• 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'

Gathomas88

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2013
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
18,803
Location
Charleston, South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Pope Francis: 'Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With The Notion Of Creation'

VATICAN CITY (RNS) Pope Francis on Monday (Oct. 27) waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.”

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

Francis said the beginning of the world was not “a work of chaos” but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.

“God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius’ statement.

Some wondered if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to change that when he and some acolytes seemed to endorse the theory of intelligent design, the idea that the world is too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close associate of Benedict, penned a widely noticed 2005 op-ed in The New York Times that said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process … is not.”

Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy’s National Institute for Astrophysics, welcomed Francis’ comments, saying he had buried the “pseudo theories” of creationists.

“The pope’s statement is significant,” Bignami told Italian news agency Adnkronos. “We are the direct descendents from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation.”

Giulio Giorello, professor of the philosophy of science at Milan’s University degli Studi, said he believed Francis was “trying to reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes” with science.

Francis made his speech while unveiling a bust in honor of Benedict, his predecessor, at the Vatican.

“Benedict XVI was a great pope: great for the power and penetration of his intellect, great for his significant contribution to theology, great for his love of the church and of human beings, great for his virtue and piety,” he said.

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.
 
"Evolution vs creation doesn't have to be an either / or proposition"

And thus, "theistic evolution" was born.

Indeed it is nothing new.

"Born" is not necessarily the correct word. In terms of humankind, perception may have changed. That doesn't equate to such a thing being born because to do so negates the notion that such a thing preceded us. Were you trying to do that?
 
"Born" is not necessarily the correct word. In terms of humankind, perception may have changed. That doesn't equate to such a thing being born because to do so negates the notion that such a thing preceded us. Were you trying to do that?

The notion of evolution and creation fighting each other shouldn't be the case gave birth to the notion of theistic evolution.

Define notion = 1. a conception of or belief about something.

Some mens' belief of evolution and creation fighting each other not being right gave birth to the mens' belief of theistic evolution.

I don't see where I am wrong here, the BELIEF was born out of this "conflict."

It's not a matter of the actual fact, it is a matter of the belief in the fact.

Anyways, you know exactly what I was saying, were you just being a conservative hack to try and prove something?

Also, I don't believe in theistic evolution, so why I'm arguing this with you is beyond me.
 
The notion of evolution and creation fighting each other shouldn't be the case gave birth to the notion of theistic evolution.

Define notion = 1. a conception of or belief about something.

Some mens' belief of evolution and creation fighting each other not being right gave birth to the mens' belief of theistic evolution.

I don't see where I am wrong here, the BELIEF was born out of this "conflict."

It's not a matter of the actual fact, it is a matter of the belief in the fact.

Anyways, you know exactly what I was saying, were you just being a conservative hack to try and prove something?

Also, I don't believe in theistic evolution, so why I'm arguing this with you is beyond me.

I was discussing your use of the word "born" and not "notion". To use "born" means that it didn't exist before the birth. Evolution requires that things exist and change that allow humans to develop, and not the other way around. Just because you don't believe it doesn't give you leave to misrepresent it.
 
I was discussing your use of the word "born" and not "notion". To use "born" means that it didn't exist before the birth. Evolution requires that things exist and change that allow humans to develop, and not the other way around. Just because you don't believe it doesn't give you leave to misrepresent it.

I use the word born because the notion is born. Like I said, the fact means nothing, it's the notion surrounding that fact (I use the word fact because I'm using the perspective of someone who firmly believes in "theistic evolution").

What are you having problems understanding?
 
I use the word born because the notion is born. Like I said, the fact means nothing, it's the notion surrounding that fact (I use the word fact because I'm using the perspective of someone who firmly believes in "theistic evolution").

What are you having problems understanding?

The notion may be "born" to humankind, but if true, the birth of the notion is preceded by it's existence. IOW, just because we don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you doubt that? Go take a look at what the Hubble found in previously considered empty space a few years ago.
 
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.

The Pope is right.

I wonder about this statement, though:

God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

OK, god is not a "magician," but God is not a divine being? Did the Pope really mean to say that?
 
The old intelligent design canard. Nothing this complex could exist without a designer. I much prefer a few billion years of trial and error.
 
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.

Of course it's not inconsistent. Except for when the church used to say it was. But we can forget about all that now. The church was wrong but now they are back to being infallible all over again until they get something else wrong.
 
Of course it's not inconsistent. Except for when the church used to say it was. But we can forget about all that now. The church was wrong but now they are back to being infallible all over again until they get something else wrong.

You are mistaken. Church dogma was never opposed to the idea of natural evolution.

