Beliefs Institutions

Pope Francis: ‘Evolution … is not inconsistent with the notion of creation …

Scenes from Genesis: the creation of the world.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story has been amended to clarify the translation of the pope’s reference to “demiurge” below.

VATICAN CITY (RNS) Pope Francis on Monday (Oct. 27) waded into the controversial debate over the origins of human life, saying the big bang theory did not contradict the role of a divine creator, but even required it.

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss “Evolving Concepts of Nature.”

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

Scenes from Genesis: the creation of the world.

Photo courtesy of © Marie-Lan Nguyen / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons

Scenes from Genesis: the creation of the world.

Francis said the beginning of the world was not “a work of chaos” but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.

“God is not a demiurge [demigod] or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” the pope said. “Evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution. In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine. In 1996, St. John Paul II endorsed Pius’ statement.

Some wondered if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI wanted to change that when he and some acolytes seemed to endorse the theory of intelligent design, the idea that the world is too complex to have evolved according to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, a close associate of Benedict, penned a widely noticed 2005 op-ed in The New York Times that said “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense — an unguided, unplanned process … is not.”

Giovanni Bignami, a professor and president of Italy’s National Institute for Astrophysics, welcomed Francis’ comments, saying he had buried the “pseudo theories” of creationists.

“The pope’s statement is significant,” Bignami told Italian news agency Adnkronos. “We are the direct descendents from the Big Bang that created the universe. Evolution came from creation.”

Giulio Giorello, professor of the philosophy of science at Milan’s University degli Studi, said he believed Francis was “trying to reduce the emotion of dispute or presumed disputes” with science.

Francis made his speech while unveiling a bust in honor of Benedict, his predecessor, at the Vatican.

“Benedict XVI was a great pope: great for the power and penetration of his intellect, great for his significant contribution to theology, great for his love of the church and of human beings, great for his virtue and piety,” he said.


About the author

Josephine McKenna

Josephine McKenna has more than 30 years' experience in print, broadcast and interactive media. Based in Rome since 2007, she covered the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and election of Pope Francis and canonizations of their predecessors. Now she covers all things Vatican for RNS.


Click here to post a comment

  • The Catholic Church has, for decades, supported fully accepting evolution (including the evolution of humans from earlier apes). This has been made clear by Pope John Paul II, by Benedict in the report from his commission as Ratzinger, where he calls common descent of all life on earth by evolution to be “virtually certain”, (see esp. paragraph 63, here:, and now Francis joining in as well.

    Any evolution denying Catholic has to realize that they are in opposition to the Vatican and the Popes.

  • IF YOU GO BACK IN HISTORY the catholic church who use to teach creation made the unbiblical statement that the world was flat .. And they were laughed at and scorned when proven wrong about their flat earth scenario … well they got there
    shorts in a bind and ever since then They been scared to teach Gods truth about a 6 natural day creation ..
    you can go to The Wisconsin Lutheran synod web site and they can give you all the particulars when the roman catholic flat earth scenario blew up in their faces causing them major major embarrassment .. and a turn in the wrong direction..

  • Some things evolve, like the caterpillar turning into a beautiful butterfly, but that’s the way God made the butterfly ; and humans definitely did not evolve from apes, as only apes beget apes and humans beget humans, per creation by Almighty God, whose name is Yahweh or Jehovah (Psalm 83:18, King James Version).

    The Pope is evidently not willing to give praise and glory to Almighty God for all of his creations, in the heavens and on the earth.


    SCIENCE: “Look, there appears to be no god making this happen”
    Religion: “SHUT UP! YOU ARE WRONG!”
    SCIENCE: “Well the evidence shows this happens by itself!

    Where intelligence goes to die.

  • “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
    Absolute nonsense! Bacteria were the dominant form of life for the majority of the time that there was life on planet earth. The fact that they did evolve, does not mean that the “had to evolve”. In fact, most forms did not evolve. Besides, evolution does not demand a creator. The Pope is playing word games.

  • For hundreds of years, even before the time of Christ, Jewish scholars studied, refined, and commented on what we today refer to as the Old Testament. Long before Darwin was more than a thought in God’s mind, they pointed out two telling things about the creation story in the Talmud, the collection of commentaries and supplements to the “official” Jewish scriptures:

    First, the time noted in the creation story is from God’s perspective, which is different than mankind’s, and should not be taken literally to equate to our own nights and days. (The Jewish day stretched from sunset to sunset, probably due to their desert origin…noon was a good time to stay out of the sun.)

    Second, they noted that there were “human shaped animals” in existence before Adam and Eve. The living spirit that God breathed into Adam was a human spirit, rather than just a generic living spirit; and this is what distinguished Adam and his descendants from all of the “human animals” before them.

    None of which really changes how God calls us to live today…

    Just my two cents worth.

  • Rob, I have studied Catholic doctrine for over fifteen years, and I have taught Catholic theology at the college level for the last eight years, and I have never been able to find any official Catholic Church teaching (from any century) that affirmed a “flat earth.” The Lutheran websites (strange places to go to find reliable accounts of Catholic teaching) you reference do not readily fulfill your promise. The supposed “major major embarrassment” of “the roman catholic flat earth scenario” appears to be an unfounded myth that is not taken seriously by scholarly historians. The only statement from a pope (St. Zachary in AD 748) that seems even tangentially relevant to the shape of the earth appears to have been concerned principally with theories that advocated an earth populated by “other men,” on a supposed other side, who were not descended from Adam and not redeemed (in principle) by Jesus Christ. For more on this, see the Catholic Encyclopedia article here:
    For what its worth, the wikipedia article appears to be pretty well documented on this same issue:

  • Of course, evolution demands a creator. Even if we assume that every living being evolved from a single living cell — who arranged for the creation of the first living cell? Do you really believe it just happened to pop into existence from some random chemical reaction? A random chemical reaction that no scientist has ever been able to duplicate? And even if it did, who created the universe in such a way that it could support life? Scientists have calculated the odds of the big bang happening in such a way that life could exist at approximately 1 x 10^(-196) (that’s 1 divided by (a 1 with 196 zeros behind it)). The odds of just that happening on its own are so minute that it would be vastly more reasonable to believe that the same person could win the next ten consecutive lottery jackpots, Elvis is living on Mars, and Madonna (the singer) is still a virgin!

  • Where does it say expressively that “the evolution of humans from earlier apes”? Humans did not evolve from apes. Period.

  • Fran, I’m not trying to find fault, I’m trying to make a distinction to aid in communication. A caterpillar changes into a butterfly through the process of metamorphosis. Evolution is something quite different, where genetic change happens in response to environmental pressures during the process of reproduction. If you want to combat evolution effectively, you must become familiar enough with evolution to make a sensible argument against it. Otherwise you are standing on a soap-box screaming into the wind and turning those who might listen away from the truth you wish to share.
    One resource which might help is Old Earth Ministries ( I think you will find the support for Biblical values expressed on this site to be refreshing. I am not affiliated with Old Earth Ministries, but I know of them and thought you may like to know too.

  • You are definitely taking Psalm 81 out of context. Psalm 81:13 (King James Version, other versions are similar) says:

    “That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth.”

    But nothing in Psalm 83 has anything to do with evolution; it is a psalm calling on God to rebuke those who persecute his people.

    As to the Pope not being willing to give praise and glory to Almighty God, I read his praise in every sermon and speech of his that I have seen. He merely has enough faith to believe that God can work through nature and science at least as effectively as he could be waving his hand and saying “Let it be done.” That shows a higher regard for God — regard for the master artisan, the creator who creates not just the universe, but ultimately we human beings, who, in his image, can be creative ourselves.

  • @Bob,

    “who arranged for the creation of the first living cell?”

    How do you connect the dots!!???
    You are saying,
    “Gee, I don’t know the correct answer so the correct answer must be ‘god'”

    Who created god then? Dumb!

  • @Max,

    I connect the dots by believing that God started and guided creation. Barring scientific proof to the contrary, none of which exists, I see no reason to believe otherwise and every reason to believe in God. Inherent in that belief is that there must be at least one being, God, who existed before and outside of time — who was, is, and ever shall be.

    If that is “dumb”, then feel free to consider me a fool. You tout the “science” of evolution, but that science cannot disprove the existence and influence of God. On the contrary, the more scientists discover, the more questions they find. I choose to have faith that behind those questions is a loving architect who most of the world refers to as God (or Allah, or Yahweh). If all of us are wrong, we will still die having lived a good and joyful life following “our” God.

    That’s not bad for a bunch of “fools.” You’re always welcome to join us.

  • If what you’re saying is true, that Orthodox Christians don’t believe in evolution, its seems like the pot calling the kettle black to say Catholics are flat-earthers.

  • Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2:3-4: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God. He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority. (39 Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope)

  • “Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.'” Matthew 16:23

  • Amen brother, well said: except for the Allah part. That is what Muslims believe in, their own religion, but we aren’t taught anywhere in the Bible about “Allah.” I understand what you mean, but Allah and God are different- they have seperate names. Peace, and God bless!

  • Has Bergoglio’s pronouncement on evolution cleared the College of Cardinals and the USCCB? Don’t we have to check with them to see if he actually said what he said?

  • Why would you want to combat evolution? You won’t have a sensible argument against it in any ministries. Its a scientific theory with over a century of objectively credible support.

    If your religious belief is at odds with science, it shows a lack of understanding of both and a rather weak view of one’s own faith.

  • Who said natural processes have to be arranged?

    We assume something is created based on our own perceptions of what we can create. If something is so complex that scientists can’t conceive of how to replicate it, then one cannot assume it was created at all. Therefore the entire “so complex God had to create it” is merely making assumptions and making conclusions which cannot be supported.

    Evolution is not an entirely random process. It builds upon prior efforts.

    What you are really saying is you do not understand Evolution, or chose not to learn about it.

  • YHWH did NOT establish Catholicism the devil did. You people who claim YHWH as your Father better wake up and “COME OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE”!

    YHWH built a Nation, not some devilish religion called Catholic, but a Nation called Israel!!!

  • Disaster
    One of the signs that we are really heading end of days
    I feel no talk or speak will mean anything now

    Pop’s position in that issue touches the base of faith itself
    it is time for each of us to dive deep into his room and his Personal Alter to pray
    are we in church Laodicea period now
    Sam from Egypt

  • Rob, what relevance to Greek Orthodox Catholics have to this discussion? I’m talking about the RCC – you know, the one that Pope Francis is the leader of. If you want to talk about the GOC, feel free to do so in an article about them or about Bartholomew I’s gold watch.

    Hans, I already showed you were it says that – Paragraph 63 in the link given above. Since it doesn’t appear that you bothered to go there (and there you can download your very own PDF of it, suitable for framing, as well), I’ll do your own work for you and paste the most relevant part here:

    ((((Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. ))))

  • Nothing about Genesis Chapter 1 should be taken literally nor was really ever meant to be. Even the most devout Orthodox Jews do not accept creationism. Theistic evolution (God used evolution as his tool. Genesis does not, nor could not refute science) is their accepted take on the subject. Not really much different than the last 50 years of Catholic views on the subject.

    Metaphor and parable have meaning and weight to them without the necessity of being factually true. Jesus constantly used parable as a teaching tool. If one’s religious belief hinges upon literal reading of scripture then they are minimizing and downgrading their own faith. They are denying the faith which forms the real basis of their belief and being dishonest with themselves and others.

  • ” You tout the “science” of evolution, but that science cannot disprove the existence and influence of God.”

    It is the believer who has the burden to prove God exists in the first place. No credible objective evidence has come forward so far.

    “the more scientists discover, the more questions they find. ”

    Which means the more we expand our knowledge and continue to develop. Having one answer to a question doesn’t mean you have foreclosed all thoughts on a subject. Many may exist if you bother looking or try addressing the question in earnest.

    ” I choose to have faith that behind those questions is a loving architect who most of the world refers to as God (or Allah, or Yahweh)”

    And therefore you have denied Creationism at its most basic tenet. That your religious belief could be proven to be true by the presentation of objective credible evidence. That faith is unnecessary to acceptance of Christian religious belief.

  • Any evolution denying Catholic has been in opposition to the Vatican for over half a century.

    Truth (scientific) cannot contradict truth (theological). Both are correct and non-exclusive of each other. The truth of evolution cannot be denied except through scientific methods. The theological truth of belief cannot be denied except through theology.

    Maybe they should try Protestantism.

  • Fran is a Jehovah’s Witness (it would appear) – she’s citing that part of the psalm as a proof-text for why they only use Jehovah as the name of God. You’re right, it has nothing to do with evolution.

  • Larry,
    Come on Fellow, Please don’t paint all Protestants with the same brush stroke. Gee. Just because the fundamentalist are making the most noise doesn’t mean the rest of us follow their uninformed beliefs.

  • Yes, see Romans 8:22 (“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time”) and Mark 16:15 (“He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation'”).

  • Actually, it seems to me that that the concept of evolution is a much more elegant way to credit a Creator than waving a magic wand ….

  • My bad. 🙂

    It came out the wrong. I did not mean it that way.

    I meant to say when Catholics are in protest of the Vatican, they usually have little choice but to leave it in protest. Papal Infallibility on doctrine and whatnot. So they go to Protestant sects. That is what the name of the sect grouping implied right? Those who Protest?

    Maybe? 🙂

  • Unfortunately, Jon, I have to totally agree with your last sentence there.

    I think there was a Papal guy named Leo, many many centuries ago, who actually still believed what Genesis said about Adam and Eve. But after that, things simply went down the toilet and stayed there. Darwinism, not Holy Scripture, clearly and permanently rules the Catholic roost on this one issue.

    I think the big newsworthy surprise would have been if anybody on this planet, actually expected Catholicism’s first Gay-Marriage Pope to do anything OTHER THAN endorse molecules-to-man evolution.

  • Until you look at all the various problems and weaknesses (and blank spots) of evolution. Then it’s suddenly not so elegant any more.

    Question Evolution. For a change.

  • Doc, the Catholic church accepted evolution over half a century. This is just Pope Frankie trying to glom on prior efforts. Like John Paul II did years past.

    Is your faith so weak and insubstantial that you have to pretend what is clearly myth and parable is factually true to sustain your religious belief?

  • Any creationism believing christian is a liar who attacks his own faith. They have to lie and make up too many stories to cover up the true nature of their belief as nothing more substantial than faith.

  • Its not my science, its everyone’s science. It doesn’t require belief. It requires evidence and methodologies which demand objective credibility. Your belief in the subject is immaterial to its existence.

    When a creationist can present a credible scientific challenge to evolution, then they can be taken seriously. Until then, they are just a bunch of whiny liars who deny their own faith in public and attack science through their ignorant blather.

  • Give a compelling credible argument to question it. Something that has actual evidence, scientific methods and has been vetted for accuracy and credibility in the field.

  • The lot of you realy beat me, does any of you realize, who is winning here, none of you, because in the end all the agree and disagree splits the Church, into for and against. There is nothing wrong with discussion, and different view points, but in the end if we as Christians cannot act in accordance to our faith, and build the church, we fail in the great commision Matt:28v16-20.
    I ask you all who wins, well its not God, if Christians continue through their own sense of wisdom, 1Cor1v20 3v19, this way lead to death, not growth of the Body of Christ, as one interactive unit, spreading the good New, to the whole world

  • Lauren,

    There are two different definitions to the word, evolution, as follows:

    1. The process by which different kinds of living organisms are THOUGHT to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the early history of earth. Synonyms: Darwinism; natural selection.

    2. The gradual development of something, especially from a simple to more complex form. Synonyms: development, progress, growth, advancement.

    Lauren, I absopositively do not believe in the first definition; but rather, in the second one concerning the progress, growth and development of a caterpillar into a beautiful butterfly, which you referred to as metamorphosis. I will still give credit to God for that change that takes place, and not to evolution.

  • I do not mean this with any sense of sarcasm at all but I feel the pope has become a heretic. Lately everytime I see a new comment by the pope he is either saying that the Bible is wrong about something or like this one that God wasn’t what we believe Him to be or something of that nature. The pope is not qualified to make those judgements. He is qualified to take the Bible as it is. He regularly violates the laws of God as well. It is as if he is on an agenda to un-seat God in others lives and as if God has no place in his. He acts as if he is God. I will never put stock in any thing he says ever again.

  • Dear Pope,
    I and many other Catholics don’t need your endorsements to tell us about God and Our Lord Jesus.We have OUR HOLY BIBLE with us, and we believe that the world is Created by GOD and all other theories are fake.
    Instead of making careless statements please use your energy and strength to build the catholic church from politics,sex and other controversies,
    God Bless You,

  • And giving credit where credit is due is right.

    I definitely see that you were using “evolution” to convey “development”. Words are used in many different ways, not simply the definitions found in a dictionary or the connotations found in a concordance. Words are variables holding the values we give them.

    However, other readers, (considering the more precise conversations earlier about the Theory of Evolution [capitalization here showing a proper noun, not a deification of the theory]), would not read your words that way, but rather dismiss your words because your comments seem to imply you do not know enough about biology to provide valuable commentary and correction.

    But we are all in the process of learning, both about creation and about how to communicate effectively with each other, and I just wanted to share in that journey with you.

  • It seems to be Fran’s goal to combat evolution and I don’t see anything wrong in helping her in that effort. Moving the dialogue forward facilitates learning on all sides.

    Larry, why don’t you check out Old Earth Ministries before you judge it? Are you afraid your reasoning won’t be able to withstand what that site may have to say? [More probably you feel it would be a waste of your time–and time is a precious resource, I get that]. Maybe it would be a waste of time for you. But don’t assume it would be a waste of time for Fran or for someone else. Be an educator, not a frustrated hammer.

  • “God is not a divine being…”

    I like what Paul the Apostle says in Romans 4:3, “What does the Scripture say?”

    Romans 1:18-20, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–His eternal power and DIVINE nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

    The Pope says God is not divine, the Scriptures say He is. Who will you believe?

  • @ Larry,

    “It is the believer who has the burden to prove God exists in the first place. No credible objective evidence has come forward so far.”

    If we could prove, beyond any doubt, the existence of God, then we would have no need for faith. If mankind could prove, beyond any doubt, that God did not exist, then faith in God would be folly. Neither can be done.

    However, I believe scientists have demonstrated, including in some of the calculations I mentioned before (and numerous others that I would take a couple books to go into), that the existence of some creator is highly probable. And within the realm of modern science, especially since the advent of quantum physics, that which is very highly probably is held to be scientifically true until proven otherwise.

    Contrary to what you may have read “between the lines” from my comments, I do not reject the theory of evolution. I believe the theory may have some holes in it, but far fewer than strict creationism (a.k.a. the Bible says it so it must be taken literally). I just don’t believe that accepting the theory of evolution disproves the existence and guidance of God, nor do I believe that it invalidates the central teachings of the Bible. On the contrary, I believe that God was and continues to be the guiding force behind evolution and many other natural forces in our world. He chooses to act through nature and science in order to provide us with one of his greatest gives to mankind — free will.

    If God just appeared here on Earth every day and dictated what was going to happen, only the truly suicidal would choose to oppose him. But how can one experience real love, including love of God, without freely choosing to love and be loved, and by extension being free to reject love (and God)?

    That, in my personal opinion, is why God almost always chooses to act in such a way that evolution, or nature, or science can explain it away. He preserves our choice. We can see the miracle if we choose to look, but we can blind ourselves to it as well. But He’s the one who came up with the rules for the game!

    Again, just my two cents worth.


  • Denz, traditionally in English, God with the capital “G” refers to a one, all powerful universal ruler. In Arabic, Al Ah literally means “The God” meaning a one, all powerful universal ruler. In Hebrew, YHWH means something close to “will be what I will be” which also traditionally refers to the one supreme ruler and creator of the universe. None of these are proper names like Joe or Samantha, as all three traditions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity view naming something as having power or control over something which you just can’t do with G-d. Yes, the different faiths have different ideas about how to show recognition and follow God. So does every denomination and faction within those traditions. So does every single person who’s ever believed in God if you dig deep enough. Peace.

  • So….um…..I thought the most provocative part was not about evolution, but the fragment: “God is not a divine being……..”. Surprised I didn’t hear more people squealing about that. Did no one even notice that part. To me it was MUCH more controversial than the statement about evolution not being at odds with creation. Thoughts????

  • Be single minded, only read from the bible what God say. Don’t believe anyone, I mean no one except the bible. The more knowledge you have from the world, the more confused you are. The devil is the great deceiver like a lion going around roaring at anyone that comes along. So only believe in his Son, Jesus, who He, the Father had sent. Amen.

  • The question is not who created but how God created. Evolution and the so called big bang theory described a process on how God created. Pope Francis remarks supports this however he is incorrect when he states that God is not divine. This statement alone is concerning. Once again Francis’s remarks are border line. God created all creatures. There has never been a conflict with the bible in this respect. How he created has been at question. Evolution appears to be the answer. Read Genesis and you will find the creation of Adam and Eve is after the description of the creation process. Therefore Adam and Eve were a special creation at a point in time in human history. They were the first Jews. This therefore explains the existence of Gentiles and Jews.

  • @Downtown Dave, @Kat,

    That line is being mistranslated into English by the author. The original Italian, in which Pope Francis gave the speech, said that God was not “un demiurgo”. The reporter has translated that to be a divine being, while the literal translation would be a demiurge, which is a type of being that various Gnostic sects believe in that takes material that already exists or was created by some other being has provided and form the universe out of it. Pope Francis is contrasting this with God who is the Creator, not just the organizer of the universe.

    The translation shown above did catch my eye the first time I read it, but it was so far out there that even before I looked into it, I figured it must be either a translation issue or out of context.


  • @ Sanjay,

    You are forgetting first that Catholic doctrine and instruction are guided by both scripture and tradition, not scripture alone. Thus we have the Catholic belief in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, even though this event took place after the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles ends. Oral tradition, handed down from the time of the early Church, established the assumption of Mary and thus it was eventually confirmed as a Catholic belief, even though it is nowhere in the Bible.

    Second, God stop instructing his people after the time of the Bible. Jesus left Peter and his successors, eventually referred to as the Popes, to continue to teach us God’s will on Earth. It would have been rather short sighted of Jesus to have thought that 21st century mankind could have properly applied the lessons that he taught to 1st century Jewish people without some ongoing guidance. (And Jesus was not short sighted.)

    Third, Jesus sent us the Holy Spirit to guide us in those areas where the Bible is either unclear or does not touch upon. For example, Jesus in his divinity may have foreseen the advent of nuclear weapons, but how on Earth would he have described something like that to his 1st century disciples?

    Scripture and tradition are the center of Catholic belief, but the Holy Spirit and our spiritual leaders, led by the successors of St. Peter, continue to instruct and guide us in how that Scripture and tradition apply to our modern world.


  • I’ve got some bad news for you Simon….the Bible is a collection of writing selected by men from the early Catholic church around 325 AD. Then they hired the scribes and translators and were pretty much in charge of what would reach your eyes in the form of the Bible that you use today from 325AD until the reformation and the printing press came into existence some 1200 years later. If you think your Bible reached your hands untouched by the Catholic Church, you’re sadly mistaken.

  • That’s interesting Bob. Thank you for your reply. I wonder why he didn’t just use the English word; (from Google)
    a being responsible for the creation of the universe, in particular:
    (in Platonic philosophy) the Maker or Creator of the world.
    (in Gnosticism and other theological systems) a heavenly being, subordinate to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual.

    Anyway – Sure is a good example of how easy it is to mess up a translation … even in this day and age. Just think of all the terrible translations the Bible must have suffered over the years.

  • You can be right and wrong, no one knows except God the Father. Let go and let God search you and teach you in the spirit. The holy spirit is always right. Hear what the holy spirit guide and teach you about the truth. For the truth comes only from God the Father.

  • Correction Bob, the Pope did not say God is not divine, he said the opposite. He simply said God is not a wizard but The Creator. This means God’s infinite divinity, His infinite presence even before matter existed, before the big bang occurred. And because of his infinite love, we existed with Him also even before the start of creation, He already thought of you, you already existed in His mind before the big bang -(the process of total in-existence to existence of everything). God is the Designer-Creator of universe, life and the gradual evolution of all.

  • @Bob,

    “God started and guided creation”

    Jeez! So you went there anyway!
    Okay, then.

    Who created God?
    Here are your options:

    1. A different god created god.
    2. “I don’t know who created god”
    3. God always existed.

    If you choose 1. there is no end to how many gods would be needed. And you have already claimed only one is true.

    If you choose 2. it is identical to saying “I don’t know” in which case you know nothing more than I do.

    If you choose 3. you have no argument why the universe couldn’t have always existed, blowing up and shrinking over and over by itself over trillions of years.

    No matter what you say, you have no foundation to believe in a god and no argument why anyone else should believe in it.

  • Kat,

    I can think of several plausible ways the reporter could have mixed this one up, but they ultimately come down to basic human error. (It happens to all of us.)

    The Bible has a little advantage in that it is so widely followed and debated that any major translation error gets caught, crucified, and corrected rather quickly. The translation errors that remain (usually more a matter of nuance than actual meaning) usually only make a difference if you are digging into minutia that have little to do with how God actually wants us to live (such as our current fascinating but ultimately academic debate concerning evolution versus creationism…).


  • Correction, the Pope did not say God is not divine, he said the opposite. He simply said God is not a wizard but The Creator. This means God’s infinite divinity, His infinite presence even before matter existed, before the big bang occurred. And because of his infinite love, we existed with Him also even before the start of creation, He already thought of you, you already existed in His mind before the big bang -(the process of total in-existence to existence of everything). God is the Designer-Creator of universe, life and the gradual evolution of all.

  • Well Mr. “Science is Infallible” Larry, have you ever heard of the Laws of Thermodynamics? Maybe you should read them before you CONDEMN any Christian who disagrees with the all-knowing Larry (all liars go to Hell, you know). Or would you rather bring back the Inquisitiion and the Burning Stake to silence your opposition? You don’t speak in love and, so, don’t sound like you know the true God, who is Love itself. Therefore, you are rather working your way to heaven like Saul was doing in Acts 9 –before being spiritually reborn in his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road. You should seek a similar tete-a-tete because le Roy le veult (a little medieval Fr. for you who claim the RCC knows all, like when they condemned Galileo for speaking true astronomical discoveries of his day, eh?!!)

  • Nicely put. In my defense, I never claimed that God was incapable of just saying “Let it be done,” only that God usually works in less direct ways.

  • “the Laws of Thermodynamics?”

    Where do you get the idea that the universe is a closed system?
    So many things wrong with this.

    And what does it have to do with a god?

  • @joseph e,


    But there appears to be no ‘who’.
    There probably is a ‘what’.
    And it is likely to be consistent with the increase of complexity over time from simple systems.

    It is fun to imagine that the universe created us to look back at the universe – incredibly amazing really. But there is no sign the force or phenomenon that did this was anything other than nature itself, and no reason to think that force cares who we have sex with.

  • In other words, we will say whatever it takes as long as we can still take your money. So whatever science proves, they cannot disprove god (yet) or sap the foundations of such a deeply rooted institution. It’s all based on the fact that too many people are fundamentally deluded and have no real grasp of reality. Our brains are fundamentally flawed, and religion exploits these defects to the fullest. God can’t hear you because he doesn’t have ears, try to refute this

  • One more correction to affirm your statement: Francis said “God is not a divine BEING.” Which, if I am interpreting it correctly, means that God isn’t one finite divine entity, but rather is infinite in divinity.

  • Hubris is reconciling the irrational, (creation mythology), with the rational, (science), by stating, “That’s the way God planned it” and expecting people to buy it.

  • Bob,
    Do you mean to tell me that all Popes and Priests are guided by the Holy Spirits?Check the precious history of Popes and you will find out.
    I am only Saying I totally disagree the POPE in this matter.
    God is More than a Magician and GOD should not be compared to a Magician.
    I hope he asks God For Enlightenment before he opens his mouth.No wonder no many Catholics leave the church.

  • I’m not sure there’s any reason to bring the controversy of gay marriage into this comment thread… Not to mention I’ve yet to read anything by Pope Francis that condones gay marriage.

    The fact is this is about science vs. religion, and the long held Catholic tradition that these two forces need not oppose one another.

  • Unfortunately he didn’t say “God isn’t a divine being” he said “God isn’t a Demiurge”.

    The Demiurge is the creator of matter for Plato, in contrast with the world of the Ideas of the True God.

    The translation of the article is wrong.

  • Atheist are contradicting this using multiverse theory. However, this theory is more of a “Leap of faith” for them. Atheism has become a religion to them.

  • Probably someone searched the definition of “Demiurgo” and found something like “a Divine Being who….”

  • What is indeed reality? Read on holographic universe. Have you seen God since you know he has no ears? Man of science should also be open minded enough to admit that having a creator is one possibility of our existence.

  • being atheist agnostic, in other words (because not a lot of people have heard of this), i for now do not believe in a god or creator until some sort of proof of its existence can be provided, am wondering exactly what “holes” in the theory of evolution you see? because it’s a pretty solid theory and that is a huge claim to say it has holes, when you yourself have yet to bring a piece of evidence in your favor other than citing the bible.

  • The English translation of the Pope’s words in this article needs to be corrected: Pope Francis said that God is not a demiurge (pagan concept) – and not that “God is a not a divine being”

    This mistranslation has led to lots of confusion…

  • There is different types of evolution.
    Need to differentiate between micro and macro.
    Micro, small changes.
    Macro, large changes. One kind of anima
    Onto another.
    Christians can accept that small changes happen in a species. But that does not lead to a different kind ,( one kind after its own kind- genetic).
    A lot of scientists will go with macro. One kind/species changes into another kind/species.
    Difference is the missing link.

  • The fact is that all scientists including the atheistic scientists are not in full agreement with each other relating to the theory of evolution whether of the universe that supposedly came into being with a big bang and the same further evolving ever since; or whether of man from the apes that evolved from primordial life forms in the course of millions or billions of years. As such, as long as the scientists themselves are not in full and perfect harmony or in perfect agreement with each other, lay people have no sufficient and reasonable evidence to accept the evolutionary theories as a scientific fact. Period! End of the story! Visit:>

  • The fact is that all scientists including the atheistic scientists are not in full agreement with each other relating to the theory of evolution whether of the universe that supposedly came into being with a big bang and the same further evolving ever since; or whether of man from the apes that evolved from primordial life forms in the course of millions or billions of years. As such, as long as the scientists themselves are not in full and perfect harmony or in perfect agreement with each other, lay people have no sufficient and reasonable evidence to accept the evolutionary theories as a scientific fact. Period! End of the story! Visit:>

  • Lauren –
    It appears you are making stuff up. (Or following unreliable “sources”.) In Hebrew the biblical scriptures refer to “God” as “El” with various attributes and “Elohim” as a plural of majesty. In all cases, these referents are generic of “the Creator”. Meanwhile, “YHWH” is the divine name for God in covenant relation to His people (the Jews). It is, in fact, a personal name. Also with a meaning (i.e. “I am who I am” e.g. the all-existing one). It was His divine Name by which He was to be known, and is used several thousand times in the Hebrew Scriptures. The New Testament name of “Jesus” (‘Y’shua”) is derived from “Yahweh” as “YaH” who saves.
    Meanwhile, “Allah” was originally the personal name a local tribal deity (from a biblical perspective a false “god”, a demon), who over time was “promoted” in Islam lore to become essentially what Jews and Christians had — a singular all-powerful Deity.

    Atheist Max –
    What Bob has offered is not ludicrous. It can be understood mathematically: Evolution cannot start at zero. By scientific definition it needed at least 1 (i.e. the first single cell to multiple). It is a fair and honest question to ask: How did we move from 0 to 1?
    Math cannot accomplish this. It is dishonest of evolutionists to say evolution answers this or can remain unconcerned about it. Even if evolution were to be valid immediately after 1, it is unable to establish the basis for the first 1.
    So, we are left with the age old question: What was original? Was it God or matter? Science cannot answer this. This is the terrain of faith for either answer.
    Those of us who have experienced God and see much reason to believe in His existence actually have a rational basis for our faith. It is sensible that God created initial species, and certainly an initial “thing” that might evolve.

