Talk:Theistic evolution/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've now archived this page. Please don't add comments to it, as they might not be seen. Instead, please add new comments to Talk:Theistic evolution. Thank you. --G Rutter 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Random discussion 2 Why EC over TE? 3 False info 3.1 Evolutionary biologists who were also theists 4 Comments on individuals within this article 5 Views of Kenneth Miller 6 Proposal: split Theistic evolution from Evolutionary creationism 7 Nice URL 8 Evolutionary Creationism = Theistic Evolution 9 The China Vase 10 Roman Catholic position 11 Summary of discussion please? 12 Spin off Christian views on evolutionary creationism

Random discussion

Theistic evolution, or the less common term, Evolutionary Creationism

If Evolutionary Creationism is the less common term, why is it the name of the article? Matt - 9/23/05

Theistic evolution is the position promoted by most major Christian churches, some Judaism denominations and other religious organizations that don't subscribe to a literalist position with regards to their scriptures.

If "most" major Christian churches promote this, then I wonder why I haven't heard about it yet. I've spent a lot of time talking with other Christians, reading Christian books and magazines, etc. How could I have missed this?

Is it a POV of some evolution advocates that "even lots of churches agree with us", or is it a FACT?

A list of churches whose theology is clearly compatible with evolution would be nice, or at least a few statements by religious leaders. --Uncle Ed 15:28, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Check the external link for one reference. You may not have heard about it under this name, but I'm a little surprised if you've not come across the concept. A list of churches would of course be better - it'd start with the Catholic Church. eg. Martin 00:13, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's not quite that straightforward. For example, my denomination officially has no problem with evolution, but there are still a lot of creationists among the rank-and-file believers. I presume the situation with other churches is similar. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 05:33, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Why EC over TE?

I believe the article should be titled Theistic Evolution, with Evolutionary Creationism as the alternative name. Theistic evolution is simply the term that is most commonly accepted, and in fact, I have not even heard of Evolutionary Creationism until the past year, and I am heavily involved in these discussions over a wide variety of forums. Even a quick check in Google will show which one is the one generally used. This is of course, assuming they are even the same thing, and of course, I'd prefer they be split. But if they must be together, I propose that Theistic Evolution should be the term used as Evolutionary Creationism itself is not very neutral and most people who hold this position would probably rather be lumped in the Evolution side of the debate than with the Creationist side as far as the scientific aspects go.

Furthermore, a lot of us feel there is a difference between Creation and CreationISM. Generally, us TEs will probably accept the following statement: We believe in Creation, we reject Creationism, and we accept evolution. If any other TE/ECs feel differently, feel free to respond.

Basically, the whole -ism makes it feel very non-NPOV, but then again, not having the -ism could be argued as non-NPOV by the Creationists as well. Dracil 21:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it appears this whole thing was a result of MyRedDice who created these two articles, but chose to make EC the main article while TE redirect to it. There is no real good basis for this (and I hope, I have offered enough to show why it should in fact, be reversed). Dracil 21:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

False info

Evolutionary biologists who were also theists

Although evolutionary biologists are often atheists (most notably Richard Dawkins), there have been some who were theists too. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823 — 1913), who in 1858 jointly proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection with Charles Darwin, was a theist, though Darwin's views remain unclear. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900 — 1975), one of the of the modern evolutionary synthesis wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:

I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

Another architect of the synthesis, Ronald Fisher (1890 — 1962) was also a Christian. More recently Brown University Professor Kenneth R. Miller, author of many textbooks has written on the subject. [1]

Comments on individuals within this article

• Alfred Wallace did not "jointly propose" natural selection. Wallace first thought of natural selection in 1858 but Darwin had been working on natural selection for the past twenty years before then. Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. Wallace's first natural selection-related analysis was published in 1863.

• • Lyell and Hooker presented Wallace's essay, along with sections by Darwin to the Linnean Society of London in 1858, so the first public presentation was by both Darwin and Wallace. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Alfred Wallace was a spiritualist, not a creationist nor a theist. His spiritualism was also restricted to natural laws and negatively viewed the concept of miracles. Also, he "converted" to spiritualism around 1869 and became a socialist in 1889 after reading Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward.

• • On the Wikipedia article it states he believed that :" "the unseen universe of Spirit" had interceded at least three times in history: 1. The creation of life from inorganic matter. 2. The introduction of consciousness in the higher animals. 3. The generation of the above-mentioned faculties in mankind." I think this belief falls within the definition of evolutionary creationism. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1973 essay titled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution was a criticism of creationism and an espousal of evolutionary creationism.

• • Which is exactly what it says. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Ronald Fisher was not devout or dogmatic Christian. In fact, he opposed traditional Christian teachings. From his biography: His respect for tradition, and his conviction that all men are not equal, inclined him politically towards conservatism, and made him an outspoken and lasting opponent of Marxism. Although he did not subscribe to the dogmas of religion, he saw no reason to abandon the faith in which he had been brought up, and believed that the practice of religion was a salutary and humbling human activity. As he said in a broadcast on Science and Christianity (1955):

"The custom of making abstract dogmatic assertions is not, certainly, derived from the teaching of Jesus, but has been a widespread weakness among religious teachers in subsequent centuries. I do not think that the word for the Christian virtue of faith should be prostituted to mean the credulous acceptance of all such piously intended assertions. Much self-deception in the young believer is needed to convince himself that he knows that of which in reality he knows himself to be ignorant. That surely is hypocrisy, against which we have been most conspicuously warned."

• • But, nonetheless, it says "he saw no reason to abandon the faith in which he had been brought up", so, however unorthodox, he remained a believer in both God and evolution. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Views of Kenneth Miller

• Kenneth Miller is an opponent of intelligent design; thus, he's an opponent of creationism, however, he has written a single book on the religious implications of evolution titled Finding Darwin's God. Such a book is not, necessarily, an advocation of evolutionary creationism.

• • Not necessarily, but in extracts from the book here he states that "evolution is the key to understanding God" and that he believes in God (as well as evolution). I think it's therefore fair to characterise him as an evolutionary creationist. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moral of the story: if you're going to write an entry, check your facts before submission.

"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure." -- Mark Twain

Adraeus 06:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was not the original author, but I have checked all the criticisms and I do not believe that any of the statements distorts the facts. I have now revised this section somewhat, but I've included much of what was written before, so have included specific rebuttals to all Adraeus' points directly below his points. G Rutter 22:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: split Theistic evolution from Evolutionary creationism

In my opinion it would be useful to separate the article on Theistic evolution and give it a different emphasis from the article on Evolutionary creationism, while acknowledging an overlap and linking the articles. At the moment links to Theistic evolution are redirected here, even though both links sometimes appear in the same article.

Given the association of Creationism with opposition to Darwinian natural selection, I'd suggest that the emphasis in Evolutionary creationism should be on those believing that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, while those who think of God as not intervening in species formation after initially creating life and/or setting up laws would appear under Theistic evolution. At present there doesn't seem to be a place for creationist positions like Richard Owen's "ordained continuous becoming" or Charles Lyell's episodic "centres of creation", and these could be added to the Evolutionary creationism article.

I agree that there is a significant difference between the two. At the moment, this article is still small, and there is some relationship between the two ideas. So for the moment I would suggest rewriting parts of this article to clarify the differences that you point out. Today I rewrote the introduction to begin clarifying this point. Please tell me what you think. Don't be afraid to offend me by rewriting my text, or totally disagreeing!

The article on Creationism says of Evolutionary creationism that " Many creationists would deny that this is creationism at all, and should rather be called theistic evolution, just as many scientists allow voice to their spiritual side.", but links these two different positions effectively to this same page. I'm happy to have a go at splitting these articles to overcome this anomaly, but would welcome comments before proceeding. .dave souza 19:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I understand these terms, the phrase Evolutionary creationism usually refers to the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution. If most people who use this term hold that God is directly involved in the formation of new species, then this indeed should be noted as having the emphasis on Creationism, with evolution tacked on as a secondary concern. RK

I have been hearing the term theistic evolution used to describe the view that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. In this view, it is held to be religiously correct to reinterpret ancient religious texts in line with modern-day scientific findings about evolution. Is my understanding of this useage correct? (BTW Reinterpreting ancient texts to match the findings of modern day science and philosophy is not new. Many of the medieval religious rationalists, such as Maimonides, did just this.) RK 20:15, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there's much of a distinction between the two terms (at the moment I'd certainly be happy to use either to describe myself), though I'm very probably wrong! I'd be more convinced if we could find a few evolutionary creationists/theistic evolutionists claiming that they were one and not the other and why. The quote from the creationism page doesn't seem to draw a distinction between the two- except to try and make "theisitic evolution" somehow perjorative. Perhaps, rather, we need to go and fix the links? Surely any form of evolutionary creationism is an attempt to synthesize an understanding that God created the universe with a scientific understanding of how this occurred. Of course, there are different understandings of how this synthesis should be managed, but I'm still confused by the distinction you're trying to draw. Sorry, this is probably just me! --G Rutter 20:37, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One problem with the proposal that the term theistic evolution should be used of a belief that God started the process, then let it run itself, is that it cuts across the historic distinction between deism and theism. Both accept the notion of a creator God/god, but theism involves a belief in a God who continues to interact with his creation. If there has to be a distinction, I would propose that the theistic evolutionist be defined as the scientist who advocates a theistic model of evolution, while the evolutionary creationist is the person, scientist or not, who believes in this model. Do we need this distinction? The belief that God started the process, then left it to work itself out would be better called deistic evolution --- Cheers, Neil Copeland.

As per the request at Talk:Evolution, can I sugest the Creation continum at TalkOrigins.org. They say:

Joe D (t) 21:16, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are currently two conjectures which I am aware of that seek to weave evolution into their framework, both of which can be seen as reasonable or problematic, depending on your viewpoint:

1. The Day-Age Theory

States that the six-days of the Genesis creation are commonly misinterpreted to each be representations of longer timespans. (1 God day = millions of man years.) This can be countered with several tangibles which tend to prove that the earth is only around 6,000 years old. I suppose I'll just throw a few of these out: the oldest tree on earth is a bristlecone pine that is approximately 4,400 years old. The great barrier reef, dated by measuring the growth rate for twenty consecutive years, is less than 4,200 years old. The Coriolis Effect, which is proportional to the speed of the Earth's rotation, causes the prevailing wind currents -- with this in mind, the calculations from the expansions of the Sahara desert (appx 2 miles/year) show the desert to be about 4,000 years old. And lastly, Earth's declining magnetic field, measured in studies over the past 140 years, show that as few as 25,000 years ago, Earth would not have been able to support life because of the heat from the electric current.

1. The Gap Theory

Though there tend to be as many interpretations of this theory as there are theologians, the basic idea behind it is that there is a gap of an unknown length of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. (KJ) If you use this to tie in evolution with creation, you have quite a problem because death would bring man into the world. According to Genesis, man's sin brought death into the world, not the other way around.

If more examples are needed I would be much obliged. I believe both of these theories to be insufficient for supporting an agreement between creation and evolution. Aside from that argument, evolution has its issues as well. That is why the opinion in the intro to the evolution article is inappropriate and even deceptive. Please refer to the discussion archives to see the affinitive details of my position on this. Salva31 05:19, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, give it up. We simply do not care what you believe! We are only trying to describe evolution accurately, in accord with NPOV policy. And by the way, evolution does not "have its issues as well". That is mere fundamentalist propaganda, and very-well debunked propaganda at that. RK

Well, RK, your analysis is a little flawed. Many of the things used to support evolution in the past have been proven wrong. This process is continuing, and I guarantee you, one piece at a time, evolution is a religion masked as a science that is steadily crumbling away into history. If you do not believe me on this, I told you to refer to the archives. I am not propagandizing, nor am I a fundamentalist. You are not playing this game in a fair way by saying that. If you don't care, then that's fine, and I'm sorry that you choose to be so close minded. In this country, it is appropriate to display a reference article that talks about a theory, but frankly it is not right to target other supported theories using deceitful propaganda in the process. That comment is there because some people feel insecure about the ability of that article to convert readers to its belief system. You might as well stop telling me to go away; it only engages me further. Salva31 09:46, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva, I have never offered any analysis on the subject. The existence of biological evolution is a scientific fact that has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Further, none of the things that have supported evolution have been proven wrong. Please stop proselytizing us with your wildly anti-Scientific fairy tales. BTW, when you say "You might as well stop telling me to go away; it only engages me further." you clearly expose yourself as a troll, here for the sole purpose of disrupting our project. If you continue trolling you will be pulled before the ArbCom. So go ahead and try and insult us all that you want -it will only make your eventual ban come only sooner. RK

Joe D, thanks for reminding us about the Creation continum analysis at TalkOrigins.org. I had read that a while ago, but didn't even think about it when I wrote my question. Unless others have a reason to disagree, I think that we should go with their definitions. RK 02:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

The continum is a propaganda device rather than a legitimate educational tool; the listing of tiny fringe minorities like flat earthers along with other creationists is an example of several propaganda techniques. Wikipedia is not a propaganda tool and the minute fringe groups should be rimoved. A link to the propaganda site that proposes that grouping is more than sufficient.Pollinator 02:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Joe D, the Creation continuum analysis seems a good basis: noting that the continuum runs from Creation to Evolution, the tipping point between the opposing sides lies between Evolutionary creationism and Theistic evolution and this could support the case for separate articles: it may also be noted that many Christians, including Roman Catholics, come under the Theistic evolution definition, and so it seems wrong that they should be in an article with a creationist heading. Salva31, the analysis gives several more examples of theories. My question about Owen's and Lyell's theories is answered: they come under Progressive Creationism, a sub-set of Old Earth Creationists which doesn't seem to be covered in that article, so that's another task to tackle..dave souza 22:02, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you can imply that Roman Catholics are not Creationists. Catholics believe that God is intimately involved in Creation, whatever tool he used. Cutting a distinction between evolutionary creationism and theistic evolution is a bit ridiculous, but I think the first term is preferable, because it does emphasize that Catholics share much in common and should be grouped with other creationists.Pollinator 02:39, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pollinator. I think the definitions given by TalkOrigins are somewhat confused and are more concerned at establishing a continuum than accurately defining the terms they use. I think this is especially shown by the references they use- Schneider spends a lot of her article arguing that all Christian creationists are wrong because they don't use Jewish ways of interpreting the Torah.

TalkOrigins argues that the two positions differ only in their theology. It then does not explain these differences. Both definitions include God operating through evolution, with some aspects being outside modern science, eg the human soul/the first spiritually aware human. I also don't see how any sensible definition of Evolutionary Creationism can include accepting a "literal Genesis"- this is covered by Old Earth or Gap creationism.

I think that the reason there is two phrases to cover the same position is because some people want to use "Theistic Evolution" to avoid using the word "creationism", either becuase of the negative image that creationism might invokes or, if you're a creationist, to deny that Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creationism is an acceptable belief for a Christian to have.

Again, if anyone can provide other references that contradict my understanding I'm more than happy to have my mind changed! --G Rutter 08:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As there seems to be a fair consensus about keeping these two headings merged, I've had a go at revising links on other pages to reflect this, and have added a page on Progressive Creationism for clarification ..dave souza 12:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Took out the info that implied that majority of Christianity doesn't agree with Evolution; it does, as I expanded upon. Also added section on the Christian justification for Evolution, or rather the Christian justification for non-literal interpretation of Genesis. ..User:Apokryphos

Nice URL

Short, simple, to the point. FuelWagon 19:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary Creationism = Theistic Evolution

Hello, I'm new here. I made some edits to the theistic evolution entry, adding more folks besides Kenneth Miller, more material from St. Augustine and John Paul II on evolution and how they interpret Genesis. What was there was very good, but its richer in content now.

I suggest making either EC re-direct to TE or TE re-direct to EC. They appeared to be identical in content, and I didn't delete anyone's work, but added to it. I was accused of destroying the page here by making it re-direct to "theistic evolution" but the two pages appeared identical so I just re-directed.

Should there be two separate entries for EC and TE, or have the folks here decided they are one and the same concept? Maybe two different ways of saying "God used evolution as his main method of creation." That is my view. Evolution is a scientific fact, and God did it (somehow). Whether one calls that theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism doesn't matter to me, but the more well-known term seems to be "theistic evolution."

PhilVaz 14:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your edits and for pointing out the duplicate pages. You did the right thing in redirecting, just got it the wrong way round, as we'd already decided that we were going to keep it here! Thanks again- I hope that you keep up the good work! --G Rutter 20:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'm pretty satisifed by the quality of the article here on evolutionary creationism. I added individual Wikipedia entries (with pictures) for Keith B. Miller, Denis Lamoureux, Fr. George Coyne, Darrel Falk, John Haught all of whom I was familiar with and have their books. Also one for the Pontifical Academy of Science. Nice job I must say.

However, entries need to be made for the following mentioned in the article, since I don't have their books and am not familiar enough with them:

• Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
• R.J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
• Keith Ward, author of God, Chance, and Necessity

The more evolutionary creationists we have the better. :)

PhilVaz 18:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The China Vase

The China Vase: What can science tell us about the china vase? It can measure: height, width, depth, volume, weight, mass, chemical composition, mathematical shape; it can hypothesize on a process of spinning a lump of clay, using tools and water to form it, pressure applied here and there to give it shape, a sequence of events that went into its creation, that it was dried, and glazed, and fired, how the firing process made it stronger, how its shiny surface transmits light. Science can tell us just about everything about the china vase. What it cannot do is tell us who made it. And so, for some reason, it abandons logic, it tosses aside Occum’s razor, and adopts the odd assumption that the china vase just happened. Phiddipus 22:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I was in the process of reverting this when someone beat me to it. This qualifies as original research unless you can find a source that states this argument. And if you do, it needs to be sourced and presented as their point of view. the idea that science "abandons logic" and asserts the vase "just happened" would make me wager that at least part of this is simply original research. FuelWagon 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic position

Cut a lot of confusing stuff

Not confusing it was perfectly acceptable as it was. I am VERY familiar with all the statements of the Roman Catholic Church on evolution, and I have a large (conservative) Catholic apologetics site online. I am also very sympathetic and very familiar with evangelical-fundamentalist Protestant criticisms of evolution, but believe them mistaken since their science is quite poor. I'm afraid your additions and deletions are not clarifying the Roman Catholic viewpoint on evolution. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[2] [3] In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in the papal encyclical Humani Generis, stated that the "Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter" with the stipulations that souls are direct creations of God, and all true humans are descendants of a particular individual, Adam and Eve. Although couched in terms of caution, the encyclical is notable for its permitting the teaching of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that "new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis," and again concluded that "if the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God." However, as John Paul II recognized in his October 22, 1996 Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "since the Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on [certain] conditions." Thus, as a practical matter, evolution had been taught in Catholic primary and secondary schools, not to mention universities, for decades before 1996.

This contradicts Cardinal Schönborn's statement on evolution:

No it does not. First of all, Schonborn's "statement" was an editorial in the New York Times, which hardly compares with the authority of a papal encyclical. Schonborn is not the pope. And what do you mean by "this" -- I certainly hope you do not mean the Pius XII encyclical Humani Generis and John Paul II's 1996 statement to the PAS contradicts Benedict XVI or Cardinal Schonborn. They do not. And you haven't read Schonborn very closely. See below. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was 'more than just a hypothesis,' defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance -- or at least acquiescence -- of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith. But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science." (from an editorial in the New York Times, 7 July 2005) (emphasis added for Wikipedia discussion)

Yes, I am familiar with his New York Times editorial. However, what Schonborn had it mind by "defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma" is atheistic evolutionists such as Julian Huxley, Will Provine, and Peter Atkins. In his first catechetical lecture from 2005/2006 on the creation-evolution topic, Cardinal Schonborn quotes them directly as follows:

Huxley from 1959: "In the Evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his loneliness in the arms of a divinized father figure...." (Huxley)

Schonborn comments on the above: "I am convinced that this is not a claim within the realm of the natural sciences but rather the expression of a worldview. It is essentially a 'confession of faith' -- that faith being materialism." (Schonborn)

Provine from 1988: "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 that are rationally detectable." (Provine)

Schonborn comments on the above: "This too is not a conclusion derived from natural science; it is a philosophical claim." (Schonborn)

Atkins from 1992: "Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose, and that any survival of purpose is inspired solely by sentiment." (Atkins)

Schonborn comments on the above: "Again, this is a 'confession of faith'; it is not a strictly scientific claim. These and similar statements could be heard this summer and are one reason that I said in my short article in the New York Times concerning this sort of 'border-crossings,' that they constitute ideology rather than science, a worldview." (Schonborn)

Is it becoming clear now what Cardinal Schonborn had it mind by "defenders of neo-Darwianian dogma?" He had in mind evolutionists who treated the biological theory of evolution as somehow supporting metaphysical naturalism, which is a philosophical claim, and constitutes ideology not science. It has nothing to do with the science of biological evolution or "common descent" as such. See Schonborn's first catechetical lecture for 2005/2006 available from St. Stephan's Cathedral, Vienna which I have linked. Schonborn clearly has no problem with theistic evolution, or "evolutionary creationism" as defined correctly in this Wikipedia article.

Schonborn has said: "I see no difficulty in joining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific theory are maintained. In the citations given above (Huxley, Provine, Atkins above), it is unequivocally the case that such have been violated. When science adheres to its own method, it cannot come into conflict with faith. But perhaps one finds it difficult to stay within one's territory, for we are, after all, not simply scientists but also human beings, with feelings, who struggle with faith, human beings, who seek the meaning of life. And thus as natural scientists we are constantly and inevitably bringing in questions reflecting worldviews." (2 October 2005, first Catechetical Lecture for 2005/2006)

That is Schonborn's true position, please do not misrepresent it. He simply wants to separate the philosophical claims (materialism, etc) from the science, but has no problem with biological evolution (or common descent) as such. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Schonborn distinctly says: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection -- is not." Is there any way to interpret this other than a DENIAL of the notion that the RC church accepts unguided evolution?

Yes there is. Of course it depends what you mean by unguided evolution. Metaphysical naturalism? Catholic Church is against that. That God is not the Creator of the universe? Catholic Church is against that. That God cannot intervene in nature? Yes, Catholic Church is against that. We believe in miracles. But what Cardinal Schonborn clearly had in mind were folks like Huxley, Provine, Atkins when they use evolution as a philosophical support for their atheism. Are we clear now? Theistic evolution vs. atheistic evolution.

In addition, the De Fide statements of the Catholic Church on creation are the following, and none of these are scientific claims, and the Church doesn't claim they are. They are theological positions. These are found in Denzinger or a book like Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (pages 79-91)

God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)

The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)

The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)

God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)

God has created a good world. (De Fide)

The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)

God alone created the world. (De Fide)

God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)

God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

I spell out in great detail what it is the Catholic Church accepts and defines on the creation and evolution issue here in response to young-earther Robert Sungenis. PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And if "unguided evolution" *IS* evolution, then where does this leave us as encyclopedia editors? Uncle Ed 22:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Who are you Ed? Are you Roman Catholic? I appreciate the participation, but please read all that the Roman Catholic Church has written on the evolution topic and represent it accurately. Theistic evolution (or "evolutionary creationism") as defined in this Wikipedia article is the clear position of John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, and Schonborn. The longest sustained explanation of the creation-evolution-design position within the Roman Catholic Church is found in the International Theological Commission statement from July 2004, endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI). Paragraphs 62-70 are quite clear that God the Creator and Primary Cause, works through natural, secondary causes like evolution. Here is paragraph 63 on what the Catholic Church accepts as science:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution." (From the International Theological Commission, headed by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger now Pope Benedict XVI, statement "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God," plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004)

That's about all I need to say. The Catholic Church, John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, Cardinal Schonborn etc have no problems with this science above.

PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've restored Ed's mass deletion, as Schonborn does not speak canonically for the Catholic Church on this topic, and his statements do not by measure supercede a papal proclaimation like that of Pope John Paul II's. Furthermore, the RCC has taught for over 40 years that evolution as process is entirely consistent with the catechism. Cardinal Poupard contradicts Schonborn here: [4] FeloniousMonk 22:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It leaves us to clearly explain in a NPOV manner. By the way, a few million Eastern Orthodox Christians would be rather hurt at the idea that their position is determined by a Roman Catholic Cardinal. I've changed unguided evolution from a redirect to clarify matters....dave souza 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Schonborn set off the rippling controversy last month with an opinion piece in the New York Times that stated evolution proponents had wrongly claimed that the writings of Pope John Paul II say evolution is compatible with church teachings.

