Evolution has no Moral Consequences

iew of the evolution of adaptation.


Dawkins, R and Krebs, JR: 1979. Arms Races Within and Between Species. Proc. R Soc Lond B 205: 480-512.


Dennett, D: 1995. Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Allen Lane Press.


*Depew, DJ and Weber, BH: 1995. Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection, Bradford Books/MIT Press.


A comprehensive history of Darwinism, philosophical and biological, and an introduction to the new systems dynamics and complexity theory views of evolution. The bibliography alone is worth the purchase.


Dray, WH: 1957. Laws and Explanation in History, Oxford University Press.


*Dray, WH, ed: 1966. Philosophical Analyisis and History, Harper and Row.


A collection of the seminal essays on the application of Hempel's nomological-deductive model to history, which, by extension, is also relevant to the historical sciences like evolution and geology.


Duhem, P: 1914. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press (English trans. 1954).


Ereshefsky, M: 1991. The Semantic Approach to Evolutionary Theory. Biology and Philosophy 6: 59-80.


Feyerabend, PK: 1970a. Consolations for the Specialist. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds I Lakatos and A Musgrave, Cambridge University Press.


Feyerabend, PK: 1970b. Against Method. In Minnesota Studies in Philosophy, Vol 4


Feyerabend, PK: 1975. Against Method, Verso Editions.


Flew, A and MacIntyre, A eds: 1955. New Essays in Philosophical Theology, SCM Press.


Franklin, J: 1997. Stove's Anti-Darwinism. Philosophy 72: 133-136


Gayon, J: 1996. The Individuality of the Species: A Darwinian Theory? - from Buffon to Ghiselin, and back to Darwin. Biology and Philosophy 11: 215-244.


Gould, SJ: 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Norton.


Gould, SJ: 1992. Kropotkin was No Crackpot. Essay 13 in Bully for Brontosaurus, Penguin, p325.


Gould, SJ: 1996. Full House, Harmony, published outside the US as Life's Grandeur: The Spread of Excellence from Plato to Darwin, Random House.


Gould, SJ, and Lewontin R: 1979. The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Program. Proc. R Soc Lond B 205:581-598.


Ghiselin MT: 1975. A Radical Solution to the Species Problem. Systematic Zoology 23: 536-544.


Griffiths, PE: 1996. The Historical Turn in the Study of Adaptation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47:511-532.


Hull, D: 1974. The Philosophy of Biological Science, Prentice-Hall.


Hull, D: 1976. Are Species Really Individuals? Systematic Zoology 25: 174-191.


Hull, D: 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, University of Chicago Press.


Hull, D.: 1989. The Metaphysics of Evolution, State University of New York Press.


Kuhn, TS: 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, second edition 1970, University of Chicago Press.


Kuhn, TS: 1970. Reflections on my Critics. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds I Lakatos and A Musgrave, Cambridge University Press.


Kuhn, TS: 1972. Second Thoughts on Paradigms. In The Structure of Scientific Theories, ed. F Suppe, University of Illinois Press, second edition 1977.


Kripke, S: 1972. Naming and Necessity. In Semantics and Natural Language, ed D Davidson and G Harman, 253-355, Reidel.


Lakatos, I: 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds I Lakatos and A Musgrave, Cambridge University Press.


Laudan, L: 1977. Progress and Its Problems, University of California Press.


Lennox, JG: 1992 Teleology. In Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, eds EF Keller and EA Lloyd, Harvard University Press.


Lurie, E: 1988. Louis Agassiz: A Life in Science, Johns Hopkins University Press.


Masterman, M: 1970. The Nature of Paradigms. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, eds I Lakatos and A Musgrave, Cambridge University Press.


Mayr, E: 1970. Populations, Species and Evolution, Harvard University Press.


Mayr, E: 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.


Mayr, E: 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.


Miller, K: 1982. Answers to standard Creationist arguments, Creation/Evolution 3:1-13.


Monod, J: 1972. Chance and Necessity, Collins.


Nagel, E: 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, Routledge and Kegan Paul.


Nitecki, Matthew H., ed.: 1988. Evolutionary Progress, University of Chicago Press.


*Oldroyd, D: 1986. The Arch of Knowledge:An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosophy and Methodology of Science, Methuen.


This is a readable and comprehensive introduction to the issues of epistemology over the last 2500 years.


O'Grady, D and Brooks, D: 1988. Teleology and Biology. In Entropy, Information, and Evolution: New Perspectives on Physical and Biological Evolution, eds, BH Weber, DJ Depew, and JD Smith, MIT Press.


*Panchen, AL: 1992. Classification, Evolution, and the Nature of Biology, Cambridge University Press.


In addition to reviewing the problems of cladistics, taxonomy and classification, important in the question of species and their evolution, this has an excellent short review of the history of recent philosophy of science, relevant to evolution.


Popper, K: 1974. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 6th ed. London: Hutchinson.


Popper, K: 1976. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, Fontana Press.


Putnam, H: 1975. Mind, Language and Reality, Cambridge University Press.


Quine, WVO: 1969. Natural Kinds. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia University Press.


Rosenberg, A: 1994. Instrumental Biology, or, the Disunity of Science. University of Chicago Press.


Ruse, M: 1979. The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw, University of Chicago Press.


Ruse, M: 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm: Essays on its History, Philosophy and Religious Implications, Routledge.


Ruse, M: 1992. Darwinism. In E F Keller and E A Lloyd eds Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Press.


Ruse, M: 1997. Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University press.


Selkirk, DR and Burrows, FJ eds: 1987. Confronting Creationism: Defending Darwin, New South Wales University Press.


*Sober, E: 1984. The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, Bradford Books/MIT Press.


The standard reference on the philosophical implications of natural selection.


Sober, E: 1988. Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference, Bradford Books/MIT Press.


*Sober, E, ed: 1994. Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn.


An anthology of the most philosophically important papers on evolution, including many otherwise inaccessible ones.


Stamos, J: 1996. Popper, Falsifiability, and Evolutionary Biology. Biology and Philosophy 11: 161-191.


*Sterelny, K: 1995. Understanding Life: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Biology. Brit J Phil Sci 46: 155-183.


The title says it all, really. A first class introduction to the state of play.


Stove, D: 1995. Darwinian Fairytales, Avebury Press.


Suppe, F, ed.: 1977. The Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Illinois Press, second edition.


Suppe, F: 1989. The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism, University of Illinois Press.


Vermeij, GJ: 1987. Evolution and Escalation: An Ecological History of Life, Princeton University Press.


Weber, BH and Depew, DJ: 1996. Natural Selection and Self-Organization, Biology and Philosophy 11: 33-65.


Williams, GC: 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection, Princeton University Press, reissued with a new Introduction, 1996.


Williams, GC: 1985. In Defence of Reductionism. In Oxford Studies in Evolutionary Biology, eds R Dawkins and M Ridley, Oxford University Press.


Williams, GC: 1992. Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, Oxford University Press.




  • Ley,

    I am currently working on another blog called http/:parsontoperson.blogspot.com (Heart to Heart) In which I intend to show that Evolution and our faith are not diametrically opposed Science and religion will (in my opinion)come together one day to show the reality of God and the enormously complicated creation that we own. Its just now coming together for me.  

  • Dear brother Denis,

    I actually did a lot of looking into this when I was in college.  You are right in that in the past science, philosophy, and christian thought were all part of the same belief system. This occurred several times through the -judging your upcoming posts, I think that the turning point, ( or one of them) in the 19th Century was most profound and potentially the wedge that remains between the trains of thought involved.  Granted, the Bible and much of Biological findings and "science so called" (from the scriptures) tends to get the cart before the horse. 

    I was on the track for medical school when I suddenly received the news that my commander would not sign the paperwork releasing me from instructor duty so I could go to Bethesda, Maryland for school.  It's a long story...

    Anyway, I was able to see and examine the many, many, many miracles of creation and was always awed by the sheer magnitude of it all.  Which makes me think of this...

    How can man possibly wrap their minds around space, the final frontier, that is infinite - infinite.  I read that about fifty years ago and still don't have a good handle on it.  Along the same lines, it is so astounding to me that God created light where there was none - and that was just getting the lighting set for the real show that was to follow.  I know that when the day comes and God reveals all things that it will be fascinating and unimaginable complex - or possibly simple.  I'll have to wait for that one...

    So, let's just say I'm leaning toward separation of science and Theology..

Sorry but you must be a member of this group to reply to this topic.

This website is powered by Spruz

What Each Area of the Site is Meant For: Blogs - This is your personal space. This is where you should post thoughts that are not intended for extensive further discussion. Observations from personal study and events that have occurred in your life belong here. Unless your post ends with questions or makes it apparent that discussion is to follow, it should probably be a blog. As discussed later, blogs are limited to those who hold to historic Christian beliefs. Forums - This is for open discussion relating to the topic posted. Dialogue is encouraged to stay on topic, so if a side conversation begins, open a new discussion. This is where the majority of the activity has taken place so far. Topics should remain general in nature, while in depth discussion on narrow topics should take place in groups. Groups - This is a place to congregate with people who have similar interests and positions in order to have open discussion. The conversation in here is not required to remain on topic, so it is more ready to follow rabbit trails. This is where you should go if you want to gather with a particular kind of theologian. Before initiating a new group, we ask that you consider posting a question in the discussion forum area to see if there is enough interest to justify a separate group. The reason we encourage such action is that, in the event that a group is inactive for 6 months or more, the moderators of Scriptural Studies reserve the right to close down and delete the group due to inactivity. Events - This is available to anyone that wants to post an event that you think the members of Scriptural Studies may be interested in. Contact Denis, Rabbi Del, Rifkah, or Marti for more details on advertising. Our Attitude of conduct: In case you missed them on your way in, take some time to become acquainted with the conduct we expect on this site. You may find our Attidudes on the main forum page. Our purpose at Scripural Studies is that the conversations move in a Gracious way. We define Gracious in the following way: 1) Not closed minded 2) Not self-promoting 3) Not characterized by mass amounts of cut-and-paste proof-texting 4) Not characterized by mass amounts of cut-and-paste from other places 5) Irenic 6) Not slanderous 7) No spamming 8) Perpetual venting bitterness 9) Not confusing or disruptive But in all things you'll be welcome here