What is wrong with intelligent design?
While a great deal of abuse has been directed at intelligent design theory (ID), its starting point is a fact about biological organisms that cries out for explanation, namely “specified complexity” (SC). Advocates of ID deploy three kind of argument from specified complexity to the existence of a d...
1. VerfasserIn: | |
---|---|
Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Veröffentlicht: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2007
|
In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
Jahr: 2007, Band: 61, Heft: 2, Seiten: 69-81 |
weitere Schlagwörter: | B
Teleological arguments
B Design Arguments B Intelligent Design |
Online Zugang: |
Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Parallele Ausgabe: | Elektronisch
|
Zusammenfassung: | While a great deal of abuse has been directed at intelligent design theory (ID), its starting point is a fact about biological organisms that cries out for explanation, namely “specified complexity” (SC). Advocates of ID deploy three kind of argument from specified complexity to the existence of a designer: an eliminative argument, an inductive argument, and an inference to the best explanation. Only the first of these merits the abuse directed at it; the other two arguments are worthy of respect. If they fail, it is only because we have a better explanation of SC, namely Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1572-8684 |
Enthält: | Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11153-007-9112-2 |