, Volume 178, Issue 2, pp 291–305 | Cite as

The science question in intelligent design

  • Sahotra SarkarEmail author


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.


Creationism Demarcation problem Evolution Fundamentalism Intelligent Design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Behe M.J. (1996) Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Behe M.J. (2001) The edge of evolution: The search for the limits of Darwinism. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bridgman P.W. (1927) The logic of modern physics. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis P., Kenyon P.H. (1993) Of pandas and people: The central questions of biological origins, (2nd ed). Dallas, Haughton PublishingGoogle Scholar
  5. Dembski W.A. (1998) The design inference: Eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dembski W.A. (2002) No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  7. DeWolf D., West J., Luskin C., Witt J. (2006) Traipsing into evolution: Intelligent design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover decision. Discovery Institute, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  8. Elsberry, W., & Shallitt, J. (2003). Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s ‘complex specified information.’ Accessed 18 December 2005 from
  9. Fitelson B., Stephens C., Sober E. (1999) How not to detect design–critical notice: William A. Dembski, the design inference. Philosophy of Science 66: 472–488Google Scholar
  10. Forrest B., Gross P.R. (2004) Creationism’s Trojan horse: The wedge of intelligent design. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Glymour C. (1980) Theory and evidence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hempel C.G. (1961) A logical appraisal of operationism. In: Frank P. (eds) The validation of scientific theories. Collier, New York, pp 56–69Google Scholar
  13. Hempel C.G. (1966) Philosophy of natural science. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Hochberg H. (2006) Verifiability. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds) The philosophy of science: An encylopedia, Vol. 2. Routledge, New York, pp 851–864Google Scholar
  15. Johnson P.E. (1995) Reason in the balance: The case against naturalism in science, law and education. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, ILGoogle Scholar
  16. Justus J. (2006) Cognitive significance. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds) The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Routledge, New York, pp 131–140Google Scholar
  17. Justus, J. (2007). The stability-diversity-complexity debate of community ecology: A philosophical analysis. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Texas.Google Scholar
  18. Kitzmiller vs. Dover. (2005a). Dover Area School District. 400 F Supp 2d 707.Google Scholar
  19. Kitzmiller vs. Dover. (2005b). Dover Area School District. 400 F Supp 1255.Google Scholar
  20. Laudan L. (1983) The demise of the demarcation problem. In: Ruse M.E. (eds) But is it science?. Prometheus Press, Amherst NY, pp 337–350Google Scholar
  21. 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: 219–277Google Scholar
  22. 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 287–294Google Scholar
  23. Majer U. (2006) David Hilbert. In: Sarkar S., Pfeifer J. (eds) The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia, Vol. 1. Routledge, New York, pp 356–361Google Scholar
  24. McIntosh R.P. (1985) The background of ecology: Concept and theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller K.R. (1999a) Finding Darwin’s god. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, K. R. (1999b). The evolution of vertebrate blood clotting. Accessed 10 December 2005, from
  27. Monton, B. (2006). Is intelligent design science? Dissecting the Dover decision. Unpublished. Accessed 28 July 2007, available from
  28. 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 188–197Google Scholar
  29. Orr, H. A. (1996–1997). Darwin v. intelligent design (Again). Boston Review. December/ January, pp. 28–31Google Scholar
  30. Pennock R.T. (1999) The tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  31. Perakh M. (2004) Unintelligent design. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NYGoogle Scholar
  32. Pimm S.L. (1991) The balance of nature?: Ecological issues in the conservation of species and communities. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 177–221Google Scholar
  34. Ruse M. (1982) Pro judice. Science, Technology, and Human Values 7: 19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarkar S. (2007a) Doubting Darwin? Creationist designs on evolution. Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  36. 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, UKGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott E.C. (2004) Evolution vs. creationism : An introduction. Greenwood Press, WestportGoogle Scholar
  38. Scott E.C., Matzke N.J. (2007) Biological design in science classrooms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 104: 8669–8676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 121–138Google Scholar
  40. Sober E. (2004) The design argument. In: Mann W. (eds) Blackwell guide to the philosophy of religion. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp 27–54Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Integrative Biology, Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations