FAITH AND REASON Creation, Faith, and Science

Theodore Feldman

To take an aspirin for a headache, and reject the earth’s rotation and with it then to repudiate Darwinian evolu- all of astronomy, which traces the for- tion, is hypocrisy. For aspirin’s work mation of stars over billions of years in our bodies, and the biochemistry and cannot abide a six-day creation. of the willow tree from which it is We are compelled as well to discard derived, are inextricably bound to all the historical sciences, which reach evolution. To drive a car and repu- back into time much further than the diate evolution is hypocrisy. For the authors of Genesis ever imagined. car consumes fossil fuel, the knowl- What, for example, are we to do with edge, extraction, and use of which the science of linguistics? Genesis tells are, again, bound to evolution, which us that prior to Babel all nations spoke explains the formation of petroleum the same language. Linguistics cannot from ancient sea creatures. If we live countenance this, any more than geol- in the modern world, enjoying the ogy the six-day creation. If we insist fruits of science, then we cannot reject on a literal interpretation of Scripture, its theories. we will end up rejecting all of modern knowledge. The psalmist proclaims that the Lord “set the earth on its foundations, so But what is meant by “a literal inter- that it should never be moved” (Ps. pretation of Scripture”? The letters 104:5, ESV). It was against this asser- (literae) of Scripture tell us nothing; tion that Galileo stumbled, when his they are marks on a page. They have church persecuted him for arguing no spirit in them. We Christians must that the earth rotates on its axis and read them in the Spirit in whom we revolves around the sun. If we inter- abide. What spirit, then, do we bring pret Scripture literally, then we must to Scripture in a so-called “literal”

30 interpretation? We are told that a they believe, there can have been no 1 For example, literal interpretation insists on the primitive humans outside that area.4 Jesse Dominick, “A “plain meaning,” “simple meaning” They grant variation among species Patristic Perspective or “common understanding” of the but disallow “that one kind or species on a Crucified Mind: 1 Fr. Seraphim Rose words of Genesis. This “plain mean- changes into another,” an argument and the Doctrine of ing” is certainly not the meaning of dating back to Darwin himself, which, Creation” (M.Div. the authors of Genesis; those who despite the abundant evidence in the thesis, St. Tikhon’s bring to Genesis a “literal” interpre- fossil record, was not conclusively dis- Orthodox Theologi- tation make no attempt to discern the proven until quite recently.5 cal Seminary, 2013); Seraphim Rose, intent of Genesis’ authors or the un- Genesis, Creation, derstanding of their audience. Rather, These arguments—involving con- and Early Man: The the “plain meaning” is of course our cepts of the succession of time, de- Orthodox Christian “plain meaning,” the meaning of our scent and inheritance, length of the Vision (Platina, Calif.: common speech and conversation. solar day, ice ages, and skull finds— St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2000). But this speech, this conversation, is abide in a universe of discourse that A search online thoroughly informed by our modern, is governed not by the spirit in which for “Genesis plain positivist, scientific worldview, which Genesis was written but by modern meaning” returns declares that only what science can science. Orthodox who accept evo- many references show us is real. From our youth, this lution and attempt a reconciliation to non-Orthodox discussions. metaphysic has been so ingrained in with Genesis fall into the same trap, us that to see beyond it is as difficult questioning “whether the scientific 2 Rose, 111; Andrei as to jump out of our own skin. evidence of humankind, or Homo Kuraev, “Can an sapiens, being around 200,000 years Orthodox Christian So for example, some creationists old [can] be reconciled with the Bib- Accept Evolution?” in the Orthodox Church argue that lical record that Adam and Eve lived Silouan (blog), February 11, 2016, the six days of creation recorded in at a much later date, probably after silouanthompson. 6 Genesis could not have been enough the end of the last Ice Age.” The logic net/2011/02/can-an- time for evolution to proceed. How of creationism stands Genesis side by orthodox-christian- much time is necessary for the evo- side with science as if the two were of accept-evolution/; lution of species is, however, a scien- one kind, and debates their compati- S.V. Bufeev, “Why an Orthodox tific question. Others dispute whether bility. But since Genesis was written Christian Cannot the days recounted in Genesis were some thousands of years before the Be an Evolutionist,” twenty-four-hour days or longer pe- emergence of modern scientific habits n.d., www.creatio. riods of millions of years, a question of thought, this endeavor will only do orthodoxy.ru/ regarding measurement that takes no violence to the one or the other. sbornik/sbufeev_ whynot_english. account of the world view of ancient html; “Interview Israel, which did not divide the day Its narrow focus on the first six days with Fr. Damascene into hours and had no conception of leads creationism to ignore God’s con- (Christensen),” periods of time millions of years long.2 tinuing activity, and to imply—if only Pravoslavnie.ru Orthodox creationists ask whether by its silence—that his creative work (blog), February 22, 2006, www. God created the heavens and earth afterwards stopped. In this, it adheres pravoslavie.ru/ “all at once” on the first day or over to a constitutive aspect of our modern english/7197.htm. a longer period. They argue that the scientific outlook: that nature runs as sequence of events reported in Gen- an autonomous realm by its own laws. 3 Rose, 135–136. esis contradicts the order of the evo- The notion that after the first six days lution of species.3 They deny that the God abandoned his creation, allowing many ancient skulls found outside of it to run according to the laws of na- modern Iraq are human and questions ture, is often expressed as the “watch- the dating of these discoveries. Since maker” analogy. Favored by seven- Eden was located in what is now Iraq, teenth- and eighteenth-century deists

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 31 and by scientists such as Isaac New- Moreover, God does not reserve cre- ton, the watchmaker analogy grew ative activity to himself. In his bound- up with the young science as part and less generosity he grants to creation parcel of its methods. According to it, itself power to create. He commands God does not eternally fill his creation creation: “Be fruitful and multiply,” with his energies and his love; he is, and in obedience his creatures bring rather, like a watchmaker who builds forth new life through procreation. a watch and then leaves it to run on Even lifeless creatures enjoy a cer- its own. Seraphim Rose, whom we can tain creativity. God commands: “let regard as the father of contemporary the earth put forth” plants, “let the Orthodox creationism, was most likely waters bring forth swarms of living unaware of his adherence to this view creatures” (Gen. 1:11, 20). Earth and 4 Andrew Phillips, when he insisted that the first six days water, lifeless beings, bring forth life. “Towards an Ortho- dox View of Creation occurred “before all the world’s natu- and Evolution,” ral processes began to work. . . . If we Nor does Genesis draw any clear dis- OrthodoxEngland.org can know what happened in those Six tinction between the creative power (blog), August 2006, Days at all, it is not by scientific pro- of the earth and God’s creative act: orthodoxengland. jections . . . but by God’s revelation.”7 “Let the earth bring forth living crea- org.uk/towardso. htm. Implied is a radical divide between tures. . . . And God made the beasts our Lord’s creative work during the of the earth” (Gen. 1:24–25). The acts 5 Rose, 424–425. first six days and the rest of the history of God in nature cannot be separated Patrick Nosil et al., of creation.8 All of us inherit from our from nature’s own activity according “Host-plant Adap- culture this outlook: that God, absent to its laws. By this I do not mean to tation Drives the from his creation, simply allows it to imply that God is somehow bound to Parallel Evolution of Reproductive Iso- run according to its own laws. the laws of nature or dependent upon lation,” Nature 417 them. Rather, the laws of nature are a (2002): 440–443. Scripture contradicts this view. “My manifestation of God’s creative work. Father is working still, and I am work- Our Lord is “upholding the universe 6 Vladimir De Beer, ing,” Jesus assures us (John 5:17). by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3)— “Genesis, Creation Psalm 104 confesses that God is al- all things, including the laws of nature and Evolution,” OrthodoxyToday. ways creating: “When you send forth themselves. The acts of God in nature org (blog), May your Spirit, they are created; and you are a mystery, the same order of mys- 25, 2010, www. renew the face of the ground” (Ps. tery as his acts in history. And indeed, orthodoxytoday. 104:30). We thank God at every Di- why should they be of a different kind? org/view/de-beer- vine Liturgy, who “by your measure- It is we who draw the distinction be- genesis-creation- and-evolution. less power have made all things, and tween nature and ourselves, a distinc- in the greatness of your mercy have tion not to be found in scripture. 7 Rose, 135–6. brought all things from nonexistence into being”—all things, that is, includ- Even brute force, as we like to call it, ex- 8 See Walter Brue- ing those present and to come, not just ercises creative power. Gravity forms ggemann, Genesis: A those supposedly created in six days. rock from sediment carried by air and Bible Commentary for Since creation continues without end, water, acting in cooperation with these Teaching and Preach- ing (Louisville, Ky.: we need not trouble ourselves to count other elements of nature. Out of gases John Knox, 1982), the days of creation or calculate the age it brings forth stars. Finally, nature her- 13, 17. of the earth according to Scripture. The self, through evolution, creates new entire dispute over the six-day creation forms of life. The authors of Genesis evaporates when we take scripture certainly did not envision this. But we as a whole instead of tearing a single can say that the creative work of na- chapter out of context, and when we ture, commanded by God in Genesis, include the practice of our worship. is manifest in the process of evolution.

