Evolution and Cosmic Religion

1. One of the chief ideological-religious functions of “evolutionary” thought is to “broaden” one’s mental outlook, not necessarily directly attacking religious ideas (but sometimes this also), in order to make it impossible to think in “narrow” religious terms:

   a. The age of man and the universe is billions, not thousands of years. This weakens the “realistic” view of the Old Testament, Adam, the Patriarchs, Paradise.

   b. Man’s lifetime becomes less crucial. Sooner or later, it becomes impossible to continue to stress a “narrow” view of man’s lifetime (and decision for eternity) if one believes in a “broad, evolving” universe, especially in connection with Christianity.

   c. The “broad” view of the natures of things must sooner or later involve the nature of man: if everything changes its nature, “evolves” from and to something else—then why not man? All evolutionists think so, and Christians who deny this while accepting the rest of evolutionary theory make fools of themselves, being “fundamentalists” in part, “evolutionists” in part.

2. Evolution is a “totalitarian” thought-form; it attempts to give a religious-philosophical outlook for the whole of life. As Teilhard de Chardin (quoted approvingly by Theodosius Dobzhansky) affirms: “Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more—it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow—this is what evolution is” (Concern, Spring, 1973).

   Evolution is not partially true or false. It arose from—demands to be accepted as—a whole philosophy of the world and life. The scientific hypothesis is quite secondary.

3. A characteristic of modern currents of thought is “universalism”—the attempt to make a synthesis that will include all “partial” views: Masonry, ecumenism, Hegelianism, Baha’i, Unitarianism, unity of all religions. This is what “evolutionary” philosophy is—a “universal” theory to explain everything, and to justify everything the way it is—universal salvation, a cosmic view of everything entering into the universal harmony of things as they are.

4. As a consequence, harmony is found between evolution (and other universalist ideas) and “mystical” writers of the past, and an attempt is specifically made to show the harmony between Teilhardism and Orthodox “mystical” tradition, quoting St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Isaac the Syrian, etc. Those who do not come up to mystical, universalist heights are dismissed as “legalistic,” “moralistic,” narrow, etc. But in this way the harmony of Orthodox tradition is destroyed: one part is turned against the other in order to make Orthodoxy fit into the harmony of modern universalistic ideas.

   This is very much in conformity with the pride of “modern” ideas: We know better than the ancients; only the most exalted thought of the past compares with our thought. But this is directly against the Holy Fathers who warn against reaching too high, not recognizing one’s subtle, hidden pride and passions. Specifically, ours is least of all a time to spread and popularize “mystical” ideas and writers, and drag them into the marketplace. It is far better to be humble, revere these exalted writers, and not presume that one can understand them. The writings of Theophan the Recluse are more suited to our condition.