Talk to Cardinal Schonborn About Evolution!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry_Usher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jerry_Usher

Guest
Hey Everyone,

Pardon the intrusion, but I thought this might be a good place to post a short notice about a radio show taping that we’ll be doing from 1-2 p.m. Pacific Time today (how’s that for short notice! :o ).

We’ll be taping a future show (tentatively scheduled to air on Friday, December 21) with Cardinal Schonborn on his latest book, Chance or Purpose?: Creation, Evolution, and Rational Faith, published by Ignatius Press.

We’d love to have you call in with your questions for the cardinal. Everyone who calls with a question will receive a free copy of his book.

The number to call between 1-2 p.m. Pacific Time today is 1-888-318-7884.

God bless!

Jerry
 
Church Militant did it again! I am SO stoked that I will get Cardinal Schonborn’s book, and his answers were exactly what I was looking for.

I asked him to elucidate the Catholic teaching on Evolution and his answer was concise and very helpful.

I also asked what Catholics should believe concerning the Young Earth theology and was grateful for that teaching as well.

It’s gonna be a great show!

Thanks again Jerry for the heads-up.👍
 
Whoa, after a brief firtation with ID it seems the good Cardinal have come to his senses again.
 
Church_Militant said:
Church Militant did it again! I am SO stoked that I will get Cardinal Schonborn’s book, and his answers were exactly what I was looking for.

I asked him to elucidate the Catholic teaching on Evolution and his answer was concise and very helpful.

I also asked what Catholics should believe concerning the Young Earth theology and was grateful for that teaching as well.

It’s gonna be a great show!

Thanks again Jerry for the heads-up.👍
Click to expand...
What other questions did you ask him?
 
I called in, and I overhead the Cardinal speak on Intelligent Design based on irreducible complexity. He suggested that such ID took a too narrow approach to biology. Could design be observed in nature? Yes. But he suggested that such design could not be proven in scientific terms.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
What other questions did you ask him?
Click to expand...
That was it because I didn’t want to tie up all his time and those two basic issues are ones that we seem to encounter then most in apologetics.

Hey, is there an e-mail address for the Catholic Answers Live show? If so then your questions could be submitted through that!
 
Ahimsa said:
I called in, and I overhead the Cardinal speak on Intelligent Design based on irreducible complexity. He suggested that such ID took a too narrow approach to biology. Could design be observed in nature? Yes. But he suggested that such design could not be proven in scientific terms.
Click to expand...
Did proponents of ID ever suggest that it could be “proven” scientifically? I always took it as part science and part philosophy, and certainly valuable!
 
MarcoPolo said:
Did proponents of ID ever suggest that it could be “proven” scientifically? I always took it as part science and part philosophy, and certainly valuable!
Click to expand...
Well, they certainly wanted (and still want?) it taught in science classes, so I think they saw it as scientific. Read Behe when you get a chance.😃
 
Ahimsa said:
Well, they certainly wanted (and still want?) it taught in science classes, so I think they saw it as scientific. Read Behe when you get a chance.😃
Click to expand...
I’m familiar with Behe. I don’t believe he espouses it as “proof” but as a form of empirical science with a little philosophy and reason.
 
Funny thing is, cosmology is 90% philosophy (i.e., assumptions of isotropy, homogeneity: due to “modesty”, assumptions that redshift = expansion, assumption that we could not be in the center, etc.), yet no one complains about it being taught in the classroom. As cosmologist George Ellis said:

People need to be aware that there is a
range of models that could explain the
observations. For instance, I can construct
[for] you a spherically symmetrical
universe with Earth at its center, and you
cannot disprove it based on observations.
You can only exclude it on philosophical
grounds. In my view there is absolutely
nothing wrong in that. What I want to
bring into the open is the fact that we are
using philosophical criteria in choosing
our models. A lot of cosmology tries to
hide that.

(Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” W. Wayt Gibbs,
Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No. 4, p. 55.)

Yet with ID, which certainly has a lot of philosophy in it, there is no consideration. So, if ID is to be disallowed, so should any modern cosmology.
 
hildegaard said:
Yet with ID, which certainly has a lot of philosophy in it, there is no consideration. So, if ID is to be disallowed, so should any modern cosmology.
Click to expand...
I had the same thought…and compared to cosmology, it sounds like ID has even more of a scientific component in its theory of “irreducible complexity.”
 
inthecloud said:
But cosmology has the mathematics to prove it.
Have you ever read of this Padre?

catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html
Click to expand...
The mathematics show that the theory is compatible with the assumptions and the observations. This still leaves the assumptions as assumptions. Of course the assumptions are driven by the philosophy.

Other theories would be consistent with the observations and other assumptions (and thus perhaps other philosophies). Read the quote again:

George Ellis said (emphasis mine):

People need to be aware that there is a
range of models that could explain the
observations. For instance, I can construct
[for] you a spherically symmetrical
universe with Earth at its center, and you
cannot disprove it based on observations.
You can only exclude it on philosophical
grounds. In my view there is absolutely
nothing wrong in that. What I want to
bring into the open is the fact that we are
using philosophical criteria in choosing
our models. A lot of cosmology tries to
hide that.

(Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” W. Wayt Gibbs,
Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No. 4, p. 55.)

Here is what Paul Davies, editor of Nature said about the study (emphasismine):

Often the simplest of observations will
have the most profound consequences. It
has long been a cornerstone of modern
science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic
outlook, that the Earth attends a modest
star that shines in an undistinguished part
of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose
spontaneously and man evolved on this
miscellaneous clump of matter and now
directs his own destiny without outside
help. This cosmic model is supported by
the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe
concepts, which in turn are buttressed by
the simple observation that astronomers
see redshifts wherever they look.
These redshifts are due, of course, to
matter flying away from us under the
impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can
also arise from the gravitational attraction
of mass. If the Earth were at the center of
the universe, the attraction of the
surrounding mass of stars would also
produce redshifts wherever we looked!
The argument advanced by George Ellis in
this article is more complex than this, but
his basic thrust is to put man back into a
favored position in the cosmos. His new
theory seems quite consistent with our
astronomical observations, even though it
clashes with the thought that we are godless
and making it on our own.

(Paul C. W. Davies, “Cosmic Heresy?” Nature, 273:336,
1978)

Think about it.
 
Ahimsa said:
I called in, and I overhead the Cardinal speak on Intelligent Design based on irreducible complexity. He suggested that such ID took a too narrow approach to biology. Could design be observed in nature? Yes. But he suggested that such design could not be proven in scientific terms.
Click to expand...
What does that mean? Is the appearance of design merely a matter of perception?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top