Looking at Mariusz Tabaczek’s Book (2024) “Theistic Evolution” (Part 6 of 21)
0693 Yes, there is a twist hidden within sections 1.4 and 1.5.
The twist becomes evident when considering the fact that adaptation2b is not the same as phenotype2b, and yet, adaptation2H and phenotype2V constitute a single actuality2, which may be labeled “individual”, “species” or “genus”.
Here is a picture of the intersection.
0694 What does this imply?
The terms, “individual”, “species” and “genus” seem reasonable. Yet, there are two evolutionary sciences, natural history and genetics, that account for a single actuality. Plus, neither one of the sciences “owns” the single actuality.
Each face of a coin cannot “own” the coin. Plus, the value of the coin lies in its single actuality, not in either face.
0695 Tabaczek misses this intersection because he uses one formulation of a hylomorphe, primary mattter [ ] substantial form, while not continuing to develop the hylomorphe that he relies upon in discussing the issue of emergence, dispositions [ ] powers.
No, this is not a failure. This is the nature of philosophy. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas start great philosophical traditions. But, that does not guarantee that a scientist (A) is able to or willing to respond to an image that a philosopher(B) casts into the mirror of science (C). The positivist intellect may be dead, but its ghost is very much alive (and whispering in the ear of scienceagent (A)).
0695 Now, let me step back.
The previous discussion (points 0667-0695) constitutes the third application of the Greimas square for Tabaczek’s mirror.
0696 Now, I introduce the fourth application.
The geneticist (A1) will always cast an image where the noumenon looks like a phenotype2V upon theologymirror (D2).
The evolutionary biologist (A1) will always cast an image where the noumenon looks like an adaptation2H upon theologymirror (D2).
The metaphysician (B3) will always transform the respective phenomena (D2) into both matter [substance] form and disposition [property] power, in order to holistically respond to the image in the mirror of theology (D2). Why? The intersection is metaphysical.
0697 The coin has two faces. The two faces do not “have” the coin.
Therefore, the resulting theological construction (B3) will always reveal that the original geneticist (A1) or natural historian (A1) does not adequately account for the adaptation2H or the phenotype2V, respectively.
Even though both geneticists and evolutionary biologists (A1) address the same actuality, their arguments will always be dissatisfying or disjointed, because the single actuality can only be understood holistically, that is, metaphysically (B3).
Here is a picture of the fourth application of the Greimas square for Tabaczek’s mirror.