While I believe there is some misrepresentation, perhaps more implied than anything direct, this article presents an important issue. I feel many misunderstood Schoenborn when his published article regarding evolution caused a storm about a year or so ago. In his articule he essentially said Christianity was incompatible with Neo-Darwinian Evolution (not "Evolution" per se). This article confirms my opinion which can be found in one of the many threads on this board:
Yet, this latest event seems to clarify further what was meant:Christoph Schoenborn made headlines with a New York Times article a year ago which endorsed the ID theory that has roiled US academic debate and appeared to back full-fledged Creationism, the core Bible story. Just before a brainstorming session with the pope on the eve of his Germany trip, Schoenborn admitted his NYT article had been a little too "cut-and-dried," laying it open to misinterpretation.
This was all Schoenborn meant, and at the time I remember his comments being entirely misunderstood and distorted by press and people, even Christians.Schoenborn responded by clarifying his position, saying that evolution as a body of scientific fact was compatible with Catholicism, but that evolution as an ideological dogma that denied design and purpose in Nature was not.
This identifying the type of "Evolution" acceptable is also an important issue, and people generally just lump anything and everything into the term. It was also an issue amongst us moderators of recent, and our board purpose was recently updated to include comment regarding it on this board. So I link to it here for others to read, and to stimulate further discussion.
Kurieuo