Evolution: Is There Any Good Reason To Reject The Abiogenesis Hypothesis?

[o_mlly]

Professor Tkacz’s article from 2008 is dated and I could not find that he published any follow-on articles. Today, some Thomist philosophers not only support intelligent design but also oppose theistic evolution. Father Michael Chaberek’s book Aquinas and Evolution published on April 28, 2017 being a good example.

He [Fr. Chaberek] is, quite simply, utterly incorrect in this assertion as I showed above.

I find your several criticisms of Chaberek’s work either flawed, confused or simply wrong. But the point of referring to Chaberek was to disabuse readers in this thread of your claim that Thomists do not support ID.

This article explains not only why Thomists don’t support Intelligent Design, but also why Intelligent Design ultimately belittles God and detracts from His Majesty.

Properly understood, ID does just the opposite. Rather the eliminating God from His creation as evolutionists do, ID claims that all observable intelligent beings have intelligent causes. Read on:

Loading…

www.touchstonemag.com

Dr. Logan Paul Gage
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Franciscan University of Steubenville

 

[Ghosty1981]

I find your several criticisms of Chaberek’s work either flawed, confused or simply wrong. But the point of referring to Chaberek was to disabuse readers in this thread of your claim that Thomists do not support ID.

This is all well and good, but you haven’t provided any support for your claim that my criticisms are flawed, and you’ve only provided a single example of a Thomist that supports ID. The problem with using this example of a Thomist, however, is that his arguments aren’t representative of Thomism as I’ve shown, and you’ve not countered. Perhaps he does a better job explaining himself in his book, but given that Aquinas himself believed explicitly in abiogenesis, that is life emerging from non-living matter through natural processes, Chaberek’s work as presented is pretty useless in demonstrating that Thomism is incompatible with prevailing scientific theories of evolution.

Properly understood, ID does just the opposite. Rather the eliminating God from His creation as evolutionists do, ID claims that all observable intelligent beings have intelligent causes.

Not all evolutionists eliminate God from His creation, nor do we deny that created nature has an intelligent cause. This is a classic example of setting up a straw-man on the evolution side, and then erroneously broadening the claims of Intelligent Design. Evolution itself makes absolutely no claims about God, and can’t, because it is a theory about material development that can be investigated empirically. Evolutionists such as myself have absolutely no problem with identifying design in not only evolution, but also in spread of matter throughout the universe; this is called Teleology, something I’ve talked about many times. Teleology is expressed in Aquinas’ Fifth Way, and it is a philosophical argument that applies to all levels of existence. Intelligent Design is not about Teleology, but rather it makes empirical claims about material development that can’t be tested; it is a pseudo-science, not a philosophy.

continued…

 

[Ghosty1981]

Read on:

Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity

Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas​

The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design

Dr. Logan Paul Gage
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Franciscan University of Steubenville

The article really doesn’t present anything new, and doesn’t demonstrate a clear understanding of Darwinism as it sets Darwinian randomness against Teleological design, something that Darwinism itself as an empirical theory makes no claims on one way or another. Someone can even posit Darwinian evolution and not be a materialist or a nominalist, a fact this author seems to ignore by lumping these ideas into “Darwinism” when he says “the first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences”. Darwinism as an empirical theory makes no claims nor assumptions about essences and species, though Darwin himself was critical of the way species were classified in his day.

The author states:

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.

Darwinism, insofar as the term has any agreed-upon meaning, simply means the generational change of living things through natural selection; it makes no philosophical claims beyond that. To include notions of nominalism, atheism, materialism, or any other philosophical baggage into the term goes too far. Darwinism is absolutely and entirely compatible with the notion that God is the Formal Cause of all things, including every type of living creature.

Darwinism does indeed exclude irreducible complexity, and therefore Intelligent Design Theory, but it does not (and can’t) exclude an intelligent designer of life and the cosmos.

Peace and God bless!

 

[o_mlly]

This is all well and good, but you haven’t provided any support for your claim that my criticisms are flawed …

? Well, yes I did.

It appears a closer reading of Fr. Chaberek’s work is in order. The “flaw” you cite is predicated on accepting the conclusions of theistic evolution, not intelligent design. The good Father agrees that these conclusions are illogical citing both the principle of sufficient reason and metaphysical potency as withstanding:

If a critic’s first criticism is fatally flawed then does one need to go further?

Please work on clarity and concision in your arguments. Your posts provide plenty of opinion but not rigorous arguments with supporting citations.

If you wish to pursue Thomism’s compatibility with ID then start a new thread. My point has been made: Some Thomists do agree that ID is quite compatible.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Well, yes I did.

No, you made an incorrect claim about what I was saying and didn’t engage with my point at all. You said “read harder” without any demonstration that what I inferred from the article was incorrect.

Please work on clarity and concision in your arguments. Your posts provide plenty of opinion but not rigorous arguments with supporting citations.

I’ve actually cited the articles I talk about, and provided reasoned arguments to support my conclusions. When you are ready to make and support an argument we can engage, otherwise you are merely posting links without providing any reason to accept them.

