Pope declares Evolution and Big Bang are right.

[alzan]

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?

Promulgating the dictum that a basic, biological function is a "sin" springs to mind.

 

[lopri]

@Retro Rob: I think there is not big of a difference between what you think and what I think. No one thinks the Pope is a scientist or historian. But he is an authoritative voice among the Catholics and his opinions especially on our mores carry more weight than yours or mine to them. And as you know majority of religious folks have no problem living their day-to-day lives learning science while believing in God and the church's teachings.

I am rather agnostic when it comes to God(s), but looking at the history and modern day politics, it is difficult to ignore the churches' influence in various moral and legal issues whether I agree with them or not. It is through this perspective I evaluate the Pope's changing tones on some of the divisive issues of our time. And as you have noted I am rather welcoming than indifferent to it because 1) it matters to great many people who are my neighbors, and 2) I believe he is right about what he recently said, especially in today's polarized world where some extreme religious factions domestically and world-wide try to dispute modernity in its entirety.

 

[OverVolt]

Yes, there is caving; same as the catholic church finally caved to the heliocentric model (it took them roughly 300 years to do so.) The catholic church in both cases opposed the theories even when proof started to stack up (such as Newton's publications helping to put a bit of weight behind Copernicus' model in the 17th century - and Copernicus proposed his model in the 16th Century) - it wasn't until the 19th century when the catholic church finally allowed publications of books extolling the heliocentric model.

The catholic church - and many religions as well - have a troubled history when it comes to science. Instead of saying "interesting theory, go ahead and find evidence now" they say "that flies in the face of our beliefs and it is therefor false....until you have so much evidence that we either have to admit that we've got our fingers in our ears or acknowledge the advancement of science."

And science never changes it's viewpoint or adjusts it's theories to reflect new discoveries? Scientists never shun, disregard or, fail to publish the work of other scientists who disagree with the status quo? Is science just "caving?" If I follow your example, I should preach that science is bogus because significant scientists were wrong about so much. It seems to me that science breeds as many rabid intolerant followers as religion ever did. You think maybe it has something to do with the human condition?

Ah yes. Type A personalities are more likely to have heart attacks. Being a stress-case is the cause of heart attacks so have a cigarette and relax, dear science funded by 1950's tobacco companies.

 

[OverVolt]

Yes like cigarettes are good for you. Thanks 1950's science!

People actually believe dumb shit like this about science now. Its so weird. No... thats not how science works... at all. Science can definitely be wrong, and is wrong, frequently.

"Science" to the average person means something totally different now than its original meaning. Its simply learning via the scientific method. Results can be inconclusive but that doesn't seem to stop anyone from jumping to conclusions and writing a poorly titled internet article about it that everyone will remember as 100% truth. Things that are inconclusive today are paraded around as 100% true. Just look at how many people without celiac disease are convinced eating gluten free food is helping their health.

 

[Matt1970]

He's still plugging intelligent design. He's just acknowledging that there is a large amount of evidence in favor of evolution that cannot be ignored. One day if we have proof we revolved from a primordial soup, he'll be saying that god mixed that soup...

Pope 1 : Science um still 1?

At least, this will hopefully shut up some of the creationism morons.

It seems more to me like he is accepting the theories of the Big Bang and evolution and saying that before that, which cannot yet be explained, was what was created by God, with the intent of the final product being the world we live on and Man. This is still believing in an invisible man, but it is a step in the right direction.

That's because the existence of a God doesn't disprove evolution any more than evolution disproves the existence of god. We are still very much in our infancy of understanding life and the universe. Claiming one disproves the other is simply beyond our understanding at this point.

 

[sandorski]

Yes like cigarettes are good for you. Thanks 1950's science!

.

False

 

[soulcougher73]

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.

Nothing needs to be done about that. Its clear as time goes on people are getting more knowledgeable of the universe/life/world and dont see a need for religion anymore. They are speaking in volumes already thats its a wrong theory.

 

[evident]

I was taught evolution in my catholic grade school and HS. I went to a catholic university that has very strong science and engineering schools. there's nothing in canon law that forbids the idea of evolution. I think many non-catholics have that misconception... it's mostly fundamentalist christians / maybe some individual catholics that believe in the crazy creationist 1500 year ago BS and reject science.

 

[Strk]

I was taught evolution in my catholic grade school and HS. there's nothing in canon law that forbids the idea of evolution. I think many non-catholics have that misconception... it's mostly fundamentalist christians / maybe some individual catholics that believe in the crazy creationist 1500 year ago bs.

