Intelligent Design Class to be taught at Cornell University

I don't think the folks at SETI are supposing that ETI exists...

False. And, as I said, totally immaterial. 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. 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? 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

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.

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

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

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'tSo 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.ABE
Note 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

Nope. You've lost me.Do you question the fact of our existence? Yes or no please. Why not? What might make us unique in the universe?This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-27-2006 01:10 PM

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

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:

1. For the purposes of this thread, naturalism is not a religion. Anyone who wants to discuss whether naturalism is a religion may propose a new thread and I will approve it as quickly as I can, but do not discuss it here. This means that all arguments that are based upon the position that naturalism is a religion are also off-limits.
   ​
2. SETI is not the topic of this thread. It is a legitimate related issue, but discussions about whether it is religion are threatening to derail the main topic of discussion. Anyone who wants to discuss whether SETI is a religion may propose a new thread and I will approve it as quickly as I can, but do not discuss it here.
   ​
3. The topic of this thread is whether ID has the necessary scientific qualities to be considered for presentation in a college level course. The topic may be interpreted loosely, this discussion has been pretty free so far, but this is not a license to discuss all and sundry.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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:

---

"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.

---

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:

---

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

---

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:

---

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.

---

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 ??

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.

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 instanceThis message has been edited by iano, 27-Apr-2006 06:46 PM

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