Posted on 08/24/2006 8:37:24 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna said he thought Darwin's theories on evolution deserve to be studied in schools, along with the scientific question marks that remain.
It is right to teach "the science of Darwin, not ideological Darwinism," Cardinal Schonborn said Aug. 23. He spoke at a meeting in Rimini sponsored by the Catholic lay movement Communion and Liberation, and his remarks were reported by Italian newspapers.
In 2005, Cardinal Schonborn helped fuel the debate over evolution and intelligent design when he wrote in The New York Times that science offers "overwhelming evidence for design in biology." He later said some scientists had turned Darwin's teachings into an ideological "dogma" that admitted no possibility of a divine design in the created world.
In Rimini, the cardinal said he did not regret writing The New York Times article, but said that in retrospect he might have been more nuanced.
"Perhaps it was too much crafted with a hatchet," he said.
"The church teaches that the first page of the Book of Genesis is not a page of science," he said.
Cardinal Schonborn said there should be no doubt that the church does not support creationism, the idea that the biblical account of the creation of the world in six days should be taken literally.
But when teaching evolutionary theory, he said, schools should underline the points still awaiting clarification, the "missing links" in the theory which were recognized by Darwin himself, he said.
Cardinal Schonborn said Darwinian theory and the faith can coexist, and he proposed a metaphorical image: Darwin's scientific ladder of rising evolutionary development on one hand, and on the other the biblical Jacob's ladder, from which angels descended from heaven to earth.
The cardinal said the images offer "two directions, two movements, which only when observed together allow for anything close to a complete perspective." At the center of these two movements is the figure of Jesus Christ, he said.
Cardinal Schonborn said it was important to realize that Darwin's theories continue to have an impact in economic as well as biological fields. For example, he cited a link between ideological Darwinism and some capitalist theories that consider high unemployment simply a byproduct of a necessary economic natural selection.
In bioethics, he said, the church's differences with ideological Darwinism become important.
"Despite sometimes heavy criticism, the church continues to firmly believe that there is in nature a language of the Creator, and therefore a binding ethical order in creation, which remains a fundamental reference point in bioethical matters," he said.
The cardinal was one of several scholars invited to join Pope Benedict XVI at his summer villa in early September for a private two-day symposium on "Creation and Evolution." The encounter is an annual one in which the pope meets with his former doctoral students from his teaching years in Germany.
|
Darwinism should be taught as theoretical science.
So what if a human creature (in this case a Roman Catholic official) has an opinion?
It's interesting that anti-Darwinism can lead to anti-captialism -- i.e. socialism. I think fundamentalists tend to be socialistic and not captialistic.
Now let's see how many can recognize that this was Ann Coulter's point in the evolution discussion in Godless. She wasn't debunking the theory, she was debunking the devotion to the theory that doesn't allow scrutiny nor acknowledgement of the missing links. It isn't science when it is beyond question.
It's generally recognized that Darwin was influenced by Adam Smith. Even a big-time creationist website (Institute for Creation Research) has this article posted:
Darwin's Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism.
I respect your opinion as much as the next guy but the website in your tagline goes through some pretty heavy contortions to find justification of a premise not shared by the Church nor the pre-Christian Jewish faith (i.e.: How Adam could see stars when their lights took millenia to travel to Earth). So your "side" has an opinion too.
This article is so overlaid with hyperbolic value judgements it is offensive to me and useless.
Darwinism should be studied as literature. In the unit on fiction and mythology.
Whatever does not offend us only makes us stronger.
Thanks for the ping!
And provable mathematics.
Like Gravity, Astronomy, Chemistry and all the other sciences which depend on theories (which is all of science).
All sciences, TToE included, are open to scientific scrutiny and attack. Within the Evolution community there are heated debates on the meaning and proper framework for evidence, some of which has been around quite some time.
If you know of a scientific attack, please provide a summary (and links). On all of these threads no one has yet to provide this. Will you be the first?
I've always thought that the popular fundie term "materialist [blank]" sounds a lot like the classic Soviet caricature referring to Americans as "capitalist [blank]".
Just like gravity. I don't know if you know, but the Theory of Gravity is MUCH less "fleshed out" than TToE.
Oh and lets not forget Astronomy. That goes against Genesis and we have never actually SEEN and TOUCHED much of what we infer from our cameras and telescopes. And how can we study bodies in the sky if we can't account for the Origin of the Universe? EVIL EVIL EVIL!
Redundant.
It should be taught as religion.
Gravity is easilly demonstrated yet much less understood than evolution so I would say yes but I feel that way about almost all science.
Evolution itself isn't the problem. The problem is the Darwinian faith that has grown tangentially out of a scientific theory to justify the erosion of major institutions of our western culture.
The good Cardinal is boosting scientific Darwinism which suggests this conjecture "Vatican Dumps Darwinist-Boosting Astronomer " was not entirely accurate.
Please provde an example. Obne or two true examples will do.
The challenges to these inanities are numerous and I don't have the time right now to chase them all down. You'll find many in Ann's book.
Strawmen aren't "proof."
Evolution itself isn't the problem. The problem is the Darwinian faith that has grown tangentially out of a scientific theory to justify the erosion of major institutions of our western culture.
Got hyperbole? TToE says nothing beyond what it says. It is a scientific theory that satisfies all proper criteria for one. I have no idea how a scientific theory of any kind can bring down western culture.
I know. I was just trying to be charitable.
I think that evolution is good science. However, to my knowledge no one has yet found proof of a change to different species. We have found adaptation and mutation but I know of no species that has been proven to have "fathered" a new and separate species--genetically different. If I'm wrong, I would appreciate correction.
One of the most solid fundamentals of western culture has been our value of the individual. The source of this may be Christian in seeing the image and likeness of God in each other or philosophical from the Greeks and Romans but the result is the same. Evolution and its most ardent supporters tend to see this equation more in terms of usefulness and survival of the fittest. Before we bowed to the altars of Darwinism, human life had dignity in our culture. Now human life has utility or it is a burden to be lifted (eugenics and euthanasia).
That is why I say that evolution is useful science but Darwinism is a faith dangerous to our western culture. Disagree if you must, must I do not mean my criticism as a strawman nor as hyperbole.
Notice that the good Cardinal doesn't think the "enormous amount of waste" of "nature's evolution algorithm" is at odds with the Churches Theology of a Designer. And just because I like this passage I will post it here since it seems to fit the evolutionary scheme.
"Turn us toward yourself, O God of Hosts, show us your face and we shall be saved ; for wheresoever a human soul turns, it can but cling to what brings sorrow unless it turns to you, cling though it may to beautiful things outside you, none of them would be at all. They arise and sink; in their rising they begin to exist and grow toward their perfection, but once perfect they grow old and perish; or, if not all reach old age, yet certainly all perish. So then, even as they; arise and stretch out toward existence, the more quickly they grow and strive to be, the more swiftly they are hastening toward extinction. This is the law of their nature. You have endowed them so richly because they belong to a society of things that do not all exist at once, but in their passing away and succession together form a whole, of which the several creatures are parts. So is it with our speaking as it proceeds by audible signs: it will not be a whole utterance unless one word dies away after making its syllables heard, and gives place to another." (The Confessions, Transience of Created Things (Book 4), Augustine, 397 A.D.)
That works then. So what you are saying is that basically all science is theoretical science then, right? If that's the case, there should be no need to make any kind of special distinction for evolution...
Or should it be turned into a broadway play with show tunes???
You're welcome to have your own conversation. Freedumb and I are doing fine.
My bad - I thought this was a public forum. Go ahead and enjoy your little private chat. Next time, maybe you should just use Freepmail so you won't have to worry about (gasp!) others replying to your posts.
Look who's in a tizzy... I'm not the one who posted the exact same demand as someone else. If you want to be part of the thread, try reading it first.
You will never find a parent organism whose offspring was a totally different species - that wouldn't be evolution, that would be a miracle. (Please pardon me if I misinterpreted your statement.) Evolution is very slow change that has a net effect on populations over time periods so vast that the change from generation to generation is barely noticeable, if at all.
True. However, when we look back from our perch on millenia of history, we should be able to discern the change or at least a pattern. To my knowledge, we have theory but no direct proof of this occurring.
You did misunderstand me a little... I don't think that evolution occurs between generations. That's ok, though.
I don't have Ann's book at the office with me, so you will have to settle for my own argument in post #33. As to your snarky comment... I don't care to have an argument with a disagreeable ass. I'll stick to those who can communicate beyond grade school taunting.
What would convince you? Direct observation of a multi-step sequence of adaptive mutations? How about existing gradations of populations, such that all individuals can mate with their immediate neighbors, but that those at the extreme edges of the range will not mate with each other?
What kind of evidence would you find convincing?
I'm not a scientist and not the one who needs to read and interpret the evidence. Can you point me to a scientist or a study that says that we have found these links? To date I have not found one.
Do you have an example of a change to an entirely different species in a single generation?
for later
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.