, Volume 192, Supplement 1, pp 3–25

Or we can be philosophers: a response to Barbara Forrest


DOI: 10.1007/s11229-011-9891-y

Cite this article as:
Beckwith, F.J. Synthese (2015) 192(Suppl 1): 3. doi:10.1007/s11229-011-9891-y


This article is a response to Barbara Forrest’ 2011 Synthese article, “On the Non-Epistemology of Intelligent Design.” Forrest offers an account of my philosophical work that consists almost entirely of personal attacks, excursions into my religious pilgrimage, and misunderstandings and misrepresentations of my work as well as of certain philosophical issues. Not surprisingly, the Synthese editors include a disclaimer in the front matter of the special issue in which Forrest’s article was published. In my response, I address three topics: (1) My interest in Intelligent Design (ID) and public education and why as a Thomist I have grown more skeptical and explicitly critical of ID over the years, (2) the sorts of philosophical mistakes with which Forrest’s article is teeming, and (3) my Christian faith, religious exclusivism, and interfaith dialogue.


Thomas AquinasIntelligent designBarbara ForrestMethodological naturalismReligion and scienceEvolutionPhilosophy of religionPhilosophical naturalismPublic educationLaw and religionJurisprudenceFrancis Beckwith

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBaylor UniversityWacoUSA