Humbug! Online - a blog for iconoclastsの2006年5月13日付のエントリ「Intelligently Designed Cat Escapes Bag」が、インテリジェントデザインの詭弁2点をわかりやすく指摘している。

ひとつめはNegative Argumentという詭弁についてで:
ID claims that if, in the living world, there are irreducibly complex objects, then evolution by natural (and sexual) selection cannot explain them. If this is the case, they argue, given these structures are complex and clearly have a purpose, they must have been designed by an intelligence. The point to note is that they do not propose how these structures were designed, so in effect their explanation is not an explanation. It explains precisely nothing.


The ID claim boils down to - if you can’t explain this phenomena, then my theory is right. This is certainly not how one argues for a scientific hypothesis, and moreover, it is a fallacious argument. For a theory to be considered plausible there needs to be evidence for it. It doesn't simply "win"* if another theory is missing the occasional explanation (though all the things ID proponents claim evolution can't explain have been explained by evolutionary biologists in an orthodox fashion).


The more general argument from design is a False Analogy that Begs the Question. ID proponents argue that we have A - irreducibly complex machines which show structure and order. And we have B - irreducibly complex biological machines, which also show structure and order. We know that A has been created by an intelligent designer (namely us), therefore it follows that B must have also been created by an intelligent designer (namely God). This is a classic, but in the end specious, inductive argument:



But all we really know for certain is that human artefacts were made by humans. We don't know for sure that these other 'designed' things are the product of intelligence. In fact this whole argument is circular, it 'begs the question'. It assumes as its premise the conclusion it's trying to demonstrate. It's basically saying, "something that is designed has properties which show it was designed." This conclusion, though tautological, is acceptable. But the next part of the argument is a non-sequitur. "Therefore something which shows these properties was intelligently designed." All we know for sure, is that when humans design something, it inevitably has properties such as complexity, structure, purpose and order etc., but we can't conclusively demonstrate that this reasoning applies in reverse, that complexity, structure, purpose and order, can only be the product of intelligent design.^ They assume a priori, that things which have properties such as complexity and purpose, are a proof of intelligence.

しかし、我々が確かに本当に知っていることは、人工品が人間によって作られたということだけである。我々はこれら他の"デザイン"されたものが、インテリジェンスの産物であるか否かを知らない。事実、この論は循環論法になっていて、論点を巧みに避けている。それは前提として、提示しようとする結論を装う。まず基本的に言っていることは「デザインされた何かは、それがデザインされたことを示す特徴がある。」これはトートロジーだが、結論は許容できる。しかし次の議論の部分は不合理な推論だ。「従って、これらの特徴を持つ何かは、インテリジェントにデザインされた。」 我々が確かに知っていることは、人間が何かをデザインしたとき、必然的に複雑さや構造や目的や秩序といった属性を持っているということだけだ。この推論を逆に適用して、複雑さや構造や目的や秩序を持つ何かは、インテリジェントデザインの産物でなければならないと証明できない。インテリジェントデザイン支持者は、アプリオリに、複雑さや目的という属性を持つものが、インテリジェンスの証明だと仮定している。
posted by Kumicit at 2007/03/06 00:01 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | Skeptic | 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]