No, Thomas Aquinas was not a Darwinist, not even close
|February 18, 2011||Posted by O'Leary under Religion|
If your boss has been called into a meeting, have a look at
DARWIN, DESIGN & THOMAS AQUINAS
The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design
by Logan Paul Gage
Excerpt: In a typical discussion of Darwinian evolution, Christian philosophy, and intelligent design, one is likely to hear that St. Thomas had no problem with secondary causes operating in nature and that St. Augustine knew that the Bible is “not a science textbook.” Both of these assertions are true, as far as they go. But unfortunately, such platitudes only obscure deeper sources of tension between Darwinism and Thomistic thought. Here I would like to explore three intimately related sources of tension: the problem of essences, the problem of transformism, and the problem of formal causation.
The Essences of Species
First, the problem of essences. G. K. Chesterton once quipped that “evolution . . . does not especially deny the existence of God; what it does deny is the existence of man.” It might appear shocking, but in this one remark the ever-perspicacious Chesterton summarized a serious conflict between classical Christian philosophy and Darwinism.
I’ve always thought that the “Thomas Aquinas would disapprove of ID” claim was manufactured by people who politely pettifog in the face of the ruthless anti-design lobby.
Thomas would tell them: Prove evolution. Grow a backbone.