In this same article titled ‘Whether This Doctrine [Sacred Theology] Is the Same as Wisdom’, the second objection runs thus:
‘Further, it is a part of wisdom to prove the principles of other sciences. Hence it is called the chief of sciences, as is clear in Ethic. vi. But this doctrine does not prove the principles of other sciences. Therefore it is not the same as wisdom.’
To which St Thomas replies:
‘The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: “Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).’
Next in order after the science of Sacred Theology comes the sciences of philosophy the first of which is ‘first philosophy’ or metaphysics. After this comes mathematics and the natural sciences.
So, I believe a Thomist especially one who attempts to reconcile Thomism with macroevolutionary theory obviously needs to try and understand why St Thomas teaches what he in fact does teach. For example, St Thomas teaches that God himself immediately created and formed the bodies of Adam and Eve. From the questions and articles in the ST concerning this, his reply begins with quotations from scripture such as ‘God created man out of the earth’ (Sirach 17:1) and ‘God made man of the slime/clay of the earth’ (Gen. 2:7). St Thomas understands this literally. In the body of the replies, he uses philosophical arguments to support the scripture.
In fact, in general, throughout the ST and his other works, he generally uses philosophical and metaphysical arguments to back up his thesis or scripture and the catholic faith. As a theologian, a man of the catholic faith, and as I mentioned above concerning the science or truth of sacred theology as the queen of the sciences founded as it is upon God’s revealed word, St Thomas was surely not going to contradict Holy Scripture. At least two problems confront a Thomist macroevolutionary or cosmic theorist, namely, (1) the interpretation of Holy Scripture and (2) St Thomas’ philosophy and metaphysics and if his philosophical metaphysics is really compatible with biological or cosmic macroevolutionary theory and it what sense it may or probably have to be adjusted to fit the theory.