Ballistics, Darwinism and Christian Thought
Some Reflections on the Biological Philosophy of Michael Ruse
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48160/18532330me13.331Keywords:
Michael Ruse, philosophy of science, philosophy of biology, evolutionism-creationism debateAbstract
This paper raises an open critical discussion on some key notions in Michael Ruse’s philosophy. These include the conceptual elements of scientific explanation, the difference between epistemic and cultural values, the epistemological status of science and religion in explaining nature, the compatibility or incompatibility between Darwinian thought and Christian thought, and especially between evolutionary theory and creationism, the key importance of admitting or not admitting supernatural causality when qualifying an explanation as scientific, the role played by the divinity in the argumentation about the compatibility or incompatibility between science and religion, the convenience of not understanding the Abrahamic god from an ontological perspective but from a psychological one, etc. It ends by proposing certain conclusions that could perhaps contribute to contrast and enrich his philosophy.
References
Barbour, I. (2004), Religión y ciencia, Madrid: Trotta.
Bárcenas, R. (2002), “Contexto de descubrimiento y contexto de justificación: un problema filosófico en la investigación científica”, Acta Universitaria, 12(2): 48-57.
Dawkins, R. (2013), El espejismo de Dios, Barcelona: Espasa.
De Waal, F. (2019), El último abrazo. Las emociones de los animales y lo que nos cuentan de nosotros, Barcelona: Tusquets.
Dennett, D. (1992), La libertad de acción. Un análisis de la exigencia de libre albedrío. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Diéguez, A. (2005), “Realismo y antirrealismo en la Filosofía de la Biología”, Ludus Vitalis 13(23): 49-71.
Diéguez, A. (2013), “La función explicativa de los modelos en Biología”, Contrastes. Revista Internacional de Filosofía: Suplemento 18: 41-54.
Gould, S. (1997), “Nonoverlapping magisteria”, Natural History 106(2): 16-22.
Gould, S. (2000). Ciencia versus religión. Un falso conflicto, Barcelona: Crítica.
Habermas, J. (1989), Ciencia y técnica como “ideología”, Madrid: Tecnos.
Hare, R. (1967), Freedom and Reason, London: Oxford University Press.
Hempel, C. & P. Oppenheim (1948), “Studies in the Logic of Explanation”, Philosophy of Science 15(2): 135-175.
Hick, J. (1973), Philosophy of Religion, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hume, D. (1988), Tratado sobre la naturaleza humana, Madrid: Tecnos.
Kahn, J., Landsberg, S. and A. Stockman (1992), “On Novel Confirmation”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43: 503-516.
Kuhn, T. (2013), La estructura de las revoluciones científicas, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Maher, P. (1988), “Prediction, Accommodation, and the Logic of Discovery”, Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association I: 273-285.
McMullin, E. (1982), “Values in Science”, Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 4: 3-28.
Monserrat, J. (2004). “Ciencia, filosofía del proceso y Dios en Ian G. Barbour”, Revista Pensamiento, 60(226): 33-66
Nietzsche, F. (2016), Escritos de juventud, en Obras completas, vol. 1, Madrid: Tecnos.
Polkinghorne, J. (1989), Science and Providence. God’s Interaction with the World, London: Chilton Books.
Reichenbach, H. (2006), Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Rey, J. (2018), Análisis de la predicción científica en William Whewell. Estudio filosófico-metodológico de su planteamiento e incidencia posterior, Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de La Coruña.
Ruse, M. (1975), “Darwin’s Debt to Philosophy: An Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell on the Development of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 6: 159-181.
Ruse, M. (1987), Tomándose a Darwin en serio. Implicaciones filosóficas del darwinismo, Barcelona: Salvat.
Ruse, M. (2001). El misterio de los misterios. ¿Es la evolución una construcción social?, Barcelona: Tusquets.
Ruse, M. (2007), ¿Puede un darwinista ser cristiano? La relación entre ciencia y religión, Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Sober, E. and Ch. Hitchcock (2004), “Prediction Versus Accommodation and the Risk of Overfitting”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55: 1-34.
Weber, M. (1973), Ensayos sobre metodología sociológica, Buenos Aires: Amorrortu editores.
Whewell, W. (1858), Novum Organon Renovatum. Being the Second Part of the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, London: John W. Parker.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
LicenseThe documents published here are governed by the licensing criteria
Creative Commons Argentina.Atribución - No Comercial - Sin Obra Derivada 2.5 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
