A Canonical Image?

The Gift | David Warren reviews a new book that gives an account of the disintegration of Darwinian theory and confirms existence as a divine Gift. https://t.co/vBKsuI8Srd pic.twitter.com/9rpgT1C3D5

— The Catholic Thing (@catholicthing) December 27, 2024

Thomism and Intelligent Design

Pat Flynn and Stephen Meyer Talk Thomism and Intelligent Design https://t.co/HBGS1EJjjf via @idthefuture @StephenCMeyer @TomGilsonAuthor @DrJayRichards

— Jonathan Witt (@JonathanRWitt) June 16, 2021

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution with Berlinski, Meyer, and Gelernter

Tonight at the DSPT

The 22nd Annual Aquinas Lecture
Albert the Great and the New Aristotelianism: A Turning Point in the Western Intellectual Tradition by Dr. Michael Tkacz

The lecture will probably be recorded and then uploaded to the DSPT website.

Response to Michael Tkacz's Critique of ID

Francis J. Beckwith, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Inadequacy of Intelligent Design

"Ethan" comments and cites St. Thomas:

Accordingly, there is diversity and inequality in things created, not by chance, not as a result of a diversity of matter, not on account of certain causes or merits intervening, but from God’s own intention…

The distinction of things is not from chance… those things which are distinct by their forms are not distinct by chance, but perhaps those things are, whose distinction is from matter. But the distinction of species is from the form, and the distinction of singulars in the same species, is from matter. Wherefore the specific distinction of things cannot be from chance…

It follows therefore that theform of the universe is intended and willed by God. Therefore it is not from chance: for we ascribe to chance those things which are beside the intention of the agent. Now the form of the universe consists in the distinction and order of its parts. Therefore the distinction of things is not from chance.

Therefore the specific distinction in things, which is according to their form, is not on account of their matter: but on the contrary matters were created diverse, that they might be suitable for diverse forms. Hereby is excluded… the opinions of any who held the distinction of things to be the result of various material principles.

I'll have to look this up when I get a chance.

Debate between Michael Behe and Stephen Barr

For ISI: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? mp3

Stephen M. Barr
Professor of Physics, University of Delaware

Michael Behe
Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute

Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL
4/7/2010

John Farrell takes on...

ID, of course.


Intelligent Design: Losing the Catholics

"For the Huffington Post? Really?" The criticism I don't mind as much, though there could be many reasons for ID papers not being accepted by peer-reviewed journals, but writing for websites that are generally hostile to tradition, for an audience that shares the same mindset... at best it seems futile. At worst, it can be a source of scandal.

Edward Feser, ID, A-T, and Duns Scotus: A further reply to Torley

Edward Feser: Dembski rolls snake eyes and the actual response.

Edward Feser, Cudworth and Fuller respond

One of the comments at WWWTW:

30. In order to maintain the unity of body and soul clearly taught in revelation, the Magisterium adopted the definition of the human soul as forma substantialis (cf. Council of Vienne and the Fifth Lateran Council). Here the Magisterium relied on Thomistic anthropology which, drawing upon the philosophy of Aristotle, understands body and soul as the material and spiritual principles of a single human being. It may be noted that this account is not incompatible with present-day scientific insights. Modern physics has demonstrated that matter in its most elementary particles is purely potential and possesses no tendency toward organization. But the level of organization in the universe, which contains highly organized forms of living and non-living entities, implies the presence of some "information." This line of reasoning suggests a partial analogy between the Aristotelian concept of substantial form and the modern scientific notion of "information." Thus, for example, the DNA of the chromosomes contains the information necessary for matter to be organized according to what is typical of a certain species or individual. Analogically, the substantial form provides to prime matter the information it needs to be organized in a particular way. This analogy should be taken with due caution because metaphysical and spiritual concepts cannot be simply compared with material, biological data.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Which reveals two things, to a Thomist -- a Catholic theologian cannot do without adequate training in philosophy, especially physics, if he is to speak of natural things. Secondly, one must look at the causes of natural things in order to judge what others speak of them. While it may be easy for those of some intelligence to look for corresponding concepts, it is unfortunate that they do not see the problem with saying DNA is the formal cause of a human body, which can lend support to a dualistic understanding of human nature. Catholic intellectuals have lost much in the last century.

James Chastek, Notes on Thomism and ID

Edward Feser, ID theory, Aquinas, and the origin of life: A reply to Torley
(via WWWTW)

Edward Feser, “Intelligent Design” theory and mechanism. (See also the discussion at WWWTW.)

Stephen M. Barr, The End of Intelligent Design?
(via Rod Dreher)

Stephen Meyer on Coast to Coast AM. Alas, you have to be a member to download clips.

He is a fellow at the Discovery Institute. During the show he maid references to Pete Ward's Rare Earth. He also mentioned his colleagues Jay Richards and Guillermo Conzalez, who wrote Privileged Planet.

Stephen Meyer's new book

Signature in the Cell

He is being interviewed on Coast to Coast AM tonight. If an audio file becomes available, I will put up the link.

On Design

Lawrence Gage, Amazing Evolution!

I've read the claim about the human spine being "suboptimal" (see the comments for this post by Mark Shea) elsewhere, including Soompi--probably there is something at TalkOrigins--but how can people make such judgments, if they do not have an alternative model to use as a standard? How do we know what is suboptimal without knowing what is optimal? Just because a structure cannot cope with all stresses or problems does not imply that there exists some structure which can. (Or that there is even an alternative structure which makes up for those weaknesses but has others which the one in question lacks--how do we know such trade-offs are possible if we do not even understand development, how structures come to be?)

The same sort of noetic problems arise when critics talk about the "efficiency" and "inefficiency" of organic structures.

John Farrell takes on IDers

at his blog

Note to self: check out the following pieces of "evidence"

common ancestry in plants

chromosomeo 2 in man

via Rod Dreher

Response from James Kushiner at Mere Comments.

Unlocking the Mystery of Life

Mr. Gerald Hiestand talks about Unlocking the Mystery of Life.

Center for Science and Culture page for the video. Official page. The video is available at Google Video.