Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thomas Aquinas contra Transformism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In my previous post Synthesis-versus-Analysis I dealt with the distinction between “true whole” and “false whole”. Now let’s see how that had relations with Aquinas and his refutation of biological macroevolution.

About the origin of man and the relations between his soul and body, Aquinas was clear:

Reply to objection 3: Some have claimed that the [first] man’s body was formed antecedently in time, and that later on God infused a soul into the already formed body. But it is contrary to the nature of the perfection of the first production of beings that God would make either the body without the soul or the soul without the body; for each of them is a part of human nature. It is especially inappropriate to make the body without the soul, since the body depends on the soul, but not vice versa. [Summa Theologiae, 91, IV]

Note that the above quote especially applies to the negation of the arise of man from a non-human being (anthropoid). But in general denies the material macroevolution of any living being, because no being is inanimate (also if obviously human soul is incomparably higher than any animal soul) and Aquinas states that “soul is the form of the body” (in Scholasticism, in general, the “form” is the qualitative “principle” or “essence” of a thing):

Reply to objection 3: […] But since the soul is the form of the body, it does not have esse separately from the body’s esse; instead, it is united to the body directly through its own esse. [ibidem, 76, VII]

We can conclude that Aquinas is contra universal macroevolution in principle, because macroevolution is transformation of bodies only, while in Aquinas soul and body are not separable and the latter causatively depends on the former. By the way, this crystalline Aquinas’ position, shows how inconsistent are some Catholics (or even neo-Thomists!) who think to can believe, in the same time, in the Catholic doctrine (of which Aquinas is the master reference) and biological transformism.

But here I want to elaborate a bit specifically the above Aquinas statement: “But it is contrary to the nature of the perfection of the first production of beings that God would make either the body without the soul or the soul without the body”.

Beings are “perfect” because they are “true wholes”. If they are “true wholes” then their constitution / organization spiritus-anima-corpus must be an integrated “unit” or “oneness”. As I said in the linked post a “true whole” is a synthesis that can be neither produced nor conceived by analysis, rather only by means of “synthetic knowledge” (related to intelligent design). Because of such “synthetic knowledge” any kind of being is a top-down manifestation / instantiation of a metaphysical archetype into matter, by means of a vertical causation across the three layers: spiritual, animic (soul), corporeal (body).

Differently, a material macroevolution, or macro-morphing, of a being A to a being B would be a step-by-step analytic process, which — as we have seen — can never reach the limit of the target “true whole”. If the limit unit is not reached, and the beings are units, they neither can be produced by such analytic manner nor we can speak of “perfection”, neither about the process nor about its result. Goes without saying that such analytic process fails also because doesn’t work at all on the spiritual and animic planes.

As a consequence, only the above synthetic “vertical causation” can account for the “perfection of the production of perfect beings”, as Aquinas puts it. Any analytic serial horizontal macroevolution wouldn’t be “perfect” and wouldn’t produce “perfect” beings at all. This is the reason why Aquinas speaks of “perfection of the first production of beings” and coherently denies transformism.

Of course Aquinas’ cosmologic teachings about creatures’ origin, which are rigorously based on ontological principles, agree perfectly with the modern perspective of engineering. To provide a practical example, engineers never physically transform — say — cars into airplanes, rather they design in abstracto and assembly cars and airplanes independently. Also engineers apply an intelligent “vertical causation”, from abstract archetypes to material systems. No wonder, it couldn’t be otherwise because truth, at any level, is necessarily coherent, and the principles of intelligent design are universal.

Comments
E.Seigner:
For example that the sun is hot is an objective fact. Even dogs get it and hide from the sun.
Otoh, my cat seeks out the sun. Therefore it is not hot. Objective fact. One wonders whether creatures that seek out the sun outnumber those who hide from the sun. Will the numbers decide what is objective? Should we exclude plants, on principle?Mung
September 6, 2014
September
09
Sep
6
06
2014
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
Interesting points. Yes, that does seem schizophrenic and I don't understand why there is so much opposition to the idea of "intervention" since the entire process would be an intervention into reality, as was the creation of physical laws, the fine-tuning of the cosmos or the creation of the human soul (for many TE's). Then the different attitude towards cosmology from biology. I hate to say it but I think a lot is driven on the fear of being anti-Darwin, and thus the target of ridicule and of being labeled ignorant fundamentalist creationists.Silver Asiatic
September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic
One of the theistic evolution arguments I’ve seen is that “from God’s perspective, nothing is random”. Therefore, evolution is an intelligently designed process. Or as it was already stated; “everything is designed”. Then there will be a strong resistance to admitting that we can actually tell the difference between things that have been designed and things not designed.
I think ID can make the following case: Everything was designed ultimately, but some things were designed indirectly through secondary causes and natural laws and other things were designed directly through primary causes. It would seem that only the latter leaves detectable design patterns. In keeping with that point, the TE proponents seems a bit schizophrenic to me. They are reduced to saying that God's natural revelation is disordered and inconsistent: As they would have it, the Creator revealed himself to us in his cosmology only to turn around and hide himself from us in his biology.StephenB
September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
"For example that the sun is hot is an objective fact." Is not.Mung
September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
One of the theistic evolution arguments I've seen is that "from God's perspective, nothing is random". Therefore, evolution is an intelligently designed process. Or as it was already stated; "everything is designed". Then there will be a strong resistance to admitting that we can actually tell the difference between things that have been designed and things not designed.Silver Asiatic
September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
SB & UB: I am unfortunately too busy with local brush fires -- latest is where should the permanent sea port be built project cycle management shell games, but I think part of the problem is misunderstandings of inductive reasoning, influences of naive falsificationism (a shot of Lakatos and some Feyerabend might do good?), multiplied by trendy literary theory, po mo etc. The basic answer to all such is, any grand delusion argument is a self-referential own goal and must fail. We learn food from poison inductively, and that pharmacology is the study of poisons in small and useful doses much the same way. Just so, we know to expect Julie mango trees to yield that noble fruit, not thorns and thistles by inductive recognition of the identity, nature and associated dynamics of a certain object in our gardens and orchards. So, we have a well-warranted belief that come mango time we are in for a taste treat. In short induction allows us to gain access to reasonable, weak form [reliable as opposed to absolute certainty not in our gift. . . ) knowledge. In that context, we see causes now occurring and their characteristic effects, which are empirically reliable signs. Design --> FSCO/I, for instance. We have every epistemic right on inspecting traces of the otherwise unobserved deep past of origins to hold that a reliable sign speaks true until demonstrated not to be reliable. Just as, in court or in history, we trust the known habitually accurate and careful even when they are the only accessible source. For, we understand that character is a part of the identity, and A is A, so it is reasonable to expect A to run true to form. And lurking underneath is abductive inference to best explanation in light of the implicit premise that we live in an intelligible cosmos not a chaos. Which, is full of hints as to the source and sustainer of that wonderful order. KFkairosfocus
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
The pattern I've found so often (and it is indeed a pattern) is that those who just stand on this utterly pointless and ill-conceived demarcation issue -- just wholly animated by it -- are those who are the most thoroughly lost when it comes to physical evidence. They have no clue. The relentless manufacturing of protection from evidence, and the personal inability to deal with evidence tend to go hand in hand. Why not have the courage of your convictions and deal with the evidence instead of blindly parroting that it doesn't exist.Upright BiPed
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
E. Seigner
The inference that there could be any intelligent agency behind the object is completely up to the subject.
It is certainly up to the subject and not the object to establish the hypothesis. A designed object cannot establish a hypothesis. Check!
None of it can be detected in the object.
No. It is the design in the object that is detected. Reality is objective; perception is subjective. We are capable of apprehending reality as it is. We don't just experience a series of meaningless sense impressions.
The “design” is not in the physics of the object, but is completely projected by the metaphysics of the subject.
No. The object is really designed. The subject apprehends the design that is in the object. There is a subject and there is an object.
That’s why different people with different metaphysics, different training and different expectations reach different conclusions concerning the same object, often even radically different.
Everyone knows that a sand castle is designed and is not the product of wind, air, and erosion. You know it too. Why you will not admit it is a mystery.
For example that the sun is hot is an objective fact. Even dogs get it and hide from the sun. Far more subjective is the idea that the sun is the giver of life on earth. Dogs don’t entertain this idea, but humans do, at least those who are inclined to contemplate life and nature. That the sun is created is an idea of religious believers, while looking for design in the sun is the idea of design theorists, just like looking for alien life is the idea of ufologists. And both ID theorists and ufologists appear to have amassed plenty of scientific facts that somehow fail to make any point to everyone else – and of course it’s the fault of everyone else.
The sun was designed to warm the earth. This is a statement about the object of investigation. We can apprehend that design. This is a statement about the subject that investigates the object. If the sun had not been objectively designed to warm the earth, it would not warm it the earth. Your personal or subjective metaphysics will not cause the sun to be designed or to warm the earth. Again, you are not making the distinction between the subject and the object.
Actually, I asked you about the methods and concepts and you have completely failed to articulate anything sensible about them.
That is not a true statement. I explained, in brief, that ID makes an inference to the best explanation. This is a fact, but it is not the whole story. Rather than acknowledge the fact or ask for more detail, you simply ignored the point and injected a few irrelevant comments about metaphysics.
What I have read on the Resources section on this site betrays utter lack of method and you are only confirming it For example I quoted from the Resources section that the ID theory holds that natural selection is undirected or unguided, but you pretty soon contradicted this, apparently because it was me quoting it. Looks like you think everything I say must be contradicted. You enjoy contradicting so much that now for several rounds you have been contradicting yourself.
Darwinian evolution does hold that natural selection is an undirected process. That is why ID argues against it. That is why legitimate Thomism argues against it. Darwinism is not, as you say, an “intelligently designed process” Where you got that idea I will never know, but it does help me to understand at least a part of your confusion.
The first point was about scientific interpretation of facts. If we are not talking about scientific interpretation of facts, then we are not talking about science, and all your examples and scenarios are irrelevant, because it was your job to prove that ID theory has something scientific in it, that you are somehow doing science. Now it’s clear that there’s none of it here.
On the contrary, ID is scientific because it uses the same methods as the other sciences listed. If they are sciences by virtue of their methods, then ID is science for the same reason. Thus, it is your job to show that they are not science or that ID doesn’t use their methods.
When I mention the process of interpretation of facts, i.e. the scientific method, you don’t even know what is being said. In this discussion it was your job to demonstrate something scientific about the ID theory, but now you are totally tired of science.
I have tried to keep you focused on science, but you continue to inject metaphysics, subject/object theory, and a whole series of other irrelevant topics. ID is a historical science. The methods of historical science are well established. Among other things, they involve the application of abductive reasoning, an appeal to current causes now in operation, and a focus on causes that are known to produce the effect—all for the purpose of drawing an inference to the best explanation among competing alternatives. These are, in part, ID’s methods, about which you know nothing. Naturally, this limitation doe not prevent you from commenting on the subject at length.
In my opinion it [motivation] matters quite a lot if global warming statistics are analyzed with the motivation to support a policy harboured by some cronies or if the job is done to determine a scientific truth. Of course, you like to contradict me, so you have already contradicted this point a few times. Thus only proving my point. Thanks yet again, even though this was the point I really didn’t want to be proven.
