Luskinは語る「インテリジェントデザインは神の議論ではない」と (2)

現在はインテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery InstituteのスタッフをつとめるCasey Luskinが「インテリジェントデザインは神についての議論ではない」という記事(
Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"?


生化学担当Dr. Michael Beheの執筆物から

"The most important difference [between modern intelligent design theory and Paley's arguments] is that [intelligent design] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. This while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo. (Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, emphasis added)

現在のインテリジェントデザイン理論とPaleyの議論の最も重要な違いは、インテリジェントデザインがデザインそのものに議論を限っていることである。インテリジェントデザインは、Paleyの議論と違って、慈しみ深き神の存在についての議論ではないことを強く強調したい。取り急ぎ加えるなら、私自身は慈しみ深き神を信じており、哲学と神学がこの議論を広げることをわかっている。しかし、生物学におけるデザインについての科学的議論はそこには及ばない。 私はデザインを論じても、デザイナーについては未知のままにしている。デザイナーの役割を果たせる可能性のある候補は、キリスト教の神、天使と堕天使、プラトンの創造神、何らかの神秘的なニューエイジの力、アルファケンタウリからの異星人、タイムトラベラー、あるいは全く未知のインテリジェントな存在。もちろん、これらの可能性には、他の科学の分野からの情報に基づけば、他よりももっともらしいものもある。しかしながら、デザイナーの特定について、現在のインテリジェントデザイン理論はうまく、アイザック・ニュートンの「私は仮説を作らない」というフレーズを復唱している。

それはさておき、Luskinはここでも、Dr. Michael Beheがデザイナーについて論じない点を強調している。しかし、その前に、デザインの存在を前提にしているところで、既に神の存在の議論なのだが。

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).



そしてBeheからの引用の最後は、ちょっと古くなってしまった代表作"Darwin's Black Box"から:
"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)


数学担当Dr. William Dembskiの執筆物から

そして、最後はインテリジェントデザインの理論の中心人物たるDr. William Dembskiの著作から引用するLuskinである。

"One of the worries about intelligent design is that it will jettison much of what is accepted in science, and that an “ID-based curriculum” will look very different from current science curricula. Although intelligent design has radical implications for science, I submit that it does not have nearly as radical implications for science education. First off, intelligent design is not a form of anti-evolutionism. Intelligent design does not claim that living things came together suddenly in their present form through the efforts of a supernatural creator. Intelligent design is not and never will be a doctrine of creation. " (William Dembski, No Free Lunch, pg. 314, emphasis added)



"Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the competence of science and must be left to religion and philosophy." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 42)



"The most obvious difference is that scientific creationism has prior religious commitments whereas intelligent design does not. ... Intelligent design ... has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles. In particular, intelligent design does not depend on the biblical account of creation." (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 40)

最も明らかな違いは、創造科学が宗教的な関与を前提としているのに対して、インテリジェントデザインがそうではないこと。... インテリジェントデザインは宗教的関与を前提とせず、科学的データを一般に認められている科学的原則に従って解釈するものだ。特に、インテリジェントデザインは聖書の創造に記述に依存しない。



The scientific theory of intelligent design cannot identify the designer, but only detects the past occurrence of intelligent design in the natural world. Intelligent design theory cannot name the designer because it works off the assumption that all intelligent agents would generally create certain types of informational patterns when they act. While we can detect that type of information in the natural world to infer intelligent design, finding that type of information does not give us any information about the nature or identity of the designer. All we can infer is that the object we are studying was designed.


The fact that the identity of the designer is a religious question does not negate the purely scientific methods through which we can infer merely that an object was indeed designed. Indeed, when we find the type of information we know tends to be produced by intelligent agents, we have a valid scientific rationale for inferring intelligent design.







posted by Kumicit at 2006/02/12 00:08 | 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]