    However, an atheist faces a dilemma: How do I believe in 0 somehow equalling something? If there was no-thing before the first cell, there is actually no rational basis for a first cell arriving.

  • Kat –
    You are parroting terrible revisionist history. The “Catholic Church” did not “select” a “collection of writing” around 325 AD for the Bible…

    An assortment of writings (“letters” and “books”) written by Disciples (i.e. Matthew, John, Peter), the Apostle Paul, and their associates (i.e. Luke, Mark) were recognized to be holy Scriptures late in the first century. Against pseudopigraphical writings during the 2nd century – where people would imaginatively write gnostic “pseudo-gospels” (such as the infamous “gospel of Thomas”, the scriptures emanating from the early believers were validated, protected, and confirmed of being of a different sort, i.e. “inspired” as words breathed out by the Spirit of God and trustworthy for doctrine and belief. Against the growth of false gnostic writers the growing church (pre-RCC) defended and continued to clarify the “cannon” of Scriptures recognized to have divine authority. Most of this was secured by the mid-2nd century.

    325 AD refers to the Council at Nicea, which was primarily a debate confirming the divinity and eternality of Jesus as the Son of God against the Arians who argued for him being a created semi-god (i.e. the first creation of God who then assisted in the rest of creation. Essentially the position of modern day JWs and of classic Unitarians.) Meanwhile, the “canon” of Scripture which had been relatively fixed for 200 years was re-codified or officially validated.

    After that, carry on… What eventually emerged as the RCC DID pay scribes to copy and bind the writings into what became known as the “New Testament” of our eventual “Bible”.

  • Thank you Rebecca. If the account in Genesis is not true, Christianity is not true and Jesus Christ was not who he claimed to be. Jesus viewed the Scriptures as the truth revealed from God and held the Jews accountable to its teachings. Regarding macro evolution, which is what these people are referring to, there is nothing in the fossil record, or science, to demonstrate any species transitioned from one to another. And as far as being related to other species because we have similar traits, well of course we do, as we were created to live on this planet, breathing the same air, drinking the same water and so on.

  • Garson,

    I was only providing credit where credit is due, and that is definitely not to evolution.

    Jehovah is the only true God who created the heavens and earth (Genesis 3:1).

    He is also the God who created man in his image, with man able to develop and show the various aspects of God’s personality such as love, wisdom and creativity (Genesis 1:26).

    He also has a compelling personality, including being merciful, gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth. (Exodus 34:6).

    God wants mankind to have a close relationship with him and to be his friend; and he is “not far off from each of us.” (Acts 17:26,27)

    Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is Jehovah God. (Hebrews 3:4)

    Lastly, Jehovah God is worthy to receive the glory, the honor, and the power, because He created ALL things, and because of his will, they existed and were created.” (Revelation 4:11)

    Evolution is a “process” or “thing” which is not a person who has a compelling personality; we cannot have a relationship with it; nor does it have a purpose or eternal will.

    Jehovah God is a person, our Creator and Heavenly Father, with outstanding qualities; and his purposes for mankind on earth are marvelous because of his intense love for humans (John 3:16; Revelation 21:1-4).

  • @Bob,

    “That’s not bad for a bunch of “fools.””

    I didn’t call anyone a fool.
    I was a Christian once, too. Remember?

    If logic matters you should apply it down the line.
    If you argue that nothing can start without a creator, then who created the creator?
    It is not an cogent argument. I’m pointing out that the argument is incomplete.

  • @Craig,

    “What Bob has offered…It is a fair and honest question to ask: How did we move from 0 to 1?”

    The question is honest but the answer (‘God did it’) is not honest. There is no reason to say a god did anything.

    “It is dishonest of evolutionists to say evolution answers this or can remain unconcerned about it.”
    Scientists do not say that evolution started life. We do not have conclusive evidence about how life got started.

    ” Even if evolution were to be valid immediately after 1, it is unable to establish the basis for the first 1.”
    I’ve covered this several times. Evolution does not explain the origin of life only the ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. That is a big difference!

    “Was it God or matter? Science cannot answer this. This is the terrain of faith for either answer.”
    Science does not have an answer so therefor the answer is “I don’t know” – that is the only honest answer until evidence proves otherwise. Any claim about how things started without evidence to back it up is pure wish making. And wishes are nonsense.

    “Those of us who have experienced God….”
    Hang on. I was a Catholic for decades. Most Atheists were very strong believers in Jesus at one time or another.

    “It is sensible that God created initial species….”
    That is guesswork and no, it is not sensible at all.
    There is no example in all of science where things start out complicated and become simpler – yet that is what God’s creation would have to be. There is hard evidence that something as complex as a god would not able to exist without first undergoing extraordinary simplicity.
    And an infinitely complex god would need an explanation by the same logic you are employing.

    There are much better explanations about why people believe in god and none of them have anything to do with the supernatural.

    “However, an atheist faces a dilemma: How do I believe in 0 somehow equalling something? If there was no-thing before the first cell, there is actually no rational basis for a first cell arriving.”

    The atheist does not believe in a god. That is all. And your argument in favor of a god is really not what you think it is.
    If God could have existed forever then the Universe could have existed forever too. And even if a god exists how do you know it is only one and not 2,000 gods? or 200,000 gods.
    You are trying force a fantasy into existence based on a lack of evidence and it won’t work.

  • Jdsfa Martins

    “As long as the scientists themselves are not in full and perfect harmony or in perfect agreement with each other…”

    Scientists do not dispute evolution. Scientists do not have an explanation for the first living organism but they are very close to the answer.

    Science works whether you believe in it or not – that is why it is superior to faith (pretending) which is based on nothing at all but some primitive texts.

  • Craig, from an outsider’s perspective you’re right, Allah is a tribal god who was promoted first to ruler status & then exclusive status. The Hebrew god was also a tribal god with female consorts and only ruler status among many gods and was gradually promoted over time & then worshiped exclusively. This is looking at it from a Christian perspective…the god (or the understanding of god) that the ancient Hebrews worshiped was a tribal warrior god, much smaller and much less interested in universal status and recognition than in getting the people who lived on his turf to follow his rules and worship him. The God of the Bible isn’t interested in getting gentiles to follow him until Paul in the New Testament.
    And “will be what I will be” is as accurate a rendition of YHWH as “I am that I am”–some things are lost in translation as language isn’t a simple math (ii = 2) problem.

  • Then Levi, please do G-d’s work and pray not only for the pope & cardinals (who must be terribly deceived to follow the devil) but also for the devil and demons, that they may repent and turn to the true way. If humans are hopelessly misled, then to save our souls G-d must first cure the Devil of his error. We must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. No one could possibly be in more need of G-d’s grace and forgiveness than Satan.

  • Yo, Jo S.F.A. Martins,
    Your ignorance is showing. Science is not about “full and perfect harmony”.
    And, embarrassingly, neither are theologians, and they don’t even have to bother about all that pesky evidence!

  • Thanks for the references. The idea that the ancients believed the earth to be flat flies in the face of observable evidence, and the Bible itself repeatedly refers to the circle of the earth. But we moderns are like the church lady, “I guess we’re just superior!”

  • It seems like you’re stating a fact with absolutely no proof. Please provide proof of your comment. YOU believe humans didn’t evolve from apes.. That is your opinion.

  • Sorry, Rebecca, but Catholics are not Bible literalists. Some Protestant sects are, though. Catholicism and Protestantism are two very different things.

  • I pray God will open your eyes and let you see where real love comes from. If you claim to not believe in God then why spend so much time trying to discredit something that doesn’t exist

  • I pray God will open your eyes and let you see where real love comes from. If you claim to not believe in God then why spend so much time trying to discredit something that doesn’t exist

  • Roman Catholics and Papacy is structured on the basis of the fallen Roman Empire with its Pagan Gods and Godesses with worship of idols.. The Word of God and Holy Bible is never been relevant to their teaching. Everything revolved around power and authority, that is all that matters to them. So where is the question of accepting Holy Bible and what is written in it? Since the Pope disowned the creation by the Creator, I now wonder whether there is any relevance in the Holy Mass priests conduct in the Churches. It does not have any relevance apart from just another rituals, which can exist as long as it can exists, as it stand in Europe many churches give a deserted look and in many cases many of these churches are without any priests. They are now in a situation of importing the Priests from developing countries. I do not know where will all going to end up but I am sure of one thing like the fall of Roman Empire the fall of Papal Empire in Rome is also will be a reality.

