Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

Its only an ad hom when you chop my response to crevo so as to remove the line which demonstrates that it is not an ad hom. I has pointed out a mild error tongue-in-cheek and went straight away in the next paragraph to explain more reasonably why I saw there being no need to start a thread as he requested.I suppose accusing folk of ad hom when they haven't ad hom-ed is an ad-hom.

Man existance is used a the base line in the formulation of a search for intelligence elsewhere. If intelligence does exist then per definition it must be comparable in some way to our intelligence in order for the search to prove successful. Mans application of intelligence is used as a base line in the formulation of a search for the application of intelligence. If intelligent design exists then per definition it must be comparable to our intelligent design in order for the search to prove successful.SETI has not established that ETI's existance is fact. Its a shot in the dark search with only a single point of light with which to formulate a search: our intelligence. We have no way to determine what constitutes ETI's intelligence (beyond wild guess - we haven't even figured out how the life we know came into existance). Before you can begin a search for ETI you must show it can exist. Presuming it can exist simply because we do isn't showing anything - its presuming something. Now try telling that to SETI... I've added a couple of "if they exist" to the above for tidiness sake We can dispense with 1. above for obvious reasons in a ETI search comparision. As to 2. You are correct. Up to a point. However, if God exists and he didn't break any physical laws and used similar design criteria as we do when designing then his designs should be discernable. IF these conditions THEN that result. Logic. And it works the other way around: IF that result THEN these conditionsEither search can only work on the basis of what we suppose might be the case. For all other intents and purposes the search is a blind one.Yet one is considered scientific by you and the other not.This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 01:22 PM

To which you respond: Did you actually read the paragraph I referred to? Here it is: I would ask you (and any others similarly inclinded) to pay particular attention to the last 2 sentences. And then desist from asking me for evidence of ID I call them design markers (or markers of design or hallmarks of design). Do you agree such a thing exists in human intelligent design? That an object can be examined and analysed so as to discern the reasons (for example) the designer used one design element over another. To explain why (for example) apparently redundant features included in the design were in fact necessary. Or (for example) to discern why a designer didn't use better componant than he did which would have better fitted the initally apparent function (eg: for reasons of obsolecence)You may want to leap in at this point in arguing against ID design markers. But that is not the question I am asking you here. Human design markers. Do they exist is the question I am asking

You mean to tell me that evolutionary ideas haven't been around for ages too? Anaximander (c.610 -c547 b.c.) held the: Evolution has been around in the modern science time for 150 years or so. No so ID. One would expect there to be a little catching up to do. Whilst it might seem impossible now, all it takes is for a little head of steam to build up and human pride (A "Giants of Science" laureate glitters enticingly) and natural inquisitiveness can be expected to release the brakesChoo Choo!This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 02:00 PM

I could understand a person saying there may exist conditions for life arising somewhere else in the universe if it were based on the fact the life arose on earth due to conditions on earth. But that foundational fact hasn't been established.No one can say what the probability is that life arose due to conditions on earth. What is needed to sustain life should not be confused with that which is necessary to cause it to arise. This is something about which we do not know. We don't even know if it is possible for life to arise.With no idea as to probability/possibility for here it is impossible to say there is a probability/possibility for anywhere else. Thus the SETI project is not science. It is based on an a priori belief in Naturalism. That makes it a ReligionYet you seem to think it is science. Why?Edited, typo and clarifyingThis message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 03:51 PM

I agree. Not just in terms of PR but evidentially etc. ID is only tackling a small aspect of ToE (some design + evolution) it should be remembered. But I agree (in so far as I understand what forms science). All that is being discussed here is how ID might be able to enter the game. Msg 106 is for you too.This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 04:04 PM

If only it were so simple Jar. This little portion of the thread is dealing with whether SETI is science. Either life arose naturalistically (religious belief currently) or as a result of intelligence (also a religious belief), then the foundation for SETI is religious not scientific. It may be subsequently dressed up with lots of science but the skeleton is religious.If so and SETI is still considered scientific then there is no need to produce evidence of God in order to begin to investigate intelligent design on scientific grounds - such as comparing intelligent design markers. The religious undertow is irrelevant to the progression of the science.{AbE}It just occurred to me that Church of Abiogenesis Science is built on the same religious rock as SETI and ID.This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 04:39 PM

But the choices are known. And all are religious. Something can be a scienfic pursuit before it finds any evidence of what it is pursuing. Abiogenesis and SETI spring to mind. Would you agree?This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 04:45 PM

Before re-phrasing your questions ("Is it religious to believe..." seems to answer itself) you might like to read up on some of the motivation behind SETI.You will see that the rational given in trying to extract funds etc talk much of probabilities for there being life elsewhere based upon there being x probability for life-arising conditions to exist elsewhere. "WATER ON MARS!!!" was a..er...splash for this self same reason.We can bat this back and forward but the scientists involved have already stood shouting their religion from the rooftop:"Life arose naturally due to conditions on Earth - so why not elsewhere"This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 05:02 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 05:03 PM

If the foundation of your science is not scientific and this is immaterial then ID can have a slice of the cake too. Why do you say assertion? The only two shows in town that I know of for how life arose are naturalistic and creator originated. Both are religious. SETI is looking for ETI and it doesn't know it exists. It has no reason suppose it exists other than on one or other religious ground. You are attempting to suspend the science in mid-air when the scientists themselves have already told us of their religious reasons for doing as they do. Abiogenesis is looking for a naturalistic explanation for life arising. This is religion and the very title of doctrine tells us to what religion it belongs. What is being looked for is evidence of intelligent design. Design markers would be one area which would give some (even if only partial, theory building) evidence of intelligence at work. This wouldn't demolish ToE, it would just advance ID a notchMy argument that SETI and Abi sail in the same vessel as ID is given above

The motivation for SETI is the belief that there may be other life elsewhere. This belief might be gut feeling (not science) or it may be because equations calculating the probability of there being such life are sufficient so as to make some think it would be a worthwhile venture in which to apply science. I don't know of any other reasons for being motivated. And the equations which generate the probability are religiously founded. They are based on a belief in Naturalism. "all possible origins of life are religious" doesn't make sense as it reads. Religion doesn't 'do' anything as such. It doesn't originate life. There is no evidence that life can arise naturalistically here or anywhere else. One is left with only a belief as to how it arose. You pays your money...This is not to say it is junk-science to go looking for evidence to support your belief. With SETI and AG, science seems to me to be more interested in the "how you look and what you find" than having people demonstrating what they are looking for can be found. So why the this obstacle to ID (forget all the other obstacles for moment if you would)I don't know if that answers sufficiently.

You'll have to jump a little higher than that RjB. I wasn't attempting to give answers in msg 106 I was asking for one.

Don't be shy Chronos.Could you expand a little?I won't bite

More accurately (I LIKE science!!)We postulate that life may exist elsewhere >> life has arisen on earth >>Now the scientific basis for the postul ( whatever it is called)Pay attention to the 'scientific' reasons already given by SETI. You'll find they are religious. There is no reason to suppose that life arising on earth means that life can arise elsewhere - unless you turn to religion. But religion isn't science

Naturalism with a capital N. A religion which holds that naturalistic explanations can account for all physical phenomenon. Abio and SETI appear to be two areas of science based on this religion making your "all science" statement somewhat questionable. If SETI and Abio then why not ID (in the narrow area of it being excluded from science on the basis of it not proving God first)? This is more or less what I have been discussing since msg 13 and there was nothing very specific about the OP which suggested a particular line of discussion which should be followed. The originator hasn't been back.If its okay to talk about how ID would get some crumbs from the masters table, SETI falls nicely into that discussion.But put a Cease and Desist on it if you want.