Another great video by William E. Carroll courtesy of the blog Eclectic Orthodoxy.
An article on this topic can be found here. Set forth below is an excerpt:
An important fear that informs the concerns of many believers is that theories of evolution, cosmic and biological, “transfer the agency of creative action from God” to the material world itself, and that this transferral is a rejection of the religious doctrine of creation. The theological concern is that to recognize the complete competence of the natural sciences to explain the changes that occur in the world, without any appeal to specific interventions by God, “is essentially equivalent to . . . [denying] divine action of any sort in this world.” We have already seen how Aquinas responded to very similar fears in the Middle Ages. Aristotelian science seemed to threaten the sovereignty and omnipotence of God. But remember that Aquinas recognized that a world in which the natural processes are explicable in their own terms does not challenge the role of the Creator. One need not choose between a natural world understandable in terms of causes within it and an omnipotent Creator constantly causing this world to be. Aquinas thinks that a world of necessary connections between causes and effects, connections which he thinks are the hallmarks of its intelligibility, does not mean that the world is not dependent upon God. Necessity in nature is not a rival to the fundamentally different kind of necessity attributed to God.
Those like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, who argue for a denial of creation on the basis of evolutionary biology, see the incompatibility between evolution and divine action in fundamentally the same way as theistic opponents of evolution. They fail to distinguish between the claims of the empirical sciences and conclusions in natural philosophy and metaphysics. That is, they assume that the natural sciences require a materialist understanding of all of reality. Furthermore, they mistakenly conclude that arguments for creation are essentially arguments from design in nature, and, thus, the creation which Dawkins and Dennett deny is really not the fundamental notion of creation set forth by thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas. (footnotes omitted)
Top Posts & Pages
- Teilhard de Chardin Quote of the Week (May 20): In the Beginning . . .
- The Noosphere (Part I): Teilhard de Chardin's Vision
- Writings By Teilhard de Chardin
- Orthodoxy of Teilhard de Chardin: (Part V) (Resurrection, Evolution and the Omega Point)
- The Noosphere (Part II): Christian Concepts of the Noosphere
- Sunday Reflection, 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time (September 22, 2013): Eric Clapton and Surrendering to God
- Feast of the Transfiguration: Teilhard de Chardin and Mass on the World
- First China Trip and Mass on the World (1923-1924)
- Teilhard Blog Purpose
- Quantum Physics, Relationality and the Triune God
- Video of Georgetown Panel Discussion on Teilhard de Chardin's Importance for the 21st Century teilhard.com/2015/07/13/vid… http://t.co/VyyvPnJATN 6 years ago
- U2, Religion and Spirituality teilhard.com/2015/06/25/u2-… http://t.co/rnHNhgqvzV 6 years ago
- Laudato Si and Teilhard de Chardin teilhard.com/2015/06/19/lau… http://t.co/zHl3XSuLLY 6 years ago
- Sabbatical wp.me/p3pJsV-14v 6 years ago
- Let’s Play Pretend wp.me/p3pJsV-14t 6 years ago