On Evolution, Transhumanism and Two Kinds of Catholic (with Anthony Zarrella, on quora)

Q

If we understand evolution so well, why don't we just engineer our own evolution? If the ape-man evolution story is true, what is stopping us from accelerating our own evolution into a super human? Does our failure disprove the story?
https://www.quora.com/If-we-understand-evolution-so-well-why-dont-we-just-engineer-our-own-evolution-If-the-ape-man-evolution-story-is-true-what-is-stopping-us-from-accelerating-our-own-evolution-into-a-super-human-Does-our-failure-disprove-the-story/answer/Anthony-Zarrella

Quora Question Details Bot

Aug 8

We have accelerated the evolution of the Russian Red fox from feral to tame. Yet human evolution has not been accelerated. If the ape-man evolution story is true, what is stopping us from accelerating our own evolution into a super human? Or does our failure disprove the story?

Anthony Zarrella

Attorney

Answered 13h ago

“If we understand evolution so well, why don't we just engineer our own evolution? If the ape-man evolution story is true, what is stopping us from accelerating our own evolution into a super human? Does our failure disprove the story?”

We could do it one of three ways—the reason we don’t is that neither of the first two ways is seen as morally acceptable, while the third is both morally questionable and still beyond our full understanding.

See, evolution is basically a long process of trial and error—it’s not that nature somehow “points us at” incrementally superior forms, but rather that random changes occur. The random changes that make us better increase our odds of surviving and breeding, thus preserving those changes, while the changes that make us worse increase our odds of dying before we breed, thus weeding out those changes.

The first way we could “artificially evolve” ourselves is called eugenics—it’s what we do with animals. Select what we perceive to be the superior members of the species, and make sure that they breed together to produce superior offspring, and at the same time prevent any of the inferior members from breeding.

If you suggest this, be prepared to be torn apart by an angry mob—but if you somehow survive, I hear there are some second-hand gas chambers up for sale in Poland, lightly used.

The second way to “accelerate evolution” is simply to increase the rate of those random mutations. It’s like pulling the slot machine lever more times per hour—the more times you pull it, the less time (on average) it will take you to get a jackpot. We could probably do it pretty easily—there are plenty of substances and phenomena that are known “mutagens”.

But for some reason, intelligent people don’t consider that a valid casino strategy… probably because even though an eventual jackpot is statistically inevitable, you’re far more likely to go broke before that happens.

In genetic terms, we call this “cancer” and those “mutagens” are almost universally also called “carcinogens”. And we tend to think it would be unethical to give vast numbers of people cancer in exchange for the hopes that one of them might turn out to be the first X-Man (probably an X-Man with cancer, for that matter…).

Lastly, there’s deliberate genetic manipulation on a cellular level. “GMO humans”, if you will.

The problem is that we don’t know nearly enough about human genetics to do this reliably. If we tweak the genes of a crop of corn and it turns out to produce corn that’s sickly and bitter-tasting, it’s just a failed experiment, but we as a society don’t tend to be too fond of the idea of people becoming “failed experiments.” Also, some philosophies would hold that it’s immoral to “play God” in this way even if we could make it work reliably—but that’s a moot point for now.

So… your options for “human-driven evolution” are…

• Dr. Mengele
• Dr. Saenger
• Dr. Moreau

That, and not any failure of the science of evolution, is why we don’t “evolve ourselves”.

Answered twice

by me, A and B. Each with a thread under it.

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

“That, and not any failure of the science of evolution, is why we don’t ‘evolve ourselves’.”

Right … if intelligently designing men can’t do it, chance (helped with some societal culling, as done for instance by shrinks), chance is of course better off.

Because it is God’s own act of providence, ultimately?

Well, in that sense, why not attribute to God the power to create the kinds (including mankind) right from start?

It seems the man you call Pope as well as his emeritus predecessor (you may recall what event in 2014 I refer to) would consider that as “degrading” God to a “magician with an omnipotent wand” … but why would crediting God with perfectly guiding evolution from amoeba to man be less so?

Anthony Zarrella

1h ago

“Well, in that sense, why not attribute to God the power to create the kinds (including mankind) right from start?”

Of course He has the power.

But Hans, in reasoning even if not in conclusions, you’re sounding like a Protestant here—surely, God also has the power to forgive sins without a priest, for instance, or to save men without baptism.

But clearly, as those examples should make clear to a Catholic like you or I, God often chooses to do through intermediary processes that which He most assuredly could do immediately.

And even the episode of the parting of the Red Sea demonstrates that He often prefers to work through natural processes—He parted the sea with “a strong wind throughout the night” rather than simply commanding the water to move aside or raising the seabed to the level of the shore.

From numerous examples, we see the suggestion of a divine preference for orderly systems rather than ad hoc fiat.

Personally, I’ve always believed that the reason for that is because He wants us to use our gift of reason to understand the workings of Creation—but if it all boils down to a mere irreducible command at each instant, then we could never understand, because to do so, we’d have to analyze the very mind of God Himself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

45m ago

"But Hans, in reasoning even if not in conclusions, you’re sounding like a Protestant here—surely, God also has the power to forgive sins without a priest, for instance, or to save men without baptism."

Yes, and He sometimes does, when baptism was not yet available, and when a priest is not available for confession - whether someone dying now without baptism can go to heaven is moot in relation to what God has told us (John 3).

While God sometimes uses a created instrument, one cannot extrapolate from that that He always must do so for all acts. The Prima Via, the Secunda Via and the Tertia Via all imply to Christians (or others, not necessarily using the term created) there is one natural or created fact which itself has no created mover, no created cause, no created more necessary basis for existence. Or perhaps more than one.

"But clearly, as those examples should make clear to a Catholic like you or I, God often chooses to do through intermediary processes that which He most assuredly could do immediately."

Often, not always. We could perhaps study what God has told us (as in John 3 for baptism).

"And even the episode of the parting of the Red Sea demonstrates that He often prefers to work through natural processes—He parted the sea with “a strong wind throughout the night” rather than simply commanding the water to move aside or raising the seabed to the level of the shore."

And the wind was either itself an act of God, or the air was moved by angels who were obeying God. We do not get an infinite series of intermediare causes : if that were possible, there would be no need for a first cause.

The strong wind, by the way, symbolises "birth by Spirit" both in Genesis after Flood and in Exodus as you mention, as much as Flood and Red Sea symbolise "birth by water".

It was not a necessity for the miracle as such, it was necessary for the prophetic symbolism of the miracle.

"From numerous examples, we see the suggestion of a divine preference for orderly systems rather than ad hoc fiat."

Ordely systems are implying one point (at least) where there is an ad hoc fiat. Or at least whatever else may be irreducible to sth else. But to a Christian, where there is an ad hoc fiat, as irreducible as the form of a sacrament.

It is "infinite series of intermediaries" that are unorderly, since giving no order and strict except accidental equality to all "intermediaries" - and therefore "elude" the need for a God behind it.

"Personally, I’ve always believed that the reason for that is because He wants us to use our gift of reason to understand the workings of Creation—but if it all boils down to a mere irreducible command at each instant, then we could never understand, because to do so, we’d have to analyze the very mind of God Himself."

• No, since the irreducible command would be an intelligible, since finite one dealing with an intelligible and finite thing like creation.
• Then, you are giving a false dichotomy between either ALL irreducible commands or NOT ANY irreducible commands. When St Thomas considered his work "straw" he may have prophecied of the kind of strawman you are doing with it.

Anthony Zarrella

23m ago

You’re utterly misinterpreting me, I fear.

First, I never said that God does always (far less must always) work through intermediate causes. I only said that it is very much “in character” for Him to do so, and so the assertion of mediated action should not be, in itself, at all problematic to our theology.

Second, I never, at any point, suggested an infinite series of intermediaries. Of course the chain always begins from God’s irreducible command.

I suggest only that there is no heresy in suggesting that life evolved, as long as we affirm that God first generated life from unlife, or in suggesting that the universe reached its current form via natural processes, as long as we affirm that God kickstarted the whole thing ex nihilo and tuned its parameters to infallibly accomplish His aims.

It appears to me that you are the one drawing the false dichotomy: that one must either affirm immediate special creation, or else deny that creation is creditable to God at all.

The way I see it, affirming immediate special creation affirms God’s infinite power. But affirming intermediate creation (while retaining, of course, the fiat lux) affirms both His infinite power and His infinite wisdom, since it credits to God the ability to act with such forethought and precision as to not need to accomplish each task directly thenceforth.

Who is the more sublime programmer? The one who can sit at the keyboard and tell the computer how to solve a problem one command at a time? Or the one who can type “Execute” and then watch as the computer does everything he wants, while retaining the option to override the program manually at any time?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

"First, I never said that God does always (far less must always) work through intermediate causes. I only said that it is very much “in character” for Him to do so,"

B U T not on every point. Therefore, you cannot argue "on this point God could have done so, it is in character with him, therefore He did".

There is no potuit, decuit, fecit about accepting Theistic evolution. It is not in character with God to introduce suffering before sin, for instance.

It would indeed be the opposite of the piety we ascribe to God about His incarnation through the Blessed Virgin.

"and so the assertion of mediated action should not be, in itself, at all problematic to our theology."

A purely a prioristic assertion, as in this case, very definitely would.

"Second, I never, at any point, suggested an infinite series of intermediaries. Of course the chain always begins from God’s irreducible command."

Why "the chain" rather than "the chains"? If you accept the plural, why not accept creation story as given?

"I suggest only that there is no heresy in suggesting that life evolved, as long as we affirm that God first generated life from unlife, or in suggesting that the universe reached its current form via natural processes, as long as we affirm that God kickstarted the whole thing ex nihilo and tuned its parameters to infallibly accomplish His aims."

I suggest that you are wrong. There is a potuit, decuit, fecit against evolution and a potuit decuit fecit for universe being created structured as opposed to "self structuring".

As well as there being direct Biblical texts for the opposite to your position.

Which, according to Trent, oblige us to take the Bible as the Church Fathers took it.

"It appears to me that you are the one drawing the false dichotomy: that one must either affirm immediate special creation, or else deny that creation is creditable to God at all."

I do not. Or in a sense I do. One could affirm the kind of creation via billions of years of lifeless, unconscious, suffering intermediates to a god who is as far from the God whom Christ revealed as the Allah of the Quran, if not even further away. I have also not argued this from a dichotomy, from a "tertium non datur", but by arguing on specifics against your proposed tertium quod dari possit.

"The way I see it, affirming immediate special creation affirms God’s infinite power."

AND His wisdom, since the universe He created is functioning without any trial and error.

"But affirming intermediate creation (while retaining, of course, the fiat lux) affirms both His infinite power and His infinite wisdom,"

No, not really. You are mistaking "sarrowcraft" (or syrecreaft, in West Saxon) with wisdom. Reread the dialogue between Saruman and Gandalf.

If you are really too unfamiliar with Tolkien and Anglo-Saxon to understand previous, you are ascribing to God a huge knowhow about planning, but not very good taste. Wisdom is at least as much in taste as in knowhow.

"since it credits to God the ability to act with such forethought and precision as to not need to accomplish each task directly thenceforth."

You know, God doesn't get tired (except with sins). The goal would be very desirable for a human engineer, but not for God.

God is NOT in St Thomas a clockmaker, but a man first making an instrument and then playing it.

That said, there are things in the universe God has confided to angelic movers (like probably the wind over Red Sea, like non-daily movements of celestial bodies, like where a wind blows or a lightning falls down, like how high waves get in a storm on Genesareth), others to human freewill, others to basic forces (like a pen actually falling to the ground).

