(no subject)
Jul. 7th, 2005 03:55 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anhinga_anhingaCardinal Schönborn clarifies the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on evolution:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
> "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."
In reality, this question is open.
> "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."
In reality, any system of thought which prejudges this issue one way or another in the absense of any decent models for the time frame required for a purely neo-Darwinian model of evolution is ideology, not science.
Nevertheless, the reminder that the notion of evolution is not equivalent to its neo-Darwinian interpretation is helpful. Perhaps this will elevate the level of the debate a bit, on both sides...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html
> "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."
In reality, this question is open.
> "Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science."
In reality, any system of thought which prejudges this issue one way or another in the absense of any decent models for the time frame required for a purely neo-Darwinian model of evolution is ideology, not science.
Nevertheless, the reminder that the notion of evolution is not equivalent to its neo-Darwinian interpretation is helpful. Perhaps this will elevate the level of the debate a bit, on both sides...
