David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):493-517 (1996)
A remarkable but little studied aspect of current evolutionary theory is the use by many biologists and philosophers of theological arguments for evolution. These can be classed under two heads: imperfection arguments, in which some organic design is held to be inconsistent with God's perfection and wisdom, and homology arguments, in which some pattern of similarity is held to be inconsistent with God's freedom as an artificer. Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
|Keywords||natural theology imperfection suboptimality homology methodological naturalism creationism panda's thumb pentadactyl limb Stephen Jay Gould Darwin's theology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke & Johan Braeckman (2010). How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 15 (3):227-244.
Maarten Boudry & Bert Leuridan (2011). Where the Design Argument Goes Wrong: Auxiliary Assumptions and Unification. Philosophy of Science 78 (4):558-578.
Stephen Dilley (2013). Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Theology? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4):774-786.
Similar books and articles
David J. Buller (1997). Individualism and Evolutionary Psychology (Or: In Defense of "Narrow" Functions). Philosophy of Science 64 (1):74-95.
Franz M. Wuketits (1986). Evolution as a Cognition Process: Towards an Evolutionary Epistemology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 1 (2):191-206.
Oliver Putz (2005). Evolutionary Biology in the Theology of Karl Rahner. Philosophy and Theology 17 (1/2):85-105.
James Dominic Rooney (2009). Reconsidering the Place of Teleological Arguments for the Existence of God in the Light of the ID/Evolution Controversy. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:227 - 240.
Ted Peters (2010). Constructing a Theology of Evolution: Building on John Haught. Zygon 45 (4):921-937.
Guy Kahane (2011). Evolutionary Debunking Arguments. Noûs 45 (1):103-125.
Stow Persons (1968). Evolutionary Thought in America. [Hamden, Conn.]Archon Books.
Trevor Hussey (1999). Evolutionary Change and Epistemology. Biology and Philosophy 14 (4):561-584.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #172,476 of 1,102,742 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #120,386 of 1,102,742 )
How can I increase my downloads?