Skip to main content

The Single Best Article on Behe's Design Argument From Irreducible Complexity Paul Draper's "Irreducible Complexity and Darwinian Gradualism: A Reply to Michael J. Behe". Faith and Philosophy 19:1 (2002), pp. 3-21.

Draper is my favorite philosopher of religion. If you haven't read his stuff, I encourage you to do so!

Btw: he's the current editor of Philo, which is the non-theistic counterpart of the premier philosophy of religion journal, Faith and Philosophy (although some say Philosophia Christi may overtake it)


karl said…

Do you subscribe to any of these journals?
karl said…
I'm probably wrong but isn't Behe considered by many scientists to be a hack?
exapologist said…
Hey Karl,

I subscribed to Faith and Philosophy for about 9 years, and Philosophia Christi for about 7, but my subscriptions have lapsed this year. I'll probably re-subscribe soon.

Yes, Behe is considered a hack by many of his fellow scientists (his own department - Lehigh University - has overtly distanced itself from his stuff on biochemical arguments for design). However, whether they're right, that's an ad hominem criticism, and doesn't speak to whether his argument is any good (I know you know this -- I'm just making it explicit).
M said…
Draper is a good philosopher in addition to being a nice guy. I met him at the "Future of Naturalism" conference in September. He delivered a lecture that, true to his introductory caveat, nobody liked "very much" due to its hostility to the philosophical bent of the audience. Like many other of the lectures that weekend, the lecture was rather hostile to naturalism, and offered some sympathetic (and disagreeable) characterizations of supernaturalism. Though I strongly disagree with some of his characterizations, among others, of atheism and naturalism--he denies himself the latter label(!)--his stuff is well worth reading.

Cf. "Paul Draper - The Future of Naturalism Interview"


exapologist said…
Thanks for the link to the interview with Draper, M! Very interesting interview.

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 

The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at

Andrew Moon's New Paper on Recent Work in Reformed Epistemology... the latest issue of Philosophy Compass. Here's the abstract:
Reformed epistemology, roughly, is the thesis that religious belief can be rational without argument. After providing some background, I present Plantinga's defense of reformed epistemology and its influence on religious debunking arguments. I then discuss three objections to Plantinga's arguments that arise from the following topics: skeptical theism, cognitive science of religion, and basicality. I then show how reformed epistemology has recently been undergirded by a number of epistemological theories, including phenomenal conservatism and virtue epistemology. I end by noting that a good objection to reformed epistemology must criticize either a substantive epistemological theory or the application of that theory to religious belief; I also show that the famous Great Pumpkin Objection is an example of the former. And if a copy should make its way to my inbox...

UPDATE: Thanks!