Evolutionary Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 2–3, pp 68–92

Evidence for Evolution Versus Evidence for Intelligent Design: Parallel Confusions

Synthesis Paper

Abstract

The popular defense of intelligent design/creationism (ID) theories, as well as theories in evolutionary biology, especially from the perspective that both are worthy of scientific consideration, is that empirical evidence has been presented that supports both. Both schools of thought have had a tendency to rely on the same class of evidence, namely, the observations of organisms that are in need of being explained by those theories. The result is conflation of the evidence that prompts one to infer hypotheses applying ID or evolutionary theories with the evidence that would be required to critically test those theories. Evidence is discussed in the contexts of inferring theories/hypotheses, suggesting what would be possible tests, and actual testing. These three classes of inference being abduction, deduction, and induction, respectively. Identifying these different inferential processes in evolutionary biology and ID allow for showing that the evidence to which theories and hypotheses provide understanding cannot be the same evidence supporting those theories and hypotheses. This clarification provides a strong criterion for showing the inability of an ID theory to be of utility in the ongoing process of acquiring causal understanding, that is the hallmark of science.

Keywords

Evolutionary biology Intelligent design Testability Abductive inference 

References

  1. Achinstein, P. (1970). Inference to scientific laws. In R. H. Stuewer (Ed.), Volume V: Historical and philosophical perspectives of science, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 87–111). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ahlberg, E., & Clack, J. A. (2006). A firm step from water to land. Nature, 440, 747–749.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning: Logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Ayala, F. (2004). Design without designer: Darwin’s greatest discovery. In W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse (Eds.), Debating design: From Darwin to DNA (pp. 55–80). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ayala, F. J. (2006). Darwin and intelligent design. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ayala, F. J. (2007). Darwin’s gift to science and religion. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ayala, F. J. (2009). Darwin and the scientific method. In J. C. Avise & F. J. Ayala (Eds.), In the light of evolution. Volume III: Two centuries of Darwin. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  8. Barnosky, A. D., & Kraatz, B. R. (2007). The role of climatic change in the evolution of mammals. BioScience, 57, 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barton, N. H., Briggs, D. E. G., Eisen, J. A., Goldstein, D. B., & Patel, N. H. (2007). Evolution. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  10. Behe, M. J. (2001). Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin’s Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. Biology and Philosophy, 16, 685–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Behe, M. J. (2002). Answering scientific criticisms of intelligent design. In M. J. Behe, W. A. Dembski, & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Science and evidence for design in the universe (pp. 133–149). San Francisco: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
  12. Behe, M. J. (2006). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ben-Menahem, Y. (1990). The inference to the best explanation. Erkenntnis, 33, 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyd, R. (1985). Observations, explanatory power, and simplicity: Toward a non-Humean account. In P. Achinstein & O. Hannaway (Eds.), Observation, experiment, and hypothesis in modern physical science (pp. 47–94). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, J. A., & Meyer, S. C. (Eds.). (2003). Darwinism, design, and public education. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Caws, P. (1965). The philosophy of science: A systematic account. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company.Google Scholar
  17. Charlesworth, B., & Charlesworth, D. (2003). Evolution: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cleland, C. E. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29, 987–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 474–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Copi, I. M., & Cohen, C. (1998). Logic. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  21. Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why evolution is true. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Curd, M. V. (1980). The logic of discovery: An analysis of three approaches. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Scientific discovery, logic and rationality (pp. 201–219). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  23. Daeschler, E. B., Shubin, N. H., & Jenkins, F. A., Jr. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440, 757–763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Darwin, C. R. (1859). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  25. Darwin, C., & Costa, J. T. (2009). The annotated origin: A facsimile of the first edition of on the origin of species annotated by James T. Costa. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Davis, P., & Kenyon, D. H. (2004). Of pandas and people: The central question of biological origins. Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  27. Dawes, G. W. (2007). What is wrong with intelligent design? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 61, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dembski, W. A. (1998). The design inference––eliminating chance through small probabilities. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dembski, W. A. (1999). Intelligent design: The bridge between science and theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Dembski, W. A. (2001). What intelligent design is not. In W. A. Dembski & J. M. Kushiner (Eds.), Signs of intelligence: Understanding intelligent design (pp. 7–23). Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.Google Scholar
