This is the latest episode of the Discovery Institute’s creepy practice of retroactively recruiting dead people in order to add prestige to what’s going on in their Seattle ministry. They have an illustrious roster of long-deceased members, and occasionally they find a new cadaver they can dig up for display in their gruesome gallery. It’s a bizarre activity but it’s safe, because the dead can’t complain about the ignominy of being displayed in the Discoveroids’ Hall of Ancestors.
Here are links to their earlier body-snatching episodes, starting with Thomas Jefferson, and then Alfred Wallace (because of some foolishness he wrote in his dotage), and then Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and then they really got carried away when Charles Darwin Joins the Discovery Institute, and then James Clerk Maxwell, and then — this one was also rather audacious — Superman, and then William Jennings Bryan (of all the carcasses they’ve stashed in their cellar, only Bryan’s belongs there, because he would have voluntarily joined the Discovery Institute), and most recently Abe Lincoln.
Today we bring you another ghoulish episode in the invasion of the Discoveroid body snatchers — this time their victim is Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274). We saw this one coming, because the Discoveroids have previously praised Aquinas’ 13th Century pre-Enlightenment thinking. A month ago we wrote Discoveroids: All Theology, All the Time, about a Discoveroid post by Michael Egnor gushing over Thomas Aquinas’ Five Proofs of God.
The Discoveroids’ latest post is Hylomorphism as a Metaphysic for Intelligent Design Science. It was written by JT Bridges, introduced by an editor’s note as “a professor of philosophy at Southern Evangelical Seminary in North Carolina.” This is Bridges’ first appearance at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog, and he brings Aquinas with him — a strange addition to an allegedly scientific think tank. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas is popularly known for his “Five Ways” of demonstrating God’s existence. [Reference to Egnor’s post of last month.] But Aquinas in many of his writings also provides a detailed philosophical account of God’s created order and man’s ability to know it. In doing so, Aquinas offers insights in the areas of metaphysics, philosophy of nature, and epistemology that bear on how one might give a philosophical justification for the conclusions arrived at scientifically by ID theorists.
Exciting, huh? Aquinas’s 13th Century religious writings somehow support the Discoveroids’ “scientific theory” of intelligent design. Query: Can you think of any genuine scientific theory that anyone attempts to justify like that? No? That should tell you something. Anyway, let’s see what Bridges has to tell us:
Given Aquinas’ obvious theistic position and his classical empiricism it likely seems strange to many people when they hear some contemporary Thomists critiquing intelligent design on various grounds. As someone who sees a deep coherence between Aquinas and the modern design movement, I think these criticisms are misguided (part of my doctoral dissertation shows how ID and Thomism are compatible). I also think that such claims of incompatibility are unfortunate because they miss the ways in which Thomistic philosophy and ID science can be mutually informative.
Very, uh … medieval writing style. Appropriate to the subject matter, however. Let’s read on:
Here I’d like to focus on one of those ways — how Thomistic hylomorphism can provide a philosophical foundation for the insights of modern design theorists. Further, once one sees the nature of hylomorphism, it provides another sound critique of the design theorists’ arch nemesis, philosophical naturalism.
All right, we give up. Tell us, bible college boy — what’s “Thomistic hylomorphism”? Bridges gets around to that eventually. Meanwhile, he continues:
As Intelligent Design (ID) science has matured over the past several decades, it has gone through several phases of growing pains both as a scientific paradigm and as an idea in the culture. One facet of this growth that interests me as a philosopher is the recent discussion over ID and the metaphysics of information prompted by William Dembski‘s Being as Communion: A Metaphysics of Information.
Ooooooooooh — information! We’ve written about that — see Phlogiston, Vitalism, and Information, where we said:
It’s something like pixie dust. It’s in your DNA. Without information, DNA is just … well, it’s a big molecule. But when the ghostly goodie of information is added — Shazam! Yes, it’s rather like vitalism, but the Discoveroids don’t want you to notice that. … It’s not matter, not energy, not anything you know. It’s information! And it’s a big deal. It permeates the entire universe. The concept is discussed in the TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims: Information cannot be created by either natural processes or chance, so there is a law of conservation of information..
Oh, that TalkOrigins entry says: “Normally, physical laws get to be considered laws after they are tested and verified by independent sources under very many various conditions. For Dembski to claim a new physical law without any testing whatsoever is hubris of the highest magnitude.” Anyway, Bridges is all excited about information. Here’s more from his exciting essay:
First things first: What is hylomorphism? From two Greek words “hyle” meaning “matter” and “morphe” meaning “form,” hylomorphism is a view of natural objects as being a unified composite of form and matter.
Form and matter? M’god — he’s going all the way back to Plato’s Theory of Forms which, according to Wikipedia: “asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.” That’s the essence of mystical thinking, so of course it’s related to intelligent design. Skipping a few paragraphs of medieval jabbering by Bridges, he concludes with this:
It is possible, then, to understand ID science through the lens of Thomistic hylomorphic metaphysics.
[…]
There may be other metaphysical systems within which ID science could find its home. The above is an account of how Aristotelian-Thomistic hylomorphism is one of those systems.
So there you are — wherever that is. The “theory” of intelligent design has come home, where it has always belonged. And Thomas Aquinas is now one of the Discovery Institute’s founding fathers. Everything is as it should be.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
I feel like a creationist now … my brain HURTS!
As someone who sees a deep coherence between Aquinas and the modern design movement, I think these criticisms are misguided (part of my doctoral dissertation shows how ID and Thomism are compatible).
Well, that doesn’t say much for the educational process at good old “Southern Evangelical Seminary in North Carolina.” Must be a very truly rigorous doctoral program when they come up with this nonsense.
“…ID science…” — I think store that phrase for use when someone asks me what an oxymoron is.
How about the equally authoritative St. Augustine writing in the fifth century about the Genesis account of creation? “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it.” I don’t think the the DI will be adding his hallowed bones to their gruesome collection.
Without getting into Dembski, whose work has been so thoroughly demolished that there’s little point in making the rubble bounce higher, let me just note that ID “science” has not so much matured as (ahem) evolved over time in response to the selection pressure applied by repeated one legal trouncing after another.
Hylomorphism also sounds really close to Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphic resonance.” Denyse O’Sneery was just swooning over Sheldrake and his ideas a few days ago at Uncommon Descent.
Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli must be rolling in their graves. Aquinas was so Catholic he makes Bill Donovan of the Catholic League look like Jimmy Swaggart.
“What is hylomorphism? From two Greek words “hyle” meaning “matter” and “morphe” meaning “form,” hylomorphism is a view of natural objects as being a unified composite of form and matter.”
Indeed? This sounded like so much ‘Roid BS, so I went to Wiki and looked it up and I didn’t find anything but a terrific headache and noting related to Thomas Aquinas at all. So I went to his biography and found out that Aquinas was a very literal Christian thinker and theologian which I already knew. The only reference to “hylomorphism” I found related it to “Averroism” or “radical Aristotelianism” which was an Islamic interpretation of some of Aristotle’s teachings. which Aquinas evidently heartily condemned.
So, I guess my question is, and I understand full well that Wiki is not the be all and end all and that I have grossly oversimplified the problem, my question is how is Aquinas a founding father of something 750+ years in the future on the basis of a philosophy he didn’t agree with and wrote publically to condemn?
I may have to lie down after this one. My head really hurts now. That’s more mental gymnastics than I’ve done in a long time. :-(( LOL
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/when-st-thomas-aquinas-likened-his-work-to-straw-was-that-a-retraction-of-what-he-wro
From above:
Full Question
When St. Thomas Aquinas likened his work to straw, was that a retraction of what he wrote?
Answer
In the Thurston and Attwater revision of Alban Butler’s Lives of the Saints, the episode is described this way:
On the feast of St. Nicholas [in 1273, Aquinas] was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. To Brother Reginald’s (his secretary and friend) expostulations he replied, “The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, “I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.” (www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/stt03002.htm)
It looks to me that Thomas Aquinas repudiated his life work.
It is very, very weird that Bible Boy Bridges names his PhD dissertation committee in his “biography” at the SES website. Good old Dr. Dr. Dumbski is listed as a “professor” or something or another, but he departed SES some years ago.
It’s not surprising that ID can be explained by a 13th century monk who predated science by 500 years. Aquinas’ conception of metaphysics, Christian apologetics and bafflegab would have made him the perfect Discoverroid.
At first glance I confused the DI’s ailment for that of lycanthropism. Which necessitates one or another of the DI staff taking on the visage and manor of a were wolf, and disemboweling some hapless bystander during the night of a full moon.
But it is comforting to know that someone at the DI has merely acquired a mild case of hylomorphism. Which although apparently somewhat contagious, especially in the case of a crowd of true believers crammed into the fetid air of a small “research” building, seldom results in fatalities to innocent victims.
Probably if those now afflicted by hylomorphism just take a few aspirins, and maybe read a few Jack Chick bible tracts to restore the intellect, they should be back to their normal metaphysics in no time.
“Can you think of any genuine scientific theory that anyone attempts to justify like that? No?”
Actually yes. Every single genuine scientific theory is justified by the philosophies of Descartes, Hume and Popper ao.
“As someone who sees a deep coherence between Aquinas and the modern design movement.”
Great! Thomas of Aquino was a philosopher of religion, not of science. This is more evidence that the IDiots from Seattle have given up all scientific pretension.
@JackH: “The only reference to “hylomorphism” I found related it to “Averroism” or “radical Aristotelianism” which was an Islamic interpretation of some of Aristotle’s teachings”
That makes a lot more sense than SC’s reference to Plato. Thomas of Aquino didn’t know the orignal writings of Aristoteles, which only became available in the 15th Century. He knew only some of them and only via translations from Arab to Latin. Moreover ToA is famous for successfully replacing Plato by Aristoteles in medieval philosophy.
Hey, JT Bridges — I’m afraid your gloober got queeshed and hylomorphed into a clabberrazzmer. Your prognosis is not good. In previous cases such as yours, the patient rapidly meefed into a formless wheath.
This is a common malady among philosophers who have absolutely no concept of reality, and attempt to sound scientific. Previous patients have found some solace by going to work for The National Enquirer, where readers readily fall for their BS.
Clearly ID advocates can now be referred to as Thomasists. They appear to be claiming that legacy. Or, maybe, Hylomorphs. That sounds like the name for creatures in a creepy SciFi movie. Which, in a way, the Discoveroids are.
Aquinas would puke if he knew. The reason the DI is doing this is because they are increasingly annoyed by the writings of Prof. Edward Feser at Pasadena College. He’s done a good job of explaining why ID is crap from a Thomistic perspective, and they are not happy about the guy.
docbill nails it: “Aquinas’ conception of metaphysics, Christian apologetics and bafflegab would have made him the perfect Discoverroid.”
The Discoveroids proudly trumpet that their “science” is firmly rooted in medieval Christian theology.
The Discoveroids proudly trumpet that their “science” is firmly rooted in medieval Christian theology.
Excellent observation!
@John Farrell
I agree with you.
ID is on a fishing expedition, trying to find anybody who they can count on their side. Of course, Aquinas had no conception of biological evolution, and Aquinas was a theist. But he differs significantly from ID in that he did have a positive philosophy. True, he didn’t have anything like modern science to offer for explanations of natural events, but that does not mean that he offered “God did it” whenever he didn’t have a natural explanation.
Glad to see that the Discoveroids are following the Mormon Model:
I found something interesting while poking around the Southern Evangelical Seminary site: http://ses.edu/alumni-friends/supporting-ses/phillip-e.-johnson-chair-of-science-and-culture. You might remember Johnson, a lawyer, as the father of ID.
It seems that William Dembski is on the faculty as the Chair of Science and Culture. I looked at the Doctrinal Statement at SES which declares the literal interpretation of the Bible, including 6 day creation as well as Adam & Eve etc. I can’t be certain, but are the staff not required to state their agreement with the Statement? If so, then Bill must believe it and proclaim it, or forever burn in the Lake of Fire. So, it doesn’t really matter whether or not there is an Intelligent Design theory. It’s Darwin Denial or Death by Fire.
@Ian Hyland: IIRC, Dembski was called to task a few years ago for speaking publicly about OEC and Intelligent Design. Even now our curmudgeonly host will be digging up the link for what he wrote about it. 🙂
Here ya go, Tomato Addict: Battling Baptists: Young or Old Earth? There were later posts about his recantation, but I can’t find that stuff.
“I hope that the establishment of this chair will establish Southern Evangelical Seminary as a pioneering institution where the most intellectually rigorous thought is applied to the Darwinian theory of evolution and the worldview that generated that theory.” – Phillip Johnson
Doesn’t that then eliminate any and all discussions and assertions related to god, intelligent design and creationism?
We do not actually know what Aquinas’ real opinions were, only what he dared to publish. He knew full well the consequences of original thought to which the Church could take exception.
Aquinas was a radical in his time, and he pushed the boundaries of was what received opinion. Of course, we don’t know what he really thought.
But he wrote a lot about theology, and I would be extremely surprised if anyone can find any hint of his saying something like, “there is something wrong with the idea that living things are related by common descent (or that heritable traits of populations change over generations determined by differential reproductive success), and therefore there must be intelligent design”. IOW, I don’t think that one can find anything supporting a slogan for a social/political movement like Intelligent Design. While he did criticize different opinions, he did, I think, try to present a positive, substantive alternative to opinions he criticized. I am not going to defend the position that his positions can bear the weight of 800 years of criticism.
Prof. Edward Feser, who is the guy that IDiot JT Bridges is going after here, because Feser says Thomas’ Fifth Way is different from Paley’s “Watchmaker” argument from design, presents a long list of quotes from religious historians, philosophers etc. all saying that Thomas’ Fifth Way is different from Paley’s “Watch needs a Watchmaker” argument, here: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html.
The gist is that Paley’s argument was from order in nature, worked by piling up analogies (the human body is like a watch, the universe is like a bigger watch, etc.) and could NOT actually prove God was the watchmaker, because the designer of living things could be a large but finite intelligence in our universe, not an infinite intelligence outside of it. Thomas’ Fifth Way, by contrast, was not about order in nature, but about “finality” which is not well-defined but appears to mean purpose or goal of a sequence of events; and pointed to an unmoved mover outside the universe, that could only be God.
So Feser’s point, and those of the authorities he cites, means clearly that the DI is wrong to claim Thomas Aquinas as a supporter of ID.
The DI wrong… You’re shocked I know.