What the Cardinal seems to miss --

[rogerashton]

is that evolution is not only a theory, but also a successful worldview that contributes to new theories in areas other than biology. For example, in my own field, "evolutionary" interpretations of economic competition and of noncooperative outcomes in game theory seem more successful, on the whole, than the traditional lines of argument in these fields. (The evolutionary interpretation of economic competition is a favorite among free-marketeers, by the way. It provides a nice alternative to the kind of intelligent design proposed by advocates of economic planning.) In the psychological study of creativity, interestingly, one of the more successful approaches sees creativity as an outcome of an evolutionary process -- perhaps survival of the fittest neural engrams.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-20T111756Z_01_KWA040635_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-EVOLUTION-CARDINAL.xml&archived=False

It is interesting that the cardinal claims the church is defending reason against science. Can there be a contradiction between reason and science? In theory? In practice? As something of a Platonist, I think there could be, to the extent that reason provides the context within which empirical evidence has to be assessed, while science (often in practice anyway) seems to hold that the evidence speaks for itself.

However, the cardinal does seem a bit confused. He doesn't seem to be able to make up his mind whether intelligent design is or is not an alternative to evolutiion.

And by the way, he seems to treat Darwin as the object of a cult Who cares whether anybody offends Darwin's dignity? It is the system of ideas that is at issue, not anybody's dignity. Nobody worships Darwin!