  31. Dembski, W. A. (2002a). No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Dembski, W. A. (2002b). The third mode of explanation: Detecting evidence of intelligent design in the sciences. In M. J. Behe, W. A. Dembski, & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Science and evidence for design in the universe (pp. 17–51). San Francisco: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
  33. Dembski, W. A., & Meyer, S. C. (2002). Fruitful interchange or polite chitchat? The dialogue between science and theology. In M. J. Behe, W. A. Dembski, & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Science and evidence for design in the universe (pp. 213–234). San Francisco: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
  34. Dembski, W. A., & Wells, J. (2008). The design of life: Discovering signs of intelligence in biological systems. Dallas: The Foundation for Thought and Ethics.Google Scholar
  35. Depew, D. (2003). Intelligent design and irreducible complexity: A rejoinder. In J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Darwinism, design, and public education (pp. 441–454). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  36. DeSalle, R., & Tattersall, I. (2008). Human origins: What bones and genomes tell us about ourselves. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Diamond, J. D., Zimmer, C., Allison, L., & Disbrow, S. (2006). Virus and the whale: Exploring evolution in creatures small and large. Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  38. Douven, I. (2002). Testing inference to the best explanation. Synthese, 130, 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Eldredge, N. (2000). The triumph of evolution: And the failure of creationism. New York: WH Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  40. Eldredge, N. (2004). Darwin: Discovering the tree of life. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  41. Elsberry, W. R. (2007). Logic and math turn to smoke and mirrors: William Dembski’s “Design Inference”. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism (pp. 250–271). New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  42. Endler, J. A. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Fann, K. T. (1970). Peirce’s theory of abduction. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Fitzhugh, K. (2005a). Les bases philosophiques de l’inférence phylogénétique: une vue d’ensemble. Biosystema, 24, 83–105.Google Scholar
  46. Fitzhugh, K. (2005b). The inferential basis of species hypotheses: The solution to defining the term ‘species’. Marine Ecology, 26, 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fitzhugh, K. (2006a). The abduction of phylogenetic hypotheses. Zootaxa, 1145, 1–110.Google Scholar
  48. Fitzhugh, K. (2006b). The ‘requirement of total evidence’ and its role in phylogenetic systematics. Biology and Philosophy, 21, 309–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Fitzhugh, K. (2006c). The philosophical basis of character coding for the inference of phylogenetic hypotheses. Zoologica Scripta, 35, 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fitzhugh, K. (2008a). Fact, theory, test and evolution. Zoologica Scripta, 37, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Fitzhugh, K. (2008b). Abductive inference: Implications for ‘Linnean’ and ‘Phylogenetic’ approaches for representing biological systematization. Evolutionary Biology, 35, 52–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Fitzhugh, K. (2008c). Clarifying the role of character loss in phylogenetic inference. Zoologica Scripta, 37, 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Fitzhugh, K. (2009). Species as explanatory hypotheses: Refinements and implications. Acta Biotheoretica, 57, 201–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Futuyma, D. J. (1998). Evolutionary biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  55. Futuyma, D. J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Gauch, H. G., Jr. (2003). Scientific method in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Ghiselin, M. T. (1969). Triumph of the Darwinian method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ghiselin, M. T. (2009). Darwin: A reader’s guide. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences No. 155, 185 pp.Google Scholar
  59. Gildenhuys, P. (2004). Darwin, Herschel, and the role of analogy in Darwin’s Origin. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 35, 593–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Glymour, C. (1980). Theory and evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Gordon, B. L. (2001). Is intelligent design science? The scientific status and future of design-theoretic explanations. In W. A. Dembski & J. M. Kushiner (Eds.), Signs of intelligence: Understanding intelligent design (pp. 193–216). Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.Google Scholar
  63. Grene, M., & Depew, D. (2004). The philosophy of science: An episodic history. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Hacking, I. (2001). An introduction to probability and inductive logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hausman, D. M. (1998). Causal asymmetries. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  69. Herschel, J. F. W. (1831). A preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Hodge, M. (1977). The structure and strategy of Darwin’s ‘long argument’. British Journal for the History of Science, 10, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Howson, C. (1991). The ‘old evidence’ problem. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42, 547–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  74. Hull, D. L. (1973). Darwin and his critics: The reception of Darwin’s theory of evolution by the scientific community. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Hull, D. L. (1974). Philosophy of biological science. Prentice-Hall, Inc: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  76. Isaak, M. (2007). The counter-creationism handbook. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  77. Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (Eds.). (1994). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Kardong, K. V. (2008). An introduction to biological evolution. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  79. Kingsolver, J. G., & Pfennig, D. W. (2007). Patterns and power of phenotypic selection in nature. BioScience, 57, 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lankester, E. R. (1870). On the use of the term homology in modern zoology, and the distinction between homogenetic and homoplastic agreements. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 6, 35–43.Google Scholar
  81. Laudan, L. (1981). Science and hypothesis: Historical essays on scientific methodology. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  82. Laudan, L. (1982). Commentary: Science at the bar––causes for concern. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 7, 16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan (Eds.), Physics, philosophy, and psychoanalysis (pp. 111–127). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  84. Lipton, P. (1991). Inference to the best explanation (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Lipton, P. (2005). Testing hypotheses: Prediction and prejudice. Science, 307, 219–221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  88. Maher, P. (1988). Prediction, accommodation, and the logic of discovery. In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association (pp. 273–285).Google Scholar
  89. Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of biophilosophy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  90. Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  91. Mayr, E. (1964). Introduction. In: Darwin C, on the origin of species. A facsimile of the first edition with an introduction by Ernst Mayr. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  94. Meyer, S. C. (1994). Laws, causes, and facts: Response to Michael Ruse. In: J. Buell & V. Hearn (Eds.), Darwinism: Science or philosophy? Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.Google Scholar
  95. Meyer, S. C. (1998a). The explanatory power of design: DNA and the origin of information. In W. A. Dembski (Ed.), Mere creation: Science, faith & intelligent design (pp. 113–147). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.Google Scholar
  96. Meyer, S. C. (1998b). DNA by design: An inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 1, 519–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Meyer, S. C. (1999). The return of the God hypothesis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 11, 1–38.Google Scholar
  98. Meyer, S. C. (2002a). Evidence for design in physics and biology: From the origin of the universe to the origin of life. In M. J. Behe, W. A. Dembski, & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Science and evidence for design in the universe (pp. 53–111). San Francisco: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
  99. Meyer, S. C. (2002b). The scientific status of intelligent design: The methodological equivalence of naturalistic and non-naturalistic origins theories. In M. J. Behe, W. A. Dembski, & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Science and evidence for design in the universe (pp. 151–211). San Francisco: Ignatius Press.Google Scholar
  100. Meyer, S. C. (2003). DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification, and explanation. In J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Darwinism, design, and public education (pp. 223–285). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Meyer, S. C. (2004a). The Cambrian information explosion: Evidence for intelligent design. In W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse (Eds.), Debating design: From Darwin to DNA (pp. 371–391). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Meyer, S. C. (2004b). The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117, 213–239.Google Scholar
  103. Meyer, S. C. (2009). Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design. New York: HarperOne.Google Scholar
  104. Meyer, S. C., & Keas, M. N. (2003). The meanings of evolution. In J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Darwinism, design, and public education (pp. 135–156). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Meyer, S. C., Ross, M., Nelson, P., & Chien, P. (2003). The Cambrian explosion: Biology’s big bang. In J. A. Campbell & S. C. Meyer (Eds.), Darwinism, design, and public education (pp. 323–402). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Millman, A. B., & Smith, C. L. (1997). Darwin’s use of analogical reasoning in theory construction. Metaphor and Symbol, 12, 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Mitton, J. B. (1997). Selection in natural populations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  109. Nickles, T. (1980). Introductory essay: Scientific discovery and the future of philosophy of science. In T. Nickles (Ed.), Scientific discovery, logic and rationality (pp. 1–59). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  110. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1–15.Google Scholar
  111. Peirce, C. S. (1878). Illustrations of the logic of science. Sixth paper––deduction, induction, and hypothesis. Popular Science Monthly, 13, 470–482.Google Scholar
  112. Peirce, C. S. (1931–1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. Burks (Eds.) (Vols. 1–6). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. In A. Burks (Ed.), (Vols. 7–8). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Pennock, R. T. (2004). DNA by design? Stephen Meyer and the return of the God hypothesis. In W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse (Eds.), Debating design: From Darwin to DNA (pp. 130–148). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Pennock, R. T. (2007). God of the gaps: The argument from ignorance and the limits of methodological naturalism. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists confront intelligent design and creationism (pp. 309–338). New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  116. Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  117. Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  118. Popper, K. R. (1983). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Popper, K. R. (1992). Realism and the aim of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  120. Prothero, D. R. (2007). Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Psillos, S. (2002). Simply the best: A case for abduction. In A. C. Kakas & F. Sadri (Eds.), Computational logic: Logic programming and beyond (pp. 605–625). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Psillos, S. (2007). Philosophy of science A-Z. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Rapoport, A. (1972). Explanatory power and explanatory appeal of theories. Synthese, 24, 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Recker, D. A. (1987). Causal efficacy: The structure of Darwin’s argument strategy in the Origin of Species. Philosophy of Science, 54, 147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Reilly, F. E. (1970). Charles Peirce’s theory of scientific method. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Rescher, N. (1970). Scientific explanation. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  127. Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis: ITT Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  128. Rose, M. R., & Garland, T., Jr. (2009). Darwin’s other mistake. In T. Garland Jr. & M. R. Rose (Eds.), Experimental evolution: Concepts, methods, and applications of selection experiments (pp. 3–13). Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  129. Ross, H. (2006). Creation as science: A testable model approach to end the creation/evolution wars. Colorado Springs: NavPress.Google Scholar
  130. Ruse, M. (1975). Darwin’s debt to philosophy: An examination of the influence of the philosophical ideas of John F.W. Herschel and William Whewell on the development of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 6, 159–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Ruse, M. (1989). The Darwinian paradigm: Essays on its history, philosophy and religious implications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  132. Salmon, W. C. (1984a). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  133. Salmon, W. C. (1984b). Logic. Prentice-Hall, Inc: Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  134. Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution versus creationism: An introduction. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  135. Shubin, N. H., Daeschler, E. B., & Jenkins, F. A. (2006). The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb. Nature, 440, 764–771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Sober, E. (1975). Simplicity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  137. Sober, E. (1985). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  138. Sober, E. (1999). Testability. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 73, 47–76.Google Scholar
  139. Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of biology. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  140. Sober, E. (2002). Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 52, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Sober, E. (2004). The design argument. In W. A. Dembski & M. Ruse (Eds.), Debating design: From Darwin to DNA (pp. 98–129). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  142. Sober, E. (2007). What is wrong with intelligent design? Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 3–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and evolution: The logic behind the science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  144. Stamos, D. N. (2007). Popper, laws, and the exclusion of biology from genuine science. Acta Biotheoretica, 55, 357–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Stenger, V. J. (2007). God: The failed hypothesis: How science shows that god does not exist. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  146. Sterritt, S. G. (2002). Darwin’s analogy between artificial and natural selection: How does it go? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  148. Van Fraassen, B. C. (1990). The scientific image. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  149. Walton, D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  150. Whewell, W. (1847). Philosophy of the inductive sciences founded upon their history, volume II. London: John W. Parker.Google Scholar
  151. Wiley, E. O. (1975). Karl R. Popper, systematics, and classification: A reply to Walter Bock and other evolutionary taxonomists. Systematic Zoology, 24, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Zimmer, C. (2010). The tangled bank: An introduction to evolution. Greenwood Village: Roberts and Company Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research and Collections Branch, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles CountyLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations