Search results for 'Creationism' (try it on Scholar)

312 found
Sort by:
  1. Massimo Pigliucci (2007). The Problems with Creationism. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (eds.), Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. Norton.score: 27.0
    On the cultural roots, philosophical issues and science education of various blends of creationism.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. 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.score: 24.0
    In recent controversies about Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC), the principle of methodological naturalism (MN) has played an important role. In this paper, an often neglected distinction is made between two different conceptions of MN, each with its respective rationale and with a different view on the proper role of MN in science. According to one popular conception, MN is a self-imposed or intrinsic limitation of science, which means that science is simply not equipped to deal with claims of the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Daniel Nolan & Alexander Sandgren (2014). Creationism and Cardinality. Analysis 74 (4):615-622.score: 24.0
    Creationism about fictional entities requires a principle connecting what fictions say exist with which fictional entities really exist. The most natural way of spelling out such a principle yields inconsistent verdicts about how many fictional entities are generated by certain inconsistent fictions. Avoiding inconsistency without compromising the attractions of creationism will not be easy.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Robert T. Pennock (1996). Naturalism, Evidence and Creationism: The Case of Phillip Johnson. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):543-559.score: 24.0
    Phillip Johnson claims that Creationism is a better explanation of the existence and characteristics of biological species than is evolutionary theory. He argues that the only reason biologists do not recognize that Creationist's negative arguments against Darwinism have proven this is that they are wedded to a biased ideological philosophy —Naturalism — which dogmatically denies the possibility of an intervening creative god. However,Johnson fails to distinguish Ontological Naturalism from Methodological Naturalism. Science makes use of the latter and I show (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Helen De Cruz (2013). Is Teaching Children Young Earth Creationism Child Abuse? The Philosophers' Magazine 63:21-23.score: 24.0
    Richard Dawkins has argued on several occasions that bringing up your child religiously is a form of child abuse. According to Dawkins, teaching children about religion is fine (it helps them to understand cultural references, for instance), but indoctrinating children – by which Dawkins means any form of education that teaches religious beliefs as facts – is morally wrong and harmful. Dawkins is not alone: the American theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, for instance, recently argued that teaching Young Earth Creationism (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Massimo Pigliucci (2007). Creationism as a Cultural, Not Scientific, Issue. In T. Flynn (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Prometheus.score: 24.0
    Why creationism is an important cultural, but scientifically negligible, phenomenon.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Alberto Voltolini (2008). The Seven Consequences of Creationism. Metaphysica 10 (1):27-48.score: 24.0
    Creationism with respect to fictional entities, i.e., the position according to which ficta are creations of human practices, has recently become the most popular realist account of fictional entities. For it allows one to hold that there are fictional entities while simultaneously giving such entities a respectable metaphysical status, that of abstract artifacts. In this paper, I will draw what are the ontological and semantical consequences of this position, or at least of all its forms that are genuinely creationist. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Hee-Joo Park (2000). The Politics of Anti-Creationism: The Committees of Correspondence. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 33 (2):349 - 370.score: 24.0
    When the creationism issue rose to the surface in the late 1970s, an organized opposition to the creationist campaign came from an unexpected source. Local groups of rank and file evolution defenders, led by a retired biology teacher, organized a grassroots network of anti-creationism called the Committees of Correspondence. They basically approached the creationism issue as a political rather than a scientific problem and fought the battle on local fronts, where creationists were heavily engaged in legal campaigns (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Guy Haarscher (2009). Perelman's Pseudo-Argument as Applied to the Creationism Controversy. Argumentation 23 (3):361-373.score: 24.0
    If you want to challenge or at least weaken the adhesion to a system of values, you can basically adopt two radically opposed rhetorical strategies. Either you will attack the system in a frontal way: for instance, fundamentalists or fascists deny any validity to democratic values and human rights. Or you will pretend to argue from within the system (by saying that you accept some of its basic premises), while subtly distorting the process of reasoning in order to get to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Eugene F. Rogers (2014). The Sociology and Theology of Creationist Objections to Evolution: How Blood Marks the Bounds of the Christian Body. Zygon 49 (3):540-553.score: 24.0
    The staying power of creationist objections to evolution needs explanation. It depends on the use of “blood” language. Both William Jennings Bryan and, a century later, Ken Ham connect evolution with the blood of predation and the blood of apes, and both also connect evolution with the blood of atonement. Drawing on Mary Douglas and Bettina Bildhauer, I suggest that blood becomes important to societies that image the social body on the human body. Blood reveals the body as porous and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Massimo Pigliucci (2009). Is Intelligent Design Creationism? In Kendrick Frazier (ed.), Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Prometheus.score: 22.0
    Intelligent Design proponents want to distinguish themselves from creationists. But the distinction appears to be without a difference.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Jeffrey Koperski (2006). Creationism. In Gary Laderman & Arri Eisen (eds.), Science, Religion, and Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Culture, and Controversy. Sharpe Reference.score: 21.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Michael Ruse (1990). Making Use of Creationism. A Case-Study for the Philosophy of Science Classroom. Studies in Philosophy and Education 10 (1):81-92.score: 21.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. J. Peter Zetterberg (ed.) (1983). Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Oryx Press.score: 21.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. John S. Wilkins (2001). Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (2):302 – 304.score: 18.0
    Book Information Tower of Babel: the evidence against the new creationism. By Robert T. Pennock. Bradford/MIT Press. Cambridge MA. 1999. Pp. xviii + 429.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Stuart Brock (2010). The Creationist Fiction: The Case Against Creationism About Fictional Characters. Philosophical Review 119 (3):337-364.score: 18.0
    This essay explains why creationism about fictional characters is an abject failure. Creationism about fictional characters is the view that fictional objects are created by the authors of the novels in which they first appear. This essay shows that, when the details of creationism are filled in, the hypothesis becomes far more puzzling than the linguistic data it is used to explain. No matter how the creationist identifies where, when and how fictional objects are created, the proposal (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Stefaan Blancke (2010). Creationism in the Netherlands. Zygon 45 (4):791-816.score: 18.0
    Recent events indicate that creationists are becoming increasingly active in the Netherlands. This article offers an overview of these events. First, I discuss the introduction of intelligent-design (ID) creationism into the Dutch public sphere by a renowned physicist, Cees Dekker. Later, Dekker himself shifted toward a more evolution-friendly position, theistic evolution. Second, we see how Dekker was followed in this shift by Andries Knevel, an important figure within the Dutch evangelical broadcasting group, the Evangelische Omroep (EO). His conversion to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. 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.score: 18.0
    Until recently, little attention has been paid in the school classroom to creationism and almost none to intelligent design. However, creationism and possibly intelligent design appear to be on the increase and there are indications that there are more countries in which schools are becoming battle-grounds over them. I begin by examining whether creationism and intelligent design are controversial issues, drawing on Robert Dearden's epistemic criterion of the controversial and more recent responses to and defences of this. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Robert T. Pennock, The Postmodern Sin of Intelligent Design Creationism.score: 18.0
    That Intelligent Design Creationism rejects the methodological naturalism of modern science in favor of a premodern supernaturalist worldview is well documented and by now well known. An irony that has not been sufficiently appreciated, however, is the way that ID Creationists try to advance their premodern view by adopting (if only tactically) a radical postmodern perspective. This paper will reveal the deep threads of postmodernism that run through the ID Creationist movement’s arguments, as evidenced in the writings and interviews (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Robert T. Pennock, Controversy About Creationism.score: 18.0
    Teach the Controversy? Kansas just can't get a break. In 1999, the state became an international laughingstock when creationists on the State Board of Education, led by Steve Abrams, gutted what would have been a model science curriculum, removing the theme of evolution as well as mentions of the Big Bang and the geological timescale (Pennock, 1999b, 2000). These board members and the creationist groups that assisted them seemed to confirm every stereotype of Kansas as an ignorant backwater. The creationists (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Jeffrey Goodman (2004). A Defense of Creationism in Fiction. Grazer Philosophische Studien 67 (1):131-155.score: 18.0
    Creationism is the conjunction of the following theses: (i) fictional individuals (e.g. Sherlock Holmes) actually exist; (ii) fictional names (e.g., 'Holmes') are at least sometimes genuinely referential; (iii) fictional individuals are the creations of the authors who first wrote (or spoke, etc.) about them. CA Creationism is the conjunction of (i) - (iii) and the following thesis: (iv) fictional individuals are contingently existing abstracta; they are non-concrete artifacts of our world and various other possible worlds. TakashiYagisawa has recently (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Marian Hillar (2012). Creationism and Evolution. Misconceptions About Science and Religion. Dialogue and Universalism 22 (4):133-160.score: 18.0
    Creationism is an ancient worldview that was incorporated into ancient religious doctrines and survived in the western world due to its domination by religious institution such as the Catholic and Protestant Churches. Slowly, with the development of democratic political systems and science, the church lost its power of dominance over intellectual enterprises, and evolution became accepted by the majority as the inherent process in nature. Nevertheless, creationism is still very much alive among various fundamentalist churches and their organizations (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Robert T. Pennock (2003). Creationism and Intelligent Design. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 4:143-163.score: 18.0
    Key Words creation science, evolution education s Abstract Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach “creation science,” one now finds lobbying for “intelligent design” (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge strategy,” the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Theodore M. Drange, Can Creationism Be Scientific? (1998).score: 18.0
    My answer to the title question is a qualified "Yes." A certain rare form of creationism is in principle testable and compatible with natural law, and therefore scientific, however, this is a moot point. I arrive at my conclusions purely through thought experiments. But before getting to that, let us first consider the issues of what creationism is and what it means for a theory to be scientific.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. David Sackris (2013). A Defense of Causal Creationism in Fiction. Philosophical Writings 41 (1):32-46.score: 18.0
    In this paper I seek defend the view that fictional characters are author-created abstract entities against objections offered by Stuart Brock in his paper “The Creationist Fiction: The Case against Creationism about Fictional Characters.” I argue that his objections fall far short of his goal of showing that if philosophers want to believe in fictional characters as abstract objects, they should not view them as author-created. My defense of creationism in fiction in part rests on tying the act (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Alberto Voltolini (2011). How Creationism Supports for Kripke’s Vichianism on Fiction. In F. Lihoreau (ed.), Truth in Fiction. Ontos Verlag. 38--93.score: 18.0
    In this paper, I want to show that a reasonable thesis on truth in fiction, Fictional Vichianism (FV)—according to which fictional truths are true because they are stipulated to be true—can be positively endorsed if one grounds Kripke’s justification for (FV), that traces back to the idea that names used in fiction never refer to concrete real individuals, into a creationist position on fictional entities that allows for a distinction between the pretending and the characterizing use of fiction-involving sentences. Thus, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Charles Crawford (2002). Musings on the Concept of Exaptation and “Creationism”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (4):511-512.score: 18.0
    I claim that our desire to be special motivates us to suppose that if we were not God created, we must be self-created. I also claim that Stephen J Gould's claims about punctuated equilibrium, the absence of directional selection, and exaptations, when taken together, lead to kind of secular creationism. I introduce the notion of “adaptive effects” and argue that a focus on the actual physiological and psychological mechanisms that produce adaptations provides a way out of the exaptation dilemma.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Philip Dorrell, 9 Errors in Talk.Origins' Responses to Creationism.score: 18.0
    home page other lists my email address Philip Dorrell, 6 September 2005 At talk.origins there is a list of creationist claims with links to accompanying responses. The responses attempt to refute the corresponding claims, but there are errors in some of the refutations. Each item below starts with a link to the section of the talk.origins site that responds to a particular creationist claim.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Stefaan Blancke, Barking Up the Wrong Darwin: Creationist Appropriation of Evolutionary Theory.score: 18.0
    Creationists argue that 'Darwinism' hardly deserves the label of science. By employing a whole range of tactics, they downplay its scientific merit. Firstly, they set up definitions of science and claim that evolutionary theory cannot live up to them. Science, they claim, is based on observation and experimentation. As no scientist ever witnessed one species evolving into another, evolutionary theory remains 'just a theory'. Secondly, they convert evolutionary theory into a concept no evolutionary biologist would ever defend. For instance, they (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Robert T. Pennock (ed.) (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientifc Perspectives. MIT Press.score: 18.0
