## 2010/06/20

### "Negative Argument"̔؉\

CeWFgfUC͂܂Ƃui_ŐłȂ̂̓fUCvƂ̂łB̂悤"Negative Argument"̒łCeWFgfUĆui_ŐłȂƌĂ̂Ai_ŐłvƂɂāA؂邱ƂɂȂB

Ƃ΁ACeWFgfUC_Dr. William Dembski͂܂Â悤Ȍ̔؉\fĂB

==>DembskíuCeWFgfUC̔؉\v

APopper̈ӖŁÁuCeWFgfUC̔؉\vł͂ȂB

Ƃ΁Aui_ŐłȂږт̓fUCvƂCeWFgWFgfUC̎咣𔽏؂ׂAuږт̐ioHv񎦂Ƃ悤B́uږт̐ioH̒񎦁v́uږт͐i_ŐłȂvƂ咣𔽏؂Ă邪Auږт̓fUCvƂ咣ɂ͂܂GĂȂBؑΏۂ͂܂łi_łāACeWFgfUC͔؂̑ΏۂɂȂĂȂB

܂ui_ŐłȂ̂̓fUCvƂ咣͖łBuioH̒񎦁v̓CeWFgfUC̎咣ui_ŐłȂ̂̓fUCv𔽏؂łȂBʂȕ@lȂƁACeWFgfUC͌Iɔؕs\B

Â悤Ȕ؉\CeWFgfUC̖{RDiscovery InstitutefĂB
There is a belief among media commentators that intelligent design is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable or untestable: no empirical evidence can count against it. Though common, this charge is demonstrably false. Of course therefs no way to falsify a mere assertion that a cosmic designer exists. This much we are agreed on. But contemporary design arguments focus not on such vague claims, but on detectible evidence for design in the natural world. Therefore, the design arguments currently in play are falsifiable.[1]

CeWFgfUC͔ؕs\邢͌ؕs\AoI؋Ŕ؂łȂƗRŁACeWFgfUC͔ȊwłƂlAfBẢ҂ɍLĂBA̔ᔻ͂܂̌łBAF̃fUCi[݂Ƃ咣𔽏؂@͂ȂBɂĂ͉XӂBÃ݂fUC_͂̂悤Ȃ܂Ȏ咣ł͂ȂAREɂfUČo\ȏ؋ɃtH[JXĂAāAݎsĂfUC_͔؉\łB

Consider the argument that Michael Behe makes in his book Darwinfs Black Box. There he proposes that design is detectable in many gmolecular machines,h including the bacterial flagellum. Behe argues that this tiny motor needs all its parts to function\it is girreducibly complex.h Such systems in our experience are a hallmark of designed systems, because they require the foresight that is the exclusive jurisdiction of intelligent agents. Darwinfs mechanism of natural selection and random variations, in contrast, requires a functional system at each transition along the way. Natural selection can select for present but not for future function. Notice that Behefs argument rests not on ignorance, but on what we know about designed systems, the causal powers of intelligent agents, and on our growing knowledge of the cellular world and its many mechanisms.

Michael BeheDarwin's Black BoxŎg_Ă݂悤BBehéA׋ۂ̕ږтȂǂ̑́uq@BvŁAfUCo\ƒ񏥂ĂBBehéȀȃ[^́AׂĂ̕iȂƋ@\ȂuҌs\ɕGvłB̂悤ȃVXe͉X̌oł́AfUCꂽVXȅ؋łBƂ̂͂́ACeWFgG[WFgɂ̂݌挩̖Kv炾BƑΏƓIɁARIƃ_ȓˑRψقƂ_[EB̃JjYł́A@\VXe͒iKIɐiޕKvBRIł͖̋@\ł͂ȂA݂̋@\ɑ΂đIBBehe̘_͖mɊÂ̂ł͂ȂAXfUCꂽVXeɂĒmĂ邱ƂɁACeWFgfUC̈ʗ́AזEE⑽̃JjŶĔWmɊÂĂB

How does one test and discredit Behefs argument? Describe a realistic, continuously functional Darwinian pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. Darwinists like Kenneth Miller point to the hope of future discoveries, and to the type III secretory system as a machine possibly co-opted on the evolutionary path to the flagellum. The argument is riddled with problems, but it shows that Miller, at least, understands perfectly well that Behefs argument is testable. Similarly, the Internet is filled with supposed refutations of contemporary design arguments, many written by scientists using information from the natural world to make their arguments. An argument canft be both open to falsifiability and unfalsifiable at the same time.

ǂāABehe̘_؂邢͔؂̂H@Pȑc悩猻݂̃[^ւ̘AIɋ@\_[EB̌oHLq邱ƂBKenneth Miller̂悤ȃ_[EBɃXg͏̔сAType III Secretory systemږтւ̃RIvV\̂}VƎwEĂB̘_ɂ̖͑肪邪AMiller͏ȂƂBehe̘_SɌ؉\ȂƂ𗝉Ă邱ƂĂBlɁAC^[lbgɂ́Ã݂fUC__jƂz肪ĂAREɂgāA̘_ALqĂBЂƂ̘_͔؉\ؕs\ł͂肦ȂB

--
[1] Recent work in the philosophy of science has revealed the degree to which high level scientific theories tend to resist simple refutation. If it were applied consistently, in fact, every theory in science would be hastily rejected. As a result, Karl Popperfs criterion of gfalsifiability,h which most commentators seem to presuppose, was rejected by most philosophers of science decades ago as a litmus test for science. Nevertheless, itfs certainly a virtue of scientific proposals to be able to say what evidence would count against it.

ȊwNw̍ŋ߂̌ł́AnCx̉Ȋw_͒PȔ_ɂ͒RX邱Ƃ𖾂炩ɂĂBAтēKp΁AȊw_ׂ͂đ₩ɊpBʂƂāẢ҂OƂĂAKarl Popper̔؉\Ƃ́ẢȊwNw҂ɂĐ\NOɁAȊw̃g}XƂĕĂBAȂ؋ɂĔ؉\ƂƂ͉ȊwIĂ̒łB

[Center for Science & Culture, Discovery Institute: "Intelligent Design is Falsifiable" (2005)]
ɖĂɁAui_ŐłACeWFgfUC͔؂ꂽvƂłBƂƂ̘_̒"Negative Argument"Ȃ̂ŁANlĂAȊǑɂ͂Ȃ肦ȂB

^OFid_
yID: General̍ŐVLz
posted by Kumicit at 2010/06/20 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | ID: General | |
̋Lւ̃Rg
Rg
O:

[AhX:

z[y[WAhX:

Rg: [K{]

̋Lւ̃gbNobN