32 God is not jealous of nature’s fertility of food for animals and, without through evolution; should we be, then? breaking rhythm, the labor of men Do we prefer a miserly God, who keeps and women on the earth. The lions to himself all power to create? Indeed, roar for their prey; with the dawn they God is jealous of our worship, but not retire to their dens and we men and of our creative work. women go forth to our daily work. The creatures that fill the sea include Nonetheless there is validity in cre- both Leviathan and our own ships. ationism’s charge against evolution. The psalmist regards our work and The theory of evolution, and mod- the work of the other creatures as a ern science as a whole, allow God no united whole. He portrays a perfect role in his creation. There is certainly harmony among all creatures. 9 place for a questioning of science from Dumitru Staniloae, The Sanctifying the point of view of Christian faith Scripture also makes known our com- Mysteries (Brookline, that stands on firmer ground than a munity with creation in the many Mass.: Holy Cross literal reading of Genesis. I want now places in which creation with us Orthodox Press, to offer such a questioning. praises God: “Praise him, sun and 2012), 105. moon, praise him, all you shining Scripture reveals to us that we are a stars!” (Ps. 148:3) “The heavens are part of the creation. We do not stand telling the glory of God; and the firma- outside it. The same language and ment proclaims his handiwork. Day rhythm that Genesis uses for the first to day pours forth speech, and night five days of creation it also applies to to night declares knowledge” (Ps. the sixth day, to the creation of men 19:1–2). Here the psalmist testifies to and women: “Then God said . . . So the knowledge and understanding God created . . . And God blessed . . .” possessed by what we today regard as Yet we differ from our fellow creatures, inanimate objects. In sum, the separa- first in that God has created us alone tion of man and nature into two au- in his image and likeness; and second tonomous realms is not biblical. The in that he has tasked us with leading vision of Scripture is that of a single our fellow creatures to deification. The realm united in harmony. icon of our right relationship to cre- ation is revealed in the Divine Liturgy, This is the vision of faith. What is the as we offer to God its fruits, not in their vision of science? Science treats nature original form as grapes and wheat but as an autonomous realm distinct from transformed into bread and wine by us. We call this realm “nature” rather the work of our hands and in cooper- than “creation,” removing it by our ation with creation herself, in the form language from the divine economy, of yeast, heat, and other natural pow- and we see ourselves as living outside ers. It is through this work and this co- it. Science stands over and against this operation that nature is deified as the realm and aims to work its will upon body and blood of our Lord, that God it. It inherited this posture from the becomes “all in all.”9 Scientific Revolution itself. The pre- eminent exponent of this separation In many other places scripture reveals was René Descartes, who divided the to us our community with creation. cosmos into exclusive categories of Psalm 104 recounts God’s creative mind and matter. Matter, the object of work from the earth’s very founda- scientific investigation, has no proper- tion, through the formation of oceans ties according to Descartes besides be- and mountains, the loving provision ing extended in space; it is inanimate,

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 33 dead. Even the processes of living be- and axioms can never be proven. But ings Descartes and his contemporaries our culture takes it as proven. It is far treated as the mechanical workings of from an inconsequential assumption, dead matter. They laid the foundation a simple compartmentalization that al- of modern science upon the utter sepa- lows science to proceed. It separates us ration between us persons, or thinking from creation and tempts us to abuse it beings, and nature.10 They and their by separating it from God. successors understood that this was the path toward a mathematical treat- We Orthodox Christians affirm that ment of the cosmos, toward scientific matter is not dead. We pray many dominion over nature. I am painting times daily to the Holy Spirit, con- with a broad brush—there were some fessing that he fills all things. If the 10 See Edwin Arthur who attempted a different path, such Holy Spirit fills all things, then he Burtt,The Metaphys- ical Foundations of as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and the fills all matter. And if matter is full of Modern Science (Lon- nineteenth-century Romantic Natur- the Holy Spirit, then Descartes was don: K. Paul, 1925). philosophie movement—but in the end, wrong: matter is more than mere ex- the roads they indicated were not taken tension. The Holy Spirit is the giver of 11 Sunday Matins, by mainstream science. If creation is life; therefore matter, filled with the Antiphon on Hymns just dead matter, then we can do with Spirit, is not dead but alive. “In him all of Ascent, Tone 3. it as we please. Early proponents of the things live and move,” we proclaim.11 new science spoke of forcing nature’s In the Mother of God “all Creation re- secrets from her by torture—by which joices,” we sing. We exhort “sun and they meant the experimental method. moon . . . and all you shining stars” to Our faith calls us, ourselves part of cre- praise the Lord. How can dead mat- ation, to lead creation to salvation and ter rejoice in the Mother of God? If we deification. By contrast, the scientific believe in the correctness of our wor- method places us outside of creation, ship—that is, in its orthodoxy—then making it an object to exploit rather we can confidently affirm that matter, than a subject to lead back to God. far from being inert, is filled with the presence of God. Laboring along their chosen path over the course of four centuries, scientists Nor is it any use proposing, as many have met with great success. They have do, that science and faith both search delineated a realm of activity, the au- out truth: science the truths of nature tonomous realm of nature, where their and faith the truths of God. For this results cannot be questioned. To chal- again is to separate God from nature. lenge them on their own ground—on There is one truth, our Lord, as he him- issues such as the age of the earth or self said. He created both nature and the evolution of stars and of species— ourselves. Any truth about nature must is a fool’s errand. Yet against the funda- be seen in the light that proceeds from mental approach of science, as I have him. That light we find in Scripture, in described it, we can offer a challenge. our tradition, and in our worship. Science indeed can prove that the earth is about four and a half billion years As Orthodox Christians we must take old. But that its matter is dead science our faith seriously, so that what we can never prove. This is not a scientific proclaim in our worship is not cast finding but a metaphysical assump- aside when we look around ourselves tion, one that makes possible the very at—and act in—creation. We must free activity of science. It is an axiom for ourselves from science’s unproven as- science that its objects are only matter, sumptions, with which we have been

34 catechized from our youth up. But its practitioners. Only then will we be we must also understand science and able to offer to science the wealth of its methods, and not venture to con- our theological understanding, built tradict science on its own grounds. up across many millennia, since the Only then can we properly engage in ancestors of ancient Israel first began a search for the right relationship with thinking about their God. We can keep creation. Only then will we possess in mind that, in contrast, the scientific © 2017 The Wheel. May be distributed for both the wisdom and the credibility world view is only a few centuries noncommercial use. to begin a dialogue with science and old. There is much work to be done. www.wheeljournal.com

Protodeacon Theodore Feldman (Holy Trinity Orthodox Ca- thedral, Boston) holds a B.A. in mathematics from Harvard College and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Califor- nia, Berkeley. After teaching history and history of science for many years, he left academia and currently works as a data- base administrator for an insurance company near Providence, Rhode Island.

FAITH AND REASON Taxonomy and Anthropology

Sergius Halvorsen

Taxonomy, the science of classifica- of classifying organisms or objects tion, is a basic means of understand- into particular taxa is a hermeneutic ing the world around us. In biology, exercise. Moreover, taxonomy is not organisms are classified according to static; over time, systems for classi- the well-known system of kingdom, fication change to reflect deeper un- phylum, class, and subsequent levels derstandings emerging from new of increasing specificity, all the way observations. Even though the objects down to species and subspecies. Tax- that are classified have not changed, onomy is not inherent in the organ- modifications in taxonomy can result isms themselves, however. People are in striking reorganizations. The impli- not born with the label Homo sapiens. cations of taxonomical classification Rather, taxonomy is a hermeneutic, and reclassification are manifold, for a method for systematically defining both science and faith. and understanding creation. While every classification system is based An example of taxonomy’s impor- on quantifiable, objective data (such tance—and of how quickly it can as morphology, genetics, and repro- change—was revealed in a recent duction of fertile offspring), the act episode of the radio show Radiolab,

The Wheel 11 | Fall 2017 35