What led such an eminent Cardinal, the general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to make the effort to opine on science in an American newspaper?

Schönborn thinks the Catholic teaching on evolution, and the teaching of John Paul II, and Benedict XVI in particular, has been widely misrepresented.

Who are the offenders? They are easy to find, but let's take a look at three:

Newsweek: "The Vatican has said it finds no conflict between Christian faith and evolution" (Jerry Adler, Feb. 7, 2005).

Chicago Sun Times: "The Catholic Church has in recent decades taken a more benign view of science. The Pope [John Paul II] announced that Darwinism and Catholicism are compatible." (Unsigned editorial, March 15, 2005).

New York Times: "The Roman Catholic Church . . . apparently has no problem with the notion of evolution as it is currently studied by biologists [i.e., neo-Darwinism] . . . Popes from Pius XII to John Paul II have reaffirmed that the process of evolution in no way violates the teachings of the church. Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, presided over the church's International Theological Commission, which stated that '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' (Laurence M. Krauss, May 17, 2005)."

What's wrong with these quotes? John Paul II, after all, sent a well-publicized letter in 1996 to the Pontifical Academy of Science stating his agreement with Pius XII that evolution could be understood in a way compatible with the Church's teachings about man and creation.

But Schönborn insists that John Paul II's view of evolution and the Church's view are frequently misunderstood because of the ambiguity of the term "evolution."

As Cardinal Schönborn wrote in his op-ed, "Ever since 1996, when Pope John Paul II stated 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."

The problem is that the term "evolution" can mean merely "descent with modification" (Darwin's phrase), or it can mean something more elaborate like universal common ancestry of all living things. But it is most frequently used as shorthand for the dominant theory or explanation of common ancestry, namely Darwin's theory of random variation and natural selection. It's the latter meaning of "evolution" that the Cardinal finds objectionable.

For Schönborn, an understanding of evolution compatible with Christian faith cannot be squared with "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection," that is, neo- Darwinism. Catholic teaching affirms the possibility of an evolutionary process in nature, in the sense of common ancestry, but however they arrived, living things clearly reveal a rational design.

Darwin's theory seeks to explain away design in biology as a mere appearance that does not reflect any underlying reality of an intelligent cause.

Schönborn thinks scientists are not dealing objectively with the evidence of design: "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."

Even Catholic journalists don't seem to know that the Catholic view of evolution is distinctive. Note the following clip from the authoritative news service of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Catholic News Service: The Church "properly recognizes evolutionary theory as firmly grounded in fact." (Quoting David Byers, executive director of the U.S. Bishops' Committee on Science and Human Values from 1984 to 2003).

What is the importance of the distinction Schönborn is making? Why will many in the scientific community to react strongly to his op-ed?

The Church affirms evolution but not Darwin's version of it.

The Church challenges scientists to separate themselves from an ideology that begins with the assumption of the assumption of atheism and meaninglessness of life.

Finally, Catholic students need not be indoctrinated in a scientific theory that denies the design and purpose apparent in the natural world.

Schönborn underscores capacity of the human mind to find order in creation: "Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of mere chance and necessity are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence."

Schönborn also makes clear what the new pope thinks about evolution. He quotes a line from Benedict XVI's very first homily, "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."

Indeed, as the Catholic poet Hopkins said, "The world is charged with the grandeur of God." The good news that Schönborn announces is that we can recognize the Creator's plan, purpose, and design in nature whether or not evolution is true in some non- Darwinian sense.

*****

If you are wondering, as I am, what the Catholic view of evolution means for the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, I will be addressing that question in a future issue of The Window.

For the latest Catholic news, the Window recommends the Catholic News Agency. Click here to visit their site.

Please add us to your address book so that The Window will always arrive in your in-box not your bulk or junk e-mail folder.