David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 178 (2):331 - 379 (2011)
Intelligent design creationism (ID) is a religious belief requiring a supernatural creator's interventions in the natural order. ID thus brings with it, as does supernatural theism by its nature, intractable epistemological difficulties. Despite these difficulties and despite ID's defeat in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), ID creationists' continuing efforts to promote the teaching of ID in public school science classrooms threaten both science education and the separation of church and state guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. I examine the ID movement's failure to provide either a methodology or a functional epistemology to support their supernaturalism, a deficiency that consequently leaves them without epistemic support for their creationist claims. My examination focuses primarily on ID supporter Francis Beckwith, whose published defenses of teaching ID, as well as his other relevant publications concerning education, law, and public policy, have been largely exempt from critical scrutiny. Beckwith's work exhibits the epistemological deficiencies of the supernaturally grounded views of his ID associates and of supernaturalists in general. I preface my examination of Beckwith's arguments with (1) philosopher of science Susan Haack's clarification of the established naturalistic methodology and epistemology of science and (2) discussions of the views of Beckwith's ID associates Phillip Johnson and William Dembski. Finally, I critique the religious exclusionism that Beckwith shares with his ID associates and the implications of his exclusionism for public policy
|Keywords||Beckwith Intelligent design Creationism Epistemology Law Public policy Supernaturalism Naturalism|
|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
Francis Beckwith (1989). David Hume's Argument Against Miracles: A Critical Analysis. Univ Pr of America.
Barbara Forrest & Paul R. Gross (2005). Retrograde Science, Schooling, and Society. In Noretta Koertge (ed.), Scientific Values and Civic Virtues. Oup Usa. 191.
David Hume (2009/2004). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press. 112.
Citations of this work BETA
Francis J. Beckwith (2011). Or We Can Be Philosophers: A Response to Barbara Forrest. Synthese:1-23.
Similar books and articles
Michael Weisberg (2006). The Intelligent Design Controversy: Lessons From Psychology and Education. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (2):56-57.
Sahotra Sarkar (2011). The Science Question in Intelligent Design. Synthese 178 (2):291 - 305.
Anya Plutynski (2010). Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in Public School Science Classrooms? Science and Education 19 (6-8):779-795.
Scott F. Aikin, Michael Harbour & Robert B. Talisse (2010). Nagel on Public Education and Intelligent Design. Journal of Philosophical Research 35:209-219.
Michael J. Reiss (2011). How Should Creationism and Intelligent Design Be Dealt with in the Classroom? Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (3):399-415.
B. A. Thomasson (2011). Arguing From the Evidence: The Correct Approach to Intelligent Design's Challenge in the U.S. Courts. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (4):495-534.
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 index2009-04-20
Total downloads186 ( #3,613 of 1,099,746 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #40,456 of 1,099,746 )
How can I increase my downloads?