Re: Ben Stein's Movie EXPELLED - Could we have been "designed" bySpace Aliens?

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:54:07 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
<tokay.gris.beau@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
wrote:
>> 
>> Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
wrote:
>>>> John Baker wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:30:12 -0700 (PDT), dennisosm
>>>>> <denniskriz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 28, 10:42 am, "Donald E. Flood" <Jeha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> "dennisosm" <dennisk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
news:e415c9c2-2423-4a43-93e8-ad1684c6c951@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>> An implication from Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence
>>>>>>>> Allowed" for me was that "intelligent design" _need not_ require
"God
>>>>>>>> language" but simply a designer, the designer simply being an
older,
>>>>>>>> higher intelligence -- "space aliens" ;-)
>>>>>>> Correct.  ID would not prove supernaturalism or the existence of
God.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why would scientists be afraid of it?
>>>>> Scientists reject ID because it isn't science. Claiming they're
afraid
>>>>> of it is, quite simply, a lie.
>>>>>
>>>> So "ID" can't be discussed in a scientific context? It's
>>>> "impossible"? I doubt that.
>>>>
>>> ID CAN be discussed in a scientific context. It just fails at the
first
>>> hurdle, is all.
>>>
>> So there's no possible way to discuss ID scientifically?
>
>There is. Simple. The scientific method starts at observations. There is 
>no observation today that necessitates a "designer".
>
>Science then formulates a hypothesis that explains those observations.
>
>ID fails in that resort: No observations = no hypothesis.
>
>Simple as that.

Worse. There  is nothing whatsoever that gives and reason even to
suggest it - apart from one's religious belief in one.

Because if everything was designed there is nothing natural for
comparison.

And we know how we design things, from our knowledge of ourselves.
This can't be extrapolated to a god because that would require prior
knowledge of it, how it designs things and that it actually did.

>  What if
>> space aliens did affect the earth's biote?
>
>Wikipedia doesn't know what a "biote" is. I don't either.

I think he meant biota.

>  In this hypothetical,
>> you are excluding what actually happened from study. That doesn't
>> sound like what science is about.
>
>We don't exclude anything. We go where evidence leads us.

They don't seem to grasp this.

If there were anything that pointed in that direction scientific
investigation would have gone down that route.

And if anything is discovered in the future that points that way,
science will investigate it.

It is a case of crossing that bridge if and when we ever come to it.

But there are a lot of other bridges to be crossed before that. As
well as forks in the road.

But they imagine science should  jump straight to a particular bridge
way down one of the thousands of forking routes.

>Evidence does not point to a supernatural beeing. And doesn't point to 
>aliens either. The "IDEA" is still in the run, always will, but unless 
>there is evidence and observations that sup****t that "idea", it stays an 
>idea. Nothing more.
>
>Let's say we can show that the earths initial athomsphere was absolutely 
>unsuited to actually form reproducing cells. We can't, at the moment.
>We'd then have to look elsewhere. Probably another planet. Panspermia is 
>  not "OUT". There simply is no evidence to hint that way.

And in any case just moves the problem further back. How this as yet
undiscovered alien life originated.

>So, NOTHING is "out". We see where the evidence leads.
>
>Oh, and Occams Razor. Doesn't have to be correct, but the simplest 
>solution has a good chance of being the correct one.
>
>
>Tokay