Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T22:21:05.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - DNA by Design?

Stephen Meyer and the Return of the God Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Robert T. Pennock
Affiliation:
Associate professor of science and technology studies and philosophy, Michigan State University's Lyman Briggs School and Philosophy Department
William A. Dembski
Affiliation:
Baylor University, Texas
Michael Ruse
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access

Summary

In his keynote address at a recent Intelligent Design (ID) conference at Biola University, ID leader William Dembski began by quoting “a well-known ID sympathizer” whom he had asked to assess the current state of the ID movement. Dembski explained that he had asked because, “after some initial enthusiasm on his part three years ago, his interest seemed to have flagged” (Dembski 2002). The sympathizer replied that

[t]oo much stuff from the ID camp is repetitive, imprecise and immodest in its claims, and otherwise very unsatisfactory. The ‘debate’ is mostly going around in circles.

(Dembski 2002)

Those of us who have been following the ID or “Wedge” movement since it coalesced around point man Philip Johnson during the early 1990s reached much the same assessment of its arguments years ago. In something of an understatement, Dembski told his supporters (the conference was closed to critical observers) that “the scientific research part of ID” was “lagging behind” its cultural penetration. He noted that there are only “a handful of academics and independent researchers” currently doing any work on the scholarly side of ID, and offered some suggestions to try to rally his troops (Dembski 2002). We will have to wait to see if anything comes of this call, but judging from ID's track record, it seems unlikely. This chapter is a look back at nearly a decade and a half of repetitious, imprecise, immodest, and unsatisfactory arguments.

Type
Chapter
Information
Debating Design
From Darwin to DNA
, pp. 130 - 148
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Behe, Michael J. 2001. Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Biology & Philosophy 16: 685–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Bruce, and Meyer, Stephen C.. 2002. Darwin would love this debate. Seattle Times, June 10Google Scholar
Dembski, William A. 1990. Converting matter into mind: Alchemy and the philosopher's stone in cognitive science. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 42(4): 202–26Google Scholar
Dembski, William A. 1995. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution, and design. Center for Interdisciplinary Studies Transactions 3(2): 1–8Google Scholar
Dembski, William A. 2002. Becoming a disciplined science: Prospects, pitfalls, and a reality check for ID. Paper read at the Research and Progress in Intelligent Design conference at Biola University, La Mirada, California. <www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_disciplinedscience.htm>
Forrest, Barbara. 2001. The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream. In Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological and Scientific Perspectives, ed. R. T. Pennock. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Forrest, Barbara, and Paul Gross. 2003. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. New York: Oxford University Press
Hartwig, Mark D., and Stephen C. Meyer. [1989] 1993. A note to teachers. In Of Pandas and People, ed. P. Davis and D. H. Kenyon. Dallas: Haughton
Lenski, Richard, Ofria, Charles, Pennock, Robert T., and Adami, Christoph. 2003. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423 (May 8): 139–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meyer, Stephen C. 1986. Scientific tenets of faith. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 38(1): 40–2Google Scholar
Meyer, Stephen C. 1996a. “Don't ask, don't tell” in biology instruction. The Washington Times, July 4, 1996Google Scholar
Meyer, Stephen C. 1996b. Limits of natural selection a reason to teach all theories. The Tacoma New Tribune, May 12, 1996Google Scholar
Meyer, Stephen C. 1998. Let schools provide full disclosure. The Spokesman-Review, March 29, 1998Google Scholar
Meyer, Stephen C. 1999. The return of the God hypothesis. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 11(1/2): 1–38Google Scholar
Meyer, Stephen C. 1999a. Teleological evolution: The difference it doesn't make. In Darwinism Defeated?, ed. R. Clements. Vancouver, BC: Regents
Meyer, Stephen C. 2001. Darwin in the dock: A history of Johnson's wedge. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity 14(3): 57Google Scholar
Miller, Kenneth R. 1999. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution. New York: Cliff Street Books
Milner, Richard, Eugenie Scott, William A. Dembski, Robert T. Pennock, Kenneth R. Miller, and Michael Behe. 2002. American Museum of Natural History debate transcript. Available at <www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=15>
Pennock, Robert T. 1996. Naturalism, evidence and creationism: The case of Phillip Johnson. Biology and Philosophy 11(4): 543–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennock, Robert T. 1999. Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Pennock, Robert T. 2000. Lions and tigers and APES, Oh my! Creationism vs. evolution in Kansas. AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion <http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evolution/perspectives/pennock.htm>
Pennock, Robert T. 2001. Whose God? What science?: Reply to Behe. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(3–4): 16–19Google Scholar
Pennock, Robert T. 2004. God of the gaps: The argument from ignorance and the limits of methodological naturalism. In Scientists Confront Creationism, revised edition, ed. A. J. Petto and L. R. Godfrey. New York: Norton
Thaxton, Charles B., and Meyer, Stephen C.. 1987. Human rights: Blessed by God or begrudged by government?Los Angeles Times December 27Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • DNA by Design?
    • By Robert T. Pennock, Associate professor of science and technology studies and philosophy, Michigan State University's Lyman Briggs School and Philosophy Department
  • Edited by William A. Dembski, Baylor University, Texas, Michael Ruse, Florida State University
  • Book: Debating Design
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804823.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • DNA by Design?
    • By Robert T. Pennock, Associate professor of science and technology studies and philosophy, Michigan State University's Lyman Briggs School and Philosophy Department
  • Edited by William A. Dembski, Baylor University, Texas, Michael Ruse, Florida State University
  • Book: Debating Design
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804823.008
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • DNA by Design?
    • By Robert T. Pennock, Associate professor of science and technology studies and philosophy, Michigan State University's Lyman Briggs School and Philosophy Department
  • Edited by William A. Dembski, Baylor University, Texas, Michael Ruse, Florida State University
  • Book: Debating Design
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804823.008
Available formats
×