Freedom in Evolution

The study of issues of the history of the formation and development of branch book printing in the territory of Ukraine is conditioned by the need to study the origins of modern information resources from various branches of natural sciences, as well as insufficient coverage and analytical processing of the array of old prints and manuscripts of the 17th–18th centuries natural and scientific subjects, in particular from the sciences of living nature. The problems of the origin, creation, distribution, and functioning of life sciences publications that were printed on the territory of Ukraine in the 18th century, and the characteristics of their importance as a separate phenomenon in the development of science, culture, and enlightenment in Ukrainian society, have not yet been comprehensively studied. In Viktor Sokolov’s article “Information about living nature and the spread of natural and scientific knowledge in publications and manuscripts in Ukraine in the 18th century” on the basis of the analysis of primary sources and materials of scientific publications, the peculiarities of the development of natural and scientific book printing in the territory of Ukraine, the formation of the repertoire of publications and the functioning of books from various branches of science about living nature in the 18th century are highlighted. Not pretending to fully study all aspects of the study of publications and manuscripts about living nature in Ukraine in the 18th century, the author set the main goal of researching the historical conditions of their creation, distribution and functioning; to determine the main trends and features of the development of book printing of works that described and characterized the phenomena of living nature, as well as to reveal the significance of individual books of the proposed topic in the scientific and cultural and educational development of Ukraine in the 18th century. The research methodology consists in applying both general scientific study methods (description, comparison, analogy, deduction, induction, analysis, etc.) and historical (historical-comparative, historical-typological, chronological, etc.) research methods. The functional method was used in the study of the role of the natural science book and the activity of printers. The study of the book publishing repertoire was carried out using analytical-thematic and structural-typological methods. Statistical and bibliographic methods were also used in the work, which helped to consistently reveal the functions and dynamics of books that provided information from various branches of life sciences. The scientific novelty of the work is that, for the first time, an array of publications and manuscripts on living nature sciences, which were created or functioned on the territory of Ukraine in the 18th century, was analyzed; the genre-typological and thematic composition of the mentioned publications was investigated (on the example of the characteristics of individual books of the mentioned topic, their content, composition of authors, polygraphic design, centers of creation, etc. were analyzed); the functional purpose and features of the use of books from various branches of life science are characterized; their importance in the spread of natural and scientific knowledge and enlightenment in Ukraine in the 18th century is clarified. Conclusions. It was established that the socio-practical needs of everyday life, education, science, and cultural development prompted the emergence and distribution of natural science books, in particular on the sciences of living nature, and industry book printing in general, simultaneously contributing to the formation of various branches of natural sciences, including from biology (for example, such as physiology, microbiology, histology, etc.), determined their further development in the future. It has been proven that book printing from certain branches of scientific and practical activity, in particular from medicine, veterinary medicine, and economics, had a greater demand than other publications on natural and scientific topics and almost always brought profit to the publishers. Works from the specified fields of knowledge, which had information from various branches of life sciences, were willingly published by printing houses of educational institutions, monasteries, official and private printing houses, because, in addition to profit, there was an acute practical necessity and a certain social need in their printing. It was found that, despite the fact that the majority of books on this topic corresponded to the nature of local needs, some publications are gaining international importance (for example, the works of J.-K. Gaur, J. A. Wolstein, etc.). It is substantiated that on the territory of Ukraine in the 18th century publications that contained information from various branches of wildlife sciences were designed for a wide range of readers: students, teachers, specialists and educated people of the Ukrainian population at that time; they were distinguished by an accessible, popular presentation of the material, a practical orientation, and a breadth of coverage of the material. Among natural and scientific publications, by genre and typological features, the largest number is recommendation and practical advisors. A certain number of publications can be classified as educational and scientific literature. It was found that in the second half of the 18th century in Ukraine, works on botany, zoology, and other living nature sciences by researchers such as Malpighi, Bachmann, Haller, Buffon, Linnaeus, etc. were read by scientists, teachers, students, cultural and educational figures, and the educated population. However, books were the most common among natural science works at that time from medicine and veterinary medicine. Among the medical publications that were printed in Ukraine in the 18th century, in addition to medical advisors, the most published works dealt with the treatment of smallpox, measles, apoplexy, various infectious diseases, and obstetrics. Among publications on veterinary medicine, printers gave more preference to works on horse breeding. It has been proven that natural science books in Ukraine in the 18th century, in particular from various branches of living nature sciences, were one of the most important factors in the development of scientific thought, changes in people’s worldview, and had a direct impact on real life. It is motivated by the fact that domestic book printing on natural sciences, in particular publications from various branches of life sciences, satisfied public needs in this literature and, in part, reflected the level of development of one or another branch of science in Ukraine. It was revealed that in the 18th century in Ukraine, scientific research in various branches of science about living organisms was reduced mainly to the accumulation and description of various information about the flora and fauna of the country. In particular, industrial and hunting animals, agricultural pests, economic and medicinal plants were studied, the description and characteristics of which had a practical direction. It was revealed that the thematic and genre-typological syncretism of publications reflected the corresponding state of development of science, a certain uncertainty of the target purpose, however, with the development of production, various spheres of education, science and social and practical activities of people, the development of the very types, types and genres of publications gradually took place. However, among natural and scientific publications of the 18th century, due to the syncretism of genre-typological features, it becomes problematic to separate, for example, scientific works from textbooks. Moreover, in such sciences as medicine and veterinary medicine, where there was a lot of information from various branches of knowledge about living nature, most printed books were at the same time practical advisors, since it was the practical needs of life that prompted the development, for example, such branches of living nature sciences as physiology, microbiology, histology, etc. It was established that in the 18th century progressive scientists of Ukraine were aware of the achievements of science in the same way as the cultural figures of Western Europe. In the original, they got acquainted with the works of Buffon, Linnaeus, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Leibniz and other European scientists, as evidenced by the catalogs of libraries of educational institutions and monasteries, descriptions of book collections of private individuals (scientists, teachers, Cossack elders, etc.), letters and other documents. If by the 18th century scientific literature entered Ukraine in the form of translations made in Poland into Latin or Polish, already from the second half of the 18th century, new cultural currents and scientific achievements of advanced European countries begin to spread much faster in Ukraine in the form of works in the original language than in the previous period. Of course, due to the lack of independence and certain historical conditions that developed in the country in the 18th century, the distribution of the latest Western European publications, to a certain extent, «compensated» for the insufficient development of science, education, and natural science book printing in Ukraine compared to the advanced countries of Europe.

The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) intends to offer a new framework for understanding evolution based mainly on empirical and theoretical findings of current studies, including heredity and evolutionary developmental biology. In this essay, we present and develop the following objections about the terminology associated with the EES literature: (1) despite using the term "extension," EES protagonists claim new evolutionary processes, reformulate conceptual networks, and modify central assumptions of the evolutionary synthesis (ES). Therefore, the difference between ES and EES should not be described in terms of a set-subset relationship (that is, as an extension); (2) despite using the term "synthesis," the EES leads, at least in the short term, to a pluralism of approaches in evolutionary biology. Thus, we argue that the EES should not be described as a synthesis, but as a broad and plural interpretative framework encompassing different approaches. These objections are not directed to the proposed changes, but to the interpretation of these changes as a mere expansion of the previous evolutionary framework, as well as to the interpretation of the EES as a synthesis. Based on these objections, we seek to present some explanations for the use of the term "extended synthesis" among its protagonists.

Compelled by converging research in the natural sciences suggesting the stratigraphic nature of time, I argue for a temporal approach to the venerable problem of synthesis in evolutionary theory. Geneticist and pioneer of the Modern Synthesis (MS), Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975), constructed one of the most powerful synthesis arguments in the history of evolutionary biology in the classic “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973). I argue that nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of time, such that the problem of evolutionary time plays a powerful role in making sense of the conceptual architecture of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). The EES offers a strong alternative to the temporal and causal idealizations operating at the hardened core of the MS. I create the philosophical concept of stratigraphic time to strengthen connections between the four problem agendas or “causal catchalls” structuring the new synthesis: (1) developmental plasticity, (2) developmental bias, (3) inclusive inheritance, and (4) niche construction (Laland 2015 et al.). The dissertation is driven by two critical arguments (Chapters 1-3) concerning the subordination of time to process, and two constructive arguments (Chapters 4 and 5) concerning the nature of evolutionary time, which together attest to the conceptual strength of a temporal approach to the multiplicity of evolutionary problems pursued by the EES, and especially the connections between them. <br>Chapter 1, “Embracing the Problematic Structure of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis,” explicates and evaluates the core assumptions of the EES in contrast with those of the MS, which has served as the dominant conceptual framework for evolutionary science and theory since the early twentieth century. Chapter 2, “Deep Time: The Forgotten Frontier,” critically argues that evolutionary time has been subordinated to evolutionary process, that the problem of evolutionary time must be revived after its eclipse at the origin of evolutionary theory, especially due to Darwin’s unnecessarily strict commitments to gradualism, adaptationism, and to the preeminence of natural selection. Chapter 3, “The Chronometric Subordination of Time to Movement in Philosophy, Science, and Society,” critically argues that the subordination of evolutionary time to process is primed by the chronometrically facilitated subordination of time to movement, what mathematician, physicist, and philosopher of science Henri Poincaré (1854-1912) called an unconscious opportunism in philosophical and scientific thought. The constructive arguments unfolded in Chapter 4, “The Continuous Variation of Evolutionary Contingency,” and Chapter 5, “Stratigraphic Time: The Synthesis of Deep and Developmental Rhythms,” attempt to respect causal thinking while conceptualizing evolutionary processes not according to causal laws but rather according to passive and active temporal syntheses (or modes of repetition), effectively delimiting causal thinking to a provisional conceptualization. Stratigraphic time enables conceptualization of the multiplicity of evolutionary process, driven by a new concept of evolutionary contingency. I argue that the roles of chance and causation in the EES are strengthened by concepts of difference and repetition, akin to the conceptual roles played by arrows and cycles of time in the formation of geological and evolutionary thought. These critical and constructive arguments are guided by Gilles Deleuze’s philosophy of time, which he conceptualizes under the rubric of repetition. The three passive and active temporal syntheses, or modes of repetition, Deleuze creates to think the nature of repetition provide conceptual tools for evolutionary synthesis through stratigraphic time. <br>

Quo vadis plant biomechanics: Old wine in new bottles or an up-and-coming field of modern plant science?

There has been much debate in evolutionary biology concerning the extension of some of the central tenets of the modern synthesis (MS). Due to recent developments in evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo), epigenetics, phenotypic and developmental plasticity, niche construction and ecological inheritance, and animal traditions, an increasing array of leading evolutionary biologists, theoretical biologists, and philosophers of biology agree that the structure of the MS needs to be reconsidered. This paper reflects on the connection between this scientific debate and the notion of biological individuality. The paper proposes a discussion of two levels at which the concept of individuality intersects with the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES), as well as the tension between two roles for individuals in such an extended theoretical framework. First, taken at face value, many developments in evolutionary thinking point to an organismcentered view of evolutionary processes. Second, the concept of individuality appears to have been hugely modified in the history of evolutionary thought. Indeed, both multilevel selection theory and the framing of Darwinian individuality transitioning among levels in evolution entail an expansion of the notion of individuality. Such an extended notion leaves room for aggregations of (classical) organisms counting as evolutionary individuals while (allegedly proper) organisms may coherently be viewed as populations. It follows that while individuality has become increasingly relevant for the renewed view of evolution that the EES presents, the boundaries of the notion seem blurrier and more fluid than ever. The paper concludes with a call for pluralism with regard to individuals (and many other evolutionary concepts).

This chapter proposes a strategy for responding to reductionist worries that emerge at the intersection of the humanities and natural sciences. The strategy is dubbed the “inflation of nature”: it aims to save higher phenomena (e.g., consciousness, aesthetics, goal-directed action) by inflating our concept of nature to accommodate them. As a test case, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), which is being mooted in contemporary biology, is considered. The EES emphasises the centrality of whole organisms—not merely their genes—as significant factors in evolutionary trajectories, particularly through the processes of phenotypic plasticity, genetic accommodation, and niche construction. This recentering of evolutionary theory on whole organisms can be understood as a return to an Aristotelian philosophy of nature, suitably revised, and invites an inflation of current concepts of living nature. The inflationary strategy deployed here offers a new vantage on science-and-religion discussions: the inflation of nature defends the higher phenomena held dear by many religious thinkers not by securing them outside nature but by reconstruing nature as their origin and home.

The Modern Synthesis (MS) is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology. It was actually built by expanding on the conceptual foundations laid out by its predecessors, Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. For sometime now there has been talk of a new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), and this article begins to outline why we may need such an extension, and how it may come about. As philosopher Karl Popper has noticed, the current evolutionary theory is a theory of genes, and we still lack a theory of forms. The field began, in fact, as a theory of forms in Darwin's days, and the major goal that an EES will aim for is a unification of our theories of genes and of forms. This may be achieved through an organic grafting of novel concepts onto the foundational structure of the MS, particularly evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetic inheritance, complexity theory, and the theory of evolution in highly dimensional adaptive landscapes.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION: A New Introduction, 3rd edition by Alister E. McGrath. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2020. 272 pages. Paperback; $28.99. ISBN: 9781119599876. *Alister McGrath is a major international scholar who is prolific in his output. He has produced many popular books and academic tomes, and as a theological educator his output also includes many textbooks for students. Science and Religion: A New Introduction is now into its third edition and is an excellent introduction to the whole field of science and religion. The restructuring and inclusion of new material is designed to be helpful to the student, and reflects comments on the previous editions. The book introduces most of the areas of interaction between these bodies of thought, and I myself have used earlier editions in my own teaching, giving students a chapter of McGrath to start with for an essay, followed by more detailed material from elsewhere. *McGrath notes that science and religion are wide categories and serious study entails narrowing them down. He describes Ian Barbour's four models for interaction followed by what he calls four ways of imagining the relationship between them. The conflict model is rightly dismissed as a late nineteenth-century myth, and areas where conflict has been perceived, notably with Galileo and Darwin, are given the more nuanced treatment they deserve, thus dispelling the myths surrounding them. McGrath also gives a broader historical overview, refuting the further myth that the scientific revolution owed nothing to the medieval period. He describes the development of the Newtonian mechanistic model of the universe and brings us to the twentieth century with the development of the Big Bang theory. Regarding this last, it would have been good to note the pioneering work of Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, often dubbed the "Father of the Big Bang," who, in contrast to Alexander Friedman, regarded solutions of Einstein's equations as physically realistic and not just mathematical curiosities. *McGrath moves on to a helpful chapter on religion and the philosophy of science. Some form of realism seems predominant and, indeed, the most rational position to take. It is interesting to note the adoption of "critical realism," including not only by science-religion scholars such as John Polkinghorne and others, but also such as the biblical scholar N. T. Wright and James Dunn. McGrath moves on to the role of explanation in science, noting how in science there are different methods for different sciences, and thus different levels of explanation across the different subdisciplines. Theology too has its own methods appropriate to its own object but there are differing views on the role of explanation. He discusses an important case study, that of "non-reductive physicalism" associated with Nancey Murphy and others. He also gives criteria for drawing an "inference to the best explanation." Various perspectives on the philosophy of science--logical positivism and the criteria of verification, falsificationism, and Kuhn's paradigm shifts--are discussed. Worthy of mention here would have been Imre Lakatos whose "methodology of scientific research programmes" has been applied to theology by Philip Hefner and Nancey Murphy. *Complementing the above there follows a useful chapter on science and the philosophy of religion. McGrath describes arguments for the existence of God, beginning with Aquinas's five ways. A section on the Kalām cosmological argument notes how this has been given a new lease on life by the Big Bang theory's postulation of a temporal origin to the universe, although it would have been good to note that the existence of the universe would demand an explanation even if it were to lack a temporal origin. He gives a careful analysis of Paley's natural theology, noting neglected aspects of Paley's work such as his responses to arguments of David Hume. He examines ways in which God may act in the world given the laws of nature uncovered by science, including through miracles, where he notes Hume's critique. However, as McGrath rightly says, Hume's critique needs to be qualified, since, on the one hand, he defines miracles as violations of laws of nature and yet, on the other, has a problem with inductive generalizations from past experience--which is just what laws of nature are. McGrath rightly sees evolutionary arguments debunking religion as committing the genetic fallacy and self-defeating if human rationality is flawed, since that could equally well affect judgments in areas other than religion, notably science. There is a good section on natural theology and the role of explanation. *In the next chapter, McGrath turns to models and analogies: first, as found within the natural sciences and then, within religion. After considering what the terms mean more generally, he gives specific examples for the sciences, including the kinetic theory of gases, wave-particle duality, Galileo's analogical reasoning which led him to postulate mountains on the moon, and Darwin's metaphor of "natural selection." In the theological sphere, he considers Aquinas's notion of analogia entis whereby the creation bears a likeness to its creator, and Ian Ramsey's model of the "divine economy" utilizing the Greek concept of oikonomia. He looks at Arthur Peacocke's theological application of models as linked to "critical realism," and Sally McFague's metaphors in theology--though he could perhaps have allowed more than one sentence on Janet Soskice. He then examines specific theological examples: creation and theories of the atonement. He has a helpful section on the notion of "mystery" in science and religion before returning to Ian Barbour on models. *McGrath's final chapter considers a number of contemporary debates. Noting Hume's distinction between "ought" and "is" he critiques the idea that science, say, evolutionary biology or neuroscience, can determine ethics and moral values. That leads to a more general critique of the imperialist stance that science can answer all interesting questions or that the only reality is that disclosed by science. An interesting example is mathematics, which discovers truths that do not belong to the natural sciences. It is also utterly astonishing that mathematics is effective in describing nature and very hard to explain on an atheistic view. *An important area considered is theodicy, which is arguably made more difficult by the long process of evolution, preceding the existence of humans by hundreds of millions of years. McGrath provides an overview of the helpful contributions of Christopher Southgate and his former student Bethany Sollereder. For these scholars, there is "no other way" for God to create such a rich diversity of creatures, with whom God suffers, and for whom God will bring eschatological fulfilment. On transhumanism, McGrath describes the approaches of Philip Hefner and Ted Peters who, while recognizing the creativity of technological enhancement, are also aware that, given fallen human nature, this can also be abused. *McGrath returns to the anthropic principle and fine-tuning. He says that fine-tuning is strongly consistent with a theistic perspective, but the debate about a multiverse as a possible explanation continues. He also considers the legitimacy of teleological language and directionality in biology. Simon Conway Morris's notion of convergent evolution may be the "best explanation" of what is observed and is resonant with a religious perspective but, like cosmological fine-tuning, does not prove that God exists. *McGrath concludes with two sections on the psychology of religion, considering whether this field can "explain away" religion. Religion may be "natural," but it is debatable as to whether that has any implication at all about the existence of God. Moreover, it is a long way from primitive apprehension of some vague supernatural agent to the systematic theology of, say, Thomas Aquinas or Karl Barth. To my mind, this is not unlike the difference--to give a scientific analogy--between the discovery of fire by early humans and the modern scientific understanding of combustion. *This is an excellent introduction to the field and very well suited to its pedagogic purpose. There are a few typographical errors (e.g., "magisterial" for "magisteria"). I also noticed that British cosmologist Paul Davies is mistakenly described as American. But these and my earlier minor points should not detract from a volume that provides a vital resource to educators and their students. *Reviewed by Rodney Holder, Emeritus Course Director, The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, Cambridge, UK CB3 0UB.

Anthropology is characterized by the theoretical ideas cross-cutting disciplinary boundaries. This paper discusses the two such interdisciplinary theories i.e. ecological and biological theories in an attempt to highlight their increasing relevance in the contemporary socio-cultural research. Since the very beginning of late 19th century, natural environment and biology have been central to the evolutionary paradigmof ethnological underpinnings. However, ecological theories are now becoming more prevalent owing to emanating ecological crisis. Similarly, Covid-19 has reminded us about our bio-cultural existence. This article reflects uponthe various approaches within bothsets of theoretical umbrellas.It could be clearly argued in conclusion that the recent trends in the ecological and biological theories are influential for contemporary researches in anthropology and they keep prompting us about the overlapping concerns within the biological and cultural branches of anthropology.

There is no doubt that the purpose of general natural science education is the systemic study and knowledge of the basics of natural sciences and the individual, most general laws of nature. Natural science education as a process is directly aimed at assimilation of experience in the field of natural sciences (formation of the system of natural science knowledge, skills, and abilities). In the process of natural science education, a person's orientation toward nature is developed, taking into account the ideas formed in society about the system of relations between nature and man. Personal qualities based on a value approach to nature and the surrounding world are also formed and developed. Primary science education should be systemic, consistent, and of high quality. In a pilot study conducted in 2018, it was established that primary school teachers’ professional preparedness in the field of natural science education remains relevant. Although teachers tend to demonstrate various experiments, researching is not a dominating activity. Also, a similar situation is observed speaking about the use of technology in the educational process. Teacher preparedness to organise and implement science education in primary school is quite uneven. Thus, the main goal of this study is – to analyse preparedness of primary school teachers to organise and implement science education in primary school according to the main scientific fields and their knowledge (the level of knowledge) in the essential fields of natural sciences. This research study based on a prior conducted pilot study, supplements and expands it. 115 primary school teachers from more than 30 Lithuanian schools participated in the study. All subjects by gender are women. It can be reasonably stated that preparedness of primary school teachers in the field of science education is basically average. Preparedness according to the main fields of natural sciences varies quite widely. The best preparedness is fixed in such areas as environmental protection, healthy lifestyle, ecology, etc. These are the areas that express not only the natural science component but also the component of social education. However, in the fields that express the issues of chemistry and physical sciences, the preparedness, though evaluated as positive, is significantly lower. Teachers’ knowledge in the essential fields of natural sciences is also diverse. Teachers feel knowing environmental protection issues best, but the knowledge in the new fields such as Nanotechnology and Genetic Engineering is extremely low. It is necessary to consistently and systematically develop primary school teachers’ natural science competencies, i.e., the ability to organise research-based learning, practical activities in various educational environments (especially in nature). Subject preparation of primary school teachers in the field of natural sciences and especially strengthening the preparedness of future primary school teachers in the field of natural science education, and the change of study programmes in the aspect of natural science content is an urgent problem. Keywords: natural sciences, primary school, professional preparedness, science education

Assessment methods are important to create qualified graduates who are ready to face the real world. Authentic assessment is considered to be the most effective method to achieve this. The application of authentic assessment is often universal. However, there is a difference between natural sciences and social sciences. If it is used for different scientific constructions, then the authentic assessment should also be different. Therefore, there is a need for authentic implementation research in these two fields of science. This research is survey research with quantitative descriptive method. This study focuses on the analysis of differences in implementation of the assessment carried out, assignment techniques, assessment components, and post-assessment at the State University of Malang in two different fields of science, namely natural sciences and social sciences. The population in this study was 1069 lecturers represented by 270 sample lecturers. There are 106 (39.26%) samples of lecturers representing 388 (36.3%) lecturer populations from 2 natural fields and 164 (60.74%) samples representing 681 (63.7%) lecturer populations from 6 social fields. The analysis is carried out by comparing the results of each aspect of the assessment implementation in the two fields. Almost all aspects of authentic assessment between the natural and social sciences had no difference. The only differences were in the assessment form and individual assignment techniques that were performed. Social science conducted non-test assessment only higher than the natural science. Measured tests were primarily used in the natural science using Higher-Order Thinking Skills questions. Performance test was mostly conducted in social science.

In this article, the author provides an analysis of the “discourse of freedom” as one of the foundations for secular and ecclesiastical liberalism. The discourse of freedom receives the name of a “libertian discourse” (not to be confused with libertarianism — a specific political and ideological current). The libertian discourse is studied within its historical origins associated with the legal codes of ancient Rome and the social philosophy of the Enlightenment. The libertian discourse and the related concept of the “natural law”, hardly evolving and unchanged in the 300 years since its inception, has outlived its historical competitors in the form of historical law, Marxism, etc. This phenomenon of libertian fundamentalism refutes the liberal axiom of permanent social progress and modernization, which also applies to the sphere of knowledge. Since the concept of fundamental (generic) rights and freedoms can be neither scientifically proven nor deduced from the traditional norms and values, it should be classified as a metaphysical (in Karl Popper's sense), fundamentalist and quasi-religious doctrine. This article shows the contemporary transformations of the phenomenon of freedom, which results in the libertian discourse becoming an integral part of power practices, an exclusive right to criticize power and a “subtle discourse of power”. The contemporary function of libertianism lies in restricting the freedom of a political opponent in the name of fighting for freedom and in creating a marketable competitive field of political compensation for the restriction of freedoms (stigmatization). The author points to the struggle between two cultural-historical and religious paradigms with different understandings of freedom — the “Roman” (political, elitist) and biblical (social), emphasizing that this struggle generates two versions of the discourse of freedom in the contemporary political space. The author raises the question of the demarcation of freedom paradigms on the same grounds as the more general question of “paradigms of involvement with the transcendent” and the hybrid mixing of different paradigmatic foundations in the modern interpretation of freedom.

The term 'crimen' can also mean a rule of criminal law itself. In that case the expression 'crimen contra naturalem legem' describes a criminal offence which, for its part, transgresses nature. What is meant here are the attempts, in particular of the so-called 'more recent law of nature', to correct existing positive criminal law by means of arguments based on the law of nature. The prohibition of bigamous marriage occupied not only the authors on criminal law but above all the theologians. In the early modern era matrimonial law was primarily canon law and not the reserve of secular lawyers. Psychological considerations are used to point out the senselessness of polygamous marriage which, it is claimed, results necessarily in jealousy among the wives and thus destroys domestic peace. 'Natural science' is the physical anthropology of that period. According to Christian Wolff's comments in the general part, the prohibition of the opposite follows, by contrary inference, from this precept.

The issue of free will, supporting moral responsibility in various accounts of Catholic moral theology, is in a particular way situated at the crossroads of theological and non-theological disciplines. Because of its connection to philosophy, as well as to natural and empirical sciences, the topic enjoys growing interdisciplinary attention. Early studies in cognitive neuroscience of volition, inspired by the experiment of Libet (1983), suggest that free will is an illusion because our conscious intentions do not cause corresponding actions: these are initiated earlier by the unconscious brain processes. While this seems to conflict with fundamental anthropological and ethical assumptions, a closer look renders such a worry immature. The more traditional, pre-modern notion of what willing, intending and choosing actually means – and how does it relate to us having free will or not – proves largely intact by the Libet-style argumentation. At the same time, new developments within a multidisciplinary science of volition highlight several aspects of freedom and agency that could be central to the way humans produce actions and control their lives. Implications from these studies might provoke some reformulations on the side of theological ethics. They might also set forth some particular schools and traditions, such as Christian virtue ethics, as theologically preferable. All this on the condition that a kind of knowledge coming from natural sciences – which often already contains a measure of (theological) interpretation– can be seen as both relevant and integrable in theological methodology and insight. Anthropological and ethical realms strike as particularly suitable for such integration: the essential embodiment of personal agency definitely deserves more attention, also for clarifying its free and indeed moral predicate.

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) includes Evolutionary Developmental biology (EvoDevo), epigenetics, the concept of niche construction, a new understanding of non-genetic plasticity and group selection. Niche construction and ecological engineering are concepts necessary for modeling human cultural and religious evolution. In popular understanding, epigenetic effects are heritable variations which are not coded by DNA sequences. Some voices proclaim that they establish a revolutionary, quasi-Lamarckian mechanism of evolution. The discussion of this proposal involves the famous Overkalix study. The result is sobering: Epigenetic effects are an important module of the EES, but do not revolutionize the biological theory of evolution. It will be argued that epigenetic phenomena do not form a sufficient basis for returning to a teleological view of natural evolution. On the contrary, EES eliminates residual teleological elements in evolutionary biology. However, neither EES nor other recent theoretical developments explain the evolutionary trajectory of a species, or of the entire biosphere, on a large scale.