GENESIS,CREATION

& and EARLYMAN

'TheOrthodox(hristian ?ision

f* FR.SERAPHIMROSE

ROSE
HIEROMONKS[.:RAPHIM
| 934,1982 SAINTHERMANOF ALASKABROTHERHOOD
2000
 Copyright 2000 by the
Contents
Sr. Herman ofAlaska Brotherhood

First Printing
Editor\ Preface:
Tse SronyBEHTND
THEBooK
Addressall correspondtnceto: b1 HieromonhDamascene l5
St. Herman ofAlaska Brotherhood l. The Intellectual Milieu of Fr.Seraphim's
P O. Box 70
FormativeYears l5
Platina,California96076
2. Fromthe EvolutionaryWorldviewro the
OrthodoxlVorldview l8
Frontcouer:The creationofthe sun, moon and stars("lightsin the firma- 3. The Rootsof Evolutionrsm 2l
menr ofrhe heavcns")on the Fourrh Day of Creation. lYallpaintingfom tbe 4. The Mind of the Holy Fathers 22
Far Monasteryof St.John thc Forerunner,Greecc. 5. Evolurionand Chiliasn' 24
6. "Tiaditionalists"in Favorof Evolution 7\
Bachcouu: Fr SeraphimRoseright after being ordainedto the priesthood. 27
7. The ScientificSideof the Question
Sr. HermanMonasterychurch,Sundayof the Myrrhbearing Vome n, April
8. The "SurvivalCourse"and the Courses on Genesis 4)
1t124,1977. 'fhe
9. Planofthe Book 34
10.Developme nts in the 1980s 35
I l. Developments in the 1990s:PhillipE. Johnson )/
12.Changes in the OrthodoxVorld 40
13.BeyondDarwinism 4l
14.The Present Book 4l
I 5. This Book'sPrimaryContributionto the Vorld 42
16.The Natureof Man 46
Introduction:Fn. Sr.nqlHn'{Rossero 2lsr-Cexruny Scrrxcr
by Phillip E. Johnson 49
Library ofCongrcssCatalogingin PublicationDara l . The Mechanismof Evolution:Murationand Selection 54
Rose,Fr. Seraphim(1934-1982). 2. The CommonAncestryThesis t8
Cenesis,creationandearlyman:theOrthodoxChris-
3. Evolution(in rheScienrificSense)
Is lnherently
tienvision.
Libraryof Congrcss CatalogucNumber:00-190128
Godless 60
ISBN t-887904-02-6 4. Conclusion:Can ScienceTell Us a Tiue Story
aboutOrigins? 6r
 Corurrrrs Con.rtNrs

(Genesis
ChapterSeven:Ltrr Oursloe Penenrsr. 4: l-6:5) 217
l. The Banishment ofAdam 2t7
PART I 222
2. Cain andAbel
AN ORTHODOX PATzuSTIC 234
3. The Genealogyfrom Adam throughSethto Noah
COMMENTARYON GENESIS 243
4. The Corruptionof Mankind
Editor'sNote 65 247
ChaprerEighr:THe FI-oon(Genesis
6:6-8:22)
'Wsv
Foreword: Sruov rHe Boor or GrNests? o/
ChapterNine:THt DtspensroNoF THEPEopLEs
ChapterOne: Hov ro Rrno GsNEsts 69 (Cenesis9:l-l I :32) 266
I . Approach 69 l. NoahandCod! NewCovenant 266
2. The Holy Fathers:Our Key to the Understanding of Noah
2. The Generations 273
of Genesis 72 3. The Towerof Babel 275
of Our Approachto Understanding
3. BasicPrinciples
Genesis 82 PART II
4. Literalvs.SymbolicalInrerpretations 84 THE PHILOSOPHY OF EVOLUTION
5. The Natureof cheText 88
ChapterOne:ScrrNceaNo rne Holv FnrHEns 283
ChapterTwo:Tss Stx Davsor CnrarroN(GENER^L
l. TrueTheologyand SecularKnowledge 283
OnsrnverroNs) 97
2. Science and ChristianPhilosophy 287
l. lntroduction 97 3. Disringuishing Fantasies
Materialistic from Scientific
2. GeneralRemarksaboutthe Six Days 100 Truth 288
3. Why Six Days? 102 4. Scienceasa LowerForm of Knowledge 290
ChaprerThree:THr Stx Devs(Dev rv Dnv) 106 5. An Alien Systemof'Ihought 291
6. 'fhe i.ackof PhilosophicalCultureamongOrthodox
1.The FirstDay(Cenesis l:1-5) 106 291
Christians
2. The SecondDay (Cenesisl:6-8) il5 292
7. The Philosophy of the Holy Fathers
3. The Third Day (GenesisI :9-13) ll9
4. The FourthDay (Genesis l:14-19) 123 ChapterTwo:A BnterCnrrlqul oF THEEvolurtoNanvMooel 293
5. The Fifth Day (Genesis
l:20-23) t28 l.lntroduction 293
6. The SixthDay (Genesisl:24-31) t39 2. HistoricalBackground 296
ChapterFour:Tsr CneartoNor MeN (Genesis
l:26-31;2:4-7) t45 3. "Proofs"ofEvolution 300
4. The Theoryof EvolutionIs Understandable
(Genesis
ChapterFive:P,q.RAotse 2:8-24) r64 Philosophically 315
191 5. The ConflictbetweenChristianTiuth and
ChaprerSix:Tue Fnll or MaN (Genesis
l: l-24) 1)4
EvolutionaryPhilosophy
 CoNreNrs CoNrnnrs

Chapter-fhree:"CHnrsrlaNEvolu,rtoNlst'1" 339 6. ScientificCreationists 465

339 7. VariousEvolutionaryIdeas 468
I . Introduction
347 8. The Limitsof BiologicalChange 469
2. Lecomtedu Notiy
345 9. "Human Evolution" 470
3. Fr.AnthonyKosturos
346 I 0. The Limitsof ScientificInquiry 473
4. Karl Rahner q /1
Trooster 348 I l. The BiblicalChronology
5. Stephanus
349 I 2. The Pre-existenceof Souls,"Reincarnation,"
6. The RomanCatholicView of OriginalMan
351 and Evolution 475
7. Theodosius Dobzhansky
354 13.The Natureof Paradise 477
8. Teilhard de Chardin
365 14.FreeWill 479
9. The Chiliasmof Teilhardde Chardin
370 15.The CreationofAdam and Eve 480
10.Teilhardism in the Light of Orthodoxy
of Teilhardde Chardin 372 16.The Mind of Adam 483
I I . "Orthodox"Followers
17.Paradise and Heaven 487
18.The Devil 488
PARTIII 19.ChrisisSpiritualBody 491
THE PATRISTICDOCTRINEOF CREATION 20. The Firmament 492
21. The "Location"of Paradise 494
Editor'sNote 379 22. Betweenthe Falland the Flood 495
Not Fact
I . Philosophy, 382 23. The Flood 495
2. A ClearDefinition 383 24. PatristicInterpretationvs. ModernTextualCriticism 496
3. Development, Not Evolution 385 25. The Agesofrhe Patriarchs 499
4. How Do the Holy FathersInterpretGenesis? lc) ) 26. DifferentInterpretations 499
5. "By Man CameDeath"(l Corinthians l5:21) 409
6. DivineVision
7. The Natureof Man 422
PART V
SELECTIONSFROM LETTERS
PART IV I . A Key in the Programof Anti-Christianiry 503
QUESTIONS AND ANSVT,RS 2. TheisticEvolution 504
3. A RivalThought-pattern to Orthodoxy 507
l. The Ageof the Earth 457
4. A Deep-seated PrimordialForce 510
2. Carbonl4 Dating 459
460 5. The ArgumentagainstEvolutionIs Not Scientificbut
3. GeologicalSrrata Theological 511
4. A Matterof Models 461
6. The RealIntellectualProblems ofToday 5tz
5. The Origin of the HeavenlyBodies(Patristic 7. Such"Theology" We Do Not Need ) t4
Cosmogony) 462
8. A Productofthe "Spiritofthe Times" 5t4
 Cor'{rcNrs CoNreNls

9. LookingForwardwith an Open Mind 5t, AppendixOne:Nores oN SCIENCE, ,4.r.lo

EvoLurloNt,
10.QuibblingoverVords 5t5 PHu-osopnv
CHnrsrr,rN 591
I I . The Holy Fathersasthe Answerto Medieval I . The lncorruptionof rheFirst-Creared Vorld 591
Scholasticism ) to 2. Science and the Questionoflncorruption 593
12.ScientificFaith 5t7 3. Evolutionand "CosmicReligion" 594
13.At Lastthe RealBattleBegins 4. The "Mysticism"of Teilhardde Chardin 596
14.Lovefor the Holy Fathers 524 5. Evolutionasthe ExactOppositeof Christianiry 596
Ideas
I 5. The Powerof This Vorld and lts Fashionable 6. Vhy OrthodoxChristians ShouldNot Be Indifferent
16.UnknowinglyHarboring"ModernIdeas" to Evolution 598
17.GenuineScience 7. Paleontology and "lvory-TowerOrthodoxy" 599
18.ClearingUp Confusion 527 8. Man asQualitatively Different fromAnimals 600
19.The Genealogies of Christ 528 9. The RomanCatholicIdeaofthe StateofAdam
20. The LargerIdeaof Naturalism 529 (Accordingto Fr. Michael Pomazansky) 600
\rY7ho 530
21. Scientists QuestionEvolution 10.Readingthe FossilRecord 601
22. AvoidingOne-sidedness sl) I l. An "lnferiorityComplex"amongChristians 601
23. ThreeAxioms 533 12.Vhat Kind of Simple-minded Foolsfue We? 602
24. Notesfrom a Dialogueon Evolution t38 13.The Old Testament Chronology 602
25. Clergyin Greeceagainst"OrthodoxEvolutionism" 542 14.The MissingEvidence 603
26. PeopleAre Readyto Hear This )4)
AppendixTwo:Ou.rLlNesoF PRoposED
SruDIEs 604
I . Evolution 604
Editort Epilogue:EvolurroNlslrANDTHERrucloN or rHe 6r2
2. PatristicSection
Fvruae by HieromonkDamascene 545
I . The Passing of ScientificMaterialism 545 AND
AppendixThree:Fa.Ssnapstv'sLasr Talx oN CREATIoN
2. Evolutionism asthe Philosophy of Antichrist 548 EvolurroN 615
3. Teilhardde Chardinas "Prophet" 550 AppendixFour:THe Falru or RaololasrntcD.crlNc
4. Elements of Teilhardisrr, 552 by Curt Sewell 626
5. A New Evolutionary Synthesis 557
l. RadioactiveDating 626
6. The Minimum Requirements for Christiansto be
2. ExperimenralErrors 627
Acceptedwithin the New Synthesis 564
7. The "God" of the New Synthesis 565 3. DocumentedDiscrepancies oz/
4. Skull1470 628
8. The Philosophy of Antichrist
5. GrandCanyonDating 629
9. The Spirit behind the Philosophy 575
6. Causesof Errors 631
10.The Effectof Evolutionary Philosophy upon Christians 581
7. OriginalIsotopicMaterial 632
I I . The "Vedge"and Beyond 583
8. Conclusion 635
12.The StateofOrthodoxyToday 587

l0 ll
 CoxreNrs

AppendixFive:SuccEsrtoREc.ntNcs
by the Editor 636
I. PatristicSources 636
f l. Screnrific Sources 637
l. InitialReading 637
2. OrherImportantScientificCritiquesof Evolutionism 638
3. On "Human Evolution" 640
4. On Radiometric Dating 640
5. On theAgeofthe Earth 641
6. On the Dinosaurs 642
7. On the Flood 645
8. On BiologicalVariation 646
9. On the Historyof Darwinism 646
10.CreationScientisrs of the Holy Fathers
in Defense 646
I | . Aids in Apologetics 647
12. For the EducationofChildren 647
'Where 648
to Order TheseSources

Notes 65r
Bibliography oo/

Acknowledgments 682
GeneralIndex 683
ScriprureIndex 708
Sccncsfrom the lifc ofAdam and Evc.
Russianicon of thc cightccntbccnnry (dcuil).

t2
 EortoR'sPRrrecn,
The Story behind the Booh

f Hrs noox, compiledand publishedposthumously, represents one

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

Fr SeraphimRoscamidstoneof the oldesrsrandsof livingtrccson earth,

L TheIntellecnal Milieu of Fr. Seraphim's
atopMount YollaBolly in northernCalifornia,October,l98l . FormatiueYears

In the 1950s,when Fr.Seraphim(then!,ugene)Rosewasattend-

ing high schooland collegein California,the theoryof evolutionwas
ar the heightof its prestige.
lts ascendancyoverall competingviewsof
theoriginof life andthe universe culminatedin the greatDarwinCen-
tennialcelebration at the Universiryof Chicagoin 1959,commemo-
rating the publicationof CharlesDarwint Origin of Spcuesone
hundredyearsearlier.Scientists camefrom all overto sharein the tri-
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
in a triumphalmood.'fhe prestige ofsciencewasneverhigher.Polio
had beenconqueredby a vaccine;atomicpowerseemedto promise
abundant,cheapenergy;spacetravelloomedin the nearfuture.Be-
sidesthesetechnological achievements, sciencehad seemingly estab-
lishedthat a purposeless processof evolutionwasour true creatorand
hencehaddethronedthe God of the Bible.The religiousimplicarions
of this intellectualrevolutionwerefrankly emphasized by the most
prominentspeaker at the centennial,the Britishbiologist,philosopher
and world statesman SirJulianHuxley.
"JulianHuxleywasthe grandsonof ThomasHenry Huxley,who
wasknown as'Darwin'sbulldog'because he wasthe most important
earlychampionof Darwin'stheory.T. H. Huxleyhad alsoinventedthe
word agnostic ro describehis own religiousviews.Julian Huxley,a zo-
ologist,wasone of the scientificfoundersof the neo-Darwinian syn-
thesis,rhe modern versionof Darwint theory. He was also the
promorerof a naturalistic religioncalledevolutionary humanism,and
the foundingsecretary generalof UNESCO,rheUnitedNationsEdu-
cational,Scientificand CulturalOrganization. ln short,JulianHuxley
wasone of the mostinfluentialintellectuals of the mid-rwentiethcen-
tury, and 1959was the high-watermark of his influence.Here are
someexcerpts from Huxleyt remarhs at the centennial:
will perhaps
Futurehistorians takethisCentennial Veekasepito-
mizingan importantcriticalperiodin the historyof thisearrhof
ours-theperiodwhentheprocess ofevolution, in thepersonofin-
quiringman,bcganto be truly conscious of itsell.. . This is oneof
the first public occasions
on which it has been frankly facedthat all
aspectsof realiryarc subjcctto evolution, from atoms and srarsto
fish and flowers,from fish and flowersto human societiesand val-
ues-indeed,that all realiryis a singleprocess of evolurion.
ln 1859,Darwin opened the passage leading ro a newpsychoso-
cial lcvel, with a new pattcrn of ideologicalorganizarion-an
evolution-centered organizationof thoughtand belief.
ln rhe evolutionarypatternof rhoughtthereis no longcreither
ncedor room for the supernatural. The earthwas not crcatcd,it
l6
Enrror's Pperace
evolvcd.So did all the animalsand plantsthat inhabitit, including
our humansclves, mind and soulaswell asbrain and body.So did
rcligion.
Evolutionaryman can no longertakerefugefrom his lonclincss
in thc armsofa divinizedflther figurewhom he hashimsclfcreatcd,
nor escape from rhe responsibiliryof makingdccisions by shclrering
undcr the umbrellaof Divinc Authoriry nor absolvehimselffrom
the hard taskof mcetinghis presentproblemsand planninghis fu-
ture by relyingon rhe will of an omniscient,but unfortunatelyin-
scrutablc,Providence.
Finally,thc evolutionaryvisionis enablingus to discern,how-
evcrincompletely, 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 evo-
lurionary 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 ridi-
cule 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 unassail-
lurionofall life from a primevalsouPwasan undisputed
ablefact,assure(in JulianHuxley'swords)asthe factthat earthgoes
aroundthe sun.
'\Y'orlduiew the
2. From tlte Euolutionary to
Orthodox Worlduiew
Possessed ofa brilliantmind, Fr.Seraphimfrom a youngageex-
hibiteda burningdesirerc hnow,to understand realiryin the highest
sense.In high schoolhe zealously soughtknowledgein scienceand
mathematics: biology,zoology, algebra.Graduatingat the top of his
class,he was granteda scholarship to PomonaCollegein southern
California,thanksto theenthusiasticendorsement of his mathteacher.
At Pomonahe continuedhis studyofscience'whichhe now com-
binedwith a studyof philosophy. Underthe influenceof the human-
istsof his time,he joinedin thegrandenterprise ofthinkerslikeJulian
Huxley:to explainthe universe without God. ln a freshmanphiloso-
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 dcvcl-
oped 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
scientificnaturalismis beingincreasinglycha.llenged, but it must be
considered in the contextofthe 1950s,the decadeofthe ascendancy
of Humanismandthe triumphalpronouncements of the DarwinCen-
tenn ial.
"At one time I believedentirelyin evolution,"Fr. Seraphimwas
I had thoughrverymuch about
laterto recall."I believednot because
this question,but simplybecause 'everyonebelievesit,' becauseit is a
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 philosophy, which had beenfoundedin
rationalism."l wasan undergraduate," he laterrecalled, "lookingfor
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 pur-
suedhis 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 GuC-
non, a traditionalistwho 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 lit-
tle 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
modern age,"pseudo-religions" havesprung up; but in their confusion
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
explain rhe universepurely naturalistically, asan offspringof this mon-
strosiry.ln evolurionism,he wrote, "all realiry is placedexclusivelyin
'becoming'; involving the final denial of all in.rmutableprinciple, and
"'
consequenrly of all metaphytic.
lt is likely that GuCnoncausedFr. Seraphimto questionevolution-
ism evenbeforethe latter beganhis conversionro Orthodox Christian-
ity. "i beganto think more deeplyon this question [of evolutionism],"
Fr. Seraphimlater recalled."l beganto seethat very often what cellsit-
self'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 discov-
ered 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 liv-
ing, Persond revelationof God to man, and thus was of an infinitely
higher order not only than science,but eventhan rhe metaphysicalin-
sightshe had gained through Gudnon. He neverceasedto appreciate
the crucial step that Gu6non had given him on his path to Truth, but
now he sawthat the path of metaphysics, which placesthe intellection
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 historyof \Vestern
of the philosophical
civilization,in orderto fully undersrand rhe pastcauses,presentstate
and futuredevelopment of the Vest'sapostasy from the "Old 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 dis-
cussthe 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 de-
scribethe modernphilosophyof progreswhicharoseat the end ofthe
Enlightenment, displacingrhe srableworldviewthat had character-
izedmuch of Enlightenmentthoughr.Theserwo a priori philosophi-
cal 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,
secMichaelDen-
rcn, Ettolution:A Tbeoryin Critis, pp.7l-73.
zl
 GrNtsIs. Cnr.-euoNAND EARLYMAN Eorron's Pnrracs

gious.'fhousandsof Pagesof noteswerewritten' but the work was tinued to fill himself with the Scripturesand the writings of the Fa
nevercompleted,savefor ChapterSeven,on Nihilism'* By 1963' rhers,feedingon rhe true pasturesofthe soul. Over yearsofstudy, he
the future Fr. Herman,he washeavilyin-
alonswith his co-laborer, rcquired extensiveknowledgeof Patristicteaching,which had alread
uoluJdin beginningan OrthodoxChristianBrotherhoodin SanFran- been placedin the proper context for him through the courseshe had
cisco and opening the first city storefrontin America that sold attendedin San Francisco.ln addressinga particularissuein his writ-
Orthodoxmaterials.
exclusively ings, he would make use ofa wide rangeof Patristicsourcesboth an-
cient and modern, from both Eastern and \Vestern Christendom
many of them quite obscureand neverbeforerenderedin English.
4. I'he Mind of the HolT Fathers Fr. Seraphimi aim, however,was not to becomea scholarwhose
In the meantime,Fr. Seraphim's spiritualmentor,the sainrand specialrywas the Holy Fathers.Suchexperts,he wrote, are often'totd
miracle-worker ArchbishopJohn Maximovitch,had beguna sericsof srrangersto the true Patristictradition, and only make their living ar
theological courses, which Fr.Seraphimattendedseveral timesa week irs expense."As always,he had to go deeper,to get the whole picrure
for threeyears.AlthoughFr. Seraphimwasan Americanconvertand He had not only to graspthe Fathers'writings intellectually,but ro ac
all the courseswer..ondu.ted in Russian, he graduated at the headof wally acquire their mind, to learn ro think, feel and look at things as
the class.Among the many subjects covered,he wastaughtPatristics they did. He wanted their attitude to be his atrieude.Too often in con-
by BishopNektary (a discipleoF Optina Monastery,who later or- temporaryOrthodoxy the tendencyis to reinterpretthe Faith in order
dainedhim ro the priesthood)and Old Testament by Archimandrite to conform it to the mind of modern man. Fr. Seraphimknew he had
Spyridon(aclairvoyant elderandtheclosest manto Archbishop John)' to do just the opposite:to conform his consciousness to the mind ol
[-ier., in contrastro the rationalisticevolutionaryideas he had been the Fathers,to plug himself fully into the rwo-thousand-year connnu-
raughtwhile growingup, Fr. Seraphimlearnedthe revelation God of iry of Christian experience.
Hiiself regar,Cing the .r."tion of the universeand the natureof the He actually sufferedover this, praying fervently to God. He per-
first-crenteJ *orld, aspassed on throughthe Scriprures and the God- sonally addressedthe ancient Holy Fathersas fellow believersin the
bearingHoly Fathers throughoutthe centuries'Fr.Seraphim's instruc- Body of Christ and as vehiclesof Divine wisdom, so that he would be
tors-Archbishop John, Bishop Nektary and Fr' Spyridon-were given to see bow rhey apprehended realiry. He felt especially close to
themselves Holy Fathers of moderntimes,and thus Fr' Seraphimwas the fourth-century Father,St. Basil the Great, who among his many
able to receivethe Patristictransmission not only from books,but other major achievementswrote the definitive Patristiccommentary
from livingbearers lt wasthroughthe lips of liv-
of that transmission. on the Six Days of Creation.
ing repositoriesofsanctirythat the meaningof Genesis wasopenedto In introducing rhe Lives and writings of the Fathers to mod-
him. ern-day readers,Fr. Seraphimwrote of their inestimableworth:
In 1969FathersHermanand Seraphimmovedto the mountains
of northernCalifornia,wheretheybecamemonksandcontinuedtheir Thereis no problemof our own confusedtimeswhich cannotfind
Orthodoxmissionary work throughwriting, translatingand printing its solutionby a crrefuland reverenrreadingof thc Holy Fathers:
Fr.Seraphimcon- whethcrcomplcxphilosophical questionssuchas"evolution,"or the
Orthodoxmaterial.There,in theirforesthermitage,
straightfbrward moralquestions and "birth
of abortion,euthanasia,
control...." In all thcscqucstionsrhc Holy Farhers,
and our living
'Publishedposrhumously book: Eugcne(l-r'Scraphinr)
asa scpararc Rose'ly'i-
Reuohtionofthe ModernAge(1994)' Farhcrs who followthem,areour only surcguide.5
hilim: The Root
ofthe

22
 (lruesrs, CrserroN ,tNo EnnrYM,cN
5. Euolutionand Chiliasm
Vhile working on TheKingdomof Man and theKingdomof God,
Fr.Seraohimhad identifiedthe faithof modernmanasa secularform
of chiliasm:the beliefin the inevitabilityof progress and in the per-
fectibilityof thisfallenworld.Evolurionism, in its beliefin thegradual
development from the lowerto the higher,wascloselyboundup with
chiliasm.In Fr.Seraphim's words,it wasan "almostinevitablededuc-
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 DarwinCentennialhadcalledevo-
lution a "patternof thought,"Fr. Seraphimsaid that ft was"a riual
tbought-pattern to Orthodoxy, not just another idea'" And this
thought-pattern, he observed,followeda coursethat was"just the op-
positeof what Christianiryteaches":
Theevolutionary of"up fromthcbeasts"
philosophy sccms
certainly
wirh the Chrisrian
irreconcilable view of "flll from and
Paradisc,"
bedetermined
ourwholcviewofhistorywill certainly bywhichway
we believc!
It was the chiliastic/evolutionarythought-pattern that had pro-
duced such politico-religiousmovements as international socialism
(globalism)and ecumenism.All such movementssharethe samechili-
astic 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
Eorlon's [trsrece
6. "Tiaditionalisx" in Fauor ofEuolution
1b Fr. Seraphimit wasself-evidentthat evolutionism,with its rnnu-
merablecorollariesin modern thought and life, wasantitheticalto the
Orthodox worldview that he had embraced.He wrote:
I havealwaysregarded ev<.rlution,
in all its ramifications,asan rm-
porranrpart of thc "modcrn American"intellectual baggage which I
left bchindwhcn I bccameOrthodox,and it nevcroccurredro me
rhatanyawarcOrthodoxChristianwould regardit asunimportant,
especially now when many scientistshavcabandoned it (purelyon
scicntificgrounds),whenrhepseudo-religious presuppositionsof its
suppartcrsarc so evidcnt,and when it is so much bound up with
Masonry-ecumenism and the wholepseudo-religious outlook.
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 againstevolu-
rion. l'his article,as Fr. Seraphimlater wrote, "touchedsomethingvery
deep." lt raiseda highly volatilesubjectwhich until then most Ortho-
dox 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 surpris-
ing 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 wasgenu-
inely surprisedwhen his fellow 'traditionalist" Orthodox, who like
him were opposedto ecumenism,alsocameout in favor of evolution-
ism, and roundly censuredA. Y. becauseof his article! "Frankly," Fr.
Seraphimwrote, "we are astonishedthat peoplewho areso keenon ec-
clesiasrical matters,ecumenism,etc., should seemneverro havegiven
much thought to such an important thing asevolution;apparentlyit is
becauseit seemsto be outsidethe Church sphere."
 GeNrsts,CtteltoN eNn EaRLvM,cN
To one of rhese'\raditionalisr" Orthodox, Fr. Seraphimwrote:
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 evo-
lutionism. In the meantime,he made his own in-depth study, both of
the scientifictheory of evolution and of the teachingof the Holy Fa-
thers 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 re-
cenr 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 tradi-
tionalist Orthodox writer and medicaldoctor, Dr. AlexanderKalomi-
ros, as one who was pro-evolution.Not being able to read Kalomiros'
article in Greek, Fr. Seraphim was frustratedat having his name re-
peatedlythrown 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
Eorron'sPnnr,tce
promisedto senda detailedreply in English,wirh quotesfrom the
Holy Fathers. "Ve look forwardto thiswith openmind and someex-
pecration!" wroteFr.Seraphim. "Ve hopeto receive a confirmationof
our suspicionthat he is quitewronglyusedasvirtuallya proponentof
cvolution."
Severalmonths larer FathersHerman and Seraohimreceiveda
fbrty-pageepistlefrom Kalomiros."l must confess,'; wrote Fr. Sera-
phim, 'that it is shockingbeyondour expectations-giving the 'evol-
utionary'teachingquite unadornedand unqualified,completewith
the'evolvedbeastAdam'and'he who deniesevolutiondeniesthe Sa-
cred Scriptures.'[n a way, however,we are rather glad of this-be-
causenow 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 masterpieceof Parrisricrhought,and
we todaycanonly be gratefulthat his correspondence with Dr. Kalo-
miros inspiredhim ro write it. Up to today,it is rhe clearesr, most
completePatristicrelirtationof evolutioneverwritten.
7. TheScientifc Sideof the Quexion
By this time, rhe originalideaof comingout with a bookleton
evolutionism no longerseemed adequateto 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 correspondencewith Dr. Kalomiroshad underlined
for him the importanceof beingabreast with scientificdiscussrons
on
the subjectof evolurion.Dr Kalomiroshad pridedhimselfon stand-
27
 GrNesIs. Cnr",qrroNnNo Eanrv MaN
ing superior to these discussions, since they were "Western" and thus
"not Orthodox." As Fr. Seraphim pointed out, however,
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
questionin its full scope.One can'tsaywith assurance, florcxample,
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
must have a basic,layman'sawareness of the scientilicevidcnccsfor
and againstevolution. If one is reasonablyobjectiveand not out to
"prove onet point" at any cost, such questionsnced not arouscpas-
sionatedcbates.fu a bruic principle,ofcourse, we must assumethat
scientificrzl (asopposedto variousopinionsand prejudices)cannot
contradict revealedtuthif only wc understand both correctly.
During the first halfoftherwentieth century as we have seen, sct-
entists were loath to question the evolutionary model. They would
resreveryhypothesissavethat ens-f61 on it everythingelse,all their
of data, rested.Those few scientists-includingsome
classification
veryimporrantones-who daredto underminethis dogmawerecon-
sidered"heretics"and wereblacklisted.When Dr. Kalomiroswasgo-
ing to schoolin the 1950s,it was not only unfashionable but
oositivelyanathemanot to believein evolution;and hence his at-
'Ve haveprovidedsuchan arriclein AppcndixFour,pp.626-35.
28
Eolroa's Pnerace
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 sur-
fice. Reputablescientistsbeganraisingseriousdoubrsabout evolution,
,rnd therewerejusr too many ofthem to be silenced.New advancesin
the "hard sciences"of moleculargenetics,embryology,erc.,were mak-
ing it very difficult for scienriststo reconciletheir data with rhe neo-
Darwinian 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:
Through use and abuseof hidden postulares, of bold, often ill-
fbundcdextrapolations, a pscudoscience hasbeencreared.It is tak-
ing roor in thc veryhcartof biologyand is leadingastraymanybio-
chemistsand biologisrs, who sincerelybelievethat 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 popu-
lar 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 al-
ternariveis 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 ac-
ceptable.
Through his studiesand personalcontactsFr. Seraphim,although
he possessedno scientific degrees,became more abreastof the current
statusof evolutionarytheory than Dr. Kalomiros.Assuring Dr. Kalo-
miros that he was not "againstscience,"he wrote to hinr:
Youscemto be unawareof the greatmassof rrrntifc literaturein re'
cenryearswhich is highlycriticalof the evolutionary thcory which
ralksaboutrelegating it to poetryand metaphors insteadofscientific
theory(Prof.Consrance, professorofbotanyat the Univcrsiry ofCali-
fornia,Bcrkelcy),or cvcndenyits validiryaltogether.lfyou wish (but
I couldindeedcompilea lix of hundred:(if nor
it is quitepointless!),
thowand:)of repurablescientistswho now eitherdisbelievein evolu-
tion entirelyor statethat it is highlyqucstionablescientifictheory.
In his studies,Fr. Seraphimappreciatedthe work of the scientific
creationists,a group o[ ProtestantChristians who were also profes-
sionalscientists.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 em-
ohasizenot how much evolution contradictsthe Bible, but how much
it contradictsscientificevidence.Its earlysuccess and influencecaused
evolutionistsro take the offensive,caricaturingthe creationistsand ac-
' ln 1932a similarmovernenthad starredin England,callingirsclfrhe Evolu-
rion ProresrMovenrenr.Irs prime moverwasbiologisrDor-rglas
Dewar.Conrinuing
itswork to thisday,it is now known asthe CreationScience
Movemenr.
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 evolurionaryesrablishment to the crearionisr
ar-
gumcnrshasnor bcenscientific,but emorional.Intimidationis evi-
dcntlythegameplan.The A.C.L.U.filesor threarens to file lawsuirs
whcrevera rwo-model[creation/evolurion] approachis considered
in a schooldisrricr.A verirable
streamof anti-creationisttiradeshas
pouredforth from the libcralnewsmedia,aswellasrhejournalsand
booksof thc cducational/scicnrificesrablishment.
Evolutionisrs ouo-
liclygloarover the mcrcstsuggcstion of a misqrroration
or misrepre-
sentationwhich thcy can discovcrin thc copiouslydocumented
creationistliterature,while rheir own writingsare saturatcdwirh
out-of-context quotesand flagrantdisrortionsof the creationist ar-
8Une 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 scien-
tific creationists-in particular 'l-he GenesisFlood and Scientifc Crea-
tionism, both by Dr. Henry Morris-he was impressed by their
careful researchand sober,thoughrful presenration."Their presenta-
tion of the'Creation Model,"' he wrote, "is a promising approachto a
more objectiveview of the whole question."
Fr. Seraphimlookcd ro scientificcrearionisrsnot to resolveques-
rions of theology and philosophy.(For thesequesrions,of course,he
rurned to the Holy Fathers,as well as to rraditional Orthodox phi-
losopherssuch as lvan V Kireyevsky,Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov,
and Constantinel-eontiev.)Rather,he usedrhe work of the scientific
creationistsexclusivelyto deal wirh quesrioltsraisedby modern sci-
3l
 GeNrsIs,Cne,rrIoNrNo liaprv M,c.r'l
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, theseProtestantsci-
entistswere in many waysservingas activedefendersof PatristicOr-
thodoxy.
Fr. Seraphimt respectfor this courageousgroup of scientistsonly
increasedwhen he made contact with the lnstitute for Creation Re-
search,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, bc-
ginning with the introductory work Scientifc Creationism.*
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 re-
visedand augmentedwith his own writings, evensendingit to a pro-
fessorof 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. SeeAppen-
dix 1'hree,pp. 615-25.
32
Eorron's Pre.rx;r
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 re-
search,but also of his rich store of experienceas an Orthodox Chris-
rian. 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-
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
calledhis classes "a coursein Orthodox self-defense."
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 Patristicunderstand-
ing of crcation. In the lecture,he discussedevolution from all the dif-
f-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 out-
lines 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 se-
riesofclasseson 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 sub-
ject had not been in vain. His seriesof classes
was the product of a ma-
tured 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
.il
 Cta,trIopann EnnlvMrN
GsNtsts, Euron's Prrrncr

Creation. And how exaltedwas the teachingof the Fathersthat he Thinkingaboutmy Genesis coursethissummer,I wasrereadingpart
pouredforth, how much moreinspiringthan theattemptsof othersto of Dr. Kalomiros'letrers.How discouraging! One losesall inspirarion
conformthe Holy Fathers to modernintellectual fashions! ro gettanglcdup in rhissubject,sceinghow he handlesir... . Anyone
At the nextAcademycoursein the summerof 1982,Fr' Seraphim who is rcallyconvertedto Chrisrianirywill surelybeginro rethink his
continuedhis commentaryon Genesis, the fourth
this time discussing wholeinrellecrual outlook,woni hel Isn'rthe realproblemrhat Dr.
to the eleventhchapters. Within two weeksafterfinishingtheseclasses Kalomiros... andothersareinrellectuals who haven't fllly converted,
he unexpectedly fell ill, and within anotherweekhe reposedin the or havcbroughthcir intellecrualbaggage wirh rheminroOmhodoryi
Lord. His Patristiccommentaryon Genesis,therefore,was the last
achievement of his life. Fr. Seraphimhad frankly becomebored wirh rhe idea ofhaving ro
presencthe Parrisricteachingon crearionexclusivelyas it relatedto the
nrodern intellecrualbaggageof evolutionism. He had done rhis in his
9. ThePkn of the Book
letrerto Dr. Kalomirosback in 1974, but now, as he was preparinghis
In Fr.Seraphim!earlyplansfor the proposedbook,he thoughtit Patristiccommentary eight yearslater, he had distancedhimself from
bestto beginwirh a discussion of evolutionfirst,showingthat it has the controversy.He saw that the whole weight ofthe Parristicreaching
no coercivescientificevidence to supportit, and then to presentthe on the creationwas so powerful and compelling thar the unprovedas-
Patristicunderstanding of creation.At that time,he thoughtthat this sumprions and confused thinking of modern evolurionisrspaled in
was necessarybecause,before people could even take the Patristic comparison.l'he Patristicreaching,Fr. Seraphimsaw,could stand on
teachingseriously, they first had to understandthat what they had its own Divine authoriry,even before modern minds raisedon evolu-
learnedall their livesabout the undisputedfacr of evolurionwas in tionary teaching;and a discussionof evolution was only neededas a
fact disputed. secondaryconsideration.
At the end of his life, Fr.Seraphimthoughtdifferently.In his last
statedplanofthe proposedbook,he saidit shouldbeginwith his Pa-
10. Deuelopments
in the 1980s
rristiccommentaryon Genesis (i.e.,his l98l and 1982lectureseries),
which would be followedby a discussion of evolution."'l'he whole This wasprobablythe main reasonwhy Fr. Seraphimwanted to re-
outlineof it now becomes clearto me," he wrote. "lt shouldbe called versethe original order of the book. But there was possiblyanother
somerhingpositive(no evolutionin the title), suchas Genesis, Creation reason:in the last rwo yearsof Fr. Seraphim'slife, a change had begun
and EarlyMan: An Orthodox View, and the first and main part should to occur in the public'saccepranceofevolurion. We have mentioned
be simply an Orthodox inrerpretation (accordingto St. John Chry- earlier how, in the 1960sand 1970s,the growing doubts ofscientists
sostom,St. Ephraim,etc.)of the first chapters of Genesis'discussing about neo-Darwinism had beenmostly hidden behind the walls ofthe
'problems'raisedby modern men in the courseof the discusston. scientificcommuniry. By the end of the seventies, thesewalls beganto
Then, asthe secondary thought(lessthan half the book),a discussron crumble. The first fissureoccurred when rhe prominent paleontolo-
of thewholequestionofevolution."ln the present, posthumous com- gists Niles Eldredgeand StephenJay Gould publicizedtheir new evo-
pilation,we havefollowedthisplan. lutionary theory of"punctuated equilibrium" to accountfor rhe lack of
\Vhy did Fr.Seraphim changehis planlor the book?One cluemay transitional, evolutionary lorms in the fossil record (which forms
be found in the followingwordswhich Fr. Seraphimwrote in the would be expecredaccordingto classicalneo-Darwinism). The new
springof 1981: theory was not ofgrear interestto the generalpublic, but what was re-

34 35
 GrnesIs, Cnr,rrtou ,lNo Eanu M,rN
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 paleon-
tology."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 Dar-
win (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
number of geologisa, calling themselves"n€o-catastroPhists," have
thus returnedto the idea that practicallyall the stratawere formed by
floods and other such catastrophes. Although they reject Biblical ca-
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 develop-
ments 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,paleontol-
ory, 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 "Crea-
tion 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 system-
atic critique of the current evolutionarymodel from a varieryof scien-
tific disciplines. From his own specialry,Denton showed that the
discoveries of molecularbiologistsarecastingmore and more doubt on
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 specialtiesis "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 rhero-
ric rather than hard science."l could see,"he recalls,'ihat Dawkins
achievedhis word magic by the very tools thar are familiar ro us law-
yers.... I picked up one book afrer another,and becameincreasingly
f.rrscinated
with rhe obviousdifficultiesin the Darwinist case-difficul-
ties that were being evaded by tricky rhcroric and empharic repeti-
u()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 vaguelan-
guage,makingit impossible to discuss rhcrealobjccrionsto Darwin-
ism.'fhis is the waypeoplcralkwhcn rhey'rerryingvcry hardnor ro
understand something.
Anothertip-offwasthesharpcontrasrI noticcdberweenrhccx-
rremelydogmarictonethat f)arwinistsusewhcnaddressing thegcn-
eralpublicand 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
Biologisrswho spendtheir lifetimesstudyingbiologywill be te-
obviously,
gitimatearrrhorities, on the dctailsofwhat they'velearned
and
in thar investigation, an outsider can'treallychallengethat,but
an outsiderdefinitelycanchallenge theirrhinking,Particularlywhen
it rurnsout that theybelievein whartheybelievein not because of
what they know asbiologists, bu in spiteof what they know as bi-
movementbasedon 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
Tiial. His clear-headedness in cutting through the rhetoric of Darwin-
ism and exposing the logical foundations of the controversyquickly
won him the respectofcreationistsand non-creationists alike, and also
the ire of the die-hardcvolutionists,who to this day have not succeed-
ing 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
new discoveries ofbiochemistry cannot be accommodatedby any form
of Darwinism. He presentsevidencefrom his field that interdcpendent
biochemicalmachinesmust have 6een designcd, although not being a
creationisthe doesnot positivelyidentifr the Designer.
ln 1997 another thought-provokimgbook landed a strong blow
againstDarwinism: Not b7 Chance!byDr. Lee Spetner.An Israelibio-
physicistand 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 investi-
garinghowyari^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 politi-
cirl 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 legitimaterhear-
Bumcntovercvolurionand particularlyoverrhe Darwinianmecha-
nism 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)an-
thology lre affirms rhar "The Fathersfrom rhe firsr cenruryforward overwhelmingly
took a youngcarrh,global-flood view.. . Simplydiscardingrhe viewsof rhe Fathers
is not an option for any rhoughtful Christian" (Moreland and Reynolds,ed., Tbrce
Viewson Cteation and Euolution, p. 97).
'" SccPhillipJohnson's reviewof Fr. Seraphimtbiography, 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 Enrror's Pnsr,rcc

12. Changesin the Orthodox lVorld
'fhe "wedge"ofwhich Professor Johnsonspeaks hasnot beenwith-
out reDercussions in the Orthodox world. In 1998 TheChtistianActiu'
rir-a popular Orthodox journal that reached75,000 Orthodox
an articleby Dr' Kalomrros
Christianiof all backgrounds-published
(who had recentlyrePosed) which claimedthat modernevolutionary
theory was comprtiblewith Orthodox Christianiry'There was of
coursenothingunusualaboutthis.As we haveseen,Orthodoxjour-
of evolurionism manytimesin
nalsin AmericahadshownaccePtance
wasthe readers'reactionto
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'
The editorwiselydecidedto print largeportionsof Fr' Seraphim's
with a statementthat Fr' Seraphim's presenta-
letterto Dr. Kalomiros,
on the subjectofevolution was indeedthe
tion ofthe ChurchFathers
traditional,Orthodoxone.*"
The responseto the 1998 ChristianActiaist aricle reptesenreda
maiorshift rincethe 1970s'when pro-evolution articlesevokednoth-
ing but cautioussilenceor openapproval in mainstream Orthodoxcir-
cle1.At that rime, Fr. Seraphimhad goneagainstpublic opinion in
contemporary AmericanOrthodoxy,and wasthus subiectedro criri-
' Fr. Scraphim'slcncr to Dr. Kalomiroshad previouslybccn publishedin a spc-
cial doublc-issucof thc Orthodox iournal Epiphany(Fall 1989-Vinter 1990)' edired
'I'his ground-brcakingis-
and compilcdby Fr' Andrcw Rossiand StcphcnMurarore
,u", th. hr.t work of its kind ro appearin the American Orthodox press'also in-
cludedscientificand philosophical rcfuurionsofcvolutionby William A Dembski'
'\folfgang Smirh, and others.
.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
writings and talk, he said that atheism/agnosticism in modern science
and philosophy,which relies heavilyon Darwinian theory, would in-
cvitably 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 charac-
rerizerhe 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 Chris-
tians,this is all the more teasonto cling firmly to the common teach-
ing of rhe Holy Fathers,whom Fr. Seraphim called a "sure guide to
rrue Christianiry"
14. 7'bePresentBook
The presentvolume has been compiled lrom the following mate-
rial, 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,includ-
ing rhc question-and-answcrsessions;
4. Lettersfrom 1974 to l98l;
5. Miscellaneousnotes,including outlines,brief essays, and Fr. Sera-
phim'sown additions to A. Y.'sunfinishedchapters.
at lengrhin rhc Editor'sEpiloguc,pp. 545-90.
'This subjecris discusscd

40 4l
 Cr.sarloN,rruoErnu Men
Gr:NesIs.
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 interestingtheologicalobserva-
tions 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/evo-
lurion issuedoesnot representas full a treatmentas he had envisioned
'We have
for the book, nor is it fully up to date. attempted to remedy
(
rhis siruation by including I ) ProfessorJohnson'sinrroduction on the
reconsiderationof Darwinism roday,(2) explanatoryfootnotesto Fr.
Seraphimi discussion,with references to more recentliterature,(3) an
arricle on radiometric dating to supplement Fr. Seraphimi observa-
tions (Appendix Four), and (4) a list of suggestedreading,including
the most up'ro-date resources (Appendix Five).
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 ofex-
cellent material, by both creationistsand non-creationists,which
brings to lighr theseissues.
Rather, rhis book adds a unique dimension to the current crea-
tion/evolution debateby presenting,in a penetrating,detailedyet un-
adornedway, the orherworldly mind of the Holy Fathersx it percerves
the creation,the first-createdworld, the naturesof createdthings and
the original narureof man.
' Sincethis is a compilationof separarcbodiesof work doneat diffcrenrrimes
for differenr purposes,rhere is somc repetitionof Parristicpassages.Had Fr. Scra-
phirn livedto complerethis book himseli thesereperitions would of coursenot oc-
cur. We havcclectcdro allow for rhem in this posthumous collcctionso as not to
disrurbthc integriryand conrinuiryofeachscpararc work.
42
EnIron's Pnsmce
In overcomingthe temptarion,which had been bred in him from
..hildhood, to feel he knew better than the ancients,Fr. Seraphimre-
vc: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 Fa-
thers,presentedto the modern world the Patristicziiaz of the cosmos,
and thus raisedthe discussionfar abovethe merely rational and scien-
rific.
All creationists,wherher "Biblical" or "non-Biblical," have much
to learn from Fr. Seraphimkexposition.The "non-Biblical" creatron-
ists 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 ProtestantRcformation. 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 CreationRc-
ratch SocieE()uarterl1printcd an arricleaffirming Sr. Basil'sinterpretationofGene-
sis('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, rnolecularbiologistJonarhan Wellshasadmirablydefended thc reach-
ing 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
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-llyper-
ceived 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:
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
someone smashes it like a thunderbolt.Vhat will remainof it?Frag-
ments.We can pick thcm up; we can searchout thc neck,a portion
ofan arm, or the face.lndicationsof rhebeauryof the linesarepre-
sewedin rhescseparatefragments,but they no longerproducefor us
rhe formerharmony,rhe formerwholeness arrdbeauryThus also
did rhe hll into sin of the first peoplcdestroythe beauryof Godi
world,and thereremainro usonly ltragments of it by which we may
judgeconccrningthe primordialbeaury'r
Once, when standing beforea window at night, St. Barsanuphius
pointed ro the moon and said to his spiritualchildren:
Itt no wott-
Look-what a picturelThisis left to usasa consolation.
dcr that the ProphetDavidsaid,"Thou hasgladdened mc, O Lord,
by Thy worla (Ps.9l:3). "Thou has gladdenedme," he says,al-
rhoughthis is only a hint of that wondrousbcaury,incomprchensi-
ble 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
Enrror's Pnrnrce
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 peoplecon-
remplated. Then will bcginerernal,joyouslife, total blessedness
in
life that thc humansouloincscven
Christ.And it is for rhisblessed
now on earth.''
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 createdin-
corruptible in Paradise, accordingro rhe reachingofSr. Gregory ofSi-
nai."
ln his commentary on Cenesis, Fr. Seraphim rnade a self-
revclarorystatementwhich confirmed this:
In rhc peacefulmurmur of thc forests(whcrcso manyascetic strug-
glcrshaverakcnrcfugc)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 monas-
tery, and the monastery'smany domesticatedanimals. Ever since he
45
 CnsarroN
GeNssrs, nNoElnrv Mrx Eorlon's Paer,rcr

wasa boy he hadshownthis appreciation, which had inspiredhim to l.ike him, they were shown to be impervious to rhe elemenrs;like
spendrhreesummervacations studyingzoologyat theJuniorSummer hinr, rhey were nlasrersand stewardsof creation, and all creatures
Schoolof Science in SanDiego.Now that he wasan Orthodoxmonk ,rbcyedthem.
he viewedanimalsin a moresublimelight,
living in the wilderness, "Adam was in a state of sobriety," Fr. Seraphim said elsewhere.
evenwhile realizingrhartheytoo had beenaffectedby man'sprimor- "[.le looked at things and saw them the way they were.There was no
dial fall.Fr.Hermanrecallsa quietmomentwhensomeof the monas- ilouble rhought' like we have in our fallen state ... no looking at
tery'sanimalscame up to them. "From your point of view," Fr. thingsand imaginingsomethingelse."
Hermanaskedin a reflective mood,"whatareanimalsall about?" 1-hrough Christ, the saints also returned ro rhis pre-fall staceof
Fr.Seraphim replied:"They havesomethingto do with Paradise." sobricty ( z?slr in Greek). Vith pure, open awareness, they perceived
nor only the original nature of man, but also the distinct naturcs of
16. TheNatureof Man crcaredthings-"ideas" of the creativeMind of God.
Fr. Seraphim,in readingthe l"ivesofthese saints(especiallythe as-
Accordingto Fr.Seraphim,"The mostimportantquestionwhich ccric "deserr-dwellers"),was fascinatedby thesealmost contemporary
is raisedfor Orthodoxtheologyby the moderntheoryofevolutionis imagesof what man was in the beginning,and likewiseof what he will
tbe natureof man, and in particularthe natureof tbefrst-teated man be in the future age,when he will be raisedup in a body incorruptible.
Adam.""lhroughrationalism, and in particularthroughevolutionism, In fbllowing in their footsteps,Fr. Seraphim prayed much, cultivated
modernsecularman haslost an awareness of what he waslike before the lofty virtues oF sobriery and dispassion,and ascendedwith the
the fall, when he, like Paradise itself,was incorruptible.As Fr. Sera- saintsbeyond rhis corruptible earth.
phim cameto realize,most contemporary Christians,includingOr- "l could see," recallsFr. Herman, "that not only was his mind
thodoxChristians, havealsolostthisawareness-and this is oneof the working but his heart was involved,and his heart caught those things
biggesrproblemsof Christianirytoday.Vithout an awareness of our you just can'tget, asa rational being, from books.Things wereopen to
originalnature,we cannotknowwhat it is we shouldbe strivingto get him, but he couldni tell of them becauseotherswouldnt understand.
backto; we cannotknow what we aremadefor. The only way to re- 'l hat! why he said so few words, evenwhen I urged hirn to revealthe
gainthisawareness is, again,to acquirethe mind of the Holy Fathers. fruits of his contemplation....
'fhat is why rhepresentbook addsa vital dimension,not only to the "He wasnot at home in the world, he had no lust for life: and that's
currentcreation/evolution debate,but literallyto all aspects of human why he could go so high-into super-consciousness. "
lifc. From this vanragepoint, Fr. Seraphim shared the experienceof
"Vith the openingof their eyesthrough the transgression," Fr. tlre saintsin glimpsing the original narure of man and the naruresof
Seraphimwrote,'Adam and Eve havealreadylost the life of Para- creatcdthings. Thus, he saw evolution as untenablenot only because
dise....Fromnow on theireyeswill be opento the lowerthingsof this the Holy Fatherssaid so (although for him rhat was reasonenough in
earth,and theywill seeonly with difficulrythe higherthingsofGod. irself) or becausethere was no true scientificevidencefor it, but also
'l-hey are no longer dispassionate, but have begun the passionate becausehe recognizedthrough the light of inner sight that evolution-
earthlylife we stillhavetoday." ism abolishesmant original nature, takes away man! awarenessof
By becomingdispassionate through prayerand asceticsrruggle, I)aradiseand his lall from it, and destroysthe Divinely establisheddis-
the Orthodoxsaintsthroughoutthe agesrestoredin themselves, while tinction berweenthe naturesof createdthings.
yet in a corruptiblebody,somemeasure of the stateof pre-fallAdam. fhrough revelarionlrom above,the Prophet Mosesdescribedthe

4b 47
 Cnn,rrIon,nxoEau-vMall
Ge.Ncsts,
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
carch the message. -fhrough the work of peoplelike ProfessorsJohn-
son, Spetnerand Dembski, they can seethat, at the very least,evolu-
tion has not been proved nor is it provable.Through the work of rhe
scientificcreationists,they can examinethe greatmassofscientific evi-
dence 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 critiqueofevolution-
ary naturalismstandsup now rhata maiorreconsideration of Darwin-
ismis 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 mis-
49
 Crxrsts, Cnr:artoN,rruoF,artr MaN
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 philo-
sophical roots ofevolutionary rheory very profoundly, he was not ex-
tensivelyinvolved with the scientific community. He seemsto have
debatedthe subjectonly with Dr. Kalomiros,who was apparentlyes-
teemedwirhin 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 material-
istic evolutionaryprocesslollows asa matter of inevitablelogic. Hence,
I have argued, scientific materialistsbelieve in naturalisticevolurion
not becauseof the evidence,but regardless of rt.
Alrhough my own project has led me to avoid the questionsof
Parristicauthoriry that most concernedFr. Seraphim,some of my de-
bating 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 favor-
ite canardsof accommodationistsnot only in Orthodoxy, but also in
50
INtronucrror,r
Roman Catholic and Protestantcircles.Desperarelyseekinganything
rhat will supporr rheir program of melding Christianiry with evolu-
tionary 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 perversemisinrer-
pretations.*
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 thor-
oughly 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 fu-
sociationof Biology Teachers*.(NABT):
' Seerhc arriclcby JonathanWclls,'Abusing'l'hcology: HowardVanT'ill's'Fo-
rgotrcn f)ocrrine of Crcarioni FunctionalIntcgriry"' in rhe journal Origiu & Dc-
rgz, 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 ScicnceFiuca-
tion, 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
mcrclydcletedincautious wordsroo obviousand undcniable. -fhe Darwinianestab-
lishmcnrprefersto makcirs main poinr-rhat God had nothingro do wirh evolu-
tion-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 unsu-
pcrviscd,irnpcrsonal,unprcdictableand natural processof tcmporal
dcsccntwith gcnetic modification that is affectcdby natural selec-
tion, 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 su-
pernaturalassistance) 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 pre-
liminary marter,however,I should firmly correct one of Dr. Kalorni-
ros' many misunderstandings. Not every instanceof changein nature
constitutes "evolurion,"as that term is usedtoday.The growrh ofa gi-
ant oak tree from an acorn is not evolution, nor is the developmentof
a human baby from an embryo in the womb of its mother. Thesepro-
ccsses of what biologistscall "development"are fundamenrallydiffer-
enr from biological evolution, becauserhey are programmed by the
information inherired from the parentsand henceare highly predict-
able.A human embryo nevergrows into someanimal otlrer than a hu-
man 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 non-
cxisrentphenomenon 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 profes-
sionalliterature.One can, howevel find sragesevident here rnJ th.re
of characteristics thar, with inraginarion,can bc made to fir the pat-
rern 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 de-
velop 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 bi-
ologisrsare beginning to both explorc and understandthe basisfor
rhis connection.' I
In fact,researchinto embryologyhasshownthar it is a righrlydi-
rectedprocess which doesnot fit the Darwinianparadigmat all. Ef-
fons 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 of an Americanpublic 'Ielcvision
to rhe public,seerhe discussion
"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 un-
dertakesto explainhow it is possiblefor one kind of organismto
changeinto somethingcomPletelydifferent.It alsoseeksto explain
how extremelycomplexbiologicalorgansand organismscan come
into existencewithout the needfor a supernatural Creator.As the emi-
nent DarwinistRichardDawkinshasexplained, "Biology is the study
of complicatedthings that give the appearance of havingbeen de-
signedfor a purpose."'Nonctheless, Dawkinssaysthat Darwin "made
fulfilledatheist"by explaininghow a
it possibleto be an intellectually
,nindles,materialmechanismcould perFormthe apParentrniracleof
biologicalcreation.The mechanismis thereforethe heartof the rhe-
ory,asDarwin himselfexPlained:
theOriginof Species'
In considering it is quiteconceivablethata
on the mutualaffinities
reflecring
naturalist, of organicbeings,otr
theirembryological their
relations' geographical geo-
distribution,
and such othcr facts,might come to rhe conclu-
logical 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
i-prou.-.n, over specialcreationunlessa mechanismof changeis
specified. is that "like begetslike."An ape.never
Our experience gives
bi.th to a human(or viceversa)'and it is still moreunthinkablethat a
bacteriumwould givebirth to a butterfly.So how doesone kind ofor-
ganismchangeinio somethingcompletelydifferent?Above.all, how
loes this proc"ssof changebuild new complexorgans(like eyes,
54
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 ac-
knowledges the scopeofrhe problem:
Physics booksmaybc complicated, but ... the objecrsand phenom-
enathat 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 workingmachinecapa-
ble 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 inrri-
cate 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 capa-
ble ofgenerating anyrhing other rhan minor variarions(such as back-
and-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 won-
ders, including even the human brain. Such claims are poony sup-
ported, ro put it mildly, and in recentyearsrhey havecome up against
* Althoughrhe pepperedmorh
experimenrneverprovcdanythingof impor-
tancc,readcrs
shouldknow tharrheexpcrimcntitsclfwasrhercsultof Darwiniancn-
thusiasnr.
Fordcrailsofhow sciencehasdiscreditcd
rheexperimenr,secrhcarriclcby
lonathanVells, "SecondThoughrsaboutPeppered Morhs."ar
hrtpr//www.thc-scierrrisr.library.
upenn.edulyrl999/may/opin 99O524,html
55

GrnrsIs. Cnr.auoNaNo EanrYMlN
insuperablenegativeevidence.l'he detailsare given in my book Dar-
win on Tiial. and in various articleswhich are collectedat my Veb
site (http://www.arn.org).iVery briefly, rwo independentlines of evi-
denceare decisive:
| . Fossilstasis.Thefossil record is pervasivelycharacterizedby a pat-
rcrn of suddenappearanreFollowedby rrasn New rypesof organismsap-
pearsuddenlyand 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'shis-
tory (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 fossilrec-
ofevidencecannot be attributedto any incompleteness
most obvious and undeniable in jusr those
ord, becausethe pattern is
areas(especiallymarine invertebrates)where the record is most com-
plete.
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 the-
ory attempted to reconcilcDarwinism with the pattern of sudden ap-
pearanceand 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 evi-
dencelor 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.
" The currendyacceptedradiomctricdating proccdures, however,are them-
selvesbasedon unprovcn unifbrmirarian and evolutionist SeeFr.Scra-
assunrprions.
phim'sdiscussion of this subiecton pp. 309-14, 459-60, aswcll asAppendixFour,
"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 fossildis-
confirmation persistsevenafter more rhan a century of determinedef-
fbrrs 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 Mi-
chael 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 be-
causebiologistsdid 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 para-
digm 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 de-
fensible linc. 1-hey distinguish berween "Darwin's specific theory,"
' For a gencraldiscussion
o[ the punctuatcdequilibriumcontroversy, sccchap-
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
which they admit to be vulnerable,and somethingthey call the "fact of
evolution," which rhey claim to be undeniablytrue.'That takesme to
the secondsubject.
2. The Common AncestryThesit
The differencebetweenthe supposedlyundeniable"fact of evolu-
tion" 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 exis-
tence.The "fact" is usuallydescribedas "common ancestry,"which is
rhe proposition that humans (and other animals)sharea common an-
cestorwith 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 com-
mon ancesrry,with thosegroups having the greatestdegreeof similar-
ity 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 be-
lieve that the processmust have occurred nonethelessbecausethey
think it is the only scientific(i.e., naturalistic)explanationfor the pac
tern of life.
distincrionberweenthe "faci' and 'ihe-
' Fora gcneraldiscussion
ofthe elusive
ory" ofcvolurion,seechaprer5 ofmy book Darwin on'l'rial.
58
IN TR OD U C TTON
On the contrary a parrernof grearerand lessersimilarities,or of
v.rriarionswithin a basicrype, is more likely to be evidenceof a com-
nron design plan rather than of a natural evolutionary process.This
was inadvertenrlydemonsrratedin a (1990) book by a Darwinist zo-
ologisr,who illustratedrhe "fact ofevolurion" by citing the exampleof
l line of automobiles:
Everythingevolves,in rhe scnseof descentwith modificarion,
whcrherit bc government policl religion,sporrscars,or organisms.
The rcvolurionary fiberglassCorverreevolvedfrom more munoane
automoriveancestors in 1953.Other high pointsin the Corvettes
evolutionaryrcfinementincludedthe 1962 model, in which the
original 102-inchwasshortenedto 98 inchesand the ncw closeo-
coupeStingraymodelwasintroduced;the 1968model,the forerun-
ncr of today'sCorvettemorphology,which cmergedwith removable
roof panels;and the 1978silveranniversary model,with fastback
sryling.Today'sversionconrinucsthe srepwise refinements rharhave
been accumulatingsince 1953. The point is that rhe Corverte
cvolvedthrougha selection processactingon variations that resulted
in a series
oftransitionalformsandan endpointratherdistinctfrom
thc sraningpoint. A similarprocess shapesrhe evolutionof organ-
lsms.-
Of courserhe Corvetres,like the organisms,havecommon fearures
becausethey were conceivedin the mind of a designer,and not be-
causesome 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 ma-
jor figureslike StephenJay Gould and fuchard Dawkins disagreevro-
lenrly over how evolution is supposedto haveoccurred.(SeeChaprer
Four of my 6ook Reasonin the Bakncc for a review of rhesemajor dis-
agreemenrs.) Thesewarring ideologuesdo havea common program of
59
 GsNesrs, eno ErnI-vM-lN
Cnr.,rnon IN -I' R OD U C ' TION

sorts,but it is a philosophicalprogramratherthan a scientificpro- pronrisesof healrhand lifc, ra spite ol'rhc toleranccof the scienrific
gram.Vhat theyagreeon is that,at all costs,God mustbe keptout of communiry for unsubsranriaredjust-so srories,bccausewe have a
the picture.That bringsus to the third and mostimportantparrofthe prior commitmcnr, a comnrirmcnt to materialism.lr is not rhar rhe
definition of evolution. methodsand institutions of sciencesomehowcompel us ro accepra
materialexplanarionof rhe phcnomenalworld, bur, on the contrary,
rhat we are fbrced by our a ptiori adhcrenceto marcrial causesro cre-
3. Euolution(in the Scientifc Sense)Is Inhercntly Godless
ate an appararusof invcstigarionand a sct of conceptsthat produce
'We
sawthat the NABT definitionstatesthat evolutionis by defi- material explanations,no matter how countcrintuitivc, no marrcr
nition "unsupervised." This requirement is not a conclusionthat Dar- how mvsrifring ro rhc uninitiarcd. Moreover,rhat marerialismis ab-
winistsreachfrom empiricalevidence, but a philosophical assumption solure,ftrr we cannot allow a Divinc Foor in rhe door:
rhat reflectstheirstartingpoint in metaphysical naturalismot materi-
'l-here
alism.If natureis all thereis, then naturehad to be ableto do its own is no need to saymore. \Ve can seethe proFoundrrurh of Fr.
creating.That impliesthe existence of a naturalistic evolutionarypro- Seraphim'scommenr that "EVOLUTION \VOULD NEVER HAVE
cesscapableof makingverycomplexthingsfrom simplebeginnings. I}I.]ENTHOUGHT OF BY MEN \flHO BELIEVE IN ]'HE COD
The process mustby unguidedat first,because a mind capable ofguid- WHOM ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS VORSHIP" (emohasisin
ing evolurionwould itselfhaveto evolvefrom non-livingmatter.Once the original).Once rhe Divine Foor is in rhe door, rhereis no reasonro
humanbeingshaveevolved,ofcourse,evolutioncanbecomea guided postulateeirher legionsof unobservablefossilancesrors,or a mindless
process, rhroughpracticeofeugenics andgeneticengineering. materialprocessthat performswondersof creation.
Giventheseassumptions, somethingat leastroughlylike Darwin-
ism simplyhasto be rrue,regardless ofthe evidence. Evolutionhasto
4. Conclusion:
srartwith chanceor randomchanges, andit hasto havesomemindless
Can Science TZII Us a Tiue Story about Origins?
guidingforcecapableof producingthe wondersof complexengineer-
ing thatwe callorganisms. That is why RichardDawkinshasarguedin Criticisms of evolutionary theory, however valid, cannot answer
lecturesthat, if complexlife existson otherplanets,Darwinianevolu- the most important quesrion.If we wish to know the rrurh abour ori-
tion wouldhaveto be responsible for it. Thereis no needfor evidence gins, should wc rely primarily upon Divine revelationor scientificin-
or observations, because the Darwinianmechanism is the only plausi- vestigation?Fr. Seraphim,like many creationists,believedrhar scrence
ble candidate for the job, given the starting point in naturalism. This was impotent when ir comes ro the subjecrof ultimate origins, and
logic explainswhy Darwinistsareunperturbedby all the evidentiary that rrue knowledgcon rhis subject can only come from revelation.
problemsrhat criticssuchasmyselfhaveidentified.The theoryhasto His reasonwas rhat the eventsof rhe Genesiscreationweek took place
be trueregardless, because otherwise we wouldbewithouta materialis- rundera unique set of laws, laws which were entirely different from
tic explanation for lifet complexiry and we would haveto turn to God. thosewhich haveoperatedsincethe Fall.
This logic has beensuccinctlyencapsulared in a paragraphfrom a lf rrue, that conclusionimplies that the enrire subjectoforigins is
1997essay by the leadinggeneticisr fuchardLewontin: outsideofscientific invesrigation.Sciencecan only observewhar rs go-
ing on in the world today,and can draw inferencesabout the remote
'Werakcthesidcof science in spiteof thepatentat'surdiry of someof pastonly by assuminga uniformiry over rime ofphysical processes and
in spiteof ic failurcto fulfill manyof its cxtravagant
its constructs, physicallaws.That is why evolutionaryscientists,fbr example,assume

60 6l
 GrNrsrs,CnarlroN ar.toEarrv M,tN

that the processthat createdplantsand animalsin the first placeis fun-

damentallyrhe sameprocessof small-scale variationwe can observeto-
day in the living world. There may be little evidenceto support that
assumption,but without it a scienceof originswould be helpless.Con-
ceivably,there may have been some very unDarwinian creativeevolu-
tionary 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 PARI I
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
An Orthodox
alternativetheory, or at least no theory with enough factual supporr
to command widespreadacceptance? Scientistswho want to explain
Patristic Commentary
everythingwill alwaysinsiston making assumptionsthar permit them
to achievetheir grand objective,and they will alwaysbe extremelyre- on Genesis
luctant 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
and processes haveprofoundly changedsince the time of creation.Fr.
Seraphim was not intimidated by that sort of denunciation, nor
should othersbe. Uniformitarianism,like naturalism,is a philosophi-
cal assumprion,not a fact. It is perfectly rational to make other as-
sumptions, including assumptionsthat point to the conclusion that
we can only haveknowledgeabout origins if God haschosento rcveal
lt to us.

62
 EDITOR'S NOTE
'l'his Commentaryhas beentahenprimaril
fom Fr. Seraphimi oiginal
mnnuscipL whicb he urote in prcpantion for his courseon Genesisat
thc Neu Valaam TheologicalAcadzml summer sessions in t 981 and
1982. During the oral dtliwry of his course,uhieh uas tape-recordzd,
he
cxtcmporaneousll addtd ualuablcinsighx whicb werenot in the manu-
rcript. Not uanting to dzpiue tbc reado of this cxtra manrial, we hauc
includedmuch of it in the Commcntary,both in the main text and in thc
fiomotes. That is why the text may ai timeschangefom a polishedto a
morecolloquialtone.
We haue abo includtd Fn Scraphim'squcstion-and-ansuertesttons
with hb sndtnu duing the Genesiteourse,Thescarcfound in Pan M
Thefoomotesin this Commentary,as well as in the subscquentParts
of this biok, drc the wort of Fn Seiaphin himse$ unhsstheyarc indi-
catedaseditor'sfoonotes,
All thc Psalmreferencesfolhu thenunbering ofthe Scptuagint(Grcch)
ucrsionof thc Old Tistament.

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 Sa-
gan might come and fighr with us.* Isn't ir saferto just occupy our-
selveswirh saying our prayers, and not think abour rhese grear
subjecrs? \(hy think about rheseremoterhingswhen we haveto rhink
aboutour salvation?
I've heard phraseslike these.In answerro them, we can say,first
of all, that there is a direct rektion betweenhou, you behaueand hou
you belieueabout man'sorigin. Fr. George Calciu, in his public ad-
dressesto young people living under communism in Romania, said:
"You have been told that you descendfrom the apes,that you
are a
beasrwhich must be trained."" That can be a vcry po*eriul rhing:

' ln a lcttcrof 1981,[:r Scraphirlspeaks

ofOarl .S.rgani
C-orzrartclcvisionscrics
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.
Iconof thc Crearionand Redemption, showingthecrcetionof Flve,the fall,rhe
In I 997 thcywerepublishedin bookforrnby rheSr.HcrmanBrotherhood undcrthc
cxpulsionfiom Paradisc, the Annuncirtion,rlrc(lrucifixionof(jhrist, rhc
tide Chrit L Calling /az/'l'he abovequorarionis found on p. 27 of rhat book; orher
Ilcsurrectionand dcsccntinto hcll,anclthe cnrryof nraninto the
pcrccplvecoornrenrs aboutcvolurionarcfoundon pp.33,34, 152, l!,A._Eu
Kingdonrof Hcavcn.lcon from thc Monastcryof Sr.Anthony
of Siya,Russia,primcd h Rus&1Palon k no. 10, 1895.
67
 GeNesrs, ,rNoEatrYMaN
Cnr,qrIoN

"scienceproveswe'rejust animals,and therefore,let'sgo out and

blow up a church."*
Secondly,theboohof Genesiis a part of theScriptures, and Godgaue
us the Scripnres
of the Scriptures
for our supposed
saluation.lVe're
throughall the commentaries
to know the meaning
of the Holy Fathers.
Cneprpn ONs
The Fathers talkedaboutthe bookof Genesis in church;all therrcom-
mentaries wereactuallysermonsgivenin church,because
is read in church on all weekdaysduring Great
the book of
Lent. The great
Hou to Read Genesis
Genesis
Fatherswho did this wereSt. John Chrysostom,St. Basilthe Creat,
and St.Ambroseof Milan. Their sermonswererakendown in short- I . Approach
hand by peoplewho werein churchlisteningto them,so that others
couldreadthem.Thus,the readingofthesetextswasconsidered a part r.:e srrusr,noneof us knowshow to approachthis book. Modern
f
ofthe everyday life ofpeoplewho went to church.We havesomewhat I science and philosophyhavefilled our mindswith so many theo-
lost this idea nowadays. Therefore,the account of Genesisor the riesand supposed factsaboutthe beginnings of rhe universe and man
Apocalypsehasbecomea very mysteriousrealmsomehow.'i/e areso rharwe inevitablycomero thisbookwith preconceived notions.Some
scared of thesesubjects-butthe Fathers weretalkingaboutthem wantit to agreewith rheirparticularscientificrheories; otherslook for
Finally (this is the big poinr): our Christianityis a religionwhich ir ro disagree.Borhoftheselook to it ashavingsomethingscientificto
telb usaboutwhat wearegoingto bedoingin eternallife.lt is to prepare say;but otherslook on it assheerpoetry,a productofreligiousimagi-
us for something erernzl,not this uorld. If we think only about rll/r nationhavingnothingto do with science.
'l'he centralquestionthat causes our difficultiesin understanding
world, our horizonis very limited,and we doni know what is after
death,wherewe camefrom,wherewe'regoing,what is the purposeof thisbookis: how "literally"arewe ro readit?
life.Vhen we talk aboutrhebeginningofrhings,or the rzlof things, SomeProrestant fundamenralists tell us it is all (or virtuallyall)
we find out what our wholelife is about. "literal."But such a view placesus in someimpossibledifficulties:
quireapartfrom our literalor non-literalinterprerarion ofvariouspas-
sages, the verynarureof the realirywhichis described in the firsrchap-
tcrs 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
' St.Barsanuphius of Optina(1845-1913)madca similarobservarion in onc of
hisspirirual rall<s: "The Englishphilosopher Darwin creatcdan entiresystcm accord- which resounds in an atmosphere that doesniyer exist?This exprana-
ing to which life is a strugglefor cxistcnce,a srruggleofthe strong againsr the weak, tion is obviouslya little too simple-che realityis morecomplex.
whercrhoscthatareconqucred arcdoomcdto dcstruction,... This is alreadythe be- Then thcreis the oppositeexrreme. Somepeoplewould like to in-
ginningof a bcstialphilosophy, and thoscwho cometo belicvcin ir wouldni think terpretrhisbook (arleastthe earliest chapters whichgivethe mostdif-
rwiccaboutkillinga man,assaulring a woman,or robbingtheir closest frierrd-and
ficulry)asbeingan allegory, a poeticwayof describing somethingthat
they would do all rhis calmly,with a full recognitionof rheir right ro commir chcse
(From Brotherhood, EUer Barsan-
is reallymuchcloserto our experience. RomanCatholicthinkersrn re-
crimes." rheforrhcomingbook ofthe St. Hcrman
up hi t s of Op t i xa.)-F,o. cent years,for example,havecomeup with someingeniouswaysof

68 69
 CnrarroN,rNnEauv MrN
Gr.Nrsrs,
"explainingaway" Paradiseand the fall ofman; but in readingthesein-
terpretationsone 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 Dam-
ascene,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 helpedcreateevo-
lution." She says:"The biblical story ofcreation has a religiouspur-
pose.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 hu-
man mind and heart." She statesthat Genesiscomes from oral tradi-
tions which were limited by the scientificviewsof that time.
According to this view,Genesisbelongsin one category,and scien-
tific 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
mentioned above by a certain degreeof self-awareness: what kind of
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 ex-
rrcrncliteralness ofour scienrificoutlook (a lireralnesswhich 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 conclu-
rions 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 predispo-
sirion 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, How ro Rr^.ro
CrNssls

and to openourselves men of the

to the wisdomof the God-bearing pagesaredevotedro Genesis.St. Ephraim is valuedas an Old Testa-
pastwho havedevotedso much intellectualeffort to understanding nrenrinterpreterbecause he knewHebrew,wasan "Easterner" (i.e.,of
asit wasmeantto be understood.
rhe text of Genesis TheseHoly Fa- ;rnEasternmentaliry),and knewscrences.
rhersareour keyto understanding Genesis. 3. St. Basilthe Greatgavehomilies*on the Six Daysof Creatron,
called the Hexaemeror-meaning"Six Days." There are orher Hex-
2. TheHoly Fathers:Our Ke1to the Undrrstandingof Genesis umera in the literatureof the earlyChurch,somegoing backro the
secondcentury.St. Basil's,onemightsay,is the mostauthoritative. ** It
In the Holy Fathers we find the "mind of the Church"-the living doesnor coverthe whole of Cenesis,but only the first chapter.An-
understanding of God'srevelation. 1'heyareour link berweenthe an- other book by him which we will quoteis calledOz theOrigin of Man,
cienttextswhichcontainGod! revelation and today!rediry Without whichis like a continuationof the Hexaemeron.
sucha link it is everymanfor himself-and the resultis a myriadof in- 4. In the Vest, St.Ambroseof Milan readSt. Basil'shomiliesand
terpretarions and sects. wrotehomilieson the Six Dayshimself.'*.His Hexaemeron is quite a
TherearemanyPatristic commentaries on Genesis.This alreadyis bit longer,about threehundredpages.**** St. Ambrosealsowrote a
an indicationto us that this text is consideredextremelyimportantby wholebookon Paradise, a continuationof rheHexaemeron, aswell asa
the Fathersof the Church. lrt us look now at which Fatherstalked bookon Cain and Abel.
aboutthis textandwhat bookstheywrote In additionto thesebasiccommentaries, we will look ar a numoer
In this courseI will makeuseprimarilyof four commentaries of of bookswhich do not go into the wholebook of Genesisor into the
the earlyFarhers: wholeofthe Six Days.For example,the brotherofSt. Basil,St. Greg-
L St.JohnChrysostom wrotea largerandsmallercommentary on ory of Nyssa,hasa book On theMahingof Man, which goesinto detail
the whole book of Cenesis. 'fhe larger,called Homilieson Gencsis'was about the end of the first chapterand the beginningof the second
actuallya courseof lectures delivered duringGreatl,ent' sinceduring chapterof Genesis.
Lent the book of Genesisis read in church.This book contains
sixry-seven homiliesand is somesevenhundredpageslong.*Another * "Homilies"usuallymeansrhey wcrc dcliveredin church,whcrc the people
year,St.Johndeliveredeightotherhomilies,comprisingseveral hun- stoodand listcncd.
dred more pages.He alsowrote a treatisectlled On the Creationof the " St. Basil! Hcxacmcron washeld in high esteemin rhe ancientChurch.Sr.
'lYorld,overa hundred pageslong. Thus, in St. (iregory rhe Theologianwrore of ir: "\7hen I rake his [Built] Hexaemeron
John Chrysostomwe in my
havea thousandpagesor moreof interpretation of Genesis.He is one handand readit aloud,I am wirh my Crcaror,I understand the rcasonsfor crealion,
lnd I admiremy Creatormore rhan I fornrerlydid when I usedsighraloneas my
of rhemain interpreters of this book.
tcacher(Sc.CrcgoryrhcTheologian, Homily 43:67," Panegytic on St.Basil").-Eo.
2. St. Ephraimthe Syrian,from aboutthe sametime asSt. John "'Sr. Ambrosei homiliesweredeliveredabout sevenreen yeersafter St. Ba-
Chrysostom, alsohasa commentary on the wholebook ln his work, sil's.-Eo.
calledsimply Interpretationof the Booksof the Bible,severalhundred t'** Here we can seehow, when one Frther speaksspecificallyon one passagc,
rnorhcrFatherwill perhaps saysomcrhingin derailaboura differcnrpassagc. Ifyou
kccpit all rogcrher,you ger a vcry goodoverviewof how the nrind of the Church,
' For thc prcscntwork, Fr.Scraphimtranslatcdpassagesfrom thc Russiancdition how thc Fathersin generallook at rhescpassagcs.
You mighr find a disagrcemcnr ovcr
ofSr. JohnChrysostomlsHomiliu on Gencsir and St. Ephraimrhe Syrian'sCommcntary sonrclirtle inrcrpreration,
somesmallpoint, but coocerningthe big pointsyou will
on Gcnesis (sccbclow).SinceFr. Scraphim'sreposc,borh thcscworks havebecnpub- seetheyall sayrhesamething in diffcrentways,that theyarequirein harmonyovcr
lishcdin Enelish,in'I-hc Fathcrsofthc Church,vols.74,82'87'91.-Eo. how to intcrprcrrhc bookof Ccncsis.

72 73
 'i

iE rJ
rf

FF
q+
?
tl
'r4
F;.
fri*i
',,.*.

ill rT
".lr-
I

L l.. -.*

\r. lohrr (.lrrlso sro rr ( (;( , 1( lf r l

nrotrth ). .rrr.lrbislrol'ol
lc i.i . r 0- ) .
( ii,ns t.rrrtirrop (.J
rr 'f::i{'r-"; .+

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

ru
5r . I l. n i l t h c ( , r r '. r t . . L r . h l 'i s h , , 1 ,
ol ( . r c s . r r ci.rrr ( . : r 1 , 1 , . r Jio. rL

(N,rzi.rnrcn
.l
S t . ( i r c g o l v t h c h cr r l o q i :r n
) , . r r ch b i sh ,r p
ol'
ffi*
St. r \th r n .r r i u sr h c ( i rcr r r ,
l , i sl r ,r1 ,o l .\l cr e n L l irl
( . o n s r , r n r i n o p L( l - 1 5 t( ) 0 ) . i l r s j - .i ) .
ltnni n rlit ,rul liiiny 1,,t.1rbl .llonl l /,try,/',rttr r/t ( ti tau. (.ltt/tt/ttott ol
.\it ,\'ilnh: .\t,ttuttiLir,t ,\loutitttl, .\lounr ,,hht:, ia. 15 t6.
 St.Ambrosc,bishop
of Milan(339-397).
St.EphraimrhcSyrian Fifh-ccrnry motaitfom thc
Q06-372). ChapclofSt. Victor'bfthc
iconfom Grcccc.
A conmnporary Goldtn 5k7,"Mihn, Italy.

BlessedAugustinc,bishop
St.Grcgory,bishopof
of Hippo (154-430).
Nyssa(33G-395).
kon b7Monk Thcopbencs Fraco by Monh Tbcopbanct
ikita
tbeCrcmn, Stauron thc Ctctan,fom thc Mctcore
Monastcryof Varham,
MountAthos,
Monastery,
c4, I )40.
Grcecc,six tccnth ccn*ry,
 CENesrs,CrrxrroN aNo Eatly MaN
Sr.Macariusthc Greatof Egypr Sr.lsaactheSyrian(sevcnrhcentury),
(ca. 300-390). lcor by Arcbimandrite
lcon b1 fi Pacbomiot
(1prian. Holy'frinity Monastery.
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, Para-
dise, and so forrh. The catechismsof the early Church-the Great
Catechismof St. Gregory o[ Nyssa and,the Catechctic/tlLecturesof Sr.
Cyril of Jerusalem-also havea fewdetailson rhesequesrions.
On onespecificquesrionofthe PatristicworldviewI haveusedthe
treatises on the Resurrectionby 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
How ro Rl;aoG r:Nnsrs
'fhen
there are various writings of St. Gregory the Theologian
.rboutthe crearionof man, about man'snatureand his soul. St. Macar-
ius the Great,St. Abba Dorotheus,St. Isaacthe Syrian and other wnt-
crsofthe asceticlife often talk about Adam and the fall. Sincethe basic
aim of the asceticlife is to return to the stateof Adam beforethe fall,
rhey write about what the hll means,what Paradisewas,and what ir is
wc are trying to get back to.
BlessedAugustinetoucheson rhe subjectof Genesisin The City of
Godl Sr. Gregory Palamaswrites on variousaspectsin his apologetic
works; and St. GregoryofSinai writes on Paradiseaswell.
(There are also some later commentarieswhich I have nor seen,
trnfortunately.One is by St. John of Kronstadt on the Hexaemeron
and another is by Metropolitan Philaretof Moscow on Genesis.)
These Fathersdon't give us all the answersto questionswe may
have about Genesis; we read them rather to get ov attitude toward,
Genesis.SometimesFarhersmay seemto conrradict each orher or ro
speakin a way we might not considervery usefulfor the questionswe
'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 deficiencicsaswell,duc ro his rcn-
dencyro 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
(especiallyon the basisofhis non-dogmaticwork like TbeConfesiont),while not ac-
ceptinghis theological exaggerarions. Fr Seraphimwrotea wholebook on this sub-
ject, Thc Plate ofBh*ed Axgustineia thc Orthodox Chutclt,
Ir shouldalsobc notedrhar,cvenwhcreBlcssed Augustinc's interpretationof
Ccncsisis questionablc, it is in no scnscconrparible with cvolurionism or an "old-
earth"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
of Crearion'.sFuncrionalI nrcsriry.'"-Eo.
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, 5t . J ohn l ) e m l s c c r r c

l).rlcstinc(rixth ccnrLrrv). ( 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 )
 CrranloN axo Ernlv M,tN
GeNEsrs,
havetoday.Thereforewe musr havesome basicprincipleswhich gov-
ern our understanding both of Genesisand the Holy Fathers.
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 contta-
dicr 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 under-
standinganything we should suspectfirst our own lack of knowledge
rarherrhan a deficiencyin the inspiredtext.
3. We should not hasten to offer our own explanations of "diffi-
cult" passages,but should first try to familiarize ourselveswith what
the Holy Fathershavesaid about thesepassages, recognizingthat they
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 crea-
tive activiry which no one would think of contradicting.* But the
point this personwanted to make was that there was no real distinc-
tion betweenthe creationof every living man and the creationof the
'Vithout God'scontinuouscreative effort,nothingwould cxistor come into
being.Ve think ir is "natural" thar planc grow from a sced,that cverything,in fact,
comcsfrom a smallseed andgrowsinro a full individr:al.But withoutGod, this pro-
cesscannotcontinuc.SoofcourseCod is srillcrearingroday,"from thedust."
82
How ro Rr,to GaNxrs
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. Athana-
sius 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.There-
fbre, it is illegitimareto take one quote of his and think rhar it proves
or opensthe way to some favoriteidea ofour own. St. Athanasius'gez-
rra/ sratementabout rhe narureof man saysnorhing whateverabout
the specifc nature of Adams creauon.
Such a misuseof quotationsfrom the Holy Fathersis a very com-
mon 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 illus-
rrativematerial,and this sciencewas mistakenin some ooints. But we
should carefullydistinguishtheir sciencefrom their theologicalstare-
ments, and we should respecttheir whole approachand generalcon-
clusionsand theologicalinsighrs.
6. If we ourselvesrhink we can add somethingto the undersrand-
ing 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. *
'lr is a very commonvicw amongpcoplewho do not go roo dceplyinro rhe
qucsriontlrar"ancicntscicnceis wrong,modcrnscicnccis right,and rhercforc
wc can
rrusteveryrhing thc nrodcrnscicnrisrs
rcll us." Bur ir so happens
rharonegcncration
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
some light on the understandingof at leasta few passages of Gene-
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 Patrisricun-
derstandingof Genesisis alsocapableof throwing light on modern sci-
enceand 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 usu-
ally approached,without being satisfiedwith the simplistic answers
that are so often heard.
4. Literal us.Slmbolical Interpretations
This <luestionis a greatstumbling block for us modern men, who
have been brought up wirh a "scientific" education and worldview
which has left us impoverishedin our understandingof symbolical
meaningsin literature.Too often, as a result of rhis, we iump to con-
clusions:if there is a symbolicalmeaning to some image in Scripture
(fbr example,the tree of the knowledgeof good and evil) we are very
inclined to say"it's on$ a symbol"; the slightestindication of a figura-
rive or metaphorical meaning often leads us to dismiss rhe literal
meaning. Sometimesthis attitude can even lead to sweepingjudg-
ments of whole portions or books ofscripture: lf there are symbolical
ovcrthrows rhc so-callcdscicntificlacrsofthe preccding Ve haveto rcal-
generation.
(iontemporary
izc whar is ficr and what is thcory. sciencchasmany viewswhich,
fifryvearsfionr now (ifthcy evenlast that long)'will bc and
overturned. therewill be
newthcorics.
84
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 in-
deed 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 fourreenth-
ccntury hesychastFather,commentson this passage:
Grcgorythc Theologianhascalledthc treeofthc knowledge ofgooo
and evil "contemplation" ... bur ir doesnot follow thar what is in-
volvedis an illusionor a symbolwithour existence of irs own. For
thedivineMaximus (rhe Confessor) alsomakesMoscsthc symbolof
judgmcnt,and Elilahthe symbolofforesighr! Arc theytoo rhensup-
posednot to havereallyexisted, but ro havcbeeninvcntcd"symboli-
cally"?"
85
 CneeuoNlNo ErnrY MaN
GeNests, How ro Rreo ClnNr_sls

3. These are specificinterpretations.As for generalaPProaches to 5. St.JohnChrysostom,

the "literal" or "symbolical"natureof the text of Genesis,let us look at
the words of severalother Holy Fathers who havewritten commentar-
ies on Genesis.St. Basil the Great in his Hexaemeronwrires:
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
"grass,"I think of grass,and in the samemanncrI understand eve-
ox- In-
rythingas 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
theirsis the atritudeof one who considers himselfwiserthan the
revelationsof rhe Spirit and his
introduces own of
ideasin pretcnsc
an e-xplanation.Therefore,let it be undersroodas it hasbcenwrit-
ten.
4. St. Ephraim the Syriantells us similarly in the Commentaryon
Genesis:
No oneshouldthinkthattheCreation ir
of SixDaysis an allegory:
impermissible
islikewise according
to saythatwharsecms, to thcac-
count, to have been created in six days, was created in a singlc in-
stant, 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 some-
thing 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
' The Ecrdmanstranslationof this samepassagcrcads:"l take all in thc literal
(Niceneand Post-Nicene
sense" Fathcrs, vol 8' p. l0l) -Eo
SccondSerics,
speaking of rheriversof para-
specifically
dise,writes:
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 lis-
ten to them, rhe idea that they (undcr the names of rivcrs and wa-
ters) 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 inter-
preting rhe rextof Genesisasan allegory,running wild with symbolical
interpretations,and denying thar it has any lireral meaningar all-es-
pecially 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 mys-
tical meaning.There are,ofcourse,in Scripture,as in everykind oflit-
erature, 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 Scrip-
1111s-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 unoer-
stand in a "God-befitting" manner-that is, basedon our knowledge
from Orthodox reachingthat God is purely spiritual, has no physic"al

86 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,"un-
derstandrhe word "planted"befitringlvof God: that is, that He
commanded; but concerningthe wordsthat follow believeprecisely
wascreatedand in rhat very placcwhererhe Scripture
that Paradise
it.'u
hasassigned
As for the "scientific" information given in the book of Gene-
sis-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 scien-
rific 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 scl-
entific 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 primirivemy-
rhologyabout "creator-gods" and supernarural beings,rhat ir hasall
beentakenfrom BabylonianmFhology,erc.But no one canseriously
compareGenesis with anyof thecreationmythsof otherpeoples wirh-
out 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 founda-
tion 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 state-
mentoftruth 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 callcdspiri-
tual, 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 knowl-
edgc.Contemplationof this knowledgccomesto rhc soul not from
mattcr,which is oursideir.... Ir manifests and revcals irselfinthe rn-
ncrmostdepthsof thc soul itself,immaterially, suddenly, sponrane-
ously,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 prc-
cededthe composition(making) of the world, when therewas no
creature,nor heavcn,nor earch,nor angels,norhing of that which
was brought into being, and to how God, solelyby His good will,
suddenlybrought evcrythingfrom non-beinginto being,and every-
thing stood beforeHim in perfection.rz

Thus, one can believe that Moses and later chroniclers made use of
written recordsand oral tradition when it came to recording the actsand
chronology ofhistorical Patriarchsand kings; but an account ofthe be-
ginning of the world's existence,when there were no witnessesto Godt
mighry acts, can come only from God's revelation; it is a supra-natural
knowledge revealedin direct contact with God.* And this is exactlywhat
the Fathersand Church tradition rell us the book of Genesisis
St. Ambrose wrices:

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 Di-
vine 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.). ' The book of Exodusrecounrsrwo occasionson which God Himsclf saysro
Icon h Monk Tbcoohancsthc Cncan. Moses:"ln six daysthc Lord madeheavenand carth"(Ex.20:l l,ll:17),-Eo,

9l
 I I, 't r r r llr . ar r( ir , r , rsr
r s

t
r;.
,t r}. ,)r. Jn- ' ry
\5 .,' . . .,4:.

.-' ')' i
r \-' .(. ,_.(

t7f,:i-q;
. ./k ', '.'n
\r J {, 1 ,\' | /
i. ,r,., l/ . ' ,'11
'.. r' " , ' l . ,'.
t. ,;
.. '-
I
+r o'., 'iyt
,;,q-,-

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

(
hc.rrdfiottr ,od.r'
r Lr rr hor c t hing. $hich hc

.Ur S t..fohn (i hrysOsront i n his f loniliu on ( , r 'zr r ,.-rcor r cs back aglin

. '{t/ .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' 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 , i rrspi reclantl hl s rr pr' ofi rrrndnr clninlS- - - t har ir is nor i\ {oscs'r vor ds,but
(lrr. .]: I 5) . At r t r p.r lr t v is i, r nol l' . r r r dir c ( ,orl s:
llt:tirtr litrt oI th t^'t..ttIl) ..tt| \'

9.1
 GeNnsrs.CnEerroNeNo Eenlv M,c.N
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 hap-
pen? Obviously, God revealedit to them. St. John Chrysostom says
that, just as St. John the Theologian was a prophet of things of the fu-
ture, 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
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
Thus, we should approach the early chapters of Genesis as we
would a book of prophecy, knowing thar ir is actual evens being de-
scribed, 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 un-
derstandroo 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 comprehendevery-
thing with their minds, they did not realizethat human naturecan-
not comprehendthe crcationof God.t7
Ler us then rry to enrer rhe world ofrhe Holy Fathersand therr un-
derstanding 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,

rhe Six Days of Creation found it necessary at various points to take

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 lim-
ired fashioner-god(demiurge),and the like.
CHaprsn Two
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.
TheSix Daysof Creation
The most widespreadsuch ideastoday are those bound up with the (GENERAL
OBSERVATIONS)
so-calledtheory of "evolution." We will have to discusssome of these
ideasbriefly,but in order to avoid misunderstandings let us statewhat
we mean by this word. l. Introduction
The conceptof "evolution" has many levelsof applicationin both
ow LEr us studythe Parristic
modelofthe Six Daysof Creation.
scientificand popular language:sometimesit is no more than a syno-
Ve will not occupyourselves with trying to guess"how long"
nym for "developmsnl";x1other times ir is usedto describethe "varia-
thesedayswere,althoughby the time we come ro the end we will havea
tions" that occur within a species;and again, it describesreal or
pretty good idea ofhow the Farhersviewedtheir lengrh. Many funda-
hypothesizedchangesin nature oF a somewhat larger kind. In rhis
mentaliststhink their literal interpretationof Genesisis lost if these
coursewe will not have to be concernedwith these kinds of "evolu-
days are not acceptedas preciselyrwenty-four hours long; and many
tion," which belong pretry much to the realm ofscientific fact and its
otherswho want to reconcileGenesiswith the modern theory of evolu-
interpretation.
tion drink their hopesresrupon acceptingthesedaysas millions or bil-
The only kind of "evolution"we will haveto deal with is evolurion
lions of yearslong so they will accordwith the supposedfindings of
asa "cosmogony"-that is, a theory about the origin of the world. This
geology.I think we can safelysaythat both oftheseviewsmissrhe mark.
kind of theory of evolution occupiesthe sameplacefor contemPorary
It is not that thesedays could not have been rwenty-four hours
studentsof the book of Genesisas the ancientspeculationson the ori-
long, if God so willed; one or rwo Fathers(St. Ephraim the Syrian,for
gins of the world did for rhe earlyChurch Fathers.There are those' of
example)even srarepreciselyrhat they were rwenty-lour hours long.
course,who will insistthat eventhis kind of evolution is perfectlysci-
But most Farhersdo not sayanything ar all on the subjecr:it was not a
entific; in fact, some of them are quite "dogmatic" about it. But any
subjectof debarein their rimes,and it seemsnot ro haveoccurred to
reasonablyobjectiveview will haveto admit that the evolutionarycos-
rhem to insist on projectingthe rime scaleofour fallen world back to
mogony, unlessit claims to be Divinely revealed,is just as speculative
rhe stupendousand miraculouseventsofthose Six Days.
as any other theory of origins and can be discussedon the same level
Bur if we do not need to define rhe Six Days of Creatron as
wirh rhem. Although it may claim to have its foundation in scientific
twenty-four hours long, it is quite impossiblefor us ro regardrhem as
facts,it itself belongsto the realm of philosophy and even toucheson
millions or billions of yearslong-that is, to force rhem into an evolu-
theology,inasmuchas it cannot avoid the question ofGod as Crearor
tionary time scale.The evenrsof the Six Dayssimply do nor fir inro rhe
of the world, whether it accepts or deniesHim.
evolutionarypicture at all. In Genesisthe first living things are grasses
In this course,therefore,we will touch on "evolution"only asa unt-
and treesupon rhe dry land; life did not first appearin the sea,as the
versalrheorythat artemptsto explainthe origin ofthe world and oflife.

