How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism [Book Review]

Foundations of Science 15 (3):227-244 (2010)
Abstract
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 supernatural (Intrinsic MN or IMN). Alternatively, we will defend MN as a provisory and empirically grounded attitude of scientists, which is justified in virtue of the consistent success of naturalistic explanations and the lack of success of supernatural explanations in the history of science (Provisory MN or PMN). Science does have a bearing on supernatural hypotheses, and its verdict is uniformly negative. We will discuss five arguments that have been proposed in support of IMN: the argument from the definition of science, the argument from lawful regularity, the science stopper argument, the argument from procedural necessity, and the testability argument. We conclude that IMN, because of its philosophical flaws, proves to be an ill-advised strategy to counter the claims of IDC. Evolutionary scientists are on firmer ground if they discard supernatural explanations on purely evidential grounds, instead of ruling them out by philosophical fiat.
Keywords Intelligent design creationism  Methodological naturalism  Supernatural explanations  Scientific methodology  Science and religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10699-010-9178-7
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 29,848
External links

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
The Existence of God.Richard Swinburne - 2004 - Oxford University Press.
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life.Daniel C. Dennett & Jon Hodge - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 48 (3):435-438.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Role of Metaphysical Naturalism in Science.Martin Mahner - 2012 - Science & Education 21 (10):1437–1459.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Creationism and Intelligent Design.Robert T. Pennock - 2003 - Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 4:143-163.
The Postmodern Sin of Intelligent Design Creationism.Robert T. Pennock - 2010 - Science & Education 19 (6-8):757-778.
Intelligent Design and the End of Science.Jeffrey Koperski - 2003 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):567-588.
The Premodern Sins of Intelligent Design.Robert T. Pennock - 2006 - In Philip Clayton (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 732-747.
What Science Can and Cannot Say: The Problems with Methodological Naturalism.Reed Richter - 2002 - Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22 (Jan-Apr 2002):18-22.
Added to PP index
2010-06-12

Total downloads
216 ( #20,108 of 2,210,508 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #42,864 of 2,210,508 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature