Faith and Science

We can probably all agree on at least one thing that Darwin wrote in his Descent of Man: "False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long..."

One thing is for certain, that the Church has always embraced the increase of knowledge through the sciences and philosophy. It does, however, reject bad science. For instance, in the middle ages the scientists of the day in the west believed that the earth was flat. Roman Catholicism accepted this as truth because it was "science." The Orthodox Church of the mdidle ages, however, rejected this based upon 1. That Scripture says that the earth is round/spherical 2. That scientists of the early and middle Byzantine era have proven that it was a sphere. The notion that the earth was flat was bad science. Thus, that Christopher Columbus "proved" that the earth was spherical is absurd, since from ancient times we have known this both through Biblical revelation and from good science, rather than half-witted conjecture. While in the west there were "dark ages," the Orthodox east encountered no such thing. Whereas the west for some time threw off empirical observation in favor of rational conjecture, the Orthodox East kept both in balance. The Orthodox Church constantly and persistantly encouraged the advances of science and medicine, and still does to this day. In fact, one of the ranks of Saints in the Orthodox Church is that of "unmercinary Saints." This type of Saint refers to scientists (physicians) who without pay advanced the work of God by helping mankind through science in the healing of soul and body. We should also mention the advanced biological and medical books put out during the Byzantine era by great Orthodox physicians.

I would say perhaps one of the most disappointing things about today's "dialogue of faith and science" is that Christianity gets watered down by those who wish to be caught up with the modern trends of the world around them, and forget the God that has revealed Himself to us. We forget what we sing on Pascha and Pentecost, when we sing joyfully to God "Thou art the God who doest wonders." The point is that the God of Christianity is a God of miracles. Otherwise, we become deists, and our God becomes, not a personal God who is the Creator, but an impersonal "molder" or "former" of creation who watches us only "from a distance." The point of the Scriptural account is that God creates us, redeems us, sustains us, and sanctifies us in a miraculous way. We also must believe that He intentionally created man. There is NO OPTION here. If you do not believe this, you have ceased to be a Christian, and certainly have ceased to be an Orthodox Christian, regardless of whether you teach at a seminary or write books or have a jeweled cross on. The Orthodox Catholic Church upholds unambiguously that the universe was specially created ex nihilo, that man was created from the earth as a distinct and special creation of God, that each human soul is created specially by God and together with the body formed in the womb comprises a whole human person, and that God created all things good. The question is, does any of this conflict with science? No it does not. It is hard to tell from the spokespersons for Orthodoxy in the

United States

but, the Orthodox Church takes some definitive stands as a whole officially, even if the spokespersons in the

are unaware of the official doctrines on the matter. It takes no position on "the theory of evolution" because there is not one theory, but many many theories on evolution, but certainly there are some that are completely unacceptable, and others that give a role to God as Creator. The Church has no "theory of evolution" but rather a revealed FACT of creation which we confess in the creed--i.e. that God is the Creator, and not just the 'maker' of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

This page is for those who need a little reassurance in their faith, since we are constantly bombarded with anti-theistic assaults from all sides. Although the basic truths of the faith do not "rise" or "fall" based upon scientific findings, I sincerely believe--if you learn a little about science you may grow distant from God due to your inability to appreciate the "bigger picture," but if you learn much about science you are inevitably drawn back to Him with even stronger force then before. Most certainly this is true of Scripture in the Apostolic tradition--to willingly and openly learn much about it will inevitably draw a person back to God with even stronger force than before.

People usually take three basic positions on the origins of the universe and creation: (1) special or instantaneous creation, (2) developmental creation or theistic evolution, (3) and atheistic evolution. The first holds that a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God. The second position holds that a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God's guidance. The third position claims that a thing developed due to random forces alone. It should be noted that there are many theories which belong to #1, #2 and #3, and that some developmental creation (#2) theories are more palatable than others. There are some theories that both recognize evolution and hold to instantaneous creation based upon the fossil record (i.e. the Cambrian explosion fossils, as well as the recently discovered hominids along side older aged dinosours, the discovery of Neandrathal and Humans that existed at the same time, etc.). Such theories may either be put into class 1 or 2. It should be noted that recently, some who were long standing atheist scientists and philosophers have become theistic (i.e. belief in God) based upon the more recent discoveries of science.

Adam: Theologically (and "objectively"), the first and second Adam are very important to Orthodox Christianity as a whole. Unfortunately, everytime Adam is brought up now the theological professor thinks he has to explain how he is opened to theistic evolution, which detracts from the purpose. What science, archaeology and Orthodox Christianity all agree with, evolutionists and creationists alike, is that "this era of the world", i.e. the "age of (modern) man," only began several thousand years ago. The various positions have different understandings of what the reality was at the beginning of this age, but they agree that it happened around the same time. The Church has counted time both since the time of Christ and since the "completion of Creation", being this particular "age of the cosmos", i.e. "since the creation of man,"which, to an evolutionist archaeologist or historian would also be palatable, since modern man clearly did not come about until about this time (the year 2007 is the year 7515 in the current epoch of this world). Christians believe that the aeon (age, epoch) before this is the age of creation (which the Genesis account reports to be 6 days long, and scientists say was 15 billion years long), and the age to come as that which will succeed the aeon (age) of modern man after Christ's return.

Necessary premises and corrolaries. Monogenism and Polygenism are two distinct approaches to creation or evolution. Christianity is monogenistic, as is mainstream atheistic darwinistic theory, although the monogenism obviously has two distinct origins. Monogenism upholds a single origin, which in evolutionary theory takes the form of single-origin hypothesis (traditional Darwinism considers this to be a must). Christianity's monogenism takes on the ultimate form of intentional creation by God, whereas strict (atheistic) Darwinism does not recognize any intentional creative act. However, in recent times, there has also come about, within neo-Darwinism, the multi-regional hypothesis, in which human beings evolved descended from many different ancestors in different regions. Truly the natural correlary to polygenism would be one of necessary racism, that the descendants of some hominids are inferior to others, and is one that was supported by groups such as the Nazi's and the revived KKK to support their view that the different regionalities of human-like species are actually different species, since they have different origins and thus are truly different species (by Biological law--all life comes from other life, this is logical). It must be noted that monogenism on a basic level, for many years the only acceptable theory in evolution, is also the only possibility supported by the Church Fathers, i.e. that life stems from a single source. The difference is whether this single source is Creative Action and bestowal of life or the result of an extensive series of unlikely pre-organic and biological events (random simultinaity and sequential random processes with an initial or multiform breaches in the second law of thermodynamics upon the initial bringing about of organic systemitization). It is important to note that Science and Christian Faith agree on two important matters, Creation ex nihilo (in the case of science and infinitely small "singularity") of matter; and a separate bringing about of life from initially non-organic matter (in the case of creation Adam was created from the earth and given life).

Many Christian Theologians have disavowed a common source and thrown out God's central role in the existence of the human race simply because of the "possibility" raised by science of there being multiple sources. Thus, a complete fleeing to allegorism so as not to look less than academically astute has occurred in theological circles. As we shall see, this is unneccessary.

The primary difference, however, between Christianity and evolutionary monogenism, found in Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, is Anthropology. Scripture affirms that all of creation, including animals and plants, are distinctly good creations by God. But beyond this Christian Anthropology affirms that man is an INTENTIONAL Creation by the Lord. Adam was created specially. Man and woman were created particularly. God loves all creation and created it "very good." The monogenism that Christianity would affirm, therefore, is that GOD is the one source (monogenesis) of life, and the one beginning (monogenesis) of all things. Thus the darwinist would argue that all things come from the natural--the creature--he would argue that he is satisfied in the unknowing of the lack of origin and lapse in the laws of biology, particularly that all life comes from other life. The Christian scientist affirms that it comes from the One who is above all nature, who loves mankind and loves the world which He created. Man is not the "natural emination of apes" but rather the special creation of God IN HIS IMAGE. Darwin leaves no room for YOU to be God's image and likeness. We affirm that there was an Adam and Eve, and that He is a good God who loves mankind, continously repeated in the Divine Liturgy. Thus, Christian Anthropology denies the heretical anthropological minimalism inherent in darwinian theories, and affirms that the second person of the Holy Trinity became what we are (creatures, and specifically human beings), in order to, by grace and the sharing of His eternal energies, make us what He is. The Genesis account is clear that God created all that exists in terms of matter (the heavens and the earth) and that, He then formed them (hence the laws of science/nature), and then he formed plants, animals, and ultimately man from the earth. But, whereas man's body was given from pre-existent creation in Genesis 3, so also it is clear that each human soul is a new creation given directly by God. The danger is that modern science tries to "do away" with the soul. However, you cannot, with any theories, do away with something that already exists. All the laudations received may seem like the world, but "what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul." Man loses his soul, but it does not cease to exist--it becomes booty in spiritual warfare, ripped out of him by the plunderer, who seeks to convince man that he has no purpose, which eventually carries him into a void of despair, insanity, and death. But whereas the earth was without form and was void, it is obviously not so now. Therefore, the delusions which cause us to believe something that is contradictory to the empirically obvious will lead us to the fate of those such as Neitche--suicide, seeking to escape a life of hell only to find out that there is no escape. The pain that Neitche and others created--a false alternate world created for themselves in opposition to the "very good" creation of God, is now solidified in eternity. Even in its fallen state the earth has not lost its goodness, its purpose and goal: to be purified as a precious metal in fire and return to its Creator, which it will. This fantasia, as the Holy Fathers call it, an alternate reality created in our minds by sin and departure from the very good reality created by God, becomes torment to us because it leads our hearts away from God. As St. Augustine says, our hearts do not rest until they rest in Him. Therefore, to those who turn away from God and from the goodness and sanctity and holiness to which they are called (goodness is the natural state of man, not sin, which is the unnatural fallen condition which the will leads away from its created nature), they will never rest should they choose to create their own pseudo-world without life, and without the good purpose for which they are created. They will never rest from the despair of their own turning away from He Who Is. Therefore know that God wishes that all repent, that is, change their mind (metanoia), and come to the knowledge of truth.

In December 2005, Professor Antony Flew, the world's foremost atheist philosopher since 1955 and apologist for the asupernatural (the point of view that there is no such thing as "supernatural"), shook the world up a bit with his announcement that, in fact, he has now come to understand that there is, in fact, a supernatural force out there. Flew's nine books and numerous articles are pillars of atheistic philosophy and so this particular announcement disturbed many collegues and disciples of Flew. But he is just one example of atheists who have become theists. This has tended to also disturb the atheist wing of the scientific community, as well as the secular progressive community, which covertly tries to "convert America" to atheism.

In order to get to the bottom of atheistic philosophy's relationship to Darwinism and its effect on other matters, we must distinguish between the facts of evolution, which are real, and Darwinism, which is something altogether distinct, in that the latter assumes an unprovable origin of species and that a Creator does not exist. At the bottom of of all atheism is a human being who is angry with his or her God--angry that he took someone or something from them, that he did not give someone or something to them, or perhaps just mad because God has never done magic tricks for them to prove that He exists. If I come to visit one of my parishioners in the hospital and they are sleeping, they are not aware that I was there. I still was there. I can prove it by leaving a note--"while you were sleeping..." God does the same thing, only we like to ignore all the notes he has left us as human beings "while we were sleeping". They are now compiled in Scripture, what we now commonly call the Bible. People are angry so they try to use science or something else to prove he doesn't exist. But something or someone does not cease to exist just because we want it to.

But let's get more to the point... I am given the assignment to prove that there is such a thing as an engineer and an architect. I know that George down the road is an architect and that Eugene up the street is an engineer. I go to great lengths to prove that they exist, I take pictures, get their weight, height, some drawings, them in their work clothes, and even a picture of them in front of a building they had designed and built. The fact is, that the only thing that I did to prove that an architect and an engineer exist is to inadvertently get a picture of a building. I provided absolutlely no proof that George or Eugene were Architects whatsoever. However, that was not my assignment, my assignment was to prove taht there is such a thing as an engineer and an architect. Thus, the building itself is proof. I can take all the pictures I want, but the proof that there was a designer and a builder was not taking pictures of two people who may or may not have been the engineer and the architect, but that there is a building there! There cannot be a complex structure without intelligent design, a creature without a creator. Since we weren't there when the building was built, the first proof is the building itself that there is such a thing as an architect and an engineer. Atheist claims are addressed by author Ray Comfort, who wrote the book God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof that the Atheist doesn't Exist. In this work, he challenges the reader to look honestly at the facts and to see that there is no possible way to be an Atheist, and certainly not if you are being honest with yourself. Some will argue that this work, however, does not address many deeper Philosophical issues. For this I would suggest Dr. Alvin Plantinga: God, Freedom, and Evil, Eerdmans Publishing.

Just as our Lord became fully God and man, and thereby makes the Church a truly and fully Divine AND Human institution, so likewise Scripture was written by men who were moved by the Holy Spirit. Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona, in their work Eyewitness to Jesus show that recently re-discovered fragments from the earliest Gospels date to 59AD and prove that they were written by an eyewitness to Jesus (and thus probably Sts. Matthew and Mark), especially taking into consideration that their authorship were not contested even by anyone, including St. John for the 40 years following!

Both Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) and Ronald Fisher (1890-1962) were Christians and architects of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Dobzhansky, an Orthodox Christian of Russian descent, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing "evolutionary creationism":

"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way... Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

Of course, by mentioning Usher's "4004BC" date, he showed himself ignorant of the Aetos Kosmou timescale that the Church has always upheld. However, since then, other Scientists, although they would agree that creation was a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still underway, would disagree with a disavowal of the synchronous events of Creation going back several thousand years. We have come to learn much about relativity theory and the age of the universe and particular parts within it since 1973. Actually, the "problem of the age of the earth" is not much of a problem at all. Nonetheless, it is interesting to see the full picture thanks to Physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Although the six days of creation in Genesis (particularly before day 4), need not be "24 hour solar days" since, indeed, there was no sun yet, nonetheless, Genesis presents them as being standard days with and evening and a morning, and so we should look at evidence. What is strange is that it seems fairly obvious how old the universe is--it is about 5-15 billion years old when using principles of astrophysics. However, it is not clear how old the organized earth is by using geological principles. For instance, it is a fairly well known fact that there are certain elements that indicate how many years of continental weathering there would have to be to account for the saturation level of certain elements. This is a primary means of ocean dating.

The ocean's age is studied by elemental deposits. In H.U Sverdrup's research as reported in The Oceans, p220, and H.Kuenen's work Chemical Oceanography, in Vol. 1, page 164 chart we read that the Residency Periods for Chemicals in Ocean Solution varies quite drastically. There are only 2000 years worth of lead deposits and, and yet we also find that there are 8000 years worth of silicon deposits, 5600 worth of Scandium, 1400 years worth of Gallium, 1400 worth of Manganese, 1000 years for Tungsten, 42,000 years worthy of mercury. 7000 years worth of Germanium, 7500 years worth of Yttrium, 18,000 years worth of Cobalt, 18,000 worth of Nickel, 100,000 years for tin, 270,000 worthy of Rubidium; 50,000 years worthy of Moybdenum, Bismuth 45,000, Uranium 500,000, and Gold 560,000 worth. Even more shocking is that, when we look at the remaining elements, a majority show 1000 years or less: that there is only 100 years worthof Aluminum deposits, 140 worth of iron, 160 worth of Titanium, 350 of chromium, 300 of Niobium, 440 worthy of Lanthanum, 80 of Cerium, Praseodymnium 320, Neodymium 270 Samarium, 180, Europium, 300, Gadolinium 260, Dysprosium 460, Holmium 530, 690 Thulium 1800, Yterbium 530, Lutetium 450. Only 7 element-compound ratios suggest an earth age older than a million years: Lithium, Sodium, Magnesium, Potassium, Calcium, Strontium, and Silver. The majority suggest an earth age somewhere between 100 years and 500,00 years old. Nineteen of the elements found in sea water are found in amounts less than that which would be provided by one thousand years of continental weathering. Cateclismic events would explain numbers that are higher than they are supposed to be based on the mean (Lithium, Sodium, etc.). Extremely peaceful geological circumstances (more peaceful than today) in areas of higher concentration would explain numbers that are a little too low. The other explanation for low numbers would be oversaturation, which we know is not the case with the ocean--it has not come near a saturation point with any of the low elements in question. There is nothing that could explain a discrepency of an ocean age, if it was say 9x10^8, why there should be any element that is in less quantity, even given peaceful conditions, less than 1x10^6 (1 million years worth). However, if the ocean were 8x10^3 (8000 years old), a lower number of 2x10^2 (200 years old) could be accounted for by such conditions based on reasonable decrease in exponentiation. Now it should be granted that simply because the ocean is a young age does not mean that the earth is, but it does help put peaces of the puzzle together. Furthermore if the Continents had been weathering for say some 260 million years into the ocean it should hav eprovided sediments equalt to a minimum of 50x10^22 grams, and thus we would find an average sediment depth of ten times 63.5, or 635 meters (or 2100 feet). In studies done, including one major one in 1968 by John Ewing, the ocean floors were discovered to, at their greatest depth, be covered by sediments of less than 100 meters in depth, and at some broader areas as thin as 20 meters, and narrower as little as 2 meters ! (The crust and upper mantle of the Pacific Aread, pp148, 150,165). "How could three-quarters of the earths serface be wiped clean of sediment in teh last 5 per cent of terrestrial time? Furthermore, why were all the oceanic islands and submerged volcanoes so young?" wrote Patrick M Hurley in Scientific American, April 1968. There still is no answer to this besides a young ocean. At its oldest, it is 260 million years old, at its youngest, it is slightly prehistoric (5000+ years old). The likelihood is somewhere in between, but there is no exactitude scientifically--it is estimation. Thus the earth's ocean is young, but the universe is old--how do the two reconcile?

The Biblical and cosmological calendars and age of the Universe--Making sense of the creation story in the light of science.

Perhaps hurdle number 1 to get over in this discussion is the age of the earth--how do we reconcile the Biblical and cosmological calendars, which of which says the earth is 7000+ years old and the other which says that the universe, and all the elements therein are 5 to 15 billion years old! Some try to do "representational replacement" based on the Scriptures themselves, in both the old and new testaments, that with the Lord a day is as a 1000 years and a 1000 years is as a day, and thus state that in biblical language 1 day=800 million years. This is not a good approach. There is a simple question to be answered: Is the Creation account literal or not, and is it compatible with the time line given by scientific findings thusfar? We dance around the story by saying either that it is "literal" or "allegory."

As Physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D. has shown, this entire debate is rather unneccessary--the laws of Physics themselves tell us how BOTH 15 billion years and the literal 6 days are, in a situation like the "big bang" (or any similar scenario at the universe's beginning where we having things travelling at ultra high speeds and gravity having a radically changing form and effect) verifiably TRUE! In his book Genesis and the Big Bang (Bantam Books, 1990), Dr. Schroeder demonstrates how it is not only possible but necessary that in the conditions of the big bang, where relativity comes into play, that the creation actually took simultaneously 6 days AND several billion years through the process known as "time dilation." Time dilation is a verifiable fact, where two very different times in two different physical conditions of gravity and speed in an unbalanced system elapse for one event from two different points and yet both times are true, as demonstrated in high-energy physics labs, with elementary mu-meson experiments. But, as Dr. Schroeder explains, and other science references on time dilation note, it can even be seen on commercial flights of scheduled airlines! Note the following about time dilation:

'Gravitational time dilation has been experimentally measured using atomic clocks on airplanes. The clocks that traveled aboard the airplanes upon return were slightly fast with respect to clocks on the ground. The effect is significant enough that the Global Positioning System needs to correct for its effect on clocks aboard artificial satellites, providing a further experimental confirmation of the effect. Gravitational time dilation has also been confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment and by observations of the spectra of the white dwarf Sirius B.' (found in Cosmology Curiosity)

Genesis and the Big Bang is very helpful. It is a difficult concept but Dr. Schroeder states that in science, demonstrable proof and experimental fact supercede theoretical arguments. Also, this phenomenon explains how clearly some dating methods PROVE that the earth can be no older than 7000-13000 years, and yet other facts SIMULTANEOUSLY PROVE that it is not--without contradiction. This is very informative reading and I would suggest it, and its partner book, The Science of God , for further reading on this subject.

God created the heavens and the earth ex nihilo, but the rest is formed from the already formed creation, and wisdom is implanted deeply within the creation that is "very good." The Book of Genesis, without doubt, states certain things expressly. The word creation does not appear, for instance, on day three. It does not say that God brought forth plants, but rather that God ordered that THE EARTH bring forth plants, each according to its kind. Likewise, of course, we read in Genesis chapter two that man was formed from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. This is all very important that our theology is in accord with what the text actually says, and not reinvent it to say something else other than it says. Thus, the argument is not whether the earth was already preconditioned to bring forth life and it did, but whether God had a hand in it, or whether it was an "accident." Here is where probability makes it take more faith to believe that God did not bring this forth, than it does to believe that He did. There is such a deep wisdom within this universe that there is no other conclusion that can rationally be drawn from the evidence.

George Gallop once stated that he could "Prove God statistically." He continued "Take the human body alone--the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." Actually, this is very true. In order to create a "cell" that is much simpler than the human cell composed of 200 parts and not able to reproduce (simple in comopared with actual living systems), the probabilty of forming such an ordered system in a random event is 200 factorial, or 10^375 power, which written out is 1 chance in approximately

The fact is that Darwin admitted in 1872 that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would ultimately break down." From what we know now, especially within the scientific revelations of the past 20 years, this is true of just about every human organ, as Dr. Geoffrey Simmons, MD, demonstrates in his work: What Darwin Didn't Know. I would suggest reading this book as well, which de facto strips "evolution" of its claims. Another book to look into regarding the breakdown in Darwinism is the Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Another work to read is William Dembski, Ph.D.'s The Design Revolution. An older work from the 1980's on this issue which also sheds some light on the subject is Scott M. Huse's The Collapse of Evolution. For other articles and links to similar things see the following: http://www.tserkovnost.org/articles/evolution-gascoigne.html.

The fact is that our whole moral code is affected by our belief in God and our life in Christ--with His teachings or without them. Biomedical Ethics seem to be a main focal point today with all of the dilemmas that technology has produced. For this I would like to suggest The Sacred Gift of Life by John Breck, SVS Press. He tackles Faith's relationship to Science from the ethical point of view!

Hopefully, the following will also be of some benefit to you from the work, which with the Lord's help and grace I have labored much on, That They All May Be One: A Catechismal Tome of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church:

42. So both the Gnostic 'allegorical approach' to the Scriptures and the 'literalist approach' of those who which to ignore the full context of Scripture often leads to heresy, correct?:

--Heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which...are incapable of a simple solution. (Against Marcion, 4; a 2nd-3rd century work against the heresy of Marcionism; ascribed to Tertullian)

On the whole, any deeper meaning that the Scripture in many passages has to offer is seen by Tradition as being typical (things that happened historically and also pointing to a greater meaning), not allegorical (completely symbolic language where the words refer to something else of greater meaning). Regardless, when it comes to aphophatic or deeper cataphatic truths, literalism usually winds up leading us to a shallow understanding of texts that are actually designed for unfolding multi-tiered meaning and revelation. There are, of course, the cases of clear allegory. However, for the most part, it becomes rather clear which parts of Scripture are strictly allegorical and which are not. For instance, we are told in the gospels that during a certain point Jesus spoke in parables, and "without a parable He did not speak unto them," until the appointed time for him to speak in 'plainly' to them. But even in some parable history--or actual occurances to happen in the near future, are used (for example the rich man and Lazarus). There are some parables in the Old Testament where God's divine actions and instruction are described with human language, and allegory is employed. But on the whole, those things which are presented as being historical should be taken as being historically factual, and any deeper meaning taken from that (i.e. typical, not allegorical meaning). Father Jack Sparks states that "types are historical in nature--particular words are not examined at all--and the types depend upon correlation and correspondence." (OSB 382). Those who attempt to cite St. Paul's reference in Gal. 4.24-5.1 as 'proof' that certain Old Testament passages were interpreted allegorically (such as Origen had asserted), are refuted by the Fathers. St. John Chrysostom points out that St. Paul 'contrary to usage...calls a type an allegory.' On the same point Theodore of Mopsuestia calls such an application of Gal. 4 "an abuse of the Apostle's term...the apostle [Paul] does not eliminate the history nor does he do away with the things that happened in the past, but he accepts them as they happened at that time and applies the history of the things that happened to his own understanding." (On Gal. 4) The exegesis of Scripture by the Church is in historically real typological terms. We cannot ignore the historical context and reality of the things written in Scripture. "A historically oriented typological methodology was ingrained in the tradition of the Church," in her Liturgy, reading of Scripture, dogmatic pronouncements, canon law, etc. "always reminding her members of how their faith and hope was rooted in the history revealed in the Scriptures." (OSB 834).

(The preceding is from page 599 of the book That They All May Be One: A Catechismal Tome of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church by Fr. Harry Linsinbigler, and may be reproduced with proper citations)

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Wed Aug 8, 2007 5:57 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Surprising research based on two African fossils suggests our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, challenging what had been common thinking on how early humans evolved.

The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution — that one of those species evolved from the other.

And it further discredits that iconic illustration of human evolution that begins with a knuckle-dragging ape and ends with a briefcase-carrying man.

The old theory is that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became human, Homo sapiens. But Leakey's find suggests those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years. She and her research colleagues report the discovery in a paper published in Thursday's journal Nature.

The paper is based on fossilized bones found in 2000. The complete skull of Homo erectus was found within walking distance of an upper jaw of Homo habilis, and both dated from the same general time period. That makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis, researchers said.

It's the equivalent of finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters rather than mother-daughter, said study co-author Fred Spoor, a professor of evolutionary anatomy at the University College in London.

The two species lived near each other, but probably didn't interact, each having its own "ecological niche," Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian while Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, "they'd just avoid each other, they don't feel comfortable in each other's company," he said.

There remains some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said.

Overall what it paints for human evolution is a "chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us," Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.

That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, is just too simple and keeps getting revised, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings. He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn't part of the Leakey team.

"The more we know, the more complex the story gets," he said. Scientists used to think Homo sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, he said. But now we know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals.

Now a similar discovery applies further back in time.

Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.

"This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points," Anton said. "This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn't do. It's a continous self-testing process."

For the past few years there has been growing doubt and debate about whether Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus. One of the major proponents of the more linear, or ladder-like evolution that this evidence weakens, called Leakey's findings important, but he wasn't ready to concede defeat.

Dr. Bernard Wood, a surgeon-turned-professor of human origins at George Washington University, said in an e-mail Wednesday that "this is only a skirmish in the protracted 'war' between the people who like a bushy interpretation and those who like a more ladder-like interpretation of early human evolution."

Leakey's team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history. That's especially true of most immediate ancestor, Homo erectus.

Because the Homo erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of malformation or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn't Homo habilis from several distinct features on the jaw.

That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said Anton. Scientists hadn't looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females.

Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primates that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.

This suggests that our ancestor Homo erectus reproduced with multiple partners.

The Homo habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that Homo erectus and Homo habilis lived at the same time.