Reasons for Resisting Darwinism, and Why They Should Not Be Credited

Plantinga argues that Darwinism implies that we cannot help adopting our apparently reflective beliefs, and that this is a reason for rejecting Darwinism. I argue that similar arguments apparently apply to the beliefs crucial to deliberation, meaningful work, meaningful relationships, meaningful com...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Attfield, Robin 1931- (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: De Gruyter 2021
In: Open theology
Year: 2021, Volume: 7, Issue: 1, Pages: 129-139
Further subjects:B deterministic Darwinism
B Deliberation
B Karl Popper
B Meaningful Work
B Mary Midgley’s account of evolution
B Alvin Plantinga
B human communication
B non-deterministic Darwinism
B theistic evolution
B meaningful relationships
B Creativity
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Summary:Plantinga argues that Darwinism implies that we cannot help adopting our apparently reflective beliefs, and that this is a reason for rejecting Darwinism. I argue that similar arguments apparently apply to the beliefs crucial to deliberation, meaningful work, meaningful relationships, meaningful communication and creativity. But these arguments apply to deterministic versions of Darwinism only. Cogent non-deterministic versions have been propounded by Popper, Rose, Lewontin, Ward and Miller (those of Ward and Miller being theistic versions). These versions are presented, as is Midgley’s account of how evolution has endowed us with a mix of desires that prepare the way for choice. Plantinga-type arguments pose no problem for such non-deterministic Darwinisms.
ISSN:2300-6579
Contains:Enthalten in: Open theology
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1515/opth-2020-0153