Skip to comments.Darwinian Evolution Incompatible with Catholic Faith says Cardinal and Author of Catholic Catechism
Posted on 01/07/2007 1:28:33 PM PST by Coleus
On July 7, after years of media-generated confusion, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, a theologian who helped author the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrote in the New York Times clarifying the Churchs understanding of human origins. Since 1996, the worlds secular media have claimed that Pope John Paul II endorsed Darwinian evolution as being more than a hypothesis. The remark, taken out of context, established in some minds that the Catholic Church was ready to abandon its adherence to the notion of a personal God who created life, the universe and everything. In his article, Schonborn said, that the defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
This, the Cardinal says bluntly, is not true.
Schonborn unequivocally establishes that the Catholic Church does not endorse Darwinism. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Cardinal Schonborn, a close associate of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, continued, saying, Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
The New York Times, never missing an opportunity to bash prominent Catholic prelates, has suggested that Schonborn has changed his tune regarding the legitimacy of Darwinian evolution. But Darwinism, the idea that life sprang and developed into its myriad forms by means of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection has never been supported by Catholic teaching.
As early as 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote that it is Catholics teaching that all human beings in some way are biologically descended from a first man, Adam. The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, Pius wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis. Two days after the Cardinals article appeared, the New York Times followed up with an interview with Schonborn in which he reiterated that he had been encouraged by Pope Benedict XVI to continue to refine Catholic teaching on evolution.
Read Cardinal Schonborns essay:
Read New York Times coverage of scientific reaction (free registration may be required):
The heliocentric model was also proclaimed incompatible with the Catholic faith, yet the Earth does move, and Catholicism abides.
Once upon a time, a sun-centered solar system was incompatible with Catholicism.
he needs to evolve.
Further, he (the Pope) seems to be cautioning those who have been claiming Church endorsement of the full-bodied, design-defeating version of Darwin's theory of evolution, which, after all, is often little more than philosophical materialism applied to science, added Chapman.
Chapman noted that in his very first homily as Pope, Benedict XVI had rebuked the idea that human beings are mere products of evolution, and that, like his predecessor, John Paul II, the new Pope has a long record of opposition to scientific materialism."
excerpt from: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3015&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage
"Once upon a time, a sun-centered solar system was incompatible with Catholicism."
Who told you that?
And did you know that the Bible told us that the earth is round?
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Hardcover) by Thomas E. Woods Jr
Guys, just ... stop. Do your globes still have areas that read, "Here be dragons?"
Atheists, by definition must not accept intelligent design in any form. Theists, on the other hand obviously believe there is a designer behind the scenes. Either God created the universe or the universe created itself. Which is more fantastic?
There can be no compromise by the atheistic view, since it is cast in concrete. There is no god, therefore there could be no intelligent design, period, end of story. The intelligent design view, on the other hand, can have an infinite number of interpretaions and beliefs within it.
What created God?
Cardinal backs evolution and "intelligent design"
PARIS (Reuters) - A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of "intelligent design" against Darwin's explanation of life has described the theory of evolution as "one of the very great works of intellectual history."
Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said he could believe both in divine creation and in evolution because one was a question of religion and the other of science, two realms that complimented rather than contradicted each other.
Schoenborn's view, presented in a lecture published by his office on Tuesday, tempered earlier statements that seemed to ally the Church with United States conservatives campaigning against the teaching of evolution in public schools.
A court in Pennsylvania is now hearing a suit brought by parents against a school district that teaches intelligent design -- the view that life is so complex some higher being must have designed it -- alongside evolution in biology class.
"Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history," Schoenborn declared in a lecture in St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna on Sunday.
"I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition -- that the limits of a scientific theory are respected," he said.
Science studies what is observable and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal, 60, a top Church doctrinal expert and close associate of Pope Benedict.
"It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question," said the cardinal.
Oddly enough, the heliocentric system was later proven to be just as inaccurate as the Ptolemaic system. FWIW
No, it wasn't - at least not in the macro sense as you've framed it.
Can we please get away from the notion that Darwinism has anything at all to do with cosmology or the origin of the universe?
It deals strictly with biology, specifically the origin of new species on an already existing earth. Not with the question of how the earth, solar system or universe came into existence.
When I look a painting, I know there is a painter. When I look at creation, I KNOW there is a Creator.
Galileo and Copernicus taught that the sun was the center of the universe. That's what heliocentric means. From a modern perspective that is only slightly less ridiculous than the theory that the earth is at the center.
By which, to be clear, I mean in the sense of heliocentric vs geocentric. In that sense, the heliocentric system is most certainly not as innacurate as the Ptolemaic system.
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.