This is awesome. The pope now claims that the Big Bang Theory and evolution just aren't accurate, but that they are necessary according to the Bible, similar to JP II's previous statements.
The pope went on to say that god isn't a magician with a magic wand able to do everything.
Again, this shit keeps getting more and more like a poorly written comedy series.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html
I've stated on numerous occasions that religion should embrace the scientific explanation of things. I can't think of a more awe inspiring explanation that would lend eloquence and magnificence to our existence than Big Bang and evolution. If religion embraced science it would, in my mind, elevate the eminence of a creator.
I see some dancing on the age of earth by some of you. No one is taking rifle's direct challenge to validate or dispute a 6000 year old earth. Truthfully...I don't blame you. It would take some serious logical dexterity to defend it. Yet if you take Genesis literally...and trace the genealogical path from Adam to Abraham...you're going to get a 6000 to 10,000 year old earth. So if you're a biblical literalist, why not go on record supporting a young earth?
And evolution? There is a mountain of evidence that supports it. That evidence spans completely different fields of science...biology, paleontology, plate tectonics, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, etc.
Genetics and plate tectonics didn't even exist when Darwin conceived evolution, yet it clearly supports it. We have made predictions within the framework of evolution that was later definitively proven by new fields of study seemingly unrelated.
For example, plate tectonics didn't exist in the time of Darwin. So how can the marsupial that exists in two different regions of the world...South America and Australia...have evolved separate from each other? There was zero fossil record that linked these animals that were clearly within the same lineage that could have migrated through Asia. That would seemingly destroy any possibility of an evolutionary path linking these animals. But along comes plate tectonics and the discovery that at one point South America, Antarctica, and Australia joined together in a single land mass. So science could make a prediction...that the fossil record of marsupials in South America and Australia should be able to be linked in both, where they were along the evolutionary path and what layer of rock they could be found. In other words...if marsupials developed in South America and migrated to Australia through Antarctica during the time of Pangea that it would have to be between the evolutionary development of the two in both structure and time. So they looked....and they knew exactly where to look in the strata of rock and they found fossils of marsupials exactly where it needed to be to allow for migration time wise and it looked exactly like they predicted falling between the two groups of fossils. That....is amazing.
This doesn't even include the most damning evidence in support of evolution...genetics. Genetics...which is used as definitive evidence to prosecute or vindicate criminals...directly supports evolution.
Not to mention that every single evidence of fossil record...and that body of record is becoming massive....supports a simple to complex evolution of life. Not one single find disputes that life evolved from simple to complex. There is almost 100% consensus among scientist on the support of evolution. Now people argue money when they dispute the consensus behind GW, but where's the money behind evolution? There's not massive amounts of money riding on it. The evidence for evolution overwhelming.
