Metaphysics and Evolution: Response to Critics

I respond to Michał Chaberek’s and Robert A. Delfino’s criticisms of my argument that evolution is compatible with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics. Biological species, as secondary substances, are beings of reason founded in the natures of their instances. They are traceable to God’s creative intent, but not to universal exemplars. Aquinas teaches that concepts are derived from sensible accidents. Thus, evolution’s directed variation of such accidents will eventually require new species concepts. This accords with projective realism, which allows diverse, well-founded concepts based on the mul-tiple perspectives and conceptual spaces of knowing subjects. Charges that this is nom-inalism, not moderate realism, are rebutted; however, it is relativism because knowledge is a subject-object relation. Other metaphysical issues are considered. Chaberek’s thesis that species cannot evolve naturally fails because he: (1) reifies the species con-cept, (2) misrepresents the motivation, structure and conclusions of evolution, (3) con-fuses Aristotle’s four causes and (4) limits God’s creative omnipotence. Finally, Cha-berek is out of step with contemporary theology.