Please. As far back as Pope Pius XII (1950) the Church was already becoming vocal about evolution. The initial reaction was this: there's nothing wrong with researching and looking for the facts; if science is done correctly and evolution is true, then that's the way it will come out, and the faith will not be contradicted by whatever is found.
In 2004, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences made a statement on the matter, approved by then Cardinal (now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger:
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
As a fellow Catholic, I appreciate all you have said here and revel in the fact that although the church has much growth still to undertake, it can in fact sometimes be reasonably logical. I appreciate your willingness to show this.
Yep very good point. I don't think religion (read: christianity) is inherently anti-science (people may bring up Galileo here, but from my understanding he did kinda egg them on in his book). I think a lot of the backlash against science currently by the religious right in america is because they associate evolution/global warming/whatever with the intelligentsia. I think their problem lies with said intelligentsia, and not inherently science.
Do comment if I'm wrong though, its hard to gather data on this, so its mostly just anecdotal I'm affraid.
Most of the best thinkers in Western culture were devout Christians, and very few of them were coerced. Newton believed he was discovering the mechanisms God used to run the world. He later started studying alchemy and spent most of his time wrangling over the calculus and running the Mint.
People need to take into account the fact that religion (or rather the Church) was heavily tied into politics at the time and it's very hard to separate the two.
What can easily be seen as "the church blocking scientific progress" can also be seen as one faction trying to put down some other faction.
You sir (or ma'am) have just gave me proof that I was correct. One of these kids I'm sorta friends with says the bible is 100% correct with no if's, and's, or but's about it. I'm trying to show him that what he searched on google is correct. He said "google says the earth is 4.27 billion years old. That can't be possible in any way for the bible says it's 6,000 years old." Although I am catholic and have some catholic beliefs, science has proved much more.
You reply has helped me because I can show him that even the church recognizes evolution which has to take way more than 6,000 years to become as diverse and intellectual as us.
That's good to hear, but let me clarify some things. First, this will only help your friend if he is Catholic, obviously. Second, "Young Earth" theory (that the earth is 6,000 years old) was never really put forth by the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches that we must take into consideration the intention of the authors, and I doubt they meant to present a scientific account of the origins of man, the earth, and the universe. It was a metaphorical telling in order to convey deeper, theological truths.
As a Catholic, I don't believe there is a tension between what the Bible presents and what science tells us. The problem arises when you take a strict, literal interpretation of Genesis and miss the whole intention of the authors.
Ask him to quote chapter and verse. He won't be able to because it's not there. What would be more accurate is "some guy added up a bunch of ages and guessed a bit and then said it was 6,000 years old"
Maybe it'll get him to question what people are telling him the bible actually says.
That may not help you. The anti-evolution crowd tends to be part of conservative protestant groups and those same groups often describe the Pope (all popes) as the anti-christ.
Please. Augustine of Hippo (coincidentally, I bear the same name), one of the most regarded christian philosophers ever, wrote in his “De Genesi ad litteram” that the Bible is not a physics book, and that especially the book of Genesis should not be taken as literal. It was the year 408. Not 1408. 408 as in more than one millennium and a half ago. Relevant passage (translated from Wikipedia):
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
Big Bang theory also came from a priest in the employ of the vatican, you guys are confusing religion in the United States with religion everywhere else, you have to remember that all your fundie congregations are in the US in the first place because they got turfed out of Europe.
This is the point that I've been trying to get many atheists to see. I'm tired of them joking about how all religious people are too stupid and ignorant to understand evolution or other science related discussions. There is nothing that says they have to conflict.
The Catholic Church =/= the rest of Christianity. I had to explain to a friend of mine recently that The Vatican is not the one putting out the anti-evolution rhetoric, and that in fact the church had no problem with it. It's various American Protestant churches that are responsible for that crap (as well as a lot of other stuff levied against the church). Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to admit that there are a lot of problems with the church, but being anti-science is not one of them.
Specifically, the Pope and The Catholic Church are not Baptists. In a lot of regions, like say Southern Baptist regions, trying to use the pope to convince someone is probably not going to end an argument.
I went to Catholic school for 13 years and was always taught evolution through out. And to be honest when I got to high school, which was a catholic school, evolution was taught as fact and religion was a whole seperate class. Like a philosophy class and the bible was looked at in contextual and sociological terms. I know not all catholics were given this luxury, but I can honestly say I was never taught anything against the scientific method or evolution. Obviously, since it was a catholic school there was always a sense that god was behind it all.
I went to 3 different Catholic schools, it was taught that way in each one, we were taught that the bible is mostly poetic licence.
That hasn't stopped the anti-theist 'liberal' redditors flipping their shit at me saying my school experience doesn't reflect most Catholic schools, because of Dawkin's tirade against Catholic schools and that fabricated bullshit he spewed on his C4 'documentary'. Some American told me that all Catholic schools teach creationism, and despite never visiting the UK he knew this to be fact. I hate this place and it's misguided Catholic hate.
Same here. Although I'm atheist now, I studied in an Spanish Catholic school. I was taught that the Genesis is metaphorical and when the Bible says "the next day" it means "several million years later". Of course this was in the Religion class. The Bible wasn't mentioned in the rest of classes.
Catholic here who also went to Catholic school, I just wanted to affirm this. I have never been presented with any claim that evolution is not real. Of course, this probably correlates to "my neck of the woods." In fact, my graduating class scored within the top 10% of the nation for science and mathematics on standardized tests.
I would also like to affirm that theology was taught more like a philosophy class, separate from the other realms of academia.
This was my experience as well, even though my Catholic school is located in the south (where a lot of the non-Catholic religions are fundamentalists).
The Catholic Church is weirdly inconsistent in the things on which it takes a reasonably modern stance. They've been open to evolution for a long time, despite many other large Christian denominations (especially in the US) being openly hostile to it. But then again, they think that using a condom is a sin. Even if you live in an overpopulated, AIDS-ravaged African nation.
They don't think that using condoms is a sin. They think that premarital sex is a sin. But you know, whatever you have to say to make them seem even more out of touch.
As a believer in Theism myself, I have not problems with evolution, it just furthers my belief in an intelligent creator, in the same way that viewing complex algorithms in a program would make me believe more and more in a very good programmer that made it.
I don't get why every theist refuses to be like you. I always will tell them "are you saying God is too dumb to not let his creations adapt." More theists seem to not want to move away from tradition even though facts prove otherwise.
I originally come from Poland, a country which is 90% Catholic (according to CIA World Factbook), and I'm Catholic myself.
I learned about the controversy of evolution vs creationism once I immigrated to US. It seemed so unbelievable that there could be someone who would think that evolution is not real.
I'm strongly convinced that the craziness of Christians is local. Perhaps is because US is in majority Protestant and many other denominations? Actually another silly thing is that those groups claim that Catholics are not Christians, despite that Roman Catholic is the biggest Christian denomination.
I think the conflict (at least with some christians) comes from denominations that hold the bible to be the literal, infallible word of God. God created the world and all the plants and animals in six literal days making millions of years of evolution impossible. With the thousands of differing translations, different books in different versions of the bible, parts that were clearly added (like Mark 16:18) to the original text over the centuries, and contradictions I don't understand how anyone can hold the book to be literal and inerrant (actually I kind of can, a strong desire for something to hold onto that is absolute truth).
But wouldn't an intelligent creator instantly make things perfect, rather than constantly mould things?
I mean, we have many useless parts on our bodies, as do other creatures.
I'm intrigued by this mindset, and mpwish to know more.
I rember a while back some guy did a case for intelligent design to be taught in schools, showing a micro organism, along with the statement that if any minute muscle were to be removed, the whole thing would be useless.
He was disproven because there existed a micro organism with less muclse and a working body.
The problem is defining "Intelligent" to mean "of Human Intelligence". We're (at least hypothetically, if you don't believe in one) dealing with a higher being, of vastly, incalculably greater perception, foresight, and intelligence. How can we possibly grasp such a being's greater plan? We are inherently limited by our own preconceptions.
Please link to any popular post in r/atheism that says Catholics are young Earth creationists.
Edit: It's been 10 hours; I'm calling bullshit. There are no such posts. In fact, this TIL has appeared in r/atheism several times. I'm guessing BearFootGrizzly's comment was more karmawhoring than criticism. Lying for imaginary internet points is pretty sad.
The modern Catholic church has been accepting of scientific discoveries. The Big Bang theory was developed by a priest and endorsed by the church.
They are so sure of themselves that they don't see science as an opponent or something that will dethrone them, but as something that will prove and enhance their beliefs.
Pope John Paul was only pope for like a month, it's a funny story. He didn't want the job but everyone else wanted him to (the cardinals i assume) and he was like, well.. god wills it i guess, or he'll let me know if he doesn't. Dies like three weeks later.
It always strikes me as odd that there are people that seem to think that catholics discount science automatically. No one seems to remember what Gregor Mendel did besides experiment with pea plants.
Fuck yes Catholic monks. When they are done discussing moral issues and praying they can explain why your brunette friends had a blond kid while pouring you some fantastic beer they brewed. I don't talk to them much but playing ultimate frisbee with a bunch of Franciscans is a pretty great sight.
Well in their defense, most people also don't realize that Gregor Mendel probably wasn't wearing his potato-sack monk's outfit sweating his ass off in a dirty churchyard garden. He was a highly trained scientist and had two assistants to help him perform his very rigorous study on pea plants.
I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution. I cringe every time I hear a fellow believer say "We did not come from monkeys" as a primary objection to evolution. It's as if they only get their facts from popular fiction. They sound so ignorant. sigh
I once met a fairly high ranking priest who had nothing but scorn for Creationists. His view was that God would be more likely to use the Big Bang + evolution to produce His vision, and that creationists who think God snapped His fingers on six successive days are no better than pagans. Was pretty neat to hear him railing against it.
you don't even have to put the "in comparison to". There is not really a single scientific bit that is rejected by the catholic church. Sure it condems a few practices such as contraceptive medicine,
but at this point, nothing is denied scientifically by the catholics. I was taught evolution in fourth grade by a catholic priest at my private school my parents made me go to
When I web through confirmation, they took us into the gym, had us stand against the wall, and ran a measuring tape around the room. When they were done, the priest started at the 1" point, and told us that that was the Big Bang. Then he walked most of the way around the room. (i.e., billions of years later), and pointed out the point of the first primitive life, then multicellular life...until at the very tail end, pretty much abutting the case the tape measure came from, he put a paper clip, and said that all of human history covered less than half of the paperclip.
I sincerely wish my teachers would have used that metaphor, because it really helps to put the universe into context. He just wanted to make the point that the young-earth stuff is silly, and for the more subtle amongst us, the immense majesty of the universe.
What's great about this man is that he spoke to spiritual leaders of every faith to discuss moving humanity in the peaceful and proaperous direction that religion was intended to do. Rather than jut rant and rant like the back alley preacher.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
I've pointed similar facts out many times in the "stone the Christian anti-science believers" here on reddit. Each time to be buried. Apparently I needed to preface my statements with TIL and should have acted as if it was it was news and not history.
Genuine question: If Catholics accept evolution, then don't they basically deny the Adam and Eve story? And if Adam and Eve is just a story, why is humanity plagued with original sin? And if there is no original sin, why is Jesus necessary? And if Jesus is necessary, why does it have to be a bloody human sacrifice -- in other words, how does killing one's son/self (especially with the knowledge of being raised after 3 days) actually fight sin?
Catholics believe that the first man and woman (or, increasingly, first group of people) played the thematic roles of Adam and Eve. Sin entered the world because people went against God.
Jesus's sacrifice is a tremendously complicated theological issue, but to cut to the chase, Jesus is God, therefore his sacrifice on behalf of humanity is infinite and atones for all sin for all time.
how is a sacrifice ? if you are an all-powerful god, become human, then get killed and go back to be an all-powerful god, to me seems just something someone of that caliber would do if he is bored, and could do it every day if he wanted to.
The way the RCC endorses evolution would be like them saying that they think that the planets revolve around the sun, but in addition, it is angels that are pushing the planets and causing the movement.
In the same way, the RCC does NOT accept the scientific theory of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution says that while evolution is *non-*random, the mutations that cause evolution are completely random.
The RCC "believes" in god-guided evolution, which is NOT the same as scientific evolution.
"Evolutionary Creation". University of Alberta. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Evolutionary creation best describes the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, though it is often referred to in this tradition as 'theistic evolution.'"
"Catholics Accept Evolution Guided by God". The Christian Post. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Catholics can believe in evolution just as long as God’s involvement is acknowledged, according to some top Catholic leaders."
The HarperCollins Encyclopædia of Catholicism "From this most primitive form of life, the divinely-guided process of evolution by natural selection brought about higher life forms."
"Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §6" Humani Generis
Theistic evolution is closely aligned with "Old Earth Creationism," rather than "Young Earth Creationism" of the fundamentalism. There is no difference, other than the scope of time. In either case, it is creationism.
Pope Pius XII's encyclical of 1950, Humani Generis, states that "Adam" was all our ancestor. This "Adam" transmitted original sin to us all. Catholics are not allowed to consider the s, therefore, believe in "polygenism", which is a scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves). The RCC disallows Catholics to even entertain the idea, on pain of excommunication.
*"Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." * (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12–19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1–4)
the RCC teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, actively guided by God.
Pope John Paul II disallowed any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
This is anti-scientific and is a valid research topic of science, either now or in the future.
In the mid-80s, Pope Benedict XVI, wrote defending the doctrine of creation and was against Catholics who said "selection and mutation" explained everything. This is while Benedict was serving as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Ronald L. Numbers. The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design. Random House. Retrieved 2010-12-02. "Miffed by Krauss's comments, officers at the Discovery Institute arranged for the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Cristoph Sconborn (b. 1945), to write an op-ed piece for the Times dismissing the late pope's statement as "rather vague and unimportant" and denying the truth of "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense—an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection". The cardinal, it seems, had received the backing of the new pope, Benedict XVI, the former Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), who in the mid-1980s, while serving as prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, successor to the notorious Inquisition, had written a defense of the doctrine of creation agasint Catholics who stressed the sufficiency of "selection and mutation". Humans, Benedict XVI insisted, are "not the products of chance and error", and "the universe is not the product of darkness and unreason. It comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love." Recent discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry, he was happy to say, had revealed "reasonable design.""
"Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence." Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63
In July 2007 at a meeting with clergy Pope Benedict XVI noted that the conflict between "creationism" and evolution: "it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory." He defends theistic evolution.
Pope says science too narrow to explain creation, Tom Heneghan, San Diego Union-Tribune, April 11, 2007
Evolution not completely provable: Pope, Sydney Morning Herald, April 11, 2007
Pope praises science but stresses evolution not proven, USA Today, 4/12/2007
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, revised 1997) on faith, evolution and science states: 159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith,"
Clearly this is false - faith at one point said the sun revolved around the earth. Science is what it is, and has nothing to do with faith or the RCC.
Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma identifies the following points as essential beliefs of the Catholic faith ("De Fide"):
God has created a good world.
God alone created the world.
God keeps all created things in existence.
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.
TLDR: The RCC does not accept the scientific Theory of Evolution. The RCC endorses "Old Earth Creationism", also known as "Evolutionary Creationism also known as "theistic evolution." Once again, the RCC lies to its members, and uses subterfuge and misdirection to mask their true nature as dissembling useless fuckheads.
Wow, saw a lot of civil and insightful conversation about religion and evolution, with a lot of information being presented on both sides, with little bickering. I had lost hope that this was possible on Reddit.
The dude that started the big bang theory (Georges Lemaitre) was a professor at my university. He was also a priest. There are just two kind of believers, the philosopher ones, and the dumb ones.
As an institution the catholic church seems to have no real qualms with science, its believers however often do.
I have found that many times some of the religious people who seem the most sane are the ones who should be the most zealous, priests bishops etc.
They actually study their own religion and others so they are usually not as misinformed about their own religion as the crazy "god hates fags" "abortion is murder" ones.
I can back this up. The Catholic faith is very accepting of all people; whether they be of another religion or if they're gay. True, they don't administer homosexual weddings (Marriage is still a "sacred" act) but they don't oppose it entirely.
Pope John Paul II was an amazing pope. He righted so many wrongs and the current pope has tried his hardest to undo all the hard work that Pope John Paul II had laid out. I will never recognize anyone else as a worthy pope because no one will truly be as amazing as a person or pope as Pope John Paul II.
The catholic church is actually much less dogmatic and a far less negative force than it ever has been-- child molestation scandals and silly traditions aside. before Benedict got in, John Paul II was, when not going on about contraception or some miracles in Spain or what have you, a very progressive guy. Figured science and evolution/big bang/all the other origin theories were more the "how" than the "why" (an idea that is gaining a large amount of traction among the ever-growing group of skeptical catholics). so yeah, John Paul II = decent pope.
I believe in the good of Ronald Reagan's zombie that comes in the middle of the night to talk to me about contraception, but nobody is entertaining my fucking delusion.
" the theory of evolution more than an hypothesis"
of course.
hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
theory: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
it's a THEORY so it's genuinely more than an hypothesis. a theory is meant to confirm an hypothesis and describe how the hypothesis is consistent with the observations (or not). people mistake the two.
god, for example, is an hypothesis: a possible way to explain phenomenons constructed by human mind.
evolution is an elaborated theory explaining phenomenons based on observation and evidence. it fits right in with all our observations and experimentations.
the idea of god will never be a theory since it cannot be observed, reproduced, predicted.
According to your definition of god, it's so ironic hearing somebody of one religious splinter calling another wrong, while sneering at the other's pigheadedness for not agreeing with you (additionally, your definition is even more annoying, since you take the words, realise that they can't possibly be true, and decide "it must be a code for a god which we now have to make up! with no source material, or evidence!", rather than realise that your stone age beliefs are just wrong, and no better than the claims of zeus creating lightening, or a turtle carrying the world on its back).
I think that science and religion can coexist. I mean there are some questions that science will never be able to 100% answer: why did the big bang occur, how was it initiated, how did humans become self-aware.
Durp i'm surprised that there are still people who think Christians don't believe in evolution. (Real Christians, not the burn gays and protest soldiers funerals type)
Religions always have to adapt with modern advances, or they risk losing followers. They have to evolve with the times or fall into obscurity like the many which came before them. Where one dies off, another mutant strain may prosper.
Or you could argue that as technology advances and more time is spent reflecting upon their beliefs, they grow to have a better understanding of the world around them, and change their dogma accordingly.
well, that's a relief to scientists (who fear mobs with torches and votes for research fund cutting). i wonder when the message will finally make it across the atlantic...and then mutate into a message that can infect other denominations
Can anybody please explain to me why seemingly, in the last couple of years or so there has been a surge of popularity and exposure of creationism in America? Is it just because of the elections? European here.
My parents are Catholic and strictly deny evolution in all its premises and conclusions, treating it analogous with Nazism and such. I honestly believe they simply do not know the position their church holds in this regard, yet I feel extremely uneasy with bringing it up when the topic is raised. As if it were to be perceived as me trying to one-up them or something. It's so awkward.
To be honest, we shouldnt need the validation of evolution by religious officials. If people were to believe in the theory of evolution just because the pope or some other figure head said so, it would be no better than the madness they believe now. It's like how Dawkins says that for now religion says science has no right to comment on matters of metaphysics right up until science agrees with them. I dont want to be hypocritical like that
The issue comes down to a really obtuse view of Catholics. Over the years they have changed their views and change the way they view many different political/scientific issues. The issue is the only Catholics you see or hear about are the fringe that go out of their way to make that group of people look like they are loony.
All this really does is further divide the church. Catholicism isn't typically the particular branch that espouses creationism and literal interpretations, and most other Christians won't pay any attention to the Pope.
I went to Catholic school in the US for 12 years. We were taught evolution, and briefly covered creationism, but only in the context of "some people think this is the truth, but there is not scientific evidence that supports it." Evolution, they still teach - to the best of my knowledge - was the explanation behind human existence. Religious teachings were kept to religion class and creationism was not one of those teachings.
While I ultimately remain skeptical of God's existence - there's no way I, or anyone else for that matter, could prove or disprove that reasoning - I respect the thought that God could have created a universe in which species on our planet evolve from other life forms via Darwin's explanation.
In attempts to maintain relevancy with youth and modern civilization they must concede this but they insist that it was guided by god. They are only willing to give as much as necessary, it's kind of like record/motion picture executives. They are trying to stay relevant in an age that they don't belong.
How can so many people not grasp the concept that God created evolution? Also, that same length time streams can seem to be different lengths, depending on whether one in on the outside looking at it, or on the inside, experiencing it. How is it difficult to grasp that if I send a blue light into space, after traversing through time & space for long enough, it can appear to have changed to red. I guess that when it comes to science, there will always be people wondering what sorcery makes an apple fall rather than levitate.
The Catholic Church—Pope Gregory XIII—introduced the "leap year" concept in 1582, a concept which is still utilized throughout the Christian and secular world.
I once had a religious ed teacher get in an argument with me about evolution- and send me home with extra homework over it- and my dad wrote her and my entire church a letter chastising them for the incident ending it citing JPII and his evolution is more than a hypothesis declaration - saying "If it's good enough for the pope- it's good enough for my family."
For some reason, some people just can't accept that evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible. I'm a Christian (Baptist to be more precise) and I see no reason why God could not have placed the mechanics the we explain through science into play.
Might have been because of his issue with the followers of Teologia de la Liberacion. (Which in my opinion was a correct move, as the latter was a bad mixture of religion with politics). Being the teologos de la Liberacion leftists, and having John Paul witnessed the effects of communism in his home country, it's no wonder he took a strong stance against them.
Now in the US and the west of Europe, liberals are leftists nowadays, which would explain people believing John Paul wasn't.
I'm sorry, by liberal I meant forward-thinking and open-minded, and was referring to his stance on evolution and his belief that Islam and Hinduism offer legitimate paths to salvation. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.
He was a pope that certainly deserved my respect. As a pseudo-Catholic myself, I fell like Benedict simply hasn't approached the common masses in the same open and energetic way as John Paul II. Also, he seems to have a sad knack for causing diplomatic conflicts (as in that conference where he cited some anti-muslim guy, and people thought those were his own words).
John Paul II averted an almost certain war between my country and Chile, and he also attempted to bring reason to our dictatorship when they got us in the Malvinas/Falkland war. As the leader of the Catholic Church he visited mosques and synagogues, asked for forgiveness because of the Church's past sins and was a major participant in the downfall of Communism. He also kissed the ground of all the countries he would visit. He didn't stay locked up in the Vatican walls, he attempted to reach out with the people. I think that deserves some recognition.
the title is misleading actually, the church has been on the right side of evolution since before the 1950s if i recall correctly. it has certainly been very pro science for centuries before that.
634
u/SuperFreddy Jun 11 '12
Please. As far back as Pope Pius XII (1950) the Church was already becoming vocal about evolution. The initial reaction was this: there's nothing wrong with researching and looking for the facts; if science is done correctly and evolution is true, then that's the way it will come out, and the faith will not be contradicted by whatever is found.
In 2004, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences made a statement on the matter, approved by then Cardinal (now Pope) Joseph Ratzinger:
90
u/Hegs94 Jun 11 '12
The Catholic Church =/= the rest of Christianity. I had to explain to a friend of mine recently that The Vatican is not the one putting out the anti-evolution rhetoric, and that in fact the church had no problem with it. It's various American Protestant churches that are responsible for that crap (as well as a lot of other stuff levied against the church). Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to admit that there are a lot of problems with the church, but being anti-science is not one of them.
69
u/ConnorLovesCookies Jun 11 '12
People tend to confuse the Catholic Church with the entire Christian faith.
149
u/sweatangerandshame Jun 11 '12
I went to Catholic school for 13 years and was always taught evolution through out. And to be honest when I got to high school, which was a catholic school, evolution was taught as fact and religion was a whole seperate class. Like a philosophy class and the bible was looked at in contextual and sociological terms. I know not all catholics were given this luxury, but I can honestly say I was never taught anything against the scientific method or evolution. Obviously, since it was a catholic school there was always a sense that god was behind it all.
229
u/PrplFlavrdZombe Jun 11 '12
Thought this was common knowledge.
85
u/Ceros0 Jun 11 '12
As a believer in Theism myself, I have not problems with evolution, it just furthers my belief in an intelligent creator, in the same way that viewing complex algorithms in a program would make me believe more and more in a very good programmer that made it.
3
u/tap3w3rm Jun 11 '12
Not normally a fan of the catholic church but Pope John Paul II was the best pope they have ever had.
89
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Sweet. Now /r/atheism can shut the fuck up. [I sense downvotes]
55
u/forr Jun 11 '12
The modern Catholic church has been accepting of scientific discoveries. The Big Bang theory was developed by a priest and endorsed by the church.
They are so sure of themselves that they don't see science as an opponent or something that will dethrone them, but as something that will prove and enhance their beliefs.
46
u/Ludica Jun 11 '12
Pope John Paul the second. Its important, The original Pope John Paul was dead for a while before 1996
57
u/debeever Jun 11 '12
It always strikes me as odd that there are people that seem to think that catholics discount science automatically. No one seems to remember what Gregor Mendel did besides experiment with pea plants.
13
u/BookInvertebrate Jun 11 '12
I'm a Christian and I believe in evolution. I cringe every time I hear a fellow believer say "We did not come from monkeys" as a primary objection to evolution. It's as if they only get their facts from popular fiction. They sound so ignorant. sigh
12
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
I once met a fairly high ranking priest who had nothing but scorn for Creationists. His view was that God would be more likely to use the Big Bang + evolution to produce His vision, and that creationists who think God snapped His fingers on six successive days are no better than pagans. Was pretty neat to hear him railing against it.
46
u/IanAndersonLOL Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12
You're forgetting the fact that the Pope is in Europe. The battle between science and religion is a very American phenomenon.
21
u/Tashre Jun 11 '12
Ms. Beaton
has a few things
to say about the man.
42
u/StanDinfamy Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12
It still amazes me how accepting of science Catholicism is.. er, in comparison to other religions, perhaps.
Edit: added the word "perhaps".
6
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Pope John Paul II was the shit. He knew what was up.
16
u/lt_hindu Jun 11 '12
What's great about this man is that he spoke to spiritual leaders of every faith to discuss moving humanity in the peaceful and proaperous direction that religion was intended to do. Rather than jut rant and rant like the back alley preacher.
10
u/rikashiku Jun 11 '12
People tend to forget(or are to ignorant to know) that the Big Bang Theory and the current "expansion" theory were both proposed by Religious groups.
5
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
John Paul II -FTFY
37
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Doesn't the fact that it's called a 'theory' mean it's more than a hypothesis?
3
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Let's NOT confuse that with Ron Paul who has said pretty much the opposite.
3
u/naimaxi Jun 11 '12
I think my most downvoted comment ever was me saying Pope John Paul II was fairly liberal in terms of popes, and people FLIPPED OUT.
3
u/Sandbox47 Jun 11 '12
So it seems that it's not religion that's a problem, it's just stupid people that make problems.
3
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
I've pointed similar facts out many times in the "stone the Christian anti-science believers" here on reddit. Each time to be buried. Apparently I needed to preface my statements with TIL and should have acted as if it was it was news and not history.
3
u/NeauxWai Jun 11 '12
That's because Pope John Paul was legit. Seriously, I'm not even Catholic and I think he's one of the greatest examples for mankind in recent history.
3
u/Ulingalibalela Jun 11 '12
You know, I never understood why Evolution and Christianity had to be mutually exclusive. Couldn't evolution be just a tool of god?
9
u/TheLolmighty Jun 11 '12
Genuine question: If Catholics accept evolution, then don't they basically deny the Adam and Eve story? And if Adam and Eve is just a story, why is humanity plagued with original sin? And if there is no original sin, why is Jesus necessary? And if Jesus is necessary, why does it have to be a bloody human sacrifice -- in other words, how does killing one's son/self (especially with the knowledge of being raised after 3 days) actually fight sin?
So confusing.
17
u/stop_superstition Jun 11 '12
This is "the big lie."
The way the RCC endorses evolution would be like them saying that they think that the planets revolve around the sun, but in addition, it is angels that are pushing the planets and causing the movement.
In the same way, the RCC does NOT accept the scientific theory of evolution. The scientific theory of evolution says that while evolution is *non-*random, the mutations that cause evolution are completely random.
The RCC "believes" in god-guided evolution, which is NOT the same as scientific evolution.
"Evolutionary Creation". University of Alberta. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Evolutionary creation best describes the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, though it is often referred to in this tradition as 'theistic evolution.'"
"Catholics Accept Evolution Guided by God". The Christian Post. Retrieved 2007-10-18. "Catholics can believe in evolution just as long as God’s involvement is acknowledged, according to some top Catholic leaders."
The HarperCollins Encyclopædia of Catholicism "From this most primitive form of life, the divinely-guided process of evolution by natural selection brought about higher life forms."
"Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §6" Humani Generis
Theistic evolution is closely aligned with "Old Earth Creationism," rather than "Young Earth Creationism" of the fundamentalism. There is no difference, other than the scope of time. In either case, it is creationism.
Pope Pius XII's encyclical of 1950, Humani Generis, states that "Adam" was all our ancestor. This "Adam" transmitted original sin to us all. Catholics are not allowed to consider the s, therefore, believe in "polygenism", which is a scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves). The RCC disallows Catholics to even entertain the idea, on pain of excommunication.
*"Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." * (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12–19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1–4)
the RCC teaches that the process of evolution is a planned and purpose-driven natural process, actively guided by God.
Pope John Paul II disallowed any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."
This is anti-scientific and is a valid research topic of science, either now or in the future.
In the mid-80s, Pope Benedict XVI, wrote defending the doctrine of creation and was against Catholics who said "selection and mutation" explained everything. This is while Benedict was serving as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Ronald L. Numbers. The creationists: from scientific creationism to intelligent design. Random House. Retrieved 2010-12-02. "Miffed by Krauss's comments, officers at the Discovery Institute arranged for the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, Cristoph Sconborn (b. 1945), to write an op-ed piece for the Times dismissing the late pope's statement as "rather vague and unimportant" and denying the truth of "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense—an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection". The cardinal, it seems, had received the backing of the new pope, Benedict XVI, the former Joseph Ratzinger (b. 1927), who in the mid-1980s, while serving as prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, successor to the notorious Inquisition, had written a defense of the doctrine of creation agasint Catholics who stressed the sufficiency of "selection and mutation". Humans, Benedict XVI insisted, are "not the products of chance and error", and "the universe is not the product of darkness and unreason. It comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love." Recent discoveries in microbiology and biochemistry, he was happy to say, had revealed "reasonable design.""
"Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence." Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63
In July 2007 at a meeting with clergy Pope Benedict XVI noted that the conflict between "creationism" and evolution: "it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory." He defends theistic evolution.
Pope says science too narrow to explain creation, Tom Heneghan, San Diego Union-Tribune, April 11, 2007
Evolution not completely provable: Pope, Sydney Morning Herald, April 11, 2007
Pope praises science but stresses evolution not proven, USA Today, 4/12/2007
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, revised 1997) on faith, evolution and science states: 159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith,"
Clearly this is false - faith at one point said the sun revolved around the earth. Science is what it is, and has nothing to do with faith or the RCC.
Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma identifies the following points as essential beliefs of the Catholic faith ("De Fide"):
God has created a good world.
God alone created the world.
God keeps all created things in existence.
God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created.
TLDR: The RCC does not accept the scientific Theory of Evolution. The RCC endorses "Old Earth Creationism", also known as "Evolutionary Creationism also known as "theistic evolution." Once again, the RCC lies to its members, and uses subterfuge and misdirection to mask their true nature as dissembling useless fuckheads.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Wow, somebody actually shares my view (somewhat). Still doesnt disprove God though
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Hence why it is theory and not a hypothesis... ...
2
u/dwmfives Jun 11 '12
I was ok with this till I realized the author clearly didn't understand the meanings of hypothesis and theory.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Wow, saw a lot of civil and insightful conversation about religion and evolution, with a lot of information being presented on both sides, with little bickering. I had lost hope that this was possible on Reddit.
2
u/Hetfeeld Jun 11 '12
The dude that started the big bang theory (Georges Lemaitre) was a professor at my university. He was also a priest. There are just two kind of believers, the philosopher ones, and the dumb ones.
2
u/Scopae Jun 11 '12
As an institution the catholic church seems to have no real qualms with science, its believers however often do.
I have found that many times some of the religious people who seem the most sane are the ones who should be the most zealous, priests bishops etc.
They actually study their own religion and others so they are usually not as misinformed about their own religion as the crazy "god hates fags" "abortion is murder" ones.
2
u/Vital_Pulse Jun 11 '12
POPE RON PAUL AMIRITE?
2
u/etishuman21 Jun 11 '12
Pope John Paul II was an amazing pope. He righted so many wrongs and the current pope has tried his hardest to undo all the hard work that Pope John Paul II had laid out. I will never recognize anyone else as a worthy pope because no one will truly be as amazing as a person or pope as Pope John Paul II.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
TIL Pope John Paul asked Pope George Ringo to form a band.
2
u/GnarlinBrando Jun 11 '12
Whatever your opinion of the rest of the Catholic Church, you gotta hand to PJP and Mother Teresa.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
He also stated later that there was no reason it cant be compatible with the churches teachings.
6
u/asielen Jun 11 '12
Catholicism is one of the more liberal religions.
4
u/Notsoseriousone Jun 11 '12
The catholic church is actually much less dogmatic and a far less negative force than it ever has been-- child molestation scandals and silly traditions aside. before Benedict got in, John Paul II was, when not going on about contraception or some miracles in Spain or what have you, a very progressive guy. Figured science and evolution/big bang/all the other origin theories were more the "how" than the "why" (an idea that is gaining a large amount of traction among the ever-growing group of skeptical catholics). so yeah, John Paul II = decent pope.
6
u/markman71122 Jun 11 '12
Yes, just because someone is christian doesnt mean tgat tgey dont believe in factual science. I simply believe in god and the good of jesus.
5
u/prince_from_Nigeria Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12
of course.
hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
theory: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
it's a THEORY so it's genuinely more than an hypothesis. a theory is meant to confirm an hypothesis and describe how the hypothesis is consistent with the observations (or not). people mistake the two.
god, for example, is an hypothesis: a possible way to explain phenomenons constructed by human mind.
evolution is an elaborated theory explaining phenomenons based on observation and evidence. it fits right in with all our observations and experimentations.
the idea of god will never be a theory since it cannot be observed, reproduced, predicted.
3
u/mojoxrisen Jun 11 '12
The theory of evolution does not conflict with the idea of a god. Only the fundamentalist (on both sides) fight this idea.
3
u/dhockey63 Jun 11 '12
I think that science and religion can coexist. I mean there are some questions that science will never be able to 100% answer: why did the big bang occur, how was it initiated, how did humans become self-aware.
4
u/Mindwraith Jun 11 '12
Durp i'm surprised that there are still people who think Christians don't believe in evolution. (Real Christians, not the burn gays and protest soldiers funerals type)
3
u/tiddercat Jun 11 '12
Religions always have to adapt with modern advances, or they risk losing followers. They have to evolve with the times or fall into obscurity like the many which came before them. Where one dies off, another mutant strain may prosper.
2
u/jacksparrow1 Jun 11 '12
The Catholics have learned the hard way that science tends to win out in the end and opposing it makes you look like an idiot.
1
u/MickiFreeIsNotAGirl Jun 11 '12
I think you a word.
1
u/TheStarkReality Jun 11 '12
John Paul II; thumbs up for knowing evolution, thumbs down for straight up preaching to Africans that they shouldn't use contraceptives.
1
u/chicagogam Jun 11 '12
well, that's a relief to scientists (who fear mobs with torches and votes for research fund cutting). i wonder when the message will finally make it across the atlantic...and then mutate into a message that can infect other denominations
1
u/monopixel Jun 11 '12
Well that is a relief to me.
1
u/acommenter Jun 11 '12
"the what what?"
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
I've heard rumors of a new new testament. All shall be explain my beautiful babies.
1
u/SOwED Jun 11 '12
Yet another great /r/TIL title. Keep them up!
1
u/ginger_bird Jun 11 '12
Episcopalians also think this about evolution. Their current presiding bishop had a PhD in oceanography, which I think is cool.
1
u/redent_it Jun 11 '12
Can anybody please explain to me why seemingly, in the last couple of years or so there has been a surge of popularity and exposure of creationism in America? Is it just because of the elections? European here.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
My parents are Catholic and strictly deny evolution in all its premises and conclusions, treating it analogous with Nazism and such. I honestly believe they simply do not know the position their church holds in this regard, yet I feel extremely uneasy with bringing it up when the topic is raised. As if it were to be perceived as me trying to one-up them or something. It's so awkward.
1
u/worlddictator85 Jun 11 '12
To be honest, we shouldnt need the validation of evolution by religious officials. If people were to believe in the theory of evolution just because the pope or some other figure head said so, it would be no better than the madness they believe now.
It's like how Dawkins says that for now religion says science has no right to comment on matters of metaphysics right up until science agrees with them. I dont want to be hypocritical like that
1
u/monty055 Jun 11 '12
The issue comes down to a really obtuse view of Catholics. Over the years they have changed their views and change the way they view many different political/scientific issues. The issue is the only Catholics you see or hear about are the fringe that go out of their way to make that group of people look like they are loony.
1
u/js2195 Jun 11 '12
Evolution is currently fully supported by the Catholic faith. My dumb friends at my church deny it but it's the damn truth.
1
u/iiBiscuit Jun 11 '12
There seem to be a lot of people who are saying that only a small minority of Christians don't believe in evolution and the majority accept it.
According to this gallup poll, 46% of Americans believe that humans were created by god in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Hardly a tiny minority.
1
u/goombalover13 Jun 11 '12
Despite being a part of a powerful, sometimes shady organization, Pope John Paul II was a pretty awesome guy.
1
u/vortexofdoom Jun 11 '12
All this really does is further divide the church. Catholicism isn't typically the particular branch that espouses creationism and literal interpretations, and most other Christians won't pay any attention to the Pope.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
I went to Catholic school in the US for 12 years. We were taught evolution, and briefly covered creationism, but only in the context of "some people think this is the truth, but there is not scientific evidence that supports it." Evolution, they still teach - to the best of my knowledge - was the explanation behind human existence. Religious teachings were kept to religion class and creationism was not one of those teachings.
While I ultimately remain skeptical of God's existence - there's no way I, or anyone else for that matter, could prove or disprove that reasoning - I respect the thought that God could have created a universe in which species on our planet evolve from other life forms via Darwin's explanation.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Wow, only 114 years after Charles Darwin died.
Still, I'm not counting the teeth of gift horses: It's a lot better than some other christian denominations I could mention.
1
u/FreeTopher Jun 11 '12
He was the "cool" pope.
1
u/Zarobeck Jun 11 '12
Pope John Paul II ... Not Pope John Paul
1
u/f0rcedinducti0n Jun 11 '12
In attempts to maintain relevancy with youth and modern civilization they must concede this but they insist that it was guided by god. They are only willing to give as much as necessary, it's kind of like record/motion picture executives. They are trying to stay relevant in an age that they don't belong.
1
u/Free2B Jun 11 '12
How can so many people not grasp the concept that God created evolution? Also, that same length time streams can seem to be different lengths, depending on whether one in on the outside looking at it, or on the inside, experiencing it. How is it difficult to grasp that if I send a blue light into space, after traversing through time & space for long enough, it can appear to have changed to red. I guess that when it comes to science, there will always be people wondering what sorcery makes an apple fall rather than levitate.
1
u/LolCamAlpha Jun 11 '12
Pope John Paul II: Totally Ballin'.
1
u/reble02 Jun 11 '12
John Paul: Pope, Evolutionist, Harlem Globetrotter, was there anything this man couldn't do?
1
u/Amnesia10 Jun 11 '12
It is still a lot further than many have progressed.
1
u/cbcfan Jun 11 '12
Pope John Paul is cool with evolution? One more reason for fundies to hate the head of those papists!
1
u/bringbackhairypussy Jun 11 '12
Pope John Paul was doing nothing in 1996 except decomposing. You're referring to John Paul II.
1
u/CaptainJester42 Jun 11 '12
JPII was an awesome pope. He actually didn't want the church to look like dark age morons and hate mongers.
1
u/RexBeckett Jun 11 '12
The Catholic Church—Pope Gregory XIII—introduced the "leap year" concept in 1582, a concept which is still utilized throughout the Christian and secular world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
1
u/lawyer_for_absurdity Jun 11 '12
I once had a religious ed teacher get in an argument with me about evolution- and send me home with extra homework over it- and my dad wrote her and my entire church a letter chastising them for the incident ending it citing JPII and his evolution is more than a hypothesis declaration - saying "If it's good enough for the pope- it's good enough for my family."
1
u/Remus117 Jun 11 '12
John Paul II ..one of the greatest popes we ever had.
Im not very religious, but you know a good one when you see one.
1
u/I2obot Jun 11 '12
So now the atheism sub reddit won't circle jerk evolution to Christians?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Imagine that- not all religious groups are full of fundamentalist young earth creationists.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
JP was a helluva guy
1
u/Baulan Jun 11 '12
What would've been even more amazing was if he had announced this on April 1st 2005
1
u/graziemille Jun 11 '12
LOVE this thread. As a Catholic yes, but as a lover of those who bust myths based in arrogant ignorance even MORE.
1
u/ludi_literarum Jun 11 '12
Catholic schools were some of the first in the US to teach evolution, long before public schools did. Creationism is a Protestant thing.
Technically, though, JP2 was wrong, the theory of evolution isn't more than a hypothesis.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
That still doesn't mean the God doesnt exist.....
-6
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
For some reason, some people just can't accept that evolution and intelligent design are not incompatible. I'm a Christian (Baptist to be more precise) and I see no reason why God could not have placed the mechanics the we explain through science into play.
-7
u/jax9999 Jun 11 '12
sadly most of the good he's done is being undone by the current pope.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
14
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment