Acasă / Creaţia inteligentă

Creaţia inteligentă

Primary tabs

Submitted by nicolae on Dum, 11/14/2010 - 05:37
Română
Ştiinţă: 
Ştiinţă
Societate: 
Religie
Referinţe: 
Educaţie
Tags: 
stiinta
selecţia naturală
pseudoştiinţa
creaţionismul ştiinţific
creaţionism
creaţia inteligentă
existenţa lui Dumnezeu
Institutul Discovery

Ochiul lui DumnezeuOchiul lui Dumnezeu - Imagine prelucrată a Nebuloasei Helix, o formaţiune compusă din gaz şi praf împrăştiate de o stea ce a dispărut, în constelaţia Vărsător, la 700 de ani lumină de Pământ. Fotografia a fost făcută cu un telescop al European Southern Observatory.

Creaţia inteligentă este conceptul conform căruia "anumite caracteristici ale universului şi ale fiinţelor vii sunt explicate cel mai bine prin existenţa unei cauze inteligente, nu printr-un proces indirect precum selecţia naturală."[1][2] Acesta este o formă a creaţionismului şi o adaptare contemporană a argumentaţiei teologice tradiţionale pentru existenţa lui Dumnezeu, dar care evită în mod deliberat să specifice natura sau identitatea creatorului.[3] Susţinătorii săi cei mai de semă - cei mai mulţi fiind asociaşi cu Institutul Discovery, un institut de cercetări politice conservativ[n 1][4]—consideră creatorul ca fiind Dumnezeul creştin.[n 2][n 3]

Conceptul de creaţie inteligentă a fost dezvoltat de un grup de creaţionişti americani care şi-au adaptat argumentele ca urmare a controversei creaţie-evoluţie pentru a ocoli legislaţia americană care intezice predarea creaţionismului ca ştiinţă.[5][n 4][6] Susţinătorii săi afirmă că creaţia inteligentă este o teorie ştiinţifică.[1] Astfel, ei încearcă să redefinească în mod fundamental ştiinţa pentru a include explicaţii supranaturale.[7] Consensul aproape unanim în comunitatea ştiinţifică este că creaţia inteligentă nu este ştiinţă,[n 5][n 6][8][9] ci pseudoştiinţă.[n 7][10][n 8]

Creaţia inteligentă îşi are originea în răspunsul hotărârii Curţii Supreme a Statelor Unite în cazul Edwards v. Aguillard, care intezicea predarea creaţionismului ştiinţific în şcolile publice întrucât ar încălca principiul separării bisericii de stat.[5] Prima utilizare importantă a creaţiei inteligente a fost în Of Pandas and People, un manual din 1989 elaborat pentru lecţiile de biologie din licee.[11] Începând cu mijlocul anilor 1990, susţinătorii creaţiei inteligente au fost finanţaţi de Institutul Discovery care, împreună cu Centrul pentru Ştiinţă şi Cultură, au planificat şi fondat "mişcarea creaţia inteligentă".[12][n 1] Ei au pledat pentru includerea creaţiei inteligente în curricula şcolilor publice, până în 2005, când judecătorul de district la SUA John E. Jones III a decis în cazul Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District că creaţia inteligentă nu este ştiinţă, şi că "nu se poate desprinde de antecedentele sale creaţioniste, şi deci religioase", concluzionând că promovarea acestui concept în şcolile districtului violează Clauza de Recunoaştere a Primului Amendament al Constituţiei SUA.[13], conform căreia Congresul nu va adopta nicio lege care să recunoască o anumită religie.

Notes

  1. ^ a b "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. TalkOrigins Archive. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Trial transcript: Day 6 (October 5), PM Session, Part 1.; 2005 [cited 2007-07-19].
  2. ^ a b c "the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity". Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling p. 26. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian God with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf Horse's MouthArchived June 27, 2008 at the Wayback Machine. (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.
  3. ^ a b "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." "This 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." Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Ruling, p. 24.
  4. ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 700 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism. According to The New York Times "There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth". Dean, Cordelia (September 27, 2007). "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin". New York Times.
  5. ^ a b "Teachernet, Document bank". Creationism teaching guidance. UK Department for Children, Schools and Families. September 18, 2007.  "The intelligent design movement claims there are aspects of the natural world that are so intricate and fit for purpose that they cannot have evolved but must have been created by an 'intelligent designer'. Furthermore they assert that this claim is scientifically testable and should therefore be taught in science lessons. Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science. Sometimes examples are quoted that are said to require an 'intelligent designer'. However, many of these have subsequently been shown to have a scientific explanation, for example, the immune system and blood clotting mechanisms.
    Attempts to establish an idea of the 'specified complexity' needed for intelligent design are surrounded by complex mathematics. Despite this, the idea seems to be essentially a modern version of the old idea of the "God-of-the-gaps". Lack of a satisfactory scientific explanation of some phenomena (a 'gap' in scientific knowledge) is claimed to be evidence of an intelligent designer."     
  6. ^ National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators National Science Teachers Association (August 3, 2005). "National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush". Press release. "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. ...It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." 
  7. ^ a b c American Association for the Advancement of Science. Professional Ethics Report [PDF]; 2001. "Creationists are repackaging their message as the pseudoscience of intelligent design theory."

References

  1. ^ a b c Discovery Institute. Top Questions-1.What is the theory of intelligent design? [cited 2007-05-13].
  2. ^ Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center. Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell [PDF]; 2004 [cited 2007-05-13].
  3. ^ The Creationists, Expanded Edition. Harvard University Press; 2006. ISBN 0674023390. p. 373, 379–380.
  4. ^ "Science and Policy: Intelligent Design and Peer Review". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2007.
  5. ^ a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Context pg. 32 ff, citing Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 .
  6. ^ a b c d Washington, D.C.: Center for Inquiry, Office of Public Policy. Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals. [PDF]; 2007 May [cited 2007-08-06].
  7. ^ Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson (May 1, 1996). "CSC – Getting Rid of the Unfair Rules, A book review, Origins & Design"].
  8. ^ Nature Methods Editorial. An intelligently designed response. Nat. Methods. 2007;4(12):983. doi:10.1038/nmeth1207-983.
  9. ^ Mark Greener. Taking on creationism. Which arguments and evidence counter pseudoscience?. EMBO Reports. 2007;8(12):1107–1109. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7401131. PMID 18059309.
  10. ^ a b c David Mu. Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design [PDF]. Harvard Science Review. Fall 2005;19(1). "For most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience"."
  11. ^ a b Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., pp. 31 – 33.
  12. ^ Discovery Institute. Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy; September 7, 2004.
  13. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 04 cv 2688 (December 20, 2005)., Conclusion of Ruling.

Further reading

  • Gross PR; Forrest B. Creationism's Trojan Horse: the Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press; 2004. ISBN 0-19-515742-7. Preview at Google Books
  • Humes E. Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul. New York, N.Y: ECCO; 2007. ISBN 0-06-088548-3.
  • Edis T; Young M. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press; 2006. ISBN 0-8135-3872-6. Preview at Google Books
  • Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design. New York: Henry Holt; 2007. ISBN 978-0-8050-8306-4.
  • Slack G. The Battle over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2007. ISBN 0-7879-8786-7. Preview at Google Books
ID perspectives
Non-ID perspectives
Media articles

Acest articol conţine materiale traduse şi adaptate din Wikipedia de Nicolae Sfetcu sub licenţă gratuită GNU.

Adaugă comentariu nou