1 / 287
文档名称:

Oxford University Press - God, the Devil, and Darwin - A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory - Niall Shanks ( 0-19-516199-8).pdf

格式:pdf   页数:287
下载后只包含 1 个 PDF 格式的文档,没有任何的图纸或源代码,查看文件列表

如果您已付费下载过本站文档,您可以点这里二次下载

Oxford University Press - God, the Devil, and Darwin - A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory - Niall Shanks ( 0-19-516199-8).pdf

上传人:kuo08091 2014/5/16 文件大小:0 KB

下载得到文件列表

Oxford University Press - God, the Devil, and Darwin - A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory - Niall Shanks ( 0-19-516199-8).pdf

文档介绍

文档介绍:GOD, THE DEVIL,
AND DARWIN
A CRITIQUE OF INTELLIGENT
DESIGN THEORY
Niall Shanks
1
2004
1
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai
Nairobi Sa˜o Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto
Copyright # 2004 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Foreword copyright # 2003 by Richard Dawkins
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Shanks, Niall, 1959–
God, the devil, and Darwin : a critique of intelligent design theory / Niall Shanks.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-19-516199-8
1. Intelligent design (Teleology) 2. Religion and science. I. Title.
2003
213—dc21 2003042916
135798642
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
For My Dogs, Gnasher and Brutus
This page intentionally left blank
Foreword
ho owns the argument from improbability? Statistical improb-
Wability is the old standby, the creaking warhorse of all creationists
from naive Bible-jocks who don’t know better, paratively well-
educated Intelligent Design ‘‘theorists,’’ who should. There is no
other creationist argument (if you discount falsehoods like ‘‘There
aren’t any intermediate fossils’’ and ignorant absurdities like ‘‘Evo-
lution violates the second law of thermodynamics’’). However super-
ficially different they may appear, under the surface the deep structure
of creationist advocacy is always the same. Something in nature—an
eye, a biochemical pathw