Evolution VS Random Evolution
by ronbeasLeading Cardinal Redefines Church’s View on Evolution
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.
I think we have to be careful here not to equate this with the creationists 16th century views. This statement seems compatible with the work of Jesuit Priest and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. There is a big difference between the literal interpretationion of the creation story in the Bible and the belief that evolution is not random. It appears to me that Cardinal Schönborn is not questioning evolution but the randomness.
I am not a Christian and suspect that the mechanics of evolution are for the most part random but I can see how a Christian would have to reject the randomness. I don’t see this as a victory for the creationists.
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
Evolution VS Random Evolution
Leading Cardinal Redefines Church’s View on Evolution
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 …
By Middle Earth Journal on 07.09.05 16:28
As all scientists know, however, everything is random and scientists are proving that more and more daily.
By Sinequanon on 07.09.05 22:25
While this might not appear the be a victory for creationists on the surface it still is. Random genetic mutation is at the heart of Life’s evolutionary engine, and statements such as these give creationists one more weapon of rhetoric to use in their fight. The weight of evidence favors randomness, but you have to look below the surface press-releases to see it, and unfortunately most never take that step.
By Dustin on 07.10.05 02:23
Sinequanon - All scientists know that everything is random? That’s untrue, absurd, and unscientific, hyperbole at best. The evolution of domesticated species, both plant and animal, is absolutely not random. Any farmer or rancher can tell you that species can be guided in their evolution and can point to their fields for living examples of the results.
Overreach by those claiming to be scientific in their thoughts is a great source of modern distrust in science. It’s a corrosive fault that needs to be pruned out if science is to retain any semblence of the respect and trust that it should have.
By TM Lutas on 07.10.05 20:33
evolution and the church
The Commissar notes a widely-linked piece about a Catholic cardinal who appears to reject evolution as being incompatible with Catholic faith.
He says, “I thought the Catholic Church had learned from its little dispute with Galileo.”
Th…
By evolution on 07.11.05 06:29
I read a hilarious “rebuttal” of the “intelligent design” and “creationist” arguments.
In essence the creationist rebuttal ran along the following lines -
1. Assumption; God made man in his own image.
2. If this is so, one assumes that all of man, imperfections and all, are present in God as well.
3. At the age of sixtyfive, I have difficulty holding my water through the night.
4. There are other bits associated with the same plumbing which don’t work too good either.
5. I can’t hold that latter bit against him because we both only have one son.
6. But why did he have to inflict me with the plumbing problems. He could at least have allowed one improvement.
The “intelligent design” is slightly different and went something like this -
1. Man was originally designed as a four-legged creature.
2. This meant that everything hung from the spine like washing on a clothesline.
3. The “intelligent designer” thought that man would be improved by standing upright.
4. As a consequence all the washing now has to defy the law of gravity and hang sideways.
The line of thought ran from there to the design of the pelvis and the difficulty of birthing a large head through a pelvis that has narrow holes so that your guts don’t fall through.
Oh what the hay - I thought it was hilarious.
By probligo on 07.11.05 12:05
I read a hilarious “rebuttal” of the “intelligent design” and “creationist” arguments.
In essence the creationist rebuttal ran along the following lines -
1. Assumption; God made man in his own image.
2. If this is so, one assumes that all of man, imperfections and all, are present in God as well.
3. At the age of sixtyfive, I have difficulty holding my water through the night.
4. There are other bits associated with the same plumbing which don’t work too good either.
5. I can’t hold that latter bit against him because we both only have one son.
6. But why did he have to inflict me with the plumbing problems. He could at least have allowed one improvement.
The “intelligent design” is slightly different and went something like this -
1. Man was originally designed as a four-legged creature.
2. This meant that everything hung from the spine like washing on a clothesline.
3. The “intelligent designer” thought that man would be improved by standing upright.
4. As a consequence all the washing now has to defy the law of gravity and hang sideways.
The line of thought ran from there to the design of the pelvis and the difficulty of birthing a large head through a pelvis that has narrow holes so that your guts don’t fall through.
Oh what the hay - I thought it was hilarious.
By probligo on 07.11.05 12:05
Oooppss sorry about the double post. Its not that funny. I got two Error 404 responses from the post.
By probligo on 07.11.05 12:06
Lutus:
I was only trying to express: life is a crapshoot. And, badly at that. That’s what happens when you are in a hurry…
Sorry for the generalization, and I agree with you.
S-
By Sinequanon on 07.15.05 03:02
Sorry for reposting again, but I forgot to mention…I’ve been really into weird fractals, chaos theory, nonlinear theories and some other physics related stuff lately…so, that is most likely what influenced my remark. I didn’t consider the entire realm of science, obviously, when I made the remark…
By Sinequanon on 07.15.05 03:06