Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe

George, Marie I.

doi:10.1353/tho.1998.0026

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The argument of Irreducible Complexity was first presented in the 1996 book Darwin's Black Box . Its author, Michael Behe, defines irreducibly complex systems thus: “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well‐matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (1996, 39). According to Behe, an organism showing Irreducible Complexity cannot have any possible evolutionary precursor, making it a counterexample to Darwinism.…”

Section: Sources Of Deep Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fundamental model of deep disagreements

Lavorerio

2021

Metaphilosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We call systematic disputes that are particularly hard to resolve deep disagreements. We can divide most theories of deep disagreements in analytic epistemology into two camps: the Wittgensteinian view and the fundamental epistemic principles view. This essay analyzes how both views deal with two of the most pressing issues a theory of deep disagreement must address: their source and their resolution. After concluding that the paradigmatic theory of each camp struggles on both fronts, the essay proceeds to show that, despite their differences, these theories share some core assumptions and think of deep disagreements similarly: as grounded in fundamental epistemic differences between the parties. This underlying conception of deep disagreements the author calls “the fundamental model.” The essay provides reasons to be wary of this conception, and hence, mainstream epistemologists’ treatment of the issue.

show abstract

Section: Sources Of Deep Disagreementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fundamental model of deep disagreements

Lavorerio

2021

Metaphilosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Is intelligent design science, and does it matter?

Bateman

Mellis

2007

Verbum Eccles.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate between evolution and intelligent design is usually presented by evolutionary biologists as a clash between science and non-science (creationism and religion) and therefore as a sterile argument which science wins by default. Countering this is intelligent design (ID) and irreducible complexity (IC) which posit that the diversity and complexity of life on earth indicates the hand of a designer, although the nature of that designer is not speculated on. In doing so, proponents of ID and IC bring the argument squarely into the scientific camp and fulfil the requirements of being science, although this is difficult to define. Here, we discuss the claims of ID and IC to provide an alternative to evolution and propose that science can adequately deal with and refute these claims. At the same time, ID and IC fulfil an important role as foils
to ‘scientism’ – the belief that science is the best way of answering all questions. In the final analysis, however , despite their value in the debate, ID and IC are not found to be robust or reliable enough to replace evolution as the best way of explaining the diversity of life on earth

show abstract

Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

The fundamental model of deep disagreements

The fundamental model of deep disagreements

Is intelligent design science, and does it matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About