Reverend Paley's naturalist revival.
This paper analyzes the remarkable popularity of William Paley's argument from design among contemporary naturalists in biology and the philosophy of science. In philosophy of science Elliott Sober has argued that creationism should be excluded from the schools not because it is not science but because it is 'less likely' than evolution according to fairly standard confirmation theory. Creationism is said to have been a plausible scientific option as presented by Paley but no longer to be acceptable according to the same standards that once approved it. In biology C. G. Williams and Richard Dawkins have seen in Paley a proto-adaptationist. This paper shows that the historical assumptions of Sober's arguments are wrong and that the philosophical arguments themselves take alternatives to science to be alternatives in science and conflate the null hypothesis, chance, with a competing explanatory hypothesis. It is also shown that the similarity of Paley's adaptationism to that of contemporary biology is not what it is made out to be.
McLaughlin
Peter
P
Universität Heidelberg, Schulgasse 6, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany. Peter.McLaughlin@urz.uni-heidelberg.de
D005075:Biological Evolution; D001695:Biology / Q000266:history*; D049671:History, 18th Century; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D049674:History, 21st Century; D006801:Humans; D010811:Natural Science Disciplines / Q000266:history*; D010684:Philosophy / Q000266:history*; D012068:Religion and Medicine