Pope Francis supports evolution, says God isn't a magician

[Tahar Joblis]

The Church has said the same for decades (40 years IIRC).

In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed that evolution was not at odds with Catholic teachings, and Pope John Paul II endorsed the view himself in 1996.

So actually 64 years. That's before the creationism/evolution discussion in the USA even started.

Um.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

You may wish to reconsider that statement.

[Violetza]

I think they should address those issues as well, but those are socio-economic issues, I was busy discussing purely social structure related ones, ones more closely linked to evolution.

I happen to support both issues and observe that the problems they are trying to deal with are both problematic.

Also, there are lower socio-economic class homosexuals as well, including some in Nigeria, where they face arrest, and numerous other strongly Catholic and Christian nations where they face abuse, discrimination, corrective rape and murder.

Maybe confirm my beliefs on the matter before you jump down my throat next time ok.

Ok. I'm sorry, I misjudged you. It was because you said that you will only consider the Catholic Church progressive when it supports gay marriage and "female, transgender, homosexual and bisexual priests, cardinals and popes", without mentioning poverty, social justice, or even the well-being of poor and working class LGBT people.

There are many working class homosexuals, of course, but the issues of most concern to them certainly do not include the question of whether they can become Catholic priests or not. And, like you've mentioned, homosexuals in many countries face legal persecution, arrest, "corrective" rape and murder. And my point is, those people certainly would NOT place gay marriage among their top concerns. I consider gay marriage to be an issue for "middle-income people with comfortable lifestyles who happen to be gay", because other LGBT people have much more important things to worry about (like not getting murdered, if they're in Uganda, or not losing their jobs, if they're in the US).

The catholic church kind of shoots itself in the foot with poverty, because it advocates not using contraception

True. However, my point wasn't that the Catholic Church is doing great in its response to poverty - my point was that its response to poverty, good or bad, is what matters most. It is the main thing that we should be using to judge the Catholic Church. It is the main "test" of progressive-ness.

And the same goes for any other worldwide institution, for that matter.

Can I quote that in my sig?

Certainly! I'd be honoured. But please don't quote what Violetza said and don't mention their name. I still think my post applies to a lot of progressive people, but it seems I misunderstood Violetza, so it doesn't apply to her/him.

Fantastic. That sorts everything out then. It seems we are in agreement in every issue here.

[The United Districts of Wanderers]

Done! *walks away*

[Jute]

So actually 64 years. That's before the creationism/evolution discussion in the USA even started.

Um.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

You may wish to reconsider that statement.

I guess I stand corrected then? Still a long time.

[Distruzio]

So, NSG, what are your thoughts on this? Is Pope Francis really as progressive as everyone says he is? Is this a big deal? What's the future for the modernization of the Church?

Sounds like he is towing the party line, as it were. The Catholic Church hasn't been overtly hostile to evolution ever. Neither has it been hostile to the Big Bang theory at all.

[Sociobiology]

I did say 7 millennium.

That's a million times too short.

easy way to visualize it, take a large professional sports stadium sit in one seat have your mother sit in the next seat, your grant parent in the next and so on, going up and down the rows, all the way around the stadium. the person sitting next to you on the other side will look like this

And some don't.

Of whom precisely zero are actual biologists.

well no, there are almost a dozen in the world, all of which are immunologists, which is less biology and more medicine, but then there are black white supremacists too, and doctors that still say cigarettes are harmless.

[Shaggai]

Just going to drop a couple relevant links here:
http://www.givewell.org
An organization which rates charities based on how effective they are per dollar. Here are its top three charities for 2014, based on effectiveness of causes, strength of evidence in favor of said causes, and underfundedness.

Quoted because those links are really useful and everyone should see them. Thank you!

Yeah, I'm thinking of giving them more prominence in my sig.

[Salandriagado]

Of whom precisely zero are actual biologists.

well no, there are almost a dozen in the world, all of which are immunologists, which is less biology and more medicine, but then there are black white supremacists too, and doctors that still say cigarettes are harmless.

True. Perhaps I should have said, "of whom precisely zero are actual researchers in the relevant fields of biology".

[Arestari]

Of course he has to say this. If the Catholic Church continued with it's original teachings, it would be defined as barbaric and outdated.

Remember kids, it's the church that's most adaptable to change that will survive.

Because they need to.

[Sociobiology]

well no, there are almost a dozen in the world, all of which are immunologists, which is less biology and more medicine, but then there are black white supremacists too, and doctors that still say cigarettes are harmless.

True. Perhaps I should have said, "of whom precisely zero are actual researchers in the relevant fields of biology".

I know but as soon as you say "no biologist" they drag Gish out of the woodwork with his irreducible complexity argument.

[The Royally United Provinces]

A pope that thinks like me? Maybe I'll embrace my Catholic baptism rather than brush it away. I like Pope Francis. He's modest and humble. Hopefully the job won't get to him. I really want to meet him.

[Sociobiology]

Of course he has to say this. If the Catholic Church continued with it's original teachings, it would be defined as barbaric and outdated.

Remember kids, it's the church that's most adaptable to change that will survive.

Because they need to.

so natural selection of churches.

[Godular]

Would be eminently amused to see the church openly support lgbt rights 'n stuff.

Also, didn't think it possible for somebody to match archbag in being really annoying with creationist talking-points-that-always-get-debunked-within-seconds-but-just-show-up-in-the-next-thread-as-if-they-are-still-effective.

Grats, nexus.

[Auralia]

Well, the Pope has made another (relatively) progressive statement. In the past, the Catholic Church has alluded to backing evolution, however it was qualified by 'intelligent design'.

Huh? Theistic evolution is a form of "intelligent design": the universe was intelligently designed by God, who used evolution as a tool in the process.

He has actually declared support for the idea that the Big Bang theory and evolution are real - however that they were 'started' by God.

I'm not sure why this is news to anyone. The Church has never actually opposed evolution. Pius XII acknowledged the possibility of evolution and recognized that it did not conflict with Catholic doctrine as early as 1950 in Humani generis. John Paul II called it "an effectively proven fact" in 2006. As for the big bang theory, it was first proposed by a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître, in 1956.

People seem to think the Catholic Church and science have traditionally been in conflict even though that really isn't true, except for a few isolated cases. In reality, the Church has generally been a strong supporter of scientific research.

I think this is definitely one of the most progressive/secular statements made by the Church.

How is theistic evolution "secular" or "progressive"?

I really wish he'd just declare complete support for all the things the Church opposes, but I doubt that'd ever happen in the near or medium future.

By "all the things the Church opposes", I assume you mean all of the things that you support but that the Church opposes.

That isn't going to happen -- ever. Definitive teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals are infallible and unchangeable. This is the case for the Church's positions on all of the major culture war issues, including abortion, homosexuality and same-sex relationships, female ordination, contraception, and the like.

[Gallifrey Secundaria]

Well, Papa Emeritus II of Ghost B.C is still obviously the only figure that can be trusted, so Papa Francis' opinion matters nil to me

[Constantinopolis]

Of course he has to say this. If the Catholic Church continued with it's original teachings, it would be defined as barbaric and outdated.

These ARE the Church's original teachings.

(in the sense that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is what the Church has always taught)

[The Alma Mater]

Of course he has to say this. If the Catholic Church continued with it's original teachings, it would be defined as barbaric and outdated.

These ARE the Church's original teachings.

(in the sense that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is what the Church has always taught)

And if next year the Vatican decides that Genesis is the literal truth, that is also what the Church has always taught.

[Benuty]

These ARE the Church's original teachings.

(in the sense that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is what the Church has always taught)

And if next year the Vatican decides that Genesis is the literal truth, that is also what the Church has always taught.

Good luck with that happening.

[Constantinopolis]

And if next year the Vatican decides that Genesis is the literal truth, that is also what the Church has always taught.

Except, you see, there are actual written records of what the Church has taught, going back pretty damn far (not all the way to the 1st century, of course, but certainly to the 5th, 4th, and sometimes even 3rd).

And those records say things like:

In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul says: Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic. And he explains the statement in Genesis, And they shall be two in one flesh, as a great mystery in reference to Christ and to the Church.

Notice the two alternatives he presents here: either (a) everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or (b) there are some literal facts in there too.

The idea that everything is literal didn't even cross his mind.

It is a laborious and difficult task for the powers of our human understanding to see clearly the meaning of the sacred writer in the matter of these six days. Did these days and the seventh that was added all pass away, and now as we look back over times past are we recalling something that exists in name only and no longer in reality?

[...]

In other words, are we to understand the word "day," not only in the three days before the creation of the heavenly bodies, but also in the remaining three, as referring to the form of a thing created, and "night" as referring to the privation or disappearance of this form, or whatever term you prefer to describe the loss of form when a change turns and draws a thing from form to formlessness? Such change is in every creature either as a possibility, without actually taking effect, as in the creatures of the higher heavens, or as a reality, bringing about the beauty of the temporal order in creatures of the lowest rank, produced by the decay and production that goes on in an orderly cycle in mutable nature, as we observe in all things earthly and mortal. Evening, then, in this sense would be a kind of limit of each creature's perfection, and morning would be the original state from which it would start, for every created nature is confined within its fixed boundaries of origin and limit.

So that's from the writings of St. Augustine, who died in AD 430. Click here to see it on Google books.

Holy shit the earliest Christian authors wrote like Greek philosophers and not like modern fundamentalists. Who would have thought?

[CTALNH]

Yay!

[Sociobiology]

And if next year the Vatican decides that Genesis is the literal truth, that is also what the Church has always taught.

Except, you see, there are actual written records of what the Church has taught, going back pretty damn far (not all the way to the 1st century, of course, but certainly to the 5th, 4th, and sometimes even 3rd).

And those records say things like:

In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul says: Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic. And he explains the statement in Genesis, And they shall be two in one flesh, as a great mystery in reference to Christ and to the Church.

Notice the two alternatives he presents here: either (a) everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or (b) there are some literal facts in there too.

The idea that everything is literal didn't even cross his mind.

It is a laborious and difficult task for the powers of our human understanding to see clearly the meaning of the sacred writer in the matter of these six days. Did these days and the seventh that was added all pass away, and now as we look back over times past are we recalling something that exists in name only and no longer in reality?

[...]

In other words, are we to understand the word "day," not only in the three days before the creation of the heavenly bodies, but also in the remaining three, as referring to the form of a thing created, and "night" as referring to the privation or disappearance of this form, or whatever term you prefer to describe the loss of form when a change turns and draws a thing from form to formlessness? Such change is in every creature either as a possibility, without actually taking effect, as in the creatures of the higher heavens, or as a reality, bringing about the beauty of the temporal order in creatures of the lowest rank, produced by the decay and production that goes on in an orderly cycle in mutable nature, as we observe in all things earthly and mortal. Evening, then, in this sense would be a kind of limit of each creature's perfection, and morning would be the original state from which it would start, for every created nature is confined within its fixed boundaries of origin and limit.

So that's from the writings of St. Augustine, who died in AD 430. Click here to see it on Google books.

Holy shit the earliest Christian authors wrote like Greek philosophers and not like modern fundamentalists. Who would have thought?

Harry Potter and Voldemort are made up but wizards and Hogwarts really exist!

[Sociobiology]

Well, the Pope has made another (relatively) progressive statement. In the past, the Catholic Church has alluded to backing evolution, however it was qualified by 'intelligent design'.

Huh? Theistic evolution is a form of "intelligent design": the universe was intelligently designed by God, who used evolution as a tool in the process.

He has actually declared support for the idea that the Big Bang theory and evolution are real - however that they were 'started' by God.

I'm not sure why this is news to anyone. The Church has never actually opposed evolution. Pius XII acknowledged the possibility of evolution and recognized that it did not conflict with Catholic doctrine as early as 1950 in Humani generis. John Paul II called it "an effectively proven fact" in 2006.

Evolution was discovered in 1860. Thats almost a hundred year gap. showing they accepted it right before the moon landing doesn't mean much.

As for the big bang theory, it was first proposed by a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaître, in 1956.

who happened to have a Ph.D in physics.
maybe they were trying to make up for murdering physicists in the past.

People seem to think the Catholic Church and science have traditionally been in conflict even though that really isn't true, except for a few isolated cases. In reality, the Church has generally been a strong supporter of scientific research.

once they realized they could not murder, or destroy scientists that said things they did not like.

By "all the things the Church opposes", I assume you mean all of the things that you support but that the Church opposes.

That isn't going to happen -- ever. Definitive teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals are infallible and unchangeable. This is the case for the Church's positions on all of the major culture war issues, including abortion, homosexuality and same-sex relationships, female ordination, contraception, and the like.

except for things like slavery, usury, dissolution of marriage, and religious freedom.
see the work by John T. Noonan Jr

also explain to me how unchanging is a good thing, when you learn new things you are supposed to reevaluate your position.

[Disgruntled Mathematicians]

It's not really evolution though. It's evolution plus extra baroque accouterments.

[Eleanor Ritas]

It's not really evolution though. It's evolution plus extra baroque accouterments.

How had to look up what that meant, and I did, and I like it.

[Ifreann]

It's not really evolution though. It's evolution plus extra baroque accouterments.

It just wouldn't be Roman without a few baroque accoutrements.