So I was an agnostic, and then when I went away to Harvard as a college student, that tendency was very much encouraged. I grew up thinking that to be intelligent or well-educated was to be agnostic and to be liberal in politics. I went through various things in life and found that the agnostic pattern in which I had become socialized was not adequate for me. I became a Christian, and I found a kind of structure for my life that seemed to be a very good thing and to this day has enabled me to get through crises like two strokes.
One thing that fascinated me about the study of evolution was that it seemed to me to give a window into a very fundamental question that was bothering me: Is God real or imaginary? As I read all of the evolutionary literature written for the general public, I saw that some of the proponents of Darwinian evolution were hard-core atheists like Richard Dawkins, and others were not.
Some of them took a view that religion or belief in God is alright if you want that sort of a thing, but they assumed that it was an imaginary thing. I could see that this is why there was so much insistence upon the Darwinian story. Believing in Darwinian evolution doesn't prove that there's no God.
What it proves is that there's no need for God's participation to get all the creating done. Now, is that true? I was fascinated with that question of what's fundamentally true. If this Darwinian story is true, then nature does have all the creative power it needs to produce plants and animals and people.
But if the story isn't true, if it doesn't fit the evidence, then maybe the creator is something more than an imaginary projection of people's minds. Maybe a creator is a necessary part of reality.
That to me was a fascinating issue. It certainly motivated me to think that this was an important subject, not just for biologists or even scientists but for people at large. So it was legitimate for a law professor to address it and for the public to make up their own minds about it rather than to take the word of the experts. That's what makes it important.
They all exist. The question is what are they evidence of? Are they evidence of a mindless and purposeless evolutionary process? It may be that there was a slow development of one kind of thing into something else.
But the important question to me is: Could this all occur solely by unintelligent, purposeless, material processes? Can we say that that has been confirmed? The theory of evolution may be true in a sense, but it may require the participation of an intelligent cause. That is the basic intelligent-design proposition—that unintelligent causes by themselves can't do the whole job.
That doesn't say that everything was created all at once. Well, the alternative is not well developed, so I would prefer to say that, as far as I'm concerned, the alternative is we don't really know what happened.
But if non-intelligence couldn't do the whole job, then intelligence had to be involved in some way. Then it's a big research job to figure out the consequences of that starting point. I'd like to start with the first question. It is sometimes said that the hypothesis that there is a designer is untestable. This is false. It is testable, and the test is Darwinian evolution.
The claim of the evolutionary biologists is that unintelligent causes did the whole job. If they can prove it, then the counter-hypothesis that you need intelligence has been tested, and it has been shown to be false. But what I concluded after reading the literature was that the claim that unintelligent processes have been shown to be capable of doing all the work of creation, from the simplest creatures to the more complex ones, is unsupported.
The evidence for it lies somewhere between very weak and nonexistent. When you try to get proof, you get stories about microevolution. Well, why couldn't it? Often when one asks for a demonstration of the evolutionary changes that Darwinians claim, the answer that they always give is, "Well, it's done very gradually" and "This takes an enormous amount of time, millions of years, whereas we only live to be if we're very long-lived, so it is quite impossible for the evolutionary change to occur in our time limits.
That's why we don't see it. My logical reaction to that is that's perfectly accurate if you assume that the evolutionary change of this enormous amount actually occurs. Then you can give a satisfactory explanation for why we don't see it. But there is another possible explanation for why we don't see it.
The other possibility is that it doesn't happen. I think maybe that's what the truth is. Well, if it doesn't happen, something else must have happened. The problem became clear to me as I read further and further that the one thing that evolutionary biologists are absolutely determined to support is their starting premise that all of the changes that brought about all of the different species and kinds of life on Earth happened by purely natural causes like random mutation and natural selection.
So while there can be arguments over the details, there can be no argument or discussion over the fundamental principle that only natural—which is to say unintelligent—causes were involved. The reason why that premise of natural causes has to be so inviolate and so ferociously defended is that what if something other than purely natural causes was involved?
What would it be? Well, the most obvious answer to that question is it would be God. And they regard this possibility with horror, because it seems to unseat all of their science. It seems to take them back to the beginning or to the Dark Ages, as they would tend to say.
You get God in there and that's the end of science, they think, so that can't be. But I wondered, maybe it could be. I viewed myself as much more unprejudiced in that matter.
I was willing to believe in a biological creation by Darwinian mechanism if it could actually be proved. But if it couldn't be proved, I thought it was quite legitimate to think of something else.
At that point I would say if we can't consider the other possibility then let's not consider it. That's alright with me. But that doesn't mean that we know what did happen. This whole Darwinian story, it seems to me, has been very much oversold.
And everybody is told that it's absolutely certain and certainly true, and because it's called science it has been proved again and again by absolutely unquestionable procedures.
But this is not true. It is an imaginative story that has been spun on the basis of very little evidence. My business was actually making negative arguments.
I looked at the grand story of evolution, the story that is important, the one that catches the imagination of the world and stirs controversy. This is the story that there's no need for a creator or a designer because the whole job can be done by unintelligent material processes.
We know that that's absolutely true, such that any dissent from it should be treated as akin to madness. That's what I was looking at. Now, at this point the absolute certainty, the dogmatic insistence with which the Darwinists told their story, began to have a boomerang effect.
Because it alerted me to the possibility that something is wrong here. If these folks can't even recognize that this isn't that convincing a story, then there's something wrong with their thinking. That was the starting point for my book Darwin on Trial. I thought, This is not something we should trust as a creation story for all of life, because instead of getting evidence of a creation story, what we're getting is evidence of temporary variation in the size of finch beaks or the color of peppered moths in a species.
This is a totally different story. It's quite inadequate for the purpose, I thought. And I think the world should understand this. There is a relatedness. But what does it mean? Say we have almost 99 percent of our genes in common with chimpanzees. We also have at least 25 percent of our genes in common with bananas.
There are these commonalities that exist throughout life. Do they point to a common evolutionary process or a common creator? That is the question for interpretation.
We also reject the claim that ID is a legitimate scientific theory, because it does not exhibit the classical characteristics that a scientific kind of knowledge must have.
Key terms: epistemology, evolution, intelligent design, science. The question on finality and purpose in the cosmos and in living beings is not new. Indeed, it has been faced by several authors from different perspectives in the course of history, including Plato, Aristotle Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Gottfried Leibniz, John Ray, Voltaire, William Paley, and many others Ayala, a.
In recent years, a new controversy has emerged about this topic in certain scientific and philosophical circles of the Anglo-Saxon culture on the so-called theory of intelligent design ID.
This proposal burst on the scene in under the leadership of Phillip Johnson, a Christian lawyer at the University of California at Berkeley, whose book Darwin on Trial first laid out the ID position Collins, Some of its roots.
However ID places its major focus on perceived failings of the evolutionary theory to account for life's subsequent stunning complexity Collins et al. Under this approach, the great complexity of natural beings, and especially of living ones, would be inexplicable in terms of a gradual process, such as that proposed by Darwinism Ayala, b. Moreover, proponents of ID, categorically sustain that the scientific analysis of nature leads them to conclude the existence of a design or plan, and therefore a designer Johnson, As expected, in a sharply polarized cultural environment in relation to these issues, the theory of ID and its defenders have been intensely criticized by those who have seen it as a reissue of the infamous "scientific creationism".
According to these detractors, ID is little more than an effort to dress anachronistic attitudes and religious beliefs with the prestigious cloth of science Hull and Ruse, ; Dawkins, The discussion around the ID theory has acquired attention beyond the academic field, becoming in some communities a subject of public discussion, especially with regard to its teaching in education a institutions as a reasonable alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection Ruse, ; Gooday et al.
This situation has significantly hampered a measured and balanced analysis of the ID theory. Serious debate has been focused almost exclusively on the cases cited as examples of design, which according to some are better explained by chance, or by not well described laws according to others Dawkins, ; Dawkins, While such discussions are of undoubted importance and interest, we believe that there still remains a need for a deep consideration about the epistemological status and scientific validity of this theoretical construct.
In our opinion, a good strategy to proceed in that direction is to examine the work of the authors considered as the leaders of ID. The reader should keep in mind that the objective of this work is to expose the key conceptual elements and the epistemological status of the ID theory.
Hence, we leave the analysis of these proposals, and the responses and counter arguments of the proponents of alternative theories for future instances. In effect, the polemic tone and explicit attacks against the theory of evolution by natural selection contained in the text have made Behe the visible face of the ID theory.
The key concept that underlies the objections of this author to the theory of evolution by natural selection is that of "irreducible complexity", a notion that Behe has not rigorously developed: "An irreducibly complex system -according to the author- is one that requires several closely matched parts in order to function and where removal of one of the components effectively causes the system to cease functioning" Behe, In the light of this characterization and the several examples that Behe provides in his texts and articles, we could define irreducible complexity as a property of those systems whose functions are strictly dependent on their structural indemnity.
Based on the aforementioned concept, Behe has argued that irreducibly complex systems, such as the cilium, the flagellum, the cascade of coagulation and some aspects of the mammalian immune system, among others, could not have arisen according to a gradualist evolutionary model, because it is an all-or-nothing type of problem Behe, In his own words: "Closely matched, irreducibly complex systems are huge stumbling blocks for Darwinian evolution because they cannot be put together directly by improving a given function over many steps, as Darwinian gradualism would have it, where the function works by the same mechanism as the completed structure.
The only possible resource to a gradualist is to speculate that an irreducibly complex system might have come together through an indirect route However, the more complex a system, the more difficult it becomes to envision such indirect scenarios, and the more examples of irreducible complexity we meet, the less and less persuasive such indirect scenarios become" Behe, In other passages Behe has affirmed that not all biological systems are designed.
Concluding design, then, requires the identification of the molecular components of a system and the roles that they play in it, as well as a determination that the system is not itself a composite of systems Behe, Even if this mechanistic approximation has reached broad dissemination in the academic community, it is not shared by all the defenders of the ID theory, and has been the target of many objections.
In fact, proponents of the theory of evolution by natural selection and other evolutionary models have argued that sooner or later the alleged irreducibility of such systems will indeed be reduced by the advance of science, which will provide new and more reasonable explanations than the hypothesis of design Cornish-Bowden, Following this strategy, several prominent scientists have developed alternative explanations to account for the origin and evolution of the biological entities that Behe characterizes as irreducibly complex Doolittle and Zhaxybayeva, For example, Francis Collins, a physician, scientist and leader of the "Human Genome Project," has argued that gene duplication may well explain some features of structures such as the clotting system of homothermous organisms Collins, Others have attacked one of the favorite examples of Behe, bacterial flagella, arguing that such a structure is only the variation of a system whose primary function is not associated with displacement across space, but rather to attack and perform cellular detoxification Miller, Assuming these and several other objections, Behe insists that the idea that certain biochemical systems have been designed by an intelligent agent does not rule out the importance and relevance of other factors.
In the opinion of this author, the ID theory could perfectly coexist with the theory of evolution by natural selection as long as the latter applies to the field of microevolution.
Furthermore, Behe has insisted in the possibility that designed biological systems could have undergone gradual changes over time, according to the principles of natural selection and mutation Behe and Snoke, With this argument, Behe aims to answer the criticism of those who have argued that the ID theory does not give a reasonable interpretation of phenomena often found in living beings, such as vestigial organs and pseudo-genes, for which evolutionary theories are an obvious explanation.
According to Behe, many of these features are the result of the evolution of a primitive structure. The theory of evolution by natural selection could account for variations that this structure experiences over time, while the ID theory explains the appearance of the "original model" Behe, William Dembski, mathematician and philosopher, has developed a probabilistic and quantitative approach to the inference of design, with a higher level of abstraction and formality than that displayed by Behe.
According to Dembski, once confronted with an event, we must choose between three mutually exclusive and exhaustive modes of explanation: law, chance or design. This logical approach constitutes the habitual way by which we conclude that something has been designed in everyday life.
To attribute an event to chance is to say that its occurrence is characterized by some perhaps not fully specified probability distribution according to which the event might equally well not have happened. To attribute an event to design is to say that it cannot plausibly be referred to either law or chance" Dembski et al.
This ordinary procedure -continues Dembski-can be formulated as a scientific one, whose basic concepts are contingence, complexity and specification. According to Dembski, an event is contingent if it is one of several possibilities, or "if it is not the result of an automatic and non-intelligent process" Dembski et al.
Hence, in order to establish that an object, event or structure is contingent it must be shown that it is not the result of a natural law or an algorithm. However, that the event is one of several possibilities, even necessary, is not enough to infer design, because contingence eliminates an explanation based on natural law, but not chance. To eliminate this alternative mode of explanation -say Dembski- we need to introduce the notion of complexity, which he understand as improbability; in this way, to determinate that something is complex enough to infer design is to say that something has a small probability of occurrence.
Nor does it take a stand on such issues as the age of the earth, in order to secure a broad base of support from creationists with differing views.
Like traditional forms of creationism, it claims to have scientific evidence for the existence of design in the biological world; unlike them, it refrains from claiming that the designer can be ascertained to be God.
Yet, although some proponents have suggested that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveler from the future, such possibilities are not seriously entertained. In its scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution, ID's arguments are a subset of those used by traditional forms of creationism.
Q: What is biological evolution? A: Biological evolution is a scientific theory that explains how life on earth has changed over time. The belief that species have evolved existed before Darwin, and was first stimulated by finding fossils of animals that no longer exist. Evolution has undergone many important developments since Darwin's time, most notably the incorporation of genetics.
Q: Why isn't ID a possible alternative to evolution? A: ID is not a scientific theory and therefore cannot be put forward as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.
ID has no explanatory power or predictive power. It simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science. Q: Who is behind the ID movement? There are very few credentialed scientists among the group's leadership, and those who are scientists typically studied in fields unrelated to biology.
Their approach to religion is very different from the leading scientists in the United States who are religious. Most legitimate scientists who are people of faith accept the overwhelming evidence supporting the scientific theory of evolution and see no conflict between the two. Q: What is the "Wedge Strategy? Although ID proponents publicly declare that they are neutral on many questions related to their religious motivations, the Wedge document reveals in clear terms that their assertions are at best deceptive.
The document specifically outlines plans to reverse prevailing scientific practices and methods, and makes clear that the motivations of ID's main supporters are religious, not scientific.
It is indeed curious that they would choose deception to advance their religious beliefs. Q: Why not "teach both sides"? A: This would be like teaching astrology in an astronomy course or alchemy in a chemistry class. In science, however, there is only one correct explanation for each physical phenomenon. Chemical oxidation is the only correct explanation for rusting. Similarly, caloric theory is wrong!
And the ether theory is wrong! Therefore, these incorrect theories are never taught in the science classroom, except perhaps to explain to the student why these theories are wrong. In complete contrast to this situation, caloric theory, phlogiston theory, and ether theory are not approximations to some correct theory. They are simply wrong. Intelligent Design is not a new concept. The ancients asked sophisticated questions about the world in which they lived.
If their questions seem primitive today, it is only in the hindsight of modern science. Consider the following example. I am holding a pen. If I let go, the pen will fall to the floor. Already at age four, my grandson knows that if he lets go of his ball, it will fall. Everyone knows that an object falls unless held up by some entity. The ancients asked: Why does the earth itself not fall?
They answered that the reason must be because the earth is being held up by some divine entity, a god whom the Greeks named Atlas. Moreover, they understood that one cannot ask: Why does Atlas not fall? As a god, Atlas was not bound by the laws of falling; he may remain suspended at will. Michael Behe is carrying on this tradition. He could not imagine any possible physical explanation for the IC of the living cell. Therefore, he postulated a supernatural being.
Intelligent Designer sounds much better. One would think that something would have been learned from past experience.
It has been shown time and again that physical phenomena that are not understood at the moment do become understood subsequently within the laws of nature. Science has an excellent track record and is not to be abandoned lightly. If scientists do not understand some particular phenomenon, they think harder.
In complete contrast to this traditional approach of science, the proponents of ID have abandoned the search for a scientific explanation for IC that is, within the laws of nature and have proposed a supernatural explanation instead that is, ID.
Seeking proofs for the existence of God sounds quaint to the modern ear, but it was a matter of great importance to medieval philosophers, both Jewish e. Why was it so important to these outstanding thinkers to be able to prove that God exists?
To answer this question, one must return to the period that preceded modern science. In the ancient world, discovering the laws of nature by experimentation was a foreign idea. The mathematicians had discovered the laws of geometry by pure reason, and it was viewed as self-evident that this was the appropriate method for studying the physical universe as well. Indeed, performing careful experiments and carrying out detailed observations seemed unbecoming to the philosopher.
An exception was astronomy, where the ancients excelled at observing the motion of the heavenly bodies, the great handiwork of the Creator. Since the heavenly bodies were exalted, observing their motion could not be degrading. However, examining earthly objects was deemed inappropriate for the philosopher — the thinker. Thus, we find in philosophical texts that in contrast to a man, a woman has only twenty teeth the correct number for both sexes is thirty-two.
Such a prosaic act was completely unnecessary. Everything could be determined by reason, logic and thought. The above approach was not limited to the study of the universe. It was believed that all fundamental questions could be answered by logical deduction and pure reason. Since medieval theologians believed that God exists, they naturally assumed that His existence must be susceptible to rigorous proof. Indeed, in their eyes, the inability to prove that God exists might even cast doubt on His existence.
Because of their reverent attitude towards the power of logic, many Jewish philosophers devoted considerable effort to arguments intended to prove that God exists. Although this subject is nowhere discussed in the Bible or in the Talmud, proofs for the existence of God are a major topic in the writings of prominent medieval Jewish philosophers. It is instructive to analyze these arguments and their shortcomings.
Let us now turn our attention to the heavenly bodies, whose ceaseless motion can be observed day after day, year after year, century after century.
What causes the ceaseless motion of the heavenly bodies? The bubble burst in the seventeenth century, when Isaac Newton formulated his famous three laws of motion in the Principia , the most important book of science ever written.
In the above examples, the force that causes the furniture or the ball to stop moving is friction. However, if friction were not present, then the motion would persist forever. In the heavens, there is no friction. Therefore, according to the law of inertia, heavenly bodies will move forever without any agency being required to keep them moving. This is due to the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, which yields the observed elliptical orbits.
Planetary motion is completely described by the laws of nature, without the need to invoke a supernatural entity. It must be God Who is causing this phenomenon. Surely, this is not the path of a believing person in the search for the Almighty. This important point is worth emphasizing.
What is the attitude of leading Jewish scholars today toward possible proofs for the existence of God?
0コメント