1. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196102 by tris on June 19, 2008 at 9:52 am

Hi Rev..

I am sure that you are going to expound at great length on my ignorance, but I don't quite get where you are going here?

Sure alien life can be falsified; it has been done through the ages with aluminum pie plates, frisbee's, claims on non-consensual rectal invasion without the courtesy of a reach-around etc. As a hypothesis (not a theory) it stands out very well, as we can demonstrate the presence of organic compounds in space.

How does any of the above falsify alien life? Just because you are able to demonstrate that the personal ministrations of a team of alien proctologists are fragments of the hillbilly psyche does not constitute the falsification of extra-terrestrial life.
Neither does the existence of organic compoun ds in space.

You don't even have to think that big. There are a number of evidences that could potentially be found on Mars following the evidence of water there.

Agreed. Just trying to illustrate a point.

Not particularly, no. ID proponents (and their loathsome creationist kine) such as Behe have been putting forward examples of 'irreducibly complex' forms for some time now, only to have each and every one demonstrated to have a natural explanation.

I agree that they have not come up with anything to date. I am also quite happy to agree that the odds of them finding something are becoming increasingly remote. That does not obviate the question though of "what will the scientific response be if they ever *did* actually find something that could be demonstrated to be irreducibly complex"?

ID is saying 'we don't know, god did it.' It is not an explanation of anything. The only way you could prove ID is to prove the existence of the god (to call a spade a spade) and subsequently demonstrate their specific, deliberate involvement in the creation of that structure.

Again, I agree with you, but ID does not necessarily imply a deity - or even a specific deity (Yaweh for example). The question I ask is what will the consequences of an irreducibly complex structure imply for science as a whole?

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196041 by tris on June 19, 2008 at 8:40 am

Aaarrrgghh!!! Just lost my original comment due to session timeout. Let me try again.

Comment #195972 by Greyman on June 19, 2008 at 6:24 am

Precisely so, but to be good science the hypothesis must be at least potentially falsifiable.

I am note sure I entirely agree with this. The hypothesis of extra-terrestrial life is a cannot be falsified without a rigorous search of every body in the universe - an impossible task. SETI is, however, a valid scientific pursuit.

If any of the SETI initiatives pick up a signal encoding an alien soap-opera, the hypothesis will be confirmed.

In a similar manner, the ID'ers are searching for some form of positive evidence. in their case, they seem to be focussing on irreducible complexity. If an ID "researcher" were to actually discover an irreducibly complex structure, their hypothesis will gain some scientific credibility.

3. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52745 by tris on June 28, 2007 at 1:33 am

Have a look at this clip on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM). I find it interesting in the sense that the animals involved don't behave all that differently to how we might expect humans to behave.

Try assigning human equivalents to each of the groups of animals (races/religions/countries/social groups).