Posted on 01/07/2007 1:28:33 PM PST by Coleus
On July 7, after years of media-generated confusion, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, a theologian who helped author the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrote in the New York Times clarifying the Church’s understanding of human origins. Since 1996, the world’s secular media have claimed that Pope John Paul II endorsed Darwinian evolution as being “more than a hypothesis.” The remark, taken out of context, established in some minds that the Catholic Church was ready to abandon its adherence to the notion of a personal God who created life, the universe and everything. In his article, Schonborn said, that the “defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.”
“This,” the Cardinal says bluntly, “is not true.”
Schonborn unequivocally establishes that the Catholic Church does not endorse Darwinism. “Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not.” Cardinal Schonborn, a close associate of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, continued, saying, “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”
The New York Times, never missing an opportunity to bash prominent Catholic prelates, has suggested that Schonborn has changed his tune regarding the legitimacy of Darwinian evolution. But Darwinism, the idea that life sprang and developed into its myriad forms by means of “an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” has never been supported by Catholic teaching.
As early as 1950, Pope Pius XII wrote that it is Catholics teaching that all human beings in some way are biologically descended from a first man, Adam. “The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all,” Pius wrote in his encyclical Humani Generis. Two days after the Cardinal’s article appeared, the New York Times followed up with an interview with Schonborn in which he reiterated that he had been encouraged by Pope Benedict XVI to continue to refine Catholic teaching on evolution.
Read Cardinal Schonborn’s essay:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
Read New York Times coverage of scientific reaction (free registration may be required):
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html?pa...
If you think that replacing Ptolemaic deferents and epicycles with Kepler's three laws of planetary motion was "not really that much of an advance," you're out of your gourd.
This is one of the four or five greatest scientific discoveries of all time. It is the foundation stone of Newton's law of universal gravitation.
-ccm
Wow. I didn't see too many posts from the usual evo worshippers on that thread!
"Anyone who believes a magical deity created decided to create human out of mud is certainly not following modern science."
Anyone who believes that a molecule of DNA could randomly mutate, should try following modern science. Tell me how the genetic information of a more primitive organism could gradually evolve into information for another type of organism, when the slightest error in the millions of letters in that organisms DNA can kill it? You really think that's just a trillion endless serendipitous accidents? How did all these biosystems get together, and learn to interact with each other in nature? Acccidentally? Tell me who's living in a fantasy world now. It is scientifically impossible for such complexity and interaction to be accidental. If you found a super computer on sitting in a field, powered by a generator, uploading and downloading to the internet, would you assume that it all formed there by accident of nature?
"...I hope that under Benedict they are not returning to the obscurantist ways of the past..."
Yeah, the Catholic leadership should return to being reasonable about accepting that there is no Creator, that all life is just one big accident, like Science proves. /sarc
"...he did not publish his book until he was on his deathbed, for fear that he'd be persecuted..."
Not only did he not publish while he was on his deathbed, he didn't even finish his book until moments before his death. He literally wrote the last pages of his book right before he died, and never lived to see it published, IIRC. And yes, this seems to be out of fear of retribution from the Catholic Church.
"...popularizing the idea that you can't be a Christian if you believe in evolution is not a good strategy to win souls."
You mean, if you don't believe it's ok to reject creationism, in favor of evolution, you can't win converts to Christianity? That could well be the most self-invalidating statement I've read in a long time. So, if I understand you, Christians must adopt the TOE, and drop Creationism, or we'll NEVER get any more Christian converts. Anyone see a contradiction here?
Hahahahahaha! You really crack me up, CS.
No. I mean if you run around telling people that one of the requirements to be a Christian is that you must reject evolution, as the Cardinal appears to be saying, then you are drastically reducing your potential to save souls.
Agreed. But then, they should stop making these statements.
This is not news. Obviously the Church cannot endorse blind, materialistic evolution.
Cardinal Schonborn, a close associate of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, continued, saying, “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”
Scientists generally do not understand the logical limits of science and philosophy, since they're not philosophers.
Nevertheless, some argue (i.e., Jimmy Akin) that the pope allowed some wiggle room with regard to polygenism and original sin with the highlighted phrase below, allowing for new scientific or philosophical evidence.
37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]The most devastating criticism of evolution which is never addressed is highlighted below:
5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.The terms that scientists (and all people) employ in speech assume the existence of immutable essences. So when they speak of "monkeys" or "protons" they contradict themselves, if they reject the existence of fixed essences or natures. Additionally, Nominalism follows necessarily from Darwinism, and Nominalism is self-contradictory.6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
A final passage from Humanae Generis:
31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]Amen. It's what my kids are being homeschooled in.
So is being a Democrat, yet most of the RCs I know are Democrats.
And the Sun moves too on the orbit despite heliocentric claims.
I predict...
(And it was such a GOOD one, for it drove a wedge between major chunks of Christianity - the old 'Divide and Conguer' thingy.)
Let's not discuss the claim early on, but delve into how the Solar System works!!!
"Who ya gonna believe? Me, or yer lying eyes?"
"A fool says in his heart; there is no Painter."
Details......
"We don't need no steeking DETAILS!!!"
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.