Monton, Bradley (2006) Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision. [Preprint]
This is the latest version of this item.
|Microsoft Word (.doc) |
In the case of Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Judge Jones ruled that a pro-intelligent design disclaimer cannot be read to public school students. In his decision, he gave demarcation criteria for what counts as science, ruling that intelligent design fails these criteria. I argue that these criteria are flawed, with most of my focus on the criterion of methodological naturalism. The way to refute intelligent design is not by declaring it unscientific, but by showing that the empirical evidence for design is not there.
|Export/Citation:||EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL|
|Social Networking:|| |
|Keywords:||intelligent design, creationism, demarcation question, methodological naturalism, non-science, psuedoscience, Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest, William Dembski|
|Subjects:||General Issues > Science vs. Pseudoscience|
General Issues > Science and Religion
|Depositing User:||Bradley Monton|
|Date Deposited:||19 Jan 2006|
|Last Modified:||07 Oct 2010 11:13|
Available Versions of this Item
- Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision. (deposited 04 Jan 2006)
- Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision. (deposited 19 Jan 2006)[Currently Displayed]
Actions (login required)