Judy Johnson's Proseminar Research

So I am kind of at a loss at what exactly I want to research because there are so many directions to go in the evolution-creation controversy. So far I have been reading through my notes from a Phil class last year on Science and Christianity. I have also looked at the sources below. I think I might concentrate on Intelligent Design because I disagree with Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box". There were just too many holes in his thoughts of irreducible complexity. Anyways, this is what I have stared with, and will hopefully get a better idea in the next week or so of where I want to go.

Creation vs, Evolution

Dilley, Stephen Craig Abstract: In 'The Evolution-Creation Struggle', Michael Ruse seeks to answer, "Why is there so much controversy surrounding evolutionary theory?" He does so by tracing the historical development of the theory and the two major reactions to it. These major reactions, for and against, are not just views about science, but full-blooded 'rival religions.' They each have a system of origins, morality, and eschatology. So the conflict over evolutionary theory persists because it is a clash between incompatible worldviews. This review praises Ruse's analysis on a number of points but also argues that he stumbles in three ways. First, he fails to explain that a key aspect of the origins debate concerns disagreement about the definition of science. Second, Ruse improperly uses his own (problematic) definition of science, with little argument, in order to rule competing views out of science. Third, Ruse misrepresents the epistemology of non-Darwinians as relying on faith, emotion, and mystery instead of evidence and reason.

Intelligent Design

THE PROS AND CONS OF 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN.'.Full Text Available By: POULSOM, MARTIN. Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy, Autumn2008, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p177-195, 19p Subjects: EVOLUTION (Biology); INTELLIGENT design (Teleology); GENEALOGY; TELEOLOGY; BEHE, Michael Database: Religion and Philosophy Collection Abstract: The theories of Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design appear to be locked in an intractable debate, partly because they offer rival scientific explanations for the phenomenon of descent with modification in biology. This paper analyses the dispute in two ways: firstly, it seeks to clarify the exact nature of the logical flaw that has been alleged to lie at the heart of Intelligent Design theory. Secondly, it proposes that, in spite of this error, the Intelligent Design theory advocated by Michael Behe takes at least one significant step in the right direction. Although Behe’s suggestion is promising, it is shown to be not nearly radical enough.

Beckwith, Francis J. Challenge of Intelligent Design. Source: Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 17(2), 461-519. 59 p. 2003. Abstract: A new movement, known as 'intelligent design' (ID), made up of largely well-educated and well-credentialed scholars, has given new life to the creation-evolution debate that some thought had ended with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion, 'Edwards vs. Aguillard' (1987). The main thrust of ID is that intelligent agency, as an aspect of scientific theory-making, has more explanatory power in accounting for the specified, and sometimes irreducible, complexity of some physical systems that the blind forces of unguided matter. This paper's purpose is to answer the question: Would a public school violate the Constitution if it required or permitted the teaching of ID?

Hasker, William. Intelligent Design. Philosophy Compass, 4(3), 586-597. 12 p. May 2009. Abstract: The intelligent design movement aspires to create a new scientific paradigm which will replace the existing Darwinian paradigm of evolution by random mutation and natural selection. However, the creation of such a paradigm is hampered by the fact that the movement pursues a 'big tent' strategy that refuses to make a choice between young-earth creationism, old-earth (progressive) creationism, and divinely directed natural selection. The latter two options are discussed in some detail, and it becomes apparent that either one presents difficult challenges that the movement shows no signs of overcoming. It is concluded that there are not good prospects for the creation of an alternative paradigm in the foreseeable future. --Jjohnson9 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

KANT, HUME, DARWIN, AND DESIGN: WHY INTELLIGENT DESIGN WASN’T SCIENCE BEFORE DARWIN AND STILL ISN’T

JONATHAN LOESBERG Abstract: There are two historical claims about the end of the argument from design and they do not fit together well. According to the first, Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion made the argument untenable and marked its end. Although this claim might be logically true, we know it not to be historically true since the standard version of the argument usually cited,William Paley’s Natural Theology, did not appear until 1802, well after Hume’s work first appeared in 1779 and in full cognizance of it. And the Bridgewater Treatises, although they certainly had a mixed reception, were written two decades later still. Thus, we get the second claim, that Darwin’s theory of natural selection provided a natural mechanism that explained the appearance of design in living things without recourse to a supernatural being and thus undid the argument from design. Of course both these claims might be taken to be true in a certain sense. One could argue that Hume undercut the logic of the argument, making it philosophically untenable. Unfortunately, however, philosophical arguments, even good ones, do not always sway people. Darwin, by providing a mechanism to explain how organic function came to be, thus provided a more sociologically powerful disconfirmation of the argument. One almost never finds this position, however. Philosophers who credit Hume with ending the argument do not refer to Darwin while those who think Darwin ended the argument from design usually find Hume’s argument less than complete. --Jjohnson9 00:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thomist

Aquinas vs. Intelligent Design by Michael W. Tkacz http://deepsoftime.com/2009/01/14/thomist-critique-of-intelligent-design/ Abstract: “Both Darwinism, with its secular challenge to the unity of faith and reason, as well as the attempt of ID theorists to disprove evolutionary theory vindicate Pope Leo’s selection of Aquinas as the model for Catholic intellectuals (see “Catholic Faith and Modern Science,” below). Thomism has something useful and corrective to say on both sides of the debate. At the same time, Thomism does not replace the natural sciences, or perhaps to put it better, a Thomistic intellectual synthesis includes precisely the sort of research found in the modern natural sciences that have produced so much understanding of nature. In the Thomistic view, the teachings of the faith are fully compatible with what we learn of nature through scientific research, provided we both understand those divine teachings correctly and we do our scientific research consistently and rigorously. The truth or falsity of the claim that the diversity of living species is due to some sort of evolutionary process is a matter to be settled through biological research. Whatever the outcome of this research, it can never replace the need to explain the existence of the natural world in terms of a creation ex nihilo according to God’s divine design.”--Jjohnson9 05:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Creation, Evolution, and Thomas Aquinas WILLIAM E. CARROLL http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0035.html Abstract: The analysis of creation and the distinctions Thomas Aquinas draws among the domains of metaphysics, the natural sciences, and theology can serve an important role in contemporary discussions of the relationship between creation and evolution. This article was given to me to read in my Science and Christianity philosophy class last spring. It was helpful to read because it reinforced the thoughts of St Thomas and Michael Tkacz.

Critical Analysis Paper

I wrote my critical analysis paper on the difference between the Thomist view and Intelligent Designer theorist view. I wanted to explore why the Thomists are not the same as the ID theorists. The main point that I have learned is that it basically boils down to a different view of what creation really stands for. The Thomist believe the correct view of creation is creation ex nihilo. St Thomas also developed the Cosmogonical Fallacy (the name was created by Dr. Tkacz) and this fallacy shows why the Thomists do not agree with the ID theorists.--Jjohnson9 18:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)