My review of Christoph, Cardinal Schoenborn’s attempt to tiptoe around the intelligent design controversy

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 4, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

His attempt to tiptoe is better known as his book, Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007).

Tiptoeing won’t work, actually. The ID guys don’t really care what he says because Darwinism and materialism are toast so burnt that even a miracle couldn’t revive them, not that any miracle worker would bother, of course. But the Darwinists/materialists are accustomed to demanding total surrender from everyone for no particular reason, and I guess it becomes a habit or something. Anyway:

Introduction Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn’s Chance or Purpose? Flickering light on the ID controversy at best

Part One: Is the proposed distinction between evolution and “evolutionism” legitimate in today’s environment? (Of course not.)

Part Two: Why is it called “intelligent design” instead of “intelligent intervention”? (Because design is essential and intervention is optional.)

Part Three: What Cardinal Schoenborn doesn’t like about intelligent design (The ID guys talk as though cells operate like machines or something. News flash!: They do. )

Part Four: Can the disgraced Teilhard de Chardin evolve into a pioneer of faith? (But people just wouldn’t get Christ the “evolutor” at my parish, no matter who said it.)

Part Five: Darwin’s ladder knocking over Jacob’s ladder? (Well, that’s the idea anyway, and it won’t be the Darwinists’ fault if it never happens.)

Excerpt:

In marked contrast to the straightforward style of his “no-dhimmis-for-Darwin!” op-ed, Schoenborn’s book is very careful not to say much – without taking it back later. One gets the distinct impression that at least two different people wrote the book – one saying “look, this materialist nonsense is just not compatible with the Catholic faith” and the other saying “no, but, we need to placate the high profile Catholic Darwinists – can we just massage this a bit …”

Comments

“… you can be pretty sure they’ve thought it through very carefully.” After 150 years of Darwin as the apostle of militant materialism—of eugenics and Fascism and Communism and present trends—what’s to be careful about? It would have been good had Pope John Paul II, whom we all admired for having confronted Communism, would have been crystal clear on Darwin. Traditionalists outside Catholocism (Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim) would welcome the heavy weight of the Pope on this most important matter—just as they did on abortion and the culture of death. No, O’Leary is right on correct. If the problem is that materialism has made too many inroads to Rome then the folks need to speak up so that all roads don’t lead there.Rude_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski, you are right. Bad choice of words (fad). Sorry for that, and thanks for the correction. What I was implying was that evangelicalism (and perhaps I should have said "American Evangelicalism") does in fact make very fast responses to current trends. Whether it is politics, or societal issues. The Catholic Church however is slower to change the direction of the ship. I think their slowness is good. Ms. O'Leary is a commentator on trends. So, I think she has the luxoury of saying things in a knee-jerk sort of way (that is not bad, that is what social commentators do). But, an organization like the Catholic Church doesn't like to jump on bandwagons and then retract later - they like to vett things out over a longer period of time. thanks for the correction to my wording.TomRiddle_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

TomRiddle: If you are going to put down Evangelicalism, at least get your facts right. For all my differences with YEC, theirs is not a fad. From the Church Fathers to Thomas Aquinas through the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, 24-hour 6-day creationism was the norm -- even Thomas Aquinas would have found acceptance with the Creation Research Society.William Dembski_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

The Catholic church treads slowly on lots of matters. That is a good thing. One of the problems Galileo ran into was that the Cardinals asked him to wait to publish his work. He blew them off... They did in fact adopt his ideas. But, they take their time in making decisions. That is a good thing. The evangelical church is like the wild, wild west: adopting new fads every couple of years (case in point, YEC). Many evangelicals are jumping at ID, not because of the science, but because they need something to cling on to, and they want it right away. So, the Cardinal's views are a nice first attempt to try and get one's head around things. These are big issues, and I think it would be irresponsible for the Church to make knee-jerk reactions like we see the Evangelical community make. Part of the reason for this is not evangelicals' fault. Evangelicalism is more of a loose federation, allowing groups to go in their own directions. More liturgical organizations (Catholic Church, PCA, Greek Orthodox, etc.) has a governing heirarchy, and do not have the luxory of making proclaimations everytime a hot issue comes about. BTW, it is this same slowness in the Catholic Church that has caused them to very faithfully tow the line on issues like abortion, homosexuality, etc. When the Catholic church makes a proclaimation about something, you can be pretty sure they've thought it through very carefully.TomRiddle_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Duncan, I wish with all my heart that I could agree that "it doesn't work." Unfortunately, it works quite well if the purpose is to reassure those who have accommodated materialism that they can conscientiously go on doing so - and also to apprise those who have not accommodated materialism that they will get no unequivocal word from the Church at this time. Suppose the Church treated the vigorous evolutionist attempts to explain away altruism in the same way that it has dealt with arguments for abortion? THEN people would know, "Hey, dude, the Church doesn't support it." But I very much doubt that this is the last word in the matter.O'Leary_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Nullasalus, I undestand clearly the distinction the Cardinal is making between evolution and "evolutionism" - and respectfully argue that it is irrelevant. In our culture today, evolution does not mean merely that once placoderms swam the seas but now whales do. Or that certain clever persons have suggested a family tree by which these two groups can be related - a tree that depends on evidence, not on the assertion of a dogma. No, evolution today means that apes should have human rights but humans shouldn't. It means that any twaddle advanced in the name of "evolutionary psychology" commands attention. And it means a whole lot more, too, as any observant person among us will soon notice. Calling this trend "evolutionism" does not change anything; most laypeople will go away saying "so the Church actually supports all this ... " In my view, the Cardinal should have vigorously denounced what he tiptoes around. Believe me, he runs no intellectual risks in so dealing with, for example, the Big Bazooms theory of evolution.O'Leary_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

So, what have we got? Someone in the upper echelons of the Catholic church acting just as they would if their responsibilities were to a secular political organization (in this case, by bending over backwards to please everyone). And this surprises you…???? At least we can all agree that it doesn’t work.duncan_{June 5, 2008
June
06
Jun
5
05
2008
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

An interesting article. Some comments I would have. * I think when the cardinal tries to discern between 'evolution' and 'evolutionism', he's doing something subtle and difficult to communicate (as I can personally attest). Namely, he's arguing that the mechanisms described by evolution may be true (neutral drift, selection, mutation, etc), but that these things are not 'unguided and without purpose'. The fact that humans can use design is evidence of this. So too is the fact that the only difference between artificial selection and natural selection is human interaction in the environment. So the cardinal sees no need to reject all the mechanisms of evolution (and while he questions mutations' ability to produce new things, it seems Behe doesn't do this either), he's definitely pitted against the philosophy that so often is attached to the concept. * Just because the cardinal may believe that design can't be demonstrated in the laboratory doesn't necessarily mean (in fact, I think it's obvious he doesn't mean) it's not a powerful philosophical position to take. * Teilhard's work is controversial, but I think his primarily goal wasn't to replace any concept of God, but to point out that evolution is itself one more way God intervenes in the world. Again, this doesn't seem too far from Behe and others' take - just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean that it's not God's work. However, with that said, I'd agree that the cardinal is taking an excessively careful approach here. I think he (reasonably) doesn't want the Catholic Church tarred and feathered with being an enemy of science again. The Galileo thing is still a huge issue to this day. (Notice, by the way, that the treatment of Galileo and Bruno is forever brought up, ignoring the contributions of men like Gregor Mendel. But Lysenkoism is never touched upon.) I'd probably part ways with Denyse on this one (whose blogs I love to read - very informative and I agree with much), though I'd have criticisms of the cardinal as well. One area all sides should be able to agree on (whether ID-proposing, creationist, or theistic evolutionist) is that the philosophical fight against atheistic views of evolution (especially ones that get smuggled in with the science itself) and mind should be aggressively countered in all venues.nullasalus_{June 4, 2008
June
06
Jun
4
04
2008
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply