Intelligent Design and Its Critics

The Intelligent Design theory is based on a valid form of reasoning and is essential to the proper understanding of nature, but it is not a theory in natural science.  1. Is there a limit to knowledge attainable by natural science? The Intelligent Design theory makes two assertions: 1. The Darwinian mechanism is unable to explain the evolution of central

Branden Fitelson, Christopher Stephens, and Elliott Sober review William Dembski’s  1998 book __Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities__(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998. xvii + 243 pg. ISBN 0-521-62387-1). How Not to Detect Design*As every philosopher knows, “the design argument” concludes that God exists from premises that cite the adaptive complexity of organisms or the lawfulness and orderliness of the

In his article “Who’s Got the Magic?” (Dembski, Metaviews 042, 2000), William Dembski discusses my book Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism, and defends Phillip Johnson’s intelligent-design creationism (IDC(1)).  I had expected that Dembski would also respond to criticisms I had made of his own specific arguments, and was disappointed that he decided not to engage them.

When claiming to having scientific evidence of Intelligent Design (ID), one of the arguments most often cited by ID proponents is that of Dr. William Dembski, based on a method that he calls the Design Inference.  Not only is this method in itself claimed to provide support for the ID position, but it is also said to provide the probability

When you gotta go, you gotta go. In the men’s room after Michael Behe’s opening talk at a recent intelligent design symposium a fellow lad-in-waiting mocked, “There’s an evolutionary explanation for this,” referring to the dozen of us on a line that stretched to the exit. “As long as they don’t have to explain anything or give any details,” another