|
|
本文原始出處：【新語絲電子文庫】 新語絲譯文：http://www.xys.org/fang/doc/science/xijie.txt
文章類別：科技期刊評論。/ 神創論批判-書評。
來源：《自然》Nature 1996, 383: 227–228.
作者：Jerry A. Coyne， 芝加哥大學生態和進化系教授
其他：譯文來自於新語絲方舟子版，並進行了少量重新編輯。
NCID：06066
God in the details: The Biochemical Challenge to EvolutionJerry A. Coyne reviews Dr. Michael Behe's new book Darwin's Black Box:
The goal of creationists has always been to replace the teaching of evolution with the narrative given in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. When the courts stymied this effort, creationists tried a new strategy: cloaking themselves in the mantle of science. This produced the oxymoronic 'scientific creationism', arguing that the very facts of biology and geology show that the Earth is young, all species were created suddenly and simultaneously, and mass extinctions were caused by a great world-wide flood. The resemblance between this theory and the book of Genesis was, of course, purely coincidental. Scientific creationism, however, also came to grief. Virtually all creation 'scientists' were religious fundamentalists without biological expertise, and American courts clearly spied clerical collars beneath the lab coats.
神創論者一貫的目標是用《創世記》前十一章的記敘來取代進化論的教育。這一圖謀被法庭阻止之後，他們採用一個新策略：給自己披上科學的袍子。語義自岐的「科學神創論」就產生了，它辯稱，生物學和地質學的真憑實據說明地球是年輕的，所有的物種都是同時一下子被創造出來的，而物種大滅絕是由一場世界性的大洪水導致的。至於這個理論和《創世記》之間的相似性，當然啦，純出巧合。然而，科學神創論也遭到了重大不幸。實際上所有的神創論「科學家」都是沒有生物學專長的原教旨主義者，而美國的法庭清楚地察見了他們在實驗室大褂下牧師的領子。
In Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe offers a new and more sophisticated version of scientific creationism. Unlike his predecessors, Behe is a genuine scientist, a biochemist from Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The book jacket asserts that he is not a creationist, but believes in the scientific method. His argument, however, is a recycled version of the creationist notion that 'complex design' implies an intelligent designer. But where William Paley illustrated this logic with a watch, Behe uses biochemistry. His intended audience of lay readers may be impressed by the elaborate descriptions of molecular biology and long lists of references, but Behe's 'scientific' alternative to evolution ultimately becomes a confusing and untestable farrago of contradictory ideas.
在《達爾文的黑匣子》一書中，MichaelBehe為科學神創論提供了一個新的、更精緻的版本。與他的先驅們不同，Behe是一個真的科學家，賓州Lehigh大學的一個生物化學家。這本書的護封里宣稱他不是神創論者，他相信的是科學方法。然而，他的論證不過是一個新版的神創論者舊觀念，所謂「複雜的設計」暗示了「有智慧的設計者」。但是，威廉·貝利舉例闡明這個邏輯時用的是手錶，而Behe用的則是生物化學。他所面向的外行讀者也許會對那些有關分子生物學的不厭其煩的描述和長長的參考書目留下印象，但是他用來取代進化論的「科學」理論最終成為一連串矛盾的，混亂而無法證實的大雜燴觀點。
Behe's thesis is that organisms harbour molecular pathways so elaborate and interconnected that they cannot be explained by gradual evolution from simpler precursors. His examples of such pathways, described with admirable clarity, include blood- clotting, the immune system and intracellular transport. These share what he calls "irreducible complexity": they would not function if any single component were removed. Because Darwinism requires that a pathway be useful at every stage of its evolution, Behe claims that such irreducibly complex pathways could not evolve in steps. Their existence therefore implies conscious design and an intelligent designer. (Like all scientific creationists, Behe keeps quiet about the identity of the Great Designer, but the author's professed Roman Catholicism offers one clue.) Evolutionists are said to resist this idea of design because of our dogged but unreasonable dislike of supernatural explanations. Behe, however, is free from this constraint. With paternal pride, he declares that his discovery of biochemical design "must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science", rivalling "those of Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur, and Darwin".
Behe的論點是說，有機體所具有的分子途徑是如此的複雜和相關，因此不能被解釋為是從更簡單的原型逐步進化而來的。他以值得欽佩的清晰文筆，舉了這類途徑的幾個例子，包括血液凝固，免疫系統和細胞內運輸。這些例子都具有他所謂「不可減約的複雜性」：如果有任一組分被去除，它們將失去功能。由於達爾文主義要求一個途徑在進化的每一個階段都必須有用，Behe因此宣稱這類具有不可減約複雜性的途徑不能一步步進化而來。因此它們的存在暗示著有意識的設計和一個有智慧的設計者（象所有的科學神創論者，Behe對這位大設計者的身份保持沉默，但是作者的天主教信仰提供了線索）。據說進化論者抗拒設計的觀念是因為我們頑固且非理性地厭惡超自然的解釋。然而Behe是不受此約束的。他就象一個父親一樣自豪地聲稱他對生化設計的發現「必須被列為科學史上最偉大的成果之一」，可與「牛頓和愛因斯坦，拉瓦錫和薛定鍔，巴斯德，以及達爾文的發現」相媲美。
There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel. Unlike anatomical structures, the evolution of which can be traced with fossils, biochemical evolution must be reconstructed from highly evolved living organisms, and we may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways. It is not valid, however, to assume that, because one man cannot imagine such pathways, they could not have existed. Moreover, a J.B.S. Haklane pointed out: "My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." We face not only the absence of data, but also the awful fact that we ourselves are evolved creatures with limited cognition and imagination.
毫無疑問，Behe所描述的那些途徑具有驚人的複雜性，它們的進化也是難以解釋清楚的。解剖結構的進化能夠根據化石進行追溯，不同的是，生化的進化卻必須根據高度進化的現存有機體重新構建，而我們也許永遠不能夠想象最初的原始途徑。然而，如果因為我們無法想象這樣的途徑，就以為它們不能夠存在，這是不恰當的。而且，正如荷爾登所指出的：「我個人的猜疑是，宇宙不僅比我們所設想的更古怪，而且比我們所能設想的還要古怪。」我們所面對的不僅是數據的缺乏，而且還有這個可怕的事實，即我們本身就是進化的產物，具有有限的認識和想象能力。
The answer to Behe's argument lies in realizing that biochemical pathways did not evolve by the sequential addition of steps to pathways that became functional only at the end. Instead, they have been rigged up with pieces co-opted from other pathways, duplicated genes and early multifunctional enzymes. Thrombin, for example, is one of the key proteins in blood- clotting, but also acts in cell division, and is related to the digestive enzyme trypsin. Who knows which function came first? Behe makes a few half-hearted attempts to build up such pathways, but quickly abandons the enterprise and cries "design".
要回答Behe的爭辯，有賴於認識到，生化途徑的進化，並非是一步一步地往途徑上疊加，最後才具有功能的。相反地，它們已經從別的途徑、重複的基因和早期多功能的酶獲得了裝備。比如，凝血酶是導致血液凝固的一種關鍵蛋白質，但是也參與細胞分裂，而且還跟消化酶胰蛋白酶有親緣關係。誰知道哪一種功能是最早出現的呢？Behe半心半意地試圖建造這樣的途徑，但是很快就喪失了雄心壯志而大喊「設計」。
Evolutionists will find two other problems with Behe's arguments. First, there is ample evidence for the evolution of morphology and anatomy from studies of palaeontology, embryology, biogeography and vestigial organs. Such evolution must, of course, be based on the evolution of molecules and biochemical pathways. Second, we have plenty of direct evidence for the evolution of molecules. This includes the remarkable congruence between phylogenies based on anatomy and those based on DNA or protein sequence (bat haemoglobin, for example, is far more similar to that of whales than of birds), the relatedness of genes through gene duplication (including those involved in the immune system and blood-clotting), and the existence of vestigial 'pseudogenes' that were useful in ancestors. (Unlike most mammals, humans cannot synthesize vitamin C, we still carry the gene for the final step in this pathway, but deletions have rendered it non-functional.)
進化論者會發現在Behe的論證中還有兩個問題。首先，古生物學、胚胎學、生物地理學和退化器官的研究為形態和結構的進化提供了大量的證據。形態和結構的進化理所當然地必須以分子和生化途徑的進化為基礎。其次，我們也有有關分子進化的充分的直接證據。這包括，根據解剖結構構建的種系發生樹和根據ＤＮＡ或蛋白質系列構建的種系發生樹具有顯著的一致性（比如，蝙蝠的血紅蛋白質與鯨的形似性遠遠高於與鳥的），通過基因重複導致的基因的親緣性（包括那些參與免疫系統和血液凝固的基因），以及存在那些在祖先中有過作用而現在已喪失功能的退化的「假基因」（與大多數哺乳動物不同，人類不能合成維生素Ｃ，但是我們具有在此路徑的最後步驟起作用的基因，只不過刪除突變使它不起功能）。
Behe's response to these problems constitutes the major weakness of his theory. He chews on the idea of morphological evolution, but cannot bring himself to swallow it. He finds the idea of common descent of all organisms "fairly convincing", and admits that microevolution occurs within species, but sees no evidence for transitions between major forms. (How one can admit common descent but deny macroevolution is one of the fascinating questions Behe leaves unanswered.) Finally, in a tactic unique in the creationist literature, he admits that both evolution and creation might occur at the molecular level. Such a hybrid theory, however, yields sterile offspring, such as Behe's idea that the first 'designed' cell could include the DNA for all future evolutionary change, including that producing eyes and the immune system.
Behe對這些問題的答覆構成了他的理論的最主要弱點。他咀嚼了形態進化的觀念，但是卻不能吞咽下去。他發現所有的有機體都具有共同祖先的觀念是「相當令人信服的」，他也承認在物種內部發生著微進化，但是卻看不到在主要生物類別之間有過渡的證據（一個人怎麼可以承認共同祖先卻又否認大進化呢？這是一個令人迷惑的問題，然而Behe未作回答）。最後，用一種在神創論文獻中顯得非常特別的戰術，他承認在分子水平上同時發生著進化和神創。然而，這一種雜交的理論產生的是不育的後代，比如Behe的這麼一個觀點：第一個「被設計」的細胞能夠包含有所有未來進化所需的ＤＮＡ，包括那些產生眼睛和免疫系統的。
Responding to observations of non-functional genes and inefficient molecular processes, Behe theorizes that he Great Designer, like his counterparts in Paris and Milan, has goals beyond functionality: "Features that strike us as odd in a design might have been placed there by the designer for a reason -- for artistic reasons, for variety, to show off, for some as-yet-undetectable practical purpose, or for some unguessable reason -- or they might not." One should add the "puckish reason": to confuse future biologists by making things look as though they evolved.
我們已發現無功能的基因和效率低下的分子過程，對此Behe建立了一個理論，認為大設計者，就象他在巴黎和米蘭的同僚，懷有功能性之外的目的：「那些讓我們覺得奇怪的特徵之所以被設計者放在那裡，可能有一個原因－－為了藝術的原因，為了多樣化，為了炫耀，為了還未被發覺的實用目的，或者為了無法猜測的原因－－或者根本就沒有原因。」我們還可以再加一個「惡作劇的原因」：讓後來的生物學家誤以為生物是進化來的。
If one accepts Behe's idea that both evolution and creation can operate together, and that the Designer's goals are unfathomable, then one confronts an airtight theory that can't be proved wrong. I can imagine evidence that would falsify evolution (a hominid fossil in the Precambrian would do nicely), but none that could falsify Behe's composite theory. Even if, after immense effort, we are able to understand the evolution of a complex biochemical pathway, Behe could simply claim that evidence for design resides in the other unexplained pathways. Because we will never explain everything, there will always be evidence for design. This regressive ad hoc creationism may seem clever, but it is certainly not science. As the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out, it is also bad religion: "If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed farther and farther back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat."
如果接受Behe的觀念，認為進化和神創能夠同時存在以及設計者的目的是深不可測的，那麼人們就遇到了一個無法被證明是錯誤的密不透風的理論。我能夠想象否證進化論的證據（在前寒武紀發現一具猿人化石將會成功地否征它），但是沒有人能夠否證Behe的雜合理論。即使在巨大的努力之後我們能夠明了一個複雜的生化途徑的進化，Behe也能夠簡單地聲明設計的證據存在於其它未解釋的途徑之中。因為我們將永遠無法解釋所有的事情，就總會有設計的證據存在。這種退化的特定神創論看上去似乎很聰明，但是毫無疑問不是科學。正如神學家Dietrich Bonhoeffer所指出的，它也是很糟糕的宗教：「如果在事實上知識的前沿一直在不斷地越來越遠地推進（而這是肯定的），然後上帝也跟著一直不斷地被推開，這是在持續後退。」
In the end, Darwin's Black Box is a work of advocacy whose creationist ancestry is revealed by both its rhetoric and its failure to deal honestly with the evidence for evolution. There is the usual selective quotation of evolutionists (including, to my horror, a remark of my own, both altered and taken out of context), ridicule of scientists, and a folksy 'us-against-them' style reflecting the populist roots of creationism. The book will no doubt be widely cited by Biblical creationists who will tout its message of design wile ignoring its timid acceptance of evolution and its view of the creator as Cosmic Prankster.
最後，《達爾文的黑匣子》是一部詭辯性的著作，它同時展示了前神創論者的花言巧語和不能誠實地對待進化的證據。在其中，有精心挑選出來的進化論者語錄（我有幸也被經篡改和斷章取義地選了一條評論），有對科學家們的奚落，以及隨意的神創論大眾「逆反」基礎。這本書毫無疑問將被神創論者們所廣泛引用，這些人將會兜售它的宣揚設計的詞句，而忽視它對進化論羞羞答答的接納和把造物主視為宇宙惡作劇者的看法。
If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labelling our ignorance 'God'. Lord Kelvin declared that the primaeval Earth had cooled down too quickly to permit the great age required by Darwinism. How could he imagine that radioactivity would be discovered four decades later and prove the missing source of heat? Duane Gish, the doyen of American creationists, once argued for the separate creation of mammals and reptiles, based on their jaw structure. Each has a jaw joint made from a different pair of bones, and Gish could not imagine how the transitional form could chew while its jaw was being unhinged and rearticulated. In 1958, however, Fuzz Crompton described a mammal-like reptile with a double jaw joint that included both pairs of bones. The evolution of biochemical pathways is certainly queerer than Professor Behe can suppose.
如果科學史能展示給我們什麼的話，那就是我們若給無知貼上「上帝」的標籤將會一事無成。開爾文勛爵曾經宣稱原始地球冷卻得太快了，無法提供達爾文主義所要求的漫長時間。他怎麼會想到四十年之後放射性現象會被發現並被證明是被忽略了的熱源呢？Duane Gish，這位美國神創論的老前輩，有一次根據哺乳類和爬行類的頜骨結構爭辯說它們是被分別創造出來的。二者分別具有一個由一對不同的骨頭組成的頜關節，而Gish無法想象，若有過渡形態，當它的頜骨被脫開和重新連接時，它可怎麼咀嚼呢？然而，在１９５８年，Fuzz Crompton發現了一種類似哺乳類的爬行動物，它有一個雙重的頜關節，同時具有這兩對骨頭。生化途徑的進化無疑地要比Behe教授所能設想的還要古怪。
References:
Coyne, J.A. God in the details: The biochemical challenge to evolution. Nature 1996, 383: 227–228. doi:10.1038/383227a0
雜誌目錄：http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v383/n6597/index.html
原文可下載地址：http://pondside.uchicago.edu/cluster/pdf/coyne/Behe_review.pdf
新語絲譯文：http://www.xys.org/fang/doc/science/xijie.txt
[本話題由 在美一方 於 2010-07-02 22:13:49 編輯] |
|
狗仔卡
提升卡
置頂卡
沉默卡
喧囂卡
變色卡
搶沙發