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

Phil, Don't forget Wycliffe and Hus for goodness sakes. However, The Church is good at taking the long view. I'll grant you that. ID will come and ID will go. Like as not it will be appropriated by pagans before we're through with it. In that sense, it is good for spokesmen of The Church to be circumspect. But see here. Without Aquinas your Church would be spinning round with Hobbes and the rest of them. Without the Word, you would be indistinguishable from Dawkins. Why should The Church shy from Design?pmob1_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

correct me if i am wrong bombadill but wasnt the "Scripture" fairly new in the 3rd century AD? Ex. in the year 50 AD, wouldnt tradition(or anything) be considered more authorative than a written account by a non-apostle? Would you consider this duality of sources similiar to the the Jewish Torah and Talmud, and therefore being a continuation of the Jewish tradition?puckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Further study... http://www.equip.org/free/DN206.htmBombadill_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Furthermore, and I don't mean to ruffle any feathers of Catholic friends here but, it's important remember that the Catholic church didn't become established until almost the 4th century AD, due to Constantine's making it the government religion. So, we have almost 4 centuries of early church history and teaching and discipleship... and interestingly, you do not see many of the Catholic dogma's in these writings. It's no secret that Constantine took elements of Greek mythology and infused them with the early church teaching at the time.Bombadill_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Just a couple of points (in no particular order)... The "Catholic" church of the 3rd - 5th centuries (when the councils took place) was considerably different from the Catholic church today. For one thing, the early church had not elevated the authority of the church over scripture. This error would come in later centuries and would lead to a significant departure from scripture based teaching and authority... hence, the reformation - "Sola Scriptura". And the doctrines of the Fall, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, etc... are scriptural doctrines, not something invented in later centuries as the result of the councils. The councils served simply to put a name to these scriptural principles that were already clearly defined in the Bible. The councils were organized as a reactionary measure to combat heresies. Watch out for the history revisionists who would try to tell you otherwise. I could cite chapter and verse regarding these doctrines, if anyone is skeptical.Bombadill_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Please help me to understand...... 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?puckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

puckSR: God caused evolution, therefore we are defining the exact actions of God, and refuting the scientific theory that it happens in the way they describe. Yes, I grant you, there is leeway theologically. But ID is a not a theological argument; it's a scientific one. The presence of irreducible complexity in living organisms, together with the specified complexity of molecular biology, strongly suggest that simple chance mechanisms could not possibly bring about what we see. Likewise, information theory, the birth father of computers, is more or less telling us that information doesn't fall out of the sky; only intelligence can produce it. All of this is the result of reasonable deductions which themselves flow from empirical observations. That's pretty much the definition of the scientific method. Don't make the mistake of thinking ID is a theological argument. It is not. It is a scientific argument, first and foremost, which directly challenges the neo-Darwinist understanding of evolution. Only secondarily are there theological implications.PaV_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

To me, little is served in having a bit of a Catholic/Protestant pie-throwing contest here. You're right. I'm done. But actually I think pucksr and I agree more than we disagree anyway.dodgingcars_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Exactly....and this is the nature of ID ID is a wonderful theological perspective It even can be used to inject quite a bit of theism into science...when your child comes home talking about evolution, you can explain that God could have caused evolution to occur However it fails miserably as a direct scientific theory. i.e. God caused evolution, therefore we are defining the exact actions of God, and refuting the scientific theory that it happens in the way they describe. besides being both hubristic, and blasphemous...it basically is claiming that the same thing has been occuring as Evolutionists previously described....perhaphs even by the same mechanism...it is simply forcing the belief that God directly caused the mechanism to perform. This is why modern Catholicism rejects ID as science...they really like to think these things out.puckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

To me, little is served in having a bit of a Catholic/Protestant pie-throwing contest here. This is, more or less, what the Catholic Church says about the inerrancy of the Gospels: that all that which is essential to our salvation is present in the gospels without error. The subtlety here is the "that which is essential." You can apply the same subtlety to the Creation account. And, here, for exegetical purposes, let me propose this: The FIRST account of creation is God's way of telling us that we, as human beings--i.e., our material essence and nature--are in continuity with the rest of creation.....brought into being just like everything else (think here evolution [as common descent]). The SECOND account is meant to indicate that we as human PERSONS are directly formed by God. God breathes his image (consciousness/reason/free will) into us directly (our human soul). This is "discontinous" with the natural order; it takes place at the supernatural level. I think this distinction can sometimes be helpful. Put this way, there's room for natural evolution (guided or not)[I believe guided], and for the position that Christian's take: i.e., we're directly created by God: He breathes his life into our bodies.PaV_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Sorry dodging cars...your making valid points, but let me try and explain what i am saying USA Is the United States the same country under the constituion as it was under the Articles of Confederation? Historically it is the same land mass, and had many of the same leaders between the two governments. Most historians would consider the nation under the articles of confederation a precursor to the current USA. Similiarly, the organization that existed for early christian councils eventually became the catholic church...no members broke off during the change. All of the Orthodox churches broke from the Roman catholic church in a dispute over leadership. There were no theological disputes that could not have been reconciled. Also, note that all of the churches you listed maintain some form of a Pope.puckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

"dodging carsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦..that is why i said a qausi-unified body All of the Christian sects that broke from the Church before the protestant reformation did it over small pointsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Like leadership, and the reading of Revelations." How was the Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and Coptic church and Catholic church unified -- even quasi-unified before the Reformation? You could say that the Protestant Reformation was over "small points" such as indulgences and solo scriptura (sp?). "If we are referring to a somewhat organized religious body, then my timeline is correct" See.. I disagree... :) Either way, I don't think many see the Council of Nicea as particularly Catholic. At least not the Catholic Church, as the political and religous organization of the last 1000 years.dodgingcars_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

dodging cars.....that is why i said a qausi-unified body All of the Christian sects that broke from the Church before the protestant reformation did it over small points...Like leadership, and the reading of Revelations. If you are referring to pontification....then yes..we must use a different timeline If we are referring to a somewhat organized religious body, then my timeline is correct DaveScot: You thought God gave us the New Testament?puckSR_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

"well the early christian church did not truly become the Catholic church until the protestant reformation. Before Martin Luther wrote a note the Christian church had always existed as one quasi-unified body." No. I think you need to research your church history. There have been many Christian sects long before the Reformation. There was Eastern Orthodox, The Coptics, the Russian Orthodox, etc. None of these groups saw the Catholic pope as their leader. There is some debate as to when the Catholic Church came to be what we see today... and of course Catholics feel differently than other about this subject. But for instance, I don't believe there were truly Popes until 610 with Boniface III.dodgingcars_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

"We get all that from the Catholic Church." Interesting. And here I thought it all comes from God.DaveScot_{November 15, 2005
November
11
Nov
15
15
2005
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

well the early christian church did not truly become the Catholic church until the protestant reformation. Before Martin Luther wrote a note the Christian church had always existed as one quasi-unified body. The fact that the New Testament was written by a council would seem to indicate that at least some semblance of order existed even in the early days of the church.puckSR_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

"And we do get the canon of the Bible and the essential doctrines of Christianity (like original sin, the Trinity, nature of Christ, virgin birth, resurrection, etc) from the Catholic Church, but evangelicals or fundamentalist Protestants are loathe to admit that." I think that's because Catholics and Protestants disagree as to when the Catholic church really began. Catholics believe it started with Peter, Protestants disagree (believing that was that small "c" catholic church) and place the date much later -- I believe somewhere around the 6th or 7th century.dodgingcars_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Adam/Eve and the Fall certainly seem to be historical according to the Catechism (especially 359, 375-377, 379, 388, 390-392, and 416-419, etc), much else in Genesis 1-3 is symbolic, figurative or poetical (talking snake, eating an apple, Garden of Eden, Trees, the flood was local, see Catechism 337-338, 362, 369, 375, 390, 396, etc). Now placing Adam/Eve into the timeline of human evolutionary history is difficult I'll grant. However, the difference between resurrection, the virgin birth and other miracles and the "science" described in Genesis is the latter is testable. Miracles are not testable so they lie outside of science. "The fact is that Christianity has core beliefs that are not accessible to the scientific method....The resurrection, existence of the Holy Spirit and immortality are all beyond the realm of scientific testability. Even testing the power of prayer will probably not bring scientists to their knees. The history of life on earth, however, is in a much different category. It has been possible to explore this using scientific methods....For the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually....We now know more about the nature of divine action. We now know a little about how God created life, and any time we understand something new about the activity of God, it brings us one step closer to God." (Darrel Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, page 213, 214) And we do get the canon of the Bible and the essential doctrines of Christianity (like original sin, the Trinity, nature of Christ, virgin birth, resurrection, etc) from the Catholic Church, but evangelicals or fundamentalist Protestants are loathe to admit that. :-) Phil PPhilVaz_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

Galileo: This was more than just the Catholic Church getting burned. This was an issue of conflict and Galileo being an "ass". Men predating Galileo in the Catholic church had often referred to the seperation of religious beliefs from secular areas of study...such as science. Read St. Thomas Aquinas if you need help with this. The Catholic Church did not write Scripture...your right They, however, selectively edited Scripture. There were many books omitted from the Bible. Revelations barely made the cut...They also established most of the early theological ideals of christianity. The Catholic Church has not stake in defending a literal Genesis...do you want my George Washington analogy again? Jesus claimed he was the second Adam? Wait was Jesus claiming he was going to get us all kicked out of heaven by eating an apple? of course not, he was referring to Adam figuratively even by your understanding. So if he was already referring to Adam in an allusionary sense, then why must Adam be literal to Jesus? Going back to the literal interpretation. Old Testament---> 1 author(or at least one account) New Testament---> 4 Gospels(or at least four accounts) The Catholic church still does not believe in literalism in the bible, but you can still gather information from a text without considering it to be absolutely true. Was Homer's Illiad absolutely true? Did we find Troy, and were some of Homer's stories true? Same thing with the Bible. We can gather information without believing it is absolute. Plus, we can guarantee that the New Testament is more accurate than the Old.puckSR_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT}

i dont think you have to see genesis 1 as a science text, just to make that known. i do think you have to have a literal adam and eve and the fall. and noah as well- tho, i have read a lot of material that makes a good case for a local flood and not a worldwide flood (the evidence doesnt show a worldwide flood from what ive read). these arent really problems...the local flood idea, i mean. and a historical adam and eve and the fall that came from them- we have to defend that as truth, or else christ didnt make sense when he spoke of him being the second and final adam and we dont make sense of the fall in the sense that we need christ to make up for it. if no literal fall, why christ at all? why the cross? when it comes to genesis- age of the earth, how long the 'days' were, and a few other things...its up for debate really, and it fits with science pretty well (tho, im not sure about the order of creation in regards to plants an animals, air and sea based animals, etc- anyone have any thoughts on why genesis seems to possibly contradict the fossil record as to the order?) maybe there WAS a supernatural event and a worldwide flood which screwed up the fossil record, ive no clue.jboze3131_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

I'm sorry. The Catholic Church didn't create the canon of Scripture. And jboze's overall point is correct. I can understand, as a Christian, if you think Gen. 1 isn't a straight science textbook. However, when you start messing with the historical Adam and the fall, you've created terminal problems in Christian theology. Furthermore, I think the Catholic Church has been so burned by bad press from the Galileo incident that they may be a little too eager to be supportive of evolution. Which, given my assumption will gain more ground and traction in the future, is unfortunate they stake out an anti-ID position now.geoffrobinson_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

phil: my point was...does the catholic church truly have no stake in defending a literal genesis? why did christ say he came as the second adam if he knew genesis was merely poetic? how do you get original sin (the church i believe adheres to that idea, no?) if not a literal adam and eve and the start of sin with their actions? and if you take genesis and say you have no stake in defending it as a true event...then what of the other things? i mean, i know catholics believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, a literal afterlife in heaven and a reality of hell, etc. but, if you say youve no stake in defending genesis as being literal, then why would you have any stake in a literal resurrection, and all the rest i mentioned? it would seem the church should definitely have a stake in defending the entire bible and all the christian doctrines, no??jboze3131_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

jboze, you wouldn't have a Bible were it not for the Catholic Church. We wouldn't know what the biblical canon is without the Catholic Church. You wouldn't have the essential doctrines of the Christian faith were it not for the Catholic Church. We get all that from the Catholic Church. I suggest a good reading of the Catechism to see what we believe about the virgin birth, the resurrection, original sin, and the reality of heaven, and for that matter, Adam/Eve, Genesis, and creation. And come on over to Catholic Answers boards (http://forums.catholic.com), any of you evangelicals who have questions on Catholicism. Many knowledgeable folks there. As for Schonborn, he has clarified himself somewhat in a recent catechetical lecture (10/2/2005) delivered from St. Stephan's Cathedral in Vienna. I have linked it below. He does believe divine "design" can be defended by reason, but he has shied away from some of the "scientific" claims he made in his July 2005 New York Times editorial. The bottom line for him is: "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. In the citations given above [he cites Julian Huxley, Will Provine, and Peter Atkins, all atheist materialists], it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one's territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews." (Schonborn, 10/2/2005, Creation and Evolution: To the Debate As It Stands, translated from the German) What he has a problem with is evolution as an atheistic worldview, not biological evolution as science. But I'll be looking for those First Things articles, thanks. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p91.htm Phil PPhilVaz_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

"Unlike many Protestants, Catholics have no stake in Ã¢â‚¬Å“creationistÃ¢â‚¬Â arguments aimed at defending an unpoetical reading of Genesis."
I find that disheartening. What's next? Having no stake in defending an unpoetical reading of the virgin birth, the resurrection, original sin, the reality of heaven, the basic rituals practiced by the church. I sure as heck hope the Catholic church would have a stake in such matters!! Was Christ speaking in a poetic manner when he said he came as the second Adam?jboze3131_{November 14, 2005
November
11
Nov
14
14
2005
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply