The Garden of Eden and Entropy

The Garden of Eden and Entropy

A Catholic theology of creation must include a consideration of the laws of thermodynamics in relation to the nature of the created universe and the state of innocence of our first parents. Rather than beginning with definitions from modern physics, I suggest a reading of St. Thomas Aquinas without any preconceived notions. This method will enable us to see whether the laws of thermodynamics are really universal and so, of scientific certitude, because if they are, then St. Thomas will make some acknowledgement of them in his writings, perhaps not in the words of present-day scientists, but certainly as presenting the same ideas of perceived reality.

Some preliminary considerations are necessary. We must understand clearly the relation between the natural and the supernatural orders.

The supernatural life of divine grace does not exist in itself but in something else. It is therefore not a substance but an accident. Thus the supernatural life pre¬supposes a created nature which receives it and in which it operates. (Ott, p.102)

This Catholic doctrine is essentially different from the modernist heresy which teaches a “vital immanence” according to which everything of a religious or spiritual nature develops out of the necessities of human nature in a purely natural fashion. (Ott, p.102) The modernist thus makes divine grace to be of the very substance of the soul as belonging to it by some inherently natural right. On the contrary, divine grace is an entirely gratuitous gift super-added to human nature and is therefore subject to humble and grateful acceptance or to prideful rejection on the part of a free will.

The Catholic doctrine of grace is also radically different from that of many if not most Protestants who simply have no clearly defined or developed theology of divine grace and the soul or of which includes Sacramental theology, virtue, sin, etc, etc.

According to St. Thomas, as soon as God formed Adam's body from the earth and infused the rational soul, He also raised him to the supernatural order of divine grace. (Ott, p. 103 and ST, I, Q 95, a 1)

The State of Original Justice or Innocence had its source in the sanctifying grace that permeated Adam’s soul. This supernatural endowment included in addition to the gift of sanctifying grace, certain preternatural gifts which depended on grace alone and flowed directly from it. These additional gifts were:

1) The gift of rectitude or integrity, meaning freedom from irregular desires in the physical order and a perfect control of the passions by reason;

2) Bodily immortality or freedom from bodily death;

3) Bodily impassibility or freedom from suffering and bodily degeneracy, i.e., sickness;

4) The gift of science or knowledge of natural and supernatural truths infused by God.

This State of Original Justice was intended by God to be hereditary. (Ott, pp. 103-105)

We know of only two human beings who by reason of their being absolutely sinless possessed these gifts in their fullness and never lost them: Our Divine Lord and His Immaculate Mother Mary.

We know from Holy Scripture that the sentence of bodily death was not carried out immediately upon Adam's fall from grace. Quite the contrary. Adam and the Patriarchs -- and so, we may reasonably assume, everyone else -- lived to extremely long ages. The same may justly be inferred regarding the other gifts. 

These facts belong to the history of the world and of mankind before the Flood and are mentioned here only by way of indicating what a wealth of knowledge there is at hand for constructing a true history of the world to replace the false evolutionary world view currently prevailing.

Concerning the consequences of Original Sin, we can be absolutely certain only of the following:

1) Our First Parents lost Sanctifying Grace and the preternatural gifts flowing from it, provoking the anger of God and His indignation;

2) They became subject to sickness and death as a punishment for sin; they also became subject to the dominion of the Devil (Gen. 3:15; John 12:31; 14:30; 2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 2:l4; 2 Peter 2:19).

3) The privations due to Original Sin are transmitted by natural generation. (Ott, pp. 107-108)

All the rest is opinion based on inferences more or less soundly based. Such are the following: since only human beings, i.e., Adam and Eve and their descendants, fell directly under the curse of Genesis 3. But we may admit, with many Catholic authors, that nature suffers indirectly from the curse inasmuch as it is influenced by mankind: "Cursed be the earth in thy work." (Gen. 3:17)

I. A Reading of Saint Thomas

Let us now listen to the words of St. Thomas and try to discover what he teaches about the world before and after the Fall of our First Parents.

Under the Question "Whether in the State of Innocence Man Would Have Been Immortal?" St. Thomas answers:

It is written (Rom. 5:l2) By sin death came into the world. Therefore, man was immortal before sin. (ST, I, Q 97, a 1)

But this concerns only man. It tells us nothing about the universe in general or the rest of nature. This point is well worth noting, for St. Thomas will always be concerned primarily with man and man’s relationship with God, his Creator. Next, St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine:

God made man’s soul of such a powerful nature that from its fullness of beatitude [in the state of innocence] there redounds to the body a fullness of health with the vigor of incorruption. God made man immortal as long as he did not sin, so that he might achieve for himself [by free choice] life or death.

St. Thomas then adds his own explanation wherein we may begin to perceive the answer to our question about entropy in Eden:

For man's body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic vigor of immortality but by reason of a supernatural force given by God to the soul, whereby it [the soul] was enabled to preserve the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself subject to God. This entirely agrees with reason; for since the rational soul surpasses the capacity of corporeal matter, it was most properly endowed at the beginning with the power of preserving the body in a manner surpassing the capacity of corporeal matter. Further, this power of preserving the body was not natural to the soul, but was the gift of grace. (ST, I, Q 97, a 1, ad 3)

The view of St. Thomas here is clear: the preternatural gifts were due entirely to the supernatural life of grace exerting a truly miraculous power over the body, a power which surpassed the "natural capacity of corporeal matter." The inference is that "corporeal matter" not being impassible or immortal by its own nature, must then be, by its nature, quite the opposite, that is, passible and mortal, inclining to dissolution. Such is the essential meaning of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, when St. Thomas speaks of natural capacities in this context, we must assume the nature to which he refers is the same nature in and by which we live today.

Did Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden need to take food? This question is most relevant to our purpose because (to anticipate some definitions) it is necessary to know, even if St. Thomas was not so explicitly aware, that the processes of digestion and assimilation are thermodynamic processes. He says:

In the State of Innocence, man had an animal life requiring food; but after the resurrection, he will have a spiritual life needing no food.

This is a most important distinction to observe, for we must in no way equate the State of Innocence in Eden with the Life of Glory after the final Resurrection. We have only to think of Our Divine Lord in His life on earth and then, in His appearances after the Resurrection. Before the Resurrection He needed to eat and drink. After the Resurrection, He was able to do so but did not need to do so. Adam’s body in Eden was not a glorified body. Nor will the state of the world, that of "the new heavens and the new earth" (2 Peter 3:13 and Apoc. 21:1-8; Cf. Ott, pages 494-496) be like that of the Garden before the Fall.

Returning to the discussion of life before the Fall, St. Thomas continues:

In order to make this clear, we must observe that the rational soul is both soul and spirit. The soul in common with all other souls [vegetative and sensitive, i.e., plant and animal] gives life to the body. The soul is called spirit according to what is proper to itself and not to other souls, that is, as possessing an intellectual immaterial power. Thus in the state of innocence the rational soul communicated to the body what belonged to itself so a soul, i.e., life… Now the first principle of life in the inferior creatures is the vegetative soul, the operations of which are the use of food, generation, and growth. Wherefore, such operations befitted man in the state of innocence. ... For the immortality of the original state was based on a supernatural force in the soul and not on any intrinsic disposition of the body; so that by the action of heat, the body might lose part of its humid qualities; and to prevent the entire consumption of the humor, man was obliged to take food. A certain passion and alteration attends nutriment on the part of the food changed into the substance of the thing nourished. So we cannot thence conclude that man's body was passible [i.e., corruptible] but that the food taken was passible,... (ST, I, Q 97, a 3, ad 1 and 2)

The point to note here is that the plant kingdom in Eden was certainly subject to the Second Law even though Adam’s body, on account of the supernatural life of grace, was not. The fact, however, that he did need to take nourishment is an indication that there was a certain degree of subjection to the Second Law, even though the life of grace prevented it from exerting its full influence. Furthermore, in answer to an objection that Adam would have taken no superfluous food and therefore had no need to defecate, St. Thomas replies:

…this is unreasonable to suppose … for voiding the surplus was so disposed by God as to be decorous and suitable to the state of innocence.

These facts of theology indicate that Adam and Eve in the exalted state of innocence nevertheless were subject, to some degree, to the operation of the Second Law even though the divine life of grace in their souls prevented its full effects of sickness and death. Furthermore, in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve possessed two remedies against two defects:

1) One of these defects was the loss of humidity by the action of natural heat, …a remedy against such loss was provided with food taken from the trees of Paradise, as now we are provided with food which we take for the same purpose.

2) The second defect arises from the fact that the humor which is caused from extraneous sources being added to the humor already existing, lessens the specific [i.e., of the species] active power... so we may observe that at first the active force of the species [in this case, human nature] is so strong that it is able to transform so much of the food as is required to replace the lost tissue, as well as what suffices for growth; later on, the assimilated food does not suffice for growth, but only replaces what is lost. Last of all in old age, it does not suffice even for this purpose; whereupon, the body declines and finally dies from natural causes.

Against this defect man was provided with a remedy in the Tree of Life; for its effect was to strengthen the force of the species against the weakness resulting from the admixture of extraneous nutriment. Wherefore Augustine says:

Man had food to appease his hunger, drink to slake his thirst; and the Tree of Life to banish the breaking up of old age; and… the Tree of Life, like a drug [or we might better say, a tonic] warded off all bodily corruption.

St. Thomas adds:

Yet it did not absolutely cause immortality; for neither was the soul’s intrinsic power of preserving the body due to the Tree of Life, nor was it of such efficiency as to give the body a disposition to immortality whereby it might become indissoluble; which is clear from the fact that every bodily power is finite; so the power of the Tree of Life could not go so far as to give the body the prerogative of living for an infinite time, but only for a definite time. ... since the power of the Tree of Life was finite, man’s life was to be preserved for a definite time, by partaking of it once; and when that time had elapsed, man was to be either transferred to a spiritual life, or had need to eat once more of the Tree of Life. (ST, I, Q 97)

It is not difficult to translate the medieval theories of bodily humors into modern ideas of physiology and nutrition. What is clear is that St. Thomas perceives defects in natural processes even in Paradise. Furthermore, his assertion that "every bodily power is finite" indicates a simple attribute of all created being -- its limitation and therefore, a certain kind and degree of imperfection. The necessary condition and prerequisite for entropy is therefore here in the very created nature of material or corporeal being; for only God is immaterial, having no parts, and infinitely perfect, having no need of change. Even the Angels are subject to change though not to any material or corporeal processes. Inherent in the very nature of materiality and of corporeal process is the fact of degeneration, if not sooner then later. St. Thomas says:

Even in the state of innocence, then, the human body was in itself corruptible, but could be preserved from corruption by the soul. (ST, I, Q 98, a 1, ad 1)

The natural conditions of Paradise, or the environment of Adam and Eve in the State of Innocence, were also ideally conducive to the preservation and enjoyment of the preternatural gifts. St. Thomas quotes St. John Damascene:

Paradise was permeated with all-pervading brightness of a temperate, pure, and exquisite atmosphere and decked with flowering plants.

To which St. Thomas adds:

Whence it is clear that Paradise was most fit to be a dwelling place for man in keeping with his original state of immortality. [But] This state of incorruption could not be said of the other animals. Therefore, as Damascene says, "No irrational animal inhabited Paradise."

To which St. Thomas adds:

Although by a certain dispensation, the animals were brought to Adam that he might name them and the serpent was able to trespass therein by the complicity of the Devil.

Under the Question "Whether Adam Had Mastery Over the Animals?" St. Thomas first explains that for his disobedience to God, man was punished by the disobedience of those creatures which should be subject to him. But in the State of Innocence, nothing disobeyed Adam. And as Adam, being made in the image and likeness of God is above other animals, so these are rightly subject to his government.

In the opinion of some, those animals which today are fierce and kill others would, in the state of innocence have been tame not only with respect to man but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by men’s sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others would have lived on herbs. Nor does Bede’s gloss say (on Gen. 1:30) that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals.

They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of men, as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals. (ST, I, Q 96, ad 1 and ad 2)

It is worth noting here how St. Thomas emphasizes the created nature of animals and how utterly unthinkable it would be for him that this created nature or kind could transform itself or be transformed to another nature or kind.

When St. Thomas speaks of nature, he is referring to the very order of creation established by God in the beginning. So it is difficult to imagine that there could have been a different created order for the world before the Fall than the one we have now. This does not rule out two other great facts:

1) the possibility of catastrophes, both local and global, and

2) that all physical, material entities naturally tend to decline and deteriorate when left to themselves.

We may also ask, might not all animals before the Fall and even up to the time of the Flood been like domestic animals today? It seems neither impossible nor unreasonable since even some domestic animals are carnivorous and can be hostile both to each other and to men, e.g., dogs and cats, dogs and chickens, cats and birds, the mongoose and the snake, goats, bulls, etc. And I wonder, too, following the emphasis of St. Thomas upon man and his relationship with God, if we should not also emphasize the fact that animals respond to our moods and our very spiritual states? The lives of the Saints surely confirm this.

As for food and clothing,

In the state of innocence, man had no bodily need of animals 1) for clothing since they were naked and were not ashamed, nor 2) for food since they fed on the trees of Paradise, nor 3) to carry them about for man’s body was strong enough in itself. Man only needed animals for the delightful experimental knowledge of their natures. Therefore, God led them to Adam that Adam might give them names expressive of their respective natures. So all animals would have obeyed Adam of their own accord as in the present state some domestic animals obey him... (ST, I, Q 96, a 1, ad 1-4)

To an objection that poisonous animals ought not to have been made by God at all, since He is the Author of good and such animals could be injurious to man, St. Thomas answers by quoting St. Augustine:

If an unskilled person enters the workshop of an artificer, he sees in it many appliances of which he does not understand the use, and which, if he is a foolish fellow, he considers unnecessary. Moreover, should he carelessly fall into the fire, or wound himself with a sharp-edged tool, he is under the impression that many of the things are hurtful; whereas the craftsman, knowing their use, laughs at his folly. And thus some people presume to find fault with many things in this world, through not seeing the reasons for their existence. For, though not required for the furnishing of our house, these things are necessary for the perfection of the universe.

St. Thomas adds:

And, since man before he sinned would have used the things of this world conformably to the order designed, poisonous animals would not have injured him. (ST, I, Q 72, ad 6)

Returning to a discussion of Paradise, we come to the curse of labor yielding thorns and thistles:

Man was placed in Paradise that he might dress and keep it, which dressing would not have involved labor as it did after sin, but would have been pleasant on account of a practical knowledge of the powers of nature.

Paradise was a fitting abode for man as regards the incorruptibility of the original state. Now this incorruptibility was man’s not by nature but by a supernatural gift of God. Therefore, that this might be attributed to God and not to human nature, God made man outside of Paradise, afterwards placed him there to live during the whole of his corporeal life, and having attained to the spiritual life, to be transferred thence to heaven. (ST, I, Q 102, a 4)

. . .What is natural to man was neither acquired nor forfeited by sin. …it is clear that generation by coition is natural to man by reason of his animal life which he possessed even before sin. ...So we cannot allow that these [genital] members could not have had a natural use before sin, but always under the control of reason and grace. (ST, I, Q 98, a 2)

The Tree of Life was a material tree and so-called because its fruit was endowed with a life-preserving power.

In like manner the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a material tree, so-called in view of future events. (ST, I, Q 102, ad 4)

Man was incorruptible and immortal not because his body had a disposition to incorruptibility but because in his soul there was a power preserving his body from corruption.

Now the human body may be corrupted from within or from without: 1) from within by the corruption of the humors and by old age ... and as to ward off such corruption by food and by the Tree of Life [a. super-tonic]; 2) from without by an atmosphere of unequal temperature. A remedy was found in an atmosphere of equable nature. In Paradise both conditions are found.

Paradise did not become useless after sin. ... Some say that Enoch and Elias still dwell there. [Most creationist scientists of today say that it was obliterated by the global Flood of Noah's time.]

Some say that Paradise was on the equinoctial line …

But whatever the truth of the matter be, we must hold that Paradise was situated in a most temperate zone whether on the equator or elsewhere. [This last remark is a good example of St. Thomas' flexibility on points of dispute that are clearly not against Faith, Scripture, or reason.]

For the earthly Paradise was a place adapted to man as regards his body arid his soul -- that is, inasmuch as in his soul was the force which preserved the human body from corruption. …This could not be said of the other animals. (ST, I, Q 102, a 2, ad 2, 3, 4)

I include these latter passages on Paradise, even though they may seem redundant, for two reasons:

1) they show how St. Thomas returns consistently to the principal source of Adam’s preternatural gifts -- the life of divine grace in his soul; and

2) the salutary conditions of Paradise which give support to the Vapor Canopy theory first put forward by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb in The Genesis Flood and based on an interpretation of the second day of creation in Genesis 1.

This latter theory also brings up the question as to just how different the Garden of Eden was from the world outside it, and whether, if Adam had not fallen, he and his descendants would eventually have left the Garden to explore the earth. In any case, the Garden was a place specially suited for the state of innocence, and perhaps beyond this fact it is not prudent or fruitful to speculate. But what does emerge more and more clearly as a fruitful area of speculation is the relationship between man in the state of Grace and his environment with its corollary of man in a state of wickedness and rebellion against God and his environment, both interior and external.

Now for the "thorns and thistles":

If man had not sinned, the earth would have brought forth thorns and thistles to be the food of animals but not to punish man because their growth before the Fall would bring no labor or punishment for the tiller of the soil, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iii, 18).

Alcuin, however, holds that before sin the earth brought forth no thorns or thistles whatever. But the former opinion, of Augustine, is the better. (ST, II-Il, Q 164, a 2, ad 1)

Alouin (730-804) is no mean authority, but St. Thomas is simply being consistent with his general principle that the world God created in the beginning is essentially the same world that we live in as regards the created natures of things, for these do not change. What we may simply allude to here, in passing, is the vast area of research being carried on today concerning the precise limits of variation within the created kinds. This research will never be able to bring forth true evidence that violates or falsifies the principles of St. Thomas because these latter are universal and necessary. Rather, we must make use of them to evaluate the data of the empirical sciences.

Since death is the ultimate goal of the Second Law and the processes of matter generally, this topic deserves inclusion in our study. And since death is the greatest punishment for sin, it will be well first to establish clearly a fundamental difference between the Catholic doctrine and that of many Protestants. The latter believe in a total depravity of human nature as a result of Original Sin, but St. Thomas states the true Catholic teaching:

The good of human nature is threefold:

1) First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth.

2) Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, this inclination to virtue … is a good of nature.

3) Thirdly, the gift of Original Justice, conferred on the whole human nature in the person of the first man Adam, may be called a good of nature [in the body-soul composite; grace super-added to the soul]

Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin.

The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent.

But the second good of nature, namely, the natural inclination to virtue, is but diminished by sin.

As sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature which is the inclination to virtue. (ST, I-II, Q 85, a 1)

So, we are not Calvinists. Even Original Sin did not leave us totally depraved or deprived. The widespread vice we see today is due to the repeated rejection of God’s Grace, thereby leaving souls more and more in deeper darkness and moral degeneracy, eventually blind even to the goods of nature such as family, parent-child relationships, normal sexuality, etc. Thus we see not only the spread of perversion and unnatural vice but its acceptance as natural. By the light of these truths about the essential good of nature, we are better able to realize the terrible extent of the present evil. The very order of creation is attacked and violated at every point of its hierarchical structure. Only chaos can result, as human governments are powerless to remedy such profound disorder.

Now, concerning death:

The Apostle says (Rorn. 5-12): By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin, death.

As death and such like defects are outside the intention of the sinner, it is evident that sin is not of itself the cause of these defects but insofar as by the sin of our first parent Original Justice was taken away, whereby not only were the lower powers of the soul held together under the control of reason without any disorder whatever, but also the whole body was held together in subjection to the soul without any defect as of sickness or death … Wherefore Original Justice being forfeited through the sin of our first parent, just as human nature was stricken in the soul by disorder among its powers, so also human nature became subject to corruption by reason of disorder in the body. (ST, I-II, Q. 85, a 5)

Death is not natural to man but is a punishment for sin.

We speak of any corruptible thing in two ways:

1) in respect of its universal nature, and

2) as regards its particular nature.

In this respect every corruption and defect is contrary to nature since this power of a thing’s own nature tends to the being and preservation of the particular nature.

But the universal force intends the good and the preservation of the universe for which alternate generation and corruption in things are requisite. And in this respect corruption and defect in things are natural ... not indeed as regards the inclination of the form which is the principle of being and perfection, but as regards the inclination of matter which ... is composed of contraries. From this results the corruptibility of the whole.

In this regard man is naturally corruptible as regards the nature of his matter left to itself but not as regards the nature of his form [soul]. (ST, I-II, Q 85, a 6)

One could hardly find a clearer more accurate statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics both as to the universe and to particular beings such as plants, animals and men. It is an inherent property of created matter. And here precisely, too, we find that reason for the tendency of life, the formal principle of animate things, to overcome, at least temporarily, the corruptible forces of matter. Some scientists today, desperately trying to salvage evolutionism, point to this overcoming of the Second Law. What they fail to understand is that matter and form are inseparable, for "matter is not created without form”. (ST, I, Q 44, a 2, ad 3)

There is more:

We may note a two-fold condition in any matter: 1) one which the agent chooses, and 2) one, not chosen by the agent and is a natural condition of matter.

Thus a smith to make a knife chooses a matter both hard and flexible which can be sharpened. … So iron is a matter adapted for a knife.

But that iron be breakable and inclined to rust results from the natural disposition of iron nor does the workman choose this in the iron. ... Wherefore this disposition of matter is not adapted to the workman’s intention, nor to the purpose of his art.

In like manner the human body is the matter chosen by nature in respect of its being of a mixed temperament in order that it may be most suitable as an organ of touch and of the other sensitive and motive powers.

Whereas the fact that it is corruptible is due to a condition of matter, and is not chosen by nature; indeed, nature [i.e., as formal principle] would choose an incorruptible matter if it could.

But God, to Whom every nature is subject, in forming man, supplied the defect of nature, and by the gift of Original Justice gave the body a certain incorruptibility, ... It is in this sense that it is said that God made not death (Wisdom 1:13) and that death is a punishment for sin. (ST, I-Il, Q 86, a 6)

Finally, speaking of man’s place in the hierarchy of being, St. Thomas says:

... by his nature he is established as it were midway between corruptible and incorruptible creatures, his soul being naturally incorruptible while his body is naturally corruptible. (ST, I, Q 98, a 1)

Again, "what is natural to man is neither acquired nor forfeited by sin." (ST, I, Q 98, a 2) The same must apply to matter in general and so, to the entire universe insofar as it is composed of a material principle. The inherent corruptibility of matter cannot be by reason of any defect or imperfection in God as Creator of all things and of all things specifically as good (Gen. l, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Let this one quotation from St. Thomas suffice:

Corporeal creatures [and so, the entire physical universe] according to their nature are good, though this good is not universal but partial and limited, the consequence of which is a certain opposition of contrary qualities, though each quality is good in itself. (ST, I, Q 65, a 1, ad 2)

Entropy, then, we may say with confident certitude, is indeed a property inherent in matter by virtue of its nature as divisible, made of parts, being composite, temporal, finite, limited and therefore subject to change because imperfect. Only God is simple, eternal, infinite, and infinitely perfect in Himself.

The material principle in all physical being is in constant declination whereas the formal principle, especially of animate being, is in constant quest of the greater perfection of its natural being. Before the Fall, these two principles were maintained in a certain balance by reason of the supernatural life of Grace in the soul of Adam. But Original Sin wrecked this fine harmony and introduced a principle of disorder into human nature only, for only the human being sinned. Therefore God said,

…cursed is the earth in thy work … thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. (Gen. 3:17-l8)

II. The Protestant Creationist Scientists

In December of 1973, Robert E. Kofahl, Ph.D., then science co-ordinator at the Creation-Science Research Center in San Diego, had an article in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (vol. 10, no. 3) entitled "Entropy Prior to the Fall".

The first thing to notice about Dr. Kofahl’s position is that he has no idea of the supernatural character of the state of Original Justice. Here is what he says:

What was the order of nature prior to the curse recorded in Genesis 3 ? Our first parents, though in an estate of holiness and intellectual and physical perfection, were nevertheless living in a natural, not a supernatural state. (p. 155)

A failure such as this to recognize the supernatural character of the life of grace leads, unfortunately, to an ultimate reduction of everything in life to the merely natural, i.e., to pervasive naturalism. This seems to be a common fault and failure of Protestantism in general. Otherwise, Dr. Kofahl's position comes very close to being the same as that of St. Thomas.

…There is every indication in Genesis 1-3 that once the supernatural work of creation was completed, the universe was in an orderly state in which cause and effect were normative.

Strictly speaking, God's work of creation was entirely natural to Him. In Catholic theology we reserve the term supernatural for the life of God in us because such divine life entirely transcends the powers of our human nature; it is supernatural to us and is, furthermore, God's free gift, utterly gratuitous. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary for our spiritual health. Dr. Kofahl continues:

Could such a state of nature exist independent of the second law? Consider, for instance, the chemical reactions involved in the bodily metabolism of man and animals and in photosynthesis and other processes in the plants. Life depends upon these reactions proceeding in the proper direction and, in many instances, upon their attaining proper equilibria. In the human body the acid-base balance or pH of the blood and body fluids depends upon delicate chemical equilibria. Respiration depends upon movement of oxygen and carbon dioxide under the force of concentration gradients.

All of these processes absolutely necessary to physical life occur in accordance with the second law. In other words, the maintenance of orderly conditions and processes essential to living systems is not possible apart from the second law of thermodynamics.

There is, Dr. Kofahl says, a seeming paradox in the nature of things:

… The thermodynamic orderliness and predictability of the natural order depends upon the second law of thermodynamics, which is used to describe the fact that the natural order is tending spontaneously toward the state of greatest disorder on the microscopic level. Without these conditions the thermodynamics of the natural order would be characterized by disorder and lack of predictability. Also observe that the second law is of a character apparently different from such laws as the law of conservation of energy, the laws of mechanics, or the laws of gravitational and electrical forces. The second law appears to arise from the action of these other physical laws which exist independently of the second law. (p. 155)

Except for that last statement, one would think Dr. Kofahl had been reading the Summa of St. Thomas, I-II, Q 85. What he is recognizing is that universal tendency on the part of form and matter in opposing directions while at the same time, "generation and corruption in things" are necessary for the functioning of the entire universe. The laws of constancy, regularity and stability so emphasized in Newtonian "clockwork" cosmology are also clearly acknowledged by St. Thomas in other parts of his theology. One could mention in particular the fifth way for proving God’s existence which is from "the governance of the world" whereby things act "always or nearly always in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.’ (ST, I, Q 2, a 3)

Dr. Kofahl’s article sparked a debate. Dr. Emmett Williams, Dr. Henry Morris, and Dr. S. J. Jansma all contributed. Then Editor H. L. Armstrong summed up the points of the debate in which he gave a slightly skewed representation of St. Thomas' position:

St. Thomas Aquinas considered that before the fall, in the state which he called "natural justice," by God’s grace any natural deficiency could have been accommodated.

That he does not understand the nature of divine grace or of the human soul is indicated in his next point by way of question:

Could the multiplication of animals have been taken care of, without having them die, by the same means as would have applied to man, had he not fallen? (CRS Qt’ly, Dec. 1974, Vol. 11, no. 3, p. 179)

The means that applied to man, the divine life in his rational soul, do not apply to animals whose souls are but principles of life which die when the animal dies. In the September 1975 issue of the Quarterly, Dr. E. Williams called a halt to the proceedings.

In his original article, Dr. Kofahl recognized the need for some kind of "divine constraints" but he did not know what they would be or where to locate them.

In the original state of the world prior to the Fall, all disruptive effects of random processes upon the perfect physical design and order of living things and upon the balanced natural order of ecological systems were prevented by special divine constraints.

The removal of these constraints constituted one aspect of the curse. (p. 156)

Recourse to unspecified “divine constraints” does not supply for a developed theology of the State of Innocence and the Fall therefrom, as we find in St. Thomas. And Dr. Kofahl is ridiculed for this deficiency by his opponents. He is also accused of uniformitarianism, both by Dr. Williams and Dr. Morris. These latter would undoubtedly accuse St. Thomas of the same uniformitarian "heresy", but they have not taken the trouble to see if uniformitarianism really applies here. The slogan ‘the present is the key to the past’ does not reveal the essence of uniformitarianism which is to preclude catastrophes. The entire intent of the early uniformitarians such as Hutton and Lyell was to establish immensely long ages of earth history for the sole purpose of undermining the authority of Holy Scripture in all areas of knowledge by attacking Biblical chronology. Biblical chronologists calculated the age of the earth and the universe at less than 6,000 years and the Deluge of Noah’s time was recognized as having changed the topography of the entire earth and laid down the fossils. There were also important political motivations which Dr. Morris brings out in his book The Long War Against God (Baker, 1989, pages 100 and 165).

To see the Second Law operating in the universe from the beginning and prior to the Fall does not in any way rule out the possibility of future catastrophes. Before the Fall, divine grace preserved Adam’s body. After the Fall, the canopy served to protect mankind and all things from cosmic radiation and produced sub-tropical climate worldwide. These natural conditions undoubtedly played a part in the lingering effects of the preternatural gifts that we detect in the immensely long life spans of the patriarchs and the sudden drop in longevity after the Flood with the disappearance of the vapor canopy.

Dr. Kofahl comes closest to our Catholic theology when he says:

The tree of life appears to have been designed for such a purpose [to constrain the effects of the second law]. As long as Adam did not sin, he did not suffer spiritual death. So why should such a tree have been provided if there were not some physical effect which had to be constrained, neutralized, or corrected to preserve life forever?

Note that when Adam sinned he died spiritually at once. But in order that he should not live physically forever he had to be removed from the garden, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever. (CRS Qt’ly, Dec. 1974, 176-177)

Dr. Jansma contributes some sharp conclusions, all of which I believe we may accept as being in harmony with the theology of St. Thomas:

1) God completed all the work which He had been doing and rested on the seventh day. (Gen. 2:2-3)

2) Thus the laws of thermodynamics were also completed at creation time.

3) That the state of nature while brought about by supernatural means [i.e., by God’s creative Word] was complete and of natural order and perfection.

4) That the second law had to be effective on flora for a continuous replication of food for man and animals from the beginning of creation.

5) That it was also operational on fauna from the beginning of creation.

6) That for this reason the curse did not include any pronouncement of death to snake, cattle, and wild creatures (Gen. 3:14) but to man only (Gen. 2: 18).

7) That the second law was non-operational on man only until after the fall and curse.

8) That only man was created in the image and likeness of God.

9) That God made only man to live forever -- body and soul.

He then adds:

To be a theistic evolutionist one must believe that God "evolved" man from animal 1,500,000,000 years after He had initiated life (amoeba), and the animation of its chemical precursors, which was the beginning of life 1,500,000,000 years before. It would follow, then, that from the beginning of creation to the appearance of man was an “evolutionary” period of 3,000,000,000 years before God rested from all He had made.

And He is still not able to rest from His "work" of creation if evolution were true. But here is a very good argument for the literal meaning intended by the Sacred Author:

And if time and space, light and energy are constants and not subject to process, then from the beginning of creation, days were periods of twenty-four hours. Algae are still algae … (CRS Qt’ly, Dec. 1974, 178-179)

Before concluding this part, allow me to take advantage of some remarks by Dr. Henry Morris in order to emphasize a very important point of creation theology. Dr. Morris says:

The creation model, with which creationists in the Creation Research Society are attempting to compare and contrast the evolution model, contains a postulate that a primeval period existed during which all the basic laws as well as the basic categories of the created world, were brought into existence by means of special divine processes which no longer operate. The primeval period has been superseded by the present period, in which all processes operate within the framework of the laws of thermodynamics.

Any blurring of the discontinuity between these two periods is merely a concession to naturalistic uniformitarianism and is, therefore, futile scientifically and dangerous theologically. (CRS Qt’ly, Dec. 1973, p. l57)

Dr. Morris gives the impression of two epochs: a primeval epoch of creating or building-up succeeded by an epoch of something like un-creating under the Second Law. He even refers to "these two periods". But this is a serious misrepresentation of Genesis 1. Scripture tells us that God created by means of His Word alone, that is, by His own Will or Fiat. This is not a process and should not be referred to as such. God used no method in creating and no process of any kind. The created world was not "brought into existence by means of special divine processes". To speak this way is to intimate that God worked with pre-existing materials in the same way that men do and that He required time in which to complete His work. But such is not the case either theologically or scientifically -- or Scripturally. God created all things in the beginning from nothing, and time is as much of a creature as anything else, being a property of matter in space.

St. Thomas emphasizes that creation by God is without either motion or time, without any effort or exertion.

Creation is not change … creation is without movement… Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles; but it means that the composite is created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles ... creation is the production of the whole being and not only of matter ... creation is the proper act of God alone. (ST, I, Q 45, a 2, ad 2, ad 3: a 4, ad 2-3, a 5)

The preservation of things by God is a continuation of that action whereby He gives existence, which action is without either motion or time; so also the preservation of light in the sir is by the continual influence of the sun. (ST, I, Q 1O4, a 1, ad 4)

So it is clear that God does not create by any kind of process. His creative act is eternal like Himself but produces effects, products that are full of temporal processes. God’s creative act produces fully formed and functioning products or beings. This characteristic of God’s creative action is described as perfectly as is possible for human language to do so in the first three chapters of Genesis. Even when it is a question of the formation instead of creation ex nihilo, as with light, God says: "Be light made!" Or with the plant kingdom: "Let the earth bring forth! . . . And it was done!" "Let the waters teem!" The apparent process involved in the formation of Adam’s body from the slime of the earth and of Eve’s body from Adam’s rib is, I suggest, an indication of the care God took with humankind and of the specialty of our formation. He has touched us with His Hands, whereas all other things were brought forth by His spoken Word. Somehow we are more intimately His creatures by reason of these special acts of His creative power.

Generally speaking, then, we must maintain that God creates, and products spring into being, Things are because He said for them to be -- not to become -- but to be. Once in existence, the temporal processes inherent in and proper to each specific corporeal, i.e., material thing, begin and continue according to the laws of nature, especially those of cause and effect. All creatures, after creation, are secondary causes, acting in the order of generation under the providential conservation of the First Primary Cause and Creator, the Triune God. All creatures continue, acting according to the natural laws created in and with the entire universe and all its parts, in a great hierarchical harmony redounding ultimately to God’s glory.

Since, as St. Thomas emphasizes, creation is the production of each and every kind of being in its entire substance with all its principles, in the beginning and from nothing, there is no possibility for any kind of evolution of species. The empirical data bears this out more and more forcefully as research in the life sciences continues. This is the subject, though, for another study.

Finally, I must allude to a remark of Dr. Williams that the Second Law "is a mental construct of men developed as a result of observations of the direction taken by natural processes." (CRS Qt’ly, Dec. 1973, p. 156) The implication is that the Second Law is not a real and really operating process taking place at all times in things. In other words, Dr. Williams' statement comes perilously close to being an affirmation of philosophical idealism, i.e., that, as George Berkeley put it, "to be is to be perceived". Much of modern physics is specifically idealist and in the Platonic as opposed to the realistic Aristotelian tradition. We must combat this philosophical tendency if we would serve truth.

In conclusion allow me to return to Dr. Jansma’s letter (CRS Qt'ly, Dec. 1974, pp. 177-178) and some points he makes which lead me to leave parts of the question open for further study:

a) that both men and animals were herbivorous upon leaving the ark. (Gen. 6:12)

b) that Noah was the first to eat meat which before had been used only sacrificially. (Gen. 9:3)

c) that dogs do not eat grass because they feel sick: dogs like to eat grass. [Same for cats!]

d) that carnivorous animals in the wild necessarily eat meat only.

e) that during the last world war carnivores lived on vegetation (at least in German zoos).

f) that in 1860 African baboons, deprived of their customary roots and insects by agricultural over-expansion, were driven to kill cattle for food.

g) that dried whale meat was used for cattle feed in the Faeroe Islands until quite recently.

h) that squirrels eat birds and insects besides acorns and nuts.

i) that contrary to whet G. L. Simpson has maintained, horses did not "evolve" from browsers to grazers. Horses are both browsers and grazers.

j) that both man and animal were created omnivorous, with their present dentition, metabolism, chemical makeup, and with stomach and intestine adapted to food consumed.

III. Catholic Creationists

I have before me four recent publications by Catholics who uphold creation against evolution. I will comment upon them in the order of their publication.

Evolution? by Wallace Johnson (originally published under another title in 1976, now available from Stella Mans Books). Mr. Johnson begins his section on the Second Law by quoting the famous physicist Sir Arthur Eddington: "If your theory is found to be against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I can give you no hope." Johnson continues:

The most fatal objection to the theory of evolution is that it goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

This Law can be stated in various ways. For our purpose it means:

a) Natural processes always tend towards disorder; they move from orderliness to disorderliness.

b) The simple will never produce the more complex.

We must interject here that this latter statement refers only to the order of secondary causes, for God, the Creator and Primary Cause of all things is absolutely simple. Thus, complexity is not necessarily a note of higher being. The Angels are higher in the scale of being then mankind, yet they are much more simple in their nature. Johnson continues:

It means that the universe is running down; that all natural systems are degenerating from order to disorder. (pp. 14-15)

In Johnson's book, the 2nd Law is considered only as a major obstacle to the transformation of species, and such it is. But on page 6 he makes some statements about Adam that are worth incorporating in this study, even though they may not directly come within our focus:

Adam was created in the image of God, physically perfect and, before his fall, intellectually sublime. The ages of faith produced the Christian images of Adam and Eve in devout profusion on the walls and windows of great cathedrals and ceilings of churches and chapels.

But today the picture is changed. The brute-man is today’s concept of Adam, or many Adams.

This brutish man has changed the whole world outlook and philosophy. That is the extraordinary achievement of Darwin. Whether Darwin was right or wrong, he has changed man’s concept of man. (p. 36)

The Six Days of Creation by Brother Thomas Mary Sennott. (1984. Cambridge: Ravengate Press. Also available from Stella Maris Books.) This book is most difficult to comment upon because it consists of a bringing into dialogue of five points of view on the question of origins in general. One of the members of the panel is the spokesperson for the Catholic position. But in this book, also, the Second Law is a topic of conversation in the dialogue solely as an argument for or against evolution. On pages 96-97, the moderator of the proceedings sums up in this way:

Dr. Schonfield [the secular humanist] said that Carl Sagan considers the origin of the universe one of the "ultimate questions", and its most likely answer is the Oscillating Universe. However, since this theory is in apparent conflict with the Law of Entropy, Dr. Schonfield explained how this law is not now considered an absolute, but rather a statistical law, which means it is not applicable in all circumstances.

We have already alluded to this new interpretation of the Second Law. But reducing the Second Law to a statistical law can in no way cancel or abrogate its existence and operation on the universal level as perceived by metaphysics. This latter is the higher science and the truths it describes pertain to all beings without exception. In the case of the Second Law, it operates wherever there is matter; it operates wherever there is corporeal, physical material being. Nothing can change that fact.

Creation Rediscovered by Gerard J. Keane. (Published in Australia but available from Stella Maris Books. 1991). Mr. Keane devotes an entire chapter (Ch. 6 in Part II, pages 115-122) to entropy, and it is the best I have seen on the subject. But the tendency to call upon or to look to physics and biology for answers to metaphysical and theological questions is more evident than one would wish. The need for restoration of the hierarchy of the sciences is a crying one, indeed. However, as to our present study, we must quote the following and comment.

Mr. Keane says:

… although the Universe may superficially appear to be heading for an inevitable demise, Christians can nevertheless feel optimistic about its eventual eternal restoration by God. What may be postulated about the condition of the Universe before the Fall can also be envisaged in its future conditions: … (pp. 121-122)

There follows a long quotation from Dr. Emmett Williams (Thermodynamics and the Development of Order. Creation Research Society, 1981, p. l29) wherein life on earth in the state of glory is reduced to a condition in which every natural process works with 100% efficiency! This is a completely naturalistic shrinkage of these glowing words of Apocalypse 21:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth were gone, … And I, John, saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, .And I saw no Temple therein. For the Lord God Almighty is the Temple thereof, and the Lamb. And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the Glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the Lamp thereof.

Life here is supernaturally glorified by the Beatific Vision of God and His Love that transforms all things. There is simply no way to compare this with the life of Adam and Eve before the Fall. When making use of works by Protestants in creation science, we Catholics must be very careful to watch for errors of this kind. For the Protestants abandoned all Catholic philosophy and theology when they rebelled against the Church, and they have never yet made any efforts to reclaim this vital part of what was once their own inheritance.

Lastly, I have before me the most excellent book À L’Image de Dieu by Dominique Tassot. (Editions Maitre Albert, 08310 Annelles, France, 1991). I will attempt to translate some relevant passages, but urge the reader to consult the original.

Chapter I of Part II is entitled: "Creation Before the Fall", but it is primarily concerned with the work of God on each of the six days of creation week and emphasizes the "anthropic principle". This is very important, indeed, but it is aside from our present focus.

Chapter 2 entitled "The Fall of Adam and Its Consequences" begins:

This paradisial life in which "everything was good” and there was no evil, hardly corresponds with anything we know today. Nevertheless, the memory of it remains in the minds of all peoples; there was a golden age wherein peace reigned amongst the animals as well as amongst men and nature. Men lived in peace with themselves as opposed to our day when they are torn by conflicting desires. (p. 139)

……………………………………………………………………….

Whoever refuses to acknowledge the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis loses also the sense of the New Testament and the essential truths of Christianity. It is impossible to understand either the history of societies or the history of salvation without knowledge of our true origins. It is not even a question here of Faith, but it is a simple question of the intelligibility of reality. Those who describe the life of mankind and neglect the supernatural conflict which is here at stake, resemble those who, according to A. Guiraud, send telegraphic messages without having the words that refer to the events which they are trying to transmit. The majority of ancient and modern historians are like that. (p. 143)

However, once we admit the historical reality of the Fall, these paradoxes of the human condition disappear. The body is the mirror of the soul, and the universe itself, linked to man, cannot fail to reflect the divisions inscribed in all of nature. The material consequences of the Fall, caused by man, are sickness and death spread throughout the earth. Scientific thinking must come to grips with what the theologians call the loss of the preternatural gifts of immortality and impassibility. If it is difficult to describe the earth before the Deluge, it is even more risky to imagine what it was like before the Fall. But without pretending here to any certitude, it seems possible to put forth some conjectures.

We know that it did not rain (Gen. 2:6). There were no great changes of temperature. The morning dews sufficed to water the plants and allow for evaporation. This is consistent with the existence of the vapor canopy around the earth -- the waters on high (Gen.1:7). This canopy filtered out cosmic radiation, and the light of the sun assured an even heat over all the primitive continent -- only one continent because the waters were all gathered into one sea (Gen. 1:9). There were no storms. One may believe that the tilt of the earth on the ecliptic coincides with the Fall, introducing a factor of age with the changes of temperature that today mark the different seasons. With the winds, the cold, and the formation of the polar caps, erosion began. Climatic variations limited the spread of vegetative species and perhaps their number. Consequently, certain animals became carnivorous. There has been found a pterodactyl with fossilized fish in the pouch under its beak. Certain species began to live a parasitic life. Especially, insubordination among souls brought about the insubordination of other living things.

I must interject here and object that M. Tassot is mingling evidences of the Deluge which exist abundantly in the fossil record, with speculations about the immediate effects of the Fall in nature. Of this latter, we have no such evidences. However, there is a tradition, the source of which I have not yet been able to trace, that is found as early as John Milton's Paradise Lost (1667) and as early as Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179). In one of her visions, Hildegard says that at the Fall

All the. elements of the world, which had previously been deeply calm and quiet, displayed horrible traumas and the greatest restlessness. (Illumination of Hildegard of Bingen. Commentary by Matthew Fox, OP. Santa Fe, NM. Bear and Co., 1985, p. 59)

Milton says that as soon as Adam ate the fruit offered him by Eve,

Earth trembl’d from her entrails, as again

In pangs, and Nature gave a second groan, (Cf. Book VII, 11. 454f)

Skie lower’d, and muttering thunder, some sad drops

Wept at completing of the mortal sin

Original. (Book IX, lines 1000-1004)

This view of a direct relation of cause and effect between the Fall and nature is said to be based on Romans 8:20-23, but St. Paul could just as well be referring to the Second Law which will only cease at the Resurrection. A better Scriptural source is by analogy with the reactions of nature to the Passion and Death of Our Lord on Calvary:

…there was darkness over the whole earth from the sixth to the ninth hour and the veil of the Temple was torn in two (Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44)

Matthew 27:45 adds that

… the earth shook, rocks were rent and tombs opened …

I, for one, can see nothing against Faith in believing that nature responded with similar paroxysms to Adam’s sin and to the Passion and Death of the new Adam as He atoned for that Original Sin by unspeakable torments.

It is certain that creation rocked and wept and hid her face at the death of her Creator. And such a reaction was eminently fitting. The sin of Adam was a lesser event only insofar as Adam was a lesser person than the Word made Flesh. The offense committed and the offense atoned for were essentially the same though numerically different since all our personal sins were added to the satisfaction required of Our Lord. Scripture certainly does not record any natural reactions to the Original Sin, but we do find interpretations of the curse similar to those of Hildegard and Milton in some of the old textbooks.

For example, Rev. A. Urban who wrote A Teachers Guide to Bible History (New York: Wagner, 1905) says that

…owing to the curse placed upon her by Adam’s sin, the earth was, for the future, only to bring forth, through man's toil and hard labor, such fruits for his necessary sustenance that until then she had freely yielded without his aid.

However, St. Thomas' position remains unaffected even if this be so. The Second Law is a naturally inherent property of material forms whether the earth brought forth thorns and thistles before or only after the Fall. The same applies to the animals and their tame or wild natures. Adam lived in a felicity protected and preserved by the supernatural life of God in his soul. Work was easy and pleasant for him, and nothing could harm him as long as he remained united with God. The aim of the spiritual life is to bring us back to something similar.

Tassot continues his discussion of the origin of sickness and death:

Even though the chromosomes are identical in the tissues or the organism, their functioning differs, developing here a bone cell, there the cells of the skin, and there again the cells of hair and nails. Sickness was not created by God but by the disorders of chemical composition which bring about a morbid functioning of the cells. The chromosomes become, as it were, demented; the germs of sickness are the same molecules which before exercised a useful and beneficial activity. … The characteristic view of microbes since Pasteur has made us lose sight of the true cause of sickness. The current popular view places the dangers outside of us whereas the dangers are within us. By thus neglecting the primary cause, we condemn ourselves to striking out randomly at the visible symptoms. This sickness, just punishment for sin, ought to warn man that he must reform his life, beginning with the spiritual and mental aspects. Instead, today people applaud a medical profession aimed at killing germs and even [as in abortion] the killing of healthy life. The practice of medicine today allows the sick person to prolong the deadly disorders of his life.

It would be blasphemy to think that God had created beings that were unhealthy by nature or that diseases are substantial beings which have existed since the beginning. We must, on the contrary, realise the fact that each sickness appears at a given moment by reason of an error in behavior. That it can be transmitted culturally by contagion does not explain its appearance in the first place… It does not take much reflection to see that those who deny the pre-existence of morbid germs admit their spontaneous generation. It suffices to consider that certain of the most contagious diseases such as chicken pox and small pox were not known to Hippocratus, Paracelsus, or Galen … (Dr. Marc Emily, Les Microbes, 1966, p. 45)

Therefore, even if the sickness is not always due to some moral disorder but is introduced by contagion or heredity, sin remains the primary cause of all sickness. One can understand, then, why the coming of Jesus Christ was accompanied by the curing of diseases. What good to remit sin without repairing the consequences of sin?

With sickness comes death. Death presents itself as an anomaly, Nothing in the functioning of living things determines that they will die at a certain time. Death always appears as an accident. Everything in nature is regulated and predictably functional; only death appears without rule or reason. Aside from some cases of special divine revelation, no one knows in advance the day of his death. Old age seems like an anomaly ... how is it that the law of conservation goes down in a degradation without rules? How is it that nature which shows itself the best image of perfection, has become so imperfect? The Original Sin of Adam and the personal sins of men provide the only logical reasons.

That since the Redemption, technical progress has brought about a tempering or even a compensatory force against this degradation only confirms our analysis. The advances are real progress only for the near-sighted, and the prodigious development of medical science only shows up the fact that sickness and disease are the rule rather than the exception. Such degeneration is itself progressive, for each sinful generation adds a little more to the state of imperfection in which the preceding generation was left. It is the same for the environment. The earth is degraded everywhere with only two exceptions: 1) where man is absent, and 2) where he puts his heart and his money into the land.

Thus sin reigns except where one uses the proper means to reduce it. And these means are first of all supernatural. In the state of moral and physical deterioration that has overtaken our societies worldwide, who can pretend that a new technology or a new source of energy can save us?

This introduction of death and sickness into the world was slow at first, for all things were created perfectly healthy by God, and even today, thanks to the non-transmission of acquired characteristics, everything begins from scratch, with each generation. But climatic conditions with the difficulty and pain of work, serve to accelerate the onset of old age, especially since the Deluge. (pages 143-147)

Tassot’s emphasis upon the intrinsic relation of sin and disease is certainly Thomistic and eminently Catholic in essence. We very much need such an emphasis today as our sick, sick society refuses to acknowledge any connection between sickness and its end in death with sin, either Original or personal. Tassot also brings out very well the fact that because of his God-appointed mastery over the lower orders of creation, man’s choice of goodness or wickedness has lasting and pervasive effects. The "anthropic principle" cannot be separated from man’s relationship with God, his Creator. Only as such is it entirely in harmony with our Catholic theology.

……………………………………………………………….

IV. The First Law of Thermodynamics

The First Law is also called the Law of Conservation of Energy, and it states that matter is being neither created nor destroyed. This being so, the universe is quantitatively determined and therefore finite. Gerard Keane (Creation Rediscovered, p. 117) quotes Dr. Sean O’Reilly:

The first law speaks to the finite nature of the universe of matter. ... The second law contains a direction, an "arrow of time", aimed at the ultimate heat death of the Universe, with its total mass-energy unchanged in quantity, but totally unavailable for further work. …

This is an excellent statement of the intimate connection between the two laws, of the ultimate triumph of the Second Law because of sin, and an intimation that something is saved for restoration and resurrection.

I wish also to show that St. Thomas knew both laws of thermodynamics, not as they have been "discovered" and formulated by modern physics, but as laws known to the higher sciences of metaphysics which studies the nature and properties of being as such and in this case, of the nature and properties of matter of which the created universe is composed.

Speaking of the conservation of creatures in existence, St. Thomas says:

The conservation of all things by God is not by means of any new action but rather through a continuation of the action by which He originally gave existence, and this action is without either motion or time. (ST, I, Q 104, a 1, ad 4)

Like creation, then, conservation also is not a material or physical process but simply the power of God’s action preserving all things in existence. Nor may this action of conservation be confused with some kind of "continuing creation" process as of theistic evolution. God’s actions are entirely outside of all motion, movement, and time, and do not require either. They are indeed immanent, but being supernatural with respect to man's soul and being infinite with respect to all things created and therefore finite, there can be no hint of a reduction or a conflation of the one with the other, for immanence always retains transcendence as God always retains His Godly Majesty even as He stoops to us in Merciful Love.

Speaking of the relation of creation by which all things depend upon God in an absolute and unique relation of dependent contingency for their very existence, St. Thomas says:

It is not necessary that as long as the creature exists, it should be created anew. (ST, I, Q 45, a 3)

In other words, once creation was finished at the end of the sixth day of the first week of the world, no more matter has been created. Only individual human souls are created in time in the order of generation. Parents supply the matter. "Increase and multiply" commanded the growth and multiplication that have been going on since creation. And yet: matter is neither created anew, i.e., no new matter has been created, nor has any been annihilated. For example, in the gene pool of Adam and Eve were contained all the possible variations that could and have happened in the human body. St. Thomas says:

All the creatures of God in some respects continue forever, at least as to their matter, since what is crested will never be annihilated even though it be corruptible. (ST, I, Q 65, a 1, ad 1)

The two laws are corollaries of each other. That the universe is both finite and corruptible, i.e., declining, is not self-explanatory but points beyond itself to the infinite and the incorruptible. However, both Catholics and Protestants these days assume that God’s existence as Creator is the same as His existence as such when it comes to proofs from natural reason. And yet, this is not the view of St. Thomas. He says:

The articles of Faith cannot be proved demonstratively, ... But that God is the Creator of the world, hence that the world began, is an article of Faith, ... And again, Gregory says ... that Moses prophesied of the past, saying, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," in which words the newness of the world is stated. Therefore, the newness of the world is known only by Revelation; and therefore, it cannot he proved demonstratively.

…By Faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration [of reason] can it be proved that the world did not always exist. … The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing, … which is abstracted from the here and now … Hence it cannot be said that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among those … But the divine will can be manifested by Revelation, on which Faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of Faith, but not of demonstration or science.

And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of Faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of Faith. …

When considering the abundant evidences for creation which are to be found in all the sciences, we must carefully distinguish what is demonstratively necessary and what is only numerically probable. It is the difference between a metaphysical proof from universals and a numerical or statistical proof from mathematics. The former is higher than the latter by reason of its being certain, whereas the latter is only probable.

We need also, therefore, to distinguish carefully the boundaries between natural sciences, mathematics, metaphysics and Sacra Doctrina or the theological. exposition of the truths of Faith.

Our defense of creation against evolution as also our defense of geocentrism against heliocentrism thus contains many points to be defined and clarified. St. Thomas is our best help in this work after God Himself Who said, "Without Me you can do nothing." (John l5:5)

V. Historical Note on the Two Laws

The formulation of the laws of thermodynamics (actually four in number) has taken place only after many decades of scientific experimentation especially in the physics of heat transfer. Beginning with the study of the conservation of mechanical energy by Christian Huygens (1629-1695) through that of James P. Joule (1818-1889), and of the Second Law with the work of William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), there has accumulated an extensive literature on the subject. The laws of thermodynamics are recognized today as the most firmly established of all scientific laws. Not a single departure from them has ever been noted.

In 1843 James P. Joule wrote:

I shall lose no time in repeating and extending these experiments, being satisfied that the grand agents of nature are, by the Creator’s fiat, indestructable; and that wherever mechanical force is expended (work is dissipated), an exact equivalent of heat is always obtained.

In 1847 the same man said:

When we consider our own frames, "fearfully and wonderfully made," we observe in the motion of our limbs a continual conversion of heat into living force (kinetic energy), which may be either converted back again into heat or employed in producing an attraction through space (potential energy), as when a man ascends a mountain. Indeed the phenomena of nature, whether mechanical, chemical, or vital, consist almost entirely in a continual conversion of attraction through space, living force, and heat into one another. Thus it is that order is maintained in the universe -- nothing is deranged, nothing ever lost, but the entire machinery, complicated as it is, works smoothly and harmoniously. And though, as in the awful vision of Ezechiel, "wheel may be in middle of wheel," and everything may appear complicated and involved in the apparent confusion and intricacy of an almost endless variety of causes, effects, conversions, and arrangements, yet is the most perfect regularity preserved.

When men believe in God, their science becomes almost poetry! Now let’s hear Lord Kelvin’s propositions:

1) There is at present in the material world a universal tendency to the dissipation of mechanical energy.

2) Any restoration of mechanical energy, without more than an equivalent of dissipation, is impossible in inanimate material processes, and is probably never effected by means of organized matter, either endowed with vegetable life or subjected to the will of an animated creature.

3) Within a finite period of time past, the earth must have been, and within a finite period of time to come the earth must again be, unfit for the habitation of man as at present constituted, unless operations have been or are performed which are impossible under the laws to which the known operations going on at present in the material world are subject.

George Mulfinger comments:

This, then, is the original statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Though energy is conserved, it is becoming less available. It is, to use Kelvin’s terminology, “irrevocably lost to man and therefore ' wasted,' though not annihilated." (From Thermodynamics and the Development of Order. Ed. by Emmett Williams. Creation Research Society Books. 1981, pp. 1-6)

What we must add to Dr. Mulfinger's concluding remark is this: Here is a good example of the limitations of empirical science, for we know by Faith that Creation and Resurrection set limits to the Second Law, and that Creation is entirely anthropocentric from the beginning so that it could be forever Christo-centric.

VI. Some Key Terms and Concepts

The best way to understand difficult philosophical concepts is to come to grips with them in the context of philosophical discourse. But perhaps the following may help:

nature. 1. The origin of growing things. 2. The essence considered as the internal principle of growth. 3. The essence or substance considered as the intrinsic principle of activity and passion (i.e., passivity) or of motion and rest. 4. The intrinsic first principle of the specific operations of a thing; therefore, substantial form. 5. Sometimes, the material of a product, as a bench is by nature wood. In senses 2-5, nature is almost like essence or substance but considered actively. 6. The totality of objects in the universe considered prior to free human modification of them.

essence. What a thing is; the internal principle whereby a thing is what it is and has its specific perfections. Often essence is said to be the same as being, substance, nature, or even form; yet accidents also have an essence; and existence is at least conceptually distinct from essence. (According to St. Thomas, essence and existence are really distinct.)

absolute essence. Very important to grasp in order to prevent falling into nominalism which infects almost all the Protestant creationists. The absolute essence of a thing is not grasped by limiting consideration to individual things but by grasping their universal nature.

The essence is represented in the essential (i.e., universal) definition abstracting from its extension in particulars.

Essence is the representation in a direct universal concept of the perfection constitutive of this kind of being.

The essence or nature of a thing is represented in the mind by the concept and in reality by the thing.

Definitions taken from Bernard Wuellner, S.J., Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy. Bruce, 1956.

The following excerpts are taken from James A. Weisheipl, O.P., The Development of Physical Theory in the Middle Ages. (Sheed and Ward, 1959, pages 37-38)

In the Aristotelian view “matter” and "form" are not two things but two principles of a single individual thing. One of these principles, namely matter, is the capacity of an individual thing to be what it is, and at the same time to become something else. The other principle is the immediate actuality, or realization of that capacity at any given time, an actuality which makes the individual to exist as a recognizable type of thing. When change takes place, it is not matter which becomes form ... nor does one form become a different form. It is simply the individual thing which becomes a different thing [either by accidental or substantial change] as hydrogen and oxygen become water. In Aristotle’s view one thing could not become anything else unless there were in that body the ability or capacity to be something else. It is this capacity which he called potentiality, or first matter.

Matter and form are limited by essence and/or nature. Thus, it is not a question of one nature or essence changing into another nature or essence but only of change within the limited capacity of the signified form-matter composite.

Saint Albert insisted that unless "form" be derived from the potentiality of matter in the sense that it is simply some actualization induced by an agent, then all physical change is illusory.

The best example at hand of biological change is that of the developing embryo or zygote. Molecular biology is now able to show us why and how a particular zygote, as for example the union of human gametes, will never become anything more or less than a human being. On the level of the chemical elements, such as hydrogen and oxygen, Thomistic philosophers have not yet arrived at a consensus about the nature of the elements and their compounds, that is, whether they are accidental or substantial forms. The best treatment of the controversy is in Nature, Knowledge and God: An Introduction to Thomistic Philosophy, by Brother Benignus. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1947, chapter 7 in Part Two.

References

Ludwig Ott. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. 6th ed. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1964.

St. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. 3 vols. English Dominicans. New York: Benziger Bros. 1947.

Ste1la Maris Books, P.O. Box 11483, Fort Worth, TX 76110. This bookseller distributes Ott's book and has the Summa in modern format.

_______________________