Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T03:47:01.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where the Design Argument Goes Wrong: Auxiliary Assumptions and Unification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Maarten Boudry  and
Bert Leuridan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sober has reconstructed the biological design argument in the framework of likelihoodism, purporting to demonstrate that it is defective for intrinsic reasons. We argue that Sober’s restriction on the introduction of auxiliary hypotheses is too restrictive, as it commits him to rejecting types of everyday reasoning that are clearly valid. Our account shows that the design argument fails, not because it is intrinsically untestable but because it clashes with the empirical evidence and fails to satisfy certain theoretical desiderata (in particular, unification). Likewise, Sober’s critique of the arguments from imperfections and from evil against design is off the mark.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 78 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 558 - 578
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

We would like to thank Stefaan Blancke, Johan Braeckman, José Díez, Heather Douglas, Kareem Khalifa, James Lennox, Sebastian Lutz, Elisabeth Nemeth, Laura Perini, Herman Philipse, Peter Vickers, and John Worrall for their helpful criticisms and suggestions. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers of Philosophy of Science, whose critical comments have substantially improved this article.

References

Akaike, Hirotsugu. 1973. “Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood.” In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory, ed. Petrov, B. N. and Csaki, F., 267–81. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
Avise, John C. 2010a. “Footprints of Nonsentient Design inside the Human Genome.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (Suppl. 2): 8969–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avise, John C.. 2010b. Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-intelligent Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behe, Michael J. 2006. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. 10th ed. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Boudry, Maarten, Blancke, Stefaan, and Braeckman, Johan. 2010. “How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions about Methodological Naturalism.” Foundations of Science 15 (3): 227–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudry, Maarten, and Braeckman, Johan. 2011. “Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms.” Philosophia 39 (1): 145–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, Jerry A. 2009. Why Evolution Is True. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 2006. The Origin of Species: A Variorum Text. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Dawes, G. W. 2007. “What Is Wrong with Intelligent Design?” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 61 (2): 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. London: Bantam.Google Scholar
Forrest, Barbara C., and Gross, Paul R.. 2004. Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Malcolm R., and Sober, E.. 1994. “How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or Less Ad-Hoc Theories Will Provide More Accurate Predictions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45 (1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gliboff, Sander. 2000. “Paley’s Design Argument as an Inference to the Best Explanation; or, Dawkins’ Dilemma.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science C 31 (4): 579–97.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1980. The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. 1st ed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Harker, David. 2008. “On the Predilections for Predictions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3): 429–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, Cristopher, and Sober, Elliott. 2004. “Prediction versus Accommodation and the Risk of Overfitting.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. 1779/2007. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and Other Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Phillip E. 1991. Darwin on Trial. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1981. “Explanatory Unification.” Philosophy of Science 48 (4): 507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1985. “Darwin’s Achievement.” In Reason and Rationality in Natural Science, ed. Rescher, Nicholas, 127–89. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2007. Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith: Philosophy in Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leplin, Jarrett. 1975. “The Concept of an Ad Hoc Hypothesis.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 5 (4): 309–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, John L. 1955. “Evil and Omnipotence.” Mind 64 (254): 200–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Paul A. 1996. “The Role of Theology in Current Evolutionary Reasoning.” Biology and Philosophy 11 (4): 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppy, Graham. 1996. “Hume and the Argument for Biological Design.” Biology and Philosophy 11 (4): 519–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paley, William. 1802. Natural Theology. London: Gould & Lincoln.Google Scholar
Pennock, Robert T. 1999. Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigliucci, Massimo. 2002. Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Scott, Eugenie Carol. 2004. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 1999. “Testability.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 73 (2): 47–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2000. Philosophy of Biology. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2002. “Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning (Developing an Philosophical Epistemology of Irreducible Complexity).” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52 (2): 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2004. “The Design Argument.” In The Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Mann, W., 117–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2007. “What Is Wrong with Intelligent Design?” Quarterly Review of Biology 82 (1): 3–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, Elliott. 2008. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2009. “Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence: Evidential Transitivity in Connection with Fossils, Fishing, Fine-Tuning, and Firing Squads.” Philosophical Studies 143 (1): 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Jonathan. 2005. “Firing Squads and Fine-Tuning: Sober on the Design Argument.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4): 809–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, William. 1840. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences: Founded upon Their History. London: Parker.Google Scholar
Worrall, John. 2002. “New Evidence for Old.” In In the Scope of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 1 of 11th International Conference of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, ed. Gardenfors, J., Wolenski, K., and Kijania-Placek, K., 191–209. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar