Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers (1/2)

An essay by Catholic Thomistic philosopher Thomas Tkacz critiquing so-called Intelligent Design theory and explaining why Catholic philosophers have generally been wary of the ID movement and have generally not had a problem with evolution. Note: Many of the main points are made in the second video where he wraps up, so please watch both before commenting. Also, I'd prefer that any critical/debating points were left on part 2 so that they're all in one place, as I expect this video might generate some discussion.

The content of this essay is not my own and was produced by Thomas Tkacz. All I did was read it and add slides.

Full text: http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/Tkacz_AquinasvsID.html

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• Creation
• Intelligent
• Design
• Catholic
• Thomist
• Thomism
• Thomas
• Aquinas
• Tkacz
• cosmological
• argument
• scholastic
• scholasticism
• nature
• philosophy
• science
• Stephen
• Meyer
• Michael
• Behe
• William
• Dembski
• yt:stretch=16:9

[Shortpaulio]

Creationists are so brainwashed that regardless of the mountains of evidence FOR evolution that they'l never listen, I say we just tell them they're correct and let them go about their business whilst we all kick back and laugh.

[tumbleweedjoe]

@Shortpaulio I don't agree. I think creationists have legitimate philosophical and ethical concerns about evolution, based in part upon the history of the abuse of evolution in so-called social Darwinism and partly on some philosophical confusion of their own. Also, they are reacting against the use of evolution as a proof of atheism (which it is not) and a weapon against religion. The earliest fundmanetalists were not opposed to evolution, this is a later development.

[tpsisokayiguess]

i'm scientifically eating my christian cake while watching this.....om nom nom nom

[tumbleweedjoe]

:-)

[RondelayAOK]

@Shortpaulio Interesting to see how emotional and out of joint the "scientific" people get.

[timnray99]

remember, it was a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang theory

[timnray99]

man will never understand God nor grasp all that surrounds him....but the most important fact is i am quite satisfied with this...

[Anglican08]

One of thing I don't get about ID is that they do accept that evolution has occured, they accept that natural selection over time creates greater & greater complexity & the apperance of design, so that the whole natural world looks designed.

But then they turn to a particular organ or system & say "uh, no, sorry that looks too designed, that couldn't have evolved."

Once you've conceded that Natural Selection + time = very high levels of complexity, the games up for creationism really...

[cellomon09]

I'm a junior at Gonzaga University, and even took a course with Dr. Tkacz. I didn't know he was a Thomist until I watched your video (though perhaps that shouldn't surprise me). Thanks for posting this!

[modomnoc1010]

As a Roman Catholic I've learnt one thing don't argue with Scientific Creationist's. Evolution has occurred - fact. However, Darwin's theory of evolution relates to already existing matter, and therefore, God is the first cause. What saddens me about Scientific Creationism it occurs through a false reading of Genesis 1 - 3, and it's the same misunderstanding that leads to it's attack on the Roman Catholic church. Scientific creationism is an enemy of the Church. Aquinas would of dispatched them.

[tumbleweedjoe]

@PicklePumpers Actually, you see no such thing. I've answered your objections perfectly, which you realize but don't want to admit. I don't agree with creationists about a load of things, but they are %100 more to be trusted than simplistic materialists. I explained why they could have serious reservations about evolution based on a certain way of misunderstanding God and causality. Since two truths cannot contradict, if evolution did logically require atheism or nihilism than it would be false

[tumbleweedjoe]

@PicklePumpers Incidentally, that was me who just responded to you as "lizzlefly". My wife was still signed in and I forgot to sign in under my own account.

[lizzlefly]

@PicklePumpers ...then mathematicians would have "legitimate philosophical" concerns about its truth. If evolutionary theory implied that there was no such thing as right and wrong or that there is no God (and I can easily provide you with a bunch of quotes from evolutionists who do say this), then it is cause for concern. It is you who are being disengenious and immoral by pretending otherwise.

[lizzlefly]

@PicklePumpers Belief's about reality don't affect how you interact with reality? And what nonsense to act as if one's beliefs about reality are unimportant. What the author of the article is saying (I didn't write it, although I agree with it) is that creationists are concerned that certain TRUTHS about reality are contradicted by evolution, and that therefore evolution (as far as they are concerned) cannot be correct. If for example, evolutionary theory seemed to require belief that 1 + 1 =3..