Regarding the fact that gay men leave less offspring than straight men, it is appropriate to raise a question by which means is male homosexuality maintained in a population and what could eventually be its evolutionary role. The aim of this paper is to summarize theories that try to explain male homosexuality within the framework of evolution. Furthermore, it aims to critically evaluate the results of empirical research that support particular theories or give evidence against them. In the first part, the paper provides a review of knowledge about the genetic and immunological origins of male homosexuality which consequently serves as a theoretical base for the main part of the paper that pursues the five most influential evolutionary theories of male homosexuality. and Homosexuální orientace se vyznačuje trvalou citovou a sexuální náklonností k jedincům stej-ného pohlaví. Vzhledem k tomu, že homosexu-álně orientovaní muži zanechávají méně potom-stva než heterosexuálně orientovaní muži, je na místě si položit otázku, jakými mechanismy je mužská homosexualita v populaci udržována a jaký by případně mohl být její evoluční vý-znam – tedy zda a případně komu (když ne ho-mosexuálnímu jedinci) přináší výhodu ve smy-slu vyššího reprodukčního úspěchu. Cílem této přehledové studie je shrnout teorie, jež se snaží mužskou homosexualitu vysvětlit v evolučním rámci, a kriticky zhodnotit výsledky empiric-kých výzkumů, které podporují jednotlivé teo-rie, či svědčí proti nim. Úvodní část článku po-skytuje přehled poznatků o genetickém a imu-nologickém původu homosexuality u mužů, rovněž však slouží jako teoretický základ pro hlavní část, která se věnuje pěti nejvlivnějším evolučním teoriím mužské homosexuality.
The proposal for a scientific study of religions (Religionswissenschaft) was born of the scientific impulse that swept Europe from the mid-nineteenth century and that gave birth to the study of history itself as a scientific and autonomous discipline. Increasingly, however, historians of religion abandoned historical methods altogether and the study of religion became associated with an a historical approach in which "history of religions" became a synonym for assembling a phenomenological corpus of truncated and decontextualized cultural data, the temporality of which was disregarded in favor of claims to their being manifestations of a sui generis sacrality. A history of religions, informed by the insights of the new cognitive sciences, can draw upon well-founded theory that can supplement and provide correctives to traditional historiographical tools. Nevertheless, the weight of the 150 history of the study of religion suggests that the future of the study of religion will inevitably differ little from that of its past.
Charles Darwin is celebrated for his claim that man and primates developed from a common ancestor. Man has been, since Darwin, treated by science as a biological species and scientists often compare his faculties to the instincts of animals. At the same time, the other side of Darwin’s discovery is forgotten – animals are similar to man in their behaviour and emotions. While for Darwin himself an anthropomorphic view of animals was self-evident, many contemporary Darwinists prefer a mechanical model. These two contradictory tendencies are established here by reference to the work of the biologists Richard Dawkins and Frans de Waal. The difference of perspective from which animals are viewed can be best seen in connection with the problem-area of morality and its evolutionary origin. It is shown that the empirical orientation of de Waal is fundamentally closer to the Darwinian tradition of research than Dawkins’ theoretical approach.