Is evolution the great lie?
Growing up in the Western World, it is without a doubt a firm held belief that evolution is true, and anyone who stands up to it or questions it, is termed old fashioned, religiously brain washed, illogical and a citizen of the dark ages.
In our schools, in our universities, in fact everywhere we look, evolution is no longer a belief or theory, it is taught as fact!
As a result I have employed the expertise of Daniel Ayad, a Deacon at St Barbara & St Noufer’s Coptic Orthodox Church to present a series of blogs on the Orthodox Understanding of Evolution!
CLICK HERE to read Daniel’s 1st Post!
bishoysblog.com 
Excellent blog, Bishoy! God bless your work. Keep up the good work!!
I personally must disagree. Having studied evolution in some depth, I can tell you it’s not a lie. Most of our sources to describe evolution as a lie come from Protestant sources who take the Bible extremely literal. Our Church in history has been the champion of the allegorical approach, and just as we accept an old earth, and a death of animals before the birth of Adam and Eve, therefore, it does not contradict our faith or the way we interpret the Bible to accept the science of evolution, which I am convinced is both a fact and a theory.
forgive me I should save before the creation of Adam and Eve.
Hey Mina S
Thanks for the post, however i am unsure whether you are referring to adaptation or evolution.
The Church is a firm believer in adaptation but a stern critic of evolution.
Evolution relies purely on chance to work. Our God is not a God of Disorder but a God of Order. He leaves nothing to chance, everything is so finely tuned that to think it magically evolved is insanity speaking. How can something come out of nothing?
Moreover you state the world is accepted as being of “old age”. I personally dont know but in all my readings i have read this idea that the earth is millions of years old is proving to be greatly untrue. Our dating methods today are highly inaccurate and are affected by many geological events such as floods!
Finally just a thought, how can you believe evolution is both fact and a theory – i dont get it – its either one or the other!
In Christ, Bish
Hi Bishoy,
Evolution does not work by chance, but by genetics and natural selection. It may seem random over the ages, but it’s just as random as oil and water particles “randomly” separating into layers.
I’d be careful in stating what “The Church” states. Yes, I’ve heard bishops and priests being against evolution, but they don’t know what evolution really is, and I’ve met some priests who find nothing wrong with evolution as more and more are starting to understand what it is and not depend on Protestant deceptions. At the same time, you seem to believe in a “young earth” and I personally never met any bishop or priest who believe in that. If we were to use one dating method to measure the age of the earth, you would have merit. But we have used a lot of dating methods, all of which point accurately to the same number, between 4 and 4.5 billion years.
It is one thing to say something evolved and another to say how it evolved. We have enough evidence, with the strongest nail in the coffin nowadays being genetics to say now that evolution is indeed a fact and we can create a “family tree” of almost everything with genetic material in this world. This is the same evidence that forensics use to determine if someone was at the scene of a crime.
The “how” is the theory, that is the filling in the blanks of the differences in the genetics. For instance we see a 99.5% similarity in genetics between chimps and humans. Fact is that due to this, chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Examining even more specifically the genetic differences, one of the main differences is a fusion of two chromosomes into the one chromosome (#2) that we have today, a very unique chromosome which has telomeric sequences (sequences that belong to ends) in the middle and two centromeric sequences (sequences that belong in the middle) with one that is deactivating. The rest of the differences are scant point or frameshift mutations that accumulated over time. These genetic explanations are the theories, the “how” of the fact. In other words, in scientific literature, a theory explains a fact. A theory is not an speculation, but it is an explanation based on facts. What many confuse theory with is actually “hypothesis,” a speculative explanation that is yet to be tested.
God bless
Mina
Hey Mina S
As we know now genetic variations give rise to adaptation not evolution. Natural Selection as hypothesised by Darwin meant that animals kept on choosing the best mate until they evolved into better creatures. This is totally flawed a male ape choosing the best female ape always will never give rise to a human even if it took billions of years, but simply an ape. Besides why are there still apes today?
Who are these priests that accept evolution, please enlighten us! And what is this idea of protestant deception that you speak of. Since when is science based on religion. It’s based on reproducibility. Can you reproduce what you speak of or not. Can you prove man came from another creature, or can you prove an orange came from an apple? You tell me.
