Comments on The Pensive Quill: An Atheist Child?

‘Darwinian evolution is based on ‘natural selectio...

2011-04-05T13:57:52.418+01:00

‘Darwinian evolution is based on ‘natural selection’ which might also be called chance selection. This flies in the face of our reason for chance is never a cause, but rather pre-supposes a cause. Once we posit a form of evolution that is not based on these principles we are no longer discussing Darwinism.’

We are discussing Darwinism although not in its entirety. It is the ability of Theism to incorporate major aspects of Darwin into its belief system that makes it strong. Christian evolutionists are not susceptible to laughter and ridicule like the ID mob is. If the creature that evolves, even if through natural selection, has a ‘soul’ there is not much of a problem for believers. I am interested in the words of Ken Miller at the Dover Trial. He is a devout Christian who is also a biologist. He made the point ‘the notion that we are united in a great chain of being with every other living thing on this planet confirms my faith in a divine purpose and in a divine plan and means when I go to church on Sunday I thank the creator for this wonderful and bounteous earth and for the process of evolution which gave rise to such diversity that surrounds us.’ It is not meant to persuade you John. It merely illustrates how people have reconciled the two systems of thought.

‘I am only, (to borrow a phrase from a light-hearted book on the subject), a ‘peeping Thomist’.’

I liked that. I am only a peeping Darwinist – if even. I have books by him and on him in the house these years but only ever glance at them. We have to give our kids the best education available and when religion is smuggled into the classroom dressed up as science by people who admit their science is on a par with astrology I would defend evolutionary biology. We want science for our kids not myths. But I am by no means a Darwinista! The history of the dispute interests me more than the science of it.

John, ‘In the words of Ann Coulter: “Although God...

2011-04-03T12:10:50.324+01:00

John,

‘In the words of Ann Coulter: “Although God believers don’t need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true.”

I am not a fan because of her willingness to slaughter in the name of Christianity. But I think the most important part of her statement is ‘God believers don’t need evolution to be false.’ I am not sure atheists ‘need’ evolution to be true. I think the bulk of them assume it to be. But if science was to come up with evidence to show that humans just appeared with absolutely no biological history then I guess atheists could accept it. For them as long as god is kept out of the equation it doesn’t much matter how we got here. I think that most atheists are non believers before they are evolutionists.

‘It is Darwin I oppose, absolutely, on account of reason and of faith. I don’t ‘believe’ in other types of evolution, but am open to be persuaded within the realms of reason.’

But again we see the convergence of strands of Darwinist and Christian thought.

‘I don’t dispute the possibility of ‘theistic evolution’ but have seen nothing to convince me of it either.’

The biological evidence we have demonstrates evolution. So it is either theistic or it isn’t. Once we have evolution the question becomes one of whether god is behind it. There are so many strong Christian works out there John which accept it. Bible bashers don’t but the intelligent Christian community is easy with it. In fact I think it is all too easy for atheists to laugh at believers who stick to a literal interpretation of Genesis. It becomes much less easy when believers master evolution and tie it in to god.

John, ‘But do they believe we are the product of...

2011-04-02T08:22:24.506+01:00

John,

‘But do they believe we are the product of blind chance or do they support theistic evolution? If the former, then there is no place for religion, if the latter, then it is no longer Darwinian evolution.’

In his letter to the botanist Asa Grey shortly after he finished Origin of Species, Darwin wrote ‘I had no intention to write atheistically.’ So it was not as if he was on some die hard atheistic mission in alliance with Marx as some conspiracy theorists are prone to believe. And again we have the numerous examples of Christian thinkers synthesising Darwinism and theism. That synthesis would not be my view but it is there and growing all the time. I can hardly deny what is in front of my eyes. The bigots hold out but they end up bringing ridicule down on their heads. If people are comfortable with both, then that is up to them. I think it actually suits religion better for a fusion than it does atheism.

‘a stone could lie for a million years and not change into an egg.’ But god could change it into an egg even an Easter egg!

But not all things are like this particular stone. Evolution occurs both at macro and micro levels. I have just never seen how it contradicts a belief in god. The Christians ask many interesting questions in this regard. They accept the evolution argument, the big bang theory – but then go on to probe the energy behind it. Kung is very good on this but hardly alone. Creationism which morphed into creation science and then intelligent design still has a flat earth view of the world because it can’t abide by anything other than a literal interpretation of Genesis. A 6000 year old earth! That is like saying Ireland is about half a centimetre wide.

