[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Creationism/Evolution Title: Pope Francis says Big Bang theory and evolution 'compatible with divine Creator' Theory universe born in cosmic explosion 13.7 billion years ago 'doesn't contradict' divine Creator but 'demands it', says pontiff The theory of the Big Bang is compatible with the Catholic Church's teaching on creation and belief in both is possible, Pope Francis has said. The Pope insisted that God was responsible for the Big Bang, from which all life then evolved. The Big Bang - the theory that the universe was born in a cosmic explosion about 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and evolved since - "doesn't contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it," the Pope said. The beginning of the world was not "the work of chaos" but part of a divine plan by the Creator, he said. The Jesuit Pope made the remarks during an address to a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature". "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve," he told the meeting. God should not be regarded as some sort of "magician", waving a magic wand, he said. "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," he said. "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one so they would reach fulfilment." The Pope's remarks were in line with Catholic Church teaching of the last few decades. As far back as 1950, Pope Pius XII said that there was no intrinsic conflict between Catholic doctrine and the theory of evolution, provided that Catholics believed that the human soul was created by God and not the result of random evolutionary forces. That stance was affirmed in 1996 by Pope John Paul II. "The Pope's declaration is significant," said Giovanni Bignami, the president of Italy's National Institute for Astrophysics. "We are the descendants of the Big Bang, which created the universe. You just have to think that in our blood we have a few litres of hydrogen, which was created by the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. "Our blood is red because it contains iron, which was created by the explosion of a star millions and millions of years ago. Out of creation came evolution." Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 58. This isn't really NEW. The Church's position regarding evolution has been that it isn't incompatible with Catholic faith as long as one acknowledges the ultimate creator, and that man originally sinned. In the frontspiece to my 1978 edition of the New American Bible was an essay that included the language "No well educated person any longer disputes that man has descended from primates" and that we are to understand Genesis 1 as an allegory. Being a scientist by training and mindset, I found that position to be good: it made it possible for me to BE a Christian at all, of the Catholic variety. It is only with direct encounters with the divine that my eyes were opened to the rather more radical reality of God not as simply the organizing principle of the universe, but as a thinking person, and angels (and demons) as real beings. THAT provoked a complete rethink on my part, but nothing SHORT OF that would have ever done it, at least not for me. Obviously Pope Francis has never spoken directly with God or has his face grabbed by angels and such. (I also note that later editions of the NAB have significantly toned down that rather obnoxious and dismissive language in the frontspiece, and not longer suggests that people like me, who have come to realize that Genesis 1 is a whole lot more than a poem or an allegory, am not well-educated.) Catholic schools have taught basic evolution, not creationism, in science class for decades. The caveat (I didn't go to Catholic school, but had a Catholic biology prof) was simple: after going through evolution, and going through the medieval belief in spontaneous generation and demonstrating how spontaneous generation has been disproven and discarded, the prof made the simple point that spontaneous generation had been discarded as the basis of life...except at the origin of life. Well, having just seen all the reasons why spontaneous generation was not viable - to then have all of life itself suddenly hang upon spontaneous generation is obviously not intellectually viable either, especially when one considers that decaying meat and plantlife already have all of the amino acids for life already pre-formed in them, so even with all of the elements for life RIGHT THERE, life still doesn't spontaneously generate from dead things. To have it spontaneously generate, then, from disorganized atoms - well, THAT'S a beaut. What Pope Francis said isn't anything new. And maybe it will bring eyes like mine were to focus on the Church and find out they can walk with THIS form of Christianity. Unfortunately, evolution isn't TRUE, so unless God reaches down and grabs THEIR faces too, I don't know how the step to the actual TRUTH of the matter is closed. But I don't think it really ultimately matters either. Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test. And it isn't as though the Christian creationists are perfectly right in their theories either. THEY don't read the verb tenses of Creation right. Stuff wasn't CREATED on day X, it BEGAN TO BE created, on day X, and that's a key difference. (And it wasn't actually CREATED on any of those days, it was made substantial. FIRST it was created in the head of the Elohiym, then it began to be unfolded in 3D. That's really what Genesis 1 SAYS, but you cannot see that unless you leave off English and read the Hebrew and the ancient pictographs. So, truth be told, EVERYBODY fighting about evolution, on ALL sides, is wrong in some pretty fundamental things. The secularists are wrong: life didn't spontaneously generate. And the creationsts are wrong about the exact timeline. The Catholics are wrong: it's not an allegory or a poem on creation. The right answer: God made it all, on a staccato timeline (that is written into Genesis, but the key question of animal life (which is really the issue): THAT was brought forth quickly, in a couple of days. The piece most scientists are missing is the slowing of the speed of light. Once that is factored into the Standard Theory, there is a lot less time, and without the time, evolution as understood naturalistically simply couldn't happen. But just TRY to have a reasonable talk to correct the record with ANYBODY - Protestant, Catholic, Atheist...what one believes about origins is what one believes about science, and that is probably the central contention in religion today. Science is the "indulgences" of old.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#48) Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test. More than that for sure. Test #1: Did we ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins? I presume our Father's specs will slide down his nose, he'll bite his lip as He peruses our Life File -- despite noting high scores on Tests #2 and #3.
#58. To: Liberator (#53) Test #1: Did we ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins? But Scripture does not actually SAY that. What it SAYS is that none come to the Father except through Jesus. That's true. But that does not mean that one must "ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins". That is the interpretation supplied by human tradition. And it's not quite right. Look at the last page of Scripture, where Jesus himself, enthroned in Heaven, says that men will be judged by their DEEDS, and then lists the deeds that will earn a trip to the lake of fire.
Replies to Comment # 58. Test #1: Did we ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins? But Scripture does not actually SAY that. What it SAYS is that none come to the Father except through Jesus. That's true. But that does not mean that one must "ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins". That is the interpretation supplied by human tradition. And it's not quite right.
Regarding "human tradition" not being "quite right," I agree with you -- which is coincidentally what many Protestants find objectionable about the RCC rites, creeds, and Marian addenda. In THIS case, my assertion of "accepting the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for my sins" may not be scriptural verbatim, but the interpretive context is the same when I acknowledge Jesus' words to He and the Father. Look at the last page of Scripture, where Jesus himself, enthroned in Heaven, says that men will be judged by their DEEDS, and then lists the deeds that will earn a trip to the lake of fire. Let's assume you're right on the swan dive into the Lake of Fire... You've asserted, "Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test." Well, we are sinners even though that IS true. Do the "morals and deeds" tests trump considerations acknowledging Jesus as my personal Savior?
#84. To: Vicomte13 (#58) says that men will be judged by their DEEDS Yes. The ones not saved.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 58. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|