Slashdot Mirror
Pope Francis Declares Evolution and Big Bang Theory Are Right
HughPickens.com writes: The Independent reports that Pope Francis, speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has declared that the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real. "When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," said Francis. "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment." Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they "require it." "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." Experts say the Pope's comments put an end to the "pseudo theories" of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI who spoke out against taking Darwin too far.
that's not what he said.
he said what the Church has said for some time now: if evolution does exist, it exists God created it.
Regardless of certain American Catholics who have more in common with evangelicals in their rejection of the science, the Catholic Church itself has not had a conflict with scientific theory for some time now.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It's easy reply to this with a 'what the f* did you smoke'. However, keeping all options open is what a scientist ought to do. We may have well been interpreting the Bible the wrong way all along.
This is not how Science works. Science makes and observation and attempts to explain it. The Bible explains nothing in nature and no amount of re-interpreting changes that fact.
Nah, the Pope just has his priorities in order. "Argue about shit that doesn't matter a whole lot to the church or God" is waaay down the Pope's list, but waaay up the list of many people who just like to argue because it gives them a sense of superiority.
There's actually a lot of potentional scientific correct stuff in the Bible
As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I don't personally give a shit what the pope thinks. However, it's clear that millions of other people very much do give a shit. In this instance, the pope is obviously trying to discourage creationism and reduce the friction between science and religion. At least some creationists are likely to listen to the pope and accept what he's saying, in a way that they wouldn't listen to scientists. So I don't see this as the pope giving his seal if approval to the theories in question. Instead, he's giving his seal of approval for catholics to accept the theories. Given that the religion isn't going away any time soon, I consider this to be of value.
soylentnews.org
Nothing new since the 1950 Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII that defined the relationship between evolution, immortal souls and faith. And that was just final infallible confirmation of what the Vatican Biblical Commission determined in 1909 in its On The Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis.
It's easy reply to this with a 'what the f* did you smoke'
Saying "I'm not insane" is not, in itself, a proof of sanity.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This has been mainline Christian thought, even among evangelicals, for decades. YEC's get the spot-light because they're zany, but this has already been accepted for a good while now.
You can read in Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", his popular science book from the 80's, his conversations with the Pope in the 70's during which the Pope "concedes" time after the Big Bang to science. Hawking gets a little happy about then explaining how time didn't exist until just an infinite moment after the Big Bang, but that's besides the point.
No, the theologically interesting part here is:
The bit about magicians and magic wands are a throw away softening statement as nobody has ever imagined the Abrahamic God as requiring magic devices. More concisely then:
That may well be the most controversial thing a Pope has ever said. And has the potential to re-focus Christians on what Jesus was talking about - they've become lost in Old-Testament vengeance in the most recent millennium. Long gone are the days of Constantine not being able to fight wars of conquest because his army was full of Christian pacifists.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's not about being allowed; it's about not being a bore. I have vigorous and enthusiastic debates with religious friends, including about evolution, but I know my audience. I only argue with friends and random strangers on the internet.
Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they "require it." "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve." Experts say the Pope's comments put an end to the "pseudo theories" of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI who spoke out against taking Darwin too far.
If the Pope is (according to the Catholic Church) the infallible representative of God on this earth, then logically now, how can two popes say two different things? Two contradictory statements cannot both be correct, and one contradiction is enough to reject the status of infallible. Remember, being "God's infallible spokesman" or "God's infallible representative" is where he derives the authority to say things like "don't use birth control" that faithful Catholics everywhere are expected to comply with.
... scientific. People who are secure in what they believe realize how important these questions are and try to provide good answers for them. That should be a bare minimum for any sort of science.
Though as an aside, I wonder how long it will take the hardcore Darwinists to realize in greater numbers that a chain of cause and effect, if traced back to its beginning, must eventually have a prime mover, an uncaused cause? Anything else means either circular logic (invalid), or rejecting the notion of cause following effect that all of scientific thought is based on. That's without getting into the information theory objections to evolution (DNA contains lots and lots of highly organized information that doesn't just happen - if you find an encyclopedia you can safely assume someone wrote it). Or the whole irreducible complexity deal - (blood clotting requires some 30 chemicals in just the right proportions and cannot have come about through gradual changes - remove one of those and the smallest cut causes the organism to bleed to death, remove another and the clotting never stops and all blood turns solid). Oh then there's the way they came up with punctuated equilibrium not from first principles, but in an ad-hoc effort to save their theory when they found the fossil record doesn't show the gradual progression they predicted - it shows species suddenly appearing.
Too many hardcore Darwin supporters aren't familiar with these ideas, don't have answers for them, and get angry (instead of scientifically curious) when you ask about them. That's the same thing religious people do when you point out contradictions in the Bible - they get angry. How
There's actually a lot of potentional scientific correct stuff in the Bible.
The point about science is the process, not the result. There may be correct content in the bible, but that does not make it scientific.
Which version of Genesis would you like to go with? You do know the bible contains multiple conflicting versions...
I do like how you've taken the Ark story and turn it into a bastardized panspermia myth. The idea that earth was colonized by super beings from outer space sounds awesome! I'll put on the shelf next to my book of native american creation myths.
As for the bible, it's a train wreck. You can take the bible and make ANYTHING out of it. It's theological mess, it's a moral mess, it's self contradictory mess. This is why we've got X denominations of Christians who can't decide on any single part of the bible. For every part that you like, you'll find some other group who has issue with it.
However, our fossil record does not contain any evidence of alien origin. We have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to transitional fossils and genetic evidence and radiometric dating that shows that genetically and chemically we're all related. You have lots of DNA in common with an oak tree, and a bunny, and a fish, and a chimpanzee, etc. I'll grant you that maybe some comet crashed to earth 4.5 billion years ago that had a strand of DNA in it and whole process got kicked off. However, until we start catching comets and examining them for evidence of genetic materials or the precursors therein, it's just a hypothesis without any evidence.
Making the argument that the Earth as been geo-engineered for humans is preposterous. 2/3's of it is covered with water we can't drink! Large swaths are covered with desserts and mountain ranges. There are earthquakes and volcanoes, etc.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have been accepted theories in the Catholicism for just about as long as they were around (last century or so). In fact the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a Catholic priest! Pope John Paul II said that evolution was the most probable theory and referenced a predecessor Pope's words as agreeing with him.
The article itself thankfully references this fact:
But Pope Francis’s comments were more in keeping with the progressive work of Pope Pius XII, who opened the door to the idea of evolution and actively welcomed the Big Bang theory. In 1996, John Paul II went further and suggested evolution was “more than a hypothesis” and “effectively proven fact”.
Though they did seem to want to keep perpetuating the myth that the Church was ever anti-science. When it's just not true.
Back in 7th grade I was attending Catholic school. We had a teacher who was very, very religious but at the same time a good science teacher. How was this possible? She taught us a few memorable things: first off the creation in genesis took 7 days for god (7 th day was rest, chillin and having a beer hopefully). But who said a day for god is the same for us? In her words she said a day for god could be millions or billions of years to us. That made sense. Another thing that stuck out was that all of the physical processes we see are rules laid out by god. So basically, the laws of physics were created by god. Evolution? A natural process that god created. So here was a very godly woman who also was a firm believer in science because science is a gift from god. So the two can certainly coexist.
A while back I was talking to a religious guy I know from the local dive bar I used to frequent (religious guy at the bar, go figure. a regular hypocrite was more like it). We got in talking about science and during the course, he bought up the opinion that science is against god. But I bought up the counter of, why would god bestow such an awe inspiring field of study only to restrict us from pursuing it? He gave us a giant sandbox to play in and we refuse it? To me it would be rude to declining a gift from god. He started to see my point and said: "you know that makes sense. don't know if I like it but it makes sense". You could see he sorta understood the point.
So you can argue that all of science is merely a creation and gift from god. To deny it is to deny gods gift and possibly, god itself. Though there are some who will refuse any of those beliefs, if they are in a position of power be it a school board, politician or preacher, they have a self interest in that denial (control).
Disclaimer: I am agnostic. I doubt there is a god. Or perhaps there is a god but not in the way we traditionally think, a person. Perhaps the laws behind our universe are god. Or we are a 3d projection of a 2d hologram or inside a giant computer simulation. We don't know and perhaps, we never will know. And if there is a god as we picture, I am sure he/she is not the dick they are made out to be in various man made books. And to be honest, I really don't care either way. I just live my life and enjoy it :-)
Or the whole irreducible complexity deal - (blood clotting requires some 30 chemicals in just the right proportions and cannot have come about through gradual changes - remove one of those and the smallest cut causes the organism to bleed to death, remove another and the clotting never stops and all blood turns solid).
Of course it can. Creatures without the right chemicals in the right places bleed to death from minor injury before getting chance to reproduce. Others with solid blood never get to reproduce either. The ones with the right balance survive long enough to pass the traits onto the next generation. If some god had set the chemical balance right then why does it fuck up in a bunch of different circumstances? Blood clots are a thing and so is haemophilia, it's not either too thin to clot, just right or too thick to move like some Goldilocks porridge deal. This is as redundant as the pathetic something as perfect as the human eye (which is far from perfect) or any eye for that matter don't just pop into existence argument.
What species are shown as 'just appearing' with no previous chain? Citation very much needed.
You need to get over the idea that everything has to be made by someone(thing) because who the fuck created your creator? The God God? And then who made him? It's turtles all the way down no matter how you look at it.
You also need to have the confidence to say 'I/We don't know' instead of attributing all unknowns to some god.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
If the Pope is (according to the Catholic Church) the infallible representative of God on this earth, then logically now, how can two popes say two different things?
Papal infallibility only pertains to Catholic doctrine, and nothing else. If you asked the Pope what the weather was going to be like next week, and he said it was going to be rainy, but it ended up being sunny, it wouldn't violate papal infallibility.
How convenient, he's only infallible on things that can't be proven.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u