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

[Ghosty1981]

Kindly share with us the document in which Aquinas writes, as you claim, that “Aquinas acceptance of abiogenesis … had absolutely nothing to do with Augustine’s exegesis.”

Are you serious?

I’ve already cited at least one example in this very thread. Aquinas did not derive his understanding of putrefaction, the stars, and the earthly elements from some exegesis on the origin of plants by Augustine.

If you want more examples just read the Summa, like I did, or the works of Aristotle (On the Soul is a good one) that Aquinas utilized for his scientific understanding.

Peace and God bless!

 

[o_mlly]

Are you serious?

I’ve already cited at least one example in this very thread. Aquinas did not derive his understanding of putrefaction, the stars, and the earthly elements from some exegesis on the origin of plants by Augustine.

I did not see such a post. Indulge me.

 

[o_mlly]

If you want more examples just read the Summa, like I did, or the works of Aristotle (On the Soul is a good one) that Aquinas utilized for his scientific understanding.

I have read both. Thomas does not write in the Summa that his "acceptance of abiogenesis … had absolutely nothing to do with Augustine’s exegesis.”

And of course, Aristotle, a 4th century BC pagan, could not make such a claim. Do you know that in the Summa, Thomas cites Augustine 1,000+ more times than Aristotle?

Please cite something in support of your claim.

 

[Ghosty1981]

I did not see such a post. Indulge me.

You yourself cited I.73.1 from the Summa (though you cut off the relevant portion). I’m not going to waste my time digging up your own citations which you presumably already read. I will indulge you once more, however, and point out I.45.8, objection and response 3, where Aquinas again discusses life arising from non-living things with no citation of Augustine as his authority on the matter.

I have read both. Thomas does not write in the Summa that his "acceptance of abiogenesis … had absolutely nothing to do with Augustine’s exegesis.”

This is a truly absurd expectation and demand for proof. If you have read Aristotle’s works then you know perfectly well that he discusses animals generated from non-living things frequently, including in the introduction of “On the Generation of Animals”.

At this point I honestly don’t have confidence that you are actually reading the works we are discussing, but are rather “quote mining” without studying.

Do you know that in the Summa, Thomas cites Augustine 1,000+ more times than Aristotle?

Yup, and I’ve read both Augustine and Aristotle’s works well enough to know when he’s citing one or the other.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest211]

That is not true. Human bodily formation does not equal planet formation.

 

[edwest211]

Communion and Stewardship was published after Humani Generis and aligns itself with Humani Generis.

“In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

 

[edwest211]

I agree with that.

 

[o_mlly]

You yourself cited I.73.1 from the Summa (though you cut off the relevant portion).

In 1.73.1 Aquinas answers, "Whether the completion of the Divine works ought to be ascribed to the seventh day?"

In reply to Obj. 3, he affirms secondary causes after the 7th day. He says nothing regarding abiogenesis.

He does cite the false science of his day writing that “perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction” which is why I cited 1.73.1.

I will indulge you once more, however, and point out I.45.8, objection and response 3, where Aquinas again discusses life arising from non-living things with no citation of Augustine as his authority on the matter.

Perhaps you missed Thomas’ preface to his answer to 1.45.8:
On the contrary, Augustine (Super Gen. v, 6,14,15) distinguishes the work of propagation, which is a work of nature, from the work of creation.

 

[Ghosty1981]

He does cite the false science of his day writing that “ perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction” which is why I cited 1.73.1.

This is literally abiogenesis. Thank you for demonstrating my point. Aquinas’ system accounts and allows for abiogenesis without any difficulty; he even made allowances for the abiogenesis of new species.

That you are citing this as if it somehow disproves my argument makes me think that citing these works in conversation with you is fruitless.

Perhaps you missed Thomas’ preface to his answer to 1.45.8:
On the contrary, Augustine (Super Gen. v, 6,14,15) distinguishes the work of propagation, which is a work of nature, from the work of creation.

Yes, that is his counter example of the disputed question, not a demonstration or reasoned argument. The Summa isn’t written in the manner you seem to believe it is.

Like I said, it appears that you are merely quote mining at this point.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest211]

Abiogenesis has zero evidence to support it. Life from non-life is fiction. If it were not, scientists could produce life on demand.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Communion and Stewardship was published after Humani Generis and aligns itself with Humani Generis.

It sure does…

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.

Rest easy, @Hobgoblin. In case you’re interested, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was folded into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1988, and the Prefect of the Congregation is also the President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. It was the President of the PBC who, in 2004, published Communion and Stewardship with the International Theological Commission (headed by the same individual acting as President of the ITC, this commission also being a part of the CDF). This person was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, incidentally.

Peace and God bless!

 

[edwest211]

That quote is based on a science only view. It goes on to state what the Church will accept and what it will not. The science only approach is considered but rejected.

“It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

 

[Ghosty1981]

That quote is based on a science only view. It goes on to state what the Church will accept and what it will not. The science only approach is considered but rejected.

“It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”

Yup.

 

[Aloysium]

the science of Aquinas’ times erroneously claimed life was produced by putrefaction. And, in the intervening 7 centuries, science today still has no evidence of life from non-life.

It’s basically the same erroneous concept today, that life emerges from what is non-living, material and not from what is unseen, as are we ourselves, and as was matter in the first place. The only difference is that we have more knowledge of the “dust” that constitutes putrifaction and have added some nine digits to the timeline.

The end result is a devaluation of living beings, a lack of appreciation of the wonder that they are, from the bacterium upwards, and each organism from its conception to its adult form. Each individual living creature exists as itself, a representative of the kind of thing it is, of which there can be many forms. While the structure and processes have a physical dimension, neither the instinctive perceptions, emotions, cognition and behaviour that define the psychological nature of the organism, nor the being one whole in itself that brings significance to its affections and sufferings, are emergent from the material substances of which they are constituted. The mental and spiritual dimensions of each living thing are as primary as that of the atoms of which the creature is composed, together forming what it is. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care.”

Life did not proceed from non-life temporally any more than it would do so ontologically.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism.

What an incredible declaration! The former Pope says common descent is virtually certain. This is exactly what I’ve come to expect from Catholicism.

 

[edwest211]

To deny the role of God as a causal agent is the stumbling block.

 

[Ghosty1981]

To deny the role of God as a causal agent is the stumbling block.

It sure is.

 

[Ghosty1981]

What an incredible declaration! The former Pope says common descent is virtually certain. This is exactly what I’ve come to expect from Catholicism

Keep in mind, of course, that the Church is careful not to wed itself to any particular secular scientific theory. It recognizes the current evidence and teaches with this in mind, but won’t make dogmatic pronouncements on matters best left to secular science.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Hobgoblin]

To deny the role of God as a causal agent is the stumbling block.

Who here is doing that? The former Pope sure isn’t. And he’s telling you common descent is nearly certain. Sounds like he’s ok with macroevolution.

Keep in mind, of course, that the Church is careful not to wed itself to any particular secular scientific theory. It recognizes the current evidence and teaches with this in mind, but won’t make dogmatic pronouncements on matters best left to secular science.

Yes, I understand perfectly. That’s what’s beautiful about it. It’s not going to commit to an uncertainty, but is honest about what our knowledge tells us and provides guidance in light of that knowledge.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Yes, I understand perfectly. That’s what’s beautiful about it. It’s not going to commit to an uncertainty, but is honest about what our knowledge tells us and provides guidance in light of that knowledge.

I figured as much. Just thought I’d throw it out there for those who might be less careful in their reading.