More on Neo-Darwinism and Cardinal Schonborn

Here is an essay, "Darwinism and Catholicism Should Be Compatible," by Notre Dame's Professor Gary Belovsky.  The essay is critical of Christoph Cardinal Schonborn's recent New York Times op-ed, in which the Cardinal was, in turn, critical of "neo-Darwinian" evolution.  (For some earlier MOJ posts on this matter, click here and here).

There is much in Professor Belovsky's essay that strikes me as helpful and, well, right.  I'm not sure about this, though:   "Cardinal Schönborn is afraid of Neo-Darwinsism because he has advocated literal interpretation of biblical creation stories and proclaims God’s purpose in all events."  I would be very surprised if Cardinal Schonborn "has advocated literal interpretation of biblical creation stories"; if anyone has any evidence for or examples of such advocacy, please let me know.

He also writes:

Combining science and religion is dangerous, because science relies on observation and religion relies on faith.  God’s existence cannot be scientifically proven, because God cannot be measured; individuals must personally accept God’s existence on faith. 

I think Professor Belovsky might be overstating his case a bit here.  It seems fair to read him as claiming that, unlike "science," "religion [only] relies on faith [and not reason]."  That claim strikes me as off the mark.  Obviously, not all of the truths of religion are demonstrable; still, theology and "religion" do draw on "reason."  Catholics -- and Professor Belovsky is one -- are not fideists.

Professor Belovsky concludes:  "Do we now return to pre-Darwinian views that earth was created only 6000 years ago and fossils of long extinct animals and plants are not real, but are God’s test of our faith?"  Absolutely  not.  But Cardinal Schonborn certainly did not suggest or endorse such a return.  Belovsky's objections here seeem misdirected.

Rick