Metaphysics and Evolution: A Response to Dennis F. Polis

Studia Gilsoniana 10 (1):45–69 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper is a response to Dennis F. Polis’s article “The Compatibility of Evolution and Classical Metaphysics” (2020), which offered a critique of the author’s article “Classical Metaphysics and Theistic Evolution: Why Are They Incompatible?” (2019). In order to justify and maintain his objections to the compatibility of classical metaphysics and theistic evolution, the author concentrates on three problems: (1) the definition of evolution, (2) the Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of substance, and (3) the clarification of why Dr. Polis’s responses to his arguments fail.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

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

On Mere Theistic Evolution.Thomas H. McCall - 2020 - Philosophia Christi 22 (1):43-54.
Different Kinds of Evolution.J. Arthur Thomson - 1926 - Philosophy 1 (1):50-54.
Soldiers, citizens and the evolution of the early Greek polis.Kurt A. Raaflaub - 1997 - In Lynette G. Mitchell & P. J. Rhodes (eds.), The development of the polis in archaic Greece. New York: Routledge. pp. 24--38.
Science and metaphysics in Victorian Britain.James Richard Moore (ed.) - 1981 - Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Aristotle and the Metaphysics of Evolution.Fran O’Rourke - 2004 - Review of Metaphysics 58 (1):3-59.
Evolution: Mind or Randomness?Dennis F. Polis - 2010 - Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 22 (1-2):32-66.
Mere Theistic Evolution.Michael J. Murray & John Ross Churchill - 2020 - Philosophia Christi 22 (1):7-41.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-04-15

Downloads
5 (#1,463,568)

6 months
3 (#880,460)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Metaphysics and Evolution: Response to Critics.Dennis F. Polis - 2021 - Studia Gilsoniana 10 (4):847–891.

Add more citations