Can functional logic take the place of intelligent design? A response to Walter Thorson
Walter Thorson's two articles on the legitimacy and scope of naturalism within science attempt to identify a mediating position between the reductive naturalism of thinkers like Richard Dawkins and the complete rejection of naturalism by thinkers like Phillip Johnson. Thorson rightly notes that the purely mechanistic approach to science characteristic of reductive naturalism is inadequate. Nonetheless, he argues that science still needs naturalism as a methodological or regulative principle. Thorson's methodological naturalism leaves room for teleology in nature, though a teleology that falls short of full intelligent agency
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism.Barbara Forrest - 2000 - Philo 3 (2):7-29.
Two Bad Ways to Attack Intelligent Design and Two Good Ones.Jeffrey Koperski - 2008 - Zygon 43 (2):433-449.
Naturalism, Evidence and Creationism: The Case of Phillip Johnson. [REVIEW]Robert T. Pennock - 1996 - Biology and Philosophy 11 (4):543-559.
In Defence of Intelligent Design.William Dembski - 2006 - In Philip Clayton (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science. Oxford University Press. pp. 715-731.
American Science and its Anti-Evolutionist Critics: It's the Evidence Stupid.Reed Richter - manuscript
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 index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #206,355 of 2,153,472 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #399,080 of 2,153,472 )
How can I increase my downloads?