Transcending the various formal concepts of life, this captivating book offers a unique overview of life's history, essences, and future. "A masterpiece of scientific writing. You will cherish "What Is Life?" because it is so rich in poetry and science in the service of profound philosophical questions".--Mitchell Thomashow, "Orion". 9 photos. 11 line illustrations.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the implications flowing from adopting methodological naturalism in science, with special emphasis on the relation between science and religion. Methodological naturalism, denying supernatural and teleological explanations, influences the content of scientific theories, and in practice leads to vision of science as compatible with ontological naturalism and in opposition to theism. Ontological naturalism in turn justifies the acceptance of methodological naturalism as the best method to know the reality. If we accept realistic interpretation (...) of scientific theories, then methodological naturalism conflicts science with religion. Theistic evolution does not seem to be a proper way to reconcile Darwinism and methodological naturalism with theism. Many of such propositions are boiled down to deism. Although evolution can be interpreted theistically, it is not the way in which majority of modern scientists and respectable scientific institutions understand it. (shrink)

Controversy over the possibility of detecting design in natural sciences: According to intelligent design theory, certain biological and cosmic phenomena are designed by an intelligent being and this design is scientifically detectable. However, critics refuse to regard this theory as scientific, thereby suggesting that it does not deserve serious discussion in scientific circles. The article presents main methodological objections to intelligent design theory, indicating its unscientific or pseudoscientific character and impossibility of scientific design detection. Critics try to show that this (...) theory: 1) violates the principle of methodological naturalism ; 2) is empirically untestable; 3) it does not invoke natural laws, says nothing about the designer and the designing mechanism; 4) it does not offer predictions; 5) it is an argument from ignorance, and 6) it does not lead to fruitful research program and hence is not useful for science. These objections will be analyzed from the perspective of methodological thesis of design theorists that the sufficient condition of design inference are the characteristic effects leaved by the activity of the designer, which indicate the final cause, although they do not have to be the basis for determining the designer’s identity. If this thesis is sound, then the objections that intelligent design theory is not scientific are rebutted or weakened. Moreover, it turns out that, basically, detecting design of supernatural beings does not differ from detecting design of natural beings. For that reason, there is no qualitative difference between these two procedures and both can be regarded as scientific. (shrink)

In the pursuit of knowledge, Dorion Sagan argues in this dazzlingly eclectic, rigorously crafted, and deliciously witty collection of essays, scientific authoritarianism and philosophical obscurantism are equally formidable obstacles to discovery. As science has become more specialized and more costly, its questing spirit has been constrained by dogma. And philosophy, perhaps the discipline best placed to question orthodoxy, has retreated behind dense theoretical language and arcane topics of learning. Guided by a capacious, democratic view of science inspired by the examples (...) set by his late parents—Carl Sagan, who popularized the study of the cosmos, and Lynn Margulis, an evolutionary biologist who repeatedly clashed with the scientific establishment—Sagan draws on classical and contemporary philosophy to intervene provocatively in often-charged debates on thermodynamics, linear and nonlinear time, purpose, ethics, the links between language and psychedelic drugs, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, and the occupation of the human body by microbial others. Informed by a countercultural sensibility, a deep engagement with speculative thought, and a hardheaded scientific skepticism, he advances controversial positions on such seemingly sacrosanct subjects as evolution and entropy. At the same time, he creatively considers a wide range of thinkers, from Socrates to Bataille and Descartes to von Uexküll, to reflect on sex, biopolitics, and the free will of Kermit the Frog. Refreshingly nonconformist and polemically incisive, _Cosmic Apprentice_ challenges readers to reject both dogma and cliché and instead recover the intellectual spirit of adventure that should—and can once again—animate both science and philosophy. (shrink)

I present a controversy surrounding the cardinal Christoph Schönborn's op-ed article in New York Times, titled "Finding Design in Nature". In his paper, Schön-born challenges the claim that pope John Paul II accepted neodarwinian evolution as a possible method of God's creation of life forms and, especially, human beings. Moreover, cardinal says that neodarwinism contradicts Christian doctrine of creation. In Schönborn's view, neodarwinism excludes the possibility that there is a real design in nature and this is contradictory to the Catholic (...) Church's stand that this design could be and is recognizable by human reason. I argue, just like cardinal Schönborn, that neodarwinism actually is incompatible with the Christian doctrine of creation. I find also that his views, as well as some of the recent utterances of pope Benedict XVI, echoes the claims of intelligent design theory's proponents, who are skeptical of neodarwinism's validity and argue that they formulated scientific methods of detection of design in nature. Therefore, one can have a valid suspicion that these two leading hierarchs of Catholic Church attempt, though not explicitly, to embrace intelligent design theory as an appropriate view of origins for Christians in contrast with the currently dominating scientific view of biological evolution. (shrink)

METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM —A NECESSARY CONDITION OF SCIENCE? S u m m a r y Due to the success of Darwinian theory of evolution, with its methodological presuppositions, modern science is dominated by the principle of methodological naturalism, according to which only explanations invoking natural causes are acceptable in science. Supernatural or—in a broader sense—non-natural explanations, such as creationism or so-called intelligent design theory, are regarded as unscientific. The article analyzes the following questions: 1) Is it possible—contrary to methodological naturalism—to detect (...) scientifically the marks of the activity of intelligent beings, both natural and supernatural, in bio-logical and cosmic processes and structures? 2) What are the implications of methodological naturalism for science defined realistically, that is understood as a search for truth about the world of nature? 3) If one accepts that the inner-scientific per-missibility of concepts contradicting the principle of methodological naturalism is justified, would it be tantamount to the absolute exclusion of methodological naturalism as a principle directing the scientific inquiry? (shrink)

This article considers the main methodological objections against the theory of intelligent design. In general, they claim that it lacks a scientific character and they emphasize that design cannot be detected using scientific tools. The critics focus on showing that intelligent design violates various methodological criteria. In response to these objections, this article examines the methodological claim made by its proponents that the characteristic effects of the designer’s activity do provide a sufficient basis for inferring design. This paper also argues (...) that the procedure of inferring that a certain feature has been designed by a supernatural being does not differ in principle from design-detection procedures in other spheres of research. (shrink)

Intelligent design theory claims that certain biological and cosmic phenomena point to the activity of some unspecified intelligent being behind them and that it is a fully scientific conclusion. Critics often respond that, in fact, intelligent design is a religious idea because the real agenda of proponents of the theory is to reintroduce supernatural, Christian beliefs into science, public education, and other domains of western culture. In other words, it is said that the source of inspiration for the theory reveals (...) its religious, and therefore unscientific, nature. The purpose of this article is to evaluate validity of this objection, both with regard to the actual views of intelligent design proponents, as well as from the perspective of philosophy and history of science. It is argued that to express this objection is to commit the so-called genetic fallacy — evaluating the merits of an idea solely on the basis of its origin — and it can be easily applied to the proponents of naturalistic theories as well. Moreover, it is clear that intelligent design can be and is formulated without reference to any kind of religious doctrine. Hence, it is concluded that from methodological point of view the objection concerning the putative religious motivations of design theorists is an illegitimate rhetorical strategy in order to exclude intelligent design from serious scientific consideration and that the proper critical reaction to the theory requires a different basis for counter-argumentation. Key words RELIGION, INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY. (shrink)

The main purpose of this article is a presentation of one of the subtheories included in the so-called intelligent design theory - a concept of irreducible complexity of the biochemical systems. The concept says that some features of different biochemical structures indicate that they are designed. It is an alternative concept to naturalistic theories of evolution, and especially to the Neo-Darwinian theory of the development of the life forms that is currently the dominating theory in biology. I shortly discuss the (...) logical and empirical point of the concept of irreducible complexity, whereas I give special attention to the most interesting, from the methodological point of view, part of the concept, namely the explanatory point. The explanatory point is concerned with the issue of design detection in natural sciences. I present also a response of the concept\'s of irreducible complexity critics, in the form of a variety of proposals of the evolutionary scenarios of the irreducibly complex systems origins. Although some of these scenarios describe material processes that, theoretically, are capable of producing the irreducible complexity, I agree with a criticism of intelligent design theory proponents that a high degree of speculativity of the evolutionary explanations presently does not allow for examination if these explanations correspond to the real history of irreducibly complex systems origins. Because, so far, both the evolutionists and design theorists are developing only general approaches to the issue of irreducible complexity that need further detailed analyses, I recognize that the problem of irreducible complexity of the biochemical systems remains unsolved in the advantage of one of the proposed theories. (shrink)