David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
For many natural scientists, design, conceived as the action of an intelligent agent, is not a fundamental creative force in nature. Rather, material mechanisms, characterized by chance and necessity and ruled by unbroken laws, are thought sufficient to do all nature’s creating. Darwin’s theory epitomizes this rejection of design.
|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
Don Fallis (2007). Toward an Epistemology of Intellectual Property. Journal of Information Ethics 16 (2):34-51.
Thomas A. C. Reydon (2012). How-Possibly Explanations as Genuine Explanations and Helpful Heuristics: A Comment on Forber. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 43 (1):302-310.
Similar books and articles
William A. Dembski (2002). No Free Lunch Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence.
Jeffrey Koperski (2003). Intelligent Design and the End of Science. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):567-588.
Sahotra Sarkar (2011). The Science Question in Intelligent Design. Synthese 178 (2):291 - 305.
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 downloads35 ( #59,791 of 1,692,513 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #181,267 of 1,692,513 )
How can I increase my downloads?