« Bishop Cappio | Main | Group Work »
October 06, 2005
Schoenborn clarifies
Says evolution's okay, tells bloggers to stop arguing about him
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.
Yes, that's exactly what I thought when I read that NYTimes piece he wrote. He wants them to stop teaching evolution in American public schools.
Vienna Archbishop Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn made new comments on the on-going debate on evolution vs. intelligent design, saying both were complementary:
He presented his views on Sunday, in the first conference of what is to become a nine-month cycle of lectures, with the title “Creation and Evolution.” Each lecture will take place at the Vienna Cathedral.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3314760
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Schoenborn clarifies:
» Language of Science Not the Language of Theology from Detente
Barr writes that the "central misstep of Cardinal Schoenborn's article" is that "he has slipped into the definition of a scientific theory, Neo-Darwinism, the words 'unplanned' and 'unguided,' which are fraught with theological meaning." [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 6, 2005 8:33:06 AM
Comments
I wonder if B16 asked the Cardinal to rejoin the 21st Century?
Posted by: ajb at Oct 6, 2005 7:36:38 AM
I don't think he ever left the 21st Century. His comments in the NY Times were grossly misrepresented. I don't see how any one could read that article interpret it as, "evolution is hog wash." All he said was that the development of human beings, however it physically occurred, was not a random event. Obtuse journalists then twisted his words to pit the Catholic Church against evolution.
Posted by: trm at Oct 6, 2005 7:46:27 AM
Exactly.
And it was so stupid. You don't get to be a cardinal by being undereducated. This may or may not say something about one's religious faith, but it certainly makes it unlikely for one to oppose basic science as the work of the Devil.
Posted by: Maureen at Oct 6, 2005 8:04:12 AM
It's unfortunate that his clarification had to include praise of evolution.
Posted by: T. Chan at Oct 6, 2005 8:29:58 AM
An article in First Things this month points out that "random" in scientific or mathematical language does not equate to theological concepts of "unplanned" or "unguided."
Posted by: Ernesto at Oct 6, 2005 8:36:11 AM
Yes. As Kenneth Miller pointed out, the Cardinal was being a little too clever in his essay--and got caught. Either that or he forgot what his own Church's theological commission document (that he oversaw) clearly states--and what he is saying now, i.e. that the Church has no problem with contingent theories of evolution. But what he implied in his NYTimes piece was, as Amy rightly points out, that the scientific theory was wrong.
Good for him that's he willing to "clear up" the confusion now. But he might have thought this through a little more clearly before he wrote the Times piece.
Posted by: John Farrell at Oct 6, 2005 8:45:33 AM
I admire the Cardinal's work, but I do think he is sometimes naive about how his views are represented by the press. I do recall him waxing what seemed to me a little too enthusiastically about the Alpha Program a few years ago in Austria.
This experience will likely make him more reticent in the future. One undoubted benefit has been the excellent articles, interviews and blog discussions that I have read on the topic.
Posted by: Plato's Stepchild at Oct 6, 2005 9:21:49 AM
Has anyone seen the Cardinal's full lecture on line?
Posted by: Chip Chillington at Oct 6, 2005 9:32:04 AM
Tying the Church to any scientific theory is rarely a good idea. Geocentric universe anyone?
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Oct 6, 2005 9:38:03 AM
I don't know if this is why he was misunderstood, but if he is unfamiliar with how loaded terms like "design" are here in the U.S., I can see how he could have written one thing, but intended another. You also have other terms which take on different meanings to different people, such as "darwinism."
Posted by: David R. at Oct 6, 2005 9:55:06 AM
Amy,
given that your own piece in the NYT has been misconstrued by some people, probably by the editorial changes they requested, we may want to consider the possibility that his original article also could be read in a way that is different from what he actually thinks. In that case these clarifications are helpful and should be viewed as such, not as backtracking, coming to the 21st century or any other explanation.
As someone else has pointed out, I tend to doubt that the good Cardinal is not knowledgeable about a topic to which he has already devoted so much effort.
Posted by: Roberto at Oct 6, 2005 10:15:43 AM
geocentrism is alive if not endorsed by the establishment--see Wolfgang Smith, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, who cites Thomas Kuhn
Posted by: T. Chan at Oct 6, 2005 11:42:56 AM
In other parts of the world there is not this big fight about "Darwinism", "Intellectual Design" and "Creationism".
If you aren't immersed in this century-old argument in American "Fundamentlist" circles, it's hard to avoid having innocent statements (clearly understood in other parts of the world) being turned into something else than what you realy meant to convey.
Posted by: Julia at Oct 6, 2005 4:45:50 PM
Roberto,
Remember that on July 9 The New York Times ran a full story on Cardinal Schönborn’s op-ed: Leading Cardinal Redefines Church’s View on Evolution. According to the story the op-ed was written with the urging of the Discovery Institute’s Mark Ryland but was not approved by the Vatican.
Don't blame what he wrote on the Times but on the Discovery Institute
Chip
Posted by: Chip at Oct 6, 2005 7:31:38 PM
Fr. Norris Clarke made a comment tonight at a talk about Cardinal Schoenborn and the controversy, giving his support to evolution as if it were a settled question. How unfortunate.
Posted by: T. Chan at Oct 6, 2005 7:56:20 PM
From some posts here you'd think evolution is a defined truth of the Catholic faith or an undisputed scientific theory?
Welcome back to the 21st century, someone wrote? Try welcome back to *last century*, when the Establishment force-fed a 'proven' theory to our high school students and the Church bought in by and large to all the 'cutting edge' Biblical scholarship.
Both have wrought all sorts of harm, and both are now seriously questioned, but nervous Catholics still apologize if they think they sound the least bit out of lock step with the Academy. All while non-Catholics like Phillip Johnson and K.A. Kitchen blaze impressive scholarly trails that souund more sympathetic to our own tradition than we would ever want to be caught seeming.
Meanwhile, Sunday Mass features Father Smith telling us why we should believe the Church and not be phased even though Genesis is a myth and Isaiah never really prophesied what it said he did. Oh, and the birth of Jesus, of course it didn't happen the way the Midrash accounts said it did.
And guess what? The reassurances work. All those people so sure none of it matters--they are the same ones we don't see anymore at all of our empty Masses.
Who wants to take bets on which will be the next parish to close?
Posted by: Joe at Oct 6, 2005 8:10:18 PM
Having now gone back and read the Cardinal's original piece again, I am that much more floored over the rush to defend evolution as he defined it. His original premise seems to be that Neo-Darwinism, which denies a Creator or an intellient Designer behind whatever process was used, is incompatible with Catholicism and thus false. If there is common ancestry, it implies a common Father. Any process of natural selection hence suggests a supernatural Cause. The fact that engendered such howls further underscores that there is a deep-seated reticence to have to go against any accepted secular propositions.
Posted by: Joe at Oct 6, 2005 9:15:02 PM
"Either that or he forgot what his own Church's theological commission document (that he oversaw) clearly states--and what he is saying now, i.e. that the Church has no problem with contingent theories of evolution. But what he implied in his NYTimes piece was, as Amy rightly points out, that the scientific theory was wrong."
Now you're thinking like a reporter. Not the best way to think.
What he was saying was that strains of evolutionary thought that centered on the process being random and unguided are wrong. That clarification does not exist in JPII's declaration that evolution is not incompatible with the Church's teachings, which is why the Cardinal stated that the teaching was ambiguous. The Church's teachings are not incompatible with evolution...they are incompatible with godless evolution. Which makes sense.
Posted by: JonathanR. at Oct 6, 2005 9:15:49 PM
I welcomed Schoenborn's statement on my weblog. Obviously he was contesting the philosophical interpretation of evolution by Monod, Dawkins, Dennett et al., rather than the incontrovertible discoveries of Darwin.
Posted by: Joseph O'Leary at Oct 7, 2005 1:41:09 AM
I welcomed Schoenborn's statement on my weblog. Obviously he was contesting the philosophical interpretation of evolution by Monod, Dawkins, Dennett et al., rather than the incontrovertible discoveries of Darwin.
Posted by: Joseph O'Leary at Oct 7, 2005 1:42:22 AM
Father, care to enlighten us fools as to how Darwin's hypothesis is "incontrovertible"?
Posted by: Ashton Vaz at Oct 8, 2005 2:11:38 AM
