跳转到内容

智能设计

本页使用了标题或全文手工转换
维基百科,自由的百科全书
(重定向自智能设计论

智能設計論(英語:intelligent design,簡稱智設論、ID)是對神的存在的宗教性逻辑论证。儘管支持者認為智能設計論是一個「關於生命起源的科學理論」[1][2],但其已遭主流科學界視為偽科學[3][4][5]。理論支持者宣稱:「與像自然選擇般無方向性進程相比,『某種超自然的智能設計了宇宙和生物的某些特徵』此一解釋明顯較佳[6]。」教育工作者、哲學家和科學界已證明智能设计論是創造論的一種形式、缺乏經驗證據支持,並且其假設沒一樣是能證驗或是正確的[7][8][9]

支持者認為,智能设计論挑戰現代科學固有的方法论自然主义(methodological naturalism)[2][10],但同時承認他們尚未提出任何具備科学性的理论[11]。智能设计論的主要支持者與一個政治保守的美國智庫——发现研究所英语Discovery Institute有關[注 1]。儘管他們認為智能设计不是創造論的一種,並有意地避免將設計者人格化,但許多支持者表示他們相信設計者就是基督教的神[注 2]

智能設計論提出了兩個反對演化的主要論據:不可化約的複雜性特殊複雜性,認為生物的某些特徵過於複雜,因此不可能是自然進程的结果。智能設計借用了試图證明神存在的目的论论证,來作為反對演化的正面論據:其以人造物品來類比自然系統,並由此推論生物的複雜特徵是設計者悉心設計的證據[12][注 3]

理論概要

[编辑]

智能設計是相對演化論的一種假設。智能設計論的倡導者認為,“在自然系統中,有一些現象用無序的自然力量無法充分解釋,以及一些特徵必須歸結於智能的設計。”

智能設計支持者尋找的是他們所聲稱的“智能痕跡”證據-物體所具有的、必須來自設計的物理特征。常被引用的論據包括:不可化約的複雜性訊息機制和特殊複雜性。智能設計支持者認為,如果生物系統具備一個以上這類特征,他們便推論這些特征來自設計。這個觀點與主流生物學相反,生物研究依靠實驗和可理解的數據采集,以突變自然選擇來解釋生物體的變化過程。智能設計支持者認為,儘管智能設計所指向證據的産生過程不可觀測,但它對自然界的影響是可檢測的。

思想來源

[编辑]

過去的幾千年,哲學家們在思辯大自然的複雜性是否意味着存在超自然的設計者或創造者。第一起有記錄的關於自然設計者的討論來自古希臘哲學哲學概念中的“道”(Logos)由早於亞里士多德的哲學家赫拉克利特(公元前535-公元前475年)在現存的零散文件中表露過。柏拉圖(公元前427-公元前347年)在其晚期哲學著作中闡述了具有至高智慧和能力的自然造物主概念。亞里士多德(公元前384-公元前322年)在其著作《形而上學》前言中也發表了宇宙的創造者思想。

關於超自然設計者的推理常用來證明的存在。有關討論的一個著名形式是由十三世紀神學家托馬斯·阿奎納所闡述。1802年威廉·佩利出版的著作《自然神學》裏使用了鐘錶匠類比,但也被用於智能設計假說。在19世紀,這些思辯産生了自然神學,即通過研究生物學來探索的旨意。這一運動促使了搜集生物化石標本的熱潮,從而導致了達爾文的《物種起源》的産生。

智能設計在二十世紀被看成是試圖改變科學基礎、顛覆演化論的現代神學變形。隨着演化論被用於解釋越來越多的現象,智能設計假說的論據也在變化,但是其根本觀點没變:複雜的系統必須有一個設計者。

詞源

[编辑]

“智能設計”一詞最早出現在1847年的《科學美國人》一期中,雖然與現在的用法没有關聯;植物學喬治·詹姆斯·歐曼英语George James Allman在1873年不列顛先進科學協會年會上的演講中説道:

在任何一個無可争辯的事實上,都不存在固有的假設,能够解釋原生物的起源,或就其奇妙的結構來看,斷定演化成為可能—就遺傳和適應性而言,無法知道這些結構是進化的原因或結果。究其所以然,我們在尋找環繞着我們的可感知力量上白白耗費精力,直到我們最終把這些歸給一個獨立意志,深入來看就是智能設計。[13]

該詞又出現在1903年斐迪南·坎寧·斯科特·希勒英语Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller1903年出版的Humanism一書:“不可能將智能設計在進化過程中的指導作用完全排除。”一個衍生詞出現在1967年麥克米蘭哲學百科全書(the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy)的文章《上帝存在的神學抗辯英语Teleological argument》中:“簡介地說:世界存在着目的論意義上的秩序(設計,適應性)。因此,世界是由智能體設計的。”弗雷德·霍伊爾爵士在1980年代的泛種論中也使用了“智能設計”一詞。[14]

運動

[编辑]
時代周刊雜志封面,2005年8月15日

智能設計運動是在基督教智囊團體發現研究院(Discovery Institute)的指導下,有組織的新創造論活動,目的是推動宗教日程,呼籲在美國的公共領域進行廣泛的社會學術政治變革。這個運動的總體目標是,“擊敗以進化論為代表的唯物主義世界觀”,令科學基督教神學信仰相對立。[15]

菲力普·约翰遜英语Phillip E. Johnson是智能設計運動之父,他説這個運動的目標是,把創造論鑄造成科學概念。[16][17]智能設計的所有重要支持者都是發現研究院和旗下的科學與文化中心的成員。[18]幾乎所有的智能設計概念和相關運動都是發現研究院,它指導這個運動和運用鍥入策略,並且主導相關的教導爭議英语Teach the Controversy行動。

智能設計的主要支持者對這個假說本身的說明都彼此衝突。面對一般大眾,他們說智能設計不是宗教,同時又聲稱其理論基礎來自聖經[17]當面向保守的基督徒支持者時,為了取得支持,研究院的人又將自己定位為福音派傾向的基督徒:

除了關注有影響的公眾輿論製造者,我們也尋求在普通民眾(或者説基督徒)中建立大眾支持層面。我們通過研討會的形式來做。我們希望支持這些信仰的新科學證據能夠鼓勵和裝備信徒,同時再更廣泛的文化層面中普及。[19]

一個密切關注該運動的專家芭芭拉·佛蕊絲特英语Barbara Forrest對此描述為,這是發現研究院在政策層所做的淡化處理。她寫道,這個運動“背離了咄咄逼人地系統化推進智能設計創造論及其世界觀的日程。”[20]

宗教及主要支持者

[编辑]

智能設計的立論小心地使用世俗的詞彙,并刻意避免指出設計者的身份。菲力普·约翰遜聲明,在論點中精心避免高調的神學術語、用世俗的語言播下模糊的伏筆是必須的首要步驟,最終重新引入基督教概念的上帝為設計者,是其目的。约翰遜强調“第一件要做的事就是把《聖經》從討論中排除”,“我們把唯物主義的偏見從科學事實中分離後,才是可以討論《聖經》問題的時機。”[21]约翰遜特別呼籲智能設計假說的支持者克制宗教動機,以免智能設計假說被看作“另一種包裝的福音派信息。”[22]多數重要的智能設計支持者是基督徒,并且聲明生命的設計者就是上帝

對于智能設計是否有宗教根源,倡導者之間主張上的衝突其實是策略層面。例如,威廉·德姆斯基(William Dembski)認為“上帝”或者“外星生命力量”是設計者的兩個可能選項。然而在他的另一本書《智能設計論:科學和神學之間的橋樑》(Intelligent Design: the Bridge Between Science and Theology)中,他說“在任何科學理論中,基督是不可或缺的,即便實踐者對此不知曉。科學理論的實際用途,可以在不追溯至基督的情形下達到。但是理論概念的合理性必最終歸于基督。”德姆斯基同時說:“智能設計論是上帝的一般啟示……”、“智能設計論不僅使我們免于壓制人類精神的唯物主義意識形態的捆綁,而且就我個人經驗,是使人歸向基督的道路。”[23]

智能設計的主要倡導者引用《聖經·约翰福音》的經文作為該理論的基礎。[24][17]芭芭拉·佛蕊絲特争辯道,這種聲明恰恰說明了實際情形是,設計論倡導者把該理論本質上當做宗教信仰,而非科學概念與其個人宗教信仰相符。[25]

争議

[编辑]

智能設計運動的一個重要策略是,說服公眾:在科學家中存在生命是否演化的辯論;從而進一步游說公眾、政治家和文化領袖,學校應該“教導這個争議英语teach the controversy”。[26]然而,在科學界並沒有這樣的爭論;科學界的共識是生命是演化的。[27][28][29]廣為接受的看法是,智能設計假說只是其支持者的一個掩護,實質的運動是針對這些人說的所謂科學的唯物主義基礎沒有給上帝留下任何可能性。[30][31]

智能設計論争議的中心有三個問題:

  1. 智能設計論是否可以定義為科學
  2. 提出的證據是否支持這個理論
  3. 在公共教育系統的科學課堂中傳授這個理論是否合適並且合法

自然科學使用科學方法建立基於觀察的經驗主義知識(有時稱為經驗主義科學)。智能設計支持者試圖改變這個定義[32],以其領導者所宣稱的有神論現實主義(批評者稱之為“超自然主義方法論”,即相信超自然的神祇)來替代科學中的自然主義方法論。[33] [34]智能設計假說支持者認為,自然主義無法解釋某些現象,而超自然的解釋簡單并且直觀地解釋宇宙和生命的起源。[35]該理論支持者說,智能設計假說的證據以不可化約的複雜性特殊複雜性的形式存在,而這些特性均不可被自然法則所解釋。

該理論支持者也從固守宗教中立原則上要求在學校同時教授演化論和智能設計論,聲稱僅僅教演化論是對創造論信仰的歧視。教授兩種理論,容忍宗教信仰的可能性,不會讓政府真的提倡這種信仰。許多智能設計假說支持者認為,科學主義本身就是一種宗教信仰—在公衆生活中提倡世俗主義唯物主義而侵蝕有神論(主要是侵蝕到反科學的一神論多神論沒有一神論那樣極端的教義也沒有那樣嚴重的教條主義所以比較能接受科學觀點),他們提倡智能設計的行動可以看成是在教育和公共生活中讓宗教的中心單位回歸。某些人認為這個大辯論的言外之意已經超出智能設計假說本身,也有人把智能設計假說看作是其首要鼓動者在社會中擴大其宗教觀點影響的手段。[36][37][38]

但批評者對於智能設計没有表達為可信的科學事物,僅僅是試圖在公立學校裏教導宗教思想,而這恰恰為美國憲法第一修正案的立案條款所禁止。智能設計實際尋求的是公眾支持,而非科學研究。[39]況且,如果從字面理解該假說支持者所謂的“所有理論教授同等時間”,公立學校系統或許不存在各理論的邏輯數目限制,因為智能設計假說的惡搞版本“飞行面条怪”也是“理論”。對於複雜性的超自然解釋有數個互不兼容的版本。確實如智能設計假說帶頭人Michael Behe所說,“不能用實驗來證明智能設計論。”[40]

雖然演化論並不試圖解釋生命是如何從非生物體產生的(即“非生物起源”),智能設計假說帶頭人並不可因此推論説,這一過程背後有智能的設計者起了作用,因為没有證據顯示超自然事件的發生。關於智能設計者(無論是一個神或者外太空生物力量)在地球上創造生命的推論,與外星人幫助古埃及人建立金字塔先驗論相仿。[41][42]這兩個理論中,外界智能的影響均不可重復、觀察或證偽,從而破壞了對觀察對象的最簡解釋原則。從嚴格的經驗主義立場來看,只能列舉對埃及建築的已知考證,承認對埃及人到底如何建築金字塔仍屬未知。

對智能設計假說的批評不僅僅局限于科學界,一些宗教組織和個人從神學或道德立場發出反對意見。[43]許多宗教界人士不贊同教授非科學或有疑問的理論,轉而支持與科學理論不衝突的有神的演化論。例如,天主教樞機克里斯托弗·勳博恩英语Christoph Cardinal Schönborn的看法是,“自然界具有目的性和設計”,然而對於“科學理論範圍内的演化論”不難理解。目前,天主教已於達爾文誕生200周年紀念與達爾文和解。

有些科學界成員認為智能設計不是站得住腳的科學理論,只是一種偽科學美國國家科學院認為智能設計和其他“超自然力量對生命起源的干預學說”不是科學,因為它們無法用實驗檢驗,沒有可否證性,並且自身無法產生預測和新的推論。

奇茲米勒對多佛學區案中,美國聯邦法院判決,根據美國憲法第一修正案,“在公立學校的科學課程裏,把智能設計論作為像演化論一樣可選擇的理論”這一訴求違憲。法官John E. Jones III指智能設計不是科學,實質上是宗教。

参见

[编辑]

注釋

[编辑]
  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."

參考資料

[编辑]
  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·约翰遜:“我們的策略一直是,在學術界和學校内,將智能設計的標題——實質上就是上帝的真實性,做一些改變。”约翰遜2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin 互联网档案馆存檔,存档日期2007-06-08.。“不真的是科學争議,也許也不會成為科學争議。這是關于宗教哲學。”约翰遜1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆). “問題是:如何贏得勝利?這就是我開始建立的你們現在看到的鍥入策略:抓住最主要的問題——生命機制和信息系統的建立。把聖經創世紀從辯論中剔除,因為大家不想見到所謂‘聖經科學’。這様組織語言進行争論,才能讓你的聲音被世俗的科學界聽見,并且團結宗教反對派。這意味着集中在一個話題:你是否需要一個創造者來創造世界,或者大自然能夠自行其是?而避免被其他問題岔開。”约翰遜2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson 互联网档案馆存檔,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 互联网档案馆存檔,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页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆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存檔,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 互联网档案馆存檔,存档日期2006-09-27.
  28. ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution 互联网档案馆存檔,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. ^ 美國科學促進會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. 雪梨晨鋒報. 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·约翰遜2001年講話。Teresa Watanabe. Los Angeles Times (Sunday Front page) 2001年3月25日。“我們所説的是科學界和學術界大多數人都有的直覺,”試圖用一個傾向上帝的可選擇理論來替代達爾文主義,長老會教徒约翰遜教授説,“我們將消除接受上帝為創造者的文化障礙。”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 互联网档案馆存檔,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 互联网档案馆存檔,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) 互联网档案馆存檔,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? 互联网档案馆存檔,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

[编辑]

正面意見

[编辑]

反面意見

[编辑]