Thursday, October 1, 2009

Ed Feser on Four Approaches to Teleology

You can read it here. Ed, clearly and concisely, explains why Intelligent Design Theory (of the Behe-Dembski variety) is not a real option for Thomists (followers of St. Thomas Aquinas). This is the chief reason why I am not an ID advocate. In a forthcoming article in the St. Thomas Journal of Law & Public Policy I explain in greater detail about my views on the matter. When the article comes out in March 2010 I will post it on my personal website, The title of the article is, "How to Be an Anti-Intelligent Design Advocate."


John Thayer Jensen said...

I'll be looking at that article by Ed Feser with interest. ID always seems to me like "God of the Gaps." Either some form of theistic evolution, or else some revisionist metaphysic (e.g. time doesn't look in the past as it does at present, etc - à la Wolfgang Smith, if you have heard of him) leading to a more literalistic cosmic history.

À propos of nothing much, could I ask you a question off-list? You could e-mail me at j [dot] jensen [at] auckland [dot] ac [dot] nz

Jime said...

Hi professor Beckwith,

Congratulations for your blog.

I'm not a Christian, but I've been impressed by Thomistic philosophy, specially as explained in professor Feser's books. I look foward to read his lastest book Aquinas.

I'd like to ask you what do you think of this paper by Christian philosopher and ID defender Peter Williams:

It was published in the journal Philosophy Christi. And it's a defense of the ID hypothesis based on the own arguments of atheists and non-ID defenders.

Do you think the position defended by Williams is, essentially, incompatible with Thomistic metaphysics?

By the way, Williams is the author of one of the finest and best books that I've read rebutting atheism from a Christian perspective, The Sceptic's Guide to Atheism.