The quote ends with this sentence: “Surely you have picked up on this by now.”
Oh, absolutely… I certainly “get” that you have presented us with commentary that you believe shows “. . . that the ToE is inadequate.”
In fact, I would say your general rejection of the various THEORIES of Evolution seems even MORE zealous and consistent than various hybrids of “Intelligent Design” proponents who visit this site, considering many of them say they accept SOME aspects of Common Descent.
You mention not having time to spend with me to answer my questions… implicitly acknowledging that you really haven’t answered my questions, urging me, “. . . if you are intent on looking for differences [between our views], they would be summarised by Orthodox Christianity . . . I suggest you find some of my theological comments I have made on this site and then ask specific questions or make specific points.”
I am always interested when I find someone who identifies with the Greek Orthodox community AND they are Creationists. . . . because that community is not notoriously monolithic on the topic!
And when there are hints of a common view … it doesn’t usually incline towards Young Earth Creationism:
"The traditional Orthodox view of the Genesis account, therefore, does not see it as a literal scientific account of the physical processes of the origins of the physical universe, nor a scientific account of the origins of life, or of the origins of human existence. Thus, St. Basil writing his work “On the Six Days of Creation” in the fourth century, did not limit himself to the Genesis account, but used the scientific information and philosophical terminology of his day to present a balanced account of the origins of the world, both spiritual and scientific. "
And when Evolution is rejected in an Eastern Orthodox writing … it is usually the Godless variety of Evolution that is being rejected:
“Another response more characteristic of the Orthodox approach, and accepted by many Roman Catholic and non-fundamentalist Protestants, may be characterized as theistic evolution. This view rejects evolutionary theories [i.e. Evolution without God], which are formulated in exclusively materialistic perspectives primarily because they fail to acknowledge the non-material spiritual verities of existence. Theistic evolutionary development, seeing in it justification for the view that God uses such processes not only to bring into existence the material world, but to guide it in its material development. The world as described by objective scientific description is, after all, God’s world, and it must be understood as such so that one truth about the origins of the world is maintained.”
So, maybe this last post qualifies for consideration, considering your instructions “…I suggest you find some of my theological comments I have made on this site and then ask specific questions.”
My specific question is, what leads you to reject the “general position” of the Eastern Orthodox view (presumably represented with more or less precision by the Archdiocese discussion I quote here) which, for the time being, could be summarized by this sentence:
“The traditional [Eastern] Orthodox view of the Genesis account . . . does not see it as a literal scientific account of the physical processes of the origins of the physical universe, nor a scientific account of the origins of life, or of the origins of human existence.”
You apparently DO see Genesis as in some way literal … or you wouldn’t be so unhappy with the BioLogos position that God has used millions of years of Natural Selection and Mutation to accomplish God’s goals on the Earth.
But I’ve never heard you explain WHY you are unhappy with the BioLogos perspective.