I won’t comment on the age of the earth issue that will be covered in a lot more detail in the later posts by Daniel. However for the time being, where are these fossil records that are billions of years old. Darwin himself postulated that fossil records will prove his records. But to date nothing has been found to show what he speaks of.
You argue that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Firstly It’s biblically incorrect. Man as was written and there is no reason to take it allegorically was made from Dust.
Secondly its more than .5% difference, however that difference in DNA is so intense. Studying medicine as I do, many of the disastrous genetic diseases today such as cystic fibrosis and thalessimias show only a slight extremely small change in DNA. A few base pairs going wrong are enough to destroy man.
Thirdly, if as you say we came from a common ancestor what was that ancestor, and where did come from and so on? What is the start? Where is your origin and who is your origin.
I’d like to think my 1st ancestor was man not some weird cocktail of half ape/ half man. That is just ludicrous.
Fourthly you talk about telomeres. As you know they have just been discovered and any change in the DNA of these telomeres gives rise to many cancers. Cancer cells have the ability to keep on remultiplying because they have the ability to keep reforming their telomeres. In a normal cell these telomeres keep on getting shorter with each cycle of mitosis eventually rendering the cell unable to reproduce activating apoptotic factors such as p53. This is pretty much all we know about telomeres at the moment. To say that because of the crossover that happens between the chromosomes when the sperm and ova meet is responsible for this generation of a new species over many years, is totally incorrect.
You frameshift and scant point etc, give rise to adaptation not evolution. What do I mean? They are the reason for black/white, short/tall and so on. They do not point at all to evolution from another species. Man has no ability to change form, but has the ability to adapt to his environment. The Eskimo and the Australian aboriginal is a perfect example of adaptation. Both humans yet phenotypically very different.
Evolution is not fact but a hypothesis. In fact you can explain all components of what you say. I doubt you could with evolution because the proposed evidence is very controversial and more importantly very flawed!
Bish
Well, here’s an example of a Coptic view on the support of evolution:
http://www.coptichymns.net/module-library-viewpub-tid-1-pid-83.html
Hello fellow medical student. Yes, there are genetic mutations that cause disorders, but you forget that there are also other genetic mutations that work to benefit humanity. For example, there is a small percentage of people born with the mutation for familial hyper-HDL-emia. So when using natural selection, a group of people with a sole diet of McDonalds Quarter Pounders, for instance, all the people in the population that do not have hyper-HDL-emia will die off. To you it’s “adaptation” but evolution works the same way. In fact, this is also evolution. We can evolved as a population to withstand high cholesterol foods. Perhaps, we can also find people who can withstand cigarette smoke. It can explain why a small number do not develop cancer even though they’re life-long smokers.
Lactose tolerance (adult development of lactose intolerance is actually the norm) is also due to frameshift mutation if I’m not mistaken. We can trace back in time using population genetics when this mutation happened, and this was mutation grew especially among those who raised cattle and depended on milk as part of their diet, especially in the Middle East.
The same reason we use genetics to trace our relation with one another, we also use to trace our relation with other species. So the same technique used to study what you call “adaptation” is the same thing used to study genetic variation between species. We can genetically prove products of incestual relationships as well without actually having to observe the mating process for instance. So using these same techniques, the evidence overwhelmingly points to a common ancestry with other animals.
On the issue of adaptability, I’ll give an example. One single man cannot change to deal with the sun’s rays. You should know that people of a lighter skin complexion are much more prone to melanoma the more they are exposed to the sun’s hot rays without sunscreen, while a darker person, like those in Africa or India, can withstand the sun’s rays and have a much less chance of melanoma. A “person” doesn’t adapt unless they innately have that predisposition, but a population adapts through evolving factors and natural selection. If a whole population of Swedish people were to live in the Equator, perhaps one percent will have a predisposition to adapt, while the rest may develop melanoma and thus natural selection will favor that one percent.
You and I since we are both in medical school we however concentrate on treating patients illnesses. If we were to do a full-blown PhD style course on genetics, you wouldn’t be able to say that genetic mutations almost always cause diseases (like cystic fibrosis and cancer). When you and I are born, we are genetically mutated, mostly on “junk DNA” but we are not 100% the same as half mom and half dad. We still are unique in small ways. Rarely, the mutations work out against or for our favor, but most of the time, mutations that do occur do neither, either that or can do some damage but can still allow a certain style of living, like certain anemias.
Your comment in saying “half man/half ape” or “that an apple can come from an orange” is not really an accurate depiction of evolution to begin with. First of all, scientifically speaking, we are apes. We are of the mammalian group of apes, which include chimps, gorillas, humans, and the fossil records of extinct apes. So yes, apes do exist today. Second of all, the other apes you talk about we didn’t descend from, but, and I choose my words carefully here, we share a common ancestor. So yes, the common ancestor is extinct, and that is where the fossil record helps us. And I’m not a botanist, but I’m sure a botanist will tell you the same thing, that perhaps somewhere down along the line, apples and oranges share a common ancestor. See, this is what I mean when I say that most of the time I hear people attacking evolution, they haven’t even understood evolution very well to attack it.
If you feel that you cannot take the idea of being created from the dust allegorically, then you and I will just have to disagree. In the end, I find myself in agreement with the Church fathers when they talk about the human being being partly of worldly/animal nature (body and soul) and partly of the angelic nature (spirit), in the superior human nature. How this happened, this is the study of science. On details like say the number of days of creation, you have a diversity of ideas from the Church fathers. St. Augustine believed that the days in Genesis are just a way of organizing creation and that the world was created all at once. St. Basil, I believe took the days literally, while others like St. Gregory (I think) took the days as really 7 millenia. In other words, they are open to interpretation in an allegorical sense. St. Athanasius also commented in his phenomenal “On the Incarnation” that although we humans are by nature corruptible like all other animals, we were the elect chosen to have the Image of God in us, and by grace (not by nature) we were “in incorruption.” Therefore, when death came into the world, it’s not the literal world, but the world of humanity, for death already existed with animals since they do not bear the grace of incorruption. This is the necessary parts of what makes us human. To go into unnecessary lengths to say that this part of the Bible must be extremely literal was never something the Church fathers pursued. Even though St. Basil took the days literally, it was a personal opinion of his, but in collaboration with St. Gregory the theologian, they compiled their favorite Orthodox parts of Origen’s teachings on the interpretation of the Bible (and we do respect him as the champion of Biblical interpretation). He, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Didymus the Blind all took Biblical allegory very seriously, and would even go further to teach that some parts of the Bible were put there to be interwoven with the facts to make a complete picture of the allegory we need to see, but was not meant to be taken literally (like the trees, and the idea that the Paradise Adam was in was “a garden”, etc.).
When I talk about telomeres, I’m talking about the uniqueness of human chromosome #2, which has telomeric sequences right smack in the middle, and has two centromeric sequences, one of which is deactivated (it also has telomeric sequences at the ends). And the body maintains a necessary balance of not too many telomeres and not too little (for the scarcity of telomeres leads to the effects of aging). But you should know cancer is not merely the action of telomerase, but also of the suppression of tumor suppressor genes, the activation of oncogenes, the suppression of apoptotic sequences, etc. Oncology is a very complicated subject, and overwhelmingly most of the time, cancer is not isolated to one genetic cause.
Finally, I don’t know where you got the idea that I said science depends on religion. Forgive me if I have allowed you to misunderstand me. Yes, science depends on falsifiable theories that are reproducible. Time and time again, evolution have withstood the battles of critics and have stood with valid refutations against it.
Here are some sources I personally enjoyed and found very easy to read:
(speaking of cystic fibrosis, the second book is by a physician/scientist who helped find the genetic cause of cystic fibrosis, the genetic predispositions of certain breast cancers, and the one who lead the completion of the human genome project, and an atheist turned Christian because of the complexity of God’s creation)
And for Origen’s Philokalia compiled by Sts. Basil and Gregory:
http://tertullian.org/fathers/origen_philocalia_02_text.htm
God bless, and a blessed Lent to you (cannot believe we are almost done).
“I am both an evolutionist and a creationist.” Dr. Theodosius Dhobzansky, father of the synthesis and combination of genetics and evolution, and a Russian Orthodox Christian
Just to add a little more concerning the differences between humans and chimps, and to elaborate on theory and hypothesis and fact, let me explain this:
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes (46 total) while chimps and gorillas have 24 pairs of chromosomes (48). It was speculated that if chimps/gorillas share a common ancestry with humans that two pairs of the chromosomes had to have fused together. If one cannot find this chromosome, then the theory of evolution, at least on part that humans share with other apes, fails.
What characteristics to chromosomes have? Telomeric sequences at the ends and centromeric sequences somewhere in the middle. Indeed, we find it in chromosome #2, where the end of one chromosome connected with the other end to form telomeric sequences in the middle AND at its ends, whereas they found not one, but TWO centromeric sequences, one that is activated, and one that is deactivated (I think by methylation). This is in addition to the overwhelming similarity that this chromosome have in its sequences overall with the two other chromosomes found in chimps/gorillas. So the speculation, that is the hypothesis have now become a fact. That we share a common ancestry with the other apes is a fact, and that the idea that our ancestor had 24 pairs of chromosomes that formed a fusion of two of them to form us is the theory that explains our physical natural part.
I just want to also add and I may not have been clear before, science explains our physical part (body and soul) that we share with other animals. Science cannot explain our spiritual part. So when we speak of the evolution of humanity, it is only that which pertains to the non-spiritual part of humanity.
God bless.
Here are my following objections to this blog
mutations that work to benefit humanity – basically all mutations are harmful to the person and show no real benefit. For example you said “there is a small percentage of people born with the mutation for familial hyper-HDL-emia. So when using natural selection, a group of people with a sole diet of McDonalds Quarter Pounders, for instance, all the people in the population that do not have hyper-HDL-emia will die off”.
Arguably a diet of McDonalds Quarter Pounders will kill you off anyway with cardiovascular disease.
Some mutations in bacteria lead to drug resistance. If the colony was treated with an antibiotic such as penicillin, almost all the bacteria would die. Only those few carrying the mutated, resistant gene would survive. These would in turn produce and entire generation of penicillin-resistant bacteria (Science Focus 4 2005).
This ‘beneficial’ mutation benefits only the bacteria in surviving. It does not increase the genetic information of the bacteria. Studies have been done that show if you put this bacteria back in the normal environment they are more likely to be killed off (ref at a later stage). Even this does not explain the mechanism or give evidence that this mechanism has worked in the past to explain the present.
“the evidence overwhelmingly points to a common ancestry with other animals” – you have made a subjective statement,”overwhelmingly”
The genetic similarity of animals could just as easily point to a common designer. For example Daihatsu and Toyota both have 4 wheels, engine… etc. There is a common designer (Toyota) making these vehicles.
Having a genetic similarity does not provide a mechanism or is good evidence that we have evolved from a common ancestor. Macro-evolution has never, ever, ever been observed. A dog always breeds a dog. It has never in the past been observed that a dog has bred a non-dog. You may get a variation: big dog, little dog, hairy dog, curly dog… etc but still get a DOG.
Besides there are many cases where genetic differences are quite substantial.
“First of all, scientifically speaking, we are apes. We are of the mammalian group of apes, which include chimps, gorillas, humans, and the fossil records of extinct apes”
Since when do we consider ourselves apes. An ape is a mammal and so is a whale. Do we personally view ourselves as a whale as well.
The FOSSIL RECORD records extinct apes. Huge, huge, huge problem. There is no fossil record of the evolution of apes. All the fossils found on apes have been discredited (I will give the references for this later).
Fossils would never count as good evidence in a court of law. Think about this; a person says we have evolved from apes and the proof is a few fossils found that are supposedly transitional links.
1. Fossils do not tell you how old it was.
2. Fossils do not tell you that an animal had kids.
3. Fossils do not tell you that an animal had a different kid (i.e. evidence of change from type of animal to another).
All we know is that the fossil died, and in a court of law that would just discredit this as good evidence.
Hey Mina
This idea of a common ancestor is really flawed. its like saying an orange (our common ancestor) gave rise to apples, pears, grapes and so on. How is this possible that one ancestor changes into so many forms. if it were true it would go down one line (survival of the fittest as you say), not several lines.
Secondly i have never heard of any church father saying in his writings that we came from a shared ancestor. This concept didnt even exist back in the days of origen, basil, cyril or Augustine. In fact they just reveal that the days that you speak of could have been extended periods of time because the sun was created after the fourth day. And our day today is based on the sun. However no where did they say that we evolved or where animal.
