|
Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view〔 Article available from (Universiteit Gent )〕〔Pigliucci 2010〕 that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."〔 * *〕 Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID is a religious argument, a form of creationism which lacks empirical support and offers no testable or tenable hypotheses.〔〔 Proponents argue that it is "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" that challenges the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science,〔 * The review is reprinted in full by (Access Research Network ) (10 February 1999 ). * * Whether ID Is Science, p. 66 * Whether ID Is Science, p. 68. Lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also include astrology. *See also 〕 while conceding that they have yet to produce a scientific theory. The leading proponents of ID are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States.〔 — Barbara Forrest, 2005, testifying in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. *Wilgoren 2005, "...the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country." * * * *Attie, ''et al.'' 2006, "The engine behind the ID movement is the Discovery Institute."〕 Although they state that ID is not creationism and deliberately avoid assigning a personality to the designer, many of these proponents express belief that the designer is the Christian deity.〔 Context, pp. 25–26. " ID’s 'official position' does not acknowledge that the designer is God", "...()he writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." Context, p. 35. "defense experts Professors Behe and Minnich testified that ID is not creationism". * — 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.〕 ID presents negative arguments against evolutionary explanations, and its positive argument is an analogy between natural systems and human artifacts,〔 a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God.〔 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. ... ...()his argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley... (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."〕 Both irreducible complexity and specified complexity present detailed negative assertions that certain features (biological and informational, respectively) are too complex to be the result of natural processes. Proponents then conclude by analogy that these features are evidence of design.〔〔 〕 Detailed scientific examination has rebutted the claims that evolutionary explanations are inadequate, and this premise of intelligent design—that evidence against evolution constitutes evidence for design—has been criticized as a false dichotomy.〔 Whether ID Is Science, p. 64.〕〔 * Originally published in ''Bios'' (July 1998) 70:40–45.〕 Though the phrase "intelligent design" had featured previously in theological discussions of the design argument,〔 the first publication of the term ''intelligent design'' in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in ''Of Pandas and People'',〔〔 Context, pp. 31–33. 〕 a 1989 textbook intended for high school biology classes. The term was substituted into drafts of the book after the 1987 United States Supreme Court's ''Edwards v. Aguillard'' decision, which barred the teaching of ''creation science'' in public schools on constitutional grounds.〔 Context, p. 32 ''ff'', citing 〕 From the mid-1990s, the intelligent design movement (IDM), supported by the Discovery Institute,〔 * Johnson interviewed in November 2000. * *Downey 2006 〕 advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula. This led to the 2005 ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' trial in which U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,〔 Whether ID Is Science, p. 69 and Curriculum, Conclusion, p. 136. 〕 often described as the "wall of separation between church and state". ==History== 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「intelligent design」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|