To be anti-evolution in biology is the equivalent of being a flat-earther in geophysics; it involves deliberately blinding yourself to a vast weight of evidence from fossils and from biochemistry. There are transitional forms, and it's dishonest to deny it - what is Archaeopteryx and the other recently disovered fossil birds? What are the early hominids?
I doubt Thomas Aquinas would think much of modern 'creationism'.
It's as much of a "transitional form" between reptiles and birds as the bat is a transitional form between mammals and birds. Archaeopteryx is a fully formed and integrated creature. In fact, seven or more fossils of Archeopteryx have been found.
If microevolution was true then the fossil record should be chock full of "transitional forms." Instead, every creature appears fully formed and integrated, and disappears in the same way. That is the rule and the real-world evidence, artists' renditions notwithstanding.
I doubt Thomas Aquinas would think much of modern 'creationism'.
He probably wouldn't. And he would be less impressed with the hand-waving and smokescreens of the proponents of evolution. But he would be impressed with the ID movement.
Go to http://www.arn.org and read anything. There's something going on that you don't know about.
If we are nothing but the product of physical and chemical forces randomly mutating, then your value judgments concerning Aquinasfan are meaningless and self-refuting.
Cordially,