خلاصة:
Intelligent design, as a social movement, took shape through Philip Johnson's criticisms of naturalism and Darwinism, his association with individuals such as Meyer, Dembski, and Behe, and the support of philosophers like Plantinga, Moreland, and Craig in the last decade of the twentieth century. In their view, intelligent design is a scientific research program involving academic participation that will demonstrate that an intelligent design governs the universe. Sober, as one of the critics of intelligent design, believes that proponents of the idea of intelligent design are caught in incomplete adaptations regarding phenomena. In his view, intelligent design lacks the condition of testability and therefore cannot enter the scientific and research arena. This article shows that, first, his image of testability is incomplete. Second, intelligent design can, with certain considerations, meet Sober's own criteria. The basis of his objection stems from an incorrect conception of the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer. The first critique of this article can be considered, in addition to a valid syllogistic formulation of Kolmogorov's argument from design, a critique of methodological naturalism.
ملخص الجهاز:
Intelligent Design: An Analysis of Elliot Sober's Viewpoint Roozbeh Zare 1 Date of Receipt: 2016/01/09 Farah Ramin 2 Date of Acceptance: 2016/03/14 Abstract Intelligent design, as a social movement, took shape in the last decade of the twentieth century with Philip Johnson's criticisms of naturalism and Darwinism, accompanied by individuals such as Meyer, Dembski, and Behe, and the support of philosophers like Plantinga, Moreland, and Craig.
Therefore, the key point in contemporary debates is the proof of the existence of an intelligent designer in an ordered nature (possessing complex structures and human life 5); this part is technically called the teleological argument 7 or the intelligent design hypothesis 2.
Elliot Sober, 3 a famous philosopher of science and biologist, is among the contemporaries who have proposed a new type of critique against the teleological argument and the existence of intelligent design in nature.
On the other hand, no hypothesis in science can, on its own, generate an observational proposition and will require auxiliary hypotheses (second dogma); and since we have no independent evidence showing which auxiliary hypotheses regarding the goals and abilities of the intelligent designer of nature are correct, the intelligent design hypothesis does not have the capacity for testability (independent auxiliary hypotheses are not available for it).
In short, recourse to the findings of new sciences, from natural sciences to mathematics and the philosophy of mind, plays a fundamental role among contemporary proponents of intelligent design and may perhaps be the most important distinction of this contemporary movement compared to the traditional teleological argument.
(
, 
, 
)