You might want to note, there is exactly one point on which the philosophy known as occasionalism is condemned : when it ascribes to God the working of a sinful will, rather than to the created agent, an angelic spirit or a human soul endowed with freewill.

That is the one point where either Gueulinx or Malebranche (not sure which) stepped too close to Calvin. And got condemned.

"Who is the more sublime programmer? The one who can sit at the keyboard and tell the computer how to solve a problem one command at a time? Or the one who can type “Execute” and then watch as the computer does everything he wants, while retaining the option to override the program manually at any time?"

An excellent argument if, as probably to Euler, we are supposed to appreciate God as an excellent engineer, as appraised by expert engineers after very much thought.

Less excellent if we, as clearly to St Thomas, we are supposed to appreciate God as the guy moving things around us in an artistic way.

In other words, a good argument, if the God I worshipped where another than it is.

Anthony Zarrella

19m ago

“B U T not on every point. Therefore, you cannot argue "on this point God could have done so, it is in character with him, therefore He did".”

Nor did I so argue.

I argued, “He could have done so, it is in character with Him, therefore it is not ruled out that He did so.”

“Why "the chain" rather than "the chains"? If you accept the plural, why not accept creation story as given?”

I do accept the plural and I do accept the creation story “as given”. I simply disagree with you as to how best to interpret that story which was given.

I’m sure you have no quibble whatsoever with the notion that the Scripture is not strictly literal when it speaks of Moses looking upon God’s “back”, because you know as well as I that God has no physical form (barring the Incarnation, of course).

I simply make the same non-literal assumption about a set of verses which you do assume are strictly literal.

“I suggest that you are wrong. There is a potuit, decuit, fecit against evolution and a potuit decuit fecit for universe being created structured as opposed to "self structuring".”

Who said anything about self-structuring?

Have you ever seen someone grow a crystal out of a solution? If you start it off just right, you can wholly determine the growth and the ultimate structure.

The structure of the universe is absolutely imposed by God. I merely suggest that it was imposed via total control of initial conditions, rather than by continual override of existing conditions.

“As well as there being direct Biblical texts for the opposite to your position.

Which, according to Trent, oblige us to take the Bible as the Church Fathers took it.”

Yes, as the Church Fathers, plural, took it. So, when it comes to a subject that most of them (to the best of our knowledge) were entirely silent on, must we conclude that any opinion expressed by any one or more of them is wholly binding? Seeing as there exist at least some opinions of one or more Fathers that have since been expressly foreclosed, I think we can conclude that this particular Tridentine mandate is loosely analogous to the infallibility of bishops—no one of them is infallible, but all of them speaking in consensus (and in union with the Holy Father) are infallible.

“One could affirm the kind of creation via billions of years of lifeless, unconscious, suffering intermediates”

If they are lifeless and unconscious, then they are not suffering.

And even if the argument is that evolution would require the existence of suffering animals prior to the Fall of Man, my response would be, “How do you know?” Why couldn’t there have been generations upon generations of animals living without suffering until the Fall brought pain into the world?

Perhaps a painless cessation at the end of an appointed time was simply the natural way of things for animals prior to the Fall—perhaps the lamb felt no distress at being eaten by the lion because the lamb understood (to the limits of its animal soul) that its role was as food for the lion.

I’m not saying this definitely was the case—I’m simply illustrating that affirmation of evolution need not mean the existence of gratuitous suffering prior to original sin.

“AND His wisdom, since the universe He created is functioning without any trial and error.”

Who said anything about error? A process that takes many steps to complete does not mean that every step but the last was a failure.

“No, not really. You are mistaking "sarrowcraft" (or syrecreaft, in West Saxon) with wisdom. [. . .] you are ascribing to God a huge knowhow about planning, but not very good taste. Wisdom is at least as much in taste as in knowhow.”

I know the concept to which you refer. But it seems to me that it is only your judgment that a universe of evolution would be in poorer taste than one created in an immediate fashion.

“You know, God doesn't get tired (except with sins). The goal would be very desirable for a human engineer, but not for God.”

Why not? We were just speaking of good taste—could God not prefer elegance despite having the full capacity to execute an infinite number of steps without tiring?

And yes, I’m entirely aware that we could both claim that our own preferred method is “more elegant” in the perspective of the Almighty. But since we have no objective criteria to appeal to, it is therefore no less plausible that God’s judgment more nearly approximates mine than that it does yours.

“That said, there are things in the universe God has confided to angelic movers (like probably the wind over Red Sea, like non-daily movements of celestial bodies, like where a wind blows or a lightning falls down, like how high waves get in a storm on Genesareth), others to human freewill, others to basic forces (like a pen actually falling to the ground).”

And why, then, could the development of species not also be accomplished by the establishment of fixed laws, as you are willing to accept for the phenomenon of gravity?

“You might want to note, there is exactly one point on which the philosophy known as occasionalism is condemned : when it ascribes to God the working of a sinful will, rather than to the created agent, an angelic spirit or a human soul endowed with freewill.”

Yes, I’m aware. And I assuredly do not ascribe the working of a sinful will to God—it is entirely a function of the will which He has delegated unto us or (in different fashion) unto the angels.

“An excellent argument if, as probably to Euler, we are supposed to appreciate God as an excellent engineer, as appraised by expert engineers after very much thought.

Less excellent if we, as clearly to St Thomas, we are supposed to appreciate God as the guy moving things around us in an artistic way.”

You (apparently) see art and technical excellence as mutually exclusive (or at least, at-most-thinly overlapping) concepts.

I do not. I see great artistry in the construction of an elegant and efficient system. When you tap one domino and it sets off a symphony, that is art. The violinist is obviously to be praised for his or her skill… but so is Stradivarius, whose art produced the instrument.

The ancient Greeks called mere skill “techne”—akin to what you refer to as “know-how”. But true excellence in a craft or discipline was “arete”, and it was regarded as the essence of art.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

"I argued, “He could have done so, it is in character with Him, therefore it is not ruled out that He did so.”

If an argument like "it is in character with Him" is only about what cannot be ruled out, it is too weak - unless the point was merely against deriving Genesis account (as usually understood) from strict occasionalism, which is partly a strawman about motive for literalism and partly irrelevant to question, since strict occasionalism would be compatible with a long process too.

"I’m sure you have no quibble whatsoever with the notion that the Scripture is not strictly literal when it speaks of Moses looking upon God’s “back”, because you know as well as I that God has no physical form (barring the Incarnation, of course)."

What do you exactly consider it means?

Here is Challoner on Exodus 33 [23] "See my back parts": The Lord by his angel, usually spoke to Moses in the pillar of the cloud; so that he could not see the glory of him that spoke familiarly with him. In the vision here mentioned he was allowed to see something of him, in an assumed corporeal form: not in the face, the rays of which were too bright for mortal eye to bear, but to view him as it were behind, when his face was turned from him.

It is literally about seeing. It mentions "in an assumed corporeal form" which would make the corporeal parts literally there, though not literally normal parts of God's own nature.

Do you believe the forms of a dove or of tongues of fire were literally visible to observers when the Holy Ghost descended on God the Son after His Baptism, or on His Disciples before their preaching?

I do.

I also believe Adam and Eve usually spoke to God in an assumed corporeal form - before that became too dangerous for them.

However, with "God's back" we have a specific ontological reason to deny "literal anatomy" - but none to deny literality of how the vision is described. With the creation, we have no very good reason to deny literality of days, except one which is even more against old age. Because it is, in St Augustine's argument from Maccabees (which by the way itself denies a long process) an argument for a one moment creation.

"I simply make the same non-literal assumption about a set of verses which you do assume are strictly literal."

