Thursday, July 07, 2005
In Defense of Chance
Found, in today's NYT, a provocative essay entitled "Finding Design in Nature." It's by Christoph Schönborn, "the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, [who] was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church."
What makes it provocative is the attempt (successful or not, you be the judge) to turn the whole evolution-vs.intelligent-design argument inside out, using a sort of philosophical judo:
Notably, though, at one point Archbishop Schönborn recalls the words of the "authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church":
Which is the problem. To paraphrase the Archbishop: Any system of thought that offers unquestionable explanations of biology is ideology, not science. Intelligent-design advocates, creationists, and their ilk are given to pointing out (so they imagine) that if science were truly as questioning as scientists proclaim, then it would make room for their (and I'll use their word for now) theories as well as its own.
The point is that science does allow questions about a theory to be raised by any supplemental or even competing theory -- as long as the challenging theory is itself susceptible to experimentation, reproducibility (especially by experimenters other than the theory's proponents)... and further questions. That's the definition of science and, I'd argue, the definition of human reason as well. If you get to the point (or believe you have) where no further questions are permitted, you've simply decided to stop thinking.
None of which is to deny the Archbishop his soapbox or the faith which underlies it. As any presumed avatar of human reason would surely recognize, I'm simply raising a question currently in lack of an answer.
Update (3:55 pm): The New Republic's online edition today includes a related story, by Ben Adler, "Conservatives and Evolution: Evolutionary War." (Free registration required; link via Ed at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
What makes it provocative is the attempt (successful or not, you be the judge) to turn the whole evolution-vs.intelligent-design argument inside out, using a sort of philosophical judo:
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.In other words, scientific explanations aren't explanations; they're assertions of opinion. (There are other examples of this inversion in the essay. For instance: "Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well.")
Notably, though, at one point Archbishop Schönborn recalls the words of the "authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church":
"Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."It's been a while (like, 30 years) since I had formally to parse an official policy statement for explicit signs of propaganda, but certain signs are there:
- "surely"
- "can be"
- "we believe"
Which is the problem. To paraphrase the Archbishop: Any system of thought that offers unquestionable explanations of biology is ideology, not science. Intelligent-design advocates, creationists, and their ilk are given to pointing out (so they imagine) that if science were truly as questioning as scientists proclaim, then it would make room for their (and I'll use their word for now) theories as well as its own.
The point is that science does allow questions about a theory to be raised by any supplemental or even competing theory -- as long as the challenging theory is itself susceptible to experimentation, reproducibility (especially by experimenters other than the theory's proponents)... and further questions. That's the definition of science and, I'd argue, the definition of human reason as well. If you get to the point (or believe you have) where no further questions are permitted, you've simply decided to stop thinking.
None of which is to deny the Archbishop his soapbox or the faith which underlies it. As any presumed avatar of human reason would surely recognize, I'm simply raising a question currently in lack of an answer.
Update (3:55 pm): The New Republic's online edition today includes a related story, by Ben Adler, "Conservatives and Evolution: Evolutionary War." (Free registration required; link via Ed at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
