Foreword by Christoph Cardinal Sch÷nborn
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 thinkingùfinal 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 naturesùin 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.
"The object of the present essay is not to make of final
causality a scientific notion, which it is not, but to show
that it is a philosophical inevitability and, consequently,
a constant of biophilosophy, or philosophy of life. It is
not, then, a question of theology. If there is teleology in
nature, the theologian has the right to rely on this fact
in order to draw from it the consequences which, in his
eyes, proceed from it concerning the existence of God. But
the existence of teleology in the universe is the object of
a properly philosophical reflection, which has no other
goal than to confirm or invalidate the reality of it. The
present work will be concerned with nothing else: reason
interpreting sensible experienceùdoes it or does it not
conclude to the existence of teleology in nature?"
Etienne Gilson