Posted on 08/24/2006 8:37:24 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna said he thought Darwin's theories on evolution deserve to be studied in schools, along with the scientific question marks that remain.
It is right to teach "the science of Darwin, not ideological Darwinism," Cardinal Schonborn said Aug. 23. He spoke at a meeting in Rimini sponsored by the Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation, and his remarks were reported by Italian newspapers.
In 2005, Cardinal Schonborn helped fuel the debate over evolution and intelligent design when he wrote in The New York Times that science offers "overwhelming evidence for design in biology." He later said some scientists had turned Darwin's teachings into an ideological "dogma" that admitted no possibility of a divine design in the created world.
In Rimini, the cardinal said he did not regret writing The New York Times article, but said that in retrospect he might have been more nuanced.
"Perhaps it was too much crafted with a hatchet," he said.
"The church teaches that the first page of the Book of Genesis is not a page of science," he said.
Cardinal Schonborn said there should be no doubt that the church does not support creationism, the idea that the biblical account of the creation of the world in six days should be taken literally.
But when teaching evolutionary theory, he said, schools should underline the points still awaiting clarification, the "missing links" in the theory which were recognized by Darwin himself, he said.
Cardinal Schonborn said Darwinian theory and the faith can coexist, and he proposed a metaphorical image: Darwin's scientific ladder of rising evolutionary development on one hand, and on the other the biblical Jacob's ladder, from which angels descended from heaven to earth.
The cardinal said the images offer "two directions, two movements, which only when observed together allow for anything close to a complete perspective." At the center of these two movements is the figure of Jesus Christ, he said.
Cardinal Schonborn said it was important to realize that Darwin's theories continue to have an impact in economic as well as biological fields. For example, he cited a link between ideological Darwinism and some capitalist theories that consider high unemployment simply a byproduct of a necessary economic natural selection.
In bioethics, he said, the church's differences with ideological Darwinism become important.
"Despite sometimes heavy criticism, the church continues to firmly believe that there is in nature a language of the Creator, and therefore a binding ethical order in creation, which remains a fundamental reference point in bioethical matters," he said.
The cardinal was one of several scholars invited to join Pope Benedict XVI at his summer villa in early September for a private two-day symposium on "Creation and Evolution." The encounter is an annual one in which the pope meets with his former doctoral students from his teaching years in Germany.
I would tend to agree. But the evols on the thread are likely going to rant and rave. It's against their dogma to question the theory of evolution. It's their first commandment.
As long as the question is scientifically valid, there is no problem.
Perhaps the Creationists will start referring to Christians who agree with tToE as "materialist running dogs"
I would tend to agree too, so long as the "scientific questions that remain" are real ones and not the vaccous ones about the Cambrian "explosion," staged moth photographs, or supposed irreducible complexity that get put out by the Discovery Institute.
Real remaining scientific questions would, for example, be on the relative importance of sexual and natural selection. Or on the relative importance of mass extinctions. Or on the extent to which there are periods of stasis in evolution.
There is no scientific question as to whether evolution through natural and sexual occurred. That's beyond any reasonable doubt.
True, no "creationism" in Catholic doctrine, however, the Church does hold that there were indeed a specific man and woman as progenitors of the human race. That would seem to rule out the idea of evolving from apes, but maybe that is the "missing link."
I discovered the rather literal view on Adam and Eve because I was arguing with my priest in favor of evolution, and he handed me some wordy Church document that spelled it all out. No need to believe literally in the Creation story, six days and all that, but apparently there is a line drawn at believing humans were at one point not human.
Just sharing in case anyone else has heard of this distinction.
See especially paragraphs 67-70, affirming that "Acting indirectly through causal chains operating from the beginning of cosmic history," leading life, to man, and the special creation of the human soul, God's creative role may be reconciled with the Big Bang and evolution theory.
Indeed. "Materialist swine!" also has a nice ring to it. There's a bit of irony in their use of that term, given certain evangelical churches' propensity to accumulate vast amounts of "material", tax-free no less, albeit on God's behalf...
I would have to ask you what you specifically referred to when you say "genetically different." After all, we are genetically similar to chimpanzees in 97% of our DNA..
Wasn't Mao's phrase, "Imperialist running Dogs?"
At least that's what I remember from a high school class I on the history Communist China in High School. For a laugh, our teacher would start off every class with a quote from Mao's little red book. It's amazing he ever said some of those things with a straight face, they're so patently absurd.
Nothing wrong with asking those questions in class, either. The teacher should be able to explain why they are not 'real' questions, right?
Sure, students should be free to ask such questions, and biology teachers should answer them seriously with the presumption that they were asked in good faith. If the teacher is competent, it shouldn't be a problem. A muslim student asked such questions of my biology teacher when I was in high school (it was private), and she answered them in just such a manner. Of course, asking for competent teachers in modern day public schools may be asking too much.
Wells' "10 questions to ask your biology teacher" are so easy to answer it's not even funny. It should take no more than 10 minutes of class.
What I oppose is teachers bringing up bogus questions and spending any significant amount class time on them. The school year is short and there's enough material to cover as it is.
Who decides which questions are 'bogus' and which are not?
Who makes the determination whether a question is 'scientifically valid'?
To be scientifically valid, an argument has to be contained to the physical world, and it has to be falsifiable.
Scientists.
I don't think it's a problem for a student to ask a scientifically invalid question in class, provided it's asked in good faith. He's a student, after all, and as such isn't yet fully equipped to discern that, for example, Wells' "10 questions for your biology teacher" is loaded nonsense. If the teacher knows his stuff, it should be realtively easy to answer those ten "questions" calmly and convincingly. Answering them can also serve as a valuable opportunity to enhance student's understanding of evolutionary theory; refuting errors has pedegogical value.
On the other hand, I don't think teachers should bring up such things if not asked.
Who decides which scientists get to make the decision?
Interesting. So, how does one 'falsify' an interpretation of bones and fossils?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.