: 4





インテリジェントデザインの数学と哲学担当のDr. William A. Debmskiはブログ Uncommon Descentの2005年9月2日付けの記事「 The Spaghetti Monster」で次のように述べている:

The challenge mounted against us is supposed to be momentous. Indeed, how can we design theorists rule out ridiculous designers like the Spaghetti Monster? And if we can’t do that, then how can anyone take ID seriously? Case closed.


I’m reminded of Steven Weinberg at the Nature of Nature conference in April 2000 dismissing all religious and theological discussions of God as the study of “fairies.” Take that Augustine and Aquinas, you nincompoops!

私は2000年4月のNature of Nature conferenceにおけるSteven Weinbergが、神についてのあらゆる宗教的神学的議論を"妖精の研究"だとして片付けてしまったことを思い出す。アウグスティヌスとアキナス、馬鹿!!

What we see here is a case of mass delusion in which a dysfunctional community of smug, cossetted intellectuals tell themselves exactly what they want to hear and then commend each other on their brilliance. Dawkins and Dennett made this self-congratulation explicit a few years back when they proposed referring to atheists as “brights.”

ここで見えるものは集団妄想であり、その中で、機能不全を起こした独りよがりの甘やかされた知識人のコミュニティが、聞きたいものを聞き、互いを賞賛しあう姿だ。Dawkins and Dennettは数年前に無神論を賢明なるものとして提唱し、自らを祝福した。

Questions: Does the Spaghetti Monster consist of durum semolina or some other grain? Also, was that grain as well as its processing into spaghetti designed? Since in all our experience spaghetti is designed, who or what designed the Spaghetti Monster?

質問: スパゲッティモンスターはデュラムセモリナあるいは何らかの穀物でできているか?穀物と同じくスパゲッティに入る過程はデザインされたか?スパゲッティがデザインされたという我々の経験から、誰がもしくは何がスパゲッティモンスターをデザインしたか?


==> インテリジェントデザインの理論家たちは、自らを科学史上の偉人に比する(2006年2月17日)

そして、スパゲッティモンスターをデザイナー候補から排除したつもりになっている。しかし、それは無理。インテリジェントデザインの生化学担当Dr. Michael Beheはデザイナーが悪魔や異星人であると考える人がいても構わないと言っている。

==> インテリジェント・デザイナーが神だとは言わないという偽装は..(2005年11月02日)

MB: That's exactly correct. All that the evidence from biochemistry points to is some very intelligent agent. Although I find it congenial to think that it's God, others might prefer to think it's an alien - or who knows? An angel, or some satanic force, some new age power. Something we don't know anything about yet.


John Sutherlandのインタビュー


カンザスのWilliam S. HarrisとJohn H. Calvertの インテリジェントデザインネットワークが輪を広げているようだ。オハイオにもインテリジェントデザインネットワークが出現していた( IDNET Ohio)。ここにはインテリジェントデザインへの批判に対する反論ページがある。そのひとつに「 Intelligent design is no different than belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster」がある。

Criticism: (From Frank Wylie, Dayton, OH, LINK HERE for full text) -- Being that you are so scientific, you will allow alternative scientific theories on Intelligent Design, won't you? I mean, you could hardly call yourself a scientist if you only allow yourself one deity, right? You ARE objective, right?


I put forward that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the answer to the age old question of where we come AND that it's scientific theory, fully as valid as any Christian ID theory, should be taught side-by-side with the teachings of Jesus.


Response: This criticism, while clever, misses the point. Intelligent design proposes none of the explanations hinted at above, e.g., deities, teachings of Jesus, etc. The Spaghetti Monsterians seem to insist on identifying a specific deity, something that goes beyond science. Moreover, the general criticism is easy to dispose of as follows.


Intelligent design is a scientific inferrence that follows from objective, evidence-based science. There is physical, observable evidence of design in nature. Intelligent design is simply the scientific activity of inferring true design as a hypothesis based on this observed evidence. Intelligent design simply infers a logical explanation in full accord with the scientific method.


If the Church of the Spaghetti Monster has any evidence to support its claims, then, in the interest of objective science IDnet Ohio will be in full support of their evidence-based science. But first, let's see the evidence.



コラムニストJef Jacobyは適当な記事を書いた

Boston.ComのコラムニストJef Jacobyが2005年10月2日付の記事「 The Timeless Truth of Creation」( Discovery Instituteのコピー)で、少し触れている。インテリジェント応援団のような記事だが、彼の 他の記事はインテリジェントデザインとはまったく無関係なものばかり。


As religious spoofs go, it wasn't exactly Monty Python's "Life of Brian," but it was good for a chuckle or two. No doubt that was all the reaction that Henderson was expecting. If so, he underestimated the eagerness of many Darwinists to paint supporters of intelligent design as either moronic Bible Belters or conniving religious fanatics. ....


If intelligent design proponents were peddling Biblical creationism, the hostility aimed at them would make sense. But they aren't. Unlike creationism, which denied the earth's ancient age or that biological forms could evolve over time, intelligent design makes use of generally accepted scientific data and agrees that falsification, not revelation, is the acid test of scientific validity.


In truth, intelligent design isn't a scientific theory but a restatement of a timeless argument: that the regularity and laws of the natural world imply a higher intelligence -- God, most people would say -- responsible for its design. Intelligent design doesn't argue that evidence of design ends all questions or disproves Darwin. It doesn't make a religious claim. It does say that when such evidence appears, researchers should take it into account, and that the weaknesses in Darwinian theory should be acknowledged as forthrightly as the strengths. That isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science.

実のところ、インテリジェントデザインは科学理論ではなく、時間を超えた議論の再表現である。自然界の規則性や法則が高次のインテリジェンス -- 神すなわち大半の人々が言うところの -- デザインに責任を持つものを意味する。インテリジェントデザインは、デザインの証拠がすべての問いを終わりにするとも、ダーウィンを反証するとも主張しない。これは宗教的主張をしない。もしそのような証拠が現れたときは、研究者はそれを考慮に入れ、ダーウィン理論の弱点を、利点とともに認めるべきだ。これは尚古主義でも聖書至上主義でもフライングスパゲッティでもない。それは科学だ。