Theologies of Enhancement? Another Look at Oliver O'Donovan's Created Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this response to Gerald McKenny's “Evolution, Biotechnology, and the Normative Significance of Created Order,” John Berkman and Michael Buttrey suggest that McKenny has not adequately substantiated his claim that O'Donovan's account of “created order” provides no objection in principle to genetically “enhancing” children. Berkman and Buttrey frame an alternative reading of O'Donovan in light of O'Donovan's emphasis on “ordered love” as the task of Christian ethics, and his resolutely Trinitarian theology of created order. Contending contra McKenny that created order inheres in human persons and not only human nature abstractly understood, Berkman and Buttrey argue that for O'Donovan an ineliminable aspect of ordered love of God and neighbour is respecting the primordial teleological order of human persons, especially parents' rightly ordered love of the children entrusted to their care. In summary, Berkman and Buttrey conclude that unless McKenny puts O'Donovan's account of created order in its Trinitarian context and connects it with O'Donovan's rich account of ordered love, McKenny cannot make his case that O'Donovan's account of created order raises no inherent moral objection to genetically enhancing our children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".