万维百科

智能设计本文重定向自 智慧设计论

智能设计论(英语:intelligent design,简称智设论、ID)是对神的存在的宗教性逻辑论证。尽管支持者认为智能设计论是一个“关于生命起源的科学理论”[1][2],但其已遭主流科学界视为伪科学[3][4][5]。理论支持者宣称:“与像自然选择般无方向性进程相比,‘某种超自然的智能设计了宇宙和生物的某些特征’此一解释明显较佳[6]。”教育工作者、哲学家和科学界已证明智能设计论是创造论的一种形式、缺乏经验证据支持,并且其假设没一样是能证验或是正确的[7][8][9]

支持者认为,智能设计论挑战现代科学固有的方法论自然主义(methodological naturalism)[2][10],但同时承认他们尚未提出任何具备科学性的理论[11]。智能设计论的主要支持者与一个政治保守的美国智库——发现研究所英语Discovery Institute有关[注 1]。尽管他们认为智能设计不是创造论的一种,并有意地避免将设计者人格化,但许多支持者表示他们相信设计者就是基督教的神[注 2]

智能设计论提出了两个反对演化的主要论据:不可化约的复杂性特殊复杂性,认为生物的某些特征过于复杂,因此不可能是自然进程的结果。智能设计借用了试图证明神存在的目的论论证,来作为反对演化的正面论据:其以人造物品来类比自然系统,并由此推论生物的复杂特征是设计者悉心设计的证据[12][注 3]

理论概要

智能设计是相对进化论的一种假设。智能设计论的倡导者认为,“在自然系统中,有一些现象用无序的自然力量无法充分解释,以及一些特征必须归结于智能的设计。”

智能设计支持者寻找的是他们所声称的“智能痕迹”证据-物体所具有的、必须来自设计的物理特征。常被引用的论据包括:不可化约的复杂性讯息机制和特殊复杂性。智能设计支持者认为,如果生物系统具备一个以上这类特征,他们便推论这些特征来自设计。这个观点与主流生物学相反,生物研究依靠实验和可理解的数据采集,以突变自然选择来解释生物体的变化过程。智能设计支持者认为,尽管智能设计所指向证据的产生过程不可观测,但它对自然界的影响是可检测的。

思想来源

过去的几千年,哲学家们在思辩大自然的复杂性是否意味着存在超自然的设计者或创造者。第一起有记录的关于自然设计者的讨论来自古希腊哲学哲学概念中的“道”(Logos)由早于亚里士多德的哲学家赫拉克利特(公元前535-公元前475年)在现存的零散文件中表露过。柏拉图(公元前427-公元前347年)在其晚期哲学著作中阐述了具有至高智慧和能力的自然造物主概念。亚里士多德(公元前384-公元前322年)在其著作《形而上学》前言中也发表了宇宙的创造者思想。

关于超自然设计者的推理常用来证明的存在。有关讨论的一个著名形式是由十三世纪神学家托马斯·阿奎纳所阐述。1802年威廉·佩利出版的著作《自然神学》里使用了钟表匠类比,但也被用于智能设计假说。在19世纪,这些思辩产生了自然神学,即通过研究生物学来探索的旨意。这一运动促使了搜集生物化石标本的热潮,从而导致了达尔文的《物种起源》的产生。

智能设计在二十世纪被看成是试图改变科学基础、颠覆进化论的现代神学变形。随着进化论被用于解释越来越多的现象,智能设计假说的论据也在变化,但是其根本观点没变:复杂的系统必须有一个设计者。

词源

“智能设计”一词最早出现在1847年的《科学美国人》一期中,虽然与现在的用法没有关联;植物学乔治·詹姆斯·欧曼英语George James Allman在1873年不列颠先进科学协会年会上的演讲中说道:

该词又出现在1903年斐迪南·坎寜·斯科特·希勒英语Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller1903年出版的Humanism一书:“不可能将智能设计在进化过程中的指导作用完全排除。”一个衍生词出现在1967年麦克米兰哲学百科全书(the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy)的文章《上帝存在的神学抗辩英语Teleological argument》中:“简介地说:世界存在着目的论意义上的秩序(设计,适应性)。因此,世界是由智能体设计的。”弗雷德·霍伊尔爵士在1980年代的泛种论中也使用了“智能设计”一词。[14]

运动

时代周刊杂志封面,2005年8月15日

智能设计运动是在基督教智囊团体发现研究院(Discovery Institute)的指导下,有组织的新创造论活动,目的是推动宗教日程,呼吁在美国的公共领域进行广泛的社会学术政治变革。这个运动的总体目标是,“击败以进化论为代表的唯物主义世界观”,令科学基督教神学信仰相对立。[15]

