Difference between revisions of "Sober 2007"
From Genetics Wiki
(Created page with "=Citation= Sober, E. (2007). What is wrong with intelligent design?. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(1), 3-8. =Links= *https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.10...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Citation= | =Citation= | ||
| − | Sober, E. (2007). What is wrong with intelligent design? | + | Sober, E. (2007). What is wrong with intelligent design? The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(1), 3-8. |
=Links= | =Links= | ||
*https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/511656 | *https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/511656 | ||
| − | *http://hawaiireedlab.com/pdf/s/sober2007.pdf | + | *http://hawaiireedlab.com/pdf/s/sober2007.pdf (internal lab link only) |
| + | |||
| + | =Published Abstract= | ||
| + | This article reviews two standard criticisms of creationism/intelligent design (ID): it is unfalsifiable, and it is refuted by the many imperfect adaptations found in nature. Problems with both criticisms are discussed. A conception of testability is described that avoids the defects in Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion. Although ID comes in multiple forms, which call for different criticisms, it emerges that ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory. | ||
[[Category:Publication]] | [[Category:Publication]] | ||
Latest revision as of 03:06, 3 October 2018
Citation
Sober, E. (2007). What is wrong with intelligent design? The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(1), 3-8.
Links
- https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/511656
- http://hawaiireedlab.com/pdf/s/sober2007.pdf (internal lab link only)
Published Abstract
This article reviews two standard criticisms of creationism/intelligent design (ID): it is unfalsifiable, and it is refuted by the many imperfect adaptations found in nature. Problems with both criticisms are discussed. A conception of testability is described that avoids the defects in Karl Popper’s falsifiability criterion. Although ID comes in multiple forms, which call for different criticisms, it emerges that ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory.
