Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1997)
Naturalism and nonteleological science: A Way to resolve the demarcation problem between science and nonscience
(2004)
Meyer responds to errors in chronicle of higher education article
J. Roper (2005)
The Midwest Philosophy of Education Society Proceedings for 2001–2003
Robert Pennock (1996)
Naturalism, evidence and creationism: The case of Phillip JohnsonBiology and Philosophy, 11
P. Feyerabend (1981)
Realism, rationalism and scientific method: Realism and instrumentalism
R.T. Pennock (2006)
Scientists confront creationism: Creation science, intelligent design and beyond
J. Brown (1922)
THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION.Science, 56 1451
(2001)
The wedge at work : How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream
(2000)
The wizards of ID: Reply to Dembski
M. Ruse (2001)
Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological and scientific perspectives
S.C. Meyer (1992)
Laws, causes, and facts: Response to Michael Ruse. Darwinism: Science or Philosophy, Foundation for Thought and Ethics
T. Gieryn (1983)
Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional
Division Earth (1992)
Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences
J. Cushing, C. Delany, G. Gutting (1984)
Science and Reality: Recent Work in the Philosophy of Science
S. Fuller (2006)
A Step Toward the Legalization of Science StudiesSocial Studies of Science, 36
M. Ruse (2005)
Methodological Naturalism Under AttackSouth African Journal of Philosophy, 24
Barry Gross (1983)
Commentary: Philosophers at the Bar—Some Reasons for RestraintScience, Technology, & Human Values, 8
(2006)
Why it mattered to Dover that intelligent design isn ’ t science
Tammy Kitzmiller, C. Rehm, D. Fenimore, J. Lieb, Steven Stough, Beth Eveland, Cynthia Sneath, Julie Smith, Frederick Callahan (2005)
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Roy Clouser (2005)
Prospects for Theistic Science
(1994)
The methodological equivalence of design & descent : Can there be a “ Theory of Creation ” ?
E. Sober (2007)
INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY AND THE SUPERNATURAL—THE ‘GOD OR EXTRA-TERRESTRIALS’ REPLYFaith and Philosophy, 24
(2006)
The Grinch Opinion in Kitzmiller v Dover
David JoelStone (1989)
The nature of scienceNature, 342
D. Prychitko, L. Laudan (1997)
Beyond positivism and relativism : theory, method and evidenceSouthern Economic Journal, 64
J. Agassi, N. Laor (2000)
How Ignoring Repeatability Leads to MagicPhilosophy of the Social Sciences, 30
G. Reisch (1998)
Pluralism, Logical Empiricism, and the Problem of PseudosciencePhilosophy of Science, 65
(2006)
Dover judge makes the right ruling using the wrong premise
B. Forrest, P. Gross (2003)
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
T.F. Gieryn (1983)
Boundary-Work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientistsAmerican Sociological Review, 48
P. Feyerabend (1981)
Realism, rationalism & scientific method: Philosophical papers, Vol. 1
Robert Pennock (1995)
Epistemic and Ontic Theories of Explanation and ConfirmationKagaku Tetsugaku, 28
(2006)
Intelligent-design backers downplay Dover
R. Cohen, L. Laudan (1983)
Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis
(1997)
Billions and billions of demons
(2005)
Miller on witness stand: ID isn’t falsifiable, so it isn’t science: Plus, we’ve already falsified it
S.C. Meyer (1994)
The creation hypothesis
(2007)
What might logic and methodology have offered the Dover School Board, had they been willing to listen
W.A. Dembski (1994)
Darwinism: Science or philosophy, foundation for thought and ethics
S. Gould (1980)
The Panda's Thumb
D. Axe (2004)
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.Journal of molecular biology, 341 5
(1996)
Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science: Recasting the Kuhn's-eye View of Popper's Demarcation of ScienceThe British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47
B. Monton (2006)
Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision
M. Ruse (1982)
Response to the Commentary: Pro JudiceScience, Technology & Human Values, 7
(2000)
Teaching the origins controversy: science, or religion, or speech
(1984)
The philosopher of science as expert witness
(2006)
Bradley Monton—Important article on Dover
D. Axe (2000)
Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors.Journal of molecular biology, 301 3
(2005)
Missing Link discovered
(1994)
The incompleteness of scientific naturalism
(1982)
United States District Court Opinion: McLean v
R.T. Pennock (2004)
Debating design
(1994)
Foundation for Thought and Ethics
I guess ID really was “ Creationism ’ s Trojan Horse ” after all
S. Locke (1997)
Defining Science: A Rhetoric of DemarcationPublic Understanding of Science, 6
(2002)
Intelligent design & peer review: What if they gave a war and nobody came
D.K. DeWolf, S.C. Meyer (1999)
Intelligent design in public school science curricula: A legal guidebook, foundation for Thought and Ethics
Robert Pennock (1996)
Reply: Johnson's reason in the balanceBiology and Philosophy, 11
Joseph Poulshock (1999)
Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, 1
(2005)
What’s wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics
Jeffrey Levin (1996)
How prayer heals: a theoretical model.Alternative therapies in health and medicine, 2 1
(2005)
Kitzmiller v
(1994)
Scientific creationism, science, and conceptual problems
D. Resnik (2000)
A pragmatic approach to the demarcation problemStudies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31
(1991)
When faith and reason clash: Evolution and the Bible
M. Ruse (1982)
Pro judiceScience, Technology, & Human Values, 7
M. Ruse (1989)
But is it science? : the philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversyBioScience
R. Lenski, C. Ofria, Robert Pennock, C. Adami (2003)
The evolutionary origin of complex featuresNature, 423
L. Laudan (1982)
Science at the bar—Causes for concernScience, Technology, & Human Values, 7
S. Budiansky (1984)
More on creationismNature, 310
L. Laudan (1983)
The Demise of the Demarcation Problem
(2005)
Should we teach both evolution and ‘ creationism ’ in science classes ?
W. Dembski (1999)
What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design
(2006)
God of the gaps: The argument from ignorance and the limits of methodological naturalism
A. Derksen (1993)
The seven sins of pseudo-scienceJournal for General Philosophy of Science, 24
In the 2005 Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board case, a federal district court ruled that Intelligent Design creationism was not science, but a disguised religious view and that teaching it in public schools is unconstitutional. But creationists contend that it is illegitimate to distinguish science and religion, citing philosophers Quinn and especially Laudan, who had criticized a similar ruling in the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas creation-science case on the grounds that no necessary and sufficient demarcation criterion was possible and that demarcation was a dead pseudo-problem. This article discusses problems with those conclusions and their application to the quite different reasoning between these two cases. Laudan focused too narrowly on the problem of demarcation as Popper defined it. Distinguishing science from religion was and remains an important conceptual issue with significant practical import, and philosophers who say there is no difference have lost touch with reality in a profound and perverse way. The Kitzmiller case did not rely on a strict demarcation criterion, but appealed only to a “ballpark” demarcation that identifies methodological naturalism (MN) as a “ground rule” of science. MN is shown to be a distinguishing feature of science both in explicit statements from scientific organizations and in actual practice. There is good reason to think that MN is shared as a tacit assumption among philosophers who emphasize other demarcation criteria and even by Laudan himself.
Synthese – Springer Journals
Published: Apr 11, 2009
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.