Since the news broke on Monday about the Pope’s statement that he’s okay with evolution and the Big Bang, we’ve been waiting for a creationist reaction. It’s now Friday and we’ve already written twice about it — see Pope Francis, Evolution, & the Big Bang, and then The Pope’s Views on Science — So What? It took longer than we thought, but we finally have a creationist response.
It comes from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom — and it’s written by Brian Thomas. We’ve written about him before — see The Mind of Brian Thomas. His article is Pro-Evolution Pope. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
During an October 28 meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held in the Vatican, Pope Francis said, “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve,” according to The Telegraph. He also asserted that the Big Bang “doesn’t contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it.” If the Pope says it’s okay for Catholics to embrace the Big Bang and evolution, does that settle the controversy?
That meeting was on 27 October, not the 28th. But Brian is close enough, so we won’t quibble. He then says:
Those who simply take the Pope’s words as authoritative may find no reason to doubt his recent assertions, but attempts to square Pope Francis’ statements with science or the Bible will encounter some serious red flags.
Egad — serious red flags! Let’s read on:
If by “evolution” the Pope meant the transformation of hydrogen into humans over billions of years of natural processes, then He condones a schizophrenic form of creation because it needs no real Creator. Why invoke a Creator if none is needed?
Good question! Brian continues:
Plus, at least four scientific observations refute evolution, summarized in [an ICR publication].
Forgive us, dear reader, but we’re going to ignore that material. Here’s more from Brian:
And in what way does the Big Bang demand a Creator? Perhaps, like many Christian apologists, the Pope would argue that since the Big Bang requires a beginning, and since all beginnings require a beginner, that the Big Bang therefore requires a Big Beginner.
That’s roughly the Pope’s position, as we understand it. Moving along:
However, some versions of the Big Bang suggest that it was merely the most recent of an infinite cycle of universal expansions and contractions. In other words, some Big Bang cosmologies assert the universe has somehow always existed and thus did not even require a beginning. So arguing for God from the Big Bang fails since it cherry-picks versions of the Big Bang that assert a beginning.
The cyclical (or oscillating) universe was a widely accepted view until recently. It was assumed that if the mass of the universe were sufficient, the expansion that we now see would eventually be halted by gravity. Then there would be a contraction phase ending in the Big Crunch, followed by another Big Bang, then another contraction, ad infinitum. There are still cyclical models floating around, but the observed acceleration of the universe’s expansion has mostly put an end to the oscillating universe (at least for now), so the Pope isn’t cherry-picking. He’s speaking of what is currently the generally accepted theory. Here’s another excerpt from Brian’s essay:
Pope Francis also said at the meeting, “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.” Is his God the same as the God of the Bible?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Brian’s god is a magician with a magic wand. On with the article:
Scoffers enjoy mocking the Genesis creation account by equating it with some kind of magic, but this overlooks the critical difference between magic and biblical creation.
Oh, wait — we’re about to be told why biblical creation isn’t magic. Pay close attention:
In magic, objects materialize from no source — from nothing and nobody — violating the laws of causality. But creation according to Genesis asserts that God — an actual and ultimate cause — created all things by His Word.
Oh. Okay. Now that we have that under control, we’ll skip a bit until we arrive at Brian’s disdainful conclusion:
While the Pope may side with the scoffers, science aligns with Scripture.
So there you are. According to the Institute for Creation Research, the Pope is all wrong. Now you know.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.