Everyone is motivated and everyone has biases. That is the whole point of scientific methods. Their objective is to filter out the biases and prejudices and let the evidence speak. Yes, that evidence must be interpreted in a rational way.. Thus, the quality of the science is totally dependent on the integrity of the methods and the rational standards that inform the methods. If any of these factors break down, science is compromised. The role of metaphysics is to insure that rational standards are maintained.StephenB
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
E. Seigner #116 Just a brief observation ... I think the following might indicate where there is a major misunderstanding. You said (I bolded):
At no point is there any “detection of intelligent design” going on in the relevant sense, and given the normal definitions of intelligence (psychological) and design (artistic), there’s no way for objectivity to enter the picture.
Yes, artistic is one defintion of design -- but that's not what ID is talking about. It's design as in the phrase "by design" -- or "with purpose". Design is a plan or conscious intent. It can be artistic or functional. Anything that was created with a deliberate act would be designed. Things are "desgined for" something. There is a purpose. If you're thinking just about artistic design, this might explain why you put so much emphasis on subjectivism. Art is a matter of taste.Silver Asiatic
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
StephenB
I don’t think you know the meanings of the terms you are using. Subjective refers to the thinking subject; objective refers to the object that is being thought about. Thus, the subject makes a design inference about the object of the investigation, which is the designed artifact.
You are repeating exactly what I said, but in a tone as if you were arguing against me. Who are you really arguing with? Can't you see that you are proving my point?
Subjectivity refers to the thinking subject that makes the design inference, not the objective reality of the thing that was designed or the objective fact that it was designed. Please try to grasp this point.
You are finally grasping what I have been saying all along. The inference is subjective, done by the subject. The inference that there could be any intelligent agency behind the object is completely up to the subject. None of it can be detected in the object. The "design" is not in the physics of the object, but is completely projected by the metaphysics of the subject. That's why different people with different metaphysics, different training and different expectations reach different conclusions concerning the same object, often even radically different. For example that the sun is hot is an objective fact. Even dogs get it and hide from the sun. Far more subjective is the idea that the sun is the giver of life on earth. Dogs don't entertain this idea, but humans do, at least those who are inclined to contemplate life and nature. That the sun is created is an idea of religious believers, while looking for design in the sun is the idea of design theorists, just like looking for alien life is the idea of ufologists. And both ID theorists and ufologists appear to have amassed plenty of scientific facts that somehow fail to make any point to everyone else - and of course it's the fault of everyone else.
You say that ID has no objective facts to study, but you don’t have a clue about what ID studies or which methods it uses. I know that you are unfamiliar with those methods because I asked you to articulate them and you could not do it?
Actually, I asked you about the methods and concepts and you have completely failed to articulate anything sensible about them. What I have read on the Resources section on this site betrays utter lack of method and you are only confirming it. Somehow you managed to not notice when you blatantly contradict the Resources section. For example I quoted from the Resources section that the ID theory holds that natural selection is undirected or unguided, but you pretty soon contradicted this, apparently because it was me quoting it. Looks like you think everything I say must be contradicted. You enjoy contradicting so much that now for several rounds you have been contradicting yourself.
I wish you would not crowd three of four distinct philosophical errors in the same paragraph. It makes it extra hard for me to write a comprehensible paragraph in response. In the first sentence, you argue falsely that only a scientist can interpret facts. In the second sentence, you allude to a process without even knowing what it is. In the third sentence, you renew your irrelevant motive mongering. In the fourth sentence, you continue to obsess over subjectivity and objectivity even as you remain confused about both concepts. Just take one idea and try to develop it.
I summed up all the points that you had been unable to reply. And your lack of response conclusively sums up your inability to clarify the ID theory when questions are posed. The first point was about scientific interpretation of facts. If we are not talking about scientific interpretation of facts, then we are not talking about science, and all your examples and scenarios are irrelevant, because it was your job to prove that ID theory has something scientific in it, that you are somehow doing science. Now it's clear that there's none of it here. When I mention the process of interpretation of facts, i.e. the scientific method, you don't even know what is being said. In this discussion it was your job to demonstrate something scientific about the ID theory, but now you are totally tired of science. Motivation is quite relevant here, because you brought it up yourself, not me. In my opinion it matters quite a lot if global warming statistics are analyzed with the motivation to support a policy harboured by some cronies or if the job is done to determine a scientific truth. Of course, you like to contradict me, so you have already contradicted this point a few times. Thus only proving my point. Thanks yet again, even though this was the point I really didn't want to be proven.E.Seigner
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
E. Seigner
Okay, so despite all my explanations how this distinction occurs, you still manage to deny the obvious. The obvious is that the distinction is subjective, not objective. I.e. a dog or an illiterate would not be able to tell a random sequence of letters apart from a well-written paragraph. Most people untrained in archeology would not be able to tell stone-age spearheads from random pebbles, etc.
Where do you get all this nonsense? It is an objective fact that an ancient hunter designed his spear. It is an objective fact that you, as an author, designed your paragraphs. All rational people can immediately recognize the difference between a rock formed by wind, air, and erosion and a spear formed by intelligent agent. It requires no training to differentiate between a random sequence of characters and a well-written paragraph.
The distinction is possible, yes, but it crucially depends on who is distinguishing. The distinction is completely dependent on the relevant preparation of the person. This is what it means to say that the distinction is not objective. It is subjective.
I don’t think you know the meanings of the terms you are using. Subjective refers to the thinking subject; objective refers to the object that is being thought about. Thus, the subject makes a design inference about the object of the investigation, which is the designed artifact.
Exactly right for archeologists, but completely different for anyone non-specialist and non-rational, which highlights the subjective nature of the inference.
No, Craig’s point is that any rational person would come to the same conclusion. That is why he offered two examples, one of which has nothing to do with historical science. Designed artifacts (and organisms) leave clues.
At no point is there any “detection of intelligent design” going on in the relevant sense, and given the normal definitions of intelligence (psychological) and design (artistic), there’s no way for objectivity to enter the picture.
Subjectivity refers to the thinking subject that makes the design inference, not the objective reality of the thing that was designed or the objective fact that it was designed. Please try to grasp this point.
If intelligent design were objective, then everybody would agree on its “facts” , but the fact is that it’s completely subjective, which calls people to investigate its background assumptions and motivation rather than “facts”. Naturally so, because it has no objective facts there to study.
You say that ID has no objective facts to study, but you don’t have a clue about what ID studies or which methods it uses. I know that you are unfamiliar with those methods because I asked you to articulate them and you could not do it? Isn’t it time that you stopped reacting and started thinking? What do you hope to gain by remaining hopelessly uninformed?
In all the examples and analogies cited it makes all the difference how to approach the facts. Since you fail to recognize this, you are evidently unfamiliar with the sciences you cite and also not interested in making your own project a science.
Interesting. I provide general information about the methods of several scientific disciplines, all of which were new to you, and now, all of a sudden, you are the expert. I guess this means that you can finally give me the step-by-step process that they all use. Please do so now. If you need help, let me know.
It takes a scientist to understand the nature of what’s going on in the process of interpretation of facts and artefacts and this is how I can safely say you have no clue of what you are talking about when you claim ID theory to be scientific to any degree. And what you say about motivation makes it conclusively clear that you have no interest to get a clue either. Inability to recognize the distinction of subjective and objective is a sure sign of pseudoscience, and unwillingness to acknowledge that the distinction even exists is even more so.
I wish you would not crowd three of four distinct philosophical errors in the same paragraph. It makes it extra hard for me to write a comprehensible paragraph in response. In the first sentence, you argue falsely that only a scientist can interpret facts. In the second sentence, you allude to a process without even knowing what it is. In the third sentence, you renew your irrelevant motive mongering. In the fourth sentence, you continue to obsess over subjectivity and objectivity even as you remain confused about both concepts. Just take one idea and try to develop it.StephenB
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any dumber…
He doesn't really believe this but it shows how absurd the position one has to take if they are going to deny the ID hypothesis has any merit. One still has to look at yourself in the mirror each day.jerry
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
On that point Feser argues that ID accepts the mechanistic view of the neo-Darwinists in order to argue against the neo-Darwinists. Here I have some sympathy with what he says.
I agree that does sound like a problem, except that "the view of the neo-Darwinists" is what we'd also call "mainstream science". What Feser offers is a far more radical critique, and I fully agree with him that modern science is based on the wrong metaphysics. I'd like to see some credentialed Thomistic biologists who do new peer-reviewed research using a non-mechanistic model. Thus far, all we have is the critique and no alternative to support. I don't think ID needs a mechanistic model to support its findings. Design-detection is easily supported under a Thomistic metaphysics (see #44 in this thread).Silver Asiatic
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
Wow, according to E. Seigner all of science and mathematics is subjective because dogs and morons can't understand them. Just when I thought it couldn't get any dumber...Joe
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Summary: things are only objective when dogs can perform them? :)Box
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
you still manage to deny the obvious. The obvious is that the distinction is subjective, not objective. I.e. a dog or an illiterate would not be able to tell ... This is what it means to say that the distinction is not objective. It is subjective.
Since a dog cannot tell that the earth travels around the sun, then our observation of the earth traveling around the sun is subjective ? Okay, got it. Another powerful refutation of ID.Upright BiPed
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Elisabeth "If intelligent design were objective, then everybody would agree on its “facts”, Ooooo, we have a consensus is on our side argument. Elisabeth, how well did the overwhelming consensus of belief in the Darwinian Theory of Evolution have in your country in the 1930s & 40s ? -DavidD
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
StephenB
So, as far as you are concerned, there is no way to distinguish a random sequence of letters from a well-written paragraph, or a dented rock from an ancient hunter’s spear, or a pile of sand from a sand castle.
Okay, so despite all my explanations how this distinction occurs, you still manage to deny the obvious. The obvious is that the distinction is subjective, not objective. I.e. a dog or an illiterate would not be able to tell a random sequence of letters apart from a well-written paragraph. Most people untrained in archeology would not be able to tell stone-age spearheads from random pebbles, etc. The distinction is possible, yes, but it crucially depends on who is distinguishing. The distinction is completely dependent on the relevant preparation of the person. This is what it means to say that the distinction is not objective. It is subjective. Craig makes the same point when he says: "...suppose some archaeologists were digging in the earth and they came across entities that looked for all the world like tomahawk heads and arrowheads and pottery shards. They would be rational in inferring that these artifacts are not the result of the chance processes..." Exactly right for archeologists, but completely different for anyone non-specialist and non-rational, which highlights the subjective nature of the inference. At no point is there any "detection of intelligent design" going on in the relevant sense, and given the normal definitions of intelligence (psychological) and design (artistic), there's no way for objectivity to enter the picture. If intelligent design were objective, then everybody would agree on its "facts", but the fact is that it's completely subjective, which calls people to investigate its background assumptions and motivation rather than "facts". Naturally so, because it has no objective facts there to study. In all the examples and analogies cited it makes all the difference how to approach the facts. Since you fail to recognize this, you are evidently unfamiliar with the sciences you cite and also not interested in making your own project a science. It takes a scientist to understand the nature of what's going on in the process of interpretation of facts and artefacts and this is how I can safely say you have no clue of what you are talking about when you claim ID theory to be scientific to any degree. And what you say about motivation makes it conclusively clear that you have no interest to get a clue either. Inability to recognize the distinction of subjective and objective is a sure sign of pseudoscience, and unwillingness to acknowledge that the distinction even exists is even more so.E.Seigner
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
E Seigner"
These are some of the reasons why you don’t even have Craig and Plantinga investing anything in your project.
