Evolution, providence, and Gouldian contingency

Religious Studies 44 (4):393-412 (2008)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Stephen Jay Gould and others have argued that what we know about evolution implies that human beings are a 'cosmic accident'. In this paper I examine an argument for Gould's view and then attempt to show that it fails. Contrary to the claims of Gould, Daniel Dennett, and others, it is a mistake to think that what we have learned from evolutionary biology somehow shows that human beings are mere accidents of natural history. Nor does what we know about the contingency of evolution give us good reason to reject the view that human beings came to be according to a divine providential plan

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,154

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
89 (#233,195)

6 months
16 (#178,915)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael W. Rota
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota

Citations of this work

The Neo-Gouldian Argument for Evolutionary Contingency: Mass Extinctions.T. Y. William Wong - 2022 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 73 (4):1093-1124.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references