菲力普·约翰逊英语Phillip E. Johnson是智能设计运动之父,他说这个运动的目标是,把创造论铸造成科学概念。[16][17]智能设计的所有重要支持者都是发现研究院和旗下的科学与文化中心的成员。[18]几乎所有的智能设计概念和相关运动都是发现研究院,它指导这个运动和运用锲入策略,并且主导相关的教导争议英语Teach the Controversy行动。

智能设计的主要支持者对这个假说本身的说明都彼此冲突。面对一般大众,他们说智能设计不是宗教,同时又声称其理论基础来自圣经[17]当面向保守的基督徒支持者时,为了取得支持,研究院的人又将自己定位为福音派倾向的基督徒:

一个密切关注该运动的专家芭芭拉·佛蕊丝特英语Barbara Forrest对此描述为,这是发现研究院在政策层所做的淡化处理。她写道,这个运动“背离了咄咄逼人地系统化推进智能设计创造论及其世界观的日程。”[20]

宗教及主要支持者

智能设计的立论小心地使用世俗的词汇,并刻意避免指出设计者的身份。菲力普·约翰逊声明,在论点中精心避免高调的神学术语、用世俗的语言播下模糊的伏笔是必须的首要步骤,最终重新引入基督教概念的上帝为设计者,是其目的。约翰逊强调“第一件要做的事就是把《圣经》从讨论中排除”,“我们把唯物主义的偏见从科学事实中分离后,才是可以讨论《圣经》问题的时机。”[21]约翰逊特别呼吁智能设计假说的支持者克制宗教动机,以免智能设计假说被看作“另一种包装的福音派信息。”[22]多数重要的智能设计支持者是基督徒,并且声明生命的设计者就是上帝

对于智能设计是否有宗教根源,倡导者之间主张上的冲突其实是策略层面。例如,威廉·德姆斯基(William Dembski)认为“上帝”或者“外星生命力量”是设计者的两个可能选项。然而在他的另一本书《智能设计论:科学和神学之间的桥梁》(Intelligent Design: the Bridge Between Science and Theology)中,他说“在任何科学理论中,基督是不可或缺的,即便实践者对此不知晓。科学理论的实际用途,可以在不追溯至基督的情形下达到。但是理论概念的合理性必最终归于基督。德姆斯基同时说,“智能设计论是上帝的一般启示……”“智能设计论不仅使我们免于压制人类精神的唯物主义意识形态的捆绑,而且就我个人经验,是使人归向基督的道路。”[23]

智能设计的主要倡导者引用《圣经·约翰福音》的经文作为该理论的基础。[24][17]芭芭拉·佛蕊丝特争辩道,这种声明恰恰说明了实际情形是,设计论倡导者把该理论本质上当做宗教信仰,而非科学概念与其个人宗教信仰相符。[25]

争议

智能设计运动的一个重要策略是,说服公众:在科学家中存在生命是否演化的辩论;从而进一步游说公众、政治家和文化领袖,学校应该“教导这个争议英语teach the controversy”。[26]然而,在科学界并没有这样的争论;科学界的共识是生命是演化的。[27][28][29]广为接受的看法是,智能设计假说只是其支持者的一个掩护,实质的运动是针对这些人说的所谓科学的唯物主义基础没有给上帝留下任何可能性。[30][31]

智能设计论争议的中心有三个问题:

  1. 智能设计论是否可以定义为科学
  2. 提出的证据是否支持这个理论
  3. 在公共教育系统的科学课堂中传授这个理论是否合适并且合法

自然科学使用科学方法建立基于观察的经验主义知识(有时称为经验主义科学)。智能设计支持者试图改变这个定义[32],以其领导者所宣称的有神论现实主义(批评者称之为“超自然主义方法论”,即相信超自然的神祇)来替代科学中的自然主义方法论。[33] [34]智能设计假说支持者认为,自然主义无法解释某些现象,而超自然的解释简单并且直观地解释宇宙和生命的起源。[35]该理论支持者说,智能设计假说的证据以不可化约的复杂性特殊复杂性的形式存在,而这些特性均不可被自然法则所解释。

