Related videos: The Problem of Evil: ruclips.net/video/Oo4hF3IYGp4/видео.html Freedom: ruclips.net/video/oQ5P0k6Pwb4/видео.html God's Will: ruclips.net/video/4lw9nTUJbEo/видео.html Providence and Chance: ruclips.net/video/qLK7YmfbI8A/видео.html
Well explained thank you 😊 Easy to see why St Thomas Aquinas is a Dr of the Church ✝️ God Created everything so there should be no choosing between only "science" or "religion" 💗🙏 May God Bless all who strive to live the Gospel & search for Truth 👼✝️💗
I’ve been binging on Thomistic Institute videos and they confirm my faith. Causality is a key influence on my belief that God is. The videos also confirm my belief that church doctrines are man’s attempt to express deeper truths in a way that limited humans can embrace. They are products of oral and written traditions that come from human myth-making. Man looked out into the mysteries of the cosmos and imagined stories that explain it all. Religions emerged and people accepted their simple explanations.
Awesome presentation as always -- it never shies away from the physical, observable, realities of the universe, but leavens them with philosophy. Thanks so much, Fr. Legge!
Because God is outside time and is the First Cause at every moment, his mode of creation is not to set the universe in motion like an autonomous machine and step away. Rather, he eternally creates or actualizes it at every single moment of existence. This is how God's Providence is able to work in conjunction with human and angelic freedom: In His infinite knowledge, he actualizes, at every single moment, the universe in which the events He has planned out occur, whether by human choice or natural happenstance or both. What does this mean for randomness? Well, for starters, it's important to remember that what we call randomness or "chance" is always relative or random with respect to something else. For instance, when I throw a pair of dice, my decision on when to throw it, how hard to throw it, which direction to throw it, and so forth are not random, but are rather deliberate and chosen by me for my purposes. The forces determining what happens to the dice after I throw them are not random either, but deterministic. Someone who knew the precise physical qualities of the dice and all the various forces acting on them could presumably predict which numbers the dice will land on, like Data in Star Trek. However, my own choices and the various deterministic forces acting on the dice are random *with respect to the numbers the dice will land on*. They don't favor any particular outcome over another. As a result, if I throw the dice enough times, I will get a statistically random distribution of outcomes according to rules of probability. So what does this mean for God's Providence as it pertains to randomness? To be precise, it means that God does *NOT* work through randomness, but instead that events aren't actually random at all with respect to God's Providential purposes for them. A paradigm example from history and Scripture is the role that Judas Iscariot played in the Passion of Christ. As Scripture makes clear, Judas' actions were free, and he was morally accountable (and apparently condemned) for them. They weren't intended by Judas (or by Satan) to bring about the redemption of mankind, so one might be tempted to say they were "random" in that sense. But as Scripture also makes clear, the actions of Judas (and Satan) were NOT random with respect to the redemption of mankind at all, but were in fact tightly and elaborately orchestrated and planned by God from the beginning of time (and indeed outside time) to bring about the arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ. This same Providence governs the outcome of the Big Bang, the formation of the Solar System, the Earth, Sun, and Moon, etc. Again, God worked through secondary causes by Providence to bring about the place where we would live, with all the properties we would need to live in it. These events were NOT random with respect to creating a home precisely suitable for life and humanity in particular, but were tightly orchestrated by Providence to produce that result. Things get more complicated when we get to the theory of evolution. The problem here is not that God couldn't have guided evolution by Providence to the ends He wanted. He could and did. The problem is that the Darwinian *theory* of evolution entails an assertion that He didn't. The central premise of Darwinian theory isn't that living things share a common ancestry rather than being created ex nihilo (though of course it does depend on that). Rather, Darwinian theory is meant to explain the appearance of purposiveness and function of living things in a way that eliminates the need for any actual teleology to account for it - of either the intrinsic Aristotelean/Thomistic type or the extrinsic purpose of designed artifacts. It's a denial that biological function is objectively real, and a claim regarding how the appearance of biological function is (supposedly) accounted for purely within the mechanistic philosophy. An immediate implication is that organisms are not substances with intrinsic function as Thomist philosophy holds them to be, but mere aggregates of matter, like human artifacts. But a further implication (and Darwin's primary argument, because he was responding to Paley, who was a Descartian rather than a Thomist) is that biological organisms don't have even extrinsic function like human artifacts do. The main premise is that "natural selection" (ie, some organisms surviving and reproducing more than others) and "random" variation have produce an *appearance* of function (or intendedness for a purpose) like that seen in human artifacts, but without anyone intending it. Hence, the "randomness" of variation in the theory is specifically randomness with respect to the appearance of purpose in biology, and "natural selection" is also supposed to be "random" in the sense of accounting for the appearance of function without being orchestrated to any outcome in particular. Hence, the theory is a denial that the purpose we see in living things, including humans, came about by *any* intentional means, including Providence acting through secondary causes. Now, this picture is actually incoherent, and Darwinism's eliminativism regarding the objective reality of biological purpose is self-defeating. I don't blame you guys for not getting into this issue in this sort of overview video, because the issues are subtle and complex. But there's a lot at stake here. After all, the entire Thomistic Natural Law approach to morality depends on the fact that living things are substances, and it is built on the objective, irreducible reality of biological function. So it would be nice to see you guys get into a Thomistic explanation of biological function, why it must be real and why it's incoherent to deny or reduce it, why organisms must be substances, why these things must be grounded in God's intellect, and so forth.
Wow...thank you Father. This was something I was struggling with. Thank you so much for pulling me out of my intellectual blackhole. So, when I "chose" my profession (major decisions) or decided what I should have for breakfast (minor decisions), they are truly free, but at the same time consistent with the will of God? Thank you for all your insightful and well presented contents. Catholics and non-Catholics alike should study it carefully. Scholastic Metaphysics is making a major come back!
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you. Follow me back on Twitter Fathers :-) St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us (pray for my brother's plight, dad & mom & the two clans' plights and mine too that all may live as saints today, now and into the next life.
I appreciate these videos, but I feel like they oversimplify or sidestep some of the biggest issues. Does God will people to freely choose evil? Does God will for innocent children to get cancer? I’m left with lingering questions like those after this video.
Agree. Would love to have a more detailed explanation of the fundamental difference between someone who chooses heaven versus someone who chooses hell… if God created our souls, and our external circumstance does not dictate our salvation, isn’t our salvation fundamentally dependent on the disposition/soul God has given us? Who is the free “me” that is somehow not determined by God?
I think the real question we are interested in is theological - Why would God use these secondary causes (the big bang, QM, evolution) in his creation over some other set of arbitrary secondary causes? What ultimate goal do they serve? How do they uniquely manifest his glory? And what is the role of the scientific method in our salvation? Do we need to know any facts to get to heaven? What purpose does knowledge serve?
Why would God not draw matter from matter? It shows the unity of creation. We are of the same physical matter as the stars, the animals, the planets, the plants, etc. Our unity with creation is stressed in the same way in the Bible when men are made from clay, when women are made from the bone of men. All of genesis stresses this unity and it is affirmed by the scientific method. Scientific knowledge is not necessary to get into heaven. It is informative and can even deepen our spiritual understanding of our role in the world and God's working throughout the history of creation but it is not central to attaining heaven. Being Christlike is what gets us into heaven. At least that's my view on it.
This _seems_ to explain something that I read in Noonan's "General Metaphysics," and which greatly puzzled me. "The principle of change applies with equal force and rigor to both receptive and operative potencies [such as the will].... Nothing ever passes from potency to act except under the influence of another being which is already in act, and this applies to operative potencies." In any case, I would like to know more about the relationship between God and the human will, according to Aquinas.
I'm an MD but I have an undergraduate minor in philosophy. Nonetheless, delving more deeply into these matters as a Catholic sometimes leaves me more confused. Simple question father. If I choose to eat a hamburger today was that completely my choice within the realm of my powers as a human being and my free will, or did God determine from all time that today I would eat a hamburger and move my free will in such a way such that I would do it?
Genuine question for which I’d love an answer: if I continue to pray for my ex- girlfriend to come back, could God influence her free- will? God bless ❤
I have some questions from the good friars. If God guides everything with divine providence, then all the wars and other disasters created by humans are part of divine providence. We may ask: how can the divine providence plan tolerate so much evil? If I am correct in my understanding of divine providence, the way I try to answer the question is by saying that given human freedom, divine providence creates the best possible outcome for the salvation of our souls that could come out of this freedom. And that a way in which God does this is by deriving a greater good for our salvation than all the evil that we humans, with our free will, do. Do I understand divine providence correctly? Is my answer a reasonable answer?
Thomas Aquinas thought that nothing causes itself, but that eliminates libertarian free will as a necessary condition for free will is that the self causes the self to create a thought.
That’s an exaggeration of libertarian freedom. Libertarians don’t think that our choices just come out of the blue as it were, but it’s true that we do act on ourselves. But if you’re eliminating self-motion altogether from the picture then you’re also going to run into problems with even describing actions of living organisms in general, which in Aristotelian philosophy are referred to as immanent causes of their own becoming.
@captainch6182 Aquinas said what is in motion is put in motion by another. So when I have a thought something outside of my self caused me to have that thought. Thus, libertarian free will is eliminated.
@@metatron4890That’s only a problem if you have a very narrow (and incoherent) view of what the self is. What you described not only would commit us to determinism but also to epiphenomenalism.
Saint Thomas recognized the importance of faith, since there are many things in the religion that can never be proven But what if someone doesn’t have faith?
Pray for them. If it is you, you can ask for it with what little you have and try to trust that if despite your doubts and misgivings He is there, He can give it to you. Start crawling so you may learn how to walk. If it helps, watch other people`s conversion stories, look up miracles, look up apologetics, study the concept of divinity, read the lives of the Saints, look for Saints similar in some way to you, ask them to intercede for you, listen to beautiful Catholic music and view the artwork of Catholic masters, read Lord of the Rings, read poetry of the mystic Saints, or look at the sheer stark beauty and order of nature and how grandly and perfectly assembled it is as a system. Choose whatever you think will most help you. If you need help finding resources please ask me. I am overjoyed to put what I have gathered to use.
@@neptasur On the top of my head, you can never prove that Jesus was God, nor that he is truly present in the Eucharist. If you could prove things like that faith would not be necessary
@@falnica Correct. Some things cannot be proven by reason. The issues in this video, however, are knowable by reason. That God exists, attributes of God, and much more are knowable by reason. Once one realizes this, such a person finds those things that are knowable by faith to be more reasonable because of trust in the authority that makes the claim.
@@neptasur But that's the thing. How do you know you have faith in the right authority?. After all, there are many religions, each supported by logic in the same manner as christianity, each requiring faith in the same way
I honestly don't like the sound of this. I prefer arguments from free will, and materialist accounts of will. In particular, I support Hylomorphism, Dispositionalism and Orch OR.
I'm sorry, but I must say there is something distasteful about leaning on a kind of _god-of the-gaps_ perspective to His supremacy over everything. It's a tempting little argument to toss around the old coconut, but its fruitless. There is no way to prove or disprove His dominion over the random, just as much as it is over the causal, as we understand it. It's a bit of a dirty and embarrassing, apologetic way to communicate our faith.
Well done, and yet, so sad that in the midst of a lucid explication of the relation between Providence and human freedom, a tip of the hat must be given, once again by you all, to the notions of evolution, as if they were proven facts to be accepted, completely disregarding grave and rigorous multi-faced scientific critiques of evolution. What makes this even more heinous than ignoring the major scientific lacunae of evolution is that you, once again, utterly disregard Pius XII's admonitions in Humani Generis, explicitly in sections 35, 36. What is this diabolic insistence on legitimizing evolution as if it were already a foregone conclusion? Is it a sad desire to appear relevant and legitimate to the world; a desire to put on the persona that is more palatable to academia and modern Catholics who have been divorced from the Patristic tradition? Why must we swallow hook, line, and sinker the poison of evolution as if there were not veritable arguments, from Faith and reason against it?
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Quando Rondo - Life Goes On [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eIf3fhMXAow/mqdefault.jpg)
Related videos:
The Problem of Evil: ruclips.net/video/Oo4hF3IYGp4/видео.html
Freedom: ruclips.net/video/oQ5P0k6Pwb4/видео.html
God's Will: ruclips.net/video/4lw9nTUJbEo/видео.html
Providence and Chance: ruclips.net/video/qLK7YmfbI8A/видео.html
As always, great job, OPs.
Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
Well explained thank you 😊 Easy to see why St Thomas Aquinas is a Dr of the Church ✝️ God Created everything so there should be no choosing between only "science" or "religion" 💗🙏 May God Bless all who strive to live the Gospel & search for Truth 👼✝️💗
I’ve been binging on Thomistic Institute videos and they confirm my faith. Causality is a key influence on my belief that God is. The videos also confirm my belief that church doctrines are man’s attempt to express deeper truths in a way that limited humans can embrace. They are products of oral and written traditions that come from human myth-making. Man looked out into the mysteries of the cosmos and imagined stories that explain it all. Religions emerged and people accepted their simple explanations.
Thank you, Father Legge.
St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
Awesome presentation as always -- it never shies away from the physical, observable, realities of the universe, but leavens them with philosophy. Thanks so much, Fr. Legge!
Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
GLORY TO GOD...
Because God is outside time and is the First Cause at every moment, his mode of creation is not to set the universe in motion like an autonomous machine and step away. Rather, he eternally creates or actualizes it at every single moment of existence. This is how God's Providence is able to work in conjunction with human and angelic freedom: In His infinite knowledge, he actualizes, at every single moment, the universe in which the events He has planned out occur, whether by human choice or natural happenstance or both.
What does this mean for randomness? Well, for starters, it's important to remember that what we call randomness or "chance" is always relative or random with respect to something else. For instance, when I throw a pair of dice, my decision on when to throw it, how hard to throw it, which direction to throw it, and so forth are not random, but are rather deliberate and chosen by me for my purposes. The forces determining what happens to the dice after I throw them are not random either, but deterministic. Someone who knew the precise physical qualities of the dice and all the various forces acting on them could presumably predict which numbers the dice will land on, like Data in Star Trek.
However, my own choices and the various deterministic forces acting on the dice are random *with respect to the numbers the dice will land on*. They don't favor any particular outcome over another. As a result, if I throw the dice enough times, I will get a statistically random distribution of outcomes according to rules of probability.
So what does this mean for God's Providence as it pertains to randomness? To be precise, it means that God does *NOT* work through randomness, but instead that events aren't actually random at all with respect to God's Providential purposes for them.
A paradigm example from history and Scripture is the role that Judas Iscariot played in the Passion of Christ. As Scripture makes clear, Judas' actions were free, and he was morally accountable (and apparently condemned) for them. They weren't intended by Judas (or by Satan) to bring about the redemption of mankind, so one might be tempted to say they were "random" in that sense. But as Scripture also makes clear, the actions of Judas (and Satan) were NOT random with respect to the redemption of mankind at all, but were in fact tightly and elaborately orchestrated and planned by God from the beginning of time (and indeed outside time) to bring about the arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ.
This same Providence governs the outcome of the Big Bang, the formation of the Solar System, the Earth, Sun, and Moon, etc. Again, God worked through secondary causes by Providence to bring about the place where we would live, with all the properties we would need to live in it. These events were NOT random with respect to creating a home precisely suitable for life and humanity in particular, but were tightly orchestrated by Providence to produce that result.
Things get more complicated when we get to the theory of evolution. The problem here is not that God couldn't have guided evolution by Providence to the ends He wanted. He could and did. The problem is that the Darwinian *theory* of evolution entails an assertion that He didn't. The central premise of Darwinian theory isn't that living things share a common ancestry rather than being created ex nihilo (though of course it does depend on that). Rather, Darwinian theory is meant to explain the appearance of purposiveness and function of living things in a way that eliminates the need for any actual teleology to account for it - of either the intrinsic Aristotelean/Thomistic type or the extrinsic purpose of designed artifacts. It's a denial that biological function is objectively real, and a claim regarding how the appearance of biological function is (supposedly) accounted for purely within the mechanistic philosophy.
An immediate implication is that organisms are not substances with intrinsic function as Thomist philosophy holds them to be, but mere aggregates of matter, like human artifacts. But a further implication (and Darwin's primary argument, because he was responding to Paley, who was a Descartian rather than a Thomist) is that biological organisms don't have even extrinsic function like human artifacts do. The main premise is that "natural selection" (ie, some organisms surviving and reproducing more than others) and "random" variation have produce an *appearance* of function (or intendedness for a purpose) like that seen in human artifacts, but without anyone intending it. Hence, the "randomness" of variation in the theory is specifically randomness with respect to the appearance of purpose in biology, and "natural selection" is also supposed to be "random" in the sense of accounting for the appearance of function without being orchestrated to any outcome in particular. Hence, the theory is a denial that the purpose we see in living things, including humans, came about by *any* intentional means, including Providence acting through secondary causes.
Now, this picture is actually incoherent, and Darwinism's eliminativism regarding the objective reality of biological purpose is self-defeating. I don't blame you guys for not getting into this issue in this sort of overview video, because the issues are subtle and complex. But there's a lot at stake here. After all, the entire Thomistic Natural Law approach to morality depends on the fact that living things are substances, and it is built on the objective, irreducible reality of biological function.
So it would be nice to see you guys get into a Thomistic explanation of biological function, why it must be real and why it's incoherent to deny or reduce it, why organisms must be substances, why these things must be grounded in God's intellect, and so forth.
this is why Theology is the queen of science
Wow...thank you Father. This was something I was struggling with. Thank you so much for pulling me out of my intellectual blackhole.
So, when I "chose" my profession (major decisions) or decided what I should have for breakfast (minor decisions), they are truly free, but at the same time consistent with the will of God?
Thank you for all your insightful and well presented contents. Catholics and non-Catholics alike should study it carefully. Scholastic Metaphysics is making a major come back!
Thanks Fr.
Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you. Follow me back on Twitter Fathers :-) St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us (pray for my brother's plight, dad & mom & the two clans' plights and mine too that all may live as saints today, now and into the next life.
I appreciate these videos, but I feel like they oversimplify or sidestep some of the biggest issues. Does God will people to freely choose evil? Does God will for innocent children to get cancer? I’m left with lingering questions like those after this video.
Agree. Would love to have a more detailed explanation of the fundamental difference between someone who chooses heaven versus someone who chooses hell… if God created our souls, and our external circumstance does not dictate our salvation, isn’t our salvation fundamentally dependent on the disposition/soul God has given us? Who is the free “me” that is somehow not determined by God?
I think the real question we are interested in is theological - Why would God use these secondary causes (the big bang, QM, evolution) in his creation over some other set of arbitrary secondary causes? What ultimate goal do they serve? How do they uniquely manifest his glory? And what is the role of the scientific method in our salvation? Do we need to know any facts to get to heaven? What purpose does knowledge serve?
Great questions!
Why would God not draw matter from matter? It shows the unity of creation. We are of the same physical matter as the stars, the animals, the planets, the plants, etc. Our unity with creation is stressed in the same way in the Bible when men are made from clay, when women are made from the bone of men. All of genesis stresses this unity and it is affirmed by the scientific method.
Scientific knowledge is not necessary to get into heaven. It is informative and can even deepen our spiritual understanding of our role in the world and God's working throughout the history of creation but it is not central to attaining heaven. Being Christlike is what gets us into heaven.
At least that's my view on it.
That contingent beings may be conformed to the Divine likeness.
Thanks!
Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!
This _seems_ to explain something that I read in Noonan's "General Metaphysics," and which greatly puzzled me. "The principle of change applies with equal force and rigor to both receptive and operative potencies [such as the will].... Nothing ever passes from potency to act except under the influence of another being which is already in act, and this applies to operative potencies." In any case, I would like to know more about the relationship between God and the human will, according to Aquinas.
I'm an MD but I have an undergraduate minor in philosophy. Nonetheless, delving more deeply into these matters as a Catholic sometimes leaves me more confused. Simple question father. If I choose to eat a hamburger today was that completely my choice within the realm of my powers as a human being and my free will, or did God determine from all time that today I would eat a hamburger and move my free will in such a way such that I would do it?
Genuine question for which I’d love an answer: if I continue to pray for my ex- girlfriend to come back, could God influence her free- will? God bless ❤
I have some questions from the good friars. If God guides everything with divine providence, then all the wars and other disasters created by humans are part of divine providence. We may ask: how can the divine providence plan tolerate so much evil? If I am correct in my understanding of divine providence, the way I try to answer the question is by saying that given human freedom, divine providence creates the best possible outcome for the salvation of our souls that could come out of this freedom. And that a way in which God does this is by deriving a greater good for our salvation than all the evil that we humans, with our free will, do. Do I understand divine providence correctly? Is my answer a reasonable answer?
Thomas Aquinas thought that nothing causes itself, but that eliminates libertarian free will as a necessary condition for free will is that the self causes the self to create a thought.
That’s an exaggeration of libertarian freedom. Libertarians don’t think that our choices just come out of the blue as it were, but it’s true that we do act on ourselves. But if you’re eliminating self-motion altogether from the picture then you’re also going to run into problems with even describing actions of living organisms in general, which in Aristotelian philosophy are referred to as immanent causes of their own becoming.
@captainch6182 Aquinas said what is in motion is put in motion by another. So when I have a thought something outside of my self caused me to have that thought. Thus, libertarian free will is eliminated.
@@metatron4890That’s only a problem if you have a very narrow (and incoherent) view of what the self is. What you described not only would commit us to determinism but also to epiphenomenalism.
I've not sure if you are reporting Aquinas's beliefs but on which you have no opinion, or whether you bring these forward as doctrine.
Does the RCC still maintain its exclusivity as stated in the Council of Trent..." there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church?"
Yes. Dogmas can’t change.
@@MuttonBiryani1994 ...one of many reaons I left.
@@edzanjero353 That’s sad. Please come back.
@@MuttonBiryani1994 ...euch. Head slap.
This could make us refute Marxism
Saint Thomas recognized the importance of faith, since there are many things in the religion that can never be proven
But what if someone doesn’t have faith?
Pray for them. If it is you, you can ask for it with what little you have and try to trust that if despite your doubts and misgivings He is there, He can give it to you. Start crawling so you may learn how to walk.
If it helps, watch other people`s conversion stories, look up miracles, look up apologetics, study the concept of divinity, read the lives of the Saints, look for Saints similar in some way to you, ask them to intercede for you, listen to beautiful Catholic music and view the artwork of Catholic masters, read Lord of the Rings, read poetry of the mystic Saints, or look at the sheer stark beauty and order of nature and how grandly and perfectly assembled it is as a system.
Choose whatever you think will most help you. If you need help finding resources please ask me. I am overjoyed to put what I have gathered to use.
The arguments presented in this video are all provable by reason. What "things" are you referring to that "can never be proven"?
@@neptasur On the top of my head, you can never prove that Jesus was God, nor that he is truly present in the Eucharist. If you could prove things like that faith would not be necessary
@@falnica Correct. Some things cannot be proven by reason. The issues in this video, however, are knowable by reason. That God exists, attributes of God, and much more are knowable by reason. Once one realizes this, such a person finds those things that are knowable by faith to be more reasonable because of trust in the authority that makes the claim.
@@neptasur But that's the thing. How do you know you have faith in the right authority?. After all, there are many religions, each supported by logic in the same manner as christianity, each requiring faith in the same way
I honestly don't like the sound of this. I prefer arguments from free will, and materialist accounts of will. In particular, I support Hylomorphism, Dispositionalism and Orch OR.
Move us to act freely still sounds like a contradiction.
Move as in beckon, rather than as moving a chess piece.
Perhaps in colloquial use, but God, who is truth, is the source and foundation of freedom. When you reject the truth, you don't get freedom.
I'm sorry, but I must say there is something distasteful about leaning on a kind of _god-of the-gaps_ perspective to His supremacy over everything. It's a tempting little argument to toss around the old coconut, but its fruitless. There is no way to prove or disprove His dominion over the random, just as much as it is over the causal, as we understand it. It's a bit of a dirty and embarrassing, apologetic way to communicate our faith.
So... God determines cancer, harlequin ichthyosis, and such?
Well done, and yet, so sad that in the midst of a lucid explication of the relation between Providence and human freedom, a tip of the hat must be given, once again by you all, to the notions of evolution, as if they were proven facts to be accepted, completely disregarding grave and rigorous multi-faced scientific critiques of evolution. What makes this even more heinous than ignoring the major scientific lacunae of evolution is that you, once again, utterly disregard Pius XII's admonitions in Humani Generis, explicitly in sections 35, 36. What is this diabolic insistence on legitimizing evolution as if it were already a foregone conclusion? Is it a sad desire to appear relevant and legitimate to the world; a desire to put on the persona that is more palatable to academia and modern Catholics who have been divorced from the Patristic tradition? Why must we swallow hook, line, and sinker the poison of evolution as if there were not veritable arguments, from Faith and reason against it?
For further discusión
romemetaphysics.org/wp-content/uploads/Actas_2018_definitivas.pdf
Page 201