Evolution, Natural Selection, and God's Causality (Aquinas 101)

⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin...
Is it possible for God to accomplish his plan through chance events in the world? This is a key question, not only for a right understanding of the theories of evolution and natural selection, but more generally for experimental science as a whole. Contemporary sciences investigate things in the world -- this is to study them as secondary causes. But philosophy (and faith) can be sure that, whatever science discovers, the kind of causality that a creature has is never in competition with God’s transcendent and primary causality of the world and of every being in it. Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P., a Dominican friar from the Province of St. Joseph, explores how God is the source of what science studies.
Primary and Secondary Causality: Principles and Distinctions (Aquinas 101) - Fr. Dominic Legge, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

Evolution may explain the origin of the species, but not the origin of life itself.

[@xrisc131]

Great explanation of primary and secondary causes. I’ve read some of the Summa. I’ve read all of Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa. It’s all still too deep for me. These videos bring me a little closer. I kinda of hope I never finally understand… the fun is learning.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you as you continue your studies!

[@renecordero1242]

This is an excellent presentation. It is amazing how Aquinas can unravel difficult topics and make them easy to understand. Aquinas is a gift that God has given to the Catholic Church and to her mission to save souls and bring them to God.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for the comment! We're glad you've found the videos helpful.

[@wun__]

finally a reasonable christian approach to things. i'm not a christian (also not an atheist), not even much sympathetic to christianism. but many people are, and it is relieving, to say the least, to see someone making some Actual logical consistent sense of things in a conciliatory way for those people. great job. i do hope you get much more views, to outcompete all the nonsense out there.

[@prayerbladeproductions6201]

Thank you for making this! I always have seen either the first view you articulated in the beginning of the video, or the second view. It's great to see that those aren't the only options, and that Aquinas's view can reconcile the two views, and make a distinct one.

[@shadowlinks99]

Can't wait to see more from this series.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

[@theplinkerslodge6361]

God is threaded thru reality in dimensions we cannot sense or fathom. All places at one time. With each one of us, all at one time (if asked).

[@JonTopping]

I'm a bit confused here. From what I understand Aquinas did hold to free will to some degree, and we couldn't call him a divine causal determinist. In this sense of primary causes explained in the video, this would seem to imply that anything that is ever done by a creature ultimately has its source in God as the primary cause. So in the case of evil, it would almost seem to be improper to blame the secondary cause, because ultimately God is the primary cause of that evil act. After all, as the video says, no secondary causation is at odds with God's primary causation. This would seem to imply theological determinism. So I'm confused if the video has misrepresented how Aquinas saw primary/secondary causes, or if Aquinas might have been affirming a contradiction without realizing it, or if there's just some way I'm misunderstanding this. Thanks for any help anyone can provide!

[@jacobcarne8316]

“Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, He ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.” Westminster Confession of Faith 5.2

[@jessecamping]

Fantastic !!!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

[@anthonyw2931]

I held the viewpoint that in matters of science and scientific debates (including philosophy), excluding the idea of God is appropriate. These videos are truly opening my vision,

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for the comment! It's great to hear that you've found the videos helpful.

[@roisinpatriciagaffney4087]

Thank you, Father Legge. Pax Christi.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

[@dhdh2343]

I just began new St. Thomas Fan. His philosophy is the only one that may serve as holistic foundation for sound social organization. Greets from Poland.

[@lakingssuperfan6739]

Outstanding and eyeopening, as usual; God bless you all.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thank you!

[@mananabobea5704]

Excelente, como siempre.

[@coryedmundendrulatinhc8070]

Perhaps a video on deism?

[@MarkGido]

This was a big help to me with a issue that I've been wrestling with for years ... Does God control every electron, photon, et cetera? I think this video has set me on the right path -- God is the cause of things that are the cause of other things. So if I got this right, God may not directly guide/control each photon but created the electron, for example, such that when it changes states, the electron can emit a photon. Am I understanding this correctly? Comments?

[@b4u334]

Catholics believe in a God (primary cause) that is constantly involved in the contingency of all creation (secondary causes). Meaning that, for sure, all creation requires His constant support for subsistence at any given moment. This is different from a deistic God, who simply creates, then leaves his creation to exist on its own. With intentionality, God established the observable laws of nature which we can determine to be His normal level of intervention. Miracles, and our free will, go beyond His normal intervention and are permitted exceptions to the established order. So, God does ensure the laws of science are held constant. The electron cannot exist and operate without God's sustained contingency.

[@MarkGido]

@@b4u334 Thanx mucho! That's the conclusion that I was reaching and glad to find someone else landed at the same place! Again, thanx!

[@anthonyw2931]

@@b4u334 very well explained

[@john-paulgies4313]

Agreed. Wholeheartedly. Still not convinced that evolution is where species come from. Looking forward to wherever this goes.

[@-pat-9429]

It doesnt matter if it's evolution or something else, First cause supercedes it. If anything the study of the natural world is an act of love for god.

[@MarkGido]

@@-pat-9429 Amen

[@john-paulgies4313]

@@-pat-9429 It does matter. It matters what you think human nature is. If Evolution, then it's changeable; if God established it from the beginning of creation, then it's immutable, then man is one creature from Beginning to End. Not saying they're necessarily mutually exclusive. But these are the two great hermeneutics: Evolution - people we can overcome are on their way to being a subspecies of humanity (in more ways than one); Creation - we are little less than the angels, are the children of God. When I read Genesis 2:7, 21-22, I see the creation of man proclaimed to be a primary causation. Evolutionary hypotheses declare it to be secondary causation....

[@GabrielGonzalez-un7rx]

@@john-paulgies4313 genesis also says God made man up from dirt by “breathing the breath of life” this can be interpreted as the first biological cells evolving from non-biological matter and evolving until eventually becoming humans.

[@john-paulgies4313]

@@GabrielGonzalez-un7rx Maybe, but this interpretation seems like we're treating Scripture like a riddle, with the answer being something merely physical. It really looks more like reading evolution into Scripture than finding it there. What does this interpretation make of the "re-creation" of man, of the forming of Woman from his side? Also, primary vs. secondary causation: did God make Man, or did Man come from earth automatically?

[@danielcarriere1958]

I'd live a talk on Miracles in terms of primary and secondary causality!

[@SevenDeMagnus]

Cool, thank you, this'll make it easier to show agnostics and atheists like Ricky Gervais, Elon Musk, Sabine, Tyson, Kaku, Brian Cox, etc. God bless.

[@samuelrothe5565]

Well said.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

[@metatron4890]

There was death before there were humans that committed the first sin. How do you explain that?

[@kamiljan1131]

As great as always! God be with ye panda looking brothers!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers, thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

[@ianb483]

I find this answer deeply unsatisfying. I have no issue with God working through secondary causes, and a sort of evolutionary process, to produce the body of man and the various species. That's all pretty straightforward and unproblematic. But Darwin (and modern neo-Darwininian theory) was quite clearly trying to assert something significantly more than that with his particular concept of natural selection. The point was and is to account for biological function in reductionistic, mechanistic, physicalist terms. It's primarily a metaphysical project that entails a radical nominalism as regards biology, and holds that living organisms are mere aggregates of matter cobbled together over time. The pervasive function we see in biology is conceived in extrinsic terms like that of human artifacts (a la Paley or Descartes), but with the further reduction that natural selection is supposed to be merely analogical to human artificers, devoid of any intention or foresight, so that even the extrinsic biological function is merely apparent, and purpose doesn't objectively exist in biology at all. Likewise, "random" for purposes of Darwinian explanation doesn't mean lacking in observable correlations. It means *unintended*, ungoverned and undirected towards any end, neither by direct intervention nor by providence working through secondary causes. I see a persistent refusal or inability by the vast majority of Thomists and other theistic evolutionists to address these issues clearly, and it's absolutely tragic, because the Darwinian account of biological function is incoherent, and Thomists are best situated to explain *why* it's incoherent and to reassert why biological organisms must be substances. Meanwhile, Darwinists themselves are typically not nearly so circumspect in asserting their own account of biological function (or the absence thereof), so they go unanswered. And that account strikes directly at Natural Law, at essentialism, at the existence of reason and the philosophy of mind, and even at theism itself, doing extraordinary damage to the faith of millions. Those of us out there struggling in the trenches, we really need your help.

[@seanedwards6995]

Please clarify which definition of evolution or which theory you align with. All of this is extremely confusing to me and from my estimation I think you are describing Neo-Darwinism in the beginning of the video, but I have heard from almost all Christian apologists and evolutionary biologists confirm that when you have only randomness and a undirected/unguided process God is cannot be in the picture. Dr. Stephen Meyer makes the best case for this. Are you talking about process structuralism, which states that there are natural laws created by God that govern the evolution of biological structures and organisms, and if evolution where to happen again it would have the same result because of the laws of nature? Or are you arguing for intelligent design that allows for the definition of evolution such as change over time and change within a species adapting to different environment(microevolution), but rejects macroevolution because cells that needed to be in place before natural selection acts on them have been finely tuned by God and new forms of life arise out of nowhere? Sorry that this is a late response. God bless!

[@dowandougherty1611]

Microevolution would require the belief in progressive creationism, where God creates unevenly over time to account for new species. They have another video that explains how evolution with descent is not contradictory to Christian belief.

[@-Glove-]

Another great video, thank you Fr. Dominic!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

[@b4u334]

Can we trust the conclusions of science to be accurate if those conclusions carry strong epistemological or, even, political implications? Most scientists are not Catholic, nor are they open to the possibility of the metaphysical. Any metaphysical explanation is simply shrugged off as God of the gaps (miracles, et al).

[@markmenotti203]

As always, TI, well done!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thank you!

[@dietrichbecker8267]

Is anyone else here from mr.fosters class???

[@DistributistHound]

Thanks for the video and the explanation father! I have a question, it seems to me that as first cause God just acted once in the case of the universe and let the rest of the secondary causes in an "automatic mode" so to speak or kind of letting the universe unfold by itself. However I'm trying to understand that St. Thomas view is that God is behind all secondary causes simultaneously, is that correct?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Perhaps the following two videos will speak to your questions: Creation isn't what you think it is! kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqCbnnp-g56nZ5I Yes, there is a Theory of Everything! kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJ_doqBmbsaXna8

[@DistributistHound]

@@ThomisticInstitute thank you!

[@ColeB-jy3mh]

I would just say… the bell sounds are too loud

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for the feedback -- noted! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@sametsahin5024]

Is there anyone who can point to some thomistic resource that explains how god is currently involved in the universe? The distinction between the two causalities makes sense in understanding faith and science but it might also imply a distant, uninvolved God who just spoke things into existence once and then retreated. I wonder, what is sovereignty and providence according to the thomistic view?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Here's a video on providence: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p32uaIyjm8d8bqM

[@ThomisticInstitute]

And here are a couple of videos on St. Thomas's teaching on creation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYaXaYVuj69lfqM kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqCbnnp-g56nZ5I

[@scottmcloughlin4371]

As a Philosopher of Sciences, Aquinas was right. His God is here the Forms of Plato. Aquinas was so right, we moderns almost take it for granted. Greek Kosmos signifies The Order of Things, not "everything." We misuse abstract terms in TV-English. Our science textbooks trace the Natural Laws of Natural Types inherent in "natural things" of those types. Biology is the model. Roses and rabbits are not the same because "both are made of atoms" or even "both are carbon life forms."

[@jacobmorin485]

Wisdom of Solomon 19:19 >>>

[@jaspermay5813]

Here we go again.

[@thebyzantinescotist7081]

While it is true that God can cause things through natural causes, it is NOT the case that St. Thomas viewed the creation itself that way. Just read the Prima Pars. He was a young earth creationist. It seems that this entire series is just addressing the philosophy of the matter. It is not dealing with St. Thomas’ actual theological views of the matter. St. Thomas’ fidelity to scripture was extremely important to him. He would never create a series on this matter without addressing the scriptural issues.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Stay tuned: we have videos lined up that will take up the scriptural side of this conversation. Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment.

[@larrybedouin2921]

Revelation 13:1-10 the (conglomerate) beast from out of the sea. And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and *ten horns* and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto *a leopard* and his feet were as the feet of *a bear* and his mouth as the mouth of *a lion* and *the dragon* gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. {Revelation 13:1-2} Greek > philosophy Persian > religious sects and monachism Babylonian > sun worship (Mithraism) Roman > law

[@bradleymosman8325]

Some years ago, I visited a museum of osteology. Lots of skeletons were on display, including that of an ancient Chinese woman. It was accompanied by a plaque that respectfully explained that 'we don't want to disrespect the religious beliefs of anyone. But evolution is a fact.' As I walked away I wondered: WHAT exactly has evolved? Well, obviously, a body capable of survival. The Flesh. But Jesus, in John 6, explained that 'The Flesh is useless. It is the spirit which gives life.' It seems Jesus had done an end run around Dawin over a millennium before Charles was born. If the flesh is useless, evolution has limited relevance.

[@jaspermay5813]

Nothing has evolved. Obviously that plaque did intend to disrespect the religious beliefs especially of those who hold to the traditional Catholic understanding of sacred history.

[@GabrielGonzalez-un7rx]

I like to think that the flesh is merely a vessel, meant to hold and nurture a soul long enough for it to evolve and transcend. Hence the more durable and stronger the better.

[@jaspermay5813]

@@GabrielGonzalez-un7rx Modernists like to think all kinds of nonsense.

[@GabrielGonzalez-un7rx]

@@jaspermay5813 then i guess the Pope and múltiple renowned cardenals, as well ad half of the churches members are modernists. Let me know when you get your head out of the 18th century and wake up. Science and religion aren’t at war anymore, they never were in the first place. The conflict only existed in the minds of close-minded folk like you.

[@jaspermay5813]

@@GabrielGonzalez-un7rx Well, if you were a Catholic, you might recognize that we're in the middle of the prophesied great Apostasy, and that anyone who stubbornly denies the traditional Catholic understanding of Genesis can't be a Catholic.