Both men affirm that design is objectively detectable. From William Lane Craig: ..."suppose some archaeologists were digging in the earth and they came across entities that looked for all the world like tomahawk heads and arrowheads and pottery shards. They would be rational in inferring that these artifacts are not the result of the chance processes of sedimentation and metamorphosis. They would be rational in inferring that these were, in fact, artifacts that are the products of intelligent design. They would be rational in drawing that explanation, or that conclusion, as the best explanation even if they had no explanation at all of who these people were or where they came from. They might have no explanation at all of who these designers were, but clearly the best explanation for the arrowheads and the pottery shards is that they were the product of intelligent design. To take another illustration, imagine that astronauts landing on the moon were to discover on the dark side of the moon a pile of machinery. They would be rational in inferring that the best explanation for this machinery is intelligent design, even if they had no idea at all who made this machinery or how it came to be there. Suppose they were able to determine it wasn’t American made or Soviet made. They don’t have any idea who made this machinery or how it got there. Still it would be obvious that this was the product of intelligent design. You do not need to be able to explain the explanation in order to recognize that the explanation is the best." Aquinas would certainly agree, as would any rational person.StephenB
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
E. Seigner,
These are some of the reasons why you don’t even have Craig and Plantinga investing anything in your project. They certainly look like serious enough reasons for me.
In other words, even after my chiding and prompting, you still cannot identify or describe ID's methods, which means that you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
Key motivation of the project is not science.
That is correct. Motives have nothing to do with methods. So, apply that principle, stop the motive mongering, and learn something about the science.
AFAIK, Feser rejects ID because his metaphysics, same as mine, block any possibility of defining design as something objectively detectable
So, as far as you are concerned, there is no way to distinguish a random sequence of letters from a well-written paragraph, or a dented rock from an ancient hunter's spear, or a pile of sand from a sand castle. And you really think that St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest thinkers who ever lived, would support your position. On the contrary, he would laugh his head off at your naivete and then scold you for slandering his name.StephenB
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
Elisabeth Seigner "They certainly look like serious enough reasons for me." And this ultimately says it all in a nut shell. It doesn't look that way to you. So who are you ? Upright BiPed "The irony in #111 is thick." Probably as thick as the head of Bier she helps manufacture down in Bavaria. Nice one ElisabethDavidD
September 2, 2014
September
09
Sep
2
02
2014
12:05 AM
12
12
05
AM
PDT
The irony in #111 is thick.Upright BiPed
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
StephenB
What is it, I wonder, that prevents such talented men as Feser and Oderberg from investigating ID’s actual arguments. Heaven knows they have the intellectual capacity to absorb them.
1. Lack of solidity in background metaphysics. You don't even acknowledge the need for metaphysical structure. Your background assumptions should be explicit and understood exactly one way, because everything you derive from it depends on it. If you had the metaphysics laid out properly, things like "soul is far more complex than the body" would not happen. This is for me personally the biggest obstacle with ID. Other reasons are also pretty serious though. 2. Lack of rigour in the key concepts. You have not defined design. What's worse, you don't even acknowledge the need to define it. Yet you go on talking about detecting it and you don't see the screaming self-contradiction in this. And I mention this completely apart from what I see as category error in trying to conceive of design as something objectively detectable. AFAIK, Feser rejects ID because his metaphysics, same as mine, block any possibility of defining design as something objectively detectable, but as I found out in this discussion, you even don't see the need to define the concept of design as anything. As long as the key concept is not defined, ID theory is obviously not a scientific theory in the first place and doesn't even deserve to be taken seriously. 3. Key motivation of the project is not science. The aim of the project is, as per someone, "to discredit neo-Darwinism, one of the most destructive ideas to ever plague the mind of man." If I need to say what's wrong with this statement, then the wrongness of this statement is even worse than it appears. Scientific projects aim to reveal truths about reality. Other theories may be debunked as a side-effect. If "discrediting" a mainstream scientific theory is the central and only aim, then you don't have scientific motivation. Not to mention that given the tools and methods that you allow yourselves (cited in previous points) your aim is unobtainable anyway. These are some of the reasons why you don't even have Craig and Plantinga investing anything in your project. They certainly look like serious enough reasons for me.E.Seigner
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT
I think niwrad is trying to say something like this: Souls are unchangeable. Accordingly, one kind of soul could never evolve into another kind of soul. One body type could evolve into another body type if each wasn't inextricably tied to a soul. But each body type is, indeed, tied to a soul that is unchangeable and unfit for any other kind of body. A rational human soul is a different form than a non-rational pre-human soul. Thus, a pre-human, which is not a composite of rational soul and body, cannot morph into a human, which is. Neither can a pre-human body wait around for an implanted human soul since it already has a soul of its own.StephenB
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
From the OP:
We can conclude that Aquinas is contra universal macroevolution in principle, because macroevolution is transformation of bodies only, while in Aquinas soul and body are not separable and the latter causatively depends on the former.
