கடவுளை நம்ப முட்டாளே போதும்

[narathar]

முரண்பாடே இங்குதான் தோன்றுகிறது. மனிதனிடம் அறிவு உருவாகுவதில்லை. அது வெளியிலிருந்து மனிதனால் உள்வாங்கப்படும் விடயம். பூமி சுற்றுகிறது, என்ற விடயம் மனிதனால் உள்வாங்கப்பட்ட ஒன்று. அதை மனிதன் அறிந்தாலும் அறியாவிட்டாலும் அந்த நிகழ்வு நடந்து கொண்டேயிருக்கும். அவ்வாறான ஏராளமான விடயங்கள் இந்த அண்டத்தில் நிகழ்ந்து கொண்டிருக்கின்றன். அந்த இயக்கத்தை, இயற்கை என்பதுள் அடக்கிவிடுகின்றீர்கள்.

அறிவு என்பது மனிதனிடம் இருந்து உருவாகாமால் எங்கிருந்து உருவாகிறது? உங்கள் சிந்தனை அறிவு என்பது மனிதனுக்கு வெளியால் இருக்கிறது என்னும் முன் முடிபு அதாவது முடிந்த முடிவில் இருந்து வருகிறது.இதற்கான ஆதாரம் என்ன என்பதே எனது கேள்வியாக இருந்து வருகிறது.அண்டத்துள் நிகழ்வதெற்கெல்லாம் இந்த நீங்கள் சொல்லும் அறிவு தான் காரணம் என்பதற்கான ஆதாரம் என்ன? மேலும் நீங்கள் சொல்லும் அறிவு என்பது எத்தகையது அது எந்த வடிவிலானது, அந்த அறிவு எங்கிருந்து உருவானது அந்த அறிவை உருவாக்கியவர் யார் என்னும் பல கேள்விகள் எழுகின்றன.அந்த அறிவை உருவாக்கிய இன்னொரு அறிவு, அந்த இன்னொரு அறிவை உருவாக்கிய இன்னொரு அறிவு என்று இந்த அறிவு என்னும் விடயம் முடிவின்றிச் செல்லக் கூடியது.

மாற்றாக இன்றிருக்கும் இயற்கை என்னும் தடயத்தில் இருந்தே அறிவியல் தன் தேடலை நாடத்துகிறது.அறிவியல் என்பது ஒரு தடய அறிவியல் அது இருக்கின்ற தடயங்களைக் கொண்டு முன் நோக்கி நகர்வது.உங்களின் சமயங்களைப்போல் இல்லாதவற்றில் இருந்து முன் முடிபுகளுடன் அது தனது ஆய்வுகளை எதிர்வுகோள்களை முன்வைப்பதில்லை.முன்னர் மனிதனுக்குப் புலப்படாத பல விடயங்கள் இன்று மனித அறிவாற்றலால் கண்டு பிடிக்கப்பட்டு உள்ளன.உதாரணமாக மனிதன் எங்கனம் உருவானான் என்பது .பல சமயங்கள் உதாரணமாக கிரித்துவம் ஜெனசிஸ் என்பதன் மூலம் கடவுள் எவ்வாறு ஏழு நாட்களில் இந்த உலகையும் மனிதரையும் படைத்தான் என்று சொல்கிறது, இந்து சமயம் பிரம்மா எவ்வாறு உலகத்தைப் படைத்தான் என்று சொல்கிறது ஆனல் இன்று மனிதன் எவ்வாறு உருவானான் என்பதை அறிவியல் ரீதியாக பல்வேறு சான்றுகள் மூலம் டார்வினின் பரிணாமக் கொள்கை தெளிவு படுத்தி உள்ளது.இன்று மதங்கள் சொல்லும் மனிதனைக் கடவுள் படைத்தார் என்னும் முன் முடிபை பெரும்பாலானோர் ஏற்றுக் கொள்வதில்லை.மனிதனை உருவாக்குவதற்குத் தேவையான கடவுள் என்னும் கோட்பாடு ஆதராமற்றதாகப் போய்விட்டடு.டார்வினின் பரிணாமக் கோட்பாடு எவ்வாறு நிகழ்கிறது என்பதற்கான பலமான சான்றுகள் அணு உயிரியல் வரை விளக்கமாக ஆய்வு செய்யப்பட்டு அதற்கான சான்றுகளுடன் நீருபணமாகி உள்ளது.

இன்று அறிவியல் அணு எவ்வாறு உருவானது பிரபஞ்சம் எவ்வாறு உருவானது என்பதை ஆராயும் நிலையில் இருக்கிறது.இவற்றை எல்லாம் ஒன்று படுத்தும் ஒரு விளக்கத்தை ,தியறியை நோக்கி நகர்ந்து கொண்டு வருகிறது.இந்த விளக்கங்கள் எவற்றிற்குமே ஒரு அறிவு படைத்த எல்லாம் வல்ல கடவுள் அவசியம் அற்றதாக இருக்கிறது.ஆகவே எமக்கு இதுவரை கிடைக்கப் பெற்ற ஆதாரங்கள் விளக்கங்களின் அடிப்படையில் பார்க்கும் போது இயற்கையின் செயற்பாடுகளைத் தோற்றததை விளக்க எல்லாம் வல்ல அறிவு என்னும் கருதுகோள் அவசியம் அற்றதாகப்படுகிறது.அவ்வாறான கருதுகோள் சரியானது என எவராவது ஆதாரபூர்வமாக நிறுவினால் அதனை ஏற்றுக் கொள்வதற்கு நான் தயாராகவே உள்ளேன்.

அறியப்படாத விடயமும் இவ்வாறானதுதான். விளக்கங்கள் சொல்லமுடியாவிட்டால் தற்காலிக முடிவொன்றிற்கு வருவது வழக்கமாகிவிட்டது. பின்பு அதில் மாற்றங் காணும்போது, அதைப் பழைய அறிவென்கிறீர்கள். அறிவு என்ற உண்மையில் என்றைக்கும் மாற்றமிருக்காது. எங்களால் விடப்படும் பிழைகளில்தான் மாற்றங்களை ஏற்பதுத்தி வேறுபடுத்திப் பார்க்கமுடிகிறது.

அறிவென்பது ஏன் மாறாது இருக்க வேண்டும்? இயற்கைதான் மாறாது இருக்கும்.அறிவென்பது மாறிக்கொண்டு தான் இருக்கும். நீங்களே முன்னர் அறிவென்பது விரிந்து கொண்டு செல்கிறது என்று கூறி இருக்கிறீர்கள்.இங்கே மீண்டும் நீங்கள் மனித அறிவுக்கு வெளியால் இன்னொரு மாறாத அறிவு இருக்கிறது என்னும் முன் முடிபுடன் கருத்தாடுகிறீர்கள் நான் கேட்பதெல்லாம் உங்கள் முன் முடிபுக்கான ஆதாரத்தைத் தாருங்கள் என்பதே.

இயற்கையைக் கடக்க முடியாவிட்டால் என்ன கூறினாலும் சரி என்றாகிவிடுமா? உதாரணமாக வாகனம் ஒன்று. அதற்கு இயங்கும் திறனுண்டு. அந்த இயக்கத்தை இயங்கச் செய்வதற்கு ஒரு அறிவு தேவையல்லவா?

அதேபோன்றதுதான் இயற்கையும்.

இயற்கை அது போன்றது அல்ல,ஏனெனில் மனிதனை உருவாக்க இயற்கையாக அமைந்த பரிணாமக் கோட்பாட்டின் விதிகள் காரணமாக இருந்திருக்கின்றன.மழை பொழிய கடவுள் அவசியம் அல்ல என்பது தெளிவானது.மழை பொழிய சூழலில் நிகழும் மாற்றங்கள் காரணமாக இருக்கின்றன.ஆகவே இயற்கையில் ஒன்று உருவாக அதனை ஆக்கும் ஒரு படைப்பாளி அவசியம் இல்லை என்பதை நாங்கள் பல விடயங்களில் அறிவியல் ரீதியாகக் கண்டு பிடித்து உள்ளோம்.

இயற்கையின் இயக்கத்திற்கு ஆற்றலுடைய ஒரு அறிவு தேவையென்கிறேன்.

இதுவரை எமக்குக்கிடைத்துள்ள ஆதரபூர்வமான நிரூபணக்களில் இருந்து இயற்கையின் இயக்கத்துக்கு ஆற்றலுடைய ஒரு அறிவு அவசியம் அல்ல என்பது பல விடயங்களில் நிரூபணமாகி உள்ளது.அவ்வாறு ஒரு ஆற்றலுடைய அறிவு இருக்கிறது என்றால் அந்த அறிவு எத்தகையது அதனைப் படைத்தவர் யார் அது ஏன் எதற்காக உலகைப் படைத்தார் என்னும் பல கேள்விகள் எழுகின்றன.இந்தக் கேள்விகளுக்கெல்லாம் விடை தெரியமால் எந்த ஆதாரமும் இன்றி இவ்வாறான ஒரு கருதுகோளை நம்புவது என்பது முட்டாள்த்தனமானது.அறிவு பூர்வமான சிந்தனை கிடையாது.

