“Em 2008, eu publiquei uma resenha crítica da teoria do design inteligente no journal com revisão por pares Earth Science Reviews. Eu cheguei à conclusão de que o design inteligente não pode ser contruído como uma teoria científica, e que o objetivo aparente do movimento do design inteligente era o de restaurar a teologia cristã como a rainha das ciências. Mas eu também argumentei que até onde os criacionistas estavam destacando áreas nas quais a teoria científica era inadequada, eles estavam fazendo um trabalho melhor do que os biólogos. Nós precisamos parar de fingir que a ciência tem todas as respostas. A ciência é um sistema empírico de conhecimento, e nós nunca temos todos os dados. É o destino de cada teoria científica ser suplantada. Até o edifício invencível da mecânica newtoniana caiu diante do ataque da teoria da relatividade.
E é por isso que eu assinei a lista Dissent from Darwinism do Discovery Institute. Não porque eu seja um criacionista, mas porque eu sou um cientista. A religião é conservadora e dogmática. Mas a ciência é progressiva e cética. Nós não podemos salvar a ciência transformando-a em religião.”
[“In 2008, I published a critique of intelligent design theory in the peer-reviewed journal Earth Science Reviews. I concluded that intelligent design cannot be construed as a scientific theory, and that the apparent goal of the intelligent design movement was to restore Christian theology as the queen of the sciences.But I also argued that to the extent creationists were highlighting areas in which scientific theory was inadequate they were doing better science than biologists. We ought to stop pretending that science has all the answers. Science is an empirical system of knowledge, and we never have all the data. It is the fate of every scientific theory to be superseded. Even the invincible edifice of Newtonian mechanics crumbled before the onslaught of relativity theory.
And that’s why I signed the Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwinism. Not because I’m a creationist, but because I’m a scientist. Religion is conservative and dogmatic. But science is progressive and skeptical. We can’t save science by turning it into religion.”]
Em algum lugar os atuais mandarins da Nomenklatura científica e a Galera dos meninos e meninas de Darwin devem estar esconjurando [eu não pude resistir] Deming pela sua coragem e honestidade científica.
Nesta lista de dissidentes de Darwin nós temos membros de Academias de Ciências de países como os Estados Unidos, a Rússia, entre outros. Cientistas ateus, agnósticos e céticos assinaram esta lista. Aqui do Brasil destacamos o Prof. Dr. Marcos Eberlin Nogueira, da Unicamp, membro da Academia Brasileira de Ciências e do NBDI - Núcleo Brasileiro de Design Inteligente - Campinas, SP.
Se você estiver convencido do afirmado na lista de Dissidentes do Darwinismo:
"Nós somos céticos das afirmações da capacidade da mutação aleatória e da seleção natural explicarem a complexidade da vida. Um exame cuidadoso da evidência a favor da teoria darwinista deve ser encorajado", faça como o cientista David Deming, assine a lista. Seja um cientista honesto diante das evidências, e corajoso de enfrentar a Nomenklatura científica.
Clique aqui para o download do PDF da cópia da lista da Dissensão Científica do Darwinismo.
Clique aqui para saber como você adicionar o seu nome à lista da Dissensão Científica do Darwinismo.
+++++
Volume 90, Issues 1-2, September 2008, Pages 49-70
Design, science and naturalism
David Deming
aCollege of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA
Received 11 September 2007;
accepted 10 July 2008.
Available online 29 July 2008.
Abstract
The Design Argument is the proposition that the presence of order in the universe is evidence for the existence of God. The Argument dates at least to the presocratic Greek philosophers, and is largely based on analogical reasoning. Following the appearance of Aquinas' Summa Theologica in the 13th century, the Christian Church in Europe embraced a Natural Theology based on observation and reason that allowed it to dominate the entire world of knowledge. Science in turn advanced itself by demonstrating that it could be of service to theology, the recognized queen of the sciences. During the heyday of British Natural Theology in the 17th and 18th centuries, the watchmaker, shipbuilder, and architect analogies were invoked reflexively by philosophers, theologians, and scientists. The Design Argument was not systematically and analytically criticized until David Hume wrote Dialogues on Natural Religion in the 1750s. After Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, Design withered on the vine. But in recent years, the Argument has been resurrected under the appellation “intelligent design,” and been the subject of political and legal controversy in the United States. Design advocates have argued that intelligent design can be formulated as a scientific hypothesis, that new scientific discoveries validate a design inference, and that naturalism must be removed as a methodological requirement in science. If science is defined by a model of concentric epistemological zonation, design cannot be construed as a scientific hypothesis because it is inconsistent with the core aspects of scientific methodology: naturalism, uniformity, induction, and efficient causation. An analytical examination of claims by design advocates finds no evidence of any type to support either scientific or philosophical claims that design can be unambiguously inferred from nature. The apparent irreducible complexity of biological mechanisms may be explained by exaptation or scaffolding. The argument that design is indicated by the fine-tuning of the universe as a habitat suitable for life is based on an intellectual fallacy of assigning probability to a unique event. Construing the Design Argument as an “inference to the best explanation,” rather than analogical reasoning is essentially an equivocation fallacy that does not rescue the Argument from Hume's criticisms. The intelligent design movement is a threat to the unity of science, as its confessed goal is to restore Christian theology as the queen of the sciences.
Keywords: Design; Creationism; Evolution; Uniformitarianism; Life origin; Philosophy of science; History of geology
+++++
Professores, pesquisadores e alunos de universidades públicas e privadas com acesso ao site CAPES/Periódicos podem ler gratuitamente o artigo de David Deming publicado no Earth Science Reviews e de mais 22.440 publicações científicas.
