Commentary on Eugenie Scott and Glenn branch's "guest viewpoint: 'Intelligent design' not accepted by most scientists," 7/2/02 [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The National School Boards Association enlisted Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch to criticize intelligent design bullet point fashion. Here I want to respond to these bullet-point assertions. I would repeat the entire article, but copyright restrictions prevent me. The article is available at http://nsba.org/sbn/02-jul/070202-8.htm.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Aaron Sloman, Why Scientists and Philosophers of Science Should Teach Intelligent Design (ID) Alongside the Theory of Evolution.
Sahotra Sarkar (2011). The Science Question in Intelligent Design. Synthese 178 (2):291 - 305.
Glenn Branch (2002). In Defense of Methodological Naturalism. Philo 5 (2):249-255.
Chunyu Dong (2010). Intelligent Design From the Viewpoint of Complex Systems Theory. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 5 (3):461-470.
William Dembski (2006). In Defence of Intelligent Design. In Philip Clayton (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oup Oxford. 715-731.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #109,680 of 1,102,822 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #182,775 of 1,102,822 )
How can I increase my downloads?