渐进式创造的演化分类法

IF 1.1 0 RELIGION

Scientia et Fides Pub Date : 2023-02-02 DOI:10.12775/setf.2023.002

J. R. Hofmann

{"title":"渐进式创造的演化分类法","authors":"J. R. Hofmann","doi":"10.12775/setf.2023.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay is a critique of a version of progressive creation developed by Michael Chaberek, O. P. He holds that there are exceptions to evolutionary descent due to the supernatural production of “natural species,” taxa that allegedly do not have biological ancestry, are theologically identified with biblical kinds, and are metaphysically characterized by distinct substantial forms. Chaberek’s assertion that these natural species correspond “roughly” to the Linnaean taxa of biological families contradicts modern scientific conclusions regarding the continuity of evolutionary descent. To illustrate this conflict, I examine some of the extensive evidence for the evolutionary origins of families within the Feliformia sub-order. I conclude that Chaberek’s assertion of supernatural progressive creation is a God-of-the-gaps theology burdened by a defensive stance with respect to scientific progress.","PeriodicalId":41706,"journal":{"name":"Scientia et Fides","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Evolving Taxonomy of Progressive Creation\",\"authors\":\"J. R. Hofmann\",\"doi\":\"10.12775/setf.2023.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This essay is a critique of a version of progressive creation developed by Michael Chaberek, O. P. He holds that there are exceptions to evolutionary descent due to the supernatural production of “natural species,” taxa that allegedly do not have biological ancestry, are theologically identified with biblical kinds, and are metaphysically characterized by distinct substantial forms. Chaberek’s assertion that these natural species correspond “roughly” to the Linnaean taxa of biological families contradicts modern scientific conclusions regarding the continuity of evolutionary descent. To illustrate this conflict, I examine some of the extensive evidence for the evolutionary origins of families within the Feliformia sub-order. I conclude that Chaberek’s assertion of supernatural progressive creation is a God-of-the-gaps theology burdened by a defensive stance with respect to scientific progress.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientia et Fides\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientia et Fides\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2023.002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientia et Fides","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/setf.2023.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章是对Michael Chaberek, O. P.提出的渐进创造论的批判。他认为，由于“自然物种”的超自然产生，进化血统也有例外，这些物种据称没有生物祖先，在神学上被认定为圣经的种类，并且在形而上学上以独特的实体形式为特征。查伯雷克断言，这些自然物种“大致”与林奈生物科分类群相对应，这与现代科学关于进化血统连续性的结论相矛盾。为了说明这种冲突，我研究了一些关于Feliformia亚目家庭进化起源的广泛证据。我的结论是，查伯雷克关于超自然的渐进创造的断言是一种“间隙之神”的神学，背负着对科学进步的防御立场。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

The Evolving Taxonomy of Progressive Creation

This essay is a critique of a version of progressive creation developed by Michael Chaberek, O. P. He holds that there are exceptions to evolutionary descent due to the supernatural production of “natural species,” taxa that allegedly do not have biological ancestry, are theologically identified with biblical kinds, and are metaphysically characterized by distinct substantial forms. Chaberek’s assertion that these natural species correspond “roughly” to the Linnaean taxa of biological families contradicts modern scientific conclusions regarding the continuity of evolutionary descent. To illustrate this conflict, I examine some of the extensive evidence for the evolutionary origins of families within the Feliformia sub-order. I conclude that Chaberek’s assertion of supernatural progressive creation is a God-of-the-gaps theology burdened by a defensive stance with respect to scientific progress.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Scientia et Fides RELIGION-

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： "Scientia et Fides" (SetF) is an open access online journal published twice a year. It is promoted by the Faculty of Theology of Nicolaus Copernicus University, in Torun, in collaboration with the Group of Research “Science, Reason and Faith” (CRYF), at the University of Navarra. The journal is characterised by the interdisciplinary approach, multiplicity of research perspectives and broad reflection on methodology as well as analysis of the latest publications on the relationship between science and faith. The tasks of the journal are perfectly expressed by the motto "Veritas in omnibus quaerenda est" ("to seek the truth in all things") from "De revolutionibus" by Nicolaus Copernicus. SetF aims to present rigorous research works regarding different aspects of the relationship between science and religion. For this reason, SetF articles are not confined to the methodology of a single discipline and may cover a wide range of topics, provided that the interdisciplinary dialogue between science and religion is undertaken. The journal accepts articles written in English, Spanish, Polish, French, Italian and German which will be evaluated by a peer-review process.