clarence Darrow, made such a casefor how ridiculous it is to stand by theseold Biblical ideas-which are not "scientific," and so forth-that from that time everybodybecamescared to be againstevolution. Thus, thosewho were againstit iust remained quiet and did not haveany particularargument. (T'herewere actually some good books in that period which criticized the theory ofevolution, but they were outside the main trend.)** Even very [undamentalist peopleoften would give way on variouspoints about rhe theory of evolution, or elsethey would not want to discussevolution because it was roo difficult. And there are so many complex issuesinvolved that it i a very difficult subject to discussrationally unlessyou are prepareo. However,in the last rwenty yearsor so tlrerehave been a number of peoplewho have beerrlooking at this whole quesriona little more

'John Gribbin and JercmyChcrfas,in rheirarticlc"Desccntof Man or Asour suggestion into that fbrm ofspeech,we rhink cenrofApe?"wrire:"'lb translatc from man, that thc commonancesror rhat rhc chimp is dcsccndcd of rhc rwo was nroreman-likcthanapc-likc"(NewSckntkr,vol. 91, Sept.3, 1981,p. 592).-Llo.

signedthe bill only Thc p;ovcrnor 'Actually it wasmerclya symbolicmeasure. thar ir would nor bc cnforccd.-Eo. with the explicitundcrsranding " F
( r |( )

6t7

CiaNnsrs, Ctr:arloNnNo Ernly Mnn objectively,criticizing and discussingsometimesvarioussmall poinrs, sometimesthe whole theory.This has been a very good thing. Science should welcome it. Unfortunatelx it has nor been too well receivedin scientificcircles. I've becomeacquainredwith thesepeople.T'here is one group in San Diego called rhe Institute for Creation Research;rhey put our a monthly newslettercalledActsand Farrswhich discusses what is happening in their research.Usually it hasan inserrwhich goesinro a specific scientificquestion.For example,one is on the law ofentropy and crearionism,another one is on experimentalpsychologr,and so forth; there are often quite sophisticateddiscussions. They discussthe ageof the earth, the age of the solar sysrem,and all those questionswhich you haveto know about ifyou are going inro the scientificside of rhis tssue. 1'hesepeopleare very good. Their lnsritute is a Protesrantreligious school, but they are operaring purely on rhe basisof scienrific criticism.- l'hey put out a number oftextbooks, including a very good one called Scicntifc Creationism, in which they discuss all the various points about evolurion and creationwirhout mentioning anything religious,becausewhen they start mentioning religiousrhings,ofcourse, rheir textbook could neverbe usedin a high schoolor a college.In the last few yearsespecially, they havegorrenquite a bit of impetus behind them. They have been having a number of debatesin big universiries all over the country, and there hasbeen grearinteresr-students come our by the thousands."' -['he student responsedependson where the debatc takesplace. lf it occurs in a universiry in California, rhe stu'l-he Insritutccurrenrlyhassomcforry Ph.D.scicnrisrs on irs rcsidcnrf:rculry adjunctlaculryand advisoryboard.-F-o. from the Instirurcfor CrearionResearch '- Scicntists haucoarricioated in well over threehundredfbrmel crcarion/cvolurion .Jcbrrc'.uru.rllyhcl,.l,,n ,,,n,u"..,ry canrpuscs lnd opposinglacultycvolutionary scicntisrs.'l-hc mostacrivcdrba(crhas bccn Dr. [)uanc(]ish, who rcceived his Ph.D. in biochcnristrv lronr U.C. Bcrkclcv ( .orncllUniverrityMc,lical( ollegc.rndI hr Upard hcld kcv posirions ar Bcrkclcy, john Companybeforcjoining thc Insrirutefor CrearionResearch irr 1971.Now sevenry-eight ycarsold, l)r. Gishconrinues ro debareevolutionisr professors on campuseswith largcnumbcrsofsrudenrsarrending. He hasnevcrlosra debare.-Eo.

6t8

Ft. SenqPstu'sLasr Tlrr dentswill be more againstcreationistideas.In the South' the students are mor€ in favor of them. In fact, in one Placethe evolutionistswho were debating said they felt like they were a lion in a den of Daniels: everything was reversed. of the creationscientistsare very interestinS.They The discrrssions On the other hand, arequire up on the latestliteratureand discoveries. recenrlysome ofthe evolutionistshavestoppeddebatingcreation/evolution becausethey generallyare not PrePared.A number of them recenrly admitted that, since thesecreationistsare so uP on their details and so sharp in debate,they are putting the evolutioniststo shame.*It is time, they say,that evolutionistsgo back and begin to find out what rheir argumentsare, becausethrough all these yearsthey have been taking for granted that everyonethinks like they do. They were not readyfor all the criticism from the sideof creationism,which goesinto quite spccific points which are very dubious according to the evolutionistinterpretation. The Creation ResearchSociery in Michigan now has a voring membershipof well over six hundred scientists,all of whom signed a srarementthat they were in favor of the creationistinterpretation of origins.**Therefore,if someonetellsyou that evolution is the only scientific interpretation,yott should be aware that there are at leastsix hundred scientistswho say no There are thousandsmore who, al-

directorofthc NarionalCerrterfor SciScotr,cxccucivc " In 1996Dr. F,ugenie ofevolu(a to protecringrhereaching dedicated enceEdr.rcation privarcorganizarion 'Auoid debaus' lf evolurionisrs: warnedher fellow tion fronr creationistchallenges), dcclinc pleasc cvolurion,' you to'dcfcnd your localcampusChristianfcllowshipasks Ila Sri... you will probablyget bearen"(EugenicC Scott,"Monkey Business," 1996,p. 2l).-Eo. enccs, Jan.-Fcb., degreesin scl" F,achof thescvoting nrcmbershasone or morc post-graduarc 'fhe "all things'inof living thar basic affirms that rheysigncd sraremenr cncc. rypcs Genesis" Veek in describcd the Crearion cludingman,wcremadcby Cod during worldwidc in evenr was an historic "the ... in Genesis grearFlooddescribed and thar musr havc posrSocicry o[ rhe voting membcrt irs cxrentand effcct."Although or studcnr can bc susraining thosewirhout suchdegrces graduatescicnccdegrees, -l'he journal, Rctcarch SorictT Crcation a peer-reviewed Socierypublishes inembers. in northstarion experiment and has an it is now centercdin Missouri, QuarterQ; (sec p,648 below).-F,o. ccnrralArizona

6t9

Crnssrs,CrsxrroN aun EnnrvMaN though they would not make that actualstatement,nevertheless synrparhizeand are willing to discussthe issue.In fact, one of our friends who is a scientisttold us rhat more and more people in rhe scientific world, although they still srick ro the evolution "model," do not even insist that it is truth; it is for them a nodel thar helps to explain how things came to be, how they are now developing,and so forth. 'fhe creationistsare quite objectiveabout this. They offer a visual presenrationof the rwo models, by which you can see what should happen accordingto the creationistmodel, and what should happen accordingto the evolutionistmodel. These creationistssay that the situation now is like it was in the time of Copernicus. Befbre Copernicus there was the gcocentric model: rhat the sun, planetsand starsgo around the earth. ln order ro explain how the planersmove accordingto this interpretation,it was necessaty to make so-calledcyclesand epicycles. For example,they noticed that Mars appearedto go fasterthan the starsfor a while, and then it suddenlywent backwards.They had to figure out what kind of movementit had to haveto make it do this. IF it was simply going around the earth, it was a very strangething that ir shoLrldbe suddenlygoing backwards.-l-herefore,they had to nrakeall kinds of adiustmentsin the sky to account for rhe fact that it did nor follow a regularmovement.Finally thesemovementsand adjustments becameso complicatedthat Copernicussaid it was much easierto explain everythingas if the earrh and the planetswent around the sun. The starsout thereare comparativelyfixed; they are furrher away than the planets.According to this concept,you haveto make fewer epicyclesand fewer adjustmentsin the calculations.* -fhe creation scientistssay that this is exactlywhat is happening with the evolutionarytheory. Wheneversomething comes up which goesagainstrhe evolutionary theory, the evolutionistsput in another cycleor epicycle.-I'heyexplainthat it cannot reallybe that way because it goesagainstthe theory,and that is why they haveto make an adjust-

Fn. Srnalsrv's [.asr Talx

modclthat Copernicus proposedhad been;rrrivcdat by rhc ' 'I hc heliocentric CreekastronomcrArisrarchus o[ Alcxandriain the rhird cenrury8.c., bur at rhat tinrcthc thcoryhadbecnrcjected and ignoredbv scholars.-Eo.

ment for this particular exception. The creationistssay, why not changethe rheory and make it more simple? Unfortunately,thereis a lot ofprejudice in this areabecausepeople sayrhar if you talk about creation,you'retalking abour religion.Actually,everyscientifictheory hasto havesomethingwhich is assumedon faith. l'he evolutionistsassumetheir belief on fairh. The really rigorous onesinsist that once therewas norhing or therewas a point of tremendousenergywhich suddenlyexplodedand producedthe unrverse. lt requiresa great amount of ltaith to believethat. [f you believe in Cod, you havea whole differenrapproach.Of course,if you believein God, rhen, since He is infinite, He can do whateverHe wants. Then you can be freero seewhat firs the scientificfacrsand what firs the text of Genesis. One common misrakein approachingthe book of Genesisis to say rhat it is sonrethingreligious,maybe even myrh, while sciencerreats rhe factualaspect.l'hat is an oversimplifiedview,becauseGenesistalks about truth, and thus there will be an overlappingberweenwhat scienceralksabout-because scienceis rrying to get to truth-and wha( Genesistalks about. We haveto be awarerhar we cannot put them in Vhen peopletry to separatethem in this way rwo diflerenr categories. (which they very frequentlydo as an answerto the question) they do nor rrearGenesisasa serioustext. They say Genesisis not to be interpretedasa text that acturlly talks about the origins of nature,exceptas a kind ofspeculationor asa handing down ofancient myths, Babylonian creationtales,or somethingIike that. -fherefbre, the question is: how are we going to approach this whole rext of Genesis?I think wc have only one answer.We have to understandhow this text hasbeen understoodby the Church over the pastrwo thousandyears,becauseit is a rext which comesfrom God-a revealedtext-and the Church which has preservedthe revelationof God must havethe way to understandit. Therefore,you cannot trust someonewho simply opensup the text, in the English translationhe has,and giveswhat seemsto him to be a very basicinterpretation.Furrhermore,you cannot trust your own interpreration,becauseyou are going to put your modern ideasir,to it. Yor.rare going to make it evolutionist 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 have to understandhow the Church understandsit. ln other words, what is the Patristicreadingof it, how do the Frathers understandrhe rexr?That is what rhis courseis abour. 'We discussedin the last yeart course the first three chaptersof Cenesis,which are ofcourse the "thickesi'ones, requiring rhe mosr interpretation.T'hesechaptersdiscussthe whole Six Days of Orearion, the crearionof man, the fall of man, the stateof Paradise,and man's banishmentfrorn Paradise. Last yearwe saw that the interpretarionof the Holy Fathersis not exactlywhar the Protestantswould be satisfiedwith becausert rs not "fundamental" enough in some respects;and the peoplewho want ro conrbineGenesiswith the modern theory ofevolution would also not be satisfiedwith it becauseit is much too "fundamental"for them. Actually, if you want one word to describehow the Fathersinterprer Genesis, I think you can say they interpret it very realitically. That is, first of all, rhey acceptthat (and this is a very basicpoint) the texr is Diuinely irupired.In fact, St. John Chrysostomsaysthat it is a book of propheq. Somebooks prophesythe future, but the book of Genesisis a proPhcryof the Pasr'l'hisis necessary because,when the world was created,therewas no witness.You cannot possiblyhavesomeonegive you a firsthand accounrofwhat happenedar the beginning of the world, becausetherewas no one there.Therefore,unlessthe One V/ho made the world Himself tellsyou, you will neverknow'l'herefore all we have are guesses. According ro the Holy Fathers,however,we do have this knowledge becauseGod rcvealedit to the prophet Moses. Moscs was rn a stateof ecstasywhen he receivedthis text about the beginningsof the world: therefore,we haveto read Genesisrather as we would read the book of the Apocalypse,the last book of the Bible, which dealswith prophecieswhich havenot been fulfilled yet and so is ratherdifficult to understand. Cenesis,then, should be understoodas prophecy,accordingro the Holy Fathers,accordingto the restofthe Holy Scriprure,and according ro our own experiencein rhe Church. A lot ofit, ofcourse,is beyond us; therefbrewe can sayonly a few things about some parts ofthe rext.

So we approachthis text as Divinely revealed,realizingthat we will obtain a basicunderstandingof it not through our common sense,nor through science(although of course we have to use common sense also,and we have to use sciencewhere it appliesto a given rext), bur through the Holy Fathers. This raisesanorher quesrion. Peoplewho are scientificallyaware will say the Fathersmade mistakesin science.For example,St. Basil the Great, in his writings on the Six Days of Creation,statesthat there are some creatures,such as certain frogs, which spontaneouslycome from the dust. This was accordingto the scienceof his day. Knowing rhis isni true, people in modern times say rhat the man made a mistake, since the scienceof his day, through which he was interpreting the scientific aspecr,was wrong. And it is true that, in this respect, when rhereare scientifichcts, we can correct the writings of the Holy Fathers.Some people, however,think this meanswe can correcr the texr of Genesis.But if you look at the rexr of Genesis,you will seerhat whenever the Fathersmake thesemisinterpretationsbecauseof their knowlcdge of the scienceof their day, it is lrot becausethe text of Genesissaysthat. It is becausethat is the most logicalway to readit on 'Ibday we would have litde a difthe basisof the scientificknowledge. ferenr way of reading it, and we might be more correct. The text renrainsthe same. Actually there is not a single statement in the text of Genesis which commits one either to the idea that the sun is going around the earrh or rhe earrh around the sun, or anything of the sort. Thar is all a marrer of larer interpretation,dependentupon our scientificawareness.'I'hus the rext of Genesisis not open to this criticism of science. We might correcrrhe interpretationof rhe Fathersif it dealswith specific scientificquestionslike where frogscome from or something like tnat. By the way, we should also not be afraid ofscience in interpreting the book of Genesisbecauseall the writings ofthe Holy Fathersabout the Six Days of Creation arefilled wirh scientific facts, based on thc scienceof their day. For example,when St. Basildiscusses the creation of rhe birds, fish, or land animals,he goesinto all the different kinds and explainstheir customs.He then tellshow we can draw examplesof

622

623

Geursrs,CnearroNrruo E.rxlyMeN

Fr. SnnepHrlr's L"rsrTer-x

moral life from them, like a bird that is faithful to its mate. That is all very nice and interesting,but the rext of Genesisdoesnot stand or fall on that. This is explanatorymaterial.Actually, someonetoday could go into the scientificfacrswe haveabour creation, using theseas explanatory material, and could write a tremendousbook on this very subjectof the Six Days of Creation. Unfortunately,peopletend to be too narrow-mindednowadays;the scientistswill not broadentheir horizon enough to take in the whole aspectof Genesis.The ones who read Cenesisusually are not preparedenough for the scientific side. Nevertheless, we can keepthis possibiliryin mind; rhe subjectis a very fruitful areafor discussion. Also, we are nor to be afraid ofsciencebecausesciencecannot oossibly contradict revealedtruth. If ir\ truch, ir! truth. Theret one lind 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 Creation 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 derive 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 commentary 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

afterthat is His continuousProvidence overthe world,which is actuwithout the IivingVord of God, ally a continuouscreation,because how coulda seedbecomean individualpersonor plantor animal?It is all very miraculousand a work of creation,bv it's dffirent from the crearionwhich wasar the beginning,in the first Six Days.If you do not seethat,you will makea lot of mistakes. Ve will seein our readingof the next chaptersof Genesis-four through eleven-that rhereis evena basicdifferenceberweenthe way men were beforethe Flood and the way they were after the Flood. There area numberof thingswhich changedwith the Flood.But ir wasin the Six Daysrhateverything we know now cameto be,and after rhat is simplythe continuationofthosethingswhichwerealready creared, according ro rhelawswhichGod madeand gaveto nature.

624

625

Tne Fe,rrsor R.enrovr-rr.lcDrrllrc

AppnNorxFoun

TheFaith of Radiometric Dating BY CURT SE\flELL

o* car creationistsexpectpeopleto accepta young earth when Lf I I sciencehas provcd through radiometricdating thar the earth is billions ofyears old?" 'fhis article addresses that question,which representsthe thinking of a large number of peopleroday.Certainly the majority of scientisrs acceptradiomerricdating. And yer, there is really no scienrificreason proving that radiometricdating is correct,and a number of evi{ences showing that it doesnot work. Ve will discussseveralof these.We will find that hith in materialism,and rejectionof any supernaturalacrivity, is the foundation stone of radiometric analysis,even before any measurementsare made. Mosr people, even the experrsin the field, forget the assumprionson which radiometricdating is based.

potassium-argonsysrems.These are the methods that are commonly used on inorganic samplessuch as rocks, and thar ofren give extremely long ages-millions or billions of years.Evolurionistsoften describethesemethods as proving rhe ancient ageof the earth and its srrata.Crearionistsoften criticize the methods as giving torally false results. All of thesedating merhods begin with some radioactiveisorope such as U-238, U-235,Th-232, K-40, or Rb-87. Theseare called the "mother" isotopes.Theseelemenrsarenarurallyradioactive,that is, they spontaneouslyemir an alpha or beta particleand, as a result,are rransformed into some different element,calledthe "daughter"isoropes. 2. Experimental Errors The methods that give ancient ages produce almost as many "wrong" answersas"right" ones.The "correct"answeris chosenon the basisofstratigraphicsequences, that is, whar kinds offossilsare buried nearby.Of course,the fossildaresdependon the assumptionofevolution. And, of course,the public doesnot usuallyhear of thescwrong answers. l'his statement-that radiometric dates are "correcred"by referenceto evolution-basedindex fossils-is hotly contested,but examination of the technical literature shows rhar ii is true, in spire of what clemenrrryrexrbookssay.Ler us look ar a number of ex.rmples. 3. Documented D iscrepanci es

l. RadioactiveDating There are basicallyrwo different kinds of radioacrivedating methods. One is the Carbon l4 sysremusedfor dating fragmenrsofonceliving organisms.It has neverusedfor non-organicsamples,and almost nevereven attempted if the sampleis rhought ro be much older than about 50,000 years.Ir furnishessome good evidencesrhar crearionisrs often use.But we will not discussthe C-14 method in this article. The secondbroad categoryis sometimescalled "healy-metal dating," and includesuranium-thorium-lead, rubidium-strontium,and 626

The generalpublic believesthat radiomerric resultsare consistenr and thus demonsrrablyreliable.But the technicalliteratureshowsotherwise.John \floodmorappedid an extensiveliteraruresearch,looking at 445 technicalarticlesfrom 54 reputablegeochronologyand geologr journals.' These reporrs listed over 350 dates, measuredby radiometric methods,that conflicred badly with the agesassignedto fossilsfound in rhesesame strata.They covered"expecred"agesranging from I to >600 million years.In almost every caseof a discrepancy,thc fossil

627

Cr,vesrs,Cru-qrronaNo Ennly M,rN

THnFarrnor RaorourrnrcDlrrt.tc

dateswere acceptedas correct.l'he radiometricdateswere discarded. Voodmorappe quoted one researcher assaying:

lyzedthe raw rock, and got datesrangingfrom 2'12ro 230 MY-the Tiiassicperiod,vastlyolder than expected.Because mammalbones had beenfound belowthis stratum,they saidthesedateswereobviouslyin errorbecause of"the possible presence ofextraneous argonderived from inclusionsof pre-existing rocl$." Eventhough the rock lookedgood,anythingolderthat 5 MY wasobviouslywrong in view of the "sequence of rheirknowledge of evolutionary development." Meanwhilea teamfrom the Universiryof Californiaat Berkeley, led by C. H. Curtis,analyzed severalKBS pumicerocksand found somethat werearound 1.6 MY and somethat wereabour 1.8 MY. someas low as.5 MY weresaidto be anomaOrher measurcments, louslyyoung. Thesewereexplainedas possibleoverprintingby an hot waterinfusion. alkaline-rich Between1969 and 1976several reamsmadea numberof radiometricmeasurements, andthe resultsclustered aroundahreeages- I .8 MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY. Eachteamcriticizedthe others'technique Most radiometricarguments weresaidto faof rocksampleselection. vor the 2.(r MY date,but the paleontological argumentsfavoredthe 1.8MY date-(that is wherethe skullwould bestfit evolutionary theory). And final agreement cameonly afterpaleontologists had agreed on fossilcorrelationinvolvingrwo species of exrincrpigs.The final accepteddarefor the skullwas1.9MY Commentingon this methodof selecting rocksamples for radiometric dating,Lubenowasks;

ln gencral,datcsin the'correctball park'areassumed to bc'correct and arcpublished, bur thosein disagreement wirh othcrdaraarcscldorn publishednor arcdiscrepancies fully explaincd.l 'When

thesereportsdid discussthe possiblecausesof errors,rhey usedwords such as"possibly,""perhaps,""probably,""may havebeen," etc. Reasonsgiven usuallyinvolveddetrital intrusion, leakageor leaching of someof the isoropesin the sample,and somerimesthe initial isotopic content of the sample.For K-Ar dates,it is easyto blame argon lossifthe reportedageis too short,or argonabsorptionifit is too long. It is well known that argon, which is a gas,diffuseseasilythrough rock, and thereis no way ofknowing whether that may havehappened in any given case. Errors are parricularly bad with the K-Ar (potassium-argon) method. Studieshave been made of submarinebasaltrocks of known recentagenear Hawaii. Thesecame lrom the Kilaueavolcano.The results rangedtp rc 22 million years.Joan Engelswrote: It is now well knownthat K-Ar agesobtaincdfionr differcnrmincralsin a singlerockmaybe strikinglydiscordant.r

4. Shull t470

The questionarises,"How docs one know when one has good samplcs for daring?" The only answcr to that qucstion is that "good"

In 1972fuchardLeakeylound a skull ncarLakeRudolfin Kenya that he saidwas"virtuallyindistinguishable" lrom that of a modern human.Yetit wasfoundbeneatha layerof the volcanicKBS1'uffrhat had an acceptedradiometricdateof 2.6 MY (millionsof yearsold). Leakeydeclared that theskullwas2.9 MY andsaidtharit "fits no prcvious modelsof human beginnings."It wasnamedKNM-ER-1470 (for KenyaNationalMuseum,EasrRudolf,#1470). Marvin Lubenowgivesa gooddescription of the ten yearsof controversysurroundingthe datingof thisskull.' In the first attemptar daringthe KBS Tuff, Fitchand Miller ana-

samplcsgive dates that are in accord with evolutionarypresupposrtions. "Bad" samplesare rhe ones rhat give datesnot in conformity

Creationists havecriticizedmanyaspects of datingrocksby radioactiviry but haveofferedlitrle realproof that the methodis flawed. However,the Institute for CreationResearch is now in the earlyphascs ofgettingsuchproof for igneousrock."

628

629

w i th ev,rl uti on-a cl assicillur t r at i, , nol cir cularr casonins. s

5. Grand Canlon Dating

Cexests,Cne.rrIoN.ruo [lruv MaN

Tne F,trrHor Rrorovr.rnrc Darrr.rc

" fhe purposeof rhis project," the ICR scientisrswrite, "is to use the'most reliable'radioactiveisotopedating method (the'isochron method') with the most accurateanalytical measurementtechnique (the isorope dilution mass spectrographtechnique) to establishrhe 'ages'ofvarious Grand Canyon rocks." The ICR scientistshaveengageda licensedcommercialgeotechnical laboratory to help plan and overseethe project and prevent bias lrom influencing the results,and to submit rock samplesto several qualified laboratoriesin a manner that will avoid subterfugc. The Grand Canyon has many different rock strataand types.Everyone agreesthat the Precambrianmetamorphic rocks buried below 'I'heseinclude the lriniry Gneiss, the Canyon floor must be the oldest. ElvesChasm Gneiss,and the ZoroasterCranite. Everyonealsoagreesthat the Quaternarylava flow on the Unikaret Plateau is probably the youngest igneous deposit there. This came from a volcano, after all of the beds of sedimentarysrrata were laid down, and after the canyon was eroded.The lava flowed over the rim, and down the sidesof the alreadyerodedcanyon. Most conventional geologistsbelieve that the deep gneissesand granitesare more than 600 million yearsold, probably closerto 2,000 million years,and rhat the age of rhe Unikaret Plateaubasalticlava flow should be measuredin just thousandsofyears, becauseit is obviously younger than the sedimentarysrrataof the upper canyon walls. Thus, by comparing the accuratelymcasurcd"ages"of a number of samplesfrom theserwo regions,we should get an idea of the general reliabiliryof radiometricmethods. The preliminary resultslook very interesting.But only the recent had beencompletedat the time of my last relava flow measurements

This result alone should be enough ro throw strong doubts on hearymetal radiomerricdating methods,but we must wait for the project's completion beforetoo many conclusionsare drawn.* 6. Causesof Enors

There are severalpossiblesourcesfor the crrors associated with radiometric dating. The main problems (beginning wirh those of least rmportance)are: l. AccuraE of decal rates--mosr of rheseare rhoughr to be known within a few percenrand, if wrong, would haveonly a minor effect on dates. 2. Constllnryofdecd! rater-most scientistsbelieve these have been constant through rhe ages,although this cannor really be known. But one of thc early investigators,Profcsssor John Joly of Tiiniry College, Dr.rblin,reporredevidenceshowingvariation.TBarrySetterfield's report on possiblevariationoFthe speedoflight alsogiveshistoricalreferences to variationsin decayratesover the last 300 years.nBur most scientisrs havebeen lessthan enrhusiasricin their acceptanceof this concepr. 3- Neutron actiuatio by unknown rarzrcr-Profe ssor Melvin Cook examinedores from a Katangamine and found rhat they had no Pb204 and no thorium, yet rhere was appreciablePb-208! That apparently could not have been primordial, and could not have resulred from thorium decay.The only way it corrld be explainedis by neutron activation ofPb-207. When Cook correctedfor this, the calculatedage wasreducedfrom 600 million yearsto near modern.eIn most ores,it is not possibleto seethis effectso clearly,but rhis showsthat some neutron flux, possiblyfrom a supernova,nrust havehad a strong influence, and this would probably be worldwide, affectingall rocks in a manner rhat could nor be easilydeterminedtoday. 4. IntegritT of atoms in the rock-rhis is certainly a point of much concern to all chronologists,and is rhe most-cited reasonfor obvious errors in dating measurements.Uranium salrsare water soluble, and most minerals are subject to unequal leaching of chemical compo-

Port. Several"model age" figureswere obtained for this same set of recent rocks, and they were quite discordant (that is, they all disagreed with each other). The "more accurate"rubidium-strontium isochron agewas reportedto be 2.1 billion years. But rhat ageis clearlywrong. The lavabeing dared flowed over the edge of the alreadyeroded canyon. Thus, the age "2.1 billion years" musr be many rhousandsof times older than the actualageofthe lava.

' Sec Steven A. Ausrin, ed., Grand Canlox: Motwncnt to Catatttuph. (1994), ar wcll as rhe accompanying video, Orand Claryon: Monurne4t ro thc F-tood.-F,D.

630

631

Grxrsrs, CnrarroN ,qNDEaRr-vMlN nents. Argon migratesunpredictablyin and out of rocks. Hurley reported that radioactivecomponentsof graniteslie on the surfaceof grains,and can be easilyleachedaway.Z-irconcrystalshavebeen dated by U-Pb methods, but ion microprobe studieshave shown rhar uranium and lead are embeddedin different partsof the crystalstructure. 'l'his shows that the Pb-206 acttallv could not hauecomefrom uranium decay:rhcsc darcsmust thereforc be invalid. 5. Byfar the mostimportant probhm is the original isotopiccontentof the rock. How can we possiblyknow whar the original marerialwas? Vc will see that this answerdependson a decision involving something that cannot be proven-a decisionmade by faith. 7. Original Isotopb Material The uniformitarian geologistmust assumesome initial concenrration. If his choice is good, and the other error sourcescan be minimized,he could makean accurateagedetermination-provided his set of assumptionsis correct.But his assumptionsare alwaysbasedon the theory of un iformitarianism-that is, that the earth and its rockscame into existencein a purely materialisricway,without supernaturalinrervention, a long time ago. If he rhen tries to use theseresultsto prove that the earth is old and was not crcated,he is using circular logic. He is actually ruling out the possibilityof a supernaturalsix-daycreation beforethe measurementis madc. I took a geologycoursear nry local collegea few yearsago. [n the firsr classsession,the instructor emphasizedthe imporranceof unilormirarian beliefsas rhe foundation of historicalgeology,and said something like this:

'f Hr F,q.rrH or l{aorovrrnrc DnrrNc Notice the casualacceprance of the belief that the Biblical accounr cor.rldn'treally be true. In his classicgeochronology rext5ook lAgesof Rochs,Pknex and Starsl, Henry Faul says: If one assumes that the solarsystemcondcnsed from a primordial cloud,it followsthat thc materials of planets,asrcroids, and meteoriteshavea commonorigin, lron meteorires conrainsomcleadbut only infinitcsimalrraces of uraniumand thorium,and thercfbrerhe Ieadis uncontarninated by radiogcniclcadand canbc regarded asa goodsampleof primordiallcad.Table6- I liststhe isotopiccomposrrion 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 theagcofrhc carrhis a leadsarnple from a closcdsubsystem of wcllknownage.lo

Peopleusedro belicvcin all sortsof catasrrophes, causedby super'fhese naturalinterventions. fblkralcsled peoplcto believcrhat thc carrhwasonly a fcw thousandyearsold. Now, of course,we know suchrhingsnevcrhappcncd, and that thc earthis much older rhan that. It hascvolvcdslowly,ovcrbillionsof years.This occurredaccordingro the "uni[ormitarian principle"-rharall processes havcalwaysfbllowedthe samenaturallawswe observctoday.

Noticc Faul'sstarringpoinr-"lf one assumesthat rhe solarsysrem condensedfrom a primordial cloud...." That meansa purely naturalisric earrh-origin,over a long period of time. Here he shows rhe belief conlmon among almosr all evolutionisr scientists that the earth and the solarsystemevolvedfrom a cloud o[gas and dust, over a very long time, starting billions of yearsago. From this basicbelief, Faul argues rhat the original makeup of the earth'schemicalsmust havebeensimilar ro what we can s€eroday in mereorircs. This assumptionis one of the main evidencesused to derermine the age of the earth and the lead isotope rario in rhe composition of primordial rocks. Bur ir is strongly basedon belief in uniformitarianism and a naturalisticorigin of the earth. \Wirhour this foundational belief, all of thc various long-age dating measurementswould be meaningless. On the other hand, if the earrh had been suddenlycreated(asthe Bible says),rhe Creator could havemade ir any way He wanted to. He would not have been constrained ro lollow any of man's rules-indeed, He hasalreadydemonstraredrhat. Vhen He made the trees in the Garden of Eden, rhey immcdiatelyhad fruit on rhem. Vhen Hc 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 couldn't He also have made rocks the same way? Vhy couldn't they have contained Lead 206 and Argon 40, so that they appeared"mature"?Scientistsagreethat Lead 204 musr havebeen presenrsince rhe earth! beginnings.\Yy'hycould nor mosr of the Lead 206, 207 and 208 also haveoriginated in the sameway? Sincea prehistoricacr of God is not amenable ro scientificinvesrigation, and is thereforeoutside of the scientific method, many scientists exclude God from scientific possibiliry and simply assumethar God never intervened.'l'hey searchfor purely materialisticexplanations as if rhey were the only scientificallyacceptablechoice. But this leadsto a real problem. Ve seerhat radiogenicdating is not jusr based on physical measurements.Its foundarion resrs on a philosophical belief-one's belief in how the world came into cxisrence. 'We seethat the questionof "young-earthvs. ancienr-earth"can be resolved only according to which of rwo foundational hiths one cnooses. If we choosefaith in materialismand excludethe possibilityofsupernaruralintervenrion,then it is reasonable to believethat the earrh is billions of yearsold. However, if we recognizea God Vho can and has intervened in

His own creation,then it is reasonable to believerheBiblicalaccounr, and.rnageofjust thousands ofye;rrs. Neitherof thesechoices is forcedupon usby thephysicalevidence Rather,we makethe choicefor philosophical reasonsj rhenfit the evidencesinto oneor theotherfoundationalbeliefsvstem.

affirmedby Sr. Ephraim rhe Syrian in his fourrh''I'his was caregorically "AJrhough cenruryComnrcntaryon Ccnesis: thc grasses wereonly a momentolclar theircrearion, rheyappeared asifrhey weremonrhsold. L,ikewise, rhe rrecs,although only a dayold when thcysprourcdlortlr,werenevcrrhclcss likc trccsycarsold, sincc rheywerefully grownand fruirswcrcalreadybuddingon rheirbranchcs." Lrtcr, in cxplaininghow rhe nroonhad rheeppearancc oFagcat thc tinrc of its creation,St. Ephraimwrites:"Jusrasthc rrecs,rhcvcgcrarion, rhcaninrals,thc birds, and cvcnmankindwcrcold [whcntheywcrecrcarcdl,soalsowcrcthcyyoung. IDeT 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.ngvcrsion, lish pp. 90-91;crnphasis addcd). Virh this Scriptural-Patristic undcrsranding of rhe manncrin which God createdrhe world, thc enrircbasisof radiornerric datingmerhodsfills apart.'I'hc facr that Sr. F,phrainr raughrir in rhe fburth ccnturyindicares rharit is nor tn ad hocargumcnrof prescnt-day cfearionscientisrs bur rarhcra straighrforward intcrpretarion of Scripture.-Eo.

634

8. Conclusion

Many scientists, teachers, and much of the media,arevery good for theevolutionisrs' spokesmen long-age beliels.And rnany(lhrisri.rns "long-ag;c-of-the-earrh" havegone along with rhesescientists' srarements,usuallywithour realizingthat theyarebasedon naturalistic assumptionsthar completely rule our any sort of intervention by a crcatorCod. They havenot recognizecl rheFallacy ofcircularreasoning in theselong-agebeliefs.In this way,theyhavekrsrthe loundationof their faith,needlessly.

Curtis SewelLJr., workedfor 44 yearsas an Eletronics Engineerin the nuclear industry beginning ir the Manhattan Projeu of the U.S. Army during WorA lVarII (thtfrx atomicbomb).Forfue yearshe was Chief Engineeroflsotopes,Inc. Amonghis dutiesthereweredcsigting instrumentrltionfol radiochemicalanalTsisof uariousspecimens, including Carbon14 datingsystems. h 1988he rctiredfzm LawrenceLiuermore NationalLaboratory. Mr. Sewellat onetimc heldto the uniformitar;an uiewthat theearth is billions ofyearsoA, but in the courseof his manyyearsofworh he beganto doubt the "proof" of this because lte satutltat it wasbasedon circukr logic. Thestoryof how he mouedfom theeaolutionary worAuieuto the Christian worlduiewis recounted in his boohGodat Ground Zero (1997). Copyright@1994by the Bible-Science Association, Inc. P O. Box 33220,Minneapolis, Minnesota55433-0220 Fora list of furthercritiquesof radiometricdating,seepp.64041 below.

b J)

SlrcctsLto Rrlotucs

Apppttotx Fryn

Suggested Readings BYTHE EDIl'OR

I, PATRISTIC SOURCES wRrrlNGon the Patristicunderstanding of Genesisand \\f/Her creation.Fr. Seraphimhad to translatemany Patristicsources W from foreignlanguages. Sincehis death,several ofthesesourceshave beenpublishedin Englishtranslation, includingrwo of the mosrrmportant ones:Homilieson Genesis by Sr. John Chrysostom,and Commentarl on Genesis 6y St. Ephraim the Syrian. English-speaking disciples ofthe Holy Fathers now haveat theirdisposal a wealthof materialby whichto deepentheirunderstanding ofthe originof the universeand of man. All of this material,includingthe new English translations, is listedin rhefirst sectionof the Bibliography. fu inirial reading,we suggest:

and end of its earthly exisrence,Fr. Seraphimincluded rhosehomilies of St. Symeon which dealt wirh the srate of Adam in Paradise,his transgression, the redemption of rnankind through JesusChrisr, and the furure rransfigurarionof the physicalworld. l'his is solid Patristic food for the soul, providing in succinct form an explanation of the purposeoflife. As Fr. Seraphimpoints our in his introducrion, St. Symeon speaksof rhe mysteriesof the beginning and end preciselybecausehe hasseenthem through Divine vision: How did St. Symeongive us the teaclringwhich is authenrically Chrisrian,and not a mereresulrofspeculation and guessing? St. Symeonspeak from Divine revelation. First,his basisis alwaysScriprural-but we areastonishcd ro seea dcpthof meaningin his useof ScriptLrral quotarions which we would nevcrhaveseenby oursefves. And this is because, second,he speaks fom pcrsonalexperi-

Many of the Patristicbooks in English which are lisredin the Bibliography can be obrained from the St. PaisiusAbbey Bookstore,or from the Valaambookstorenearesryou. To requestspecifictitles, and to receivea lisring ofValaam bookstoresin America and abroad,wrire to: Sr. PaisiusAbbey, P O. Box 130, Foreswille,CA95436. Telephone orders 707-887 -9740. Orthodox books published by the St. Herman Brotherhood, including Thc Firx-Created Man, can be ordered directly from the publisher, P O. Box 70, Platina, CA 96076. Fax orders 530-3524432.

|. Hexaemeronby St. Basilthe Great; 2. Hexaemeron by St. Ambroseof Milan; on Genesisby St. Ephraimthe Syrian; 3. Commentary 4. Homilieson Genesisby Sr.JohnChrysostom; Manby Sr. Symeonthe New Theologian. 5. TbeFirst-Created

II. SCIEN'TIFICSOURCES

Tbe First-CreatedMan-translaed by Fr. Seraphim Rose and originallypublishedunder the tiie The Sin of Adzm-can be regardedasa companionvolumero the presentbook. In his endeavor to confirm modernmankindin the true teachingon the beginning

The following four books,by a wide varieryof aurhors,arerecommendedas initial reading.Taken together,they providea good background ro all rhe major aspecrsof the modern crearion/evolurion debate.All of themareeasilyaccessible ro rhe nonscientist.

636

l. Initial kading

()5/

CrNrsrs,CpEllroN .ruo E,lnrvMaN L Biological Euolutionism by Constantine Cavarnos (second edition, 1987). This book by a contemporaryGreek Orthodox philosopher places evolutionism in its historical context and includes a critique of it by a major Grcek Orthodox saint of the rwentieth cenrury,Sr. Nectariosof Penrapolis. 2. Darwin on Tiial by Phillip E. Johnson (secondedition, 1993). rocked Called'the book rhat makesevolutionisrsfurious," this bestseller the scicntificestablishmentwith its well-reasoned, understatedyet devastatingargumentsagainstthe "fact" of evolution. Molecular biologist Michael Denton (seebelow) hascalledit 'irnquestionablythe besrcritique of Darwinism I haveevcr read." (Professor Johnsonhasfurthered rlris critique in his subsequent6ooks: DefeatingDarwinism by Opening Min*, Reasonin the Bnlance, and Objections Sustained.) by Henry M. Morris (1985 edition). An 3. Scientifc Creationisttr excelle nt summary by rhe founder of America'screationsciencemovemenr, rhis book discusses everything Fronrthe beginning of the universeto the origin of man. Fr. Seraphinrused it more than any other book on creation science.In srudying this well-documented book, readerswill be able to form their own conclusionsabout the grearbody of evidenceamassedby scientific crcationists. 4. Shanering the Mltbs of Darwinism by Richard Milton (1997). An exrremely well-wrirten and engaging book by a British science journalist who is neither a creationistnor a religiousbeliever.Milton calls into question not only the myths of Darwinism but also the myths of radiometricdating. His reviewof the evidencehasled him to conclude that, "becauseradioactivedating methods are scientifically unreliable,it is at presentimpossibleto say with any confidencehow old rhe Earth is." 2. Othcr Important Scientifc Critiques of Euolutionism l. Euolution:A Theoryin Crisisby Michael Denton (1985). Dr. Denton, an Australianmolecularbiologist and medical researcher, is a religiousagnostic,not a creationist.His widely acclaimedbook examines the mounting evidenceagainstevolutionism from a number of scienrificdisciplines,especiallyhis own specialry,molecular biology. 638

Suc;cr-slsoReeorNcs

This was one ofthe main books thar first inspired Phillip E. Johnson to write about evolution. 2. Daruini Bhck Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Euolution by Michael Behe(1996). Dr. Behe,Associatel)rofessorof Biochemisrryat Lehigh University,is alsonot a creationist,and yet he openly discusses the failure of Darwinian evolution to account lor rhe enormously complex machinery inside the cell. He is able ro presenrhighly detailed technicalinformation (which is necessaryto adequatelyconvey thc findings of biochemistry) in a way that everyonecan grasp. His book hascontributedgreatlyto the current reevaluationof Darwinism by non-creationists. 3. Not by Chance! Shattering the Modern Theorl of Euolution 6y Dr. Lee Spetner (1997), an lsraeli biophysicist.This is perhapsthe most important book on evolution to have come out in recentyears. Dr. Spetner,whose technicalknowledge of his subject is well in advanceof that of the averagebiologist,showsrhar all usefulgenericinformation was initially present in each organism. He demonstrates that chance mutations cannot produce grand-scaleevolution, since thesemutations result not in increasedgeneticinformation but rather in a lossof information. (This, incidentally,supports the traditional view that the universeis in hct devolving.)He then goeson to posit that the variationsthat do occur within eachkind of organismare the result of iriggers" or "cues"which a "biological Engineer" (i.e., God) built into organismsro enable rhem to adapt to their environment. His book is excellentfor scholarlyskeptics,as well as for scierrtists who are looking at new possibilitiesfbr undersranding biological variation. AustraliancreationscientistDr. Carl Vieland, reviewingthis book in Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 20, no. l, writes: -Ib saythat Spetner's book is an absolutc"must"for anyonedefcnding Scripturein this increasingly cducatcdageis an understarcmcnt. To put it succinctly, it is clearrhar unlessevolurionists can pull a brandnew rabbitout ofthe hat,Spetnerhasblownthe wholeevolutionarymcchanism out ofthe wateronccand for all. fhe evolutronarylhumanistesrablishment cannot allow rhis to happen,of

639

CENlsrs, CrmrroN aNn Eanlv MaN course... . I trust that readersof this book will make it as hard as pc'ssiblefor them to ignorc this groundbreakingwork, by sprcadingir as

Succrsrro RraorNcs book, The Mytholngy of Modern Dating Methodsby John Woodmorappe(1999).Dr. HenryMorriswriresof this book:

far and fast as rhey can.

3. On "HumanEuolution" The mostcomplete,accurate and up-to-datecritiqueof the myth of human evolution is Bonesof Contention:A CreationistAsessment of Human Fossils by Dr. Marvin L. Lubenow (1992).. The fruit of rwenry-fiveyearsof research into human fossils,this book contarns someof the mostcomprehensive humanfossilchartsto be foundanywherein the scientificliterature,aswell asdescriotions of whereand how thesefossilswerefound, and rhe controversies involvedin their datingand classification. Basedentirelyon fossilsacceptedunconditionallyby evolutionists, it is heavilydocunrented from the mosr recentscientificsources. Highly recommended. 4. On RadiometricDating Curt Sewell's l:ook, Godat GroundZero(1997),containsall the materialincludedin AppendixFourof the presenrbook,plus helpful technicaldescriptions of eachof the majorradiometricdatingmethods. Marvin L. Lubenog in an appendixrc Bonesof Contention: A CreationistAssessment of Human Fossils, givesa derailed history of the famous"skull 1470" mentionedby Sewell,showinghow evolutionist assumptions dererminewhich radiometricfindingsareaccepted. Dr. Mace Baker,ar the end of his book TheRealHistoryof Dinosaurs(1997),providesanotherhelpftrlcritiqueof radiometricdating. His 3O-page essay drawsfrom a largenumberofsourcesby evolurionists. The most thoroughand up-to-darecritiqueis found in the new ' Not to be confusedwirh Eonctof Contewrazby RogerLewin ( 1987),an evolutionisrand lirerarycolleague of RichardLrakey.Lcwin'.s book,incidentally, is a good cvolutionisr treatmcnr ofrhc subjccr,for ir acknowledges rhcvasrarnountofspeculation and subjcctiviry involvcdin rheinrerpretarion of "humaoanccstor" fbssils.

640

Voodmorappe,.. hasdemonstrated that the variousassumptions on which radioacivc dating rechniquesare basedareall wrong, and hc hasdonc this masterfully and overwhclmingly-bycirarions(almosr500 separare articles)from evolutionists who spccialize in rhe field, not from other crearionisrs who alrcadyagreewith this worldHe has entitlcd this study The MytbohgT of Modtrn Dating Methods,and,hasstructuredir around rhe many assumptionswhich hc calls"myths"-and what he rhen calls"rcalirychecks,"which documcntrhe fact that thcy reallyare mythicaland not real.Hc doesthis so thoroughlyrhat rhe term "ovcrkill"alnrosrcomesto mindl The rnonographis quirc rcchrrical and is not casyto read,al"myrh/reality thoughits interesring check"strucuremakesit abour ascasyto lollow aspossiblc wirh sucha subject.

5. On theAgeof the Earth

AJthoughasFr.Seraphimsaysit is impossible to "prove"scientificallythat theearthis a certainnumberof yearsold-whether 5 billion or 7,500-the readermay be interesred in lookingat someof rhe evidencesfor a young ageof the earrh.ln TheBiblical Basisfor Modzrn (1984),p. 477, Dr. Henry Morris hascompileda list of (r8 Science global processes indicatingrecenrcreation.Dr. RussellHumphreys providesa briefexplanation ofseveralofthesein his article"F,vidcnce for a Young\X/odd"(CreationLt Nihilo, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 28-31), which alsopresents compellingevidencefrom archeological and historicaldata. A more detaileddiscussionof evidencesof recenrcrearionis found in The Young Earth(1994)by the geologistDr. John D. Morris, son of Dr. Henry Morris. Vritten on a popularlevelfor highschoolstudents,this book alsocontainsa cririqueof radiomerricdat641

Cenr:srs. Cnsarronnuo F,,rnryMaN

Succrsleo Rl,rnrNcs

ing and an illuminating account of the circular reasoningwhich evolutionists rypically ernploy when dating fossils(pp. l3-16). Scientific material is interspersedwith interestinganecdotesabout the authort work as a creation scientist,including an accounr of his lecrure tour of universirycampusesand scientificresearchinstitutcs in Moscow in 1990, and of his enrhusiasticreceprionby Russianbiology students

entombmentof such numbers of such greatcreaturesliterallydemands someform ofcarastrophicaction." All ofrhis, ofcourse, is seenby crearionistsasevidencethat the fossilizeddinosaursdied during the Noahic Flood. For a presentarionof this evidence from all over the world, see Tht GenesisFlood bv lohn Vhircornb and Henry Morris, pp. 279-281; Scientifc Creatioits'mby Henry Morris, pp. 98-99; That Their Words Ma1 Be L/sedagainx Themlry Henry Morris, pp. 266-72; The Real History of Dinosairsby Mace Baker, pp. 3l-39; Dinosaursby Mace Baker,p. 156; ,,Exce ptional Soft-TissuePreservationin a FossilisedDinosaur" (CreationEx Nihilo l-echnicalJotrnal, vol. 12, no.2); Dinosaurs by Desrgzby Duane Cish, pp. 8-9 'fbe Great Dinosaur Mystery Soluedby Ken Ham, pp. 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.Crearion scientistsgenerallyagreethar the main causewas rhe drasticenvironmenralchangeberweenthe pre-Flood and post-Floodworld. For a discrrssion of this and other causes,seeDinosaursb.yD*ign by Duane Cish, pp. 76-77: The Real History of Dinosaars by Mace Baker, pp. 57; 'I'he Great Dinosaur Mystery Solued by Ken Ham, pp.6l-68: and Dinztaurs,tbe Lost World, and Youby John D. Morris, p. 33. 4. The recentdiscoveryof fresh (unfossilized)dinosaurbones,and of'lyrannosaurusboneswhich appearro contain blood cells,indicares rhatthe dinosaurscould not havedied our seventymillion yearsago,as cvolurionistsclaim. See "Fresh Dinosaur Boncs Found" by Margaret Held,er(CreationEx Nihi/0, vol. 14, no. 3);'fhe Great Dinosaur Mystery Solved by Ken Ham, pp. l4-16, tg11-..1;T-heGreatAlashanDinosaurAduentureby Davis, Liston and Whitmore; and the video I/e Fooltepsof Leuiathaz by American Portrait Films. 5. Sincethe lossil record represenrsrhose aninralswhich died due to rhe Noahic Flood, the question of wherher any dinosaurssurvived rhe Flood via the Ark cannot be answered from a srudy oF fossils. Rarher,we must turn to ancient literature and tlie earliestaccountsof hLrmanhistory after the Flood. Evolutionisrs cannot explain the descriprionsof "dragons" found in ancient cultures fronr-all over thc

@p.23-24). (1984)is anotherhelpfulreIn theMindsofMen6ylan1'.-faylor

source.In chaprer I I, 'Iaylor delvesinro many scientific areasrelating to the age of the earth, and into hisroricaldata. Looking at the cosrrologiesof ancient civilizations-Abyssinian,Arab, Babylonian, Chinese,Egyptian, Indian and Persian-he points our that none of them purs rhe date of crearionearlierrhan 7000 s.c.

6. On the Dinosaurs In discussionsabour the Biblical reachingon creation, one of the mosr frequenrlyaskedquestionsis "Vhat about the dinosaurs?"As an inrroduction to dinosaursfrom a Chriscianviewpoint, we recommend Dinosaurs(1991, third edition forthcoming in 2000) and 'fhe Real Historl of Dinosaurs(1997), both by Dr. Mace Baker. 'I-herc are many considerations and litrle-known facts about dinosaurswhich are coveredin a number of creationistsources: l. I-ike lossilsofother animals,dinosaurfossilsappcarsuddenly in the fossilrecord,without evolutionaryancesrorsor inrermediatelrorms betweenkinds of dinosaurs.See"Dinosaurs and Dragons" by Russell M. Cirigg (Creation Ex Nihilo, vol. 14, no. 3)t and 'l'be Great Dinosaur MysterySoluedbyKen Ham, pp. 19, ll4. 2. Dinosaursrypicallydo not restin the fbssilrecord as if they died of natural causes,but are most commonly found in positions rhar suggestcatastrophicburial, and ofien a very violent one. 'fhey must have been buried quickly under layersof sediment,for not only are their remains found in abundance,bur in many casesoriginal bone material and skin imprints are preserved.There are a number of massivedinosaur graveyardsall ovcr the world. As Dr. Henry Morris writes, "The 642

643

Gsnrsrs,CnrerIoN,rruoElnry MeN world, manyof whichcontainamazingdinosaur-like detail.Creationistsexplaintheseasreferringto kindsof dinosaurs whichsurvivedthe Flood(theterm "dinosaur"wasnot inventeduntil l84l).(in Hebrew,razThe Old tstament mentionsdragons/dinosaurs nim) twenry-onetimes.The most important referenceis in the book of Job,chapters40-41, whereone findsa detaileddescriptionof a grear sauropoddinosaurwhich "movesits tail like a cedartree."For a thorough discussionof dinosaursin the Bible, seeTheRealHistoryof Dinosaarsby Mace Baker,pp. 8-49; and The Biblical Basisof Modern SciencebyHenry Morris, pp. 350-59. SeealsoDinosaunby Designby RecordofJob by Henry Duane Gish, pp. 82-83; and TheRemarkable Morris,pp. I l5-25. Creationischaveamassed a greatdealof evidence from historical with hulireratureand art that indicates that dinosaurs havecoexisted in mans.Unfortunately, all this materialhasnot yet beenanthologized 'l'hese from a numberofsources. a singlework,andsomustbe gleaned include"Dinosaursand Dragons"by D. LeeNiermann(CreationEx Nihilo Ttchnical Journal,vol.8, no. I); "Dinosaursand Dragons"by RussellM. Grigg(CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 14, no. 3); That Their Words May Be UsedagainstT'hemby Henry Morris, pp. 251-61 Afer the FloodbyBill Cooper, pp. 130-61;"'fhe EarlyHistoryof Man, ParrI: from Anglo-Saxon by Bill Living Dinosaurs and Other EarlyRecords" Cooper(CreationEx Nihilo Ti:chnical Joarnal,vol.6, no. l); T'heReal Hi*ory of Dinosarrsby Mace Baker,pp. 5l-62, 86-88; 'fhe GreatDinosaurMystarySoluedby Ken Ham, pp. 28-33, ll9-2'1, 137 and "Messages in Stone"by Dennis L. Swifr (CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 19, no. 2). An accounrofSr. Georgeand the dragonis givenin Dmosaurs b1Design6yDuaneCish,pp. 80-81. One of the bestintroductrons to the subjectis the video 7'heGreatDinovur Mystery,wrirren and directedby PaulTaylor. * Sr. Barsanuphius of OprinaMonastcrl Russia(1845-1913) wriresin his ccll"'l'hc nores: talesofthc ChineseandJapanese abourrhccxistencc ofdragonsarenor ar all fantasies or fablcs,alrhoughthe learnedEuropeannaturalisrs, and oursalong with thcm, denythe exisrcncc of thcscmonsrcrs. Bur, afrcrall, anythingcan be de(Fromthc forrhnied,simplybecause it doesnot measure up to our understanding." coming book ofthe St. Herman Brorhcrhood,El/er Barsanuphius of Optina.)

Succes.renRnaotNcs

-I'hequestionof how dinosaurs(presumably young ones)could aboardthe Ark hasbeenwell answeredby havebeenaccommodared RussellM. Grigg in his article"Dinosaursand Dragons,"by Mace p. 28, and by Ken Ham in Tbe Btker in TheRealHistoryof Dinosaurs, GreatDinosaurMysterySolued,pp. 52-58.

7. On the Flood

Floodby JohnC. Vhitcomb and Henry M. Morris is The Gcnesis the classiccreationsciencetextbookon the Flood.Called'the book movement,"it wasstudied,apprecithat catallzedthe creationscience by Fr.Seraphim.Sincethis book cameout in atedand rccommended hasbeendone 1960,much morescientificinvestigation and research especially by Dr. Henry Morris'group, in the field of Floodgeology, A numberofgood booksand vidthe lnstitutefor CreationResearch. Flood,one can turn to its eosare available.After reading The Genesis (revisededition, 1988)by informarivesequel,frr \YorldThat Perished interestingis the book GrandCanyon: John C. Vhircomb. Especially n A. Austin ( 1994),toMonumentto Catastropbe by geologistSteve gerherwirh the videosGrandCanyon:Monumentt0 theFloodand The which explainthe depositionof sediments GrandCanyonCatastrophe, and rhe erosionof the Canyonaccordingto the Floodmodel.Steven Austin alsohasa video on the 1980 eruptionof Mount St. Helens (Mount St.Hebns:Explosiuc which showsthe Euidence for Catasnopha), lay€rs, canyonsand suchasrock rapidfbrmationof geologicstructures log deposirs,and explainsthe significance of this for understanding Flood. what occurredduring the from on Floodgeologyareavailable Several technicalmonographs including Field Studies in Catafor Creation Research, the lnstitute struphicGcohg/, An lcg Age Causedby the GenesisFlood, Ice Coresand the Age of the Earth, Sea-FloorSedimentsand the Age of the Earth, and Sndiesin Fhod Geologt.Other technicalpapers,coveringsomeof the ofthe Inin Floodgeology,arecontainedin Proceedings latestadvances on Creationism, 1994 and 1998. ternationalConference The most completeand accuratedefenseof the theory of the 645

GtNr:sts,Cnl:atroN aNo Eltty MaN

SuccrslroRr-corNcs

earth'.spre-Flood vapor canopy is the 480-pagescienrificsourcebook T'hetYaters Aboueby JosephC. Dillow (1981). -l'he following books will be of intercstto thosewishing to make a study of what happenedafier the Flood and the dispersionof rhe peoplcs A/ier the Floodby Bill Cooper; T'heyCame/iom Babel by S. A. Crantlll; 'l'lte Puzzle of Arcient Mar by Donald tl. Chirtick; and The Biblical Basis/ir Modun ScicncebyHenry M. Morris, chapters I 5- 16.

Malcolm Bowden,in his recentbook Tiue9iencc Agreeswith tbe Bible(1998),refutesthe claim that the earlyFathersinterpretedthe Bowdensaysthat the Cenesisaccountof creationonly allegorically. "sensible in their approach to Genesis,which is were lircralists" Fathers Geneinterpreted that the Fathers assertion nor far from Fr.Seraphim's 'realistically. " sis Seealsothe articlessupportingthe reachingof St. Basil'sHrxaameron:"CenesisMeansVhat lt Says,"in CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 16, 1994),and'An EarlyView of no.4, p.23 (September-November, Research SocietyQuarterly,vol. 27, pp. in Creation GenesisOne," ( 1 3 8 -3 9 l9 9 l ).

L On Biological Variation As an introduction to biological variarion within the original "kinds" describcdin Genesis,the following books and arriclesare recommended: Not b7 Chance!by L)r. l-ee Sperrrer, chapter seveni Oze Blood: '['he Biblical Ansuer to Racismby Ken Ham, Carl Vieland and Don Batten;"Bearsacrossthe Vorld" by PaulaWesronand Carl Wieland (CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 20, no. 4); and 'Adaptarionswirhin the Bear Family:A Contribution ro the Debareabour the Limits of Variation" by Dr. David J. 'iyler (CrcationMatters,vol.2, no. 5). 9. On the History of'Dartuittism Helpful marerial on the philosophicaland socrologicalroors of l)arwinism can be lound in -l'he Riseof the Euoluion Fraud by Malcolnr Bowden; The Long lYar against Godl:>yHenry M. Morris; [Jnderstanding 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. JeremyRifkin, pp. 63-108; and ln the Minds dMenby Ian [. 10. Cruuion Scientisx in Dcfrnse of the Holy Fathers Jonathan Vells, who is now doing postdocroralresearchin molecular biology at the Universiry of California at Bcrkeley,has defended St. Basil and l)lessedAugustine against claims rhar their teachingsare conrpariblewith cvolutionism. Seehis article 'Abusing Thcology: Howard Van 'fill's 'ForgotrenL)octrineof Creariont Furrcrional Integrity,"'in Origins(r Desigtt,vol. 19, no. I (1998).

I L Aids in Apologetics Irr his book That Their WordsMay Be UsedagainstThem,Henry Morris hascompilednearlythreethousandquotesfrom evolutionists and uniformirarianof both evolutionism which revealthe weaknesses ism.The fruit of overfifty yearsof study,thisanthologycanbe a very usefultool for Christiansdefendingtheir faith. Includesa compa€t disc. Ansuer Their Critics,veterandebaterDuane ln CrcationScientists booksand artithe most importantanti-creationist responds to Gish the factsand argumentsin the creationistliteracles,substantiaring ture. 12. For the Educationof Children by Henry Morris waswritten especiallyfor Scientifc Creationism high schoolstudents,and remainsthe bestgeneraltextbookon the subiect.TheAmazingStoryof Creationby Duane Gish is suirablefor junior high as well as high schoolstudents.lts readabletext, many and largeformatmakeit veryeasyto follow.Covercolorillustrations etc.-tt ing a broadrangeof subiects-fish,flowers,stars,dinosaurs, materialfor schoolprojects. oflersmuch interesting Phillip Johnson'sDefeatingDaruinism by OpeningMinds (1997) levelwith the specificpurposeof teachwaswritrenon a high-school 647

GeNc.srs, CnaenoNrNo Ernry M,rN ing youngpeoplehow to seethrough the deceptiveargumenrsfor evolutionismand to understand rhebasicscientificissues without getting boggeddown in details. The bestbrief treatmentofcreationscienceis BoneofContention:Is EuolutionTrue?bySylviaBaker(secondedition, 1986).This 35-page, magazine-format book haslong beena favoriteof Christianeducators. The aurhoris ableto presenrall rhe majorscientificissues succincrly andaccurately, withoutoversimplifring. The accounrofher conversion from evolutionismro crearionism addsto rhespecialcharacter of this little book.which hashelpedto bring abour,i.,. r"-. conversionin manyotherpeople.Schoolreachers, and alsonrissionaries, may order the bookat bulk discountsfrom the Insritutefor CrearionRescarcn. The Institutefor CrearionResearch andAnswersin Genesis offera numberof othereducational resources, nor only for high-schoolstudentsbut also for junior-highand elemenrary schoolstudents,and evenfor preschoolers. The bestdinosaurbooks for childrerrare Dinosaursfu Duign by Duane Gish, and The GreatDinosaurMysteryand the Bible by Paul Taylor.(The above-mentioned video by Paul1'aylor,The GreatDinosaurMystery, is alsosuirablefor childrenaswell asadults.)Junior-high and high schoolstudentsinrerested in dinosaurs can referro the rwo booksby Mace Baker(seeabove).

Succes.rr:o fu,qoINcs

Objections SuxainedttyPhillip E. Johnson,and the journal Ozfz.r (t Designcan be orderedfrom AccessResearchNerwork, P O. Box 38069,ColoradoSprings,CO 80937-8069. http://wwwarn.org Shaneringthe Mlths of Darwinismby Richard Milton can be ordered from Park StreetPress,One Park Street, Rochester,Vermont 05767. Mace Baker's 6ool<s,Dinosaursand TheRealHistoryof Dinosaurs, and S. A. Cranfill'st:ook Thel Camefom Babelcanbe orderedfrom New Century Books, 2683 RosebudLane, Redding,CA 96002. hnp://www.dinobooks.com Malcolm Bowden'sbook, The Riseof theEuolutionFraudand Tiue Agrees with theBible,canbeorderedfrom The BereanCall, P O. Science orders800-937-6638. Box7019, Bend,OR 97708-7019. Telephone Algeny6y JeremyRifkin is out of print and mustbe obtainedfrom or interlibraryloan. usedbookstores ALI- THE OTHERBOOKSAND /1DIOS in thissectioncanbeorIl O. Box2667,El Caderedfrom the Institutefor CreationResearch, jon, CA 9202I . Telephone orders800-628-7640.http://www.icr.org the CreationResearch SociThe Institutefor CreationResearch, Their newsofferfreeillustratedcatalogs. ery and Answersin Genesis lertersareenrirled (respectively) Actsand Facts,CreationMatters,and AnsuersUrdzte.

Wbereto Ordzr TbeseSources BiologicalEuolutionismby ConstanrineCavarnoscan be ordered from St. PaisiusAbbey Bookstore,P O. Box 130, Foreswille,CA 95436. 1-hemagazinesCreationEx Nihilo and CreationEx Niltilo Tichnical Journal,and thebooksOneBloodbyKen Ham, Carl lVieland and Don Batten,and Underxandingthe TimesbyDavidA. Noebelcanbeordered from Answersin Genesis, P O. Box6330,Florence, KY 41022-6300. Telephone orders800-778-3390.http://www.answersingenesrs.org The periodicalsCreationResearch SocieryQuarter$,and Creation Matters can be orderedfrom Creation ResearchSociery P O. Box 8263,St.Joseph,MO 64508-8263.hrtp://www crearionresearcn.org 64)

NorBs Pagenumbersof Parristicworks refer to the sourcesused by Fr. Seraphim.SinceFr. Seraphimtrepose,severalof the foreignJanguage sourceshavebeentranslatedinto English(seeBibliography). All bracketedreferences areby the editor. Edirort Preface:Tnr Srony sEHIND THE BooK

Derailsof"Thc Entry ofrhe Rightcousinto Paradise." At top: rumpeing angcls;at bottom:piouswomen cnreringParadisc. Frcscofiom thc CathedralofSt. Dcmctriu, Vhdimir Russia,ca. I 195,

L Phillip E. Johnson,DcfcatingDarwinin by OpcningMin&, pp.98-99. 2. EverctrClaire Olson, "The Evorution of Lifc," Euolutionafet Datwin,vot, t, p. 523. J. Rcni GuCnon,Cr\is of thc Modtn \VorA,p.8. 4. RenCGuCnon, TbeRcignof Quantig and the Signt of thc Tima, p. 265. 5. "Thc Holy Farhcrsof Orthodox Spiritualiry:Introduction,"Thc Orthodox Word,no. J8 (t974\, p. 195. 6. From the Englishrranslarion of Picrre P GrassC's book, EuolutionofLiaing Organismt p. 202. 7. Henry M. Mottis, Scientifc Crcationitm, secondadidon, 1985,p. xiu 8. Tim Stafford, "The Making of a Revolurion," ChrttianiE Tbdal (Dccembcr 8, 1997). "DarwinistsSquirm undcr Sporlight:lnrcrviewwirh Phillip E. Johnson," Citizcn Magazine Qanuary 1992). 9. "DarwinisrsSquirm undcr Sporlight," Citizcn Magazine(anuary 1992). Jeff Lawrcnce,"CommuniquC lntero) l

viewrPhillip E. Johnson,"Amuuniqul: A QuartcrllJounal (Spring 1999). "CommuniquCIn10.Jeff[^rwrcncc, tcrvicw:PhillipE. Johnson." ll . The Chistian Actiuitt: A Jormal of OnhodoxOpinion,vol. l2 (Spring/Summer 1998),pp. l-2. I 2. Pcrsonalcommunication,August t5, 1999. 13. "Sr. Barsanuphius, Eldcr of Optina," Tbc Otthodox lVord, nos.2O0-201 (1998),pp. 197-98. 14.Fromrhc forthcomingbookofthe St. Hcrman Brothcrhood,Eldtr Baranuphius ofOptina. 15. "Sr. Barsanuphius, Eldcr of Optine," Thc Orthodox Word, nos.200-201 ( 1998) p. , 198.

Introduction:Fn.Senepnrpr Rosr AND2l Sr-CENTURy ScrENcE l. Thc Bcrkclcy MuseumtHacckel pageis availableon the wcb: h t r p: / / www.uc m p.ber kcley. cdu/ h istory/hacckcl.html 2. Scc Richard Dawkins, Tbc Blind Vatchmahcr,pp. l, 54.

Norrs ro P,lcr-s 3. CharlesDarwin, Thc Origin ofSpe4ar (Pcnguined., 1984),p. 66. 4. Dawkins, Tbe Elind Watebmakcr nore3, pp. 2-3. 5. Niles Eldredge,Reinwnting Dar' uin: Thc Grcat Debat?dt th. High Tablc of EuolutionatyThcoryp.95. 6. Tim Bcrra, Evolutionand thc Myth ofCrcationkm,pp. I l8-19. 7. fuchard Lcwonrin,'Billions and Billions of Dcmons," in Thc Ncu York Rclicw of Books,lanuary 9 , 1997, pp. 28, 3 1.

I l. St. Isaacthe Syrian,RussianPlri/ahalia lDobrotolubicJ,sec. 491 English rranslarion,Early Fathcnfon the Pbilohalia,p. 196. l2. Sr. Isaac thc Syrian, Arcetical edition,p. HomilietHomily21, Russian 108;Hornily85, GreekeditionIHomily 37, p. 180 in thc Englishcdition pubrepose]. lishedaftcrFr.Seraphim's 13.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmeron l:2, pp. 6-7. 14. Sr. Basil thc Grcat, H*acmeron l : l ; p .4 . 15. Sr.John Chrysostom,Homilia on Gcnetisl4:2, p. I lO. 1 6 .l b i d . 2 :2 ,p .9 . 1 7 ,Ib i d .

PARTI: AN ORTHODOX COMMENTARY PATRISTIC ChapterTwo: Tsr. SIx Dnvs op ON GENESIS ChapterOne: How ro READ Cenesrs On Heresiet 1. Sr. John Damasccne, 64, p. 126. Mignc PG.25, p. 2. St. Athanasius, 429. thcGrcat,"FourDis3. Sr.Athanasius courses againstthe Arlans"2:48,p.375. Homi' rheCrear,Seuen 4. Sr.Macarius tiet4:5, p. 385. "Hom5. Sr.CrcgoryrhcThcologian, scc.12,p.348. ily on Theophany," 6. Sr. Gregory Palamas,Dcfcnscof tbe Holy HcEtbacs,Triad 2:3, p.432. 9:1, 7. St.BasilrheGrcat,Hcxaemcron pp. 135-36. 8. Sr. Ephraim rhe Syrian, Commtn' tary on Gencsitl, p.282. 9. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homilia on Genesis l3:4, p. lO7. 10.Ib i d . l 3 : 3, p. 106.

CnurroN (GrNeul OsstnverroNs) l. Sr. JohnChrysostom.EightHonilieson Gcnaitl:3, pp.71l-32. 2. St. John Chrysostom,Homilicson GcncsbT:3, p.52. 4:2, 3. St. Basilthe Grear,Hcxaemeron pp. 56-57 . 4. Ibid. 6: I , p. 83. on Genc' 5. St. Ephraim, CommcntarT si l, p. 287. 6. Sr. Basilthc Crear,Hexacmeron5:6, P.7 4 . 7 . Ib i d .5 :1 0 ,p .8 2 . 8. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hctaemeron l :2 , p p . 5 ,7 . 9 . l b i d . l :5 , p .8 . l0. Sr.AthanasiusthcGreat,FourDiscourretagainrt thc Arians 2:48, 60; pp. 3 7 4 ,3 8 1 . HomI l. Sr.GregoryrbeThcologian, \)?cck, "On Spring, and thc Ncw ily 44,

652

Noresro Pnces103-134 Commemorarionof rhe Martyr Mamas,' pp. 656-57. 12. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilicson Cencsi3:3, p. l8; 8:2,pp.60-61. 13. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,On thc Soul and the Resurrection, pp.44142, 14. St. CregoryofNyssa,On theMahing of Man 8, pp. 393-94. 15.Ibi d. l :5, p. 389. 16.Ibi d.3:I, p. 390.

Chapter Three: Tse Stx Days (Dnv sv Dnv)

16. St . Ephr aim , Com m cnt ar yon Gencsil, p. 293. 17. St. Basil rhc Crcar, Hcxaetncron l: 5, p. 9. 18.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hexaeneron l: 5, p. 18. 19, St. Basil thc Grcar, Hexaemeron 3: 34, 7; pp. 4143, 4748. 20. St. Basil rhe (irear, Hcxacnreron 4: 3,p. 57. 21.St.AmbroseofMilan, Hexaemeron 3: 3,p. 78. 22. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,On the Soul and tbe Rcsuncction, pp.457-58. 23. St. Ambrose,Hexacmcron3:4, p,

l. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcron u0. l : I5, pp. l 4- 15. 24. St. Basil the Grcar, Hexaemtron 2. St. Basilthc Grear,Hetaemtnn3:2, 5: 54, p. 74. pp.38-39. 25. St . Ephr aim , Com m . r t 4r ! on 3. St. Ephraim, Commentary on ()cne- Gencsil, p.298. si I, p.286. 26. St. Cregoryof Nyssa,On tbe Soul 4. Sr.Basilthe Great,Hcxacmcron2:1, and thc Rauncction,p. 467. pp.2l -22. 27. St. John (-hrysoxom, Commcn5. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hexaemcron tary on Genetu6:4, p. 44. l:7, pp. 26,28-29. 28. St. Basil the Grcat, Hcxacmeron 6. St. Ephrainr,Commennryon Gcne- 5: l, p. 67. ri I, p. 283. 29. St. Ambroseof M ilan, Hetaemen'n 7. ll>id.,p. 284. 3:6,p. 87. 8. Sr. Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcton 30. St. John Qhrysoxom, Commcnl :8, p.31. ury on Genesit 6:4, p. 45. 9. Ibid., pp.32-33. 31. St. Basil rhc Grcat, Hetaemcron 10. St. Ephraim, CommentarTon 6:2-3, 8, pp.85-86,97. l, pp. 286-87. Gencsis 32. St. Ambroscof Milan, Hcxaemcron I l. St,Ambroseof Milen, Hexacmeron 4: 1,p. 126. l :9, p.39. 33. Sr. John Chrysosrom, Conncn12. Sr. Ephraim, Comnentary on taryon GencsisT:3, p. 53. Gcncsis I, pp.287-88. 34. I bid. ,p. 52. 13.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcron 35. Sr.Basil,HexaemcronT:1, p. 105. 2:5,p. 65. 36. Sr. Ambrosc,Hcxacntcron 5:1,2, 14. St. Basil thc Grcar, Hcxaemcron pp. 160-62. 2:8,p.33. 37. Sr, Basil,HeraemcronT:2, p. 107, 15.Ibid.,pp.33-34. 38. lbid. 8:| , p. I 17. l)).t

Nores ro Prcrs 135-l6l 39. l6 i d . 5 :2 ,p. 69. 40. tb i d .9 :2 ,p. 137. 4l . Sr. Ambrose,Hcxrcmeron3:16, pp. I 19-20. 42. lt:id.6:3,p.232. 43. lbid. 5:9.p. 166. 44. Ib i d .l :1 0, pp. 99- 100. 45. Sr. Ambrose,On Belitf in thc Ra' unection2163,7O,pp. 184-85. 46. St. Crcgory of Nyssa,On theSoul axd tfu Resarrection,p. 467. 47. lbi<J.,p. 454. 48. Sr. Ep hr aim , Com m e n ta ryo n GcneisI, p. 302. 49. St. Basil,Hemcmeron 9:3, p. 138. 50. Sr.John Chrysostonr,Homilicson G ene s* 7 :5p,.5 5. l; I I, p. 19. 5 I . Sr. Basil,Hcxaemeron On the Or52. St. John Damascene, thodoxFaith 2:2, p. 205 [Fathersof thc Churchsericsl. 53. St. John Chrysostom,Homiticson GenesilO7, p. 82. Hom54.St.GregorytheThcologian, ily 7, "On the Soul." 51. St. Ep hr aim , Com ne n ta ryo n GcnesiL p. 30O. 56. Ib i d .,p . 287. 1:13,p. 57. St. Ambrose,Hexaemeron 1 3. Chapter Four: Tne CnEArroN op MnN l. Sr. Basil, On thc Origin of Maa l: 34, p p . 1 7 l- 75. 2. Sr. John Chrysostom,Eight Homtliet on Genai 2:l-2, pp.735-37. 3. Sr. Gregory rhe Theologian,"Scco nd Ora ri o n on E as ( er " 6 -7 , p p . 424-25.

4. St, Circploryof Nyssa,On tbc Making of Man l6:10, p. 405. 5. St. Basil, On thc Origin of Man l :1 6 -1 7 , p p .2 0 7 -l l. 6. St. Cregory of Nyssa,On thc Making of Man 16-17, pp. 405,407. 7.5t. JohrrChryso'tom.Figlt Homi lieson GeneitS:4, pp. 160-{1. 8. Sr.John Damascene,On the Ortbodox Faitb 4:24, p. 394 [Fathcrsof the Churchserics]. 9. Sr. Cregory of Nyssa,On Vrginity 8, t2. pp.352-53,358. 10.St. Basil,On thc Origin ofMan2:5, pp.235-39. I I . l b i d . l :1 9 , p p . 2t7-2t. 12. Sr.Crcgoryof Nyssa,On tbc Making of Man 18, pp.407-8. | 3. Sr. Basil. Or rhc Origin o/ Man 2:6-7 , pp. 23945 . 1 4 , Sr. E p h ra i m, C ommcntaryon l, pp. 304-5. Gencsis 15.Sr. Symeonrhc New Theologian, Homily 45:l, 4, in T'hcSinofAdzn, pp. 6 4 , 6 7 ,7 5 . [n th e new edi ti on,published under thc rirle 7bc Firn-Created is found on pp.87Maz, rhis paas.rgc 8 8 ,9 0 , l 0 3 .l 16. Sr.John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on l2:2, pp. 95-96. Genestu 17. Blessed'fheodoret, quoted in the Dogmatic Theologyof Metropolican vol. I, pp. 43043. Macarius, 18.St. Basil,On tbeOrigin ofMan2:4,

P.233. 19.lbid.2:3, p.233. 20.lbid.2:2,pp.229-31 . Homilies on 21.Sr.JohnChrysostom, Gcne*l2'.5,pp.99-100. vol.2, 22.St.Gregory theTheologian, Homily-, "On rheSoul."pp.3l , 3.t.

654

Norrs ro Pecr.sl6l- 189 23. St. John Chrysostom,Honilies on Gzntsul3'.2, pp. 103-4. 24. Ibi d. l 2:5, p. 100. 25, Sr. John Damascenc, On tbe OrtltodoxFaith2:12,p. 235 [Fathcrs ofthe Churchscricsl. 26. St. Cregoryof Nyssa,On theMaking of Man28-29, pp. 419-21.

14.I bid.2: 30,p. 265. | 5. lbid. 2: i t-t2, pp. 233-35. 16.Sr. Basil,Hexaemerot l:5, p.9. 17.St. Crcgorythc Thcologian,"Sccond Orationon Easter"8, p.425. 18. St. John Damasccne, On thc OrthodoxFaitb 2: I l, pp. 232-33 [Farhers ofrhe Churchseries]. 19.Sr.John Chrysostom,On the Creation of tbe \VorU5:7, pp. 7 93-9 4 . Chapter Five: Penlotst 20. Sr.John Damascenc, On thc Orf . S t. A mbrose. P aru dise1, pp. thodoxFaith2:11,p. 230 IFarhers of rhc 287-88. Churchseriesl. 2. Ibid.,p. 289. 2l . St.John Ohrysosrcnt,On tltz CreaChrysostonr, Honilics on tion of the \Vorld6:\, p.799. 3. St. John 1334, pp. 105-6. 22. St . Ephr aim , Com m ent ar yon Genesit 4. Sr. Bphrainr,Commentary on Gcnc- G cnet 2, u p. 313- 14. si 2, p.309. 23. Sr.John Chrysostonr,Hontttieson l4'.5,pp. I l5-16. 5. St. (iregorythc Sinaitc,"Chaptcrs Genettu l0r on Commandmcntsand Dogmas" 24. Sr.Ambrosc,I'aradic,ch, 11,pp. RussianPhilokalia / Dohrotolubiel,'tol. 5. 329-.10. 2s. lbiJ. , . hs. l0- l l, pp. . 127.329. lF.nglishPhilokalia,vol. 4, p.213.) in Fr. Scraphim Rosc, Ihc 26. Sr. Cyril ofJerusalem,Atecbctical 6. Qrroted I.ccturcs Soulafer Death,p. 145. lln thc revisetl l2),9, p.80. fourrhprinring,rhispassage is foundon 27. St. John Chrysostom,Homilicson pp. 137 38. E n.l Genetisl5:2-3, pp. l2l-22. Sr. Ohrysostom, Homilics on 28. St.John Chrysosrcm,On tbt Ctca7. John tion of tbe \Votld5:8, p.796. Geneful34, p. 107. 8. Sr.John Chrysosrom,On tbe Crea29. Sr. F-phraim, Commentaryon tionoJ'tbe WorLl5:5,p.791. Gcnestu2, p. 315. 9. Ibi d.,pp.79l -92. 30. Ibid. 10.Ibi d.,p. 791. 31. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilieson "Sec- Gcnesis l54, pp. 123-24. I l. St. Crcgorythc Theologian, ond Orationon Eastci'8, p.421. 32. Sr. Ephraim, Commcxtaty on 12. BlessedPaisiusVelichkovsky,I6e Genesis 2, p. 316. Scroll, Six Chaptcn on Mcntal Ptdyer,cn, St. 33. John Chrysosrom,Homilicson 2, in l'he Orthodox\Vord,no. 48 (1973), Genesis l5:4, pp. 123-24. pp. I8-fq lln Link Ruttian Phlohalia, 34. Sr. John l)amasccnc,On tbe Orvol.4, this passage is foundon p. -31.] thodorFaith2:11,p. 231 [Fathers oftne 13. Sr. John Damascene, On thc Or- Churchscrics]. thodoxFaith2:ll, p. 232 [Fathers of the 35. St. Seraphimof Sarov,Little RxsChurchseriesl. ian Pbihhalia, vol. l, pp. 8l-82. [n tne

655

Norss ro Pec:s 189-223 rcvised fourrh edition, this passagcis f oundo n p .9 0. 1 36. St. GrcgoryofNyssa, On tbcMaking of Man 17,p. 407. 37. Sc.Abba Dorochcus,Spiitual Instructiou l, pp. l9-2O.

Chapter Six: Tnr

FALL or M,a.N

l. St. John Chrysostom,On tht Crzation of the \Y'orA6:2, pp. 800- I . 2. Sr. Ambrosc, Paradisc12, pp.

332-33. 3.Ibid.,p.333. 4. lbid. on Gcnt5. St. Ephraim, Commentary r r r3, p . 3 1 8 . 6. St. John Chrysostom,Homiticson Gcnetis16:4,p. 132. 7. Ibid. l6:5, pp. 133-34. 8. I bi d . l 7 :1 , p. 138. 9. Sr. Ambrosc,Paradiv 14, p. 346 10. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilia on 17:2-3, pp. 14042. Gcnesis I l. Sr.Ambrose,Parulit 14,p.348. 12. Sr.John Chrysosom, Homilia on Gcncs*l7:5, p. 145l3. Sr. Ephraim, Commcntaryon Gcncsis 3, pp.329-30. 14. Ibid.,p. 326. 15. St. Abba Dorotheus,Spirinal In*uctiou l, pp. 26-27. 16. St. John Chrysosrorn,Homiticson Gnest 17:6,p. 146. 17.St.john Chrysostom,On thc Crcationof thc lVotA6:7, p.813. 18. BishopBcssarion , Conmentaryon Churcb-Scrticc Parablct, vol. l, pp. ) o- )/ . 19. St. Ephraim, Conmcntary on Gcneis3, p.332.

20. St. John Chrysostom,Homilis on Gcncstu 17:7-8,pp. 149-50. 2 t.l b i d ., t7 :9 , p . t 52. 22.lbid., p. t53. 23. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliu on Romau,Homily l4:5, p. 665. 24. Ibid., Homily r0:2, p. 595. 25. St. Macarrusrhe Crcat, Fifty Spiritual Homilia, Homily I I, pp. 85-86. 26. St. Symconthc New Thcologian, Homily 45, in Tbc Sin of Adan, pp. 6749,75. [n the new edition, publishcd undcr thc tide lla First-Creatcd Man, rhis paasageis found on pp. 9 l -9 4 , 1 0 3 .1 27. St. Cyril of Alexandria,"On the lncarnationof the Lord." 28. Sr. Symeonrhc New Theologian, Thc Sin of Adan, p. 62. [Thc FirttCrcatcdMan, p. 83.1 29. Ibid., pp. 69, 73. lTbc FirtCrcatedMan, pp. 94, 100.1 30. Morhcr Mary and Archimandrirc Kallistos Vare, rrans,, Tbc Fatal Mcnaion,p. 134. 3 1 . Ib i d .,p . 1 4 6 . 32.16id.,p. t47. 3 3 . Ib i d .,p . l 5 l . 3 4 . Ib i d .,p .3 6 9 .

ChapterSeven:Lrre Oursrns P,rnrorse l. Sr. Ephrainrthc Syrian,Paradiscl, pp. 35940. 2. St. John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on Gcncsis 18:-3,p. 16O. J. Morhcr Mary and Archimandrirc Kallistos Varc, trans., Tbe Lcntcn Triodion,p. 169. 4. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliet on Gcnesitl8:4, pp. 160-6l.

656

Norss 'ro Pncrs225-314

5. Sr. Ephraim, Commcntaryon GenePARTII: sis4, p. 338. OF PHILOSOPHY THE 6. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homitieson EVOLUTION Ccnesis l85, p. 164. 7, St. Ephraim, Commcnuryon Gcnesis4, p. 339. Chapter One: ScIsNce AND THE 8. St. John Chrysostom,Homilicson Horv Fernsns Generit18:6, pp. 16546. "1'alkson l. Fr. MichaclPomazansky, 9, 5t. Ephraim, Commcntaryon Gcncthe Grear, and Days by Sr Basil rhe Six is 4, p. 241. 'Ialks Days of Creation by St. on the 10. St. John Chrysostom,Homilieton Prauottaunl pxt' of Kronstadr," Gencsil9:3, pp. 17l-72. John (Tbc Orthodox lVal annual, 1958, pp. I l l bi d.,p, 173. 39, 41. 12. S t. E phrai m, C omm cnt ar yon 2. I. V Kireyevsky,C)ompleteWorkt Gcnefi 4, p. 346. vol. I , p. I 18. 13.Ibi d.,p. 345. on 3. I bid. ,p. I 19. 14.St.JohnChrysostom,Homilies 4. I bid. Genctit2O:2, pp. 179 81. 5. Bishop I gnat ius Br i: r nchaninov, vol.3, p. \25. Works,

ChapterEight:THE.Fl-ooo

l. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliesot Gencsis 24:3, pp. 229-30. 2. lbid. 24:5, pp. 234-35. 3. St. Ephraim, Commcntaryon GcnesisT, pp. 357-58. 4. St. John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on Gencsit 252, p. 244. 5.l bi d.25:6,p.25r. 6. lbid. 25:6, p. 252.

Chaprer Two: A Bntrr Cnl'rtque MODEL OF THE EVOLU'I'IONARY

l. Tracy l. Srorer,GcncralZoologlt,p. 2t6. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid.,p. 220. 4. CharlesDar*in, The Origin oJSpecra (ModernLibrarycd.),p. 234. 5. Villiam B. N. Bcrry Gtowthof a PrcbistoricTimcScale,p,42. ChapterNine: Trts Dtspenstot't "Commenrson 6. O. H. Schindewolf, OF THE PEOPLES -Ierms," Ameriutn Some Srratigraphic vol.255 (June1957), L Sr. John Chrysostom,Homiliq on .fournalofScience, p.394. Qtrorcdin Hcnry Morris,SrrazGcncst 28:4, p. 29 | . tifc Crcationism, p. 135. 2. Cf. ibid. 297, pp. 3o9-10. 7. \Tilfiam B. N. Berry,Orou,it ofa 3. Ibi d. 29:8,p. 3l l . 4. Sr. Ephraim, Commcnuryon Gcnc- Prcltitoric Tint Scalc,p.23. cd., 8. SeeJ. P Rileyand C. Skirrr-rw, sis4, p. 366. vol. |, p. 164 5. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homilicson Chmical Occanography. Genesis 9, Henry Faul,Nutkar Gcology.lFora 3O4, p. 318.

657

Nores ro Pacss3l 5-358 morercccn!discussion of thesefindings, seeRichardMilton, ShaneritgtheMytht of Dartuinin, pp. 4446, and the tcchnical monographby l,arry Vrrdiman, TbeAgeof the F,arth'tArmosphere.l f 0. []aul Hazrrd, TheEuropcanMind, 1680- 1715,p. xviii. I l. J, H. Randall,Ju TheMahingof the ModernMind, pp. 381-82. 12. Edwin A. Burtt, ed., Th English Philosophn fiom Bacon to Mill, pp. 593-94, quoring L)avid Hl.me, An Enqriry ConcerningHuman Undertandir& f.l. Carl L, Bccker,fhe HcduenlyCiry of thc Eightcentb Ccntury Philotophers, p p. 68-6 9 . 14.Ra n d a l lp. , 475. 15. Ibid., pp. 475-77 . I (,. lbid., p. 478. t7 .lbid., p. 478-79. 18. Orthodox Obsert'er, Algusr 8, t973. 19. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,On thc Soul and the Rcsurrection, p. 454. 20. Sr. Basil,Hexaemeron 5:10,p. 82. 21. lbid. 5:5-6, p. 74 . 22. lbid. 9:2, p. \37. 23. Sr. John Damascene,On the Orthodox Faith 2, p. 235 [Farhcrsof rhe (lhurch seriesl. 24. St. Crcgoryof Nyssa,On theMahing of Man 28-29, pp. 419-21. 2t . lbi d . 26. rbid.

A Heresy?" in OrtbodotObsener,Augusr 8, t973. 2. Lecomte du Noiy, Human Dtttiny,

P. 167. 3. lbid' p. 177. 4. Ibid..p. 104. 5. Ibid.,p. I12.

6. St. fsaacthc Syriao,AsccticatHomi/lcr,Homily 2 I . Russian edition,p, 108 180 in the EnglishediiHomily 37, p. tion publishedafrer Fr. Scraphimi reposej. 7. Leconrtcdu Noiy, Human Destiny, p. I 13. 8 . Ib i d .,p . 1 9 7 . 9 . Ib i d .,p . 1 3 3 . 10.l6id.,p.244. I t. l b i d . 1 2 .l b i d .,p . 1 8 0 . 13. Fr.Anthony Kosruros,inOrthodox Obwuer Feb.20,1974. 14. StephanusTroosrer,Euohtionand thc Dotninc ofOriginal Sin, pp. 2-3. 1 5 .Ib i d .,p . 1 8 . 1 6 .Ib i d . 1 7 .Ib i d .,p . 1 3 0 . 1 8 .Ib i d .,p . 4 4 . 1 9 .Ib i d .,p p . ,4 -5 5,132. 20. -l'heodosiusDobzhensky,"On Human Lifc." in & Vkdiniri I beologi cal Quarterl, vol. 17 (1973), p. 100. 2 | . E Clrrk Howell,in Neu,Scientut, Ma rc h2 5 , 1 9 6 5 ,p . 7 98. 22. The Sclccted Writing of Ralph WaUoEmerson, p. 38. 2 3 .' l ' h e o d o s i u sf )obzhansky," On Human Lifc." in St. Vladiniri l lrologicanQuarterlyvol. 17, I973, p. 100. Chapter Three: "CHnrsrlq.N Evo24. ThcodosiusDobzhansky, " Evotu, LUTIONISM'' ri o n : C o d s Me rh o J o[ C rcari on,"i n "F,volurion: Conccn, Spriog, 1973, l. Panagiotis Trempelas,

658

Nores ro Ptczs 359-374

46. Spcaight, kilhard dt Chadin: A 25. Teilhard de Chardin, Hou I BcBiogaphypp.335,337. lieve,p. ll. 47. Teilharddc Chardin, Thc Diuine 26.'Ibilharddc Chardin, Thc Diuirc Milieu, p. l5l. Milicu, p. 154. and 48. tilhard de Chardin, Science 27. PicrrcLcroy,S.J.,I7ithardd.eCbarChtist,p. 169. din: 7heMan, p.22. 4q. Teilharddc Chardin,La Vie Cos28. Quotcd in Robert Speaight,7?l/miquc, guoted by rhe ed. on p. 304 of hatd dt Chardin: A Biography,p. 27. 'l'he l:uturc of Man. 29. -leifhardde Chardin,HumanEaergt p- | 10. 50. Teilhard de Chardin, I'he Phe30. Frank Magill, cd., Materpieccsof nomenonof Man, pp.296-97. C.atholic Litctatuc p. 1054. 51. 'Ieifhardde Chardin,BuiAingthe 3l. Teilhardde Chardin, TheMlstical tunh, p.20. Milieu: lVritings in Time of lVar, p. 52. l6id., pp. 2t-22. 138-19. 53.lbid., pp.23-24. 54. tbid., pp.24-27. .12.Tcrfharddc Chardin, fhe Diuine Milia, p.36. 55.lbid.. pp.27-28. 56. I bid. ,p. 19. J.l. lcilhard dc Chardin,HumanEnergy p. 10. 57. lbid., p. 32. 58. Teilharddc Chardin, Hlmn of tbe 34. 'ltilhard dc Cha rdin, TbeMystical Uniwrsc,p. 34. Milieu, p. 125. 59. SccFrank Magill, ed.,Mastcrpicces 35. Teilhard de Chardin, The Phcof Atholic Litcraturc,p.684-85. nomenon of Man, p.297. 60. Fr.John Meyendorff,"Teilhardde .j6.'l?ilh.rrdde Chardin, TheDoine Nore" (in RusChardin:A Preparatory Milieu, pp. 154-55. 37. Frank Magill, ed., Matcrpiecetof sian\, in Mcsvngcr of thc RussianStudcnt Cbittian Mouemcnt, Pais, no. 95-96, Cat/tolic Litetanrc, p. 1O58, 1970,p. 32. 38. Teilhardde Chardin, 1he Diune 61. Editor's Prcfaceto "Teilhard de Milieu, pp. 125 26. Chardin and Orthodox tadirion," by 39. liilhard de Chardin, Hou I Be in MzsFr.GcorgeKlinger(in Russian), licue,p. 37. Chnsrian of the Rus'ian Sndcn rnger 40. Ibi d.,p. 4l . no. lO6, 1972,pp. I l0-l l. of Moucment, 4l . Frank Magill, ed., Mastcrpiccts 62. Fr GeorgeKlinger."Tcilhardoe CatbolicLitcraturc,p. 1O2l. 42. Thomas Corbishly, TheSpiritual- Chardin and Orrhodox Tradition" (in ofthe RussianSraRussian),in Metsenger iry ofTiilhard fu Chadin, p. 100. 43. Teilhard de Chardin, Scicnceand dtnt ChristianMoucmcnt,no, 106, 1972, pp. I I l- 32. Chrit, p. 164. 63. I bid. ,p. I I l. 44. Speaight,Tcilharddc Chardin:A 64. I bid. ,p. I 13. Biographyp. 266. 65. I bid. ,p. 128. 45. Teifhardde Chardin, Tfu Diuine 66. lbid., pp. t24-25. Milieu, pp. l5Q-51.

659

Nores ro Pecm 386-414 ily 44, "On Ncw Weck,Spring,and rhc Commemorationof the Marryr Mamas," pp. 656-57 . 23. St.John Chrysosrom,Honilies on Gencsb 3:3, p. l8; 8:2,pp.60-{1. 24. St. Basil, Hcxaeneron2:8, pp. L St.BasilrhcGrear,HetacneronS:5,

PARTIII: DOCTRINE THE PATRISTIC OF CREATION

P . 73. 2. lbi d . 5 :7 ,p . 77. 3 . I bid .5 :2 ,p . 69. 4 . l6id .9 :2 , p . 137. 5. St. Gregory of Nyssa,"Against E unomi u s"l :3 4 , p. 8l. 6. 5r. Gregory o[ Nyssa,'Answcr ro Eunomius'SecondBook,"p. 299. 7. Sr. Cyril ofJerusalcm,Catcchctical Lecnres2:7, p. (). 8. I bid . l 2 :3 0 ,p. 80. q. St. Gregorythe Theokrgian. "OrLrrion on the Holy Lights"12,p.356. 10. S t, Grc gor y t hc T heo l o g i a n , "'l'hird l'heologicalOrarion-On thc S on"ll, p . 3 0 5 . On thc OrI l. Sr. John Damascene, thodox Faith 2:30, p. 43 [Nicene and Post-Nicene F-arhers scriesl. 12. St. Cyrif ofJcrusalem,Catcchctical Lcttutct 12:-29,p.80. On thc Otl3. St. John Damascene, tbodoxf-aitb 4:14 {Nicene and PostNicencFathcrs sericsl,p. 85. 14. Sr. Basil, Hexaemcron 9:1, pp.

\35-36. 15. St. Ephraim,Commentary on GenctiI, p.282. 16.Ibid.,p. 287. 17.lbid.,p. 315. 18.St.Basil, Hcxaemcron 5:6,p.74 19.Ibid.5:10, p.82. 20.Ibid.7:1,p. 105. 2 f . Sr.JohnChrysosrom, Homiliuon Gcncsis 7:3,p. 52. 22.Sr.Grcgory thcTheologian, Hom-

33-34. 25.St.GregorythcTheologian, Homily 44, "On New Veck, Spring,and the Commemorarionof rhe Martyr Mamas,"p, 657, 26.St.Gregorvthe1'heologian, Homily 7, "On the Soul,"p. 33. 27. Sr.John Chrysosronl,Honilies oh Gcncsis2:4, pp. I l-12. 2 8 . Ib i d . l 5 :2 -3 , p p . t2t-22. 2 9 . Ib i d . l 4 :5 , p . I1 6. 3 0 . Ib i d . l 3 ;4 , p . 1 0 7. 3 1 . Ib i d . 1 3 :3 ,p . 1 0 6. 32. Ibid. On Hertsut 3J. Sr.John f)amarcene. 64, p. t26. 34. St. Macariusrhe Crear, Saaaa Honilies4:5, p. 3853 5 . St. C re g o ry r hc Thcol ogi an, "Homily on theThcophany"12,p.348. 36. Sr.GregoryPalamas,Defent ol the Hol Herycha*,-friad2:3, pp. 430-32. 37. St. Ephraim, Commentaryon Gcnctis3, pp. 334-35. 38. St. John Chrysostom,Homitieson Gaesit9:4,pp. 69-7O. 39. St. John Damasccnc,On thc OrthodoxFaith2:10,p.229 [Fathers ofttre Churchscricsl. 40. Ibid.,p. 228, "Chapters 4l. St.Gregorythe Sinaice, on Commandmentsand Dogmas"I l, RussianPhilohalia,vol. 5, pp. l8l*82 4 2 . tb i d . 1 0 ,p . l 8 l . 43. Sr.John Chrysostom,Honiliet on RomantHomlly l4:5, p. 665.

660

Nolrs ro Pacas414444 the Grear,Ftfu Sprn44. Sr. Macarir.rs rual Honiliet Homily I I, pp. 85-86. 45. St. Synreonthc New Thcologian, Homily.38, Russianedition,vol. 2, p. ll9. [New English translationby Fr. Seraphinrin 'lhc Fitt-CreatedMan, pp. 82-83.J 46. St. Isaacrhe Syrian,Homily 21, R ussi anedi ri on,p. 108; Hom ily 85, GreckeditionIHomily 37, p. 180in rhe linglisheditionpublishedaficr Fr. Seraphim'sreposel. "Chaprers 47. Sr,Gregorythe Sinaire, and Dogmas"130, on Commandmenrs RussianPhihkalia.,vol. 5, p. 213. 48. Ibi d. 49. Sr. lsaacrhe Syrian,Homily 25, Russiancdition, pp. 125-27; Homily 62, Greckcdition IHomily 52, English edi ri on,p. 2551. 50. Sr. John Damascene,On rfu OrthodoxFaith 4:14, p. 85 [Niceneand Farhers seriesl. Posr-Nicene 5l . St. John Chrysostom,Honiliet on Genesis l3:4, p. 107. 52. Sr. Symeonthe New'fhcologian, Homily 45, Russiancdirion,vol. 2, p. 367-183. [New lranslalionby Fr. Seraphim in l-he First-CrcatcdMan, pp. 87-r06.1 ofthc 53. Sr. GregoryPalamas,Defcnsc l:2, p. | 2. HolTHesychatts,-friad 54. Ibid.,Triad l:6, p. 20. 55. Ibi d.,Tri adt:l l , p.34. 56. Ibid.,Triad I :12,p. 36. 57. Ibi d.,Tri adl :15, p.44. l:2, p. 5. 58. Sr. Basil,Hexacmeron 59. Ibi d. 3:3,p. 41. 60. l bi d. 6rI, p. 83. 6f. St. Abba Dororheus,Spitual Intt'rationt, ch. l. (.l2.Abba Isaiah,"On rhc Narural

l-ew,"Rtrssian I'hikkalia,vol. l,2rl, p, 283. $.lt:id. 2:2,p.284. Spiritualln64. Sr.AbbaDororheus,

Jtlrlrrzt Ins(ruction12,"On thef'earof Furure'lbrment." 65. St. John Cassian, Conferences, Thirreenth(lonlcrence12,p. 4l | . 66. Ibid., I hirreenthConlercncetr, p. 414. 67, I bid. ,p. 415. (r8.Sr.Gregorythc'fhcologian,Homily 14,"On Lovefor rhe Poor,"p. 208. vcrsionof 69. IScerheoriginalRussian lhis passagc in St. Scraphimof Sarov, "Conversation of 5t. Seraphimof Sarov on rhc Aim of the ChristianLifi," pp. 8l-82. hte r publislrcdit Rus*y PalontliA, no. 2 ( 1990),p. 84.1 oftbc 70. Sr.GregoryPalamas,Defcnse Triad l:l I, p. 34. Holy Herycba;ts, 7 | . Sr. Gregoryof Nyssa,'Answer ro liunomius,SecondBook,"p. 299. 72. Sr.Gregoryof Nyssa,"On Virginiry,"ch. 12,p. 357. On tbc Or 73. Sr. John Damascenc, thodoxFaith.2:12,p. 235 lFathers ofthe Churchseriesl. 74. St. GregoryofNyssa, On the Crcation of Man 30:34, p. 427. 75. Ibid. 28:I , 8, pp. 419-20. 7(t. lbid. 29:1, 2, pp. 420-21. ofSarov,"Convcrsa77. Sr.Seraphim tion ofSt. Serrphimof Sarovon rheAim of rhe ChristianLife" [originalRussrrn versionl,p. 82. [AJsopublishedin Rrs,! no.2 (1990),p. 84.1 Patomnih, Cregory rheSinaite,"Chapters 78. St. and f)ognras"82, on Commandmenrs vol. Pbihkatia, Russian 5, p. 195. 188. 79. lbid. 4( r ,p. Hom80.5t. Gregoryrhe1'heologian,

661

Norrs ro Pxcr,s444-557 ily 38, "On the Nariviryof rheSaviour," P . 528 8l . St. GregoryrheSinairc,"Chapters on Commandments and Dogmas"8, 9, RussianPhilohalia, vol.5. p. l8l. 82. St. John Chrysostom,Homiticson Genesis l3:4, p. lOTt l5:4, p. 123. 83. Sr. Symeonthe New 1'heologian, Homily 45, Russianedirion,vol. 2, pp. 368-70, 381. [New translarionby Fr. Seraphimin 'lhe First-CrcatcdMan, pp. 88, 90, 103-4.-Eo.l 84. l'homas Agulnas,Summa l-beo/ofra I, Quesr.98, Arr. l. 85. Ib i d .I, 9 8: 2. 86. Ib i d .I,9 7; 2. 87. Ib i d .I. 9 5:L 88. Ib i d .I, 9 7: 3. 89. Ib i d . I, 9 7: 3. 9O.lbid. l,97:4. 9l . lb i d . I, 9 7: 3. 92. Scel b i d . I , 95:l. Editor's Epilogue: EvoLUTroNrsM AN D ,TH L RS I I CI O N oT T H e

Furunr l. Carl Sagan, 'fhc Demon-Hauated \Y'orA:Scicnceat a Candb in tbe Dark, p, "The 327.Quoredin PhillipF..Johnson, Church of Darwin," lVattSneetJournal, Aug. 16 , 1 9 9 9. 2. Qu o te d in M onk Dam a s c e n c Chrisrenscn,Not of Tbit WorA,p. 886. 3, l'cilhard de Chardin, Lettresi Llon' tine Zanta, p. 127, 4. Tcilhard de Chardin, Actiuationof Energt, p. 383l' Scienceand Chritt, p. 120: Hou I Bclian p.41. 5. Tcilhard de Chardin, Thc Hcart of thc Mattel, p.83. 6. Ibid., p. 32.

7 . l b i d .,p . 1 0 0 . 8 . Ib i d .,p . 1 0 2 . 9. Vcbsrert Third New Inrcrnarional Dictionaryofrhc EnglishLanguagc, Unabridged,vol. 2 (Encyclopedia Brirann i c a ,In c .,l 9 7 l ), p . 1 630. 10. Tlilhard dc Chardin,Science and Chrit, p. l8O. ll. 'leilhard de Chardin, The Phenomcnonof Man, p, 270. 12. Tlifhard de Chardin, TheHeart of tlr Mattcr pp. 52-53. fJ. Teilhardde Chardin.Cltristianity and Etolution,p,2O2. 14. Teilharddc Chardin.Scicnce and Cbr*t, p.44. 15. 'l'eilhardde Chardin, Tht Heart of theMatten pp. I l0- 13. 16.Teilharddc Chardin.Chri anitT and Euolution,p, 179. f 7. tilhard dc Chadin, 1-bePhenomcnonof Man, p. 149. I8. feilharddc Chardin.( .lhritidniry and Evolution,p. 31. 19. Icilharddc (lhardin, HumanEnetgy,pp. 57-58. 20. lbid., p. 96. 2 f. Teilharddc Chardin, 'fhe Heart of eheMauez p. 53. 22. Fricdrich Nicrzschc, The \Vilt to I'owenvol. I, in The Comptcte\Yorb of FriedrichNietzschc,vol.14, t909, p.6. 23.'l?ilhard dc Chardin, Actitntion of Energy,p. 290; 'fbe Futxrc of Man, p. t2 7 . 24, tilhard de Chardin, '|-heHeart of theMauer,p.92. 25.-leilhard de Chardin, quored in Volfgang Smirh, Tiilhatdism and the New Rclilon, p.23. 26. Volfgang Smirh, Tiilhardismand theNew Rcligion, p.219.

N orrs 'ro Pr,cts 557-57 3 27. Fr.SeraphimRose,"The Chincse 'l Mind." in hc Orthodox Word, nos. 187-88,p. I03. 28. Sharnbhelalnrerviewwirh Kcn V i l ber: Thc P ubl i cation of O zc Tiste-TheJounak of KenWilber 1999. 29. Ken Vilber, .lrx, Ecokrgy, Spirinali41pp. viii-ix. 30. Ken Vilbcr, Onc Titstc:TbeJournab of Ken lVilber p.92. 3l . Ken Vilbcr, A Bricf H*tor1 of Euerytlting, p.300. 32. Ken l0/ilbcr, Upli'om Fdzn,p.25. of 33. Kcn Wilber, 'l he CollcoedlVorhs Ken lVilbcnvol. 2, p. I l 34. Ibi d. Spiritual,35.Kcn \Vilbcr, 5rr, Ecology, ity p. 524. 36. Kcn Vilbcr, A Brief Hittory of' Eucrything, p. 300. 37. lbid.. p. 22. 38. Ibi d..p. 23. .39. Kcn Vilber, tlp llon Eden, p. 321. 40. Ibi d.,pp. 32l -22. 4l. KenVilbcr.,4 BricfHiwry of Ewrything,pp.23-24. 42. Kcn Vilber, I heManiagc ofSensc and Soul: lntcgratingScienc and Rcligion, p. 108. 43. K en V i l ber, Forewor d r o, 4 by A. S. Dalal (forrhGreaterPsythology con'trngJ. 44. Ken Vifbcr, Thclllartiagc ofScnr and Soul,pp. 1034. 45. Ibid.,p. 208. 46, Kcn Vilbcr, Onc Tixtc,pp.2lO, 212. 47. Ken Vilber, A Brief Hisnry of

49. lbid. ,p. 2 | 2. 50. Kcn Wilber, TheMarriqe of Srwe and Sout,p.203. 51. I bid. ,p. 160. '1fuMarriagc ofSense 52. Kcn Wilber, and Soul,p.203. 53. I bid. ,p. 204. 54. I bid. ,pp. 205, I I l 55. lbid. ,p. 205. 56. lbid. ,p. 206. 57. I bid. ,p. 208. 58. I bid. ,pp. 2l I - 12. 59. Ken Vilber, Sax,Z-ratogtSpirituatit7,p.524. 60. Ken Wilber, One Tata pp. 3l l,

Euerything, pp. 314,316. 48. Ken Wilber,One Taste, pp. 282, 70.

tbcRdigionofthcFunrc,p. 188. 70.Ibid.,pp. 188-89. "Signsof tne 7 | . Fr Scraphim Rose,

34r. 61. Ken !/ilber, Sax,Ecologt,Spirituatit7, pp. 186-87 . 62. Vladimir L.ossky,Tbe Mytical 'l heologl of thc Llatetn Chutch, pp. scc also pp. 92-93. On ncoplatonism, 29-38. (,3. lbid., pp.93-94. 64. I bid. ,p. 95. 65. Ken Vilber, TbeManiageof Sense and Soul,p. 2O5. 66. Niles Eldredgeand StephenJay Gor.rld,"Punctuatedliquilibtia," Palrabiology,vol. . 3 ( Spr ing t 977) , pp. 14546. Cired in Lurher Sunderland, Darwini Enigma,p. I l0 I I l. Scc also pp. 108-9. 67. J. H. Randall, lr., Ibe Mahing of tlr Mo&rn Mind, pp.278. 68. KenWilber,Upfon Eden,p.256, "1'heGnosquotingfrom Elaint Pagels, ric Gospels'Rcvclarions," Ncw YorkRcuiewof Boob,vol.26,nos.16-19, 1979. 69. Fr SeraphimRose,Ortbodoryand

663

Nores ro Prcs 575-629 Times," in The Ortbodox lVord, nos. 20O-t, p. 142. 72. Fr. Seraphim Rose.quored in Monk f)amasceneChrisrcnscn,Nar 4f Tbis \Vorld,p. 44. 73. Malachi Martin, Hosugc to thc Dctit, p. 124. 74.lbid., pp. t26-27. 75. lb i d .,p . 1 30- 31. 76. lb i d .,p . 1 40. 77. Ibid., p. 386. 78. Ib i d .,p p . 390- 91. 79. Tcilhardde Chardin, TheHeart of theManet p. 6l . 80. lb i d .,p .6 8. 8l . WolfgangSmirh, Tcilhardism and thc Ncw Rcligion,p.231. 82. Fr SeraphimRose,Ortbodotyand the Religionof thc Faturc, p. 189. 83. Fr.John Meyendorff,"Teilharddc Chardin: A PrepararoryNore" (in Russian), in Messcnget oftbe RussianStudcnt Christian Moucmcnt, Pari, no, 95-96, 197O,p. 32. 84. Volfgang Smih, T/ilhardin and tbeNew Religion,p. 2l l. 85. Eugene(Fr.Seraphim)Rose,Lerrer ro Cleb D. Podmoshcnsky, Jan. 2115, 1962,quored in Monk DamasceneChristensen,Not oJ Thfu WorA,p. t87. 86. Ct Srephen JayGould,"The Verdict on Crcationism,"The Ncu Yoth TimesSundayMagazinc,July 19, 1987, p . 34. 87. Hugh Ross,"CenesisOne, Dinosarus,and Cavemen." 88. Cf. Sr. John Damasccne,Oz /a OrthodoxFaith l: l4; Vladimir Lossky, Thc Mystical l-hcotogy of the Eastetn Cburch, p.89. 89, C[. Vladimir Lossky,ThcMytical

'l heologyof tbc Eattern Church,pp. 98-99. Appendix One: Nores oN ScrENCE, EVoLUTIoN AND CHRIS. TIAN PHILOSOPHY l. Sr. Symeonthe New Theologian, Homily 38, Russiancdirion,vol.2, p. 319. {Ncw English rranslarionby Fr. Scraphimin 'l-heFirst-Crcated Man, pp.

Nores ro Pncr.s629-63.1 6. GrandCanyonDatingProiect,Insrirure for Creation Rescarch,10946 WoodsideAvenueNorth, Santee,Celif. 92071. '. ofthr RoyalSoci' Joly,J.. Proreedings r4y (l-ondon,ScriesA 102, 1923),p. 682. 8, TrevorNorman and Barlv Serrer-

ficld, "Thc Aromic Constenrs,Light, andf ime,"Menlo Park,Calil: Sranford Invitcd InstiturcInrernational Rescarch Report,August1987. Research 9. Melvin Cook, Itrchitory and Earth Modek,pp. 54-55. 10. Henry Farl, Agesof Rotb, Planctt and Star, pp. 65,67.

82-83.1 2. St. Basil the Great, Hexacmeron9:'l ,

PP.r35-36. 3. Sr.John Damascene,On the Orthodox Faith l:2, p. 167 lFathersof ttre Churchseriesl. 4. Sr.JohnChrysostom, Honrily "On rheCrossand the -l-hief"l:2. 5. Sr, Isaacthe Syrian,Homily 19, Russianedition, pp. 85 [Homily 29, En g l i s he d i ti o n p , . 1 4 31.

Appendix Four: THe Farru or R rotot"rst.nrc DarrNc "Radiometnc l. JohnWoodmorappc. CeochronologyReappraiscd,"in Creation RtsearchSocictTQuarterly, vol. 16, Se p re mb eI9r 7 9 .p p . I02-2' ). l 4?. [S ec alsoJohn Woodmorappet1999 book, The Mltbologl of Modcm Dating Methodt.) 2 . l b i d .,p . I 1 4 . 3. JoanC. Engels,"Effectsof Sample Pu ri ry o n D i s c o rd anrMi neral A ges Found in K-Ar Dating," Jounal of Geolog7,vol.79, September 197I, p.609. 4. Marvin L. Lubcnow, Bona of Contention: A Crcdtionitt Atscssmcntof Human Fottils,pp. 24746. 5 . l b i d .,p . 2 5 5 .

664

665

Brnuocnepuv PATRISTIC/ORTHODOXSOURCES Editionsof Parristic workscitedin brackets referto EnglishtranstranslaafterFr.Seraphimtrepose, or to alternate larionsthatappeared not that Fr. Seraphim did use. tions All worls arein Englishunlessotherwisenoted. Alferov, Priest Timothy. Sciencc on tbc Creation of the lV'orld (Nauha o sotuorenii mira) (in Russian). Moscow, 1996.

Euolutionor Corntption?(Euoluxiyaili thnle?) (in Russian).Most997 . Ambroseof Milan . lExpositionof the Holy Goryelaccordingto St.Luke.Erna, OrthodoxStudies,1998.1 Calif.:Centerfor Tiaditionalist -.

Thc Fathersof the Church, Hexacmcron(The Six Day); Paradise. vol. 42. Ncw York:The Fathersof the Church, Inc., 1961. [Another English translation,not usedby Fr. Seraphim,is in Nicene and PostNicenc Fathers,secondserics,vol. 10. Grand Rapids,Michigan:\Wm.B. Eerdmans,reprinted1983.1

-.

Niceneand Post-NiceneFathers, secOn Beliefin tbc Resunectioz. ond series,vol. 10. Grand Rapids,Michigan:\7m. B. Eerdmans,reprinted1983.

I. M. "ScientificKnowledge and ChristianTiurh" (in Russian). 5r. Andreyev, Vhdimir National Cabndarfor I 974. New York. Augustine,Blessed.City of Gol. Niceneand Post-NiceneFathers,first series, reprinted1988. vol.2. GrandRapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans, in Averky (Taushev),Archbishop,and Fr. Seraphim(Rose). TheApocalypse thc Tlachings ofAncientChritianitT. Platina,Cali[: St. Herman Brotherhood, 1985.Secondedition,1995. t.)o /

DIBL IOGRAPHY

D IB LIOGR A P H Y

Moscow TheologicalAcademl 1887. [New Englishtranslation:St. ProseIZorAr.The Fathersof the Church, vol. Ephrcmthe Syrian. Selected of AmericaPress,I994. D.C.: The CatholicUnivcrsiry 91. Washington, on Erodus.) Also containsSr. Ephraimi Llommentary

Athanasiusthe Creat, St. Four DicoursetAgainst the z4rlazr.Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,secondseries,vol.4. Grand Rapids,Michigan: Vm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted1987. Barsanuphius of Optina,St."Sr.Barsanuphius, Elderof Oprina." TheOrthodox W'ord, nos.200-l (1998), (The SixDals). The Farhersof the Church, Basifthe Great, St. Hexaemeron vol. 46. lVashington,D.C.: The CatholicUniversityof AmericaPress, 1963.[AnotherEnglishtranslation, not usedby Fr. Seraphim,is in Nicene and Post-NiceneFarhers,sccondseries,vol. 8. Grand Rapids, Michigan:Wm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted1983.1 -.

On the Otigin oJMan. The sourcefrom which Fr. Seraphimtranslatedthiswork hasnot beenfound.Thereis a homilyby St. Basilwith a similar tirle, On the Form of Man,inl. P Migne. PanologiaGraeca,vol. 30. Paris.188(r.

Bessarion(Vissarion),Bishop.Commentary on Church-Scruice Parablet(Tolk(in ouaniye naparimii),vol. I Russian). St. Petcrsburg, 1894.

-.

Hltnns on thc Natiuit:y,in Ephremthe Syian: Hyrzzr. New York: PaulistPress,1989.

--

Paraditc(in Russian),in Thc Vorhsof Our Fatheramongthe Sainx, Ephraimthc Syrian SergievPosad:MoscowTheologicalAcademy,1907. [New English translation:Sr. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymnson Paradise. New York:St.Vladimirt Scminary,1998.1 Cresrwood,

Gregoryof Nyssa,St. On tbc Soul and thc Resrrcction:On the Mahing oJ' Man; On Virf nity; AgainstEunomius;Ansuerto Eunomiut'SccondBook. Fathers,secondseries,vol. 5. Grand Rapids, Niccneand Post-Nicene reprintcd1983. Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans, (in French).Louvain: Gregory Palamas,Sr. Defenseof the Ho! Herychasts SacrumLovaniense, 1959. Spicilegium

"TopicsofNaruralandTheological Science." ln ThcPhilohalia,vol. 4. London:Faberand Faber,1995.

Calciu, Fr. ()eorge. Christ h Calting Yor!A Coarsein CatacombPastorship. Platina,Calil: St. HcrmanBrorherhood, 1997. Cavarnos,Constantine.BiologicalEuoludonism.Sccondedirion. Belmont, Mass.:Institutefor Bp-anrineand ModernGreekSrudies,1997. -.

Modcrn GreekPhilosophcrs on the Hamdn Saal.Firsr edirion. Belmont, Mass.:lnstitutefor Blzantineand Modcrn GreckStudies,1967. edition,revised andconsiderably enlarged,1987.] ISecond (iyril ofJcrusalcm,St. Catechetical Lecrzrer.Niccneand Post-NiceneFarhers, secondscrics,vol.7. ClrandRapids,Michigan:\7m. B. Eerdmans, reprintcd1983. (Christcnsen),Monk. Not of This lVorU: TheLifeand Tlachingof Damascene Fr SeraphimRasa Foreswille,Calif,: Fr. Seraphim Rose Foundation, t993. Dorotheusof Gaza,Abba, Sr. Spirinal Insnurrrors(in Russian).SergievPosad:Holy Tiiniry Lavra,1900.IEnglishrranslarion, not usedby Fr.Seraphim: Dorotheos of Gaza.Discourscs and Sayings.Kalamazoo,Mich.: CistcrcianPublications, I 977.1 Ephraimthe Syrian, St. Commcnt/lryon Geneis(in Russian).ln Tbc Worhsof Our Fatberamongthe Saints,Ephraimthc Syrian,vol.6. SergievPosad;

and Dogmas"l0 (in on Commandments GregoryrheSinaitc,St. "Chaprers (Dobrotolubie), vol. 5. Moscow: Russian).In the RussianPhilohalia 1900 [New English Athonite RussianMonastcryof St. Panteleimon, vol. 4. London:Faberand Faber,1995.1 ThePhilohalia, rransfation: St. "Homily on the Theophany";"SecondC)ration Gregorythe Theologian, "Oration on thc Holy Lights";"Third TheologicalOraon Easter"; on Sr. Basil."Niceneand tion-On thc Son";Homily 43, "Panagyric Posr-Nicene Fathcrs,secondseries,vol. 7. Grand Rapids,Michigan: 'Wm.B. Ecrdmans, reprinred1983. -.

Homily 7, "On rhe Soul"; Homily 14, "On Love for the Poor"; Homily 38, "On rhe Narivityof the Saviour";Homily 44, "On New of thc Martyr Mamas";"Thc Veek, Spring,and rhc Commemoration Genealogyof Chrisr." ln The ll'orksof Our FatbcramongtheSaintt Greg(in Russiarr). 2 vols.St. Pctcrsburg: P P Soikina(l9rh orytbc Theologian century:no date). [Englishtranslatiortof Homily 44: OrthodoxLife, vol. 30, no. 2, March-April,1980.1

(in Rusian),vol. 3. St. Perersburg lgnatius(Brianchaninov), Bishop.lTorAs I. L. Tuzoba,1886.

669

Btst-rocRAnriv

BIsLtocRApHv

Isaacrhe Syrian,Sr.,Ascetical Homilier(in Russian), secondedirion.Sergicv Posad,1893.[New Englkh translation: Boston,Mass.:Holy Transfigu1984.] rationMonastery, ..........-.-' _. 'Directions on SpiritualTraining." ln Early Fathers fom the Philokalia. Lond,onand Bosron:Faber& Faber.1954.

vol. I (in Russian).Moscow, l9l l. ReKireycvksy,l. Y. Conplete\Y'orhs, Publishers Limited,Vestmcad, printcdin 1970by GreggInrernational Hanrs.,England. Farnborough,

Isaiah,Abba."On rhe Natural[.aw."In the RussianPhilohaliaIDobrotolubic], vol. l. Moscow:AthoniteRussianMonasteryof St. Panteleimon, 1895.

Leonid(Kavclin),Fr. EAer Macariusof Optina.Platina,Calif : St. Herrnan Brotherhood,1995.

(in Russian). St. Confcrences Moscow:AthonireRussianMonJohnCassian, asteryof St. Panreleinron, 1892. INew English translation:Ancient ChrisrianVriters,vol. 57. New York:NcwmanPress,1997.]

Lossky,Vladimir. The Mystical Tbeologyof the Eattem Churcb. L'tndt>n: jamesClarke& Co., 1957.

(in Russian).ln The Vhrh of St. John Chrysostom,Sr. Homilieson Gcnesis vol. 4. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg TheologicalAcadlohn Chrysoxom, Thc Fathers cmy,1898.INew Englishrranslation: of theChurch,vol.74 (Homiles l-17), vol. 82 (Homilies 1745), and vol. 87 (Homilics 46-67). Vashington,D.C.:'fhe CatholicUniversiryof AmericaPress, r986, 1990,1992.1 (in Russian).In Thc ll'orh of St.John Eight Homilieson Genesis -. Chrysoston, vol. 4. Sr. Pctcrsburg:St. PetcrsburgTheologicalAcademy, 1898. -.

On tbe Creationof the lVorU(n Russian).In Thc Worfuof St.John vol. 6. St. Petersbrrrg: Chrysosnm, St. PcrersburgTheologicrl Academy, 1900. Homitieson Romau (in Russian).In Tlte tX)'orks of St.Jobn Chrysostom, vol. 9. St. Petersburg: St. Percrsburg TheologicalAcademy,1903. not uscdby Fr.Scraphim:Niccneand Post-Nicene [Englishtranslation, vol. I l. GrandRapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans, Farhers, reprinted 1980.1

ln St.Johnof DaJohn Damasccnc,St. On the OrthodoxFaith; On Heresies. mascutlYritings.T hc Fathers of theChurch,vol. 37. Washington, D.C.: The CatholicUniversiryof AmericaPress,1958. -.

On the OrthodoxFaith.Niccneand Post-NiccneFathers,secondseries,vol. 9. Grand Rapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted 1983.

zDrzz'(inRussian), Koscnko,Anton. "Lerterro the Ediror."ln Prauoshunaya (December, vol.49,no. l2 1999).

Macarius,Metropoliran. OrthodoxDogmati T'heolog(in Russian).St. Pctersburg,1883. Macariusthc Great,St. Ffu SpiritualHonilies: SevenHomilies(in Russian). Epistlesand Homitiu, F
fbs ["an76nTriodion.London: Faberand Faber,1978.

on tlteGospel of Luke(in Russian). Kiev,1899. Michaef , Bishop.Commentary Necrariosof Penrapolis,St. Shetchconcerning Man (in Greek).Athens,1893. -.

Stud! concerningthc Immortaliry of tlr Soul (in Greek). Athcns, l90l.

Nicodcmusof the Holy Mountain, St. Nicodtmu of the Ho$ Mountain: A The Classicsof l?csternSpiritualiry.Ncw Handboohof Spirinal Counsel. York:PaulisrPress,1989. Paisius(Velichkovsky),St. TheScroll:Six Chaptenon Mcntal Prayer.The OrtbodoxlVord,no. 48 (1973). ILaterpublishedin Little RussiatPhitohalia, vol.4. Platina,Calif : St. HermanBrotherhood,1994.1 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. Ecrdmans,rcprinted1975.

Pomazanslry, Fr. Michael."Talk on the Six Daysby St. Basilthe Great,and

670

671

ThePhilohalia,vol. 4. London: Faberand Fabcr,1995.

Brguocr.epuv

-.

Talkson rhe Daysof Creationby Sr.Johnof Kronstadt"(in Russian). In Prauotany put'.Jordanville, New York:Holy Trinity Monasrery1958.

Symeonthe New Theologian,St. Homilies(n Russian),vols. I and 2. Moscow:AthoniteRussianMonastery ofSt. Panteleimon, 1890,1892.

DogmaticTheolog.Pladr,a,Calif.: St. Herman BrotherQ71fi6616y hood, I983. Sccondedirion,1994.

-.

TheSepnagintwith Apocrypha:Gretband Englith.Translatedby Sir L.ancclor C. L. Brenton,trans.PeabodlMass.:Hendrickson Publishers, 1986. Seraphimof Sarov,St. Little RussianPbilohdlia,vol. l. Platina, Calif.: St. HermanBrorherhood, t978. [Rcvised fourrhedition:1996.] -.

Brglrocg'tplty

"Qqnvsl5atioo of St. Seraphimof Sarovon the Aim of rhe Chrisrian Life" (originalRussian version).SanFrancisco: OrthodoxChristian Books & lcons, 1968. llater publishedin RusshyPalomnih,no. 2

(r9eo).1

TheSinofAdtm. Plarina,Calif.: St. HernranBrorherhood,1979.[Rcvisededition publishedin 1994under thc tiide TheFirst-Crcated Man.)

Theophilus of Antioch, Bishop. Tbeophilusn Autolycut Anre-NiceneFathers,vol. 2: Fathcrsof the SecondCenrury.Grand Rapids,Michigan: \i?m.B. Eerdmans, reprinted1979.

"CHRISTIANF,VOI-UTIONIST" SOURCES

Seraphim(Rose),Fr. "The ChineseMind." TheOrthodoxlYord,nos. 187-88 (1996).

