This is not a change to another kind, but as if it were some disease and defect of the seed. It has not ceased to be wheat, but has been made black by burning.” This passage would seem to indicate that St. Basil recognizes some kind of a change in the wheat which is not a “change to another kind.” This kind of change is not evolution.
Again St. Basil writes (Hexaemeron, V): “Certain men have already observed that, if pines are cut down or burned, they are changed into oak forests.” This quote has been used to show that St. Basil believed (1) that one kind of creature actually changes into another (but I will show below what St. Basil actually teaches on this subject); and (2) that St. Basil made scientific mistakes, since this statement is untrue. Here I should state an elementary truth: modern science, when it deals with elementary facts, does indeed usually know more than the holy Fathers, and the holy Fathers can easily make mistakes of scientific facts; it is not scientific facts which we look for in the holy Fathers, but true theology and the true philosophy which is based on theology. Yet in this particular case it happens that St. Basil is scientifically correct, because it often in fact happens that in a pine forest there is a strong undergrowth of oak, and when the pine is removed by burning, the oak grows rapidly and produces the change from a pine to an oak forest in 10 or 15 years. This is not evolution but a different kind of change, and we will see now that St. Basil could not have believed that the pine is actually transformed or evolved into an oak.
Let us see now what St. Basil believed about the “evolution” or “fixity” of species. He writes: “There is nothing truer than this, that each plant either has seed or there exists in it some generative power. And this accounts for the expression ‘of its kind.’ For the shoot of the reed is not productive of an olive tree, but from the reed comes another reed; and from seeds spring plants related to the seeds sown. Thus, what was put forth by the earth in its first generation has been preserved until the present time, since the species persisted through constant reproduction” (Hex. V).
Again St. Basil writes: “The nature of existing objects, set in motion by one command, passes through creation without change, by generation and destruction, preserving the succession of the species through resemblance until it reaches the very end. It begets a horse as a successor of a horse, a lion of a lion, and an eagle of an eagle; and it continues to preserve each of the animals by uninterrupted successions until the consummation of the universe. No length of time causes the specific characteristics of the animals to be corrupted or extinct, but, as if established just recently, moves along with time” (Hex. IX).
It seems quite clear that St. Basil did not believe that one kind of creature is transformed into another, much less that every creature now existing was evolved from some other creature, and so on back to the most primitive organism. This is a modern philosophical idea.
I should tell you that I do not regard this question as being of particular importance in itself; I shall discuss below other much more important questions. If it were really a scientific fact that one kind of creature can be transformed into another kind, I would have no difficulty believing it, since God can do anything, and the transformations and developments we can see now in nature (an embryo becoming man, an acorn becoming an oak tree, a caterpillar becoming a butterfly) are so astonishing that one could easily believe that one species could evolve into another. But there is no conclusive scientific proof that such a thing has ever happened, much less that this is the law of the universe, and everything now living derives ultimately from some primitive organism. The holy Fathers quite clearly did not believe in any such theory - because the theory of evolution was not invented until modern times. It is a product of the modern Western mentality, and this theory developed together with the course of modern philosophy from Descartes onward, long before there was any scientific proof for it. The idea of evolution is entirely absent from the text of Genesis, according to which each creature is generated “according to its own kind, not “one changing into another.” And the holy Fathers accepted the text of Genesis quite simply, without reading into it any scientific theories or allegories.
Now you will understand why I do not accept your quotations from St. Gregory of Nyssa about the “ascent of nature from the least to the perfect” as a proof of evolution. I believe, as the sacred scripture of Genesis relates, that there was indeed an orderly creation in steps, but nowhere in Genesis or in the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa is it stated that one kind of creature is transformed into another kind, and that all creatures came to be in this manner! I quite disagree with you when you say: “Creation is described in the first chapter of Genesis exactly as modern science describes it.” I believe you are mistaken, since according to the holy Fathers, modern science cannot attain to any knowledge at all of the Six Days of Creation. In any case, it is very arbitrary to identify the geological strata with “periods of creation.” There are numerous difficulties in the way of this na?ve correspondence between Genesis and science. Does modern science really believe that the grass and trees of the earth existed in a long geological period before the existence of the sun, which was created only on the Fourth Day? I believe that our interpretation of Holy Scripture should be bound up with no scientific theory, neither “evolutionary” nor any other. Let us rather accept the Holy Scriptures as the holy Fathers teach us, and let us not speculate about the how of creation. The doctrine of evolution is a modern speculation about the how of creation, and in many respects it contradicts the teaching of the holy Fathers.
Of course I accept your quotations from St. Gregory of Nyssa and I will certainly not deny that our nature is partly an animal nature, nor that we are bound up with the whole of creation, which is indeed a marvelous unity. But all this has nothing whatever to do with the doctrine of evolution concerning the derivation of all presently existing creatures from one or more primitive creatures through a process of the transformation of one kind or species into another. St. Gregory of Nyssa himself quite explicitly did not believe in anything like the modern doctrine of evolution, for he teaches that the first man Adam was indeed created directly by God and was not generated like all other men. In his book Against Eunomius he writes:
“The first man, and the man born from him, received their being in a different way: the latter by copulation, the former from the molding of Christ Himself; and yet, though they are thus believed to be two, they are inseparable in the definition of their being, and are not considered as two different beings…. The idea of humanity in Adam and Abel does not vary with the difference of their origin, neither the order nor the manner of their coming into existence making any difference in their nature” (I, 34).
And again: “That which reasons, and is mortal, and is capable of thought and knowledge, is called “man” equally in the case of Adam and Abel, and this name of the nature is not altered either by the fact that Abel passed into existence by generation, or by the fact that Adam did so without generation.”
Of course I agree with teaching of St. Athanasius which you quote, that “the first-created man was made of dust like everyone, and the hand which created Adam then, is creating now also and always those who came after him.” How can anyone deny this obvious truth of God’s continuous creative activity? But this general truth does not at all contradict the specific truth that the first man was made in a way different from all other men, as other fathers also clearly teach. Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem calls Adam “God’s first-formed man,” but Cain “the first-born man.” Again he teaches clearly, discussing the creation of Adam, that Adam was not conceived of another body: “That bodies should be conceived of bodies, even if wonderful, is nevertheless possible; but that the dust of the earth should become a man, this is more wonderful.”
Yet again, the divine Gregory the Theologian writes: “What of Adam? Was he not alone the direct creature of God? Yes, you will say. Was he then the only human being? By no means. And why? Because humanity does not only consist in direct creation. For that which is begotten is also human.”
And St. John Damascene, whose theology gives concisely the teaching of all the early Fathers writes: “The earliest formation of man is called ‘creation’ and not ‘generation.’ For ‘creation’ is the original formation at God’s hands, while ‘generation’ is the succession from each other made necessary by the sentence of death imposed on us on account of the transgression.”
And what of Eve? Do you not believe that, as the Scripture and holy Fathers teach, she was made from Adam’s rib and was not born of some other creature? But St. Cyril writes: “Eve was begotten of Adam, and not conceived of a mother, but as it were brought forth of man alone.”
And St. John Damascene, comparing the Most Holy Mother of God with Eve, writes: “Just as the latter was formed from Adam without connection, so also did the former bring forth the new Adam, who was brought forth in accordance with the laws of parturition and above the nature of generation.”
It would be possible to quote other holy Fathers on this subject, but I have not yet come to the most important questions raised by the theory of evolution, and so I shall now turn to some of them.