NCGRAM, you continue to surprise me with your insight and vision of what my articles say. I also am in awe of the "Bride of Christ" concept that the new testament talks about. I believe is is a true description of the relationship we will have after this life and when the 'body' of the church is with the Lord. The comment about the 'dirt' is also very true. Many people see it and don't realize that within that substance is gold, platinum, and every element in the universe, and science tells us that life couldn't exist without the 'rare earth' elements in common dirt. God did make Adam from the 'dust of the ground' and He took the DNA from a rib of Adam to make Eve, much as we take DNA and an egg cell from a sheep to clone a copy of the original sheep. Very insightful of you.

I believe in Genesis account of the origins of man. It is good to see experts in the field of science give some credit where credit is due. Thank you for your insight. Just a couple comments about some of the content of your blog...as you speak of DNA and how little is known, Jeremiah 33:3 says "I will make the hard & hidden things known to you" When you first hear God opened up Adam & took a rib to make Eve...(many fall away because its taken literal) its even been said woman have more ribs...not so. If you look at a DNA strand it absolutly looks like a rack of ribs...I would dare say DNA is made up of as many compounds as is found in straight dirt. I won't claim devine knowledge, but I've come to believe this is how God reproduced. Then there was your statement about the great mystery of WHY we are here. According to scripture we are created in his image...free will, emotions...what is the one thing common to mankind? We all want someone to freely love us with an unbreakable bond to fellowship in an idealist bliss. God is not encapsuled in an earthly body where we have male & female and only comprehend that to be the higher love. To God, he is looking for a bride of children that will spend eternity loving him & being loved...it is a higher love, agape love. All he wants is for us to choose him. His yoke is easy contrary to how some see it. A fool says in his heart there is no God. They keep saying prove it. When you know him, you have nothing to prove.

GAGA said, ">"You'll forgive me if I don't consider this a realistic solution, right? :D"

"Speaking of which. All you premillenial dispensationalists, prophets of the upcoming apocalypse, ready to be raptured out there... do you hear me?
I don't give a fig what you believe, but we are all in this together, so let's try to avoid this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, mmkay?"<

OF COURSE YOU'RE FORGIVEN!! I knew you would react to it. That's why I said it. LOL. I wasn't expecting a "sermon" though. :).

I do worry about that prospect some, the self-fulfilling thing. As I see it, Christians should be prepared for the 'rapture' at any time, but do their everyday business as if it will be far in the future. I'm afraid some live expecting it any minute, but conduct their outlook and business that way also. Lets not get into that on this post. Maybe later.

> assuming politics doesn't get in the way <
QFT
The greatest danger that we currently face is ourselves.
Nuclear fusion is a promising line of research, but there are a lot of things that we should be doing in the meantime: downsize almost everything we do in terms of consumption, relay more on clean energy sources, reduce emissions...

The main issue I see at the moment is the unwillingness of the major industrialized nations and of the largest budding economic powers to change their way (USA, China and India, for example, have been constantly pissing on proposal like the Kyoto protocol). Perhaps we need to get to the verge of disaster to realize that things ought to be different. Assuming that's not too late.

> IF GOD DOESN'T SAVE US FIRST :).<
You'll forgive me if I don't consider this a realistic solution, right? :D

Speaking of which. All you premillenial dispensationalists, prophets of the upcoming apocalypse, ready to be raptured out there... do you hear me?
I don't give a fig what you believe, but we are all in this together, so let's try to avoid this becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, mmkay?

To GAGA:

One more thought before I finish. The question of whether we will still be around for another 200 years depends on two factors, of which if we don't solve both, we will not make it. One is the management of war and nuclear weapons, and the other is Energy. Energy will eventually do us in if we don't find an answer to one technological hurdle. Nuclear Fusion. If we can overcome the technology barriers of harnessing nuclear fusion, the energy problems, resource problem, and food problems will disappear. Unlimited, cheap, energy will allow us to recycle existing resources, produce the fertalizers and nutrients to make crops plentiful, and raise the standard of living of every person on the planet to the point that war would be useless and counterproductive for anyone, assuming politics doesn't get in the way. My prediction is the we either find the solution within 20 years or we go down a slow path to self-destruction, IF GOD DOESN'T SAVE US FIRST :).

GAGA: All good intelligent points, based on TRUE science. However, you are right, we are at the point of guesswork and high speculation. I give you credit. You came back better than I thought you could. AND WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO CALL EACH OTHER PROFANE NAMES.(others, are you listening?)

As an aside, from your previous comment:
> WHAT??? Who brought up colonization? I thought this was about life happening naturally throughout the universe? You are suggesting it happened only once and spread throughtout the universe by COLONIZATION? I really don't think so. <
Neither do I. Sorry, my bad. You said:" If any such civilization does exists, then they must be prolific throughout the universe" I took it to mean that the same civilization should have spread through space, while you actually were referring to several distinct but similar civilizations.

Now you have amended your position, though, and seem to suggest that spreading (or indeed colonize) the space could be feasible.
I honestly don't know about that. I mean, I love the idea but I understand it to be difficult.
While the hurdle of interstellar distances could be overcome by some technological mean that we aren't aware of, we really don't know if that's practically possible, or even desiderable.
Warping space time is a cool gimmick that's been used countless time in sci-fi (cue Chewbacca's cry), but the amount of energy involved in such a trick (and consequently the resources needed to pull it) could simply make it not worth the effort.

On with the little green men! Sorry if this took long, but the search for more informations on this matter has brought me to lots of different places. I love these discussions :)
I tried to compose a point-per-point answer but it quickly became unwieldy. Let's see if I can narrow down the issues (divide et impera, as they say...)

A premise is necessary here. It's clear that both our positions are based on a lot of guesswork, there's no reasons why my guesstimates should be better than yours (even though I still think they are, yeah I'm a smartass like that :P)
This chestnut has been around for a while under the name of Fermi's Paradox (after my 'paisan' Enrico Fermi) and hasn't obviously been settled yet.

