Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

What is wrong with intelligent design?

Elliott Sober1

  • 1Philosophy Department, University of Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA. ERSOBER@WISC.EDU

The Quarterly Review of Biology
|March 16, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Retrodiction in Evolutionary Genomics: A Philosophical Perspective.

Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)·2026
Same author

A LIKELIHOOD JUSTIFICATION OF PARSIMONY.

Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society·2021
Same author

PARSIMONY AND CHARACTER WEIGHTING.

Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society·2021
Same author

How probable is common ancestry according to different evolutionary processes?

Journal of theoretical biology·2015
Same author

Trait fitness is not a propensity, but fitness variation is.

Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences·2013
Same author

Male superiority in spatial navigation: adaptation or side effect?

The Quarterly review of biology·2013
Same journal

THE EXPOSOME IN HUMAN EVOLUTION: FROM DUST TO DIESEL.

The Quarterly review of biology·2020
Same journal

PRINCIPLES AND PATTERNS OF BAT MOVEMENTS: FROM AERODYNAMICS TO ECOLOGY.

The Quarterly review of biology·2018
Same journal

Review of Methods in Enzymology Volumes 551 and 552 Circadian Rhythms and Biological Clocks, Part A and B Edited by Amita Sehgal.

The Quarterly review of biology·2018
Same journal

Competition for vitamin B1 (thiamin) structures numerous ecological interactions.

The Quarterly review of biology·2018
Same journal

New Weapons in the Toad Toolkit: A Review of Methods to Control and Mitigate the Biodiversity Impacts of Invasive Cane Toads (Rhinella Marina).

The Quarterly review of biology·2018
Same journal

Landscape Demography: Population Change and its Drivers Across Spatial Scales.

The Quarterly review of biology·2018
See all related articles

This review examines common criticisms of creationism and intelligent design (ID), finding them wanting. While imperfect adaptations challenge ID, the article proposes a new testability concept, ultimately concluding ID is not a scientific alternative to evolution.

Area of Science:

  • Philosophy of Science
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Creationism/Intelligent Design Studies

Background:

  • Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are frequently criticized for being unfalsifiable.
  • The existence of imperfect adaptations in nature is often presented as evidence against ID.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the standard criticisms leveled against creationism/intelligent design (ID).
  • To propose a refined understanding of scientific testability beyond Popper's falsifiability criterion.
  • To assess the scientific standing of ID in relation to evolutionary theory.

Main Methods:

  • Review and analysis of common criticisms of creationism/intelligent design.
  • Development of a revised conception of testability.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparative assessment of ID and evolutionary theory based on scientific criteria.

    • Main Results:

    • Standard criticisms of ID, including unfalsifiability and refutation by imperfect adaptations, are found to have significant problems.
    • A new framework for testability is presented that addresses limitations of traditional falsifiability.
    • Intelligent Design, despite its various forms, does not present a viable scientific alternative to established evolutionary theory.

    Conclusions:

    • The common criticisms of creationism/intelligent design are insufficient.
    • A robust understanding of testability is crucial for evaluating scientific theories.
    • Intelligent Design lacks the explanatory power and empirical support to be considered a scientific competitor to evolutionary theory.