Which the whole tradition assumes is strictly literal, except where non-literality is even more against your view point.

"Who said anything about self-structuring? Have you ever seen someone grow a crystal out of a solution? If you start it off just right, you can wholly determine the growth and the ultimate structure."

In that sense, the crystal would be self structuring under the scientist.

Even if he had absolutely determined it.

Also, in that sense determination of scientist and the self structuring of the crystal are only compatible because the matters involved are deterministic.

All the ones relevant for the crystal are.

In other words, you are describing a creation which deterministically leads up to man who, on Catholic views (the one view which is a real objection to total Occasionalism) is indeterministic.

"The structure of the universe is absolutely imposed by God. I merely suggest that it was imposed via total control of initial conditions, rather than by continual override of existing conditions."

You are erroneously analysing either miracle or creativity as overriding of conditions. If there are no conditions or inadequate conditions there, any creative act is adding conditions, not overriding existing ones.

Verse 1 adds the condition of existence of non-God things, without overriding the condition of any previously existing thing.

Verse 2 describes an inadequacy of conditions not a precise condition which was overridden, unless you consider chaos as a condition.

Verses after 2 describe the addition of conditions, in each case without overriding of any previous one.

"Yes, as the Church Fathers, plural, took it. So, when it comes to a subject that most of them (to the best of our knowledge) were entirely silent on, must we conclude that any opinion expressed by any one or more of them is wholly binding?"

The consensus is there if all who expressed themselves on it agree.

There are not all that many, perhaps, Church Fathers, who are arguing against a universe older than 5200 or 5500 at Birth of Christ, but there are NO Church Fathers at all who are saying 40 000 years is a reasonable date in created realities.

The two who most clearly spring to mind are also the ones who were not taking six days literally, namely Origen (who had some first hand experience of Kemetism) and St Augustine (De Civitate).

"Seeing as there exist at least some opinions of one or more Fathers that have since been expressly foreclosed"

I think you mean Church Fathers disagreeing with other Church Fathers (or with Liturgy, functioning as Church Father Anon.) St Augustine disagreed with Immaculate Conception, and the issue was rather bleak for this dogma in parts of the West up to Duns Scotus, but you have before St Augustine the Coptic and Greek endings of Sub Tuum Praesidium and you have Church Fathers exposing fleece of Gideon in this sense.

If Young Earth Creationism was only upheld by some Church Fathers contrasting with others (also speaking of same texts), you would have a case.

"I think we can conclude that this particular Tridentine mandate is loosely analogous to the infallibility of bishops—no one of them is infallible, but all of them speaking in consensus (and in union with the Holy Father) are infallible."

And for exactly how many generations has this meant strictly Young Earth Creationist as well as Geocentric bishops?

You will find a plenty who have not expressed those positions in words on record, but for many centuries not a single one who could be reasonably supposed to have been either Evolutionist or Heliocentric or even in doubt on the issue.

And if you were to say we now have such a position, infallibility would contradict infallibility. Unless "all together" means "all together up to the end of time" in which the criterium becomes useless up to Doomsday.

"If they are lifeless and unconscious, then they are not suffering."

I was enumerating diverse things. Pre-Earth and Hadean, lifeless.

Monocellular bacteria and similar, presumably unconscious.

Apemen preceding man on the evolutionist view, definitely suffering. You have found arthritis, caries, and a few more other unpleasant conditions, as well as clear indications of cannibalism. The tooth enamel of some Belgian Neanderthals has been analysed, and they ate both woolly rhino - and men. To me that clinches they were clear candidates for pre-Flood men at great degrees of depravation. As a prequel to Adam, before Adam had even sinned? If you can take that, you can throw out Bible, Church Fathers and baptismal liturgy, as well as the historic reason why we have Christmas trees.

"And even if the argument is that evolution would require the existence of suffering animals prior to the Fall of Man, my response would be, “How do you know?” Why couldn’t there have been generations upon generations of animals living without suffering until the Fall brought pain into the world?"

Because on your view the Neanderthals of Belgium would have been here c. 40 000 years ago, which clearly excedes the genealogies from Adam and on.

Because on your view Dinosaurs suffering cancer and cannibalism lived millions of years ago, and calling that "not suffering" would involve exonerating Dali from cruelty to animals in the Andalusian Dog. Only sense in which this is "not suffering" is the sense of Descartes by which animals are machines per se incapable of suffering or conscience of any even sensual kind : a kind of robots.

If a dino was more than a robot, it suffered. It makes more sense it suffered after Adam sinned than millions of years before.

"Perhaps a painless cessation at the end of an appointed time was simply the natural way of things for animals prior to the Fall—perhaps the lamb felt no distress at being eaten by the lion because the lamb understood (to the limits of its animal soul) that its role was as food for the lion."

That is indeed an option for carnivorousness in the time of Adam's as yet righteousness, but it is not an option for evolutionary pre-human carnivorousness. The fossil record is much clearer on HOW certain living things died than on WHEN they lived.

"I’m not saying this definitely was the case—I’m simply illustrating that affirmation of evolution need not mean the existence of gratuitous suffering prior to original sin."

Not if you divorce the affirmation of evolution from its arguments, and if you do that, you are back at the problem that you are affirming evolution as a preferred option on how God would have chosen, with no non-theological arguments at all.

Which you previously denied to doing.

"Who said anything about error? A process that takes many steps to complete does not mean that every step but the last was a failure."

Whoah ... get back to what I was saying in context. I was not saying that an old age universe would automatically be one functioning on trial and error, but that a young universe which at present is not so functioning IS affirming God's wisdom.

"But it seems to me that it is only your judgment that a universe of evolution would be in poorer taste than one created in an immediate fashion."

Three arguments for those who still have Catholic taste:

• Youngness is a very immediate show of God being in control of creation as SUCH.
• It involves no suffering before sin.
• And it involves no deception about even prima facie appearance of either Bible or its reception among Church Fathers.

"We were just speaking of good taste—could God not prefer elegance despite having the full capacity to execute an infinite number of steps without tiring?"

Are you arguing that putting on a grammophone is more elegant than taking a violin to your chin?

The thing is, on my view, the workings of nature are really enjoyable to God, not just a background to our story which He sets on auto-pilot so as to get on with us.

If He created it, that view makes sense.

"But since we have no objective criteria to appeal to"

I just gave objective criteria.

St Thomas is also a better judge in the eyes of the Church than Paley.

"And why, then, could the development of species not also be accomplished by the establishment of fixed laws, as you are willing to accept for the phenomenon of gravity?"

There is no fixed law accounting for that after the Flood a full at least 16 species of hedgehogs have developed from a single couple on the Ark. There are a series of events, which according to Psalm 103 would have to have been acts of God rather than "survival of the fittest" by any automatism.

But moreoever, there is also no fixed law of anywhere or anything suggesting men came from fish.

"And I assuredly do not ascribe the working of a sinful will to God—it is entirely a function of the will which He has delegated unto us or (in different fashion) unto the angels."

Agreed.

"You (apparently) see art and technical excellence as mutually exclusive (or at least, at-most-thinly overlapping) concepts."

No. I see technical excellence as fulfilled in violin playing (after building the instrument oneself) as excluding the other technical excellence of a grammophone playing without the DJ interfering.

In other words I see one particular feat, socially highly desirable to engineers as incompatible with being same feat as that made by an artist.

"When you tap one domino and it sets off a symphony, that is art."

The art of the grammophone.

"The violinist is obviously to be praised for his or her skill… but so is Stradivarius, whose art produced the instrument."

Indeed. The creationist position is, God took six days to be Stradivarius and has since then been playing violin.

"But true excellence in a craft or discipline was “arete”, and it was regarded as the essence of art."

Yes, and I think there is more to that in playing a violin than in producing an excellent grammophone.