tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post114580219986879526..comments2023-10-05T00:44:33.255+08:00Comments on CreationEvolutionDesign: Start of the ID movement: Thaxton, et al., "The Mystery of Life's Origin" (1986)Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1145836265500536762006-04-24T07:51:00.000+08:002006-04-24T07:51:00.000+08:00Axinar>Interesting notion comparing DNA to a SETI ...Axinar<BR/><BR/>>Interesting notion comparing DNA to a SETI message.<BR/><BR/>What is "interesting" is that, because of most scientists' personal materialistic-naturalistic philosophy, science can accept the second was the product of intelligence, but not the first.<BR/><BR/>>Only one problem ... taken as whole it's hard to tell much ABOUT what sort of "intelligence" may have created life here.<BR/><BR/>The first step is to accept that it WAS intelligence that created DNA's message. Beyond that is outside ID's scope, being the domain of philosophy and theology. <BR/><BR/>>We've always expected to see a series of prime numbers, followed by a primer, followed by some content of some IMPORT.<BR/><BR/>That is simply *false*, being based on science-fiction like Fred Hoyle's "`A' for Andromeda" and Carl Sagan's "Contact". *Any* signal that SETI received which conformed to the principles of Information Theory (as DNA's message does) would be accepted as having an intelligent source. <BR/><BR/>Even if they did not know what the message said (which would be almost certainly the case). Archaeologists knew for many years that Egyptian hieroglyphics were messages, but until they found the Rosetta Stone which provided the key, they could not work out what it said.<BR/><BR/>>Now, I suppose one can INFER that the message contained in life is "have lots of babies" combined with some modification of that line from Star Trek: The Motion Picture that says, "Collect all data possible and return that information to your creator ..."<BR/><BR/>See above. The point is that if SETI receieved a message from space, it (and *everyone*) would rightly infer it had an intelligent source. Even if they could never work out from the message who or what the designer was, and what he/it thought about humans, and what they should do.<BR/><BR/>>But how can one be sure? <BR/><BR/>See above. There are few absolute certainties in science. To require it in the case of ID, but not in science generally, is to commit the fallacy of special pleading (double-standard). <BR/><BR/>Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14510749.post-1145821764613216582006-04-24T03:49:00.000+08:002006-04-24T03:49:00.000+08:00Interesting notion comparing DNA to a SETI message...Interesting notion comparing DNA to a SETI message.<BR/><BR/>Only one problem ... taken as whole it's hard to tell much <B>ABOUT</B> what sort of "intelligence" may have created life here.<BR/><BR/>We've always expected to see a series of prime numbers, followed by a primer, followed by some content of some <B>IMPORT</B>.<BR/><BR/>Now, I suppose one can <B>INFER</B> that the message contained in life is "have lots of babies" combined with some modification of that line from Star Trek: The Motion Picture that says, "Collect all data possible and return that information to your creator ..."<BR/><BR/>But how can one be sure?Axinarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02103117619726736178noreply@blogger.com