Pope declares Evolution and Big Bang are right.

[lopri]

So the Pope declares them right, that makes the right?

In the Catholic church, yes. What he says matters because he has a huge influence in people's mind and the church's direction (he seems to work you up, for example). He also has political power that comes with the position. There have been talks about his decision to make votes public on last week's "Synod" thing. Many believe it is part of the Pope's plan to root out reactionaries among the church's power players.

 

[Retro Rob]

In the Catholic church, yes. What he says matters because he has a huge influence in people's mind and the church's direction (he seems to work you up, for example). He also has political power that comes with the position. There have been talks about his decision to make votes public on last week's "Synod" thing. Many believe it is part of the Pope's plan to root out reactionaries among the church's power players.

(I conceded the point because I didn't want ot argue), but no, science isn't "right" because someone says it is, no matter who you are.

Now, if he was making a religious proclamation as regards the beliefs of Catholics, then sure...you're correct, but this simply a confirmation of what was accepted in scence for about 150 years.

It was already "right".

 

[JD50]

It is much less of a problem. It's built into science to readjust as new observations are made and old ones proven false. It is built into many religions that the information they have is either directly handed down by a divine omnipotent being or inspired by one.

It seems to me that science breeds far more well balanced people that weigh the information given to them. Do some people that follow science end up intolerant of new information? Yes, but I'd hardly pin that on science.

Exactly.

 

[Sonikku]

How long did it take for the church to admit Earth wasn't the center of the universe?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Catholics have been buying into evolution and the big bang for a while now.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

It is much less of a problem. It's built into science to readjust as new observations are made and old ones proven false. It is built into many religions that the information they have is either directly handed down by a divine omnipotent being or inspired by one.

It seems to me that science breeds far more well balanced people that weigh the information given to them. Do some people that follow science end up intolerant of new information? Yes, but I'd hardly pin that on science.

And yet, so many do "pin" it on religion and even try to use that intolerance to deny the existence of God. The problem in both science and religion is ignorance. Religion and science were created by man. Many ignorant people believe they are incompatible and that one refutes the other. This is nonsense, they are both tools that address specific needs that can not be developed, managed or, advanced without using the right tool.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

And yet, so many do "pin" it on religion and even try to use that intolerance to deny the existence of God. The problem in both science and religion is ignorance. Religion and science were created by man. Many ignorant people believe they are incompatible and that one refutes the other. This is nonsense, they are both tools that address specific needs that can not be developed, managed or, advanced without using the right tool.

There is no reason to assert an existence of God. Why blame science for people not believing in mystical beings?

You seem caught up in this idea of science as an organized or even loosely formed group. It is not.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

There is no reason to assert an existence of God. Why blame science for people not believing in mystical beings?

No need for asserting anything, God exists. Religion addresses the spiritual needs, emotional needs and, need for love and acceptance shared by all people. Science can never provide an answer to why, only how. That is why you should at least acknowledge the importance of religion even if you are currently incapable of taking the leap of faith to believe in God.

 

[Ventanni]

Both science and faith are equally guilty it comes to rejecting new ideas. It’s human nature to question things. That’s how we learn, expand on thoughts, and digest new information so that we can understand it in a palatable format. Contrary to popular belief, Christian scholars are constantly pouring over original manuscripts and re-checking the interpretations of what we now call the Bible. Scientists also push the boundaries of theory and are constantly checking and rechecking their scientific findings.

I fail to see how this is a bad thing.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Note to you all, those we call "Creationists" and "Intelligent Design Believers" consider the Catholics and their Pope the Devil.

 

[moonbogg]

Wait, so he dogmatically claimed that the big bang and evolution are "right"? What if the big bang turns out to be something very different? I'd expect him to stick to his guns =)

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Note to you all, those we call "Creationists" and "Intelligent Design Believers" consider the Catholics and their Pope the Devil.

This is very true and an important point. By a wide margin most anti-evolution creationists are protestant (or, interestingly enough, muslim). The generally believe Catholics to be idolaters, heretics, or infidels.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

No need for asserting anything, God exists. Religion addresses the spiritual needs, emotional needs and, need for love and acceptance shared by all people. Science can never provide an answer to why, only how. That is why you should at least acknowledge the importance of religion even if you are currently incapable of taking the leap of faith to believe in God.

You asserted such just now.

 

[Kadarin]

 

[Retro Rob]

Wait, so he dogmatically claimed that the big bang and evolution are "right"? What if the big bang turns out to be something very different? I'd expect him to stick to his guns =)

This is an outstanding point, and question. I think there is a difference between accepting something you believe is right, and you believing something because its accepted.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

You asserted such just now.

You really are a literal ninny. I guess you missed the

 

[DrPizza]

I think this is 100 percent dead on. Catholics should care about WHY he's declaring evolution "right".

It shows that the Church doesn't have a shred of credibility anymore, and instead of leading (like the should), they're reacting.

That's not a good sign for a religion...it usually precedes a demise.

No, it shows that Catholics aren't doubling down on stupidity. There's so much evidence for each that you would have to be completely ignorant not to realize how well these two theories are proven. But, you, aren't you quadrupling down at this point?

 

[Retro Rob]

No, it shows that Catholics aren't doubling down on stupidity. There's so much evidence for each that you would have to be completely ignorant not to realize how well these two theories are proven. But, you, aren't you quadrupling down at this point?

Don't you find it somewhat contradicting that he's saying "we risk imagining God as a magician, with a wand able to make everything. But it is not so", while holding that view that God can literally turn a cracker and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus?

Transubstantiation is clearly the act of a "magician", and so is Divine Revelation, Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of a man dead for three days, and they all hold these as factual happenings.

Scientifically, those things are no more plausible than God directly creating man without recourse to evolution.

So no, they aren't refusing to double down on stupidity, or they would abandon their belief in those many other other "magical" things their religion teaches that contradict science. Its clear that people are becoming more secular, and churches aren't as packed as the used to be. Something needed to be done about that.

 

[slackerinabox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Notice that ring around one of the early proponents of the big bang theory's neck?

 

[RampantAndroid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Notice that ring around one of the early proponents of the big bang theory's neck?

This:

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for existence of God and Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation.[18][19] When Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's science advisor, tried to persuade the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly anymore, the Pope agreed. He persuaded the Pope to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[20]

 

[alzan]

Classic. Without admitting any mistakes on their part the RCC admits that the scientific theories of the Big Bang and Evolution have a lot of validity to them.

Too bad other church authorities can't admit that as well.

 

[DrPizza]

Classic. Without admitting any mistakes on their part the RCC admits that the scientific theories of the Big Bang and Evolution have a lot of validity to them.

Too bad other church authorities can't admit that as well.

It's amazing that some still don't believe the Earth is flat and at the center of the solar system.

 

[MovingTarget]

Catholics have been buying into evolution and the big bang for a while now.

This. The statement is only new in that the current pope has weighed in on the subject. The church weighed in on it some time ago saying that it did not contradict Catholic belief, but I cannot recall the encyclical that first stated this. Despite the unfortunate situation with Gallileo, modern day believers do not think that science and faith are fundamentally at odds as they are two entirely different methodologies addressing different questions. Creationism and its stepchild Intelligent Design are just as bad theology as they are science.

 

[MovingTarget]

Classic. Without admitting any mistakes on their part the RCC admits that the scientific theories of the Big Bang and Evolution have a lot of validity to them.

Too bad other church authorities can't admit that as well.

There was no need to address past mistakes with regards to science as that was already publicly stated with regards to Gallileo, albeit a few centuries too late. Or are you thinking of some other scientific "oops" on the part of the church?

 

[Zorkorist]

This would be funny if it wasn't so silly.

-John