Another Episcopal shows his Spine!

A reader points to this op-ed contribution in today's NY Times. Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN writes:

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.

The Reasonable hate this, of course. Nothing pleases them more than to back up their ridiculous bias with science. "Neo-Darwinism", as Cardinal SCHÖNBORN calls it, gives the Reasonable cover for their worship of the Great-I-am. Nothing like being a random burp of nature to give people the Superman perogative. Fools like the good cardinal laugh back. He continues:

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

Any Catholic understanding of evolution must include God. Catholics may consider evolution a valid scientific theory. They can't place their trust in Darwinism. Besides it's ideological secularism, and plain absurdity in the light of the universe's complex nature, it falls on the lack of crucial evidence. Where are the missing people in the chain of human ancestory? Why don't specific organisms fail to exist since they clearly lack the necessary key survival traits? In fact, the more Darwinists scream, the less they sound like scientists and the more they sound like prostlytizers. Consider their irrational opposition to any consideration of Intelligent Design in school. If they're so confident in the science of Darwinistic evolution, why the hand-wringing over ID?

Everyone knows that only Fools could believe that almighty God could create all of existence. Fortunately for the world, the Fools happen to be right. Thank God another Episcopal shepard stands face to face against the wolves of the Reasonable. More like him, Lord, send more. Please.