Fallen writes:
Aliens with advanced technology need not have bodies that are filled with indicators of intelligent design, as we do. Other suggestions I have seen include the world of the matrix and future humans using time machines.
About what percentage of well known I.D. supporters seriously believe any of the above are responsible for what they perceive as design in life? I ask because, if I.D. has creationist roots, then we would expect the overwhelming majority of its supporters to be against natural explanations.
A former evolutionist scientist tells why Darwinianism is impossible
In the link that you give us (above) Michael Behe says:
quote:
The scientific argument [for I.D.] is easy to see, but some people have committed themselves to materialism. For intelligent design to make strong inroads into science, that will have to change.
William Dembski's blog complains about "materialism" on its front page.
So, it looks as though these people object to science looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and want to bring the supernatural into play.
I think that both the modern version of I.D. and the old William Paley version have evolved from Christian creationist culture.
An interesting question about your high tech. aliens would be: how could they possibly contain less "FSCI" than bacteria? (If more, they require design by I.D. arguments).
The I.D. arguments all require a supernatural designer in order to exempt the designer from those very arguments.
Incidentally, while you're here, and as you read Dembski, perhaps you're the right person to explain something to us. How can a designer design something that contains "FSCI" without having a brain/mind that contains "FSCI"? In other words, isn't I.D. automatically a failure as an explanatory theory for the origin of "FSCI", as it makes it a prerequisite for itself?