Can't philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited

Synthese

Volumn 178, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 177-206

  Pennock, Robert T ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Creation science; Creationism; Demarcation; Intelligent Design; Methodological naturalism; Science and religion

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650226134     PISSN: 00397857     EISSN: 15730964     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11229-009-9547-3     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Abney, K. (1997). Naturalism and nonteleological science: A Way to resolve the demarcation problem between science and nonscience. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49.
2. Agassi, J., & Laor, N. (2000). How ignoring repeatability leads to magic, Philosophy of Social Sciences,30(4),528-586
3. Anonymous. (2006). Intelligent-design backers downplay Dover WorldNetDaily; Retrieved January 15,2006, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48057.
4. Atchison, M. (2004). Mustard seeds. Leadership U, Retrieved October 21, 2005, from http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9902/atchison.html.
5. Axe, D. D. (2000). Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors, Journal of Molecular Biology, 301(3), 585-595.
6. Axe, D. D. (2004). Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Journal of Molecular Biology, 341(5), 1295-1315.
7. Behe, M. (1999). The God of science: The case for intelligent design. The Weekly Standard: 35.
8. Dembski, W. A. (1994). The incompleteness of scientific naturalism. In J. Buell & V. Hearn (Eds.),Darwinism: Science or philosophy, foundation for thought and ethics (pp. 79-98). TX: Richardson.
9. Dembski, W. A. (1995). What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design. Centerfor Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions, 3(2), 1-8.
10. Dembski, W. A. (2006). Bradley Monton-Important article on Dover. Uncommon Descent: The intelligentdesign weblog of Bill Bembski & Friends, Retrieved January 7, 2006, from http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/611.
11. Derksen, A. A. (1993). The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 21(1),17-42.
12. DeWolf, D. K. (August 20, 1999). Teaching the origins controversy: A guide for the perplexed. DiscoveryInstitute. Retrieved September 1999, from http://www.discovery.org/crsc/articles/article6.html.
13. DeWolf, D. K., Meyer, S. C., et al. (1999). Intelligent design in public school science curricula: A legalguidebook, foundation for Thought and Ethics. TX: Richardson.204 Synthese (2011) 178:177-206
14. DeWolf, D. K., Meyer, S. C., et al. (2000). Teaching the origins controversy: science, or religion, or speech?, Utah Law Review, 39(1), 39-110.
15. Discovery_Institute. (1999). The wedge strategy. Retrieved May 1999, from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/archive/thomas_wedge.html.
16. Discovery_Institute. (2004). Darwin, design, and public education-New book examines the scientificevidence for intelligent design and advocates teaching both Darwinism and design to improve science education. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1694&program=News-CSC&callingPage=discoMainPage.
17. Fales, E. (2006). Dover judge makes the right ruling using the wrong premise, Commentary. Science & Theology News. March 10, 2006.
18. Feyerabend, P. (1981). Realism and instrumentalism: Comments on the logic of factual support. In P. K. Feyerabend (Ed.), Realism, rationalism & scientificmethod: Philosophical papers,Vol. 1, pp. (176-202).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Forrest, B. (2001). The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into thecultural and academic mainstream. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics:Philosophical, theological and scientific perspectives (pp. 5-53). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
20. Forrest, B., & Gross, P. R. (2003). Creationism's Trojan Horse: The wedge of intelligent design. NewYork:Oxford University Press.
21. Fuller, S. (2006). A step toward the legalization of science studies. Social Studies of Science, 36(6),827-834.
22. George, A. (2005). What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics. Christian Science Monitor.
23. Gieryn, T. F. (1983a). Boundary-Work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interestsin professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 781-795.
24. Gross, B. R. (1983b). Commentary: Philosophers at the bar-Some reasons for restraint. Science, Technology,& Human Values, 8(4), 30-38.
25. Hume, D. (1978 (1739)). A treatise on human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
26. Katskee, R. B. (2006).Why it mattered to Dover that intelligent design isn't science. First Amendment LawReview, 5(Fall), 112-161.
27. Laudan, L. (1982). Science at the bar-Causes for concern. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7(41),16-19.
28. Laudan, L. (1983a). More on creationism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 8(42), 36-38.
29. Laudan, L. (1983b). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan (Eds.), Physics,Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis (pp. 111-127). Dordrecht: Reidel.
30. Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method, and evidence. Boulder: Colorado,Westview Press.
31. Lenski, R. E., Ofria, C., et al. (2003). The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature, 423, 139-144.
32. Levin, J. S. (1996). How prayer heals: A theoretical model, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine,2(1),66-73.
33. Lewontin, R. (1997). Billions and billions of demons. New York review of books, 44(1), 28-32.
34. Luskin, C. (2005).Will Robert Pennock become the nextMichael Ruse? Evolution news and views,RetrievedOctober 27, 2005, from http://www.evolutionnews.org/index.php?title=will_robert_pennock_become_the_next_mich&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1.
35. Matzke, N. (2005a). I guess ID really was "Creationism's Trojan Horse" after all. The Panda's Thumb.RetrievedOctober 13, 2005, from http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html.
36. Matzke, N. (2005b). Missing Link discovered! Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District: Legal documentstrial materials, updates. Retrieved November 7, 2005, from http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80.
37. Mayo, D. G. (1996). Ducks, rabbits, and normal science: Recasting the Kuhn's-eye view of Popper's demarcationof science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, 271-290.
38. Meyer, S. C. (1992). Laws, causes, and facts:Response toMichael Ruse. Darwinism: Science or Philosophy,Foundation for Thought and Ethics. TX: Richardson.
39. Meyer, S. C. (1994). The methodological equivalence of design & descent: Can there be a "Theory of Creation"?, In J. P. Moreland (Ed.), The creation hypothesis (pp. 66-112). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsityPress.
40. Meyer, S. C. (2004).Meyer responds to errors in chronicle of higher education article. Retrieved September13, 2004, from http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2207.
41. Monton, B. (2006). Is intelligent design science? Dissecting the Dover decision. On-line manuscript draft.
42. Moreland, J. P. (1994). Scientific creationism, science, and conceptual problems. Perspectives on Scienceand Christian Faith, 46, 2-13.
43. National Academy of Sciences. (1999). Science and creationism: A view from the National Academy ofSciences (2nd ed.). Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
44. National Science Teachers Association. (2000). The nature of scienceRetrieved July 13, 2006, from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx.
45. National Science Teachers Association. (2003). The teaching of evolution. Retrieved July 13, 2006, fromhttp://www.nsta.org/about/positions/evolution.aspx.
46. Overton, W. R. (1982). United States District Court Opinion: McLean v. Arkansas. In M. Ruse (Ed.), Butis it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy (pp. 307-331). Buffalo,New York: Prometheus Books.
47. Pennock, R. T. (1995). Epistemic and ontic theories of explanation and confirmation. Philosophy of Science(Japan), 28, 31-45.
48. Pennock, R. T. (1996a). Naturalism, evidence and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson. Biology andPhilosophy, 11(4), 543-559.
49. Pennock, R. T. (1996b). Reply: Johnson's reason in the balance. Biology and Philosophy, 11(4), 565-568.
50. Pennock, R. T. (1998). The prospects for a theistic science, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith,50(3), 205-209.
51. Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of Babel: The evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press.
52. Pennock, R. T. (2000). The wizards of ID:Reply to Dembski. The global spiralMETANEXUS 089. Retrievedfrom http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/2645/Default.aspx.
53. Pennock, R. T. (2002). Intelligent design & peer review:What if they gave awar and nobody came. ResearchNews & Opportunities in Science & Technology 2(11/12).
54. Pennock, R. T. (2004). DNA by design?: Stephen Meyer and the return of the God hypothesis. In M. Ruse& W. Dembski (Eds.), Debating design (pp. 130-148). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55. Pennock, R. T. (2005). Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Expert Report.
56. Pennock, R. T. (2006). God of the gaps: The argument from ignorance and the limits of methodologicalnaturalism. In A. J. Petto & L. R. Godfrey (Eds.), Scientists confront creationism: Creation science,intelligent design and beyond. New York: WW Norton.
57. Philadelphia Inquirer. (2006). Verbatim verbatim "The opinion speaks for itself. Philadelphia inquirer.Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
58. Plantinga, A. (1991). When faith and reason clash: Evolution and the Bible. Christian Scholars Review,XXI(1), 8-32.
59. Quinn, P. L. (1984). The philosopher of science as expert witness. In J. T. Cushing, C. F. Delaney, & G. M. Gutting (Eds.), Science and reality: Recent work in the philosophy of science. South Bend, IN:Notre Dame University Press.
60. Reisch, G. A. (1998). Pluralism, logical empiricism, and the problem of pseudoscience. Philosophy ofScience, 65(June), 333-348.
61. Resnik, D. B. (2000). A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophyof Science, 31(2), 249-267.
62. Roper, J. (2005). Should we teach both evolution and 'creationism' in science classes? In O. Jagusah,D. Smith, & A. Makedon (Eds.), The Midwest Philosophy of Education Society Proceedings for 2001-2003 (pp. 485-504). Bloomington, IN: Author House.
63. Ruse, M. (1982). Pro judice. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 7(4), 19-23.
64. Ruse, M. (Ed.) (1988). But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy.Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
65. Ruse, M. (2001). Methodological naturalism under attack. In R. T. Pennock (Ed.), Intelligent design creationismand its critics: Philosophical, theological and scientific perspectives (pp. 363-385). Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.
66. Sober, E. (2007). Intelligent design theory and the supernatural-The "God or extra-terrestrials" Reply.Faith and Philosophy, 24, 72-82.
67. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. Judge Jones, Legal documents, trial materials,updates. United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Retrieved November 7,2005, from http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80 (2005).
68. Taylor, C. A. (1996). Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: Wisconsin, University ofWisconsin Press.206 Synthese (2011) 178:177-206
69. Tennant, N. (2007). What might logic and methodology have offered the Dover School Board, had theybeen willing to listen? Public Affairs Quarterly, 21(2), 149-167.
70. Thomas More Law Center. (2005). Defendants' pretrial memorandum.
71. Wirth, K. (2006). The Grinch Opinion in Kitzmiller v Dover. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.kevs-korner.com/CREVO/.
72. Witt, J. (2005). Miller on witness stand: ID isn't falsifiable, so it isn't science: Plus, we've already falsifiedit. Evolution News & Views, Retrieved from http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/09/title_43.html.