Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution

NY Times ^ | 09-07-05 | CORNELIA DEAN and LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[jec1ny]

An influential cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church, which has long been regarded as an ally of the theory of evolution, is now suggesting that belief in evolution as accepted by science today may be incompatible with Catholic faith.

[jec1ny]

Hmmmmmm...

[coconutt2000]

The question is how to characterize the theory of evolution:

Either evolution and all of creation has a purpose, or it is all entirely a random set of accumulated accidents and coincidences.

[snarks_when_bored]

It only looks like chance. It's not really chance.

It only looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It's not really a duck.

[Right Wing Professor]

As Miller says towards the end of the article, it's one Cardinal's opinion.

The Catholic Church is an increasingly irrelevant organization anyway. What they're selling fewer and fewer are buying. And I say this as a fairly recent ex-Catholic who has often defended them here.

Ping to PH for the list

[Conservative til I die]

The Catholic Church is an increasingly irrelevant organization anyway. What they're selling fewer and fewer are buying. And I say this as a fairly recent ex-Catholic who has often defended them here.

Wow, that must be some defense. Who cares what ex-Catholics have to say anyway.

[NYer]

The cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, a theologian who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, staked out his position in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on Thursday, writing, "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."

Finding Design in Nature

By CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN

Published: July 7, 2005

Vienna

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," 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.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

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. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

ONCE CATHOLIC

[hispanichoosier]

The Catholic Church is an increasingly irrelevant organization anyway. What they're selling fewer and fewer are buying. And I say this as a fairly recent ex-Catholic who has often defended them here.

If you're an ex-Catholic, maybe you shouldn't be weighing in on intra-Church issues any more then.

[TradicalRC]

The Catholic Church is an increasingly irrelevant organization anyway. What they're selling fewer and fewer are buying.

Ah relevance; the latest commodity determined by the market. Next up, Truth. Apparently, you need many MORE than a billion people to be considered relevant.

[ValenB4]

I don't see this as anything new.

The big problem in this issue is whether or not "design" can be objectively defined. I don't believe it can. Someone can look at something in nature, such as a tree, and consider that as evidence for design, and someone else can interpret it as a random product of evolution.

Because there is no way to definitively measure design, from a scientific and materialistic point of view, randomness is valid. Trying to measure design is like trying to read God's mind. It can't be done.

Having said that, while random evolution appears, from our inherently limited point of view, to be the mechanism of nature, I can still believe that God is ultimately responsible for all of this universe. I can believe that He used evolution, which we can only perceive as random, as the means of creation. Just because we can only perceive randomness, doesn't mean it is randomness.

Those who would try to redefine science, as the IDers are trying to do, are very wrong and will ultimately suffer an embarassing defeat. The innmates can't run the asylum - and the scientifically ignorant cannot force science to change. God's existance is not contingent upon our perceptions and measurements of the material universe.

[livius]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see that this is a "new" position. The Catholic Church has never held that human life was random or that creation was an accident, or adopted any of the other theories that somehow pass for "science" now. The Church did not specify the process that God used for creation; and since evolution is just a process, as likely as any other, nothing in this article rejects it at all.

More NYT inflammatory headlines.

[Right Wing Professor]

If you're an ex-Catholic, maybe you shouldn't be weighing in on intra-Church issues any more then.

It's a free country, until the theocrats take over, at least.

If the Roman Catholic church decides to retreat back into the Middle Ages, that's of concern to everyone.

[hispanichoosier]

If the Roman Catholic church decides to retreat back into the Middle Ages, that's of concern to everyone.

You mean the belief in a Creator who's actually involved in our everyday lives? If that's Middle Ages, then sign me up!

[ninenot]

At least you were honest enough to exit the Church--unlike some Bishops who are also, decidedly, ex-Catholic...

[ninenot]

Did you ever consider the complexity involved in vision?

It simply ain't "random."

[ninenot]

Not necessarily "inflammatory."

Recall that JPII referred to evolution as "more than a theory," which statement had significant repercussions--including the mis-understanding that he meant 'evolution' to be a true fact.

Well, it's not likely that 'evolution' is a true fact--

But the most significant repercussion of Cdl Schonborn's statement will not be on the Scientific Community. It will be on the Pontifical Biblical Commission, which has been a nest of termites for about the last 20 years....

[ninenot]

Umnnnn...

Evidently you were educated by the Elite Classes.

Most of us know that the Middle Ages were a rather nice time to be alive and Catholic.

Of course, the Elite Classes believe that we have PROGRESSED from the Middle Ages to, say, Hiroshima!!!

That's progress, isn't it?

[ninenot]

You better take a look at this.

[maryz]

Have you actually read the work of any of the IDers?

[ValenB4]

It's not that complicated.