SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by elf on Wednesday October 29 2014, @11:52AM
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
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
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
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
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.