96 97
 GeNesIs,Cr.r-arroN.aNoElnrv MaN THa Srx D,rysor CneerroN

evolutionary theorywould haveit; theseland plantsexistfor a whole siry;Hc is nor subjectto rhe lawsofarr. The will of(lod is the crea-
day (billionsof years?) beforethe sunwascreated, while in any evolu- tor and artificerofnatureandofart and ofevcrythingexisring.l
tionaryconceptionthe sun precedes the earthitselC*Any reasonably
objectiveobserver would haveto concludethat the Six Daysof Crea- Speakingofthe Fifth Day of Creation,the same Fathersays:
tion, if theyarea trueaccountand not a productof arbitrary|ancyor
speculation, simply do not fit into the evolutionaryframework,and 'loday God goesover ro
the watcrsand showsus that from rhem, by
therefore thereis no needto makethem billionsof yearslong.Ve will His word and command,rhere proceededanimatccrearures....
seebelowalsohow the descriptionoftheseDaysby the Holy Fathers Whar mind, rell mc, canundersrandthis miracle?r
makesthis interpretation quiteimpossible. Evolutionarytheoryis ob-
viouslytalkingaboursomethingotherthan the Six Daysof Creation. St. Basilteachesin rhe Hexaemeron that in the Third Day therewas
And in actualfact,za scientifictheorycan tell us aboutthoseSix no natural necessiryfor watersto flow downward; this is a law ofour
Days.Sciencetriesto explain(sometimes with more and sometimes own world, but then there was as yer no law, until Clod'scommand
with lesssuccess) the changes of this world, basedon projectionsof came:
naturalprocesses which can be observedtoday.But the Six Daysof
Crearion not a natural process;they are what camebeforeall the Someoncnray,pcrhaps, askthis:Why doesthe Scripturereduceto a
^re processes
world'snatural beganto work. They areGod'swork; by very commandofthe Crcarorthat rendcncyto flow downwardwhichoe-
definitionthey are miraculousand do not fit into the naturallaws Iurgsnarurallyto warer?...[fwarerhasrhistendencyby narure,rhc
whichgovernthe world we seenow.**If we canknowwhat happened commandorderingthc warcrsto be garhcred togetherinto oneplace
in thoseSix Daysat all, it is not by scientificprojections or specula- would be superfluous.. .. 'Io thisinquirywe saythis,thatyou recog-
tions,but only by God'srevelation. modernscicntists
In this respect, nizedvery well rhe movemcnts of the warerafterrhe commandof
areno betreroff than the ancientcreators of cosmicspeculations and thc Lord, borh rhat it is unsready and unstablcand thar it is borne
myths.The writersof commenraries on Genesis emphasiz.ethis poinr' naturallydown slopesand into hollows;but how it had any power
St.JohnChrysostom writes: previousto rhat,beforcthc morionwasengendered in it from this
command,you yoursclfneithcrknow nor haveyou heardir from
\{Aat doesit mean that first there is heavcn,and thcn earth, first thc onc who kncw.Rcflectrhat rhevoiccof God makesnaturc,and thc
roofand then the foundation?God is not subiect to n:rturalneces- commandgivcnat rhat timc to crcationprovidcdthe futurccourse
ofactionfor the creaturcs.l
' Not only "Christianevolutionists"but rlso"old-carrh/progressivc
crcrriotrists-
arremprro forcethe SixDaysinro theevolutionary rimescaleofbillionsofyears,and Undoubtedly, here is one of the chief sourcesof the conflict be-
thusrheyroo must disrorrthe Gcnesis accounrin orderto dealwirh rhe contradic- rween scientific rheory and religiousrevelation.During the Six Days
tionsoutlinedabove .-Flo. nature itself uas being madc; our presenr knowledge of natural laws
*' ln his nores,Fr.Seraphim saysfurther:"The fossilrecordis aorarccordofrhe
'SixDays,'but of the historyof rhecorruptworld afer itscrcation.The Six Daysare cannot possiblyrell us how theselaws themselves were made.'fhe very
bqoxd sciencif.c obrruationand mcatwemrrt,and aredifferentin kind from what sci- subject of ultimate origins, of beginnings,of the Genesisof all
enccmeasures. (Cf. St. Symeonrhe Ncw 'l'heologianon thc new law of narurcaftcr things-is ourside rhe sphereof science.\X/hena scienristentersthis
thc fall ofAdam.) Tbeirtime kpsci not tnca*rablebyriencc anddocsnor fit in with realm, he guesses and speculateslike any ancientcosmologist;and this
anyscienrifi c theories."-Eo. not only distracrshim from his seriouswork of srudying the natural

98 99
 Gr-Nests,Ctr,nrtoN ,rNo EanrYMaN
processes of this world-it alsomakeshim a competitorof religious
reuelation,which is the only possiblesourceof our realknowledgeof
the beginningof things,iust asit is our only sourceof knowledgeof
the finalendof all things.St. Basilwrites:
'!flcareproposing of the worldand to con-
to examinethestructure
not from thewisdomofthe world,but
templatcthe wholcuniverse,
from wharGod taughtHis servant whenHe spoketo him in person
andwithoutriddles.n
lf we can humble ourselves enoughro know that we can actuallyknow
ratherlittle about the detailsof the Creationof the Six Days, we will
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
expressed our aim in studying them: we should measurethem, not
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 uni-
verseaswe 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 gov-
ern 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! crea-
tion. 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 be-
ginning 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 conrourseof 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 creativeact,so muchso tharthe effecrof
His will anticipatedthe 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
 fns Srx Days ol CnulroN
Ge Nssts'ClalrtoN aNo ElnlY Mel

and imagcof God, rhis is nor in thc leasrsurprising;sincefor him, as

1l6n-5gs5 fbrth as his understanding of the Six Days of Creation that
for a king, the royal dwclling had to be preparedand only then was
all things in each of these days were created simultaneousl:
rhc king to be led in, accornpaniedby all creatures.rr

As to the separatcstarsor thc greatlights,nor rhis appearcdfirst, and

In the same vein St. John Chrysosrom writes:
that second,but in one day and by the samccommand, they were all
calledinto bcing. And such was thc original formation of the quad-
The Almighry right hand of God and His limidesswisdom would
rupeds,and ofbirds, and fishes,and cattle, and plants.... No onc
have had no difficulry in crearingcverything in a single day. And
creaturewas made before anorher,but all things originate subsisted
whar do I say,in a singleday?-in an instant. But sincc He crcatccl
at once togetherupon one and the samecommand.'u
everything that exists nor for His own bcncfir, bccauseHe needs
nothing, bcing All-sufficienrunro Himself, on rhe conrrary Hc crc-
3. WhY Six DaYs? arcd everything in His love of mankind and goodncss,and so Hc
"it creltcs in parts and offcrs us lry the mouth of rhe blcssedProphct a
Ve havealreadyquoted St. Ephraim the Syrian,who statesthat
clcar tcachingofwhat is createdso that we, having found out about
is likewiseimpermissibleto say that what seems,accordingto the ac-
this in dctail, would not fall under thc influcnce of those who arc
count (of Genesis),to havebeencreatedin the courseof six days,was
drawn away by human reasonings....And why, you will say, was
createdin a single instant " The Holy Fathersare quite insistent tn
man creatcd afrerwards,if he surpasscdall rhesc crcatures?For a
their faithfulnessto the text of Genesis:when the text says"day," thcy
good reason.Vhen a king inrends ro cnrer a ciry his armsbcarcrs
find it impermissiblero understandsome indefinitely long epoch,
but they also find it impcr- and others must go ahcad,so that the king might enter chambcrsal-
sinceGod's creativeactsare instantaneousl
ready preparcd fbr him. I)rccisclyrhus did God now, intending ro
missibleto interpret theseSix Days as merely some Iiterary deviceto
creation.tAlthough eachcreativeact is placcas it wcrc a king and masrerover everyrhingcarthll at firsr ar-
expressa totally instantaneous
range all this adornmenr, and only then did He creatc rhe master
inrtrnt"neour, the whole creationconsistsof an orderly sequenceof
(man).rr
thesecreativeacts.
St. Gregory the Theologianwrrtes:
St. Gregoryof Nyssarepearsrhis samereachingthat man, as king,
appearedonly after his dominion had been preparedfor him; but he
To the days (of creation) is added a ccrtain firstness'sccondncss,
rhirdness,and so on to the seventhday of restfrom work, and by also has another, more mystical interpretationof the sequenccol rhe
bcingbroughtinto orderby
thesedaysis dividedall thar is creared' Six Days which some have rried ro interpret as an expressionof rhe
unurerablelaws,but not producedin an instant,by the Almighry theory ofevolution. Ler us thereforelook cltxely at this teaching.He
Vord, for \X/homto think or to speakmeansalrcadyto perform thc writes:
deed.If man appeared in the world last,honoredby the handiwork
Scriptureinforns us rharrheDciry proccededby a sortofgraduared
and ordercdadvanccro the creationof nran.After rhe fourrdarions
'This is, in fact, what BlesscdAugustincerroncouslyraught. In his book The of thc universcwerclaid,asthe historyrecords,
man did not appear
Litctal Mcaningof Gczarlr,hc suggcsred (but did not insist)rhat rhe daysofcreation
all
on the earthat once;bur rhe crearionof rhe brutesprccededhim,
werenot pcriodsof rimebut a litcrary dcvicero describe thc angclsconrcmplating
occurred totallyin one instant.-Eo and thc plantspreceded rhem.'fhercbyScriprurcshowsthat thc vi-
rhcworksofcrcation,which in rcaliry

r02 103
 GsNrsIs.Cns,crIoNaNo Eatt,vMeN
tal forccsblcndedwirh rheworldof matteraccording to a gradarionl
first, it infuseditselfinto insensate nature;and in continuation of
rhisadvanced into the sentientworld;and then ascended to intelli-
genrand rationalbeings.. . . Thc creationof man is related as coming
last,as of one who took up into himsclfeverysingleform of life,
both that of plantsand rharwhich is scenin brutes.His nourish-
ment and growth he derivesfrom vegetablelife; for evcn in vegera-
blcssuchprocesses areto be seenwhcnalimcntis beingdrawnin by
their rootsand givenoff in fruir and leaves. His sentientorganiza-
tiorr he derivesfrom the brure creation.
But his faculryof thought
andreason is incommunicable, andis a peculiargift in our nature,...
It is not possible for this rcasoning faculryto existin thc lifc of the
bodywithoutexistingby meansofsensations, and sincesensation is
alreadyfound subsistingin rhc brute creation,necessarily, as it were,
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 de-
claringto usthedocrrineofthe soul,considering thatwhat is pcrfec
comeslast,according to a certainnecessarysequenccin the orderof
things....Thus we may suppose that naturemakes an ascenras lt
wereby steps-l meanthe variousproperriesof life-from the lower
to rheperfectform.'"
This is one of the very few passagesin the writings of the Holy Fa-
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 crea-
ruresalso 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 evolu-
tionary theory.
105

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
said."St. Basilasksthe meaningof rhis,and answersit for us:
Let us inquirehow God speaks.Is ir in our manner?...DoesHe
manifest His hiddenthoughrby srrikingrheair wirh rhearriculare
movementof thc voicelSurely,it is fantasricto saythat God needs
sucha roundaboutway for the manifestation of His thoughrs.Or,
is it not morc in conformirywith true religionto saythar rhe Di-
106
Tna Srx D,vs (D.rv av D,rv)
vinc will joined wirh thc first irnpulscof His intelligenceis the
Vord of God?[r.a, Christ].The Scripturcdelineares Him in detail
in orderthar it mayshowthat God wishedthc crcarionnot only to
be accomplishcd, bur alsoro bc broughtro this birth rhroughsome
co-worker. Ir couldhaverelarcdcveryrhingfully asir began,"ln the
beginningGod crearcdrhe hcavens and the earrh,"thcn "He crc-
atedlight," next,"Hc crcaredrhe firmarncnr."Bur now, introduc-
ing God ascommandingand speaking, ir indicares
silendyHim r<r
Whom He givcsthe commandand to \ifhom He spcaks....'fhis
way of speakinghas bccn wisclyand skillfullyemployedso as to
rouseour mind to an inquiryof rhc Pcrsonro \Whomrhewordsarc
dircctcd.r
And so we seeChristis the Crearor,as is alsostatedbv St. Iohn rhe
Iivangelist:"ln rhe beginning was rhe Word ... all rhings *.r. nla.i.
through Him and without Him was made nothing that was made"
(John l:1,3). St. Paul teachesrhe samething: "God... createdall
things by JesusChrist" (Eph. 3:9); "by Him (Christ) were all things
created,that are in heaven,and thar are in earth, visibleand invisible,
whether they be thrones,or dominions,or principalities,or powers:all
things werecreatedby Him and for Him" (Col. I : l6).
-fhus, in rradirional
Orthodox iconographyof the crcation we see
not Michelangelo'sold man (the Father) crearing Adam (as in the
frescoin rhe SistineChapel),but Christ. Of course,it is the'li.iniry asa
whole thar creares:the Father commands, the Son creates,and in a
moment we will seerhe Spirir participatingin this work, as he "moves"
or "hovers"over the warers.Of this St. Ephraim rhe Syrian writes:
Ir wasfirting for the Holy Spirirro hoverasa proof thar in crcative
powcrHe is cqualro the Farherand the Son.For rhe Fatheruttcred,
rhc Son creared, and ir wasfining for thc Spirit alsoro offer His
work. And rhis He did 6y houering, thcrebyclearlyshowingthat all
wasbroughtinto beingand accomplishcd by thc Tiinity.r
l:l-2 God createdthe heauensand the earth. And tbe earth was
aithout form and uoid (Sepruagint: inuisibleand unfnished).
r07
 Grnrsrs,CnrarroNlln EenrvMrN
St. Basilask:
How is it, ifborh the heavens andthc earthwercofequalhonor,that
the heavens werebroughtto perfectionand the eanh is still impcr-
fectandunfinishcd? Or, in short,whatwasthe lackofpreparation of
thc earth) And lor what reasonwas it invisiblel Surely,thc perfect
conditionofthc earthconsists in itsstateofabundance: the budding
of all sortsof plants,the puttingforth of the lofry treesboth fruitful
and barren, the freshnessand fragranceof flowers,and whatever
thingsappeared on eartha linle latcrby the commandof God to
adorntheir mother.Sinccasyet thercwasnothingof this,the Scrip-
ture reasonably spokeof it as incompletc.!7e might saythe samc
alsoabourthe heavcns; that theywerenot yct broughtto pcrfection
themselves, nor had they receivedtheir properadornmenr,since
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
heavens alsowereincompletc.o
St. Ambrose speaksof this work of the First Day as the "fbunda-
tion" of the world:
The good archirecrlays rhe foundation first, and afterwards,when
the foundationhasbcenlaid,plotsrhevariousparrsof the building,
. Why
oneaftertheother,andthenaddstheretotheornamenration...
did not God ... grantto the eleme ntsat the samerimeastheyarosc
their appropriate adornments, Hc, at the momentof creatron,
as if
wereunableto causethe heavens immediacely to gleamwith studded
starsand the earth ro be clothed with flowers and fruit? That could
very well havehappened.Yet Scripturepoints out that things were
first createdand afterwardsput in order,lestir be supposedthat they
justasifthe
wercnot actuallycreated andthattheyhadno beginning,
natureof thingshad been,as it were, gencrared from the beginning
and did not appearto be something addedafterwards.t
St. Eohraim says:
108
Tne Srx Days (D,lv nv D,w)
Hc saidrhisdesiringto showrharemptiness preccded the natures(of
things).. . Therewasrhcnonly the earrh,and thercwasnothingbc-
sideir."
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 estab-
lishedand 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 shaltre-
new 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 ca-
pableof birth, like a bird whenit sitswith irsoutstretched wingson
its eggsand by its warmrh givesthem warmth and producesfertiliry
in them.This sameHoly Spiritrepresented for us then an imageof
Holy Baptism,in which by His movingover the watcrsHe gives
birth to thc childrenof God.ro
in the otherdaysof Creation,for
The Holy Spiritalsoparticipated
of 'the DivineSpiritwhichmademe" (Job33:4).
Jobspeaks
l:3 And Godsaid, Let therebe light; and therewaslight.
St. Ambrosewrites;
God is the authoroflight, andthe placeand causeofdarkness is the
world. But the good Author uttcredthe word "lighi'so that He
might revealthe worldby infusingbrighrncss thereinand thusmake
its aspectbeautiful.Suddenly,rhen,the air becamcbrightand dark-
The
nessshrankin terrorfrom the brillianccof the novclbrightness.
brillianceof the light whichsuddenlypcrmeated the wholeunivcrse
overwhclmedthe darknessand, as it were, plungedit inro the
abyss.
" "God separated
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:
The light which appcared on earthwaslike eithera brightcloud,or
a risingsun, or the pillar that illuminedthe Hebrewpeoplein rhe
desert.In anycase,thelight couldnot dispcrse thedarknessthatcm-
bracedeverything if it had not extendedeverywhere either its sub-
sance or its rays,like rhe risingsun.The originallight wasshed
everywhcreand was not enclosedin a singledefinite place;it dis-
persedthe darkness without havingany movement;its wholcmove-
l l0
Tsa Srx Drvs (Dev sv D,r.v)
mcnt consisted in its appearance
anddisappcarance; afterits sudden
disappearance rherecamerhe dominionof night, and with irs ap-
pearancethis 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 origi-
nallighr.rl
l:4 And God saw that the light utasgood.
God callseachstageof His work "good," seeingits perfectand un-
spoilednatureand, asSt. Ambroseteaches,looking forward to the per-
fection of the whole work:
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:
rhe light f'romrhe darkncss." Thar is, Cod madc
their naturcsincapableof mixing and in opposirion,onc ro rhc
othcr.For,He dividedandseparated themwith a verygrerrdistinc-
tion 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 whichwasop-
thc creationof light wasnot night,but darkness;
posedto the day wasnamednight; whcreforeit reccivcdits namc
laterthandredaydid....
Vhy did he say"one"and not "first"?It is moreconsistent for
him who intendsto introducea sccondanda rhirdanda fourth day,
to call rhe onewhich bcginsthe scrics"first."But he said"one" bc-
cause hc wasdetiningthc mcasurc ofdry andnight.r'
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-hosera-
tionalist commentatorswho see in the "sevendays" and the fact that
"evening" precedes"morning" merely a projection backwardsof later
Jewishcustomsshow themselvestotally out of harmony wirh the Pa-
tristic way of viewing these things, and they are thereforeunable ro
answer the question: where and why did the Jews derive these cus-
toms?In rhe Patristicview, the revealedtext can and doesgive the lit-
eral origins of the world and the reasonsfor the Jewish customs
(which are now Christian-for our church day also beginswith Ves-
pers,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 an-
other 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 crc-
ateout 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 hadalreadybeencre-
atedout of nothing.r6
The "five creations"rhat St. Ephraim mentions are the "four ele-
ments" 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 Crea-
tion: 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 devel-
ops by itself can be seento be akin to the ancient paganspeculations;
the radicalness of the Genesisexplanationis beyond them both-pre-
ciselybecause comesfrom God! revelationand not the guesses
it and
projectionsof men.
The Christian who understandsthe absoluteness of God's creatrve
work in the Six Days views the presentcreation with different eyes
rhan doessomeonewho views it as a gradualdevelopmentor "evolu-
tion" from primordial matter (whether the latter is understoodas cre-
ated 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
exisrence: that which now is, and the absolutenothingnessfrom which
it came,suddenlyand by Godt will alone.
There is only one more questionfor us to ask concerningthe First
Day: where doesthe crearionof the world of angelsfit into it? Moses
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
world,which our mind canattainby conremplation, but which has
beenleft uninvestigatedbecauseit is not adaptedto thosewho are
beginncrsand as yet infantsin undcrstanding. This wasa certain
conditionolder than thc birth of thc world and properto the su-
pramundane powers,one beyondtimc, cverlasting, without begin-
ning or end. In it the Creatorand Producerof all thingsperfected
rhc works of His art, a spirituallight befining the blcssednessof
thosewho lovc thc Lord. rationaland invisible narures,and the
wholeorderlyarrangement which surpass
of spiritualcreatures our
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
frmament and separated tbe waters which 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 secondday-
Some 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 Orrhodoxteachingon rhccrearionand narureofrhe an_
gcls,seeSr.John f)amasccnc,On the OrtbodoxFtaith2:3.-Eo.
ll5
 Cns.artonlNo E,rnrvMrN
GeNests.
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"fir-
mament" 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.
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 hasbeenas-
signedfor a certainfirm naturewhich is capablcof supportingthc
f'luid and unstablewarer.And, surely,we necd not belicve,because
it seemsto havchadits origin,accordingto thc generalunderstancl-
ing, from water,that it is like eitherfrozenwateror somc.. trans-
lucent stone ... almost like thc air in transparency. Now, we
comparethc firmament to none of thescthings.tuly, it is peculiar
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... .
Not a firm and solidnature,which hasweightand resistancc, ir
is not this that the word "firmament"means.[n that casethe earth
would morc legitimatclybe considered deserving of such a name.
But, becausc the narure of the substances lying above is light and
rarcand imperceptiblc, Hc calleddis (a)frmament,in comparison
with those very light substanccs which are incapableof perception
by thc scnscs. Now, imaginesomeplacewhich tendsto separare the
116
l'se Srx D,ws (Dev sv D,{v)
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 Dre-
servea 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 rcmper-
ate. 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 un-
derstandingthe Scripture,and we are also permitted to do so-pro-
vided only thar we do no violence ro rhe rexr of Scrioture and are
humble and moderatein our own supposedund.r.,anjing. The fol-
lowing explanation,rherefore,is offered not as dogma but as specula-
UOn.
The very phenomenonof rain is nor menrionedin the rext of
Gencsis
unril the time of Noahiand rhenit is not an ordinaryrain but
t17
 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 lm-
mense underground supply of water was loosed, and the "firma-
msn1"-1hg atmospheric condition that preserveda Permanent
reservoirofwater in the air, evidentlyin the form ofclouds such as the
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 evi-
dence-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 universaltem-
peratenessprevailedover the earth and abundant vegetationsupplied
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 com-
mand."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,Me-
l i vcJ' )6' )ycrrs,orhcr slivcdc) 00. 800ycr n.
rhrrrrl .rh
"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 beforcAd-
lm! 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
ground reservoirs? Did the land rise upl The Scripture does noc say,
and for this reasonthe Holy Fatherssay little on this subject.St. Am-
brosewrites:
'What
Hc actuallyhasdonc,which I havenot learncdfrom the clear
tesrimonyof Scripture,I passoverasa mystery, lest,perchance,
thar
stir up otherquestions I
startingevenfronr this point. Ncvcrrhclcss,
maintainin accordance with the Scriprurcs,rhat God canextendthc
low-lyingrcgionsand the openplains,asHc hrs said:"l will go be-
fbrethecand makelcvelthe mountains"(ls.45:2).rr
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 phe-
nomenon; 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 it-
selfand all which is thereinwas framed,... he hason thc other hand
left our of the investigationthe "how" of rhis framing... . Let us, fol-
lowing the exampleof the Apostlc, lcaverhe qucstion of the "how"
in cachcreatedthing, withour meddling with it ar all, but merelyob-
servingincidentallythat 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
Tnr Srx Days (Dnv sv D,rv)
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:
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, dis-
tinguishedtheseafrom the land,referringro rheLord God: "For the
seais His and He madeit, and His handsmadcthe dry land" (Ps.
945)j)
l:ll-13 And God said, Let the earth put forth ueytation, plants
/elding seed,and f uit tecs bearingfuit in which is their seed,each ac-
rcrding 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 stand-
ing 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,ce-
dars,cypresses,and pines;likewise,all thc shrubswereimmediately
thick wirh leafandbushy;andtheso-called garlandplants-the rose
l2t
 Gexmts, Cnr,,lr IoN ,rno ElnrY MIN
bushes,myrtlcs,and laurels-all camc into existcnccin a moment of
rimc, although they were not previouslyupon rhe earth, each onc
with its own peculiarnaturc.ra
St. Ephraimthe Syrianstatesprecisely:
The herbs,at the time of their creation,wercthe productionsof a
singleinstant,but in appearance rhcyappeared the productionsof
months.Likewisethe trccs,at thc time of their crcation,werethe
productionsof a singleday,but in thcir perfectionand fruits,which
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 crea-
tions we know; seedscome from thosefirst-createdplants:
'Welearnfrom Scripturcin the accountofthc flrstcrcation,rharfirst
rhe earthbroughtforth 'ihc greenhcrb,"and rhat thcn from this
plantseedwasyieldcd,from which,whenit wasshedon theground,
rhcsamef<rrmof theoriginalplantagainsprangup... . In the bcgin-
ning,wesee,ir wasnot an earrisingfrom a grain'but a grainconring
from an ear,and, after that, the car growsround the grain.2('
Plantsand treesappearedon earth, as the Fathersrepeatagain and
again,beforethe very existenceof the sun. St. John Chrysostomwrites:
(Moses)showsyou that evcrythingwas accomplished bcforethe
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
Tul Srx Days (Da.vsv D,rv)
St. Ambrose waxeseloquenton this subiect:
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
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 crea-
tion, when living creatureswere brought forth likewise"each accord-
ins to its kind."
4. TheFourthDay (Gencsis
t:14-19)
l:14-19 And Godsaid,Let rherebe lightsin thefrmament of thc
lteauensto scparatethe dq fo^ the night, and let them befor signsand
for seasons andfor daysandyart and lct thembelighr in thefrmament
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 evolutionaryframe-
work. -fhereis absolutely no way thiscanbe doneif the sun wasactu-
ally 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 un-
derstandingso as to comprehendwhat the sacredtext actuallysays.
And here asalwa/s the Holy Fathersare our key to this comprehen-
sion. 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 Genesisper-
mitted 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 expla-
nation 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

'This is thc cxplanationoFcrcd by many "old-earrh/progrcssivc

crcationists'as
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 wasal-
readyformedbeforcthe sunput in irsappcarance; look at rheplants
of rheearrhwhich preceded in rimethe light of the sun.The bram-
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
beenin evidcnceeverywhere. For the day,too, hasits lighr which is
irsclfthe precursorof rhesun.l2
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 con-
necrion 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 ex-
planation that comesfrom Divine revelation,it hasseemeda matter of
coursethat the sun-so much largerand astronomicallymore signifi-
canr 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 open-
ing our minds to rhisalternariveexplanationofrhe worldt beginnings.
In the Scriptural-Patristic view the earth, as the home of man, the
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 bar-
esroutline ofwhat He did do, and this account is not requiredto ac-
cord with our human speculationsand guesses.
In our daysit hasbecomefashionableand easyto believethat every-
thing "evolved,"by absolutelyuniform lawswhich we can now observe,
from a primordial blob ofenergy or matter; if one needs"God" to ex-
plain anything, it is only to be the "creator"ofthis blob, or the iniriaror
ofthe "big bang" that supposedlyhasproducedeveryrhingrhereis. 1b-
day it requiresa broadermind, lesschainedro "public opinion," to be-
gin 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 ap-
parent 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
heaven,for in the resaneetion thq neithcrmarry, nor aregiuenn mar'
riage,but arcastheangebof Godin heaaen(Matc, 22:30). RathecGod
madethe division into maleand femaleforeseeing the fall of man and
that the increaseof mankind would requirea passionate
eranon.
modeofgen-

Might it not be, then,that the sun and moon arealsonot part of
p
Godt original "image"of His creation,bur wereonly createdto mark
rhe days and months and yearsoF man'sfallen estate?The original
light, createdon the First Day, had no needofa body to contain it. At
the end ofthe world shallthesun be darhened,and the moonshall not
giue ber light, and thc smrsshallfall fon heaaen(Mttt. 24:29); and in
the kingdom of heaven,ason the First Day of Creation,therewill be
oncemore light without the sunand moon-for thecity had no necdof
the sun, neither of the moon, to shinc in it; for theglnry of the Lord did
lightcnit (Apoc.2l :23).
But thesearemysteriesat which we can do no more than guess.

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 Thc crcationofthc crcaturcsofsca and air on thc Fifth Day ofCrcarion.
that moaes,with uhich the u.,aterssuarm, accordingto their hinA, and Iconfon Suchcuita Monastcty,Moldzuiz, Romania,ca. t584.
cuerywinged bird accordingto its hind. And God saw that b wasgood.
And God blzssed tbcm, saying,Bcfitirful and muhiply, andfll the waters
in tlte scas,and lzt birds mubipl on thc earth.And thercwaseueningand
tl)ereaas morning, affih day.

t28
 Gapasrs,Cn.e,rrroN,rNn Ernrv M,rN

In his commentary on the Fifth Day of Creation,St.JohnChry-

sostomemphasizes the preciseness of the orderin
and accurateness
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 greatconde-
scension,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 unut-
terablepowerofour Creator.rl

Thus, on the Fifth Day, he wrires:

Just as He said of the eanh only: "Let it bring forth," and thereap-
peareda greatvarieryof flowers,herbs,and seeds,and dl occurred
by His word alone,so hcrealsoHe said:"Lct the watcrsbring forth
swarmsof living creatures,and let birds fly abovethe earthacrossthe
firmamentof the hcavcns"-and instantlytherewereso many kinds
of crawlingthings, sucha varieryof birds, that one cannot number
rhcm in words.$

St. Basil writes:

All water was in eagerhasteto fulfill the command of its Creator,

and the greatand ineffablepowerof God immediarelyproducedan
The crcationofthe crearures
ofscaand air on rhc Fifth Day ofCreation,
efficaciousand activelife in crcaruresof which onc would not even
Wallpaintingfon thc Far MonastcryofSt. John thc Forcrunnct, Grcccc-
be able to enumcratethe specics,assoon as the capaciryfor propa-
gatingliving creaturescamero the $,arersthrough His command.3t

130
 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 lr , , r r t , l i, 'r r lr r hcir , , ll

r lr c r r . r t cr sir t r t : t cdi. t t clv
\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
t,, r' c.,,l l t l r,.rrr r r lr
.rl ' 1,.'
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
rl )c \.l n)( i n' t.rrr.Lri'r t . r r r t i. LIlir t nr . inr l r lr r 1'r ir r , iPlc, r l lil, . l, r c
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 .
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\
s 1.
'
Il .r.i l t.

l l trt. 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
P r' .Ltr' tl 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
i rrrl to i t.l i i rr..l .'
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 .Ltr..r' p,,i rrt5t. [J;rsi urit
l cs lspcr t liit t r ol l t lr c \ ir t lr l) r Lr) ;

\\' l rrrr l l , 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

i lr c { r(.rtr()rr
o l tlr, i r c . r t Lr r rol
llt..t,tritL lt,,'rr, h,,,n \ l, un, t lL (
' ,ri .l :
' s ' , . r . r r , l . r Lr( , n r lr c lilr l r 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<l
' t,,rc..l
t , t l. \ t , t lt . r t t ,ilil , , t t r t r t
ul ),i n i r rl r( p.rvcr t , r lr r inq lir r t lr . \ . it hcr , li, l r lr , . , . r r r lr . r t lr . r r it
' t r i,
l rc.rr.l . l ct i t bri ng lr r r r h vct ( t . r li( ) r r. r r t , lt lr . lr r t it 11, ( '. 1r r , r Jt t t c
1,l .Lrrr. 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
'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
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,
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
The Holy Fathers havea verydefiniteteachingon the "kinds" of
creation.Let us only bearin mind herethat we neednot definepre-
ciselyrhe limitsof these"kinds."The "species" of moderntaxonomy
(thescience ofclassification)aresometimes arbitraryanddo nor neces-
sarilycorrespond to the "kinds"of Genesis;but in generalone might
sayrhatthe Fathers understand asincludedin a "kind" thosecreatures
capableof producinga fertileoffspring,aswill be seenin what fol-
lows.*
St. Basilreachesthat the "kinds"of Genesis(except,ofcourse,for
thosethat mayhavebecomeextinct)maintaintheir natureto cheend
of time:
Thcreis nothingrruerthanthis,thateachplantcitherhasscedor
there existsin it some gcncrativepower. And rhis accounts for the cx-
pression"ofits own kind." For the shoot ofthe reedis not productive
* The definitionof"species"hasbeenrhe subjectof much debatein the modern
scientificcommuniryIn rhefirsthalfofthe rwenticrhcentury,a spccies wasgencr-
ally defincdasa groupof planrsor animalsrhararc ablero inrcrbrecd and producc
fcrrilcoffspring.By 1942,biologisrlirnstMayrsuggesred a definitionrhatwasmuch
lesslimiring: a speciesis a group that is "reproducrivelyisolated"from other such
groups(i.c.,doesnorgenerally matewirh anorhergrorrp,alrhoughit maybe capablc
ofdoing so).This newdefinirionofspecies is rodayaccepted by manybiologists, Be-
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 Pa-
trisricreachingon rhe "kinds"describcd in Genesis, howevcr,it would seemrhar
rheserwo "spccics" of bcararebur diffcrentvarielies within one of the originalcre-
ated"kinds."
For furrherdiscussion ofthe changingdefinitionofspeciesin modcrnscicnce,
seefuchard Mlfton, Shaneringthz Mlths of Darwinism,pp. 143-53. For sourceson
rhequestionofvariarionwithin eachcreated "kind," secp. 646 below.-Eo.
I J.l
Tsr Srx Davs (D.rv sv D,,rv)
ofan oliverree,but fiom rhereedcomesanotherreed;andfrom seeds
springplantsrclaredto theseeds sown."fhus,what wasput forth by
thc earrhin its first generation
hasbeenpreservcduntil thc presen
time,sincethc kindspersisted throughconstantreproducrion.l'
And further:
Thc natureof existingobjects,set in motion by one command,
passes rhroughcreationwithout changc,by generation and destruc-
rion, prcservirrg the succession of rhe kinds througlrrescmblanc
until it reaches the vcry cnd. It begetsa horscas the successorof a
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 causesthe specific
charactcristics ofthe animalsto bc corruptcdor extinct,but, asifes-
tablished just rccently,
nature,cverfresh,movesalongwith timc.a0
Similarly,St. Ambrose teaches:
In thc pine conc natureseemsro express an imageof itsclf;ir prc-
servcsits peculiarpropertieswhich it receivcdfrom thar Divineand
cclestial
command,and it rcpcatsin thc succession and ordcrof the
ycarsirsgeneration until rhcendof rime is fulfilled.a'
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 as-
pecrand 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 en-
ioinedbccamein naturea habitfor all timc. Hencethc carthhasnot
ceasedto offcr the homageof her service.The original speciesof liv-
ing 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"un-
natural unions" which go againstthe laws which God establishedin
the Days of Creation:
'What
purc and unrarnished generations follow wirhout intermin-
glingone afteranorher,so rhat a thymallusproduccsa thymallus;a
sca-wolf,a sea-wolf. Thc sea-scorpion, roo, preservesunstainedirs
marriagebed.... Fish know norhingof union wirh alien specics.
They do not have unnaturalbetrothalssuch as are designedly
brought about berweenanimalsof rwo different speciesas, for in-
stance,thedonkeyand rhemare,or againthe femaledonkeyand rhe
horse,both beingexamples of unnaturalunion. Certainlytherearc
casesin which naruresuffcrsmorein the narureofdefilementratncr
than that of injury ro rhe individual.Man as an abeaorof hybrid
barrcnness is responsiblefor this. He considers a nrongrelanimal
morevaluablethanoneofa genuinespecies. Youmix togetheralien
spcciesandyou 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 naturehasac-
customeditself, 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 de-
gencratedinro 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
servants, "Sir,didstthou not sowgooo
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 cosmologicalrheoryofuniversalevo-
lution 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 theshacklesofrhc "old moraliry":
'l had motivesfor not wantingrhe world to havernslning.consequenrly as-
sumcdthar 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 lib-
crarionwc desircdwassimultancously liberationfrom a certainpoliricaland cco-
nomicsysremand libcrationfrom a cerrainsysremof moraliry.\4 objccredto rhe
moralirybecauscit inrcrfcredwith our scxualfreedom"(Aldous Huxley,"Confcssion
ofa ProfcssedAtheist," Rcporl June1966,p. l9).
137
 GrNrsrs,Cn[.ArtoNruo E,reryMeN
The idea of the consistencyof nature and the integrity and dis-
tinctnessof its "kinds" runs throushout Patristicliterature.It servesas
a model, for example,of the resuriectionof the human body. St. Am-
brosewrites,in his treariseon rhe resurrecrion:
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 Crea-
tion, that first the earth brought forth "rhe grecnherb" (asthc nar-
rative says),and that thcn from this planr seedwas yiclded, from
which,when ir wasshedon the ground,rhesameform of rheorigi-
nal plantagainsprangup, the Aposrle,it is to be observed, dcclares
that this very samerhing happensin the Resurrection also;and so
we lcarn from him the facr, nor only rhar our humanirywill be
chcnchangedinto somcrhingnoblcr,but alsorhat whar wc havc
rhercinto cxpectis nothingelsethan rhat which wasar rhc bcgin-
ning.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 pre-
serve the orderlinessof creation and rhe disrinctnessof its kinds of
crcatures.Sr. Gregoryof Nyssawrires:
138
Tna Srx D,cys(D,rv ev Dav)
Thosewho would haveit thar the soul migratesinto naturesdivcr-
gent from eachother seemsro mc to oblirerateall naruraldistinc-
tions;to blendand confuserogerhcr,in evcrypossiblerespecr, rhc
rational,rhe irrarional,the sentient,and rhe inscnsate; il that is, all
thesearc to passinto eachother,wirh no disrincrnaruralordersc-
cludingrhemfrom 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 ln-
sensate 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 hopclcsslyall rhc marksby which onecouldbe
disringuishcd from another.at
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 ani-
malson the Sixth Day doeslittle more rhan repeatwhat hasalready
beensaidaboutthe otherlivingcreatures. l-hus,Sr.Ephraimwrites:
139
 (ir.:r,rr-:srs,
Creer.roNlNo Elrly M,rN
I'hc carrhat God! comnrandimmediatelybroughtforrh creeping
things,bcasrs ofthe field,creaturesofprcy,anddomesticanimals,as
many aswerenecessary for the serviceof him who, on rhat veryday,
transgressed
the commandmenrof his [,ord.48
St. Basilteaches:
The soulofbrure beastsdid not emergeafterhavingbeenhiddenin
the earth,bur it wascalledinto existence
at the time of thc ctrm-
mand.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 wis-
dom 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 observa-
tion is sowonderfultharevenrhemosracutemind is shownto be ar
a lossasregards the lcasrof rherhingsin the world,eitherin thc abil-
iry to explain ir worthily or ro rcnderdue praisero rhe Crearor,ro
Vhom bc all glory, honor,and powcr fbrever.tl
t40
Tur SIx D,rYs(D.ry sv Dev)
God made the world, asSt.John Damasceneteach€s,because,"llot
content to contemplateHimself, by a superabundance ofSoodnessHe
saw fit thar there should be some things to benefit by and participate
52
in this goodness."
Perhapsno part of ScriPtureexPresses so well the awe-inspiring
majesryof God in His creation,and man's nothingnessin compari-
son, as does the passagein which God speaksto Job out ofthe whirl-
wind:
'Whe
rc wast thou when I founded the earth?Tell me now, if thou
hastknowledge, who setthe measures ofit, ifthou knowest? Or who
stretched a line upon it? On what areits rings fastened?And who is
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 ap-
pointcdplace;to lay hold of thc extremities of the earth,(o castout
rhe r.rngodly out of it? Or didst thou takeclayof rhe ground'and
form a livingcreature, andsct it with the powerof speechuPonthe
carth?(Job38:4-14,Septuaginr).
'l'he Genesisaccount of the creation of man is given in rwo ac-
counts, those of chapterone and chaPtertwo; thesewe shall examine
in the next chapter.
2:l-3 Thus the heauensand the earth werefnished, and all the host
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
'I hc l)ivine
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
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-
srrucrsus that on the SeventhDay He ceasedto creareand to bnng
out of nonexistenccinto existence;but when Chrisr says:"My Fa-
ther 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-
ist, if a higher hand did not governand order everythingvisibleand
the human race?5J
Tun SrxDrYs(f).cvsv D,{v)
Sr.Ephraimt('and orherFathers emphasize this newnessby stating
rheirbeliefthat the world wascreatedin the spring.St. Ambrosetres
this rogetherwith the factthat amongthe Hebrewsthe yearbeganin
thespring:
He crcatedheavenand earthat th€ rime when the monthsbegan,
from which rime it is fitting that thc world took its rise Then there
wasthe mild temPcrature of spring,a season suitablefor all things.
Consequcntly, thc ycar, too, has the stamp of a world coming to
birth.... In ordcrto showtharthecreatio n of thc worldtook placcin
the spring, Scripturesays: "This month shallbe to you the bcgin-
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
rheycarbc thc bcgirtningo[ generation.i-
bcginning<-,f

Viewing the marvel ofwhar happens every day in what we have be- Now, after this look at the Holy Fathers'veryrealisticunderstand-
come accusromed to call "nature"-the development, lor example, of a ing of the Six Days of Creation, Iet us turn to the more comPlexques-
fully mature plant, animal, or evenhuman being from a riny seed-we rion of rhe making of the crown of God'.screation,man.
cannot help but seethe continuouscreariveacriviryof God. But this is
not all the sameas rhe Creation of the Six Days, the original bringing
into being ofeveryrhing rhereis. The firsr chaprerof Genesisdescribes
this unique and unrepeatable creatron.
Being accustomedto the "working" of God in our presentworld,
we can scarcelyconceiveofthat orher kind of "work" which He did in
the Six Days.The world, then, while perfectand fully formed, wassrill
"new." St. Gregory the Theologianemphasizes rhat when God wished
to createAdam of rhe dust, "the Vord, having taken a parr of the
newly createdearrh, with His immorral hands formed my image."5a
St. Ephraim rhe Syrianteaches:

Justasrhe rrees,the grasses,

rheanimals,birdsand man wereat rhe
sametime borhold andyoung:old in the appearance of rheirmem-
bersand 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. "Let usmakeman". . . Thiswordwasnot yerusedfor anyof theor-

Detail ofd Rsian ion ofabout theyeat 1570, rou locatedat thz
Soluychcgo*t Mwcum of History and Art.
ganizedbeings;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 )

tion 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 Thcophanesthc Grcckin tbc Churchofthc Trancfgumtion,
Nougorod,Rusia, 1378.
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 wascoun-
sel,deliberation,and communication,nor because God hasneedof
counsel-may this not be!-but in order by the very meansof ex-
pression 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 crea-
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 Crea-
tion 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, silcntpraisersand thrilling her-
aldsof 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 (thein-
visibleand 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 inteilec-
rual;king of all upon earth,but subjectro rhe King abovc;earthly
and heavenly; temporaland yer immorml;visibleand yet intellec-
rual; half-wayberweengrearness and lowliness;in one personcom-
bining 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 mys-
tery deificdby its inclinarionto God.r
\i(/hat is this image of God? Different Holy Farhershave empha-
sizeddifferent aspecrsof the image of God in man: some have men-
tioned man'sdominion over the lower crearion (which is mentioned
specificallyin the text of Genesis);others, his reason;srill orhers,his
t4t)
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
our narurc,He would not exhibitthe powcrof this goodness in an
impcrfecform, givingour naturesomeoneof the thingsar His dis-
posal,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
ro apprehcndit numcrically. The language ofScripturethereforeex-
presses it concisely by a comprehensive phrase,in sayingrhat man
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 re-
semblancc to the Archerypein beingfilledwirh all good.o
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 begin-
ning 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
oneby crearion, weacquircthc othcrby freewill. In thefirsrstructure
it is givenus to bc born in rhc imagcof Godl by frecwill thereis
formedin usthebcingin thelikeness ofGod.... "Lct usmakeman in
Our image":Let him posscss by crcationwhatis in the image,but let
him alsobecomeaccordingto the likcness. God hasgivenrhepower
for this;if He hadcreatedyou alsoin the likeness, wherewouldyour
privilegebe?Vhy haveyorr beencrowned? And if the Crearorhad
given you everything, how would the kingdom of heavenhave
openedfor you?But it is propertharoneparris givenyou,whilethe
orherhasbeenleft incomplete: this is so thatyou might completeit
yourselfandmighrbeworthyof therewardwhichcomesfromGod.t
t4)
 GeNcsIs,CnurIoN aNo EanrvM,rN
In the very passageof Genesiswhich describesthe creationof man,
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:
That whichwasmade"in the image"is onething,and thatwhich is
now manifested in wretchedncss is another,"God createdman," it
"in
says; the imagc of God creared He him." 'fhere is an cnd of the
creationof thatwhich wasmade"in rhc image":then it makesa rc-
sumptionofthe accountofcreation,andsays,"malcand fcmalecre-
ated He them." I presumcthat everyoncknows that this is a
departurefrom the Prororype: fbr "in ChristJcsus,"as the Apostlc
says,"thereis neithcr malenor female."Yct the phrascdcclaresthat
man is rhusdivided.
Thus the creationofour natureis in a sense rwofold:onc madc
like ro God, one dividedaccordingto rhis disrinction:for some-
darkly conveysby its arrangemcnt,where
thing like this the passagc
ir Orst says, "God man, in thc imageof God creatcdH"
created
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
Divineand incorporeal naturc,and the irrationallife of brutcs-arc
scparated from eachothcr asextremcs, human natureis the mean
berween them [thisis similarto the ideaofSt. GregoryrhcThcolo-
gianwe havealreadyquoted]:for in the compoundnarureof man
we may beholda part of eachof the naturesI havementioned-of
the Divinc,the rationaland intelligentclement,which doesnot ad-
mit the distinctionof malcand female;of the irrational,our bodily
form and structure,divided into malc and female:for eachof these
' ChristHimselfguotedthispassagcfrom Ccnesis. ln Mark l0:6 He says:"Bur
from rhe beginningof thc creationGod madethem maleand femalc."His words
"from rhe beginningof thc crcation"clearlyconrradicrthe evolutionisrand old-
earrh/progrcssivc ideatharthercwerebillionsofycarsofearth historybc-
crcationist
of human beings.(Sccalsop. 228 n.\-Eo.
fore thc appearance
lt0
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 irra-
tional is for man a provision for rcproduction... .
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
fall of man. St. John Chrysostom,commenting on the passage, "Now
Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived" (Gen.4:l)-which oc-
curred 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
couldthis be,whentheywerefreeof bodilynecds? Thus, in the be-
ginning life wasvirginal;but when,because of rhe carelessness(of
the first people)disobedienceappeared 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
sucha greatgood,andin irsplaccthcrcentcrcdinto cffectIhe law of
marricdlife.7
writes:
And St. John Damascene
Virginity waspracticcdin Paradise.... Aftcr the fall,... to keepthe
racefrom dwindlingand beingdcstroyed by death,marriage wasde-
vised,so that by the begettingof childrcnthc race of men might be
preserved.
Bur they may ask:Vhat, thcn, does"malcand femalc"mean,
and "increase and mukiply"?To which we shallreplythat the "in-
creaseand multiply"doesnot meanincreasingby the marriageun-
ion exclusively,becauseif thcy had kept thc commandment
unbrokenforever,Cod could haveincreasedrhe raceby someother
means.But, sinceGod, Who knowsall thingsbeforethcy cometo
be, saw by His forcknowledgehow they were to fall and be con-
demnedto death,He madeprovisionbeforehand by creatingthem
maleand femaleandcommandingthem to increase and multiply.s
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 statespro-
vided by Godt foreknowledgeofthe fall.
It should not be thought, however,that any of the Holy Fathers
looked upon marriageas a "necessary evil" or denied that it is a state
blcssedby God. They regardit as a good thing in our presentstateof
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 Fa-
rher who teachesso clearlythe origin of marriagein our kinship with
the beasts,alsodefendsrhe institution of marriagein the clearestfash-
ion. Thus, in his treatise"On Virginiry," he writes:
Let no one think rhat we deprcciare marriageasan instirution.We
arewell awarethat it is not a strangerto God'sblessing...,
But our
I S?
l-se CnrarloN or M-lN
view of marriageis rhis:that, while rhe pursuirof heavenlyrhings
shorrldbe a mant first care,yer if he can usethe advantages of mar-
riagewith 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
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 kin-
ship 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 be-
hind (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 sal-
vation 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 havebeenhon-
ored.lo
t53
 GeNrsIs,Crrerlott lNo EanrvMaN
Man is to "have dominion," also,not only over the externalcrea-
tion, but also over the beast-likepassionsthat lurk within him. St.
Basilwrites:
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
comes? And is not rhe trickeryrhat crouchesin a rreacherous soul
moreferocious than the bearofthe caverns?...\(/hat kind ofsavage
beastdo we not havewithin us?...Youwcrecrcatedro havedomin-
ion; 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,
the powerwhich wasgivenus throughliving beingspreparcs us to
exerciscdominion over ourselvcs.
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 reasonal-
readymentioned,took somethingof their nature(l meanthe modc
of gcnerarion), he accordingly took at the sametime a shareof the
orherattributescontcmplatcd in rhatnature;for the likencssof man
to God is not found in anger,nor is pleasure a markof thc superior
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
This is a very profound teaching.-I'hepeoplewho believein evolu-
tionary 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
r54
TsE CnlrrrroNor Mrn
we seehow animalisticwe arewhen we let passions control us. We
havethese"animals"within ourselves, but we alsohavethe heavenly
side,to which we arestrivingto gerback.
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,
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 ac-
cept 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 de-
partcd 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).
By this allowance,rhe orher animalsalso receivedrhe liberry ro eat
them.
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
t55
 GrltssIs,CnurroN aNo Ernry M,rN
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 prac-
riceof 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 passionsof rhe flesh,
which is free,the life ofcloseness to God, a partakerofthe life ofthe
angels.'r
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:
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
t56
Tue CmelroN or MaN
the Divine Scripturesays(Gen. l:26-30).... God gaveovcr ro man
at the bcginning this whole world asa kind of Paradise..
. . Adam was
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 crca-
rion 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 morede-
tail. One might saythat chapterone describes the crearionof human-
14,,both in the exaltedsenseasGod'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;calorderof the first chapter.rVe should
keepthis in mind to avoidrheelementary mistakes of rationalist
critics
who find "contradictions"berweentheserwo chaprersand suppose
theremustbe differentaurhorsof rhem.
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 ap-
pearance of man, emphasizing that without God rherewould have
beennothing,that He broughteverythinginto beingout of nothing.
St.JohnChrysostorn commenrs on rhispassage:
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
about all of rhem in order, but having mentioned the most impor-
tant, it does not relareto us abour each onc in detail-so also this
whole book, although it containsin imelf much elsc,ir callsthe book
of "the generationsof the heavenand of the carth," allowing us to
conclude from the mention of them that iu this book is to be in-
cluded every'thingvisiblc that is in heavenand on earth.. .. The Holy
Spirit shows ... what occurred first and what aftcrwards,and likc-
wise rhe fact thar the earth produced its seedsby the word and com-
mand ofthe Lord and beganto givc birth without nccding either the
cooperationof the sun, nor the moisturc of rain, nor thc tilling of
man, who was not yet created,... This (passagc)mcans that what
had not cxistedpreviouslyreceivedexistence,and what had not bcen
appearedsuddenlyby His word and command.... All this is so that
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 be-
irg.
Here we are given as much as we can know of rhe how of man's
creation.Therecanbe no doubt that the Holy Fathersunderstood by
"dust"the lireraldusrof theearth;but whentheyspeakof the "hands"
ofGod which "took" this dusr,theymeanto emphasize the greatcare
in
of God and His directaction this work. Blessed
Theodoret writes:'
\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-
ance,we discoverin it the specialgood disposition of God towards
thc human race. For the great Prophet notes, in his description of
' BlcsscdThcodorct, Bishopof Cyrus ncarAntioch, wasa fifth-century Father
who wrorecommcnrarieson Scliprure.
lt8
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 theseex-
pressionsindicatcs a grcater care on Godt part for man than for the
other creatures.lT
St. Basil statesthat this verseemphasizeshow different in his origin
is man from the animals:
Above, the text saysthat God created; here it sayshowGad crcated,
If the versehad simply said that God created,you could have be-
lieved thar He creatcd [man] as He did for the beasm,for the wild
animals,for rhe plants,for the grass.This is why, ro avoid your plac-
ing him in thc classof wild animals, the Divine word has made
known the particularart which Cod hasused for you: "God took of
the dusr of the earth."'8
The sameFarherrellsof the differenceberwcenthe "crearion"of
man and his "fashioning":
God,crcatedrhc inward man, andfasbioneddte ourwardman. Fash-
ioning is suitedto thc clay,and crcationto rhat which is in thc im-
agc.Thus,rhe fleshwasfashioned, but the soulwascreatcd.re
The creationof man indicatesboth his greatness
and his nothing-
ness:
"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
fashioned,what a greatthing is man!Thus at the sametimc hc rs
nothingbecause of the honor (St.
of the material,and greatbecause
Basil).:o
r59
 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
mannerof speakingbecause he wasspeakingto peoplewho could
not listcnto him otherwise, aswe areableto do; andalsoto showus
rhatit waspleasing to God'sloveof nrankindto makethis thingcre-
ated out of eartha participantof the rationalnatureof the soul,
throughwhichthislivingcreature wasmanifesrascxcellentandpcr-
fect. 'And He breathedinto his nostrils (face?)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-
out payingany atrenrionto the adaprationof the exprcssions (of
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 ra-
tionalsoulwhichcouldmakcuseof 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, in-
deed,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 or-
der in which it occurred.\)fhen St. John Chrysostomstatesrhat "be-
fore" the inbreathing man was a "lifelessdummy," to or St. Seraphim
l6l
 aNo Eerrv M,qN
Genesls,Cne,crIoN
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, to-
gether with che grace in which man was made-was instantaneous.
The Fathersfound it necessary to setforth this teachingquite explicitly
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
teaches:
From the carth He formcd his body and by His own inbrcathing
gavehim a rationaland undcrsranding soul,which lastwe sayis rhe
divinc image....'fhc body and the soul wereformedat thc same
timc-not one beforeand the other afterwards, as the ravingsof
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 ar-
gumcntthey provethat the fleshis morenoblethan the soul,that
which waspreviously formcd Imorcnoble]than thar which wasaf-
terwardsinfuscdinto it. . .. Nor againarewe in our doctrineto bcgtn
by makingup man likc a clayfigure,and to saythar the soul camc
into beingfor the sakeof this;for surclyin that casethc intellectual
naturewould be shownto bc lcssprecious rhanthc clayfigurc.But
asman is one,the being consisting of soul and body,we areto sup-
poscrhar the beginningof his existencc is orrc,common to both
parts,so that he should not be found ro be antcccdentand postcrior
to himself,if thc bodilyelementwerefirst in point of time,and rhe
t62
Tss CnrarroN or. M,q,N
othcrwcrca lateraddition....Forasour naturcis conceived asrwo-
fold,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 rm-
perfcct,asnot beingsufficicntfor the wholeraskar once,but divid-
ing the work,and busyingitselfwirh eachofthe halvesin turn.r"
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 es-
cape 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 specula-
tions 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 naru-
ral 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-)

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 teach-
ing. 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 striv-
ing 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:
On approaching this subjecrI secmto be possessedby 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
t64
Peraorss
the rhird heaven"(2 Cor. l2:2). And againhe says:"l know sucha
man-whether in the body or out ofthe body I do not know, God
knows-that hc wascaughtup into Paradiseand heardsecrctwords
that man may not repeat"(2 Cor l2:3-5)... . If Paradise,
sucha naturethat Paulalone,or one like Paul,couldscarcely
rhen,is of
seeir
while alive,and still wasunablcto remembcrwhethcrhc sawir rrt
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 Para-
discshouldnot, 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 be-
fow); it is also a part of the history of rhe earth.The Scripture and
Holy Farhersteachthat in the beginning, beforethe fall of man, Para-
dise 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
doesnot existin a place.Hc placedman in Paradise, just as He
placedthe sun in heaven.2
Likewise,St. John Chrysostomteaches:
BlessedMosesregisteredeventhe nameof this place(Eden),so that
rhosewho love ro speakempty words could nor deceivesimplc lis-
tenersand saythat Paradise
wasnot on carth bur in heaven,and ravc
.. fu you hearthat "God planteda garden
with similarmy'thologies..
165
 CeurtoN lNo Entrv M,qN
GEt'tEsts.
easrwardin Eden," rhe word "plant" undcrstandof God in a God-
bcfiting way,that is, that He commandcdl bur regardingthe follow-
ing words, bclicverhat Paradiseprecisclywas crcatedand in the vcry
placcwhere the Scripturehasassigncdir.... And thc word "plant" ler
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-
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:
Edenis a placein which therewa"splantedby God everykind of fra-
grantplant. It is neithercompletelyincorruptible,nor entirelycor-
ruptible.Placedbetweencorruptionand incorruprion,ir is always
both abundantin fruitsand blossoming with flowers,borh marurc
and immarure.The mature treesand fruis are convertedinto fra-
grantearthwhichdoesnot givcoffany odor ofcorruption,asdo thc
treesof thisworld.This is from theabundance ofthe graceofsancti-
ficationwhich is constantly pouredforth there.5
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
t66
l,cRAorsE
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. An-
drew the Fool for Christ of Constanrinople(ninth century). This ex-
periencewas wrirten down in the Sainis own words by his friend
Nicephorus:
Onceduring a terriblewinter when Sr. Andrewlay in a ciry srrcet
fiozenand ncardeath,hesuddenlyfilt a warmrhwithin him andbe-
hcld a splcndidyourh with a faceshininglike the sun, who con-
ducted him to Paradise and the third heaven."By Gods will I
remainedfor rwo wceksin a swcetvision... . I sawnrysclfin a splen-
did andmarvclous Paradisc..
. . In mind andhearrI wasastonished ar
rhc unutterablcbeauryof thc Paradisc of God, and I rook swecrdc-
light walkingin it. Therewcrc a multirudeof gardensthere,filled
with rall treeswhich, swayingin rhcir tips, rcjoicedmy cycs,and
from their branchcs thcrecameforth a grcatfragrance.... One can-
not comparethesetrcesin their bcauryro any carrhlytrcc.... In
thcscgardcnstherc wcrc innumcrablcbirds with wings goldcn,
snow-white, and of variouscolors.They saron the branches of the
trecsof Paradiseand sangso wondrouslythat from thc swectncss of
thcir singingI wasbesidernysclfl..."
'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, placedbe-
rween 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 spiri-
tual eyesare openedand he is "raisedup" like St. Paul. I'he present"lo-
cation" of Paradise,which has remainedunchangedin its nature, is in
this higher realm, which also seemsto correspondto a literal "eleva-
tion" from the earth; indeed,some Holy Fathersstatethat evenbefore
the fall Paradisewas in an elevatedplace,being "higher than all the rest
t67
 Ce Nasrs,CnE rnoN aNn Eanrv M,cN
of the earth"(St.John Damascene, OrthodoxFaith2:ll, p. 230; see
alsoSt. Ephraim, Conmentaryon Genesis2, p. 310).
Concerningtherwo trees-oneof life and oneof the knowledgeof
goodand evil-we shallspeaklater.
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
gol/ ofthat hnd isgood;bellium and onyxstonc are tbere.Tbenameofthe
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
a definiteplaceon earth.I'he Fathersforbid merelyallegorical inter-
pretations of thesefour rivers.Thus,St.JohnChrysostomsays:
rhosewho lo,rero speakfronr theirown wisdomherealso
Perhaps
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
Ganges); the areaof the earthlyParadise,
therefore,is in the cradleof
ancient civilization.
St. John Chrysostomsaysof this passage (in an-
othertreatise):
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
It would be fruidessto speculatehow the one river of Paradisedi-
videdinto four riverswhich,aswe knowthemtoday,havefour distinct
sources.The world of today is so different from the world beforethe
168
Plnaorse
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 liter-
alisticscience,to puzzleout is how the Fatherscan speakwithout dis-
tinguishing berween Paradiseas a Beographicallocation (before the
fall), and Paradiseasa spiritual habitationofthe righteous(at the pres-
enr 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-
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 some-
rhing 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
teachingidenticalto that of St. Ephraim, Commentaryon Gcnesis 2, p.
3l l):
"To till." Vhar was lackingin Paradise? And evcn if a tiller was
needed,wherewasthe plowl !/here werethe other implemcntsof
agriculture? 'fhc 'tilling" (or "working")of God consisred in cilling
and kcepingrhe commandments of God, rcmainingfaithfulto tne
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
from whom?To keepit for oneself;not to loseit by transgressing thc
commandmentito keep Paradisc for oncself,observingthe com-
mandme nt.lo
169
 Gewrsts, CllarIoN aNo E/rnrv M,qN
of
St. Gregorythe Theologianopensup a deeperunderstanding
this"work"of 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 "keep-
ing" ro rhe spiritualwork of prayer.Thus, St. Nilus of Sora,com-
menringon this interpretationby the ancientFather,Sr. Nilus of
Sinai,writes:
Now thisSaintbringsforthfromantiquiry till and
rhatoneshorrld
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 :tc-
cording to His imagc and likeness,conductedhim inro a Paradiscof
sweetnessro till thc immortal gardcns,that is, rhe mosr pure, cx-
altcd, 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 Para-
dise,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
Panausr-
male$ fecl! eat of euery tee of the garden, but of the tree of the knowl-
edgeof 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 mate-
rial (or semi-material)trees,point to the fact rhat thesetreeswereactu-
ally 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 al-
legory-a spiritual lessonclothed in the tale of a garden-but an his-
torical 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:
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 bcingpcr-
ceptibleboth to thc scnscsandto the mind. For,whilc in hisbodync
dwelrin thismostsacred andsuperblybeautifulplace,aswe havcrc-
lared,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,
whilein hisbodyhe livedon carthin rheworld ofscnsc,in hisspirit
he dwclt amongthe angcls,cultivatingthoughtsof God and being
nurturedon these.He wasnakedbecause of his innocenceand his
simpliciryof life, and throughcreatures
he wasdrawn up to their
only Crcator,in Vhosc contemplarionhe rcjoiccdand rook de
light.ra
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 makeparticipa-
tion 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 removedclse-
whcrc,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 participa-
tion in thc Divincillunrination.rt
'fhus Paradise-and indeed the whole earthly life of man-was
made by God, in rhe phraseof St. Basil,"primarily as a placeof rrain-
ing and a schoolfor the soulsof men."'6 Man was given in the begin-
ning 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
t72
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
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-
mandmcnt as to what plants he might partakeof, and which one hc
mighr nor touch. 'fhis latter was the tree of knowledge;not, how-
cvcr,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 contem-
plation of God-for them thar havc no fear of changing,becausein
the coursc of time they havc acquired a ccrtain habit of such con-
templation. It is not good, however,for such as are still young and
are morc greedyin their appetitcs,who, becauscof thc uncertainry
of rhcir prerseverancc
in the truc good and becauseof thcir not yet
being solidly establishedin their application to the only good, are
' St.CregoryPalamas expounds on thisteaching
ofSr. GrcgorytheThcologian.
Sec I-hcI'hilohdia, vol. 4, pp. 369-70.-Eo.
t73
 GrNesrs.CrmrroN eNo E,qr.ryMeN
naturally inclined to be drawn away and disrractedby thcir solici-
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 good-
nessand then comesto the agewhen he must himself make the choice
of whether ro be good or not. It so happensthat, becausewe havefree-
dom, there must be a choice. One mlsr consciously will to do good.
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-ei-
ther 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
'The followingdiscussion hasbcen rakenfrom Fr. Scraphimioral dclivery
Many ofthe pcoplclisrcniogro him wercin theirtcensor earlyrwenties,
and he was
applyingrhcsubjccrmattcrdircctlyro theirown siruarion.-Eo.
t74
P,rnroIst
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 estab-
lished in the way ofdoing good, has to know about evil. He has to
know what it is that he haschosennor to do. And this knowledgerar
be without falling into greatsins-if you are willing to rake the exam-
plesof others.If you are able to see,almost as if it is your own experi-
ence,when someoneelsemakesa tremendoussin, and ifyou are able
to seethe resultofthat sin, then you can make that part ofyour experi-
encewithout 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 dis-
covercdin bitter experiencewhat it meant to be evil, and then to re-
pcnt 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
t75
 (,r lr..srs,
(innxtroulno EanlyMnN
ol l(.rdonczhor orher saintswho were in monasrerieslrom their child-
hood-and he can be surroundedby good examples.He can seethe
resultsofevils in othersand can choosenot to do thar himsell Theo-
retically,ir is quite possible.In birter practice,however,usuallyit hap-
pensthat 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 de-
scribesthe creationofthe animtls afler the crearionofman, conrra-
dicting 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
And St. John Chrysostomreaches:
Adam wasgiven rhe whole earrh,but his chosendwellingwaspara-
dise.He couldalsogo oursideo[ Paradise, bur the earthoursideof
t76
Panaor sr:
Paradiscwas assigncdfor the habitation not of man, but of rhc irra-
tional 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 immedi-
ately sent away from Paradise;Adam alone remained in Paradise.rr
The Holy Fathersinterpretthe namingof the animalsby Adam
quiteliterally,andseein it an indicationof mant dominionoverthem,
his undisturbed harmonywith them,anda wisdomandintellectin the
first man which far surpasses anything since known to man, St.
Ephraimwritesof this:
Thc words"He broughrthem to Adam"showsthc wisdomof
Adam,and rhe pcacewhich existedberweenthe animalsand man
bc[oreman transgressed the commandment. Fortheycamerogether
beforeman as beforca shcpherdfilled wirh love;without fear,ac-
cordingto 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:
God docsrhisin orderto showus rhc greatwisdomofAdam ... ana
alsoso that in the givingof namesmight be sccna signof domrn-
ion.. .. Juscthink wharwisdomwasncededro givenamcsto somany
kinds of birds,repriles, wild and domesticanimals,and otherirra-
tionalcreaturcs ... to givethem all namcs,and namcsbelongingto
rhemandcorresponding to eachkind.. .. Justthink o[ how the lions
and leopards, vipersand scorpionsand serpents and all the other
t77
-.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 sub-

mission,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 con-
stantlyrememberrhe 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 be-
causeof his fall, Adamt naming of the animalsalsoindicatesthe origi-
na.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 rhepowerofbe-
ing 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 inrer-
pretation of the whole book rhan this brief passage of the crearionof
Eve from Adamt rib. If we undersrandit "as it is written," as rhe Holy
Farhersdid, we will have no difficulry understandingthe resr of the The creationofEvc from thc rib ofAdam.
book in the sameway. But ifwe havedifficulry understandingit in this Fracofrom Dcchani Mona*cry, Serbia,thirtccnth ccnnry.
simple way-and our modern minds almost instinctivelyrebelagainst
this simple interpretarion-we will undoubtedly find much else in
Genesisthat we havedifficulry understandingas the Fathersdid.

180
 GeNrsls, CnterIoN lNo EenlY Mrt't

This passage is also a stumbling block for thosewho wish to pro-

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-humancrea-
ture closelyrelatedto the higherapes.The wholepoint of this evolu-
tionaryviewis that man and everyliving beingdeveloped irom more TT i'i['Irgtiir DXF['L7,fr$iltr
primitiveorganisms by naturallawsnow known (or hypothesized) by
,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
same;but ifyou acceptthe miraculous accountof Eve'screationasde-
scribedin Genesis,you open yourselfby this very fact to under-
standingthe entireSix Daysof Creationin the Patristic,and not the
naturalistic, way.
\Xr'hatdo the Holy Fatherssayofthe creationof Eve?St. Ambrose
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 es-
tablished as one. Thus, from the vcry inception of the human stock
He eliminated the possibiliry that many disparatenatures should
arise.... Reflect on the fact that He did not take a part from Adam's
soul but a rib from his body, that is to say,not soul from a soul, but
"bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" will this woman be called.25

St.Cyril of Jerusalem,tryingto makebeginningChristiansunder-

standthe virginbirth of Christ,writes: The creationofEve from the rib ofAdam.
Fretcollom the Church ofthc Resurtcrtion,SrcheuiuaMonascry,
Of whomin thebeginning wasEvebegotten? Whatmothercon- Romania,sitteenthccnrury.
But
ceivedherthe motherless? the Scripture
sairhthatshewasborn

t82
 Ceruesrs,Cne,r'rroN,rNn Eaarv M-nN
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
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
miraclesof the re-creationthroughChrist.)
St.JohnChrysostom, whilewarningus that rheword "took" must
be understood in a waybefittingGod, Vho hasno "hands,"clearlyin-
dicateshis literalinterpretation
of thispassage:
Greatarethesewords;thcysrrrpasseverymindof man:rheirgrear-
nesscanbe understood in no otherwayrhanby beholding them
with rheeycsof faith...."God causeda 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 werccom-
mandinghim to be cmbracedby a kind of numbness,brought
upon him sucha slecpthat hc did nor fecl in the leasrwhar hap-
pened....Takinga certainsmallpart from an alreadyprepared crea-
tion, 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
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-
t84
Penlolse
merscdin a deep sleephe wakesup from the pain. Moreover,such a
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 shin-
ing 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 incon-
ceivable,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 mar-
riage,since in prophecyhe foresawthat the marriageunion would be
necessarybecauseof the fall.
Commenting on this passage, St. Ephraim writes:
' 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.
185

Thc crcarionofAdam and Evc,rhcir remprarion,
and thcir sorro*.
Deuib ofa Russianicon of the ruentcenth cenrury.
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 namebelong-
ing to the wholekind.ro
Sr. John Chrysosromsaysof the samepassage:
How did it cometo his mind to saythis?How did he know the fu-
ture,and the factthat the humanracewould multiply?How did it
becomeknownto him that therewould be intercoursc berweenman
and wife?After all, this occurredafter the fall; but beforethat they
lived in Paradiselike angels,werenot arousedby thc flesh,wcre not
inflamedby other passionseither,werenot weigheddown by bodily
needs,but beingcreatedentirelyincorruptand immortal,did not
evenneedthe coveringof clothing.. .. And so,rell me,from whence
did the ideacomefor him to saythis?Is it not clcarthat, sincebcfore
the rransgression he was a participantof rhe graceof prophecy,he
sawall thiswith hisspiritualeyes?rl
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 ani-
mals,He was alsoa prophet who saw the future.
(heirexpulsionfronr Paradise,
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 sexualdis-
tinction 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 Pen-lnrsr

'fhey werenot ashamed rhcywcreclorhcdwirh glory.':

because
St. John Chrysostomteachesthe samething:
Beforesin and disobedienceoccurred,they wereclothedin the glory
on high, and wcre not ashamcd;bur after the violation of the com-
mandmenttherecameboth shameand the awareness oftheir naked-
ness."
And Sr.John Damascenewrites:
like that, fbr thar is passionless-
God 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
couldnor swallowhim in itsabvsses. andtheair couldnot harmhim
by any kind ofaction whatever.Everythingwassubjcctto him asthe
belovedof God, as the king and lord of creation,and everyrhing
lookedup to him, asthe perfectcrown ofGodt creatures. Adam was
madeso wisc by this breathof life which wasbrearhedinto his face
from thecreative lipsofGod, theCrcatorand Rulerofall, rhatthere
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 super-
natural 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 An-
gcls,and the language of all beasts, birds,and rcptilcsand all that rs
now hiddenfrom us fallenand sinfulcreatures. but wasso clearto
Adam beforehis fall. To Evealso thc tord God eavethe samcwrs-
dom, srrengthandunlimitedpower,andall the orhcrgoodand holy
qualities.r5
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 preservedun-
harmed 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 certainre-
turn 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 rheancientcondi-
tion of life is comparedto the angels.16
In Orthodox ascericliterature,where the aim constantly kepr in
view is our restorarionto Paradise,the unspoiledand dispassionate na-
ture ofAdam beforethe fall is held up as rhe model and goal ofour as-
cetic 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 Para-
discand adornedhim with everyvirtue,givinghim the command-
ment nor ro rasreof the treewhichwasin the midstof Paradise
. And
thushe remainedrherein theenjoymenrofParadise: in prayer,in vi-
sion,in everygloryand honor,havingsoundsenses and beingin the
samenaturalcondirionin which he wascreated.For God crcarcq
man accordingro His own image, thar is, immortal,masrerof him-

188 189
 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 com-
manded 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-
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
of the forests (where 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?
190
CHeprBnSrx
TheFall of Man
(Genesis
3:1-24)
f)ne nnneoby rhe Parristic teaching on the SixDaysof Creation,the
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 ser-
pent 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 move-
mcnts, just so did the serpentscrveman. As a creaturewho enjoyed
grearcloseness
to man, the serpentscemedto rhe devil to be a con-
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 cerc-
lcssly.l'hc qLrcstionis not:ln crsy onc. Many,rsk: How did thc scr-
pcnt 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 mo-
tive of rhe dcvil is rnzy of marr, who is called to the estate thc clcvil has
l o s t . St. Ambr os c wr it es :

"lly thc cnvy of thc dcvil clcarh camc into thc world" (Visclonr
2:24). I hc causcof cnvy wrs rhc happincsso[ man pllccd in Para-
disc, bccauscthc dcvil could not brook thc tavorsrcccivetlby nran.
Ilis cnvy was arouscd bccauscmin, though firrrncd in slimc, was
ch,rsento bc,rn inhlbitrnt of l)rradisc. Ihc dcvil trcgento rcflcct
rhit man was an infi'rior crcarurc,vcr had hopcs of an ctcrnll lifi,
wlrcreashc, a crcaturcofsupcrior naturc, hrd fallcn arrdhad bcconrc
part of this munrlanc cxisrcncc.l

3:l*6 And he said unto thc uomatL Yca, hath God nid, Yeshall not
att of cucry tree oJ the garden? Aud the tL,otnannid unto tlr serpant, We
nn.y ut of thc Jittit o/'thc ters of tlrc gtrden; htt oJ tfu Jruit of thr rrt
uhirh is in the mirlst o;f the gtrden, (lod hatb nid, Yesball tlot cdt o/'it,
neither shall y touch it, lesty die. And tbe scrprnt said unto tht uonran,
Yesball not nrely die;for God doth hnow thnt in the dayye cat th€reof, Ad:rmand !'.venirh the rrccofrhc knowlcclgc ofgood and cvil.
then.yourayes shallbeo1>ened, and.yeshrt/lheasgods,knotuirtggoodand I:rex'oliou tlr Llhurth of tb Rrsunution, ,\u euitu MotasraT,
euil.And uhen the toomansawthat thc tee wasgoodforJitod,/1 d that it Rout nfu, tixtrnth ccnnty.
uaspleasantt0 the qter,dnd d treet0 bedesiredto makeoneuise, sbetook

192
 Lv MaN
GtNssts, CntrrIoN ANo E,cR

ofthe fuit thereof,,and did eat, and gaueabo unto ber husbandwith hzr; =:;.q
and hedid eat(KJY).
The childlikeness of this dialogue,and the easewith which our
first parentsfell into a transgression
the
of the only commandmentthat
untestednatureof their virrue: t
"n-,,*4,,
tV
had been given them, indicate
everythinghad beengiventhem by God'sgrace,but they werenot yet
skilledin 'tilling and keeping"theirinwardstate.
The temptationofferedby thedevilcontainsthesameelements we
fallenmenknow in our own fight against sin. He offers,firstofall, not
an obviousevil but somethingwhichseemsgoodand true.Men were
FT;
indeedcreatedto be "godsand sonsof the mosthigh" (Ps.8 I :6, I I th
Kathisma),and wereawarethat from Paradise they wereto ascendto a
highercondition. The devil,therefore,as ir werethoughtcohimself(as
St.Ambroseexpresses it):

is my firstapproach,
This,rherefore, namely, him while
to deceive
he is desirousof improving his condition. In this way an attempt will
be made t<.,arousehis ambition.r
,
In causingour first ancestorsto look at the good thing of becom-
ing like gods, the devil hoped to cause them to forget the "small"
commandment which was the way God ordained them to achieve
this goal.
Again, the devil attackednot through the man, but through the
woman-not becausethe woman was weakeror more passionate,be- .t, 4
causeboth Adam and Eve still preservedthe dispassionateness of their
'fhe rcmptarionofAdam and Eve.
original nature-but for the simple reasonthat Adam alone had heard
the command of God, whereas Eve knew ic only indirectly, and Dctail ofa Rwian icon ofthc cigbcccntbcentury.

thereby might be consideredmore likely to disobey it. St. Ambrose

writes of this:

(The devil)aimedto circumvenr Adam by meansof the woman.He

received
did not accostthe man who had in his prescncc the hcav-
cnlycommand.He accosted herwho hadlcarnedof it from her hus-
bandand who had not receivcd from God the commandwhich was
Thercis no statement
to be observed. thatGod srrokcto thc woman.

194
 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 knowl-
edge (or guess)as to what is in the heart of man himself. It was not the
devil who caused Adamt fall, but Adamt own desire. St. Ephraim
writes: ; 2 ,:{

Thc tempting word would not have led into sin those who were
tcmpted if thc tempter had not been guided by their own dcsrre.
Evcn ifthe temptcr had not come,rhe tree itselfby its beaurywould
haveled their desireinto batde.Although the first anccstorssought
an excusefor themselvesin the counsclof rhe serpent,they were
harmed more by their own desirethan by the counselof the ser-
pent.t

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'shead-

ship and "scnioriry":"Shchasrcncdto cat beforchcr husbandthat shcmighr bccomc 'And thc cycsofthcm both wcrc opcncd,and thcy kncw rhar rheywerc nakcd."
headovcr hcr hcad,thar shc might bccomcthc onc ro givc commandto that one by Frcscofom tbe ancicnt Cbittian caucomh in Romc,thitd ccnnry *o,
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
 Cnr-,qlroN
CleNrsls, lNo Elnlv MaN
disobedience andviolationofthe commandment givenby God,and
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 trans-
gression of the commandmcnt,theysawalsorheir physicalnakcd-
ness,so that from the shamethat took hold of them rhey might
undcrstandinto what an abysstheyhad beencastby the transgres-
sion 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 enjoyedbe-
fore 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 be-
gun 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 pres-
enceof 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,
and not understandanythinghigher?No, God doesnot walk-may
this not be! In very fact,how can He Vho is everywhere and fills all
things, Vhose 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
r9 8
Tne F,rll on MlN
And St. Ambrose writes:
In my opinionGod maybe saidto walkwhcreverthroughoutScrip-
turethe 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 hap-
pencdand 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
subjccted him to thc punishnrcntwhich Hc had alrcadydccrccdbc-
forehandfor thc transgression: but He is long-suffiring,
dclays,asks
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
goodness, beatitude,and grace,Hc meansto say,haveyou fallen
into thisstateof misery?
Youhavcforsakcnetcrnallifc.YoLrhaveen-
tombedyourselfinthe waysofsin anddcath."
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
199
 GsNests,CnerrrroN,tNo EcRLvM,rN
.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
knewperfccdy;but in orderto showHis lovcofmankindHc conde-
to thcirwcakness
scends andcallsthcmto confcsstheirsin.12
But man respondsnot with repentance,but with self-justification,
therebybringing punishmentupon himself.St. Ephraimcommentson
this passage:
200
Tne F,{LLor MAN
Instead of acknowledgingwhat hc had donc himsclf, which ac-
knowledgmentwould 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 ques-
tion 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 hus-
band, docs not mention thc promiscgiven hcr by the scrpcntand
how hc pcrsuadcdhcr.... Vhen both had been qucstioncdand it
wasrcvcaledthat they havencitherrepentancenor any true justifica-
tion, 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
The same Father adds:
If our first anceJtorshad desircdto repcntcvcn aftcr thc transgrcs-
sion of rhc commandment,then, cventhough thcy would nor navc
resroredto themselves what they had beforcthc transgressionof 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 con-
demned.
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 GodHim-
self:
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
201
 CsNesrs.
CnsarrouaNo Eanly MrN
sinned,why he rransgressed, He preparedhim especiallyso rhar hc
might say: "Forgive me." But therewasno humiliry!\?herewasthe
word "forgive"? Therewasno repentance, bur the complcteoppo-
site. For he contradictedand rerorted: "The woman whom Thou
gavestme" (deceivedme). He did not say,"My wife deccivedme,"
but "the womanwhom -fhou gavestme," asif ro say:'ihis misfor-
tune 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 command-
ment?As it were,He cspecially hintedto hcr:At leasryou say"[or-
so
give," your soul might be humbled and you might be pardoned.
But againHe (did not hear)the word "forgive."For she also re-
plied:"The serpcntbcguilcdme," as if to say:The serpentsinned,
and what is that ro me?Vhat are you doing,wrerchedones?Re-
pent,acknowlcdge your sin, havepiry on your nakedness.Bur ner-
ther 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
iustifu ourselves,
rhat we hold ro our own will and follow our-
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
(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:
But perhapssomeone will say:If thc counsclwasgivenby the devil,
usingthc serpenrasan insrrumcnr,why is this animalsubjecredro
202
Tur Far-lor MrN
sucha punishment? This alsowasa work of God'sunurrerable love
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 instru-
menrof thc devil'smalice,subjectsit to a constantpunishment,so
rharfrom this physicalandvisiblemanifestarion we might conclude
thedishonorin which it findsirselfAnd if theonewho servcdasrhe
instrumcntwassubjecred to suchangcr,what punishmentmust thc
other bc undergoing?... 'fhc unqucnchablc 0re awaitshim (Mart.
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.r-
BeforeAdam fell, he could be nakedand not notice ir; afterwards,
this is impossible.Before the fall, Adam had friendship with the ser-
pent like we have with dogs or cats or some domestic animal; after-
wards 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 be-
rweenman and serpent,is berweenman and the devil; and in a special
senserhe "seedof rhe woman" is Christ. One nineteenth-centuryOr-
thodox comrnentaryon this passage says:
ncr
The firstwornanin thc world wasthe first to fall into thc dcvil'.s
andeasilygavchcrselfinto his powcr;but by her repentancc shcwill
shakeoff his powcrovcrher,Likewise,in manyotherwomenalso,
in thepersonof the mostblcsscd
espccially woman,the Virgin Mary,
he will mcera powerfulresistancero his wiles....By the seedofthe
woman,which is hostilcto thc seedof the devil,one must under-
stand in particularone pcrsonfronr among rhe posreriryof the
woman,namelyHe Vho from eternitywaspfedestined for the sal-
vationof men and wasborn in time of a womanwirhout a mant
seed.He subsequentlyappearcdto the world to "destroythe works
203
 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 spiritualser-
pent 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 op-
portuniryto harm men, includingChrist Himself;but his wounds
will be easilyhcalcd,like woundsin thc heel,which arc nor danger-
ousbecause in the heel,which is covercdwith hardskin,thereis lit-
tle blood.A wound in thc heclwasgivenby the powerless maliceof
the devilto ChristHimself,againstVhom he arousedrhe unbeliev-
ing 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'
St. John Chrysostomwrires of Eve'spunishment:
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
204
Tne Fall or MaN
everysatisfacrion;rhat, being clothed in a body, you might not fecl
anyrhingbodily.But sinceyou did not makcfitting useofsuchnap-
piness,but the abundance of goodthingsbroughryou ro suchgreat
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 chil-
drcn-a sourceof greatconsolation-will beginwith sorrow'so that
in daily gricf and sorrowin givingbirth you might havea constant
rcminderof how greatwasrhissin anddisobedience.. .. At firstI cre-
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
But sinceyou did not makefitringuseofthe equaliryin
all creatures.
honor,for this I am subjecting you to your husband....I subjectyou
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 com-
manded 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
'Sr. John Chrysosrom writcsthat rhe equaliryrhat existedbcrwccnAdam and
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,turn-
ing rhingsupsidcdown" (St.John Chrysostom,Homilicson Genaisl7:17, English
vcrsion,Thc Frarhcrsof rheChurch,vol. 74, p. 231]'.-Eo.
205
 CsNssrs,CnE,crroN
erunErary M,rN
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 sim-
ply living in this fallen world. First of all, the earth is cursed for his
sake.St. John Chrysostomwrites:
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 na-
ture 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 evcry-
rhing 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 every-
rhingwith 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.Mod-
ern womcr haveavoidedthc "painsand groanings" of millionsof binhs, but in so
doing havebeenresponsible (alongwith the men) for millionsof murdcrsby abor-
rion.Thc abdicationby modcrnmen of rheirpositionof headshipin thc family,in
conjunctionwirh the unwillingncss of modern womcn !o be in "submissionro
Ithcir]husband[s],"hasresulted
in theemotionalandspiritualcripplingofcoundess
childrcn-not ro mentionof thc husbands and wivesthemselvcs.-ED.
206
Tue Fnlr or MaN
for you a constant lessonto behavemodcstly and know your own
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,becamcmor-
tals 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 crea-
' I.e.,so rharAdamwould rccognizc rharhe wasa crearedbeingand nor (iod,
sincehe hadsuccumbed to the devilt tcmptation:"Yeshallbe asgods."-tio.
" St. GrcgoryPalamas addsro this rcachingby sayingthat man'.sphysicalcor-
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 irsclfsubjecrto
farigue,sufferingand corruptibiliry,and finally handedit over to dearh"(The Pbilo-
halia, vol.4, p. 296). Thc Holy Farhcrsrcachthar this physicalchangcin man! na-
turc alsopassed overto the othercrearures (secbelow).-Eo.
207
 GrNssrs,CneArroNaNo EenlyMaN
ture wasmadesubjectro vanity,not willingly, but by reasonofhim who
hath subjectedit in hope." Becauserhe creatureitselfalsoshall be deliv-
eredfrom 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:
'Whatmeans"for rhecreature wasmadesubiectto vanirv"?It became
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:
Justasthe creature bccamecorruptiblewhenyour bodybecamecor-
ruptible,soalsowhenyour bodywill be incorrupt,the crearure
also
will followaftcrir and becomecorrespondingro 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
St. Macariusthe Great saysthe samerhing:
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
" Earlierin thesameEpisrlc(Rom,5:l2), St. Paulexplainsrhar"by onc mansin
cnreredthe world, and dcathbysin." Elscwhcre (l Cor. 15:21-22)hewrites:"For
sincc by man camedearh,by man camealso the resurreccion of rhe dead.For as in
Adamall die,evenso in Chrisrshallall be madcalive."-Eo.
208
-l-sr Frll or MnN
Sr. Symeon the New'fheologian is alsovery explicit rhat the mare-
1i2l61s21i6n-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 in-
corrupt 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,
God did not curseParadise ... but He cursedonly the wholerestof
thc earth,which alsowasincorruptand broughtforth everything by
itscl[.. .
And thusit wasfitringin all justicefor theonewho hadbecome
corrupt and mortal by reasonof the transgression of the command-
ment,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 compas-
sion and goodnessHe did not allow them immediatelyto strive
againstman,and He commanded that thecreationshouldremainrn
submissionto him, and havingbecomccorrupt,shouldscryecor-
rupt man for whom it hadbeencreated.. .,
Do you seethat thiswholecreationin the beginningwasincor-
rupt and wascrcatcdby God in rhc mannerof Paradisel But laterit
wassubjecred by God to corruprion,and submitredto the vaniryof
m e n . '* 2 6
'In his notes,Fr. Seraphimintroducesrhisteachingwith the followingwords
aboutSt. Symeon:"[-et us now readand be inspiredby this teachingassetforth in
pcrfccrand unequivocal form by onc ofrhe grcaresr
Sainrsofthe OrrhodoxChurch,
a latcFatherwho srarcdrhercachingof thc OrthodoxChurchsodivinelyand clearly
rharhc wasrhc rhird and lasr,afrerSt,John thc Evangelistand St. CregoryNazian-
rrn, ro bc called'Theologian'by theChurch."-Eo.
" C[. St. MaximustheConfessor: "ln Adamrhc scnrenccofdcathwasimposed
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.
209
 GeNesrs,
CnsrrIoN,tro Ernr-vM,rN
At right: -fhe banish-
The Fathersalsomention that the sentenceof death,which took menrofAdam and Eve
effectat the fall, wasnot.iusta punishment.lt wasdso a good,because from Paradisc,
once man fell, if he wereto still be immortal, therewould be no way
Behu: Cain slaying
out for him. Imaginebeing in a srateofbeing unableto redeemyour-
Abcl, Cain askingGod
self, unableto get to Paradise,and then living and living and living, for mercy,Adam and
wirh no hopeofgetting out of this state.Death puts an end to sin. The EveweepingoverAbclt
fact that we areafraid of deathalreadywakesus up to begin to strug- dcarh,Evc (with child)
gle. Evenifwe forgetabout Paradise, we will be afraidofdeath and be- and Adam lamcnting,
gin to struggle,to overcomeour fallennature. Adamtilling thc
ground. Here arcshown
Cyril ofAJexandria(I444) writesaboutthe meaningofdiseaseand
thc major cons€quenccs
deathin fallenman: of rhefall: inclination
rowardsin (including
Man, having receivedas his lot an exhaustingfast and sorrows,was murdcr),pain(includ-
givcn ovcr to illncsscs,suffcrings,and thc other bittcr things as to a ing painin childbirth),
kind of bridle. Becausehe did not sensiblyrestrainhimself in rhat sorrow,hard labor,
and dcath.
life which wasfreefrom laborsand sorrows,he is givenover to mis-
Dcuib of a Rustian icon
fortunesso that by sufferingshe might heal in himself the disease ccnury.
of thc cightcentb
which camcupon him in the midst of blessedness.
By deaththc Giver ofthe kw stoppedthe spreadofsin, and in
thc vcry chastisement revealsHis lovefor mankind. Inasmuchashe,
in giving the commandment,joined deathto the transgression of ir,
and inasmuchasthe criminal thus fell under the chastisement, so He
arrangedthat the chastisementitself might scrvefor salvation.For
deathdissolves this animal natureofours and thus,on the one hand,
sropsthe activiry of evil, and on the other deliversa man from ill-
nesses, frecshim from labors,puts an end to his sorrowsand cares,
and stopshis bodily sufferings.\fith such a love for mankind has
thc Judgemixed thc chastisement.2T

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 re-
rurn," just like evcrythingclselaid upon mankind after thc fall, will
be in effec until rhe end ofthe age.But by God'smercy,through rhe

2t0
 Ctrutsrs, CnrerIoN ANDEARLyMAN

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 cor-
ruption 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 servr-
tudc, 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 St. Paulof Obnora,Russia(1317-1429),onc of thc many Orrhodox sainc who,
crearures.But just as in rhe bcginning,first the whole creadonwas through thc rcdemptivesacrificcofJcsus Chrisr, rcgainedthe likenessofAdam in
creatcdincorrupt, and rhenfrom it man wastakcnand made,so also 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
it is fitting that againfirst all the creationshouldbecomcincorrupr,
birds surroundcd chemarvclousanchoritc; lialc birds perchcdon rhc Eldcrl hcad
and then the corruptiblebodiesof mcn alsoshould be rencwcdand and shouldcrs,and hc fcd thcm by hand. Ncarbystooda bear,awaitinghis food from
bccomeincorrupt, so rhat oncc morc thc wholc man might bc incor- thc saint;foxes,rabbitsand orhcr bcastsran about,wirhout any enmiry among rhcm-
rupt and spirirualand that he mighr dwell in an incorruptiblc,cter- sclvcsand not fcaring rhc bcar.Bchold the lifc of innocentA&m in Edcn, thc lord-
nal, and spiritualdwelling.2e ship 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
3:2O And Adam calbd his wife'snane Eue bccauscshe was the mothcr
(Sr.HcrmanBrotherhood,1975).
of all liuing.
Eve means"life." Adam now givesher a particularname in addi-
tion 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
 GeNasts, Cns,,rltoN ,rNn Eanrv Mar.t
3;22-23 And theLord Godsaid,BehoUtheman is become asoneof
Ul to hnowgood and And
euil. now,lex heputforth hishand and takeabo
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
Tieeof Life,whichwe seealsoin the BookofApocalypse (Revelation):
the Treeof Life in the centerof Paradise. Eatingof this Treewould
makemanimmortalwithoutbeinggood,andGod doesnot wantthat;
therefore,He castshim out.
3:24 And He castoutAdam and cdused him to duell oueragainxthe
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.
* strctched!Through rhee rhc beguilcrfcll who rcmprcdmankind
'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,
especially to the Cross.On Septemberl4th, the Feastof
the services
the Exaltationof the Cross,thereare a numberof very good verses
which show how the Church viewswhat happenedin Paradise and
whar happenedwhen Christ came.They comparethe treeof which
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 Adam,is by theCrosshimselfdeceivcd;
our forefather
and he who by ryrannygainedpossession of the creatureendowed
by God with royaldigniry is overthrownin headlongfall. By rhc
Bloodof God the poisonof thc serpenr is washcd away;and the
214
Tse F,q.r.l
or MaN
curscofa justcondemnation is loosedby the unjustpunishmcnrin-
flictedon theJust.For it wasfitting that wood shouldbe healcdby
wood,and that throughthc Passion of One Vho knew not passron
shoLrldbe reminedall thesufferings of him who wascondemned be-
causeof 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:
In Paradise of old, rhe wood [i.e.,of the tree]srrippedme bare,for
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
boundless jolrl
Another canticle:
O thricc-blesscd Trec, on which Christ the King and Lord was
wirh the tree.He wascaughtin thc rrapsetby God, Who wascruci-
ficd 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 Dam-
ascene,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 CHaprBn SsvBN
simplyan allegory, asa pretrystorywhichsayssomethingelseentirely,
you will be deprivedofa true understanding of Paradise.For example,
many RomanCatholictheologians saythat the ideaof Paradise
not fit in with the findingsofmodernanthropology; therefore,
does
we have
Life OutsideParadise
ro reinterpreteverythingfrom the conclusionthat man evolvedfrom (Genesis
4:l-6:5)
loweranimals.Originalsin,theysay,mustmeanthatassoonasmanbe-
camesufficientlydeveloped to becomeawareof himself,and therefore
to becomeman, rhis awareness waslike a fall. They cannorfit Paradise J r.rrHr IRECEDING cHAprER we examinedthe banishmentof Adam
inro thisscheme, because in Paradise manwasa divinizedbeing. I f,orn rhepoinr of viewof Paradise; now we will look ro seewhere
It is very importantfor us to seetheserwo entirelyopposedcon- he went. Vith Genesischapterfour beginseanhlylife aswe know it
ceprions. The firstviewis that manwascreateddirectlyby God with a now-bur in many respects very differentfrom our life now as we
superhuman intelligence,with that originalnaturefrom which we fell shallsee.
awayand to which we are calledback.The other view is that man Unlikc the first rhreechaptersof Genesis, which haveabunclant
comesup from lowercreatures. The secondview,of course,leadsto a Patristiccommentaries, the laterchapters haveonly a few.Ve will rely
philosophyof moral relativism,because if we wereonce something chieflyon rheGenesisCommentaries of St.JohnChrysostomand St.
else,somekind of ape-likecrearure, thenwe aregoingto Desomerhing Ephraimthe Syrian.In the Vest therearealsothe Commentaries of
else-we are headingfor Superman.(Most evolutionistssay in so Blessed Augustine, which I havenot seen,and a few others.
many words that collectivehumanitywill becomeSuperman.)This In the fourth and succeeding chapcers we will be mainlyfollowing
viewalsoleadsto religiousideaslike thoseofTeilhardde Chardin,who the Greek(Septuagint) text of Genesis, with a few variantsfrom the
saysthat thewholeworld is evolvinginto a higherstate,that the world King JamesVersion,which is translated from the Hebrew.
itselfislike the breadwhich is beingtransmuted into the otherworld,
and then it all becomes Christ.Of course,that is like pantheism, like L TheBanihment oJ'Adam
somefrightful heresy-which is exacrlywhat Antichrist needsin order
ro comero reign.Peoplewill think theyaregodswhileactuallyhaving Chapterfour beginswith Adamin a stareof banishment. To where
thisanimalisticphilosophy. wasAdam banished? The Greektextof Genesis 3:24 reads: "The Lord
When we hold to the viewof the Holy Fathers, we seethat Christ God ... casrour Adam and causedhim to dwelloveragainstthe Gar-
actudlydied on the Cross.It is a real,physicalevent,not an imageor den of Delight."
allegory;and at the sametime it hasspiritualconsequences, bringing Since,aswe haveseen,Paradiseis an actualplace,so alsothe earth
aboura changein man'scondition.lt givesussalvation:not figurarive to which Adam wasbanishedwasan actualplace,nearto Paradise. Ve
salvation,but actualsalvation. In the sameway,Adam tastedofa tree sawin Genesischapter2 (v. 7-8) that Adam wascreatedout of the
and therebylost Paradise. This, too, wasa physicaleventwith spiritual earthand then led into Paradise;
so now he is banishedto the place
consequences, changingman'scondition. wherehe wascreated. The Holy Farhersaresurprisingly"geographical

2t6 2t7
 .{:'
-\
I

I' t;,
,'
', 'l {: :

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

' :ii .,1

'!*ii*1

6
'l :'.P .\,

ii' '
i4 L;./

s,
n\ , ,
.,/o-
+

q
;,-S'.'h, .;
-
, :'fftt

t" ' .
\ r < r r c . l r . r n r [ . l il .,'J \,l .r 1 r .r n ,l I r , .r l i , r r l r c I.r l l :.\,l .r r r r.,,tr xr i n t.
. \ , l . r r r r , r r ,lI r c h .r r r csr i r r r l'\J.r
. r r ,r r r ,i Ir , r t tl r , l ,'r r t,.
,\,l,rrrr.rrrrI l v t l, c lr Lr ilinsI ' . r r . r t lr rlr
, onr . r l. r r
I r r n y t . o t t t , 4 ,l n t u r l l t.,r ;r u t, ,,t'l ,r ( ,,tt'r ,tttr o t,r 1 '/, t,tr l t,tn n o 't
Iltt',r,ttt ln',t, r/ r/,t' i.tr,rn r1,, tt r tt,t
 lt t t ( ) t t st t r t l', r ur t r t r t

%
l l r()l l l tl ri \ P l .rrt. sl ri rl r r lr r 'r st r . 'r n n( ilr I ) ilr , r ( li\ ( .( \ ( r ) \ \ illr it ) \ iqht ( ) l
i t,.urJ.rs ofi cr i ng spi rit r lr l opl, or t Lr nit ir 'r *lr ir lr lr ill ir c lor t lo l: t t cr
| | r,l | rl ,i n(1.\t. I1r111,11111 t lr t r r r i, r |l r r r it r . :

#l
\\' 1r.r .\..l .Lr:r .i rrnc.. l,( i, , . 1 b. r nislr cJlr inr lr . nr I 'r r r '. Lr lirun, c. . lin I I i.
.ITil g,' ,,,l rrc" l l ri 1.r' cl ri rt r . L. l. r cllins, , Lr t r iJct lt r lr , 't t r r r lr t icr ,Ii'. u. r t lisc:
Il . scrtl trl l ri nr i n ,r v. r llo n( . r f l) , u. r ( li\ ( llt
'. t t nr . n. inn. . , l t lt Lr c. r lr . ,
.rr,1l i tr rl ri r thtr rrc|c \ ! , llr cf c( 1. . . .
I l rc l .rnri l v,tt tl r . r r r , , l, r , 't lr cr rlr c. , r r r r,.lir i. . lcr lr( . . r in \ \ 1 nr . r \ ! . r v
,rrr.lI,.i i rrt r,r l i r c i rr r lr , l. r r r .,l , t N, , , 1,l. r r cr t lr , r r r lr c Pl. r r r sr r lr cr . t lr c
l ,rnri l i cs,,l S .th ,rrrr lI : r r or, ls. . lr . I \ r r r t I r , .LIr ' , ., .trr|..t rrt r ol t lr oscr vr r , r
1! '
.; Jrrcl t .rl ' ,' r. rrn.lrvrrc , . r ll. . , .tllr c s. ns . l ( , , 't l . LI r . r r r t I r r r rt cLI lr t ir l. ur Ll,
't\til
ii :
i7 ,"
.\ t!- t r r it lr t lr . rl .rLrtl l rt . r. , rl nr . r r ,
* crrt .l ,,rl n.rn.l .nt.r . . l ir r t . r r r . r r r i. r qc
rl rc ,l ,rrgl rttn .l tl rr, . c* lr , , , l'r clr 1, . 1, , ''.

\\' r' i vi l l t.rl i c ul ) l l ris \ ul) i( '( t r lg. lin ir ) ( , cn. sis. lt . t Pt t t r ixl l, 't t t r r r r .
l (l Lr\onl \ n()l ( (l ri l l tl tc st r r t t ol , \ r l. t t t rot t t sit lr oi l'lt t . Lr li: c . t \ t lll( lx\ l
i rrq.rt l r' .r.r l i rr hi s l ong lilit inr c. r n. l l) ( f lr . lps in lr is t l. r , . cnr l. r nt . <l, r sr r
l o l l r( l rl ()()(l \\' .r\ r.ttl )( f , lif ii'r . r r t lr ', r nrt lr ( \ r . lt ( ol lr ll. r r nr r r t t liit t , lt , ,
tl rrr. \\' . ui l l (' \i l nri n(i n t lt is r r r Lt t st\ onl( ol r lr c plr r si. . r l . lr . Lr r t . t , - r r st r . t
ol tl ri s tl i l l cl cn,-t;l r(r( l( t r r \ 111'11 111 'J, ir it t , t llr t nclit ol l) ( inq( l( ) ( t ( )
l ' rrr.rrl i sc,ol rti l l scci ng t lr , . pl. r , . r . r r t l st ur , . llr r r r r vlr i. . lr r r r . r r rlr . r . . l,
l r ll. r r
.rnr] to rrl ri el r l rc i r..rl l c. . l r ( ) r ( lt r n. St . lolr n ( . lr llsost r r r : t ur ilr ''.

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.

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
t t
]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 ,
..1 '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 .

r st ill . , , nr clr , , r vr iosc t o ( 'r t t ll lt r '

..4"
,
;,.
l.
.J/ S cti rtg I' .tt.trl i sr' .ti ll t hcr t . . \ , . l, r r rir
' '-'--:: 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
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 '
(.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( '
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 .
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
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
srruggl€of GrearLent aregiven,asan inspirationto repentancer
pr€-
ciselythe imageofAdam sittingoutsideParadise and beholdingwhat
he had lost:
Adamsat beforeParadise and, lamentinghis nakedness,he wept:
"Voe is me!By evildeceitwasI persuadedandledastray.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.")
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 be-
rweentheir statein Paradiseand their stareoursideof Paradise:it is
only aftertheirbanishment that marriedlife and the begettingof chil-
dren begin.As we haveseen,the Fathersarequire specificthat, before
the fall, Evewasa virgin.St.JohnChrysostom writesofrhis:
Afterthedisobedience,afterthebanishmentfromParadise-rhenit
wasthatmarriedlife began.Beforethedisobedience,
thefirsrpeople
livedlikeangels
andtherewasno talkof cohabitarion.a
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
the Paradiseto come,and was not in 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 exceedingfsonout-
ftl 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
d; tlrlt oi (.rtint ls IIc plrrvinqlitvrrrittsT Lrcrt lrortrrlrc Iirtlc l(\r \\'( h.lvc
lrctr'. sc stt thrtt r\bcl ollcrcd thc l)('sl
thilt hc hrrrl,his lllst born rrrtr'l
l.rrlirrqs" ol thc shc.p;bLrt (.:rinollcrcclonll sorrrc'lirrits,"rrt,tc:rlingt,r
F,q 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!u-
t' lrrrlrinrpolt.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:

r\l rcl ol l crcd.r sl t r illt c oi t hc clr oict st .l, t r t ( l. r in, , r 'it lr ot t t , . hor , . c.
'f
;\l r.l cl rr' .r' .rndrrl f ir cr l t lr c llr . t bolr r , r nLli. r t linqs.r r lr ilc ( . r in olicr ct l
ci tl rtr thc..rrs,,rr t , r gct hcruit h t ht nr t lr c f lLr it st lr . r c r vclc, r t t hut
ti rrrc. r\l th,trrgh Iris r lr r illt c \ \ 'il\ p( ) or ( r t lr . r n t ht r r r r ill, . r ', r f lr is
,$1'-..'.
:-l f l rr,rthcr,sri l l i i hc h. r , l, , f icr t . l it n, , t r vit h, lir r l: r in.hi. r acr ill. . c. r l. , r
'-" t * r,rrl .l l r.rvcbccn plc. r . ir g, . r \ r v. r \( ll( s. r eliil. r ', r llr is lr lot lr cr . . . . llr r t

)i ,/t 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

i .:l .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'\ 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

t
( T i t'
12 i rtg.,' \n.lI' c,.rttrcl r c, , il. r c. l r u. r ill. . r vir lrt lir J. r in,( '. Ll njc. t r J ir . '

(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 <r n r tl r c i .t,t tl u t
l r c l r i r r r s c l l \ \ ', r s f ( ' j r '( tc( l , b L r t .r l ',' l r ',,n r th c fl ,- t tl r ,r t r l r c q i fi ,r l 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. St. l:phr.rirrrs[)ccilicslhal (;o(i's .t((cl)trUr((of r\bcl'sqili rVltsrr:uri-

/ rr' r' r l t r t n r / , , ( l , t t , l , , , l \r ( it.< t. li,t) tt,t' \lr tt,t,ttr t,
lisrctl ll lilt uhir'h trurrc d,rrvn lirrrl hr'.rr',. n lo consun)cir, rvhilc
't
( .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 ( l .r i n .r r r dAb cl . b ttr tl r tr

' 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.
s 1 '. . r l i , 'n l r {c

-t.tt
 l, rI r , ( ) r ] r 'srr ) L lhr , lor st ,

.|l|r'i

.t 3
q'
( i.rir, insrig.rtcrllrr,.r t[ nron,
sl,rring .\l'cl. Ilutsiar.fisn
tl rlt titttutt/tentury.

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.yior-
tou,lil tnrl u,b.yii thy Loutlt ut,t(.f /L'n? Ilnt tltou nlt ritl)t?d if tln
1,,6t brouqht it rig/tr/1,,brt not iglttly di lerl it? []c sti//, n thr slnll bt
Itis sulnti::ion, anrl thou sluh ulc oytr ltin.
tk St.john ( ihrlsostolnsrlysof rhcscvcrscs:

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 *

(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
sa.riilccs I lc rcg,urrlccl rtot" (t icn. ,'t:.15).
Rus:ir n J) utt of t/,r' :i\'t.(,1t1' ..,1t ury.
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<lingt r cet nr cnt
so rs l o tri sc l ti rrri r r r r r r ccliat cly
lnt l not llbu, hinr r o t lr olvn. . . . l( iod
slys to hinr.l Sirrccr'ou hrvc sinrrctl,"llL: still." calrn \1)rlr rhotrghrs,
lrt .lclivcrcclfionr tlrc shock ol rhc *lvcs lvlriclr bcsicgc\'olll soul;
caltrrrtur ltgitlttiotllcst t() \'()llr cirlier sin votr :rtl.l iln()thcf rnorc s(
ri ous.... (i ocl .rl rca<ly
kr r cw, il udvanccr har ( ( l. r in) u, ould r isc r r p
;t{:ilinsthis brorher,anclbv rhcscrvortlsHc rr.ernshinr.... I I< dcsrrcs
rr nrcckenthc rlgc rnd flerccncssof (,ain:rnd rcsrrrrinhinr from ris-
i ng up.rgai nsrhi s br or hcr .Sccingr hc n) ( ) \ 'cr ) r ! nrof
s his nr ind and
krrorvingthc cruclty ,rl his nrrrclcr,rusinrcnr, (ic:d wishcs bcfirrc-

)27
 Cru rsts,CneartoN.rNoEarlv MaN

handto softenhisheartandcalmhis mind, and for thispurposcHe

his brotherto him anddoesnot takcawayhisauthoriryover
subjects
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 every-
thing that is ro be repeatedlater in human history.Here we seethe first
murder-and ir is a fratricide,the killing of one'sown brother.'
But here again,as with Adam after his sin in Paradise,God shows
first His concern that rhe guilry should repent,and then shows His
mercy evenwhen rhere is no repentance.

4:9-16 And the Lord God said to Cain, Vhere is Abel thy brorber?
And he said, I hnow not, am I my brother'sheeper? And the Lord said,
Adam and Abcl. Rxssianicont ofthc tucnteenth ccnfirm,
What hast thou done? The uoice of thy brotheri blood cries to me out of
the ground. And now thou art cursedfom the urth which has opened
lter mouth to receiuethy brother's blood fom thy hand. Vhen tbou tillest
the earth, then it shall not continue to girc its strength to thee: thou shah sball begroaning and nembting upon the carth, then it will be tbnt an1
be groaning and tembling on the earth. And Cain said to the Lord God, onethatrtnds me shallslayme.And the Lord God said to him, Not so,
My crime is too great for me to beforgiuen. If thou castestme out this da! anJ one that slaysCain shatl suffer seuenfoldaengeance; and the Lord
liom theface of the eartb, and I shall be biddcn fom thy presence,and I God seta marh upon Cain tbat no onethatfound him might slayhim.
So Cain wentforth fom the presenceof God nnd dueh in the knd of
' Irr [-r.rkcll:50-51, Chrisrspeaks Abcl: "That the
ofthe murderof righreous Nod oueragainstEden.
blootlofall rhc prophcts,rvhichwasshedfrom the lbrrndarion ofrhc world, may bc HereSt. Ephraimsays:
requircdofrhis gencration: from rhc bloodofAbel [thesonofAdanr]unro the blood
of Zacharias Ithe f.irhcrof St.John rhe Baprisd."By afFrmingthar the murderof
Abcl occurred"from rhc loundarionof rheworld,"thewordsof Chrisragaincontra'
Godappears to him withoutanger, sothatif he repents,
theprayer
dicr thc modcrncvolutionaryidcarhat thcrewercbillionsof ycarsofearth history pronouncedbyhislipsmightwashawaythesinof murderperformed
bcfbrerheeopeatance of man- Eo. by his hands,but if he doesnot repent,thena heavypunishment

229
 Cnr'artor lNo Ea.nlvMaN
GsNr.sts,

might be assignedhim suchasthe crimedeserves. But Cain, insrcad

and ro the All-knowing
is filled with dissatisfaction,
of rcpentancc,
'Who brotherin orderro drawCain to Himself,he
One askedof his
answers "l
with anger: know nor' Am I my brotheri keeper?"' i'''1,:j

St. John Chrysostom notes the differencebetween the curse pro-

nouncedon Adam and that pronouncedon Cain:

How far rhissin (of Cain) wasgrea(erthat the transgression of thc

first-created(Adam) may be seenin rhe differencein curses Thcrc
(the Lord) said:"Cursedis the groundin thy labors"(Gen 3:18)
and pouredout thecurseon theearth,showingcarepreciscly for rhe
man; but here... sinceit is an unforgivablecrime,he himself(rhc
"Thou
to the curse:
performerof it) is subjected art curscdfrom rhe
earth."He (Cain)acredalmostlikc the serpentwho servedas the
implementofrhe devil'splan;iustastheformet throughdcception,
introduceddeath,so rhe lattcr,havingdeceived his brotherand led
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
Cain,because he actedsimilarly."'

After this, Cain finally did admit his guilt; but it was too late' St'
John Chrysostomsays:

He did confess(his sin),and confessed it with greatprecision.But

there was no benefit from this ar all, becausehe confessedat the
wrong timc. He shouldhavedone this at the right time, whcn ne
couldhaveinclinedtheJudgeto mcrcy."
OainslayingAoet.
One should add to this that his confessionis more an admissionof Byzantinc mosaicfom Moareab Catbedrat,Sicily, tuclftb ccntury.
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 geo-
graphicaldistribution is still very limited' From this tinre forth, as St.

230
 GeNesrs, ,trn Flnrv Mnn
Cnr-arroN
Ephraimstates, thereis no intermarriage betweentheoffspringof Cain
and thoseof the other childrenof Adam.'' The mark wasplacedon
Cain to preventrevenge from beingrakenagainsthim by thesehis rela-
tives.'rAnd sotherearerwoparallellinesof humaniry:asit wereimages
of the true followersof God and apostates from Him, or as Blessed
Augustinelarerdescribed it, the Ciry of God and the Ciry of Man.
4:17-22 And Cain knew his wife, and bauingconceiued shebore
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
bookof Genesis mentionsashischildrenonly Cain,AbelandSeth,but
rheywereonly the first ones;thereweremany others.Later,in Genesis
5:4-5, we read that Adam lived sevenhundred yearsafter begetting
Seth,duringwhichtime"hebegotsonsanddaughters." Adamwasgiven
the commandto increase and multiply,and he livedfor nine hundred
and thirry years.Therefore,theremusthavebeenhundredsofchildren.
This leadsto a secondquestion:"How is it that Cain couldmarry
his own sister? Isn'tthis againstthe lawsof the OrthodoxChurch?"Of
course,this wasat the beginningof time,so they had a differentlaw;
they werenot living underthe law we havenow.* In thosedayspeople
livedto be nine hundredyearsold. Obviouslyhumanirywasquitedif-
ferentfrom 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,
thc humanracehadto incrcase from thcn on, it waspermissablc ro marrytheirown
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 pre-
sentedby the evolutionaryview of man'sorigins. In the Biblical view,
what one might call "advanced"characteristics of civilization come at
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 thou-
sandsif not millions of people.
(Rationalist Biblical scholars,seeing the beginnings of man tn
primitive, stone-agecave-dwellers, deny the very existenceof Cain and
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.
This passage hasbeen interpretedin variousways,but the simplest
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
of moreformalworshipof God, boundup with the nameof Enoslthis
ofSetharecalledin chaptersixthe "sonsof
is alsowhy thedescendants
God."
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,seuenhun-
dredandfJieen 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 hasseveralquesrions for us.
l. All rhe earlyPatriarchs lived nine hundredyearsor so, some-
thing fantasticto us who anaineighryor ninetyyearswith greatdiffi-
culry,which hasbeenthe casewith mankindsincebeforethe rimesof
234
Lrrr Oursror P,cRAorse
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 stone-
agecave-dwellers, there is no reasonfor us not to acceptthis fact.
2. The secondquestionconcernsthe genealogyitself:why was this
so important as to be recorded?Becausethe evolutionary theory re-
quiressomehundredsofthousandsofyearsfor 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 pre-
servingdetailsofthe 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
inconsisrencies in the names(for example, St. Gregory the Theologian
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
passages in Genesis),it is possibleto calculatethe ageofmankind. Ac-
cording to the numbers in the Septuaginttext of the Old ltstament,
we are now in the year 7490 from the creation of Adam... The He-
brew rext has somewhatdifferent numbers,giving a total ageof man-
' On rhegenealogy of Christgivcnby Sr.Lukc,seepp. 528-29 below.-Eo.
" 1.c.,in I 982,duringthe sccondpart of Fr.Seraph
imt Gcnesis .-l-.o.
course
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 acceptedwirh-
out questionboth the greatageof rheeerlyPatriarchsand rhe approxi-
mateageof 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 thou-
sandsofycars, 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),thcsixrhbishopofAoti-
och 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 BooksofChronol-
ogr (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 Or-
thodox Calcndarbascdon the Crcation Era. Thc crcationof thc world was usedas
thc starting point of thc calcndarof the Rusian Empire unril rhc Vcstcrnizing rc-
forms of Pctcr I at rhc bcginning of thc cightccnth ccnrury (scc Nicholas fuasa-
novsky,,4 HirtorT of R*sit, p. 244\, and ir srill forms thc basis of tradirional Adam.
Orthodox calcndarsup to today. Fmco by Thcophanathc Greekin thc Church oftbc Tiansfguration
Fr. Scraphimwritcs that "evcn thc most mysticalFathcrs"such as St. Isaacthe of tbc Sauiour Noagorod,Rwsia, 1j78.
Syrianacccptcdwithour qucstionrhc common undcrsrandingofrhc Church rhat thc
worfd wascreatcd'more or lcss"in 5,500 a.c. Scebclow, op.53940,602.-Eo.

236
 ' -i

.f ri
t-...'
i|:r f :

I - i 0" " .
1''
1i '':
/
t..r"
i ;
.\
.t, ''
\

t,ti:i
.'

rr t

t . $, . ?
' !4 ,.

., f . i.

ttr
.T
T\'. i,\
\l\
,ii
\( lll L(1{ 1,Lll

l t,',,,,. i ,, I / ', , ,7,| ' ,t t : , ' tl ' , (,t,,1. ,' i ti ,, ( i ' :,,,i , ,,1 tl , I t,t ,t ' I i r': rr,t t : ,, t t
,,1tl 't \,r t,!!t..\',r.1,,rar1 /i r,,,;.r / j \
zl0orr: linos, rhe son ofScth.
Iirto h.yllasto l)ion.1'sius,l?utsia,

ilt h/i: ltrcl, t dcscendcnrof [rnor.