Again, this is just silly, mistaken, false, incoherent, or fails to accurately communicate the thought of the author. Any material substance has a substantial form. The only matter without form is prime matter. There is just no such thing as "transformation of bodies only" without transformation of form. The implication of what is asserted in the OP is that Aquinas would have accepted a body without form, and that is just absurd.Mung
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
There is so much that is just plain wrong about this OP. It's a shame that niwrad has chosen to bow out of defending it's content. For example:
Note that the above quote especially applies to the negation of the arise of man from a non-human being (anthropoid). But in general denies the material macroevolution of any living being, because no being is inanimate ...
That is just silly, or ignorant, or false, or fails to accurately communicate the thought of the author. God is not an animate being. Therefore God is an inanimate being. Are angels animate or inanimate beings? Are plants animate or inanimate beings? Are any of the above non-beings?
...no being is inanimate...
Does anyone want to argue that what niwrad really meant was that no inanimate being is an animate being? If so, how does that help his argument?Mung
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Feser's main objection to ID seems to be that it is metaphysically superfluous. That deserves a big so what imo. It misses the point in two respects: 1) ID is not metaphysics, and 2) a distinction can be made between something that is not necessary to a particular end and something that is not useful to a particular end. I don't want to know why ID is not necessary, I want to know why it is not useful, or why it is even harmful. On that point Feser argues that ID accepts the mechanistic view of the neo-Darwinists in order to argue against the neo-Darwinists. Here I have some sympathy with what he says. I think VJT has a post on whether ID is mechanistic. I need to find that OP.Mung
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
SB, I have a theory. Most probably have other over-riding interests and demands on their time. "Understanding ID qua ID" is not a particular priority. So they read what someone else has written, perhaps even someone they trust, and that's where their conception of ID is derived from. Oderberg cites Machuga 2002: 161-6 I suppose perhaps I could spring for the few dollars at about 50c a page just to see what this guy has written about ID and where he got it from. But why on earth does someone feel the need to attack ID [an assumption] in a book on the human soul? I think I need to go back and see if Thomas Woodward has written on the sociology of the anti-ID mindset, lol. I think I'm an honest searcher. I have reservations about ID. But it's just frustrates the heck out of me when I cannot find Christians who can it least give it a fair hearing (Kenneth Miller comes to mind as the most egregious Christian critic). Do your research. Quote and cite your sources. Don't lie about or misrepresent ID or it's arguments. It undermines your credibility. If you're relying on your readers to just not know what you're up to, to be informed enough, shame on you. /end rantMung
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
On Delayed Ensoulment Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life Did St. Thomas Aquinas believe ensoulment occurred 40 or 80 days after conception, making abortion permissible until then? Embryonic Ensoulment Do Embryos Have Souls? Divergent Views on Abortion and the Period of Ensoulment Abortion and the Early Christian Church Roman Catholicism and abortion accessMung
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Mung @103: Yes, that is the passage that I had in mind. What is it, I wonder, that prevents such talented men as Feser and Oderberg from investigating ID's actual arguments. Heaven knows they have the intellectual capacity to absorb them. At the very least, they could read "God and Evolution," in which Jay Richards and Co., thoroughly debunks this strawman argument.StephenB
September 1, 2014
September
09
Sep
1
01
2014
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply