Creation, Evolution, and Thomas Aquinas

I ran across this article on the web and found it extremely interesting. It's fairly long but one of the best summaries I could find on the Theology of Creation.

Summary?

"Throughout this essay I have sought to make a clear distinction between creation and change: to argue, that is, that creation is a concept in metaphysics and theology, not in the natural sciences."

Evolution _is_ a theory of creation. There are aspects of it which are not, and those are agreed upon by creationists, evolutionists, and ID'ers.

In addition, all metaphysics and theology, if they are true, should have an impact on the material world. Only if they are false should their effects be undetectable.

"At the very least, we should recognize, as Richard Lewontin did in the passage quoted above, that to claim that only materialist explanations of reality are acceptable is a philosophical assumption not required by the "methods and institutions of science.""

So why, then, is he rejecting Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design is no more than the study of intelligent causation.

"Whatever exists is caused to be by God; this is a conclusion in metaphysics; whether human souls are among the things that exist is a question to be answered in natural philosophy; whether living things have evolved by natural selection is the subject of evolutionary biology."

The idea that these arguments are wholly separable is foolishness. It depends very highly on how and what and when creation occurred to be able to interpret history. Evolutionary biology is simply an extension of Lyellian assumptions -- that processes today are essentially the same as processes in the past. Only by this _assumption_ (which says something specifically about theology) does evolution have any traction at all. Likewise, the existence or non-existence of the human soul affects greatly whether or not materialist/reductionist science can fully describe the operation of the human mind. If the soul exists, then reductionism is only part of the picture, and we need to be examining intelligent causes as well, not just physical causes.

"We should remember, however, that evolutionary biology's commitment to common descent by natural selection is essentially an explanation of origin and development; it is a historical account."

Likewise, the Bible is a historic account. The difference being that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, while evolutionary biologists are restricted to circumstantial evidence interpretted in a manner directly contradictory of reality (materialism). Only by assuming a non-theistic history does evolutionary biology provide a creation account. Without this assumption that materialism is a complete description of reality, evolutionary biology (as a historical endeavor, not in the experimental sense) does not make sense.

"However necessary evolutionary biology is for understanding nature, it is not a substitute for the complete study of what things are and how they behave."

Yes, exactly! Doesn't this undermine the entire rest of the author's thesis? If someone is doing a reconstruction based on circumstantial evidence, doesn't the a priori exclusion of causes known to be in effect preclude someone from getting the right answer? This author apparently doesn't think so.

Ultimately, it seems the author does not understand the controversy itself.

(1) ID'ers are pretty much simply studying intelligent causation. If intelligent causation is true, then why can't it be studied? If it is true, why should it be ruled out a priori when examining biology? Should not our knowledge of how intelligent causes operate help us understand biology if it has markings of intelligent causation?

(2) Creationists do not look to the Bible as science, but as history. Several things:

(a) There is no reason why God would repeat over and over that he created the world in six days when in fact he took long ages. The vocabulary at the time of writing (post-Egypt) had sufficient terminology for long ages, should that be what God had intended. Likewise, contrary to the claims of some, the language in Genesis 1-11 is not poetic. It does not employ any of the common Hebrew poetry devices.

(b) The Bible records a worldwide flood. There are several indications it was worldwide besides the specific languages saying it was so, including (1) the length of time the ark was on the water without finding land (1 year), (2) the size of the ark and the number of animals on board, and (3) the global fear of a worldwide flood since that point.

(c) The Bible records a change in lifespan. This indicates a dramatic difference in either the biology or the environment pre-flood and post-flood. This can account for many of the differences between, for example, Neanderthal, Erectus, and Sapien.

(d) If there was a flood and an environmental change of this magnitude, it must have been geologically recorded. Consistent with this is fact that the Paleozoic and Mesozoic have the markings of having been laid down quickly and catastrophically. If this was the case, then the entire basis of fossil succession has been replaced by a physical cause (the flood) rather than long spans of time.

The fact is that creation and evolution -- neither one of them can be separated from metaphysics. As Hawking said, "However we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology." In fact, few people realize that, at least according to Hawking in The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time, the big bang model is in fact a metaphysical/philosophical choice, and was not the only one mandated by the evidence.

These are the important paragraphs

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some existing material. If, in producing something new, an agent were to use something already existing, the agent would not be the complete cause of the new thing. But such complete causing is precisely what creation is. To build a house or paint a picture involves working with existing materials and either action is radically different from creation. To create is to cause existence, and all things are totally dependent upon a Creator for the very fact that they are. The Creator does not take nothing and make something out of nothing. Rather, any thing left entirely to itself, wholly separated from the cause of its existence, would be absolutely nothing. Creation is not some distant event; it is the complete causing of the existence of everything that is. Creation, thus, as Aquinas shows, is a subject for metaphysics and theology; it is not a subject for the natural sciences. Although Scripture reveals that God is Creator, for Aquinas, the fundamental understanding of creation is accessible to reason alone, in the discipline of metaphysics; it does not necessarily require faith. Aquinas thought that by starting from the recognition of the distinction between what things are, their essences, and that they are, their existence, one could reason conclusively to an absolutely first cause which causes the existence of everything that is. (13) Aquinas shows that there are two related senses of creation, one philosophical, the other theological. The philosophical sense discloses the metaphysical dependence of everything on God as cause. The theological sense of creation, although much richer, nevertheless incorporates all that philosophy teaches and adds as well that the universe is temporally finite.

The theological arguments based on Behe's work are similar to arguments for creation based on Big Bang cosmology. Traditionally, the Big Bang has been seen as a singularity at which the laws of physics break down. Physics cannot explain the primal Big Bang; thus we seem to have strong evidence, if not actual proof, for a Creator.(33) Philosophers such as William Lane Craig have argued that contemporary Big Bang cosmology confirms the doctrine of creation out-of-nothing since it shows that the universe is temporally finite.(34) It does not seem, however, that the singularity affirmed in modern cosmology encompasses the absolute beginning of the universe. As we have seen, Aquinas does not think that the sciences themselves can conclude whether or not the universe is temporally finite. Obviously, as Aquinas was aware, if we were to know that there is an absolute beginning to the universe we would know that the universe is created out of nothing and that God exists.(35) Of course, what some cosmologists have termed an inexplicable singularity, recent theorists have sought to make explicable. Alexander Vilenkin has developed an explanation of the Big Bang itself in terms of "quantum tunneling from nothing." Stephen Hawking argues that an understanding of quantum gravity will enable us to do away with the notion of a singularity altogether, and he concludes that without an initial singularity there is nothing for a Creator to do. Hawking identifies creation with a temporal beginning of the universe. Thus, he thinks that by denying such a beginning he denies creation. But Big Bang cosmology, even with recent variations, neither supports nor detracts from the doctrine of creation, since cosmology studies change and creation is not a change. The Big Bang is not a primal event before which there is absolutely nothing.(36)

Thanks very much DarkSavant. I hadn't cottoned onto the stark difference between change (of something that exists from one state to another) and creation (making something exist in the first place).

Also: the Bible cannot authentically be understood as affirming as true what the natural sciences [authentically] teach us is false.

There is only one body of Truth, which is indivisible and contains no internal self-contradictions: therefore if it can be shown that a scientific premise is actually so, without possibility of error, then no part of Revelation can actually contradict that finding. Of course the science must be proven - not merely loudly asserted by Al Gore. But no part of Revelation can authentically contradict the earth going around the sun, or the proven findings of Relativity etc. If a contradiction is found then it is an apparent contradiction only - confirmation of the science and then a second look at Revelation is called for.

We will not find a scientific fact that actually, really disproves the existence of anything that is true. That would be a contradiction in terms, pace Aquinas. So we can leave The Trinity, the Virgin Birth, or (as per this article) the Creation fully open to scientific enquiry, supremely confident that real scientific truth will not end up contradicting reality. Go on Science, knock yerself out!

BTW Chesterton's biography of Aquinas is still the best one out there, and it's free online.

Evolution _is_ a theory of creation.

No, it really isn't. It's a theory of change of what exists: specifically, speciation of living forms.

The evolutionary theory really does explain speciation , but it does not mean that God doesn't exist, or that Man doesn't have free will. Properly understood the Evolutionary theory doesn't impact on these at all. Ignorant faux-scientists in Darwin's time DID however insist that Evolution meant this. They insisted that Science had disproved God.

The other half of the quarrel came from biblical literalists insisting that literal interpretations of Genesis were, in fact, God's Revelation.

So two sets of people found themselves grouping behind banners marked "Science" and "Religion" - when in fact the banners should have been labelled "Unscientific Dogmatic Atheists" and "Biblical Literalists". And we today find ourselves inheriting their same dull quarrel.

There is no doubt that evolution occurs, and there is also no doubt that there is something innately different about man: he is not a mere naked ape. DNA explains genetic inheritance but does not explain free will or the immortal soul. The two things are both true and there is no actual contradiction between them.

bump

Bump for later reading.

===> Placemarker <===

"The evolutionary theory really does explain speciation"

There is literally no disagreement here. No creationist, young-earth or otherwise, disagrees with this.

It seems like you are not aware of what creationists actually believe. I've got a blog you might be interested in:

http://baraminology.blogspot.com/

It's best to start at the beginning.

"There is no doubt that evolution occurs, and there is also no doubt that there is something innately different about man: he is not a mere naked ape."

If that were the only question, then there would be little disagreement, except for the militant Darwinists (however, there are still MANY of these in the biological sciences). However, there are many others, such as the question of the flood, of the goodness of the original creation, of whether common designs or common descent are the best explanations of similarities (see especially Berra's Blunder), whether God actually intervenes in history, in what ways He does, and whether or not the Biblical accounts of His actions are correct.

And it's not just Christians, either. There are a great number of diverse people who share the same stories that the Christians do. The great flood is everywhere, and shares the same characteristics (favored family gets saved, the whole world floods, etc). Many pagan histories trace their lineages back to Noah. In fact, many cultures have the same date for both Creation and the Flood as does the Bible! And take Joshua's long day. This was recorded by numerous cultures -- on this side of the world. On the other side of the world there was a record of a long night.

The fact is that history is the best interpretation of Genesis 1-11. In fact, even many scholars who do not believe that anything in Genesis 1-11 occurred at all believe that it was _meant_ to be history. And that history, while not exactly the same, is consonant with many traditions throughout the world.

Only by throwing out all old-world evidence do we arrive at the same conclusions that evolutionists do -- that everything arose from single-celled animals. The reasons aren't all historical, either. Evolution has a massive information problem. No mechanism can be shown to account for the kind of changes and gains in semantic information that have been suggested by evolutionists.

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some existing material. If, in producing something new, an agent were to use something already existing, the agent would not be the complete cause of the new thing. But such complete causing is precisely what creation is.

This means that Intelligent Designer is seemingly a demotion for the Creator, putting Him on the same level as the intelligent saboteur Satan.

Faith and Science Ping.

Good article. Unfortunately, it appears too long to attract many readers. Pity.

Thanks for the ping!

I'm planning on reading this, but before this thread passes by, I'd like to throw out what I consider to be serious problems with evolutionary theory from a Scholastic/Aristotelian perspective.

First, assuming that evolution is true and that creatures are in a continual, never-ending process of transformation (note: change in form), how would we be able to say with certainty that we are of the same species as Jesus, that His human nature was the same as ours?

It's my understanding that in circumscribing permissible belief regarding human origins, evolutionary theory may be permitted, but we must assert that evolutionary processes stopped with Adam and Eve, for the reason given above.

Secondly, it seems to me to be plainly absurd to speak of the continual transformation (change in form) of species when the notion of the transformation of species assumes the existence of stable forms (species) that are universally apprehensible, in contradiction to the assertion that species are continuously transforming. For example, if we assert that pigeons arose from Archaeopteryx, how can I know that what I understand as "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx" is what you understand to be "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx," or what was understood as "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx" 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago, if all things exist in continuous transformation?

I don't see any solution to this epistemological problem.

This means that Intelligent Designer is seemingly a demotion for the Creator

It seems to me that the Creator must also be the ultimate Designer. Nevertheless, the notion may also be acceptable to non-monotheistic faiths.

First, assuming that evolution is true and that creatures are in a continual, never-ending process of transformation (note: change in form), how would we be able to say with certainty that we are of the same species as Jesus, that His human nature was the same as ours?

Because from the records we have of human beings 2000 years ago, we know that the human form has changed very little since then.

It's my understanding that in circumscribing permissible belief regarding human origins, evolutionary theory may be permitted, but we must assert that evolutionary processes stopped with Adam and Eve, for the reason given above.

I don't think so. At any rate, human evolution is a very slow process, especially with the advent of technology, which has greatly reduced selective pressure on our species.

Secondly, it seems to me to be plainly absurd to speak of the continual transformation (change in form) of species when the notion of the transformation of species assumes the existence of stable forms (species) that are universally apprehensible,

It assumes no such thing. Species are merely an artifical human construct that makes classification easier, nothing more.

For example, if we assert that pigeons arose from Archaeopteryx, how can I know that what I understand as "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx" is what you understand to be "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx," or what was understood as "pigeon" and "archaeopteryx" 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago, if all things exist in continuous transformation?

First of all, the rate of transformation is not constant. Sometimes it may even stop for periods.

Second, the differences between pigeon and archaeopteryx are so different as to make the distinction unporobelmatic. However, you are correct, that when two animals are very simlar, where you drawn the line between speices can be somewhat arbitrary.

Interesting post. Just too long for me to absorb this morning.

One comment though. I believe there is only one "reality". The treatment where science and theology are comingled and compared with each other bothers me a bit. The two are so different that I find any direct comparison a bit off-key.

Because from the records we have of human beings 2000 years ago, we know that the human form has changed very little since then.

I'm using "form" in the Aristotelian sense, as "substance" or "essence," not shape.

I don't think so. At any rate, human evolution is a very slow process, especially with the advent of technology, which has greatly reduced selective pressure on our species.

So how can I know with certainty that I am of the same species as Jesus? As Moses? As someone who lived 3000 years ago? 4000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? Etc.

Secondly, it seems to me to be plainly absurd to speak of the continual transformation (change in form) of species when the notion of the transformation of species assumes the existence of stable forms (species) that are universally apprehensible,

It assumes no such thing. Species are merely an artifical human construct that makes classification easier, nothing more.

The problem of universals is of paramount importance in philosophy, and is not so easily dismissed. The position you describe is the Nominalist position, which is incoherent.

We find an unequivocal affirmation of Nominalism in Positivism. For Hume, Stuart Mill, Spencer, and Taine there is strictly speaking no universal concept. The notion, to which we lend universality, is only a collection of individual perceptions, a collective sensation, "un nom compris" (Taine), "a term in habitual association with many other particular ideas" (Hume), "un savoir potentiel emmagasiné" (Ribot). The problem of the correspondence of the concept to reality is thus at once solved, or rather it is suppressed and replaced by the psycological question: What is the origin of the illusion that induces us to attribute a distinct nature to the general concept, though the latter is only an elaborated sensation? Kant distinctly affirms the existence within us of abstract and general notions and the distinction between them and sensations, but these doctrines are joined with a characteristic Phonmenalism which constitutes the most original form of modern Conceptualism. Universal and necessary representations have no contact with external things, sinct they are produced exclusively by the structual functions (a priori forms) of our mind. Time and space, in which we frame all sensible impressions,cannot be obtained from expierence, which is individual and contigent; they are schemata which arise from our mental organization. Consequently, we have no warrant for establishing a real correspondence between the world of reality. Science, which is only an elaboration of the data of sense in accordance with other structural determinations of the mind (the categories), becomes a subjective poem, which has value only for us and not for a world outside us

First of all, the rate of transformation is not constant. Sometimes it may even stop for periods.

The philosophical problem remains.

Second, the differences between pigeon and archaeopteryx are so different as to make the distinction unproblematic.

Of course. That's not the problem. The problem is, if species undergo constant transformation, how can we know this with certainty? How can this certain knowledge be reconciled with the subjectivism or anti-realism of Nominalism, which is ultimately solipsistic?

However, you are correct, that when two animals are very simlar, where you drawn the line between speices can be somewhat arbitrary.

But in fact, there are no actual species to draw a line between, only names that people attach to creatures that look alike, or what have you. Evolutionists here want to have their cake and eat it too.

It seems to me that the Creator must also be the ultimate Designer.

The thing that strikes me as odd about "Designer" is this line: "To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some existing material." Insofar as Intelligent Design treats its designer as one who works using existing material, it only describes a semi-Platonic demiurge.

I've forgotten whether Behe et al. think God created ex nihilo a new gene sequence or cellular structure for a given creature or simply directly tweaked the creature's pre-existing structures, but the very awkwardness of either option on both theological and scientific grounds makes me wary of their school of thought, no matter how much I like how it has shaken men from their slumbers.