Ilussian ion af tht;ixt.ot/) t.trtttl

[)noch,thc sonofJarcd(dcreil).
lisn by Theoplnut tlr Orth in thr Olnn'h r'l rlt, lunsliguration
of tln .\ariour, lt'ot,gorod,
llu:stt, I.)iii.
 Gl.Nlsts. Cle,trtoN rNo EeRt-YM,cN
4. Beginningwith Genesischaprerfive we follow the historyof
what can alreadybe calleda "chosenpeople":a peoplededicatedto
God, handingdown the traditionsoftrue worshipand piery,and pre-
paringultimatelyto givebirth to the promisedMessiah. Thus, little is
saidof the descendantsof Cain; they are not the chosenpeople.The
descendants ofseth are,and eventheyeventually becomecorruptand
aredestroyed,savefor one man (Noah) and his sons.
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 trans-
that he shouldnot seedeath;and wasnot found,because
he had this testimony' that he
lated him: for before his translarion
pleased God" (Heb. I I :5).
Patristictraditionis unanimousthat Enoch,who so pleasedGod
will returnat the end
that he did not die but went aliveinto Paradise,
wirh Elias(Elijah)who was takenup alivcinto
of the world, together
heaven,to preachthe SecondComingof Christ;theywill die asmar-
ryrs at that time, being resurrectedafter threeand a half days(Apoc.
ch . I l ) .
5:254:l And M*husakh liued an hundrel and sixty and seuen
years, and begot Lamech. And Methusakh liued afer his begetting,
Lamccheighthundredand nttoyears,and begotsonsand daugbters. And
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
fom our worhs,andliom the toils ofoar hands,
one will causcttsto ceasc
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
242
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 human-
ity-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 thcmselvesin
virrue.They wereliving in a higherplace,alongthe boundaryof Para-
disc.'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
keep themsclvespure, and were not supposedto marry inro thc line of
Cain. (l.ater on, this sameideawas relatedto rhe Jews,who were sup-
posed to kecp themselvesseparatefrom everyoneelse.)The sons of
(lod were to keep themselvcsscparareso thar they could becomepro-
genitorsof 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
243
 CrNesrs,CnlanroNANDEARLY
MAN LIraOurstoePanquse

"flesh" or fleshly.*St. Paul says:"They that are in the flesh cannot tions abour angelsmaring with men, and modern speculations of
pleaseCod" (Rom. 8:8). beings,areofcourseemptytalesbasedon idle fantasies.
outer-space
The "hundred and rwenry years"refer not to the life spanof man,
but to the time given for repentancebeforethe Flood-again indicat- 6:5 Now thegiants wereapon the earth in thosedaTs;and afer that
ing God's mercifulness.*' uhen the sonsoJ'Godwerewont to go in to thedzuglttersof men,thq bore
Some havespeculatedthat rhe "sonsofGod" were heavenlybeings children to them, thosewerethegiants of old, the menof renown.
or angels.The Holy Fatherswereawareof this interpretationand they By "giants"herewe do not needto understand enormousmen.Ac-
refuted it, saying rhat angelscannor beget men.'** Ancient specula- cordingro Sr.Ephraim,theoffspringofSeth,thechosenrace,weretall
and full in srarure,while the offspringof Cain, the cursedone, were
' St. Ephraimthc Syriancxplainsfurrherthat "rhc daughrers of Cain adorned small.*When rheserwo racesmixed,the rallness of the Sethitespre-
rhcmselves and becamea snarcto rhc eycsof thc sonsof Scrh.... l he cntiretribeof vailed.The "giant" statureof the men-the descendants of Seth-be-
Seth... wasstirredro a frenzyoverthenr.... Becausc thc sonsof Scrhwercgoingirr ro forerhe Floodis apparently oneofthe atrributes of humanirythat was
rhedaughtcrs ofCain, theyturncdawayfrom their first*ives whornthcy hadprcvi- lostwith the newclimacticconditionsof the post-Flood world.
ouslymken.Then thesewives,roo,disdained rheirown continence and now,bccause
Perhaps these"giants"with their mighrydeedsof strength(mani-
oftheir husbands, quicklybeganto abandontheirmodesrywhich up until thartime
for thcir husbands' sakc.lt is becausc of thiswantonncss that as-
festperhapsin warswith the offspringof Cain) werethe origin ofthe
thcy had prcscrvcd
sailcdborh thc men and the women,that Scripturesays,'allfleshhad corruptcdits
"gods"of laterlegendin Greeceand otherlands.
way' (Gcn.6:13\" (Comnentary on Gcnesis, F,nglish vcrsion,p. 135).-Eo,
" St. Ephraim wrircs:"lf thcy rcpent during this rime thcy will bc savedfrom
thc wrarhthat is atnur to comeupon thcm.But i[rhcy do not repcnt,by theirdceds
thcy will call down [thc wrath] upon thcmselvcs. Gracegranredonc hundrcdand
twenryyearsfor repenrance to a generarion tlrat,according wasnor worthy
to Jusricc,
of repentancc"(Commantaryo.fCenari,Englishvcrsion,p. | 36).-F-o.
"' The idcnrificationof rhc "sonsof God" as angelsor heavcnlybcingswas
bascdin parton tlrcapocryphal bookof Enoch.A conrnronrabbinicalinterpretarion
of thc fitst andsccondcenturies ,1.o..it canbc foundin rhcJcwislrwrirersFlavius Jo-
scphus(T'hcAntiquitiesof theJeuu l:3) and Philo ofAlcxandria (Thc Gianti, as well
as in somc gnosticwrirings(c.g.,thc ValentinianExposirion). Someof rhe carly
Christianwrircrsmistakenly acccptcdrhisintetpretation. (SeeVanderKamand Ad-
lcr, JcwishApocatypticHcritagc in Eatll Christianity, pp. 6l-88.1 'Sr. Ephrainrcxplairrs how this cameto bcr "Thc houscofCain, bccauscrhe
Thc firstcxrant(lhrisriarrrcfercncc ro the "sonsofGod" asthe dcsccodanrs of carthhad beencursedso asnot ro giverhem its strength,produccdsmallharvcsts,
Sethis in thc Fiw Book of Chronologr by the earlyChristianwrirerJuliusAfricanus deprivcdof its strength,jusr as ir is today that someseeds,fruits and grasses
givc
(,r.o. 200-245) (Ante-NiccncFathers, vol.6, p. I 3 I ). Th is interprctation
bccamcrhc srrengrhand somcdo not. Because, at that timc, theywerccursedand sonsof rhe
consistcnt tcachingof thc Church,beingserforth on rheological groundsby St.John cursedanclwcredwcllingin the landofcurses,theywould gathcrand cat producc
Chrysosrom(Commcnuryon Genetis22:6-71,St. tphraim rhc Syrian (Commcttary that lackcdnurrition,and thosewho ate thesewerewithour srrengthjust likc rhc
on Gcncsit6:3, Hlmt on the Natiuity l:48, Hynns on F'aith46:9, Hlmw agaiwt food that theyatc.As for rhc Serhires, on the otherhand,bccausc thcywcrcrhc dc-
Hcruict 19'.1-8, and Hymnt on Paradic l:11), St. John Cassian (Confcrencct scendants of rhe blessed
[Seth] and were dwelling in the landalongthe boundaryof
8:20-21),Blcsscd Augusrine(Ciryof God l5:23), St. GregoryPalamas ("Topicsof thc lenccof Paradisc,rhcir producewasabundanrand full of strcngth,So coowcrc
Naruraland ThcologicalScicncc"62), Sr.Athanasius(FourDiscoursuagainsttbeAri- the bodies of those that atc thrr produce strong and powerful" (Commentaryon
ans4:22), Sr. Cyril ofAlcxandria,and others.Secpp. 499-500 below-Eo. C'izarlr,F)nglishversion,p. 136).-Er,.

244 z.t)

RightcousNoah.
Fraco b7Monh Thcopbznesthc Crcmn,
Suutonibiu Monestcry,Mornt Athos,
ttxtaanthccntul)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 wasm-
tently 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 re-
newedwith 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.
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 possi-
247
 CnrrrtclNaNoEenrvMaN
Gr,ntsIs,
ble ir is lor us to be virtuousevenwhenIivingin suchcorruPttimesas
our own,
In notingthat Noah hadonly threechildren(whileAdamandorh-
ersof the Patriarchs possiblyhad hundreds),the Fatherspoint to the
chastityof Noah, who evenfrom the lawfulntarriage
abstained bed.
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
said to Noah, A period of all mcn is comebeforeMe: because the earth bas
beenflled with iniquiE by them, and, behold, I dexroy tbem and the
enfth.
HereSr.John Chrysostomemphasizes how Cod speaksto Noah
faceto faceaboutthis plan for mankind.He asit weresaysro Noah:
"Men haveperformedso much evil that their impietyhaspouredout
and coveredthe wholeearth.ThereforeI will destroyborh them and
the earth.Sincetheythemselves havealreadydestroyed themselves be-
forehandby their iniquities,I will bringcomplereperditionand exter-
minatethem and the earth,so that the earthmight be cleansed and
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; threelsundredcu-
bits 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.
A cubit is supposed to be thedistancefrom theelbowto theend of
the hand, roughlyeighteeninches.'fhereforethe Ark, accordingto
rhis,wasapproximately 450 feetlong,75 f'eetwide,and 45 feethigh.
This showsthat it wasa veryunusualtypeof strucrure,apparently
like a big boat-a three-dimensional, rectangular boat-whose sole
purposewasto keepNoah and his childrenand the animalsfloating
throughthe courseofthe Flood. fhe ideais that thereis goingto be a
248
Tur Frooo
flood which will obliterateeuerything, and only thosewho are left in
the Ark will be delivered.
Of course,one can imaginehow long it would take for Noah to
All the peo-
build the Ark, living in the midstof a corruptgeneration.
pleweresettledin a fairlyclosearea,soprobablythewholeworld knew
about it. One can imagine,too, their response when Noah started
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 sonbecausehe 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 visi-
ble warningto mankindof impendingdisaster.
6:18-19 And behoUI bringaflood of watel pon the edrth,to de-
srol all llesb in uhich is the breathof life under heauen,and whatsoeuer
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.
God revealswhat He is to do with mankind,and establishes a
covenant with \621-x 66n512ntly recurringthemethroughoutsacred
history:God makesan agreement with His chosenones.Cod doesHis
will on earthnot by Hisy'ar,not by simplysayingthat is thewayit has
ro be, but by finding a righteousman who will obey Him. God ar-
rangesthat menwill do His work on earth.
l'he sonsof Noah were included in the Ark, saysSt. John Chry-
sosrom,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.
HereNoah is to put food in the Ark: vegetable food,with which
rheanimalsalsowereto be fed.[t wasto bestoredup in greatcompart-
mentsin theArk.
Again,onecanimaginethe mockeryto which his contemporarics
musthavesubjected him for sucha seemingly insaneproject-and yet
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
skyseuens, malcandfcmale,and of all uncleanflying creaturespairs, male
andfemale, to maintain scedon all the earth.
St.JohnChrysostom asksthequestionhow Noah knewthe diffcr-
enceberween"clean"and "unclean"animalsbeforethe law of Moses,
when this distinctionwasmade;and he answers: from the wisdomof
hisown natureimplanred by God.'
And why werethereto be sevenpairsoltcleananimals,and rwo
pairsofeveryrhingelse? St.JohnChrysostom tellsthe obviousanswer:
so rhar Noah could offer sacrificewhen the Floodwasover,without
destroying anyof the pairs.'I'hisis indeedwhathe did (Cen.8:20).He
alsohad to haveanimalsto eat because, right afterthe Flood,God
givesrhecommandto eatmeat.
Perhaps one reasonForeatingmeatwasthat,afterthe Flood,when
250
Tnr Flooo
the windows of heavenwere opened,apparentlya whole new atmos-
pheric 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
and his wife, and his soni wiueswith him into theArk, becauseof the wa-
ter of the Fhod. And of cleanJlying teatures and of uncleanJlying crea-
tures,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
fish,insectsand orhercreatures that might be ableto surviveon their
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
Floodwasreallya worldwidecatasrrophe suchasCenesisdescribes it
in the verses that follow we haveno way of knowingwhat the earth
lookedlike beforeit-the continentswe know wereformedby the
Flooditselfandgeological processesthat haveoperated sincethen.Per-
hapstherewasonly azr continentthen;we don'tknow.
How did the animalscome?Of course,God sentthem.The text
doesnot describe Noah capturingand forcingthemon boardthe Ark;
' SeeNoahi Arh: A I'easibitiryStudyby JohnWoodmorappe(1996)-Eo.
251
 I t t t . I t oot r

. i1 c , 1, 1-
3 .' t thct si ntpl r " \\' (nl i n. ' I lt t liut lr cls r rnr i. . r 'st . ur rt l[ ) is ( luilc sir r r plv ant l
rr.rl i .ri ..rl l v. \t. I i ' l rr. r inr r vlr t . . . :

.!ri, ()rr Il ri s vcl r' ,l ,rr t hcr c bcgin t , , . , , r r r . lior r r r ht . . r srr . . 1. P] , . r , rItrt,., nr

i'tq 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

.rrtrlsti l l othcrsl r.r. t cr r cd
lionr r lr c r vcsr .
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
lil,i.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<t . kct lr o
$c(l l crl () \l r(l r.L I) r \ \ '\ l) c( t . lr lc.lr Lr tr r r r riir r r ( l) r 'ot ul( ( , bLr tt , r . r r i, t r
.cl ' i ri 1 h,rrr bcIrru t hcir . \ 'cs r lr ! f ( r 'r t cr cr l ir r r o t hr ; \ r k lioos, . r nt l
ti gl rt .tl tcr tl rcrtt,u'it l: , r t r tli. r r . t ] r t <r r cl h. r . t . n. . l. . cckinq sh. lt cr t , t
{(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.
(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
,d, -( 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
h;i::_ - 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
''' 9-- -
\\' 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
\,,.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' 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
L.rl l i ns1' c,,plto
1 \l ,rti ns.likc \ o. r h qoir q oLr r
. r nt .
l . rllinq, r llt lr c. r nir r r . rrl'o r lr r ,' \ r k.
" \tL .l ttun,t/' ,tttr/, \ lat , 1 \ t , t r ,, t l / ll, '"t / nL"ll l) r . l, r , r r r r r r '\ r cl. r r . r( r1t
os) ') - ll.
.rnLl 1'. .l I I .rl rrrvt. I o

li l
 Genrsrs, CmerIoN aNo Eanlv M,qru
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 de-
scribedin the Scripture,it is quite clearthat this is what is meant.The
Flood describedin the next verses, when "a.llthe fountainsof the abyss
were broken up and rhe floodgatesof heavenwere opened" (we dis-
cussedthis breakingofthe firmamentand the release of wateraboveit
' This is rhc claim borh of"Christian cvolutionists"and ofmost "old-carth/pro-
grcssivccrcationisrs."-Eo.
254
H E ILOOD
in chapterthree),is a cosmiccatastrophe ofenormousproportions. At
rhe sametime, undoubtedly,therewasvolcanicactiviry underground
water was coming out, and all kinds of spectacularthings were hap-
pening,which would accountfor the fact that rhereare high moun-
rains now. The Flood was not necessarily over Mt. Everestat thirry
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 rwenty-
two and a half feet abovethe highestmountain. lf ir wasonly a local
flood, how could you haveflood watersthat high in the areaof Baby-
lonia, 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.
Furthermore, at the endof the Flood,God promises He will never
againallowsucha universalcatastrophe (Gen.9:11).Of course,after
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.
Andrcc, H. Uscncrand.l. G. Frazer,accountsofa grcatDclugcare ro bc found in an-
cicntculturesall ovcrthc world,on all thc contincnts.In thc majoriryofthescFlood
srorics,rhe Dclugc rcsulrsfrom the sinsof a fallcn humaniry,thc old world is sub-
mergcdundcr 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 pco-
plcs, which arc rcplctc with striking parallclsto thc Gcncsisaccount (seeHoward
Coares,'Ausrralian Aboriginal Flood Storics,"and "AboriginalFlood Lcgcnd," Craa-
tion Er Nihilo, vol. 4, nos. I and l). As John Mackaywritesin CrcationEx Nihito, thc
almostuniversaldisseminarionofparallcl Floodstorics"providesfascinatingcircum-
sunrial cvidcnccrhar the common anccstorofAborigincs, Jcws,and indccd all rhc
modcrn raccsof man wasNoah."-Ep.
) q<
 GeNrsrs,Cne,rnoNrNo Ernr,vM,rN

wholepoint hereis the totdly new beginningof mankindchatoccurs

with it.*
In recentyearscreationscientisrshavemadefruitful geologicalin-
vestigationsthat do indeedpoint to a universalFlood somefive thou-
sandor so yearsago (seeJohn C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris,
TheGenesi: Flood).

7:10 And it ctme to pttssafer the seuenday that the water of thc
Flnodcameupon the earth.
During rhe sevendaysthey are all getting into the fuk, adjusting
rhemselves, finding their quarters,gettingthe peoplein chargeoffeed-
ing set up, and deding with other pracricalproblems.
St. John Chrysostomdescribesthis as a terrible experience:the
smellof all the animals,with no windowslooking out. Noah wassup-
posedto takethe food which wassuitablefor himselfand feedit to the
animalsduring that time. Undoubtedly it was a time of fasting and
prayerand labor.They probablydid not eat full meals.
Then the Flood is describeq'

7:ll-17 In the six hundredthyear ofthe life of Noah, in the second

montlt, on the ntenry-seuenth day of the month,** on this da1all thefoun-
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;
Noah (detail).
Luke 17 27:2 Pacer2:5), thc uniquc rerm kauhhtsmot("caraclysm")is used,rarhcr
Fnscoby Thcopbaacsthc Grcel in thc Church ofthc
rhan rhc usualCreekword for "flood."-Ep.
Transfguraion, Novgorod,Rutia, I 378,
"" Accordingto rhc Orthodox Christian Calcndar,which bcginson Scptcmbcr
l. we calculatethis asrhe rwenw-scvcnthofOctobcr.

256
 Gr:Nlsts, (hexrloN ,rNtr L'.,rlt.vMaN

Arh outsideof
flcsh,as God commandedNoah. And thc I'ord God shut the
hin. And the FLoodwas upon the earthfbrty daTsandJitrry nightt.
As we have said, this was not just rain. Everything was comittg
down lrom the firmament, and cvcrything was conting up from un-
derneath,reducingthe c'arthto thc samcstateir was on the First L)ay
of Creation--chaos.

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 bc-
hundred 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<ltts,trttt stl thrtt
Not withour rcas<rn
wc rnighr knott th,tt thosc rvho drolvned wcrc not otrly rncn trnd clt-
lhc lrlood.
tlc lnd firur-fixrtcd bc:tsrsantl rcptilcs' bttt ;tlso rhc birds of tltc lcar'-
Russian.fietcooJ thc tixt/?Ddi ft ntry.

' Lc.,llficcn cubits abovc the top of thc rnorrrl(rlltls

25u
 CleNtsts,Creartoru aNo EatrrYMrN
ens and all the beastsand other irrational creaturcswhich dwelt in
the mountains.5
Again he says:
BeholdhowtheScripture onceandrwiceandmanytimesinforms
occurred
usthatthere a rhatnora singlecrea-
destrucrion.
universal
turewassaved,but all drownedin the water-both menand ani-
mals.6
Ifpeopleweresowickedthen,did theyall perishspirituallyin the
Flood?\i?'ere all of them condemned eternallyfor theirsinsor not?
we
In the Scriptures are told aboutthosewho wereliv-
sPecifically
ing at the timeofNoah. In I Peter3:l8-20, theApostlePeterdescribes
ho Christdescended to Hades,andwhom He sawthere:"For Christ
alsohathoncesufferedfor sins,the iust for the uniust,that He might
bring us to Cod, beingpur to deathin the flesh,but quickenedby the
Spirit:by whichalsoHe went and preached unto the spiritsin prison
which sometime were disobedient, whenoncethe
[that is, in Hades],
Iongsuffering of God waitedin the daysof Noah,while the Ark wasa
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
the chanceto acceptChrist.'fhat,however, wasup to eachindividual
soul. Undoubtedly, some who died in the Flood acceptedChrist's
preachingin Hades,and somedid not' Once onet heartgrowshard,
onedoesnot acceptChristeventhoughone knowsthat oneshouldre-
pent,that this is onet lastchance.Pridegetsin the way.
8:l-3 And God remembered Noah,and all the wiU bcasts'and all
the canle,and all the birds, and all the reptilesthat ffeeP,4r man! as uere
tuith him in theArh. And God broughta wind upon the earth,and the
Tnr Frooo
water stalcd.And thefountains of the deepwereclosedup, and theflood-
gatesof 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 earthwascov-
eredwith waterfor a year.At that time the landwasrisingup, tremen-
dous undergroundreservoirs were being filled, and the whole
geographythat we now know wasbeingformed.
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 re-
gion ofArarat. Thereareseveralpeaks,bur therearerwo main peals of
Ararat. lt camero resrin rhe seventhmonth, rhe rwenry-seventhday,
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, rc-
261
 'l'rrr,ljr.oon

tuttd to hint into tht tlrk, btctttrsct/t( ur{t(t ut/tr on tll t/r.frct of t/tt
&trt/r. A l |tt strtttltu/ otr hir /)t d itu/ took ltcr, tnd broutht lttr to
Lirrm/f into t/r tlrk. And lrt n( unin,/.yrt ! ot ltlx'r da.ys,lu ,tg,titr
.i.nt.f;rth tlrc dotv fivn tltr Ark. Anl tlrc dot'r rrtunrcd to /tin in t/tt
n'rnitq, uul lud a /a( oJ o/it'( tt tlri! irt lrr nnut/t;,tul Notlt knuu
tlnt tltt tt,,ttcrl.,,tdct,tsrd.fiont off'tlr rarth. t1t /uuittg ut,titul .y(t sutut
otlter r/ays,Lt' agtiu scnt.fitrth t/tt dorc, ,tnd sltr did no! rttunt to hinr
tt(ttitt tt .y morc. Anr/ it t'i rt( to frtit in t/r sit ltunr/rcl tnr/ .ftrst.yr,tr ol
tlr lifi' of'Noalt, itt r/t .first n0ntlt, o,t tltt firsrla1 of't/r uottt/t, rl,t u,,t-
nr subsirld.f)ntn rtlf tl,c 7171v/1. Anl Noalt oputtd tl.,r nfttirry 4 rlr Ark
u,ltith lu,lt,ul nnlr, h vu' /l)dt t/.t?uutr ltad sr/tsidrd.l)otn tlr
'tnl
fuu of tl,t urr/t. A l iu t/v settnl no t/t tlt( &tr!lt u,tt lriul, orr tlu'
t t(,.t1t.l-! ( rt'11! L lrt.J,r,/ t /,, rtt ortt /,.
'l'hus t.\olh u'ls in thc .,\rkfirr onc ycxr in lll.
Nolh scntollt l);r(lsto scoutirroLrnd. I:irsthc scntthe nvcn, rvhich
tlid rrot rcrrrrrrbccaLrsc (:rccortlirrq to St. Johrr(ihrvsosrrnr)ir lorrntl
llrt corpscsol rrrinralsanclpcoplcto cat. It l'us srili not sali'to go ctlt:
rhc highcslclcvutionsu,crcspoiledn,irlrthcsccorpscson thcnr.

$
t,
'l 'l
hcrr Nouh scnl tlrc (loyc. hc firsr titrrc tltc dovc rvct'ttottt. slte
firunclno trccsor vcgctrtlllcs ro c;tt. I he rnourttlirtsrvercsrill cor.ererl
.It ,,r,irlr slirnc.'l lrc sccorrcl tirrrcthc dovc Iixrnrl rr blirrrch,nlcanirr!lrhilr
tlrr. nccs rvr.rc rror,lortr oi thc rlal.r rtnrl u'crc bcginning to (rorv, [ru(
:
still not cnorrghro sul)portlili'.'l hc rhircltinrc tlrc dovc did not tctrrrrr
Irccrtusc sltc nou lir Lrttrlsrritrrtrlc livirrq contlitiotts. llrcrclirlc, Noalr
kntu it trrrv wrrslinlc l() c()r))!()Ll(.

Nolh enrcrqinslronr rhc Ark. enrl thc cl<rvclrclr inlr the ,rlivc hrrtnch.
l:reros _fron t/k'tuttiaul (.llnittitttt t,rtttconbi ia Rantt. tltinl rutrt4'.
8:1 5-1 9 tlt tlr Lorl (,ior/spo/ttto t\rtrr/t,itt.1,inq, ( .otttt out fittttt
t/r Ar/<,tbou t/t.1,u,ifitul rlty sorts,,urr/ t/t.l,sottsu,itts u,it/t tluc. ,'ltrr/
'rrrt./
tll tlr u,ild lntsts ttr tltdrt.\t/t\ tn1,tt,it/t t/rrt, tl/ flrlt lnth of bin/s aul
'tttr/
ht,uti, anrl nu'ry rc?til( molitt( t(/)ontlt( ur/lt, hritrc.firtl, u,it/t t/tu: ,trul
iunttsc.yt arul nultip|.y ulo tlt( urt/l. /ltul Noth crnt fin/t, rnd ltis
u,ili /tii sons,,tnrl/.,issoni u'irts u,irltltin. tlnd,rll rlu u,i1/ ltrtstsand
'turl
tll t/tr t,ttt/r tuul tuo.y,bir,/, ,tur/ tttr.J, rqttilt t rulir( tlotl tlr ttrt/t tlitr
t/ttir Iind, t,trw firth out o.fr/tt t1rI.
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 ac-
cordancewith the lower condition of post-Floodhumaniry.He prom-
ises,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 multi-

ply." 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
alun And thc Lord God smclhd a smcll of suectncss, and thc Lord God
hauing consi&red,said"I will not an1 morcd4rsc th. carth, of the
because
worhsof mm, becawcthe imagination of man is intcntly bcnt upon cuil
thingsfrom bisyouth, I will not thacforeany morcsmitealt liuingftsh as
I hauc bnc. All thc daysof thc carth, sccdand harucst,coU and hcat,
summa and spring shall not ccascby dzy or night,
So we scethat, first ofall, Noah offerssacrifice,knowing like Abel
in his hean that this is fining to do in thanksgiving,after havingbeen

264 265

CHaprnn NINE
TheDispersionof thePeoples
(Cenesis
9:l-ll:26)
L Noah and Godi Ncw Couenant
9:l-2 Godblessed Noahand hissons,and saidto them,Inteaseand
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
thehand ofall wi//. beasts,and I willrequire the life ofman at the hand of
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
Adam:to increase andmultiply.He hasgiven foodasHe gaveto Adam,
exceptthat now He hasalsoallowedmeatto be eaten(corresponding ro
the new conditionsof man afterthe Flood).And iust like Adam was
zoo
'fue DrspersroNor lnt Pr.opt.ns
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 ac-
cording 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 com-
mand 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,
And beholt/I establish my couenant withyou,and withyour seedaferyou,
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 be-
tueen 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
couenant, whichis bctueenMc andyu, and betweencueryliuingsoalin
allflesh, and thereshall no longerbetuaterfor a deluge,so,tsto blot out all
flesh.And My bowsballbe in the cloud,and I will look to remember the
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 appropriatereminderthat the rain is not perpet-
ual,sinceit occursonly when the sun breaksthroughthe clouds.It is
verylikelythat rainbowswerenor seenbeforethe Flood,sincethe sun
did not shinedirectlythen:therewasa cloud layeracrossthe firma-
ment,causinga greenhouse effectoverrheearth.The rainbow,there-
fore,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
St.JohnChrysostom,'Ham did not restrainhis passion in theArk but
conceived a child when he shouldhavebeenrelraininglike his father
and brothers.In the Ark, rhepeoplewerein a stateof prayerand fast-
ing. Men abstained from theirwives,exceptfor Ham. This sin againsr
the law of prayerand fastingalreadyreveals Ham'scharacter.

9:20-21 And Noab beganto be a ltusbandman, and he planteda

uinryard.And hedrankofthe winc,and uasdrunh,and wasnakedin his
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 Chry-
sosrom suggestsr wine was actually not even drunk before the Flood.
Noah was the first to cultivatevineyards.Therefore,he would not have
known rhe power ofwine; he drank it to seewhat it waslike, and it over-
whelmed him. If this was the case,wine-drinking goestogetherwith
Noahwirh rhedovcand the signof rhe rainbowin rhesky.
meat-eatingasone of the new conditions of the post-Floodworld.
Contcnpordryicox by 'll Ct'zrh.

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'
uard and theysau not the nahedness of their father And Noah recoaered
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
his fathernaked,because then they werenot nearlyasfastidiousabout
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 de-
cency(likethe Sovietsin moderntimes).
The sin of Ham wasthe sin of being totally shameless. His broth-
ers,on the contrary,came in with respect, covered up their father,and
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. Shcm.
2 13) .-ED . 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, espe-
cially 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 ser-
vants-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 descen-
dants 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,es-
pecially 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
' Sr. Ephraim saysthat Noah'sprophccyrcgardingthc descendantso[ Canaan
wasfulfillcdin the cimeofJoshuabar-Nun:"And God dwclt in rhetcnt ofAbraham,
thc descendant ofShem,and Canaanbccamctheirslavewhen in rhe daysofJoshua
bar-Nun,rhc Israclites desrroyed ofCanaan and presscdthcir
rhe dwclling-places
leadcrsinto bondagc(cf. Joshua17:13)" (Commennryon Genesit,Englishvcrsion'p
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:
Shem, Ham, and Japheth.Sevenry-rwo offspring of the threesonsof
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;othersaremorediffi-
culrto 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
Babel.Out of all the seventy-rwo basictypesofpeople,therewill be a
dispersion of humanitythroughoutall the earth.
' Ve havereplaced someof rhe namesin rhisSepruagint wirh vari-
translation
anrspellingsfrom rheKingJamcs Version,in thosecaseswhererhc larrcrarcmorefa-
miliarro Englishrcaders.-Eo.
'- Dr. Villiam F. Albrighr,considered the world'sleadingauthoriryon thc ar-
chcologyof thc Near Easr,hassaidconcerningthe 'lable of Nationsin thc tenth
chaptcrofGcncsis:"k srandsabsolurely alonein ancienrlircrature,wirhouta rcmotc
parallcl,evenamongthe Greeks, wherewe find theclosest approachro a disrribution
of peoplcsin gencalogicalframcwork....-fhe TableofNarionsremainsan astonish-
inglyaccurare documenr"("RecentDiscoveries in Bibletands,"articleappcodedro
Robcrt Youngi ,4zalyticalConcordanccto the Biblc,p,25),-ED.
"' For an ovcrvicw,sccHcnry M. Morris, Thc Gcncsfu Rccord,ch. 10.-Eo.
273
 Grnrsrs.CnrarloNaNo EeRr-y
M,c.N
"lslandsof the Gentiles"refersnot necessarily
to literalislands,
but
to the factthat the Gentilesformedseparatepeopleswho werelike is-
landsof humaniry.
lO:6-20 And the sonsof Ham: Cush,and Mizraim, Pbud, and Ca-
naan.And the sonsof Cush:Saba,and Euila, and Sabatha,and Rhegma,
and Sabathaca.And tbesonsof Rhegma:Saba,and Dadan. And Cushbe-
got 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
benteen Nineueh and Chalach: thi 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/is-
tiim) 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 Sa-
marean,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
Japherh,thirty-oneareof Ham, and rwenry-seven areof Shem.
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 descendantsmenrionedin chapter
ten,when mankindwasnor yersodispersed. The sonsbeganto beger
theiroffspring,but apparently mankindwasstill fairlyconcenrraredin
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

A rypicalz-iggurat. 1'he sites

of 32 suchziggurats havcbccn
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 'fhe'fowcr of Babcl

still survivc.They are calledziggurats:templeswith a shrineon top. St. lnd thc confusionof
John Chrysostomsaysthat theseare a symbol that man did not want ronSues.
ro sraywithin the limits that God had given him. He wanred to make Dctail ofa Ru*ian icon
himself a god: self'-deification.In our modern times, an image of rhis of tbc seutnteentlt
The idea is to build somethinghigher ccntury.
can be found in our skyscrapers.
than anyone has ever built befbre.You can go to the top, and the cli-
mate is totally different from down below. It can be raining down lre-
low, and you can be on top abovethe clouds,in the sunshine. ll:5 And the Lord camedown to seethe citTand the toucn ruhich
In chapter elevenwe seethat, within five hundred yearsafter the tbesonsof menbuih.
Flood, mankind had again become corrupt and proud. It says men Of course,this doesnot meanthar He did nor "see"before;ir em-
wereofone tongue, one voice.They all agreedon one thing: that they phasizesthat He waslookingverycarefullyto makesurewhatwasgo-
would become great. ing on. He doesnot chastisewithourknowing.
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 ci- ll:6 And the Lord said, Behold,thercis onerace,and onelip ofall,
ther agreeingwith what is going on or clse they are being dragged and thry hauebegunto do this, and now nothingshallfailfom themofall
along with this great project to build Paradiseon earth: the Commu- that theymay baueundertakento do.
nist society,or a comfortablereign of earrhlyvalues;but God is forgot- In otherwords,theyhavecontinuedro be proud,and haveunder-
ten. Mankind is doing it again. And if man does thar, what is God takenthis tremendous projectagainsrGod.
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: ll:7 Come,and hauinggone down/et usthereconfoundthcir tongue,
plagues,disasters,earthquakes,volcanoes.In this case,He confounds that tltey nay not understandeachthe uoiceof his neighbor.
rheir tongues. Vhen Cod sayshere,"Come,"to whom is He speaking? It is the

276 277

Thc 'lbwcr of Babeland the confusionof tongucs
Russianfitst'o of thc sixtrnth ettury'
Tnr: Drslr-:psr<lN
or, t Hr Pr:<lnt.ls
sanleas in the beginning,whcn Hc crcatedman, saying,"Let us make
man." It is God talkingto God in the Holy Tiiniry
ll 8 And the Lord scatteredtben tltenceouerthcface ofall the earth,
and thq, lefi ofi'building tlte ciry and the touer
St. John Chrysostomseysabout this:
IFnow takingadvanragc,rf suchoncncss ofidcasandlanguage, men
h,rvcfallcninro sr.rch
wiltlncss,wharrnighrrhcynor do that is worsc
with thc passageoltimc?Norhingwill bcablcto restrainthcircfforts;
rhcywill strivcro firlfillall theirintenrions,
on tlrecontr:rry, if thcydo
not inrmcdiatelycndurepunishment for theirbrazenundertakings. t
'I'hat is why one expecrsflon rhis kind of rhing ro happen ro rhe
\.yorldtoday.Mcn are more and more inclined towardsevil, and to tre-
mendousprojectsof pride which leave(iod completelyout.*
ll:9 On this account, its name was called Confision, becausethere
the Lord confoundedtbe knguagesof all the earth, nnd thencetbe Lord
sc/lttered them up| thefrce |f.t/l tlte earth.
'l-he narncof the ciry was Babylon,which means"Confusion."
-l'his is the real beginning of rhe world as we know it: scattcred
over tlre lacc ofthe earth, eachits own nation and language.
I l:10-26 And theseare tbe ge trations of Shem: and Shem u'as a
bundred yars old when he begot Arpharad, the second.year afer the
t-lood. And Shem liued, afiu be had begottcn Arpha-rad, Jiue bundred
years,and begotsonsand daugbters,and died. And Arphuad liued a hun-
drcd and thirtT-fue years,and begotCainan. And Arphaxad liued aJtcrhc
ltad begottenCainan, four hundredyears,and begotsonsand daughters,
* S i nceFr,S eraphi rn'.
rcgrs scir r l9U2, wccansccf ur t hcr r csulr sof t heset r em c
dousprojects.In particular,we cannotcthar,throughthc variorrs 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,
ThePhihsophyof
sixtcnth ccn*ry .
Euolation
and dicd. And Cainan liued a hundrcd attd thirry lcdrt lnd begotSah;
and Cainan liued afer he had.begottcnSah, three hundred and thirty
lcdrs, and begotsonsand d4ughters,and died.And Salaliucd an hundted
and thirty yars, and begotHcber.And Sala liud afer he had begottcn
Hebenthreehundredand thirty years,and begotsonsand dzughtcrs'and
dicd. And Hebcr liaed an hundredand thirry-four years,and bcgotPebg.
And Hebcr liacd afer he had bcgomn Pclzgtttto hundred and seaenty
years,and bcgotsonsand daugbters,and died.And Pelzgliued an hundred
and thirty ycan and begotRagau.And Pehgliued afer hc had begotten
Ragau,nto hundrcd and nine years,and bcgotsonsand daughtets,and
dicd. And Ragauliued an hundrcdthirty and twoyears,and begotStuch.
And Rzgau liucd afo he had begottenSentcb,nto hundrcd and seten
1ears,and bcgotsow and daughtcn,and died. And Seruchliud a btn'
dredand thirty yars, and bcgotNacbor.And Seruchliuedafio he had be'
gottcn Nacho, two htndrcd years,and begotsonsand dzughters,and
dkd And Nachor liucd a hundred and settmty-nineyars' and begot
Thanha. And Nachor liued afcr hc bad bcgottenThanha, an handred
and tucrtT-fuc 1wrs, and bcgotsonsand daaghters,and he dicd. And
Tharrha liucd tnenty yars, and begotAbram, and Naehonand Haran.
Thesearethe offspringof Shem,down to Abraham-the new cho-
senone,whosedescendants wereto be a greatnation.
 CHeprEn ONr

Scienceand the Holy Fathers

EDITOR S NOTE: This chapterhasbeentahenfom amongthe miscelh-
neousnotesof Fr Seraphimfound afer his rEose.Eachsectionrepresents d
sep!ftaes! of notcs.Wehauechosenand anangedthosenotesuhich pro-
uide the bestinnoduction to the chaptersthat folhta. Other miscelkneous
notesof Fx Seraphimmay befound in Appendix One.

I. Tiue Thcohgyand Secahr Knowlzdge

f 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 rhusun-
derva.lue the immeasurably rich rraditionof rhe Holy Fathers,which
givesus Christianwisdomnot by any meansonly on narrowecclesias-
tical 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
(1806-1856).
IvanV Kireyevsky
of the Holy Fathers of the past.
RomanCarholictheologylong agogaveup trying to give the stan-
dard 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."

283
 GrNesrs, a.NoEanrvMeN
CnexrtoN ScrrNcraxn rHr Holy Fnrnens

C)neareaof commonconfusionis the interpretation of Genesis, works of everyonewho writes concerningscientificfacts.Theseerrors

especiallyin viewof the "scientific" theoryof evolution. is no exag-
It in no way detract from the overall value ofsuch works as rhe Hexae-
gerationto saythat many evenamongOrthodox Christiansassume mcron, wherein scientific facts are never used as more than illustra-
that sciencehasmuch to sayin helpingChristiansto "interpret"the tions of principleswhich derive, not from knowledgeof narure, but
texrof Genesis. Herewe shallexaminethisassumption-notat firstby from revelarion. Vith regard to knowledge of te facx of narure,
examiningdirectlythe theoryof evolution,aboutwhich of coursethe modern works of scienceare of coursesuperiorto the "scientific"part
Holy Fathers did not speakdirecdy,sinceit is a productof eighteenth of the Hexaemeronand similar works of Holy Fathers, being based as
and nineteenthcentury'Enlightenment"thoughtwhich wasunheard they are on more precise observations of nature. This is the one and
of in earliercenturies-but chieflyby examiningthe attitudeof the on$ respect in which sciencecan be said to be superior or "improve"
Holy Fatherstowardsecularknowledge, on the one hand,and their on the writings of the Holy Fathers;but this is a point which in the
principlesfor understanding and interpretingGenesis,on the other Holy Fathersis quite incidentalto orher, theologicaland moral reach-
hand (andalsotheir interpretation of Genesisitself). ings.
No one will dare to say that the Holy Fathers,and Orthodox But ler us distinguishquire carefullyberweenactualscientificfacts
Christiansin general,are"againstscience," that is, opposedro scien- and something quite different which is today,when different kinds of
tific knowledgeinsofarasit is actuallyknowledgeof nature.As Cod is knowledgeare not often carefullydistinguished,often confusedwith
the authorboth of revelation and of nature,therecan be no conflict "facr." Fr. Michael Pomazanskycontinues:
whateverbetweentheologyand science,aslong aseachis true and re-
mains in the spherewhich belongsto it by nature.Further,those St. Basilacknowledgcs all rhe scienrificfacrsof naturalscience. But
Holy Fatherswho wrote commentaries on the book of Cenesisdid he docs not acceptthe philosophicalconccptions, or the interpreta-
not hesitateto makeuseof the scientificknowledgeof natureknown tionsofthe facts,whichwerecontemporary to him: the mechanisric
at that time, insofaras it wasapplicable to the subiect.Thus Fr. Mi- theoryof rhe origin of the world, the teaclringof the cterniryand
chaelPomazansky,* in a perceptivearticlecomparingthe Hexaemeron unbeginningncss of the naturalworld [and the like]. St. Basilthe
of Sr. Basilwirh the Homilies0n the DaJsof Creationof St' John of Greatknewhow to raisehimsclfabove rhetheoriescontemporary to
Kronstadt,notesthat "the Hexaemcron ofSt. Basilto a certaindegree him concerningrhc basicprinciplesof the world, a,nd,his Hexae-
is an encyclopedia of the knowledge ofthe naturalsciences of his time meronsrandsout as a bright and exaltedsysrcmwhich revealsthe
in their positiveattainments," his intentionbeingto showthe great- mcaningof Ccnesis, and rcignsabovethc fbrmcr(thcorics) asa bird
nessof God asit is still visiblein the obviouskindsof creatures. The soarsabovethc creatures which are able ro move only alons thc
knowledge of the naturalsciences, to be sure,is one that is constantly carth.'
opento revisionowing to new findingsmadeby observation and ex-
even in the writ- 'fhe conceprionsand rheoriesof present-dayscience(such as rhe
periment,and so it is that thereone may find errors
"theory of evolution") are clearlyof the sameorder as was that part of
ingsof Se.Basiland otherHoly Fathers, iust asthereareerrorsin the
the "science"contemporaryto him which Sr. Basildid nor accepr,in-
asmuchas ir was clearlyopposedto Christian revelation.Ve shall see
' Fr MichaclPomaz,ansky (1888-1989),one of the lasrliving graduarcsof a
in what follows whether or nor rhe rheory ofevolution is an exception
prc-Revolutionaryrhcologicalacademy,wasa theologicalwriter for whom Fr. Sera-
phim hadgrearrespect. andannotatedthe F-nglish
Ijr.Scrapbimrranslarcd editionof ro this generalrule that the independentphilosophicalspeculationsof
Fr. Michael\ major work C)rthodoxDogmaticI'bcolog.-Eo. non-Christians(which alwayshavea greateror lessappearanceof "sci-

284 285
 GrNrsIs, CnEATtonaNn EetrY M,rN Scrrncr ,qNolxt Hory Farnrns

enrificfact"to supportthem)haveno Partin the OrthodoxChristian

worldview,which is foundedon Divine revelation as interpretedand
2. Scienceand Christian Philosophy
handeddown by rhe Holy Fathers.
One thing moreshouldbe saidaboutthe distinctionin the very The Russianphilosopherlvan V. Kireyevsky(180G1856), a disci-
natureand qualiryoftheologicalknowledge and scientificknowledge' ple of Elder Macariusof Optina, wrore:*
The former proceeds from God's revelationand is judged according
to its faithfulnessto that revelation,and it leadsthe soul up ro its Thc scicnccs in rheiressential
part,i.e.,asknowledgc, belongequally
Source;while scientificknowledgeproceedsfrom the factsof rhe to rhc paganandChristianworldandaredisringuished only by their
physicalworld and it hasno PurPose but to be Faithfulto the Facts' philosophical side.Carholicism couldnot givethcm thisphilosophi-
bne ne.d only read the commentaries on Genesisof St. Basilthe cal sideof Christianirybecausc shedid not possess it herselfin pure
Great,St. John Chrysostom,St. John of Kronstadt,or any of the form.And sowc seethatthescicnccs, asthe inheritanceof paganism,
Holy Fathers,to see how theseHoly Fathersconstantlyuse the havcflourishedpowerfullyin Europe,but haveendcdin atheism,as
knowledge which is available to them,whethertheological knowledge an inevitablcconscqucncc of rheirone-sided developmcnr... ,2
of Godt doingsor iust scientificknowledgeof God'screatur€s-to Chrisrianphilosophyalonccan give to the sciences a correcr
draw the reader's mentalgazeup to the Creator,offer moral insrruc- foundation.J
tion, and the like: bur neuetto restcontentwith the merc abstract
knowledge of things....- In Russia(asopposedto rhe Vesr),
\(e shallhaveoccasionlateron to rememberthe distinctionsbe-
rweensecularand theologicalknowledge.For now let it be suflicient all the GreckHoly Fathers,
nor cxcludingrhemostprofoundthink-
for us to know that secularknowledgecan teachus nothing about crs,wcrerranslaredand read,andcopied,andsttrdiedin the quietof
God'srevelation that is not containedin that revelation itself If it at-
temptsto do soit is tryingto measure the Divineby humanreasoning' ' In his SurvivalCorrrse,Fr.Seraphim "Havinghimselfbccn
saidof Kircyevsky:
ln particular,
thosewho think to "interpret"partsof Genesis by means a son of rhe Vesr and gonc ro (iernranyto studywirh rhe most advanced philoso_
of ihe evolutionarytheorymustbe prePared to find clear,theological phcrs-Hegcl and Schelling-hewasrhoroughlypcnerratcd wirh rhe rifesrcrnsprnt
evidence ofthat theoryin God'srevelation. ond rhcn bccamcrhoroughlyconvcrcd to Orrhodoxy.'l-hcreforehc saw that thcsc
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 wasmanyycarsbeforcChar-
lcsDarwincarneout wirh his biologicaltheory(scep. 562).
Bcsidcs wriringphilosophical
worksof his own, Kireyevsky wasinsrrumental in
' Hcrc Fr. Scraphimgoeson ro <1uoteSt. CregoryPalamason the distinction bc- hclping his eldcr,Macariusof Oprina. to edir and publish major prrrisricworks
rween true theologyand secular Ve haveomirrcd thesequotesheresrnce
knowledge. which werescnrafl overRussia.SceFr. l.conid Kavelin,EldcrMacariw of Optina, pp.
thcy areconrained in Partlll (sccPP 423-24').-Eo. 287-307.-1,o.

286 287
 ScrrNcr lNo rnr. Holy Ferners
GrNrsIs, Cnr'atloN ,rNo EnnlY MlN

our monasteries, theseholy embryosof the universities which did

not exist.lsaacof Syria,the mostprofoundthinkerofall the philo-
sophicalwriters,remainsto this time in copiesof the rwclfthand
thirteenthcenturies.And thescmonasterieswerein living' unceasing
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
,h. Present-daysciencesexisrin a stateof "learnedignorance"'a
"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' BishopIgnariusBrianchaninov,
canonizcd by rhe Russian
OrrhodoxChurchin 1988.
fom Scientifc Truth
3. DistinguishingMaterialistic Fantasies
Bishop lgnatiusBrianchaninov(1807-1867)- teachesthat' for
true science;wirhout this, one can'rdisringuishmaterialisticfanrasiesfrom
nu. philo.opiy today,one must know both true Christianiryand
scientifictruth. He writes:

lgnatius:"[HcJ
' In his book TheSoulafer Death,Fr. Scraphimwtotc ofBishop It is to be desiredtharsomeOrthodoxChristian,havingstudiedthe
face squarely thc very problcm
was pcrhapsthc firsr great i)rthodox rhcologianro appliedsciences, would then srudythe fundamcnrals
how to preservc rhe authentic Christian of the asceri-
*hici hasbccomcso acrrtcin our own daysl
entircly foreign to Onhodory and cismof the OrthodoxChurch,andbcqueathto mankinda truc phi-
,raii,ion ,.""hing in a world rhar hasbccomc
"nd ir so that it can he made losophy,founded upon preciseknowledgeand not upon arbitrary
strivcscithcrto overtirowanddismissit ot else'rcincerprei
thc Roman
.o.p",ibl. wirh a worldlyway of lifc and thinking Acutelyawarc-of hypotheses. Thc GreeksagcPlatoforbaderhe exerciseof philosopny
which were striving to 'modcrnize' Ortho-
C".iolia othc. Wcsterninflucnccs wirhoutrhc prcrequisire studyof marhematics.This is a trueviewof
"nd for the dcfensc of.Orrhodoxy both
dory cvcn in his days,BishopIgnatiuspreparcd the matter.Virhout a prerequisitc studyof mathematics, rogcther
sources (whose tcaching hc absorbed
ii i.l"ing d..ply into rhc aurhJnticO'thodox with the other sciences basedupon ir, and wirhout rhe activeand
of histimc) and by familiarizing him-
in so-c o?rhcL.rr Orthodoxmonasticcentcrs
grace-filled knowledge oiChristianiryit is impossiblein our time to
sc l f also w i th thc s c ienr if ic an d l i te ra ry c u l rrrre o fh i s c e n tury(heattendedanengi -
nccringschool,not a theological ,"-inary) Armedthus wirh a tnowledgcborh of set forrh a correctphilosophicalsystem.Many who considerthem-
of
O;;.- rhcologt and of sicul,r kno*lcdgc' he devotedhis life-to the defense sclvesadeptsin philosophybut areunacquainred with mathematrcs
modern deviation from it lt rs no cx-
authcnticOnhodiry and to an exPosurcof the and the naruralscienccs, upon encountering arbirraryfantasiesand
century Pos-
aqqcralionto say that no other Orrhodox country in rhe ninetecnth hypothcsesin the works of marcrialists,will not be able in any way
the tcmptarions and crrors of modern
,3..J *"it a dcicndcr of orthodoxy against to differentiarerhcm from knowledgederived from scienceirself,
rimes."-Eo,

288 289
 GeNEsts,CaEArtoNlt'to EanlY Men
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 ' '
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 scientificestablishmcntal-
lows faith today.
But true Orthodox Christianiryis quite different' It is not bound up
with any current of modern thoughti it is a knowledges-upcriorto sct-
ence,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
infinite wisdom. Modern sciencehas proved rhat fallen man is not ca-
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
ro theology.
'Inrcrestingly,BishopIgnatiuswroterhisat abourrhe time Darwins Ozlz o/
Speriercameout in England.-F,o.
790
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-religiousspeculations of evolutionisrs.
The
Orthodoxdoctrineof creationhasnot beenknown in rhe Vest; rhe
RomanCatholicdocrrineis quitedifferent.
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 cur-
rentsor fashions of theage.
But thewholedoctrineof evolutionis rathermorecomolexthanof
a single"scientificfact"or even"hyporhesis. " And ir rj a docirine-a be-
Iief 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.,ppo-
sitionsanddeductions. In rheology, in particular,it offersa consciousal-
tanatiueto OrthodoxChrisrianiryon a numberof keydogmas.
6. TheLach ofPhilosophicalCulturt
amongOrthodoxChristiarn
The misunderstanding of evolutionon the partof someOrthodox
Christianscomesfrom a wantof philosophical culture:
l. They do not havea criricalapproachto scienrific"findings"(al-
though,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
291
 CnlarIoN'rxo E'lnlYM'lt.t
GeNrsIs,

by scientific"exPerts" anddo not takethe necessary troubleto invcsti-

eate thc questionthemselves'
-2, "spirit of the age"
- Tti"y do not undcrstandrhe philosophical
*hich gaveriseto evolurion,and therefore theynaivelyaccePt the "sci-
of evolution
Cuaprsn Two
entific iaci' of evolution,but rejectthe fi nished2/l/osopD;r
areone whole;
il, i" ftitit"ta de Chardin.'fheydo not seethar these
lririou, rhr-philo.phq, therewould neverhavebecnthe
"fact" ofevo- A Brief Critique of the
lution.
-
f. 'fn.y do not understandthe pbiLosophy^of
rhe Holy Fa-
suchas
Eaolutionar!Moful
therr-th.ii *hole outlookon ''ttttu" tnd un specificquestions
rhenatures rhings'
of individuel
EDITOR'S NO'IE: Thischapnr hasbeentransribedfom a tapedlecnre
ofthe HolTFathen
T fhe Phitosoplry that Fr. Seraphimgaue during his "Orthodox Suruiual Course"in the
summerof 1975. The sectiontitlcs and someadditions to thc text haue
"The Fathers saidnothingaboutevolution"-this is usedby many beentakenfom his written outline of the course.Additions haueako been
one unnts 0r
Orthodox as an excusefor actually belicuingwbatcuer takenfom preuiouslecturesin the samecourse,which prouide necesary
u)hdteuer "science"sa4son thissubject' barltgroundto thepresenrdiscussion.
But our attitudeto the Fat'hers must be more scriousand more
profoundthanthis.Beingfaithfulto the Fathers doesnot meanm€rely
ro quoterhe"mor feel"free"to think asone pleases if no
ili';;;Jt
Rather,it meansenteringinto their thought' l. Introduction
;;;".t ;t;
"u"itbl.. of the Chrrrchof Christ' and havinga coherent
iirin r. the thought o\7 wE coME to a key conceptwhich is extremelyimportanr for
philosophyof life"derived from our life in the Church in harmony undersrandingboth the religious and the secular outlook of
*i,t' ,tt. tiroughtof the Fathers' conremporaryman. This idea is an exrremelycomplex one, and herc
And the F"athers did havea philosophy'indeeda theology'which we can give only a skerchyoutline of rhe problems involved in this
.n.o-f"*., the questionof evolutionand rnekesit absolutelyclear question.
"F-volu-
*h"t ,h. Onhodox Christianmustthink aboutthisquestion- CharlesDarwint Origin of Species cameout in I 859, was instantly
tion" is not a "heresy," any morethan Buddhismis a "heresy";but it acceptedby many people,and soon becamevery popular. Peoplesuch
includes,impliesand Presupposes so manyerrorsandfalseviewsasto
orthodox as T. H. Huxley and Herberr Spencerin England, togetherwith Ernsr
U. ,",ify in.omp"tibie*iit onhodo* Christianiry'Most Haeckel in Germany (author of 7-hcRiddle of the Uniuerse,1899) and
and so in their
i.ti"u.rr't"u. not tho,tghtdeeplyon this question' others, popularizedthe ideasof Darwin and made evolution the very
evolution'
."..I".rn.r, they think i i.,orntho* "possible"to accePt center oftheir philosophy.lt seemsto explain everything.Of course,
to make Ortho-
ihe restof thisstudywill attemPtto clarifi this issue' people like Nietzschepicked it up and used it for their so-calledspiri-
io* Ct.ir,i"n. of Orthodox theologyand
of the irnplications
"*ri. tual prophecies.Thus, the peoplewho werein the main schoolofVest-
the philosophvof the Holy Fathers, whichhavea veryclearviewof the
ern thought-which was rationalism carried as far as you can take
.hi.fqu.r,tn. raisedby evolutionfor Chrisrianbelievers'
292 293
 GsNrsts,Cna.ttIoN nNo Ea.nrY
MeN
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 werear-
guing 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 selec-
rion, 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
Creation Research, which hascome out with severalgood books.They
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 evi-
dence of the history of the earth, for example-the geologicallayers
and so forth-and they try to seewhich model it fits. They havedis-
covered that fewer adjustments have to be made if one follows the
model of creation-if therewas a God Vho createdthings in the be-
ginning and if the earth is not billions ofyearsold but only some thou-
sands 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 variousuniversi-
ties. In the lastyearor rwo, they haveheld severaldebatesbeforethou-
sandsofsoectatorsat universitiesin Tennessee, Texas,etc. lnteresthas
' Thc Prolemaicmodelheld rhat rhesunand plancrsrevolvearoundthe earrh.
by rheCopcrnicanmodcl,which holdsthat rheearthand plancrsrc-
Ir 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 Fa-
thers 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.ii-
mentation, 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 reproduceit-
self 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<lNlNoEanlv MIN A Brrer Cnlrrque or lss EvoLulroNanyMoorL

from one ancestor.Therefore, the question ofvariation is one thing'
* 'l'he scientistsof that time acceotedrhar.
and must be distinguishedfrom evolution
There are undoubtedly nlany variationswithin one kind of crea-
pro-
rure, but thesevariationsneverproduceanything neu: they only
is
duce a different uarie4'of dogor cat or bean or people' In fact' this
more ofa proof againstevolution than for it becauseno one has ever
'spe-
been able .orn. up with a new kind of creature The different
are
cies"-and- this term is itself quite arbitrary-for the most part
wherc
not able to bear offspring with eachother; and, in the few cases
Sr' Am-
they can, the offspring is not able ro reproduceitselI Thus'
med-
broseof Milan says:"This is an exampleto you, O man' to stoP
to be
dling in the ways of God. God means for each creature
seParate."
2. Historical Background
During the period of the Enlightenment' the worldview was quite
of Ar-
stabl.. 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.. fa-
s.c.** Newton believedthis, and the enlightenedworldview was in
vor of the ideathat God createdthe world in six daysand then left it to
develop itself, and that all the specieswere just as wc seethem today.
At the end ofthe period of Enlightenment,however,as the revolu-
tionary 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, ErasmusDar-
win, 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 con-
tinue rhe spirit of the Enlightenmentas utrer rationalismand simplic-
ity. 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 Philoso-

' ln his norcs,Fr Scraphinr writcs:"'I'hepopularmind acceptsmere'variation' phie zoologiquc,1809), who had a definire evolutionarytheory just af-
asproof of a much big6ierquesrion of 'cvolution' We leaveir to scientists
to define ter this, but hc had the idea that the changesnecessaryto account for
as
rhe limits of changcob,.r*bl. to thcm By irs grandioscconception'evolurion the evolvingof one speciesinto anorherweredue to the inheritanceof
suchcannotbc prorra/by rhc smallvrriarionsobservablc by scicncetoday '
acquired characteristics. This could never be proved, and has in lact
"Lct scicntists dcflncthc linrirsofvariation,and let thcm uscthc word andcon-
meraphy'ical been quite disproved.Hence, the ideaofevolurion did not take hold.
cepr of 'cvolution'in cxplainingchangc-bur let rhcnr.abandon
to cxtrapolatc small changcs into an all-encompassing princi- l-here was, however,one importanr geologisrar rhis period of the
schemcs which strivc
latreris truc, ler ir conrenarurally from rhe data wirhour forcingan intcr- early nineteenthcentury who gavea great impetus towardsrhe accep-
plc. lfthis
pretationon facrs."-Flo.
.'Thc Archbishop's finding waspublishedin 1650and wasso-otr addcdas a ' ErasmusDarwins book Zoozomia,in which he proposedrhis rheory,waspub-
Ilible His
marginalnorationro tlic book oi(lcn"'it in thc AuthorizedVcrsionofthc lishcdin 1794.-Eo.
(Hcbrcw)textofthe Old'l-estamentAccord- 'fhe tcrm "Darwinism"wasfirstapplicdto ErasmusDarwin'sthcoricsabour
cal.ilation*as bascdon the Masoreric "
ing,o thc Old T..t"ment chronoto6ry in rhe Scpmagint {()reck) texr',whichir trscd evolution,which includcdnaturalselection.
Thescrheoriesconrriburedmuch ro rhe
by"Or,hodo*Christians,the errth is approximately 1,500ycarsolder rhan Arch- idcas of his grandsorrCharles,alrhough rhe larrer ncver acknowledgedthe
bishopUsshcrtcalcularion.-F-o. dcbr.-Eo.

29(t 297
 Gr.I.rnsts'CngrrIoN nNn Eenrv Mat't A Bnrrr Cnrrrqur olrsr EvoLurroN,rny
Mooe I

-I-hisidea, togetherwith the idea which was now gaining sympa-

tance of this idea of evolution. This was CharlesLyell, who in 1830
cameup with rhe theory of uniformitarianism,that is' that all we secin thy-that speciesevolve one into the other-led to another idea. If
th.."rth today is due not to catastrophg5-16x 5uddsnflood or some- you put thesetwo ideasrogether,you get the idea that mosr likely the
thing similar-but ratherro the fact that the processes operatingtoday world is not just a few thousandyearsold like the Christiansseemro
havJeen operatingin pastages,from the beginningof the world, asfar say,but that it must be very many thousandsor millions of yearsold,
back aswe can see.Therefore,if we look at the Grand Canyon, we see or even more. Thus arosethe idea of rhe grearerand grearerageof the
that the river has been eating away the canyon, and we can calcu- earth. But againthis belief(that the world must be very old) wasonry a
Iate-by taking into accounthow fastthe water flows,how much water presupposition;it was not proved.
there is in it now, the quality of the soil and so on-how long ir must Already rhis ideawassinking into the minds of men when in 1859
have taken to wear away the canyon Lyell thought that if we assume Charles Darwin came our wirh his book propounding the idea of
that theseprocesses were alwaysgoing on at the samerate-this being naruralselection.Darwin's idea was opposedro that of Lamarck,who
very rationaland givento calculation-we can come up with a uniform said thar the giraffeevolvedbecausea short-neckedcrearurestretched
explanation ofthings. ln his book Principlesof Geolog, Lyell wrote: its neck to earthe higher leaves,irs offspringhad a neck an inch longer,
the next one stretcheda litrle more, and graduallyit becamewhat we
No causcs whatcvcrhavcfrom the carlicsttime ro whichwc canlook know today as a giraffe.This is againstall scicnrificlaws,becausesuch
back,to the prcscnt,everactcdbut rhosenow actingand they have things do not happen.An acquiredcharacteristiccannor be inherited.
ofenergyfron which theynow exert
ncvcractedwith diffcrcntdegrees For example,when Chinesewomen had their feerbound, their daugh-
terswere alwaysborn wirh normal feet.
Of course,there is no proof of this; this is merelyhis hypothesis'. Darwin, on the other hand, came up with the idea rhat there were
perhapstwo longer-neckedcrearureswhich survivedbecausethey had
' I n 183I , a yearefter Lyell'sPrincipletof Geology wlrspublished'l)a rwin rcadit
longernecks;they werejoined rogetherbecauseall the restdied offdue
during his voyage on thc Seagla Aftcr the voyagc, l,yell becamcDarwin'smcntor' and
idcas madchim think ofapplying to adyersecircumsrancesor disaster;and rheir offspring did have
it iscl-ca. from Dar*in's later
statemcnrs rhat t-yellls
rhe principles of Lrniformirarianism ro the past hisrory of livingcreaturesl.nhis pri- longer necksbecausea changehad occurredwithin rhem: what scien-
u,rteletteri,t.yellmadcir clcarrhathc wasinteorrrponabolishing; wharhecalltd"Mo- tists today call a "mutarion." This mighr have been a chancething ar
saicgeology,;i.c.,intcrpreting rhegeologic stratain termsof rbc Gcnesisf'lood' first, but once reproducrion between rwo such creatureshas taken
U"nry V. Morriswritcs:"lr is worth noringthat ncithcrDarwin nor Lyellwcrc place,it continuesdown rhrough rhe ages.
trainedasscientists in thc modernsense. f)arwin wasan aPostate divinity str'rdent
Of course,this is a 3zrsrbecauseno one hasobservedsuch a thing
whoseonly degrcewasin rheologyCharlesLyellwastrainedasa la\aycr'not :rsa ge-
happen. But this guesssrruck the consciousness of rhe people; they
ologist.1'heleadinggcologisrs of hisday-Cuvier, Buckland.for cxamplc-believcd
and manyof the geologists of our own day are now returning!o werc like tinder, all ready for it, and this was the spark. The idea
in iatastrophism,
rharuie*. Lyellmusrhaveknown that thc actualdaraof geologyprcdominantly h- sounded so plausible;and the idea of evolurion took hold-nor be-
uoredcrtasrrophisnr, nor uniformitarianism. Ycr he dogirnaricallv insisted on long causeit was proved.
agesand uniformiry sarcastically reicctingthe Biblicalchronologyin the proccss" As a mattcr of fact, the speculationsof Darwin were basedalmost
(Morris, 'l'heLong Wr againstGod,p. 162). entirely upon his observations,not of evolution, but of uariation.
accused
hasacrually Lycll
Stephcn JayGould,oneofroday\lcadingcvolurionisrs' lWhen he was traveling in the GalapagosIslands,Darwin wondered
ofdcceptionin hispromotionof rhissystem: " Lycllrelicdupontrucbitsofcttnningto
his unifbrmirarian vicw asthc olrlyrrucgieolopry"Lyellimposedhis irnagi- why there were thirteen different varieriesof one kind of finch, and
csrablish
nation trpon rhe evidcnce"(Col.ld' h'er SinccDatuin, pp' \49-50)'-Eo' thought that it was becausethere was one original varierywhich had

?98 299
 Cne,crloN,rNnEanrvMnN
GtlNr:sts.
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 scien-
tifically is that no one haseverobservedtheselargerchanges;they nave
only observed changeswithin a kind.*
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 crea-
rures are shown to have a very similar strr.rcture,and the different
srrucruresare arrange<raccording to different phyla and gena. Of
course,this is not a proof. It is very logical, however,to one who be-
lievesin evolution.
On the other hand, the scientificcreationistssaythat ifyou bclicve
that God createdthe universe,He must have had a basicmaster-plan
' l"his is bccause, ashasnow becnshowrrthroughgcncticrcscarch, rhccapaciry
for variarion ofa parricular organisnr is limircd by thc inherentvariabiliryof thator-
ganism!gene pool. "ln other worcls," writes Phillip Fi "thc rea..," rhar
Johnson,
dogs doni bccome as big as elephants, much lesschange inro clcphants, is not rhar
we jusr havcn'tbeenbrccdingthcm longienough.L)ogsdo not havethe gerteticca-
paciryfbr thardegrecofchange,and rhcysropgettingbiggerwhcn the gencticlimit
is reachcd"(Datuin on Trial,p. 18).-Eo.
" In this illusrration, on p. 2l 5 ol Gencral Zoolog,a "hypotheticalintcrmcdi-
ate" (rcfcrrcd to as such in rhc caption) is shown berweenthc fin ofa fish and the
limb ofan arnphibian. ln other words, in thc absence ofan inrcrmediate spccies, rhe
arrthorhad to invcnt onc.-llo.
300
A Bnren Cnrr.rqurorrur Evolurroruelr Mooer.
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 .uo-
lution 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,
from the hemoglobinin vcrrcbratebl<rcd,oxyhemoglobin crystals
canbe obtained;thcir crysralline srrucrure. . . parallels
that of verte-
brarcclassificarion basedon body srrucrurr.Thoscof cachspecics
arcdistinct.bur all frrlm a gcntrshavcsomecr)mmonah.rrrar"r,.r,a.
Furthcrmore, thoseof all birdshavecerrainrcsenrblances brrrdiffer
from crystalsobtainedfrom bloodof mammalsor reptiles.2
say rhe same rhing here as we said of morphology. Ifyou
believein creation,you sayrhar God made similar creaiures*i,h,i-i-
lar blood, and there is no problem. Ifyou believein evolution, you say
thar one evolvedinto r he othcr.
A daring sysremhas bcen devisedlrom precipirationsfrom blood.
Scientistsseethat the precipirationsarcsimilar in eachspecies,thar they
havesomething in common wirhin one genus,and rhar rhey are quire
distinct in differenrgenera:birds and monkeys,for example.From rhis
they make certaincalcularionsand decidchow .rny y""i, aparton the
evolutionaryscalethesedifferent crearuresare.As it happens,their cal-
culationsthrow everythingelseoff Ifrhis is to be accepred,orher dating
systemshaveto be changed;so it is still conrroversial.It actuallyproves
nothing, becauseyou can acceprit as a proof either of evolution or of
Codt creation.
3. Tlrereis a third argumentcalled"comparatiue
cmbryology."Text_
.
bookslike GeneralZoologltusedto havepicruresthat sho* Ji emury_
301
 GENrsIs,CnrlrIoN lNn Ernlv M'ltl
onrc flsh. salamander, turtle' chicken,pig, man, etc. demonstrating
rhat they all look very much alike and sayingthat they graduallyde-
velop 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
(on-
law," 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 evolution-
i.,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'
" "Pracricailyall thc so-callcd'vestigial'
organs'cspecially thoscin man' have
beenprovcdin reccntyearsro havedefinircusesand nor to be ar all At one
vestigial
timc. evolutionistsclainredthercwereabout 180 such vcstigialorgans in rnan'but
oracticallvnoneareclaimednow.Someofrhese were the thyroid gland' the rhyrrrus'
,h. .o."1*, thc pinealgland' thc car muscles, the tonsilsand thc appendi* All of
rhcsearenow known tcl havcuscful,and oftenessential functions" (Hcnry Morris'
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 derer-
mined 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 rathercircu-
lar. Sinceoften thesesrraraare "upsidedown" accordingro rhe evolu-
tionarymodel,**rheyhaveto makecerrainreadjusrmenrs. Iusrlike the
Prolemaicsystemneededcertain adjusrments(epicycleshad to be de-
vised,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 inrcrmediaryrypeslead-
ing up ro rhem. Besidesrhis, as researchconrinues,,h.y finding
animalsin the srrarawhich are not supposedto be where they"i.
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, A Bnrer Carrrqur or rHr EvoLurlox,tnyMoper.

In general,there is no proof that thesestratawere laid down over Moreover,rhere are only very parricularcondirions which causea
millioni of years.*The creationistswho talk about the Flood of Noah fossilto be left ar all. A creaturehas to be buried suddenlyin a cerrarn
saythat it is equallyconceivablethat the Flood causedexactlythe same kind of mud which allows it to be preserved.-The whoie idea of the
rhing. The simpler marine animalson the sea-bottomswould generally gradualnessof rhesephenomenais being called more and more into
b. tt. firrt to te buried, followed by fish and other organismsliving quesrion.'fhere is now proof thar oil and coal and such things can be
n€arerthe oceansurface.The more advancedanimals,including man' made in an extremely short time-in a mart€r of days or weeks.**
would be going on higher ground trying to ger away from the Flood' The formation of fossilsitself is very much in fauor of some carasrro-
ro
There woJd be f.* re-nantt of man becauseman would be trying Pne.
*' realmof paleontology,the most importanr argumenragalnsr
get on shipsand other things to get away .ln.the
evolurion is that it is hard to saythat therehaseverbeen found a iingle
thing which can be calledan intermediaryspecies.in fact, Darwin was
*'I'he uniformitarianassumptionthar the strarawerelaid down graduallyovcr
proccsscs sho* cxtremelyworried about this. He wrote:
millionsofyearsis not borneour by the evidenceModerngeological
like thosein the exisring
rhat n,rwhcr"todayarethererock bcingformcdanyrhing
originofthe srrataSceRichardMikon Shauo-
strata.This pointsto a carastrophic fhc numberof inrcrmediare varieties,
which havcformerlyexisreo,
(:rcttroittrn'
ing th, Myti, of'Darwinism' pp.72-79' and Henry Morris' 'Sirrnrfc Imust]be rruly cnormous.Why rhcn is nor cvcrygeological forma_
D D l U l-ll. -rD. tion and cvcrysrratunrfull of suchintermcdiare
furrhcr:"Thc lactthat' althoughrhisorderis gcncrally
linl<siGeologyas_
" Dr. Henry Morriss,rys surcdlydocsnor rcvealanysuchfincly-graduared
ro be expected, ii is fo,rndto havemanyexceptions' both in rermsof omissions and organicchain;ano
is alsocerrainlyto be expected in tcrmsof Delugcevents lrut is exrrcmcly this,pcrhaps,
is thc mostobviousandscriousobjecrionwhichcanoe
inuer.ions,
(I-hz Gencsis urgedagainstthe rhcory.Thc explanation
diflculr to accountfor logicallyin rermsofcvolutionand unilornriry" lies,asI bclieve,in thc cx_
l:kod, p. 276). trcmeimpcrlccrionof the gcological record.l
Dr f)avid M. Raup,curarorof (icologyat Chicago's l-ieldMuscumof Natural
History (which hottsesthc world'slargcstcollecrion of fossils)'hasmadecxrensivc
"ln rhe Today's scientistssay rhar the fossil record is extremely abundant:
srudi"sof thes.fossilsequenccs and hascomcto rhe following conclusion:
progressions ln general' there are more fossil speciesknown rhan living speci.s.Srill, the.e
y.carsafrcrDarwin,his aivocares hopedro find predictable
have not been found more rhan a couple which might be intcrprere<r
,h"." h"u. not becnfound-yct the optimismhasdicd hard,and somepurefantasy
hascreptinto the texrbooks."
Dr. R"up,*ho is considcrcd the world'sgrcetest livingpaleonrologist' is an evo-
tharone could frt just about any theory one likcsto 'I.c., ro prcventdecayby bacreriaor assaultby prcdators.Furthcrnrorc,
lutionist,bui hc acknowlcdges rhrs
jusr as well havc beeo deposired sro- scdimcntmusr be ofconsidereblc deprhro prevcnrrhc remainsfrornbeingdispcrscd
the fossil record.Hc say. that rhe fossilscould
asfar asany orderis conccrned (David Rar-rp'"Probabilistic oy
chastically (randornly), 'latural Proccsscs.
Richard Milron points our: "1bday thcre arc no known fuiliferoqs rocks6rm-
Modefs in EvolutionaryPalco-Biologv"'Arteriran Stienrit, lan'-Fe6 1977' p' 57)'
"Onc of thc ironiesof ing arrl'whcre in the world. I'hereis no shorragc
He cvcnnotesthc ironicimplicatiorxof this for creationisrs: oforgrnic ,.,rrainr,no lackofquier
debateis rhat rhc crearionists have accepred the mistakenno- scdrmenrary marinecnvironmcnrs_ lndecdrhcrearerhe bonesand shellsof millions
rhe evolution-crearion
orderly progression and thcy havc ofcreaturcs availableon landandsea.But nowherearerhcsebecomingslowlyburicd
tion that the fossil recordshowsa dctailedand
this'hct' in rhcir Flood gcology" (David Raup' in sedirnents and lirhified.They aresimplybcingerodedby wind, tide,weathcr,and
goncto greatlengthsto accomodare
iEuolutionend the liossilRecord,"Sciaaca, l98l' p 289)' predarors"(ShatrcrixgthaMTth of Datwinism,p.7g). This indicatesrhat rhc exisring
July l7'
"ln eqhsrwords,"writesDr. Henry Morris,"Raupis sayingrhatfloodgcologisrs fossilswcrc formed as a rcsuh ofa grcar carasrrophe.SeeHenry Morris, Scicntif,c
Cteationirn, pp. 97- I 0 l.-Eo.
nceclnot bother ro work out a Floodmodel for the ordcr ofthe fossils'sincerhereisni ** SeeJohnD. Morris,
any 'order' to acconrnrodatcl" (7 fu Biblica!Bafufor Modern Scicncc' p 363) -Eo TheYoung Earth,pp. 102_3._Eo.

304 305
 GtNests,CntertoN aNn E,rnlYMen A Bnrrr Cnrllqur-op rHr EvolurroNrny Moor.L

as somehow being an intermediaryspecies.They will tell you about are exactlyrhe sameascurrenrlyliving species.Evolutionistshaveideas
the pterodacryl-l rePtilewith wings-and say that this reptile is be- that some are "rcprobate"speciesthat do not go anywherefor some
.o.ing biid. But why cani you simply say this is a reptile with reason,and othersare more progressive speciessincethey havethe en-
" ergy to go forward. But thar is faith, not proof. The fossil specieswhich
wings?'
Th.re a.e cert"in fossilscalled"index fossils"which, when seenrn a have been preservedare just as disrinct from each other as are living
certain stratum, determine thar that stratum cannot be any older or species.
younger than a certain date becausethat animal supposedlybecame 6. Then rhere are rhe 'bbuious" fzni$ proof of evolution.In mosr
.*tini a cerrain period. They found a fish*. swimming around in textbook of evolurion, rhereare arristic renderingstracing the evolu-
", which was supposedto be extinct sevenrymillion years tion ofrhe horseand the elephant.There is a greardeal ofsubjecriviry
the ocean
off the involved in this, jusr as when artists make the Neanderthalman look
ago.*" Becauseit was thought to be an index fossil, it threw
w:holething; and that particular layer which was dated according to benr over to resemblean ape.This is not scientificproof bur imagina-
chisextinct fish was no longercorrect.**** tion basedon one'sphilosophicalidea.There is quire a bit ofevidence
Vhy is it that certain speciesevolveand others stay the same as in the fossil record which is either againsrevolurion or shows rhat
they were?There are many specieslound in the "ancient"stratawhich there is no proof one way or the orher; and rhere are some things
which are quite remarkableand are unable to be explainedby evolu-
Ilon.
'Thc animalthar evolutionists mostoftcn citc asa reprilc-ro-bird rransltronts
Phillip F" johnson callsthe arrlae- The few "clear" lines of descent-the horse,pig, etc.-involve ei-
acruallynor the pterodecrylbv thearcbacoprar4
"odrl varianr, likc the contemporary duckbilled plarypus". (Daruit on ther variation within a rype (as,evidenrly,difkrent sizesof horses),or
opr"ryi
^n "mosaic form possessed no else (whcn it involvesapparentlydifferent kinds of crearures)merery
frioi, p, tOlt Henry Morris poinrsout rhat it is a [which]
rransitionafstructxrei'l'l-bc Biblical Basisfot Modcm Science' p' 341); and cvcn thc assumes (6u cannot prove) that one crearureis relaredro another by
cvolurionisrs StephenJayGould and NilesEldredge acknowledge that curiousmo-
direct descenr.*lfevolution is true, theselines ofdescenr may 6e plau-
saicslike archacopteryr do nor couni'as smooth inrermcdiarcs in the fossil rccord
notcs rhat'\hcre is no sible;but in no way do they constiture proof Forevolurion.
(Paleobiology, uol. 3 ispring 1977)'p. t47\. Michael Denron
qu".tion ,ilt this a..haicbi.d i, no, lcd up by a serics of transitional formsFroman
ordinaryterrestrial rcptilethrougha nunrbcrof glidingrypcs with increasingly dcvel- 'A reccnt arricle in lVorU Magazinc(July 17, 1999) has nored conccrning
(Euohuion: A 7heory in Crisit' p' probablyrhc best-known ofrheseallcgcdlincsof dcsccnr:"'l'he FieldMuscunr[of
oped fcarhe.suntil rhe auiancondition is teached"
176).-Ep . Chicagolis the sorrrccof rhatofr-rcprinrcd cxhibirpurportcdlvshowingrtrccvotu-
'* 'Ihe coelacanth, which wasdiscoveredin 1938off the coasrof Madagascar rion of rhehorse.Litrleskclcrons arelollowcdby slighrlylargerandevermorccqurne
Thc coclacanth wasrhoughrro bc closely related to the immediatcancest"tsof rhc skcletons, smoorhlymuraringunril we havcthc modcrn-day horsc.C)nrhc faccof it,
amohibians. When it wasdissccred' however,"irs internal organsshowedno signsof thisseems ro providea vividvisualproofofevolurion, wirh no nrissinglinksfrom rhe
beingpreadaptcd for a landenvironmentand gavc no of how it migihtbe
indication riny fcrret-likccrcarurero thc magnificenr srrllion,.rndir hasbccnusedassuchin
po.ri"bi.fo, a fith ro bccomean amphibian"(lohnson, Duwin on Trial' pp' 76-77; counrlcss sciencctexrbooks. It turnsout, though,rharrhe animalswhoseskelerons
scealsoDenron,pp l 57, 179-80).-Eo' areso arranged havenorhingro do with eachother -l hcy represent differcnrspecics,
"'1.c.. at aboutrhe sametime thar dirrosaurs weresupposed ro havcbccorne dillerenrbranches, and overlapping rimes,asevcncvolutionisrs---<alled on rne mat-
extinct.-Eo. rer by criricsof Darwinism-havcbecnforccclro admir.'l he FieldMuseum,ro its
*"" Thcrcaremanyothcrorganisms whosefossilshadbeenfoundozl1instrata credit,haspulledrheshowcase, subsritutinga phoroofthe old exhibir,alongwith an
rhoushtto bc hundredsof millionsof years old, and which wcrethus usedasindcx accounrof rheconrroversy" (GeneEdwardVcirh,"Admirringlts Mistakes,').
fossili-unril thcy wcrclound srill living in modcrn rimes F-ora partiallist of these On thc supposcd linesofdcsccnr,scealsoDenron,pp. 182-86, l9l, and Mil-
organisms,secSeiattfc Crcationin' pp.88-89 -Eo' ton, pp. 102-5.-E D .

306 307
 Cne.mtoN,ruo EanlYM,aN
GeNnsrs, A BnrrrCnlrrqul or rrrr Evolurroru,q.nv
MoDeL

7. The final so-calledProof of evolutionis mutations.As a matter kind thar reproduces itselfeveryrendays.tfanyrhing,the evidence in
of fact, the seriousscientisrwill tell you that all the rest is not really that sphereis for the "fixiry"ofspecies..
proof, but the one proof is mutations Bur in the end,we haveto sayrharthereis no conclusive scientific
There ate some evolutionists,such as Theodosius Dobzhansky, proofrbr evolution;and likewisethereis no conclusiveprool againx
who say,"l haveprovedevolution becauseI havemadea new speciesin evolution,because eventhoughit mighr not seemroo llgical or too
the laboratory."After thirty yearsof working on fruit flies' which mul- plausibleaccordingro rheevidence, still thereis no proof ihar grvena
tiply very quickly, you can get the generarionalequivalentof several billion or trillion yearsa monkeymight not be producedf.io* an
hundred thousand yearsof human life in a lew decades'Dobzhansky amoeba.Who knows?If you don't considerfor a momenrwhat rhe
experimentedby irradiating fruit flies and finally came uP with two Holy Fatherssay,you mighr think that perhapsit's true, especially if
*hi.h hrd changes,and which no longer interbredwith the other kind thereis a Cod. Ifyou think it happened"by chance,"you haveno ar-
'fhis is his definition of species-that they do not inter- gumenrar all... To believeit happened by chancerequires
of fruit fly. muchmore
" fairhrhanto believein God. In anycase,theevidence
breed;thereltore,he said,"l haveevolveda new species we havejust ex-
In the first place, this was done under extremelyartificial condi- aminedwill makesenseto you accordingto what your philosophyis.
'l-he creationist
tions, with radiationl and you have to come up with a new theory of philosophyrequireslessadjustmentof the evidence,
radioactivewavesfrom outer sPacein order ro iustily it Secondly,it is and so it is morein accordance with the simplisticpresuppositions of
still a fruit fly. So it has no wings or it is purple insteadof yello*; it is modernscience.
still a fruit fly and is basicallyno different from any other fruit fly; it is Thereis onemorerhingthathasbeenusedasa kind of .proofof
.8.
simply another variery.So he hasactuallyproved nothing ' . evolution," and that is radiomenicdating radiocarbon,potasslum-
-
i,rrtherrnore, mutations are ninety-nine percent harmful' All ex- argon,uraniumdecay,***and so on. Thesewereall discovered in the
periments,including thoseby evolutionistswho haveworked on then.t presenrcenrury,someof them just recently.Evolutionists say rhese
io, decades,have proved unsuccessfulin showing any real systems provethe world is reallyveryold. One textbooksaysrheyhave
chanse-rnyfrom one kind of creatureto another,even the most primitive
' As gcnrrics expcrr [)r. l-cc Spctncr has observcd,"lf random murarions
could
cangrcarlyincrcase or decrcasc
- PhillipE. Johnsonnorcsthat'An cxpcrimenrcr eccount for rhe cvolurion oflife, rhen rhey musr have addecla lor of infbrmation ro
ctc the
rhe numberof bristles in a fiuir fly,... or grcatly reduce the wing size' ' but thc gcnomc from thc rinrc ofrhc firsr purativc organism unril rhc appcaranccofall
fruit flicsarestill fruit f1ics,usually maladapted ones Sonte accorrnrs crcdir rhe fruit prescnrlifc. lf this vastanrounr of information was btrilt up by an accumularionofa
fly experimcnts wirh producingncw specics, in the senscof popularions which do long scriesof random murationsand natural sclcction,then crch of rhcsemany bil-
not inrerbrccd with cach other; othcrs disputc that rlrc species border has in realiry lions of nrurationsmust havc, on rhe averagc,added somc informarion. ycr afier all
bccncrosscd. Apparently the question turns on how narrowly or broadly one dcfincs the molecular studics thar havc'bcendonc on mutarions, nor a sinele one has been
a species, espcciaily *irh rcspecr ro popularions thar are inhibited fiom interbrceding lbund rhar adds any gencric infornrarronlThey.rll losc intbrmariori!. Seef)r Spcr-
bui not tor"lly in."pablcof it. I am not intercsted in pursuingrlrequestion'ltcause ner'sauthorirativcrefutarionofcvolurion, Not by Chancc!-'F.o.
what is at issuc hcrc is dte capaciry ro crealc new organsand organismsby this " In saying "by chancc," Fr Scraphim rneans..wrrhoutdesign.'or ..wirhout an
rnerhod,not thc capacity ro producc separated breeding populationsln any casc' intelligcnr Designer."According ro rhe nco-f)arwirrianModcrn SynrhcticTheory of
thereis no ,ar.on ,o [r"li.u" thar rht kind of selccti<ln uscd in rhc fruir fly expcri- Flvolution,rhc fundamenral mcchanismofevolurion is chancc murarion, acrrnq ro_
nrcnrshasanything ro do with how fruit flics devcloped in thc first place"( Daruitt g c r h c r w i r h n . r r u r a ls e l c c r i o n .- F.u .
on l n t t l, o. | / ) ) . "" The uranium decaysystcmis rhe first radiometric merhod used historicallv.
For a s Lr m m a r y o f r h c d i flcr e n t d e fin itio n s o f "sp e cics" p r oposed by evol uri on- rhe method againstwhich orhershave becn calibrared,and thc main ruopo.r fo, rh.
ists,secabove,P. 134 n.-Flo. w i d c l v . r c c c p t c di d e a r h a r r h c e a r th r s 4 .6 b r l l i o n yca r ro j d .- Eo .

308 309
 A Bnrr.rCrrrrque olrxe EvoLurlowenyMooeI
GeNssIs, Cnn,rrtoN lNo E'cnt-vMaN

beforewe hadonly rela- theory long before radiometric daring was ever heard oi* Any objec-
broughtabouta revolutionin dating,because
rive scientific book on the subject will tell you thar the only way we
tive i-deasofage and now we haveabsoluteideas'One cantesta certaln
systemand come up with the can give absolutenumbers of yearsto the differenr srratais by accepr-
rock accordirigto the Potassium-argon
of error ing the rheory of evolution.
iJ., ,ft^, the r"ockis rwo billion yt"ts old; theyallowa margin
"lndex fossils"are usedas the ulrimate indicarion ofrhe ageofthe
of aboutten percent.
strata,and the ageofrhe index fossilsis determinedby evolutionaryas-
The factofthe matteris that thegreatageof theearthwassuPPos-
were sumprions about them.** As The AmericanJounal of Sciencestates:
edly already"known" by scientistslongbeforethesedatingsystems
developed. Fromtheir inception,thedatingsystems were.based un-
on
provenuniformitarianpresuppositions of CharlesLyell'that theworld 1-heonly chronometricscaleapplicablein geologichistoryfbr rhe
N Berry srrarigraphic classification
1u".."n" millionsif not biliionsof yearsold As Villiam B
ofrocksand for datinggcologicevenrsex-
7-imeScab: actlyis tirrnishedby thc fossils.
Owing ro rhc irreversibilityofevortr-
writes in his book Grouth of'a Prehistoric
tion, they offcr an unambiguoustime scalcfirr relativeage
although
timescale'
of thegeologic
rhusis theverybasis determinations and for worldwidecorrelarion of rocks.'"' 6
Evolution
\Wallacepresented
the scalcitsclf was crccted before Darwin and 'fherefbre, it! another
of naturalsclection world''
to the scienrific circular arqunrent.The rheorv of evolution
thcir systcnr

It is all dependent on 'aheady

YourPhilosoPliTThe radiomctricdating sys- ' For exanrple,in rhc ninercenthcenturyCharlcsl_vellatrenrptcdro darethc

,.-, '*ort " Lnly if 4ou know that rhe world is "millions of cnd of thc (lreraccous pcriod by rcfcrcnceto how long hc rhoughrit would havc
in daring;rhey sim- rakcnrhe shcllfish(whoselossilsarc lound in l:rterbeds)to havccvolvcdinto rhcir
yearsold."'Thus, r[.y are not reallyrevolutionary modcrn desccndants. l-yellcstinratcdthar rhc (]retaccous cndcd 80 nrillion ycars
new dating systemshad
ol" fi, in,o an alreadyacceptedview' If these agcr-not far from today'sacccpredfigurc of 65 nrlllion (ShaneringtheMyth ol Dar-
of three
iia .t thc world *r, oniy five thousand years old' instead tuitisn, p.22).-tl.o.
",scientistswould not haveacceptedthem so easily'** '* Vhcn diffcrentradionrcrrictcstsof a rock, perfirrrncdaccordingro onc or
billion,
- .
of all the
Thc geological column and approximate ages nrorcradiornctric procedurcs,comeup wirh discordanr agcs(asfrctlucntlynappensl,
to evolutionary cvolutionisrs rvilldccideuponan :rgcrharaccords
fossil-bearlng ,,L," *.r. also worked out according wirh rheiridcasofrhc cvolurionary
stagcs of"indcx firssils" fbundin rhesrmebcd.As l)r. John I). Morrisputsit, "Orrce
again,thc lossilsdirrerhe rocks,and rhc lossilsarcdarcdby c.volurion." ()nc fenrous
speaking'
thar,scientifically no onehasprooflor any caseof this wasthc daringcontroversy overrhe KNM-FlR-1470skulldiscotcreooy
" "lr mustbc rcmcmbered
to 6'000 ycarsago'at most' RichardLeakey, which is discrrssedin AppcndixFour.(Sccalsol.Lrbcnow,
datcsprior to thc bcginningofwrirtcn records'abour4'000 Sazeraf
;;;";;;;;i;;:ginniig of historynrusrnecessarilvbe basedon theassumptiooof Couention,pp. 247-288,and Milon, pp. 53-56.)-Eo.
p l50) -Eo "* Likcwise,V. M. Fllasser of thc Univcrsiryof Marylendwrircs:"fu is well
uniforlit"ri"nir-" iH.nry Mo,,;' Scicnifc Crcauonim'
Mikon observes, 'science has proposed many merhodsof geo- known,theordcrof the geological stratais fixedcnrirclyby meansof fcrssilsl rhus,rhc
" fu Richard
chronomctry-mcasuring thc Earth! agc-all o[ which ere subjecrto someunccr- geological mcthodpresumcs rhe cxistenccin rheseperiodsof livingbcingsofgradu-
to rheoceanl But rlly incrcasingcomplexiry"(EncTdopedtu Britannicall97 3), vol. 7, p. 850).
tainties[c.g. cfiluxofhcium into thearmosphcrcinfl-uxo[sah
decayof ura- J. Fl. O'Rourkc, writing in TheAncricanJoxnal ol'scicnt (Jzn. 1976, p. 53),
of rh... ."any mcthods,only one techniq'ri-rhar of the.radioactivc
of yearsAnd ir is starcs:"-l he intelligenrlaymanhaslong suspectcd
niu- and similarclcmcnts-yieldsan agefor rhe Earthof billions circuhr reesoning in rhe useof
promotedby Darwinists.and rrnifor- rocksto darc lossilsand lossilsto datc rocks.Thc gcologisrhasncverborhcrcdro
,hi, nn. .",hod thar hasbeenenrhusialrically
(Shaueringthc rhink of a gooclreply,feclingrhat expllnationsarc nor worrh rhe rroubleaslong as
rri,"ri"r g".l.git", while all other mcrhodt hauc been ncglected"
the work bringsrcsulrs. This is supposed to bc hard-headed pragmarism."-Eo.
Mlths of Daruinin, P. .18)-Lo'

310 3l r
 A BnrcrCrurrqur or rHr EvoLurrorlatyMooe I
GeNssIs'CngxrloN'rNo EentYMr'n

millions of years crearionistsadmit that it has a fair accuracyback perhaps3,000 years,

is not provetl by the "millions of years,"becausethe "although with considerablescarrerand uncertainry."* lr has been
not true' there ls no
rely upon the theory ofevolution' Ifevolution is
testedon certain articleswhose age has been determined, and ir has
n."d io, th" millions of Years'
which the radio- proved to be not too far offin many cases.Bur beyond 2,000 or 3,000
S..ondly, there are certain basic assumptions
which rracethe decay yearsit becomesextremelydubious. Even those who are adherentsto
metric dating systemsmust make l'he systems'
"daughter" components' require: (l) rhis sysremadmit that, becausethe half'-lifeof Carbon 14 is 5,600
rate of radioactiveminerals to
rarehas alwaysbeen yearsor so, it cannot be accuratebeyond 25,000 or 35,000 yearsat the
that there is absoluteuniformity-that the decay
on' {.2) there most.'fhe other systems,such as porassirrm -argon, uranium decay,
the same for as long as the processhas becn going .rhat
they admit etc., claim to measure a half-life of 1.3 and 4.5 billion years
ir;; ;;.; no .ontnriin.tion from outside sources-which
respectively; and thereforewhen they talk about proving the ageof old
;;;;;;p"", (3) that the thing being dated has been isolated'buried
outside' rocksthey are using thesesystems.
,o-.*h.,., and no organic *a"ttt' h"s been rouching it from 'fhe Carbon 14 system is used only on organic marrer;
in the and
n."rty, l<l that thJre was none of the daughtercomponent
"rJ All rhesethings are as- potassium-argonand uranium systemsare usedon rocks.'*'fhe same
i,rr, pI".", but only the "perent" comPonent'
things are true lor the latter as they are for the fbrmer: there musr be
srrrnptions: thcYarenot Provcd'
ll'h. uni- uniformiry throughout the billions of years, and no contamination
.uolutionirt Viiliam B N Berry writes of thc unProvcn
systems' and irr- fiom outside.ln the potassium-argonmethod, for example,you musr
fbrmitarian assumptionson which radiometricdating
rely: assumetha. it was all Potassium40 in the beginning beforeit decayed
dced all aspectsof evolutionistgeologyand palcontology'
to Argon 40;'-* and all rhesethings you have ro rake on faith. Ifyou
rry to measureanyrhing "recenr," say only a million yearsago, and
of thc cartharc
All phenomcnarhat are relatedto the pasthisrory use this systemwith a half-life ofover a billion years,it is like trying
processes
d.p.nd"nt upon thc principleof unifcrrmityin natures to measurea millimeter with a yardstick:it is not very accurateeven
fiorn inrerprcring
thrc,,,ghrimc for thcir intcrprctarionEvcrything assumingit is valid. There have been numerous caseswhen they have
in rocksas rcmainsof organtsms
oncc-livit'tpi to as-
shellspreserved applied this systemto new rocls and havecome up with agesof mil-
."r,*i,ting thc passageof rime by usingdecayratesof unstableiso-
on this
,np.r ru.h as Potassium40 and Carbon 14 depcnds
. Henry M. Morris, ScientrfcCreationim,p. 162.^fhe rcasonswhy radiocarbon
on this
principle.For examplc,rhe Carbon l4 method dcpends daringhrs someaccuracy up to 3,000yearsago(but nor bcforc)arccxplaincdon pp.
prin.ipl",,, cxprcssedin the assumprionsrhat cosmicradiarionhas t64-(17.SeerfsoJohn I). Morris, Thc Younglhrth, pp. 6447.-Eo.
years(the " Radioisotopc methodscannotbc applicdro fossilsrhcmselves nor to thc sedi-
becn of thc sanlcrntcnstryfor at lcastthc last 35'000 mentlry rockconrainingrhefossils, but only ro igncousrockswhichmaylieabovcor
and that
lengthof time for which this methodis most effcctive)' bclowrhc fossil-bcaring strarum.-Eu.
as it is now'
thc decayrateof Carbon l4 hasalwaysbeenthc same "' 'fhis is a big assumprion. 'Argon40 is a vcrycontmonisotopein rheatrnos-
Obviously,withour a principleof uniformiry in naturalProcesses' phcrcand rhc rocksof the Earth'scrust.Indced,argonis rhe rwelfihmostabundanr
not cvenbc
agedeter,,rin"tion,ba,"d un Carbon l4 dccaycould chemicalclemenron Earth,and morerhan99 perccnrof ir is Argon40. Thcreis no
physicalor chemical *'ay ro rcll whcrhcranygivcnsampleofArgon 40 is rhe rcsiduc
considcrcd.T
of radioactivc decayor waspresentin thc rockswhen rheywerefornred"(Milron,p.
47). Thar Argon40 wasprescnrin pocassium mincralsat thc rimeofthcir formarion
that Car-
Many people,evenamong non-evolutionists'will admit is evidencedby rhespecracularly erroncousdarcswhich rhepotassium-argon mcthod
even the scientific givesto reccnrlyformcd rocksof known agc(seebelow).-Eo.
bon l4 is ,h" rno* reliableof;ll the dating systems;

3t7 3't3
 A Br.rtr Cntrlqur or lrt EvolurtoNanvMoosl
GeNssIs, Cnlqrtoht lt'Io llAnl-v MIN

lt re- a short time scale.But asfar asscientificproofgoes,thereis none what-

lionsor billion years.*Therefore,the wholething is veryshakv' soeverrhat the earth is 5 billion yearsold, or 7,500 yearsold-it could
quiresthat thosebillionsof yearsexistin the firstplace'*'
be either.It dependson what kind ofsuppositionsyou start with.
There are other kinds of testswhich havebeenusedat vartous
ti-., for example,the rateat which sodiumand variouschemicals
"r, into the ocean'You measurethe amount of the ele- 4. Tlte Theory of Euolution Is Understandable Phihnphbally
are discharged
mentsther; arenow in the ocean'measure approximately how much
you come up with a So evolution is not, in fact,a scientificproblem; ir is a phiksophical
of it goesinto the seaeveryyear,and from that question.Ve haveto realizethat the theory of evolution is acceptable
g,u.rs"of ho* old theoceanmustbeiand probablytheoceanis asold as
the world was to certain scientists,philosophersand other people becausethey have
?f,. *orta. They did this with sodiumand discovered been preparedfor it. Let us look now at its philosophicalantecedents
100 million year ol,l. But it wasfound that you getdiffe-rent answers
an age of2'000 years' in rhe aposrasyof Westernsocieryfrom rraditionalChristianiry.*
depending on whichelementyou use:Ieadgives
As we have seen, rhe idea of evolution aroseat the end of the
otiers giv"e 8,000years'some100years,some50 million-there is ab-
eighteenthcentury,which was the end of the Enlightenment and the
solutelyno uniformiry' beginning of the RevolutionaryAge-our own age. T'he Enlighten-
on the
Thar. ,r. other tests.For example,a testwasdone based
through the corona menr was characterizedby a stableworldview, but that stabiliry could
rateat whichHelium 4 is enteringthe atmosphere not last; it had to give way to the evolutionaryworldview.Ve will dis-
ofthe sun;thisindicatedthat the-atmosphere ofthe earthis bur several
cusslater why this was so.
thousandyearsold.')
-fhereiore,thesetestsareveryunsure;and someof them makeit One of the classicalworks on the Enlightenmem, The Europcan
old' Mind by Paul Hazard, states:
verydubiousthat the world couldbe anlthing like 5 billion ycars
'Vrh.n
you.o-. down ro it. it dependswhatyourfaith.is' Sornesci-
evolutionis unthinkableun- [n rhis period] a moral clashtook placcin Europe.Thc inrervalbc-
entiststhink the earthis veryold because rweenrhe Renaissance, of which it is a linealdescendenr,
and the
believe
l.r, th. ."rth is veryold' If you believein evolution'you must FrcnchRcvolurion,for which ir wasforgingthc wcapons,consti-
does not *ork on
theearthis veryold',sinceit is obviousthatevolution rutcsan epochwhich yicldsto nonein historicalimportance.r"
uscdthc P-otassium-areion
' For cxamplc,rhc HawaiianInstirutcofCcophysics The Enlightenmentwas the classicalage of modern Europe.This
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 period berweenthe Renaissance and modern timeswas the first realar-
ycars-whcn thc rocksare known to havebccn formcd in a modcrneruPtton
(Kilatrca)
i aOl. Si.if", formedlessthan 200 ycarsagofrom an ecrivevolcano rempt to make a harmonious synahesis of the new forceslet loose by
-.f.t
werefound to BivePotasslum-algon rgesof up to 22 million years.l-itry-ycar-old the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation,**without losing the
l"u" flo*, Mi Nga,truhoe, N"* Z-ealand, p'oduccJnrodclagesashighas3 5 mil- spiritual baseof sornekind of Christianiry.
"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 ' Someofthe fbllowingdiscussionin thissccrionhasbeentakenfrom prcviorrs
dc."y is basedon 'the assumprion
^.thod) lead[i e ' rhe "daughrer"componentlrn a sPccr-
lecturesof Fr.Seraphim\"SurvivalCoursc."-Eo.
th. p,.r.nt amountof radiogenic
we knew rhat the " Fr.Seraphimshowedin a previouslccturcrhat,afterthe Schismofthc West-
,o h"u" bccn producedLy presentratcsof uranium dccay l f
-"n' thar radioisotopc daringcouldhelpto detcrmine ern (lhurch from rhc OrrhodoxChurch,thc Vesrerntendencyrowardrarionalism
eanhwasold, rhc possibiliry "xistt
rcsring bctucct old carth and young earth lt as- wenrunchccked. This wasscenalmosrimmcdiarcly afterthe Schismwirh thc riscof
cxactlyhow old, but it is usclessit
in which reasonwascxalredabovefaithand tradirion.-Eo.
Scholasticisnr,
rzrrarthe old carth" (John D. Morris, 1h YoungEarth' p 57) -t'o'

3t4 3t5
 CnenrtoNauo EeruvMnr't
(lp.Nnsts, A Bnrer Cnrrrqur or .rne Evor.lrnoNany
Mopcr.

age,this new harm-ony'was tbr plained by modern sciencewhose latestadvanceshe eagerlyfollowed.

The first aspectofthis new classical
'the l'he world seemedto be a vast machine in perpetual motion whose
ty'.ominance oJ' scientifc worlduieu, which took the form of the
early En- every movement could be describedmathematically.It was one great
world-machine of lsaacNewton'- The age of Newton' the
seemed to harmonious universe,orderedas a uniform mathematicalsystem.The
lightenment,was a tlme when scienceand rational religion
way classicalwork expressingthese ideas, Newton's Principia Mathematica,
all was right with the world, and the arts flourishedin a
"ir..,h", was greeredwith universalacclaim when it appearedin 1687, show-
ii which they were neveragain to {lourish in the West'
of intellec- ing that the educaredworld at thar time was rhoroughly ripe for this
Beforethis time, the Vest had known severalcenturies
new gosPel.
tualfermentandevenchaosasthemedievalRomanCatholicsynthesis
to heateddis- In the new synthesisofrhe Enlightenmenr,"Nature" replacedGod
collapsedand new forcesmade themselvesfelt' leading
pu,.i bloodywarfare' 1'hereligious fu:'l] purposes as the central idea-even rhough God was not thrown out until rhe
"nd Yi:.: l:lttical
endedwith ,h. .lor. of theThirryYears' Var in 1648'whichdevas- very end of this period. The ageofthe Newtonian systemwas also the
a complexity and ageof the religion of Reason.Religion was now subjectedto rhe sanre
tated Germany. Protestantismhaj rebelledagainst
ln ancrent pagan standardaswas science:to the study of rhe ourward world, that is, the
corruption in Catholicisml there was a renaissance
the natural man' standardof reason.Thus conrinued the processwhich had begun with
thoujht and art; a new humanism had discovered
backgroundl and' Scholasticismsoon after the Schism, when reasonwas olaced above
*ii.f, purn.a the idea of God ever more into the
as rhe stan- faith and tradition. The Enlighrenmentwas rhe rime when men
more significant for thc future, sciencereplacedtheology
came to seem dreamedof a rcligion of reasonableness.
dard of-knowledge,and the study of nature and its laws
ln terms of religion, deism was perhaps the most typical
the most importanr intellectualpursuit'
and early eighteenth.centuries.'however'a cer- movementof the eighteenthcenrury.The ideaof deism is that Cod ex-
By the seuenteenth
Vestern. thought' ists, but Hes quite irrelevanr;rhat is, He createsthe world and sreps
tain equilibrium and harmony were. reached in.
back. Newton himself believedthat he could not calculatequite every-
was not' after ali, overthrown by the new ideas' bur
and conrra- thing correctly,asfor instancethe pathsofcome6; he had rhe idea that
rathe. adapteditself to the new spirit, and the difficulties.
ideas had not yet the universewas like a greatwatch which God made and then stepped
Ji.,ion, oi modern naturalistic and rationalistic
-n,irri'"niry
part of back, and that once in a while He had to step in and correcrit, wind ir
made themselvesfelt. Particularly in rhe most enlighrened
seemed up again. But later astronomerssaid that no, this is nor rrue; one can
fr.r.rn Europ", England, France and Germany' it almost
*i:h,,tht religious actually havea unified theory which explainseverythingincluding all
that a golden rg. hrj.orn.' especiallyin contrast
of the sev- irregular movements,and so God is necessaryonly at the beginning.
*"r, *"hi.h h"i."uag.d thesecountries up to the nriddle
God whose exis- God becomesextremelyvague.*Thus miraclesand prophecybeganto
enteenth century. Th-e enlightenedman believedin
of the beliefsof be called into question, and many writers already began to say rhat
t.nc. .ould be iationally demonstrated,was tolerant
could be ex- they were just superstition.In this the French becamemore radical
others. and was convinced that everything in the world
than the English.
irr Christ' btrt Looking at the Enlightenmenrworldview,one can seewhat a har-
' Sir lsaacNewton (1642-1727\wasa rheisrwho bclicved Jcsus
wasrackcdwith anxietics ofChrisrianity.Likc othcr Enlighten-
abourrhe rarionaliry monious idea it appearedto be-of Nature ruling over everJthing,the
."nt think.r, ,u.h l hontas
Jeflerson,he committed hirnselfto savingChristian- mysteriesof Nature being discovered,God still being in heaven (al-
"s corruptions.'' that is'
iry by rewritingthc Biblcarrdpurgrngit ofwhar he callcdrhe
(Ci
rh-edocrrineoI rhc lrirriry. l.rn li liylor. ft
,ri. ,i'i,".uioui"r."r". H. r,.1.crcJ
' On deismand irsvaguespiritualiryseepp. 54648,570.-F.o.
$e Mind: of Mcn, pP.34243.)-Eo

316 3t7
 CtrartoN aNo ElnlY M'lN A Bnrer Cnrrrqur or rHe FlvoluloNrny Mooel
Gr-NrsIs,

knowledge progressingover thers say that human reasonhas beencorrupted since the flll of man;
though not doing much), and scientific
therefore,it must be submitted to faith and revelarionand thus raised
"'- whole world.
the
up to a higher level.Once reasonis exaltedabovefaith and tradition,
the, Enlightenment'
itri, U,ingt us to the secondmain aspectof
his book The Mahing of the its critical approachproducesits own destruction.J'he faith in human
which was o"loirh i, human progres' ln
reasonthat firsr produced Scholasticismthen produced the Refornra-
Modcrn Mind'1. H. Randall,Jr" writes:
tion, becausereasoncriticized religion itself. The Reformation was a
amongindividualmen criticism of medievalCatholicism,and rhen a criticism of Protesranr-
It wasfrom the sprcadof rcasonand science
hopedto bring about isrn produced the arheisr/agnostic philosophersof the nineteenthcen-
that rhe greatapostl.sof the Enlightenment
hopedfor a vert- rury. Finally, the critical approach of reason produced the actual
rhe ideallociervc,fmankind And from thcrethey
ccntury suicideof reason.Once one trusts reasonas the standardof truth, one
tablemillennium.From the beginningof the [eighreenth]
paan of progress rhrougheduca- must fbllow it all the way on its destructivecourse.One has no argu-
onwardrhereatoseone tncreasing
laid rhe foundarions fbr this ment againsrit.
tion. l.ockc,Helvdtius,and Bcntham
who Since the Middle Ages, rationalism had reduced the sphere of
generous drcam;all men,of whateverschool'savconly those
sin' bclievedwith all knowledgeas it criticizedeverytradition and the realiryof the spiritual
llung ... ,o the Christiandocrrincof original
o[ thc human racc At last world-eve rything exceptthe outward world. \Vith the English phi-
thcir ardentnaturcsin tne perfcctibiliry
it couldmake losopher David Hume in the latter part of the eighteenth century,
mankindheldin its own handsthe keyto im destiny:
rhc foolish.errorsof autonomous reasonfinally went as far as it could go: it desrroyedall
thc futurealmostwhat it would By destroying
nature'thetewerc certain knowledge,even of the ourward world. Hume said we cannor
the pastand returningto a rarionalcultivationof
know absolutetruth through our reason;we can only know what we
..rr."ly li-it, to humanwelfarethat mighrnot be transccnded'
"ny is this fiith in experience.He wrote:
It is difficultfor us to realizehow reccnta thing
human progress. The ancientworld seemsto havehad no conceP-
theGoldenAgc Reasonis a subjective faculrywhich hasno necessary relationwirh
tion of it; GreeksandRomanslookedbackratherto
Agcs' of course' thc "facts"wc scekto know lt is limited ro tracingrhc relationsof
from which man had degeneratcdThe Middle
which actuallyac- our ideas,which themselvesare alreadyrwicc removcdfrom "real-
couldbrook no suchthought The Renaissance'
couldever rrse iry" And our senses areequallysubjcctive,for thcy can neverknow
complishedso much' could nor imaginethat man
wereall on thc rhc 'thing in irsclf,"but only an imageof ir which hasin it no ele-
to ,h. levclof gloriousantiquiry;its thoughts
"g"in ccntury ment of neccssity and certainry-"rheconrraryof everymatterof
pasr.Only with thc growthof sciencein the scventeenth
ambirion" ' All rhe factis srill possible."rz
.o.rld dareto cherishsuchan overweening
-"n from Descartes
scientists, down' despised the ancientsand carricd
rI This, in fact, is a very deepthing in our modern thinkersof the last
rhcdavfor the fairhin progrets
rwo hundred years:rhis despairat neverbeing able ro know anyrhing,
Its philosophy which diss<.rlves
the very fabric of life. Believein rationalisticphiloso-
\tlhy did the Enlightenmenr worldview collaPse?
impossibleto revive' phy and start thinking things through, and you come againstHume
now s€;s hopelesslyiaiue, its art a Soldenage
o(her'The most and other thinkers like him, and suddenlythe whole world dissolves.
There are severalcauses,and they all overlapeach
very rat'lonalismupon Thus, with justiceone writer on the philosophyof the Enlightenment
fundamentalcauseis the critical approachofthe
The Holy Fa- has the following thing ro sayabour Hume:
*hi.h ,h. whole Enlightenmentworldview was based'

318 319
 Gr'Nr:sIs'Cnnalloru lNn F'antr MaN A Bnrr,lCnrrreur <tl r.r-re
Evolur.roNany
Mont:r_

'Iir rcad Hunrc'sdialoliucsaftcr having retrdwith sympatheticundcr- given birth to the "evolutionary"worldview,which was quite different
of thc carly fiom rhe stableworldview of Newton, and which rose io rhe fore in
standing the earncsrdeistsand optimistic philosophcrs
a slight chill' a fccling thc nineteenthccnrury.
part of;he eightecnthcentury,is to cxpcriencc
ofthe E'nlightenment'at And so rhe eighreenrhcenrury began with grear oprimism, but
.rf,,pp..h"nrion. lt is as ifat the high noon
bc quret and sccurc mosr peopledid not realizethat by rhe end ofthe century rhe mosr ad-
the hour of thc sicstawhcn evcrythingsccmsto
sharp slipping of rhc vancedphilosopherswould destroyany possibiliryof any real knowl-
all abour, onc was suddenlyawarcof the short'
under the solid grottnd cdgeofthe externalworld and any constanrsrandardof rruth. lt takes
fbundations' a fainr far-off tremor rulning
rinre fbr deep ideaslike that to filter down to the people, bur wnen
of co-marn sc,rae.tl
rhcy do r hey producedisasrrouseffecrs.
'I'hese
disastrouseffecrswere seen in the French Revolution of
own
('I-his, of course, later produced the great earthquak€s of our I 789, which was rhe revolutionaryapplicationof rationalisticideasto
tim es .) the changing of societyand the whole ourward order of life. The end
Ti. ideal in sciencehad a function similar to that of of the eighreenthcentury brought with it rhe end of the Old Or-
"*p.rinlentalthe stability of rhc.Enlightenmentworldview' Bc- der-the end of an age of stabiliry when human instirutions and arr
reasonin dertroying
rs rreversJtlsrred:rt never
ing itself based in rationalism, this idcal and culture werebasedon ar lcasta remnanrof Christianiryand Chris-
and come to ncw ones'
sro'ps,but alwayswaits to test its conclusions tian feeling.'l'heoutbreakof the FrenchRevolurioncoincidedwith the
and why the sci-
r:i'", i, *tty r.i"ntific ideasare constantlychanging' end of Christian civilization. Before 1789 it was still the .,Old Re-
ove rtrrtown
entific synthesisat the time of Newton was gime"; after thar, it is the ageof Revolurion,our own times.
thc old synrhcsis'ln
ninally,the ideaof progresshelpedro dissolve In view ofall rhis, rhe rheoryofevolution is undersrandable philo-
as we ha;e seen,the an'icnts were lookcd to as the sophicafly. It aroseout of a searthfor a scientiJiclaw of progres to-justifi
the Renaissancc,
we could get back to them
,.u" ,,"ndrrd' lt was thought that, if only the modern Reuo/tttionaryadunnce.The theory of evolution was first
would be fine'
from the Middl-eAgcs and superstirion'we proposed by Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus in 1794-only
"n.{ "*ry of thought' thc
'fhe'r when the sciencesbecarircrhe domirtant mode five yearsafter the FrenchRevolution.*
see that anyone living to-
scientificworldview arose.Peoplebeganro J. H. Randall,Jr., who is himself an evolutionist, is sophisticared
t.)g antlqulry'
day has more scientific knowledge than -anyone.hvr .ln, enough to admit that rhe rheory of evolurion is e fairh, nor a proven
forward Jramatically with irs
Nl* r.i.n." for the first time hasmovcd facr:
expenments,
- etc.
' is building uPon the
Th. u.ry idea of progress-that the present At prescntbiologistsadmit rhat we do not, strictlyspeaking,
know
and that nran
past, that t(e future g.nJ,.tiont will improve uPoll us' anythingaboutthe causesofthe originsofncw species; we musrfall
the idea that there
iliig; .on*"n,ly ahJad-this obviouslyobliterates
everything
is o,i..onrtr,lt standard.Just as in Humet subjectivism'
is left to the fare of the future ' Many of Erasmus Darwin! friendsand associates
becomesrelative'One'sexistingstand'rrd wcrcsymparhizers wirh rhe
begin frenchrevolurionaries.
pcople who are going ro irnp'Jut upon ir' Aftcr a while' people
Erasmus wasa founderof rhe [_unarSociery,which included
constant move- theserevolurionary synrparhizers,and whosemembershipoverlappcdrhar of rhe
,o ti"li.e rhar this is a philosophyofconstantchange' Revolutionary Socicryled by rhc radicalEarlStanhope.
there Is.no peace'no Erasmuscspcciallyadmired
ment. Then the soul beginsto bc uPset lr senses Rousseau,rhc chief philosopherof rhc Revolurion.He wasalsoa frccmasou,aswas
idea of progresshad
,..uriry. Sy the end of rf,e eightttnih tcntuty this his son,CharlesDarwin'sfathcr.-Eo.

320 321
 GsNesIs,Cne,"rIon rNo EaxlY MaN A Btrrr Cnrrrqur or rHr EvoLurloNrnyMool.l

back upon thc scientific faith rhat they occur becauscof chemical Randall mentions how the changinghuman institurions_rhe
dif_
* ferent ideasof moraliry et..-.nfo..e o-ne!faith in evolution:
changesin the germ plasm 'o

Evolutionists astheysay,'Any-
mustfall backupon this faith because, The conceprion ofman asan organisnr reacring to andacringupona
thing elseis unthinkable"-rhe"anythingelse"beingthat God created complexcnvironmentis now basic.'Allideasand institutioris
arcro_
the world 7,000or 8,000yearsago' day rhoughtof as primarilysocialproducts,functioninqin
social
Randallcontinues, theeffectofevolutionon theworld:
describing groupsand springingfrom the necessiry of effecringsorie kind of
adaprarionberweenhuman narureand its cnvironmenr,All
rhe
of mentodayhavcbecome
thc beliefs
In spiteof thcsedifficulties, fieldsof humaninrercsrtodayhaveundergonerhisgencralsocroro_
thoroughly pernreatcdwith the conccpt of evolution. The grcat un- gizingandpsychologizing rendency; rhccxamplcof religion.rndthe_
dcrlying notions and conceptsthat mcant so much to the eighteenth ology will bc a sufficicnr illustrarion.!(hercas rhe cighrecnrh
ccntury,Naturc and Reasonand Utiliry have largelygiven way to a centurythoughrof rcligionand theologyasa dcducrivcanJdemon-
new setbettcr expressingthc ultimate intellectualideasof the Crow- srrarivcscrofproposirions, men now considcrreligionasprimarilya
ing Vorld. Many social factorsconspiredto popularizethe idca of socialproduct,a wayof lifc springingfrom thesocialorganization
of
dcvclopmentand its corollaries.... nrerrireligiousexpcricnces. and rheologyasr rarionali.irionot cer_
Perhapsrhe fundamental emphasis brought by Evolution inro tain fundamentalf'eelings and cxpericnccs of humannature.Ve no
men! rninds has bcen upon the detailedcausalanalysisof the spe- longerprovcrhe existence of God, wc talk of the ..meanins of God
of changc.lnstead of sccking to discovcr rhe cnd or
cific proccsses in humanexpericnce"; we no longerdemonstrate rhefururi lif., *e
purposeof the world-processas a whole, or to disccrn thc ultimate invesrigatcthe effecrof rhe bcliefin immortaliryupon humancon-
causeor ground of all existenIthings-rhc fundamentaltask of ear- duct.l6

lier scicnceand philosophy-men have comc to examineiust what

thc processis and jusr what it does in its parts They havc reiccted
V'e seeveryclearlythat this is rhe nex(sragebeyondHume, who
.
the ... contemplation ofa fixed and sratic structure ofTruth, and all rhesethings.Youcanno long., bJeue ln thoseold ideas.
9.:r:r:t.9
adoptcd insreadrhe aim of investigatingall the littlc truths which cx-
This is the nexrsrage, and it hasnothingio do with the.,scienrific
dis-
perimentationcan rcveal Nor rhar Truth which is the sourceofall
to the rcalm of ' 'l-hisis thc basicrencrof rhc evolutionary
truths, lifting mant soul aboveall httman experiences worldvicwand thc Rcvorurronar
scarch aftcr an tn- Agc regarding hurnannarurc.h is builr inro the scicntificphilos<.rphy
thc eternal .. , but thc paricnt, tirclcss,and endlcss of Darwrnrsm
and.rhcpoliricalphilosophy ofr)arwin! admircrKarrMarx;and ir is crmmon ro art
finiry of t-rnitetruths in our experience-this is thc prescnt-daygoal toralitarian and uropianschemcs derivingfrom thescrwo, includingmodernlibcrel_
of all scientificand philosophicalendcauor'r' ism and radicalfcrninism.JudgcRobcrt H, Bork, in his book Slouciing
Titu4fle6o_
mortab: Modetn Libcralim and Amctican Dcclinc, puts rhis
cuolurionary renc
" A similarstatement wasmadeby a leadingBritishevolurionary biologist'Pro- succinclyasfollows:"Human natureis infinitclymallcable so rhara new,bcrrcr,ano
fcssorL. Harrison Matthcws,in a Forcwordto a I971 cdition of Darwin's Origin of perhapspcrfccrhumannarurccanbe produccdby thc rcarrangcmenr
ofsocrarinsri-
"'l'hc factof evolurionis the backboncof biology,and biologyis thus in thc
Specics: rurions." F'eminisrShereHite, in the Hite kport on the Ftami[,
expresscd rhis belief
peculiarposirionofbeinga scicnccfoundedon an unproventheory-is it thena sci- whenshcsaid:"Thercis no suchthing asa fi-xed.hu-"n n"r,_ir".,
i.",t i, ,, p.y-
.n." n, hi,hl.. . llelicfin evolurionis thusexactlyparallclto bclicfin spccialcrca- chological strucrurerharis carefullyimplanccd in our mindsas*" 1.",n"a "
rh. lou.
" which believers know to be truc but neirhcr,up to rhe powcrequarions of rhe hmily-for life. Fonunarclythe familyis a hunraninsriru_ "nd
rion-borh arc concePts
hasbecncapablcof proof"-F-o.
present, ron: humansnradcir and humanscanchangcir.',_Eo.

)zL 1 t1
 GaNnsts,CnllrloN aNo Ernt.YMaN A Buer Cerrrqutot r.HeEvoLurloN.nny
Moocr

covery" of evolution-it is simply what is in the air. Once reason con- pernaturalsrateof Adam.Thosewho want to keepboth
Chrisrianiry
tinues its march, it will end in its own suicide. and evolutionism,rherefore, are forcedro stick an artificialparadis
Randall continues: onto an ape-likecreature.Theseareobviouslyrwo differenr
system
whichcannotbe mixed.
Evolution hasintroduced a whole new scaleofvalues. Where for the Vhar.finally happensis that the peoplewho do this (including
eighteenthcentury the ideal was the rational, the natural' even the many Carholicsin recentdecades) seethat they havebecomemixed
primirive and unspoiled,for us the desirableis identified ratherwith up and thereforerheyacceptthat evolutionmust be righr
and Chris_
the latter end ofthe proccssofdevelopment, and our terms ofpraise rianirya myth. They begin ro saythat the fall of mai
is only a fall
are "modern," "up-to-date,""advanced,""progressivc."Just as much trom cosmicimmaturiry:rharwhenape-likecrearures, beingin a srare
as the Enlightenmentwe tend to identifr what wc approvewith Na- of naiverC,evolvedinro human beings,rhey acquired
, iuil, .orn-
turc, but for us it is not rhe rationalorder of nature,but the culmina- plex-and rhar is the hll. FurrhermJre,they com. ro b?lieue
that
tion of an cvolutionary process,which we take for our leveragcin x/as nor just one pair of human beings,bur many.
::iginall),..there
existence.The cightecnrhcenrury could think of nothing worse to This is calledpolygenism-theideathar man camefrori
manydifii:r_
call a man than an "unnatural enthusiast";we prefer to dub him an enr palrs.
"antiquatcdand outgrown fossil."That agebelievcda theory ifit were Once you give in ro the ideathat Genesis and the origin of man
calledrational,usefuland naturali we favor it if it is "the most recent musr be inspectedrarionalistically_onrhe basisof the
iaturalistic
devclopment."tVe had rather be modcrnistsand progressivcs than philosophyof modernthinkers-then Chrisrianiryh", ,o
b. f u, .*"y.
sound reasoners.It is perhapsan open qucsrion if in our new scaleof Naturalisric philosophyis a realmofrelativetruths.In rhetelchingof
valucswc havenor lost as much as wc havegained . the Holy Fathers, on the otherhand,we havetrurhswhicharerevealed
The idea of evolution, as it has finally come to bc understood, and aregivento us by God-inspired men.
has rcinforcedthe humanisticand naturalisticarritude.lT In rhewritingsofthe Holy Farhers, rhereis a greardealof materiaj
,
abouc although one wouldn'tthink so. If one thinks
(hrough .evolurion,
wharevolurionis philosophically and theologically and then
looksup rhosequesrions in the Holy Farhers, therei,
5. The Conflict betueenChristian Tiuth d..l ofin_
formationto be found.W'ecannotgo into much of it"!r."i iighr now* bur
and EuolutionaryPhilosoPhT
we_willcovera few points in order to characterize .r,oluttn according
Now we musrlook to seewhatOrthodoxysaysaboutrhequestion to Patrisric reaching.
of evolution,whereit touchesupon philosoPhy and theology. Firsr,we shouldnotethat,accordingro rhe Holy Fathers,
creation
Accordingto the th€oryofevolution. man is cominguP from sav- is.s-omerhing quite differentfrom the *orld *. seeroday;an entirely
agery,and that is why booksshow Cro-MagnonMan, Neanderthal differenrprincipleis involved.This goesagainsrrhe rhinling
of mod-
Man, etc.,lookingvery savage, readyto beatsomeoneoverthe head ern "Christianevolutionists." One suchev-olurionist, rheGrlck.iheo-
and takehis meat.This is obviouslysomeone's imagination;it is not logian", Panagiotis Trempelas, writesthat,,itappears glo.iou,
basedupon the shapeof the fossilsor anythingelse' dlvrne-hkeand more in harmonywith the regular -or.
merh-ods "nd
of God
lfyou believethat man cameuP from savagery, you will interpret
all pasthisroryin rhoseterms.But according to Orthodoxy' man fell ' A morerhoroughcxamination
ofthis subjecris foundin partIll: Thc parrisric
_
from Paradise. In evolutionaryphilosophythereis no room for a su- Docrrineof Crearion.-Eo.

324 1)(
 GlNests,Cnr-qrtoN'lNo EltrY M'qN A Bnrrr Cnlrrque or rse Evolulronlry Moosr.

varlous
which we daily see expressedin nature to have createdthe entire resr of thc crearion;that is, this First Day, which he sayswas
fbrms by evolutionarymethods,"'' rwenry-[our hours long, is exactlyrhe same day which is repearedin
(\7e will nore heie that oftentimes'theologians"are quite behind rhe resrof creation.'
often
th. ti-.r. In order to apologizefor the scientificdogma' they Ifyou think about it, rhereis norhing parricularlydiflcult in rhar
be-
come up with things *hlch th. scientistshavealreadyleft behind' idea,sincerhe crearionofGod is somethingrotally outsideour prcsenr
readingthe literature' -fhe "theologians" often knowledge.The accommodationofdays to epochsdoesnot
causethe scientists*are ,ny
are scaredthat they are going to be old-fashionedor say something sense;you cannot fit them together.l-herefore,why do you-"k" need to
can
which is not in accordancewith scientificopinion' So' often they havea day that is a thousandor a million yearslong?**
'I'he Holy Fathers
ouite unconsciously fall for an evolutionaryidea by not rhinking the sayagainwith one voice thar thc creativeacrsof
and
whole thing through' by nor having a thoroughgoingphilosophy' Cod, are instantaneous.Sr. Basil rhe Great, St. Ambrose the Grear, St.
not being J*are oiscienrific evidcncearrdscientificquestions) Ephraim and many others say that, when God creates,He says rhe
-idea
The that Panagiotis1-rempelassets forth-that creation is word and it rs,Fasterthan thought.
supposedto be in accord-ance with the methodswhich God usesall the There are many Patristicquorarionsabout this, but we wil nor go
ri-.-ha, certainly norhing Patristic about it' becauseCreation is into them here. None of the Holy Fatherssay rhat the creation *-as
about
when the world came into being. Every Holy Fatherwho writes slow. l-here are Six Days of Creation, and they describerhis not as a
were-quite different
this will say that those first Six Days of Creation
world'
from anything elsethat ever happenedin the history of rhe ' Sccp. 401 bclow-Eo.
is a mystery'He says ** Somc modern
Even BlesiedAugustinesaysthat the creation commen[atorc, artempringro place rhe Genesisaccount
our own
we reallycan'teventalk rbou, it becauseit! so different from wirhin rhe cvolutioraryrimescale,lravetricd in vain ro showrharrhe Holv Fathers
present-day laws bclievedthe Six Daysof Creation ro be vastages.Thosewho havequotcd Sr.
e*p.ri.nce' it's beyond us. Ve simply cannot proiect. John
ofthe l)anrascenei mentionof'the sevenagesof thc world" lor this purposc(On tbe (h,
olnature back into the pastand come up with an understanding
of all this
tbodoxfaitb havcmisinrcrprered his meaning.-l'heidearhai world hisroryis
creation.Creation is somethingdifferent; ir's the beginning ,2:1\
compriscd oIsevcnages, corresporrding ro rhesevcndaysofrhe CrearionVeek, is an
and,not the way it is now. ancienrone,foundcvenin pre-Christian rimes(secDamianThompson,TheEndof
of
Some rather naive "theologians"try to say that the Six Days Timc,pp.7,29, and FrancisHaber, 7hcAgr ofthc lVorld,pp. l9-2 i ); bur according
to
Creation can be indefinitely long periods'that they can correspond to rhis idca thc sevenagcscome46arthe CrcarionVcck. St. Symeonthe Ncw I hco_
the logiannrakesrhisclcarin his discussiorr
the different geologicalstrata.This, of course,is nonsensebecause of rhc Six Daysof(ircationand rheScvenrh
or four Day of Cod'srest:'IGod],asrhe Foreknower ofcverytlring,
geologicalst.ita do'not hauesix easilyidentifiablelayers'or five
arranged thc wnorccrce_
rion irr ordcrand in an orderlysequcnce, and He assigncd sevendaystharthcy rnighr
i, hing of,he sort. There are many, many layers'and they do not bc an inrageof rhe ageswhich wcre *bscquentl rc passin rimc" ( llt FirrCreated
"ni weak ac-
correspondat all to the Six Daysof Crearion So that is a very Man, pp. 89-9O,emphasisadded).
commodation. St.JohnL):rnrascenct own wriringsmakeclcartharwhenhespeaks ofrhe ..scven
be
As a matter of fact-even though it looks as though it might agcs"hc is referringro world history after thc Creation !(cck, for hc saysthar .ihc
those scvenagesof the prcscntworld includemanyagcsrn rhc senscol rhc gcncrarions
rerribly fundamentalisticto sayit-the Holy Fathersdo saythat of
divides nen" (On tlte Ortbodoxl.:aith2:ll. This \ecomescvcnmorc evjdcnrin a larcrchaorcr
D"y, *.r. twenty-fourhours long. St. Ephraim the Syrianeven of rhe samework, in which hc writcsspecifically
rhat' abourthc Six Daysof Crcation,
th# into r*o periods,twelvehours each.St' Basilthe Great says showingrhar he regardsrhc length of thcseDays----<vcn rhe firsr threc Days,bcfore
"first day" but
in the book of Genesis,the First Day is called not the rhesunwasmade-as corresponding to rhe lengthofsolardays,365 ofwhich makc
"one day" becausethat is the one day by which God measuredout the up'ihc rwclvenronrhsof the sun" (On thc OrthodoxL:a;th2ja\.-.ED.

376 327
 (lr.nlsts' CnrxrIoN aNo ElnrY MaN A BnrrrCnrrrquror rss EvoLulroNrny
MooeI

long process.The idea that man has been evolving from

something Our resurrected body will be of a differenrkind of marterthan we
say that the know now.Sr.GregoryrheSinairesaysir will be like our presentbody,
lo*".r' i, ,o,"lly foreign to any Holy Farhers'Rarher'.they
for rhe higher but without moistureandheaviness.
lo*"r..e"ture, came"firstin order ro preparerhe realm Vhat that is we do nor know.oe-
createdbe- cause,unlessonehasseenan angel,onehasnot hadexperience
creaturewho is man, who must havc his kingdom already 'We of this.
madeby do not haveto speculare
fore he comes.St. Gregory the Theologiansaysthat man.was abourexactly*hat kind of marterthis
God on the Sixth Day and enteredinro rhe newly created
ea-rth' is, because tharwill be revealed ro uswhenwe needto know ir, in the
l'here is a whole Patristicteachingconcerningthe srateof
the world nextlife. It is enoughfor usto know that paradise, and thestareof rhe
As Blessed wholecreationbeforethe fall of Adam,wasquitedifferentfrom what
and of Adam before the fall. Adam waspotentiallyimmortal'
eithermortal we know now.
Augustinesays,he wascreatedwith the possibiliryofbeing
in the body' The law ofnaturewe know now is rhelawofnaruretharGod gave
o, il--or,"l in ,he body,and he choseby his fall to be mortal
About when Adam fell; rhat is, when He said,"Cursedbe the earthfoirhy
The creationbefoie the fall ofAdam was in a differentstate
this the Holy Fathersdo not tell r:svery much; it is really.beyond
us' But sake"(Gen.3: l7) and,"ln painthou shahbring forth children',(Gen.
asSt,Gregory 3:16).Adam broughtdeathinto the world, so it is verylikelythat rro
certainHoli Fathersof the most contemplativesort' such
St Gregory says that Para- creaturedied beforerhe fall. Beforethe fall, Eve *a, uirgin.God
rhe Sinaite,do describethe stateof Paradise. -need
hasbecomein- mademaleand femaleknowingman would fall and would "
diseexistsnow in the samestateit wasin then' but that it this
visibleto us. It is placedberweencorruption and incorruption'
so that meansof reproducing.
when a tree fallsin Paradise,it doesnot rot awal' like we see
around us' l'here is an elementofgrearmysteryin rhestateofcrearionbefore
hint which tells the fall of Adam,whichwe do nor needro pry into because
but is turned into the most fragrantsubstanceThis is a we arenot
us that Paradiseis beyond us, that someother law exists
there' interested in the "how" ofcrearion.Ve know that rherewasa creanon
Ve know of people rvho have been to Paradise'like St' Euphro- of Six Days, and the Holy Fatherssay rhey were rwenry-four-hour
there' These days.There is nothing surprisingabourrhis-rhat rhe actswerern-
syrrusthe Cook,'whl brought back three applesfrom.
,i,... were kept fo. a little while; the monks divided them uP stantaneous: God wills and it is done,He speaks and ir is done.Since
"ppl., that they ate we believein God Vho is A.lmighry,th.re l, no problem whatsoever.
.nd r,. ih.*, and they *ere very sweet.The accounrsays
to do with rzar- But how it looked,how many kinds of crearure,,1.r.rswsls-fo1 sx-
them like holy bread,which meansthis had something
ten and yet it *as something different from matter' Nowadays
people ample, whether there were all the different kinds of carswe seeor
are speculatingabout matter and antimatter' about what is the source whether rherewere five basicrypes-we dont know, and it's not rm-
should we be portanrfor usto know.*
o, ,oot of ,r,"ir"r-they doni know any more' So why
surprisedthat there is a different kind of matter?* To add ro the theoryof evolutionthe ideaof God, assomeChris-
'We know also that rherewill be a different body' a spiritual body' tian 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
Seminaryon h,r* ar rhe fall: "Christianiryhasalwaysviewedthe
-"t"i.hangcd fallofman changed 'As Phillip E. Johnsonpoinrsour, thc doctrineof creationscicnrisrs ..has
pr...n, J,"," ofnt",,c, asbcingt-hcresultofa fall inrosin The al_
wascuned6y ()od" waysbeenrhar Cod crcaredbasickinds,or typcs,which subscguently
lhc *hole of naturc' in.ludinl thc nature of maltct itsclf,which -l he mostfamous
diversificd.
"sciciti{ic Knowlcdgcand Christian Trurh" St cxamplcofcrcarionistmicroevolurion
(Gcn. l: l7) (Andrcyev,
'Nationa! -in .Vladinir
involves ihe descendants of
Cahndarfor 1974'p.69). Sccrlso Vladimir Lossky' I'heMysticat Thaologl Adamand Eve,who havcdiversificd from a comrnonancesrral pair ro crcareall rhe
of thc Eatcn Church,PP. 103-4.-Eo. 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 teachingdif-
fer 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 "Su-
perman"-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 arbi-
trary 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 naturesdtvcr-

gent from eachother seemto me to obliterateall naruraldistinc-
rions, to blend and confusetogether in every possiblerespecrthe
If, that is, all
rational.ths irrational,the sentientand thc insensate.
theseare to passinro eachotherwith no distinctnaturalorderse-
*
cludingthem from mutualtransition.To saythat oneand the same \
soulon accountofa particularenvironmcntofbody is at onc time a
St.Macrina
andherbrother,
St.Gregory (J30-39j).
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 intcllccrualsr>rrl
and that rhcn it is cavcrncd
alongwith
the reptiles,or herdswith rhebirds,or is a bcasrof burdenor a car-
nivorousonc,or swimsin thedecp,or cvendropsdown to an inscn-
satething so as to srrikeout roots and becomea completetrec
producingbudson branchcs andfrom rhoscbudsa flowcror a thorn
or a fruit cdible<l1161isu5-1esayrhisis norhingshortof making
all things the same,and believingthat one singlc nature runs
throughall beings,that rhercis a connecrionberwecnthcm which
blendsand confuses hopelcsslyall thc marksby which onc couldbc
distinguishcd from another.re

This shows very clearly that the Holy Fathersbelievedin an or-

derly arrangementofdistinct creatures.There is not, as ErasmusDar-
win would have it, a single filament which runs through all beings.
Rather, there are disdnct natures.
One of the basic works of Orthodox teaching is The Fount of
Knoutbdgeby 5t. John Damascene.*This great work of the eighth
century is dividcd into three parts.I'he first part is called On Philoso-
p/1 the second is On Hcresies,which tells exactly what the heretics
believed,and why we do not believethat; and the third pa is On the
Orthodox Faith, which is one of the standard books of Orthodox the-
ology. In On Philosophl St. John begins with chapters which go into
such things as "what is knowledge?""what is philosophy?""what is
being?" "what is substance?""what is accident?""what is species?"
"what is genus?""what are differences?""what are properties,predi-
cates?"The entire Orrhodox philosophy he presentsis basedon the
idea that realiry is quite distinctly divided up into different beings,
each of which has its own essence,its own nature. and not one of
them is confusedwirh another. St John Damascenemeant that this
parr be read, and this philosophy understood,before one underrook
to read his book of Orrhodox theology, On tbe Orthodox Faith.
There are a number of basic books by Orthodox Fatherswhich
deaf with the kinds of creatures.There are books called Hexaemeron,
' 'l his cnrirework is corrtained lVritinp,'l he Fathers
in St.Johnof l)arnesc.rs,
of tlrc(lhurchscrics. vol.37. Ep.
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 com-
mentarieson 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.

332 333
 GrNr:sts,(lnl.altoN aNo EntrI-vM-nN A Bnrrr Cnrrrqur or rus EvoLurlopanyMoorl

St. Basrlquotcs Cod! words in Genesis,"l-et other. If we do not understandrhe whole variery of God,.screation,
ln his Hexaemeron,
"was im- that is our fault, nor God's.
the earth bring forth." "This brief command," saysSt. Basil,
mediatelya mighry nature and an elaboratesystemwhich brought to Sr. Ambrose has a number of quotarionsalong rhe same line. His
perlection more swiftly than our thought the countlesspropertiesof Hexaemeron is very closeto St. Basil'sin spirit.
to re, abour God! commandmcnt' "Let the earth bring Ve haveother quoresfrom Holy Fatherswhich show us a very in-
plrnts." Elsewhe
'l:l teresringthing: thar they were-combatingin ancient times something
iorth .regetation(Gen. l)," Sr' Basil says' "At this saying all the
akin to the modern theory of evolution. This was the hereticalidei
densewoods appeared;all the treesshot up .. all the shrubswere tm-
thar the soul of man was created ufer his body. The same idea is
mediatelythick with leafand bushy . '. all cameinto existence in a mo-
raught today by "Christian evolurionists,"although of coursc rne an_
m ent of time."t'
cienr heresyis nor the sameas rhc modern rheorylThose who taught
In the Ninth Homily of his Hexaemeron'St. Basilhas a quotc on
ofcrcatures,one after the other' He rhc ancienr heresybasedrheir idea on a misinterpretationof Genesis
the very questionofthe succession
2:7: "And God forrned man of the dust of the earrh, and breathed
quotesGenesis:"Let the earth bring forth living creaturesaccordingto
into his nostrils the brearh of life; and man becamea living soul.,'
t-heirkinds: cattle and creepingthings and beastsof the earth (Gen
Even roday, "Christian evolutionists"siezeon this passageand say,
l:24)." St. Basilsaysabout this:
"That meansman was somerhingelse first, and rhen he
iecame hu-
Considerthe Vord of God movingthroughall creation,havingbe- man."
gun at thar time, activeup to the prcscntand cllicaciousuntil rhe ln ancienr rimes,this falseidea (that the soul was crearedafter the
ofthe world.As a ballwhcn pushcd body) was conrrastedby rhe opposite-and equally false-idea of the
end,evento rheconsummation
by somconeandthen meetingiwith a slopcis borncdownwardby its pre-existence of souls.'I'he Holy Fathers,in refuting borh thesetheo-
own shapeand inclinationof the groundand docsnot sropbcforc ries,clearlysratedthar the soul and body of man wie created, simulta-
somclcvclsurfaccrcccivcs ir, soroo the narureclfexistingobjects,sct neouly.Thus, Sr.John Damascene writes:
in morion by onc comrnand,passcsthrough creationwithorrt
change,by gcneration and destrucrion, prcscrving thc succcssio'of Thc bodyand thesoulwereformcdar thesametimc, not onebefore
rhckindsthroughrcsemblancc until it reachcsthc veryend.lt bcgcts and rheorheraftcrwards,
asthe ravingsof Origcnwould haveir.2l
a horscasa successot of a horse, a lion ofa lion, and an eagleofan
eachof the animalsby uninter- S:: C.:gorf ofNyssa goesinro greaterderail in refuring borh here-
cagle.And it continuesto Preserve .
until rhe consummation of thc universcNo sies.First, he describesOrigen'sidea ofthe pre-existence olsouls, rhar
ruptcd successions
rhespecificcharacteristics of the animalsro be is, that souls"fell down" into our world:
lcngthof cimecauses
corruptcdor extinct,But, asifestablished iust recenrly,naturc,ever
frcsh,mouesalongwith rime.lr Someof thosebeforeour time who havcdealrwirh the questionof
principlesthink it right ro sayrhatsoulshavea prcviousexisrcncc
as
a pcopleand a socieryof theirown, and rharemonqrhemalsorhere
This is a statemen.not of sciencebut of philosophy.1'his is the
are standards ofvice and ofvirruc, and rhar rhe ioul rhere,which
way God createdcreatures:each one has a certain seed,a certain na-
abidcsin goodncss, remainswirhoutexperience
rure, and transmits that to its offspring. When there is an exception' ofconjunctionwirh
the bodl Bur if ir doesdeparrfrom irs communionwith good, it
then it is a monstrosiryiand this does not invalidarethe principle of
fallsdowrrto rhislowerlife andsocomcsro be in a bodv.ra
the natures of things, each one of which is quite distinct from the

334 335
 CeNssrs, lNo EenryM,rN
Crr.erroN
Then St.Gregorydescribesthe otherheresy,whichcorresponds
to
the ideasof modern"Christianevolutionists":
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 thisar-
gumentthey 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 existenceis onecommonto both parts,so that hc shouldnot be
found to be antccedent and posteriorto himsclf,if thc bodily clc-
mcnt wcre first in poinr of rimc, and thc other werea lateraddi-
tion. 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 pro-
phcticwriting 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
A Bnrrr Carlqu: on .rst EvolurroN,tryMoorr
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,'
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 alle-
gorical 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 characterizeevolution in its philosophicalaspect
asa naturalistic"heresy''*which comesclosestofall to being rhe oppo-
site of the ancienr heresy of the pre-existenceof souls. The "pre-
CHapranTsnrs
exisrenceof 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
Ch ristian Euoluti onism"
destroythe idea of the distinct naturesof createdbeings.
The idea of evolurion was a heresythat was lacking in ancicnt
EDITOR S NOTE: This chapterhasbeenculled
rimes. UsuallyOrthodoxy is midway berweenrwo errors:for example, fom threesources:( I ) a
nanscription ofa lecture that Fr. Seraphimgaue dttrntg bis ,,Orthodox
between the doing away with rhe Divine Nature by Arius, and the
SuruiualCourse"in 1975 (a continuationofthe lecturelontainedin the
doing away with the human nature by Monophysitism. In this par-
pyrcding chapxr); (2) Fr Seraphim'sowi writings
ticular case,the orher heresy(evolurion) was not incarnated in an- for an unfnished
cltapt1 lte wastuorhingon uith A. y, a public rchoil teacher;and (3) Fr
cient times. This heresy "waited" until modern times to make its
Seraphimimiscelkneos noteson Teilbardde Chardin. Therenltrng com_
aPpearance.
positeprouidesa remarkablyextensiuetreatmentof '.Christian euolution-
Ve will seemuch more clearlythe philosophicalside of evolution-
ism'.-especially of Tiithard, uhom Fr. Serap-himcalled .,thegreat
ism when we look ar a few of rhe sccalled Christian evolutionrsrs.
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

' Karl Marx wasa dcvout Darwinist. who in Dat Kapinl calledL)arwin,s
''cpochmaking."He bclicvcdhis rcductionist, rheory
rnareriarisiic
rheoricsofrhe cvorution
'Fr. Scraphimwas usingthis word figurativelyhere.Elscwherc he explaincd ofsoci:rlorganizarion
ro bc deduciblefrom Darwinsdiscovcries, an<lrhusproposed
thar "cvolurion is not sniuly spcaleinga
hcrcsy,bur . .. an ideologyrhar is profoundly to dedicrrehi.sDas Kapita!rc Darwin. 'fhe funeralorarion over Marx,s
body,deliv-
foreignto thc rcachingof OrthodoxChristianiry, and ir involvesone in so nrany crcd by Engcls,srressedthe evolurionarybasisof conrmunism:..Jusras Darwin dis-
wrong docrrincsand attitudesrharir would bc far bcrrcrif ir wcrc simplya hcrcsy covcredrhc |rw of cvolurionin organicnarure,so Marx disiovered
thc law of
and couldthusbe easilyidenrificdantlcombatrecl."-F-p. cvolurionir) hLrmenhistorv."-F_r>

338 33t)
 CeNr:srs,
Cnr:erroNeNo E,cnlvM,{N "CHnrst"IaN
EvoLutroHtstvr"

"disproved,"but is arrivedat-or rejected-by meansof a kind of evi- remainingrhefirstandsupreme crearive

Causeofthc secondary and
dencequite different from scientificproof. immediarecauses to which arcowedrhe developmenr of thc variery
However,thereis nothing in the evolutionaryview ofthe world in ofspecics.r
itself which requiresit to be atheistic,and in lact the evolutionaryrhe-
ory makesmuch more sensero normal human reasonif one has laith This is the view ofall "Chrisrianevolutionists,"and it
raisesthe ex-
in at leastsomekind of God who puts the processin motion, guidesit, tremely imponanr quesrionof wherher it is possiblero
attain knowl-
etc. The philosophyof the world as a "chance"play of atoms, which edgeof God's creationby meansof .the regularmerhods
of God which
themselvescame into existenceby "chance,"is satisfyingonly to the we daily seeexpressed in nature";rhis is by no meansassimprea ques_
most limited and stunted minds. tion as ir might appear!And anorher,no less important
question is
The outlook of the Orthodox Christian toward evolution, there- raisedby this view; Vhat is it, then, thar God createdin
theteg,nn,ng
fore, is by no meansthe simple one ol the rejectionof a philosophy (for evolurion by definition is a processin
time, and musr nave a
which is openly anti-religiousor anti-Christian;the more sophisticated beginning)?Did He createonly the ,,cosmicblob" ro which
atheist
evolutionistsare all "religious" to some degree,and there are many philosophers. reduce rhe origin of the evolutionary process?Or
must
"Christian evolutionists,"some of them even having the reputationof we. be rora y agnostic abour this ,.beginning,,'
as many atheisr
being "Orthodox theologians."Here we shall examine the views of philosophcrstell us we must be?
some of these"Christian evolutionists,"all of them either claiming to The article concludes:
be Orthodox Christiansor at leasthaving their evolutionaryviewsrec-
ommended by Orthodox Christians.[n this way we shall be abie to see As longasChristiansrecognize rhecreative
powcrofGod in the pro-
the evolutionary philosophy at its best, "reconciled"with Orthodox cessof Evolurion,it is borhboldandhastyto callEvolutiona heresy.
theology,as it were;and so we shall be ableto begin to seewhether the
philosophyof evolution is reallycompatiblewith Orthodox Christian- This conclusionrevealsratherclearlythe simple_minded
approach
iry Here we shall not subjectthe viewsof these"Christian evolution- ro the whole quesrionof the philosophyof euoluiion which
prevailsin
ists" to detailed criticism, but will rather look to seewhat questions "Christian evolutionists" who have
not given serious and critical
theseviews raisefor Orthodox faith. -fhesequestionswill then be ex- thoughr-to the real problemswhich rhis pf,ilosophy presents
for Or-
amined in detail in our final sectionon rhe Orthodox Patristicview of thodox faith. The whole point of this article, wtrich ,..-.
,o pr"r.n,
creation. th.eviewpoint of many of the Orthodox clergy in America (i.e.,
those
In the last few yearsthere have [sgn 21si6135-5rnall articles,and who havebeen raisedin an "evolutio-nary"arirrosphe.ewirhour
grvrng
somelongerones-in the Orthodox presson this very questionof evo- much rhought ro ir) is this: if "God,' is added ro rhe theory
of Jvolul
lution. The oficial Greek Archdiocese newspaper! The Orthodox Ob- tion, ir becomes acceptableto Orthodox Christians; *.
,.. only
serm, primed several articleswhich arequite surprisingin that they are againstevolution if it is atheisric.But this is surelya very
naiveanswer
so far away from Orthodoxy. One of these,"Evolution: A Heresy?", to a rathercomplicatedquescion!Vhat of the philosophy
ol evolution
quoresthe "well-known Orthodox theologian,PanagiotisTiempelas": 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
moregloriousanddivine-likeand morein harmonywith
It appears have also believedin "God": indeed, .The de'mons
also belieu",
the regularmethodsof God which we dailyseeexpressed
in nature tremble" (James2: l9). More rigorous thinking rhan "no
rhis is required
to havccrcatedthe variousformsbv cvolurionarv
methods.Himself beforean Orthodox Christian can know what ri rhink
ofevolution.
340 341
 CaeartoNaNo EaRI-v
Gp.Nesrs, M,cN
The article in the Greek Archdiocesenewspapersaysthat evolu-
tion cannot really be a heresybecauserhere are many Christianswho
believein it. BesidesTrempelas,it quotestwo other "Christian evolu-
tionists": 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,mathema-
tician and physiologist,he wrote severalbooks on scientific philoso-
phy. 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 suddenlybrorrghteverythingfrom non-beinginto being,
fiction." He was very patronizing towards Chrisrianiry: he believcd
thar Chrisrianiryhas been misunderstoodand misinterpretcd,bur it is
and is a usefultool for mant continuing evo-
still 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,
Ve areat thc bcginningof thc transformations whichwill cnd in the
superiorrace...,rEvolutioncontinucsin our time, no longeron tbe
physiologicalor amtonical ptane,btt on te qiritual and moralphne.
'W( ar(.J( rhc dawnof ,r ncw plr.rse
of evolution.4
It is difficult enough to find scientificevidencefor physicalevolu-
tion, but it is impossiblero find evidencefor spiriuul evolution.Nev-
ertheless,he believesin it. He says,
Our conclusions arc identicalwith thoscexpressed in the sccond
chapterof Gencsis,providcd rhat this is
chapter interpretedin a ncw
way and considercd as thc highly symbolicalcxpression of r truth
which wasintuirivelyperceived by its rcdactoror by thc sagcswho
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 Syriandescribeshow 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,
"nd.u"ry-
thingsroodbeforcHim in perfcction.6
MonsieurLecomtedu Noiiy conrinues:
Lct us try ... to analyzerhe sacredtexras though ir wcrea highly
symbolical and crypricdescriptionofscientificrruths.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, de-
sccndedfrom the marineworms,is todaycapableof conceivingrhe
futurcexisrence
ofa supcriorbeingand o[wanting ro bc his ances-
ror.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 "absolutewirh respect
to Man":
343
 CENesrs.
CrrerroN ,rNoEAnrvMrN
Good is that which conrributesto ths courseof ascending evolu-
tion... . Evilistharwhichopposesevolurion..
. . The respect
ofhuman
personaliry is based ofman! dignityasa workerfor
on therecognirion
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
samcgoal....Unforrunately we differon what roadto take....One
day,providedthey neverstop ascending, they mustall mectar the
top of rhe mountain. . . the roadto it matterslittlc.''
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 use-
ful 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 contempo-
rary "Christian evolutionists,"including many Orthodox Chrisrians,
and they raisephilosophicaland religiousquestionswhich any think-
ing Orthodox Christian must be preparedto answer.Let us mention
here rwo groupsofthese questions.
l. As a corollary to the universaliryofevolution, which all evolu-
tionists 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 fu-
ture 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?
344
"CxnrsrrlNEvorurroNrsv"
2. The bookof Genesis, musrbe "inrcrpretedin a new
he believes,
way,"symbolically.Specifically,
the transgression
ofAdam wasnor an
historicalevent,bur simply'the symbolof the dawn of humancon-
sciousness."Can an OrthodoxChristianbelieverhis?How doesOr-
thodoxChristianiryunderstand the bookof Genesis?
3. Fr. Anthony Koxuros
Let us return now ro rhe viewson evolurionof other Orthodox
Christians.In anorherarticleof the GreekArchdiocese's
OrtbodoxOb-
seruer(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 rhrsqucs-
rion?"Fr. Kosturosreplies:
Man\ originis too far backin hisroryfor anypcrsonor groupro
knowhowmanbegan. [Vhat,then,is rhebookof Genesisfor?]Sci-
enccis scillgropingfor answcrs.
Thc wordAdamdcnotescarth.The
word Eve,lifc. Generally,and only gcnerally,our rradirionaltheolo-
gianstakethe view that all of us stemfrom one malcand one fc-
male.... There arc otherswho feel thar humankindappearedin
clusters,
a few hcreand a fcw thcre... . No rheologian
hasrhedefini-
tivc answeron rhe subjectof man'sorigin and his development....
The dawnof humanhistoryis a mysrcry.
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 pre-
sentedby 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
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:
Perhaps thercaremanyAdamsand Eveswho appcared concurrcntly
in differcntareas,and thcn mct. How man was creatcdand how
man procreatcd iniriallyis a mystcry.Don't letanyonctcll you other-
wise.Our Churchgivcsyou thc opportuniryto ponderrhc subjects
you menrionandcomeup wirh yourown specularion aboutthenr.'r
2. Can we seriouslyrhink that the firsr man to evolvewascapa_
bleofthc firstsin...?
He answers:
Scienristspreferro 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:

The answerto the question,"Vhere did Cain get his wifc?" is ac- Cracecould bc offcredto rhc originalgroup and, upon beingrc_
rually very easy:Adam and Eve had many children who are not men- jectcdby thar groupi freeand ycr mutuallyinflucncing
choice,oe
tioned by name in Genesis.The account in Genesisis only rhe basic losrto rhc wholcofsucccedinghumaniry
outline of the story.
Rahner then asks:
4. Karl Rahner
In the frx man or group such as paleontologyrevealsro us, how
Fr. Kosturos mentions the possibility that "humankind appeared
could therc hayebeena degrccof freedomsufficientlydevelopcdro
in clusters."This is a referenceto the evolutionary theory of "poly-
havemadepossible sucha fateFul
choiceasoriginalsin?How canwc
genism." The promirrent Jesuit "theologian"Karl Rahner (who until
attempt to reconcilethe supernaturalor preternaturalparadisc_
recentlywas rather "conservative"in his views on evolution)* has ex-
siruarionof 'Adam" (individualor group)wirh whatwe know of rhe
amined rhis quesrionand hasmade a "reconciliation"of the evolution-
originsof the biological,
anrhropological,culruralworld?
ary view with the Christian doctrine in a way that will doubtlessbe
imitared by the Greek Archdiocesein the future. (ln general,the Or-
He answershis quesrionby saying:
thodox modernisrsare alwaysone srepbehind the Roman Catholicsin
this processof "updating" the Churcht views.) In an article entitled It is not easyto derermineprecisely
whercand whenan earrhlycrea_
"Original Sin, Polygenism,and Freedom" (summarizedin Theology
rureacruallybecamespiritand rhusfrec... . Ve mayserenelyreckon
Digest,Spring, 1973), Rahner posedwo questions: wirh rhe fact rhat originalsin rcallyhappencd,bur at a momenr
which cannorbe more accuratclydctermined.Ir was,,sometime,,
wirh rhedoctrineof Adam'spre-
l. How is evolutioncompatible
wirhin a fairly long rimc-spanduringwhich many individuals
ternatr,rral
sifrsi may
havcbeenalreadyexisringand capableof performingrhc guilry
act
"simulraneously.". ..
'Karl Rahner(1904-1984)is widcly consideredro be the leadingRoman
Carholicrheologianof rherwentiethccnruryHe scrvedasan officialpapaltheologi-
cal cxpertbeforeand duringthe SecondVaticanCouncil.-Eo. ln other words,rhe whole rhing becomesvery vague.Obviously

346 11/
 GrNrsrs, Cnr.,rrrouaNn Eanlv MaN
the next generationof thinkers is going to do away with some of this
double talk.
5. Stephanus Tioostu
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 ofevo-
lution seriouslycan no longeracceptIthe] traditionalpresentation."So
we must find "an interpretationrhat is relevantto our times."'n
"The proponentsof the doctrine of evolution," he says,
visualizcmankindasa rcalirywhich,in thecourseofhistory,only vcry
graduallymatured ro achievea degreeof self-realization. Its earlresr
emergencemustbe conceivedof asfumblingtransitional formsap-
pearingnextto cxrremely primitivelevelsof humancxistence. Such
primitiveintermcdiare formsof humanlifestill musthavebeen inti-
matelyfusedwirh theirprehistoric animalstate.. . . But in thisevolu-
tionary theory tbuc is no roomfor a'paradisaicat"cxistcnce of tbis
prchittoricman. To placean extremclygifted and highly privileged
spiritualmanarrhebeginning ofhumanlifeon carthappears in com-
pletecontradictionro modern scientific
rhought on rhis matter.r5
This. ofcourse. is true. Tioosterconrinues:
Acccptanceof the modernviewpoint,however,eliminatesthe possi-
biliry ofaccountingfor thegenesis
ofevil in theworldon thebasisof
sin committedby rhe first man.Aftcr all, how couldso primitivea
human being havebeenin a position to rcfuseGod'soffcr of salva-
tion; howcouldsucha primitivebcinghavebcencapable ofa breach
ofcovenantwith God?t6
Since for Tiooster the fall of Adam is not an historical event, he
"explains"the existenceofevil by giving it a new name: 'the phenome-
non of cosmic immaturity."'7 Adam actually is not one man; he is
"Everyman."'t And the book of Genesisis
348
"CnrtsltaN EvoLultorrsv"
an idealizedimage.. . of a world without sin; rhc author fof Genesis]
knows quite well it does not correspond to realiry. . . He specifically
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
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 thoroughgoingconclu-
sionsfrom the message of evolution;is it possibleto believein evolu-
tion and not drawtheseconclusions?
6. TheRomanCatholic Viewof Origrnal Man
The RomanCarholicsin the pasrhavehad someproblemsabout
knowingwhen man began,if one acceprs evolution.Therearediffer-
ent theoriesdependingon wharone thinks.I don'rknow what is al-
lowednow, 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.
' Commcnringon PopeJohn PaulIIi recenrsraremenr ro rhe llonrificalAcad-
cmy ofSciences (Octobcr22, 1996)rhar"thc rheoryofevolurionis morcrhana hy-
pothesis,"Cardinal 1'homasJ. !(inning of Scotlandsummarizedthc Roman
CatholicChurch'spositionon evolutionasfollows:"The Churchlcavcsrhe belicvcr
freeto acccptor rejccrrhe variousevolutionaryhyporhcscsso long asrhcy do nor in-
sistrharthe 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,includingscien-
tisrswho havcwritrenbook and papersagainsrir. Among thcsclrc Dr. Guy Bcr-
rhault (geology)in France,Dr. Roberro Fondi (palcontology)and Dr. Giuseppc
Scrmonti(generics) in lraly,and Dr VolfgangSmith (physics, marhcmatics) in rhc
UniredSrates.-Eo.
349
 GBrutsts,CrtxrIox ,tNn Lrrt-v M.rru
Either you believein evolution-in which caseman is a very primi-
tive creaturewhich came from rhe beasts,and the textbookson evolu-
rion 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
Adam did void f-aecal matter becausewe cannot believethat he would
be of a different marerial than we are now. Secondly,he was never
harmed and was imperviousto drowning not becauseit was impossi-
ble, but becauseGod arrangedto take all the bouldersout ofthe way,
never to have the stream rise roo high, etc. ln other words, God ar-
ranged 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 be-
ginning. 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 ru-
ined at the fall. Christ is the new Adanr; and in Him *. ,o
our old nature. ^..1.r,o..o
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_ from whathe and manyofficialrepresenrarives
ten tlrorcd by other "(ihrisrian evolutionists."A well_known of Orrhodoxyin Amer_
generr_ rcaapparentlybelieveto be an ,,Orthodox"viewpoint,
cisr,hc is pres€nrlyprofbssorofgeneticsar the Universiry
of California
aresetfbrth in
two Orthodox periodicals,St. Vkdiniri Theoiogical
;rt I)avis. I think hc srill has his fruit flies, and is continuing euartert1 and
to make Concern.
elpenments.on rhcm ro prove evolurion.* He was
born in Russiain In an articlewhich waswell publicizedand summarized
rne yearot rhe canonizarionofSt. TheodosiusofChernigov without
[1900], in rn many Orthodox periodicalsin America, ,,Evolution:
fromhisparents;
andthatiswhyhewaicaliedTheo- :_olJnenr
1ntl.t 11n.1y.1 God's SpecialMethod of Creation"(Concern,Spring,
doslus..Alrs,.he becamean aposrare.He came ro America in l9Z3), Dob-
the rwen- zhanskyaccuses anyoneopposedro rhe rheoryoi *o'iu,ion of .,blas_
ttrs and hasbeenan Amcricansincerhar rime.,.
phemy. He saysin rhisarticle:
nrr been,absolurelyprohibited in Soviet Russia,
,n. although the
Sovrer
", screnrisrsknow about him. Once when a film was accidentally
Natural sclectionis a blind ano a crearrveprocess....
presenredat one scientificmeeting in Russia Narural screc_
which showedhim on ir, tion does zat work accordingro a foreordained
all the scientistscheered;but rhe fi'lm waswithdrawn. plan.
H. i. conslaer.d
nonexistent,a non-personbecausehe left Russia.
Bur he rhinks like a Dobzhanskynoresrhe extraordinary
communlst, _ varieryof life on (he earrh,
and callsit "whimsicaland superfluous.'t
H. ,"i,
Although he was baprizcdOrrhodox, when his wife
, died he had
her cremared,took rhe ashcsand scatteredthem
in rhe Sierras.,,*As rVhar a senscless
can see,,he nevergoesto church; he,squire b.yonJ operarion to labricare a multitude of spe cies
cx ni_
3: i: :,": ,e gion. b.ilo[kom norhinpil,and then ler mosr of them
r\everrhet€ss, tor hrs Chrisrian evolutionist views, he was granted die our! .. . Whar is
an rhe senseof having as many as rwo or thrce million
O:c'.11e rheology by Sr.Vtadimir'so,,hoJo""S"rntnrry speciesliving on
TS:i't ^ofAt the sametime, he gave
In New York tn 1972. earrh?. . . \0as rhe crearorin a jocular mood? Is
rhc Creator .. . play-
an addressto the Sec_ rng practicaljokes?
TheologicalConferenceJf the Onhodox Theologi_
::d"tl::-'1",:.jil
cal soclery of America, which was attended
by all rhe renowned No, Dobzhansky reasons,
"theologians"of the variousOrthodox
bodies.His id.rs on .uolution,
The organicdivcrsirybcconres,howcver,reasonable
and undcrstand_
'Fr. Seraphimis refcrringro Dobzhansky's
arremprro crearca ncw spccrcs ablc if the Creator hascreatedrhc living world,
not by gratuirousca_
Dy
cxposingfruir flics ro radiationso as price bur by cvolurion propclled by natural
t,io.k
ri th.c
MindsofMen(it, D,il'*: [: fr:f:ij :ftffi i .lil,i:t*':,JL,l,i scl.ction. i, i. *.u,,g ,,,
hold crearionand cvolution as mutually cxclusivc
wirh fruir fliesbcganin rhc 1920swith ThomasHunt alrernarives.
Morgan'"ud,"ilr-ir'r,,,f , rni_
nor'indusrry'amongrcsearchers. The srubbornfruir fly has lu"ry g.n.,,. Vhar he.meansby this is that it acruallymakes
indignitypossiblc,bur so far nor onc has.u., produ."d "ndur.J , no difference
i"f.*"p, ,".,n* whetheryou havea God or not. He saysrhar
fruir fly" (ln thc Mitdt of Men, p.I63)._ED. ""y,t iod or.hr..
" Hcnry M. Morriswrircs:,,Dobzhansky million-species
by meansof naruralselection.
wasprobably,nexrro JulianHuxlcy, f, ,n",-"L.r-*J
.nf i.r, ,;ffy ,f,".
rhe most influcnrialcvolurionisr of the rwcnriethcenrury.,, sayingHe createdthe originalkindsall at once?
l)obzhanskyreposedin
thatFr.Scraphinr
gaverhetccuref-rn *t ,iiJ.t Accordingro Dobzhansky,
L]]j:^r,|r1"-.:]*, 'ct n", rhereis no plan to it; it is all iusta blind
O e en fa k Cn. _1. _ D "p,", process.For an Orthodox Christian,this raises quesrion:
"'Cremarion is srricrlyforbiddenin rheOrrhodox
Church._Flo.
the Does
God beginrhe process of evolution,and then t,"u" no lor,,roi ou., i,,
352
353
 Cr:Nrsrs,Cr.eauoN ,rruoE,rnrr M,rN
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 explana-
tion-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 dis-
ringuished from that of the "semi-Christian" (or non-Christian) [-e-
comte du Noiiy.
Dobzhansky is filled with the usual liberal Christian ideas that
Genesisis symbolical,that man'sawarcnessis the causeof the tragrc
meaninglessness in the world today, and that the only escapeis for
man to realizethat he can cooperatewith the enterpriseofcreation, for
participarionin this enrerprisemakesmorral man parr of God's eternal
design.And he says,
The mosrgallantandby far thc mostnearlysuccessful
artemptro do
this-coopcratewith God! cternaldcsign-has beenrhat of Teil-
hardde Chardin.r"
8. Teilhard de Chardin
W'ewill now look inro rhis lasrevolutionisr,who is the grearevolu-
tionist "propher" of our times: Teilhard de Chardin. He is obviously
the " Chrisrian evolutionist" of the century, widely revered by Ortho-
dox, and considercdby some "Orthodox theologians"(aswe shall sce)
as being on rhe samelevelas rhe Orthodox Holy Fathers.
' Dobzhanskywrote:" Man hascvolvedfrom anccsrors rharwcrc nor human... .
'l'he creationofGodt imagein man is not an cventbut a proccss, and thereforerhe
rnorallaw is a productofan evolurionary devclopment" (Dobzhansky, "Ethicsand
Valuesin Biologicaland Culrural Evolution," 1qgon,tbcJotnal of Religionand Sti-
ezca,asreportedin rhe los AngelcsTimet,June 16, 1974, part 4, p. 6).-E o.
354
"CsrlsrraN EvoLurroNrsu"
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (lS8l-l9jj) was a French Jesuit
priest,'theologian" and paleontologist,who was presentat the discov-
ery.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 dis-
coveriesofPeking 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,
I had the goodfortune,unusualin a scientificcarecr,of happening
to be on thc sporwhen ... cardinalfindsin rhehistoryoffossilrnen
hadcomcro lighr!
He fit theserogetherinro evidencefor human evolution. We won,t go
' 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 Teil-
hardwasprobablyculpablyinvolvcdin 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,
355
 GaNssIs,Cnr,ertoxaNo Eanlv MIN
into this evidencenow, exceptto say that it is very shaky.One evolu-
tionisr 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 re-
ferredto 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 sur-
prising 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 Ortho-
dox 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 basi-
cally 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'
mystically oriented. They were filled with Pythagorean philosophy'
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
' That is, in earlicrsectiorrs "SurvivalCourse,"from which rhis
of Fr Seraphim's
hasbcentaken.-Ep.
discourse
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 knowledgebe-
causeof modern enlightenment,he calledfor the resrorarionof uniry
in man, and spoke of how we can ger faith and knowledgeback to-
gether.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 dc-
nrandasperception....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 phi-
Iosoph,v.lAnd therearcpaticntnaruralists, but theyfreeze their sub-
jecr 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 promisesto fulfill these
expecrarions,
who discoversrhat 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,describesrhreestagesthroughwhich evolu-
'A morereccnrartcmptto combinescience, religionandevolutionary philoso-
phy 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'sF.prlogue
of rheprcsentbook.-Ln.
5)/
 GrNesls. Cnl,,\Trorunruo Elnlv M,qru
tionary developmenthas passed,making use of his own technical
terms:
thc cvolution of inanimate naturci sec-
First, there is cosmogenesis,
ond, biogenesis,biologicalevolution; and, third, noogenesis,
the de-
v e l o p men r of hr r m ant ho u g h t
'ltilhard alsospeaks the "biosphere,"
of"spheres: thesphereoflifel and
rhe"noosphere,"the sphereof thought.He saysthewholeof theglobe
now is beingpenetraredby a webofthought which he callsrhe"noo-
sphere."
"Up to here,"continuesDobzhansky,
Tcilhardsrands firmlyon a foundarionof demonstrablc ficts.'Ib
completchis theologyof naturehe thenembarkson prophery based
onhisreligioas
faitb.He speaksofhis"conviction,
strictly
undcnron-
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 Teil-
hard 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 evolu-
tion is.* ra
That is, evolutionbecomesin Teilhard'sthought-whicn many,
Dobzhanskyhimselfcchocsthis Tcilhardianvicw: "Evoluttonon
' Elsewhere
the cosmic,biologicaland humanlevelsarepartsof one grandprocess of universal
cvolurion" (Dobzhansky,"Ethics and Valucs in Biological and Cultural F-volu-
r ion").-En .
-358
"Cutrsr.tar Evoluttotrlsv"
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 follow-
ers, is a certain unitary uiewof realiry,a joining of Goj and the world,
of the spiritual and the secular,into a singie harmonious and all-
encompassingprocesswhich 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 Chris-
tians) 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:
'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
' Thar is, everypcrsonwho is in rhe tradirionof rationalism,
cominqfrom thc
ageof thc Finlighrenmenr, and uhimarclyfrom rhc MiddleAqerin rheVcst aftcrrhc
S cl ri snr.
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
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
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''
"God," for him, is to be lound only in the midst of the world;

all rhosegoody-goodyromancesabout the saintsand the marryrs! I am not spcakingmetaphorically

whcn I sayrhar ir is rhroughour
Vhatever normal child would want to soendan etcrnitvin such the lengthand breadthand deprhof the world in nrovcmcnrthar
boringcompany?r8 man canattainthe experience
and visionof his god.

He believedthat "what we are all more or lesslacking at this mo- In perfect harmony wirh his secularyer "searching"times, he declares
re
ment is a new definition of holiness." He wrore: tnat

The modernworld is a world in evolution;hence,rhcstaticconcepts
of the spirituallife mustbe rethoughtand the classical of
teachings
Christmustbe reinterprercd.Jn
This is a reflectionof the overthrowingof the old universeof New-
ron. 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 rrewphys-
ics,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 dis-
tinguishing mark was that he gavethesethings a distinctly "religious"
significance.He wrote:
360
the time haspassedin which God couldsimplyimposeHimsclfon
us from wirhour,asmasrerand ownerof rhe csrare.Hcnceforrhrhe
world will knceldown only beforerheorganicccntcrof its own elro-
l unol l .
"Evolution" for hirn is not an idea destructiveto religion, but a relig-
ious idea in itselfi
Christianiryand cvolurionare nor rwo irrcconcilable
visions,bur
two perspectivesdesrinedro fir rogcthcrand complcmenteach
othcr.Ja
He ardentlybelieved and taughtrhat"evolutionhascomero infuse
new blood,so to speak,into the perspectives
and aspirationsof Chris-
tianity."r'"Evolurion,"indeed,accordingro Teilhard,is preparingthe
way for a new revelarionof God:
361
 Gunesrs,Cnl.xrroN ar.roEenry MIN
The carth . . . crn casrmc ro my knecsin expccrarionof what is ma-
turing in hcr breast... . She has becomefor me, ovcr and aboveher-
selfl rhc body of him who is and of him who is coming.J6
Evolution,for ltilhard, is a processwhichinvolvesthe "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 theol-
ogy,offeringa "newdevelopmenr" in Catholicthoughrin his striking
ideaof the "Tiansubstantiation" of theearth:"
As our humaniry assimilarcsrhe matcrial world, and as rhc Host
Ii.c., thc Ronran Carholic Host] assimilatesour hunraniry, rhc
eucharistictransformationgoesbeyond and complctesthc rransub-
stanriarionof thc brcad on rhe alrar. Step by srep ir irresisriblyrn-
vadcs 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 thisprocessofevolution,the "Bodyof Chrisi'is beingformedin
rheworld-not the Christof Orthodoxy,bur the "universal Christ"or
"Super-Christ,"which 'leilharddefinesas "a synrhesisof Christ and
'''This "evolvingChrisr"will bringabourthe uniryof all
the universe."
rel;gioos:
A gcncralconvergcncc of rcligionsupona univers:rl
Christwho frrn-
darncntrllysatisfics
rhenrall: thisseems
ro mc rheonly possiblccon-
vcrsionof thc world, rnd rhe orrlyform in which a relieionof thc
firrurecanbe conceivcd,40
Christianity for him is not the unique Tiuth, but only "an cmcrg-
ing 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
"Cnr.rsrr,q.N
Evolurrot.trsu"
Teilharddoesnot wish ro "converr"the world, but only to offer the pa-
pacy as a kind of mystical cenrer of man's religious quesr, a super-
denominational Delphic Oracle. As one of his admirers summanzes
his view:
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 ccnreredon Rome.'4l
At the sametime that the universeis "evolving" into rhe "Body of
Christ," man himself is reachingrhe pinnacle of his evolutionary de-
velopment:"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 "relig-
ious" view of evolution, Teilhard identifies rhe evolving "Super-
humanity" 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 'Apparuithu-
manitas," 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 religionofto-
morrou 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
Humanirywould reacha point of developmenr when it would de-
tach itsclfaltogetherfrom the carthand unite with Omega....'A
phenomenon ourwardlysimilarto deathperhaps(wriresTeilhard),
but in realirysimplenretamorphosis and acccssion to the supreme
svntnests_ -
The "supremesynthesis," the pinnacleof this evolutionary-
is whatTeilhardcalledthe "PointOmega":
spiritualprocess,
One day,the Gospeltellsus, rhetensiongradually
accumulating
between
humaniry andGodwill rouchthelimitsprescribed
by thc
of the world. And then will come the cnd. Then the
possibilities
prcsencc of Christ,which hasbeensilentlyaccruingin rhings,will
suddenlybe revealed-like a flash of light from pole ro pole. Thc
spiritualatomsof thc world will be bornealongby a forcegcncr-
aredby 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
"Csnrsrr,rNEvor.ulroNrsv"
faithful rn Chrisr,who is of Cod. This major taskis pursuedwirh
the rigorand harmonyofa naturalprocess ofevolution.a')
Of course,he is completelydoing awaywith all ideasof Christian-
iry which have been hitherto. Christianity is not an individual trying
to savehis soul; it is everybodyin the world evolving by a natural pro-
cessup to the Omega Point.
Christiansshould not fear the natural processof evolution, ]til-
hard 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 anotheror-
der 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
forc-
ingsomcthreshold 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 Apoca-
lypse,"chiliasm"can refcr more gcncrallyro any sccularor rcligiousbclicf in the per-
of this fallenworld.-Eo.
fectabiliry
JO)
 CeNesrs,CnEAr.roN,tNo Eanry MrN "CstrrsrreNEvolurloNrsv"

rhe passionaredesirc to conqucr the \}forld, and thc passionatedesrre 'l'har is how mysricism
comesrighr into the middle of science.Sci-
to unitc ourselvcswith God; the uital act, qecifcal$ new, concspond- ence nowadaysis losing all of its bearings;it has become indetermi-
ing to d ncw ageof the Eartb.tl nate, positing a whole universeof anrimatrer,which mixes scienrists
up.. It all ends in mysticism.
One canseethar,in Teilhard,chiliasmis verysrrong:rheNew Age -Ibilhardwrites:
emerges:
The onQ truly natural and rcal human Uniry is the Spirir of the
In Communism,
aranyrarein itsorigins,
hith in a universal
human Earth.... A conqueringpassionbeginsto show itself,which will
organismrcacheda magnificcntstateof exalrarion.. . . On the other swccpawayor rransformwharhashirhcrtobeenrhc immaturiryof
hand, in its unbalanccd admirationfor rhe rangiblepowersof the rhe carth.... Thc call rowardsthc greatUnion [i.e.,the univcrsal
Universc, it hassysremarically
excluded from its hopesrhepossibiliry uniry of mankind]whoscrealization is thc only business
now afoor
of a spiritualmeramorphosisof the Univcrsc.tz in nature....-On thishyporhesis, undcrwhich (in conformirywith
thc findingsof psycho-analysis) Loveis rhe primitiveand universal
In other words, if you add spiritualiry ro communism, you have the psychicenergy, doesnot cveryrhing aroundus becomeclear...?The
answer.*Teilhardgoeson ro say. Sense ofEarrh is rhe irresistible
pressurewhich will comear the righr
momenrro unircthem [all humaniry]in a commonpassion.
rVe must unire.No morepoliticalfronrs,
but onegrearcrusadefbr
humanadvancement.. . . The dcmocrar,the communistand the fas_ T'heagcof nationsis past.The taskbeforeus now,if we would not
cistmusrjetrisonrhedeviarions and limirarionsof theirsysrcms
and perish,is ro shakcoff our ancientprejudices,and to build thc
pursuero rhe full rhc positiveaspirations which inspircrheirenrhu- Eartlr... .
siasm,and thcn,quire naruralll rhe newspirit will burst rhc exclu- The greatconflicrfrom whichwe shallhaveemerged will mcrcry
sive bonds which still imprison it; rhc three currentswill find haveconsolidatcd in theVorld the needro believe.Havingreached a
rhcmsclves mergingin rhe conceptionof a common task;namely,ro higherdegree ofself-masterltheSpiritofEarthwill cxpericnce an in-
promotethespirirualfurureof the Vorld.... The functionof man is creasingly vital needrc adore;out ofunitersaleuolutionGodemerges rn
to build and direc thc wholeof rhe Eanh.... \Weshallcnd by oer- our consciousness asgrcaterand moreneccssary thanever....
ceivingrhar rhe grearobjecrunconsciously pursucdby scicnccrs At whatmomentin rheNoosphcre hasrhercbeena morcurgcrrr
nothingclscrhanthe discovery o[God.5r necdto find a Faith,a Hopc to givc meaningand soul to rhe im-
mcnscorganismwe arebuilding?5a
' Commcnringon rheJesuir and Dominican"workcrpriesrs,'who in rhe 1940s
and 50sjoincdcommunisrandsocialist parries(andwho sutscquenrly lcfi rhepriest- Here he means rhat rhe whole modern revolution has losr itself.
hood),-lcilhardwrorc:"Pricsr-workcrs find in the faceofa humaneMarxismnot 'When
ir tries to build a new Paradise,it destroyseveryrhing;therefore,
only jusricebur hopc and a fcclingfbr rhe Earthwhich is srrongcrrhan.evangelical
it needsro havea religiousmeaningaddedro ir; and this 'ltilhard pro-
humaniry"' (quorcdin Malachi Marrin, l-heJcsuitt,p. 290). Elsewherche said:
"Maaixs belicvein the futurc of mankind*hilc preienr-davChrisrians vides. All the rhings in modern life, he says,are good. Only add to
do nor"
(quotcd in JoscphV. Kopp, Tiilhard de Chardin..A'New Syntiesisof Euolution).
On
thc ncw spiritualirythar is beingbuilr on thc foundarions laid by communrsm,scc 'Ar prescnt,evolutionary cosmologists arepositingrharasmuch asnincrypcr-
rhe Editor! Epiloguebclow.-Eu.
centof the matrcrin thc univcrscis "dark"or "exotic"61116x-lp.

366 367
 GrHrsts, Cnserroru,rno Eanly MaN "CHnrsrteNEvoLutIoNtsv"

them this: the idea that they are all heading for a neq spiritual king-
oom.
Teilhardsaysfurther:
In us the evolutionof the Vorld towardsthe spirit becomescon-
scious..
. . 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 singlecontemplationo[ thesameTiurh or in thc singlcdesirc
awakened 6y Something,bur in the singleatrractioncxerciscd by the
sameSomeone ,!('
Therefore, in spiteofall theapparentimprobabiliries, we areinevira-
bly approachinga new age in which the Vorld will casroff irs
chains,to giveitselfupar lastto thepowero[its internalaffinities....
'With
rwo thousandyearsof mysricexpcriencc[of Roman Ca-
tholicismlbehindus, the contacrwhichwc can makewith rhe per-
sonalFocusof 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 ul-
timarc,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"
[i.e.,whenmanand rheworld becomeGod]lt7
This longing is very deep in modern man-rhis is what he wants.
All modern philosophical,chiliastic,socialisricsysremshave as rheir
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 every-
rhing and eachtime he wasconfident that he had finally found the an-
swer.As he did this, however,he overthrew more and more from the
past.And alwayswhateverhe made was overthrown by the next gen-
eration. Now he comesfinally to doubting evenwhether the world ex-
ists,and what he is. Many peoplecommit suicide.Many destroy.$7hat
is left for man? There is nothing left except rc uah for a new revela-
tion. 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.
' |r Scraphim's rcachingon this subjectis discusscd
more fully in rhe lldirori
Epilogue.-l)o.
'" Earlierin his"SurvivalCourse,"Fr.Scraphimspokcofhow fairhin "purerea-
son" was undermincdtowardsrhe end of thc Enlightennrenr by the philosopher
David Hurnc.lmmanuelKant andothers.Somcof rhisdiscussion hasbeenincludcd
in rhe previouschaprcr,pp. 318-24.-Eo.
'*' A reference to rhewritersCamus,Kafka,Ionesco, erc.In rheearly1960s,Fr.
Scraphimwrorc an essaycalled"Thc Philosophyof the Absurd,"which waspub-
lishedposthumouslyrn 'I he OtthodoxlVod no. 106 (1987). Flp.

368 369
 GeNesrs,
Cnr,rnorur.NoE,ralvMaru
10. Teilhardisn in the Light ofOrthodoxl
'fhe evolutionaryphilosophyof Teilhardde Chardin is, strictly
speaking,rhe productof the meetingof modernphilosophywith Ro-
man Catholicism.Howeversrronglytilhardism mighrseem to break
wirh cerrainaspecrsofrhe ultramontane RomanCatholicismofyester-
day,therecanbe no doubtthat it is in profoundharmonywith and ad-
mirablyexpressesthe deepest "spiritual"currentofapostateRome:the
useof "otherworldliness" for a rhis-worldl*chiliasticend,or asrecent
Popeshaveexpressed ir, the "sanctificationof the world." Vithin Ro-
man Catholicism,Teilhardismis a new "revelation"
quite as justified
and as"traditional"asthe revelation ofseveralcenturiesagoof the "Sa-
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 our-
selvcs.'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 far-
thestlimit of irs blasphemy againstthe true teachingofthe Churchof
Christ.'fhat which is called"Chrisi'in this philosophy is precisely
370
"CxnIsrIln EvoLurt<lNIsv"
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 possessionof whichdisringuishes OrthodoxChristiansfrom other
men,is totallyobliterated.
As we haveseen,Teilhardis deeplyin harmonybothwirhthe mod-
ernoutlookdzlwith RomanCatholicism, bothof whicharenow con-
verging"in a newworldview.He righdysawrhatevolurion,if it is true,
cannotbe keptin onecomparrment ofhumanthought,but profoundly
aff-ccts
thewholeofthought.He wasunconcerned to "reconcile"evolu-
tion with singlepoinrsof Christianrraditionand dogma,because he
rightlysawtharrhereis no possible reconciliation. Euolutionis 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 "evolu-
tion" innocentlybecause he hasbeentold it is'tcientific,"will doubr-
lessbe bewilderedat the Teilhardianideaof "evolurion"and wonder
what possible connecrion ir haswirh the "scientificfacts"which "every-
one 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 relercncero rhcchiliasric
predicrionofJoachinrof 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-OrrhodoxRus-
sianrhinkerNicholasBcrdyaev, who predictedrhcadvcnrof"a ncwand final Revela-
rion': "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 mosrOr-
thodoxChristians, the Holy Fathersof the OrthodoxChurchhaveset
forth a clearteachingon the natureof the world, God'screation,and
the first-creared man which answers all the ouestionsthat modernist
Orthodox 'theologians,"uho do not hnowttti Orthodoxftnching0f the
Fatbers,rhink areso uncertainand difficult.
Teilhard's monstrousviewof the "Omega'wasmadepossiblepre-
ciselybecause evolutionaryphilosophyfirstobscured the'Alpha"-that
is,theOrthodoxdoctrineof thecreationolrtheworld arrdman.Ortho-
dox theologyin our own timehascomesomuchunderrheinfluenceof
this modernphilosophythat most"Orthodoxtheologians" no longer
teachthe Orthodoxdoctrineof Cod'screation.The ideasexpressed in
rheofficialorganofrhe GreekArchdiocese of America,by the "conser-
vative" theologianPanagiotistempelas (if he has been correctly
quoted),by TheodosiusDobzhanskyand St. Vladimir'sTheological
Seminarywhichawardedhim an honorarydoctorate, by periodicals
of
the AmericanMetropolialOrthodox Church in America] and the
"StandingConferenceof CanonicalOrthodox Bishops"in Amer-
ica-are so far from Orthodoxyahaton€canonly marvelat the "'West-
ern caprivity"that hasenchained theseOrrhodoxChrisrianswho are,
afterall, freeto readthe Holy Fathers and think for themselves.
But let us not be shockedby rhismediocreignorance. Beforeap-
proachingthe teachingof the Holy Fathers ler
themselves, usexamine
briefly the viewsof "Orthodox theologians"who accepteuentheteach-
ing ofTeilharddc Chardinbimselfas "Orthodox," andrevealtherebynot
merelytheirprofoundignorance ofOrthodoxteaching, but evenmore
their captivationby a teachingtotallyand utterlyforeignto Holy Or-
thodoxy.
11. "Orthodox"FollowersofTiilhard de Chardin
-lbilhardism
seemsto havemadea deepimpression on Russian Or-
thodox"liberals"afterthetranslation
and publication(significanr
in ir-
selflof ThePhenomenon ofManin Moscowin 1965-the firstbookof
a "Christianthinker"(if one exceprs
the propaganda volumeof Hew-
lett Johnson,the "Red Deanof Canterbury")to be publishedin the
372
"Cnntsrraru
EvoruttoNIsv"
USSR.'After this publication,F-r.John Meyendorffof the American
Metropoliawrore:
fhe Christocentric
undersranding
of manandtheworldwhich,ac-
cordingto Teilhard,arcin a stareofconstanrchangeandsrrivingro-
wardsthc "OmegaPoint," rhar is, rhe highesrpoint of beingan<t
evolution,which is identifiedby rhcaurhorwith God Himscll,con-
necrsTeilhardwirh the profoundinruirionof thc OrthodoxFathers
of the Church.o0
More specifically,the editor (presumablyNikita Struve)of thc Or-
thodox periodical from Paris,Messenger of the RussianStudent Cbristian
Mouement,ttwrites:"lr should be noted that rhe chief characrcristicof
Teilhardismis not at all rhe acceDranceof evolurion-this has been no
novelty for a long time among rireologiansand religiousphilosopners.
l'he soul ofthe teachingofrhe Frenchthinker is a new approachto the
problem of the world and crearion." In his reachingon this Teilhard
"only sctsforth in contemporarylanguagethe teachingof the Apostle
Paul concerningnature,which is not excludcdfrom the plan ofsalva-
rion." Vhen reflectingon 'the Mass of the World" 'Ieilhard'sexperi-
ences"were for him somethinglike a cosmic l-iturgy which is invisibly
performed in the world. Here is rhe very heart ofrhe Teilhardianproc-
lamarion, which restoresro us the forgotten, immemorially Christian
understandingofthe universeand rhe Divine Incarnation. Preciselyit
illuminated for Teilhard rhe meaningof evolution as rhe movemenrof
the whole cosmos roward the Kingdom of God and enabled him to
overcome the negative approach to the world which is deeply rooted
among Christians. " o'
'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.
373
 Crpr-sts, CnmrtoN ,rtlo Eanrv Meu
'fhe Messengeri major "Orthodox"arricleon Teilhardismis by a
PolishOrthodox priest,Fr. GeorgeKlinger,and is entitled"Fr. Teil-
hard de Chardin and OrthodoxTradition."('rThis authorfinds that
Teilhardt'ihought so often uncoverspointsof approachto the best
traditionsof Orthodoxy,"or and he then proceeds to quotethese"best
tradirionsof Orthodoxy," which are:the third-century heresyoI Mon-
tanism ("rhe evolutionismof Easternthought is confirmedin the
studyof Montanism,whichsawthe appearance of the threeHyposta-
sesofthe Holy Trinity in threesuccessive epochsofhuman hisrory");uo
thc rwelfth-century LatinmonkJoachim Fiore,with hisprophecyof
of
the coming"Third Ageof the Holy Spirir' to replacethe agesof the
Old and New Testaments; and the whole "Paris-modern" schoolof
Bulgakov, Berdyaev,and their"liberal"followers.(He doesquotea few
genuineFathers also;but not one of these quotes is supportiveof the
ideaofevolution.)Indeed,no onewill doubtthat thereis a kinshipbe-
rweenthesesources and evolutionaryphilosophy, nor that the whole
charismatic-ecumenical "new Christianiry"of our own rimeshasdeep
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
follow -leilhardde Chardininto his dizzyingvisionof the "cosmic" or
"super-Christ":
Fr.Tcilhard
spcaks muchon thccosmic rolcof Chrisr,of theDivine
roohc"converp;cs"
Milieu,andverylittlcofrheChurch.In thiscase
akin to him in Orthodox theology.. In Fr. Teil-
with tendencies
hard,rhc Churchis identifiedwith thc workingof Christin rhecos-
nlos,('1
And again:
Accordingto Fr.Tcilhard,throughcommunionof the Holy Myster-
icsrheworld bcingsanctified becomes the Bodyof Christ....These
rhoughtsare possiblythc profoundest that havebeensaidin recent
timeson the questionof the centralsacramcntof Christianiry.6
:r /tl
"Cxtlst-r.eruF,v<lr_urroIrsv"
Enough hasbeensaid to show how far rhe "Orthodox" followersof
-leilhardde Chardin
wander from sound Orthodox doctrine, and how
profoundlyignoranr they are of rhe rrue reachingof the Holy Fathersof
the Orrhodox Church whom they so glibly mention.'I-he patristic il-
litcracyof our own day is so great rhat any 'theologian"can say virtu-
ally anything and artribute it to a "Holy Father"and nor be correcred.
l)articularlywith regardto evolurion ir is allowed ro make exrremery
vaguesratemenrswhich seemro give a "Patristic"justification for be-
lief in this modern docrrine. "The Greck Farhers had a cosmrc
view"-which makesthem akin to Teilhardde Chardinl "J'he F-athers
didnt interprer Genesisliterally"-which meanswe are free ro rnrer-
pret ir in terms of evolution! "Genesislends itself to an evolurionary
in terp rcration"-according to our modern wise men who do nor know
the Farhers!"The Hexaemeron ofSt. Basil is favorableto evolution."*
One could mulriply such examplesof looserhinking.
'We
have seen enough of these feeble speculationsof modern
thinkers; it is time now ro go ro the Farhersthemselvesto revealwhat
" Suchvagiuc srarcmcnts wcrcmadeby Fr.JohnMeyendorffinan arriclcentirled
''Oreati<rn
vs. Evolution,"published,inTbeOrtbodoxChnrrA rheofficial organofrhc
OrthodoxChurchin America.Havinginrrodtrccd rhesubjecrofrhe Biblicalaccounr
of the creation,I;r. Meycndorffwrires:"The New 'fesramcnrclcarlyaffirms rhar
,allegory,
somcOld'li:sramentaccounrs arero bc undcrstood spiritually,
asan (Cal.
4:24).In his lamousscrmons'On rhcSix [)rys ofCrcarion,'St. BasilrheCreatholds
rhcviewrhar(lod crcatedrhc world 'in one nromenr,'endrhen,lefrir rolling,under
lrisown guidance, brrralsoin accordancc wirh its own crcatedlaws.Clearl* Sr. Basil
docsnot understand biblicalchronologylircrally.Hc firlly.rc.cprsrhcscienrificidcas
of his own day,and his undcrsranding sccmsquirc conrparible with rhc idca ofa
C<r<l-guidc<l cvolution"("(ircarionvs.Evolurion,"7'heOrtlndoxClturdt,vol. 18,no.
3, March1982).
'l-hisstarcrnent, of coursc,conrainsgrossmisrcprcscnrations. In (lalarians4:24
St. Paulis spcakingspecifically ofAbrahamt rwo sonsbeingan allcgoryof rhc r*o
covcnants-frornwhichwe arcobviouslynor ro concluderharSr. Paulrhoughrrhat
Abrahamand hissonsdid nor a6aexisrashisrorical pcrsonslAnd aswc havesecn,Sr.
Basilwrotcin hisconrmcnrary on rheSixl)avsofCrcarionthat tlrcScripture should
"bc undc'rsroocl asir hasbecnwrittcn. sr. Basilr;rughrthrt C,d nra.lc.ucryrhingac-
cordingto thc Gencsischronologyin insrantancous creativcacrson cachof rhc Six
DiLys, rh:rtrhc Six [)rys wcrerealdays,lnd rhatonc "kind" ofcrcaturccouldnor be
transformed into anorher.(Secpp. 38(>401 below.)-Eo.
375
 Gruesrs,Cnr-rtroNeNn Ernrv Mln

they have ro say on the questionsaffecting the doctrine and philoso-

phy 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 ob-
scureworks, not by taking quoresout of context so as to fit precon-
ceived notions. Rather, we shall ask the Fathers of undisputed
PARTIII
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 com-
mentarieson the Six Days of Creation by St. Basil the Crear and St.
The Patristic Docnine
Ambrose of Milan, the catecheticalworks of St. Cyril of Jerusalem,St.
Gregory of Nyssa,St. John Damascene,the Homilies on Adam and
of Creation
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 Di-
vine 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 rc-
herentdoctine of that which we need to know. We shall find that the
most pressingquestionsraised by the doctrine of evolution are an-
sweredfor us. Ve shall find therethe inspiring Patristicdoctrine ofthe
f irst creation, the nature of Adam, and the final state of all
creatures-which makestasteless and vain for us the "Omega" of 'feil-
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
 EDITOR'SNOTE
Tbefollouing btter w*s uritten $' Fr. Seraphimto Dr AlexanderKalo-
miros, a GreekOrthodox medicrtldlctlt church writer, and "Christian
euol tionist." Fr. Seraphimwar resplndingto a letterfom Dr. Kahmi-
ros, in which thc latter attemptedto show that the Holy Scripturesand
the teachingof the Holy Fathersaere compatibb with modrrn euolution-
ary theory.Accordingto Dn Kalomiros,Adam was an "euoluedbeast,"
who at the appropriatepoint in his euol tiznary dttehpmcnt rcceiuedthe
grace of God and thus becameman. Dr. Kalomiros arote: "When th?
{J Lord God breathedinto Adam'sface the breath of life, then the nolued
.); beastbecamea logicalreature.... I woul/ not be surprisedif Adani
bodyhad beenin all retpects the bodyof an ape.... Adzm wasprobably
biologicallylesseuoluedthan man of presentdzys.... He uas tahenfom
the top stepof the euolutionarykdder of anthropoids.Man doesnot come
fom monheysbat fom anotherbranchof anthropoidswith a parallcl
euolution. Wehauenothing by which to concludein uhicb stagcofeuolu-
tion the breathof God wasgiuen to the animal."
Fr. Seraphim'srepl! to Dr. Kalomiros,published posthumous\ in
EpiphanyJournal (Fall 1989-\VintcrI990) and kter in abridgedform
iz J'he Christian Acrivisr(Spring/Summer1998),has becomethe de-
fnitiue innoduction to the Patristic doctrine of reation and the defni-
tiue Patristic refatation of the modcrn theory of euolution. lV'epresentit
f6 rCft l:'
herewith sectiontitlcs addedby the editor.
l)ctail of rhe icon"l he Syorbolof rhe Faith,"showingAdamand F-vcbcingcasr For moreabout Fr. Seraphimicorrespondcnce utith Dr. Kalomiros,see
out of Paradisc, Cain slayingAbcl,and Adanrand F-vclarncntingAbcl'sdcarh.
the Editor\ Preface(pp. 2C30, 35, 40) and thc sebctionsfom Fr Sera-
Russin icon olth secondhalf of tlte n,enteenth rcntury, noit lo&ted nt
phim'slettersin Part V (pp.514-15, 52244).
KolonenskoyeM xseurn,Motrc tu.

379

Adam (derail).
Frcscob1 Thcophanathc Grcehin thc Churcb of thc Tiawfguration
ofthc Sauiour,Novgorod,Ruia 1378.
Fifth Veek of GreatLenr, I 974
Dear Dr. Kalomiros,
Greetings in our LordJesusChrisr.
At lastI am writing my replyto your letreron "evolution."This re-
ply expresses the viewofour Brorherhoodon this question.I will re-
peat to you that I havewritten this reply not as an "expert" on the
Holy Fathers, but asa "lover"ofrhe Holy Fathers, which I believeyou
arealso.Mosr of rhe citationsI havemadeherefrom the Holy Fathers
I have translatedfrom the RussianPatristictranslationsof the
nineteenth century,wirh somealsofrom the Englishtranslations ofthe
nineteenthcenturywhich areprintedin the "Eerdmans" NiceneFa-
thersSeries.I havegiventhe sourcesasfully aspossibleso that you can
readthem in Greek.Ifyou havequestionsabout theseor any other Pa-
tristiccitationsI will be gladto discussthem furtherwith you. I am
nor at all concernedmerelyto find citarionsthat "provemy poinr,"
and in fact you will noticethat I havealsoincludedsomecitarions
which do not seemro '!(prove my point"-for I am interestedfirst and
only in finding /ou theHoly Fathrs tho gbt on thcsequestions,
for lbe-
lievethat is the way we shouldthink also.May Christ our God bless
me to soeaktruthfullv.
The questionof "evolution"is an extremely importantone for Or-
thodoxChristians, for in it areinvolvedmanyquesrions whichdirectly
affectour Orthodoxdoctrineand outlook: the relativeworth of sci-
enceand 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 wis-
dom 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
 Crr:arroruaNr>Earu MaN
Gr:Ncsrs.
Beforeone beginsto discussthe question of evolution, one must
have a clear idea of what he is talking about. I say this becauseI have
had very surprisingexperiences with very learnedpeoplewho speakas
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€n-
tific." I assureyou rhat I havetried to do this, and throughout this let-
ter 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 ques-
tion ofevolution. But in turn I askyu to try very carefullyto cleanse
your mind of whateverpreconcep(ionsabout the questionsof evolu-
tion you may have-what you have learnedin school,what you have
read in sci entific books, what you may think about "anti-
evolurionisrs,"what Greek theologiansmay have said about the sub-
ject. Let us try to reasontogether,not in the manner of 'Westernra-
tionalists,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.
l. Philosopfu,
Not Fact
Firstofall, I agree with youwhenyousay:"Youmusrnot
enrirely
pure scienrrwirh the different philosophicaltheorieswrittcn ta
conFuse
382
f ue PerersrrcDoclnrNe or Ctr:xrron
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 evo-
lution. 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 reac-
tion 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 mod-
ern 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
Many of rhe argumenrs and ,,anti-
between"evolutionisrs"
evolurionisrs"
areuseless,for one basicreason:theyareusuallynor ar-
guing 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 text-
books 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 dis-
tinguish 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
process of creation "evolution"-but thi is not what the controuersl
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
CREATURF. INTO ANOTHER, "COMPLEX FORMS BEINC
DERIVEDITROMSIMPLERFORMS"tN A NATURALPROC-
ESSTAKINC COUNTLESS MILLIONSOF YEARS(Storer, 6ez-
eral Zoologi. Later on, when you talk about rhe "evolved beast"
Adam,you revealthatyou believein thisspecifcscientifctheoryalro.I
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 ...
and finalfy a perfectman." Of courseeuerlonebelieves this, whether he
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!
384
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 crea-
tures), and vcry many scientistsstare thar it is imposible to know by sci-
enct zthcthercuolution is true or not, becausetltereis 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 the-
ory 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 ac-
cordance wi t a diferent philosophical the<>ry.By pure sciencealone ir
is not possibleconclusivelyto prove or disprove the "faci' of evolu-
tion.
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."
3. Derclopment, Not Euolutiotr
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 uarie-
rlrs of organismsare developed,whether the "races"of man or differ-
ent 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 non-
scientific reasons)that one kind or speciesdevelopsinto anorher and
.]85
 CRt,cloN aNo Enntv M,rN
GsNesrs,
that all presenrcreaturesare the product of such a developmentfrom
one or a few primitive organisms.I believe that this is clearly the
teachingof St. Basilthe Great in rhe Hexaemeron, as I will now point
out.
In Homily 5:7 of the Hexaemeron, St. Basilwrites:
Let no onc,thercfore,who is livingin vicedespairof himself,know-
ing that, asagriculturcchanges rhe propertiesof plants,so thc dili-
gcnceof thesorrlin the pursuitofvirtue cantriumphoverall sortsof
infirmitics.
" will deny that the "prop-
No 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'
othcn and even more, rhat eueryspecieschangesinto another in an uuin'
tenupted chain back to the mostprimitiue organism. I will show below
whar St. Basilsayson this subject.
Again St. Basilwrites:
How then,rheysa1docsthc canhbringforth seeds of tlreparricular
kind, whcn, aftcr sowinggrain, wc frcquentlygathcr this black
wheatlI'his is nor a changcto anotherkind, but asit weresomedis-
eascand dcfcctof the seed.Ir hasnot ccasedto bc whcat,but has
beenmadcblackby burning.l
This passage would seemtoindicatethar St. Basildoesnot believein "a
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
Tns Parnrsrtcl)oclrrNe on Cncerroru
'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 elemen-
tary truth: modern science,uhen it dealswith scicntificfacx, doesin-
deedusuallyknow 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,
becauseit 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 pro-
ducesthe 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
preserveeach of the animalsby uninterrupted successions until the
consummationofthe universe.No length of timc causesthe specific
ofthe animalsro be corrupted or extinct, but, as ifes-
characteristics
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 par-
ticular importancein itself;I shalldiscussbelow other much more lm-
portant questions. lf it were really a scient$c fact rhar one kind of
.r.",ur...n be transformedinto another kind' I would have no diffi-
culry 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 butter-
fly) 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 ab-
sent from the text of Genesis,accordingto which eachcreatureis gen-
erated "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"
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 sacredScrip-
ture of Genesisrelates,that there was indeed an orderly creation in
388
THa ParrusrrcDoclnrrueor Cne_nrroN
stepsl but nouherein Genesisor in the wrirings of St. Gregory of
Nyssais ir stated that one hind of crearurewas transformedrnro an-
other 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 assum-
ing 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 dif-
ferent 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 hnowl-
edgeat all oftbc Six DaysofCreation. In any case,it is very rrbi,rrry ,o
identi$, rhe geologicalstratawith "periodsof creation."There are nu-
merous 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 be-
lieve you are making a seriousmistakein binding up your intcrprcra-
tion 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
389
 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 im-
portant 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:
The firstman,and rhe manborn from him, rcceived theirbeingin I
diffcrent way; the latter by copularion,theformerfom the moding of
ChristHimte$ andyet, rhoughtheyarethusbelicvcdto be rwo, rhey
are inseparablc in the definitionof rheirbeing,and are not consid-
eredasrwo beings.. . . 'fhe ideaof humaniryin AdamandAbeldoes
not varywith rhedifference oftheir origin,ncitherrheordcrnor rhe
mannerof their coming into cxistencemaking any diflcrenccin
rheirnature.t
And again:
That which reasons, and is mortal,and is capablcof thoughtand
knowledge, is called"man"equallyin rhecaseofAdam and ofAbel,
and this nameof the narureis not alteredcitherby the factthatAbel
passedinto existenceby generation,or by thc facr rhat Ad.zmdid so
witboutgcncration.6
Of courseI agreewith the reachingofSt. Athanasiuswhich you quote,
that "the first-createdman was made of dust like everyone,and the
390
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 becauschumanitydocsnot consisin dircctcrcation?For
thar which
is begottcnis ,rto human.ro
And St. John Damascene,whosetheologygivesconciselyrhe teaching
ofall the early Fathers,writes:
formation(of man)is called"crcation"and not ..gencra-
fhe earliest
rion." For "crcation"is thc origtnatJbrmationat God\ hani, while
"generarion"is the succession from eachorher madcneccssaryby rhe
scntenceofdeath imposcdon us on accountofthe transgression. Ir
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:
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 narureofgcn-
eration.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.
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 evolu-
tion pay artenrion ro rhis principle. Some peopleare so concernedro
combat Protestanrfundamentalismthat they go ro extremelengrnsro
refuteanyonewho wishesto interprerthe sacredrext of Genesis"liter-
ally"; but in so doing they neverrefer to St. Basilor other commenra-
tors 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
THe PerrrsrrcDocrntNr.or CnearloN
and easilyfall into acceptingour own "wisdom" in placeof the teach-
ing of the Holy Farhers.I firmly believe that the whole u)orA ou ook
and philosoph.yof life for an Orthodox Cbrixian may befound in the Holy
if we will listen to their teaching insteadof thinking we are
I'-atbers:
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 "lit-
eral" or "allegorical"interpretarions,and let us seewhat rhe Holy Fa-
tbersteachus 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
that watcris not water,bur someother nature,and they explaina
plantand a fishaccordingto their own opinion.Thcy describcalso
rhc producrionof reptilcsandwild animals,changiing it according
to
rheirown norions,justlike thedreamintcrpreters, who inrerpretfor
rhcir own endsrhe appcarances sccnin their dreams.When I hear
"grass,"I rhink ofgrass,and in thesamcmannerI undcrstand every-
thingasit is said,a plant,a fish,a wild animJ, andan ox. "lndccd,I
am not ashamcdof the Gospel.". . . SinccMoscsleft unsaid,asusc-
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
rathcrgivegloryto Him Vho hasnot kcprour mind occtrpied with
vaniriesbut hasordaincdtharall thingsbc writtcnfirr thc cdificarion
and guidanccofour s<.ruls? l-his is a thing of which rhcysccnrto mc
ro havebcenunawarc,who havcattcmptedby falscargumcntsand
allegoricalinterpretarions ro bcstowon rhc Scripturea digniry of
rhcir own imagining.But rheirsis rhe attitudeof onc wboconsiders
himse('uiserthan thc reuelationt of the Spiritand introduceshis own
ideasin pretcnseofan explanation.Therefbre,let h be understood as
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 under-
stand;it is ueryeagfor tbe "enlightened"modzrnman to do this, euenif he
is an OrthodoxChristian.Lrr us thereforetry all rhe harderto under-
standthe 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 Gene-
sisis that of St. Ephraimthe Syrian,His viewsareall the moreimpor-
tant 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 theac-
counr, to havebeencrearedin the courseofsix days,wascreatedin a
singleinstanr,and likewiserhat ccrtainnamespresented in this ac-
count eithersignif norhing,or signifrsomethingelse.On the con-
trary one must know thar just as the heavenand the earrhwhich
werecrearedin the beginningare actuallythe heavenand the earth St. Ephraim thc Syrian(306-372).
and nor somerhingelseundersrood underthe namesof heavenand Iconfom Meteora,Grctcc.
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
'Vlhenin thctwinhlingofan (Adam!)rib wasrakenout andlike-
Ee
forccof rhcscnames.It wisein an instantthefleshrookirs place,and the barerib took on
rhecompleteformandall thebeauryofa woman,thenGod ledner
Theseare still, ofcourse, generalprinciples;let us look now ar sev- andpresentcd herto Adam.rT
eral specificapplicationsby St. Ephraim ofthese principles.
It is quiteclearthat St.Ephraimreadsthebookof Genesis "asit is writ-
Alrhough borh rhc light and the cloudswerecrearedin tbc tuinhling ren"; when he hears"the rib of Adam' he understands "the rib of
ofan ey, still borh the day and the night of rhe First Day continued Adam," and doesnot understandthis as an allegoricalway of saying
for tweluehourscach,t6 somerhingelsealtogether. Likewisehe quiteexplicitlyunderstands the
Six Daysof Creationto be iuscsix days,eachwith rwenry-fourhours,
Again: which he dividesinto an "evening"and "morning" oftwelvehourseach'

394 195
 CENesrs,CnEArroNaln Eanly M-lr.r
I have deliberatelytaken the "simple" commenraryon Genesisof
St. Ephraim the Syrian, before quoting orher more "mystical" conr-
mentaries,becausethis "simple" understandingof Genesisis the most
offensiveto the "enlightened"modern mind. I suspectthat most Or-
thodox Christianswho are not well read in the Holv Farherswill im-
mediatelysay:"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 sec-
ondary 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 under-
stand 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 under-
stand, 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
396
'fnr Parllsllc Dor:r'rrltt tlr Cnr^artoN
speakabout the creationof stars,plants,animalsand man we do not
speakabout miracles-we do not speakabout the extraordinaryinter-
ventionsofCod in creationbut about the'natural'course ofcreation."
I wonder if you are not substitutinghere some "modern wisdom" lor
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 Damas-
cene (and indeed all the Fathers)teach that the first man Adam ap-
peared in a way diferent fom the nlltural gcneration of all other men;
likewisethe first creatures,accordingto the sacredrext of Cenesis,ap-
peared 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
f)ays.
In speakingof the l'hird Day of Creation,St. Basilsays:
At this sayingall the dcnsewoodsappearcd; all the trecsshorup....
Likewisc,all thc shrubswereimmediateQ thick with lcafand bush;
and thc so-called garlandplants... all cameinto existencc in a mo'
mentol'timc,althoagh thry wctenot upon
prcuiotts te earth,'"
Again, he says:
"Lcr the earrhbring fbrth." This brief commandwasimmediately
a
mighw natureand an elaboratc systemwhich broughtto perfectton
nore swifly than our thougbt 1ecountlcsspropcrriesofplanrs.to
Again,on theFifthDay:
397
 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 va-
riery of birds,that it is impossibleevenro 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
' RecenrlyDr. JonarhanVells, a molccularbiologisr,hasfurthcrclucidared Sr.
Basilt tcachingon the Six Daysof Crearion,rhus refuringthoscwho would rry ro
mekcthis tcachingcornpatiblc wirh evolurionism.Quoring fronr Sr. Basil'.s
Haraa,
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 crc-
atcd lighr, rhcn llc crcatedrhc firmament.''fhc warcrswerc inirially'scarrered in
many places,'and camerogerheronly aftcr God said,'Lcr rhc warersundcr rhe
hcavenbe gatlrcred unto oneplacc.'Andrheearthrenrained 'unfinishcd'after
irs ini-
tial 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 theJeGod-
bearingHoly 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 arequiteprecisein
theirteaching.I havequotedSt. Ephraim,who says:"ft is likewiseim-
permissible ro sayrharwharseems, accofdingto rhe accounr,ro have
beencreatedin the courseof sixdays,wascreatedin a singleinstant."
Vith this in mind, let us look at the passageyou 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 un-
derstandthem in the senseof rhe moderndoctrineof evolution.But
cerrainlyit is not properro readinto theseancienttextsrhe conclu-
sionsof modernphilosophy! HereSt.Gregoryof Nyssais surelyreach-
ing 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 unut-
tcrabfe 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
Sr.JohnChrysosrom
andSr.GregoryrheThcologian.
Iconb7Monk Thcopbancs
tbeCrctan,Stavronihiu
Monatcry MountAthos,tixtccnthccnnarr.
what do I say,in a singledayi-in a singleinstant.But sinceHe cre-
ated 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
400
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 enrerchambcrsal-
readypreparedfor him. Prcciselythus did God now, intending ro
placeas it werea king and masterover everythingearthly,at first ar-
rangeall 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 in-
definitely 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 "Chris-
tian evolutionists,"viewing God's creationsas "immediate" and "sud-
den," regarded the Six Days as being precisely of twenry-four-hours'
durarion; for he says,regarding the First Day:
"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.'}
' 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 Scriprurccs-
rablishcda 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.
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
fact thatthcseuenthdzyafer it isSanday,because it is rhedayofre-
posefromworks),soalsothe sccondcreationbeginsagainwith rhe
samedayIi.c.,thedayof Resu rrection].21
And againthe Theologiansays,givingthe Patristicviewofrhe kind of
world into whichAdamwasplaced:
The Vord, havingtakena pan of thenewlycreatcd
carth,wirh His
immorralhandsformedmy image....2('
As I havesaid,I do not regardthis questionasone of the firsrim-
portancein discussing the questionof evolution;but it is nevertheless
quite symptomaticof the influenceof modernphilosophyon them,
that "Christianevolutionists" are so anxiousro reinterpret theseSix
Daysso asnot to appearfoolishbeforethe "wise men"of this world,
who have"provedscientiOcally'' that whatever"crearion"rherewas
took placeovercountless millionsof years.Most importantly,rhe rea-
sonwhy "Christianevolutionists" havesuchdifficulrybelievingin the
Six Daysof Creation,which gaveno problemro the Holy Fathers,is
becausethey do not understandwhat happenedin thoseSix Days: rhey
believethat long naturalprocesses of development weregoingon, ac-
cordingto the lawsofour presen( corruptworld;but in actualfacr,ac-
cording to rhe Holy Farhers,the natureof thatfrst-crcateduorld was
quitedifferentfom our tuorld,asI will show below.
Let us look now morecloselyat anotherbasicPatristiccommen-
tary 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 inrerprerarionof rhe texr as it is
turitten.Like the other Fathers,he tellsus thar Adam was formedliter-
allyfom dust,and Eveliterallyfom Adam'srl&. He writes:
402
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,
arc rhcreso many thingsof difFerenr qLraliries?"lb this theycannot
evenopcn their mouths(to reply).'7
And againSr.John Chrysostomwrires:
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 evenun-
til 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 riversofPara-
dise:
Perhapsone who lovesto speakfrom his oun wisdomherealsowill
403
 Cne,rtroNANDEARLY
GeNpsrs, MAN
nor allow that rhe riversare actuallyrivers,nor that thc watersare
preciselywaters,but will instillin thosewho allowthemselves ro lis-
ten to thcm, that they (undcr rhe namesof riversand waters)repre-
senredsomcthingelse.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
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 intro-
ducesomethingebcJlom 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 Chry-
sostomsaysrepeatedly,"in a God-befitting manner." For example,St.
John Chrysostomwrites:
'When
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)
404
Txr Parnlsrrc Docrnrrueop CnranoN
St. John of Damascus, in his work On Heresies,explicitly describesthe
allegoricalinrerpretationof Paradiseto be parr ofa heresy,that of rhe
Origenians:
TheycxplainParadise,
rheheaven,
andcvcrythingclsein an allcgorr-
calscnse.li
But what, then, arewe ro undersrandofthose Holy Fathersofpro-
fbund spiritual life who interpret the book of Genesisand other Holy
Scriptures in a spiritual or mysrical sense?Ifwe ourselueshad not goneso
far auay fom the Patristic underxanding of Stipnre, this uouU present
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,"in-
variably misunderstand this very important point. Any Orthodox
Christianwho /rzssin the tradition of the Holy Farhersknows that when
a Holy Fatherinterpretsa passage of Holy Scriprurespirituallyor alle-
gorically, 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 The-
ophany,writes concerningthe liee of Knowledge:
The treewas,accordingro my view,Conrcmplation,upon which it
is only safefor thosewho havcreachedmaturiry of habit to enrer.35
This is a profound spiritual interprerarion,and I do not know of
any passagein this Father! writings where he saysexplicitly that this
405
 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 com-
pletely "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 ques-
tion 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 Fa-
thers. 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 for-
eign 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 Or-
thodox and in harmony with the whole Patristicteaching.I am sure
that you agreewith me on this principle and that you will not be sur-
prised 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'hessa-
lonica.
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. Greg-
ory 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 exis-
tenceof 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-
templarionconsidcrcd it asa symbolof this "contemplation" 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 haucreatQex-
t<thavcbccn invented"symbolically"?
istcd,l:>ur And could not Perer,
for one who would wish ro eleyatehimselfin contemplation, be-
comca symbolof faith,Jamesof hope,andJohnof lovclr6
It would be possibleto mulriply such quotationswhich show wnat
the Holy Farhersactually raught about the interpretation of Holy
Scripture,and in particularof the book of Genesis;but I havealready
presentedenough ro show that the genuine Patristicteachingon this
subject presentsgravedifficulties for one who would like to interpret
the book of Genesisin accordancewith modern ideasand "wisdom,"
and indeed the Patristic interpretation makesit quite impossiblerc har-
monize the accountof Genesiswirh the theory ofevolution, which re-
quiresan entirely "allegorical"interpretationof the texr in many places
where the Patristicinterpretationwill nor allow this. The docrrine thar
Adam was creared,nor from rhe dust, but by developmentfrom some
other creature,is a novel teachingwhich is enrirely foreign to Ortho-
dox Christianiry.
407
 Grxrsrs, CnEerroru
,qxoEanly Mar
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 Fa-
thers 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 in-
spiredwork of cosmogonyand rheology.The interpretationof rhe Di-
vinely 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 crea-
tion 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 facrsde-
scribedin 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 wrir-
ten," while believing in the rest of the Six Days' Crearion in accor-
dance with "evolutionary science"; while another "Orthodox
evolutionist" might acceptrhe "evolution" of man himself from lower
crearures,while specilying that Adam, the "first-evolvedman," ap-
pearedonly in very recenttimes (in the evolurionarytime scaleof "mil-
40ti
THr P,rrusrrc Docrruut or CnrarIoN
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 regard-
ing borh man and the resrofcreation.
If you can explain to me how one can acceptthe Patristicinterpre-
rarion 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 ex-
tremely weak.
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 haveal-
readysaid, 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 crea-
ture! Surely if this is rhe case,the God-inspired Fatherswould have
known about it, and we would not havehad to wait for the atheisrphi-
losophersof the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturiesto discoverthis
and tell us about it!!
No. the Holv Frathersbelievedrhat the whole crearion fell with
409
 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 ani-
mals,sinceanimalshavebeencreatedbeforeAdam?Ve know rhatani-
malsdied,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.t-
What 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 ,.old-
crearionists"(who do nor believein cvolurion prr rr lrur acccpt the
earrh/progrcssive
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
carechesisfor 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 dif-
lcrcnt 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 rhou-
sand 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, Ad-
am's fall had a rctroaoiue effeq on lll rhe other crcarurcs; rhus, "animals werc in cor-
ruprion 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 sug-
gest that Adam would learn about death by seeingrhe dearh of ani-
mals-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 defi-
nitely 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,con-
trary to God: plan for them? The Divine servicesof the Orrhodox
Clrurch contain many moving passages of kmentation abot rhe "cor-
rupted creation,"aswell asexpressions of joy that Christ by His Resur-
recrion 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
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-
sostomwfltes:
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 animalsweresub-
ject 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 im-
mediatelyon seeinghim would havebeen terrified and run away.
But behold, she conversesand is nor afraid;thercuat not yct thcn
anyfear)8
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
4tz
l'ur Pnlrrsrrc Doclnrrur or Crearror
animals were different from what they now are?Similarly, St. John
Damascenetells us that
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
wascomparedto senselcss beasts and wasbccomelike to thcm" .. .
then tbe creationnbject to him roseup agaiut tb* rulcr appointedb1
the Crcator.)')
Perhapsyou will objecrthat in rhe sameplaceSt. John Damascenealso
says,speakingof the creationof animals,"Everything w:rsfor the suit-
abfe use of man. Of the anima.ls,somewcreforfood, such asdeer,sheep,
gazelles,and rhe like." But you must readthis passageiz context:for at
the cnd of this paragraphwe read (just asyou havenoted thar God cre-
ated man male and Femaleforcknowing Adam's transgression):
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 cor-
ruprcd 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 vi-
sion. In rhe Russian Phitohalia he writes:
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
4t3
 GENssrs,
CpearloneNu Eanly MeN
had becorncsubjectro corruprion(Rom.8:20).He Vho rcnewed
and sanctifiedAdam hasrencwcdthc crearionalso,bur He hasnor
yerdeliveredit from corruption.al
Further,the sameFathergivesus remarkabledetailsabout the state
of the creation(in parricular,Paradise)beforeAdam'srransgresslon:
Edenis a placcin which thercwasplanredby God evcrykind of fra-
grantplant. Ir is neithercomplctelyincorruprible, nor entirelycor-
ruptiblc. Placedbetuee/tcorn4ptioxand 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 nor-
mal 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 Scrip-
rure teachesus rhar "God made not death"(Wisdom I : l3), and St. John
Chrysostomteachesthat
just as the creaturebccamecorruptiblc tuheryour bodl becantecor-
ruqtible,so alsowhen your body will be incorrupt, rhe crearurealso
wifl follow afrer ir and bccomccorrespondingro it (Homilicson Ro-
mans).o'
And Sr. Macariusrhe Grear says:
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
414
Tss ParrusrrcDoclnrNe clsCnuxrrclN
'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;
Thc words and decreesof God becomerhe law of naturc.Therefore
alsothe decrceof God, utteredby Him asa resultof the disobcdi-
enccofthe first Adam-thar is, the decrceto him ofdeath and cor-
ruprion-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 revealedsome-
thing besideswhat is in the Scriptures.And this brings me to another
extremelyimportant questionraisedby evolution.
6. Diuine Vision
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 sci-
ence nor discoversuch a thing? Sinceyou are a lover of the Holy Fa-
thers, 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
4t5
 CeNesrs,
CnrarroNeNo EenryMaN
own experience a/l ln describinghow the soul is enrapturedat the
thought of the future ageof incorruprion, St. Isaacwrires:
And from this one is alreadyexaltedin his mind to rhat which pre-
cededthecomposition 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 ofuisi-
ble things,"(4) the condescensionof the Word (the Incarnarion),(5)
the universalresurrection,(6) the SecondComing of Christ, (7) eter-
nal torments, (8) the eternal Kingdom of Heaven.ot\Vhy should the
"compositionofvisible things" be included rogerherwirh the other ob-
jects 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 hnoul-
edge,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,bri-
dled thc burning powerof fire and passedunharmedrhroughirs
4t6
Tne Prrrusrtc DocrprNt op Cnlrrroru
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 capabili-
tiesof 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 ofearrhlydoingandvainsubmis-
sionto 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 treasuresof faith canbe containedneitherby rhc hcavennor by
the earth.ae
Do you now seewhat is at srakein the argument berweenthe pa-
tristic 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 be-
tween tlue revelation and. mtc natural knowledge. Bur there raz be
conflict berweenrevelation and human ph ilosophy, which is ofren in cr-
ror. There is rhus no conflict berweenrhe knowledeeof creationcon-
rained in Genesis,as interpreredfor us by the Hoi-y Fathers,and rhe
rrar knowledge ofcreatures which modern sciencehas acquired by ob-
servation;but theremost cerrainlyis an irreconcilableconflicr berween
the knowledge contained in Genesisand the rain pbilosophicalspecuk-
tions of modern scientists, anenlightcned by
faitb, about the state of'the
world in the Six Days of Creation. Where rhere is a genuine conflici be-
rween 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
scientifc philosophers. become so infected by vain
modern philosophy posingasscienrrthat very few, even among Ortho-
dox Christians,are willing or able to examinerhis questiondispassion-
ately 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, al-
ready 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 scientificphi-
losophy.Most "surprising"ofall, perhaps,is the fict that rhe Holy Fa-
thers 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 philoso-
phers;but it is clearhow much more profound is the true Patrisricin-
rerpretationthan that of the fundamentalists,on the one hand, who
haveneverevenheardof Divine vision and whoseinterpretationsome-
times 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 specula-
tions 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 genera-
418
-fnr PrrrusrrcDocrnrNsor Cnsa:ron
tion."'" Vhat doesthe OrthodoxClhrisrian saywhen a modernunoc-
Iiever,under the influenceof modernnaturalisticphilosophy,insists
rhat such "incorruption"is "impossible,"and demandsthat Chris-
tiansbelieveonly what canbe provedor observed by science?
Doeshe
not hold to his faith, which is a revealed
knowledge.in spiteof,\ti-
ence"and itsphilosophy? Doeshe nor indeedtell this pseudoscienri
rhar he cannotposibly hnow or understandthisfact of inconupnon,n-
asmucltas 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 understandingthe wholedoctrineofthe Or-
thodox 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 al-
legorically,
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
with the one and wirh the other-both with rightness
of dogmas,
andstrictnessof life.tr
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
processes which are too "minute" for contemporaryscientistsro see).If
you will examinethis questionobjectivelyand dispassionarely, separat-
ing genuine euidence fom suppositionsand phitosophy,you will see,I be-
lieve, that there is no 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. Sy-
meon the New Theologian. In his 45th Homily (Russianedition),
speakingfrom Patrisrictradition and probablyalsofrom his own expe-
rience,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
Tur Prtnrsrrc DoclnrNe or Cnrnrroru
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 wasban-
ishedfrom Paradise, no longerwishedro submirto him the trans-
gressor.... But God restrained all thesccrearures by His power,and
in His compassion and goodness He did nor allow them immedi-
ately to rush againstman, and He commandedrhat rhe crearion
should rcmain in submissionto him and, hauingbccomccorruptiblc,
shouldscrvecorruptibleman for whom it wascrcated,with the in-
tentionthat when man shouldagainbe renewedand becomespiri-
tual, incorrupt,and immortal,and the whole creation,which had
beensubjected by God ro man in bondageto him, shouldbc dcliv-
eredfrom 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 crca-
tures,But asin the beginning,frst thc wholecreationwascreatedin-
corntpt, 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 becomcin-
corrupt,that againthc wholeman might be incorruprand spiritual
zt,t I
 C eNrsts,Cnr,altoN,qNo EIRLy M,\N
and that he might dwcll il an incorrupr, cternal and spiritual
dwelling.. . . Do you scc rhar this whole creation in the bcginning uat
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 begin-
ning. 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 im-
materialand spirirualdwelling, far abovecvery organ of setrsc.5z
Could there be any clearer teaching of the state of the first-created
of Adam?
world befbrethe transgression
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 evo-
lution 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 regard-
ing man'snature and Divine grace,and now I shall attempt to show
rhat the theologicalview of man'snature which is implied in the the-
ory of evolution, and which you have explicitly set forth in your let-
rcl is not the Orthodox view of man, but is much closer to the
Roman Catholicview; and this is only a confirmation of the fact rhat
the theory of evolution, far from being taught by any Orthodox Fa-
rher, is simply a producr of the Westcrnapostatementaliry and even,
despitethe fact rhat it originally was a "reaction"againstRoman Ca-
422
'I'ss Prrnrsnc DocrtrNa op Cpe,rrror.r
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 haveob-
tained,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,rheo-
logicalknowledge.
-I'his Patristicview is very well set forth by the
grearhesychastFa-
rher, St. Gregory Palamas,who was forcedto defend Orthodox theol-
ogy 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:
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 na-
ture,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
in the eyeof the soula penetrating view.But it is bad for one who
giveshimselfover to this study in order to remainin it unril old
age.to
Further, even
if one of rhe Fatherssaysthe samerhingasdo thosefrom without,
thc concordznccis only uerbal, the tbought being quite dffirent. The
former,in facr,have,according to Paul,'ihe mind of Chrisi' (l Cor.
2:16),while the lamerexpress at besta human reasoning. "fu the
heavcnis distantfrom theearth,so is My thoughrdistanrfrom your
thoughi' (ls. 55:9),saiththc Lord. Besides, evenif the thinkingof
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 certaintcach-
5"
ing on the subjectof God. For "God harhmadeit foolish."
And this knowledgecan also be harmful and fight againsttrue theol-
ogy:
The powerof rhis reasonwhich hasbeenmadefoolishand noncxisr-
ent cntersinto battb againstthoscuho acceptthc taditiont in simplic-
ity ofheart: it dupisestbe uritingt of'thespirit, afcr the cxam?leof mcn
who havetreand tltem carclesy and hauctet up thc cr.^ion againstthe
Creator.tT
Therecouldhardlybe a betteraccountthan this ofwhat modern
"Christianevolutionists" wiser
havetriedto do by thinkingthemselves
424
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 mod-
ern 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
scientifically?
I havealreadyspokenin this letterof the dubious natureof the sci-
enrific 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 wrir-
ings 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 phi-
losophers'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 phi-
losophy; 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 philoso-
phy 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.
425
 Gerursrs,
CnexlroN,qNoEaRr_y
MrN THe Parrtsllc DocrnINeor CnsrrIoru
'l'hescientificfossil
evidence for the,,evolution of man,'consists of: 'l-eilhardde Chardin was also connectedwirh the discoveryand
Neanderthal Man (manyspecimens); pekingMan (several skulls);rhe thoue all tbe interPretatiznof some of the finds of "Java Man," which
"men"calledJava,Heidelberg, piltdown (unril menry yearsago),
and rvcrc fragmentary. ln fact, ever)'rvherehe went he found "evidence"
rherecerrtfindsin Africa:all extre-mely
liagmr,rtary: fr* otf,er frag_ tt,hirh exactll matchedhis expectationJ--{amely,that man has "evolved"
ments. The totdl;/itsil euidence ^nri ^
for the 'buolutiotiof man" couldbe coi- liom ape-likecreatures.
tainedin a boxthesizeofa cofin, andit is from widelyseparated partsof If you will examineobjectivelyall the lossilevidencefor the "evo-
the earth,with no reliableindicarionof evenrektiue(muchless,,abso- 0r euen
lrrtion of man," I believeyou will find that thereis no conclusiue
Iute") age,and uith no indicntionwltateuerof hou thcsedifferent.men,,
rrmotely reasonableruidencewhateuerfor this "euolution."The evidence
wereconnected with eachother whetherby descentor kins'hip. men want to belieue
is befievedto be prooffor human evolution because
Further,one of these"evolurionary ancesrors of man,.'.,lriltdown tbis; they belieue in a phihsophy that requiles that man elzlued fom ape'
Man," was discoveredrwenry yearsago ro have been a daliberate NeanderthalMan is simply "Homo sapiens,"no tliffer-
like creatures.
faud. Now it is an interestingfacrthaiTbilhardde Chardinwas azr cnt lrom modern man than modern men aredifferent from eachother'
of the "discouerers"of "Pihdoun Man"-a fact which you will not find l variation within one definite kind or species.*Pleasenote that the
in mosr rexrbooks or in biographies oI him. He ,.discouered" the ca_ 2lrrrrrs of NeanderthalMan in evolutionarytextbooksare the lnven-
nine rooth of this fabricare6l 6162su1s-3tooth which had already idca of uhat'?rimitiue man" must
rion of artists tulto hauea preconceiued
beendyedwirh rhe inrent to causedeceprionregardingits agewhen
hauelookedlihe, basedon evolutionary philosophy!
he found it! I do nor havethe evidence ro sayth;r ltil-hardde Char- I havesaid enough,I believe,not ro show that I can "disprove"the
din consciously parricipated in fraud;Ithink ir morelikelvrhat he "cvolution of man" (for who can proue or disproueanlthingwith such
wastlre victim of the actualperperraror of rhe fraud, and tharhe was fragmentaryevidence?l),but to indicate that we must be very critical
s1 tofnd prooJ'forthe "euolutionof'man,'in uhich be already
lnxio.tts indeed of the biased interpretationsof such scanry evidence.Ler us
belieued rharhe simply did nor pay any arrentionro the anatomical
lcave it to our modern pagansand their philosophersto become ex-
difficultieswhich this crudelyfabricared ,,man"
prcsenred ro any ob- cited with the discoveryof every new skull, bone' or even a single
jectiveobservcr. And yet in evolurionary rexrboolsprintedbefbrethe rooth, about which newspaperheadlinesdeclare:"New Ancestor of
discoveryof the fraud,PiltdownMan is acceptedasan evolutionary
Man Found." This is not even the realm of vain knowledge;it is the
ancesrorof man u.,ithout question; his ,,skull',is evenillustrared(even realm of modtrn fables and fairy tales,of a wisdom which truly has be-
thoughonly fragmentsofa craniumhad beendiscovered); and it is come astonishinglyfoolish.
confidentlystatedthat "he combineshumancharacteristics with orh-
ers far rcrarded" (Tracy I. Storer,GencralZootogt, l95l). This, of
* Many cvolurionists havecome to thc conclusiont\x Homoereclus als<;ltc-
course,is jusr what is requiredfor a,,missinglink; berweenman and
longswithin rhcspecies Homo npient For cxample , Villirrm S. hughlin (Univcrsity
aperand thar is why rhe piltdown fratd wascomposed preciselyofa andAleurs,notcdthc manysimilariries be-
,,IConnccticur),in studyingthe Eskirnos
mixtureof humanand apebones. r*een rhcsclrcoplesand rhc Asian Homo ercctutpcople (Sinatthroput\. He concludes
Sornerime larerrhissameTeilhardde Chardinparticipared in rhe his study:"Vhen we find that significantdiffcrences havedevelopcd, overa short
discovery,and aboveall in the "interpretarion,"of ,,peling Man.,, rinrespan,bcrwecnclosely relarcd and contiguous pcoples' as in Alaska and (irecn-
Thanksto his "interpretarion" land. and when wc considcr rhe vasrdifferenccsrhar cxist bcrwccn renro(eSrouP
(for by thenhe hadestablished i..ou,._
tion asone of the world'sleadingpaleontologists), ,,peking suchas Flskimos and Bushmen,who arc known to belongto thc singlespecics of
Man'i also Homosapiens, it sccms justifiableto concludc rhtt Sinanthtopus bclongswithin this
enteredevolurionary texrbooks asan ancesror ofman.... samediversespccies" \Scicte 142,Nov 8, 1963,p. 644J.-Eo.

426 427
 GrNrsrs, CnaalroN eNo Eenry MaN
Vhere doesthe C)rrhodoxChristian turn if he wishesto learn rhe
true doctrine ofthe creation of rhe world and man? St. Basil tells us
clearly:
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 latcraccounral-
waysovcrthrewthe prccedingone. As a consequence, thercit nonced
for us to refutetheir tuords:
thry auail rnuna/ly for their ou,rttotdoing5s
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.
examinethe structureof the world and contemplate the wholc unr-
verse, 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.@
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 ex-
pressthis doctrine lz order to defendthe idza ofeuolution.
When setting forrh your view of man'snature, basedon your ac-
ceptanceof 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
428
Tur- Plrr.rsnc Doc'lnrNr or CnrarroN
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"hu-
man 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 hu-
ntan 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 na-
ture, is the RomanCatholic,not rhe Orthodox, reaching.
'l'he Orthodox doctrine of hunran nature is ser forth mosr
con-
ciselyin 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 Ortho-
dox monk is given, and it rcmainshis constantcompanion for the rest
of his life, ro be readand re-read.It is mosr significanrrhat the Ortho-
dox 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:
In thc bcginning,whcn God createdman (Gen.2:20), He placed
hirn in Paradiseand 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 trans-
gressed the commandment, eatingthe fruir ofthc treeof which God
hadcommandedhim not ro tasre,then hc wasbanishedfrom Para-
dise(Gcn. 3),fall awayfon tbe nahtrdlcondition,andfell into a con-
dition againstnanra, and then hc remainedin sin, in loveofglorl in
lovefor the enjoymenrs ofthis ageandofother passions, and he was
42t)
 GnNgsrs,Crllrlou 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 rrusr-
ing 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 ob-
serveis not naturalto aJ,bur hasbeencorrupted:
Healing humannanre, whichhad becomccornrptedby the ancicnt
transgrcssion,without corruption a child is born anew (Menaron,
Dec. 22, Marins, Thcotokion of the Sixrh Canricleof the Canon).
430
THr: Pxrnrslrc Doclnrnr oF CRF-{'roN
And again:
'fhc Crearor and Lord, desiring to savefrom coffrtption tbe cor-
ruptedbuman nature,havingcomc to dwell in a womb cleanscdby
rhc Holy Spirit,is unutterablyformed(Menaion,Jan.23, Theoto-
kion of thc SixthCanticleof thc Canonof Marins).
k can be nored in such hymns also that our whole Orthodox concep-
rion of the Incarnation of Christ and our salvationthrorrgh Him is
bound up w|rh a proper understandingof human nature as it uas n the
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 ofhu-
man narureas it is notu in thisfalbn uorU, is incofiect, is not according
ro rhe reachingofthe Holy Fathers.Perhapsit is a resultofcarelessex-
pressionon your part-but I believe it is probably preciselybecaase you
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 in-
deedexpressby sayingthat "man is nor naturallyth e imageofGod"l or
'The evolutionaryworldvicw,as we havcsccn,holds rhat "therc is no such
rhing asa fixed'hunran nature"' (ShereHite, I'hc Hie Rcportot the Famit). Man
hasrhe samenatureas the animals(rhe"singlcfilamcnr"positcdby Erasmrrs Dar-
win), and thisnaturcis constantly evolving.Sinccnranis no morcthanan animal,hc
is, like thc animals,whollysubjccrto environmental conditioning.That is why "hu-
man narurc"in rhis vicw and can bc changcd("cvolvcd")at
is infinirelymallcablc,
will by rhc rcarrangemcnr Sucha view is,ofcourse,toralirarian
ofsocialinstiturions.
in its narurc,as hastrcn secnin all politicalatrcmptsto enlorceir, cversincerhe
FrenchRevolution.As Robert H. Bork remarks,"Sinceactualhumansrcsisrar-
temprsto rcmakerhcir natures,cocrcionand, ultinrately, violenccwill bc required"
(SlouchingtowardsGomotab,p. 27\. (Secabove,p. 323 n.)-Eo.
431
 Crrvrsrs,
Cnalrroru
,rnoEnnlyMeN Tue Parrrs'rIcDocrnrNr or CnurIoN

ar best(sinceI rhink that you do not reallybelieverhis,beingOrtho-

dox),you dividehumannarurearrificiallyinro rwo parts;that which is
from "nature"and thatwhich is from God. Bur the true Orthoooxan-
thropologyteachesthat 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
Ve haue naturally tbe uirtucsgiuen to us b1 God. For whcn God cre-
ated man, He sowed virtues in him, as also He said: "Let us crcarc iti:
man in our imagc and likcness"(Gen. l:26). lr is said: "[n our im- ,:::;,:,:
age," inasmuchasCod crearcdthe soul immorral and with authoriry
over irself,and "in our likencss,"rcferring to virtues.... 81 nature
,ilt:ii:,:
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 Sr.JohnCassian the Roman(ca.35G435).
love of plcasure,having inclincd away from virtues, insrills rhe pas- Icon b1Archinandritc Cypriaa of HolT TrinitT
Monatcery,Jordaxtillc, Ncw York
sionsin 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
wouldnor havcsaidthisifthcy couldnot havediscerncd whatis;trst
St. John Cassian, who rhus refured the error ofBlessed Augustine, who
b1 tbeir ndrutal rearoz.Thereforeone should not think that human
indeedbelievedrhat man aparrfrom God! gracewas"noihingat all."
narureis caprblconly of evil."'
St.Cassianreaches
in his ThirteenthConference:
"he
That rhc hunran racc aficr the fall a*ually did nor losc rhe knowl- Likcwise,with regardto the righteoLrs Job,St. Cassianaskswhether
cdgc of good is affirmed by rhe Aposrle,who says:"When rhe Gen- conqueredthe varioussnaresof the enemyin this battle aPartfrom his
tiles, who have not the law, do bJ natule tllote tbings that are of thc
ofGod's grace'''and he answers:
own virtue, but only with the assistance
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). him by his ownpower Howcver,thc graccof God also
Job conquercd
did not abandonJob;lestthc tcmptcrburdenhim with temptations
And again: 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 Again, with regardro the PatriarchAbraham:

432 433
 CeNesrs,
Cnr.a'r'roN
nNn F,rtl.yMnN
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
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 Parrisricevi-
dencethat 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,show-
ing how man b-yhis constitutionstands berween rwo worlds, and is free
to follow whicheverside of his nature he will:
I dcrnor understandhow I bccamejoincdro thebodyarrdhow,bcing
tbeimageoJ'God,| \ccanc mixcdwirh dirr.... Vhat wisdomis re-
vealedin 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 orherwrit-
ingscoshowrh: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
Tur Prrnrsrrc DoclnrNr or Cnr-erroN
ceedingfrom above,might not be haughryand exalt ourselvcsbe-
causeof 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 im-
mensely 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
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 mod-
crn philosophy and evolurionism,is trying to turn himself into a sub-
human 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 interprera-
tion 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 "Conversa-
tion" in the Russianlanguagein which it was spoken (for the pre-
revolutionaryedition 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
St.Scraphim
ofSarov, (1759-1833).
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 preservcdblame-
lessat 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,how-
evcr pcrfcct he had beencrearedand superiorto a.llthe other crea-
ruresof 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
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"actu-
ally 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:
If oncof theFathcrssaystbcnmc thingasdo those fom without,thc
concordancc k only ucrbal,thc thoaghtbcing quitc difercnt. The
former,in fact,have, ro Paul,"rhemindofChrisi'(l Cor
according
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 clearteach-
ing 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 zorcontra-
dicting thosemany other Holy Farherswho speakof human natureas
' Herc wc havccorrcctcdsomcmisrakcsin rhe Englishrranslarion.(Thc rransla-
rion that Dr. Kalomiros uscd as his source had nor bccn done by Fr Scn-
ohim.)-En.
437
 Cr:Npsrs.CrearroN eNn E,rnry MaN
merely"souland body";he is merelymakinga distinctionberween dif-
ferentaspects 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
profoundandprecise interpretation ofthis passage from Scripture.But
is he actuallymakingrherationalistic distinctionwhichyou makebe-
tweenthe 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
that is why rationalistscholars find so many"contrxdictions" between
differentOrthodoxFathers on this subject,aswill be clearfrom a sin-
gle example:Doesimmortalitybelongto the human soulby natureor
bygrace? Di|ferent Orthodox Fatherswho areo[ eqrsalauhoriry ansuer
differentlyon rhis question,not because thry teachdifferentlyahoutman
anclthus "contradict" eachother, but becausethel approachtbe ques-
tionfom differentsides.Thosewho approachthe questionof mani na-
ture 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
in the beginning, view the soul ratheras immortalby nature.It may
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 essenceof his nanre thc liability to passionand to dcath."-' Does
thisereatFather"contradici'himself?Of coursehe doesnot.
' 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 .
438
-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 Di-
vine 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 sa-
rred nana ueofGenerL thispoint.
Fortunarely for w, this ueryquestionuas raisedand ansueredby the
Ho! Fathers.-fhisansweris summed up for us by St. John Damas-
cene:
Fromrhecarth(God)formcdhis bodyand by His own inbreathrng
gavchim a rationaland undersrandingsoul,which lastwe sayis the
divinc imagc.... The body and thc soul uerc formcd at thc nmc
time-not onebeforeand the otherafieru,ards,
as rhe ravingsof Ori-
genwouldhaveit.7:r
Herelet us be sureagainthat we understandthat although St. John
speaksoFthe inbreathingofGod as the soul,he doesnot reacha <loc-
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 undzrstoodasbeingpresentin thetaholepro-
cessof 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
rreatisewith the words:
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,
jux ar it is taughtby modern"Christianeuolutionists. "This hercsywas
specificallyrefuted by 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 intimarelycon-
necredwith grace,and is prodtrcedby ir in rhcsamewayasa movcmenrofarr rspro-
duccd 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
might not bc without brcathandmotion,andthateverything thar is
madefor somerhing elseissurelylessprccious rhantharfor whichrt rs
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 beingcon-
siting of souland body,weare to suppotethat the beginningof bis exis-
tenccis 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 n-
uentedwasto account for the universe on the assumption that God ei-
ther does not exist or is incapabb of reating in six days or bringing tlte
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
 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
other passages in the same "Conversationwith Motovilov" which re-
veal that St. Seraphimviewed the creationand nature ofAdam lz 2rr-
cise$ 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 rranslat-
ing directly from the Russianoriginal):
Adrtm wascreatedto suchan extantimmune to tbt action ofeueryoncof
theelements crcatedb1 God,rharneithercould waterdrown him, nor
fireburn him, nor couldtheearrhswallowhim up in its abysscs, nor
could the air harm him by its actionin any way whatsoever. Evcry-
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!
Again, shortly after this passage,St. Seraphimsays:
'fo Evcalsothe Lord God gavcthc samewisdom,strength,and un-
limiredpower,andall the othergoodand holy qualities.And He cte-
ated her notliom tbe dust of tbeground but fom Adam'srib in *e
Men of delight,in the Paradisc which He had plantedin the midst
of the earrh.77
Do you believein this creationof Eve from Adam'srib as an historical
farr asall the Holy Fathersdo?No, you cannor,becausefrom the point
442
Tur Prrnrslrc DocrnrNeor CnmrtoN
,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 mira-
Let us look now specificallyat the Orthodox Patristicview of the
bodyol Ftst-createdAdam, which according to rhe evolutionary doc-
trine had to be corruptible like the corruptible world from which it
"cvolved,"and might even have been, as you state,entirely that of an
xPe.
'l'he Holy Scripture explicitly teaches: "God createdman incorrapti-
b/e" ('Wisdom 2:23).
St. Gregory the Sinaiteteaches:
'I'heboQ, theologianssry, wascreatedincorruptibb,which is how rt
will arise,justasthe soulwascreatedpassionless; but justasthe soul
had rhe frccdom to sin, so t}r bodyhad thepotsibilityto become
sub-
ject to conuption.'-8
And again:
The incorrupriblebody will be carthll but withoLrtmoistureand
coarscness, havingbcenunurterably changedfrom animarero spiri-
tual, so that it wilf be both ofthe dust and heavenly.Justasit wascrc-
ated in thc beginning,soalsowilt it arbe, that it may beconformableto
the imageof the Sonof Max b7 entircparticipation in deifcation.l'
Notice here that the body in the future agewill still be "of the dust."
tVhen looking at the corruptibledust of this fallenworld, we are hum-
bled to think of this side of our nature;but when we think of that lz-
corruptible 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!
St. Gregory the Theologian suggests, giving a symbolicalinterpre-
tation of the "garments of skins" with which God clochedAdam and
Eve after their transgression,rhar theflesb of our presenthuman body is
different Ji"om thefesh off nt-created Adam:
443
 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 un-
changeable,nor ycr changeable, bur havingthe powerat hisown dc-
sireto 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 kin-
dled by orherpassions eirher,wercnot burdenedwirh bodilyneeds;
6u beingcrcatcdentirelyincorruptibleand inmortal, they did not
cvennecdrhecoverirrg ofclothing.8:
St. Symeon the New 'fheologian likewisespeaksclearly of first-
crearedAdam in Paradise,
and his final srarein rhe future age:
lf now, afrer we rransgressed the commandment and were con-
demncdto die, peoplehavemultipliedso much,just imaginehow
manyofthem therewould havebeenifall who havebeenborn from
foreuer bqond the hnouledge ofscience b! the banier ofAdam's tansgres-
the creationof the world had not died?And what a life theywould
havelived, bcingimmortaland incowpt, srrangersro sin, sorrows,
andcaresandseriousnceds?l And how,havingadvanced in the kccp-
ing of rhe commandmenrs and in rhe goodorderingof the disposi-
tions of the heart,in rime rhcy would haveascendcd to the mosr
444
THr PernrsrrcDocrrrxs or CalerroN
pcrfbctglory and, havingbcenchanged, would havedrawnnearto
God, and the soul of each would have bccome as it were
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 an-
orhcrin rrurhwould havebeenunurterablc and beyondthc thought
of nran.... 'fheir wasnot weigheddown by labors
life in Paradisc
and wasnot madcdifficulr by misfortunes.Adam u,atcreatedwith a
bodl incorruptible, cucnthoughmatcrial and notyet spirinal.. . . Con-
ccrningour 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 spiri-
tual body" (l Cor l5:44), and Lrnchangcablc, suchaswasrhe body,
afrerHis Resurrcction, ofour Lord JcsusChrist,the secondAdam,
thc first-bornamongthc dead,which is incomparably moreexccl-
lcnt than the bodyof the first-crearedAdam.'J
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 phi-
losophy. The state of Adam and the frst-reated world has been pkced
sion, tuhich changedthe uery nature ofAdan and the reatiln, and indeed
the nature of knowledgeitself Modern scienceknows only what it ob-
serves 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
445
 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 Fa-
thers,will come asa surpriseto many Orrhodox Christians.-i'hosewho
havereadsome ofthe Holy Fatherswill perhapswonder why they "ha-
ven'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. Greg-
ory 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 de-
mons, evenin the presentcorrupribleworld. 'fhe greatRussianOrtho-
dox Fatherof the nineteenrhcentury, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov,
devotesan entire volume of his collecredworls (volume 3) to this sub-
ject, and to comparing the authentic Orthodox Parrisricdoctrine with
446
'frre Pnrnrsrrc DocruNr ol Crp,rrroN
tlrc modern Roman Catholic doctrine, as set forth in nineteenthcen-
rrrry l.atin sources.His conclusion is that the Orthodox doctrine on
rhese matters-on angels and demons, heaven and hell, Para-
.lisc-even though it is given to us by sacredtradition only in part,
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 teach-
ing 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 Catholi-
cisnr-and of those Orthodox Christianswho are under \Vesternin-
fluencein this matter-has deep roots in the past of WesternEurope.
l-he Roman Catholic scholastictradirion, evenat the height of its Me-
dieval 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 Aqui-
nas, 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 prescrvedfrom corruptionby the soul.
Again:
447
 GrNrsrs,Cmmon ,rNnE,rnlyMen
It belongsto man to begetoffspring,because
of his nanralfi comtpti-
blc body.Ea
Again:
In Paradiseman would havebeenlike an angelin his spiritualiryof
mind,yct with an aninal lifc in hisbody.85
Man! body wasindissolu-
ble,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 corrup-
rion wasnot nanral to thenul but the gift ofgracc.86Now ir is clear
tharsucha subjection of rhebodyto rhc souland of the lowerpow-
ersto reason(asAdam had in Paradise)wat notfom nature,or orh-
erwiseit 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
So far is Thomas Aquinas from the true Orrhodox vision of rhe first-
createdworld that he understandsit, as do modern "Christian evolu-
rionists,"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 faecalmat-
ter, a sign of corruption:
Somesaythat in the stateof innocence man would not haveraken
morethan necessaryfood, so thar therewould havebeennorhing su-
pcrfluous.
This,however,is unreasonable to suppose,asimplyingrhat
therewould havebcenno faecalmaner.Thcreforetherewasnecdfor
voidingthesurplus,
yetsodisposed by Godasnot ro beunbefining.')0
How low is the view of thosewho rry ro understandGod'screarionand
Paradisewhen their starting point is rheir everydayobservationof this
448
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:whathap-
penedwhena hardbodycameirrroconractwith thesoftbodyofAdam?
In thc stateofinnoccnce, man'sbody could be prcscrvedfrom suffer-
ing injury from a hard body, pardy by rhc useof his rcason,whercby
he could avoid what was harmful; and parrly also by Divinc provi-
dcncc, 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 subse-
quently,beforcsin.')
In a word: accordingro Orthodox docrrine,which comesfiom t)i-
vine vision, Ad,am'snature in Paradisewas different from presenr hu-
miln 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 readseri-
ously 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
449
 THeP,rrnrsrrc
DoctntNnol CnearroN

"firndamentalist" if one daresto readrherexrsimply,"asir is written,"

asall the Hofi Fathersreadit.
Theinxinct of thesimplz OrthodoxChristian is soundwhenhe recoik
Jiom the "sophisticated,
"fashionableuiett thdt man is descended
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

'-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 Dar-
wir's TheDctcenrofMzz. Discussingrhcscworks in his book Skctchconccrning Man
(Arhcns,f893), Sr. Necrarioswrorc: "The rwo volumesof rhe work Philosophie zoolo-
giquearein rheirenrireryinrendedro upholdrhe degrading evolurionary rhcoryrc-
gardingman.The firstvolunresceksro provetharthe humanorganismevolvedfrom
rhat ofan ape,asa rcsulrofchancecircumstanccs. And rhesecondvolumcsccksro
provcthatrhcdistinctive excellcncesofrhc 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-
lisha gradualchainhavingsucccssive (nor contemporaneous) linksand rhusro pro-
duce 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 an-
thropological qucstionby accepringthe modeofevolurion.Theserheories, oor being
basedon soundfoundarions, insteadof solvingrhc problemrcndcrcdir moreenig-
maric,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 physi-
calworld.In general, withoutrhcacccptance ofrevealed trurh,manwill remainan in-
solubleproblcm.Thc acceptance of it is rhe firm and safefoundarionupon which
cvcryin<luirer aboutmanmus!basehinlself.It is from rhisrharhc mustbeginin ordcr
St. Ncctarios(Kcphalas)
of Pentapolis,
Arhensand Aegina ro rightlysolvcthevariousparrsofthe quesrionand lcarnthe truth by mcansof(ruc
(r84Gr920). science"(quotedin ConsrantincCavarnos , Biolofcal Euohtionisn,pp.63-65\.-Eo.

451
 CcNesrs,CneerroNeruoEanlyMll Tst Parprsrrc
Doclnrre or Cnr-arroN

iew of Orthodox holiness,which knows rhat creation is not as modern rlr.ltomatic"adjustment" of otherScripturaland Patristicrextsro fit in
wise men describeit by their vain philosophy,but asGod revealedit to rvithmodern"wisdom."
Moses"not in riddles,"and as the Holy Fathershavesecnit in vision. I belieuethat in yur feelingfor Godi creation,asyou destibe it in
Mani nature is dffirent fom ape natt4reand har neuerbeenmixed with .yourletter,you are Orthodox;but why do you feel thar you musr cor-
ir If Cod, for the sakeof our humility, had wished to make such a rupt this feelingwith modernwisdomand justifr rhis new ideology
mixrure, the Holy Fathers, ahl sau the uery "composition of uisible which is so foreignto Orthodoxy?You havewrirten most movingly
things" in Diaine uision, aouU haueknlun it. "against falseunion";how we wishrhatyou would now becomejust as
HOW LONC WILL ORI'HODOX CHRISTIANS RL,MAIN greata zealot "against fake wisdom,"and rell the Greek-speaking Or-
IN CAPTIVITYTO THIS VAIN \TESTERNPHILOSOPHY? thodoxChristianswho haveaccepted this new doctrinemuchtoo un-
Muchis saidaboutthe"Western
captiviry"
of Orthodoxtheology
in critically rharour only uisdomcomes fom theHo! Fathers,and all that
recentcenturies;when will we realizethat ir is a far more drastic contradicts it is a lie, evenif it callsitself"science."
"Westerncaprivity"in which everyOrthodoxChristianfindshimself I begyour forgiveness if anythingthar I havesaidseemsharsh;I
today,a helpless prisonerofthe "spiritofthe times,"ofthe dominaring havetried only ro speakthe truth as I seeit in the Holy Fathers.If I
currentof worldly philosophywhich is absorbedin the very arr we havemadeany mistakes in my citationsfrom the Holy Fathers, I beg
breathein an apostare, God-hatingsociery? An Orthodox Chrisrian you to correctthem,but not to let any smallmistakes keepyou from
who is nor consciously fightingagainstthe vainphilosophyof this age seeingwhat I havetried to say.Ther€is much elsethar I couldsayon
simplyaccepxit into himse$andis at peacewith it because his own un- rhissubject,bur I will wait for your replybeforedoingso.Aboveall, I
derstanding of Orthodoxyis distorted,doesnot conformto the Patris- havethe heartfeltwish that both you and we might seethc tae Patistic
tic standard. teaching on this subject,which is so imporranrlor our wholeOrtho-
The sophisticated,worldly-wise laughat thosewho callevoluriona dox worldview.I askyour prayers for myselfand our Brotherhood.
"heresy."'frue, evolution is not strictlytpcakinga heresy;neither is Vith lovein Christour Saviour,
Hinduism,strict$speahing a heresy:but like Hinduism(with which it Seraphim,monk
is indeedrelated,and whichprobablyhadan influenceon irsdevelop-
menr) evolurionismis an ideologythat is profoundlyforeignto the
reachingof Orthodox Christianiryand ir involvesone in so many
wrongdoctrinesand attitudesthat it would be far betterif it weresim-
ply a heresyand couldthusbe easilyidentifiedand combatted.Evolu-
tionismis closelybound up with the wholeaposrare mentaliryof rhe
rotten "Christianity''of rhe Vest; it is a vehicleof the whole "new
spiritualiry"and "newChristianiry'inwhich the devil is now srriving
to submergethe lasttrue Christians.It offersan ahernatiueexplanation
of creationto that of the Holy Fathers; it allowsan OrrhodoxChris-
tian under its influencet0 reddthe Holy Scripnresand not understand
them, auromatically"adiusting"rhe texr to fit his preconceivedphi-
losophyof nature.Its acceptance cannotbut involvethe acceprance
alsoof alternatiueexp/anationsof otherpartsof Divine revelarion,ofan

452 453
 PARI IV
Questionsand Ansurers

Thc ProphcrMoscs.
A contcmporaryiconfom Grtecc.

Sr.Euphrosynus rhe Cook ofAlcxandria(ninrhccntury,commemorated Septcmbcr
I I ), who wls grantedaccess
ro Paradise.
Hc gaveto a pricstof his monasrery rhrce
applesfiom Paradise, which cmitrcdan ineffablefragrance. -fhe monasricbrethren
dividedthe applcsanrongrhernselves and disrriburcdpiecesof rhemasa blcssingro
many,cspccially t<lrhoscwho wercin nccdof hcaling.Whoeverareof rhcseapplcs
washcalcdofhis infirmitics.'l'hisaccountprovidcsa clucinto rhc nerureofParadisc,
which in the ',vordsof Crcgoryof Sinai(who elsobehcldit in t)ivinc vision)is
"placcdbcrwecncorruptionend incorruption."SceSt. Crcgory's
description ofrhc
planrsof Paradise
on p. 4 l4 abovc,and Fr.Seraphim'sdiscussionof Sr.Iiuphrosynus
and Paradise
on pp. 477 -78 bclow.I:rescoby Monk 'l-heophatesthe Cretan,
Monarteryol St. Nicholas/napauat Mctcora, (irecce,1527.
Questionsand Ansu,ers
FROMTHE COURSEON C]ENESIS
( 1981and1982)
EDIT'OR'SNOTE: T-hese question-and-answersessionsbauebeentran-
talhs.Sectiontitles hauebeen
of Fr Seraphim's
vribedfrom taperecordings
addedtry the editor.
L TheAgeoJthe Eartlt
rrrDENT:Accordinp;to Biblical chronology,the earth is about
7,500 yearsold. But accordingto the evolutionists,and even hts-
rory 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 ex-
rremelysureabout this theory.There is a group in San Diego calledthe
Insritute for Creation Research,and anotherup in Michigan calledthe
Crearion ResearchSociery.They havecome out with somequitc scicn-
rific 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'reltis-
toric Time Scalr,in which the author (\flilliam B. N. Berry) admits
.t) /
 (leNtsls,Crr:alrctN,rrvoEanryMaN
that to interpret the millions and billions ofyears, ir hasto be assumed
rhat rhe fossilizedcreaturesin the lower levelsof rocks are the evolu-
tionary ancestorsof those in the higher levels.But it ofren nappens
that theselayersare in the wrong order accordingro evolurionaryrhe-
ory: 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 fur-
rher awayand rhe planetsare closer;therefore,the planetsappearro go
faster.But then why do the planerssomerimesgo forward, and some-
rimes 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 pre-
senteo.
The scientificcreationists,asthey call themselves, havesome rnrer-
' SeeVilliam B. N. Bcrry,Oroath of a Prehistoric'[ime .Satk,p.42. F.r>.
458
QuesrroNsaNo ANswrns
csting books about evidencesof how old the earth is.* lt just depends
,rn what kind of evidenceyou're using. lt is a very hypotheticalques-
rion. It is nor nearlyas definite as the book of Genesis.
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 reli-
able 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 ra-
diocarbon, but tree-ring dating [dendrochronologyl.They were re-
cently 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
lbour thc uncertainry involvedin radiocarlxrn dering:"Tlrc rrr>ublcs
ofthe radiocar-
bon datingmethodareundeniably dcepand scrious.L)espitc-35ycersof technologi-
cal rcfinementand bettcr undcrstancling, the underlyingassrrmprions havc been
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 re-
jccrcd.'l-hew<rnder is,surcly,rhat rhe renrairring
halfcone rc 6c atcepted.
"No mattcrhow'uscful'iris, rhough,the radiocarbon mcthodis still nor capa-
blc of yieldingaccurarc and reliablercsults.Thercarc grossdiscrepancies, rhe chro-
nololy is uncvenand relativc,rnd thc acccpred darcsareusuallyrhc selecred datcs"
("1{adiocarbon,Ages in Error," AntlmpokgicalJoutnal of Anada, vol. 19, no. 3,
I 981,pp. 9, 29).-E o.
459
 CeNesrs,CnsrrroN,tNo Eanr-vM.rN
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 evo-
lutionistsdon't know that; they assumeit was all uniformitarian, from
zero to what we know now. If thati rue and the rate has been uni-
form, 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.
3. GeologicalSnata
Stuornl: \X/hatabout the diflerent strata,like in the Grand Can-
yon, 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 sub-
jecr, 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 pic-
ture 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
QurslroNs euo ANswsns
fact, the evolutioniststhemselves
will probablytell you that. The ques-
tion is: doesthe other model make more sense?
'Whe
n it comesto somethinglike thesestrara,of course,it is a sci-
entific 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.
4. A Matter of Models
Fn. SenlpHIv: Scienristshavewhar are called modell Yexerdaywe
discussedthe Ptolemaic model-that the earth is the centerof the uni-
verse,and that all the starsand planetsgo around the earth. Since,ac-
cording to what one can observe,the planetsmove around rhe earth at
dift-erentspeedsthan the stars,the Ptolemaicastronomershad to have
theoriesabour how cheywent back and Forrhand formed figure eights,
" Someof rhc mostinrcresring reselrchin rhisareahasbcendoncby F-rench ge-
ologisrCuy llcrthaulr,firsrat rhc lnstirurcdc Mcchanique desFltrides at Merseilles
,rndlatcret rhc hydreulicslaboratory ofColoradoUnivcrsiry's trrginccrirrgRescarch
(lcnrer. Sincc1985,"writcsllichar<1 Milron, "Berthaulrhls carricdout a scricsof
laborarory cxpcrinrcnts involvingpouringscdimcntsinto largctankso[ mouingwa-
rer 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 Scdirncntologistsat Brestin 1991....'l he laborarory work hls not lrccncarried
out in isolarionbut hasbeensupplcnrcntcd by fieldobservetiorrs frornrraturaldisas-
terssuchas 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 pro-
ducirrgalnrosrinstantaneous lanrinac'IBcrrhault,CompteeR?n/l$ Academie det Sci-
rare/l f)cccmber3, 1986,February16, 19881.
"Theseinnocent-souncling wordsarethe deathkncll of rhc idearharrhc cxis-
tcnceof 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, Sat-
urn and Jupiter havebcen in the sky together.Ifyou were observing,
yor.rcould seethat at first one went fbrward, then they both wenr back-
ward, then Saturn became fainrer and Jupiter became brighter. Ac-
cording 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 calculat-
ing accordingto the Copernicanrnodel,we can sendrocketshipsquire
closeto Saturnand not miss;in fact, it is astonishinglyaccurate.So ob-
viously 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 Crea-
tion is verydifficult ro fit inro rhe usualideasof the evolurionof the
universe,because the Scriprures and the Holy Frathersstatequlrecer-
tainly 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 what-
everis 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
whole cosmogony---the explanation of the beginning of things.
'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
rhink thar the sun almostcollided with a passingstar,causinggasses to
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, be-
causeit 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 tremen-
dous 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
' -fhe nranacknowledgcd as'ihc fatherof the llig ll:rng"cosnrogony wasAbbi
(icorgesl,emaitre(1894-196(t,a Jesuitpricst.Onc day in 1931,rvhilerc:rdingan
arriclcon the originandcnd ofthc world,he camcrrpwith the idearharthe univcrsc
explodcdand rhcn evolvedout of a "primevalatom."A conrcmporary of his fcllow
'l'eilhard de Chardin, hc rriedto do for astrononry what Teilhardhad donefor
Jcsuit,
biology:createa synthesis of Christianirylod rhcevolurionary worldviewofmocicrn
scicncc. His "primevalatom"is ofcoursethc cosmogonic equivalcntof [)arwint "pri-
mcvalsoup"(out of which life is supposed to havccnrcrged and evolvcd)." l hc idca
clfevolurion,"wrotc lrmaitrc, "hasplaycdan importanrrole in the dcvelopmenr of
asrrophvsics... . -I he evolutionof theworld canbecomparcdro a displayoffirework
thar hasjust cnded" (Lemaitre,TheI'rimeualAton, pp. 87, 78).-Eo.
463
 GeNrsrs, CnpanloN aNo Eenly M,rN
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 unoer-
srandingof 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 informa-
tion 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?
' As do science-fiction
writers.For Fr.Seraphimtdiscussion of science
ficrion,
scehisbook OrtbodotTand tbc Religionofthe F:uture,ch.6, sec.|.-Eo.
464
Queslrows aNo ANswens
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 speculat-
ing about them and get involved with ideasabout higher racesof cx-
traterrestrials-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 heary-
handed at all. It doesnt mention anything about evolution, but just
givesthe story ofdinosaurs.*** It is for peoplewho want to readwirh-
out having all kinds ofscientific hypothesesforced upon them.
' Iior a derailcddiscussionof UF()s by Fr. Scraphinr,seeOrtbodot7and the Re-
ligion of thc l:ucurc,ch. 6.-Eo.
" "Putting Darwin Backin thc Dock: 'Scicntific'(lrearionisrs Ohallcngcthc
'l'heoryof Evolution ," 'fimr magazinc,
March I 6, I 98 I , pp. 80-82. Thc articlccon-
cludedwith a quorcfrom Theodosius l)obz-hansky: "Nothing in biologymekessense
exccptin rhc light of evolution."-Eo.
"' for a lisrof crcarionisr bookson dinosaurs, seeDD.642-45 below.-Eo.
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 crea-
tionist 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 crea-
tion/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 ac-
cusedof 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 evo-
lutionary 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 evotu-
rion 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 reca-
f 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 scr-
cnrifically 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 lit-
tle 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;sometimesthou-
sands of srudents come. The creation scientisrsare very well pre-
pared-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.Scl-
encq which is very evolutionist,one article saysthat it has becomeso
bad now-rhe evolutionistscientistsare so ill-preparedand are tcach-
ing their srudentsso poorly-rhat all you have ro do is have a crea-
tionist 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 edu-
cate them berter now to get back to the original principlesof evolu-
tion.
467
 CrNssrs.CnslnoN ar.roErrr-yM.rx
7. Various Euolutiondry ldeds
Fn. Senrpsrrnr:There is so much interpretationinvolved in evolu-
tionary 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 selec-
rion and mutation could not producecomplexstructures.*You cannot
explain,for example,the eyeby a seriesofgradual changes,becauseei-
'fhe organismthat sud-
ther 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 oc-
curs in jumps-large-scale mutationsresultingin a "hopeful monster"
rhat is able to surviveand reoroduce.
' This theorywasrejccted by Darwinists whenGoldschnridt firstpropoundedit
in | 940, but ir wasrehabilitated
in I 980 by evolutionist
SrephenJayGor"rldof Har-
vardin his populararticle"Rerurnof the HopcfulMonstcr."-ED.
'. ln his book TbeBlind \Yatcbmakcr(1985), nco-Darwinian apologisr
Richard
Dawkinshastriedto explainthe evolutionofan eyc.Dawkins'arguments havebccn
refutedon rhecvidcnceof biochemisrry by Michrel Bchein his seminalbook Dar-
win\ Bhck Box (1996),pp. l5-22,36-39. tu Phillip E. Johnsoncomments,"To
movcfrom Dawkinsro Behcis like movingfrom the childrcnilibraryto thc labora-
tory" (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 stick-
ing 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 real-
ize 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
Fn. SEnq.pHr^,{: lVhateverspeciesis still around roday comesdown
in an unbroken link from rhe samehind of creaturein the past.'fhere
are many speciesthat are no longer around; bur unril rhey becameex-
tinct they were the samekind ofthing rhat they were from the begin-
ning.
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
sccnarioasfirstsuggcsted
by rhc renownedpaleontologisr Orro Schindewoll-Eo.
" Anothcrreason why Srcphcn JayGould,a pelconrologisr,wanredto rchabili-
carethe 'HopefulMonsrer"theorywasro accounrlor rhc lackof intermediary spc-
rhcorv.callcd"ounquated
ciesin rhefossilrccord.Gould\ revisionof Goldschmidrls
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 ac-
cording to "kinds"-which might nor be quite the same as "spe-
cies"-or whether everythingcomes from an original glob of organic
matter which developedinto all the different kinds of things. Every-
rhing 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 debateberweenevolu-
tionists 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
eachyear.Of course,eachpersonwho is making discoveries wanrs his
"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 par-
ricularorganism.-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
rhat true humanslivcd ascontemporaries with rhe australopithecinesindicatcsthat
the lqnerhad nothingro do with humanorigins.FbllowingLouisand Mary Leakcy's
discovery,their son fuchard l,eakeyalsofo-lnd Ausnalopithecusand Homoeretus[os-
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 diffi-
culries 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 hu-
man 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. Homohabilisiscal-
culatcdto 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 mod-
crn Pygmrcs.
''lndee<l,
onc ofrhc ironicaspccrs ofthc discovcry of Houo hafill is rharwhile
Darwinistsconccnrrate theiratrentionon inrerpreting fingcrboncsand vertcbrac at
Olduvai Corge [whercrhe Homohabilisfossilswcrefuund], atrcnrptingto cstablish
thc creaturetcredentials asa missinglink, rhcy appcarto haveovcrlookedrhc lact
rhatonly a few hundredmilesro rhewesr,in rhc forcsrs of Z,aire,
arcrhe Mburi peo-
plc who arcon average only four feetsix inchesrallandwho, in srature,brarncapac-
iry, and cvenway offife, are comparablcto Homohabilis.Yerrhe Mburi arc nrodern
mcn in cverysense of rheword exceptthat thcy do not watchtelevision docrrmenra-
rics nor rcccivcgrantsfrom scicncc-fundingbodies"(Sbaxcringthc Myth of Darwin-
ism,pp. 206-7). SecalsoLubenow,Bonetof Oontention,pp. I 57-66.-Flo.
" A6our Hono eretrz.r, sceabove,p, 427 n. For a dctaileddiscussion.sceLubc-
now,pp. 120-57.-FD.
471
 CeNEsrs,
CerArroNnNn EanryMar'r
down Man" was taken to be an evolutionaryancestorof man. Somesci-
entistsdid 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 ta-
piens: 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-
'More than five hundreddoctoraldissertarions were wrirten on Pilrdown
Man.-Eo.
" In 1982, right aftcr l;r. Seraphinrtrcposc,rlre jawbonewas conclusively
lound to be rharof an oranguran.-Eo.
"' In rhc larc 1980ssonrccvolutionistssuggesrcd that NcanderrhalMan once
againbc givenhis carlicrdcsignation,Homoneanderthalcrco. However,cventhcy ad-
mincd that Neanderthals wcrecontemporary with modcrnhunransand could have
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 .
QurslroNs ano ANswens
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
genealogies, for example.If man is millions of yearsold, you have ro
make some big epicyclesro accounr for the genealogies of the Patri-
archs.In fact,somesayrhar Patriarchsarent reallypeople:they'rereally
just namesfor vastages.
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 evolu-
rion conrcto lighr.
Fn. SeulHIv: Vell, it all dependson your presuppositions, be-
causeoften thosepresuppositionsare very strong.
SruneN,r: Vhar I'm sayingis thar generallywhat happensin sci-
enceis 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 under-
stand there are different meaningsfor rhat word. l'he evolution of a
particularvarieryof finch or somerhing-1hat's nor what we are talk-
ing 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 alwayscx-
isted,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
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 unifornrirarian-
ism (i.e., that evcrything has happenedat the same rate as it happen-
ing now) up to a certain point-a few thousandyearsperhaps.Before
that ir is very dubious that ev€rfhing has been happeningat the same
rate.
I I . 'l'be Biblical Chronology
SruosNr; Do we know exactllhow old the earth is frorn the Bibli-
cal 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 sub-
' Followingthe tradirionalf<rrmof C)rthodoxcalcndrrscsrablished in Consran-
tinoplcduringrhe rimeof rheSevcnEcumeniql(louncils.Fr Scraphinr and rhe St.
HcrmanBrorhcrhood printedthc yearfronrthc creationof thc world, basedon thc
Scpruaginc chronology,on tlrc nrasthcad of their annualSt. LlcrmanCalcndars.
ThcscCalcndars continucto bc publishedup ro roday;rhus,rhc masrhead of the
2000 St. Hcrmrn Calcndarrcads"'fhc Ycar7508 from rhe(lrcationof rhe Vorld,"
Sceabove,p.236 n.-lio.
" BlessedAugusrine,The Oiry of God 15.13, pp. 293-94. See above,p.
236.-8.o.
4/ 4
QuesrroNsaNo ANswens
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 lit-
rlc 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 ques-
tion. 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.
ofSouk, "Reinrarnation,"
I2. The Pre-existencc
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 be-
causeof 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 Chris-
rian 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 beginningwasdif-
ferent 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 Alexan-
dria, whereOrigen lived, and rhey raught there.One of Origen'steach-
ers was from India.
S'ruorrur: The idea of the pre-exisrence of souls is similar ro what
Hinduism teacheson the transmigrationofsouls or "reincarnarion. " SruDENr: It's nor the materialworld aswe know it, but then a6;ain
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 be-
causeyou 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 an-
cient 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 flatter-
ing 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 ofbe-
ings-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.'
'A morc cxrensiverreatmenrof reincarnation
may be found in Fr. Seraphimi
book fhc Soulafer Deatb,pp. 121-27.-Eo.
476
QursrtoNs ann ANsvtns
13.I'he Nanre of Paradise
F-n.Senepurv: Bcforewe begin a new ch:rpter,can anyone give a
resumi of what the earthly Paradisewas?
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 reallyex-
presswhat 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 exDe-
rience 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,ac-
cording 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.
477
 Cl:Nrsrs,CnexrroNaNo E,cRry
M.AN
It was not entirelymaterial;it wasof refined matter which we don't un-
derstand.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 an-
gelsfell. In other words, in a sense,they made it themselves.'fheScrip-
tures 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
brief referenceshereand 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, compara-
tively 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<r.
Fn. SenepHtu: Yes-the resurrectedbody of Christ, which wa-s
able to go through closeddoors and walls. He was able to give the ap-
pearanceof eating although He did not need to eat; He had wounds
that could be rouched,and yet He looked so different that the disciples
' 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
Jerusalem, inheritance
ofthe sons
olGod" (Homily 45, in TheFitst-Created Man, pp. 104-5).Furrherreachings ofSr.
Synrconon the fiturc agearefoundon p. 422 above.-[')o.
478
QursrrclNs aNo ANswens
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 ad-
vlnced 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 re-
mcmbranceof where we came from and where wc are going.
14. Free Vill
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 ex-
cuses.[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 command-
menr. 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 tempra-
tions, that would have been fbr him the opcning of the awareness of
479
 GrNrsrs,Crsa:rorueNo EapryM,qn
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 par-
ticular 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.)
15. The CreationoJ'Adamand Eue
SruoENr: Did God creareone man and one woman?C)r are Adam
and Everepresentativeofa 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
goodanddisobedience waseviltand rhenhc learnedmoreclcarlywhcn,havingc.rrcn
from the tree,hc wasbanishedfrom Paradise and dcprivcdofrhat blcssedncss"(.Erg]r
Homitieson Geneti s7 :3, p. 7 64).-E.o
" SectheguotesofSr. GrcgoryrhcThcologianandSr.Johnf)amascerrc
173-74 above.-Eo.
480
QulsrroNsaNnAuswr:rrs
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 beenrnstr-
ruted,therewould havebeensomemeansofgenerationfrom rhisone
rnan.All men comefrom Adam,and therelore Adam is like humanrry.
Adamruinedthewholeplan for mankind,bur God was"smarrer"be-
causeHe had already"figuredour" how to bring this planaboutwirh-
our 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
was went backto the statehe wasmadein. -fhat is a wholedifferenrcon-
' | (-,or.l5 21-22: "For sinccby mancarncdearh,by mancamealsorhc resur-
on pp. rcctionof 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 creareevery-
thingincorrupt.In the RomanCatholicvieq Adamwasnot madeim-
mortal;he becemeimmortalwhenGod addedgracero him. Bur in the
Orthodox view, man wascreatedimmortal; his whole naturewasdif-
ferent,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

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 be-
causehe is in directcontactwith God that he cando it.
SruoeN.r:Do the Holy Fathersteachthat imaginationis part of
our hllen nature?
Fn. Srnc.pHr^.{:
Yes.
l-he creationof Eve,and the blessing
of hcr and Adam Sruotlrr: lmaginationis so mucha part of our rhinkingnow.
by God the Vord. Fn. Srunnrv: fught.
Iconfom TioyanMonatery, Bulgria, ninetecnthcentxry, 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

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 creativepow-
crs.That'sa goodthing;that'show we makebeaurifulrhings....
Fn. SrnapHrnr: That dependsupon what you meanby the word
"imagination." Thereareseveral aspectsofit. One aspectis thecreatrve
f-aculrywhich is part of our originalnature.
SruoeNr:And ir waswith that faculrythatAdam namedthe crea-
rures?
Fn.Sennlurr'.r:fught. But in our fallensra(ethiscreativetalenrbe-
comesmixedup with double-rhinking: lookingat thingsandimagining
somethingelse.So the word "imagination"doeshaverwo meanings,
but in our fallenstateit is alwaysboundup with double-thinking. "*
r':.rr,'' 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

(detail).
Adam in Paradise
lVall-painting b1Monk Thcopbanathc Crcnn in tbe Catholiconof tbe
MonastcryofSt. NicholzsAnapatsas,Meteora,Grcece,1527.
simpleand one-poinred, bur asa resultof rhe fall irs naruralpowershavebccnpcr-
verred:it haslosr irs recollectcdnessin 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
mosrsimpleand imageless essences(/agol)ofcrcarcd beings."
Sr. Nicodemusofrhc Holy Mountain(1748-1809)cxplainshow rhe dcvil de-
ccivesthroughthc imagination: "The devilhasa verycloserelarionship and familiar-
iry 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" (Nico-
demusof the Holy M ov.nain,A Handboohof Spirinal Counscl,pp. 149-50).-Eo.

485
 (ieNrsrs,Cne.rrroNeuo EanryMaru
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 neededexperi-
ence in order to be tested.
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 peo-
ple 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, obvi-
ously 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 cre-
ated outside of Paradise,on the earth, and then led into Paradise,his
home. The animalswere not directly in Paradise;they were "brought"
486
Ques'rrousaNo ANswrrs
'lb
rhcre. us they would look like paradisalcreatures,but they were ac-
rually 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.
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 ap-
parently 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 in-
dividual 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 sepa-
ratc?What do the Fathersteachabotrt this?
Fn. Ssnapslu: All we have to go on is the visionsofvarious peo-
ple, 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 n.
487
 CnsrrIoNaNoErnrvM,rN
GsNssrs, QursrroNserunANswens

rhingsbut just multitudesof peoplein white:saints,marryrs.In other SruolNr: You read in Cenesiswhere it says the serpent will be
words,they are in heaven.St. Andrewthe Fool for Christ,when he bruisingthe heels[Gen. 3: l5l. [s that how he is rrying to get us back in
wentto Paradise, didni seepeoplethere,but he sawpeoplein heaven.* rhe statewhere he is--<ompletely hopeless? Vould it be right to say
'Ve
arenot told in detailaboutthinsslike that. rhat he tries to cripple our walk with Cod in this way?
Fn. Sr,ntpstn: Yes.You can give many interpretationsof that par-
18.TheDeuil ricularphrase.lt meansthat the devil doesnot havepower to do much.
lfhe were upright, then he would be a dangerousfoe; he would be bit-
SruoeNr:About the enmiryberweenAdam and the serpent:You ing us in everyplace.
said that the devil was enviousof Adam beforeAdam fell becauseof Sruorxr: lf he cant do much, how is it that he is able to snatchus
the hvor that wasbestowed uponhim. But you alsosaidAdamwasin- from any given stateand pull us down low?
feriorto the serpent. F-n.Srntptru: If we havethe graceofGod and are not cooperat-
Fn. SenapHtv:The devil is superiorbecause he is an intellectual rng with rhe devil, he can't. It's only when we ourselvesallow our will
being. He is not subject to the body.The body is a lower element; to be drawn away by the devil.
therefore, he is superior.But man is goingto get that whi€h rhedevil Actually, we can allow ourselvesto be drawn away just like Adam
lost,that Paradise
is, and heaven. And that is why,to thisday,rhedevil was, even without the devil. Adam could have sinned without satan,
is just plain angry. becausehe saw the pleasantaspectof the forbidden fruit and therewas
Evenaccordingto humanpsychology, you can figureout the devil. alreadya temptation for him to want it for himself outside the com-
Justthink: you had immortallife andyou knewrhatyou weredamned mandment of God.
ro hell. Then thereis this otherbeingwho is lowerthan you, who is S'ruoeNr.:This may be an irrelevantquestion,but would you com-
nor worth evenspittingon, and he is goingto get that whichyou lost. menr on Indian snakecharmers?It is reallyweird how they make the
Of course,you aregoing to be terribly enuious, becausethereis no re- snakesriseand stand up and so on.
penrance for you.** You aregoingto be trying everypossibleway to Fn. Senalnru: There is somethinBvery symptomatic in the fact
gethim in thesamestateyouarein. that they are involved with that kind ofa creaturein the first place.lt
showsthat thereare demonsat work somewherethere.Just in general,
' St.Salvius wasa bishopin Gaul(Francc)in rhcsixthcenruryAbout Sr'Salvius you can say rhat much abour it
and Sr. Andrcw and thcir experience ofhcaven,sec[:r SeraphimRosc,ThcSoulaftcr
S,ruoeNr: Is saranusedasa tool by God?
Death,pp. 135-39. Eo.
Fn. Ssnapsru: Whoa! That is a profound question.
" T hc Holy Fathers teachthat,sinccrhedevilis bodiless, rheactionof his frcc
will in choosingcvil wasimmurable; whcrcas humanbeingshavca chanceto repcnt S.ruorNr: You know how God let sarantempt Job.
whilerheyaresrillin the body.St.JohnDamasccne writesthat "The angel's narureis Fn. SsnA.priru:'fhat\ right. We do not believein a dualism: that
nor susceptible ofrepenrancebecause ir is incorporeal.For it is owing ro rheweakncss there\ a God and theret a devil, and they are fighting eachother-like
of his body that man comesro haverepcntance."Elscwhcrcthc samcFarherstares: the Manichaeansbelieve.tVe believethat actuallyGod is in chargeof
"One shouldnotethat the fall is to thc angclsjust what dcarhis ro mcn. For,just as
everything;and evenwhen things go againstHim, He usesthat either
thcrc is no repcntanccfor nreoafter their death,so is there nonc for the angelsaftcr
for His greaterglory or to bring men to salvation.So everythingin the
rheirlall... . I t wasby reason ofh is incorruptibilirythatthedevil,afterh is fallby delib-
cratechoice,becameunrepentingly and immovablyrooredin evil. In thc samcway world happenseither becauseGod wills it that way or becauseHe a/-
again,aftcrtheirdelibcrarc elcctionofvirtuc, rheangelswereimmutablyfoundedin lowsft rhat way due to the presence of freedom,in order to bring about
good by grace"(Sr.John Damascene,On thc OrthodoxFaith 2:3,2:4\.-Eo' a grearergood.

488 489
 CrNesrs, CrealroN aNo Erely M,qr.r
Satanhasan independent personaliry,bur in the long run he loses
out. Evenwhenhe causes somererriblething like the RussianRevolu-
tion, 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
' Sr. l'crerDamascenc (elcvcnrlrcenrury)teachcs: "'fhcre is norhingincidenral
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 lrhilo-
R Al ta , vo t , : r. o. t ) / t .
l-ikcwise.Sr. Macariusthc Crearof F-gypt(J00-390)writcsrhar"l'he lord of
rlrisworld Ithedcvil] is a rod ofchasrismcnr and a scourgeto bcginnersin thc spiri-
ruallifi. Yet,ashasbcensaid,hc bringsthenrgrcatgloryandaddcdlronorbecause of
the efl'lictionsand trialsrheycndure.In thisway hc hclpsrhemro:rtrainthc srareof
perfcction,while he prepares cvengrearerand harsherpunishmcnrfor hinrself.ln
short,somcthingmost bencflcialis broughrabourrhror.rgh him.... Evil, whilc in-
tendingwhat 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 Philo-
halia, vol. 3, pp. 300-l ).-tio.
" Accordingto the Holy Farhers, the "thousandyears"mcnrionedin Apoca-
lypse(Rcvelarion) 20:2 rcpresents rhe pcriodberwcenthe firsrand secondconrrngs
of Chrisr.Vc are now irr this pcriod.SeeArchbishopAverky1'aushe" and Fr.Sera-
phim Rosc,'l-beApoulypr in tbe liacbingsofAncientChristianiry,pp.254-58.-Eo.
490
QunsnoNs ,lrunANswrns
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 de-
rrron 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
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.
SruoENr:But He is the essence of God, and we communewith
Him spiritually.
Fn.Senalutna: Yes,God is ever)'where.He is the Light. But Christ
is alsotherein heavenin His resurrected body.
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.
Sruotwr: That explainsit. He is theessence ofGod, but ...
Fn. Senanstu:But He took flesh.He becamelike us, and there-
fbrethat fleshis therein the otherworld.In heavenwe will havecon-
ractwith God spiritually, and alsowith Him in His body.
491
 CeNrsrs,CnsrroN aNo EanrvMeru
SruoeN,r:And we will commune with Him in His essence ? crrrh came up, and at the sametime the waterswhich bcforehad been
Fn. SsRAlHlr'.{:
No. There is a teachingof St. Gregory Palamason
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 parricipareac-
cording as He allowsus, by His grace.
20. The Firmament
SruneHr: V/hat was the firmament?
Fn. Se,nq.pHr^.r: Very interestingquesrion.Let me briefly summa-
rize 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.
492
QursrroNsar.r
o ANsvrns
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 pro-
duced a greenhouseeffect.** Fossilremainseverpruherein the world
resriryto the facr that in the past the earth had a universallywarm cli-
mate, with ample moisturefor abundant plant and animal life.." Be-
sidesthe fossilevidence,there is evidencefrom the fact rhat there are
remnanrs of animals in frozen soils on rhe Arctic lslands north of
' Thcscstudieswerebasedon mcasurcnrenrs ofthc lormationofradiocaroonrn
thc earth's uppcratnrosphere, whichoccursby a complexsetofreacrions berwcenthe
incomingcosmicradiationand armospheric Nitrogen14.The dateoffive thousand
yearswasprovidedby Roberrl-. Whitelaw NuclearConsultanrand Professor of Me-
chanicalling;inccring,Virginia PolytechnicInstirurc and StatcUniversiry SecSriaa-
tif c Credtion isrn,pp. | 65-66.-Eo.
" SeeHenry Morris, 'l he Gcneti F-kod,pp. 240-58, and JosephC. Dillow, I/r
\YatersAboue: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 widcsprcadtropicallandsthcrewasan 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 prescrvedlcavcs,rcrainingtheir originalcellularsrrucrure
and organiccontent.(SceRaymondChris, Cbronirleof HigberEducation,March 20,
l 99l ).-ti D .
493
 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 tre-
mendous 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.
*
J. K. Charlesworrh, in his book The Quatentary Era (vol.2, p. 650), srates:
"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) re-
quiredforcsts,nreadows andsreppes for rhcirsustcnance
... andcouldnor havelived
in a climatelike the prcsenr,wirh irs icy winds,snowywintcrs,f-rozengroundand
rundramossrheyerr round."-Ilo.
494
QursrroNsANDANsvERs
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 peo-
ple 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 some-
how 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?
Fn. Ssnepnura: Adam wascastout from Paradise, but it saysthat he
sar there looking at it. It was still visible,and even Cain could still see
Paradise.One of thc Fatlterssaysthat perhapsuntil the Flood people
could still seeParadise. They could not get to ir becausetherewere two
angelsrhereguarding but we know they were somehow closerbe-
it,
causeGod was constantlytalking to rhe Patriarchs.Then there was a
wlrole different statewhich is very difficult lor us to imaginc now be-
causeafter 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
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?
495
 GnNEsrs,
CnmrroN aNo E,rnryM,qN
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 dif-
ferent then. All the mountains may haverisenup at that time. F-nrirely
differentgeographicaland geologicalfeatureswould havebeencreated.
Those peoplewho acceptthe ideaofrhe Flood in their studiesofgeol-
ogy-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.
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 rheFloodwastrniversalis wirnesscd
by rhevastextcnrof sedimcnrary dc-
posits(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 rhick-
nessof rhc srratifiedrocksrangcsfrom a fcw fecr ro 40,000 feeror more ar any onc
placc....The vastbulk ofrhc srratifiedrocksis composedof shallow-watcr depos-
irs. Lu.
496
QurslroNs euo Aruswrns
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 re-
ccivedit.'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 differ-
ent point of view. One account concernsthe origin of Man himself;
rhe other concernsthe specificorigin of the first people, Adam and
L.ve.
Modern scholarslike to say,'Aha! that meanstherewererwo differ-
ent authors,and you haveto separatethem and examinethe viewpoint
of eachone-what were they trying to say?"This is not required,be-
causeevenif 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 under-
standing 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 as-
sumption 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.
497
 Crnests, Cnearrot lNn Eenly MaN QulstloNs lNo ANswrlrs

Fn. Srnrlurv: Yes,and that is purelyrheirassumption. According

to our faith,we simplycannoracceprrharbecause we Lelieverhatthere
areprophers. Thereis onebookwirh prophecies 25 7 he Agesof tlte I'ntriarchs
whicharenot fulfilled
yer: rhe booko[ rheApocalypse. said to Pha-
Accordingro somemodernscholars, ljn. Seneprrlu: In Genesis47:9 we read':'And Jacob
rr doesnot ralk abourfurureevents.We believe,however,thar hundred and thirry
we are r,nh, the days and the yearsof my life ' are a
going to seerhe fulfillmenrof rhoseeventsaheadof us, always yearsof my life' and they
rn a r,.,,,..p"* and evil havebeen the daysof rhe
form whichis a lirtle hidden.Ve cannotsayprecisely that the world is ir.,u"no, attainedto the daysof the life of nry farhers"'.
goingto end in 2005or somesuchdate;but aswe seetheeventsbeing thirty yea-rso]d, ret complained
lr."U lived to be a hundred !;
fulfilled,.weseerhe profoundmeaningof rhis prophecywhich lhis is another
was rhat he was not living very long, as did his forefarhers
writrenaheadof the event.
irrdicationthattheea=rlierPatriarchsindeedlivedaverylongtime.T
Evenif ir couldbe that differentpartsofrhe bookof Genesrs were werevery awareof thar'
l.rtcrdcscendants
written down by diFferenrscribesat differentrimes,rhar
might ac-
counr fbr somedifferenceof language,bur it is totally a seclndary
quesrionwhich doesnot affectthe main point. -fhe nrain poinr
is: 26. D iferen t I ntelPretd tiont
Vhar is rhe.Truthspokenaboutin rhesetexts?.I-har is the basicthing
we havc ro keep in mind in inrerpretingany sacredrcxr: What
is tbe \X/ho among the ancientwriters held that the "sons of
Sruor:Nr:
texttalkingabout, whatis the ofit? All theselirtlequestions (iod" [Gen. 6:2-4] were angels?
of
whenit waswrittendown and -e"ning Ath-
how manydifferent*^y, it *". *.,tt",., F*. Se*p,rt", Tertulliai, St Justin Martyr' Athenagoras[of
down (scholarsevenanalyzeit to figurehow many rimesdifferenr These are the earlier Fa-
cnsl, and Lacrantius,the minor Latin writer'
words.are uscd,separaring our parricuiarsynonymsto showrharthere and St',Ephraimthe
,n.rc. ftl"i.t e"tters such asSt' John Chrysostom
weredifferenraurhors,erc.)-all that rs a wasteof time,acrually. they
l.he ;;;; that the "sonsofGod" had bodiesand that therefore
rnainquestionis, again:Vhar is the'Iiurh contained in it?And our could not be angels.'
keyro understanding whatis thetruth in the bookofGenesisor anyof Scripture'
This leadstJ the quesrionof different interpretations-of
the booksof Scriprureis the teachingof the Church handed of the Church
down I" ,t'i. l""r* *. are ;iving the standardinterpretation
from rhe Holy Fathers. who might give differ-
Fathers,but ofcou,r.1h",. ut" differentFathers
imporrantthing is thatwe acceptthat the textitselfis a wholc, of the various
,The in,.rpr.,"tions. The question is: Vhat do we think
and.thatir is speaking abour'Iruth;and we shouldhaveutmosrrespect "n, Sometimesthey might evenseemto conf-lict'
i,l,.rp..,'r,ionri
""-*.
for ir asthe word of God. Whenwe cometo somerhinqrhar rhuul,l keep in rnind that the Scripture is a
very rich source'
sccmsro
be a contradiction, we haveto look deeperand se. hoi the Holy Fa_ there are ar least
which is not e*hauited by one interpretation Usually
thersresolved thisconrradicrion. figurativeor allegori-
Oncein a whilewe cancomeup with rwo interpretations:a literal interpretationand a
a little inrerpretarion ourselves.For example,we discussed this idea cal one. Sometimesthere is alsoa mysticalinterpretation-'
aboul.th;firmamenr:no Holy Fatherralksspecifically aboutrhis rhe- -I'herefore, arepossibleBut thereare rules:
different interPretations
ory.,\4odernpeople.have rhoughtaboutit, and it hasweightasa the_
ory,but it is not in rhesamecaregory asa revealed Tiuth. Il is simplya
'The "sonsofGod" mcntionedin Gencsis begotoffspringofwomen Accord-
helpto interpretthe text. in rclarionto nran'and cannotbeget
ing ro Orrhorloxdoctrinc,angelsarebodiless
hunr"n bcingr. Seep. 244 abovc-F'n'

498 499
 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.
3) It mustmakesense with rherestof Scripture.
4) Therearesomeopinionswhich areinadmissiblel
certaininterpretations
and therearc
whichconflicrwith theteachingofthe Church.
PARTV
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
SeIectionsfrorn Letters
interpretation.Forexample, we might be remptedto think, on the ba-
sisof 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 Patriarchsdid live nine hundredyears.As we haveseen,the Parri-
archJacobwasawarethat a hundredand thirry yearswasquite a young
agecomparedto that of the fathersbeforehim. The world wasso dif-
ferenrand so new rhenthat ir is quiteplausiblethat peoplelivcd rhat
long,thoughit is quiteforeignto our experience. Ve cannotoverrurn
what theysaid.

500
 Selectionsfrom Letters

EDITORS NOTE: For a bachgroundto theseexeerpxfom Fr Sera-

phimi letters,seetheEditor! Prefaceaswcll astheEditor'sNote onp. 379.
Sectiontitleshauebeensuppliedb1 the editor.Namesbauebeenabbre-
uiatedin ord.erto protectthepriuacy of liuing persons.

l. A Kq in the Programof Anti-Christianity

(To A. Y., Atgust 16129,1972)

/\ s ron EvoLUTloN, which is a hoaxand fraudifever anythingwas,

fI. *e havelong wantedto havea good objectiveexposC(because oF
its devastatinganti-Christian religious overtonesand even founda-
tion), but haveneverhad rhechanceto go inro it ourselves. The state-
mentsof Fr. L. which you quotedon it soundnaivein the extreme.
Over a yearago Fr.N. mentionedhe wasgoingto prinr an articleon
duringGrcarLrnr of 1972,rypingin rhc rcfecrory
Fr Seraphim, ofrhe rhesubjectby Kalomiros,but we assumed it would be entirelycritical
St, HcrmanMonasrery, Platina,California. and exposechewholefraudof it. Ve know ofno conceivable watering
down or modificationof the evolutionaryhypothesiswhich would
make it acceptableeither to theology,philosophy,or science--cer-
rainly the more sophisticated scientiststoday no longertake it seri-
ously,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 nec-

503
 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 publishany-
thing 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 im-
provedby 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:"arheisticphysicalevolurion,
or theisticphysicalevolurion,or spiritualevolurion."Howevcr your
articleis reallyaddressed almostentirelyagainstatheisticphysicalevo-
lution and its absurdities, and somepeoplemight rakeadvantage of
this ro sayyou havenireallyconsidered more"refined"formsof rheis-
tic 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
vagueand confusedminds(for whom, apparently, "God" suppliesrhe
energyand orderrhatcant be explainedaccordingto the SecondLaw
of Thermodynamics): it is sarisfactory
neitherfor theologynor Forsci-
ence,but just mixesthe rwo realmsup. Again,"spirirual"evolurionap-
pliesrhe"conclusions" of atheisticphysicalevolutionro the "spiritual"
504
Srlr.crloNsrnov Lrrlrns
rc.rlmand comesto resultswhich are monstrousand unacceptableei-
rher from the scienrificor the theologicalpoint of view: a mix-uP and
(onfusion which can only disguiseitself in f-antasticjargon tr la Teil-
h,rrdde Chardin. Both thesekinds ofevolution dependentirelyon ac-
ceptanceofphysical evolution,and ifthat is shown to be unsound they
llll; and in addition they are self-conrradictorybecausethe whole pur-
lroseand intent of the theory of physicalevolution is n fnd an cxph'
ation of the world without God;i.e., physical evolutionis b7 ix natare
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 ofevolu-
tion are no more satisfactory. The central point, of course,is that evo-
lution is not at all "scientific," but rather a kind of science-fiction
rheology,rhe product of faith (an atheisticfaith, but nonethelessfaith).
-Ihat
ii is still so widely acceptedsuretyshowshow low not only theol-
ogy, but just plain commonsenserhinking havefallen today.(l still re-
member 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 refer-
enceat hand) and menrion the great doubts and questionssurround-
ing the others,so as not to be accusedof racingaheadof the evidence!
'l-hermodynamics: * youd better give a brief
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 discussionofthe incompatibiliryofthe rhcoryofcvolurionwith thc Sec-
ond Law of Thermodynamics univcrsal"principlcof disintcgration")
(the scc 7"6a
Mystcryof Lifc! Otilz by CharlesB. -[haxton, Valtcr L. Bradlcy and RogcrL. Olscn'
pp. I l3-26. Thesepagesconraina thorough refuration of thc vagueappcalmadc by
evolurioniststo open-system, non-equilibrium rhcrmodynamics.-Eo.
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, unre-
deemedfoolishnessrhey 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 discus-
sion on this. Perhapsone day you could pur rogerhera longer, more
detailed article on evolution, with ample citations both from evolu-
tionists (showing rheir naive faith and sloppy rhinking) and their
sound critics (l recalla good book I read some yearsago by an orni-
thologisr: 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 ba-
sic attitude and fears,I think. His concern abour "fundamentalism"
seemsto stem from a f-earrhat the Orthodox battle againstevolution-
ism might get bogged down azrthe samebuel as the "supposed" scien-
tific 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 descriptionof 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 in-
corporatedinto 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€pa-
rarion 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 pseudo-
religiouspresuppositionsof its supportersare so evidenr,and when it
is so much bound up with masonry-ecumenismand the whole
pseudo-religious modern outlook.
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
' Thc arriclcon cvolurionby A. Y, which Fr.Scraphimspeaks
aboutin rhc prc-
vioussection.-ED.
507
 Get.lesls,
Carxnou nNo Eanrr Mlp
"modern" ideasareafier all one whole: rhey are formcd first outsiderhc
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 "unleash-
ing" 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 thought-
partern 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 un-
consciousarrirud€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 "Christian-
ity" (and "C)rthodoxy")ofthe furure, or rarher its metaphysicalfoun-
darion (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 over-
joyed I myself was ro find this "shelteredness" when I becameOrtho-
dox, 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
Sst.ecrIoNssrou Lr.trtRs
(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€ier-
ous 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 end-
lcss modernist-fundamentalistdiscussionswhich are totally Pointless
(how many "hours" itt the first "sevendays"?etc.). Ve certainly agree
on rhe pointlessness of such discussions,but now the issueis much
decperthan that; "evolution" is a whole mind-set that is quite incom-
Datiblewith Orthodoxy. But that is a treatisein itself.A. Y.'sarticle,as
i said, is much too brief, but perhapsit will havethe good effectofin-
spiring a thorough treatment of the subiecr (zat a "modernist-
tundamentalist"fight, but alsonot what Fr. E. apparentlywants to do,
to srand so far abovethe issuethat one can't even discern that evolu-
tion 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 "Evolu-
tion: God's Method of Creation." Vell, here are the argumentsof an
"Orrhodox evolutionist,"and they are the sameas all other evolution-
ary arguments,emotional faith with not one shredofgenuine evidence
ro support it (although hc presentsmaterialtha( looksvery fbrmidable
and "scientific").But more importanr: readbetweenthe lines and an-
swer: does this man believein God as a true Orthodox Christian be-
lieves 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 is a
509
 CrNrsts, Cnt:.erroNrNo Early MaN
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 high-
est 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 peo-
ple 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.
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 ap-
parentlysentyou 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. ap-
parentlyare 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
Seu.clroNsrRoMLETIERS
r.,hcdrhat people so keen on ccclesiastical matters,ecumenism,etc.,
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 Pres-
enrarion 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
consciousattitudesand reasoning.(There'.s a good reasonfor that: it'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 "defen-
sive"posrure.Your article is probablygoing to do somethingvery pain-
ful at first but ultimately positive: bring out into the oPen some
attitudeswhich havelong been hiding in the shadows.
Eullution Is Not Scientifc
5. TheArgumentag/1inst
but Theological
(To Fr. N., PalmSundaylApril91221,1973)
(By theway,in caseI didni makeit clearin my lastletrer, theargu-
menragainstrhesupposed "scientific"theoryof evolutionis not itself
5l I
 GENlsrs,CnrarloNeNo E,rnryMaN
scientific,lor "science"itself can neither prove nor disproveir, for sci-
ence it's only guesswork:rhe argumentagainsrir is rheological,thar it
involvesimplicationswhich are enrirely unacceptablefor Orrhodory,
and theseimplicationscan't be escaped,and everypropounder ofevo-
lution 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 atrack-
ing scientifichnowlrdge, but only pseudoscientific, pseudo-religious
philosophymasquerading as science,and you are using scientific
knowledgenor to defend theologybut only to desrroythe self-
contradictorytheoriesof 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 ratherra-
tionalisticpurposes. We areverydisappointed to seesuchnarrowness.
And the replyofrhe morherro theOrthodox"highschoolyouth"(this
apparentlysums up his "answer"to the whole problem of evolu-
tion!)-how naiveand spineless!* Can Fr. E. reallybe so unawareof
' Fr E. hadwrinen rhar,ifan Orrhodoxyouthcomcshomcfrom schoolrclling
his nrorhcrrharhe lcarnedrharmancvolvcdfrom a lowerspecies,
thc mothcr'.sbcsr
replywould bc,"My ['oy,(iod couldhavecrcatedusby any mannerHe wishcd,and
no onewill everbc ablero explainor comprehcndHis 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 press-
ing problem here, and you've attacked it honestly,freshly,and well
(consideringthe short spaceyou had); if there are deficienciesor mrs-
rakesin what you'vesaid, they can be talked about in a friendly nran-
ner. 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 com-
mon with the ancient variery!Vhat will happen when they really be-
gin 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 essen-
tial 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 suf-
fering,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 hasal-
lowed 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 evolu-
tion acrossto peoplewho think like Fr. 8., but with Cod! help it can
be done. There is somethingdeep and importanr here-a rather "aca-
demic" approach to theology that does nor come to grips with the
ant i-rheology of our day.
5t3
 (lsNrsls. CnerrroN aNo F,nnr-yMIN SrI-ecrloNs
rnov Lnrlrns

cvcn raisethe mosrseriousquestions which "evolution"poses,much

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 ut4rl-
thing 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 let-
ters 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 impor-
tant from this point of view,and we are writing out a number of points
which we hope to seetreatedor mentioned rhere,and also some sug-
gestionson how to avoid being placedinto certainstereorypedcatego-
ries,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 receiveconfir-
mation 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 "exe-
tasres"*by no meansis an "objectiveOrthodox presentationon evolu-
tion"-it is rather a simple-minded"liberal" presentation,in no way
different from what any Protestantor Catholic magazinemight pub-
lish, and is exactlywhat one would expecrof the Greek Archdiocese,
in harmony with its general"liberal" orientation.-l'he article does nor
'(lrcek for "evolution.
"-Eo.
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 morecom-
plexthan that,and it is evidentthat differentpeoplehavequitediffer-
ent 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.-fherearedisad-
vantagesro 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 gro-
tesque,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 understandrhewholequesrion.He obviouslymrsun-

514 5t5
 CrNrsrs,Cnra'rroNlNo EaRr-v
M,cN
dersrandsboth St. Nectarios(who certainly is not trying to make a
"scientific" statement, but is only, quite properly, ridiculing thc
pseudo-scientists who find mans origins in the ape-kingdom).and St.
Basif (who is scientificallycorredin his staremenron pines and oaks,
and he certainlydid not intend to saythat the srelof one producesthe
other, since the whole Hexaemeron emphasizesthat each kind of crea-
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 fu-
ture article on evolution will do (wheneverGod wills!).
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 differ-
ence berweenthe Catholic-Westernmentality and Orthodoxy might
well serveas an article or pamphletalso,which would be very instruc-
tive especiallyfor converts roday.The answerto Medieval scholasti-
cism, he says,is the great Orrhodox Fatherswho lived at the same
time-namely, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory the Si-
naite, St. Gregory Palamas.
And speakingof this contrast,my researchinto the Fatherscon-
cerning evolution hasturned up somethingremarkable-the Catholic
and Orthodox doctrinesofAdam and crearionare significanrlydiffer-
ent, 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 Theo-
logicaof '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
SelrcnoNs rrolr l-r:rr r.rs
1'rcsented just right, can be very important for giving our genuineOr-
rhodox outlook on contemporaryscience and "wisdom."
I've also found commentarieson Genesisby St. Ephraim rhe Syr-
iln and St. John Chrysostom,and some more isolatedstatemenrsin
othcr Fathers.There can be no doubt at all how the Fathersunqcr-
sroodGenesis-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 asen-
rirely 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 ro-
gethershould do much to give our Orthodox peoplethe sound Orrho-
dox approachto Cenesisand creation,which I think many are now
afraid of, due to the prestigeof "science."
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, presentedpopu-
larly 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 evolu-
tion (preferablyquoting some major evolution textbook, or perhaps
Enqclopedia Britannica-the eleventh edition lists eight evidences),
showing rhat they presuppose a whole philosophyofnaturewhich is not
at all derived from "proofs" 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 rc-
alize 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 evolution-
ists "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 ad-
missions-becauseyou are going to let all their self-incriminatingevi-
dence 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"
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 pre-
cise and aware on the whole. These excerptsshow accuratelythe
changefrom the Newtonian mechanisticuniverseto the evolutionary
universeof our times.Somequoteslike rhese,perhapswith a few com-
ments in berween,may be all you needto esrablishrhe "inrellectualcli-
mate" 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 theseques-
tions basicallyare not scientifc,but come from faith. Ar the sametime
you disengageyourselffrorn the dead-endof trying to "disprove"evo-
lution: by scienceit can be neither proved nor disproved;it is a ques-
rion of a diflerenr order rhan science.
'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.
518
SrlscrroNs rnou Lerrsns
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 com-
bined testimony from Protestant,Catholic, and Orthodox chansmat-
ics-both becausethe tesrimony of all groups reinforce each other,
irnd bccausethere is really no differenceberweenthem; so also, "Or-
rhodox evolutionism"is exactlythe sameas "Carholic evolutionism.")
'I-his
also would give more punch to the secrionwhich I arn compil-
ing to lollow the Patristicquotes, and which mighr be called, effec-
rively 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 atheis-
tic 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 Le-
comte 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 lat-
est 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
5t)
 Gewrsrs,CnarrroNeno Eanlv MaN
all possibleworlds" (rhe phraseis Leibniz's,but it sums up the faith of
the whole seventeenthto early eighreenrhcentury philosophical"es-
tablishment"). Pope'swords ... will perhapsmake your readersbegin
ro see that one should not place so much Faith in any scientific
philosophy-faith.
AlexanderPope,"Essayon Man":
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 evolu-
tion too is such a passingfaith that will becomeout ofdate one day,or
is alreadybecoming so! And this inevitablyhappensif Christian phi-
losophyacceptsthe 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 readerproba-
bly 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 read-
ers! (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
SErrcrroNsnnolr Lerrtns
creation-Adam, which is totally independent of all scientiflc fash-
ions.
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 passingphiloso-
phy, 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 presentphiloso-
phy 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 motl-
ern 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 ob-
jecriviry 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 ac-
count of the "carbon dating system"and whatever"evidence"there is
lor "millions of years";also,you must be preparedfor answersin sev-
eral points o[ the "history of mankind"-how do you explain Nean-
derthal 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 evo-
fution, 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 rmir-
age"a copy ofthe letter to Fr. N. which you had alreadyshowedus, ro-
' 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'srrans-
gression)..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.
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 shockingbe-
yond our expecrations-giving the "evolutionary" reachingquite un-
adorncdand unqualified, conrplere wirh the "evolved beastAdam"and
"he who deniesevolutiondeniesrheSacredScriptures." In a way,how-
we
ever, are rather 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"Vest-
erninfluences."
I havewritrcn him a shortlertersayingI wish ro makea long and
detailedreplyto him and to starta "dialogue"with him on rhissub-
ject. 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 ler-
ter,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.
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 rx-
trcmelyimportant, 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 evolu-
rion."' 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 anthropol-
agr,,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" ofevolu-
tion, so we will have to challengehim to srart thinking and not bring
to the Holy Fathers his preconceptionsbased on modern l7estern
"wisdom."
4. He is ueryimpreciseon rhe vcry meaning of the word "evolu-
tion"-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
 GarrsIs, Cnt,rltoN lruo E,anr-v
MaN
5. The man is zar a theologian,but readsthe Fathersby hit and
m iss.
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 seek-
ing ro find out their teachingon the questionswhich are raisedby
"evolution." I have been compiling a great many passages from rheir
wrirings, including most ofthe passages which you quote your let-
in
ter. I have tried very hard not to project into these passagesany "Pre-
conceived" opinions of my own, but I must acknowledgerhat my
conclusionsregardingthe teachingof the Holy Fathersarequite differ-
ent from yours. I believethat I can show you that some ofyour inter-
pretationsof 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 ques-
rions 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 grate-
ful to you for writing your viewsso clearlyand outspokenly.
Like you, we also do not want to have merely "our own opinion"
>24
SELtctrous rrlolt Lr.lruts
on this subject,but only wish ro acceptrhe teachingof the Holy Fa-
rhcrs. So far we have not found any "evolutionist" or "anti-
evolutionist" who sersforth the real Orthodox teachingon this sub-
ject, and that is why we ourselveshavebeenmaking rescarchon it. 'fhc
Protestanrfundamentalistobjectionsto evolution are nrostly superfi-
cial 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 Fa-
thers and wish to live by their teaching,and we sensethar you <ro
also. May it be that by this love, with the help of God and by rhe
prayersof these Holy Fathers,we may now begin a "dialogue" with
you rhar will bring us all to rhe true Patristicteachingand be of help
llso to others.
Everythingthat I write will be readand criricizedby my co-laborer
Ilr. Herman, ro whom I am in obedience,and we will try alsoto obtain
the opinions of some ofour Russiantheologianswhom we respecr.
15. The Power ofT'his \Yorld and lts Fashionable Ideas
(To A. Y, Marci 2115, 1974)
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 ef-
fectivelythan if I had gone aheadwith the "soberand objective"pres-
entarion I had plannedon. One ofthe Egyptian Eldersonce said to St.
John Cassian(roughly!):"l'm glad you expressedrhis questionso stu-
pidly, 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! Al-
though 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
525
 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
this lerter has to our projectedbook-which is absolutelynecessary to
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 ques-
rion which remainsso confusedin most Orthodox minds....
Prayfor us. Tbday I hope to finish the lastand most important sec-
tion 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
| 6. Unknowingly Harboring "Modcrn ldeas"
(To A. Y, March 9/27, 1974)
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 em-
phasizethe 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
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 collectPatrisricmaterialfor rhe
finalversionof the book.
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\ Ances-
rarr, 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 "evo-
lurionary"framework,which doesindeedseemto be a philosophica
intrusion).. ..
I'vecomeacross several referencesto the "fluorinedatingsystem,"
but no thoroughdiscussion of it-Leakey mentionsit as beingin irs
infanry in the 1940s.h hasro do apparently with the rateof absorp-
tion of fluorine,whichseemsto be vastlyvariantdependingon mols-
ture,etc.It would be goodfor us to givea kind of "philosophy" ofthe
datingsystems-i.e.,showingthat we do not rejectthemoutrighr,but
rhat their significanceis relariveand limired,somewhathelpfulin the
genuinesrudyof paleonrology (whichwe shouldalsoemphasize is a le-
gitimatescience), but not anyabsolute answerro anything.In general,
we shouldcommunicate a very"friendlyfceling"rowardgenuinesci-
ence.
18.ClearingUp Confasion
(To A. Y, Augusr21t5, 1974)
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 supportersofevolution,makingour studyascompleteaspossi-

526 527
 GeNesIs,Cneertol aNn Eatrv Matt
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
dctailon many espects ofrhe question.
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 scientificevi-
dence 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 ques-
tion. I seemto recallthat in Fr. P's tape he mentions the fact that the
Saviour'sgenealogyback to Adam might contain some "syrnbolical"
names?-i.e., that there might be whole gaps of hundreds or thou-
sandsof 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 con-
cerned to reconcilethe genealogyin Luke with that of Matthew, and
528
SrrecrroNspnov Lerrens
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
(To A. Y, February14127,1976)
I myselfwould say ... that our basicfamewar,{ of [making ref-er-
encesto] popularand high schooltexts [on evolution]is the right
one-for that is how it is taughtand understood
and wheretheevolu-
tionary 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
' 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.
" In his notcs,Fr.Seraphimrranslated a passagc by rhe elcvenrh-ccnrury
Bibli-
cal commenraror lllessed'fheophylacrusof Bulgariaconcerningwhy St. l.uke the
Evangclist carricdthe gencalogyofOhrisrall thewaybackto Adamr"1'hcnariviryof
thc Lord,asbeingwirhoutsecd,encountcrcd misrrust. Thcreforerhc Evangclist,dc-
siringiro 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 wirh-
our seed,and afterrhisyou will nor be unbclicvilg"(quotedin rhc Connentaryon
theGoryclofLukebyBishopMichacl[Kiev,1899],p.308).
After Fr.Seraphimirepose, a commcntaryon theGospelofSt.[-ukcby Sr.Am-
broscof 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.
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 evo-
lution, 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 al-
readymade 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 funda-
mentalist,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:rre-
ments:"'fhe stagesof the embryo in the uterusare exacrlyrhe stagesof
life'sevolurion upon earth.'fhis is so exactrhat evenrhe gills ofour an-
cient 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 scientisrspos-
sessingadvanceddegreesin 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."(Wal-
terJ. 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 de-
velopment is basedon the recapitulationof ancestralstagesor the like
no longer seemsat all convincing or evcn very interesting ro biolo-
gists." (Prof. C. H. Vaddington, University of Edinburgh, in Princi-
plesof 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 ac-
cept 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 zool-
ogy 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 demonstra-
tions offacts (becauseI am sincerelyinterested to know whether evolu-
don 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
grounds.YorLr mind is evidentlyclosedon this subject,and you seemto
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, Ber-
keley),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
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 undis-
puted 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 objec-
tive 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 scienrificevi-
dencefor 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.
22. Auoiding One-sidedness
(To A. Y, March 17130,t976)
I haveni gone back to Kalomiros' lerter, and probably won'r ar-
tempt a reply beforesummer.*The letter,although I find its tone dis-
'1.c., a dctailedreplyin additionro rhe compararivclv
brief replyhe had just
scnt.-Eo.
532
Sr,LEcrIoNsrnotr'rl"rLlr-ns
tasreful,is helpful, becauseit shows the reaction that our "evolution
book" would havehad in somequarrersif it hadnt first been testedby
rhis correspondence. " I have
This will help us to avoid "one-sidedness.
rhe impressionKalomirosdemonstratesquite a bit of rationalismhim-
self: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
which the "rediscoverers ofrradirion" do not have.May God help us to
cxpresstheserhings in a way that can be acceptedand assimilatedto-
d"y.
23. Three Axioms
(To Fr. I., Jrlly31t6, 1977)
Abour "evolution"-1rysvTgJsglad to have your comments. If you
reallywant ro seethem so much, and Dr. Kalomiros has alreadydis-
rributed his letters,we could sendyou copies,aFterwe'vemade our re-
ply 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 mis-
takeswe mighr nTake,but hoping that-although startingalmost poles
xparr-we might in the end "work out" this question in friendly de-
bate 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 secondlet-
rer 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-
533
 Cr:Nrsrs,Cr.r.arroN
aNo E,rnlyMalr
Iution" itself,but on the /lpprodchro it, which seemsso difficult but is
so essentiel.
First ofall, we werevery disappoinredin all the thlss g- lsllsrs
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 at-
tempr 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 <1ues-
tion 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 B- Farhersseemro be afraid of, and
in generalour Orthodox theologiansalso (including Fr Michael Po-
mazanskyif I'm not mistaken):once you get into "science,"the thcolo-
gian 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 or-
der 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
534
rnov Ll:r'ltns
SeLec.rror.rs
lrccn on earth some sevenor eight thousand years("more or le5s,"x5
rhc Fathersoften say) if one is totally ignorant of the principlesof ra-
tliomerricdating, geologicstmta,etc., which "prove" that man is "mil-
lions 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
wlrcther man has been on earth for some thousands of yearsor some
nillions of yearsis one that certainlytoucheson some basicOrthodox
(luesrions-whether the genealogies of the Scriptureare actuallygene-
alogies(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" in-
srcad of concrete people; whether Adam himself ever existed (espe-
ciallv in view of what seems the prevailing theory now among
cvolutionists-"polygenism," that new speciesbegin in many pairs si-
mtrltaneously)ietc. This is just a sampleto show rhat to get anywhere
in this questionone must havea basic,layman! awareness ofthe scien-
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 as-
sume that scientific ffiah (as opposedto variousopinions and preju-
dices) 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 evolutionaryphi-
Iosophyof "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
5)5
 Cr,;Nrsls,
Ctr,rrroru
eruoEanrxMaN
evolvedsufliciently, God "specially creared" a soulfor it-there evoru-
tion is correct,and so is Genesis, broadlyinterpreted.Kalomiroshas
basicallythe sameview,thoughhe hasa more Patristicvocabulary to
describe it-bur suchviewsareveryarrificialandcontrived:the Chris-
tianswait for the latestevolutionaryhypothesis and nvist the rext of
Genesisto fit in with it. 'l'his won'rdo! An awareness of how evolu-
tionary philosophers (suchas Teilhardde Chardin)view the whole
questionofevolution,whileit maynot solveanyspecificquestion,will
still givea broaderview of the wholeintellectualbackgroundbehind
evolution.
3. Axiom 3: l'he whole quesrionof Genesiscannorbe well ap-
proachedby Orrhodoxpeoplewithout appealingto the basicOrrho-
dox sources: the Holy Fathers.Especially valuable:rhe Hexaemera of
St. Basiland St.Ambrose;commentaries on Genesis by St.JohnChry-
sostomand 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(Instruc-
tion I); commentaries of variousFatherson relatedpassages of Scrip-
ture (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 Resur-
rection,or wheneverthe questionof "seed"or "growth"is discussed;
treatises on the origin of man (St.Gregoryof Nyssa);Patristicdiscus-
sionson reincarnation and rhepre-existence of souls(whicharephilo-
sophicallyrelatedto 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 di-
rectlyfor fearofoffendinghim again)is rhis:
l. He is very unprepared to discussthe questioneirherscientifi-
callyor 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 po-
536
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 em-
bryology 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 advanccdde-
grees!)who now haveabandonedevolution entirely or are skepricalof
unprepared for such a discussion-something
2. He is theological/1,
which surprisedus most ofall. Evenafter promising us that he was go-
ing to reply only after readingall the basic Patristictexts on the sub-
ject, 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 Patristicpas-
sageswe 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 "chronologi-
cally" 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 objec-
tively.... 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 sci-
enceof his time." But sincethe scienceof St. Ephraim'stime most cer-
tainly 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 Patristrcevr-
dence very obiectively,using any excuseto dismisswhatever doesni
asreewith his own views.
537
 CeNtsrs,
Cnrxrror ,rNoErnryMeN
I would stronglysuspecr rhat Fr. MichaeI Pomazansky would pre-
fer not to make any generalcommenrson rhe question of evolu-
1i6n-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 inrer-
estedin someofthe publications ofthe Institutelor CreationResearch
in San Diego, especiallybooks like Scientifc Creationism(pulslic
school-i.e., non-religious edirion)which presentonly scientificevi-
dencewirhout reference ro religion.Their presenration of rhe "Crea-
tion Model" is a promisingapproachro a moreobjectiveview of the
wholequestion.I'heir religiousviews,of course,sufferfrom the gen-
eralshortsightedness of fundamentalism (in particular,their unaware-
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)
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 opin-
ion concerning the "millions of years"during which, supposedly,not
538
Snnc.rroNsrrov Lrr-rens
merely"galaxies"haveexisted,but even man himself and his near "an-
cestors"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 prod-
ucr of the scientificspeculationsof modern thinkers,and neither more
nor lessdeservingof credencerhan ancient Greek speculationscon-
cerning the origin of the world.
2. This raisesanotherfundamentalquestion:how much should we
use sciencein a commentary on Genesis?I would say,as a very mini-
mum: we must know enough about scienceand its modern specula-
tions 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 le-
gitimate 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 sci-
encc 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 ex-
ample, 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 impor-
tant?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
539
 Gr-Nrsrs,
CnenrlclNaNo E,rnryMau
Fathers(St. lsaacthe Syrian,St. Cregorv Palamas,etc.) werequite cer-
tain 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 diltfer-
ences between the Greek and Hebrew chronologies-the thousand
years"more or less"didn't bother him any more than it did other Fa-
thers-but the assertionthat Adam lived a million or more yearsago,
and that rhus rhe Old [and New] 'lestamentchronologyis quite arbi-
trary or fanciful,could not but haveevokednumerousPatristicdiscus-
sions.) Can we be so trusting of the conclusionsof modern science
(especiallyif we have a basicknowledgeof radiometricdating proce-
duresand 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 realmofre-
vealedrruth. \When Dr. Kalomiros dismissesthe Patristicinterpreta-
tion of rhe Old Testamentchronologyas "Jewishrationalism,"I even
begin to wonder what his basicattitude to the Fathersis? It seemsto
havean elementof disrespect, to saythe least.
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
other creatures(not descendedfrom others),dispassionate by nature
(in soul and body), wirh Eve miraculouslycreatedlrom his rib (in a
way we cannor describewith scientific precision,as St. John Chry-
sostom 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
54, Englishedition,p. 269).St. Macarirrs rhc Grcarlikcwiscstatcstlrar,in his time,
satan"is alrcady6,000 ycarsold" (Fifu SpiritualHomiliet Homrly 26, Englishedi-
tion, Classicsof!/esrernSpirirualiry serics, p. 167).
In hisLctrerto the Revcrend Nun Xenia,Sr.(ircgoryl'alamas writesthat 'Adam
conrinuedro live after rhar time Ii.c., afier his fall] cvcn for 930 ycars"(Tbc Philoha-
lia, vol.4, p.296).-Eo.
540
Stl.r.c'noNs
lrov l,l't.ttns
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 ex-
plainable("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 pro-
ceededaccordingro 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 im-
provisationsand wholesaledisregardof Patristicevidence.-I'he chief
reason,I suspect,why ir doesnor give rhe horrors to Orrhodox believ-
crs in "God-guided evolution" (as,for example,Fr. N. professes him-
self 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:;ur-
terly 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
541
 (lr:Ntsls,Cnut t<lNaNrrF-,rrryMaru
of Genesisis not to be interpretedliterally or "chronologically"(Kalo-
miros 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 naru-
ral laws!
All this, asyou can see,is an informal discussionpresentedfor your
reflection-precise citationswill havc ro be given when I havetrme.
25. Clergt in ()reeceagainst "Orthodox &'olutionisni'
(To Bishop Cregory,
November 22lDecernbcr5, 1980)
In the l98l Conferencein PennsylvaniaI notice thar Dr. Alexan-
der 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 dis-
coveredto 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 up-
holding 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 scientiflcevolu-
tionism. In addition, Dr. Kalomiros has now made himself notorious
* In anorhcrlerrer(ro Fr D. S., Nov. 23lDcc.6, 1980)Fr.
Scraphimsaysfur-
rhcr: "Conscrvarive
theologians in Crcccercgardhim IDr Kalomiros]as a radical
evolutionisr."-Eo.
542
Ssltc ltotts rrov Ln:''ttlns
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 com-
nrr.rnionwith rhosewho venerareor evcn tolerareit.
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 inspira-
tion 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. Her-
nran answercdme: -l'hey'retrying to keepup with rhc "advanced"fash-
ions 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 interpre-
tations 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. Kalo-
miros' talk in Pennsylvania.
Speakingof Genesis,I seeno reasonwhy this courseon Genesis
couldn't be turned into the main porrion of our long-lost "evolution"
' 1.c..thosellussiancmigranrs
who fbrnrcdrlrcI)arisian
schoololnrodcrnisr
Or-
thodoxrhcology.-Eo.
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. EorroR'sEprrocuE
John Chrysostom,St. Ephraim, etc.) of the first chaptersof Cenesis,
discussing"problems"raisedby modern men in the courseof the dis-
cussion.Then, as the secondarythought (lessthan half the book), a
discussion of the whole questionof evolution....
Euolutionismand tlte Religion
lf we can carry it through, it should be a pioneeringwork which
will make rhis question at leastdiscussibleamong Orthodox Chris-
of the Future
tians, many ofwhom are concernedbur just dont know where to be-
gin to think it through. \X/hatdo you think? Any ideasor discussions? Euolution is not partially true or false. It tzrosefrom-dc-
I will be working on the whole first part for the summer course,and mandsto be acceptedas-a whole philosopbJof the world
maybeyou and I could look over and organizethe restof it somerime and life. 7'hescientift lrypothesis
is quitesecondary.
this summer.Then it will be timely to print it, especiallysincethe sub-
ject will be somewhatin the air with my and Kalomiros' talks. 'I-heargurnentagainstthesupposed "scientift"theoryof euo-
Iution is not itselfscientifc.... 'l-heargumcntagainstit is
RereadingKalomiros'letters,I seethar rhereis somerhingquire ba-
sic at stake.... It is obvious that Kalomiros has no intenrion whatever theological,that it inuoluesimplications ubich are entirely
to humble himself beforethe mind of the Fathers.He "knows berrer" unacceptabbfor Orthodoxl, and theseimplications can't be
than they, and therefore he easily categorizesas "absurd" opinions escaped, and euerypropounderofeuolution usesthem, the the-
which they held becausehe hirnselfhasthought it our berrer,with the istsand spirinatists beingworsethan the atheists.
aid of modern science.[n this casehe is broader than the Fathers;in -Fr. Seraphim
most cases,perhaps,our Greeksare narrower-but it is their own wis-
dom that they trust and which they wish ro imposeon others.Our key
But I fear lest lry any meant, dt the serpentbeguiledEuc
is-sticking ro rhe wisdom of the Church, rrusring our own Fathers
throughhis subtlety,soyour mindssbouldbe conuptedfrom
and the Holy Fatherswho lived before.Peopleare readyto hear this.
thesimplicitythat is in Christ. _2 Cor. I I :3

I. Tbe Pasing of Scientifc Materialim

f,on rHose ,rwaneof the intellectual climareat rhebeginningof rhe

I' newmillennium, it is apparent thatscientificmaterialisnr
rswan-
ing.The factthat thework ofpeoplelike Professors Johnson Behe
and
is evokingsuchwidespread interestindicatesthat rhe generalpopula-
tion is not satisfiedwith thestandardneo-Darwinian exolanationthat
life and all living formscameinto beingrhroughpurelymarerialisri

544 545
 Ctxr:sts,Cns,ruoueNo Eart-vMan
causes.Indeed,in 199(rthe lateatheist/agnosticevolutionist(larl Sagan
deploredthe fact that "only nine percentof Americansacceptthc cen-
tral 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 alreadyprc-
dicting the fall of atheisticcommunism, togcthcrwith the fall of athe-
isnr/agnosticisrnin modern scienceand philosophy. He knew they
would fall becausethe dialecticalmaterialismof Marxism and the sci-
entific nraterialismof Darwinism deniesmani natural religiousintcr-
est, 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
leastinitially) an overt attempt to do away with traditional Christian-
iry, but would rather seekto subvertChristianiryby denaturingit and
purring in irs placea cleversubstrtute.
F-orthose who have lost the savor of traditional Christianiry, Fr.
Seraphimsaid, rhe waning of atheism/agnosticism in scicnce,philoso-
phy and governmentwill coincidewith a return ro rhe deism of Free-
masonry:the "new religion" out of which the modern Revolutionary
Age was born. In his SurvivalCourseof 1975, hc said:
l'hc idcalof rhc F-nlighrcnnrcnt Agc lwhich dircctlyprcccdcdtlrc
Rcvolutionary Agc]wasdcism,and it wasftonrthisarrnosphcre thar
modernMasonryarosc.Dcismis thc idcaof rhc (irand Architcct:a
God who is somcwhcrc rcmotcin the heavcnsand doesn'rtouchus.
The dcisticidcaof Masonrywasrhc powcrrcsponsiblc fbr produc-
ing thc FrcnchILcvolurion and thc wholc rcvolutiontrymovenlent
of our rimcs.-I'hcrcis a vcryinrportantrcas<>n
why dcism-although
rodayir scems quiteoutmodcdanddisproved-lasrcd on in thc Ma-
546
Eorrrln'sEprr-ocuu
soniclod11cs. Ir is bccausc
thc wholcmodcrnworldviewis rotarhcis-
tic, it is zot agnostic;it bclievesin God. 'I'he pcriod in which
agnosricism and athcismarc replacing Christianityis only a tenrpo-
rary pcriod.Irs purposeis ro do awaywith the rruc God of tradi-
tional Chrisrianiryso that pcoplecan comc backand worshipthe
'iruc God" accordingto rhe rcvolutionaryphilosophy, as rhc Ma-
sonsdo to thisday.'fhc GrandArchitectis the nsw God.
When this wrirer first met Fr. SeraDhimar rhe Universitv of Cali-
fornia,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 Patristicallybascdpredic-
tion 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
globalismwould offer a pseudo-spiritualiry."Communism," he said,
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.,r-
plc'.smcnralirygoes.Evcrrrhoughthc dicrarorship hasbcenjusr as
strongilscvcr,cspeciallyin 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<l
happenbeforethe endof the world cancomc,and rharis rhartherc
hasto be one unifiedworld governmenr, from which Christianity
hassomehowbeenkickcdour. And rharcommunismhasbcenoo-
ing very successfully.
But in order to supplypeoplewith a 'spiritual'basisfor one
world government,therehas ro be sornerhinghighcr:and in the
547
 GrNrsrs,Cnarrror ,ruo Eanly MIN
ideasof the Unired Narions,florexample,wc scesomcrhingrhar
lookslikea spiritualanswer.'TheU.N. claimsro be fbr the fbunda-
tion 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 he-
causcagainyou'rcidenrifiedlit hasto be aboveall religions. Finally
thcy decidcdon a blacksroneblock.Pcoplcexperiencc an awesome
feelingbeforeit, aslxfore an idol: a veryvaguekind of religiousin-
terest.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 recog-
nized 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 Na-
rions,all bur onc werc lateridenrifiedassecretmembersof rhe CommtrnistParry
USA.The U.N. s firsrSecrerary General. who orchesrraredthe 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
endsin themselves. In the courseof apostasymastermindedby the en-
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"evolution-
ism is the step beyond old-school Darwinism. At rhis juncture, Fr.
Seraphim believed, sciencewill combine with religion to form one unr-
versal,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 'ph-
ilosophy' knd there is sucb a thing!) of the roming Antichrist."
Here it is interestingto note that, in his SurvivalCourse,Fr. Sera-
phim 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 evolu-
rionary sciencewith evolutionaryspirituality."Teilhardism," Fr. Sera-
phinr wrote, "is the 'Christianiry' (and 'Orthodoxy') of the future, or
rather its metaphysicalfoundation." Fr. SeraphimcalledTeilhard both
rhe "prophet" and the "predecessor" of Antichrist.
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
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.
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 preoccu-
pationsis the effort ro cstablishin mysclfand to spreadarounda
ncw rcligion(you maycall it a berterChristianiry)in which the pcr-
sonalGod ccases to be thegrcatneolithicproprietorof formcrtimes,
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 relig-
ion 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 re-
actedendlesslyupon one another in a flashofextraordinary brilliance,
releasingby their implosion a light so inrensethat ir transfigured(or
5
even'transubstantiated') for me the very depthsof the Vorld."
Elsewhere he speaks of his psychic discovery of rhe noosphere,
which he perceivesas a conscioussphericalenvelopeor aura stretching
around the earrh:
Therewassomethingmore:aroundthissentientprotoplasntic layer
Ii.e.,the biosphere],an ultimate was
envclope beginningro become
apparentto mc, rakingon itsown individualiry
andgraduallydetach-
ing itselflikea luminousaura.This envelopc
wasnot only conscious,
but thinkine,andfrom thetimewhenI firstbecame awareof it, it was
550
Eorron's Epllocue
alwaystherc that I found concentratcdin an cver morc dazzlingand
consistcntform, the csscnceor rather the very soul of rhe Earrh."
Ve will speakmorelateraboutthe natureofsuch spiritualexperi-
ences.For now it will sufficeto point out rhattheyareconnected with
preciselythe kind of"vagueideas"by whichFr.Seraphimsaid'thede-
monscomein and beginto acr."
Like his fellow"propher"FriedrichNierzsche, Teilhardfelt that he
wasperhapsthe only personin historyto havereceived suchrevela-
tions.In an arriclecompletedonly one month beforehis death,Teil-
hardwrote:
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 wonder-
ful "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 fusesponta-
neously. 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 rm-
possiblefor 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 phrasewascoined(l think) by [Claudede]
Saint-Simon150 yearsago,and much preparation wasmadefor ir
at just rhe righr rime to
beforeTlilhard.ProbablyTeilhardappeared
)) 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 be-
ing."'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 end-
point of evolution: the "Omega Point." ln rhe evolution of human
consciousness, he aFfirmed,this new "cosmogenesis-God" would natu-
rally 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
' Panrhcisnr
being'\hc doctrinerharthcreis no God bur rhe combincdfbrccs
and lawsthararenranili:sted (Wcbsreri]-hird New Intcrna-
in rheexisringunivcrse"
tionrl Dicrionary).
552
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 adequatelyun-
derstoodin 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
exrra-cosmic intelligence" in the operationsol Nature.''
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 connec-
rion"-is at the sametime "spiritual."1-he"inrelligence"behind evolu-
tion, 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
ideaof naturalselection.''
Contrary to the Christian doctrine of an omniPotent, impassable
God Vho createsimmediatelyand efforrlcssly, Teilhard'sevolutionary
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
standpoint,the true name for'spirii is'spiritualization."' Spirit, then'
is a process,"a gradualand systematicpassage from the unconsclousto
rt'
the conscious,and from the conscious to the self-conscious."
'leilhard believedthat, while living organismsare evolving,"spiriC'
is evolving along with them. But for him thesewere not rwo seParatc
processes: they were aspectsof a singlespirit-matterevolution.
Just as the conceprof biologicalevolution underminesthe distinc-
553
 CsNrsrs,
Ctl:arroNANDEARI_y
MAN
tion betweenthe crearednaruresof living forms-seeing,asdid Eras-
musDarwin,a "singlelivingfilament"berween thcm-so too-[bilhard's
conceptof spiritualevolution(consciousncss becomingspirit) under-
minesthe disrinctionbetweenthe psychicand rhetruly spirirual.
4. Nibilism: tbe destuctionof 'lruth. 'All around us," writes Teil-
hard,"and wirhin ourselves, God is in process of'changing';his bril-
lianceincreases, and the glow of his coloringgrowsricher."r,II the
Cod of creariorr is changing,thereis no irnmurableFirstprinciple,no
basisfor Absolutetuth. Evolutionismis thusan expression of nihil-
ism, 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. Sera-
phim calledthe "mcraphysical foundation"of 'lbilhardism,rhen,is ac-
ruallythe rotallackof sucha foundation.
5. Chiliasm:the inuersionof Tiuth. -leilhardbelievedthat rhc psy-
chicprincipleof rhenoosphere--"the soulof rheEardr'-would gradu-
ally convergein the OmegaPoint,at which time the "part of God',
which wasevolvingin the world would ar lasrreachsuprenre Uniry.
In this dcrctrine,which Teilhardtermed.cosntogenesis,Christicemer-
gcnce,etc.,we seean extremeand fantasric expressionofwhat ljr. Sera-
phim 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,chili-
asmis (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:
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
begerscomplcx, savagery"evolves"to civiliz.ation,imperfecr grvcs
rise to perfcct, "progrcss,"ctc, According ro Orthodoxy, rhc pcrfecr
firllsro rhe impcrf'ecr(Paradiseto flllcn world; and cven hisrorically,
rhe Holy Fathcrsnorc rhc fall of mankind in gcncralunril the corn-
554
EoIton's EPIlocue
ing of Chrisr . . .), and man irr the lastdavswill be muchlowerspiri-
tually rhan in the earll'Church.. ; incorruptionand immortaliry
prcccdecorruptionand mortaliryThc perfectionand immortaliry
of tlrc coming age (heaven)are not a deuelopment or "evolution"
from the prescntworld (asTcilhardde Chardinwould haveit .. .),
but a radicaltransformation.
6. Man becomes Gal. The ultimate goal of this inversion,of course,
cannot but include a pervertedconceptof the deificationof man' Teil-
hard 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
rrue, irreversibleess€nceof things, the Omega Point?""
In his SurvivalCourse,Fr. Seraphimspokeabout the {:alse deifica-
tion of man in relation to Nietxche's idea of the Superman:
Contemporarywritcrssuchas Erich Kahlertalk abouthow all the
changes both physically
of moderrtsocicry, and in ideas,areProduc-
ing what he calleda mutation,somekind of irew man."*And if, on
top ofrhat, we bearin mind rhcso-called scicntificideaofcvolurron,
which in facrNietzsche believcdin, we seerhatthisidcaof thc com-
ing ofa'!rew man,"ofsupermatr,is not at all a fantasy. lt is a real
idcathat hasbeenarrivcdar naturally'logically, by Wcsrcrnman in
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 de-
more negative,being associated
' The GermanthinkerErich Kahler( I 885-1970)wrotc:"T he powerfultrcnd
rowardthedisrLrption and invalidation presentin rhc
ofrhc individual .. nranifestly
nrostdiversecurrcntsof modern lifc-cconomic, technological,political'scicnrific,
cducarional, psychicand artistic-appcars so overwhclming rhat we arc induced ro
."" in it a tr,.tcmutation,a rransformarion of human nature" (Kahler,Ilr Towcrdnd
tlteAbJs. pp. 225-2(t).
555
 CaNesls,Cnea-rron
,ruo Eenw M,ru
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 de-
ism, with whom, in leilhard! inverredvision of "ultra-hominization,"
man is expectedto ulrimarelymerge.
7- Euolutionism replacel Christ as the Sauiour. This idea was ex-
pressedopenly in a blasphemoussraremenrrhat Teilhardwrorc onry a
few monrhs beforehis death: "[t is Christ, in very rruth, who saves-
bur should we nor immediatelyadd that at the same time it is Christ
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 conse-
quence-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 concco-
tion. 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 bring-
ing 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-
))6
Eotron's[]llt.or;utt
cisely'the interventionofan extra-cosmic intelligence," which as we
-[-hechoice of "evolution or rntru-
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,evolu-
rionism eliminates the need for an extra-cosmicintelligenceto "in-
trude" into human history-as happenedwhen the transcendent(;od
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 ulti-
we should once more emphasiz.e thar
'spirir
metely come fronr him. As Fr. Seraphimsaid' "T'herercally rs a
r7-and 'llilhard
of rhe times'" rappedinto it.
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-
rualiz-edview of neo-Darwinian natural selection
But, as we have seen,the intellectualmilieu has changcdconsid-
erably 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 contempo-
rary American wrirer Ken Vilber. As the most influential thinker in
the movement known as T'ranspersonal Psychology,Wilber is now en-
joying a growing vogue among spiritually oriented intellectuals.Both
PresidentBill Clinton and Vice-PresidentAl Gore have read his writ-
tWith sixteenbooks rrans-
ings and publicly calledattention to them.28
lated into over twenty languages,he is now the most rranslated
557
 Cr:rursrs,
Crra.rroruaNo Eanrr MaN
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 generaliza-
tions": 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:
A clraracrcrisric of modcrn currcnrs of rhorrght is ,,univcrs:rl-
ism"-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 evcrythingcnrcr-
ing 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
' As a signof rhis-<rr rarhcrasa resultof ir-Ann Codoff,rhe currenrheadof
the largcsrpublishingconglomcrate in rheworld,llandonrHousc,hls sirid:..l.hcrcis
no livingwrircr I wouldrarhcrpublishnrorerhanKcn \X/ilber..'
" /.citgeistis C,ernnn for "spirir o{ thc rirrcs."
55ri
L.orron's F.PIt-o<;ut:
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 trans-
nlitrer 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 scien-
rific materialism has attempted to exPlain the universewirhout
God-from a Big Bang of fifteen billion yearsago to the evolurion of
man "from simpG insentientand lifeless2161115"-xn.l rhen he entleav-
ors to injectspirirrr:rliryinto thesctheorics."
lVilber refersto his philosophyas "euolutionary pa entheism'"" ln
his fbrmulation, evolution is precededby "involution": Spirtt mant-
festing itself in the universe,and rhen forgetting that it is Spirit He
writcs:
Spirirmanifests a universe by "throwingitselfout" or "empryingit-
self" to createsoul,which condenscs into mind, which condenses
inro body,which condcnscs into mattcr,thc dcnscstform of all'
F-achof thoselevelsis still a levclof Spirit,btrrcachis a rcdttccdor
' Ihis is rhc book in which President Core have
Clinton and Vice-President
shownspccialintercst.
559
 CsNesrs.CrulrroN ,rNoElnly MnN
"stepped down"versionof Spirir.At the end of rharproccss of invo-
lurion,all of the higherdimensionsarccnfblded,aspotenrial,in the
lowestmaterialrealm.And oncerhc matcrialworld blowsinro exis-
tence(with, say,rhc Big Bang),then the revcrseproccss-orevolu-
tion-can occur,movingfrom matterto living bodiesto symbolic
mindsto luminoussoulsro purcSpiriritself In thisdcvelopmenr or
evolutionaryunfolding,eachsuccessivc levcl docs nor jerrison or
denythe previouslevcl,but rarherincludesor embraces it, jusrasat-
omsareincludedin molccules, whicharcincludcdin cells.whicharc
includedin org:rnisms. Eachlevelis a wholc rhar is alsoparr of a
largcrwholc.... In orherwords,eachcvolutionaryunfoldingtran-
sccndsbur includesirs predeccssor(s),wirh Spirit rranscending and
includingabsolutcly evcrything.'n
Vilber saysthar this spiritual view of evolution must replacethe
marcrialisticview, and notes rhar scientificmaterialismis now ironi-
cally, paving the way for an "euolutionbeyondrationality." rt In a chill-
ing i nversion of Fr. Seraphim's prognosis, Wilber says rhat
rationalism/materialism (which he callsrhe "flarland" menrality) is bur
a step in man! evolurionarydevelopmenr:a srep away frorn old relig-
ious conceptions,so rhar man can arriveat a higher conceptof the Di-
vine. 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 establish-
menr which haveappearedsinceTeilhard'sdeath,Vilber correcrlyob-
servesthat the Darwinian theory of "evolution by natural selecrion.. .
can'texplain macroevolutionat alll"rt'He writes:
'fhc standard,glib, neo-Darwinian
explanationof naturalselec-
tion-absolurclynobodybelieves rhis anymore.'Evolutionclcarly
' Vilber is writing in the form of dialoguehere,and so is spcakinghyperboli-
cally.In actual[act,thcrearc manywho srill hold tenaciously ro rhe srandardneo-
Darwinianexplanarion, in spircof rhegrowingconringentof cvolurionisrs who op,
poseit.-Ihe chiefrpologisr ofold-schoolnco-L)arwinism is RichardDawkins.
560
Eorron'sEprlocur:
opcrarcsin parr by Darwiniannaturalsclecrion,but rhis proccss
simply selcctsthosc transfrrrmarions
rhar havc a/read;yoccrrred 6y
mechanisms rhatabsolutely nobodyundcrstands.J'
He goeson to point our that random murarions"cannot even be-
gin to explain" the production of a wing or an eye, and thar rhcrc is
'iro evidencerultatsoeuerof intermediateforms."tu But elsewhere,rc-
taining 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-evolurionistsStephenJay (lould end
Niles Eldredgeto accountfor thc lack of intermediareforms in the fos-
sil 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 labori-
ous Process:
Evolutionis not a statisrical
accident-it is a laboringtowardSpirir,
drivcn,not by happy-go-lucky chancc,howcvercomforringrharno-
tion is to thosewho dcny rcalityro any lcvelhighcrrhan insenrrent
mattcr,but by Spiritirself.ar
561
 Cr:nesrs,CnexrroN
rruoEanlvMrr.r
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,
crc.)cannotevcnbcginto cxplainthc cxtraordinary scricsof trans-
formarionsthar broughtforrh lifc from matterand mind fmm lifc,
andtharis dcstincdto bringforrh,in just rhesanrcwiry,highcrmind
ald overmindand supcrmind:Spiritalonccan accountfor the as-
ronishmcntrharis 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,
somctimcin thc moderncra-ir isalmosrimpossible ro pinpoinrcx-
actly-the idca of hisroryas devolution(or a fall from Cod) was
skrwlyrcplaccdby thc ideaof historyascvolution(or a growthro-
wardGod). We secir cxplicirlyin FriedrichSchelling(1775-1854);
GcorgHegcl(1770-1831)propounded rhedoctrinewith r genius
(
rarelycqualcd;HcrbcrtSpenccrI 820- 1903)madcevolutiona uni-
versallaw;and hisfricndCharlesf)arwin ( I 809- t ti82) appliedit to
biology.Ve thcn find ir appearingin Sri Aurobindo(1872-1950),
who gavepcrhapsirs most accuratcand mosr profoundspirirual
conrexr, and Picrrel'eilharddc Chardin(1881-1955). who nradcit
larnousin theVcst.
Suddcnly,within thc span<lfa nrcrcccnturyor s(',scriousmtn<ts
wcre enrerraining a notion that prcmodcrnculturcs,lor thc most
part, had nevcrcvenoncc considercd, namclyrhar-likc all orhcr
living systems-we humansare in the processof growingtowardour
own bighest potentlal,and if rhat highestporcntialis God, rhen we
aregrowingtowardour own Codhood.
562
Enrr-or's EpILocur
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 speaksof the"universalorganism.. . growing
rowardirs own highesrporentials, namely,the ever-unfolding realiza-
rionandacrualization ofSpirit."a'Burasa transpersond psychologis
he alsofocuseson indiuidual growthand evolution.Sincewe, like eve-
ryrhingelsein the cosmos,aremanifestations of Spirit,aswe further
our evolution we merely remember that, after all, we are the very
Cod-t AM-that hasstartedthe universe rolling:
Vru are tlre Kosnos, Iiterally. But you rend to undcrstand this ulti-
matc 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
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 lcv-
cls,: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('
Now echoing Nietzsche, !(ilber calls our deepest Selfour "Super-
man Self."at In realizing rhat you are God, he says,"You will awaken to
a world wherethc Kosmosis yoursoul,the cloudsyour lungs,rherain-
dropsrhebeatofyour heart....Youwill look at the moonaspartof
your bodyand bow to the sunaspartofyour heart,and all of it rsjust
so.
In order to expeditethis remembe ring, he recommends what he
calls"integralpractice"for all levelsofour being,sayingthatwe should
"nrix and match"physicaland spirirualpractices rangingfrom jogging
563
 GsNesrs,
CnexrroNIND E,rntJMrN Eorron'sEpllocue

to tantric sexualiryto deiry yoga to centering prayer to Advaita Ve- its attitude toward evolution. "Religion will also haveto adjust its atti-
danta ro "Christian formlessmeditation."oo rude toward evolution in general"lhe says,and "any religion rhat at-
rempts to reiect evolution sealsits own fate in the modern world."'o
Ily way of persuasion,he adds:
6. The Minimum Requiremenxfor Christians to be Accepted
'Ib the cxtcnt religionsbrackertheir mythic beliefsand focuson
within the Neu Synthesis
thcir esoteric
core. . . an acceptance
of cvolutionis a modestadjusr-
In T'he Mariage of Senseand Saal, Wilber outlines the agenda
nrcntindecd.In fact,AurobindohasalrcadybroughtVcdanta(and
rhat the world must follow in order to combine sciencewith religion,
t0 the entireswecpof Indianphilosophy)into an evolutionary accord.
as well as to establisha "universaltheology" which all religionscan
AbrahamIsaacKook hasalreadypointcdout rhar "Thc theoryof
embracewithout losing their ourward differences.He tells the main-
cvolutionaccords wirh rhc secrers
of Kabbalahberterthanany orher
stream scientific establishmentthat, in order ro inregratewith relig-
theory"'fhc greatIdealists havealreadyclearedthe way for an evo-
ion, modern sciencemust renounceits allegianceto uncompromising
lutionaryspirirualiryAnd hasnot thc Popehimselffinallydeclared
materialism.Sciencemust "do nothing more than expand from nar-
that "cvolutionis morethana hypothesis"?is
row empiricism (sensoryexperienceonly) to broad empircism (direct
experiencein general)";t'that is, ir must also include psycho-spirirual
A little later, Vilber brings our a notable exception ro his
experience.
concessionthat religionscan keeptheir "myths" and still participarcin
Vilber then tells religion what it must do in order to fit within
tlre new synthesis:
the broadestparametersof the new religio-scientificparadigm. Firsr
of all, he says,"Religions the world over will have rc brackettheir
lb rhecxtentthat a religionpledges
allegiance to a mythic Edenrn
mythic belief," and he cites as examples Moses parting the Red Sea,
any actualscnse,it will haveinsuperablc
difficultyparticipatingin
Chrisr being born of a Virgin, and the creatiolt occurring in six
rheintegrationof modcrnscicncc and philosophy."'
days.5t He concedesthat proponents of a religion can keep any
mythic beliefsthey want, "as long as they do not expectany form of
Lastly,he praises'ltilhard de Chardin for helping Christians to over-
scienceor any other religion to acknowledgethem":
come this insuperableobstacle:
-I'hisdocsnot meanthat we will loseall religiousdifferenccsand to-
[-Itilhards]notionofthc Orncgapoinr (of Christconsciousncss)
asa
cal color and fall inro a unifbrm mushof homogcnizcd New-Age
future atrractorfor prcsentevolution-a notion borrowedfrom
spirirualiry...Most rcligionswill continueto offcr sacramcnts, sol-
Schellingand Hegel-freed many Christiansfrom the impossible
acc,and myths (and othertranslative
or horizontalconsolations), in
mythicbeliefin a literalGardenof Edenand a morbid fixation(a
additionto the genuinelytransfornrative practicesof verticalcon-
Romanticdeathwish)to thc long-dcceased past.tT
rcmplation.Nonc of that neccssarily needsto changedramarically
for any religion,althoughit will be scr in a largercontextthat no
longerdcmandsthat its mythsbc the only mythsin the world.tj 7. The "God" of the New Slnthesis

Applying his teachingson the evolution of consciousness

to the
The secondchangethar Vilber saysreligion must make concerns
political sphere,Wilber writes:

564 565
 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 be-
lief ... but rather transrational awareness,wlich, building on the
gains of liberal rationalitT and political liberat*m, extcnds rhose frce-
doms 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,
basedin "universalpluralism":
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 centauricevolutionaryep-
och," "the integrationof the noosphere and biosphere, the suprana-
tionalorganization of planetary t'
consciousncss."
Of course,Vilbe r's"liberalGod" of the cmergingglobalreligious
consciousness is just the kind of "vagueidea'rhat Fr. Seraphimsays
'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 religiousconscious-
ncss,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 evolu-
rionary 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 cre-
dteex nihilo in the classicalChristian sense,but ratherdiffusesor ema-
natesitselfinto the crearion.Formsand beingsappearsuddenly,but this
is an "emergence"out ofan impersonalCodhead ratherthan a creation
by a Persorral God Who is in essence wholly "other" than His creatron.
As against the pagan view, the Orthodox rheologian Vladimir
Losskyelucidatesthe true meaningofcreation accordingto the Scrip-
rural-PxtristicChristian doctrinc:
Crcationex nihilod,ocsmcanjust suchan act of producingsomc-
dringwhich 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 neo-
platonicschool,was "arguablythc grcatcstphilosopher-mystic the world hasevcr
krown" (The Marriageo/ Setrcanl So , p. l8). He sccsthc Indian philosopherNa-
garjuna(second-rhird ccntury,r.o.),who raughrthar Absolrrrc Emprincss 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
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
of thc Godhead.... "The Good difl'usingirselfbv irself" of neo-
platonismis not thc God of Sr. Paul,Who "callerhthoscthings
which be not asthoughthcywere"(Rom.4:17).ur
According to the neoplatonic idea, since Absolute Being is ulti-
mately 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 Per-
sonal, he crearesby a Ji'eeact of will. Vladimir Lossky writes:
The creationis a work ofwill and not of naturc.... ln thc actofcr.*-
tion God wasunderno necessity of any kind whatcver. 'I hereis, in
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-
' St. OregorvPalamas writcsrhat"evcrycrearcdnatureis far removcdfronrand
conrplcrclvforeignto thc Divine Nature" (7be Philokalia,vol. 4, p. 382), even
rhoughCoclcrcatcs thecrearionrhroughHis l)ivinegrace(energies).
and sustains
568
Eorlon's Epllo<;ur-
cessitybur our oflove. He lovesus, His creatureswho are in essence
ex-
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,
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
good,"a creatcduniverse willedby God and the joy of His Visdom,
"a harmoniousordinancc,""a marvellously composcdhymn to the
powerof the Almighry,"asSt.Cregoryof Nyssasays.-
Thus, rhe impersonalGod of the pagan(and neo-pagan)concep-
rion is shown to be vastly"weaker"than the God of Orthodox Christi-
anity. [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 evolu-
tion.6t
The paganideaof "creativeemergence"appearsto fill in the all the
gapingholeswhich exist in the currentlycompeting modelsof natural-
istic evolution. lntegratedwith the "punctuated equilibrium" model
devisedby atheist/agnostic evolutionistsStephenJay Gould and Niles
Eldredge, it provides a vague "Spirii' to explain both rhe lack of inter-
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 per-
iectly 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 natu-
ralisticparadigm.
569
 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 ideaofso-
cial evolution through successive, rapid changes(revolution).u6This
connectionshedsfurrher light on Fr. Seraphim! prediction thar spiri-
tuality will be added to communism ro form the religion of rhe fu-
tu 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 else-
where he says thar 'ltilhard is rhe predecessorof the New Relig-
ion-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 relig-
ion, deisnrwas perhapsthe most typical movemeni' of rhe Enlighten-
ment, 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 mysti-
cism"-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.Enlighr-
enment thinkerskept rheir impersonaldeisticGod "in heaven,not do-
ing 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 combi-
nirtion of scienceand religion,then for the most part this combinarion
will be not purely pantheistic,but rather deistic/panentheistic. It will
bc remembered that Fr. Seraphimcalled the famous evolutionary sci-
cntisr '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 reinter-
prer Christ so that He is no longer rhreateningto the fallen human na-
rure 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 ancientgnos-
ric 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
only historicalSonofGod (a monstrous notion),bur ofa true Spiri-
tual Cuide helping all to becomc sons and daughtersof God....
ElainePagels pointsout that thcrcarethrcecsscntial strandsto the
csotericmessage of Chrisr, as rcvcalcd
in the Gnostic CosPcls:(l)
"Self-knowledge is knowlcdgeof Godl the [highest]selfand rhe di-
571
 Grt tpsts,CnrarIoN,\I.toE,tRt-v
M,rlr
(2) "'I'he'livingJesus'
vincareidenricirl." of thcsctcxtsspeakof illu-
sion and enlighteoment, not of sin and rcpcntance.(3) "Jcsusrs
prcsentednot asLord but asspiritualguide."Ler ussimplynorethat
rhosearcpreciselyren*s of Dharmakaya rcligion.on
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 mon-
strous 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 incar-
nate 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, how-
ever,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 Chris-
tianiry" foreshadowedby lbilhard de Chardin will be based in a " de-
monic initiatiott hitherto restrictedto the pagdn world.""'ln his book
Orthodory and the Religon of the Funre he describessome of the "re-
ligious experiments"-ranging from UFO encounters to "charis-
matic" phenomena to sophisticatedmeditation practices-which
have preparedformerly Christian peoplesfor this initiation by mak-
ing them open and passiveto new spiritualexperiences.tu
Obviously,not everyonewho will experiencethe "demonic initia-
tion" 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 evolution-
ism, specificallyTeilhardianevolurionism.We havealreadyshown thar
\7 )
Eorrrrn'sElrr.oc;ur:
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 sophisti-
l.
cated modern guise it may rake (whethcr "ultra-homin ization," as in
't-eilhard, "remembering,"as in Vilber) is an expressionof rhe pri-
or
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"
forrl, it is the basison which man becomesrhe Supermanand realizes
his godhood. It is a philosophicalmanifestationof rhe devil! first of-
fering 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 UncreatedEn-
ergies(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 an-
other 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 imira-
rion 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 back-
wards,readingthe Lord'sPrayerbackwards,etc. L)volutionismis a philo-
sophicalexpression of this attempt to mock God by reversingthe Truth.
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 world-
view that seesthe opposire.J'his is because,being connectedwith an-
cient 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 con-
signcd 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.Panenrhe-
ism, aswe haveseen,acknowledges that "part" ofthe deiry is outsidethe
cosmos,but this "part" is disrantand uninvolved(asin deism).ln terms
of religiousfeeling,that "part" which i the cosmosbecomesthe over-
riding 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
'Chrisr callsrhe dcvil 'ihe princeof rhisworld" threetimesin rhc Gospclof
J ohn(Jo h nl 2 :31, l4: 30, l6: I l ).
>/4
Eorron'sF.prr.ocus
keepthe religrousaspirationsof man direcredprinrarilywithin the cos-
ltlos.
4. The idea of an impersonal/transpersonal Cod, said Fr. Sera-
phim, comesfrom "people who doni wanr ro meer the PersonalGod,
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 free-
dom and will-man sceksto escapeGod's judgment. Ultimately, how-
cver,Cod rr the Judge;and in denying Him asJudgeman also denies
Him asthe only Onc \Vho can fbrgivehis sins.The impersonalisrcon-
ccpt 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 per-
sonal 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
Perhapsthe aboveconsiderarions are enough to indicatethe infer-
nal 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 Mar-
rin 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 con-
ducted, 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-
575
 GcNs.srs,CnEATToN
nuo Eanry Marl
volvementin Teilhardianevolutionarymysricism,which he learned
aboutin an anthropology classat seminary.\X/hilein a srateof partial
possession,the priestreceivedwordsthroughwhat he latercalled"re-
motecontrol."He preached Teilhard's evolurionaryideasand changed
the wordsof priestlyritualsto reflectblasphemy,saranworship,and a
TeilhardianworshipofEvolutionand 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 inani-
matematterappeara 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.
Jonathant message was simple.... Everywherein rhc world
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 evolu-
rionarydoctrincsand TcilhardsideaofJesus.And he pernreated ir
wirh a decphumanismand a knowingeycfur rhc yawningindiffcr-
enccnow 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
aim at belicvingin an unimaginable "resurrccrion"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 super-
naruralGod, 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 initia-
rion and his possessionwould become complete. "l was reaching the
veined heart ofthe world," he told Fr. Malachi in one oftheir conver-
sations, "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
The seriousnessof Jonathan'sconditionwas madeknown to all
when,while performinga weddingserviceby the ocean,he wasinsri-
gatedby 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 Eot'ron's EPIt-ocun

demon inhabitinghim beganunering ltilhardian paeansro world "How do you mean a 'part' rnerelyl"
unrty: "They are partsof a greaterphvsicalbeing "
"Vhat being?"
lwo or thrcebillion ycarsago,thc Earth.Eachonc of us 50 trillion "The universe."
cclls... . 200 million tonsof men,women and children.'lwo trillion "-fhe univcrseof martcr?"
tons of animallifc.... All so that Jesuscan cnrcrge.Oh, beautiful I C 5.

Omega!Praisethc Lord of this worldwith whichwc areall, all 200 'And of psychicforccs?"
million tonsof us,arconc.' r(' "
"Yes.
'And rharthiswascrcatorof humansl"
In the lastcase-studyof his book, Fr. Malachi rellsofthe possessron "
" Yes.
ofa distinguished parapsychologistand adept at Vajrayanameditarion, "A personalcrearorl"
Carl V During his exorcism,the inhabiting demon is compelledby the "No."
priest-exorcistto tell how he deluded his host. The demon\ words, as "A physicalcreator?"
recordedon tape,are especiallyrevealing.At one point it says: "Yesalso."
"A prychoplrysicalcrcaror?"
Oncc spirir is confirscdwith psychc,wc can lcr anybodysec,hear, "Yes.Indeed,yes."
touch,rastc,know,desircthe impossible. He wasours.He is ours. "Vhy did you leadCarl in thisway?"
Hc is of rhc Kingdom.r' "Because hc would lcadothers."
"Vhy lcadothcrsin thisway?"
Of particularinterestis an interchangethat occurredlater berween "Because rhcntheybelongto thc Kingdom."
the priestand the hostilespirit. [n rcading it, one should keep in mind "Why belongro rhc Kingdoml".. .
our former discussionof panentheismand the concept of biological "lYlry, Priesr?lVhy?... IYHY?Becausewe hate thc Latter. We
evolution occurring through rhe consciousness of the "Soul of the hate.Hatc. Hate.Wc hatethosestainedwirh hisblood.We hateand
Vorld." Here, through the fallen spirit'sown admissions,we are givcn despisethoserhat follow him. \Wewant ro diverrall from him and
a glimpsc into both the rcligion and the scienceof the furure: wc want all in the Kingdomwherehe cannotrcachthem. Vhere
thcycannorgo with him... . " "
"\Whcrcwcreyou lcadingCarl?"
"'lo knowledge of the universe."
The wordscomeout from bc- It now remainsfor us to ask: Did the chief "prophet" o[ the New
twccn (larl'stightlyclcnchcdrccth. Religion in the modern West, Teilhard de Chardin, receive his ideas
"Vhat knowlcdgc?" rhrough direct contactwith the hostilepowers,asdid the peoplein the
Thcre is no answcrat flrst. Then slowlyand grudginglyrnc aboveaccounts?
wordscoms."The knowledge that humansarcjusta partof the unr- Ve havealreadyseenhow Teilhardbecameawareof the "conscious
vcrsc. envelope"surrounding the earth, in preciselythe realm of the under-
heavenwhich, accordingto Orthodox ascetictheology,the demons re-
' 'l'hisrnd thc subsequent
dialogues
from exorcisms
aretranscriptions
ofactual side. But a mor€ revealingpassageis found in one of Teilhard'searly
rccorornSs. compositionsentitled "'l-he Spiritual Powerof Matter" (dated August

578 579
 C eNesrs,
CrearroN,rNnEar.rvMaN
8, l9l9), which seemsto be a dramatizedaccountof a mysticalexperi-
ence through which Teilhard had recentlypassed.Teilhard appended
this piecero one of his last books, The Heart of the Marrr (his "Con-
fessions"),to "expressmore successfully than I could today the hcady
emotion I experiencedat that tinre from my contact with Matter."-"
1-heaccountbegins:
'I'hc man was walking in the dcserr,followedby his companion,
whenthe-['hingswooped downon him.., . Then,suddenly,a breath
ofscorchingair passcd his forehead,brokcthroughrhc barrierof his
closcdcyelids,and penetrated hissoul.'i'heman felt hc wasceasinpi
ro bc merclyhimsclf;an irresistible rapturctook possession ofhim as
rhoughall rhe sapof all living things,flowingat one and the samc
momentinto the too narrowconfinesof his hcart,wasmightily re-
flshioningrhcenfecbled fibrcsof hisbcing... .
And at thc samctime thc anguishof somcsupcrhuman pcril op-
pressedhim, a confuscdfcclingthatthc forcewhichhadsweptdown
upon him wascquivocal,rurbid,rhe combinedcsscnce o[ cvil and
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
your name?Speak." 8u
Having quoted rhis account in his book on Teilhard, Dr. Volf-
gang Smith observes,"lt is strangeindeed that Teilhard should ad-
dress 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
'Tlte
10. 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 OrthodoxChrrs-
tian 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 Chris-
tians-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 recom-
mended the writings of lbilhard, with a well-known Orthodox theolo-
gian going so far as to say that Teilhard was connected "with the
profound intuition of thc Orthodox Fathersof rhe Church."n' ltil-
hardi follower 'I'heodosiusDobzhansky,whoseevolutionarydersmex-
actly 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 Or-
thodox Seminary!Clearly,what Fr. Seraphimcalled the lalse"Ortho-
doxy 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 con-
tend that Teilhardism hasindeedbccomethe dominanrtrend.sa
581
 CsNrsls,CnealroNar.roE,cnlvM.^N
It appearsthat Protestantchurcheshave largelyescapedthe direct
influence of 'ltilhardism, although here too rhe zeitgeist5ehind Teil-
hard'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'
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:
Nor evcryonc who believcsin somcform ofevolutioncanacccprthe
pseudo-mysticism of Teilharddc Chardin; bur rhis blasphcmous
"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 evo-
lution. This samespirit underminesChristian faith to one degreeor
anorher,dependingon how much Christiansgive thelnselvesup to it.
Even a relativelysmall degreeof capitulation can have seriousconse-
quencesfor one'sfaith.
In his notes,Fr. Seraphimsummarizedthe effect that the products
of evolutionary ph ilosophy-especially the evolutionary rime
scale-have had on Christianiry:
funcrionsof "evolutionary"
One of rhe chief ideological-religious
582
Eolrol's Eptt-ocue
tlrought is to "broaden" onc'.smenral outlook. not ncccssarilydi-
rcctly attacking religiousideas(bur sometimesrhis also),in ordcr to
make it irnpossibleto think in "narrow" rcligiousterms:
(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 be-
comes impossiblcto conrinuc ro stressthe "narrow" view of man's
lifetime (and decisionfor ctcrnity) ifone believcsin a "broad, evotv-
ing" 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 rangeoflevelsofacco-
modation to the evolutionaryworldview. Fr. Seraphimhas said of all
such fcrrmsof accommodation:
I think it needsto bc poinrcdour with urmostclarirythat thc rclig-
ion of "compromise" is self'-deception,
and rharthereexisttodayat
bortomonly rwo absolutcly irrcconcilablc for man:faith
altcrnatives
in thc worldandthe rcligionofself,whoscfruit is death;andhith in
Chrisrthe Sonof God, in Whom aloneis eternalLile.8t
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 mainstreamacademicestablish-
ment 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.
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 academices-
tablishment 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 evolu-
tionary 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:
fhey do not understand the philosophical "spiritof rhe agc"which
gaverisero evolution,and thereforethey naivelyacceprthe "scien-
ti0c 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.
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 materialisticDar-
winism will play right into evolutionarydeism/panentheism,but for
thosewho seekthe true Christ it holds much positivesignificance.In
freeingChristiansfrom the fear rhat evolution is an establishedscien-
tific 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,
584
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, re-
jecting naruralistic,Darwinian evolution is only a beginning. (Even
Ken Vilber does as much!) True faith in Christ means rejectingthe
core of evolutionaryphilosophy itself,which reachesfar beyond Dar-
winism 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 cos-
mogony.
It is at this point that the work of the scientific creationistsper-
form 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 Chris-
tian 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 evolu-
tionary philosophy in the field of science,beginning with the unifor-
mirarian "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-
t85
 Csrursrs,CtexrroN aruo Eeply Mnt.t
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 in-
habited 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 pre-
cious creature,man.
On the foundation of this uncompromisedChristian belief in the
creation and redemption, the Holy Fathersbegin to raiseour under-
standingto yet higher levels,sheddingthe light of Divin e yision I theo-
za) 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 con-
sciousOrthodox 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 falsedeifi-
cation 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 ac-
cessto something far nrore glorious.Through the writings of the Fra-
rhersour 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 na-
ture is wholly "orher" than His creationand yer \Vho upholds and sus-
tains everything in creationar every moment through His Uncreated
586
Eorron'sEprr-ocur
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)'
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 "creativeemer-
gence.
Finally, through the Holy Scripturesilluminated by the Holy Fa-
rhers,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
visionof Genesis
Suchis the Patrisric and creationSo clearis the
that, up to today,of-
witnessof the Holy Fathersrhat it is deplorable
ficialOrthodoxrepresentatives in Americacontinueto comeout with
arriclesexpressingacceptanceofevolution"in someform." By this ac-
ceprance the Cenesisaccounts
and by theirdesireto allegorize ofcrea-
587
 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 reverseimage,canseeex-
actlywhat not rc do so asnor to be subsumedinto the philosophyof
the comingAntichrist.I[, as Fr. Seraphimmaintains,evolutionismis
the key ro the philosophyof theAntichrist,thenthe OrthodoxPatris-
tic visionof Cenesis,creationand earlyman is a key to remaining
outsidethat infernalphilosophyand within rhe hearrof true Christi-
anlty.
Pious Orthodox Christians,especiallyin lands which have rradi-
tionally been Orthodox, have always believed in rhe Scriptural-
Patristicteachingon creation-or else,ar the very least,they have al-
wayswanttd to believe,but havebeenlefr without apologericwcapons
againstthe modern evolutionaryonslaught.Now, at last, they are be-
ing 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 bless-
ing 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 be-
causethe Orthodox rradirion is so clearon rhesesubjects.Only those
whose unstatedaim is to reconcileOrthodoxy with an alien philoso-
phy would come to other conclusrons.
Like Fr. Seraphirn,Deacon Daniel quoresar lengrh from the Bible
and the Holy Fathers,and, in those placeswhere the Scriptural-
Patristicteachingis ar odds wirh modern evolutionary/uniformitarian
assumptions,he defendsthe faith with evidencegatheredby the scien-
tific crearionists,primarily Dr. Henry Morris.*
'Dercon Danielrcfersfrcquenrlyro Henry Morris'book Tfu BiblicalBasis
for
Modern Sticncc,
which was publishedin Russianrranslarionin St. Petersburg in
t995.
588
Eort clt's Eprr-o<;utr
Vith books like this coming out in Orthodox countries,' Ortho-
dox Christiansare becomingequippedto severthemselvescompletely,
not only from Darwinian evolution, but from the very core ofevolu-
tionisr 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 thosefollow-
ing 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 weep-
ing 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. Sera-
phim 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-
fense of
'Irurh so that there would I:e fairh in Christ, so that there
would be fairhful followersof Him who would not fall prey ro the in-
tellecrualfashionsthat have been put into rhe air by rhe spirit of this
world.
1-he path is exceedinglynarrow much more so than most Chris-
tians 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
'Orher booksrhat haverccenrlyconrcour in Russiadcfcodingthc Parrisric
tcachingon creationincludeScience on tbe (lrcationof the \Vorld(Moscow,1996) and
Euofutiortor Corruptioal (Moscow, 1997), borh by PricstTimothy Alferov.An im-
porranrcontriburionhasalsobecnmadcby Anron KoscnkoofVolgograd,Russia,in
his lcngthy lctrerto the c'Jirorof Pratoslaunala zhizn (OrthodoxLry' in Russian),vol.
49. oo. 12 (Deccmber,1999).
589
 GeNesls, CnlrrroN eNo Eenry MrN
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 ap-
proachesits dissolution.
The winnowing of which Christ spoke has alreadybegun. To-
getherwith Fr. Seraphimand the Holy Fathersbeforehlm, may we
one day be gatheredinto the heavenlygarner by Christ, in Vhom
aloneis cternallife.
-Hieromonk Damascene
590
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.
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
Scriptures, and revealed it only to eighteenth-century Enlightenment
man and his laterdescendants!). On the contrary they knew quite well
what was being said in Genesis.We know, therefore,that beforethe
fall of Adam some7,500 yearsago, no credturcexperienced corraption
[decay];but the whole evidencefor "evolution"liespreciselyin the evi-
denceofcorruption which, supposedly, occurredbeforethe "evolurion
of man"! Need we hesitateto know where the truth lies?If science
findsthat the Virgin Birth of Christ is outsiderhe lawsof natureasit
knows them, we Orthodox Christiansnonetheless believeit abso-
lurely; in the sameway,evenifsciencefinds the incorrupt creaturesof
the first periodofthe world'sexistence "impossible" by the lawsofna-
1111s still bclieaex the Church and the Holy Fathersdo.
i1 l<n6\,t's-ri!.s
And there is a specificreasonwhy sciencecannot understandthis
mystery which is set forth by the great Father,St. Symeonthe New
Theologian,in his 38th Homily:
59'l
 CtNcsrs, Cnnarroru ,rruo Eanly M,rN
The words and decreesof God become the law of nature. Therefore
also the decreeof God, urtered by Him as a resuk of thc disobcdi-
ence of the first Adam-thar is, the decreeto him of death and cor-
ru p ti o n -bec am e t he l a w o f n a tu re , e re rn a l a n d unal rcrabl c.
Therefore, in order to abrogaterhis decree,the Son of God, our
Lord JesusChrist, wascrucifiedand died, offering Himselfas a sacri-
fice 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 an-
hnowableby 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 be-
causehe has been taught "evolution" from his childhood and cannot
force himself to disbelievein it all ar once-will ask: Is it not srill Dos-
sible somehow ro "reinterpret"the incorruptibility of Adam and the
first creation so as nor to be too much outside rhe fashionsof con-
temporary 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
Nores oN ScreNcr:,
EvolurrorulNo CunlsrrlruPulr.osopu,
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 knowl-
edge in inferior ro rheirs.They knew lar betrer rhan todayt scienrisrs
and philosophersthe phceof scientificknowledgein the whole hierar-
chy 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 ad-
vancementin 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 at-
rained the heightsof spiritual life. The notion that we now, "enlighr-
ened" by science, can understand Genesis better than the Holy
Fathers,is itself a result of thar evolutionary philosophy which virru-
ally 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 in-
corrupt beforethe disobedienceofAdam, the needofevolurionistsfbr
"millions of years"vanishes:there are then no fossils,no extincr spe-
cies,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 "evolution-
ary" thoughtis to "broaden"one! menralourlook,nor necessarily di-
rectlyattackingreligiousideas(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, es-
pecially 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<io nor producc eny nranifistationsin narurc.'l hcy nrcrely rcgularcand
bal:rnccthc powcrsof neturc. In rr;rttrrc,in rhis visiblcworld, variousfbrccsfirnction,
and thc lowcsr ol rhcnr vicld to rhc highcr: thc physicelviclds ro rhe chenrical,thc
chcrnical to the organic, lnd finally, all o[thenr togcrhcr ro thc highcst of all, the
spiriturl. Virhout thc inrervcnrion of thc highcst forccs, thc lowcr forccs worrld
firnction in a honrogcnous,immurablc ord.-r.Ilur the highcr firrccsllrcr, and somc-
tinrcs cvcn suspcndrhc acrionsofrhe lowcr. In srrcha narural subordinarionofthe
lowcr forccsto thc highcr. nor one oi- thc llws of nlrurc is changed.-I-hus,firr exam-
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 Brorh-
crho<xl, Fller Btrsanxlhi$ of Optina.) [o.
594
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 restofevo-
lutionary rheory make fools of themselves,being "fundamentalists"in
part, "evolutionists"in Part.
2. Evolurion is a'totalitarian" thought-fbrm; it attempts to give a
religious-philosophical outlook for rhe wholeof lif'e. As Teilhard de
Chardin (quoted approvingly by T'heodosiusDobzhansky)affirms: "ls
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 think-
able and rrue. Evolution is a light which illuminatesall facts,a trajec-
rory 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 scien-
tific hypothesisis quite secondary.
3. A characteristicof modern currents of thought is "universal-
ism"-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 ''un1vs1-
sal" 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 at-
rempt is specificallymade ro show the harmony betweenTeilhardism
and Orthodox"mystical"tradition, quoting St. Symeonthe New Theo-
logian, St. Isaacthe Syrian,etc.'l'hosewho do not come up to mysti-
cal, universalist heights are dismissed as "legalistic," "moralistic,"
narroq etc. But in this way the harmony of C)rthodoxtradition is de-
srroyed:one part is turned againstrhe other in order to make Ortho-
doxy 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
)v)
 Gr:Nrsls,CrurrclN AND E^RLyMAN
pastcompares with our thought.Bur this is directlyagainsrthe Holy
Fathers who warnagainstreaching too high,not recognizingone'ssub-
tle hiddenprideand passions. Specifically,
oursis leastof all a rrmeto
spreadand popularize "mysrical"ideasand writers,anddragthem inro
the marketplace.
lt is Farbetterto be humble,revererheseexakedwrir-
ers,and not presumethat one can understand them.The writingsof
Theophanthe Recluse aremoresuitedto our condirion.
4. The "Mlsticism" of Tiilhard dc Chardin
One can be syrnpatheticwith Teilhardde Chardin'sintentro recon-
cile scienceand Christianity,which spokein rwo entirelydifferenr lan-
guagesin 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.
5. Euolution at rhe Exact Opposite ofChristianity
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 be-
getscomplex, 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
596
Nolrs ou Scrruce, Evolurron aNo CHnrsnaN PHII-osopnv
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 com-
ing age(heaven)are not a dtuelopmenor "evolution" fronr the present
world (asTeilhard de Chardin would have it; actually,chiliasm is al-
mosr an inevitablededuction from evolution), but a radical rransfor-
mation.
The whole aim of "evolutionaryphilosophy" is to upsctthis Chris-
rian outlook, basedon God Who does everything as He wishes,and
make instead something more "undcrstandable"to fallen nlen-ra-
tionalism, humanism. That is why "evolution" was developedgradu-
ally by modern agnosric-atheistic-deistic philosophy before any
'St. Nilus rhe Myrrh-gusher(tl65l), appearingposrhumously ro rhc fallen
monk 'l-heophancs on Mounr Arhosin theycar 1817,prophesied aboutrhe stareof
humaniryin thc lasttimcs:"1-hepeoplcof that rime will bc unrecogniz-alrle. Vhcn
thc rinrcofthe appearance ofAntichrisrwill bc near,peoplc's reesonwill be clarkcned
rnoreand morc. 'l-he
becausc ofcarnal sins;criminaliryand impietywill increase
worl<'lwill bccomcunrecognizablc; peoplc'sappeamncc will changc,and it will be
impossible to distinguishmen from wonrcnbccarrsc of theshanrclessness in lashions
and hair sryles.'l'hesepeoplcrvill beconrccoarsc,wild, and crucl,like aninralsbe-
causco[ rhe tcmptarionsof Antichrisr.There will trc no rcspcctfor parcnrsand
cldcrs,lovc will disappcar.... -lhen Christiantreditionand nrannerswill changc.
Modesryend chastirywill disappean instead,fornicatiorand dissiparion will rcign
amongrhe pcople.Deceirand lvaricewill reachunbclievable lcvcls....Fornicetion,
adulrcry,homosexualirv, craliy deeds,theft, and murdcr will dominarcsocicry....
-l-heChurchofGod will bc dcprivedofGod-fiaringpastors." Sccalsothe prophecics
ofSr. Niluscorrccrning rhedcgencration ofOrthodox nTonastic lifi, in I hc Ortltodox
lVordno.2l (1968),pp. 143-49.
The propheryof St. Niphon, Ilishopof (lonsrantia, (iyprus(fourthccnturv)is
asfollows:"To rhc vcryend of thisagcthcrcshallrrotbc lackingProphcts of thc [-ord
God, asalsoscr,ranrs ofslran. Bur in the lasrtimcsthoscwho truly will scrvcCod
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 Fr-
rherswho 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,
goingasrrayin the brcadthof thc broadand spacious parh"(qrrotedin Fr.Seraphim
Rosc,Orthodoxyand the Rcligionof the Furzrelfourrh cdirionl, p. 169).*Eo.
597
 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" phi-
losophy,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 ofindiffer-
ence: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, spccificallyre-
garding creationand thc nature of man. Even if the enemiesof Chris-
tianiry 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 be-
causethere are simple soulswho can be led away from God by ridicu-
lous 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 pre-
senting the true doctrine of God Who is, in the words of St. John
Damascene,
withourbeginning;rndwithout end,everlasting and erernal,uncre-
atcd,unchangcable, rrnalterable,
sinrple,uncompoundcd, incorpo-
real, invisible,impalpable,uncircumscribed, unlimited, incom-
prchensiblc, unconraincd, Lrnfarhomlblc,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 evo-
lution; rhey openly accept it, unaware that thcreby they accept the
L.atin-Scholasticdoctrine of creationand the first-creatcdrnan, which
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 awareOrtho-
dox Christiansdo not havea coherentview on the whole subject;and
very few are thosewho know the Patristicteachingconcerningthe in-
rerprerarionofrhe text of Genesis,all the more so in that few ofthe Pa-
1i/estern
rristic works on Genesisare to be found in English or other
languages.
7. Paleontologyand "Iuory-TbwerOrthodoxy"
Paleontologyis an impreciseand very outward science.And evolu-
rion does nltcome from paleontology-it is a philosophywhich many
paleontologists accept.
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 Or-
thodox 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 Ortho-
ooxy.
'We
must be preciseabout "science." Most people dssume"science"
knows what it is talking about. Brt there is no such thing as "sci-
ence"-there are different "sciences,"each one with a very different
levelof accuracyand preciseness.Paleontologyis one of the /ar precise
599
 GrNr-srs,
Ctrrtror eNn E,rnlvMrN
sciences,requiring much guessworkto fill vastgapsof time and knowl-
edge.. All the sciencesconnectedwith "proving" evolution are impre-
cise-pre hisrory, paleontology, geology. The more precise sciences
whose testimony is called for to "prove" sy6lusi6n-srn[syology, ge-
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 ei-
ther:
(l) The difference berween man and bezsrsis quantitatiue rather
than qualitative:one last litde mutation producedman. This is repug-
nant 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 rejectsnriraculousexplana-
tions.
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
' In othernores,Fr.Seraphim observes:"'fhc moreprcciserhescicnce(c.g.,ge-
netics),rhe lessconvincingproof [ofevolurion]rhercisl thc Iessprecisc(paleonrol-
ogy,archeology, prchisrory),
rhe bolderrhespecularionar rhecxpenseof facrs."
Phillip F-.Johnson,commenringon Michacl H. Browni l'he Scarclt.for Eue
( 1990),notcs:"'I hc book showsthc contcmptrhar'hard science' molccularbiolo-
gistshavcf<rrrhc'soficr'palcontologistsrvhobasctheirtheoricsabourhumanevolu-
rion upon reconstructions from isolatedrecrh,sharteredskullcaps,and fragmcnrcd
jaws"(Johnson,Darwin on frial, p. 194).-l-o.
*' SeeMichaelEehe'sDatwin'tBlarkBox for a cririqucof evolutionary theory
basedon rhe mostrccenrdiscoveries in rhe"hardscience" of biochcmisrrv-ED.
600
Nores oN ScltNct, Evot-ulloNANDCHRrsrlAN
Purr<>solr.ry
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!anni-
hikted; 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 meas-
ure everythingby a this-world$standard.Their theology comes fiom
human pisdom,not Divine revelationand Divine vision.
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!
I l. An "lnferiority Comp/ex"among Christians
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 ofsu-
perstitious 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-
601
 Gnrqesrs,
CnexrroN.rNoEaRryMar.r Nolr:s oN ScreNcr,Evor.ulron,rNoCnnls,naNPHtt.osopH'

ample,believersaremuchtoo quickto backoffand defendtheirtreas-
uresby sayingthey are"metaphors"or do not meanliterallywhat they
say.This is nowhereclearerthan in the first chaptersof Genesis,which
suchbelievers hastento interpretin a wayacceptable to the larest"sci-
entificopinion."
any doubt a matter of some few thousandsof years,involving the life-
rimes 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?
l. The Day-Age theory Ii.e., rhe Six Days are actuallyperiodsof mil-
Musrwe havea naiveimmigrantpsychology in theWest?-Chant- Iionsor billionsof yearsl;*
ing in our services
and readingin Scripturerhatthe genealogy of man- 2. The "Gap" theory [i.e., therewas a gap of billions ofyears berween
kind startswith Adam, "who wasfthe son] of God" (Luke 3:38),and Genesisl:l and Cenesisl:2];*'
believing"in actualfaci' thattherewerecountless agesofNeanderthds, 'I'he
3. body ofAdam evolvedand then his soul was createdor grace
JavaMan, erc.,beforeAdam?\X/hatkind of sinrple-minded foolsarewe was given to him.
nor ro seerhatif we arespeechlessbeforethe "scientific"
wisdomof this 'fhe whole question ofevolution has never been even
world,our viewof man and creationmakesno senseat all and is only formuhted
lrom an Orthodox point of view. The missingevidenceis the Patristic
some kind of fairy tale-in which all the Holy Fathersbelieued,but we
evidence.The main purposeof this book is to presentthis-as an ad-
hnowbener!Thus,scienceteaches us our "Orthodoxtheology"-and
dition to the evidencelor the crearion"modcl."
wearesounderthe fascinarion ofmodernWestern ideasthatwe fall for
it!
' I'hc firstvcrsionof thc L)ay-Agc thcorywaspopularizcd by the Scottishstone-
13. The Old Testament
Chronology 'festinotl rlr
nrasonHugh M illcr in h is of Rockt,18 57. I h is book wasactuallypub-
lishcdposthumously, sinceMiller shorhirnselfin a fit of dcpression on Clrristmas
The rime elapsedfrom Adam to the presentday is no morethan l.vc. lti56.
some7,500 years,as the Holy Fathersneverdoubt. St. John Chry- 'Ibday,thc Day'Agctheoryis associared wirh both'\hcisricevolution"and "olcl
sosromsaysclearlythat Christ "openedfor us todayParadise, which carth/progrcssivc crcationism." Fora cririqucof this thcory,seerhe booksby Hcnry
had remainedclosedfor some5,000years."o Au.rdSt. IsaacrheSyrian: Motis, I be Biblical Rasisfor Modtrn Stiente,pp. ll7-21, nd Defendixgtlte Faitlt
pp. 66-70. For discussion of thc problcnrs with'irrogrcssive creationisnr.sce 77rr
BeforeChrist "for five thousandyearsfive hundred and some years
Iliblical Bast for Modcrn Scicrttc.
pp. ll4-ll(l Dclinding tlte I'aith, pp.75-78,
God left Adam(i.e.,man)to laboron the earth."5... But why need-
2 t 5-20; the l>ookL)rzationand 7'ine:A Rtporton thc l\'ogresiucCrcationistBookb7
lesslyquoterheFarhers who all saythe samething, whcn everyOrtho- Hugh Ross, by Mrrk V.rn Bebt,cr.rnd P:rul'Lrylor end thc erticlcsby Kcn Harn,
dox Christianneedonly look at any Orthodoxcalendarto discover "Whart Vrong with 'Progrcssivc Orcarionl"'and "The (iod of an Ol<lEarrh,"avail-
that we are now living in "the year7482 from the Creationof the ablcfrom Answersin Cenesis.-F,o.
world," accordingto the chronologythat hascomedown to us from "The firsr vcrsionof rhc (iap theorywas popularizedin l8l4 by Ihorrras
the earliestChristian times.(The Farhers,by rhe way,werervell aware Chalrncrs,foundcrof the FrccChurch of Scodand.Bcginningin 1909 ir wascn-
dorscdin the foornores to thc populerScoficldRcfcrcncc Bible.
of the discrepanry of somehundredsof yearsberweenthe Greekand 'I he most thorough critiquc of thc Cap rhcory is found in rhc book Unformed
HebrewOld Testament chronology, and it did not botherthem;they and Llnflled by'WcsronW. !-ields.l'hc Gap rheoryis alsotrcatedat lcngth by Henry
did not quibbleoveryearsor worrythat thestandardcalendar waspre- Morris in TheBiblical Bai fot Modcrn Scicnce, pp. l2l-25, and D{cnding theF:aith,
"to
cise the veryyear";it is suffrcientthat what is involvedis beyond pp.70-75.-F.o.

602 603
 Sruolr's
oF PnoPoseo
Ourt INFS

pensable.One truth cannot contradict the other-but

iheir interrwining is a complex subject'No.,&rr, whether
physical (science)or spiritual (theology-where truth
AppaNorxTwo and not speculationis involved)can be denied'
ll. Critique of evolutionarytheory.
A. Evolutionary rheory is overdone-it has dominated scientific
Outlines of ProposedStudies 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 knowl-
EDITORS NOTE: Thesetao oatlinesuere written edse.
b1 Fr. Seraphirnat (lod'
dffiren.t timesnnd repr\enr separare
dnemptsto sammarizethe ,oints he B. The history of it-the searchfor an explanationwithout
want(d to couer.Thefrst is datedSeptembcrl gZg; the This does not cntireb discrcdit it, becauseactually almosr all of
secondis undated.
our knowledgeis distortedby biasesand predispositions:but ir
alreadyguaranteesthat the final outcome of this searchwill be
l. Ewlution one-sidJ and partial.Recentreactionagainstevolutionarythe-
I. Introduction:approaches, ory among many scientistsis a sign of this
merhodology.
A. Evolutionis a questionthat is contioversial Cl. Basic evolutionist argumentsare all inconclusive;there Is no
becauseof: proof for or against.
l. The implicatioz for moraliryworldview,etc.,of onevrcwor
O. Hirio.y of thi rise and decline of the evolutionary hypothesis
otner.
(see Ii-Ienry] Morris, etc.)-the Scopes trial, fashions rn
2..The inherentcomplexiryofthe subject,and irsvasrncss.
_
B. The maindifficulry: thought, respectabiliryMany Orthodox people.suffer from
"infeiioriry complex"; they want to be "up ro date" and are
l. l'he reconciliationof the evolutionary rheory,s physicaland fearful of being identified as "fundamentalists"'The debatein
rzeraphysicalaspecrs.
Greecesuffersfrom this. We must be abovethis'
2. Extremes:
a) Projectionofphysicaltheoriesonto the metaphysical lll. Answer:
di- A. Not thc "Bible"-ir needsinterpretation'*
mensionof beginnings. Many scientisrshnu. no, prop- B. Not "science"-it lacksthe higher metaphysicaldimension by
erly appreciated the limitationof sciencein this realm,
Its own natute.
which cansaynorhing whateverof beginnings, which are C. Not "agnosticism":scienceand religion in airtighr comPart-
not observable or repeatable or predictable,"b
tt aremt- ments;they must come together.
raculousby their very nature. "sci-
&) Some6rndamenralists D. Not "Christian evolutionism": the falsecombination of
haveerredin the opposiredirec- '['his means Christianiry giving ground
ence" and "relision."
tion, trying to dictateto physicalscienceon rhe
basisof
personalinturpretation of God'srevelation.
c) Rapectfor mtth in both physical (i.e., scienrific) ' Here Fr. Scraphimmcansthar thc answcris not simply thc Blblc lry iuclf, sincc
and -l'he
rhe Biblecanbe misintcrpreted. ansrvcris the Biblewirh thc interprer:rtion of
meraphysical (i.e., religiouirevelation)realmsis indis-
the Holv Fathers (sccbclow).-Eo

604 605
 (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 principlesofinterprera-
tion 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 sup-
ply this by irs groundlessprojecrions.
2. Bcginnings by rheir very narure are metaphysical, mnacu-
lous. 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 "cosmicrapi-
oca" instead;no "crearion,"bur a "big bang" instead-this is
ridiculous.Scientistsdoni realizethe ridiculousness of it be-
cause rhey have no theologicalawareness.Beginnings are
606
OuruNrs or PnoposE.o
Sr-uoltts
"off bounds" to scientists-they seekthem only becauseof
the crisis of religious ataa/enessand knowledge in modern
times, which has led the secular sciences to usurp the role of
theology,human guesses the role of revelation.
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?
B. 'fhe 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 Theo-
logian. The most consistentinterpretationoF the Holy Fa-
thers 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
Six DaysofCrcationdescribcd in Gcnesis.ln othernotcshc writes:"St. Perer's
words
(A thousandyears[arcwith the [,ord]asone day')is a gcneralrrurh,nor applicable
!o everyuscof the word 'day'in Scripture;wc mustexamincrhe Gencsiscaseindi-
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 obviouslyex-
aggerated.
4. Scienceenlightenedby faith does not need rc force a,nyin-
terpretarionon 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, mi-
raculous),and henceall the more unknowablein detail.
C. "Fixiry of Species"-"SpecialCreation."
l. There hasbeen much unnecessary controversyon rhis ques-
tion. "Kinds" vs. "species."The popular mind acceptsmere
"variation" as proof of a much bigger question of "evolu-
tion." 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 inter-
fere").Science,ofcourse,doesnor deny rhe stabiliryand the
fixiry ofkinds (and rhe steriliryofhybrids) in presentexpen-
ence:6ur evolutionarybelief requiresthat the ultimarc an-
cestorsof 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 all-
encompassingprinciple. 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 evolu-
tionary 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 Theolo-
gian on why he came lasr; St. Gregory of Nyssa. Narlrzg
can be inferred from the Scripturesor the Fathersfavor-
ing 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 chrono-
logical 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 Damas-
cene and St. Gregory of Nyssa on rhe simultaneouscre*
tion of man.
r) Some,wishing to preserveboth the Scriptureand evolu-
tion, insert the "divine" act of man! creation rather arbi-
trarily 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 noth-
ing 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 "Jew-
ish rationalism"; others point out the discrepancybe-
tween 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 differ-
ence 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 reconciledis-
crepanciesand show that this is a literal genealogy,not a
' Fr.Seraphinr's
hendwritingis unclearherc.-Eu.
" Sec,fbr cxamplc,Hcnry Morris, '[he GenaisFtood,Appendix2.-lio.
610
OurLrNr.sot PnonoseoSruores
list of "syrnbolic ancestors."Thus, man is some rhou-
sandsof yearsold, not millions.
6. One Adam or many?
a) "Polygenisrn"-commonly acceptedin evolutionist cir-
cles-makes no sensefor man. Adam is a oerson,
7. The creationof Evc.
a) This is a stumbling block for evolutionists.If this is "lit-
eral," 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 sciencert-
self is unpreparedto handle. Ifscientisrsregardit as "ab-
surd," it is primarily on nonscientificgrounds.
8. The nanre of the first-lormed man-Paradise.
a) A real place? or symbolism?All the Fathers assumePara-
dise is a realiry.If Paradiseis unreal, and Adam never
had a state unfallen-then heaven itself becomesdubi-
ous, and the rransfiguredstateof man is open to ques-
tion.
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,ernphilo-
tophic 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 bc-
longs. Ifwe can know beginnings,ir is only through revelatron.
6ll
 CnrerrorunNn Elnlv Man
CeNesrs,
Here revelationand faith must come to
If not, it's all guesses.
the aid of scienceand raiseit up to seeberter.
2. Panistic Scction
I. Introduction.
A. This will not be only Patristictheology,but also Patristicpbr-
losophly:rhe views of the Fathers on questions that are not di-
rectly 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 "sci-
ence" 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 mis-
taken in their views if thesedepend on factswhich are wrong;
we must readthem with discernmentand no preconceivedno-
nons.
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 ofcreaturebecomingan-
other 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
philosophical, we mustcriticizeir on rhebasisof Patristicphi-
losophy.
C. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,in On theResurrectioz, teachesthat nature
is not confused, and thingsaredistinct,eachwith irs own na-
ture.The bookof Genesis says'tachaccordingto its kind." So
alsoSt. Basiland St. Ambrose....The Patristicview is defi-
nitelytharnaturesaredisrinctand don'rmingle,and rhatthis is
the way Cod createdthem. "Freaks"are clearlyexceptions
Evolutionaryphilosophyof "one nature"running rhroughall
creationis unfoundedscientificallyand un-Patristicphilo-
sophically, and is the oppositeofthe heresyofrhe pre-existenc
and transmigration of souls,aboutwhich morewill be saidbe-
low. 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 naturemusrlike-
wise 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-
rhers,a "fi.rndamentalism" beforeirs time, a capriviryof pre-
modernscience?
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
Adanr.redccnrcd
by Jesus (ihrist.
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
AppnNorx Tunrp
Fn Seraphim\Last Thlhon
Creationand Euolution
EDITOR'S NO7"E: T'hefollou,ing talk, taken entirelyfom a tape tran-
srription, tuasgiuen as an intoduction to the secondsessionof Fr. Sera-
phim's courseon Genesis, August 1982. Seueralof his studentsuere new,
not hat)ingattendedtbefrn sesionin August1981. ThereJbre, beJitre
pro-
uiding a Patristiccommentaryon tbefourth to eleuenthchaptersof Gencsis
(fom Cain and Abel to the TowerofBabel), Fr Seraphimrecappedwhat
he had said during thefrst sessionabout scienceas it relatesto Scriprure
and the Hofi Fathers.lVithin a feu wceksafer giuing this talk, he u,as
taken to the hospital,and on September2 he reposedin the Lord.
HEeuEsrroNof how we approachthe book of Genesisis bound
up with our modernoutlook on life. Ve haveall beenbrain-
washed.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 suo-
ject 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 apesde-
scendedlrom men, insteadof vice versa.*There are all kinds of evi-
dence 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 cer-
tain 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.
'John Gribbin and JercmyChcrfas,in rheirarticlc"Desccntof Man or As-
cenrofApe?"wrire:"'lb translatc
our suggestioninto that fbrm ofspeech,we rhink
rhat rhc chimp is dcsccndcd
from man, that thc commonancesror of rhc rwo was
nroreman-likcthanapc-likc"(NewSckntkr,vol. 91, Sept.3, 1981,p. 592).-Llo.
( r |( )
tt"t'sl-rsr Talr
Fp. Sen,qpH
Whe n Darwin's theory first came out in the late nineteenthcen-
rury, 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 funda-
mentalistswho 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
Trial," which you haveall heardabout. In Tennessee therewas a law*
against the teaching of evolution, and a teachervolunteered to be a
nominal defendantin a testcase.Actually the statewon that case;but
the hmous lawyer, Clarence Darrow, made such a casefor how ri-
diculous it is to stand by theseold Biblical ideas-which are not "sci-
entific," 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 ofevolu-
tion, but they were outside the main trend.)** Even very [undamen-
talist 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
'Actually it wasmerclya symbolicmeasure. Thc p;ovcrnorsignedthe bill only
with the explicitundcrsrandingthar ir would nor bc cnforccd.-Eo.
" F<rrexample,the booksby EnglishbiologistDouglasDcwar,Diffcubics oftbc
Etolucion Thcory(London, l93l ) and More Dfficulties of the Evolution Thcory
(1938).ln 1959the Germanz.oologist BernhardRenschprovideda longlistoflcad-
who
ing scientificauthoritics did not acceptneo-Darwinianclaims(scchis book
Euolutionabouethe Spccier (lolumbia
Leuel, UniversityPress,1959,p. 57\.-E,o,
6t7
 CiaNnsrs,
Ctr:arloNnNo Ernly Mnn Ft. SenqPstu'sLasr Tlrr

objectively,criticizing and discussingsometimesvarioussmall poinrs, dentswill be more againstcreationistideas.In the South' the students
sometimesthe whole theory.This has been a very good thing. Science are mor€ in favor of them. In fact, in one Placethe evolutionistswho
should welcome it. Unfortunatelx it has nor been too well receivedin were debating said they felt like they were a lion in a den of Daniels:
scientificcircles. everything was reversed.
I've becomeacquainredwith thesepeople.T'here is one group in The discrrssions of the creationscientistsare very interestinS.They
San Diego called rhe Institute for Creation Research;rhey put our a arequire up on the latestliteratureand discoveries. On the other hand,
monthly newslettercalledActsand Farrswhich discusses what is hap- recenrlysome ofthe evolutionistshavestoppeddebatingcreation/evo-
pening in their research.Usually it hasan inserrwhich goesinro a spe- lution becausethey generallyare not PrePared.A number of them re-
cific scientificquestion.For example,one is on the law ofentropy and cenrly admitted that, since thesecreationistsare so uP on their details
crearionism,another one is on experimentalpsychologr,and so forth; and so sharp in debate,they are putting the evolutioniststo shame.*It
there are often quite sophisticateddiscussions.They discussthe ageof is time, they say,that evolutionistsgo back and begin to find out what
the earth, the age of the solar sysrem,and all those questionswhich rheir argumentsare, becausethrough all these yearsthey have been
you haveto know about ifyou are going inro the scientificside of rhis taking for granted that everyonethinks like they do. They were not
tssue. readyfor all the criticism from the sideof creationism,which goesinto
1'hesepeopleare very good. Their lnsritute is a Protesrantreligious quite spccific points which are very dubious according to the
school, but they are operaring purely on rhe basisof scienrific criti- evolutionistinterpretation.
cism.- l'hey put out a number oftextbooks, including a very good one The Creation ResearchSociery in Michigan now has a voring
called Scicntifc Creationism, in which they discuss all the various membershipof well over six hundred scientists,all of whom signed a
points about evolurion and creationwirhout mentioning anything re- srarementthat they were in favor of the creationistinterpretation of
ligious,becausewhen they start mentioning religiousrhings,ofcourse, origins.**Therefore,if someonetellsyou that evolution is the only sci-
rheir textbook could neverbe usedin a high schoolor a college.In the entific interpretation,yott should be aware that there are at leastsix
last few yearsespecially,they havegorrenquite a bit of impetus behind hundred scientistswho say no There are thousandsmore who, al-
them. They have been having a number of debatesin big universiries
all over the country, and there hasbeen grearinteresr-students come " In 1996Dr. F,ugenie Scotr,cxccucivc directorofthc NarionalCerrterfor Sci-
our by the thousands."' -['he student responsedependson where the (a
enceEdr.rcation privarcorganizarion dedicated to protecringrhereaching ofevolu-
tion fronr creationistchallenges), warnedher fellow evolurionisrs: 'Auoid debaus' lf
debatc takesplace. lf it occurs in a universiry in California, rhe stu-
your localcampusChristianfcllowshipasks you to'dcfcnd cvolurion,'pleasc dcclinc
... you will probablyget bearen"(EugenicC Scott,"Monkey Business," Ila Sri-
'l-he Insritutccurrenrlyhassomcforry Ph.D.scicnrisrs on irs rcsidcnrf:rculry enccs, Jan.-Fcb., 1996,p. 2l).-Eo.
adjunctlaculryand advisoryboard.-F-o. " F,achof thescvoting nrcmbershasone or morc post-graduarc degreesin scl-
'- Scicntists
from the Instirurcfor CrearionResearch haucoarricioated in well cncc. 'fhe sraremenr that rheysigncd affirms thar "all basicrypcsof living things'in-
over threehundredfbrmel crcarion/cvolurion .Jcbrrc'.uru.rllyhcl,.l,,n ,,,n,u"..,ry cludingman,wcremadcby Cod during the Crearion Veek describcd in Genesis"
canrpuscs lnd opposinglacultycvolutionary scicntisrs.'l-hcmostacrivcdrba(crhas and thar "the grearFlooddescribed in Genesis ... was an evenr
historic worldwidc in
bccn Dr. [)uanc(]ish, who rcceived his Ph.D. in biochcnristrv lronr U.C. Bcrkclcv irs cxrentand effcct."Although voting membcrt o[ rhe Socicry musr havc posr-
ard hcld kcv posirions
ar Bcrkclcy,( .orncllUniverrityMc,lical( ollegc.rndI hr Up- graduatescicnccdegrees, thosewirhout suchdegrces can bc susraining or studcnr
john Companybeforcjoining thc Insrirutefor CrearionResearch irr 1971.Now inembers. -l'he Socierypublishes a peer-reviewed journal, Crcation Rctcarch SorictT
sevenry-eightycarsold, l)r. Gishconrinuesro debareevolutionisr professors on cam- it is now centercdin Missouri, and has an experiment starion in north-
QuarterQ;
puseswith largcnumbcrsofsrudenrsarrending. He hasnevcrlosra debare.-Eo. ccnrralArizona (secp,648 below).-F,o.

6t8 6t9
 Crnssrs,CrsxrroN aun EnnrvMaN
though they would not make that actualstatement,nevertheless synr-
parhizeand 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 ex-
plain 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 epicy-
clesand 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-
' 'I hc heliocentric
modclthat Copernicus proposedhad been;rrrivcdat by rhc
CreekastronomcrArisrarchus o[ Alcxandriain the rhird cenrury8.c., bur at rhat
tinrcthc thcoryhadbecnrcjected and ignoredbv scholars.-Eo.
620
Fn. Srnalsrv's [.asr Talx
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.Actu-
ally,everyscientifictheory hasto havesomethingwhich is assumedon
faith. l'he evolutionistsassumetheir belief on fairh. The really rigor-
ous onesinsist that once therewas norhing or therewas a point of tre-
mendousenergywhich 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 sci-
enceralksabout-because scienceis rrying to get to truth-and wha(
Genesistalks about. We haveto be awarerhar we cannot put them in
rwo diflerenr categories.Vhen peopletry to separatethem in this way
(which they very frequentlydo as an answerto the question) they do
nor rrearGenesisasa serioustext. They say Genesisis not to be inter-
pretedasa text that acturlly talks about the origins of nature,exceptas
a kind ofspeculationor asa handing down ofancient myths, Babylo-
nian 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.Fur-
rhermore,you cannot trust your own interpreration,becauseyou are
going to put your modern ideasir,to it. Yor.rare going to make it evolu-
tionist or antievolutionist, accordingto your prejudice.That docs not
62r
 (leur:srs,CncarroNnNn E,rnlyMaN
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 in-
terpretation.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. Ac-
tually, 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 cre-
ated,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 knowl-
edge 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.
622
Fn. Ssp.alNru's
Llsr Tnlx
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 mis-
take, 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
the basisof the scientificknowledge. a dif-
ferenr way of reading it, and we might be more correct. The text re-
nrainsthe 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 scientificaware-
ness.'I'hus the rext of Genesisis not open to this criticism of science.
We might correcrrhe interpretationof rhe Fathersif it dealswith spe-
cific 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
623
 Geursrs,CnearroNrruo E.rxlyMeN L"rsrTer-x
Fr. SnnepHrlr's

moral life from them, like a bird that is faithful to its mate. That is all afterthat is His continuousProvidence overthe world,which is actu-
very nice and interesting,but the rext of Genesisdoesnot stand or fall ally a continuouscreation,because without the IivingVord of God,
on that. This is explanatorymaterial.Actually, someonetoday could how coulda seedbecomean individualpersonor plantor animal?It is
go into the scientificfacrswe haveabour creation, using theseas ex- all very miraculousand a work of creation,bv it's dffirent from the
planatory material, and could write a tremendousbook on this very crearionwhich wasar the beginning,in the first Six Days.If you do
subjectof the Six Days of Creation. Unfortunately,peopletend to be not seethat,you will makea lot of mistakes.
too narrow-mindednowadays;the scientistswill not broadentheir ho- Ve will seein our readingof the next chaptersof Genesis-four
rizon enough to take in the whole aspectof Genesis.The ones who through eleven-that rhereis evena basicdifferenceberweenthe way
read Cenesisusually are not preparedenough for the scientific side. men were beforethe Flood and the way they were after the Flood.
Nevertheless, we can keepthis possibiliryin mind; rhe subjectis a very There area numberof thingswhich changedwith the Flood.But ir
fruitful areafor discussion. wasin the Six Daysrhateverything we know now cameto be,and af-
Also, we are nor to be afraid ofsciencebecausesciencecannot oos- ter rhat is simplythe continuationofthosethingswhichwerealready
sibly contradict revealedtruth. If ir\ truch, ir! truth. Theret one lind creared, according ro rhelawswhichGod madeand gaveto nature.
revealedfrom Cod, and one kind revealedin nature.The kind revealed
from God is absolute,we say,becauseit comesdirecrly from God. Bur
its interpretationreliesupon our wisdom, which we obtain from the
Church and the Holy Farhersas we go. Vhen we have understood
that, then we can even make our own speculations,as long as we do
not say that those speculationsare on rhe samelevel as the text irself.
Scienceis much more speculative,especiallywhen it comes to these
very early things like rhe crearionof the world, since no one was there
to seelt.
I should mention alsoa basicfaccabout the first Six Days of Crea-
tion that we discussedlastyear:thoseSix Daysare quite dilferent from
what is going on now. The Holy Fathersmake it quire clear that you
cannot make deducrionsbasedupon what is happening now and de-
rive an understandingof the first Six Days of Creation, becausewhar
was happeningrhen was the creationofthe world out ofnotbing. That
is not happeningtoday. Now we havethe continuous creariveacrivity
of Cod. St. John Chrysostom discussesrhis very matter in his com-
mentary on Cenesis.As he points out, in Genesisit is said that God
restedfrom His works (Cen.2:2), that is, ceasedro creare,Dur our
Lord in the GospelofJohn saysthar the Farhercontinuesto work (cf.
John 5:17), and thereforeHe must still be creating.So theseare rwo
different rhings.Vhat was in the beginningwas the crearionof Cod,
from which He rested.That is no longer taking place.rVhat happens

624 625

AppnNorxFoun
TheFaith of Radiometric
Dating
BY CURT SE\flELL
Lf o* car creationistsexpectpeopleto accepta young earth when
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 supernaturalacriv-
ity, 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.
l. RadioactiveDating
There are basicallyrwo different kinds of radioacrivedating meth-
ods. One is the Carbon l4 sysremusedfor dating fragmenrsofonce-
living 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 dat-
ing," and includesuranium-thorium-lead, rubidium-strontium,and
626
Tne Fe,rrsor R.enrovr-rr.lcDrrllrc
potassium-argonsysrems.These are the methods that are commonly
used on inorganic samplessuch as rocks, and thar ofren give ex-
tremely 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 rrans-
formed 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 assumptionofevolu-
tion. And, of course,the public doesnot usuallyhear of thescwrong
answers.
l'his statement-that radiometric dates are "correcred"by refer-
enceto evolution-basedindex fossils-is hotly contested,but examina-
tion 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
The generalpublic believesthat radiomerric resultsare consistenr
and thus demonsrrablyreliable.But the technicalliteratureshowsoth-
erwise.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
dateswere acceptedas correct.l'he radiometricdateswere discarded.
Voodmorappe quoted one researcher assaying:
ln gencral,datcsin the'correctball park'areassumed to bc'correct
and arcpublished, bur thosein disagreement wirh othcrdaraarcscl-
dorn publishednor arcdiscrepancies fully explaincd.l
'When
thesereportsdid discussthe possiblecausesof errors,rhey
usedwords such as"possibly,""perhaps,""probably,""may havebeen,"
etc. Reasonsgiven usuallyinvolveddetrital intrusion, leakageor leach-
ing of someof the isoropesin the sample,and somerimesthe initial iso-
topic 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 re-
sults rangedtp rc 22 million years.Joan Engelswrote:
It is now well knownthat K-Ar agesobtaincdfionr differcnrmincr-
alsin a singlerockmaybe strikinglydiscordant.r
4. Shull t470
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 prc-
vious modelsof human beginnings."It wasnamedKNM-ER-1470
(for KenyaNationalMuseum,EasrRudolf,#1470).
Marvin Lubenowgivesa gooddescription of the ten yearsof con-
troversysurroundingthe datingof thisskull.'
In the first attemptar daringthe KBS Tuff, Fitchand Miller ana-
628
THnFarrnor RaorourrnrcDlrrt.tc
lyzedthe raw rock, and got datesrangingfrom 2'12ro 230 MY-the
Tiiassicperiod,vastlyolder than expected.Because mammalbones
had beenfound belowthis stratum,they saidthesedateswereobvi-
ouslyin errorbecause of"the possible
presence ofextraneous argonde-
rived from inclusionsof pre-existing rocl$." Eventhough the rock
lookedgood,anythingolderthat 5 MY wasobviouslywrong in view
of rheirknowledge of the "sequenceof 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.
Orher measurcments, someas low as.5 MY weresaidto be anoma-
louslyyoung. Thesewereexplainedas possibleoverprintingby an
alkaline-richhot waterinfusion.
Between1969 and 1976several reamsmadea numberof radio-
metricmeasurements, andthe resultsclusteredaroundahreeages- I .8
MY, 2.4 MY, and 2.6 MY. Eachteamcriticizedthe others'technique
of rocksampleselection. Most radiometricarguments weresaidto fa-
vor the 2.(r MY date,but the paleontological argumentsfavoredthe
1.8MY date-(that is wherethe skullwould bestfit evolutionary the-
ory). And final agreement cameonly afterpaleontologistshad agreed
on fossilcorrelationinvolvingrwo species of exrincrpigs.The final ac-
cepteddarefor the skullwas1.9MY Commentingon this methodof
selectingrocksamples for radiometric
dating,Lubenowasks;
The questionarises,"How docs one know when one has good sam-
plcs for daring?" The only answcr to that qucstion is that "good"
samplcsgive dates that are in accord with evolutionarypresupposr-
tions. "Bad" samplesare rhe ones rhat give datesnot in conformity
w i th ev,rl uti on-a cl assicillur t r at i, , nol cir cularr casonins. s
5. Grand Canlon Dating
Creationistshavecriticizedmanyaspects of datingrocksby radio-
activiry but haveofferedlitrle realproof that the methodis flawed.
However,the Institute for CreationResearch is now in the earlyphascs
ofgettingsuchproof for igneousrock."
629
 Cexests,Cne.rrIoN.ruo [lruv MaN Tne F,trrHor Rrorovr.rnrc Darrr.rc

" fhe purposeof rhis project," the ICR scientisrswrite, "is to use This result alone should be enough ro throw strong doubts on heary-
the'most reliable'radioactiveisotopedating method (the'isochron metal radiomerricdating methods,but we must wait for the project's
method') with the most accurateanalytical measurementtechnique completion beforetoo many conclusionsare drawn.*
(the isorope dilution mass spectrographtechnique) to establishrhe
'ages'ofvarious Grand Canyon rocks." 6. Causesof Enors
The ICR scientistshaveengageda licensedcommercialgeotechni-
There are severalpossiblesourcesfor the crrors associated with ra-
cal laboratory to help plan and overseethe project and prevent bias
diometric dating. The main problems (beginning wirh those of least
lrom influencing the results,and to submit rock samplesto several
rmportance)are:
qualified laboratoriesin a manner that will avoid subterfugc.
l. AccuraE of decal rates--mosr of rheseare rhoughr to be known
The Grand Canyon has many different rock strataand types.Eve-
within a few percenrand, if wrong, would haveonly a minor effect on
ryone agreesthat the Precambrianmetamorphic rocks buried below
'I'heseinclude the lriniry Gneiss, dates.
the Canyon floor must be the oldest.
2. Constllnryofdecd! rater-most scientistsbelieve these have been
ElvesChasm Gneiss,and the ZoroasterCranite.
constant through rhe ages,although this cannor really be known. But
Everyonealsoagreesthat the Quaternarylava flow on the Unikaret
one of thc early investigators,Profcsssor John Joly of Tiiniry College,
Plateau is probably the youngest igneous deposit there. This came
Dr.rblin,reporredevidenceshowingvariation.TBarrySetterfield's report
from a volcano, after all of the beds of sedimentarysrrata were laid
on possiblevariationoFthe speedoflight alsogiveshistoricalreferences
down, and after the canyon was eroded.The lava flowed over the rim,
to variationsin decayratesover the last 300 years.nBur most scientisrs
and down the sidesof the alreadyerodedcanyon.
havebeen lessthan enrhusiasricin their acceptanceof this concepr.
Most conventional geologistsbelieve that the deep gneissesand
3- Neutron actiuatio by unknown rarzrcr-Profe ssor Melvin Cook
granitesare more than 600 million yearsold, probably closerto 2,000
examinedores from a Katangamine and found rhat they had no Pb-
million years,and rhat the age of rhe Unikaret Plateaubasalticlava
204 and no thorium, yet rhere was appreciablePb-208! That appar-
flow should be measuredin just thousandsofyears, becauseit is obvi-
ently could not have been primordial, and could not have resulred
ously younger than the sedimentarysrrataof the upper canyon walls.
from thorium decay.The only way it corrld be explainedis by neutron
Thus, by comparing the accuratelymcasurcd"ages"of a number of
activation ofPb-207. When Cook correctedfor this, the calculatedage
samplesfrom theserwo regions,we should get an idea of the general
wasreducedfrom 600 million yearsto near modern.eIn most ores,it is
reliabiliryof radiometricmethods.
not possibleto seethis effectso clearly,but rhis showsthat some neu-
The preliminary resultslook very interesting.But only the recent
tron flux, possiblyfrom a supernova,nrust havehad a strong influence,
lava flow measurements had beencompletedat the time of my last re-
and this would probably be worldwide, affectingall rocks in a manner
Port. rhat could nor be easilydeterminedtoday.
Several"model age" figureswere obtained for this same set of re-
4. IntegritT of atoms in the rock-rhis is certainly a point of much
cent rocks, and they were quite discordant (that is, they all disagreed
concern to all chronologists,and is rhe most-cited reasonfor obvious
with each other). The "more accurate"rubidium-strontium isochron
errors in dating measurements.Uranium salrsare water soluble, and
agewas reportedto be 2.1 billion years.
most minerals are subject to unequal leaching of chemical compo-
But rhat ageis clearlywrong. The lavabeing dared flowed over the
edge of the alreadyeroded canyon. Thus, the age "2.1 billion years" ' Sec Steven A. Ausrin, ed., Grand Canlox: Motwncnt to Catatttuph. (1994), ar
musr be many rhousandsof times older than the actualageofthe lava. wcll as rhe accompanying video, Orand Claryon: Monurne4t ro thc F-tood.-F,D.

630 631
 Grxrsrs, CnrarroN ,qNDEaRr-vMlN
nents. Argon migratesunpredictablyin and out of rocks. Hurley re-
ported that radioactivecomponentsof graniteslie on the surfaceof
grains,and can be easilyleachedaway.Z-irconcrystalshavebeen dated
by U-Pb methods, but ion microprobe studieshave shown rhar ura-
nium 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 some-
thing that cannot be proven-a decisionmade by faith.
7. Original Isotopb Material
The uniformitarian geologistmust assumesome initial concenrra-
tion. If his choice is good, and the other error sourcescan be mini-
mized,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 supernaturalinrer-
vention, 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 unilor-
mirarian beliefsas rhe foundation of historicalgeology,and said some-
thing like this:
Peopleusedro belicvcin all sortsof catasrrophes, causedby super-
naturalinterventions.'fhesefblkralcsled 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 occurredac-
cordingro the "uni[ormitarianprinciple"-rharall processes
havcal-
waysfbllowedthe samenaturallawswe observctoday.
632
'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 materialsof planets,asrcroids,
and meteor-
iteshavea commonorigin, lron meteorires conrainsomcleadbut
only infinitcsimalrracesof uraniumand thorium,and thercfbrerhe
Ieadis uncontarninated by radiogcniclcadand canbc regarded asa
goodsampleof primordiallcad.Table6- I liststhe isotopiccomposr-
rion of lead extractedfrom somc iron mctcorites.l'hese data now
canbe usedas(Pb207/Pb20a), and (Pbr06/Pb2&;, in the Houtermans
cquation,and all rharrcmainsto be fbrrndto pcrmira calcularion of
theagcofrhc carrhis a leadsarnple from a closcdsubsystem of wcll-
knownage.lo
Noticc Faul'sstarringpoinr-"lf one assumesthat rhe solarsysrem
condensedfrom a primordial cloud...." That meansa purely naturalis-
ric 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 havebeensimi-
lar 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 uniformitarian-
ism 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
633
 GrNssrs,Cnp-arroNnNn Ernry Mlru THt Fa.rrnor RaorovelnrcDarrnc

are told that He createdthesethings with an appearanceof age.' Vhy His own creation,then it is reasonableto believerheBiblicalaccounr,
couldn't He also have made rocks the same way? Vhy couldn't they and.rnageofjust thousands ofye;rrs.
have contained Lead 206 and Argon 40, so that they appeared"ma- Neitherof thesechoices is forcedupon usby thephysicalevidence
ture"?Scientistsagreethat Lead 204 musr havebeen presenrsince rhe Rather,we makethe choicefor philosophical reasonsjrhenfit the evi-
earth! beginnings.\Yy'hycould nor mosr of the Lead 206, 207 and 208 dencesinto oneor theotherfoundationalbeliefsvstem.
also haveoriginated in the sameway?
Sincea prehistoricacr of God is not amenable ro scientificinvesri- 8. Conclusion
gation, and is thereforeoutside of the scientific method, many scien- Many scientists, teachers,
and much of the media,arevery good
tists exclude God from scientific possibiliry and simply assumethar
spokesmen for theevolutionisrs'
long-age beliels.And rnany(lhrisri.rns
God never intervened.'l'hey searchfor purely materialisticexplana- havegone along with rhesescientists' "long-ag;c-of-the-earrh"
srare-
tions as if rhey were the only scientificallyacceptablechoice. But this ments,usuallywithour realizingthat theyarebasedon naturalistic as-
leadsto a real problem. Ve seerhat radiogenicdating is not jusr based
sumptionsthar completely rule our any sort of intervention by a
on physical measurements.Its foundarion resrs on a philosophical
crcatorCod. They havenot recognizecl rheFallacy ofcircularreasoning
belief-one's belief in how the world came into cxisrence. in theselong-agebeliefs.In this way,theyhavekrsrthe loundationof
'We
seethat the questionof "young-earthvs. ancienr-earth"can be
their faith,needlessly.
resolved only according to which of rwo foundational hiths one
cnooses.
If we choosefaith in materialismand excludethe possibilityofsu- Curtis SewelLJr., workedfor 44 yearsas an Eletronics Engineerin
pernaruralintervenrion,then it is reasonable to believethat the earrh is the nuclear industry beginning ir the Manhattan Projeu of the U.S.
billions of yearsold. Army during WorA lVarII (thtfrx atomicbomb).Forfue yearshe was
However, if we recognizea God Vho can and has intervened in Chief Engineeroflsotopes,Inc. Amonghis dutiesthereweredcsigting in-
strumentrltionfol radiochemicalanalTsisof uariousspecimens, including
''I'his was caregorically affirmedby Sr. Ephraim rhe Syrian in his fourrh- Carbon14 datingsystems. h 1988he rctiredfzm LawrenceLiuermore
cenruryComnrcntaryon Ccnesis: "AJrhough thc grasseswereonly a momentolclar NationalLaboratory.
theircrearion, rheyappeared asifrhey weremonrhsold. L,ikewise, rhe rrecs,although
Mr. Sewellat onetimc heldto the uniformitar;an uiewthat theearth is
only a dayold when thcysprourcdlortlr,werenevcrrhclcss likc trccsycarsold, sincc
rheywerefully grownand fruirswcrcalreadybuddingon rheirbranchcs." billions ofyearsoA, but in the courseof his manyyearsofworh he beganto
Lrtcr, in cxplaininghow rhe nroonhad rheeppearancc oFagcat thc tinrc of its doubt the "proof" of this becauselte satutltat it wasbasedon circukr logic.
creation,St. Ephraimwrites:"Jusrasthc rrecs,rhcvcgcrarion, rhcaninrals,thc birds, Thestoryof how he mouedfom theeaolutionary worAuieuto the Chris-
and cvcnmankindwcrcold [whcntheywcrecrcarcdl,soalsowcrcthcyyoung. IDeT tian worlduiewis recounted in his boohGodat Ground Zero (1997).
tucreoA actordirg to the appc'trnnreof tltcir limbs and tlteir sub$arcet,1,etthel uere
yung because of tltc hour and nomentoftheir teation" (Conrnentaryon Gerctis,F.ng-
vcrsion,
Copyright@1994by the Bible-Science
Association,
Inc.
lish pp. 90-91;crnphasis addcd).
Virh this Scriptural-Patristic undcrsranding of rhe manncrin which God cre- P O. Box 33220,Minneapolis,
Minnesota55433-0220
atedrhe world, thc enrircbasisof radiornerric datingmerhodsfills apart.'I'hc facr
that Sr. F,phrainr
Fora list of furthercritiquesof radiometricdating,seepp.64041
raughrir in rhe fburth ccnturyindicares rharit is nor tn ad hocar-
gumcnrof prescnt-day cfearionscientisrs bur rarhcra straighrforward intcrpretarion below.
of Scripture.-Eo.

634 b J)
 SlrcctsLto Rrlotucs

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
Apppttotx Fryn food for the soul, providing in succinct form an explanation of the
purposeoflife. As Fr. Seraphimpoints our in his introducrion, St. Sy-
meon speaksof rhe mysteriesof the beginning and end preciselybe-
Suggested
Readings causehe hasseenthem through Divine vision:

BYTHE EDIl'OR How did St. Symeongive us the teaclringwhich is authenrically

I, PATRISTIC
SOURCES
\\f/Her wRrrlNGon the Patristicunderstanding of Genesisand
W creation.Fr. Seraphimhad to translatemany Patristicsources
from foreignlanguages. Sincehis death,several ofthesesourceshave
beenpublishedin Englishtranslation, includingrwo of the mosrrm-
portant ones:Homilieson Genesis by Sr. John Chrysostom,and Com-
mentarl on Genesis 6y St. Ephraim the Syrian. English-speaking
disciplesofthe Holy Fathers now haveat theirdisposal a wealthof ma-
terialby whichto deepentheirunderstanding ofthe originof the uni-
verseand of man. All of this material,includingthe new English
translations,is listedin rhefirst sectionof the Bibliography.
fu inirial
reading,we suggest:
|. Hexaemeronby St. Basilthe Great;
2. Hexaemeron by St. Ambroseof Milan;
3. Commentary on Genesisby St. Ephraimthe Syrian;
4. Homilieson Genesisby Sr.JohnChrysostom;
5. TbeFirst-Created
Manby Sr. Symeonthe New Theologian.
Tbe First-CreatedMan-translaed by Fr. Seraphim Rose and
originallypublishedunder the tiie The Sin of Adzm-can be re-
gardedasa companionvolumero the presentbook. In his endeavor
to confirm modernmankindin the true teachingon the beginning
Chrisrian,and not a mereresulrofspeculation and guessing?
St. Symeonspeak from Divine revelation. First,his basisis al-
waysScriprural-but we areastonishcd ro seea dcpthof meaningin
his useof ScriptLrralquotarionswhich we would nevcrhaveseenby
oursefves.And this is because,
second,he speaks fom pcrsonalexperi-
Many of the Patristicbooks in English which are lisredin the Bib-
liography 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, in-
cluding Thc Firx-Created Man, can be ordered directly from the pub-
lisher, P O. Box 70, Platina, CA 96076. Fax orders 530-3524432.
II. SCIEN'TIFICSOURCES
l. Initial kading
The following four books,by a wide varieryof aurhors,arerecom-
mendedas initial reading.Taken together,they providea good back-
ground ro all rhe major aspecrsof the modern crearion/evolurion
debate.All of themareeasilyaccessible
ro rhe nonscientist.

636 ()5/
 CrNrsrs,CpEllroN .ruo E,lnrvMaN
L Biological Euolutionism by Constantine Cavarnos (second edi-
tion, 1987). This book by a contemporaryGreek Orthodox philoso-
pher places evolutionism in its historical context and includes a
critique of it by a major Grcek Orthodox saint of the rwentieth cen-
rury,Sr. Nectariosof Penrapolis.
2. Darwin on Tiial by Phillip E. Johnson (secondedition, 1993).
Called'the book rhat makesevolutionisrsfurious," this bestsellerrocked
the scicntificestablishmentwith its well-reasoned, understatedyet dev-
astatingargumentsagainstthe "fact" of evolution. Molecular biologist
Michael Denton (seebelow) hascalledit 'irnquestionablythe besrcri-
tique of Darwinism I haveevcr read." (Professor Johnsonhasfurthered
rlris critique in his subsequent6ooks: DefeatingDarwinism by Opening
Min*, Reasonin the Bnlance, and Objections Sustained.)
3. Scientifc Creationisttrby Henry M. Morris (1985 edition). An
excelle nt summary by rhe founder of America'screationsciencemove-
menr, rhis book discusses everything Fronrthe beginning of the uni-
verseto 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 exam-
ines 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 de-
tailed 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 ad-
vanceof that of the averagebiologist,showsrhar all usefulgenericin-
formation 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 anyonedefcnd-
ing Scripturein this increasingly cducatcdageis an understarcmcnt.
To put it succinctly, it is clearrhar unlessevolurionists
can pull a
brandnew rabbitout ofthe hat,Spetnerhasblownthe wholeevolu-
tionarymcchanism out ofthe wateronccand for all. fhe evolutron-
arylhumanistesrablishment 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's-
siblefor them to ignorc this groundbreakingwork, by sprcadingir as
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 foundany-
wherein the scientificliterature,aswell asdescriotions of whereand
how thesefossilswerefound, and rhe controversies involvedin their
datingand classification.Basedentirelyon fossilsaccepteduncondi-
tionallyby evolutionists,it is heavilydocunrented from the mosr re-
centscientificsources.
Highly recommended.
4. On RadiometricDating
Curt Sewell'sl:ook, Godat GroundZero(1997),containsall the
materialincludedin AppendixFourof the presenrbook,plus helpful
technicaldescriptionsof eachof the majorradiometricdatingmeth-
ods. Marvin L. Lubenog in an appendixrc Bonesof Contention: A AJthoughasFr.Seraphimsaysit is impossible to "prove"scientifi-
CreationistAssessmentof Human Fossils,givesa derailed history of the
famous"skull 1470" mentionedby Sewell,showinghow evolutionist
assumptions dererminewhich radiometricfindingsareaccepted.
Dr. Mace Baker,ar the end of his book TheRealHistoryof Dino-
saurs(1997),providesanotherhelpftrlcritiqueof radiometricdating.
His 3O-page essay drawsfrom a largenumberofsourcesby evolurion-
ists.
The most thoroughand up-to-darecritiqueis found in the new
' Not to be confusedwirh Eonctof Contewrazby RogerLewin ( 1987),an evolu-
tionisrand lirerarycolleagueof RichardLrakey.Lcwin'.s book,incidentally,
is a good
cvolutionisr treatmcnrofrhc subjccr,for ir acknowledgesrhcvasrarnountofspecula-
tion and subjcctiviryinvolvcdin rheinrerpretarionof "humaoanccstor" fbssils.
640
Succrsrro RraorNcs
book, The Mytholngy of Modern Dating Methodsby John Woodmo-
rappe(1999).Dr. HenryMorriswriresof this book:
Voodmorappe,.. hasdemonstrated that the variousassumptions
on which radioacivc dating rechniquesare basedareall wrong, and
hc hasdonc this masterfully and overwhclmingly-bycirarions(al-
mosr500 separare articles)from evolutionistswho spccialize
in rhe
field, not from other crearionisrs
who alrcadyagreewith this world-
He 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 rcchrricaland is not casyto read,al-
"myrh/reality
thoughits interesring check"strucuremakesit abour
ascasyto lollow aspossiblcwirh sucha subject.
5. On theAgeof the Earth
callythat theearthis a certainnumberof yearsold-whether 5 billion
or 7,500-the readermay be interesred in lookingat someof rhe evi-
dencesfor a young ageof the earrh.ln TheBiblical Basisfor Modzrn
Science (1984),p. 477, Dr. Henry Morris hascompileda list of (r8
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 his-
toricaldata.
A more detaileddiscussionof evidencesof recenrcrearionis
found in The Young Earth(1994)by the geologistDr. John D. Mor-
ris, son of Dr. Henry Morris. Vritten on a popularlevelfor high-
schoolstudents,this book alsocontainsa cririqueof radiomerricdat-
641
 Cenr:srs.
Cnsarronnuo F,,rnryMaN
ing and an illuminating account of the circular reasoningwhich evo-
lutionists 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
@p.23-24).
(1984)is anotherhelpfulre-
In theMindsofMen6ylan1'.-faylor
source.In chaprer I I, 'Iaylor delvesinro many scientific areasrelating
to the age of the earth, and into hisroricaldata. Looking at the cos-
rrologiesof ancient civilizations-Abyssinian,Arab, Babylonian, Chi-
nese,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 sug-
gestcatastrophicburial, and ofien a very violent one. 'fhey must have
been buried quickly under layersof sediment,for not only are their re-
mains found in abundance,bur in many casesoriginal bone material
and skin imprints are preserved.There are a number of massivedino-
saur graveyardsall ovcr the world. As Dr. Henry Morris writes, "The
642
Succrsleo Rl,rnrNcs
entombmentof such numbers of such greatcreaturesliterallydemands
someform ofcarastrophicaction."
All ofrhis, ofcourse, is seenby crearionistsasevidencethat the fos-
silizeddinosaursdied 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 p-
tional 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.Crea-
rion scientistsgenerallyagreethar the main causewas rhe drasticenvi-
ronmenralchangeberweenthe 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 Di-
nztaurs,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 Mys-
tery Solved by Ken Ham, pp. l4-16, tg11-..1;T-heGreatAlashanDino-
saurAduentureby 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 de-
scriprionsof "dragons" found in ancient cultures fronr-all over thc
643
 Gsnrsrs,CnrerIoN,rruoElnry MeN Succes.renRnaotNcs

world, manyof whichcontainamazingdinosaur-like detail.Creation- -I'hequestionof how dinosaurs(presumably young ones)could

istsexplaintheseasreferringto kindsof dinosaurs whichsurvivedthe havebeenaccommodared aboardthe Ark hasbeenwell answeredby
Flood(theterm "dinosaur"wasnot inventeduntil l84l).- RussellM. Grigg in his article"Dinosaursand Dragons,"by Mace
The Old tstament mentionsdragons/dinosaurs (in Hebrew,raz- p. 28, and by Ken Ham in Tbe
Btker in TheRealHistoryof Dinosaurs,
nim) twenry-onetimes.The most important referenceis in the book of GreatDinosaurMysterySolued,pp. 52-58.
Job,chapters40-41, whereone findsa detaileddescriptionof a grear
sauropoddinosaurwhich "movesits tail like a cedartree."For a thor-
ough discussionof dinosaursin the Bible, seeTheRealHistoryof Dino-
7. On the Flood
saarsby Mace Baker,pp. 8-49; and The Biblical Basisof Modern
SciencebyHenry Morris, pp. 350-59. SeealsoDinosaunby Designby The Gcnesis Floodby JohnC. Vhitcomb and Henry M. Morris is
Duane Gish, pp. 82-83; and TheRemarkable RecordofJob by Henry the classiccreationsciencetextbookon the Flood.Called'the book
Morris,pp. I l5-25. that catallzedthe creationscience movement,"it wasstudied,appreci-
Creationischaveamassed a greatdealof evidence from historical atedand rccommended by Fr.Seraphim.Sincethis book cameout in
lireratureand art that indicates that dinosaurshavecoexisted with hu- 1960,much morescientificinvestigation and research hasbeendone
mans.Unfortunately, all this materialhasnot yet beenanthologized in in the field of Floodgeology, especially by Dr. Henry Morris'group,
a singlework,andsomustbe gleaned from a numberofsources. 'l'hese the lnstitutefor CreationResearch. A numberofgood booksand vid-
include"Dinosaursand Dragons"by D. LeeNiermann(CreationEx eosare available.After reading The Genesis Flood,one can turn to its
Nihilo TtchnicalJournal,vol.8, no. I); "Dinosaursand Dragons"by informarivesequel,frr \YorldThat Perished (revisededition, 1988)by
RussellM. Grigg(CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 14, no. 3); That Their Words John C. Vhircomb. Especially interestingis the book GrandCanyon:
May Be UsedagainstT'hemby Henry Morris, pp. 251-61 Afer the Monumentto Catastropbe by geologistSteve n A. Austin ( 1994),to-
FloodbyBill Cooper, pp. 130-61;"'fhe EarlyHistoryof Man, ParrI: gerherwirh the videosGrandCanyon:Monumentt0 theFloodand The
Living Dinosaurs from Anglo-Saxon and Other EarlyRecords" by Bill GrandCanyonCatastrophe, which explainthe depositionof sediments
Cooper(CreationEx Nihilo Ti:chnical Joarnal,vol.6, no. l); T'heReal and rhe erosionof the Canyonaccordingto the Floodmodel.Steven
Hi*ory of Dinosarrsby Mace Baker,pp. 5l-62, 86-88; 'fhe GreatDi- Austin alsohasa video on the 1980 eruptionof Mount St. Helens
nosaurMystarySoluedby Ken Ham, pp. 28-33, ll9-2'1, 137 and (Mount St.Hebns:Explosiuc Euidence for Catasnopha), which showsthe
"Messages in Stone"by Dennis L. Swifr (CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 19, rapidfbrmationof geologicstructures suchasrock lay€rs,canyonsand
no. 2). An accounrofSr. Georgeand the dragonis givenin Dmosaurs log deposirs,and explainsthe significance of this for understanding
b1Design6yDuaneCish,pp. 80-81. One of the bestintroductrons to what occurredduring the Flood.
the subjectis the video 7'heGreatDinovur Mystery,wrirren and di- Several technicalmonographs on Floodgeologyareavailable from
rectedby PaulTaylor. the lnstitute for Creation Research, including Field Studiesin Cata-
struphicGcohg/, An lcg Age Causedby the GenesisFlood, Ice Coresand
* Sr. Barsanuphius of OprinaMonastcrl Russia(1845-1913) wriresin his ccll- the Age of the Earth, Sea-FloorSedimentsand the Age of the Earth, and
nores: "'l'hc talesofthc ChineseandJapanese abourrhccxistencc ofdragonsarenor
Sndiesin Fhod Geologt.Other technicalpapers,coveringsomeof the
ar all fantasies or fablcs,alrhoughthe learnedEuropeannaturalisrs, and oursalong
with thcm, denythe exisrcncc of thcscmonsrcrs. Bur, afrcrall, anythingcan be de- latestadvances in Floodgeology,arecontainedin Proceedings ofthe In-
nied,simplybecause it doesnot measure up to our understanding." (Fromthc forrh- ternationalConference on Creationism, 1994 and 1998.
coming book ofthe St. Herman Brorhcrhood,El/er Barsanuphius of Optina.) 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 Malcolm Bowden,in his recentbook Tiue9iencc Agreeswith tbe
T'hetYaters Aboueby JosephC. Dillow (1981). Bible(1998),refutesthe claim that the earlyFathersinterpretedthe
-l'he following books will be of intercstto Bowdensaysthat the
thosewishing to make a Cenesisaccountof creationonly allegorically.
study of what happenedafier the Flood and the dispersionof rhe peo- Fathers were "sensible in
lircralists" their approach to Genesis,which is
plcs A/ier the Floodby Bill Cooper; T'heyCame/iom Babel by S. A. nor far from Fr.Seraphim's assertion that the Fathers Gene-
interpreted
Crantlll; 'l'lte Puzzle of Arcient Mar by Donald tl. Chirtick; and The sis 'realistically."
Biblical Basis/ir Modun ScicncebyHenry M. Morris, chapters I 5- 16. Seealsothe articlessupportingthe reachingof St. Basil'sHrxaa-
meron:"CenesisMeansVhat lt Says,"in CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 16,
L On Biological Variation
no.4, p.23 (September-November, 1994),and'An EarlyView of
GenesisOne," in Creation Research SocietyQuarterly,vol. 27, pp.
As an introduction to biological variarion within the original (
1 3 8 -3 9 l9 9 l ).
"kinds" describcdin Genesis,the following books and arriclesare rec-
ommended: Not b7 Chance!by L)r. l-ee Sperrrer, chapter seveni Oze
I L Aids in Apologetics
Blood: '['he Biblical Ansuer to Racismby Ken Ham, Carl Vieland and
Don Batten;"Bearsacrossthe Vorld" by PaulaWesronand Carl Wie- Irr his book That Their WordsMay Be UsedagainstThem,Henry
land (CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 20, no. 4); and 'Adaptarionswirhin the Morris hascompilednearlythreethousandquotesfrom evolutionists
Bear Family:A Contribution ro the Debareabour the Limits of Varia- which revealthe weaknesses and uniformirarian-
of both evolutionism
tion" by Dr. David J. 'iyler (CrcationMatters,vol.2, no. 5). ism.The fruit of overfifty yearsof study,thisanthologycanbe a very
usefultool for Christiansdefendingtheir faith. Includesa compa€t
9. On the History of'Dartuittism
disc.
ln CrcationScientistsAnsuer Their Critics,veterandebaterDuane
Helpful marerial on the philosophicaland socrologicalroors of Gish respondsto the most importantanti-creationistbooksand arti-
l)arwinism can be lound in -l'he Riseof the Euoluion Fraud by Mal- cles,substantiaringthe factsand argumentsin the creationistlitera-
colnr Bowden; The Long lYar against Godl:>yHenry M. Morris; [Jnder- ture.
standing tbe 7'imes(unabridged edition) by David A. Noebel;
Euolution:A 7-beoryin C-rrr by Michael Dcnton, pp. (t9-77: Algny l>y
'[aylor. 12. For the Educationof Children
JeremyRifkin, pp. 63-108; and ln the Minds dMenby Ian [.
Scientifc Creationismby Henry Morris waswritten especiallyfor
10. Cruuion Scientisx in Dcfrnse of the Holy Fathers
high schoolstudents,and remainsthe bestgeneraltextbookon the
subiect.TheAmazingStoryof Creationby Duane Gish is suirablefor
Jonathan Vells, who is now doing postdocroralresearchin mo- junior high as well as high schoolstudents.lts readabletext, many
lecular biology at the Universiry of California at Bcrkeley,has de- and largeformatmakeit veryeasyto follow.Cover-
colorillustrations
fended St. Basil and l)lessedAugustine against claims rhar their ing a broadrangeof subiects-fish,flowers,stars,dinosaurs, etc.-tt
teachingsare conrpariblewith cvolutionism. Seehis article 'Abusing oflersmuch interesting materialfor schoolprojects.
Thcology: Howard Van 'fill's 'ForgotrenL)octrineof Creariont Furrc- Phillip Johnson'sDefeatingDaruinism by OpeningMinds (1997)
rional Integrity,"'in Origins(r Desigtt,vol. 19, no. I (1998). waswritrenon a high-school levelwith the specificpurposeof teach-

647
 GeNc.srs,
CnaenoNrNo Ernry M,rN Succes.rr:o fu,qoINcs

ing youngpeoplehow to seethrough the deceptiveargumenrsfor evo- ObjectionsSuxainedttyPhillip E. Johnson,and the journal Ozfz.r
lutionismand to understand rhebasicscientificissues without getting (t Designcan be orderedfrom AccessResearchNerwork, P O. Box
boggeddown in details. 38069,ColoradoSprings,CO 80937-8069. http://wwwarn.org
The bestbrief treatmentofcreationscienceis BoneofContention:Is Shaneringthe Mlths of Darwinismby Richard Milton can be or-
EuolutionTrue?bySylviaBaker(secondedition, 1986).This 35-page, dered from Park StreetPress,One Park Street, Rochester,Vermont
magazine-format book haslong beena favoriteof Christianeducators. 05767.
The aurhoris ableto presenrall rhe majorscientificissues succincrly Mace Baker's 6ool<s,Dinosaursand TheRealHistoryof Dinosaurs,
andaccurately, withoutoversimplifring. The accounrofher conversion and S. A. Cranfill'st:ook Thel Camefom Babelcanbe orderedfrom
from evolutionismro crearionism addsto rhespecialcharacter of this New Century Books, 2683 RosebudLane, Redding,CA 96002.
little book.which hashelpedto bring abour,i.,. r"-. conversionin hnp://www.dinobooks.com
manyotherpeople.Schoolreachers, and alsonrissionaries,
may order Malcolm Bowden'sbook, The Riseof theEuolutionFraudand Tiue
the bookat bulk discountsfrom the Insritutefor CrearionRescarcn. ScienceAgreeswith theBible,canbeorderedfrom The BereanCall, P O.
The Institutefor CrearionResearch andAnswersin Genesis offera Box7019, Bend,OR 97708-7019. Telephone orders800-937-6638.
numberof othereducational resources, nor only for high-schoolstu- Algeny6y JeremyRifkin is out of print and mustbe obtainedfrom
dentsbut also for junior-highand elemenrary schoolstudents,and usedbookstores or interlibraryloan.
evenfor preschoolers. ALI- THE OTHERBOOKSAND /1DIOS in thissectioncanbeor-
The bestdinosaurbooks for childrerrare Dinosaursfu Duign by deredfrom the Institutefor CreationResearch, Il O. Box2667,El Ca-
Duane Gish, and The GreatDinosaurMysteryand the Bible by Paul jon, CA 9202I . Telephone orders800-628-7640.http://www.icr.org
Taylor.(The above-mentioned video by Paul1'aylor,The GreatDino- The Institutefor CreationResearch, the CreationResearchSoci-
saurMystery, is alsosuirablefor childrenaswell asadults.)Junior-high ery and Answersin Genesis Their news-
offerfreeillustratedcatalogs.
and high schoolstudentsinrerested in dinosaurscan referro the rwo lertersareenrirled (respectively)Actsand Facts,CreationMatters,and
booksby Mace Baker(seeabove). AnsuersUrdzte.

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 sE- viewrPhillip E. Johnson,"Amuuniqul:

HIND THE BooK A QuartcrllJounal (Spring 1999).
10.Jeff[^rwrcncc, "CommuniquCIn-
L Phillip E. Johnson,DcfcatingDar-
tcrvicw:PhillipE. Johnson."
winin by OpcningMin&, pp.98-99.
ll . The Chistian Actiuitt: A Jormal of
2. EverctrClaire Olson, "The Evoru-
OnhodoxOpinion,vol. l2 (Spring/Sum-
tion of Lifc," Euolutionafet Datwin,vot,
mer 1998),pp. l-2.
t, p. 523.
I 2. Pcrsonalcommunication,August
J. Rcni GuCnon,Cr\is of thc Modtn
t5, 1999.
\VorA,p.8.
13. "Sr. Barsanuphius, Eldcr of Opt-
4. RenCGuCnon, TbeRcignof Quan-
ina," Tbc Otthodox lVord, nos.2O0-201
tig and the Signt of thc Tima, p. 265.
(1998),pp. 197-98.
5. "Thc Holy Farhcrsof Orthodox
14.Fromrhc forthcomingbookofthe
Spiritualiry:Introduction,"Thc Ortho-
St. Hcrman Brothcrhood,Eldtr Baran-
dox Word,no. J8 (t974\, p. 195.
uphius ofOptina.
6. From the Englishrranslarion of Pi-
15. "Sr. Barsanuphius, Eldcr of Opt-
crre P GrassC's book, EuolutionofLiaing
ine," Thc Orthodox Word, nos.200-201
Organismt p. 202.
( 1998) p.
, 198.
7. Henry M. Mottis, Scientifc Crca-
tionitm, secondadidon, 1985,p. xiu
8. Tim Stafford, "The Making of a
Revolurion," ChrttianiE Tbdal (Dc-
Introduction:Fn.Senepnrpr
Rosr
cembcr 8, 1997). "DarwinistsSquirm AND2l Sr-CENTURy ScrENcE
undcr Sporlight:lnrcrviewwirh Phillip l. Thc Bcrkclcy
MuseumtHacckel
E. Johnson," Citizcn Magazine Qanuary pageis availableon the wcb:
1992). h t r p: / / www.uc m p.ber kcley. cdu/
h is-
9. "DarwinisrsSquirm undcr Spor- tory/hacckcl.html
light," Citizcn Magazine(anuary 1992). 2. Scc Richard Dawkins, Tbc Blind
Derailsof"Thc Entry ofrhe Rightcousinto Paradise."
Jeff Lawrcnce,"CommuniquC lnter- Vatchmahcr,pp. l, 54.
At top: rumpeing angcls;at bottom:piouswomen cnreringParadisc.
Frcscofiom thc CathedralofSt. Dcmctriu, Vhdimir Russia,ca. I 195,
o) l
 Norrs ro P,lcr-s Noresro Pnces103-134

3. CharlesDarwin, Thc Origin ofSpe- I l. St. Isaacthe Syrian,RussianPlri/a- Commemorarionof rhe Martyr Ma- 16. St . Ephr aim , Com m cnt ar yon
4ar (Pcnguined., 1984),p. 66. halia lDobrotolubicJ,sec. 491 English mas,' pp. 656-57. Gencsil, p. 293.
4. Dawkins, Tbe Elind Watebmakcr rranslarion,Early Fathcnfon the Pbilo- 12. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilicson 17. St. Basil rhc Crcar, Hcxaetncron
nore3, pp. 2-3. halia,p. 196. Cencsi3:3, p. l8; 8:2,pp.60-61. l: 5, p. 9.
5. Niles Eldredge,Reinwnting Dar' l2. Sr. Isaac thc Syrian, Arcetical 13. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,On thc Soul 18.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hexaeneron
uin: Thc Grcat Debat?dt th. High Tablc HomilietHomily21, Russian edition,p. and the Resurrection, pp.44142, l: 5, p. 18.
of EuolutionatyThcoryp.95. 108;Hornily85, GreekeditionIHomily 14. St. CregoryofNyssa,On theMah- 19, St. Basil thc Grcar, Hexaemeron
6. Tim Bcrra, Evolutionand thc Myth 37, p. 180 in thc Englishcdition pub- ing of Man 8, pp. 393-94. 3: 34, 7; pp. 4143, 4748.
ofCrcationkm,pp. I l8-19. lishedaftcrFr.Seraphim's repose]. 15.Ibi d. l :5, p. 389. 20. St. Basil rhe (irear, Hcxacnreron
7. fuchard Lcwonrin,'Billions and 13.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmeron 16.Ibi d.3:I, p. 390. 4: 3,p. 57.
Billions of Dcmons," in Thc Ncu York l:2, pp. 6-7. 21.St.AmbroseofMilan, Hexaemeron
Rclicw of Books,lanuary 9 , 1997, pp. 28, 14. Sr. Basil thc Grcat, H*acmeron 3: 3,p. 78.
3 1. l : l ; p .4 . 22. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,On the Soul
15. Sr.John Chrysostom,Homilia on
Chapter Three: Tse Stx Days
and tbe Rcsuncction, pp.457-58.
Gcnetisl4:2, p. I lO. (Dnv sv Dnv) 23. St. Ambrose,Hexacmcron3:4, p,
1 6 .l b i d . 2 :2 ,p .9 . l. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcron u0.
PARTI: AN ORTHODOX 1 7 ,Ib i d . l : I5, pp. l 4- 15. 24. St. Basil the Grcar, Hexaemtron
PATRISTICCOMMENTARY 2. St. Basilthc Grear,Hetaemtnn3:2, 5: 54, p. 74.
ON GENESIS ChapterTwo: Tsr. SIx Dnvs op pp.38-39. 25. St . Ephr aim , Com m . r t 4r ! on
CnurroN (GrNeul Osstnve- 3. St. Ephraim, Commentary on ()cne- Gencsil, p.298.
ChapterOne: How ro READ rroNs) si I, p.286. 26. St. Cregoryof Nyssa,On tbe Soul
4. Sr.Basilthe Great,Hcxacmcron2:1, and thc Rauncction,p. 467.
Cenesrs l. Sr. JohnChrysostom.EightHoni- pp.2l -22. 27. St. John (-hrysoxom, Commcn-
1. Sr. John Damasccne, On Heresiet lieson Gcnaitl:3, pp.71l-32. 5. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hexaemcron tary on Genetu6:4, p. 44.
64, p. 126. 2. St. John Chrysostom,Homilicson l:7, pp. 26,28-29. 28. St. Basil the Grcat, Hcxacmeron
2. St. Athanasius, Mignc PG.25, p. GcncsbT:3, p.52. 6. St. Ephrainr,Commennryon Gcne- 5: l, p. 67.
429. 4:2,
3. St. Basilthe Grear,Hcxaemeron ri I, p. 283. 29. St. Ambroseof M ilan, Hetaemen'n
3. Sr.Athanasius thcGrcat,"FourDis- pp. 56-57 . 7. ll>id.,p. 284. 3:6,p. 87.
courses againstthe Arlans"2:48,p.375. 4. Ibid. 6: I , p. 83. 8. Sr. Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcton 30. St. John Qhrysoxom, Commcn-
4. Sr.Macarius rheCrear,Seuen Homi' 5. St. Ephraim, CommcntarT on Genc' l :8, p.31. ury on Genesit 6:4, p. 45.
tiet4:5, p. 385. si l, p. 287. 9. Ibid., pp.32-33. 31. St. Basil rhc Grcat, Hetaemcron
5. Sr.CrcgoryrhcThcologian, "Hom- 6. Sr. Basilthc Crear,Hexacmeron5:6, 10. St. Ephraim, CommentarTon 6:2-3, 8, pp.85-86,97.
ily on Theophany," scc.12,p.348. P.7 4 . Gencsis l, pp. 286-87. 32. St. Ambroscof Milan, Hcxaemcron
6. Sr. Gregory Palamas,Dcfcnscof tbe 7 . Ib i d .5 :1 0 ,p .8 2 . I l. St,Ambroseof Milen, Hexacmeron 4: 1,p. 126.
Holy HcEtbacs,Triad 2:3, p.432. 8. St. Ambroseof Milan, Hctaemeron l :9, p.39. 33. Sr. John Chrysosrom, Conncn-
7. St.BasilrheGrcat,Hcxaemcron 9:1, l :2 , p p . 5 ,7 . 12. Sr. Ephraim, Comnentary on taryon GencsisT:3, p. 53.
pp. 135-36. 9 . l b i d . l :5 , p .8 . Gcncsis I, pp.287-88. 34. I bid. ,p. 52.
8. Sr. Ephraim rhe Syrian, Commtn' l0. Sr.AthanasiusthcGreat,FourDis- 13.St.Ambroseof Milan, Hcxacmcron 35. Sr.Basil,HexaemcronT:1, p. 105.
tary on Gencsitl, p.282. courretagainrt thc Arians 2:48, 60; pp. 2:5,p. 65. 36. Sr. Ambrosc,Hcxacntcron 5:1,2,
9. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homilia on 3 7 4 ,3 8 1 . 14. St. Basil thc Grcar, Hcxaemcron pp. 160-62.
Genesis l3:4, p. lO7. I l. Sr.GregoryrbeThcologian, Hom-
2:8,p.33. 37. Sr, Basil,HeraemcronT:2, p. 107,
10.Ib i d . l 3 : 3, p. 106. ily 44, "On Ncw \)?cck,
Spring,and thc
15.Ibid.,pp.33-34. 38. lbid. 8:| , p. I 17.

652 l)).t
 Nores ro Prcrs 135-l6l
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.
5 I . Sr. Basil,Hcxaemeron l; I I, p. 19.
52. St. John Damascene, On the Or-
thodoxFaith 2:2, p. 205 [Fathersof thc
Churchsericsl.
53. St. John Chrysostom,Homiticson
GenesilO7, p. 82.
54.St.GregorytheThcologian, Hom-
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.
57. St. Ambrose,Hexaemeron 1:13,p.
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 Homt-
liet on Genai 2:l-2, pp.735-37.
3. Sr. Gregory rhe Theologian,"Scc-
o nd Ora ri o n on E as ( er " 6 -7 , p p .
424-25.
654
4. St, Circploryof Nyssa,On tbc Mak-
ing 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 Mak-
ing 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 Ortbo-
dox 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 Mak-
ing 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
Gencsis l, pp. 304-5.
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,pub-
lished under thc rirle 7bc Firn-Created
Maz, rhis paas.rgc is found on pp.87-
8 8 ,9 0 , l 0 3 .l
16. Sr.John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on
Genestu l2:2, pp. 95-96.
17. Blessed'fheodoret, quoted in the
Dogmatic Theologyof Metropolican
Macarius, vol. I, pp. 43043.
18.St. Basil,On tbeOrigin ofMan2:4,
P.233.
19.lbid.2:3,
p.233.
20.lbid.2:2,pp.229-31 .
21.Sr.JohnChrysostom, Homilieson
Gcne*l2'.5,pp.99-100.
22.St.GregorytheTheologian, vol.2,
Homily-, "On rheSoul."pp.3l , 3.t.
Norrs ro Pecr.sl6l- 189
23. St. John Chrysostom,Honilies on 14.I bid.2: 30,p. 265.
Gzntsul3'.2, pp. 103-4. | 5. lbid. 2: i t-t2, pp. 233-35.
24. Ibi d. l 2:5, p. 100. 16.Sr. Basil,Hexaemerot l:5, p.9.
25, Sr. John Damascenc, On tbe Or- 17.St. Crcgorythc Thcologian,"Scc-
tltodoxFaith2:12,p. 235 [Fathcrs ofthe ond Orationon Easter"8, p.425.
Churchscricsl. 18. St. John Damasccne, On thc Or-
26. St. Cregoryof Nyssa,On theMak- thodoxFaitb 2: I l, pp. 232-33 [Farhers
ing of Man28-29, pp. 419-21. ofrhe Churchseries].
19.Sr.John Chrysostom,On the Crea-
tion of tbe \VorU5:7, pp. 7 93-9 4 .
Chapter Five: Penlotst 20. Sr.John Damascenc, On thc Or-
f . 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 Crea-
3. St. John Chrysostonr, Honilics on tion of the \Vorld6:\, p.799.
Genesit 1334, pp. 105-6. 22. St . Ephr aim , Com m ent ar yon
4. Sr. Bphrainr,Commentary on Gcnc- G cnet 2, u p. 313- 14.
si 2, p.309. 23. Sr.John Chrysostonr,Hontttieson
5. St. (iregorythc Sinaitc,"Chaptcrs Genettu l4'.5,pp. I l5-16.
on Commandmcntsand Dogmas" l0r 24. Sr.Ambrosc,I'aradic,ch, 11,pp.
RussianPhilokalia / Dohrotolubiel,'tol. 5. 329-.10.
lF.nglishPhilokalia,vol. 4, p.213.) 2s. lbiJ. , . hs. l0- l l, pp. . 127.329.
6. Qrroted in Fr. Scraphim Rosc, Ihc 26. Sr. Cyril ofJerusalem,Atecbctical
Soulafer Death,p. 145. lln thc revisetl I.ccturcs 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.
7. Sr. John Ohrysostom, Homilics on 28. St.John Chrysosrcm,On tbt Ctca-
Geneful34, p. 107. tion of tbe \Votld5:8, p.796.
8. Sr.John Chrysosrom,On tbe Crea- 29. 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
I l. St. Crcgorythc Theologian, "Sec- Gcnesis l54, pp. 123-24.
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, 33. St. 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 Or-
vol.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 Rxs-
Churchseriesl. ian Pbihhalia, vol. l, pp. 8l-82. [n tne
655
 Norss ro Pec:s 189-223 Norss 'ro Pncrs225-314

rcvised fourrh edition, this passagcis 20. St. John Chrysostom,Homilis on 5. Sr. Ephraim, Commcntaryon Gene- PARTII:
f oundo n p .9 0. 1 Gcncstu 17:7-8,pp. 149-50. sis4, p. 338. THE PHILOSOPHY OF
36. St. GrcgoryofNyssa, On tbcMak- 2 t.l b i d ., t7 :9 , p . t 52. 6. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homitieson
EVOLUTION
ing of Man 17,p. 407. 22.lbid., p. t53. Ccnesis l85, p. 164.
37. Sc.Abba Dorochcus,Spiitual In- 23. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliu on 7, St. Ephraim, Commcnuryon Gcne-
structiou l, pp. l9-2O. Romau,Homily l4:5, p. 665. sis4, p. 339.
Chapter One: ScIsNce AND THE
24. Ibid., Homily r0:2, p. 595. 8. St. John Chrysostom,Homilicson
Horv Fernsns
25. St. Macarrusrhe Crcat, Fifty Spiri- Generit18:6, pp. 16546.
tual Homilia, Homily I I, pp. 85-86. 9, 5t. Ephraim, Commcntaryon Gcnc- l. Fr. MichaclPomazansky, "1'alkson
Chapter Six: Tnr FALL or M,a.N 26. St. Symconthc New Thcologian, is 4, p. 241. rhe Six Days by Sr the
Basil Grear,and
10. St. John Chrysostom,Homilieton 'Ialks on the Days of Creation by St.
l. St. John Chrysostom,On tht Crza- Homily 45, in Tbc Sin of Adan, pp.
tion of the \Y'orA6:2, pp. 800- I . 6749,75. [n the new edition, pub- Gencsil9:3, pp. 17l-72. John of Kronstadr," Prauottaunlpxt'
2. Sr. Ambrosc, Paradisc12, pp. lishcd undcr thc tide lla First-Creatcd I l l bi d.,p, 173. (Tbc Orthodox lVal annual, 1958, pp.
332-33. Man, rhis paasageis found on pp. 12. S t. E phrai m, C omm cnt ar yon 39, 41.
3.Ibid.,p.333. 9 l -9 4 , 1 0 3 .1 Gcnefi 4, p. 346. 2. I. V Kireyevsky,C)ompleteWorkt
4. lbid. 27. St. Cyril of Alexandria,"On the 13.Ibi d.,p. 345. vol. I , p. I 18.
5. St. Ephraim, Commentary on Gcnt- lncarnationof the Lord." 14.St.JohnChrysostom,Homilies on 3. I bid. ,p. I 19.
r r r3, p . 3 1 8 . 28. Sr. Symeonrhc New Theologian, Genctit2O:2, pp. 179 81. 4. I bid.
6. St. John Chrysostom,Homiticson Thc Sin of Adan, p. 62. [Thc Firtt- 5. Bishop I gnat ius Br i: r nchaninov,
Gcnetis16:4,p. 132. CrcatcdMan, p. 83.1 Works, vol.3, p. \25.
ChapterEight:THE.Fl-ooo
7. Ibid. l6:5, pp. 133-34. 29. Ibid., pp. 69, 73. lTbc Firt-
8. I bi d . l 7 :1 , p. 138. CrcatedMan, pp. 94, 100.1 l. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliesot
Chaprer Two: A Bntrr Cnl'rtque
9. Sr. Ambrosc,Paradiv 14, p. 346 30. Morhcr Mary and Archimandrirc Gencsis 24:3, pp. 229-30.
MODEL
OF THE EVOLU'I'IONARY
10. St. John Chrysosrom,Homilia on Kallistos Vare, rrans,, Tbc Fatal Mc- 2. lbid. 24:5, pp. 234-35.
Gcnesis 17:2-3, pp. 14042. naion,p. 134. 3. St. Ephraim, Commcntaryon Gcne- l. Tracy l. Srorer,GcncralZoologlt,p.
I l. Sr.Ambrose,Parulit 14,p.348. 3 1 . Ib i d .,p . 1 4 6 . sisT, pp. 357-58. 2t6.
12. Sr.John Chrysosom, Homilia on 32.16id.,p. t47. 4. St. John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on 2. Ibid.
Gcncs*l7:5, p. 145- 3 3 . Ib i d .,p . l 5 l . Gencsit 252, p. 244. 3. Ibid.,p. 220.
l3. Sr. Ephraim, Commcntaryon 3 4 . Ib i d .,p .3 6 9 . 5.l bi d.25:6,p.25r. 4. CharlesDar*in, The Origin oJSpe-
Gcncsis 3, pp.329-30. 6. lbid. 25:6, p. 252. cra (ModernLibrarycd.),p. 234.
14. Ibid.,p. 326. 5. Villiam B. N. Bcrry Gtowthof a
ChapterSeven:Lrre Oursrns PrcbistoricTimcScale,p,42.
15. St. Abba Dorotheus,Spirinal In- ChapterNine: Trts Dtspenstot't
*uctiou l, pp. 26-27. P,rnrorse 6. O. H. Schindewolf, "Commenrson
OF THE PEOPLES Some Srratigraphic -Ierms," Ameriutn
16. St. John Chrysosrorn,Homiticson l. Sr. Ephrainrthc Syrian,Paradiscl,
Gnest 17:6,p. 146. pp. 35940. L Sr. John Chrysostom,Homiliq on .fournalofScience, vol.255 (June1957),
17.St.john Chrysostom,On thc Crca- 2. St. John Chrysosrom,Homiliet on Gcncst 28:4, p. 29 | . p.394. Qtrorcdin Hcnry Morris,Srraz-
tionof thc lVotA6:7, p.813. Gcncsis18:-3,p. 16O. 2. Cf. ibid. 297, pp. 3o9-10. tifc Crcationism, p. 135.
18. BishopBcssarion , Conmentaryon J. Morhcr Mary and Archimandrirc 3. Ibi d. 29:8,p. 3l l . 7. \Tilfiam B. N. Berry,Orou,it ofa
Churcb-Scrticc Parablct, vol. l, pp. Kallistos Varc, trans., Tbe Lcntcn 4. Sr. Ephraim, Commcnuryon Gcnc- Prcltitoric Tint Scalc,p.23.
) o- )/ . Triodion,p. 169. sis4, p. 366. 8. SeeJ. P Rileyand C. Skirrr-rw, cd.,
19. St. Ephraim, Conmcntary on 4. St. John Chrysostom,Homiliet on 5. Sr. John Chrysostom,Homilicson Chmical Occanography. vol. |, p. 164
Gcneis3, p.332. Gcnesitl8:4, pp. 160-6l. Genesis 3O4, p. 318. 9, Henry Faul,Nutkar Gcology.lFora

656 657
 Nores ro Pacss3l 5-358 Nores ro Ptczs 359-374

morercccn!discussion of thesefindings, A Heresy?"

in OrtbodotObsener,Augusr 25. Teilhard de Chardin, Hou I Bc- 46. Spcaight, kilhard dt Chadin: A
seeRichardMilton, ShaneritgtheMytht 8, t973. lieve,p. ll. Biogaphypp.335,337.
of Dartuinin, pp. 4446, and the tcch- 2. Lecomte du Noiy, Human Dtttiny, 26.'Ibilharddc Chardin, Thc Diuirc 47. Teilharddc Chardin, Thc Diuine
nical monographby l,arry Vrrdiman, P. 167. Milicu, p. 154. Milieu, p. l5l.
TbeAgeof the F,arth'tArmosphere.l 3. lbid' p. 177. 27. PicrrcLcroy,S.J.,I7ithardd.eCbar- 48. tilhard de Chardin, Science and
f 0. []aul Hazrrd, TheEuropcanMind, 4. Ibid..p. 104. din: 7heMan, p.22. Chtist,p. 169.
1680- 1715,p. xviii. 5. Ibid.,p. I12. 28. Quotcd in Robert Speaight,7?l/- 4q. Teilharddc Chardin,La Vie Cos-
I l. J, H. Randall,Ju TheMahingof 6. St. fsaacthc Syriao,AsccticatHomi- hatd dt Chardin: A Biography,p. 27. miquc, guoted by rhe ed. on p. 304 of
the ModernMind, pp. 381-82. /lcr,Homily 2 I . Russian edition,p, 108 29. -leifhardde Chardin,HumanEa- 'l'he l:uturc of Man.
12. Edwin A. Burtt, ed., Th English
iHomily 37, p. 180 in the Englishedi- ergt p- | 10. 50. Teilhard de Chardin, I'he Phe-
Philosophn fiom Bacon to Mill, pp. tion publishedafrer Fr. Scraphimi re- 30. Frank Magill, cd., Materpieccsof nomenonof Man, pp.296-97.
593-94, quoring L)avid Hl.me, An En-posej. C.atholic Litctatuc p. 1054. 51. 'Ieifhardde Chardin,BuiAingthe
qriry ConcerningHuman Undertand- 7. Leconrtcdu Noiy, Human Destiny, 3l. Teilhardde Chardin, TheMlstical tunh, p.20.
ir& p. I 13. Milieu: lVritings in Time of lVar, p. 52. l6id., pp. 2t-22.
f.l. Carl L, Bccker,fhe HcduenlyCiry 8 . Ib i d .,p . 1 9 7 . 138-19. 53.lbid., pp.23-24.
of thc Eightcentb Ccntury Philotophers, 9 . Ib i d .,p . 1 3 3 . .12.Tcrfharddc Chardin, fhe Diuine 54. tbid., pp.24-27.
p p. 68-6 9 . 10.l6id.,p.244. Milia, p.36. 55.lbid.. pp.27-28.
14.Ra n d a l lp., 475. I t. l b i d . J.l. lcilhard dc Chardin,HumanEn- 56. I bid. ,p. 19.
15. Ibid., pp. 475-77 . 1 2 .l b i d .,p . 1 8 0 . ergy p. 10. 57. lbid., p. 32.
I (,. lbid., p. 478. 13. Fr.Anthony Kosruros,inOrthodox 34. 'ltilhard dc Cha rdin, TbeMystical 58. Teilharddc Chardin, Hlmn of tbe
t7 .lbid., p. 478-79. Obwuer Feb.20,1974. Milieu, p. 125. Uniwrsc,p. 34.
18. Orthodox Obsert'er, Algusr 8, 14. StephanusTroosrer,Euohtionand 35. Teilhard de Chardin, The Phc- 59. SccFrank Magill, ed.,Mastcrpicces
t973. thc Dotninc ofOriginal Sin, pp. 2-3. nomenon of Man, p.297. of Atholic Litcraturc,p.684-85.
19. St. Gregoryof Nyssa,On thc Soul 1 5 .Ib i d .,p . 1 8 . .j6.'l?ilh.rrdde Chardin, TheDoine 60. Fr.John Meyendorff,"Teilhardde
and the Rcsurrection, p. 454. 1 6 .Ib i d . Milieu, pp. 154-55. Chardin:A Preparatory Nore" (in Rus-
20. Sr. Basil,Hexaemeron 5:10,p. 82.
1 7 .Ib i d .,p . 1 3 0 . 37. Frank Magill, ed., Matcrpiecetof sian\, in Mcsvngcr of thc RussianStudcnt
21. lbid. 5:5-6, p. 74 . 1 8 .Ib i d .,p . 4 4 . Cat/tolic Litetanrc, p. 1O58, Cbittian Mouemcnt, Pais, no. 95-96,
22. lbid. 9:2, p. \37. 1 9 .Ib i d .,p p . ,4 -5 5,132. 38. Teilhardde Chardin, 1he Diune 1970,p. 32.
23. Sr. John Damascene,On the Or- 20. -l'heodosiusDobzhensky,"On Milieu, pp. 125 26. 61. Editor's Prcfaceto "Teilhard de
thodox Faith 2, p. 235 [Farhcrsof rhe
Human Lifc." in & Vkdiniri I beologi 39. liilhard de Chardin, Hou I Be Chardin and Orthodox tadirion," by
(lhurch seriesl. cal Quarterl, vol. 17 (1973), p. 100. licue,p. 37. Fr.GcorgeKlinger(in Russian), in Mzs-
24. St. Crcgoryof Nyssa,On theMah- 2 | . E Clrrk Howell,in Neu,Scientut, 40. Ibi d.,p. 4l . rnger of the Rus'ian Sndcn Chnsrian
ing of Man 28-29, pp. 419-21. Ma rc h2 5 , 1 9 6 5 ,p . 7 98. 4l . Frank Magill, ed., Mastcrpiccts
of Moucment, no. lO6, 1972,pp. I l0-l l.
2t . lbi d . 22. The Sclccted Writing of Ralph CatbolicLitcraturc,p. 1O2l. 62. Fr GeorgeKlinger."Tcilhardoe
26. rbid. WaUoEmerson, p. 38. 42. Thomas Corbishly, TheSpiritual- Chardin and Orrhodox Tradition" (in
2 3 .' l ' h e o d o s i u sf )obzhansky," On iry ofTiilhard fu Chadin, p. 100. Russian),in Metsenger ofthe RussianSra-
Human Lifc." in St. Vladiniri l lrologi- 43. Teilhard de Chardin, Scicnceand dtnt ChristianMoucmcnt,no, 106, 1972,
canQuarterlyvol. 17, I973, p. 100. Chrit, p. 164. pp. I I l- 32.
Chapter Three: "CHnrsrlq.N Evo-
24. ThcodosiusDobzhansky, " Evotu, 44. Speaight,Tcilharddc Chardin:A 63. I bid. ,p. I I l.
LUTIONISM''
ri o n : C o d s Me rh o J o[ C rcari on,"i n Biographyp. 266. 64. I bid. ,p. I 13.
l. Panagiotis "F,volurion: Conccn, Spriog, 1973,
Trempelas, 45. Teifhardde Chardin, Tfu Diuine 65. I bid. ,p. 128.
Milieu, pp. l5Q-51. 66. lbid., pp. t24-25.

658 659
 Nores ro Pecm 386-414 Nolrs ro Pacas414444

PARTIII: ily 44, "On Ncw Weck,Spring,and rhc 44. Sr. Macarir.rs the Grear,Ftfu Sprn- I'hikkalia,vol. l,2rl, p,
l-ew,"Rtrssian
Commemorationof the Marryr Ma- rual Honiliet Homily I I, pp. 85-86. 283.
THE PATRISTIC
DOCTRINE
mas," pp. 656-57 . 45. St. Synreonthc New Thcologian, $.lt:id. 2:2,p.284.
OF CREATION 23. St.John Chrysosrom,Honilies on Homily.38, Russianedition,vol. 2, p. 64. Sr.AbbaDororheus, Spiritualln-
Gencsb 3:3, p. l8; 8:2,pp.60-{1. ll9. [New English translationby Fr. Jtlrlrrzt Ins(ruction12,"On thef'earof
L St.BasilrhcGrear,HetacneronS:5, 24. St. Basil, Hcxaeneron2:8, pp. Seraphinrin 'lhc Fitt-CreatedMan, pp. Furure'lbrment."
P . 73. 33-34. 82-83.J 65. St. John Cassian, Conferences,
2. lbi d . 5 :7 ,p . 77. 25.St.GregorythcTheologian, Hom- 46. St. Isaacrhe Syrian,Homily 21, Thirreenth(lonlcrence12,p. 4l | .
3 . I bid .5 :2 ,p . 69. ily 44, "On New Veck, Spring,and the R ussi anedi ri on,p. 108; Hom ily 85, 66. Ibid., I hirreenthConlercncetr,
4 . l6id .9 :2 , p . 137. Commemorarionof rhe Martyr Ma- GreckeditionIHomily 37, p. 180in rhe p. 414.
5. St. Gregory of Nyssa,"Against mas,"p, 657, linglisheditionpublishedaficr Fr. Sera- 67, I bid. ,p. 415.
E unomi u s"l :3 4 , p. 8l. 26.St.Gregorvthe1'heologian, Hom- phim'sreposel. (r8.Sr.Gregorythc'fhcologian,Hom-
6. 5r. Gregory o[ Nyssa,'Answcr ro ily 7, "On the Soul,"p. 33. 47. Sr,Gregorythe Sinaire, "Chaprers ily 14,"On Lovefor rhe Poor,"p. 208.
Eunomius'SecondBook,"p. 299. 27. Sr.John Chrysosronl,Honilies oh on Commandmenrs and Dogmas"130, 69. IScerheoriginalRussian vcrsionof
7. Sr. Cyril ofJerusalcm,Catcchctical Gcncsis2:4, pp. I l-12. RussianPhihkalia.,vol. 5, p. 213. lhis passagc in St. Scraphimof Sarov,
Lecnres2:7, p. (). 2 8 . Ib i d . l 5 :2 -3 , p p . t2t-22. 48. Ibi d. "Conversation of 5t. Seraphimof Sarov
8. I bid . l 2 :3 0 ,p. 80. 2 9 . Ib i d . l 4 :5 , p . I1 6. 49. Sr. lsaacrhe Syrian,Homily 25, on rhc Aim of the ChristianLifi," pp.
q. St. Gregorythe Theokrgian. "OrLr- 3 0 . Ib i d . l 3 ;4 , p . 1 0 7. Russiancdition, pp. 125-27; Homily 8l-82. hte r publislrcdit Rus*y Palont-
rion on the Holy Lights"12,p.356. 3 1 . Ib i d . 1 3 :3 ,p . 1 0 6. 62, Greckcdition IHomily 52, English liA, no. 2 ( 1990),p. 84.1
10. S t, Grc gor y t hc T heo l o g i a n , 32. Ibid. edi ri on,p. 2551. 70. Sr.GregoryPalamas,Defcnse oftbc
"'l'hird l'heologicalOrarion-On thc 3J. Sr.John f)amarcene. On Hertsut 50. Sr. John Damascene,On rfu Or- Holy Herycba;ts, Triad l:l I, p. 34.
S on"ll, p . 3 0 5 . 64, p. t26. thodoxFaith 4:14, p. 85 [Niceneand 7 | . Sr. Gregoryof Nyssa,'Answer ro
I l. Sr. John Damascene, On thc Or- 34. St. Macariusrhe Crear, Saaaa Posr-Nicene Farhers seriesl. liunomius,SecondBook,"p. 299.
thodox Faith 2:30, p. 43 [Nicene and Honilies4:5, p. 385- 5l . St. John Chrysostom,Honiliet on 72. Sr.Gregoryof Nyssa,"On Virgin-
Post-Nicene F-arhers scriesl. 3 5 . St. C re g o ry r hc Thcol ogi an, Genesis l3:4, p. 107. iry,"ch. 12,p. 357.
12. St. Cyrif ofJcrusalem,Catcchctical "Homily on theThcophany"12,p.348. 52. Sr. Symeonthe New'fhcologian, 73. Sr. John Damascenc, On tbc Or
Lcttutct 12:-29,p.80. 36. Sr.GregoryPalamas,Defent ol the Homily 45, Russiancdirion,vol. 2, p. thodoxFaith.2:12,p. 235 lFathers ofthe
l3. St. John Damascene, On thc Ot- Hol Herycha*,-friad2:3, pp. 430-32. 367-183. [New lranslalionby Fr. Sera- Churchseriesl.
tbodoxf-aitb 4:14 {Nicene and Post- 37. St. Ephraim, Commentaryon phim in l-he First-CrcatcdMan, pp. 74. St. GregoryofNyssa, On the Crca-
NicencFathcrs sericsl,p. 85. Gcnctis3, pp. 334-35. 87-r06.1 tion of Man 30:34, p. 427.
14. Sr. Basil, Hexaemcron 9:1, pp. 38. St. John Chrysostom,Homitieson 53. Sr. GregoryPalamas,Defcnsc ofthc 75. Ibid. 28:I , 8, pp. 419-20.
\35-36. Gaesit9:4,pp. 69-7O. HolTHesychatts,-friad l:2, p. | 2. 7(t. lbid. 29:1, 2, pp. 420-21.
15. St. Ephraim,Commentary on 39. St. John Damasccnc,On thc Or- 54. Ibid.,Triad l:6, p. 20. 77. Sr.Seraphim ofSarov,"Convcrsa-
GenctiI, p.282. thodoxFaith2:10,p.229 [Fathers ofttre 55. Ibi d.,Tri adt:l l , p.34. tion ofSt. Serrphimof Sarovon rheAim
16.Ibid.,p. 287. Churchscricsl. 56. Ibid.,Triad I :12,p. 36. of rhe ChristianLife" [originalRussrrn
17.lbid.,p. 315. 40. Ibid.,p. 228, 57. Ibi d.,Tri adl :15, p.44. versionl,p. 82. [AJsopublishedin Rrs,!
18.St.Basil, Hcxaemcron
5:6,p.74 4l. St.Gregorythe Sinaice, "Chapters 58. Sr. Basil,Hexacmeron l:2, p. 5. Patomnih, no.2 (1990),p. 84.1
19.Ibid.5:10, p.82. on Commandmentsand Dogmas"I l, 59. Ibi d. 3:3,p. 41. 78. St. Cregory rheSinaite,"Chapters
20.Ibid.7:1,p. 105. RussianPhilohalia,vol. 5, pp. l8l*82 60. l bi d. 6rI, p. 83. on Commandmenrs and f)ognras"82,
2 f . Sr.JohnChrysosrom,Homiliuon 4 2 . tb i d . 1 0 ,p . l 8 l . 6f. St. Abba Dororheus,Spitual In- Russian Pbihkatia, vol. 5, p. 195.
Gcncsis 7:3,p. 52. 43. Sr.John Chrysostom,Honiliet on tt'rationt, ch. l. 79. lbid. 4( r ,p. 188.
22.Sr.Grcgory thcTheologian,
Hom- RomantHomlly l4:5, p. 665. (.l2.Abba Isaiah,"On rhc Narural 80.5t. Gregoryrhe1'heologian, Hom-

660 661
 Norrs ro Pxcr,s444-557
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,
327.Quoredin PhillipF..Johnson, "The
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.
N orrs 'ro Pr,cts 557-57 3
7 . l b i d .,p . 1 0 0 . 27. Fr.SeraphimRose,"The Chincse 49. lbid. ,p. 2 | 2.
'l
8 . Ib i d .,p . 1 0 2 . Mind." in hc Orthodox Word, nos. 50. Kcn Wilber, TheMarriqe of Srwe
9. Vcbsrert Third New Inrcrnarional 187-88,p. I03. and Sout,p.203.
Dictionaryofrhc EnglishLanguagc, Un- 28. Sharnbhelalnrerviewwirh Kcn 51. I bid. ,p. 160.
V i l ber: Thc P ubl i cation of O zc '1fuMarriagc
abridged,vol. 2 (Encyclopedia Briran- 52. Kcn Wilber, ofSense
n i c a ,In c .,l 9 7 l ), p . 1 630. Tiste-TheJounak of KenWilber 1999. and Soul,p.203.
10. Tlilhard dc Chardin,Science and 29. Ken Vilber, .lrx, Ecokrgy,
Spirinal- 53. I bid. ,p. 204.
Chrit, p. l8O. i41pp. viii-ix. 54. I bid. ,pp. 205, I I l
ll. 'leilhard de Chardin, The Phe- 30. Ken Vilbcr, Onc Titstc:TbeJour- 55. lbid. ,p. 205.
nomcnonof Man, p, 270. nab of Ken lVilber p.92. 56. lbid. ,p. 206.
12. Tlifhard de Chardin, TheHeart of 3l . Ken Vilbcr, A Bricf H*tor1 of 57. I bid. ,p. 208.
tlr Mattcr pp. 52-53. Euerytlting, p.300. 58. I bid. ,pp. 2l I - 12.
fJ. Teilhardde Chardin.Cltristianity 32. Ken l0/ilbcr, Upli'om Fdzn,p.25. 59. Ken Vilber, Sax,Z-ratogtSpirituat-
and Etolution,p,2O2. 33. Kcn Wilber, 'l he CollcoedlVorhs of it7,p.524.
14. Teilharddc Chardin.Scicnce and Ken lVilbcnvol. 2, p. I l 60. Ken Wilber, One Tata pp. 3l l,
Cbr*t, p.44. 34. Ibi d. 34r.
15. 'l'eilhardde Chardin, Tht Heart of ,35.Kcn \Vilbcr, 5rr, Ecology,
Spiritual- 61. Ken !/ilber, Sax,Ecologt,Spirituat-
theMatten pp. I l0- 13. ity p. 524. it7, pp. 186-87 .
16.Teilharddc Chardin.Chri anitT 36. Kcn Vilbcr, A Brief Hittory of' 62. Vladimir L.ossky,Tbe Mytical
'l
and Euolution,p, 179. Eucrything, p. 300. heologl of thc Llatetn Chutch, pp.
f 7. tilhard dc Chadin, 1-bePhe- 37. lbid.. p. 22. 92-93. On ncoplatonism, scc also pp.
nomcnonof Man, p. 149. 38. Ibi d..p. 23. 29-38.
I8. feilharddc Chardin.( .lhritidniry .39. Kcn Vilber, tlp llon Eden, p. (,3. lbid., pp.93-94.
and Evolution,p. 31. 321. 64. I bid. ,p. 95.
19. Icilharddc (lhardin, HumanEn- 40. Ibi d.,pp. 32l -22. 65. Ken Vilber, TbeManiageof Sense
etgy,pp. 57-58. 4l. KenVilbcr.,4 BricfHiwry of Ew- and Soul,p. 2O5.
20. lbid., p. 96. rything,pp.23-24. 66. Niles Eldredgeand StephenJay
2 f. Teilharddc Chardin, 'fhe Heart of 42. Kcn Vilber, I heManiagc ofSensc Gor.rld,"Punctuatedliquilibtia," Palra-
eheMauez p. 53. and Soul: lntcgratingScienc and Rcligion, biology,vol. . 3 ( Spr ing t 977) , pp.
22. Fricdrich Nicrzschc, The \Vilt to p. 108. 14546. Cired in Lurher Sunderland,
I'owenvol. I, in The Comptcte\Yorb of 43. K en V i l ber, Forewor d r o, 4 Darwini Enigma,p. I l0 I I l. Scc also
FriedrichNietzschc,vol.14, t909, p.6. GreaterPsythology by A. S. Dalal (forrh- pp. 108-9.
23.'l?ilhard dc Chardin, Actitntion of con'trngJ. 67. J. H. Randall, lr., Ibe Mahing of
Energy,p. 290; 'fbe Futxrc of Man, p. 44. Ken Vifbcr, Thclllartiagc ofScnr tlr Mo&rn Mind, pp.278.
t2 7 . and Soul,pp. 1034. 68. KenWilber,Upfon Eden,p.256,
24, tilhard de Chardin, '|-heHeart of 45. Ibid.,p. 208. quotingfrom Elaint Pagels, "1'heGnos-
theMauer,p.92. 46, Kcn Vilbcr, Onc Tixtc,pp.2lO, ric Gospels'Rcvclarions," Ncw YorkRc-
25.-leilhard de Chardin, quored in 212. uiewof Boob,vol.26,nos.16-19, 1979.
Volfgang Smirh, Tiilhatdism and the 47. Ken Vilber, A Brief Hisnry of 69. Fr SeraphimRose,Ortbodoryand
New Rclilon, p.23. Euerything,
pp. 314,316. tbcRdigionofthcFunrc,p. 188.
26. Volfgang Smirh, Tiilhardismand 48. Ken Wilber,One Taste,
pp. 282, 70.Ibid.,pp. 188-89.
theNew Rcligion, p.219. 70. 7 | . Fr Scraphim
Rose,"Signsof tne
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 Rus-
sian), 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,Ler-
rer ro Cleb D. Podmoshcnsky, Jan.
2115, 1962,quored in Monk Damas-
ceneChristensen,Not oJ Thfu WorA,p.
t87.
86. Ct Srephen JayGould,"The Ver-
dict on Crcationism,"The Ncu Yoth
TimesSundayMagazinc,July 19, 1987,
p . 34.
87. Hugh Ross,"CenesisOne, Dino-
sarus,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
664
Nores ro Pncr.s629-63.1
'l heologyof tbc Eattern Church,pp. 6. GrandCanyonDatingProiect,In- ficld, "Thc Aromic Constenrs,Light,
98-99. srirure for Creation Rescarch,10946 andf ime,"Menlo Park,Calil: Sranford
WoodsideAvenueNorth, Santee,Celif. Rescarch InstiturcInrernational Invitcd
Appendix One: Nores oN Scr- 92071. Research Report,August1987.
'. ofthr RoyalSoci' 9. Melvin Cook, Itrchitory and Earth
ENCE, EVoLUTIoN AND CHRIS. Joly,J.. Proreedings
r4y (l-ondon,ScriesA 102, 1923),p. Modek,pp. 54-55.
TIAN PHILOSOPHY
682. 10. Henry Farl, Agesof Rotb, Planctt
l. Sr. Symeonthe New Theologian, 8, TrevorNorman and Barlv Serrer- and Star, pp. 65,67.
Homily 38, Russiancdirion,vol.2, p.
319. {Ncw English rranslarionby Fr.
Scraphimin 'l-heFirst-Crcated
Man, pp.
82-83.1
2. St. Basil the Great, Hexacmeron9:'l ,
PP.r35-36.
3. Sr.John Damascene,On the Ortho-
dox 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
l. JohnWoodmorappc. "Radiometnc
CeochronologyReappraiscd,"in Crea-
tion 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 Meth-
odt.)
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 Geol-
og7,vol.79, September 197I, p.609.
4. Marvin L. Lubcnow, Bona of Con-
tention: A Crcdtionitt Atscssmcntof Hu-
man Fottils,pp. 24746.
5 . l b i d .,p . 2 5 5 .
665
 Brnuocnepuv

PATRISTIC/ORTHODOXSOURCES
Editionsof Parristic
workscitedin bracketsreferto Englishtrans-
larionsthatappeared afterFr.Seraphimtrepose, transla-
or to alternate
tionsthat Fr. Seraphimdid not use.
All worls arein Englishunlessotherwisenoted.

Alferov, Priest Timothy. Sciencc on tbc Creation of the lV'orld (Nauha o sot-
uorenii mira) (in Russian). Moscow, 1996.
Euolutionor Corntption?(Euoluxiyaili thnle?) (in Russian).Mos-
t997 .
Ambroseof Milan . lExpositionof the Holy Goryelaccordingto St.Luke.Erna,
Calif.:Centerfor Tiaditionalist OrthodoxStudies,1998.1
-. Hexacmcron(The Six Day); Paradise. Thc Fathersof the Church,
vol. 42. Ncw York:The Fathersof the Church, Inc., 1961. [Another
English translation,not usedby Fr. Seraphim,is in Nicene and Post-
Nicenc Fathers,secondserics,vol. 10. Grand Rapids,Michigan:\Wm.B.
Eerdmans,reprinted1983.1
-. Niceneand Post-NiceneFathers, sec-
On Beliefin tbc Resunectioz.
ond series,vol. 10. Grand Rapids,Michigan:\7m. B. Eerdmans,re-
printed1983.
I. M. "ScientificKnowledge
Andreyev, and ChristianTiurh" (in Russian).
5r.
Vhdimir National Cabndarfor I 974. New York.
Augustine,Blessed.City of Gol. Niceneand Post-NiceneFathers,first series,
vol.2. GrandRapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans, reprinted1988.
Averky (Taushev),Archbishop,and Fr. Seraphim(Rose). TheApocalypse in
ofAncientChritianitT. Platina,Cali[: St. Herman Brother-
thc Tlachings
hood, 1985.Secondedition,1995.

t.)o /
 DIBL IOGRAPHY D IB LIOGR A P H Y

Athanasiusthe Creat, St. Four DicoursetAgainst the z4rlazr.Nicene and Moscow TheologicalAcademl 1887. [New Englishtranslation:St.
Post-Nicene Fathers,secondseries,vol.4. Grand Rapids,Michigan: Ephrcmthe Syrian. SelectedProseIZorAr.The Fathersof the Church, vol.
Vm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted1987. 91. Washington, D.C.: The CatholicUnivcrsiryof AmericaPress,I994.
Also containsSr. Ephraimi Llommentary on Erodus.)
of Optina,St."Sr.Barsanuphius,
Barsanuphius Elderof Oprina." TheOrtho-
nos.200-l (1998),
dox W'ord, -. Hltnns on thc Natiuit:y,in Ephremthe Syian: Hyrzzr. New York:
PaulistPress,1989.
(The SixDals). The Farhersof the Church,
Basifthe Great, St. Hexaemeron
vol. 46. lVashington,D.C.: The CatholicUniversityof AmericaPress, -- Paraditc(in Russian),in Thc Vorhsof Our Fatheramongthe Sainx,
1963.[AnotherEnglishtranslation, not usedby Fr. Seraphim,is in Ni- Ephraimthc Syrian SergievPosad:MoscowTheologicalAcademy,1907.
cene and Post-NiceneFarhers,sccondseries,vol. 8. Grand Rapids, [New English translation:Sr. Ephrem the Syrian. Hymnson Paradise.
Michigan:Wm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted1983.1 Cresrwood,New York:St.Vladimirt Scminary,1998.1

-. On the Otigin oJMan. The sourcefrom which Fr. Seraphimtrans- Gregoryof Nyssa,St. On tbc Soul and thc Resrrcction:On the Mahing oJ'
latedthiswork hasnot beenfound.Thereis a homilyby St. Basilwith a Man; On Virf nity; AgainstEunomius;Ansuerto Eunomiut'SccondBook.
similar tirle, On the Form of Man,inl. P Migne. PanologiaGraeca,vol. Niccneand Post-Nicene Fathers,secondseries,vol. 5. Grand Rapids,
30. Paris.188(r. Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans, reprintcd1983.
(in French).Louvain:
Gregory Palamas,Sr. Defenseof the Ho! Herychasts
Bessarion(Vissarion),Bishop.Commentary Parablet(Tolk-
on Church-Scruice
ouaniye naparimii),vol. I (in Russian).
St. Petcrsburg,
1894. SacrumLovaniense,
Spicilegium 1959.
"TopicsofNaruralandTheological
Science."
ln ThcPhilohalia,vol.
Calciu, Fr. ()eorge. Christ h Calting Yor!A Coarsein CatacombPastorship.
Platina,Calil: St. HcrmanBrorherhood, 1997. 4. London:Faberand Faber,1995.

Cavarnos,Constantine.BiologicalEuoludonism.Sccondedirion. Belmont, GregoryrheSinaitc,St. "Chaprers

on Commandments and Dogmas"l0 (in
Russian).In the RussianPhilohalia (Dobrotolubie),
vol. 5. Moscow:
Mass.:Institutefor Bp-anrineand ModernGreekSrudies,1997.
Athonite RussianMonastcryof St. Panteleimon, 1900 [New English
-. Modcrn GreekPhilosophcrs on the Hamdn Saal.Firsr edirion. Bel- vol. 4. London:Faberand Faber,1995.1
ThePhilohalia,
rransfation:
mont, Mass.:lnstitutefor Blzantineand Modcrn GreckStudies,1967.
edition,revised
andconsiderably enlarged,1987.] St. "Homily on the Theophany";"SecondC)ration
Gregorythe Theologian,
ISecond
on Easter";"Oration on thc Holy Lights";"Third TheologicalOra-
(iyril ofJcrusalcm,St. Catechetical
Lecrzrer.Niccneand Post-NiceneFarhers, tion-On thc Son";Homily 43, "Panagyric on Sr. Basil."Niceneand
secondscrics,vol.7. ClrandRapids,Michigan:\7m. B. Eerdmans, re- Posr-Nicene Fathcrs,secondseries,vol. 7. Grand Rapids,Michigan:
printcd1983. 'Wm.B. Ecrdmans, reprinred1983.
Damascene(Christcnsen),Monk. Not of This lVorU: TheLifeand Tlachingof
-. Homily 7, "On rhe Soul"; Homily 14, "On Love for the Poor";
Fr SeraphimRasa Foreswille,Calif,: Fr. Seraphim Rose Foundation, Homily 38, "On rhe Narivityof the Saviour";Homily 44, "On New
t993. Veek, Spring,and rhc Commemoration of thc Martyr Mamas";"Thc
Dorotheusof Gaza,Abba, Sr. Spirinal Insnurrrors(in Russian).SergievPo- Genealogyof Chrisr." ln The ll'orksof Our FatbcramongtheSaintt Greg-
sad:Holy Tiiniry Lavra,1900.IEnglishrranslarion,not usedby Fr.Sera- orytbc Theologian(in Russiarr). P P Soikina(l9rh
2 vols.St. Pctcrsburg:
phim: Dorotheos of Gaza.Discourscs and Sayings.Kalamazoo,Mich.: century:no date). [Englishtranslatiortof Homily 44: OrthodoxLife, vol.
CistcrcianPublications,I 977.1 30, no. 2, March-April,1980.1
Ephraimthe Syrian, St. Commcnt/lryon Geneis(in Russian).ln Tbc Worhsof lgnatius(Brianchaninov), (in Rusian),vol. 3. St. Perersburg
Bishop.lTorAs
Our Fatberamongthe Saints,Ephraimthc Syrian,vol.6. SergievPosad; I. L. Tuzoba,1886.

669
 Btst-rocRAnriv BIsLtocRApHv

Isaacrhe Syrian,Sr.,Ascetical Homilier(in Russian), secondedirion.Sergicv vol. I (in Russian).Moscow, l9l l. Re-
Kireycvksy,l. Y. Conplete\Y'orhs,
Posad,1893.[New Englkh translation: Boston,Mass.:Holy Transfigu- printcdin 1970by GreggInrernational Publishers
Limited,Vestmcad,
rationMonastery, 1984.] Farnborough, Hanrs.,England.
..........-.-'
_. 'Directions on SpiritualTraining." ln Early Fathers
fom the Philo- Koscnko,Anton. "Lerterro the Ediror."ln Prauoshunaya
zDrzz'(inRussian),
kalia. Lond,onand Bosron:Faber& Faber.1954. vol.49,no. l2 (December, 1999).
Isaiah,Abba."On rhe Natural[.aw."In the RussianPhilohaliaIDobrotolubic], Leonid(Kavclin),Fr. EAer Macariusof Optina.Platina,Calif : St. Herrnan
vol. l. Moscow:AthoniteRussianMonasteryof St. Panteleimon, 1895. Brotherhood,1995.
JohnCassian,St. Confcrences(in Russian).
Moscow:AthonireRussianMon- Lossky,Vladimir. The Mystical Tbeologyof the Eattem Churcb. L'tndt>n:
asteryof St. Panreleinron, 1892. INew English translation:Ancient jamesClarke& Co., 1957.
ChrisrianVriters,vol. 57. New York:NcwmanPress,1997.]
Macarius,Metropoliran. OrthodoxDogmati T'heolog(in Russian).St. Pc-
John Chrysostom,Sr. Homilieson Gcnesis (in Russian).ln The Vhrh of St. tersburg,1883.
lohn Chrysoxom, vol. 4. St. Petersburg:
St. PetersburgTheologicalAcad-
Macariusthc Great,St. Ffu SpiritualHonilies: SevenHomilies(in Russian).
cmy,1898.INew Englishrranslation: Thc Fathersof theChurch,vol.74
ln Spirinal Discourses, Epistlesand Homitiu, F<turdt Edition. Holy
(Homiles l-17), vol. 82 (Homilies 1745), and vol. 87 (Homilics
Tiinity-St.SergiusLavra,1904. [Englishtranslarions, not uscdby Fr.
46-67). Vashington,D.C.:'fhe CatholicUniversiryof AmericaPress,
Seraphirrr:(l) Fifu SpiritualHomilie:.'Villits, Calif.: EastcrnOrthodox
r986, 1990,1992.1
Book, 1974. (2) Fifu SpiritualHomilet and thc GrcatLetter CleorgeA.
-. Eight Homilieson Genesis (in Russian).In Thc ll'orh of St.John
Maloncy,trans.Classics of VesrcrnSpiritualiryNew York:PaulistPress,
Chrysoston,
vol. 4. Sr. Pctcrsburg:St. PetcrsburgTheologicalAcademy, t992.)
1898.
Marl Mother, arrdArchimandrircKallistosV,/are
. ThcFestdlMcnaion.Lon-
-. On tbe Creationof the lVorU(n Russian).In Thc Worfuof St.John don: Faberand Faber,1969.
Chrysosnm, vol. 6. St. Petersbrrrg:
St. PcrersburgTheologicrl Academy,
1900. -. fbs ["an76nTriodion.London: Faberand Faber,1978.

Homitieson Romau (in Russian).In Tlte tX)'orks of St.Jobn Chry-
sostom,
vol. 9. St. Petersburg:
St. PercrsburgTheologicalAcademy,1903.
[Englishtranslation, not uscdby Fr.Scraphim:Niccneand Post-Nicene
vol. I l. GrandRapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans,
Farhers, reprinted
1980.1
John Damasccnc,St. On the OrthodoxFaith; On Heresies.ln St.Johnof Da-
mascutlYritings.Thc Fathersof theChurch,vol. 37. Washington,D.C.:
The CatholicUniversiryof AmericaPress,1958.
-. On the OrthodoxFaith.Niccneand Post-NiccneFathers,secondse-
ries,vol. 9. Grand Rapids,Michigan:Vm. B. Eerdmans,reprinted
1983.
JuliusAfricanus. The Five Booksof Chronolog.Ante-NiceneFathers,vol. 6:
Fathersof rhc Third Century Grand Rapids,Michigan:Wm. B. Ecrd-
mans,rcprinted1975.
Michaef, Bishop.Commentary of Luke(in Russian).
on tlteGospel Kiev,1899.
Necrariosof Penrapolis,St. ShetchconcerningMan (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 Or-
tbodoxlVord,no. 48 (1973). ILaterpublishedin Little RussiatPhitohalia,
vol.4. Platina,Calif : St. HermanBrotherhood,1994.1
ThePhilohalia,vol. 3. London: Fabcrand Fabcr,I984.
ThePhilohalia,vol. 4. London: Faberand Fabcr,1995.
Fr. Michael."Talk on the Six Daysby St. Basilthe Great,and
Pomazanslry,

670 671
 Brguocr.epuv Brglrocg'tplty

Talkson rhe Daysof Creationby Sr.Johnof Kronstadt"(in Russian).

In Symeonthe New Theologian,St. Homilies(n Russian),vols. I and 2. Mos-
Prauotany put'.Jordanville,
New York:Holy Trinity Monasrery1958. cow:AthoniteRussianMonastery ofSt. Panteleimon,1890,1892.
-. DogmaticTheolog.Pladr,a,Calif.: St. Herman Brother-
Q71fi6616y -. TheSinofAdtm. Plarina,Calif.: St. HernranBrorherhood,1979.[Rc-
hood, I983. Sccondedirion,1994. visededition publishedin 1994under thc tiide TheFirst-Crcated
Man.)
TheSepnagintwith Apocrypha:Gretband Englith.Translatedby Sir L.ancclor Theophilus of Antioch, Bishop. Tbeophilusn Autolycut Anre-NiceneFa-
C. L. Brenton,trans.PeabodlMass.:Hendrickson Publishers, 1986. thers,vol. 2: Fathcrsof the SecondCenrury.Grand Rapids,Michigan:
Seraphimof Sarov,St. Little RussianPbilohdlia,vol. l. Platina, Calif.: St. \i?m.B. Eerdmans, reprinted1979.
HermanBrorherhood, t978. [Rcvisedfourrhedition:1996.]
-. "Qqnvsl5atioo of St. Seraphimof Sarovon the Aim of rhe Chris-
rian Life" (originalRussian version).SanFrancisco:
OrthodoxChristian
Books & lcons, 1968. llater publishedin RusshyPalomnih,no. 2 "CHRISTIANF,VOI-UTIONIST"
SOURCES
(r9eo).1
Corbishly,Thomas. TheSpirinaliry of Tiilharddc Chardin.New York: Pau-
Seraphim(Rose),Fr. "The ChineseMind." TheOrthodoxlYord,nos. 187-88
listPress,
1971.
(1996).
'The Holy Fathersof Orthodox Spiritualiry:Introduction."I/rr Dobzhansky,Theodosius."EthicsandValuesin BiologicalandCukuralEvo-
-.
luion," Qgon, theJournalof Religionand Science,
asreporrcdin the Los
Onhodox\Yord,no. 58 \1974).
AngelesTimcs,lune16, 1974
-. Nihilisn: Thc Rootof the fuuolutionof thc Modzrn,{ga Foreswille,
"fyefngiqn: God\ Method of Crearion." Conccrn,Spring 1973.
"...........-.-._.
Calif.:Fr SeraphimRoseFoundarion, 1994.
"On Human Life." St. Vltdimiri TheologicalQuartcrly,vol. 17
-................._.
-. and theReligionof theFunre. Plarina,Calif.: St. Herman
Q7sl162!ary
(r973\.
Brotherhood,1975.lRevised edirion:1996.]
Thc Phce of BlessedAugttstine in the Orthodox Church. Plarina, Klinger,Fr. George."Fr. tilhard de Chardinand OrrhodoxTiadition"(in
-.
Russian\. Messenget
of thc RussianSndcnt Cbristian Mouement,no. lO6
Calil: St. HcrmanBrotherhood,t9tl3. IRevised edition:1996.]
i972\.
.................._.
"Signsof rhe Times." TheOrthodoxlVord,ros. 200- I ( 1998).
Kopp, JosephY. kilhard de Chardin: A New Synthesisof Euolution.Paramus,
-. The Soul afer Dedth. Plaina, Calif.: St. Herman Brotherhood,
New Jersey:DeusBooks/Paulist Press,1964.
1980.IReviscd fourth printing:1993.]
Kosturos,Fr. Arrthony. TheOrthodoxObserver,
February20, 1974.
Seraphim(Rose),Fr., and Fr. Hcrman (Podmoshensky), comp. and trarrs.
Tbe Northern Thebaid.Plaina, Calif : St. Herman Brotherhood,l975. Lecomtedu Noiiy, Pierre.Humat Dexiny New York: Longmans,Grecn E<
edition:I 995.] Co.,1947.
IRevised
Sisoev,Dcacon Daniel. Cbroniclcof the Beginning(Letopi nachak) (in Rus- Leroy,Pierre,S.l. Tcilharddz Chardin:TbeMan.
sian).Moscow:Sretensky MonasteryPublishingHouse,1995. Magill, Frank N-, ed,.Mastcrpiccct
of CathoticLiteraturein SummaryForm.
Sophrony,Archimandritc. Hit Life k Mine. Oxford, England:A. R. Mow- New York:Harpcr& Row,1965.
bray & Co L:d., 1977.Reprint.Cresrwood,New York: St. Vladimirl Meyendorff,Fr. John. "Teilhardde Chardin: A PrcparatoryNore" (in Rus-
5cmfnarv |,ress.l'.)/ / . sian). Mcssengcrof thc RussianSndcnt Chri*ian Moucmcnt,nos. 95-96
(1970).
Stefanatos,
Dr. Joenne.Animalsand Man: A Stateof Bhsedncss.
Minneapolis:
Lighrand Life Publishing
Co., 1992. ....................-.
'Crearion vs. Evolution." The Orthodtx Church,March 1982.

672 o /5
 Brguoctalnv Blsr_rocRApHy

Rahncr,Karl,S.J."OriginalSin, Polygenism,
and Frecdom,"in TheologDi- Aqtrinas,Thomas. Summa Thcologica.New York: BenzigcrBrorhers,1948.
gctt,Sprinl 1973. \Westminsrer,
Reprinted198I by ChristianClassics, Maryland.
Speaight,Roberr, Tiilhardde Cha in: A Biogrn?b. London: Collins, 1967. Austin, Stcven A-, ed,.Grand Canyon:Monttment to Catastropbc.Sanrce,
Calif.:Insrirurefor CrearionRescarch.
1994.
Tcilharddc Chardin, Picrre.Actiuationof Energ. New York: Harcourt Brace
1970.
Jovanovich, Becker,Carl L. TheHeauenlyCity of tlteEighteenth-Cennry
Pbilosophers.
New
Havcn,Conn.:YaleUniversityPrcss,1970.
-. BuiAing tbe Earth.'WestNyack, Ncw York: CrassCurrentsreprim,
1959. Behe,MichaelJ. Darwinl Bkch Box: ThcBiocbemical
Cballcnge
to Euolution.
(fi7i1sianiryand Euolution.New York: Harcourt BraccJovanovich, Ncw York:The FreePrcss/Simon & Schuster.
1996.
-.
A HarvcsrBook, 1969. Bergman,Jerry,and GeorgeHowe. "WstigralOrgau" Are Fu/ly Functional.
TerreHaute,Indiana:CrcationResearch SocieryBooks,1990.
-. ThcDiuine Milieu. Ncw York: Harper & Row,Publishers,1960.
Berra,Tim. Evolutionand theMyth ofCrcation*m,StanfordUniversirypress,
-. flls fssre oJ'Man.London:Collins,1965.
r990.
-. The Heart of the Matter. New York: Hartcourr BraceJovanovich,
Berry,William B.N. Growthof a PrehistoricTimeScale.SanFrancisco:Vl H.
t979.
Freeman & Co., 1968.
-. Hoa J Bcllczr.Ncw York: Harper & Row, 1969.
Berthault,Guy Comptes-Rendu
Academiedet Srrczce,/1(Dccember3, 1986;
-. HumanEnergr.London:Collins,1969. February 16, 1988).
-. Hymn of the Uniuersc.
Ncw York: Harper & Row, 1965. Bickerman,E. J. Chronolngyof tbeAncient V/orA.khica, New York: Cornell
-. Letnzsi LlontineZanta. Paris:Dcsclic de Brouwer,1965. UnivcrsiryPress,1968.
-. TbcM;ytticalMitieu: Vritingsin Timeof lVar.Ncw York: Harpcr anu Bork, RobertH. Slouchingtowar& Gomonah:ModernLiberalbmand Amui-
Row,1968. canDccline.Ncw York: ReganBooks/HarperCollins, 1996.
-. TbePhenomenon
of Mat Ncw York: Harpcr & Row 1959. Bowderr,Malcolm. Ape-nten:Factor Falhry?Bromley,Kent, England:Sover-
Sciencetnd Christ.L.ondon:Collins, 1968. e t g n l 'u D l c a u o n s . l yl /.
-.
"Evolurion:A Hcresyl" OrtbodoxObseruet,
Trcmpelas,Parragiotis. Attgust8, . TheRiseof thc EuolutionFraud. Bromlcy,Kcnr, England:Soverergn
t r 73. Publications,
1982.

l rooster, Stcphants. Euolution and the Doctrine of Original Sin. Clen Rock, -. Scienceus.Euolution.Bromley,Kent, England:Sovercignpublica-
Ncw Jcrsey:Newman Prcss,1968, rions,1991.
-. TrueScienceAgrecswith the Bible.Bromley,Kent, England:Sover-
cign Publicarions,
1998.
Brown, Michael H. TheSearch for Eue.New York: Harper & Row, I990.
OTHER SOURCES
fom Baconto Mill. New york:
Burrt, Edwin A., ed..ThcEnglishPhilosopbcrs
Albright,Villiam F. "RecenrDiscoveriesin BibleLands."In RobertYoung, RandomHouse,1939.
Analtical Concordttnce
to ,heBibh. NewYork: Funk and Vagnalls, 1936. Charlesworth,J. K., Thc QuaternaryEra, vol. 2. London: Edward Arnold
Arkell,V. l. Jurasti Geologof the \Yorld.New York: Hafner PublishingCo., Co., t957 .
1956. Chris,Raymond."Scienrists
ReportFindingFossils
of Dinosaurs
in Anrarcti-

674 t)/ )
 Brnrlocupsv BIsLtocRAt'HY

ca\ Interior"; "Discoveryof Leavesin AnrarcricaSparksDebareover son, Brooks,ed., The Modcrn Library,New York, Random House,
'Whether Region Had Near-TemperateClimare." t968, t)92.
Cbroniclr of Highr
Education,March20. 1991. Engels,JoanC. "Effectsof SamplePuriryon DiscordantMineralAgcsFound
Coates,Howard.'AboriginalFloodLcgend."Creation
Ex Nihilo,vol.4, no. 3 in K-Ar Dating."/ournalofceolog,vol.79 (September l97l ).
(Octoberl98l ). Faul,Henry.Agesof RochtPknex and Staru.New York:McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Coates,Howard and V. H. Douglas,comp. 'AustralianAboriginalFlood _. Nuchar Gcolog.New york: Johnviley, 1954.
Stories."Introduction by John Mackay.CreationEx Nihilo, vol. 4, no. I
Ficlds,Veston'W. Unformedand Unflled: A Critiqueof thc Gap Thcory.Col-
(Marchl98l ).
linsville,lll.: Burgener
Enrerpriscs,
1976.
Colbert, E. H. "EvolutionaryGrowrh Ratesin the Dinosaurs."Scientifc
Finegan,Jack. Handboohof Biblical Chronolog.Revisededition. Peabody,
MonthQ, August1949.
Mass.:Hendricl<sonPublishers,1998.
Cook, Melvin. Prehistory
and Earth Modcls.London: Max Parrishand Co. '1.
Gish, Duarre CrcationScientisuAnswerTheir Critics.El Cajon, Cali[: In-
Ltd.. 1966. stitutefor CreationRcscarch,1993,
Darwin, Charles.Tbc Origin of Species
byMcansof Nanral Selection,
and The Gould,Stephen "Puncruated
Equilibria:The Ternpo
Jay,and NilesEldredge.
Dcscentof Man and Selectionin Rehtion ro .Srx.New York: Modern Li- and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered." vol. 3 (Spring
Paleobiolog',
brary,Random House. t977).
-. TheOrigin of SpecietNew York: Penguin,1984. Grassi, PierreP. Euolutionof Liuing Organismr.New York: AcademicPress,
"DarwinistsSquirm under Spodight:lnterviewwith Phillip E. Johnson." 1977.
CitizenMagazine,]anuary 1992. Gribbin,John and JeremyCherfas."Descentof lvlan-or fucent of Ape?"
Dawkins,Rtchard. TheBlind tVatcbmaher.
New York: Norton, 1986 NewScientist, vol. 9l (September 3, l98l).
Denton, Michael. Euolution:A Theon iz Crlrri. Bcthesda.Marvland: Adler Grumel,V La Chronologic(in French).BibliothtqueBlzanrine:TiaitCd'E-
& Adler,1986. tudesBlzantinesl. Paris,1958.
Dewar,Douglas.Dfficultiesof theEuolutionaryThcory.London:Thynne and Gtrinon, RenC.Crkisof theModcrn W'orld.London: Luzac & Co., 1975.
Co.. t9ll. -. TheReignof Quantity and the Signsof the Times.London: Luzac &
-. More Dfficulties of the EuolutionaryTheory.London: Thynne & Co., 1953.
Co.. 1938. Haber, FrancisC. TheAgeof the \YorA:Moscsto Darwin. Baltimore:The
Dillow, JosephC. The lVater Abouc:Earth\ Pre-FloodVaporCanopy.Chi- JohnsHopkinsPress,1959.
cago:Moody Prcss,rcvisededition,1982. Ham, Ken. "The God of an Old Earth." CreationEx Nihilo, vol.21, no. 4
Elasscr,V. M. "Origin, Composition and Age of thc Exrh." Enqctopcdia (t999).
Britannica,vol. 7, 1973. Hazard,Paul. TheEuropeanMind, 1680-1715.New York, Meridian Books,
Efiadc,Micea.,{ Hitory of Rcligious
ldees,vol. l. Chic-ago:Universiryof Chi- 1963.
cagoPrcss,1978. Howell, F. Clark. New Scientist,March 25, 1965.
Eldredge, Niles. ReinuentingDarwin: The Great Dcbateat the Higb Tabb of Huxfel Aldous."Confessionofa Professed Arheisr."Report,June,1966.
EuolutionaryZrory. New York,John Wiley & Sons,1995.
Johnson,Phillip E. Daruin on Tiial. Secondedition. DownersGrove, Illi-
Emerson,Ralph Valdo, TheSebctedtX/ritingsof Palph lVaHoEmerson,Atkin- nois:Inrcr VarsiryPress,
1993.

o/ o 677
 BtgLtoctralnv BrsLrocRApHv

- Defi'atingDarwinism by OpeningMind:. Downers Grovc, Illinois: Tbc Remarkable Recordof'Job.Grand Rapids,Mich.: Bakcr Book
-.
InrerVarsiryPrcss,1997. House,1988.
-. on Euolution, Lau' (t Cubure.
ObjectionsSwtaircd: SubjectiueEssays -. ggigpsift Creationism.
CreenForesr,Arkansas:MastcrBooks, I 974.
DownersGrove,Illinois:InterVarsiryPress,1998. Rcviscdedition,1985.
-. Rcasonin the Bahnce: The CascagainstNaturalism in Science,Lau' /" Morris,Henry M., andJohnC. Vhitcomb. TlteGenesiFlood.Phillipsburg,
Education.
DownersGrove,Illinois:InterVarsiryPress,1995. Ncw Jcrsey:Presbyterian
and RcformedPublishing,1961.
Joscphus,Flavius. CompletetYorks.Grand Rapids,Mich.: Kregel Publica- Morris, John D. Tbe YoungEarth. Grccn Forest,Arkansas:Master Books,
tions,1960. 1994.
Kahler,Erich. T'beTbwerand tbcAbyss:An Inquiry into the Tiansformation
of Nictzsche,Friedrich. The \Yill to Potucr,vol. I, in The ComplerclY'orhsof
thc Indiuidual.New York: GcorgeBrazilicr,lnc. 1957. Friedrich Nietzsche,vol. 14. New York: 'l'he Macmillan Company,
l.awrence,Jefl."Communiquilntcrview:PhillipE. Johnson."Communiqul: 1909.
A QuarterQJournal Spring 1999. Norman,'frevorand BarrySerrerfield,"The AtonricConstanrs, [-ight,and
Leakey,fuchard. TheMahingofMankind. London: MichaclJoseph,198l. Tirrrc."Mcnlo Park,Calil: StanfordRescarch
lnstitutcIntcrnationalln-
Lemaitre, Canon Georges.ThePrimeuatAtom:An Essa.y
on Cosmogony.
New vitcd RcsearchRcport,August1987.
York:D. Van NosrrandCompanl 1950. Olson, EverettClaire. "The Evolurionof Life." Euolutionafcr Darwin: The
Lewontin,Richard."BillionsandBillionsof Demons."TheNew YorhRcuiew Uniuerrityof Chic'1go
Ccntennial,vol. I . Chicago:Universiryof Chicago
of Boohs
, January9, 1997. Prsss,1960.

Lubenow Marvin L. Boncsof Contention:

A CrcationistAssessment
of Human O'Rotrrkc,J. E. "Pragmatism VcrsusMaterialismin Stratigraphy."
Ametican
Journal ofScience,
vol.276 (lanuary 1976).
Fosils.Grand,Rapids,Michigan: BakerBooks,1992.
Martin, Malachi.Hostage
to tbeDcuil: TbePossesion
and Erorcismof FiueLiu- Pagcls,Elairre."The CrrosticGospels'Revclation."New YorhReuiewof Booht
ing Americans.New York: Rcadcr'.s DigcscPress,1976. Reprinr. New vol. 2(r,rros.16-19 (1979).
York:Harper& Row,Perennial Librarl 1987. Philo of A.lcxandria.TheContcmplatiue
Life, The Giants,and Sclections.
Ncw
-. TheJetuirr.New York:Simon & Schuste
r, 1987. York:PaulistPrcss,1981.

Marthews,L. Harrison. lntroduction to Darwin'sOrigin oJ'Specier

London: Randall,John Hcrman, Jr. The Mahing of the Modern Mind: A Surueyof
M. Dent & Sons, l97l . the ltelbcnal Bachgroundof tbe Ptesent,4gc.Houghton Mifflin Co.,
J.
1926.[A revisededition,not usedby Fc Scraphim,waspublishedin
Milton, fuchard. Shatteringthe Myths of Darwinism. Rochesrer,Vermonr:
1940.1
ParkStreetPrcss,1997.
Raup,David."Evolutionand the FossilRecord."Sclczcano. 213 Quly 17,
Morris, Henry M. The Biblical Br's*for Modern Sdezra.Grand Rapids,
l98l ).
Mich.: BakcrBookHousc,1984.
.................._.
"ProbabilisticModelsin EvolutionaryPaleo-Biology."AmericanSci-
-. DefendingtheFaith. GreenForcst,Arkansas:MasrerBooks,1999. entitr, no. 166 (January-February
1977).
-. The GencsisRecord.Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, Rensch,Bernhard.Evolutionabouethe SpccicsLeuel.New York: Columbia
t976. UniversiryPress,1959.
-. The Long W'arAgainst God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Bakcr Book Riasanovsky,
NicholasV A Historyof Russia.Third edition. New York: Ox-
House,1989. tord unrversrry
I'ress,lt / / .

678 679
 Brsr.rocRAnHv BrsLrocRApuv

fuchards,E. G. Mapping Time:TbeCahndatand itsHttory. Oxford Univer- CteationistBookby Hugh Ross.

gressiue Gilbert, Ariz-ona:EdenCommunt-
siryPress,1998. cations,1994.

Rifkin, Jeremy.Algeny.New York:The Viking Prcss,1983. VanderKrnr,JamesC. and Villiam Adler.TheJaabh Apoca$pticHeritagein
Early Christianity.Minneapolis:FortressPrcss,1996.
vol. l. London: Aca-
Riley,J. P and G. Skirrow,ed. CbemicalOceanognPhJ,
(technicalmonograph).El
Vardiman,Larry. TheAgeof theEarth\ Atmosphere
dcmicPress,1965.
Cajon,Califl:lnstitutefor CreationResearch,
1990.
Ross,Hugh. "GencsisOne, Dinosaurs,and Cavemcn."Pasadena,
Cali[:
websirc,updatedjuly 8, 1997.
to Believe
Rcasons Veith,GcneEdward.'Admininglrs Misrakes."\Y'orld
Magazine,
vol. 14,no.
)/ (luly 17, 1999).
as a Candb in thc Darb.
Sagan,Carl. The Dtmon-Haunted\l'orA: Science
New York:RandonrHouse, 1996. Von Engeln,O. D., and K. E. Caster Geolog.New York: McGraw Hill,
1952.
O. H. "Commcnrson SomcStratigraphic
Schindewolf, Terms."American
'Wells, "AbusingTheology:HowardVanTill\.ForgortenDoctrine
vol. 255 (Junc1957).
JournalofScience, Jonathan.
of CreationsFunctionalIntegriry,"'in Origins6 Duign,vol. 19, no. I
Scotr,EugcnicC. "MonkeyBusiness."
TheSciences, 1996.
January-February, ( 1998).
Scwcll,CLrrt. God at GroundZero: The Mathattan Project,and a Scicntist\
Flood.Phillipsburg,
JohnC., and Henry M. Morris. TheGenctis
\Yr4itcomb,
Discoucryof Christ,the Creator.Green Forest,Arkansas:Mastcr Books,
Presbytcrian
NewJersey: and RefornredPublishing,l96l.
t997.
Wilber, Kcn. A Brief Historyof Eaerything.
Bostoff ShambhalaPublications,
Smith, Volfgang. Tlilbardim and the New Religion.RocUord, Ill.: Tan
t996.
Books,1988.
-. 1116 of Kcn V[/ilber,vol.2.Boston:ShambhalaPubli-
Cstls6laalVorks
Spetncr,Dr. Lee. Not b1 Chance!Shateing the Modcrn Thcoryof Evolution.
New York:The JudaicaPress,1998. cations,1999.
.................._.
fe1ss,'e16frc A GreaterPsyhologybyA. S. Dalal (forthcoming).
Stafford,Tim. "The Making of a Rcvolution." Christianiy Tbday,December
8, t997. -. The Marriagc of Senseand Soul: Intcgr4ting Scicnccand Rcligion.
Storer,Tracy l. GeneralZoolog. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York:RandomHouse,BroadwayBooks,1998.
Inc.,1951. -. One Ta*e: TheJournalsof Ken \Y/ilbcr.Boston:ShambhalaPublica-
Sundcrland,Lurher Darwin'sEnigma.Santee,Calif.: MastcrBooks,1992. tions,1999.

Taylor, Ian -1. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the Ncw lY'orldOrdcr Thid -. Spirinaliry: ThcSpirit of Euolutror.Boston:Sbambhala
Sex,Ecology,
edition.Minneapolis: TFE Publishing,l99l . Publications,
1995.
Taylor, Kcnneth N., ed. and comp. Euolutionand the High SchoolSrudent. -. Upfom Eden:A TiantpcrsonalVicwof Human Euolution.'Vhearon,
'Vhearon,
Ill.: TyndaleHouscPublishers,1972. Illinois:'I'heTheosophical Housc,198I .
Publishing
Thaxton, CharlesB., WalterL. Bradleyand RogerL. Olsen. ThcMystcryof Voodmorappe, John. Thc Mybohgl of Modcrn Dating Methods(technical
CurrentTheories.
Life'sOrigin: Reasscsing Dallas,Texas:Lewisand Stan- monograph).El Cajon,Calii: Institutcfor CreationRescarch,
1999.
len 1984. -. Nodhi Ark: A FcasibilitySndy kechnical monograph).El Cajon,
Thompson, Damian. TheEnd of Tine. Hanover, New Hampshire: Univer- Calif.:lnstirutefor CreationRescarch,
1996.
of New England,1997.
siryPress -. "RadiomerricGeochronologyReappraised."
CreationResearcb
Soci-
Van Bebber,Mark, and PaulTaylor. Crcationand Time:A Reporton the Pro- cryQuarter\,vol. l6 (Seprember
1979).

680 681
 /-\ T
AcTNowI.EDGMENTS bENERAL INDEX

Pagenumbersfor iltustrations are in boldfaeeitalies.

Ve wishto thankrhefollowingpeoplefor patiendyanswering our

Abel,73, 2 t L 222,224,223,211,222,224, inr m or r alir ofy, 187,189,210,214.350-
questions
and providinguswith valuableinsightsand suggestions: 225, 22G227, 228, 229, 23r,232- 351,4t t, 439,444,483,486
234,238,264,378,390,6t5 incorruption of, 157, 187-188,421,442-
Dr. Mace Baker Aborrion.206 445
Dr. DuaneT. Gish Abraha,n, r46,235,249,269,272,280,375, innoccncc of, 172
433 invulncrabiliryof, lll9, 442, 449
Villiam Hoesch AbsLrrdiryphilosophy of, 3(r9 lifespanoi I 19,540
Dr. PhillipE. Johnson Abyssinia,642 ntind of,483,485-486
Acadcmy ofAsianSrudies, l9 nakcdncssof, 19io*200,479
KatherineMcCaffery Aat andFacs,72,467, 618,64') nrmesEvc,185, 187
Dr. Henry M. Morris Adam,13,27,44, 46,78,82-83,98, | 15, namcsrhe eninrals,176-177, 179, 180,
Fr.MichaelOyer t64,t7 t, t73,18r,182, r 83, 185, 203, 403,483.4u6
208,2 r r,2t1,217, 222,223,227 -228, originaloccupation ol, 169-170
Fr.AndrewRossi 229, 230, 232-734, 237, 247-248, outsideof Paradise, 221, 22-3
CurtisSewell, Jr. 253, 261, 265-766,269. 325, 329, potcntialimmortalirvof, 328
345-346, 348-350, 376, 378, 379, self-iustific:rrionof, 200-2.02.575
FrankSherwin srarcof, in Peradise, 190,444445,483,
380,384, 392,395,403,406,409410,
Dr. Mikhail Skvortsov 423, 439,442, 446449, 475, 482, 637
Dr. VolfgangSmith 484, 488489, 494495, 52t, 528- rcmptariono[, ]3, 174-175, 186, 192,
529. 535-536, 539-540, 542, 583, 19i, 194, 195, t96, 207, 485, 489 ('..
Fr.PhilipTolbert 590,594,600,602,607-608,6t | , 6t 4. a/roTcmptation: in Paradise)
SeralaMan;Paradise; banishmcnt from rransgrcssion of, 13, 190, 192, 194, 196,
agcof, 232.-234 197, t98-t99, 200, 20t, 204, 207,
askingofrhecrearion, 157,188.208-209, 2 t4 , 2 2 t, 2 2 8 , 4 tt4 t5 , 4 1 9 , 4 2 ) - -
213,4t4, 42042t, 486 422, 429- 431, 445446, 479, 487,
asprophcr, 187,192 5 2 2 ,5 4 0 ,5 9 t.6 3 7
asrheprogcnitor ofrhchumantrcc,232, virginiry of, bcforc thc fall, t 52
481 wisdomof, 177, 187-l88, I92, 2l(r
6ody ot, 442443, 445, 449, 479, 603 Adamt Anruton (Louis lrakey). 527
clothed withglory,I88 Africa,4TO
creareddirccrlyhy God, 390-392,523, Afo thc Flood (Coopcrl, 644, (t46
6r0 Againr FaLcUnion (Kalomiros),26, 451
crcatcdin nraturcform,633 Agassiz,Louis, l7
crcationof, 142, 157, 186,337,397,402, Agc of thc carth. 5rr Chronology, Biblicatl
407-408, 435-436, 438, 442-443, Earth: agc of; Evoltrtionarytime scale:
480,497,609 \w aLoMan:crcation of) Vorld: agcof
disobcdienccof, I5l, 175,188,198,20G Aga ofRorIs, Phncts and Star (Faul),633
207, 4t24t1, 4t5, 480,592-593 Agnosticism.SreArhcism/agnosticism
gcnorlogy lrom,234 Alaska,427

682 683
 lNorx Ir{oEx

Albright,Villiam F.,273 diffcrcntbcforcman s fall,412,415 Athos,Mounr,74, 76, 78 BigBang, rhcoryof, t27,463.559560.606

AleksciII, Patriarch of Russia, 588 domcstic,l9i Augustine,Blcssed, 51, 77,79, 102, 217, 621
A l c u rs, 427 naming ot, t77 . 485486 232, 236,245, 326, 328,432,434,474, Biochem ist r y. 36, 38,
58, 468, 559. 600, 6
AlcxandcrofHalcs,449 originallysubmittcdto man,412--413 526, 540, 60t , 6t0, 646 639
AlcxanderrhcCrcat,275 AninaL and Man: A StateofBbsscdnat (Srcfa- Aurobindo,Sri,562,565 Biohgical Btolutionim(Cavarnos), 45|,638,
Alcxandria,4T6 natos),253 Austin,StcvcnA.,460.645 648
Algeny Rifkin), 646, 649 Annunciation,66 Auttubpithic*,470 Biolory.I8. 70, t34, 322.398,463, 465,
AJlcgoricalintcrprerarionof Scripturc.5l.zIn- Answcrsin Gcnesis.603.648449 Autopoicsis,562 530, 532, 6t 7, 639,( 42
tcrprcrationof Scriprurc:allcgorical AnswcrsUpdau, (49 Avcrky (Taushcv),Archbishop,490 Biophysics, 639
AmazingStoryofCrcatior (Gish),647 Antarctica,493 Bir ds,ll6, lJ9, l4t , l5l- 1t 5, 180,188,
Ambroscof Milan, St., 68, 73, 77-78,91, AnthropologicaI Jotrnal of C,anada,459 Babel.SarTowcrof Babcl 2t 3, 258,260,263, 266,300,332
l 0 l, t 06, 10 8-lll, n 5, 1 20- t 21, Anthropology, 216,422, 451, 523,576 Babylon, 89, 255, 27 4-27 6, 279, 62t , 642 createdwith the xpprarance of age,142.
t 2 3, t26, t 33, t3 5-t3 6, 13 8,143,r 80, Patristic,381 Bacon,Francis,2l 634
t 94, t99 , 296, 327, 333, 335, 376, 536, Anthropomorphism, 87, 261 Bactcria,58,305 crcarion of, 102,t28,t29, t30, 131-132,
608 Anrichrist,26, 216, 369, 371, 548-549, Bahai,558,595 623
on Paradisc,r 64- 165 572 573,585,588,597 Bakcr,Mace,640, 642443, {cl.8449 cagles, 135,253
on tlrc crcationofEvc, 182 Anrimarrcr, 328, 367 Baptism,I 10,260 tnchcs,))
on thc dcvil'senry, 192 Apcs,58, 67, t82, 253, 307, 379, 426, 428, Barlzam,406407, 423, 425, 447,601 hypothcticalevolutionof, 469. 561
on thc gcncalogyofChrist, 529 437, 4r t , 470472 , 5 t 6 , 5 4 2 , 6 1 6 Bersanuphius of Optin a,St.,44, 68, 594,644 namcdby Adam, l7Gl77
on the kindsofcreaturcs,613 Apocalypsc(Rcvclation),book of, 68, 94-95, BasilthcGrcar,Sr.,43, 51,68,73,74,86,93, wcnr into thc Ark, 256
Anoican Biology Tcacho,5 l '| | 5, 2.t4, 490, 498, 622 100-10t, 106, 108, l -112, ll6_ Black holcs,462
AmcricanCivil LibcrticsUnion (A.C.L.U.), Apomlypr in thc Iiaching ofAnnnt Chnd- I r 7 , r 2 l - - r 2 2 ,1 3 0 ,1 3 3 ,t4 0 ,t5 3 ,2 8 4 ,
Blind \Yatchnakct Ttu \Dawkins) , 37 , 46a
3 1,466 ani4 Thc (Tatshev znd Rose),490 286, 327, 3i3, 334, 375-376. 380- Boch,!?altcrJ., 530
Amcritan JournaI of Sticnu, 3 | | Aposrasy,33, 3 15, -352,369, 447, 583 387, 393, 398, 404, 428, 492, 520,536, Bonavcnturc,449
Ancrian Sdcntir,304 Aposr.les,267 , 272 593, 609, 6t2, 623, 646 Eont ol Contcnnon. k Evolution Tmi lSvlvie
Amphibians,30(r Aquinas,Thomas,J50, 447449, 5 16 on scicntificfacrs,285, 5 16, 539, 623 Bakcr),648
crcationof, 133 Arabia,642 on thc grandcurofCod's crcarion,140 Boncsof Contntion (llwn),64O
Andrew thc Fool for Christ ofConstanrirt"- Ararat,mountainsof, 261 on the imagcofGod in man,149 BoncsoJ Contcntion(Lubcnow). 3l l, 471-
ple,St.,477,488 Archaaptc2x, 306 on thc kindsofcrcarurcs,134,187-388, 4 7 2 ,5 2 t,6 4 0
vision of Paradiscand the third hcavcn, Archcology,273, 600, 641 r,08, 6t3 Boob d Culnrc, 39
t 6 7,491 Arctic,493 on thc lcngth of rhc Six Days,326, 375, Bork,JudgcRobcnH., 323,431
Andreyev, L M,7l,328 Arian hcrcsl l0l 401 Borany,5.ll
A n g e l s,128, t4t,1 52 , 15 6, t6 t, t7t - 172, Aristarchus of Alcxandria (Greck astrono' on thc originalcrcarurcsbcing vcgcrarian, Bowdcn,Malcolm,43,276, 355, 646447,
| 87- | 89, 329,343,4 | 6, 444. 448,488, m er ) , 620 t55 649
495, 499-500 Ar ius , 338 on thc uniquencss of man'screation,
15..r Bradlcy,\falrcr L., 505
cannot bcgethuman bcings,244 Ark,248 25t , 252,253, 254,255-256.258. Battcn,Don,646 Brccding,136,295, 300
conrpararivcincorporealiryof, 446, 499 26t, 262, 263, 264, 269, 643 B cars,494,646 Bticf Hntory of Evcrlthi ng, A (\$/llberl,558
crcationof, | 14-l15,147 asan imagcofthc Church, 260 varictics of, lJ4 Brown Univcrsiry,53
naturcof 148 capaciry of, 251,645 Behc, Michacf ,38, 57,468,545,600,639 Brown, Michacl H., 600
Angcr,I54, 230,488, 491 Arkcll,Vl J.,493 Bentham, jcremy, 318 Bruno, Ciordano, 356, 570
Animafs,408. 493. Sct ako Amphibians; Asccricism, 371 Bcrdyacv, Nichola.s, 37|,374, 582 Buclland,Villiam,298
Apcs; Bears;Birds; Cattle; Dinosaurs; Assyrta,276 Bcrgman, Jcrry302 Buddhism,292,476, 558
Fish;Horses;Lionsi Mammorhs;Rep- A{rronomy,J6, 70, 3 17, 458, 461,463, 620 B crryV i l l i amB . N .,310,3 12, 457 Bulgakov,Fr. Scrgius,374
rilcs: ScaMonstcrs;Snakes;Vhalcs Arhanasius rhcGrcat,Sr.,Zt 78,82-83, l0l, Bcrthault, Guy,349.461 Bulgrria,529
brought inro Paradise,177, 486487 244,609 Biblc,r6, 30,43,50,94,384,435,466,496,Bushmcn,427
bccamccorruptiblcasa resukof man'sfell, Athcism/agnosticism, 137, 287, 295, 319, ,67, 585,588,605,622,613,U4 Blzantinc Calcndar,236
207-208, 4094t t, 413, 59l-t93 339,341, 356, 359, 373, 505, 508, Biblc-Scicncc Associ:rion,
635
carnivorous, afrcrrhc fall, 196 546-547, 553, 169, 594, 597 -598, Bibliul Basi:for Mod.cmSoanra(HcnryMor- C,ain, 73, 211, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225,
r rcatcdwith th<appcarancc ofagc, I4J 605,638 ris),304,306,588,603,Ut, 644,(46 22G227, 228, 230, 231.232-233,
crcarionof, lJ9 Athcnagorasof Athens,499 Bickcrman, E.J.,236 242,245, 337, 378,39\ ,494495 ,6t5

684 685
 INoex I Nnex

wife of.232, 345 libcralizrd,

354.374 Copernicann..odct,294. 462, 466 lhtrisric,60-1,6lI
Calciu,Fr.Ccorgc,67 savorof, 581 Copcrnicus,Nicolaus.458, 462, 620 C r ca ti o n R cse a r chSo ci cr y, 4 5 7 , 6 1 9 .
Califonia, t4-15,22, 49,7 | tradirional,546, 549, 556, 573 Corncll UnivcrsityMcdicalCollcgc,619 648449
Camus,Albcrr,3(r9 Chmniclcof Bcgnning (Deacon f)anicl Si- Corruprion (decay),162, 166, 207-2O9, Crcation Rctcanh Socictl Quarttrly 43, 647-
\-anaan/!enaanttcs, z\r,, z/ z, z/9 socv),t88 35r)-35t, 4 t 5, 4 | 8, 448449, 5t5, 597 648
Canaanitc woman,272 Chronologr.Biblical.29(r. 298, 457, 474, of n,rn, 445 ()rcationScienccMovcnrcnt(England), 30
Candidc (Yokaire), 5 l t) 5J9,6U2-60 l. 6a2 SaalroGcncalogics ofthc visiblccrcation,157, 2O9,409,4l l, CrcationScicntists. J'."a Scicntifi
c Crcatiorr,
Carbonl4 dating,J09.,ll2-313, 420, 459, difference bctveen Grcek and Hcbre*. 4 t 3, 422,442443, 446,478, 536,587, ists
4- 2, 49J, 5) t, 626,635.Jrrata tudio- t 40, 602, 610 59t,607 CrzationScicnti* AnswzrThir CrititslGisnl,
mcrricdating Chnnology ol th Ancicnt VorA (Bickenan), (irsmogony, 96, 408 647
Catacombs,64, 197, 222, 262 236 cvolutionary, 463, 476, 585 Crcation/cvolutiondcbatcs,467. (rI 8
Catastrophism, 36, 298, 304-305,632,(42 Churchof England,617 Patristic.462 Crcationisr philosophy, 309
Cattthaical Lauru (St. Cyril ofJcrusalcm), Church ofthc Transfigurationofrhe Saviour, Cosmobgy, | 37 (ircatureand rhc Crea(or,distinctionbe-
78 Novg<.rrod, Russia,146, 237, 239, 241, LOSm OS, ) /4 ) /) rwcen,573
C: rt t l eioxcn),135 ,I39 , 14 5,1 91 . 202, 247, 257, 380 Cotnos lSagan\, 67 Cr+Magnon Man,324
250. 253, 256, 258, 263,334,444 Ci4 oJGod,Tht(BlcsscdAugustinc),79, 232, Covcnants bctwccnGod and man, I 18,249, C r o ss,2 1 4 ,2 1 6 ,4 8 6 , 5 4 8
nanrcdby Adanr,176 236,474 266-267.269 Curtis,C. H., 629
(lavarnos, Consranrine, 451, 6ltt, 648 Clairvoyancc,483 Cranfill,S. A., 646, 649 Cush,168
Chrlmcrs, Thomrs, (r03 Clark, f.,268 Crcation, 408. St aLo Atlam: crcation ofi Cuvicr, Ccorges,298
Chaosrhcories, 562 Clinron,I'resident Bill, 557, 559 Animals:crcationofr Amphibians: crca- Cyprianof Jordanvillc, Archimandrirc,78,
Charismatic movcmcnr,108, 519,572, 582 Coarsofskins,167,212,410,443 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
Charlesworth, J. K., 494 Coclacrnth.306 of; Man:crcationofr SixDaysiWoman: C yp r u s,5 9 7
Chcrfas,Jcrcmy,(>l(r Colbcrt,E. H.,493 crcationofi Whalcs:crcarionoi; \(/orld: Cyril of Alcxandria. St.,2 10,244
Chcrubim,85, 214,405 C-oloradoUnivcrsiry,46 I cr(ation of Cyril of Jen-rsalcm, St., 78, 182, 337, 376,
Childrcn, 204-205 , 22J, 329 Columbia Univcrsiry,5.30
ryc of,2.96,457, 474 ,539. 6tJ2403,642 3.)|, 397
Chrhasn, 74, 276, 344. 366, 368, 370, 554. Commandmentsof God, 175-176, 194, asa frceactofGod's will, 568
516, 166,582,597 198, 266-267, 334, 429-430, 444, continuouscrc.rtivc rcriviryofGod iJisrin l)anresccnc (Christenscn), Hicromonk.49,
defined,365 479,489 guishcdfrornthe original,624 590
Chimpanzcc, hvpothcrical evolurionof, 6 I 6 Conmcntaryon Gncsis(Sr.Ephraim thc Syr- diffcrcnrfrom gcncration, 391, 397, 408, Derrr:w,Clarencc, 466,617
China, 362, (42, 644. Sceako Asia r ant .72. 86, 108- 1 6 q ,5 J 6 , 6 . 1 4 . 6 J 6 523 Dart, Raymond,527
Chincscphilosophy, l9 Commmrary on th Gospelof Luk (Birhop fully formedin the bcginning,142 Darwin,Charlcs.l5-16, 21, 29, 52, 54, 57,
Chittick,DonaldE., 646 Michacl),529 inrmcdiare and eflbrtless, 105,553,5(>l 68, 287,290, 29t-294, 297, 29t, 3tO,
Chris,Reymond,493 Common ancesrryrhesis,58 ofttcrlincss ol 138 32 t, 339,45 t, 548-549.562, 6t7
Christ. SrrJcsusChrist, [-ord Communism, 67, 275, 339, 352, 365, 546- oursidcof prcscnr-daylaws,325, 634 infl uenccof CharlesLyell on, 298
Chrnt Is Calling You!(Fr GcorgcCalciu), 67 549 Parristic modelof,462 Darwin Ccntcnnial, 15- 18, 24, 29-30
Chritian Actiuitr, 4O, 379 spiritualiryaddcdro, 366, 570 rcncwalot, 478 Darwin on Tiial (Johnson),38, 56, 58, -r00,
Chrisriancivilizarion, 321, 567 CommunisrPartyUSA, 548 sratcof, beforethe fall, 329, 442 306, 308,329,355,469,600, 638
''Christian cvolutionism," 98, 163,254,125, Comparativecnrbryolo6r,301 Ctanon nd Timc: A kpon on th hogrtsiuc Drrwin, Erasmus. 2 1, 297, 321,431, 554
329, 335, 339-376, 379, 392,4t)1.,4 tO, Compantivc morphology,300 Crcationist BooI b1 Htgh Rou (Yan Darwini Bhck Box(Bchc),38, 57, 468,600,
424, 440, 448449, 519, 528,605. 5a Cbmpararivcphysiology,30 I Bcbberand Taylor),601 639
a/ra"Orrhodox evolutionisrs" Conccm.353, 357, 509, 595 Crcation Era of Constantinoplc, lmpcriel, Darwinism, 17, 37-39, 4142, 49, 54-57,
the God" of, 441 Confaiont lBlcsscd Augustinc), 79 246 60 , 62, 307, t t 0, 323, 339, 468469 ,
Chrisrian philosophy, 287-288, 292, 332. Constance,Profcssor, 30. 531 Crcation cx nihilo, l 13, 158, 567, 569,624 47 t, 548-549, 553, 556, 56r, 584,
52t,599 C-ontcmplarion, 47, 85, 89, l7O-173, 405, defined, I 13, 567-568 585. t89, 638-639. J,. ,/', Nco-
"ChristianSciencc,'383 407,587 Crcation Ex Ni hilo (nagazinel, 43, 639, 641- Drrwinian synthesis
Chrisrianiry, 5l , 68, 175,283,360,363,365, Contincnts,formariono(. 251, 494 644,646448 hisrcry of, 293-294, 296-300, 646
368,543,547,550,552,556,i82, 588, Convcnationwith Motouilov(St. Scraphim), Crcation Ex Nihih TichnicalJoumal,644, Du Kapial (Men) , 339
6 03, 60t 160,350,435,442 648 "Daughtcrsof mcn," 221, 243, 245
countcr[eit,549 Cook,Melvin,631 CrcarionMantrs,646 a-srhc offspringofCain, 243
dcnatwing of, 546, 572 Cnopcr,Bill, 644, 646 Crcarion model, Jl, 36, 294, 466, 538, 620 David, Prophcr,44, 109, l2l, 235, 496

686 687
 Irunex INorx

Dawkins,Richard,37, 54-t5,59-60, 468, Dillow,JoscphC.,493, 646 E-gypt.642 Erhiopia,168

560 Dinosaurs,306, 465, 493, 522, 640, 642- Fllasser, V. M., 3l I Eugenics,60
Dawson,Charlcs,471 644,647448 Eldrcdgc.Niles,35, 56, 306, t6l, 569 Euphrates Rivcr,168, 275,494495
Day-Agcrhcory,603, 607 Dinosaun (Mecc Bakct), 642441, 649 Elijah, 8) , 242, 4o7 Euphrosynus thc Cook, 328, 456,417
Daysof Crcation, 5rz Six Days Dinonnrs b7 Dcsign(Gish), /M3444,648 Emanarions.5rr Diffusionsof thc Godhcad, vision of Paradise,166, 456, 495
D e a t h ,162, 169, l7 l,19 2, 19 9,2 11, 4ll, DiodochusofPhotiki,Sr.,438 conccProf EarcpcanMind, Thc lHarard),315
4 38, 488 Dionysius,Masrcr,240 Embryology,29, 3Ol, 466, 523. 530. 5)7 , Euxodus,492
not madeby God, 414 Discase, 210, 594 (>00.Jir alro Haeckcl'sLaw L vc, 1 3 ,4 4 .4 6 , ttt2 ,2 0 4 . 2 II, 2 2 2 ,2 3 3 ,
p u t san cnd to sin .20 8.21 0 Dispassion, 187-189.194, 198,486, 540 F.mergencc, Chrisric (conccprofliilhard ac 129,345 )46. 349,378,.191. 4 10.44J.
rcsultsfrom man'sfall, 207, 215, 329, 35 | , Dissipativcsrrucrures,562 Chardin).550 479, 590
4094 | O,4 | 44 | 5, 48t, 556, 585, 592 Dobzhansky,Thcodosius,308, 351-353, Emergcncc,creativc(conccptofKcn Vilber), clothcdwith glory,188
scnrcncc ol 207. 209, 586 372, 465,509, 5 t9, 57t,60r 56t , 567, 569, 585, t87 conceivcs andgivcsbirth aftcrrhclill, 22-l
DcchaniMonasterySerbia,I8l deismof, 354, 509,541, 571, 581 F-mcrson,Rdph Valdo, .357 crcatcdin martrrcform,6-13
Dtfcating Datwinin b1 Opening Mindt on Tiilhard dc Chardin. 354, 357-358, Empiricism,564 crcationof, 66, 157, 181,182. 183. 184-
(Johnson), 466, 638, 647 509, 5t9,595 Enryclopcdia Briannica, 55. 301, 3l |, 517 | 85, I 86, 39 | -392. 395, 402, 442, 445.
Dcificarion, 443, 573 f)ogmas,dogmaricrheology,419, 6O6,612 Encrgics, Divinc,434,492,568,573.ScaLo 48048t, 482, 497,540,6t l
perverrcd conceptof, 5 55,573,586 Dorothcus of Gaza,Abba, St., 79, 84 | 89, Gracc disobcdicncco1,205
Deism,317, 344, 509. 519, 541, 546, 556, 20 1, 350,376, 429,432, 481,'36 Engcls,Frcdcrick,339 cqualirywirh Adam bcforcthc lill, 205
5 70, 574,5 84 Dostoycvsky,Fyodor, 369 Engcls, Joan,628 namedby Adam. 187.212
Dembski,\TilliamA., 38, 40, 48 Dragons,416,643444 England,293, 3 16,471, 506 o U l s l O C rrl I a r. rd l s e , I Z: 1
Demiurge,96,I l3 Enlighterrmcrrt,Age of, 2l, 284, 296-297, sclf-justificarion of, 20 1-202
Dcmocracy,365-366 tutl! Man \Howcll), 356, 5 17 315-319, 369. 546, 570 temptation of, l,3. 186, 192, 193, 194,
Demonicinitiarion,572, 577 Eanh,45- 46,48, 56, 58 , 9 8 , l 0 l , I 1 6 , I 1 8 , Enoch,232,2]4,241, 242 r95, t96,403.545
Dcmons,192,227,341,446, 478,491.548, t 26, t 33, t 4 t, 458,46t, 464,47747 8, Enoch,apocryphalbook oi 244 rransgression of, 13,194, 197. 198
5 5t,567, 57 5,5 78 486, 492, 553, 574, 620, 623 Enos,221.233-234,240 triesto usurpAdlm s hca&hip,196
ageof, 540 "soul"of{conccprofTtilhard dc Chardin), Entropy,(rl8. Sraata SccondLaw of'fhcr- virginiry of, bcforcrhc fall, \52,223, 329
Dendrochronology,459 551,576 (reaa/ro"Vorld Soul") modynamic-s wisdomol, 188
Dcnton, Michacl, 21, 36, 306-307, 469, ageof, 235, 294, 296, 457, 459, 474, 132, Enry, 192 Everesr. Mount,255
506,618,646 535, 538-540, 587-588, 594, 618, Ephraimthe Syrian,St., 72, 76,86, 143, Evi l .l 3 ( >1 3 7 , 1 7 0 .1 7 4 -1 7 6 ,2 t0 ,2 4 7 ,2 7 9 ,
D€scarrcs, Rcn{, 2l, 318, 388 632, 634435 , 638, 64r , 645 r 6 8 r 6 9 , 1 8 5 ,r 8 7 . t 9 6 ,2 0 0 ,2 t7 ,2 3 2 , 343 J44. 348, 417, 475, 478, 480,
DcsccntofMan (CharlcsDarwin). 451 covcnantbcrwccnGod and, 267 245, 273, 333.176, 394, 395, 39G398 , 488-49t, 5211, 5D,577
Dcsca-dwcllcrs,47 crcarionof,86,93,95, 106-107,109,I12, 4 0 f , 4 0 4 , 4 1 0 - 4 r r , 5 t7 , 5 3 6 - 5 3 7 . Evo l u ti o n ,l 2 ( >1 2 7 , l 6 l , l 6 l . 1 8 2 , 2 1 6 ,
D*ign Infcrcnn, Ilr (Dcmbski), 38 125, 463 544,607 , 636 215, 284-285, 29t. 294-295, 298-
Dcutcronomy,496 cursc on, 208, 230, 265 , 329 on Adam namingthc animals,177 299,.r04,3 r l, 3 | 4. 1.15,337 ,38t,409,
Dcvif(saran),| 15, 137, 175,192,194,202- curscdfor Adam'ssakc,206, 478 on AdamoutsidcofParadisc, 221 4 t7 , 422,437, 447, 462,465, 47547 6,
203, 207, 403, 452, 48849t, 571, desrrucrion of,248, 251, 254, 256,258, on Cain and Abcl,225,227,229-30 483, 507, 514, 5t6, 520. 523-524.
573-575,581,584,587,597 267, 276 on Norh, 253, 269-270,272 527-52.8,142.544, 559, 565, t69 , 587.
bound for a rhousandycars,490 first-formcd, I l7 on Paradisc. 156, 166,477 590, 600-601, 606, 608,609, 612.
dcfcatcdby Christ, 204 n:rur.lisric rhcoricsof thc origin of, 633 o n t h c c r c a r i o no f E v c , 1 8 5 ,6 1 I 616,620,648.Sccako"Christiancvolu'
dwcllsin rhc undcrhcavcn, 574 pol|.lion of, 206 on rhc 6rstcrcationhavingthc rppcarancc rionism"i Evo|.rrionarymodel Evolu-
cnrT of, 488 rcligion of, 550 of agc,142,634 ti o n ar y ti m c sca l e i Evo l u i i o n a r y
falloL 478,485 , 489490, 573-574,587 significancc of, 127 on rhe lcngrhof thc Six Days,97, 100, worldview
limitcd powcrof, 488, 491 worship of, 186 326 327, 395, 397, 537 approirchto, 533
Dcvolution,562.639 Economics,566. 572 on the Six Daysof Crcation,102, 107- asa "ncw rcvclarion,' 371
Dewar,Dor-rglas, 30, 506, 6l7 Ecumcnism,24-25, 507, 5l |, 558, 595 I f 0 , I l 2 - r r 3 , t 2 2 , t 3 9 - t4 0 asa univcrsal thcory.558, 562, 595, 610
Dharmakayarcligion, 572 Edcn,88, 94, |65, 211214, 230, 4o4, 4t4, orr thc sonsofGod, 244,499 asa besrialphilosophy, | 55
Dtffcuhiz: of thc Enlation Thcory (Dcwar), 42t, 442, 565,573, 575, 588, 633. 9c Epicyclcs,458. 466, 473, 620 asa blind process,.l53
506,6t7 alro Paradisc EpiphanyJounal 40, 379 asadccp-scrted primordial[orcc,510-51|
Diffusions (cmanations)of thc Godhcad, planringof,164, 166 Fskimos,427 asa distincrivc approachro rcaliry,291
conceptof, 567-569, 57 | rivcrsof, 168 F-ssencc ofGod, 16l, 491492 a sa fa i r h ,- 1 0 7 ,3 2 25, 0 5 .5 l u ,5 2 9 .6 2 1

688 689
 Iuorx Iroex

.rs.rkcvrn rheprogr.rm ofanri-Chrisrianiry. ''prrx,fr' o[ 300-302, 307-309, 385, 466, 562.593, 599, 60 t ,607408,61 t ,6t 4 , gcologicstraralaiddown by,304, 460, 496
5 0 4,588 47 |, 5t 7- 5t 8, 534 . 5 3 9 622. Se abo Death: rcsultsfrom men! mankind ailowedto car mcat aftcr, 250
.rsa rrvalrhoughr-patrern ro Onhodoxy, rcfi.rredby Sr.Nccrariosof Pcnrapolis, 45 | fall; Paradisc:banishmentfrom post-Floodcondirions,l19, 245, 251.
5 0 8,5l I rcjccrsimmurablc'Iruth, 322 conscqucnccs of, 206,211,556,611 265-266,269,643
:rsa scicncc-ficrionthcologz.505 rcpfaccsChrist a5saviow, 55G557 , 572 Godi forsightof, 128 post-Floodhistory,646
asa vehiclcof rhe"newspiriruality," 452 scientistswho havcabandoncdor arc cno- humanscxualreproduction aftcrthe, l5l, pre-Flo<rdconditions. | 18, 269, 643, 6ab
rr an exprcssion of nihilism,554 calof, 17, 29-32, 36, .18,40, 48, 57, 153,187 universaliry of, 254-255,260,495, 588
as an invcrsionof truth, 554-555, 57J 531, 537. 6t 7 lawofnarurcchangcdar rh.,44,329,592 worldwidc climatc bcfotc, 235, 493
574 "spirnual,"342,344, 504.5 t2, 545, 553- mani narurechangcdat rhc, 152,351 Florovskl Fr. Gcorgcs.517
asrhe keyto thc philosophy ofAntichrist, 554, 556-557, 560. 562. 573 marricd lifc bcginsaftcr thc, 152 Flowers,| 39, 647
509,548-549,585 spirirualiry ot, 508 ofmankind in gcneraluntil thc coming o[ crcationof, t30
asthc oppositeofChrisrianirp554, 596 'ihcisric, 295, 504, 512,519, 541, 545, Christ,554,574,196 Fluorincdating,527
athcistic,504,519, 546 587 Faschm,165-366 Fondi,Robcrto,349
basedon philosophy, not fact,291, 307, universal, 137 139,344, 367 Fashions,intcllecrual, 500, 513, 521, 525, Foorrtpsol Luarhan (Amcncan lortalt
309,3 | 5, 321.324,383.388,4 | 8,425, Euoluion(Ruth Moore), 5l I t58,584,589,597,605 Films),64-3
5r7.5.3 r, 535,6r3 Ewltion aboue thc Spccia Lcucl (RenschJ, Ftsring,256. 267, 269 Forgivencss, 201-202,575
biological,585 617 , o d r h e , 1 0 7 . 1 4 5 , 1 4 7 ,3 7 ) ,5 7 1 ,
F a t h c rG Forgiveness Sunday,222
cannor be provedor disprovedby sciencc, Eaohrtion and thc Docnin. of Originnl Sin 574, 589 Fosils,36, 56,302-303,307.3l I, .155,4511,
385,5 t2, 5 t7-5 t8, 607{,08. 6ll (Troosrcr),348 laul, Hcnry,6.13 460, 469, 506, 593, 601, 608, 627
deincd,384,190 "Evolution: Codls SpccialMcrhod of Crca- Feminism,.l23 circular rcasoningcmploycdwhcn dating,
dctlr<auon rrl, ))/ tion" (Dobzhansky), 353 Ficld Muscum oi Narural History, Chicago, 642
dilTtrcnce bcrwecn variarion .rnd, 295- Evolution ProrestMovcnrcnr,30, 506 304, 107 dinosaur,(r42-64.1
296,385,389,473 Etolution: A Thcoryin Crtis (Denton), 21, Fields,\(csronV.,603 formation of, .105
cf-Iictof, on the world,322 36, 306, 469, 506, 638, 646 Fincgan, Jack,236 hv:me^,324, 470, 472, 640
''cmcrgcnt,56l Ewhtion: Thc Foxilt Say Firmamcnt,I I l, ll6, l2l, 124, 126, 128, i n d cx,3 0 6 ,3 lI
"God-guidcd,"291, 375.541, 585 Evolutionary humanisnr, ^/r/(Gish),465
l6 | 30, 235. 258, 269. 49).493 misrakcnnotion ofordcrly progrcssionof,
gencralcffccr of,on Christianiry,582,594 Evolutionarymodel, 294, 303, 460, 466 brcakingof, | 18,254 -104
history of, 562 Evolutionaryrimc scalc,228, 294, 297, 299, crcationof, | 07, I l5 stasr{In (hc rccord.rl, ){F) /, Jt,J
"hunran,"344, 347, 349-350,355,425- 309-3t2. 327, 408, 4tO, 420, 457, separarionof rhe warersaboveand bclow, srochasric deposirionof, 304
428, 470, 472473, 546, 600, 609, 52t - 522, 535, 54 t , 5 6 9 , 5 7 7 - 5 7 8 , | 1 5 ,l t 7 rcsriryro univcrsallywarm climare in the
6 t 5 416,640 582, 585, 593-594, 603, 6t0, 626, Fint-C-natcdMan, I6a (5t. Symeonthc New past,49.3
idca ot, 549-510 633-635 Theologran),78, 47a, 636-637 Founr of Knou,ldge (St. John Damasccnc),
incomparible with Chrisrianiry, 292, 330, Evolurionary worldview20,321, 34O,463, lirst-crcarcdworld, 26. 32, 42, 44, 48, 376, 332
3 4 1 ,408,591 574, 583, 635 402,409,4 | 5, 4 | 8, 420,422,447449, Fr a n cc,3 l 6 ,3 4 9
lack of transitional forms for, 36, -10J, tcachingof, on humannarure,J23, 43 | 536,585 Franciscan Spirituals.371
305-306, 469, 56t , 569, 608, 642 Lxorcism,)/), ) /6 bchcldin l)ivinc vision,44, 416 FrccChurch ofScotland, (r03
leadsto doctrincof Supcrman, 216 Exrinction,134 incorruprion of, 212,443 Frccwill (frcedom),173-175, 434, 443,479,
linkedto moralrelativism,137 Exposhionof th Holl Cotpd acroding to St. knowleJgeof. nor acccssiblc ro naturalsci- 489,568,575
''macroevolurion,S60 la*r (Sr.Ambrose),529 FrcnchAcadcmyofScicnccs, 29, 461
e n c e I. 2 1 ,4 0 8 ,4 l 5 , 4 1 8 ,4 4 5 ,5 9 2 ,641
nrechanism of, 39, 52, 54-55,57,5940, Extraterrcsrrials (UFOs,outcr-spacc beings), matcrialot,446 FrcnchRcvolution, 3l 5, 321, 431, 546
62, 553, 556, 56t, 569,584,639 245, 464465,500,572 Fruit flics ldmsophila n.l4nogatt.t) , 308, 352
nccdro understand rhcscicntific
sidcofthc liyc,hypothcrical evolurionof, 468, 561 Fish,l16, 145,153,I 55,266,300,304,306.
qucstionof, 5J4 553,647 Galapagrslslands,299
nfw synthclrs ol, )) / Faith,3f 5, 317, 319, 434, 549, 582-583, crcationof, 102, 129, 131-132,393,613 Galaxics,{(1, 539
not strictlyspcakinga hcrcsy,452,508, i89, 606 Fiue Book of Chronolop (ulius Africanus), Gdilco, 291
5t5 lcadsto Divinevision,4l6 242,245 Gangcsfuvcr, 494
ol "spirir-mat(cr," 551 Fall,6t , 66,70, 78, 98, t t7 , 156, t64-t 65, Flood, 32, I18, t69, 243-244, 248, 250, Grp rhcory 603
phikrsophyof, 4t2, 4t4, 4t9, 425, 443, r 67, 169,173,r 80, 1 8 9 - 1 9 1 , 2 0 1 , 2 0 3 , 2\8. 259. )64-265, 267,272, 27\- Cna274
508,5 14-536,54t, 545,554,558,573, 205,2 t 5-216, 223,a24, 328, 348,4 t 4, 276, 279, 467, 492, 494495, 625, 641, Gcncalogics, 233-235,).43,273-275, 296,
582, 584-585, 589, 597, 6t2 43 t, 442,444,478, 485,487,495,175, 645. Steabo Ccology: Flood gcologr 473, 528-529, 535-536, 602, 6 t 0

690 691
 lNoex
"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, 3lO-
31t, 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, (>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
692
INos.x
of angcls,488 on rhc crcarionof man. 150, 162, 440, mr.rs of rhc Holy Mounrain),485
of G od, 95, l4l, 400 536,54) Harvard Universiry468
of thc originalcrcation,4ll, 569, 585 on rhc hcrcsyofthc pre-existcncc ofsouls, Hawaiianlnstitutcof Geophysics, 314
Gorc, Vicc-PrcsidcnrAl, 557, 559 345 Haz-ard, PaLrl, 315
Gould, StcphcnJay,35, 59,298, 306, 315, on rhc hcrcsyof thc prc-cxisrcnccof ttre Hean of th Mancr (Tcilhard, de Chardin),
468469 , 56t , 569-57 0 body,336,44G-441 t80
Cr ac c ,160, 170- 171,1 8 8 - 1 9 0 ,1 9 4 , 1 9 8 - on rhc hc.csy of rhc lransmiSrationof Heavcn,447. 477, 488,49t,550,555,587,
t99, 247, 347, 349, 422, 432434, s o u l s .l 1 9 , 3 1 0 5 9 7 ,6 tl
438-440, 448449, 481, 483, 488, on thc imageofGod in man,149 disringuishcdfrom Paradise, 487
492, 54t , 569, 573 , 5 8 1, t 8 7 , t 8 9 , 6 0 0 , GregoryPalamas, St., 81,85, 17l, 173,245, Hcber,274, 280
60.3,610.SraataJcsusChrist:graccof 376, 406,437, 439, 492, 516-5 17, 566, Hebrcw languagc,217. 233, 247, 296, 394,
in the crcarionof man, 436 568,601 474,497, U4
lossof, 430 on sccularand thcologicalknowlcdge, Hebrcws,143,274.Sr alto)cws
Gradualisnr,Darwinian, 468, 557, 561 423424 origin of thc namcof, 274
Grahrml;rnd,493 on rhc agcofAdam, 540 Hcgcl,Gcorg,287, 562, 565
Grand Architccr (of dcism),54(t547 on thc dcathofAdam, 207 Hcgclianism,558,595
GrandCanyon,298, 302,460,630 on rhc distincrion berwccntheologyrnd HeidclbcrgMan, 426
Grand Canyon: Monumtnt to Catastrophc sccularknowlcdge,286 Hcldcr,Margarcr,643
(Austin),460,(r45 GrcgorytheSinaite, St.,45,79,81,328, )76, Helioccntrism. 2()1,620. seealsoCopcrni-
Grand Inguitiror (Dostoycvsky),369 4r3, 4t5-416, 443-444, 446, 456, can modcl
Grassd. PicrrcI1,29 485,516,536 Hell,447,478,488,587
Gnar Alashan Dinotaur Alvcnurc \D,wis, "cightprimaryvisions"of, 416 Hclvltius,Claude,318
Lisron,!?hirmorc), 643 vision of Paradise of, 166 Hcrcry 2l(r, 290, 292,332, 335, -138,34i.
(Sr. Crcgoryo1 Nyssa),7u 365,374,405,452,515
GreatCatccbism Gregorythc Thcologian,St., 75,79,85, 102,
Grat Dinoraur Myrtry (vidco by Prul Tay. t 42, t7 0- t7 t , 328,376,39 t ,397, 400, Hcrmanof Alaska,St.,253
tor),644,648 402, 406407 , 434, 443, 480,607 Herman(Podmoshcnsky), h,22, 45, 523,
Grcat Dinosaur Mytcry and tfu Bibh lPaul on man asa "mixturc" of rwo worlds, 147, 525,528,543
Taylor),648 163 Hcsychasm,406, 423
Grrat Dinotaur MytzrL Solocd(Ham), 642 on Paradise,170 Hcxacmtmn(St. Ambrosc),73, 333, 335, 536
644 on (hc crcationofman, 609 Hcxaemtmn(St. Basil),73, 86, 93, 99, 284-
Crcat Nesrof Bcing,559 on rhc na.urcof man, 160-161,434 285, 332, 334, 375, 386, 393, 398, 5 t 6,
Crccce,245, 456, 484, 490. 492, 531, 605 on rhcgcncafogrofCh risr,235,529,536 536,539,647
conscrvarivcclcrgy in, 542 on rhc (rcc of thc knowlcdgcof good an<t Hcxacmcmn(St. JohnofKronsradt),79
Grcek astronomy,620 evil,t73, 405,407,5t7 Hinduism,383, 452, 476, 548,562
Crcck chronolory, 23(r G r i b b i n ,J o h n ,6 1 6 Hippolyrusof Romc,St.,522
Grcck OrrhodoxArchdioccscofAmcrica, 25, Grigg, Ruscll M., 642, 644445 Hiss,Alger,548
340, 342, 345,346,372,5t4,5t() Grou'th of a Prhktoit Tim? Srd& (Bcrry), Hirory ofRutsia, A (Riasanovsky),2,36
Crcckphilosophy,10r, 478,473, 476, 4r2, 110,457 Hic Rcporton ttu Fami4r323, 431
5t 3, 539 Gudnon, Rcnd,l9-20 H i r c,Sh cr c,3 2 3 ,4 3 1
G r c ek , 273, 289, 318 Hidcr,Adolph,275
Crcenhouseeffcct, | 17, 269, 493 Hadcs,260 Holy Farhcrs
()rccnland,427, 493 Hacckel,Ernst,52, 293, 302, r30, ,37 "conrradic(ionsbcrwccn,498
(ircgoryol Nyssa,St.,73, 76,78, 103-t05, Hacckel! [-aw, 52-53. Src a&o Emt>ryologyt lovcfor,95, 381-382,415, 124-525
I20. r38, r54, t89, 223, 33t, 376, Rccrpitulariontheory scicncc and,612, 623
388-390, 397, 399, 438, 523, 537, 569, Ham (son of Noah), 243,247,256,269, H o l y Sp i r i r ,1 0 7 , 1 0 9 - l 1 0 , 1 4 7 , 3 7 1 ,3 9 3 ,
t 96. 608 { r 0, 6ll 273-274 43t , 436, 438, 440, 59 t , 593
againstthc confusionof naturcs,6l 3 Ham, k* 603, 642443,646 graccof, 160
in defcnseof rhc institutionof marriage, Handbook of Biblical Chronolog (Fincgan), Holy Triniry,lO7, 109, 146,2t4, 279, 316,
236 543,568
on rhc "coatsofskins,"212 Hanlbool of Spirituat Colzrl (Sr. Nicodc- 'tonsulration"of, 145, 147
693
 IHoax INoEx

Holy lrinitv Monastcry/Scminary, Jordan- 4t 9 Sr.,Apostlc,407

J.rnrcs, lohnChrysosrom, St.,6a,72,74,88,9194,
villc,Ncw York,78, 328,433 miraclcs oi, 593 Japan,644 98, 103,125,140- 141, 147,158.16l,
tlonilics on 6ezar (Sr. John Chrysostom), ofbodics in rhc resurrcction,443 Japhcth(sonof Noah)
, 243,247,256,269 187-ltt8, l9l. 198. 200, 202-203,
72, 93, 205, 232, 270, 536, 636 of man in the h.Binntn1,212.444445, 270,272-275 2t7,2a2-233,272,2a6.333.337 ,34),
Homilict on Romans(Sr. John Chrysosrom). 592 Jarcd,234.240,24t 376, 398399, 40o, 4o4. 4t 4. 4t 9. 5t
4 14 of the wholc c.earion in the beginning, J^vaMan,355,42642 7, 505, 602 536, 544, 606, 609. 622, 624. 636
Hominids,410, 556, 585 t 57, t62, 212,351.4t 3, 4t8. 421,483, Thomas,
Jcffcrson, 316 on Adamnaming rheanimals,
177,4 12
t70mo?f.atut,4l/ ,4 /v 59| -r92,607 346,348,355-356,166,
.Jesuirs, 377,425, onAdamoursideParadise,22l
n0mo ,rabtltt,4/ | Paradiscplaccd bctwccn corruption and, 463 on Adamt sin,205
Homosapien,427,472 t66,456 fcsusChrisr,Lord, 89, l0l, 106, 137,142, on Cain and Abel,227
Hopc, 208 lndia, 476, 489, 565, 642 153,| 84, 243,343,)60. 38t, 424,479, on Evc.s punishmerrt, 204
Hopcful Monster thcory,468 InferiorirycomplcxamongOrrhodoxChrrs" 483, 486, 49t, 557, 572-574, 577, on incorruptionlxforc thc fall,208,414
Horeb, Mounr, 92 tians,537,60 1, 605 584-585,624,637 on Noah.258, 263. 269-270
Ho r s c s,135, 494 Inbtit thc Vin/,466 asCrcaror,107.390,523 on Parrdise. 165, 176,444
hypothericalevolutionof, 307 lnstiturcforCrcationR cscarch. 32,).94,457, asGod, 491 on thc "sonsofGod," 245, 499
Hottagcto theDoil\Fr.Malachi Manin), 575 46t. 538, 6 r-619. 629-{,30, 645. asSaviour,272, 556, 57 1 (rrealroRedemp- on thc agcofmankind,602
Howe, Georgc.302 648449 rion; Salvarion) on thecreationofEve,184.403,540,(rI I
Howcll, F.Clark, 356 Intcrmcdiatc fbnns. Jlra rransitiooal(inrcr- is rhc Lighr,491 on drecrcationofmen, l(r0,402
Human Dutiny(Lrcomte du Noiiy), -342 mediate)forms a st h c S c c o n dA d a m , 1 90 ,2 1 6 ,3 5 1 ,4 1 9 , on rh€ carrh bcing curscd.20(r,230
Humanism,lf,, -l16,518, 576,597,639 Intcrprctarionof Scripturc,(106 430,439,445, 481 on rhc rivcrsof Paradisc, ll7, | 68- | 69, 403
Human nature.J'rr Man: natureof allc gor ic al, 6970. 85 8 7 . l 0 t . 1 6 8 , l 7 l , iu Trurh, 20 on rhc (cmprationofAdanrand Evc, 196.
Hurnc,David,ll9, 323, 3(r9 9 t, 2t 6, 337, 345,)7 5, 388.392-395, crcarionby, 145, 148,337 480
Hu m i l iry,202, 430 ,45 2 402, 405-.407,4t8-4t9. 499, 556. Crucifixion ol 66, 214, 2.16.556, 592 on theTowerofBabcl,276, 279
Humphrcys,Russell,64 I 587, 592,647 dcsccntinto hadcsof, 66, 2(r0 on thc rwo rreesin l)eradisc,174
Huxlcl Aldous,137 lneraf,69-70, 8G87, t77, laD, t84,295, disciples o1,478, 491 on virginiryin Paradise,223
Huxlcy,Jufian.16, 18,24, 137,352,356, 337, 375, 392,393, 395, 399, 40t- frith in, 583, 585. 589 Jo h n D r m ffccn c,Sr .,7 0 .7 8 . 8 0 , t6 8 , t7 t.
359, 5 t9, 607 406,4 t2, 4 t5, 4t8, 423,442, 499,5 t7, gcnealogo1233,235,528-529,536,6t0 332,137,376,39 | -392, 397.405,4 | 1,
Hnxlcy,'fhomasHenry,16,293,295,356 5)t, 539, 542-543, 602, 606, 609- graccof, 48, 490 4 18,440. 480,489, 168, t98
Hybrids,136,295 61t , 6t 7, 647 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 , ,'n man. boJy and s,rulhcingcrcatedsi-
mystical, 85, 87. to6. 164,214,4o5 4rt.529,540,564,571 nrulrancously,| 62, 335, 439440, 5e r ,
lce agc, 467, 645 rc lisric,l71,622,647 on rhebcginningof thc world, I50, 228 610
ldealisnr.565 symbolical.85-87, 407, 517, 528,515, on rhc slayingofAbcl, 228 on Paradise, 172,i76
l do l a r ry491. 54 8 6ll rcsrorarion ofour originalnatureby,351, on the Six Days,J27
IgnatiusBrianchaninov, Sr., Bishop,288, lntcrpntarion of c Booh of thc Biblc (Sr. 4 3 0 - 4 3 1 ,4 8 1 on thc trcc of (hc knowlcdgcof good and
289, 446 Ephraimthc Syrian),72 resurrcctcdbody oi 49t cvit, t73
Illunrination, Divine,172, 445 I nv olur ion. 559 Rcsurrccrionot, 66, 78, 208, 212, 351, on virginiryin Paradisc, 152
ImageofGod. SzrMan:imagcofGod in Ioncsco,Eugcnc,369 445,478,556,587,593 on why God madcthc world, l4l
Imagination, 483, 485-{86 lrrcduciblccomplcxiry,57 sacrificcof, 213 John Maximovirch,Sr.,Archbishop,22, 48
Immortaliry207, 2t0, 214, 351, 429, 435, Isaacthc Syrian,St., 78, 79, 89, 9 l, 288, )43, SccondComing of, 204, 242, 416, 436, John of Kronstadt, Sr., 79, 284, 286, 333,
437438, 444, 448, 483, 488, 555, 597. 376, 4t5,595 490 6t2
Jiz a/raSoul: immortality of on thc ageofrhe world,236,540,602 1iansfiguration of, 40G-407 John PaulIL Pope,349, 565
lmpcrsonalGod, concepro(, 561, 567-569. Isaiah, Abba,430 virginbinh of, 182,591 _fohnrhc Baptisr,St.,228
5 75, 57\ ) Isaiah,Prophct,497 Jcuish Apocallptic Hcritagc in Earll Chritiar John thc Thcologian, St., Apostlc. 94, 107,
Impliutiont oJEvolutior(KcrkuO, 29 Islam/Moslcms, 548 i4 Thc(YandcrKamandAdlcr), 244 407
In karch ol thc MistingLink lDarr),527 Isochronnrcrhod,6J0.Saaa/roRrdiomctric J c w s . l 1 2 , 2 0 4 , 2 4 4 , 2 6 7 ,2 7 2 . Se a ko John,Gospclof St.,574,624
ln th Minlt ol Mcn \h n 1'aylor)..316.352. daring Hcbrcws Johnson,Hcwletr,372
6 42, 646 Isotopcs, 1nc.,635 Joachimof Fiorc,371,374 Johnson,Phillip E., t5, 3742, 4849, 56,
Incorruption,4647, 157, 187, 207-2tJ8, k^ly,77 , 34.) Job,Righrcous, I |0, I15,141,433,489,U4 300,306,308,129,355,466,468469,
1 43,4t54t6, 4t9 , 4 42 ,55 5, 597 John Cassian, *.245, 432, 433,435,525, 545, 584-585, 600, 638439, 647, 649
cannot be undcrsroodby natr.rralscience, Jacob,Patriarch,499-500 601 Jo l y,Jo h n ,6 3 l

694 695
 lppex INoex

Jonah,Prophct,272, 274 rcvcalcd,417, 609 Lrrcralrnrerprerlionof Scriprurc. 5rr lnter- crearion of, 78,83, ll7, 143,144,l4r.
Joscphus. Flavius,244 scientific,
286, 288, 290, 316, 318, 320, prcrarionof Scripturc:litcral t 47, t 48, 150, 157- t t 9, 185, r 9l,
Joshuabrr'Nun, 272 408,4 t 54 16,425,445,5 t 2, 59), 623 Litcral Mearing of Genai, Th (Blcssed 29t , 335, 337, t 9t , 397,4|, 423,
JudgmcnrofGod, 204, 575 sccular,283-284, 286, 288, 424 Augustinc), 79, 102 429-430, 436, 439-440, 449, 4r7,
JuliusAfricanus, 242,245 (hcologicai.286, 288, 290, 292, 3 16, 4 16, Locke,John,318 540,586,609, 622,634,638
lrpircr 462 423,425 Logoiof crcaturcs,485,587 dominion ovcrlowcrcrcation of, 145,149,
farusic GcohgJol thc \VorA grkcll),493 KolomcnskoyeMuscum,Moscow,378 Long rlhr ageinx God, I/z (Hcnry Morris), t53-t54, t77, r80, 188,4r2-413
Jrrstin Martyr, St.,499 Kook, Abrahamlsaac,565 298,646 fallcnnaturcof, 210,481,483,486.571
Kosturos,Fr Anthony,J45-346 tosskl Vladimir, 434, 567-569 lleshof,diffcrcnt afrcrthcfaII.443,445
(abbalah,56J, 167 Kuhn,Thomas,57 Lot, Righreous,255 image ofGodin, 149-l5l,154,157, 163,
Kafla, Franz,369 love l6t, 170, 189, 428429, 43t-432,
(ahlcr, Erich,555 La6ot,2Q6,2l I ofGod for rnan,103, 160,I88, 199-200, 434435,4)7, 439440,480,t87,600
Kalomiros,Alexandcr,2G30, 35, 404 l, 50, l-acentius,499 2 0 3 , 2 r 0 , 4 0 0 , 1 6 9 ,t 86 irrbrcathing of, 162,436,438440
52, 379, 381, 4t0, 437, 503,514-5t5, Lake Rudoll Kcnya,(r28 ofman for Cod, ll4,569,584 instantaneously nradc,162
522-527, 532-534, 536-537, 540- Lamarck.Chcvalicr dc, 297,299, 451 Lubenow, Marvin L., 3ll, 521, 628429, Iikencss of Godin, 149,170,432,440
5 44. 607,6t0 ,61 3 L^m.ch, 233-234, 243 640 natrrre of, 46, 149-150,154,160,180,
Kant. lnrmanucl,369 l:sr Judgmcnt, 590. Stc abo Judgment of Lukc, St.,Apostlc,529 t90, 2t2, 350,390,422423, 428-
Kcnya NationalMuscum,628 cod Lukc,Gospclof St.,528-529 429, 43r-432, 434-435,437-443,
Kcrkut, G. A., 29 taughlin,Villiam S.,427 LunarSocicry321 452,480, 483,526,t<)t, 598,601, 609,
tQromiakov,Alcksci,5 l6 Lewrcncc Livcrmorc Narional l-aborarory, Lyell,Charles, 298, 310-31I 6t 4
(in&, 2(r,38, 123,133,139,297.300,308, 635 naturcof, corruptcdat rhc fall,429430,
329-.330, 334, 385-387, 469, 476, Lawrcncc,Jcromc,466 Macarius of Oprina,Sr.,287 445,448,481
516, 639,642 Lcad isoropes,631-634 Macarius rhcCrcat,Sr.,78,7r,85,208,214, originaldcsignation of, 172
as creaturcscapablcof bcaringfcrtilc off- Lrakcy,Louis,355, 470, 527 3 7 6 , 4 0 5 , 4 t 4 , 4 4 6 , 4 90 originalnerureof,42,4647, 189,194,
s pring,lJ4,2 96 Lcakcy,Mary, 470 Macrina,5t., 330, J.l,l 216,35|. 409,422,43t,438,449,48t,
confusion of, linkcd to moral relativism, Lcakcy, Richard.3l l, 470,472,628,640 Madagascar,306 483,485,495,540,6tl
137 l.ccomtcdu Noiiy, Picrrc,342-343, 363, 519 Making of Mankind, Ilr (tuchard Lcakcy), originally vegcrarian,
155,266
distinctncssand integriryof, 136-138, dcismof, 344 472 soulof, l5l, 160-162,182,2O7,435,
387-389,608,6t2-4t3 l-cc,Robcrt,459 Makingof thc Modcm Mind, Ttu (Randal.,, 437439, 441,443,481,609 (rc aLo
do nor ncccssarily corrcspondto thcspccicr t-ce,Robcrt8.,466 570 Soul)
of modcrntaxonomy,134.470 trhigh Univerciry639 Malc and fcmale,divisbn inro, 128, 145, spccialncss ofthe crcarionof, 609
mainraintheir narurcro ihc end of timc, Lcibniz,Gonfried, 520 | 50, | 57,234,250-25| ,256,586,6tI spiritof, 160,172,434437,43,
| 34-t 35 Lcmaitrc.Abbd Gcorgcs,463 division of, madc in forcknowlcdgcof the stands bctwccnrwoworlds,434
variarions wirhin, 296,469 Lcnin,Vladimir,373,547 t a l l ,1 5 1 - 1 5 2 , 4 1 3 Manhattan Proiccr,635
wcnt inro thcArk, 250, 256 Lcninism,548 Mammals,J0l. Saea/roAnimals Manichecans, 475,489
KingJamesVcrsion,217,273 knt, Grcar,68, 72, 222, 524 Manrmorhs,494 MappingTim lRichztrls),236
KingdomofCod, 89, 137,572 Lconid(Kavclin),Fr.,287 Man,258,477 Marriagc, l5l-152, 185,244,248
(ingdom ofHcavcn,66,128,l:17,150-l51, LEuolutiondu uivanr\Crassu,29 age of,235,538-540, 594, 602, blcsscd by G od,152, 223
4 t 6,419, 59 7 Lcwontin,fuchard,60 610-61I prophccy of, 185
Kingdon ofMan and thc Kingdon ofGod, Thc Liberalism,modern,323, 566 asa mixtureof two worlds,147,163 Manugcof9ntcandSorl(Vilbcr),559,564,
(Fr.SeraphimRosc),21, 24, 33 Light, lll, 123, 445, Sccalro Uncrcatcd asqualirativcly diffcrcntfrom thc bcasts, 567
Kireyevsky, lvan Y. , 282, 287, 516, 606 l.ight 163,600 Mers,620
Klingcr, Fr. Ccorgc,374 crcariono[, I 10, ll2,14t,394 asrh. crownofcrcerion, l{3, 147,I88 Martin,Fr.Malachi, 366,373,575,577
KN-MER-1470skull,3 l l, 628,640 ofhcavcnlybodics,123 bodyandsoulcrcatcd simulrancously, t62, Martyrs,488. .Srra/roNcw Martyrsof Rus-
Knowlcdgc,438, 474, 535, 586 of thc sun, l2Gl27 J)s,4t9.44t,475,5 4t , 6t 0 liz
D i v i nc,614 or iginal,I 10, 128 body of, l5l, 160-162,165, 172, 180, Man, K.arl,323,339,373,547-548
nautal,284,416417 Likcncssof God. ScrMan:likcncssof 6od irr t82,185,205,207 -208,2t2,328,409, Marxism,137,339,366,a73,546,548-549,
narurcof, changcda( rhc fall, 445 Lincoln,Abraham,546 4tt,42t,423,434,4 36437, 439, 441, 570
poscsscdby Adam, 483 Lincsof dcsccnt, hypothctical,307,
553 443447, 475, 479, 48t , 609 Masonry(frccmasonry), 25, 321,507,546-
pscudoscicnrific, 512 Lions,135, 177,253,4t6 creatcd in grace, 160,439 547, 558, 570, 595

696 697
 rNDEX Inorx

Masoreticrext oi rhc OId'lcsramcnr,296, Morrrrnisrn,3T4 rcplaccsCod es rhc ccntralconcept,3) 7. N i n cvch ,2 7 2 ,2 7 4

474. .?a alo Hcbrew languagc Moon, 45, r08, t25-t26, t28,492 520,570 Niphon, BishopofConsranria, Sr.,597
Matcrialisnr. 20, 38, 6l-{'2.289, 33O,545. belorcthc fall, 44 Nature,Divinc,567-569, 571, 587 Noah, Rightcous,l17. l19, 169,242-243,
549, 553, 56t , 564, 626, 632, 634 crcarcdwirh rhc appcaranceof agc, 14.1, Narrrrcsof createdthings,47, 86, 135, 573, 246, 248, 25 t, 252, 254, 255, 257, 258,
dialectical,54(r 634 6t2-6t 3 260, 262, 263. 264, 266-267. 268,
scicntific, 545-546,159-560,57| crca(ionof, 123, 124, 462 confusionof, 6l3 269..270, 304, 492493, 495. Sa aLo
Mathcmatics,18. 39, 289, 317,342,349. Moraliry, | 37. .Se:,r/roRelrrivism:moral distinctionbcrwccn,332, 334, 541, 554, Covcnantsbctwccn(lod and nran
462 More Drffc ricsof rh Lrolution fhcory (Dc- 5 9 5 , 6 0 8 , 6 l 2 {, l 3 animalsat pcaccaround,253
M a t t c r ,89, 104, ll3 -11 4. 1 48 , 169, 328 war ) . 506. 617 NcandcrrhalMan, 324, 426427, 472, 52 1, as rhc fa(hcr of all living after rhe Flood,
329, 369, 43t, 445446, 475, 495, Morgan,ThonrasHunr, 352 576,601. 263,269,273
t52 55:1,t59-560, 580. 587 Morris, Hcnry, .30-.31,3(r, 256,277.298, Necrrriosof Pcntapolis, St., 154 451, 516, covcnanr wirh, I l8
rcfincd,478 .102,-304-J06,310, .31.3.352, 45y 638 dovesent by, 2('1, 262, 263, 268
Matthcw,Cospclof Sr.,528 460,467, 493. 496, 588, 603, 60 t, (, | 0. Ncktary(Konrzcvirch), Bishop,22 gcncrationsof, 247, 273, 275
Matthcws,L. Hlrrison,322 631\,64t442.644447 Nco-Drrwinian synrhcsis,16, 29. 35-36, givcn permissionto eat Rcsh,I18, 265,
Maximusthc Confcssor, St.,85, 209, 40(> Morris,fohn,305, -31l, 1t 3-3t4, 64t. 643 309, 468, 545, 557, 560-561 4 t2
407. 485 Moscr-rw, 172-373,588,642 Nco-paganism. 569, 571. 586 prophccy6y, 272
Mayr,[rnst, 134 M os c s Pr
, opher4344,
, 47, 64, 85, 89., Ncoplatonism. 5(r7-5(r8 righrcousness of, 247. 249-250, 254
Mburi pcoplc,471 9t ,92-94,15, tot,104, I t2-t t5, t22, NcwAgc, 344, 366, 371, 564 sacrificc of, 264
Medirarion,548, 558,572, 578 r30. 159' r60. 162.l6 5,250,269,336. Ncw Chrisrianiry, 374, 452,551, 572 witc o(, 249, 25 | , 256, 263
Mcmory,485 J43, 39l, 400,407,4 | 7, 424,4 37,440, Ncw hcavcnand neweanh,45,247,351 Noah's Ark: A Fa:ibility S*/y (Voodmo-
Mcrcl of Cod, 227, 230, 2(t5 452, 492,496. 564,6t 4, 622 'Ncw man,"555 raPPc), 251
Mcsoporanria,276 Mothcr ofGod, Mosr Holy, 184,203,215, New Marryrsof Russia,490 Nod, landof, 221, 232
Mest'tgtr ,tf tfu Ruttian Student (.hrithn 392, 4t1t.564 Ncw Rcligion/new religious consciousncss, Nocbcl, D:rvid A., 646, 648
Moucntnt, 37 3-374 Murarorc,Stcphcn,40 546,549 55t. 560,572.,579 Noospherc(conccprofTcilhard dc Chardin),
Metaphysics, 549.552,154,557,567, 604- Mutations,3U,53, 136,299, 308-309,468, r h c " C h r i s i 'o f , 5 7 1 358,36{r,510, 550, 566, 574
6 06. 608.6 1| 5it, 56 r, 600, 6.39 Ncw Sticntit, 616 Northcn Tbcbaid, l hc, 213
McreorA, Grcccc,77, 179,395,456,484 Myttcryof Lrft! Origin (Thaxton er al.), 505 Ncw Testament,95, 256, 371, 374-375, Not bl Chance!lSpatncr),38, 309. 470, 6.19
Mctcoritcs,6S3 Mysticalnrcaningof Scripture..9rrInterprc- 540.593 NOVA. 53
Mcrhusclah, | 19, 232, 234, 242-243 tarion of Scrip(ure:mysrical Ncw ValnamThcological Acadcmy,32-33,
Mctropolia,Amcrican,37 2-373. SccakoOr - Mysrical I hcology ol cht Eatttrn CLurth 65 Obltoiou Susraind(lohnson),39, 468, 638,
thrxlox Church in Amcrica (Lossky),434 Ncw world ordcr. 24 64t)
Mcvcndorff,Fr.John,373, 375 Myrhology,pagan,89, 445 Ncwton,Sir lsaac,296, .31G317,320-321, Old Calendarisrs, 543
Michacl,Bishop,529 Myrhohgy ol Modarn Dating Mahod: (VoorJ- Old canh/progrcssivc 98, 125,
crcarionism,
-160,519-520
Michclangelo. 107 nrorappe), 641 Newtonianmcchanistic universc,5 I 8-52 I 2 5 4 ,3 8 9 ,4 r 0 , 5 8 5 ,6 0 3
M i c h i g an, 457,6 19 Ngaumhoc,Mount (Ncw Zcaland),314 Old Tcstamcnr,65. 73, 235, 296, 371, 374
Middlc Ascs.Jr t, 3 r8-320, 350 Nagarjuna.567 Nicephorus,discipleof St. Andrew rhc Fool 375, 535,539,540-541,583,594,602,
Miller, Hugh,603 NarionalAssociationof Biology Tcachcrs for Chrisr.167 610,644. 5.. dlr, Masorcricrcxti Patri-
Millcr, Kcnncth,5.1 ( NAB] ) , 5l Nicodcmusof thc Holy Mountain,Sr.,485 archs(Old Tcsrrmcnr);&pruagint ccxr
"Millionsofyears"schcma.SarEvolutionary NatronalCcnrcrfbr ScicnccEducation,51, Nicrnrann,D. lre, 644 OId Tcsramcntprophcts,94
rimcscalc 6t 9 Nietzsche,Friedrich,293, 551, 554-556, OlduvaiGorge,471
Mikon. Richard,I-14,l0l--105, -107.310 Natrrralsclccrion,294, 29t, 309, 353, 468, 563 Olscn. RogcrL., 505
1 t t , 3 t 3-3 t 4, 46 t. 47 |, 6 38 ,649 553,557,561) Nihilism,22,554-555 Olson,EvcrcttClairc,17
Mirrclcs,317, 593,600, 60(>608 Naturafism.f 6. 20-21, 5 i, 55,60. 62, 126, Nihilitm: Thc Root of thc Rcwlution of thc Omcga Point (conccprof Ibilhard dc Char-
Mivart,Sr.GeorgcJackson, 294, 370 3t 6, 325,338,4 t9420, 425,434.521, Molem Agc(Fr.SeraphimRose),22, 49 din), 364-365, 372-373, 376, 510,
Modern Gnk Philotophtn on thc Hnnat Soul 530,546,548,569,t85, 633, 635 Nikolacopoulos,Ccorgc,254 552, 555, 565, 577-578, 582
(Cavrrnos). 451 Narurc,l0l, 290, 316-317, 324, 334, 337, Nile Rivcr,494 On Hcrcsict(Sr. John Damascenc),332. 405
Molccularbiology,36. 600, (r38,(,4(> 365, 408,4t 7, 55) NilusofSinai,St., 170 On Philotopfu(Sr. loh,nDamasccnc),332
Molcculargcnctics, 29 la,!tof, 4t5, 4t8, 442, 594, 61t NilusofSora,St., 170 On thc Crcarionofrhc lVarly'(Sr.John Chry-
Monophysitisnr, 338 I'arrisricphilosophy of, 6l3 Nilus drc Myrrh-gushcr, St.,597 sosrom),72
MonrcaleCathcdral. Sicily,| 32, 23i rcmindsusofParadise, 190 Nimrod,274 On thc GtncsitofSptcitt (Mivan), 294

698 699
 INnex Inrex

OnrhcMakingofMan(St. Grcgoryof Nyssa), PachomiosofMount Athos, Fr, 78 lifcspanof, tt9,234-236, 497, 499- Pomazanskl Fr. Michacl, 284-285, 520,
73,5 2 3 Paganism,287, 3t6, 435, 445, 567-569, t00 534,600, 2
Or thcOriginof Man(St.Basil),73 57t - 574, 586 Patristicphilosophy,612-61 3 PomonaCollcgc, l8-20
OnthcOrthodox Faith(St.JohnDamasccne), Pagels, Elainc,571 PaulofObnora,St.,213, 253 PonrificalAcadcmyof Scicnccs,.149
78, t68,327,332,489 Pain,204, 206, 208, 2t t, 329 Paul,St., Aposrlc,45, 107,120, 138, 152, Ptrpc,Alcxandcr,519-520
On tb Rcsuncction (St. Grcgoryof Nysa), PaisiusVelichkovsky,St., 170 t 64, 190,242,244 ,249, 351, 373, 375, Porassium-argon dating,309-3 10, 3 t 2-J 14,
613 Palcobiohg1,306 422, 424, 432,436437, 445,477,48 t, 460,627429,634
On tbz TrinirylBlessed, Augustinc),79 Paleonrofogy,36, 53, 56, 84, 295, 302, 304- 490,574 Prayer,l 7O,256, 269, 352, 429
Onc Blood: Tfu &bhol Antwr to Racism 305,3t2, 347,349,355,426, 469,472, caughtup to Paradis.andrhe third hca"cn, mcntal,170,420
(Ham,Vieland.Bartcn),646, 648 527, 599400, 629 t65-167 perfcct,416
Oneworldgovernment, 547-548 Panenthcism, 552, 559, 561, 570-57 |, 574, PckingMan, 355, 426, 505 Prc-cxisrencc of souls,hcresyof, 162, 330,
OptinaMonastcry, 22,44,516,644 578,584 Pclagianism, 601 335, t38, 440,47147 6, 536,613
Origcn,162,330,335,4O5,440,475476 Panrhcism, 216. 356, 552, 570-57t, 574 Pcleg,274,280 Prc-existcnceof thc body,hcrcsyof, 162,335,
Originof Spcciet (CharlcsDarwin),15,54, I'aradisc, 4547,70, 73, 79, 88,92, 153,t75, Peppcrcdmorh crpcrimcnt, 55 440
290,293 t 89, 192, 194, 1 9 8 , 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 , 2 r 3 , Pcrsia,642 Prchisto11600, 607
Origint6 Daign.41, 51,398,646,649 2t5-216, 228, 242-243, 324. 350, PcnonalGod, 550, 567-568, 57 |, 175, 586, Prepodobnymczning of, 253
O'Rourke, J. E.,3l I 403, 405-406, 4t4, 42t, 429-430, t89 Pridc, 192, 207, 260, 275, 277
Onhodoxcalendar, 236,474 442, 444-445, 447448, 478, 481, PctctDarnarcenc,St., 490 Prin.ipii Math.mati.a (Ncwron), 3 | 7
OrrhodoxChristianiry, 20, 22. 38, 253, 484, 486, 515-536, 541, 154, 583, 588, Pctcr,St.,Apostlc,256,260, 407, 598, 607 Ilincipbs of Enbryobgl (Vaddingron), 5lI
28(r- 288, 290-292,340-34t. 345, 596, 598, 602, 6l l, 622, 637, 650. Scc Pharisces, 432, 594 hintiph of Gcohp (Lycll). 298
394, 405407, 4t8, 452, 507-508, a/raFirst-crcatedworld Pharoah, 9l, 499 Progress, 19,2 1,24, 3 | 8, 320-321, 324, 360,
51 6 ,5 6 7 as diffcrcnt from thc rcst of thc original Phcnomcnon ofMan, I}l (TLilharddc Char- 3 7 3 ,5 5 4 ,5 6 6 ,5 7 0 ,5 9 6
OrrhodoxChristians, 25-26,32-33,404 1, crcarion,lt6, 177,478 din!,356,372 Progrcssivccrcarionism.Sra Old-carth/pro-
46 , 6 t, 8 4 , t 90, 222, 283, 3 4 0 -3 4 t, asscmi'mercrial, 167, 171,477478,495 Philarctof Moscow,Sr.,Mctropolitan,79 grcssivccrcationism
344-145,159, 37t-372, 376, 38t- a5srilfcxistingnow, 164, 169,414,487 Philo of Alexandria,244 Prophecy,94-95, 187. 192, 317, 498, 546,
382, .196,418, 44t, 446447, 44r, banishment from,66, l5l,167, 186,190, Phihkalia. 207, 209, 4t 3, 438, 446, 485, ,83,597,622
452-453,5t2-5t4, 528, 533, 539, 209,2 1r,2t 4,2t7, 378, 421,42', 480, 490,536,540 of rhc past,343, 622
544, 573, 58t, 588,589,t98-599, 494495,622 Phihnphic zoobgiqw (|.:marck), 297, 451 Prntcstantism, 31, 43, 51,316, 3lt, .383,
606,612 cannot be known about rhrough natural ''Philosophyof rhc Absurd (Fr. Senphim 4t8, 423,434,497,5t 4, 5 t9, 525,582,
Orrhodox Church.72,232,236,292,352, sciencc,449 Rosc),369 6 0 1 ,6 1 0 ,6 1 8 ,6 2 2
37t, 420, 429,437, 445,473, 479, locarionof, l6!-165, t67-169,27t , 477, l'hilorhcouMonasrcryMount Athos.JJJ Providencc,142, 354, 5 19, 54 1, 624
496-498, 507 508, 5tt, 542, 494 Physics,36, -149 Psalms,496
555, 588, 62t'[0,422, 624 natureof, 164-165,167, l7l,328,477 Pilbcam,David,472 Pscudo-rcligion, 20, 507,512
Divincscrviccs of, 208,376, 4ll, 418, originally part of thc carth,494 PiltdownMan, 355, 426, 47 1, 505 Pseudoscicncc, 29, 5 12
430 placcdbctwccn corruption and incorrup- Pishon(rivcr of Edcn), 168 Pscudo-spiritualiry, 546-547
OrthodoxChurchin Amcrica(OCA),25, tion, 166-167, 187, 20,, 328, 414, Pius lX, Popc,370 Psychicand spiritual,confusionof,554,
42t,456 Phrc of Rlesed Augurtin. in thc Orthodox 578
"Orthodoxevolutionists,'
408, 519, 521, plantingof, 157, 164, 166, 404, 420 Chwch, Thc (Fr. Scnphim Rosc), 79 Psychicrcality,20, 550, 564, 574
Sedlro'Chrisrian
530,540-542. cvolu- plantsin, 167, 17D,415,456,477 Planets, 458, 46 l, 464, 492, 620, 633 Psychicsclcction (conccpr of Tcilhard dc
tionism riversof, 87, 168,494 Plants,58, l2J, 126, 142, 155, 173, l9O, Chardin\,553,557
Ort hodot Obtcrttn 340, 345 visionsof, 165-167,328, 456,477, 487- 334, 387,393, 462, 476,625 Psychology, 488, 558, 566,618
t)rrh,'dox ThcoloBicrlSocicryof Amcrica. 488 c r c a t i o no f , l 0 l - 1 0 2 , l 2 l - 1 2 2 , 1 3 0 ,1 3 3 , Prcrodactyls, 306
352 I'arapsychology, 578 t38, 157,408,477 Ptolemaic model,294,J01. 458, 461, 466
Onhodor \Yod, 67, 369, 597 Perts,342,373 distincrncsofkinds of, 138 Puncruatcd equilibrium,35, 56, 469, 561,
Orrhodox worldvicw,549 Parisianschool of Orthodox rhcology,373- in Pandisc,166, 170,414,477 567,569-570
Orthodory and th Rcligion of the Funn (Fr. 374 originallygivcn ro man for food, 155 PuzzlcofAndcnr Man lChirrick), 646
ScraphinrRosc),371, 4U-465, 572, Pas s ions154,
, 156,18 0 ,1 8 7 ,1 9 0 ,1 9 8 , 2 1 5 , Plato,289 Pythagoras/Pythagorcan philosophy,356,
582,597 269, 429, 432, 444, 541 Platonism,569 492
Outcr-spacebcings.Jar Extratcrrcsrrials. Parriarchs(Old Tlsramcnr), 169, 233, 235, Plotinus,567
Owcn, Richard, 17 248,272, 409. 473, 495,535 , 583, 594 Polygcnism, 325, 346, 535,6l I Qratcmar1 Era (Charlesworrh), 494

700 701
 IN o e x INorx

Radiomctricdating,2{1,42,56, 309-112, Rcligio-scicntificsynthcsis.Sre scienccand R o m c ,6 4 , 1 9 7 , 2 6 2 , 3 3 1 Scicnccand rcligion,combinationof, J56-

3 t 4 , 420. 535, 540, 627-629 ,631 ,631t. rcligion,combinationof Ross,Hugh,410, 603 357, 369, 549, 559, 564-566, 570-
640441. Scca/ro Carbon 14 dating; RcnarAabhRrotd ofloE(Hcnry Morris), (r44 Rossi,Fr Andrcw, 40 5 7 t,5 8 8 ,5 9 6 ,6 0 5
lsochronmcthodrPorassium-argon dac Renaissencc, 21, 315, 3l8, 320, 570 Rubidirrm-strontiumdxing, 626, 630 Scicnce ficrion,464.500, 505
ingi Rubidium-srrontium dating;Ura- Rensch, Rcrnhard, (rl7 Rnssia,236. 287, 352, 490, 513, 519, 533, Sriezra (journal),304,427,467, 531
nium dcceydating Rcpcnrancc,200-204, 222, 227, 228. 230, 547,588,642,644 Srnzra (iournal).619
lxsed on faith in matcrialism, (;2(r,632, 244,253,258.488,572 RussianRcvolution,490 Stiurtft Crcationitn (Henry Mo.ris), -ll-
634435 Rcprilcs,139, lll8,247,250,258, 260, 263, Ru*Q Pahnnih.66 .12,302, 304-306,310, 3t3, 459460,
basedon reicctionof supcrnaturalacrivity, 266,301, 306.332,393.4 r 1, 469,553 465, 49-1,538, 618, (,)8, 643,647
6 26, 612 marinc,l-13 S a b b a t hl,4 l , 5 9 4 Scicnrific crerrionists, JO-31,38,4243, 48,
brscd on unifrrrmitarianassumptions, namcdby Adam, | 77 Sagzn,Carl, 67, 463, 546 256. 300, 304, 3r3, 329, 458, 465, 467,
3 | 2-314, 4(t0, 62(t,(t3t , 64 | went int o t hc Ar k , 25 0 , 2 5 ( r Sr.Anrhony ofSiya Monasrery Ru{sia,66 469. 539. 585. 588, (' I t\, 620, 626, 634,
circularrcasoning involvcdin,629, (r12, Ilcsurrectedl>otJy,329, 445446, 478, 4')l, Sr.Hclcns,Mounr,461, 645 638,640-(142,644445
635 587. 51..a a6o Spiritual body St. HcrmanBrotherhood, 67-68, 2 13.435, Scicntificmethod,634
discordantdatesin, (r28,(rJO Rcsurrection, ll8, 189,201t,212,402, 421, 474,594,644 ScicnttJirMonthly 493
Raincr, Karl, -146-i47 444- 445, 481, 336. 576. Sccako lcsus St. Herman Calendar,474 Scicntific worldvicq 316,.120
Ra i n ,I | 7-118, 2 5|, 25 8,2 ,26 9, 4r 3 Chrisr:Rcsurrccrion of Sr. Herman ofAlaska Monasrery,49,502 ScoficldRcfcrcnccBiblc, (r03
not beforcthc Flood,158 genc r al,128.212,41 6 ,4 2 2 Sr. John rhe Forcrunncr,Far Monastcryof, Scopcs'frial, 465-466.605, 617
Rainboq | 18, 235, 267, 268, 269, 49J Rcvclarion,book ol SreApocalypsc, bookof Grecce,l3l Scopcs, John-1,466
Randall,J. H., Jr, 321-322. 324,570 Revclation, Divine, 20,22,47,6l ,72,86,9 | , Sr. NicholasAnapavsasMonastery,Mcreora, Scotr.Eugcnic,6l9
Rationalism,21, 46, 233, 215-216, 251, 95, 98--100,tt4, t26, 165,284-286, Grcecc,179,456, 484 Seamonstcrs,crcationof, 128
253, 2r3, 297, 3t5-3t6, 320-3;,, 290,7 tt), 393,4 t7, 4 t9, 429,446.452, St. PaisiusAbbcy,637, 648 Sca-tloorscdimcnts,645
325, 359, 369, 382, 406. 409, 423, 425, 483, 521, 538, 5 9 2 , 5 9 9 , ( , 0 1 , 6 0 4 . St. Percrsburg, Russia,588 Scarchlir Ete (Brown) , 600
437439,449.5t2,523,531,t40, 5(){), 60r)608, 6 1L 614,62 t -622, 624,637 St.Vladimir'sOrthodoxScminary, 352,372, SecondLaw of Thermodynamics,504-505
597,599,6t0 Rcvolution, 297, 321, 170. .!ir a6o l;rcnch 5 0 9 ,5 4 1 Sce d ,1 3 3 .1 4 2 ,1 5 8 ,5 3 6 ,6 t2 ,6 2 5
criricalapproach of, -318 Revolution St. Vladinir\ TheohgicalQuartctly 35),357 detcrmincs and dctcrmincdby kind, I l5
Raup,D.rvidM., 304 Revolutnrnary Agc,315, 321,323, 546 Saints,4117,491,594 distinctncss :rndintcgriryofeach,I 36. l -38
tual Hirory of Dinonur (Macc Bakcr),640, RcvolutionarySocicry,32 I Saint-Simon, Claudedc, 356,551 "of thc woman,"202-203
642444, 649 Reynolds,John Mark. .19 Sakcllarios, Lco.94 Sclf-will.205
Rcason,3l5.ll8. -140 , 369,413, 597 Richards, E. G.. 2.i6 Salvation, 216,260,272,348,351,360, 365. SensLral plcasurc,209
corrupredsinccthc fall,3l9 I{iasanovsky, NicholasV. 236 373, 4t9, 431, 483,489490, 549, 558, Scptuaginrrcxr of rhc Old Testament,65,
mustbc subni(tcdto fiith and rcvelati<n. Riddk oflr I/niucnc lHacckcl),293 575, 577. SccalsoJesus Christ: salvation t0 7 , t4 t, 2 t4 , 2 1 7 ,2 7 3 ,4 7 4
-tl9 Riflin. Jcrcnry,646, 64') by agc of rhc world accordingto, 235, 242,
rcligionof. 3l7 Rtu oJ ttu Evohtion Fraud lRc*den),646. Salviusof Albi (Gaul),Sr.,487-488 296,474
suicidcof. lt9, 324 649 SanDiego,32, 46, 294,457.465,538,618 Scraphimof SarovSr., 160,253, 150, 435,
Rcason in ttu Bahnte llohnson),59. 638 RomanCatholicscicnrists opposcdto cvolu' SanFrancisco,2S 436,437, 439,442, 449.526,537,542,
Rccapitulation theory,3t)2,4a)(,,530-5-31, t ion, 349 Satunr,462 609
\ -1 l . . \ ? . a ! l , ri a e cke t\ t_ a w RnmanCarholicisnr, 5l, 6\)-70, )16, )55, Schclling,Fricdrich.287, 562, 565 ScraphimRosc.Fr., 2, 14,213,235, 236,
Rcdcmprion.66, 556-557. 585. 587, 592, 283.287- 288,291 . . 3 1 (3, ,1 9 ,3 2 5 ,3 4 ( , , Schindewolf, Orto, 17,469 279, 287 -2a8,296, ) t t, 339, 352. 356,
6.17 . 151,156. 362- 3 ( t 3 . 3 6 8 , 3 7 0 1 7 l . Schismof Romc,3.1,3l5, .117 369, 437, 453, 4574t9 , 502, 503,507 ,
Rcductionism, .139.561 377, 383, 447. 5 t 4 , 5 t 6 , 5 1 9 , 5 4 t , Scholasricism, 3 15, 3 17,31r, 439,447, 516, 545-547, 549-551, 554-558, 570,
I{cforrnation.43, 3I5, 3l9 575-576 5 t9, 599 572-573, 575, 581-584, 588, 59r,
Rtign of Qua*iry and tk Signt oJtfu Tincs, cffccrofcvolutionismon, 508,515,581 Scicncc.Seaalro Knowlcdgc:scicnrific 597, 604405 , 6t 5, 636, 645
Ila ((lulnon). l9 positionon cvolutionol 349 crnnot answcrqucstionof bcginnings, Scrgirrsof Radonczh,St., t75
Rcincrrrration,138, 47547 6, 536. 608 vicw of human naurc of, 429, 434, 438, 607,6n,624 Sermonti,Giuscppc,349
Rclarivism, 320, 325, 369 449, 481, 600{ , 0 1 cannot conaradictrcvcalcdrruth, 624 Scrpcnt, 173, 175, 19l-192, 196, 200,
moral,117,216,323 viewofgraccof, .351, 422,449,600 distinction bctwccn factsand philosophy 2t 4-2t 5,403,4 | 2,487488,49 t,545
rcligioLrs,344 viewoforiginalmln of, 34,,422,447,516 of,6t2,6t5 curse on, 202-204 , 232
Rcligionof rhe future,549-550,557, 570, Rom enia,ic onsof , 67, 1 2 4 , 1 2 9 . 1 8 3 , l 9 - 1 , must bc 6ised up by fairh and rcvelirion, Serh (son ofAdam) , 22 | , 232-234, 239, 242,
t 7 u, 581-582 220. 224,590 606,612 245,391

702 703
 INorx Iruorx

Scttcrficld, Barry63t 326, a89,473,608 Bishopsin Amcrica(SCOBA),372 rs prophct of Antichrisr, 339, 354, 357
Scwell,Curt,Jr.,626,635,640 ShctchconctmingMan (St. Ncctarios),451 Sranhopc, Ead,32l 359, 368-369,549-550 ,57 t , 579,596
Scxual modeof gcncration, 128,I5t 154, SloucLi ng towardsGon olrub (Bork), 323, 43 1 Stars,108, I 16,458, 461, 620,647 blasphcmyof, 556
t87,223,481 Smith, Wolfgang,40, 349, 557, 580-581 creationof, 124, l4l, 462 chiliasmof, 365--16(r
ShanrringrhcMltht of Daruinisn (Milon), Snakcs/snakccharmcrs, 203, 489. Sce ako Stavronikita Mooastcry,Mount Athos, 74, involved in thc "discovcrf' of Piltdown
13 4 3 , 0 3 ,301, t
- 310- 31, 47t , 6 4 9 serPcnr 76, 246, 280, 400 Man, 355, 426, 47 1
Shen (sonof Noah),243, 247, 256, 269- Sobriery,47, 153,483, 486 Stcfanatos, Joannc,253 on Marxism, .166,37J
270 ,2 7 t,2 72- 275, 279 Socialism,24,356,368 Storcr,TracyI., 300, 384, 426 pancnthcism of, 552, 570-57t, 574
S hina r,2 7 5 Sodom , 255, 274 Struve,Nikita,373 praiscdby ThcodosiusDobzhansky,354,
Shoaof rhcFithcrnanlMorrisL. Vcsr),508 Solarsysrcm Study conccming thc lmmortality of thc Sorl 3t8
Siberia,494 agco[ 618 (St.Nectarios),451 spirirualexpcriences
of, 510-551,57v-
Sicily,132 otigin of, 462464,633 Subjcctivism,3 t 9-320 580
Simpliciry, 424,545 Solomon,King,424 Suchevirsa Monasrcry.Moldavia.Romanie, uniraryvicwof, 359,367
S in, 13 6 , t7 4 176, 190. 194, 1 9 9 -2 0 0 , SolvychcgodskMuseum of History and Art, t24, t19,183, t93 'fcilhardism,508,510,552,556-557,576,
204--205,2tO, 230, 248, 270, 275, t44 S u f f c r i n g1, 4 8 ,1 8 4 , 5 1 3 578,581,595
347-348,429,475,479, 489,49r, 572, Son,God rho,107,| 45, | 47, 37 l, 17 | -572, Sunna Thcologita(Aguinas),447, t l6 rnd charismrric phenomcna, 582
515,585,597 Christ, L)rd; \Vord ot
583. Srr a/roJcsus S u n ,4 5 , 1 0 8 ,t t 8 , t 2 2 , t 2 t, 1 2 8 ,l 6 t, 4 i 8 , as rhc "Christianiry" of thc futurc, 508,
SinofAdan,7lr {St.Symeon rhcNcwTheo- Cod 462, 464,620,623 549 (rrr ala Rcligionofrhc future)
log i a n ),7 8, 636 "SonsofGod," 221, 2.14,243-244,4r9-5OO bcforcthe fall, 44 Iiihardin and thc Nca kligion \Smith),
S inai, Mo u n t,93 Soul, 139, I5l, t60-162, t70, 182,207, c r r a r e da l ( c rr h cc a | l h ,l 2 l ,1 2 6 1 2 7 ,4 6 2 557
Sinanthtoput, 427 286, 330, 135-)36, 435439, 44t. crarcd aftcr rhc plants,98, 389, 462 Tcmptation, 288, 433, 490
Sisocv, DeaconDaniel,5{18 443, 448, 475, 48 t, 536, 609-6 10 crcationof, I l0-l I l, 123,124,125,463 in I'aradisc.171, 174,57a \sccako Adanl
S ixD ays, 7 3 ,8 6, 91, 96- 98,100,1 0 2 -1 0 3 , crcerionof, 159-1 60, 43t, 443 Supcr-humanity(conccprof Tcilhard ac tcmptationofi Evc:tcmptation of)
| 14,t20,t42-t43, t45,157,t63,t82, immortaliryof, 432, 438, 451 Chardin),-363 Tenncsscc, 294,617
t9 t, 296,333,375-376,393,408,4 l l, not a partofGod, l6l Superman,concept ot,216, 330, 344, 369, Tirrullian,499
4 t7, 441, 46t462 , 497, 506,522,526, Sot't afcr Dcath, Irlr (Fr. Seraphim Rosc), 555-556,563,573 Tcstinonlofttu Rock(Millcr), 603
54| , 564,586,588, 603,607,62242.5, 248, 477, 488 SurvivalCourse (Fr SerephimRose),-12-33, Tcxas,71, 294
632 Sovicts,270, 339, )52, 505, 519, 548, 598, 4t,3t5, J39, 356,369, 546,549, 570 Tixtual criricism,modern,496
cannotb. cquarcdwith "pcriods."7l 6154t6 Swift, Dcnnis l-., 644 That Thdr lVot& May Bt U*d against Ihcn
dcfinerhcnartrre of rime,6l4 Spacetravcl, 16, 464 Symbolof thc Faith,3Z8 (Hcnry Morris) , (113-644, 647
Fifrh Da1 99, 123, 128, 129,t3O, 13I- Spccics,96, 137, 305, 307, 309, 332, 341. Symbolical inrcrprcrarionof Scripturc. Sra Thaxton, CharlcsB., 505
r32,397,4r I 385-386, 469470, 535, 553, 612 Intcrprcrarionof Scriprurc:symbolical Thcodorcr,Blcsscd,BishopofCyrus, 158
FirstDay,106,| 08, I 10,I l2-l 14,I 18- changingdefinition of in modcrn scicncc, SymcontheNcw-fhcologian. St.,78,81,98, Thcodosius ofChcrnigov,St.,352
l | 9, r 28,258,326 r34,308 156,35 t, 376, 4 t 5, 420,411,444,446, Theology, 408, 422425, 479, 503, 5Or,
Fourrh Day,| l0, t23, 124,125,389,462 vasr nr.rmberof in thc original crcation, 478, 486-487, 5t6, 536, 59t-593, n 2 t 1 3 ,t 1 8 ,tl 5 , tl 9 ,5 6 7 ,5 7 4 ,5 7 9 ,
lcngthof, 97, lOO,162,326,329,375, r30,133 595-596,607.617 585-586,598-602.60t
395-397 , 40t, 53t, 537,607,6t3 Spcnccr, Herberr,293, 562 and scicncc, 593,607 608,612
nor accordingto lawsof prcscntcorrupt Spcrncr,L-cc,38, 48. 309,470,639 TablcofNations,273 Thcology Digat,346
'fabor,Mount, 406, 'fhcophanthcReclusc,
world,402,624 Spni bowl, 434437, 439 517 St.,Bishop,536,596
not an allcgory394 asrhc highcrparrofrhc soul,160 -liylor, lan T., 316. 352. 642, 646 Thcophanes the Crctan,74, 76-77, 90, 179,
SccondDay,I 15 dcfincd,438 Taylor,Parrl,603, 644 246, 2U0,400, 456, 484
sequence of instantancous crcativcacts notitselfan uncreatcdpart ofDiviniry, 434 Technology,206 Theophancs rhc Grcck, 146,237, 239. 241,
dnring,| 02, 327, 329, 334,396-397, Spirit ofthc agc(spirit ofthc timcs,zrirgzo), Ttilhard dc Chardin,Picttc,28, 33, 216, 292, 257, 380
399 ,4 0 1 292, t08. tl5, 5t9-520, 557-559, 342, 354-376, 425, 463, 505, 508- Thcophanes,Monk ofMount Athos, 597
Sevenrh Day,l4l-142 575,582,584 509, 5r5, 5 19, 52r, 534, 536, 549-559, ThcophilusofAntioch, Bishop,242
Six rhDa y,I I5 , 133,139, 157 ,1 8 5 ,4 1 1 , Spiritism,383 5 7 2 - 5 7 3 , 5 7 6 , 5 8 1- 5 8 2 , 5 8 4 . 5 9 5 , Thcophylactusof Bulgaria,Blesscd,529
420,477 Spiritualbody,481, 491,592. Sceako Rcsur- 597,606,6t0 'fhcosophy,567
T hirdDa p l 0 l, l l l, I 19, 121 ,1 2 4 ,1 6 6 , rcctedbody. "Orrhodox" followcrsot, 372-375, 58| ThzyCancfon Babd (Cranfill) , (,46, 4,49
397 ,4 7 7 Spyridon(Efimov),Archimandrirc, 22 and Kcn Vilber, 559, 562-563,565-566, Third Age of rhc Holy Spirir (concepr of
unobscrvablc byscicncc,98-99, 109,I64, SrandingConfcrenccof CanonicalOrthodox t69, 582 Jorchimor.l:iorc), 371, 374, i82

704 705
 INorx IN D EX

Though(s), 154,485 Unitcd Nations,548 Yolcanocs,255, 276, 314, 494 n a m i n 8o f, 1 8 5 .1 8 7 ,2 1 2

"doublc,"485 United NationsEducational, Scicntificand Volraire,FrancoisMaric Aror.rcrdc, 519 ofthc samcnatureasman, 176, 182, 185,
D i v i nc, 170,4 92 Cultural Organization(UNESCO), l6 VoronctsMonasrcry Romania,224 480
evil, | 70 Uniry of rcligions,344, 558, 595 Voodmorrppe, John, 627, 641
Tigris tuvcr, 168, 275, 4r449t Univcrsalism,558, 564, 566, 595 Vaddington,C. H., 53! V<r r do f Go d , 1 3 5 ,1 4 2 ,1 4 8 ,1 6 14, 1 6 ,4 1 8 ,
Tine (magazinc), 465 Universc,origin of,638. SrealraCosmogony Vallace, Alfred Russcll,310 482,624
'lotalitarianism, 323.431, 595 Universiry of California,l7 \Vatcn Abouc:Earthi Prc-Flood VaporCanoyy \(rorld, 4(r4, 550, 553. Sa alro Firsccrcatcd
Tou,crand tbcAbs lKahler),555 Univcrsiryof California,Bcrkclcy,I 9, 30, 37, (Dillow),493,646 world
Towcrof Babel,273, 275, 277-278,279, 6t 5 51, 468. 53 r. 6r 9, 629, 646 "Vcdge" strategy,10, 583-585 accommodarion to,583
T rad i t ion,315,f 1 7,31 9 University of Californir,Davis,152 Vclls, Jonathan,43, 5 l, 55. 79, 398, 646 agcof, 2)6, 242, 296, 310, 314-3 | 5, 322,
Trans6gurarion, 6l I Univcrsiry of California.SantaCruz.547 VcsrernEurope,287, 315-316,447,581 532, 586, 598 (*c ako Chronolog: Bib-
ofChrist,406-407 Univcrsiryof Chicago, I 5 Vestcrn influence, Vestenr captiviry 372, licd; Eanh: agcofl
of rhe world,265,637 Univcrsiryof Connccticut,427 447, 452, 52.2,530, 533, 602 crcercdin rhc spring,143
Transfbrmism,553 Universiryof Edinburgh, 53 I Vcsrcrn philosophy,Vcsrern rhoughr,19, end of, t 28, 265
Transitional(inrcrmcdiate) forms.36, 303, Univcrsiry ofMaryland,3l I 2 9 3 ,3 t 6 , 3 8 8 , 4 5 2 ,5 5 8 fa n h i n , 5 5 1 ,5 8 3 ,5 8 9
305'.306.469. 56t. 569, 608, 642 Universiryof Southampton,England,29 \fhalcs origin of, 539
Transmigrarion of, 138,330,
ofsouls.hercsy Upfron Ldcn ('&il6crl , 573 crcationof, 133 Vorld Souf,conccptof, 550, 566, 570, 578.
4 76, 6t3 UpjohnCornpany,619 hypotheticalevolution of, 50(r SeaalsaEarrh:"soul" of
IianspersonalAbsolurc,conccprof, 559, Uraniumdecaydating,.109-110,313-314, Vlircomb, JohnC., 30,643, (,45 Vorld uniry,578
575,586 626,63t432 Vhire, A. J., 471 World Var ll, -365,635
Transpcrsonal Psychology,557, 563 Usshcr.Archbishop.296 Vhirclaw, Robcrt L., 493
Trceof Lifc, t(:8, l7l, 214,150 Utopianism,32J Vieland, Carl,639,646 Yoga,564
'lice of rhc knowledgcof good and cvil, 85, \7ilbcr, Kcn, 557-567, 569, 573, 582, 585, YollaBolll Mount, .f4
1 66, r68 1 69 , l7r-1 75 , 189- 190, Vajrayana,578 588 YoungEtrth, i%z (John Morris). 305. 3l-1-
192, 193, t96, 200, 208, 2t4, 267, Van Bebbcr,Mark, 603 vi of cod, t68, t87 3 t4 ,6 4 1
405407, 429, 480-481, 5 t7 Van Till. Howard.51,79, (46 Villiam of Auxcrre,449
Trcc-ringdating. 5aaf)cndrochronology Vaniry, as dccay and dcith, 157, 207-209, Vinc, nor drr.rnkbcforc rhe Flood, 269 Zacharias,Rightcous(fathcr ofSt. John rhc
Trces,155,189,462 4t3,422,536 Vinning, CardinalThomasJ., 349 Ba p ti st) ,2 2 8
creatcdwith (hc appciranceof agc, 142, Variation,26, 38, 55, 62,96, 295-296.299, Y,lon;.zn,4l2.Su aLo Eve 7aie, 47 |
633434 385,470,608, 639 crcationof, 180,395, 480,497, 586 Ziggurars,276
crcationof, 121-122, 133,397 Vaticanll (Council),346 cmnirybcrwcenscrpcnrand, l9l, 202 Tbology, | 8-t 9, 47047 t. 505, 6t7
in Paradisc, 166-167,328,421,445, 633 Vedanta,564-565 givingbirth by,204-205,21 1, 329 Zoononia (F,rasnusDarwin). 297
-kcmpcl.rs,Panagioris,325, 340, 342, 372 Vcgctarians in srrhmnsion t<,hcr husband,204-206 Zuckcrman,Lord Solly,470
Tiibrathiliun,303 all crcarurcswcre, bcforcrhc frll, 155
TriniryCollege.Dublin,631 m ank ind was , bc f o r e t h e F l o o d , 2 5 0 ,
Troostcr,Stcphanus,348 265-266
TroyanMonastcry,Bulgaria,482 Veith,GencEdward,107
Ttuc Sci.n.. Ag/..' witb thc Biblt (llowden), Vcnus,plancr,I | 8, 462
43,647,649 ''Vesrigial organs,302
-Iylcr, Devid 646 VirginiaPolytechnic Instituteand StatcUni-
J.,
'fyrannosaurus,643 vcrsity,493
Yirginiry, 152,223
UFOs. SreExtratcrrcstrials ashighcr rhan marriagc,| 52
Uncrcarcd Lighr,40(>407,517 in Paradisc, 152,329
Undmtandingthc Tino (Noebel),(146,648 Vir r uc , 136- f- 17,l9O . 1 9 4 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 7 , 4 2 9 ,
Unfornd and UnflLd (Ficlds),603 432433.488
Uniformitarianism, 36,56, 6142, 163,298, Vision,Divine (thtoria),43, 189,14.1,413,
304,3tO,3t 2, 414, 474,t8t, 588,608, 4 | 54 | 8. 429,446, 449,452,456.586,
632433,635 601,637
Un i t a rianism,5 58 ,59 5 Voiccs for Euoluion,5l

706 707
 Scruprun.e
INoex

EXODUS )1 1 0 . . 256 15: 44.. . . . . . . 445

l :l -5 . . . ..9 2 25: 41. . 203,478
4:12.... . . 9l 2 CORINTHIANS
l2:2 . . .143 M ARK l2: 2. . . 165
20:l l . . . ..9 1 10: 6. . . 150 l2t3-5 . . r65
ScnrprunnINoex 3t:t7 . . .
3l :18 . . .
' . 9l
, ,9 3 LUKE GAIITIANS
3:248 . . 4t24 375
NUMBERS 3: 38 . .
6120-23 . . . ...250 l 2:G8. . . . . 9l I l: 50- 51. . . . . . 228 EPHESI ANS
CENESIS 2 :2 t-2 2 ......1 8 0 t r.\7 . . . . . 432 3r 9. . . . . . . . . 107
l:l .. .. 106, 603 2 t2 3 -2 4 ......1 8 5 7 :t- 3. .. .. ...250
JOSHUA 17: 27 . . . . . . . . 256
l : l- 2 . . . . . 107 2 :2 5 ........1 8 7 7 :4 - 9..... . . .251
...256 t1:ti . . . . . 2 72 2l: l8 . . . . . . 354 CO LO SSTANS
lr2 . . 109, 603 3 ..........4 2 9 7 :1 0.....
23:43 . . . . t 69, 477 l: 16. . . . . . 107, llt
l: 3. . . . . 110 3 :l .........1 9 1 7 :l l -t2 . . . ,.. l t8
t . . 4.........111 3 :1 -6 ........1 9 2 7 :l l -17 . . . ,..256 JOB
33:4.... . I l0 JOHN I THESSALONIANS
l: 4- 5 . . . .. . . lll 3 :5 .........5 7 3 7:t7-24 . . . ...258
....1 9 6 8:l-3 , ...260 38:4-14 . . . 14l lil ..... 107 5: 23. . . . . . . . 436
l: G8 . .. . . . , . ll5 1 :7 .... . . l lt . . 106-107
8 :3 . ...261 387.. l i a..
l:7 . . . . . . . . . 492 3 :8 ........1 9 8 . . t42,624 HEBRE\(S
5: t 7. . .
l: 9- 1 0 ....... 119 3 :9 .. .....1 9 9 8 :4 -5. . . ...261
PSALMS G 29. . . . . . . 169 ll: 3 120
l: 1f ........334 3 :1 0 -1 3 ......1 9 9 8:6-7 . . . ...261
13:l .... l0: 18. . . . . . . 115 ll: 4
l: t l- 1 3 .. . . . . l2l 3 :1 4 -1 5 .. ..1 9 1 ,2 0 2 8 :8 -14.... ...261
32:6.... . 1 09 12:31 . . . . . . . 574 ll: 5. . . . 242
l: 14 ........ 116 3 :1 5 ......2 3 0 ,4 8 8 8 :1 5-19 . . ...263
36:l l . . . . . 487 1A .t . . . . 487
l: 14-..f9 .... . . t 2) 3 :1 6 .,....2 0 4 ,3 2 9 8 :2 0..... ...250
8:10-22 . . . ...264
Itl :6 . tr4 l4: 30, . . . . . . 574 JAM ES
l: 20 .. . . 116 3 :1 7 ........3 2 9 90:13.. . . .4t6 16: ll- . . 2. t 9 . . . . . . . 341
...270 574
t t 20 -2 3 ..... . 128 3 :l ' 1 -1 9 .....2 0 5 9l :3.... .,4 4
q .t_ t ...266
t : 22 ........1 53 3 1 1 8 ........2 3 0 94:5.... . t2l ACTS I PETER
r : 24........334 3 :2 0 ........2 t2 .266,4t2
103:10. . . . 1 09 27:22-24
. 249 3: 15. . . . . . . . 598
l: 24-2 5 ..... . 139 3 :2 1 ........2 1 2 9 :3 -7..... ...266
...267 3: 18- 20. . . . . . 260
t 126........432 3 :2 2 -2 3 ......2 1 4 9 :8 -17....
ISAIAH ROMANS
t : 26 -2 7 ..... . t 45 3 :2 4 ....8 5 ,2 t4 ,2 1 7 9 :l l ..... ...255
9:6... . .... t47 t : 25 . . . . . . . . 574 2 PETER
l: 2G3 0 ...., . 157 4 :t......1 5 1 ,2 2 3 9 rl 8 -19 . . . ...269
452 .... ....t20 2t t 4- t 5 . . . . . . 432 2: 5. . . . . . . . . 256
l: 28........1 53 4 :2 -5 . . . . . .2 2 3 9:2V21 . . . ,..269
....424 256
...270 559.... 5: 12. . . . . . . . 208 3: 6.
l: 29-3 0 ....l55, 4ll 4 1 4 --5. . . . . . . .2 2 6 9 :2 1
8: 8. . . . . 244 .. 607
...269 3: 8.
l: 30........t17 4 :6 -7 ....., .2 2 8
.....2 2 8 9:26-27 . . . ...272
vlsDoM 8: t 9- 22. . . . 207, 536
1: 31 . . . . . . . . t 57 4 :8 . l :13 . . . . ....414 8120. . . 151, 414 I JO HN
2: t -3 ........ 141 4 .r-1 6 .......2 2 9 9:28-29 . . . ...272
.207,4 43 8: 28. . . . . . . . 490 3: 8. . . . . . . . 204
2: 2, ... . , 624 4 :t7 -2 2 ....2 3 2 -2 3 3 l 0 :l-4. ...273
2:24.... ....192 3: 12. . . . . . .
2: 44........t57 4 :2 3 -2 4 ......2 3 4 l 0 :5 ..... ...271
I CORINTHIANS
2: 54........ tt7 4 :2 5 -2 6 ......2 3 3 l0:6-20 . . . . . 274
MATTHE\v 2: 4. . . . . . . . . . 91 APO C. ALYPSE
2: 7.... t5 8, 335, 437 5 :t-.2 1.......2 3 4 l 0 r2 l ..... . . . 274
5:5.. . .35t,487 2: t 6 . . . . . . 424, 437 l: 8. . . . . . . . . r 06
2: 7-8 .....2 17, 221 t0:22-32.. . ...274
l 2:8.... ....594 4: 7 . . . . . . . 434 ll: l- 19. . . . . 242
2: 8.........164 5 :2 2 -2 4 ......2 4 2 l l rl - 2. ...275
l 3:24-3O...,..136 4: 13 . . . . . . . 585 l27. . . . . . . . t92
29. .....1 6 6, 421 5 :2 5 4 :t......2 4 3 tr:34 . . . . ..275
| 5:28.. . . ....272 7t 7- 8. . . . . . . 152 12: 7- 8. . . . . . . I It
2: t 0 -1 4 ..... . 168 6 :2 4 .....2 4 3 ,4 9 9 l l :5 ....
22t30.... ....128 13:12. . . . . . . . 486 20: 2. . . . . . . . 490
2: t 5 .......1 69 6 :5 .... ....2 4 5 I l :6 ...277
24t24.... ,...549 t 5: 21, . . , , . . . 409 2l: l . . . . . . . . 351
2: t 6 -t7 ...... t 70 6 :G 8 . . . . . . . .2 4 7 l l :7 .. ...277
24:29. . . . ....128 t 5: 2t - 22 . . . 208, 481
2: 17........207 6 :9 -l l ,......2 4 7 l l :8 .. ...279
2: f 8 --2 0 ,... . . 176 6 :1 2 -1 4 ,.....2 4 8 I l r9 .. ...779
2: 19........412 6 :1 5 -1 7 ......2 4 8 l l :1 0-26... ...279
2: 20 ... . . 429 6 :1 8 -1 9 ......2 4 9 47:9 . . . . . .,.499

708 709