When I read journalists writing about matters of faith, I often find myself stuck on words which clearly don’t mean the same thing to me as they mean to them.
Stumbling blocks to clear writing are words like “fundamentalist” which to many journalists seems to mean anyone who takes their faith seriously. “Evangelical” to reporters seems to mean any pro-life Christian.
These, of course, are not the actual meanings of the words.
But nowhere is this vagueness more apparent than when journalists write about the differing viewpoints of creationism, evolution, or intelligent design.
In a profile of a Vatican astronomer appearing in the Walrus Magazine this trouble appears:
Indeed, the Galileo affair may be seen as a historical relic; after all, no one argues about the mechanics of the solar system anymore. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, on the other hand, still faces fierce resistance in some circles, as it has ever since On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago. Even in Canada, a 2008 poll found that only 58 percent of respondents accept evolution, a figure that drops to 37 percent in Alberta. The Vatican has also found itself caught up in the controversy. Pope John Paul II embraced evolution as “more than a hypothesis,” but the current pope, Benedict XVI, has referred to the universe as an “intelligent project,” leaving some people to wonder if he is less committed to science than his predecessor.
Isn’t that creating a distinction where really isn’t one? Does anybody believe that Pope John Paul II didn’t believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence?
The implication is that Pope John Paul II embraced science and evolution and Pope Benedict XVI believes God placed dinosaur bones in the ground as a lark 6,000 years ago when he created the world. But the journalist doesn’t prove any of this. He takes the word “intelligent” and links it to something else entirely.
And then the writer brings out quotes from Jesuit Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno as if he’s refuting the Pope:
Consolmagno has little patience for intelligent design. “Science cannot prove God, or disprove Him. He has to be assumed. If people have no other reason to believe in God than that they can’t imagine how the human eye could have evolved by itself, then their faith is very weak.”
So the writer is essentially creating a feud where none likely exists simply based on vague nomenclature.
Isn’t there a difference between creationism and intelligent design? In fact, I would tend to think that one could believe that the universe was intelligently designed and evolution at the same time.
But I think if journalists are going to continue covering faith issues they should at least have an agreed upon definition of terms.
September 14, 2009 at 7:39 pm
"I would tend to think that one could believe that the universe was intelligently designed and evolution at the same time."
Intelligent design is actually a spectrum of beliefs. It's typically used by the media to refer to those who believe in a "god of the gaps" or, "this isn't explained by science – so God did it" types of beliefs.
It's rarely used the way I think most Christians would use it, "I believe the universe to be intelligently designed, and therefore evolution may be just one of the methods of that design."
September 14, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Well, I mean, clearly God couldn't just set up all the laws of the Universe so that the world came about according to plan! I mean, that would take omnipotence and omniscience or something……..
Wait a sec…..
—
The real problem hear is that journalist seem to conflate the Catholic Church's teachings on Faith, Reason and Science with those of random fundamentalists…because… well, they're all Christian, right? So they all must have the same opinions on EVERYTHING–science, religion, whether George Lucas destroyed Star Wars by making episodes 1-3, you name it…..
September 14, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Deirdre,
I think all faiths can agree that George Lucas destroyed the Star Wars franchise.
September 14, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Well, that's the last time I buy a copy of "Walrus magazine!" Oh, wait…I've never bought an issue of Walrus magazine. Never even heard of it before come to think of it.
Evolution is a FACT; societies evolve, technology evolves, language evolves etc. What is misleading is when someone talks about the blanket concept of "evolution" and thinks it must mean Darwinian evolution regarding origin of species (and there are MANY other schools of thought).
September 14, 2009 at 9:29 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
September 14, 2009 at 9:30 pm
I think journalists would not have such difficulty with these distinctions if they, themselves, were literate in science, mathematics and philosophy. As it is, a typical large sample of journalistic writing exposes broad ranging ignorance of these subjects.
September 14, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Well, is Intelligent Design theory well organized at all? I believe in it, but I assume it to be, "The complexity and beauty of the world is better explained through the hand of a Creator," but I also assume that Original Sin has corrupted the harmony of the world in so much as the lion can no longer lay down next to the lamb. And I base my beliefs mostly on the fact that almost all evolutionary evidence to me seems very neutral to the idea of God one way or the other.
Does anyone know of any blogs or websites that explore this in depth?
September 15, 2009 at 5:21 am
William-
Telic Thoughts has a lot of posts on the various philosophies of ID.
FWIW, I usually see "evolution" used in the "it is 100% random, no touch of God allowed ANYWHERE" format– which, obviously, I can't support; ID is generally not realistically touched on, just conflated with a young-earth creationist straw man.
Me? I don't really much care how God did it– I just know he did it; that said, I really hate when folks try to club me over the head with "no no, it's a fact, a FACT I tell you!!!!" when their evidence/argument won't support it.
September 15, 2009 at 6:26 am
I think the simple Minds of MSM haven't yet worked out that there are two kinds of ID – the metaphysical view that nature is ordered, and a newfangled version of Deism a la Paley. Cardinal Schonborn, Pope Benedict (and I 🙂 ) hold to the first, as obviously did JPII. What everybody is scared about is the second. The MSM of course can be relied upon to create and sustain a fear campaign. Perhaps, to grant them their due, they really do believe the Pope is the bogeyman…
Actually, if only they would realize it, dogmatic Orthodox Catholicism is the best intellectual system there is to sustain the explanatory validity of scientific theories without committing oneself to their finality/truth.
William, original sin cannot be the explanation of the Carnivorism of lions. At least, not if one accepts that some form of evolution is required to explain the fossil record. Because the nature of the explanation precisely is that animals lived and died, and ate each other, a long time before there were any men around.
Of course, Thomas thinks this on other grounds (the fall doesn't change natures), and Augustine says that for animals (unlike humans) death is natural.
September 15, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Clearly, scientism and its expression in the secular humanist version of Darwinian evolution, is not compatible with Catholic teaching. Although Lamarckianism and Ussherian creationism are technically compatible with Catholicism (only because the Church has not seen fit to weigh in on these questions, but has deferred their answers to science), they are most decidedly incompatible with good science.
I think there is a popular misconception, too, regarding the connection between original sin and the evolution of predator species, among other things. There is nothing in the bible that definitively places the Garden of Eden on the surface of the earth. (Indeed, the references to the 4 rivers that flow out of Eden in Genesis 2 clearly contradict known geography.) If the Garden of Eden is not simply a metaphor for an innocent original state of human existence, it is a reference to a place that does not exist in this universe, a universe that knows death and decay (thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics). We simply do not know, in a precise historical sense, what, if anything, the author of Genesis 1-3 intended to convey.
September 16, 2009 at 1:10 am
Thank you for that, Fr. Larry. Clearest and most concise summary I have seen on the issue for a long time.
The issue of what kind of history Genesis is, I find very intriguing. I think Genesis is history, and in some sense at least, Christian tradition has known how to read it as historical, but the advent of modern history, and various efforts at defending Genesis as history which accept the claim of modern history (history a la Acton, if you like, or the Cambridge Modern History) as the only kind of history there is, have clouded the issue. I particularly liked what Pope Benedict did in In the Beginning in clarifying the issue.
September 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Thanks for the tip, Foxfier.
And, just to be a little clear, I didn't mean Original Sin so much as to the Scientific side of things, Kiran, as to the idea that we can now look to nature and see disharmony and corruption in it, like the idea that parasites "couldn't come from God."
Anything that regulates God to "Old guy in the sky" … not a big fan of.