Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Super Natural Being?

[Sapiens]

Yes the evidence for Intelligent Design so far

Top U.S. Astronomers Tell Congress That Extraterrestrial Life Exists Without Question


Two top astronomers from the SETI Institute (Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence) recently appeared in front of the congressional House Science and Technology Committee for a hearing regarding the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. They told the committee that extraterrestrial life most certainly exists, without question, one of those scientists is Seth Shostak, a well-known senior scientist at the SETI Institute. They said that the chance of discovering life on other planets is inevitable and will most likely occur within the next 20 years.

http://www.collective-evolution.com...xtraterrestrial-life-exists-without-question/


Do you refute that these well trained scientists believe life exists on other planets?

If life exists on other planets then that life may be intelligent and well beyond us in space travel and therefore is evidence that Intelligent design is possible.

Evolution does not address how life came to form on the earth from inorganic materials. Intelligent design theory does.

I agree that extraterrestrial life is almost a statistical certainty. However, discovering life on other planets within 20 years sounds too much, to me, like all the end of the world prophesies, unless they are referring to signs of past life on Mars. SETI have, for it's entire life, made a major programmatic mistake. If our own experience is typical, sentient species go thorough a rather narrow analogue signal window (that is detectable) and soon progress to digital signals narrow band laser communications which are not detectable by SETI methodologies. At this point SETI and it's people are just protecting their broken rice bowl ... new approaches are called for.

 

[Dante Writer]

I agree that extraterrestrial life is almost a statistical certainty. However, discovering life on other planets within 20 years sounds too much, to me, like all the end of the world prophesies, unless they are referring to signs of past life on Mars. SETI have, for it's entire life, made a major programmatic mistake. If our own experience is typical, sentient species go thorough a rather narrow analogue signal window (that is detectable) and soon progress to digital signals narrow band laser communications which are not detectable by SETI methodologies. At this point SETI and it's people are just protecting their broken rice bowl ... new approaches are called for.

"I agree that extraterrestrial life is almost a statistical certainty."

You also said you accept panspermia theory so all we have to do is get God out of that picture and you will be an Intelligent Design believer yet

 

[Sapiens]

You are grossly mistaking what I wrote.

1. Yes, extraterrestrial life is almost a statistical certainty.

2. Panspermia is a albeit unlikely, possibility, but it just begs the question and creates a recursive issue that does not advance basic knowledge at all.

3. The actual design of many structures, I point most specifically to the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, the remnant pelvic girdles of some whales, and the requirement for survival of rabbits that they eat the own feces, demonstrate that no great minds were at work.

 

[Dante Writer]

You are grossly mistaking what I wrote.

1. Yes, extraterrestrial life is almost a statistical certainty.

2. Panspermia is a albeit unlikely, possibility, but it just begs the question and creates a recursive issue that does not advance basic knowledge at all.

3. The actual design of many structures, I point most specifically to the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe, the remnant pelvic girdles of some whales, and the requirement for survival of rabbits that they eat the own feces, demonstrate that no great minds were at work.[/QUOTE

No one said the designer was a genius- just intelligent lol!

 

[Sapiens]

No one said the designer was a genius- just intelligent lol!

No, but the point really is that all these "stupid" things exist because natural selection is forced to build on what is and is always, at best, a compromise and a kludge. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, would never be so limited. The giraffe's nerve is where it is because of it "once having been" a fish, the whale because it "once" walked on land, the rabbit because their line had already lost the ability to chew it's cud, and evolution (though not Intelligent Design) must always be a one way street.

 

[Milton Platt]

One of the reasons I believe evolutionists and creationists get into heated battles is because religions and specifically the Christian religion has made intelligent design synonymous with a belief in a God or Super Natural Being and that completely ignores the other forms that Intelligent design could take.

I would first point out Dawkin's statements as evidence:

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

Intelligent Design therefore does not replace the evolution theory and it does not require a God or Super Natural Being and is a logical theory that life on earth was seeded intentionally or accidentally from another planet.

This would explain how evolution could happen at a faster rate and why we do not find the smooth progression in our fossil records as it may be hidden in our DNA to evolve when a condition is present.

Just my thoughts and your opinions are welcome no matter how bizarre!

When there is sufficient evidence to support this, post it for consideration. There are all sorts of scenarios you can imagine. Lets stick to what seems to fit the facts we have at hand.

 

[Dante Writer]

When there is sufficient evidence to support this, post it for consideration. There are all sorts of scenarios you can imagine. Lets stick to what seems to fit the facts we have at hand.

Well lets see. Two top NASA and SETI scientists recently told congress that life most certainly does exist on other planets and could be intelligent.

That and what Dawkin's and Crick have said is enough evidence to explore that theory further but if you do not want to be involved in that discussion it is no skin off my nose as other people might and I do not see any rules that says the forum is only for theories you agree with!

 

[Sapiens]

When there is sufficient evidence to support this, post it for consideration. There are all sorts of scenarios you can imagine. Lets stick to what seems to fit the facts we have at hand.

"Sufficient evidence" and the name "Ben Stein" cannot coexist in the same post.

 

[Dante Writer]

No, but the point really is that all these "stupid" things exist because natural selection is forced to build on what is and is always, at best, a compromise and a kludge. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, would never be so limited. The giraffe's nerve is where it is because of it "once having been" a fish, the whale because it "once" walked on land, the rabbit because their line had already lost the ability to chew it's cud, and evolution (though not Intelligent Design) must always be a one way street.

No one said an intelligent designer would not use evolution as part of that design which could go awry.

 

[Dante Writer]

"Sufficient evidence" and the name "Ben Stein" cannot coexist in the same post.

Opinions vary!

 

[Sapiens]

No one said an intelligent designer would not use evolution as part of that design which could go awry.

Now you are clutching at straws, pretty soon we will be reduced to the old saw of, "if my grandmother had two wheels she'd be a bicycle." The point here being that she doesn't and she isn't.

Opinions vary!

No, Stein has been repeatedly exposed as a liar and an intellectual fraud. I remind you, once again, of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "You are entitled to your opinion but no your own facts."

 

[Dante Writer]

Now you are clutching at straws, pretty soon we will be reduced to the old saw of, "if my grandmother had two wheels she'd be a bicycle." The point here being that she doesn't and she isn't.
No, Stein has been repeatedly exposed as a liar and an intellectual fraud. I remind you, once again, of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "You are entitled to your opinion but no your own facts."

Straws?

Are you saying evolution theory is a straw?

Again that nasty little Occam's razor says if life exists on another planet it would probably follow as similar development as life on this planet and the choices we have for seeding a planet is starting the process and letting evolution take over, cloned organisms and genetic modification.

Are intelligent designed cloning and genetic modification evolution?

Your opinion of Stein has been noted and was irrelevant the first time you tried that deflection.

 

[metis]

Since quantum mechanics suggests that the laws of physics probably vary from one universe to another (if others do exist) and even within our own universe, it's not at all likely that life from another part of our universe or a different one would much resemble life here. Our life here is mainly carbon-based, but it's hypothetically possible that another element could prevail as the most common element of life somewhere else.

 

[Dante Writer]

Since quantum mechanics suggests that the laws of physics probably vary from one universe to another (if others do exist) and even within our own universe, it's not at all likely that life from another part of our universe or a different one would much resemble life here. Our life here is mainly carbon-based, but it's hypothetically possible that another element could prevail as the most common element of life somewhere else.

On 4 November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars.

 

[Sapiens]

Straws?

Are you saying evolution theory is a straw?

No, your advancing that IDers used evolution to advance their plot is clutching at straws.

Again that nasty little Occam's razor says if life exists on another planet it would probably follow as similar development as life on this planet and the choices we have for seeding a planet is starting the process and letting evolution take over, cloned organisms and genetic modification.

No that is not what Occam's razor says, you are misunderstanding it.

First you need to grasp that in science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic technique (discovery tool) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models, rather than as an arbiter between published models.

[In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion.

For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable. (thanks wiki)

Now, your hypothesis in sheer conjecture, it is not (at least as yet) based on the falsifiability criterion, thus the application of Occam's razor is the equivalent of trying to cut a board with a screwdriver (e.g, misapplication of the wrong tool). Even if the question were amenable to lex parsimoniae the simplest answer would not be the ID answer that requires the promulgation of (at least) an additional, and unnecessary step. Besides, I'd expect that in this case the overwhelming process would be stochasticity and not parsimony.

Are intelligent designed cloning and genetic modification evolution?

Interesting question, my gut reaction is yes (e.g., Monsanto and Round-up Ready). As long as farmers apply roundup fitness is increased, but if they stop then it is decreased. Evolution works both ways, it is only change in the gene pool over time.

Your opinion of Stein has been noted and was irrelevant the first time you tried that deflection.

It is not a deflection, you brought him in the conversation. I guess now you'd rather not be tarred with that brush? And I thought he was one of your heroes. If you want to disavow him, I'll not mention him again.

 

[RRex]

Does Intelligent Design Require a God or Supernatural Being?

I would have to say yes. Reason being, something powerful enough to bring our universe into existence would normally be classified as a god, or as something beyond nature, supernatural.

I don't believe this all just popped into existence. That is completely illogical.

 

[Dante Writer]

I would have to say yes. Reason being, something powerful enough to bring our universe into existence would normally be classified as a god, or as something beyond nature, supernatural.

I don't believe this all just popped into existence. That is completely illogical.

OK but intelligent Design generally refers to how life came to be on this planet and not necessarily how the universe formed.

You can take it to that extent but then you are wandering into creationism which is not the same as Intelligent Design.

 

[RRex]

you are wandering into creationism

I disagree. This is a package deal.

I don't believe you can say one was created intelligently and the other not. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Parsimony]

Dante, just for reference, do you belief in a god of any kind? Are you a theist, agnostic, atheist or something else (if there is any)?

Brings up the question: Wouldn't a being so powerful and intelligent deserve to be considered a god?

Interesting. In reference to another thread I made that you posted in a little while back, does that mean such a being would meet your burden of proof for godhood?

 

[Skwim]

Interesting. In reference to another thread I made that you posted in a little while back, does that mean such a being would meet your burden of proof for godhood?

I haven't established any burden of proof for godhood.


.