Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms
Page 40
I included this original translation, but I was profoundly puzzled. Why should the Pope be speaking of several hypotheses within the framework of evolutionary theory? But I had no means to resolve my confusion, so I assumed that the Pope had probably fallen under the false impression (a fairly common misconception) that, although evolution had been documented beyond reasonable doubt, natural selection had fallen under suspicion as a primary mechanism, while other alternatives had risen to prominence.
Other theologians and scientists were equally puzzled, leading to inquiries and a resolution of the problem as an error in translation (as many of us would have realized right away if we had seen the original French, or even known that the document had been issued in French). The problem lies with ambiguity in double meaning for the indefinite article in French—where un (feminine une) can mean either “a” or “one.” Clearly, the Pope had meant that the theory of evolution had now become strong enough to rank as “more than a hypothesis” (plus qu’une hypothèse), but the Vatican originally read une as “one” and gave the almost opposite rendition: “more than one hypothesis.” Caveat emptor.
I thank about a dozen correspondents for pointing out this error, and the Vatican’s acknowledgment, to me. I am especially grateful to Boyce Rensberger, one of America’s most astute journalists on evolutionary subjects, and David M. Byers, executive director of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Science and Human Values. Byers affirms the NOMA principle by writing to me: “Thank you for your recent article . . . It admirably captures the relationship between science and religion that the Catholic Bishops’ Committee works to promote and to realize. The text of the October 1996 papal statement from which you were working contains a mistranslation of a key phrase; the correct translation supports your thesis with even greater force.”