The evolution of intelligent design: between religion and science

Keywords: demarcation criteria, intelligent design, naturalism, pseudoscience, scientific method

Abstract

This work evaluates intelligent design (ID) as a pseudoscience. Science has many attached formal definitions, as does pseudoscience. They have both been contested in various fields. In the political sphere, they are both characterized by a plurality of conflicting views. There is no single philosophy of science, thus, no unique methodology. Demarcation is not a clear-cut. This issue becomes problematic in evaluating Intelligent Design as its proponents claim that scientists have dismissed ID on the grounds of it lacking scientificity. Here, we select a set of pseudoscience definitions to evaluate whether ID meets the demarcation criteria. Given that our unit of analysis is Intelligent Design, the question we set out to answer is whether intelligent design is a pseudoscience or can intelligent design be characterized as one or more forms of pseudoscience.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Enrique Sandino Vargas, Jönköping International Business School / Universidad Antonio Nariño
Public Accountant and Business Administrator, MSc in Business Administration, and PhD candidate at Jönköping International Business School.
Marta Caccamo, Jönköping International Business School
MSc in International Management, and PhD candidate at Jönköping International Business School.
Sumaya Hashim, Jönköping International Business School
MSc in Leadership in Health Professions Education, and PhD candidate at Jönköping International Business School.
Oskar Eng, Jönköping International Business School
MSc in Business Administration, and PhD candidate at Jönköping International Business School.

References

Aquinas, T. (2010). Summa Theologica: Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province: MobileReference.

Baigrie, B.S., 1988. Siegel on the Rationality of Science, Philosophy of Science, 55: 435–441.
https://doi.org/10.1086/289448

Beckwith, F. J. (2003). Science and religion twenty years after McLean v. Arkansas: Evolution, public education, and the new challenge of intelligent design. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 26, 455.

Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin's black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution: Simon and Schuster.

Bunge, M. (1984). What is pseudoscience. The Skeptical Inquirer, 9(1), 36-47.

Davis, P. W., Kenyon, D. H., & Thaxton, C. B. (1993). Of pandas and people: The central question of biological origins: Foundation for Thought & Ethics.

Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a world without design: New York: WW Norton.

Dembski, W. (1998). Science and Design. First Things, 21-27.

Dembski, W., (1999). Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology.

Dembski, W. (2006). In defense of intelligent design. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, Oxford Handbooks in Religion and Theology: Oxford University Press, Oxford.
PMCid:PMC1635022

Dembski, W., & McDowell, S. (2008). Understanding intelligent design: Harvest House Publishers.

Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture. (2017). Definition of Intelligent Design.

Dunér, D. (2016). Swedenborg and the plurality of worlds: Astrotheology in the eighteenth century. Zygon®, 51(2), 450-479.
https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12264

Gardner, Martin (1957), Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (2nd, revised & expanded ed.), Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-20394-8,

George, M. (2013). What would Thomas Aquinas say about Intelligent Design? New Blackfriars, 94(1054), 676-700.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nbfr.12035

Fuller, Steve, (1985). The demarcation of science: a problem whose demise has been greatly exaggerated, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 66: 329–341.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1985.tb00257.x

Hansson, S., O. (2009). Cutting the Gordian Knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23, pp.237-243.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590903196007

Hume, D. (2003). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

IOSE. (2010). Significance of Origins Science ideas and issues. Retrieved from http://iose-gen.blogspot.

Koperski, J. (2008). Two bad ways to attack intelligent design and two good ones. Zygon®, 43(2), 433-449.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2008.00926.x

Mc Pherson, T. (1972). What is the argument from design? The Argument from Design, 1-13: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-00746-2

Paley, W. (1833). Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Atttributes of the Deity: Collected from the Appearances of Nature: Lincoln Edmands & Company.

Peterson, G. R. (2002). The Intelligent‐Design Movement: Science or Ideology? Zygon®, 37(1), 7-23.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9744.00406

Pullen, S. (2005). Intelligent Design Or Evolution? : Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design: Intelligent Design Books.

Sedley, D. (2008). Oxford studies in ancient philosophy (Vol. 33): Oxford Studies in Ancient Phil.

Wallis, C. (2005). The evolution wars. Time, 166(7), 26-35.
PMid:16116981

Wexler, J. D. (1997). Of Pandas, People, and the First Amendment: The Constitutionality of Teaching Intelligent Design in the Public Schools. Stanford Law Review, 439-470.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229302

Woodruff, P. (2006). Socrates among the Sophists. A Companion to Socrates, 36.
Published
2018-03-31
How to Cite
Sandino Vargas, E., Caccamo, M., Hashim, S., & Eng, O. (2018, March 31). The evolution of intelligent design: between religion and science. Revista Científica General José María Córdova, 16(22), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.21830/19006586.321
Section
Technoscience