Corbishly,Thomas. TheSpirinaliry of Tiilharddc Chardin.New York: PaulistPress, 1971.

-.

'The Holy Fathersof Orthodox Spiritualiry:Introduction."I/rr Onhodox\Yord,no. 58 \1974).

-.

Nihilisn: Thc Rootof the fuuolutionof thc Modzrn,{ga Foreswille, 1994. Calif.:Fr SeraphimRoseFoundarion,

"EthicsandValuesin Biological Dobzhansky, Theodosius. andCukuralEvoluion," Qgon, theJournalof Religionand Science, asreporrcdin the Los AngelesTimcs,lune16, 1974

-.

and theReligionof theFunre. Plarina,Calif.: St. Herman Q7sl162!ary Brotherhood,1975.lRevised edirion:1996.]

Thc Phce of BlessedAugttstine in the Orthodox Church. Plarina, Calil: St. HcrmanBrotherhood,t9tl3. IRevised edition:1996.] .................._. "Signsof rhe Times." TheOrthodoxlVord,ros. 200- I ( 1998). -.

The Soul afer Dedth. Plaina, Calif.: St. Herman Brotherhood, 1980.IReviscd fourth printing:1993.] Seraphim(Rose),Fr., and Fr. Hcrman (Podmoshensky), comp. and trarrs. Tbe Northern Thebaid.Plaina, Calif : St. Herman Brotherhood,l975. edition:I 995.] IRevised Sisoev,Dcacon Daniel. Cbroniclcof the Beginning(Letopi nachak) (in RusMonasteryPublishingHouse,1995. sian).Moscow:Sretensky -.

Sophrony,Archimandritc. Hit Life k Mine. Oxford, England:A. R. Mowbray & Co L:d., 1977.Reprint.Cresrwood,New York: St. Vladimirl 5cmfnarv |,ress.l'.)/ / . Stefanatos, Dr. Joenne.Animalsand Man: A Stateof Bhsedncss. Minneapolis: Lighrand Life Publishing Co., 1992.

672

"fyefngiqn: God\ Method of Crearion." Conccrn,Spring 1973. "...........-.-._. "On Human Life." St. Vltdimiri TheologicalQuartcrly,vol. 17 -................._.

(r973\.

Klinger,Fr. George."Fr. tilhard de Chardinand OrrhodoxTiadition"(in Russian\. Messenget of thc RussianSndcnt Cbristian Mouement,no. lO6 i972\. Kopp, JosephY. kilhard de Chardin: A New Synthesisof Euolution.Paramus, New Jersey: DeusBooks/Paulist Press,1964. Kosturos,Fr. Arrthony. TheOrthodoxObserver, February20, 1974. Lecomtedu Noiiy, Pierre.Humat Dexiny New York: Longmans,Grecn E< Co.,1947. Leroy,Pierre,S.l. Tcilharddz Chardin:TbeMan. Magill, Frank N-, ed,.Mastcrpiccct of CathoticLiteraturein SummaryForm. New York:Harpcr& Row,1965. Meyendorff,Fr. John. "Teilhardde Chardin: A PrcparatoryNore" (in Russian). Mcssengcrof thc RussianSndcnt Chri*ian Moucmcnt,nos. 95-96 (1970). ....................-. 'Crearion vs. Evolution." The Orthodtx Church,March 1982. o /5

Brguoctalnv

Blsr_rocRApHy

Rahncr,Karl,S.J."OriginalSin, Polygenism, and Frecdom,"in TheologDigctt,Sprinl 1973.

Aqtrinas,Thomas. Summa Thcologica. New York: BenzigcrBrorhers,1948. \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, -. -.

BuiAing tbe Earth.'WestNyack, Ncw York: CrassCurrentsreprim, 1959. (fi7i1sianiryand Euolution.New York: Harcourt BraccJovanovich, A HarvcsrBook, 1969.

-.

ThcDiuine Milieu. Ncw York: Harper & Row,Publishers,1960.

-.

flls fssre oJ'Man.London:Collins,1965.

-.

The Heart of the Matter. New York: Hartcourr BraceJovanovich, t979.

-.

Hoa J Bcllczr.Ncw York: Harper & Row, 1969.

-.

HumanEnergr.London:Collins,1969.

-.

Hymn of the Uniuersc. Ncw York: Harper & Row, 1965.

-.

Letnzsi LlontineZanta. Paris:Dcsclic de Brouwer,1965.

-. -.

TbcM;ytticalMitieu: Vritingsin Timeof lVar.Ncw York: Harpcr anu Row,1968. TbePhenomenon of Mat Ncw York: Harpcr & Row 1959.

Becker,Carl L. TheHeauenlyCity of tlteEighteenth-Cennry Pbilosophers. New Havcn,Conn.:YaleUniversityPrcss,1970. Behe,MichaelJ. Darwinl Bkch Box: ThcBiocbemical Cballcnge to Euolution. Ncw York:The FreePrcss/Simon & Schuster. 1996. Bergman,Jerry,and GeorgeHowe. "WstigralOrgau" Are Fu/ly Functional. TerreHaute,Indiana:CrcationResearch SocieryBooks,1990. Berra,Tim. Evolutionand theMyth ofCrcation*m,StanfordUniversirypress,

r990. Berry,William B.N. Growthof a PrehistoricTimeScale.SanFrancisco:Vl H. Freeman & Co., 1968. Berthault,Guy Comptes-Rendu Academiedet Srrczce,/1(Dccember3, 1986; February 16, 1988). Bickerman,E. J. Chronolngy of tbeAncient V/orA.khica, New York: Cornell UnivcrsiryPress,1968. Bork, RobertH. Slouchingtowar& Gomonah:ModernLiberalbmand AmuicanDccline.Ncw York: ReganBooks/HarperCollins, 1996. Bowderr,Malcolm. Ape-nten:Factor Falhry?Bromley,Kent, England:Sovere t g n l 'u D l c a u o n s . l yl /.

Science tnd Christ.L.ondon:Collins, 1968. "Evolurion:A Hcresyl" OrtbodoxObseruet, Trcmpelas,Parragiotis. Attgust8, -.

. TheRiseof thc EuolutionFraud. Bromlcy,Kcnr, England:Soverergn Publications, 1982.

t r 73. l rooster, Stcphants. Euolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin. Clen Rock, Ncw Jcrsey:Newman Prcss,1968,

OTHER SOURCES Albright,Villiam F. "RecenrDiscoveries in BibleLands."In RobertYoung, Analtical Concordttnce to ,heBibh. NewYork: Funk and Vagnalls, 1936. Arkell,V. l. Jurasti Geologof the \Yorld.New York: Hafner PublishingCo., 1956. 674

-.

Scienceus.Euolution.Bromley,Kent, England:Sovercignpublicarions,1991.

-.

TrueScience Agrecswith the Bible.Bromley,Kent, England:Sovercign Publicarions, 1998.

Brown, Michael H. TheSearch for Eue.New York: Harper & Row, I990. Burrt, Edwin A., ed..ThcEnglishPhilosopbcrs fom Baconto Mill. New york: RandomHouse,1939. Charlesworth,J. K., Thc QuaternaryEra, vol. 2. London: Edward Arnold Co., t957 . Chris,Raymond."Scienrists ReportFindingFossils of Dinosaurs in Anrarctit)/ )

Brnrlocupsv ca\ Interior"; "Discoveryof Leavesin AnrarcricaSparksDebareover 'Whether Region Had Near-TemperateClimare." Cbroniclr of Highr Education, March20. 1991. Coates,Howard.'AboriginalFloodLcgend."Creation Ex Nihilo,vol.4, no. 3 (Octoberl98l ). Coates,Howard and V. H. Douglas,comp. 'AustralianAboriginalFlood Stories."Introduction by John Mackay.CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 4, no. I (Marchl98l ). Colbert, E. H. "EvolutionaryGrowrh Ratesin the Dinosaurs."Scientifc MonthQ, August1949. Cook, Melvin. Prehistory and Earth Modcls.London: Max Parrishand Co. Ltd.. 1966. Darwin, Charles.Tbc Origin of Species byMcansof Nanral Selection, and The Dcscentof Man and Selectionin Rehtion ro .Srx.New York: Modern Library,Random House. -.

TheOrigin of SpecietNew York: Penguin,1984.

BIsLtocRAt'HY

son, Brooks,ed., The Modcrn Library,New York, Random House, t968, t)92. Engels, JoanC. "Effectsof SamplePuriryon DiscordantMineralAgcsFound l97l ). in K-Ar Dating."/ournalofceolog,vol.79 (September Faul,Henry.Agesof RochtPknex and Staru.New York:McGraw-Hill, 1966. _. Nuchar Gcolog.New york: Johnviley, 1954. Ficlds,Veston'W. Unformedand Unflled: A Critiqueof thc Gap Thcory.ColEnrerpriscs, 1976. linsville,lll.: Burgener

Finegan,Jack. Handboohof Biblical Chronolog.Revisededition. Peabody, Mass.:Hendricl<son Publishers, 1998. '1. Gish, Duarre CrcationScientisu AnswerTheir Critics.El Cajon, Cali[: Institutefor CreationRcscarch, 1993, "Puncruated Equilibria:The Ternpo Gould,Stephen Jay,and NilesEldredge. Paleobiolog', vol. 3 (Spring and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered." t977).

Dawkins,Rtchard. TheBlind tVatcbmaher. New York: Norton, 1986

Grassi, PierreP. Euolutionof Liuing Organismr.New York: AcademicPress, 1977. Gribbin,John and JeremyCherfas."Descentof lvlan-or fucent of Ape?" vol. 9l (September NewScientist, 3, l98l).

Denton, Michael. Euolution:A Theon iz Crlrri. Bcthesda.Marvland: Adler & Adler,1986.

(in French).BibliothtqueBlzanrine:TiaitCd'EGrumel,V La Chronologic tudesBlzantinesl. Paris,1958.

Dewar,Douglas.Dfficultiesof theEuolutionaryThcory.London:Thynne and Co.. t9ll.

Gtrinon, RenC.Crkisof theModcrn W'orld.London: Luzac & Co., 1975.

"DarwinistsSquirm under Spodight:lnterviewwith Phillip E. Johnson." CitizenMagazine,]anuary 1992.

-.

More Dfficulties of the EuolutionaryTheory.London: Thynne & Co.. 1938.

Dillow, JosephC. The lVater Abouc:Earth\ Pre-FloodVaporCanopy.Chicago:Moody Prcss, rcvisededition,1982. Elasscr,V. M. "Origin, Composition and Age of thc Exrh." Enqctopcdia Britannica,vol. 7, 1973. Efiadc,Micea.,{ Hitory of Rcligious ldees,vol. l. Chic-ago:Universiryof ChicagoPrcss,1978.

-.

TheReignof Quantity and the Signsof the Times.London: Luzac & Co., 1953.

Haber, FrancisC. TheAgeof the \YorA:Moscsto Darwin. Baltimore:The JohnsHopkinsPress,1959. Ham, Ken. "The God of an Old Earth." CreationEx Nihilo, vol.21, no. 4 (t999). Hazard,Paul. TheEuropeanMind, 1680-1715.New York, Meridian Books, 1963. Howell, F. Clark. New Scientist,March 25, 1965.

Emerson,Ralph Valdo, TheSebctedtX/ritingsof Palph lVaHoEmerson,Atkin-

Arheisr."Report,June,1966. Huxfel Aldous."Confessionofa Professed Johnson,Phillip E. Daruin on Tiial. Secondedition. DownersGrove, Illinois:Inrcr VarsiryPress, 1993.

o/ o

677

Eldredge, Niles. ReinuentingDarwin: The Great Dcbateat the Higb Tabb of EuolutionaryZrory. New York,John Wiley & Sons,1995.

BtgLtoctralnv

-.

Defi'atingDarwinism by OpeningMind:. Downers Grovc, Illinois: InrerVarsiryPrcss,1997. ObjectionsSwtaircd: SubjectiueEssays on Euolution, Lau' (t Cubure. DownersGrove,Illinois:InterVarsiryPress,1998.

BrsLrocRApHv -. -.

Tbc Remarkable Recordof'Job.Grand Rapids,Mich.: Bakcr Book House,1988. ggigpsift Creationism. CreenForesr,Arkansas:MastcrBooks, I 974. Rcviscdedition,1985.

Rcasonin the Bahnce: The CascagainstNaturalism in Science,Lau' /" Education. DownersGrove,Illinois:InterVarsiryPress,1995. Joscphus,Flavius. CompletetYorks.Grand Rapids,Mich.: Kregel Publications,1960.

Morris,Henry M., andJohnC. Vhitcomb. TlteGenesiFlood.Phillipsburg, Ncw Jcrsey: Presbyterian and RcformedPublishing,1961.

Kahler,Erich. T'beTbwerand tbcAbyss:An Inquiry into the Tiansformation of thc Indiuidual.New York: GcorgeBrazilicr,lnc. 1957. l.awrence, Jefl."Communiquilntcrview:PhillipE. Johnson."Communiqul: A QuarterQJournal Spring 1999.

Nictzsche,Friedrich. The \Yill to Potucr,vol. I, in The ComplerclY'orhsof Friedrich Nietzsche,vol. 14. New York: 'l'he Macmillan Company, 1909.

-.

Leakey,fuchard. TheMahingofMankind. London: MichaclJoseph,198l. Lemaitre, Canon Georges.ThePrimeuatAtom:An Essa.y on Cosmogony. New York:D. Van NosrrandCompanl 1950. Lewontin,Richard."BillionsandBillionsof Demons."TheNew YorhRcuiew of Boohs , January9, 1997. Lubenow Marvin L. Boncsof Contention: A CrcationistAssessment of Human Fosils.Grand,Rapids,Michigan: BakerBooks,1992. Martin, Malachi.Hostage to tbeDcuil: TbePossesion and Erorcismof FiueLiuing Americans.New York: Rcadcr'.s DigcscPress,1976. Reprinr. New York:Harper& Row,Perennial Librarl 1987. -.

TheJetuirr.New York:Simon & Schuste r, 1987.

Marthews,L. Harrison. lntroduction to Darwin'sOrigin oJ'Specier London: M. Dent l97l & Sons, . J. Milton, fuchard. Shatteringthe Myths of Darwinism. Rochesrer,Vermonr: ParkStreetPrcss,1997. Morris, Henry M. The Biblical Br's*for Modern Sdezra.Grand Rapids, Mich.: BakcrBookHousc,1984. -.

DefendingtheFaith. GreenForcst,Arkansas:MasrerBooks,1999.

Morris, John D. Tbe YoungEarth. Grccn Forest,Arkansas:Master Books, 1994.

"The AtonricConstanrs, Norman,'frevorand BarrySerrerfield, [-ight,and lnstitutcIntcrnationallnTirrrc."Mcnlo Park,Calil: StanfordRescarch vitcd Rcsearch Rcport,August1987. Olson, EverettClaire. "The Evolurionof Life." Euolutionafcr Darwin: The Uniuerrityof Chic'1go Ccntennial,vol. I . Chicago:Universiryof Chicago Prsss,1960. VcrsusMaterialismin Stratigraphy." O'Rotrrkc,J. E. "Pragmatism Ametican (lanuary ofScience, vol.276 1976). Journal Pagcls,Elairre."The CrrosticGospels'Revclation."New YorhReuiewof Booht vol. 2(r,rros.16-19 (1979). Philo of A.lcxandria.TheContcmplatiue Life, The Giants,and Sclections. Ncw York:PaulistPrcss,1981. Randall,John Hcrman, Jr. The Mahing of the Modern Mind: A Surueyof the ltelbcnal Bachgroundof tbe Ptesent,4gc.Houghton Mifflin Co., 1926.[A revisededition,not usedby Fc Scraphim,waspublishedin 1940.1 Raup,David."Evolutionand the FossilRecord."Sclczcano. 213 Quly 17, l98l ). .................._. "ProbabilisticModelsin EvolutionaryPaleo-Biology."AmericanScientitr, no. 166 (January-February 1977).

-.

The GencsisRecord.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, t976.

Rensch,Bernhard.Evolutionabouethe SpccicsLeuel.New York: Columbia UniversiryPress,1959.

-.

The Long W'arAgainst God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Bakcr Book House,1989.

Riasanovsky, NicholasV A Historyof Russia.Third edition. New York: Oxtord unrversrry I'ress,lt / / .

678

679

BrsLrocRApuv

Brsr.rocRAnHv

CteationistBookby Hugh Ross. Gilbert, Ariz-ona:EdenCommuntgressiue cations,1994.

fuchards,E. G. Mapping Time:TbeCahndatand itsHttory. Oxford UniversiryPress,1998. Rifkin, Jeremy.Algeny.New York:The Viking Prcss,1983. vol. l. London: AcaRiley,J. P and G. Skirrow,ed. CbemicalOceanognPhJ, dcmicPress,1965. Cali[: Ross,Hugh. "GencsisOne, Dinosaurs,and Cavemcn."Pasadena, websirc,updatedjuly 8, 1997. to Believe Rcasons as a Candb in thc Darb. Sagan,Carl. The Dtmon-Haunted\l'orA: Science 1996. New York:RandonrHouse, Terms."American O. H. "Commcnrson SomcStratigraphic Schindewolf, vol. 255 (Junc1957). JournalofScience, TheSciences, 1996. Scotr,EugcnicC. "MonkeyBusiness." January-February, Scwcll,CLrrt. God at GroundZero: The Mathattan Project,and a Scicntist\ Discoucryof Christ,the Creator.Green Forest,Arkansas:Mastcr Books, t997.

VanderKrnr,JamesC. and Villiam Adler.TheJaabh Apoca$pticHeritagein Early Christianity.Minneapolis:FortressPrcss,1996. (technicalmonograph).El Vardiman,Larry. TheAgeof theEarth\ Atmosphere 1990. Cajon,Califl:lnstitutefor CreationResearch, Magazine, vol. 14,no. Veith,GcneEdward.'Admininglrs Misrakes."\Y'orld (luly 17, 1999). )/ Von Engeln,O. D., and K. E. Caster Geolog.New York: McGraw Hill, 1952. 'Wells, "AbusingTheology:HowardVanTill\.ForgortenDoctrine Jonathan. of CreationsFunctionalIntegriry,"'in Origins6 Duign,vol. 19, no. I ( 1998).

Flood.Phillipsburg, \Yr4itcomb, JohnC., and Henry M. Morris. TheGenctis Presbytcrian Publishing,l96l. NewJersey: and Refornred

Smith, Volfgang. Tlilbardim and the New Religion.RocUord, Ill.: Tan Books,1988.

Bostoff ShambhalaPublications, Wilber, Kcn. A Brief Historyof Eaerything. t996.

Spetncr,Dr. Lee. Not b1 Chance!Shateing the Modcrn Thcoryof Evolution. New York:The JudaicaPress,1998. Stafford,Tim. "The Making of a Rcvolution." Christianiy Tbday,December 8, t997.

-.

1116 Cstls6laalVorks of Kcn V[/ilber,vol.2.Boston:ShambhalaPublications,1999. .................._. fe1ss,'e16f rc A GreaterPsyhologybyA. S. Dalal (forthcoming). -.

The Marriagc of Senseand Soul: Intcgr4ting Scicnccand Rcligion. New York:RandomHouse,BroadwayBooks,1998.

-.

One Ta*e: TheJournalsof Ken \Y/ilbcr.Boston:ShambhalaPublications,1999.

-.

Sex,Ecology, Spirinaliry: ThcSpirit of Euolutror.Boston:Sbambhala Publications, 1995.

Taylor, Kcnneth N., ed. and comp. Euolutionand the High SchoolSrudent. 'Vhearon, 1972. Ill.: TyndaleHouscPublishers,

-.

Vicwof Human Euolution.'Vhearon, Upfom Eden:A Tiantpcrsonal Housc,198I . Illinois:'I'heTheosophical Publishing

Thaxton, CharlesB., WalterL. Bradleyand RogerL. Olsen. ThcMystcryof Dallas,Texas:Lewisand StanLife'sOrigin: Reasscsing CurrentTheories. len 1984.

Voodmorappe, John. Thc Mybohgl of Modcrn Dating Methods(technical 1999. monograph). El Cajon,Calii: Institutcfor CreationRescarch,

Storer,Tracy l. GeneralZoolog. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,1951. Sundcrland,Lurher Darwin'sEnigma.Santee,Calif.: MastcrBooks,1992. Taylor, Ian -1. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the Ncw lY'orldOrdcr Thid TFE Publishing,l99l . edition.Minneapolis:

Thompson, Damian. TheEnd of Tine. Hanover, New Hampshire: UniversiryPress of New England,1997. Van Bebber,Mark, and PaulTaylor. Crcationand Time:A Reporton the Pro-

680

-.

Nodhi Ark: A FcasibilitySndy kechnical monograph).El Cajon, 1996. Calif.:lnstirutefor CreationRescarch,

-.

"RadiomerricGeochronologyReappraised." CreationResearcb Soci(Seprember vol. cryQuarter\, l6 1979). 681

AcTNowI.EDGMENTS

/-\

T

bENERAL INDEX Pagenumbersfor iltustrations are in boldfaeeitalies.

Ve wishto thankrhefollowingpeoplefor patiendyanswering our questions and providinguswith valuableinsightsand suggestions: Dr. Mace Baker Dr. DuaneT. Gish Villiam Hoesch Dr. PhillipE. Johnson KatherineMcCaffery Dr. Henry M. Morris Fr.MichaelOyer Fr.AndrewRossi CurtisSewell, Jr. FrankSherwin Dr. Mikhail Skvortsov Dr. VolfgangSmith Fr.PhilipTolbert

682

Abel,73, 2 t L 222,224,223,211,222,224, inr m or r alir ofy, 187,189,210,214.350225, 22G227, 228, 229, 23r,232351,4t t, 439,444,483,486 incorruption 234,238,264,378,390,6t5 of, 157, 187-188,421,442Aborrion.206 445 Abraha,n, r46,235,249,269,272,280,375, innoccncc of, 172 433 invulncrabiliryof, lll9, 442, 449 AbsLrrdiry philosophy of, 3(r9 lifespanoi I 19,540 Abyssinia,642 ntind of,483,485-486 nakcdncssof, 19io*200,479 Acadcmy ofAsianSrudies, l9 nrmesEvc,185, 187 Aat andFacs,72,467, 618,64') Adam,13,27,44, 46,78,82-83,98, | 15, namcsrhe eninrals,176-177, 179, 180, 403,483.4u6 t64,t7 t, t73,18r,182, r 83, 185, 203, originaloccupation ol, 169-170 208,2 r r,2t1,217, 222,223,227 -228, outsideof Paradise, 221, 22-3 229, 230, 232-734, 237, 247-248, potcntialimmortalirvof, 328 253, 261, 265-766,269. 325, 329, self-iustific:rrionof, 200-2.02.575 345-346, 348-350, 376, 378, 379, srarcof, in Peradise, 190,444445,483, 380,384, 392,395,403,406,409410, 637 423, 439,442, 446449, 475, 482, rcmptariono[, ]3, 174-175, 186, 192, 484, 488489, 494495, 52t, 52819i, 194, 195, t96, 207, 485, 489 ('.. 529. 535-536, 539-540, 542, 583, a/roTcmptation: in Paradise) 590,594,600,602,607-608,6t | , 6t 4. rransgrcssion of, 13, 190, 192, 194, 196, SeralaMan;Paradise; banishmcnt from 197, t98-t99, 200, 20t, 204, 207, agcof, 232.-234 2 t4 , 2 2 t, 2 2 8 , 4 tt4 t5 , 4 1 9 , 4 2 ) - askingofrhecrearion, 157,188.208-209, 422, 429- 431, 445446, 479, 487, 213,4t4, 42042t, 486 5 2 2 ,5 4 0 ,5 9 t.6 3 7 asprophcr, 187,192 virginiry of, bcforc thc fall, t 52 asrheprogcnitor ofrhchumantrcc,232, wisdomof, 177, 187-l88, I92, 2l(r 481 Adamt Anruton (Louis lrakey). 527 6ody ot, 442443, 445, 449, 479, 603 Africa,4TO withglory,I88 clothed creareddirccrlyhy God, 390-392,523, Afo thc Flood (Coopcrl, 644, (t46 Againr FaLcUnion (Kalomiros),26, 451 6r0 Agassiz,Louis, l7 crcatcdin nraturcform,633 crcationof, 142, 157, 186,337,397,402, Agc of thc carth. 5rr Chronology, Biblicatl Earth: agc of; Evoltrtionarytime scale: 407-408, 435-436, 438, 442-443, Vorld: agcof 480,497,609 of) \w aLoMan:crcation disobcdienccof, I5l, 175,188,198,20G Aga ofRorIs, Phncts and Star (Faul),633 Agnosticism.SreArhcism/agnosticism 207, 4t24t1, 4t5, 480,592-593 Alaska,427 gcnorlogy lrom,234

683

lNorx Albright,Villiam F.,273 AleksciII, Patriarch of Russia, 588 A l c u rs, 427 AlcxandcrofHalcs,449 AlcxanderrhcCrcat,275 Alcxandria,4T6 Algeny Rifkin), 646, 649 AJlcgoricalintcrprerarionof Scripturc.5l.zIntcrprcrationof Scriprurc:allcgorical AmazingStoryofCrcatior (Gish),647 Ambroscof Milan, St., 68, 73, 77-78,91, l 0 l, t 06, 10 8-lll, n 5, 1 20- t 21, t 2 3, t26, t 33, t3 5-t3 6, 13 8,143,r 80, t 94, t99 , 296, 327, 333, 335, 376, 536, 608 on Paradisc,r 64- 165 on tlrc crcationofEvc, 182 on thc dcvil'senry, 192 on thc gcncalogyofChrist, 529 on the kindsofcreaturcs,613 Anoican Biology Tcacho,5 l AmcricanCivil LibcrticsUnion (A.C.L.U.), 3 1,466 Amcritan JournaI of Sticnu, 3 | | Ancrian Sdcntir,304 Amphibians,30(r crcationof, 133 Andrew thc Fool for Christ ofConstanrirt"ple,St.,477,488 vision of Paradiscand the third hcavcn, t 6 7,491 Andreyev, L M,7l,328 A n g e l s,128, t4t,1 52 , 15 6, t6 t, t7t - 172, | 87- | 89, 329,343,4 | 6, 444. 448,488, 495, 499-500 cannot bcgethuman bcings,244 conrpararivcincorporealiryof, 446, 499 crcationof, | 14-l15,147 naturcof 148 Angcr,I54, 230,488, 491 Animafs,408. 493. Sct ako Amphibians; Apcs; Bears;Birds; Cattle; Dinosaurs; Fish;Horses;Lionsi Mammorhs;Reprilcs: ScaMonstcrs;Snakes;Vhalcs brought inro Paradise,177, 486487 bccamccorruptiblcasa resukof man'sfell, 207-208, 4094t t, 413, 59l-t93 carnivorous, afrcrrhc fall, 196 r rcatcdwith th
Ir{oEx

diffcrcntbcforcman s fall,412,415 domcstic,l9i naming ot, t77 . 485486 originallysubmittcdto man,412--413 AninaL and Man: A StateofBbsscdnat (Srcfanatos),253 Annunciation,66 Answcrsin Gcnesis.603.648449 AnswcrsUpdau, (49 Antarctica,493 AnthropologicaI Jotrnal of C,anada,459 Anthropology, 216,422, 451, 523,576 Patristic,381 Anthropomorphism, 87, 261 Anrichrist,26, 216, 369, 371, 548-549, 572 573,585,588,597 Anrimarrcr, 328, 367 Apcs,58, 67, t82, 253, 307, 379, 426, 428, 437, 4r t , 470472 , 5 t 6 , 5 4 2 , 6 1 6 Apocalypsc(Rcvclation),book of, 68, 94-95, '| | 5, 2.t4, 490, 498, 622 Apomlypr in thc Iiaching ofAnnnt Chndani4 Thc (Tatshev znd Rose),490 Aposrasy,33, 3 15, -352,369, 447, 583 Aposr.les,267 , 272 Aquinas,Thomas,J50, 447449, 5 16 Arabia,642 Ararat,mountainsof, 261 Archaaptc2x, 306 Archcology,273, 600, 641 Arctic,493 Arian hcrcsl l0l Aristarchus of Alcxandria (Greck astrono' m er ) , 620 Ar ius , 338 Ark,248 25t , 252,253, 254,255-256.258. 26t, 262, 263, 264, 269, 643 asan imagcofthc Church, 260 capaciry of, 251,645 Arkcll,Vl J.,493 Asccricism, 371 Assyrta,276 A{rronomy,J6, 70, 3 17, 458, 461,463, 620 Arhanasius rhcGrcat,Sr.,Zt 78,82-83, l0l, 244,609 Athcism/agnosticism, 137, 287, 295, 319, 339,341, 356, 359, 373, 505, 508, 546-547, 553, 169, 594, 597 -598,

605,638 Athcnagorasof Athens,499

684

Athos,Mounr,74, 76, 78 Augustine,Blcssed, 51, 77,79, 102, 217, 232, 236,245, 326, 328,432,434,474, 526, 540, 60t , 6t0, 646 Aurobindo,Sri,562,565 Austin,StcvcnA.,460.645 Auttubpithic*,470 Autopoicsis,562 Avcrky (Taushcv),Archbishop,490 Babel.SarTowcrof Babcl Babylon, 89, 255, 27 4-27 6, 279, 62t , 642 Bacon,Francis,2l Bactcria,58,305 Bahai,558,595 Bakcr,Mace,640, 642443, {cl.8449 Baptism,I 10,260 Barlzam,406407, 423, 425, 447,601 Bersanuphius of Optin a,St.,44, 68, 594,644 BasilthcGrcar,Sr.,43, 51,68,73,74,86,93, 100-10t, 106, 108, l -112, ll6_ I r 7 , r 2 l - - r 2 2 ,1 3 0 ,1 3 3 ,t4 0 ,t5 3 ,2 8 4 , 286, 327, 3i3, 334, 375-376. 380387, 393, 398, 404, 428, 492, 520,536, 593, 609, 6t2, 623, 646 on scicntificfacrs,285, 5 16, 539, 623 on thc grandcurofCod's crcarion,140 on the imagcofGod in man,149 on thc kindsofcrcarurcs,134,187-388,

BigBang, rhcoryof, t27,463.559560.606 621 Biochem ist r y. 36, 38, 58, 468, 559. 600, 6 639 Biohgical Btolutionim(Cavarnos), 45|,638, 648 Biolory.I8. 70, t34, 322.398,463, 465, ( 42 530, 532, 6t 7, 639, Biophysics, 639 Bir ds,ll6, lJ9, l4t , l5l- 1t 5, 180,188, 2t 3, 258,260,263, 266,300,332 createdwith the xpprarance of age,142. 634 crcarion of, 102,t28,t29, t30, 131-132, 623 cagles, 135,253

tnchcs,)) hypothcticalevolutionof, 469. 561 namcdby Adam, l7Gl77 wcnr into thc Ark, 256 Black holcs,462 Blind \Yatchnakct Ttu \Dawkins) , 37 , 46a Boch,!?altcrJ., 530 Bonavcnturc,449 Eont ol Contcnnon. k Evolution Tmi lSvlvie Bakcr),648 Boncsof Contntion (llwn),64O BoncsoJ Contcntion(Lubcnow). 3l l, 4714 7 2 ,5 2 t,6 4 0 r,08, Boob d Culnrc, 39 6t3 on thc lcngth of rhc Six Days,326, 375, Bork,JudgcRobcnH., 323,431 401 Borany,5.ll on thc originalcrcarurcsbcing vcgcrarian, Bowdcn,Malcolm,43,276, 355, 646447, t55 649 on thc uniquencss of man'screation, 15..r Bradlcy,\falrcr L., 505 Battcn, Don,646 Brccding,136,295, 300 B cars,494,646 Bticf Hntory of Evcrlthi ng, A (\$/llberl,558 varictics of, lJ4 Brown Univcrsiry,53 Behc, Michacf ,38, 57,468,545,600,639 Brown, Michacl H., 600 jcremy, Bentham, Bruno, Ciordano, 356, 570 318 Bcrdyacv, Nichola.s, Buclland,Villiam,298 37|,374, 582 Bcrgman, Buddhism,292,476, 558 Jcrry302 B crryV i l l i amB . N .,310,3 12, 457 Bulgakov,Fr. Scrgius,374 Bcrthault, Guy,349.461 Bulgrria,529 Biblc,r6, 30,43,50,94,384,435,466,496,Bushmcn,427 Blzantinc Calcndar,236 ,67, 585,588,605,622,613,U4

Biblc-Scicncc Associ:rion, 635 Bibliul Basi:for Mod.cmSoanra(HcnryMorris),304,306,588,603,Ut, 644,(46 Bickcrman, E.J.,236

C,ain, 73, 211, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 22G227, 228, 230, 231.232-233, 242,245, 337, 378,39\ ,494495 ,6t5

685

INoex wife of.232, 345 Calciu,Fr.Ccorgc,67 Califonia, t4-15,22, 49,7 | Camus,Albcrr,3(r9 \-anaan/!enaanttcs, z\r,, z/ z, z/9 woman,272 Canaanitc Candidc (Yokaire), 5 l t) Carbonl4 dating,J09.,ll2-313, 420, 459, 4- 2, 49J, 5) t, 626,635.Jrrata tudiomcrricdating Catacombs,64, 197, 222, 262 Catastrophism, 36, 298, 304-305,632,(42 Cattthaical Lauru (St. Cyril ofJcrusalcm), 78 C: rt t l eioxcn),135 ,I39 , 14 5,1 91 . 202, 247, 250. 253, 256, 258, 263,334,444 nanrcdby Adanr,176 (lavarnos, Consranrine, 451, 6ltt, 648 Chrlmcrs, Thomrs, (r03 Chaosrhcories, 562 Charismatic movcmcnr,108, 519,572, 582 Charlesworth, J. K., 494 Chcrfas,Jcrcmy,( rel="nofollow">l(r Chcrubim,85, 214,405 Childrcn, 204-205 , 22J, 329 Chrhasn, 74, 276, 344. 366, 368, 370, 554. 516, 166,582,597 defined,365 Chimpanzcc, hvpothcrical evolurionof, 6 I 6 China, 362, (42, 644. Sceako Asia Chincscphilosophy, l9 Chittick,DonaldE., 646 Chris,Reymond,493 Christ. SrrJcsusChrist, [-ord Chrnt Is Calling You!(Fr GcorgcCalciu), 67 Chritian Actiuitr, 4O, 379 Chrisriancivilizarion, 321, 567 ''Christian cvolutionism," 98, 163,254,125, 329, 335, 339-376, 379, 392,4t)1.,4 tO, 424, 440, 448449, 519, 528,605. 5a a/ra"Orrhodox evolutionisrs" the God" of, 441 Chrisrian philosophy, 287-288, 292, 332. 52t,599 "ChristianSciencc,'383 Chrisrianiry, 5l , 68, 175,283,360,363,365, 368,543,547,550,552,556,i82, 588, 6 03, 60t countcr[eit,549 dcnatwing of, 546, 572

I Nnex libcralizrd, 354.374

savorof, 581 tradirional,546, 549, 556, 573 Chmniclcof Bcgnning (Deacon f)anicl Sisocv),t88 Chronologr.Biblical.29(r. 298, 457, 474, 5J9,6U2-60 l. 6a2 SaalroGcncalogics difference bctveen Grcek and Hcbre*. t 40, 602, 610 Chnnology ol th Ancicnt VorA (Bickenan), 236 Churchof England,617 Church ofthc Transfigurationofrhe Saviour, Novg<.rrod, Russia,146, 237, 239, 241, 257, 380 Ci4 oJGod,Tht(BlcsscdAugustinc),79, 232, 236,474 Clairvoyancc,483 Clark, f.,268 Clinron,I'resident Bill, 557, 559 Coarsofskins,167,212,410,443 Coclacrnth.306 Colbcrt,E. H.,493 C-oloradoUnivcrsiry,46 I Columbia Univcrsiry,5.30 Commandmentsof God, 175-176, 194, 198, 266-267, 334, 429-430, 444, 479,489 Conmcntaryon Gncsis(Sr.Ephraim thc Syrr ant .72. 86, 108- 1 6 q ,5 J 6 , 6 . 1 4 . 6 J 6 Commmrary on th Gospelof Luk (Birhop Michacl),529 Common ancesrryrhesis,58 Communism, 67, 275, 339, 352, 365, 546549 spiritualiryaddcdro, 366, 570 CommunisrPartyUSA, 548 Comparativecnrbryolo6r,301 Compantivc morphology,300 Cbmpararivcphysiology,30 I Conccm.353, 357, 509, 595 Confaiont lBlcsscd Augustinc), 79 Constance,Profcssor, 30. 531 C-ontcmplarion, 47, 85, 89, l7O-173, 405, 407,587 Contincnts,formariono(. 251, 494 Convcnationwith Motouilov(St. Scraphim), 160,350,435,442 Cook,Melvin,631 Cnopcr,Bill, 644, 646

686

Copernicann..odct,294. 462, 466 Copcrnicus,Nicolaus.458, 462, 620 Corncll UnivcrsityMcdicalCollcgc,619 Corruprion (decay),162, 166, 207-2O9, 35r)-35t, 4 t 5, 4 | 8, 448449, 5t5, 597 of n,rn, 445 ofthc visiblccrcation,157, 2O9,409,4l l, 4 t 3, 422,442443, 446,478, 536,587, 59t,607 (irsmogony, 96, 408 cvolutionary, 463, 476, 585 Patristic.462 Cosmobgy, | 37

lhtrisric,60-1,6lI C r ca ti o n R cse a r chSo ci cr y, 4 5 7 , 6 1 9 . 648449 Crcation Rctcanh Socictl Quarttrly 43, 647648 ()rcationScienccMovcnrcnt(England), 30 CrcationScicntists. J'."a Scicntifi c Crcatiorr, ists CrzationScicnti* AnswzrThir CrititslGisnl, 647 Crcation/cvolutiondcbatcs,467. (rI 8 Crcationisr philosophy, 309 (ircatureand rhc Crea(or,distinctionbeLOSm OS, ) /4 ) /) rwcen,573 Cotnos lSagan\, 67 Cr+Magnon Man,324 Covcnants bctwccnGod and man, I 18,249, C r o ss,2 1 4 ,2 1 6 ,4 8 6 , 5 4 8 266-267.269 Curtis,C. H., 629 Cranfill,S. A., 646, 649 Cush,168 Crcation, 408. St aLo Atlam: crcation ofi Cuvicr, Ccorges,298 Animals:crcationofr Amphibians: crca- Cyprianof Jordanvillc, Archimandrirc,78, r i o no l ; I a n h : c r c a t r o no f; L ve :cr ca r i o n 431 of; Man:crcationofr SixDaysiWoman: C yp r u s,5 9 7 crcationofi Whalcs:crcarionoi; \(/orld: Cyril of Alcxandria. St.,2 10,244 cr(ation of Cyril of Jen-rsalcm, St., 78, 182, 337, 376, 3.)|, 397 ryc of,2.96,457, 474 ,539. 6tJ2403,642 asa frceactofGod's will, 568 (Christenscn), continuouscrc.rtivc rcriviryofGod iJisrin l)anresccnc Hicromonk.49, guishcdfrornthe original,624 590 diffcrcnrfrom gcncration, Derrr:w,Clarencc, 466,617 391, 397, 408, 523 Dart, Raymond,527 fully formedin the bcginning,142 Darwin,Charlcs.l5-16, 21, 29, 52, 54, 57, inrmcdiare and eflbrtless, 105,553,5(>l 68, 287,290, 29t-294, 297, 29t, 3tO, ofttcrlincss ol 138 32 t, 339,45 t, 548-549.562, 6t7 oursidcof prcscnr-daylaws,325, 634 infl uenccof CharlesLyell on, 298 Parristic modelof,462 Darwin Ccntcnnial, 15- 18, 24, 29-30 rcncwalot, 478 Darwin on Tiial (Johnson),38, 56, 58, -r00, sratcof, beforethe fall, 329, 442 306, 308,329,355,469,600, 638 Ctanon nd Timc: A kpon on th hogrtsiuc Drrwin, Erasmus. 2 1, 297, 321,431, 554 Crcationist BooI b1 Htgh Rou (Yan Darwini Bhck Box(Bchc),38, 57, 468,600, Bcbberand Taylor),601 639 Crcation Era of Constantinoplc, lmpcriel, Darwinism, 17, 37-39, 4142, 49, 54-57, 246 60 , 62, 307, t t 0, 323, 339, 468469 , Crcation cx nihilo, l 13, 158, 567, 569,624 47 t, 548-549, 553, 556, 56r, 584, defined, I 13, 567-568 585. t89, 638-639. J,. ,/', NcoCrcation Ex Ni hilo (nagazinel, 43, 639, 641Drrwinian synthesis 644,646448 hisrcry of, 293-294, 296-300, 646 Crcation Ex Nihih TichnicalJoumal,644, Du Kapial (Men) , 339 "Daughtcrsof mcn," 221, 243, 245 648 CrcarionMantrs,646 a-srhc offspringofCain, 243 Crcarion model, Jl, 36, 294, 466, 538, 620 David, Prophcr,44, 109, l2l, 235, 496

687

Irunex Dawkins,Richard,37, 54-t5,59-60, 468, 560 Dawson,Charlcs,471 Day-Agcrhcory,603, 607 Daysof Crcation, 5rz Six Days D e a t h ,162, 169, l7 l,19 2, 19 9,2 11, 4ll, 4 38, 488 not madeby God, 414 p u t san cnd to sin .20 8.21 0 rcsultsfrom man'sfall, 207, 215, 329, 35 | , 4094 | O,4 | 44 | 5, 48t, 556, 585, 592 scnrcncc ol 207. 209, 586 DcchaniMonasterySerbia,I8l Dtfcating Datwinin b1 Opening Mindt (Johnson), 466, 638, 647 Dcificarion, 443, 573 perverrcd conceptof, 5 55,573,586 Deism,317, 344, 509. 519, 541, 546, 556, 5 70, 574,5 84 Dembski,\TilliamA., 38, 40, 48 Demiurge,96,I l3 Dcmocracy,365-366 Demonicinitiarion,572, 577 Dcmons,192,227,341,446, 478,491.548, 5 5t,567, 57 5,5 78 ageof, 540 Dendrochronology,459 Dcnton, Michacl, 21, 36, 306-307, 469, 506,618,646 D€scarrcs, Rcn{, 2l, 318, 388 DcsccntofMan (CharlcsDarwin). 451 Dcsca-dwcllcrs,47 D*ign Infcrcnn, Ilr (Dcmbski), 38 Dcutcronomy,496 Dcvif(saran),| 15, 137, 175,192,194,202203, 207, 403, 452, 48849t, 571, 573-575,581,584,587,597 bound for a rhousandycars,490 dcfcatcdby Christ, 204 dwcllsin rhc undcrhcavcn, 574 cnrT of, 488 falloL 478,485 , 489490, 573-574,587 limitcd powcrof, 488, 491 Dcvolution,562.639 Dewar,Dor-rglas, 30, 506, 6l7 Dharmakayarcligion, 572 Dtffcuhiz: of thc Enlation Thcory (Dcwar), 506,6t7 Diffusions (cmanations)of thc Godhcad, conceptof, 567-569, 57 |

Dillow,JoscphC.,493, 646 Dinosaurs,306, 465, 493, 522, 640, 642644,647448 Dinosaun (Mecc Bakct), 642441, 649 Dinonnrs b7 Dcsign(Gish), /M3444,648 DiodochusofPhotiki,Sr.,438 Dionysius,Masrcr,240 Discase , 210, 594 Dispassion, 187-189.194, 198,486, 540 Dissipativcsrrucrures,562 Dobzhansky,Thcodosius,308, 351-353, 372, 465,509, 5 t9, 57t,60r deismof, 354, 509,541, 571, 581 on Tiilhard dc Chardin. 354, 357-358, 509, 5t9,595 f)ogmas,dogmaricrheology,419, 6O6,612 Dorothcus of Gaza,Abba, St., 79, 84 | 89, 20 1, 350,376, 429,432, 481,'36 Dostoycvsky,Fyodor, 369 Dragons,416,643444 tutl! Man \Howcll), 356, 5 17 Eanh,45- 46,48, 56, 58 , 9 8 , l 0 l , I 1 6 , I 1 8 , t 26, t 33, t 4 t, 458,46t, 464,47747 8, 486, 492, 553, 574, 620, 623 "soul"of{conccprofTtilhard dc Chardin), 551,576 (reaa/ro"Vorld Soul") ageof, 235, 294, 296, 457, 459, 474, 132, 535, 538-540, 587-588, 594, 618, 632, 634435 , 638, 64r , 645 covcnantbcrwccnGod and, 267 crcarionof,86,93,95, 106-107,109,I12, 125, 463 cursc on, 208, 230, 265 , 329 curscdfor Adam'ssakc,206, 478 desrrucrion of,248, 251, 254, 256,258, 267, 276 first-formcd, I l7 n:rur.lisric rhcoricsof thc origin of, 633 pol|.lion of, 206 rcligion of, 550 significancc of, 127 worship of, 186 Economics,566. 572 Ecumcnism,24-25, 507, 5l |, 558, 595 Edcn,88, 94, |65, 211214, 230, 4o4, 4t4, 42t, 442, 565,573, 575, 588, 633. 9c alro Paradisc planringof,164, 166 rivcrsof, 168

688

INorx E-gypt.642 V. M., 3l I Fllasser, Eldrcdgc.Niles,35, 56, 306, t6l, 569 Elijah, 8) , 242, 4o7 Emanarions.5rr Diffusionsof thc Godhcad, conccProf Embryology,29, 3Ol, 466, 523. 530. 5)7 , (>00.Jir alro Haeckcl'sLaw Chrisric (conccprofliilhard ac F.mergencc, Chardin).550 Emergcncc,creativc(conccptofKcn Vilber), 56t , 567, 569, 585, t87 F-mcrson,Rdph Valdo, .357 Empiricism,564 Briannica, 55. 301, 3l |, 517 Enryclopcdia Divinc,434,492,568,573.ScaLo Encrgics, Gracc Engcls,Frcdcrick,339 Engcls, Joan,628 England,293, 3 16,471, 506 Enlighterrmcrrt,Age of, 2l, 284, 296-297, 315-319, 369. 546, 570 Enoch,232,2]4,241, 242 Enoch,apocryphalbook oi 244 Enos,221.233-234,240 Entropy,(rl8. Sraata SccondLaw of'fhcrmodynamic-s Enry, 192 Ephraimthe Syrian,St., 72, 76,86, 143, r 6 8 r 6 9 , 1 8 5 ,r 8 7 . t 9 6 ,2 0 0 ,2 t7 ,2 3 2 , 245, 273, 333.176, 394, 395, 39G398 , 4 0 f , 4 0 4 , 4 1 0 - 4 r r , 5 t7 , 5 3 6 - 5 3 7 . 544,607 , 636 on Adam namingthc animals,177 on AdamoutsidcofParadisc, 221 on Cain and Abcl,225,227,229-30 on Norh, 253, 269-270,272 156, 166,477 on Paradisc. o n t h c c r c a r i o no f E v c , 1 8 5 ,6 1 I on rhc 6rstcrcationhavingthc rppcarancc of agc,142,634 on rhe lcngrhof thc Six Days,97, 100, 326 327, 395, 397, 537 on the Six Daysof Crcation,102, 107I f 0 , I l 2 - r r 3 , t 2 2 , t 3 9 - t4 0 orr thc sonsofGod, 244,499 Epicyclcs,458. 466, 473, 620 EpiphanyJounal 40, 379 Fskimos,427 ofGod, 16l, 491492 F-ssencc

Erhiopia,168 Eugenics,60 Euphrates Rivcr,168, 275,494495 Euphrosynus thc Cook, 328, 456,417 vision of Paradise,166, 456, 495 EarcpcanMind, Thc lHarard),315 Euxodus,492 L vc, 1 3 ,4 4 .4 6 , ttt2 ,2 0 4 . 2 II, 2 2 2 ,2 3 3 , 4 10.44J. 129,345 )46. 349,378,.191. 479, 590 clothcdwith glory,188 conceivcs andgivcsbirth aftcrrhclill, 22-l crcatcdin martrrcform,6-13 crcationof, 66, 157, 181,182. 183. 184| 85, I 86, 39 | -392. 395, 402, 442, 445. 48048t, 482, 497,540,6t l disobcdicncco1,205 cqualirywirh Adam bcforcthc lill, 205 namedby Adam. 187.212 o U l s l O C rrl I a r. rd l s e , I Z: 1

sclf-justificarion of, 20 1-202 temptation of, l,3. 186, 192, 193, 194, r95, t96,403.545 rransgression of, 13,194, 197. 198 triesto usurpAdlm s hca&hip,196 virginiry of, bcforcrhc fall, \52,223, 329 wisdomol, 188 Everesr. Mount,255 Evi l .l 3 ( >1 3 7 , 1 7 0 .1 7 4 -1 7 6 ,2 t0 ,2 4 7 ,2 7 9 , 343 J44. 348, 417, 475, 478, 480, 488-49t, 5211, 5D,577 Evo l u ti o n ,l 2 ( >1 2 7 , l 6 l , l 6 l . 1 8 2 , 2 1 6 , 215, 284-285, 29t. 294-295, 298299,.r04,3 r l, 3 | 4. 1.15,337 ,38t,409, 4 t7 , 422,437, 447, 462,465, 47547 6, 483, 507, 514, 5t6, 520. 523-524. 527-52.8,142.544, 559, 565, t69 , 587. 590, 600-601, 606, 608,609, 612. 616,620,648.Sccako"Christiancvolu' rionism"i Evo|.rrionarymodel Evoluti o n ar y ti m c sca l e i Evo l u i i o n a r y worldview approirchto, 533 asa "ncw rcvclarion,' 371 asa univcrsal thcory.558, 562, 595, 610 | 55 asa besrialphilosophy, asa blind process,.l53 asadccp-scrted primordial[orcc,510-51| asa distincrivc approachro rcaliry,291 a sa fa i r h ,- 1 0 7 ,3 2 25, 0 5 .5 l u ,5 2 9 .6 2 1

689

Iuorx ''prrx,fr' o[ 300-302, 307-309, 385, 466, .rs.rkcvrn rheprogr.rm ofanri-Chrisrianiry. 5 0 4,588 47 |, 5t 7- 5t 8, 534 . 5 3 9 .rsa rrvalrhoughr-patrern ro Onhodoxy, rcfi.rred by Sr.Nccrariosof Pcnrapolis, 45 | 5 0 8,5l I rcjccrsimmurablc'Iruth, 322 :rsa scicncc-ficrionthcologz.505 rcpfaccsChrist a5saviow, 55G557 , 572 asa vehiclcof rhe"newspiriruality," 452 scientistswho havcabandoncdor arc cnorr an exprcssion of nihilism,554 calof, 17, 29-32, 36, .18,40, 48, 57, as an invcrsionof truth, 554-555, 57J 531, 537. 6t 7 "spirnual,"342,344, 504.5 t2, 545, 553574 asrhe keyto thc philosophy ofAntichrist, 554, 556-557, 560. 562. 573 509,548-549,585 spirirualiry ot, 508 'ihcisric, 295, 504, 512,519, 541, 545, asthc oppositeofChrisrianirp554, 596 athcistic,504,519, 546 587 basedon philosophy, not fact,291, 307, universal, 137 139,344, 367 309,3 | 5, 321.324,383.388,4 | 8,425, Euoluion(Ruth Moore), 5l I r, 535,6r3 5r7.5.3 Ewltion aboue thc Spccia Lcucl (RenschJ, biological,585 617 cannor be provedor disprovedby sciencc, Eaohrtion and thc Docnin. of Originnl Sin (Troosrcr),348 385,5 t2, 5 t7-5 t8, 607{,08. 6ll "Evolution: Codls SpccialMcrhod of Crcadeincd,384,190 rrl, ))/ dctlr
690

Iroex 562.593, 599, 60 t ,607408,61 t ,6t 4 , 622. Se abo Death: rcsultsfrom men! fall; Paradisc:banishmentfrom conscqucnccs of, 206,211,556,611 Godi forsightof, 128 humanscxualreproduction aftcrthe, l5l, 153,187 lawofnarurcchangcdar rh.,44,329,592 mani narurechangcdat rhc, 152,351 marricd lifc bcginsaftcr thc, 152 ofmankind in gcneraluntil thc coming o[ Christ,554,574,196 Faschm,165-366 Fashions,intcllecrual, 500, 513, 521, 525, t58,584,589,597,605 Ftsring,256. 267, 269 F a t h c rG , o d r h e , 1 0 7 . 1 4 5 , 1 4 7 ,3 7 ) ,5 7 1 , 574, 589 laul, Hcnry,6.13 Feminism,.l23 Ficld Muscum oi Narural History, Chicago, 304, 107 Fields,\(csronV.,603 Fincgan, Jack,236 Firmamcnt,I I l, ll6, l2l, 124, 126, 128, | 30, 235. 258, 269. 49).493 brcakingof, | 18,254 crcationof, | 07, I l5 separarionof rhe warersaboveand bclow, | 1 5 ,l t 7 Fint-C-natcdMan, I6a (5t. Symeonthc New Theologran),78, 47a, 636-637 lirst-crcarcdworld, 26. 32, 42, 44, 48, 376, 402,409,4 | 5, 4 | 8, 420,422,447449, 536,585 bchcldin l)ivinc vision,44, 416 incorruprion of, 212,443 knowleJgeof. nor acccssiblc ro naturalscie n c e I. 2 1 ,4 0 8 ,4 l 5 , 4 1 8 ,4 4 5 ,5 9 2 ,641 matcrialot,446 Fish,l16, 145,153,I 55,266,300,304,306. 553,647 crcationof, 102, 129, 131-132,393,613 Fiue Book of Chronolop (ulius Africanus), 242,245 Flood, 32, I18, t69, 243-244, 248, 250, 2\8. 259. )64-265, 267,272, 27\276, 279, 467, 492, 494495, 625, 641, 645. Steabo Ccology: Flood gcologr

gcologicstraralaiddown by,304, 460, 496 mankind ailowedto car mcat aftcr, 250 post-Floodcondirions,l19, 245, 251. 265-266,269,643 post-Floodhistory,646 pre-Flo
691

INos.x

lNoex "GcnealogyofChrist, The" (St. Crcgory thc Thcologian),529. 5ir alaJesusChnst: genealogyof Gcnoal Zoohgy(Srcter),300-301, 384, 426 Gcnak Flood, I/e (Vhitcomb and Morris), 30-3t, 256, 304, 459460, 467. 493, 496, 610, 643, 645 Gcnai Rccord,7hc \Hcnry Morris),273 Cencticcnginccring, 60 Genetics,36. 38, 300, 309, 349,352,470. 476,600,639 Genrilcs,272-27 3, 275, 432 Gcoccnrrism,620- .Jrra&oPtolcmaicmodcl Ceochrorrology, 627, 6-33 Ceochronomcrrl310, 314 (lcography,2(rl, 49(r ''Gcologiccolumn,"303, 310 Ccofogicstrara,28, 7) ,294,302-303, 3lO31t, 458, 460461, 467, 535, 627, 629430 circulararguments usedin dating,3l I daredby index fossils,306, 31 | "disconforrrities.""prra'conformitics, .pscudo-conformitics" in, 458 do not correspondro the Six Days, 326, 389 intcrprcredin rernrsof rhc Noahic Flood. 460,645 laiddorvnduringrhc Flood,104,496 ''upsrdcdown accortlingto evolutionirr concep(ions,30-1,458 Gcology,36, 70. 84, 2911,304-305, 3,,3t2, 349,460,467, 496,t.10,512,600, 6 17,630, 63 2.6 41 Flood gcology,36, 304, 645 Gcorgcrhc CrcatMarryr,Sr.,189,644 G crma ny,287. 293 ,31 6 Gramq 245. 274 Cilion (riverof Edcn),l(r8 Gish, Duanc T., 619, ( rel="nofollow">43l.144,647 448 G l ob a l ism,24,54 7-5 49 C no s t i cism, 24 4,5 71 Godat CroundZcn (Scwcll).635, 640 Godoff,Ann,55ll ColdcnAge,318, 574 Goldschnridr, Richard,| 7, 4(r8 Goodncss,l-16-137, 149, 174-175, 199, 2 04, 344,4r0 ,57 7 in hunrannaturc,432

of angcls,488 of G od, 95, l4l, 400 of thc originalcrcation,4ll, 569, 585 Gorc, Vicc-PrcsidcnrAl, 557, 559 Gould, StcphcnJay,35, 59,298, 306, 315, 468469 , 56t , 569-57 0 Cr ac c ,160, 170- 171,1 8 8 - 1 9 0 ,1 9 4 , 1 9 8 t99, 247, 347, 349, 422, 432434, 438-440, 448449, 481, 483, 488, 492, 54t , 569, 573 , 5 8 1, t 8 7 , t 8 9 , 6 0 0 , 60.3,610.SraataJcsusChrist:graccof in the crcarionof man, 436 lossof, 430 Gradualisnr,Darwinian, 468, 557, 561 Grahrml;rnd,493 Grand Architccr (of dcism),54(t547 GrandCanyon,298, 302,460,630 Grand Canyon: Monumtnt to Catastrophc (Austin),460,(r45 Grand Inguitiror (Dostoycvsky),369 Grassd. PicrrcI1,29 Gnar Alashan Dinotaur Alvcnurc \D,wis, Lisron,!?hirmorc), 643 (Sr. Crcgoryo1 Nyssa),7u GreatCatccbism Grat Dinoraur Myrtry (vidco by Prul Tay. tor),644,648 Grcat Dinosaur Mytcry and tfu Bibh lPaul Taylor),648 Grrat Dinotaur MytzrL Solocd(Ham), 642 644 Crcat Nesrof Bcing,559 Crccce,245, 456, 484, 490. 492, 531, 605 conscrvarivcclcrgy in, 542 Grcek astronomy,620 Crcck chronolory, 23(r Grcck OrrhodoxArchdioccscofAmcrica, 25, 340, 342, 345,346,372,5t4,5t() Crcckphilosophy,10r, 478,473, 476, 4r2, 5t 3, 539 G r c ek , 273, 289, 318 Crcenhouseeffcct, | 17, 269, 493 ()rccnland,427, 493 (ircgoryol Nyssa,St.,73, 76,78, 103-t05, I20. r38, r54, t89, 223, 33t, 376, 388-390, 397, 399, 438, 523, 537, 569, t 96. 608 { r 0, 6ll againstthc confusionof naturcs,6l 3 in defcnseof rhc institutionof marriage,

692

on rhc "coatsofskins,"212

on rhc crcarionof man. 150, 162, 440, 536,54) ofsouls, on rhc hcrcsyofthc pre-existcncc 345 on rhc hcrcsyof thc prc-cxisrcnccof ttre body,336,44G-441 on rhc hc.csy of rhc lransmiSrationof s o u l s .l 1 9 , 3 1 0 on thc imageofGod in man,149 St., 81,85, 17l, 173,245, GregoryPalamas, 376, 406,437, 439, 492, 516-5 17, 566, 568,601 on sccularand thcologicalknowlcdge, 423424 on rhc agcofAdam, 540 on thc dcathofAdam, 207 on rhc distincrion berwccntheologyrnd sccularknowlcdge,286 St.,45,79,81,328, )76, GrcgorytheSinaite, 4r3, 4t5-416, 443-444, 446, 456, 485,516,536 "cightprimaryvisions"of, 416 vision of Paradise of, 166 Gregorythc Thcologian,St., 75,79,85, 102, t 42, t7 0- t7 t , 328,376,39 t ,397, 400, 402, 406407 , 434, 443, 480,607 on man asa "mixturc" of rwo worlds, 147, 163 on Paradise,170 on (hc crcationofman, 609 on rhc na.urcof man, 160-161,434 on rhcgcncafogrofCh risr,235,529,536 on rhc (rcc of thc knowlcdgcof good anryologyt Rccrpitulariontheory Ham (son of Noah), 243,247,256,269, 273-274 Ham, k* 603, 642443,646 Handbook of Biblical Chronolog (Fincgan), 236 Hanlbool of Spirituat Colzrl (Sr. Nicodc-

mr.rs of rhc Holy Mounrain),485 Harvard Universiry468 314 Hawaiianlnstitutcof Geophysics, PaLrl, Haz-ard, 315 Hean of th Mancr (Tcilhard, de Chardin), t80 Heavcn,447. 477, 488,49t,550,555,587, 5 9 7 ,6 tl 487 disringuishcdfrom Paradise, Hcber,274, 280 Hebrcw languagc,217. 233, 247, 296, 394, 474,497, U4 Hebrcws,143,274.Sr alto)cws origin of thc namcof, 274 Hcgcl,Gcorg,287, 562, 565 Hcgclianism,558,595 HeidclbcrgMan, 426 Hcldcr,Margarcr,643 2()1,620. seealsoCopcrniHelioccntrism. can modcl Hell,447,478,488,587 Hclvltius,Claude,318 Hcrcry 2l(r, 290, 292,332, 335, -138,34i. 365,374,405,452,515 Hcrmanof Alaska,St.,253 h,22, 45, 523, Herman(Podmoshcnsky), 525,528,543 Hcsychasm,406, 423 Hcxacmtmn(St. Ambrosc),73, 333, 335, 536 Hcxaemtmn(St. Basil),73, 86, 93, 99, 284285, 332, 334, 375, 386, 393, 398, 5 t 6, 536,539,647 Hcxacmcmn(St. JohnofKronsradt),79 Hinduism,383, 452, 476, 548,562 Hippolyrusof Romc,St.,522 Hiss,Alger,548 Hirory ofRutsia, A (Riasanovsky),2,36 Hic Rcporton ttu Fami4r323, 431 H i r c,Sh cr c,3 2 3 ,4 3 1 Hidcr,Adolph,275 Holy Farhcrs "conrradic(ionsbcrwccn,498 lovcfor,95, 381-382,415, 124-525 scicncc and,612, 623 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 , 43t , 436, 438, 440, 59 t , 593 graccof, 160 Holy Triniry,lO7, 109, 146,2t4, 279, 316,

693

543,568 'tonsulration"of, 145, 147

INoEx

IHoax Holy lrinitv Monastcry/Scminary, Jordanvillc,Ncw York,78, 328,433 tlonilics on 6ezar (Sr. John Chrysostom), 72, 93, 205, 232, 270, 536, 636 Homilict on Romans(Sr. John Chrysosrom). 4 14 Hominids,410, 556, 585 t70mo?f.atut,4l/ ,4 /v n0mo ,rabtltt,4/ | Homosapien,427,472 Hopc, 208 Hopcful Monster thcory,468 Horeb, Mounr, 92 Ho r s c s,135, 494 hypothericalevolutionof, 307 Hottagcto theDoil\Fr.Malachi Manin), 575 Howe, Georgc.302 Howcll, F.Clark, 356 Human Dutiny(Lrcomte du Noiiy), -342 Humanism,lf,, -l16,518, 576,597,639 Human nature.J'rr Man: natureof Hurnc,David,ll9, 323, 3(r9 Hu m i l iry,202, 430 ,45 2 Humphrcys,Russell,64 I Huxlcl Aldous,137 Huxlcy,Jufian.16, 18,24, 137,352,356, 359, 5 t9, 607 Hnxlcy,'fhomasHenry,16,293,295,356 Hybrids,136,295 lce agc, 467, 645 ldealisnr.565 l do l a r ry491. 54 8 IgnatiusBrianchaninov, Sr., Bishop,288, 289, 446 Illunrination, Divine,172, 445 ImageofGod. SzrMan:imagcofGod in Imagination, 483, 485-{86 Immortaliry207, 2t0, 214, 351, 429, 435, 437438, 444, 448, 483, 488, 555, 597. Jiz a/raSoul: immortality of lmpcrsonalGod, concepro(, 561, 567-569. 5 75, 57\ ) Impliutiont oJEvolutior(KcrkuO, 29 In karch ol thc MistingLink lDarr),527 ln th Minlt ol Mcn \h n 1'aylor)..316.352. 6 42, 646 Incorruption,4647, 157, 187, 207-2tJ8, 1 43,4t54t6, 4t9 , 4 42 ,55 5, 597 cannot be undcrsroodby natr.rralscience,

4t 9 miraclcs oi, 593 ofbodics in rhc resurrcction,443 of man in the h.Binntn1,212.444445, 592 of the wholc c.earion in the beginning, t 57, t62, 212,351.4t 3, 4t8. 421,483,

59| -r92,607 Paradiscplaccd bctwccn corruption and, t66,456 lndia, 476, 489, 565, 642 InferiorirycomplcxamongOrrhodoxChrrs" tians,537,60 1, 605 Inbtit thc Vin/,466 lnstiturcforCrcationR cscarch. 32,).94,457, 46t. 538, 6 r-619. 629-{,30, 645. 648449 Intcrmcdiatc fbnns. Jlra rransitiooal(inrcrmediate)forms Intcrprctarionof Scripturc,(106 allc gor ic al, 6970. 85 8 7 . l 0 t . 1 6 8 , l 7 l , 9 t, 2t 6, 337, 345,)7 5, 388.392-395, 402, 405-.407,4t8-4t9. 499, 556. 587, 592,647 lneraf,69-70, 8G87, t77, laD, t84,295, 337, 375, 392,393, 395, 399, 40t406,4 t2, 4 t5, 4t8, 423,442, 499,5 t7, 5)t, 539, 542-543, 602, 606, 60961t , 6t 7, 647 mystical, 85, 87. to6. 164,214,4o5 rc lisric,l71,622,647 symbolical.85-87, 407, 517, 528,515, 6ll lntcrpntarion of c Booh of thc Biblc (Sr. Ephraimthc Syrian),72 I nv olur ion. 559 Ioncsco,Eugcnc,369 lrrcduciblccomplcxiry,57 Isaacthc Syrian,St., 78, 79, 89, 9 l, 288, )43, 376, 4t5,595 on thc ageofrhe world,236,540,602 Isaiah, Abba,430 Isaiah,Prophct,497 Islam/Moslcms, 548 Isochronnrcrhod,6J0.Saaa/roRrdiomctric daring Isotopcs, 1nc.,635 k^ly,77 , 34.) Jacob,Patriarch,499-500

694

Sr.,Apostlc,407 J.rnrcs, Japan,644 (sonof Noah) , 243,247,256,269 Japhcth 270,272-275 Jarcd,234.240,24t J^vaMan,355,42642 7, 505, 602 Thomas, 316 Jcffcrson, 346,348,355-356,166, 377,425, .Jesuirs,

St.,6a,72,74,88,9194, lohnChrysosrom, 98, 103,125,140- 141, 147, 158.16l, 187-ltt8, l9l. 198. 200, 202-203, 2t7,2a2-233,272,2a6.333.337 ,34), 376, 398399, 40o, 4o4. 4t 4. 4t 9. 5t 536, 544, 606, 609. 622, 624. 636 on Adamnaming rheanimals, 177,4 12 onAdamoursideParadise,22l

463 fcsusChrisr,Lord, 89, l0l, 106, 137,142, 153,| 84, 243,343,)60. 38t, 424,479, 483, 486, 49t, 557, 572-574, 577, 584-585,624,637 asCrcaror,107.390,523 asGod, 491 asSaviour,272, 556, 57 1 (rrealroRedemprion; Salvarion) is rhc Lighr,491 a st h c S c c o n dA d a m , 1 90 ,2 1 6 ,3 5 1 ,4 1 9 , 430,439,445, 481 iu Trurh, 20 crcarionby, 145, 148,337 Crucifixion ol 66, 214, 2.16.556, 592 dcsccntinto hadcsof, 66, 2(r0 o1,478, 491 disciples frith in, 583, 585. 589 gcnealogo1233,235,528-529,536,6t0 graccof, 48, 490 i n c a r n a r b n( b i r t h )o f , 4 1 6 ,4 1 8 - { 1 9 ,4 3 1 , 4rt.529,540,564,571 on rhebcginningof thc world, I50, 228 on rhc slayingofAbcl, 228 ofour originalnatureby,351, rcsrorarion 4 3 0 - 4 3 1 ,4 8 1 resurrcctcdbody oi 49t Rcsurrccrionot, 66, 78, 208, 212, 351, 445,478,556,587,593 sacrificcof, 213 SccondComing of, 204, 242, 416, 436, 490 1iansfiguration of, 40G-407 virginbinh of, 182,591 Jcuish Apocallptic Hcritagc in Earll Chritiar i4 Thc(YandcrKamandAdlcr), 244 J c w s . l 1 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 4 4 , 2 6 7 ,2 7 2 . Se a ko Hcbrcws Joachimof Fiorc,371,374 I |0, I15,141,433,489,U4 Job,Righrcous, *.245, 432, 433,435,525, John Cassian, 601

on Adamt sin,205 on Cain and Abel,227 on Evc.s punishmerrt, 204 on incorruptionlxforc thc fall,208,414 on Noah.258, 263. 269-270 on Parrdise. 165, 176,444 on thc "sonsofGod," 245, 499 on thc agcofmankind,602 on thecreationofEve,184.403,540,(rI I on drecrcationofmen, l(r0,402 on rh€ carrh bcing curscd.20(r,230 on rhc rivcrsof Paradisc, ll7, | 68- | 69, 403 on rhc (cmprationofAdanrand Evc, 196. 480 on theTowerofBabcl,276, 279 on thc rwo rreesin l)eradisc,174 on virginiryin Paradise,223 Jo h n D r m ffccn c,Sr .,7 0 .7 8 . 8 0 , t6 8 , t7 t. 332,137,376,39 | -392, 397.405,4 | 1, 4 18,440. 480,489, 168, t98 ,'n man. boJy and s,rulhcingcrcatedsinrulrancously,| 62, 335, 439440, 5e r , 610 on Paradise, 172,i76 on the Six Days,J27 on thc trcc of (hc knowlcdgcof good and cvit, t73 on virginiryin Paradisc, 152 on why God madcthc world, l4l John Maximovirch,Sr.,Archbishop,22, 48 John of Kronstadt, Sr., 79, 284, 286, 333, 6t2 John PaulIL Pope,349, 565 _fohnrhc Baptisr,St.,228 John thc Thcologian, St., Apostlc. 94, 107, 407 John,Gospclof St.,574,624 Johnson,Hcwletr,372 Johnson,Phillip E., t5, 3742, 4849, 56, 300,306,308,129,355,466,468469, 545, 584-585, 600, 638439, 647, 649 Jo l y,Jo h n ,6 3 l

695

lppex Jonah,Prophct,272, 274 Flavius,244 Joscphus. Joshuabrr'Nun, 272 JudgmcnrofGod, 204, 575 242,245 JuliusAfricanus, lrpircr 462 farusic GcohgJol thc \VorA grkcll),493 Jrrstin Martyr, St.,499 (abbalah,56J, 167 Kafla, Franz,369 (ahlcr, Erich,555 Kalomiros,Alexandcr,2G30, 35, 404 l, 50, 52, 379, 381, 4t0, 437, 503,514-5t5, 522-527, 532-534, 536-537, 5405 44. 607,6t0 ,61 3 Kant. lnrmanucl,369 Kcnya NationalMuscum,628 Kcrkut, G. A., 29 tQromiakov,Alcksci,5 l6 (in&, 2(r,38, 123,133,139,297.300,308, 329-.330, 334, 385-387, 469, 476, 516, 639,642 as creaturcscapablcof bcaringfcrtilc offs pring,lJ4,2 96 confusion of, linkcd to moral relativism, 137 distinctncssand integriryof, 136-138, 387-389,608,6t2-4t3 do nor ncccssarily corrcspondto thcspccicr of modcrntaxonomy,134.470 mainraintheir narurcro ihc end of timc, | 34-t 35 variarions wirhin, 296,469 wcnt inro thcArk, 250, 256 KingJamesVcrsion,217,273 KingdomofCod, 89, 137,572 (ingdom ofHcavcn,66,128,l:17,150-l51, 4 t 6,419, 59 7 Kingdon ofMan and thc Kingdon ofGod, Thc (Fr.SeraphimRosc),21, 24, 33 Kireyevsky, lvan Y. , 282, 287, 516, 606 Klingcr, Fr. Ccorgc,374 KN-MER-1470skull,3 l l, 628,640 Knowlcdgc,438, 474, 535, 586 D i v i nc,614 nautal,284,416417 narurcof, changcda( rhc fall, 445 poscsscdby Adam, 483 pscudoscicnrific, 512

rcvcalcd, 417, 609 scientific, 286, 288, 290, 316, 318, 320, 408,4 t 54 16,425,445,5 t 2, 59), 623 sccular,283-284, 286, 288, 424 (hcologicai.286, 288, 290, 292, 3 16, 4 16, 423,425 KolomcnskoyeMuscum,Moscow,378 Kook, Abrahamlsaac,565 Kosturos,Fr Anthony,J45-346 Kuhn,Thomas,57 La6ot,2Q6,2l I l-acentius,499 Lake Rudoll Kcnya,(r28 Lamarck.Chcvalicr dc, 297,299, 451 L^m.ch, 233-234, 243 l:sr Judgmcnt, 590. Stc abo Judgment of cod taughlin,Villiam S.,427 Lewrcncc Livcrmorc Narional l-aborarory, 635 Lawrcncc,Jcromc,466 Lcad isoropes,631-634 Lrakcy,Louis,355, 470, 527 Lcakcy,Mary, 470 Lcakcy, Richard.3l l, 470,472,628,640 l.ccomtcdu Noiiy, Picrrc,342-343, 363, 519 dcismof, 344 l-cc,Robcrt,459 t-ce,Robcrt8.,466 trhigh Univerciry639 Lcibniz,Gonfried, 520 Lcmaitrc.Abbd Gcorgcs,463 Lcnin,Vladimir,373,547 Lcninism,548 knt, Grcar,68, 72, 222, 524 Lconid(Kavclin),Fr.,287 LEuolutiondu uivanr\Crassu,29 Lcwontin,fuchard,60 Liberalism,modern,323, 566 Light, lll, 123, 445, Sccalro Uncrcatcd l.ight crcariono[, I 10, ll2,14t,394 ofhcavcnlybodics,123 of thc sun, l2Gl27 or iginal,I 10, 128 Likcncssof God. ScrMan:likcncssof 6od irr Lincoln,Abraham,546 Lincsof dcsccnt, hypothctical,307, 553 Lions,135, 177,253,4t6

696

INoex crearion of, 78,83, ll7, 143,144,l4r. t 47, t 48, 150, 157- t t 9, 185, r 9l, 29t , 335, 337, t 9t , 397,4|, 423, 429-430, 436, 439-440, 449, 4r7, 540,586,609, 622,634,638 dominion ovcrlowcrcrcation of, 145,149, t53-t54, t77, r80, 188,4r2-413 fallcnnaturcof, 210,481,483,486.571 lleshof,diffcrcnt afrcrthcfaII.443,445 image ofGodin, 149-l5l,154,157, 163, l6t, 170, 189, 428429, 43t-432, 434435,4)7, 439440,480,t87,600 irrbrcathing of, 162,436,438440 instantaneously nradc, 162 Iikencss of Godin, 149,170,432,440 natrrre of, 46, 149-150,154,160,180, t90, 2t2, 350,390,422423, 428429, 43r-432, 434-435,437-443, 452,480, 483,526,t<)t, 598,601, 609, 6t 4 naturcof, corruptcdat rhc fall,429430, Macarius of Oprina,Sr.,287 445,448,481 of, 172 rhcCrcat,Sr.,78,7r,85,208,214, originaldcsignation Macarius originalnerureof,42,4647, 189,194, 3 7 6 , 4 0 5 , 4 t 4 , 4 4 6 , 4 90 216,35|. 409,422,43t,438,449,48t, Macrina,5t., 330, J.l,l 483,485,495,540,6tl Madagascar,306 vegcrarian, 155,266 originally Making of Mankind, Ilr (tuchard Lcakcy), 472 soulof, l5l, 160-162,182,2O7,435, 437439, 441,443,481,609 (rc aLo Makingof thc Modcm Mind, Ttu (Randal.,, Soul) 570 ofthe crcarionof, 609 spccialncss Malc and fcmale,divisbn inro, 128, 145, spiritof, 160,172,434437,43, | 50, | 57,234,250-25| ,256,586,6tI stands bctwccnrwoworlds,434 division of, madc in forcknowlcdgcof the Proiccr,635 Manhattan t a l l ,1 5 1 - 1 5 2 , 4 1 3 Manichecans, 475,489 Mammals,J0l. Saea/roAnimals Manrmorhs,494 MappingTim lRichztrls),236 Marriagc, l5l-152, 185,244,248 Man,258,477 blcsscd by G od,152, 223 age of,235,538-540, 594, 602, prophccy of, 185 610-61I Manugcof9ntcandSorl(Vilbcr),559,564, asa mixtureof two worlds,147,163 asqualirativcly diffcrcntfrom thc bcasts, 567 Mers,620 163,600 l{3, 147,I88 Martin,Fr.Malachi, asrh. crownofcrcerion, 366,373,575,577 t62, Martyrs,488. .Srra/roNcw Martyrsof Rusbodyandsoulcrcatcd simulrancously, liz J)s,4t9.44t,475,5 4t , 6t 0 body of, l5l, 160-162,165, 172, 180, Man, K.arl,323,339,373,547-548 t82,185,205,207 -208,2t2,328,409, Marxism,137,339,366,a73,546,548-549, 4tt,42t,423,434,4 36437, 439, 441, 570 Masonry(frccmasonry), 25, 321,507,546443447, 475, 479, 48t , 609 in grace, 160,439 creatcd 547, 558, 570, 595

Lrrcralrnrerprerlionof Scriprurc. 5rr lnterprcrarionof Scripturc:litcral Litcral Mearing of Genai, Th (Blcssed Augustinc), 79, 102 Locke,John,318 Logoiof crcaturcs,485,587 Long rlhr ageinx God, I/z (Hcnry Morris), 298,646 tosskl Vladimir, 434, 567-569 Lot, Righreous,255 love ofGod for rnan,103, 160,I88, 199-200, 2 0 3 , 2 r 0 , 4 0 0 , 1 6 9 ,t 86 ofman for Cod, ll4,569,584 Lubenow, Marvin L., 3ll, 521, 628429, 640 Lukc, St.,Apostlc,529 Lukc,Gospclof St.,528-529 LunarSocicry321 Lyell,Charles, 298, 310-31I

697

rNDEX Masoreticrext oi rhc OId'lcsramcnr,296, 474. .?a alo Hcbrew languagc Matcrialisnr. 20, 38, 6l-{'2.289, 33O,545. 549, 553, 56t , 564, 626, 632, 634 dialectical,54(r scicntific, 545-546,159-560,57| Mathcmatics,18. 39, 289, 317,342,349. 462 M a t t c r ,89, 104, ll3 -11 4. 1 48 , 169, 328 329, 369, 43t, 445446, 475, 495, t52 55:1,t59-560, 580. 587 rcfincd,478 Matthcw,Cospclof Sr.,528 Matthcws,L. Hlrrison,322 Maximusthc Confcssor, St.,85, 209, 40(> 407. 485 Mayr,[rnst, 134 Mburi pcoplc,471 Medirarion,548, 558,572, 578 Mcmory,485 Mcrcl of Cod, 227, 230, 2(t5 Mcsoporanria,276 Mest'tgtr ,tf tfu Ruttian Student (.hrithn Moucntnt, 37 3-374 Metaphysics, 549.552,154,557,567, 6046 06. 608.6 1| McreorA, Grcccc,77, 179,395,456,484 Mctcoritcs,6S3 Mcrhusclah, | 19, 232, 234, 242-243 Mctropolia,Amcrican,37 2-373. SccakoOr thrxlox Church in Amcrica Mcvcndorff,Fr.John,373, 375 Michacl,Bishop,529 Michclangelo. 107 M i c h i g an, 457,6 19 Middlc Ascs.Jr t, 3 r8-320, 350 Miller, Hugh,603 Millcr, Kcnncth,5.1 "Millionsofyears"schcma.SarEvolutionary rimcscalc Mikon. Richard,I-14,l0l--105, -107.310 1 t t , 3 t 3-3 t 4, 46 t. 47 |, 6 38 ,649 Mirrclcs,317, 593,600, 60(>608 Mivart,Sr.GeorgcJackson, 294, 370 Modern Gnk Philotophtn on thc Hnnat Soul (Cavrrnos). 451 Molccularbiology,36. 600, (r38,(,4(> Molcculargcnctics, 29 Monophysitisnr, 338 MonrcaleCathcdral. Sicily,| 32, 23i

Morrrrnisrn,3T4 Moon, 45, r08, t25-t26, t28,492 belorcthc fall, 44 crcarcdwirh rhc appcaranceof agc, 14.1, 634 crca(ionof, 123, 124, 462 Moraliry, | 37. .Se:,r/roRelrrivism:moral More Drffc ricsof rh Lrolution fhcory (Dcwar ) . 506. 617 Morgan,ThonrasHunr, 352 Morris, Hcnry, .30-.31,3(r, 256,277.298, .102,-304-J06,310, .31.3.352, 45y 460,467, 493. 496, 588, 603, 60 t, (, | 0. 631\,64t442.644447 Morris,fohn,305, -31l, 1t 3-3t4, 64t. 643 Moscr-rw, 172-373,588,642 M os c s Pr , opher4344, , 47, 64, 85, 89., 9t ,92-94,15, tot,104, I t2-t t5, t22, r30. 159' r60. 162.l6 5,250,269,336. J43, 39l, 400,407,4 | 7, 424,4 37,440, 452, 492,496. 564,6t 4, 622 Mothcr ofGod, Mosr Holy, 184,203,215, 392, 4t1t.564 Murarorc,Stcphcn,40 Mutations,3U,53, 136,299, 308-309,468, 5it, 56 r, 600, 6.39 Myttcryof Lrft! Origin (Thaxton er al.), 505 Mysticalnrcaningof Scripture..9rrInterprctarion of Scrip(ure:mysrical Mysrical I hcology ol cht Eatttrn CLurth (Lossky),434 Myrhology,pagan,89, 445 Myrhohgy ol Modarn Dating Mahod: (VoorJnrorappe), 641 Nagarjuna.567 NarionalAssociationof Biology Tcachcrs ( NAB] ) , 5l NatronalCcnrcrfbr ScicnccEducation,51, 6t 9 Natrrralsclccrion,294, 29t, 309, 353, 468, 553,557,561) Naturafism.f 6. 20-21, 5 i, 55,60. 62, 126, 3t 6, 325,338,4 t9420, 425,434.521, 530,546,548,569,t85, 633, 635 Narurc,l0l, 290, 316-317, 324, 334, 337, 365, 408,4t 7, 55) la,!tof, 4t5, 4t8, 442, 594, 61t I'arrisricphilosophy of, 6l3 rcmindsusofParadise, 190

698

Inorx rcplaccsCod es rhc ccntralconcept,3) 7. 520,570 Nature,Divinc,567-569, 571, 587 Narrrrcsof createdthings,47, 86, 135, 573, 6t2-6t 3 confusionof, 6l3 distinctionbcrwccn,332, 334, 541, 554, 5 9 5 , 6 0 8 , 6 l 2 {, l 3 NcandcrrhalMan, 324, 426427, 472, 52 1, 576,601. Necrrriosof Pcntapolis, St., 154 451, 516, 638 Bishop,22 Ncktary(Konrzcvirch), Nco-Drrwinian synrhcsis,16, 29. 35-36, 309, 468, 545, 557, 560-561 Nco-paganism. 569, 571. 586 Ncoplatonism. 5(r7-5(r8 NcwAgc, 344, 366, 371, 564 Ncw Chrisrianiry, 374, 452,551, 572 Ncw hcavcnand neweanh,45,247,351 'Ncw man,"555 New Marryrsof Russia,490 Ncw Rcligion/new religious consciousncss, 546,549 55t. 560,572.,579 r h c " C h r i s i 'o f , 5 7 1 Ncw Sticntit, 616 Ncw Testament,95, 256, 371, 374-375, 540.593 Ncw ValnamThcological Acadcmy,32-33, 65 Ncw world ordcr. 24 Ncwton,Sir lsaac,296, .31G317,320-321, -160,519-520 universc, Newtonianmcchanistic 5 I 8-52 I Ngaumhoc,Mount (Ncw Zcaland),314 Nicephorus,discipleof St. Andrew rhc Fool for Chrisr.167 Nicodcmusof thc Holy Mountain,Sr.,485 Nicrnrann,D. lre, 644 Nietzsche,Friedrich,293, 551, 554-556, 563 Nihilism,22,554-555 Nihilitm: Thc Root of thc Rcwlution of thc Molem Agc(Fr.SeraphimRose),22, 49 Nikolacopoulos,Ccorgc,254 Nile Rivcr,494 NilusofSinai,St., 170 NilusofSora,St., 170 Nilus drc Myrrh-gushcr, St.,597 Nimrod,274

N i n cvch ,2 7 2 ,2 7 4 Niphon, BishopofConsranria, Sr.,597 Noah, Rightcous,l17. l19, 169,242-243, 246, 248, 25 t, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258, 260, 262, 263. 264, 266-267. 268, 269..270, 304, 492493, 495. Sa aLo Covcnantsbctwccn(lod and nran animalsat pcaccaround,253 as rhc fa(hcr of all living after rhe Flood, 263,269,273 wirh, I l8 covcnanr dovesent by, 2('1, 262, 263, 268 gcncrationsof, 247, 273, 275 givcn permissionto eat Rcsh,I18, 265, 4 t2 prophccy6y, 272 righrcousness of, 247. 249-250, 254 sacrificc of, 264 witc o(, 249, 25 | , 256, 263 Noah's Ark: A Fa:ibility S*/y (VoodmoraPPc), 251 Nod, landof, 221, 232 Nocbcl, D:rvid A., 646, 648 Noospherc(conccprofTcilhard dc Chardin), 358,36{r,510, 550, 566, 574 Northcn Tbcbaid, l hc, 213 Not bl Chance!lSpatncr),38, 309. 470, 6.19 NOVA. 53 Obltoiou Susraind(lohnson),39, 468, 638, 64t) Old Calendarisrs, 543 Old canh/progrcssivc crcarionism, 98, 125, 2 5 4 ,3 8 9 ,4 r 0 , 5 8 5 ,6 0 3 Old Tcstamcnr,65. 73, 235, 296, 371, 374 375, 535,539,540-541,583,594,602, 610,644. 5.. dlr, Masorcricrcxti Patriarchs(Old Tcsrrmcnr);&pruagint ccxr OId Tcsramcntprophcts,94 OlduvaiGorge,471 Olscn. RogcrL., 505 Olson,EvcrcttClairc,17 Omcga Point (conccprof Ibilhard dc Chardin), 364-365, 372-373, 376, 510, 552, 555, 565, 577-578, 582 On Hcrcsict(Sr. John Damascenc),332. 405 On Philotopfu(Sr. loh,nDamasccnc),332 On thc Crcarionofrhc lVarly'(Sr.John Chrysosrom),72 On thc GtncsitofSptcitt (Mivan), 294

699

INnex OnrhcMakingofMan(St. Grcgoryof Nyssa), PachomiosofMount Athos, Fr, 78 Paganism,287, 3t6, 435, 445, 567-569, 73,5 2 3 Or thcOriginof Man(St.Basil),73 57t - 574, 586 Faith(St.JohnDamasccne), Pagels, Elainc,571 OnthcOrthodox Pain,204, 206, 208, 2t t, 329 78, t68,327,332,489 (St. Grcgoryof Nysa), PaisiusVelichkovsky,St., 170 On tb Rcsuncction 613 Palcobiohg1,306 On tbz TrinirylBlessed, Augustinc), 79 Paleonrof ogy,36, 53, 56, 84, 295, 302, 304Onc Blood: Tfu &bhol Antwr to Racism 305,3t2, 347,349,355,426, 469,472, (Ham,Vieland.Bartcn),646, 648 527, 599400, 629 Panenthcism, Oneworldgovernment, 547-548 552, 559, 561, 570-57 |, 574, 22,44,516,644 OptinaMonastcry, 578,584 Panrhcism, 216. 356, 552, 570-57t, 574 Origcn,162,330,335,4O5,440,475476 (CharlcsDarwin),15,54, I'aradisc, 4547,70, 73, 79, 88,92, 153,t75, Originof Spcciet 290,293 t 89, 192, 194, 1 9 8 , 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 , 2 r 3 , Origint6 Daign.41, 51,398,646,649 2t5-216, 228, 242-243, 324. 350, 403, 405-406, 4t4, 42t, 429-430, O'Rourke, J. E.,3l I 236,474 442, 444-445, 447448, 478, 481, Onhodoxcalendar, 20, 22. 38, 253, 484, 486, 515-536, 541, 154, 583, 588, OrrhodoxChristianiry, 28(r- 288, 290-292,340-34t. 345, 596, 598, 602, 6l l, 622, 637, 650. Scc a/raFirst-crcatedworld 394, 405407, 4t8, 452, 507-508, 51 6 ,5 6 7 as diffcrcnt from thc rcst of thc original OrrhodoxChristians, 25-26,32-33,404 1, crcarion,lt6, 177,478 46 , 6 t, 8 4 , t 90, 222, 283, 3 4 0 -3 4 t, asscmi'mercrial, 167, 171,477478,495 a5srilfcxistingnow, 164, 169,414,487 344-145,159, 37t-372, 376, 38t382, .196,418, 44t, 446447, 44r, banishment from,66, l5l,167, 186,190, 452-453,5t2-5t4, 528, 533, 539, 209,2 1r,2t 4,2t7, 378, 421,42', 480, 494495,622 544, 573, 58t, 588,589,t98-599, 606,612 cannot be known about rhrough natural Orrhodox Church.72,232,236,292,352, sciencc,449 37t, 420, 429,437, 445,473, 479, locarionof, l6!-165, t67-169,27t , 477, 496-498, 507 508, 5tt, 542, 494 555, 588, 62t natureof, 164-165,167, l7l,328,477 '[0,422, 624 Divincscrviccs of, 208,376, 4ll, 418, originally part of thc carth,494 430 placcdbctwccn corruption and incorrupOrthodoxChurchin Amcrica(OCA),25, tion, 166-167, 187, 20,, 328, 414, "Orthodoxevolutionists,' 408, 519, 521, Sedlro'Chrisrian cvolu530,540-542. tionism Ort hodot Obtcrttn 340, 345 t)rrh,'dox ThcoloBicrlSocicryof Amcrica. 352 Onhodor \Yod, 67, 369, 597 Orrhodox worldvicw,549 Orthodory and th Rcligion of the Funn (Fr. ScraphinrRosc),371, 4U-465, 572, 582,597 Outcr-spacebcings.Jar Extratcrrcsrrials. Owcn, Richard, 17

42t,456 plantingof, 157, 164, 166, 404, 420 plantsin, 167, 17D,415,456,477 riversof, 87, 168,494 visionsof, 165-167,328, 456,477, 487488 I'arapsychology, 578 Perts,342,373 Parisianschool of Orthodox rhcology,373374 Pas s ions 154, , 156,18 0 ,1 8 7 ,1 9 0 ,1 9 8 , 2 1 5 , 269, 429, 432, 444, 541 Parriarchs(Old Tlsramcnr), 169, 233, 235, 248,272, 409. 473, 495,535 , 583, 594

700

Inrex lifcspanof, tt9,234-236, 497, 499t00 Patristicphilosophy,612-61 3 PaulofObnora,St.,213, 253 Paul,St., Aposrlc,45, 107,120, 138, 152, t 64, 190,242,244 ,249, 351, 373, 375, 422, 424, 432,436437, 445,477,48 t, 490,574 caughtup to Paradis.andrhe third hca"cn, t65-167 PckingMan, 355, 426, 505 Pclagianism, 601 Pcleg,274,280 Peppcrcdmorh crpcrimcnt, 55 Pcrsia,642 PcnonalGod, 550, 567-568, 57 |, 175, 586, t89 PctctDarnarcenc,St., 490 Pctcr,St.,Apostlc,256,260, 407, 598, 607 432, 594 Pharisces, Pharoah, 9l, 499 Phcnomcnon ofMan, I}l (TLilharddc Chardin!,356,372 Philarctof Moscow,Sr.,Mctropolitan,79 Philo of Alexandria,244 Phihkalia. 207, 209, 4t 3, 438, 446, 485, 490,536,540 Phihnphic zoobgiqw (|.:marck), 297, 451 ''Philosophyof rhc Absurd (Fr. Senphim Rosc),369 l'hilorhcouMonasrcryMount Athos.JJJ Physics,36, -149 Pilbcam,David,472 PiltdownMan, 355, 426, 47 1, 505 Pishon(rivcr of Edcn), 168 Pius lX, Popc,370 Phrc of Rlesed Augurtin. in thc Orthodox Chwch, Thc (Fr. Scnphim Rosc), 79 Planets, 458, 46 l, 464, 492, 620, 633 Plants,58, l2J, 126, 142, 155, 173, l9O, 334, 387,393, 462, 476,625 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 , t38, 157,408,477 distincrncsofkinds of, 138 in Pandisc,166, 170,414,477 originallygivcn ro man for food, 155 Plato,289 Platonism,569 Plotinus,567 Polygcnism, 325, 346, 535,6l I

Pomazanskl Fr. Michacl, 284-285, 520, 534,600, 2 PomonaCollcgc, l8-20 PonrificalAcadcmyof Scicnccs,.149 Ptrpc,Alcxandcr,519-520 Porassium-argon dating,309-3 10, 3 t 2-J 14, 460,627429,634 Prayer,l 7O,256, 269, 352, 429 mcntal,170,420 perfcct,416 Prc-cxisrencc of souls,hcresyof, 162, 330, 335, t38, 440,47147 6, 536,613 Prc-existcnceof thc body,hcrcsyof, 162,335, 440 Prchisto11600, 607 Prepodobnymczning of, 253 Pridc, 192, 207, 260, 275, 277 Prin.ipii Math.mati.a (Ncwron), 3 | 7 Ilincipbs of Enbryobgl (Vaddingron), 5lI hintiph of Gcohp (Lycll). 298 Progress, 19,2 1,24, 3 | 8, 320-321, 324, 360, 3 7 3 ,5 5 4 ,5 6 6 ,5 7 0 ,5 9 6 Progrcssivccrcarionism.Sra Old-carth/progrcssivccrcationism Prophecy,94-95, 187. 192, 317, 498, 546, ,83,597,622 of rhc past,343, 622 Prntcstantism, 31, 43, 51,316, 3lt, .383, 4t8, 423,434,497,5t 4, 5 t9, 525,582, 6 0 1 ,6 1 0 ,6 1 8 ,6 2 2 Providencc,142, 354, 5 19, 54 1, 624 Psalms,496 Pscudo-rcligion, 20, 507,512 Pseudoscicncc, 29, 5 12 Pscudo-spiritualiry, 546-547 Psychicand spiritual,confusionof,554, 578 Psychicrcality,20, 550, 564, 574 Psychicsclcction (conccpr of Tcilhard dc Chardin\,553,557 Psychology, 488, 558, 566,618 Prcrodactyls, 306 Ptolemaic model,294,J01. 458, 461, 466 Puncruatcd equilibrium,35, 56, 469, 561, 567,569-570 PuzzlcofAndcnr Man lChirrick), 646 philosophy,356, Pythagoras/Pythagorcan 492 Qratcmar1 Era (Charlesworrh), 494

