View Item 
  •   Boyce Digital Repository Home
  • Dissertations, Theses, and Projects
  • Open Access Dissertations and Theses
  • View Item
  •   Boyce Digital Repository Home
  • Dissertations, Theses, and Projects
  • Open Access Dissertations and Theses
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All Digital CollectionsCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

The scientific viability of W. A. Dembski's design inference: Response to B. Forrest and R. Pennock of the Kitzmiller trial

Thumbnail
View/Open
3401804.pdf (11.42Mb)
Date
2009-11-17
Author
Belcher, Franklin Todd
Advisor
Cabal, Theodore J.
Metadata
Show full item record
Subject
Dembski, William A., 1960- Design inference
Dembski, William A., 1960-
Forrest, Barbara, 1952-
Pennock, Robert T.
Intelligent design (Teleology)
Evolution (Biology)--Religious aspects
Abstract
This dissertation argues that philosophers Barbara Forrest and Robert T. Pennock fail to discredit William A. Dembski's Design Inference as a legitimate scientific program. Chapter 1 is the introduction, explaining the problem and the research methodology used in the dissertation to ascertain a conclusion. Chapter 2 is a background survey and analysis of contemporary Intelligent Design (ID) theory and Dembski's part within the overall schemata of the Intelligent Design enterprise. Particular aspects of Dembski's Design Inference framework and its corresponding "explanatory filter" are explained in Chapter 3. Both Forrest and Pennock had significant influence on the judge's final opinion in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, which brought serious scrutiny against ID's scientific merit. Criticism against Dembski was an important part of Forrest and Pennock's respective expert testimony against ID. Based on this trial testimony and their respective academic writings, Chapter 4 therefore argues for the legitimacy of Forrest and Pennock as influential critics when considering Dembski's scientific relevance. The chapter also surveys their substantive arguments against Dembski. Dembski's own response to the categorical criticisms by Forrest and Pennock are addressed in Chapter 5. The concluding analysis is in Chapter 6, arguing that Dembski's Design Inference maintains as viable science, despite the critiques by Forrest and Pennock.
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10392/2946
Collections
  • Open Access Dissertations and Theses

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2025  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
DSpace Express is a service operated by 
Atmire NV