I agree in part. The problem is, Alien progeny only addresses life on Earth and not the origin of the universe. There appears to be a ntaural order to everything contained in the universe. To narrow focus down to just life does not truly make for intelligent design in the grand scheme of things. It begs the questions is the universe intelligently designed and were the alien progentors intelligently designed? If you properly ratchet the ID notion all the way up to a god, now you have an all encompassing theory. Much like multiverse which practically eliminates the need for a god (actually replaces God.)
Yes, an alien source of life on earth does not necessarily reveal the cause of a proposed alien life that created life on earth, but it is not necessary to know who created such aliens to hold a position of ID that life is a result of alien intelligence.
Again, science reaches limited conclusions all the time based on limited instrumentation, and those conclusions do not demand an ultimate perspective to be accepted as facts in evidence.
Partly true. However, in this case, Alien progeny does not sit squarely within the concept of intelligent design.
Whose concept of ID? Yours? The creationists? The scientists who reject it?
You can't have life intelligently design and nothing else since life is interelated with the universe and its conditions.
Everything in the universe is interrelated on some level. So? that means we need to know all these relationships to advance a theory of partial values?
Hardly...
Alien progeny is fringe because it fails to address all logical steps beyond it.
That would make big bang fringe as well, ignorant chance theory fringe as well, etc.
Fringe is only a relative term to what is accepted by the majority, and has no logical truth or actual truth as a consequence of popularity.
Whereas ID attempts to address all logical steps (except the ridiculous logical fallacy of who created God?)
I think you are entitled to your own definition of ID, but that doesn't make Teologist's theory of ID any less wrong or right than yours.
Great points.
To #1 I say, sure as long as any subconcept is fleshed out to its logical ends. Alien progeny is not.
Science does not flesh out all theories to their complete logical ends.
To #2 I say, I believe design theory is a logical possibility. And so would all scientist. The problem lies in proving it or even beginning to address it with our current modes of observation. And that is why only one theory is taught in schools - the observable and quantifiable one.
Ignorant chance is not proven, yet it is the foundation of non design theory.
Ignorant chance, which is a logically fallacy derived from an argument from ignorance itself, is not observable and quantifiable.
The assumption of random ignorant chance is a circular argument which is the underlying foundation of neo Darwinism...with no method to rule out ignorant chance being false.
To #3 I say, I was taught that Pluto was the ninth planet. At the time, that was the best our observations could conclude. Today, with increased powers of observation, we've come to realize that Pluto is more a planetoid than a planet. The fact that science continues to "evolve" is enough for people to keep an open mind. Hey, they say red wine is good for you - oh wait bad- oh wait good - no, wait...
So the mere fact that science "evolves" should generate skepticism, not blind loyalty to theories of scientists...
And then you have churches who indoctrinate children to believe the world was created in 6, 24hr days - 6000 years ago. Well, now, that's a problem. And people believed this for thousands of years, until one day we discovered radioactive half-life decay. So then the 6 day theory began to evolve (in some instances.) Some not willing to perhaps admit that those who taught them might have been wrong, believe that God created things with age. While others believe that the 6 days are not 24 hr days but six distinct epocs of creation of undetermined length and have sufficient scripture to back that up. Etc, etc.
Hey, I oppose indoctrination of children into any particular belief system, including unprovable scientific theories or religious belief systems, when such indoctrination is funded by public money.
Point is, interested parties are capable of researching alternative ideas especially in this day and age of the internet. Those who really couldn't care less simply won't. And that has little to do with school based indoctrination. For instance, do you think Brittany Spears cares if we evolved from lower primates or are the direct handiwork of God sans evolution?
No, the point is that teachers in schools are role models and authority figures, and children absorb their opinions as some sort of truth.
Teaching a child how to think, and not what to think is entirely different in nature.
And what about those who are able to incorporate or appreciate evolutionary theory and the possible orgins of the universe alongside their faith that ultimate God is responsbile for all things observed?
What about them? They are entitled to hold their own beliefs, just as much as anyone else holds their own.
This for me, comes down to what we teach in public schools, not what people choose to believe.
I don't think we are producing children who learn how to think for themselves, to reason to their own conclusions. I think we produced indoctrinated youth who absorb and then perpetuate their own dogma as if it were some known fact.
And then you seem to ignore family and community indoctrination which might temper the school based indoctrination.
Family has the right to pass their beliefs to their children, I have no desire to see the state get involved with that at all.
I do want the state though, in the public schools, to teach kids how to think...not what to think.
I don't know. There's no evidence either way. Although, many children of religious households do not entirely abandon their religions in favor of scientific/materialist philosophy under the current state of affairs. So I don't see any harm in teaching science, true science, in a science class. If parents want their own children to learn ID, learn yourselves and teach your own kids. What's stopping them?
Parents can and do what they want, which is their right to pass along to their children.
We are talking about what the state does with public funding.
The state should be educating, not indoctrination children into any particular belief systems.
If the state does their job, teaches critical thinking, how to think, logical concepts, the nature of logical fallacies, and gets kids to question what they are taught and not just sponge their education away, then as adults the citizens will be better equipped to reach their own rational conclusions.
