It is deeply disappointing to read that Cardinal Schoenborn accepts the idea of independent magisteria.^[1] Such a view accepts that science and theology can at times be at odds, and yet somehow both can be “right,” by accepting that science can be functionally materialistic, and provide only materialistic/naturalistic explanations. I believe such a view is disordered, because only one of the two explanations can be True for any given topic. What we seek with science is not the best materialistic explanation for a given phenomena, but the most useful model for it. Note well the change from “best” to “most useful.” A model which ascribes everything to direct Divine intervention may be most True, but is not particularly useful as it allows for no prediction and no manipulation. It provides no means for the will to be exercised intelligently. Alternatively, the materialistic explanation will often be the most useful, providing as it does solid equations, but will fail in the face of the exceptional. I would argue, as does the Intelligent Design movement, that life itself is one such exception, that the materialistic explanation simply fails and that no other explanation except design (and thus Divine intervention) is even adequate. On the other hand, I find gravity a more useful explanation than the idea that angels push the planets, though the later may be more True (we cannot know).

The limits of scientific inquiry and of a scientific theory are indeed a crucial element to the co-existence of science and theology, the good Cardinal and I agree on that. Science has as its goal the “saving of the facts,”^[2] and can in only very few circumstances legitimately claim to know what is True, if at all.

1. Catholic News Agency. “Series of conferences by Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn titled ‘Creation and Evolution’” Catholic News Agency (online) 2005-10-05. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=5061
2. Mr. Wade Rowland. Galileo’s Mistake : A New Look At the Epic Confrontation Between Galileo and the Church Arcade Publishing 2003-07-16. ISBN: 1559706848

The Institute for Creation Research presents an article talking about design in the human eye today.^[1] Not an incredibly technical article (at least by the standards set in Darwin’s Black Box), yet a good read.

1. Various Authors. “Is the Backwards Human Retina Evidence of Poor Design?” Institute for Creation Research 2005-10-05. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2476

The Seattle Times provides some hope that with the nomination of Ms. Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, all might not yet be lost.^[1] Such support is necessary as President Bush continues to disappoint conservatives.

1. Seattle Times news services. “Miers’ friends say church is evidence of her viewpoints” The Seattle Times (online) 2005-10-05. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002540461_scotus05.html

The National Catholic Register has picked up on a story that even the ARN blog has pretty much dropped.^[1] The treatment of Dr. Richard Sternberg by the Smithsonian Institute is truly revealing, it more clearly shows how much the Intelligent Design debate is a conflict of philosophies rather than of science than any other recent event has done so. It is, as the article states, particularly interesting because Dr. Sternberg’s crime was not believing Intelligent Design, but failing to exclude it. So desperate are they to enforce their philosophy, that they will ruin anyone, even one of their own, if the wall preventing the Intelligent Design community from publishing in mainstream scientific journals is breached.

1. Mr. Benjamin Wiker. “Faith, Science and the Persecution of Richard Sternberg” National Catholic Register (online) 2005-10-02. http://www.ncregister.com/articulo2.php?artkod=OTA=