Celem artykułu jest poszukiwanie takiej interpretacji obecności i działania Boga w świecie, jaka pozwoliłaby zharmonizować istotne prawdy wiary z naukowym obrazem świata, którego ewolucja jest rządzona przypadkiem i pozbawiona kierunku. Poszukiwanie to jest realizowane w kilku krokach. Odwołując się do różnych koncepcji celowości wskazuje się najpierw, że jeśli można mówić o tym, że świat ma taką cechę, to nie w sensie zmierzania w określonym kierunku, lecz w sensie celowości wewnętrznej: świat ze swej natury jest skierowany na Boga. Współcześnie o Bożej (...) celowości w świecie mówi się często w kategoriach ogólnego lub szczególnego działania Boga. Artykuł, podejmując tę kwestię zmierza do wniosku, że odróżnienie aspektu naturalnego od nadnaturalnego w danym zdarzeniu jest przypuszczalnie niemożliwe. Na jeden z powodów tej niemożliwości wskazuje tzw. zasada domknięcia przyczynowego, dlatego jest ona analizowana w kolejnym punkcie artykułu. Wskazuje się tutaj między innymi na konieczność zrewidowania niektórych klasycznych koncepcji cudu. W odniesieniu zaś do takich przełomowych zdarzeń z dziejów świata, jak powstanie życia czy pojawienie się człowieka, proponuje się hipotezę niedookreśloności celu stworzenia: Bóg może realizować swoje cele w świecie rządzonym przez autentyczny przypadek, jeśli cele te są rozumiane odpowiednio subtelnie. Na przykład, jeśli celem Boga jest pojawienie się w świecie istoty zdolnej do nawiązania z nim świadomego kontaktu, to istota taka niekoniecznie musiała przyjąć postać przedstawiciela gatunku Homo sapiens. Na koniec wskazuje się na panenteizm jako na właściwą, prawdziwie chrześcijańską wizję świata, który jest „losem i przeznaczeniem” samego Boga. W tej perspektywie, detale ewolucyjnego rozwoju świata przestają być religijnie istotne, a sama religia uwalnia się ostatecznie—po części pod wpływem współczesnej nauki—„od błędu i przesądu”. (shrink)

We present the results of research carried out as a part of the project “Current Controversies about Human Origins: Between Anthropology and the Bible”, which focused on the supposed conflict between natural sciences and some branches of the humanities, notably philosophy and theology, with regard to human origins. One way to tackle the issue was to distribute a questionnaire among students and teachers of the relevant disciplines. Teachers of religion and the natural sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics) and students of (...) theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences (specializing in biology and/or anthropology) were asked to answer eleven questions concerning the perception of the conflict between evolutionism and creationism, the definitions of creation and evolution, the existence of a human spiritual element, and the ways of interpreting the Bible, especially the first chapters of the book of Genesis. In the paper we present and analyze selected results of this questionnaire. Among interesting findings there are the following: 1) the opinion concerning the relationship between evolutionism and creationism largely depends on the respondent’s general attitude toward religion, and not on their field of study or teaching expertise, which runs contrary to the received view attributing the opinion of the conflict between science and religion to people’s educational or professional background; 2) The conflict is far more pronounced in the group of nonbelievers. This distinguishes Poland from other countries, notably the United States, where the majority of people with strong religious beliefs seem to maintain that there is a conflict between the natural sciences and religion; 3) literal understanding of the Bible was rejected by vast majority of the respondents, including those who insist on the ‘conflict view’, which seems to make the situation in Poland again quite different from that in some other countries; 4) Unsophisticated understanding of creation positively correlates with the ‘conflicting view’ on the one hand, while, on the other, erroneous understanding of the basics of the theory of evolution appears to have its bearing on too optimistic vision of certain coherence between religion and science. We suggest some hypotheses to explain these and other results of the questionnaire. (shrink)

Abstract.We present the results of research carried out as a part of the project Current Controversies about Human Origins: Between Anthropology and the Bible, which focused on the supposed conflict between natural sciences and some branches of the humanities, notably philosophy and theology, with regard to human origins. One way to tackle the issue was to distribute a questionnaire among students and teachers of the relevant disciplines. Teachers of religion and the natural sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics) and students of (...) theology, philosophy, and the natural sciences (specializing in biology and/or anthropology) were asked to answer eleven questions concerning the perception of the conflict between evolutionism and creationism, the definitions of creation and evolution, the existence of a human spiritual element, and the ways of interpreting the Bible, especially the first chapters of the book of Genesis. We present selected results of this questionnaire. (shrink)

The paper presents the results of the research which was carried out as a part of the project: Current controversies about human origins. Between anthropology and the Bible, this project was focused on the supposed conflict between natural sciences and theology (or religious beliefs) with regard to the origin of man. The research was aimed at finding out whether such a conflict really exits. For we cannot exclude the possibility that these controversies have no factual ground and their significance is (...) inflated by American popular literature. If, on the other hand, we assume that the conflict is real, it should be worthwhile examining its sources. Such an approach may prove helpful in systematize the highly emotional debates about the origin of man. One of the ways of tackling the issue was a questionnaire which was distributed among students, teachers and university professors. Our respondents represented three disciplines: theology, philosophy and natural sciences, t t e paper presents selected results of the questionnaire which was addressed to a group of students, they were asked to fill in the form consisting of eleven questions, these questions concerned the following issues: the existence of the conflict between evolutionism and creationism, the definitions of creation and evolution, the existence of the spiritual element in man, and the ways of interpreting the Bible (esp. the first chapters of the Book of Genesis). (shrink)

The beginning of the world seems to be a subject of investigations of contemporary sciences on the one hand, and a part of the religious truth on the other. Technical and scientific progress is conductive to constructing new models of the world and inspires modifications or rejection of existing ones. The aim of the first part of this paper is to show some problems, among others methodological, theoretical and interpretational, that arise on account of current scientific theories. Certain basic features (...) of so-called scientific world view are pointed out. In the second part, the fundamental essence of the religious and theological truth of the creation is investigated. On the grounds of discussed issues, a possibility to achieve a kind of synthesis of both, scientific and religious world views is considered in the third part. It is suggested that general outlook on life could be a proper base for such a synthesis. However this solution proves to be unsatisfying, because of mosaic, incoherent character of an outlook of life. The task to construct more cohesive view of the world remains open. In the paper, few lines for further investigation are drawn. (shrink)

The paper presents the results of the research which was carried out as part of the project: Current controversies about human origins. Between anthropology and the Bible. This project focuses on the supposed conflict between natural sciences and some branches of the humanities (notably philosophy and theology) with regard to the origin of man. The research was aimed at finding out whether such a conflict really exits. For one thing, we cannot exclude the possibility that these would-be controversies have no (...) factual ground and that their significance is inflated by American popular literature. If, on the other hand, we assume that the conflict is real, it should be worthwhile examining its sources. Such an approach may prove helpful in systematising the highly emotional debates about the origin of man. One of the ways of tackling the issue was the questionnaire which was distributed among students, teachers and university professors. Our respondents represented three disciplines: theology, philosophy and the natural sciences, the paper will present selected results of the questionnaire which was addressed to a group of school teachers, whereas the responses of the students are given less attention in order to emphasise the teachers’ point of view, the teachers of religion and the natural sciences (biology, chemistry and physics) and the students of theology, philosophy and the natural sciences (specialising in biology and environment protection) were asked to fill in the form consisting of eleven questions, these questions concerned the following issues: the existence of the conflict between evolutionism and creationism, the definitions of creation and evolution, the existence of the spiritual element in man, ways of interpreting the Bible (esp. the first chapters of the Book of Genesis). Out of 1000 questionnaires sent out, we received 449, which should be considered a satisfactory number, given the fact that it was the first time this type of research was carried out in Poland. (shrink)

Heated debates stemming from the confrontation of scientific knowledge with the biblical picture of the creation of man, which had followed the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution, became far less prominent in the second half of the 20th century. This was due to two factors: first, the theory of evolution was partly accepted in theological circles and at the same time biologists showed a growing awareness of the limited epistemological scope of the competence of the natural sciences. This lesson (...) from the history, however, seems to have been forgotten by many who now and again return to controversies which more often than not are caused by ideological quarrels over religion, with true scholarship being too easily lost from sight. The paper reminds some of the history of the controversy in question and suggests that at least some of the current problems regarding evolution˗and˗ creation controversy may have already found their solutions. In part 1, “The Theory of Evolution and the Creation of the Human” it deals with the general issue of human origins. In part 2, “Monogenism and Original Sin” it explores the notion of the ‘first human’ as it is employed in biology and in theology, and shows its completely different meaning in these two realms of knowledge which helps to resolve the recurrent controversy over monogenism. (shrink)

The paper remains and reinforces a viewpoint that science and religion (theology) are methodologically and epistemologically independent. However, it also suggests that this independence can be overcome if a "third party" is taken into account, that is - philosophy. Such possibility seems to follow from the thesis of incommensurability and the thesis of underdetermination formulated and analyzed in current philosophy of science.

