“What constitutes the various species? [...] Here we come up against the perennial question of human thought, which even evolutionism cannot evade: we can only ever consider single, concrete individuals—this dog, and that spruce tree, this grasshopper, and that man. “Humanity” is not something we can see, nor is “catness” or “spruce-ness”. Behind these considerations lies the perennial dispute about “universals”. Is there really such a thing as “humanity”, or are these just “nomina nuda”, as Umberto Eco says in the final sentence of his famous novel The Name of the Rose? Nominalism, which was widespread in the fifteenth century, says that we cannot actually know anything properly. Is there such a thing as “man” as a kind of creature, a species? I have the impression that many scientists do not really like this question because it is too philosophical. It leads us unavoidably into metaphysics. Is there such a thing as a “species”? Are there such things as “beings” at all?” PhilosophyScienceMetaphysicsMetaphysicalUniversals Book:Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith Source: Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith