Magic Statistics

Andy at All2Common has organised voting for the best Anglican blogs in five categories:

• Most Theological
• Most Humorous
• Most Edifying
• Most Informative
• Most Creative

Somehow Andy cast aside his usual good judgment in that final category: I'm one of the nominees. It's so incredible that I can't believe it. If I win, I'll demand a recount.

The polls are open here until 1 January 2006. Only vote per person in each category, please.

Thanks to Andy for getting this on the rails and rolling down the track.

Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Vienna, published a highly controversial, and much misunderstood, article entitled "Finding Design in Nature" in the New York Times last 7 July. Particle physicist Stephen M. Barr criticised some aspects of the Cardinal’s arguments in "The Design of Evolution", which appeared in the October 2005 issue of First Things. Now Cardinal Schönborn has responded with The Designs of Science in the January 2006 First Things.

Dr Barr criticised Cardinal Schönborn’s New York Times article:

By saying that "neo-Darwinism" is "synonymous" with "‘evolution’ as used by mainstream biologists", Schönborn indicates that he means the term as commonly understood among scientists. As so understood, neo-Darwinism is based on the idea that the mainspring of evolution is natural selection acting on random genetic variation. Elsewhere in his article, however, the cardinal gives another definition: "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense [is] an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." This is the central misstep of Cardinal Schönborn’s article. He has slipped into the definition of a scientific theory, neo-Darwinism, the words "unplanned" and "unguided", which are fraught with theological meaning.

This appears to be partly an issue of semantics. Cardinal Schönborn distinguished "evolution" from "neo-Darwinism". The former is a scientific theory that studies development of life forms and postulates a mechanism for such development. The latter the Cardinal defines as an ideological philosophy claiming that the development of life is an unguided, unplanned process. Defined thusly, the Catholic Church sees no conflict between evolution and Christian faith. Neo-Darwinism, however, is not compatible with the faith of the church.

Against neo-Darwinism, Cardinal Schönborn insists that evolution is clearly teleological in nature:

The variation that actually occurred in the history of life was exactly the sort needed to bring about the complete set of plants and animals that exist today. In particular, it was exactly the variation needed to give rise to an upward sweep of evolution resulting in human beings. If that is not a powerful and relevant correlation, then I don’t know what could count as evidence against actual randomness in the mind of an observer.

Some may object: This is a pure tautology, not scientific knowledge. I have assumed the conclusion, “rigged the game,” and so forth. But that is not true. I have simply related two indisputable facts: Evolution happened (or so we will presume, for purposes of this analysis), and our present biosphere is the result. The two sets of facts correlate perfectly. Facts are not tautologies simply because they are indisputably true.

More fundamentally, Cardinal Schönborn does not agree with Dr Barr that his use of the words "unplanned" and "unguided" is fraught with "theological meaning".

Does his [Barr’s] use of that term [theology] mean that we can only know that teleology is real in the world of living beings by reference to revealed truth? Does it mean that unaided human reason cannot grasp the evident order, purpose, and intelligence manifested so clearly in the world of living beings?

Citing Romans 1:19-20, Cardinal Schönborn insists that the human mind’s ability to apprehend order and design in nature precedes faith. Human reason "can grasp the reality of design without the aid of faith". This is the basis for the Cardinal’s claim in his New York Times article: "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

Common experience, coming as it does before both science and theology, is sufficient to confirm natural order and design. Neo-Darwinism certainly contradicts Christian faith; but even before that, it contradicts good sense.

Read the whole thing.

via Ignatius Insight Scoop.

Near the beginning of his First Things essay, Cardinal Schönborn cites an example of an evolutionary scientist importing metaphysical assertions into a discussion of evolution. He quotes Will Provine, who teaches evolutionary biology at Cornell University:

Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces rationally detectable.

For more examples, posted at this blog, click here and here.

Intelligent design apologists have on occasion cited Romans 1:19-20 in support of the proposition that science precedes faith. For example, Phillip E. Johnson in the January 1993 issue of First Things:

If God stayed in the realm beyond the reach of scientific investigation, and allowed an apparently blind materialistic process to do all the work of creation, then it would have to be said that God furnished us with a world of excuses for unbelief and idolatry.

That article is, unfortunately, not available online, but Howard J. Van Till’s response in the June/July 1993 First Things is posted, along with Phillip E. Johnson’s rejoinder, here. Van Till rejects Johnson’s inference from Romans 1:

One cannot help but wonder concerning the sorry plight of all those poor folks who, "ever since the creation of the world" and before the advent of modern biological science, were deprived of this essential evidence.

I posted a blog entry on Stephen Barr’s article, but it did not directly touch on his differences with Cardinal Schönborn. The Schönborn Site provides up-to-date information on the Cardinal and his activities. One of the pages at this site is a blog called Schönborn Sightings. Cardinal Schönborn has begun a series of Catechetical Lectures at St Stephan’s Cathedral, Vienna, on creation and evolution. English translations of the first two lectures are posted here and here.

The collect for today, the Feast of St John the Evangelist, from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

Merciful Lord, we beseech thee to cast thy bright beams of light upon thy Church, that it being enlightened by the doctrine of thy blessed Apostle and Evangelist Saint John may so walk in the light of thy truth, that it may at length attain to the light of everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Epistle: 1 St John 1:1-10
The Gospel: St John 21:19-25

John and his brother James (St James the Greater) were Galilean fishermen and sons of Zebedee. Jesus called the two brothers Boanerges ("sons of thunder"), apparently because of their zealous character; for example, they wanted to call down fire from heaven on the inhospitable Samaritans. John and James, together with Peter, belonged to the inner group of the apostles who witnessed the Transfiguration and the agony in Gethsemane. It was John and Peter whom Jesus sent to prepare the final Passover meal.

In the lists of disciples, John always appears among the first four, but usually after his brother, which may indicate that John was the younger of the two.

 According to ancient church tradition, St John the Evangelist was the author of the New Testament documents that bear his name: the fourth gospel, the three epistles of John, and Revelation. John's name is not mentioned in the fourth gospel (but 21:2 refers to "the sons of Zebedee"), but he is usually if not always identified as the beloved disciple. It is also generally believed that John was the "other disciple" who, with Peter, followed Jesus after his arrest. John was the only disciple at the foot of the cross and was entrusted by Christ with the care of his mother Mary.

With the discovery in Egypt of the papyrus fragment known as P52, it is certain that the fourth gospel was in writing by the early part of the second century. P52 is the earliest known copy of New Testament writing and, given that John's Gospel is believed to be one of the last New Testament writings completed, is enormously significant in supporting the authenticity of the New Testament.

After Christ’s resurrection and ascension, John, together with Peter, took a leading role in the formation and guidance of the early church. John was present when Peter healed the lame beggar, following which both apostles were arrested. After reports reached Jerusalem that Samaria was receiving the word of God, the apostles sent Peter and John to visit the new Samaritan converts. Presumably, John was at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). He is not mentioned later in the Acts of the Apostles, so he appears to have left Palestine.

Christian writers of the second and third centuries say that St John lived in Asia Minor in the last decades of the first century, acting as a kind of patriarch to the churches there. Both Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-200) say that John lived in Ephesus and wrote his gospel there. It is believed that he died a natural death at a very old age around the end of the first century. That would make St John the only apostle who did not die a martyr.

Controversy arose early, and still persists, as to whether St John the Evangelist also wrote the Book of Revelation–and, if he was the author, when he wrote it. The style of writing used in Revelation is very different from that of the Gospel and Epistles of St John. However, given the vastly different contents and circumstances of the writings, many maintain that stylistic differences are to be expected. There is also the question of when Revelation was written; here, too, opinion is divided, although all agree that Revelation predates the Gospel and Epistles of St John. The earliest evidence comes from St Irenaeus who said that John’s vision occurred in the closing years of the reign of Domitian (emperor AD 81-96). That is still the majority view, although some authorities date Revelation near the end of the reign of Nero (emperor AD 54-68) or the time of other emperors between Nero and Domitian.

If Revelation dates from the time of Domitian, it was written when the Roman authorities had exiled St John to the island of Patmos. After Domitian’s death, John returned to Ephesus where he subsequently wrote his three Epistles and his Gospel. John’s Gospel, written after decades of prayer and meditation on what he had seen and heard from our Lord, takes a more contemplative and theological view of Christ’s life and teachings than do the other three gospels.

The Eastern church, which often calls him St John the Theologian, celebrates his feast day on 26 September.

St John is the patron saint of theologians, writers, and all who work in the production and sale of books.