Kirill of Moscow is Largely Wrong on Church and Science

I will be quoting an interview by Der Spiegel of the one considered Patriarch of Moscow by most who call themselves Orthodox (I have an Orthodox friend who called him pseudo-Patriarch, which is of course somewhat true also from Catholic perspective, since he is not in Communion with Pope Michael* and therefore not part of the Church). Der Spiegel's format was Spiegel: "...." / Kirill: "...." and my own here will be Spiegel: "...." / Kirill: "...." / HGL (myself): "....", perhaps also dividing some longer comments by Kirill into several phrases I answer.

Note in passing, the link gives his name in the German form, Kyrill.

SPIEGEL:

How do you feel about Orthodox priests who want to remove Darwin's theory of evolution from the curriculum, because it contradicts the story of creation in the Bible?

Kyrill:

The study of the physical world should not be the subject of religion, and for this reason the church should not misappropriate any scientific theories.

HGL:

The physical world bears witness to the Creator. Not just alludes vaguely or poetically, but bears witness.

Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge.

Psalm 18:3. Since days and nights are events, not people, there is some metaphor involved, but the words "uttereth speech" and "sheweth knowledge" and in other versions perhaps, unless it was another psalm, "testifieth" imply we are not dealing with a poetic allusion which can be taken poetically or missed prosaically, but a true information.

Kyrill:

The Catholic Church made this mistake when it preached geocentrism.

HGL:

It was not a mistake, but correct. And the Catholic Church did not exactly "preach" Geocentrism, but define it. Saying the Sun is the centre of the world and immobile is heresy, saying the Earth moves around it and also with a daily motion (around itself) is "at least erroneous". 1633.

Kyrill:

When scientists later discovered that it was not the earth but the sun that was at the center of our system, they were considered heretics.

HGL:

The definition did not deal with "our system", and scientists did not discover the Sun was centre of all movement in it, since they have so far offered no proof of Earth moving. Notably, Michelson and Morley tried to prove Earth moves orbitally (around the Sun) through the aether. Their experiment proved, either the Earth does not move orbitally, or there is no aether. Heliocentrics have preferred the latter interpretation.

Also, no scientist properly so called has been considered a heretic for only that.

Galileo risked it, but avoided it by abjuring. Copernicus' book was put on the Index well after he died. Bruno definitely was heretical for various other reasons, this is why he was burned on the stake (one of his judges was also judging a theory by Galileo, and the 1633 trial referred back to his trial, it was St. Robert Bellarmine).

And Kepler was of course heretic because Protestant, and also outside the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, so no need to call him a heretic for that. His master in astronomy was also heretic because Protestant, and even so he was referred to by St. Robert when discussing the evidence with Galileo.

No one single thing which Galileo directly observed (moons of Jupiter, stars making up Milky Way, faces of Venus) was condemned, and all of it was explained in Geocentric ways by Catholic astronomers like Riccioli.

Kyrill:

Copernicus was also a priest, and the Catholic Church of the day also saw itself as a community of science.

HGL:

Rather, the Catholic Church saw itself as having a certain competence in science where it touches theology. Which in Galileo's day, Heliocentrism did, because Galileo gave an alternative explanation for what happened in Joshua chapter 10 verses 12 and 13. One which contradicted all the Church Fathers who had commented on it.

Kyrill:

The Orthodox Church never did this.

HGL:

There have been minor condemnations of Heliocentrism by Orthodox priests too, and the Orthodox Church (which started out as part of the Catholic Church) has also seen itself as concerned in physical science where it touches on the physical creation's witness to God.

For instance, Photius in Bibliotheke reviewed adversely a book by Cosmas Indicopleustes, considering it ridiculous, and I agree, that the Earth was Flat according to Indicopleustes, but also considering it ridiculous, and I disagree, that angels move stars or celestial bodies in general.

SPIEGEL:

How would you approach Darwin's theories if you were a teacher?

Kyrill:

I would say that the theory has many adherents, but also a few unanswered questions. For instance, no one has provided precise proof of the transition from one species to another.

HGL:

Precise or not, there is at least fairly conclusive one, as long as we stick to the species level of modern classifications.

Especially if you believe the Bible.

How many couples of hedgehogs were there on Noah's Ark? I would say one couple. How many species of hedgehogs are there today, and I am not involving porcupines which are a totally different thing?

There are Four-toed hedgehog, or Atelerix albiventris, North African hedgehog, or Atelerix algirus, Southern African hedgehog, or Atelerix frontalis, Somali hedgehog, or Atelerix sclateri, four species of the genus Atelerix.

There are Amur hedgehog, or Erinaceus amurensis, Southern white-breasted hedgehog, or Erinaceus concolor, European hedgehog, or Erinaceus europaeus, Northern white-breasted hedgehog, or Erinaceus roumanicus, four more species, of the genus Erinaceus. We are up in 8 species.

There are Long-eared hedgehog, or Hemiechinus auritus and Indian long-eared hedgehog, or Hemiechinus collaris, two more species, of the genus Hemiechinus and we are up in 10 species.

There are Daurian hedgehog, or Mesechinus dauuricus, Hugh's hedgehog, or Mesechinus hughi, Gaoligong forest hedgehog, or Mesechinus wangi, three more species of genus Mesechinus, and we count 13.

Four more species belong to genus Parechinus, these being Desert hedgehog, or Paraechinus aethiopicus, Brandt's hedgehog, or Paraechinus hypomelas, Indian hedgehog, or Paraechinus micropus, Bare-bellied hedgehog, or Paraechinus nudiventris : and now we count 17 species in five genera.

I find it more credible that one pair of hedgehogs was on the Ark than that there were 17 pairs.

It is also very possible, either that the long eared hedgehogs developed because of a failure in a gene stopping growth of ears, or that others developed because of failure of a gene growing them. I prefer the former explanation, since a failure in the gene growing them would result in something like no ears at all .... and the European hedgehog has ears, though small and pointed ones.

It is very possible that Paraechinus nudiventris has no hairs on the stomach because a gene for growing those hairs failed.

It is possible even that nine more species, the Galericinae or gymnures (also five genera) have no spikes and only thick hairs, because some genetic change upset the level of keratin production in them. That would mean 25 species today descend from one couple aboard the Ark. With nearly five thousand years since the Ark, speciation is a clear option. Not sure how well proven it is that the species are not interfertile, that they should not rather be classed as subspecies, though. But currently they are classed as different species and even genera.

Kyrill:

It would be wrong to treat Darwin's theory as the only correct one. It is the leading theory today, but it could be replaced by another theory tomorrow. There was also a time when Marxism considered itself the only correct and scientifically justified theory.

HGL:

This is a fairly good observation.

SPIEGEL:

But you cannot equate these two theories. Besides, Darwin's theory is now largely undisputed.

HGL:

Both are ideologised, and "largely undisputed" does not mean "undisputed". Especially since we are dealing with a lot of gatekeeping, huushing up the fact or demonising the people who do dispute it.

Kyrill:

For the sake of objectivity, allow me to add that Darwin was a devout man.

HGL:

In fact, not very much, as far as we know. He was an Anglican of liberal bent and later (in connexion with his theory) apostasised.

By contrast, his disciple Huxley was opposed by a very devout man, the Anglican "Bishop" Samuel Wilberforce, son of the abolitionist and brother of one or two converts, one of whom has a descendant who is a "Catholic"* priest and opposed to abortion.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Euphemia of Chalcedon**
16.IX.2019

Link to Spiegel interview:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-russian-orthodox-metropolitan-kyrill-the-bible-calls-it-a-sin-a-527618-2.html

Example of Orthodox opponent of Heliocentrism:

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Athanasius_Parios

Example of modern "species" descending from common ancestor:

https://creation.com/beluga-narwhal-hybrid

* Yes, I just called "Pope Francis" a pseudo-Pope.

** Chalcedone natalis sanctae Euphemiae, Virginis et Martyris; quae, sub Diocletiano Imperatore et Prisco Proconsule, tormenta, carceres, verbera, argumenta rotarum, ignes, pondera lapidum, bestias, plagas virgarum, serras acutas, sartagines ignitas pro Christo superavit. Sed, rursus in theatrum ad bestias ducta, ibi, cum orasset ad Dominum ut jam spiritum suum susciperet, una ex iis morsum sancto corpori infigente, ceteris pedes ejus lambentibus, immaculatum spiritum Deo reddidit.