Fr. Coyne, the Director of the Vatican Observatory, has weighed in on the so-called Evolution/Intelligent Design debate. Fr. Coyne has his PhD in astronomy, as well as a License in philosophy and theology. He really should be qualified to at least understand the debate, if not contribute to it. Alas, at least as Catholic On-line quotes him, neither appears to be the case.

He assails Cardinal Schonborn's July 2005 NYT article for condemning neo-Darwinism and supporting ID. He lists five errors of the Cardinal's, which highlight problems in his own thinking...

Read the rest.

"He created each thing according to its kind"

Third catechesis by Christoph Cardinal Schonborn on December 4, 2005 in the cathedral of St. Stephan in Vienna. Translated by Prof. John F. Crosby.

In the second catechesis we dealt in general with our faith in God as creator: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." According to this faith, all that exists owes its being to the sovereign act of the creator, who does not have to create. We profess this in the Creed when we profess our belief in the one God, the Father and Creator of heaven and earth.

But things get more difficult as soon as we try to approach the matter more closely and ask what all of this means concretely. According to Genesis 1, the first chapter of the Bible, God created everything "according to its kind." Does this mean that God performed for each kind a distinct act of creating? This was the belief for centuries, into the 18th and 19th century: the different kinds are unchangeable and each is created separately by God. The idea of a "transformation of kinds" arose in the 19th century: the kinds have gradually developed from the simplest beginnings to the highly complex mammals and to man; the kinds are not unchangeable and there are good natural explanations for the way in which they have come into being.

Darwin's main work is called The Origin of Species, which I repeat is an epoch-making work, a classic, even if there is much in it that can be criticized. At the end of the Introduction to the work Darwin sums up as follows his main concerns and the core of his theory: I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification. (Darwin, The Origin of Species, Modern Library edition, p. 14)

After struggling honestly and intensely with his earlier, biblically-based view that, as he put it, "each kind is separately created," Darwin broke with it. In a letter to his friend, Joseph D. Hooker, he wrote in 1844 that "it is like confessing a murder" to give up the idea that the natural kinds are created as fixed and unchangeable by God, and to develop in its place the idea of the kinds emerging in a very natural way without "any particular creative acts of God."

This is the dramatic situation in which Darwin went public with his ideas and had tremendous success with them. Many say today that his theory is no longer just a theory but rather a fact. Some react in an overly sensitive and irritable way if anyone calls Darwin's theory into question or even just asks questions about it. The debate of the last months has shown clearly that there is still plenty of room for questions and that it is necessary to allow questions to surface. It has also shown that critical questions are raised not only by quarrelsome folks or "narrowminded fundamentalists," but also by serious scholars probing and searching for truth. In doing this they are performing a real service to the objective issues, for nothing is worse for science than to prohibit questioning and searching.

Today I want to make a bold attempt: I want to examine the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis, searching not for its scientific teaching, for it is surely not a scientific text in the sense of modern natural science, but searching for the fundamental message that engages our critical reflection and is thus important for the dialogue with science.

Read the rest of this lecture.

The Apostle John, in his old age, had only one thing to say in his letters, only one thing was dear to his heart and he returns to it time and time again: "God is love" (1 John 4,16). Pope Benedict XVI, as his first and most important statement of his pontificate, has only that to say, that which encompasses all and gives meaning to everything: "Deus Caritas Est". My first impression of this Encyclical is [that it is] full of strength, clarity and hope.

For twenty-three years Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. All erroneous teachings, moral aberrations, conflicts of teachings and morals of our age landed on his desk, had to be studied, discussed, clarified and sometimes sanctioned by him. He has not become bitter over it. His view of the world and of humans has not been darkened by all those difficulties. His first Encyclical is fresh and brimming with confidence, its realism is devoid of pessimism. For this, there is only one reason for the 78-year-old successor of Peter: with the favorite disciple John, he says, "We have believed love."

Click here to read the rest of the Cardinal's observations.

• In April, he participated in the conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI.
• In July, he published a watershed article on evolution in the New York Times.
• In August, he directed or appeared at numerous events associated with World Youth Day celebrations in Cologne, Germany.
• In October, he began to deliver a series of catechetical lectures on creation and evolution from his cathedral of St. Stephansdom which have been continued into 2006.
• In December, he published a substantial article in First Things responding to critiques from the scientific community about his article for the New York Times.
• In January, he has been active in the political and social initiatives that accompany Austria's six-month presidency of the European Union in 2006.

Read our complete summary and analysis of the Cardinal's service in 2005.

In addition, as a birthday celebration gift to our readers (and after several requests), we have created a CafePress store so you can show your support for the Cardinal in 2006!

Finally, on a more somber tone, today marks the 33rd anniversary of abortion being made legal in the United States. We should all take Cardinal Schonborn's words to heart:

"For every Christian, commitment to the defense of life, together with concrete help, is an obligation that springs from the Gospel."

Whatever problems there may be with the teaching of evolution, he [the biologist interviewed in L'Osservatore Romano] argues, should be challenged on scientific grounds.

Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna who is extremely close to the Pope, opened debate in Church circles after writing a New York Times op-ed piece on design in nature that resonated with intelligent design's claims against evolutionary theory.

He told TIME last summer that he'd been encouraged by the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004 to pursue his doubts about what he calls "Neo-Darwinism" or the belief that evolution explains everything. "I believe in dogmas of faith but I don't believe in dogmas of science," Schonborn told TIME.

"'Intelligent design' not science: Vatican Newspaper"; Reuters:

The ID movement sometimes presents Catholicism, the world's largest Christian denomination, as an ally in its campaign. While the Church is socially conservative, it has a long theological tradition that rejects fundamentalist creationism.

Schoenborn later made it clear the Church accepted evolution as solid science but objected to the way some Darwinists concluded that it proved God did not exist and could "explain everything from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony".

The Church, which has never rejected evolution, teaches that God created the world and the natural laws by which life developed. Even its best-known dissident, Swiss theologian Hans Kueng, echoed this in a recent book in Germany.

Schoenborn said he spoke up because he shared Benedict's concern, stated just before his election last April, that a "dictatorship of relativism" was trying to deny God's existence.

This literal reading of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is a tenet of faith for evangelical Protestants, a group that has become politically influential in the United States.

Many U.S. Catholics may agree with evangelicals politically, but the Church does not share their theology on this point. Intelligent design has few supporters outside the United States.

"Teaching intelligent design will confuse children, says Vatican"; The Telegraph:

Last October Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, called into question the idea that Catholicism and evolution are at odds.

"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," he said.

In 'Design' vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome

by Ian Fisher and Cornelia Dean

ROME, Jan. 18 - The official Vatican newspaper published an article this week labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote, calling intelligent design unscientific. "It only creates confusion between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or religious."

The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under the new pope, Benedict XVI.

Advocates for teaching evolution hailed the article. "He is emphasizing that there is no need to see a contradiction between Catholic teachings and evolution," said Dr. Francisco J. Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Dominican priest. "Good for him."

But Robert L. Crowther, spokesman for the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle organization where researchers study and advocate intelligent design, dismissed the article and other recent statements from leading Catholics defending evolution. Drawing attention to them was little more than trying "to put words in the Vatican's mouth," he said.

L'Osservatore is the official newspaper of the Vatican and basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all its articles represent official church policy. At the same time, it would not be expected to present an article that dissented deeply from that policy.

Read the rest of the article here, which next goes on to include the NYT's intepretation of and commentary on Cardinal Schonborn's contributions to this debate.

Reference is made in the article to Cardinal Schonborn's original op-ed piece for the NYT, as well as to his clarifying remarks made in his First Catechetical Lecture on Creation and Evolution.

In addition, Ian Fisher has published a slightly-modified version of this article in the International Herald Tribune entitled "Vatican gives a nod to evolution."

The Vatican newspaper, like Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn before it, has said that while Intelligent Design has some things to say about the origin of man that extreme materialist evolution advocates deny, ID is not a hard science and should not be taught in schools alongside or instead of evolution. This is the maddening thing about this debate. ID and evolution are not diametric opposites. You can believe that the universe shows evidence of Intelligent Design while also believing that mutations can occur in species over time, making them evolve into newer forms.

The problem is that extremists on both sides have so polarized the debate that they have distorted both ID and evolution into absolute categories.