The reason while I'm going on (aside for the fact that's fun) is that I consider your initial conclusion (we haven't found them, therefore they aren't there) to be hasty, expecially coming from a believer in god :D

-- About the frequency of little green men in the universe --
> We are in the infancy of a technological civilization. We are only 200 years removed from a very primitive society. It should be expected that any such civilization should exist for many thousands of years, perhaps more. <
I'm sorry, even though this is a seemingly reasonable assumption it's unwarranted, nonetheless.
I mean let's look at our own history: if we consider the post industrial revolution period as 'advanced' as you seem to imply, we see that in 200 years we already risked to nuke each other into extinction once and, given the current trends of resources exploitation, we won't make it for another 200 years if we don't come up with some really good idea.
There are several hurdles to overcome for a civilization to be around for thousands of years and there are natural constraint such as availability of resource to how much a civilization can develop and how long it can survive at a given level of advancement.
If civilizations, on average, span only through a few millennia, or, alternatively, if the phase of communication in the radio frequency is limited in time, the issue of time windows become relevant.

Finally, the whole thing rests on the assumption that the origin of life and the subsequent evolution of intelligent life (and specifically technology oriented intelligence) are relatively common events. Which isn't granted.

-- About radio communication and all that jazz --
Signals on the radio frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum is what we use to communicate.
There's no reason why other civilizations should do the same, or keep doing it for a long time.
Communications in the visible portion of the spectrum (e.g. lasers) aren't to be discounted. There are pros and cons for any method. If anything, SETI has started parallel studies on the search for optical trasmissions.

That aside, omnidirectional signals tend to be weak. Yes we do detect pulsars and black holes but, as far as emittors go, they are, to use a technical term, huge mofos.
To provide an example, the current output of our everyday communications on earth (tv, radio, wifi, etc.) would be undetectable for a radiotelescope the size of Arecibo's beyond 0,3 light years away.
The technology and resources currently available to SETI are better than Arecibo, but still we can't hope to see that much.
This leaves high energy omnidirectional emittors, which are a waste of energy, unless you plan to put a beacon out there with the specific purpose of being seen (a bit of a stretch) or directional signals, which, as you dutifully remarked, are clearly difficult to detect unless they are coming in our direction.

To add injury to insult, any communication using a compression algorithm that we aren't familiar with, would probably be indistinguishable from white noise.

BTW, you are right about the obscurement of the galactic core, I had something else in mind and got confused.

Let's address MGT2's points a bit out of order:

The last statement sums up MGT2's basic position: "However, it isn’t at all evidence that intelligent design is an invalid proposition." In other words, it's ok to assume intelligent design because we can't disprove it. So, any time we come up with a natural explanation for a natural phenomena, we can just say "the intelligent designer designed it that way."

But that is an intellectually empty argument. That's like saying "you can't prove we all didn't just poof into existence last Tuesday, memories and matter and energy already in place" or "you can't prove we're not living in The Matrix."

I prefer to start with the assumption that natural phenomena have natural causes. Why? Because of the evidence: Magical/Divine/Supernatural explanations have a 3000 year history of being proved wrong. Natural explanations have replaced supernatural time and time again, but the reverse has NEVER happened. So, MGT2 is starting from a position that has historically been a 100% failure.

MGT2's Point 1) "It is your assertion that fails because whatever evolves, however complex, does so only because of the intelligent design of that “first seed.”"

My assertion was that the total of all current nature is more complex than the original seed, and the biosphere developed through natural causes, therefore complex things (more complex than the seed) can evolve through natural causes. Complexity can be added and built naturally - we see it all the time. Unless you're suggesting that the "Intelligent Designer" is actively tweaking nature all the time, and that evolution doesn't happen without supernatural intervention. Is that what you're suggesting, MGT2?

If something more complex can develop through natural causes, why is it impossible for self-replicating organic molecules to develop naturally?

Also, let's remember - the "it's too complex to develop naturally" argument fails for the reason PaulaJ said in the first comment - you are explaining something complex by introducing something more complex. Who designed your designer?

MGT2's Point 2) Nice try. But I didn't say Man's failure to fully understand nature disproves intelligent design. I said Man's failure to fully understand DNA isn't an argument FOR intelligent design. Aepling implied that it was.

Nice attempt to twist the argument, MGT2, but not really helpful.

The current state of AI development is not a useful tangent. But, as you say, AI is "designed" - so Man's progress or lack of progress in AI is not an argument for intelligent design. So it really wasn't a good argument for Aepling to use, was it?

MGT2's Point 3) "Slow down. Market forces are created because of the pressures of supply and demand - all intelligent and all intelligently executed."

Um... Man created supply and demand? Get real.

And you left out one word ... the system isn't "designed". There is no grand designer of the hideously complex world economic system. There was no carefully designed seed meant to sprout into a world market. It just happened, driven by the self-interest of individual members. It evolved, it wasn't designed.

Unless, of course, you can name the designer... ?

MGT2's Point 4) "you cannot conclude that the argument fails because you have no evidence either way."

Then it is not a valid argument FOR intelligent design, is it?

"A" for effort, MGT2. Yes, I can't prove there is no intelligent designer. All I can point out is 3000 years of history and evidence show us that natural phenomena have natural causes.

GAGA, I need to correct a comment I made concerning your comment, "> The distances involved in interstellar travel make it extremely improbable that a civilization would be in a position to colonize other planetary systems, regardless of their technological progress.<"

I had forgotten about making an earlier remark that perhaps the earth had been "seeded" with life from an alien intelligence. My mistake.

I don't give up as easily as you that the distances between interstellar planetary systems is impossible to overcome. We are exploring other ways around it, theoretically, now, such as 'space compression', wormholes, etc. It is dangerous to say any technology barrier is impossible to overcome, given enough time and research. I know it is impossible to travel faster than light, yet that applies to traveling through space alone. Space and time are interconnected, and we still have much to learn yet about the physics of space/time. We know of certain conditions under which space/time is warped, such as a high gravity field. What is gravity? Maybe as simple as a particle, yet to be discovered. Make a "graviton" particle generator, warp space/time, and who knows what we will be able to do 50-100 years from now?

Wow, I've a lot of work ahead of me, it seems :D

> Oh! I get it. Any hypothesis that isn't yet proven is a fallacy. I wonder how Darwin felt when he first learned his "hypothesis" was a fallacy <
No. You misunderstood me.
With the due premise that proofs are only good for math, there is nothing wrong in formulating a hypothesis even if no evidence is available at the moment. People do that all the time, we'd have no scientific progress otherwise.

The fallacy of ID argument lie on the fact that after having formulated the hypothesis, they have never got around to even set a research program, let alone bring forth evidence.

The bulk of your post, as I stated in my first comment, is an argument from ignorance. i.e. a fallcy.
Saying that we don't know something, or even that it looks like we can't know something (as you seem to imply) is not evidence for any position, circumstantial or otherwise.

