Cornell Universityで生物学を教えるCornell Universityによれば、インテリジェントデザインを大学に広めるIDEA CenterによるIDEA Club活動が事実上、死滅している。

==>The "Intelligent Design" Movement on College and University Campuses is Dead (2008/12/22) on Evolution List by Allen MacNeill

IDEA CenterIDEA Club一覧のページに40のIDEA Clubが紹介されているのだが、Allen MacNeillが調べたところ、Clubのサイトが実際に存在するところが、ほとんどなく、あっても更新されることがなくなっていた。


  • 実在 .......................................... 6個
  • IDEA Center内に専用ページがあるが表題のみ .... 7個
  • IDEA Center内のClubトップページへのリンク .... 5個
  • IDEA Centerのプレスリリースへのリンク ........ 14個
  • ページが存在しない ........................... 8個

  1. University of California at Bekeley [大学内のブログ]
    2005年9月(2), 10月(4), 2006年2月(2), 3月(5), 4月(1)の合計14エントリ。イベント案内や出版物案内のみ。
  2. University of Texas at Dallas [大学内のページ][最終更新2005/06/14]
  3. University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada [大学内のページ]
  4. California State University of Sacramento [IDEA Center内]
  5. Armstrong Atlantic State University [Blogspotのブログ]
    エントリが2個だけあるブログ(2006/01/09, 2005/12/08)。
  6. Baraboo, Wisconsin [geocitiesのwebページ]

  7. Pulaski Academy [IDEA Center内 表題のみ]
  8. California State University of Sacramento [IDEA Center内 表題のみ]
  9. Vanderbilt University [IDEA Center内 表題のみ]
  10. Long Beach City College [IDEA Center内 表題のみ]
  11. Southern Lehigh High School [IDEA Center内 表題のみ]
  12. University of San Francisco [IDEA Center内 表題のみ]
  13. IDEA Chapter Madison, SD [IDEA Center内 表題のみ]

  14. Scripps Ranch High School [IDEA Center内 クラブトップページへのリンク]
  15. University of Missouri, Columbia [IDEA Center内 クラブトップページへのリンク]
  16. Stanford [IDEA Center内 クラブトップページへのリンク]
  17. Boise State University [IDEA Center内 クラブトップページへのリンク]
  18. Ole' Miss (University of Mississippi) [IDEA Center内 クラブトップページへのリンク]

  19. Hillsdale College [press release 2003/09/20]
  20. Braeside High School, Nairobi, Kenya [press release 2003/9/15 , Kenya]
  21. Franciscan University of Steubenville [press release 2004/03/12]
  22. Midwestern State University, Texas [press release 2004/04/13]
  23. University of the Philippines, Tacloban College [press release 2004/07/11]
  24. University of Virginia [press release 2004/08/14]
  25. South Mecklenburg High School [press release 2004/08/14]
  26. Fork Union Military Academy [press release 2004/08/14]
  27. Wake Forest University, North Carolina [press release 2006/04/06]
  28. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [press release 2006/04/06]
  29. James Madison University [press release 2006/04/06]
  30. George Mason University [press release 2006/04/06]
  31. Western Baptist College, Oregon [press release 2006/04/06]
  32. Westminster College, Missouri [press release 2005/03/03]

  33. Cornell University [データベースエラー]
  34. University of California at San Diego [ページ存在せず]
  35. Myers Park High School [サイト存在せず]
  36. University of Oklahoma [サイト存在せず]
  37. Poway High School [IDEA Center内 ページ存在せず]
  38. Tri-Cities IDEA Club [IDEA Center内 ページ存在せず]
  39. Seattle Central Community College [IDEA Center内 ページ存在せず]
  40. University of Nebraska, Lincoln [Geocity ページ存在せず]


posted by Kumicit at 2008/12/24 00:00 | 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


Dmanisiの化石は中間化石ではないと言うLuskinとAnswers in Genesis

Jim Foleyが、「グルジア共和国Dmanisiで発見された、ホモハビリスとホモエレクトスの中間的な特徴を持つ化石:について、"若い地球の創造論"ミニストリAnswers in Genesisが現代の人間の変異の範囲内と主張し、インテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery InstituteのCasey Luskinが類人猿そのものだと主張していたことを発見した:
Recently, I blogged about the newly discovered skeletal bones of the Dmanisi hominids (Lordkipanidze et al. 2007, Gibbons 2007, Lieberman 2007), and the Discovery Institute’s response to them. (In a nutshell, Casey Luskin of the DI attempted to argue that the Dmanisi hominids were apes, an argument that is untenable for any number of reasons).

最近、私は新たに発見されたDmaisiホミニドの化石骨格[Lordkipanidze et al 2007, Gibbons 2007, Lieberman 2007]についてブログ記事を書き、Discovery Instituteの反応を取り上げた。Discovery InstituteのCasey Luskinは、Dmanisiホミニドが類人猿であると論じようとした。その論は多くの理由により支持できない。

I know of only one other creationist discussion of the Dmanisi skeletons, in an article by Answers in Genesis (AIG) (scroll down to the 2nd item). It is fascinating to observe that AIG has decided that the Dmanisi hominids are humans, in contrast to Luskin’s opinion that they were probably apes. If either side is right, the other must be hopelessly incompetent (not excluding, of course, the possibility that both are incompetent).

私はDmanisi骨格化石について論じた他の創造論者をひとりしか知らない。それはAnswers in Genesisの記事である。おそらく類人猿であろうというLuskinの意見とは反対に、Answers in GenesisはDmanisiホミニドを人間だと判断したことは、興味をそそられる。

Gibbons, A. (2007): A new body of evidence fleshes out Homo erectus. Science, 317:1664.
Lieberman D.E. (2007): Homing in on early Homo. Nature 449:291-292.
Lordkipanidze, D., Jashashvili, T., Vekua, A., Ponce de Leon, M. S., Zollikofer, C. P., Rightmire, G. P. et al. (2007): Postcranial evidence from early Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia. Nature, 449:305-310.
Lubenow M.L.: Bones of contention (2nd edition): a creationist assessment of human fossils, Grand Rapids,MI:Baker Books, 2004.

[Jim Foley: "Dmanisi and Answers in Genesis" (2008/12/02) on Panda's Thumb]
まずはインテリジェントデザインのCasey Luskinから:
Yet these leg and foot bones in many respects resemble modern apes as much as they resemble modern humans. I cannot be faulted for being skeptical of the claim that these species were necessarily evolving towards modern humans.



According to the Figure 3 in the Nature report, the femoral length is like that of a human or a gorilla (Fig. 3b). … Figure 3 also reports the length of an arm bone, as the humeral length resembles that of a human or perhaps a chimp (Fig. 3b).

Nature誌掲載記事のFigure 3によれば、大腿の長さは人間もしくはゴリラのようである。Figure3はまた、腕の骨格の長さが人間かおそらくチンパンジーと似ていることを示している。


In short, these are interesting new finds: Above the waist, they appear to be extremely ape-like. Below the waist, they seem to resemble modern apes as well as resembling modern humans. Yet this species post-dates the human-ape split and is being touted as a species that was evolving into a modern human, not a modern ape. What's going on here?


[Casey Luskin: "Human Origins Update: Harvard Scientist and New York Times Reporter Get the "Plug Evolution Memo"...Sort of (2007/09/22) on Discovery Institute公式ブログ]

一方、Answers in Genesisによれば、「Dmanisiの化石は小さなホモエレクトスにすぎず、ホモエレクトスは現代の人間の変異の範囲内」である:
2. National Geographic News: "Odd Fossil Skeletons Show Both Apelike and Human Traits"

A team reporting this week in the journal Nature announces the discovery of the remains of four individuals found at the site of a medieval castle at Dmanisi in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Dated at 1.77 million years old (by a yet unnamed method) and ascribed to Homo erectus, scientists claim that the fossils “fill crucial gaps in the story of our evolution.”



Thus, the fossils, which the study authors see as filling a crucial gap in evolutionary understanding (and bridging the gap between ape-like ancestor and human), seem to show nearly every sign of being simply diminutive members of H. erectus, who walked as we do and who had, as Lordkipanidze stated, “modern human features.” As we note in Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?, H. erectus was

smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.


Indeed, H. erectus reminds us of H. floresiensis, the “hobbits” discovered in Indonesia ; plus a forthcoming AiG article on this week’s hobbit update regarding its wrist who were also fully human despite their small stature (despite recent yarn-spinning about the wrist bones). Finds like these, along with the Bible’s talk of giants, remind us that human variation has likely decreased in many ways over time -- although the range of human body sizes today is still considerable.

[News to Note, September 22, 2007 on Answers in Genesis]
Casey LuskinとAnswers in Genesisは、Dmanisiの化石が中間化石でないという点では一致しているが、それが類人猿なのか現生人類なのかは真逆になってしまった。


posted by Kumicit at 2008/12/09 09:22 | 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


Michael Egnorの「自己同一性」

Michael EgnorがDiscovery Institute公式ブログで、非物質的なものでないと説明できないものとして6つ例を挙げている。そのひとつが同一性の持続:
Persistence of Self-Identity (自己同一性の持続)

We are the same person throughout our lives, despite a continual turn-over of matter in our brains. The matter that constitutes your brain today is different matter, for the most part, than the matter that constituted your brain ten years ago. Furthermore, your brain matter is organized differently now than it was ten years ago. Yet your sense of identity, which is a fundamental characteristic of minds, is continuous over time. You are you, despite profound changes in brain matter and organization. What property then is the “same” that accounts for you being the same? It’s not matter and it’s not organization of matter. Hume thought that the sense of personal continuity was the result of a continuous string of memories, but his theory begs the question. Who is it that has the string of memories? Continuity of self is a prerequisite for a string of memories, so it can’t be the result of a string of memories. Persistence of self-identity through time can’t be explained materialistically; the most reasonable explanation is that there is an immaterial component of the mind that is continuous over time.

我々の脳内物質は連続的に入れ替わり続けているが、我々は生涯を通じてい同一人物である。今日、あなたの脳を構成している物質の大半は、10年前にあなたの脳を構成していた物質とは違っているだろう。さらに、あなたの脳物質は10年前とは違った構成になっているだろう。それでも、心の基本的な特質である同一性の感覚は時を経ても連続している。脳の物質と構成が違っていても、あなたはあなたである。それでは、いかなる特性が同じであることによって、あなたが同じたらしめているのか? それは物質ではなく、物質の構成でもない。Humeは個人の連続性の感覚は一連の記憶の連続性の結果だと考えたが、彼の理論は問題を回避している。一連の記憶を持つのは誰かという問題を。自己の連続性は一連の記憶の前提条件であって、一連の記憶の結果ではない。時間を通しての自己同一性の連続性は唯物論的には説明できない。もっとも合理的な説明は、心の非物質的な要素が時間を問うして連続的であるというものである。

[Michael Egnor : "The Mind and Materialist Superstition" (2008/11/26) on Discovery Institute公式ブログ]
「一連の記憶を持つのは誰かという問題を」と言って、魂を召喚したいMichael Egnorだが、そんなもの召喚しても話は終わらない。


==>忘却からの帰還: 「魂」をもてあそぶ (2007/10/02)


  • 「一連の記憶の連続性」に従って「魂」も時間を歩まなくてもよい。「一連の記憶の連続性」があるので、逆順でも、ランダムでも構わない。24歳時点を1秒なぞって、次は72歳時点を5秒なぞって、その次に12歳時点を1秒なぞっても、魂から見えるのは常に「一連の記憶の連続性」だけ。
  • 一個の魂が一人の人間にアタッチされていなくてもよい。ミリ秒単位で魂が交替し続けてもよい。一兆個の魂が一人の人間に同時にアタッチされていてもよい。
  • 魂の寿命が1秒でもよい。次々に生成された魂が人間にアタッチされていけば、「一連の記憶の連続性」があるので、自己同一性の持続はあるように見える


つまり、「魂」の仕様について、キリスト教的な限定をかけないと、Michael Egnorの論は何も言ったことにならない。
posted by Kumicit at 2008/12/02 09:10 | 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



2008年4月にインテリジェントデザインの本山たるDiscovery Instituteを率いるBruce Chapman所長は進化論と神が並び立たないと記している:
Scholars seeking a compromise that brings religion directly into the scientific discussion have offered the comforting possibility that God did the creating, but did it through Darwinian evolution. Guidance of an unguided process is the idea. But this vague proposition contradicts what almost all leading Darwinist scientists, including Dawkins, emphatically contend. In Darwin's universe, natural selection is blind, mutations are undirected and humanity is an unintended outcome. If the evolutionary process is guided, then it no longer is Darwinian. And if the evolutionary process is unguided, it allows no room for God. Logically, not even God can guide an unguided process.


[Bruce Chapman: "An Intelligent Discussion about Life" (2008/04/17) on The Seattle Times]
基本的に、この立場は変わっておらず、11年前の統一教会信者Jonathan Wellsの記述はなにも違っていない:
Darwin's Denial of Design is a Serious Problem for Christians and Other Theists

If we are undesigned by-products of a purposeless process, then the biblical doctrine that we are created in the image of God is false. Yet it is a central doctrine of Christianity (and of other theistic religions such as Islam and Judaism) that God created human beings by design.


Many people have been given the impression that the chronology of Genesis is the root of the conflict between Christianity and Darwinism. Surprisingly, however, biblical chronology played almost no role in the initial opposition to Darwin's theory, because most Christians in the nineteenth century accepted geological evidence for the age of the earth. Nor was chronology an issue at the 1925 Scopes trial, because creationist William Jennings Bryan accepted the old-earth view. Historically and theologically speaking, the basic conflict between Christianity and Darwinism is not chronology, but design.

多くの人々は創世記の年代がキリスト教とダーウィニズムの対立の根源だという印象を持っている。しかし、驚くべきことに聖書の記述する年代は、ダーウィンの理論についての初期の対立では何の役割も担っていない。というのは19世紀のキリスト教徒の大半は地球の年齢の地質学的証拠を受け入れていたからだ。1925年のScope裁判っでも年代は問題になっていない。というのは創造論者William Jennings Bryanは古い地球の見方を受け入れていたからだ。歴史的および神学的に言って、キリスト教とダーウィニズムの対立の基本は年代ではなくデザインだった。

Some theists try to avoid problems by accepting everything that Darwinists tell us except their denial of design. But Darwinism assumes that naturalism has a complete explanation, at least in principle, for all of objective reality; so theists who accept Darwinism are left with a purely subjective religion, and design becomes a figment of our imagination.


Despite the good intentions of those who attempt to reconcile Darwinian evolution and theistic religion, a serious conflict remains between the two. Theists who accommodate themselves to Darwinian evolution generally find themselves patronized and marginalized. But do theists have to accept Darwinian evolution?


[Jonathan Wells: "Evolution and intelligent design" (1997/06/01) on Discovery Institute]

posted by Kumicit at 2008/10/31 09:21 | 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父たるPhillip Johnsonが、インテリジェントデザインの内輪向けに書いた記事にこんなのがある:
To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is "slow creation." When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a Creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning.


[Phillip Johnson: "How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won" (2004) on William Paley Institute for Intelligent Design]
In summary, we have to educate our young people; we have to give them the armor they need. We have to think about how we're going on the offensive rather than staying on the defensive. And above all, we have to come out to the culture with the view that we are the ones who really stand for freedom of thought. You see, we don't have to fear freedom of thought because good thinking done in the right way will eventually lead back to the Church, to the truth-the truth that sets people free, even if it goes through a couple of detours on the way. And so we're the ones that stand for good science, objective reasoning, assumptions on the table, a high level of education, and freedom of conscience to think as we are capable of thinking. That's what America stands for, and that's something we stand for, and that's something the Christian Church and the Christian Gospel stand for-the truth that makes you free. Let's recapture that, while we're recapturing America.


[Phillip Johnson: "How The Evolution Debate Can Be Won" (2004) on William Paley Institute for Intelligent Design]

この「良き科学」が何を指すのかは、Phillip Johnsonが科学をいかなるものと考えているかを見ればわかってくる:
The book is forthrightly based on the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but I find no fault with any assumption that is candidly stated and honestly defended, however controversial it may be. I only wish that the rulers of science would state their precommitment to naturalism openly and defend it forthrightly, instead of hiding naturalism in the definition of “science” and then presenting as observed or experimentally tested fact conclusions that are actually derived from naturalistic philosophy.


[Phillip E. Johnson: "Grand Canyon Mystery Tour" (2004/05) in "Touchstone Leading Edge Archives" on ARN]
普通の用語では、自然主義とは科学の原則たる方法論的自然主義(自然現象の説明に超自然を召還しない)と形而上学的自然主義(超自然は存在しないという哲学)を指す。Phillip Johnson用語では、これらは区別されない。というより、方法論的自然主義を認めず、それを形而上学的自然主義(=無神論)の偽装とみなす。


その「良き科学」がインテリジェントデザインなのだと言えれば、良かったのだろうけど、実際はそうではない。Phillip Johnsonは、インテリジェントデザインに教える内容がないと発言している:
I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.


[Michelangelo D’Agostino: "In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley "]

posted by Kumicit at 2008/10/17 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