Stupid Desgin Again

Darwin Yearということで、インテリジェントデザイン批判に参加する人々も増えているようだ。Mark Steelはこのネタでは見かけないのだが、年明けに記事を1個書いている:
Survival of the fittest means those accidentally matching the requirements of a new situation ... And this dominance of the accidental is the most damning argument against intelligent design, because if all species were designed, it was hardly done by someone intelligent. If it was, how do you account for the parasitic wasp that lays eggs on its prey so they hatch and eat its victim while it's still alive?


[Mark Steel: What creationists really hate is that we emerged by accident (2009/01/07) also on Belfast Telegraph and The Independent Commentators]


[FAQ: Some things appear "unintelligently designed" or are poorly designed. Is ID falsified by "sub-optimal design"?]

Something could be designed even if it does not work with 100% energetic efficiency. Purposefully energetically inefficient designs aside, natural design constraints often require some aspects of design to not work at 100% optimal efficiency. Have you ever driven a Ford Pinto? This is thus a philosophical or theological objection about final causes along the lines of the age old "problem of evil." It thus requires a theological answer. Religion provides theological answers to the problem of evil or suffering. But these answers are not necessary for the scientific theory of intelligent design to be unscathed by the existence of "sub-optimal design."

100%効果的に機能しなくても、ある物はデザインされたと考えられる。目的的に効果的に不十分なデザインはわきへ置くとして、自然のデザインはその制約により100%の最適効率では働かないデザインを要求される。Ford Pintoを運転したことはあるだろうか?これは従って、"悪の問題"という古くから続く問題の最終原因についての哲学的あるいは神学的異論である。従って、神学的な答えが必要である。宗教は悪や苦しみの問題についての神学的回答を与える。しかし、これらの答えは、准最適デザインの存在によって反証されないインテリジェントデザインの科学理論には必要ない。
[FAQ: Could something be designed if it were an "evil design?"
a.k.a. What about viruses (designed to kill), birth pains (painful design), or inelegant designs?

Yes. The scientific theory of intelligent design deals with the efficient cause of life--the mechanism that created it. The scientific theory of intelligent design is independent of the final cause, or the purpose of the design. In other words, things can be designed whether they are an "evil design" or a "good design." After all, both torture chambers and were intelligently designed. This is thus a theological question about the "problem of evil," and thus requires a theological answer. Many religions attempt to solve the "problem of evil." Christianity solves it by noting that evil is not the fault of God, who is perfect, but that God has allowed evil to enter this world because it chose sin and rebellion against Him. Nonetheless, under Christianity, God promises to one day eradicate evil, and forgive us of sin if we choose to turn to Him in repentance and trust Jesus Christ as our savior from evil.

YES. インテリジェントデザインは生命を創ったメカニズム、生命の効率的原因を取り扱う。インテリジェントデザインの科学理論は、最終的原因やデザインの目的からは独立である。言い換えるなら、物は"悪いデザイン"にも"良いデザイン"にもデザインされることもありうる。結局、いずれにせよ、両方ともインテリジェントにデザインされている。これは従って、"悪の問題"についての神学的な問いであり、神学的回答が必要である。多くの宗教は"悪の問題"を解決しようとした。キリスト教は、悪は完全である神の誤りではなく、神は罪と神への反抗を選ぶために、悪がこの世界に入ることを許したという形で解決する。しかしながら、キリスト教では、神は、いつの日か、我々が神に向いて、悔い改め、イエス・キリストを悪からの救い主として信じるなら、悪を根絶し、我々の罪を許すと約束した。



なので、インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery InstituteシニアフェローであるPrinceton Theological Seminaryの神学者・哲学者であるJay W. Richardsによれば、悪いデザインは「進化によるもの」か「実は良いデザイン」なのだという:
The Fall of Man, according to Christian Scriptures, affected not just human beings but all of creation. The Apostle Paul wrote that all of creation is groaning as in pains of childbirth. That means that while the world is still God's good creation, it's not the way it's supposed to be.


By looking carefully, we might be able to distinguish the original design behind its degraded condition. For instance, some design theorists have suggested that many bacteria that kill us or make us sick might have gotten that way by mutation. They might have been harmless or helpful to humans in their original form. Or maybe we have become more susceptible to them.


At this point, such ideas are speculative suggestions. But they could motivate years of research by future scientists. Many of the arguments for bad design, such as the backwards wiring of our eye, turn out to be wrong when investigated. There are actually good reasons for the way our eyes are wired.


In the same way, the supposed evidence for evil design may, on closer inspection, dissipate under the bright light of new and open-minded scientific study.


[Jay W. Richards: "Can ID Explain the Origin of Evil" (2008) on Salvo Magazine]


Walter ReMineは1997年に自費出版したの本"The Biotic Message"で、悪いデザインについて、開き直りのような主張をしている
The central claims of the theory are simple and plausible: Life was reasonably designed for survival, and to convey a message that tells where life came from. The message can be described in two parts:


Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.


Life was designed to resist all other explanations.



"the biomessage sender was out to destroy phylogeney"


"life's designer scrupulously avoided a transposition pattern"


"Perfect design would look like the result of many designers acting separately"


"Therefore the designer had to use odd and curious design. ... This solves the argument from imperfection."

悪いデザインは、デザイナーが一人であることを示すためだという主張である。ただし、生物は進化していないことを示すために、生物系統の破壊すなわち、中間的な種を創っていないことにしている(=中間化石は存在しない)。Jay Richardsよりは、Walter ReMineの方が面白い。Jay Richardsのは何の役にもたたいないが、Walter ReMineのは、少なくとも、神学上の遊びにはなる。

ちなみ、インテリジェントデザイン理論家Dr.William Dembskiも「悪いデザインは進化だ」という意見を表明したことがある:
The first question that needs to be answered about the panda's thumb is whether it displays the clear marks of intelligence. The design theorist is not committed to every biological structure being designed. Mutation and section do operate in natural history to adapt organisms to their environments. Perhaps the panda's thumb is such an adaptation. Nonetheless, mutation and selection are incapable of generating highly specific, information-rich structures that pervade biology.

[Dembski: Intelligent Design is not Optimal Design]




[uncyclopedia:Stupid Design]

The theory states that some forms of existence are simply too stupid to have come about by random chance. Ergo, they must have been designed to be stupid by someone at least equally as stupid as the stupidity that has been created, a Stupid Designer like God or Calvin Klein and not just any old mediocre designer.

このアフォデザイン理論は、存在の幾つかの形態はアホすぎて、偶然では発生し得ないと主張する。それ故に、それらは少なくとも被造物と同じくらいのアフォによって、アフォにデザインされたはずだ。このアフォは神かCalvin Kleinのようにアフォデザイナーであって、ただの古い平凡デザイナーではない。
Uncyclopediaと同様のネタで、intelligent design networkのパロディページとかもある:
Stupid Design Network, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that seeks rediculousness in origins science.

Stupid Design

The theory of Stupid Design (SD) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are so ridiculous that there must have been an unintelligent designer behind them, rather than an intelligent designer or an undirected process such as natural selection.



Stupid Design is an intellectual movement that includes a scientific research program for investigating what idiot thought it would be a good idea to put the most painful part of a man's body dangling down between his legs where anyone could kick it.


[Stupid Design Network, Inc]

PBSで教育番組のホストもやっている宇宙物理学者Neil deGrasse Tysonも、Beyond Belief 2006で"Stupid Design"を講演している。
posted by Kumicit at 2009/01/12 00:00 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | ID: General | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする



コメント: [必須入力]