Paleyan

Particularly because the strict Paleyan sense of teleology – and I'll take that as the extreme of 'If it's complex, then it was likely created in its entirety de novo at some point in the past' – isn't the only way to regard teleology, and was sharply disconnected from the primary way of understanding teleology as acting in nature in the western view.

Against Darwinism 2009

First, both Paleyan "design arguments" and ID theory take for granted an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world.

John Farrell: Intelligent Design: Losing the Catholics John Farrell 2010

First, both Paleyan "design arguments" and ID theory take for granted an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world.

John Farrell: Intelligent Design: Losing The Catholics John Farrell 2010

First, both Paleyan "design arguments" and ID theory take for granted an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world.

John Farrell: Intelligent Design: Losing the Catholics John Farrell 2010

First, both Paleyan "design arguments" and ID theory take for granted an essentially mechanistic conception of the natural world.

John Farrell: Intelligent Design: Losing The Catholics John Farrell 2010

Paleyan somewhat, perhaps Socratic, not devoid of common sense.

Cyropaedia 2007

This quote reveals RBH's belief that (post) - modern ID theories are a "recrudescence of Payleyist Argument from Design" However, it makes as much sense to call IDT's today "˜Paleyan 'as it does to call evolution theories today" ˜Darwinian. '

Critique of MDT 2005

And Darwin himself recognizes this; I'd have to look up the reference, but Darwin has a letter somewhere in which he distinguishes three sorts of things that might be called 'design' and notes that evolutionary theory only directly undercuts the most crude of them, namely, the Paleyan special-creation sort of view.

Early Modern Natural Theology 2005

We get people who attribute Paley-like (or, rather, what is commonly thought of as Paleyan) design arguments to Thomas Aquinas; there are endless inaccurate statements on the relation between Darwinism and traditional Aristotelianism; poor, poor Paley (whose logic Darwin always praised, even when disagreeing with his premises) has had attributed to him every bad argument he never wrote; uncountable mischaracterizations of Hume fly about; and some interesting completely non-Paleyan design arguments are entirely ignored.

Archive 2005-01-01 2005

We get people who attribute Paley-like (or, rather, what is commonly thought of as Paleyan) design arguments to Thomas Aquinas; there are endless inaccurate statements on the relation between Darwinism and traditional Aristotelianism; poor, poor Paley (whose logic Darwin always praised, even when disagreeing with his premises) has had attributed to him every bad argument he never wrote; uncountable mischaracterizations of Hume fly about; and some interesting completely non-Paleyan design arguments are entirely ignored.

Evolution and ID 2005