-/- Some phenomena within nature exhibit such exquisiteness of structure, function or interconnectedness that many people have found it natural—if not inescapable—to see a deliberative and directive mind behind those phenomena. The mind in question, being prior to nature itself, is typically taken to be supernatural. Philosophically inclined thinkers have both historically and at present labored to shape the relevant intuition into a more formal, logically rigorous inference. The resultant theistic arguments, in their various logical forms, share a focus on (...) plan, purpose, intention and design, and are thus classified as teleological arguments (or, frequently, as arguments from or to design). -/- Although enjoying some prominent defenders over the centuries, such arguments have also attracted serious criticisms from a number of major historical and contemporary thinkers. Both critics and advocates are found not only among philosophers, but come from scientific and other disciplines as well. In the following discussion, major variant forms of teleological arguments will be distinguished and explored, traditional philosophical and other criticisms will be discussed, and the most prominent contemporary turns (cosmic fine tuning arguments, many-worlds theories, and the present Intelligent Design debate) will be tracked. Discussion will conclude with a brief look at one historically important non-inferential approach to the issue. (shrink)

Explores the question of whether or not concepts and principles involving supernatural intelligent design can occupy any legitimate place within science.

The issues of just what laws of nature are and what makes statements law-like have been more discussed than advanced. After exploring the general area and uncovering some difficulties which, I suspect, make the case even knottier than generally imagined, I argue that certain resources available only to the theist---in particular, counterfactuals of God’s freedom---may provide the materials needed for constructing solutions.

Multiple-universe theories enjoy growing popularity as proposed counters to the design-suggestiveness of increasingly impressive cosmic fine-tuning cases. In this paper I explore this type of counter, and argue that multiple-universe theoriesdo not necessarily undercut the design relevance of cosmic fine-tuning, that both the required saturation and the hypothesized mechanisms supposed to generate such saturation face seriously non-trivial constraints, and that in some cases the specific characteristics of such saturations may themselves be suggestive of design.

I have been an interested observer of the Intelligent Design movement for some years, and although I have argued elsewhere that some of the philosophical points made by a number of ID advocates are right, I have been critical of other aspects of ID views. Having that interest, I would welcome a comprehensive, competent, evaluation and critique of ID. The structure, the catalogue of topics addressed, and the Oxford University Press imprimatur initially suggest that Niall Shanks’s God, the Devil, and (...) Darwin, may be exactly the book. However, overall this book is more likely to detract from than to contribute to objective and on-target discussion/evaluation/criticism of Intelligent Design. Consequently, I shall focus on what I take to be some of the major problems of the book. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: * I Refutation: some preliminaries * II Foundations – Deep Conflict? * III Epistemic Undertows: Dissolving Rationality * IV Conflicting Mindsets * V Historical Erosion * VII Conflict and Rational Justification * VII Conclusion * Acknowledgments * Notes.

This chapter contains sections titled: * I Conceptions of Science * II Beyond the Empirical * III Points of Contact * IV The Hierarchy * V Interconnections * VI Conclusion * Notes * Bibliography.

This chapter contains sections titled: * I A Brief History * II The Rise of Science and the Doctrine of Creation * III “Why there?” * IV “Why then?” * V Other Implications and Parallels * VI Conclusion * Notes * Appendix.

In the preceding article Mikael Stenll1ark rejects both (a) Alvin Plantinga's specific arguments aimed at legitimating' Augustinian' science (or more generally 'worldview-partisan' science) and (b) the legitimacy of such 'sciences.' After contending further that the Augustinian-science strategy is in any case not the most appropriate response by believers to the matters motivating Plantinga's attempt, Stenmark then offers an alternative strategic proposal of his own. In the following response, I briefly raise some issues concerning Stenll1ark's exegesis of Plantinga, then take issue (...) with Stenmark's philosophy of science and with the case he advances in support of his alternative proposal. (shrink)

Written by four members of the Calvin College philosophy department, The Little Logic Book is a valuable resource for teachers and undergraduate students of philosophy. In addition to providing clear introductions to the modes of reasoning students encounter in their philosophy course readings, it includes a nuanced description of common informal fallacies, a narrative overview of various philosophical accounts of scientific inference, and a concluding chapter on the ethics of argumentation. The book features engaging dialogues on social, philosophical and religious (...) issues based on the styles of argument taken up in the chapters. In additions to core concepts, distinctions, explanations, rules of inference, methods of assessment, and examples, The Little Logic Book provides philosophical commentary that will stimulate discussion of the assumptions and implications of various kinds of human reasoning. (shrink)

This article focuses on the relationship between science and religion. The natural sciences have profoundly shaped modern life and have notoriously generated challenges for religious belief – even being credited by some with having destroyed religion's rational defensibility. Most people, however, see both science and religion as having important truths to tell us, and try to fit both into a coherent world-view. Among that wider group, some see science and religion as occupying separate, isolated territories, with any alleged conflicts resulting (...) from failure to respect proper boundaries, while others see varying relationships and legitimate interactions between the two. The competing views arise from a history, of course – a history widely misconstrued. (shrink)

(1988). Explanation, subjunctives and statistical theories. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 80-96. doi: 10.1080/02698598808573326.

The issues of just what laws of nature are and what makes statements law-like have been more discussed than advanced. After exploring the general area and uncovering some difficulties which, I suspect, make the case even knottier than generally imagined, I argue that certain resources available only to the theist---in particular, counterfactuals of God’s freedom---may provide the materials needed for constructing solutions.