该理论支持者也从固守宗教中立原则上要求在学校同时教授进化论和智能设计论,声称仅仅教进化论是对创造论信仰的歧视。教授两种理论,容忍宗教信仰的可能性,不会让政府真的提倡这种信仰。许多智能设计假说支持者认为,科学主义本身就是一种宗教信仰—在公众生活中提倡世俗主义唯物主义而侵蚀有神论(主要是侵蚀到反科学的一神论多神论没有一神论那样极端的教义也没有那样严重的教条主义所以比较能接受科学观点),他们提倡智能设计的行动可以看成是在教育和公共生活中让宗教的中心单位回归。某些人认为这个大辩论的言外之意已经超出智能设计假说本身,也有人把智能设计假说看作是其首要鼓动者在社会中扩大其宗教观点影响的手段。[36][37][38]

但批评者对于智能设计没有表达为可信的科学事物,仅仅是试图在公立学校里教导宗教思想,而这恰恰为美国宪法第一修正案的立案条款所禁止。智能设计实际寻求的是公众支持,而非科学研究。[39]况且,如果从字面理解该假说支持者所谓的“所有理论教授同等时间”,公立学校系统或许不存在各理论的逻辑数目限制,因为智能设计假说的恶搞版本“飞行面条怪”也是“理论”。对于复杂性的超自然解释有数个互不兼容的版本。确实如智能设计假说带头人Michael Behe所说,“不能用实验来证明智能设计论。”[40]

虽然进化论并不试图解释生命是如何从非生物体产生的(即“非生物起源”),智能设计假说带头人并不可因此推论说,这一过程背后有智能的设计者起了作用,因为没有证据显示超自然事件的发生。关于智能设计者(无论是一个神或者外太空生物力量)在地球上创造生命的推论,与外星人帮助古埃及人建立金字塔先验论相仿。[41][42]这两个理论中,外界智能的影响均不可重复、观察或证伪,从而破坏了对观察对象的最简解释原则。从严格的经验主义立场来看,只能列举对埃及建筑的已知考证,承认对埃及人到底如何建筑金字塔仍属未知。

对智能设计假说的批评不仅仅局限于科学界,一些宗教组织和个人从神学或道德立场发出反对意见。[43]许多宗教界人士不赞同教授非科学或有疑问的理论,转而支持与科学理论不冲突的有神的进化论。例如,天主教枢机克里斯托弗·勋博恩英语Christoph Cardinal Schönborn的看法是,“自然界具有目的性和设计”,然而对于“科学理论范围内的进化论”不难理解。目前,天主教已于达尔文诞生200周年纪念与达尔文和解。

有些科学界成员认为智能设计不是站得住脚的科学理论,只是一种伪科学美国国家科学院认为智能设计和其他“超自然力量对生命起源的干预学说”不是科学,因为它们无法用实验检验,没有可否证性,并且自身无法产生预测和新的推论。

奇兹米勒对多佛学区案中,美国联邦法院判决,根据美国宪法第一修正案,“在公立学校的科学课程里,把智能设计论作为像进化论一样可选择的理论”这一诉求违宪。法官John E. Jones III指智能设计不是科学,实质上是宗教。

参见

注释

  1. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1. TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. [2012-06-16]. (原始内容存档于2016-05-16). Q. Has the Discovery Institute been a leader in the intelligent design movement? A. Yes, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Q. And are almost all of the individuals who are involved with the intelligent design movement associated with the Discovery Institute? A. All of the leaders are, yes. — Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial.
  2. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Context, pp. 25–26页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆). " ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God", "...[T]he writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Context, p. 35页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆). "defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism".
    • Williams, Devon. Friday Five: William A. Dembski. CitizenLink.com. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family Action, Inc. December 14, 2007 [2014-02-28]. (原始内容存档于2007-12-17). I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God. — William A. Dembski, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, when asked in an interview whether his research concluded that God is the Intelligent Designer.
  3. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). Context, pp. 24–25. "the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. ...
    ...[T]his argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley... [the teleological argument] The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID's 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God."

参考资料

  1. ^ Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design Expanded ed., 1st Harvard University Press pbk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2006: 373 [Originally published 1992 as The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism; New York: Alfred A. Knopf]. ISBN 0-674-02339-0. LCCN 2006043675. OCLC 69734583. [ID] captured headlines for its bold attempt to rewrite the basic rules of science and its claim to have found indisputable evidence of a God-like being. Proponents, however, insisted it was 'not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins – one that challenges strictly materialistic views of evolution.' Although the intellectual roots of the design argument go back centuries, its contemporary incarnation dates from the 1980s".
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 Meyer, Stephen C. Not by chance. National Post (Don Mills, Ontario: CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.). December 1, 2005 [2014-02-28]. (原始内容存档于2006-05-01).
  3. ^ Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan. Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). December 2010, 85 (4): 473–482 [2017-11-11]. PMID 21243965. doi:10.1086/656904. (原始内容存档 (PDF)于2017-08-09). Article available from Universiteit Gent页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  4. ^ Pigliucci, Massimo. Science in the Courtroom: The Case against Intelligent Design (PDF). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2010: 160–186 [2017-11-11]. ISBN 978-0-226-66786-7. LCCN 2009049778. OCLC 457149439. (原始内容 (PDF)存档于2017-06-29).
  5. ^ Young, Matt; Edis, Taner (编). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 2004: 195-196. ISBN 0-8135-3433-X. JSTOR 40072957. LCCN 2003020100. OCLC 59717533.
  6. ^ CSC - Top Questions: Questions About Intelligent Design: What is the theory of intelligent design?. Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. [2012-06-16]. (原始内容存档于2016-03-03).
  7. ^ 引用错误:没有为名为ForrestMay2007Paper的参考文献提供内容
  8. ^ 引用错误:没有为名为consensus的参考文献提供内容
  9. ^ An intelligently designed response. Nature Methods (Editorial) (London: Nature Publishing Group). December 2007, 4 (12): 983 [2014-02-28]. ISSN 1548-7091. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983. (原始内容存档于2014-03-09).
  10. ^ Meyer, Stephen C.; Nelson, Paul A. Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules. Origins & Design (Book review) (Colorado Springs, CO: Access Research Network). May 1, 1996 [2007-05-20]. (原始内容存档于2009-10-07).
  11. ^ Giberson, Karl W. My Debate With an 'Intelligent Design' Theorist. The Daily Beast (New York: The Newsweek Daily Beast Company). April 21, 2014 [2014-05-14]. (原始内容存档于2014-05-14).
  12. ^ 引用错误:没有为名为Numbers 373的参考文献提供内容
  13. ^ 'The British Association', The Times, Saturday, 20 September, 1873; pg. 10; col A.
  14. ^ 'Evolution according to Hoyle: Survivors of disaster in an earlier world', By Nicholas Timmins, The Times, Wednesday, 13 January, 1982; pg. 22; Issue 61130; col F.
  15. ^ The Wedge Document页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆)(PDF file), a 1999 Discovery Institute fundraising pamphlet. Cited in Handley P. Evolution or design debate heats up.页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆The Times of Oman, 7 March 2005.
  16. ^ 菲力普·约翰逊:“我们的策略一直是,在学术界和学校内,将智能设计的标题——实质上就是上帝的真实性,做一些改变。”约翰逊2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2007-06-08.。“不真的是科学争议,也许也不会成为科学争议。这是关于宗教哲学。”约翰逊1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆). “问题是:如何赢得胜利?这就是我开始建立的你们现在看到的锲入策略:抓住最主要的问题——生命机制和信息系统的建立。把圣经创世纪从辩论中剔除,因为大家不想见到所谓‘圣经科学’。这様组织语言进行争论,才能让你的声音被世俗的科学界听见,并且团结宗教反对派。这意味着集中在一个话题:你是否需要一个创造者来创造世界,或者大自然能够自行其是?而避免被其他问题岔开。”约翰逊2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2007-06-09.
  17. ^ 17.0 17.1 17.2 "I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science."..."Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn't true. It's falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth?"..."I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves." Johnson 1999. Reclaiming America for Christ Conference. How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2007-11-07.
  18. ^ Discovery Institute fellows and staff. [1]页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆) Center for Science and Culture fellows and staff. 存档副本. [2014-02-28]. (原始内容存档于2004-07-14).
  19. ^ The Wedge Strategy Discovery Institute, Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. 1998 (PDF file)
  20. ^ Barbara Forrest. 2001. "The Wedge at Work: Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  21. ^ Phillip Johnson. Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999."...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ...This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact." The Wedge页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  22. ^ Phillip Johnson. Keeping the Darwinists Honest, an interview with Phillip Johnson.Citizen Magazine. April 1999. "Intelligent Design is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message. ... The evangelists do what they do very well, and I hope our work opens up for them some doors that have been closed."
  23. ^ Dembski. 2005. Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.Reply to Henry Morris Archive.is存档,存档日期2012-07-29
