[geocentrism] Entropy and eden
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <TraditionalCatholicsUnited@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John Kaminski" <skylax@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Ivan Cox" <bosco6@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <governor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David J. Tennessen" <DavesDigest4Life@xxxxxx>, <ags@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ABCs of Faith" <abcsofffaith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:59:04 +1000
To the agnostic amongst us, Hi Paul! (grin) the following statement should not
be a problem once he has witnessed his first proven miracle.
"since the rational soul surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, it was
most properly endowed at the beginning with the power of preserving the body in
a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter. Further, this power of
preserving the body was not natural to the soul, but was the gift of grace. "
from article below.
Unconsciously I have attributed a lot of the works I have read to Solange
Hertz, simply because being the shovinist that I am, I could not possibly
imagine that more than one woman could exist with such intellectual capacity..
I mean look at Eve, she must have been a blonde.
However I was wrong. I just rediscovered a dusty CD, previously barely perused,
a large 30Mb of the works of one Paula Haigh.. I remembered it because I once
asked everybody's question, did or could Adam and Eve procreate among other
things, before the fall.
Paula Haigh like Solange aligns modernist Rome with Protestantism, and so non
catholics here should not feel any special victimisation.
Since I have put on hold article 3 from Dr. Robert Sungenis dialogue, due to
some necessary introspection, here is something which melds science with
scriptural theology, for all to ponder, article 70 from 98, by Paula.
have fun. Philip.
Entropy and eden
by
Paula Haigh
1992
[Computerized in 2001]
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
I. A Reading of St. Thomas 5
II. The Protestant Creationist Scientists 13
III. Catholic Creationists 18
IV. The First Law of Thermodynamics 23
V. Historical Note on the Two Laws 25
VI. Some Key Terms and Concepts 27
VII. References 29
Introduction
A Catholic theology of creation must include a consideration of the laws of
thermodynamics in relation to the nature of the created universe and the state
of innocence of our first parents. Rather than beginning with definitions from
modern physics, I suggest a reading of St. Thomas Aquinas without any
preconceived notions. This method will enable us to see whether the laws of
thermodynamics are really universal and so, of scientific certitude, because if
they are, then St. Thomas will make some acknowledgement of them in his
writings, perhaps not in the words of present-day scientists, but certainly as
presenting the same ideas of perceived reality.
Some preliminary considerations are necessary. We must understand clearly the
relation between the natural and the supernatural orders.
The supernatural life of divine grace does not exist in itself but in something
else. It is therefore not a substance but an accident. Thus the supernatural
life presupposes a created nature which receives it and in which it operates.
(Ott, p.102)
This Catholic doctrine is essentially different from the modernist heresy which
teaches a "vital immanence" according to which everything of a religious or
spiritual nature develops out of the necessities of human nature in a purely
natural fashion. (Ott, p.102) The modernist thus makes divine grace to be of
the very substance of the soul as belonging to it by some inherently natural
right. On the contrary, divine grace is an entirely gratuitous gift super-added
to human nature and is therefore subject to humble and grateful acceptance or
to prideful rejection on the part of a free will.
The Catholic doctrine of grace is also radically different from that of many if
not most Protestants who simply have no clearly defined or developed theology
of divine grace and the soul or of which includes Sacramental theology, virtue,
sin, etc, etc.
According to St. Thomas, as soon as God formed Adam's body from the earth and
infused the rational soul, He also raised him to the supernatural order of
divine grace. (Ott, p. 103 and ST, I, Q 95, a 1)
The State of Original Justice or Innocence had its source in the sanctifying
grace that permeated Adam's soul. This supernatural endowment included in
addition to the gift of sanctifying grace, certain preternatural gifts which
depended on grace alone and flowed directly from it. These additional gifts
were:
1) The gift of rectitude or integrity, meaning freedom from irregular desires
in the physical order and a perfect control of the passions by reason;
2) Bodily immortality or freedom from bodily death;
3) Bodily impassibility or freedom from suffering and bodily degeneracy, i.e.,
sickness;
4) The gift of science or knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused
by God.
This State of Original Justice was intended by God to be hereditary. (Ott, pp.
103-105)
We know of only two human beings who by reason of their being absolutely
sinless possessed these gifts in their fullness and never lost them: Our Divine
Lord and His Immaculate Mother Mary.
We know from Holy Scripture that the sentence of bodily death was not carried
out immediately upon Adam's fall from grace. Quite the contrary. Adam and the
Patriarchs -- and so, we may reasonably assume, everyone else -- lived to
extremely long ages. The same may justly be inferred regarding the other gifts.
These facts belong to the history of the world and of mankind before the Flood
and are mentioned here only by way of indicating what a wealth of knowledge
there is at hand for constructing a true history of the world to replace the
false evolutionary world view currently prevailing.
Concerning the consequences of Original Sin, we can be absolutely certain only
of the following:
1) Our First Parents lost Sanctifying Grace and the preternatural gifts flowing
from it, provoking the anger of God and His indignation;
2) They became subject to sickness and death as a punishment for sin; they also
became subject to the dominion of the Devil (Gen. 3:15; John 12:31; 14:30; 2
Cor. 4:4; Heb. 2:l4; 2 Peter 2:19).
3) The privations due to Original Sin are transmitted by natural generation.
(Ott, pp. 107-108)
All the rest is opinion based on inferences more or less soundly based. Such
are the following: since only human beings, i.e., Adam and Eve and their
descendants, fell directly under the curse of Genesis 3. But we may admit, with
many Catholic authors, that nature suffers indirectly from the curse inasmuch
as it is influenced by mankind: "Cursed be the earth in thy work." (Gen. 3:17)
I. A Reading of Saint Thomas
Let us now listen to the words of St. Thomas and try to discover what he
teaches about the world before and after the Fall of our First Parents.
Under the Question "Whether in the State of Innocence Man Would Have Been
Immortal?" St. Thomas answers:
It is written (Rom. 5:l2) By sin death came into the world. Therefore, man was
immortal before sin. (ST, I, Q 97, a 1)
But this concerns only man. It tells us nothing about the universe in general
or the rest of nature. This point is well worth noting, for St. Thomas will
always be concerned primarily with man and man's relationship with God, his
Creator. Next, St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine:
God made man's soul of such a powerful nature that from its fullness of
beatitude [in the state of innocence] there redounds to the body a fullness of
health with the vigor of incorruption. God made man immortal as long as he did
not sin, so that he might achieve for himself [by free choice] life or death.
St. Thomas then adds his own explanation wherein we may begin to perceive the
answer to our question about entropy in Eden:
For man's body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of
immortality but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul,
whereby it [the soul] was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so
long as it remained itself subject to God. This entirely agrees with reason;
for since the rational soul surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, it was
most properly endowed at the beginning with the power of preserving the body in
a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter. Further, this power of
preserving the body was not natural to the soul, but was the gift of grace.
(ST, I, Q 97, a 1, ad 3)
The view of St. Thomas here is clear: the preternatural. gifts were due
entirely to the supernatural life of Grace exerting a truly miraculous power
over the body, a power which surpassed the "natural capacity of corporeal
matter." The inference is that "corporeal matter" not being impassible or
immortal by its own nature, must then be, by its nature, quite the opposite,
that is, passible and mortal, inclining to dissolution. Such is the essential
meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, when St. Thomas speaks of
natural capacities in this context, we must assume the nature to which he
refers is the same nature in and by which we live today.
Did Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden need to take food? This question is most
relevant to our purpose because (to anticipate some definitions) it is
necessary to know, even if St. Thomas was not so explicitly aware, that the
processes of digestion and assimilation are thermodynamic processes. He says:
In the State of Innocence, man had an animal life requiring food; but after the
resurrection, he will have a spiritual life needing no food.
This is a most important distinction to observe, for we must in no way equate
the State of Innocence in Eden with the Life of Glory after the final
Resurrection. We have only to think of Our Divine Lord in His life on earth and
then, in His appearances after the Resurrection. Before the Resurrection He
needed to eat and drink. After the Resurrection, He was able to do so but did
not need to do so. Adam's body in Eden was not a glorified body. Nor will the
state of the world, that of "the new heavens and the new earth" (2 Peter 3:13
and Apoc. 21:1-8; Cf. Ott, pages 494-496) be like that of the Garden before the
Fall.
Returning to the discussion of life before the Fall, St. Thomas continues:
In order to make this clear, we must observe that the rational soul is both
soul and spirit. The soul in common with all other souls [vegetative and
sensitive, i.e., plant and animal] gives life to the body. The soul is called
spirit according to what is proper to itself and not to other souls, that is,
as possessing an intellectual immaterial power. Thus in the state of innocence
the rational soul communicated to the body what belonged to itself as a soul,
i.e., life. Now the first principle of life in the inferior creatures is the
vegetative soul, the operations of which are the use of food, generation, and
growth. Wherefore, such operations befitted man in the state of innocence. ...
For the immortality of the original state was based on a supernatural force in
the soul and not on any intrinsic disposition of the body; so that by the
action of heat, the body might lose part of its humid qualities; and to prevent
the entire consumption of the humor, man was obliged to take food. A certain
passion and alteration attends nutriment on the part of the food changed into
the substance of the thing nourished. So we cannot thence conclude that man's
body was possible [i.e., corruptible] but that the food taken was passible,...
(ST, I, Q 97, a 3, ad 1 and 2)
The point to note here is that the plant kingdom in Eden was certainly subject
to the Second Law even though Adam's body, on account of the supernatural life
of grace, was not. The fact, however, that he did need to take nourishment is
an indication that there was a certain degree of subjection to the Second Law,
even though the life of grace prevented it from exerting its full influence.
Furthermore, in answer to an objection that Adam would have taken no
superfluous food and therefore had no need to defecate, St. Thomas replies:
.this is unreasonable to suppose . for voiding the surplus was so disposed by
God as to be decorous and suitable to the state of innocence.
These facts of theology indicate that Adam and Eve in the exalted state of
innocence nevertheless were subject, to some degree, to the operation of the
Second Law even though the divine life of grace in their souls prevented its
full effects of sickness and death. Furthermore, in the Garden of Eden Adam and
Eve possessed two remedies against two defects:
1) One of these defects was the loss of humidity by the action of natural heat,
.a remedy against such loss was provided with food taken from the trees of
Paradise, as now we are provided with food which we take for the same purpose.
2) The second defect arises from the fact that the humor which is caused from
extraneous sources being added to the humor already existing, lessens the
specific [i.e., of the species] active power... so we may observe that at first
the active force of the species [in this case, human nature] is so strong that
it is able to transform so much of the food as is required to replace the lost
tissue, as well as what suffices for growth; later on, the assimilated food
does not suffice for growth, but only replaces what is lost. Last of all in old
age, it does not suffice even for this purpose; whereupon, the body declines
and finally dies from natural causes.
Against this defect man was provided with a remedy in the Tree of Life; for its
effect was to strengthen the force of the species against the weakness
resulting from the admixture of extraneous nutriment. Wherefore Augustine says:
Man had food to appease his hunger, drink to slake his thirst; and the Tree of
Life to banish the breaking up of old age; and. the Tree of Life, like a drug
[or we might better say, a tonic] warded off all bodily corruption.
St. Thomas adds:
Yet it did not absolutely cause immortality; for neither was the soul's
intrinsic power of preserving the body due to the Tree of Life, nor was it of
such efficiency as to give the body a disposition to immortality whereby it
might become indissoluble; which is clear from the fact that every bodily power
is finite; so the power of the Tree of Life could not go so far as to give the
body the prerogative of living for an infinite time, but only for a definite
time. ... since the power of the Tree of Life was finite, man's life was to be
preserved for a definite time, by partaking of it once; and when that time had
elapsed, man was to be either transferred to a spiritual life, or had need to
eat once more of the Tree of Life. (ST, I, Q 97)
It is not difficult to translate the medieval theories of bodily humors into
modern ideas of physiology and nutrition. What is clear is that St. Thomas
perceives defects in natural processes even in Paradise. Furthermore, his
assertion that "every bodily power is finite" indicates a simple attribute of
all created being -- its limitation and therefore, a certain kind and degree of
imperfection. The necessary condition and prerequisite for entropy is therefore
here in the very created nature of material or corporeal being; for only God is
immaterial, having no parts, and infinitely perfect, having no need of change.
Even the Angels are subject to change though not to any material or corporeal
processes. Inherent in the very nature of materiality and of corporeal process
is the fact of degeneration, if not sooner then later. St. Thomas says:
Even in the state of innocence, then, the human body was in itself corruptible,
but could be preserved from corruption by the soul. (ST, I, Q 98, a 1, ad 1)
The natural conditions of Paradise, or the environment of Adam and Eve in the
State of Innocence, were also ideally conducive to the preservation and
enjoyment of the preternatural gifts. St. Thomas quotes St. John Damascene:
Paradise was permeated with all-pervading brightness of a temperate, pure, and
exquisite atmosphere and decked with flowering plants.
To which St. Thomas adds:
Whence it is clear that Paradise was most fit to be a dwelling place for man in
keeping with his original state of immortality. [But] This state of
incorruption could not be said of the other animals. Therefore, as Damascene
says, "No irrational animal inhabited Paradise."
To which St. Thomas adds:
Although by a certain dispensation, the animals were brought to Adam that he
might name them and the serpent was able to trespass therein by the complicity
of the Devil.
Under the Question "Whether Adam Had Mastery Over the Animals?" St. Thomas
first explains that for his disobedience to God, man was punished by the
disobedience of those creatures which should be subject to him. But in the
State of Innocence, nothing disobeyed Adam. And as Adam, being made in the
image and likeness of God is above other animals, so these are rightly subject
to his government.
In the opinion of some, those animals which today are fierce and kill others
would, in the state of innocence have been tame not only with respect to man
but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the
nature of animals was not changed by men's sin, as if those whose nature now it
is to devour the flesh of others would have lived on herbs. Nor does Bede's
gloss say (on Gen. 1:30) that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals
and birds but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between
some animals.
They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership
of men, as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the
mastership of God Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence
man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic
animals. (ST, I, Q 96, ad 1 and ad 2)
It is worth noting here how St. Thomas emphasizes the created nature of animals
and how utterly unthinkable it would be for him that this created nature or
kind could transform itself or be transformed to another nature or kind.
When St. Thomas speaks of nature, he is referring to the very order of creation
established by God in the beginning. So it is difficult to imagine that there
could have been a different created order for the world before the Fall than
the one we have now. This does not rule out two other great facts:
1) the possibility of catastrophes, both local and global, and
2) that all physical, material entities naturally tend to decline and
deteriorate when left to themselves.
We may also ask, might not all animals before the Fall and even up to the time
of the Flood been like domestic animals today? It seems neither impossible nor
unreasonable since even some domestic animals are carnivorous and can be
hostile both to each other and to men, e.g., dogs and cats, dogs and chickens,
cats and birds, the mongoose and the snake, goats, bulls, etc. And I wonder,
too, following the emphasis of St. Thomas upon man and his relationship with
God, if we should not also emphasize the fact that animals respond to our moods
and our very spiritual states? The lives of the Saints surely confirm this.
As for food and clothing,
In the state of innocence, man had no bodily need of animals 1) for clothing
since they were naked and were not ashamed, nor 2) for food since they fed on
the trees of Paradise, nor 3) to carry them about for man's body was strong
enough in itself. Man only needed animals for the delightful experimental
knowledge of their natures. Therefore, God led them to Adam that Adam might
give them names expressive of their respective natures. So all animals would
have obeyed Adam of their own accord as in the present state some domestic
animals obey him... (ST, I, Q 96, a 1, ad 1-4)
To an objection that poisonous animals ought not to have been made by God at
all, since He is the Author of good and such animals could be injurious to man,
St. Thomas answers by quoting St. Augustine:
If an unskilled person enters the workshop of an artificer, he sees in it many
appliances of which he does not understand the use, and which, if he is a
foolish fellow, he considers unnecessary. Moreover, should he carelessly fall
into the fire, or wound himself with a sharp-edged tool, he is under the
impression that many of the things are hurtful; whereas the craftsman, knowing
their use, laughs at his folly. And thus some people presume to find fault with
many things in this world, through not seeing the reasons for their existence.
For, though not required for the furnishing of our house, these things are
necessary for the perfection of the universe.
St. Thomas adds:
And, since man before he sinned would have used the things of this world
conformably to the order designed, poisonous animals would not have injured
him. (ST, I, Q 72, ad 6)
Returning to a discussion of Paradise, we come to the curse of labor yielding
thorns and thistles:
Man was placed in Paradise that he might dress and keep it, which dressing
would not have involved labor as it did after sin, but would have been pleasant
on account of a practical knowledge of the powers of nature.
Paradise was a fitting abode for man as regards the incorruptibility of the
original state. Now this incorruptibility was man's not by nature but by a
supernatural gift of God. Therefore, that this might be attributed to God and
not to human nature, God made man outside of Paradise, afterwards placed him
there to live during the whole of his corporeal life, and having attained to
the spiritual life, to be transferred thence to heaven. (ST, I, Q 102, a 4)
. . .What is natural to man was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin. .it is
clear that generation by coition is natural to man by reason of his animal life
which he possessed even before sin. ...So we cannot allow that these [genital]
members could not have had a natural use before sin, but always under the
control of reason and grace. (ST, I, Q 98, a 2)
The Tree of Life was a material tree and so-called because its fruit was
endowed with a life-preserving power.
In like manner the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a material tree,
so-called in view of future events. (ST, I, Q 102, ad 4)
Man was incorruptible and immortal not because his body had a disposition to
incorruptibility but because in his soul there was a power preserving his body
from corruption.
Now the human body may be corrupted from within or from without: 1) from within
by the corruption of the humors and by old age ... and as to ward off such
corruption by food and by the Tree of Life [a. super-tonic]; 2) from without by
an atmosphere of unequal temperature. A remedy was found in an atmosphere of
equable nature. In Paradise both conditions are found.
Paradise did not become useless after sin. ... Some say that Enoch and Elias
still dwell there. [Most creationist scientists of today say that it was
obliterated by the global Flood of Noah's time.]
Some say that Paradise was on the equinoctial line .
But whatever the truth of the matter be, we must hold that Paradise was
situated in a most temperate zone whether on the equator or elsewhere. [This
last remark is a good example of St. Thomas' flexibility on points of dispute
that are clearly not against Faith, Scripture, or reason.]
For the earthly Paradise was a place adapted to man as regards his body arid
his soul -- that is, inasmuch as in his soul was the force which preserved the
human body from corruption. .This could not be said of the other animals. (ST,
I, Q 102, a 2, ad 2, 3, 4)
I include these latter passages on Paradise, even though they may seem
redundant, for two reasons:
1) they show how St. Thomas returns consistently to the principal source of
Adam's preternatural gifts -- the life of divine grace in his soul; and
2) the salutary conditions of Paradise which give support to the Vapor Canopy
theory first put forward by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in The Genesis Flood
and based on an interpretation of the second day of creation in Genesis 1.
This latter theory also brings up the question as to just how different the
Garden of Eden was from the world outside it, and whether, if Adam had not
fallen, he and his descendants would eventually have left the Garden to explore
the earth. In any case, the Garden was a place specially suited for the state
of innocence, and perhaps beyond this fact it is not prudent or fruitful to
speculate. But what does emerge more and more clearly as a fruitful area of
speculation is the relationship between man in the state of Grace and his
environment with its corollary of man in a state of wickedness and rebellion
against God and his environment, both interior and external.
Now for the "thorns and thistles":
If man had not sinned, the earth would have brought forth thorns and thistles
to be the food of animals but not to punish man because their growth before the
Fall would bring no labor or punishment for the tiller of the soil, as
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iii, 18).
Alcuin, however, holds that before sin the earth brought forth no thorns or
thistles whatever. But the former opinion, of Augustine, is the better. (ST,
II-Il, Q 164, a 2, ad 1)
Alouin (730-804) is no mean authority, but St. Thomas is simply being
consistent with his general principle that the world God created in the
beginning is essentially the same world that we live in as regards the created
natures of things, for these do not change. What we may simply allude to here,
in passing, is the vast area of research being carried on today concerning the
precise limits of variation within the created kinds. This research will never
be able to bring forth true evidence that violates or falsifies the principles
of St. Thomas because these latter are universal and necessary. Rather, we must
make use of them to evaluate the .data of the empirical sciences.
Since death is the ultimate goal of the Second Law and the processes of matter
generally, this topic deserves inclusion in our study. And since death is the
greatest punishment for sin, it will be well first to establish clearly a
fundamental difference between the Catholic doctrine and that of many
Protestants. The latter believe in a total depravity of human nature as a
result of Original Sin, but St. Thomas states the true Catholic teaching:
The good of human nature is threefold:
1) First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted and the
properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth.
2) Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, this
inclination to virtue, . this inclination to virtue is a good of nature.
3) Thirdly, the gift of Original Justice, conferred on the whole human
nature in the person of the first man Adam, may be called a good of nature [in
the body-soul composite; grace super-added to the soul]
Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor
diminished by sin.
The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first
parent.
But the second good of nature, namely, the natural inclination to virtue, is
but diminished by sin.
As sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results
a diminution of that good of nature which is the inclination to virtue. (ST,
I-II, Q 85, a 1)
So, we are not Calvinists. Even Original Sin did not leave us totally depraved
or deprived. The widespread vice we see today is due to the repeated rejection
of God's Grace, thereby leaving souls more and more in deeper darkness and
moral degeneracy, eventually blind even to the goods of nature such as family,
parent-child relationships, normal sexuality, etc. Thus we see not only the
spread of perversion and unnatural vice but its acceptance as natural. By the
light of these truths about the essential good of nature, we are better able to
realize the terrible extent of the present evil. The very order of creation is
attacked and violated at every point of its hierarchical structure. Only chaos
can result, as human governments are powerless to remedy such profound disorder.
Now, concerning death:
The Apostle says (Rorn. 5-12): By one man sin entered into this world, and by
sin, death.
As death and such like defects are outside the intention of the sinner, it is
evident that sin is not of itself the cause of these defects but insofar as by
the sin of our first parent Original Justice was taken away, whereby not only
were the lower powers of the soul held together under the control of reason
without any disorder whatever, but also the whole body was held together in
subjection to the soul without any defect as of sickness or death . Wherefore
Original Justice being forfeited through the sin of our first parent, just as
human nature was stricken in the soul by disorder among its powers, so also
human nature became subject to corruption by reason of disorder in the body.
(ST, I-II, Q. 85, a 5)
Death is not natural to man but is a punishment for sin.
We speak of any corruptible thing in two ways:
1) in respect of its universal nature, and
2) as regards its particular nature.
In this respect every corruption and defect is contrary to nature since this
power of a thing's own nature tends to the being and preservation of the
particular nature.
But the universal force intends the good and the preservation of the universe
for which alternate generation and corruption in things are requisite. And in
this respect corruption and defect in things are natural ... not indeed as
regards the inclination of the form which is the principle of being and
perfection, but as regards the inclination of matter which ... is composed of
contraries. From this results the corruptibility of the whole.
In this regard man is naturally corruptible as regards the nature of his matter
left to itself but not as regards the nature of his form [soul]. (ST, I-II, Q
85, a 6)
One could hardly find a clearer more accurate statement of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics both as to the universe and to particular beings such as plants,
animals and men. It is an inherent property of created matter. And here
precisely, too, we find that reason for the tendency of life, the formal
principle of animate things, to overcome, at least temporarily, the corruptible
forces of matter. Some scientists today, desperately trying to salvage
evolutionism, point to this overcoming of the Second Law. What they fail to
understand is that matter and form are inseparable, for "matter is not created
without form". (ST, I, Q 44, a 2, ad 3)
There is more:
We may note a two-fold condition in any matter: 1) one which the agent chooses,
and 2) one, not chosen by the agent and is a natural condition of matter.
Thus a smith to make a knife chooses a matter both hard and flexible which can
be sharpened. . So iron is a matter adapted for a knife.
But that iron be breakable and inclined to rust results from the natural
disposition of iron nor does the workman choose this in the iron. ... Wherefore
this disposition of matter is not adapted to the workman's intention, nor to
the purpose of his art.
In like manner the human body is the matter chosen by nature in respect of its
being of a mixed temperament in order that it may be most suitable as an organ
of touch and of the other sensitive and motive powers.
Whereas the fact that it is corruptible is due to a condition of matter, and is
not chosen by nature; indeed, nature [i.e., as formal principle] would choose
an incorruptible matter if it could.
But God, to Whom every nature is subject, in forming man, supplied the defect
of nature, and by the gift of Original Justice gave the body a certain
incorruptibility, ... It is in this sense that it is said that God made not
death (Wisdom 1:13) and that death is a punishment for sin. (ST, I-Il, Q 86, a
6)
Finally, speaking of man's place in the hierarchy of being, St. Thomas says:
... by his nature he is established as it were midway between corruptible and
incorruptible creatures, his soul being naturally incorruptible while his body
is naturally corruptible. (ST, I, Q 98, a 1)
Again, "what is natural to man is neither acquired nor forfeited by sin." (ST,
I, Q 98, a 2) The same must apply to matter in general and so, to the entire
universe insofar as it is composed of a material principle. The inherent
corruptibility of matter cannot be by reason of any defect or imperfection in
God as Creator of all things and of all things specifically as good (Gen. l,
10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Let this one quotation from St. Thomas suffice:
Corporeal creatures [and so, the entire physical universe] according to their
nature are good, though this good is not universal but partial and limited, the
consequence of which is a certain opposition of contrary qualities, though each
quality is good in itself. (ST, I, Q 65, a 1, ad 2)
Entropy, then, we may say with confident certitude, is indeed a property
inherent in matter by virtue of its nature as divisible, made of parts, being
composite, temporal, finite, limited and therefore subject to change because
imperfect. Only God is simple, eternal, infinite, and infinitely perfect in
Himself.
The material principle in all physical being is in constant declination whereas
the formal principle, especially of animate being, is in constant quest of the
greater perfection of its natural being. Before the Fall, these two principles
were maintained in a certain balance by reason of the supernatural life of
Grace in the soul of Adam. But Original Sin wrecked this fine harmony and
introduced a principle of disorder into human nature only, for only the human
being sinned. Therefore God said,
.cursed is the earth in thy work . thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to
thee. (Gen. 3:17-l8)
II. The Protestant Creationist Scientists
In December of 1973, Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D., then science co-ordinator at the
Creation-Science Research Center in San Diego, had an article in the Creation
Research Society Quarterly (vol. 10, no. 3) entitled "Entropy Prior to the
Fall".
The first thing to notice about Dr. Kofahl's position is that he has no idea of
the supernatural character of the state of Original Justice. Here is what he
says:
What was the order of nature prior to the curse recorded in Genesis 3 ? Our
first parents, though in an estate of holiness and intellectual and physical
perfection, were nevertheless living in a natural, not a supernatural state.
(p. 155)
A failure such as this to recognise the supernatural character of the life of
grace leads, unfortunately, to an ultimate reduction of everything in life to
the merely natural, i.e., to pervasive naturalism. This seems to be a common
fault and failure of Protestantism in general. Otherwise, Dr. Kofahl's position
comes very close to being the same as that of St. Thomas.
.There is every indication in Genesis 1-3 that once the supernatural work of
creation was completed, the universe was in an orderly state in which cause and
effect were normative.
Strictly speaking, God's work of creation was entirely natural to Him. In
Catholic theology we reserve the term supernatural for the life of God in us
because such divine life entirely transcends the powers of our human nature; it
is supernatural to us and is, furthermore, God's free gift, utterly gratuitous.
Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary for our spiritual health. Dr. Kofahl
continues:
Could such a state of nature exist independent of the second law? Consider, for
instance, the chemical reactions involved in the bodily metabolism of man and
animals and in photosynthesis and other processes in the plants. Life depends
upon these reactions proceeding in the proper direction and, in many instances,
upon their attaining proper equilibria. In the human body the acid-base balance
or pH of the blood and body fluids depends upon delicate chemical equilibria.
Respiration depends upon movement of oxygen and carbon dioxide under the force
of concentration gradients.
All of these processes absolutely necessary to physical life occur in
accordance with the second law. In other words, the maintenance of orderly
conditions and processes essential to living systems is not possible apart from
the second law of thermodynamics.
There is, Dr. Kofahl says, a seeming paradox in the nature of things:
. The thermodynamic orderliness and predictability of the natural order depends
upon the second law of thermodynamics, which is used to describe the fact that
the natural order is tending spontaneously toward the state of greatest
disorder on the microscopic level. Without these conditions the thermodynamics
of the natural order would be characterized by disorder and lack of
predictability. Also observe that the second law is of a character apparently
different from such laws as the law of conservation of energy, the laws of
mechanics, or the laws of gravitational and electrical forces. The second law
appears to arise from the action of these other physical laws which exist
independently of the second law. (p. 155)
Except for that last statement, one would think Dr. Kofahl had been reading the
Summa of St. Thomas, I-II, Q 85. What he is recognizing is that universal
tendency on the part of form and matter in opposing directions while at the
same time, "generation and corruption in things" are necessary for the
functioning of the entire universe. The laws of constancy, regularity and
stability so emphasized in Newtonian "clockwork" cosmology are also clearly
acknowledged by St. Thomas in other parts of his theology. One could mention in
particular the fifth way for proving God's existence which is from "the
governance of the world" whereby things act "always or nearly always in the
same way, so as to obtain the best result.' (ST, I, Q 2, a 3)
Dr. Kofahl's article sparked a debate. Dr. Emmett Williams, Dr. Henry Morris,
and Dr. S. J. Jansma all contributed. Then Editor H. L. Armstrong summed up the
points of the debate in which he gave a slightly skewed representation of St.
Thomas' position:
St. Thomas Aquinas considered that before the fall, in the state which he
called "natural justice," by God's grace any natural deficiency could have been
accommodated.
That he does not understand the nature of divine grace or of the human soul is
indicated in his next point by way of question:
Could the multiplication of animals have been taken care of, without having
them die, by the same means as would have applied to man, had he not fallen?
(CRS Qt'ly, Dec. 1974, Vol. 11, no. 3, p. 179)
The means that applied to man, the divine life in his rational soul, do not
apply to animals whose souls are but principles of life which die when the
animal dies. In the September 1975 issue of the Quarterly, Dr. E. Williams
called a halt to the proceedings.
In his original article, Dr. Kofahl recognized the need for some kind of
"divine constraints" but he did not know what they would be or where to locate
them.
In the original state of the world prior to the Fall, all disruptive effects of
random processes upon the perfect physical design and order of living things
and upon the balanced natural order of ecological systems were prevented by
special divine constraints.
The removal of these constraints constituted one aspect of the curse. (p. 156)
Recourse to unspecified "divine constraints" does not supply for a developed
theology of the State of Innocence and the Fall therefrom, as we find in St.
Thomas. And Dr. Kofahl is ridiculed for this deficiency by his opponents. He is
also accused of uniformitarianism, both by Dr. Williams and Dr. Morris. These
latter would undoubtedly accuse St. Thomas of the same uniformitarian "heresy",
but they have not taken the trouble to see if uniformitarianism really applies
here. The slogan 'the present is the key to the past' does not reveal the
essence of uniformitarianism which is to preclude catastrophes. The entire
intent of the early uniformitarians such as Hutton and Lyell was to establish
immensely long ages of earth history for the sole purpose of undermining the
authority of Holy Scripture in all areas of knowledge by attacking Biblical
chronology. Biblical chronologists calculated the age of the earth and the
universe at less than 6,000 years and the Deluge of Noah's time was recognized
as having changed the topography of the entire earth and laid down the fossils.
There were also important political motivations which Dr. Morris brings out in
his book The Long War Against God (Baker, 1989, pages 100 and 165).
To see the Second Law operating in the universe from the beginning and prior to
the Fall does not in any way rule out the possibility of future catastrophes.
Before the Fall, divine grace preserved Adam's body. After the Fall, the canopy
served to protect mankind and all things from cosmic radiation and produced
sub-tropical climate worldwide. These natural conditions undoubtedly played a
part in the lingering effects of the preternatural gifts that we detect in the
immensely long life spans of the patriarchs and the sudden drop in longevity
after the Flood with the disappearance of the vapor canopy.
