Dr. Hugh Rossが主宰する"古い地球の創造論"サイトReasons to Believeは、インテリジェントデザイン運動を敵とみなしたようだ。ただし、同じマーケットを取り合う商売敵としてなのか、深い神学に基づくのかは不明だが。

Dr. Hugh Rossと仲間たちによる本: Creation as Science(pp.31-33)において、モデルなきインテリジェントデザインを、検証も反証も不可能なものと斬っている:
Scientists repeatedly ask ID leaders at public meetings to clarify their stance on young-earth creationism. A persistent unwillingness to give a clear answer to this question reinforces their notion that ID may simply represent a stealth creationist movement. Astrophysicist Adrian Melott's headline in Physics Today claims "Intelligent Design is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo"[24].

科学者たちは、公開ミーティングの場で、インテリジェントデザインの指導者たちに対して、"若い地球の創造論"に対するスタンスを明確にするよう問うてきた。この問いに明確に回答しようとしないことで、インテリジェントデザインはステルス創造論運動にすぎないという科学者の主張を補強している。宇宙物理学者Adrian MelottはPhysics Todayのヘッドラインで、「インテリジェントデザインは安物のタキシードを着た創造論である」と主張している。

Carl Wieland, himself a young-earth creationist, pinpoints another major reason for such a negative response. He notes that ID theorists "refuse to be drawn in on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth, or its duration"[25]. Therefore, they "can never offer a story of the past"[26]. He asks, "If the origins debate is not about a 'story of the past', what is it about?"[27]

自身が"若い地球の創造論者"であるCarl Wielandは、そのような批判的な反応のもうひとつの理由を指摘する。インテリジェントデザイン理論家たちが、イベントの時系列あるいは地球上の生命の歴史あるいはその期間について、記述することを拒否していることを、Carl Wielandは指摘する。従って、インテリジェントデザイン理論家たちは過去のストーリーを決して提示できない。起源について議論が、過去のストーリーについてでないなら、何についてなのか?

When it comes to the origin of the universe, life, and humanity, scientists want history's story. They emphatically request that the story be cast in the form of a testable model. In a two-hour prime-time national television debate in 1997 between evolutionists and ID leaders, the evolutionists repeatedly asked, "Where is your model?" and never received a reply[28]. Nine years later, evolutionists still ask the same question and still receive no response[29].


Without a model, the ID paradigm cannot be tested or falsified, nor can it generate significant predictions of future scientific discoveries. This lack of substantive testability gives rise to the repeated charge that ID is "not science".


To consider an alternative view, scientists must be shown a more coherent and comprehensive explanation of history, the fossil record, and other data covered by evolutionary theory than that theory already provides. The IDM's program for bringing about change is significantly set back because its proponents have yet to explain the origin and history of universe, Earth, life, and humanity.


[24] Adrian L. Melott: "Intelligent Design is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo", Physics Today, 55 (June 2002), 48-50

[25,26,27] Carl Wieland: "AiG's Views on the Intelligent Design Movement"

[28] This debate was hosted by William E. Buckley Jr. on the PBS program Firing Line on December 29, 1997.

[29] I asked this question in a private conversation with a prominent IDM leader in 2003. He acknowledged the need for a model but said that he and his colleagues would need at least eight more years to develop one.

インテリジェントデザイン運動の指導者の誰かが「モデルをつくるのに少なくともあと8年は必要だろう」と言った件はDr. Hugh Rossの主張であって、ウラは取れない。

ただし、「Intelligent design itself does not have any content(インテリジェントデザイン自体に中味はない)」とインテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery InstituteGeorge Gilderは言っている。また、インテリジェントデザインの父たるPhillip Johnsonも「The hypothesis of intelligent design, while being developed, is not complete enough to be taught in the classroom(インテリジェントデザイン仮説は発展途上であり、授業で教えるに十分には完成していない)」とと言っている

また、Dr. Hugh Rossと仲間たちが引用した、"若い地球の創造論"サイトAnswers in GenesisのDr. Carl Wieland[もとは医学系だが、1986年以降は医学に関わっていない]はインテリジェントデザインの弱点を幾つか挙げている。その中には、科学としてまっとうなものも混じっている:
Since the only thing in their platform which comes close to being a commonly - shared presupposition is a negative (naturalism is wrong), they can provide no coherent philosophical framework on which to base the axioms necessary to interpret evidence relevant to the historical sciences (paleontology, historical geology, etc). So they can never offer a "story of the past", which is one more reason why they must continually limit the debate to one of mechanism - and then only in broad, general terms (designed vs undesigned).


They generally refuse to be drawn on the sequence of events, or the exact history of life on Earth or its duration, apart from saying, in effect, that it "doesn't matter". However, this is seen by the average evolutionist as either absurd or disingenuously evasive - the arena in which they are seeking to be regarded as full players is one which directly involves historical issues. In other words, if the origins debate is not about a "story of the past", what is it about?


Their failure to identify themselves with a story of the past (e.g. Genesis) is partly tactically-driven, but is also a necessity, because they do not agree within themselves on a story of the past. However, this failure only reinforces the perception by the establishment that they are really "creationists in disguise". The attacks on the IDM have thus been virtually as ferocious as any on Genesis creationists. Thus, the belief that agreeing to "keep the Bible out of it" would serve to keep anti-religious hostility out of the arena has not been confirmed in practice.

インテリジェントデザイン運動内部に、宇宙と地球と生命と人類の歴史についての合意がなから、ストーリーも示せず、ネガティブ論しか語れず、それでいて進化論サイドからの攻撃も避けられていないというDr. Carl Wielandの主張。

ポジションを定めないのはPhillip Johnsonの方針たる"Big tent"の都合でもある:
By controlling the terminology, then, Darwinists have given the world the impression that the significant divide in public opinion about evolution is that between the Genesis literalists and everybody else. This is a sorry misunderstanding. For the fundamental disagreement is not over the age of the earth or the method of creation; it is over whether we owe our existence to a purposeful Creator or a blind materialistic process. The 47 percent in the 1991 Gallup Poll who say that God created suddenly and the 40 percent who say that God created gradually are basically in agreement- in comparison to the 9 percent who say that God did not create at all. When the majority finally understands this, it will become possible to challenge the monopoly of evolutionary naturalism both in the media and the educational system.


[Phillip E. Johnson : "Creator or Blind Watchmaker?", First Things, January 1993]

What is the theory of intelligent design?(インテリジェントデザイン理論とは何か)

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection


[Discovery Institute:FAQ]

posted by Kumicit at 2007/02/07 00:01 | 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]