Revista Científica General José María Córdova
ISSN: 1900-6586
ISSN electrónico: 2500-7645 (En línea)
Escuela Militar de Cadetes General José María Córdova
Calle 80 N° 38-00
Bogotá-Colombia
Teléfono: 3770850 Ext. 1104
Correo electrónico: revistacientifica@esmic.edu.co
La evolución del diseño inteligente: entre religión y ciencia
Enrique Sandino Vargas, Marta Caccamo, Sumaya Hashim, Oskar Eng
Resumen
Este trabajo evalúa el diseño inteligente (DI) como una pseudociencia. La ciencia ha incorporado muchas definiciones; asimismo la pseudociencia. Ambas han sido discutidas en diversos ámbitos. En lo que atañe a la esfera política, están caracterizados por una pluralidad de conflictos de visiones en discusión. No existe una sola filosofía de la ciencia, y en consecuencia tampoco una sola metodología de la ciencia. Los criterios de demarcación no son una cuestión clara. Esto se torna problemático al evaluar el diseño inteligente. El diseño, en particular, tal como lo conciben los científicos que consideran que no hay razones para incluirlo en el campo científico en su pretensión de que carece de cientificidad. Lo que hacemos aquí es seleccionar un conjunto de definiciones de pseudociencia y ver si el DI satisface los criterios de demarcación. Dado que nuestra unidad de análisis es el DI, se plantea la pregunta si el diseño inteligente es una pseudociencia, o si se puede caracterizar el diseño inteligente como una o varias formas de pseudociencia.
Palabras clave
criterios de demarcación; diseño inteligente; naturalismo; pseudociencia; método científico
Texto completo: PDF
Referencias
Aquinas, T. (2010). Summa Theologica: Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province: MobileReference.
Baigrie, B.S., 1988. Siegel on the Rationality of Science, Philosophy of Science, 55: 435–441.
Beckwith, F. J. (2003). Science and religion twenty years after McLean v. Arkansas: Evolution, public education, and the new challenge of intelligent design. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 26, 455.
Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin's black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution: Simon and Schuster.
Davis, P. W., Kenyon, D. H., & Thaxton, C. B. (1993). Of pandas and people: The central question of biological origins: Foundation for Thought & Ethics.
Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a world without design: New York: WW Norton.
Dembski, W. (1998). Science and Design. First Things, 21-27.
Dembski, W., (1999). Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology.
Dembski, W. (2006). In defense of intelligent design. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, Oxford Handbooks in Religion and Theology: Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dembski, W., & McDowell, S. (2008). Understanding intelligent design: Harvest House Publishers.
Dunér, D. (2016). Swedenborg and the plurality of worlds: Astrotheology in the eighteenth century. Zygon®, 51(2), 450-479.
Gardner, Martin (1957), Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (2nd, revised & expanded ed.), Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-20394-8,
George, M. (2013). What would Thomas Aquinas say about Intelligent Design? New Blackfriars, 94(1054), 676-700.
Fuller, Steve, (1985). The demarcation of science: a problem whose demise has been greatly exaggerated, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 66: 329–341.
Hansson, S., O. (2009). Cutting the Gordian Knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23, pp.237-243.
Hume, D. (2003). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Koperski, J. (2008). Two bad ways to attack intelligent design and two good ones. Zygon®, 43(2), 433-449.
Mc Pherson, T. (1972). What is the argument from design? The Argument from Design, 1-13: Springer.
Paley, W. (1833). Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Atttributes of the Deity: Collected from the Appearances of Nature: Lincoln Edmands & Company.
Peterson, G. R. (2002). The Intelligent‐Design Movement: Science or Ideology? Zygon®, 37(1), 7-23.
Pullen, S. (2005). Intelligent Design Or Evolution? : Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design: Intelligent Design Books.
Sedley, D. (2008). Oxford studies in ancient philosophy (Vol. 33): Oxford Studies in Ancient Phil.
Wallis, C. (2005). The evolution wars. Time, 166(7), 26-35.
Wexler, J. D. (1997). Of Pandas, People, and the First Amendment: The Constitutionality of Teaching Intelligent Design in the Public Schools. Stanford Law Review, 439-470.
Woodruff, P. (2006). Socrates among the Sophists. A Companion to Socrates, 36.
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Um amigo destacou dois parágrafos deste artigo:
"The ID assumption is normative in that from its utterance; it requires the inference that anything, which is unexplainable by the naturalistic argument,
is designed. The scientific assumption is agnostic; it does not attribute all to evolution, it remains open-minded. In this sense, ID is pseudoscientific in that it fails to remain open-minded despite its lack of evidence and logical coherence."
Isso parece dizer que o DI é um argumento Designer das Lacunas, em vez de uma inferência a partir da complexidade especificada... e minimiza o modo que o Darwinismo atribui tudo à evolução.
Todavia, eles admitem:
"To the extent that both evolutionism and ID are based on unverifiable a priori metaphysical assumptions, on this level, ID remains comparably legitimate as the Darwinist argument. We cannot stake the assumptions of either paradigm against the other’s and claim that one is superior, as they are not comparable. In this sense, both ID and Darwinism remain sciences, legitimate under the axiom of their own a priori assumptions of the world and its creation."
Há anos salientamos que quaisquer críticas à TDI são, por tabela, críticas feitas à teoria da evolução de Darwin através da seleção natural e n mecanismos evolucionários (de A a Z, vai que um falhe...), pois sendo teorias de longo alcance histórico, a TDI e a Teoria da Evolução são metodologicamente idênticas!
Fui, nem sei por que pensando: Falem mal, mas falem da TDI...
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Um amigo destacou dois parágrafos deste artigo:
"The ID assumption is normative in that from its utterance; it requires the inference that anything, which is unexplainable by the naturalistic argument,
is designed. The scientific assumption is agnostic; it does not attribute all to evolution, it remains open-minded. In this sense, ID is pseudoscientific in that it fails to remain open-minded despite its lack of evidence and logical coherence."
Isso parece dizer que o DI é um argumento Designer das Lacunas, em vez de uma inferência a partir da complexidade especificada... e minimiza o modo que o Darwinismo atribui tudo à evolução.
Todavia, eles admitem:
"To the extent that both evolutionism and ID are based on unverifiable a priori metaphysical assumptions, on this level, ID remains comparably legitimate as the Darwinist argument. We cannot stake the assumptions of either paradigm against the other’s and claim that one is superior, as they are not comparable. In this sense, both ID and Darwinism remain sciences, legitimate under the axiom of their own a priori assumptions of the world and its creation."
Há anos salientamos que quaisquer críticas à TDI são, por tabela, críticas feitas à teoria da evolução de Darwin através da seleção natural e n mecanismos evolucionários (de A a Z, vai que um falhe...), pois sendo teorias de longo alcance histórico, a TDI e a Teoria da Evolução são metodologicamente idênticas!
Fui, nem sei por que pensando: Falem mal, mas falem da TDI...
