The Latest Version of Creationism

On October 10, 2002, the full membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the most important scientific association in the United States, passed a resolution explicitly opposing the so-called “Intelligent Design Theory” (abbreviated as ID theory), calling on all its members to “examine science education policy to understand the nature of science; examine the content of contemporary evolutionary theory, and review the inappropriateness of ‘ID’ as a topic in science education.”①

2002年10月10日，美国最重要的科学协会——科学促进会（AAAS）的全体成员通过了一个决议，明确反对所谓的“智慧设计理论”（Intelligent Design Theory），简称为lD理论，要求其全体成员“检查科学的教育政策以理解科学的本性；检查当代进化论内容，审查‘ID’作为科学教育的一个主题的不恰当性。”①

“ID” theory is the latest version of creationism from the end of the 20th century. This theory holds that complex, information-rich biological structures cannot arise through natural forces alone but can only appear through the intervention of some supernatural intelligent force. The use of the term “intelligent” design here is an attempt to avoid the conspicuous terms such as “God,” “deity,” and “creation” employed by traditional creationism, so as to circumvent the legal obstacles to entering the field of public education. The ID movement was launched in the 1990s by Philip Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and its research center is the unofficial “Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture” (CRSC), based in Seattle, Washington. ID theory attempts to unify various forms of creationism, demanding the abandonment of internal differences among them, and to confront their common enemy—evolutionary theory—under the single slogan of “creation” or “design.” As human history entered the 1990s, the ID movement became the representative of creationism and began to lead the struggle against evolution.

“ID”理论是20世纪末的最新版本的创世论。这一理论认为像复杂的、具有丰富信息的生物结构是不能够借助于自然的力量，而只有借助于某种超自然的智慧力量才能显现。这里采用某种“智慧”的设计，是想避免传统创世论所采用的“上帝”、“神”、“创世”等引人注目的术语，以绕开进入大众教育领域的相关法律上的障碍。ID运动是在20世纪90年代由菲利普·约翰逊（Philip Johnson），加州大学伯克利分校的一位法律学教授所发起，其研究中心为设立在华盛顿州西雅图的非官方的“发现研究所的科学与文化复兴中心”（Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture，简称为CRSC）。ID理论试图统一各式各样的创世论，要求放弃其中内部的差异，在只有“创世”或“设计”的口号下来对抗他们共同的敌人——进化论。当人类的历史进入了20世纪90年代，ID运动就成为创世论的代表，开始领导反进化论的斗争。

I. The ID Movement and Its “Wedge” Strategy

一、ID运动及其“楔入”策略

(I) The Origins of the ID Movement

（一）ID运动的起源

According to the American philosopher and one of the leading opponents of the ID movement, B. Forrest, this movement did not arise from the difficulties of science, but from Johnson’s personal confusion after his divorce; this failed marriage led Johnson to embrace a born-again Christian religious faith. Therefore, in a certain sense, the wedge movement is an adjunct to a religious conversion in Johnson’s life. In Johnson’s own explanation, he says:

按照美国哲学家，反对ID运动的主要领导者之一的富瑞斯特（B．Forrest）的说法，这一运动并不是出自科学的困境，而是出自约翰逊离婚后的个人困惑，这场失败的婚姻使约翰逊笃信基督再生的宗教信念。因此，在某种意义上，楔入运动是约翰逊生活中的一种宗教皈依的附属。在约翰逊自己的解释中，他说：

“Marriage and family life were shattered for me. Although I achieved some academic success, I obtained a meaningless life, which made me… at the vigorous age of 38, dedicate myself to Christ, which aroused a special level of intellectual interest in studying why the intellectual world has always been dominated by naturalism and agnostic thought.”②

婚姻与家庭生活对我来说已经破碎，虽获得了某种学术上的成功，却得到了一种无意义的生活，使得我……在精力充沛的38岁把自己献给基督，即唤起了特殊水平的智力兴趣，以研究为什么知识世界总是被自然主义与不可知论的思想所统治。②

Nancy Pearcey, a colleague of Johnson, also said:

南希·皮尔西（Nancy Pearcey），约翰逊的一位同事，也说过：

“Philip Johnson politically led and forged this movement, proposing what he calls the ‘ID’ movement. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, did so because, stimulated by his failed marriage, he converted to Christianity in middle age.”③

菲利浦·约翰逊在政治上领导、铸造了这场运动，提出他所称之为“ID”的运动。约翰逊是一位加州大学伯克利分校的法律学教授，他之所以这样做，是由于受其失败的婚姻的刺激，在中年皈依到基督教。③

In 1991, Johnson published his book *Darwin on Trial*, which opened the序幕 of the ID movement. In 1999, the CRSC issued its platform:

约翰逊在1991年发表了他的著作《审讯达尔文》，拉开了ID运动的序幕。1999年“CRSC”发表其纲领：

“The consequences of this materialism’s cultural success are very destructive. Materialism denies the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that the environment determines our behavior and beliefs. This moral relativism, adopted uncritically by many social sciences, remains the foundation of much modern economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. By asserting that human thought and behavior are controlled by our biology and environment, materialism also undermines individual responsibility. This result is manifested in modern criminal justice, product quality regulation, and welfare. Within the materialist framework of these social matters, all people are always victims, and no one can bear proper responsibility for his or her actions. The purpose of the CRSC is nothing less than to strive to overthrow this materialism and its legacy. The center of its exploration is to show how new developments in biology, physics, and cognitive science challenge scientific materialism and have reopened the door to a broad theistic understanding of nature. The center rewards its members for conducting original research, convening conferences, and becoming the shapers of belief in a post-materialist prospect for life.”④

这种唯物主义在文化上成功的后果是很具破坏性的。唯物主义否认客观的道德标准的存在，声称环境规定着我们的行为与信念。这种道德的相对主义被众多社会科学毫无批判性地采用，它仍然是众多的现代经济、政治科学、心理学与社会学的基础。通过断言人类的思想与行为受控于我们的生物学与环境，唯物主义同样破坏了个人的责任。这种结果表现在现代的犯罪审判、对产品质量的监管与福利方面。在这些社会事物的唯物主义框架内，所有的人一直都是受害者，没有一个人能为他或她的行为负应有的责任。“CRSC”目的不过要努力去推翻这种唯物主义及其遗产，其探索的中心是想表明在生物学、物理学与认知科学中的新发展是如何挑战科学唯物主义的，已经重新打开了对自然广泛的有神论理解的大门。中心奖励其成员进行原创性研究、召开会议，成为唯物主义之后的生活前景的信念制定者。④

(II) The “Wedge” Strategy of the ID Movement

（二）ID运动的“楔入”策略

For a long time, creationism was mainly disseminated through oral means or pamphlets in limited areas (such as churches). However, in the 1990s, the ID movement used television, radio, videotapes, the Internet, and other means of communication for widespread propaganda. One can confidently say that creationism had little influence in institutions of higher education, being mainly taught by pastors in churches, but now some members of the ID movement have obtained important positions in universities or colleges and are leading the attack on evolutionary theory. Their academic qualifications and social resources allow them easy access to broad public forums. Entering higher education institutions is seen as a sign of their new starting point; this is the “wedge” strategy of creationism’s incursion into mainstream academia.

长期以来，创世论主要是通过口头或小册子等在有限的地域（如教堂）内进行传播。然而，ID运动在过去的20世纪90年代后用电视、收音机、录像带、英特网等传播手段来进行大肆渲染。人们可以自信地说，创世论在高等教育机构中的影响甚微，主要是通过牧师在教堂中传授创世论，而如今ID运动的某些成员已经在大学或学院中获得了重要位置，并领导着攻击进化论的工作。他们的学术资格与社会资源使他们很容易进入广泛的公众论坛。进入高等院校被视为他们获得新起点的标志，这就是创世论介入主流学术界的“楔入”（“wedge”）策略。

Johnson declared:

约翰逊宣称：

“In the 20th century, Christianity has been playing a defensive role… to defend what they have, to defend as much as they can, they have now launched an offensive campaign… We are not asking to reverse the tide; what we can do is something completely different. We are trying to enter the enemy’s territory, their core, and blow up their arsenal. In this metaphor, what is their arsenal? It is their prejudice against creation.”⑤

20世纪中，基督教一直扮演着防御性角色……为保卫他们的所有，为尽可能保卫他们所能够做的，他们现在已经展开了一场进攻性战役……我们并不是要求扭转潮流，我们所能做的是一些完全不同的事情。我们试图进入敌人的领域，他们的核心，引爆他们的军火库。在这一隐喻中，他们的军火库是什么，那就是他们对创世的偏见。⑤

“If we understand our times, we will know that we should acknowledge God’s world by challenging the dominance of naturalism and materialism in the intellectual world. With the help of many of our friends, I have proposed a strategy for carrying out this work… We call it the ‘wedge.’”⑥

如果我们理解我们的时代，我们将知道我们应该通过挑战在心灵世界中的自然主义与唯物主义的统治来承认上帝的世界。依靠我们许多的朋友，我已经提出了一种从事这项工作的策略……我们称之为“楔入”。⑥

In this passage, Johnson describes the “wedge” strategy for advancing the “ID” movement. In his book *Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds*, Johnson openly discusses the “wedge” strategy: using a wedge to first open a small hole, then split a huge piece of wood: “We call our strategy the ‘wedge.’ A huge piece of wood seems solid, but a wedge can eventually be inserted into a crack, gradually tear it apart, and finally split it.

在这段话中，约翰逊描述了推进“ID”运动的“楔入”策略。在其著作《通过开放的心智来战胜达尔文主义》（Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds）中，约翰逊公开谈论“楔入”策略：用楔子先打开一小洞，然后再劈开一块巨大的木头：“我们称我们的策略为‘楔入’。一块巨大的木头像是一个固体，但一个楔子最终能够插入裂缝，逐渐把它撕开，最后把它劈开。在这种情形中，科学唯物主义（又被ID运动的成员常常称之为自然主义）的意识形态显然就是这块顽固的木头。”⑦

The wedge strategy of ID includes three steps: the first step is to establish research projects, which include: (1) special paleontology research projects; (2) special molecular biology research projects; (3) individual research fund projects. The second step is to manufacture public opinion, which includes (1) promotion through books; (2) convening academic exchange conferences; (3) organizing apologetics lectures; (4) teacher training programs; (5) publishing editorials; (6) utilizing American public broadcasting or television; (7) distributing propaganda materials and publications. The third step is to carry out cultural confrontation and revival, which includes: (1) convening academic and scientific challenge conferences; (2) establishing social science research fund projects, turning toward the social sciences and humanities; (3) clearing possible legal obstacles for entry into middle school classrooms.

ID的楔入活动的计划包括三个步骤：第一步是设立研究项目，其中包括：（1）古生物学专项研究项目；（2）分子生物学专项研究项目；（3）个人研究基金项目。第二步是制造舆论，其中包括（1）书籍的宣传；（2）召开学术交流会；（3）组织护教学讲座；（4）教师训练计划；（5）发表社论；（6）利用美国公共广播公司或电视；（7）散发宣传材料与出版。第三步是进行文化上的对抗与复兴，其中包括：（1）召开学术与科学的挑战会议；（2）设立社会科学研究基金项目，转向社会科学与人文科学领域；（3）为进入中学课堂扫除可能的法律障碍。

Three important funding agencies have provided substantial research grants to the “CRSC.” It is estimated that by the year 2000, this center had received over one million US dollars in related funding. Fieldstead & Co began increasing its funding to the Discovery Institute in the summer of 1988, deciding to provide an annual grant of 300,000 US dollars thereafter. In 1999, the Maclellan Foundation of the United States provided 400,000 US dollars, and the Stewardship Foundation agreed to provide 200,000 US dollars annually for the five-year period from 1999 to 2003.[8]8 The Scopes Trial (1925), also known as the “Monkey Trial,” was a famous legal case in which a high school teacher, John Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee’s Butler Act by teaching evolution. According to Larry Witham in the *Washington Times*, all three of the above funds have a “Christian background.” Bruce Chapman, chairman of the ID movement, acknowledged this support: “We no longer worry about research funding. We believe certain ideas are destined to change the intellectual world (and future politics); otherwise Fieldstead & Co, the Maclellan Foundation, and the Stewardship Foundation would not be giving us such ample funding.”[9]9 The “wedge” strategy is a term used by the intelligent design movement to describe its goal of inserting religious ideas into public discourse and eventually replacing materialistic science with a theistic understanding of nature.

三个重要的赞助机构为“CRSC”提供了大量的研究基金。据估计，到2000年为止，这一中心已经接受到相关赞助超过了100万美元。菲尔德斯坦德公司（Fieldstead & Co）在1988年夏开始增加对发现研究所的资助，决定今后每年资助30万美元，而1999年美国麦克里兰基金会（Maclellan Foundation）为其提供了40万美元的资助，美国扶轮基金会（Stewardship Foundation）同意在1999~2003年的5年间每年向该研究所提供20万美元的资助⑧。按照拉里·维萨蒙（Larry Witham）在《华盛顿时报》上的说法，上述的三项基金都具有“基督教背景”。ID运动的主席布鲁斯·查普曼认可了这种支持：“我们不再为研究基金而担忧。我们认为某些思想会注定改变知识界（将来的政治），否则菲尔德斯坦德公司、麦克里兰基金会、美国扶轮基金会就不会给我们这样充实的基金。”⑨

By the year 2000, with its program clarified in the “Wedge” document and with ample funding secured, these strategies began to be implemented and gained considerable momentum. Starting with only four researchers, the “CRSC” currently has 41 members, 13 of whom hold senior academic titles. With the establishment in October 1999 of the Michael Polanyi Research Center at Baylor University in the United States, led by “CRSC” members Dembski and Bruce Gordon, the ID “Wedge” movement has driven its wedge ever deeper into science.

到了2000年，随着其纲领在“楔入”文献中被阐明，并具有充分的基金保证，这些策略开始实施了，并取得了很大的发展势头。从最开始的只有4位研究人员，“CRSC”当前已经有41位成员，其中13位具有高级职称。随着1999年10月由“CRSC”成员邓伯斯基与布鲁斯·戈登（Bruce Gordon）领导的美国贝勒大学（Baylor University）的迈克尔·波兰尼（Michael Polanyi）研究中心的成立，ID“楔入”运动“楔入”科学就越来越深。

However, Forrest used statistical methods to study the literature in academic journals since 1997 and found that there is no paper treating ID as a biological theory. In BIOSIS and the medical literature database, they entered the keyword “intelligent design” and retrieved four articles, only one of which was about ID, and that was a critique of ID theory by Sahotra Sarkar in *Philosophy of Science*. Entering the keyword “design theory,” BIOSIS produced 16 articles, but none concerned ID creationism. In the online medical literature analysis and retrieval system, entering the keywords “intelligent design” and “design theory” yielded 14 articles, again none of which concerned ID creationism. In SciSearch, 61 articles were found for “intelligent design”; aside from four, all were related to industrial technology, engineering, computers, shipbuilding, and the like. Of these four, two concerned intelligent design as a biological theory: the aforementioned critique by Sahotra Sarkar in *Philosophy of Science* and a rebuttal article by Behe. The other two were an article titled “Intelligent Design” in *Geotimes* and one titled “Intelligent Design Theory Revisited” in *Technology Review*; neither explicitly treated ID as a biological theory.

然而，富瑞斯特利用统计的方法研究了1997年以来学术刊物上的文献，发现并不存在作为生物学理论的ID的论文。他们在BIOSIS与医学文献库中，输入了关键词“智慧设计”，搜索到4篇文章，只有一篇是关于ID，而且是沙克斯·乔普林在《科学哲学》上批判ID理论的文章；输入关键词“设计理论”，BIOSIS出现了16篇文章，但没有一篇是有关ID的创世论。在联机医学文献分析和检索系统中，输入了关键词“智慧设计”与“设计理论”，出现了14篇的文章，同样其中没有一篇是有关ID创世论。在SciSearch搜索到“智慧设计”的文章61篇中，除4篇外，所有的都与工业技术、工程、计算机、造船等有关。这4篇中有两篇是有关生物学理论的智慧设计的，即上面所提到的《科学哲学》杂志上，沙克斯·乔普林的批评与本赫的反驳文章。另两篇是在《地质时代》杂志中的标题为《智慧设计》与在《技术评论》中的题为《重审智慧设计理论》的文章，它们都没有明确地把lD视为一种生物学理论。

Therefore, Forrest concluded:

因此，富瑞斯特总结道：

This analysis shows that the ID movement to “wedge” into mainstream science has failed in its most important objective: there is a notable lack of scientific knowledge about intelligent design creationism and related papers published in scientific journals. Hence… none of the “CRSC” members have produced scientific evidence capable of supporting intelligent design theory. … In all its activities attempting to strategically “wedge” into mainstream science, the work of the “CRSC” has been a complete failure.[10]10 Bloor, David. *Knowledge and Social Imagery*. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991, p. 46. [The original English text of the quotation has been used for the translation; the Chinese text provided in the source is a translation of this work.]

这种分析表明ID“楔入”主流科学的运动在其最重要的目标上失败了：智慧设计创世论的科学知识与相关的科学杂志上发表的论文是相当缺乏的。因此……“CRSC”的成员都没有研究出能够支持智慧设计理论的科学证据。……在其企图从策略上“楔入”主流科学的所有活动中，“CRSC”的工作完全失败了。⑩

Despite the lack of success in the first stage of the “Wedge” strategy—the research stage—ID theorists have prematurely begun the second stage, “manufacturing public opinion,” and the third stage, “cultural confrontation and renewal.” They sponsor “opinion-making conferences” and apologetics forums, publish books and editorials, and write textbooks for teachers to disseminate their ideas. They have established connections with media outlets such as the *Washington Times*, books and reviews, and other conservative newspapers and magazines that regularly support them. They lobby legislative bodies and education committees at all levels in the United States. On March 10, 2000, the “CRSC” arranged for several of its key members to submit a briefing to Congress titled “The Scientific Evidence for ID and Its Implications for Public Policy and Education.” This briefing received support from Charles Canady, then chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Senator Sam Brownback; Roscoe Bartlett and Sheila Jackson-Lee, members of the House Science Committee; Mark Souder, a member of the House Education Committee; and Representative Thomas Petri.

尽管在“楔入”策略的第一阶段——研究阶段没有成功，ID理论家却提前开始其第二阶段“制造舆论”与第三阶段：“文化对抗与复兴”的计划。他们赞助“制造舆论的会议”与护教学论坛，出版书籍与社论，为教师写作教材以传播他们的思想。他们建立起与媒体的联系，如华盛顿时报，书籍与评论，还有其他保守报纸与杂志定期支持他们，他们到美国的各层次的立法机构与教育委员会进行游说。2000年3月10日，“CRSC”安排其几位关键成员给国会上交了一份“ID的科学证据及其对公共政策与教育的意义”的简报。这份简报得到了当时任众议院法律委员会主席的查尔斯·坎迪（Charles Canady），参议员萨姆·布朗贝克（Sam Brownback），众议院科学委员会成员罗斯科·巴特利特（Roscoe Bartlett）与希拉·杰克逊—李（Sheila Jackson-Lee），众议院教育委员会成员马克·桑德（Mark Souder）与众议员托马斯·彼特里（Thomas Petri）的支持。

In November 1996, Johnson and his associates convened a “Mere Creation” conference at Biola University, a Christian university in California, USA. The proceedings of this conference, titled *Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design*, had a preface by Henry Schaefer, a chemist at the University of Georgia, who clearly stated the conference’s goal: “This conference provided an opportunity for scientists and scholars who reject materialism as the foundation of scientific research to come together, to seek a unified creationism within the framework of ID, and to lay the foundation for the organizational development of ID in the United States.”[11]11 Johnson, Phillip E. *Darwin on Trial*. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993, p. 14. [The original English text of the quotation has been used for the translation; the Chinese text provided in the source is a translation of this work.] As Scott Swanson wrote in his report on the conference for *Christianity Today*:

1996年11月，约翰逊与其助手在美国加州的基督教大学——拜欧拉大学（Biola University）召开了“只有创世”的会议。本次会议的论文集，标题为《只有创世：科学、信仰与智慧设计》（Mere Creation：Science，Faith and Intelligent Design），其序言的作者亨利·查夫（Henry Schaefer），美国乔治亚州立大学的化学家，明确指出了这次会议的目标：这次会议为那些拒绝把唯物主义作为科学研究基础的科学家与学者聚集在一起提供了机会，使他们在lD的框架中寻求一种统一的创世论，为ID在美国的组织发展奠定了基础{11}。正如斯科特·斯万森（Scott Swanson）为《今日基督教》杂志写的这次会议的报道中所说：

The still-immature “ID” movement, which holds that Darwin’s explanation of human origins is inadequate, aims to move from the margins to the mainstream… The first major gathering of ID supporters took place at the November conference at Biola University, a Christian university in California… As expected at this conference, ID is gaining a large following, with over 160 academic groups and people from 98 universities, colleges, and organizations attending.[12]12 David Bloor, *Knowledge and Social Imagery* (Dongfang Press, 2001), p. 71. — This is a Chinese translation of Bloor’s work; the original English edition was published in 1976 by Routledge & Kegan Paul.

尚没成熟的“ID”运动，认为达尔文对人类起源的解释是不充分的，这场运动的目标是由边缘向主流的转变……ID的支持者的第一次主要的聚会出现在美国加州的基督教大学——拜欧拉大学的11月的会议上……正如这次会议所预期地那样，ID正在获得大量的追随者，有超过160个学术团体，来自98个大学、学院与组织的人出席了这次会议。{12}

(III) Legal Battles

（三）法律上的较量

In order to introduce ID into public school classrooms, the “CRSC” has taken actions aimed at removing relevant legal obstacles. David K. DeWolf, a law professor at Gonzaga University in Washington State and a senior fellow of the “CRSC”; Stephen C. Meyer, a philosophy professor at Whitworth College; and Mark E. DeForrest (not a “CRSC” member) jointly published *Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guide* (1999). On its science education website, the “CRSC” claims, “Our curriculum will be legally permissible for teaching in public schools… Stop intimidating and suppressing classroom reform.”[13]13 Phillip E. Johnson, *Darwin on Trial* (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 131. — Johnson is a prominent figure in the intelligent design movement; this book is a key text critiquing Darwinian evolution. This approach of legally changing the way the public and influential policymakers evaluate science is crucial to their strategy of wedging into education.

为了把ID引入公立学校的课堂，“CRSC”采取了一些企图消除相关法律障碍的行动。美国华盛顿州的贡萨贾大学（Gonzaga University）的一位法律学教授，“CRSC”高级研究员戴维·狄沃尔夫（David K．DeWolf）、惠特沃思学院的一位哲学教授迈耶，以及马克·狄富雷斯特（Mark E．DeForrest，并不是“CRSC”成员）共同发表了《在公立学校科学课程中的ID：一种法律上的指南》（1999）一书。在其科学教育的网站上，“CRSC”声称“我们的课程在法律上将被允许在公立学校中进行讲授……不要再恫吓与压制课堂的改革”{13} 这种从法律上来改变公众与具有影响的政策制定者评价科学的途径，对他们楔入教育领域的策略是很重要的。

Before 1968, creationism in the United States had been attempting to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public secondary schools through laws such as Tennessee’s Butler Act of 1925. Arkansas, for example, had an anti-evolution law passed by popular vote in 1928. This statute forbade any public school (or university) from teaching “the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.” In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court declared this statute invalid, ruling that the sole reason for making the teaching of evolution illegal was that it was deemed to conflict with “a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis,” and that the statute was “establishing religion,” which is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits. After the attempt to ban the teaching of evolution through legislation failed, American creationists sought to secure equal teaching status for creation science alongside evolution in public secondary schools through “equal treatment” laws. In 1981, Arkansas passed “Act 590.” The Reverend McLean of Little Rock, Arkansas, served as the plaintiff, and in 1982, Judge Overton ruled Act 590 invalid. This ruling was significant for subsequent court trials concerning creationism because it declared, based on a specific definition of science, that “creation science” is not a science but a religion. In the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court’s opinion stated: “The Louisiana ‘Creationism Act’ requiring that ‘creation science’ be taught alongside evolution in public schools has the primary purpose of changing the public school science curriculum to provide propaganda for a particular religious doctrine that completely rejects the basic facts of evolution. Therefore, the Act was proposed either to promote the theory of creation science, which embodies a particular religious tenet, or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.” After 1987, this ruling became the model for U.S. court decisions in creationism cases.

1968年之前，美国的创世论一直在试图通过像1925年田纳西州的巴特勒法之类的法律来禁止在公立中学讲授进化论，如阿肯色州就有一部反进化论的法律，1928年由公民表决通过。该法令禁止任何公立学校（或大学）讲授“人类是从较低等的动物演化而来的理论或学说”。 1968年，美国最高法院宣布该法令无效，因为该法令规定传授进化论为非法的“惟一的理由就是它（进化论）被认为”与“对《创世记》的某种特定解释”相冲突，该法令是在“确立宗教”，而这恰恰是宪法第一修正案所禁止的。在企图通过法律来禁止传授进化论的行动失败后，美国创世论者试图通过“平等对待”法律，使创世科学与进化论在公立中学中得到同等的教学地位。1981年，美国阿肯色州通过了“590法案”，阿肯色州小石城的牧师麦克里恩充当原告，1982年，法官奥佛通宣判“590法案”无效。这一宣判对后来的有关创世论的法庭审判具有重要的意义，因为它是依据一种确定的科学定义来宣判“创世科学”不是一种科学，而是一种宗教。在美国最高法院1987年的爱德华兹对阿奎拉德（Edwards v．Aguillard）案件的判决书中指出：“要求与进化论一起在公立学校讲授（‘神创科学’的路易斯安那州‘神创法案’），主要目的是改变公立学校的科学课程，为完全拒绝进化论基本事实的特殊宗教信条提供宣传攻势。因此，该法案的提出要么是为了促进实施特殊宗教教义的神创科学理论，要么是为了禁止某些宗教派别来反对科学理论的教学。无论如何，该法案违反第一修正案。”1987年后，这一判决成为美国法庭中法官审判创世论案件的范例。

In October 2004, the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania proposed a policy requiring that “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” In November 2004, the Board required that when evolution is taught in ninth-grade science classes, teachers must read a statement of approximately one minute to students, explaining that evolution is not a “scientific fact” and that “Intelligent Design” is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s own explanation. Eleven parents of students from Dover, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against this requirement, leading to the case Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. [14]14 Kary D. Smout, *Creation/Evolution Controversy: A Battle for Cultural Power* (Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, 1998), p. 186. — This work analyzes the cultural and political dimensions of the creation-evolution debate in the United States. This was a U.S. federal court case concerning whether a policy requiring a statement that intelligent design could replace evolution as an explanation for the origin of species in public school curricula was constitutional. The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design theory is a form of creationism and that the Dover Area School Board’s policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The judge’s ruling provoked considerable reaction from both supporters and opponents. Because the case involved the book *Of Pandas and People*, it was also called the “Panda Trial,” echoing a similar 1925 case, the Scopes Trial, also known as the “Monkey Trial.” The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the National Center for Science Education, and the law firm Pepper Hamilton LLP. The defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center. The Foundation for Thought and Ethics, which originally published *Of Pandas and People*, also sought to join the defendants but was later denied. On December 20, 2005, Judge Jones issued a 139-page findings of fact and ruling. The verdict was that the Dover school board’s policy violated the Constitution and prohibited the Dover school district from teaching intelligent design in public school science classes. [15]

2004年10月，美国多佛地区教育委员会提出了一个法案，要求“学生将要对达尔文理论中的问题有一个清晰的认识，对其他进化的理论，包括智慧创世理论要了解”。2004年11月，该董事会要求9年级的科学课程上讲授演化论时，必须由教师向学生宣读一项大约1分钟的声明：向学生说明进化论并不是一个“科学事实”，“智慧设计理论”是一种不同于达尔文自己的解释的生命起源理论的解释。11位来自宾州多佛的学生家长，则对这个要求提出控诉。从而导致了奇兹米勒等人状告多佛地区教育委员会等团体案（Tammy Kitzmiller，et a1．v．Dover Area School District，et a1）{14}。这是一场美国联邦法庭关于在公立学校课程中声明智慧设计能够替代演化解释物种起源的诉讼案件。原告成功地指证智慧设计理论为创世论的一种形式，以及多佛地区教育委员会的政策违反美国宪法第一修正案中的禁止设置条款。法官的判决激起了支持者与反对者相当大的反应。由于牵涉其中的一本书籍《关于熊猫与人》，这场官司又称为“熊猫审判”（Panda Trial），并与1925年的一场类似的官司，即斯科普特案的“猴子审判”（Monkey Trial）相呼应。原告代表是美国公民自由联盟、美国政教分离联合会、国家科学教育中心，以及贝博·汉弥尔顿律师事务所。被告代表是汤玛斯·摩尔法律中心。原本出版《关于熊猫与人》（Of Panda and People）的道德与思想基金会也想加入被告行列，但后来被拒绝。2005年12月20日，法官琼斯发布共139页的事实认定书（findings of fact）并进行判决。裁决结果是多佛学区代表违反宪法，并禁止多佛学区在公立学校的科学课程中教授智慧设计。{15}

Judge Jones’s final ruling read as follows:

琼斯的最后判决如下：

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the intelligent design policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, repeatedly lied to cover their tracks and disguise the true purpose behind the intelligent design policy. We have no doubt that the many claims made by the proponents of intelligent design are made in good faith, and that the deep religious convictions that drive their academic passion are sincere. We do not oppose that intelligent design should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom. (p. 138)

多佛地区的公民被投票给智慧设计政策的委员会成员给拙劣地对待。讽刺的是其中几位成员公开对他们自己的宗教信念感到坚定且骄傲，却多次说谎企图掩盖他们的行为，并掩饰他们在智慧设计政策背后的真实目的。我们对于智慧设计的许多主要宣称所带的诚意，以及驱动学术热忱的深厚信仰并没有疑问。我们并不反对智慧设计应该继续被研究、辩论与讨论。如其所述，我们今天的结论是，在公立学校的科学课程中教授智慧设计以取代演化违反宪法……（第138页）

II. Reflections on the ID Movement

二、对ID运动的反思

With Judge Jones’s ruling, the ID movement’s attempt to “wedge” itself into public secondary education was institutionally bankrupted. However, this does not mean that the conflict between ID theory and evolution has come to an end. The emergence of the ID movement undoubtedly has a very complex social and cultural background, but it is closely related to the proliferation of relativism in the later period of the philosophy of science.

随着法官琼斯的判决，ID运动“楔入”公立中学教育的企图在制度上宣告破产。然而这并不意味着ID理论与进化论的冲突从此终结。lD运动的产生无疑具有很复杂的社会与文化背景，但这和科学哲学后期的相对主义的泛滥有着密切的关联。

Methodological naturalists usually assume that the world operates according to natural laws and that people can understand this world through those laws, without any need to invoke supernatural forces such as God. Whether nature in the sense of being subject to intervention by supernatural forces exists is not a question that methodological naturalism considers. Methodological naturalism aims to build a solid wall between science and religion. In the philosophy of science, methodological naturalism manifests itself in the problem of demarcation in science. For several centuries, philosophers of science have expended enormous energy on the problem of demarcation between science and non-science, attempting to draw a sufficient and necessary boundary between the two, but all such efforts have failed. Influenced by Anglo-American analytic philosophy, logical empiricism focused only on the problem of general scientific method, using verification or falsification to distinguish science from non-science. The general method of the philosophy of science is itself a form of conceptual analysis, often accompanied by the reconstruction of methods and theories in formal language and symbolic logic. The history of science is largely a history of cognition, concerned with the logical development of scientific theories themselves. The sociology of science concerns itself with the social function and structure of science; despite certain disagreements, its general attitude toward science is natural realism. Of course, there are also many disturbing factors threatening this effort to seek a scientific methodology: for example, R. Hanson’s thesis that observation is theory-laden; Quine’s thesis of the underdetermination of theory by evidence. Yet, although all these disturbing factors are acknowledged to be very serious, philosophers of science generally believe they can be overcome or avoided. However, the publication of Kuhn’s *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* shattered the illusions of logical empiricism. Although Kuhn tells us that he himself did not intend to fundamentally destroy assertions that science is a rational enterprise, many readers of *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* often overlook its many subtle and ambiguous ideas, hearing only one message: science does not progress by accumulating well-confirmed truths, nor even by discarding falsified errors, but rather through revolutionary upheavals in a catastrophic process. The history of science is thereafter written by the victors; there are no objective standards of evidence, only incommensurable standards belonging to different paradigms; the success of a scientific revolution, like that of a political revolution, depends on propaganda, rhetoric, and control of resources; a scientist’s conversion to loyalty to a new paradigm is not a rational change of mind but a religious conversion. After conversion, things appear so different to him that we can almost say he lives in “a different world.” Subsequently, there emerged the “sociological turn” in the philosophy of science, namely the rise of social constructivism. Social constructivism holds that science is, to a large extent or in its entirety, a matter of social interests, negotiation, and bargaining, or a matter of manufacturing myths and producing narrative inscriptions; appeals to “facts,” “evidence,” or “rationality” are merely ideological lies to conceal the oppression of this or that group. According to this new orthodoxy, science not only possesses no special epistemological authority, it also has no unique rational method; like all purpose-driven “inquiry,” it is indeed merely a politics. The result is that, from the 1970s onward, while scientists and many philosophers of science maintained a stance of scientific objectivism, many historians of science and nearly all sociologists of science adopted a constructivist position. At the same time, what most perplexes philosophers of science is that, over the past twenty-plus years, the development of Science Studies has been almost entirely dominated by social constructivism.

方法论的自然主义者通常假定世界是依据自然规律而运动的，人们可以根据自然规律来理解这一世界，这种理解无须涉及超自然的力量，如上帝。是否存在着超自然的力量所干预意义上的自然，并不是方法论自然主义所考虑的问题。方法论自然主义是想在科学与宗教之间筑起一堵坚实的墙。在科学哲学中，方法论自然主义表现为科学的分界问题上。几个世纪以来，科学哲学家在科学与非科学分界问题上消耗了大量的精力，试图给科学与非科学之间划一条充分与必要的界线，但所有的努力都失败了。受英美分析哲学的影响，逻辑经验主义仅关注一般的科学方法的问题，利用证实或证伪来区分科学与非科学。科学哲学的一般方法本身就是一种概念分析，时常伴随着在形式语言、符号逻辑中的方法与理论的重构。科学史大部分是认知史，关注科学理论本身的逻辑发展。科学社会学关注科学的社会功能与结构，尽管存在着某些分歧，但对科学的一般态度是自然实在论。当然，同时也存在着许多令人不安的因素威胁着这种寻求科学方法论的努力：如R·汉森的观察依赖理论的论题；奎因证据对理论的不充分决定性的论题。但是，尽管承认上述所有这些不安因素都是非常严峻的，但科学哲学家们却普遍认为它们都是可以超越的，或可以避免的。然而，库恩的《科学革命的结构》一书的发表则粉碎了逻辑经验主义的幻想。尽管库恩告诉我们，他本人并不打算从根本上摧毁科学宣称自己是理性的事业这类断言。但是，《科学革命的结构》的许多读者，常常忽略了其中的许多微妙和模棱两可的思想，只听到一个声音：科学不是通过积累得到很好确证的真理，甚至不是通过抛弃已经被证伪的谬误，而是通过在一次灾变过程中的革命性巨变而“进步”的。科学史此后就由获胜的一方来书写；不存在关于证据的客观性标准，只有属于不同范式的不可通约的标准；科学革命的成功，与政治革命的成功一样，靠的是宣传、修辞与对资源的控制；科学家转而忠实于一个新的范式，这种转变不是一种理性的心灵改变，而是一次宗教皈依。在皈依之后，事物在他看来是如此不同，以至我们几乎可以说，他生活在“一个不同的世界”里。随后出现了科学哲学的“社会学转向”，即社会建构主义的出现。社会建构主义认为科学在很大程度上或在整体上是社会利益、谈判协商的事情，或者是制造神话、生产记叙性铭文的事情；诉诸“事实”、“证据”或“合理性”只不过是意识形态的谎言，以掩盖对这个或那个群体的压迫。根据这种新的正统看法，科学不仅没有任何特殊的认识论上的权威性，也没有任何独特的理性方法，它像所有受目的驱使的“探究”一样，确实仅仅是一门政治学。结果是，从20世纪70年代后，当科学家与许多科学哲学家还保持着科学的客观主义的立场时，许多科学的历史学家与几乎所有的科学社会学家都采用了具有建构主义色彩的立场。同时，最令科学哲学家感到困惑的事情是，过去20多年来科学研究（Science Studies）的发展几乎一直都是社会建构主义的天下。

Social constructivism carries a strong relativist coloring, which directly provides an opportunity for creationism to appear in the name of science and constitutes the theoretical foundation of creation science. Creationists believe that science belongs to a “paradigm”; if natural science is the paradigm of the scientific community, then creation science is the paradigm of the Bible-believing fundamentalist sect. The two are not only incommensurable but also possess equal status and equal rights. Evolutionism and creationism begin from entirely different premises of meaning, articulate their own unique scientific paradigms, accept different fundamental values and beliefs, and construct conflicting worldviews. The struggle between science and religion thus becomes a battle for cultural authority in a free society; whoever wins will dominate society and culture. In short, from the perspective of social constructivism, this is not a struggle between fact and error, but a socio-cultural struggle based on different worldviews.

