In the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board case, a federal district court ruled that Intelligent Design creationism was not science, but a disguised religious view and that teaching it in public schools is unconstitutional. But creationists contend that it is illegitimate to distinguish science and religion, citing philosophers Quinn and especially Laudan, who had criticized a similar ruling in the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas creation-science case on the grounds that no necessary and sufficient demarcation criterion was possible and that demarcation was a dead pseudo-problem. This article discusses problems with those conclusions and their application to the quite different reasoning between these two cases. Laudan focused too narrowly on the problem of demarcation as Popper defined it. Distinguishing science from religion was and remains an important conceptual issue with significant practical import, and philosophers who say there is no difference have lost touch with reality in a profound and perverse way. The Kitzmiller case did not rely on a strict demarcation criterion, but appealed only to a “ballpark” demarcation that identifies methodological naturalism (MN) as a “ground rule” of science. MN is shown to be a distinguishing feature of science both in explicit statements from scientific organizations and in actual practice. There is good reason to think that MN is shared as a tacit assumption among philosophers who emphasize other demarcation criteria and even by Laudan himself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Abney, K. (1997). Naturalism and nonteleological science: A Way to resolve the demarcation problem between science and nonscience. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49.
Agassi J., Laor N. (2000) How ignoring repeatability leads to magic. Philosophy of Social Sciences 30(4): 528–586
Anonymous. (2006). Intelligent-design backers downplay Dover. WorldNetDaily Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48057.
Atchison, M. (2004). Mustard seeds. Leadership U, Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9902/atchison.html.
Axe D.D. (2000) Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology 301(3): 585–595
Axe D.D. (2004) Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology 341(5): 1295–1315
Behe, M. (1999). The God of science: The case for intelligent design.The Weekly Standard: 35.
Dembski W.A. (1994) The incompleteness of scientific naturalism. In: Buell J., Hearn V. (eds) Darwinism: Science or philosophy, foundation for thought and ethics. TX, Richardsonm, pp 79–98
Dembski W.A. (1995) What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design. Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2): 1–8
Dembski, W. A. (2006). Bradley Monton—Important article on Dover. Uncommon Descent: The intelligent design weblog of Bill Bembski & Friends, Retrieved January 7, 2006, from http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/611.
Derksen A.A. (1993) The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 21(1): 17–42
DeWolf, D. K. (August 20, 1999). Teaching the origins controversy: A guide for the perplexed. Discovery Institute. Retrieved September 1999, from http://www.discovery.org/crsc/articles/article6.html.
DeWolf D.K., Meyer S.C. et al (1999) Intelligent design in public school science curricula: A legal guidebook, foundation for Thought and Ethics. TX, Richardson
DeWolf D.K., Meyer S.C. et al (2000) Teaching the origins controversy: science, or religion, or speech?. Utah Law Review 39(1): 39–110
Discovery_Institute. (1999). The wedge strategy. Retrieved May 1999, from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html.
Discovery_Institute. (2004). Darwin, design, and public education—New book examines the scientific evidence for intelligent design and advocates teaching both Darwinism and design to improve science education. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1694&program=News-CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage.
Fales, E. (2006). Dover judge makes the right ruling using the wrong premise. Commentary. Science & Theology News. March 10, 2006.
Feyerabend P. (1981) Realism and instrumentalism: Comments on the logic of factual support. In: Feyerabend P.K. (eds) Realism, rationalism & scientific method: Philosophical papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 176–202
Forrest B. (2001) The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In: Pennock R.T. (eds) Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological and scientific perspectives. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 5–53
Forrest B., Gross P.R. (2003) Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The wedge of intelligent design. Oxford University Press, New York
Fuller S. (2006) A step toward the legalization of science studies. Social Studies of Science 36(6): 827–834
George, A. (2005). What’s wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics. Christian Science Monitor.
Gieryn T.F. (1983a) Boundary-Work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review 48(6): 781–795
Gross B.R. (1983b) Commentary: Philosophers at the bar—Some reasons for restraint. Science, Technology, & Human Values 8(4): 30–38
Hume D. (1978 (1739)) A treatise on human nature. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Katskee R.B. (2006) Why it mattered to Dover that intelligent design isn’t science. First Amendment Law Review 5(Fall): 112–161
Laudan L. (1982) Science at the bar—Causes for concern. Science, Technology, & Human Values 7(41): 16–19
Laudan L. (1983a) More on creationism. Science, Technology, & Human Values 8(42): 36–38
Laudan L. (1983) The demise of the demarcation problem. In: Cohen R.S., Laudan L. (eds) Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 111–127
Laudan L. (1996) Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method, and evidence. Colorado, Westview Press, Boulder
Lenski R.E., Ofria C. et al (2003) The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423: 139–144
Levin J.S. (1996) How prayer heals: A theoretical model. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 2(1): 66–73
Lewontin R. (1997) Billions and billions of demons. New York review of books 44(1): 28–32
Luskin, C. (2005). Will Robert Pennock become the next Michael Ruse? Evolution news and views, Retrieved October 27, 2005, from http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?title=will_robert_pennock_become_the_next_mich&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1.
Matzke, N. (2005a). I guess ID really was “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” after all. The Panda’s Thumb. Retrieved October 13, 2005, from http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html.
Matzke, N. (2005b). Missing Link discovered! Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District: Legal documents, trial materials, updates. Retrieved November 7, 2005, from http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80.
Mayo D.G. (1996) Ducks, rabbits, and normal science: Recasting the Kuhn’s-eye view of Popper’s demarcation of science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 271–290
Meyer S.C. (1992) Laws, causes, and facts: Response to Michael Ruse. Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, Foundation for Thought and Ethics. TX, Richardson
Meyer S.C. (1994) The methodological equivalence of design & descent: Can there be a “Theory of Creation”?. In: Moreland J.P. (eds) The creation hypothesis. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, pp 66–112
Meyer, S. C. (2004). Meyer responds to errors in chronicle of higher education article. Retrieved September 13, 2004, from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2207.
Monton, B. (2006). Is intelligent design science? Dissecting the Dover decision. On-line manuscript draft.
Moreland J.P. (1994) Scientific creationism, science, and conceptual problems. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 46: 2–13
NationalAcademy of Sciences. (1999) Science and creationism: A view from the National Academy of Sciences (2nd ed). National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC
National Science Teachers Association. (2000). The nature of science. Retrieved July 13, 2006, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx.
National Science Teachers Association. (2003). The teaching of evolution. Retrieved July 13, 2006, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx.
Overton W.R. (1982) United States District Court Opinion: McLean v. Arkansas.. In: Ruse M. (eds) But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, pp 307–331
Pennock R.T. (1995) Epistemic and ontic theories of explanation and confirmation. Philosophy of Science (Japan) 28: 31–45
Pennock R.T. (1996a) Naturalism, evidence and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy 11(4): 543–559
Pennock R.T. (1996b) Reply: Johnson’s reason in the balance. Biology and Philosophy 11(4): 565–568
Pennock R.T. (1998) The prospects for a theistic science. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 50(3): 205–209
Pennock R.T. (1999) Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA
Pennock, R. T. (2000). The wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski. The global spiral METANEXUS 089. Retrieved from http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/2645/Default.aspx.
Pennock, R. T. (2002). Intelligent design & peer review: What if they gave a war and nobody came. Research News & Opportunities in Science & Technology 2(11/12).
Pennock R.T. (2004) DNA by design?: Stephen Meyer and the return of the God hypothesis. In: Ruse M., Dembski W. (eds) Debating design. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 130–148
Pennock, R. T. (2005). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Expert Report.
Pennock R.T. (2006) God of the gaps: The argument from ignorance and the limits of methodological naturalism. In: Petto A.J., Godfrey L.R. (eds) Scientists confront creationism: Creation science, intelligent design and beyond. WW Norton, New York, pp 1–1
Philadelphia Inquirer. (2006). Verbatim verbatim “The opinion speaks for itself.” Philadelphia inquirer. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Plantinga A. (1991) When faith and reason clash: Evolution and the Bible. Christian Scholars Review XXI(1): 8–32
Quinn P.L. (1984) The philosopher of science as expert witness. In: Cushing J.T., Delaney C.F., Gutting G.M. (eds) Science and reality: Recent work in the philosophy of science. Notre Dame University Press, South Bend, IN, pp 1–1
Reisch G.A. (1998) Pluralism, logical empiricism, and the problem of pseudoscience. Philosophy of Science 65(June): 333–348
Resnik D.B. (2000) A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31(2): 249–267
Roper J. (2005) Should we teach both evolution and ‘creationism’ in science classes?. In: Jagusah O., Smith D., Makedon A. (eds) The Midwest Philosophy of Education Society Proceedings for 2001–2003. Author House, Bloomington, IN, pp 485–504
Ruse M. (1982) Pro judice. Science, Technology, & Human Values 7(4): 19–23
Ruse, M. (eds) (1988) But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy. Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY
Ruse M. (2001) Methodological naturalism under attack. In: Pennock R.T. (eds) Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological and scientific perspectives. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 363–385
Sober E. (2007) Intelligent design theory and the supernatural—The “God or extra-terrestrials” Reply. Faith and Philosophy 24: 72–82
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. Judge Jones, Legal documents, trial materials, updates. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieved November 7, 2005, from http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 (2005).
Taylor C.A. (1996) Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Wisconsin University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
Tennant N. (2007) What might logic and methodology have offered the Dover School Board, had they been willing to listen?. Public Affairs Quarterly 21(2): 149–167
Thomas More Law Center. (2005). Defendants’ pretrial memorandum.
Wirth, K. (2006). The Grinch Opinion in Kitzmiller v Dover. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.kevs-korner.com/CREVO/.
Witt, J. (2005). Miller on witness stand: ID isn’t falsifiable, so it isn’t science: Plus, we’ve already falsified it. Evolution News & Views, Retrieved from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/09/title_43.html.
About this article
Cite this article
Pennock, R.T. Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited. Synthese 178, 177–206 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9547-3
- Intelligent Design
- Methodological naturalism
- Science and religion