Defending Adam After Darwin

American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 92 (2):337-352 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,931

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Defending Adam After Darwin.Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco - 2018 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 92 (2):337-352.
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.
Back to Darwin. [REVIEW]Adam C. Scarfe - 2008 - Process Studies 37 (2):195-200.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-03-24

Downloads
37 (#443,962)

6 months
6 (#588,245)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references