Chance or Purpose?

[The_Catholic]

Has anyone read Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn’s new book “Chance or Purpose?” I’m curious, is he a Creationist of the 6 literal day sense? And does he speak badly of evolution?

Thinking of buying the book, but if it’s just another book attacking evolution then I’ll pass, I already own too many of them. However if Cardinal Schoenborn is attempting to harmonize an evolutionary world with the world of Faith I’d be highly interested.

 

[Church_Militant]

Has anyone read Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn’s new book “Chance or Purpose?” I’m curious, is he a Creationist of the 6 literal day sense? And does he speak badly of evolution?

Thinking of buying the book, but if it’s just another book attacking evolution then I’ll pass, I already own too many of them. **However if Cardinal Schonborn is attempting to harmonize an evolutionary world with the world of Faith I’d be highly interested.**I have it and have read and I highly recommend it based on what you have said.

You should find it right up your alley.

The good Cardinal is neither a Creationist nor an Evolutionist because he considers both of them errant ideologies.

Creationism errs as an ideology because YEC is religion speaking outside its area and trying to speak as science.

God as our creator is a religious matter of faith, which so long as it remains within the bounds of faith and its context will not conflict with scientific research.

Evolutionism (sometimes referred to as Neo-Darwinism) errs as an ideology because it is Science speaking outside its area and trying to speak as religion.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which so long as it remains within the bounds of scientific empiricism will not conflict with religious faith.

Please note that those are somewhat oversimplified definitions and you’ll have to read the book because there’s so much there.

I spoke to him about this on Catholic Answers Live back in late 2007 and it aired in December. Unfortunately, those archived shows are no longer available online, but if you will PM me I may be able to help out with that.

Again, I highly recommend his book to you.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[garysibio]

No theory regarding the origin of the universe of the life it contains is scientific. Regardless of whether or not something could happen, you cannot prove that it did happen. The only way we can know how creation came to be is the testimony of an eyewitness and the only eyewitness gave His testimony in Gen 1 & 2.

I’m not using religion to provide scientific answers, just historical ones. I accept the existence of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc. because the Bible testifies to their existence. Why reject the opening of the book?

The so-called science behind the theory of evolution is shaky at best. There is no valid reason to reject the possibility of a young Earth.

Gary

 

[wasmit]

The so-called science behind the theory of evolution is shaky at best. There is no valid reason to reject the possibility of a young Earth.

Are you serious, or are you just joking?

 

[garysibio]

Are you serious, or are you just joking?

If you would sit down and honestly assess the support for evolution you would see that I am most definitely not joking.

Gary

 

[janman55]

I have read the book and found it a very good read. He quotes from Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” where Darwin himself seems to leave open the possibility if not likelihood of a Creator. Neo-Darwinists which almost always exclude the possibility of a Creator are at best dishonest scientists and gives several examples in studies.

God is Truth, and science seeks Truth albeit with the limitations of the human mind. If practiced honestly however science and faith coexist beautifully.

 

[DavWan]

I have read the book. The thesis is not a denial of Evolution, but rather of philosophic views that claim to be scientific but go beyond science, by arguing that evolution “proves” atheism.

While I know some evolutionists have objected to the title, the point he is making here is the difference between an evolution that happened without the existence of God and an evolution that was caused by God

 

[hecd2]

I have read the book. The thesis is not a denial of Evolution, but rather of philosophic views that claim to be scientific but go beyond science, by arguing that evolution “proves” atheism.

While I know some evolutionists have objected to the title, the point he is making here is the difference between an evolution that happened without the existence of God and an evolution that was caused by God

In that case he shouldn’t have called it “Chance or Purpose”, which is a false dichotomy, since believing scientists, philosophers and theologians will point out that randomness in the processes of evolution does not preclude divine providence, any more than randomness in the process of reproduction precludes divine providence. Ratzinger understands this - why can’t Schoenborn? But Schoenborn has never understood this, which is why he was hijacked by the ID crowd in the first place.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

 

[hecd2]

I have read the book and found it a very good read. He quotes from Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” where Darwin himself seems to leave open the possibility if not likelihood of a Creator. Neo-Darwinists which almost always exclude the possibility of a Creator are at best dishonest scientists and gives several examples in studies.

Neo-Darwinism (or the Modern Synthesis) is the foundational theory of biology and has been so since the 1930s. Perhaps you would explain just how biologists are “dishonest scientists”. Just exactly how does this “dishonesty” manifest itself?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict does not believe human beings are haphazard mistakes. The Stephen Jay Gould claim is that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently.

Peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

Pope Benedict does not believe human beings are haphazard mistakes. The Stephen Jay Gould claim is that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, just as if the act of your conception could be rewound, it wouldn’t have produced Ed but someone else. There are random processes in biology, including human biology, and there’s no getting round that fact.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Evolutionism (sometimes referred to as Neo-Darwinism) errs as an ideology because it is Science speaking outside its are

You are mistaken. Neo-Darwinism, also called the Modern Sythesis, is the foundational theory of modern biology. It is the result of the synthesis of the theories of Darwinian Natural Selection and Medelian genetics, along with quantitative population biology. It was developed by a brilliant set of biologists (Dobzhansky, Mayr, Fisher, Haldane, Simpson, Wright and others) in the 1930s/1940s and is absolutely science and not ideology.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[DavWan]

In that case he shouldn’t have called it “Chance or Purpose”, which is a false dichotomy, since believing scientists, philosophers and theologians will point out that randomness in the processes of evolution does not preclude divine providence, any more than randomness in the process of reproduction precludes divine providence. Ratzinger understands this - why can’t Schoenborn? But Schoenborn has never understood this, which is why he was hijacked by the ID crowd in the first place.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Schoenborn_critique.htm

I think you miss the point. Schönborn is speaking of those evolutionists who do believe that evolution disproves God. The believing scientist is not included in this, as he is quite open to the view of God and evolution. That is the difference between “Chance” and “Purpose” as Schönborn understands it. Does evolution have a purpose to it? Or is it devoid of God? Science is not the role of the book. It is the conclusions beyond science that he is concerned with.

Don’t make it out to be something Schönborn didn’t say.

 

[The_Catholic]

I think you miss the point. Schönborn is speaking of those evolutionists who do believe that evolution disproves God. The believing scientist is not included in this, as he is quite open to the view of God and evolution. That is the difference between “Chance” and “Purpose” as Schönborn understands it. Does evolution have a purpose to it? Or is it devoid of God? Science is not the role of the book. It is the conclusions beyond science that he is concerned with.

Don’t make it out to be something Schönborn didn’t say.

Interesting, I’m going to order it tommorrow! Thanks.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have read the book and found it a very good read. He quotes from Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” where Darwin himself seems to leave open the possibility if not likelihood of a Creator. Neo-Darwinists which almost always exclude the possibility of a Creator are at best dishonest scientists and gives several examples in studies.

God is Truth, and science seeks Truth albeit with the limitations of the human mind. If practiced honestly however science and faith coexist beautifully.

 

[DavWan]

Interesting, I’m going to order it tommorrow! Thanks.

Enjoy. I know I did

 

[hecd2]

I think you miss the point. Schönborn is speaking of those evolutionists who do believe that evolution disproves God. The believing scientist is not included in this, as he is quite open to the view of God and evolution. That is the difference between “Chance” and “Purpose” as Schönborn understands it. Does evolution have a purpose to it? Or is it devoid of God? Science is not the role of the book. It is the conclusions beyond science that he is concerned with.

Don’t make it out to be something Schönborn didn’t say.

No, I’m not missing the point. Schoenborn began his campaign with his absurd article in New York Times and followed it up with an even worse article in First Things magazine.Throughout, his arguments have been characterised by his fear of the concept of random processes, at the same time as showing that his lack of understanding of the operation and consequence of randomness in nature.

