I will add this quote also from
St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica (On the Government of Things in General (q 103, article 1):
Certain ancient philosophers denied the government of the world, saying that all things happened by chance. But such an opinion can be refuted as impossible in two ways.
First, by observation of things themselves: for we observe that in nature things happen always or nearly always for the best; which would not be the case unless some sort of providence directed nature towards good as an end; which is to govern. Wherefore the unfailing order we observe in things is a sign of their being governed; for instance, if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle [Cleanthes].
Secondly, this is clear from a consideration of Divine goodness, which, as we have said above (44, 4; 65, 2), was the cause of the production of things in existence. For as “it belongs to the best to produce the best,” it is not fitting that the supreme goodness of God should produce things without giving them their perfection. Now a thing’s ultimate perfection consists in the attainment of its end. Therefore it belongs to the Divine goodness, as it brought things into existence, so to lead them to their end: and this is to govern.
Thanks for this quote. Given that you support ID, you obviously think that something in this quote contradicts the synthesis of Evolution as understood by the natural sciences and Catholicism. That you thought this is in fact quite embarrassing looking at it from my point of view; but perhaps an easy mistake to make if you don’t understand Aquinas and Evolution. Its a shame.
With this response we can see the two kinds of Argument from Design…
…The problem is that since evolution occurs by chance (reliance on a random variable), then this would be what St. Thomas is arguing against here.
Let me just note that Aquinas admits that one possible defeater of his argument is
natural necessity. In any case, Aquinas is not talking about intelligent design as you understand it. That organisms act for a meaningful and purposeful end is proof of Gods existence regardless of whether or not they evolved according to the principles of Evolution. Aquinas would understand that and accept it if he were alive to day since Aquinas does not deny the fact of secondary causes and chance when he made those arguments.
It seems evident, according to my understanding of St.Thomas, that Aquinas supports the notion of secondary causes and that nature functions by itself according to inherent principles. What he denies is that the whole universe is a chance event and he shows us that the order/laws/principles/functions and acts that we see in nature is not characteristic of a Universe that was not designed to fulfill a purpose. We see that nature acts towards ends that are meaningful only in the sense of purpose. That events come together through secondary principles is irrelevant, since it is the first principle of being that defines the end. The only defense that an Atheist has against this argument is the same argument they had before there was ever a theory of Evolution, and that is to say that the principles and laws of nature exist for no reason (
brute fact), and thus the evidence of purpose is an illusion. But this is just a suggestion. An assertion, that cannot be proven. This assertion does not change the fact that the world looks as if it was created for a purpose since it acts for meaningful ends. Given this fact, while we cannot afford any certainty, it is reasonable to believe that the world was created for a purpose.
ID supporters are so hoodwinked that they spend all their energy trying to disprove a theory that never had anything to say about the purpose of things, but rather expressed the biological and natural means through which animals vary. This fact, while it might undermine “Paley”, does not undermine any of the teleological arguments as expressed by Aquinas, since in order for Evolution to work in the first place, there still has to be consistent rules/laws/principles of function and actuality, and this is what Aquinas is referring to in his argument.
The fact of the matter is, Paley’s argument that complex structures could not arise naturally is in principle false. While logic might rule out spontaneous assemblence with out a designer, neither logic or science can rule out the possibility that there are in fact natures that are as such that they assemble spontaneously into complex structures by themselves in response to precedent events. But in order for that to happen there has to be laws and principles that allow that to happen, and so God is not removed as a teleological cause in every instance just because of the fact that there are natural events that arrange themselves.
ID supporters are in fact helping the supporters of naturalism in their attempts to blind people, by trying to find some kind irrefutable scientific proof. By doing this, they are in fact affirming the belief that only scientific evidence is good enough. They are creating a dispute that doesn’t exist. Evolution is not proof against purpose.
My point is if there is no real distinction between “mindless processes” and “design” it’s silly to attempt to “scientifically” test for it. So a Catholic should regard this as silly. The best that could be done is attempt to show an inconsistency in the atheist/agnostic position. But that, as I will show below, cannot work in theory.