Good, good, keep going... :-)

Breakpoint had an interesting commentary on the 12th about a Cardinal's clarification of the Catholic position on evolution.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna... was chosen by John Paul II to be lead editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. He is also close to the current pope, Benedict XVI.

In early April, Schönborn spoke with then-Cardinal Ratzinger and told him that he "would like to have a more explicit statement" about the Church's position on evolution. Ratzinger encouraged Schönborn "to go on," and the result was a piece that appeared July 7 in the New York Times.

From the start, Schönborn rejects the idea that the "neo-Darwinian dogma"—of "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection"—is "somehow compatible with Christian faith." While the Church leaves to "science many details about the history of life on earth," it also "proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world … "

He characterized attempts to deny or "explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology" as "ideology, not science" and "an abdication of human intelligence."

Schönborn's piece quickly provoked a reaction. "Leading Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution" was the New York Times headline a few days later. The headline should have read: "Catholics Mean It When They Recite the Nicene Creed on Sunday."

After all, the Cardinal simply said that a Christian cannot consistently believe in God, the Creator of "all that is, seen and unseen," while also believing that life is the result of "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."

Note that I said "Christian" and not just "Catholic." The incompatibility Schönborn described is just as true for Protestants as Catholics.

Would that all who believe in the Creator thought so. As you can tell, Breakpoint approves of the move; I found Schonborn's own article, and wasn't quite so excited. It's fine as far as it goes, and was certainly good enough to make various bloggers throw fits and start referring to Copernicus, but...why leave open the possibility of theistic evolution at all?