What is wrong with intelligent design?
- Gregory W. Dawes
- … show all 1 hide
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
While a great deal of abuse has been directed at intelligent design theory (ID), its starting point is a fact about biological organisms that cries out for explanation, namely “specified complexity” (SC). Advocates of ID deploy three kind of argument from specified complexity to the existence of a designer: an eliminative argument, an inductive argument, and an inference to the best explanation. Only the first of these merits the abuse directed at it; the other two arguments are worthy of respect. If they fail, it is only because we have a better explanation of SC, namely Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.
- Bartley, W. W. (1984). The retreat to commitment, (2nd ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court pp. 262–263).
- Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: The Free Press, pp. 198–199, p. 205.
- Coyne, J. (2005). The case against intelligent design: The faith that dare not speak its name—A review of Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon. The New Republic, 22 August 2005, retrieved 28 August 2005 from http://www.tnr.com.
- Darwin, C. (1968). The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, 1st ed.  Pelican Classics Harmondsworth: Penguin (p. 219).
- Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. London: Penguin, 1988.
- Dembski, W.A. (1998) The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities, Cambridge Studies in probability, induction, and decision theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
- Dembski, W. A. (2002a). No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence Langham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield (p. 162).
- Dembski, W. A. (2002b). “Obsessively criticized but scarcely refuted: A response to Richard Wein”, retrieved on 28 August 2006 from http://www.designinference.com/documents/05.02.resp_to_wein.htm.
- Fitelson, B., Stephens, C., Sober, E. (1999) How not to detect design: A review of Wiliam A. Dembski’s The design inference—Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Philosophy of Science 66: pp. 473 CrossRef
- Earman, J. (1992) Bayes or bust? A critical examination of Bayesian confirmation theory. MIT Press, A Bradford Book Cambridge, MA
- Elsberry, W. & Shallit, J. (2003). Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s ‘complex specified information, pp. 25–31, retrieved on 28 August 2006 from http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/eandsdembski.pdf.
- Gishlick, A., Matze, N. & Elsberry, W. R. (2004). Meyer’s Hopeless Monster—A review of Stephen C. Meyer, The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117, 213–239, retrieved on 29 August 2006 from http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives, Conclusion.
- Greenberg, D. (2005). Those bastards, we’ve got to cut them back—A review of The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. London Review of Books, 27(18), 17, 22 September.
- Himma, K.E. (2005) The application-conditions for design inferences: Why the design arguments need the help of other arguments for God’s existence. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57: pp. 1-33 CrossRef
- Kauffman, S.A. (1993) The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
- Kitcher, P. (1996) Abusing science: The case against creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
- Lipton, P. (1991) Inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Issues in Science London, Routledge
- Lycan, W. G. (1988). Judgement and justification, Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 112 et passim.
- Meyer, S.C. (2004) The return of the God hypothesis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 11: pp. 24-27
- Mill, J. S. (1999). Three Essays on Religion. . In J. M. Robson (Ed.), Collected works of John Stuart Mill Vol. 10 University of Toronto Press (p. 447).
- Meyer, S. C. (2004). The Cambrian information explosion: Evidence for intelligent design. In W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse (Ed.), Debating Design Cambridge University Press (p. 371).
- Pine, R. H. (2005). Intelligent design or ‘no model’ creationism: A total fraud and a scam why it can’t qualify as even a pseudoscience. Creation & Intelligent Design Watch hosted by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), retrieved 22 November 2005 from http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/pine.html.
- Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery, , Routledge Classics. London: Routledge, 2002, §31 (96), §35 (103).
- Saletan, W. (2005). The Brontosaurus: Monty Python’s flying creationism. Slate, posted Thursday, 27 October 2005; retrieved 28 August 2006 from http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/.
- Sober, E. (1999) Testability. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73: pp. 47-76 CrossRef
- Sober, E. (2002) Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52: pp. 65-80 CrossRef
- Sober, E. The design argument. In: Manson, N.A. eds. (2003) God and design: The teleological argument and modern science. Routledge, London, pp. 27-54
- Stenger, V. J. (2003). Messages from heaven. In Has science found god? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, chap. 4.
- Swinburne, R. (2004) The existence of god. Clarendon Press, Oxford
- Till, H.J. (1999) “Does ‘intelligent design’ have a chance? An essay review”. Zygon 34: pp. 667 CrossRef
- van Till, H. J. (2002). E. Coli at the no free lunchroom: Bacterial flagella and Dembski’s case for intelligent design, 18, retrieved on 28 August 2006 from http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/03_Areas/evolution/perspectives/vantillecoli_2002.pdf.
- What is wrong with intelligent design?
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Volume 61, Issue 2 , pp 69-81
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- Intelligent design
- Design arguments
- Teleological arguments
- Gregory W. Dawes (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Philosophy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand