The dissertation will have three parts: analytic, heuristic, and synthetic.1
The first, and analytic, part will be a survey of literature covering 120 Neo-Scholastic philosophers of the twentieth
century, with sixteen philosophers from the Gregorian University in Rome, eleven at other Roman universities and academies,
thirteen from France, eight of German extraction, two from Ireland, ten from Italy, thirty-eight from North America, one from
Poland, four from South America, seven from Spain, and nine from the Vatican. The special emphasis on the Gregorian University
is to test and describe the development of philosophy concerning evolution among an inter-acting group of Neo-Scholastics.
Analysis of a number of philosophers is warranted because of the multiple implications of evolution, because of the desire
to avoid reductionism, and because the problem is not an easy one.2
The second, or heuristic, part will attempt to discover problems in terminology, problems in judgment from the point of
view of both philosophy and science, problems with reasoning concerning the proof of evolution, and problems with belief and
ideology. These problems will be discovered from the survey of literature as preliminary conclusions.3
The third, or synthetic, part of the dissertation will be the development of a philosophy course with reference
to the views on evolution by Neo-Scholastic philosophers.4 Thirteen theses or propositions to be proved are listed
below in three categories:
1. Evolutionism is philosophically possible.
2. Evolutionism needs some concept of purpose.
3. Evolutionism is incompatible with Mechanicism.
4. Evolutionism is incompatible with Materialism.
5. Evolutionism is compatible with Hylemorphism.
Evolution of Man:
6. Certainly, man is essentially different from other animals.
7. Possibly, the human body has evolved.
8. Certainly, the human soul has not evolved.
9. Future biological evolution of man is unlikely, and equivocal.
Evolution as Fruitful Idea:
10. Evolutionary abiogenesis is probable, but equivocal.
11. Cosmic evolution is possible, but equivocal.
12. Social evolution is unlikely, but equivocal.
13. Atheistic evolution is impossible, and equivocal.
Thus, questions will be raised and answered concerning three categories: concerning the philosophy of evolution itself,
concerning the evolution of man, and concerning the fruitfulness of the idea of evolution. First, relative to each thesis
in this proposed course of philosophy, an attempt will be made to give the state of the question in terms of history. Then
the participants in the dialogue, or opponents, will be noted. Thirdly, definitions and divisions of terms will be considered.
Fourth, the question needing a reply will be proposed. Fifth, an attempt will be made to give some philosophical foundations
for each thesis from St. Thomas Aquinas; although it is clear that a twelfth century philosopher and theologian did not directly
treat the issue of evolution which arose in the middle of the nineteenth century. Sixth, some attempt will be made to prove
each thesis philosophically in terms familiar to all Neo-Scholastics. Finally, some attempt will be made to assess the level
of certitude of each of the thirteen theses, since some statements are proposed in a more serious way that others.
Interest by the Public, by Scientists, and by Philosophers
One of the first facts someone wishes to know about a thing is: where did it come from? It is no wonder, then, that biological
evolution, with over one hundred years of publicity behind it, has become a household word.5 This general and lively
public interest has been nurtured by continual scientific discoveries that confirm or critique evolution.6
Biological evolution has also become an issue of research for leaders in science, and an object of debate in politics,
education, and religion from the time of Darwin’s work. There has been sharp debate, necessary and unnecessary public
discussion about the consequences of Darwin’s idea of common descent, especially as his theory touched upon the origin
of man, at which point the term "evolution" began to take on rhetorical overtones.7
In reaction to contemporary discoveries in science, there has been a demand for new texts in philosophy. The Neo-Scholastic
treatment of the philosophy of nature and its relation to the old Scholastic traditions and principles in view of contemporary
natural science have created new discussions and a need for a new presentation.8