The Catholic Church and Evolution
 
I'm so sick of this idiot pope trying to make catholism cool and contemporary. This fool should just get sleeve tattoos and plugs and make a rap video already. What a crowd pleasing butthead. Trojan horse bullsh!t.
 
The Pope is right.

I wonder about this statement, though:



OK, god is not a "magician," but God is not a divine being? Did the Pope really mean to say that?

sounds like a translstion issue.
 
The notion may be "born" to humankind, but if true, the birth of the notion is preceded by it's existence. IOW, just because we don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you doubt that? Go take a look at what the Hubble found in previously considered empty space a few years ago.

So humanity's belief in something can precede humanity itself?

That is moronic.

My point stands, the notion of theistic evolution was born.
 
I'm so sick of this idiot pope trying to make catholism cool and contemporary. This fool should just get sleeve tattoos and plugs and make a rap video already. What a crowd pleasing butthead. Trojan horse bullsh!t.

Pretty much this except there is nothing the pope can do to make catholicism more inviting IMO.

The Catholic clergy are an extremely mean and reclusive people.
 
OK, god is not a "magician," but God is not a divine being? Did the Pope really mean to say that?

Probably not, but the Pope is not only prone to giving off the cuff interviews (most religous leaders, CEOs and senior politicians just don't do "off the cuff" interviews for a variety of reasons) but does them speaking university level Italian with a spanish accent.

My guess is that this is a legitimate hasty translation difficulty.

As a side note, the Pope, as much as I loathe to cricize a pope, should probably heed the gentle advise from his peers at the College of Cardinals and stop giving "off the cuff" interviews. Pope Francis has had to retract more things in say, two years, than others have done in the last two hundred years.
 
Last edited:
The Pope is right.

I wonder about this statement, though:



OK, god is not a "magician," but God is not a divine being? Did the Pope really mean to say that?

Yea... Some of his language has me scratching my head as well. God can do whatever he wants. That's why he's "God."

Maybe something got lost in translation there.
 
Yea... Some of his language has me scratching my head as well. God can do whatever he wants. That's why he's "God."

Maybe something got lost in translation there.
That seems to be the general consensus - it was a translation error. That makes sense to me as well.
 
So humanity's belief in something can precede humanity itself?

You're not reading very carefully. Evolution existed before human kind. The various qualities or attributes of evolution, regardless of which you subscribe to, by necessity must exist before mankind, as well. Essentially you're claiming mankind invented a theistic motivator after the fact of evolution - and you're free to believe that if you wish - but it's not necessarily the case.

That is moronic.

See above.

My point stands, the notion of theistic evolution was born.

If I follow your logic, you have no point. You're young. You should retain an open mind now. There's plenty of time to become cynical and dogmatic later on.
 
You're not reading very carefully. Evolution existed before human kind. The various qualities or attributes of evolution, regardless of which you subscribe to, by necessity must exist before mankind, as well. Essentially you're claiming mankind invented a theistic motivator after the fact of evolution - and you're free to believe that if you wish - but it's not necessarily the case.



See above.



If I follow your logic, you have no point. You're young. You should retain an open mind now. There's plenty of time to become cynical and dogmatic later on.

What don't you understand. I understand evolution existed before mankind.

I am saying the BELIEF IN THEISTIC EVOLUTION (because some people believe in theistic evolution) WAS BORN.

This has nothing to do with the "fact of theistic evolution" as I already stated (I say fact because I'm looking through the viewpoint of one who believes in such things to be fact) and has to do with man BELIEVING it to be so.

Hence, the man-made notion (the man-made belief in) a theory called theistic evolution was born.

Humanity's belief in something cannot precede humanity itself.
 
Pretty much this except there is nothing the pope can do to make catholicism more inviting IMO.

The Catholic clergy are an extremely mean and reclusive people.

Jebbies giving you a hard time, eh?
 
It'll be interesting to see if/when abiogenesis is discovered/replicated whether it will be claimed that it is also consistent with creation.
 
Jebbies giving you a hard time, eh?

Other than extremely boring sermons the Jesuits are fine.

The rest of the Catholics however... My parents and even myself when I tried contacting the Catholic church have had nothing but frustration. The clergy (not necessarily the laity, I have many catholic friends) are just an extremely uninviting and mean people.

If the Laity knew everything they were supposed to do (in terms of rituals and stuff) then the clergy wouldn't even be necessary; hell, the clergy may just be harmful at that point.
 
The old intelligent design canard. Nothing this complex could exist without a designer. I much prefer a few billion years of trial and error.

What is harder to believe? The theory of Intelligent design, or the possibility that the creation of life and everything that followed afterwords was a chance roll of the dice.
 
Back
Top Bottom