Re: Ben Stein's Movie EXPELLED - Could we have been "designed" by

David Johnston wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:55:23 +0000, "Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique
> allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> What if evolution could do it and an
> >> >intelligence could do it too?
> >>
> >> Then ID has nothing to offer.
> >>
> >What you are saying is that it is *impossible* for any other force
> >to have affected Earth's biote. I can't believe we know that.
> 
> I'm saying nothing of the kind.  It is self evident that other forces
> have affected Earth's "biote".  Sunlight for example.  Meteorites.
> What I am saying however, is that aliens do not offer an answer to the
> question "How did life originate" because the aliens are themselves
> alive.
>
It can answer how life on earth began, in principle. You think
because there can't be a never-ending queue of aliens creating the
aliens that created the aliens on forever to the aliens who created
us that therefore there can't be aliens that created us. That's a
mistake.



> Using aliens is merely a pathetic attempt to avoid the
> question.  Additionally, I'm saying there's no good reason to
> postulate aliens have come to Earth until we detect some aliens.
>
Aliens comes up against the claim that EDI (ID or Creationism) is
absurd because "God did it" isn't a scientific answer to what he
did.



> >> >> and such an intelligence would
> >> >> itself be something complicated and "functional" there is no way
to
> >> >> avoid resorting to Goddidit if you accept the premise.  That's the
> >> >> point.
> >> >>
> >> >What if God did it?
> >>
> >> Then it is beyond our comprehension and not worth wasting time on.
> >>
> >Really? So your argument is that ID is a waste of time because God
> >is too complicated?
> 
> No, I never said God was complicated.  Merely being complicated does
> not make something incomprehensible.  However, God is
> incomprehensible, because It's filled with logical paradoxes.  Any
> explanation that invokes God therefore contributes nothing to our
> comprehension.
>
This is sort of a side question, but I'm not convinced that God (et
al.) couldn't in principle be useful in some cir***stance to answer
some question scientifically. The first problem clearly is that you
have to define what you mean by "God".


-- 
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"