Catholic Scientism?
Fr. Coyne, the Director of the Vatican Observatory, has weighed in on the so-called Evolution/Intelligent Design debate. Fr. Coyne has his PhD in astronomy, as well as a License in philosophy and theology. He really should be qualified to at least understand the debate, if not contribute to it. Alas, at least as Catholic On-line quotes him, neither appears to be the case.
He assails Cardinal Schönborn’s July 2005 NYT article for condemning neo-Darwinism and supporting ID. He lists five errors of the Cardinal’s, which highlight problems in his own thinking:
One, the scientific theory of evolution, as all scientific theories, is completely neutral with respect to religious thinking; two, the message of John Paul II, which I have just referred to and which is dismissed by the cardinal as ‘rather vague and unimportant,’ is a fundamental church teaching which significantly advances the evolution debate; three, neo-Darwinian evolution is not in the words of the cardinal, ‘an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection;’ four, the apparent directionality seen by science in the evolutionary process does not require a designer; five, Intelligent Design is not science despite the cardinal’s statement that ‘neo-Darwinism and the multi-verse hypothesis in cosmology [were] invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science…
For his first issue, Fr. Coyne’s problem is one of factual error. The Cardinal defines the term neo-Darwinism, as his FT article clarifies, as what one might call crypto-philosophy. O.k. so this may not have been clear in the NYT article but surely he should have taken the FT article into account before his public criticism.
His second error, a rather preposterous one, is to suggest that JP the Great’s address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 in which JPTG said that “evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis†is “a fundamental church teaching.†First, let us give him, for the sake of argument, that JPTG meant what Coyne assumes he did (which is far from apparent). His assertion that this is fundamental Church teaching reveals a fundamental ignorance of fundamental theology, resulting in a claim that is nothing less than fundamental-ism. The problems: JPTG’s statement was a single assertion in the form of an allocution (together these hardly carry the weight of a fundamental teaching) and did not address faith or morals (which are the only things the Church teaches anything about), but an appraisal of the state of a scientific theory, there is absolutely no grounds for such a ridiculous assertion. Some how I do not think Fr. Coyne would have made this error had JPTG said the opposite.
His third issue has been labored over here and other places so I will pass on it.
His fourth issue is exactly the “neo-Darwinist” thinking that Cardinal Schönborn was speaking against. Here Coyne makes a negative metaphysical assertion when, apparently, he seems to be limiting himself to modern science. In other words, he is ruling out formal causality (the design) based upon a method which limits itself to material and efficient causes (modern science). I suspect that this is due to the fact he mistakes God’s work in creation as either being the only source of efficient causality or no participation at all. I suspect this is the case because later he says:
God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,†he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.
Based upon other times I have heard Coyne speak, it appears to me that his statement of continuing creation where God does not intervene, supposes some sort of deist or process theology when he talks about God. His false dichotomy that God would have to intervene or let evolution take a natural course seems to reflect ignorance for formal and final causality as well as God as the Primary Efficient Cause working through secondary causes.
His last issue seems to make the same mistake so many others make. Correctly understood, the debate is not or should not be between evolution and Intelligent Design as explanations of the origins of man. Those scientists and philosophers who support ID do not intend this. Rather it is the demarcation debate as to what is to be considered modern science (i.e. a method limiting itself to study of natural efficient and material causes). That is something that the Cardinal said he was not entering, nor should he it is an issue in the discipline of the philosophy of science, and so not his competence. It appears that it is not a debate that Fr. Coyne is competent to enter either.
In the end, I fear that Fr. Coyne seems to fall into a sort of scientism; presupposing that only modern science is competent to speak as to the existence of design in nature. While he may make many scientists happy with his sloppy conflation of modern science and philosophy to arrive at the politically correct answer, he does the same for himself as he accuses Cardinal Schönborn of doing with the Church and modern science: that of “instigating a ‘tragic’ episode ‘in the relationship’” of himself with clear thought.
ID_Series
.jpg)
As always, I enjoyed reading your insightful commentary on the issue.
Comment by Schonborn Site — January 31, 2006 @ 10:13 PM
God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world which reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity,†he said. “God lets the world be what it will be in its continuous evolution. He does not intervene, but rather allows, participates, loves.
This description of the relationship between God and cosmos just makes my mouth drop and hang open in incredulity. And then I say to myself, “Oh wait . . . remember, he’s a Jesuit.” Heh. It is process theology/philosophy, absolutely. It’s also just plain unappealing. No thanks. You know, I’m sure that Fr Coyne may disagree with this simplification of things, but my intuition of God as Creator and Father has got to mean something more than, “Oh isn’t it lovely that I get these wonderful human creatures out of all this.” (Am I missing something here?).
Comment by monica — February 1, 2006 @ 9:05 AM
I saw that there was a Coyne article up yesterday (hadn’t read it yet) and immediately thought “Oh dear, we shall be hearing about process theology soon…”
At a minimum, I agree with you that he’s dead wrong on point two. It may be that JP2’s letter stemmed from a fundamentally important understanding of the relationship of faith and science, but there’s no way on earth it could be called a fundamental teaching.
Four is a point that could use some more teasing out, I think. I think he has a point that the physical structures that are often pointed to as evidence for design in the physical sense (as in a constructor) can also be physically accounted for by the evolutionary process (so far as we know at this point) in that the combination of variation and natural selection gives the appearance of construction via trial and error. If that’s all that he means by point four, then I think he’s on solid ground. If he’s trying to make some wider philosophical point, he’s clearly wrong. (Given that he’s a priest, one hopes he’s pushing for the former, which is what I’d tend to assume.)
I’m not sure I necessarily take as negative a view as Monica of the “universe has free will” metaphore, but of course it all depends what is meant by it. Clearly, God is not surprised by anything that occurs in the universe. Nor does anything happen that he does not intend. God is, after all, both all knowing and all powerful — and holds the universe in existence from nanosecond to nanosecond by the active exercise of his will. And yet I think there’s at least a certain metaphorical value to the view that God creates an order that allows things to unfold with a certain freedom. (i.e. Rather than willing that a lion eat a particular gazelle, he created lions, which in turn desire to eat gazelles.)
Comment by DarwinCathollic — February 1, 2006 @ 11:25 AM
Brandon,
On point four, I know what you are saying. It will take me a little bit to articulate my thinking here so I will try to do this as a separate post. However, in a nutshell I think that what someone limiting himself to modern science can say about the existence or non-existence of a design is very limited because of what he means. He limits himself by method to speaking about the identification (by proof or hypothesis) of a secondary efficient cause. However, he is not looking for a design but a designer. Failing to find a designer does not say anything about the existence or non-existence of a design. When he encroaches upon discussion of a formal cause, the design, he has exceeded the competence of the method to which he limits himself. I do not see the Fr. Coyne appreciates these distinctions and most probably transgresses it.
The reason that I think Monica is correct is that his point here and in other venues, about God intervening seems to rule out God as Primary Efficient Cause and the one in whom formal and final causes derive their existence (by participation). If he meant this in the Thomist sense whereby chance and contingency can coexist with Providence, as you infer, there would not be a problem. However, his statement about God’s “non-intervention” together with his statement about God’s infinite freedom and participating in an evolutionary development (what is the difference between participation and intervention?), together, appear to confirm Whiteheadian presuppositions for me.
Nevertheless, you point out some important distinctions as possibilities.
Comment by David — February 1, 2006 @ 3:46 PM
David,
Good points on the difficulty of detecting (or proving the non-existence of) design. Indeed, “design” strikes me as a particularly difficult thing to nail down. It seems to me that the best that anything resembling a scientific methodology can do is address the question of whether something seems to have been constructed via known means and materials.
Very interesting point, though, and probably rather near the heart of the “intelligent design” question — on which people so often talk past each other. I may have to see if I can get a post out of that one as well.
Comment by DarwinCathollic — February 2, 2006 @ 9:35 AM
I think in the contemporary debate about intelligent design, one should not forget the contribution of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Quinquae Viae, especially the Fifth Way. St. Thomas offered cosmological proofs for the existence of God. They are proofs of reason, preambula ad fidem. Hence, there should be no conflict with the truths of reason (philosophy) and the truths of science.In the Fifth Way, St. Thomas affirmed the existence of Intelligence and the teleological tendency of creatures. Hence, it is quite ironic not to acknowledge this philosophical truth. To deny such is to resurrect the old errors of Latin Averroism or to fall into scientific dogmatism which is an offshoot of what Pope Benedict XVI calls the “dictatorship of relativism.”
Comment by Fr. Philip Bersabe — June 9, 2006 @ 11:36 AM