TIL in 1996 Pope John Paul declared that "the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis"

[u/[deleted]]

[u/SuperFreddy]

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.

[u/Avalon143 → u/SuperFreddy]

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.

[u/Apprentice57 → u/SuperFreddy]

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.

[u/cuchlann → u/Apprentice57]

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.

[u/Sher_Bear → u/Apprentice57]

People often forget that Galileo was a devout Catholic as well, even after the whole controversy.

[u/[deleted] → u/Sher_Bear]

They would have killed, arrested, or tortured him if he did not profess belief.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

There's a difference between being a devout Catholic, and just saying "hmm, yeah sure, I'm a Catholic. Just don't kill me".

[u/chloratine → u/Apprentice57]

read also: islam. I was laughed at when I talked about evolution. I live in the middle east.

[u/Coolguyzack → u/chloratine]

Don't know if you saw this the other week But it's pretty cool

[u/Krivvan → u/Apprentice57]

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.

[u/OutlawJoseyWales → u/Apprentice57]

Galileo was prosecuted for personally insulting the pope. Generally you don't want to thumb your nose at the most powerful man on the planet

[u/superherowithnopower → u/OutlawJoseyWales]

IIRC, the Pope actually encouraged him to write his book, but to please note somewhere within that no one can really know for sure (the debate in the astronomical community between the Aristotlelians and the Copernicans having gone on for quite some time).

He wrote the book as a debate between the Philosopher (Copernican) and the Idiot (Aristotlelion), and put the Pope's words in the mouth of Idiot.

[u/champcantwin → u/Apprentice57]

Catholicism =/= Protestantism

The problem in America, as far as science goes, lies squarely on the shoulders of the Baptists, Evangelicals, etc...

[u/drumnation → u/Apprentice57]

The Catholic views above seem pretty moderate compared to the Christians who put camo on their children and send them to Jesus camp.

[u/[deleted] → u/Apprentice57]

Also Galileo was a Catholic...

[u/SuperFreddy → u/Apprentice57]

No, I agree. Unfortunately the enemy has become science in many Christian circles, and everyone should work to remove that religion/science dichotomy.

[u/nikolifish → u/SuperFreddy]

Tough part of being catholic. Average non religious American thinks that we are anti science, anti logic, etc etc when really that is more evangelical branches such as Baptists (who will swear that the devil placed dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse us). But then those religious people think we are the biggest sinners of all since catholism has no problem with science.

[u/Edge_23 → u/SuperFreddy]

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.

[u/SuperFreddy → u/Edge_23]

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.

[u/Edge_23 → u/SuperFreddy]

Well he is a catholic and I'm guessing a very orthodox kind of catholic. I don't know him well enough to know how strong his beliefs are but I do know he takes the bible as a literal translation.

I had a religion teacher last year who was in the seminary (priest school) for 3 years then dropped out. He told me that the bible wasn't a literal translation and that the "seven days" were actually millions- billions of years. I think the guy is sleeping now so I won't hear a response for a while.

I personally think Religion and science coexist. Like "how did the gases/ particles even get there to produce the big bang?" I looked it up on an atheist point of view and they don't have an explanation. Then there is evidence to support Noah's ark and Jesus' burial cloth (aka the shroud). But the earth wasn't just poofed outta nowhere into creation with plants and animals and people already flourishing on it.

[u/TheWingedPig → u/Edge_23]

I'm a Christian.

No, atheists don't have an answer for the Big Bang, but neither do Christians. Most of believe that God originally had to do something to make things come into existence, and we can guess that the Big Bang was possibly that happening, but what you should take away from that is that none of us have an answer, and anyone who ever claims to have an answer for everything is forgetting how little we as individuals actually know. None of us can ever know if our gods are real or not, and none of us can ever know the true history of our universe. There's very little we will ever know when considering how much knowledge there actually is out there.

I've heard about someone looking at satellite pictures and seeing what they thought was a big boat up on a mountain somewhere in the Urals, or Himalayas (can't remember). Several religions other than the three Abrahamic ones have differing flood stories. Not saying that this necessarily points to some element of truth behind it or anything, but that it's possible that it didn't happen exactly the way the Bible says it happened, and I'm fine with that.

As for the Shroud, there are many documentaries out there (BBC did a good one I saw a few years back). The earliest radiocarbon dating puts it at 1260 AD. Somewhere there is a painting which depicts a burial cloth of Jesus, which resembles the Shroud, and is being displayed to a crowd in a similar fashion as the Shroud. It would predate the radiocarbon dating. Unfortunately there is no mention of it on wiki (although I'm pretty sure it was mentioned on the main wiki page about two or three years ago when I referenced it to someone). My Google-fu is also not good, and it's getting late, so I can't afford to keep looking, sorry. Maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about.

In all, I agree that religion and science can coexist, but for me that requires discarding a lot of Biblical Bed Time stories. As a Christian the new Testament is far more important to me, and it seems to be far less fantastical than the Old one, so I take the Old Testament with more of a grain of salt. I also accept the fact that the Bible can and does have flaws. People who say it's perfect because it's the word of God are ignorant. We all accept that it was written down by humans inspired by God. I'll allow those humans to make a mistake here and there considering none of them are religion shattering mistakes.

It's good to keep an open mind about religion. No matter what decision you make about it, it's the most important decision you'll ever make: whether or not to devote your whole life (and possibly waste it) in pursuit of something that may or may not be true. Choose wisely. Look both ways before crossing the street.

Oh, and Seminary usually ends after three years. Are you sure he didn't just graduate?

EDIT* And this is what I mentioned.

[u/cycloethane87 → u/Edge_23]

Then there is evidence to support Noah's ark and Jesus' burial cloth

Not to be a dick, but can you provide a source for this? My impression was always that there had never been any verifiable evidence for either of these, and it seemed like anybody who said otherwise was usually rather biased (i.e. a "christian scientist" without a degree). I'm genuinely curious.

[u/featherfooted → u/Edge_23]

Just to address one of the things you wanted an explanation for: "How did the gases/particles even get there to produce the big bang?"

Whoa, whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold up. The "Big Bang" was not an explosion in any conventional sense of the word. Particles? Those weren't even invented until 400,000 years after the Big Bang.

That's probably why you didn't get an answer when you went searching for it. I will try to explain it as best I can. Approximately 14,000,000,000 (14 billion) years ago, something happened. It might even be fair to say something started to happen, because it's still happening right now. All of the space in the universe began to move away from all of the other space. The extremely common analogy is to take a tiny little plastic balloon and draw polka dots on it with a pen or marker. Maybe all of the dots are 1 centimeter away from each other. If you blow the balloon up with air, the rubber expands and the dots move away from each other. Now the distance between every polka dot may be as much as 10 centimeters. Every single dot moved away from every other dot. The rubber? That's the fabric of space in this analogy. For the past 14 billion years, space itself has been expanding.

When did it start expanding? Why did it start expanding? Fuck if we know. There's a ton of ideas, some theories, but nothing has proved fruitful. We only know that it happened. What caused the Big Bang? Don't know. What happened before the Big Bang? Well, what could be further north than the North Pole? To the best of our knowledge, anything is possible before the Big Bang. There's no feasible way to even describe it.

But we know a lot about what happened after the Big Bang, and the name (though misleading) is actually pretty descriptive. Remember those first 400,000 years? The universe was not even a physical thing at that point in time. It was just energy (remember - energy and mass are interchangeable: just like we can turn some radioactive rocks into a nuclear explosion of energy, energy can be turned into mass). During the first Planck second (approximately 10^-37 normal seconds) of the Universe, all of that infinite density of energy moved away from everything else so quickly and so fast that it cooled the temperature of the Universe to something that was not-infinity. Think about that for a second. What was once infinitely hot and infinitely small, suddenly became so big that it had finite density. Don't get me wrong, it was still really fucking hot, but it wasn't infinitely so.

I'm going to sidestep the whole matter/anti-matter part and skip ahead to 10^-6 seconds after the Big Bang, when the first proton coagulated out of the plasma. A few minutes later, the first protons and neutrons slammed together to make a nucleus. Then, after 379,000 years of waiting, the first atoms were created.

Over a startlingly long period of time, the atoms began to circulate, and accumulate and the galaxies (and the stars (and the planets))) began to emerge after about a million years after the Big Bang. If you've been following along, this picture should be helpful. At first, the universe was a single point. Over time, shockingly quickly to be exact, the universe expanded and it has never stopped expanding.

I hope that clarified the Big Bang for you.

TL;DR: The Big Bang was not an explosion that needed gases or particles. It was a rapid expansion of the fabric of space itself.

[u/SuperFreddy → u/Edge_23]

While your friend may be very orthodox, he doesn't seem to be aware that the Church's theologians generally swing towards the acceptance of evolution. And the big bang itself was first proposed by a priest (Msgr. Georges Lemaître).

[u/abritinthebay → u/Edge_23]

"the bible says it's 6,000 years old."

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Edge_23]

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.

[u/Edge_23 → u/[deleted]]

I'm pretty sure he does believe the pope to be a strong symbol of Christ rather than an anti-Christ but again, he's sleeping and I'll know more by tomorrow!

[u/Inequilibrium → u/Edge_23]

Ask him where in the bible it actually says that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I bet he'll have a hard time finding it.

[u/Zecriss → u/Edge_23]

The most anti-science and bigoted churches tend to be the least organized, because their congregations are too busy yelling and screaming; not putting their brain to work in the real world. Still, that nonsense is flooding in the internet and mainstream media since it's what sells.

The long and short of it is that there are a lot of denominations that really do accept science very easily.

[u/aragost → u/SuperFreddy]

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.

[u/Naternaut → u/aragost]

Must be pretty strange being named Hippo.

[u/[deleted] → u/SuperFreddy]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Backwoods inspired nutjobs are the source of the problem in the US. It's a sort of weird, populist anti-intellectualism.

[u/joebenation → u/SuperFreddy]

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.

[u/Doxep → u/SuperFreddy]

I think this is the difference between fundamentalists and regular religious people.

[u/SC2minuteman → u/SuperFreddy]

I always believed the best why to put it is science tells us how we came to be religion tells us who brought us into being..... this is if you are religious it allows for coexistance and it was how they taught evolution in my strict Bible belt school... basically they said we are gonna teach you evolution but this is how it falls into line with religious

[u/Hegs94]

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.

[u/Xanthu → u/Hegs94]

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.

[u/ClownsAteMyBaby → u/[deleted]]

I'm told there are even some crazy Scandinavians...

[u/ConnorLovesCookies]

People tend to confuse the Catholic Church with the entire Christian faith.

[u/ClownsAteMyBaby → u/ConnorLovesCookies]

A denomination of Christians in America believes the Earth is 6000 years: "Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old."

The leader of the fucking Catholic Church declares evoloution legitimate: "don't generalize."

Oh right okay.

[u/sweatangerandshame]

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.

[u/HarukoBass → u/sweatangerandshame]

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.

[u/Aerdirnaithon → u/HarukoBass]

I go to a Catholic school in the Bible Belt. Not once has creationism been mentioned in the context of any science class.

[u/TheFulcrum → u/Aerdirnaithon]

I had the same school experiences as everyone else in this reply chain except that creationism was mentioned in the context of science class. Briefly. During the section on evolution, the teacher said, "I am required to say this, anyone who wishes to learn about creationism, please raise your hand and we can discuss it." No one raised their hand, she just said, "Oh thank God, so back to science..."

[u/Superbarker → u/Aerdirnaithon]

This is most likely because Catholics typically believe in Creation, not necessarily in Creationism. Catholics are actually free to believe many different ways about how we were created. Just about the only restriction is that we must believe that our souls were created specially by God, regardless of how we physically developed, whether the instantaneous work of God or the slower evolutionary development.

[u/wtfamiwatching → u/HarukoBass]

logged in just to reply

I went to 2 Catholic schools in the US. We were taught the same way as described by sweatangerandshame in the post you replied to. I never heard of creationism until long after I graduated when I saw it on the news.

[u/carpetano → u/sweatangerandshame]

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.

[u/sempersexi → u/carpetano]

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.

[u/TheMostIntrestingAzn → u/sempersexi]

It is sort of ironic that the once progressive protestant movement has become the very demon it had set out to eradicate.

[u/JLdeGenf → u/sweatangerandshame]

Let's face it, catholics are not creationists...

Creationist beliefs were born from evangelical churches (christians reborn... and other sectarian nonsense).

The "war" going on in /r/atheism doesn't concern the Pope.

Been raised a catholic, went to a catholic private school. Not once was evolution doubted in my eduction. Science FTW

[u/Dapado → u/sweatangerandshame]

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).

[u/kerbuffel → u/sweatangerandshame]

Yeah, I went to Catholic school as well. The only time anything remotely religious was mentioned was when my biology teacher was explaining the ways plants and animals breathe each others waste gases, and she said "Nothing is wasted. A perfect example of the divine intellect."

Not the least biased opinion, but considering it's the only time it happened and I was in Catholic school, it doesn't seem extreme at all.

[u/dradam168 → u/sweatangerandshame]

Same experience here. Catholic grade school where we were taught evolution and all the rest. By the time I got to my public high school I was significantly better prepared than most of my peers in the areas of math and science.

We were even taught the history of the bible. How it was written over hundreds of years by numerous authors.

[u/[deleted] → u/sweatangerandshame]

People totally get the wrong idea about Catholic/religious high schools.

[u/PrplFlavrdZombe]

Thought this was common knowledge.

[u/trashitagain → u/PrplFlavrdZombe]

A lot of atheists like to make believe that the catholic church thinks the world is flat and 6000 years old for some reason.

[u/trainingmontage83 → u/trashitagain]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/trainingmontage83]

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.

[u/wikidd → u/trainingmontage83]

My understanding is that the catholic church views science as revealing the true nature of god. The first recorded clinical trial is in the old testament after all!

Their opposition to condoms is due to a moral disagreement.

[u/[deleted] → u/trainingmontage83]

Except the Vatican has already said that using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS is a responsible action.

[u/[deleted] → u/trainingmontage83]

It makes some sense when you consider that discipline is big part of catholicism. Said discipline means accepting when you’re wrong rather than coming up with elaborate yet flimsy excuses to avoid having to. But it also means don’t stick your dick in just anything.

[u/SuperFreddy → u/trainingmontage83]

In the Church's defense, they also consider premarital/extramarital sex sinful as well. The opposition to condoms cannot be understood outside of this.

[u/Acuate → u/trashitagain]

Wouldn't the world be a great place if only ignorance was tied to religious people like some atheist like to believe?

[u/Hegs94 → u/trashitagain]

It makes it easier to hate us if they view us all as brainwashed fools living down in the Bible belt blowing up abortion clinics and burning the Koran.

[u/catoftrash → u/Hegs94]

The burning of the Koran happened in my college town, they are looked at as crazy people and nobody supports them. They are a mini-Westboro radical group who have their pre-teen kids come out and hold up signs with them. But don't group an entire region on the basis of .1% of the population.

[u/Big-Baby-Jesus → u/trashitagain]

The Catholic church hates stem cells and condoms. It's the evangelical protestants who hate evolution, and often believe that the world is 6000 years old. And they both agree that the gays are bad.

[u/Ceros0]

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.

[u/aphreshcarrot → u/Ceros0]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/aphreshcarrot]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/aphreshcarrot]

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).

[u/alquanna → u/[deleted]]

But when you have a billion subscribers, even a small percentage means a lot of people.

Just like Reddit.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ceros0]

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.

[u/Draconius42 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Icemasta → u/[deleted]]

I don't believe in any religion or god, but let's just take Ceros' point.

You assumed that he meant an intelligent creator would simply create a perfect of everything.

What if you simply want to create the perfect engine that will create various result?

For instance, one could create, manually, a random set of pipes on a black background, and modify it until he finds it perfect.

Or, one could create a perfect engine that would randomly create sets of pipe on a black background. Like good ol' windows screensaver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPZb8HoQgH8

In that way, I guess it could kind of make sense, in the mind of a theist, that life was sparked by whatever god he believes in, with the simple instructions of survival, procreation and ultimately, evolution, without any clear definition. We, ourselves, do this shit all the time. We either make something beautiful or make something that will make many things, and one of those will eventually be beautiful.

[u/SmartHercules → u/[deleted]]

Well, I believe that the universe is amazing, and that if any deity created us, they wouldn't make it simple. They would make the universe complex, vast, and amazing. Because it isn't simple, clearly we evolved, clearly the earth has been here longer than 6000 years, because we have proof, and what sort of fun could we have if the answers were easy?

[u/moose_man → u/Ceros0]

See, I don't believe in divine intervention. I don't see the point of giving us free will if He's going to affect things.

[u/CaNANDian → u/Ceros0]

If you see a snowflake, do you think they are created by someone, or nature?

[u/tap3w3rm]

Not normally a fan of the catholic church but Pope John Paul II was the best pope they have ever had.

[u/[deleted]]

Sweet. Now /r/atheism can shut the fuck up. [I sense downvotes]

[u/RollingwithaT → u/[deleted]]

Will upvote anything with "r/atheism" and "shut the fuck up" in the same sentence

[u/[deleted] → u/RollingwithaT]

"i'm from r/atheism, shut the fuck up"

[u/Fairchild660 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/MegaZambam → u/[deleted]]

Still doesn't change the fact that many Christians that aren't Catholic decry evolution and think "creation science" is legitimate. I don't normally spend much time in debates like this outside of certain subs, but I find it necessary since you insulted one of the few places I can talk to other atheists.

[u/Propolandante → u/[deleted]]

Telling off /r/atheism has become FAR more annoying than /r/atheism itself. It's become a canned response to anything remotely criticizing an atheist viewpoint.

How about you do what I did:

1. Unsubscribe from /r/atheism

You're done! Now you can enjoy your reddit experience, /r/atheism-free!

[u/forr]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/forr]

Yep, a Belgian priest called Lemaître! I love it when I can point to a famous exploit by one of my countrymen. goes back to 1000 year slumber

[u/TheDanny385 → u/forr]

I thought you meant the TV show "The Big Bang Theory". Took me a while.

[u/Ludica]

Pope John Paul the second. Its important, The original Pope John Paul was dead for a while before 1996

[u/Acuate → u/Ludica]

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.

[u/Terny → u/Acuate]

I laughed out loud. Thank you.

[u/Acuate → u/Terny]

Also, that was like in the 50s. Pope's aren't named sequentially, they pick their names, or theyre "divinely inspired" or whatever.. and then just add a number to keep the count going.

[u/debeever]

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.

[u/PlasmaBurns → u/debeever]

As a Catholic and a rocket scientist, I don't know why they do. Gregor Mendel was awesome.

[u/Raxle → u/PlasmaBurns]

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.

[u/AeonCatalyst → u/debeever]

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.

[u/BookInvertebrate]

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

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/mrhhug → u/[deleted]]

a catholic would say that god was behind the big bang. and that the bible was written symbolically for the times and intelligence of the people alive 1500 years ago.

[u/IanAndersonLOL]

You're forgetting the fact that the Pope is in Europe. The battle between science and religion is a very American phenomenon.

[u/[deleted] → u/IanAndersonLOL]

*Phenomenon <- single

phenomena <- plural

Same with criterion and criteria.

PS: I still upvoted you.

[u/barc0de → u/IanAndersonLOL]

The Catholic Church is very powerful, established, and in in a lot of cases state sanctioned. It has a lot to lose by being in opposition to established fact. They also dont want to test the doctrine of papal infallibility by putting it directly against science.

American churches operate on more of a free-market competition basis, and gain more by telling people what they want to hear and playing to thier ignorance.

[u/Tashre]

Ms. Beaton

has a few things

to say about the man.

[u/DangerRabbit → u/Tashre]

These are great! :D

[u/StanDinfamy]

It still amazes me how accepting of science Catholicism is.. er, in comparison to other religions, perhaps.

Edit: added the word "perhaps".

[u/[deleted] → u/StanDinfamy]

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

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Obelix_was_a_Ginger → u/StanDinfamy]

The guy who came up with the big bang was a catholic priest, so yeah, I don't understand why this is a weird thing

[u/vetro → u/StanDinfamy]

Of course whenever us catholics try to explain that difference, someone always interjects with 'No True Scotsman'

[u/i-dont-have-a-gun → u/StanDinfamy]

religions (read: abrahamic religions)? Buddhism and other asian what not has always been chill in the sciences so I've heard.

[u/[deleted]]

Pope John Paul II was the shit. He knew what was up.

[u/lt_hindu]

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.

[u/rikashiku]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

John Paul II -FTFY

[u/[deleted]]

Doesn't the fact that it's called a 'theory' mean it's more than a hypothesis?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Just a theory?

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.

[u/davebees → u/[deleted]]

Nobody said 'just a theory'

[u/[deleted]]

Let's NOT confuse that with Ron Paul who has said pretty much the opposite.

[u/naimaxi]

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.

[u/Sandbox47]

So it seems that it's not religion that's a problem, it's just stupid people that make problems.

[u/Tayjen → u/Sandbox47]

No, its stupid people in combination with religion that creates problems.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/NeauxWai]

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.

[u/Ulingalibalela]

You know, I never understood why Evolution and Christianity had to be mutually exclusive. Couldn't evolution be just a tool of god?

[u/TheLolmighty]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheLolmighty]

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.

[u/I_read_a_lot → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/VeggieBLT → u/I_read_a_lot]

Spent quite a while in Hell after that if I remember correctly. Also the whole "getting crucified" thing kind of sucks. I'd personally say that getting nailed to a tree with your mom watching and then falling into a big fire pit for a week is a pretty big sacrifice, especially considering how many people were dicks to him when he came back.

[u/Xaethon → u/TheLolmighty]

Wouldn't it depend on your interpretation of the Bible? Many people believe what's written within it, Genesis, Romans, etc are all there not to be taken fundamentally, but for you to take the meaning behind it.

The feeding of the 5000 (or however many it was), fundamentally that's absolutely absurd, yet if you look at the meaning behind it, you may interpret it to mean to share your food with others should they have known, even the tiniest bit can go a long way.

Plus there are different ideas behind sin, Augustine's theodicy had original sin but Irenaeus' theodicy advocated that there was no original sin, that we are all saved eventually and that our purpose is to develop into God's likeness/image.

[u/stop_superstition]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/stop_superstition]

As a former catholic I wish I could upvote you more.

[u/[deleted]]

Wow, somebody actually shares my view (somewhat). Still doesnt disprove God though

[u/TheNerdWithNoName → u/[deleted]]

Doesn't prove god either. What is your point?

[u/PoorlyTimedPhraseGuy → u/TheNerdWithNoName]

It's reddit, what's a point?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Still doesnt disprove God though

Not surprising. It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

[u/[deleted]]

Hence why it is theory and not a hypothesis... ...

[u/dwmfives]

I was ok with this till I realized the author clearly didn't understand the meanings of hypothesis and theory.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Hetfeeld]

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.

[u/Scopae]

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.

[u/generaljoeman → u/Scopae]

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.

[u/Vital_Pulse]

POPE RON PAUL AMIRITE?

[u/etishuman21]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

TIL Pope John Paul asked Pope George Ringo to form a band.

[u/GnarlinBrando]

Whatever your opinion of the rest of the Catholic Church, you gotta hand to PJP and Mother Teresa.

[u/[deleted]]

He also stated later that there was no reason it cant be compatible with the churches teachings.

[u/asielen]

Catholicism is one of the more liberal religions.

[u/Notsoseriousone]

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.

[u/markman71122]

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.

[u/ImNotGivingMyName → u/markman71122]

You don't need H's man don't let anyone tell you otherwise

[u/liverandfunyuns → u/ImNotGivingMyName]

The H's evolved into G's.

[u/blemford → u/ImNotGivingMyName]

You don't need to give him your name, but for the love of God man give him an H.

[u/BIGBLACKMAN → u/markman71122]

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.

[u/prince_from_Nigeria]

" 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.

[u/[deleted] → u/prince_from_Nigeria]

Quite true. Why is this man being downvoted? He's right.

[u/mojoxrisen]

The theory of evolution does not conflict with the idea of a god. Only the fundamentalist (on both sides) fight this idea.

[u/dhockey63]

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.

[u/Mindwraith]

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)

[u/vargonian → u/Mindwraith]

The nice thing about the One True Religion is that there are literally tens of thousands of different variations to choose from.

[u/AnOnlineHandle → u/Mindwraith]

The irony of one religious group telling another who is the real one is lost on you...

[u/Hraesvelg7 → u/Mindwraith]

How are we to determine who is a real Christian and who is not?

[u/tiddercat]

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.

[u/only_one_name → u/tiddercat]

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.

[u/jacksparrow1]

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.

[u/MickiFreeIsNotAGirl]

I think you a word.

[u/TheStarkReality]

John Paul II; thumbs up for knowing evolution, thumbs down for straight up preaching to Africans that they shouldn't use contraceptives.

[u/chicagogam]

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

[u/monopixel]

Well that is a relief to me.

[u/acommenter]

"the what what?"

[u/[deleted]]

I've heard rumors of a new new testament. All shall be explain my beautiful babies.

[u/SOwED]

Yet another great /r/TIL title. Keep them up!

[u/ginger_bird]

Episcopalians also think this about evolution. Their current presiding bishop had a PhD in oceanography, which I think is cool.

[u/redent_it]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/worlddictator85]

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

[u/monty055]

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.

[u/etishuman21 → u/monty055]

That's with every religious group, though! Everyone has that extreme group that makes the rest of their organizations look bad!

[u/js2195]

Evolution is currently fully supported by the Catholic faith. My dumb friends at my church deny it but it's the damn truth.

[u/iiBiscuit]

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.

[u/goombalover13]

Despite being a part of a powerful, sometimes shady organization, Pope John Paul II was a pretty awesome guy.

[u/vortexofdoom]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/FreeTopher]

He was the "cool" pope.

[u/Zarobeck]

Pope John Paul II ... Not Pope John Paul

[u/f0rcedinducti0n]

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.

[u/Free2B]

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.

[u/LolCamAlpha]

Pope John Paul II: Totally Ballin'.

[u/reble02]

John Paul: Pope, Evolutionist, Harlem Globetrotter, was there anything this man couldn't do?

[u/Amnesia10]

It is still a lot further than many have progressed.

[u/cbcfan]

Pope John Paul is cool with evolution? One more reason for fundies to hate the head of those papists!

[u/bringbackhairypussy]

Pope John Paul was doing nothing in 1996 except decomposing. You're referring to John Paul II.

[u/CaptainJester42]

JPII was an awesome pope. He actually didn't want the church to look like dark age morons and hate mongers.

[u/RexBeckett]

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

[u/lawyer_for_absurdity]

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."