Intelligent design theorist William Dembski has proposed an "explanatory filter" for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design. We show that if Dembski's filter were adopted as a scientific heuristic, some classical developments in science would not be rational, and that Dembski's assertion that the filter reliably identifies rarefied design requires ignoring the state of background knowledge. If background information changes even slightly, the filter's conclusion will vary wildly. Dembski fails to overcome Hume's objections to arguments from design.
CITATION STYLE
Wilkins, J. S., & Elsberry, W. R. (2017). The advantages of theft over toil: The design inference and arguing from ignorance. In Intelligent Design and Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Vol. 5, pp. 419–432). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012282323054
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.