古くからある創造論ネタを繰り返すインテリジェントデザイン支持者Dr. Michael Egnor

Forbesに、Discovery Institute公式ブログの執筆者のひとりMichael Egnorの寄稿が掲載された。内容はなく古来よりの創造論ネタを列挙しただけ:
The fossil record shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts. Darwin's theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components. The origin of the genetic code belies random causation. All codes with which we have experience arise from intelligent agency. Intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it's difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations.


[Michael Egnor: "A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist" (2009/02/05) on Forbes]
3日後にはJerry A. Coyneによる反論が掲載されている。でも、せっかくなので、3つほど、毎度おなじみのMark Isaakの創造論者の主張を紹介しておこう。

Claim CA350:
Professional literature is silent on the subject of the evolution of biochemical systems.


Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press, 68, 72, 97, 114, 115-116, 138, 185-186.


  1. The claim is simply false. Dozens of articles exist on the subjects for which Behe claims the literature is missing. David Ussery, for example, found 107 articles on cilia evolution, 125 on flagella evolution, 27 on the evolution of the entire coagulation system, 130 on the evolution of vesicle transport, and 84 on "molecular evolution of the immune system" (Ussery 1999).

    この主張はまったくの間違い。Beheが文献がないと言っている分野には数十の論文がある。たとえば、David Usseryは繊毛の進化について107本、鞭毛の進化について125本、血液凝固系の進化について27本、小胞輸送の進化について130本、免疫系の分子進化について84本の論文を見つけている。

  2. Behe tries to make his claim appear more dramatic by overstating our understanding of the molecular workings of the cell. For example, he says, "Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell" (1996, 232). But our understanding has only just begun. In the years since Behe wrote his book, journals have been filled with thousands of research articles uncovering new information, and much remains to be uncovered. When the complete Escherichia coli genome was sequenced in 1998, the functions of a third of its genes were still completely unknown, and E. coli is much simpler than human cells.


  3. Behe's work on intelligent design theory has produced no publications in scientific literature. In fact, there have been no scientific publications on intelligent design by any of its proponents (Gilchrist 1997).



  1. Catalano, John (ed.). 1998. Publish or perish: Some published works on biochemical evolution.

See for Yourself:
You can do a search of biological and medical research yourself at PubMed ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed ). Try keywords such as "flagella" and "evolution".


  1. Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
  2. Gilchrist, George W. 1997. The elusive scientific basis of intelligent design theory. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3): 14-15. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2083_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_3_16_2001.asp

    Further Reading:

    1. Cavalier-Smith, Tom. 1997. The blind biochemist. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12(4): 162-163.
    2. Li, Wen-Hsiung. 1997. Molecular Evolution. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.

Claim CB805:
Since evolution says organisms came from a common ancestor and since they lived in a continuity of environments, we should see a continuum of organisms. There should be a continuous series of animals between cats and dogs, so that one could not tell where cats left off and dogs began.


Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 70-71.


  1. The claim might be true if there were no such thing as extinction. But since species do become extinct, intermediates that once existed do not exist today. Since extinction is a one-way street, species can only become less connected over time. This is clear if we look at the fossil record, in which early members of separate groups are much harder to tell apart.


  2. Environments (and ecological niches) are not really as continuous as the claim pretends. Dogs bring down their prey through long chases, and cats ambush their prey; dogs are made for long-distance running, and cats are made for short sprints with high acceleration from a standing start. These requirements are quite different, and it is hard to achieve both in a single body. Compromises between the two have disadvantages in competition with specialists for either type, and thus natural selection culls them. Intermediates are competitive only so long as specialists are absent; so when specialists evolve, the intermediates are likely to become extinct.


  3. In part, distinctness is an illusion caused by our choice of which groups to give names to. Groups with unclear boundaries tend not to get separate names, or groups in which intermediate forms exist are chopped in half arbitrarily (especially obvious if fossil forms are considered; e.g., the line between dinosaurs and birds is arbitrary, increasingly so as new fossils are discovered).


  4. There are indeed several cases of continua in nature. In many groups, such as some grasses and leafhoppers, different species are very hard to tell apart. At least ten percent of bird species are similar enough to another species to produce fertile hybrids (Weiner 1994, 198-199). The most obvious continua are called ring species, because in the classic case (the herring gull complex) they form a ring around the North Pole. If we start in Western Europe and move west, similar populations, capable of interbreeding, succeed each other geographically. When we have traveled all the way around the world and reach Western Europe again, the final population is different enough that we call it a separate species, and it is incapable of interbreeding with herring gulls, even though they are connected by a continuous chain of interbreeding populations. This is a big problem for creationists. We expect kinds to be easily determined if they were created separately, but there are no such obvious divisions:

    実際に、自然界には幾つかの連続性の例がある。草やヨコバイなどには、異なる種を区別するのがむつかしい例がある。少なとも鳥類の種の10%は別の種と類似していて、交雑可能である[Weiner 1994, 198-199]。最も明らかな連続性は、いわゆる環状種である。もっとも古典的な例はセグロカモメで、北極のまわりに環状種を形成している。我々は西ヨーロッパを出発して、西に行けば、交雑可能な類似した集団がいて、それが地理的に順次、入れ替わっていく。北極のまわりを一周して、西ヨーロッパにもどってくれば、最後の集団は、最初の集団と多く違っていて、我々はそれらを別種と呼ぶ。最後の集団は、連続的に交雑可能な集団とつながっているにもかかわらず、最初の集団のセグロカモメとは交雑不可能である。これは創造論者にとって大きな問題である。創造論者たちは、別種として創造されたものは、容易に区別がつくと考えているが、そのような明らかな境界は存在しない。
    They are mistaken, who repeat that the greater part of our species are clearly limited, and that the doubtful species are in a feeble minority. This seemed to be true, so long as a genus was imperfectly known, and its species were founded upon a few specimens, that is to say, were provisional. Just as we come to know them better, intermediate forms flow in, and doubts as to specific limits augment. (de Condolle, quoted in Darwin, 1872, chap. 2)

    大半の種の境界が明確で、境界が疑わしい種は少数派だと主張する人々は、間違っている。そのような主張は、知られている属が不完全で、標本が数個しかない場合にのみ正しく、いわば暫定的正しさである。より多くを知れば、中間種が見つかり、種の境界が明確であるという論は疑わしくなる。[de Condolle, Darwin 1872による引用]


  1. Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London.
  2. Weiner, Jonathan, 1994. The Beak of the Finch: a story of evolution in our time. New York: Knopf.

Further Reading:

  1. Hazard, Evan B. 1998. Teaching about "intermediate forms." The American Biology Teacher 60(5): 359-361.
  2. Darwin, C., 1859. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London.

Claim CB180:
The genetic code is a language in the normal sense of the term, since it assigns meaning to arbitrary symbols. Language is obviously a non-material category of reality; the symbolic information is distinct from matter and energy. Therefore, life is a manifestation of non-material reality.


"Baumgardner, John, 1995. Six problems with evolution: a response to Graham Mark. The Los Alamos Monitor, 31 Mar.
Baumgardner, John, 2001. Highlights of the Los Alamos origins debate.


  1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.


    Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.


    An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.


  2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).

    自然言語の単語の出現頻度は冪乗則(Zipfの法則)に従っている。しかし、DNAはこのパターンに従っていない[Tsonis et al.1997]。

  3. Language, although symbolic, is still material. For a word to have meaning, the link between the word and its meaning has to be recorded somewhere, usually in people's brains, books, and/or computer memories. Without this material manifestation, language cannot work.



  1. Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29.

なお、記事の終わりの方に至るも、既出品の項目列挙のみなMichael Egnorである:
I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin's theory of biological origins is atheism's creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor.


[Michael Egnor: "A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist" (2009/02/05) on Forbes]
こっちも古来よりの既出品。毎度おなじみMark Isaakの創造論者の主張はきっちりと反論している。

  • CA610. 価値観と究極的意味をもたらすので進化論は宗教である
  • CA612. 進化は観察されたことがないので、進化論は創造論と同じく信仰心を必要とする
  • CA602.2. 科学者は神を不要にしようとしている

==>忘却からの帰還: 創造論者の主張「進化論も宗教だ」 (2008/06/09)

どうも、Michael Egnorの仕事は、古くからある創造論者の主張の表題を並べ立ていることにあるらしい。

posted by Kumicit at 2009/02/21 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute | 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]