அந்த ஆற்றலுடைய அறிவைத்தான் இறைவன் என்கிறேன். வாகனம் இயக்குபவனை தெரிந்து கொள்ளாது. இயந்திரங்கள் எம்மைத் தெரிந்து கொள்ளக் கூடியனவாக இருப்பின் மனிதன் இயந்திரத்தால் ஆளப்படுபவனாக இருப்பான். அதேபோன்றுதான் இறைவனையும் முற்றும் அறியக் கூடிய விதத்தில் நான் / நாம் இல்லை. அவ்வாறு உணரக் கூடிய விதத்தில் நாமிருப்பின் அண்டங்களை இயக்குவது நாமாகவேயிருப்போம்.

இயந்திரத்தை உருவாக்கியது மனித அறிவு என்பது ஆதாரபூர்வமானது.ஆனால் மனிதனைக் கடவுள் உருவாக்கினார் என்பது ஆதராம் அற்றது.ஒரு ஆதாரபூர்வமான விடயத்தை வைத்து ஆதாரபூர்வமற்ற இன்னொரு விடயத்தை நிரூபித்து விட முடியாது.மனிதன் காரை உருவாக்கினான் அதனால் கோழி முட்டையையும் அவன் தான் படைத்தான் என்று சொல்லி விட முடியாது.

மனிதன் உயிரிகளை உருவாக்கும் நிலையில் இருக்கிறான்.ஏனெனில் அவன் அது பற்றி ஆராய்ந்ததால் .மனிதன் அணுவைப் பிளந்து அதில் இருக்கும் அழப்பரிய சக்தியை தனக்குச் சார்பானதாக மாற்றி இருக்கிறான்.மனித அறிவே அவனை வல்லமை மிக்கவனாக இந்த உலகத்தில் மாற்றியது.அதற்கு உறுதுணையாக இருந்தது அவன் முன் முடிபுகள் அற்று இந்த உலகத்தை ஆதாரபூர்வமாக அறிய முற்பட்டதால்.இந்த பிரபஞ்சத்தை அவன் அறிய முற்படுவதும் அவன் அவனது ஆற்றலைக் கொண்டு அதனையும் கட்டுப்படுத்தவே.மனித இனம் இந்த பிரபஞ்சத்தில் தொடர்ந்தும் உயிர்வாழ வேண்டுமாயின் அவன் இந்தப் பிரபஞ்சத்தை அறிய வேண்டும்.ஏனெனில் இந்தப் பூமியின் காலம் என்பது வரையறைக்கு உட்பட்டது.மாற்றாக இந்த உலகைப் படைத்த ஒரு பேரறிவு உண்டென இயற்கையில் நடக்கும் எல்லா விடயத்தையும் சொல்லிக் கொண்டு இருந்தானெனில் அவனால் இந்த உலகத்தில் இந்தப் பிரபன்ஞ்சத்தில் அளப்பரிய சாதனைகளையோ அதற்கான அறிவையோ பெற்று விட முடியாது.அதனாற் தான் எந்தக் கருதுகோளுக்கும் அதற்கான நிரூபணம் என்பது அவசியமாய் இருக்கிறது.

[narathar]

இறைவன் முன் வைக்கும் 'எல்லாம் வல்ல அறிவு' என்னும் கருதுகோள் மேற்குலகில் முக்கியமாக அமெரிக்க இவாங்கலிகன் கிரித்துவ அமைப்புக்களால் தமது கடவுளே உலகைப் படைத்தார் என்னும் கோட்பாட்டை அடி ஒற்றியது.அதனை ஒரு அறிவியர் பூர்வமான விளக்கமாக நிறுவ அவர்கள் முயன்று வருகிறார்கள் இது அறிவியல் உலகத்தால் மிக மூர்க்கமாக பல தளங்களிலும் எதிர்க்கப்பட்டு வருகிறது.இது சம்பந்தமான முழுமையான விபரங்கள் கீழ் இருக்கும் விகி கட்டுரையில் உள்ளன.இது பற்றி மேலும் தகவல்களை அறிய விரும்புவோருக்குப் பயன் உள்ளதாக இருக்கும் என்பதால் அதனை இங்கே தருகிறேன். நான் தமிழ்ல் எழுதிய பல விடய்ங்கள் இதில் விரிவாக ஆதரபூர்வமாக எழுதப்பட்டுள்ளன.

Intelligent design

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Defining science

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge of the natural world without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural, an approach sometimes called methodological naturalism. Intelligent design proponents believe that this can be equated to materialist metaphysical naturalism, and have often said that not only is their own position scientific, but it is even more scientific than evolution, and that they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".[156] This presents a demarcation problem, which in the philosophy of science is about how and where to draw the lines around science.[157] For a theory to qualify as scientific,[158][159][160] it is expected to be:

Consistent

Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)

Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)

Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)

Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments

Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)

Progressive (refines previous theories)

Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency,[161] violates the principle of parsimony,[162] is not scientifically useful,[163] is not falsifiable,[164] is not empirically testable,[165] and is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive.[166]

In light of the apparent failure of intelligent design to adhere to scientific standards, in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent".[167] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and called on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[168]

PZ Myers and other critics also say that the intelligent design doctrine does not meet the Daubert Standard,[169] the criteria for scientific evidence mandated by the Supreme Court. The Daubert Standard governs which evidence can be considered scientific in United States federal courts and most state courts. Its four criteria are:

The theoretical underpinnings of the methods must yield testable predictions by means of which the theory could be falsified.

The methods should preferably be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

There should be a known rate of error that can be used in evaluating the results.

The methods should be generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

In deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005, Judge Jones agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that "we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".

Peer review

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being considered as valid science.[170] To date, the intelligent design movement has yet to have an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.[170][7]

Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence. Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, non-supernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to "journal standards", and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a conspiracy theory.[171] Michael Shermer has rebutted the claim, noting “Anyone who thinks that scientists do not question Darwinism has never been to an evolutionary conference.” He noted that scientists such as Joan Roughgarden and Lynn Margulis have challenged certain Darwinist theories and offered explanations of their own and despite this they “have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion.”[172] The issue that supernatural explanations do not conform to the scientific method became a sticking point for intelligent design proponents in the 1990s, and is addressed in the wedge strategy as an aspect of science that must be challenged before intelligent design can be accepted by the broader scientific community.

The debate over whether intelligent design produces new research, as any scientific field must, and has legitimately attempted to publish this research, is extremely heated. Both critics and advocates point to numerous examples to make their case. For instance, the Templeton Foundation, a former funder of the Discovery Institute and a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that it asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, but none were ever submitted. Charles L. Harper Jr., foundation vice-president, said: "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review".[173]

The only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that made a case for intelligent design was quickly withdrawn by the publisher for having circumvented the journal's peer-review standards.[174] Written by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture Director Stephen C. Meyer, it appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in August 2004.[175] The article was a literature review, which means that it did not present any new research, but rather culled quotations and claims from other papers to argue that the Cambrian explosion could not have happened by natural processes. The choice of venue for this article was also considered problematic, because it was so outside the normal subject matter (see Sternberg peer review controversy[176]). Dembski has written that "perhaps the best reason [to be skeptical of his ideas] is that intelligent design has yet to establish itself as a thriving scientific research program".[177] In a 2001 interview, Dembski said that he stopped submitting to peer-reviewed journals because of their slow time-to-print and that he makes more money from publishing books.[178]

In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing.[34] There, intelligent design proponents cited just one paper, on simulation modeling of evolution by Behe and Snoke, which mentioned neither irreducible complexity nor intelligent design and which Behe admitted did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms.[34] In sworn testimony, however, Behe said: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[179] As summarized by the judge, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his claims of intelligent design or irreducible complexity. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".[170]

Despite this, the Discovery Institute continues to insist that a number of intelligent design articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals,[180] including in their list the two articles mentioned above. Critics, largely members of the scientific community, reject this claim, pointing out that no established scientific journal has yet published an intelligent design article. Instead, intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor,[181] consisting entirely of intelligent design supporters.[182]

Intelligence as an observable quality

The phrase intelligent design makes use of an assumption of the quality of an observable intelligence, a concept that has no scientific consensus definition. William Dembski, for example, has written that "Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature". The characteristics of intelligence are assumed by intelligent design proponents to be observable without specifying what the criteria for the measurement of intelligence should be. Dembski, instead, asserts that "in special sciences ranging from forensics to archaeology to SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence), appeal to a designing intelligence is indispensable".[183] How this appeal is made and what this implies as to the definition of intelligence are topics left largely unaddressed. Seth Shostak, a researcher with the SETI Institute, refuted Dembski's comparison of SETI and intelligent design, saying that intelligent design advocates base their inference of design on complexity—the argument being that some biological systems are too complex to have been made by natural processes—while SETI researchers are looking primarily for artificiality.[184]

Critics say that the design detection methods proposed by intelligent design proponents are radically different from conventional design detection, undermining the key elements that make it possible as legitimate science. Intelligent design proponents, they say, are proposing both searching for a designer without knowing anything about that designer's abilities, parameters, or intentions (which scientists do know when searching for the results of human intelligence), as well as denying the very distinction between natural/artificial design that allows scientists to compare complex designed artifacts against the background of the sorts of complexity found in nature.[185]

As a means of criticism, certain skeptics have pointed to a challenge of intelligent design derived from the study of artificial intelligence. The criticism is a counter to intelligent design claims about what makes a design intelligent, specifically that "no preprogrammed device can be truly intelligent, that intelligence is irreducible to natural processes".[186] This claim is similar in type to an assumption of Cartesian dualism that posits a strict separation between "mind" and the material Universe. However, in studies of artificial intelligence, while there is an implicit assumption that supposed "intelligence" or creativity of a computer program is determined by the capabilities given to it by the computer programmer, artificial intelligence need not be bound to an inflexible system of rules. Rather, if a computer program can access randomness as a function, this effectively allows for a flexible, creative, and adaptive intelligence. Evolutionary algorithms, a subfield of machine learning (itself a subfield of artificial intelligence), have been used to mathematically demonstrate that randomness and selection can be used to "evolve" complex, highly adapted structures that are not explicitly designed by a programmer. Evolutionary algorithms use the Darwinian metaphor of random mutation, selection and the survival of the fittest to solve diverse mathematical and scientific problems that are usually not solvable using conventional methods. Intelligence derived from randomness is essentially indistinguishable from the "innate" intelligence associated with biological organisms, and poses a challenge to the intelligent design conception that intelligence itself necessarily requires a designer. Cognitive science continues to investigate the nature of intelligence along these lines of inquiry. The intelligent design community, for the most part, relies on the assumption that intelligence is readily apparent as a fundamental and basic property of complex systems.[187]

Arguments from ignorance

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.[188] In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science.[188] Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. In scientific terms, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" for naturalistic explanations of observed traits of living organisms. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.

Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "god of the gaps" argument, which has the following form:

There is a gap in scientific knowledge.

The gap is filled with acts of God (or Intelligent designer) and therefore proves the existence of God (or Intelligent designer).

A god of the gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions.[189]

Kitzmiller trial

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center.[190] The suit was tried in a bench trial from September 26, 2005 to November 4, 2005 before Judge John E. Jones III. Ken Miller, Kevin Padian, Brian Alters, Robert Pennock, Barbara Forrest and John Haught served as expert witnesses for the prosecution. Michael Behe, Steve Fuller and Scott Minnich served as expert witnesses for the defense.

On December 20, 2005 Judge Jones issued his 139-page findings of fact and decision, ruling that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional, and barring intelligent design from being taught in Pennsylvania's Middle District public school science classrooms. The eight Dover school board members who voted for the intelligent design requirement were all defeated in a November 8, 2005 election by challengers who opposed the teaching of intelligent design in a science class, and the current school board president stated that the board does not intend to appeal the ruling.[191]

In his finding of facts, Judge Jones made the following condemnation of the Teach the Controversy strategy:

“ Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. ”

Reaction

Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

“ Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. ”

As predicted, John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute's position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it".[192]

Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer".[193][194][195][196]

Subsequently, the decision has been examined in a search for flaws and conclusions, partly by intelligent design supporters aiming to avoid future defeats in court. In the Spring of 2007 the University of Montana Law review published three articles.[197] In the first, David K. DeWolf, John G. West and Casey Luskin, all of the Discovery Institute, argued that intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, the Jones court should not have addressed the question of whether it was a scientific theory, and that the Kitzmiller decision will have no effect at all on the development and adoption of intelligent design as an alternative to standard evolutionary theory.[198] In the second Peter Irons responded, arguing that the decision was extremely well reasoned and spells the death knell for the intelligent design efforts to introduce creationism in public schools,[199] while in the third, DeWolf et al answer the points made by Irons.[200] However, fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.[5]

Status outside the United States

Europe

In June 2007 the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes".[201] In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism. On October 4, 2007, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly approved a resolution stating that schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion", including "intelligent design" which it described as "the latest, more refined version of creationism", "presented in a more subtle way". The resolution emphasises that the aim of the report is not to question or to fight a belief, but to "warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science".[202]

In the United Kingdom, public education includes Religious Education as a compulsory subject, and many "faith schools" that teach the ethos of particular denominations. When it was revealed that a group called Truth in Science had distributed DVDs produced by the Discovery Institute affiliate Illustra Media[203] featuring Discovery Institute fellows making the case for design in nature,[204] and claimed they were being used by 59 schools,[205] the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) stated that "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum" (part of the National Curriculum which does not apply to independent schools or to Education in Scotland).[206][207] The DfES subsequently stated that "Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory; therefore, it is not included in the science curriculum", but left the way open for it to be explored in religious education in relation to different beliefs, as part of a syllabus set by local standing advisory councils on religious education.[208] In 2006 the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority produced a Religious Education model unit in which pupils can learn about religious and nonreligious views about creationism, intelligent design and evolution by natural selection.[209][210]

On June 25, 2007, the UK Government responded to an e-Petition by saying that creationism and intelligent design should not be taught as science, though teachers would be expected to answer pupils' questions within the standard framework of established scientific theories.[211] Detailed government "Creationism teaching guidance" for schools in England was published on September 18, 2007.[209] It states that "Intelligent design lies wholly outside of science", has no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and is not accepted by the science community as a whole. Though it should not be taught as science, "questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory". However, "Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons".[13]

The British Centre for Science Education lobbying group has the goal of "countering creationism within the UK" and has been involved in government lobbying in the UK in this regard.[212] However, in Northern Ireland the Democratic Unionist Party claims that the revised curriculum provides an opportunity for alternative theories to be taught, and has sought assurances that pupils will not lose marks if they give creationist or intelligent design answers to science questions.[213] In Lisburn the DUP has arranged that the City Council will write to post primary schools asking what their plans are to develop teaching material in relation to "creation, intelligent design and other theories of origin".[214]

Plans by Dutch Education Minister Maria van der Hoeven to "stimulate an academic debate" on the subject in 2005 caused a severe public backlash.[215] After the 2007 elections she was succeeded by Ronald Plasterk, described as a "molecular geneticist, staunch atheist and opponent of intelligent design".[216]

As a reaction on this situation in Holland, in Belgium the President of the Flemish Catholic Educational Board (VSKO) Mieke Van Hecke declared that Catholic scientists already accepted the theory of evolution for a long time and that intelligent design and creationism doesn't belong in Flemish Catholic schools. It's not the tasks of the politics to introduce new ideas, that's task and goal of science.[217]

Elsewhere

Creationism has strong political clout in many Islamic countries, and antievolutionary views are mainstream with considerable official support and elite support among academic theologians and scientists.[218] In general, Muslim creationists have partnered with the Institute for Creation Research for ideas and materials which they adapted to their own theological positions. Similarly, some use was made of intelligent design antievolution resources. Muzaffar Iqbal, a notable Muslim in Canada, signed the Scientific Dissent list of the Discovery Institute.[219] Ideas similar to intelligent design have been considered respected intellectual options among Muslims, and in Turkey many intelligent design books have been translated. In Istanbul in 2007, public meetings promoting intelligent design were sponsored by the local government,[218] and David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute was the keynote speaker at a meeting in May 2007.[220]

The status of intelligent design in Australia is somewhat similar to that in the UK. When the former Australian Federal Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, raised the notion of intelligent design being taught in science classes, the public outcry caused the minister to quickly concede that the correct forum for intelligent design, if it were to be taught, is in religious or philosophy classes.[221]

See also

[narathar]

இறைவன் முன் வைக்கும் இயற்கையைக் கடவுள் என்னும் அறிவு படைத்தது அல்லது காரை உருவாக்க மனிதன் இருப்பதைப் போல் ஒரு கடிகாரத்தை உருவாக்க ஒரு திறமையான மனிதன் இருப்பதைப் போல் உலகைப் படைக்க ஒரு அறிவு இருக்கிறது என்னும் கருகோள் காலம் காலமாகச் சொல்லப்படுவது.அதனை நிராகரிக்கும் வண்ணம் ரிச்சர்ட் டார்க்வின் எழுதி பின்னர் ஆவணமாக்கப்பட்ட பார்வையற்ற கடிகாரா வடிவமைப்பாளர் என்னும் பிபிசி ஆவணம்.