You ask: does evolution have a purpose to it? If by that you mean “is the purpose of evolution to lead to the emergence of human beings?”, then the scientific answer is absolutely not. One can believe that God in his omnipotence and omniscience loaded the dice so that humans would evolve, but that is a purely religious and faith-based belief. The scientific evidence is that evolution is a natural phenomenon with random elements, and that it is no more purposeful than gravity, or symmetry breaking, or tropical storm formation, or the life cycle of Plasmodium falciparum or human conception. The intellectually rigorous position is either to find divine providence operating in all these things or in none of them. Schoenborn’s claim that one of them is especially divinely directed, along with his attack on the concept of randomness (or Chance as he calls it), and on the fundamental framework of modern biology, the Synthetic Theory, is intellectually flawed. His assertion that scientists should not use their knowledge of the natural world to draw philosophical and theological conclusions that disagree with his world view is also fallacious.

If Schoenborn’s position was merely to promote natural theology and deplore the fact that many scientists reach an atheistic conclusion, that would be fine, but he goes way beyond that and way beyond his competence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[DavWan]

I’ll stand by what I said.

Have you read the book?

 

[The_Catholic]

No, I’m not missing the point. Schoenborn began his campaign with his absurd article in New York Times and followed it up with an even worse article in First Things magazine.Throughout, his arguments have been characterised by his fear of the concept of random processes, at the same time as showing that his lack of understanding of the operation and consequence of randomness in nature.

You ask: does evolution have a purpose to it? If by that you mean “is the purpose of evolution to lead to the emergence of human beings?”, then the scientific answer is absolutely not. One can believe that God in his omnipotence and omniscience loaded the dice so that humans would evolve, but that is a purely religious and faith-based belief. The scientific evidence is that evolution is a natural phenomenon with random elements, and that it is no more purposeful than gravity, or symmetry breaking, or tropical storm formation, or the life cycle of Plasmodium falciparum or human conception. The intellectually rigorous position is either to find divine providence operating in all these things or in none of them. Schoenborn’s claim that one of them is especially divinely directed, along with his attack on the concept of randomness (or Chance as he calls it), and on the fundamental framework of modern biology, the Synthetic Theory, is intellectually flawed. His assertion that scientists should not use their knowledge of the natural world to draw philosophical and theological conclusions that disagree with his world view is also fallacious.

If Schoenborn’s position was merely to promote natural theology and deplore the fact that many scientists reach an atheistic conclusion, that would be fine, but he goes way beyond that and way beyond his competence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Have you read the book?

 

[grannymh]

You ask: does evolution have a purpose to it? If by that you mean “is the purpose of evolution to lead to the emergence of human beings?”, then the scientific answer is absolutely not. One can believe that God in his omnipotence and omniscience loaded the dice so that humans would evolve, but that is a purely religious and faith-based belief. The scientific evidence is that evolution is a natural phenomenon with random elements, and that it is no more purposeful than gravity, or symmetry breaking, or tropical storm formation, or the life cycle of Plasmodium falciparum or human conception. The intellectually rigorous position is either to find divine providence operating in all these things or in none of them.

Hi Alec,

I’m delighted that I get to ask you questions.

Regarding: “The intellectually rigorous position is either to find divine providence operating in all these things or in none of them.”

Would the “intellectually rigorous position” of finding divine providence have to be a scientific one, philosophical one, or simply analytical? Or something other?

Regarding: “One can believe that God in His omnipotence and omniscience loaded the dice so that humans would evolve, but that is a purely religious and faith-based belief.”

How is that different from Neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis which finds a world of magnificent diversity spawned from a mixture of cells at the foot of the tree of life? Not only are the marvelous species diverse but some of the mechanics. Given that evolutionary theory doesn’t address the origin of life, how does it address the source (already with life) of all that has evolved including amoebas and humans. I am looking for a scientific answer even if it may have a few holes.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.