St. Thomas Aquinas Bot:
Random responses:
1. There are three principles of nature: MATTER, FORM, and PRIVATION.
2. Ask me for an ARGUMENT that exposes the gaps in evolutionary theory. I have a few.
3. My nickname was “The Dumb Ox” because I rarely talked and was built like an ox.
4. Ask me about why DESIGN is evident in nature. I can give you a few good examples.
5. (surprise response) You’re all heretics!
potency, act:
Two basic things form the foundation of existence. The first is that
which simply is, and is what we normally consider as existing. We say
such a thing exists in act. The second thing is that which can be,
although it is not. Such a thing exists in potency. Pure act is
called FORM and pure potency is called MATTER.
substantial, accidental
We should distinguish between two types of existence: substantial and
accidental. A thing that is said to exist substantially exists in the
purest sense of the word. For example, we can say a man exists
substantially in reference to his being itself. Accidental existence
refers to nonessential qualities. So, <<wetness>> is a
kind of accidental existence because it only exists as a quality of
something that can be wet, like water, but does not exist on its own
accord.
matter
A substance that exists in POTENCY is called matter. [Both that which
is potentially a SUBSTANTIAL being and that which is potentially some
ACCIDENTAL being can be called matter] (1). That which is potentially
a substantial being is called PRIME MATTER. FORM gives existence to
matter, but does not remove POTENCY from matter, since matter that
achieves form through GENERATION still has potency for further
accidental existence. Therefore, matter always exists in potency and
can never be complete in ACT. This quality of matter is called
PRIVATION.
Form
Form is a substance that exists entirely in ACT and has no POTENCY for
existence or non-existence. Form is the principle from which something
has existence. It is entirely spiritual in nature and separate from
matter. To observe an example of form, we can look at a chair. The
physical substance of the chair is the MATTER, while the idea of
<<chairness>> constitutes the form of the existing chair.
Without form, the chair as we understand it does not exist and persists
in potency. Form essentially [causes a thing to be in act] and is said
to be ACT itself (2). Unlike matter, forms cannot be subject to
CORRUPTION.
generation, corruption
The existence of a material object always follows that of FORM, since
merely potent MATTER cannot be actualized without form. Therefore,
generation is defined as [motion towards form] (3). Generation of
SUBSTANTIAL existence is said to cause something to come to be.
However, when ACCIDENTAL existence is introduced by generation, we say
this thing simply becomes. The opposite of generation is corruption. A
substance can only be corrupted if it is separated from its form.
Since forms cannot be separated from themselves, and therefore cannot
lose existence, they are incorruptible
privation
[GENERATION is a kind of mutation from non-being or non-existence to
existence or being] (4). However, generation only comes from things
that exist in potentiality. In other words, if something does not
potentially exist in the first place, it cannot be generated into
existence. The concept of lacking existence in ACT, but having
existence in POTENCY is called privation. Privation is not an
intrinsic quality, since it does not exist in and of itself. Instead,
privation is an accidental quality of matter.
prime matter
[Matter understood as without any form and privation, but subject to
form and privation, is called prime matter, because prior to it there
is no other matter, and it is also called Hyle] (5). The idea of the
existence of prime matter is the basis for my argument about the
UNMOVED MOVER or UNCAUSED CAUSE.
evolution
The theory of evolution does not intrinsically threaten the Catholic
worldview or, for that matter, a spiritual approach to nature. Human
beings, through their intellect, are able to observe and comprehend the
GENERATION of FORM in this universe, since we are a result of
generation and a part of the universe. Evolution is simply evidence of
the process of POTENCY-becoming-ACTUALITY. Given these assumptions,
the forms of beings that we can now understand through evolution are
still spiritual in nature. Pure matter lacks a spiritual aspect, but
MATTER actualized by form is intrinsic evidence of spiritual
existence. Despite the scientific legitimacy of evolution, it cannot
be considered a definitive explanation of existence, a belief upheld by
DARWINISM. Clearly, evolution cannot have occurred eternally. An
UNMOVED MOVER must have caused the evolutionary process to begin.
Furthermore, the evolutionary hypothesis cannot explain many natural
phenomena. Ask me for an ARGUMENT exposing the insufficiencies of the
evolutionary hypothesis. I have a few.
Darwinism:
While the idea of EVOLUTION does not preclude a spiritual approach to
nature, certain people argue that evolution is proof that God does not
exist. This extrapolation of the evolution argument to explain the
origin of everything can be called Darwinism. Darwinism, at the core,
denies the possibility of a spiritual approach to nature because it
denies the existence of spiritual objects altogether. This
REDUCTIONIST theory of existence explains everything in terms of
material causes and presents basic PHILOSOPHICAL problems.
Philosophical
Darwinism’s philosophical problems stem from its ambitious attempt to
construct a narrative account of universal history through scientific
explanation. The promise of this kind of understanding of the natural
world is alluring, especially since the sciences are largely (and
misleadingly) construed as infallible. However, scientific models such
as Darwinism attempt to answer questions that are not within the sphere
of science, mainly the is-question and the what-question. The
is-question addresses [the judgement of existence as such] and asks
[Why is there something rather than nothing?] (6). The what-question
asks [Why are things [what] they are, and not otherwise] (7). These
questions cannot be asked by empirical science, since observations of
the physical universe can never be complete. The sciences [certainly
ask why this or that came to be, and what are its constituents, but
they do not ask why this or that should exist at all, or why it should
have an intelligible form at all] (8). Science takes the concepts of
existence as such and intelligible existence for granted, and should
not confuse basic assumptions with essential explanations.
reductionist, reductionism
Reductionism attempts to explain the universe as an entirely material
entity. This is a basic reductionist argument: Sometime right after the
beginning (whether it was caused by the Big Bang or a creation-event by
God), all that existed was matter and energy. These components
randomly moved around the universe and formed stars and planets.
Reacting to the conditions created by past random events, atoms on the
planet we now call Earth randomly bonded to form the first proteins.
The process continued and generated organ systems, and eventually
organisms. In this grand-scale model of the gradual evolution of
matter, it is plausible that human beings are essentially a collection
of randomly assorted atoms and energy. In the history of the universe,
we are just a temporary organization event. This chance organization
can even account for our consciousness, which is an effect of a
distribution of energy in our brains. However, the assumption that
events in the universe occur randomly seems problematic. A revision of
the reductionist theory, called DETERMINISM, addresses this problem.
determinism
Determinism addresses a problem with the REDUCTIONIST assumption that
the universal evolution was entirely random. Since each event must
happen as a result of previous events and can only act in relation to
the specific circumstances that already exist, it seems hardly
reasonable that these acts are random, at least not in the sense that
equal chances exist for the infinite number of possible outcomes.
While the potential exists for matter to take an infinite number of
GENERATION courses, only one course can actually happen given the
circumstances of the universe immediately prior to that course. This
theory assumes that generation, or motion, can occur eternally.
However, motion cannot persist eternally, and must be actuated by an
UNMOVED MOVER.
Unmoved mover
Every process of GENERATION toward ACT from a state of PRIVATION
requires motion. Motion is the process of applying FORM to MATTER,
thus transforming potency into act. For example, a woodcarver creates
motion when he carves a block of wood into a chair. Form defines the
wood block's new ACCIDENTAL existence, which is "chairness." Though
the form of the chair persists in potency in the block of wood`,
without motion it can never exist in act. Only a subject composed of
matter and form can create motion towards form. For example, the
woodcarver, a being of both matter and form, created motion from the
block of wood to the chair. However, the form itself, chairness, could
not have caused this motion. So, only a material being that exists in
act can create motion, but motion must have previously caused the
material being to exist in act. This idea presents an sequence of
motion that continues eternally backwards in time. However, this
eternal sequence is impossible since PRIME MATTER could not have
spontaneously undergone motion, since nothing prior to prime matter
would have been in motion and able to cause motion. Therefore, a
beginning to motion must have been caused by an "unmoved mover," a
being that is pure act, and therefore eternal. Furthermore, this being
have existed perfectly in act because it produced motion toward
essential form, rather than accidental form. I believe that this
perfect, unmoved mover is also an intelligent being of pure love called
God. My examples of DESIGN in the universe support my belief of the
existence of such a God.
argument
1. The theory of evolution is often applied to the emergence of
complex chemical compounds although no evidence for evolution causing
this emergence exists. Scientists assume that a primordial, biological
soup must have existed on Earth billions of years ago, but [no
geological evidence indicates an organic soup, even a small organic
pond, ever existed on this planet] (9). To provide evidence for the
biological soup claim, some scientists count on discovering life on
other planets, especially Mars. However, NASA’s claims that evidence
for life exists on Mars are not accepted by the scientific community
and are generally seen as a publicity stunt for fund-raising.
2. The most widely accepted <<evidence>> for evolution
exists in paleontology. However, the [known fossil record fails to
document a single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing
a major morphological transition] (10). Although paleontologists have
been searching for evidence of evolution since Darwin proposed the
theory, the gradualistic model has not been validated through fossil
evidence. In fact, the apparent rule is that “new species…tend to show
up abruptly in the fossil record” and species generally remain
unchanged for millions of years. Niles Eldredge admits, [We
palaeontologists have said that history of life supports this
[Darwinian] interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does
not] (11). Even the familiar model of the evolution of the horse is
considered fallacious by some paleontologists. Natural selection as
Darwin describes it is a way for species to adjust to fluctuating
environmental situations, but cannot be extrapolated to explain
speciation.
3. Many examples of DESIGN are evident in nature. These examples do
not preclude a scientific understanding of nature but do suggest that
evolution alone could not have created the natural world we
experience. Ask me for some examples.
design
1. The universe seems to have a narrative structure. Although
multitudes of random events have occurred since the beginning of the
universe, ordered levels of being exist in the cosmos. These
levels—physical, chemical, biological, botanical, zoological, and
human—represent a series in which the higher levels depend on the
existence of the lower levels. For example, a plant (botanical level)
cannot exist without the sun’s energy (physical level) that powers
photosynthesis (chemical level) in the chlorophyll (biological level).
Furthermore, animals and humans cannot exist without the autotrophic
plants. This hierarchical structure of being suggests that [each level
as it were makes a gift of itself to be used by the next highest level,
and when human existence is arrived at the entire sequence may be
understood as dynamically oriented beyond itself] (12). The universe
seems to have been directed toward the creation of humans but not
inevitably so, since each level is not necessarily impregnated with the
higher levels.
2. Gradualism provides a digestible theory to explain the emergence of
biological systems. However, gradualism simply cannot account for
multitudes of irreducibly complex systems evident in chemistry and
biology. I have many examples of IRREDUCIBLY complex systems.
Irreducibly
1. The bacterial cells that exist today are essentially the same as the
first cells which existed 3.4 billion years ago. Though extremely
small, these cells are certainly not simple, consisting of billions of
atoms. The problem with suggesting a gradual emergence of such an
organism is that [even the simplest cell appears as fully functioning
or not at all] (13). In order for a functioning cell to be created by
chance, at least one hundred proteins would have to have been
spontaneously created in the same place and at the same time. The
probability of such an event is, at the very most, one in one hundred
billion billion.
2. The biological immune system provides a clear example of an
irreducibly complex system. A crucial part of the human immune system
is the CI complex, which consists of about twenty proteins that form
twenty-two specific protein chains. The complex is crafted precisely
to recognize only one target antibody. If it were not so specific, it
would destroy good cells. While Darwinists claim that this compound
evolved gradually over millennia, slowly perfecting itself through
natural selection, this model simply could not exist. If any part of
the CI complex were missing, it would perform no useful function. The
premise of natural selection requires that each gradual step in the
formation of biological compounds have an integral function in an
organism. However, in the case of CI and all irreducibly complex
systems, [any intermediate version of them would be irrelevant, since
all of the system’s parts must play their roles simultaneously] (14).
An intermediate CI would have no function and no reason to be naturally
selected.
Endnotes
1. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Aquinas: Selected
Writings, trans. Ralph McInerny (New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1998),
18.
2. Ibid, 19.
3. Ibid, 19.
4. Ibid, 19.
5. Ibid, 21.
6. Brendan Purcell, “Reflections on evolution in the light of a
philosophical biology,” in Thomas Aquinas: Approaches to Truth, ed.
James McEvoy and Michael Dunne (Portland: Four Courts Press, 2002), 85.
7. Ibid, 85.
8. Ibid, 85.
9. Quoted in Purcell, “Reflections on evolution in the light of a philosophical biology,” 89.
10. Quoted in Purcell, “Reflections on evolution in the light of a philosophical biology,” 91.
11. Quoted in Purcell, “Reflections on evolution in the light of a philosophical biology,” 91.
12. Purcell, “Reflections on evolution in the light of a philosophical biology,” 81.
13. Ibid, 89.
14. Ibid, 96.
Works Cited
Aquinas, Thomas. Thomas Aquinas: Selected Writings. Translated by Ralph McInerny. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1998.
Purcell, Brendan. “Reflections on evolution in the light of a
philosophical biology.” In Thomas Aquinas: Approaches to Truth, edited
by James McEvoy and Michael Dunne, 77-113. Portland: Four Courts Press,
2002.
Wippel, John F. The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas: From Finite
Being to Uncreated Being. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of
America Press, 2000.