One could say the same thing about the events leading up to evolution; they either had evolution in mind, so to speak, or they didn’t. If life can be a surprise outcome of evolution or, if information can be a surprise outcome of physics, OOL and the evolutionary process can also be a surprise outcome of matter in motion and, indeed, matter itself can be a surprise outcome from nothing. None of those views make any sense to me because they all violate the basic principle of causality.

If Stephen Barr and Frank Beckwith say that nothing takes place without God’s foreknowledge, I would certainly agree. I gather that they understand that God doesn’t really foreknow in the sense of looking ahead; God simply knows, being outside of time—meaning that he sees the effects of future actions just as easily and surely as he sees the causes. [Some, such as Polkinghorne, seem to disagree with this, believing that God cannot know the future, but I think they compromise their Christianity in the process]. I think those of us in the present discussion, though, agree that God is unqualifiedly omniscient and that his omniscience does not, in any way, interfere with our free will. God knows if the stock market is going to crash, but that doesn’t mean that he caused it to crash.

You ask: “Finally, do you see the essential component of “Darwinism” as a commitment to the metaphysical claim that all things related to the development of life happen by blind, unguided, truly random chance? (Putting aside the thorny question of -humans- directing anything.) Meaning that if you reject any of these metaphysical claims, you reject Darwinism as well?”

I would answer, yes, for the reasons stated above. Life either “unfolds” according to a plan, or else it emerges as a surprise. Darwinism is committed to the latter principle. If one rejects the process that you described above, one does, as far as I am concerned, reject Darwinism. I would argue that if the process is “guided,” it cannot be Darwinistic by definition. A process that needs no help is not the same kind of process that does need help. Thus, in my judgment, to be a Christian Darwinist, [not the same as a Christian evolutionist] is to hold that evolution is both guided and unguided.

Of course, ID is also open to the idea that God is not so much an engineer [front loading] as a orchestra conductor, and that he intervenes from time to time in the physical world just as he intervened in salvation history. That is a totally different discussion.

I’d be in agreement with you, I think. When you say that the information would have been front loaded, what do you mean? That a given designer, with (admittedly, extremely powerful/expansive) knowledge, could have known “this universe will give rise to life, and other creatures, and humans” with certainty? I generally know about front-loading, but I just want to be sure we’re on the same page.

Also, this leads me to another question. I know Stephen Barr has said that he believes nothing takes place without God’s foreknowledge. Frank Beckwith, I strongly suspect, would agree. Wouldn’t this make these two ID proponents (or at least committed to an ID hypothesis) by your view?

Finally, do you see the essential component of “Darwinism” as a commitment to the metaphysical claim that all things related to the development of life happen by blind, unguided, truly random chance? (Putting aside the thorny question of -humans- directing anything.) Meaning that if you reject any of these metaphysical claims, you reject Darwinism as well?

You raise an excellent point. Here is my opinion: If, in both cases, the analyst holds that the information necessary to produce life or new forms of life could have been front loaded in the initial conditions of the universe, I submit that he would be proposing an ID hypothesis. If, on the other hand, he would not allow for that possibility, then it seems to me that he would be arguing against ID.

One question I have.

Let’s say someone argues that A) a given event took place by means of natural causes, and B) the event and those causes were designed. For example, someone argues that the OoL took place naturally. But they believe that this natural event was an intentional outcome, for whatever reason.

Is this person an ID proponent by your view?

Similarly, let’s imagine someone who believes that all of life evolved, they believe in common descent, etc. But they don’t believe that any of the mutations were truly ‘random’ in the sense of being unguided. Yes, most mutations are harmful or neutral, only a few are beneficial (from a ‘survival’ standpoint), etc. Yes, species change gradually over time and so on (I know that even outside of ID, this ‘gradualness’ is questioned now). But they believe all these things were intentional and purposeful. There were no events that took place unforeseen or without purpose, etc.

Is this person an ID proponent by your view?

Forgive me, but you continue to miss the point rather spectacularly. Aquinas believed that God made man in finished form—BODY AND SOUL. That means that his law of causality does not forbid God’s use of causes other than secondary causes to create—it means that Aquinas philosophy of nature does not rule out more than one kind of design—-it means that it is the TEs who do not understand Thomistic causality—unless they think that Aquinas did not understand his own law of causality. That is not at all the same as saying that Aquinas would be a young earth creationist today. It is to say that he was too brilliant to contradict himself, which he was. Thus, if YEC was, in his mind, consistent with his notion of Divine causality, and it obviously was, then ID, which is less creationist that YEC would certainly be compatible with it.

—”For if Thomas were to do that, he would be offering a philosophy of nature that denies the universe’s being as absolutely contingent upon God and whose order–including the “law” and the “chance”–are not absent of “design,” for they are part and parcel of his providence.”

God’s fundamental design of the raw materials of the universe and its laws does not preclude other kinds of designs. In any case, I didn’t say that Aquinas inferred design the SAME WAY Dembski and Behe infer it.

A philosophical inference is not synonymous with a scientific inference, though the two are not necessarily incompatible. Romans 1:20 and Psalm 19 are not theological statements of faith, by the way, they seek to draw PHILOSOPHICAL inferences to the creator/designer based on an observation of nature to provide a rational justification for THEOLGOCIAL faith in God [Christ]. They are bottom up inferences calculated to justify the top down leap of faith that follows. Christianity allows faith to illuminate reason only after it has first passed the test of reason, which makes it unique among all world religions.

Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas drew philosophical inferences to the creator/designer [that which all men know to be God] based on observation. Behe and Dembski draw SCIENTIFIC inferences to the designer [a scientific design inference cannot detect the identity of the designer] based on observation, that are compatible with Aquinas’ PHILOSOPHICAL inferences based on observation.

—[characterizing ID] “For in the parts in which God does not act, he is absent. This is worse than “God of the gaps,” it’s atheism of what remains.”

God once formed and now maintains and sustains everything in the universe. ID does not contest that; it simply acknowledges that it cannot conclude God’s sustaining activity from design patterns, any more than it can conclude God’s sustaining activity with respect to a sand castle that was designed on a beach. If you think that ID rules out God’s sustaining activity, then you simply misunderstand it. Reading S.O.S. in a pile of stones or, for that matter, reading “Made by Yahweh” in a DNA molecule does not violate Aquinas’ teaching on Divine causality. If perceptible design in biology violated Aquinas’ philosophy of nature, then so would the anthropic principle in cosmology.

That would be very true but what ID advocate does that?

And wouldn’t design (not necessarily God) be the efficient cause of things not touched by chance and law?

First, Dr. Torley, thank you for pointing out that I misspelled Professor Carroll’s name. It was late and I was tired. I’ll be more careful next time, since I have no reason to expect charity in the event I make mistakes in the future.

Second, you simply do not understand Thomas Aquinas. You are reading him anachronistically through the lenses of a post-Reformation, post-Newtonian world in which the issues that have the set the agenda for the past 300 years were not even a gleam in Thomas’ eye. When someone says, like StephenB, that Thomas was a “Young Earth Creationist” is like saying that Thomas believed in “natural law just like John Locke.”

Third, you write: “In this passage, Professor Carroll accuses Professor Mike Behe (a fellow Catholic) of worshiping a false God, who is not the God of Christianity. Do you call that respectful? I don’t. I call it heresy-hunting.” Actually not. Carroll is referring to Behe’s theory and its attempt to account for nature. He is not referring to Whom Behe worships.

StephenB writes: “Further, many Catholic TEs shamelessly and frequently use the name of St. Thomas Aquinas, master of the philosophical design inference, to argue against a scientific design inference. Ridiculous. What is that but a public relations campaign designed to remake the Angelic Doctor in their own image an likeness?”

Holy Mother of God, are you serious?

No one I know invokes Thomas’ name to make a point. They actually present his arguments, which, by the way, do not involve a “design inference,” since for Thomas design is not “inferred” in the way in which Behe-Dembski “infer” it. For if Thomas were to do that, he would be offering a philosophy of nature that denies the universe’s being as absolutely contingent upon God and whose order–including the “law” and the “chance”–are not absent of “design,” for they are part and parcel of his providence.

By placing God as the efficient cause in the slivers that chance and law do not touch, the ID advocates (at least some of them) are in fact abandoning the rest of nature to unbelief. For in the parts in which God does not act, he is absent. This is worse than “God of the gaps,” it’s atheism of what remains.

ID advocates have turned a both/and into an either/or.

First of all, my full name is Vincent Torley. Most people on this blog simply call me “vjtorley” because that’s the name I sign in with, and I’m happy with that. I’d appreciate it if you’d kindly refer to me in the same way, and not as “vorley” or “vortley.” Thank you.

I must say I am genuinely mystified as to why you quoted a long passage detailing Aquinas’ views on embryology and the moral wrong of abortion. My views on this subject are identical to your own. I’m pro-life. Human life begins at conception, when ensoulment occurs. And I agree with you that Aquinas would have also held that ensoulment occurs at conception, had he known what we know.

My previous post (#41) dealt with the question of whether Aquinas would have been receptive to the theory of evolution. I concluded that the only evolutionary theory that he might have been willing to endorse would be one that everyone today would describe as some version of ID. I said nothing about Aquinas’ views on ensoulment. Were you getting me mixed up with someone else?

You wrote to StephenB:

Take, for example, the well-crafted piece by William E. Connor (see http://www.catholiceducation.o.....c0035.html ). This gentleman is a Thomistic philosopher who treats ID with respect but thinks it is mistaken.

Actually, the author of the article is William E. Carroll, not William E. Connor. You refer to him as a Thomistic philosopher; actually, he is a Professor of History at Cornell College in Mt. Vernon, Iowa. (I’m happy to grant that he’s a Thomist.) You aver that he treats ID with respect. Well, let’s see what he actually says:

If nature is intelligible in terms of causes discoverable in it, we cannot think that changes in nature require special divine agency. The “god” in the “god of the gaps” is more powerful than any other agent in nature, but such a god is not the God of orthodox Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Such a god can easily become a disappearing god as gaps in our scientific knowledge close.(39)

The “god of the gaps” or the intelligent designer of Behe’s analysis is not the Creator; at least this god is not the Creator described by Aquinas. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

In this passage, Professor Carroll accuses Professor Mike Behe (a fellow Catholic) of worshiping a false God, who is not the God of Christianity. Do you call that respectful? I don’t. I call it heresy-hunting.

StephenB referred in passing to “the anti-ID campaign being waged by theistic evolutionists.” In view of the recent anti-ID article by Professor Barr at “First Things,” I think this assertion is hardly controversial. How you manage to construe this as a claim by StephenB that “those who disagree with you [StephenB] are either stupid or wicked” is an utter mystery to me.

And what was StephenB’s outrageous conclusion? “The intelligent design hypothesis is compatible with Aquinas’ teaching on Divine causality.” That sounds pretty moderate if you ask me, especially considering that St. Thomas was actually a creationist.

If they had thought the matter through, they would have been aware that St. Thomas was a young earth creationist and could not possibly have believed that direct creation contradicted his own views on Divine causality. That should be obvious.

—-”Take, for example, the well-crafted piece by William E. Connor (see http://www.catholiceducation.o…..c0035.html ). This gentleman is a Thomistic philosopher who treats ID with respect but thinks it is mistaken.”

A great many people think ID is mistaken, but that is not the same thing as making the false claim that Aquinas would have rejected it. What he would have rejected is the schizophrenic idea of a purposeful mindful God using a purposeless mindless process, or a God who reveals his design in cosmology and hides his design in biology.

—”He does not speak of campaigns and waging war, poisoning the wells in order to get a lift out of the rabble. That’s not his style. And yet, the words you pen here suggest that those who disagree with you are either stupid or wicked. Time to spank your inner Dick Dawkins.”

That’s a stretch. A PR campaign is not necessarily a “war.” In any case, nany TEs, Stephen Barr and yourself included, have made it clear that you are concerned about the impression ID makes on atheists, and you both appear intent on passing the word along to as many people as possible. Ken Miller and Francis Collins are two among many who use the internet to tell the world about ID and its many alleged faults. I would call that a campaign.

Further, many Catholic TEs shamelessly and frequently use the name of St. Thomas Aquinas, master of the philosophical design inference, to argue against a scientific design inference. Ridiculous. What is that but a public relations campaign designed to remake the Angelic Doctor in their own image an likeness? I suggest that you read, “The Evidential Power of Beauty,” by Fr. Thomas Dubay.

Thomas’ views on embryology would likely be rejected by him if he were alive today. So, why not suppose he would adjust his views (as you understand them) in light of other discoveries and theories. (BTW, I’m not saying you’re right about Thomas. That’s for another post. What I am saying is that even if you are, it does not affect the Thomist understanding of the metaphysics of creation and his philosophy of nature).

Reference: See Benedict Ashley & Albert Moraczewski, Cloning, Aquinas, and the Embryonic Person, 1 Natl. Cath. Bioethics Q. 189 (Summer 2001). Ashley and Moraczewski write:

“Aquinas . . . did not know that the matter out of which the human body is generated is already highly organized at conception and endowed with the efficient and formal causality necessary to organize itself into a system in which, as it matures, the brain becomes the principal adult organ. Hence he was forced to resort to the hypothesis that the male semen remains in the womb, gradually organizing the menstrual blood, first to the level of vegetative life and then to the level of animal life, so as to be capable of the further self-development needed for ensoulment. But he also supposed that this entire process from its initiation was teleologically (final cause) predetermined to produce a human person, not a vegetable, an infra-human animal, or a mere embryonic collection of independent cells. That is why the Catholic Church has always taught that even if it were true that personal ensoulment takes place sometime after conception, nevertheless abortion at any stage is a very grave sin against the dignity of a human person.”