More on little green men later :)

GAGA:

Most of these are very unscientific,(very uncharacteristic of you).

>"If ID is an hypothesis, then it should be the job of his proponents to gather evidence for it.
As long as the only thing they say is "life is too complicated to have originated through natural processes" or some variation thereof, they aren't bringing evidence to the table, but engaging in a fallacy.<"

Oh! I get it. Any hypothesis that isn't yet proven is a fallacy. I wonder how Darwin felt when he first learned his "hypothesis" was a fallacy. I wonder if Einsten had "evidence" for his theory of relativity other than his "thought experiments" and his mathematics. We are still trying to prove his ideas in areas that have not yet been tested. My gut feeling is that he was right in everything he said, when he said it, even lacking any 'evidence'.

In any case I titled this post with a question of "proof" and proceeded to offer my arguments. I finally made the statement that "these arguments do not constitute "proof" of Intelligent Design", but only strong circumstantial evidence."

Many a court case has been won without the "proof" of a smoking gun or an eyewitness, but only on circumstantial evidence. The jury is still out on this one.

>" What makes you think that any alien civilization should be more advanced that ours.<"

Come on GAGA! As you once told me, you're smarter than that. This is an old argument settled long ago by the giants of cosmology and searchers for intelligent life.

We are in the infancy of a technological civilization. We are only 200 years removed from a very primitive society. It should be expected that any such civilization should exist for many thousands of years, perhaps more. We have only been at it for about 100 years. Given that life happens naturally, if only .01% of all eligible planets develop life, and there must be a least a trillion such planets within "local galactic space", there would still be 100 million planets with technology-based populations. How many of those would be in their "infancy" like us. If a deer hunter went hunting, what are the odds that the first deer he encountered would be a newborn.

"> The distances involved in interstellar travel make it extremely improbable that a civilization would be in a position to colonize other planetary systems, regardless of their technological progress.<"

WHAT??? Who brought up colonization? I thought this was about life happening naturally throughout the universe? You are suggesting it happened only once and spread throughtout the universe by COLONIZATION? I really don't think so.

>"Civilization communicating through a specific portion of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum (unknown)"<

The "communications sprectrum" as you call it is relatively narrow compared to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. The only portion usable for communications would exist above the VLF, very low frequency portion and below the infrared part of the visible spectrum. That is an area that is very easily scanned and searched. It would be foolish for any civilization to try to communicate in the light, or visible, portion of the spectrum because of 'noise'.

>"Civilization sending high energy electromagnetic communications into outer space (unknown)"<

Any civilization capable of advanced mobility and science would have mastered electronics early in the industrial age and would be sending signal in all directions first and specific directions later as we are doing now. Directional antennas were not prolific until well after the first broadcasts

>"Communications to be strong enough to not be disrupted by other sources. A good chunk of our galaxy, for instance, is obscured to us because the galactic core is in the way. (low)"<

FALSE. We lie in the middle of the outer portion of the milky way which leaves a lot of open sky. Less than 5% of the sky would lie in the direction of the galactic core. Actually the stars in our galaxy provide very little obscurance to the most distant objects we can detect. ANY signal would get through from any direction except in the direction of the galactic core, and even then there are millions of stars BETWEEN us and the galactic core that would get through.

">Communications being sent in the right timeframe for us to discover them. We have been actively scanned the skies for less than 50 years, now. (really really low)"<

I predict that if there is intelligence out there that can send signals they have been doing it for the past 10 billion years. My reasoning is that life, if it can evolve at all by natural means, would have after the first 4 billion years after the big bang. That gives the large stars time to burn out and create the higher elements necessary for life. The next generation of stars would have formed from their remains.

">Communications being sent in our general direction (ludicrously low)<"

We are not looking for any signals that would be "AIMED" at us from trillions of miles away. We are looking for "omnidirectional" type signals that are sent out generally in all directions. There is no point in concentrating a signal like a 'laser' and trying to hit a target light years away. Its impossible. We have the ability to detect a 1/2 watt signal sent from the first spacecraft to penetrate "interstellar" space after Pluto, and can detect any omnidirectional signal sent from local star systems, even if not directed at us. After all, we detect pulsar signals very easily from across the galaxy, and xray signals form black holes in other galaxies.

">We getting the stray photons of this communication out of the electromagnetic noise (also low)<"

I don't understand your question, "We getting the stray photons of this communication out of the electromagnetic noise (also low)." We don't look for "stray photons" for communications. That is light and we are very adept at detecting single photons and using "photon multipliers" to amplify any light signal consisting of a single photon. That is not communication. We are not looking for communication in the visible portion of the spectrum because there is so much "noise" from light sources. Any intelligent beings would be foolish to try to communicate by that means if they wanted to be detected.

hytmon,
why it has to be the KJV, specifically?

and, oh, you have left the caps-lock on. Pay attention, you might want to distance yourself from those morons who make loud assertions in all caps and never come back to substantiate them. Just saying.

Hello there, I merged the two comments of yours to answer them.

> That was too easy, Try doing it without starting with a biological process.<
The point of my remark was to underline the fact that entropy allows for local decrease in open systems. It's not an increasing trend that's written in stone no matter what the conditions are.
And, of course, had the solution of this problem been easy we'd have discovered what happened by now.

>How do you know it is a fallacy? Do you have some proof that I'm not aware of? Anyway, ID is a hypothesis, not scientific fact and doesn't need proof. If proof existed it wouldn't be a hypothesis. To say it is false does require proof.<
The main point here is that even if we never get the precise answer to the previous problem, the lack of answers will never be evidence for a creator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
If ID is an hypothesis, then it should be the job of his proponents to gather evidence for it.
As long as the only thing they say is "life is too complicated to have originated through natural processes" or some variation thereof, they aren't bringing evidence to the table, but engaging in a fallacy.

> I agree that there will be some civilizations that just don't, or can't, have the inclination to communicate. I don't see that as a solution to the problem. <
I just put those two things out there as part of the problem, more on that in a minute...
> If a civilization exists, the odds are greatly in favor of it being highly developed, as compared to us, and would have gone through this "phase" of communication at some time in their development. <
Why?! What makes you think that any alien civilization should be more advanced that ours?
> If any such civilization does exists, then they must be prolific throughout the universe <
Eh? The distances involved in interstellar travel make it extremely improbable that a civilization would be in a position to colonize other planetary systems, regardless of their technological progress.

Look, it's a matter of probability in which basically all the factors, while unknown, aren't probably that high.
Some of these factors are:
Availability of a planet suitable for life (used to be really low, might be increasing due to the new discoveries of planets around other stars)
Life emerging (unknown)
Life evolving enough intelligence to pull the stunt of civilization (unknown)
Civilization communicating through a specific portion of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum (unknown)
Civilization sending high energy electromagnetic communications into outer space (unknown)
Communications to be strong enough to not be disrupted by other sources. A good chunk of our galaxy, for instance, is obscured to us because the galactic core is in the way. (low)
Communications being sent in the right timeframe for us to discover them. We have been actively scanned the skies for less than 50 years, now. (really really low)
Communications being sent in our general direction (ludicrously low)
We getting the stray photons of this communication out of the electromagnetic noise (also low)

Rick_K

The first problem with your critique of Aepling’s article is that you treat the assumptions of your musing as facts, based purely upon argumentation. Highly unscientific. You are simply saying “no” to his points without showing how your points are any more credible.

Let us look at your critique point by point.

Point 1) DNA is too complex to evolve naturally.

You conclude of Aeplings assertion, “So the assertion that nature can't create such complex things fails instantly.”

That, after predicating, “If we're talking panspermia, where life came from elsewhere, then let's assume the first life on "elsewhere" required a superintelligence…So we have that first seed, first cell, and it is complex.”

It is your assertion that fails because whatever evolves, however complex, does so only because of the intelligent design of that “first seed.”

We could stop here because all of your subsequent arguments fail at this point. But lets go on.

Point 1a) We should find "proto-life", if life came about naturally.

Reasonable argument.

Point 2) Man hasn't created life yet, and doesn't fully understand DNA, so it must have been created by some super intelligence.

You say, “This argument fails completely.” How so? How does man’s ignorance of the machinations and methods of creation negate the act of intelligent design? Your argument fails because you make the a priori assumption that it could not be intelligently designed- an unscientific approach.

Point 3) The most complicated creation of man is artificial intelligence, and we can't make something as complicated as a dog.

A number of things.

“First, we CAN make something as complicated as a baby mouse.” Are you saying man CAN create intelligent life?

“AI is making slow but steady progress.” AI is the creation of intelligent design - it was created by human intelligence.

“Second, the most complicated creation of Man is NOT some AI program - it is probably the global production and distribution system for food and other goods…It wasn't designed by some super overmind. It evolved into place, driven by the need for survival and profit. Another example of something vastly complex that wasn't "designed".”

Slow down. Market forces are created because of the pressures of supply and demand - all intelligent and all intelligently executed.

Point 4) We haven't found life elsewhere.

“Others have already pointed out the utter failure of this argument. Even a rudimentary understanding of space, distance, time, and stellar evolution shows that even if intelligent life existed millions of times throughout the universe, we would likely never know.”

You are merely saying “no,” but you have not addressed the point. Since “we would likely never know,” you cannot conclude that the argument fails because you have no evidence either way.

“And of course, this isn't evidence for intelligent design at all.” However, it isn’t at all evidence that intelligent design is an invalid proposition.

THE WORD OF GOD,THE BIBLE (KJV) is ALWAYS UP TO DATE, 'IN THE BEGINNING,GOD CREATED HEAVENS AND EARTH"
READ WHAT GOD SAYS AND YOU WILL LEARN SCIENCE IS JUST NOW TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH GOD,YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CATCH UP TO GOD,HE IS THE CREATOR WE ARE THE CREATED.

Gaga:
"We see that happen every day on earth due to natural biological processes. Now, that's easy once the biological machinery is already in place, admittedly trickier when you start from scratch.
*However* the lack of evidence or the shortcomings of our knowledge are not an argument for any position".

That was too easy, Try doing it without starting with a biological process.

"
The other parameters that I outlined in my previous comment (e.g. our alien's actual intelligence or the ability / will to communicate through electromagnetic radiation) are also to be considered. Taking all into account I don't find so strange that we haven't found anything so far".

I agree that there will be some civilizations that just don't, or can't, have the inclination to communicate. I don't see that as a solution to the problem. If a civilization exists, the odds are greatly in favor of it being highly developed, as compared to us, and would have gone through this "phase" of communication at some time in their development. If any such civilization does exists, then they must be prolific throughout the universe and we should see all phases of development through scanning of electromagnetic spectrum analysis. I have a 'ham' radio station and always dreamed of being the first to detect such a signal from space. I still ask "Where are they? Are they hiding?"

"If natural process produces life, then those processes should be ongoing, not fossils. We don't see any process happening today that would result in life or DNA. I'm not saying its impossible, just that it is questionable. <
Not really. As I said previously, any carbon-based complex molecule that might arise now would be swamped in the background noise of existing carbon-based life".

Its true, that's something I hadn't considered. The signature would indeed be weak, if such hydrocarbons exist, and can be used as food for biological processes. Maybe we need to look closer.

To MGT2: A very profound and appropriate comment. Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if I was alone in this or if there would be any support.

GAGA: Good to see you back in. I got worried you had left for good. Yes, even my wife has commented on my being a bit sporatic and unpredictable lately. Hopefully I'll get it together before I've completely lost it.

"Not knowing how it went only means that we don't know how it went. Jumping from there to ID is a fallacy".

How do you know it is a fallacy? Do you have some proof that I'm not aware of? Anyway, ID is a hypothesis, not scientific fact and doesn't need proof. If proof existed it wouldn't be a hypothesis. To say it is false does require proof.

I'm glad you're finally discussing ID without bringing God into it, as it should be. A discussion of ID is about SOME INTELLIGENCE, SOMEWHERE, not necessarily what the Atheistic community wants because it is easier to characterize Christians than it is another person knowledgeable of science.

As I told Rick_K, I just this minute walked in from a two day trip, had a bad hair day, and am too tired to rebutt, but look for the answers, as soon as I unpack. This is finally beginning to look like a serious discussion.

Rick_K:

I must be getting through to someone. Thank you for making this an "honest" debate. I have to admit "ARGGG" :(, that your response is intelligent, based on "real" science, and well thought out. I just walked in from a long trip and will have to actually think about a response, and get back to you. There are no easy, quick answers to your rebuttal, which I acknowledge and respect.

A quote from Darwin:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
--criterion

Interestingly, it is the scientists who claim to know so little because the more they discover, is the more they realize they do not know. Creationists admit that, but for God, we do not know.

We do not feign knowledge that we do not possess. We see the same evidence the "scientists" see, but while they are willing to make leaps of assumptions based upon the most scant artifact to scientific certitude, we look at the whole picture and see something more.

Is it unreasonable to see the complexity of the DNA and conclude that this is not the product of happenstance? Is it more reasonable to think that purely by chance we have "evolved" to the point where we think, reason and develop technology to communicate as we now do?

And, isn't it a scientific exercise to make these observations and to theorize and to postulate?

Isn't it true then that "it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem CAN ALWAYS be solved by science?"

> Hey GAGA, I thought you would show up. <
Hiya ;)
Sorry it took some time. Your scattergun approach to commenting is hard to contain :D

> I thought it sounded good, anyway, give me an argument why order can come from disorder naturally again.<
We see that happen every day on earth due to natural biological processes. Now, that's easy once the biological machinery is already in place, admittedly trickier when you start from scratch.
*However* the lack of evidence or the shortcomings of our knowledge are not an argument for any position.
Not knowing how it went only means that we don't know how it went. Jumping from there to ID is a fallacy.
BTW, I've recently found an introductory page to abiogenesis on talkorigins, I'm trying to read it but it's a bit over my head.
Linky: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

> We have receivers that are very much sensitive enough to detect such signals.[...] With scanning computers and automated searching techniques, I have been hoping that we would find something. <
Me too, but there's more to it than simply being able to detect the signal. The other parameters that I outlined in my previous comment (e.g. our alien's actual intelligence or the ability / will to communicate through electromagnetic radiation) are also to be considered. Taking all into account I don't find so strange that we haven't found anything so far.

> If natural process produces life, then those processes should be ongoing, not fossils. We don't see any process happening today that would result in life or DNA. I'm not saying its impossible, just that it is questionable. <
Not really. As I said previously, any carbon-based complex molecule that might arise now would be swamped in the background noise of existing carbon-based life.

Now, let's look more closely at the arguments in your article:

Point 1) DNA is too complex to evolve naturally.

OK - let's assume the first micro-organisms came into being through some supernatural intervention. If we're talking panspermia, where life came from elsewhere, then let's assume the first life on "elsewhere" required a superintelligence.

So we have that first seed, first cell, and it is complex. But it is not as complex as the resulting biosphere on Earth. And all of THAT evolved naturally from that first seed. So unimaginably complex things CAN evolve naturally. So the assertion that nature can't create such complex things fails instantly.

Point 1a) We should find "proto-life", if life came about naturally.

Really? We should find pools of organic molecules that haven't been consumed by evolved Earth life? Where do we find these places on Earth where the organic molecules aren't consumed by living organisms? You MUST know this is why we're so keen to find signs of life on other planets in the Solar System - so we can see conditions condusive to formation of life because those conditions no longer exist here.

you say this lack of such "proto-life" is a "gap in nature". Well, look at the fossil record - there's a LOT that doesn't exist any more. But that doesn't mean it never existed. Sorry, but your "gap in nature" argument fails.

Point 2) Man hasn't created life yet, and doesn't fully understand DNA, so it must have been created by some super intelligence.

300 years ago Man didn't understand how diamonds are formed. So does that mean they're supernaturally created? Ten years ago Man didn't know how to create self-replicating organic molecules, but now we do. So were they supernaturally created back then but now they're not?

This argument fails completely - it is classic "god of the gaps" in that it assumes divine/super causation for anything we haven't yet mastered.

Point 3) The most complicated creation of man is artificial intelligence, and we can't make something as complicated as a dog.

First, we CAN make something as complicated as a baby mouse. AI is making slow but steady progress. Man hasn't created a sustainable, contained and productive fusion reaction either - does that mean that fusion is of "intelligent design"?

Second, the most complicated creation of Man is NOT some AI program - it is probably the global production and distribution system for food and other goods. Think of the number of disparate people and processes involved in delivering you your morning cinnamon roll - from bark scrapers in Sri Lanka to shipping clerks in Florida to product safety lawyers in New York. It's a staggeringly complex network and... guess what? It wasn't designed by some super overmind. It evolved into place, driven by the need for survival and profit. Another example of something vastly complex that wasn't "designed".

Point 4) We haven't found life elsewhere.

Others have already pointed out the utter failure of this argument. Even a rudimentary understanding of space, distance, time, and stellar evolution shows that even if intelligent life existed millions of times thoughout the universe, we would likely never know.

And of course, this isn't evidence for intelligent design at all.

I'm sorry, I'm not getting the connection between LHC experiments and the question of whether DNA evolved naturally or required extra-natural, intelligent intervention. But that has nothing to do with your column.

Your basic assumption seems to be that God is there until proven otherwise. You told PaulaJ that we don't know the answer, so assuming God is as good as a simpler solution. And in response to Greento, you said: "How can a belief be a fallacy until it is proven so".

Now, let's count how many natural phenomena throughout history have been attributed to some greater being or supernatural causation. Let's see: The Sun, Moon, stars, tides, seasons, weather, lightning, earthquakes, health & disease, schizophrenia, epilepsy, origin of species, personal identity and personality... That's only the beginning of a very long list. In all cases, supernatural explanations have been replaced by natural. The reverse never happens.

And that is why methodological naturalism does not start with the assumption of a supernatural being/intelligence/god as a causal agent.

And that is why starting with the assumption of a supernatural being/intelligence/god is not science, even when it is assumed by someone who claims to be a proponent of science.

For the record:

Rick_K also said,
"If you promote intelligent design because you really want to promote religion, then have the honesty to admit you are discussing religion, and not science. If you want to promote some scientific theory, then ID must clear all the same hurdles that other scientific theories must pass: it must offer a mechanism, it must be observable, it must be testable, and it must make predictions. At the moment, ID offers none of these".

It seems apparent that Rick doesn't know about the LHC being built in Europe and about to go online for the express purpose of "testing" the hypotheis that I proposed about "external universes", and their connection to ID. That is science and it is being tested. If you want to talk science, at least be up to date.

MrX,

Alright so you got your dig in, but you make a very obvious mistake everyone else made on this page. You are trying to fit me in a box that doesn't fit. Yes I do believe in evolution. Theistic evolution. Why does everyone assume that because I write a piece on Intelligent design, that I am anti-science, anti-evolution, and that I'm trying to advance a fundamentalist agenda. Is it a stereotype thing that all atheists have of anyone religious? I don't know. And I always thought they were more intellectual than that.

MrX says "In that analogy, I'd say "there's still no need to bring God into it." Because in that analogy, the universe and life would have arisen through entirely natural processes".

How would you know? You assume a universe with different physical laws and conditions would have the same "natural processes" as planet earth in this universe? If you've been there and are talking from experience, please tell me, I have a lot of questions for you to answer. I think you "assume" too much.

I would say that you are making more assumptions than I am. You assume that you know what everyone's concept of God is. Please define God for me. If beings from another universe, with different physical laws, can create other universes, and interact with our lives, do exist, it sounds a lot like the biblical description of "Heaven" to me. Do you have an image of God that exists only in a painting by Rembrandt, or do you allow Christians the freedom to interpret God in a personal manner that may be different for each person?

Times have changed and some christians have a concept for God that may be very different from your Stereotyped image. How can you say God doesn't exist if you can't describe who or what it is that you're fighting? Sounds like all the other comments to me in that you make a ton of assumptions that you can't justify. It is much easier to assume that all Christians, and generally, all people of religion are the same, according to the stereotyped image of them that you call up. A defense of your views would be much easier to mount under those conditions.

aepling says: Another scenario: Some scientists actually believe that it is possible to recreate in a laboratory, the conditions that lead to "inflation" and the "Big Bang". If there were some highly developed civilization somewhere that had the capability of manipulating space/time and matter to the extent that they could recreate those conditions and "make" a universe, which they could interact with and control, would you still say that "God is not possible", or would that be "science fiction"?

In that analogy, I'd say "there's still no need to bring God into it." Because in that analogy, the universe and life would have arisen through entirely natural processes.

As far as your complaint about science's assumptions, I feel a lot more comfortable allowing some assumptions in science because the assumption of a naturalistic explanation is based on things that are provable (if I drop a rock it will fall), whereas there is NO REASON AT ALL to believe religious-based assumptions. For example, what proof do you have that makes the assumption "God exists" possible? (And gut feelings are not valid as proof.)

PS: Every time I see "aepling" I automatically read it as "apeling." Are you sure you don't believe in evolution? :-)

To Greento: Thank you for finally giving me an honest, scientific rebuttal to my thesis. I respect anyone who can debate THE ISSUES without resorting to namecalling and insults as a "last resort". You present good, thoughtful arguments, by someone who demonstrates a true knowledge of science. I respect that.

Greento says, "Scientists don't know X, therefore God did it" is nothing more than the classic God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

How can a belief be a fallacy until it is proven so? It is a statement of opinion. Besides, I didn't say that. I only mentioned God 4 times in the entire piece, two as a quote from Dawkins.

"And this statement by Epling is just plain false: "Yet, with the infinite number of stars, and planets that could harbor life, if life is indeed a product of natural processes, we should have seen something." In astronomy we have only begun to be able to look for other planets around other stars, and have barely begun to scratch the surface. Furthermore, the current technology is *heavily* biased to detect only very large planets like Jupiter, and not Earth-like planets. So we know next to nothing about Earth-like planets in the galaxy, yet Epling claims "we should have seen something", demonstrating that this particular comment by Epling is based on nothing".

How can a statement that "we haven't seen something" be false if you can't show me the evidence. In the arena of searching for earth-like planets you are absolutely right. I didn't go there because I understand we are limited technology-wise, and I hope in the near future we can detect that type of signature. I was concentrating on electromagnetic signals as signs of intelligence. That is what is puzzeling to me.

My favorit movie is "Contact", and I would be the most excited person on planet earth if we did detect something. Maybe it is my disapointment that we haven't that is driving this post. But still, where is the evidence? Show me the evidence and I'll gladly believe in it. I don't understand, as a person of science, why we haven't detected something. By the way isn't "show me the evidence" the standard Atheistic argument about God?

Greento says: "Finally, Epling writes, "If God did create intelligent life on earth, there is no real reason to believe that we are not unique in the universe." And no reason to believe we are, which demonstrates why that isn't an argument either".

Again, a statement of opinion. Opinions are neither true nor false, and should never be meant to be conclusive. I honestly don't know if we are unique or not, but you seem sure that we are not. Frankly, I hope you are right, but, which statement is more scientific, based on the evidence?

For the benefit of anyone else that want to trash me for being "unscientific" in my beliefs, I will reproduce the comments below that I made on another blog about ID. I'm too tired to write them out so I'll copy them from the site.

"Its so predictable how, whenever someone like Dawkins, wants to put down another idea that is unbelievable, they say it is "science fiction". Guess what, your ipod is science fiction, so is a shirtpocket computer, so is the space shuttle, or man on the moon. Get the point? Science fiction is only technology that is not yet been perfected.

Suppose for the sake of argument, that there is a highly developed civilization somewhere else in the universe that did introduce life on earth by design. Would that be contrary to the Bible or God? After all, Genesis 1:27 does say "Let US create man in OUR image". It would still be ID.

Another scenario: Some scientists actually believe that it is possible to recreate in a laboratory, the conditions that lead to "inflation" and the "Big Bang". If there were some highly developed civilization somewhere that had the capability of manipulating space/time and matter to the extent that they could recreate those conditions and "make" a universe, which they could interact with and control, would you still say that "God is not possible", or would that be "science fiction"?

I don't discard Panspermia or exogeneis as possibilities and have been fascinated with the idea for years. It doesn't conflict with my faith and is only another way that life was introduced on earth.

I think that Burnett and Rick_K are too engrossed with 'stereotypes' of what ID'ers think that they have failed to really investigate the truth. If they "worship" science as much as they claim, why don't they act the part. All scientists I have ever known have checked their facts, researched their information, and been "religious" in their accuracy. These guys are definitely not scientific.

Rick_K said "While Allen quotes Dawkins, Allen is clearly not a believer in panspermia or exogenesis. Once again, we have the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of religion trying to justify itself through the pseudoscience of "intelligent design".

I just finished commenting on another post about how panspermia or exogenesis is a possible explanation for ID and how valid it would be. Rick must be friends with Burnett who also made grossly false accusations about what I believe and what I 'don't know". The "real" ID, as I have explained before, purposely, does not mention God, because it would cause further conflict with trying to get it adopted in school, because of the suggestion that it was of a religious nature..

I wish so-called intelligent people would get their facts straight before trashing everybody they "suspect" as disagreeing with them. I wish also they would learn what "Intelligent Design" really means before espounding volumes on what they "think" it means, but really have no idea or clue. As someone who has spent his whole life teaching and practicing the virtues of science, I don't need a lecture from 'amateurs' about "pseudoscience", unless they are, of course, referring to themselves.

Just another example of emotion and fervor for a "religious?" belief, overcoming good sense and intelligence. Get real people!!! This is supposed to be a debate. WHERE IS THE LOGIC?

It is interesting that Allen Epling has criticized other commenters for lacking originality in their arguments. Yet Allen's argument is the same argument used by superstitious tribespeople when they looked up at a round light in the sky that they didn't understand - "It must be God."

The argument of "we know everything else, but we don't understand THIS, therefore it must be of divine origin" has been a 100% failure for all of recorded history. Time and time again, supernatural explanations have been replaced by natural explanations. The reverse has NEVER happened.

So arguing for some divine or supernatural creator intelligence is simply re-using an argument that has never, ever, ever succeeded to explain ANYTHING in all of human history.

While Allen quotes Dawkins, Allen is clearly not a believer in panspermia or exogenesis. Once again, we have the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of religion trying to justify itself through the pseudoscience of "intelligent design".

If you promote intelligent design because you really want to promote religion, then have the honesty to admit you are discussing religion, and not science. If you want to promote some scientific theory, then ID must clear all the same hurdles that other scientific theories must pass: it must offer a mechanism, it must be observable, it must be testable, and it must make predictions. At the moment, ID offers none of these.

At the moment, all Intelligent Design offers is a jargon-rich cloak to disguise religious creationism so it can sneak into public policy.

There are numerous flaws in the arguments presented.

1. Allen Epling writes, "If we had found such 'chemicals' we could easily synthesize them and 'push' them over the boundary between the living and the nonliving. We have not."

Biochemistry is not a simple subject. Just because something has not been discovered yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We didn't even have the technology to do comprehensive genome mapping until a few years ago. Saying "Scientists don't know X, therefore God did it" is nothing more than the classic God-of-the-gaps fallacy. Epling does state "life is still a complete mystery that we are not even close to understanding". The "life is still a complete mystery" is incorrect, but it is correct that there is far more to learn about, and that is exactly why abiogenesis research is being done.

2. DNA is a nucleic acid, but it is more complex than RNA, PNA, TNA, and GNA, and thus in origin of life research is considered to be a product of the natural selection over millions of years of previous organisms using some form of any of these simpler nucleic acids as the basis of their "genetics". Epling recognizes "We still don't have a complete understanding of how [DNA] works". That's right, we don't. This is exactly why scientific research is done to continue to learn more. God-of-the-gaps is not an argument.

3. Intelligence, or any other product of evolution, is not merely some kind of "accident of nature" but is the result of natural selection processes over millions of years. Natural selection "designs" things through the differential reproduction of beneficial mutations. The mutations are accidents. Natural selection is not. (Natural selection is not the only evolutionary process, but it is the important element of evolution that is the opposite of chance.)

4. SETI is irrelevant. If there are millions of other planets (in our galaxy) with life on them, there is no "guarantee" that any life will develop enough intelligence of the level of human intelligence.

And this statement by Epling is just plain false: "Yet, with the infinite number of stars, and planets that could harbor life, if life is indeed a product of natural processes, we should have seen something." In astronomy we have only begun to be able to look for other planets around other stars, and have barely begun to scratch the surface. Furthermore, the current technology is *heavily* biased to detect only very large planets like Jupiter, and not Earth-like planets. So we know next to nothing about Earth-like planets in the galaxy, yet Epling claims "we should have seen something", demonstrating that this particular comment by Epling is based on nothing.

Finally, Epling writes, "If God did create intelligent life on earth, there is no real reason to believe that we are not unique in the universe." And no reason to believe we are, which demonstrates why that isn't an argument either.

Earlier, Burnett said: "It's not just the billions of years of time that make DNA possible (here we are!) but the billions of cubic miles of biosphere - atmosphere and land and ocean - that almost guarantee the required chemical interactions will lead to life."

How do we know that ANY chemical reaction can lead to life? That is an assumption. What if life is not about chemicals, but is connected to quantum mechanical processes.

I don't think anyone is knowledgable enough yet to rule that possibility out. Some scientists (Penrose, Hawking, among others), think that all mental processes in the brain originate in tubular structures in the brain that act as "quantum computers". Could quantum processes have also directed the 'design' of DNA, apart from simple chemical reactions? If mental process are Quantum related, then certainly intelligence would be too. Are we so committed to the 20th century idea that 'chemistry' controls all processes, that we can't accept the possibility of other processes of a more fundamental nature could be at work.

Just as Mr. Burnett was so committed to the physical laws of the "Newtonion' physics that he can't visualize any possibility for alternative theories, we have to realize that we are now in the 21st century and the rules are changing. Einstein overturned Newtonion physics and Quantum Mechanics and String Theory will most definitely, in the near future, change everything we think we know about chemical reactions and the interaction of subatomic particles. Trying to hang onto the old ideas will be akin, as Mr. Burnett put it, to saying the earth is still flat.

The great advances of this next century will not be greater chemistry, but understanding quantum physics and the forces that control all processes, and that includes life processes. I believe these are serious questions that should be considered and looked into.

When I posted this subject it was my hope for serious 'original' ideas to come forth in the debate. That has not happened yet. I had hoped for better.

"In a few more years or decades or centuries, science will figure out how exactly DNA came to exist and how to improve it...unless the forces of ignorance triumph against science".

It was only a few decades ago, in the 1930's that someone else said something similar, about how we could improve humanity by genetically changing the gene pool of man. Those ideas are just as archaic, and dangerous today, as they were then.

In case Mr. Burnett isn't aware of it, we are already changing genetics today, but in a slow, but good way, under strict regulations, to prevent what he is proposing.

As someone who has done serious research in science, I have seen others like Mr. Burnett who like to put words in other's mouths, and pretend they know what they are talking about, ie. "pseudoscience". They are as archaic as the "demon possessed" label they like to put on others.

If Mr. Burnette had read any of my other posts he would have seem my attempts to bring "flat earthers" into the 21st century. My advice to Mr. Burnett is do some research on your subject before trashing them indiscriminately. I have fought for the cause of science my entire life, while retaining my faith. I respect those like yourself who have none, but do not try to put them down with lies about what I "think" they are about.

Allen's entire argument against evolution is nothing but the logical fallacy "argument from incredulity" or "argument from ignorance."

It's not just the billions of years of time that make DNA possible (here we are!) but the billions of cubic miles of biosphere - atmosphere and land and ocean - that almost guarantee the required chemical interactions will lead to life.

A few hundred years ago, Allen could just as sincerely have argued for a flat earth, around which the sun orbited. But science figured that out. A few hundred years ago Allen could just as sincerely argued for the demonic possession or miasmic theories of disease, or the phlogiston theory of matter. But science figured that out.

In a few more years or decades or centuries, science will figure out how exactly DNA came to exist and how to improve it...unless the forces of ignorance triumph against science. Supporters of intelligent design creationism and OEC and YEC creationism want humanity to retreat to the Dark Ages of superstition and ignorance. Are you sure you really want to do that?

Criterion, everyone who disagrees with you is an "uneducated moron"? It seems you have only one argument and one defense in your arsenal. When you disagree with someone and can't offer a good logical argument, you insult them. I once took a psychology course that taught me that "you are sane and safe until you start thinking that everyone is crazy except you". I wish we all were as 'smart' as you. Maybe then we could have 'civil' discussion.

"Pls add up the probabilities of life existing elsewhere, being intelligent, being able or interested in producing devices to send signals out in space, said signals to happen to hit our planet, in the right time window (we have been using receivers only for the last 100 years - SETI only for the last 40 years), with enough strenght to be distinguishable from the background noise. Are you still surprised that we aren't getting anything?"

All of this is based on the assumption that life happened naturally. If it did not happen naturally, it would explain why we haven't heard anything. We have receivers that are very much sensitive enough to detect such signals. There is a noise threshold beyond which more sensitivity only increases the noise. We can exceed that already. If there were signals, we have the technology to detect them. With scanning computers and automated searching techniques, I have been hoping that we would find something. The fact that we haven't is not a testiment to our lack of ability. There is such a lack of anything intelligent to be received that it makes me doubt if there is any intelligence in the universe,(even on this blog, not excluding the author BTW)

Hey GAGA, I thought you would show up. I thought it sounded good, anyway, give me an argument why order can come from disorder naturally again. The commenter I was responding to seemed to think that it was impossible for there to be something more complex than what we see here on earth. If Criterion is right and there is life elsewhere in the universe, I personally believe it would be 'light years' ahead of us in technology and could very possibly have 'seeded' this planet, (the more complex designing the less complex),that is if it was God's plan for them to do so.

Mr. Criterion, You underestimate me. I understand better that probably you do, how far away the stars, galaxies, quasars, pulsars, and all the other menagarie of objects in the universe are. I have studied astronomy and cosmology since I was in elementary school. I studied graduate astronomy at San Diego State University in 1970, and have written physics papers on the structure of the universe and other 'far out' "stuff". So don' tell me about the distances and odds of life in the universe. I am quite aware of what is "out there".

All due respect for what you're saying, we still don't know for sure how life began and until we do detect life elsewhere in the universe, there is still no 'guarantee' that life is a natural process that happens by chance. I don't deny you thesis, but I have my thoughts also. I cannot prove you wrong any more than you can prove me wrong.

"We cannot expect to find now intermediate molecules, because a) they don't fossilize and b) every cubic centimeter of the planet is occupied by DNA-based life."

If natural process produces life, then those processes should be ongoing, not fossils. We don't see any process happening today that would result in life or DNA. I'm not saying its impossible, just that it is questionable.

Richard Dawkinn? I know what I saw him say and it surprised me. He may have denied it later, but I can produce video that proves he said it.

"Yet, with the infinite number of stars, and planets that could harbor life, if life is indeed a product of natural processes, we should have seen something."

You don't understand how vast the universe is and how far away everything is from us. Some solar systems are so far away that their light hasn't even reached us yet. There are more stars than grains of sand on all this world's beaches and deserts. No life except on earth just because we haven't seen it yet? That's a stupid assumption to make.

IF life is a product of natural processes? IF??? Did you think life is a product of magic? Do you think your god fairy waved its magic wand to create the first living cells? That's an idea I would expect from a childish idiot.

A quote from Darwin:

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

"I have to admit that while these arguments do not constitute 'proof' of Intelligent Design, a logical person would have to admit that there is strong circumstantial evidence."

To correct the above sentence, replace "logical person" with "uneducated moron".

"Is DNA Proof of Intelligent Design?" = ""Is DNA Proof of MAGIC?"

No. Of course not.

What a bloody stupid and childish question.

"Maybe we are special to God."

Well, yeah, if your invisible friend likes apes.

Oh god, not the 2nd law of thermodynamics... Aepling you are smarter than that.

The bulk of your post is a colossal argument from ignorance, I won't go there.
There are, though, a few things that imho are simply wrong, I thought I should point them out.

> If life is an accident of nature, then where are the intermediate steps to life. [...] there should be some extremely complex chemical compounds that are "almost', but not quite, a living, reproducing, organism. <
The premise is true, but your conclusion is wrong, for purely practical reasons.
We cannot expect to find now intermediate molecules, because a) they don't fossilize and b) every cubic centimeter of the planet is occupied by DNA-based life. There isn't space for anything else to develop and any complex chemical that we could find would be either a product of said life or lunch for said life.

> We have never established that there is other life anywhere else in the universe. <
Pls add up the probabilities of life existing elsewhere, being intelligent, being able or interested in producing devices to send signals out in space, said signals to happen to hit our planet, in the right time window (we have been using receivers only for the last 100 years - SETI only for the last 40 years), with enough strenght to be distinguishable from the background noise. Are you still surprised that we aren't getting anything?

> Even Richard Dawkins <
Nope. Please, this is just dumb.
I commented on this in the other thread so I'll avoid repeating all here, I'll just post the relevant link: http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

> Maybe we are special to God. <
maybe we should just deflate our egos a bit.

The definition for 'design' assumes that something complex is responsible for something 'less' complex. How could you have a snail design a horse. How could anything or anyone design man unless they are themselves more complex. How does nature go from a hydrocarbon molecule to a living cell. That is the problem. The answer has not yet been found found among the random atoms that float around in space. How does the simple go to the complex in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics and Entropy.

And yet you assume that we know the answer to the "problem" by examining simpler solutions? I don't think we know those answers either. So where is your solution?

No, that doesn't really work. You're trying to explain the complexity of DNA by assuming something even more complex (an intelligence capable of creating DNA). If the former is a problem, then the latter is an even bigger problem - not a solution.