The Compatibility of Evolution and Thomistic Metaphysics: A Reply to Dennis F. Polis
In this article the author discusses Dennis F. Polis’ defense of the compatibility of biological evolution and Thomistic metaphysics. Some of Polis’ methodological and metaphysical arguments are examined and it is explained why they are unfaithful to the Thomistic tradition of metaphysics. There is...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
International Étienne Gilson Society
2021-03-01
|
| Series: | Studia Gilsoniana |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/1202392.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818328849654480896 |
|---|---|
| author | Robert A. Delfino |
| author_facet | Robert A. Delfino |
| author_sort | Robert A. Delfino |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In this article the author discusses Dennis F. Polis’ defense of the compatibility of biological evolution and Thomistic metaphysics. Some of Polis’ methodological and metaphysical arguments are examined and it is explained why they are unfaithful to the Thomistic tradition of metaphysics. There is a discussion of why metaphysics can, within certain parameters, critique the science of evolutionary biology, as well as a discussion of the role of metaphysics in the hierarchy of the sciences. The relationship between biological species to the notion of species in philosophy, including related metaphysical topics, such as essences and Divine ideas in God, is discussed. It is determined that Polis’ view suffers from a kind of relativism and nominalism that is incompatible with the moderate realism of Aquinas. Some of Aquinas’ key existential insights in metaphysics are discussed in this context as well. In addition to being corrective, this essay helps point the way to a better defense of the compatibility of biological evolution and Thomistic metaphysics. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T12:38:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1eaf39eef942453ba542aafe721b22d5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2300-0066 2577-0314 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T12:38:42Z |
| publishDate | 2021-03-01 |
| publisher | International Étienne Gilson Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Studia Gilsoniana |
| spelling | doaj.art-1eaf39eef942453ba542aafe721b22d52022-12-21T23:45:43ZengInternational Étienne Gilson SocietyStudia Gilsoniana2300-00662577-03142021-03-011017110210.26385/SG.100103The Compatibility of Evolution and Thomistic Metaphysics: A Reply to Dennis F. PolisRobert A. Delfino0St. John’s University, Staten Island, NY, USAIn this article the author discusses Dennis F. Polis’ defense of the compatibility of biological evolution and Thomistic metaphysics. Some of Polis’ methodological and metaphysical arguments are examined and it is explained why they are unfaithful to the Thomistic tradition of metaphysics. There is a discussion of why metaphysics can, within certain parameters, critique the science of evolutionary biology, as well as a discussion of the role of metaphysics in the hierarchy of the sciences. The relationship between biological species to the notion of species in philosophy, including related metaphysical topics, such as essences and Divine ideas in God, is discussed. It is determined that Polis’ view suffers from a kind of relativism and nominalism that is incompatible with the moderate realism of Aquinas. Some of Aquinas’ key existential insights in metaphysics are discussed in this context as well. In addition to being corrective, this essay helps point the way to a better defense of the compatibility of biological evolution and Thomistic metaphysics.https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/1202392.pdfgodthomismthomas aquinasthomistic metaphysicsnatural philosophybiological evolutiontheistic evolutionsciencescientific methodologyrelationship of the sciencesabstractionspeciesnatureessencedivine ideaexemplar causeens rationissubstanceaccidentsubstantial formnature considered absolutelyreal distinction between being and essencerelativismrealismnominalism |
| spellingShingle | Robert A. Delfino The Compatibility of Evolution and Thomistic Metaphysics: A Reply to Dennis F. Polis Studia Gilsoniana god thomism thomas aquinas thomistic metaphysics natural philosophy biological evolution theistic evolution science scientific methodology relationship of the sciences abstraction species nature essence divine idea exemplar cause ens rationis substance accident substantial form nature considered absolutely real distinction between being and essence relativism realism nominalism |
| title | The Compatibility of Evolution and Thomistic Metaphysics: A Reply to Dennis F. Polis |
| title_full | The Compatibility of Evolution and Thomistic Metaphysics: A Reply to Dennis F. Polis |
| title_fullStr | The Compatibility of Evolution and Thomistic Metaphysics: A Reply to Dennis F. Polis |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Compatibility of Evolution and Thomistic Metaphysics: A Reply to Dennis F. Polis |
| title_short | The Compatibility of Evolution and Thomistic Metaphysics: A Reply to Dennis F. Polis |
| title_sort | compatibility of evolution and thomistic metaphysics a reply to dennis f polis |
| topic | god thomism thomas aquinas thomistic metaphysics natural philosophy biological evolution theistic evolution science scientific methodology relationship of the sciences abstraction species nature essence divine idea exemplar cause ens rationis substance accident substantial form nature considered absolutely real distinction between being and essence relativism realism nominalism |
| url | https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/1202392.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT robertadelfino thecompatibilityofevolutionandthomisticmetaphysicsareplytodennisfpolis AT robertadelfino compatibilityofevolutionandthomisticmetaphysicsareplytodennisfpolis |