My point has been made: Some Thomists do agree that ID is quite compatible.

Your point is made but rather irrelevant since I never claimed that “all Thomists believe that ID is incompatible with Thomism”. What I have done, however, is show that the arguments of Thomists who say that Intelligent Design Theory is the logical conclusion of Thomism over and above Natural Selection are not supported by Aquinas’ own work, and must selectively ignore his writings in order to justify their support of ID.

Peace and God bless!

 

[o_mlly]

Your point is made …

Good.

… but rather irrelevant since I never claimed that “all Thomists believe that ID is incompatible with Thomism”

Not as good.

This article explains not only why Thomists don’t support Intelligent Design …

If you wish to quibble on the absence of the word "all’ then start a new thread. We’re done on this diversion.

 

[Aloysium]

Darwinism, insofar as the term has any agreed-upon meaning, simply means the generational change of living things through natural selection

I don’t think that would be the agreed-upon meaning. That’s not a theory but an observation, that the morphology and behaviour of the offspring may differ from that of their ancestors to make them more adapted to their environment. Darwinism is more along the lines of all species having arisen through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual organisms ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. It claims that the diversity we see around us from bacteria to human beings, grasses to the elephants that eat them, originated from one or a few initial life forms, and developed through those two mechanisms. No supernatural intervention would be necessary. The topic of this thread has to do with how the first organiusm(s) came to be.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I don’t think that would be the agreed-upon meaning. That’s not a theory but an observation.

An observation would be “there are different species of living creatures”, the theory is “differences arise through natural selection of traits suited to the survivability of living organisms over successive generations”.

Darwinism is more along the lines of all species having arisen through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual organisms ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Yes, that would be what I said above, except that you are adding “all species” so I assume you include life in general. I can accept that inclusion into the term Darwinism (though I personally wouldn’t apply Darwinism to non-living things), but it doesn’t change my point in any way, namely that Darwinism does not make any philosophical claims such as atheism, nominalism, or materialism. Formal causation is simply not addressed by Darwinism at all.

No supernatural intervention would be necessary.

A position shared by Aquinas, so Darwinism does not exclude Thomism as the author I was citing argued.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

If you wish to pursue Thomism’s compatibility with ID then start a new thread.

You do realize that the interplay between Thomism and Intelligent Design is the core of the OP in this thread, right?

Peace and God bless!

 

[o_mlly]

You do realize that the interplay between Thomism and Intelligent Design is the core of the OP in this thread, right?

Very good. Excellent on concision. But not so good on content. Did you not read the OP? I don’t see Thomism or Intelligent Design mentioned. Look up “core” as well. Now we’re finished.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Very good. Excellent on concision. But not so good on content. Did you not read the OP? I don’t see Thomism or Intelligent Design mentioned. Look up “core” as well. Now we’re finished.

I recommend unpacking what the original poster wrote. If the first post is too obscure then just read his later elucidations:

And allowing things to act according to the principles of it’s nature through the actualizing power of God. That is not deism, it’s Thomism.

and:

The point of the OP is that from the moment of the Big Bang it seems that God has allowed nature to run it’s course, so why stop when it comes to possibility of abiogenesis?

So indeed, let’s stay on topic.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty1981]

I just want to clarify my position in case it comes into question during this discussion:

I believe that theistic evolution (with abiogenesis of the first living organisms) is the most philosophically and theologically sound position to take given our knowledge of the material world and Scripture.

I do not believe that theistic evolution is the only position a Catholic should/must take.

I believe that the concept of theistic evolution is the most consistent with Thomistic principles of any popular notions of the development of life.

I do not believe St. Thomas Aquinas believed in evolution (he was explicitly a special creationist), even though I believe that theistic evolution is most consistent with his thinking based on our current understanding of the world.

I do not believe that one must believe in theistic evolution to be a Thomist, but I have not seen any solid Thomistic defense of Intelligent Design Theory (the works that have been put forward have some significant flaws and gaps).

I believe that Intelligent Design Theory (not to be confused with Teleology) adds unnecessary causes and complexity to things that can be sufficiently explained with simpler theories, and this theory is not required in order to have both God and theistic evolution.

I believe that Intelligent Design Theory is pseudoscientific, as it adds no explanatory power to existing theories and is not empirically testable.

Hopefully this will eliminate any strawmen that are made in my image.

Peace and God bless!

 

[o_mlly]

I recommend unpacking what the original poster wrote. If the first post is too obscure then just read his later elucidations:

The OP is not obscure. Did you find it so?

But a good try to obscure an attempt to shoehorn Thomism vs Intelligent Design into the thread.

Post #91 references Thomism as opposed to Deism and #93 doesn’t mention Thomism at all. It isn’t until Ghosty1981’s post #483 and his claim that Thomism is opposed to ID that initiated this exchange. Which claim as shown is in error.

Yes, stay on topic or start a new thread.

 

[Aloysium]

An observation would be “there are different species of living creatures”,

Observations include accepted theories, such as that there exist species. To my mind, the observation would be that the different species are suited to their environment, as described by Darwin in regards to the finches he found.

Darwinism does not make any philosophical claims such as atheism, nominalism, or materialism.

They are implied, especially if we are speaking about neo-Darwinism. The driving forces for change are understood as being random mutation of DNA and epigenetic processes, all of which would be based solely on the inherent properties of matter. These do not include an inevitable development of life. The ability of proteins to provide the anatomy and processes necessay for life, lies in variety of geometric structures that they can take. That is possible because of the carbon atom’s tetrahedral shape in forming covalent bonds. The possibility for life began with the creation of the carbon atom, hydrogen before that and “light”, as the initial material from which the universe was filled and developed. It takes only the slightest modicum of skepticism to quash the belief that this occurred without intervention. One could posit a natural force that moulds matter into the more complex shapes and behaviours we find in the world, but then as the laws of physics and chemistry apply everywhere in the universe, we should find, and do not, that everywhere we look in space, is teeming with life. There is no evidence other than what has been revealed of God’s intimate relationship with His creation, to explain the diversity around us.

Darwinism does not exclude Thomism

The interpretation of his words seems to vary. I must note, if it hasn’t been mentioned, that when he writes of matter and species, the words had a different meaning than they do today.

 

[tafan2]

There are certainly other Thomists philosophers out there that ke exception to intelligent design,. Edward Fesser being a very prominent example. As to a direct response to Fr Chaberek’s book:

Loading…

www.thepublicdiscourse.com

 

[Aloysium]

Maybe I shouldn’t have stopped at:

this evolutionary transformation that gave rise to the first snake using the following equation:

lizard1 + lizard2 → snake

But, I don’t care for arguments. I’d like to learn something and starting off with this claim without any empirical evidence is off-putting.

In terms of what we do find in speciation, that is gene deletion, the equation would be more along the lines of:

[-gene(spine)-gene(limbs)-gene(skull)- + intracellular processes1] + radiation
→ [-gene(spine)-gene(0)-gene(skull)]

where:
[-gene(spine)-gene(limbs)-gene(skull)- + intracellular processes1] = lizard
and [-gene(spine)-gene(0)-gene(skull)- + intracellular processes2] = snake

The unanswered question is, “Where did the original genes and cellular processes come from?”

 

[tafan2]

But that want the question he was addressing, he was addressing a specific claim by Fr Chaberek.

Try some of Feser’s blogs if that is not satisfactory:

The trouble with William Paley

In The Last Superstition and elsewhere, I have been very critical of both William Paley of “design argument” fame and of contemporary Intel...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

 

[Aloysium]

Thank you for this link.

Feser’s response to comments on his posting include:

As an Aristotelian, I (obviously!) agree that life cannot be reductively explained in terms of purely mechanistic processes.

and

Re: the evolution of material creatures, A-T would allow some kinds but not others. E.g. the human soul, being a subsistent form, could not have evolved or in any other way originated from purely material processes. Also, the difference between inorganic and organic phenomena, and between vegetative and animal life, is traditionally understood in A-T as a difference in kind rather than degree, so that it is hard to see how those transitions, anyway, could occur via purely Darwinian means.

I’m not well versed on his writings, but it appears he would not be a supporter of theistic evolution either.

 

[rossum]

In terms of what we do find in speciation, that is gene deletion,

Not necessarily gene deletion, more likely a gene switched off. Every gene has on/off switches. Your fingers have the genes for eyes, but those genes are switched off in your fingers; just as the genes for fingers are switched off on your face. A mutation in the switch can eliminate a pair of limbs.

Alternatively, short limbs are also a possibility. An achondroplasia-like mutation can be useful for getting into small holes, see Dachshunds. There are a number of lizards with very small limbs, such as a Skink.

 

[o_mlly]

There are certainly other Thomists philosophers out there that ke exception to intelligent design,. Edward Fraser being a very prominent example. As to a direct response to Fr Chaberek’s book:

In Defense of Thomistic Evolution: A Response to Chaberek - Public Discourse

I am familiar with Fr. Austriaco and his work in bioethics is very good.

However, in reading this article, I believe the good Father argues ineffectively. For instance, in arguing against the principle of sufficient reason (the less perfect cannot be the cause of the higher perfect ), his example (the lizard to snake) is not evolution but devolution. The snake arguably is a lizard less several important parts. The snake having less locomotion, and a loss of ability to use its eyelids is a lesser being. Remember, the tree of life purportedly explains the lower to the higher forms of life.

The chemistry (non-life) example does not apply to evolution. However, the potential in both hydrogen and oxygen explain the effect of water quite well.

The argument against Chaberek’s second objection ( a change of nature requires substantial change) is similar. The “evolution” of a living human being to a corpse is backward as the corpse is a lesser being and the substantive change that is always the cause of death is the departure of the soul.

For a better analysis of Aquinas’ thinking and how it debunks theistic (or any other kind of) evolution a better read is Fr. Ripperger’s article (or better yet, his book).

The Metaphysical Impossibility of Human Evolution – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation