Pope Francis says evolution is real and God is no wizard

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/28/pope-francis-backs-theory-of-evolution-says-god-is-no-wizard/

By Ishaan Tharoor October 28 at 12:36 PM

Delivering an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Francis continued his habit of making provocative, seemingly progressive statements. The pontiff appeared to endorse the theory of the Big Bang and told the gathering at the Vatican that there was no contradiction between believing in God as well as the prevailing scientific theories regarding the expansion of our universe.

“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,” Francis said. “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.”

The pope avoids gesturing at the thorny issue (at least for some Christians) of whether humans descended from apes. Atheists argue, moreover, that understanding the Big Bang and what emerged from that cosmic moment obviates a need to believe in a deity. On that count, Francis obviously disagrees. He repeated the idea of God not being a “magician,” an entity that conjured all into being.

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” Francis said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

more at link

[trotsky]

1. Not exactly.

He says that evolution is the process by which his god created the life we see today. That's not evolution.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/whats-the-problem-with-unguided-evolution/

[MADem]

3. Sorry--sounds to me like he's buying off on BIG BANG. That's the Big Picture. No Jesus riding Dino!

Boy, this is gonna piss some people off--the fundies AND the atheists, united in anger at Pope Frank!

Hilarious!

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. He's not saying anything new at all, as the article points out

The Catholic church has accepted some form of evolution for decades, and the Big Bang (the concept came from a Catholic priest and astronomer). This speech says nothing new; they still believe Adam and Eve were a real couple, from whom all of humanity is descended, and who existed in a paradise before they committed the first sin. And Satan made them do it.

[MADem]

102. Why are people getting so angry about it, I wonder?

If nothing has changed, I don't understand the agita...?

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. Are people 'angry'? I thought the general DU atheist response has been 'same old BS'

The over-enthusiastic "this is a big fucking deal" that earned this story 136 recs in GD may have annoyed people, I suppose.

[MADem]

104. No, not here, necessarily--in some of the links I've seen on the topic, the rhetoric is strident. nt

[okasha]

107. They're upset that Francis fails to conform to their favorite

stereotype of Christian=idiot fundamentalist. Hence all the frantic attempts to show that he's a creationist after all.

[immoderate]

2. It's the tradition of "double-talk."

A little, "Now you see it, ..."

--imm

[cbayer]

4. How so?

[immoderate]

6. Natural selection is god's will.

That's an example of "double-talk." Resolving contradictory statements. Nonsense exists, y'know.

--imm

[cbayer]

7. I'm not sure they are contradictory

and I tend to support anything coming from religion that supports science.

It's necessary to counter the creationists. It it's double-talk, it's ok by me.

[immoderate]

9. It depends on whether you see a difference between "natural" and "super-natural."

Do you see it?

--imm

[cbayer]

11. I most definitely see a difference,

but I don't think they are necessarily incompatible.

[immoderate]

17. In the same way, "fantasy" and "reality" are also compatible.

To some folks.

--imm

[trotsky]

19. Of course!

If you allow me to state that invisible elves push items together and that it looks like gravity, then my theory of invisible elves is totally compatible with the theory of gravity!

[cbayer]

22. Do you have no use for fantasy?

Does it have no place in your life?

I'm assuming that is not the case. So does that mean that you can't embrace reality?

[immoderate]

30. Fantasy has a place, but not as substitute for reality.

I pulled up a classic. In this "documentary" Bill Bixby, acknowledging that Elvis is dead, challenges you to simultaneously believe that he is alive! He quotes F. Scott Fitzgerald, as the authority that the mark of intelligence is to hold two contradictory thoughts at the same time. Even before there was FOX News, there was double-talk!

--imm

[cbayer]

32. I would't make the claim that fantasy should substitute for reality,

Just that both can exist and can even co-exist.

You are focusing only on things that contradict each other, but I don't think that is what this is about.

What part do you see as contradictory?

[Warren Stupidity]

53. when fantasy substitutes for reality what one has is delusional behavior.

[okasha]

55. And then there's your own fantasy.

Your not-so-hidden assumption is that "scientific" and "a-theist" are synonymous. I know way too many actual scientists to accept that equation as either true or rational.

[cbayer]

56. That seems to be a common and growing sentiment in some circles.

That and the erroneous belief that one rejects science if they accept religion.

The fact that some of the most outstanding scientific minds have also embraced religious beliefs seems to escape some.

[okasha]

58. I think it's just another variant

of "my dog's better than your dog." I've worked for years with a local environmental movement founded by two biologists. One is an atheist. The other, an evolutionary biologist, no less, is a Baptist who also brought his pastor into the cause. (They're American Baptists who went rogue from the same SBC church my mother walked out of .)

[cbayer]

59. That describes it very well.

If people could just step back and look for the good instead of making assumptions based on some label, we would all be better off.

[immoderate]

71. Those "scientific minds" did not embrace religion while they were doing science.

They embraced religion when they got stuck. I would like an example of religion advancing science, rather than retarding it.

--imm

[cbayer]

73. That is completely inaccurate.

Religion has advanced science because religious organizations have funded and supported scientific endeavors throughout recorded history.

Surely you know that.

I can give you numerous examples from Copernicus to present day scientists who embraced religion while "doing" science. They embraced it before, during and after making their discoveries, not just when they got stuck.

The fact that you don't know this explains a lot about the position that you hold regarding religion, imm.

While demographically, scientists have a higher rate of atheism than the general population, it is still not a majority.

Science and religion can co-exist compatibly. They can even complement each other.

[immoderate]

81. Copernicus, eh?

His science was financed by his family and Polish royals. He carried on his astronomical observations outside the university. (They pushed him into astrology.) He delayed the publication of his heliocentric theory because he was afraid of backlash from the church. It appeared posthumously.

That Copernicus?

--imm

[cbayer]

83. I wasn't bringing him up as someone funded by the church,

but as someone who was religious and was a great scientists.

He may have delayed his publication and he wouldn't be the first to do so. Darwin also had serious concerns about how his findings would impact religious beliefs.

But both remained religious despite this. They were trailblazers who had tremendous impact on both science and religion.

The Catholic church funded the first universities in Europe and can take credit for educating and promoting major scientific breakthroughs.

And they continue to do so. The group that the Pope was talking to is basically the science arm of the catholic church.

That may not fit your narrative, but that's a fact.

[immoderate]

84. The church made no conscious contributions to science that I am aware of.

The church hired astrologers so they could track celestial beings. That's not science. That's coincidence. What science do you think the church was promoting? Astrology did evolve into astronomy, but outside the church.

Darwin was "religious" because of his wife. If you can find any reference to religion in his writing, I'd like to see it.

There is nothing about being a scientist that prevents believing in nonsense. Newton had some really nonsensical notions and spent time casting horoscopes. Some were for clerics. Is that "support?" And when Newton was stumped by three body problems he threw up his hands and asserted that only god could figure it. That is until LaPlace came along and presented the solution. Coincidentally, he wasn't religious.

Religion can exist with science, but I am aware of no positive interaction. The Catholic Church did fund universities, but not to advance science.

--imm

[cbayer]

86. I just pointed out that the church funded the first universities.

There is no doubt that the church has stood in the way of science at times and continue to do so.

But there is a considerable counter balance in their support.

I have recently had the opportunity to visit monasteries in Italy where there was a strong emphasis on science and scientific discovery.

There is a lot of debate about Darwin's religion, but there is no doubt that he was seriously concerned about how his findings might impact religious belief.

Religion is not nonsense, imm. It's just a different way of seeing the world than the way you see it. Your perspective is not superior. You don't have the "one way".

Even the RCC has an Academy of Science.

You seem unable to recognize anything positive about religion. That's unfortunate, because otherwise you seem to be a tolerant and intelligent person.