Although the essay was not submitted on behalf of the Vatican, Schonborn told the Times that he had discussed it with Pope Benedict XVI shortly before then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in April. [5]

So who is more believable:

1. "evolution proponents" who claimed that the writings of Pope John Paul II say evolution is compatible with church teachings; or,
2. a prominent Roman Catholic cardinal who says that these proponents "wrongly claimed" this?

I think Wikipedia should indicate that there is a controversy here. Uncle Ed 16:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia should not indicate there is a controversy. Just as in biology itself, there is no controversy on this subject within the Catholic Church. John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, and Schonborn have clarified their positions on evolution, and that is theistic evolution (evolutionary creationism) or a God-guided evolution. God works through natural, secondary causes, and common descent is "virtually certain" and this is compatible with God's Providence, according to the Church's best theologians on the subject.

Further, what is Cardinal Schonborn's opinion of Charles Darwin and Origin of Species? Here it is:

"With this, his major work, Darwin undoubtedly scored a brilliant coup, and it remains a great oeuvre [work] in the history of ideas. With an astounding gift for observation, enormous diligence, and mental prowess, he succeeded in producing one of that history's most influential works. He could already see in advance that his research would create many areas of endeavor. Today one can truly say that the 'evolution' paradigm has become, so to speak, a "master key," extending itself within many fields of knowledge." (from the same first catechetical lecture for 2005/2006)PhilVaz 15:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of discussion please?

I havn't been paying attention, but I see some of my favorite editors are here. (no sarcasm intend I assure you) Can someone tell me what the flap here is? As I understand it, evolutionary creationists accept science all the way to x^n-1, and then say "And then god pushed the whole thing into motion with a specific Plan/Design/Purpose. Secular science kinda shrugs and goes. "I dunno. We can prove that it started, we can't prove that there was a grand reason, we can't prove it doesn't, that isn't our job." Evolutionary creationism is essentially a fancy way of saying "God was involved in a way that doesn't contradict scientific evidence, but it is a belief of faith outside the bounds of the scientific method." So I understand it anyway. So whats the flap?--Tznkai 17:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The flap is over whether "evolution" means (1) only that life gradually appeared or (2) that life appeared gradually and that God had nothing to do with this. Cut from article: "Although couched in terms of caution, the encyclical is notable for its permitting the teaching of evolution." This sentence can be construed as true or false, depending on what the writer means by "teaching evolution". Uncle Ed 18:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Ed. There is no controversy on this in the Catholic Church. The idea "God had nothing to do with" life is obviously not the Catholic position since we believe God is the Creator. Until the 17th century or so, all scientists were young-earth creationists. Since the early 19th century at least, we've recognized geology and biology do tell us much about where we come from physically. To quote Benedict XVI in a commentary on Genesis he wrote as Cardinal Ratzinger: "We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities." (Cardinal Ratzinger, In The Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall, 1986, repub 1995). That is the current Pope's position, and the position of Cardinal Schonborn. The position of the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution has been clear since Pius XII (1950s). God is the Creator, and God created by evolution. Sure God could intervene any time he wanted, but those interventions (called miracles) are not detectable by scientific means. PhilVaz 17:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If there is no controversy, why does the article say that Schonborn's view is contradicted by two other Catholic leaders?

Spin off Christian views on evolutionary creationism

There's too much information on Christian views, pro and con, for this article. And the bullet point formatting makes it hard to read.

Those interested in what religious people have to say about Evolution - particularly as it relates to the US creation-evolution debate, will be better served with a spin-off. Wikipedia:Content forking provides guidelines on how to do this. Uncle Ed 16:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is enough material for a spin-off in this instance. In particular, I'm not sure what the difference between the Christian views on this subject and the subject itself are since this subject is basically defined by Christians. Do you have a particular reference you are working from? --ScienceApologist 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be very interested to hear about all those atheist Creationists out there. *eye-roll* -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)