"The Elephant March" from "Aida," is the music I've chosen for my funeral.

那是歌劇《阿依達》中的“The Elephant March", 是我為自己的葬禮準備的音樂。

(Laughter)

(笑)

And you can see why. It's triumphal.

不難理解，它充滿了勝利感。

I won't feel anything, but if I could,

我覺得 - 當然到時候我什麼也感覺不到，但如果我能的話

I would feel triumphal at having lived at all,

我會覺得活過本身就是勝利，

and at having lived on this splendid planet,

在這麼一個美妙的星球活過，

and having been given the opportunity to understand

有這個機會能去了解

something about why I was here in the first place, before not being here.

為什麼我會在這裡﹐在我出現在這裡之前

Can you understand my quaint English accent?

大家都能聽懂我古雅的英文口音嗎？

(Laughter)

和大家一樣，我為昨天有關動物的那一段而著迷。

Like everybody else, I was entranced yesterday by the animal session.

Robert Full, Frans Lanting, 和其他演講人，

Robert Full and Frans Lanting and others;

都展示了優美的東西。

the beauty of the things that they showed.

唯一稍微有點不和諧的是當Jeffery Katzenberg說到野馬的時候，

The only slight jarring note was when Jeffrey Katzenberg said of the mustang,

「上帝在地球上創造的最優美的生物。」

"the most splendid creatures that God put on this earth."

當然，我們知道他不是真的要表達這個意思，

Now of course, we know that he didn't really mean that,

但是在這個國家這個時候，你不得不非常小心。

but in this country at the moment, you can't be too careful.

（笑）

(Laughter)

我是一個生物學家，而我們學科的中心主題是：設計的理論，

I'm a biologist, and the central theorem of our subject: the theory of design,

達爾文的物競天擇的演化論，

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.

在任何地方的專業圈裡，都被廣為接受

In professional circles everywhere, it's of course universally accepted.

在美國以外的非專業圈裡則是基本上沒人理睬的

In non-professional circles outside America, it's largely ignored.

但是在美國的非專業圈裡呢，

But in non-professional circles within America,

它卻引來了那麼多的敵意 --

it arouses so much hostility --

（笑）

(Laughter)

可以說美國的生物學家們在進行著一場戰爭。

it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war.

而這場戰爭現在是那麼的讓人擔心，

The war is so worrying at present,

法庭訴訟案件在一個又一個的州出現，

with court cases coming up in one state after another,

我覺得我必須說點什麼

that I felt I had to say something about it.

如果你想知道我對達爾文主義的看法，

If you want to know what I have to say about Darwinism itself,

恐怕你必須看我的書，

I'm afraid you're going to have to look at my books,

那本你無法在外面書店找到的書

which you won't find in the bookstore outside.

（笑）

(Laughter)

現在法庭訴訟案件，

Contemporary court cases

經常是關於一種所謂的新版本的創世說，

often concern an allegedly new version of creationism,

叫智能設計或者ID

called "Intelligent Design," or ID.

不要被矇騙了，ID不是什麼新觀念

Don't be fooled. There's nothing new about ID.

它只是創世說換了個名堂而已。

It's just creationism under another name,

重新洗禮命名--我特意的這麼說--

rechristened -- I choose the word advisedly --

（笑）

(Laughter)

--因為策略上和政治上的原因。

for tactical, political reasons.

所謂的ID論者的論據

The arguments of so-called ID theorists

和那些被一次又一次的否定過的論據是一模一樣的，

are the same old arguments that had been refuted again and again,

從達爾文的時代到今天。

since Darwin down to the present day.

有一個有效的演化論遊說團體，

There is an effective evolution lobby

代表著科學組織著戰鬥，

coordinating the fight on behalf of science,

而我則盡我所能地幫助他們，

and I try to do all I can to help them,

當像我這樣的人膽敢提到我是演化論者

but they get quite upset when people like me dare to mention

同時也是無神論者時，他們會很不愉快

that we happen to be atheists as well as evolutionists.

他們覺得我們在製造不必要的麻煩，你們都明白為什麼原因。

They see us as rocking the boat, and you can understand why.

創世論者們在沒有任何有效論據的情況下，

Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case,

只能夠利用大眾對無神論的恐懼心理。

fall back on the popular phobia against atheism:

如果你在生物課裡教你的孩子演化論，

Teach your children evolution in biology class,

那他們很快就會變成癮君子、慣竊、和性變態。

and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual "pre-version."

（笑）

(Laughter)

事實上，當然，自教皇以下有教養的神學家

In fact, of course, educated theologians from the Pope down

都是堅決地支持演化論的。

are firm in their support of evolution.

這本書，Kenneth Miller 的“尋找達爾文的上帝”，

This book, "Finding Darwin's God," by Kenneth Miller,

是對智能設計最有效的攻擊之一

is one of the most effective attacks on Intelligent Design that I know

據我所知，而讓它更有效的地方是

and it's all the more effective because it's written by a devout Christian.

它是有一個虔誠的基督徒寫的。

People like Kenneth Miller could be called a "godsend" to the evolution lobby,

像Kenneth Miller這樣的人可以說是上帝賜給演化論遊說團體的禮物--

(Laughter)

（笑）

because they expose the lie that evolutionism is, as a matter of fact,

-- 因為他們揭露了演化論就是

tantamount to atheism.

等同於無神論的謊言。

People like me, on the other hand, rock the boat.

而像我這樣的人呢，在製造麻煩。

But here, I want to say something nice about creationists.

不過在這裡，我要為創世論者說點好話。

It's not a thing I often do, so listen carefully.

這可不是我常幹的事，所以請細心聽好。

(Laughter)

（笑）

I think they're right about one thing.

我覺得他們在一件事上是對的。

I think they're right that evolution

他們正確地認識到

is fundamentally hostile to religion.

演化論跟宗教是根本上勢不兩立的。

I've already said that many individual evolutionists, like the Pope,

我已經說過了很多演化論者，像教宗一樣

are also religious, but I think they're deluding themselves.

同時信奉宗教，但我覺得他們在自欺欺人。

I believe a true understanding of Darwinism

我相信達爾文主義的真正含義

is deeply corrosive to religious faith.

是對宗教信仰有很大的腐蝕性的。

Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism,

也許我現在聽起來像是在為無神論講道，

and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do.

但我保證這不是我要做的事情。

In an audience as sophisticated as this one,

在一群這麼有智慧的聽眾面前

that would be preaching to the choir.

那就像向唱詩班講道。

No, what I want to urge upon you --

不，我所要想你們敦促的是--

(Laughter)

（笑）

Instead, what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism.

我所要向你們敦促的是成為無神論的鬥士。

(Laughter)

（笑）

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

But that's putting it too negatively.

但這又把它說得太消極了。

If I was a person who were interested in preserving religious faith,

如果我要--如果我是一個要維護宗教信仰的人，

I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science,

我會非常害怕演化論科學會帶來的

and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular,

任何科學，但特別是演化論，

to inspire and enthrall, precisely because it is atheistic.

去激勵和吸引人心的積極作用，正因為它是無神的。

Now, the difficult problem for any theory of biological design

現在，一個在所有生物設計論都難解決的問題

is to explain the massive statistical improbability of living things.

是怎樣去解析物種生存的極高的統計上的不可能性。

Statistical improbability in the direction of good design --

向好的設計發展的統計上的不可能性--

"complexity" is another word for this.

換個說法就是複雜性。

The standard creationist argument --

標準的神創論的論據-- 只有一個， 它們歸根到底就只有這個--

there is only one; they're all reduced to this one --

除去所有統計上的不可能性。

takes off from a statistical improbability.

生物的複雜性不可能只是偶然

Living creatures are too complex to have come about by chance;

所以它們一定有一個設計者。

therefore, they must have had a designer.

這個論據當然，是自相矛盾的。

This argument of course, shoots itself in the foot.

任何可以設計複雜事物的設計者

Any designer capable of designing something really complex

一定要比他所涉及的東西更複雜，這還不包括

has to be even more complex himself,

我們期望他做的其他事情，

and that's before we even start on the other things he's expected to do,

譬如說寬恕罪過，保佑婚姻，聆聽祈禱--

like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers --

-- 和在打仗的時候站到我們這邊 --

favor our side in a war --

（笑）

(Laughter)

-- 干涉我們的性生活，和別的。

disapprove of our sex lives, and so on.

（笑）

(Laughter)

複雜性是所有生物理論都要解決的問題，

Complexity is the problem that any theory of biology has to solve,

但你不能通過幻想出一個跟複雜的機體來解決它，

and you can't solve it by postulating an agent that is even more complex,

從而使問題進一步加深。

thereby simply compounding the problem.

達爾文的自然選擇是那麼讓驚人的優雅

Darwinian natural selection is so stunningly elegant

因為它解決了解析複雜性的的問題

because it solves the problem of explaining complexity

用非常簡單的方式。

in terms of nothing but simplicity.

基本上，這是通過簡單的累積

Essentially, it does it by providing a smooth ramp

逐漸一步步的變化。

of gradual, step-by-step increment.

不過在這裡， 我只是要強調

But here, I only want to make the point

達爾文主義的優雅對宗教是有腐蝕性的

that the elegance of Darwinism is corrosive to religion,

正因為它是如此的優雅，簡單，有力，

precisely because it is so elegant, so parsimonious, so powerful,

有那麼強大的經濟性。

so economically powerful.

它有著像一座美麗的吊橋那樣發達的系統。

It has the sinewy economy of a beautiful suspension bridge.

上帝的理論不僅是劣拙的理論。

The God theory is not just a bad theory.

到頭來，它在原則上不能解決要解決的問題。

It turns out to be -- in principle --

那麼，回到策略和演化論遊說團上來，

incapable of doing the job required of it.

我要辨論也許製造麻煩正是我們應該做的事。

So, returning to tactics and the evolution lobby,

我攻擊創世論的方法和演化論遊說團不一樣.

I want to argue that rocking the boat

我攻擊創世論的方法是從整體上來攻擊宗教，

may be just the right thing to do.

在這個時候我要指出一個異乎尋常的禁忌--

My approach to attacking creationism is --

我們不能說宗教的壞話的禁忌。

unlike the evolution lobby --

而我將藉用已故的Douglas Adams所說的話，

my approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole.

他是我一個很好的朋友，如果他沒有來過TED的話，

And at this point I need to acknowledge the remarkable taboo

那麼他在世的時候你們真的應該要請他。

against speaking ill of religion,

(Richard Saul Wurman: 我們邀請過他了。）

and I'm going to do so in the words of the late Douglas Adams,

Richard Dawkins: 是嗎，好。我就想他肯定來過。

a dear friend who, if he never came to TED,

在他死前不久有段在劍橋錄製演講

certainly should have been invited.

是這樣開始的。

(Richard Saul Wurman: He was.)

他說科學假設必須通過各種各樣的測試

Richard Dawkins: He was. Good. I thought he must have been.

而這些假設都是建立在容易被反證的基礎上的，他接著說，

He begins this speech, which was tape recorded in Cambridge

我引用他的話， “宗教好像並不是這樣子的”

shortly before he died --

在它的中心有一些我們奉以為神聖的概念。

he begins by explaining how science works through the testing of hypotheses

它的意思就是有這麼一個概念或者說法

that are framed to be vulnerable to disproof, and then he goes on.

你不允許說它有任何不好的地方。

I quote, "Religion doesn't seem to work like that.

你不可以，為什麼呢？因為你不可以。

It has certain ideas at the heart of it, which we call 'sacred' or 'holy.'

（笑）

What it means is: here is an idea or a notion

為什麼我們可以理所當然的支持民主黨或者共和黨，

that you're not allowed to say anything bad about.

這種經濟模式或者那種經濟模式，蘋果Mac或者微軟Windows,

You're just not. Why not? Because you're not."

但是當我們說到宇宙起源的時候，

(Laughter)

當說到誰創造了宇宙的時候-- 不行，那是個神聖的話題。

"Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate

所以，我們習慣了不去挑戰宗教的概念

to support the Republicans or Democrats,

而當Richard挑戰宗教時能引起那麼多的不滿， 這真的很有意思，

this model of economics versus that,

他指的是我不是哪位

Macintosh instead of Windows,

「每個人都為此而憤怒了，

but to have an opinion about how the universe began,

因為你是不許說這些話的，但當你理性地看這個時間

about who created the universe --

我們沒有理由不去公開辯論這些宗教概念

no, that's holy.

這和其他話題是一樣的，只是我們有不去討論它們的默契

So, we're used to not challenging religious ideas,

而已。」 我引用Douglas的話到此結束。

and it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates

在我看來，不僅是科學對宗教有腐蝕性，

when he does it." --

宗教對科學也有腐蝕性。

He meant me, not that one.

它教導人們去滿足於瑣碎的、超自然的謬論

"Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it,

而看不到我們觸手可及的美妙的真理。

because you're not allowed to say these things.

它教導他們接受權威、啟示、和信仰

Yet when you look at it rationally,

而放棄對佐證的不懈追求。

there's no reason why those ideas

這就是Douglas Adams, 在他的書《最後一眼》裡精彩的照片。

shouldn't be as open to debate as any other,

這裡是一份典型的科學刊物，the Quarterly Review of Biology.

except that we've agreed somehow between us

而我將作為客座編輯來編輯

that they shouldn't be."

一份題為《恐龍是因為小行星撞擊地球而滅絕的嗎?》的特刊。

And that's the end of the quote from Douglas.

第一份論文是標準的的科學論文

In my view, not only is science corrosive to religion;

羅列證據， 「在介於白堊紀和第三紀之間的含銥黏土層

religion is corrosive to science.

通過使用鉀-氬法鑑定Yucatan的隕坑里的年代後，

It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial,

顯示了恐龍是因為小行星撞擊地球而滅絕的。」

supernatural non-explanations,

非常典型的科學論文。

and blinds them to the wonderful, real explanations

下一份，「皇家學會的主席

that we have within our grasp.

被賜予了一個堅強的信念 -- （笑）--

It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith,

恐龍是因為小行星撞擊地球而滅絕的。」

instead of always insisting on evidence.

（笑）

There's Douglas Adams, magnificent picture from his book, "Last Chance to See."

「Huxtane教授在私底下被告示

Now, there's a typical scientific journal,

恐龍是因為小行星撞擊地球而滅絕的。」

The Quarterly Review of Biology.

（笑）

And I'm going to put together, as guest editor,

「Hordley 教授被帶引致

a special issue on the question, "Did an asteroid kill the dinosaurs?"

完全毫無疑問的信仰」--

And the first paper is a standard scientific paper,

（笑）

presenting evidence,

「恐龍是因為小行星撞擊地球而滅絕的

"Iridium layer at the K-T boundary,

道金斯教授頒發了一份官方教條

and potassium argon dated crater in Yucatan,

規定所有忠誠的信奉道金斯的人，

indicate that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

認知恐龍是因為小行星撞擊地球而滅絕的。」

Perfectly ordinary scientific paper.

（笑）

Now, the next one.

這當然是不可思議的。

"The President of the Royal Society

但假如 --

has been vouchsafed a strong inner conviction

（鼓掌）

that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

-- 1987年，一位記者問老布什總統

(Laughter)

他是否承認在美國的人們會擁有同等的公民權和愛國主義

"It has been privately revealed to Professor Huxtane

如果他們是無神論者的話

that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

布希先生很著名的回答說

(Laughter)

「不，我不認為無神論者應該被當作公民，

"Professor Hordley was brought up

他們也不應該被當作愛國者。

to have total and unquestioning faith" --

這是一個上帝引領下的國度 。」

(Laughter) --

布希的偏執並不是一個單獨的錯誤，

"that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

在興致所至的時候脫口而出，然後又收回去。

"Professor Hawkins has promulgated an official dogma

他面對反覆的讓他澄清和收回這句話的要求並沒有退讓。

binding on all loyal Hawkinsians

他是真的這麼認為的。

that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."

更重要的是，他知道這並不影響他的競選，相反，

(Laughter)

民主黨和共和黨都標榜他們的宗教信仰，

That's inconceivable, of course.

如果他們要獲選的話。兩個黨都說這是上帝帶領下的國家。

But suppose --

如果托馬斯•杰佛遜看到這個情況的話他會怎麼說呢？

[Supporters of the Asteroid Theory cannot be patriotic citizens]

順便說一句, 我通常並不為作為英國人而非常自豪，

(Laughter)

但實在忍不住要作出這個比較。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）

In 1987, a reporter asked George Bush, Sr.

事實上，一個無神論者是個怎樣的人呢？

whether he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism

一個無神論者只是一個對耶和華的看法

of Americans who are atheists.

和任何正經的基督教徒對托爾或者巴爾或者金牛犢的看法一樣的人。

Mr. Bush's reply has become infamous.

正如之前所說，我們對人類歷史上絕大部分的神來說都是無神論者。

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,

只是我們有些人不相信的神要更多一個而已。

nor should they be considered patriots.

（笑）

This is one nation under God."

（鼓掌）

Bush's bigotry was not an isolated mistake,

無論我們怎樣定義無神論，它都肯定是這麼一種學術信仰，

blurted out in the heat of the moment and later retracted.

一個人有權利去相信而不用為此被詆毀為一個

He stood by it in the face of repeated calls for clarification or withdrawal.

不愛國沒有選舉權的非公民的信仰。

He really meant it.

然而，這是一個不可否認的現實，選擇成為一個無神論者

More to the point, he knew it posed no threat to his election --

就是相當於介紹你自己是希特勒先生或者魔王小姐。

quite the contrary.

這些都源於把無神論者看為

Democrats as well as Republicans parade their religiousness

怪誕的，過時的少數派別。

if they want to get elected.

Natalie Angier 在《紐約客》雜誌上寫過一分相當傷感的文章，

Both parties invoke "one nation under God."

說作為一個無神論者她覺得多麼孤獨。

What would Thomas Jefferson have said?

她明顯覺得自己屬於受困擾的少數派，

[In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty]

但是實際上，到底美國無神論者們的數目加起來有多少呢？

Incidentally, I'm not usually very proud of being British,

最新的調查結果出人意外的振奮人心。

but you can't help making the comparison.

基督教，當然，佔了人口裡最大的份額

(Applause)

有將近一億六千萬。

In practice, what is an atheist?

但你覺得第二大的群體是哪個呢,

An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh

令人信服的比二百八十萬猶太教，加上一百一十萬的穆斯林，

the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf.

加上印度教，佛教和別的宗教加起來都要多的？

As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the gods

第二大的有著將近3千萬的，

that humanity has ever believed in.

是那個被稱為不信教或者非宗教的群體。

Some of us just go one god further.

你是感到奇怪，為什麼追求票數的政客們

(Laughter)

那麼路人皆知的被譬如說猶太教遊說團體說嚇到。

(Applause)

以色列這個國家好像

And however we define atheism, it's surely the kind of academic belief

好像都要靠美國猶太人的投票，但在相同的時候，

that a person is entitled to hold without being vilified

不信教的人卻基本上在政治上不值一提。

as an unpatriotic, unelectable non-citizen.

這部分來在不信教的人的投票，如果適當地動員起來，