Re: Real simple question on ID/aliens etc


Richard Forrest wrote:
explainer wrote:
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, "Murf" <rob_murfin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello everybody

I have read, re-read and glanced at numerous posts, papers and articles
on the ID debate. I get the picture

I don't think so.

However, one thing we tend to skim over is the "who is teh inteligent
designer bit". We all know that the elephant in the corner is the god
of genesis (tm), but the ID movement often claim (in smoke and mirrors)
that they are open minded - i.e. it could be aliens (liek the Raelians
believe) or time travellers (f*ck knows who ACTUALLY believes that one)

Who says "the elephant in the corner is the god of genesis (tm)". No
one I know. To identify the ID movement as claiming "(in smoke and
mirrors)" suggests to me you prefer pandering to prejudice over
understanding someone's honest opinion.

The fact that the principal backers of the Discovery Institute are
fundamentalist Christians, as are many if not most ID proponents
suggests that this is not predjudice.

Good point. My point is the reference to "the elephant in the corner
is the god of genesis (tm)" [a phrase unfamiliar to me] and the "smoke
and mirrors" reference which I see as prejudicial (demeaning may be a
better term).

IMHO, IDers, in the main, are creationists who are deging toward an
acceptance of ToE, but have not yet found their way to the endpoint.
Their journey is impeded by the fanatics at both ends--the creationists
who assured them they will be "left behind" if they desert God and the
absolutist athiests who shout epitaphs if idiocy at anyone who believes
in a supernatural causative source of the universe.

Whe you strip away the vitriolic ranting from both sides you find,
IDers have an honest opinion that life is too complex to have been
created by natural processes.

That may be their honest opinion, but it is not a scientific opinion.
The dishonesty lies in the claim that ID offers scientific evidence -
something which is evidently not the case.

My error. I did not differentiate between the "liars" and "true
believers". I have met many IDers who actually believe the ID line for
the same reason some atheists say all theists are idiots: they accept
it at face value because someone said so and they never discussed it
with someone who disagrees.

Not very inquisitive, but a too common practice in many fields.

Couple that with the lack of evidence
for a natural origin of life and you have checkmate.

Lack of evidence does not support the ID claim. The intervention of a
supernatural intelligence is not the default explanation of science for
areas of research in which evidence is lacking.

Correct. My point here refers to those who fear the validation of
evolution somehow endangers their belief in a causitive creative source
of the universe... and earth... and life... That's a big step. Many
are exploring it. Some like Lloyd Geering have made the ultimate move
to a "Christianity Without God", without a supernatural creator.

As with all learning, one moves from the known to the unknown and along
the way has to alter the mistakenly known. It may be an easy process
for scientists where evidence is tangible, but it is difficult for
believers, where hard evidence is non-existent.

I hope my post did not suggest I support the lying scumbags who traffic
in fear of damnation, albeit subtle, for personal fame and gain. I
find the ID leaders intentional misrepresentation to be regnant.

Enter ToE, which says new life forms come into being from existing life
forms. Here the IDers are bending, with varied agreement, the idea
that species can lead to breeds (as in dogs and horses) which over time
can lead to DNA changes which become new species. I think Michael Behe
is of this mindset. But they haven't caved in on the origin of phyla

....which is pretty meaningless, bearing in mind the concept of a
phylum is a taxonomic convenience rather than a biologically meaningful
term.

You understand this and I do, too (finally) but the average person who
reads about micro and macro-evolution, then phyla, genus, etc.. and had
high school biology, in an easy attempt as wisdom, can be forgiven the
misconception that a phyla is a big break in the evolutionary tree...
at least I'm quick to forgive this misunderstanding.

or origin of life.

...which is not part of evolutionary theory.

which I did say. The point being that the average person doesn't
understand the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. It's an
opportunity for us to clarify a misconception. In my experience, it is
an easy point to make with most people who respond, "Really? I didn't
know that."

Of course ToE is silent on the origin of life, an essential point
missed (or temporarily forgotten)by too many including some of the most
rabid ToE proponents.

It's not missed by "ToE" proponents. It's simply not part of
evolutionary theory. There is plenty of research going on into the
origins of life.

Poor wording on my part. It would have been more correct to say, "Most
of the general public think the ToE is about the origin of life and its
evolving." Then to have said, "Part of the problem may be that those
familiar with ToE may miss this distinction." Continuing with the idea
that some see their view of ToE (which includes the origin of life) as
a threat to their belief in a creator.

I hope this is clearer than the first post. This lack of clarity is
either cognitive sloth or an early Alzheimer's onset. My apologies
for the fogginess.

The creationist->creation science->intelligent design->evolution
transition is a difficult intellectual evolution. It takes time,
patience and an inquiring mind. Too many of the fundamentalist
creationists have closed their minds, but there are many who have not,
who are eager to learn, but reject prostlization in every form,
including the absolutist anti-creation, fundamental
atheism-is-the-only-way point of view.

When the emotions are stripped away and the thinking person is
identified you will find someone who is interested in learning and
disinterested in being told how to think.

Yes, this sounds altruistic--and I am not defending or supporting the
ID advocates who lie about the issues--but in my experience whith
friends, neighbors and fellow church members I have found an audience
eager to examing their thinking. I anve also found many whose minds
are made up and don't want to be confused by other information. I
discuss ideas with the first and leve the second alone.

However, we often jump to the answer "of course this answers nothing" -
but has any probed beyond the staement "it could have ben aliens"

i.e. - What is the ID movements response to "who designed the DNA of
the alien visitors?"

I'm not looking for the ID line "we just don't know" - I'm looking to
see if they have actually suggested anything

I don't know of any, and would be very surprised if any actually have.

Suggesting actual explanations isn't exactly a part of the ID
methodology.

It's not part of the contemporary Christianity either.

"Contemporary Christianity" doesn't claim to be science.

Bingo!

The view is
that God is transcendent, "beyond word and form", any attempt to
objectify God is futile. This does not play well in the rational,
objective scientific world, but that's the way it is.


It's fine with the rational, objective, scientific world so long as
they don't claim that it is science.

And they don't, but they do view scientific knowledge as evidence of a
spectacular creation. Natural or supernatural? What you believe is
not important to me, but what I beleive is vital to me.

GH



--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas


RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... "spark of life" which separates living from non-living things. ... It's only a blurred line to scientists who keep changing the ... alone supported your calculations in any way with evidence. ... how could the first DNA replication system come about if not by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... The conclusions are that life could ... The evidence for evolution is broken down into three broad ... The first is direct evidence of small-scale changes in controlled ... types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... itself or came into existence without a cause. ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean loses interest
    ... please do present your evidence. ... written on to make it into real life testing much less demonstration. ... radiometric measures of the age of the universe and extrapolations ... of stellar and planetary evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your god isn't needed. ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)