Dr. Kofahl comes closest to our Catholic theology when he says:
The tree of life appears to have been designed for such a purpose [to constrain
the effects of the second law]. As long as Adam did not sin, he did not suffer
spiritual death. So why should such a tree have been provided if there were not
some physical effect which had to be constrained, neutralized, or corrected to
preserve life forever?
Note that when Adam sinned he died spiritually at once. But in order that he
should not live physically forever he had to be removed from the garden, lest
he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
forever. (CRS Qt'ly, Dec. 1974, 176-177)
Dr. Jansma contributes some sharp conclusions, all of which I believe we may
accept as being in harmony with the theology of St. Thomas:
1) God completed all the work which He had been doing and rested on the
seventh day. (Gen. 2:2-3)
2) Thus the laws of thermodynamics were also completed at creation time.
3) That the state of nature while brought about by supernatural means
[i.e., by God's creative Word] was complete and of natural order and perfection.
4) That the second law had to be effective on flora for a continuous
replication of food for man and animals from the beginning of creation.
5) That it was also operational on fauna from the beginning of creation.
6) That for this reason the curse did not include any pronouncement of
death to snake, cattle, and wild creatures (Gen. 3:14) but to man only (Gen. 2:
18).
7) That the second law was non-operational on man only until after the
fall and curse.
8) That only man was created in the image and likeness of God.
9) That God made only man to live forever -- body and soul.
He then adds:
To be a theistic evolutionist one must believe that God "evolved" man from
animal 1,500,000,000 years after He had initiated life (amoeba), and the
animation of its chemical precursors, which was the beginning of life
1,500,000,000 years before. It would follow, then, that from the beginning of
creation to the appearance of man was an "evolutionary" period of 3,000,000,000
years before God rested from all He had made.
And He is still not able to rest from His "work" of creation if evolution were
true. But here is a very good argument for the literal meaning intended by the
Sacred Author:
And if time and space, light and energy are constants and not subject to
process, then from the beginning of creation, days were periods of twenty-four
hours. Algae are still algae . (CRS Qt'ly, Dec. 1974, 178-179)
Before concluding this part, allow me to take advantage of some remarks by Dr.
Henry Morris in order to emphasize a very important point of creation theology.
Dr. Morris says:
The creation model, with which creationists in the Creation Research Society
are attempting to compare and contrast the evolution model, contains a
postulate that a primeval period existed during which all the basic laws as
well as the basic categories of the created world, were brought into existence
by means of special divine processes which no longer operate. The primeval
period has been superseded by the present period, in which all processes
operate within the framework of the laws of thermodynamics.
Any blurring of the discontinuity between these two periods is merely a
concession to naturalistic uniformitarianism and is, therefore, futile
scientifically and dangerous theologically. (CRS Qt'ly, Dec. 1973, p. l57)
Dr. Morris gives the impression of two epochs: a primeval epoch of creating or
building-up succeeded by an epoch of something like un-creating under the
Second Law. He even refers to "these two periods". But this is a serious
misrepresentation of Genesis 1. Scripture tells us that God created by means of
His Word alone, that is, by His own Will or Fiat. This is not a process and
should not be referred to as such. God used no method in creating and no
process of any kind. The created world was not "brought into existence by means
of special divine processes". To speak this way is to intimate that God worked
with pre-existing materials in the same way that men do and that He required
time in which to complete His work. But such is not the case either
theologically or scientifically -- or Scripturally. God created all things in
the beginning from nothing, and time is as much of a creature as anything else,
being a property of matter in space.
St. Thomas emphasizes that creation by God is without either motion or time,
without any effort or exertion.
Creation is not change . creation is without movement. Creation does not mean
the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles; but it means
that the composite is created so that it is brought into being at the same time
with all its principles ... creation is the production of the whole being and
not only of matter ... creation is the proper act of God alone. (ST, I, Q 45,
a 2, ad 2, ad 3: a 4, ad 2-3, a 5)
The preservation of things by God is a continuation of that action whereby He
gives existence, which action is without either motion or time; so also the
preservation of light in the sir is by the continual influence of the sun. (ST,
I, Q 1O4, a 1, ad 4)
So it is clear that God does not create by any kind of process. His creative
act is eternal like Himself but produces effects, products that are full of
temporal processes. God's creative act produces fully formed and functioning
products or beings. This characteristic of God's creative action is described
as perfectly as is possible for human language to do so in the first three
chapters of Genesis. Even when it is a question of the formation instead of
creation ex nihilo, as with light, God says: "Be light made!" Or with the plant
kingdom: "Let the earth bring forth! . . . And it was done!" "Let the waters
teem!" The apparent process involved in the formation of Adam's body from the
slime of the earth and of Eve's body from Adam's rib is, I suggest, an
indication of the care God took with humankind and of the specialty of our
formation. He has touched us with His Hands, whereas all other things were
brought forth by His spoken Word. Somehow we are more intimately His creatures
by reason of these special acts of His creative power.
Generally speaking, then, we must maintain that God creates, and products
spring into being, Things are because He said for them to be -- not to become
-- but to be. Once in existence, the temporal processes inherent in and proper
to each specific corporeal, i.e., material thing, begin and continue according
to the laws of nature, especially those of cause and effect. All creatures,
after creation, are secondary causes, acting in the order of generation under
the providential conservation of the First Primary Cause and Creator, the
Triune God. All creatures continue, acting according to the natural laws
created in and with the entire universe and all its parts, in a great
hierarchical harmony redounding ultimately to God's glory.
Since, as St. Thomas emphasizes, creation is the production of each and every
kind of being in its entire substance with all its principles, in the beginning
and from nothing, there is no possibility for any kind of evolution of species.
The empirical data bears this out more and more forcefully as research in the
life sciences continues. This is the subject, though, for another study.
Finally, I must allude to a remark of Dr. Williams that the Second Law "is a
mental construct of men developed as a result of observations of the direction
taken by natural processes." (CRS Qt'ly, Dec. 1973, p. 156) The implication is
that the Second Law is not a real and really operating process taking place at
all times in things. In other words, Dr. Williams' statement comes perilously
close to being an affirmation of philosophical idealism, i.e., that, as George
Berkeley put it, "to be is to be perceived". Much of modern physics is
specifically idealist and in the Platonic as opposed to the realistic
Aristotelian tradition. We must combat this philosophical tendency if we would
serve truth.
In conclusion allow me to return to Dr. Jansma's letter (CRS Qt'ly, Dec. 1974,
pp. 177-178) and some points he makes which lead me to leave parts of the
question open for further study:
a) that both men and animals were herbivorous upon leaving the ark. (Gen.
6:12)
b) that Noah was the first to eat meat which before had been used only
sacrificially. (Gen. 9:3)
c) that dogs do not eat grass because they feel sick: dogs like to eat grass.
[Same for cats!]
d) that carnivorous animals in the wild necessarily eat meat only.
e) that during the last world war carnivores lived on vegetation (at least in
German zoos).
f) that in 1860 African baboons, deprived of their customary roots and
insects by agricultural over-expansion, were driven to kill cattle for food.
g) that dried whale meat was used for cattle feed in the Faeroe Islands until
quite recently.
h) that squirrels eat birds and insects besides acorns and nuts.
i) that contrary to whet G. L. Simpson has maintained, horses did not
"evolve" from browsers to grazers. Horses are both browsers and grazers.
j) that both man and animal were created omnivorous, with their present
dentition, metabolism, chemical makeup, and with stomach and intestine adapted
to food consumed.
III. Catholic Creationists
I have before me four recent publications by Catholics who uphold creation
against evolution. I will comment upon them in the order of their publication.
Evolution? by Wallace Johnson (originally published under another title in
1976, now available from Stella Mans Books). Mr. Johnson begins his section on
the Second Law by quoting the famous physicist Sir Arthur Eddington: "If your
theory is found to be against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no
hope." Johnson continues:
The most fatal objection to the theory of evolution is that it goes against the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
This Law can be stated in various ways. For our purpose it means:
a) Natural processes always tend towards disorder; they move from orderliness
to disorderliness.
b) The simple will never produce the more complex.
We must interject here that this latter statement refers only to the order of
secondary causes, for God, the Creator and Primary Cause of all things is
absolutely simple. Thus, complexity is not necessarily a note of higher being.
The Angels are higher in the scale of being then mankind, yet they are much
more simple in their nature. Johnson continues:
It means that the universe is running down; that all natural systems are
degenerating from order to disorder. (pp. 14-15)
In Johnson's book, the 2nd Law is considered only as a major obstacle to the
transformation of species, and such it is. But on page 6 he makes some
statements about Adam that are worth incorporating in this study, even though
they may not directly come within our focus:
Adam was created in the image of God, physically perfect and, before his fall,
intellectually sublime. The ages of faith produced the Christian images of Adam
and Eve in devout profusion on the walls and windows of great cathedrals and
ceilings of churches and chapels.
But today the picture is changed. The brute-man is today's concept of Adam, or
many Adams.
This brutish man has changed the whole world outlook and philosophy. That is
the extraordinary achievement of Darwin. Whether Darwin was right or wrong, he
has changed man's concept of man. (p. 36)
The Six Days of Creation by Brother Thomas Mary Sennott. (1984. Cambridge:
Ravengate Press. Also available from Stella Maris Books.) This book is most
difficult to comment upon because it consists of a bringing into dialogue of
five points of view on the question of origins in general. One of the members
of the panel is the spokesperson for the Catholic position. But in this book,
also, the Second Law is a topic of conversation in the dialogue solely as an
argument for or against evolution. On pages 96-97, the moderator of the
proceedings sums up in this way:
Dr. Schonfield [the secular humanist] said that Carl Sagan considers the origin
of the universe one of the "ultimate questions", and its most likely answer is
the Oscillating Universe. However, since this theory is in apparent conflict
with the Law of Entropy, Dr. Schonfield explained how this law is not now
considered an absolute, but rather a statistical law, which means it is not
applicable in all circumstances.
We have already alluded to this new interpretation of the Second Law. But
reducing the Second Law to a statistical law can in no way cancel or abrogate
its existence and operation on the universal level as perceived by metaphysics.
This latter is the higher science and the truths it describes pertain to all
beings without exception. In the case of the Second Law, it operates wherever
there is matter; it operates wherever there is corporeal, physical material
being. Nothing can change that fact.
Creation Rediscovered by Gerard J. Keane. (Published in Australia but available
from Stella Maris Books. 1991). Mr. Keane devotes an entire chapter (Ch. 6 in
Part II, pages 115-122) to entropy, and it is the best I have seen on the
subject. But the tendency to call upon or to look to physics and biology for
answers to metaphysical and theological questions is more evident than one
would wish. The need for restoration of the hierarchy of the sciences is a
crying one, indeed. However, as to our present study, we must quote the
following and comment.
Mr. Keane says:
. although the Universe may superficially appear to be heading for an
inevitable demise, Christians can nevertheless feel optimistic about its
eventual eternal restoration by God. What may be postulated about the condition
of the Universe before the Fall can also be envisaged in its future conditions:
. (pp. 121-122)
There follows a long quotation from Dr. Emmett Williams (Thermodynamics and the
Development of Order. Creation Research Society, 1981, p. l29) wherein life on
earth in the state of glory is reduced to a condition in which every natural
process works with 100% efficiency! This is a completely naturalistic shrinkage
of these glowing words of Apocalypse 21:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first
earth were gone, . And I, John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming
down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, .And
I saw no Temple therein. For the Lord God Almighty is the Temple thereof, and
the Lamb. And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in
it. For the Glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the Lamp thereof.
Life here is supernaturally glorified by the Beatific Vision of God and His
Love that transforms all things. There is simply no way to compare this with
the life of Adam and Eve before the Fall. When making use of works by
Protestants in creation science, we Catholics must be very careful to watch for
errors of this kind. For the Protestants abandoned all Catholic philosophy and
theology when they rebelled against the Church, and they have never yet made
any efforts to reclaim this vital part of what was once their own inheritance.
Lastly, I have before me the most excellent book À L'Image de Dieu by Dominique
Tassot. (Editions Maitre Albert, 08310 Annelles, France, 1991). I will attempt
to translate some relevant passages, but urge the reader to consult the
original.
Chapter I of Part II is entitled: "Creation Before the Fall", but it is
primarily concerned with the work of God on each of the six days of creation
week and emphasizes the "anthropic principle". This is very important, indeed,
but it is aside from our present focus.
Chapter 2 entitled "The Fall of Adam and Its Consequences" begins:
This paradisial life in which "everything was good" and there was no evil,
hardly corresponds with anything we know today. Nevertheless, the memory of it
remains in the minds of all peoples; there was a golden age wherein peace
reigned amongst the animals as well as amongst men and nature. Men lived in
peace with themselves as opposed to our day when they are torn by conflicting
desires. (p. 139)
............................
Whoever refuses to acknowledge the historical truth of the first chapters of
Genesis loses also the sense of the New Testament and the essential truths of
Christianity. It is impossible to understand either the history of societies or
the history of salvation without knowledge of our true origins. It is not even
a question here of Faith, but it is a simple question of the intelligibility of
reality. Those who describe the life of mankind and neglect the supernatural
conflict which is here at stake, resemble those who, according to A. Guiraud,
send telegraphic messages without having the words that refer to the events
which they are trying to transmit. The majority of ancient and modern
historians are like that. (p. 143)
However, once we admit the historical reality of the Fall, these paradoxes of
the human condition disappear. The body is the mirror of the soul, and the
universe itself, linked to man, cannot fail to reflect the divisions inscribed
in all of nature. The material consequences of the Fall, caused by man, are
sickness and death spread throughout the earth. Scientific thinking must come
to grips with what the theologians call the loss of the preternatural gifts of
immortality and impassibility. If it is difficult to describe the earth before
the Deluge, it is even more risky to imagine what it was like before the Fall.
But without pretending here to any certitude, it seems possible to put forth
some conjectures.
We know that it did not rain (Gen. 2:6). There were no great changes of
temperature. The morning dews sufficed to water the plants and allow for
evaporation. This is consistent with the existence of the vapor canopy around
the earth -- the waters on high (Gen.1:7). This canopy filtered out cosmic
radiation, and the light of the sun assured an even heat over all the primitive
continent -- only one continent because the waters were all gathered into one
sea (Gen. 1:9). There were no storms. One may believe that the tilt of the
earth on the ecliptic coincides with the Fall, introducing a factor of age with
the changes of temperature that today mark the different seasons. With the
winds, the cold, and the formation of the polar caps, erosion began. Climatic
variations limited the spread of vegetative species and perhaps their number.
Consequently, certain animals became carnivorous. There has been found a
pterodactyl with fossilized fish in the pouch under its beak. Certain species
began to live a parasitic life. Especially, insubordination among souls brought
about the insubordination of other living things.
I must interject here and object that M. Tassot is mingling evidences of the
Deluge which exist abundantly in the fossil record, with speculations about the
immediate effects of the Fall in nature. Of this latter, we have no such
evidences. However, there is a tradition, the source of which I have not yet
been able to trace, that is found as early as John Milton's Paradise Lost
(1667) and as early as Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179). In one of her visions,
Hildegard says that at the Fall
All the. elements of the world, which had previously been deeply calm and
quiet, displayed horrible traumas and the greatest restlessness. (Illumination
of Hildegard of Bingen. Commentary by Matthew Fox, OP. Santa Fe, NM. Bear and
Co., 1985, p. 59)
Milton says that as soon as Adam ate the fruit offered him by Eve,
Earth trembl'd from her entrails, as again
In pangs, and Nature gave a second groan, (Cf. Book VII, 11. 454f)
Skie lower'd, and muttering thunder, some sad drops
Wept at completing of the mortal sin
Original. (Book IX, lines 1000-1004)
This view of a direct relation of cause and effect between the Fall and nature
is said to be based on Romans 8:20-23, but St. Paul could just as well be
referring to the Second Law which will only cease at the Resurrection. A better
Scriptural source is by analogy with the reactions of nature to the Passion and
Death of Our Lord on Calvary:
.there was darkness over the whole earth from the sixth to the ninth hour and
the veil of the Temple was torn in two (Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44)
Matthew 27:45 adds that
. the earth shook, rocks were rent and tombs opened .
I, for one, can see nothing against Faith in believing that nature responded
with similar paroxysms to Adam's sin and to the Passion and Death of the new
Adam as He atoned for that Original Sin by unspeakable torments.
It is certain that creation rocked and wept and hid her face at the death of
her Creator. And such a reaction was eminently fitting. The sin of Adam was a
lesser event only insofar as Adam was a lesser person than the Word made Flesh.
The offense committed and the offense atoned for were essentially the same
though numerically different since all our personal sins were added to the
satisfaction required of Our Lord. Scripture certainly does not record any
natural reactions to the Original Sin, but we do find interpretations of the
curse similar to those of Hildegard and Milton in some of the old textbooks.
For example, Rev. A. Urban who wrote A Teachers Guide to Bible History (New
York: Wagner, 1905) says that
.owing to the curse placed upon her by Adam's sin, the earth was, for the
future, only to bring forth, through man's toil and hard labor, such fruits for
his necessary sustenance that until then she had freely yielded without his aid.
However, St. Thomas' position remains unaffected even if this be so. The Second
Law is a naturally inherent property of material forms whether the earth
brought forth thorns and thistles before or only after the Fall. The same
applies to the animals and their tame or wild natures. Adam lived in a felicity
protected and preserved by the supernatural life of God in his soul. Work was
easy and pleasant for him, and nothing could harm him as long as he remained
united with God. The aim of the spiritual life is to bring us back to something
similar.
Tassot continues his discussion of the origin of sickness and death:
Even though the chromosomes are identical in the tissues or the organism, their
functioning differs, developing here a bone cell, there the cells of the skin,
and there again the cells of hair and nails. Sickness was not created by God
but by the disorders of chemical composition which bring about a morbid
functioning of the cells. The chromosomes become, as it were, demented; the
germs of sickness are the same molecules which before exercised a useful and
beneficial activity. . The characteristic view of microbes since Pasteur has
made us lose sight of the true cause of sickness. The current popular view
places the dangers outside of us whereas the dangers are within us. By thus
neglecting the primary cause, we condemn ourselves to striking out randomly at
the visible symptoms. This sickness, just punishment for sin, ought to warn man
that he must reform his life, beginning with the spiritual and mental aspects.
Instead, today people applaud a medical profession aimed at killing germs and
even [as in abortion] the killing of healthy life. The practice of medicine
today allows the sick person to prolong the deadly disorders of his life.
It would be blasphemy to think that God had created beings that were unhealthy
by nature or that diseases are substantial beings which have existed since the
beginning. We must, on the contrary, realise the fact that each sickness
appears at a given moment by reason of an error in behavior. That it can be
transmitted culturally by contagion does not explain its appearance in the
first place. It does not take much reflection to see that those who deny the
pre-existence of morbid germs admit their spontaneous generation. It suffices
to consider that certain of the most contagious diseases such as chicken pox
and small pox were not known to Hippocratus, Paracelsus, or Galen . (Dr. Marc
Emily, Les Microbes, 1966, p. 45)
Therefore, even if the sickness is not always due to some moral disorder but is
introduced by contagion or heredity, sin remains the primary cause of all
sickness. One can understand, then, why the coming of Jesus Christ was
accompanied by the curing of diseases. What good to remit sin without repairing
the consequences of sin?
With sickness comes death. Death presents itself as an anomaly, Nothing in the
functioning of living things determines that they will die at a certain time.
Death always appears as an accident. Everything in nature is regulated and
predictably functional; only death appears without rule or reason. Aside from
some cases of special divine revelation, no one knows in advance the day of his
death. Old age seems like an anomaly ... how is it that the law of conservation
goes down in a degradation without rules? How is it that nature which shows
itself the best image of perfection, has become so imperfect? The Original Sin
of Adam and the personal sins of men provide the only logical reasons.
That since the Redemption, technical progress has brought about a tempering or
even a compensatory force against this degradation only confirms our analysis.
The advances are real progress only for the near-sighted, and the prodigious
development of medical science only shows up the fact that sickness and disease
are the rule rather than the exception. Such degeneration is itself
progressive, for each sinful generation adds a little more to the state of
imperfection in which the preceding generation was left. It is the same for the
environment. The earth is degraded everywhere with only two exceptions: 1)
where man is absent, and 2) where he puts his heart and his money into the land.
Thus sin reigns except where one uses the proper means to reduce it. And these
means are first of all supernatural. In the state of moral and physical
deterioration that has overtaken our societies worldwide, who can pretend that
a new technology or a new source of energy can save us?
This introduction of death and sickness into the world was slow at first, for
all things were created perfectly healthy by God, and even today, thanks to the
non-transmission of acquired characteristics, everything begins from scratch,
with each generation. But climatic conditions with the difficulty and pain of
work, serve to accelerate the onset of old age, especially since the Deluge.
(pages 143-147)
Tassot's emphasis upon the intrinsic relation of sin and disease is certainly
Thomistic and eminently Catholic in essence. We very much need such an emphasis
today as our sick, sick society refuses to acknowledge any connection between
sickness and its end in death with sin, either Original or personal. Tassot
also brings out very well the fact that because of his God-appointed mastery
over the lower orders of creation, man's choice of goodness or wickedness has
lasting and pervasive effects. The "anthropic principle" cannot be separated
from man's relationship with God, his Creator. Only as such is it entirely in
harmony with our Catholic theology.
.........................
IV. The First Law of Thermodynamics
The First Law is also called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and it states
that matter is being neither created nor destroyed. This being so, the universe
is quantitatively determined and therefore finite. Gerard Keane (Creation
Rediscovered, p. 117) quotes Dr. Sean O'Reilly:
The first law speaks to the finite nature of the universe of matter. ... The
second law contains a direction, an "arrow of time", aimed at the ultimate heat
death of the Universe, with its total mass-energy unchanged in quantity, but
totally unavailable for further work. .
This is an excellent statement of the intimate connection between the two laws,
of the ultimate triumph of the Second Law because of sin, and an intimation
that something is saved for restoration and resurrection.
I wish also to show that St. Thomas knew both laws of thermodynamics, not as
they have been "discovered" and formulated by modern physics, but as laws known
to the higher sciences of metaphysics which studies the nature and properties
of being as such and in this case, of the nature and properties of matter of
which the created universe is composed.
Speaking of the conservation of creatures in existence, St. Thomas says:
The conservation of all things by God is not by means of any new action but
rather through a continuation of the action by which He originally gave
existence, and this action is without either motion or time. (ST, I, Q 104, a
1, ad 4)
Like creation, then, conservation also is not a material or physical process
but simply the power of God's action preserving all things in existence. Nor
may this action of conservation be confused with some kind of "continuing
creation" process as of theistic evolution. God's actions are entirely outside
of all motion, movement, and time, and do not require either. They are indeed
immanent, but being supernatural with respect to man's soul and being infinite
with respect to all things created and therefore finite, there can be no hint
of a reduction or a conflation of the one with the other, for immanence always
retains transcendence as God always retains His Godly Majesty even as He stoops
to us in Merciful Love.
Speaking of the relation of creation by which all things depend upon God in an
absolute and unique relation of dependent contingency for their very existence,
St. Thomas says:
It is not necessary that as long as the creature exists, it should be created
anew. (ST, I, Q 45, a 3)
In other words, once creation was finished at the end of the sixth day of the
first week of the world, no more matter has been created. Only individual human
souls are created in time in the order of generation. Parents supply the
matter. "Increase and multiply" commanded the growth and multiplication that
have been going on since creation. And yet: matter is neither created anew,
i.e., no new matter has been created, nor has any been annihilated. For
example, in the gene pool of Adam and Eve were contained all the possible
variations that could and have happened in the human body. St. Thomas says:
All the creatures of God in some respects continue forever, at least as to
their matter, since what is crested will never be annihilated even though it be
corruptible. (ST, I, Q 65, a 1, ad 1)
The two laws are corollaries of each other. That the universe is both finite
and corruptible, i.e., declining, is not self-explanatory but points beyond
itself to the infinite and the incorruptible. However, both Catholics and
Protestants these days assume that God's existence as Creator is the same as
His existence as such when it comes to proofs from natural reason. And yet,
this is not the view of St. Thomas. He says:
The articles of Faith cannot be proved demonstratively, ... But that God is the
Creator of the world, hence that the world began, is an article of Faith, ...
And again, Gregory says ... that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, "In the
beginning God created heaven and earth," in which words the newness of the
world is stated. Therefore, the newness of the world is known only by
Revelation; and therefore, it cannot he proved demonstratively.
.By Faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration [of reason] can it be
proved that the world did not always exist. . The reason of this is that the
newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself.
For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing, . which is
abstracted from the here and now . Hence it cannot be said that man, or heaven,
or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part
of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be
investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of
necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among those . But the
divine will can be manifested by Revelation, on which Faith rests. Hence that
the world began to exist is an object of Faith, but not of demonstration or
science.
And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what
is of Faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give
occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe
things that are of Faith. .
When considering the abundant evidences for creation which are to be found in
all the sciences, we must carefully distinguish what is demonstratively
necessary and what is only numerically probable. It is the difference between a
metaphysical proof from universals and a numerical or statistical proof from
mathematics. The former is higher than the latter by reason of its being
certain, whereas the latter is only probable.
We need also, therefore, to distinguish carefully the boundaries between
natural sciences, mathematics, metaphysics and Sacra Doctrina or the
theological. exposition of the truths of Faith.
Our defense of creation against evolution as also our defense of geocentrism
against heliocentrism thus contains many points to be defined and clarified.
St. Thomas is our best help in this work after God Himself Who said, "Without
Me you can do nothing." (John l5:5)
V. Historical Note on the Two Laws
The formulation of the laws of thermodynamics (actually four in number) has
taken place only after many decades of scientific experimentation especially in
the physics of heat transfer. Beginning with the study of the conservation of
mechanical energy by Christian Huygens (1629-1695) through that of James P.
Joule (1818-1889), and of the Second Law with the work of William Thomson, Lord
Kelvin (1824-1907), there has accumulated an extensive literature on the
subject. The laws of thermodynamics are recognized today as the most firmly
established of all scientific laws. Not a single departure from them has ever
been noted.
In 1843 James P. Joule wrote:
I shall lose no time in repeating and extending these experiments, being
satisfied that the grand agents of nature are, by the Creator's fiat,
indestructable; and that wherever mechanical force is expended (work is
dissipated), an exact equivalent of heat is always obtained.
In 1847 the same man said:
When we consider our own frames, "fearfully and wonderfully made," we observe
in the motion of our limbs a continual conversion of heat into living force
(kinetic energy), which may be either converted back again into heat or
employed in producing an attraction through space (potential energy), as when a
man ascends a mountain. Indeed the phenomena of nature, whether mechanical,
chemical, or vital, consist almost entirely in a continual conversion of
attraction through space, living force, and heat into one another. Thus it is
that order is maintained in the universe -- nothing is deranged, nothing ever
lost, but the entire machinery, complicated as it is, works smoothly and
harmoniously. And though, as in the awful vision of Ezechiel, "wheel may be in
middle of wheel," and everything may appear complicated and involved in the
apparent confusion and intricacy of an almost endless variety of causes,
effects, conversions, and arrangements, yet is the most perfect regularity
preserved.
When men believe in God, their science becomes almost poetry! Now let's hear
Lord Kelvin's propositions:
1) There is at present in the material world a universal tendency to the
dissipation of mechanical energy.
2) Any restoration of mechanical energy, without more than an equivalent of
dissipation, is impossible in inanimate material processes, and is probably
never effected by means of organized matter, either endowed with vegetable life
or subjected to the will of an animated creature.
3) Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have been, and
within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit for the
habitation of man as at present constituted, unless operations have been or are
performed which are impossible under the laws to which the known operations
going on at present in the material world are subject.
George Mulfinger comments:
This, then, is the original statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Though energy is conserved, it is becoming less available. It is, to use
Kelvin's terminology, "irrevocably lost to man and therefore ' wasted,' though
not annihilated." (From Thermodynamics and the Development of Order. Ed. by
Emmett Williams. Creation Research Society Books. 1981, pp. 1-6)
What we must add to Dr. Mulfinger's concluding remark is this: Here is a good
example of the limitations of empirical science, for we know by Faith that
Creation and Resurrection set limits to the Second Law, and that Creation is
entirely anthropocentric from the beginning so that it could be forever
Christo-centric.
VI. Some Key Terms and Concepts
The best way to understand difficult philosophical concepts is to come to grips
with them in the context of philosophical discourse. But perhaps the following
may help:
nature. 1. The origin of growing things. 2. The essence considered as the
internal principle of growth. 3. The essence or substance considered as the
intrinsic principle of activity and passion (i.e., passivity) or of motion and
rest. 4. The intrinsic first principle of the specific operations of a thing;
therefore, substantial form. 5. Sometimes, the material of a product, as a
bench is by nature wood. In senses 2-5, nature is almost like essence or
substance but considered actively. 6. The totality of objects in the universe
considered prior to free human modification of them.
essence. What a thing is; the internal principle whereby a thing is what it
is and has its specific perfections. Often essence is said to be the same as
being, substance, nature, or even form; yet accidents also have an essence; and
existence is at least conceptually distinct from essence. (According to St.
Thomas, essence and existence are really distinct.)
absolute essence. Very important to grasp in order to prevent falling into
nominalism which infects almost all the Protestant creationists. The absolute
essence of a thing is not grasped by limiting consideration to individual
things but by grasping their universal nature.
The essence is represented in the essential (i.e., universal) definition
abstracting from its extension in particulars.
Essence is the representation in a direct universal concept of the perfection
constitutive of this kind of being.
The essence or nature of a thing is represented in the mind by the concept and
in reality by the thing.
Definitions taken from Bernard Wuellner, S.J., Dictionary of Scholastic
Philosophy. Bruce, 1956.
The following excerpts are taken from James A. Weisheipl, O.P., The Development
of Physical Theory in the Middle Ages. (Sheed and Ward, 1959, pages 37-38)
In the Aristotelian view "matter" and "form" are not two things but two
principles of a single individual thing. One of these principles, namely
matter, is the capacity of an individual thing to be what it is, and at the
same time to become something else. The other principle is the immediate
actuality, or realization of that capacity at any given time, an actuality
which makes the individual to exist as a recognizable type of thing. When
change takes place, it is not matter which becomes form ... nor does one form
become a different form. It is simply the individual thing which becomes a
different thing [either by accidental or substantial change] as hydrogen and
oxygen become water. In Aristotle's view one thing could not become anything
else unless there were in that body the ability or capacity to be something
else. It is this capacity which he called potentiality, or first matter.
Matter and form are limited by essence and/or nature. Thus, it is not a
question of one nature or essence changing into another nature or essence but
only of change within the limited capacity of the signified form-matter
composite.
Saint Albert insisted that unless "form" be derived from the potentiality of
matter in the sense that it is simply some actualization induced by an agent,
then all physical change is illusory.
The best example at hand of biological change is that of the developing embryo
or zygote. Molecular biology is now able to show us why and how a particular
zygote, as for example the union of human gametes, will never become anything
more or less than a human being. On the level of the chemical elements, such as
hydrogen and oxygen, Thomistic philosophers have not yet arrived at a consensus
about the nature of the elements and their compounds, that is, whether they are
accidental or substantial forms. The best treatment of the controversy is in
Nature, Knowledge and God: An Introduction to Thomistic Philosophy, by Brother
Benignus. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1947, chapter 7 in Part Two.
References
Ludwig Ott. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. 6th ed. St. Louis: B. Herder,
1964.
St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. 3 vols. English Dominicans. New York:
Benziger Bros. 1947.
Ste1la Maris Books, P.O. Box 11483, Fort Worth, TX 76110. This bookseller
distributes Ott's book and has the Summa in modern format.
_______________________
Paula Haigh l Nazareth Village I #102 l P O B 1000 l Nazareth KY
40048-1000 l USA
2001 A.D.
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Entropy and eden