社会建构主义带有强烈的相对主义色彩，它直接为创世论以科学的名义出现提供了一个契机，并构成了创世科学的理论基础。创世论者认为，科学属于“范式”，如果自然科学是科学家共同体的范式，那么创世科学则是圣经基要主义者宗派的范式，两者之间不仅是不可通约的，而且还具有同等的地位与同等的权利。进化论与创世论开始于意义上完全不同的前提，说出了自己的独特科学范式，接受了不同的基本价值与信念，建构了相互冲突的世界观，科学与宗教之争因此成为一场争夺自由社会中的文化权威之战，如果谁获胜，谁就会主导社会与文化。总之，在社会建构主义看来，这不是事实与错误之争，而是基于不同的世界观的社会文化之争。

In his pioneering work of social constructivism, *Knowledge and Social Imagery*, Bloor demands that science and religion be treated symmetrically. Bloor points out:

在其社会建构主义的开拓性著作《知识与社会意象》一书中，布鲁尔要求对称性地对待科学与宗教。布鲁尔指出：

“Is it not astonishing to use some religious metaphor to specify science? Are they not all neutral principles? This metaphor is both inappropriate and offensive. Those who find in science this typical form of knowledge cannot possibly commit themselves to the same validity for religion. Hence we can anticipate that they will view such a comparison with disgust. This reaction may overlook a certain viewpoint, whose purpose is to compare two domains of social life and to point out that the same principles operate in both domains. This purpose is neither to disparage one side or the other, nor to embarrass the practitioners of these two domains. Religious behavior is established centered on the distinction between the sacred and the secular domains, and the manifestations of this distinction resemble the stance people often take toward science. This point of contact means that perhaps other genuine insights concerning religion can also be applied.”{16}

难道用某种宗教隐喻来具体说明科学不令人感到不可思议吗? 难道它们都不是一些中立的原则吗?这种隐喻既不合适，也具有攻击性。那些在科学中发现这种知识典型的人，都不可能承诺宗教具有同样的有效性。因而我们可以料想他们会以厌恶的态度来看待这种比较。这种反应有可能忽视某种观点，后者的目的在于对社会生活的两个领域进行比较，并且指出同样的原则在这两个领域中都发挥着作用。这种目的既不是贬低其听一方或者另一方，也不是使这两个领域中的实践者陷入困境。宗教行为是以对神圣领域和世俗领域有区分为中心而确立下来的，而对这种区分的种种表现则与人们经常针对科学的立场相似。这种接触点意味着，也许有关宗教的其他真知灼见也是可以运用的。{16}

Therefore, Bloor insists that the relationship between religion and science should be studied using the principle of symmetry. That is to say, without needing to involve nature, one need only study the social causes of the debate between science and religion to reveal the essence of this debate. Among these, discourse of negotiation and rhetoric built on the foundation of belief, the operation of power as social symbol, and the orientation of social interests all play key roles in defining the truth of scientific and religious statements.

因此，布鲁尔坚持应该用对称性原则来研究宗教与科学之间的关系。也就是说，无须涉及自然，只需要研究科学与宗教之间论战的社会原因，就可以揭示出这种论战的本质。其中，建立在信仰的基础之上的谈判与修辞的话语，作为社会象征的权力的运作，还有社会利益的导向，在定义科学陈述与宗教陈述的真理性问题上都扮演着关键的角色。

Thus, in *Darwin on Trial*, Johnson also positions this struggle at the level of worldviews. He frames the authority struggle between evolutionism and creationism as a story, arguing that the conflict between the two is a conflict between two stories. Both sides seek to capture people’s hearts and minds, suggesting what is good for humanity, how they should organize their social life, and what their responsibilities are. The two stories have convinced thousands of listeners, many of whom work tirelessly to make their story heard by a wider audience and exert greater influence on the lives of others. Each story reflects the fundamental values and beliefs of certain storytellers, and they in fact reflect a larger struggle hidden within contemporary American culture: “The leaders of science see themselves as locked in a life-and-death struggle against religious fundamentalism, a label that easily leads people to believe that a Creator plays an active role in secular life. These fundamentalists are seen as a threat to liberalism… As the creation myth of scientific naturalism, (evolutionism) plays an indispensable ideological role in the struggle against fundamentalism.”{17}

由此，在《审判达尔文》一书中，约翰逊也把这场争论定位在世界观层面上，他把进化论与创世论之间的权威之争视为故事，认为两者之争是两种故事之争，双方都想抓住人们的心灵，暗示什么是人类的善，他们应该如何组织其社会生活，他们的责任是什么。两个故事已经说服了数千名听众，其中许多人不知疲倦地努力使他们的故事获得更为广泛的听众，对他人的生活产生更大的影响。每一个故事反映出某些说故事者的基本价值与信念，它们在事实上反映出隐藏在当前美国文化中更大规模的斗争：“科学的领导者视他们自己被禁锢在反对宗教基要主义的殊死战斗之中，而基要主义是一个标签，它容易使人们相信一个创世者在世俗的生活中扮演着一种积极角色。这些基要主义被视为对自由主义的威胁……作为科学自然主义的创世神话，（进化论）在反对基要主义的战斗中扮演着一种不可缺少的意识形态角色。”{17}

In summarizing the significance of the evolution-creationism debate, Kelly Smote said: “The creationism-evolution debate is a struggle for cultural power, an example of a controversy of our generation. The recurring creationism-evolution debate, concerning whose view is obvious truth and whose is deceptive sophistry, raises some very important questions. When America itself is committed to humanity or God, should our public schools teach a critical spirit of doubt, or trusting loyalty to some other ideal? When science and religion give conflicting answers to specific questions, should we obey science or religion? Or should we try to show that the answers of the two have different meanings in different domains? When we celebrate the great achievements of the past, should we tell stories of heroic scientists, or extraordinary events from the Bible?”{18}

在总结进化论与创世论之争的意义时，凯利·斯莫特说：“创世论与进化论之争是为文化权力而进行的斗争，这是我们这一代一场论战的一个例子。反复出现的创世论与进化论之争，有关谁的观点是显然的真理，谁的是欺骗的诡辩，产生了某些非常重要的问题。当美国自身承诺人性或上帝时，我们的公立学校应该传授怀疑的批判精神，还是对某些其他理想的信任性忠诚? 当科学与宗教对特殊问题的答案相互冲突时，我们应该服从科学还是宗教? 或者说，我们是否应该试图表明两者的答案在不同的领域中具有不同的意义? 当我们在庆祝过去的伟大成就时，我们应该讲述英雄的科学家的故事，还是来自于圣经的非凡的事件?”{18}

Concluding Remarks

结束语

In the Western cultural context, science and religion are two completely different domains of human activity: science studies nature, while religion governs human spiritual and moral life, and the two are unrelated. If one side tries to intrude into the other’s domain, conflict between them inevitably erupts. The three major conflicts between science and religion that broke out in the 20th century all originated from creationism’s attempt to intrude into or replace evolution. There are many reasons for this conflict, among which the postmodern relativist trend currently pervading academia is particularly worthy of our reflection. We believe that methodological naturalism cannot erect a solid wall between science and religion, while postmodern relativism goes to the other absurd extreme. The key problem is that both abstractly discuss the relationship between science and religion divorced from the concrete practice of science. Therefore, to identify the unscientific features of creationism, we must compare the practice of evolution with the practice of creation science, so as to identify its true unscientific face and truly realize the demarcation between science and religion.

在西方的文化语境中，科学与宗教是人类活动的两种完全不同的领域，科学研究自然，而宗教则管辖着人类的精神与道德生活，两者毫不相关。如果一方想介入对方的领域，双方的冲突就会不可避免地爆发，20世纪爆发的三次科学与宗教的大冲突就根源于创世论想介入或取代进化论的企图。导致这种冲突的原因很多，其中学术界当前弥漫的后现代相对主义的思潮是尤其值得我们反思。我们认为方法论自然主义无法在科学与宗教之间立起一堵坚实的墙，而后现代相对主义却走向了另一荒谬的极端，关键问题在于两者都是脱离科学的具体实践去抽象地谈论科学与宗教的关系。因此要识别创世论的非科学特征，就必须把进化论的实践与创世科学的实践加以对比，才能识别出其非科学的真正面貌，才能真正实现科学与宗教的分界。

References

参考文献

① AAAS Board. 2002. AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory. http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

① AAAS Board．2002．AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory．http：／／www．aaas．org／news／releases／2002/1106id2．shtml

② Quoted from Stephen Goode, “Johnson Challenges Advocates of Evolution,” Insight on the News, October 25, 1999. http://www.arn.org/docs/Johnson/insightprofile1099.htm.

② 转引自Stephen Goode，“Johnson Challenges Advocates of Evolution，”Insight on the News，October 25，1999．http：／／www．arn．org／docs／Johnson／insightprofile 1099．htm．

③ Nancy Pearcey, “Wedge Issues: An Intelligent Discussion with Intelligent Design’s Designer,” World, July 29, 2000. http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/07-29-00/closing_2.asp.

③ Nancy Pearcey，“Wedge Issues：An Intelligent Discussion with Intelligent Design’s Designer，”World，July 29，2000． http：／／www．worldmag．com／world／issue／07-29-00／closing_2．asp．

④ Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, “The Wedge Strategy.” http://www.humanist.net/skeptical/Wedge.html

④ Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture，“The Wedge Strategy”． http：／／www．humanist．net／skeptical／Wedge．html

⑤ Phillip E. Johnson, February 6, 2000, at a meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters in Anaheim, California.

⑤ Phillip E．Johnson，February 6，2000，at a meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters in Anaheim，California．

⑥ Phillip E. Johnson, 1997, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 91-92.

⑥ Phillip E. Johnson，1997 Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds，Downers Grove，Illinois：InterVarsity Press，91-92.

⑦ Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997, 92.

⑦ Phillip E．Johnson，Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds，Downers Grove，Illinois：InterVarsity Press，1997，92.

⑧ “Major Grants Increase Programs, Nearly Double Discovery Budget,” Discovery Institute Journal, 1999. http://www.discovery.org/w3/discovery.org/journal/1999/grants.html.

⑧“Major Grants Increase Programs，Nearly Double Discovery Budegt， ”Discovery Institute Journal，1999． http：／／www，discovery．org／w3／discovery．org／journal／1999／grants．html．

⑨ Bruce Chapman, “Ideas Whose Time Is Coming,” Discovery Institute Journal, summer 1996. http://www.discovery.org/w3/discovery.org/journal/president.html

⑨ Bruce Chapman，“Ideas Whose Time Is Coming，”Discovery Institute Journal，summer 1996． http：／／www．discovery．org/w3／discovery．org／journal／president．html

⑩ Barbara Forrest: The Wedge at Work, in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by R. Pennock. MIT Press. 2001. 32.

⑩ Babara Forrest：The Wesge at Work，in Inteliigent Design Creationism and Its Critics，edited by R．Pennock．MlT Press．2001．32．

{11} Henry F. Schaefer III, “Foreword,” Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 9.

{11} Henry F．Schaefer IIl， “Foreword”Mere Creation：Science，Faith and Intelligent Design（Downers Grove，Illinois：InterVarsity Press，1998），9．

{12} Scott Swanson, “Debunking Darwin?” Christianity Today, January 6, 1997. http://www.christianityonline.com/ct/7t1/7t1064.html

{12} Scott Swanson，“Debunking Darwin?”Christianity Today January 6,1997． http：／／www．christianityonline．com／ct／7t1／7t1064．html

{13} www.discovery.org/crsc/scied/present/topics/political.htm

{13} www．discovery．org／crsc／scied／present/topics／political．htm

{14} Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District. 2005. Memorandum Opinion. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller342.pdf.

{14} Kitzmiller et a1．v Dover Area School District．2005．Memorandum Opinion． http：／／www．pamd．uscourts.gov／kitzmiller／kitzmiller 342．pdf.

{15} Quoted from: “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,” see: http://baike.baidu.com/view/2187887.htm

{15} 转引自： 《奇兹米勒诉多佛学区案》，详见：http://baike.baidu.com/view/2187887.htm

{16} David Bloor, *Knowledge and Social Imagery* (Dongfang Press, 2001), p. 71.

{16} 大卫·布鲁尔：《知识与社会意象》，东方出版社，2001年，第71页。

{17} Phillip E. Johnson, *Darwin on Trial* (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991), p. 131.

{17} Phillip E．Johnson，Darwin on Trial，Washington，D．C．：Regnery Gateway，1991．131．

{18} Kary D. Smout, *Creation/Evolution Controversy: A Battle for Cultural Power* (Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated, 1998), p. 186.

{18} Kary D．Smout，Creation/Evolution Controversy：A Battle for Cultural Power．Westport，CT，USA：Greenwood Publishing Group，Incorporated，1998．186．

About the author: Cai Zhong, Senior Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanjing University; Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, Department of Philosophy, Nanjing University.

作者简介：蔡仲，南京大学人文社科高级研究院，南京大学哲学系教授，博士生导师