Design Hypotheses Behave Like Skeptical Hypotheses

(or: Why We Can’t Know the Falsity of Design Hypotheses)

In: International Journal for the Study of Skepticism
View More View Less
  • 1 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Login via Institution

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€25.00$30.00

It is often claimed that, as a result of scientific progress, we now know that the natural world displays no design. Although we have no interest in defending design hypotheses, we will argue that establishing claims to the effect that we know the denials of design hypotheses is more difficult than it seems. We do so by issuing two skeptical challenges to design-deniers. The first challenge draws inspiration from radical skepticism and shows how design claims are at least as compelling as radical skeptical scenarios in undermining knowledge claims, and in fact probably more so. The second challenge takes its cue from skeptical theism and shows how we are typically not in an epistemic position to rule out design.

  • Alston W.P. (1991). “The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition,” Philosophical Perspectives 5: 2967.

  • Bergmann M. (2001). “Skeptical Theism and Rowe’s New Evidential Argument From Evil,” Noûs 35: 278303.

  • Brueckner A. (1994). “The Structure of the Skeptical Argument,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54: 827835.

  • Cohen S. (1998). “Two Kinds of Skeptical Argument,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58: 143159.

  • Collins R. (2009). “The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-tuning of the Universe.” In Craig W.L. and Moreland J.P. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, 202281. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dawkins R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton.

  • Dembski W. and Ruse M. (eds.) (2004). Debating Design: From Darwinism to dna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • DeRose K. (1995). “Solving the Skeptical Problem,” Philosophical Review 104: 152.

  • De Waal F. (1996). Good Natured: The Origin of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.

  • Howard-Snyder D. (1996). The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington, in: Indiana University Press.

  • Kornblith H. (2002). Knowledge and its Place in Nature. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Lewis D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Manson N. (ed.). (2003). God and Design. The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • McBrayer J. (2010). “Skeptical Theism,” Philosophy Compass 5: 611623.

  • McBrayer J. and Howard-Snyder D. (eds.). (2013). The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

  • Nozick R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press.

  • Pennock R. (ed.) (2001). Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. Cambridge, ma: mit Press.

  • Plantinga A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Plantinga A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Plantinga A. and Tooley M. . (2008). Knowledge of God. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Pritchard D. (2002). “Recent Work on Radical Skepticism,” American Philosophical Quarterly 39: 215257.

  • Pritchard D. (2005). Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Ratzsch D. (2001). Nature, Science, and Design. The Status of Design in Natural Science. New York: suny Press.

  • Rosenberg A. (2011). The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions. New York: Norton.

  • Schueler G.F. (2003). Reasons and Purposes: Human Rationality and the Teleological Explanation of Action. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Sehon S. (2005). Teleological Realism. Cambridge ma: mit Press.

  • Sober E. (2011). “Evolution Without Naturalism.” In Kvanvig J. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion , Volume 3, 187221. New York: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stenger V. (2007). God: The Failed Hypothesis. New York: Prometheus.

  • Stroud B. (1984). The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism. New York: Clarendon.

  • Tegmark M. (1998). “Is the Theory of Everything Merely the Ultimate Ensemble Theory?” Annals of Physics 270: 151.

  • Unger P. (1971). “A Defense of Skepticism,” Philosophical Review 80: 198219.

  • van Inwagen P. (2003). “The Compatibility of Darwinism and Design.” In Manson (2003), 348363.

  • van Woudenberg R. and Rothuizen-van der Steen J. . (2015). “Both Random and Guided,” Ratio 28: 332348.

  • Woodfield A. (1976). Teleology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Wykstra S. (1984). “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of ‘Appearance’,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16: 7393.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 246 152 19
Full Text Views 13 2 1
PDF Downloads 2 1 0