If I recall my reading of Aquinas (and that was quite a while ago) he equated the existence of a rational universe (based on the Aristotlian view) with a rational Creator (God) to logically (through deductive reasoning) prove the existance of God. It was not that inanimate objects were rational but they followed rational rules. Though Aquinas’ language is that of the middle ages I see and can recall nothing in his argument that violates Newtonian Physics (or Einstein’s) nor violates Darwin’s theory of evolution. In fact it is my strong opinion Aquinas’ view is reinforced by the later scientific discoveries showing the Universe functions under rational laws that can be understood and used to predict future events (such as eclipses, etc.). Since the prevailing theory on the origins of the Universe argues for a point of origin (the Big Bang Theory) from which the Universe was begat (to borrow a Biblical term) it would seem logical to assume whatever begat the Universe (by definition the Creator) was rational. And since God is a synonym for the Creator, God can be assumed to have been Rational. If we accept such an argument (based on Aquinas) all we have is God creating a Rational Universe operating under rational laws. Of course that would lead to the question of “Since God created a rational Universe operating under rational laws why would it be necessary for God to have to “tinker” with “his” (or her or its) handywork as the “intelligent design” advocates claim rather than letting the rational laws of physics and evolution play out?” It is not necessary to reject the deductive reasoning of Aquinas to accept Evolution nor is it necessary to create strawmen based on a very narrow and biased reading of Aquinas (Thomas Aquinas was, to put it bluntly, one of the greatest intellects of the Middle Ages, he was not a twit, did not think rocks had intellect, and to use that as a strawman is pathetically weak and insulting and does not do justice to Medaeval Thought nor today’s academic enviornment.).