"Darwinism is contrary to the Bible, but it is not science; it is only the opinion of scientists, contrary to scientifically established facts."
- Saint Luke of Crimea
Over 60 years ago, during the anniversary readings dedicated to Darwin's centenary in 1959, Julian Huxley expressed the content of evolutionary theory this way: “According to evolutionary ideas, there is neither place nor need for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it came into being as a result of evolution. The same can be said about the animals and plants that inhabit it, including us humans, our consciousness and soul, as well as our brain and our body. Religion has also evolved...” [1].
From these words it follows that Darwinism, in addition to scientific content, also has spiritual content. In agreement with this, the philosopher Karl Popper wrote: “I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not an evidence-based scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program - a possible framework for evidence-based scientific theories” [2].
Indeed, back in 1885, the author of the major three-volume treatise “Darwinism - Critical Research" by Danilevsky argued that “the theory of evolution is not so much a biological as a philosophical doctrine, a dome on the building of mechanical materialism, which alone can explain its fantastic success, which has nothing to do with scientific achievements” [3]. This is the reason that the theory of evolution, despite its amazing scientific sterility, remains practically undividedly dominant in modern de-churched society.
Danilevsky says that according to Darwin’s teaching, ascribing life on earth to the power of evolution, that is, to the power of chance, it is impossible to explain the amazing harmony in nature and throughout the entire universe. Danilevsky wrote: “From what has been said, it is clear that the question of whether Darwin is right or wrong is of paramount importance, not only for zoologists and botanists, but for every even more or less thinking person. Its importance is such that I am firmly convinced that there is no other question that is equal to it in importance, neither in the field of our knowledge nor in any field of practical life. After all, this is, in fact, a question of “to be or not to be,” in the fullest, broadest sense.” [3]
Liberal democratic and socialist leaders also agreed that the question of the attitude towards Darwinism is of fundamental importance for our consciousness. The only difference was that Danilevsky solved this issue from the position of an Orthodox Christian, and the Darwinists - from a materialist position.
Karl Marx, after reading The Origin of Species, exulted in a letter to Lassalle on January 16, 1861, that God, at least in the natural sciences, had received, in his opinion, a “death blow.” Friedrich Engels in his “Dialectics of Nature” wrote: “First work, and then with it articulate speech, were the two most important stimuli, under the influence of which the monkey’s brain gradually turned into the human brain...” [4]. Lenin, in his work “What are 'friends of the people' and how do they fight against the Social Democrats,” equated Darwin’s teaching in the field of natural science in its significance to Marx’s teaching on human society, especially emphasizing that Darwin put an end to the view of animal and plant species as “created by God” [5]. The spiritual contradiction between the theory of evolution and Christian doctrine was also recognized by natural scientists who followed Darwin. In particular, J. Huxley wrote: “Darwinism, relying on rational ideas, rejected the very idea of God as the Creator of all organisms... we can completely consider untenable any idea of supernatural control carried out by some higher intelligence responsible for the process of evolution” [6] .
Here is the opinion of Arthur Keith: “Let me declare the conclusion to which I have come: the law of Christ cannot be reconciled with the law of evolution, at least not as the law of evolution exists today. No, these two laws are in conflict with each other, the law of Christ will never win until the law of evolution is destroyed” [7].
Charles Darwin himself was well aware that his theory was in conflict with Christian doctrine. However, in his book On the Origin of Species, he wrote, clearly trying to justify himself: “I see no sufficient reason why the views expressed in this book could offend anyone’s religious feelings [8].
In his book “The Descent of Man” he wrote: “I know that the conclusions to which this work leads will be considered by some to be extremely irreligious, but whoever brands them is obliged to prove why the beginning of man as a special species derived from something of a lower form with the help of the laws of change and natural selection, is more ungodly than to explain the birth of an individual by the laws of ordinary reproduction” [9].
Darwin certainly realized that his godless teaching challenged church doctrine about the creation of the world by God in six days, about the origin of man, the appearance of death in the world, and other dogmatic issues.
Evaluation of Darwinism by the Holy Fathers
Without arrogating to ourselves the honor of expressing judgments on behalf of the conciliar apostolic Church, we note that an exhaustive assessment of Darwinism has already been given by the Holy Fathers and church teachers. The fact that Orthodox saints and holy zealots of piety definitely expressed their attitude towards the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin testifies, among other things, to the fact that Darwinism is not a purely scientific phenomenon, but a spiritual one. None of the Holy Fathers gave any special assessment to Archimedes’ law or the theory of electromagnetism. Many church authorities, both Darwin’s contemporaries and those who lived after him, spoke unanimously about evolutionary theory.
Let us listen to the voice of the Holy Fathers, who bequeathed to us their unequivocal attitude towards Darwin's theory.
St. Barsanuphius of Optina:
“The English philosopher Darwin created a whole system according to which life is a struggle for existence, a struggle between the strong and the weak, where the vanquished are doomed to death, and the winners triumph. This is already the beginning of animal philosophy, and people who believe in it do not think about killing a person, insulting a woman, robbing their closest friend - and all of this with complete calmness, with full awareness of their right to commit all these crimes” [10].
St. John of Kronstadt:
“Uneducated and overeducated people do not believe in a personal, righteous, omnipotent, and beginningless God, but believe in an impersonal beginning and in some kind of evolution of the world and all beings... and therefore they live and act as if they will not answer to anyone for their words and deeds, idolizing themselves, their mind, and their passions. In blindness, they reach the point of madness, deny the very existence of God, and claim that everything happens through blind evolution (the doctrine that everything that is born happens by itself, without the participation of the Creative Force). But anyone who has reason will not believe such crazy nonsense” [11].
Saint Theophan the Recluse:
“When we transfer the characteristics of a person into the spirit, then Darwin’s entire theory falls by itself. For in the origin of man, it is necessary to explain not just how his animal life occurs, but even more so, how he originated as a spiritual person in an animal body with his animal life and soul” [12].
“In our days, Russians are beginning to deviate from the faith: one part completely and comprehensively falls into unbelief, the other falls into Protestantism, the third secretly weaves its beliefs, in which it thinks to combine both spiritualism and geological nonsense with Divine Revelation. Evil is growing: malice and unbelief are raising their heads; faith and Orthodoxy are weakening” [13].
“This is exactly the theory of the formation of the world from nebulous spots with their supports - the theory of arbitrary origin, Darwin's origin of genera and species and with his last dream about the origin of man. Everything is like the delirium of a sleepy person” [14].
“We now have many nihilists, naturalist scientists, Darwinists, spiritualists and Westerners in general — well, do you think the Church would keep silent, would not have given her voice, would not have condemned and anathematized them, if there was something new in their teaching? On the contrary, there would certainly have been a council, and all of them, with their teachings, would have been anathematized. To the present Synodicon of Orthodoxy, only this paragraph would be added: 'To Büchner, Feuerbach, Darwin, Renan, Kardek and all their followers - anathema!' Of course, there is no need for a special council, nor for any addition. All their false teachings have long been anathematized. At the present time, not only in provincial cities, but in all places and churches, the rite of Orthodoxy should be introduced and performed, and all the teachings contrary to the word of God should be collected and announced to everyone, so that everyone knows what to fear, and which teachings to run away from" [15].
St. Justin Popovich:
“Therefore God gave them up to shameful pleasures and they are satisfied not with heavenly, but with earthly things, and only with that which causes the laughter of the devil and the weeping of the Angels of Christ. Their sweetness is in caring for the flesh... in denying God, in a completely biological (bestial) life, in calling the monkey their ancestor, in the dissolution of anthropology in zoology” [16].
Saint Nicholai Velimirovic:
“Millions of years had to pass, say dumb minds in our time, for the spine to straighten and for the monkey to become a man! They say this without knowing the strength and power of the Living God” [17].
Saint Nektarios of Pentapolis:
[He] also expressed his righteous anger, denouncing those who want to “prove that man is the ape from which they boast they descended” [18].
Hieromartyr Thaddeus Uspensky:
“A person who does not believe in God, from the circulation of the world’s dust, wants to explain the origin of the world, in which in every blade of grass, in the structure and life of every smallest creature, so much intelligence is invested beyond human understanding. Centuries-old human wisdom could not create a single living grain, and yet unbelief tries to explain all the marvelous diversity in the world from the unconscious movements of matter” [19]. “Life, as they say, is a huge complex mechanical process, it is unknown when, by whom and for what it was put into action... But if life is a mechanical process, then one must renounce the soul, thought, will and freedom” [20].
Hieromartyr Vladimir of Kiev, one of the new martyrs and confessors of Russia, gave the most profound and accusatory assessment of Darwinism:
Only at the present time has such a daring philosophy found a place for itself, which overthrows human dignity and tries to give its false teaching wide dissemination. It is not from God’s hands, it says, that man originated ; in an endless and gradual transition from imperfect to perfect, he developed from the animal kingdom and, just as little as an animal has a soul, man also has little... How immeasurably deeply all this humiliates and insults man! From the highest level in the series of creations, he is relegated to the same level as animals...
There is no need to refute such a teaching on scientific grounds, although this is not difficult to do, since unbelief has far from proven its provisions... But if such a teaching is now finding more and more followers, it is not... as if the teaching of unbelief has become indisputably true, but because it does not interfere with the corruption we are prone to. It is a sin for the heart to indulge in one’s passions. For if a person is not immortal, if he is nothing more than an animal that has reached the highest development, then he has nothing to do with God...
Brothers, do not listen to the destructive, poisonous teachings of unbelief, which reduces you to the level of animals and, depriving you of human dignity, does not promise you anything, as soon as despair and inconsolable life! For if a person is not immortal, if he is nothing more than an animal that has reached the highest development, then he has nothing to do with God... [21].
Saint Luke of Crimea:
“Darwinism, which recognizes that man through evolution developed from a lower species of animals, and is not a product of a creative act of the Divine, turned out to be only an assumption, a hypothesis, already outdated for science. This hypothesis is recognized as contrary not only to the Bible, but also to nature itself, which jealously strives to preserve the purity of each species, and does not know the transition even from a sparrow to a swallow.” [22].
We have given a small list of statements about Darwinism by church teachers who were canonized as saints in the Russian, Serbian, and Greek local Churches. This list can easily be continued.
In the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Saint John of Shanghai spoke about the error of evolutionism. The most thorough assessment of Darwin’s theory of evolution from the position of patristic theology was given by his student and spiritual follower, Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) [23, 18]. Today, many Orthodox Christians consider Father Seraphim of Platina worthy of glorification as a Saint.
Let us note that the patristic thoughts we have cited do not represent random rash private judgments on this theological issue, but the almost unanimous opinion of the Orthodox Church. Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) pointed out this, speaking about the issues of evolutionism and progress: “The idea of progress is the adaptation to human life of the general principle of evolution, and evolutionary theory is the legitimation of the struggle for existence... But the saints of the Orthodox Church not only were not figures of progress, but almost always they denied it in principle” [24].
From the above, an important conclusion follows that the fundamental rejection of evolutionist ideas, and in particular the criticism of Darwinism, by the saints who lived after Charles Darwin, is not an innovation in Orthodox theology, but a consistent and faithful continuation of the tradition of the patristic spiritual heritage.
Charles Darwin's attitude towards Christianity
Charles Darwin himself was not a Christian. Henry Morris wrote convincingly about this, noting the following about Darwin: “In his youth, studying theology and preparing for Christian ministry, he was completely convinced of the truth and authority of Scripture, and also of the irrefutable evidence of the existence of a Creator God, contained in the design and causality of the world. . Gradually accepting evolution and natural selection, he lost faith and finally became an atheist” [25]. Darwin's teaching must be called completely godless. At least, Darwin himself never claimed that his theory corresponded to the Bible and should be considered as a Christian teaching.
The most convincing evidence of Darwin's attitude to Christian doctrine and the Bible is his own confessions.
“I gradually came to realize that the Old Testament, with its obviously false history of the world, with its Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign of the covenant, etc., and with its attribution to God of the feelings of a vengeful tyrant, is no more trustworthy than the sacred books of the Hindus or the beliefs of some savage" [29].
“I gradually stopped believing in Christianity as a divine revelation” [ibid].
“Little by little, disbelief crept into my soul, and, in the end, I became a complete unbeliever. But this happened so slowly that I did not feel any grief and never since then, even for a single second, have doubted the correctness of my conclusion. And in fact, I am hardly able to understand how anyone could want the Christian teaching to turn out to be true... A disgusting teaching! [ibid].
“There is nothing more remarkable than the spread of religious unbelief, or rationalism, during the second half of my life” [ibid].
Without any doubt, a person with such a worldview, if he used the word “God,” did so in a meaning very far from the biblical Christian concept of a personal Creator.
Saint Luke of Crimea cites the following statement by Charles Darwin: “Into the first cell, life had to be breathed by the Creator” [22]. It is quite obvious that Darwin’s “Creator” bears little resemblance to the biblical God - the Creator of heaven and earth.
On the contradiction of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism to Orthodox dogmatic doctrine
The “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedic Dictionary” writes: “Darwin himself was a supporter of abiogenesis - the doctrine according to which organic life arose in distant geological epochs naturally through the slow transformation of inorganic matter into organic matter, and then some organisms descended from others and arbitrary generation in subsequent epochs no longer existed” [26]. In this regard, let us cite the statement of the famous physicist and molecular biologist J. Bernal: “A lone DNA molecule on the deserted shore of the primeval ocean looks even more implausible than Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden” [27].
Many of Darwin's followers, starting with evolutionist P. Teilhard de Chardin, proposing their evolutionist theories, claimed and claim to be called “Christian evolutionists”, “teleological evolutionists”, or “Orthodox evolutionists”. Many of these adherents of the theory of “divine evolution” are quick to disown Darwin and even call themselves “anti-Darwinists.”
However, everything that was said by the Holy Fathers and Orthodox theologians regarding the actual teachings of Charles Darwin can quite rightly be transferred to the theory of abiogenesis by L.S. Berg [28], and other “neo-Darwinian” evolutionary teachings, many varieties of which appeared in the 20th century. The fact is that the condemnation of Darwinism by church teachers was carried out not because of existing individual scientific errors or inaccuracies in research conclusions, but because of the anti-Christian principle of evolutionism, which formed the basis of Darwin’s scientific theory.
In this regard, it should be noted that evolutionism really does not reduce to Darwinism, but represents a whole spectrum of different teachings, like the plates of a fan, more or less close to each other and having a single anchor at the base. In essence, “atheistic” and “theistic” evolutionism differ only in that the first is silent about God “as unnecessary,” while the second tirelessly says about each stage of evolution that it occurred “by the will of God.” Neither Darwinists nor followers of “teleological evolutionism” know God as a personal Creator.
The discrepancy between the various evolutionist schools should be recognized as scientific and methodological rather than fundamental. In spiritual terms, evolutionism of any kind contradicts the apostolic teaching and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Thus, the assessment of Darwinism itself by the Holy Fathers can quite rightly be attributed to any other type of evolutionary theory.
In conclusion, we present a list of dogmatically significant issues that have different solutions in the evolutionary worldview concept of Darwinism and in the Orthodox dogmatic doctrine.
1. Did Adam exist as a historical person responsible for a personal act - the transgression of God's commandment or the first fall? (This is what the prophet of God Moses wrote. Do we believe in the Holy Spirit, “who spoke by the prophets”?)
2.Was Adam created from the dust of the ground or from some other animal species? Did the first man Adam have any “ancestors” at all? (A key question in biblical anthropology.)
3. Did the Lord Jesus Christ have the same “ancestors”? Is His human body consubstantial with the body of other animals? Did the blood of Adam’s “ancestors” flow in His veins? What, in this regard, do we partake of in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? (Christology, liturgics, the doctrine of mysterious transubstantiation.)
4. Did the Savior shed his divine blood only for people, or for other creatures? Is it permissible to baptize and give communion to Adam’s distant “relatives”? (Soteriology, the doctrine of the sacraments.)
5. Was the first man Adam created immortal? (The teaching of the Catechism on salvation from sin, damnation, and death.)
6. Was Eve created from a part (rib) of Adam, or is she a being of “different blood”? (The key question of Mariology, having a connection with the Incorruptible Nativity of Christ.)
7. Did death exist in nature before the fall of Adam and Eve? (Christology, soteriology.)
8. Did some species evolve into others, or were they originally created according to their kind? (Should we consider God the Creator of "everything visible and invisible"?)
9. Should the genealogy of Jesus Christ from Adam be taken literally, according to the Gospel of Luke (chapter 3)? (Is there any blasphemy against the Lord as against the Son of Man in the distortion of this genealogy?)
10. Is the world still expected to exist for millions and billions of years, or should we expect the imminent Second Coming of Christ? (Related to the Resurrection, Judgment, and Life in the next age.)
11. Should the words of the Creed: “for the resurrection of the dead” be taken literally?
12. In the historical evolutionary perspective, does humanity expect some kind of earthly paradise and prosperity, the kingdom of the “noosphere”? How literally should we take the expectation of the coming of the Antichrist? (Relation to chiliasm.)
All of the above questions have doctrinal significance.
— Archpriest Constantine Bufeev
Endnotes:
I. Tax S. (cd.) Evolution alter Darwin, University of Chicago Press. 1960
2 I'uiu Dumil. Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics St. Petersburg: Everyone's Day Bible. IW5, p.25
3. Danilevsky 11.Ya. Darwinism. Critical research. T. I.. Part 1., St. Petersburg. 1885
4. Engels F. Dialectics of nature. M.; State Ed. Political literature. 1949, p.135
5. Lenin V.I. What are “friends of the people” and how do they fight against the Social Democrats. PSS. T. 1.0.139
6. Julian Huxley, in Issuts in Evolution, Sol Tax, Ed, University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1960. p.45
7. Arthur Keith, Involution and Ethics, Putnam, New York. 1947. p.15
8. Darwin Ch. Origin of Species. M.: State. agricultural publishing house Lit. 1952
9. Darwin Ch. The origin of man and sexual selection M 1953
10. Barsanuphius of Optina, St., Conversations with spiritual children. St. Petersburg 1991, p.57
II. John of Kronstadt, St. right Full composition of writings. T. 1. St. Petersburg. 1893 //Reprint: Publishing house L.S. Yakovleva. 1994, p. 13.91
12. Theophan the Recluse, St. Wise advice. M.: Rule of faith. 1998, p.261 13 Six days against evolution // Collection of articles M.: Pilgrim. 2000, p.251
14. Theophan the Recluse, St. Thoughts for each day of the year according to church readings from the word of God. Mn.: Rays of Sofia. 2000, p.181
15. Theophan the Recluse, St. Contemplation and reflection. M.: Rule of faith. 1998, p. 146
16. Justin (Popovich), archim., rev. Orthodox Church and ecumenism. M.: Compound of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. 1997, p. 165
17. Nikolay Serbsky (Vezemirovich), set. Conversations. M.: Rook. 2001, p.398
18. Seraphim (Rose), hierome. Orthodox view of evolution // Offering of an Orthodox American. M.. 1998, p.514
19. Thaddeus (Uspensky), schmch. Rejoice! M. 1998, p. 164
20. Kutetsov A.I. About the sermons of Bishop Thaddeus Uspensky / Patriarch Tikhon and the history of Russian church unrest. St. Petersburg 1994, p.352
21. Vladimir Kyiv, sschmch.. Where is true happiness: in faith or unbelief? M. 1998
22. Luke (Voino-Yassnetsky) St. Science and religion. Trinity Word.2001, p.41, 70
23. Seraphim (Rose), hierome. Orthodox understanding of the book of Genesis. M. 1998
24. Hilarion (Trinity), there is no Christianity without the Church. M-SPb. 1999, p.269, 274
25. Morris Henry. Creation and the modern Christian. M. 1993. p. 102
26. Complete Orthodox theological encyclopedic dictionary. T. 1., M. 1913 // Reprint. M. 1992, pp. 710-711
27. Creation. Almanac. Vol. 1. M.: Pilgrim. 2002, p. 207
28 Nerg L.S. Nomogenesis or evolution based on patterns // Proceedings on the theory of evolution. L. 1978
29. Darwin Ch. Memories of the development of my mind and character. Essays. T.9. Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1959.