In this book, Cardinal Schoenborn deconstructs the false dichotomy set up between chance and purpose. A fallacy was born in the 19th century when Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx hijacked Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory in order to promote atheistic Marxism and economic class warfare. Schoenborn explains all this as he strives for a "both-and" position, not an "either-or" polarity between a transcendent and intelligent creative agent and the dynamics of natural selection and evolutionary change. Rev. Dennis J. Mercieri

Since I do not share the Cardinal's calling, I will, while sympathizing with many of his attitudes, not accept most of his explanations, instead giving my own reasonings.

He offers some appealing observations, while exhibiting dilettantism in fields outside his own. Appealing to me is his noting (p.77) that Darwinism is the only scientific theory that, so far as he knows, has become an "-ism", there being no "Einsteinism", "Newtonism", etc., my also finding appealing his rebuttal (pp.95-6) of "Experts" who allege "that no optician would construct the objective, the lens, and the reflector according to the way they are now arranged in the human eye". He replies, "It is thanks to this 'construction' [of the eye] that we are able to become opticians [etc.], that we are able to experience the marvel of vision, so far as no defect hinders us... And in spite of all our fantastic technical expertise, no one is capable of constructing a human eye that is alive and working". A fine answer to what appears unsurpassed arrogance in the strenuous faultfinding by opponents of "intelligent design".

The author, however, is too ready to swallow scientific claims he fails to sufficiently comprehend. Among them are the famed "random mutations" of Darwinism. The author asks (p.102): "Why are there deformities, as a result of harmful mutations?" This rests on the Darwinian supposition that changes in organisms are indeed the result of chance.

We are now led to the title of the book, "CHANCE OR PURPOSE?". The author argues lengthily throughout the book for divine purpose behind the findings proclaimed by science, which he accepts with little reservation and holds compatible with faith. He says (p.165), "the question as to the origins of the obvious 'intelligent design' in living things is an entirely legitimate one... An answer to this question is not to be expected from research working along strictly scientific methodological lines". By "origins of the obvious 'intelligent design'" he means the mentioned divine purpose, the "obvious" set aside here. But he is entirely mistaken in accepting the contentions about "strictly scientific methodological lines". That science can only observe chance, namely the operation of unguided natural forces, is belied by medical science if no other. Physicians know full well the body's purposeful healing power, that the body always aims to preserve itself.

The answer to Cardinal Schoenborn's quandary about "Chance or Purpose" need accordingly not be constricted to faith alone. Nature itself exhibits purpose bountifully in the live activities of all its organisms, aimed at their preservation. I have been trying to get this simple understanding across in reviews here, if falling on deaf ears. For more, including various other subjects relating to human knowledge, I want to again recommend my On Proof for Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries.

A great discussion of Darwinism as a world-view vs Christianity. Schoenborn shows how evolution as a scientific theory is perfectly compatible with Catholicism.

I have a somewhat intimate knowledge of the contents of the book, since I translated the last three chapters from German to English. (Does anyone know whether Ignatius gave me credit for this in the book?)

I found the intellectual compromises contained in these chapters fatal to the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith. Perhaps the most important problem is the Cardinal's failure to recognize that there really is no distinction between evolution as an ideology and evolution as a basis for science. The reason is that evolution cannot be scientifically tested or falsified. As such, its ideological essence is necessarily an element in any framework of scientific endeavor where it is asserted to be true, in the form of a basic assumption that is not itself empirically demonstrable. Evolution therefore is, as Karl Popper so aptly put it, not a scientific theory at all, but is rather a metaphysical research programme. Moreover, it is a metaphysical research programme that is fatally at odds with the objective truth content of Christian revelation, as this is recorded in the Scriptures.

Another huge disappointment that I have with Cardinal Schonborn is his refusal to take Young Earth Creationism seriously. He simply accepts the prevailing Catholic prejudice, successfully hammered home by evolutionist propaganda for 150 years now in the face of Catholic timidity with regard to the spirit of the age, that Young Earth Creationism is based entirely on obscurantism and scientific ignorance.

I, too, grew up imbued with this prejudice; but translating the Cardinal's work and seeing the deficiencies in it forced me finally to set aside this prejudice and carefully consider the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint on its intrinsic merits alone. After much research over the past 18 months, I can bear confident witness to the fact that Young Earth Creationism is both very scientifically sophisticated and intellectually formidable. Over the past fifty years, the YEC movement has successfully exposed the many breathtaking and sometimes fatal scientific weaknesses inherent in the evolutionary approach to biology, geology, astronomy, paleoanthropology, etc. In addition, the Creation-Flood models proposed by them as alternative frameworks of scientific inquiry come off looking very intellectually and scientifically respectable by way of comparison, both in light of the empirical data themselves and of their scientific analysis.

About a year ago, I had a correspondence with the Cardinal about these matters in which I attempted to persuade him that Young Earth Creationism was worth taking seriously, and that there was no need for him to capitulate intellectually to an evolutionary scientific establishment that is in fact bitterly hostile to the Christian faith. Sadly, my appeal to the Cardinal to be open-minded in this regard, and not to fall prey to the scurrilous prejudices and slanders against Young Earth Creationism that evolutionary propagandists have so successfully propagated for so long, fell on deaf ears.

I have a somewhat intimate knowledge of the contents of the book, since I translated the last three chapters from German to English. (I have been trying to see the title page online to determine whether Ignatius gave me due credit for this - unfortunately, I rather doubt that they did so.)

I found the intellectual compromises contained in these chapters fatal to the intellectual integrity of the Christian faith. Perhaps the most important problem is the Cardinal's failure to recognize that there really is no distinction between evolution as an ideology and evolution as a basis for science. The reason is that evolution cannot be scientifically tested or falsified. As such, its ideological essence is necessarily an element in any framework of scientific endeavor where it is asserted to be true, in the form of a basic assumption that is not itself empirically demonstrable. Evolution therefore is, as Karl Popper so aptly put it, not a scientific theory at all, but is rather a metaphysical research programme. Moreover, it is a metaphysical research programme that is fatally at odds with the objective truth content of Christian revelation, as this is recorded in the Scriptures.

Another huge disappointment that I have with Cardinal Schonborn is his refusal to take Young Earth Creationism seriously. He simply accepts the prevailing Catholic prejudice, successfully hammered home by evolutionist propaganda for 150 years now in the face of Catholic timidity with regard to the spirit of the age, that Young Earth Creationism is based entirely on obscurantism and scientific ignorance.

I, too, grew up imbued with this prejudice; but translating the Cardinal's work and seeing the deficiencies in it forced me finally to set aside this prejudice and carefully consider the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint on its intrinsic merits alone. After much research over the past 18 months, I can bear confident witness to the fact that Young Earth Creationism is both very scientifically sophisticated and intellectually formidable. Over the past fifty years, the YEC movement has successfully exposed the many breathtaking and sometimes fatal scientific weaknesses inherent in the evolutionary approach to biology, geology, astronomy, paleoanthropology, etc. In addition, the Creation-Flood models proposed by them as alternative frameworks of scientific inquiry come off looking very intellectually and scientifically respectable by way of comparison, both in light of the empirical data themselves and of their scientific analysis.

About a year ago, I had a correspondence with the Cardinal about these matters in which I attempted to persuade him that Young Earth Creationism was worth taking seriously, and that there was no need for him to capitulate intellectually to an evolutionary scientific establishment that is in fact bitterly hostile to the Christian faith. Sadly, my appeal to the Cardinal to be open-minded in this regard, and not to fall prey to the scurrilous prejudices and slanders against Young Earth Creationism that evolutionary propagandists have so successfully propagated for so long, fell on deaf ears.

Cardinal Schoenborn has written a very good book that tackles a very difficult issue.It is a valid attempt on many levels as it is both intellectually nourishing and also adds great depth to a readers Faith ,assuming they have it.The Cardinal shows the breath of Catholic Vision on the subject and bravely tries to open up an area of dialogue between Science and Faith.Knowing full well that Faith has nothing to fear from the advance of Science if it is humane .I hope the Cardinal revisits this issue with a broader setting and perhaps a correspondence or Dialogue with some openminded experts from the field of Science that could allow for some norms to be agreed upon.This will allow the entire debate to advance in a more reasonable way

This book most accurately presents the truth to the best of what has been revealed by his Son and I know of No man who would not enjoy the beauty of this book setting things in right proportion for both the scientist and the religious. Amen. St Ignatius of antioch on his way to Rome to be martyred for being a christian in 108 AD, proclaimed the beuaty of the faith for the first time calling the Church Catholic. Universal, One truth for all, not all truths are one(relativism was never preached by Christ). As a convert, I challenge those fallen away from the Church Christ established(Mt 16:18-19) to consider returning, the fullness is here. Never Trust yourselves, but only him, How Great is his Mercy. Peace be with you.

This book was a very straight forward and insightful
approach to a complex subject. Several significant points were made
that I had not thought of and these points allowed
me to re-think my positon.

In part, a well written account of intellectual Catholic belief on matters loosely related to the scientific theory of evolution, and a fairly convincing argument that traditional Catholic doctrine is not contradictory to the strictly biological theory. In somewhat larger part, the author takes issue with "evolutionism", the idea that "the interplay of chance and necessity" that drives evolution is all there is to say about the subject of human origins, and takes issue with the idea that "man is just another evolved animal", ideas that are manifestly opposite to Christian belief.

As a statement of traditional Catholic belief the book is just fine. But it simply doesn't address what I would consider the central issue in the evolution vs creationist debate: granted the physical laws of the universe and the state of the Earth some four billion years ago, is it logically possible and reasonable that the complexity of life could have arisen by the operation of physical laws alone? This is what most scientists implicitly believe, what those like Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design explicitly seek to demonstrate, and what a small minority like the author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution explicitly disagree with. But on this issue author abandons his otherwise sophisticated nuanced theology in favor of occasional statements like the following, without attempting to develop an argument.

It is entirely rational to assume that there is a significance to the development of nature .... Reason tells me there is an order and a plan, meaning and purpose, that clock has not come into being by chance, and far less still the living organism of a plant, an animal, or indeed a human being.

Anyone who wants to replace the Creator in the realization of this plan by a complete autonomy of evolution either attributes a mythical creative power to evolution itself, or renounces any attempt whatever at rational comprehension by explaining everything as the blind interplay of arbitrary chances .....

We are, at the present time, moving away from a view that science, for all its marvelous accomplishments, can replace religion as "Progress". It certainly has not happened, and now we live on the edge of chaos. This work offers a highly readable presentation of how and why we arrived at this point, and how and why we need to move beyond it. Religion and Science, when both seek truth, can never be at odds. Just consider what Science has done, for example, to validate the Shroud of Turin, and that includes some of the best men at NASA.

The misconception within society that Faith and Science are incompatible is properly and brilliantly refuted in Cardinal Schonborn's masterwork: CHANCE OR PURPOSE: CREATION, EVOLUTION AND A RATIONAL FAITH. In a clear, simple, yet highly intellectual style, the author firmly, yet convincingly expresses the Catholic doctrine of Creation -- a view that is, upon close examination, completely compatible of an ongoing and orderly development of the universe.

Schonborn's explanations of Creation is rooted squarely in Sacred Scripture, yet the poetic expressions of Genesis are placed in proper context. Creation is seen not as something that occurred only in the origin of things, but as an essential part of the development of life: past, present, and future. Evolution is not something at odds with Creation; rather it is the expression of God's creative will -- the development of temporal things measured against the eternity of the kingdom.

Those within the scientific community who do not believe in God, and thus deny the reality of their own senses and intellect -- instead elevating the principles of limited human understanding to a diety of their own making -- will undoubtedly eschew the author's carefully developed theological arguments. Yet in the end, Schonborn wins the day: his work neither contradicts science, nor is limited by the limitations imposed by secular adherents.

For those who wish a comprehensive explanation of Creation -- consistent with both faith and science, this work is seminal to further exploration of the understanding of the ultimate beginnings.

A clear, thoughtful exposition of the relationship between science and religion. Avoids the pitfalls of looking for God in the unexplained aspects of science, but rather identifies God in the ongoing existance of the universe around us. Don't look for proofs, but expect a better understanding.

Christoph Cardinal Schonborn's book title CHANCE OR PURPOSE: CREATION, EVOLUTION AND A RATIONAL FAITH is a thoughtful attempt to make connections between religious belief and modern science. Readers should note tht Cardinal Schonborn is not a fundamentalist, whatever that term means, and he is not a militant atheist. This book is not an attempt at a "middle ground," but an attempt to let "both sides" know that there are possible areas where agreement can be reached for further debate and discussion.

Cardinal Schonborn is clear that a literal interpretation of the Bible is not science and that the Bible was not written as a science book. Cardinal Schonborn mentioned that even the early Church Fathers were clear that the Bible was not meant to scientifically explain the Cosmos. In fact, St. Augustine (354-430)stated that the Bible was not an astronomy book, and students could study science in the schools. St. Augustine stated that the Bible and the Church teachings were designed to help men achieve salvation and not to teach science. In fact St. Augustine as well as other early Church Fathers stated that the much of the Bible was allegorical.

Another topic that Cardinal Schonborn examined is the fact that the Catholic Church enshrined reason next to Revealed Truths as part of learning. The Medieval Scholatics and especially St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)stated that science and the Bible were not at odds. His conclusion was that apparent conflicts were due to an inadequet understanding of the Bible. In other words, Cardinal Schonborn argued that there were Medieval scholars who recognized that there were apparent differences between the Bible, Catholic teaching, and science.

The basic premise of Cardinal Schonborn's book is that there is a starting point for all learning including scientific learning. The use of a priori thinking and logic are fundametnal to scientic learning(biology, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.)as well as mathematics. Cardinal Schonborn is also clear that reason is also important to metaphysical questions and learning such as ethics, good vs. evil, justice, etc. He is clear that ideas and concepts are just as real as scientific studies. The key for Cardinal Schonborn is that there is a starting point by which ideas and science can be understood and advanced.

What Cardinal Schonborn critisized in this book were the concepts of formlessness and radical skepticism. He was clear that ideas of formless ness and extreme skepticism led to nowhere. Without reason and some fundamental starting point such as religion or the concept of a Creator, there could be no science or advance in knowledge. If nothing is accepted as a priori premises, nothing is achieved due to no basics from which to build knowledge.

Cardinal Schonborn was also critical of the misuse of Darwin's ideas. Cardinal Schonborn had some good comments on the use of Social Darwinism. For example the rulers of Big Communism had a "plan" whereby those in the Workers' Paradise would react to the plan by "successful adaptation." In spite of concentration camp brutality and mass murder, the plan failed because men are more complex than what the Plan allowed. Social Darwinism was also the rationale of the strongest race. Anyone not fit was doomed. In fact, one modern biologist stated that some people needed to be biologically upgraded to be fit for the modern world. A rational religious view was much better means of understanding social organization.

Cardinal Schonborn also commented on the vastness of the universe and the insignificant size of the earth and the solar system. This discussion carried over to Man whom Cardinal Schonborn stated was created in God's image with dignity and that man had reason for a guide. Cardinal Schonborn is well aware that the solar system is on the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy. Yet, he is also clear that size does not matter. As far as we know, men are the only ones who is aware of the universe and his place in it. If one were to measure value by size, a man in love would give his fiancee a boulder rather than a diamond. Men would seek to live on Jupiter which is much larger than the earth. Yet, life cannot be sustained on that planet.

A very good point that Cardinal Schonborn made is that intelligence is important. Yet, intelligent men who are aware of the limitations of their knowledge demonstrate wisdom. The point that Cardinal Schonborn made is that those who ascribe to materialism and a chance universe as an ideology do not "know it all." Cardinal Schonborn explains that there are ultimate questions that give men a chance to think and if they do not know everything, they can at least have understanding.

One minor weakness of this book is that Cardinal Schonborn could have cited fameous Catholics for their scientific achievements. For example, he could have cited St. Albertus Magnus (1193-1280)who did considerable work in experimental biology and astronomy. Cardinal Schonborn could have cited the outstanding work done by the Jesuits. A book that was published named the 300 best mathematicians beginning c. 900 BC. Five percent of these mathematicans were Jesuits. There over 30 craters on the moon named after Jesuits. The Jesuits pioneered the study of seismology which was once called the Jesuit Science. Mention could have been made of Father Gregor Mendal (1822-1884)who pioneered the study of genetics. Cardinal Schonborn could have used these examples as well as others to inform readers that men of deeply held religious convictions have made important contributions to mathematics and science.

This book does not claim to be the "final answer." All Cardinal Schonborn tried to do was to give a reasonable explanation that science and religion are not necessarily hostile. While this reviewer has some crticisms as noted above, this is book is highly recommended to those who have an interest in the "debate" between religion and science, if there is one.

Cardinal Schonborn's article in the New York Times in July 2005, "Finding Design in Nature," generated a great deal of misunderstanding and controversy. For many, his article was a defense of Intelligent Design Theory and an attack on Pope John Paul II's pronouncement of the compatibility between Faith and Evolution. Nevertheless, this book clarifies any possible misunderstanding. The Cardinal clearly distinguishes between Belief in Creation and the Big Bang, and between "Creatio Continua"("continuing creation") and Evolution. He always emphasizes the idea that theology and natural science do not contradict one another because both are rational and complementary ways of approaching reality. Although he criticizes the methodological approach of the proponents of Intelligent Design, he thinks that the philosophical question as to the origins of the "intelligent design" in living things is a legitimate one. Furthermore, he thinks that philosophy is an excellent tool to distinguish between science and scientism or ideology masquerading as science. He concludes that God, as theologians and philosophers understand Him, cannot be an object of scientific inquiry. The scientific method can neither exclude nor include God. Hence, the Cardinal dares to provide his readers with a profound theology of creation in dialogue with the findings of science.
This Theology of Creation has four basic elements:
1)There is an absolute beginning that was the free and sovereign constitution of being out of nothing.
2)There is variety and order in creation and both are willed by God.
3)We believe, not just in an absolute beginning, but also that creation is being sustained. God keeps in being everything that he created: there is continuing creation.
4)Creation is guided. Divine providence is part of the doctrine of creation. God is guiding his work to a goal.
Throughout the book Cardinal Schonborn is concerned with the question of the relation between the four elements outlined above and the theory of evolution.Other important topics of the book that are related to the four basic elements are:
1) If God guides everything, then how is it that there is so much suffering and injustice in the world?
2) The creation of man and whether, and in what sense, man can be considered as the "crown of creation". Are men part of nature, or are they elevated above it, or both?
3) What does Christ have to do with creation?

Cardinal Schonborn's article in the New York Times in July 2005, "Finding God in Nature," generated a great deal of misunderstanding and controversy. For many, his article was a defense of Intelligent Design Theory and an attack on Pope John Paul II's pronouncement of the compatibility between Faith and Evolution. Nevertheless, this book clarifies any possible misunderstanding. The cardinal clearly distinguishes between Belief in Creation and the Big Bang, and between "Creatio Continua"("continuing creation") and Evolution. He always emphasizes the idea that theology and natural science do not contradict one another because both are rational and complementary ways of approaching reality. Although he criticizes the methodological approach of the proponents of Intelligent Design, he thinks that the philosophical question as to the origins of the "intelligent design" in living things is a legitimate one. Furthermore, he thinks that philosophy is an excellent tool to distinguish between science and scientism or ideology masquerading as science. He concludes that God, as theologians and philosophers understand Him, cannot be an object of scientific inquiry. The scientific method can neither exclude nor include God. Hence, the Cardinal dares to provide his readers with a profound theology of creation in dialogue with the findings of science.
This Theology of Creation has four basic elements:
1)There is an absolute beginning that was the free and sovereign constitution of being out of nothing.
2)There is variaty and order in creation and both are willed by God.
3)We believe, not just in an absolute beginning, but also that creation is being sustained. God keeps in being everything that he created: there is continuing creation.
4)Creation is guided. Divine providence is part of the doctrine of creation. God is guiding his work to a goal.
Throughout the book Cardinal Schonborn is concerned with the question of the relation between the four elements outlined above and the theory of evolution.

I was so pleased to listen to an interview with the Archbishop reperesenting the Holy See's clarifications on science and God. This book is what I have been waiting to see. Anyone who takes the time to read this work seriously and to understand its relationship to the Catholic world view in its wisdom reveiled in the writings of St. Teresa of Avila, St John of the Cross, and St Agustin to list a few will recognize the embrace of science as fundamental to the Church. This work finally sets the record staight how God's existence and our search for truth, explanation and beauty in the physical reality are not a conflict for our rational mind! I wish everyone would read this with intelligent analysis.

Cardinal Schonborn's article in the New York Times in July 2005, "Finding God in Nature," generated a great deal of misunderstanding and controversy. For many, his article was a defense of Intelligent Design Theory and an attack on Pope John Paul II's pronouncement of the compatibility between Faith and Evolution. Nevertheless, this book clarifies any possible misunderstanding. The cardinal clearly distinguishes between Belief in Creation and the Big Bang, and between "Creatio Continua" and Evolution. He always emphasizes the idea that theology and natural science do not contradict one another because both are rational and complementary ways of approaching reality. Although he criticizes the methodological approach of the proponents of Intelligent Design, he thinks that the philosophical question as to the origins of the "intelligent design" in living things is a legitimate one. Furthermore, he thinks that philosophy is an excellent tool to distinguish between science and scientism or ideology masquerading as science. He concludes that God, as theologians and philosophers understand Him, cannot be an object of scientific inquiry. The scientific method can neither exclude nor include God. Hence, the Cardinal dares to provide his readers with a profound theology of creation in dialogue with the findings of science.

Cardinal Schonborn's text serves as an excellent introductory text into the Catholic understanding of the terms "creation" and "evolution," an understanding which his salient in today's world which too often misunderstands this relationship. It is a testament to the naivety of many who think that the Catholic must use the term creation in a static, fundamentalistic sense. In this capacity, it reminds the Catholic that the scientific phenomena which are studied in the task of understanding evolution are not mere phenomena to be explained away. Instead, they are facts which are part of the greater whole of understanding creation and salvation as a dynamic process which is willed from eternity, not in some sort of finite temporal succession.

The great strength of this book is also related to its weakness. This is a dense topic on which much has been written and still much will be considered in coming years. The Cardinal looks to explain much in his considerations and therefore seems to jump all "over the board" without much direction except to the Catholic eye. His reflections are definitely aimed toward Catholics (the book having been developed out of a series of catechetical lectures) and therefore takes a road from a consideration of creation, its exposition in the Godhead, its fulfillment in Christ, and the weight of humanity therein. The progression is logical but is much looser than that which would be normally undertaken in a dense theological tome. I therefore suggest it for those who are looking for an overview of Catholic cosmology but then also suggest for one to go further and springboard from this text into its sources for a much more nuanced and formed conceptualization and understanding of the implications of the Catholic understanding of Creation.

"Once..., on a minuscule planet orbiting a mediocre star on the edge of a backwater galaxy, clever little animals emerged from the slime, and not longer after began using puffed-up words like truth and goodness. Unfortunately for them, their little C-grade star eventually cooled, during which these pathetic little creatures died out too...and with them their proud words." Nietzsche, Untimely Meditations



Prologue:
In 2006, the cardinal, published an opinion article on evolution in the New York Times. Some critics charged him with biblical literalism and 'Fundamentalist creationism'. Both critics and proponents of the 'Intelligent Design' movement strived to associate his name with that position. Schönborn argues that a rationally grounded faith is not at odds with science and that what many intellectuals represent as 'science' is really a set of philosophical positions that will not withstand critical scrutiny.
The cardinal's book addresses the issues raised by recent atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. The book also examines the interpretation of the Book of Genesis, the problem of evil and suffering in a world created by God and the place of humanity in relation to nature. The place of chance and divine purpose in human existence is another featured topic. In his treatment of evolution, Cardinal Schönborn distinguishes the biological theory from 'Evolutionism ideology', that strives to reduce all of reality to what he defines as a 'mindless, meaningless processes'. "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."

The chance /Purpose Controversy:
Cardinal Schönborn, the renowned Archbishop of Vienna, responds to critics of his "Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith," with soundly reasoned postulates of Intelligent Design, which is categorized under Creation Theology of the Catholic Church. His defense starts as, "Can we still speak intelligently of the world as 'creation' and affirm the existence of the Creator, or is God a 'delusion'? Elaborating to clarify he asks, "How should an informed believer read Genesis? If God exists, why is there so much injustice and suffering? Are human beings a part of nature or elevated above it? What is man's destiny? Is everything a matter of chance or can we discern purpose in human existence?
The archbishop of Vienna presented his proposal to a packed auditorium at a Meeting organized by the Communion and Liberation Movement in Rimini, Italy. At a press conference next day, the cardinal, explained that the Church does not hold a creationist position (as Intelligent design) on the origin of life and man, which draw scientific consequences from biblical texts. He added, that there is no conflict between science and religion,"but, rather, a debate 'between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation'."

In the Catholic Church:
"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." This statement unleashed considerable controversy, including public criticism of Schönborn's views by Fr George Coyne SJ, the director of the Vatican Observatory, and a response in First Things, by Catholic physicist Stephen Barr. Cardinal Schönborn, in turn replied proposing an ideology-free debate on the theory of evolution, and wants to clarify the Church's position on the topic.

Reviews & Comments:
- "Cardinal Schoenborn writes with masterful simplicity on profound theological issues. I, as a scientist and Christian outside the Catholic tradition, welcome his wisdom. He argues effectively that there are multiple approaches to reality, and he states clearly that while intelligent design is worthy of human reflection, from a scientific perspective the evolutionary model is the true story." Owen Gingerich, (God's Universe) Professor of Astronomy, Harvard University.
- "Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn's 2005 essay in the New York Times, which seemingly condemned Darwin's scientific theory of evolution, ignited a firestorm of controversy. Yet the hasty responses did not look deeply enough into the Cardinal's words. Rather than the science of Darwin, it is the philosophical claims made in its name that the prelate upbraided. Science cannot speak of ultimate purpose, and scientists who do so are outside of their authority. In Chance or Purpose? the Cardinal shows that the data of biology, when properly examined by reason and philosophy, strongly point to a purposeful world." Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box
- "But that means he must first address this prior question: not how the Bible should be judged by the sciences but how it acts as judge of them. As a teacher of the Catholic faith, the author of course accepts what Pius and John Paul have taught about the legitimate role of science in determining the meaning of the Scriptures. But these papal statements are for the cardinal, so to speak, merely propaedeutic and would lead us astray if they did not eventually give us a greater understanding of what the Bible intends to communicate quite independent of the deliverances of the sciences." Edward Oakes, S.J., comments in First things

The Archbishop of Vienna:
Amazed by his rare knowledge of Origen and Alexandrine Orthodoxy, when reviewing his book "God's Human Face: The Christ Icon," I traced his career, to find is only compared to Hans Urs von Balthasar. Author of more than thirty books in English and German, he is the theological advocate and interpreter of the Intelligent Design Movement.
Cardinal von Schönborn, popularly known in Austria, as "The Healer," was ordained to the priesthood by Cardinal König in 1970. Fr. Schönborn obtained a Licentiate of Sacred Theology in 1971, and later studied in Regensburg under Fr. Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI). After completing his Doctorate in Sacred Theology in Paris, he was appointed Professor of Dogmatics at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. In 1980, he was assigned member of the International Theological Commission, and in 1987 he became main editor for the Catechism. He was chosen Auxiliary Bishop of Vienna in 1991, and Archbishop of Vienna in 1995, with motto 'I have called you friends'(John 15:15) Considered among the papabili following John Paul's death, Schönborn was one of the cardinal electors, in the 2005 papal conclave that selected Pope Benedict XVI. In addition to German, he is fluent in English, French, Italian, Spanish & Latin.


The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
God and the Universe of Faiths

I have been a fan of intelligent design (ID) since Darwin's Black Box. However the Protestant underpinnings that seem to be pervasive in ID are indeed hostile to the fruit of Darwinism, which is evolution. Many of the ID supporters that I know are secret semi-fundamentalists that don't want to admit that much of what they hold true in the area of origins comes from literal reading of the Bible and creation. While they won't admit to an Earth that is over 6000 years old (like some Fundamentalists do) they nevertheless abhor any fact or truth that emanates from scientific inquiry that might threaten their definition of God and of their reading of the Book of Genesis. Others in the ID camp are deists who see an original Creator - but one that now is afar and aloof and who is not involved in continuing and guiding creation. Having been raised by Catholic educators and scientists, I have always had great respect for Darwin's contributions to scientific methodology and science in general. However I have not been able to completely reconcile the "big divide" between believers in God (the Creator) and their warped view of science AND many prominent scientists, who claim the origin of the cosmos sprung from chaos, are atheists and who violently mock theists. I am a believer in a Creator, yet I also greatly respect true scientific methodology and the search for the truth. Why can't a believer in a Creator also be a respectful believer in the scientific search for the truth? Why can't the mysteries that have been unlocked for millennia and recently made evident by science be reconciled with religious beliefs? Could a Creator use evolution as a means to sustain and guide the original creation of everything (out of nothing and perhaps through the Big Bang) toward an ultimate purpose? My ID friends have blackballed me from their message boards when I sincerely asked the question whether a designer could use evolution as a tool in creation. I was told that I must be a "Papist". My science friends (many of them family members) have removed me from their email directories (and Christmas card list) when I again asked sincere questions about God and creation as I seem to find them in the beauty of nature. What I learned was that they took my inquiry as a mocking of their particular brand of "religion." [Interestingly many of my family were raised traditional Roman Catholic but now live lives very much far from the morality taught in that religion and seem to adhere to "relativism".] I had become in their eyes a heretic.
In his book, Chance Or Purpose - Creation, Evolution And A Rational Faith, Cardinal Schonborn has "healed" to a great degree my wounds suffered from the two camps of ID and evolution. I now do not see a big rift between religion and science. It was necessary and important that I receive this revelation from a respected member of the Catholic Church. [The Church needs to do this alot more on other related issues]. This book has awakened in me a great appreciation for everything I can see, feel and touch in nature. I do see a purpose in it all. My hope is that both ID and evolution camps can learn from each other and behave less like contemporary Congressional politicians (in polar gridlock). Science should stick to science and stay clear of origins and matters of philosophy. ID'ers should not fear truth that can be revealed in honest scientific inquiry, but should embrace it. I personally am not threatened by the earth revolving around the sun or our remote position in one average galaxy in the cosmos. [See "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee]. The prejudices of each camp blind them from exposure to complete truth (scientific and theological). If the hostilities of both camps are left unchecked they will undoubtedly stay in perpetual combat which will affect us all, our culture and our accent as a species. This conflict will lead young minds into lifelong confusion.
To the non-directed, chaos believers of the science only camp, I ask you how do the components of life (the microscopic ones) seem to know how to evolve to improve upon say the macro mechanism of the eyeball? They do not have molecular or subatomic brains or blueprints, yet they seem to work in concert with totally unrelated microscopic parts to arrive at an improved way of "seeing". How does the theory of original chaos reconcile with such complex orchestration?
To the ID'ers, who dig their heals in the sand when evolution appears to be a rational explanation for say the creation of body plans in the Cambrian explosion, couldn't a Designer use evolution as the means to accomplish an ultimate creative purpose? Why do Chimps have nearly all our features and bodily processes and components? Is it not plausible that we are related? How does that in any way degrade the dignity of Homo sapiens? If you hold true to the Judeo/Christian heritage wasn't all of the original creation called "good"?

I have been a fan of intelligent design (ID) since Darwin's Black Box. However the Protestant underpinnings that seem to be pervasive in ID are indeed hostile to the fruit of Darwinism, which is evolution. Many of the ID supporters that I know are secret semi-fundamentalists that don't want to admit that much of what they hold true in the area of origins comes from literal reading of the Bible and creation. While they won't admit to an Earth that is over 6000 years old (like some Fundamentalists do) they nevertheless abhor any fact or truth that emanates from scientific inquiry that might threaten their definition of God and of their reading of the Book of Genesis. Others in the ID camp are deists who see an original Creator - but one that now is afar and aloof and who is not involved in continuing and guiding creation. Having been raised by Catholic educators and scientists, I have always had great respect for Darwin's contributions to scientific methodology and science in general. However I have not been able to completely reconcile the "big divide" between believers in God (the Creator) and their warped view of science AND many prominent scientists, who claim the origin of the cosmos sprung from chaos, are atheists and who violently mock theists. I am a believer in a Creator, yet I also greatly respect true scientific methodology and the search for the truth. Why can't a believer in a Creator also be a respectful believer in the scientific search for the truth? Why can't the mysteries that have been unlocked for millennia and recently made evident by science be reconciled with religious beliefs? Could a Creator use evolution as a means to sustain and guide the original creation of everything (out of nothing and perhaps through the Big Bang) toward an ultimate purpose? My ID friends have blackballed me from their message boards when I sincerely asked the question whether a designer could use evolution as a tool in creation. I was told that I must be a "Papist". My science friends (many of them family members) have removed me from their email directories (and Christmas card list) when I again asked sincere questions about God and creation as I seem to find them in the beauty of nature. What I learned was that they took my inquiry as a mocking of their particular brand of "religion." [Interestingly many of my family were raised traditional Roman Catholic but now live lives very much far from the morality taught in that religion and seem to adhere to "relativism".] I had become in their eyes a heretic.
In his book, Chance Or Purpose - Creation, Evolution And A Rational Faith, Cardinal Schonborn has "healed" to a great degree my wounds suffered from the two camps of ID and evolution. I now do not see a big rift between religion and science. It was necessary and important that I receive this revelation from a respected member of the Catholic Church. [The Church needs to do this alot more on other related issues]. This book has awakened in me a great appreciation for everything I can see, feel and touch in nature. I do see a purpose in it all. My hope is that both ID and evolution camps can learn from each other and behave less like contemporary Congressional politicians (in polar gridlock). Science should stick to science and stay clear of origins and matters of philosophy. ID'ers should not fear truth that can be revealed in honest scientific inquiry, but should embrace it. I personally am not threatened by the earth revolving around the sun or our remote position in one average galaxy in the cosmos. [See "Rare Earth" by Ward and Brownlee]. The prejudices of each camp blind them from exposure to complete truth (scientific and theological). If the hostilities of both camps are left unchecked they will undoubtedly stay in perpetual combat which will affect us all, our culture and our accent as a species. This conflict will lead young minds into lifelong confusion.
To the non-directed, chaos believers of the science only camp, I ask you how do the components of life (the microscopic ones) seem to know how to evolve to improve upon say the mechanism of the eyeball? They do not have molecular or subatomic brains, yet they seem to work in concert with totally unrelated microscopic parts to arrive at an improved way of "seeing". How does the theory of original chaos reconcile with such complex orchestration?
To the ID'ers, who dig their heals in the sand when evolution appears to be a rational explanation for say the creation of body plans in the Cambrian explosion, couldn't a Designer used evolution as the means to accomplish an ultimate purpose? Why do Chimps have nearly all our features and bodily processes and components? Is it not plausible that we are related? How does that in any way degrade the dignity of Homo sapiens? If you hold true to the Judeo/Christian heritage wasn't all of the original creation called "good"?

I have been a fan of intelligent design (ID) since Darwin's Black Box. However the Protestant underpinnings that seem to be pervasive in ID are indeed hostile to the fruit of Darwinism, which is evolution. Many of the ID supporters that I know are secret semi-fundamentalists that don't want to admit that much of what they hold true in the area of origins comes from literal reading of the Bible. While they won't admit to an Earth that is over 6000 years old (like some Fundamentalists) they nevertheless abhor any fact or truth that emanates from scientific inquiry that might threaten their definition of God and of their reading of the Book of Genesis. Others in the ID camp are deists who see an original Creator - but one that now is afar and aloof and who is not involved in continuing and guiding creation. Having been raised by Catholic educators and scientists, I have always had great respect for Darwin's contributions to scientific methodology and science in general. However I have not been able to completely reconcile the "big divide" between believers in God (the Creator) and the many prominent scientists who claim also to be atheists. That has always been troubling for me. Why can't a believer in a Creator also be a respectful believer in the scientific search for the truth? Why can't the mysteries that have been unlocked for millennia and recently made evident by science be reconciled with religious beliefs? Could a Creator use evolution as a means to sustain and guide the original creation of everything (out of nothing and through the Big Bang) toward an ultimate purpose? My ID friends blackballed me from their message boards when I asked the question whether a designer could use evolution as a tool in creation. My science friends (many of them family) have removed me from their email directories (and Christmas card list) when I asked questions about God and creation in what I thought were friendly discussions about natural sciences. What I learned was that they took my inquiry as a mocking of their "religion." They had made the premise of random chance a proof of the non-existence of God. And Evolution in this sense had become their religion (and I was a heritic).
In his book, Chance Or Purpose - Creation, Evolution And A Rational Faith, Cardinal Schonborn has "healed" my wounds suffered from the two camps of ID and evolution. I now do not see a big rift between religion and science. This book has awakened in me a great appreciation for everything I can see, feel and touch in nature. I do see a purpose in it all. My hope is that both ID and evolution camps can learn from each other and behave less like contemporary Congressional politicians (in polar gridlock). Their respective prejudices blind them from truth, and if left unchecked will undoubtedly lead them into perpetual combat which will affect all of us.

I'm just at the end of this book. It is a mash-up of classical Thomist philosophy; quotes from science workers friendly to the notion of a personal God; cites from the Bible; and out-takes from various poets. Continuity goes absent in its arguments.

It reads as a series of transcriptions from the Cardinal's catechism lectures, given to an audience apt to be very friendly and even supine, willing to grant the Cardinal his damaging lapses in logic, and his fatal mistakes in fact.

It is touted on the jacket by Michael Behe, that limp mind unable to grasp the unaided evolution either of the mammalian eye, or of the bacterial flagellum.

All around, the book is a great disappointment, leading one to conclude that the Cardinal is as flyweight an author of books, as he was an OpEd writer in the NYT.

An acolyte of Benedict XVI, he is sorely out of Ratzinger's league.

This book by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, the Pope's former student and right hand man, is every anti-Intelligent Designer's nightmare. In it he argues effectively against many of the arguments against ID. For example, why would a loving God make a praying mantis that consumes the male alive after copulation is covered on page 91 and in the rest of this chapter. His answers are partly theological and depend on the use of reason and not biology, but I am not sure these kinds of questions can be answered biologically. Nonetheless, he does give reasonable answers. It would have been better in some cases to give biological answers, such as why the retina is "backward" when it seems that the rods and cones should face the incoming light, and not the back of the eye as presently exists. Here too he gives reasonable answers even though a biological answer would have been more complete. I could be biased, as this is one of the very few theological books I have read in decades but, this fact aside, it was an excellent read and highly recommended. This book is a brief readable introduction to the controversy and this may be a handicap. For example, Schoenborn noted the "missing link" problem, but does not go into detail. He could write a 400 page book on this topic alone and doubtless most of his readers would not buy the book if he did, but he could have gone into more detail to document this concern. He does an excellent job covering the theology, showing that classical Neo-Darwinism is totally incompatible with the Catholic faith, thus his title, Chance or Purpose, highlights the conflict. An excellent point was evidence for the creator does not begin at the point where we do not yet know something (the so called God of the gaps), but at the point at where we do know something on the basis of scientific evidence (page 79). Schoenborn also stresses that God not only created in the past, and keeps on creating today, but also must sustain the universe. In his words, if God were to let go of creation, it would fall back into nothingness (page 80). An interesting point which will no doubt trigger debate among many.

Very interesting but there are a number of better books in this area. On the whole, it was quite satisfying.