[@jeffmay8640]

😂 P r o m o S M.

[@Bradley_UA]

Just asserting that god is at the source of the universe is meaningless, if it doesn't change our idea or understandin if the universe. Saying "love/consciousness/magic is the source of the universe" is exactly as meaningless. And even if the source is god, you still don't know what that god wants or whether he's going to judge us after death, or that there are souls... Basically everything of the Judeo-Christian is just sneaked in. 1) god is an obstacle to science, because when you don't understand something, say "god did it", it doesn't explain anything anymore than "magic did it", but it stops people from researching. 2) evolution is not random. Mutations are random, but natural selections _SELECTS_ in a non-random way. So "chance events cannot bring about complexity", but evolution can. 3) "God is the very source of the universe" - and what does it mean. Or rather, what predictive capability does this model give you? But also why do you think that? Why can't the universe itself be transcendent cause of everything that it contains? How would a universe, that's sustained by god, be different from a self-sustaining universe? And if agree it was some god, why do you think its this very specific god, who cares about our sins, and sends Jesus to save us from himself, and loves us, etc... 4) "primary and secondary causality", "it's important for science to investigate" - okay, let's investigate. What testable predictions does this model of secondary causality make? How do we investigate it? 5) "god is at the source of what science studies" - this is just another assertion, accepting which as true doesn't help you to understad or predict anything in this universe. This is why it's anti-sciemtific.

[@utopiabuster]

Sorry, but yea, God did do it! Get used to it! You did not get the point of the good Fathers' video as you clearly demonstrate, which has to do with causality and contingency, even though those concepts weren't specifically mentioned. There is absolutely no reason given condidering what we know of the world, that prohibits or refutes postulating a designer, commonly referred to as God. As far as evolution, or the modern synthesis is concerned, a growing number of secular scientist are calling for a "Third Way" evolutionary mechanism noting that natural selection alone simply does not have the explanatory power to answer current paradigms. The modern synthesis involves disciplines in several branches of genetics, including population genetics. And, biologist are exploring the inclusion of quantum mechanics. The fossil record shows very little of Darwinian gradualism but more of long periods of stasis with rapid speciation events. As well as considering simultanaity and continuity. Besides, the "Hard Consciousness Problem", "origin of life",or chemical abiogenisis, pose serious challenges for a purely naturalistic mechanism. The discovery of "Di topoisomerases ll" enzyme, and research into cell memory storage proteins provide substantial credibity for intelligent design. Inflation theory has all but been abandoned, leaving us with an ultimate universe which had a beginning just as relativity predicts. So, yea I suppose there's some naturalistic explanations for a few things, but it's looking more and more like all this is designed and purposeful. Your little tirade is demonstrably sophomoric. You may want to try actually reading a book. Thanks for playing.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We expect these videos to prompt vigorous discussion, and we encourage this. We also expect that all parties engaged in such discussion--whether for or against our own position--make their points in a manner that is civil and respectful of all interlocutors. The goal here is for all of us to be ultimately united in the truth, wherever that may be found, not that one of us dominate the other in comm-box argumentation. We are sincerely grateful to those who take the time to comment, and we hope any conversations begun here bear good fruit.

[@Bradley_UA]

@@utopiabuster As i said, just saying "god did it" is meaningless just as saying "magic did it". Im glad you illustrated the poing by simply repeating it once more. > but it's looking more and more like all this is designed and purposeful Its not, and if you think it is, why do you think all the experts in cosmology, physics, biology, neuro- and cognitive sciences disgree with you? > There is absolutely no reason that prohibits or refutes postulating a designer Yeah. Because its an unfalsifiable, and therefore a meaningless claim. Same as "magic did it". > a growing number of secular scientist are calling for a "Third Way" evolutionary mechanism Its been "growing" for over 30 years now, kinda like "intelligent design", just another attempt by creationists to act like evolution isn't a plain fact, but something thats debated in scientific community. > Besides, the "Hard Consciousness Problem", "origin of life",or chemical abiogenisis, pose serious challenges for a purely naturalistic mechanism. Again, even if we agreed that evolution is false, what difference does in make to say "it happened by magic/god". If its not evolution, then we simply don't have an answer. Creationists attack evolution as if thats why creationism doesn make sense. But it wouldn't make any sense regarldess.

[@utopiabuster]

@@Bradley_UA , Nope! I can say "God did it" based on proper warrant and valid justifications as I offered in my last comment which you failed to specifically address. I don't see how get "creationist" from secular scientist? Not even a decent strawman. Peace

[@polemeros]

As soon as you used "Judeo-Christian" you lost me.

[@boku5192]

why?

[@mauriciorv228]

why?