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

Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> 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.

Yes. Didn't want to put it that harsh. But yes.

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

IF everything is/was designed, we are up against.....

Basically nothing make sense then. Nothing at all.

IF everything is "designed" we have a.) a crooked bastard on our hands, 
namely a "god" that does this **** on purpose and b.) ...well, still a 
crooked bastard. And no real explanation.


> 
> And we know how we design things, from our knowledge of ourselves.

If we COULD extrapolate, we also would have some extremely BAD design....

> 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.

Yep. And that is the good thing about it.

> 
>>  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.

Ah. Ok. I guessed as much.

> 
>>  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.

With a vengeance, I would say. IF you could really, honestly and 
scientifically show that this way was a valid path... Oh bugger. Just 
get out of the way. Scientists might SEEM docile... but they are horrid 
when it comes to new fields of research. The scientific arena is 
vicious. And unforgiving. No tolerance. One strike and you're out.

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

To the point where "GET OUT OF THE WAY" might be to late....

> 
> 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.

Really silly. Yes.

> 
>> 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.

Exactly. That is the point. You'd STILL have the problem of abiogenesis 
at hand. The initial problem hasn't changed.

At the moment, panspermia is an IDEA.

The problem of abiogenesis is still there. I "believe" that life on this 
planet originated on this planet. I BELIEVE that.

I don't KNOW that. If science starts to go that way, if science shows 
that life CAN'T have originated on this planet, my "belief" goes down 
the drain. We go where evidence leads us. And "beliefs" are discarded 
along the way.

We "believe" that Mt.Everest is the highest mountain on this planet. 
This very much depends how you DEFINE "highest". We DEFINE it as "above 
sea level".
We could also DEFINE it as "height above base". And then, there are 
others that are higher. Ok, so we would have to define "base" as well...
See what I am driving at?

All this is science. All this can be based on evidence. Changed frame of 
reference, but STILL science.


Those "cretinists" DON'T have a "base of reference". They DON'T have 
evidence. The DON'T have facts. ALL they have is an "idea". Not that 
ideas are beyond merit, but for them to be taken seriously they NEED 
observations, facts, data.


Tokay





-- 

FINAGLE'S LAW: Once a job is fouled up, anything done to
improve it makes it worse.