Evidence and Evolution

Elliot Sober has a new book coming out this year, Evidence and Evolution; The Logic Behind the Science. The book is divided into four sections: The Concept of Evidence, Intelligent Design, Natural Selection, and Common Ancestry. Below are the contents of the section on ID:

  1. Darwin and intelligent design
  2. Design arguments and the birth of probability theory
  3. William Paley: The stone, the watch, and the eye
  4. From probabilities to likelihoods
  5. Epicureanism and Darwin’s theory
  6. Three reactions to Paley’s design argument
  7. The no-designer-worth-his-salt objection to the hypothesis of intelligent design
  8. Popper’s criterion of falsifiability
  9. Sharpening the likelihood argument
  10. The principle of total evidence
  11. Some strengths of the likelihood formulation of the design argument
  12. The Achilles heel of the likelihood argument
  13. Paley’s stone
  14. Testability
  15. The relationship of the organismic design argument to Darwinism
  16. The relationship of Paley’s design argument to contemporary intelligent-design theory
  17. The relationship of the design argument to the argument from evil
  18. The design argument as an inductive sampling argument
  19. Model selection and intelligent design
  20. The politics and legal status of the intelligent-design hypothesis
  21. Darwinism, theism, and religion
  22. A prediction

    Looks like eighty pages of fun that will have the hacks over at the Discovery Institute foaming at the mouth and stamping their little feet. It’s available for pre-order over at Amazon.

More like this

If you watch the Discovery Institute, you'll discover they're constantly playing games, trying to find that winning PR technique that will persuade the hapless ignorati. Some of them are effective, even if dishonest: "irreducible complexity" injected all kinds of misleading chaos into the brains of…
Back in February, paleontologist Robert Asher wrote this essay for HuffPo. The essay was called, “Why I am an Accommodationist,” and it defended the compatibility of science and religion. As regular readers of this blog are aware, I don't much care for that view. So I wrote this reply. After a…
Last night, a reader sent me a link to *yet another* wretched attempt to argue for the existence of God using Bayesian probability. I *really* hate that. Over the years, I've learned to dread Bayesian arguments, because *so many* of them are things like this, where someone cobbles together a pile…
In response to this blast from the past about Kuhnian scientific revolutions, SteveG has an interesting discussion about the inadequacy of Popperian falsification for understanding paradigm shifts, or to use Imre Lakantos' phrase "research programme" (italics mine): Imre Lakatos was a student of…

DARWINISM AND ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC AND MYTHICAL
depp=true
notiz=[Spam for creationist site. They're obviously getting desperate!]

.