Intelligent Design: A Bibliography
Please comment with suggestions and additions. I will keep this page updated. This bibliography is not interested in the debate about science education, but about the epistemic merits of intelligent design theory. Also, in brackets I’ve labeled whether the author is mostly supportive or critical of intelligent design theory.
Also see the Discovery Institute’s Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.
Ordered by publication date. Use Ctrl+F to search by name or title.
- “Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors” by Hermann Muller, 1918. [critical, in which Muller predicts that evolution will necessarily result in numerous examples of 'interlocking complexity.' Summary here.]
- Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe, 1996. [supportive]
- The Design Inference by William Dembski, 1998. [supportive]
- Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology by William Dembski, 1999. [supportive]
- “How Not to Detect Design – A Review of William Dembski’s The Design Inference” by Branden Fitelson, et. al in Philosophy of Science, 1999. [critical]
- “Testability” by Elliot Sober in Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73, 1999. [critical]
- “Self-organization and irreducibly complex systems: A reply to Shanks and Joplin” by Michael Behe in Philosophy of Science, 2000. [supportive]
- Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism by Robert Pennock, 2000. [critical]
- “Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe in Biology and Philosophy, 2001. [supportive]
- “The advantages of theft over toil” by John Wilkins & Wesley Elsberry in Biology and Philosophy, 2001. [critical]
- Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch, 2001. [supportive and critical]
- Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, edited by Robert Pennock, 2001. [supportive and critical]
- “An Evaluation of William A. Dembski’s The Design Inference” by Robin Collins in Christian Scholar’s Review 30:3, 2001. [critical]
- “Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Gradualism: A Reply to Michael J. Behe” by Paul Draper in Faith and Philosophy 19:1, 2002. [critical]
- No Free Lunch by William Dembski, 2002. [supportive]
- “Intelligent design and probability reasoning” by Elliot Sober in International Journal for Philosophy of
Religion 52, 2002. [critical] - “DNA and the origin of life: information, specification, and explanation” by Stephen Meyer, 2003. [supportive]
- “Natural Providence (or Design Trouble)” by Michael Murray in Faith and Philosophy 20:2, 2003. [critical]
- God and Design (section 4), edited by Neil Manson, 2003. [supportive and critical]
- “The evolutionary origin of complex features” by Richard Lenski et. al, 2003. [critical]
- Unintelligent Design by Mark Perakh, 2003. [critical]
- “Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s ‘complex specified information‘” by W. Elsberry & J. Shallitt in Synthese, 2004. [critical]
- Why Intelligent Design Fails, edited by Matt Young & Taner Edis, 2004. [critical]
- “The design argument” by Elliot Sober, an expanded version of a paper first published in W. Mann, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, 2004. [critical]
- “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues” by Michael Behe & David Snoke in Protein Science, 2004. [supportive]
- “Testability, Likelihoods, and Design” by Lydia McGrew in Philo, 2004. [supportive]
- “Theory is as theory does” by Ian Musgrave et. al at Talk Reason, 2004. [critical]
- “Irreducible Complexity Revisited” by William Dembski, 2004. [supportive]
- “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories” by Stephen Meyer in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117, 2004. [critical]
- “Meyer’s Hopeless Monster” by Alan Gishlick, Nick Matzke, and Wesley R. Elsberry at Talk Reason, 2004. [critical]
- “The application-conditions for design inferences: Why the design arguments need the help of other arguments for God’s existence” by Kenneth Himma in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57, 2005. [critical]
- “Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins” by Michael Lynch in Protein Science, 2005. [critical]
- “A response to Michael Lynch” by Michael Behe & David Snoke in Protein Science, 2005. [supportive]
- “Toward a Rational Reconstruction of Design Inferences” by Timothy McGrew in Philosophia Christi 7:2, 2005. [critical]
- “Specification: The Pattern That Signifies Intelligence” by William Dembski, 2005. [supportive]
- Intelligent Thought: Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement, edited by John Brockman, 2006. [critical]
- “Natural Providence: Reply to Dembski” by Michael Murray in Faith and Philosophy 23:3, 2006. [critical]
- “The Cambrian explosion, biology’s big bang” by Stephen Meyer in Dembski & Ruse (eds.), Debating Design, 2007. [supportive]
- “What is wrong with intelligent design?” by Gregory Dawes in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 2007. [critical]
- Intelligent Design: William A. Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue, edited by Robert Stewart, 2007. [supportive and critical]
- “Intelligent Design and the NFL Theorems” by Olle Haggstrom in Biology and Philosophy 22:2, 2007. [critical]
- “Intelligent Design and the Supernatural — the ‘God or Extraterrestrials’ Reply” by Elliot Sober in Faith and Philosophy, 2007. [critical]
- “What Is Wrong with Intelligent Design?” by Elliot Sober in Quarterly Review of Biology, 2007. [critical]
- Doubting Darwin: Creationist Designs on Evolution by Sahotra Sarkar, 2007. [critical]
- God, the Devil, and Darwin by Niell Shanks, 2007. [critical]
- The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, 2008. [supportive]
- Evidence and Evolution by Elliot Sober, 2008. [critical]
- “Intelligent Design and Mathematical Statistics: A Troubled Alliance” by Peter Olofsson in Biology and Philosophy 23, 2008. [critical]
- “Probability, Statistics, Evolution, and Intelligent Design” by Peter Olofsson in Chance 21:3, 2008. [critical]
- Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design by Bradley Monton, 2009. [supportive and critical]
- “Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information” by William Dembski & Robert Marks in The Nature of Nature, 2009. [supportive]
- Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, 2009. [supportive]
- “Design Inferences in an Infinite Universe” by Bradley Monton in Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Religion Vol. 2, 2010. [critical]
- “Evolution without Naturalism” by Elliot Sober in J. Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, volume 3, forthcoming. [critical]
- “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine” by Abigail Clements et. al. in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009. [critical]
What am I missing?
60 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I’ve got one additional suggestion. The Language of God, by Francis Collins. The author, who was the head of the Human Genome Project, supports a specific type of intelligent design that is intended to be fully compatible with our current knowledge of biology. Aeiluindae
You really should include Ratzsch’s entire book Nature, Design, and Science, not just the appendix. It is probably one of the better books on design and science that you will find. Bradm
Collins advocates “theistic evolution”, not ID. Aren’t these different? Charles
Yes. Both are unsupported by empirical evidence, but at least TE doesn’t contradict the known evidence. Lorkas
What about Behe’s paper in the journal “Protein Science”? There was also a paper critical of Behe in the same journal, as well as a final response by Behe. I don’t know the exact reference off hand, but I can look them up later if you want. Briang
I think that the problem is that the ID side isn’t all arguing for the same thing. One side seems closer to an old earth special creation, God created basic kinds independently, and then they evolved from there. Others, like Behe, accept common descent, and suggest that maybe God created the first cell. Still others have God merely designing the laws of nature.
This creates a bit of a problem for us theists. If we say that we accept “intelligent design” it could be interpreted as saying that we are rejecting evolution and accepting a watered down version of creationism. If we say we reject intelligent design, it could be taken to mean that we don’t think that God had any part in the creation of the universe — a position which would be problematic not just for Christians, but deists and other forms of theism as well. Briang
Wilkins, John S, and Wesley R Elsberry. 2001. The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance. Biology and Philosophy 16 (November):711-724.
Unedited online version at
http://talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil
I’m not sure what you are trying to do with the tags, but I’m not an atheist. I strongly criticize religious antievolution arguments because it seems to me that they are rife with error. I have co-authored work with those who would be comfortable being noted as atheists, though, including one of the entries already listed above. There’s a fair amount of criticism of the “intelligent design” creationism arguments that is done by theists, including myself, Ken Miller (“Finding Darwin’s God”), Rob Pennock (“Tower of Babel”), and many others. So I would suggest “critical” as the sole tag for ones that I’m an author on. Wesley R. Elsberry
“What am I missing?”
The fact that there are no epistemic (or any other kind of) merits to ID? Badger3k
Thanks for your additions, all! lukeprog
The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism
by Niles Eldredge (2000)
And doesn’t The God Delusion by Dawkins talk about intelligent design? Kris
You could throw this one under “critical”: Why Intelligent Design Fails
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Intelligent-Design-Fails-Creationism/dp/081353433X Stallion
One of the best Critiques of ID I’ve ever read is “Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism.” The third essay “Common Descent: It’s all Or Nothing” is worth the price of admission alone.
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Intelligent-Design-Fails-Creationism/dp/081353433X
I also don’t think I saw “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design.” That book more deals with the religious and cultural goals of the Intelligent Design movement, as exposed by the “Wedge Document.”
It isn’t quite as good as “Why Intelligent Design Fails,” but I suppose you should include “Intelligent Thought: Science versus Intelligent Design,” which is another collection of essays (which include prominent names like Jerry Conye and Daniel Dennett)
I haven’t read it, but “Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design” would probably make a good addition to the list. Justfinethanks
As you point out, there are a number of theists who are critical of intelligent design. I think it would be helpful to know whether someone is a critical theist or a critical atheist. If the author position is unknown, that can be expressed. If the book is written by several authors with different views that can be noted as well. Briang
I almost forgot. Earlier this year, this was this fantastic paper that shot down the idea that “molecular machines” cannot conceivably come about is gradual steps: “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/25/0908264106.abstract Justfinethanks
Two suggestions:
Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics (edited by Bob Pennock)
Doubting Darwin? Creationist Designs on Evolution (Sahotra Sarkar)
Pennock’s edited volume has lots of essays from different perspectives. And Sarkar’s book is just excellent. Alex
Please do. While you’re there, take note of how many of the listed publications are not scientific publications (e.g. articles from philosophical or religious journals) and how many of them are not peer-reviewed (such as popular books).
If you need tips on how to pad a resume, you might also notice:
* Publications listed as peer-reviewed which are not.
* Publications listed twice; once as ‘highlighted” work and again in the complete listing.
* Publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals which are not in the area of speciality of the journal (e.g. a paper on population genetics in a journal which specializes in protein chemistry and structure).
* A book listed, and separate chapters from that book also listed.
* Publications whose editorial treatment and peer-review are questionable, and have been disavowed by the journal’s board.
* Works of open Christian apologetics by the likes of William Lane Craig, despite the Discovery Institute’s pretense that ID has nothing to do with religion.
* Add up all the publications, questionable or not, and compare it to a literature search about some questionable area of science such as cold fusion. Reginald Selkirk
Also there are two great books by Robert Pennock ” “Intelligent Design Creationism and it’s Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and scientific perspectives,” which has both supportive and critical essays (including an essay by Plantiga).
And also: “Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism”
Also, when creationists talk about the book that “opened their eyes” to the problems of evolution, they almost invariably cite Phillip Johnson’s “Darwin On Trial” and Michael Denton’s 1985 book “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis.” (The latter can be seen in William Lane Craig’s hand on the front page of his Reasonable Faith website in the picture where he is standing at the podium) Justfinethanks
Thanks again, everyone! lukeprog
I highly recommend “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.”
The author, Francis Collins, is not merely the head of the Human Genome Project; he is a former self-described “obnoxious atheist,” one of the greatest genetic scientists the world will ever know, has a Yale Ph.D in Physical Chemistry (and an M.D. from UNC), and heads the BioLogos foundation, whose brilliant THEISTIC EVOLUTION theory is turning a whole lot of heads in the science community.
Oh but wait, this is an atheist website. Collins is a Christian so he must be an ignorant, superstitious, loony tune who worships a sado masochistic beast God who tortures his offspring with hellfire for all eternity out of love! Sigh. Has to be tough for the atheists to see science giants like Collins and McGrath changes teams. If I were atheist, I would at least want to dig in and find out what makes a man 5000x times my scientific, naturalistic, and intellectual superior want to abandon my atheistic religion and go praise God. Then again, as another former atheist-turned-apologist-theologian noted, “An atheist can not be too careful of his reading choices.” Amen to that.
Also, if you’re going to include the God Delusion, you must also be fair and list the Dawkins Delusion.
From Wikipedia: In reviewing The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister McGrath, Dr. Francis Collins says “Addressing the conclusions of The God Delusion point by point with the devastating insight of a molecular biologist turned theologian, Alister McGrath dismantles the argument that science should lead to atheism, and demonstrates instead that Dawkins has abandoned his much-cherished rationality to embrace an embittered manifesto of dogmatic atheist fundamentalism.”
Also, I highly recommend avoiding books with oxymoronic titles like: “Simple evolutionary pathways to complex proteins.” Compare: “Learn Astrophysics in 24 Hours.” Just tryin to keep it real dudes. w00t!
Also, add a movie: EXPELLED, NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. If you can watch that movie and stay an atheist, you will have made a narrow escape. Summa
It’s amazing how believe in God inflates one credentials. Reginald Selkirk
Which McGrath would that be, Alister E.? What has he accomplished which would have you characterize him as a “science great”? Reginald Selkirk
Why would that be “fair” when the point of the exercise is to list works on Intelligent Design? The Dawkins Delusion attempts to challenge The God Delusion on theology, not on intelligent design. Reginald Selkirk
Didn’t realize you were including works that were critical. In that case, you should add,
“Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion” by Michael Ruse, 2000. [critical]
http://www.amazon.com/Can-Darwinian-Christian-Relationship-Religion/dp/0521631440 Charles
Is Summa a Poe? If you can watch Expelled and not lose your lunch, you will have made a narrow escape. Reginald Selkirk
At the risk of beating a dead horse…“Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism.” is a GREAT time sink if your interested in the subject at all.
Summa…Thanks for the reference’s, but whats with the unnecessary sarcasm? Omgredxface
There has been a debate recently on the origins of life
between Stephen Meyer and Michael Shermer that can be
downloaded here:
http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/12/origins-of-life-debate-mp3-audio-meyer.html majinrevan666
LOL! That’s hilarious. I actually watched this movie again last night, coincidentally enough. I was hanging out with a bunch of my atheist friends and we decided that a good comedy would be nice to watch. Expelled seemed like a natural choice. Jeff H
Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532
Neil Shubin, Your Inner Fish
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0307277453/?tag=yahhyd-20&hvadid=66972649511&ref=pd_sl_93gr7y4×2v_e
Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260041651&sr=1-1 Evan
Luke,
Here is a list of several more that you may want to consider adding.
Mark Perakh, Unintelligent Design [critical]
Intelligent Design: William Dembski & Michael Ruse in Dialogue, edited by Robert B. Stewart [support and critical]
Steve Fuller, Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design’s Challenge to Darwinism [supportive]
God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory by Niall Shanks [critical]
Intelligent Design: Science or Religion? Critical Perspectives edited by Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum [critical] Anthony
Summa;
It’s not a secret. We’ve all heard their reasons, and been profoundly unimpressed. That’s one of the things your team just seems perpetually unable to assimilate; it doesn’t matter how smart the person is, or what their credentials are. What matters is what kind of arguments they can muster for their beliefs, and they are never good ones. Fortuna
WTF? Collins did some neat stuff in medical genetics. But most of his public acclaim comes from administrative work. McGrath, on the other hand, switched to theology immediately after his PhD. John D
What about the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling? It deals specifically with the issue of teaching ID in science classes. Fascinating story – a modern-day Scopes trial. The judge’s entire ruling is free online: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Also, NOVA made an excellent, fair, award-winning documentary about it. It, too, is free online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
For lighter fare, there’s the excellent Spencer Tracy film “Inherit the Wind”, a dramatization of the Scopes Trial. Not really ID, but an interesting look at how much these debates repeat themselves.
For a thorough list of ID material, pro- & con-, there’s always wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_on_intelligent_design Scott
I’d like to remind people that this bibliography isn’t interested in whether ID is science or whether it should be taught in schools. lukeprog
Two papers by Lydia McGrew:
http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/PhiloTestability.pdf,
and
http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/PhilChristiLikelihoods.pdf.
The first was published in _Philo_ and the second in _Philosophia Christi_. Anonymous
I don’t know if you want magazine articles, but these two by H. Allen Orr have been discussed a bit in the literature.
http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html Anonymous
I don’t quite understand that. Showing that ID isn’t science goes right to the core of whether it has any “epistemic merit”. Hansen
Robin Collins’ article in _A Reason for the Hope Within_ is here:
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/FINETLAY.HTM.
And he has a few others here:
http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/ft.htm. Anonymous
I found this exclusion to be a bit confusing as well. Especially since Luke has already included articles that deal with the “Is ID science?” question. For example, the 2007 article “What is wrong with intelligent design?” which you provide argues that ID isn’t science on the basis of not being falsifiable. Justfinethanks
The evolution of the atmosphere as a proof of design and purpose in the creation, and of the existence of a personal God;: A simple and rigorously scientific reply to modern materialistic atheism
by John Phin, 1908.
Characterized by one reviewer as “the most honest book on Intelligent Design I have read.” Reginald Selkirk
Michael Behe is one of those who states that Denton’s book was opened his eyes (as reported in Edward Humes’ book Monkey Girl, about the Dover trial). having read Denton’s book myself, I hereby state that if Behe found it convincing, that is an indictment of his competence. Reginald Selkirk
Of Pandas and People, by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon (Haughton Publishing Co. 1989) Reginald Selkirk
William Dembski’s treatment of the No Free Lunch theorems is written in Jello by David Wolpert Reginald Selkirk
Natural Theology by William Paley. (Originally published 1802)
The Bridgewater Treatises On the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God As Manifested in the Creation (various authors) (approx 1830s) Reginald Selkirk
The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name
by Jerry Coyne (2005)
Best essay-length summary I have seen of the evidence for evolution and explanation of why ID is not science Reginald Selkirk
Anonymous,
I don’t want magazine articles. But I love the McGrews; I can’t believe I forgot about those papers by Lydia!
I’m drawing a very fuzzy line between literature on design arguments in general and arguments associated with the term ‘intelligent design.’ I think I’ll only list the first one here. lukeprog
Reginald,
Yet another excellent link! Keep ‘em coming! lukeprog
The Design Matrix by Mike Gene
The author(Mike Gene is a pen name)is a proponent of front-loaded evolution.
Here’s his website:
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/
He gives a helpful summary of his position on evolution and design here:
http://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/ways-to-approach-a-design-inference/
I apologize if someone mentioned this one already. Wellington
Lurquin, P.F., and L. Stone. Evolution and Religious Creation Myths: How Scientists Respond, Oxford U. Press 2007
Foster, J.B., B. Clark and R. York. Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism from Antiquity to the Present, Monthly Review Press 2008
Attridge, H.W. (ed), The Religion and Science Debate: Why does it continue?, Yale University Press, 2009
Ayala, F.J. Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion, Joseph Henry Press 2007
Bray, D. Wetware: A computer in every living cell. Yale University Press 2009
Rothman, S. Life Beyond Molecules and Genes: How our adaptations make us alive. Templeton Press 2009 Dave
Luke (and others who’ve added to the bibliography),
Thank you so much! This is extraordinarily helpful. brgulker
Michael Lynch’s paper was a response to a previous paper by Behe & Snoke: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/?tool=pubmed
But depending on what your purposes for this biography are, these may or may not be appropriate. They’re highly technical biochemistry papers. Alex
Actually, no. Behe & Snoke and Lynch are papers on population genetics, not biochemistry. Thus my earlier comment about the inappropriateness of Behe & Snoke appearing in the journal Protein Science, which specializes in protein chemistry and structure. Reginald Selkirk
Yup, thanks for correcting. Alex
I haven’t read it, but “Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves” seems like a very interesting
ID esque book.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Us-Science-Rediscovered-Ourselves/dp/0007120281/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top majinrevan666
Supportive:
- Probability’s Nature and Nature’s Probability: A Call to Scientific Integrity (2009)
- Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2008)
- Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design by Thomas Woodward (2007)
- Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design by Thomas Woodward and William Dembski (2006)
- The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories by Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen, and Dean H. Kenyon (1984/1992)
Also, listen to the short podcast Intelligent Design Turns 25, which is where i got these from.
He also argues against the rhetorical weakness of the dys-teleological argument (bad design proves there is no God), as well as the old hack that ID as an idea was created after the 1987 case that barred Creationism from schools (see 1984 book above) danielg
danielg,
Sorry, those works don’t really look like the kind of thing I’m including on this list. Maybe the Genetic Entropy one. lukeprog
Reviews of quite some pro- and anti-ID books can be found on Gert Korthoff’s web pages (wasdarwinwrong.com). sparc
no kenneth miller? in recent years he may be the most influential critic.
you need “finding darwin’s god” and “only a theory”.
like others, i also don’t get your comment about not being interested in writings criticizing ID for not being science.
the primary thrust of many writings critical of ID is two pronged, evolutionary theory offers a superior explanation, and ID isn’t science…just spiffed up creationism. nate
upon reflection, and considering your site’s content, i should have realized you would be more interested in the philosophical aspects of the issue and not the “science”. however, w/o any empirical evidence to support IC how is the philosophical position even relevant? metaphysical musings that do not correspond w/ the observed natural world are of no pragmatic value. of course, one could hold that the designer designed life w/ the appearance of having evolved(or even used evolution as the creative process), but isn’t this a bit superfluous? nate
The Mystery remains despite the efforts of time’s greatest minds.
The gods of human design all find their origins in the human need to define the mystery that each is aware that somehow resides within them. Putting a familiar face to a mystery makes it easier to speculate on.
Speculation only becomes our truths when we give up on the search for the real truth and settle on blind faith instead.
The actual truth about our realities is a much more difficult thing to accept. Self is a delusion created by misunderstanding and settling. EJL
The newest issue of the journal Foundations of Science has an article about Intelligent Design and Methodological Naturalism which argues:
“Evolutionary scientists are on firmer ground if they discard supernatural explanations on purely evidential grounds, instead of ruling them out by philosophical fiat.”
https://biblio.ugent.be/input/download?func=downloadFile&fileOId=969613
Money quote:
“Supernatural claims do not fall beyond the reach of science; they have simply failed.” Justfinethanks