The op-ed was written in part as a response to an article authored by John Paul II in which the late Pontiff discussed his view on evolutionary biology. In summation, JP II stated that accepting evolution and common descent is acceptable for Catholics. He did not as I've seen some over enthusiastic science buffs state that evolutionary biology and common descent was the official position of the RCC; only that there was no conflict as far as the Roman Catholic Church was concerned between being a good Catholic and accepting the cornerstone of modern biology, provided they credited God with the process and accepted that at some point God installed a soul into humans.

Let's dive right into the Cardinal's editorial:

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.

The term Darwinism is a dead giveaway you're dealing with someone who either doesn't know the score, or doesn't know they don't know the score. Usually it's a sign the Discovery Institute's 'stand-up' philosopher division had a hand or influence in the writing. And it's a rather pointless argument, not part of the scientific assembly as it does not rest on empirical evidence and testable inference. It's an entertaining topic if you enjoy metaphysics and philosophy and is thus the subject of many a layman's essay and speculation.

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.

This may, with the emphasis on 'may', be the first example of misinformation.  JP II embraced a view called Theistic Evolution which adheres to the idea that natural processes were created by God and either front loaded or tweaked by that Supreme Being so as to unfold towards His desired predetermined end. The Pope did not sign off on Atheism ... Good grief would anyone expect him to?

Schönborn refers to both Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design as if they're one and the same. Technically, Theistic Evolution is a form of Intelligent Design Creationism as it presupposes a Creator entity which produced and/or managed the series of events in our universe from the beginning to the present. Intelligent Design, the movement, includes Young Earth Creationism, Islamic Creationism, Hindu Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, etc., and operates as an umbrella PR and lobbying organization for all those viewpoints.

But in terms of effect on readers, Intelligent Design or Design in general is known here in the States specifically for its rejection of evolution and common descent thus creating a possible exemplar of double speak on the part of the good Cleric from Vienna.

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.

I've read a number of biology textbooks and many peer reviewed papers in evolutionary biology, I've yet to read a one of them that even mentions a guided or unguided aspect of evolution, much less argues for one over the other. This is simply nonsense, again trying to equate evolutionary biology with Atheism.

There are popular books written for the interested layperson by scientists who argue that evolution is undirected and random, just as there are popular books written by scientists who argue the converse. For the former see Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins, for the latter I recommend Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.

He (John Paul) 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."

Here the writer begans to tell us what John Paul II really meant. Which was that both theistic evolution and the derivative from it, common descent, are in bounds for Catholics to accept as long as they attribute the processes to the Christian/Catholic Deity. No surprise there, but the subsequent material attempts to again link evolutionary biology with Atheism.  This theme is so pervasive throughout the entire op-ed one has to wonder if the commingling of evolutionary biology with Atheism is not wholly intentional on the part of the author.

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.

This particular 'evolutionist' and those he knows has no idea how the New Pope feels about evolutionary biology and doesn't really care that much anyway. With the minor niggle that the last time the RCC rejected modern science it turned into a Public Relations nightmare and retarded the progress of science at the expense of the entire Western World. A PR move from which they're still recovering. I personally also harbor an empathetic concern that doing so again will have similar results: Crippling devout Catholics intellectually or alienating many of them by throwing in with the antiscience forces of the right-wing fundamentalist Christians and the antiscience forces now rampant in the Islamic Cultures of the middle east

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.

There is no overwhelming evidence of design. The universe is consistent with both design and no Design which goes to show how little we know about this topic. If such evidence existed either way I would know about it and so would the entire scientific community. There are claims for the overwhelming evidence for design, none of which have ever been stated in a testable hypothesis and/or appeared in peer reviewed science journals and ultimately held up over time.

Using the example Schönborn himself brings up, the multiverse hypothesis was not invented to 'get around' the overwhelming evidence of design. And I can't imagine why the proponents of Cosmological Fine Tuning would accept it as an explanation which delegates Design to the scrapheap even if we could zap in and out of parallel universe with an entourage of big breasted young women like in a cheap sci-fi series. The Fine Tuners would simply shift to the same Plan B they've already employed countless times: they'd use the rarity of a universe which allows our type of life to exist within it as evidence for fine tuning just as they use the rarity of terrestrial planets or the rarity of solar system like ours! IOW its, surprise surprise, another unfalsifiable claim and that it comes from the same kind of reasoning, tradition, and arrogance that brought us the Inquisition doesn't exactly bode well in my mind. It suggests to me that some elements of the RCC appear determined at times to repeat that stunning PR blunder again at the expense of their adherents; and anyone else they can influence or control.

Folks, evolution is not an ideology and the evidence for evolution and common descent is so powerful that it wouldn't matter as far as the validity of both if it was. If one feels that any aspect of modern science conflicts with their personal faith they can either reject or ignore that field of study, or they adjust their theology. It's really that simple.

Some people choose the blinders option. And there are a whole slew of people who prey on these devout individuals who will lie, convincingly, charmingly, under the mantle of Christianity to their fellow believers. If one wishes to remain ignorant as a choice that's fine, but it's not OK to try and foist that ignorance on the entire population disguised as the scientific standard of knowledge.

Incidentally, If you want to debate those shysters you have to be prepared if you're going to take them on in both scientific material and tactical approach.

In short, this author appears to making the case that John Paul II did not advocate an unguided, unplanned, universe devoid of any God. I agree and anyone in their right mind wouldn't find that shocking. If that's all he is attempting to convey I'm fine with his missive.

Why might a Cardinal feel compelled to write an op-ed in a large newspaper explaining that the Pope did not endorse atheism under any pretext? At first glance it seems a needless argument to make; no one would argue the Pope was an atheist right?

Oh contrairi, there have been and continue to be be some small bands of fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims who vocally dislike the Pope and Catholicism, compete with the RCC for new members, and are therefore motivated to claim the Pope was an atheist or the anti-Christ or whatnot. Might they not lie and distort his evo position to advance that idea? I think some of them probably would and have been doing exactly that.

But it is written in a format using terms and arguments that those of us in the EvC debate recognize intimately; Evolution is atheism, materialism is evolution is Darwinism is atheism, evolution is an ideology which rejects God and evolutionary biologists are ideologues who are atheists and reject God, etc. This suspicion is nurtured by the fact that a number of Intelligent Design Creationism proponents have picked this op-ed up and are using it to further their own anti-science agenda along with their lucrative ventures in selling pseudoscientific books, materials, and related trinkets.

And my sneaking suspicion is shared by a number of others including real, live, evolutionary biologists who are familiar with the Discovery Institute's MO.