1 In the Light of Evolution: Birds and Evolutionary Science

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
James R. Wible

More than a century ago, one of the most famous essays ever written in American economics appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics: “Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” There, Thorstein Veblen claimed that economics was too dominated by a mechanistic view to address the problems of economic life. Since the world and the economy had come to be viewed from an evolutionary perspective after Charles Darwin, it was rather straightforward to argue that the increasingly abstract mathematical character of economics was non-evolutionary. However, Veblen had studied with a first-rate intellect, Charles Sanders Peirce, attending his elementary logic class. If Peirce had written about the future of economics in 1898, it would have been very different than Veblen’s essay. Peirce could have written that economics should become an evolutionary mathematical science and that much of classical and neoclassical economics could be interpreted from an evolutionary perspective.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-347
Author(s):  
Jean Francesco A.L. Gomes

Abstract The aim of this article is to investigate how Abraham Kuyper and some late neo-Calvinists have addressed the doctrine of creation in light of the challenges posed by evolutionary scientific theory. I argue that most neo-Calvinists today, particularly scholars from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU), continue Kuyper’s legacy by holding the core principles of a creationist worldview. Yet, they have taken a new direction by explaining the natural history of the earth in evolutionary terms. In my analysis, Kuyper’s heirs at the VU today offer judicious parameters to guide Christians in conversation with evolutionary science, precisely because of their high appreciation of good science and awareness of the nonnegotiable elements that make up the orthodox Christian narrative.


Metascience ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-211
Author(s):  
J. H. van Hateren
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 261-279
Author(s):  
Norbert Francis

Abstract Research on learning, the structure of attained knowledge, and the use of this competence in performance has repeatedly returned to longstanding proposals about how to better understand proficient use of knowledge and how humans acquire it. The following article takes up an exchange between Chiappe & Gardner (2011) and Barrett & Kurzban (2012) on the concept of modularity, one of these proposals. Despite the disagreements expressed, a careful reading of the contributions shows that they also left us with lines of discussion that will eventually sort out the relevant hypotheses and integrate findings for future research. These lines of work will contribute to a clearer understanding of an updated version of the modularity hypothesis that is also compatible with evolutionary science perspectives on learning. How might the categories of domain-specific and domain-general correspond to the distinction between competence and performance and to that of narrow faculty and broad faculty?


Author(s):  
James M. Honeycutt ◽  
Ryan D. Rasner

Moral judgments can be the result of cognitive deliberations, which develop with age and socialization. Rationality began in humans with the development of the cerebral cortex. Alternatively, they can be the based-on survival mechanisms emanating in the sympathetic nervous based on innate, survival mechanisms (fight, flight, freeze) and the amygdala. Common examples are road rage (e.g., I was right while the other driver was wrong, cut me off, and could have killed me) and hold-your-ground state laws for self-defense (the victim was justified in killing the intruder, even though the intruder had no weapon when reaching into their coat pocket). Moral decision making can be based on an innate survival mechanism. Those who did this did not survive and were not our ancestors. This chapter reviews the research on signal detection theory, how aggression is favored over conciliation, as cognitive reasoning breaks down. Physiological studies involving the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system are reviewed in terms of the amygdala and emotional intelligence.


Author(s):  
Michael L. Peterson

This chapter discusses some themes to which Lewis returned often because they reflect philosophical errors that are still influential in culture—science and scientism, evolution and evolutionism. Under the facade of science, even the science of evolution, philosophical naturalism, materialism, and reductionism serve as the paragons of knowledge and often guide social policy. Thus, “scientism” and “evolutionism” are labels for the combination of naturalism and science in general and evolutionary science in particular. Lewis defines science as seeking natural causes for natural effects, which, when successful, formulates laws of the physical operation of nature. Such an intellectual enterprise is neutral with respect to religious and theological positions and is hardly strong evidence for naturalism and empiricism. Lewis identifies the conflict as occurring, not between science and religion (or theism), but between naturalism and theism as philosophical worldviews. As a case in point, Lewis sees no conflict between the scientific theory of evolution and its increasing confirmation by empirical evidence, but he does see a conflict between evolution as interpreted by philosophical naturalism—with ideas that humanity is not of special worth, that there is no God who is ultimately responsible for the existence of the world, and so on. An item of particular interest is the Lewis–Van Osdall correspondence (recently discovered, never before published) regarding what advice Lewis would offer on Van Osdall’s contemplated book aimed at presenting science to a general audience, especially a Christian audience.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document