    An anthology of writings by proponents and critics of intelligent design creationism.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Victor J. Stenger (2007). Physics, Cosmology and the New Creationism. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (eds.), Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. Norton. 2.score: 18.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. An Act (1983). The Louisiana Creationism Act (1981). In J. Peter Zetterberg (ed.), Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Oryx Press. 394.score: 18.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. V. Elving Anderson (1983). Scientific Creationism and Its Critique of Evolution. In J. Peter Zetterberg (ed.), Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Oryx Press. 235.score: 18.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Frederick Edwords (1983). Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught as Science: The Legal Issues. In J. Peter Zetterberg (ed.), Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Oryx Press. 361.score: 18.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Igor I. Kondrashin (2008). The Motion in Quality as The Scientific Alternative to Ideas of Creationism. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 17:97-106.score: 18.0
    Rethinking “philosophy” to-day, it is necessary to think first of all about ontological foundations of the modern scientific universe description and rethink them on the ground of modern scientific knowledge, because until now there is no any precise scientific conception of the structure of the universe, of reasons and movingforces of its permanent evolution. All of it create basis to propose various unscientific ideas of creationism. Until now most of philosophers associate the motion of Matter on the whole only (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Antonio Lazcano (2007). Creationism and the Origin of Life. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (eds.), Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. Norton. 180--196.score: 18.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Kenneth Miller (1983). Answers to the Standard Creationist Arguments. In J. Peter Zetterberg (ed.), Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Oryx Press. 249.score: 18.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. N. Patrick Murray & Neal D. Buffaloe (1983). Creationism and Evolution: The Real Issues. In J. Peter Zetterberg (ed.), Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy. Oryx Press. 454.score: 18.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. George Nakhnikian (2004). It Ain't Necessarily So: An Essay Review of Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Philosophy of Science 71 (4):593-604.score: 16.0
    Nature exhibits a rich variety of adaptations. Cells contain complex biomolecular structures, such as proteins, that are exquisitely adapted to perform specific biological functions. Evolutionary biology explains how biomolecular structures evolve. Intelligent design creationists reject evolutionary explanations. They want to believe that all adaptations in nature are the handiwork of God. Their critics aver that “it ain't necessarily so.” The anthology under review is an excellent display of the issues between intelligent design creationists and their critics. I agree with the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Jessica F. Leech (2010). 'Creationism' and the Contingent a Priori. Ratio 23 (2):168-183.score: 15.0
    Williamson (1986) presents a troublesome example of the contingent a priori ; troublesome, because it does not involve indexicals, and hence cannot be defused via the usual two-dimensional strategies. Here I explore how the example works, via an examination of crucial belief-forming method M, partly in response to Hawthorne (2002) and the questions there raised for 'hyperreliable' belief-forming methods. I suggest that, when used to form a belief, M does its special work through creating a verifying state of affairs which (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Takashi Yagisawa (2001). Against Creationism in Fiction. Noûs 35 (s15):153-172.score: 15.0
    Sherlock Holmes is a fictional individual. So is his favorite pipe. Our pre-theoretical intuition says that neither of them is real. It says that neither of them really, or actually, exists. It also says that there is a sense in which they do exist, namely, a sense in which they exist “in the world of” the Sherlock Holmes stories. Our pre-theoretical intuition says in general of any fictional individual that it does not actually exist but exists “in the world of” (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. David Loye & Michael Zimmerman (2011). Science and Religion: A New Alliance to Combat the New Wave of Creationism. World Futures 67 (1):1-10.score: 15.0
  43. Chris Cosans (2005). Was Darwin a Creationist? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 48 (3):362-371.score: 15.0
  44. R. G. A. Dolby (1987). Science and Pseudo-Science: The Case of Creationism. Zygon 22 (2):195-212.score: 15.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Norman Kretzmann (1997). Creation Without Creationism. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 21 (1):118-144.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Michael Ruse (2009). Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity (Review). Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (3):pp. 464-466.score: 15.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Larry Laudan (1983). More on Creationism. Science, Technology, and Human Values 8 (1):36-38.score: 15.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Graham Oppy (2003). Creationism on Trial. Sophia 42 (2):113-127.score: 15.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Marian Hillar (2000). Creationism and Evolution Misconceptions About Science and Religion and the Socinian Solution. Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism 8:1-27.score: 15.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Michael Ruse (1984). Book Review:Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism Philip Kitcher. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 51 (2):348-.score: 15.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 312