Can a theory of design be scientific?
Originally, this was the second of four pages about Open Science:
Part 1: Methodological Naturalism
Part 2: Theories of Intelligent Design
Part
3: Can design be scientific?
Part 4: Open Science is Better Science (it includes Parts 1-3 and more)
But my web-pages have been reorganized, and
I suggest
that you read the entire original section in a page asking
Can
historical science
(Evolution and Design) be scientific?
and the corresponding
section
(revised and condensed) in my
comprehensive overview
of Intelligent
Design Theories.
A page-reorganization is explained above: "But my web-pages have been..."
The disadvantages of Closed Science are described in the first two pages of the original four-page series, Methodological Naturalism (in our search for truth) and Intelligent Design (evaluation, controversy, and proof) and in Section 7D of a page that includes 7A-7G and more, that explains why Open Science is Better Science. { The "7C" you've been reading in this page is Section 7C from the "Open Science..." page. }
The adventures of Mike Behe (with scientific journals) illustrate the sociological challenges of Critical Thinking in Closed Science.
Why are theories of non-design (for biological evolution) often considered to be more plausible than is scientifically justified? This is explained in The Process of Logically Evaluating Origins Theories.
THREE
TYPES OF LINKS in this website for Whole-Person Education:
An ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it. Above, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-adding, opening a new page in a new window. Below, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-replacing, opening a new page in this window. |
|
Read the page-reorganization
described above: Origins Questions (pages by Craig Rusbult) Here are the pages in the original
four-part series. |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/brief7c.htm
Copyright © 2003 by Craig Rusbult
all rights reserved