John G Westの"Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (1/7)

インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのインテリジェントデザイン部門であるCenter for Science and Cultureの副センター長であり、シニアフェローである社会学者Dr. John G. Westは、"Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science"[2007/11/06]で、Religious Rightの科学に対する見方を述べている。それは、「民主的に科学理論を葬り去ること」を含む、反科学と呼ぶべきものである。

そのハードカバー450ページの長大な著作を、Dr. John G. Westは自らダイジェストして、保守系シンクタンクHeritage FoundationのLectureとして発表している。

==>John G West: "The Abolition of Man? How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (2008/02/07) on Heritage Foundation(Heritage Lecture #1058) (Copy on Discovery Institute)

"An age of science is necessarily an age of materialism," wrote Hugh Elliot early in the last century. "Ours is a scientific age, and it may be said with truth that we are all materialists now."[1]

「科学の時代は必然的に唯物論の時代である。我々の時代は科学の時代である。我々は皆、唯物論者だという真理とともに、そう言えるかもしれない。」[1]と前世紀初頭に、Hugh Elliotは述べた。

One does not have to look far to discover the continued accuracy of Elliot's assessment. Scientific materialism--the claim that everything in the universe can be fully explained by science as the products of unintelligent matter and energy--has become the operating assumption for much of American politics and culture. We are repeatedly told today that our behaviors, our emotions, even our moral and religious longings are reducible to some combination of physical processes interacting with our environment.


In 1943, British writer C. S. Lewis wrote prophetically about the dangers of scientific materialism in a small, penetrating volume titled The Abolition of Man. There Lewis warned that "if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite...in the person of his dehumanized Conditioners."[2]

1943年に英国の作家C.S. Lewisは、科学的唯物論の危険性について予言的に、"The Abolition of Man"という表題の短いが鋭い文章を著した。そこでLewisは「人が自身を未加工の物質だとして扱うこを選択したら、ありのままの未加工の物質として。自らがイメージするとおりに、操作されるべき未加工の物質としてではなく、単なる貪欲によって。人間性を奪われた状態で。」[2]と警告した。

My book Darwin Day in America explores the impact on American politics and culture of the materialistic abuse of science Lewis warned about so many years ago. Contrary to its title, the book is not just about Darwin. It is about how modern science--a very good thing--has been misappropriated by scientific elitists who want to offer a materialistic explanation of every part of human culture.

私の本"Darwin Day in America"は、何十年も前にLewisが警告した、科学の唯物論的濫用が米国政治及び文化にどのように影響したかを探求したものである。表題に反して、この本はダーウィンだけに関したものではない。とてもよいものである近代科学がいかに、人間の文化をあらゆる面について唯物論的説明を提示することを求める、科学のエリートたちによって悪用されたかを示すものである。

Darwin comes into the story because his theory of unguided evolution based on natural selection and random variations offered a seemingly convincing explanation for how materialism could actually work. That is why someone like Richard Dawkins praises Darwin for making "it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."[3] But Darwinism is only one part of the larger problem, and scientific materialism reaches far beyond Darwin.

ダーウィンはこの物語に入って来る。それは、自然選択とランダムな変化に基づく、神の導きのなき進化という、ダーウィンの理論論が、いかにして唯物論が働くかについての納得できる説明を提示しているように見えるからだ。だからこそ、Richard Dawkinsのような人々は「知的に無神論者になることを可能にした」[3]としてダーウィンを賞賛する。しかし、ダーウィニズムは巨大な問題の一部に過ぎず、科学的唯物論はダーウィンを超えて彼方への手を伸ばしている。

The effort to apply scientific materialism to American public policy began in earnest more than a century ago with high hopes. Around the turn of the 20th century, defenders of scientific materialism began issuing increasingly lofty claims about how the understanding of the material world offered by science could be enlisted to solve all the problems of human society. The same scientific advances that produced inventions like the steam engine and medical breakthroughs like the germ theory of disease were also supposed to supply the basis for eliminating a host of social ills ranging from poverty and crime to unproductive workers.


Writing in the journal Science in 1903, J. McKeen Cattell, president of the American Society of Naturalists, argued that previous scientific achievements in helping man subjugate the natural world were just a foretaste of the future power science would bestow on man to control human nature:

1903年のScience誌への寄稿で、American Society of Naturalists理事長のJ. McKeen Cattellは、人間が自然界を征服するのを助けた過去の科学の業績が、人間性を制御する力を人間に授ける未来の科学力の予兆にすぎなかったと論じた。

The nineteenth century witnessed an extraordinary increase in our knowledge of the material world and in our power to make it subservient to our ends; the twentieth century will probably witness a corresponding increase in our knowledge of human nature and in our power to use it for our welfare.[4]


Charles Eliot, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), similarly predicted in 1915 that "biological science" would open the door "to the prevention as well as cure of [the]... bodily defects" that caused such antisocial behaviors as murder, robbery, forgery, and prostitution. "These are all biological problems; and the progress of biological inquiry during the past fifty years is sufficient to afford the means of solving on a large scale these fundamental social problems."[5]

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)の理事長だったCharles Eliotは、1915年に「生物科学が、殺人や強盗や偽造や売春のような反社会的行動を引き起こす肉体的欠陥の予防と治療の扉を開くだろう」と予測した。「これらは生物学的問題である。過去50年の生物学の発展は、これらの基礎的な社会問題を大規模に解決する手段を持てるようにした。」[5]

Such comments embodied perfectly the optimistic vision offered by scientific materialism at the dawn of the last century. During an era when science seemed to be uncovering the material basis of all human problems, it was widely believed that science with a capital "S" could lead to the transformation of society, bringing about greater human freedom, dignity, and happiness in the process. In short, scientific materialism was supposed to be a great engine of human progress in politics and culture.


It was not. Human nature was not reformed; crime did not disappear; and scientific materialism did not usher in a new age of liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, the excesses of scientific materialism have continued to influence American public policy in at least five important ways.


[1]Hugh Elliot, Modern Science and Materialism, 2nd impression (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1927), p. 138.
[2] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1947), p. 84.
[3]Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1996), p. 6.
[4]J. McKeen Cattell, "Homo Scientificus Americanus," Science, April 10, 1903, p. 569.
[5]Charles W. Eliot, "The Fruits, Prospects and Lessons of Recent Biological Science," Science, December 31, 1915, p. 926.

[John G West: "The Abolition of Man? How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (2008/02/07) on Heritage Foundation(Heritage Lecture #1058) (Copy on Discovery Institute)]
Dr. John G Westが挙げる5点とは:

  • テクノクラシー (Technocracy)
  • ユートピア的理想主義 (Utomianism)
  • 人間性喪失 (Dehumanization)
  • 相対主義 (Relativism)
  • 息苦しい言論の自由 (Stifling Free Speech)


この後、順にDr. John G Westの主張を見ていくことにする。

タグ:DI id理論
posted by Kumicit at 2009/12/28 01:40 | 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


トルコに手を伸ばすDiscovery InstituteとInstitute for Creation Research

トルコの創造論支持の高まりの中で、米国の創造論団体"Institute for Creation Research"と、インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteもトルコへ手を伸ばしている:
But Turkey, which is officially secular, appears to be joining its Muslim neighbors on evolution. A recent survey, quoted in a 2008 article in the American journal Science, found that fewer than 25 percent of Turks accepted evolution as an explanation of how modern life came to be -- by far the lowest percentage of any developed nation. In a year in which conferences worldwide are celebrating the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and his contribution to science, the battle against Darwinian thinking in Turkey has become something of a rout, even among aspiring science teachers.


To many Turkish scientists and educators, this is a worrisome development. The founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, was an advocate of science, education and, some say, even evolution. Turkish science has been especially strong in the Muslim world. If Turks close their minds to evolutionary thinking, advocates say, it won't be long before religion and politics shut off other scientific pursuits.

トルコの多くの科学者と教育者にとって、これは大きな問題である。近代トルコの父たるMustafa Kemal Atatukは、科学と教育、進化論の支持者でもあったという。イスラム世界でトルコの科学は特に強力だった。ひとたび進化論思考に対して心を閉ざすなら、宗教と政治は、他の科学の探求も停止させるだろうと、科学の支持者たちは言う。

To John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas, however, the news could hardly be more encouraging.

"Why I'm so interested in seeing creationism succeed in Turkey is that evolution is an evil concept that has done such damage to society," said Morris, a Christian who has led several searches for Noah's Ark in eastern Turkey. Members of his group have addressed Turkish conferences numerous times.

米国DallasのInstitute for Creation Research所長のJohn Morrisにとっては、しかし、このニュースは喜ばしいことではない。「トルコにおける創造論の成功を興味を持って見ている理由は、進化論が、そのような被害を社会に与える邪悪な概念だからだ」と東部トルコでノアの箱舟探索を数回率いたキリスト教徒であるJohn Morrisは言う。Morrisのグループはトルコのコンファレンスで何度も講演した。

The Discovery Institute of Seattle, which researches and promotes intelligent design as an alternative to creationism and evolution, also sent speakers to Turkey after being invited by the Istanbul municipal government in 2007. President Bruce Chapman said the institute helped bring Turkish evolution critic Mustafa Akyol to a 2005 Kansas school board hearing on teaching critiques of evolution.

創造論と進化論に対抗理論としてインテリジェントデザインを推進する、シアトルのDiscovery Insituteは、2007年にイスタンブール地方政府から招待を受けて、講演者をトルコに送った。Bruce Chapman所長は、トルコの進化論批判者Mustafa Akyolをカンザス学校教育委員会の進化論批判を教えることについての公聴会に呼ぶことをInstituteが支援したと述べた。

[Marc Kaufman: "In Turkey, fertile ground for creationism" (2009/11/08) on Washington Post
via Why Evolution is True]

Dr. John D. MorrisのInstitute for Creation Researchは、つまるところ創造論関連出版業であり、市場の拡大は望むところかもしれない。しかし、Discovery Instituteはトルコからどういう利益を得ようとしているのだろうか?あるいはDiscovery Instituteへの資金提供をしてい人々の意にかなっているのだろうか?

posted by Kumicit at 2009/11/11 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


Discovery InstituteのWesley J. Smithについてつらつらと...

インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteには、科学哲学担当Dr. Stephen Meyerと社会学担当Dr. John G. West率いるインテリジェントデザイン部門(Center for Science and Culture)以外に、幾つかの部門がある。ただし、インテリジェントデザインと比べれば無に等しい。

そのひとつに、事実上Wesley J SmithひとりのプロジェクトBioethicsがある。形式的には、ダーウィニズム破壊を文鮮明に誓った結婚専門家Dr. Jonathan Wellsと、インテリジェントデザイン部門のDr. John G. Westも関わっていることになっているが、それらしいドキュメントを書いた形跡はない。活動実態は宗教右翼系雑誌First ThingにあるWesley J SmithのブログSecondhand smokeと、月1回程度のWesley J Smithの新聞などへの寄稿程度。


  • 安楽死と自殺幇助反対
  • 幹細胞研究反対(ニュージャージー州での住民投票で研究資金が拒否されたのに、ニューヨーク州が研究資金支出を決定したことに文句をいうエントリ)
  • 動物実験推進
    So once again the choice is clear: Use able bodied people, animals, or don’t try to develop the technology. The choice is that simple and that stark.

主張の根幹は自らも宣言するように"Human Exceptionalism"である。その結果、動物実験推進をのぞいて、自然科学および医学の研究に関して、基本的に敵対的。

そして、Wesley J Smithは、自らが奉じる"Human Exceptionalism"の敵として、環境保護主義者を挙げている。
[Wesley J. Smith: "Collapse Go Hand-in-Hand" (2009/08/18) on First Things -- Secondhand Smoke]

In his first counterpoint, George Monbiot makes an important point about such advocacy:

最初の回答で、George Monbiotはそのような主張について重要な指摘をする:
I detect in your writings, and in the conversations we have had, an attraction towards -- almost a yearning for -- this apocalypse, a sense that you see it as a cleansing fire that will rid the world of a diseased society.

Exactly. Radical environmentalism has become a new earth religion, yearning for Eden, and seeing humanity as the impediment. Reject human exceptionalism, and pretty soon, you find yourself in one form of nihilism or another -- including, in some cases, the hope for an apocalyptic collapse such as a pandemic or other catastrophe that will punish us and restore the world to its pre human glory.

まさしく、その通り。ラジカルな環境保護主義はエデンを希求する新たな地球教となった。その地球教では人類は障害物なのである。"Human exeptionalism"を否定すれば、ある種のニヒリズムに容易に陥る。そして、場合によっては、我々を懲罰し、世界に人類以前の栄光を回復する、パンデミックなどの破滅的崩壊を求めるようになる。

Kingsnorth so much as admits the truth of Monbiot’s observation by never denying it. Indeed, he writes:

Civilisations live and die by their founding myths. Our myths tell us that humanity is separate from something called “nature”, which is a “resource” for our use. They tell us there are no limits to human abilities, and that technology, science and our ineffable wisdom can fix everything. Above all, they tell us that we are in control…


I think our task is to negotiate the coming descent as best we can, while creating new myths that put humanity in its proper place. Recently I co-founded a new initiative, the Dark Mountain Project, which aims to help do that. It won’t save the world, but it might help us think about how to live through a hard century. You’d be welcome to join us.

私は我々の責務が、人間をあるべき処に収めるための新たな神話を創り、来るべき凋落を可能な限り乗り越えることだと思う。最近、私はまさにこれを助けるために、"Dark Mountain Project"というイニシアチブを創設した。このイニシアチブは世界を救わないが、厳しい世紀を生き延びる方法を考えることの助けとなるだろう。もちろん、あなたを歓迎する、
How disappointed do y’all think Kingsnorth will be when the apocalypse doesn’t come? Very, I suspect. (If we collapse, it won’t be global warming, it will be nuclear war.) In any event, I don’t know anything about the Dark Mountain Project. But I intend to find out.

破滅の日が来なければ、Kingsnorthは落胆するだろうか。おそらくそうだと思う。我々の崩壊するとしたら、それは地球温暖化ではなく、核戦争によるだろう。なんにせよ、私はDark Mountain Projectを知らない。しかし、私は知ろうとしている。
Wesley J. Smithにとって、環境保護主義者は「エデンを希求し、人類は障害物だという新たな地球教徒」である。

確かにWesley J. Smithの引用部分からは環境保護主義者Kingnorthはそのように見える。

ただし、インテリジェントデザイン支持者はQuote Miningをするのが一般的なので、Wesley J. Smithが引用からドロップした部分も見ておくと..
This craving for control underpins your approach. If we can just persaude the polit


また、Kingsnorthは次のように、確かに"human exceptionalism"について言及している:
Take a civilisation built on the myth of human exceptionalism and a deeply embedded cultural attitude to "nature"; add a blind belief in technological and material progress; then fuel the whole thing with a power source that is discovered to be disastrously destructive only after we have used it to inflate our numbers and appetites beyond the point of no return. What do you get? We are starting to find out.

"human exceptionalism"の神話と、「自然界」に対する深く埋め込まれた文化的態度
の上に文明を築いてみよう、そして、技術および物質的発展に盲目の信頼を置く。我々の人口と食欲を"point of no return"を超えて膨らませるために使い、そのあとには破壊的な状態になるエネルギー源とともにすべてに点火する。どうなるだろうか?我々それを目の当たりにしようとしている。

[Is there any point in fighting to stave off industrial apocalypse? (2009/08/17) on Guardian]

どうも、Wesley J. Smithの「環境保護主義者はエデンを希求し、人類は障害物だという新たな地球教徒」だという主張は、一部の環境保護主義者たちについては、正しそうだ。

と同時に、Wesley J. Smithは温暖化否定論というDiscovery Instituteのポジション[ie Bruce Chapman]を、対地球教徒という形で主張していることも。

そして、環境保護主義あるいは地球温暖化対策を地球教部分を攻撃するのはWesley J. Smithひとりではない。政治評論家Michael Baroneはほぼ同様の考え方を示している:
[Michael Barone "On Guns and Climate, the Elites Are Out of Touch" (2009/05/11) on Real Politics]

I think there's something else at work here. For liberal elites, belief in gun control and global warming has taken on the character of religious faith. We have sinned (by hoarding guns or driving SUVs); we must atone (by turning in our guns or recycling); we must repent (by supporting gun control or cap and trade schemes). You may notice that the "we" in question is usually the great mass of ordinary American citizens.


The liberal elite is less interested in giving up its luxuries (Al Gore purchases carbon offsets to compensate for his huge mansion and private jet travel) than in changing the lifestyle of the masses, who selfishly insist on living in suburbs and keeping guns for recreation or protection. Ordinary Americans are seen not as responsible fellow citizens building stable communities but as greedy masses, who must be disciplined to live according to the elite's religious dogmas.

リベラルエリートは自分自身の贅沢をあきらめる(Al Goreはカーボンオフセットを買って、大邸宅やプライベートジェットでの旅行を補償する)よりも、自分本位の都市近郊に住み、リクレーションや護身のための銃を持つ多くの人々のライフスタイルを変える方に関心がある。普通の米国人は、安定したコミュニティを建設する信頼できる仲間な市民ではなく、貪欲な多数者とみなされる。そして、そのような人々はエリートの宗教教義によって生き方を規制されなければならないのだと。
福音主義キリスト教と温暖化否定論・環境保護反対のつながりは明らかであり[google: denial "global warming" evangelical]、温暖化否定論・環境保護反対の主張するだけでは、「宗教対科学」の構図になってしまう。それを「宗教対宗教」という構図で提示したがっているという面が、これらの主張にはある。


posted by Kumicit at 2009/10/01 07:19 | 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



インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのスタッフで、修士課程まで地球科学で、その後は法律に転じたCasey Luskinの「The College Student's Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design」を見る2回目。

2回目は、Casey Luskinが、インテリジェントデザイン用語「進化」を説明する部分を読んでみる:
Objection #2: Intelligent Design Rejects All of Evolutionary Biology

The Short Rebuttal: Intellgent design does not reject all of evolutionary biology. ID “does not challenge the idea of ‘evolution’ defined as either change over time or common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.”18


The Long Rebuttal: The debate over evolution can be confusing because equivocation has crept into the discussion. Some people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as small changes in the sizes of bird beaks. Others use the same word to mean something much more far‐reaching. Used one way, the term “evolution” isn’t controversial at all; used another way, it’s hotly debated. Used equivocally, “evolution” is too precise to be useful in a scientific discussion. Darwin’s theory is not a single idea. Instead, it is made up of everal related ideas, each supported by specific arguments:

"Short Rebuttal"で書かれているのは、インテリジェントデザイン用語「進化」は明瞭に定められていないが、少なくとも生物学用語「進化」ではない。


Evolution #1: First, evolution can mean that the life forms we see today are different than the life forms that existed in the distant past. Evolution as “change over time” can also refer to minor changes in features of individual species — changes which take place over a short amount of time. Even skeptics of Darwin’s theory agree that this type of “change over time” takes place.

Evolution #2: Some scientists associate the word “evolution” with the idea that all the organisms we see today are descended from a single common ancestor somewhere in the distant past. The claim became known as the Theory of Universal Common Descent. This theory paints a picture of the history of life on earth as a great branching tree.

Evolution #3: Finally, some people use the term “evolution” to refer to a cause or mechanism of change, the biological process which Darwin thought was responsible for this branching pattern. Darwin argued that natural selection had the power to produce fundamentally new forms of life. Together, the ideas of Universal Common Descent and natural selection form the core of Darwinian evolutionary theory. “Neo‐Darwinian” evolution combines our knowledge of DNA and genetics to claim that mutations in DNA provide the variation upon which natural selection acts.

ここでも"some people"がイジマシイが、生物学用語「進化」がインテリジェントデザイン用語「第3の進化」のようだ。
Intelligent design does not conflict with evolution if by “evolution” one simply means “change over time,” or even that living things are related by common ancestry (Evolution #1 or Evolution #2). However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo‐Darwinism (Evolution #3), which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that “has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.”19 It is this specific claim made by neo‐Darwinism that intelligent design directly challenges.


タグ:DI id理論
posted by Kumicit at 2009/09/29 22:11 | 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



インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteのスタッフで、修士課程まで地球科学で、その後は法律に転じたCasey Luskinがこんなものをサイトに掲載した。

==>The College Student's Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design

記述内容は著者名をみなくてもCasey Luskinが書いたとわかるくらいに、Casey Luskinな文章である。ちょっと長いめだが、中味を見ていくことにする。

まずは、インテリジェントデザイン運動にあって、Casey Luskinだけが書いている特徴的な内容から。これはインテリジェントデザインが「観察・仮説・実験・結論」という科学の形式に則っているという「形式的」主張で、Casey Luskinが大学時代から書いている内容[ie >a href="http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154">IDEA FAQ]である:

Objection #1: Intelligent Design Is Not Science

The Short Rebuttal: Intelligent design is science because it uses the scientific method to make its claims. Specifically, it detects design by using empirical data to test its positive predictions. ID is based upon empirical data and uses well‐accepted scientific methods of the historical sciences in order to detect in nature the types of complexity which we understand, from present‐day observations, are derived from intelligent causes. One can disagree with ID, but one cannot characterize it fairly as a “faith‐based” argument.


The Long Rebuttal: Intelligent design uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four‐step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion.


1. Observations: ID begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce specified complexity (also called complex and specified information, or “CSI”). ID theorist Stephen C. Meyer observes that, “Our experience‐based knowledge of information‐flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent.”14

観察: インテリジェントデザインはインテリジェントエージェントが指定された複雑な情報(あるいは複雑で指定された情報あるいはCSI)を作るという観察から始める。インテリジェントデザイン理論家Stephen C. Meyerは「我々の情報の流れの経験的知識は、大量の指定された複雑な情報、特にコードと言語は、常に心や個人的エージェントのインテリジェントなソースから始まる」と観察している。[14]

[14] Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004).
Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaakでは、大枠としては、以下が対応する項目:


2. Hypothesis: ID theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI.

仮説: 自然物がデザインされていたら、高度な水準のCSIが含まれているはずだという仮説をつくる。


3. Experiment: Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain CSI. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity (IC), which exists in systems composed of “several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”15 IC can be experimentally tested by reverse‐engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function.

実験: 科学者は自然物に対して実験して、それがCSIを含んでいるか決定する。容易に検証可能なCSIは還元不可能な複雑さ(IC)である。これは複数の部品から構成されるシステムで、それらは相互作用して基本的な機能を実現していて、ひとつでも部品を取り去ると有効な機能を失うというものである[15]。還元不可能な複雑さ(IC)は生物学的構造をリバースエンジニアリングして、全部品が機能に必要か確かめることで経験的に検証できる。

4. Conclusion: Irreducibly complex systems would be unlikely to evolve through a Darwinian process because there exists no evolutionary pathway wherein they could remain functional during each small evolutionary step.16 IC is a reliable indicator of design because “[i]n all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system.”17 When ID researchers find IC in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

結論: 還元不可能に複雑なシステムはダーウィンの過程では進化しそうにない。というのは、各進化ステップを通して機能を残す進化経路が存在しないからだ[16]。還元不可能な複雑さはデザインの信頼できる指標である。というのは、経験また観測によって、システムの起源がわかっている、あらゆる還元不可能に複雑なシステムは、システムの起源にインテリジェントデザインあるいはエンジニアが役割を演じていからだ[17]。インテリジェントデザイン研究者が、生物に還元不可能な複雑さを見つけたら、彼らはそのような構造はデザインされたと結論する。

[15] Michael J. Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference, in Intelligent Design Creationism, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, pg. 247 (Robert T. Pennock ed., MIT Press 2001).
[16] As Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”)
[17] Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer, Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria, in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, pg. 8, at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389




ID is an historical science, meaning it employs the principle of uniformitarianism, which holds that the “present is the key to the past.” ID thus begins with present‐day observations of the products of human or animal intelligence and notes the types of information that result. ID theorists then examine the historical record to determine if those same informational properties exist in nature and therefore warrant explanation by design. Design proponents thus use standard uniformitarian reasoning to apply an empirically‐derived cause‐and‐effect relationship between intelligence and certain types of informational patterns to the historical scientific record in order to account for the origin of various natural phenomena.


ID is not a “faith‐based” argument. It is an empirically‐based argument that seeks to detect in nature the types of complexity which we know derive from intelligent causes. One can disagree with the conclusions of ID, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based upon religion, faith, or divine revelation.

タイトルは「Objection #1: Intelligent Design Is Not Science (「インテリジェントデザインは科学ではない」への反論)」だったが、いつのまにか「インテリジェントデザインは宗教だ」への反論になっている。まあ、それはどうでもいいことだが。

posted by Kumicit at 2009/09/28 23:14 | 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