DiscoveryInstitute: –Y‹p‚©‚ç‚Ì‹AŠÒ

<< 2017”N04ŒŽ >>
“ú	ŒŽ	‰Î	…	–Ø	‹à	“y
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

TOP / DiscoveryInstitute

- 1 2 3 4 5.. >>

2010/08/07

‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‹³ˆç‚ð–Íõ‚·‚éLivingston ParishŠw‹æ‹³ˆçˆÏˆõ‰ï‚É”½‰ž‚·‚éDiscovery InstituteŠ’·

–¯Žå“}Ben Neversƒ‹ƒCƒWƒAƒiBã‰@‹cˆõ‚ª’ñˆÄ‚µ‚½ADiscovery Institute‚Ìƒ‚ƒfƒ‹B–@ˆÄ‚ðƒx[ƒX‚Æ‚·‚é”½i‰»˜_B–@Act473‚ª锟斤拷—锟斤拷‚µ‚Ä‚©‚ç2”N‚ªŒo‰ß‚µ‚½B

==>ƒ‹ƒCƒWƒAƒiB‚Ì”½i‰»˜_B–@SB733/Act473锟斤拷—锟斤拷 (2008/06/28)

‚»‚µ‚ÄA‚锟絵‚ÌB–@‚ÉŠî‚Ã‚锟斤拷‚ÄA—‰È‚ÌŽö‹Æ‚Å"Žá‚锟斤拷’n‹…‚Ì‘n‘锟斤拷˜_"‚ð‹³‚¦‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ðŒŸ“锟斤拷‚µŽn‚ß‚½‚Ì‚ªALivingston ParishŠw‹æ‹³ˆçˆÏˆõ‰ï:

==>ƒ‹ƒCƒWƒAƒiBLivingston ParishŠw‹æ‚ª‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‹³ˆç‚Ö•à‚Ý‚¾‚· (2010/08/03)

Œ‹‹Ç‚ÍA¡”N“x‚Ì“锟絵“ü‚ÍŒ©‘—‚èA—‰È‚ÌŽö‹Æ‚Å‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‚ð‹³‚¦‚é‚Ì‚ÍA—ˆ”N“xˆÈ~‚É‚È‚Á‚½B

‚ÅA‚锟絵‚ÌŒ‚ÉŠÖ‚µ‚ÄAæ‘—‚è‚Ì•ñ“¹‚ªo‚é‘O‚ÉAƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Ì–{ŽR‚½‚éDiscovery Institute‚ÌBruce ChapmanŠ’·‚ªA‚ ‚í‚Ä‚ÄAu‚锟絵‚ÌB–@‚Å‚Í‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‹³ˆç‚Í•s‰Â”\v•u‚锟絵‚ÌB–@‚ÌŽxŽŽÒ‘S‘Ì‚Í‚»‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚È‚锟絵‚Æ‚Íl‚¦‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚锟斤拷v‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤‹LŽ–‚ð‘‚锟斤拷‚½B

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law last year an act that sets parameters for teachers who introduce scientific supplements on Darwinian evolution, global warming, human cloning and other controversial subjects. The state's Science Education Act encourages "open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied." It specifically prohibits religious instruction or interpretations (or irreligious interpretations, for that matter). The law is simple, reasonable and avoids constitutional and scientific mistakes that afflicted earlier laws in Louisiana and elsewhere.

ð”NAƒ‹ƒCƒWƒAƒiB’mŽ–Bobby Jindal‚ÍAƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“i‰»˜_‚Æ’n‹…‰·’g‰»‚ÆƒqƒgƒNƒ[ƒ“‚Æ‚»‚Ì‘¼‚ÌŽå‘è‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‰ÈŠw“I•›‹³Þ‚ðŽg—p‚·‚é‹³Žt‚É‘Î‚·‚é‹K’è‚ð’è‚ß‚ÄB–@‚É–¼‚µ‚½B‚锟絵‚ÌB‚Ì‰ÈŠw‹³ˆçB–@‚ÍA‰ÈŠw—˜_‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚ÌƒI[ƒvƒ“‚©‚Â‹qŠÏ“I‚È‹c˜_‚ÌŠwK‚ð„锟斤拷‚·‚éB‚锟絵‚ÌB–@‚Í“Á‚ÉA@‹³‹³ˆç‚ ‚é‚锟斤拷‚Í@‹³“I‰ðŽßi‚ ‚é‚锟斤拷‚ÍA‚»‚Ì–â‘è‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ì”ñ@‹³“I‰ðŽßj‚ð‹Ö‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB‚锟絵‚ÌB–@‚Í’Pƒ‚Å‡—“I‚ÅAƒ‹ƒCƒWƒAƒiB‚È‚Ç‚Ì‚©‚Â‚Ä‚ÌB–@‚É‚ ‚Á‚½AŒ›–@–â‘è‚锟絅‚æ‚Ñ‰ÈŠw“IŒë‚è‚ð‰ñ”ð‚·‚éB

But in Livingston Parish, east of Baton Rouge, some enthusiasts for a literal Biblical account of creation decided that the new law gives them authority to teach creationism -- the account from Genesis. That view clearly violates the law and also the U.S. Constitution as it long has been interpreted. Reported statements from Livingston school board member David Tate were so fallacious and confrontational that they could have been scripted by his supposed adversaries if they were looking for ways to make him look bad.

‚µ‚©‚µABaton Rouge‚Ì“Œ‚É‚ ‚éLivingston Parish‚ÌA¹‘‚Ì‘n‘锟斤拷‚ÌŽš‹`’Ê‚è‚Ì‰ðŽß‚ð‹‚ß‚éŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ªA‚锟絵‚ÌB–@‚Ì‚à‚Æ‚ÅA‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‚·‚È‚í‚¿‘n锟斤拷‹L‚Ì‹Lq‚ð‹³‚¦‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ª‚Å‚«‚é‚Æ”»’f‚µ‚½B‚锟絵‚ÌŒ©•û‚Í–¾‚ç‚©‚ÉB–@‚锟絅‚æ‚ÑA’·‚«‚É‚í‚½‚Á‚Ä‚Ì‰ðŽß‚Ì‚Æ‚锟絅‚èA‡O‘Œ›–@ˆá”½‚Å‚ ‚éBLivingstoneŠw‹æ‹³ˆçˆÏˆõ‰ï‚ÌDavid TateˆÏˆõ‚Ì•ñ“¹‚³‚ê‚½º–¾‚ÍA‚ ‚Ü‚è‚É‹•‹U“I‚©‚Â“G‘Î“I‚Å‚ ‚èA”Þ‚Ì‰¼‘z“I‚ª”Þ‚ðˆ«‚Œ©‚¹‚æ‚¤‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‘‚锟斤拷‚½‰Â”\«‚ª‚ ‚éB

"We just sit up here and let them teach evolution," Tate orated, "and not take a stand about creationism. To me, how come we don't look into this as people who are strong Christians and see what we can do to teach creationism in schools. We sit back and let the government tell us what to do. We don't pray to the ACLU and all them people: we pray to God."

David Tate‹³ˆçˆÏˆõ‚Íu‰äX‚ÍŠwZ‚ÉŽq‹Ÿ‚½‚¿‚Éi‰»˜_‚ð‹³‚¦‚³‚¹‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB‚µ‚©‚µA‚锟絵‚ÌŠw‹æ‹³ˆçˆõ‰ï‚Ì‘Sˆõ‚ª‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‚ðM‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚ÆŽ„‚Íl‚¦‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB@‹³M‹ÂŽ‚ÂŽÒ‚É‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‚ð‹³‚¦‚³‚¹‚ç‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷‚í‚¯‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷B‰äX‚Í•{‚Éˆ锟絶‚·‚锟絶‚«‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð‚锟斤拷‚éŽž‚¾B‰äX‚ÍACLU‚È‚Ç‚É‚Í‹F‚ç‚È‚锟斤拷B‰äX‚Í_‚É‹F‚é‚Ì‚¾v‚Æq‚锟絶‚½B

Tate's fulminations are not characteristic of the educators and legislators who passed the new Louisiana law, but you can be sure that the Darwinist opponents of the law will try to make them sound representative. The same thing happened in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2005 when school board members decided to grab onto the phrase (not the reality) of "intelligent design" to promote religious doctrine.

TateˆÏˆõ‚ÌŒƒ‚µ‚锟斤拷”ñ“ï‚ÍAƒ‹ƒCƒWƒAƒiB–@‚ð锟斤拷—锟斤拷‚³‚¹‚½‹³ˆçŽÒ‚âB‹c‰ï‹cˆõ‚½‚¿‚Ì“Á’\‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷B‚»‚ê‚ÍB–@‚É”½‘Î‚·‚éƒ_[ƒEƒBƒjƒXƒg‚½‚¿‚ªA‚»‚ê‚ð‘ã•\“I‚È‚à‚Ì‚¾‚ÆŽv‚í‚¹‚æ‚¤‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Ì‚¾B“¯‚锟斤拷‚锟絵‚Æ‚ªA2005”N‚Ìƒyƒ“ƒVƒ‹ƒoƒjƒABDoverŠw‹æ‚Å‚à‹N‚«‚½BŠw‹æ‹³ˆçˆÏˆõ‚½‚¿‚Í@‹³‹³‹`‚ðé“`‚·‚é‚½‚ß‚ÉuƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“v‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤—pŒê‚ðŽg‚¤‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÉŒˆ‚ß‚½B

[Bruce Chapman:"A Classic Evolution Policy Blunder" (2010/08/04) on The American Spectator]

‚»‚à‚»‚àAŒö—锟斤拷ŠwZ‚Å‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‚à‹³‚¦‚é‚锟絶‚«‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤l‚ª”¼”‚ð’锟絃‚¦‚é•Ä‘‚ÅA‚»‚Ìº‚ð”wŒi‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB‹c‰ï‹cˆõ‚âŠeƒŒƒxƒ‹‚Ì‹³ˆçˆÏˆõ‚½‚¿‚ªA‚ ‚¦‚Ä‹‚ß‚é‚à‚Ì‚ª‚ ‚é‚È‚çA‚»‚ê‚Í‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‹³ˆçB

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life survey conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI). July 6-19, 2006. N=996 adults nationwide. MoE } 3.5.

"Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools?"
              Favor    Oppose  Unsure
                 %        %       %
7/6-19/06       58       35       7
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Nov. 18-21, 2004. N=885 adults nationwide. MoE } 3.

"Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creation along with evolution in public schools?"
              Favor    Oppose  Unsure
                 %        %       %
11/2004         65       29       6
[Polling Report -- Science and Nature]

2006”N‚ÉƒJƒŠƒtƒHƒ‹ƒjƒABFrazier Mountain‚Z‚ÌSharon Lemburgæ锟斤拷‚ª“NŠw‚ÌŽö‹Æ‚Å‹³‚¦‚½ƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Íu’n‹…‚à‰F’ˆ‚à6000Î‚ÈŽá‚锟斤拷’n‹…‚Ì‘n‘锟斤拷˜_v‚¾‚Á‚½B‚à‚¿‚ë‚ñAƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Í‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷‚ÆŽå’锟斤拷‚µ‚Ä‚«‚½Discovery Institute‚ÌCasey Luskin‚Í‚ ‚í‚Ä‚ÄAŽö‹Æ’†Ž~‚ð‹‚ß‚é‘ŠÈ‚ðo‚µ‚½‚¯‚Ç‚ËB

‚É‚à‚©‚©‚í‚ç‚¸ABruce ChapmanŠ’·‚ÍA”½i‰»˜_B–@‚锟絅‚æ‚ÑƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚ð—iŒì‚µ‚ÄŽŸ‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚Éq‚锟絶‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éF

The board members, as in Livingston, Louisiana, were as ignorant of the limits of the scientific case against strict Darwinism as they were of the content of intelligent design theory.

ƒ‹ƒCƒWƒAƒiBLivingstone‚Æ“¯‚锟斤拷‚ADover‚Ì‹³ˆçˆÏˆõ‚½‚¿‚àAŒµ–锟斤拷‚Èƒ_[ƒEƒBƒjƒYƒ€‚É”½‚·‚é‰ÈŠw“IŽ–—á‚ÌŒÀŠE‚àAƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“—˜_‚Ì“à—e‚ÌŒÀŠE‚à’m‚ç‚È‚锟斤拷B

ŽÀÛ‚Ì‚Æ‚锟絵‚ëA’m‚ç‚È‚‚Ä“–‘RBDiscovery Institute‚Ì•ûj‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä–â‚í‚ê‚½‚Æ‚«AGeorge Gilder‚ÍuŽ„‚Íƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚Ì‘ã‘Ö‚Æ‚µ‚ÄƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚ð‹³‚¦‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð„i‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚锟斤拷B‚»‚µ‚Ä”Þ‚ç‚à‚¾B„i‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Ì‚Íƒ_[ƒEƒBƒjƒYƒ€‚ð”á”»‚·‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚Å‚ ‚èA˜_‘ˆ‚ª‚ ‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð‹³‚¦‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚¾BƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“Ž©‘Ì‚É’†–¡‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷v‚Æ“š‚¦‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB

==>•œKƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“

posted by Kumicit at 2010/08/07 00:00 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute |

2010/06/08

ŠÔˆá‚锟斤拷‘锟絵‚¯‚éƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“ŽxŽŽÒ

University of Toronto‚Ì锟斤拷‰ÈŠw‚ÌLarry Moran‹³Žö‚ªAƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Ì–{ŽR‚½‚éDiscovery Institute‚ÌŒöŽ®ƒuƒƒO‚ÌRichard Sternberg‚ÌŠÔˆá‚锟斤拷‚ÉƒcƒbƒRƒ~‚ð“ü‚ê‚½F

Richard Sternberg thinks that introns are important. He has to think that way because he's an Intelligent Design Creationist and the idea that introns could be mostly junk and not have a function isn't part of his faith

Richard Sternberg‚ÍƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚ªd—v‚¾‚Æl‚¦‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB”Þ‚ª‚»‚¤l‚¦‚È‚¯‚ê‚Î‚È‚ç‚È‚锟斤拷‚Ì‚ÍA”Þ‚ªƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‘n‘锟斤拷˜_ŽÒ‚Å‚ ‚èAuƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚Ì‘å”¼‚ªƒWƒƒƒ“ƒN‚Å‹@”\‚ðŽ‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚锟斤拷‚锟絵‚ÆF‚ªA”Þ‚ÌM‹Â‚É‚È‚锟斤拷‚©‚ç‚¾B
So letfs do the math. At least ninety percent of gene transcripts undergo alternative splicing, and there are at least 190,000 introns in the human genome. That means we have at least 0.90 x 190,000 = 171,000 introns that participate in the alternative-splicing pathway(s) available to a cell.

‚Å‚Í”Šw‚¾Bˆâ“`Žq“]ŽÊ‚Ì‚È‚‚Æ‚à90%‚Í‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ðŒoŒ锟絵‚·‚éBlŠÔ‚ÌƒQƒmƒ€‚É‚Í‚È‚‚Æ‚à19–œŒÂ‚ÌƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚ª‚ ‚éB‚锟絵‚ê‚ÍA锟絶–E‚ÅŽg‚¦‚é‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒOŒo˜H‚ÌŠÖ—^‚·‚éƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚ª‚È‚‚Æ‚à 0.90 锟絶 190,000 = 171,000ŒÂ‚ ‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ðˆÓ–¡‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB

[Richard Sternberg: "Mathesonfs Intron Fairy Tale" (2010/06/03)].
It's up to you, dear readers, to figure out all the things wrong with this explanation. You can start with the math. Arithmetic isn't one of their strong points. Or maybe it's an understanding of biology that's the real weak point?

‚Å‚ÍA“ÇŽÒ”ŒNBŠÔˆá‚锟斤拷‚ðŽw“E‚µ‚Ä‚Ý‚æ‚¤B”Šw‚©‚çŽn‚ß‚Ä‚à‚锟斤拷‚锟斤拷B‚Å‚àAŽZ”‚Íd—v‚锟斤拷‚á‚È‚锟斤拷B‚½‚Ô‚ñ锟斤拷•锟絅‚Ì—‰ð‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷‚锟絵‚Æ‚ªŽã“_‚©‚ÈH

[Larry Moran: "Creationists, Introns, and Fairly Tales" (2010/06/03) on Sandwalk via PZ Myers]

ƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚Íˆâ“`ŽqƒR[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO(ƒGƒNƒ\ƒ“)‚ð•ª’f‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‹@”\‚ª‚ ‚Ü‚è‚í‚©‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚锟斤拷DNA’f•Ð‚ÅA’Êí‚Ìˆâ“`Žq‚Ìˆê•”‚Æ‚µ‚Ä“]ŽÊ‚³‚ê‚é‚ªA‹@”\‚·‚émRNA‚Ö‚Ì“]ŽÊ‚Å‚ÍƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚É‚æ‚Á‚Äíœ‚³‚ê‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚ÄA‘锟斤拷Ý‚µ‚È‚锟斤拷BƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚ðƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚·‚é•û–@‚Í‘½—l‚Å‚ ‚èAŒ‹‰Ê‚Æ‚µ‚Äˆê‚Â‚Ìˆâ“`Žq‚©‚çˆÙ‚È‚émRNA‚Æƒ^ƒ“ƒpƒNŽ¿‚ªì‚ç‚ê‚éB

ƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“ŽxŽŽÒRichard Sternberg‚ÍFXŠÔˆá‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚ªA–¾‚ç‚©‚É‘Œê‚Ì–â‘è‚Æ‚µ‚ÄŠÔˆá‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Ì‚Íuˆâ“`Žq“]ŽÊ‚Ì‚È‚‚Æ‚à90%‚Í‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ðŒoŒ锟絵‚·‚év‚©‚çu锟絶–E‚ÅŽg‚¦‚é‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒOŒo˜H‚ÌŠÖ—^‚·‚éƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚ª‚È‚‚Æ‚à 0.90 锟絶 190,000 = 171,000ŒÂ‚ ‚év‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤“_Bˆâ“`Žq“]ŽÊ‚Ì90%‚ÆŒ¾‚锟斤拷‚È‚ª‚çAŒvŽZ‚ÍƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚Ì”B

‚锟絵‚ê‚É‘Î‚µ‚ÄARichard Sternberg‚ÍC³‚µ‚½‚ªA‚â‚Á‚Ï‚èŠÔˆá‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚ÄALarry Moran‹³Žö‚ªÄ“xAƒcƒbƒRƒ~‚ð“ü‚ê‚½B

Imagine my surprise when Sternberg responded with a "correction"!

‚锟絅‚Á‚Æ‚Ñ‚Á‚‚èBSternberg‚ªC³‚µ‚½‚º‚锟斤拷B
So letfs do the math. Again. I will make the task easy for everyone\even Moran and Matheson:

Step 1. There are ~25,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome.
Step 2. There are 190,000 introns/25,000 protein-coding genes = 7.6 introns/gene on average.
Step 3. Ninety percent (possibly more) of gene transcripts undergo alternative splicing. Hence, 0.9 x 25,000 = 22,500 genes (actually, their RNAs) undergo alternative splicing.

Therefore, 22,500 genes x 7.6 introns/gene = 171,000 introns involved in alternative splicing.

”Šw‚Ì‚â‚è’¼‚µ‚¾B‚锟絵‚ñ‚Ç‚Í’N‚É‚Å‚à‚í‚©‚é‚æ‚¤‚É‘‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ý‚½B
25000ŒÂ‚Ìˆâ“`ŽqƒR[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚ªlŠÔ‚ÌƒQƒmƒ€‚É‚ ‚é
19000ƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“^25000ƒ^ƒ“ƒpƒNŽ¿ƒR[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒOˆâ“`Žq=7.8ŒÂ/ˆâ“`Žq
90%(‚锟絅‚»‚ç‚‚»‚êˆÈãj‚Ìˆâ“`Žq“]ŽÊ‚Í‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ðŒoŒ锟絵‚·‚éB‚µ‚½‚ª‚Á‚ÄA0.9 x 25000 = 22500ŒÂ‚Ìˆâ“`ŽqiŽÀÛ‚ÍRNDA‚¾‚ªj‚ª‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ðŒoŒ锟絵‚·‚éB

‚µ‚½‚ª‚Á‚ÄA22500ˆâ“`Žq/7.6ƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“ 171000ŒÂ‚ÌƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚ª‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ÉŠÖ—^—\’è‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚’B

[Richard Sternberg : "Let's Do the Math Again" (2010/06/04)]
We could quibble about the number of introns\I think it's closer to 150,000. We could quibble about the number of protein encoding genes\the most accurate number is 20,500. We could quibble about how many genes exhibit alternative splicing\I think it's about 5%, not 95%. You can't be expected to know the facts and the controversies since this is way outside your area of expertise.

‚Ü‚¸‚ÍƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚Ì”‚¾‚ªAŽ„‚Í150,000‚‚ç‚锟斤拷‚¾‚ÆŽv‚¤‚ªB‚»‚ê‚©‚çƒ^ƒ“ƒpƒNŽ¿‚ð‰~ƒR[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éˆâ“`Žq‚ÌŒÂ”‚¾‚ªA‚æ‚è³‚µ‚‚Í20500ŒÂ‚¾B‚Ç‚ê‚‚ç‚锟斤拷‚Ìˆâ“`Žq‚ª‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚¤‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚©‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚àAŽ„‚Í95%‚Å‚Í‚È‚A5%‚¾‚ÆŽv‚¤‚ªB‚锟絵‚ê‚ÍƒLƒ~‚Ìê–åŠO‚Ì‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÅAŽ–ŽÀ‚â˜_‘ˆ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä’m‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚àŽd•û‚È‚锟斤拷B

So, let's assume your facts are correct. If 90% of genes exhibit alternative splicing then this means 22,500 genes. You got that calculation right. The minimum number of introns that must be involved in alternative splicing is one (1) per gene. That means at least 22,500 introns involved in alternative splicing. You made the mistaken (and stupid) assumption that every intron in a gene had to be alternatively spliced.

‚Ä‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÅAƒLƒ~‚ÌŽ–ŽÀ‚ª³‚µ‚锟斤拷‚Æ‚µ‚æ‚¤B90%‚Ìˆâ“`Žq‚ª‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ðŒoŒ锟絵‚·‚é‚Ì‚ÅA22500ŒÂ‚Ìˆâ“`Žq‚ª‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ðŒoŒ锟絵‚·‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚È‚éBˆâ“`Žq‚ ‚½‚èA‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ÉŠÖ‚í‚éƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚Ì”‚ÍÅ’á1ŒÂ‚¾B‚µ‚½‚ª‚Á‚ÄA‚È‚‚Æ‚à22500ŒÂ‚ÌƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚ª‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ÉŠÖ‚í‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚È‚éBƒLƒ~‚Íˆâ“`Žq‚Ì‘SƒCƒ“ƒgƒƒ“‚ª‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ÉŠÖ‚í‚é‚ÆŠÔˆá‚Á‚ÄAƒAƒtƒH‚É‚à‰¼’è‚µ‚½B

The fact that you repeated this false assumption, even after being warned, does not enhance your credibility. I conclude that you don't understand RNA processing or alternative splicing. In spite of your ignorance you wrote up a posting attacking Steve Matheson and defending your colleague Steve Meyer. That's why we call you IDiots.

Ž„‚ªŒ¾‚Á‚Ä‚¤‚Ì“ñA‚Ü‚½ƒLƒ~‚ÍŠÔˆá‚锟斤拷‚ðŒJ‚è•Ô‚µ‚½B‚锟絵‚ê‚Å‚ÍƒLƒ~‚ÌM—p‚Í‚‚Ü‚ç‚È‚锟斤拷BƒLƒ~‚ÍRNAƒvƒƒZƒVƒ“ƒO‚ ‚é‚锟斤拷‚Í‘I‘ð“IƒXƒvƒ‰ƒCƒVƒ“ƒO‚ª‚í‚©‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚锟斤拷B–³’m‚È‚Ì‚ÉAƒLƒ~‚ÍSteve Matheson‚ðUŒ‚‚µAƒLƒ~‚Ì“¯—»Steve Meyer‚ð—iŒì‚·‚é‹LŽ–‚ðŒ‡‚锟斤拷‚½B‚¾‚©‚çƒLƒ~‚ÍƒAƒtƒH‚È‚Ì‚¾B

[Larry Moran: "IDiots Do Arithmetic a Second Time - Same Result" (2010/06/04) on Sandwalk via PZ Myers]

ƒ^ƒOFid—˜_

posted by Kumicit at 2010/06/08 07:32 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute |

2010/02/01

John G West‚Ì"Dehumanized in the Name of Science" (7/7) ‚Ü‚Æ‚ß

‚È‚ª‚È‚ª‚µ‚锟斤拷‚Ì‚ÅA‚Ü‚Æ‚ß‚ÄU‚è•Ô‚Á‚Ä‚锟絅‚‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚·‚éB

John G West‚Ì‘æ1‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷‚ÍA‰ÈŠw‚É‘Î‚·‚é"ƒVƒrƒŠƒAƒ“ƒRƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒ‹"‚Å‚ ‚éF

ƒeƒNƒmƒNƒ‰ƒV[

‰ÈŠw“I’mŽ¯‚Í“Á’è•ª–ì‚Å‚Í—Ç‚«Œö‹¤ô‚Ì‚½‚ß‚É•K—v‚©‚à‚µ‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷‚ªA‚»‚ê‚¾‚¯‚Å‚Í\•ª‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷BŽ¡‰Û‘è‚Í”ñí‚É“¹“¿“I‚È–â‘è‚Å‚ ‚èA‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚ªƒ‚ƒ‰ƒŠƒXƒg‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‹@”\‚·‚é‚É‚Í”\—Í‚ª•s\•ª‚Å‚ ‚éBCS Lewis‚ÍƒeƒNƒmƒNƒ‰ƒV[‚ÌŒ‡“_‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä1950”N‘ã‚ÉŒx‚µ‚½BuŽ„‚ÍŒ —Í‚ðŽ‚Âê–å‰Æ‚ð‹锟斤拷‚ê‚éB”Þ‚ç‚Íê–å•ª–ì‚ÌŠO‘¤‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚ÄŒê‚éƒXƒyƒVƒƒƒŠƒXƒg‚¾‚©‚ç‚¾B‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚É‚Í‰ÈŠw‚ðŒê‚ç‚¹‚æ‚¤B‚µ‚©‚µA•{‚ÍlŠÔ‚Æ³‹`‚ÆA‚Ç‚Ì•锟絅‚ª‚Ç‚ê‚‚ç‚锟斤拷‰¿’l‚ðŽ‚Â‚Ì‚ª—Ç‚锟斤拷‚Ì‚©‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Í•{‚ÌŽdŽ–‚¾B‚锟絵‚ê‚ç‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Í‰ÈŠw“IŒP—û‚ÍlŠÔ‚ÌˆÓŒ©‚É‰½‚Ì•t‰Á‰¿’l‚à—^‚¦‚È‚锟斤拷B

‚½‚Æ‚¦‚ÎA–ì锟斤拷锟斤拷•锟絅ŠwŽÒ‚ÍAô’S“–ŽÒ‚Éâ–Å‚ÌŠëŒ¯‚É‚ ‚éŽí‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ìî•ñ‚ð’ñ‹Ÿ‚Å‚«‚éê‡‚ª‚ ‚éB‚锟絅‚»‚ç‚A”Þ‚ç‚Í锟斤拷•锟絅‘½—l«‚É‘Î‚·‚éŽí‚Ìâ–Å‚ÌƒRƒXƒg‚ð—\‘ª‚Å‚«‚é‚¾‚ë‚¤B‚µ‚©‚µA”Þ‚ç‚É‚ÍA“Á’èŽí‚ÆA‚»‚ê‚ðâ–Å‚©‚ç‹~‚¤‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚æ‚Á‚ÄŽ¸‚í‚ê‚éŽdŽ–‚Ì‚Ç‚¿‚ç‚ª‘åŽ–‚©‚ð”»’f‚·‚éŒ ŒÀ‚Í‘¼‚Ì’NˆÈã‚É‚È‚锟斤拷BŽ¡‚Æ‚ÍŽå‚Æ‚µ‚ÄA‹锟斤拷‡‚·‚é¤•i‚Éƒ‰ƒ“ƒN•t‚¯‚Ä’²’â‚·‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚Å‚ ‚éB‚µ‚©‚µA¤•i‚Ìƒ‰ƒ“ƒN•t‚¯‚É‚Í³‹`‚Æ“¹“¿‚Ì–â‘è‚ªŠÜ‚Ü‚ê‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB‚锟絵‚ê‚ç‚Ì–â‘è‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Äu‰ÈŠw“IŒP—û‚ÍlŠÔ‚ÌˆÓŒ©‚É‰½‚Ì•t‰Á‰¿’l‚à—^‚¦‚È‚锟斤拷v‚ÆCS Lewis‚ªŽw“E‚·‚é‚æ‚¤‚ÉB

î•ñ‚ðo‚·‚Ì‚Í‰ÈŠw‚ÌŽdŽ–‚ÅA‚»‚ê‚ÉŠî‚Ã‚«‚Ç‚¤‘Îˆ‚·‚é‚©‚ÍŽ¡‚ÌŽdŽ–‚¾‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤‚Ì‚ÍA‚Ü‚Á‚Æ‚¤‚ÈŽå’锟斤拷B

‚½‚¾‚µAˆÈ‰º‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚ÈŽå’锟斤拷‚ð‹–—e‚·‚é‚à‚Ì‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷‚Í‚¸‚¾F

[Edward Parson: "Protecting the ozone layer: science and strategy", p.135]

Base on a leak of DPC[the cabinet-level Domestic Policy Council] meeting, the Washington Post on May 29 [,1987] reported that in lieu of CFC controls, [Interior] Secretary [Donald] Hodel had advocated a "personal protection plan", which would encourage citizens to preotect themselves from UV radiation with hats, sunglasses, and sunscreen. ...

Št—»ƒŒƒxƒ‹‚Ì“à•]‹c‰ï‚Ì‰ï‡‚ÌƒŠ[ƒN‚ÉŠî‚Ã‚«AWashington Post‚Í1987”N5ŒŽ29“ú‚ÉAuDonald Hodel‘–锟絵’·Š¯‚ÍCFC‚ð‹K锟斤拷‚·‚é‘ã‚í‚è‚ÉAŽs–¯‚ªŽ‡ŠOü‚©‚çg‚ðŽç‚é‚½‚ß‚É–XŽq‚âƒTƒ“ƒOƒ‰ƒX‚â“úÄŽ~‚ß‚ðŽg‚¤‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð„锟斤拷‚·‚é"Personal Protect Plan"‚ðŽå’锟斤拷‚µ‚½v‚Æ•ñ“¹‚µ‚½B

‚锟絵‚¤‚锟斤拷‚Á‚½ç’k‚ð‹–—e‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚ÍAŒRŽ–‰¹’s‚ÈŽ¡‰Æ‚É‚æ‚éƒVƒrƒŠƒAƒ“ƒRƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒ‹‚ª‹@”\‚µ‚È‚锟斤拷‚Ì‚Æ“¯‚锟斤拷‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚È‚éB

John G West‚Í‘æ2‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷‚Æ‚ ‚í‚¹‚ÄA@‹³•ÛŽç‚ª‰ÈŠw‚ÉŸ‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ðŽ¦锟絃‚·‚éF

ƒeƒNƒmƒNƒ‰ƒV[

ƒeƒNƒmƒNƒ‰ƒV[‚É‚ÍX‚È‚é–â‘è‚ª‚ ‚éBlŠÔ‚Ì—«‚ÉŒÀŠE‚ª‚ ‚é‚½‚ß‚ÉA‚Æ‚«‚É‚Íê–å‰Æ‚ª‚Ð‚Ç‚Œë‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ª‚ ‚éBŽ¡‚É‚锟絅‚¯‚é‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Ì—ðŽj‚ª‰½‚©‚ðŽ¦‚·‚Æ‚µ‚½‚çA‚»‚ê‚Í‰ÈŠw‚Ìê–å‰Æ‚½‚¿‚ÍA‘¼‚ÆlX‚Æ“¯—l‚ÉŠÔˆá‚¤‚锟絵‚Æ‚ª‚ ‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚¾B”Þ‚ç‚ÍŽ©‚ç‚Ì•ÎŒ©‚É‚æ‚Á‚Ä–Ó–Ú‚É‚È‚èA”Þ‚ç‚ª‘ID‚·‚éô‚ð„i‚·‚é‚½‚ß‚ÉØ‹’‚ð’锟絃‚¦‚Ä‚µ‚Ü‚¤B

ƒ†[ƒgƒsƒA“I—‘zŽå‹`

70”N‘OA—D锟斤拷Šw‚Í‚æ‚è—Ç‚锟斤拷ˆçŽí‚É‚æ‚Á‚Ä•Ä‘‚ÌŽÐ‰ï–â‘è‚ð‰ðŒˆ‚·‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð–ñ‘©‚µ‚½B¡“úA¸_‰q锟斤拷‰üŠv‰^“®‰Æ‚½‚¿‚ÍA‚ ‚ç‚ä‚éŽ™“锟斤拷‚ð¸_•a‚Ì—L–³‚ÅƒXƒNƒŠ[ƒjƒ“ƒO‚µA”•S–œ‚ÌŽ™“锟斤拷‚ÉŒü¸_–ò‚ð“Š—^‚·‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÅA•Ä‘‚ÌŽq‹Ÿ‚Ìs“®–â‘è‚ð‰ðŒˆ‚·‚é‚Æ–ñ‘©‚·‚éB‘O锟斤拷‹I‚Ì—D锟斤拷‰üŠv‰^“®‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚ÉAŒü¸_–ò‚ð“Š—^‚·‚éŽq‹Ÿ‚Ì”‚ð‘å‚«‚‘‚â‚·‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÅAs“®–â‘è‚ðƒˆ‚Ì—B•锟絅Œ锟絃ˆö‚Ö‚ÆŠÒŒ³‚·‚éB—D锟斤拷‰üŠv‰^“®‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚ÉAŽÀÛ‚Ì‰ÈŠw‚ð‘å‚«‚’锟絃‚¦‚½‘s‘å‚ÈŽå’锟斤拷‚ª‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‰ñ‚éB
...
‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Ì‚‚Ü‚è‚É‘Î‚µ‚ÄA•Ä‘‚ÌŽ¡“I‚È•锟斤拷‰»‚Ì’fŒÅ‚½‚éŒ»ŽÀŽå‹`E”½ƒ†[ƒgƒsƒA—‘zŽå‹`‚ÌˆÓŒ©‚ÍA‰üŠv”h‚Ì—‘zŽå‹`‚Æƒ†[ƒgƒsƒA“I—‘zŽå‹`‚É‘Î‚µ‚ÄƒJƒEƒ“ƒ^[ƒoƒ‰ƒ“ƒX‚ð‚Æ‚Á‚½B•Ä‘‚ÌŒš‘ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚Í—‘zŽå‹`‚Æ‚Æ‚à‚ÉAlŠÔ‚ÌŒ‡“_‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‹‚锟斤拷Œ»ŽÀŽå‹`‚ð‚Æ‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚½BulŠÔ‚ª“VŽg‚È‚çA•{‚Í•K—v‚È‚锟斤拷‚¾‚ë‚¤v‚ÆJames Madison‚Í"Federalist"‚É‘‚锟斤拷‚½B

John G West‚Í—D锟斤拷‚ð‚ß‚®‚é—ðŽj‚ðC³‚µ‚Â‚ÂA‚»‚ê‚É‘ÎR‚·‚é‚à‚Ì‚Æ‚µ‚ÄuŒ»ŽÀŽå‹`E”½ƒ†[ƒgƒsƒA—‘zŽå‹`v‚ð‹“‚锟斤拷‚éBŽÀÛ‚Ì—ðŽj‚Å‚ÍA@‹³‚à‚Ü‚½—D锟斤拷‚É‚È‚¾‚ê‚锟絵‚ñ‚Å‚锟斤拷‚Á‚½‚Ì‚¾‚ªB

==>•Ÿ‰¹Žå‹`‚Æ—D锟斤拷‚Æ (2008/05/23)

‚»‚ê‚Í‚³‚Ä‚锟絅‚«A•Ÿ‰¹Žå‹`ƒLƒŠƒXƒg‹³‚Ì‹³‹`‚É”½‚·‚éŽ©‘R‰ÈŠw‚Ì’mŽ¯‚·‚锟絶‚Ä‚É‘Î‚µ‚ÄˆÙ‹c\‚µ—锟斤拷‚Ä‚ð‚·‚ê‚Î‚Ç‚¤‚È‚é‚©BŽ©‘R‰ÈŠw‚ÌŒ¤‹†‚ÍŠÔˆá‚¤‚锟絵‚Æ‚à‚ ‚é‚Ì‚ÅAˆÙ‹c\‚µ—锟斤拷‚Ä‚ÌŠô‚Â‚©‚Í³‰ð‚É‚È‚é‚¾‚ë‚¤B‚Å‚àA—\‚ßA‚»‚ÌˆÙ‹c\‚µ—锟斤拷‚Ä‚ª³‰ð‚©‚Ç‚¤‚©‚Í‚í‚©‚ç‚È‚锟斤拷BŽ©‘R‰ÈŠw‚ÌŒ¤‹†‚Ìis‚É‚æ‚Á‚ÄŒ‹‰Ê‚Æ‚µ‚Ä³‰ð‚©”Û‚©‚ª–¾‚ç‚©‚É‚È‚é‚¾‚¯B

John G West‚Ì‘æ3‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷ulŠÔ«‘rŽ¸v‚ÍAuŒY–@‚ÌÓ”C”\—Ív‚Ö‚ÌˆÙ‹c\‚µ—锟斤拷‚Ä‚Å‚ ‚éB

lŠÔ«‘rŽ¸

Œö‹¤ô‚É‘Î‚·‚é‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Ì‘æ3‚Ì‰e‹¿‚ÍlŠÔ«‘rŽ¸‚¾‚Á‚½BŽxŽŽÒ‚½‚¿‚Í‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚ªŽÐ‰ï–â‘è‚ð‰ðŒˆ‚µAlŠÔ‚Ì‘¸Œµ‚ð‚‚ß‚é‚à‚Ì‚¾‚ÆŒ©‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚½‚ªA—ðŽj‚ðŒ©‚ê‚Îl—Þ‘S‘Ì‚ð•ŽJ‚·‚é—á‚ª‘½‚‚Ý‚ç‚ê‚éB’j‚Æ—‚Í•锟絅——eŠí‚Æ•锟絅—“ü—Í‚ÉŠÒŒ³‰Â”\‚¾‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤Žå’锟斤拷‚ÍA[‚lŠÔ«‚ð’D‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ª–¾‚ç‚©‚É‚È‚Á‚½B

Ži–@‚Å‚ÍA‚ ‚é‹³‰È‘‚É‘‚©‚ê‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚æ‚¤‚ÉAulŠÔ‚ªˆÓ}‚µ‚Ä”Æß‚ð”Æ‚·‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÍA‰Ô‚ªÔF‚É‚È‚Á‚½‚èA–F‚ðo‚µ‚½‚è‚·‚éˆÈã‚ÉÓ”C‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷v‚Æl‚¦‚é‚È‚çAê‡‚É‚æ‚Á‚Ä‚Íl“¹‚É‚©‚È‚Á‚½ˆ’u‚É‚Â‚È‚ª‚é‚ªAŽ©‚ç‚Ì‘I‘ð‚ð–â‚í‚ê‚é‡—“I‘锟斤拷Ý‚Æ‚µ‚Äˆµ‚í‚ê‚é‘¸Œµ‚ð”ÆßŽÒ‚©‚ç’D‚¤‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚à‚È‚éB“¯Žž‚É‘½‚‚Ì—á‚ÅA’¦”锟絵‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‚È‚çŒˆ‚µ‚Ä‹–‚³‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷A‰ÈŠw“IƒŠƒnƒrƒŠƒe[ƒVƒ‡ƒ“‚Ì‹锟斤拷‚é‚锟絶‚«Œ`‘Ô‚É”à‚ðŠJ‚‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚È‚éB

u_Œo“`’B•锟絅Ž¿‚ðV’Â‘ãŽÓ‚³‚¹‚éy‘fƒ‚ƒmƒAƒ~ƒ“ƒIƒLƒVƒ_[ƒ[AiMAOAj‚ðƒR[ƒh‰»‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éˆâ“`Žq‚Ì‹@”\“I‚È‘½Œ`«‚ªA‹s‘Ò‚Ì‰e‹¿‚ðŠÉ˜a‚·‚év‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤Œ¤‹†‚ÉŠî‚Ã‚锟斤拷‚ÄA"MAO-A"‚ª‚È‚‚È‚éˆâ“`ŽqŒ^‚ð——R‚ÉŒY‚ªŒy‚‚È‚é‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤”»Œˆ‚ªŽÀÛ‚É‚ ‚Á‚½B

==>MAOA‚ÈÙ”» (2009/11/03)

‚»‚ê‚ª•s“KØ‚¾‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤Žå’锟斤拷‚Í‚Ü‚Á‚Æ‚¤‚È‚à‚ÌB‚½‚¾‚µAC³‚·‚锟絶‚«‚ÍAS_‘rŽ¸‚âS_–ÕŽã‚Ì”F’è‚ðŠÜ‚ÞŒY–@‚ÌÓ”C”\—Í‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ìl‚¦•û‚â–@‹K’è‚Å‚ ‚Á‚ÄA‰ÈŠw‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷B

John G West‚Ì‘æ4‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷u‘Š‘ÎŽå‹`v‚ÍAŽ©‘RŽå‹`‚ÌŒë•T‚ð‘O’ñ‚Æ‚·‚é‚à‚ÌF

‘Š‘ÎŽå‹`

ƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“—˜_‚Æ‘Š‘ÎŽå‹`‚ÌŠÖŒW‚ÍƒAƒiƒƒW[‚¾‚¯‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷B"The Descent of Man"‚É‚锟絅‚锟斤拷‚ÄAƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚Í—Ï—‚ðŽ©‘R‘I‘ð‚É‚æ‚éi‰»‚ÌŽY•锟絅‚Æ‚µ‚Ä•`ŽÊ‚µ‚½B—Ï—‚ÍA_‚ ‚é‚锟斤拷‚ÍŽ©‘R‚É‚æ‚Á‚Ä”F’è‚³‚ê‚½AŽžŠÔ‚ð’锟絃‰z‚µ‚½^—‚Ì”½‰f‚Å‚Í‚È‚A锟斤拷‘锟斤拷‚Ì‚½‚ß‚ÉŽ©‘R‘I‘ð‚É‚æ‚Á‚Äi‰»‚µ‚½‚à‚Ì‚Å‚ ‚éB锟斤拷‘锟斤拷ðŒ‚ª•Ï‚í‚ê‚ÎAŽí‚Ì—Ï—‚à•Ï‚í‚éB‚ ‚éó‹µ‚Å‚ÍA•ê«ˆ¤‚ª—Ï—‚Å‚ ‚é‚ªA•Ê‚Ìó‹µ‚Å‚Í—cŽ™ŽE‚µ‚ª—Ï—‚É‚È‚é‚©‚à‚µ‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷B‚ ‚éó‹µ‚Å‚ÍAeØ‚ª—Ï—‚É‚È‚èA•Ê‚Ìó‹µ‚Å‚Í‹s‘Ò‚ª—Ï—‚É‚È‚é‚©‚à‚µ‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷B
...
ƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“Ž©M‚ÌŒÂl“I‚È—Ï—‘I‘ð‚ª‚Ç‚¤‚Å‚ ‚êA—Ï—‚Ì”’B‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ìƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚ÌŠÒŒ³“I‚Èà–¾‚ÍA‹qŠÏ“I‚É‚Ð‚Æ‚Â‚ÌŽÐ‰ï‚Ì—Ï—«‚ðA‘¼‚ÌŽÐ‰ï‚Ì—Ï—«‚É‘Î‚µ‚ÄA‘ID‚·‚é—]’n‚ð‚Ù‚Æ‚ñ‚ÇŽc‚³‚È‚锟斤拷BŠeŽÐ‰ï‚Ì—Ï—‹K”Í‚Í‚锟絅‚»‚ç‚A‚»‚ÌŽÐ‰ï‚Ì锟斤拷‘锟斤拷‚É‚Æ‚Á‚Ä—L—˜‚È‚æ‚¤‚É”“W‚µ‚Ä‚«‚½‚Ì‚ÅAŠeŽÐ‰ï‚Ì—Ï—‹K”Í‚Í“™‚µ‚"Ž©‘R"‚¾‚Æl‚¦‚ç‚ê‚éB

‚锟絵‚ê‚ÍACurry[2006]‚ª‹“‚锟斤拷‚éŽ©‘RŽå‹`‚ÌŒë•T‚Ì”h锟斤拷•i‚ÉŠY“–‚·‚é

Moving from is to ought (Humefs fallacy).@i"‚Å‚ ‚é"‚©‚ç"‚锟絶‚«"‚Öj
Moving from facts to values.@iŽ–ŽÀ‚©‚ç‰¿’l‚Öj
Identifying good with its object (Moorefs fallacy).
Claiming that good is a natural property.@
Going ein the direction of evolutionf.ii‰»‚Ì•ûŒü‚ÖŒü‚©‚Á‚Äi‚ßj
Assuming that what is natural is good. (Ž©‘R‚È‚à‚Ì‚Í—Ç‚锟斤拷‚Æ‰¼’èj
Assuming that what currently exists ought to exist.@iŒ»‚É‘锟斤拷Ý‚·‚é‚à‚Ì‚ÍA‘锟斤拷Ý‚·‚锟絶‚«‚Æ‰¼’èj
Substituting explanation for justification.

‚½‚¾‚·‚锟絶‚«‚Í‰ÈŠw‚Å‚Í‚È‚AŽ©‘RŽå‹`‚ÌŒë•T‚ÉŠî‚Ã‚Žå’锟斤拷B

John G West‚Ì‘æ5‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷u‘锟斤拷‹ê‚µ‚锟斤拷Œ¾˜_‚ÌŽ©—Rv‚ÍA–¯Žå“I‚É‰ÈŠw‚ðuC³v‚Å‚«‚È‚锟斤拷‚锟絵‚Æ‚Ö‚Ì•s–žF

‘锟斤拷‹ê‚µ‚锟斤拷Œ¾˜_‚ÌŽ©—R

ƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚Ì—˜_‚ðŒö‹³ˆç‚Å‹³‚¦‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð‚ß‚®‚é˜_‘ˆ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚ÄA•ñ“¹ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚Íƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚Ì—˜_‚Ì”á”»ŽÒ‚Ì‘z’è@‹³Mð‚ÉŠÖS‚ð‚Í‚ç‚¤ˆê•û‚ÅAi‰»˜_‚Ì—iŒìŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÌŽ‚Â”½@‹³“IMð‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä’²‚锟絶‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷B‚È‚º‚È‚Ì‚©H@“®‹@‚ÍŽ¡˜_‘ˆ‚Ì—¼‘¤‚É‚ ‚éB‚ ‚é‚锟斤拷‚ÍA‚Ç‚¿‚ç‚É‚àŠÖŒW‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷B–³”á”»‚Éƒ_[ƒEƒBƒjƒXƒg‚ÌƒAƒWƒFƒ“ƒ_‚ðŽó‚¯“ü‚ê‚æ‚¤‚Æ‚·‚é•ñ“¹ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÍA•ñ“¹‚Ì—Ï—‚Ìd‘å‚Èˆá”½‚ð”Æ‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Î‚©‚è‚©AŽs–¯‚Ö‚Ìd‘å‚È‘¹ŠQ‚ð‚à‚½‚ç‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éBŒö‹¤ô‚Ì‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Ì–â‘è‚Ì‚ ‚éˆâŽY‚ª‚ ‚é‚©‚ç‚锟絵‚»A•K—v‚È‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÍAŽ¡‚É‚锟絅‚¯‚é‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Ì”á”»“I‚È’²¸‚Å‚ ‚éB

Ž©—RŽÐ‰ï‚Ìˆêˆõ‚Æ‚µ‚ÄA’n‹…‰·’g‰»‚âŽq‹Ÿ‚Ö‚ÌƒŠƒ^ƒŠƒ“‚Ì‰ßè“Š—^‚â«‹³ˆç‚Ì“à—e‚âƒ_[ƒEƒBƒjƒYƒ€‚ÆƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Ì˜_‘ˆ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚ÄA‘fl‚âŒ»Ý‚Ì‰ÈŠw“IƒRƒ“ƒZƒ“ƒTƒX‚ÉˆÙ‹c‚ð\‚¦‚é‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚ÌŒ —˜‚ðÏ‹É“I‚É—iŒì‚·‚éˆÓŽu‚ðŽ‚Â‚锟絶‚«‚Å‚ ‚éB.... ‰ÈŠw‚Ì–¼‚É‚锟絅‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚È‚³‚ê‚½Žå’锟斤拷‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚ÌŒö“I‚ÈÚ锟絶‚È’²¸‚ÍAˆê•”‚ÌŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ªŒ¾‚¤‚Ì‚Æ‚Í‹t‚Éu‰ÈŠw‚É‘Î‚·‚éí‘ˆv‚ð\锟斤拷‚µ‚È‚锟斤拷BŽÀÛ‚É‚ÍA‰ÈŠw‚Ì‰ßè‚©‚ç‰ÈŠw‚ðŽç‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚È‚é‚©‚à‚µ‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷B

uŒ»Ý‚Ì‰ÈŠw“IƒRƒ“ƒZƒ“ƒTƒX‚ÉˆÙ‹c‚ð\‚¦‚é‰ÈŠwŽÒv‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤•\Œ»‚ÍAu‰ÈŠw‚ªD‚«‚È•Ä‘lv‚ª‘ÎÛ‚¾‚©‚çB

==>”Û’è˜_E‰ÈŠwE@‹³ in •Ä‘ (2010/01/23)

‚»‚ê‚Í‚³‚Ä‚锟絅‚«AJohn G West‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷‚Í‚»‚ÌŠz–Ê‚ðæ‚è‰z‚¦‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚È‚éBŒö‹¤ô‚É‚Í—‰È‹³ˆç‚Ì“à—e‚ªŠÜ‚Ü‚ê‚é‚½‚ßA“–‘R‚Ì‚锟絵‚Æ‚È‚ª‚ç–¯Žå“I‚ÉƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚ðŒö‹³ˆç‚ÌƒJƒŠƒLƒ…ƒ‰ƒ€‚É‘g‚Ý“ü‚ê‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚à"‚ ‚è"‚É‚µ‚Ä‚µ‚Ü‚¤i‚à‚¿‚ë‚ñA‚»‚ê‚ªƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‰^“®‰Æ‚½‚éJohn G West‚Ì–Ú•W‚Ì‚Ð‚Æ‚Â‚¾‚ªjB

ˆÈãAJohn G West‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷‚ÍA–@‹K’è‚â–@—˜_‚Ì–â‘è‚¾‚Á‚½‚èAŽ©‘RŽå‹`‚ÌŒë•T‚¾‚Á‚½‚èA–¯Žå“I‚É‰ÈŠw‚ðC³‚µ‚½‚锟斤拷‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤Šó–]‚¾‚Á‚½‚è‚Å‚ ‚éB‚锟斤拷‚©‚É‚à•Ä‘‚È‚Ì‚ÍAŽ©•ª‚½‚¿‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷‚ªu‰ÈŠw‚É‘Î‚·‚éí‘ˆv‚¾‚ÆŒ¾‚í‚ê‚½‚‚È‚锟斤拷‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤•”•ªB“ú–{‚¾‚ÆAu‰ÈŠw‚É‘Î‚·‚éí‘ˆv‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤•\Œ»‚ÍA‚»‚ê‚Ù‚ÇƒlƒKƒeƒBƒu‚ÈˆóÛ‚ðŽ‚Á‚ÄŽó‚¯Ž~‚ß‚ç‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷‚©‚à‚µ‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷B

ƒ^ƒOFDI id—˜_ ‘n‘锟斤拷˜_

posted by Kumicit at 2010/02/01 00:00 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute |

2010/01/13

ƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Äu‰½‚©vŒ¾‚Á‚Ä‚Ý‚½ƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“ŽxŽŽÒJay Richards

u‰½‚©‚ªƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚³‚ê‚½v‚ÆŽå’锟斤拷‚µA‚»‚Ì‰½‚©‚Ö‚Ìi‰»Œo˜H‚ªŒ©‚é‚©‚é‚ÆAui‰»‚·‚é‚æ‚¤‚ÉƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚³‚ê‚½v‚ÆŒ¾‚Á‚ÄƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤Žå’锟斤拷‚ðŽç‚ë‚¤‚Æ‚·‚éƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“ŽxŽŽÒ‚½‚¿B‚µ‚©‚µA‚»‚ê‚Í‰î“ü‚ðƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚É•Ï‚¦‚Ä‚µ‚Ü‚¤B

==>ƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚ð‚ß‚®‚Á‚Ä on –Y‹p‚©‚ç‚Ì‹AŠÒATWIKI

‚»‚µ‚ÄAÅI“I‚É‚ÍuŽ©‘R–@‘\‚Æ‰Šú’l‚ÌŒ`‚ÅAî•ñ‚ð‰F’ˆ‚ÉŽ‚¿ž‚ñ‚¾_v‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤—L_˜_“Ii‰»˜_‚É‹A’…‚µ‚ÄA‰ÈŠw‚Æ–µ‚‚µ‚È‚‚È‚éB‚»‚ê‚ÍA‚à‚¿‚ë‚ñAƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“ŽxŽŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ªÅ‚àŠõ‚ÝŒ™‚¤Ž–‘Ô‚¾B‚ ‚éˆÓ–¡AƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‰^“®‚É‚Æ‚Á‚ÄAuƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚Í–Å‚Ú‚·‚锟絶‚«“Gv‚Å‚ ‚éB

‚锟絵‚Ìƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚ÄAƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“ŽxŽŽÒ‚ÅADiscovery Institute‚ÌƒtƒFƒ[‚Å‚ ‚éJay Richards‚ªƒGƒ“ƒgƒŠ‚ðDiscovery InstituteŒöŽ®ƒuƒƒO‚Éƒ|ƒXƒg‚µ‚½B

‚ÅAJay Richards‚ÍA‚Ü‚¸Aƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚Å‚àƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚ÍŒŸo‚Å‚«‚é‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤F

First, taken seriously, this is quite obviously a theistic form of design that simply tries to locate all the designing activity at the beginning--in the cosmic fine-tuning and initial conditions. The design does real work, and there's no reason that the effects of that design would not be empirically detectable (as long as we have an open-minded, nonpositivist view of science). As a simple analogy, think of front-loading this way. If I shoot a gun at a target and hit it, I've intentionally aimed the bullet at the beginning, even though the bullet's trajectory follows the rules of gravity, momentum, etc. In God's case, of course, he would also establish the law-like rules and superintend them. All I can do when I shoot a gun is take them into account.

Å‰‚ÉA‚Ü‚锟斤拷‚ß‚ÉŽó‚¯Žæ‚é‚ÆA‚锟絵‚ê‚Í—L_˜_‚ÌƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚ð‰F’ˆ‚ÌÅ‰‚ÌƒfƒUƒCƒ“s“®‚É’u‚A‚·‚È‚í‚¿‰F’ˆ‚Ì”锟斤拷’²®‚Æ‰ŠúðŒ‚Æ‚·‚é‚à‚Ì‚Å‚ ‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚Í–¾‚ç‚©‚Å‚ ‚éBƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Í–{“–‚É“‚«A‚»‚µ‚ÄƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚ÌŒø‰Ê‚ðŒoŒ锟絵“I‚ÉŒŸo‚Å‚«‚È‚锟斤拷——R‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷iƒI[ƒvƒ“ƒ}ƒCƒ“ƒh‚ÅA‚È‚‚Æ‚à‰ÈŠw‚ÉŠyŠÏ“I‚Å‚È‚¯‚ê‚ÎjBŠÈ’P‚ÈƒAƒiƒƒW[‚ÅAƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒ“ƒO‚ðl‚¦‚Ä‚Ý‚æ‚¤BŽ„‚ªe‚Å“I‚ðŒ‚‚Á‚Ä“–‚½‚Á‚½‚Æ‚·‚é‚ÆA‚½‚Æ‚¦’eŠÛ‚Ì‹O“¹‚ªd—Í‚Æ‰^“®—Ê‚È‚Ç‚Ì–@‘\‚É‚µ‚½‚ª‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‚àAŽ„‚ÍˆÓ}“I‚ÉÅ‰‚É’eŠÛ‚Å‘_‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB_‚Ì—á‚Å‚ÍA‚à‚¿‚ë‚ñA–@‘\–¼ƒ‹[ƒ‹‚ðŠm—锟斤拷‚µ‚ÄA‚锟絵‚ê‚ðŠÄ“Â‚·‚éBŽ„‚ªe‚ðŒ‚‚Â‚Æ‚«‚É‚Å‚«‚é‚Ì‚ÍA‚»‚ê‚ç‚Ì–@‘\‚ðl—锟斤拷‚·‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚¾B

ŒŸo‚Å‚«‚é‚Ì‚ÍŽ©‘R–@‘\‚Æ‰Šú’l‚Å‚ ‚Á‚ÄA‚»‚ê‚ð_‚ÌˆÓ}‚Æ‰ðŽß‚·‚é‚©‚Ç‚¤‚©‚Í“NŠw–â‘èB‰ÈŠw‚Ì”Å}“à‚Å‚ÍA‚»‚ñ‚È‚锟絵‚Æ‚Í’m‚Á‚½‚锟絵‚Æ‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷B

‚ÅA‘锟絵‚锟斤拷‚ÄAJay Richards‚ÍƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“•”–å’·‚½‚éStephen Meyer‚Ì˜_‚Æƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚ª–µ‚‚µ‚È‚锟斤拷‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤B‚Ü‚ A‚»‚ê‚Í“–‘R‚ÅA_‚ªŽ©‘R–@‘\‚Æ‰Šú’l‚ÌŒ`‚Å‰F’ˆ‚ðŽÀ‘•‚µØ‚Á‚Ä‚µ‚Ü‚í‚È‚锟斤拷ŒÀ‚èAƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Æ–µ‚‚µ‚È‚锟斤拷B

Second, some front-loading and fine-tuning is not only compatible with but necessary for Steve's argument. But I think the argument that everything can be explained this way doesn't capture the details of Steve's argument about information at the origin of life.

‘æ2‚ÉA‰½‚ç‚©‚Ìƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚â”锟斤拷’²®‚ÍStephen Meyer‚Ì˜_‚Æ–µ‚‚¹‚¸A•K—v‚Å‚·‚ç‚ ‚éB‚µ‚©‚µAŽ„‚Íƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚Æ”锟斤拷’²®‚¾‚¯‚Å‚·‚锟絶‚Ä‚ªà–¾‚Å‚«‚é‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤‚Ì‚ÍAStephen Meyer‚Ì锟斤拷–½‚Ì‹NŒ¹‚É‚锟絅‚¯‚éî•ñ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ì˜_‚ð•ß‚¦‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚锟斤拷‚ÆŽv‚¤B

‚»‚µ‚ÄA_‚Ì‰î“ü‚Ì•K—v«‚ðŒê‚èŽn‚ß‚éJay Richards‚Í...

Third, even if it's possible for God to frontload things in this way, it hardly follows that this is a better explanation than the one Steve proposes, which is (at least implicitly) (1) that matter shows degrees of freedom inconsistent with such complete front-loading and (2) that intelligence plays an active and detectable role within cosmic history, and probably is not limited in the way proposed (or suggested) by Conway Morris and others.

‘æ3‚ÉA_‚ª‚锟絵‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚ÈŒ`‚Åƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒh‚Å‚«‚é‚Æ‚»‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚àA‚锟絵‚ê‚ªStephen Meyer‚Ì‰ß’ö[_‚Ì‰î“ü]‚æ‚è‚à—Ç‚锟斤拷à–¾‚É‚È‚è‚»‚¤‚É‚È‚锟斤拷‚锟絵‚Æ‚¾B‚È‚‚Æ‚àŠÔÚ“I‚ÉA(1) •锟絅Ž¿‚ªŽ¦‚·Ž©—R“x‚ÆA‚»‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚ÈŠ®‘S‚Èƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚Í®‡‚µ‚È‚锟斤拷B(2) ƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒX‚ª”\“®“I‚©‚ÂŒŸo‰Â”\‚È–ðŠ„‚ð‰F’ˆ‚Ì—ðŽj‚É‚锟絅‚锟斤拷‚Ä‰Ê‚½‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚ÄA‚锟絅‚»‚ç‚‚»‚ê‚ÍConway Morris‚½‚¿‚ª’ñ\‚·‚é•û–@(ƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO)‚ÉŒÀ’è‚³‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷B

ƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚ª‚ ‚Á‚Ä‚àA_‚Ì‰î“ü‚Í‚ ‚é‚Ì‚¾‚ÆŒ¾‚Á‚Ä‚Ý‚½‚¾‚¯‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚¾B

‚Æ‚«‚Ç‚«Aƒtƒƒ“ƒgƒ[ƒfƒBƒ“ƒO‚É‘Î‚µ‚Ä‰½‚©Œ¾‚Á‚Ä‚锟絅‚•K—v‚ª‚ ‚é‚ªA‚»‚ê‚Í‚Ü‚³‚Éu‰½‚©v‚Å‚æ‚锟斤拷‚ÆŠ锟絃‚ª‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Ì‚©‚àB

ƒ^ƒOFDI id—˜_

posted by Kumicit at 2010/01/13 00:54 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute |

2010/01/11

ƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Ì–{ŽR‚½‚éDiscovery Institute‚ÌƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“•”–å‚Å‚ ‚éCenter for Science and Culture‚Ì•›ƒZƒ“ƒ^[’·‚Å‚ ‚èAƒVƒjƒAƒtƒFƒ[‚Å‚ ‚éŽÐ‰ïŠwŽÒDr. John G. West‚ªAŽ©’˜"Darwin Day in America‚ðƒ_ƒCƒWƒFƒXƒg‚µ‚½"The Abolition of Man?"‚ð“Ç‚ÞƒVƒŠ[ƒY

–{•锟斤拷‚ÌŽc‚è‚ÅADr. John G West‚Í2‚Â‚Ì‚锟絵‚Æ‚ðq‚锟絶‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB‚»‚Ìˆê‚Â–Ú‚ÍA"‘n‘锟斤拷˜_ŽÒ"‚Ì—‰È‹³ˆç‚É‘Î‚·‚éˆÓŒ©‚àA“™‚µ‚Žæ‚èˆµ‚í‚ê‚é‚锟絶‚«‚¾‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤‚à‚ÌBŽå’锟斤拷‚Ì–{‘Ì‚Å‚ ‚éF

Stifling Free Speech

A final influence of scientific materialism on public policy has been the suppressing of free speech and debate over the public policy implications of science. This is surely one of the most striking ironies of the effort to enlist scientific materialism to reform society.

Œö‹¤ô‚É‘Î‚·‚é‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Ì‘æ5‚Ì‰e‹¿‚ÍAŒ¾˜_‚ÌŽ©—R‚锟絅‚æ‚Ñ‰ÈŠw‚ÌŒö‹¤ô‚É‘Î‚·‚éˆÓ–¡‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ì˜_‘ˆ‚Ì—}ˆ³‚Å‚ ‚éB‚锟絵‚ê‚ÍAŽÐ‰ï‰üŠv‚É‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚ð•‚¯‚ðŽØ‚è‚æ‚¤‚Æ‚·‚é“w—Í‚ÌA‚à‚Á‚Æ‚à’˜‚µ‚锟斤拷”ç“锟斤拷‚Ìˆê‚Â‚Å‚ ‚éB

In their own minds, proponents of scientific materialism were the defenders of enlightenment against superstition and rational debate against unreasoning dogmatism, but the rhetoric they employed against their opponents is often far from conducive to open debate. The repeated insistence that scientists know best and, thus, politicians and the public should blindly accept the policy views of scientists did not encourage critical scrutiny of scientific claims made in politics.

‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_ŽxŽŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÍA‚»‚ÌS‚Ì‚¤‚¿‚Å‚ÍA–ÀM‚É‘Î‚·‚éŒ[–Ö‚ÆA•s‡—‚È‹³‹`‚É‘Î‚·‚é—«“I˜_‘ˆ‚Ì—iŒìŽÒ‚¾‚ªA”Þ‚ç‚ª“G‘ÎŽÒ‚ÉŽg‚¤ƒŒƒgƒŠƒbƒN‚Í—¦’¼‚È‹c˜_‚Ì•‚¯‚É‚Í‚È‚ç‚È‚©‚Á‚½B‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚ÍƒxƒXƒg‚ð’m‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚ÄAŽ¡‰Æ‚ÆŽs–¯‚Í–Ó–Ú‚É‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚Ìô‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚ÌŒ©•û‚ðŽó‚¯“ü‚ê‚é‚锟絶‚«‚ÅAŽ¡‚É‚锟絅‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚È‚³‚ê‚½‰ÈŠw“IŽå’锟斤拷‚Ì”á”»“I’²¸‚ÍŠ½Œ}‚³‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷‚ÆŒJ‚è•Ô‚µŽå’锟斤拷‚³‚ê‚Ä‚«‚½B

Even less conducive to genuine debate was the frequent playing of the religion card in policy disputes involving science. With the help of sympathetic journalists, proponents of scientific materialism portrayed every policy dispute as a battle pitting the enlightened forces of science against bigoted religious extremists. Promoters of eugenics heaped scorn on Catholic and fundamentalist critics of forced sterilization. Advocates of Kinsey-style sex education demonized parents who raised objections as Bible-thumpers who were conspiring against democracy. Today, defenders of a Darwin-only biology curriculum similarly accuse their opponents of trying to insert the Biblical creation story into science classes, even when such claims are inaccurate.

‰ÈŠw‚ÉŠÖ˜A‚·‚éô˜_‘ˆ‚É‚锟絅‚锟斤拷‚Ä@‹³ƒJ[ƒh‚ð•p”É‚ÉŽg‚¤‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÍA‚æ‚è–{•锟絅‚Ì‹c˜_‚ð‚·‚é‚Ì‚É•‚¯‚É‚È‚ç‚È‚©‚Á‚½B“¯’²‚·‚éƒWƒƒ[ƒiƒŠƒXƒg‚Ì•‚¯‚ðŽØ‚è‚ÄA‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚ÌŽxŽŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÍA‚ ‚ç‚ä‚éô˜_‘ˆ‚É‚锟絅‚锟斤拷‚ÄA‰ÈŠw‚ÌŒ[–Ö“I—Í‚É‚æ‚éA•Î‹ü‚È@‹³‰ßŒƒ”h‚Æ‚Ìí‚锟斤拷‚Å‚ ‚é‚©‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚É•`ŽÊ‚µ‚Ä‚«‚½B—D锟斤拷Šw‚Ì„iŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÍAƒJƒgƒŠƒbƒN‚锟絅‚æ‚ÑŒ锟絃—Žå‹`‚Ì‹锟斤拷’fŽí”á”»ŽÒ‚ðŒy•Ì‚µ‚Ä‚«‚½BKinseyƒXƒ^ƒCƒ‹‚Ì«‹³ˆç‚ÌŽxŽŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÍAˆÙ‹c‚ð\‚¦‚é—¼e‚ðA–¯ŽåŽå‹`‚É‰A–d‚ðŠé‚Ä‚é•Ÿ‰¹“`“¹ŽÒ‚¾‚Æˆ«–‚‰»‚µ‚½B¡“úAƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚Ì‚Ý‚Ì锟斤拷•锟絅ŠwƒJƒŠƒLƒ…ƒ‰ƒ€‚Í“¯—l‚ÉA¹‘‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‚Ì•锟絅Œê‚ðŽ‚¿ž‚à‚¤‚Æ‚·‚éŽÒ‚¾‚Æ”½‘ÎŽÒ‚ð”á“ï‚·‚éB‚½‚Æ‚¦A‚»‚ÌŽå’锟斤拷‚ªŠÔˆá‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚àB

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of these attempts to frame policy disputes in terms of religion versus science is the attempt to shift the focus from the content of the debates to the supposed motives of those who oppose any claim made in the name of science. Instead of addressing the policy arguments raised by critics of sex education or Darwin-only science education, defenders of scientific materialism try to make the religious beliefs of their opponents the central issue, arguing that critics' real or perceived religious motivations somehow disqualify them from being active participants in the public square.

‚锟絅‚»‚ç‚A@‹³‘Î‰ÈŠw‚ÌŒ¾—t‚Åô˜_‘ˆ‚ðƒtƒŒ[ƒ€‚µ‚æ‚¤‚Æ‚·‚éŽŽ‚Ý‚ÌÅ‚à•s‰¸‚È–Ê‚ÍA‰ÈŠw‚Ì–¼‚Å‚È‚³‚ê‚éŽå’锟斤拷‚ª‰½‚Å‚ ‚êA‚锟絵‚ê‚É”½‘Î‚·‚élX‚Ì‘z’è“®‹@‚Ö‚Æ˜_“_‚ðˆÚ‚·‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚ ‚éB«‹³ˆç‚âƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚Ì‚Ý‚Ì—‰È‹³ˆç‚É‘Î‚·‚é”á”»ŽÒ‚É‚æ‚éô˜_‘ˆ‚É‘ÎR‚·‚é‚Ì‚Å‚Í‚È‚A‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÍA“G‚Ì@‹³Mð‚ð˜_‘ˆ‚Ì’†S‚É‚µ‚æ‚¤‚Æ‚·‚éB‚»‚µ‚ÄA”á”»ŽÒ‚Ì^‚Ì‚ ‚é‚锟斤拷‚Í“Ç‚Ý‚Æ‚ç‚ê‚½@‹³“I“®‹@‚Ì‚ä‚¦‚ÉAŒö“I‚Èê‚Å‚Ì˜_‘ˆŽQ‰ÁŽÒ‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‚ÌŽ‘Ši‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷‚Æ˜_‚锟斤拷‚éB

America is a deeply religious country, and no doubt many critics of the agenda of scientific materialism are motivated in part by their religious beliefs. So what? Many opponents of slavery were motivated by their religious beliefs, and many leaders of the civil rights movement were even members of the clergy. All of them had an equal right with other citizens to raise their voices in public debates. So long as religious persons in politics offer secular justifications for their policy proposals, they have every right to demand that their ideas be heard on the merits regardless of their private religious views.

•Ä‘‚Í[‚锟斤拷@‹³‘‰Æ‚Å‚ ‚èA‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚ÌƒAƒWƒFƒ“ƒ_‚Ì”á”»ŽÒ‚Ì‘½‚‚Í‹^‚锟斤拷‚æ‚¤‚à‚È‚A‚»‚Ì@‹³Mð‚É•”•ª“I‚É“®‹@‚Ã‚¯‚ç‚ê‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB‚»‚ê‚ª‚Ç‚¤‚¾‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤‚Ì‚¾B‘½‚‚Ì“z—ê锟斤拷“x‚Ì”½‘ÎŽÒ‚Í@‹³Mð‚É“®‹@‚Ã‚¯‚ç‚ê‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚ÄAŒö–¯Œ ‰^“®‚Ì‘½‚‚ÌŽw“锟絵ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚É‚Í¹EŽÒ‚½‚¿‚à‚锟斤拷‚½B”Þ‚ç‚Í‚·‚锟絶‚ÄAŒö“I‹c˜_‚Éº‚ð‹“‚锟斤拷‚½‘¼‚ÌŽs–¯‚½‚¿‚Æ“¯“™‚ÌŒ —˜‚ðŽ‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚½BŽ¡‚É’u‚锟斤拷‚Ä@‹³“IlŠÔ‚ªô’ñˆÄ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä锟斤拷‘“I³“–«‚ð’ñˆÄ‚·‚éŒÀ‚èA‚»‚ÌŒÂl‚Ì@‹³ŠÏ‚É‚æ‚ç‚¸A‚»‚ÌƒƒŠƒbƒg‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Äl‚¦‚ð•·‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚à‚ç‚¦‚éŒ —˜‚ðŽ‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB

In the controversy over the teaching of Darwinian theory in public education, reporters often note the supposed religious beliefs of critics of Darwin's theory, but they almost never investigate the anti-religious beliefs of many of the leading defenders of evolutionary theory. Why? Motives are either relevant for both sides of a political dispute, or they are irrelevant to either side. The willingness of some reporters to embrace uncritically the agenda of Darwinists represents a grave disservice to the public as well as a serious breach of journalistic ethics. Given the troubled legacy of scientific materialism in public policy, what is needed is greater critical scrutiny of scientific materialism in politics, not less.

ƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚Ì—˜_‚ðŒö‹³ˆç‚Å‹³‚¦‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð‚ß‚®‚é˜_‘ˆ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚ÄA•ñ“¹ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚Íƒ_[ƒEƒBƒ“‚Ì—˜_‚Ì”á”»ŽÒ‚Ì‘z’è@‹³Mð‚ÉŠÖS‚ð‚Í‚ç‚¤ˆê•û‚ÅAi‰»˜_‚Ì—iŒìŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÌŽ‚Â”½@‹³“IMð‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä’²‚锟絶‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷B‚È‚º‚È‚Ì‚©H@“®‹@‚ÍŽ¡˜_‘ˆ‚Ì—¼‘¤‚É‚ ‚éB‚ ‚é‚锟斤拷‚ÍA‚Ç‚¿‚ç‚É‚àŠÖŒW‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷B–³”á”»‚Éƒ_[ƒEƒBƒjƒXƒg‚ÌƒAƒWƒFƒ“ƒ_‚ðŽó‚¯“ü‚ê‚æ‚¤‚Æ‚·‚é•ñ“¹ŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ÍA•ñ“¹‚Ì—Ï—‚Ìd‘å‚Èˆá”½‚ð”Æ‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Î‚©‚è‚©AŽs–¯‚Ö‚Ìd‘å‚È‘¹ŠQ‚ð‚à‚½‚ç‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éBŒö‹¤ô‚Ì‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Ì–â‘è‚Ì‚ ‚éˆâŽY‚ª‚ ‚é‚©‚ç‚锟絵‚»A•K—v‚È‚锟絵‚Æ‚ÍAŽ¡‚É‚锟絅‚¯‚é‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Ì”á”»“I‚È’²¸‚Å‚ ‚éB

‚Ü‚½A@‹³‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷ƒlƒ^‚Å˜_•锟斤拷‚ð‘‚锟斤拷‚ÄAŠwpŽ‚ÉŒfÚ‚³‚ê‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‘n‘锟斤拷˜_ŽÒ‚à‚锟斤拷‚é‚í‚¯‚Å...
==>CA325: ‘n‘锟斤拷˜_ŽÒ‚Í‰ÈŠwŠwpŽ‚Ö‚Ì˜_•锟斤拷ŒfÚ‚ð‘jŽ~‚³‚ê‚é

‚Å‚à‚Á‚ÄA2‚Â–Ú‚ÍA‚È‚‚Æ‚àŒö‹¤ô‚ÉŠÖ˜A‚·‚é‰ÈŠw—˜_‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚ÄA"–¯Žå“I"‚É‘’‚è‹Ž‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð‰Â”\‚É‚µ‚æ‚¤‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤‚à‚ÌB‚½‚¾‚µŒö—锟斤拷ŠwZ‚Ì—‰È‹³ˆç‚Ì“à—e‚ÍŒö‹¤ô‚ÉŠÜ‚Ü‚ê‚é‚Ì‚ÅA—‰È‹³ˆçƒJƒŠƒLƒ…ƒ‰ƒ€‚ÉŠÜ‚Ü‚ê‚éƒlƒ^‚Í‚·‚锟絶‚Ä‘ÎÛ‚Æ‚È‚éF

Conservatives who are uncomfortable with current debates over science and public policy need to realize that the debates are not going to go away, because scientific materialism raises fundamental challenges to the traditional Western understanding of human nature and the universe. Scientific materialism is central to arguments over moral relativism, personal responsibility, limited government, and scientific utopianism.

‰ÈŠw‚ÆŒö‹¤ô‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚ÌŒ»Ý‚Ì˜_‘ˆ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä•s‰õ‚¾‚Æ‚锟絅‚à‚¤•ÛŽç‚ÍA‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚ª“`““I¼—m‚ÌlŠÔ«‚Æ‰F’ˆ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ì—‰ð‚É‘Î‚·‚éª–{“I‚È’锟斤拷í‚ðs‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Ì‚ÅA˜_‘ˆ‚ªÁ‚¦‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ª‚È‚锟斤拷‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð”FŽ¯‚·‚é•K—v‚ª‚ ‚éB‰ÈŠw“I—B•锟絅˜_‚Í—Ï—‘Š‘ÎŽå‹`‚âŒÂl‚ÌÓ”C‚â•{‚ÌŒÀ’è‚â‰ÈŠw“Iƒ†[ƒgƒsƒA—‘zŽå‹`‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ì‹c˜_‚Ì’†S‚É‚ ‚éB

Moreover, these debates are not going away because many of America's most influential scientists are avowed materialists, and it is nearly impossible for them to separate their materialism from their policy recommendations. Nearly 95 percent of biologists in the National Academy of Sciences, for example, identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics. We are not supposed to wonder how their materialism influences their application of scientific expertise to public affairs?

‚³‚ç‚ÉA•Ä‘‚ÌÅ—L—Í‚È‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚½‚¿‚Ì‘½‚‚ª—B•锟絅˜_ŽÒ‚Å‚ ‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ðŽ©”F‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚Ì‚ÅA‚锟絵‚ê‚ç‚Ì‹c˜_‚ÍI‚í‚ç‚È‚锟斤拷B‚»‚µ‚ÄA”Þ‚ç‚ªŽ©‚ç—B•锟絅˜_‚Æ„锟斤拷‚·‚éô‚ðØ‚è—锟斤拷‚·‚锟絵‚Æ‚Í•s‰Â”\‚¾B•Ä‘‰ÈŠwƒAƒJƒfƒ~[‚Ì锟斤拷•锟絅ŠwŽÒ‚Ì‚Ù‚Ú95ƒp[ƒZƒ“ƒg‚ÍA–³_˜_ŽÒ‚Ü‚½‚Í•s‰Â’m˜_ŽÒ‚¾‚Æ‰ñ“š‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚éB‰äX‚Í‰ÈŠw“Iê–å’mŽ¯‚ÌŒö‹¤–â‘è‚Ö‚Ì“K—p‚ÉA”Þ‚ç‚Ì—B•锟絅˜_‚ª‰e‹¿‚µ‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚©‹^–â‚ÉŽv‚Á‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚锟斤拷‚Ì‚Å‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷‚©H

As members of a free society, we should be willing to defend vigorously the right of laypeople and scientists to voice dissent from the current scientific consensus, whether the issue is global warming, the over-prescription of Ritalin for children, the content of sex education, or even the debate over Darwinism and intelligent design.

Ž©—RŽÐ‰ï‚Ìˆêˆõ‚Æ‚µ‚ÄA’n‹…‰·’g‰»‚âŽq‹Ÿ‚Ö‚ÌƒŠƒ^ƒŠƒ“‚Ì‰ßè“Š—^‚â«‹³ˆç‚Ì“à—e‚âƒ_[ƒEƒBƒjƒYƒ€‚ÆƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚Ì˜_‘ˆ‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚ÄA‘fl‚âŒ»Ý‚Ì‰ÈŠw“IƒRƒ“ƒZƒ“ƒTƒX‚ÉˆÙ‹c‚ð\‚¦‚é‰ÈŠwŽÒ‚ÌŒ —˜‚ðÏ‹É“I‚É—iŒì‚·‚éˆÓŽu‚ðŽ‚Â‚锟絶‚«‚Å‚ ‚éB

We do not always have to agree with dissenters in order to defend their right to present their views free from harassment and intimidation. But if we are unwilling to defend their right to debate scientific issues implicating public policy, we have no grounds for complaint when the agenda of the scientific elites leads to coercive utopianism or when every attempt to raise a different point of view is smeared as an attack on science.

Œ™‚ª‚ç‚¹‚Æ‹º”—‚³‚ê‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚È‚Œ©‰ð‚ð’ñŽ¦‚·‚éŒ —˜‚ðŽç‚é‚½‚ß‚ÉA‰äX‚ÍˆÙ‹c‚ð\‚¦‚éŽÒ‚½‚¿‚Éí‚É“¯ˆÓ‚·‚é•K—v‚Í‚È‚锟斤拷B‚µ‚©‚µAŒö‹¤ô‚É‰e‹¿‚·‚é‰ÈŠw“I–â‘è‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚Ì˜_‘ˆ‚ðs‚¤Œ —˜‚ð—iŒì‚·‚éˆÓŽu‚ðŽ‚½‚È‚锟斤拷‚È‚çA‰ÈŠw“IƒGƒŠ[ƒg‚ª‹锟斤拷“I‚Èƒ†[ƒgƒsƒA“I—‘zŽå‹`‚Ö‚Æ“锟絵‚锟絵‚¤‚Æ‚µ‚½‚Æ‚«‚âAˆÙ‚È‚éŒ©‰ð‚Ì’ñŽ¦‚ð‰ÈŠw‚Ö‚ÌUŒ‚‚¾‚Æ‚Ý‚È‚³‚ê‚é‚Æ‚«‚ÉA‰äX‚Í•锟斤拷‹å‚ðŒ¾‚¤‚½‚ß‚ÌŠî”Õ‚ðŽ‚Ä‚È‚‚È‚éB

Contrary to the assertions of some, robust public scrutiny of claims made in the name of science does not constitute a "war against science." Indeed, it may be the very thing that saves science from its own excesses.

‰ÈŠw‚Ì–¼‚É‚锟絅‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚È‚³‚ê‚½Žå’锟斤拷‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚ÌŒö“I‚ÈÚ锟絶‚È’²¸‚ÍAˆê•”‚ÌŽÒ‚½‚¿‚ªŒ¾‚¤‚Ì‚Æ‚Í‹t‚Éu‰ÈŠw‚É‘Î‚·‚éí‘ˆv‚ð\锟斤拷‚µ‚È‚锟斤拷BŽÀÛ‚É‚ÍA‰ÈŠw‚Ì‰ßè‚©‚ç‰ÈŠw‚ðŽç‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚È‚é‚©‚à‚µ‚ê‚È‚锟斤拷B

’n‹…‰·’g‰»‚¾‚ÆŠô‚Â‚©ƒ~ƒhƒ‹ƒOƒ‰ƒEƒ“ƒh‚Í‚ ‚é‚¯‚Ç‚ËBê–åŠO‚ÌlX‚ª”Û’è˜_‚ðˆê”Ê‘‚â‚çWebƒTƒCƒg‚ÅŽå’锟斤拷‚µ‚Ä‰ÈŠw‚È“š‚¦‚ªo‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚È‚锟斤拷‚锟絵‚Æ‚É‚·‚é‚Ì‚Å‚Í‚È‚A‚½‚Æ‚¦‚Î

ƒƒŠƒbƒgƒfƒƒŠƒbƒg‚ðŒŸ“锟斤拷‚Ìã‚ÅA‰·ŽºŒø‰ÊƒKƒX”ro‹K锟斤拷‚ð‚¹‚¸A•Ï“®‚·‚é‹CŒó‚É‘Î‰ž‚µ‚½ƒCƒ“ƒtƒ‰EŽY‹Æ\‘锟斤拷‚ð‚Â‚‚é‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð—Dæ‚·‚é

‚È‚ÇB

John G West‚ÍAi‰»˜_‚É‚Â‚锟斤拷‚Ä‚ÍAu‰ÈŠw‚Ì锟斤拷ŠE‚É‚锟絅‚锟斤拷‚ÄƒCƒ“ƒeƒŠƒWƒFƒ“ƒgƒfƒUƒCƒ“‚ÍƒSƒ~‚Å‚àAŒö‹¤ô‚½‚é—‰È‹³ˆç‚Ì“à—e‚Å‚Íi‰»˜_‚Æ‘Î“™‚È‘ÎR—˜_‚Æ‚µ‚Ä‹³‚¦‚év‚Æ‚锟斤拷‚¤‚锟絵‚Æ‚ð‹‚ß‚Ä‚锟斤拷‚é‚æ‚¤‚¾B
‚锟絵‚ê‚ÍA‚锟絅‚»‚ç‚AŽŸ‚Ì‚æ‚¤‚Èó‹µ‚Å‚à‚È‚锟斤拷ŒÀ‚èA˜_ŠO‚È˜b‚¾B

LUCIUS: Dr Zaius, this is inexcusable! Why must knowledge stand still? What about the future?
ZAIUS: I may just have saved it for you.
LUSIUS: What will he find out there, doctor?
ZAIUS: His destiny.
[src]

ƒ^ƒOFDI id—˜_

posted by Kumicit at 2010/01/11 00:00 | Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | DiscoveryInstitute |

- 1 2 3 4 5.. >>


	ƒEƒFƒu		‹LŽ–

–Y‹p‚©‚ç‚Ì‹AŠÒ

2010/08/07

‘n‘锟斤拷˜_‹³ˆç‚ð–Íõ‚·‚éLivingston ParishŠw‹æ‹³ˆçˆÏˆõ‰ï‚É”½‰ž‚·‚éDiscovery InstituteŠ’·