[immoderate]

87. Religious institutions have done good things. Religion, not so much.

Religions appropriate secular practices to extend their clientele. They even create them. There is no "good" that religion does that is exclusively religious, and not duplicated by secular agencies. Religions do like to take credit for things they had nothing to do with, ranging from creation to sports results.

Having said that, I'll accede that I don't usually discuss religion, except in designated areas, like this, or unless someone else brings it up (that can handle it.) Ordinarily, I have no interest in others beliefs. It usually doesn't matter (unless they're blocking an abortion clinic. Hate it when people do that!) I like some religious art and music, dislike most ritual, and have an association with a local Pagan group, where a good friend is a high priestess, and if anyone there asks about my religion, saying "chocoloholic" is good enough to satisfy them. My experience with Pagans is that they believe everything, and accept everybody. Atheists, mostly, don't believe in a god. (Some do. Go figure.) But might believe anything else, even things contradicted by what we could call "settled science."

I appreciate the compliment, but would not attempt to match yourself for tolerance. As for intelligence, let me paraphrase the famous *key to success* --> It's sincerity! If you can fake that, you've got it made!

--imm

[cbayer]

88. What is the difference between religious institutions and religion?

Religion speaks about civil rights and social justice for many people.

I sense that you exposure has been limited.

The fact is that religious group step up in places and situation where non-religous groups and governments don't.

I would love to see the day when it was no necessary for religious groups to patch the holes in the safety nets.


You come across as a sincere and honest individual. I hope that you are able to see the good things about religion and the religious.

[immoderate]

90. Religious institutions include schools, hospitals, shelters, lobbyists, etc. Religions are faith.

The religious institutions offer secular services, the same as secular institutions. Some good, some bad. And there are people who are motivated to do good by their faith, just as others do the same things because of their humanity. And there are people who draw comfort from it. That excuses my tolerance.

The problem with religion for me, is you have to believe in magic. Such is not in my makeup. I know a few professional magicians, and they don't believe in it either. In fact they expose people who claim to have magical powers. Can you do miracles? I'd love to see one.

I was in civil rights marches alongside religious people. They were OK, y'know? (Did you know that MLK's March on Washington was planned and executed by an atheist?)

I have also undertaken my own religious quests. I am just lucky enough to have found what I sought. You call that naivete.

--imm

[Gore1FL]

95. It doesn't escape as many as it haunts.

We can only imagine how far along we'd be if it were not for this tragic fact.

[cbayer]

96. Lol, you are hilarious. But I do love me some NDT.

[immoderate]

67. Since they mean different things, I, for one, do not equate them.

And you knowing lots of scientists doesn't change that. I'll even submit that I know lots of atheists that don't know shit about science. Your mind reading skills need some work.

--imm

[okasha]

70. Who said you did?

No need to be defensive.

[immoderate]

74. I somehow got the thought that it was you who said...

... something about my "not-so-hidden assumption is that "scientific" and "a-theist" are synonymous." Was that a different Okasha?

Why would I defend something I didn't say?

--imm

[okasha]

79. My bad. I thought your post was made by a different person.

That said, your post does strongly imply the equivalence. Why would you post something you say you don't support?

[immoderate]

82. I made no such implication. You made an inference.

Can you point me to the post where you think I made the connection? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

--imm

[gcomeau]

13. Heh...

"and I tend to support anything coming from religion that supports science. "

Find one example.


And no, this OP isn't one. Not once he inserted that bit about evolution and the Big Bang "requiring a Creator". Nothing about the science says that, that claim is inherently anti-scientific since it invokes a non-falsifiable hypothesis about a supernatural entity, and it makes it clear all he's doing is dressing up anti-science in accommodating rhetoric to make it seem more reasonable. He's waving one hand around over there with his "look at me, I love science" card while he slips the other one holding the "except this part here where I'm completely ignoring it" card into the deck while you're distracted by the show.

[cbayer]

15. Heh….

Most mainline protestant denominations, jews and the catholic church support evolution as a scientifically based theory.

Whether they invoke something about god or not is irrelevant, as they are vastly preferable to the creationists who reject evolution.

This is not anti-science, imo, but an attempt to endorse both science in religion.

And I am fine with that.

[gcomeau]

16. Oh really?

"Most mainline protestant denominations, jews and the catholic church support evolution as a scientifically based theory"

So they DON'T say, in effect:

"Yes evolution... because GOD?"

Because if they do say that, and both you and I know perfectly well that is in fact what they say, then no they do NOT support evolution "as a scientifically based theory" since they throw the science part right out the window with those last two words.

"Whether they invoke something about god or not is irrelevant"

A bedrock principle of science is the falsifiability requirement of hypotheses. You cannot declare that refusing to abide by the basic principles of science is irrelevant to whether they support science. That's like saying whether someone accepts that 2+2=4 is irrelevant to whether they accept math.

[trotsky]

18. One thing you need to remember here...

in order to declare science and religion "compatible," notice that one can weaken/distort/misrepresent science as much as one wants.

There! Compatible!

[rug]

75. that's a disingenuous as when one does weaken/distort/misrepresent another's words.

There!

[cbayer]

21. I don't really care if they say "because god"

As long as they accept evolution and other well establish scientific theories and don't deny them, I'm ok with that.

I don't agree with you that they throw the science out the window and having had kids that went to catholic schools at point, I can assure you that was not the case.

Again, I am supportive of any position that a religious group takes that will counter the creationists. I do not expect them to deny god in the equation.

I don't think this position contradicts the basic principles of science. And apparently neither do the scientist members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who have cheered this position.

[gcomeau]

25. "I don't care if they say '2+2 = purple banana'"...

"As long as they accept math and don't deny it I'm fine with that!"


That statement and yours are logically equivalent.

[cbayer]

26. No, they are not the same at all.

[gcomeau]

27. They are precisely the same

Saying "because God" is saying "I hereby insist, in direct contradiction of basic scientific principles, on an unfalsifiable hypothesis as the explanation of this behavior"



That is the exact polar OPPOSITE of accepting science. That is rejecting science. That is refusing science.


But if this makes it easier, let me rework the comparison for you.



Let's say that both parties agree that the statement "2+2=4" is true.


One party accepts that "2+2=4" because basic mathematical principles tell us this is so.

The other party accepts that "2+2=4" because their pet unicorn said so, and explicitly rejects the principles the first party refers to as their explanation of why the statement is true. It is not true because of that, it is true because pet unicorn.


The latter party DOES NOT ACCEPT MATH just because they accept the truth of the "2+2=4" statement.

[cbayer]

28. The position he appears to take, and that religious scientists in general take,

is that there are scientific principles and theories that are provable and unfalsifiable, but may have come from something.

It is not the opposite of accepting science. It is not rejecting or refusing science. It is the position that science exists and so does god and there may be a relationship between the two.

Do you know what preceded the big bang? Does anyone? Do you have any evidence that would counter the claim that there is a god or gods that preceded the big bang?

Which principles do you think are being explicitly rejected. Please be explicit.

You see a contradiction while I do not.

[gcomeau]

31. If that is the position he takes then his position is nonsensical.

"that there are scientific principles and theories that are provable and unfalsifiable,"

Unfalsifiable theories are, by definition, unscientific. So no, there are not any scientific theories that are unfalsifiable. Any theory or hypothesis found to be unfalsifiable is rejected by science. For very good reason.

There are a few hypotheses that may be unfalsifiable (string theory for one), and whether they are or not tends to be a matter of rather fierce debate precisely because the answer to that question determines whether that hypothesis may survive or not. If it is determined they cannot be falsified they're dead. That is a requirement of science.


And refusing to accept that is refusing to accept science.


I have already been explicit about that, but there it is again.


That "God exists" is an unfalsifiable hypothesis is under no debate whatsoever of course. It is the practically textbook definition of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. So refusing to accept that science declares that to be an unacceptable hypothesis as the explanation for the origin of the universe or evolution is rejecting science.

[cbayer]

34. Something which is unfalsifiable now may not be later.

I don't agree that those hypotheses are rejected, though they may be put aside for now.

The part you don't get is that it is possible to both believe in science and to believe in god. You essentially take the position that everyone that believes in god rejects science, and this is patently untrue.

Perhaps you are not as explicit as you think you are.

Science doesn't declare anything, let alone that the existence of god is an unacceptable hypothesis.

Did I miss your answer to the question about what existed before the big bang?

[gcomeau]

45. "Unfalsifiable" does not mean...

..."I can't run that test this afternoon."

Or "I can't run that test unless I get a billion dollar grant and 50 years time with a research team".


It means it is *literally logically impossible* to EVER falsify. The idea that God exists or that God has taken any given action falls in that category due to the nature of the capabilities assigned to God to defy natural physical laws, thus negating any possible test result since any test would rely on those laws functioning and not being subject to violation.

[cbayer]

46. No it means it can't be proven false..

at this time. The definition doesn't include anything about it be impossible to ever falsify. That's just your interpretation.

It may someday be possible to prove that god does or does not exist. I don't think we can imagine how that would be the case based on the tools we currently have and what we currently know, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

Are there other things that you think it is literally logically impossible to ever falsify? The existence of other intelligent life? Reincarnation? What there was before the big bang?

[gcomeau]

47. Not in science it doesn't.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

...

"Are there other things that you think it is literally logically impossible to ever falsify?"

Plenty of things. For example "I have tiny, invisible elves living in my brain which are immune to detection by any scientific instrument or method."

Since I have defined the elves as immune to scientific detection, no scientific test may ever prove they aren't there. If you don't see them, well of course! I told you so! AHA!"

[cbayer]

48. That doesn't say what you said, though.

It doesn't in any way say that it is the case forever. Logical possibilities can change with the introduction of new data or findings. Something that is falsifiable now may not be later.

If you take the position that what you describe about the elves is true, than the burden of proof is on you. There is no need for anyone to try and prove them false.

But beliefs fall into a different category. If you say you believe it but have no evidence, then the burden would shift if one wants to say your belief is false.

[gcomeau]

49. Please review the meaning of "logical possibility"

Logic is not dependent on the passage of time.

[cbayer]

50. I reviewed it. Logical possibilities can change with time.

Introduction of new information can alter the possibility of just about anything.

One rarely sees this kind of rigid thinking outside of extreme religious believers.

[gcomeau]

60. No they cannot.

You are clearly not understanding what a logical possibility is. You may be confusing it with a reasonable possibility. Many people sloppily use "that's illogical" to mean "that's unreasonable". Lots of kids growing up watching Spock on Star Trek for example.

They do not mean the same thing. Something that is considered to be unreasonable can be re-evaluated in light of new information. Something that is illogical is something that is in violation of the laws of logic.


Example of a logical impossibility: Square circle.


No amount of time or additional information will EVER make it logically possible to have a square circle. The properties that make something a square are logically inconsistent with the properties of a circle. It is IMpossible to be both simultaneously. To claim that something can be both a circle and a square is a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction. You would have to claim that the shape in question simultaneously did AND did not have four corners at right angles for one thing. Can't happen. Period.


That will not change tomorrow, or next year, or a thousand years from now, or in the final seconds before the heat death of the universe.

[cbayer]

61. You are obviously using some strict definitions that are probably unique

to a field that you are quite familiar with.

I find it rather dull and dogmatic.

I guess you can make some kind of intellectual argument for whatever it is you are trying to assert, but it really doesn't address the question at hand. You win, but I'm not sure what it is you win exactly.

One can believe in god and in science. They are compatible. One can believe in evolution and the big bang theory and a supernatural force or being that stands beside it all.

I will continue to support those religious leaders that endorse evolution, climate change, stem cell research, a patient's right to die, GLBT civil liberties, etc. There are religious forces out there that need to be countered and the most powerful countering forces can come from other religious forces.

It is counterproductive to attack them for not being perfect enough.

No matter what meaningless terms you use.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. no he is using the words as they are defined.

The special field that defines "logical" is "logics". The special fields that define "falsifiability" are "science", "logics", "philosophy" and "philosophy of science".

The pope endorsed the RCC mixing of ID and TOE. The pope does not support LGBT rights, instead he is the absolute ruler of an organization that actively opposes LGBT rights around the world. So "the pope" would not be somebody you should support on the grounds stated above.

[gcomeau]

97. Stunning

What defines a logical impossibility is not some irrelevant detail of some obscure and specialized field that has no bearing on your argument just because you express a disinterest in it. It is stunning to me to see you attempt to hand wave away what a logical impossibility is because you find dealing with it inconvenient for your position.


If something is logically impossible it literally Cannot Happen In Real Life Ever. That kind of matters here. It is not some nitpick over terminology. It is not some esoteric intellectual exercise that doesn't apply to you if you shut your eyes, clamp your hands over your ears, and pretend it doesn't exist except in the musty offices of some ivory tower academics.

"One can believe in god and in science. They are compatible."

For cripes sake, we just finished establishing that that statement is false, hypotheses that include appeals to God violate a core fundamental principle of the scientific method (falsifiability), you were completely unable to refute that argument, so instead you have now resorted to declaring the argument didn't matter because you weren't familiar with the concepts involved so they therefore somehow didn't apply to you and then declared you were right. Which is a little like someone making an argument they can fly by flapping their arms really fast and concentrating super hard, you pointing out the inconvenient details of gravity and aerodynamics, and them saying "I don't know what those thing are so they don't apply to me. I CAN FLY!!!!".

Do you appreciate how some of us here might find your conduct a little frustrating?

I will continue to support those religious leaders that endorse evolution,

Except, as also already explained to you, the Pope DIDN'T endorse evolution. Because evolution is NOT "all life on earth evolves over successive generations through mutation and natural selection BECAUSE GOD."

What he did is pulled a slight of hand trick, endorsing intelligent design creationism while co-opting the label of evolution for it to make it seem like he was supporting science while actually actively undermining it.

[cbayer]

98. Some of us here? Who in the world do you represent?

BTW, it's sleight of hand.

[gcomeau]

99. There are several in this thread, please don't play stupid.

You are entirely aware of how many people you regularly frustrate with your conduct.

And yes, clearly the fact that I missed an 'e' in my post is the detail you should be focusing the entirely of your attention on. Wouldn't want to actually engage the substance of the argument now would we?

[cbayer]

100. Play stupid? I wouldn't dare.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have interesting conversations with people all the time here and am not aware of anyone, other than you, that might be frustrated. And your frustration is generally due to your inability to get me to wholeheartedly agree with your semantic nonsense.

No, I don't want to play your semantic game, gcomeau. You get so caught up in the definitions of things that you completely lose the point. It becomes a dull academic exercise. I'm sure there is someone out there who is interested in that kind of "substance", but it's not me.

[gcomeau]

101. And yet there you go again.

And something being a logical impossibility IS NOT A MATTER OF SEMANTICS.



It is hopeless trying to have a serious debate with you.

[trotsky]

106. Well at least it's clear to everyone but her that she conceded the point.

You did fine. Try not to take her too seriously. She nitpicks that you missed an 'e' yet she made typos in posts 15, 21, 28, 32, 48, and 83. Probably more, that's just what I caught at a glance.

[gcomeau]

110. I'm not sure why I bother engaging honestly.

We've gone through this type of thing enough times that I know she's going to pull something like this as soon as she runs into some fact she can't deal with... but I just have a difficult time letting silly counter-factual claims go unanswered.

[Alittleliberal]

105. Words have meanings

It's not a semantic game.

[okasha]

65. Depends on your frame of reference.

All sorts of "illogical" things happen in non-Euclidian geometry.

[gcomeau]

89. No, it doesn't.

Nothing illogical happens in non euclidean geometry. Things that are not entirely intuitive happen, but nothing violating the laws of logic.

Logical impossibilities in particular do not happen... because they're impossibilities.

[okasha]

108. Please note quote marks.

If that goes over your head, I'll spell it out. Non-Euclidian geometry operates on theorems that do not work on flat surfaces. Euclidean geometry operates according to theorems that do not work on curved surfaces. Each geometry works logically in its own environment and not at all in others.

It occurs to me belatedly that this kind of distinction also applies to religion and science. The tools for analyzing one do not work on the other. You can't change a light bulb with a backhoe.

[gcomeau]

109. Ok, noted.

You don't actually intend "illogical" to mean illogical, rendering your comment irrelevant to the discussion that was occurring which was about actual illogical things.

"It occurs to me belatedly that this kind of distinction also applies to religion and science. The tools for analyzing one do not work on the other."

Yes, but only in the sense that the tools for analyzing science also don't work on fairies or Harry Potter and the "tools" for "analyzing" religion just don't work. On anything.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. Nothing illogical happens in any geometry as all geometries rely on logic to build theorums from

assumptions. Perhaps you meant some word other than "illogical"?

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Only in the absurd apologists dictionary of obfuscations.

[rug]

76. Is that where you got the notion to insert LGBT issues in a discussion about evolution?

Flip the pages so you can put in the Crusades too.

[TexasProgresive]

5. As far as his teaching on evolution

it is exactly what I was taught in a Catholic high school in the mid sixites. This has be pretty standard teaching in Catholic circles. It is the rwnj fundamentalists who are so wrapped up in creationism. As to the Big Bang I really don't know when I learned of it, but extrapolating from the Big Bang to the evolution of life is not a big stretch for me as a Theist.

[cbayer]

8. I do think the evolution position is pretty standard, particularly in catholic schools.

I'm not sure I have heard such a clear statement on the big bang, but I agree that it does not necessarily contradict religious teachings.

[HockeyMom]

10. +1

Graduated from Catholic HS in 1966. Yes, they said this back in those days. Nothing has changed with what this new Pope is saying. For what it's worth, I am a former Catholic.

[cbayer]

12. Did they take this position on the big bang?

[TexasProgresive]

14. Now that you let on to your age, HockeyMom

even though you don't look it, are you also a HockeyGrandma yet.

I got a litter of grandchildren but know are into hockey, baseball, basketball, soccer and (shudder) football.

[HockeyMom]

24. My Grandson is only 5 months old

Still a bit young for hockey. However, I am babysitting tomorrow and my daugther is going to Open Hockey. I am sure her son will be on skates ASAP!!!!

[okasha]

54. +2

I also got evolution as fact in Catholic high school. The Big Bang was presented as one of two competing theories in my college physics class, with Fred Hoyle championing the steady-state universe and Hawking the BB. Since I read all the sf magazines available in Austin, I followed the debate in their science fact columns.

[pinto]

20. Interesting character, this pope.

He keeps throwing a little slice of doubt into the dogma. Not the whole pizza by a long shot. Yet, a Jesuit voice in the picture. It's been fun to watch the press coverage, reactions and discussions that have ensued.

[cbayer]

23. Yes, his approach on this matter is definitely Jesuit.

Small but meaningful steps, imo.

[rug]

29. Pius XII said it in 1950.

[Lordquinton]

33. God is not a divine being"

Pope claims god is not god? What does that even mean in the context of everything? I think he just made atheists jobs a lot easier.

[cbayer]

35. That is confusing and I am wondering if there might be a translation problem here.

What is the job of an atheist, by the way?

[rug]

37. You certailny need it if you're relying on truncated quotes.

God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. "not a demiurge" is a more accurate translation

Dio non è un demiurgo o un mago, ma il Creatore che dà l'essere a tutti gli enti.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2014/october/documents/papa-francesco_20141027_plenaria-accademia-scienze.html

The demiurge (/ˈdɛmiˌɜrdʒ/) is a concept from the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy for an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe. The term was subsequently adopted by the Gnostics. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily thought of as being the same as the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense, because both the demiurge itself plus the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are considered either uncreated and eternal, or the product of some other being, depending on the system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

He's sticking to the standard Catholic line that their god created the universe from nothing in the Big Bang.

[cbayer]

43. That's very helpful.

It's not a term I am familiar with it and it doesn't appear to have any synonyms.

[okasha]

57. Thank you.

That clarifies the quotation considerably.

[Lordquinton]

69. that clears a lot up

The announcement in general is nothing new, but that line was confusing. Divinity is basically part and parcel with god.

[beam me up scottie]

36. So?

Pope Benedict believes in evolution too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447930/Pope-Benedict-believes-evolution.html

John Paul II did as well:

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-25/news/mn-57404_1_evolutionary-theory




Why is this ABFD?

[rug]

38. Probably because antitheists tend to conflate religion with fundamentalist literalism.

It may be a bfd to them.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Is cbayer an antitheist who tends "to conflate religion with fundamentalist literalism" too?

She seems to think it's enough of a bfd to post a thread about it.

[rug]

72. You're imputing things to another member that may or may not be there.

Why don't you simply ask her?

In any event, my comment about antitheists was an answer to your question, not meta about DU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. I seriously wonder if the Vatican PR drew attention to this to avoid the exorcist story

that has also come out now. Push a bit of "we're not complete swivel-eyed loons - we do believe in common ancestry for life on Earth, and the Big Bang - don't pay attention to the exorcisms, please ..."

[beam me up scottie]

44. That would explain it.

When I logged on and saw the GD thread on the greatest page I was like

Disturbing to see how many DUers think this pope is the first to endorse evolution.

Or at least the RCC's own brand of evolution theory.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. So Blank Frank is an ID obfuscator rather than an outright creationist.

He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one

That is in complete conflict with science.

[rug]

77. Not until it explains ex nihilo.

[xfundy]

62. BUT--

God could create a magic wand if he wanted to! He could also cut a woman in half on the stage. And he can certainly make people disappear.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. God saves white people from Ebola but lets black people die.

God works in mysterious ways.

[okasha]

66. That was rancid.

We need a ventilator in here.

[rug]

78. At least he's not using raped children again to make a missed point.

[okasha]

80. There is that.

[cbayer]

68. Really? I am sure that you don't actually believe any of that, so

I guess you are just mocking others.

[trotsky]

93. You mean mocking like openly bragging about laughing at someone's holy book?

That kind of mocking?

[goldent]

85. This is just Pope Francis being Pope Francis

It's becoming the norm.

[Goblinmonger]

92. I really thought people at DU could recognize a PR stunt when they saw one.

I was clearly wrong.

This is NOTHING new. Nothing at all. This has been the position of the RCC for decades.

But, hey, it comes from the mouth of Wonder-Pope so isn't it awesome the all powerful Oz is making these wonderful, new, progressive statements. Don't worry about the man behind the curtain, though. This is big news. It's wonderful. It's clearly not a distraction.

[cbayer]

111. After having read more about this, I agree with you.

It's not new news, but it is being presented as such.

OTOH, apparently many did not know that this was the rather longstanding position of the RCC, so having it reiterated is not a bad thing.

As another OP here points out, I think it has more to do with the press than the pope. They are finding that this kind of thing gets hits and they are going with it.

[Prophet 451]

94. This is not a new thing

The RCC has accepted evolution and Big Bang cosmology for decades now. IIRC, it was an RCC cleric who first formulated the Big Bang Theory.

Personally, I believe that it was god(s) who created the singularity that triggered the first Big Bang ("first" because I also believe in a cyclical universe) and god(s) who created the first lifeform from which all others descend. I can't prove either of those and, since they're non-falsifiable, they're not science either, but that's my personal view.