Intelligent design and the appeal of teleology. structure and diagnosis of a pseudoscientific doctrine

Titolo Rivista PARADIGMI
Autori/Curatori Telmo Pievani
Anno di pubblicazione 2013 Fascicolo 2013/1
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 14 P. 151-164 Dimensione file 172 KB
DOI 10.3280/PARA2013-001010
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

Uno studio filosofico e cognitivo degli argomenti addotti dai sostenitori dell’Intelligent Design (ID) mostra quanto essi siano attentamente predisposti per risultare attraenti a una mente, come quella umana, fortemente persuasa da sistemi di credenze di tipo teleologico - come già intuito da Darwin - e dall’attribuzione di intenzionalità e di finalità ai fenomeni naturali. Descriviamo qui come la struttura epistemica dell’ID sia consapevolmente plasmata da questa attrazione cognitiva presente in noi "nati per credere" e sia poi implementata da una forte familiarità con le regole talvolta fuorvianti dei dibattiti pubblici. Viene quindi delineata una possibile procedura di valutazione epistemologica di questa forma di pseudoscienza, a partire da gradi successivi di concessione del "beneficio del dubbio".

Parole chiave:Disegno intelligente, Pluralismo epistemologico, Ragionamento teleologico, Richiamo cognitivo, Unicità della biologia evolutiva.

  1. Darwin Ch. R. (1836-1844). Notebooks 1836-1844. Edited by P. H. Barrett, P. J. Gautrey, S. Herbert, D. Kohn & S. Smith. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press, 1987
  2. Darwin Ch. R. (18726). The Origins of Species. London: John Murray
  3. De Caro M. & Macarthur D. (2004). Naturalism in Question. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
  4. De Caro M. & Pievani T. (2010). Bellarmine’s Revenge? On Some Recent Trends in the Roman Catholic Church concerning the Relation of Faith and Science. Boundary2, 37, 1: 1-22.
  5. Eldredge N. (2000). The Triumph of Evolution, and the Failure of Creationism. New York: W.H. Freeman and C.
  6. Forrest B. (2000). Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection. Philo 3 (2): 7-29. DOI: 10.5840/philo20003213
  7. Forrest B. & Gross P.R. (2004). Creationism’s Trojan Horse. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195157420.001.0001
  8. Futuyma D.J. (1995). Science on Trial. The Case for Evolution. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates.
  9. Girotto V., Pievani T. & Vallortigara G. (2008). Nati per credere. Torino: Codice Edizioni
  10. Godfrey-Smith P. (1999). Adaptationism and the Power of Selection. Biology and Philosophy, 14: 181-194. DOI: 10.1023/A:1006630232690
  11. Gould S.J. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge (MA): Belknap- Harvard University Press.
  12. Gould S.J. & Vrba E.S. (1982). Exaptation, a Missing Term in the Science of Form. Paleobiology, 8(1): 4-15.
  13. Hart D. & Sussman R.W. (2009). Man the Hunted. Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution. Boulder (CO): Westview Press
  14. Keleman D. (2003). British and American Children’s Preferences for Teleo-functional Explanations of the Natural World. Cognition, 88: 201-221. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00024-6
  15. Kitcher P. (1982). Abusing Science. The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
  16. Küng H. (2007). The Beginning of All Things. London: Eerdmans Publishing Company
  17. Lakatos I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In: Philosophical Papers, vol. 1. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511621123
  18. Lakatos I. & Musgrave A., eds. (1974). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press
  19. Lombrozo T., Keleman D. & Zaitchik D. (2007). Inferring Design: Evidence of a Preference for Teleological Explanations in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Psychological Science, 18: 999-1006. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02015.x
  20. Murray M.J. & Schloss J.P. (2010). Evolution, Design, and Genomic Suboptimality: Does Science ‘Save Theology’?. PNAS, 107, 30, E121. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1007401107
  21. Pennock R. T. (1999). Tower of Babel. The Evidence against the New Creationism. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.
  22. Perakh M. (2004). Unintelligent Design. New York: Prometheus Books
  23. Pievani T. (2003). Rhapsodic Evolution: Essay on Exaptation and Evolutionary Pluralism. World Futures, 59: 63-81. DOI: 10.1080/02604020216077
  24. Pievani T. (2006). Creazione senza Dio. Torino: Einaudi
  25. Pievani T. (2009). The World after Charles R. Darwin: Continuity, Unity in Diversity, Contingency. Rend. Acc. Lincei, 20. 4: 355-361. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12210-009-0068-2
  26. Pievani T. (2011). Born to cooperate? Altruism as Exaptation, and the Evolution of Human Sociality. In: Origins of Cooperation and Altruism. Ed. by R.W. Sussman & R.C. Cloninger. New York: Springer: 41-61. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9520-9_4
  27. Pievani T. (2012). An Evolving Research Programme: the Structure of Evolutionary Theory from a Lakatosian Perspective”. In: The Theory of Evolution and Its Impact. Ed. by A. Fasolo. New York: Springer: 211-228. DOI: 10.1007/978-88-470-1974-4_14
  28. Pigliucci M. & Müller G., eds. (2010). Evolution. The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press
  29. Prothero D.R. (2007). Evolution. What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. New York: Columbia University Press
  30. Saxe R., Tenenbaum J.B. & Carey S. (2005). Secret Agents. Inferences about Hidden Causes by 10- and 12-month-old Infants. Psychological Science, 16: 995-1001. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01649.x
  31. Scott E.C. (2004). Evolution vs Creationism. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press
  32. Shanks N. (2004). God, the Devil, and Darwin. Oxford-NewYork: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/0195161998.001.0001
  33. Sober E. (2008). Evidence and Evolution. The Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511806285
  34. Vallortigara G. (2008). Animals as Natural Geometers. In: Cognitive Biology: Evolutionary and Developmental Perspectives on Mind, Brain and Behavior, ed. by L. Tommasi, M.A. Peterson & L. Nadel. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press: 83-104.
  35. Wolpert L. (2007). Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast. London: Faber and Faber
  36. Young M. & Edis T. (2009). Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Piscataway (NJ): Rutgers University Press
  37. Avise J.C. (2010). Footprints of Nonsentient Design inside the Human Genome. PNAS, 107, suppl. 2: 8969-8976. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0914609107
  38. Ayala F.J. (2007). Darwin’s Gifts to Science and Theology. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press
  39. Ayala F.J. & Arp R., eds. (2010). Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology. Chichester (UK): Wiley-Blackwell
  40. Bloom P. (2004). Descartes’ Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains what Makes us Human. New York: Basic Books.
  41. Boyer P. (2001). Religion Explained. New York: Basic Books
  42. Brumfiel G. (2005). Intelligent Design: Who has Designs on your Student’s Minds? Nature, 434: 1062-1065. DOI: 10.1038/4341062a
  43. Carey S. (2000). Science Education as Conceptual Change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21: 13-19. DOI: 10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00046-5
  44. Conway Morris S. (2003). Life’s Solution. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511535499
  45. Coyne J.A. (2009). Why Evolution is True. New York: Viking Press

  • Geoethics Telmo Pievani, pp.57 (ISBN:9780127999357)

Telmo Pievani, Intelligent design and the appeal of teleology. structure and diagnosis of a pseudoscientific doctrine in "PARADIGMI" 1/2013, pp 151-164, DOI: 10.3280/PARA2013-001010