The Arches and the Spandrels

A Response to Kenneth W. Kemp

Abstract

In his book „The Edge of Evolution”, Michael Behe draws on a metaphor of arches and spandrels. The arches are what holds a cathedral together and spandrels are the “fillings” that may carry beautiful ornaments, however, they have no say in whether a building stands or collapses (Behe 2007, 171-203). Behe explains that it is similar with life – some minor and non-substantial elements of living organisms can be explained by neo-Darwinism, but the complex biochemical systems, which are essential for survivability of any living organism – cannot. Thus neo-Darwinism may explain the spandrels, but not the arches of life. I think Behe’s metaphor can be taken more broadly and applied to the context of our debate. Here I will understand it as a mental attitude by which one focuses on the irrelevant spandrels at the same time pretending to be unable to grasp the arch (“core” or “essence”) of a problem. In his response Mr. Kemp reduces my critique to four points (P1-P4) which he claims we disagree on and shows why – on his view – I am mistaken. Here I will order my response according to his four points.

References

Acta et decreta Concilii Provinciae Coloniensis. 1862. Coloniae.

Augustine. 2002. “De Genesi ad Litteram.” In On Genesis, edited by John E. Rotelle, translated by Edmund Hill, 168–506. Vol. 13 of The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. New York: New City Press.

Ayala, Francisco J., et al. 1994. “Molecular Genetics of Speciation and Human Origins.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91: 6787–94. https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.91.15.6787. Accessed January 9, 2025.

Behe, Michael. 2007. The Edge of Evolution. New York: Free Press.

Chaberek, Michał. 2021. Knowledge and Evolution. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.

———. 2024. “Original Sin, Monogenesis, and Human Origins: A Response to Kenneth W. Kemp.” Forum Philosophicum 29 (1): 153–65. https://doi.org/10.35765/forphil.2024.2901.08.

Denzinger, Heinrich, and Adolf Schönmetzer, eds. 1967. Enchiridion Symbolorum Definitionum et Declarationum. 34th ed. Freiburg: Herder.

Enchiridion Biblicum. Documenta Ecclesiastica Sacram Scripturam Spectantia. 1927. Auctoritate Pontificiae Comissionis de Re Biblica edita. Romae: Apud Librariam Vaticanam.

Hössjer, Ola, and Ann Gauger, C Reeves. 2016. “Genetic modeling of human history part 1: comparison of common descent and unique origin approaches.” BIO-Complexity (3): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5048/BIO-C.2016.3.

Hössjer, Ola, and Ann Gauger, C Reeves. 2016. “Genetic modeling of human history part 2: A unique origin algorithm.” BIO-Complexity (4): 1-36. https://doi.org/10.5048/BIO-C.2016.4.

Hössjer, Ola, and Ann Gauger. 2019. “A Single-Couple Human Origin Is Possible.” BIO-Complexity 2019 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5048/BIO-C.2019.1.

Kemp, Kenneth W. 2011. “Science, Theology, and Monogenesis.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 85 (2): 217–36. https://doi.org/10.5840/acpq201185213.

———. 2024. “Monogenism: A Reply to Fr. Chaberek.” Forum Philosophicum 29 (2): 392–99. https://doi.org/10.35765/forphil.2024.2902.09.

Leo XIII. 1879. “Arcanum divinaes apientiae.” Acta Sanctae Sedis 12. Reprint, 1968.

Santillana, Giorgio De. 1955. The Crime of Galileo. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sungenis, Robert A., and Robert J. Bennett. 2007. Galileo Was Wrong: The Scientific, Scriptural, Ecclesiastical and Patristic Evidence for Geocentrism. Vol. 1, The Scientific Evidence. State Line, PA: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing.

The Council of Trent. “Session V, The Decree on Original Sin.” Papal Encyclicals Online. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/fifth-session.htm.

Published
2025-06-25
How to Cite
Chaberek, M. (2025). The Arches and the Spandrels: A Response to Kenneth W. Kemp. Forum Philosophicum, 30(1), 273–87. https://doi.org/10.35765/forphil.2025.3001.13