Graduate studies at Western
Philo 13 (1):67-79 (2010)
|Abstract||Intelligent Design proponents consistently deny that science is rightfully governed by the norm of methodological naturalism—that independent of one’s actual metaphysical commitments regarding the natural/supernatural, a scientist, qua scientist, must behave as if the world is constituted by the natural, material world. This essay works to develop more fully a pragmatic justification for methodological naturalism, one that focuses on a number of key elements found in 17th and 18th century embryology|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Reed Richter (2002). What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
William Dembski, Can Functional Logic Take the Place of Intelligent Design? A Response to Walter Thorson.
Michael Ruse (2005). Methodological Naturalism Under Attack. South African Journal of Philosophy 24 (1):44-60.
Piotr Bylica & Dariusz Sagan (2008). God, Design, and Naturalism: Implications of Methodological Naturalism in Science for Science–Religion Relation. Pensamiento 64:621-38.
Piotr Bylica (2003). Testowalność teorii inteligentnego projektu. Filozofia Nauki 2.
Jeffrey Koperski (2008). Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Good Ones. Zygon 43 (2):433-449.
Alvin Plantinga (1997). Methodological Naturalism, Part 2. Origins and Design 18 (2):22-34.
Alvin Plantinga (1997). Methodological Naturalism. Origins and Design 18 (1):18-27.
Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke & Johan Braeckman (2010). How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 15 (3):227-244.
Added to index2012-09-18
Total downloads4 ( #189,403 of 739,427 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,464 of 739,427 )
How can I increase my downloads?