Some people might read Cardinal McCarrick's statement yesterday[1] as backtracking from that of Cardinal Schönbornâs.[2] I do not think it is however. Those who support evolution like to keep the term very vague, they like to use it to refer to everything from a God-guided process to a fully random and unguided one. They keep it vague this way intentionally. In part because they simply do not know how it happened, but also in part (more so in the minds of some scientists than in others naturally) because they know that only by keeping it vague can they covertly push the atheistic vision they regard as the only acceptable version. Only if they claim there is no conflict will they continue to be allowed to push evolution, and only evolution, in our schools, and to use the schools to attempt to indoctrinate the next generation. They know we remain a country with very real Christian instincts even if our practice has fallen off and even if the theology of far too many is Protestant at best and utterly chaotic at worst. Still, most would, if the polls can be believed, reject a fully random fully unguided theory of evolution. And scientists know that.
But Cardinal McCarrick also knows that evolution can mean a range of things, and he, unlike the scientists who claim authority, specified that he was referring to those versions of the theory that allow for a Creator. In essence, Cardinal McCarrick responded to one side of evolution, while Cardinal Schönborn responded to the other. Their statements do not conflict because they do not address the same theory of evolution.
[1] Catholic News Agency. "Cardinal McCarrick says
'evolution is fine--as long as there is room for a Creator'" 2005-07-13
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=4373
[2] Schierer,
Luke. "Appealing to Rome on evolution" Random Unfinished Thoughts
2005-07-13
http://www.schierer.org/luke/log/20050713-0947/apealing-to-rome-on-evolution