Creation, faith, and knowledge

There are a lot of oddball characters in the Origins debate. One of them is Ken Miller. Although he claims to be Catholic, he's one of the fiercest critics of any kind of creationist thinking. Is it possible to make any sense of this seeming dichotomy? I'll take a brief look at Thomas Aquinas in an effort to understand his opposition.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'The notion of Aquinas that an object of faith cannot at the same time be an object of knowledge, and that an object of knowledge cannot at the same time be an object of faith, can find a great deal of support in Augustine's earliest writings.' [1.]

- I think this is an important point; and one that is still relevant. What did Aquinas mean by this statement? He seems to have meant that if we know something we don't have to accept (by faith) what God says about it. (i.e. in scripture.) The mistake Aquinas makes is to employ abstract (and Greek) ideas of knowledge and faith. His argument or claim is a highly abstract one, and uses a perfectionist idea (ideal) of knowledge. To look at the world and deduce it must have had a creator is knowledge, but it isn't true or complete (comprehensive) knowledge. There is still a lot of room (as it were) for faith here. We cannot know the full truth about creation from a study of the world, and therefore the doctrine of creation still remains one of faith. I believe this example applies to all biblical doctrine.

What Aquinas is doing here (and what unfortunately he did most of the time) is to rely on philosophy (e.g. Aristotle) as his authority, instead of relying on scripture.

I think Aquinas is also wrong in his claim an object of faith cannot be at the same time an object of knowledge. To say because it's a Christian doctrine that God created the world that we can't know anything about it (e.g. can't find evidence for it) is simply fallacious. Again he's using perfectionist concepts; relying on abstractions and ignoring God's word. He seems to be saying that we can't possibly know if scripture is true. When he does this he's relying on Greek definitions of his terms, rather than on what scripture tells him. (His attempt to synthesize Aristotle and scripture leads him to deny both, to be untrue to both.) Contrary to his claims, there is much evidence for all of the Christian truth claims. Faith isn't blind faith, but faith that is grounded in evidence. [2.]

Aquinas is continually mired in error because he deals with abstractions instead of concrete reality and truth. (The more he works away at his system the deeper he sinks.)

Summary;
As far as I can see, Aquinas makes the mistake of conflating human and divine knowledge. He falls into error because he ignores the creator/creature distinction. He seems to assume that it's possible for man and God to know X in the same way. This isn't true of all things, but it is true of some things. This means (for Aquinas) that if man has knowledge of X he has the same knowledge of it that God does; therefore this knowledge cannot be the object of faith. The take home message seems to be that scripture (special revelation) has no value to the enterprise of science; that it's useless at best, but can be pernicious in leading people astray in their thinking.

It appears to me that Ken Miller sees things the way Aquinas did, and that he thinks the origin of life on earth (and the origin of the universe) are things man can determine on his own, without any help at from special revelation. He seems to believe it's possible for man to attain to the same knowledge of Origins as that held by God. [3.]

Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - A Christian Theory of Knowledge p.127
2. I'm aware Aquinas gave proofs for God, but these aren't proofs of the Triune God of the Bible. (As far as I know, he also doesn't try to give a proof for the veracity of Biblical scripture.)
3. I'm giving Miller the benefit of the doubt here. It may be that the 'god' of his theology is only an idea or limiting concept.
4. Update;
I've just reread this post and I see that it makes about as much sense as Ken Miller does.
- Well; I tried.