I'll never understand the anti-science push that comes from the Evangelicals. It doesn't even matter if science can help answer their BS, they still ignore it -- like the story of Noah (which some people seem to forget is a Jewish story). They can't answer how there was oxygen if there were no trees, yet science already has the answer for that one. And mind you, I'm an atheist and it is nothing more than a story to me, but a lot of people think it is a true story.

 

[Griffinhart]

I was taught evolution in my catholic grade school and HS. there's nothing in canon law that forbids the idea of evolution. I think many non-catholics have that misconception... it's mostly fundamentalist christians / maybe some individual catholics that believe in the crazy creationist 1500 year ago bs.

It's amazing how many folks can't seem do differentiate Catholics from other Christians. (I know you aren't one of them) All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics.

It was a catholic priest that first theorized the Big Bang Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître To suggest that the church is "suddenly embracing science" because it doesn't have a problem with evolution or the big bang theory is patently stupid. The church has embraced and supported it for a very long time.

 

[moonbogg]

So the church still assumes that God pushed the start button on the big bang, with humans specifically in mind. Oh well, I guess they had to throw a little derp in there to appease their silly members.
It will likely turn out that the big bang was just one of many such events. When that discovery is made, what will the church say then? "God pushed a zillion buttons but the design was meant....ah fuck it"

 

[DrPizza]

I'll never understand the anti-science push that comes from the Evangelicals. It doesn't even matter if science can help answer their BS, they still ignore it -- like the story of Noah (which some people seem to forget is a Jewish story). They can't answer how there was oxygen if there were no trees, yet science already has the answer for that one. And mind you, I'm an atheist and it is nothing more than a story to me, but a lot of people think it is a true story.

I grew up Catholic. When I went to Sunday school, we learned the story of Noah. But, it seemed to be taught more from the perspective of "this is a religious children's story, fictional, but does contain some moral lessons." I was only 6 or 7 at the time though, so maybe they were teaching it as a real event. I just know that, possessing the cognitive abilities and reasoning capabilities of someone my age, or maybe even those of an 8 or 9 year old, I was pretty sure that it was just a story and wasn't actually true. I'm bewildered that grown adults believe the story is true, word for word.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I grew up Catholic. When I went to Sunday school, we learned the story of Noah. But, it seemed to be taught more from the perspective of "this is a religious children's story, fictional, but does contain some moral lessons." I was only 6 or 7 at the time though, so maybe they were teaching it as a real event. I just know that, possessing the cognitive abilities and reasoning capabilities of someone my age, or maybe even those of an 8 or 9 year old, I was pretty sure that it was just a story and wasn't actually true. I'm bewildered that grown adults believe the story is true, word for word.

I had the same experience, going to a Catholic elementary school. I always find it strange when Catholics are lumped in with evangelicals as if Catholics believe that insane fundamentalist and nihilist anti-everything interpretation of the bible.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I never understood why science and religion need to be separated.

If and when we get to the very bottom or origin of everything, and it wasn't all due to some old man with a white beard in robes - great. Or, it wasn't due to the cosmos blowing up - great.

Until then;
- science, keep digging
- religion, keep faithing

Where each will end up at the end of the road is frankly a moot point. Because, I suspect science will never unlock every singly mystery of the universe - and no one can really tell us if there is an actual being called God, since the concept of God is faith driven.

Now, on the cries of Intelligent Design, meaning, yes, science is right,.. but because God designed it that way - how is that an issue, yet no one seems to blink at the theory of the God Particle?? The God Particle theory sounds pretty close to the Intelligent Design belief.

The be all of the universe - past, present & future - the God Particle; A-OK.
The be all of the universe - past, present & future - God; NO WAY!!!

It's the same shit; in that there are concepts that we as human's just don't understand and grasp,.. and we ultimately dump (or will dump), everything into an "Everything" bucket;
- in science's case, it's the God particle
- in religion's case, it's God

I don't know, I may be over simplifying it.

 

[jhbball]

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

You probably know this OP, they've accepted evolution for decades, so this isn't ground breaking.

Stop making this man something he isnt. He's still believes God directed it, so nothing has changed with this.

someone is butt-hurt.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Yes like cigarettes are good for you. Thanks 1950's science!

Yes like how if you weren't a Christian in Spain, you were tortured. Thanks religion of the past, present and future!

Today's crime around science revolves around not being able to predict the weather. I'll gladly take that over being lit on fire for not believing in God in a certain way.

Also, just to be clear - both science and religion were, are and will be subject to abuse,.. because they involve human beings; we suck - period.

 

[evident]

It's amazing how many folks can't seem do differentiate Catholics from other Christians. (I know you aren't one of them) All Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholics.

It was a catholic priest that first theorized the Big Bang Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre To suggest that the church is "suddenly embracing science" because it doesn't have a problem with evolution or the big bang theory is patently stupid. The church has embraced and supported it for a very long time.

Not to mention that many brilliant scientists were monks, like Gregor Mendel

edit: sorry i just glazed over your post. i'm tired.

 

[trenchfoot]

I thought this article rather illuminating in some ways.

"With the new pope being himself a trained scientist -- Francis graduated as a chemical technician before moving on to study philosophy, psychology and theology -- the timing could be right for a new era of cooperation between the Vatican and science, building on the work of the STOQ Project -- Science, Theology and the Ontological Quest -- which was created by Pope John Paul II in 2003."

"Monsignor Tomasz Trafny, the Director of the Vatican's Science and Faith Foundation, which was created last year, thinks that the new pope will continue the progress already made in building ties with the scientific community. He says the Vatican today has a very positive relationship with science."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/pope-vatican-science/

 

[moonbogg]

we suck - period.

Yes, that's right. People try to solve problems with the same stupid brains that got us in the mess to begin with. I think all efforts should be thrust toward brain research, neuroscience, genetic engineering, consciousness, merging biology with technology etc etc. We need to fix ourselves first and all of our current problems will suddenly be less of an issue.
Few people consider that worth doing though. They think we are perfectly fit to move forward the way we are. We just need a little more tolerance. :whiste:

Also, the current variability in human intelligence and capacity is negligible compared to where we need to be.

 

[Retro Rob]

It was a catholic priest that first theorized the Big Bang Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre To suggest that the church is "suddenly embracing science" because it doesn't have a problem with evolution or the big bang theory is patently stupid. The church has embraced and supported it for a very long time.

I think what people mean is that, for instance, him being Catholic is just as relevant as him having a beard because the BB theory didn't grow from the Bible, or religious doctrine -- it grew from scientific observation, which isn't dependent upon religion, and it's not like his religious beliefs are responsible for the theory.

In fairness though, I've heard many Catholics use this to posit that if it weren't for Catholicism, we wouldn't have the BB theory.

I think people oppose that idea more than anything.

 

[Retro Rob]

@Retro Rob: I think there is not big of a difference between what you think and what I think. No one thinks the Pope is a scientist or historian. But he is an authoritative voice among the Catholics and his opinions especially on our mores carry more weight than yours or mine to them. And as you know majority of religious folks have no problem living their day-to-day lives learning science while believing in God and the church's teachings.

I largely agree, but to your last point, if science and religious beliefs meet at a crossroad and contradict one another, then you're going to have to abandon one for the other, or try to reconcile one with the other, or simply attempt to hold both contradicting views as true.

I think this is called Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[alzan]

I largely agree, but to your last point, if science and religious beliefs meet at a crossroad and contradict one another, then you're going to have to abandon one for the other, or try to reconcile one with the other, or simply attempt to hold both contradicting views as true.

I think this is called Cognitive Dissonance.

Neither need to be abandoned; they speak to different areas of our lives

 

[Retro Rob]

Neither need to be abandoned; they speak to different areas of our lives

The Bible shows that God created man separate from animals, science shows that man evolved from animals.

Both cannot be true, which was my point. One will be simply "reinterpreted", or simply abandoned.

 

[alzan]

The Bible shows that God created man separate from animals, science shows that man evolved from animals.

Both cannot be true, which was my point. One will be simply "reinterpreted", or simply abandoned.

Is it just possible that the passage to which you refer is allegorical?

 

[Retro Rob]

Is it just possible that the passage to which you refer is allegorical?

No, but that's not my point. I agree that there are things that speak to "different areas of our lives" and so on, but I don't think that when you run into a conflict, you can always say that the contradiction speaks to another area of our lives without providing some evidence that shows that as the intent.

I've outlined a few points to demonstrate what I mean:

Virgin Birth: A Bible teaching held as fact by nearly every Christian on this planet. It contradicts science and what we know about how women are impregnated, so in what way does this speak to something else?

Jesus' Divinity: Another unscientific belief held by all Christians as 100 percent fact.

Jesus' Resurrection: Perhaps one of the most unscientific beliefs we hold, yet, we belief this as fact.

All I am really saying is that if these are held as fact, then they're true and aren't symbolic or allegorical in order to convey a bigger meaning in life, or as just a teaching tool, but they are stark contradictions to what science shows us.