St. Thomas Aquinas contends that the natural law is the rational creature’sparticipation in the eternal law. Based on Romans 2:14–15, Aquinas indicates thatGentiles, who do not possess the written Scripture, still instinctively perceive natu-ral moral law and are able to tell good from evil and right from wrong. The mostbasic precepts of the natural law are the preservation of life, procreation, knowl-edge and sociability. Human beings are able to discern other precepts and makemoral judgments based on these basic precepts of the natural law. However, ob-jections to natural law theory have been raised by philosophers and theologians. G.E. Moore argues that it is a naturalistic fallacy to derive what ought to be fromwhat is. William Frankena defends natural law theory, arguing that this so-callednaturalistic fallacy is neither fallacious nor does it contain logical errors. John Finnisseeks to maintain natural law theory in a different way, arguing that natural lawtheory does not derive what ought to be from what is. Karl Barth was skeptical ofnatural law theory. He insisted that it is beyond the rational capacity of post-fallhuman beings to know God and perceive his will, and that sinful human beings donot have the ability to perceive the natural law. Barth was also critical of naturallaw theory for overemphasizing doctrines of creation and de-emphasizes Christologyand doctrines of redemption. The Catholic theologian, Jean Porter, suggests thatAquinas’ natural law is biblically grounded. She also tries to mitigate the gap be-tween the doctrine of creation and Christology.