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

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:
>>> 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".
>>
> What "observations" brought string theory?

"String theory is a still-developing mathematical approach to 
theoretical physics,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

It's maths. It works in math. Maths works a little different than other 
scientific fields. I can't follow the maths, but I am told that 
mathematically it works.

> 
> 
> 
>> Science then formulates a hypothesis that explains those observations.
>>
>> ID fails in that resort: No observations = no hypothesis.
>>
>> Simple as that.
>>
>>   What if
>>> space aliens did affect the earth's biote?
>> Wikipedia doesn't know what a "biote" is. I don't either.
>>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+biote

That's what I did.
> No definitions of  biote were found in English

But I was told that you 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.
>>
>> Evidence does not point to a supernatural beeing.
>>
> So if it did point that way, it would be OK to discuss it?

Of course.


>> 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.
>>
> There isn't evidence that firmly points to anything, is there?

Yes there is. Miller-Urey and other experiments show that this path 
could have happened. Not that it DID happen, just that it is possible.

Panspermia... we'd first have to FIND aliens. THEN we can think about 
what they are capable of.

> 
> 
>> 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.
>>
> So you don't want to talk about EDI (Creationism or ID) so you will
> slice it away with Occam?

Oh, talk about, sure. If you have anything to base it on?

So far, all the arguments have come down to a "zero".

If you have evidence that points to a "designer", let's have it. let's 
talk about it. Let's see what it says. But check beforehand if this 
"evidence" hasn't been debunked countless times before.

Such as: "looks like", irreducible complexity, the mathematical 
argument, thermodynamics, just to name a few with even a HINT of science 
in them.

The ONLY approach that could be called scientific was irreducible 
complexity. And since it cannot be shown to be the case, it is out.

Tokay




-- 

"I meant," said Ipslore bitterly, "what is there in this world that 
truly makes living worth while?"
Death thought about it "Cats," he said eventually, "Cats are Nice."

      Terry Pratchett, Sourcery