701

IN o e x Radiomctricdating,2{1,42,56, 309-112, 3 t 4 , 420. 535, 540, 627-629 ,631 ,631t. 640441. Scca/ro Carbon 14 dating; lsochronmcthodrPorassium-argon dac ingi Rubidium-srrontium dating;Uranium dcceydating (;2(r,632, lxsed on faith in matcrialism, 634435 basedon reicctionof supcrnaturalacrivity, 6 26, 612 brscd on unifrrrmitarianassumptions, 3 | 2-314, 4(t0, 62(t,(t3t , 64 | involvcdin,629, (r12, circularrcasoning 635 discordantdatesin, (r28,(rJO Raincr, Karl, -146-i47 Ra i n ,I | 7-118, 2 5|, 25 8,2 ,26 9, 4r 3 not beforcthc Flood,158 Rainboq | 18, 235, 267, 268, 269, 49J Randall,J. H., Jr, 321-322. 324,570 Rationalism,21, 46, 233, 215-216, 251, 253, 2r3, 297, 3t5-3t6, 320-3;,, 325, 359, 369, 382, 406. 409, 423, 425, 437439,449.5t2,523,531,t40, 5(){), 597,599,6t0 criricalapproach of, -318 Raup,D.rvidM., 304 tual Hirory of Dinonur (Macc Bakcr),640, 642444, 649 Rcason,3l5.ll8. -140 , 369,413, 597 corrupredsinccthc fall,3l9 mustbc subni(tcdto fiith and rcvelati
t_ a w

Rcdcmprion.66, 556-557. 585. 587, 592, 6.17 Rcductionism, .139.561 I{cforrnation. 43, 3I5, 3l9 Rtign of Qua*iry and tk Signt oJtfu Tincs, Ila ((lulnon). l9 Rcincrrrration,138, 47547 6, 536. 608 Rclarivism, 320, 325, 369 moral,117,216,323 rcligioLrs,344 Rcligionof rhe future,549-550,557, 570, t 7 u, 581-582

Rcligio-scicntificsynthcsis.Sre scienccand rcligion,combinationof RcnarAabhRrotd ofloE(Hcnry Morris), (r44 Renaissencc, 21, 315, 3l8, 320, 570 (rl7 Rensch, Rcrnhard, Rcpcnrancc,200-204, 222, 227, 228. 230, 244,253,258.488,572 Rcprilcs,139, lll8,247,250,258, 260, 263, 266,301, 306.332,393.4 r 1, 469,553 marinc,l-13 namcdby Adam, | 77 went int o t hc Ar k , 25 0 , 2 5 ( r Ilcsurrectedl>otJy,329, 445446, 478, 4')l, a6o Spiritual body 587. 51..a Rcsurrection, ll8, 189,201t,212,402, 421, 444- 445, 481, 336. 576. Sccako lcsus Chrisr:Rcsurrccrion of genc r al,128.212,41 6 ,4 2 2 Rcvclarion,book ol SreApocalypsc, bookof Divine, 20,22,47,6l ,72,86,9 | , Revclation, 95, 98--100,tt4, t26, 165,284-286, 290,7 tt), 393,4 t7, 4 t9, 429,446.452, 483, 521, 538, 5 9 2 , 5 9 9 , ( , 0 1 , 6 0 4 . 60r)608, 6 1L 614,62 t -622, 624,637 Rcvolution, 297, 321, 170. .!ir a6o l;rcnch Revolution Agc,315, 321,323, 546 Revolutnrnary RcvolutionarySocicry,32 I Reynolds,John Mark. .19 Richards, E. G.. 2.i6 NicholasV. 236 I{iasanovsky, Riddk oflr I/niucnc lHacckcl),293 Riflin. Jcrcnry,646, 64') Rtu oJ ttu Evohtion Fraud lRc*den),646. 649 opposcdto cvolu' RomanCatholicscicnrists t ion, 349 RnmanCarholicisnr, 5l, 6\)-70, )16, )55, 283.287- 288,291 . . 3 1 (3, ,1 9 ,3 2 5 ,3 4 ( , , . 151,156. 362- 3 ( t 3 . 3 6 8 , 3 7 0 1 7 l . 377, 383, 447. 5 t 4 , 5 t 6 , 5 1 9 , 5 4 t , 575-576 cffccrofcvolutionismon, 508,515,581 positionon cvolutionol 349 vicw of human naurc of, 429, 434, 438, 449, 481, 600{ , 0 1 viewofgraccof, .351, 422,449,600 viewoforiginalmln of, 34,,422,447,516 Rom enia,ic onsof , 67, 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 . 1 8 3 , l 9 - 1 , 220. 224,590

702

INorx Scicnccand rcligion,combinationof, J56357, 369, 549, 559, 564-566, 5705 7 t,5 8 8 ,5 9 6 ,6 0 5 Scicnce ficrion,464.500, 505 (journal),304,427,467, 531 Sriezra Srnzra (iournal).619 Stiurtft Crcationitn (Henry Mo.ris), -ll.12,302, 304-306,310, 3t3, 459460, 465, 49-1,538, 618, (,)8, 643,647 Scicnrifi c crerrionists, S a b b a t hl,4 l , 5 9 4 JO-31,38,4243, 48, Sagzn,Carl, 67, 463, 546 256. 300, 304, 3r3, 329, 458, 465, 467, Sr.Anrhony ofSiya Monasrery Ru{sia,66 469. 539. 585. 588, (' I t\, 620, 626, 634, Sr.Hclcns,Mounr,461, 645 638,640-(142,644445 St. HcrmanBrotherhood, 67-68, 2 13.435, Scicntificmethod,634 474,594,644 ScicnttJirMonthly 493 worldvicq 316,.120 St. Herman Calendar,474 Scicntific ScoficldRcfcrcnccBiblc, (r03 Sr. Herman ofAlaska Monasrery,49,502 Scopcs'frial, 465-466.605, 617 Sr. John rhe Forcrunncr,Far Monastcryof, Scopcs, Grecce,l3l John-1,466 Sr. NicholasAnapavsasMonastery,Mcreora, Scotr.Eugcnic,6l9 Seamonstcrs,crcationof, 128 Grcecc,179,456, 484 Sca-tloorscdimcnts,645 St. PaisiusAbbcy,637, 648 Scarchlir Ete (Brown) , 600 St. Percrsburg, Russia,588 St.Vladimir'sOrthodoxScminary, 352,372, SecondLaw of Thermodynamics,504-505 Sce d ,1 3 3 .1 4 2 ,1 5 8 ,5 3 6 ,6 t2 ,6 2 5 5 0 9 ,5 4 1 detcrmincs and dctcrmincdby kind, I l5 St. Vladinir\ TheohgicalQuartctly 35),357 :rndintcgriryofeach,I 36. l -38 distinctncss Saints,4117,491,594 "of thc woman,"202-203 Claudedc, 356,551 Saint-Simon, Sclf-will.205 Sakcllarios, Lco.94 plcasurc,209 Salvation, 216,260,272,348,351,360, 365. SensLral Scptuaginrrcxr of rhc Old Testament,65, 373, 4t9, 431, 483,489490, 549, 558, t0 7 , t4 t, 2 t4 , 2 1 7 ,2 7 3 ,4 7 4 Christ: salvation 575, 577. SccalsoJesus agc of rhc world accordingto, 235, 242, by 296,474 Salviusof Albi (Gaul),Sr.,487-488 Scraphimof SarovSr., 160,253, 150, 435, SanDiego,32, 46, 294,457.465,538,618 436,437, 439,442, 449.526,537,542, SanFrancisco,2S 609 Satunr,462 Schclling,Fricdrich.287, 562, 565 ScraphimRosc.Fr., 2, 14,213,235, 236, Orto, 17,469 279, 287 -2a8,296, ) t t, 339, 352. 356, Schindewolf, Schismof Romc,3.1,3l5, .117 369, 437, 453, 4574t9 , 502, 503,507 , Scholasricism, 3 15, 3 17,31r, 439,447, 516, 545-547, 549-551, 554-558, 570, 5 t9, 599 572-573, 575, 581-584, 588, 59r, Scicncc.Seaalro Knowlcdgc:scicnrific 597, 604405 , 6t 5, 636, 645 crnnot answcrqucstionof bcginnings, Scrgirrsof Radonczh,St., t75 607,6n,624 Sermonti,Giuscppc,349 cannot conaradictrcvcalcdrruth, 624 Scrpcnt, 173, 175, 19l-192, 196, 200, distinction bctwccn factsand philosophy 2t 4-2t 5,403,4 | 2,487488,49 t,545 of,6t2,6t5 curse on, 202-204 , 232 must bc 6ised up by fairh and rcvelirion, Serh (son ofAdam) , 22 | , 232-234, 239, 242, 606,612 245,391 R o m c ,6 4 , 1 9 7 , 2 6 2 , 3 3 1 Ross,Hugh,410, 603 Rossi,Fr Andrcw, 40 Rubidirrm-strontiumdxing, 626, 630 Rnssia,236. 287, 352, 490, 513, 519, 533, 547,588,642,644 RussianRcvolution,490 Ru*Q Pahnnih.66

703

Iruorx

INorx Barry63t Scttcrficld, 326, a89,473,608 Scwell,Curt,Jr.,626,635,640 ShctchconctmingMan (St. Ncctarios),451 Scxual modeof gcncration, 128,I5t 154, SloucLi ng towardsGon olrub (Bork), 323, 43 1 t87,223,481 Smith, Wolfgang,40, 349, 557, 580-581 ShanrringrhcMltht of Daruinisn (Milon), Snakcs/snakccharmcrs, 203, 489. Sce ako 13 4 3 , 0 3 ,301, t , 47 t , 6 4 9 serPcnr - 310- 31 Shen (sonof Noah),243, 247, 256, 269- Sobriery,47, 153,483, 486 270 ,2 7 t,2 72- 275, 279 Socialism, 24,356,368 S hina r,2 7 5 Sodom , 255, 274 Shoaof rhcFithcrnanlMorrisL. Vcsr),508 Solarsysrcm Siberia,494 agco[ 618 Sicily,132 otigin of, 462464,633 424,545 Simpliciry, Solomon,King,424 S in, 13 6 , t7 4 176, 190. 194, 1 9 9 -2 0 0 , SolvychcgodskMuseum of History and Art, 204--205,2tO, 230, 248, 270, 275, t44 347-348,429,475,479, 489,49r, 572, Son,God rho,107,| 45, | 47, 37 l, 17 | -572, Christ, L)rd; \Vord ot 515,585,597 583. Srr a/roJcsus SinofAdan,7lr {St.Symeon Cod rhcNcwTheo"SonsofGod," 221, 2.14,243-244,4r9-5OO log i a n ),7 8, 636 S inai, Mo u n t,93 Soul, 139, I5l, t60-162, t70, 182,207, 427 Sinanthtoput, 286, 330, 135-)36, 435439, 44t. Sisocv, DeaconDaniel,5{18 443, 448, 475, 48 t, 536, 609-6 10 S ixD ays, 7 3 ,8 6, 91, 96- 98, crcerionof, 159-1 60, 43t, 443 100,1 0 2 -1 0 3 , | 14,t20,t42-t43, t45,157,t63,t82, immortaliryof, 432, 438, 451 t9 t, 296,333,375-376,393,408,4 l l, not a partofGod, l6l 4 t7, 441, 46t462 , 497, 506,522,526, Sot't afcr Dcath, Irlr (Fr. Seraphim Rosc), 248, 477, 488 54| , 564,586,588, 603,607,62242.5, 632 Sovicts,270, 339, )52, 505, 519, 548, 598, cannotb. cquarcdwith "pcriods."7l 6154t6 dcfinerhcnartrre of rime,6l4 Spacetravcl, 16, 464 Fifrh Da1 99, 123, 128, 129,t3O, 13ISpccics, 96, 137, 305, 307, 309, 332, 341. r32,397,4r I 385-386, 469470, 535, 553, 612 FirstDay,106,| 08, I 10,I l2-l 14,I 18changingdefinition of in modcrn scicncc, l | 9, r 28,258,326 r34,308 vasr nr.rmberof in thc original crcation, Fourrh Day,| l0, t23, 124,125,389,462 lcngthof, 97, lOO,162,326,329,375, r30,133 Herberr,293, 562 Spcnccr, 395-397 , 40t, 53t, 537,607,6t3 nor accordingto lawsof prcscntcorrupt Spcrncr,L-cc,38, 48. 309,470,639 world,402,624 Spni bowl, 434437, 439 asrhc highcrparrofrhc soul,160 not an allcgory394 dcfincd,438 SccondDay,I 15 sequence of instantancous notitselfan uncreatcdpart ofDiviniry, 434 crcativcacts dnring,| 02, 327, 329, 334,396-397, Spirit ofthc agc(spirit ofthc timcs,zrirgzo), 292, t08. tl5, 5t9-520, 557-559, 399 ,4 0 1 Day,l4l-142 Sevenrh 575,582,584 Six rhDa y,I I5 , 133,139, 157 ,1 8 5 ,4 1 1 , Spiritism,383 420,477 Spiritualbody,481, 491,592. Sceako RcsurT hirdDa p l 0 l, l l l, I 19, 121 ,1 2 4 ,1 6 6 , rcctedbody. 22 Spyridon(Efimov),Archimandrirc, 397 ,4 7 7 unobscrvablc byscicncc,98-99, 109,I64, SrandingConfcrenccof CanonicalOrthodox

704

Bishopsin Amcrica(SCOBA),372 Ead,32l Sranhopc, Stars,108, I 16,458, 461, 620,647 creationof, 124, l4l, 462 Stavronikita Mooastcry,Mount Athos, 74, 76, 246, 280, 400 Stcfanatos, Joannc,253 Storcr,TracyI., 300, 384, 426 Struve,Nikita,373 Study conccming thc lmmortality of thc Sorl (St.Nectarios),451 Subjcctivism,3 t 9-320 Suchevirsa Monasrcry.Moldavia.Romanie, t24, t19,183, t93 S u f f c r i n g1, 4 8 ,1 8 4 , 5 1 3 Sunna Thcologita(Aguinas),447, t l6 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 , 462, 464,620,623 bcforcthe fall, 44 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 crarcd aftcr rhc plants,98, 389, 462 crcationof, I l0-l I l, 123,124,125,463 Supcr-humanity(conccprof Tcilhard ac Chardin),-363 Superman,concept ot,216, 330, 344, 369,

555-556,563,573 (Fr SerephimRose),-12-33, SurvivalCourse 4t,3t5, J39, 356,369, 546,549, 570 Swift, Dcnnis l-., 644 Symbolof thc Faith,3Z8 Symbolical inrcrprcrarionof Scripturc. Sra Intcrprcrarionof Scriprurc:symbolical SymcontheNcw-fhcologian. St.,78,81,98, 156,35 t, 376, 4 t 5, 420,411,444,446, 478, 486-487, 5t6, 536, 59t-593, 595-596,607.617 TablcofNations,273 'fabor,Mount, 406, 517 -liylor, lan T., 316. 352. 642, 646 Taylor,Parrl,603, 644 Technology,206 Ttilhard dc Chardin,Picttc,28, 33, 216, 292, 342, 354-376, 425, 463, 505, 508509, 5r5, 5 19, 52r, 534, 536, 549-559, 5 7 2 - 5 7 3 , 5 7 6 , 5 8 1- 5 8 2 , 5 8 4 . 5 9 5 , 597,606,6t0 "Orrhodox" followcrsot, 372-375, 58| and Kcn Vilber, 559, 562-563,565-566, t69, 582

rs prophct of Antichrisr, 339, 354, 357 359, 368-369,549-550 ,57 t , 579,596 blasphcmyof, 556 chiliasmof, 365--16(r involved in thc "discovcrf' of Piltdown Man, 355, 426, 47 1 on Marxism, .166,37J pancnthcism of, 552, 570-57t, 574 praiscdby ThcodosiusDobzhansky,354,

3t8

spirirualexpcriences of, 510-551,57v580 uniraryvicwof, 359,367 'fcilhardism, 508,510,552,556-557,576, 578,581,595 rnd charismrric phenomcna, 582 as rhc "Christianiry" of thc futurc, 508, 549 (rrr ala Rcligionofrhc future) Iiihardin and thc Nca kligion \Smith), 557 Tcmptation, 288, 433, 490 in I'aradisc.171, 174,57a \sccako Adanl tcmptationofi Evc:tcmptation of) Tenncsscc, 294,617 Tirrullian,499 Tcstinonlofttu Rock(Millcr), 603 Tcxas,71, 294 Tixtual criricism,modern,496 That Thdr lVot& May Bt U*d against Ihcn (Hcnry Morris) , (113-644, 647 Thaxton, CharlcsB., 505 Thcodorcr,Blcsscd,BishopofCyrus, 158 Thcodosius ofChcrnigov,St.,352 Theology, 408, 422425, 479, 503, 5Or, n 2 t 1 3 ,t 1 8 ,tl 5 , tl 9 ,5 6 7 ,5 7 4 ,5 7 9 , 585-586,598-602.60t and scicncc, 593,607 608,612 Thcology Digat,346 'fhcophanthcReclusc, St.,Bishop,536,596 Thcophanes the Crctan,74, 76-77, 90, 179, 246, 2U0,400, 456, 484 Theophancs rhc Grcck, 146,237, 239. 241, 257, 380 Thcophanes,Monk ofMount Athos, 597 ThcophilusofAntioch, Bishop,242 Thcophylactusof Bulgaria,Blesscd,529 'fhcosophy,567 ThzyCancfon Babd (Cranfill) , (,46, 4,49 Third Age of rhc Holy Spirir (concepr of 371, 374, i82 Jorchimor.l:iorc),

705

INorx Though(s), 154,485 "doublc,"485 D i v i nc, 170,4 92 evil, | 70 Tigris tuvcr, 168, 275, 4r449t Tine (magazinc), 465 'lotalitarianism, 323.431, 595 Tou,crand tbcAbs lKahler),555 Towcrof Babel,273, 275, 277-278,279, 6t 5 T rad i t ion,315,f 1 7,31 9 6l I Trans6gurarion, ofChrist,406-407 of rhe world,265,637 Transfbrmism,553 forms.36, 303, Transitional(inrcrmcdiate) 305'.306.469. 56t. 569, 608, 642 of, 138,330, Transmigrarion ofsouls.hercsy 4 76, 6t3 IianspersonalAbsolurc,conccprof, 559, 575,586 Psychology, Transpcrsonal 557, 563 Trceof Lifc, t(:8, l7l, 214,150 'lice of rhc knowledgcof good and cvil, 85, 1 66, r68 1 69 , l7r-1 75 , 189- 190, 192, 193, t96, 200, 208, 2t4, 267, 405407, 429, 480-481, 5 t7 Trcc-ringdating. 5aaf)cndrochronology Trces,155,189,462 creatcdwith (hc appciranceof agc, 142,

633434 crcationof, 121-122, 133,397 in Paradisc, 166-167,328,421,445, 633 -kcmpcl.rs,Panagioris,325, 340, 342, 372 Tiibrathiliun,303 TriniryCollege.Dublin,631 Troostcr,Stcphanus,348 TroyanMonastcry,Bulgaria,482 Ttuc Sci.n.. Ag/..' witb thc Biblt (llowden), 43,647,649 -Iylcr, Devid 646 J., 'fyrannosaurus,643 UFOs. SreExtratcrrcstrials Uncrcarcd Lighr,40(>407,517 Undmtandingthc Tino (Noebel),(146,648 Unfornd and UnflLd (Ficlds),603 Uniformitarianism, 36,56, 6142, 163,298, 304,3tO,3t 2, 414, 474,t8t, 588,608, 632433,635 Un i t a rianism,5 58 ,59 5

Unitcd Nations,548 Scicntificand United NationsEducational, Cultural Organization(UNESCO), l6 Uniry of rcligions, 344, 558, 595 Univcrsalism,558, 564, 566, 595 Universc,origin of,638. SrealraCosmogony Universiry of California,l7 Univcrsiryof California,Bcrkclcy,I 9, 30, 37, 51, 468. 53 r. 6r 9, 629, 646 University of Californir,Davis,152 of California.SantaCruz.547 Univcrsiry Univcrsiryof Chicago, I 5 Univcrsiryof Connccticut,427 Universiryof Edinburgh, 53 I ofMaryland,3l I Univcrsiry Universiryof Southampton,England,29 Upfron Ldcn ('&il6crl , 573 UpjohnCornpany,619 Uraniumdecaydating,.109-110,313-314, 626,63t432 Usshcr.Archbishop.296 Utopianism,32J Vajrayana,578 Van Bebbcr,Mark, 603 Van Till. Howard.51,79, (46 Vaniry, as dccay and dcith, 157, 207-209, 4t3,422,536 Variation,26, 38, 55, 62,96, 295-296.299, 385,470,608, 639 Vaticanll (Council),346 Vedanta,564-565 Vcgctarians all crcarurcswcre, bcforcrhc frll, 155 m ank ind was , bc f o r e t h e F l o o d , 2 5 0 , 265-266 Veith,GencEdward,107 Vcnus,plancr,I | 8, 462 ''Vesrigial organs,302 VirginiaPolytechnic Instituteand StatcUnivcrsity,493 Yirginiry, 152,223 ashighcr rhan marriagc,| 52 in Paradisc, 152,329 Vir r uc , 136- f- 17,l9O . 1 9 4 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 7 , 4 2 9 , 432433.488 Vision,Divine (thtoria),43, 189,14.1,413, 4 | 54 | 8. 429,446, 449,452,456.586, 601,637 Voiccs for Euoluion,5l

706

IN D EX Yolcanocs,255, 276, 314, 494 Volraire,FrancoisMaric Aror.rcrdc, 519 VoronctsMonasrcry Romania,224 Vaddington,C. H., 53! Vallace, Alfred Russcll,310 \Vatcn Abouc:Earthi Prc-Flood VaporCanoyy (Dillow),493,646 "Vcdge" strategy,10, 583-585 Vclls, Jonathan,43, 5 l, 55. 79, 398, 646 VcsrernEurope,287, 315-316,447,581 Vestcrn influence, Vestenr captiviry 372, 447, 452, 52.2,530, 533, 602 Vcsrcrn philosophy,Vcsrern rhoughr,19, 2 9 3 ,3 t 6 , 3 8 8 , 4 5 2 ,5 5 8 \fhalcs crcationof, 133 hypotheticalevolution of, 50(r Vlircomb, JohnC., 30,643, (,45 Vhire, A. J., 471 Vhirclaw, Robcrt L., 493 Vieland, Carl,639,646 \7ilbcr, Kcn, 557-567, 569, 573, 582, 585, 588 vi of cod, t68, t87 Villiam of Auxcrre,449 Vinc, nor drr.rnkbcforc rhe Flood, 269 Vinning, CardinalThomasJ., 349 Y,lon;.zn,4l2.Su aLo Eve crcationof, 180,395, 480,497, 586 cmnirybcrwcenscrpcnrand, l9l, 202 givingbirth by,204-205,21 1, 329 in srrhmnsion t<,hcr husband,204-206

n a m i n 8o f, 1 8 5 .1 8 7 ,2 1 2 ofthc samcnatureasman, 176, 182, 185, 480 Voodmorrppe, John, 627, 641 V
707

Scruprun.e INoex EXODUS l :l -5 . . . 4:12.... l2:2 . . 20:l l . . . 3t:t7 . . . 3l :18 . . .

ScnrprunnINoex CENESIS .. .. 106, 603 l:l . . . . 107 l : l- 2 . lr2 . . 109, 603 . . . . 110 l: 3. t . . 4.........111 l: 4- 5 . . . .. . . lll l: G8 . .. . . . , . ll5 l:7 . . . . . . . . . 492 l: 9- 1 0 ....... 119 l: 1f ........334 l: t l- 1 3 .. . . . . l2l 116 l: 14 ........ l: 14-..f9 .... . . t 2) l: 20 .. . . 116 t t 20 -2 3 ..... . 128 t : 22 ........1 53 r : 24........334 l: 24-2 5 ..... . 139 t 126........432 t : 26 -2 7 ..... . t 45 l: 2G3 0 ...., . 157 l: 28........1 53 l: 29-3 0 ....l55, 4ll l: 30........t17 1: 31 . . . . . . . . t 57 2: t -3 ........ 141 ... . , 624 2: 2, 2: 44........t57 tt7 2: 54........ t5 8, 335, 437 2: 7.... 2: 7-8 .....2 17, 221 2: 8.........164 29. .....1 6 6, 421 2: t 0 -1 4 ..... . 168 2: t 5 .......1 69 2: t 6 -t7 ...... t 70 2: 17........207 2: f 8 --2 0 ,... . . 176 2: 19........412 ... . . 429 2: 20

2 :2 t-2 2 ......1 8 0 2 t2 3 -2 4 ......1 8 5 2 :2 5 ........1 8 7 3 ..........4 2 9 3 :l .........1 9 1 3 :1 -6 ........1 9 2 3 :5 .........5 7 3 ....1 9 6 1 :7 .... 3 :8 ........1 9 8 .....1 9 9 3 :9 .. 3 :1 0 -1 3 ......1 9 9 3 :1 4 -1 5 .. ..1 9 1 ,2 0 2 3 :1 5 ......2 3 0 ,4 8 8 3 :1 6 .,....2 0 4 ,3 2 9 3 :1 7 ........3 2 9 3 :l ' 1 -1 9 .....2 0 5 3 1 1 8 ........2 3 0 3 :2 0 ........2 t2 3 :2 1 ........2 1 2 3 :2 2 -2 3 ......2 1 4 3 :2 4 ....8 5 ,2 t4 ,2 1 7 4 :t......1 5 1 ,2 2 3 4 :2 -5 . . . . . .2 2 3 4 1 4 --5. . . . . . . .2 2 6 .2 2 8 4 :6 -7 ....., .....2 2 8 4 :8 . 4 .r-1 6 .......2 2 9 4 :t7 -2 2 ....2 3 2 -2 3 3 4 :2 3 -2 4 ......2 3 4 4 :2 5 -2 6 ......2 3 3 5 :t-.2 1.......2 3 4 5 :2 2 -2 4 ......2 4 2 5 :2 5 4 :t......2 4 3 6 :2 4 .....2 4 3 ,4 9 9 6 :5 .... ....2 4 5 6 :G 8 . . . . . . . .2 4 7 6 :9 -l l ,......2 4 7 6 :1 2 -1 4 ,.....2 4 8 6 :1 5 -1 7 ......2 4 8 6 :1 8 -1 9 ......2 4 9

708

6120-23 . . . 7 :t- 3. .. .. 7 :4 - 9..... 7 :1 0..... 7 :l l -t2 . . . 7 :l l -17 . . . 7:t7-24 . . . 8:l-3 , 8 :3 . 8 :4 -5. . . 8:6-7 . . . 8 :8 -14.... 8 :1 5-19 . . 8 :2 0..... 8:10-22 . . . q .t_ t

9 :3 -7..... 9 :8 -17.... 9 :l l ..... 9 rl 8 -19 . . 9:2V21 . . 9 :2 1

...250 ...250 . . .251 ...256 ,.. l t8 ,..256 ...258 ...260 ...261 ...261 ...261 ...261 ...263 ...250 ...264 ...270 ...266 .266,4t2 ...266 ...267 ...255 . ...269 . ,..269 ...270 ...269 . ...272 . ...272 ...273 ...271 . . . . 274 . . . 274 . ...274 ...275 . ..275

9:26-27 . . 9:28-29 . . l 0 :l-4. l 0 :5 ..... l0:6-20 . l 0 r2 l ..... t0:22-32.. l l rl - 2. tr:34 . . . l l :5 .... I l :6 l l :7 .. .. l l :8 .. I l r9 l l :1 0-26... 47:9 . . . . .

...277 ...277 ...279 ...779 ...279 .,.499

NUMBERS l 2:G8. . . JOSHUA t1:ti . . . . JOB 33:4.... 38:4-14 . . . 387.. PSALMS 13:l .... 32:6.... 36:l l . . . . Itl :6 90:13.. . . 9l :3.... 94:5.... 103:10. . .

. . 256 203,478

)1 1 0

..9 2 . . 9l .143 ..9 1 ' . 9l , ,9 3 . . 9l . 2 72 . I l0 . 14l . l lt

. 1 09 . 487

. tr4 .4t6 .,4 4 . t2l . 1 09

ISAIAH . .... t47 9:6... 452 .... ....t20 ....424 559....

vlsDoM l :13 . . . . ....414 .207,4 43 2:24.... ....192 MATTHE\v . .35t,487 5:5.. l 2:8.... ....594 l 3:24-3O...,..136 | 5:28.. . . ....272 22t30.... ....128 24t24.... ,...549 24:29. . . . ....128

25: 41. . M ARK 10: 6. . . LUKE 3:248 . . 3: 38 . . I l: 50- 51. t r.\7 17: 27 . . . 2l: l8 . 23:43 . .

150

15: 44.. . . . . . . 445 2 CORINTHIANS l2: 2. . . l2t3-5 . .

165

r65

GAIITIANS 4t24

. . . . . 228 EPHESI ANS . . . . . 432 3r 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 . . . . . 354 CO LO SSTANS . . t 69, 477 l: 16. . . . . . 107,

375 107 llt

I THESSALONIANS ..... 107 5: 23. . . . . . . . 436 . . 106-107 . . t42,624 HEBRE\(S 5: t 7. . . G 29. . . . . . . 169 ll: 3 120 l0: 18. . . . . . . 115 ll: 4 12:31 . . . . . . . 574 ll: 5. . . . 242 1A .t . . . . 487 l4: 30, . . . . . . 574 JAM ES 16: ll- . . 2. t 9 . . . . . . . 341 574

JOHN lil l i a..

ACTS 27:22-24 .

249

ROMANS t : 25 . . . . . . . . 574 2t t 4- t 5 . . . . . . 432 5: 12. . . . . . . . 208 8: 8. . . . . 244 8: t 9- 22. . . . 207, 536 8120. . . 151, 414 8: 28. . . . . . . . 490

I PETER 3: 15. . . . . . . . 598 3: 18- 20. . . . . . 260 2 PETER 2: 5. . . . . . . . . 3: 6. .. 3: 8. I JO HN 3: 8. . . . . . . . 3: 12. . . . . . .

I CORINTHIANS 2: 4. . . . . . . . . . 91 APO C. ALYPSE 2: t 6 . . . . . . 424, 437 l: 8. . . . . . . . . 4: 7 . . . . . . . 434 ll: l- 19. . . . . 4: 13 . . . . . . . 585 l27. . . . . . . . 7t 7- 8. . . . . . . 152 12: 7- 8. . . . . . . 13:12. . . . . . . . 486 20: 2. . . . . . . . t 5: 21, . . , , . . . 409 2l: l . . . . . . . . t 5: 2t - 22 . . . 208, 481

709

256 256 607 204

r 06 242 t92 I It 490 351