David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 178 (2):291 - 305 (2011)
Intelligent Design creationism is often criticized for failing to be science because it falls afoul of some demarcation criterion between science and non-science. This paper argues that this objection to Intelligent Design is misplaced because it assumes that a consistent non-theological characterization of Intelligent Design is possible. In contrast, it argues that, if Intelligent Design is taken to be non-theological doctrine, it is not intelligible. Consequently, a demarcation criterion cannot be used to judge its status. This position has the added advantage of providing reasons to reject Intelligent Design creationism without invoking potentially philosophically controversial demarcation criteria
|Keywords||Creationism Demarcation problem Evolution Fundamentalism Intelligent Design|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Sahotra Sarkar (2011). Sober on Intelligent Design. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (3):683-691.
J. Shearmur (2010). Steve Fuller and Intelligent Design. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (3):433-445.
Massimo Pigliucci (2009). Is Intelligent Design Creationism? In Kendrick Frazier (ed.), Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Prometheus.
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.
Jeffrey Koperski (2003). Intelligent Design and the End of Science. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):567-588.
Added to index2009-05-30
Total downloads163 ( #3,110 of 1,008,787 )
Recent downloads (6 months)44 ( #1,197 of 1,008,787 )
How can I increase my downloads?