All patrons and paid Substack subscribers get all of my exclusive DAILY written content- I am posting daily scriptural reflections six days a week, half of which will be exclusive. Become a patron: www.patreon.com/kabane Or subscribe to my Substack: seraphimhamilton.substack.com/ Todd and Paul's podcast: kzread.info Get "Answering Judaism's Rejection of Jesus": seraphimhamilton.com/ Sample lecture: kzread.info/dash/bejne/q61_uJaHiKTYmrA.html&t Answering Protestantism from the Bible in 17 Hour Lecture Set: buy.stripe.com/5kA2bz6Y467K4JaaEJ Sample lecture: kzread.info/dash/bejne/paSFsdSeh5urdM4.html Bundle with "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" for a discount (23 hours total): buy.stripe.com/9AQ8zX4PWeEg1wYeUY To just get "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" buy.stripe.com/aEUeYl4PW0Nq5Ne7su To schedule a one-time one hour call, simply send $50 to the following link with your email address: www.paypal.com/paypalme/seraphimhamilton Please remember to keep all comments respectful (if you are a Christian, you represent Christ at all times) and on topic. Please, no foul language. Comments which do not follow these rules will be deleted. Critiques are fine, but they have to pertain specifically to the question discussed in the video- those who simply use comments as a platform will be blocked. Such is not a statement that you are a bad or dumb person, but that I don't think your participation will facilitate substantive discussion. I know some will take my enforcement to be too strict, uneven, or unfair- but ultimately it is what it is. Thanks so much for watching.

Can't believe this is happening! I'm probably gonna miss it but amazing, Seraphim! I do want more creationist content from you

Great interview!

I picked up your channel a couple of weeks ago on the recommendation of a friend (and he cautioned me about the YEC content). Based on your videos on other subjects I've given this a watch. I converted to Christianity, adopted a young earth creationist stance and subsequently abandoned it. Some of the problems your guests mentioned (e.g. the YEC I saw wasn't really biblical; it was just anti-evolution by any means necessary). That's one of the problems I had with Protestantism while I was there was that it defined its doctrines, largely, by whatever could oppose the Roman Catholic Church (e.g. "grace" is "unmerited favor" where "merit" is a RC category they're defining it to reject). I lost confidence in their arguments above my skill level to evaluate. A major YEC argument was that evolutionists lie to support their beliefs (your guests do outright reject that, thankfully). However, there was no shortage of deceit in the YEC publications. And, worse, it was done with far fewer people writing so that the amount of falsehood for the amount of people writing seemed higher. The net effect was the opposite of the arguments once I put the two together. It strikes me as being reductionist. Scripture has many layers of meaning beyond the literal. Almost every scientific YEC I encountered was vehemently opposed to any reading that wasn't literal. I remember getting roasted for pointing out the ark had proportions roughly similar to a man, represented the structure of a man, and that we can learn something about how to order our desires from the animals: in that earthly desires are fine, but we offer up our spiritual ones and that they should predominate. I was, at the time, a YEC, but they saw allegory like that as mutually exclusive to literalism. The question of how God created in Genesis has a creep like Christmas, and it eventually becomes the all-consuming question. It's now hard to find someone using that method who can explain why we shouldn't have homosexual marriage without resorting to "God told us not to," and it's even harder to find someone who can reason from the creation text to explain how humans are to create, how we are to interact with our tools, and so on. We can get to all of it form Gen 1-11, but I may as well be speaking Greek when I discuss it with people. In general, the more important the "how" is in Genesis, the harder it is to discuss anything else. This has seemed to creep on the whole Bible so that it forms a veil over the eyes of whoever reads it and shuts out divine truth rather than letting it in. Even giving the interpretation being true, it is still being used in such a way that it seems to hide biblical truth rather than revealing it. The movement has come to seem to me as a way to make Christians functional materialists, i.e. they acknowledge a belief in a God who can act but treat those as exceptions and everything else as material. I'd be interested to seeing how they would propose making scientific YEC compatible with a holistic view of Scripture. They seem to be at odds, not for any logical reason, but seemingly more a cultural reason. Worse, it seemed hostile even to reading the Bible on a literary level in any academic manner. Your guests mentioned that biblical scholarship has basically been taken over by people that weren't YECs. YECs didn't cede the field; they abandoned it. Even in this video, toward the beginning, your interlocutors said that asking the genre was the wrong question. It's a pretty fundamental question to knowing how to read a book on a literary level, one of the first we must answer. If I say "Jesus was wrong. The mustard seed wasn't the smallest seed," the first thing I'd be told is, "It's a parable, not a scientific statement; he's using common knowledge to make a point." That would be the correct answer, but it presumes you must start with genre to understand a work. The entire movement seems built on a plain reading of the text (literal, not literary), and unless it's necessary to make a theory work, it's fairly hostile to anything that isn't a literal reading, whether that is allegorical or whether it's academic or literary. The sole reason I'm giving the interviews a watch is because you are a YEC who doesn't reduce the Bible to just materialist plain readings. I found it overestimated its being historical Christianity. All the Fathers believed in a young earth and direct creation, as far as I can tell (that's a lot of material). They didn't all believe in literal days and may have seen creation as instantaneous. In some cases, they took things literal we do not (e.g. the earth bringing forth creatures is something that never stopped so that learning about extinction was scandalous, to say the least due to that inherited belief). The ice canopy and Great Flood setting up geological layers play a large role in almost every YEC model I've found. None of the Fathers had that; that comes from Ellen White's visions about creation. It's like saying Dave makes ice cream just like Bill, but Dave uses low fat milk without eggs while Bill uses heavy cream. It's not the really same thing, but it's similar. As I left Protestantism, it also became fairly apparent how selective the desire to hold historical Christian doctrine was (e.g. Christian worship being an act of sacrifice of the Eucharist). I felt deceived by that. In the end, evolution came to look like the only show in town that had game with science. It's not an ideal fit, but the problems with it are fundamentally similar to those posed by astronomy and even medicine, neither of which is an easy fit. I suspect the whole evolutionary model is wrong and that it's going to come crashing down, as we're in a day of the Lord now. Everything changes when a day of the Lord comes, and scientific discoveries tend to follow social changes. However that doesn't mean YEC is right. I'd be interested in seeing how they address problems like that, but they strike me as more important than the scientific problem. If we don't like a scientific problem, we need only wait a few centuries, and it'll be replaced. Apologies for the length.

@Seraphim-Hamilton

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for your comment. Several points: -I agree about the facile nature of much Biblical commentary within the creationist world. That's one reason I'm so pleased to see the foundation of things like the Creation Theology Society and the work of men like Wood and Garner: both men recognize the importance of allegorical and typological exegesis along with the historical reading of Scripture. I know Wood has enjoyed the Biblical commentary of Peter Leithart (a tremendously talented exponent of allegorical exegesis) and Garner is theologically literate not only within the Protestant world but also (as of recently) in an expanding set of Catholic and Orthodox theologians. This is tremendously important if creationism is to intellectually mature. -While I affirm creation in six historical days, I don't think that six-day creation is really the nub of young-age creation. As you point out, there is a minority reading among the Fathers that takes the days of creation purely as allegory for instantaneous creation. -The notion of a vapor/ice canopy is certainly a very recent innovation, and its lifespan was very short. I am not aware of anyone (besides Kent Hovind, who is an embarrassment for many reasons) who continues to promote it. -However, the idea that the universal flood is responsible for a large portion of the sedimentary and fossil record is certainly not a recent or Adventist idea. It was a key insight of the Mosaic geologists of the 19th century, most of whom wrote before the birth of Adventism. But more than this, the passing observation that fossils on mountains constitutes evidence of a universal flood was made by Tertullian and (I think) by Justin Martyr. There are other examples of this that could be adduced as well. But geology as a science develops much later than the patristic period, of course, so naturally there was no systematic development of this idea.

