Last Thursday, an Op-Ed piece by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn appeared in the New York Times. Cardinal Schönborn is the archbishop of Vienna, and was lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In the article, he discusses the Catholic Church's position on evolution. In particular he says,

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...
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.
...Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, [Pope] Benedict [XVI] proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

(more behind the cut)



In a follow-up article on Saturday, the Times noted that

Darwinian evolution is the foundation of modern biology. While researchers may debate details of how the mechanism of evolution plays out, there is no credible scientific challenge to the underlying theory.

More importantly, as the same article mentions,

American Catholics and conservative evangelical Christians have been a potent united front in opposing abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia, but had parted company on the death penalty and the teaching of evolution. Cardinal Schönborn's essay and comments are an indication that the church may now enter the debate over evolution more forcefully on the side of those who oppose the teaching of evolution alone.

Herein lies the problem. Personally, I am somewhat inclined to agree with the Cardinal, at least as I understand him. I am a scientist, and I believe in evolution whole-heratedly. Yet I am also a man of faith, and I don't believe that evolution is "unguided, unplanned [and] random." Reasonable men may differ, but to me, that doesn't seem to be a contradiction.

Yet, that doesn't change the fact that the latter point is not science. The science lies in "evolution in the sense of common ancestry" ...anything beyond that is metaphysical speculation. Anyone who supports Intelligent Design "theory" should be required to read Stephen J. Gould's wonderful little book "Rock of Ages," before they start messing with science curriculum.

I don't know that the Cardinal would agree with that sentiment, but if he does, it needed to be explicit.