Search results for 'Design Argument' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  49
    Maarten Boudry & Bert Leuridan (2011). Where the Design Argument Goes Wrong: Auxiliary Assumptions and Unification. Philosophy of Science 78 (4):558-578.
    Sober has reconstructed the biological design argument in the framework of likelihoodism, purporting to demonstrate that it is defective for intrinsic reasons. We argue that Sober’s restriction on the introduction of auxiliary hypotheses is too restrictive, as it commits him to rejecting types of everyday reasoning that are clearly valid. Our account shows that the design argument fails, not because it is intrinsically untestable but because it clashes with the empirical evidence and fails to satisfy certain (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  2. Jonathan Weisberg (2005). Firing Squads and Fine-Tuning: Sober on the Design Argument. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4):809-821.
    Elliott Sober has recently argued that the cosmological design argument is unsound, since our observation of cosmic fine-tuning is subject to an observation selection effect (OSE). I argue that this view commits Sober to rejecting patently correct design inferences in more mundane scenarios. I show that Sober's view, that there are OSEs in those mundane cases, rests on a confusion about what information an agent ought to treat as background when evaluating likelihoods. Applying this analysis to the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  3. Joseph M. Zycinski (1996). The Weak Anthropic Principle and the Design Argument. Zygon 31 (1):115-130.
    The design argument for God’s existence was critically assessed when in the growth of modern science the cognitive value of teleological categories was called into question. In recent discussions dealing with anthropic principles there has appeared a new version of the design argument, in which cosmic design is described without the use of teleological terms. The weak anthropic principle (WAP), a most critical version of all these principles, describes the fine-tuning of physical parameters necessary to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Helen de Cruz & Johan de Smedt (2010). Paley's Ipod: The Cognitive Basis of the Design Argument Within Natural Theology. Zygon 45 (3):665-684.
    The argument from design stands as one of the most intuitively compelling arguments for the existence of a divine Creator. Yet, for many scientists and philosophers, Hume's critique and Darwin's theory of natural selection have definitely undermined the idea that we can draw any analogy from design in artifacts to design in nature. Here, we examine empirical studies from developmental and experimental psychology to investigate the cognitive basis of the design argument. From this it (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  5. Mark A. Walker & M. Milan (2006). Astrophysical Fine Tuning, Naturalism, and the Contemporary Design Argument. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (3):285 – 307.
    Evidence for instances of astrophysical 'fine tuning' (or 'coincidences') is thought by some to lend support to the design argument (i.e. the argument that our universe has been designed by some deity). We assess some of the relevant empirical and conceptual issues. We argue that astrophysical fine tuning calls for some explanation, but this explanation need not appeal to the design argument. A clear and strict separation of the issue of anthropic fine tuning on one (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  96
    Robert Klee (2002). The Revenge of Pythagoras: How a Mathematical Sharp Practice Undermines the Contemporary Design Argument in Astrophysical Cosmology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 53 (3):331-354.
    Recent developments in astrophysical cosmology have revived support for the design argument among a growing clique of astrophysicists. I show that the scientific/mathematical evidence cited in support of intelligent design of the universe is infected with a mathematical sharp practice: the concepts of two numbers being of the same order of magnitude, and of being within an order of each other, have been stretched from their proper meanings so as to doctor the numbers evidentially. This practice started (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  7. Mark Walker & Milan Cirkovic, Anthropic Reasoning and the Contemporary Design Argument in Astrophysics: A Reply to Robert Klee.
    In a recent study of astrophysical “fine-tunings” (or “coincidences”), Robert Klee critically assesses the support that such astrophysical evidence might be thought to lend to the design argument (i.e., the argument that our universe has been designed by some deity). Klee argues that a proper assessment indicates that the universe is not as “fine-tuned” as advertised by proponents of the design arguments. We argue (i) that Klee’s assessment of the data is, to a certain extent, problematic; (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  39
    Neil A. Manson (2000). Anthropocentrism and the Design Argument. Religious Studies 36 (2):163-176.
    The design argument for the existence of God is often criticized for resting on anthropocentrism. Some critics maintain that anthropocentrism explains the origin of the design argument. Such critics commit the genetic fallacy. Others say anthropocentrism explains the appeal of the belief that human beings are ends especially worthy of creation. They fail to appreciate that the design argument need not be framed in terms of the fitness of the universe for humanity. Lastly, some (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  9
    Catherine Kemp (2014). "The Real 'Letter to Arbuthnot'? A Motive For Hume's Probability Theory in an Early Modern Design Argument". British Journal for the History of Philosophy 22 (3):468-491.
    John Arbuthnot's celebrated but flawed paper in the Philosophical Transactions of 1711-12 is a philosophically and historically plausible target of Hume's probability theory. Arbuthnot argues for providential design rather than chance as a cause of the annual birth ratio, and the paper was championed as a successful extension of the new calculations of the value of wagers in games of chance to wagers about natural and social phenomena. Arbuthnot replaces the earlier anti-Epicurean notion of chance with the equiprobability assumption (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  15
    Ira M. Schnall (2009). Anthropic Observation Selection Effects and the Design Argument. Faith and Philosophy 26 (4):361-377.
    The Argument from Fine-Tuning, a relatively new version of the Design Argument, has given rise to an objection, based on what is known as the An­thropic Principle. It is alleged that the argument is fallacious in that it involves an observation selection effect—that given the existence of intelligent living observers, the observation that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is not surprising. Many find this objection puzzling, or at least easily refutable. My (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  3
    J. C. A. Gaskin (1976). The Design Argument: Hume's Critique of Poor Reason: J. C. A. GASKIN. Religious Studies 12 (3):331-345.
    In an article in Philosophy R. G. Swinburne set out to argue that none of Hume's formal objections to the design argument ‘have any validity against a carefully articulated version of the argument’ . This, he maintained, is largely because Hume's criticisms ‘are bad criticisms of the argument in any form’ . The ensuing controversy between Swinburne and Olding 1 has focused upon the acceptable/unacceptable aspects of the dualism presupposed in Swinburne's defence of the design (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  2
    Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Meta-Argumentation in Hume’s Critique of the Design Argument.
    Although Hume’s critique of the design argument is a powerful non-inductive meta-argument, the main line of critical reasoning is not analogical but rather a complex meta-argument. It consists of two parts, one interpretive, the other evaluative. The critical meta-argument advances twelve criticisms: that the design argument is weak because two of its three premises are justified by inadequate subarguments; because its main inference embodies four flaws; and because the conclusion is in itself problematic (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Graham Oppy (1996). Hume and the Argument for Biological Design. Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):519-534.
    There seems to be a widespread conviction — evidenced, for example, in the work of Mackie, Dawkins and Sober — that it is Darwinian rather than Humean considerations which deal the fatal logical blow to arguments for intelligent design. I argue that this conviction cannot be well-founded. If there are current logically decisive objections to design arguments, they must be Humean — for Darwinian considerations count not at all against design arguments based upon apparent cosmological fine-tuning. I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  14.  69
    Jimmy Alfonso Licon (2015). The Fine-Tuning Argument and the Problem of Poor Design. Philosophia 43 (2):411-426.
    My purpose, in this paper, is to defend the claim that the fine-tuning argument suffers from the poor design worry. Simply put, the worry is this: if God created the universe, specifically with the purpose of bringing about moral agents, we would antecedently predict that the universe and the laws of nature, taken as a whole, would be well-equipped to do just that. However, in light of how rare a life-permitting universe is, compared to all the ways the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Alexander Pruss, Programs, Bugs, DNA and a Design Argument Alexander R. Pruss May 27, 2004.
    I argue that an examination of the analogy between the notion of a bug and that of a genetic defect supports an analogy not just between a computer program and DNA, but between a computer program designed by a programmer and DNA. This provides an analogical teleological argument for the existence of a highly intelligent designer.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Andrew V. Jeffery (1994). MA Corey, God and the New Cosmology: The Anthropic Design Argument Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 14 (4):246-248.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Elliott Sober (2004). The Design Argument. In William Mann (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Religion. Blackwell Pub.
  18. S. Gliboff (2000). Paley's Design Argument as an Inference to the Best Explanation, or, Dawkins' Dilemma. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 31 (4):579-597.
  19.  38
    Mark A. Walker & Milan M. Ćirković (2006). Astrophysical Fine Tuning, Naturalism, and the Contemporary Design Argument. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 20 (3):285-307.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. John Jefferson Davis (1987). The Design Argument, Cosmic “Fine Tuning,” and the Anthropic Principle. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 22 (3):139 - 150.
  21.  89
    Neil A. Manson (ed.) (2003). God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Routledge.
    Recent discoveries in physics, cosmology and biochemistry have captured the public imagination and made the Design Argument - the theory that God created the world according to a specific plan - the object of renewed scientific and philosophical interest. This accessible but serious introduction to the design problem brings together new perspectives from prominent scientists and philosophers including Paul Davies, Richard Swinburne, Sir Martin Rees, Michael Behe, Elliot Sober and Peter van Inwagen.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  22.  10
    Wallace I. Matson (1966). Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophy 63 (6):161-166.
  23.  31
    Robert Arp (1998). Hume's Mitigated Skepticism and the Design Argument. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 72 (4):539-558.
  24.  18
    Marvin Glass & Julian Wolfe (1986). Paley's Design Argument for God. Sophia 25 (2):17-19.
  25.  24
    C. Mackenzie Brown (2008). The Design Argument in Classical Hindu Thought. International Journal of Hindu Studies 12 (2):103-151.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26.  15
    Clement Dore (2014). The Argument From Apparent Design. Think 13 (37):85-94.
    I point out that, though animal bodies and their parts are not sufficiently similar to the products of conscious design to warrant an inference to a supernatural designer of the former things, the proponent of the design argument would be on firmer ground were he to base his inference on the more specific resemblance of well-functioning human eyes and brains to well-functioning cameras and computers. Though I argue that Darwin has not refuted the design argument, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  18
    Stanley Tweyman (1993). Hurlbutt, Hume, Newton and the Design Argument. [REVIEW] Hume Studies 19 (1):167-175.
  28.  10
    E. M. M. (1966). Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument. [REVIEW] Review of Metaphysics 19 (3):589-589.
  29.  6
    Robert H. Hurlbutt (1965). Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.
  30.  19
    Paul Draper (1991). Hume's Reproduction Parody of the Design Argument. History of Philosophy Quarterly 8 (2):135 - 148.
  31.  15
    Elmer Sprague (1988). Hume, Henry More and the Design Argument. Hume Studies 14 (2):305-327.
  32.  15
    James A. Sadowsky (1988). Did Darwin Destroy the Design Argument? International Philosophical Quarterly 28 (1):95-104.
  33. C. Mackenzie Brown (2008). The Design Argument in Classical Hindu Thought. International Journal of Hindu Studies 12 (2):103-151.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  14
    J. C. A. Gaskin (1976). The Design Argument: Hume's Critique of Poor Reason. Religious Studies 12 (3):331 - 345.
  35.  21
    Benjamin Ives Gilman (1924). The Design Argument Survives Darwinism. Journal of Philosophy 21 (2):29-36.
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  8
    M. A. Stewart (1989). Scepticism and Belief in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, And: Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument, And: Dialogues Sur la Religion Naturelle, And: Hume's Philosophy of Religion. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Philosophy 27 (3):481-485.
  37.  10
    James Duerlinger (1982). Unspoken Connections in the Design Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (4):519-529.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  1
    Sander Gliboff (2000). Paley's Design Argument as an Inference to the Best Explanation, or, Dawkins' Dilemma. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31 (4):579-597.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. William Dembski, Does the Design Argument Show There is a God? William A. Dembski.
    Suppose you take a tour of the Louvre, that great museum in Paris housing one of the finest art collections in the world. As you walk through the museum, you come across a painting by someone named Leonardo da Vinci -- the Mona Lisa. Suppose this is your first exposure to da Vinci -- you hadn't heard of him or seen the Mona Lisa before. What could you conclude? Certainly you could conclude that da Vinci was a consummate painter. Nevertheless, (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  12
    Neil Manson, The Design Argument.
    If you have taken a college biology class, or just watched Animal Planet, you may have been struck by the startling complexity of living organisms. From the grandest mammal to the lowliest cell, life displays intricacy and structure that would put a high-paid team of engineers to shame. How could such fantastically organized, complex structures arise blindly out of unintelligent matter? Speaking of matter, why is it the way it is? Though unimaginably vast, our universe has precise features, as does (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  1
    M. M. E. (1966). Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument. [REVIEW] Review of Metaphysics 19 (3):589-589.
  42. Alexander R. Pruss (2009). Programs, Bugs, DNA and a Design Argument. In Yujin Nagasawa & Erik J. Wielenberg (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Religion. Palgrave Macmillan
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  7
    Delmas Lewis (1982). On Salmon's Attempt to Redesign the Design Argument. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 13 (2):77 - 84.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  7
    H. M. Stanley (1885). Is the Design-Argument Scientific? Mind 10 (39):420-425.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  2
    Neil A. Manson (2013). The Design Argument and Natural Theology. In J. H. Brooke, F. Watts & R. R. Manning (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology. Oxford Up 295.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  4
    E. L. Mascall (1966). Hume, Newton and the Design Argument. By Robert H. Hurlbutt III. (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Neb., 1965. Pp. Xiv + 222. $5.00.). [REVIEW] Philosophy 41 (156):181-.
  47. W. H. Johnson (1920). Is the Design Argument Dead? Philosophical Review 29:108.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. H. R. Mackintosh (1924). SHEBBEARE, C. J. And MCCABE, J. -The Design Argument Reconsidered. [REVIEW] Mind 33:341.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Jerome Tovo (1966). R. H. Hurlbutt's "Hume, Newton, and The Design Argument". [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 26 (4):612.
  50. G. J. Warnock (1967). HURLBUTT, R. H. - "Hume, Newton and the Design Argument". [REVIEW] Mind 76:456.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000