¹ See Porter, Roy, The Enlightenment(London: Macmillan Press, 1990), p. 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² For a discussion of the relationship between the Enlightenment and revolution, see Porter, The Enlightenment, pp. 10, 60, 58, 70.

³ See Russell, Bertrand, History of Western Philosophy(London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 577–583Google Scholar.

⁴ Jaggar, Alison M., Feminist Politics and Human Nature(Totawa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld, 1983), p. 28Google Scholar.

⁵ Ibid., pp. 40–42.

⁶ This viewpoint is associated particularly with Hobbes, Locke and Bentham. See Jaggar, Feminist Politics, pp. 29–30. Bentham was a utilitarian. Utilitarian philosophy has been extremely influential politically. This philosophy holds that what is morally good is synonymous with pleasure, and moral evil is equated with pain. Bentham and his disciple James Mill held that “the standard of morally right action is the increase of happiness … as much as possible for as many people as possible”, and that this motivation is both moral and rational. Thus, as Bertrand Russell points out, “ … ethics is reduced to prudence”, since a man furthers the interest of others only in the hope that they in turn will further his. See Western Philosophy, pp. 740–744.

⁷ Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁸ Kenan Malik, “Man, the utterly exceptional beast”, printed in The Sunday Times, Oct. 22, 2000, p.8. This article is based on Malik's book entitled Man, Beast and Zombie(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2000)Google Scholar.

⁹ Porter, Enlightenment, pp. 20–21.

¹⁰ Ridley, Matt, Genome(London: Fourth Estate, 1999), p. 24Google Scholar. For further discussion of the question of evolution and moral progress, see also Brown, Andrew, The Darwin Wars(London: Simon and Schuster, 1999)Google Scholar and Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Redemptor Hominis(1979), quoted in The Christian Faith In The Doctrinal Documents Of The Catholic Church, ed. By Neuner, J. S. J. and Dupuis, J. S. J. (London: Collins, 1983), p. 517Google Scholar

¹² For comprehensive discussion of this situation, see Malik, Man, Beast and Zombie, and Gray, John, Straw Dogs(London: Granta, 2002)Google Scholar. Gray argues that after Darwin, all attempts to improve the human lot on anything other than a temporary basis must be relinquished.

¹³ See Freud, Sigmund, Civilization, Society and Religion(London: Penguin, 1991)Google Scholar; see also Nietzsche, Friedrich, Beyond Good And Evil(New York: Vintage Books, 1966)Google Scholar, and Daybreak(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See Russell, Western Philosophy, pp. 701–715: pp. 748–755.

¹⁵ See Ruse, Michael, The Darwinian Paradigm(London: Routledge, 1989)Google Scholar, Bowler, Peter J., The Non‐Darwinian Revolution(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Andrew Brown, The Darwin Wars for comprehensive discussion and analysis of the conflicting Germanic and Darwinian views on evolution.

¹⁶ The Darwinian view of evolution does not conflict with the Judaeo‐Christian belief that God has a plan and a purpose for Creation. Theologians who agree with the Darwinian perspective on evolution point out that natural selection must be understood as God's instrumental cause in bringing about the emergence of life on earth. The fact that natural selection depends on a certain amount of chance and accident does not rule out the action of Divine Providence. Graeme Finlay writes that “Chance as an aspect of the intelligibility of God's creation is not an alternative to design but a creative part of it; an aspect of God's creativity. God has ordained random processes as a means of generating novelty. In the interaction between freely‐acting, contingent chance and constraining, directing necessity, God has chosen to create the creature which would bear his image … ‘order is essential together with chance in the evolution of the universe’. The fruitful interplay of novelty‐generating chance and lawful necessity in the universe evinces divine design. Chance is a part of the anthropic fruitfulness of the universe.” See “Homo divinus: The ape that bears God's image” in Science and Christian Belief, Vol. 15 (1), 1–96, April 2003, p. 18Google Scholar.

¹⁷ The Marxist‐Hegelian perspective on evolution is a contemporary form of Pelagianism: it holds that mankind can perfect itself morally by its own efforts.

¹⁸ Within the scientific community at large, the theory of evolution by natural selection holds sway. “It is one of the oldest unfalsified theories in science. It has demonstrated explanatory and predictive power and has proved hermeneutically rich in nearly every field of biology. Showing impressive resilience, it has incorporated almost a century‐and‐a‐half of new scientific discoveries and withstood rigorous philosophical queries”. See Williams, Patricia A., Doing Without Adam and Eve(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), p. 123Google Scholar. For in‐depth analysis of the pre‐eminence of Darwinian theory among reputable scientists, see Ruse, , Mystery of Mysteries(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; see also Brown, The Darwin Wars.

¹⁹ Crowe, Michael Bertram, The Changing Profile of the Natural Law(The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977), p. 266CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Ulpian's definition is found in the Corpus Iuris Civilis. This great work was completed in 534 A.D. by a group of Byzantine lawyers working under the orders of the Emperor Justinian.

²¹ See Gula, Richard M., Reason Informed By Faith(New York: Paulist Press, 1989), pp. 223–225Google Scholar.

²² Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae(Cambridge: Blackfriars, 1964)Google Scholar, 1a2ae, 94, 2, pp. 81–82.

²³ Ibid., 85, 3.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid., 91, art. 6, p. 39.

²⁶ Ibid., art, 6, p. 39.

²⁷ The most famous theologian to espouse a teleological view of evolution is Teilhard de Chardin. It is a view that has been particularly influential in the field of moral theology. The latter perspective on evolution harmonises well with the opinions of St. Irenaeus of Lyons on human nature, original sin and historical progress. Theologians who adopt this evolutionary perspective generally try to avoid the charge of Pelagianism by attributing the inevitability of human moral progress to the saving action of God. However, this creates another problem in its implication that humankind can triumph over evil without full knowledge, consent and effort of will. The Darwinian view of evolution and human nature has a great deal more in common with the thought of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

²⁸ Gula, Reason Informed By Faith, pp. 224–225.

²⁹ Aquinas, Summa, 1a2ae, 94, 2, pp. 81–82.

³⁰ Porter, The Enlightenment, p. 75.