There is a lot in this essay that is problematic. I'll offer just two examples: "What exactly does science tell us about the idea of a human nature?" Science

There is a lot in this essay that is problematic. I'll offer just two examples: "What exactly does science tell us about the idea of a human nature?" Science can't tell you anything until you have a philosophy of knowledge which defines a thing called "science". So the argument becomes a bit circular here. This is worse: "If we take evolutionary biology seriously, then we certainly should reject any essentialist conception of it, such as Aristotle’s." That is a large if. Here are some unsolved problems in evolutionary biology: 1. Why do people become gay? 2. Why do people adopt children who are unrelated to them? 3. Why does such a large percentage of the population suffer mental illness? 4. Why do people engage in acts of altruism, helping those they are not related to? 5. Why do people believe in gods, and why do they make sacrifices to these gods? A famous argument against evolutionary biology was made by Richard Dawkins back in 1976, in his book The Selfish Gene. As Dawkins says in that book: "We can rise above our genes; indeed, we do every time we use contraceptives." Before we "take evolutionary biology seriously" we need to carefully consider all of the arguments against it. And since so much of this article depends on "take evolutionary biology seriously", the whole article is weak. Mind you, I believe a strong case can be made for a human nature. But I wouldn't build that case on evolutionary biology, without first addressing the known limits of evolutionary biology. A stronger case could be built if one first argued for independent agency in the processes arising from genes. This is the "ghost in the machine" argument. But that argument would have something in common with the philosophers who are being criticized in this article.