Aquinas and Sacred Teaching

James Miguez over at the Thomism list on Yahoo posted an excellent article on Aquinas’ view on why Christ, the living revelation, never wrote this revelation down.

Aquinas understood himself to be a “Catholicae veritatis doctor,” (preface, STh I) that is a teacher or doctor of Catholic truth. This truth is founded upon the teaching or doctrine of Jesus Christ. Sacred teaching is also founded upon the teaching of Christ which known as Revelation, insofar as Jesus revealed the truth of God himself to us. Jesus, however, did not write his teaching down.

Why? Aquinas answers:

“It was fitting that Christ should not commit His doctrine to writing. First, on account of His dignity: for the more excellent the teacher, the more excellent should be his manner of teaching. Consequently it was fitting that Christ, as the most excellent of teachers, should adopt that manner of teaching whereby His doctrine is imprinted on the hearts of His hearers; wherefore it is written (Matthew 7:29) that “He was teaching them as one having power.” And so it was that among the Gentiles, Pythagoras and Socrates, who were teachers of great excellence, were unwilling to write anything. For writings are ordained, as to an end, unto the imprinting of doctrine in the hearts of the hearers” (STh III, 42, 4).

The teaching of Jesus Christ is given heart to heart, that is person to person and not at all primarily with abstract intellectual propositions. It is also existential, historical, but at the same time supernatural. This is because the teacher is the divine person of Christ, while the hearers are human persons, each with a heart to accept and to understand this teaching. In this manner the intellectual aspect of sacred teaching follows upon the planting of the seed in the heart.

We have to open our hearts, therefore, and not just our minds if we are to understand what Jesus is saying to us, uniquely as human persons.

In this manner Jesus also reveals who we are as human persons. Our very understanding of ourselves and who God is depends upon a heart (our hearts) accepting the truth of a divine person spoken in the flesh two thousand years ago. All of this exceeds mere human reason. Thus the human person cannot be understood solely by natural means apart from revelation given heart to heart from Jesus.

Hope this helps someone to understand Jesus and Catholic teaching, including philosophy.

James

EVALUATION OF STEPHEN JAY GOULD’S NOMA (Nonoverlapping Magisteria) PRINCIPLE

 

In this post I will talk about Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonoverlapping Magisteria otherwise called NOMA (hereafter we will use NOMA to denote the above concept). According to Gould, NOMA represents his attempt to establish a sort of peace accord between science and religion. It was during his trip to Rome for a meeting with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that he encountered two priests (who were also scientists) that asked him what was all the fuss about the supposed tension between science and religion? However, it was a front page article years later that captivated his attention. In the Pope’s address to that same academy he declared that “Truth cannot contradict truth,” and proceeded to acknowledge that evolution was more than just a hypothesis but a scientifically supported theory. The Pope then declared,

With man, we find ourselves facing a different ontological order—an ontological leap, we could say. But in posing such a great ontological discontinuity, are we not breaking up the physical continuity which seems to be the main line of research about evolution in the fields of physics and chemistry? An appreciation for the different methods used in different fields of scholarship allows us to bring together two points of view which at first might seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure, with ever greater precision, the many manifestations of life, and write them down along the time-line. The moment of passage into the spiritual realm is not something that can be observed in this way—although we can nevertheless discern, through experimental research, a series of very valuable signs of what is specifically human life. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-consciousness and self-awareness, of moral conscience, of liberty, or of aesthetic and religious experience—these must be analyzed through philosophical reflection, while theology seeks to clarify the ultimate meaning of the Creator’s designs (emphasis mine).

This gave way for Gould to formulate his NOMA paradigm. What is it that he set to accomplish through his paradigm, you might ask? Gould answers this question by establishing that there are two Magisteria in the fields of science and religion, respectively. Magesterium means teaching or authority of the church and Gould uses this term to apply it equally to both realms, since both of them advocate a sort of authority in their respective fields. He further adds that these overlapping Magisteria are “interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border.” These two spheres do not overlap and to use his clichés he says that, “we get the age of the rocks, and religion retain the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they (religion) determines how to go to heaven.” As a more concrete example, Gould uses us humans as a specimen when he asks what each of these spheres has to contribute when we talk about origins and morality. Of course, Gould would say that when it comes to the realm of origins then religion itself would not have anything to say that would be relevant to science. Furthermore, if there are items in morality such as intrinsic human value and meaning, then he would say that science could only remain on the scientific turf without going into religion.

Further inspection reveals that the content of these two realms deal with what we could classify as a fact and value distinction. What science describes through its medium of empirical verification is what is factual or what is and what ought to be or any value derived thereof is relegated to the field of religion. It almost reminds of the Stephen Crane quote that says, “A man said to the universe: ‘Sir, I exist!’ ‘However,’ replied the universe. ‘The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation.’” Nevertheless, Gould expresses joy when he sees other influential characters from the “other Magisteria” give support to the scientific claims of evolution as is the case when Pope John Paul was addressing the group of scientist and before that, Pope Pius XII semi endorsement of the same in his encyclical Humani Generis.

Evaluation

As well intentioned Stephen Jay Gould is by proposing a solution to the supposed conflict between religion and science; I think that this model serves its own interest in the name of science. Before I delve into some of the observation I have about this model, I think that Gould should be commended in at least trying to plug the ever-leaking drip of Darwinian fundamentalism in the cracks on the damn of science. The torrent of hate that has spewed on both sides of the wall has had serious repercussions for the opportunity and chance of a successful dialogue between the two. One has only to see the vitriolic work of Andrew Dickson White to get a feel (although somewhat inaccurate) of the entrenched battle between the two fields, especially since the Galileo incident.

However, his proposed solution to the conflict between science and theology actually just puts a fence between the two that could mute any potential dialogue between the two. You see, even though he is quoted as saying that there would be an “interdigitating” between the two; actually, what that does is that it cuts the dialogue with science having the upper hand. In fact, Todd Moody is quoted as saying that NOMA is nothing but a gag-order masquerading as a principle of tolerance. To explain this a bit, science in its magisterial realm deals with facts, with empirical data, and with that which is verifiable, tested and hypothesized within our natural world. Religion on the other hand deals with more ethereal things such as God, love and miracles. What this does is that it sets up a false dichotomy between what is factual and what is value. This is what is commonly called that fact/value dichotomy.

In the similar vein of the logical positivist and their principle of verifiability, science would be the legitimate child of the natural world where it could come out and play while the stepchild (and thus somewhat metaphorically nonexistent) doesn’t have too much of an authority since we all know who is nature’s favorite child. This false dichotomy assumes that even if there is not discord between the two there will also not be any dialogue, for what relationship has Athens with Jerusalem, what can religion possibly say about science and what can science say about religion? Well, about the latter, I think that science’s a priori commitment to reductionism will eventually find an answer to all of religion’s problems and supposed mysteries. There have even been recent reports of scientist finally finding the love gene. As the magazine The Economist points out, “the brain has a reward system designed to make voles (and people and other animals) do what they ought to. Without it, they might forget to eat, drink and have sex—with disastrous results.” However, science pretends to forget about the “why” when it successfully answers the “how.”

Even Robert Harris, in his paper A Summary Critique of the Fact/Value Dichotomy clarifies what in fact is at stake when there’s this false dichotomy between science and religion. He states the following six observations:

1. Since facts and values are separate, with facts being solid and provable and values being matters of personal taste, values play no role in the realm of facts (that is, in science).

2. Values are not involved in the determination of what is a fact.

3. Values are not involved in scientific descriptions of fact.

4. Values are not intermixed in the statement of scientific theories or facts.

5. Values, being matters of personal taste, cannot be reasoned about.

6. Values are completely subjective and have no objective qualities.

This is the fodder that science needs to keep the fire burning and in the meantime religion gets robbed the opportunity to even have anything to say.

However, what does religion have to say to science? Is dialogue even possible? I think that both science and religion operate under the prolegomena of realism and even at a more fundamental level they have an underlying foundation of logic. Both of the realms of science and religion assume certain laws of logic that undergird these two realms. For example, “Philosophy undergirds science by providing its presuppositions. Science (at least most scientist and philosophers understand it) assumes that the universe is intelligible and not capricious, that the mind and senses inform us about reality, that mathematics and language can be applied to the world, that knowledge is possible, that there is uniformity in nature….” With this in mind, I think there are certain principles that can indeed overlap if there is to be some communication at all. For example, an informed commitment to a proper historical investigation has prompted us to reexamine the Bible with a more critical eye and thus make changes to our interpretation of it. On the other hand fideism surely will not prompt us to have critical analyses of the text.

In contradistinction, an informed commitment to knowledge of moral principles allows us to know that we don’t experiment on ourselves into extinction. There is a basic goodness that is presupposed in all disciplines. This is what I call “the borrowed capital of science and religion.” Since both of these realms share the same underlying reality they cannot but help in using this shared capital despite what Gould says about the Nonoverlapping Magisterial proposal. It is what Francis Schaeffer once called “the upper story value system” where even naturalist climb to the upper story (where values reside) in order to make judgments about reality. Even Stephen Jay Gould sets aside his own NOMA principle and makes these upper story value judgments when he says, “Good design exists, and implies production for its current purpose; but adaptations are built naturally, by slow evolution towards desire ends, not by immediate, divine fiat.” As Peter Bocchino points out, “How can Gould as a scientist know this to be true if science cannot make such pronouncements?”

On the other hand, others have acknowledged that religion has had a positive contribution to science and instead of limiting the progress of such, it has actually encouraged it. This runs contrary to what Gould states as neither the affirmation nor denial of God. As scientist, he says, that they cannot comment on it and only work with naturalistic explanations. Nevertheless, as scientist, it is not totally out of the realm of the scientific enterprise to deal with postulated entities to explain the occurrence of a certain phenomenon. Operating by the inductive principle of finding the inference to the best explanation, the scientist does have the opportunity to “detect” some sort of intelligence in their respective fields of study. As a matter of fact, that is what the SETI (The Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) program is all about. These individuals are not sitting around in their chairs listening for randomness and chaos in order to decipher something. The “intelligence” in the name alone assumes otherwise. However, I think that when it comes to biological issues (such as evolution) there is a certain existential import that affects both sides of the issue.

There was a panel not too long ago where someone asked the question, “Why doesn’t all this happen with other sciences?” My answer to that is because although cosmology is important, biological sciences hits us where we live.

Conclusion

Let me briefly end with a question from philosopher William Lane Craig that allows me to entertain the idea that religion and science can have a dialogue.

Why can’t the scientist postulate a Godlike being as a theoretical entity in order to explain certain observable data, just as high-level physicists postulate strings, hyperspaces, parallel universes, and sundry unobservable theoretical entities in order to explain observable data? This need not represent a blending of religion and science, since the postulated deity would serve merely an explanatory function, not a cultic one. In Aristotle’s physics his Unmoved Mover; which he called God, was not an object of religious devotion but served merely as the engine that turned the crank to set in motion the system of spheres.

As Craig notes, these Magisteria need not blend and thus lose their identity. What we do need is two spheres that are in dialogue since they are the two books of God.

WORKS CITED

Dembski, William A., Michael Ruse. Intelligent Design. Edited by Robert B. Stewart. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Geisler, Norman & Peter Bocchino. Unshakable Foundations. Minneapolis: Bethany, 2001.

Stephen Jay Gould. Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge. New York: Scientific American, 1992, 120. Quoted in Norman & Peter Bocchino Geisler, Unshakable Foundations. Minneapolis: Bethany, 2001, 81.

Moreland, James Porter. Christianity and the Nature of Science. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989.

Harris, Robert A. “A Summary Critique of the Fact/value Dichotomy.” Virtual Salt, December 31, 2005. http://www.virtualsalt.com/int/factvalue.pdf. (accessed 03/28/2008).

Fisher, Helen & Henry Holt. “Why We Love: The Nature And Chemistry Of Romantic Love.” The Economist, Feb 12, 2004. http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/econ669/love.html. (accessed April 1, 2008).

Andrew Dickson White. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1896.

POPE PIUS XII. “Humani Generis.” The Vatican Archives, December 8, 1950. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html. (accessed 03/31/2008).

Pope John Paul II. “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

On Evolution.” Eternal Word Television Network, 1996. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM. (accessed 04/01/2008).

Gould, Stephen Jay. “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.” Stephen Jay Gould Archives, 1997. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html. (accessed 04/01/2008).

Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages. New York: Ballantine, 1999. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html.

La Necesidad de la Apologetica - Razones Biblicas

Apologética es la disciplina que estudia la defensa racional de la fe cristiana. Viene de la raíz griega apologia que significa dar una razón o defensa. A pesar de las objeciones para hacer apologética en este sentido de parte de los fideístas y algunos presuposicionalistas, existen razones importantes
para participar en el trabajo de la apologética.

Dios lo Manda.
La razón más importante para hacer apologética es que Dios nos dice que la hagamos. La base bíblica clásica es 1 Pedro 3:15 que dice, “santificad a Dios el Señor en vuestros corazones, y estad siempre preparados para presentar defensa con mansedumbre y reverencia ante todo el que os demande una razón de la esperanza que hay en vosotros.” Este versículo nos dice que estemos listos. Tal vez nunca nos enfrentemos con alguien que nos haga preguntas difíciles acerca de nuestra fe, pero aún así debemos estar preparados si alguien nos pregunta. Estar preparados no es solo el hecho de tener disponible la información correcta, es también una actitud de estar listos y deseosos de compartir la verdad en la cual creemos. Estamos para dar una razón a aquellos que nos hacen preguntas. No se espera que todos necesiten ser evangelizados, pero que cuando lo necesiten, debemos estar preparados y con la voluntad de darles una respuesta.

Este mandamiento también nos liga la obra de evangelismo con el lugar de Cristo como Señor en nuestros corazones. Si él es realmente el Señor, entonces debemos ser obedientes a él “derribando argumentos y toda altivez que se levanta contra el conocimiento de Dios, y llevando cautivo todo pensamiento a la obediencia a Cristo” (2 Co. 10:5). Esto significa que deberíamos confrontar asuntos en nuestras propias mentes y en los pensamientos expresados de otros para que nos muestren a nosotros y a ellos el conocimiento de Dios. De esto es lo que se trata la apologética.

En Filipenses 1:7 Pablo habla de su misión “en la defensa y confirmación del evangelio.” Añade en el versículo 17, “estoy puesto para la defensa del evangelio.” Esto implica que el defensor del está allí donde él o ella pueda encontrarse con otros y defender la verdad. Judas 3 añade, “amados, por la gran solicitud que tenía de escribiros acerca de nuestra común salvación, me ha sido necesario escribiros exhortándoos que contendáis ardientemente por la fe que ha sido una vez dada a los santos.” La audiencia a la que Judas se dirigía había sido asaltada por falsos maestros, y necesitaba animarlos para proteger (literalmente agonizar por) la fe tal y como
había sido revelada a través de Cristo. Judas hace una afirmación importante en el versículo 22 acerca de nuestra actitud, de que, a algunos que dudan, convencedlos.”

Tito 1:9 hace que el conocimiento de las experiencias cristianas sean un requerimiento para el liderazgo de la iglesia. Un anciano en la iglesia debería ser “retenedor de la palabra fiel tal como ha sido enseñada, para que también pueda exhortar con sana enseñanza y convencer a los que contradicen.” Pablo nos da también una indicación de nuestra actitud en este trabajo en 2 Timoteo 2:24-25: “Porque el siervo del Señor no debe ser contencioso, sino amable para con todos, apto para
enseñar, sufrido; que con mansedumbre corrija a los que se oponen, por si quizá Dios les conceda que se arrepientan para conocer la verdad.” Cualquiera que intente contestar las preguntas de los no creyentes con seguridad será ofuscado y estará tentado a perder la paciencia, pero nuestro verdadero objetivo es que ellos lleguen al conocimiento de la verdad de que Jesús ha muerto por sus pecados. Con tan importante tarea a mano, no debemos ser negligentes en obedecer este mandamiento.

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ - 5 Theories

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ: The Strategy: Five Possible Theories

Philosopher Peter Kreeft neatly lays down five (exhaustive) theories for the resurrection of Christ. He will take you through each one and lets you see which one is plausible. Here is his chart showing the five possible scenarios:

There are five possible theories: Christianity, hallucination, myth, conspiracy and swoon.
1 Jesus died -Jesus rose - Christianity
2 Jesus died -Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceived - Hallucination
3 Jesus died -Jesus didn’t rise—apostles myth-makers - Myth
4 Jesus died -Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceivers - Conspiracy
5 Jesus didn’t die - Swoon

Theories 2 and 4 constitute a dilemma: if Jesus didn’t rise, then the apostles, who taught that he did, were either deceived (if they thought he did) or deceivers (if they knew he didn’t). The Modernists could not escape this dilemma until they came up with a middle category, myth. It is the most popular alternative today.

Check it out:
Evidence for the Resurrection - Kreeft

EVOLUTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION: FRIENDS OR FOES?

In the any serious discussion one of the first tasks of the presenter is to define their terms. Many times terms, phrases and ideas are passed around like two ships in the night and meaningful dialogue never gets established. This is especially evident in the whole evolution and creation debate. Words get tossed around and many times speakers and debaters just talk past each other without really listening to what they are really saying.

For example, sometimes when the word creation is used in these situations, it usually triggers in the minds of the audience keys words such as “six days,” “creationist,” and “fundamentalist.” On the other hand when the word evolution is mentioned, many people think of a sort of progressive critique that gets worst by the minute; they start with concepts such as Darwin and slippery-slope their way into all sorts of causal (seemingly connected) ideas that lead up to Nazi Germany. There needs to be some working definitions when these discussions take place in order to avoid any semantic summersaults.

It is this kind of sloganeering that immediately lends itself to the creation of straw men and ad hominems that liter the battlefield of both the creationist and Darwinist camps. The attacks have been so vitriolic that sometimes we forget what the issue is really about. Similarly, important ideas are lost in the mix. And in effect, if we are to consider whether evolution and creation are foes or allies we must clear the air and define our terms.

What are we talking about?
What is evolution? Evolution can mean a variety of things for a variety of fields. To give you an idea of what evolution meant to one of the first individuals to fully employ the term, Herbert Spencer, Malcolm Guthrie writes, “Except in the definition of Evolution given in First Principles,” Mr. Spencer seldom uses the word in the sense defined as the concentration of matter and the concomitant dissipation of motion, but he usually employs it as meaning the advance from a state of homogeneity, indefiniteness, and simplicity, to a state of definite, coherent complexity.” Herbert Spencer was an English philosopher that dealt with everything from political theory to social complexity theories. He is credited to being one of the first of developing (free from metaphysical ideas) the concept of evolution.

However, in the contemporary debate, there are more refined definitions that tune in specifically on the idea of biological systems. To use a modern day example, “what is evolution? In Charles Darwin’s times, a general definition would have been ‘descent with modification.’ And that is not a bad definition. It means that one generation of animals or plants… which in turn produces the next generation, and so on. This is the descent part. Upon closer observation, however, you will notice that each generation is different from the one preceding; that is, the generations are not simply exact copies from each other. This is the modification part. A more modern definition would be “any change in the gene frequencies of a population with time.”(emphasis mine). However, a more comprehensive and working definition (for all parties) is found in Dr. Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology,

“In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.”

Since this is more akin to the modern concept of evolution, this is the definition we will use. Consequently, this definition makes a couple of assumptions that are worth noting. First of all, it assumes that is a purely mechanistic process. In addition it is also a broad definition that includes small variations to substantial changes in organisms. Absent from this definition are concepts like purposelessness, random mutation, the origin of life, the origin of the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of sexuality, etc.

It is important to note that although these issues are not mentioned in the working scientific explanation of evolution, nevertheless these topics underlie many of the argumentations between these two fields once they get unpacked.

On the other hand, we cannot expect the doctrine of creation to be defined by the scientific academia for it primarily resides in the formal area of theology and philosophy and materially in the datum of scripture. One definition states that, “Scriptural teaching on God and the relation of the universe to Him unmistakably affirms creation. God alone is declared to be underived, self-existent (Exodus 3:14), and in comparison with Him all things else are as nothing (Wisdom 11:23; Isaiah 40:17). God is said to be the beginning and end of all things (Isaiah 48:12; Revelation 1:8); all things else are from Him, and by Him, and in Him (Romans 11:36”
As a matter of fact, Theologian and Scientist John Polkinhorn mentions that the doctrine of creation implies that:

1. The world is orderly, since God is rational
2. No prior constraints are imposed on the creators choice of creation’s pattern, so that one has to look (observe and experiment) to see what the divine will has selected
3. Because creation is not itself sacred, it can be investigated without impiety

This gives us a broad picture of what is meant by the doctrine of creation.
Not only is God the creator of everything there is but He created everything from nothing. As mentioned above, the Fourth Lateran Council firmly established that creation was de nihil condidit. This is a very important distinction and one that is crucial to the answer we seek in regards to the relationship of evolution and creation.

Nevertheless, it is very important to mention that these two definitions are often confused with their extremes. Evolution, in the minimalist sense, accounts for transition among species and leaves all other philosophical assumptions aside. If evolutionists adhere by their own standards, then they will deal with the factual and empirical. If, on the other hand they “import” some value type judgments such as “we are purposeless,” or “there is no God,” etc., then they have transgressed their minimalist worldview and veered into making philosophical judgments. This “borrowed capital” makes this worldview come with baggage without paying for the extra fair. These views can be represented by people such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett.

On the other hand, the theology of creation could become impregnated with the idea of strict biblical literalism and, undergirded with a soft form of bibliolatry; it could seminally produce what is commonly called creationism. Just as it is good to be rational but bad to be rationalistic, it is also good to believe in the doctrine creation and naïve to believe in a flawed view of creation.
This is the heart of the matter. When these two ideas clash they usually do in a summersault of semantics that never allow the air to clear and see what epistemological foundations undergird both views.

The Implications of these two realms
With the above definitions we can start traversing the intricate road that will determine whether creation and evolution can coexist or if there cannot be any meaningful communication at all.

If we are to use the two simpler (Ockham’s razor) definitions, then it seems that there could be some dialogue between the two. In addition, there could be some shared assumptions that do not violate each other’s territory.

Furthermore, I think that given the fact that the two areas have their share of mistakes, we can learn from those mistakes and make inroads instead of walls. There needs to be an understanding between the two that creation cannot claim an isolationist perspective and ignore the scientific data. It has to welcome the data (since it is God’s other book) and adjust and or tweak the framework of our worldview and thus also affect our interpretation of it and of the Scriptures. Creation advocates can hold tight to answers for The Cause while holding ever so gently to issues arising from secondary causes. They could be sure of the ontological dependency to the Prime Mover but they could have a humble, wait-and-see attitude with the smaller movers.

In addition, science has to acknowledge that they can’t always have their cake and eat it too: either they behave nicely and play with their naturalistic toys without complaining about the other kids playing with their so called imaginary friends or they could admit that there is possible postulate that might lie outside their field of which they could never prove or disprove but accept it as a possible postulate as an inference to the best explanation (which has worked in both the fields of philosophy and science). I acknowledge that this is a tall order for a dispute that has lasted for several hundred years. Nevertheless, the best possible scenario for evolution and creation can be found in an excellent article by William Carroll and it is worth repeating the whole quote.

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some existing material. If, in producing something new, an agent were to use something already existing, the agent would not be the complete cause of the new thing. But such complete causing is precisely what creation is. To build a house or paint a picture involves working with existing materials and either action is radically different from creation. To create is to cause existence, and all things are totally dependent upon a Creator for the very fact that they are. The Creator does not take nothing and make something out of nothing. Rather, anything left entirely to itself, wholly separated from the cause of its existence, would be absolutely nothing. Creation is not some distant event; it is the complete causing of the existence of everything that is. Creation, thus, as Aquinas shows, is a subject for metaphysics and theology; it is not a subject for the natural sciences. Although Scripture reveals that God is Creator, for Aquinas, the fundamental understanding of creation is accessible to reason alone, in the discipline of metaphysics; it does not necessarily require faith. Aquinas thought that by starting from the recognition of the distinction between what things are, their essences, and that they are, their existence, one could reason conclusively to an absolutely first cause which causes the existence of everything that is. (emphasis mine)

Here, Carroll makes a clear distinction between creation as something that lies in the realm of metaphysics and change in the realm of that which is knowable through the sciences. I would say that there is a logical distinction between the two that do not contradict each other but can be both part of the same phenomenon. It would be similar like looking at the follicles of your skin through your own eyes and seeing them through the eyes of a dermatologist. Although they both see the same thing, they both have information that complement what they see although it not might be at the same place and in the same manner.

Conclusion
Can evolution and creation coexist? I would answer in the affirmative provided that they establish some ground rules for thinking, interpretation, and analyzing the framework from which they worked from. Hence, this might be seen as the balance along the continuum instead of the balance between two extreme poles, which could be harder to achieve (See figure 1).

Fig. 1
WORKS CITED
Eugenie C. Scott. “The Creation/evolution Continuum
.” National Center For Science Education, December 7, 2000. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/1593_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp/ (accessed 05/01/2008).
William E. Carol. “Creation, Evolution And Thomas Aquinas.” Catholic Education Resource Center, 2000. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html. (accessed 04/29/2008).
William Lane Craig. “Is There Historical Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus?”.” Bring To You Apologetics, 1988. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm. (accessed 04/27/2008).
Truman State University. “Founding Figures.” Truman State University, 14 March, 2008. http://www2.truman.edu/~rgraber/cultev/spencer.html. (accessed 04/28/2008).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm. “Creation.” New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908. / (accessed 04/28/2008).
Laurence Moran. “What Is Evolution?.” The Talk Origins Archive, January 22, 1993. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html. (accessed 04/28/2008).
George R. McGhee. The Late Devonian Mass Extinction: The Frasnian/Famennian Crisis. Irvington: Columbia University Press, 1996.
Malcolm Guthrie. On Mr. Spencer’s Unification of Knowledge. Cambridge: Trübner & co, 1882.