> Hence Augustine could talk in a way that later seemed quite
evolutionary, and Aquinas could contend that one could not
prove that the universe was not eternal. Creation was not a
change or a cause like any other, and therefore there were no
"marks" on the universe that showed it was created.
Augustine and Aquinas (and their Muslim and Judaic
interlocutors, e.g., Ibn Sina and Maimonides) would
agree that "evolution doesn't need shit from god."
In the case of Aquinas, God is the author and man (always man) is the writing instrument... God causes the effect, but the quill is responsible (I love that argument) (not to mention that idea that heaven is the place were the chosen celebrate each and every torture of the damned) (angels rejoice because the damned are getting what they deserve). And Augustine, you have to admire his Confessions and his slippery privation of evil argument (evil is merely the privation of good... purely good things exist, whereas purely evil things do not). Come to think of it, yeah, they both kind of click with evolution - only insofar as God is first cause (which I'm sure both would go along with) (after the Fall, everything is mechanics anyway). F. Jameson has an interesting essay, On the Sexual Production of Western Subjectivity; or, Saint Augustine as a Social Democrat in Salecl and Zizek, eds., Gaze and Voice as Love Objects.
ken