Zygon 43 (2):433-449 (2008)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Four arguments are examined in order to assess the state of the Intelligent Design debate. First, critics continually cite the fact that ID proponents have religious motivations. When used as criticism of ID arguments, this is an obvious ad hominem. Nonetheless, philosophers and scientists alike continue to wield such arguments for their rhetorical value. Second, in his expert testimony in the Dover trial, philosopher Robert Pennock used repudiated claims in order to brand ID as a kind of pseudoscience. His arguments hinge on the nature of methodological naturalism as a metatheoretic shaping principle. We examine the use of such principles in science and the history of science. Special attention is given to the demarcation problem. Third, the scientific merits of ID are examined. Critics rightly demand more than promissory notes for ID to move beyond the fringe. Fourth, although methodological naturalism gets a lot of attention, there is another shaping principle to contend with, namely, conservatism. Science, like most disciplines, tends to change in an incremental rather than revolutionary manner. When ID is compared to other non- or quasi-Darwinian proposals, it appears to be a more radical solution than is needed in the face of the anomalies.
|
Keywords | Intelligent Design |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00926.x |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate.Larry Laudan - 1984 - University of California Press.
The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction, and Emergence.Robert W. Batterman - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
Can Biological Teleology Be Naturalized?Mark A. Bedau - 1991 - Journal of Philosophy 88 (11):647-655.
View all 20 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism. [REVIEW]Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke & Johan Braeckman - 2010 - Foundations of Science 15 (3):227-244.
Should a Christian Adopt Methodological Naturalism?Andrew B. Torrance - 2017 - Zygon 52 (3):691-725.
Ad Hominem Arguments and Intelligent Design: Reply to Koperski.Christopher A. Pynes - 2012 - Zygon 47 (2):289-297.
How Should Creationism and Intelligent Design Be Dealt with in the Classroom?Michael J. Reiss - 2011 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 45 (3):399-415.
The Uniformity of Natural Laws in Victorian Britain: Naturalism, Theism, and Scientific Practice.Matthew Stanley - 2011 - Zygon 46 (3):536-560.
View all 15 citations / Add more citations
Similar books and articles
Can Functional Logic Take the Place of Intelligent Design? A Response to Walter Thorson.William Dembski - manuscript
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.
The Postmodern Sin of Intelligent Design Creationism.Robert T. Pennock - 2010 - Science & Education 19 (6-8):757-778.
Why Scientists and Philosophers of Science Should Teach Intelligent Design Alongside the Theory of Evolution.Aaron Sloman - unknown
American Science and its Anti-Evolutionist Critics: It's the Evidence Stupid.Reed Richter - manuscript
Intelligent Design and the End of Science.Jeffrey Koperski - 2003 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (4):567-588.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-01-28
Total views
672 ( #11,878 of 2,519,576 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #271,332 of 2,519,576 )
2009-01-28
Total views
672 ( #11,878 of 2,519,576 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #271,332 of 2,519,576 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads