Pope Francis declares Evolution and Big Bang theory are right

[Truronian]

Link from the Independent

The theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not “a magician with a magic wand”, Pope Francis has declared.

Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.

Not the first Pope to have scientifically sound biological understanding, but it's a positive statement at the very least.

 

[Kyriakos]

Francis is the hipster pope, is all.

If he was so interested in what 'is real', then:

a) He would not speak about 'big bang' as 'real'

b) he would dismantle the church

c) name all reptilians on earth

d) return the stolen scrolls and the horse-statue taken by Venice and the other scum

there are other points too.

 

[Borachio]

e) Does he still believe in parthenogenesis, transubstantiation, and the complete lack of interest in children shown by Catholic clergy?

f) Also, walking on water, feeding the five thousand, the raising of Lazarus, faith healing, and that business of exorcism?

I'm glad he's seen the light on Evolution and the Big Bang, but I feel he's still got some way to go.

 

[Tahuti]

This is not really news, since the Catholic church accepted evolution and the big bang for quite a long time.

Modern-day Young Earth Creationism is actually an invention by Evangelical Christians. Jews already viewed Genesis as allegorical before Jesus' time, and most Christians followed suit.

 

[Harv]

Modern-day Young Earth Creationism is actually an invention by Evangelical Christians.

I hang around people who believe this stuff.

Jews already viewed Genesis as allegorical before Jesus' time, and most Christians followed suit.

I am really curious about this. Do you have a source?

 

[Paul in Saudi]

This is not really news, since the Catholic church accepted evolution and the big bang for quite a long time.

Modern-day Young Earth Creationism is actually an invention by Evangelical Christians. Jews already viewed Genesis as allegorical before Jesus' time, and most Christians followed suit.

Like he said. It is remarkable how little people know about religious doctrines.

 

[warpus]

I'm not even Christian anymore and haven't been for about 20 years, and even I know that the Catholic church views evolution and the big bang as fact.

Has for a while now, no? What did the predecessor pope say that made some people think otherwise?

 

[Truronian]

Benedict was a proponent of intelligent design.

 

[classical_hero]

If god used evolution, then he is a cruel god. Why? Because that means god used death as a natural part of life, but the Bible says differently. The Bible is clear that death is a result of sin and is punishment for disobedience to him.

 

[Kennigit]

Correct; God is a sorcerer and does not need to prepare spells from his spellbook daily

Well, thats a wizard at least

 

[Wolfbeckett]

As others have said, this isn't a new line for the Catholic Church, and it won't change anything. The true believers who claim that the bible is literal truth are already not Catholic, they'll just call this further proof that Catholics aren't "real Christians". The people who are vocally pushing anti-evolution rhetoric can not be dissuaded, ever. Jesus could literally descend from the heavens like "dudes, evolution is real, get over it" and they'd think it was a trick from Satan or something.

It is nice of him to finally give legitimacy to the theories that scientists everywhere already consider facts by giving them his stamp of approval though. Why, yes, I am feeling somewhat snarky at the moment, why do you ask?

 

[warpus]

If god used evolution, then he is a cruel god. Why? Because that means god used death as a natural part of life, but the Bible says differently. The Bible is clear that death is a result of sin and is punishment for disobedience to him.

Are you disagreeing with anyone in particular in this thread or with the pope?

 

[Kyriakos]

The only way one could 'argue' that 'death is punishment for sin' would be to refer to Adam & Eve and all that stuff, and claim that there was a primordial sin and all the rest have to be collectively punished.

Quite a nazi-god

Primordial sins suck as a concept. The christian/jewish one gave way to patriarchal society, heterosexual abuses etc, but its all tied to the same overarching crap view of 'You have to pay for other people's crap'.


I can only accept that as correct in the case of Germany, cause that country should have been destroyed in ww2

 

[timtofly]

This is not really news, since the Catholic church accepted evolution and the big bang for quite a long time.

Modern-day Young Earth Creationism is actually an invention by Evangelical Christians. Jews already viewed Genesis as allegorical before Jesus' time, and most Christians followed suit.

Is there a difference in applying what is written in an allegorical way and actually writing down events in an allegorical way? Modern humans have to choose which facts to accept or believe. I am not sure how one can actually declare the state of mind as a person was writing down their thoughts, unless the writer actually stated their intent.

I have no problem how modern humans interpret any facts or any writings, but I start questioning how modern humans start making claims that the ancients viewed the past with modern thought processes.

There are no allegorical writings in Genesis, and thus only viewing it as allegory is a modern invention. Even Greek and Assyrian mythology "happened" after the events in Genesis. It is not wrong to apply actual human events in an allegorical way. It is intellectually dishonest to take writings of actual events and falsely say they are only allegories.

There may have been Jews throughout history who could not accept what was written as facts. It happens even to this day. It is also possible, but futile to reconcile what humans have accepted from their own methods when such writings come into conflict. It is also possible that modern humans will either compromise and try to re-write or re-interpret what was written, but there is no way to get to the truth, unless one can actually be there in person and experience the same events and thoughts of those going through such events and experiences.

The only issue I see here is that no one wants to be called wrong or out of sorts with an entity that claims to have authority on the subject of Biblical interpretation. It would not matter how many people agree that the Bible is wrong. That does not make the Bible wrong. It seems futile to say the Bible is wrong and then turn around and state that viewing it as an allegory makes it palatable. Especially the parts that are not even written as allegory.

 

[warpus]

Modern humans have to choose which facts to accept or believe.

No we don't. Facts are facts.

If we're not sure if something is a fact or not, then it isn't.

Are you really saying that every single verse in the Bible is a historical account of something that happened right before the person writing it put pen to paper?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

No we don't. Facts are facts.

If we're not sure if something is a fact or not, then it isn't.

I KNEW there was a reason they called them facts instead of beliefs! Everyone else said I was crazy, but I just knew that facts had to be facts! I could tell because they're called facts!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Link from the Independent



Not the first Pope to have scientifically sound biological understanding, but it's a positive statement at the very least.

“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.

“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Doesn't look like he's got that sound an understanding, at least of what the Big Bang actually was, or that it's not only biological lifeforms that evolve.

If god used evolution, then he is a cruel god. Why? Because that means god used death as a natural part of life, but the Bible says differently. The Bible is clear that death is a result of sin and is punishment for disobedience to him.

Death is a result of entropy, illness, or destruction that's so severe that it's impossible to repair.

It is intellectually dishonest to take writings of actual events and falsely say they are only allegories.

When the "actual events" really didn't happen, what else should they be called?

 

[Harv]

Jesus could literally descend from the heavens like "dudes, evolution is real, get over it" and they'd think it was a trick from Satan or something.

Matthew 12:24. Does this mean the story has gone full circle? Jesus can talk to the present-day religious leadership and they will say anything to refuse to believe Him?

If god used evolution, then he is a cruel god. Why? Because that means god used death as a natural part of life, but the Bible says differently. The Bible is clear that death is a result of sin and is punishment for disobedience to him.

If the people native you your particular region of the world (Australia) arrived according to the timeline presented in today's history books, many thousands of years ago, then they would have an excuse. This flatly contradicts Romans 1:20.

Jews already viewed Genesis as allegorical before Jesus' time, and most Christians followed suit.

I am still looking for some help.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Matthew 12:24. Does this mean the story has gone full circle? Jesus can talk to the present-day religious leadership and they will say anything to refuse to believe Him?

For those who are the most devoted to their current beliefs, absolutely. When you get to that level of belief, your belief literally defines who you are, admitting that you were wrong all along about the thing that makes up the core of your identity is something very few people can do.

 

[timtofly]

No we don't. Facts are facts.

What do you base your belief system or perception of life on? Just beliefs?

If we're not sure if something is a fact or not, then it isn't.

The mind is the creator of facts? The mind can reject or interpret facts, but does it really create them? Just because a person believes the world is flat or used to be flat, does not create a flat world. The world is either flat or not.

Are you really saying that every single verse in the Bible is a historical account of something that happened right before the person writing it put pen to paper?

No, just the ones being referenced. The pen and paper are rather modern inventions. It is my opinion that God told Moses what to put down as the Book of Genesis. Moses was given what to write down in the next four books over a period of months and the last verses of Deuteronomy was the prophetic writings of Moses.

Some of the Bible is written as prophecies and words of wisdom. I have no problem with people writing down facts today as being that much more different than in ancient times and the biases that may have been involved in recording such facts. The issue is saying that we as modern people have the ability to determine such facts as facts without the ability to do so first hand.

@ Valka D'Ur

You are free to call people liars. The problem is trying to qualify what people say as true or not. It would be nice if people were actually going to write an allegory, they would qualify it as such. From a human standpoint, it is not wrong to call people a liar, although it may hurt their feelings and they may be angry with you, but calling them a liar does not change a fact. If you have no knowledge of a fact, are you a better judge of that fact or the one who actually experienced the fact?