The Language of Science Is Not the Language of Theology
Via the Ignatius Insight blog (and see more discussion of this at Open Book) ... Cardinal Schoenborn said recently : "I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution..." This may seem to some like a clarification, but I recall thinking when I read the cardinal's New York Times op ed piece over the summer, the one which caused many people to think the Church had rejected evolution, that all the cardinal was really saying was that he rejected a version of evolution that claimed to be able to discern metaphysics as well as biology. The cardinal was attempting to reject a theory of evolution put forth by some that claims it can prove God has no role in creating the universe. Richard Dawkins, for one, in The Improbability of God, implicitly makes such a claim.
All of which has been hashed out, in more depth, elsewhere.
What I really wanted to toss out here was a piece in this month's First Things that I thought added a really interesting perspective on, and perhaps clarity to, the language we use to talk about this issue:
Critiquing Cardinal Schoenborn's NY Times article, Stephen Barr writes that the "central misstep of Cardinal Schoenborn's article" is that "he has slipped into the definition of a scientific theory, Neo-Darwinism, the words 'unplanned' and 'unguided,' which are fraught with theological meaning." Barr goes on to point out that the cardinal, while referencing some lines from the document Communion and Stewardship, neglects key passages in which it "explicitly warns that the word 'random' as used by biologists chemists, physicians and mathematicians in their technical work does not have the same meaning as the words 'unguided' and 'unplanned' as used in doctrinal statements of the Church." Barr later uses a literary example to illustrate his point (about the word 'random' versus 'unplanned', I think, not as analogy for evolution…): "Prose, unlike a sonnet, has lines with final syllables that do not rhyme. The sequence of those syllables will therefore exhibit randomness. But this does not mean a prose work is 'unguided' or 'unplanned.'" The article, from this month's edition, will be posted on the Web site at the end of the month and is an interesting read.
In the end, the article also illustrates an important concept: it's hard to have a productive discussion, debate or argument when not all the parties have agreed on how to define the terms.
All of which has been hashed out, in more depth, elsewhere.
What I really wanted to toss out here was a piece in this month's First Things that I thought added a really interesting perspective on, and perhaps clarity to, the language we use to talk about this issue:
Critiquing Cardinal Schoenborn's NY Times article, Stephen Barr writes that the "central misstep of Cardinal Schoenborn's article" is that "he has slipped into the definition of a scientific theory, Neo-Darwinism, the words 'unplanned' and 'unguided,' which are fraught with theological meaning." Barr goes on to point out that the cardinal, while referencing some lines from the document Communion and Stewardship, neglects key passages in which it "explicitly warns that the word 'random' as used by biologists chemists, physicians and mathematicians in their technical work does not have the same meaning as the words 'unguided' and 'unplanned' as used in doctrinal statements of the Church." Barr later uses a literary example to illustrate his point (about the word 'random' versus 'unplanned', I think, not as analogy for evolution…): "Prose, unlike a sonnet, has lines with final syllables that do not rhyme. The sequence of those syllables will therefore exhibit randomness. But this does not mean a prose work is 'unguided' or 'unplanned.'" The article, from this month's edition, will be posted on the Web site at the end of the month and is an interesting read.
In the end, the article also illustrates an important concept: it's hard to have a productive discussion, debate or argument when not all the parties have agreed on how to define the terms.
posted by Ernesto at 6:54 AM
1 Comments:
Words will always mean different things to different people, but I think that the average chemist or biologist does not use the word "random" to mean "unguided" or "unplanned" simply because the baseline assumption of pure science is that there is no guide nor planner. If you were to ask them if their concept of randomness allowed for a plan or planner they would find plenty of words to make it clear it does not. The syllables of an unrhymed sonnet would appear random only to one who could not read. I think a similar blindness affects those who do not see the apparent intelligence and meaning that embues the natural world.
Post a Comment
<< Home