Culture Darwinism Extraterrestrial life Intelligent Design News Origin Of Life

“Creationists” are afraid of ET?

Spread the love

So claims writer Mark Strauss at Slate:

Ridiculing astrobiologists is a favorite sport at the Discovery Institute, which complains on its news site that “hardly a month goes by lately when the science media fail to breathlessly report the discovery of a new planet, in some star’s ‘habitable zone,’ that might hypothetically be capable of supporting life.” The institute attributes the coverage in part to hype purposefully generated by “organized science” to shake down the government for grant money.

But the creationists also see a more sinister agenda than naked greed. They place astrobiologists among the ranks of the “Darwin Brigades” who have always been “eager to undermine human exceptionalism,” since “the alleged ordinariness of the human race was vital in establishing common ancestry as a plausible theory.” Astrobiology, they argue, expands this line of thought, since it holds to the Darwinist belief that life started by accident and that—under the right conditions—it can emerge anywhere with a liquid solvent (preferably water), energy, and organic compounds. This delusion, the Discovery Institute adds, undermines human exceptionalism on a cosmic scale by proclaiming that the Earth is not particularly special, just one among billions of potentially life-bearing planets

The interesting thing about Strauss’s sneerfest is that what he describes is all true, and for good reason.

Hardly a month does go by without an unlikely theory marketed to the pop science media. I confess to having written skeptically about this stuff at Evolution News & Views and Uncommon Descent myself over the years.

Astrobiology, descended from exobiology, is so far a discipline without a subject (George Gaylord Simpson). See, for example, How do we grapple with the idea that ET might not be out there?

And get this, from Strauss:

Astrobiology, they argue, expands this line of thought, since it holds to the Darwinist belief that life started by accident and that—under the right conditions—it can emerge anywhere with a liquid solvent (preferably water), energy, and organic compounds.

Yes, that is exactly what most of them do think. See, for example, Can all the numbers for life’s origin just happen to fall into place? And: Maybe if we throw enough models at the origin of life… some of them will stick?

Indeed, that is the most likely reason astrobiology is still a discipline without a subject.

I can only speak for myself but, if for some reason, I wanted to make sure extraterrestrial life was never found, based on the record, I would encourage them to stick to Darwin.

Anyway, Dan Bakken responds at ENV:

Strauss then accuses Discovery Institute of ridiculing astrobiology. On the contrary, Discovery is one of the few outlets publicizing the results of astrobiologists. The trouble for Mark Strauss is that the field has been giving us a lot of results that he doesn’t like. What may merit ridicule is the unwarranted optimism of those who would direct precious research funding to unrealistic projects seeking to demonstrate the existence of life elsewhere. We need to be sober about these things: bubbles in liquid methane aren’t enough to convince a reasonable person that there is life on Titan. More.

See also: Don’t let Mars fool you. Those exoplanets teem with life!

Also: A note on the use of the term creationist

Follow UD News at Twitter!

34 Replies to ““Creationists” are afraid of ET?

  1. 1
    Jim Smith says:

    The argument for design doesn’t depend on the rarity of life in the universe or the earth being unique. The argument for design comes from the fact that four forces of nature and a “big bang” could produce a universe with 20 or 30 cosmological fine tuning parameters, at least 15 factors needed to produce habitable planets, at least 20 chemical factors needed for complex life. If you wanted to design such a complicated system to support life from simple mathematical relationships, it would require a huge amount of intellectual effort. How could it happen just by chance? To paraphrase Fred Hoyle it seems more likely that a superintellect has monkeyed with the laws of chemistry and physics. Given the complexity of the factors needed to support life and the improbability of life originating naturally, the more life we find in the universe the stronger the argument for design is.

    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/201.....claim.html

    Plus there is plenty of evidence that there is other life in the universe:
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/6.....ubject_ufo

  2. 2
    Cross says:

    I’m a creationist and I’m not afraid of “ET”.

    I think Mark Slate and his like are the ones actually afraid, there afraid that after many many years of searching, many many false announcements, they still have found no signs of life out there.

    Must be getting hard to keep the funding coming. 😉

    Cheers

  3. 3

    It depends on the ET. Is it the “ET” ET? Or the “Alien” ET?

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    That life may have started anywhere in the universe ‘by accident’ is a pipe dream living in a hallucination.
    The probabilistic resources of the entire universe are outstripped simply trying to account for the origin of a single protein (1 in 10^175), much less trying to account for the origin of life (1 in 10^41,000).
    Because the probabilitic resources of the universe, (1 in 10^150), are so inadequate for the job of creating life ‘accidentally’ is one of the primary reasons why Eugene Koonin postulated his Many Worlds scenario so as to try to overcome the probabilistic barrier against life forming spontaneously:

    The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life – Eugene V Koonin
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC1892545/

    Dr. Paul Giem did a lecture on Dr. Koonin’s paper last month.
    In going over his paper, Dr Giem found that Eugene Koonin’s estimates were overly optimistic.
    It was comical to learn of the erroneous optimistic assumptions that were made by Dr. Koonin so as to get his ‘low’ 1 in 10^1018 probability for life originating:

    Eugene Koonin and the Origin of Life 3-7-2015 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkB8VcfvcBQ&index=17&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

    As to Strauss’s belief in the ‘plausibility’ of common descent, I suggest he read Meyer’s book ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ with special attention paid to the part on developmental Gene Regulatory Networks:

    What Types of Evolution Does the Cambrian Explosion Challenge? – Stephen Meyer – video – (challenges Universal Common Descent and the Mechanism of Random Variation/Natural Selection)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaF7t5wRFtA&list=UUUMhP2x7_7psVO-H4MJFpAQ

    Stephen Meyer – Responding to Critics: Marshall, Part 2 (developmental Gene Regulatory Networks) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg8Mhn2EKvQ

    Moreover, man, and the earth man lives on, are not as ‘unexceptional’ as Strauss would prefer to believe. A recent video came out showing that the chemistry of the universe is ‘set up’ specifically for life like ourselves:

    Privileged Species – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoI2ms5UHWg

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves.,,,
    For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    Michael Denton’s Privileged Species Premieres in Seattle to a Packed House – November 14, 2014
    Excerpt: If life exists elsewhere (in the universe), its home would remind us of Earth and the aliens would reminds us of ourselves. The periodic table, so wonderfully concise, is a recipe for us. Oh, and for our way of life too. While focusing on the unique properties of water, carbon, and oxygen, Denton shows that the chemical elements appear beautifully structured to allow the development of technology, from our use of fire to the rise of computers.
    He emphasizes that this “stunning series of coincidences” is not a matter of scientific controversy, and in fact represents the great scientific discovery of the past century. It’s a matter of fact, not interpretation.
    Denton observed that properties of nature uniquely fit for life continue to be discovered regularly and he offered the prediction that in the upcoming century scientists will uncover more and more.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91241.html

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, the earth is not as ‘unexceptional’ as Strauss would prefer to believe:

    The Privileged Planet – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ohuG3Vj_48&list=PLbzQ4aXdqWD-9kjFsSm-cxNlzgrkJuko7

    “Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe.”
    David Waltham – astrobiologist, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional — and What That Means for Life in the Universe (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.)

    But perhaps the most stunning evidence we have that man is exceptional is the following evidence.

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
    http://www.annualreviews.org/d.....208.100202

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    More interesting still, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. this unique ability to process information that is inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school.
    And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life itself:

    Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer – video clip
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVkdQhNdzHU

    As well, as if that was not ‘spooky enough’, information, not material, is now found to be foundational to physical reality:

    “it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley))

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf

    Quantum physics just got less complicated – Dec. 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Patrick Coles, Jedrzej Kaniewski, and Stephanie Wehner,,, found that ‘wave-particle duality’ is simply the quantum ‘uncertainty principle’ in disguise, reducing two mysteries to one.,,,
    “The connection between uncertainty and wave-particle duality comes out very naturally when you consider them as questions about what information you can gain about a system. Our result highlights the power of thinking about physics from the perspective of information,”,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2014-12-q.....cated.html

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information.

    Verse and Music:

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Casting Crowns – The Word Is Alive
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9itgOBAxSc

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Dr Giem has a new lecture up from the book ‘Biological Information’

    Biological Information – Self-Organization 4-18-2015 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wSIwv_8l-E&index=23&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ

  7. 7
    tjguy says:

    Jim @1

    Given the complexity of the factors needed to support life and the improbability of life originating naturally, the more life we find in the universe the stronger the argument for design is.

    Technically speaking, Jim, you may be right, but materialists will interpret the data through their worldview and they will claim it as evidence for their worldview/abiogenesis.

    This is a great example of the role our personal worldview plays in our interpretation of the data!

    Finding life on another planet actually does not tell us anything about where it came from. That would be where the interpretation comes into play. All we would know is that life does exist on at least one other planet. Great. That would be VERY interesting, but it would not solve the mystery of abiogenesis or make the evolution of life any easier.

    As a creationist, I personally do not think there is life on any other planet. My opinion is based on what I know from the Bible. But I doubt this problem will ever really be solved. Certainly it is impossible to prove that life does not exist somewhere out there so there will always be room for the faith of materialists in outer space life. Similarly, I doubt we will ever be able to prove that life does exist somewhere out there, but I am not against researching the topic. I think the more we learn, the more we will realize just how difficult, just about impossible, a naturalist origin of life is.

    Although the Bible does not speak of life on other planets, it does not preclude it either. It is a topic that is not really directly addressed. However, it is clear that God’s plan for creation centers around earth. It is the earth where He sent Jesus. It is humanity for whom Jesus died. Earth was the first planet God created. It is where Jesus died and defeated Satan and it is where the cosmic battle between God and Satan will be played out in the future. Jesus died for humans, not for aliens. He became a human being (not an alien) so that He could redeem human beings (not aliens) from the curse of sin. Again, it doesn’t absolutely preclude the possibility of life in outer space – expecially if it was transported from earth to a nearby planet, but I do think it makes the existence of sentient beings out there somewhere less likely.

    The SETI faith cult is struggling to remain relevant and to keep people engaged and excited about their faith. I personally would question whether spending trillions of dollars to search for microbes on Titan would be worthwhile. One reason I feel this way has to do with my worldview, but also practical reasons. However, the SETI faith cult suffers from the same problem. They are so anxious to do it because of their worldview/beliefs. Our beliefs and worldview affects the way we all view this issue whether we are scientists or not. All are subject to personal bias here at least to some extent. Creationists admit it whereas, SETI believers try and hide their faith and bias.

  8. 8
    Mapou says:

    Astrobiology is the only “statistical” “field of science” that is based on a sample of 1.

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    Mapou noted

    Astrobiology is the only “statistical” “field of science” that is based on a sample of 1.

    But you should see the graphs through that point. They are spectacular!

    -Q

  10. 10
    Robert Byers says:

    ET would be fun. However there is none as the bible insists.
    The universe is just our original eternal home and so undeveloped real estate for eternal breeding mankind.
    Its hilarious to see people so easily dream water is where life came from.
    Its just water.

  11. 11
    Mapou says:

    Byers:

    ET would be fun. However there is none as the bible insists.

    Funny. My Bible talks about all kinds of ETs, from the Gods of Babylon, Assyria and Egypt, to angels and demons. Billions upon billions of them. We are even told that some ETs came to earth because they thought our women looked hot. Heck, doesn’t Yahweh call himself Yahweh Elohim? Sure does and, as we all know, Elohim is a plural Hebrew word that means lords or masters. The idea that Yahweh is just a single entity is just a lie, IMO. The ancient texts suggest that Yahweh is an entire civilization of Gods who speak as one entity. Unity is a big thing to them.

  12. 12
    rhampton7 says:

    Afraid?

    Maybe.

    I do know that some prominent Creationists deny that (intelligent) aliens exists due to their literalist approach to understanding the Bible.

    If creation is true, then the question of whether life exists on other planets is a theological one, not a scientific one, at least until life is actually found. As such, one must approach the question by asking why God might have created life elsewhere. That is exactly the sort of question that Ken Ham raised and answered with biblical thinking. For years, skeptics have mocked Christianity by concluding that if the Bible is true, then Jesus would have been born, died, and rose again on countless worlds to redeem the various races of aliens. Now Ken made much the same point regarding the problem with the existence of aliens, albeit seriously and respectfully, and he is mocked for that. You can’t win with these people.

    And others blame Science for rejecting Biblical Creationism:

    Like much of modern cosmological theory, speculations regarding nested universes and advanced alien life forms are inherently based on a purely naturalistic origin for space, time, and matter/energy. Also like many modern cosmological theories built on philosophies that reject the scientific and historical validity of God’s Word, these speculations offer colorful possibilities, but no solid answers.

    The latest thinking about the deepest mysteries of the universe is clearly guided more by a refusal to acknowledge a Creator than by empirical science or reason.

  13. 13
    RDFish says:

    Denyse,

    Indeed, that is the most likely reason astrobiology is still a discipline without a subject.

