Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation’

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimR-OCDS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s the description of a mechanism, nothing more. Whether that mechanism is driven by God or not is irrelevant unless one wants to take it outside the realm of science and turn it into a philosophy. Is Newtonian physics an atheistic plot because it doesn’t include God in its equations?
So where the matter that evolved came from is irrelevant to a discussion on evolution? Wouldn’t the origin of this matter tell us lot about how and why it evolved? In truth Evolutionists cant answer the question so they punt.
 
It’s the description of a mechanism, nothing more. Whether that mechanism is driven by God or not is irrelevant unless one wants to take it outside the realm of science and turn it into a philosophy. Is Newtonian physics an atheistic plot because it doesn’t include God in its equations?
Evo is a philosophy as it is not empirical. We are trying to reconstruct what happened in the past one time and cannot recreate it.

A powerful must see video:

**The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism **
http://idvolution.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-magicians-twin-cs-lewis.html

The Similarity Between Science and Magic

  1. Science as religion
  2. Science as credulity
  3. Science as power
Evolution is an alternative religion
 
So where the matter that evolved came from is irrelevant to a discussion on evolution? Wouldn’t the origin of this matter tell us lot about how and why it evolved? In truth Evolutionists cant answer the question so they punt.
It’s only a “punt” if one thinks of evolution as the One Theory to Rule Them All, which no serious biologist or anthropologist does. Is a hammer a useless tool because it can’t be used for open-heart surgery?
 
from Wikiquote:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
To which I can only add, “Hear, hear!”
The Church has never been anti-science nor anti-reason. Only ignorant secularists would hold otherwise. It is no coincidence that the scientific method was discovered only in the Christian West rather in China or the Islamic world or other advance cultures.

It certainly appears that just a God set in motion the Big Bang in creating the universe, He used evolution/natural selection in creating life.
 
So we believe God created sentient angelic life “puff” but man he let evolve from an ameba to some undefined point and then infused an immortal soul into a human pair and revealed himself? Got it.:rolleyes:

That book will be around a long time.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
We don’t know anything about how Angels were created, but since he gave us our souls with a breath and sngels are pure souls it would make sense they were created similarly.

I keep forgetting, and you guys keep reinforcing, that God is INCAPABLE of creating through change over time.

My bad, I guess I keep screwing up by not placing limits on Gods ability.
 
Absolutely. No one here has claimed otherwise!
So I am not sure what you are arguing. Mainstream science consensus denies design and purpose in evo. What you are agreeing to isn’t evo by today’s thinking. It is ID.
 
So I am not sure what you are arguing. Mainstream science consensus denies design and purpose in evo. What you are agreeing to isn’t evo by today’s thinking. It is ID.
Evolution simply means change over time.

You are talking about atheistic evolution.

Whether you call it intelligent design, or Theistic evolution I don’t really care.
 
from Wikiquote:

To which I can only add, “Hear, hear!”
The Church has never been anti-science nor anti-reason. Only ignorant secularists would hold otherwise. It is no coincidence that the scientific method was discovered only in the Christian West rather in China or the Islamic world or other advance cultures.

It certainly appears that just a God set in motion the Big Bang in creating the universe, He used evolution/natural selection in creating life.
It is now known natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one. Mutations are mostly deleterious. In addition, our DNA programming actively fights mutations through several iterations. Even so, humans are devolving 1-5% per generation.
 
Then evolution has foresight? See the dilemma?
No, God has the foresight. The fact that God knew what Adam was going to look like is no problem at all for evolution. God also knew who would win the 1995 World Series. But that did not mean it wasn’t a real game.
 
Evolution simply means change over time.

You are talking about atheistic evolution.

Whether you call it intelligent design, or Theistic evolution I don’t really care.
No one disputes change over time. It is obvious. We see it in micro-evo (adaptation). What is contentious is the ability to create novel features. (macro)
 
If the Pope thinks God didn’t create life and the world the way it says he did in Genesis because God is not a magician or wizard, then what does he think about the hundreds of other miracles that were performed in the Bible that defy laws of science.
I don’t know what the Pope thinks, but speaking for myself, I prefer to believe in a God who performs miracles when He wants to, not when He has to because the laws of nature that He created are insufficient for His creative goals with respect to the physical world.
 
If the Pope thinks God didn’t create life and the world the way it says he did in Genesis because God is not a magician or wizard, then what does he think about the hundreds of other miracles that were performed in the Bible that defy laws of science.
I’m sure the Pope believes them to be miraculous. Just because there are miracles does not mean everything is a miracle.
 
It is now known natural selection is a conservative process not a creative one. Mutations are mostly deleterious. In addition, our DNA programming actively fights mutations through several iterations. Even so, humans are devolving 1-5% per generation.
We have already debunked this kind of thinking earlier in the thread. But one thing I have learned is that creationists like you never are willing to learn anything but stick to their pre-conceived ideology. Debating is futile. I’ve learned that the hard way.
 
Isn’t this news in the category of “non news”?

We (that is, we Catholics) came up with the Big Bank theory. That was Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître’s idea. He was a Jesuit and an academic.

He also first proposed what’s called Hubble’s Law

As for evolution, Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck anyone? Another Catholic who was in there even prior to Darwin.

What this story really demonstrates is two things:
  1. What G. K. Chesterton already noted, when confronted with a question about evolution. We are “Catholics”, i.e, universal, and we’re not part of the American fundamentalist Christian denominations that reject such things. We shouldn’t be confused with them and we are pioneers in science ourselves.
  2. American Catholics who get strongly wrapped up in the contrary view are really basically adopting a Protestant fundamentalist set of concepts.
  3. The Press can’t tell the difference between Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, or “Evangelical Free” Christians. Or any other religion. A headline tomorrow that would state “Einstein Jewish! Jews approve of math!” would make just bout as much sense and be as relevant as what we’re now seeing in the press.
 
Evidence that the Church can be wrong.
Refresh my memory, which has been given authority by God and safeguarded from teaching error-
-the Church
-one of the many products of the Church based on the Church having been given authority by God and safeguarded from teaching error, i.e. the Bible
 
So we believe God created sentient angelic life “puff” but man he let evolve from an amoeba to some undefined point and then infused an immortal soul into a human pair and revealed himself?
Actually we have no detailed information on how God created the angels. Anyway there is no law saying God has to do things the same way every time. Even Jesus healed in different ways. Sometimes He spat on the ground to make mud. Sometimes He said “Get up, pick up your bed and go home.” And sometimes it was from someone touching his cloak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top