Can a theory of design be scientific?
Originally, this was the second of four pages about Open Science:
Part 1: Methodological Naturalism
Part 2: Theories of Intelligent Design
Part
3: Can design be scientific?
Part 4: Open Science is Better Science (it includes Parts 1-3 and more)
But my web-pages have been reorganized, and
I suggest
that you read the entire original section in a page asking
Can
historical science
(Evolution and Design) be scientific?
and the corresponding
section
(revised and condensed) in my
comprehensive overview
of Intelligent
Design Theories.
A page-reorganization is explained above: "But my web-pages have been..."
The disadvantages of Closed Science are described in the first two pages of the original four-page series, Methodological Naturalism (in our search for truth) and Intelligent Design (evaluation, controversy, and proof) and in Section 7D of a page that includes 7A-7G and more, that explains why Open Science is Better Science. { The "7C" you've been reading in this page is Section 7C from the "Open Science..." page. }
The adventures of Mike Behe (with scientific journals) illustrate the sociological challenges of Critical Thinking in Closed Science.
Why are theories of non-design (for biological evolution) often considered to be more plausible than is scientifically justified? This is explained in The Process of Logically Evaluating Origins Theories.
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
|
Read the page-reorganization
described above: Origins Questions (pages by Craig Rusbult) Here are the pages in the original
four-part series. |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/brief7c.htm
Copyright © 2003 by Craig Rusbult
all rights reserved