Pope Francis Says Evolution Is Not Inconsistent With God, Backs Scientific Advancements

Christian Post ^ | 10/28/2014 | Stoyan Zaimov

[SeekAndFind]

Evolution is not inconsistent with God, said Pope Francis during an unveiling of a bust of his predecessor, Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI, at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Monday.

"Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," Francis said. "The scientist," he continued, "must [nevertheless] be moved by a trust in the idea that nature hides, within her evolutionary mechanisms, potentialities that it is the task of intellect and freedom to discover and actuate, in order to achieve the [kind of] development that is in the design of the Creator."

The pope, who backed the Roman Catholic Church's openness to evolution, added that scientific advancements can be used for the benefit of people.

The bust of Benedict XVI was unveiled during the course of the Academicians' Oct. 24-28 plenary meeting dedicated to evolving concepts of nature, Vatican Radio reported.

Francis praised his predecessor, and said the he "[was] a great Pope: great for the power and penetration of his intellect, great for his significant contribution to theology, great for his love for the Church and of human beings, great for his virtue and piety."

The Vatican leader encouraged science and scientists to continue working on "happy" theoretical and practical initiatives for the benefit of human beings.

Brother Guy Consolmagno, astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory, said earlier in October that he finds Young Earth Creation theories that run contrary to science "almost blasphemous" in nature.

"It's almost blasphemous theology," Consolmagno said. "It's certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is."

The Vatican astronomer added that although literal interpretations of the Bible could suggest that the Earth is of a young age, scientific evidence to the contrary has shown that such a belief is "bad theology."

The Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution stands contrary to other Christian views of the origins of the earth, such as creationism, which supports a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The question of human origins remains a divisive one in the U.S. especially, where a Gallup poll from June found that more than four in 10 Americans, or 42 percent, believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago.

Another 31 percent of those who responded to the survey said that they believe in evolution, but with God guiding the process, while 19 percent said that God had no part in the process. Gallup noted that these figures have changed little over the past three decades.

[Yashcheritsiy]

"The Vatican astronomer added that although literal interpretations of the Bible could suggest that the Earth is of a young age, scientific evidence to the contrary has shown that such a belief is "bad theology."

OR.

The scientific evidence to the contrary is simply bad science.

[Up Yours Marxists]

Thanks for the kind words!

I'm no expert on creation or evolution. But I do know that evolution, like global warming, is based on limited scientific knowledge and evidence. It doesn't pass the Scientific Method. And therefore it continues to be called "a theory" and should never be leaned upon as absolute Truth.

That's the beauty of Christianity. It doesn't have to prove anything because it's doesn't have to follow the Scientific Method. Nor should it. When people try to shove Science into Christian doctrine, divinity is displaced from this miracle of faith.

Believe or do not. There is no halfway.

[Iscool]

You are half-right. Many people read into what he says to fulfill their own agendas. However, when he is read in context of the ancient and unchanging teachings of the Church, his statements make perfect sense.

Really...

We've been reading the context of your ancient teachings and it still doesn't make any sense...

Prior to Pope Francis, we had two of the most incredible philosophical and theological minds as Popes.

Col_2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Well there ya go...God warns us about your philosophical popes...

Science and religion are not at odds. Science is the way we figure out how an infinite, omnipresent, and omnipotent power created our physical universe. Since there is very little truly “settled science,” we must keep seeking the truth.

Act 17:18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Co 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

God's pretty clear on intellectual human philosophy...He says to reject it...But yet Catholics are drawn to it like flies to a picnic...

Science and religion are not at odds. Science is the way we figure out how an infinite, omnipresent, and omnipotent power created our physical universe. Since there is very little truly “settled science,” we must keep seeking the truth.

1Ti_6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

If God wanted you to know how he created Creation, he would have told you...One thing's for certain...God's not too impressed with the science of philosophers...

God says he created everything and he created man in his own image...Some of what he did is recorded in Job and the Psalms...It's comical we have so-called scientists and popes trying to prove God wrong...

[CatherineofAragon]

"I said you don’t like the man because you called him “insane” for allegedly making a reasonable statement."

If he thinks God using His limitless power as He sees fit makes Him a "magician", he IS insane. I can recognize that without personal dislike.

"Back to your non sequitur. "

There was none. Let's concentrate on yours.

"Just because the whole of creation was made in a flash, and Pope Francis is making that point, doesn’t not suggest, in any way, that Pope Francis believes God is incapable of doing so. This is why I called you out."

Go search what he said. His words: "...we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand, able to do everything."

So there you have it. We can't get caught up in some crazy idea that God can do everything.

Your time would be better spent "calling out" your thoroughly nutty pope.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Hey, he's the Pope. Evolution to the Catholic Church is like Mary, the rosary, confession, holy water, and purgatory--one of those Catholic distinctives that keep the line between Catholic and Protestant crystal clear. If a Pope ever said he didn't believe in evolution both the liberal and conservative Catholics would revolt.

Meanwhile, the exact same science tells him that there is no such thing as a seedless virginal conception. Apparently he picks and chooses when to listen to science.

[Iscool]

Alas, the “young Earth” group doesn’t seem to actually go outside and look at what’s there, what’s happening, and observe how things change & how long change takes.

Yet human history can be traced to about 6000 years ago...

If you reject one or the other how can it be but faulty science???

[Iscool]

And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.

But wait!!! I thought Adam and Eve started out as a sexless piece of dust...One of them is wrong, either the pope or God...

[Iscool]

No, evolution comes from God’s creation, and we perceive it through use of our God-given gift of reason.

God calls that human philosophy...And he wasn't silent on the issue...

[ebb tide]

Nope. The Bible has already told us all that we need to know.

As a Catholic, I have never seen a Pope so misrepresent the Word of God. He seems to do it intentionally, whether it be about marriage, salvation, the Ten Commandments, etc.

[Zionist Conspirator]

God doesn’t act like a magician

Except for magical fatherless babies, bouncing and spinning suns, multiplying loaves and fishes, dead men returning to life three days after dying . . . and that whole "hocus pocus" thing.

[Uri’el-2012]

Consider this site: BRI2015

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[mountainbunny]

We know that Jesus didn’t always speak literally, unless by “fishers of men” he meant for his followers to grab bamboo rods and some dough balls.

To me, the slow unfolding of billions of years of creation through evolution sounds awesome and majestic - something only God could put into motion. Not un-Biblical at all.

[Kozak]

Funny. creationists making jokes about magic fairy dust.

[ctdonath2]

Have you ever dug up a fossil?
Have you ever looked at the stars in earnest?
Have you a real sense of what a century is? and from that, an inkling of a thousand years? a hint of a million?
6000 years is but sixty lifespans back to back. Meh. What is that to a God who stands outside time? Who created much of all before “day” made any sense? A universe dominated by light, for which time means nothing at all? He may have as well made it all 20 minutes ago.

[SVTCobra03]

Evolution defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, probability theory and common sense.

[Iscool]

Have you ever dug up a fossil?
Have you ever looked at the stars in earnest?
Have you a real sense of what a century is? and from that, an inkling of a thousand years? a hint of a million?

Yes I have and yes I do...

6000 years is but sixty lifespans back to back. Meh. What is that to a God who stands outside time? Who created much of all before “day” made any sense? A universe dominated by light, for which time means nothing at all? He may have as well made it all 20 minutes ago.

I don't know about that...

I believe in an old earth...I also believe the bible record of the six days of creation...Not a young earth but a young creation of what is taught in the scriptures...

I can see the truth in both sides...Oddly, for so many people it has to be one or the other...

[SpirituTuo]

Waiting for the official translation. What is being reported comes out of Google Translate.

[Iscool]

So that’s where the conversation ends??? You chose to reject bible history in favor of your theory???

[MrB]

Yeah, because human knowledge has always been superior to revealed truth... right?

[ctdonath2]

If you’re not going to grant me a few hours to sleep instead of prioritizing response to your vague response, then yeah the conversation will end. You posted past midnight, then berate me for not responding before I’ve had morning coffee?

No I don’t reject Bible history. I just don’t see how it conflicts with what I see in the real world, where ‘tis sensible to deduce that some things took as long as billions of years to occur. 6 day creation? there weren’t “days” for the first few, and the creation was by something for which time has little meaning as we understand it (and badly at that). I’m open to better theories, so long as they don’t outright reject what plainly _is_ because to do so is to reject creation itself in favor of a theory explaining it.

But yeah, good point to end the conversation. I’m not going to check in every few minutes, when otherwise preoccupied with sleep or work, just to satiate your ego.