The notion of so-called "postulated ontology" appears in the context of a well- -known thesis of the underdetermination of scientific theories by empirical data. It is argued in the paper, that the conviction of the existence of some kind of relation between a given theory and ontological ideas can be derived from this thesis, regardless of its particular form. Therefore, certain solutions to classical philosophical questions can be obtained, in principle, by careful inspection of scientific achievements. However, if the thesis (...) of underdetermination holds, such philosophical solutions are not imposed by science itself. In order to arrive at some kind of ontology based on science, it seems necessary to accept certain philosophical presuppositions in the first place. This, and the fact that scientific theories change in time show that although such a kind of ontology is possible, and perhaps desirable, it can never be ultimate. (shrink)

The notion of chance plays an important role in some philosophical analyses and interpretations of scientific theories. The most obvious examples of that are the theories of evolution and quantum mechanics. This notion, however seems to be notoriously vague. Its application in such analyses, more often than not refers to its common-sense understanding, which, by definition, cannot be sufficient when it comes to sound philosophical interpretations of scientific achievements. The paper attempts at formulating a ‘typology of chance’. It distinguishes eight (...) different meanings of this notion. Those meanings can be found in classical philosophical accounts of chance, in the common usage of this term, or form logical possibilities of its understanding. Subsequently, the paper points to those forms of the notion in question which may and may not be properly applied to scientific theories and ideas – given usual characteristics of natural sciences. It also shows – by the examples of particular theories mentioned above – which of the distinguished forms of the notion of chance are actually applicable in the context of these theories. (shrink)

Zasadnicza problematyka książki została podzielona na dwie części, uwzględniające tradycyjny podział na filozofię przyrody nieożywionej i filozofię przyrody ożywionej. Zastosowanie wspomnianego podziału jest uzasadnione zarówno charakterem bytów przyrodniczych, jak i dotychczasową literaturą przedmiotu. Te części poprzedzone zostały omówieniem zagadnień metodologicznych związanych z uprawianiem filozofii przyrody. Czwartą, dodatkową część publikacji, zatytułowaną Tajemnice przyrody, stanowią refleksje nad całością świata przyrodniczego ułożone w filozoficzny tryptyk: Przypadek, Cud, Sens. Są one próbą poszukiwania odpowiedzi na najbardziej podstawowe pytania, które pojawiają się na styku badań przyrodoznawstwa, (...) refleksji filozoficzno-przyrodniczej i teologii przyrody. (shrink)

The first part of the paper is a metatheoretical consideration of such philosophy of nature which allows for using scientific results in philosophical analyses. An epistemological 'judgment' of those results becomes a preliminary task of this discipline: this involves taking a position in the controversy between realistic and antirealistic accounts of science. It is shown that a philosopher of nature has to be a realist, if his task to build true ontology of reality is to be achieved. At the same (...) time he cannot be a realist ˗ a possibility that science itself is capable of deciding what beings really exist (a typical realistic claim is that scientific notions refer to something external and truly describe its characteristics) has to be denied, if the philosophy of nature is seen as a discipline investigating the natural world, while being epistemologically different from the natural sciences. A possibility of weakening this opposition is explored in the second part of the paper, where the idea of so-called "postulated ontology" of scientific theories is brought to the consideration. This idea appears in the context of a well-known thesis of the underdetermination of scientific theories by empirical data. It is argued in the paper, that the conviction of the existence of some kind of relation between a given theory and ontological ideas can be derived from this thesis, regardless of its particular form. Therefore, certain solutions to classical philosophical questions can be obtained, in principle, by careful inspection of scientific achievements. However, if the thesis of underdetermination holds, such philosophical solutions are not imposed by science itself. In order to arrive at some kind of ontology based on science, it seems necessary to accept certain philosophical presuppositions in the first place. This and the fact that scientific theories change in time show that although such a kind of ontology is possible, and perhaps desirable, it can never be ultimate. (shrink)

The paper revisits the old controversy over causality and determinism and argues, in the first place, that non˗deterministic theories of modern science are largely irrelevant to the philosophical issue of the causality principle. As it seems to be the ‘moral’ of the uncertainty principle, the reason why a deterministic theory cannot be applied to the description of certain physical systems is that it is impossible to capture such properties of the system, which are required by a desired theory. These properties (...) constitute what is called ‘the state’ of a system. However, the notion of a state of a system is relative: it depends on a particular theory which one would like to use to describe given kinds of phenomena. This implies that, even in the case where the desired state of a system is fundamentally impossible to be captured, neither ontological nor epistemological determinism may be excluded. Some following critical considerations are also offered with regard to the claim that uncertainty is “rooted in the things themselves”. The cradle of modern discussions about causality and determinism is, of course, quantum mechanics. Because, as it appears, a judgment on deterministic or non˗deterministic character of a theory can be made only after some interpretation of this theory has been given, the paper briefly reminds some chosen interpretations of quantum mechanics (Schrödinger's, probabilistic, statistical, Copenhagen, and the interpretation of quantum ensembles). Many of such interpretations, offered in the past, have now been rejected, and some gained more credibility than the others. Nonetheless, even the claim that indeterminism is irremovable from the description of the micro-world doesn't imply the rejection of the most general formula of the philosophical causality principle. There is no direct implication between theses of the epistemology of scientific knowledge and those of the ontology of the real world. (shrink)

This paper presents sample results from a poll conducted among experts regarding the roots of the controversy between the evolutionary account of human origin and religious convictions about creation. It appears that the position one takes in this controversy is influenced much more by one’s opinions than professional background. The controversy is usually only seemingly ‘solved’ at the level of a priori assumptions, erroneous definitions of ‘evolutionism’ and ‘creationism’, semantic viewpoints, epistemological positions and pragmatic choices. The core issues in the (...) controversy are widely neglected and do not play a significant role in deciding one’s views on the matter. -------------- Received: 28/08/2020. Reviewed: 30/09/2020. Accepted: 09/11/2020. (shrink)

The paper points to quite a surprising change of the attitude among general public towards science and scientific progress that seems to have happened at the turn of the 20th century, and, to an extent, stays on: from holding scientific enterprise in high esteem to treating scientists and fortune˗tellers on a par, from hopes that science will eventually resolve our problems, both theoretical and practical, to anxiety and fear of what scientific experiments can bring about in nature and human life. (...) After considering, in Part 1, possible reasons for this change, the paper focuses on supposedly real dangers associated with some particular scientific achievements. Part 2, “Physicist’s nightmares”, recalls some historical instances of the progress in physics, from the Manhattan Project to the opening of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in 2008, fears that those experiments raised, and arguments ˗ both convincing and not quite so ˗ that were offered to reassure the public of their safety. Part 3, “Biologist’s dangerous plays”, turns to genetic engineering and certain fears this discipline raises which are captured in the term the “Frankenstein Syndrome”, e.g. the danger of genetically modified organisms getting to an unintended environment, or unexpected results of intended modifications. Here the paper offers some considerations regarding the notions of “intention” and “expectation”, which leads to fundamental doubts about plausibility of the conviction of the dangerous character of the research in question. Final conclusions point to a quite fundamental discrepancy between the power of science and the power of nature as the ultimate argument against exaggerated fears of scientific progress, and the post˗concluding remark offers additional support for it in terms of a brief theological observation for those who share Christian tradition. (shrink)

One of the particular problems in the debate between science and theology regarding human origins seems to be an apparent controversy between the continuous character of evolutionary processes leading to the origin of Homo sapiens and the punctual understanding of the act of creation of man seen as taking place in a moment in time. The paper elaborates scientific arguments for continuity or discontinuity of evolution, and what follows, for the existence or nonexistence of a clear borderline between our species (...) and the rest of the living world. It is argued that, due to the conventional character of the notion of species, anthropology is unable to point to a moment in time or a place on Earth when or where Homo sapiens came into existence as a ‘really new’ species. The argument of the non˗specificity of humans is reinforced by considering emotional homologies between man and apes, “cultural” transmission of the patterns of behaviour in animals, or their mental and communicational abilities. All this is in line with a more general philosophical view of ontological continuity of the world. However, the argument is counterbalanced by pointing to such human characteristics as the ability to use abstract notions, or those forms of human behaviour which do not seem to have their animal analogues. In turn, various possibilities of theological interpretations of the act of creation of man are pointed out and a question is considered as to what extent theology is interested in a "momentary" account of this act. By pointing to theological accounts proposed as early as the 2nd century, it is argued that a vision of God – the craftsman who ‘builds’ its creation step by step, or even less restrictive forms of divine interventionism, are theologically inadequate. The original opposition between the continuity of evolutionary processes and ‘punctual’ character of creation is thus weakened and, from that perspective, a solution to the controversy in question is sought. One of such solutions, an “evolutionary model of creation”, a form of evolutionary creationism, proposed by a Polish philosopher Kazimierz Kloskowski, is presented. This model is based on two assumptions, stemming from process philosophy and evolutionary epistemology. The need to apply them in constructing a coherent view on evolution and creation is critically considered in the paper. (shrink)

