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.