UKC

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-bi...

Fancy that at Pope Francis.

In reply to Timmd:

I've made this 'joke' before: 'Is the Pope a Catholic?' Err....

In reply to Timmd:

Doesnt seem any different from the position of the last few popes. Still trying to cram in creationism into the gaps.

In reply to dissonance:

.......
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.

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.
......

He's cramming creationism into the gaps as far as seeing a god as having created the big bang is creationism, but he's not talking about creationism from the point of view of creatures and humans and the world being created in an 'alakazam and things as they are now were created 2000 years ago by god' sense.

Which is definite progress I think, if it means it has any affect on what kind of science children get taught in schools.

In reply to Timmd:


Ask him whether humans have souls, and whether those souls are natural products of evolution, or instead were put into humans by god in the relatively recent past. His answer is likely to be pretty much creationism.

In reply to Timmd:


On the contrary, it would be progress if the views of all religious leaders were ignored entirely when determining what kind of science children are taught.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It still is progress, though, because it means science as it actually is may/will be more likely to be taught.

In an imperfect world progress of any kind is welcome.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Fair point about belief in the existence of souls being religious, or one of faith, but I don't know how you'd know to guess he'd say souls were put into humans relatively recently?

I just thought this was something newsworthy.

Debate away. ()

In reply to Timmd:

I'm as baffled as you are by this bonkers aside re. 'relatively recently'. It doesn't help any debate or discussion, because it has no bearing on any historical truth, or anything whatever. One can only yawn. It's just so tediously batty.

In reply to Timmd:

In other news, way back in 1950 Pope Pius XII put out a papal encyclical, entitled Humani Generis, which claimed there was no condflict between Darwinism and Catholicism and both ID and YEC have been dismissed as dogma and not official positions of the Catholic church.

The last thing the Vatican wants is for people to start making up their own theologies - otherwise there'd be no need for a Pope.

In reply to winhill:

Yup it really is nothing new although Pius XII did stay on the fence a bit and say there was the need for more evidence. Which then John Paul II said had been provided in 1996.
Benedict was also firmly in the theistic evolution camp which looks the same as what Francis has to say.

Have to give it to Francis though he is good at PR.

In reply to Timmd:

The theory of the Big Bang is just as religious as the theory of God, first there was absolutely nothing, and then there was what we call the Big Bang and there was everything. So why did it happen, we have no idea, but Just agree with the other followers of this religion. Was it God that did it, don't be so silly he doesn't exist because our telescopes aren't powerful enough to find him

In reply to John Simpson:
I see science as the 'best guess'.

I'm sure something which came before the big bang will be discovered, but that right now we've only got as far as being aware of the bang which happened. Which is much further than we were when we thought the earth was being held up by giant animals.

We're not doing too badly carefully finding our way as it were.

In reply to Timmd:

There's lots of theories about what came before the Big Bang all by credible scientists.

In reply to John Simpson:

Indeed.

In reply to Timmd:


It is the standard Catholic position, as enunciated by JP2 and Pius XII. Under Catholic theology, animals evolved as in the usual scheme. But, at some point, God took two "animals" and turned them into humans by putting souls into them. Those two, Adam and Eve, were the first humans.

" if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God ..."

"With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

Also:

"Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents."

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Admittedly, Francis might disagree and update Catholic theology, but so far he has not done so. His recent statements are entirely in line with JP2.

In reply to John Simpson:


No it isn't, it is supported by good evidence.


That is not what the Big Bang model says.


Nope, it is not a religion, and you don't " Just agree with the other followers of this religion".


Crackpot.

In reply to winhill:


Sort of, with a lot of fudging about the "first humans" and how humans are distinguished from (other) animals. The Catholic position openly rejects some aspects of the scientific account:

JP2: "As a result, the theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Cool, you learn something new everyday. I'd no idea about all that.

In reply to Timmd:

I won't believe that the RCs are in the real world until they reverse the belief of papal Infallibility.

In reply to mypyrex:

and what about the Hindu claims to have beat the west to genetics by several centuries ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/indian-prime-minister-genetic-...

In reply to Doug:



Well I wondered why Ganesh looked like an elephant and Shiva has so many arms

In reply to the thread:

I've been looking into what the Pope said a bit more:

"When we read in Genesis the account of Creation [...] He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive and their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, ..."

The phrase "gave autonomy to" refers to the Catholic doctrine of God giving man souls. This occurred "at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence", which refers to the interactions of God with man as told in Genesis.

Then there is the timescale: "creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today". If we go back by merely a few "millennia" from today we are still relatively recent and on sort of timescales that the Biblical literalists would put Genesis before today.

Thus, this is all pretty compatible with creationism, in the sense of God creating humans by giving them souls relatively recently, on a Biblical timescale. The only nod to science is that he put these souls in pre-existing animals that had evolved.

All of this is very different from what scientists would mean by "accepting evolution".

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/francis-inaugurates-bust-of-benedict...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Is his thread about that young Pope bloke repeating the Big Bang at LPT and Evolution at the Tor?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Excellent point G
Puts it all back into the context it deserves
A flash in in Cassock?
Cheers

In reply to Timmd:

Not sure any of this is terribly new. I was taught evolution, Darwinism and natural selection by Jesuits at a Catholic grammar school in the 60s. Nobody seemed to think it was at all controversial.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

It often seems that the individual members of faiths are vastly more sensible than their leaders. As someone said about a previous pope, "If that's the smartest man in the Catholic church then I'd sure hate to meet the stupidest."

In reply to Coel Hellier:


To be fair to the pope, nobody else seems to have a highly compelling argument about what a soul/consciousness/self-awareness/whatever is, or where it came from, and there's scant little evidence from more that 10,000 years ago to show if people then had it or not back then, before the pope's magic man allegedly dropped it in.

Not that I think the soul/consciousness/self-awareness/whatever was put there by the magic man...

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I don't doubt it, what this does is make it apply across the board for Catholic schools, with them having no reason 'not' to teach about evolution and the big bang in science classes.

A family friend was encouraged to pray for nice weather on school trips on the bus when he was at a Jesuit school in Hull in the 60's. He's not impressed at the memory to put it mildly. ()

In reply to Timmd:

I see no one has mentioned Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest who is acknowledged as the first person to propose the idea of the Big Bang Theory in 1931.

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitr...

In reply to Christheclimber:
Interesting.

I've always thought religion and science ought to be able to coexist without conflict.

It'd be one less thing for people to argue about, at least.

In reply to Timmd:

Isn't it fascinating that they frequently do co-exist - inside the same cranium? I'd love to understand how that works.

In reply to Timmd:

I agree. Nobody has yet explained why the Big Bang occurred. It is not completely out of the question that it might have been triggered by a god of some kind. If you don't take Genesis literally, that is in no way incompatible with the Abrahamic religions at least.

Neil

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I don't understand your argument. Evolution theory doesn't say that people evolved souls. In fact it doesn't say anything about it, including whether they exist.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


That thread would be much more impressive.

No, this one seems to be about some dodderer in a tiny city state near Italy spouting about routes he's never even had a rope on.

In reply to climbwhenready:


Correct, it doesn't.

Thus, the Catholic version is not the scientific understanding of our origins, it is a mish-mash of the scientific version with creationism.

In reply to Neil Williams:
' that is in no way incompatible with the Abrahamic religions at least.' I don't think that's the case. Abrahamic religions aren't just about creation myths - where we came from. They are intrinsically about gods who have an interest in and direct effect on the world and people today.

To say that, for example, the 'Big Bang' was kicked off by a god who then left us to it without interfering in any way is to actually refute the basis of nearly all religions.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I didn't say that the god didn't interfere post Big Bang, did I?

Neil

In reply to AdrianC:


Me too.

In reply to Timmd:

It does though. Speak to any good salesman and you'll find they believe utterly that what they say is true. And if they change jobs, the next day they will say the exact opposite, and believe that's equally true as well. It's a gift.

In reply to Timmd:

The universe if fully of mysteries and not the least of these is why atheists give a monkey's about other people believing in a god. I can see it's a problem when folk start lopping off heads in the name of their particular deity but in the UK where religion largely amounts to a toddle along to the local church for weddings, christenings and funerals plus the occasional pot of jam for the tombola who cares? As a lapsed Catholic-turned-atheist myself I'm happy to live and let live and if they get an afterlife, well good luck to them. Most of those 'Well, I suppose I'm C of E' types seem far more pleasant than the fundementalist atheists I hear like Prof Dawkins, who sounds like a ranting Ayatolah

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

I don't think you've heard many ranting ayatollahs - or heard Richard Dawkins for that matter.