It is my understanding that Gould et al., usually focus their comments on
young earth creationism but would and could disavow the design argument in
general. While this may seem like "the easiest way to discredit any
creationist view," it would be a mistake to trivialize their criticism of
design.
Design in general, has been criticised by many philosophers of science and
in a number of different ways. Some invoke something called the likelihood
principle which states that while design can be likely, it may not be
probable. Basically, the likelihood of a statement and the probability of a
statement are very different. A part of this viewpoint agrees that design
is a more likely explanation than random processes, but it does not follow
that design is a more likely explanation than evolution by natural
selection. Other philosophers criticize the inductive reasoning used by
those who favor design, and others point out that design is not falsifiable
(I have been amused that somecreationists like to point out that at one
time, Popper held that evolution was not falsifiable, but was a
'metaphysical research program,' but they fail to also note that Popper also
believed the same thing about religious convictions such as the design
theory). Still other philosophers point out the imperfections of living
things that seem to favor non-intelligent origins over an intelligent designer.
Cheers,
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D . Phone: 608/263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: 608/263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and Email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Center
CSC K4-432
600 Highland Ave.
Madison, WI 53792
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter." Proverbs
___________________________________________________________________________