Books on theistic evolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kronk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for that. It was poorly written. The points made were somewhat interesting. In the case of Thomas Aquinas, he pointed out that God works infallibly in creation. From Communion and Stewardship:

"But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within God’s providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency” ( Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” ( Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).
 
The part you quoted in no way, imo, conflicts with the ThomisticEvolution website I referenced.
Both sources express definite problems with ID theory. You continually ignore those.

-Edward Fesser might be called a lot of things, your the first to say he is a poor writer.

Also, if we can use Humani Generi in our discussions, despite it not being science, can we not talk about eternity?
 
Actually the church has been against macro-evolution (even though it didn’t call it that) since the beginning.
I thought we went through this on the other thread? Despite your insistence you were never able to produce an authoritative Church teaching. Did you find something?
 
Ok, fair enough, I don’t. You may not be interested in understanding my point of view, but please stop the insults until you at least take the time to understand my (and others) position.
 
Last edited:
Things are designed. Richard Dawkins saying they only “look” designed is not convincing. Any perceived insults are not meant as such but are sometimes mentioned to discredit the poster - in this case, me.
 
“Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller is a great start. He’s a professor at Brown University and a practicing Catholic.
 
Speaking generally - no names - that is what most posters are supporting. Yes the word God is added to make it a bit easier to swallow but that word can be dropped at any time.
 
Which poster supported that, not most. Hardly any did, perhaps none, yet you refer to everyone who disagrees as an atheist, and then have the audacity to claim you were not trying to insult anyone.
 
In this case, context is everything. God did nothing. Science discovered a process where God, at best, is a bystander who wound up a toy called evolution that went wherever it wanted. This insistence that science is primary or the only answer, moves God out of a direct causal role for life.
 
I will let Fesser explain for me, I don’t think I am clear.
Fesser approaches it as God needs to make course corrections because His design is not good enough. The problem is he ignores the effects of the fall.
 
??? You have read nothing that I have posted or that I referenced. Just caught up in your own little world I suppose. I’m out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top