‘I would not deny that it is possible for God to use an evolutionary mechanism, but my personal belief is the one I put forward when you asked.’

When do you think humans appeared and how? And does it really matter to you if the cause of all causes is god? I have never drawn my atheism from evolution but from the implausibility of god.

John, ‘Unless someone is an expert and has studie...

2011-03-31T20:55:19.835+01:00

John,

‘Unless someone is an expert and has studied the question of evolution, in depth, a layman has no choice but to put faith in it or not.’

Not at all. We don’t need to be experts in France to believe it exists, without it being reduced to sheer faith. People look at the evidence, arguments, use their common sense and then decide that there couldn’t be any other explanation that comes up to the mark. There is no serious scientific evidence against evolution. Intelligent Design is junk science, religion tarted up. The Thomists themselves hammered it. People don’t know it all, may even know very little of the science, but are able to deduce on the basis of evidence that evolution is a sound explanation. We would have to ignore so much evidence not to believe it. It would be like sticking to a flat earth school of thought in the face of all the evidence. This is why so many Catholics believe in it. The Catholic Truth Society has put out some interesting material on it. A brief but very good booklet from CTS is Darwin And Evolution by Joseph Bolin. A while back I was reading a book on Aquinas and the author (a Catholic priest) spoke about ideas that existed in TA’s day but which nobody would believe now – ‘no evolution’ being one of them.

‘Your ‘fact’ is evolution, my fact is God.’

Evolution can be scientifically proved but god can’t. That said, the facts for very many Christians are both god and evolution. I think some of the Christian arguments for compatibility are very clever. You can see how easily they dwarf Intelligent Design and pose a much greater challenge to atheism than the ID cranks.

John, ‘Yes there is a lot of opposition, but like...

2011-03-15T12:53:47.612Z

John,

‘Yes there is a lot of opposition, but like the link you posted it is merely stated, without evidence, that there isn’t a link.’

You are right, it was just an opinion. But it was not offered as something else. I actually don’t have a problem with your statistics or evidence. I find them interesting and thought provoking. The first principle in these matters is to protect children not hang priests. I don’t care if it is homosexuals they need protected from. It has to be done. But I do happen to believe that more than homosexuals or heterosexuals, kids need protected from a church structure that de facto if not de jure created the culture of concealment which enhanced the likelihood of children being raped by clerics. Had that culture of concealment been targeted by the Church hierarchy, the instances of child rape would have dropped dramatically. After that there would have been room for looking at the issues of homosexuality that you raise.

The thing is that if society is to deal with the problems of injustices there is no point in hugging our favourite PC line and giving it a sacred status which leaves it immune from criticism. If gay culture can be shown to be a threat to children then it has to be addressed. The same as the Church hierarchy. Public scrutiny and transparent accountability seem musts in these things.

John ‘In what way can the non use of sexual acts ...

2011-03-14T12:04:11.169Z

John

‘In what way can the non use of sexual acts be construed as
‘perversion’? Only a society obsessed with sexual pleasure could
consider it a perversion not to engage in it.’

Sex far from being an obsession seems so natural a human activity that it would seem perverse to avoid it. There seems something perverse about the self infliction of intense deprivation. The flagellist movement always struck me as perverse.

‘You would be condemning the young, the old, widows, and many others, not least many married couples.’

We would need to know how many actually abstain. I do not think it perverse where the urge is not there.

Randy Engel seems such a homophobic bigot. I think Podles whom you occasionally quote seems more persuasive.

‘Neither the media nor the Church have made it clear to the public that most of the abuse cases involve teenage boys, for this would focus the issue on the problems of homosexuality, a topic that is not politically correct. By not making this clear, the media has given the impression
that the Catholic Church attracts sick priests who like little
children, as opposed to homosexuals who like teenage boys (not a good thing, but not as disgusting as pedophilia).’

That is put forward as if it exonerates priests from liking little children. There are enough of them who do rape little children and have done so in the sure knowledge that they would be covered for and not face handover to the statutory authorities. That to me is the problem in the Church, not whether rape is carried out by homosexuals or heterosexuals. If every single instance of clerical rape was carried out by a heterosexual it would not make heterosexuality the cause of clerical rape of children. Same with homosexuality. The problem is the culture of concealment. That needs addressed.

Saint?MaryHedgehog ‘I think Anthony is frank/hon...

2011-03-05T11:44:49.237Z

Saint?MaryHedgehog

‘I think Anthony is frank/honest and very witty at times.’

I am not a tub thumper for truth. I am always suspicious of that approach. I tell my kids every day I will take them swimming at the weekend and … tell my wife I will be home from the pub ‘shortly.’ None of it true!!

There are at times truths that never get told for a wide range of reasons amongst them the fact that people do not like to hurt their friends. I have always stuck to the basic position of never writing what I know to be false rather than writing all the things I believe to be true. It seems to me that in any society that free inquiry is absolutely essential for understanding.

‘I think kids should be protected from religion and factions but
i also think be careful u ain't infusing the kids with too much cynicism.’

I don’t believe my kids are passed on any cynicism. They are advised to think about things even religion. I also tell them my view that religion is rubbish. That’s how I find it. But they are free to explore the world. I don’t ever want them coming home and spewing some of the religious trash I have had to trudge through on this site, theobabble and the like. At the same time they would always be prompted to listen to the views of someone like John McGirr and make of them what they will.

Saint?MaryHedgehog/John Much too late for me to m...

2011-02-27T16:09:36.070Z

Saint?MaryHedgehog/John

Much too late for me to make a man of the cloth. I crossed the Rubicon to disbelief a long time ago and burned the bridge behind me.

Saint?MaryHedgehog,

You are much too generous in your estimation of my intellectual ability. I delve into things more than rip them apart. If something makes no sense I merely pull and unpick at it. Any time I read theology it is so ludicrous that it merely reminds me of how unfulfilling religion actually is as an explanation. And when theobabble is introduced to confuse us it provokes disdain in me. To John’s credit he has never done that. His ability to make a clear point without needing to wander of into the mists of theobabble is admirable.

When I read you refer to as my ‘suffering’ I look around and think of those who have really suffered rather than having undergone a few unpleasant experiences.

John,

‘Whilst not agreeing with a lot of what he, and others, think, I have found that it helps me to clarify and re-evaluate my views without taking them for granted.’

I would say that experience is mutual.

Well you did warn us not to read your diatribe (as I would put it) but I could not resist.

‘The Blessed Sacrament has been demoted to side altars; Communion in the hand has become the norm, often given out by mini-skirt wearing divorcees.’

That sounded so funny. My wife asked me what I was laughing at. I know you said it in anger rather than in humour but it is how it came across. Nice to have something to laugh about as we stare ahead into the abyss of the blue shirts.

Anthony, ‘For those who believe in evolution It p...

2011-02-18T00:01:22.173Z

Anthony,

‘For those who believe in evolution It poses no problem to their belief. They can combine both. And there are so many of them. If god was the moving force, there is no difficulty for them. To me it hardly matters if he specially created us or evolved us. The fact that he did it would be sufficient if I were a believer.’

I would not deny that it is possible for God to use an evolutionary mechanism, but my personal belief is the one I put forward when you asked.

In the words of Ann Coulter:

“Although God believers don’t need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true.”

‘I am not a Darwinist nor am I anti-Darwinist. Pretty much indifferent to it.’

If you insert ‘evolutionist’ in place of ‘Darwinist’ I would agree. It is Darwin I oppose, absolutely, on account of reason and of faith. I don’t ‘believe’ in other types of evolution, but am open to be persuaded within the realms of reason.

‘Natural selection is not in the view of all evolutionists the only form of evolution…. I think the great theological minds are quite adept at knitting evolution and theism together.’

I assumed you meant Darwinian evolution, which I absolutely reject. I don’t dispute the possibility of ‘theistic evolution’ but have seen nothing to convince me of it either.

“‘Darwinian evolution is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic religion and, in my view, dangerous.’”

‘Like so many others including Catholics I don’t agree on the incompatibility.’

Darwinian evolution is based on ‘natural selection’ which might also be called chance selection. This flies in the face of our reason for chance is never a cause, but rather pre-supposes a cause. Once we posit a form of evolution that is not based on these principles we are no longer discussing Darwinism.

‘I suppose that is why I asked you about evolution – you described yourself as a Thomist.’

I am only, (to borrow a phrase from a light-hearted book on the subject), a ‘peeping Thomist’.

‘That is where we disagree most I guess. You see the Enlightenment as regressive and I as progressive.’

At least we can agree that this is where we disagree.

John, ‘God made the Heavens and the earth.’ All ...

2011-02-17T10:34:06.438Z

John,

‘God made the Heavens and the earth.’

All religious people believe that, I imagine. For those who believe in evolution It poses no problem to their belief. They can combine both. And there are so many of them. If god was the moving force, there is no difficulty for them. To me it hardly matters if he specially created us or evolved us. The fact that he did it would be sufficient if I were a believer. And if he is an omnipotent being, which a god must be in order to retain the status of uncaused cause, then he could easily do it. And as he is unaccountable to us our objections could easily be dismissed on the grounds of the mystery of god.

‘I would not dismiss limited theistic ‘evolution’ as a possibility, provided that it were accepted that the spiritual soul cannot be accounted for in that way, and that we are all descended from one man and one woman.’

I have never seen a spiritual soul and until one comes into a lab I never will. To me that is all manufactured. It is conceptualised by humans but never demonstrated. But again an omnipotent god could easily insert the soul. I am not a Darwinist nor am I anti-Darwinist. Pretty much indifferent to it. Natural selection is not in the view of all evolutionists the only form of evolution. I think Steven Jay Gould was once described as an evolutionary pluralist because he did not feel natural selection explained it all. I think the great theological minds are quite adept at knitting evolution and theism together. I think the less equipped find it difficult.

‘Darwinian evolution is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic religion and, in my view, dangerous.’

Like so many others including Catholics I don’t agree on the incompatibility. Even on this question I found the Thomists interesting as I explained to Stefan before he went abstract on me. That the Thomists seem to scorn the DI crowd was interesting in itself but the writings of Carroll and Tkacz struck me as being accomodationist. I suppose that is why I asked you about evolution – you described yourself as a Thomist.

Darwinism is like any other body of thought John. It is the uses that it is put to. Communism was more atheistic than Darwinist, and Nazism intended being top dog in any event. Both would have gone about their business in the same way without Darwinism. There were pastors in the Einsatzgruppen, blessing the SS as they went about their murderous business. Religion too has been put to enough bad use over the years. We have had a few murderous popes and ayatollahs.

‘You are right that the Enlightenment is the basis of our current situation, its destructive influence is evident everywhere.’

I suppose we could say the same about religion.

That is where we disagree most I guess. You see the Enlightenment as regressive and I as progressive.

Anthony, “‘I am glad that your question recognise...

2011-02-15T21:30:34.242Z

Anthony,

“‘I am glad that your question recognises that accepting evolution is a question of belief as so often it is portrayed as a certainty.’”

‘Not so. I could have asked you do you believe the fact of evolution.’

Unless someone is an expert and has studied the question of evolution, in depth, a layman has no choice but to put faith in it or not.

‘Some people don’t believe facts or what others hold to be factual.’

Your ‘fact’ is evolution, my fact is God. I can deduce the existence of God, but I cannot deduce the existence of evolution, I could only rely on belief in that respect.

‘But evolution is so well established as fact that I never doubt that is how we arrived. And there are so many religious people who believe in it.’

But do they believe we are the product of blind chance or do they support theistic evolution? If the former, then there is no place for religion, if the latter, then it is no longer Darwinian evolution.

‘When as a child I told my mother I didn’t believe in the Adam and Eve idea and felt it nonsense she took me over to my grandfather who was pretty devout. I still recall him telling me if we went up to the zoo a monkey would still be a monkey in a million years.’

And so it would; as a stone could lie for a million years and not change into an egg.

John, ‘I am glad that your question recognises th...

2011-02-15T08:40:27.522Z

John,

‘I am glad that your question recognises that accepting evolution is a question of belief as so often it is portrayed as a certainty.’

Not so. I could have asked you do you believe the fact of evolution. Some people don’t believe facts or what others hold to be factual.

I don’t particularly care how we got here. It matters not to me if we somehow (given the sheer weight of scientific discoveryI have no idea how) appeared in our current form with no previous biological history. But evolution is so well established as fact that I never doubt that is how we arrived. And there are so many religious people who believe in it. Even when I still had religious sentiment evolution never caused me a problem. Adam and Eve yarns did. When as a child I told my mother I didn’t believe in the Adam and Eve idea and felt it nonsense she took me over to my grandfather who was pretty devout. I still recall him telling me if we went up to the zoo a monkey would still be a monkey in a million years.

Religion would have been a greater factor in my dropping the god concept; evolution played no part in it. Strangely enough, the first person who set out the evolution argument clearly for me was a priest during the Blanket protest. By that time I was no longer believing. If I recall he was a Thomist and was also a teacher of metaphysics. He went into Aristotle’s 3 principles of life which led on to a discussion about Genesis. He commented that if his cat ever said to him ‘how are you doing John?’ He would say ‘fine, Adam.’ I think I have remained faithful to the account but it is from the winter of early 1979 so is hardly verbatim. I suppose you’ll think him another renegade.

Anthony, ‘Do you believe in evolution John?’ I a...

2011-02-06T13:55:46.588Z

Anthony,

‘Do you believe in evolution John?’

I am glad that your question recognises that accepting evolution is a question of belief as so often it is portrayed as a certainty, which if denied denotes madness.

My answer is, that no, I don’t believe in it. To believe something you have to have grounds, and I don’t have any for that. My faith fully accounts for our origins, and I see it as rather a way around faith, an attempt to find an answer to a question, that I don’t see any reason to raise; God made the Heavens and the earth.

However, I would not dismiss limited theistic ‘evolution’ as a possibility, provided that it were accepted that the spiritual soul cannot be accounted for in that way, and that we are all descended from one man and one woman.

Darwinian evolution is absolutely incompatible with the Catholic religion and, in my view, dangerous. I think it is noteworthy that the two major evils of the 20th century, Communism and Nazism, were both inspired by it, together with a large array of eugenicists and racists.

“Even if you disagree with Thomism, it is the key to western civilization, in my view.”

‘Rather than the Enlightenment?’

You are right that the Enlightenment is the basis of our current situation, its destructive influence is evident everywhere.

I was referring to the heights of our civilization, such as the works of Dante, not the mess we have all become.

John, And witty to boot! I enjoy your simplicit...

2011-02-05T23:40:06.664Z

John,

And witty to boot!

I enjoy your simplicity as so much is explained through it. You have not won me over but I have been both impressed and challenged by some of the arguments you have brought out (and evidence.) I have zero tolerance for pseudo intellectualism.

Do you believe in evolution John?

'As a simple self-instructed Thomist, simplicity is something I admire.'

It is not a common trait. In my experience over the years simplicity is shunned by those who need to be deliberately opaque otherwise the transparency of their case is all too visible. It is the only reason they employ it.

'I would recommend the works of a simple Thomist, such as Paul Glenn.'

Not familiar with him John. But if the opportunity arises I will read him. I don’t do the pseudo stuff as you can glean. There is a Marxist writer called Fredric Jameson who I once read. An insufferable bore who dealt in abstraction to the point of deadening tedium. It frazzled the brain rather than enlivened it.

'Even if you disagree with Thomism, it is the key to western civilization, in my view.'

Rather than the Enlightenment?

Regarding where the Church stands in relation to D...

2011-02-05T12:53:22.296Z

Regarding where the Church stands in relation to Darwinism Denyse O'Leary introduces Fr Martin Hillberts peice in 'The Catholic Church and ID: What's really happening?'
Recently, Fr. Martin Hilbert of the Toronto Oratory wrote an excellent overview in Touchstone Magazine setting out the details of how and why the Catholic Church started to distance itself from Darwinism. Fr. Hilbert's clear exposition is indispensable if you want to understand why the Catholic Church has started to make clear that it does not support Darwinian evolution, the only kind permitted to be taught in schools. For decades, opinionators have piously affirmed that the Catholic Church has long accepted an evolutionary worldview, but - stated in that form, without qualification - such a statement is either a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation.

Darwin’s Divisions
The Pope, the Cardinal, the Jesuit & the Evolving Debate About Origins
by Fr Martin Hilbert
The church does not pretend to give scientific answers to biological questions. But it does point out that some Darwinist claims are mere materialist metaphysics pretending to be science, because it knows that were it to remain silent on a truth—the nature of man—that has been entrusted to it by God, that truth would soon disappear, only to be replaced by the ever-changing dogmas of a materialist science.
Even so, the Catholic Church has been surprisingly sparing in its pronouncements on the subject, given that Darwin’s theory has been used to underpin some fairly disastrous worldviews, such as Nazism and communism. The church has never been very comfortable with the theory, but, perhaps fearing bad press of the kind that arose from its condemnation of Galileo, has usually preferred to deal with theologians who were enthusiastic about evolution in more discreet ways than by magisterial interventions.

Anthony, You seem keen to use popular media newsbi...

2011-02-05T06:48:21.480Z

Anthony,
You seem keen to use popular media newsbites taken out of context on evolution and where the Catholic Church stands on it without any deeper look at the actual theology.You must recognise similarities are drawn here with Michael Ruses criticism of Dennet and Dawkins when he said "neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas".Whilst I have engaged Darwins ideas and rejected them on the grounds that I understand them you display the same paranoia in your Atheism that John G. West and Jonathan Witt describe in the book you quoted - 'Creationism's Trojan Horse' by insisting that no one has shown you that Darwin and Theism are incompatible and then refusing to acknowledge the evidence when put before you.
Using the veiws of Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi to give an impression of accomodationism within Church teaching holds little relevance in relation to the statements from the 2006 Castel Gandolfo seminar where his Holiness says "the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory", and "I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science."
You have become another Atheist, in a long line of Atheists that fail to stand up to the challenge posed by his Holiness.

'You must be from the flagellist movement bein...

2011-02-05T00:53:17.734Z

'You must be from the flagellist movement being able to read through that!!'

Well I guess I do need to do a little mortification, no matter how unfashionable.

'But whatever arguments you make, they are not steeped in turgidity.'

As a simple self-instructed Thomist, simplicity is something I admire.

I would recommend the works of a simple Thomist, such as Paul Glenn.

Even if you disagree with Thomism, it is the key to western civilization, in my view.

Michaelhenry, I read about two paragraphs of the ...

2011-02-04T20:32:28.617Z

Michaelhenry,

I read about two paragraphs of the first, and nothing of the second, and resorted to the wine. That's how gruelling it was. So there are two of us who don't do theobabble.

John,

if nothing else I admire your courage! You must be from the flagellist movement being able to read through that!! But whatever arguments you make, they are not steeped in turgidity. Can't comment on your unreconstructed Thomism as I never read anything past the first two paragraphs to know what made perfect sense to you.

'you might as well write it in Latin. After 2 ...

2011-02-04T09:52:28.557Z

'you might as well write it in Latin. After 2 paras I just switched off'

'Just switched of-
Thank fcuk
I thought it was only me'

It makes perfect sense to me. But then I am an unreconstructed Thomist.

AM- Just switched of- Thank fcuk I thought it w...

2011-02-03T23:33:32.660Z

AM-

Just switched of-

Thank fcuk

I thought it was only me

Stefan, you might as well write it in Latin. Afte...

2011-02-03T21:05:42.624Z

Stefan,

you might as well write it in Latin. After 2 paras I just switched off

Exemplar Causes Recall that for Thomas, creatures...

2011-02-03T18:33:53.675Z

Exemplar Causes

Recall that for Thomas, creatures are a combination of form and matter. The question that must be answered, then, in any version of Thomistic evolution, is where form comes from. Darwin, denying Aristotelian essentialism, saw organisms’ traits as accidental properties of living things that change with the winds of time. Not so St. Thomas.
In his recent book Aquinas on the Divine Ideas as Exemplar Causes, Catholic University philosophy professor Gregory T. Doolan gives the most extensive treatment to date of Thomas’s notion of “exemplar causation,” an integral part of Thomas’s metaphysics.

What is an exemplar cause? It is a type of formal cause—a sort of blueprint, the idea according to which something is organized. For Thomas, these ideas exist separately from the things they cause. For instance, if a boy is going to build a soapbox derby car, the idea in his mind is separate from the form of the car; yet the car’s form expresses the idea, or exemplar cause, in the boy’s mind. Exemplar causes actually do something. They are “practical ideas,” writes Doolan.
For Thomas—and here is the important point—a creature’s form comes from a similar form in the divine intellect. In other words, the cause of each species’ form is extrinsic. In fact, writes Thomas, “God is the first exemplar cause of all things.” Creatures do possess the causal powers proper to the nature God has granted them, but creatures most certainly do not possess the power to create the form of their or any other species.
For instance, frog parents have the proper ability to generate tadpoles. They are able to bring out the natural form that is present in the potentiality of matter. However, the frog parents cannot create the form “frog.” After all, Thomas reasons, if frog parents could create the form “frog” they would be the creators of their own form, and this is clearly a contradiction. Natural things can generate forms of the same species, but they cannot create the form of a species in general.
Thus, natural agency is not eliminated, yet God is still actively involved in nature. Specific forms originate and reside in his mind, though God allows creatures the dignity of acting in this creative drama. Still, Thomas is careful to note that while secondary causes are real, “God . . . can cause an effect to result in anything whatsoever independently of middle causes.”
By now it should be clear how different Thomas’s philosophy of nature is from Darwinism. Rather than form being a merely apparent reality that can be molded into any other form, for Thomas form originates in God’s mind. He directly creates it. It is a forethought, not an afterthought. Species, then, come to be because of his will and power (either successively or all at once). They are neither the product of a trial-and-error process of natural selection nor the mere intrinsic unfolding of secondary causes. Secondary causes have their place, but they are inherently impotent to create novel form.

Let’s face it: Thomas Aquinas was not an evolutionist, let alone a Darwinist, in any sense.

Lets see if Logan Paul Gage can explain this bette...

2011-02-03T18:33:17.415Z

Lets see if Logan Paul Gage can explain this better.
Taken from "Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas"
Two parts - the first Denial of True Species then second part in following post called Exemplar Causes.

Denial of True Species

Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:

I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.

Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder. This is an extreme expression of the anti-Aristotelian (and anti-Thomist) philosophy of nominalism. Nominalism (stemming from the Latin nomen, or “name”) suggests that the individual is the only reality—not the universal, form, or essence. The mind invents universals in order to group together similar objects. But the universal is not a reality in which the individual in some way participates.
But Thomas embraced form and, following Augustine, even maintained that a creature’s form reflects the second member of the Trinity. For, “as it [the creature] has a form and species, it represents the Word as the form of the thing made by art is from the conception of the craftsman.”
The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.

Stefan, it just gets more abstract and devoid of ...

2011-02-02T22:14:51.373Z

Stefan,

it just gets more abstract and devoid of meaning

Apologies Anthony, I wanted to condense what I nee...

2011-02-02T19:39:37.724Z

Apologies Anthony, I wanted to condense what I needed to say for direct impact.
Allow me to reconstitute and try and explain it a bit better for you.
You argued that no one had provided you with substantial evidence that Darwins theory of evolution and Theism cannot be accomodated in one theory ie Theistic Evolution.
Here's the substance you require to prove the illegitimacy of such accomodationism.
A standard of universal theistic teaching is that of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
His teaching was drawn from Aristotles concept of Causality, that is 'an explanation for how a thing came about'.
Scientific method, born out of the scientific revolution in the 16th Century, hinging on empirical findings rejected aspects of Aristotles theory focusing on just two of his aspects ie the material and efficient causes dismissing the formal and final causes.Modernism is the world-view that grew out of Enlightenment philosophy in the 18th century and lead to the rise of empiricism.This is the foundation of the materialism that Darwin bases his theory of evolution thus rejected the key elements of theism I mentioned above.
This is why Van Till no longer presents his theory within a recognized Theistic framework.
That is why I need not bother presenting "those who believe Acquinas legitimises their view of the compatibility rather than the incompatibility between Darwinism and belief in god." as they cannot be theists because whilst you say "it might even be argued that the greatest accomodationists are the Thomists" I beleive the substance of the evidence I've presented above puts pay to this idea.