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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 29 2014, @12:28PM
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
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
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
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.'