• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Pope Francis: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With The Notion Of Creation'

Dittohead not! said:
Why would god have spoken to the people of two thousand years ago about evolution? The wouldn't have understood it anyway.
Click to expand...

Is "God" not omniscient and omnipotent enough to make people understand two thousand years ago?
 
DDD said:
So "God" choose not to speak of evolution in purpose then? Because "God" wanted to speak of different topics then?
Click to expand...

Exactly. The bible is not a book about natural science. It doesn't make any attempts to describe how or why the natural world works. God, or whoever wrote it (if you don't believe it was divinely inspired), wasn't (or weren't) interested in explaining how the universe works. That's just not what the bible is about.
 
Last edited:
DDD said:
Is "God" not omniscient and omnipotent enough to make people understand two thousand years ago?
Click to expand...

Apparently not.

First, humans had to be introduced to the idea of science, then shown how to find fossils, then gradually led to the truth.... come to think of it, maybe god likes to do things gradually.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Pope Francis: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With The Notion Of Creation'



As per usual, nothing especially "new" here, per se. However, it is nice to see him publicly restate the official position either way regardless.

Evolution vs Creation doesn't have to be an "either / or" proposition.
Click to expand...

Dunno, Mr. Thomas...

I think this Pope is trying to bring Catholicism into the 21st century with a more logical approach to human behaviors along with a plausible explanation about how evolution has played a role in moving the universe forward...using a bit more than a "baby-steps" approach. I think he's freaked a lot of people out.

It seems to me that this Pope recognizes a simple thing called "preponderance of evidence (more likely to be true than not). Now, obviously there's no evidence in the bible to support evolution in any scientific way...especially in the new testament. On the other hand, I'm going to guess the the Pope took a look at available scientific evidence and a may have concluded that god's work was done after the big bang. That could be a pretty good compromise for a man in his position. :shrug:

No? Don't buy that, huh? One thing is for sure...based on what I've seen come from this new Pope so far, we'll see a hell of a lot claw marks from those who will resist change (or, if you prefer, evolution) within the church.

People aren't blind to science and technologies, which have evolved leaps and bounds over the last century. You and I both know, as the old saying goes, "we ain't seen nothing yet." I think that the future religious trends will be to move more toward humanism, logic, reason, and even science as we know it. Now, I realize that would make people more deists like...but...that would be the next logical evolutionary step for people who subscribe to religion, I would think.

No? Don't buy this either, huh? Well, I didn't think so, but, you've got a lot of years ahead to ponder it all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Apparently not.

First, humans had to be introduced to the idea of science, then shown how to find fossils, then gradually led to the truth.... come to think of it, maybe god likes to do things gradually.
Click to expand...

Why gradually when he made everything in 7 days?
 
CrabCake said:
Exactly. The bible is not a book about natural science. It doesn't make any attempts to describe how or why the natural world works. God, or whoever wrote it (if you don't believe it was divinely inspired), wasn't (or weren't) interested in explaining how the universe works. That's just not what the bible is about.
Click to expand...

How do you know what "God" wanted to write in the book?
 
joG said:
I have never been able to understand, why anyone would think that evolution would be beyond the capabilities of any Creator worth his salt.
Click to expand...

yet when we examine the bible more so genesis 1 and 2 this is a far cry from what the pop says.
the bible doesn't say and God says there was light and 1b years from now light came into existance.
It says and God says there was light and there was.

The fact that he try's to put forth the perception that this is some kind of magic act is well very much outside any biblical interpritation that i know of.
In fact it goes to show the true power of God and what He does and the same was done with Christ.

He spoke and things occured it happened then it didn't delay it didn't take days or months or billions of years.
so yes in a way the idea of evolution is very much inconsistant with Creation.
 
ludin said:
yet when we examine the bible more so genesis 1 and 2 this is a far cry from what the pop says.
the bible doesn't say and God says there was light and 1b years from now light came into existance.
It says and God says there was light and there was.

The fact that he try's to put forth the perception that this is some kind of magic act is well very much outside any biblical interpritation that i know of.
In fact it goes to show the true power of God and what He does and the same was done with Christ.

He spoke and things occured it happened then it didn't delay it didn't take days or months or billions of years.
so yes in a way the idea of evolution is very much inconsistant with Creation.
Click to expand...

You really believe that? Maybe you could be less vague in your explanations?
 
DDD said:
How do you know what "God" wanted to write in the book?
Click to expand...

If God wanted to write a book and you to read it, you can be sure he would write it so you could. I mean, any self respecting God can write a book so that it say, what he wants it to say.
 
RAMOSS said:
Let's see you provide any evidence that any miracle is actually real.
Click to expand...

see the catholic church documented list of certified miracles.
 
joG said:
You really believe that? Maybe you could be less vague in your explanations?
Click to expand...

i don't need to be less vague at all i was pretty clear the first time.
there is no support in genisis for a million billion years of evolution. more so the random chance that life just formed by itself or that God set evolution in motion.

God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breathe of life and Man became a living soul.

it does not say that God created goop that formed some random organism and from that all life was generated.

very different
 
joG said:
If God wanted to write a book and you to read it, you can be sure he would write it so you could. I mean, any self respecting God can write a book so that it say, what he wants it to say.
Click to expand...

Vague.

But look Crab knows what "God" was interested to write and what not:

CrabCake said:
Exactly. The bible is not a book about natural science. It doesn't make any attempts to describe how or why the natural world works. God, or whoever wrote it (if you don't believe it was divinely inspired), wasn't (or weren't) interested in explaining how the universe works. That's just not what the bible is about.
Click to expand...

So, do we have a communication with "God" (at last) whereupon "God" disclosed interests to another person?
 
DDD said:
How do you know what "God" wanted to write in the book?
Click to expand...

Because we can read the books of the bible and see what they are about and understand what they are saying. It's obvious from even the most cursory and uneducated reading that the books in question make no attempts to explain natural science.

If I give you a book about woodworking, you don't need to know anything about the author to understand that the book is about woodworking. The content of the book makes clear what the author's intentions are.

It's the same with the bible. Whether you know anything about God or not, what the bible is about is made clear by its content. That it isn't about the natural sciences is clear. Thus you can easily tell that the intentions of the author(s) have nonthing to do with teaching natural science.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
see the catholic church documented list of certified miracles.
Click to expand...

All of which are wishful thinking, none of which can be scientifically verified.
 
Cephus said:
All of which are wishful thinking, none of which can be scientifically verified.
Click to expand...

that is your opinion. the fact is science wasn't able to verify it because of the nature of the miracle science said was impossible. hence why it was deemed a miracle.
also the miracle according to the catholic church has a strict set of circumstances that it has to pass in order to deem it a miracle.
 
ludin said:
that is your opinion. the fact is science wasn't able to verify it because of the nature of the miracle science said was impossible. hence why it was deemed a miracle.
also the miracle according to the catholic church has a strict set of circumstances that it has to pass in order to deem it a miracle.
Click to expand...

No, it's deemed a miracle because you have people who want it to be a miracle. You can never verify that it is a miracle because you can never demonstrate that anything miraculous actually happened. The Catholics simply declare that it is a miracle without having any actual evidence that it is a miracle. Anyone can simply declare anything they want to be a miracle, it doesn't mean it really is.
 
Removable Mind said:
Dunno, Mr. Thomas...

I think this Pope is trying to bring Catholicism into the 21st century with a more logical approach to human behaviors along with a plausible explanation about how evolution has played a role in moving the universe forward...using a bit more than a "baby-steps" approach. I think he's freaked a lot of people out.

It seems to me that this Pope recognizes a simple thing called "preponderance of evidence (more likely to be true than not). Now, obviously there's no evidence in the bible to support evolution in any scientific way...especially in the new testament. On the other hand, I'm going to guess the the Pope took a look at available scientific evidence and a may have concluded that god's work was done after the big bang. That could be a pretty good compromise for a man in his position. :shrug:

No? Don't buy that, huh? One thing is for sure...based on what I've seen come from this new Pope so far, we'll see a hell of a lot claw marks from those who will resist change (or, if you prefer, evolution) within the church.

People aren't blind to science and technologies, which have evolved leaps and bounds over the last century. You and I both know, as the old saying goes, "we ain't seen nothing yet." I think that the future religious trends will be to move more toward humanism, logic, reason, and even science as we know it. Now, I realize that would make people more deists like...but...that would be the next logical evolutionary step for people who subscribe to religion, I would think.

No? Don't buy this either, huh? Well, I didn't think so, but, you've got a lot of years ahead to ponder it all.
Click to expand...

Well... Again, the Church was never actually opposed to science, Evolution, or the "Big Bang" in the first place. Even going so far back as St. Augustine in the late Roman Empire, a lot of influential people within the Church have questioned the "literal" interpretation of Genesis, and pushed for an allegorical reading instead.

I do think that Pope Francis has a definite interest in improving the Catholic Church's relations with modern culture. However, he
 
Removable Mind said:
Dunno, Mr. Thomas...

I think this Pope is trying to bring Catholicism into the 21st century with a more logical approach to human behaviors along with a plausible explanation about how evolution has played a role in moving the universe forward...using a bit more than a "baby-steps" approach. I think he's freaked a lot of people out.

It seems to me that this Pope recognizes a simple thing called "preponderance of evidence (more likely to be true than not). Now, obviously there's no evidence in the bible to support evolution in any scientific way...especially in the new testament. On the other hand, I'm going to guess the the Pope took a look at available scientific evidence and a may have concluded that god's work was done after the big bang. That could be a pretty good compromise for a man in his position. :shrug:

No? Don't buy that, huh? One thing is for sure...based on what I've seen come from this new Pope so far, we'll see a hell of a lot claw marks from those who will resist change (or, if you prefer, evolution) within the church.

People aren't blind to science and technologies, which have evolved leaps and bounds over the last century. You and I both know, as the old saying goes, "we ain't seen nothing yet." I think that the future religious trends will be to move more toward humanism, logic, reason, and even science as we know it. Now, I realize that would make people more deists like...but...that would be the next logical evolutionary step for people who subscribe to religion, I would think.

No? Don't buy this either, huh? Well, I didn't think so, but, you've got a lot of years ahead to ponder it all.
Click to expand...

Well... Again, the Church was never actually opposed to science, Evolution, or the "Big Bang" in the first place. Even going so far back as St. Augustine in the late Roman Empire, a lot of influential people within the Church have questioned the "literal" interpretation of Genesis, and pushed for an allegorical reading instead.

I do think that Pope Francis has a definite interest in improving the Catholic Church's relations with modern culture. However, he isn't going to try and fundamentally alter Church Dogma.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Well... Again, the Church was never actually opposed to science, Evolution, or the "Big Bang" in the first place. Even going so far back as St. Augustine in the late Roman Empire, a lot of influential people within the Church have questioned the "literal" interpretation of Genesis, and pushed for an allegorical reading instead.

I do think that Pope Francis has a definite interest in improving the Catholic Church's relations with modern culture. However, he isn't going to try and fundamentally alter Church Dogma.
Click to expand...

I see. Well, it looks like to me he's headed in a much more progressive manner...to update the dogma wee bit. But that's just my perception, I guess. I don't think I've ever even remotely heard other Popes be so....? (fill in the blank) about current day issues like homosexuality, etc. He appears to be a much more "modern man"...a man ahead of his times, so-to-speak.

Thanks, Mr. Thomas.
 
ludin said:
i don't need to be less vague at all i was pretty clear the first time.
there is no support in genisis for a million billion years of evolution. more so the random chance that life just formed by itself or that God set evolution in motion.

God created man from the dust of the ground and breathed into him the breathe of life and Man became a living soul.

it does not say that God created goop that formed some random organism and from that all life was generated.

very different
Click to expand...

He certainly does a good alegory.
 
CrabCake said:
Because we can read the books of the bible and see what they are about and understand what they are saying. It's obvious from even the most cursory and uneducated reading that the books in question make no attempts to explain natural science.
Click to expand...

But unless you are "God" you cannot know what "God" intended to write?

CrabCake said:
If I give you a book about woodworking, you don't need to know anything about the author to understand that the book is about woodworking. The content of the book makes clear what the author's intentions are.
Click to expand...

But you are not "God."

CrabCake said:
It's the same with the bible. Whether you know anything about God or not, what the bible is about is made clear by its content. That it isn't about the natural sciences is clear. Thus you can easily tell that the intentions of the author(s) have nonthing to do with teaching natural science.
Click to expand...

But the Pope disagrees. He says that the natural science laws may be God's work. So why are they not mentioned in religious books?
 
DDD said:
But unless you are "God" you cannot know what "God" intended to write?
Click to expand...

Sure you can, you can tell from the complete lack of any information on natural sciences that the intention of the author(s) is not to inform you about natural science.

You don't need to be the author to read a book and understand the author's intentions.

DDD said:
But the Pope disagrees. He says that the natural science laws may be God's work.
Click to expand...

He doesn't disagree. We are in agreement about that.

DDD said:
So why are they not mentioned in religious books?
Click to expand...

Now you've gone full circle. The question has already been answered. God chose not to write about it. A better question would be why would he write about it?

When you download a piece of software and it brings a manual with it (which no one reads anyway), it typically tells you how to use it. Why doesn't the creator of the software write a manual about the internals of the program, explaining the workings of each method and function and why each algorithm was designed the way it was? Well...why would she? If that stuff interests you, you can explore the code yourself. The point of the manual is to teach you how to use the software, not to explain how it was built and what it's doing under the hood.

Why would it make sense for a religious book to go into the topic of natural science? The purpose of religious writing is to provide religious instruction, not knowledge about the laws of nature.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
No, it's deemed a miracle because you have people who want it to be a miracle. You can never verify that it is a miracle because you can never demonstrate that anything miraculous actually happened. The Catholics simply declare that it is a miracle without having any actual evidence that it is a miracle. Anyone can simply declare anything they want to be a miracle, it doesn't mean it really is.
Click to expand...

nope not at all. but i will leave you with your opinion.
PS trying to claim opinion as fact is not an argument just to let you know.

if you want to say that the catholic church is making it up then please provide proof or evidence to prove your argument.
and no i am not catholic either.
 
ludin said:
that is your opinion. the fact is science wasn't able to verify it because of the nature of the miracle science said was impossible. hence why it was deemed a miracle.
also the miracle according to the catholic church has a strict set of circumstances that it has to pass in order to deem it a miracle.
Click to expand...

A number of those claimed miracles have been shown to be fake, yet are still being trumpeted as 'miracles'. I mean, how can I accept the judgement of a group that make fictional people into saints?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom