The philosophical attempt to explain the scientific status of Darwinism has been given significant attention in the methodology of science. Darwinism, unlike the physical theories which act as the model of what is scientific, does not meet the usual mathematical-experimental requirements and, due to this exceptional character, raises the philosophical question of how we might either reformulate the what it means for theories to be scientific or deny the scientific status of Darwinism. The aim of this paper is review some of discussions of this question in the philosophy of science, to find an acceptable and defensible position in the spectrum of opinion, and to assess the future perspective for this evolutionary process of philosophical reflection. This paper endeavours to show, on the basis of a critique of M. Ruse, that Darwin’s theory, the core of Darwinism, is fully axiomisable and that, as such, it fits the traditional hypothetico-deductive model of scientific theories. At the same time, however, we show the reason why it has a scientific character that is exceptional and specific – we point here to the much more complex and multi-levelled theoretical synthesis of Darwinism, which is unparalleled in contemporary natural science. It is for this reason that it difficult to find methodological standards for the estimation of the scientificality of Darwinism in philosophico-methodological reflection.
The article by Apolinary Garlicki, a history and geography teacher from Przemyśl, and later a member of parliament during the Second Polish Republic, was published in installments right before the outbreak of the First World War in the local periodical “Ziemia Przemyska”. A lecture which was an incentive to write that article had been delivered by Garlicki on 17 May 1914 at the city hall in Przemyśl during the meeting of the Adam Mickiewicz Folk University. The essay is written from the point of view of a historiosopher. One can see here a reflection on the books that Garlicki read. They were not only the works by Adam Smith, from which he started his discussion, but also books by the theoreticians of progressive education, a trend in pedagogy at the turn of the 20th century, focusing largely on the significance of the environment in the practical upbringing of children and youth. The author leads the reader through various historical periods and makes references to many contemporary events – the social policy of the USA, the increasing significance of Japan, the Balkan wars etc. Garlicki discusses with ease not only the meanders of history but also the latest issues in sociology, psychology, economy, political science, making no attempts to hide his fascination with Darwinism and presenting its results in the growing nationalism and competition between nations in the early 20th century. The lecture helped Garlicki to write two books on the then fashionable theme of eugenics: Co to jest eugenika? [What is eugenics?] (1917) and Zagadnienia biologiczne-społeczne [Biological and social issues] (1924).
3
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
St. George Jackson Mivart (1827–1900) dedicated a great deal of his life to the struggle to prove that the theory of evolution and the Catholic faith are not mutually exclusive. Especially important is his idea that God created the human soul of the first person directly, but infused it into the human body created through secondary causes (i.e. evolution). The aim of this article is to demonstrate how this thesis is connected to the whole of Mivart’s ontology.
4
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The aim of this paper is to examine the life and work of the Austrian priest, Jesuit and biologist Erich Wasmann (1859–1931) and specifically his contribution to a deeper understanding of the theory of evolution and its reception by Catholic theology. The biography of the person of Erich Wasmann is presented first, followed by his work, biological research, concept of evolution, the possibility of its application to man, its philosophical and sociological consequences and the controversies between Erich Wasmann and Ernst Haeckel, a protagonist of monism and materialism, are described. In conclusion it is argued that Wasmann was a resolute supporter of biological evolution, and also open to the possibility of its extension to man, as far as it concerns the evolution of the human body, if this would be confirmed by paleontological findings. He emphasized, however, the essential differences between man and animals in the mental and spiritual region that could not be spanned by evolution, but which would require a certain ontological leap, as it has been recognised by contemporary theological anthropology.
5
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
In this paper the author presents publications which are significant for revealing the attitudes of Czech Catholic theologians to the challenges of the natural sciences in the period 1850–1950, published in the periodicals Časopis Národního musea and Museum bohoslovců českomoravských. He subsequently evaluates in detail the so-called Braun thesis introduced by an important exponent of evolutional thinking in Bohemia of the second half of the 19th century J. L. Čelakovský and points out to the risk of an inclination to pantheism connected with it. Finally, the not‑contradictoriness between the definition of man as “an animal capable of sin” on the one hand and the Christological principle of Jesus’ impossibility to sin on the other is clarified. Through all these steps the previously edited monograph: C. V. Pospíšil, Zápolení o naději a lidskou důstojnost. Česká katolická teologie 1850‑1950 a výzvy přírodních věd v širším světovém kontextu, Olomouc: University of Olomouc Press, 2014, is renewed. The results of further research do not result in any changes to the conclusions reached by the author in the above mentioned book, nevertheless the collection of found publications is enriched and certain appraisals of thought are specificied in further detail.
6
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
This paper is part of a larger scholar project focused on Catholic theologians and scientists between 1871 and 1910 who accepted the evolutionary origin of the human body in accordance with so-called Mivart’s theory, or rejected it. The author presents the life and work of an important German Biblical scholar Johann Baptist Göttsberger (1868–1958), focusing mainly on his 1910 book Adam und Eva. Göttsberger describes the contemporary scene very well providing information about an entire range of authors who showed a great openness to the evolutionary origin of man. Surprisingly we encounter here for the first time authors who hypothesised the possibility of also applying the evolutionary model to creation – the origin of the human spirit, what is also true in some sense about Göttsberger himself. It turns out that at least in German Catholic theology, the year 1910 is a turning point, because after this date authors showing an openness to the evolutionary theory of the origin of man cannot be considered pioneers. These authors formed a numerous and still growing group.
Myślę, że w dzisiejszych czasach większość ludzi wykształconych uważa się za darwinistów. Jeśli tak jest w istocie, dzieje się to za sprawą niedostatecznej wiedzy na temat darwinizmu i tego, o czym on mówi. Mówi on bowiem o wielu rzeczach, które zwłaszcza w odniesieniu do naszego gatunku są w sposób zbyt oczywisty fałszywe, aby ktoś wykształcony, a przynajmniej posiadający zdolność krytycznego myślenia, mógł w nie uwierzyć. Obecnie większość ludzi wykształconych to, oczywiście, darwiniści w tym sensie, że wierzą oni, iż nasz gatunek powstał wskutek ewolucji zwierząt, a nie został powołany do życia aktem boskiej woli. Ale sama akceptacja tego przekonania to za mało, żeby uznać kogoś naprawdę za darwinistę. Z historii biologii wiemy, że wielu przyjmowało ten pogląd na długo przed narodzinami Darwina i powstaniem samego darwinizmu. Aby uznać kogoś za zwolennika danej szkoły myślenia, konieczna jest z jego strony wiara we wszystkie, bądź prawie wszystkie, twierdzenia właściwe dla tejże szkoły i wyznawane przez wszystkich lub przynajmniej najskrajniejszych jej zwolenników. W każdej dużej szkole myślenia znajdzie się mniejszość, przywiązująca szczególną wagę do najbardziej charakterystycznych dla niej twierdzeń. Ludzi z tego kręgu nazywa się „purystami” bądź „ultrasami”. Dla uczynienia kogoś darwinistą konieczna i wystarczająca jest wiara we wszystkie, bądź prawie wszystkie, twierdzenia właściwe darwinistom i przez nich, a przynajmniej przez ultradarwinistów, uznawane. Podaję dziesięć twierdzeń, które są przekonaniami darwinowskimi w sensie, jaki przed chwilą wyszczególniłem. Każde z nich jest bez wątpienia fałszywe: albo bezpośrednio fałszywe, jeśli mówi o naszym gatunku, albo jeśli ma ogólny charakter, jest wyraźnie fałszywe w odniesieniu do naszego gatunku.
EN
Most educated people nowadays, I believe, think of themselves as Darwinians. If they do, however, it can only be from ignorance: from not knowing enough about what Darwinism says. For Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person; or at least by an educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought on the subject of Darwinism. Of course most educated people now are Darwinians, in the sense that they believe our species to have originated, not in a creative act of the Divine Will, but by evolution from other animals. But believing that proposition is not enough to make someone a Darwinian. It had been believed, as may be learnt from any history of biology, by very many people long before Darwinism, or Darwin, was born. What is needed to make someone an adherent of a certain school of thought is belief in all or most of the propositions which are peculiar to that school, and are believed either by all of its adherents, or at least by the more thoroughgoing ones. In any large school of thought, there is always a minority who adhere more exclusively than most to the characteristic beliefs of the school: they are the "purists" or "ultras" of that school. What is needed and sufficient, then, to make a person a Darwinian, is belief in all or most of the propositions which are peculiar to Darwinians, and believed either by all of them, or at least by ultra-Darwinians. I give ten propositions which are all Darwinian beliefs in the sense just specified. Each of them is obviously false: either a direct falsity about our species or, where the proposition is a general one, obviously false in the case of our species, at least.
Neodarwinowska genetyka populacyjna, interpretująca ewolucję w kategoriach dziedziczności, modyfikacji i selekcji informacji zainspirowała szereg prób selekcjonistycznego ujęcia zmiany socjokulturowej. Autor artykułu argumentuje, iż źródłem ich niepowodzeń są uproszczenia tkwiące już w ujęciu przez genetykę populacyjną genu w wysoce abstrakcyjny, oderwany od kontekstu sposób. Kluczem do przezwyciężenia tej słabości jest uwzględnienie drugiego poziomu izomorfizmów zachodzących właśnie na poziomie kontekstu (genotypu, organizmu i gatunku). Pozwala to precyzyjnie określić ewolucyjną rolę kulturowej mutacji, rekombinacji i dryfu, co autor demonstruje na przykładzie religii. Z tej perspektywy organizacje eklezjastyczne stanowią izomorficzny z gatunkiem instrument ochrony zharmonizowanych systemów idei religijnych. Posiadają też jednak izomorficzne z organizmami właściwości umożliwiające znaczną redukcję wpływu mutacji, transdukcji i dryfu na system religijny.
EN
The Neo-Darwinian population genetics, interpreting the evolution in terms of heredity, modification and selection of information, inspired a number of attempts to formulate the sociocultural change in selectionist way. The author argues that the key source of their failures, is oversimplification in highly abstract and context-ignoring concept of a gene used by population genetics. To overcome this weakness one should include a second level isomorphisms, that occurs at the level of context (genotype, organism and species). This enables to define more precisely the role of mutation, recombination and drift in cultural evolution, as the author demonstrates an example of religion. From this perspective, ecclesiastical organizations are tools for the protection of a harmonized systems of religious ideas, which are isomorphic to the species. They have also, however, properties isomorphic to organisms that enable a significant reduction of the impact of mutations, transductions and drift on religious system.
9
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
This paper is part of an academic project focused on Catholic theologians and scholars who either adopted the origin of the human body according to Mivart’s thesis in 1871–1910 or declined it. The author presents the forgotten Austrian apologist K. Hasert (1851–1923) and reconstructs elementary data about his biography on the basis of research into certain sources. The analysis of two monographs by the author demonstrates the openness to Mivart’s thesis with, however, certain reservations. It is rare evidence of the fact that the Catholic world was not divided predominantly between extreme advocates and opponents of Mivart’s thesis. It is probable that many were attracted by Mivart’s thesis, though they were also aware of its problems and waited for more solid data from contemporary palaeography.
10
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
This study presents the life and work of the French Catholic theologian M. D. Leroy (1828–1905) regarding the issue of the evolutionary origin of humans. His book, published in 1891, met with harsh reactions from the side of transformism opponents, after which it was followed by the process of the Sacred Congregation of the Index. The work was condemned and the author was reprimanded. Leroy formally submitted himself to the Congregation’s decision. The implicit dualism was the basic problem of the so-called Mivart thesis. Leroy claims that the human body can be called human, if the body is united with its essential form only, ergo its immortal soul. By means of the evolution, the creator could prepare a certain pre-human species, the substrate of the creation of a human body by the infusion of the immortal soul. The study by Leroy contains a number of new elements: an explanation of the apparently contradictory attitudes of Pope Leo XIII, a reference to the views of the remarkable French apologist F. Duilhé. Although he did not accept Leroy’s point of view, he did take sides on the right for liberal research in this area for Catholic theologians in 1897. There are essential links of the detection in between, as to what was the French and Czech natural science point-of-view in relation to Darwinism at this period. Leroy’s thesis is still relevant as it corrects the implicit dualism in the area of anthropology, which is implicitly presented in the widespread solution of the Catholic world today. The human body, in his view, came into being through evolution and was provided with a human soul at a certain moment.
The aim of the article is to consider the philosophical consequences of the evolutionary paradigm in mind examination and to examine some methodological problems connected with evolutionary explanations. The article consists of four parts. The theory of evolution and contemporary controversies related to it are outlined in the first part. The second concerns the evolutionary paradigm applied to mind examination, especially from the methodological perspective. The third is entirely dedicated to an analysis of the philosophical consequences of the evolutionary paradigm, and the last is a summary. The result is the recognition of the evolutionary paradigm as an interesting perspective, which doesn’t demand far-reaching ontological assumptions, which allows for the rejection of some views concerning the mind-body problem. But the evolutionary paradigm cannot be the only universal paradigm, and some of the evolutionary explanations are nothing more than hypotheses or speculations.
PL
Celem artykułu jest rozważenie filozoficznych konsekwencji, jakie niesie za sobą przyjęcie paradygmatu ewolucyjnego w badaniach nad umysłem, a także zbadanie metodologicznych trudności związanych z generowaniem wyjaśnień ewolucyjnych. Artykuł składa się z czterech części. W pierwszej zarysowana zostaje teoria ewolucji i współczesne kontrowersje wokół niej, w szczególności wokół jej statusu. W drugiej omawia się paradygmat ewolucyjny w badaniach nad umysłem, a także pewne aspekty metodologiczne z nim związane. Trzecia poświęcona jest analizie filozoficznych konsekwencji przyjęcia paradygmatu ewolucyjnego, a czwarta stanowi próbę oceny jego głównych wad i zalet, z odniesieniem do przyszłości badań nad umysłem i dociekań z zakresu filozofii umysłu. Rezultatem jest stwierdzenie, że paradygmat ewolucyjny stanowi interesującą perspektywę badawczą, nie nakładającą zbytnich zobowiązań ontologicznych i pozwalającą na odrzucenie niektórych stanowisk odnoszących się do problemu psychofizycznego. Jednakże ze względu na trudności metodologiczne nie może być to paradygmat jedyny i uniwersalny, a do wielu wyjaśnień ewolucyjnych należy podchodzić z odpowiednią rezerwą.
W styczniu 1982 roku sędzia William K. Overton, podczas słynnego procesu w Arkansas, wydał wyrok, na mocy którego kreacjonizm nie został uznany za teorię naukową. Jednym z argumentów na rzecz kreacjonizmu był argument z projektu. W późniejszych latach stał się on kluczowy dla teorii inteligentnego projektu, która, w opinii autora, jest obecnie najważniejszą z teorii przeciwstawnych w stosunku do teorii ewolucji. Autor krytycznie odnosi się do teorii inteligentnego projektu. W jego opinii jest to teoria, która wymaga, żebyśmy udawali, że o organizmach żywych oraz o projekcie, inżynierii i teorii informacji wiemy mniej niż w rzeczywistości. Żąda ona, abyśmy odłożyli na bok proste i logiczne ewolucyjne wyjaśnienie błędów w projekcie organizmów żywych i przyjęli mglistą teorię, która pozornie wyjaśnia wszystko, mówiąc: "tak właśnie skonstruował to projektant". Jest więc ona jedynie argumentem z niewiedzy, współczesna biologia oferuje natomiast nowe świadectwa tego, że organizmy powstały stopniowo w procesie ewolucji.
EN
On January 1982, judge William K. Overton, during a famous law case in Arkansas, handed down a decision that creationism is not a scientific theory. One of the arguments for creationism was an argument from design. Later it became a fundamental argument for intelligent design theory which presently, in author’s opinion, is the most important alternative to theory of evolution. Author is critical about intelligent design theory. In his opinion, it is a theory which requires us to pretend we know less than we really do about living organisms, design, engineering, and information theory. It demands us to set aside simple and logical evolutionary explanations of design flaws in living organisms and to accept a vague theory that seemingly explains everything by stating: „that is the way the designer made it”. Thus, it is only an argument from ignorance, whereas modern biology offers new evidence that organisms emerged gradually in the process of evolution.
13
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The study is part of a research project focused on Catholic theologians and scholars who either accepted the evolutionary origin of the human body in accordance with Mivart’s thesis or denied it in years 1871–1910. The author presents the Padernborn exegete Norbert Peters (1863–1938) and a critical analysis of his book Glauben und Wissen im ersten biblischen Schöpfungsbericht (Gen 1:1–2:3), Paderborn: Verlag von Ferdinand Schöning, 1907. The above-mentioned author reacts to both the academic and popular writing of E. Haeckel. He argues as a biblical scholar that the description of the creation of man, as it is found in the first chapters of Genesis, is not an obstacle to openness to an evolutionary origin – the creation of the human body. Being a specialist in the Bible, however, he does not dare state whether this hypothesis is actually viable. The issue of the means of creation of the human body is, in his view, only a marginal question in theology. A methodologically highly disciplined approach can be observed, however, which is in many respects similar to the approach of contemporary Catholic theologians.
The article starts with stating the fact that today there is an increasing recognition of difficulties with Darwinism accompanied by vigorous responses on the part of Darwin’s defenders; among the instances of challenge to the dominant theory, one can find a book of Gilson, From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again, and those behind the Intelligent Design movement. In relating the book of Gilson to the ID proponents, the author concludes that, while in some ways they are on the same side in opposing the anti-creation thrust of Darwinism, Gilson is neutral on the validity or truth of Darwin’s biological hypothesis. Gilson, however, whose book preceded the ID movement by some twenty years, seeks to analyze Darwinism from the perspective of the classical philosophy of nature. He well understands that, according to modern scientific method, final causes are excluded from consideration, but he calls for a biophilosophy which will be open to the reality of human experience as Aristotle was and recognize that teleology is present in nature. According to him, even if teleology seems to be a contestable explanation, chance as understood by Darwinists is the pure absence of explanation.
I show that at present times there is a conflict between natural science and religion (Christian theism) in the domain that, until recently, was considered to be beyond scientific interest. What I mean here, is the question of general order, rationality or intelligibility of nature that was supposed to belong to the domain of philosophy or theology, rather than science itself. I show that Darwin’s theory of natural selection allowed to remove from science not only explanations referring to God’s supernatural interventions in nature, but also any reference to God’s guidance of development of life on Earth. The success of Darwin’s theory contributes to domination of naturalism in science. In turn the concept of multiverse that is found in the contemporary cosmology and quantum physics, is an idea that in naturalistic way- which makes it acceptable in science- makes it possible to rationally deny even the deistic concept of God’s only role in nature as a source of general order, rationality and intelligibility of the world.
Autor jest zwolennikiem teorii inteligentnego projektu, która - w jego ujęciu - głosi, że pewne systemy biochemiczne zostały zaprojektowane przez jakiegoś inteligentnego projektanta. Rozpatruje kwestię falsyfikowalności tej teorii. Stara się usunąć nieporozumienia związane z pojęciem nieredukowalnej złożoności (nieredukowalna złożoność to cecha, dzięki której - według Behe'ego - można poznać, czy dany układ biochemiczny został zaprojektowany). Autor zastanawia się też nad słusznością postulowania naturalizmu metodologicznego w naukach przyrodniczych i opowiada się ostatecznie za stanowiskiem przeciwnym.
EN
Author is a proponent of intelligent design theory which states that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent designer. He considers the issue of falsifiability of this theory and tries to remove misunderstandings regarding the notion of irreducible complexity (irreducible complexity is a feature thanks to which, according to the author, one can recognize whether a given biochemical system was designed). Author takes into consideration also the issue of soundness of postulating methodological naturalism in science and opts for the opposite position.
W arykule tym Michael J. Behe pokrótce przedstawia ideę inteligentnego projektu, kładąc szczególny nacisk na własną koncepcję nieredukowalnej złożoności układów biochemicznych. Wskazuje na nieporozumienia i odpowiada na różne zarzuty wobec swojej koncepcji, wysuwane pod adresem podanych przez niego przykładów nieredukowalnej złożoności, takich jak wić bakteryjna, kaskada krzepnięcia krwi czy pułapka na myszy, która jest mechanicznym odpowiednikiem biochemicznych układów nieredukowalnie złożonych. Behe rozmyśla ponadto nad przyszłością teorii inteligentnego projektu.
EN
In the paper author presents briefly the idea of intelligent design, with the special emphasis on his own concept of irreducible complexity of biochemical systems. He points out the misunderstandings and addresses various objections to his concept, especially regarding his examples of irreducible complexity such as bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascade or mousetrap which is a mechanical counterpart of irreducibly complex biochemical systems. Author is pondering also over the future of intelligent design theory.
Miller wskazuje wady Michaela Behe'ego koncepcji nieredukowalnej złożoności układów biochemicznych. Uważa, że układy uznawane przez Behe'ego za nieredukowalnie złożone da się w rzeczywistości zredukować do prostszych struktur. Miller proponuje również możliwą drogę ewolucyjnego powstania tych układów, mianowicie mechanizm koopcji, który polega na przejmowaniu składników pełniących jakieś selekcjonowane przez dobór naturalny funkcje i tworzeniu z nich nowych, bardziej złożonych układów, które także pełnią funkcje selekcjonowane przez dobór naturalny. Ponadto, zdaniem Millera argument Behe'ego właściwie niczym nie różni się od dawno już zdyskredytowanego - jak twierdzi Miller - argumentu z projektu autorstwa dziewiętnastowiecznego biologa i teologa, Williama Paleya.
EN
Author points out the flaws of Michael Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity of biochemical systems. He believes that systems regarded by Behe as irreducible complex may be reduced to simpler structures. He offers also a possible way of evolutionary development of such systems, namely the mechanism of cooption, i.e. taking over components which perform some functions selected by natural selection and forming from them a new, more complex systems which also perform functions selected by natural selection. Furthermore, according to the author, basically Behe’s argument is the same as discredited long time ago – as Miller claims – argument of ninetieth century biologist and theologian William Paley.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.