Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence for Evolution Versus Evidence for Intelligent Design: Parallel Confusions

  • Synthesis Paper
  • Published:
Evolutionary Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In both instances, I have ignored the fact that auxiliary theories must be presumed as part of the premises in conjunction with either theory T or hypothesis H being tested.

  2. Somewhat more questionable claims for tests supporting or refuting ID theory can be found, for instance, in Ross (2006) and Stenger (2007), respectively.

References

  • 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 

  • Ahlberg, E., & Clack, J. A. (2006). A firm step from water to land. Nature, 440, 747–749.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aliseda, A. (2006). Abductive reasoning: Logical investigations into discovery and explanation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ayala, F. J. (2006). Darwin and intelligent design. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. J. (2007). Darwin’s gift to science and religion. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Barnosky, A. D., & Kraatz, B. R. (2007). The role of climatic change in the evolution of mammals. BioScience, 57, 523–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Behe, M. J. (2006). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Menahem, Y. (1990). The inference to the best explanation. Erkenntnis, 33, 319–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Campbell, J. A., & Meyer, S. C. (Eds.). (2003). Darwinism, design, and public education. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caws, P. (1965). The philosophy of science: A systematic account. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, B., & Charlesworth, D. (2003). Evolution: A very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, C. E. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29, 987–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copi, I. M., & Cohen, C. (1998). Logic. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, J. A. (2009). Why evolution is true. New York: Viking Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Davis, P., & Kenyon, D. H. (2004). Of pandas and people: The central question of biological origins. Dallas: Haughton Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, G. W. (2007). What is wrong with intelligent design? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 61, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. A. (1998). The design inference––eliminating chance through small probabilities. Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, W. A. (1999). Intelligent design: The bridge between science and theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dembski, W. A. (2002a). No free lunch: Why specified complexity cannot be purchased without intelligence. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • DeSalle, R., & Tattersall, I. (2008). Human origins: What bones and genomes tell us about ourselves. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Douven, I. (2002). Testing inference to the best explanation. Synthese, 130, 355–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. (2000). The triumph of evolution: And the failure of creationism. New York: WH Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. (2004). Darwin: Discovering the tree of life. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Endler, J. A. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fann, K. T. (1970). Peirce’s theory of abduction. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2005a). Les bases philosophiques de l’inférence phylogénétique: une vue d’ensemble. Biosystema, 24, 83–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2005b). The inferential basis of species hypotheses: The solution to defining the term ‘species’. Marine Ecology, 26, 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2006a). The abduction of phylogenetic hypotheses. Zootaxa, 1145, 1–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2006b). The ‘requirement of total evidence’ and its role in phylogenetic systematics. Biology and Philosophy, 21, 309–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2006c). The philosophical basis of character coding for the inference of phylogenetic hypotheses. Zoologica Scripta, 35, 261–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2008a). Fact, theory, test and evolution. Zoologica Scripta, 37, 109–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2008b). Abductive inference: Implications for ‘Linnean’ and ‘Phylogenetic’ approaches for representing biological systematization. Evolutionary Biology, 35, 52–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2008c). Clarifying the role of character loss in phylogenetic inference. Zoologica Scripta, 37, 561–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh, K. (2009). Species as explanatory hypotheses: Refinements and implications. Acta Biotheoretica, 57, 201–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D. J. (1998). Evolutionary biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D. J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauch, H. G., Jr. (2003). Scientific method in practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T. (1969). Triumph of the Darwinian method. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T. (2009). Darwin: A reader’s guide. Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences No. 155, 185 pp.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Grene, M., & Depew, D. (2004). The philosophy of science: An episodic history. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacking, I. (2001). An introduction to probability and inductive logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery: An inquiry into the conceptual foundations of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74, 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, D. M. (1998). Causal asymmetries. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herschel, J. F. W. (1831). A preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, M. (1977). The structure and strategy of Darwin’s ‘long argument’. British Journal for the History of Science, 10, 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howson, C. (1991). The ‘old evidence’ problem. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 42, 547–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (1993). Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Chicago: Open Court Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hull, D. L. (1974). Philosophy of biological science. Prentice-Hall, Inc: Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaak, M. (2007). The counter-creationism handbook. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (Eds.). (1994). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kardong, K. V. (2008). An introduction to biological evolution. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsolver, J. G., & Pfennig, D. W. (2007). Patterns and power of phenotypic selection in nature. BioScience, 57, 561–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Laudan, L. (1981). Science and hypothesis: Historical essays on scientific methodology. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1982). Commentary: Science at the bar––causes for concern. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 7, 16–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lipton, P. (1991). Inference to the best explanation (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, P. (2004). Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton, P. (2005). Testing hypotheses: Prediction and prejudice. Science, 307, 219–221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Magnani, L. (2001). Abduction, reason, and science: Processes of discovery and explanation. New York: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of biophilosophy. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, D. G. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (2001). What evolution is. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, S. C. (1999). The return of the God hypothesis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 11, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Meyer, S. C. (2009). Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent design. New York: HarperOne.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Millman, A. B., & Smith, C. L. (1997). Darwin’s use of analogical reasoning in theory construction. Metaphor and Symbol, 12, 159–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitton, J. B. (1997). Selection in natural populations. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1878). Illustrations of the logic of science. Sixth paper––deduction, induction, and hypothesis. Popular Science Monthly, 13, 470–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Peirce, C. S. (1958). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. In A. Burks (Ed.), (Vols. 7–8). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1962). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1983). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1992). Realism and the aim of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prothero, D. R. (2007). Evolution: What the fossils say and why it matters. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Psillos, S. (2007). Philosophy of science A-Z. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, A. (1972). Explanatory power and explanatory appeal of theories. Synthese, 24, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Recker, D. A. (1987). Causal efficacy: The structure of Darwin’s argument strategy in the Origin of Species. Philosophy of Science, 54, 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, F. E. (1970). Charles Peirce’s theory of scientific method. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. (1970). Scientific explanation. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis: ITT Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing Company, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ross, H. (2006). Creation as science: A testable model approach to end the creation/evolution wars. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (1989). The Darwinian paradigm: Essays on its history, philosophy and religious implications. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1984a). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, W. C. (1984b). Logic. Prentice-Hall, Inc: Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution versus creationism: An introduction. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1975). Simplicity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1985). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1999). Testability. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 73, 47–76.

  • Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of biology. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2002). Intelligent design and probability reasoning. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 52, 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sober, E. (2007). What is wrong with intelligent design? Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 3–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2008). Evidence and evolution: The logic behind the science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamos, D. N. (2007). Popper, laws, and the exclusion of biology from genuine science. Acta Biotheoretica, 55, 357–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stenger, V. J. (2007). God: The failed hypothesis: How science shows that god does not exist. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Fraassen, B. C. (1990). The scientific image. New York: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. (2004). Abductive reasoning. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whewell, W. (1847). Philosophy of the inductive sciences founded upon their history, volume II. London: John W. Parker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O. (1975). Karl R. Popper, systematics, and classification: A reply to Walter Bock and other evolutionary taxonomists. Systematic Zoology, 24, 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmer, C. (2010). The tangled bank: An introduction to evolution. Greenwood Village: Roberts and Company Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research and Collections Branch, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, 90007, USA

    Kirk Fitzhugh

Authors
  1. Kirk Fitzhugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kirk Fitzhugh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fitzhugh, K. Evidence for Evolution Versus Evidence for Intelligent Design: Parallel Confusions. Evol Biol 37, 68–92 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-010-9088-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-010-9088-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation