Posted on 10/28/2014 9:44:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Evolution is not inconsistent with God, said Pope Francis during an unveiling of a bust of his predecessor, Pope-emeritus Benedict XVI, at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Monday.
"Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation," Francis said. "The scientist," he continued, "must [nevertheless] be moved by a trust in the idea that nature hides, within her evolutionary mechanisms, potentialities that it is the task of intellect and freedom to discover and actuate, in order to achieve the [kind of] development that is in the design of the Creator."
The pope, who backed the Roman Catholic Church's openness to evolution, added that scientific advancements can be used for the benefit of people.
The bust of Benedict XVI was unveiled during the course of the Academicians' Oct. 24-28 plenary meeting dedicated to evolving concepts of nature, Vatican Radio reported.
Francis praised his predecessor, and said the he "[was] a great Pope: great for the power and penetration of his intellect, great for his significant contribution to theology, great for his love for the Church and of human beings, great for his virtue and piety."
The Vatican leader encouraged science and scientists to continue working on "happy" theoretical and practical initiatives for the benefit of human beings.
Brother Guy Consolmagno, astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory, said earlier in October that he finds Young Earth Creation theories that run contrary to science "almost blasphemous" in nature.
"It's almost blasphemous theology," Consolmagno said. "It's certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is."
The Vatican astronomer added that although literal interpretations of the Bible could suggest that the Earth is of a young age, scientific evidence to the contrary has shown that such a belief is "bad theology."
The Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution stands contrary to other Christian views of the origins of the earth, such as creationism, which supports a literal interpretation of Genesis.
The question of human origins remains a divisive one in the U.S. especially, where a Gallup poll from June found that more than four in 10 Americans, or 42 percent, believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago.
Another 31 percent of those who responded to the survey said that they believe in evolution, but with God guiding the process, while 19 percent said that God had no part in the process. Gallup noted that these figures have changed little over the past three decades.
well put.
GMO doggies...cats....
I heard a fact about the human capillary system the other day. It appears that four human capillary systems...stretched end to end would reach form the Earth to the Moon. Complexity of stunning proportions
It's the other way around, in fact. Evolution always falls apart when we get into the fine details. The immense complexity of even the smallest of organisms makes it quite difficult for even the most intelligent evolutionists to explain how exactly they "evolved" via natural selection, since many of the things we take for granted are actually highly complex even in their simplest forms, thus making it necessary that it "evolved" all at once, perfectly working the very first time.
Viruses adapt to their environment, which would be a form of natural selection.
End Times False Prophet ?shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Nope, but we wouldn't expect to. Viruses aren't living organisms and all living organisms have genetic markers that indicate that they share a common ancestor -- if viruses could readily evolve into living organisms we wouldn't see that, we would see evidence of multiple descent.
Then the book is wrong.
"It is inconsistent with God’s methods."
You mean it is inconsistent with what you think God's methods are.
"The evolutionary philosophy is the intellectual basis of all anti-theistic systems..."
Your history and philosophy are wrong, but that's all beside the point that none of it has any bearing on whether evolution is actually true.
You’re wound awful tight. I don’t know you so I don’t know what struggles you are facing; however, I’m having a very nice day. Because you want to be nasty and combative, I cannot let you influence my life. Please do not respond to me again, and have a blessed day.
From Dictionary.com:
mutate [myoo-teyt]
Examples Word Origin
verb (used with object), mutated, mutating.
1.to change; alter.
2. to change by umlaut.
verb (used without object), mutated, mutating.
3.to change; undergo mutation.
evolve [ih-volv] Examples Word Origin
verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1. to develop gradually: to evolve a scheme.
2. to give off or emit, as odors or vapors. verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3. to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution: The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4. Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition: The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.
Seems pretty close to me.
You are wrong.
One of the worst analogies I have ever seen on free republic. :-). But have a nice afternoon!
You fell for that whole “you will be as gods” thing, didn’t you!
It will become your problem as well if your “smart people” try to impose your system of godless beliefs and amoral values on all us “dumb people.”
What a theologian ! This is the guy who uses the Vatican telescope "Lucifer"
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
to look for salvation when aliens land from outer space.
Okay—we’ll both be informed then won’t we?
I have heard this described as "irreducible complexity", that, for instance, the blood clotting process has to work perfectly the first time or it kills the host. It really cannot evolve into the blood clotting process.
This is true, by definition. However I'd note that it won't necessarily hurt you, and it will help you if that appendage is useful - gives you any kind of selective advantage.
If something is highly complex so that it is useless unless it is already constructed in one go, such as a light sensitive spot
Oh yes, the old eye canard. Actually, the evolution of the eye is pretty well understood. You might want to google it and save me the trouble of copying and pasting a primer for you.
Copy and paste away, and we'll see how well you do at defending it.
Oh yes, Behe's argument that blood clotting is irreducibly complex. Except that it isn't. Simpler blood clotting mechanisms do exist all over the place. It could evolve and it did evolve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.