A comment on the previous entry leads me to a blog devoted to the thought of Cardinal Schönborn. I’m more confused than ever. I think that the distinction he is trying to make is between full-on Dawkins style atheism or scientism, which he calls neo-Darwinism, and a belief in the fact of evolution, which most other people call neo-Darwinism.
According the the blog’s summary of his position:
That point is: Christianity can accept science that attempts to explain how development occurs in living creatures, but it cannot accept an ideology that attempts to explain away Who causes that developments, or in other words, it cannot accept an ideology which refuses to see that God ultimately causes and guides the universe: “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.”
and we’re back to the bald claim that there is “overwhelming evidence for design” in biology which science must recognise. But the whole point about science is that it shows us a world which works as if there were no designer, but only some regularities. Now, if the claim is that this doesn’t prove that there is no designer, I’m with the Cardinal. But Darwinism does show how we can get design without a designer. The theory of evolution by natural selection really does disprove Paley. It doesn’t — it couldn’t — disprove the Aquinas anthropic argument, that the fact that the world is intelligible proves that there must be an intellegence behind it; but that’s not a scientific hypothesis. It’s a philosophical argument. So where is this “overwhelming evidence for design”?