The Pope’s Embrace Of Evolution Brings Us One Step Closer To A One World Religion

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Pope Francis - Photo by Alfredo BorbaIf you wanted to create a religion that almost everyone would love, how would you do it?  Perhaps you would change your faith to make it more appealing to a modern world that is changing at blinding speed.  Perhaps you would indicate that you are willing to become more “mainstream” on hot button issues such as gay rights.  Perhaps you would invite leaders of other religions from all over the planet to come visit you and make it clear that you consider all of those religions to be valid as well.  And all of that “unscientific stuff” about God creating the world in six days and creating mankind out of the dust of the Earth?  Well, all of that is just going to have to be thrown out.  If all of this sounds vaguely familiar to you, that is because this is exactly what Pope Francis has been doing.


To say that Pope Francis is an extremely popular pontiff would be a massive understatement.  He was showered with praise by media outlets all over the globe when he responded to a question about homosexuality with the following phrase: “Who am I to judge?”  From the earliest days of his papacy, he has been visited by an endless stream of religious dignitaries from all over the planet, and they all seem to have nothing but good things to say about him.  At this point, even most Muslims seem to love this Pope.  Earlier this year, Pope Francis took the unprecedented step of authorizing “Islamic prayers and readings from the Quran” at the Vatican for the first time ever.  This Pope seems to have a sixth sense for making the right public relations moves, and he appears to be destined to become one of the most loved popes ever.

This week, Pope Francis is making headlines all over the world for publicly embracing the Big Bang and the theory of evolution.  The following are some of the Pope’s statements that are popping up in newspapers worldwide

-“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.”

-“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.”

And not only has the Catholic Church eagerly embraced these theories, there are also several prominent Catholic theologians that are now fully condemning the idea of a “young Earth” and the idea that God created man in a single day.

In fact, the head of the Vatican Observatory says that such notions are “almost blasphemous theology”

As previously reported, earlier this month, Guy Consolmagno with the Vatican Observatory told Australia’s Fairfax Media that young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy.

“It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.”


Consolmagno is quite an interesting character.  He also says that he is looking forward to the day when extraterrestrials show up, and he would be quite willing to baptize them if that is what they want…

Consolmagno, who is the keeper of the Pope’s meteorite collection, said he would be happy to baptize extraterrestrial creatures if they wanted the blessing. He added the presence of extraterrestrial life, “does not disprove the existence of God”.

Instead, the discovery of “tentacled horrors from the void” should lead people to question what being human means. “When we say human, human as compared to what?” he asked.

In a 2010 statement, Consolmagno said that “all entities – despite how many tentacles they might have – have a soul”.

In the booklet, Consolmagno tries also to answer important questions, such as, “Should the Church send out missionaries to alien planets?”, “What’s going to happen when the world ends?” and “Do extraterrestrials have their own version of Jesus?”

Right now, the Catholic Church is experiencing a resurgence in popularity.

The changes that this new Pope is making seem to be drawing in lots of new people.

But there is one group that Pope Francis does not seem to care for very much at all, and that is Christian fundamentalists.  It is not just creation that he disagrees with them about.  He disagrees with them about a whole host of issues, and he says that there is not any room for “fundamentalism” in Christianity…

Following his first visit to the Middle East as pope last month, the pontiff criticized fundamentalism in Christianity, Islam and Judaism as a form of violence.

“A fundamentalist group, even if it kills no one, even it strikes no one, is violent. The mental structure of fundamentalism is violence in the name of God.”

But precisely what is “fundamentalism”?

The following is the definition that you get when you do a Google search…

“a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.”

So does the Pope actually have a problem with people that believe that the Bible is literally true?

Perhaps someone should ask him that question.

And it is obvious that the Pope does not believe what the Bible literally says about how the world was created and about how humanity came to be.

Of course most people these days would agree with the Pope, but what does the science actually tell us?

When people debate these issues the attitude of most evolutionists seems to be that everybody else believes in Darwinism so you better believe it too.

But that doesn’t work for me.