It is very dangerous to apply the writings of the church fathers from centuries and centuries ago to give weight to our modern theories. let us read the fathers in context of the time and the reason they wrote what they wrote.
Allegory is a wonderful was to read the bible, but allegory that falls outside the lines of what we believe is wrong!
Thirdly if we assume your idea of a shared ancestor is correct, how do you answer the following questions.
1. Who is this ancestor and where did it come from and where did that come from and so on. Where is the origin?
2. When you answer the origin question, who and when was that origin created?
3. What will man evolve into next?
4.When did God decide to give us a spiritual aspect, a spirit?
5.When and how did sin enter the world?
The list is endless
Bish
I’m Sorry to say, But i also agree with what Bishoy is saying!
A few points:
1. A good theory allows for observation and experimentation of testable evidence to describe and explain natural phenomena. Evolutionary theory lacks the observable and testable evidence to back up its claims. All is theory, which is in effect the scientific term for belief with “reasons”. But not all reasons are true, and not all “reasons” allow for 1. Observation, 2. Experimentation, 3. Testable evidence.
Regarding evolutionary theory, we must consider:
1. Cosmic evolution – the origin of time space and matter (i.e. Big Bang Theory)
2. Chemical evolution – the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Proponents of the Big Bang Theory claim that the big bang produced hydrogen and some helium. However, this does not explain how the other 105 elements evolved? (on the periodic table)
3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets.
No one has ever seen a star form. We only see them blow up. As in nova’s and super nova’s.
4. Organic evolution, the origin of life.
Evolution cannot answer how you can go from a non living material to living organism.
5. Macro evolution, when one animal changes from one kind into another.
There is no such thing as interspecies transformation.
Nowhere in the fossil records is there evidence of any interspecies transformation. As mentioned above, no transitory fossils have been found and all alleged transitory fossils have been disproven. This point can be proven if requested.
6. Micro evolution, variation within kinds. This has been observed.
Big and little dogs, with limits. There are limits. The further you get from the norm, the more problems you have. Disease resistance goes down etc.
This is consistent with Genesis 1:21 – So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [NKJV]
According to its own kind is repeated 10 times in chapter 1
A dog and wolf are a different species but the same kind of animal.
It was mention that evolutionary theory can coexist with Biblical creation theory. I respectfully disagree for the following reasons:
In relation to Theistic Evolution:
1. Could God have used evolution to create the universe?
No.
The ‘god’ that would need to use evolution is cruel, wasteful and deceitful and promotes death, suffering and cruelty.
Our God gets it right the first time. He does not need to practice.
The evolutionary god relies on misfits, blind chance and death.
This is NOT the God of the Bible.
2. Jacque Monod Nobel Prize commenting on theistic evolution stated that:
Blind and cruel way to evolve a new species through the struggle of life and eliminating the weakest link.
In society the weak should be protected, the opposite of the so called natural law. [Jacques Monrod, “The secret of life” Interview with Laurie John, Australian Broadcasting Co., June 10, 1976]
3. Can evolutionary theory and Biblical creation theory ever be reconciled?
No. The Bible claims that Man brought death into the world, while evolutionary theory in effect claims that death brought man into the world.
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Charles Darwin in his Origin of species – “From the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of higher animals directly follows.”
4. Furthermore, consider the following irreconcilable differences between what the Bible states and what Evolutionary Theory states (or claims)
Bible: Earth before sun
Evolution: Sun before earth
Bible: Oceans before land
Evolution: land before oceans
Bible: light before sun
Evolution: Sun before light
Bible: land plants first
Evolution: marine life first
Bible: fruit trees before fish
Evolution: fish before fruit trees
Bible: fish before insects
Evolution: insects before fish
Bible: Plants before sun
Evolution: Sun before plants
Bible: Marine mammals before land mammals
Evolution: Land mammals before marine mammals
Bible: Birds before reptiles
Evolution: Reptiles before birds
Bible: Atmosphere between 2 layers of water
Evolution: Atmosphere above water
Bible: man brought death into the world
Evolution: Death brought man into the world.
Also:
Bible: The universe was created for man
Evolution: Man was created from and for the universe