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.
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."
In a telephone interview from a monastery in Austria, where he was on retreat, the cardinal said that his essay had not been approved by the Vatican, but that two or three weeks before Pope Benedict XVI’s election in April, he spoke with the pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, about the church’s position on evolution. "I said I would like to have a more explicit statement about that, and he encouraged me to go on," said Cardinal Schönborn.
He said that he had been "angry" for years about writers and theologians, many Catholics, who he said had "misrepresented" the church’s position as endorsing the idea of evolution as a random process.
Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn’s essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal’s sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths. [Source]
If your a religious scientist that believes we came about via a totally unguided and random twist of fate than I would suspect that he has already lost his faith. Now as I have said before, however God brought us into existence I am down with. Now there is a part of me that would like to see it all wrapped up in a simple package. For example finding a giant name plate that said "Created by God" in some wondrous before unknown material. Something that once and for all would be an undeniable proof that we are creatures designed by our creator. Though in many ways God has already done this and the universe shouts to us of design and it is only the earwax of modernity that prevents many from hearing it.
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements — surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? "Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth from the womb; when I made clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band, and prescribed bounds for it, and set bars and doors, and said, `Thus far shall you come, and no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stayed’? "Have you commanded the morning since your days began,
and caused the dawn to know its place, that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it? It is changed like clay under the seal,
and it is dyed like a garment. From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken. "Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
or walked in the recesses of the deep? Have the gates of death been revealed to you, or have you seen the gates of deep darkness? Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?Declare, if you know all this.
But as God rebuked Job, I just say thanks God and however you did it is fine with me!
10 comments
Also (and this is a SERIOUS beef), one simply cannot PROVE randomness. One can argue that we do not understand data before us as being part of a pattern, and that this SUGGESTS randomness…but this is not the same thing as saying that randomness is scientifically proven. It is sheer intellectual bias or laziness that leads to this view.
Precisely and well said you!
“The earwax of modernity” I love it!
As I am both a Roman Catholic and a computer scientist who did his doctorate in helping molecular biologists with DNA research, I would like to get into this discussion at length. But as I lack the time at present to do so, I must limit myself to quoting Chesterton:
Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. [GKC, Orthodoxy CW1:237-238]
And to our host: there IS a signature – it is the code itself. Not signed with the Divine Tetragram (though there ARE four bases!) but with the signature of good systems design. More on this later.
Let’s see… the Times runs a front page story about a piece on their OpEd page…. to say they are shocked, SHOCKED, that Catholics are not deists.
And if, as they seem to be implying, it was some kind of stealth move by Papa Ratzinger, are they reporting on a Catholic conspiracy that they are part of? Do you see them at the meetings?
It (Schonborn’s piece) is an op-ed, not so much against evolution, but against “randomness” and godless science.
Okay – as one of those “evolutionistS,” I would like to point out that “random chance” is a phrase we use to describe certain behaviors of matter and energy in space and time. A universe that evolves (in both the physical and biological sense of the word) by “random chance” is not incompatible with an eternal Creator God existing beyound that time and space who can see the beginning, the middle, and the end simultaneously. My (irreverent but I don’t think blasphemous) mental image is of The Trinity examining Their handiwork like we would examine a globe and saying “Hmm…looks really good…nice bang at this end…over on this side is where You come back Son. Wait a second. That third planet from Sol – the humans have three arms.” WHACK (sound of the universe being slammed against a heavenly table). “There – two arms – that’s better. I think we can call this finished.” I wouldn’t want to take that image too far, but I think it has a point.
NYC,
It would appear that what you are describing is not random. It is rather deliberate, but its purpose is simply unknown.
Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines random as this:
at random : without definite aim, direction, rule, or method
Thus, something cannot be simultaneously random and Divinely guided.
Sir Not Yet Appearing in this Church: something just struck me as strange. What is the difference between “random chance” and other kinds of chance?
“Random Chance?” It kind of rings of the old phrase “Moronic Stupidity”. You know. Simular, but different.