As an attorney, I am always looking for the evidence.  And I have been searching for good evidence for the theory of evolution for decades.  But I haven’t been able to find any.  I have investigated these matters very carefully, and I have concluded that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of those that argue that God created this world.

I have published these points before, but I think that they bear repeating.  The following facts are from my previous article entitled “44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults“…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.  But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature.  In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature.  The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves.  It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever.  But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones.  This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about.  The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself?  This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth.  Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago.  It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago.  But it still exists today.  So why hasn’t it evolved at all over that time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer.  This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff.  The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex.  The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically.  As explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal?  No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information.  One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way

“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers.  This simply is not true at all

The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly.  This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them?  The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves?  The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were.  They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed.  And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you.  Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…

“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

So what do you believe?

Please feel free to add to the debate by posting a comment below…

  • Bill Diller

    Well, we know that it’s going to happen and there’s no stopping it. It’s interesting to watch how prophecy is unfolding in these, the last days.

    • iris

      Definitely. I was riding the fence before about this fellow possibly being the false prophet, this pretty much nailed my opinion in place. God was, is and always will be on the throne. “Fundamentalists” in the West may be joining our martyred brothers and sisters in other parts of the world, quite soon. I think perhaps we’ve mistranslated/misinterpreted some key verses, key events. This all looks, walks, and quacks like a duck.

    • Kim

      yes it will be very interesting. and scary. it won’t go down without a fight. and it will get its fight, alright.

  • K

    Standing up for the truth is difficult. Speaking out against evil, which most people except as normal, is difficult. This is just another example of how few, are willing to do the difficult.

    • iris

      I agree, K, especially with those we love who are believing the lies.

      The Catholic Church, (although there are definitely born again Christians within its ranks) has ALWAYS been politically correct, from its early “missionary” days in the late 300’s until now. I really shouldn’t be surprised, I guess, but still, I am.

      • otter1111

        So how is the Catholic Church so politically correct? Have you ever been to the March for Life in Washington? Many, if not mostly Catholic. The Catholic Church is unabashedly pro-life. Many Protestant churches are pro-abortion or silent. The Catholic Church will never marry gays, yet some Protestant churches now do. The Catholic Church is continually being attacked by the UN, the Obama administration, Hollywood, the liberal media, and many Protestants. If they were so politically correct most of those groups wouldn’t be on the offensive.

        • iris

          otter, I’m personally invested with the pro life movement, and applaud the role the Catholic church has taken in it, but if these trends from the leadership continue, that, too, may go by the wayside. A little here, a lot there…

          • otter1111

            I’m glad to hear you’re involved in the pro life movement. Rest assured, even if the leadership deemphasizes it, Catholics in the church will always be in the fight for life.

        • Political Vel Craft

          Well said!

    • Fact.

      Standing up for the Earth being flat and the sun revolving around it is difficult too.

      • Carlos C

        Funny thing, the head of the Flat Earth Society (and apparent believer that the Earth is flat) is an atheist. He’s a believer in man-made global warming too…

  • Cynical Guy42

    Forgive my lack of understanding here, but I thought fundamentalists were those King James Version only folks. If you’re not a native English speaker, I’d recommend you read the Bible in your native language if you can. If you speak English, there are other accurate Bible translations you could use.

    • Tim

      “…but I thought fundamentalists were those King James Version only folks.”

      That’s true of many fundamentalists but not all. I use the King James because that’s what I’ve always used. Some of the language in the King James is archaic. Furthermore, in my opinion, the KJV translators erroneously added words in many places of the King James Bible. (Those words are in italics.) I believe there are other reliable English translations, which I sometimes refer to in my studies.

  • A.S.

    what does this mean from #15:

    2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113

    Doesn’t make sense mathematically.

  • A.S.

    from other books that i have read, even if all the the matter of the universe were the biotic soup found on earth, it still would be only 1 in trillion chance that the smallest one celled organism should evolve. so how many chances (my reasoning) will be needed for that one celled organism to evolve into something more complex like the smallest simplest plant–for sure 1 in trillion trillion trillion (1 with 36 zeroes).

    I also read in another book that for a man to have evolved, even if all the matter of the universe were that same biotic soup, would be 1 in 10 to the power of at least 1 billion. If there are approximately 10 to the power of 80 zeros in the whole known universe (common preached by scientists), then it would take 12,500,000 universes minimum, to accomplish that! That is impossible!

    • Kim

      think of it this way– put all the parts of a Ferrari – down to the smallest bolt- into a big bag and shake it up. what are the chances that when u open the bag, a Ferrari is completely put together? Zero. and even the human eye is vastly more sophisticated than a Ferrari. evolution is totally impossible- well said.

      • iris

        I think there is what we could call micro evolution or adaptation, but everything remains the same genetically, i.e., it is still a finch, still a tortoise. There might be a catfish with especially strong pectoral fins and the ability to breath a little air, which enable it to cross land, but it’s a catfish, not a ramped up amphibian.

  • Magdiel

    Great article!! Prophecies foretold in Daniel and Revelation are very clear on what will happen at the end times, and we are seeing it being fulfilled right before our very eyes. Every true Christian who doesn’t comply with the mainstream religion will be persecuted as they have been throughout the history of this world! But I am exceedingly glad because all of this means that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is right at the doors of His glorious Second Coming! Amen!!

  • Luis

    What are the odds of a man and a woman, with mutually complimentary reproductive systems, evolving together at the same time?

    • NowAlive

      That is one of the most obvious points against evolution and thank you for making it. Or how about how did the intricacies of the senses develop? Hearing is the processing of audible waves in the inner ear but that was an accident? Sight via mechanisms we still don’t fully understand “just happened?” Ridiculous. Random chance takes an enormous amount of LUCK.

      • iris

        such an enormous amount of “luck”, that’s it’s quite literally impossible. Bumblebees shouldn’t be able to fly according to the laws of physics, yet, fly, they do!

        • Thomas

          You know what’s also impossible? A magical wizard guy coming out of nowhere, clicking his fingers and making the entire universe out of nothing in seven days, making light without first making a light source, then making two humans out of nothing, who mated resulting in them being the ancestors of every human ever, plus a talking snake controlled by a fiery demon, as well as making a magical fairy land where you go when you’re dead so you can live forever despite the fact that you’re dead, and a pit of endless doom ran by that fiery demon who plans to conquer the universe and punishes bad, dead people even though he’s a bad guy himself. The magical wizard guy also made some guy who built an ark big enough to support two of every animal so he could survive an oceanic flood, and Jewish man who was born of a virgin but for some reason is his son, who can walk on water and do loads of other magic tricks, then someday he died because he did too many nice things and then came back to life and will apparently return after a 2000-year vacation. Meanwhile that magical wizard watches over every single living creature on every single planet in the universe all at once loving us dearly despite never showing himself, and if we refuse to worship and pray to him, we go to hell for all eternity and are never set free, but he still loves us. YEAH.

          • ALSO

            You forget the part about the Earth being flat, on pillars, having 4 corners and the sun revolving around it.

            Ancient Greeks figured out the Earth revolves around the Sun, even managed to figure out the diameter of the Earth, yet they didn´t have calculators or even telescopes.

            Biology 101, only two ancestors can result in serious genetical problems commonly known as inbreeding among many species.
            What did the two lions or wolves live on, were they vegetarian for a few years?

          • iris

            Since you’re so obsessed with magic, explain to me how bumblebees fly.

          • Political Vel Craft

            Flight of bumble bees do not violate the laws of physics.

          • Carlos C

            … and blue whales, 90+ feet long and 210 tons, evolved from a 4-legged mammal similar in size and shape to a German Shepard. Makes perfect sense to the Darwin worshipers.
            With all the combined knowledge of science to draw from no researcher has been able to take raw matter and combine it into something alive, yet we are supposed to believe the incredibly complex, diverse forms of life on this planet started by random chance? Pfft, yeah, right.
            Mock all you want. If you’re right when I die I will just cease to exist, never knowing I was wrong. If, however, you’re wrong, you will spend an eternity tormented by your rejection of the truth. Good luck with that.

          • Political Vel Craft

            Using fundamentalism against hermeneutics leaves your argument hollow.

          • Political Vel Craft

            Using fundamentalism against hermeneutics leaves your argument hollow.

          • Political Vel Craft

            “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

            – C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, p. 32

        • LOLWUT

          “Luck”?? You really fail miserably, natural selection doesn´t ring any bells, now does it?

          Hint: Try finding out what something is about before you attempt to “debunk” it.

          • iris

            Didn’t you see that i showed luck in quotes? There is no luck, no magic. There are however, spiritual powers at work here, and God’s power surpasses them all.

          • Political Vel Craft

            Natural selection like recessive dominant expression of finite information by enviromental factors?

      • LOLWUT

        Example, the eye.

        pnas. o rg /content/104/suppl_1/8567/F1.large. j pg

        The explanation of the process are all out there on dem intrenet for anyone with curiosity, Before the internets you could always use those things called books.

        “Just happened”? Luck? LOL, it is painfully obvious you are entirely ignorant of how the whole process is supposed to work, do you even know what natural selection or even a theory is?

        • Political Vel Craft

          Try irreducible complexity ;0)

    • Jorge

      Once cells started using sexual reproduction there had to be a male and female (or equivalent) for reproduction.

      • Political Vel Craft

        Most importantly an informational storage wharehouse.

  • otter1111

    The “who am I to judge” comment was taken completely out of context by the media, and in this article.

    “What Francis said was, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord
    and has good will, who am I to judge?” The difference between what he is
    quoted as saying, and what he actually said, is not minor. Those who
    parse his words agree, which is why they parse them. It is important to
    note that the pope did not offer two sentences: his one sentence was
    chopped to alter his message.”

    Basically, if someone has an inclination to do evil, but lives according to God’s will, they should not be judged.

    The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear, cannot be changed, and is spelled out in the Catholic Catechism. It teaches on the true
    nature of homosexual inclinations (“objectively disordered”—CCC, 2358)
    and homosexual acts (“grave depravity”—CCC, 2357).

    • Kim

      when has a pope ever let his own Catholic catechism interfer with his ideations of world dominance? these words are hardly parsed.

      that said, the pope conveniently disregards the flagrant and clear incompatibility of homosexuality and Christianity. but he wants you to believe that they are in fact compatible as long as one is “searching” for the “lord”? what in the heck does that even mean?. who is doing the parsing now?

      • Political Vel Craft

        You have said it but you do not understand. Big difference between temptation and deed.

    • NowAlive

      The idea that the Catholics don’t change their beliefs and system of beliefs can be easily refuted. The Vatican II (1963) set forth some major changes to the Catholic system. Their teachings do in fact change. When did they first start preaching that Mary remained a virgin or was taken to heaven by angels without death? There were writings about it fairly early (extrabiblical since the bible makes it clear Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Joseph “did not know” his wife until after Jesus was born) but the official doctrine for the catechism wasn’t established until what? The late 1800s because a nun had a dream? I would call these most definite changes.

      • otter1111

        Vatican II changed the way mass is celebrated but the teachings of what is moral and immoral did not change. There is a difference between dogma and doctrine. In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and
        morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which
        has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and
        declared to be believed as revealed. Dogma cannot change.

        Jesus did not have brothers and sisters. Here’s a good explanation:

        As far as the charge that Catholics are changing their beliefs, I find it ironic since changing beliefs is one of the reasons there are thousands of Protestant denominations.

        Did you know that in the 1920s, virtually all Protestant denominations opposed contraception? Only the Catholic Church has not changed. How about abortion and gay marriage? There is a surprising number of Protestant churches that have changed their stance on those.

      • Political Vel Craft

        Dogma is not a change but an affirmation.

  • Jodie Lynn Gaeta

    If Pope Francis is so anti-fundamentalist, then why did he meet with American televangelists? He even high-fived James Robison.

  • Kim

    the term evolution, in the vast majority, is used in context to described the gradual transformation of basic living material into intelligent and sophisticated living individuals. the concept is not even logical, let alone true. and now the Catholic clergy class is endorsing it and promoting it? why not? if what the bible says at revelation 12:9 is true, that the so called “original serpent” has been hurled down to the earth and is “misleading its inhabitants entirely” what better way to mislead than for it to use religion? and why? because this original serpent, or satan, is angry and he knows his days are numbered. if that’s true, so the Catholic Church’s days are numbered. it won’t be a great loss- it’s always been a money hungry power hungry oppressive institution that has wrought centuries of suffering and injustice to people.

    • zcam96

      Wow. The things they dont’ teach in Sunday school. Such as how this oppressive institution that has wrought centuries of suffering and injustice to people
      is responsible for stopping the Muslim takeover in Europe, while the Protestants up north were burning churches and destroyning ancient artifacts as well as killing and inprisoning priests. Or how this greedy institution is responsible for over 10000 schools thruout the globe, giving basic and advanced education to impoverished people. Or How the Catholic Church oppressed people by starting the first universities and hospitals. They don’t teach how the Catholic church preserved the original Bible and how Martin Luther took at least six books out because they contained things that the Catholic Church taught that he didnt agree with. Martin Luther even wanted to throw out the Book of Revealation? We can go on ond on but history is history and if one really wants to know the truth about the Catholic Church then one should study the history of that church.

    • Andrew

      the sad fact that some clergy are “scandalos”

      shall not blind You to the fact that Nazis, Commies, Muslims consider The Catholic Church to be their greatest enemy! Dear Kim, you descibe yourself as “Lover of justice” but sadly the objectivity in nowhere to be found in your comment, only prejudices…
      God bless You KIM!

  • DJohn1

    To think that evolution is the only theory is what is patently absurd.
    The Bible is not translated correctly in the King James and there are a number of people that have pointed out the errors in translation.
    One of which is the word “day” in Genesis. The original word could be translated as eon. Or an unspecified amount of time.
    In the same book is mention of mixing species in which the daughters of mankind and the sons of God had children together. From which came remarkably talented individuals of old.
    As a lawyer, you cross examine witnesses. Yet the witnesses do not completely agree in the four main books of the new testament about minor details of what happened. Was there one angel or two?
    This is human nature. Any two untrained witnesses will give varying accounts of an event. Even saints do this.
    As a trained policeman, there are many inconsistencies that we all choose to ignore. Why? Because the important thing is the message of Jesus Christ and our faith in him as the Son of God.
    IN the beginning God Created. Well, we have a very unusual planet here.
    It has the thinnest crust of any planet in the solar system. That is why you have the amount of earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.
    It has more water on it than any planet should have this close to the sun.
    It has a moon big enough to be a planet all by itself. It has that moon in close orbit around the Earth. This provides tides and all sorts of electrical interaction with this planet.
    If that moon wasn’t there would there be life on this planet? Don’t really know.
    Genesis describes terraforming. That is where various life forms are introduced over time to produce a balanced ecology. That is no accident and it occurs all over the planet.
    If you are in America, then different species do the same thing as what species do in Australia. Against they form into slots. The same pattern with different creatures forming that pattern world wide.
    The human species is a mystery. Why? We are one of the only creatures on the planet with a double Chromosome. Not one, but two, and it reproduces exactly the same everywhere. We are one of about 4 animals on the planet with over 400 genetic mistakes and diseases out there.
    The nearest family of creatures to us is the ape family. Yes, there are many differences between us and them. They have the same number of fingers we do. They have the same number of teeth as we do. There are a number of interspecies diseases that we share like HIV for instance. Only they have a natural immunity built in over many generations. Those apes that survived to reproduce passed it on from one generation to another just like we passed on an immunity to alcohol in Europe. When the Indians drank it they had no such immunity built in. It was like giving them a hard drug like Heroin.
    Immunity is tricky in that it is generally local. That is why settlers from Europe in Hawaii killed a lot of natives with childhood diseases we are immune to in Europe.
    Evolution? Not really. More like communities build up immunities to various things that are local. Those that survive pass this on to future generations. It has nothing to do with altering the basic programming built into all animals and plants.
    The people that study genetics have altered lab animals and gave those animals reptile like skin. They used chickens and electronics to alter the programming to do this. The programming is all ready there built into the cells. It is a matter of dominance and recessive features as to which ones program the cell.
    The same programming of cells means that environment does influence which programming dominates. But it can reverse itself with a reversal of environmental conditions. That is not evolution. It is just good programming of the animal and the cells.
    Is there intelligent design? Most likely of all the theories out there this guess work might be partially right.
    The implication of interspecies reproduction between the “Sons of God” and the “daughters of men” has huge implications.
    Any farmer will tell you that should be impossible. UNLESS they have a species relationship far closer than anyone wants to admit.
    In ancient times, before history was written down, those people known as “Sons of God” have to be a life form similar to our own. IF they came from the heavens, then that means that God followed the same design with them as he did with us. That implies a common origin for all life both here and in the heavens.
    So I predict when we actually find life somewhere else it will be highly likely to have a common set of design similar to our own.
    Where would we find such life?
    I suggest deep in the caverns of the Moon there might be some form of insect life. Or not. It is a harsh environment but water does exist there.
    I suggest deep under the surface of Mars there are seas in huge caverns with enough atmospheric pressure to support life. Nothing might exist on the surface for any length of time. There is no ecology to support it. But deep under the surface, highly likely.
    Europa has oceans. It has a magnetic field. It might contain ocean life and amphibians of some kind.
    Neptune is much warmer than it should be. Does it have a small solid core? We don’t know. Life exists here where it has no right to exist. Namely, under very deep oceans around volcanic action.
    I suggest that if there is free water there under huge pressure and volcanic action, then Neptune might have a liquid hot core. If it does, If it has a magnetic field or has had, then life as we know it might exist. Again common core life with our own adapted to extreme conditions.
    Common core of life in this solar system is possible. I do not limit what God has created in the Universe. We simply do not know.
    I suggest this Pope has knowledge in advance of anything most people have. If that is the case, then he is backtracking for all of his worth and I really do not blame him for doing so.
    Just like they had to backtrack when it became common knowledge that the Earth was not flat and the center of the Universe. Just like they had to backtrack when scientists started telling them that their concepts were wrong.
    Currently, today, not tomorrow, the scientists are continuing to upset what people believe in. The ISIS solution is to crucify them.
    The science I was taught as a Freshman in High School shows little resemblance to what science thinks today. My science project at that young age was the workings of an Electron Microscope. No one else came anywhere close to that technology. But today . . . we are doubling our knowledge on a compound basis.
    And that is good. So if evolution is yesterday’s science, why is it still taught in school today?
    You have to examine how colleges are put together financially. If an idea is unpopular it is censored financially by the support or lack there of given by the University system. So if the old regime believes in evolution, then they censor anything that does not agree with that support of evolution.
    Even radical new ideas have people that have to eat. That is how they keep the flat earthers around with tenure. And they exist all over the scientific community we know of as colleges.
    Which makes them little better than an antique religion.
    The theories of today are merely guesses. Everything I have said here is a guess on my part and I am not qualified to give a guess.
    The discoveries made in the last 10 years alone are remarkable.
    Most people do not have a clue as to what they are.
    WE as humans are close to reprogramming the entire human race.
    Will the powers that be let us? Don’t think so if history is anything near correct. We are close to Babel. And It might occur at any time.
    So much knowledge, so little time. So much knowledge, so much that is classified by governments as top secret to a level never publicized.
    The sheep must not be disturbed by something like the truth.
    According to records in India, there was a thriving civilization that predates the flood by at least 20-30,000 years.
    They talk about a lot of gadgets we are only now inventing for ourselves. Including the formulas used in space ships.
    They talk about genetic engineering people. They talk about a caste system in which people are specifically designed to have an extraordinary skill level in one area or another.
    They talk about leadership that was specifically designed to have incredibly long life spans and were specifically genetically designed to manage the nation.
    Did they have space travel. It is very likely.
    Did they have atomic bombs? Also likely.
    They talk of a war between India and China in prehistory where people died of radiation sickness from radioactive clouds.
    They talk of a society of gods that ruled mankind.
    I personally think the Bible documents predate history by a considerable amount of time.
    The oldest book in the bible is Job not Genesis.
    It describes a society of gods underneath God as leader of the gods.
    The Bible describes pre-flood mankind as having a lifespan of approximately 900 years. With our tendency to reproduce, that would put billions of people on this planet prior to the flood.
    If we originally had a 900 year lifespan then it is possible that our programmed 70-126 year lifespan is adjustable.
    Think about what that would mean if we suddenly were capable of 9 times our current lifespan with no limits placed on our reproduction.
    I believe that aliens do exist under God. I believe the Bible describes a rebellion of those aliens against God.
    How closely related are they to us genetically? There is considerable Bible evidence that it was quite closely related.
    I also believed the herd of mankind was culled by the Flood purposely and the only survivors were altered to have a gradual lessening of lifespan so that we did not overpopulate the planet too fast. All those crossbreeds were either taken up into the heavens to serve the “gods” or they were left to be culled with the herd.
    Is there a “Prime Directive” forbidding contact with us. If so it is being quite loosely enforced right now. There are way too many UFO situations out there since the start of the Atomic Age.
    But I believe that from the very first atomic bomb on, we have been closely monitored. How much of that monitoring involves governments around the world is anyone’s guess.
    If our compounding knowledge of genetics is an issue then expect some kind of restriction anytime soon. That also is Biblical history.

    Chinese records go back at least 4,000 years.

  • ProclaimingGodsTruth

    Folks, this is absolutely scarey! For the leader, “the infallible one” (cough-cough) to make such a statement sends reverberations of doubt about creation all throughout Christianity.
    Everyone had better read their Bibles a little closer for prophecies are on deck for fulfillment.

  • Andrew

    1. there were few terrible popes in the past, nonetheless the Church is still alive despite their grave sins, and thanks to sacrifices of numerous saints & martyrs
    2. when we die, God will ask us about love [not about some theories]
    3. Devils know that their time is almost up, so they keep multiplying evil everywhere
    4. Jesus came from king David’s dynasty despite few unpleasant ancestors down the dynastic line
    5. Michael = less speculations more prayers!

    • iris

      The devils can’t do any evil which we don’t let them or help them do, which explains in Rev. why the number of the beast (666) is the number of mankind.

      I agree with you wholeheartedly about God looking at each heart and whether we loved or not, but we have the sin issue which separates us from God if we don’t believe and receive Jesus as God come in the flesh, who died purposefully in our place to remove the guilt of our sins before He rose from the dead.

      The argument of love is being used by many non believers as a rationale for all kinds of things which God describes explicitly as abhorrent in His sight.

      • iris

        Actually, God sometimes does allow demonic oppression, but even the demons serve His purposes, as in happened to Job. Job’s faith was strengthened greatly in the end

  • otter1111

    While there are some in the church who accept some form of evolution, I do not. The Catholic Church has no official position on scientific questions like the age of the earth or the evolution of life.

    As to the Pope being liberal, some of his statements sure make it sound that way, although some have been misinterpreted. Again, the Church cannot change its stance on what is immoral or not, no matter how much some would like to see that happen.

  • Fact

    It is truly a tragedy that people still takes at face value what the medias says about the pope, given the medias long history of deceit, biaise and slander.

  • LOL


    epcollines. ecolevs. c h /images/archeopterix.j p g


  • With Fortitude

    One thing is for sure. The pope is making waves but I would bet he knows that. Whats funny to me as a follower of eschatology is I thought these things would be more subtle and hidden rather than blatant and public. So now we’re all just shaking our collective heads saying ” I cant believe this is happening” Chuckle ….. Brilliant move by the one holding the pitch fork !

    • Political Vel Craft

      Its brilliant i’ll give that and the ‘wise’ are confused eh?

      • With Fortitude

        All my life I’ve waited for these things to happen. Now , I’m starting to believe God’s time will be longer than I had hoped for. In other words this may take awhile.
        Maybe the rapture will happen soon though. After all it’s been on tv right ! (chuckle)

  • C#

    Good article, though Francis is not the Pope but an antipope, just like his five predecessors.

    A great 5 minute video on another issue with evolution (what came first, DNA or proteins?), can be found here:

  • Conclavist

    Yes, I grew up in the Vatican 2 mainstream “Catholicism” and this is why over the past few years I have been sede vacantist and at present recognize Michael as pope rather than Francis, because the man speaks heresy and leads schism everywhere he goes.

    The agenda of pushing evolution isn’t so much the science. I believe Pius XII wrote that the Church took no position for or against evolution, so long as it did not contradict Biblical teaching. The more insidious goal here is to promote evolution of dogma, which was condemned as modernist heresy especially in the early 20th century with things like the “anti-modernist oath”.

    Evolution of dogma is the idea that we could have a more “enlightened” idea on truths of the faith. This is extremely dangerous and heretical, and it’s a true slippery slope where we begin with something small and it grows into something large. Hence we see this Vatican 2 revolution with Francis dining with Jews, something that would have been unthinkable in the past:

    Pope Saint Sylvester I at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea: “Concerning the prohibition of usury and base gain by the clergy; and concerning the prohibition against conversing or eating with the Jews. No priest shall set money out at interest or take unfair profit or be friendly or sociable with Jews; nor should anyone take food or drink with the Jews; for if this was decreed by the holy apostles, it is incumbent upon the faithful to obey their command; and the synod shall excommunicate any one who does not comply with this order.”

    The goal will be to move from Catholicism to a cheap imitation of Catholicism (which was Vatican 2) to the radicalism we see today to full-blown Satanism. They will find a way to make Satanism look Catholic. Nonpope John Paul 2 was very good about praising man and was a figure of this, if more degeneration is to come. How unthinkable would have been that statue of Satan that has been proposed to go up in Oklahoma. The mainstream of these false religions will all rot out and cave to worldly pressure together.

  • Political Vel Craft

    Embrace of evolution? Not hardly folks, this article is heavily slanted, again we have a totured attempt to put words into the Pontiff’s mouth.

    Everything in this article has another side in this metescimce related discourse.

    To date biological evoluion is incongruous with the physic second law of thermodynamics both open and closed systems etc etc etc.

  • Political Vel Craft

    The Pontiff is neither liberal or conservative, he is Catholic. There is no embracement of abiogenesis aka darwinian evolution.

    Literal interpretation is fundametalism or sola scriptura which is not the science of hermeneutics by The Church.

  • Political Vel Craft

    Non existant pathway or roadmap by physical definition.

  • Gil G

    There’s nothing else that is so super-egotistical as the Young Earth Creationist. They are adults who never grew out of the “special little snowflake” phase of their life. They have the special story book that tells how the whole Universe was made just for them.
    The author is flabbergasted that the Koran was allowed to read in the Vatican? Why? It’s because the author sees the Koran as a story book and Islam as a counterfeit version of Christianity. When the author see Islam as a false religion where an all-powerful Being rules over the Universe and will eternally reward the pious and punish the wicked he gets a chance to see what an atheist see about his religion. Your book is the truth and your version of Christianity is right but everyone else is wrong? Sure.
    The author can’t comprehend evolution because it proves either the Bible is historically wrong or heaven forbid the Book of Genesis was never meant to be taken as literal history. The author can’t comprehend that fossils exist even though they’re there? What does the author think when he can look up to sky and see the Andromeda Galaxy? Or the Triangulum Galaxy? Just to see the Andromeda Galaxy means the Universe is at least 2 million years old.
    To pretend evolution “is just a atheist religion” to excise God from real life means you have to excise all facets of science and technology. To suppose biologists, archaeologists, palaeontologists, etc., are playing make-believe to con the people that the Earth is ancient when it’s only six millennia old is to suppose all scientists are working hard to do nothing but disprove God.
    Yes feel free to read the Book of Genesis as though it were a history book. Feel free to piggyback on the science and technology that in the last 150 years changed human existence from menial to cosy. Feel free to enjoy the latest technology that works without pretending that it was thank to the various fields of science you like to disparage because your book is inviolable to you.