DOCSLIB.ORG

EMT 3651 Evolution and Ecotheology Thursday 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Fall 2018 Emmanuel College, Toronto School of Theology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EMT 3651 Evolution and Ecotheology Thursday 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Fall 2018 Emmanuel College, Toronto School of Theology EMT 3651 Evolution and Ecotheology Thursday 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM, Fall 2018 Emmanuel College, Toronto School of Theology Instructors: Brian Gibson, [email protected] Simon Watson, [email protected] Course Description This course considers the Darwinian theory of evolution as both source and challenge for the development of a Christian ecotheology. That is, if the Christian God is creator of all things but is also revealed in Christ to be costly love, then how can divine agency in creation be understood in light of scientific discoveries revealing that biological warfare undergirds the creative process of natural selection? The implications are significant for understanding Christian discipleship and ethics, if indeed the human is made in God’s image with the capacity for creative or destructive “dominion” over earthly life (Gen. 1:26). Of particular concern, can biological evolutionary processes revealed by scientific methodologies offer Christians material for constructive human action in light of environmental concerns, and if so, how? The course will therefore consider such issues as human origins and the place of humanity in creation; divine immanence, agency, and goodness in light of creaturely processes and ecosystems; the consequent demand for ecological literacy; the argument from design; theodicy; kenosis; and the relation of science to theology, or, more specifically, the means by which observed data and experience are interpreted as evidence to infer conclusions. The reading will draw upon the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Elizabeth A. Johnson, Sallie McFague, Philip Hefner, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Jay McDaniel, Arthur Peacocke, Holmes Rolston III, Monica A. Coleman, and Charles Darwin, amongst others. Prerequisites: At least one introductory course in both Christian Theology and the History of Christianity. The course sessions will include class discussion. Course Evaluation Class participation 15% Reflection paper 10% Book Review 20% Final Paper Proposal 20% Final Paper 35% 1 Learning Outcomes and Means of Assessment By the end of this course, students will be able to: Student Learning Outcomes Means of Assessment Describe the main features of Darwinian • class attendance and participation evolutionary theory and the challenges and • reflection paper opportunities it offers Christian theology • book review through . • final paper Articulate their understanding of diverse • class attendance and participation ecotheologies and how the natural sciences • book review of evolution and ecology can inform • proposal for final paper theological articulations of divine • final paper providence and Christian discipleship through . Explain the role, in both theology and the • class attendance and participation natural sciences, of theoretical frameworks • book review and subjective worldviews in the • proposal for final paper interpretation of observed data through . • final paper Conceive and present, orally and in • class attendance and participation writing, their own critical and constructive • reflection paper positions on evolution and related • book review theological issues through . • final paper proposal and presentation • final paper Apply the background knowledge and • class attendance and participation critical thinking skills necessary to • reflection paper appreciate more deeply the Christian • book review response to the ecological challenges • proposal for final paper besetting the earth through . • final paper 2 Assignments 1) Regular attendance, required reading (as listed below), and informed participation in class discussions, worth 15% of your course grade. Required reading is posted on the course web site at https://q.utoronto.ca/. Resources identified as “Recommended Reading” (also listed below) are available in the libraries of TST colleges, other University of Toronto libraries, and/or elsewhere. Class attendance and participation are important parts of the learning process; you may not receive credit for this course if you are absent from more than three classes. 2) Reflection paper. 3-4 pages, due September 27, and worth 10% of your course grade. Please respond to the following questions: a. How do you situate or relate your understanding of biological evolution to your worldview or religious belief? b. What theological doctrines or issues are you particularly concerned to address in light of the theory of evolution as introduced by Darwin? Why? c. Can the theory of evolution, as you presently understand it, challenge and/or enrich Christian theology? How? d. What are your ambitions for this course? Evaluation Criteria: thorough response to and reflection on the questions (80%); consistency and clarity in writing (20%). 3) Book Review. 10-12 pages, due November 1, and worth 20% of your course grade. A critical review of one book, chosen in consultation with the instructor, and written by an author assigned or discussed in the syllabus. The book must discuss the issue of Christianity, evolution, and ecotheology. In your critique please consider the following questions: a. How does your author engage evolutionary processes as both challenge and source for a constructive ecotheology? b. Is your author successful? Why or why not? For more information, please see “The Book Review or Article Critique” at http://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/book-review/. You may use the research for this review in your final paper. Evaluation Criteria: accurate and fair description of the author’s positions and the issues at stake in those positions; fair evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s positions and clear, well-warranted rationale for that evaluation; appropriate research, using required and recommended course readings and other relevant sources when necessary, with a fair and accurate description and evaluation of those sources; consistency and clarity in writing; and the correct citation and documentation of sources used. 3 4) Proposal for Final Paper. 10-12 pages, due in the last class, and worth 20% of your course grade. The proposal should include a thesis statement, outline, and an annotated draft bibliography. Be prepared to briefly present and discuss your ideas with the class. The thesis statement or question should be related to one of the course authors and should build upon the work completed for your book review. The annotated bibliography should consist of 10 to 12 essays, journal articles, or book chapters that will help you to demonstrate your thesis or to answer your question. For more information, see “Using Thesis Statements” at http://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/planning/thesis-statements/ and “Writing an Annotated Bibliography” at http://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/annotated- bibliography/. You may use the thesis statement or question and the annotated bibliography in your final paper. Evaluation Criteria: clarity and strength of thesis statement or question; adequacy of selected essays to the thesis statement or question; accurate and fair description of the content of the essays in your annotated bibliography with clear indications of the relevance of each entry to your thesis statement; consistency and clarity in writing; and the correct citation and documentation of sources used. 5) Final paper on either option a. or b. below. 15-18 pages, due end of term, and worth 35% of your course grade. a. Compare and contrast the approach of two ecotheologians to the theory of evolution. How does each engage biological creation as a source and challenge for understanding the Creator God of Christian faith? Moreover, if the human is made in God’s image, how is biological creation engaged to understand Christian discipleship and constructive human action in light of environmental concerns? What are the key strengths and weaknesses of each author’s argument? Ultimately, how do you understand creation as a source of revelation about the Creator God of Christian faith and thus the role of the human as made in God’s image and responsible for an environment in crisis? Evaluation Criteria: accurate and fair description of the issues at stake and the positions of the authors you consider; fair evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each author’s position and a clear, well-warranted rationale for that evaluation; clear, well-warranted statement of your own position; appropriate research, using required and recommended course readings and other relevant sources, both primary and secondary; fair and accurate description and evaluation of those sources; consistency and clarity in writing; and correct citation and documentation of sources used. b. For one of the theologians included in the syllabus, please summarize his or her understanding of how the Christian God acts in nature in light of natural processes 4 and systems. How does your author engage biological creation as a source and challenge for understanding the Creator God of Christian faith? Moreover, if the human is made in God’s image, how is biological creation engaged to understand Christian discipleship and constructive human action in light of environmental concerns? Do you agree with your author? Why or why not? What are some key strengths and weaknesses of your author’s argument? Ultimately, how do you understand creation as a source of revelation about the Creator God of Christian faith and thus the role of the human as made in God’s image and responsible for an environment in crisis? For your paper, please use a representative selection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rolston, Holmes, III. Genes, Genesis and God: Values and %Eir Ongins in Naturctl Including Science and Religion
    "Listening to the Listeners," the author challenges preachers to get into the skin of their audiences and to solicit and covet feedback from them. He rounds out this section with two chapters on preaching about money, providing valuable tips on a sensitive subject around which not a few preachers would rather detour. A strength of this book is the "Questions to Consider" and suggestions for additional reading with which each chapter ends. The questions make excellent fodder for classroom, collegial, or personal reflection, and the reading lists are rich resources for preachers who are sometimes so busy with parish responsibilitiesthat they do not have time to stay abreast of the literature in the field. Another strength of the book is its size. As texts on biblical preaching go, this one is slim. Uzking a Difference in Preaching is only 158 pages. Yet Robinson succeeds in conveying a wealth of information in this brief book, deftly juxtaposing scholarship and his personal experience in the pulpit to provide preachers with useful tools to revive and energize their preaching. His mixture of theory and methodology is refreshingly incisive and instructive. Robinson reveals an understanding of, and resonance with, the concepts he shares, refusing to provide his readers with the pat answers and platitudes that nonpractitioners are prone to proffer. So compelling are the author's ideas and insights, and so cogent and concise his writing, that this reviewer read the book in one sitting. Uctking a Dzfmence in Preaching is a worthy addition to the literature in the field of preaching. Students and practitioners, both lay and paid, should find it immensely helpful as they struggle with the unending task of crafting biblical sermons that hit home.
    [Show full text]
  • Holmes Rolston III Endowed Chair in Environmental Ethics
    Holmes Rolston III Endowed Chair in Environmental Ethics AOS: Environmental Ethics/Philosophy. AOC: open; Philosophy of Science (especially Biology), Science and Religion, or Philosophy of Technology desirable. The Department of Philosophy at Colorado State University invites nominations and applications for the newly inaugurated Holmes Rolston III Endowed Chair in Environmental Ethics. Rank: Associate Professor. Required qualifications: Ph.D. in Philosophy; AOS in Environmental Ethics/Philosophy; strong record of research; national and international scholarly recognition and reputation; demonstrated excellence in teaching; demonstrated commitment to service; ability to work collegially with others. Preferred qualifications: AOC in Philosophy of Science, Science and Religion, or Philosophy of Technology; ability to advance the department’s commitment to diversity and multiculturalism through research, teaching, and outreach with relevant programs, goals, and activities. Teaching load currently is 4 courses per academic year (2 courses per semester). Effective starting date is August 2016. Salary is commensurate with qualifications. Funding for research and conference travel will be available annually. To apply, go to http://jobs.colostate.edu/postings/17356 and create an account. Please submit a complete dossier, including a letter of application detailing qualifications, curriculum vitae, evidence of successful teaching (such as sample teaching evaluations or reviews), writing sample, and three current letters of recommendation. Please contact Gaylene Wolfe at [email protected] if you have questions about the application process. To submit a nomination, send a letter detailing the nominee’s qualifications and promise to Katie McShane at [email protected]. Applications and nominations will be accepted until the position is filled; however, to ensure full consideration nominations should be submitted by October 15, 2015 and applications by November 15, 2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtable on Holmes Rolston, III : a New Environmental Ethics : Life on Earth in the Next Millennium
    [Expositions 6.1 (2012) 9-10] Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747-5376 Introduction to the Roundtable: Holmes Rolston III’s A New Environmental Ethics: The Next Millennium for Life on Earth CHRISTIAN DIEHM University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point In the 1970s, when the contemporary environmental movement was still in its infancy, Holmes Rolston, III began publishing philosophical essays in environmental ethics, and it is no exaggeration to say that his early efforts contributed to establishing this subject as a serious academic field, one in which he has played a leading role ever since. Indeed, over the past five decades Rolston has not only developed and defended one of the most comprehensive and recognizable positions in eco-philosophy, but he has also used it to address some of the most difficult and challenging issues that environmentalism in the modern era has had to face. It should come as no surprise, then, that the appearance earlier this year of his A New Environmental Ethics1 represents both the culmination of a professional lifetime of dedication to the discipline that he helped to create, as well as a guidepost out ahead of those of us who have only recently ventured into the territory that he began to explore so many years ago. Readers familiar with Rolston’s work will quickly recognize that A New Environmental Ethics is at one and the same time both a familiar and a novel text. On the one hand, it straightforwardly presents most of Rolston’s now well-known positions in environmental ethics, positions on things such as the intrinsic value of organisms and the ethical priority of ecological wholes that have changed fairly little over the course of his writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Plantinga Argues That There Is Superficial Conflict but Deep Concord Between Science and Theistic Religion
    This is an accepted manuscript of an article published in Philosophia Reformata, 79 (I) (2014), 66-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22116117-90000563 Where the conflict really lies: Plantinga, the challenge of evil, and religious naturalism Elizabeth D. Burns, Heythrop College, University of London In this paper I argue that, although Alvin Plantinga’s Felix Culpa theodicy appears on only two pages of his recent book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion and Naturalism (2011) (i.e. 58-59), it is of pivotal importance for the book as a whole. Plantinga argues that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and monotheism, and that there is superficial concord but deep conflict between science and naturalism. I contend that the weakness of the Felix Culpa theodicy lends support to the view that there is more than superficial conflict between science and monotheism, and offer an alternative response to the challenge of evil which suggests that there might be, after all, concord between science and (religious) naturalism. 1. Plantinga and the challenge of evil In order to show that, although there is superficial conflict, there is deep concord between science and monotheism, central to which is ‘the thought that there is such a person as God: a personal agent who has created the world and is all-powerful, all- knowing, and perfectly good’ (ix), Plantinga argues that God creates by means of the process of natural selection (39), that Michael Behe’s writings about irreducible complexity constitute a series of ‘design discourses’ for which there aren’t any defeaters (258), and that God’s miraculous interventions are not incompatible with an interpretation of natural laws as ‘descriptions of the material universe when God is not treating what he has made in a special way’ (119).
    [Show full text]
  • Religion and Science1
    Phil 3303 Phil of Religion Religion and Science1 Four Models for Understanding the Relationship Between Religion and Science I. Conflict A. Areas of conflict 1. Creation and evolution 2. Freudian psychoanalytic theory calls into question the legitimacy of the religious way of life by suggesting that its roots are in wish fulfillment and repression (Totem and Taboo; The Future of an Illusion; Moses and Monotheism 3. Einsteinian relativity theory which drastically reinterprets our conceptions of space, time and causality and thus challenges us how God relates to the world (see Einstein's Relativity: The Special and General Theory). 4. Technological advances in computers and artificial intelligence seem to endanger the unique status of homo sapiens (originally, see A. M. Turing, "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," Mind 59 (1960); D. Hofstadter and D. Dennet, The Mind's I). 5. Biotechnology and the discovery of the DNA molecule threaten to put the secret of life into the hands of scientists. B. Scientific materialism or philosophical naturalism Many evolutionary scientists adopted the perspective of PN (Philosophical naturalism) as the control belief and basis of evolution. (1) that physical nature alone is real; (2) all phenomenon are configurations of matter or nature; (3) there is no supreme being or supernatural realm governing nature or overseeing humanity; 1 Taken from Michael Peterson, et. al. Reason and Religious Belief, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 2003), pp. 246ff. (4) natural processes are responsible for the origination of life and diverse life forms. This control belief led to the full-fledge world view of evolutionary naturalism which holds the following: (1) that humanity stands alone in an essentially hostile universe; (2) that humanity has no overarching purpose; (3) reject religion as an illusion, and view science as the only hope for the progress of humanity and as the only way to explain human experience, existence, and destiny.
    [Show full text]
  • Hesitations About Special Divine Action: Reflections on Some Scientific, Cultural and Theological Concerns
    HESITATIONS ABOUT SPECIAL DIVINE ACTION: REFLECTIONS ON SOME SCIENTIFIC, CULTURAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS ALISTER E. MCGRATH Oxford University Abstract. The new interest in special divine action has led to a close reading of the great debates and discussions of the early modern period in an attempt to understand contemporary resistance to the notion of divine action, and to develop strategies for reaffirming the notion in a refined manner. Although continuing engagement with and evaluation of the Humean legacy on miracles and divine action will be of central importance to this programme of review, there are other issues that also need to be addressed. In this article I identify some of the factors that have caused or continue to cause difficulties for the articulation of a concept of special divine action and I suggest how they might be engaged. The last two decades have witnessed a renewed surge of interest in the question of whether, and to what extent, God may be said to act in the world. Can God be understood to act entirely in and through the regular structures and capacities of nature, or does a robust account of divine action also require us to affirm that God acts specially in order to redirect the course of events in the natural world, thus delivering outcomes that would not have occurred if God had not acted in this way? Although this discussion is sometimes framed in terms of a generic notion of divinity,1 the most significant recent engagements with the question have reflected Judeo-Christian conceptions of God, and the questions arising from these.
    [Show full text]
  • Pansacramentalism, Interreligious Theology, and Lived Religion
    religions Article Pansacramentalism, Interreligious Theology, and Lived Religion Hans Gustafson College of Arts and Sciences, University of St. Thomas, 2115 Summit Avenue, Mail 57P, St. Paul, MN 55105, USA; [email protected] Received: 21 May 2019; Accepted: 26 June 2019; Published: 28 June 2019 Abstract: Opening with a philosophical definition of sacrament(ality) as a mediator (mediation) of the sacred in the concrete world, this article offers pansacramentalism as a promising worldview—especially for those rooted in or emerging from the Christian traditions (since, for them, the language of sacramentality may have a stronger resonance)—for bringing together interreligious theology and data mined by Lived Religion approaches to the study of religion. After articulating the concept of pansacramentalism and emphasizing interreligious theology as an emerging model for doing theology, growing trends and changing sensibilities among young people’s religious and spiritual lives (e.g., the “Nones”) is considered insofar as such trends remain relevant for making contemporary theology accessible to the next generation. The article then considers the intersection of pansacramentalism and interreligious theology, especially the issue of determining sacramental authenticity. To explain how this challenge might be met, Abraham Heschel’s theology of theomorphism is offered as but one example as a nuanced means for determining sacramental authenticity of the sacred in the world. Turning to “Lived Religion” approaches, rationale is offered for why pansacramentalism and interreligious theology ought to be taken seriously in the contemporary world, especially considering recent data about the nature of contemporary religious identities among young people living in the West. Keywords: pansacramentalism; sacramentality; interreligious; lived religion; interreligious studies 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploration Towards God in a Scientific Age
    ST GEORGE’S LECTURES 8 - Exploration Towards God in a Scientific Age No 8 - © Arthur Peacocke 2002 Exploration Towards God in a Scientific Age 1 Arthur Peacocke MBE, DD, DSc, SOSc Honorary Canon and Chaplain, Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford Little Gidding is a small village in Huntingdonshire, England, to which Nicholas Ferrar, a doctor well-connected politically, retired with his family in 1626 to lead an ordered life of prayer and good works (medical, book binding, etc.) in a lay community – the first one in England (lay or ordained) since the English Reformation. It lasted for 21 years before being broken up by Puritan Protestants. In May 1936, T.S. Eliot visited its 17th-century chapel, which still exists, and later he composed the last of his influential Four Quartets . The poem, entitled Little Gidding , is a profound reflection on the significance of time in the divine purpose and four lines provide the leit-motif of this lecture: We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. (T.S. Eliot, Little Gidding ) Nicholas Ferrar had been a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge, where I was for 11 years Dean (of Chapel). One of my great experiences at that college was, once a year, to go with students to Little Gidding. There we conferred in the adjacent farm house and then celebrated the Eucharist, Holy Communion, the Mass, in its unforgettable, evocative and dignified small 17th-century chapel with the light of the setting sun streaming through its west door.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis.Pdf (274.2Kb)
    Speaking of God in an Age of Science Torbjørn W. Engel REL-3901: Masteroppgave studieretning i teologi Institutt for religionsvitenskap Det samfunnsvitenskapelige fakultet Universitetet i Tromsø Mai 2008 2 Contents CONTENTS............................................................................................................................. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 5 PREFACE ................................................................................................................................ 7 CHAPTER I: P EACOCKE AS A FUNCTIONALIST ........................................................................ 9 Life and work of Arthur R. Peacocke................................................................................ 9 Opening remarks............................................................................................................. 10 Bridging religion and science......................................................................................... 14 Summary of introduction................................................................................................. 25 CHAPTER II: A D ISCUSSION OF PEACOCKE ’S FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE ....................... 27 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 27 Discussion......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Darwinism, Disvalues and Design Taylor & Francis. Not for Distribution
    Chapter Six Darwinism, Disvalues and Design Section 1: Darwinism It is time to say more about Darwinism, partly to explain its coherence and cogency, partly to introduce its implications for the Teleological Argument, and partly to illustrate and appraise the problem of natural evil which, as we have seen, contributed to Darwin’s own loss of belief in God. Darwinism will be discussed in the current section, together with some of its grounds and some of its varieties, to which we revert in later chapters. Its possible implications in the area of sociobiology will also be considered. In later sections of this chapter its bearing will be considered on the Design Argument, as will subsequently its compatibility with belief in God’s goodness. The theory of evolution by natural selection provides the backdrop for contemporary environmental concern, and several of the themes of this chapter will thus prove relevant to the scope and limits of environmental stewardship, discussed in the final two chapters of this book. Darwin’s theory asserts, in part, that life on Earth has evolved from a common ancestry1 and from relatively simple to relatively complex forms of life.2 Michael Ruse summarizes Darwin’s evidence as including grounds from palaeontology (the fossil record), bio-geography (for evolution best explains the distribution of bird and reptile species in places such as the Galapagos Islands), anatomical similarities across diverse species (for evolution from common ancestors best explains such ‘homologies’), and from systematics, for common ancestry best explains the way species can be ordered in a hierarchy of groups, which seem to call for an explanation of such a nature.3 In view of this and additional evidence (like that from embryology), the evolution of species was soon recognized as a fact.4 Darwin further argued that a major cause of the adaptedness of organisms that facilitates their evolution was natural selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-68453-9 - Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics Edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen Frontmatter More information INFORMATION AND THE NATURE OF REALITY © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-68453-9 - Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics Edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen Frontmatter More information © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-68453-9 - Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics Edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen Frontmatter More information INFORMATION AND THE NATURE OF REALITY FROM PHYSICS TO METAPHYSICS Edited by PAUL DAVIES Arizona State University NIELS HENRIK GREGERSEN Copenhagen University © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-68453-9 - Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics Edited by Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen Frontmatter More information University Printing House, Cambridge cb2 8bs, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107684539 C P. Davies and N. Gregersen 2010, 2014 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Religion: a Philosophical Analysis Course Number: Phi 81.1
    Science and Religion: A Philosophical Analysis Course Number: Phi 81.1 Institution: St. John's University Instructor: Marie George Course Outline and Reading List (subject to revision): I. INTRODUCTION -Students will be asked to write out their views on the relation of religion and science. -Instructor will present various positions taken by scientists. Readings: Einstein, "About Religion" Aristotle on the Virtue of Religion Suggested reading: Cosmos, Bios, Theos. II. THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND ITS SCOPE: AN OVERVIEW A. General considerations regarding method Readings: Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics 1098a28-b5, 1094b24; De Caelo 306a; Physics 193b33; Parts of Animals, Bk. I, c. 1; Metaphysics, Bk. II, c. 3. B. The scientific method as developed and used in Physics (the hypothetical deductive method) 1. the scientific observation 2. laws; statistical laws 3. hypotheses and theories Readings: 3 handouts C. The scientific method and biology Reading: Handout Suggested reading: Arthur Peacocke, God and the New Biology, cc. 1-4. D. Science, Natural Philosophy, and Metaphysics: a comparison of method and objects of study Readings: Handout Excerpts from Aquinas’s commentary on Boethius De Trinitate, qq. 5 & 6. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 993b10. E. Science and Theology: Readings: Summa Theologiae, I.1, articles 2, 7, 8. (Theology as science) Augustine (as quoted in Leo XIII, “Providentissimus Deus,” 23-25 and Pius XII, “Divino Afflante Spiritu”, 7). Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, 70.1 ad 3; Summa Contra Gentiles, Bk. II, art. 4. John Paul II, “Letter of 1988 to Rev. George V. Coyne, S.J., Director of the Vatican Observatory”. (excerpts) John Paul II, “Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science,” 10-31-92.
    [Show full text]