Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday October 28 2014, @11:56PM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the he-aint-heavy-he's-il-Papa dept.

The Independent reports that Pope Francis, speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has declared that the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real.

“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” said Francis.

“He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator – arguing instead that they “require it”.

“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Experts say the Pope's comments put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI who spoke out against taking Darwin too far.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:02AM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:02AM (#111011) Journal

    This should be entertaining...

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DECbot on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:36AM

      by DECbot (832) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:36AM (#111031) Journal

      Pope declares God is the FSM and the pointy pope hat has always been made of cheese cloth.

      --
      cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:19PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:19PM (#111109) Journal
      Doubtful. Anyone who is a biblical literalist probably already considers the Pope an instrument of Satan.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:21PM

        by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:21PM (#111190)

        No kidding. I read

        “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” said Francis.

        as

        "There are things God can't do," said Francis.

        Welp, so much for omnipotence, I guess.

        --
        "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:48PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:48PM (#111281) Journal

          My thought exactly!

          And if he isn't a magician and can't do everything, but he can create human beings (using the rib of one to make another: sounds like advanced 'alien' cloning), he just can't create them in a way that makes them give a damn about anything but the all-mighty dollar and..................

          ....oh well. Maybe 'God' has no powers at all. Maybe 'God' is just a human weakness.

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 30 2014, @08:39PM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 30 2014, @08:39PM (#111665) Journal

            he just can't create them in a way that makes them give a damn about anything but the all-mighty dollar

            So let's consider you. Since you apparently give a damn about something other than the almighty dollar, what does that make you? Not human?

            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday October 31 2014, @12:34PM

              by Gaaark (41) on Friday October 31 2014, @12:34PM (#111854) Journal

              You got that right... apparently, i am an alien.

              "Humans are the most intelligent species on Earth"... how many times have you heard that, but you look around you and see so much stupidity.

              Look at all the walmartians, for example. Look at the people who work retail who have to put up with abuse from stupid people. Look at George W. Bush!

              Yes, I think i am an alien, 'cause it would be too embarrassing to be human.

              --
              --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 31 2014, @02:14PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 31 2014, @02:14PM (#111908) Journal

                "Humans are the most intelligent species on Earth"... how many times have you heard that, but you look around you and see so much stupidity.

                I guess humans have room for improvement. But it does seem the sort of thing a god could have fixed in the first place.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by art guerrilla on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:08AM

    by art guerrilla (3082) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:08AM (#111013)

    he's enough to make an atheist want to convert to catholicism lite *

    (*without the buggering, um, dare i say, 'more taste, less filling' ?)

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:12AM (#111015)

      Is the pro version really worth paying $7.77?
      Can you disable the guilt feature in the settings?

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:32AM

        by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:32AM (#111020)

        Can you disable the guilt feature in the settings?

        I've heard the Anglican/Episcopal Church described as Catholic Lite -- all the ceremony, 1/3 the guilt! (Though if you want ceremony Russian Orthodox is the front runner of Christian denominations.)

        --
        [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
        • (Score: 2) by cykros on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:38PM

          by cykros (989) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:38PM (#111136)

          It's hard to feel guilty when the guy who founded the church you're at is best known for murdering a bunch of wives before finally leaving the church because he had the audacity to divorce one without killing her...

          Helps that they don't do confession, or have the doctrine of purgatory, and really don't demand much out of the congregation other than money in the plate and that you stand up and sit down about 10 times in the hour or so you're at the service. Think of it like a really slow version of jazzercise with morose organ music.

          • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:19PM

            by JeanCroix (573) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:19PM (#111159)

            you stand up and sit down about 10 times in the hour or so you're at the service

            With the value of "or so" being 90 to 105 minutes for certain congregations. I came to believe the slo-mo calisthenics were to keep folks from snoozing.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:23PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:23PM (#111717)

            Henry VIII didn't murder a bunch of wives, it was two, which is a couple, but not enough to amount to a bunch, and he didn't murder them, he had them killed (not quite the same thing). He divorced two of his wives, one died naturally (IIRC during childbirth) and the other survived him.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:46AM

        by M. Baranczak (1673) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:46AM (#111033)

        You can, but they'll switch it back on the next time you run an update.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:23AM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:23AM (#111018) Homepage

      That's exactly what he's doing, and it's a pretty sound business decision. More and more youth are growing up disenfranchised at religion for being just a bunch of angry judgmental bullshit too heavy on the fire and brimstone and too light on the feel-good belonging. And that's not even taking into account the antiscientific stances of most churches, which force a choice between science or religion which is often impossible to reconcile. The Catholic church in particular has had a strong intellectual tradition in spite of its persecutions and bullshittery, so again this Francissian mental gymnastic of a reconciliation is no surprise from that church in particular.

      The future of the Catholic church, and every other church which operates in civilized nations, depends on it. More and more people are figuring out that they don't need a big institutionalized guilt trip telling them they're horrible sinners while the collection plate's being passed around. Seriously, paying money to be labeled a sinner and threatened with eternal punishment.

      The Pope knows that's all bullshit. Much of the Clergy knows its all bullshit. But, dare I say, there are some good things about religious gatherings, and churches have finally figured out that being nice to people rather than threatening and guilt-tripping them attracts more newcomers and keeps more progressives in the group, a group which gets its collective power through connections rather than lack thereof.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:34AM (#111041)

        Seriously, paying money to be labeled a sinner and threatened with eternal punishment.

        Yeah, be fucked if I'm going to the cinema this holiday season either.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:45PM (#111142)

          They always make promises, but I tell ya, for all of their hot air, they don't do nearly as good a job as the dominatrices you can find on Craigslist. While their punishment may not be quite eternal, it at least is SOMETHING in return for the money spent. Besides, they make better use of the crosses, rather than just keeping them around as mere ornaments gathering dust...

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mojo chan on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:38AM

        by mojo chan (266) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:38AM (#111075)

        He's just shuffling the deckchairs as the boat sinks. He talks about wanting to recover numbers in Europe, but all the time European culture is moving further and further away from Catholic dogma and there is no way he can ever keep up with it. Contraceptives, gay rights etc.

        Catholicism is still strong in less developed countries, but as they bring up their levels of education and wealth the same thing is doing to happen. Perhaps the pope thinks he can head off what has happened in Europe by trying to reform his church now, but the gulf between what Catholic dogma is saying and between what people in developed countries think is just too vast.

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:47AM (#111023)

    A B****** H******* free soylent news. Thank you for all your work.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:28AM (#111029)

      Are you saying that Hugh Pickens is that Bennett guy they're always talking about at Slashdot?

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:49AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:49AM (#111024) Journal

    The Big Bang declares with a poof that evolution is rational and that Earthlings are irrelevant. :P

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by fadrian on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:04AM

      by fadrian (3194) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:04AM (#111051) Homepage

      Which poof did it declare it with? Neil Patrick Harris?

      --
      That is all.
      • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday November 02 2014, @04:46PM

        by Gaaark (41) on Sunday November 02 2014, @04:46PM (#112428) Journal

        No... the Apple guy who is filled with gay pride.

        --
        --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:07AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:07AM (#111026)

    Queue the talking heads. And yes popcorn

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:53AM (#111034)

    Climate change, GamerGate and systemd?

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:03AM

    by M. Baranczak (1673) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:03AM (#111035)

    Act I

    Religion: The Sun orbits around the Earth.
    Science: No it doesn't. Look here, I can prove it.
    Religion: The Sun orbits around the Earth because God in His eternal mercy said so. If you don't like that, we'll cut your head off.
    Science: Oh. OK. It orbits around the Earth.

    Act II (several hundred years later)

    Religion: Well, obviously, the story of the Sun orbiting the Earth should be considered not literally, but as a parable...
    Science: Hey, wait a second. I just read the Bible, it doesn't say a damn thing about the Sun orbiting the Earth. You're just making this shit up, aren't you?
    Religion: Why do you have to be so intolerant?

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:28PM (#111111)

      movement is relative
        it's perfectly possible to define your frame of reference with the earth at the center and everything else orbiting that

      it's not a particulary practical frame of reference as it makes the math terribly complicated,
      but that doesn't make it wrong just ... suboptimal

      • (Score: 2) by cykros on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:52PM

        by cykros (989) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:52PM (#111145)

        Exactly. They're both models, and they're both accurate. It's just that, like with maps, there are different occasions for different models. You wouldn't go using a topological map to plan a road trip, and I really hope nobody has gone off into the wilderness assuming their car gps nav is going to be the most useful tool to have around...

        The problem at this point seems to be that for all the hoopla about Science, we can't seem to teach astronomy in schools much beyond the revelations of Copernicus, and rarely can you get out the "but, relativity..." argument in the face of the matter-of-fact yelling that "the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that's that!".

        For matters of stargazing anyway, the geocentric model still provides a much easier to work with method for keeping track of what you can expect up in the sky.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:50PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:50PM (#111243)

          Well, if you're trying to invoke relativity to argue against the claim that the Earth revolves around the sun, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about anyway. Presumably you're invoking the bit about all inertial reference frames being equally valid - the thing is that only non-accelerating frames of reference qualify as inertial reference frames, objects moving on a curved path (under centripetal acceleration) can be experimentally verified as non-inertial reference frames: you end up getting sourceless "phantom forces" like centrifugal force appearing when you try to describe the motion of objects

          Now on the Earth those "forces" are dwarfed by statistical noise, the Earth's acceleration around the Sun is about 1/2000th g, and as a uniform field force is extremely difficult to detect directly. However it's relatively easy to determine that the Earth is moving in a circular path around the sun by, for example, looking at stellar doppler shift - if the Earth isn't in a circular orbit that would imply that all the visible stars and nebulae in the universe are color-strobing with a perdiod of exactly one year, synchronized so that those perpendicular to the sun always appear at their most intense color-shift, regardless of their distance. Not to mention the extremely complicated network of phantom forces necessary to describe the motions of all the other objects in the solar system in such a scenario.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:14PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:14PM (#111263) Journal

        it's perfectly possible to define your frame of reference with the earth at the center and everything else orbiting that

         
        Only if you re-define the word 'orbit.'

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 30 2014, @10:52PM

      by Bot (3902) on Thursday October 30 2014, @10:52PM (#111709) Journal

      The universe can revolve around the earth until you scientifically prove otherwise. Good luck.

      --
      Account abandoned.
  • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:05AM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:05AM (#111036) Homepage

    It's right there in the direct quote:

    “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.

    He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.”

    This is pure, unadulterated, 100% Intelligent Design Creationism, and no different whatsoever from what got the big smackdown in the Dover trial.

    There not only isn’t even the slightest hint of evidence of divine interference in the development of life on Earth, there's overwhelming evidence that, if there is any such interference, it is of the most perniciously malicious and / or grossly incompetent variety. And, yet, here’s the Pope continuing to insist that “[God] created human beings.”

    I can understand why the Church would wish to spin its fantasy faery tales as being all hunky-dory with science; that’s the propaganda line they’re trying to sell, after all, to make them seem hip to the next generation of marks. But can we please refrain from regurgitating that same propaganda?

    I mean, really. Is it too much to ask for even the slightest hint of awareness of the most fundamental findings of modern biology? Were the Church instead hung up on Intelligent Falling, we wouldn’t let slip some support for all things falling naturally save human parachutists who get special attention, would we?

    No?

    So why distort biology so grossly? And to further a most shameless confidence scam, to boot....

    Cheers,

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:38AM

      by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:38AM (#111094)

      As a disclaimer I'm not even a believer and yet if you just bold up a different phrase "let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one" then its not so bad.

      Physics types are going to get all pissed off about the "no hidden local variables" vs his little phrase, but its really not that bad for a scientific layman.

      He probably means to write something like his god created the conditions for human beings and maybe decided exactly when, where, and to whom (oh the pun... say it out loud) some arbitrary first fertilized egg thats in our species. Its still a little overly species-ist.

      My attempts at theological writing would probably suck worse than his attempt at scientific writing. He just Fed up a minor phrase by having it slightly conflict with the rest of the same line of text. Its not perfect but its pretty darn good.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:22PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:22PM (#111110) Journal

      There not only isn’t even the slightest hint of evidence of divine interference in the development of life on Earth

      Nor is there even the slightest hint of evidence of its absence. Welcome to supernatural explanations.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DrMag on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:07PM

      by DrMag (1860) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:07PM (#111256)

      There not only isn’t even the slightest hint of evidence of divine interference in the development of life on Earth, there's overwhelming evidence that, if there is any such interference, it is of the most perniciously malicious and / or grossly incompetent variety. And, yet, here’s the Pope continuing to insist that “[God] created human beings.”

      Except what Francis is saying is in no way akin to saying "God interferes with the natural order". He's saying that the natural order is God's order. You may believe that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, but to assume that that evidence appears only as an interference from how things would otherwise work in the universe is misunderstanding the situation entirely.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31 2014, @12:13AM (#111732)

        There are many instances in the Bible where God supposedly interferes with the natural order. If you disregard all of those what you have left is nothing like the god Christians worship. For instance, if God impregnated Mary so she would give birth to his son, that is interfering with the natural order, and again bringing Jesus back to life after he was crucified is interfering with the natural order.

        What Francis is doing is misinterpreting the science (whether deliberately or not) and creatively interpreting the Bible so they don't seem to conflict.

  • (Score: 2) by caseih on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:06AM

    by caseih (2744) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:06AM (#111037)

    I've been saying the same thing that Pope Francis has been saying for along time now, at least on the other site whenever this would come up. Religion (well, my own religion anyway) deals with the purpose of creation, at least as it pertains to us, and to me personally. Science deals more with the how. I believe God exists, but he can never take away our own agency. Hence for every thing that someone believes God did or caused, there must be a plausible, complete, and believable explanation of how it occurred without God; he's not going to damn us with a signature on a glacier. Thus God's hand in creation is completely a choice on our part, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. I see nothing in current theories of how the universe formed, or evolution of species, or the "god particle" that contradicts in my belief in a god.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:20AM

      by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:20AM (#111038) Homepage

      I must admit, I always find fascinating the crass hubris and shameless hypocrisy of religious statements such as the one you just made.

      I mean, here you are, declaring with unquestionable certainty the motives and specific limitations of an entity that you would have us believe personally created Life, the Universe, and Everything just so that you yourself could make such pronouncements about it. And, I'm sure, all in the name of humble religious humility, to boot.

      And the name of the game isn't to come up with some theory that can't be proven worng. That's the very definition of a paranoid conspiracy theory. After all, you also can't prove that we're brains in vats, or living in the Matrix, or that your tinfoil hat has slipped and aliens are controlling your thoughts with their mind rays. Indeed, there are an infinite variety of such conspiracy theories, all every bit as likely and un-disprovable as this "God" one you've latched onto.

      Rather, the sane approach is to apportion beliefs in proportions indicated by a rational analysis of objective observation. And there are not only no observations of gods, but overwhelming observations that there are no powerful agents with humanity's best interests at heart -- an observation Epicurus made centuries before the invention of your Christ.

      So, please. By all means, continue to (try to) fool yourself that a lack of contrary evidence (whose existence you desperately ignore) isn't enough to demonstrate you're deluding yourself. But don't for a moment think that you're fooling anybody other than yourself.

      Unless, of course, you want to fool yourself about that bit, too....

      Cheers,

      b&

      --
      All but God can prove this sentence true.
      • (Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:48AM

        by Marand (1081) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:48AM (#111047) Journal

        I mean, here you are, declaring with unquestionable certainty the motives and specific limitations of an entity that you would have us believe personally created Life, the Universe, and Everything just so that you yourself could make such pronouncements about it. And, I'm sure, all in the name of humble religious humility, to boot.

        The way I see it, if such an entity exists, it has better things to do with its time than worry about what I think of it. Likewise, I have better things to do with my time than worry about what it thinks of me. Whether it exists or not is irrelevant beyond being a thought exercise, and if it does exist, I'm content to live and let live.

        Well, it's irrelevant unless you buy into the notion that a higher power is watching you and will punish you if you do something shitty. That's a principle that bothers me, because fear of a bogeyman shouldn't be the primary motivation that keeps people from being shitheads to each other.

        • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:38AM

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @10:38AM (#111087) Journal

          Indeed. I think the idea of an all-powerful, universe-encompassing deity that makes the time to peek in through peoples' bedroom windows and make a note of who's poking what body part in where shows a complete lack of appreciation[1] of just how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big time and space actually are. I guess it's natural for a person to tend to think of things in terms of how those things affect him/herself personally, we all do it to an extent. But to imagine that a god with an entire universe to run really gives a crap how much you prayed lately or whether you're eating the wrong kind of meat is to position oneself, or at least the human race, at the very centre of absolutely everything.

          If there is an omnipresent, universe-building deity up there, my guess is that it spares about as much thought and interest in you as you do to a transient individual bacterium in the middle of a colony on the back of some rock that you drove past on the way to work this morning.

          [1] I don't think any human mind can fully appreciate it, but with a little thought and study we can at least begin to appreciate how unappreciable[2] it is.

          [2] If that wasn't a word before, it is now.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:59AM

            by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:59AM (#111100)

            the idea of an all-powerful, universe-encompassing deity that makes the time to peek in through peoples' bedroom windows and make a note of who's poking what body part

            Let us enumerate a hierarchy of stupidity. Dante style. In the first ring of stupidity you have people trying to enforce their will WRT the morality of various sexual activities or cultural attitudes upon SN commenters. Thats pretty dumb, but it gets worse. The next ring of stupidity would be trying to enforce will on the site admins. The next level of stupidity would be trying to enforce their will on political entities, first municipal, eventually the UN.

            Finally, the pinnacle of stupidity, would appear to a bunch of camel f*ckers 2000 years ago talking back to their god like insolent little children, "Well, our backassward 3rd world hellhole doesn't like wimmins or homos, so you think you're all high and mighty creating universes and suns and floods and shit, but around here its our way or the highway so you're officially gonna hate wimmin and homos coincidentally because we do, or you can just run away from home and go create a universe over there or sumptin" I mean really, think about it, trying to lay down the smack on an all powerful all knowning diety who does shit like lightning bolts (oh wait thats his frat bro Zeus). "You better agree with us while you're living under my temple roof, or you're in big trouble you all powerful diety!"

            The greek pagans certainly had one thing right, given all powerful diety / dieties, ignorant hairless apes trying to make sense of them or even worse tell them what to do, just isn't going to pan out well.

            I guess if you're superior to a mere god then its "correct" although maybe a little immoral to tell that mere god what to believe which coincidentally always matches up with ignorant uneducated backwards tribal custom. None the less, I'd make sure the lightning rods on the house are properly connected and maybe get a boat, because an all powerful diety is gonna be pissed at some stupid hairless apes telling him how its gonna be.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by drgibbon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:12AM

        by drgibbon (74) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 29 2014, @04:12AM (#111054) Journal

        Rather, the sane approach is to apportion beliefs in proportions indicated by a rational analysis of objective observation.

        This mostly works, but when it comes to matters of spirituality it is usually the subjective experience that determines beliefs. If someone experiences God/spirits/whatever, there really is no objective way at present to prove or disprove the ontological status of these things. By "objective observation" I presume you mean to always look outward (as in "I see it with my eyes/infer it through some measurement tool"), but this is not a sufficient explanation of the actual workings of life and consciousness. If a person feels that they truly experienced the divine, perhaps even on a regular basis, I see no serious scientific method of coming to any conclusions about the ontological status of their experiences. In fact, for that person, their experience is an objective verification of their beliefs.

        And there are not only no observations of gods

        Taking this loosely, there are actually abundant observations of God(s)/spirits/entities/transpersonal worlds. They are very likely the source of the great religions for starters, and in fact spiritual experiences can be induced through various means (serious and disciplined meditation is one, the ingestion of psychoactive plants is another obvious one). A great many indigenous groups held spiritual beliefs that were based on the experience of spirituality. The logic and rationalism we have in the modern world does not alter the fact that 1) spiritual experience is actually quite common, 2) people seem to be equipped with this capability biologically, 3) truly firm conclusions regarding the ontology of spiritual beliefs are very often nigh on impossible to reach.

        The problem is not that one can create any hypothesis that cannot be disproved (e.g. we live in the Matrix, God is a benevolent banana that you can't see), the problem is that spiritual/transpersonal experience is extremely common amongst human beings, and can even be experimentally induced. This constitutes actual data about the state of the world and humanity, and perhaps about what lies beyond the limits of that which is presently taken to be rational.

        --
        Certified Soylent Fresh!
        • (Score: 2) by geb on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:33AM

          by geb (529) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:33AM (#111073)

          In my experience, people do not have a scientific attitude about such subjective experiences. Anybody who believes in the supernatural wants to find proof of it, and given even very feeble, poorly fitting evidence, they'll try to take it as that proof instead of finding a better explanation.

          I can give an example. A few years ago I woke up, having had a dream about a new banking regulation that was going to affect my bank account. I mentioned this to a friend, and they immediately pounced on it as evidence that visions of the future were possible, and that spirits guided us in sleep.

          What had actually happened was that the neighbouring room had a clock radio, and a morning news program was playing. It could be heard through the wall.

          Privileging one hypothesis because you want it to be true is profoundly not a scientific attitude, and prevents finding the truth. It is for this reason that I reject any witness accounts of gods that happen inside people's heads, indistinguishable from imagination. It's not impossible that a god would choose to manifest only in dreams, but there wouldn't be any good reason to expect that behaviour, and there would be good reason to expect a fantastically high false positive rate on observations.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:43PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:43PM (#111120)

            In other words, there are no serious scientists that are religious.

          • (Score: 1) by drgibbon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:46PM

            by drgibbon (74) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:46PM (#111301) Journal

            Well, there are many ways to confuse this issue, but I'll say that the large amount of airy-fairy bullshit around matters of spirituality has almost no bearing on a serious scientific consideration of the matter of whether such a spiritual/beyond world exists. The fact is that subjective spiritual/mystical experience is a real phenomenon, and by that I mean death-like experiences where one merges in with some infinite love/energy/source whatever; it's varied and that's a very thin slice of it (there's lots of other types), but those experiences most certainly exist and appear to be available to humans. In fact there's reasonable evidence that we have this kind of circuitry built in, which may be activated at special times (like actual death).

            We can talk about the mechanics of (genuine) spiritual experience (or non-genuine/made-up for the purposes of "religious/spiritual business", but that's interesting in a different way), we can speculate about it being a mental illness, a figment of imagination, a glimpse of something real, and so on, but anyone who claims to have objective scientific proof of the ontology of these things is either ignorant or pushing an agenda (for instance wanting to "disprove" once and for all to the airy-fairy types that there is no beyond, or wanting to "prove" to the rational scientific types that there is). The amount of zealotry is extremely high on this issue in both camps. The belief that a seemingly inaccessible spiritual world is illogical is a very feeble proof to hold on to; the fact that the world itself exists seems highly improbable and illogical, especially given that no one even knows how it came into being in the first place, but that doesn't disprove it being here.

            There really is a lot less science in this than people are led to believe. In most cases, beliefs about the ontology of spirituality are more like mass-cultural artefacts than anything concrete. The question is truly not within our grasp, we don't even understand our own bodies (i.e. the stuff that lets us perceive our slice of reality in the first place), whether God/Gods/spirits are "real" is way out of our league. The true and honest scientific take on this question is "at present unknowable". Everything else is belief (which is not necessarily a bad thing, we can't live without it).

            --
            Certified Soylent Fresh!
          • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday November 02 2014, @04:52PM

            by Gaaark (41) on Sunday November 02 2014, @04:52PM (#112430) Journal

            Proof!!!

            My sister says she was hugged by Jesus... when i asked her how she could tell it was Jesus and not, say, the Devil or John Belushi, her answer was "I just know."

            You can't argue with that, by Gum.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
        • (Score: 1) by Frost on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:38PM

          by Frost (3313) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @08:38PM (#111339)

          If a person feels that they truly experienced the divine, perhaps even on a regular basis, I see no serious scientific method of coming to any conclusions about the ontological status of their experiences. In fact, for that person, their experience is an objective verification of their beliefs.

          "Experience"? A more accurate word would be "imagination". People imagine the divine. There is no particular method of coming to any conclusion about the ontological status of their imagination except to classify it as imaginary. Since it exists only in their minds, it's exactly the opposite of "objective".

          Every night when I sleep I "experience" lots of things; what is the ontological status of those things? There is no objective, scientific evidence for them, even though the "experience" is vivid and undeniable. I call them "dreams" and don't let them interfere with my waking life, except perhaps for some occasional comedic or inspirational value.

          Imagine God all you like, if it makes you feel better and helps you live your life. But don't mistake your imagination for external, objective fact.

          • (Score: 1) by drgibbon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:16PM

            by drgibbon (74) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:16PM (#111379) Journal

            "Imagining" is a very poor choice of word for the extremely powerful experiences that people undergo during mystical/spiritual experiences (imagining makes it sounds like they are daydreaming, when really it would be more like everything you know and understand as reality is being fundamentally altered), experiencing is much more general and applicable. For instance you may say that you imagine your dreams (with which not everyone would agree), but no one would disagree that you experience your dreams. So you can call it imaginary (and it may be) but that claim alone does not constitute scientific evidence of anything. You may believe that dreams have no relevance in your life, and only provide "occasional comedic or inspirational value", but again, that is in no way scientific proof of anything. This is my point, you are actually propping up a personal (and culturally derived) belief about something and presenting it as an objective fact, when there is scant little objective evidence to be found. I did not say that God exists, I merely pointed out that (a) profound experiences of spiritually do exist, (b) that they can be empirically and pretty reliably induced, and (c) that we have no scientific means available to assess their ontological status (with which I am actually not all that concerned).

            --
            Certified Soylent Fresh!
            • (Score: 1) by Frost on Thursday November 06 2014, @03:38AM

              by Frost (3313) on Thursday November 06 2014, @03:38AM (#113434)

              Well, sir, you have a pretty high tolerance for delusion.

              • (Score: 1) by drgibbon on Thursday November 06 2014, @07:00AM

                by drgibbon (74) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 06 2014, @07:00AM (#113454) Journal

                It's not much to do with tolerance for me, more like an honest appraisal of the state of play.

                --
                Certified Soylent Fresh!
      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:26PM

        by Bot (3902) on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:26PM (#111718) Journal

        > And there are not only no observations of gods.
        Pray tell how do you tell a god of a universe from a sufficiently powerful creature in it. If I could manipulate brain waves, I could make you believe I can tell the sun to turn pink and resuscitate your grandma.
        Pray tell how a creator should be observable in a creation by default, since that is an anomaly. (Example you play the game of life, get lucky and create some self aware creatures, that cannot observe you because you are nowhere in the simulation. You could *PROJECT* yourself there but the projection is not you, it has to be believed as coming from above instead of being a new phenomenon of the simulation itself, see preceding point)

        > but overwhelming observations that there are no powerful agents with humanity's best interests at heart.
        You are discussing a parallel religion you have just invented where God acts in your best interests in this life instead of making the judgement later, but never mind.
        Pray tell how do you know that the current situation is not providing the best possible outcome for humanity.
        - God, why don't you save this child he's dying of hunger.
        - WAT? NO WAI (God speaks in memes, I hate to break it to you)
        - Why, you monster?
        - Because his grand grand grand grand grand grand nephew would bang a girl who then would carry his child instead of the future dr. eijieqjrqw, who will save the galaxy in galaxy war IV, obviously.

        --
        Account abandoned.
    • (Score: 2) by elf on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:45AM

      by elf (64) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:45AM (#111097)

      Hence for every thing that someone believes God did or caused, there must be a plausible, complete, and believable explanation of how it occurred without God; he's not going to damn us with a signature on a glacier. Thus God's hand in creation is completely a choice on our part, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. I see nothing in current theories of how the universe formed, or evolution of species, or the "god particle" that contradicts in my belief in a god.

      You have fallen for the famous !A=B fallacy. Just because there is not evidence to explain some thing it doesn't mean you can automatically assign your own reason and make that correct. For everything you said I could replace the text with infinite other possibilities.

      Here is my theory on big green frogs

      Hence for every thing that someone believes "the big green frog" did or caused, there must be a plausible, complete, and believable explanation of how it occurred without "the big green frog"; it is not going to damn us with a signature on a lake. Thus "the big green frogs" hand in creation is completely a choice on our part, whether we want to acknowledge it or not. I see nothing in current theories of how the universe formed, or evolution of species, or the "'the big green frog' particle" that contradicts in my belief in a "big green frog".

      • (Score: 2) by caseih on Friday November 07 2014, @03:18AM

        by caseih (2744) on Friday November 07 2014, @03:18AM (#113731)

        Maybe we're talking past each other here. Perhaps my phrasing was poor. I'm not saying that evolution is just a plausible alternative to some other explanation. In fact I haven't offered some other explanation. I'm saying that someone can say, "God did it" and be correct, while another says, "it came about by evolution" and be correct also. Science and God are not mutually exclusive. I'm not referring to magical alternatives here (wave a wand and things appear). The "alternative" part is whether or not someone believes that God exists. That's all. Science is showing more and more about how the universe came to be and the principles and forces at work in it (evolution, etc). Whether we believe that God has done this work (through the means that science has demonstrated) is the choice. Sorry you misread what I meant.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:26PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:26PM (#111194)

      he's not going to damn us with a signature on a glacier

      God‘s Final Message To His Creation is written in fire in letters thirty feet high on the far side of the Quentulus Quazgar Mountains, "We apologize for the inconvenience."

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 1) by idetuxs on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:28AM

    by idetuxs (2990) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:28AM (#111046)

    This guy is dangerous, he is a Peronist. He will say what everyone wants to hear in order to gain more consensus and thus power.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:28AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @06:28AM (#111060) Journal

      So you are saying we need a "dirty war" a la Argentina, to counter the Peronist Pope? "Don't cry for me, Argentina!" Liberation Theology is back!!! All you Nazi Catholics up against the wall! First, we take the red shoes off ex-Pope Ratz!

      --
      You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:05PM

        by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:05PM (#111102)

        That's the part that shocks me about this dude, when he was voted in the consensus was as a former grand inquisitor of the inquisition or whatever the exact title was, all the TV journalist idiots assured everyone that he was going to be a total conformist placeholder who won't change anything and will force a tilt toward tradition, if anything.

        And them just mere months later, dudes like leading the cultural revolution.

        He's pretty cool. I'm not saying I'm gonna convert, but he's the first pope in my lifetime (and I'm not a kid) that I'm actually impressed with.

      • (Score: 1) by idetuxs on Thursday October 30 2014, @08:45PM

        by idetuxs (2990) on Thursday October 30 2014, @08:45PM (#111668)

        I don't know if entirely understood what you said, but what I'm saying is: don't blindly believe what he says. In my opinion he's pretty cool and making a lot of good changes (this guy supported a judge that is charging the VP with corruption), nonetheless he could be a chameleon, shifting towards where public opinion is.

  • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:48AM

    by Lagg (105) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:48AM (#111048) Homepage Journal

    “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."

    So what we have here is another instance of this pope, more devious than the last one because he's still the same kind of bible thumping deluded con man but this time with a veil of logic and kindliness about him, successfully conning not only the agnostic types but also atheists just because he happened to say something slightly less batshit insane than his predecessors. So now more people are going to join his cult because he pretends that he has a scientific mindset and you guys are going to encourage it. Great.

    and no it's not going to put an end to these non-theories. Religions have twisted words and reshaped their dogma for hundreds of years to reinforce their delusion every single time science has advanced. This is no different. All Pope "Fuckface" Francis is doing is parroting the creationist dribble of God waving his magic sky daddy hand and essentially planting an evolutionary path into the animals (because God has a plan for everything you know). He's just saying it in a different way. Luckily since he has just about the same literacy as a rotten potato no one who is actually scientifically minded is going to buy it.

    and just in case you think I'm ranting here's a choice quote of Francis failing utterly and completely at science in a single sentence:

    “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

    --
    http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:28AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @05:28AM (#111056)

      “He created human beings..."

      He's not saying that literally, like God created human beings from clay as stated in Genesis. He means God created human beings by creating the processes which led to human beings. This is the official stance of the Catholic Church, and is the view the Vatican Scientists have been putting forward for decades at least.

      This is pretty big because it means even The Church is telling retarded fundies to STFU and go away, because the Bible is not and never was meant to be read literally.

      • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Wednesday October 29 2014, @07:10AM

        by Lagg (105) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @07:10AM (#111063) Homepage Journal

        "Vatican scientists" is such an oxymoron. I guess that it's better than calling them "Vatican spin doctors" which is really what they are. This is the problem with these types, even when they appear to be thinking scientifically they're not. They just reword and amend their explanation of things until it fits their dogma. You even mention it in your post. He said pretty explicitly that God created human beings but people will then say "no no what he really meant is that God created the things that lead to human beings". The bible says something stupid, people say "no no that was a parable, it wasn't meant to be literal". It's pathetic really and I feel kind of embarrassed for them. They're quickly losing any kind of standing and hilariously enough society as a whole is evolving by shedding elements of itself that gives cults any kind of power. Rather poetic really.

        --
        http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:31PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:31PM (#111113) Journal
          The Pope is not acting as a scientist. And no scientist is always a scientist.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by cykros on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:08PM

          by cykros (989) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:08PM (#111152)

          Yea, what kind of Science ever came out of the Catholic priesthood? Oh, right, there was that whole Big Bang Theory in the first place...

          It's never been that they don't do science, and more just that the scientists within the church have generally always been kept at a distance from actually affecting doctrine, and in darker times, actively kept silenced. Considering that Francis' own order of Jesuits has in the past been considered a heretical sect due to their focus on matters of Science, this is about what I have come to expect in the first place. It's a healthy reminder that the Church is much less monolithic than it may appear at first glance. Remember, the Dominicans were once known for portraying Jesus on the cross with a pouch full of gold coins hanging around his waist!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:05PM (#111377)

          You clearly have some anger issues you need to work out. I can tell from your behavior that you're just like any other denialist - you already have your mind made up and you'll never let stupid things like facts get in the way of your pre-made conclusion. As such, there's no point in talking to you on this subject.

      • (Score: 2) by elf on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:52AM

        by elf (64) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:52AM (#111098)

        because the Bible is not and never was meant to be read literally

        How is it meant to be read? And where are the facts about religion that should be taken literally (There must be some facts somewhere!)?

        • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:04PM

          by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:04PM (#111101)

          And where are the facts about religion that should be taken literally (There must be some facts somewhere!)?

          Depends whom you ask, but as far as I can tell from church, Christians broadly agree that the Gospels (the books about the life and teaching of Jesus) are to be treated as historical fact. So when for example there is a direct quote from Jesus in the Bible, that's what (we believe) Jesus said and he wanted the world to hear it.

          What those words mean is still subject to interpretation. For example, where Jesus refers to Jehovah as his father, was he being literal or figurative? Early in the history of Christianity there was a debate about that, and the "figurative" side lost.

          Some denominations of Christianity are very literal and think that all books of the Bible are historical fact. That is where the rejection of evolution comes into play, because it conflicts with the story of Genesis. I would point out that the two largest branches of Christianity worldwide, the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, don't subscribe to the literalist view and have not done for many years.

          --
          [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:13PM

          by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:13PM (#111106)

          Go read some ancient literature and you'll get the answer yourself.

          Herodotus is cool, but I wouldn't throw away a 2014 fodors travel guide in favor of Herodotus. Outside a dead culture and written in a dead language on the other side of the planet 2000 years of civilization out of date, you can't expect much use out of a text other than an adventure reading it and some interesting ideas. If the ideas are worth it, cool! If not, well... Was I talking about Herodotus or some religious text? Well, if the shoe fits either option...

          Now Plato on the other hand wrote some things that are still interesting and relevant today. He also screwed up some stuff, but overall its worth your time. If you demand an ancient historian "better" than Herodotus, Plutarch is pretty reliable although "only" 1800 years out of date. Maybe its 1900 years now, I'm getting old.

          Religious texts fall more or less in between those two extremes. Maybe a bit better than an inspiring work of fiction, but surely not at the level of Plutarch or Plato. Uneducated moderns probably shouldn't be reading any of the authors mentioned above, including the religious texts. Sorcerers apprentice syndrome and all that.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @05:58AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30 2014, @05:58AM (#111451)

            Funny you should mention Herodotus. He knew nothing about Belshazzar and people loved lynching the book of Daniel for saying that there was a Belshazzar who was king in Babylon. Well, guess what, archaeology eventually digs up evidence of Belshazzar's existence and the fact that he was acting king when his father Nabonidus was not around. Feel free to scorn the Bible, there were many before you and you can join their ranks of being proved wrong. Even though Daniel had no understanding of what he was writing, the things he wrote down prophesied the upcoming Medo-Persian Empire, the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire and today's combo of the USA and Britain.

            e.g. Chapter 11 starts off with Persia's all out attack on Greece only to fall to Alexander the Great. It correctly says that Alexander's empire would not go to his own descendants but gets carved up eventually into four smaller pieces lead by four of his generals. Then it goes into the Ptolemy and Seleucid saga with great detail like how Bernice was married to Antiochus II but was later murdered along with her son. Even how Antiochus IV would be stopped from doing as he pleased by Rome in Daniel verse 18. With Rome's take over of the territory of the Seleucid dynasty, it took over the role of the King of the North. Augustus Caesar's revenue reforms in taxation are highlighted in verse 20. Verse 21 - 24 describe Tiberius and the fact that Christ Jesus would die during his rule. Verse 25 - 26 describe Aurelian, and Zenobia, who had taken on the role of King of the South when she conquered Egypt, and his death when he was killed by his own men. Verse 27 brings us to the 20th Century where the King of the North is the German Empire (Roman Empire -> Holy Roman Empire -> German Empire) and Britain is the King of the South due to having control of Egypt taking over from Zenobia. Whereas Aurelian was victorious over Zenobia, this time the King of the North will lose to the King of the South. Today, Britain and its buddy USA or perhaps, it should now be the USA and its buddy Britain hold the role of King of the South while the King of the North has been through the German Empire, Nazi Germany (verse 36) and the Soviet Union (verse 37-43).

        • (Score: 2) by cykros on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:17PM

          by cykros (989) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:17PM (#111157)

          Why on Earth should there have to be facts that make up a body of tradition, ritual, and shared value system that tie people together? The biggest thing organized religion has ever been good at getting wrong is making the mistake that it somehow should occupy the same sphere as Science in the first place. The biggest thing the pro-science crowd regularly gets wrong is...well, incidentally enough, the very same thing.

          Hopefully one of these days the two can disentangle and focus perhaps more on being better at their own arena, and less on shit flinging. That both side have valid points to make hardly excuses the perpetual cycle of childishness. Given though that it'd likely take something being taken seriously coming out of the Humanities though, I don't think I'll hold my breath.

    • (Score: 1) by Tinyboss on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:43PM

      by Tinyboss (4794) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:43PM (#111204)

      So now more people are going to join his cult because he pretends that he has a scientific mindset and you guys are going to encourage it. Great.

      By and large, people are Catholic either because they're born that way, or they want to marry one. I've never heard of someone converted by the church's platform on scientific questions.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:36PM (#111115)

    The great thing about science is that it doesn't require belief. The facts speak for themselves - the pope's approval or disapproval is irrelevant.

    • (Score: 2) by cykros on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:25PM

      by cykros (989) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @02:25PM (#111163)

      Actually, the great thing about Science is that it doesn't deal with facts at all, but rather questions, hypotheses, experiments, observation, and theory, and that it is always under revision perchance it can actually improve upon itself rather than get bogged down in static dogma. But you must have missed that day at class.

      Also, right, the approval of the leader of a faith shared by over a billion people is totally irrelevant to everything ever. Because if it's not in a physics textbook, it has no impact on anything. Or something.

  • (Score: 2) by cykros on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:42PM

    by cykros (989) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @01:42PM (#111138)

    That this took so long for official sanction is pretty amusing, and even moreso perhaps is how shocking it all seems, at least where the Big Bang Theory is concerned, as it was originally proposed by a Belgian Catholic priest [wikipedia.org] in the first place.

    Evolution being dubbed an acceptable theory is a nice change of pace though. At this rate, before the next pope, the Catholic Church will be putting out condoms with bible verses...kind of like really slippery rubber fortune cookies.

    • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Thursday October 30 2014, @04:02PM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Thursday October 30 2014, @04:02PM (#111564)

      The Catholic Church has accepted the Theory of Evolution many years ago.

      The Creationism blight is a problem mainly among fundamentalists in US, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. All bible-thumping, rolling eyes, mouth-frothing idiots, of course.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @09:07PM (#111350)

    In the wise words of Dr. Ian Malcolm,

    "Don't you see the danger, inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun."

    " If I may... Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well... "

    "...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."