    And you think ID is a “discipline” with a subject? Hahahahahahahahaha

  14. 14
    Joe says:

    Earth to RDFish- ID is about the DESIGN and as such has plenty of subjects.

  15. 15
    Joe says:

    My comment at Slate explained that only via ID or Creation would we expect ETs to exist. The Discovery Institute endorses “The Privileged Planet” and that is what they say.

    As for the Bible- it is rife with ETs- just read Ezekiel.

  16. 16
    RDFish says:

    So nobody here has any response to this? Denyse thinks that Astrobiology is a discipline without a subject, but ID is a real science? Hahahahahaha

    ID is most definitely a “discipline” without a subject, but there are some differences from ID of course – we know a lot about biological things, but we have zero scientific understanding of whatever it is that ID is talking about.

  17. 17
    stenosemella says:

    Joe: “Earth to RDFish- ID is about the DESIGN and as such has plenty of subjects.”

    No, it is about claiming design without ever demonstrating it.

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    Darwinism and materialism are about claiming that life arose from dirt all by random chance and that germs morphed into elephants and bats without ever demonstrating it.

    Oh, did I mention that materialism is also about everything creating itself from nothing without ever demonstrating it?

    The dirt worshippers are on a roll lately. They can sense the end approaching. LOL.

  19. 19
    Joe says:

    stenosemella- We have demonstrated design. Ours is the position that actually has a methodology. Yours is the position of bald declarations and RDFish has the position of just denying everything.

  20. 20
    stenosemella says:

    Joe: ” We have demonstrated design.”

    That is wonderful. The research into identifying the mechanisms involved in this design and the nature of the designer is the next logical step now that design has been demonstrated. When can we expect this?

  21. 21
    Mapou says:

    Materialism is about claiming that machines can become conscious without ever demonstrating it.

    Materialism is about claiming that consciousness emerges out of matter without ever demonstrating it.

    Materialism is about claiming that you can upload your brain to a machine and then murder your old brain without ever demonstrating it.

    LOL

  22. 22
    Joe says:

    stenosemella:

    The research into identifying the mechanisms involved in this design and the nature of the designer is the next logical step now that design has been demonstrated.

    Why is that “the next logical step”? We have a difficult time doing that with artifacts we think ancient humans built. What makes you think we could do that we something that is obviously way beyond our capabilities?

    I would think studying the design so we can best understand it, would be the next logical step.

  23. 23
    drc466 says:

    RDFish-in-a-barrel @16, who thinks astrobiology is a discipline with a subject, and ID is a discipline without a subject:

    Here’s an experiment for you: Put 5 people in separate rooms, and ask them to rank an airplane, a bird’s nest, and a rock by level of “Design”. Compare the results. Ask the same 5 people to identify each by whether intelligence is required to design. Compare results. Validate their conclusions. Provide a scientific methodology that describes how they were able to accurately determine level of design. Answer the following: Is “Design” a real concept? Can you study “Design”? Is the final step (scientific methodology to determine level of design) a) impossible to determine, b) difficult, but worthy of study, or c) so simple as to be trivial?

    Next: Put the same 5 people in separate rooms with samples of E.T. biology. Oh wait…

    stenosemella-pot-kettle @20,

    Joe: ” We have demonstrated design.”

    That is wonderful. The research into identifying the mechanisms involved in this design and the nature of the designer is the next logical step now that design has been demonstrated. When can we expect this?

    I.D. is on the Evolution project plan, which means that they still have at least 150+ years to go before they get around to defining a valid mechanism. And, oh, the sheer irony of an Evolutionist saying with a straight face,

    “No, it is about claiming [X] without ever demonstrating it.”

  24. 24
    stenosemella says:

    Joe: “Why is that “the next logical step”? We have a difficult time doing that with artifacts we think ancient humans built. What makes you think we could do that we something that is obviously way beyond our capabilities?”

    Joe, that is damned convenient. You claim that ID can be examined using the scientific method, but refuse to put your money where your mouth is. You claim that design has been demonstrated, which it hasn’t, and then refuse to take the next step. It’s much easier to throw your hands in the air and say god is beyond our capability to understand. Tell me again how ID is not about religion. I could use a good laugh.

  25. 25
    Joe says:

    stenosemella:

    Joe, that is damned convenient.

    That is reality. Obviously you have never conducted an investigation.

    You claim that ID can be examined using the scientific method, but refuse to put your money where your mouth is.

    You are obviously ignorant as ID has made money claims and they remain unrefuted.

    You claim that design has been demonstrated, which it hasn’t

    Yes it has and you sure as heck don’t have an explanation for it.

    then refuse to take the next step

    No, moron, we refuse to take the step ignorant people want us to take.

    It’s much easier to throw your hands in the air and say god is beyond our capability to understand.

    Look, obviously you are just an ignorant crybaby. We study the design and all relevant evidence. That is how we can try to answer those questions. The science of ID is about the detection and study of the design. And if someone had an alternative explanation that didn’t require a designer, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Yours are howls of ignorance and desperation.

    Nice job…

  26. 26
    DennisM says:

    From Tjguy at #7:
    “[Earth] is where Jesus died and defeated Satan and it is where the cosmic battle between God and Satan will be played out in the future.”

    As you wrote, the Bible does not directly address the issue of extraterrestrial life. It does not say Earth was the first planet created, nor whether Earth is the only place where intelligent life dwells.

    What if God created numerous planets with intelligent life, but only those beings on Earth rebelled? That, too, is a possibility, and it fits with the parable of a Shepherd who left his 99 secure sheep to go search for the lost one.

    Of course, that’s not science, just interesting speculation for a Christian who recognizes the necessity of a purposeful Designer for the origin of living things.

  27. 27
    unwilling participant says:

    Joe, I’m afraid that I have to agree with Stenosemella. Not with the sarcasm but with the sentiment. We don’t do our side any good by refusing to propose mechanisms by which design is achieved. Surely we can come up with some hypotheses that can be tested, or are at least predictive.

  28. 28
    Andre says:

    Stenosmonella

    That is wonderful. The research into identifying the mechanisms involved in this design and the nature of the designer is the next logical step now that design has been demonstrated. When can we expect this?

    And how is determining the nature of the designer science? Tell me about the nature of these guys that built these?

    Where they nice guys? Assholes? Where they kind and loving? Bombastic? Wife beaters? Wimps?

    http://listverse.com/2013/11/1.....ver-found/

    Are you denying that these are designed?

    You sir are an idiot.

  29. 29
    Upright BiPed says:

    #27

    Representationalism was the mechanism of design at the origin of life (just as it is for intelligence today).

    The cell could not be organized without it.

  30. 30
    Mapou says:

    unwilling:

    Surely we can come up with some hypotheses that can be tested, or are at least predictive.

    We know a lot about designs and intelligent designers from observing humans. We can infer, for example, that, over time, designs fall into hierarchical structure. We also know that it is not a strictly nested hierarchy (a la Darwin). Designers frequently use multiple inheritance whenever possible rather than reinvent the wheel. Multiple inheritance in design is analogous to ‘horizontal gene transfer’ in biology. Both the fossil record and genomic analysis are in agreement with the design hypothesis in this regard.

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    unwilling participant- Do you think that an Amazon tribe that never seen technology could figure out how a smart phone was designed?

    We don’t even know how Nan Madol was designed, nor who did it.

    That said we will try to answer those questions and that alone proves that ID is not a scientific dead-end as obviously there is more to uncover.

  32. 32
    unwilling participant says:

    Joe, we keep saying that we have detected design with almost 100% certainty, yet we refuse to take it any further. After we descovered DNA, we investigated the mechanisms by which it functions. After we postulated the atom, we investigated how it functioned. After we discovered antibiotics, we investigated how they work. Why should we expect ID to be different. We have detected design. Why should we avoid the question of the underlying mechanisms of the design that we are observing? If I were looking at it from the Darwinist side, I would have a hard time not concluding that we are afraid to take this next step.

  33. 33
    Upright BiPed says:

    27 –> 29

    It appears that “unwilling” is apropos.

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    unwilling participant:

    Joe, we keep saying that we have detected design with almost 100% certainty, yet we refuse to take it any further.

    LoL!- Those questions just are not part of ID. No one is preventing anyone from asking nor trying to answer them. I say there are more important things to do first.

    Why should we avoid the question of the underlying mechanisms of the design that we are observing?

    Ummm, “Not By Chance” came out in 1997.

    If I were looking at it from the Darwinist side, I would have a hard time not concluding that we are afraid to take this next step.

    Look, if the Darwinists had something, anything, then ID would be a non-starter. Theirs is the step-by-step mechanistic position yet they have nothing capable of producing what we observe. We claim to have a step-by-step methodology for detecting design. The science of ID is in the detection and study of design in nature. Those other questions are for other ID-centric venues.

Leave a Reply