|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chronos Member (Idle past 6256 days) Posts: 102 From: Macomb, Mi, USA Joined: |
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. I don't think the folks at SETI are supposing that ETI exists...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. False. And, as I said, totally immaterial.
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. Totally False. Again, you keep making unsupported assertions that there is some religious motivation in Science even when evidence is presented that that is not the case.
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. Yet another FALSE statement, and yet another unsupported assertion. There is no religion involved in Abiogenesis. It is looking for the steps that lead to life. Where is there any religion involved in that?
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 notch That's fine. No one much cares. If and when ID can come up with some evidence, then that evidence can be considered. However it is NOT and cannot be science. It begins with an assumption, that there is a designer. As long as it makes that initial assumption it will remain just another silly crackpot religion. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
The backbone of SETI is the idea that there may be other life, like us, somewhere else in the universe. 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.
You have claimed that this is religious on grounds that would appear to apply equally well to earthly life (you claim that all possible origins for life are religious in nature and therefore the only non-religious position is that there is no other life elsewhere) "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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Msg 106 contains no answers, just more dodges 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
iano writes: 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. iano writes: Yet you seem to think it is science. Why? How many times....? SETI:We postulate that life may exist elsewhere. >> Life has arisen in the universe. >> We exist. ID:We postulate that God designed all life. >> ? This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 12:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Don't be shy Chronos.
Could you expand a little? I won't bite
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
We postulate that life may exist elsewhere. >> Life has arisen in the universe. >> We exist. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Let me butt in and have a try:
SETI has:1) one sample of intelligent life 2) nothing to suggest that it can't happen (though it may be a very long shot) 3) a number of individual "dots" connecting the non-living to simple living forms suggesting that chemistry could have connected those dots and no reason to think it can't So a hypothosis (speculation even) is formed: There may be other advanced intelligences out there and some may be at the right stage of technological development. To test this hypothosis one can do a number of things:1) look for life at a primitive level where we can 2) look for environments suitable for life something like ours (planet searchs) 3) look for technological side effects (SETI). The current searches are limited, cheap and very, very long shots but, given the pay-off, worth it. ABENote that for now they are not: Looking for exotic forms of life as posulated in SF for which we have no evidence at all or reason to suspect might exist. Considering searching for life forms that are so utterly different and so utterly alien we might stare them in the face and not recognize them (what could be more alien than an omnipotent god ?). They are only going where the very limited evidences suggests there is a chance (however small it may be) of success. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-27-2006 01:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Nope. You've lost me.
Do you question the fact of our existence? Yes or no please.
iano writes: There is no reason to suppose that life arising on earth means that life can arise elsewhere Why not? What might make us unique in the universe? This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 01:10 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
iano writes: And the equations which generate the probability are religiously founded. They are based on a belief in Naturalism. All science is based on naturalism. If I could step briefly into admin mode, your claim that SETI is a religious pursuit is generating lots of posts that aren't much related to the original topic. If you feel this is an important issue that deserves some time then I think you should propose a new thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I didn't want to involve myself as Admin in a thread in which I was participating, but Iano is is claiming naturalism is a religion, and I've just seen the first accusation of trollish behavior, so it's time to step in.
I'm making the following rulings in this thread:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
The belief that there may be other life like us elsewhere is justifiable on scientific grounds. We exist, therefore the probability of life occurrign is non-zero, therefore in the absence of other evidence we must conclude that the probability of life existing elsewhere is non-zero. There's no religion there.
quote: It is easy to claim that a statement does not make sense if you misread it. But lets assume that you actually think your readng is viable.
quote: You seme to have no problem with describing the possible origins of life as religious there. So why does it suddenly beccome difficult to understand now ?
quote:But according to you, now, that is not a religious belief because you now claim that saying that it is would be saying that a religion created life. Now how about answering my questions ??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
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)?
hannahs last sentence writes: "We'd just like a place at the table in the scientific give-and-take," she said. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I'm okay with that. The issue arose out of an objection (by RJB IIRC) which held that ID must be able to demonstrate an intelligent designer before being allowed to investigate design markers of an intelligent designer.
If the issue of SETI being religious/science is removed as an issue of discussion (because that is not seen as the issue) then so too must ID be removed from that area of discussion. IOW: there is no need for it to demonstrate Gods existance before being allowed to attempt to do its science (in so far as it does or will) We could look at design markers as a way to do science for instance This message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 06:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
iano writes: If the issue of SETI being religious/science is removed as an issue of discussion (because that is not seen as the issue) then so too must ID be removed from that area of discussion. IOW: there is no need for it to demonstrate Gods existance before being allowed to attempt to do its science (in so far as it does or will) The dodge to end all dodges!! Fine. Now show me the "designer" of your "design markers" ;-) Proposing a branch of science whose ultimate implications must forever remain a mystery seems utterly odd in my opinion. This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 02:00 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024