  24. ^ Dembski. "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory," Touchstone Magazine. Volume 12, Issue 4 July/August, 1999页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  25. ^ Barbara Forrest. Expert Testimony. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial transcript, Day 6 (October 5) "What I am talking about is the essence of intelligent design, and the essence of it is theistic realism as defined by Professor Johnson. Now that stands on its own quite apart from what their motives are. I'm also talking about the definition of intelligent design by Dr. Dembski as the Logos theology of John's Gospel. That stands on its own." ... "Intelligent design, as it is understood by the proponents that we are discussing today, does involve a supernatural creator, and that is my objection. And I am objecting to it as they have defined it, as Professor Johnson has defined intelligent design, and as Dr. Dembski has defined intelligent design. And both of those are basically religious. They involve the supernatural."
  26. ^ Seattle Times. March 31, 2005.Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it?页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  27. ^ National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2006-09-27.
  28. ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2007-09-27. Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society(PDF file)
  29. ^ 美国科学促进会2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆)(PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  30. ^ Coultan, Mark. Intelligent design a Trojan horse, says creationist. 雪梨晨锋报. 2005-11-27 [2009-02-19]. (原始内容存档于2018-05-29).
  31. ^ Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Trojan Horse, A Conversation With Barbara Forrest页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆) Americans United for Separation of Church and State, February 2005
  32. ^ Barbara Forrest, 2000. "Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆)." In Philo, Vol. 3, No. 2(Fall-Winter 2000), pp. 7-29.
  33. ^ Phillip E. Johnson. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education(InterVarsity Press, 1995), positions himself as a "theistic realist" against "methodological naturalism."
  34. ^ Phillip Johnson. "My colleagues and I speak of 'theistic realism'-- or sometimes, 'mere creation' -- as the defining concept of our [the ID] movement. This means that we affirm that God is objectively real as Creator, and that the reality of God is tangibly recorded in evidence accessible to science, particularly in biology." Starting a Conversation about Evolution页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  35. ^ 引述菲力普·约翰逊2001年讲话。Teresa Watanabe. Los Angeles Times (Sunday Front page) 2001年3月25日。“我们所说的是科学界和学术界大多数人都有的直觉,”试图用一个倾向上帝的可选择理论来替代达尔文主义,长老会教徒约翰逊教授说,“我们将消除接受上帝为创造者的文化障碍。”Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator: Believers in 'intelligent design' try to redirect evolution disputes along intellectual lines页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  36. ^ Joel Belz, 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  37. ^ Phillip E. Johnson. American Family Radio. January 10, 2003 "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2007-06-08.
  38. ^ Jon Buell & Virginia Hearn (eds), 1992. Proceedings of a Symposium entitled: Darwinism: Scientific Inference of Philosophical Preference?页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆)"
  39. ^ Karl Giberson. Science & Theology News, December 5, 2005 Intelligent design’s long march to nowhere 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2015-09-19.
  40. ^ Claudia Wallis. Time Magazine, August 15, 2005. page 32 Evolution Wars页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  41. ^ Michael J. Murray, n.d. Natural Providence (or Design Trouble) 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2006-08-20.(PDF
  42. ^ Dembski. What is the position of the NRCSE on the teaching of intelligent design [ID as an alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution in Nebraska schools?] (页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆
  43. ^ "While the ID crowd have some things of interest to say they, are indeed just a revamped God of the gaps and the Paylean argument from design in a more modern form. Their refusal to engage with the theological issues this engenders is their greatest weakness, it is also a deliberate strategy, to try and show to the secular world they are nothing but scientists and philosophers. It also hides from their Christian constituency that some of their people are not Christian - at least one is a Moonie. Their second weakness is to muddy the waters with terms like "methodological naturalism", "operations science" and "origins science". The fact that some leading Christian philosophers in the US(i.e. Plantiga)are also confused does not help. Their third weakness is that they are their refusal to come clean on the age of the earth. This is to try and hide the fact that they have strong links with the young earthers, at least one of their leading people is a strong young earther. Fourthly, the movement is strongly driven by a US political agenda - the "renewal" of US society and culture through the destruction of materialism via it's supposed foundation of "methodological naturalism", the greatest strength of which is supposedto be evolution. The export of this US agenda, redolent with the culture wars, to the rest of the world, is of grave concern." Intelligent Design? 互联网档案馆存档,存档日期2006-08-21. ISCAST Bullentin, Issue 48, Spring 2005. Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology.(PDF file)

外部链接

正面意见

反面意见


本页面最后更新于2021-05-30 19:06,点击更新本页查看原网页。台湾为中国固有领土,本站将对存在错误之处的地图、描述逐步勘正。

本站的所有资料包括但不限于文字、图片等全部转载于维基百科(wikipedia.org),遵循 维基百科:CC BY-SA 3.0协议

万维百科为维基百科爱好者建立的公益网站,旨在为中国大陆网民提供优质内容,因此对部分内容进行改编以符合中国大陆政策,如果您不接受,可以直接访问维基百科官方网站


顶部

如果本页面有数学、化学、物理等公式未正确显示,请使用火狐或者Safari浏览器