Defending Adam After Darwin

Abstract
For many contemporary Christian theologians, evolutionary biology rules out any account of an Adam and Eve that would explain the origin of our species. In response, I propose that they have uncritically embraced the anti-essentialist presuppositions of the dominant scientific narrative for the origins of our kind. In fact, there are sound and robust reasons to think that human beings share an intrinsic essence that puts them into a natural kind. I also propose that our natural kind can be defined by our developmental capacity for language, which I suggest is needed for abstract thinking. Thus, it is still reasonable to trace the origins of our natural kind to an original individual. He would have been the first anatomically modern human to have evolved this capacity for hierarchical and non-linear language that allowed him to construct an abstract internal map of the world.
Keywords Catholic Tradition  Contemporary Philosophy  History of Philosophy  Philosophy and Religion
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 1051-3558
DOI 10.5840/acpq201831145
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,941
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Defending Adam After Darwin in Advance.Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco - forthcoming - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.
Darwin Was a Teleologist.James G. Lennox - 1993 - Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):409-421.
Modus Darwin Reconsidered.Casey Helgeson - 2018 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69 (1):193-213.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-03-24

Total downloads
11 ( #498,786 of 2,293,874 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #138,959 of 2,293,874 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature