@article {1905403,
	title = {Where the design argument goes wrong: auxiliary assumptions and unification},
	journal = {Philosophy of Science},
	volume = {78},
	number = {4},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {558{\textendash}578},
	abstract = {<p>Sober (2008) has reconstructed the biological design argument in the framework of likelihoodism, purporting to demonstrate that it is defective for intrinsic reasons. We argue that Sober{\textquoteright}s restrictions on the introduction of auxiliary hypotheses is too restrictive, as it commits him to rejecting types of everyday reasoning that are clearly valid. Our account shows that the design argument fails, not because it is intrinsically untestable, but because it clashes with the empirical evidence and fails to satisfy certain theoretical desiderata (in particular, unification). Likewise, Sober{\textquoteright}s critique of the arguments from imperfections and from evil against design is off the mark.</p>},
	issn = {0031-8248},
	doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661753},
	url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/661753},
	author = {Boudry, Maarten and Leuridan, Bert}
}
