Current conditions
Fair
Complete forecast sponsored by
Cardinal discusses church stance on creation, evolution
ATCHISON, Kan. – To think that the world was created in a happenstance manner without divine work is ludicrous, a leading Roman Catholic theologian said Sunday.
Christoph Schonborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna, Austria, spoke on the church’s position on creation and evolution before an audience of more than 1,000 people Sunday afternoon at Benedictine College. Cardinal Schonborn was invited to the campus by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kan.
“To believe this (creation) is all mere chance is stupid,” Cardinal Schonborn said. “It is really an abdication of intelligence ... It’s irrational.”
He described his proper position in the ongoing debate.
“I’m neither an evolutionist or a creationist,” he said. “I believe in creation. I consider evolution a scientific theory.”
Cardinal Schonborn said it remains an important matter to ask difficult questions about faith and reason in light of the creation-evolution debate.
“I think what we need today in our society is faith-committed Catholics who are able to give the deep reasons of their faith ... of their hope,” he said.
Faith today should not be grounded in sentiments and feelings, Cardinal Schonborn said.
“Faith is more than enthusiasm,” he said. “It’s a matter of intelligence.”
God had a design in creating the world, he added.
“Modern science is possible only in a world with a rational creator,” he said.
Matter, such as genetic codes, is readable and therefore reality is readable, Cardinal Schonborn said. He referred to a 2005 opinion piece he wrote for The New York Times, in which he explained the church’s position on evolution. He also wrote a book in 2007 on the topic. “Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith” was his effort to demonstrate that biology, when examined with reason and philosophy, points to a purposeful world.
Science itself wrestles with the creation-evolution question, Cardinal Schonborn told the crowd.
“The scientist is a human being,” he said. “He’s thinking about the meaning of his life. All these questions are human questions.”
Science should continue its contributions to knowledge through discoveries and it would still not impair religion, Cardinal Schonborn continued.
“Let science do its work,” he said. “It doesn’t disturb my faith.”
His speech continually referred to the influence of Pope Benedict XVI, one of the cardinal’s former teachers.
“He’s always had a deep piety and an enormous capacity to link faith with daily life,” Cardinal Schonborn said.
Before the lecture, he received the college’s highest honor — the Cross of the Order of St. Benedict.
Ray Scherer can be reached
at rscherer@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Expand
Policy
Comments are the responsibility of the person posting them. Comments will be removed if they: threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin religion or disability; ...
... contain abusive, vulgar or sexually oriented language; spread rumors or lies; or are written in all caps. Please stay on topic. Brief quotes are OK as long as the source is given. Comments must be 250 words or fewer. Newspressnow.com moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy.
Dude says...
No one asked him about aliens! Where's the hard hitting questions people.
February 1, 2010 at 7:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
The guy in the funny dress should get his information straight. Evolutionists do not say all around us occurred by "mere chance". The path was directed by definite scientific rules. And remember, there are two opposing definitions for the word "theory". One used by the religious infers guesswork. The other used by science indicates proven fact.
February 1, 2010 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newman says...
sjskeptic, who made the "definite scientific rules" guiding evolution and how, working off of your definition of "theory", do you prove your theory as fact? If you cannot, does not your "theory" then fall under your definition of what you accuse the "religious" of using?
Don't rules by definition require a rule maker to make them? Who is this rule maker and how do you again prove your "theory" factually? Please enlighten us.
February 1, 2010 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
Simple, read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins. It has all the information needed to prove the fact of evolution. I will wait until you have done that,
February 1, 2010 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newman says...
Dawkins is a classic example of someone who approaches science with pre-conceived beliefs, or in this case non-beliefs, as Dawkins puts great "faith", paradoxically, in an adamant rejection of a belief in God. Dawkins' theory of biological evolution is necessitated by his unbelief in God which of course is unsubstantiated by facts. For your own review of Dawkin's "faith" I would refer you to God Is No Delusion by Thomas Crean, O.P.
Meanwhile, in the interest of time, why don't you explain your own answers to my questions above and we'll save the book reviews for another day.
February 1, 2010 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
brendatucker says...
I have had an epiphany and for 15 years I have been trying to share this experience by promoting a new theory of evolution, which I call the Seven Race Theory of Evolution. I have a webpage at http://www.homestead.com/theosophy/as... and my work can be found online by searching the word: girasas which I use to refer to a higher kingdom of nature.
The church could recognize that additional religious discoveries can be used to encourage them to pursue the highest in standards of excellence and that those discoveries may take them outside their written material into writings that should be given high regard for the purpose of promoting the truth given in The Bible.
Specifically, the work done by The Theosophical Society and The Saint Germain Foundation provide a significant worldview that is not yet enumerated within The Bible formally. These organizations have added to the wealth of writings on the subject of evolution-creationism and have not been acknowledged properly for the engaging that they do. How do we add what we can learn outside the church to what we know inside the church?
February 1, 2010 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
brendatucker says...
Scientists are making wonderful discoveries of the structures and processes occurring in nature. In doing so, they have admitted to operating outside all previous erected formal frameworks. In other words, they do not work within the confines of religion.
All of the people who work in religion likely feel bound by the tenets, written texts, and formal proceedings of the religion, including those people who are in power or who have had power in the past within any one given religion.
A scientific discoverer wants to view himself and his work on an equivalent basis to the work of a preacher or administrator within a church.
Do churches ask their practitioners to restrict their discoveries only to the material we are provided and to report findings only along the lines as accepted by the church?
February 1, 2010 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
newman says...
If a Church's teachings are true and if scientific theories are true there can be no contradiction between them, presuming that both religious believers as well as scientists do recognize the boundaries and limitations of their particular focus. So much of the misunderstandings today that lead to conflict occur because scientists seek to teach religion while religious fundamentalists and other believers seek to mold science to their beliefs. Cardinal Schonborn, in accurately proclaiming the teachings of the Catholic Faith, is a role model for those of us who understand that both science and religion originate from one Truth and work in unison to enlighten man through the appropriate application of their respective disciplines.
February 1, 2010 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
falcon says...
Newman, well said. True faith and true science are not in conflict; they complement each other.
February 1, 2010 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
brendatucker says...
So instead of having an epiphany, my work should be classified as a scientific discovery and an epiphany and I should be paid by both groups?
February 1, 2010 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
Going back a few, if it took Dawkins hundreds of pages to explain evolution how do you expect me to do it in a space this small? Saying Dawkins started with theory and continued on to prove it is completely bonkers. He took the facts found by himself and thousands of other scientists and tied them together into an immutable theory. Yes, theory, as in fact. How can both the church’s and science’s ideas be true? Either Earth is hundreds of thousands of years old or its only 6000 years old. Both can’t be true. As for truth and faith together, if an individual has compartmented thought he can balance the two. If you try to combine them, you will (hmm, I've already used it) go bonkers.
February 1, 2010 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
A few lines missed from above. It is when all the facts came together that Dawkins and others similar discovered there is no reason for a god. Not the other way around. If the facts proved otherwise, then believing in a god would be expected. It takes thought, not acceptance.
February 1, 2010 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
"Either Earth is hundreds of thousands of years old or its only 6000 years old:"
Yo, the Earth is billions of years old. Also not all that follow religion believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Only those that watch the Flintstones believe that.
February 1, 2010 at 8:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
OK -- billions. I get lost in zeros. However, those who interpret the Bible literally, and actually take the time to add up the zeros, have come up with a nearly specific date for the creation of the earth. And that's somewhere around 6000 years ago. So say the Biblical experts. Either you believe it or you don't. If you don't, is it right to cherry pick the Bible?
February 1, 2010 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
Cardinal Richelieu, how about once the church removes all the pedophiles and non-christian functions from your church; then you can comment on science. You are in the business of selling salvation. It only behooves you to preach creationism, anything other than that undermines your ability to make an income. No one is more biased about evolution than any religion. Funnily enough, there are many devout Christians that study and teach evolution.
February 2, 2010 at 8:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Voice says...
non-random selection of randomly varying instructions for building embryos....popes and cardinals wouldn't be here if not for Evolution. no argument.
February 2, 2010 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dblazek08 says...
You all are ridiculous. None of you were even there to hear the Cardinal speak and i would venture to say that you have never read anything he has written. Going even further, i would put money on the fact that you don't even know the Church's official teaching on the issue of science/reason and faith. sjskeptic, you are clearly at odds with scripture as a whole yet you claim to know the proper interpretation of it and criticize those who, in your view, 'cherry pick' from scripture? Seriously? And ApparentlySo, you don't even deserve a response. Your logic is more flawed than not and you couldn't back up a word of your claim with real evidence. So just continue with your immature slander, but for all of our sakes, keep it to yourself.
I suggest everyone read the Catechism of the Catholic Church in regards to the cooperation between faith and reason before commenting further.
February 2, 2010 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
All right – try these. How to buy a slave, Leviticus 14:44-46 – If you are a slave, how to act, Ephesians 6:5 & Timothy 6:1-4 – How to sell your daughter as a slave, Exodus 21:7-11 – How to treat your slave, Exodus 21:20-21 & Exodus 21:26-27. Make sure you use a bible with an accurate translation of the original writings. Not the wimpy ones that changed “slave” into “servant”.
Now, how could a person possibly at odds with a book that advocates slavery?
And what is your interpretation -- not the one your are told to have -- but one that comes from actual study, thought and intellegence?
February 2, 2010 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
By the way, flbtxnic, or what ever it is, I really like your last sentance speaking of "cooperation between faith and reason". So faith and reason are different. OK. I couldn't have said it bettter myself. Oh -- I'll take reason every time.
February 2, 2010 at 8:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
Wow -- I love these intellectual rebuttals. Just because I point out a fact that does not fit your belief doesn't make it twisted. Dispute a fact. Come on. Use a brain cell or two. Your head won't explode. Then again, you never know what will happen when a fact butts up against a belief.
February 2, 2010 at 11:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
FarmTown says...
dblaze, are you honestly saying that there are no molestation cases involving priests?
February 3, 2010 at 6:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
So only science can evolve but religion can't?
February 3, 2010 at 6:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
Keg parties for Mardi Gras sponsored by the church. My recollection is of members and priests getting falling down drunk. I don't believe that is really in line with Christianity.
What about Pope Benedict's decision to lift the excommunication of a bishop who denied the holocaust? Surely that is not in line with Catholic views, is it?
And just because I wasn't personally fondled by a priest doesn't mean it hasn't and isn't happening all around the U.S., let alone the world. Of course I don't deserve a response, especially from you. You are probably not in a position to answer for the church. If you are then quit covering up the molestation of young boys. The people that deserve a response, however, are the children who were molested by these "men of god". You know, the same ones that took a vow of celibacy.
Three examples. I don't have to prove them, they are real whether I prove them or not.
And the use of a Catholic mantra to support the Cardinal's views. Are you kidding me? Do you think the Bishop spoke to anything that wasn't withing the Catholic mantra?
February 3, 2010 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
Interesting question, Dude. Scientific theories “evolve”, if you will, as new discoveries are made, new scientific methods are created (carbon dating, for one), and findings are published so they can be tested and accepted or rejected by legitimate scientists throughout the world. As theories are universally accepted they move from the laboratory to everyday life. Compare a science text book of fifty years ago with one of today.
In religion, on the other hand, the same old text book, the Bible, is still used to indoctrinate generation after generation. Preachers still wave the Bible before their congregations calling it God’s word to be believed without question. Answers to today’s problems are drawn from a book that insists, for example, that the earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it, that children who disobey their father should be stoned. (That does mean with rocks.)
Yes, scientific theories evolve, grow and change as new facts are discovered. That is their value. Religion, anchored by the Bible, rides the waves but refuses to leave its moorings.
February 3, 2010 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
Isn't the fact that there are no more stonings show that religion can evolve though. Where science evolves with natural laws. Religion evolves more as a society. So while the Bible might be the same the people that follow and direct religions ideas have evolved more to fit today's society.
February 3, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
Well, these discussions have gone full circle. We're back to the statements of the Cardinal who used the terms "stupid", an "abdication of intelligence" and "irrational" in his discussion of evolution. I see no "evolution" in the foundational beliefs of the religious.
And yes we do have social "stonings", for instance in the treatment of non-believers. Just look back through the comments above.
February 3, 2010 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
Social Stonings? You were clearly talking about stoning"(That does mean with rocks.)"
February 4, 2010 at 12:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
Don't pick just one part of a comment. Include "Just look back through the comments above."
February 4, 2010 at 1:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
Just saying social stonings is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in the past 20 minutes. Was someone dragged out in to the street by an angry mob and berated with angry words? I guess that would be angry religious people evolving past using real stones.
February 4, 2010 at 5:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjskeptic says...
Try mm1967 or dblazek08 above who says "So just continue with your immature slander, but for all of our sakes, keep it to yourself." "Social stones" are words hurled at people in an attempt to subdue them. Normally the hurler is so weak they miss their mark.
February 4, 2010 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )