Schönborn set out his sometimes misunderstood views, clearly distinguishing between evolution and what he calls “evolutionism.” He explained that while he believes that God is the intelligent designer of the universe, his position on evolution springs from a philosophical rather than a scientific standpoint. His main concern, he said, was not to denigrate evolution as a natural process but to criticize atheistic materialism [the idea that only matter, not spirit, exists] as the dominant philosophy of today’s secular societies.
I can understood the secular science antagonism to intelligent design, but I can’t understand the antagonism from Catholics and other Christians.
At its basis intelligent design says that God is the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover of the universe. Everything springs from Him. It also says that some biological systems are irreducibly complex and that it would be difficult to say that such systems spontaneously evolved according to Darwin’s natural selection. This isn’t to say that evolution is always wrong or that evolution and intelligent design can’t co-exist.
Yes, there are those who equate ID with creationism, but they are wrong. They are not the same.
What I call evolutionism is an ideological view that says evolution can explain everything in the whole development of the cosmos, from the Big Bang to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. I consider that an ideology. It’s not good for science if it becomes ideological, because it leaves it own field and enters the area of philosophy, of world views, maybe of religion.
This is not primarily a religious question, but one of reason. Can one reasonably say the origin of man and of life can be explained only by material causes? Can matter create intelligence? This question cannot be answered scientifically, because the scientific method cannot grasp it. Here we can only argue philosophically, metaphysically, or religiously.
This is the problem of the ID debate: it has become ideological, meaning that both sides characterize it on the basis of what they want it to be, turning it into a straw man to knock down or re-inventing it into something it was never meant to be. Schoenborn wisely takes the correct path through the minefields in search of truth.
As a Catholic and a scientist who has been following this debate for some years, maybe I can help explain some of the antagonism towards ID on the part of the Catholics and other Christians. From a Christian point of view, there is no trouble with ID’s claim that God is the Prime Mover and the Intelligent Designer of the Universe in which we live. The trouble lies in the scientific claim that there are some biological systems that are irreducibly complex and simply cannot be explained by any other means than, presumably, God’s Hand. This seems to be a “God of the gaps” argument, and the implication by some ID’ers is that irreducible complexity proves the existence of God. This is neither good science nor good theology.
At the same time, Schoenborn does make the very good point that some scientists try to make philosophical and theological claims (atheistic materialism) based on their scientific understanding of evolution that don’t necessarily follow. Even if humanity came about by the process of evolution as it is currently understood, it doesn’t follow that there is no spiritual reality.
It is easy to see why there is so much antagonism between the two groups.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/11/06 at 10:11 PM
More comments: Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.
Schoenborn on evolution, intelligent design, and evolutionism
Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna clarifies his stance on evolution, “evolutionism”, and intelligent design in an interview at Beliefnet.
I can understood the secular science antagonism to intelligent design, but I can’t understand the antagonism from Catholics and other Christians.
At its basis intelligent design says that God is the Uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover of the universe. Everything springs from Him. It also says that some biological systems are irreducibly complex and that it would be difficult to say that such systems spontaneously evolved according to Darwin’s natural selection. This isn’t to say that evolution is always wrong or that evolution and intelligent design can’t co-exist.
Yes, there are those who equate ID with creationism, but they are wrong. They are not the same.
Technorati Tags: cardinal, evolution, intelligent design
I think the cardinal hits it on the head here.
This is the problem of the ID debate: it has become ideological, meaning that both sides characterize it on the basis of what they want it to be, turning it into a straw man to knock down or re-inventing it into something it was never meant to be. Schoenborn wisely takes the correct path through the minefields in search of truth.
COMMENTS
As a Catholic and a scientist who has been following this debate for some years, maybe I can help explain some of the antagonism towards ID on the part of the Catholics and other Christians. From a Christian point of view, there is no trouble with ID’s claim that God is the Prime Mover and the Intelligent Designer of the Universe in which we live. The trouble lies in the scientific claim that there are some biological systems that are irreducibly complex and simply cannot be explained by any other means than, presumably, God’s Hand. This seems to be a “God of the gaps” argument, and the implication by some ID’ers is that irreducible complexity proves the existence of God. This is neither good science nor good theology.
At the same time, Schoenborn does make the very good point that some scientists try to make philosophical and theological claims (atheistic materialism) based on their scientific understanding of evolution that don’t necessarily follow. Even if humanity came about by the process of evolution as it is currently understood, it doesn’t follow that there is no spiritual reality.
It is easy to see why there is so much antagonism between the two groups.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/11/06 at 10:11 PM
Comments are being moderated. After you submit your comment it could take up to a couple hours, but usually only a few minutes, before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, you may contact Domenico Bettinelli.