|
The argument from poor design, also known as the dysteleological argument, is an argument against the existence of a creator God based on the following reasoning: # An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator God would create organisms that have optimal design. # Organisms have features that are suboptimal. # Therefore, God either did not create these organisms or is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. The argument is structured as a basic modus tollens: if "creation" contains many defects, then design is not a plausible theory for the origin of our existence. It is most commonly used in a weaker way, however: not with the aim of disproving the existence of God, but rather as a reductio ad absurdum of the well-known argument from design, which runs as follows: # Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance. # Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator. # This creator is God. Although the phrase "argument from poor design" has seen little use, this type of argument has been advanced many times using words and phrases such as "poor design", "suboptimal design", "unintelligent design" or "dysteology/dysteological". The last of these is a term applied by the nineteenth-century biologist Ernst Haeckel to the implications of organs so rudimentary as to be useless to the life of an organism. Haeckel, in his book ''The History of Creation'', devoted most of a chapter to the argument, ending with the proposition (perhaps with tongue slightly in cheek) of "a theory of the ''unsuitability of parts'' in organisms, as a counter-hypothesis to the old popular doctrine of the ''suitability of parts''".〔 The term "incompetent design", a play on "intelligent design", has been coined by Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts Amherst to describe aspects of nature that are currently flawed in design. Traditional theological responses generally posit that God's creation was perfect but that humanity's misuse of its free will to rebel against God has resulted in the corruption of good design.〔Harry Hahne, (''The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8, Volume 34'' )〕〔Gregory A. Boyd, (''God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict'' )〕〔ed. Charles Taliaferro, Chad Meister, ''The Cambridge Companion to Christian Philosophical Theology'', (page 160 )〕 == Overview == "Poor design" is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process. In terms of a fitness landscape, natural selection will always push "up the hill", but a species cannot normally get from a lower peak to a higher peak without first going through a valley. The argument from poor design is one of the arguments that was used by Charles Darwin;〔Darwin, Charles. ''The Origin of Species'', 6th ed., Ch. 14.〕 modern proponents have included Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. They argue that such features can be explained as a consequence of the gradual, cumulative nature of the evolutionary process. Theistic evolutionists generally reject the argument from design, but do still maintain belief in the existence of God. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Argument from poor design」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|