Thomistic Evolution

[Bonaventure]

I got into an argument with a chap who defended evolution, specifically macroevolution, as possible. For support, he cited Dominican friars, who said:

"In brief, according to the theory of evolution, the history, diversity, and relationships among all living beings that have ever lived on our planet can be explained as follows. Life on our planet diversified gradually beginning with one primitive living thing that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago. Over time, this one living thing generated many more living species via a mechanism that can be explained primarily (but not completely) by genetic change and natural selection. All living beings on our planet, human beings included, are descendants of a common ancestor."

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/

I specifically stated that I thought Darwinian evolution was impossible.

[Hat And Beard]

When you take a step back and realize that scientists are just going where the data takes them and don't have an agenda, it's a lot easier to accept evolution.

I can't imagine how one would account for all the evidence that points to evolution. Glad these Dominicans are fighting the good fight.

[Kaesekopf]

I got into an argument with a chap who defended evolution, specifically macroevolution, as possible. For support, he cited Dominican friars, who said:

"In brief, according to the theory of evolution, the history, diversity, and relationships among all living beings that have ever lived on our planet can be explained as follows. Life on our planet diversified gradually beginning with one primitive living thing that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago. Over time, this one living thing generated many more living species via a mechanism that can be explained primarily (but not completely) by genetic change and natural selection. All living beings on our planet, human beings included, are descendants of a common ancestor."

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/

I specifically stated that I thought Darwinian evolution was impossible.

Hard to argue with solid OPs, particularly those with PhDs in biology and moral theology...   

[Hat And Beard]

Hard to argue with solid OPs, particularly those with PhDs in biology and moral theology... 

That's a big and there. 

[red solo cup]

Where did the one primitive living thing come from?

[INPEFESS]

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the most famous Thomists of the 21st century, disputed macroevolution on purely philosophical grounds, for even biology is subject to reason and the laws of metaphysics.

[Kaesekopf]

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the most famous Thomists of the 21st century, disputed macroevolution on purely philosophical grounds, for even biology is subject to reason and the laws of metaphysics.

I haven't read the T.E. website, but it seems that these four friars argue in favor of macroevolution on philosophical grounds. 

[INPEFESS]

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, one of the most famous Thomists of the 21st century, disputed macroevolution on purely philosophical grounds, for even biology is subject to reason and the laws of metaphysics.

I haven't read the T.E. website, but it seems that these four friars argue in favor of macroevolution on philosophical grounds.

Yes, but I should have been more specific. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange argued against it based on the method of traditional Scholastic thought. As a rigorous system, the same method doesn't usually admit of two opposite conclusions.

[Daniel]

.

[Habitual_Ritual]

I got into an argument with a chap who defended evolution, specifically macroevolution, as possible. For support, he cited Dominican friars, who said:

"In brief, according to the theory of evolution, the history, diversity, and relationships among all living beings that have ever lived on our planet can be explained as follows. Life on our planet diversified gradually beginning with one primitive living thing that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago. Over time, this one living thing generated many more living species via a mechanism that can be explained primarily (but not completely) by genetic change and natural selection. All living beings on our planet, human beings included, are descendants of a common ancestor."

http://www.thomisticevolution.org/

I specifically stated that I thought Darwinian evolution was impossible.

Saying evolution did it and demonstrating it are two entirely separate propositions. Science cannot even account for the necessary bio-chemical complexity of the first viable cell. Mutation is proposed as the main biological driver of evolution (after abiogenesis), yet positive mutations allude science. The scale of mutation required for evolution would be observably devastating to organic systems. I have noted that supporters of evolution won't even debate macro-evolution anymore, instead opting to cite dubious micro-changes within species as being proof positive.

[Habitual_Ritual]

]

I can't imagine how one would account for all the evidence that points to evolution. ]

Given that there is no evidence, I can't imagine how one would either

[Habitual_Ritual]

I haven't read the T.E. website, but it seems that these four friars argue in favor of macroevolution on philosophical grounds.

Which is no argument at all

[Kaesekopf]

I haven't read the T.E. website, but it seems that these four friars argue in favor of macroevolution on philosophical grounds.

Which is no argument at all

Oh, sure, I'll take random internet posters argument over the guys formed in thomistic theology with a bunch of higher level theological degrees.

Nbd

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Habitual_Ritual]

I haven't read the T.E. website, but it seems that these four friars argue in favor of macroevolution on philosophical grounds.

Which is no argument at all

Oh, sure, I'll take random internet posters argument over the guys formed in thomistic theology with a bunch of higher level theological degrees.

Nbd

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Evolution is a process, not a philosophical construct. It either happened/is happening, or it ain't. End of.
Critical thinking is becoming more and more rare in our society it seems

[Habitual_Ritual]

Catholic convert and social critic Arnold Lunn, wrote powerfully on the folly of excepting evolutionary theory. His book, Revolt against Reason is a must read, as are his many other works in this particular area