Darwin's theory of evolution remains controversial, even though most scientists, philosophers, and even theologians accept it, in some form, as an explanation for the variety of organisms. The controversy erupts when the theory is used to try to explain everything, including every aspect of human life, and to deny the role of a Creator or a purpose to life. The overreaching of many scientists into matters beyond the self-imposed limits of scientific method is perhaps explained in part by the loss of two important ideas in modern thinking--final causality or purpose, and formal causality. Scientists understandably bracket the idea out of their scientific thinking because they seek explanations on the level of material and efficient causes only. Yet many of them wrongly conclude from their selective study of the world that final and formal causes do not exist at all and that they have no place in the rational study of life. Likewise, many erroneously assume that philosophy cannot draw upon scientific findings, in light of final and formal causality, to better understand the world and man. The great philosopher and historian of philosophy, Etienne Gilson, sets out to show that final causality or purposiveness and formal causality are principles for those who think hard and carefully about the world, including the world of biology. Gilson insists that a completely rational understanding of organisms and biological systems requires the philosophical notion of teleology, the idea that certain kinds of things exist and have ends or purposes the fulfillment of which are linked to their natures--in other words, formal and final causes. His approach relies on philosophical reflection on the facts of science, not upon theology or an appeal to religious authorities such as the Church or the Bible.

This text re-examines Durkheim's science of morality as it is illuminated by Aristotle's philosophy. The author demonstrates, by examining previously unappreciated aspects of the latter's moral sociology, that Durkheim's theory can be compatible with postmodernism.

David O. Brown demonstrates how it is possible to embrace deism, without that leading to those problems deism presents to the Christian, namely, the denial of providence, and rejection of the incarnation.

A medievalist and defender of the notion of Christian philosophy, Etienne Gilson had a lifelong interest in the philosophy of art. He questioned whether what is reproduced as art in contemporary society is art at all. This is not a simple issue. A cheap version of a novel is still a novel. A picture of a statue is not a statue, nor indeed is a photograph of a painting a painting. Recorded music has particular complications. The organizer of an industrial assembly line is neither an artist nor an artisan. Yet, thanks to such mass production, a much broader population has knowledge of artworks than would otherwise be possible. Religions must minister to mass societies and provide appropriate liturgies. But in the process, there is a danger of misrepresenting complex religious teachings. At the end of his own life, Henri Gouhier, Gilson's first doctoral student, prepared three essays on Gilson. The first, on Bergson, gives a sense of Gilson's formation in early twentieth-century French philosophy. The second reconstructs the development of the notion of Christian philosophy and the heated controversy it provoked. Finally, Gouhier presents Gilson's general philosophy of art and gives a helpful framework to Gilson's comments on art in a mass society.

The purpose of this book is to integrate the fact of biological evolution (which, as such, should not be confused with the evolutionary theories and ideologies supposedly based on that fact) with the principles and contents of Thomistic philosophy. After identifying the main difficulties involved in this endeavor—and how they have been addressed by other authors within the Thomistic tradition—we present our own thesis. We begin by arguing that the diversity of species and varieties of corporeal living beings is consistent with Aquinas’ thought. Next, we distinguish between two forms of evolution, namely, intraspecific and transspecific; following the central tenets of Aquinas’ philosophy, the ontological significance and causalities involved in both types of evolution are analyzed. We complete this exposition by offering a general overview of evolutionary history in light of the criteria presented, with emphasis on anthropogenesis. Juan Eduardo Carreño Pavez (1976) holds a PhD in Medical Sciences and a PhD in Philosophy. After completing a postdoc at the Center for Medieval Philosophy, Georgetown University, he returned to the University of los Andes, Chile, where he has a position as Associate Professor. His research has focused on Thomas Aquinas’ thought, mediaeval philosophy, and the dialogue between theology, philosophy and science. He is the author of several articles and monographs, including Vivere viventibus est esse: la vida como perfección del ser en la obra de Tomás de Aquino (Eunsa, 2020), and Una reconsideración del estatus de la mente animal y humana (Ril Editores, 2024).