7 Replies to “Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn weighs in against evolutionism

  1. 1
    DaveScot says:

    I’m not sure it’s fair to say that matter is all there is for science. It’s all there is until there’s something else that can be objectively measured comes along. It’s not science’s fault that no one has been able to observe and measure incorporeal entities yet. The universe’s gravitational behavior indicates there’s far more to it than normal matter and energy. Indeed, normal matter and energy appear to be just the tip of the iceberg. But rather than stuff God or materialism into the great unknown can’t we just let it be a mystery and keep trying to methodically discover more about the nature of the universe? And can’t we all just get along?

  2. 2
    ajl says:

    I thought this was the best quote, and cuts to the heart of the ID/evolution debate:

    “If this is a scientific theory, it must be open to scientific criticism,” he said. “What I’m criticizing is a kind of strategy to immunize it, as if it were an offence to Darwin’s dignity to say there are some issues this theory can’t explain.

    “There’s a kind of ban on discussing this and critics of the evolution theory are discredited or discriminated against from the start,” he said. “

  3. 3
    Bombadill says:

    If Darwin were alive today and learned what we now know about life on the molecular level, he would issue a sincere apology.

  4. 4
    Mats says:

    “If Darwin were alive today and learned what we now know about life on the molecular level, he would issue a sincere apology.”

    But you are assuming that Darwin’s theory derived from the evidence he had at hand. It dind’t, since he never saw a life form turning into anything rather than the same kind of life form. What he did after that was a lot of speculation

    Evolutionism is Naturalistic “axiomized”, since Darwinists can’t allow a Divine Foot at the door. Forget what the evidence says. Just accept that nature did its own creating, despite the evidence for the contrary.

  5. 5
    PhilVaz says:

    Cardinal Schonborn and the Catholic Church will always be against philosophical materialism or metaphysical naturalism. It was condemned specifically at Vatican Council I (see “faith and reason” canons).

    Catholics are free to be young earthers or theistic evolutionists and anything in between. The Church doesn’t and can’t define issues of science since dogma is restricted to “faith and morals” only. But I agree with Schonborn when he says:

    “I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained….When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith.” (10/2/2005, Creation and Evolution: To the Debate As It Stands)

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm

    Thanks mentok (your comment #65 in the long Coyne thread) for the additional information on Father Coyne, I will look into those.

    Phil P

  6. 6
    Red Reader says:

    To: 1) You beg the question. Yet you say that “matter is not all there is for science” but then you ask us to exclude the possibility of an Intelligent Desiger. You say “Can’t we just … keep trying to methodically discover more about the nature of the universe?” You want to have something between matter and an Intelligent Designer that is neither matter nor an Intelligent Designer. At least there is evidence of design in nature. Something “more than ‘normal’ matter and engery is what… ‘abnormal’ matter and energy, ‘paranormal’ matter and energy?” There are religions that propose those concepts as well.

  7. 7
    jmcd says:

    Bombadill

    “If Darwin were alive today and learned what we now know about life on the molecular level, he would issue a sincere apology”

    You are sorely mistaken on that thought. Genetics has done nothing but reinforce Darwin’s initial intuition with more detailed evidence then he could have ever imagined. The idea that genetics has somehow weakened Darwinism seems to be a common misconception here. Genetics has made the issue considerably more complex and that has raised many new questions. However what we do understand well in genetics reinforces Darwinism. It is what is not yet understood well where people start poking at Darwinism. This may sow confusion for a time, but it is only a matter of time until certain questions are resolved. There will always be new questions to ask, but how long can such an approach function when the suppossed problems are consistently answered. This approach of attacking science (pointing to what it cannot explain) has historically been a losing proposition.

Leave a Reply