I'm a little uncomfortable with how the original article, written in Italian, is summarized by CNS, but that may be due to the translation and summary and not a defect in the original. It makes it sound like there if we posit God is behind the creation of a species that this must be a matter of religious faith, not science. That's not true. Neither is it right to say that ID is not science, per se. It sounds like the author, Fiorenzo Facchini, an evolutionary biologist, is making the same mistake of putting a wall of separation between faith and science. If God created the universe--as Catholics must believe--then science and faith must intertwine. This is not a mistake made by Cardinal Schoenborn in his writings on this subject.

Mark Brumley (CEO of Ignatius Press):

It remains to be seen whether the MSM will announce that "the Vatican" has declared that Intelligent Design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools. But of course you shouldn't be surprised if it does.

Carl Olson (editor of Ignatius Insight):

The CNS makes light, I think, of one of the biggest problems in all of this:

The article said that, unfortunately, what has helped fuel the intelligent design debate is a tendency among some Darwinian scientists to view evolution in absolute and ideological terms, as if everything -- including first causes -- can be attributed to chance.

That's an understatement if I ever read one. The fact is, many Darwinians insist that their science (or is it "science"?) proves that there is no God. But science cannot prove or disprove any such thing; it can only prove claims or offer theories about observable material processes/objects. This overstepping of boundaries is a major problem, but one that is hardly ever (if ever) noted by the MSM. Do supporters of ID also overstep that boundary? Perhaps. But, if they do, they certainly get called on the carpet about it far more than their opponents ever do.

Finally, Mark Shea has written an extensive post on the frustrations and challenges experienced by people when trying to debate evolution/ID in the online forum.

Vatican City -- Intelligent design is not science and should not be taught as a scientific theory in schools alongside Darwinian evolution, an article in the Vatican newspaper said.

The article said that in pushing intelligent design some groups were improperly seeking miraculous explanations in a way that creates confusion between religious and scientific fields.

At the same time, scientists should recognize that evolutionary theory does not exclude an overall purpose in creation -- a "superior design" that may be realized
through secondary causes like natural selection, it said.

The article, published in the Jan. 17 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, was written by Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna in Italy.

The article noted that the debate over intelligent design -- the idea that certain features of life and the universe are best explained by an intelligent designer rather than adaptive evolution -- has spread from the United States to Europe.

Read the rest of the article.

And for those interested in more discussion, Pontifications is currently hosting a thoughtful debate on Cardinal Schonborn's contributions to this topic.

The narrow definition of "creationism" was established by a cluster of organizations that emerged in the 1960s. The movement also champions a "young earth" merely thousands of years old and the literal creation account in the Book of Genesis, often including six 24-hour days."

The new ruling from Pennsylvania's Judge John E. Jones endorses a third definition advocated by liberal and scientific groups. In this version, creationism covers the belief that a guiding intelligence is required to explain the origin and complexity of nature, the contention of the "intelligent design" (ID) movement."

University of Wisconsin science historian Ronald L. Numbers, a critic of ID and author of "The Creationists," thinks it's inaccurate to lump ID and creationism together, commenting that this is "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design."

To [Michael] Ruse, what drives ID is understandable opposition to "the secular religion of Darwinism," which treats nature in terms of "blind forces" and strict materialism, and seeks to exclude supernatural concepts.

That's the nub of the complaint lodged by Austria's Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, who provoked a firestorm with an op-ed piece in The New York Times last July. He said Roman Catholicism teaches that "the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world." Schonborn pursues the case in the current issue of First Things magazine.

Read the rest of the article.

On the lighter side of our news coverage, Cardinal Schonborn apparently blessed an Austrian Airlines Airbus jet (pictured left) yesterday.

The Airbus A340-300 was repainted "in a celebration of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra and the Austrian Mint" and was "unveiled [in Vienna] by the country's education, culture and science minister Elisabeth Gehrer."

Cardinal Schonborn is no stranger to blessing public transportation. On June 22nd of last year he blessed the new OBB (Austrian State Railway) 1216 series of locomotive. Pictures of that event are available here and here.

UPDATE #1: Here is longer treatment of the "Vienna Philharmonic Airbus" takeoff event (that includes some general information about life in Austria). It also contains this interesting little news tidbit:

"The Airbus A340-300 OE-LAL will be used primarily on long-haul routes to Japan. On 1 March 2006, the Vienna Philharmonic will use 'its' aircraft to travel from Vienna to New York to launch its American Tour."

Austria has 'European vocation'.

THE HEAD of Austria's Catholic Church has said he hopes his country will champion humane policies during its presidency of the European Union, as well as attaching "greater hope and dynamism" to the continent's future integration.

"Austria carries a weighty responsibility, with European integration surrounded by so much disappointment and scepticism," said Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Archbishop of Vienna. "We have a European vocation, and I hope all political and social forces will place co-responsibility for Europe above their particular interests."

In an interview with Kurier daily newspaper, the 60-year-old Cardinal said that
Austrians had traditionally shown hospitality to immigrants and asylum-seekers,
whose treatment would be a policy priority during the country's six-month
presidency. "While immigration is a social problem, which should be regulated by political measures, asylum is a matter of human rights," he said. "The standards of particular member countries must reflect human rights accordingly."

Austria, which assumed the rotating presidency from Britain on 1 January, is
expected to face tough challenges securing acceptance of the EU's 2007-13
budget, provisionally agreed by ministers on 17 December 2005, as well as
preparing for a European Council debate next June on the future of EU
institutions. In a New Year message, Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel said that his Government would promote jobs, security and research and development, while also rebuilding "confidence in the European project". Austria is planning a European Human Rights Agency in Vienna, and is expected to finalise the planned 2007 accession of Romania and Bulgaria, as well as pursuing membership negotiations with Croatia and Turkey.

Cardinal Schonborn said that talks with Turkey offered a chance to promote human rights in a region that had always been "linked with European history as much through conflicts as through cooperation". He added that dialogue with Islam was forcing Europe to consider "the basic values deriving from Christianity", despite the decision not to mention Europe's "historic Christian roots" in the EU constitution. "Europe has a clearly defined frontier with the East and the Asian continent, and a changing frontier to the south and south-east. One of the toughest challenges is to demarcate the borders so as not to turn them into fortresses," he said. "In the case of Turkey, religious freedom should be held up as an inviolable value. If freedom of confession isn't guaranteed, we will be missing an exceptionally important element of the European identity." Jonathan Luxmoore, Warsaw

What are your objections to the theory of evolution?

Evolution is a scientific theory. 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.

Reason can recognize that matter cannot organize itself. That it at least needs information, and information is an expression of intelligence.

How do you see Darwin?

"The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin is one of the greatest works in the history of ideas. That does not mean that I agree with all of it. But "The Origin of Species"--however you understand it, whether you approve it or not--is an intellectual milestone. If Darwin's theories are scientific hypotheses, however, they must be open to scientific criticism. What I criticize is a kind of immunization strategy, as if it were an offense to Darwin's dignity if someone scientifically criticizes Darwin's theory and says, Here and there are points that can't be explained with this theory.

You've said that scientists have been arrogant in this debate.

There is almost a ban on debate. Critics of evolution theory are discriminated against and discredited from the start. What I would like to see in schools is a critical, open, and positive spirit so that we don't make a dogma of evolution theory but we say, "Here is a theory. A lot speaks for it in many points, but there are points where it has no answer." Of course, we should not claim to teach evolution but actually teach the ideology of evolutionism. If one does it, this must be clearly stated.

"I think, as do many other people, that both are open to each other and that they should not put each other in question. There is not a wall of separation between them."

"For 30 years, I've heard from the pope, from Professor [Josef] Ratzinger
[Benedict's name before he assumed the papacy] that the church has the task in
these times of defending reason. It must defend reason against a reductionism
that in the end, ideologically speaking, is a kind of materialism."

"The question of the Creator belongs in religion class. The question of the "intelligent project of the cosmos," as the pope put it, naturally belongs in with science. "

"The "survival of the fittest" model has become the guiding pattern for free-market economics. But life functions roughly 80 percent in a synergistic and symbiotic way and 20 percent as a struggle...We overlook the fact that the economy needs first of all a model of cooperation and not a model built on the survival of the fittest."

(pictured to left is the "Pummerin", the bell at the top of St. Stephandsom that rings in the new year in Vienna)

The Cafeteria is Closed has an interesting short posting on what New Year's is like in Austria.

Cardinal Schoenborn's meditation on the gospel reading for New Year's Day, which is also the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God, is available (in German) here from the Archdiocese of Vienna's website.

CCC #495 (on "Mary's divine motherhood") reads:

"Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord". In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos)."