インテリジェントデザインと非共通祖先の分離を言ってみるDave Scot

Dembski主宰のブログUncommon Descentの共同執筆者Dave Scotが2006年2月11日付の記事「Jack Krebs Asking About Common Descent」で、さらに「共通祖先」について主張を続けている。


Over on Telic Thoughts Jack is asking about ID’s position on common descent here, here, and here. I’m going to assume this is an honest question.

ID has no position on common descent.

ID is the theory that certain patterns in nature can be best explained by intelligent agency.

Telic ThoughtsでJackが共通祖先に対するインテリジェントデザインの立場をここここここ質問してきた。これが正直な質問だと仮定しよう。



There are details about what particular patterns might quality and why they are best attributed to intelligent agency but the gist of it is in the one line above. We might actually be able to publish this stuff in the normal channels if our worthy opponents didn’t Sternberg any editor that dares. But that’s a different rant.


It seems like everyone; Discovery Institute, Dembski, Behe, Berlinski, you name them and they’ve said it; ID takes no position on common descent. Any position on common descent that ID proponents may hold are not positions that ID theory requires. Personally I’m flabbergasted that in this day & age anyone could seriously question common descent. But that’s not an opinion driven by Intelligent Design theory. That’s an opinion driven by reproductive continuity, an almost universal genetic code, and mountains of secondary bits of evidence from the fossil record, molecular and anatomical homology, and etcetera. Not to get off on a rant about common descent again…
誰にとってもこうだろう:Discovery Institute, Dembski, Behe, Berlinski, 君が彼らを指名すれば、彼らはこう言っている「インテリジェントデザインは共通祖先の立場をとらない。インテリジェントデザイン支持者が共通祖先に対していかなる立場をとろうとも、それはインテリジェントデザイン理論が要求する立場ではない。個人的には、今日、この時代において、誰でも深刻に共通祖先を疑えるのは、私には驚きだ。しかし、これはインテリジェントデザイン理論から導かれる意見ではない。これは、繁殖の連続性と、ほぼユニバーサルな遺伝子コードと山ほどの化石記録からの2次的な証拠の小片と分子と解剖学的相同などから導かれる意見だ。共通祖先についての大言壮語から離れない...

Asking what ID’s position is on common descent (it almost seems like our opponents are demanding we take a position on common descent) is like asking what neoDarwinian theory’s position is on how the universe was created. It’s simply a question that the theory does not address. People who support NeoDarwinian theory have all kinds of opinions on how the universe started. Some of them [gasp] even think GOD DID IT! Do we try to brand NeoDarwinism a religion because some of its proponents believe that God chose random mutation plus natural selection as the means to accomplish His ends? No way. We brand it a religion because some of them treat the theory as dogma instead of tentative science but I digress again.


Notice: Stay on topic. This thread isn’t about whether or not common descent is true but whether or not Intelligent Design Theory takes a position on common descent and about how the association fallacy is being used to conflate IDT with denial of common descent.

注意: 話題を変えないように。このスレッドは共通祖先が正しいかどうかについてものではなく、インテリジェントデザイン理論が共通祖先の立場をとるか否か、そしてそれに伴う虚偽が、共通祖先の否定とインテリジェントデザイン理論を合体させるためにどう使われるかについてである。

インテリジェントデザイン理論から非共通祖先を切り離せとDave Scotは主張し続けている。共通祖先はインテリジェントデザイン理論の対象外だというのがその論拠。もともとのインテリジェントデザインの主張はIDEA CENTER FAQによれば:
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which seeks to determine if some objects in the natural world were designed through recognizing and detecting the types of information known to be produced by the intelligent agents when they act.



If common descent is true, then that means there is a designer tweaking the evolutionary process every so often. And since it must be in a way that we cannot detect (because we still have yet to come up with a mechanism that works) then the most logical conclusion is that it must be supernatural! I’m not trying to be funny or start up anything, but this seems like the logical implication of intelligent design coupled with common descent.


The only other option that ID proponents have is to opt for a more deistic view of intelligent design. Basically, the designer would have had to preprogram evolution to take place from the get-go, in order to allow the evolutionary process to play out on its own. But if such a thing was preprogrammed by a designer, then it seems like we would’ve detected something by now……by then again, perhaps not.


I personally like the idea of Intelligent Design being neutral on the subject of common descent.

Comment by IDEA_AASU — February 12, 2006 @ 7:58 am

デザインを大幅に変更したなら、"Common Descent"ではありえない。"Common Descent"たるには、漸進変化させる(しょっちゅう調整を行う)他ないというのは論理的に正しい。

posted by Kumicit at 2006/02/15 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]