Discussion:
Church and Evolution
(too old to reply)
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-08 17:03:20 UTC
Permalink
The Church and Evolution

I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on Evolution.

Fr.M.: "I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) that we cannot speak of creation versus evolution, but rather of creation and evolution," Fr.V.Marcozzi told Inside the Vatican. "To admit evolution does not necessarily signify denying God's intervention. There are at least three 'moments' when divine intervention is necessary and evident: the appearance of life, that is of the first living organisms; the evolutionary possibilities with which God imbues these organisms; and, finally, the coming of man, whose spiritual qualities implicate God's special intervention."

Fr.M: "Evolution is not admissible without the mediation of a supreme Mind which established the laws of nature governing natural processes and which created nature itself. Although Church Fathers, such as St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine lacked a modern conception of evolution, they espoused ideas which approximated evolutionary theories. The Church Fathers maintained that God, in his first creative act, imbued matter with the "potentiality" or power to produce different animal and plant species. I favor the idea of evolution as a succession of beings, genetically related, but increasingly diverse and complex. The fundamental question is that of the First Cause".

How do you judge Darwin's theory?

Fr.M.: "For Darwin - a materialist criticized by his own wife for his lack of faith - evolution was set in motion by outside causal factors such as natural selection and the struggle for survival. According to the English scientist, all beings, including Man, evolve from causal mutations. Apart from the absence of clear proofs for the intermediary forms of human existence, can we really believe that such marvelous beings, particularly man himself, are products of mere chance?

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

These links are missing; they may never be found. What explains such great evolutionary leaps? Can they possibly be the result of material changes?

I rather see a divine intervention"n.

Can evolution be supported by the Bible?

Fr.M.: There are two accounts of Genesis in the Bible. The more recent account describes creation in seven days and a repose on the Sabbath. The earlier account presumes that creation happened in one day.

The significance of both is that God created all things; evolution in no way contradicts this affirmation.

In synthesis, God created Man from matter and then infused him with a spirit.

What is your opinion of the Holy Father's (John Paul II) message to the Pontifical Academy of Science (October 23, 1996)?

Fr.M.: The Holy Father's message contains no specific recognition of Darwin or his theories.

John Paul II is proceeding along the doctrinal lines traced by the Popes before him. There are many different theories of Evolution.

It is possible to accept evolution as a theory, while affirming that the spiritual and philosophical elements must remain outside the competence of Science.

The Holy Father does not affirm that evolution has become a certain, demonstrable doctrine. In the Holy Father's own words: "Rather than speaking of the theory of evolution, we should speak of (various) theories of evolution," since there does not seem to be unanimity among scientists.

He does reassert the Church's competence to assess the theological and philosophical repercussions of evolutionary theories. The Church thus excludes, as Pius XII stated, "purely materialist or reductive analyses," which leave no room for spiritual interpretations. John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."

Regards.

Fr.Ivo
Santosh Helekar
2008-02-09 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post. Those who want to know what these
misconceptions are can email me privately.

However, scientists, science in general and people
belonging to other religious denominations do not care
what one particular religious organization believes.
The private beliefs of its members are not applicable
to the rest of us. The only thing that needs to be
ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
The Church and Evolution
I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with
Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on
Evolution.
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-11 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is wrong again. Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi is not
holding a "creationist position", but that of "creative evolution".
Creationism (or 'creation science') refuses to accept evolution 'tout
court'.
Naturally, he will find "misconceptions regarding evolution in this post".
Post by Santosh Helekar
...should be ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.
*Agreed. Evolution should be taught in the public schools and colleges in
the subject of Science. "Creative Evolution" should be taught in the public
schools and colleges in the subject of Religion for the Christian students,
wherever such classes are given. Creationism should not be taught to
Christian students (much less to students of other religions and
'no-religion') either in Science or in Religion. It is biblical
fundamentalism. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all.
God, by definition a Supernatural Being, is not within the scope of Science,
which is the study of natural phenomena.

Fr.George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said that
placing Intelligent Design (ID) theory alongside that of Evolution in school
programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. According
to him, "Intelligent Design" (ID) isn't science and doesn't belong in
science
classrooms. "Intelligent Design isn't science even though it pretends to
be," the ANSA
news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a Conference in
Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, Intelligent Design should be
taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Creationists say that the Universe is so complex that it must have
been created by a Higher Power. But Intelligent Design (ID) is merely
Creationism
- a literalist, fundamentalist
reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific
language, therefore it does not belong in science curriculum.
In his interview to The Tablet, Fr.George
Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said Science explains the
history of the Universe. "If they respect the results of modern science, and
indeed the best of
modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion
of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the Universe
as a watch that ticks along regularly." "God in his infinite freedom
continuously creates a world that reflects that
freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater
complexity," he stated. "He is not continually intervening, but rather
allows, participates, loves", he concluded.

I thank Dr.Santosh for his interventions and sincerely praise him for
lifting up
the scientific standard of this Forum, though I do not agree with him on
several counts.
Neither, being a scientist, will he agree with me on the existence of God.
Both scientific and metaphysico-theological discourses
are needed, with due sensitivity to both 'believers' and 'un-believers'.
Otherwise, more questions may be raised than answered...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-11 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is wrong again. Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi is not
holding a "creationist position", but that of "creative evolution".
Creationism (or 'creation science') refuses to accept evolution 'tout
court'.
Naturally, he will find "misconceptions regarding evolution in this post".
Post by Santosh Helekar
...should be ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.
*Agreed. Evolution should be taught in the public schools and colleges in
the subject of Science. "Creative Evolution" should be taught in the public
schools and colleges in the subject of Religion for the Christian students,
wherever such classes are given. Creationism should not be taught to
Christian students (much less to students of other religions and
'no-religion') either in Science or in Religion. It is biblical
fundamentalism. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all.
God, by definition a Supernatural Being, is not within the scope of Science,
which is the study of natural phenomena.

Fr.George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said that
placing Intelligent Design (ID) theory alongside that of Evolution in school
programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. According
to him, "Intelligent Design" (ID) isn't science and doesn't belong in
science
classrooms. "Intelligent Design isn't science even though it pretends to
be," the ANSA
news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a Conference in
Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, Intelligent Design should be
taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Creationists say that the Universe is so complex that it must have
been created by a Higher Power. But Intelligent Design (ID) is merely
Creationism
- a literalist, fundamentalist
reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific
language, therefore it does not belong in science curriculum.
In his interview to The Tablet, Fr.George
Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said Science explains the
history of the Universe. "If they respect the results of modern science, and
indeed the best of
modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion
of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the Universe
as a watch that ticks along regularly." "God in his infinite freedom
continuously creates a world that reflects that
freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater
complexity," he stated. "He is not continually intervening, but rather
allows, participates, loves", he concluded.

I thank Dr.Santosh for his interventions and sincerely praise him for
lifting up
the scientific standard of this Forum, though I do not agree with him on
several counts.
Neither, being a scientist, will he agree with me on the existence of God.
Both scientific and metaphysico-theological discourses
are needed, with due sensitivity to both 'believers' and 'un-believers'.
Otherwise, more questions may be raised than answered...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-11 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is wrong again. Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi is not
holding a "creationist position", but that of "creative evolution".
Creationism (or 'creation science') refuses to accept evolution 'tout
court'.
Naturally, he will find "misconceptions regarding evolution in this post".
Post by Santosh Helekar
...should be ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.
*Agreed. Evolution should be taught in the public schools and colleges in
the subject of Science. "Creative Evolution" should be taught in the public
schools and colleges in the subject of Religion for the Christian students,
wherever such classes are given. Creationism should not be taught to
Christian students (much less to students of other religions and
'no-religion') either in Science or in Religion. It is biblical
fundamentalism. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all.
God, by definition a Supernatural Being, is not within the scope of Science,
which is the study of natural phenomena.

Fr.George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said that
placing Intelligent Design (ID) theory alongside that of Evolution in school
programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. According
to him, "Intelligent Design" (ID) isn't science and doesn't belong in
science
classrooms. "Intelligent Design isn't science even though it pretends to
be," the ANSA
news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a Conference in
Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, Intelligent Design should be
taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Creationists say that the Universe is so complex that it must have
been created by a Higher Power. But Intelligent Design (ID) is merely
Creationism
- a literalist, fundamentalist
reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific
language, therefore it does not belong in science curriculum.
In his interview to The Tablet, Fr.George
Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said Science explains the
history of the Universe. "If they respect the results of modern science, and
indeed the best of
modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion
of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the Universe
as a watch that ticks along regularly." "God in his infinite freedom
continuously creates a world that reflects that
freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater
complexity," he stated. "He is not continually intervening, but rather
allows, participates, loves", he concluded.

I thank Dr.Santosh for his interventions and sincerely praise him for
lifting up
the scientific standard of this Forum, though I do not agree with him on
several counts.
Neither, being a scientist, will he agree with me on the existence of God.
Both scientific and metaphysico-theological discourses
are needed, with due sensitivity to both 'believers' and 'un-believers'.
Otherwise, more questions may be raised than answered...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-11 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is wrong again. Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi is not
holding a "creationist position", but that of "creative evolution".
Creationism (or 'creation science') refuses to accept evolution 'tout
court'.
Naturally, he will find "misconceptions regarding evolution in this post".
Post by Santosh Helekar
...should be ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.
*Agreed. Evolution should be taught in the public schools and colleges in
the subject of Science. "Creative Evolution" should be taught in the public
schools and colleges in the subject of Religion for the Christian students,
wherever such classes are given. Creationism should not be taught to
Christian students (much less to students of other religions and
'no-religion') either in Science or in Religion. It is biblical
fundamentalism. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all.
God, by definition a Supernatural Being, is not within the scope of Science,
which is the study of natural phenomena.

Fr.George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said that
placing Intelligent Design (ID) theory alongside that of Evolution in school
programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. According
to him, "Intelligent Design" (ID) isn't science and doesn't belong in
science
classrooms. "Intelligent Design isn't science even though it pretends to
be," the ANSA
news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a Conference in
Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, Intelligent Design should be
taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Creationists say that the Universe is so complex that it must have
been created by a Higher Power. But Intelligent Design (ID) is merely
Creationism
- a literalist, fundamentalist
reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific
language, therefore it does not belong in science curriculum.
In his interview to The Tablet, Fr.George
Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said Science explains the
history of the Universe. "If they respect the results of modern science, and
indeed the best of
modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion
of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the Universe
as a watch that ticks along regularly." "God in his infinite freedom
continuously creates a world that reflects that
freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater
complexity," he stated. "He is not continually intervening, but rather
allows, participates, loves", he concluded.

I thank Dr.Santosh for his interventions and sincerely praise him for
lifting up
the scientific standard of this Forum, though I do not agree with him on
several counts.
Neither, being a scientist, will he agree with me on the existence of God.
Both scientific and metaphysico-theological discourses
are needed, with due sensitivity to both 'believers' and 'un-believers'.
Otherwise, more questions may be raised than answered...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-11 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is wrong again. Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi is not
holding a "creationist position", but that of "creative evolution".
Creationism (or 'creation science') refuses to accept evolution 'tout
court'.
Naturally, he will find "misconceptions regarding evolution in this post".
Post by Santosh Helekar
...should be ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.
*Agreed. Evolution should be taught in the public schools and colleges in
the subject of Science. "Creative Evolution" should be taught in the public
schools and colleges in the subject of Religion for the Christian students,
wherever such classes are given. Creationism should not be taught to
Christian students (much less to students of other religions and
'no-religion') either in Science or in Religion. It is biblical
fundamentalism. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all.
God, by definition a Supernatural Being, is not within the scope of Science,
which is the study of natural phenomena.

Fr.George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said that
placing Intelligent Design (ID) theory alongside that of Evolution in school
programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. According
to him, "Intelligent Design" (ID) isn't science and doesn't belong in
science
classrooms. "Intelligent Design isn't science even though it pretends to
be," the ANSA
news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a Conference in
Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, Intelligent Design should be
taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Creationists say that the Universe is so complex that it must have
been created by a Higher Power. But Intelligent Design (ID) is merely
Creationism
- a literalist, fundamentalist
reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific
language, therefore it does not belong in science curriculum.
In his interview to The Tablet, Fr.George
Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said Science explains the
history of the Universe. "If they respect the results of modern science, and
indeed the best of
modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion
of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the Universe
as a watch that ticks along regularly." "God in his infinite freedom
continuously creates a world that reflects that
freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater
complexity," he stated. "He is not continually intervening, but rather
allows, participates, loves", he concluded.

I thank Dr.Santosh for his interventions and sincerely praise him for
lifting up
the scientific standard of this Forum, though I do not agree with him on
several counts.
Neither, being a scientist, will he agree with me on the existence of God.
Both scientific and metaphysico-theological discourses
are needed, with due sensitivity to both 'believers' and 'un-believers'.
Otherwise, more questions may be raised than answered...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-11 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is wrong again. Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi is not
holding a "creationist position", but that of "creative evolution".
Creationism (or 'creation science') refuses to accept evolution 'tout
court'.
Naturally, he will find "misconceptions regarding evolution in this post".
Post by Santosh Helekar
...should be ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.
*Agreed. Evolution should be taught in the public schools and colleges in
the subject of Science. "Creative Evolution" should be taught in the public
schools and colleges in the subject of Religion for the Christian students,
wherever such classes are given. Creationism should not be taught to
Christian students (much less to students of other religions and
'no-religion') either in Science or in Religion. It is biblical
fundamentalism. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all.
God, by definition a Supernatural Being, is not within the scope of Science,
which is the study of natural phenomena.

Fr.George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said that
placing Intelligent Design (ID) theory alongside that of Evolution in school
programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. According
to him, "Intelligent Design" (ID) isn't science and doesn't belong in
science
classrooms. "Intelligent Design isn't science even though it pretends to
be," the ANSA
news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a Conference in
Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, Intelligent Design should be
taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Creationists say that the Universe is so complex that it must have
been created by a Higher Power. But Intelligent Design (ID) is merely
Creationism
- a literalist, fundamentalist
reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific
language, therefore it does not belong in science curriculum.
In his interview to The Tablet, Fr.George
Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said Science explains the
history of the Universe. "If they respect the results of modern science, and
indeed the best of
modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion
of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the Universe
as a watch that ticks along regularly." "God in his infinite freedom
continuously creates a world that reflects that
freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater
complexity," he stated. "He is not continually intervening, but rather
allows, participates, loves", he concluded.

I thank Dr.Santosh for his interventions and sincerely praise him for
lifting up
the scientific standard of this Forum, though I do not agree with him on
several counts.
Neither, being a scientist, will he agree with me on the existence of God.
Both scientific and metaphysico-theological discourses
are needed, with due sensitivity to both 'believers' and 'un-believers'.
Otherwise, more questions may be raised than answered...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-11 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
From: "Santosh Helekar" <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Post by Santosh Helekar
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post.
*Being a scientist, Dr.Santosh is wrong again. Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi is not
holding a "creationist position", but that of "creative evolution".
Creationism (or 'creation science') refuses to accept evolution 'tout
court'.
Naturally, he will find "misconceptions regarding evolution in this post".
Post by Santosh Helekar
...should be ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.
*Agreed. Evolution should be taught in the public schools and colleges in
the subject of Science. "Creative Evolution" should be taught in the public
schools and colleges in the subject of Religion for the Christian students,
wherever such classes are given. Creationism should not be taught to
Christian students (much less to students of other religions and
'no-religion') either in Science or in Religion. It is biblical
fundamentalism. Science is not attempting to prove or disprove God at all.
God, by definition a Supernatural Being, is not within the scope of Science,
which is the study of natural phenomena.

Fr.George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said that
placing Intelligent Design (ID) theory alongside that of Evolution in school
programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. According
to him, "Intelligent Design" (ID) isn't science and doesn't belong in
science
classrooms. "Intelligent Design isn't science even though it pretends to
be," the ANSA
news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a Conference in
Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, Intelligent Design should be
taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Creationists say that the Universe is so complex that it must have
been created by a Higher Power. But Intelligent Design (ID) is merely
Creationism
- a literalist, fundamentalist
reading of the Bible's story of creation - camouflaged in scientific
language, therefore it does not belong in science curriculum.
In his interview to The Tablet, Fr.George
Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said Science explains the
history of the Universe. "If they respect the results of modern science, and
indeed the best of
modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion
of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the Universe
as a watch that ticks along regularly." "God in his infinite freedom
continuously creates a world that reflects that
freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater
complexity," he stated. "He is not continually intervening, but rather
allows, participates, loves", he concluded.

I thank Dr.Santosh for his interventions and sincerely praise him for
lifting up
the scientific standard of this Forum, though I do not agree with him on
several counts.
Neither, being a scientist, will he agree with me on the existence of God.
Both scientific and metaphysico-theological discourses
are needed, with due sensitivity to both 'believers' and 'un-believers'.
Otherwise, more questions may be raised than answered...
Regards.
Fr.Ivo

Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-08 17:03:20 UTC
Permalink
The Church and Evolution

I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on Evolution.

Fr.M.: "I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) that we cannot speak of creation versus evolution, but rather of creation and evolution," Fr.V.Marcozzi told Inside the Vatican. "To admit evolution does not necessarily signify denying God's intervention. There are at least three 'moments' when divine intervention is necessary and evident: the appearance of life, that is of the first living organisms; the evolutionary possibilities with which God imbues these organisms; and, finally, the coming of man, whose spiritual qualities implicate God's special intervention."

Fr.M: "Evolution is not admissible without the mediation of a supreme Mind which established the laws of nature governing natural processes and which created nature itself. Although Church Fathers, such as St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine lacked a modern conception of evolution, they espoused ideas which approximated evolutionary theories. The Church Fathers maintained that God, in his first creative act, imbued matter with the "potentiality" or power to produce different animal and plant species. I favor the idea of evolution as a succession of beings, genetically related, but increasingly diverse and complex. The fundamental question is that of the First Cause".

How do you judge Darwin's theory?

Fr.M.: "For Darwin - a materialist criticized by his own wife for his lack of faith - evolution was set in motion by outside causal factors such as natural selection and the struggle for survival. According to the English scientist, all beings, including Man, evolve from causal mutations. Apart from the absence of clear proofs for the intermediary forms of human existence, can we really believe that such marvelous beings, particularly man himself, are products of mere chance?

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

These links are missing; they may never be found. What explains such great evolutionary leaps? Can they possibly be the result of material changes?

I rather see a divine intervention"n.

Can evolution be supported by the Bible?

Fr.M.: There are two accounts of Genesis in the Bible. The more recent account describes creation in seven days and a repose on the Sabbath. The earlier account presumes that creation happened in one day.

The significance of both is that God created all things; evolution in no way contradicts this affirmation.

In synthesis, God created Man from matter and then infused him with a spirit.

What is your opinion of the Holy Father's (John Paul II) message to the Pontifical Academy of Science (October 23, 1996)?

Fr.M.: The Holy Father's message contains no specific recognition of Darwin or his theories.

John Paul II is proceeding along the doctrinal lines traced by the Popes before him. There are many different theories of Evolution.

It is possible to accept evolution as a theory, while affirming that the spiritual and philosophical elements must remain outside the competence of Science.

The Holy Father does not affirm that evolution has become a certain, demonstrable doctrine. In the Holy Father's own words: "Rather than speaking of the theory of evolution, we should speak of (various) theories of evolution," since there does not seem to be unanimity among scientists.

He does reassert the Church's competence to assess the theological and philosophical repercussions of evolutionary theories. The Church thus excludes, as Pius XII stated, "purely materialist or reductive analyses," which leave no room for spiritual interpretations. John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."

Regards.

Fr.Ivo
Santosh Helekar
2008-02-09 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post. Those who want to know what these
misconceptions are can email me privately.

However, scientists, science in general and people
belonging to other religious denominations do not care
what one particular religious organization believes.
The private beliefs of its members are not applicable
to the rest of us. The only thing that needs to be
ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
The Church and Evolution
I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with
Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on
Evolution.
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-08 17:03:20 UTC
Permalink
The Church and Evolution

I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on Evolution.

Fr.M.: "I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) that we cannot speak of creation versus evolution, but rather of creation and evolution," Fr.V.Marcozzi told Inside the Vatican. "To admit evolution does not necessarily signify denying God's intervention. There are at least three 'moments' when divine intervention is necessary and evident: the appearance of life, that is of the first living organisms; the evolutionary possibilities with which God imbues these organisms; and, finally, the coming of man, whose spiritual qualities implicate God's special intervention."

Fr.M: "Evolution is not admissible without the mediation of a supreme Mind which established the laws of nature governing natural processes and which created nature itself. Although Church Fathers, such as St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine lacked a modern conception of evolution, they espoused ideas which approximated evolutionary theories. The Church Fathers maintained that God, in his first creative act, imbued matter with the "potentiality" or power to produce different animal and plant species. I favor the idea of evolution as a succession of beings, genetically related, but increasingly diverse and complex. The fundamental question is that of the First Cause".

How do you judge Darwin's theory?

Fr.M.: "For Darwin - a materialist criticized by his own wife for his lack of faith - evolution was set in motion by outside causal factors such as natural selection and the struggle for survival. According to the English scientist, all beings, including Man, evolve from causal mutations. Apart from the absence of clear proofs for the intermediary forms of human existence, can we really believe that such marvelous beings, particularly man himself, are products of mere chance?

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

These links are missing; they may never be found. What explains such great evolutionary leaps? Can they possibly be the result of material changes?

I rather see a divine intervention"n.

Can evolution be supported by the Bible?

Fr.M.: There are two accounts of Genesis in the Bible. The more recent account describes creation in seven days and a repose on the Sabbath. The earlier account presumes that creation happened in one day.

The significance of both is that God created all things; evolution in no way contradicts this affirmation.

In synthesis, God created Man from matter and then infused him with a spirit.

What is your opinion of the Holy Father's (John Paul II) message to the Pontifical Academy of Science (October 23, 1996)?

Fr.M.: The Holy Father's message contains no specific recognition of Darwin or his theories.

John Paul II is proceeding along the doctrinal lines traced by the Popes before him. There are many different theories of Evolution.

It is possible to accept evolution as a theory, while affirming that the spiritual and philosophical elements must remain outside the competence of Science.

The Holy Father does not affirm that evolution has become a certain, demonstrable doctrine. In the Holy Father's own words: "Rather than speaking of the theory of evolution, we should speak of (various) theories of evolution," since there does not seem to be unanimity among scientists.

He does reassert the Church's competence to assess the theological and philosophical repercussions of evolutionary theories. The Church thus excludes, as Pius XII stated, "purely materialist or reductive analyses," which leave no room for spiritual interpretations. John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."

Regards.

Fr.Ivo
Santosh Helekar
2008-02-09 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post. Those who want to know what these
misconceptions are can email me privately.

However, scientists, science in general and people
belonging to other religious denominations do not care
what one particular religious organization believes.
The private beliefs of its members are not applicable
to the rest of us. The only thing that needs to be
ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
The Church and Evolution
I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with
Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on
Evolution.
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-08 17:03:20 UTC
Permalink
The Church and Evolution

I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on Evolution.

Fr.M.: "I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) that we cannot speak of creation versus evolution, but rather of creation and evolution," Fr.V.Marcozzi told Inside the Vatican. "To admit evolution does not necessarily signify denying God's intervention. There are at least three 'moments' when divine intervention is necessary and evident: the appearance of life, that is of the first living organisms; the evolutionary possibilities with which God imbues these organisms; and, finally, the coming of man, whose spiritual qualities implicate God's special intervention."

Fr.M: "Evolution is not admissible without the mediation of a supreme Mind which established the laws of nature governing natural processes and which created nature itself. Although Church Fathers, such as St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine lacked a modern conception of evolution, they espoused ideas which approximated evolutionary theories. The Church Fathers maintained that God, in his first creative act, imbued matter with the "potentiality" or power to produce different animal and plant species. I favor the idea of evolution as a succession of beings, genetically related, but increasingly diverse and complex. The fundamental question is that of the First Cause".

How do you judge Darwin's theory?

Fr.M.: "For Darwin - a materialist criticized by his own wife for his lack of faith - evolution was set in motion by outside causal factors such as natural selection and the struggle for survival. According to the English scientist, all beings, including Man, evolve from causal mutations. Apart from the absence of clear proofs for the intermediary forms of human existence, can we really believe that such marvelous beings, particularly man himself, are products of mere chance?

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

These links are missing; they may never be found. What explains such great evolutionary leaps? Can they possibly be the result of material changes?

I rather see a divine intervention"n.

Can evolution be supported by the Bible?

Fr.M.: There are two accounts of Genesis in the Bible. The more recent account describes creation in seven days and a repose on the Sabbath. The earlier account presumes that creation happened in one day.

The significance of both is that God created all things; evolution in no way contradicts this affirmation.

In synthesis, God created Man from matter and then infused him with a spirit.

What is your opinion of the Holy Father's (John Paul II) message to the Pontifical Academy of Science (October 23, 1996)?

Fr.M.: The Holy Father's message contains no specific recognition of Darwin or his theories.

John Paul II is proceeding along the doctrinal lines traced by the Popes before him. There are many different theories of Evolution.

It is possible to accept evolution as a theory, while affirming that the spiritual and philosophical elements must remain outside the competence of Science.

The Holy Father does not affirm that evolution has become a certain, demonstrable doctrine. In the Holy Father's own words: "Rather than speaking of the theory of evolution, we should speak of (various) theories of evolution," since there does not seem to be unanimity among scientists.

He does reassert the Church's competence to assess the theological and philosophical repercussions of evolutionary theories. The Church thus excludes, as Pius XII stated, "purely materialist or reductive analyses," which leave no room for spiritual interpretations. John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."

Regards.

Fr.Ivo
Santosh Helekar
2008-02-09 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post. Those who want to know what these
misconceptions are can email me privately.

However, scientists, science in general and people
belonging to other religious denominations do not care
what one particular religious organization believes.
The private beliefs of its members are not applicable
to the rest of us. The only thing that needs to be
ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
The Church and Evolution
I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with
Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on
Evolution.
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-08 17:03:20 UTC
Permalink
The Church and Evolution

I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on Evolution.

Fr.M.: "I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) that we cannot speak of creation versus evolution, but rather of creation and evolution," Fr.V.Marcozzi told Inside the Vatican. "To admit evolution does not necessarily signify denying God's intervention. There are at least three 'moments' when divine intervention is necessary and evident: the appearance of life, that is of the first living organisms; the evolutionary possibilities with which God imbues these organisms; and, finally, the coming of man, whose spiritual qualities implicate God's special intervention."

Fr.M: "Evolution is not admissible without the mediation of a supreme Mind which established the laws of nature governing natural processes and which created nature itself. Although Church Fathers, such as St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine lacked a modern conception of evolution, they espoused ideas which approximated evolutionary theories. The Church Fathers maintained that God, in his first creative act, imbued matter with the "potentiality" or power to produce different animal and plant species. I favor the idea of evolution as a succession of beings, genetically related, but increasingly diverse and complex. The fundamental question is that of the First Cause".

How do you judge Darwin's theory?

Fr.M.: "For Darwin - a materialist criticized by his own wife for his lack of faith - evolution was set in motion by outside causal factors such as natural selection and the struggle for survival. According to the English scientist, all beings, including Man, evolve from causal mutations. Apart from the absence of clear proofs for the intermediary forms of human existence, can we really believe that such marvelous beings, particularly man himself, are products of mere chance?

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

These links are missing; they may never be found. What explains such great evolutionary leaps? Can they possibly be the result of material changes?

I rather see a divine intervention"n.

Can evolution be supported by the Bible?

Fr.M.: There are two accounts of Genesis in the Bible. The more recent account describes creation in seven days and a repose on the Sabbath. The earlier account presumes that creation happened in one day.

The significance of both is that God created all things; evolution in no way contradicts this affirmation.

In synthesis, God created Man from matter and then infused him with a spirit.

What is your opinion of the Holy Father's (John Paul II) message to the Pontifical Academy of Science (October 23, 1996)?

Fr.M.: The Holy Father's message contains no specific recognition of Darwin or his theories.

John Paul II is proceeding along the doctrinal lines traced by the Popes before him. There are many different theories of Evolution.

It is possible to accept evolution as a theory, while affirming that the spiritual and philosophical elements must remain outside the competence of Science.

The Holy Father does not affirm that evolution has become a certain, demonstrable doctrine. In the Holy Father's own words: "Rather than speaking of the theory of evolution, we should speak of (various) theories of evolution," since there does not seem to be unanimity among scientists.

He does reassert the Church's competence to assess the theological and philosophical repercussions of evolutionary theories. The Church thus excludes, as Pius XII stated, "purely materialist or reductive analyses," which leave no room for spiritual interpretations. John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."

Regards.

Fr.Ivo
Santosh Helekar
2008-02-09 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post. Those who want to know what these
misconceptions are can email me privately.

However, scientists, science in general and people
belonging to other religious denominations do not care
what one particular religious organization believes.
The private beliefs of its members are not applicable
to the rest of us. The only thing that needs to be
ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
The Church and Evolution
I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with
Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on
Evolution.
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-08 17:03:20 UTC
Permalink
The Church and Evolution

I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on Evolution.

Fr.M.: "I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) that we cannot speak of creation versus evolution, but rather of creation and evolution," Fr.V.Marcozzi told Inside the Vatican. "To admit evolution does not necessarily signify denying God's intervention. There are at least three 'moments' when divine intervention is necessary and evident: the appearance of life, that is of the first living organisms; the evolutionary possibilities with which God imbues these organisms; and, finally, the coming of man, whose spiritual qualities implicate God's special intervention."

Fr.M: "Evolution is not admissible without the mediation of a supreme Mind which established the laws of nature governing natural processes and which created nature itself. Although Church Fathers, such as St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine lacked a modern conception of evolution, they espoused ideas which approximated evolutionary theories. The Church Fathers maintained that God, in his first creative act, imbued matter with the "potentiality" or power to produce different animal and plant species. I favor the idea of evolution as a succession of beings, genetically related, but increasingly diverse and complex. The fundamental question is that of the First Cause".

How do you judge Darwin's theory?

Fr.M.: "For Darwin - a materialist criticized by his own wife for his lack of faith - evolution was set in motion by outside causal factors such as natural selection and the struggle for survival. According to the English scientist, all beings, including Man, evolve from causal mutations. Apart from the absence of clear proofs for the intermediary forms of human existence, can we really believe that such marvelous beings, particularly man himself, are products of mere chance?

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

These links are missing; they may never be found. What explains such great evolutionary leaps? Can they possibly be the result of material changes?

I rather see a divine intervention"n.

Can evolution be supported by the Bible?

Fr.M.: There are two accounts of Genesis in the Bible. The more recent account describes creation in seven days and a repose on the Sabbath. The earlier account presumes that creation happened in one day.

The significance of both is that God created all things; evolution in no way contradicts this affirmation.

In synthesis, God created Man from matter and then infused him with a spirit.

What is your opinion of the Holy Father's (John Paul II) message to the Pontifical Academy of Science (October 23, 1996)?

Fr.M.: The Holy Father's message contains no specific recognition of Darwin or his theories.

John Paul II is proceeding along the doctrinal lines traced by the Popes before him. There are many different theories of Evolution.

It is possible to accept evolution as a theory, while affirming that the spiritual and philosophical elements must remain outside the competence of Science.

The Holy Father does not affirm that evolution has become a certain, demonstrable doctrine. In the Holy Father's own words: "Rather than speaking of the theory of evolution, we should speak of (various) theories of evolution," since there does not seem to be unanimity among scientists.

He does reassert the Church's competence to assess the theological and philosophical repercussions of evolutionary theories. The Church thus excludes, as Pius XII stated, "purely materialist or reductive analyses," which leave no room for spiritual interpretations. John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."

Regards.

Fr.Ivo
Santosh Helekar
2008-02-09 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post. Those who want to know what these
misconceptions are can email me privately.

However, scientists, science in general and people
belonging to other religious denominations do not care
what one particular religious organization believes.
The private beliefs of its members are not applicable
to the rest of us. The only thing that needs to be
ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
The Church and Evolution
I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with
Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on
Evolution.
Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
2008-02-08 17:03:20 UTC
Permalink
The Church and Evolution

I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on Evolution.

Fr.M.: "I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) that we cannot speak of creation versus evolution, but rather of creation and evolution," Fr.V.Marcozzi told Inside the Vatican. "To admit evolution does not necessarily signify denying God's intervention. There are at least three 'moments' when divine intervention is necessary and evident: the appearance of life, that is of the first living organisms; the evolutionary possibilities with which God imbues these organisms; and, finally, the coming of man, whose spiritual qualities implicate God's special intervention."

Fr.M: "Evolution is not admissible without the mediation of a supreme Mind which established the laws of nature governing natural processes and which created nature itself. Although Church Fathers, such as St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Augustine lacked a modern conception of evolution, they espoused ideas which approximated evolutionary theories. The Church Fathers maintained that God, in his first creative act, imbued matter with the "potentiality" or power to produce different animal and plant species. I favor the idea of evolution as a succession of beings, genetically related, but increasingly diverse and complex. The fundamental question is that of the First Cause".

How do you judge Darwin's theory?

Fr.M.: "For Darwin - a materialist criticized by his own wife for his lack of faith - evolution was set in motion by outside causal factors such as natural selection and the struggle for survival. According to the English scientist, all beings, including Man, evolve from causal mutations. Apart from the absence of clear proofs for the intermediary forms of human existence, can we really believe that such marvelous beings, particularly man himself, are products of mere chance?

A billion and a half years have passed between the existence of one-celled and many-celled organisms, and yet there seem to be no intermediate forms linking the two.

These links are missing; they may never be found. What explains such great evolutionary leaps? Can they possibly be the result of material changes?

I rather see a divine intervention"n.

Can evolution be supported by the Bible?

Fr.M.: There are two accounts of Genesis in the Bible. The more recent account describes creation in seven days and a repose on the Sabbath. The earlier account presumes that creation happened in one day.

The significance of both is that God created all things; evolution in no way contradicts this affirmation.

In synthesis, God created Man from matter and then infused him with a spirit.

What is your opinion of the Holy Father's (John Paul II) message to the Pontifical Academy of Science (October 23, 1996)?

Fr.M.: The Holy Father's message contains no specific recognition of Darwin or his theories.

John Paul II is proceeding along the doctrinal lines traced by the Popes before him. There are many different theories of Evolution.

It is possible to accept evolution as a theory, while affirming that the spiritual and philosophical elements must remain outside the competence of Science.

The Holy Father does not affirm that evolution has become a certain, demonstrable doctrine. In the Holy Father's own words: "Rather than speaking of the theory of evolution, we should speak of (various) theories of evolution," since there does not seem to be unanimity among scientists.

He does reassert the Church's competence to assess the theological and philosophical repercussions of evolutionary theories. The Church thus excludes, as Pius XII stated, "purely materialist or reductive analyses," which leave no room for spiritual interpretations. John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: "Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God."

Regards.

Fr.Ivo
Santosh Helekar
2008-02-09 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
The following post reveals the creationist position of
a spokesman of one religious organization out of many.
There are several misconceptions regarding evolution
in this post. Those who want to know what these
misconceptions are can email me privately.

However, scientists, science in general and people
belonging to other religious denominations do not care
what one particular religious organization believes.
The private beliefs of its members are not applicable
to the rest of us. The only thing that needs to be
ensured in a secular democracy such as India is that
such private creationist views and misconceptions
regarding evolution are not taught in the science
classrooms of public schools and colleges.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Fr. Ivo da C. Souza
The Church and Evolution
I would like to reproduce briefly an interview with
Fr.Vittorio Marcozzi, Vatican anthropologist, on
Evolution.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...