The notion of chance plays an important role in some philosophical analyses and interpretations of scientific theories. The most obvious examples of that are the theories of evolution and quantum mechanics. This notion, however seems to be notoriously vague. Its application in such analyses, more often than not refers to its common-sense understanding, which, by definition, cannot be sufficient when it comes to sound philosophical interpretations of scientific achievements. The paper attempts at formulating a ‘typology of chance’. It distinguishes eight (...) different meanings of this notion. Those meanings can be found in classical philosophical accounts of chance, in the common usage of this term, or form logical possibilities of its understanding. Subsequently, the paper points to those forms of the notion in question which may and may not be properly applied to scientific theories and ideas – given usual characteristics of natural sciences. It also shows – by the examples of particular theories mentioned above – which of the distinguished forms of the notion of chance are actually applicable in the context of these theories. (shrink)

The paper maintains and reinforces a viewpoint that science and religion are methodologically and epistemologically independent. However, it also suggests that this independence can be overcome if a “third party” is taken into account, that is – philosophy. Such a possibility seems to follow from the thesis of incommensurability and the thesis of underdetermination formulated and analysed in the current philosophy of science.

It is widely acknowledged among science˗and˗theology thinkers – or at least desired – that we have left behind the era of conflict between science and religion. An approach which avoids conflict by pointing out that science and religion employ two different methodologies and therefore occupy two separate magisteria, is, however, unsatisfactory for both – the advocates of a fruitful dialogue between these two realms of human activity as well as the most vigorous opponents of possible conciliation, and the latter still (...) speak of unavoidable conflict. One of the most widely known examples of a conflict between science and religion is the Galileo's case. It can be shown that in the clash between Galileo and the theologians of the time, the latter were right from the point of view of scientific methodology while they were wrong as far as their theological views are concerned. Does this lesson from the history imply any solutions in contemporary disputes over certain scientific achievements? Is it – for instance – a theological fault to impose some constraints on scientific research in genetic engineering? The ‘typology’ of errors committed in the Galileo’s case, offered in the paper, serve as a basis for answering these questions. In the paper it is suggested that a meta-theoretical approach to the interdisciplinary research, which shows the difference between the merits of given disciplines (in this case: science and theology) and the worldview they contribute to together, allows the acknowledgement that contemporary reservations with regard to genetic engineering and techniques are not in danger of committing a 'Galileo case type' error. It is suggested, that such reservations may stem from other than purely ethical opinions, which opens up an interesting field for discussion between those who do not share the same ethics, by leaving ethical arguments aside in discussions about biotechnology. (shrink)

Pytanie o początki człowieka, stawiane na gruncie nauk biologicznych, jest pytaniem o linię filogenetyczną, wiodącą do pojawienia się gatunku Homo sapiens. Dysponując jakąś hipotezą, dotyczącą przebiegu tej linii, biolog może starać się ustalić, kiedy i gdzie zaszła zmiana na tyle decydująca, że należy ją uznać za równoznaczną powstaniu naszego – prawdziwie nowego – gatunku. Problem polega jednak na tym, że kryteria, pozwalające jednoznacznie odróżnić jeden gatunek od drugiego, wydają się być trudne, a być może nawet niemożliwe do sformułowania. Oznacza to, (...) że samo pojęcie „prawdziwie nowego” gatunku jest w pewnym sensie puste. W artykule zostały ukazane kluczowe problemy metodologiczne, występujące na gruncie antropologii przyrodniczej, mające znaczenie dla jej ustaleń. -------------- Zgłoszono: 12/08/2020. Zrecenzowano: 10/09/2020. Zaakceptowano do publikacji: 12/10/2020. (shrink)