@xxxfairyyxxx

8 ай бұрын

I really agree that there was a problem with dishonesty and often lack of education from YEC. That's why it's good that we have guys like these podcasters because they are not showmen but scientists. If you listen to their podcast they actually do go over some YEC theories which have been abandoned and some YEC hoaxes/errors. There are definitely layers of meaning other than literal in the bible but that doesn't mean that something isn't also literally true. You can't just focus on the day age thing because there is a lot more problems with an old age view than those verses eg prefall death, genealogies, the flood, etc. I recommend you read Seraphim Rose's book on evolution "genesis creation and early man". In the end it is incredibly difficult to know things which happened in the past and unfortunately it is not really "science" in the sense that it is completely untestable. It is important not to put the same level of confidence into a scientific theory which makes predictions which you can then test in repeated experiments, and "science" which is essentially untestable speculations about the past. Creation theories fall into this category. It is more like a court case or historical discussion where we are asking, whose theory fits the observed facts better? There is a bait and switch with science where people try to use the cred from the technological magic of smartphones/cars/etc to back up their religious philosophical speculation about the past or future. It is not a new thing. I'm sure the ancient pagan priests used their maths and astronomy to give cred to their pagan religious teachings. But these things are not in the same category.

@kainech

8 ай бұрын

​@@Seraphim-Hamilton I'll stand corrected on the geology. I haven't read YEC stuff in about twenty years, but when I did, and all the ones I've encountered IRL, have all hung to the ice canopy idea. It seems very strong and kicking based on that. I'll be pleased if it can shed her influence altogether. Regarding geology developing later, I never would have expected it in the Fathers and didn't read scientific YEC literature from before the 20th century for practical reasons: science develops and refines earlier ideas. Old ideas do come back after they're discarded (e.g. steady state is revived in the multiverse idea), but they always change. Science is not my main interest, so I wouldn't be good at reviving discarded theories. I'm hoping that it does develop more mature approaches to biblical studies, because, on the whole, the entire movement has acted as a barrier to reading the Bible in anything but a juvenile fashion. As I said, I was recommended your channel, and you've proven to be able to read the Bible well. It's the only reason I'm even listening. I'm not expecting to have my mind changed, but I will listen. There are a great many places that the scientific worldview we have doesn't mesh well with the biblical text. Creationism is just the one we focus on most. Thus I've already resolved myself to that problem.

Hi, thank you for your video. I'm a scientist and a recent Orthodox convert, and I'm wrestling with this topics. My current answer is that a "scientific materialistic" view of reality is just the wrong angle, and we have to understand it as a narrative, and I don't mean it like "just a story", but that the very core of existence is narrative that use matter as a body. At least that is my understanding of the cosmology of St. Maximus, for example. Would you say that this is a wrong interpretation? Do you think that a way to check the Biblical chronology in scientific term is possible (and maybe even necessary)? Thank you. I hope I'm making sense, my ideas are disordered and the language barrier doesn't help.

Thank you for this

Am reading your book. Have thoughts. Some publishing background. Cost is always a concern, still would have expanded it for a fuller denouncement as a published work.

Very interesting! I can definitely testify that the catalyst for my return to YEC after going to Theistic Evolution was precisely your presentation of Creationists with self awareness of bad Creationist arguments and going from there. So, thank you! I do have some questions for them; the foregoing is very longwinded, but I will provide more concise questions that can actually be asked more effectively at the end (and you can adjust them as you see fit naturally!). I see they believe that evolution is a formidable foe so to say, and at least appears to have a great body of scientific support (of course, anything given that level of financial and academic support I would think would be capable of presenting a good looking case for itself). I'm wondering what they think of approaches that attack Evolution primarily on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, and the claim made by such as Fr. Seraphim, as seen in his posthumous "Genesis Creation and Early Man," that much of what passes as "science" in evolution is actually disguised philosophy. Because of we are dealing primarily with philosophy rather than science, that changes the whole approach we take to its critique, so to say. I know their work focuses more on a positive model which I think is fantastic, but I think maybe it would at least bolster their claims if we set out that both sides are first doing philosophy before they are doing science, just the YEC tend (well, among the good ones) to be more honest about it. Another thing: while I am by no means a convinced flat earther, I recently encountered a positive account of alternative cosmology that struck me with the same fascination as the positive account of creationism I read about. I think flat earth is very different in that post-Copernican saints universally affirm his model and a round Earth whenever the topic comes up, and many Fathers even affirmed a round Earth, so the case for the conventional account being heretical or incompatible with Orthodoxy is basically not on the table, whereas for conventional origins beliefs have a very good case against their compatibility from not only the Church Fathers but also our contemporary saints (Sts. Paisios the Athonite, Theophan the Recluse, Luke the Surgeon, Joseph the Hesychast, and, if I may be so bold, Seraphim of Platina, just to name a few), who universally condemn it in quite strong language. And obviously, many in the flat earth community have that same troublesome spirit that one finds amongst the more objectionable elements of YEC. But if there can be found some charitable, serious scientists that take the flat earth model seriously, I would think it would be fair to give them space to go about arguing their model. I don't think there is as much value in this question because it clearly does not even rise to the level that modern saints felt compelled to reject it or refute it, but out of Christian charity and even just the empathy of a Young Earth Creationist for how the mainstream community treats them, it would make sense to give them a platform, provided they were likewise charitable and were more like these guys and less like Kent Hovind, would it not? Or maybe they have already been given a chance? Or really I would believe it if you said all the ones doing scientific work are like Kent Hovind, but perhaps, if some more like these gentlemen come on the scene, can space be made for them in this community of an alternative account of origins and prehistory? And I should speak of alternative cosmology more broadly than flat earth narrowly, as one could conceivably hold to the conventional shape of the Earth but question the mainstream account of space and the size of the sun and what stars are, for example. Also, I know that you and presumably them as well take the Masoretic/Vulgate (which are the same if I'm not mistaken) reckoning; I'm curious of how many creationists are using LXX reckoning for slightly-older earth creationism, if any, and if since the efforts of Hiermonks Seraphim and Ambrose (Fr. Alexey at the time) there have been any other contributions to creation science from Orthodoxy. Also while you're talking to them, a gentle call to the Orthodox faith would be good to see ;) To sum up the questions: 1. Insofar as critiquing evolution is concerned, what are their thoughts on going primarily for the philosophical presuppositions rather than the scientific, as seen in the approach of, for example, Fr. Seraphim Rose? 2. Can space be given (or has it already been given) in the Creationist community to those positing alternative cosmological models, dealing with the for and against of these, or would this distract too much from the importance of the YEC movement? 3. Are there any in the YEC community positing/considering the LXX chronology and what is the Orthodox Christian involvement in the endeavor if any? Keep up the good work!

Great interview Seraphim! Very interesting to see the directions YEC will take in the coming years. Regarding the intersection between the scientific side of YEC and the theological side of YEC, how would we approach understanding things like the Hear problem which clearly require miraculous occurrences to be solved while information off such miracles do not appear in the text?

Thankyou so much for this interview guys so interesting! I love the podcast. Thankyou for getting them on Seraphim. I do have a question for them. I want to know what websites or journals or forums etc should I be reading to be updated with the latest research? What about unpublished research? Are these people using a site like arXiv? Are there email lists? Websites or forums? Additionally how could I get involved in research myself? I'm in a different country so attending conferences might be hard. I don't really know where to start.

Even after a good deal of time and research I'm torn between the viability of theistic evolution vs YEC. (Orthodox convert from fundamentalist Baptist background - Answers in Gensis kind of education on Creation.) For TE I'm much more convinced on the Old Earth aspect (from geology and astronomy) than the biological evolution aspect. I'm extremely sympathetic to the theological issue of death that TE doesn't handle well - thats really my only major hurdle with being sold on TE. As well as the philisophical points that Fr Seraphim Rose makes against evolution (but I find these phil issues much more easily surmountable). YEC has been the historic view of the church - but it always seems like the Fathers accept the science of their day to make their own points - not necessarily affirming the scientific description as part of their essential teaching. Their position on the 'material science' is more descriptive than normative, if that makes sense. And modern saints critique of evolution very much centers on the obvious philosophical and theological issues with evolution, I dont think any of them engaged seriously in the details (I wouldn't expect them to), or considered how holding a Christian phliosophy could possibly coincide with some alignment with evolution/old earth. There are a few scientific issues that boggle a YEC model in my view. The top examples that come to my mind are: 1) star light - if the speed of light is a constant, then how are we able to see stars that are so far away? I'm not convinced that 'God created everything at maturity' - kind of sounds like a 'God is a deceiver' argument 2) geological formations - I've seen some huge subterranean columns in caves that form via drip. Even if you assume variable rates of formation thats faster than conventional stalagmite / stalagtite formation, these columns are way too huge to form within the timeframe of YEC. One structure in particular I remember that really broke my faith in YEC was on Kangaroo Island off the cost of South Australia (Kelly Hill caves if I recall correctly?) - a 10'+ diameter column that had fallen over and another 10'+ column formed over it in the same place. Again, saying that God created this structure 'at maturity' seems like we are arguing that God is a deceiver. 3) crystal formations - crystals that are highly sensative and only grow in specific, stable conditions being too big to take place within YEC timeframe. I think what was said at the outset was important - about catering the arguments towards TE rather than against atheists. If you could address some of these issues, that would be very helpful, especially as I figure out what to teach my homeschooled kids in a few years. If nothing changes I'll be teaching the dogmas of the church and the essential Theological aspects as most important and the rule against which all else should be measured. But in regards to the material science I'll have to teach both views, acknowledging their strengths and weaknesses side by side. Thank you I look forward to the rest of these talks.

@lio_themachine

7 ай бұрын

is answers in genesis bad?

Unrelated. Maybe not. Your presentation and - in its own way - content has been raised several notches since your marriage.

@xxxfairyyxxx

8 ай бұрын

I like the floral thing in the background very cosy

my brother in Christ Seraphim, Since you're also Orthodox and have a lot of experience with the Creationism scene, I just wanted to ask you how you view Fr. Seraphim Rose's divisive book "Genesis, Creation and Early Man."? I'm going to venture that your opinion is along the lines of "okay for its time, but totally outdated now." Others, like Fr. Stephen Freeman, would say that Fr. Seraphim Rose was simply hard wrong on these issues, even if a very holy man.

What is their explanation for the younger dryas cataclysmic event at the end of the last ice age?

@czuw2967

8 ай бұрын

That isn’t even an accepted historical fact by mainstream scientists. I’m not saying this is their position, but it’s possible it is a naturalistic / atheistic accounting for evidence of a great flood.

So glad they pointed out that evolution makes God the author of death, which He would have called good, and then turns around and defeats it! What an absurd God that would be.

Awesome interview. Question for Seraphim: Why doesn’t the church have a more dogmatic position on the age of the earth? Especially if the young earth model fits better within the biblical narrative.

@christianlacroix5430

8 ай бұрын

Because the age of the earth is literally the product of scientific methodology and not dogma ?

@RaptorLlama

8 ай бұрын

Arguably it does. Every post-Darwinian saint that has spoken on the topic has condemned and even anathemized Darwinism in no uncertain terms. The Byzantine calendar used on Mt. Athos counts from the year of creation according to the LXX. Just because it hasn't been explicitly stated in an ecumenical council (and it is arguably implied in the anathemas of some councils) does not mean it is not the teachings (dogma) of the Church.

@christianlacroix5430

8 ай бұрын

@@RaptorLlama Darwinism is biology and is applicable after the appearance of the first "self replicating organism". Age of earth is astrophysics and geology. Change over time does not mean Darwinism. This is a bit like Jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusion. If you can make your argument about a scientific matter using science, that's good. If not, don't be surprised people won't take you seriously.

@RaptorLlama

8 ай бұрын

@@christianlacroix5430 I am only reporting what the saints say quite clearly. The problem is much of what passes for science is in reality veiled philosophy. Fr. Seraphim Rose in particular really delved into this issue. When you assume geological formations were formed by steady, unchanging processes rather than cataclysmic events, you are making philosophical assumptions, not scientific discoveries. When you assume the constants that hold now held from the beginning of the universe, that is philosophy, not science. And I can counter philosophy on philosophical grounds without even delving into science. Properly, theology informs philosophy informs science. This whole structure has been flipped in the modern world which leads to confusion and instability.

@xxxfairyyxxx

8 ай бұрын

How could they do that when there is 2 ages of the earth ie Masoretic and septagint have different ages. Dogmatising it means you are making people heretics for something we really don't know. Even evolution... There is a level (microevolution) in which evolution absolutely is true and YEC will agree with you and they even have their own terminology for it is baraminology. So you would have to get really specific and deep in the weeds with definitions and it becomes hard like where do you draw the line.

I is this the Kabane52 guy?

@Seraphim-Hamilton

8 ай бұрын

Yes, haha.

@anthonyb3714

8 ай бұрын

​@@Seraphim-Hamiltoncrap, i didn't know you were still here Im subbing