What do you think?
Rate this book
Origin of the Human Species
This book evaluates the claims of scientific creationism versus materialistic evolution, while examining other scenarios. Consistently philosophical in methodology and perspective, the book is radically interdisciplinary in content, examining data and arguments drawn from natural science, philosophy, and theology. This work challenges the limits of human knowledge regarding every major question touching on human origins.
"Using the tools of philosophy, Professor Bonnette investigates the origin of true humanity. Along the way, he considers the questions of animal intelligence, the philosophical meaning of the species concept, Adam and Eve, and more. His demonstration that the standard human evolution story is compatible with Christianity makes his conclusion that the story itself may be shaky all the more impressive."
Michael J. Behe
Author, Darwin's Black Box
228 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
April 27, 2012
The first five chapters are full of philosophical jargon.
The book became easier for my students with the chapter on whether animals can talk.
I typed up 22 pages of notes on the book for my students. Bonnette uses terms without defining them. Once I came up with my own glossary, I was able to diagram his argument for those of my students who are willing to slog through my notes.
One terminological mess is Bonnette's use of "natural species," which is a philosophical category from Aristotle and Aquinas. The word "species" in that phrase is about as far removed as one can get from the biological sense of the word that dominates our culture today. There are at least 8.7 million biological species in the natural world, but there are only three "natural species" that interest Bonnette from a philosophical standpoint: plants, animals, and humans (he really ought to have used the term "rational animals"). The concept of a biological species is abstracted from experience of specimens; the concept of a "natural species" is abstracted from contemplation of millions of biological species. Plants grow and reproduce. Animals grow, reproduce, have senses, and can move themselves. Humans are rational animals who possess spiritual powers that can only be created within them ex nihilo by God.
Bonnette ought not to have used the term "species" for these second-order abstractions, even if it happens to be the word used in the Latin. He could mention that fact in passing, then stick to some synonym that would help separate the philosophical classifications from those used in biology.
The payoff for dealing with the three kinds (species) of living beings is to see that homo sapiens is only one member of a class that could include other hominids from 500,000 to 1,000,000 years ago or extra-terrestrial incarnate spirits from other planets. The biological definition of species that I learned from Mr. Giambrone in 1966 is, "a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding organisms that give rise to viable and fertile offspring." The three philosophical categories that group such biological species into plants, animals, and rational animals have nothing to do with the potential to breed and produce viable and fertile offspring. Other hominids or extra-terrestrial intelligent beings possess the same type (species) of nature, even though they do not belong to the same biological species as homo sapiens.
Now that I've got the notes and have some sense of where the potholes are, I'll add a star to my review and use the book again the next time I get to teach Religion and the Challenge of Science. It was a hard slog, but the view from the top was worth the effort.
The book became easier for my students with the chapter on whether animals can talk.
I typed up 22 pages of notes on the book for my students. Bonnette uses terms without defining them. Once I came up with my own glossary, I was able to diagram his argument for those of my students who are willing to slog through my notes.
One terminological mess is Bonnette's use of "natural species," which is a philosophical category from Aristotle and Aquinas. The word "species" in that phrase is about as far removed as one can get from the biological sense of the word that dominates our culture today. There are at least 8.7 million biological species in the natural world, but there are only three "natural species" that interest Bonnette from a philosophical standpoint: plants, animals, and humans (he really ought to have used the term "rational animals"). The concept of a biological species is abstracted from experience of specimens; the concept of a "natural species" is abstracted from contemplation of millions of biological species. Plants grow and reproduce. Animals grow, reproduce, have senses, and can move themselves. Humans are rational animals who possess spiritual powers that can only be created within them ex nihilo by God.
Bonnette ought not to have used the term "species" for these second-order abstractions, even if it happens to be the word used in the Latin. He could mention that fact in passing, then stick to some synonym that would help separate the philosophical classifications from those used in biology.
The payoff for dealing with the three kinds (species) of living beings is to see that homo sapiens is only one member of a class that could include other hominids from 500,000 to 1,000,000 years ago or extra-terrestrial incarnate spirits from other planets. The biological definition of species that I learned from Mr. Giambrone in 1966 is, "a group of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding organisms that give rise to viable and fertile offspring." The three philosophical categories that group such biological species into plants, animals, and rational animals have nothing to do with the potential to breed and produce viable and fertile offspring. Other hominids or extra-terrestrial intelligent beings possess the same type (species) of nature, even though they do not belong to the same biological species as homo sapiens.
Now that I've got the notes and have some sense of where the potholes are, I'll add a star to my review and use the book again the next time I get to teach Religion and the Challenge of Science. It was a hard slog, but the view from the top was worth the effort.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review