I realize the Pope said evolution can't be proven....BS

[Fresh_Start]

Evolution is proven every day.
Drug resistent germs prove adaption and evolution through random variation occur.
There really is no doubt about that.

[RedCappedBandit]

1. Alot of words that come out of the mouths of popes

and other religious leaders are BS.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Actually, Nothing Can Be Proven

Certain hypotheses have not been disproven after we've tried hard - and thus we take for granted that they are correct, and call them "theories".

(Nit-picky, I know... And I don't mean to defend God's Rottweiller...)

[Big Sky Boy]

5. And that includes his savior too.

There is no historical record that Jesus ever lived. Nowhere.

We know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are just a collection of hearsay stories that were collected long after Jesus is supposed to have lived and that they were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. The Gospels are full of factual inaccuracies and often contradict each other.

Whenever I hear Christians say "Evolution is just a theory!" and I am feeling particularly ornery, I respond with "Jesus is just a theory." They usually reply, "You can't prove he doesn't exist!" To which I respond "Just like you can't prove evolution isn't real." You can probably guess where the conversation goes from there.

I know there is really no way to have a rational discussion with a fundamentalist simpleton, but these people sit on our school boards and I will not stand by while they try to drag our children back to the dark ages.

I mean really. It took them 400 years to pardon Galileo.

[Fresh_Start]

8. thats incorrect.

I can prove the existence of bees, bluebirds, snakes, rats, etc.

Things can be proven.

However you can never prove that something does not exist.
Its impossible to exhaustive eliminate all the places where the something might be which is why you can never prove something does not exist.

The abominable snowman might have heighed himself to Mars for example.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. But in science

proof is an irrelevant term.

It's useful in logic and philosophy, but even the mere existence of the things you mention is a philosophical proposition, not a scientific one.

[LastDemocratInSC]

12. In science, the issue is one of increased / decreased confidence

For any given fact there may be many theories that explain that fact. As theories are tested, some are retained while others are discarded ... the decision to retain or discard is based on how well a theory explains the fact. One's confidence in the theories increases for those that are retained and decreases for those that are discarded.

A good example is the fact of gravity, or the law of gravity, as it is commonly known. This fact, or law, has been explained by many competing theories over time. There are currently just a few theories that explain gravity and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Each of these will eventually be modified to better explain gravity as new information is learned, or discarded as new information invalidates one or all of them, or even find competition from a new theory based on new information. As this process proceeds we gain greater confidence in one or more theories and lose confidence in the others. That's the way science works.

We often hear that "evolution is just a theory" as if this diminishes its importance. In the hierarchy of important things, it is the theory that trumps the law because it is the theory that provides the understanding of the law.

[Big Sky Boy]

13. They misuse the term on purpose

I understand scientific methodology as you have described it. But when fundies use the phrase "evolution is just a 'theory'," they are using the term "theory" as if it were interchangeable with the word "opinion."

I hear a lot of unsophisticated people say things like "that's my theory." Sometimes the term is loosely appropriate, but more often than not, they are expressing an opinion. When they say the "theory" of evolution, they are purposefully trying to diminish evolution as a credible explanation of the way things work.

It illustrates a misunderstanding of scientific principle and the general meaning of the word.

[mike_c]

3. his comments show the usual ignorance of what evolution is....

Evolution can be directly observed. You can watch it happen. Your example is one of many ways in which evolution occurs quite rapidly and unambiguously.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Charles Darwin proved evolution a hundred and sixty years ago.

Keep in mind, this is the organization that took four hundred years to accept Galileo.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Actually

he's right - nothing can be "proven" in science.

But I believe he was speaking about "creation" more than evolution. The Catholic Church has been on board with evolution for a long time. But evolution doesn't address the issue the origins of life.

[Fresh_Start]

7. I agree that he probably doesn't disbelieve evolution

but I can't dismiss that he's playing to a particular intelligent design audience.
I don't know if this Pope is ever unscripted.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. I agree

it's not unscripted.

It would be surprising if the Pope said the origin of life was an entirely naturalistic process. In fact, the Church has said for a very long time that evolution was the mechanism by which God created mankind. There's nothing new about that position.

I don't agree with that view, but since Darwinism doesn't even address the topic, I can't take any offense to it. He just reiterated a long-standing Church view.

[BayCityProgressive]

10. the Church's stance on evolution

is actually pretty progressive compared to our idiot president.