Skip to main content
Log in

The science question in intelligent design

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intelligent Design creationism is often criticized for failing to be science because it falls afoul of some demarcation criterion between science and non-science. This paper argues that this objection to Intelligent Design is misplaced because it assumes that a consistent non-theological characterization of Intelligent Design is possible. In contrast, it argues that, if Intelligent Design is taken to be non-theological doctrine, it is not intelligible. Consequently, a demarcation criterion cannot be used to judge its status. This position has the added advantage of providing reasons to reject Intelligent Design creationism without invoking potentially philosophically controversial demarcation criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Behe M.J. (1996) Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Behe M.J. (2001) The edge of evolution: The search for the limits of Darwinism. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgman P.W. (1927) The logic of modern physics. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis P., Kenyon P.H. (1993) Of pandas and people: The central questions of biological origins, (2nd ed). Dallas, Haughton Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski W.A. (1998) The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dembski W.A. (2002) No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWolf D., West J., Luskin C., Witt J. (2006) Traipsing into evolution: Intelligent design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision. Discovery Institute, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsberry, W., & Shallitt, J. (2003). Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s ‘complex specified information.’ Accessed 18 December 2005 from http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/papers/eandsdembski.pdf.

  • Fitelson B., Stephens C., Sober E. (1999) How not to detect design–critical notice: William A. Dembski, the design inference. Philosophy of Science 66: 472–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrest B., Gross P.R. (2004) Creationism’s Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glymour C. (1980) Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel C.G. (1961) A logical appraisal of operationism. In: Frank P. (eds) The validation of scientific theories. Collier, New York, pp 56–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel C.G. (1966) Philosophy of natural science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg H. (2006) Verifiability. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds) The philosophy of science: An encylopedia, Vol. 2. Routledge, New York, pp 851–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson P.E. (1995) Reason in the balance: The case against naturalism in science, law and education. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Justus J. (2006) Cognitive significance. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds) The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Routledge, New York, pp 131–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Justus, J. (2007). The stability-diversity-complexity debate of community ecology: A philosophical analysis. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Texas.

  • Kitzmiller vs. Dover. (2005a). Dover Area School District. 400 F Supp 2d 707.

  • Kitzmiller vs. Dover. (2005b). Dover Area School District. 400 F Supp 1255.

  • Laudan L. (1983) The demise of the demarcation problem. In: Ruse M.E. (eds) But is it science?. Prometheus Press, Amherst NY, pp 337–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Lofaso A.M. (2006) Does changing the definition of science solve the establishment clause problem for teaching intelligent design as science in public schools? Doing an end-run around the constitution. Pierce Law Review 4: 219–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomis E., Juhl C.F. (2006) Explication. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds) The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Routledge, New York, pp 287–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Majer U. (2006) David Hilbert. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds) The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia, Vol. 1. Routledge, New York, pp 356–361

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh R.P. (1985) The background of ecology: Concept and theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller K.R. (1999a) Finding Darwin’s god. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. R. (1999b). The evolution of vertebrate blood clotting. Accessed 10 December 2005, from http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html.

  • Monton, B. (2006). Is intelligent design science? Dissecting the Dover decision. Unpublished. Accessed 28 July 2007, available from http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002592/.

  • Nickles T. (2006) The problem of demarcation. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds) The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Routledge, New York, pp 188–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, H. A. (1996–1997). Darwin v. intelligent design (Again). Boston Review. December/ January, pp. 28–31

  • Pennock R.T. (1999) The tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Perakh M. (2004) Unintelligent design. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimm S.L. (1991) The balance of nature?: Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga A. (1996) Methodological naturalism?. In: van der Meer J.M. (eds) Facets of faith science: Historiography and modes of interaction, Vol. 1. University Press of America, Lanham MD, pp 177–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse M. (1982) Pro judice. Science, Technology, and Human Values 7: 19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S. (2007a) Doubting Darwin? Creationist designs on evolution. Blackwell, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S. (2007b) From ecological diversity to biodiversity. In: Hull D.L., Ruse M. (eds) The Cambridge companion to the philosophy of biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott E.C. (2004) Evolution vs. creationism : An introduction. Greenwood Press, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott E.C., Matzke N.J. (2007) Biological design in science classrooms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 104: 8669–8676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shallit J., Elsberry W.R. (2004) Playing games with probablity: Dembski’s complex specified information. In: Young M., Edis T. (eds) Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp 121–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E. (2004) The design argument. In: Mann W. (eds) Blackwell guide to the philosophy of religion. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp 27–54

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sahotra Sarkar.

Additional information

For critical comments on an earlier version of this note thanks are due to Samet Bagce, Glenn Branch, and James Justus. In unpublished work, Monton (2006) also criticizes the use of a demarcation criterion to show what is wrong with Intelligent Design (ID) but goes on to conclude that ID may be science. (For an earlier critique of the use of demarcation criteria to argue against creationism, see Laudan (1983).) This note was partly written to develop and elaborate scattered remarks in Sarkar (2007a), Chapter 9, which were critically questioned by Joe Lapp. Thanks are due to both Lapp and Monton for their input.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sarkar, S. The science question in intelligent design. Synthese 178, 291–305 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9540-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9540-x

Keywords

Navigation