Clicca qui per scaricare

REDESIGNING THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
Titolo Rivista: PARADIGMI 
Autori/Curatori: Philippe Huneman 
Anno di pubblicazione:  2015 Fascicolo: Lingua: Inglese 
Numero pagine:  28 P. 105-132 Dimensione file:  116 KB
DOI:  10.3280/PARA2015-002008
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più:  clicca qui   qui 


L’articolo mette in discussione gli "argomenti del disegno" che inferivano dalle funzioni degli organismi, dalle loro strutture o dal loro adattarsi all’ambiente, il fatto che fossero stati progettati da un architetto intelligente. Questi argomenti sono molto antichi e hanno pervaso la filosofia e la storia naturale sin dall’antichità. Ogni loro versione connette in qualche modo le funzioni, le strutture e la complessità con la casualità e la bassa probabilità. Darwin sostenne di avere risolto tale argomento, perché la selezione naturale elimina il bisogno di riferirsi ad un progettista. Dopo aver distinto diversi tipi di argomenti, si analizza la loro struttura razionale nei termini delle nozioni computazionali di complessità e casualità. Infine, mostro la ragione per cui la selezione naturale risolve l’argomento del disegno


Keywords: Argomento del disegno, casualità, complessità, Darwin, probabilità.

  1. Adami C. (2002). What is complexity? Bioessays, 24, 12: 1085-94.
  2. Amundson R. (1994). Two concepts of constraint: adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philosophy of Science, 61, 4: 556-578.
  3. Amundson R. (1995). Historical development of the concept of adaptation. In: Rose M.R. and Lauder G.V., eds., Adaptation. San Diego: Academic Press: 11-53.
  4. Anastasios T. (2008). Randomicity: rules and randomness in the realm of the infinite. London: Imperial College Press.
  5. Balan B. (1979). L’ordre et le temps. Paris: Vrin.
  6. Behe M. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: The Free Press.
  7. Brandon R. (1990). Adaptation and Environment. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  8. Brandon R. (2013). A General Case for Functional Pluralism. In: Huneman P., ed., Functions. Selection and mechanisms. Dordrecht: Springer: 97-104.
  9. Burian R. (1983). Adaptation. In: Grene M., ed., Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 286-314.
  10. Chaitin G. (1970). On the difficulty of computation. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-16: 5-9.
  11. Cunningham A. (2000). The pen and the sword: recovering the disciplinary identity of physiology and anatomy before 1800. I. Old physiology – the pen. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33, 4: 631-665.
  12. Cunningham A. (2003). The pen and the sword: recovering the disciplinary identity of physiology and anatomy before 1800. II. Old physiology – the sword. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 34, 1: 51-76.
  13. Cuvier G. (1812). Recherches sur les ossements fossiles des quadrupèdes. Paris: Deterville.
  14. Darwin C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.
  15. Darwin C. (1862). On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilized by Insects, and On the Good Effects of Intercrossing. London: John Murray.
  16. Darwin C. (1958). The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. London: Collins.
  17. Dawkins R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Endler J. (1986). Natural selection in the wild. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  18. Dembski W.A. (1998). The design inference: eliminating chance through small probabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Fisher R. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon.
  20. Gardner A. (2009). Adaptation as organism design. Biology Letters, 5: 861-864.
  21. Gayon J. (1998). Darwinism’s struggle for survival: heredity and the hypothesis of natural selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Gillespie J. (2004). Population genetics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  23. Gillespie N.C. (1990). Divine design and the industrial revolution. William Paley’s abortive reform of natural theology, Isis, 81, 2: 214-229.
  24. Godfrey-Smith P. (1996). Complexity and Its Function in Mind and Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Godfrey-Smith P. (2001). Three kinds of adaptationism. In: Orzack S.H. and Sober E., eds., Adaptationism and Optimality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 335-357.
  26. Gould S.J. and Lewontin R. (1978). The spandrels of san Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 205, 1161: 581-598.
  27. Grafen A. (2002). A First Formal Link between the Price Equation and an Optimization Program. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 217, 1: 75-91.
  28. Hamilton W.D. (1963). The evolution of altruistic behavior. American Naturalist, 97, 896: 354-356.
  29. Hume D. (1990). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. London: Penguin (1st ed. 1779).
  30. Huneman P. (2013). Weak Realism in the Etiological Theory of Functions. In: Huneman P., ed., Functions. Selection and mechanisms. Dordrecht: Springer: 105-131.
  31. Huneman P. (2014a). Formal Darwinism as a tool for understanding the status of organisms in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy,, DOI: 10.1007/s10539-013-9419-6
  32. Huneman P. (2014b). Selection. In: Heams T., Huneman P., Lecointre G. and Silberstein M., eds., Handbook of Evolutionary Thinking in the Sciences. Springer: Dordrecht: 37-70.
  33. Huxley J. (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London: Allen & Unwin.
  34. Huxley J. (1951). Letter to Ernst Mayr, dated 1 October. Houston (TX), Rice University, Fondren Library, Woodson Research Center, Julian Sorell Huxley Papers, MS 050, Series III: General Correspondence 1904-1980, Box 19, Folder 12.
  35. Kant I. (1987). Critique of Judgment. Indianapolis: Hackett (1st ed. 1790).
  36. Kolmogorov A.N. and Uspensky V.A. (1988). Algorithms and Randomness. SIAM Theory of Probability and Applications, 32: 389-412.
  37. Lesne A. (2006). Chaos in Biology. Biology Forum, 99, 3: 413-428.
  38. Martin-Löf P. (1970). On the Notion of Randomness. In: Kino A., ed., Intuitionism
  39. and Proof Theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Mayr E. (1983). How to carry out the adaptationist program. American Naturalist, 121, 3: 324-334.
  40. Mayr E. (1984). What is Darwinism today? Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2: 145-156.
  41. McShea D. (2005). The evolution of complexity without natural selection: a possible large-scale trend of the fourth kind. Paleobiology, 31, 2: 146-156.
  42. Merlin F. (2010). Evolutionary Chance Mutation: A Defense of the Modern Synthesis’ Consensus View. Philosophy & Theory in Biology, 2: e103.
  43. Millikan R. (1984). Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  44. Müller G. and Pigliucci M. (2011). Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  45. Nilsson D.E. and Pelger S. (1994). A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 256, 1345: 53-58.
  46. Orr H.A. (2009). Fitness and its role in evolutionary genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10: 531-539.
  47. Paley W. (1802). Natural Theology. London: Wilks & Taylor.
  48. Reeve H.K. and Sherman P. (1993). Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 68, 1: 1-32.
  49. Sober E. (1984). The nature of selection. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  50. Wade M. and Kalisz S. (1990). The causes of natural selection. Evolution, 44, 8: 1947-1955.
  51. Weber B. (1999). Irreducible Complexity and The Problem of Biochemical Emergence. Biology and Philosophy, 14, 4: 593-605.
  52. Williams G.C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  53. Williams G.C. (1992). Natural selection: domains, levels and challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Wright L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review, 82, 2: 139-168.



  1. Philippe Huneman, Revisiting darwinian teleology: A case for inclusive fitness as design explanation in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 101188/2019 pp. 101188, DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101188
  2. Philippe Huneman, Biological Robustness pp. 95 (ISBN:978-3-030-01197-0)

Philippe Huneman, Ridisegnare l’argomento del disegno in "PARADIGMI" 2/2015, pp. 105-132, DOI:10.3280/PARA2015-002008

   

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association associazione indipendente e no profit per facilitare l'accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche