Ptaylor
Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
This might get interesting. idnet.com.au posts a thread "This is science??" with: | Quote | | The Royal Society, the foremost British science body is hosting a conference exploring extraterrestrial life. Given that there is zero evidence from any scientific study ever that there is any extra terrestrial life, why is this considered science when even discussing ID would never be sanctioned by the Royal Society? |
These folk hate the idea that the idea that there could be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. However, the central conceit of ID - we're not saying who the designer is - has to allow for the possibility of an extraterrestrial designer. You know, though, that inside they are saying to themselves "but is really just us, we are special and made in the image of Yahweh and there is no one else".
They then go on to backslap each other, erm, shoot themselves in the foot by saying that Stein really gotcha'd Dawkins when he got him to say that ID could be true to the extent that alien seeding of life forms is an intellectual possibility. "Aliens - preposterous - the man is a fool".
I wonder what they make of Avatar?
PS - I see Gil has followed up with a B-D, 1-3 hybrid argument - link.
--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016
|
