Coming up in FIRST THINGS: Christoph Cardinal SchÃƒÂ¶nborn

_{William Dembski

November 14, 2005

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[From http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=72]

The January issue of FIRST THINGS will include a reflection by Christoph Cardinal SchÃƒÂ¶nborn on the intelligent design/evolution controversy. His article is occasioned by physicist Stephen Barr’s argument in the October issue, “The Design of Evolution.” Barr, in turn, was responding to Cardinal SchÃƒÂ¶nborn’s earlier op-ed piece on these questions in the New York Times, which received a great deal of attention. In the issue following SchÃƒÂ¶nborn’s reflection, Barr will have a further evaluation of the state of the question.

So what is FIRST THINGS up to here? We are not distancing ourselves from the intelligent design movement. The champions of that movement have rendered a signal service in exposing the non-scientific philosophical dogmatism of many evolutionists. Nor are we sponsoring a fight between Cardinal SchÃƒÂ¶nborn and Dr. Barr. We have the greatest respect for both. Cardinal SchÃƒÂ¶nborn is, in addition to being the Archbishop of Vienna, the chief editor of The Catechism of the Catholic Church and a great friend of FIRST THINGS. Dr. Barr is a distinguished scientist and a member of our editorial board.

The intention of this continuing conversation is to clarify as precisely as possible, within the context of Catholic teaching, the lines between physics and metaphysics, between theology and science rightly understood. Unlike many Protestants, Catholics have no stake in “creationist” arguments aimed at defending an unpoetical reading of Genesis. Catholics and everyone else have an enormous stake in defending the unity of truth. That defense requires the greatest care and modesty on the part of claims advanced by both science and theology. It requires, in short, the virtues possessed in abundance by Christoph Cardinal SchÃƒÂ¶nborn and Stephen Barr.

Comments

PhilVaz ... in this place is one greater than the temple.pmob1_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

Pmob1 and dodgingcars nice list, but you forgot two: 325 AD: Pope Sylvestor invents the doctrine of the Trinity. 381,393,397,405 AD: Popes Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, and Innocent I invents the canon of the New Testament. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm "Nice list. Might I add" No you may not. :-) I agree this isn't a Catholic-Protestant issue, but there sure are a lot of ignorant fundamentalists who hold to ID, as demonstrated in this thread. Phil PPhilVaz_{November 18, 2005
November
11
Nov
18
18
2005
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

dodgingcars, Nice list. Might I add: 1199 AD: Innocent III reproves those who translate the Gospel or the Pauline letters into French 1229: Inquisition of Toulouse bans bible reading by laymenpmob1_{November 17, 2005
November
11
Nov
17
17
2005
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

PhilVaz: Ã¢â‚¬Å“With this, his major work [Origin of Species], [Charles] Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that historyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ paradigm has become, so to speak, a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœmaster key,Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ extending itself within many fields of knowledge.Ã¢â‚¬Â (Cardinal Schonborn, 10/2/2005, Creation and Evolution: To the Debate As It Stands) These are fine words. And Darwin deserves his due. But Darwinian notions of progressive evolution simply cannot stand up to scrutiny. His theory fails his own tests. Being a Catholic doesn't mean that you have to believe in the "theory" of evolution; viz., Darwin's theory; you're simply free to believe in it.............up to the point of it's assertion that the human person is simply a by-product of nature's lottery. It's a mistake to think that ID is a theological program; it is not. It is all about pointing out the deficiencies of Darwinian arguments in the face of the biological complexity that modern science routinely discovers. I'm Catholic. This isn't a Catholic/Protestant issue.PaV_{November 17, 2005
November
11
Nov
17
17
2005
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Whoah a lot of comments in this one. As for Catholic inventions, yes purgatory was "invented" by Pope Gregory I in the 590s, the Immaculate Conception (Mary conceived without original sin) was "invented" by Pope Pius IX in 1854, transubstantiation was "invented" by Lateran IV in 1215, and likewise the Trinity and the two natures in one divine Person of Christ was "invented" by the Council of Nicea (325), Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (5th century AD), the New Testament canon was "invented" by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage at the end of the 4th century, beginning of the 5th. All these "inventions" and similiar dumb wrongheaded claims that the Roman Catholic Church was "invented" by Constantine in the 4th century or "invented" by the Council of Trent in the 16th -- are addressed on any number of Catholic apologetics sites, like my own. Please people, read a little bit. I would suggest JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, and Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition (first volume). No wonder you guys don't accept evolution. :-) http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics Back on topic, Schonborn on Darwin: "With this, his major work [Origin of Species], [Charles] Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history's most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the 'evolution' paradigm has become, so to speak, a 'master key,' extending itself within many fields of knowledge." (Cardinal Schonborn, 10/2/2005, Creation and Evolution: To the Debate As It Stands) http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm Phil PPhilVaz_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Good point. Many people pour an esoteric meaning into what should be an absolute term.Bombadill_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

alright, thanks for the clarification one thing that i have learned...when it comes to someone defining their personal beliefs, the true definition of words goes right out the windowpuckSR_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Evangelical is essentially the same as saying protestant. Someone who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible and puts a strong emphasis on proclaiming the gospel of Christ.Bombadill_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Ok...what is an Evangelical...I was always under the impression that it referred in some way to preaching. Perhaps to you it has a different meaning **Immaculate Conception** Mary was pure of sin before Jesus' birth, and pure until she "died". Well kinda died, Catholic faith holds that she ascended into heaven.puckSR_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

As puckSR said, immaculate conception is the belief that Mary was without sin (not sure if they believe she died without sin, or only was born without sin and remained sinless until Jesus was born). As for fundamentalism and all that stuff: I think the terms are kind hard to use -- they're all so loaded that it's tough to know what one means if they call themselves a fundamentalist. I prefer to call myself an Evangelical. I believe the Bible is inerrant, but I don't necessarily believe everything needs to be read literally. For me, fundamentalism (as the term is commonly used) is actually very legalistic. They also tend to restrict beliefs to things such as a young Earth, etc.dodgingcars_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Bombadill....Im sure Bob Jones teaches Greek and Hebrew I was referring more to Sunday School. I would think that the original languages of the bible would be almost a requirement for fundamentalism...i.e. Fundamentalist Muslims learn Arabic..the Koran is normally not a translated work. ***I know the Koran has been translated, and i know many people in the middle east are illiteratepuckSR_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

heh, I was just pondering how the sin nature for Darwinists would be the "selfish gene". An interesting thought.Bombadill_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

What drew me to Christian faith, was the Bible's presentation of Christ as savior from our deepest need - our sin condition. In contrast, what I found in examining religions of the world was a works-based, performance-oriented, ritualistic relgiosity. In short, I saw in religions of the world all this toil in an attempt to appease a wrathful God. In the Bible however, I saw a relationship with Jesus Christ which is not earned thru works/performance, but rather, is received as a free gift (Ephesians 2:8&9). When I considered this notion of all mankind being born physically alive, but spiritually dead and that there was nothing we could do to bring life to ourselves, it demonstrated to me that this was a message that could not have been the product of fallible humans. If it were, it would have resembled the world religions which try to earn favor with a deity.Bombadill_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Well, I'm not sure what it means to interpret something as a "fundamentalist document". The traditional position of Christians has been the recognition of God's inspiring the individual writers of the books that would become the canon of scripture. The notion that scripture is inspired does not demand that all the books be interpreted in a wooden literal way. The science of reading the Bible is called Hermeneutics. Poetic literature is to be interpreted as poetry, not as the basis for doctrine, etc... But, this doesn't mean that it wasn't penned under the inspiration, or control, of the Holy Spirit. "Fundamentalist" Christians do teach Hebrew & Greek. Look into any evangelical seminary and you'll find courses. My understanding is that it is a requirement for most degree programs. Again, we are only to interperet literally, texts which contextually dictate a literal interpretation. This is Hermeneutics. It's about learning to discern between anthropomorphic language, metaphor, instruction, etc... And considering the cultural, immediate and broad context and audience. Studying scripture truly is a science. :)Bombadill_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

IMO God doesn't require an operator's manual, paraphernalia, third parties, or anything else you weren't born with. I believe it because all that stuff isn't necessarily accessible to all people at all times in all places and I refuse to believe that God would shut anyone out merely because of material circumstance in life. You may, however, be shut out by being a prick that needlessly causes or ignores pain and suffering of fellow travelers on this third rock from the sun. 'Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you' is a concept born of empathy and compassion, not education or instruction, and it's that which separates (some of?) us from (most of?)the rest of the animal kingdom. That's the gospel of DaveScot in a nutshell.DaveScot_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

Quick Question If anyone here is of the Fundamentalist persuasion Many Christian religions believe the Bible to be "good". Christian Fundamentalists believe the Bible to be "absolutely true". Why do Fundamentalist Christians not teach Hebrew and Greek?(along with some other languages). There are still many people of the Jewish faith who study the Bible and who are well versed in Hebrew, and they are not literalists.puckSR_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

oh dont get me wrong, im quite familiar with apocalyptic writing. The Apocalypse of Peter was a fun read. I just do not understand how some people can interpret Revelations as a fundamentalist document. When the word "infallible" is used, i often think of literalism. I know from the Catholic perspective, at least, that it is considered to be "right with God" rather than literal. I fully agree that it is an interesting literary style, i disagree over the way that it is read. BTW...I was alluding to the fact that "John" is not the apostle John. I was just trying to keep some of the people here of the Christian persuasion on their toes.puckSR_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

puck, I consider the canon of scripture from Genesis to Revelation as infallible (as it was originally given - I do not believe that the modern english translations are infallible, but the original writings were). The books of the Bible are comprised of different literary styles. You have Historical Narritive, Poetry & Apocolyptic writing (i.e. Revelation). Apocolyptic literature is something foreign to the 20th century western mindset. It's easy to dismiss it because it's so fantastic. But, there's more to it than meets the eye. There is tremendous symbolism with powerful apocolyptic truth beneath the surface. And Revelation has an uncanny harmony with the old testament book of Daniel. It's really fascinating stuff, actually. John the Revelator was the same John who wrote the Gospel of John. He penned Revelation during his exile to the island of Patmos. He was exiled because of his faith in Christ.Bombadill_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Wait...people consider the New Testament the infallible word of God? Which part...because if i remember correctly Revelations reads like a bad acid trip. Sorry if that offends anyone, but until someone can tell me who John was, i dont know if im going to put a lot of stock in his rather strange book of revelations. Immaculate Conception....trust me jboze...Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was "without sin".puckSR_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

As dodgingcars demonstrated, many significant Catholic dogmas didn't get established until many centuries after Christ established his church and the closing of the Apostolic era. The question is: do these dogmas stand up in the final court of arbitration - scripture. My personal belief, having studied the scriptures quite a bit, is that many of these teachings do not. And I believe that Constantine was the catalyst for this departure from what the disciples and early believers, believed. Ultimately, as a believer, it doesn't matter what current or ancient theologians have to say, it comes down to what is revealed in the Bible (if we believe it to be the infallible word of God). ... but hey, this is just my evangelical bias. ;)Bombadill_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

where on earth does that belief come from? im no biblical expert, but i dont recall this story in the bible...?? i thought immaculate conception was merely a term used to describe the virgin birth. and what is the catholic church's view on this? virginal birth or no??jboze3131_{November 16, 2005
November
11
Nov
16
16
2005
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

No....Immaculate Conception is that belief that Mary was granted special excuse from original sin and all sin for that matter. This way she could give birth to "clean" Jesus. Virgin birth just means that she didnt have sex.puckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

i thought the Immaculate Conception was the same as virgin birth? the catholic church doesnt believe in the virgin birth? or am i misunderstanding? im not well versed on church history...especially the catholic church (tho, i guess the catholic church really WAS "the church" period throughout the majority of christian history, huh?)jboze3131_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

taciturnus, Aren't some of those traditions far more recent? 431 AD The exhaltation of Mary begins at the Council of Ephesus 500 AD Priests begin to wear "special clothing" to distinguish themselves from the layman. 591 AD the idea of Purgatory is started by Gregory I 600 AD Started using Latin for services despite the amount of people that did not understand Latin. 610 AD Start of the Pope era with Boniface III 709 AD First reference to the kissing of the Pope's feet 786 AD Veneration of cross, images, relics authorized 998 AD Fasting on Fridays and Lent 1079 AD Priests declared to remain celebate 1090 AD Rosary adopted 1190 AD Sale of indulgences begins 1215 AD Transubstantiation, defined by Innocent III 1215 AD Auricular confession (Rite of reconciliation) of sins to a priest instead of God, instituted by Innocent III 1220 AD Adoration of the wafer (called the Host), decreed by Pope Honorius III 1251 AD Scapular invented by Simon Stock of England 1414 AD The cup forbidden to the laity at communion by Council of Constance 1545 AD Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent 1546 AD Apocryphal books are added to the Bible by the Council of Trent 1854 AD Immaculate Conception of Mary (not virgin birth) proclaimed by Pope Pius IX (pretty darn recent, really). 1870 AD Infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by the Vatican Council Delete Reply Forward Spamdodgingcars_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT}

Ok Jay...did you notice the problem with your analogy?puckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Bombadill, Can I call you Tom? I'm sure you know that Tolkien was a Catholic... pretty well-versed in his history too... "Furthermore, and I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean to ruffle any feathers of Catholic friends here but, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s important remember that the Catholic church didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t become established until almost the 4th century AD..." Your argument doesn't ruffle my Catholic feathers at all... in fact, it gives me more confidence as a Catholic when even the opponents of the Church grant that the Church has a continuous history going all the way back to the 4th century AD. That's 17 of the 20 centuries of Christian history not open to doubt. Does the Church also reach beyond those 17 centuries, back through the final 3, to the time of Christ Himself? No one can say for sure as a matter of historical science. But given that 17 centuries of continuous existence makes the Church unique as an historical institution, I suspect there was more to its founding than the mere fancies of Constantine. I'll take the 17 centuries as a matter of fact and the final 3 as a matter of faith. In any case, is it likely that 21st century scholars can overleap 1900 years of history and figure out what "true Christianity" really was in the early years, before it was allegedly mucked up by the Catholic Church? Or is it more likely that those 3rd century bishops had a proximity to truth that makes them more reliable than any 21st century historian will ever be? That is why the Church does not get fazed with regard to skeptical historical scholarship. Our faith is not based on an historical reconstruction of Christianity, but a living tradition going back to the time of Christ (we believe) or at least the 4th century (Protestants believe). Pax, Dave T.taciturnus_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

i like that analogy Jay You really should think about that onepuckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

puckSR (post #19): "Please help me to understandÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Evolution is claiming that 'We won the lottery' so to speak. ID is claiming that an Intelligent Agent gave us the lottery numbers. Would this be a correct analogy?" My version of an analogy would be: You won the lottery. You don't know how you got the ticket. It just showed up in your possession one day. The "ticket" is actually a gold bar with 100 arbitrary numbers engraved in it, and all of them were needed to win. You wonder where the ticket came from. Someone points to a machine that etches serial number on metal objects nearby, and says that it definitely came from that machine...but when you look closely at it, you realize that the machine only prints 6-digit serial numbers! (i.e., the machine isn't even capable of producing the numbers that are on the ticket.) There's just no way that it could have produced the ticket. But you see a typewriter and know that anyone with intelligence could easily type out those 100 numbers. The typewriter only prints on paper, and in the wrong typeface, but you draw the conclusion, the "ticket" must have been produced by a more advanced "typewriter" capable of printing arbitrary numbers on metal. And since the lottery only started a few years ago, there hasn't been enough time to cycle through anywhere near all the possible 100-digit numbers. Therefore, you think, "Someone must have produced it on purpose and given it to me." The person who says that the serial number machine did it then explains how the gold bar could have accidentally been fed through in gradual (discrete) steps, and misprinted, and all sorts of extremely unlikely scenarios, and irrationally maintains this no matter how you point out how unreasonable their attempted salvaging of their idea is...jay_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Ok, i thought you were condemning the actions of the church in taking tradition over scripturepuckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

puck, I should have been more careful in my terminology. Obviously, the scriptures had not yet been canonized at that time. My point was in contrasting the accounts, both oral and written, with what would become Constantine's state religion.Bombadill_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply