Page 2 of 9

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:38 am
by BobSmith
AttentionKMartShoppers: I think good evidence for creationism is....a lack of evidence for the other side

Dan: The same can be said about Intelligent Design
So I guess if a biologist accepted creationism or Intelligent Design they would benefit from not doing any research in order to ensure they never find any evidence for evolution.

Good evidence for the theory of evolution, as with any scientific theory, is data that fits the proposed model. That spurs biologists who accept evolution to research and find that evidence.

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 am
by entity
iamthearm812: "I have yet to find evidence of creationism that was not somehow skewed or biased and was easily disproved, but then again, I'm only 18."
Can someone people be biased and still be right? The reasons or motivations people have for holding a belief only tell you about their reasons and motivations for holding their belief. Reasons, motivations, agenda, etc… tell us nothing about the truth and validity of the belief itself.

A different take by a cardinal

Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:20 pm
by sandy_mcd
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opini ... nborn.html
[free registration required]

July 7, 2005
Finding Design in Nature
By CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN
Vienna

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said 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.

But this is not true. 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.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "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."

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Re: A different take by a cardinal

Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:35 pm
by sandy_mcd
This cardinal is definitely in favor of ID. His interpretation of Pope John Paul II's comments is at odds with many people's, including mine. It seems to me that he is confusing "God's design" with "scientific evidence for God's design". It will be interesting to see how representative this is of the Catholic Church. I am a bit disappointed to see this interpretation.

sandy

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:24 pm
by tootin
There wouldn't be much need for faith if a powerful enough microscope could examine molecules and find inscribed on the bottom of each, "(c) 4004 BC, God".
sandy_mcd

Very true. To employ science to try to prove God's existence is as foolish as trying to use it to disprove it. The same goes for trying to prove or disprove it it by pure logical reasoning also. But if, miraculously and paradoxically, science could find irrefutable empirical evidence of God's existence, those who have always believed on the basis of faith alone would be able to say "told you so". The Catholic Church has had its fingers burnt once or twice in these kinds of matters, however. It has learned to be cautious.
By sticking dogmatically to faith in the reality of revelation it can keep itself aloof from the possibility of refutation by other merely human modes of knowing.
Whether divine revelation is real or not cannot be proven one way or the other. It is either true or it is false. Osama bin Laden has as great a faith in it as does any Pope.

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:13 pm
by Kurieuo
sandy_mcd wrote:Not trying to be presumptuous, my impression is that the Catholic church is not a proponent of ID. Obviously the Church does believe in a "designer" but it does not follow that proof of the design can be found in nature. [There wouldn't be much need for faith if a powerful enough microscope could examine molecules and find inscribed on the bottom of each, "(c) 4004 BC, God".
To me, saying that the Church (as in RCC) does not follow proof of design as being found in nature is clearly wrong. I've studied at a Catholic university, and within my philosophy of religion class for example, design arguments (which are generally made from nature) are at the forefront whether liked or not. Now your latest article, whether at odds with your beliefs or not, entirely backs that the RCC does infact believe proof of design can be found in nature. And my experiences within my studies back this fact.

Now it seems to me secular evolutionists simply interpreted the words of Pope John Paul II wrong (perhaps out of more wishful thinking?) in order to make their non-purposeful evolutionary beliefs more palatable to unaware Christians. I certainly heard it used in discussions several times that the Pope believes in evolution, so <insert reason why this means a believer should accept evolution>. Yet, it would absolutely make no sense for the Pope, assumably a believer in God and Christ, to back neo-Darwinian evolution wherein it is assumed "creation" is an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. The moment one assumes such a process is true, is the moment they don't accept Christianity as true, for God has no personal involvement with His creation within such a scenario.
tootin wrote:To employ science to try to prove God's existence is as foolish as trying to use it to disprove it. The same goes for trying to prove or disprove it it by pure logical reasoning also.
Care to explain why? I see that arguments from observations (i.e., Science) can be definately used as inductive arguments for God's existence. Meaning they make God's existence certain and highly plausible, although not necessary. Logical arguments simply follow rules of reason. Perhaps you like to distinguish faith from reason, but such to me reveals you don't understand their relationship. For me, my faith goes hand-in-hand with reason.

Kurieuo.

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:13 pm
by tootin
My views on God and science result from personal experience and formal study. I would, if pushed, be prepared to accept the label of pantheist. I do not call myself that but I would not argue too much if someone wished to call me that. God exists by definition for me, since I take the word to be synonymous with reality. God is real and what is real is God: only God exists.
I think this way as a consequence of personal mystical experience. I reject utterly all tenets, doctrines and dogmas of organized religion. Mystics of all religions have taught that such dogmas are washed away when the divine condition is realised in oneself. God is the one truth and only reality. I have personally experienced this reality and truth. God is not other, for there is no other.
I have experienced this — even I. All religions which teach the separateness and otherness of God are mistaken. Anyone can experience the truth as I have. When one is ready it will happen. One must be open like an empty well beneath the heavens and the water will come from below and from above, from the earth and from the heavens. The empty well will become full. Open, naked, vulnerable and humble. Reject all that you ever thought that you knew or were told. Become dust. Cry with your body, heart and soul; empty yourself and it will happen, and you will know. You will be transformed in that moment. In that moment you will know that you and the dust and all that is, is holy, divine and nothing else. All is holy. All is divine. Full. Golden. Loving. Perfect. All.
Not other — mystery of mysteries, truth of truths — but even I, and You. The capacity to experience this truth lies within us. It does not come from without, for in reality there is no without. There is only one. Abandon yourself and you can know this. But in truth, it is not something which one chooses or wills, it is something which happens when you are ready. But it can happen to anyone for it happened to me, even me.
Neither science nor religion can bring you to this knowledge. It will happen or it will not. I have studied both and neither can bring you to the moment of self-realised God consciousness. Science is useful for gaining a practical understanding of the way in which reality (God = You + Me + Everything) is made and works. It is also beautiful in its ability to open up the universe and reveal new wonders which our imagination could never dream of. It is beautiful as a mental discipline — it develops and clarifies our ways of thinking. It tells us how the pieces of the universe all hold together. It connects everything but it does not and cannot tell us that the universe is divine. The mystics have always told us that, but monotheistic organized religion never has.
Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of the monotheistic God of western religion because that God does not exist. One cannot prove or disprove the existence of the non-existent. This God of duality — God as other not as Self — is a fiction. There is only the God which science studies without knowing it — reality.
Reality is worthy of study and understanding but science does not view that reality as being divine. It is not aware of it because it is not through the intellectual or empirical methods that science employs, but face to face in direct mystical experience that one attains this knowledge. Organized religion sees but through a glass, and so, so darkly that it distorts the truth into vain fantasies. Organized religion leads us away from God; science leads us in the right direction but only mystical union can bring us to the realisation that what science studies is God.

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:51 pm
by tootin
sandy_mcd - you are vindicated. Cardinal Schonborn has recanted; he now says that one may assume design but not on scientific grounds. In other words ID is not science.
A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of intelligent design against Darwin's explanation of life has described the theory of evolution as “one of the very great works of intellectual history.”
Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said he could believe both in divine creation and in evolution because one was a question of religion and the other of science, two realms that complemented rather than contradicted each other.

"It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question,” said the cardinal.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9589656/

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:58 pm
by Jbuza
BobSmith wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers: I think good evidence for creationism is....a lack of evidence for the other side

Dan: The same can be said about Intelligent Design
So I guess if a biologist accepted creationism or Intelligent Design they would benefit from not doing any research in order to ensure they never find any evidence for evolution.

Good evidence for the theory of evolution, as with any scientific theory, is data that fits the proposed model. That spurs biologists who accept evolution to research and find that evidence.
LOL. This shows the depth of your bias. I suppose that you also know it to be a proven fact that anyone that subscribes to creation has bent over and stuck the top of their body into the sand up to the neck. This is just the same old, hey you aren't subscribing to the party line in science, so you will be rediculed and balck balled, sad. ARE you scared of the free arena of ideas, do you wan't the same control over thought that the greatest athiestic empire on earth had? There is a mechanism in man that makes him seek truth, that evolution doesn't understand, men seek knowledge reguardless of their theoretical beleifs.

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 6:06 pm
by Jbuza
tootin wrote:. To employ science to try to prove God's existence is as foolish as trying to use it to disprove it. The same goes for trying to prove or disprove it it by pure logical reasoning also.
No, no it's not. To believe anything without testing it through these processes is foolish. You don't think, "hey look at the fool he is trying to discover wether his beliefs predict and explain observations, look that fool is trying to see if his thoughts and beliefs are reasonable and logical". This is junk, don't believe this. Test everything.

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:31 pm
by Kurieuo
tootin wrote:sandy_mcd - you are vindicated. Cardinal Schonborn has recanted; he now says that one may assume design but not on scientific grounds. In other words ID is not science.
A senior Roman Catholic cardinal seen as a champion of intelligent design against Darwin's explanation of life has described the theory of evolution as “one of the very great works of intellectual history.”
Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said he could believe both in divine creation and in evolution because one was a question of religion and the other of science, two realms that complemented rather than contradicted each other.

"It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question,” said the cardinal.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9589656/
I don't see that he recanted, but only clarified. He would still dismess neo-Darwinian evolution which allows for no divine intervention, as the Cardinal smuggles into his more "politically correct" reponse: "I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition — that the limits of a scientific theory are respected." (emphasis mine) He is still saying the same thing, only more tactfully. :lol:

As for ID, a champion of the movement? I never knew ;) One may also buy into the lie that ID is a disguised form of Christian Creationism, but those who understand know it is nothing of the sort even if it can be used by creationists of their own religious purposes.

Kurieuo

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:59 pm
by tootin
The point about the scientific theory of evolution is that it provides a cogent possible natural explanation for the existence of many different species. It is the fact that the explanation involves natural causes and not God that makes it a scientific theory. The theory that it was God who was responsible is not a scientific one — as Cardinal Schonborn now says. Let us explicitly say what “design” means in this debate — it means GOD.

In his New York Times op-ed he said:
“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…

…faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.”
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... Times.html

At that time any theory suggesting that there was a natural explanation (i.e. not requiring a purposeful designer or GOD) was ideology not science — there was overwhelming scientific evidence for design and purpose, or GOD.

Compare that with this:
Science studies what is observable, and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal,

“It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question.”
Science studies what is observable, so scientists who infer the non-existence of an unobservable overstep the mark. On this he is absolutely correct — although it would have been gracious of him to have made it clear that scientists err on both sides of this question.

The Cardinal is wrong when he says that science shuts out the question of design. What the theory of evolution does is to clearly show how it might be possible that the appearance of design could be an illusion. It does not shut out the question; it opens up the possibility of a scientific answer as well as a religious one.

If it is fully reasonable to assume design for non-scientific reasons, let us say for religious reasons, then it must be equally reasonable to assume there is no design, let us say because someone does not see how the idea really helps to explain anything.

We may assume that the Cardinal has recanted in the way that Galileo did: through gritted teeth, muttering sotto voce his true belief all the while.
The Church has clearly stepped back from the brink. It was flirting with fire in identifying itself with the ID movement. Science will out and so will its denial. ID is not only the new Scopes trial, it is the new Galileo. Once bitten twice shy for the RC Church, now watch ID go up in smoke!

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:04 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
tootin wrote:The point about the scientific theory of evolution is that it provides a cogent possible natural explanation for the existence of many different species. It is the fact that the explanation involves natural causes and not God that makes it a scientific theory. The theory that it was God who was responsible is not a scientific one — as Cardinal Schonborn now says. Let us explicitly say what “design” means in this debate — it means GOD.

In his New York Times op-ed he said:
“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…

…faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.”
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... Times.html

At that time any theory suggesting that there was a natural explanation (i.e. not requiring a purposeful designer or GOD) was ideology not science — there was overwhelming scientific evidence for design and purpose, or GOD.

Compare that with this:
Science studies what is observable, and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal,

“It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question.”
Science studies what is observable, so scientists who infer the non-existence of an unobservable overstep the mark. On this he is absolutely correct — although it would have been gracious of him to have made it clear that scientists err on both sides of this question.
The Cardinal is 100% correct.

Science does not assume no designer. Certain scientists do. The science of evolution does not lean either way. The theory does not prove athiests right in any way.
As I was trying to show in the probability thread, randomness and probability is a function of our limitations. It is fully possible, altho not scientific, that there is an intelligent designer.

This is a philosophical debate.

Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:43 pm
by Kurieuo
tootin wrote:The theory that it was God who was responsible is not a scientific one — as Cardinal Schonborn now says. Let us explicitly say what “design” means in this debate — it means GOD.
So you would believe then that we can't determine whether an object is designed without knowing its designer is?
tootin wrote:In his New York Times op-ed he said:
“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…

…faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.”
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... Times.html

...

Compare that with this:
Science studies what is observable, and scientists overstep the boundaries of their discipline when they conclude evolution proves there was no creator, said the cardinal,

“It is fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question.”
I may be missing it, but I still don't see how the cardinal recanted. Reframed his words perhaps, but certainly not recanted?
tootin wrote:Science studies what is observable, so scientists who infer the non-existence of an unobservable overstep the mark.
That does not follow. I agree science studies what is observable. But your conclusion is unsound for it does not follow your premise. Science studying what is observable does not mean one can't assume a non-observable conclusion. If this were so, then bye-bye evolutionary theory, bye-bye multi-universe theory, in addition to bye-bye any design theory.
tootin wrote:If it is fully reasonable to assume design for non-scientific reasons, let us say for religious reasons, then it must be equally reasonable to assume there is no design, let us say because someone does not see how the idea really helps to explain anything.
tootin wrote:We may assume that the Cardinal has recanted in the way that Galileo did: through gritted teeth, muttering sotto voce his true belief all the while.
The Church has clearly stepped back from the brink. It was flirting with fire in identifying itself with the ID movement. Science will out and so will its denial. ID is not only the new Scopes trial, it is the new Galileo. Once bitten twice shy for the RC Church, now watch ID go up in smoke!
Within these words there appear to be some rather arrogant statements. Still, I fail to see where the cardinal recanted but that he only restated and so clearly your "recanted" statement is over-exagerative. Secondly, I never knew that ID depended upon the Catholic church for survival&#151;was it founded upon the Catholic church? No, ID stands on its own footing and thus will live or die upon its own foundation. Time will tell, but many even on the anti-ID side (e.g., Michael Ruse [wmv audio file]) predict ID will eventually dominate perhaps even in as little time at 10 years time. ;)

Kurieuo

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:50 pm
by tootin
Popes are only human and have their posterity to consider. Would any pope choose to place themselves alongside Urban VIII in the history books? One would imagine not. Galileo was invited by his erstwhile friend to inspect the instruments of torture to help him in his deliberations as to whether or not he believed the earth to orbit the sun. The experience showed him the subtle error involved in his scientific understanding.
It is intriguing to ponder on what the preferred methods of encouragement are today for bringing the awkward squad into line.
One of the beauties of science — free and honest enquiry into the workings of nature — is that one does not have to accept anything on the basis of mere authority. True, there are textbooks and professors and doctors and so on, but they do not constitute the authority of science. That authority derives from oneself — each one of us has full authority to perform experiments ourselves, assess evidence ourselves, and to think and form judgements for ourselves. The paradigm of democracy where all are equal, science functions as an enormous self-correcting knowledge factory.
One scientist produces some research which sparks an idea in another. To proceed it is first necessary to check the results of the original research. That check may confirm the research or it may not; if all goes well the path is clear to build further. Brick by brick, by hard work, sweat and toil we learn more about the universe and ourselves. In this way all scientific work is continuously being exposed to scrutiny and criticism by peers. To survive over time a scientific principle has to be very durable; over time any flaws will be flushed out of the system.
Over 150 years Darwin's theory has not merely survived it has flourished; not merely has it flourished, it has become one of the cornerstones of modern science. It has passed all tests and every question thrown at it with flying colours and then some.
In order to survive a new idea in science has to produce demonstrable results. It must explain known facts in a better way than before (with greater clarity or precision or simplicity); or it must be able to answer questions which were previously inexplicable mysteries or at least very poorly understood; or it must be able to make new testable predictions which could help to solve other problems or simply reveal new parts of nature to our gaze. Above all it must explain nature in terms of nature. If it does none of these things then it will disappear from scientific sight; if it does any of them, it will become established within the body of science.
In science after talking the talk you have to walk the walk — put up or shut up. ID is all talk and no walk. ID explains nothing, solves nothing and predicts nothing. The moment that it starts doing so is the moment that science will take it seriously. It has to earn the right to be taken seriously by getting on and doing the hard graft and coming up with some results to show for it. To date, results: nil, nada, nothing, zero, null, nihilo, 0.00 recurring. Books and TV and radio and press publicity do not add up to a hill of scientific beans. They add 0 to the sum total of scientific knowledge; they qualify as talk, or rather waffle, about pseudo-science. You do not do science by waffling about it; you do it by doing it.
No surprise, because ID is not science it is religion. Oh, and it is also ideology.
Science has no manifesto or written constitution or ideological ambition. ID has “The Wedge”. This manifesto says it all in black and white: the purpose of ID is to take us back to a pre-Darwinian utopia where to look upon nature was to see ID=God everywhere and all was good, yea, even very heaven upon earth. Surely, sayeth the Wedge, this blessed time shall come upon us again when science is done as it ought to be done: filtered by the Committee for Religio-Scientific Censorship for the removal of any non-theistic sounding evil, which might be interpreted by some as indicating that there is no God. Halellujah.

Which brings us back to Cardinal Schonborn; he it was, who, with the help of some friends at the Discovery Institute for Ideological Dissemination, called Darwinian evolution an ideological assault upon reason and science (truly he did, don't laugh), but now he says:

““Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history.”

Whew! Suddenly he's got it at last. Welcome aboard Cardinal. Nice little eulogy that, from the man who said, of the late Pope John Paul's endorsement of evolution as “more that a hypothesis”, that it was “vague and unimportant”. Apparently he now feels that John Paul didn't go far enough in his personal commendation of Darwin!

“I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition — that the limits of a scientific theory are respected.”

Amazing grace, he's definitely got it! There are no problems whatsoever in believing in scientific (Darwinian) evolution and God. It's easy to do of course if you believe in God; you just say that is evolution is the way God chose to make you and me. His op-ed piece was a scathing response to another a few weeks prior to it by Lawrence Krauss saying that was exactly the RC Church position. Krauss expresses himself far better that I can and his op-ed is worth reading.
http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/17comm2.html

After the Cardinal's NYT piece, Krauss, together with Kenneth Miller and Francisco Ayala, wrote an open letter to the new Pope asking for clarification.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... etter.html

Schonborn's recantation would appear to be that clarification. Krauss had it completely correct. Schonborn had it completely wrong. Schonborn was indulging in the same kind of ideology (in this case ID ideology) that he was accusing Darwinian science of.

I do not understand what the point of your following question is, or what relevance it has to what I wrote:

“So you would believe then that we can't determine whether an object is designed without knowing [who?] its designer is?”

I believe what Cardinal Schonborn is now saying that he believes: we cannot determine scientifically whether or not God exists. (Let us always remember that design = GOD here). Not least because there is no scientific definition of what the word God means.

Schonborn has recanted. That is not to say that he does not still believe in design or that evolution is guided by God. He has not recanted his religious faith. No, he has recanted his assertions that it is a flagrant denial of the scientific evidence to argue against those articles of faith. He has recanted his assertions that reason and the scientific evidence can reach only one conclusion: ID=GOD.

In his NYT op-ed he said that any conclusion other than the existence of ID=GOD is contrary to reason, because of the overwhelming scientific evidence to demonstrate it. Any other view is not science but ideology.
Now he says that science must remain dumb on the question.
What has happened to all that overwhelming evidence? What has happened to the unarguable scientific certainty of ID=GOD, such that only a perverse ideology antithetical to reason could deny it?
Reason may still infer (assume) design=GOD he says. This cannot be scientific reason he is talking about if science is not allowed to speak on the matter. What sort of reason is it?

An inference may or may not be true. In science all inferences are worthless unless they can be given empirical support. Something physically concrete must be seen to lend credence to those inferences. Otherwise you merely have conjecture.
That is why a scientific inference has to be observable in some way. If it cannot be observed directly then it must produce effects which can be observed; and in such a way that anyone may repeat those same observations. Strict conditions must apply to prevent subjective ambiguities from distorting the evidence.
Something which is without physical properties of any kind whatsoever, and which does not interact with the physical world in any measurable way is unobservable. It is something which is completely hidden from science. Science cannot infer anything about such things, assuming that they exist.
Examples are: God, the Devil, angels, ghosts, the soul, the mind (conceived as something distinct from the brain), astrological signs, chakras, auras, ley lines, acupuncture meridians; the list is a very long one.
I am not competent to judge the scientific status of the multiverse hypothesis. It does not seem to me, however, to have either the kind of indirect physical evidence to support its assumption, that, for example, the neutrino had when it was hypothesized by Pauli in 1930; or the degree of rigour of theoretical support which followed in 1934 by Fermi's paper on the weak nuclear force. A ghostly particle is one thing, but an infinity of ghostly universes sounds a little too spooky to be true; too much missing material evidence. I would tend to favour putting it into the unobservable list, but I shall have to leave it hanging wherever it is, or isn't, because the truth is that I am ignorant about the subject.
The theory of evolution, of course, is not unobservable; it has a superabundance of physical evidence to support it.

Incidentally, the Pope commands the assent of one billion human beings. If ID does not have his support that is one sixth of the world's population lost to the cause. I was never suggesting that ID depended on the Catholic Church for survival. My point was that the Church had learned its lesson from the Galileo debacle, but ID is showing the same scientifically ignorant temerity as that which brought humiliation upon the Church. ID is as wrong about denying science on evolution as the Church was about the solar system. There can be only one end to such wilful stupidity.

(I invariably find that ad hominem attacks indicate weakness of argument).