  • Levi,

    Yahweh also has established his kingdom or heavenly government (Daniel 2:44), of which Yeshua is the King, the Messiah and the mediator between imperfect man and Yahweh (1 Timothy 2:5).

  • The problem is the Vatican is in opposition to the bible and the bible’s authority trumps that of the Vatican. The bible says “let us create man in our own image” it says that God created man in His image and it also says that God created the animals “after their own kind”. Within this whole story of creation is man created, capable of communication with God, living in a relationship with God but then choosing to rebel against God’s direct command. The doctrine of original sin is found in the creation account and it is the doctrine upon which the doctrine of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the very need for the cross and Christ sacrifice for our sins hinges. One cannot posit evolution from lesser life forms and apes without doing violence against core teachings of the church.

    Secondly for those that are positing that man’s evolution from apes has been proven you obviously haven’t looked at the evidence and last I heard it was still called the theory of evolution which mean’s it is not proven. There have been no credible intermediate forms identified. Evolutions assertions of changes over time fall flat when we see the fossils stacked so closely to one another in the “Precambrian explosion”. So basically we see in the theorized millions of years … no life… no life… then boom 100,000 years ago all forms of life just come out of no where leaving little time for the evolutionary process. Evolution has way too many problems with lack of evidence. Just watch Expelled No Intelligence Allowed.

  • Guys if I could just chip in something here, I’ll like to say that the fact that you’ve got a 100% explanation for a mechanism does not rule out the possibility of an agent. For example, the fact that one can use physcis, mathematics & all the possible laws of science to explain the combustion engine does not mean a Henry Ford never existed. And so that evolution in some sense could give some people an explanation of creation process does not rule out a Mind behind it. Romans 1 reminds us that the problem with unbelievers is not the absence of evidence both the suppression of it. And I believe the birth, death and resurrection of Christ is more than enough evidence for Him who said I am the way, the truth and the life. When you find Him, you experience true life for which you and I where created for.

  • “Well the odds of the Big Bang happening are a lot greater than the odds of God creating earth”

    Certainly greater than Genesis Chapter 1 being remotely plausible. Asking people to believe that talking reptiles exist is a bit much.

  • I have no problem with the notion of theistic evolution. It does not require one to ignore science and gives religion a sensible role in the subject.

    Any attempt at “Biblical literalism” or Creationism as the term it is usually used is nothing more than dishonest rambling that attacks science and notions of religious faith. Attacks on evolution from religious authorities carry no weight whatsoever. One does not accept religious belief based on evidence and observation. Science, such as the theory of evolution demands acceptance on such grounds. The two can never be entangled or equated honestly.

  • So you are so lacking in faith and your religious convictions are so spineless in nature that you cannot accept concepts based on metaphor or parable. Jesus would have had a tough time getting through to you. He frequently used such things as a teaching tool.

    You are so lacking in faith that you would gladly accept as objective fact that reptiles can speak? You have no sense of observation of the world around you at all?

    “…last I heard it was still called the theory of evolution which mean’s it is not proven. ”

    No, this just means you have no idea what the scientific definition of theory is.
    “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

    “Just watch Expelled No Intelligence Allowed.”

    Because dishonest heavily skewed psuedodocumentaries are the most reliable method of conveying complicated information. It is obvious that you are not ignorant, you just willingly refuse to understand the subject.

  • BMAC, You have no faith in the teachings of Jesus Christ? You cannot accept the Bible’s spiritual truth in your heart? It has to be factually correct or you can’t accept it? Since when?

    It appears you place so little value on your personal faith that you have to deny it in public. You have to pretend Genesis 1 is objectively credible on its own or your religious belief has no value.

    Of course the real dishonesty in your view is that you would never admit the existence of evidence which could disprove your belief in the same measure. If you could accept it in favor of Christianity, an honest person could accept it against Christianity.

    Whatever objections you have to evolution, it has nothing to do with evidence or science. It has to do with how little you value faith. Yours is must be so weak you have to pretend it is unnecessary to your Christian belief.

  • “Need to differentiate between micro and macro.”

    No you don’t.

    Not if you bother to understand the actual theory of Evolution.

    You only need to differentiate the two if you are trying to keep your religious views from sounding ridiculous in light of modern scientific ideas.

    With every piece of evidence for evolution, the creationists simply shift the goalposts further and declare it simply “micro-evolution” and claim issues still exist and the creationist simply plays the denial game ad nauseum. Creationism is not based on honest methods or arguments. Its simply saying whatever one thinks the audience will accept in order to browbeat people into belief in Fundamentalist Protestant Christian dogma.

    The whole premise of creationism is about slinging dishonesty. To deny one’s personal faith and pretend religious belief is capable of objectively credible proof. Once a creationist admits their faith or makes the claim that it is simply part of their religious belief, they have refuted its entire premise.

    “Christians can accept that small changes happen in a species.”

    Wrong on that as well. Only a small subset of fundamentalist Christians accept such objections to scientific facts on the subject. The overwhelming majority of the faith has no issue with Evolution whatsoever. By premising belief and acceptance on one’s religious belief, one refutes the entire concept of creationism. You admit that its a lie in service of your Christian belief.

  • There are no default answers in science. If one cannot find evidence of an agent, or proof of one’s existence in a positive sense, one cannot make a conclusion to such an effect. “I don’t know. God must have did it” will never be an acceptable answer to a question in a scientific sense.

    One assumes a creator when something is similar to what is created by fellow human beings. When something is manufactured along lines that fellow people make. We know a watch is a created thing because we know humans create watches. We can learn how they are created.

    If something is so complex that one cannot conceive of a human creator for it, then one cannot ever assume it was created in the first place. Therefore, you can never honestly infer God as a creator based on something being complex and uncreatable by human hands. Therefore, you are simply trying to justify a conclusion without properly supporting it from an objective standpoint.

    Manuel, why is your faith so weak that you have to deny it in public?

  • Thee is only one scientific definition to evolution Change in the frequency of alleles within a population over time.

  • No, he died for the sinners of the world then, and the sinners to come. He died for me, for you, for Darwin and for Max the Atheist.

  • While I can appreciate Pope Francis view on the big bang and being cautious about a tendency to see creation as something that happened magically it can be dangerous. (While Genesis isn’t too detailed on the creation of the heavens and it could have looked like a big bang it is quite detailed on the formation of the earth.) Avoiding the miraculous can put us down a path to Naturalism that can cause us to miss the need for God in creation. I do believe that God put natural processes and laws in place which have shaped the universe and the world however Genesis is clear on many points. Genesis says that God created the creatures of the earth “after their kind” they don’t gradually change into different kinds. Genesis is also clear that the Sun and Moon, the oceans and plants, the animals and man were each formed on a particular 24 hour day. The church shouldn’t be scrambling to accommodate the views of naturalists who want to believe in a cosmos without God just because they tout science as their foundation. Ultimately theirs is still a position of faith as they weren’t there to see how the world was created. Their is enough contrary evidence and alternative interpretations of the evidence to seriously draw into question the theory of evolution. Which ultimately is a theory and has not been proven contrary to the posturing of many in academia.

  • Wess, come back when you get a better understanding of science. One from credible sources. Creationists are liars by nature. You do a disservice to Christianity with your views. Your “opposition” amounts to nothing more than pouting and making up stuff.

    The whole notion of Creationism is to lie in public in an effort to deny one’s personal faith. To claim that Fundamentalist Christianity is so objectively credible on its face that faith is unnecessary to accepting it.

    So to support this notion they engage in a number of dishonest tactics:
    1. They pretend there are current scientific challenges to acceptance of Evolution. (It usually betrays ignorance of scientific ideas of the proponent)

    2. They pretend that science is perfectly credible if we allow supernatural voodoo nonsense to be considered. (Your science is bad because you won’t accept my superstitious mythology!!)

    3. Then comes the Godwinning. Evolution = Nazis and some nonsense like that. Followed by Creationism is the only way one can believe in Christianity. All such arguments due is betray the whiny and childish nature of Creationism. (The world doesn’t work the way I want it to be! Whaaaa!)

    4. Then comes the admission of belief based on faith. At that point the Creationist has just refuted everything they said before.

    So Wess, ultimately as a creationist you are nothing but a liar whose faith is weak. Someone who has so little confidence in their faith that they have to deny it. It makes you a pathetic Christian.

  • You missed the Vatican’s point entirely.

    “Naturalism” as you call it is simply trusting evidence and observation of the world around you. It is inherently credible on its face because it is supported by data and methods which ensure such.

    What Pope Francis (and 2 predecessors) were saying is that we should NEVER use religious/spiritual beliefs to contradict what is discovered and accepted through “naturalism” scientific endeavors. That religion touches upon subjects that will never be part of the scientific process. That spiritual truth does not, nor cannot contradict the truth of our observed world.

    If your religious belief is in conflict with science, you do not understand either of them.

    “Which ultimately is a theory and has not been proven contrary to the posturing of many in academia.”

    You are an ignoramus. I already explained you are misused the definition of theory above. Since you chose to ignore your prior “mistake” one can only assume that you are willfully blinding yourself to facts and choosing dishonest discourse instead.

    “Ultimately theirs is still a position of faith as they weren’t there to see how the world was created. ”

    You weren’t around when Jesus was around. You can’t claim to know he existed. 🙂

  • dave: Pope Francis never said, “God is not a divine being.” He said, “Dio non è un demiurgo o un mago, ma il Creatore che dà l’essere a tutti gli enti.” ‘Demiurgo’ in english is ‘demiurge’ which according to Platonism was a lesser, semi-mortal who created the material world and then went away, and according to Gnosticism was also the originator of evil. Pope Francis is saying God is NOT that. “divine being” is a bad translation. It should be “God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life.” Whoever translated this is either mistaken or seeking to discredit the Pope to English-speakers.

  • Did you mean SO many Catholics leave the church?
    or NOT many Catholics leave the church?
    I would think it’s the first… but it is desperately hard to leave intellectually & emotionally, after a lifetime of indoctrination that Martin Luther was EVIL & especially “If I LEAVE the Catholic Church, I will go straight to Hell!” (temporary though it is believed to be, considering the lighting of candles for me & “donations” to the Church on my behalf to shorten my stay there…)
    I have never been Catholic but I married one who still unconsciously clings to the odd belief from there, so please forgive any unintended misinformation on my part 🙂

  • I really struggle to accept evolution for the simple following logical reasons.
    If we accept evolution then we must also accept that there was no Adam and Eve. If no Adam then no Garden of Eden and hence no 1st fall of mankind , serpent etc. and hence no sin. As original sin flows from the father to child. Then we have no sin and thus if there is no sin then we don’t need a Saviour. If we don’t need a Saviour then there will be no need for Jesus and thus no need for the RC church and all this discussion. The Pope has just lost his job.

  • One of the first lessons in religion class thought us that God took dust and made man. To me that is the big bang theory right there. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

  • @rob, The Greek Orthodox Church is not The Catholic Church. They are a separate religion with the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul) as their head.

  • So here’s the question: If “nature” created by itself, then you are saying that something came from NOTHING, a scientific impossibility, but TOTALLY possible with a God who reigns supreme over HIS creation. Your “science” is a fantasy. Nothing begets nothing. Only SOMETHING (one) can create something. No matter where you go with this argument, you can never go back to nothing and get something…without God, and since He is the Creator, and He says what is healthy and “good” for man, then yes, He does care who you sleep with, but because He loves you and knows what is good for His Creation. Ford knows the best oil, parts and maintenance schedule to use with what they have created. God knows how best to maintain His people. Trust Him.

  • I am a devout Catholic. I am also an engineer and have taken many classes devoted to biochemistry and genetics. There are compelling cases for small scale evolution (within a species), and these have been clearly and scientifically observed. However, the point of my reply is not to condone strict creationism or evolution (both of which seem to have problems to me), but pose a question. Why MUST we take genesis literally, when it is the Holy Spirit speaking through Moses’s pen, while one does not HAVE to take John chapter 6 literally, when it is word uttered from the mouth of GOD. Particularly, when the literal interpretation of the latter is so theologically supported (and historically if one reads the church fathers), while you can find a theological (and not historical) interpretation of Genesis as early as The Confessions of St. Augustine. (Maybe earlier, I haven’t looked) So why demand one and not the other? It is because protestant tradition has demanded it to be so. The difference between protestant tradition and Catholic Tradition, is that one has the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the other is fragmented into 38,000 different pieces (Sola Scriptura case and point). Here is the bottom line, to quote (roughly) a protestant pastor who will probably soon convert (like many are in this age of information sharing), “Jesus isn’t coming for a harem, He is coming for a single bride” PAX

  • I have taken several Genetics, Biochemistry, and Organic Chemistry classes at GaTech, hopefully I can shed a little light. (some of these classes were taught by teachers who would fundamentally disagree with me). In my studies, I have yet to have seen an argument for how an system of information replication, a code, and a system of information translation, can all occur at the same time. I can provide a litany of quotes from heads of foundations dedicated to unlocking the secrets of abiotic genesis, who say they are quiet simply stumped. One of my professors has pointed to what is called the mueller trap experiment as a solution. On a cursory examination it seems to work. However, if you examine it closely, you realize that even under the unrealistic and idealized situations, the products are all in the wrong quantities, and could never develop into life. The other solution he posited, was the Murchison meteorite. Again, organic compounds were there, but almost none of them actually useful as foundational blocks. Plus evolution (without God), lacks the power to account for the Cambrian explosion (as far as I know). Anyhow, just my thoughts. PAX

  • that is his belief.. now the infallability of Pope is under scanner as he does not believe in biblical theories

  • Sir, how can you or anyone else say with certainty that there is no One Being who created this universe? It seems that this Planet, and all of us created on it were created too perfectly to be merely a mistake.

  • Rob – Did you actually read the piece you linked to? It does not address the question of evolution in any way. The Orthodox Church, as a whole, has not taken a stand on evolution, but most educated Orthodox accept evolution. Like the Catholic Church, we have a vocal fundamentalist fringe, but they do not speak for the Orthodox Church.

  • Yes I agree with you. This POPE one day will question how a holy Ghost can be responsible for the birth of Jesus? It is not against Science?

  • POPE supports evolution theory – Then Adam and Eve is a fable. Birth of Jesus by Holy Ghost will be a big question! Resurrection of Jesus also against Science. Already Vatican deviates from Scriptures and promoting dead people worship!
    Now POPE is questioning the fundamental of Scripture. GOD is more than a Magician!! HE can do anything. HIS power and thoughts are beyond human interpretation! Let the get some enlightenment from Holy Ghost.

  • Dude,
    Birth of Jesus by Holy Ghost can not be explained by science. Was there any previous example/data to compare? How can you explain the Resurrection of Jesus by science?

  • Sorry Sanjay, we will not leave the Roman catholic church whatever POPE says. because we have BIBLE but rarely read. We don’t bother much about BIBLE. we are guided by our Parish Priest. we pray to Mother Mary and other Saints. That is the symbol of Roman Catholic.

  • Jon, Sounds like the RCC and most of the world’s academics are all patting each other on the back how intelligent they are because they believe in evolution. But I do have to ask. Is it at all disappointing to you and others that your God is so limited that He can only create through the process of evolution? The God who created life, love, beauty, and virtually every atom in existence relied on random accidents to make His Creation? I think not. And, oh, by the way the 6 24-hour days is literal. Take it to the bank.

  • Since the Eastern Orthodox Churches accept the first seven ecumenical councils, I wonder whether they agree with each thing that the Council of Ephesus taught in 431 A.D. If they think they do agree with it, their theology may be logically inconsistent, because the Fathers at that council believed that it taught infallibly. Please read the Historical Introduction here (

  • I wrote my post about the Council of Ephesus and infallibility, because I thought Rob meant the Greek Orthodox Church when he wrote about “Greek orthodox Catholics.” Since he didn’t capitalize the first “O” in “orthodox,” I still don’t know what Church he meant.

  • The fact as we all know, is that the god of the bible simply does not exist. And the most honest and truthful answer to the question of “Who created mankind?” is “I don’t know”.

    Because the truth is that we All really don’t know. No man in this world has the possession of a time machine that can allow us to go back during the time of the creation of the first man, so the humble fact remains for everyone: We all don’t know.

    And assuming that the god in the bible is responsible for creating mankind is just plain dishonesty and arrogance.

  • If Catholic church stands on theistic evolution, what is the primary foundation of live form by which evolution begun. Did God create fish or apes from which He directed the evolutionary process according to Catholic position?

  • Humans did not evolve from apes. Evolutionists, clever and intelligent they may be, fail to provide CONCRETE evidence of evolution. They say apes and humans came from a common ancestor. But where is the proof in genetics? Genes are very important in evolution. Where is the bridge between the man and this great ape ancestor?

    If some type of ape evolved into human, there should have been DISTINCT steps along the way: 90% ape/10% human; then 80% ape/20% human, leading to the HOMO SAPIENS today.

    Unless evolution has COMPLETELY STOPPED, there should be some TRANSITIONAL LINKS alive today which lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

    There must be some FOSSIL left as evidence. Have they found any?

    Until today, evolutionists call it – the MISSING LINK. Until today, these fossils are still MISSING.

    The truth is, NO HUMAN BEING was ever present when all things in the universe were created. So all we can do is conclude from present observations. No human being can ever really tell what EXACTLY happened in that distant past. No one can tell how these amazing universe was made, how homo sapiens came into existence.

    No one, unless, SOMEONE present during creation, told him so.

  • That goes with evolutionists too. They need to come up with lots of hypothetical processes to support their theory – processes which do not have any FOSSIL evidence until today. Where is the transitional evidence from great ape to humans? NOTHING.

  • Yes, “the circle of the earth” is in the bible. But why did the church miss it when it’s in the bible all along? Perhaps they weren’t reading it that seriously. Or perhaps they did. It’s just that they did not believe it literally and chose to rely on observations instead.

  • Hindus believe in evolution. Obviously unlike in creation where PERFECT GOD can make PERFECT CREATION, evolution takes its own time; allows various actions, reactions taking place both inside earth, and on the surface of earth to harmonize within themselves and with the cosmos. It is easily said than done. It takes millions of years. Geographic practices and geological changes keep on taking place almost regularly, and it takes time for meaningful biosphere to develop which is sustainable.

    Shiv and AdiShakti are inseparable; they symbolize Supreme God, Shiv with Supreme Power and Goddess, AdiShakti in feminine form, representing growth and nature. AdiShakti left Shiv after the earth was born; why? This is something important and symbolic; does it have any message?

    Stories of Shiv and AdiShakti represented by Parvati and Sati, and also stories of Sur and Asurs are not merely stories but provide valuable information about initial turbulence and problems on earth, description of those problems and subsequent resolution. It is the growth story and true history of earth from Puraans or one can say from ancient India. Science from ancient India is symbolic in nature, it has to be deciphered. Shiv is GOD and his CONSORT NATURE.

    Ramayan, Mahabharat and Puraans are actually coded history, and once you understand this and also have faith in the fact that this religion is god-gift to humanity, everything becomes easy and understandable. For understanding Puraans, containing history of earth, one need not get bogged down by the use of the word code. Code here simply means interpreting the text using the current information and level of knowledge. This is the beauty of the code. Try this; you will get very rich information.

    Sati a Sanskrit word used for females means lady who voluntarily ends her life.

    AdiShakti is now Parvati, daughter of Himalayas, and at the beginning of the formation of earth was called Sati.
    Symbolically Sati here means that nature, including humans, animals, vegetation, and sea life kept on growing without decay and this created problems triggering further reactions and subsequent destruction or self destruction of this expansion of nature. AdiShakti then was called Sati, meaning self-destruction.

    How many times during the very initial stage of the evolution of earth, this happened; I have no idea, because only greater in-depth study of these texts may reveal all this. And this could be better done by institutions.

    On the other hand the information we are getting from the modern scientific world is that, now Himalayas are the father of nature and are nurturing 75% of the earth directly and 25% indirectly. However in the initial stages of growth, Himalayas were smaller in size and were not contributing to the growth of nature and life as much. It was an early or nascent stage of evolution.

    Please Click & Read Full Post…>>>

  • The Roman Catholic Church believed that the earth was at the center of the universe and everything revolved around it, not that the earth was flat. Copernicus theorized that the earth and planets revolved around the sun, which was against the Church’s teachings and considered heretical.

  • That the Vatican accepts evolution is a bit disingenuous. The Vatican doesn’t know what to make of evolution and, as my inside sources say, they prefer to avoid the issue. Catholic scholars that have tried to integrate evolution with Catholicism have always been declared apostates, heretics, or ignored.

    For example, the Catechism of the RCC, as have the popes, declares that a polygenic theory of human origins is incompatible with the teachings of the Church. It also says that the Fall of Man was a literal event, not an allegory. Evolution guts that whole arche. It has strong evidence of polygenic origins. Even evolution sits poorly alongside Genesis, however it is interpreted.

  • Evolution is false and wrong. The Truth is that God created the world and all that is in it ex nihilo. This is Catholic Teaching.

  • Did God told you that humans came from the species of the great ape??

    Well I have biblical evidences that human never came from species or evolve from any pre-existing matter…

  • There was no first man or first woman. Our species evolved from a previous population gene pool gradually over time, both through anagenisis and cladagenisis However if you read what the
    pope said that as a catholic you must believe that we evolved from a first set of human parents, then you can see how this is in contradiction to the scientific evidence which clearly shows this
    is extremely highly improbable. If an imaginary soul was instilled into humans at some point in time as the doctrine and dogma of the church insists, then if every child is the same species as
    that of his parents, the the child had a soul but the parent did not. What nonsense is this. . In reality what the pope was saying to catholics is that you can accept the fact of biological evolution of humans as long as you do not accept the fact of evolution. This is of course a pure example of Double think.. Surely, the catholic church’s dogma and doctrine is truely just made up superstitious nonsense.

  • Wow! He must really feel his POWER, when he responds to mountains of information and carefully crafted scientific theories that have taken more than a century to refine, with absolutely nothing but a a flat, unsupported statement that there exists a Creator of all life. He could at least produce him (or her or it) for a proper news conference. It makes one suspicious that he (the pope) is just making that stuff up, so he can keep his job!

  • Samuel,

    I agree with you about the pope’s simplistic statement, but I don’t think he has to worry about keeping his job! He is extremely popular, draws a huge crowd everywhere he goes, and is swamped by the world press each time he makes a proclamation on any subject.

    It is amazing to me that the pope would feel a need to make a statement about the apparent discord between Science and religion. If the pope is such an expert on Scientific subjects, I would like him to explain how Jesus Christ had a full set of 46 chromosomes and was therefore really a human being.

    Of course, the people who wrote the Bible over 2000 years ago knew nothing of genetics or even how heredity worked. It is almost amazing they knew enough about sex to keep the human race going! But that’s another subject altogether.

    R. Allan Worrell

  • The following two examples show that both creationism and evolutionism are wrong. Neither God created the universe nor we evolved by natural selection. Both theories will fail to explain these two examples.

    A baby boy is born in a hospital with birthmarks of a bullet wound on his chest and back. Doctors, nurses, and parents, confirmed that. When the boy learned to speak, he casually but spontaneously, talked about his past life, which can be summarized as the following. His name was N in previous life. He died in hospital H of town T on date D, due to a gunshot wound on his chest. Over time, the research scholars, news reporters, parents visit the hospital H and verify everything that the boy said from the autopsy record of the man named N, who indeed died on the date D. Such a kid, who remembers his/her past life, is known as Jatiswar in Sanskrit.

    On another such jatiswar case, the boy had complications, and the doctors had to perform surgery on the boy to save him. The doctors found the complete straight line bullet path inside the body of the baby, exactly matching the autopsy record of the dead man of the boy’s previous life. For more observations and details see and the references mentioned there.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.