Comments on Michal Chaberek’s Essay (2019) "Classical Metaphysics and Theistic Evolution"

By Razie Mah

In 2019, Michal Chaberek, O.P. raises the question, “Why are classical metaphysics and theistic evolution incompatible?”
His inquiry appears in the journal Studia Gilsoniana (volume 8(1), pages 47-81).
These comments re-articulate Chaberek’s arguments in light of prior works, including ‘Speculations on Thomism and Evolution’ and ‘Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight Book’s (2017) “Adam and the Genome”’. These works rely on the category-based nested form, derived from the philosophy of Charles S. Peirce.
The results are striking. Chaberek’s barbs pass through theistic evolution and strike atheistic materialism, as well as necessity and chance. Over the course of his argument, a new image of ‘species in theory’ and ‘species in observation’ appear on the philosophical and scientific levels of a three-level interscope.
In sum, Chaberek accomplishes what theistic evolutionists have not. He exposes the current normal contexts and potentials of biological evolution and opens the door to their replacement. Theistic entanglement replaces atheistic materialism. Divine providence replaces necessity and chance.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Razie Mah
• Release date: Sep 14, 2019
• ISBN: 9781942824800

Razie Mah

See website for bio.

Book preview

Comments on Michal Chaberek’s Essay (2019) Classical Metaphysics and Theistic Evolution

By Razie Mah

Published for Smashwords.com

2019

Notes on Text

This work comments on an essay by Michal Chaberek, O.P., appearing in 2019 in the journal Studia Gilsoniana (volume 8(1), pages 47-81). The full title is Classical Metaphysics and Theistic Evolution: Why are They Incompatible?. Classical metaphysics encompasses both ancient and scholastic traditions. Theistic evolution is a philosophical response to a modern tradition, neodarwinism. My goal is to comment on this work using the category-based nested form and other relational models within the postmodernism of Charles Peirce.

‘Words that belong together’ are denoted by single quotes or italics.

Prerequisites: A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form, A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

Recommended: Speculations on Thomism and Evolution, Comments on Mariusz Tabaczek’s Essay (2019) What do God and Creatures Really Do in an Evolutionary Change?

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Descent of Decent Minds

What is Biological Macroevolution?

What is a Species?

The Answers to Be Questioned

A Part

B Part

Objections

Introduction

0001 Michal Chaberek, O.P. is a member of the Polish Dominican Province. He publishes a rather lengthy paper in the journal, Studia Gilsoniana. The full title is Classical Metaphysics and Theistic Evolution: Why are They Incompatible?.

Surely, classical metaphysics is not the same as theistic evolution.

Chaberek is a subject-matter expert in the former and perhaps, the latter.

But, there is more.

Theistic evolution is not the same as biological evolution.

Okay, now whole picture gets hazy.

0002 According to John Deely, classical metaphysics flourishes in the (premodern) Latin Age. Biological evolution is formulated during the (modern) Age of Ideas. The category-based nested form,